Agenda item

This item is to:

a.   Receive any new petitions: to receive any new petitions.  The lead petitioner is entitled to briefly introduce their petition by providing a statement in writing, and a response to any petitions received will then be organised for a future meeting;

b.   Consider reports on petitions previously received:

i)  Dangerous Road (Peth Head, Hexham) (attached)

c.   Receive any updates on petitions for which a report was previously considered: any updates will be verbally reported at the meeting.

This item was to:

a)      Receive any new petitions:

There were no new petitions.

b)     Consider reports on petitions previously received:

i)               Dangerous Road (Peth Head, Hexham)

Catherine Bell, Lead Petitioner, explained the background leading to the current position on Peth Head.  She commented as follows:

·        The new bus station had opened on Dene Avenue in 2016 with measures to control the traffic including traffic lights, speed bumps and roundabouts.  It was a busy 20 mph road with large volumes of vehicles which had been successfully calmed, creating a safer road for drivers and pedestrians.

·        Dene Street and Peth Head ran parallel to the main road.  The latter being a small side street designed for light traffic in an area populated by families, pensioners and with a vet practice.  It was also 20 mph but with no signage or speed restrictions in place.

·        The traffic calming measures on Dene Avenue had worked so well that drivers diverted their vehicles on alternative routes to bypass the main road which meant that there was a new main route without any of the traffic calming methods instigated on the intended main road.

·        Between 8am – 10pm vehicles of all sizes, including buses, lorries, car carriers, logger wagons, school vehicles and buses, tractors, sheep transporters etc. used the street as a ‘rat run’ to avoid the roundabouts, traffic lights and speed bumps and disregarded the speed limit.  It was suggested that if this was now the main road, it should have the same traffic calming measures as the other road.

·        The lanes on Peth Head were 8 foot 9 inches wide whereas the lanes on Corrbridge Road were 12 feet 6 inches wide.  The average width of a logging wagon, bus or car transporter was 8 foot 4 inches, without wing mirrors. This meant there was under 5 inches spare on Peth Head compared to 3 foot 9 inches spare on the main road.  It could not be safer for larger vehicles to use the alternate route so it must be quicker due to there being no enforceable speed restrictions, despite both being 20mph.  The main road was purposely built to accommodate large vehicles turning which Peth Head was not and observance of the speed limit was questioned.

·        Quotes from residents referred to the structural damage from larger vehicles, difficulties crossing roads, the speed of vehicles, limited visibility, the dangers of using the road.

The Chair commented on his familiarity with the roads and the issues that the lead petitioner had raised.

Neil Snowdon, Principal Programme Officer (Highways Improvement), reported that the area office had been asked to arrange additional repeater signs in the areas and that 20 mph road marking roundels be provided at both entrances to Peth Head.  A speed survey would also be carried out to determine actual vehicle speeds.

Several of the members expressed their support for the petition as vehicle speed and road safety was a concern and had been highlighted by one of the Councillors several months previously.

Robin McCartney, Infrastructure Manager, referred to the usefulness of site visit which had been held the previous week.  He agreed with the comments made regarding the perception of speed and the difficulties crossing the road.  He provided the following information in response to questions:

·        The Highways mailbox received 300-400 emails per month and confirmed that the unanswered email would be investigated.

·        An explanation of the Local Transport Plan process which required speed / traffic surveys; unfortunately, there was a backlog of requests.  Those identified as a priority were carried out within 1-2 months, however there was an average waiting time of approximately 6/7 months whilst some had taken up to 12 months to be carried out.  Officers were trying to improve communication and performance monitoring.  Stage 2 required funding for a feasibility study if the traffic survey results indicated that this was required.  Schemes had to be assessed and ranked against each other to determine the priority for the next round of the LTP programme.  Depending on the conclusions, stage 3 required that if physical measures were required to be installed, a scheme be assessed and prioritised against others in the next financial year.

·        If the survey identified that safety measures needed to be implemented quickly, this would need to be discussed with Members and a business case made to obtain support.  Members Local Improvement Scheme funds could also be used to support and hasten projects

·        Construction of pedestrian crossings could cost in excess of £100,000.

RESOLVED that the contents of the report be noted and the following proposed actions be supported:

a)      Introduction of additional repeater signs and 20mph roundels (road markings) to be provided at either end of Peth Head.

b)      A speed survey be arranged to assess actual vehicle speeds. Depending on the outcomes of the survey, consideration be given to whether any further measures would be appropriate.

c)      To consider updates on petitions previously considered:

There were none to consider.