By kind permission of David Sawers we have below the evidence that was presented by him to all members of the Worthing Borough Council Development Control Committee.
(note the postscript at the end)
Dear Councillor
This letter is written on behalf of the Worthing
Society. Protect Our
The papers before the Committee seek to justify the decision to approve
alterations to
STATUS
OF
Mr
Lawrence Stringer of WSCC told the Committee that Titnore
Lane was an A road; the same information was apparently given to the West Durrington
Consortium and Worthing Borough Council and
appeared in the Agenda Papers. The paper before you today states that the
reclassification in 1995 should not have been undertaken until highway
improvements had been carried out in
Mr
Stringer, in a letter of September 1st to Mr
David Sawers, wrote "I was aware of the error
made by the Department of Transport in designating
Mr Stringer also wrote in his letter of September 1st that discussions had taken place with various government bodies over a number of years to try to resolve the situation (to get the road sign at the Patching junction altered to remove the description A2700).
If WSCC had been discussing with government bodies the removal of the erroneous description of Titnore Lane as A2700 for several years, it may have been doing so at the same time as it was telling the West Durrington Consortium and Worthing Borough Council that Titnore Lane was an A road.
A
Mr
Stringer told the Committee on June 10th that a 40mph speed limit could not
be introduced on
There
is an exception to WSCC's policy on 40mph
limits on the A259 east of Littlehampton,
where a 40mph speed limit has recently been introduced on an undeveloped
stretch of road. WSCC states that this is the only exception to its policy, that
it was introduced in response to the particular accident characteristics of
the location, and that similar circumstances do not exist in
However,
the West Sussex Local Transport Plan 2000 states that a 40mph speed limit had
been introduced on the A24 between Horsham and Capel;
in East Sussex there are 40mph limits on the A22 over
The
accident rate on this stretch of the A259 is almost identical to that on Titnore
Lane,
despite WSCC's suggestion that it is particular
and different from
According
to Mr Stringer's letter of October 4th, speeds
on
ACCIDENTS
WSCC
has provided its calculations of the effect of a 40 limit or road
improvements on accidents on
These figures reveal that the crucial assumption creating the difference between the accident rates in the two cases is that there would be three accidents a year on the approaches to the new roundabout at the entrance to the development if there was a 40 limit, but none if the road was straightened. If this assumption was removed, accidents in the 40 limit case would be about 20% higher than in the "improvement" option instead of 80% higher. The second important assumption is that a 40 limit would reduce accidents by 10%, while bypassing the South Lodge bends would reduce accidents on this stretch of road by more than 80%. This assumption accounts for the remaining 20% difference in accidents between the two cases. No justification for these assumptions is provided.
It is alarming that so serious a decision as whether to construct a road through ancient woodland, woodland that lies within the designated boundary of the proposed South Downs National Park, should depend the validity of assumptions that have not been justified and that are not obviously plausible. Why should vehicles be more likely to collide on the approaches to a roundabout if there is a 40 mph speed limit than if there is no speed limit and the road has been straightened? They will presumably approach the roundabout at a higher speed in the latter case.
The
Does the Committee consider that it is justifiable to take a decision to build a road through protected ancient woodland on the basis of unsubstantiated assumptions about the behaviour of drivers? Could it defend such a decision on the evidence it now possesses?
We
suggest that the Committee does require better information about the
relative effects of a speed limit and traffic management, and of
alterations to
We do not believe that WSCC is able to provide the advice and information that the Committee requires. Its recent conduct suggests that it is an advocate, not an impartial adviser on this subject.
Worthing
would therefore be better
advised to commission consultants, perhaps jointly with the West Durrington
Consortium, to advise it on the measures that might be taken to reduce
speeds and accidents on
CONCLUSIONS
The
policies of WSCC do not provide a plausible obstacle to the application of a
40mph speed limit and traffic management measures in
David Sawers
POSTSCRIPT
The meeting on January 5th showed that there is considerable disquiet among councilors about WSCC’s conduct – hence the decision to ask for more information about the status of Titnore Lane and the reasons why WSCC considers a 40 limit unsuitable for Titnore Lane but suitable for the A259. In particular, councillors requested more information on vulnerable road users and on why WSCC assumed there would be three accidents a year on the approach to the new roundabout if there was a 40 limit but none if the road was realigned. However, some councilors still regard the realignment scheme that they approved in June as a satisfactory compromise between the protection of the environment and the demands of highway engineers.
Since the meeting, I have found the Dept for
Transport’s guidance on rural speed limits. It divides roads into upper
tier, which mostly serve a “through” function and are
typically A and B class; and lower tier, which have a
local or access function and are typically C class or unclassified.
The DfT has had an
Assessment Framework for determining speed limits produced by the Transport
Research Laboratory, including a spreadsheet that calculates the effects of
alternative speed limits if it is provided with the figures for traffic,
speeds and accidents for a road. If this spreadsheet is given the figures
for