Agenda item

2.1       There had been circulated copies of an extract from the Audit and Scrutiny Committee Petitions procedure. The Chairman gave a reminder of the Petitions procedure to be followed at the meeting, highlighting the options available to the Committee.  The Chairman welcomed Mrs Elspeth Johnston, Lead Petitioner, who was in attendance to present a petition on the introduction of speed bumps in Langlee Drive and who was accompanied by Mr Albert Cruikshank.  Mrs Johnson gave further information in support of the supporting statement in the Petition, advising that 260 children attended Langlee Primary School, including her 2 grandchildren, and they were intimidated by speeding cars using Langlee Drive, which was the main access road to the Primary School.  While the SBC survey showed an average speed of 18mph, this did mean that some cars were driving in excess of this.  Braking distances increased exponentially with increased speed and it was felt that the only thing that would work would be the installation of speed bumps as accident prevention measures.  The proposed speed bumps would help curtail the speeding of cars along this narrow residential area.  Mrs Johnston made reference to the development of children’s perceptual ability and judgement of distances, commenting that there should be no price on a child’s life.  Mr Cruikshank added that this had been an ongoing issue and he had been in communication with Scottish Borders Council for 4 years and he had also communicated with MP John Lamont, who had campaigned on their behalf and the issue had been reported in the local press and on local radio.  The 20’s plenty and cardboard pop up police officer were frequently ignored and were no longer effective on this one-way street.  He further explained that young drivers were rushing to get to school along this one-way road, which had a straight stretch for 300 yards.  Cars were parked diagonally so there were also issues with cars reversing out of spaces into oncoming traffic.   Mr Cruickshank then passed round a photograph of the type of speed bump the petitioners wished to have installed, which were rubber and bolted to the road surface.   The Chairman assured the petitioners that the Committee and the Council took child safety very seriously and he summarised the main points put forward by the petitioners: appropriate signage installed; reduced speed limit; installation of speed bumps; enforced speed restrictions on both Langlee Road and Melrose Road; and an increased Police presence in the area at peak times.  Members asked various questions of the petitioners to gain further clarification on the points raised.

2.2       There had been circulated copies of a presentation by the Service Director Assets and Infrastructure, Mr Joyce, and the Team Leader for Traffic and Road Safety, Ms Philippa Gilhooly.  Ms Gilhooly explained that the road had been surveyed a number of years ago with the involvement of parents.  The Safer Schools Team had worked with Langlee Primary School to encourage more walking to school over a period of many years and most recently the school had signed up to a walking initiative.  The existing traffic calming features and initiatives included extending the radius of footways to improve the crossing at the school entrance and to slow vehicles.  Ms Gilhooly reported that a Twenty’s Plenty sign; echelon parking; school sign and plate; and stop, look and listen crossing mats had been included along  Langlee Drive as well as a flat topped speed hump at the crossing point at the school access.  The Safer Routes to School process included parents, Community Councils and the Police.  Ms Gilhooly further reported that the zebra crossing on Melrose Road had been replaced with a Puffin light controlled crossing, the school crossing patrol was retained, and a part time 20mph speed limit was also in place.  There was also a multi-coloured fence in place to indicate to drivers that a school was close by. 

2.3       Ms Gilhooly went on to explain that traffic surveys had been carried out and showed general compliance with advisory Twenty’s Plenty signs, and the low average and 85%ile speeds were to be welcomed, and would be welcomed at other school locations.  Large scale traffic calming measures using speed humps had been constructed in other areas more than 15 years previously and smaller scale ones had been installed at a limited number of schools since then.  A second flat topped speed hump and build-out at a revised crossing point to the school entrance was planned to be installed in the future.  The presentation given showed clear data from Tracsis plc traffic and data services which highlighted traffic flows and speed of vehicles in this area with an average speed of 18mph.  It was also noted that zero reported injury accidents were on record since 2003.  Having spoken with Police Scotland a few times, Ms Gilhooly advised that they had not indicated any concerns about traffic speeds in Langlee Drive.  Mr Joyce confirmed that the planning application for the new school at Langlee would have taken account of traffic and included any off-site road works as part of the conditions for the build and no such conditions had been put in place.  Ms Gilhooly further advised that the rubber speed bumps being proposed by the petitioners were only for use in car parks as they were unfortunately not suitable for use on public roads as they were not robust enough and had a limited life span.  The flat topped speed hump would be the better option.   Discussions had taken place with Langlee Primary School as children were now using a different access point to the school than had been originally envisaged.  Ms Gilhooly also suggested that moving the parking from the right hand side of the road to the left may help with some of the concerns of the petitioners over children running out from the grass verge.  Residents could be asked their opinion on this change.  In response to questions from Members, Ms Gilhooly advised she would be happy to pass on the data to the community; the Twenty’s Plenty signs had been part of a programme from a few years ago; police were targeting resources where they were most needed and 20mph zones were not where accidents were happening.  Mr Joyce confirmed that putting in a second flat top speed hump reflected the actuality of the entrance to school most used by children and was not in response to speeding concerns in the road. 

2.4       Members of the Committee discussed the information which had been provided at the meeting and made reference to the enforcement of the 20mph speed limit.  Ms Gilhooly reported that the Restricted Roads (20 mph Speed Limit) (Scotland) Bill was currently going through Stage 1 in Parliament and officers were waiting on that outcome.  Langlee Drive would be covered by the 20mph zoning if the Bill became law.  Members appreciated the frustrations of the petitioners and had some concerns over the vehicles that chose not to adhere to the speed limit, but overall were content by the number of vehicles within the speed limit, it being evident from the data that only one vehicle had been over the limit.  In response to the Members’ suggestion made on the presence of the Police Community Action Team (CAT) at peak times and to work in this area to improve some of the issues the community were facing, it was noted that Ms Gilhooly would approach them to see if this would be feasible.    Members then discussed the matter of communication with the community and how the Department managed this.  It was the responsibility of parents to get their children to and from school safely, and there was a footway which children could use on one side of Langlee Drive.  In response to a question about what would officers consider a safe speed, Mr Joyce confirmed that this was a difficult question to answer as injury incidents were significantly better at 20mph but there had been no recorded accidents in Langlee Drive since 2003.  In the survey data, 1 in 5 vehicles were travelling at more than 20mph (16 out of 71) but that in itself did not cause undue alarm.  Parking on the angle narrowed the road and slowed down traffic.

2.5       The petitioners expressed concern that the 2^nd speed hump being located close to the school would not help slow traffic from the entrance to Langlee Drive which is where speeding took place.  However, the site for the most recent survey of traffic had been requested by the community and that was where the data had been provided for the meeting.   The speed bump was close to the school to offer children a safer crossing point to school from the footway.  The petitioners again expressed concern that children did not always stay on the footway where it was safe.   Members discussed the options available to them and considered the data output from the surveys, the concern of the petitioners, and what the Department could do to alleviate these concerns, taking account of the road layout and the resources available.   The Chairman then advised the Committee Members of their options in response to the petition: to refer the petition to another Committee or Director for final decision; to refer the petition to a relevant Community Planning Partner; or that the issue(s) raised did not merit or did not require further action.  The Chairman clarified the main points raised and thanked the petitioners and officers for their attendance and the comprehensive clear presentation that was provided to the Committee.

DECISION

AGREED to refer the petition to the Service Director Assets & Infrastructure, who would consider:

(a)     what improvements could be made to Departmental communications with communities about road issues, sharing the data from traffic surveys, and proposals for any changes to road architecture;

(b)     investigating the opportunity for a mandatory 20mph speed limit being applied in Langlee Drive on either a temporary or permanent basis;

(c)     the Police CAT monitoring speeds on Langlee Drive at peak times;

(d)     the community being asked about changing the parking from one side of Langlee Drive to the other; and

(e)     a further meeting with the community to explain the location of the 2^nd speed bump and to ascertain if there were any other measures the Department could put in place to assist with road safety.