Committee Report NSC

[JG1] 

                                                            Item 6.4

North Somerset Council

 

REPORT TO THE STRATEGIC Planning and Economic Development Policy & Scrutiny Panel

 

Date of Meeting: 11 December 2006

 

Subject of Report: West of England Road Safety partnership Update

 

Town or parish: N/A

 

Officer/Member presenting: Councillor Elfan Ap Rees

 

Key Decision: NO

 

 

RECOMMENDATIONS

 

None[J2] 

 

1.                Summary of Report

 

This report provides a brief update on the West of England Road Safety Partnership.

 

2.                Policy

 

North Somerset’s transport policies are set out in the Joint Local Transport Plan for the West of England sub-region. In particular, the Plans aim and objectives include:

 

 

 

[J3] 

3.                Details

 

A report detailing the details of the West of England Road Safety Partnership went to the Executive on 24 Oct 2006.  This recommended that;

 

  1. that a Road Safety Partnership for the West of England is established;
  2. that the proposed partnership framework set out in Appendix 1 is agreed;
  3. that the capital and revenue funding provided by Government for Road Safety work in the period 2007/8 – 2010/2011 is ring fenced and directly allocated to Road Safety activities;
  4. that the report be referred to the Strategic Planning and Economic Development Policy and Scrutiny Panel for information and to consider how it wishes to be kept informed of the work of the partnership.

 

On 15 December 2005 the Department for Transport wrote to all Highway Authority Chief Executives setting out how the funding arrangements for Safety Camera Partnerships was to change and that camera activity and partnerships were to be integrated into the wider road safety delivery process.

 

The current funding arrangements is to be replaced in 2007/08 with additional funding being made available under the LTP for road safety, which for the first time will include revenue funding. As such safety cameras are to be integrated into the Local Transport Plan system alongside other road safety measures and will give Local Authorities, the police and other agencies greater flexibility to pursue which ever locally agreed mix of road safety measures will make the greatest contribution to reducing road casualties. It will also provide greater stability and facilitate long term planning. The DfT remained convinced that cameras have an important role to play in an integrated road safety strategy.

 

This additional funding is being allocated on the same basis of other road safety funding within the LTP based on needs (formula based on casualties during 1994-1998 period) and performance. Performance will be determined on the quality of the LTP submission, delivery records and future progress reports such that, whilst the DfT has indicated what our allocation should be over the LTP period, final annual settlements will depend on how we respond to this new challenge.

 

In particular, the DfT is looking for:

 

 

The DfT is keen that local strategies and decisions are well founded, taking account of the combined knowledge and expertise of all the agencies concerned, and to avoid duplication of effort. It wants partnerships to include a wider range of other organisations in decision making and not be limited to just the police and local authorities. Accordingly, it is concluded that the establishment of a strong and robust Road safety Partnership that is professionally run is essential.

  

The principal purpose of the Partnership is to ensure that the activities of all the partners are coordinated and focussed on addressing the road casualty problem in the sub region. The Partnership will have no budget of its own but will oversee the road safety activities of all the partners. Whilst any recommendations will not be binding on individual partners the close involvement of key agencies at a strategic as well as an operational level is key to implementing a successful road safety strategy.

 

The structure of the Road Safety Partnership reflects the structure of the existing Safety Camera Partnership which arose from a best value review and as such is based on staff resource from North Somerset that is already provided. The main change apart from a much wider brief than just safety cameras is for the Executive members of the four UA’s to be intimately involved at the most senior level to reflect the importance given to reducing the number of people killed and seriously injured on our roads.

 

The Road Safety Partnership met for the first time on 31 October 2006.A programme will be agreed once the funding is known in December 2006.

 

 

4.                Consultation

 

Carried out with each Unitary Authority, Somerset County Council, Chief Constable, Fire and Rescue, Primary Care Trusts and Magistrates Court.

[J4] 

 

5.                Financial Implications

 

There is no additional cost to the authority of establishing a Road Safety Partnership other than providing administration support to the Partnership which will meet four times a year. This will be shared between the four Unitary Authorities.

 

The Partnership will have no resources of its own and cannot commit the resources of any of the partners. Nevertheless, it will be able suggest the direction that the road safety strategy should follow.

 

However, North Somerset is expected to receive approximately an additional £79,000 capital and £355,000 revenue LTP funding in 2007/08 for road safety activities, including safety camera. Across the four Unitary Authorities this amounts to £395,000 capital and £1,780,000 revenue funding which, together with the proposed funding to Somerset County Council approximately equates to the current running costs of the Safety Camera Partnership.

 

If this funding is not fully allocated to road safety activities it is probable that funding in future years will be considerably reduced.

 

In addition, if the scale of the safety camera partnership is reduced the partnership members will be responsible for any redundancy costs.

[J5] 

 

6.                Equality Implications

 

The road safety strategy seeks to reduce casualties across the board, but in particular it seeks to target the most vulnerable members of the community.

[J6] 

7.                Corporate Implications

 

The Corporate Plan identifies the promotion of safe and sustainable transport as a key priority and in commending the Road Safety Plan the Strategic Planning and Economic Development Policy and Scrutiny Panel looked forward to cross corporate working on road safety issues.

[J7] 

8.                Options considered

 

1.         To continue with the Safety Camera Partnership as existing.

 

            The Government seeks to integrate cameras into mainstream road safety activity      and with the change to funding arrangements this is not considered favourably.

 

2.         Not to establish a Road Safety Partnership.

 

            This is contrary to the strong guidance of the Government and is considered to be     less effective in delivering road safety improvements.

[J8] 

 

Author

 

Extracted from report to Executive 24 October 2006 by[J9]  Mike Joy, Scrutiny and Performance Officer. Executive Report Author Frank Cox

 

Background Papers

 

Executive Report 24 October 2006[J10] 

 

 

 


 [JG1]To switch the display of comments off select View/Markup

Page: 1
 [J2]The Recommendation must be clear and complete in itself, so it can be understood without needing cross reference to another document, and can be copied directly into the minutes.

Page: 1
 [J3]Summarise the part of the Corporate Plan, Directorate Business Plan or other plan or policy document that supports the report.

Page: 1
 [J4]Summarise who has been consulted internally and externally eg., statutory, trades union, parish councils, ward members, other.  List response received.

Page: 1
 [J5]Give the revenue and capital cost of the proposal, and whether it is in addition to existing approved budget.

Page: 1
 [J6]State any implications for equality in either employment or service provision.  Consider how your report could affect sections of the community in terms of race, sex, disability, sexual orientation, religion or other belief, age, social exclusion and other groups.

Page: 1
 [J7]List any cross service implications, eg for Children, Sustainability, Legal, Human Resources, Property, Human Rights, Proportionality, Crime and Disorder, etc. and include comments on any which are relevant.

Page: 1
 [J8]List all other options which have been considered in making the recommendation, with a brief explanation of why they have been rejected.

Page: 1
 [J9]Give the name, job title and telephone number of the person who actually wrote the report.

Page: 1
 [J10]All background papers significantly used in preparing the report must be listed, together with an official departmental file reference.  Directors are responsible for ensuring that background papers can be accessed by the public for up to six years.