Cabinet considered a petition requesting a reduction in the speed limit on London Road, Ascot. Councillor Haseler, Cabinet Member for Planning, Parking, Highways and Transport, explained that in October 2021 a petition with 174 signatures had been submitted by local residents to request that the existing speed limit on the A329 London Road, Ascot was reduced from its current 40mph to 30mph between the junctions with Cheapside Road and Sunninghill Road.

A speedsurvey wascarried outin December2021 whichshowed that85% of the vehicles travelling east, towards Virginia Water, were travelling at a speed of 38mph or less. The corresponding speed for westbound, towards Ascot, trafficwas36.2mphorless.Althoughtherewereanumberofvehiclesthat were exceeding thespeedlimit,thiswouldindicatethatthecurrent40mphspeed limit was correctly set for the road and the majority of drivers were obeying it.

Councillor Haseler explained that LondonRoad, Ascotbetween thejunction withCheapside andSunninghill Road,wasruralinappearancewithfewhousesandfrontages.ItwasanAclassroad and carried between 6500 – 7000 vehicles in either direction each day, thereby providing through route options for a large number of residents and visitors. The 40mphspeedlimitprovideda linkto thenewlyreducedspeed limit,from50mph to 40mph, on the Virginia Water side of Sunninghill Road that now ran along the A329 London Road to the Surrey County Council boundary.

Members noted the collision history for the road as detailed in paragraph 2.5 of the report. Councillor Haseler highlighted that there was little commonality in the incidents and speed had been a contributory factor in only one. Inlightofthesaferecordofthe road and thecomplianceofdrivers,itwasconsideredthattheroadwas safeat thecurrent speed limit and that no further action should be taken. Councillor Haseler commented that he had undertaken a site visit and considered the issue in light of his professional career in the police as a collision investigator. He believed a 40mph limit was fair and reasonable for the road.

As Councillor Haseler was in attendance virtually, the recommendation was proposed by Councillor Johnson. Councillor Hilton seconded the proposal.

Kate Valance, lead petitioner, addressed the Cabinet. Photographs of a recent collision on the road were circulated to Members of Cabinet.

Kate Vallance stated that she wished to appeal the decision not to reduce the speed limit. The report said that 85% of vehicles were travelling at less than 40mph, but this was not her experience. She could only conclude that drivers slowed down when they saw the speed check survey board. It had been stated that 40mph would be in line with driver expectations, but she felt that safety should be the priority. The section of the London Road was narrow with zigzag bends and poor visibility; because of the speed of vehicles, it was difficult to enter and exit properties. The photographs she had submitted showed a car that had lost control on a bend and crashed into her neighbour’s fence and broken a steel lamppost into five pieces. The pavement was very narrow and only ran on one side. The Victory Fields were accessed from the road, yet parents would not let a child walk or cycle there. A child had been knocked down recently. Near the roundabout, the road narrowed further, and lorries were forced to use both lanes. Local residents knew to drive down there slowly but visitors would not. Kate Vallance concluded that 40mph was too fast for this section of road. 30mph, or more preferably 20mph, would be the appropriate limit. Alternatively, speed reduction measures could be introduced. The increased volume of traffic with all the development in the area meant she was virtually certain there would soon be a serious injury or death.

Councillor Johnson thanked Kate Vallance for addressing Cabinet.

Councillor Hilton commented that he understood some of the concerns as he used the road regularly. However, the statistics in the report supported the fact that the limit was well respected. Crossing the road was a challenge; he would not expect children to do so without parental supervision. However, he did not think many people accessed the Victory Fields from this direction as the majority of the population served was to the north.

Councillor Haseler commented that he understood the points made by the lead petitioner, however the speed limit had to be realistic for the nature of the road. The council received numerous requests from residents for speed reductions and perceptions were often higher than reality. The situation here was the 85^th percentile. Most houses on the road were set back with walls that may restrict views; any overgrown hedges were the responsibility of the property owner. It was a rural road and therefore a 40mph limit was appropriate. A 30mph limit would not be expected by most motorists. When the council was looking to reduce a speed limit it would consult with the police. If the police did not believe a reduction was justified, it would object, and the council would struggle to get the police to enforce a lower limit. Traffic calming measures were unlawful in anything above a 30mph zone. The volume of people crossing the road would not justify a zebra or pelican crossing. The matter could be kept under review but at the current time a reduction was not justified.

Councillor Hilton commented that the council did act to address issues where appropriate based on the evidence, for example when there had been a series of accidents at the junction with Silwood Road a few years previously, the issue had been investigated and measures put in including a traffic island.

Councillor Rayner suggested the idea of a review could be added to the recommendation. Councillor Johnson commented that he was relaxed about that idea. It was becoming apparent that enforcement of the existing 40mph limit was probably a more effective route than a reduction. Enforcement was a matter for the police, but they could be more proactive. More visibility of the enforcement of the current limit should be considered initially; if this was not effective then a review could be undertaken.

Councillor Sharpe commented that he knew the road well as the councillor who lived closest. The pavement was very narrow, and it was difficult to use for anyone with a child or a mobility scooter. Access to Victory Fields was very difficult. Visibility was very low considering the speed of the road and people did not obey the speed limit. The volume of traffic would have increased significantly since the survey undertaken in December 2021 therefore, he suggested another survey should be undertaken.

Councillor Johnson suggested the idea of a community speed watch to increase the deterrence factor. In relation to the photographs circulated of a recent collision, he commented that the conditions looked damp and greasy, and it was possible the driver had not taken into account the conditions.

Councillor Baldwin commented that there had been several references to the attitude of the police to any changes. He had met with local police recently and found them to be very helpful, he therefore questioned why the debate sounded so different. He also commented that he could understand referring to the operational expertise of serving police officers, but not one recently retired.

Councillor Johnson responded that feedback had been given on the unwillingness of the police to enforce inappropriate speed limits. Councillor Haseler was in a unique position having been involved in collision investigations in his professional career. Councillor Johnson stated that he would raise the issues of targeted enforcement with the police at a meeting he had the next day. The council should work with the police to enforce the current limit and if the situation had not markedly improved in 12 months other options could be considered.

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That Cabinetnotes the report and:

i)Recommendsthat theexisting speedlimit of40mph isretained on the A329 London Road, Ascot.