This petition has been reviewed and the following response has been offered:
When setting speed limits, we refer to key visual clues and measurements in setting the appropriate level of restriction. These are the road type/characteristics and geometry, the level of frontage development, pedestrian volumes and pedestrian generators. The characteristics of the road are a big factor. Our Speed Management Policy gives typical features that should be expected for a 30mph speed limit;
- Clearly defined village core of around half a mile in length
- Facilities generating pedestrian activity – school, shops, PH, play areas etc
- Significant development in depth
- Numerous junctions
- Significant pedestrian activity through the day
When the criteria are applied correctly it invariably leads to a level of speed restriction which is understood and respected by many drivers and hence receives a good level of driver compliance and I trust you will appreciate that as a Highway Authority we wish to provide sound and effective measures on the County network.
In terms of the difference between High Hill in Hickling and Mill Road / Church Road / /Goose Lane in Sutton:- the Hickling example is within the defined village core, it is on a C class route and is the main route through the village.
The Sutton example is an isolated pocket of development outside the developed core and surrounded by minor rural routes. The wider carriageway in Hickling will be more likely to attract increased speed whereas the roads mentioned for Sutton being narrower, high speeds will be uncomfortable for drivers and clearly inappropriate. Any use of excess speeds will be intentional and reckless. Such behaviour is unlikely to be altered with the presence of signs.
Unfortunately, whilst I sympathise with your concerns, the provision of a reduced speed limit at this location is unlikely. The guidance and our experience show that simply extending speed limits further along undeveloped rural roads is unlikely to achieve such driver compliance.
I would also add that with a shrinking budget we need to direct our resources to those sites where we are able to demonstrate tangible benefits. In terms of this location the required traffic regulation order costs which would need to accompany the speed limit changes are sizeable and could not be seen as cost effective.
We do however recognise that such comparisons and measurement against policy criteria is complex, in order to ensure a clear understanding of how the decision was reached, Highways offers to meet during working hours with Sutton PC (with the Local Member present) to talk through the process and policy criteria in detail; it may be possible to identify other speed awareness measures that could be applied to this stretch of road.
I trust the above information helps to further expand on our reasons for turning down this request, although I do appreciate that it is still not the outcome you are seeking.