Agenda item

The Committee received a report in connection with proposals to impose a number of restrictions on the movement of traffic on the A16/B1166 Radar junction, the A16/B1040 junction and the A16 southbound layby, with the intention of implementing them on a trial basis by way of an experimental traffic regulation order.

Officers gave details of the accident history of the two junctions and the improvements made to them to reduce the number of collisions. An Option Feasibility Study was undertaken and the two main contributory factors in the occurrence of collisions were identified as relating to driver behaviour which included failure to observe vehicles approaching on the A16 and misjudgement of their speed. Excess speed was not identified as a factor. Of the four options detailed in the Study a four armed roundabout was considered most likely to reduce the incidence of collisions at Radar junction. However, there was no funding available for such a scheme.

Officers stated that another option identified in the report promoted a “left in/left out” only arrangement, removing all right turn and cross over manoeuvres at the junction (bar the right turns into Hull's Drove and Nene Terrace Road). A proposed experimental traffic order to implement this proposal, at a cost of £78,000, was detailed in the report.

The report detailed the objections received to the experimental traffic order and the comments of officers on the objections received.

Councillor N H Pepper, the local Member, commented as follows:-

·    He had been heavily lobbied on this matter.

·    He was not a member of any local authority, in the design stage or construction stage, of this road. However, he had had an involvement since the road was built.

·    The junction was known as Radar Corner. However, there was no corner there and no radar tower and the name had remained from the old road layout and the radar tower that used to be there.

·    He had regularly used the road and junctions for the past ten years and had attended many road traffic collisions including fatalities along the Crowland stretch of the A16 during his time in the Fire & Rescue Service based at Crowland Fire Station.

·    Since becoming a Councillor in 2013, some three years after the road was constructed, he had been regularly contacted about the road and its junctions either complaining or some saying there was nothing wrong.

·    Speed had not been a factor in all of the road traffic collisions but when average speed cameras were installed along the road in December 2016, at that point 800 vehicles a day were driving at excess speed enforcement level. When the cameras were introduced this brought it down to just 11 a day (800 down to just 11).

·    A feasibility study was carried out to look at options for the A16/B1166 junction in 2018 and a roundabout came out on top as the preferred solution. It was stated that the Council did not have sufficient funds and this junction was not also the highest priority in Lincolnshire.

·         Additional hatching had also been introduced at the junction. Since the hatching and average speed cameras had been introduced there had been a decrease in the number of road traffic collisions.

·         He had helped in the early stages of the proposed trial, working with officers, and came up with what we have in front of us today. Knowing from the outset that it was not the answer (a sticking plaster in sorting out a permanent solution). He had maintained contact with highways and the Lincolnshire Road Safety Partnership from the trials conception, throughout the consultation.

·         The consultation had not been advertised for public consultation. Various bodies and people had been consulted. It was noted that highways had received 66 objections. He had received an overwhelming amount of objections from people.

·         In addition to Crowland, most other objections came from the eastern side of the A16, the villages of Nene Terrace, Shepeau Stow, Whaplode Drove, Holbeach Drove, Gedney Hill, etc. These villagers looked to Spalding for retail, etc. If the trial went ahead and barriers installed at the junctions getting to Spalding would be a problem. They would have to travel south, past Crowland, at which point, they would be nearer to Peterborough than Spalding to get to the roundabout to travel the same distance back again (a 5 mile detour) to get back across the other side of the road to where they were.

·         Cutting off the junctions travelling south more traffic would be forced to use the A16, adding to the congestion there already particularly at peak time when it could back up for considerable distances at peak morning times. There were presently three accesses to the town of Crowland and if the trial were to go ahead there would just be the one, adding more congestion to a busy junction.

·    There was a genuine concern that vehicles travelling from the north and east would do a 'U' turn in the road rather that travelling five miles out of their way to get to the other side.

·    The only other routes they could take were minor roads many of which were not comfortable for two vehicles to pass and the fear as stated in 2.3 of the report was that there was potential for a rise in collisions elsewhere on the highway network.

·         This Committee gave permission for a biomass plant facility at a re-cycling centre at Decoy Farm which was just across the road from Radar junction, with a condition being that HGV vehicles accessed it from the A16/B1166 junction. By cutting it off as a trial, that condition would not be achievable. The only other access to the recycling centre had a weight restriction on it.

·    The figure of £2m for a roundabout was excessive and seemed more appropriate for a green field site but the cost of building on an existing hard-standing, tarmac and space already in place should be lower as all that was needed was kerbing and splays. It was suggested that it might be a good idea to get the detailed cost of a roundabout.

·         Officers were not entirely happy with the proposed trial and that was why they had not provided the Committee with a clear steer.

·         A roundabout was the safest solution but there was no funding.

·         Because of all the objections received he was unable to support the trial recommended in the report. However, as Chairman of the Public Protection and Communities Scrutiny Committee road safety was very important and the potential increase of collisions on other parts of the network was of concern.

·         Deferral was not supported as in the near future the Council would find itself with the same dilemma.

·         The only option he was able to support, reluctantly, was to abandon the trial and save £78,000.

·         In abandoning the trial highways was requested to work closely with him to examine things that could be done as collisions had decreased since the introduction of average speed cameras and red hatching. There was scope for additional lineage. There was confusion in his area whereby drivers did not know quite where to be, who had priority and to examine lowering the speed limit throughout the junctions to a maximum speed of 50mph as mentioned in 1.21 of the report.

He moved that the experimental traffic order should be abandoned and for highways to work with him on three issues:-

          To refreshing and enhancing the lineage at the junctions with the aim to lessen confusion, to examine reducing the speed limit to max 50mph through the junctions and to explore the true cost of a roundabout and, in doing so, explore any potential avenues for funding.

The motion was not seconded.

Members noted that the Coroner had requested that the Council should examine the junctions in view of the fatalities and therefore it was agreed to arrange a site visit to view both junctions.

On a motion by Councillor I G Fleetwood, seconded by Councillor Mrs M J Overton MBE, it was –

RESOLVED (unanimous)

That consideration of the report be deferred pending a site visit to view both junctions.