Agenda item

A report by Corporate Director of Environment and Place Bill Cotton on the Vision Zero Strategy and Programme. Cabinet Member Councillor Andrew Gant will also be attending the meeting to present the report and answer questions.

The Committee is recommended, having considered the report and responses to questions, to AGREE any recommendations it wishes to make to Cabinet arising therefrom.

Cllr Andrew Gant, Cabinet Member for Highway Management, introduced the report on the Vision Zero Programme which gave background information about the Programme, work carried out to date, and an overview of the Vision Zero Strategy and Capital Business Case timeline going forward.  The workstream was less than a year old and set up after fatalities in and around Oxford.  He highlighted the necessary cultural shift referred to in paragraph 6 of the report and the eight workstreams set out in paragraph 11 of the report, namely Policy Development; Speed Management; New Infrastructure and Development; Cycling Safety; Road Safety Education; Improvement Programmes; Communication & Engagement; Stakeholder Engagement.

Paul Fermer, Director of Highways and Operations, and Caroline Coyne, Programme Manager, attended to provide further detail to the Committee and to answer its questions.

The Director of Highways and Operations explained that the report outlined how the Council sought to approach Vision Zero pulling together the variety of activity across the Council into one coherent programme.  The Director was conscious that there might be frustration at the speed of the programme but was optimistic that progress would now be seen.  Both Cllr Gant and the Director of Highways and Operations expressed their confidence that the Committee would provide valuable feedback.

In response to questions, the following was noted:

·       £250k revenue and £5m capital was allocated at that juncture. It was extremely difficult to forecast how much capital budget was required to upgrade all junctions that were deemed dangerous.  There was a section of the capital budget allocated and the Director suggested that approximately £1m per year might be sufficient to upgrade two or three junctions.  However, he emphasised that some sites were at complex junctions or had particular features that would need significant sums to improve them.  Some dangerous bends would need considerable efforts as well as land purchase and expenditure to improve them.  One of the priorities for the work would be to consider the available data and to gather information about where the biggest challenges lay and where improvements would be easily-achievable.

·       It was not considered prudent to estimate how much meeting the Vision Zero ambition would cost in monetary terms because of the range of components necessary to achieve it.  The Director emphasised that simply spending large sums of money on infrastructure projects alone would not be sufficient to achieve it.  Cllr Gant advised that he had had discussions with Cabinet colleagues and that, in addition to £5m from reserves (which would fall under the umbrella of discretionary funding), there were different funding streams that were allocated to particular aspects, including the Safer Roads Fund, Active Travel tranches, developer funds, HIF Fund, the HMI fund.  Cllr Gant was keen for the Council to maintain its momentum and embed its principles and policies relating to Vision Zero into everything the Council did, including responding to planning applications as a statutory consultee.  He considered the latter should not be given approval if the commitments are not addressed.

·       Different governance structures for the programme were intended to be complementary structures rather than separate ones.  It was agreed that embedding behavioural change and a cultural shift had to be done in a coherent, holistic way.  The structures were about bringing together disparate activities that were already happening in order to ensure the monitoring of a coordinated programme and an overarching multidisciplinary governance because it touched on almost everything under the remit of Environment and Place.

·       Whilst policies were positive and reflected best practice and contemporary thinking, concern was raised that this had not necessarily filtered through to all teams responsible for their implementation.  Progress had been made but communication of the policies, new design guidance, and principles and ensuring they were followed was necessary.  The Council was committed to its approach and agreed that there continued to be some work needed to ensure that it was seen at the operational level.  Consultants were used on occasion for transport infrastructure projects and it was incumbent on the Council to ensure that the brief was particularly clear about the standards and specialisms wanted.  The Kidlington roundabout design proposal was improved after many were surprised by its original iteration but it was noted that had been a substantial project that had taken some time and new principles and guidance had been adopted during its design.  Change had been delivered at the Oxford Parkway junction (initially a temporary improvement with a permanent one set to come); incremental changes were also planned for the Plain which was agreed to be a particularly challenging junction.

·       The Committee requested that it receive information regarding the training provided and the information surrounding road safety (including Vision Zero, Active Travel, and LTPC) provided in contracts and briefs.

·       Officers highlighted that significant work had been done over many years on road safety and that, as an organisation, the Council was comfortable with how to improve it.  It was true that capability had been affected by a reduction in professional expertise and the level of funding.  However, the Council’s professional capacity was increasing and there was money for specific road safety initiatives.  There was an acknowledgement that the data had shown a negative trend and the Council was committed to reversal of that situation swiftly.  The intention was that this would be facilitated by the Vision Zero approach rather than simply standard road safety initiatives.

·       Vision Zero would help to deliver the Local Transport and Connectivity Plan (LTCP) road safety commitments with the improvement of road safety being a fundamental part of achieving the LTCP.  There were high-level commitments in the LTCP and, in response to questions about whether there ought to be lower, earlier, or interim targets, the Committee was told that officers were intending to work on the strategy and action plan and part of that work would be to examine more closely at the details behind the geographic differences in the county.  Consideration would be given to whether having bigger targets in urban area where it could be easier and potentially cheaper to make a big difference swiftly was appropriate.  The Council was keen to explore, in writing the strategy and action plan, the idea of localised targets so that it could be held to account against them.

·       The Committee explored if the Council was, in the absence of a Central Government campaign, planning to provide training on changes to the Highway Code, particularly focusing on the hierarchy of users and focusing on children and young people.  The Director of Highways explained that the Community Safety team had a number of well-established campaigns but that the team was very open to refreshing and revising training.  Whilst there would be costs involved, the allocation of money towards Vision Zero meant that could be progressed.

·       The impact on road safety of Heavy Goods Vehicles was explored and the Committee was reminded that the Developer Design Guidance had recently been approved by Cabinet and that much work had been done regarding requirements for developers using HGVs.  The Council was committed to working with the district councils and was in discussions about what could be done and what could be enforced.  Cllr Gant referred to a conference he had recently attended which had seen engagement from various different stakeholders.  One developer reported that limits on when HGVs could be used sometimes led to perverse incentives.  An example was provided of HGVs being forbidden to enter residential areas before 07.00 and so waiting outside area boundaries before entering during the school run.

·       As part of this area, it was noted that Oxford City Council had recently adopted the Construction Logistics and Community Safety (CLOCS) Standard and there was discussion around whether the Council was planning to adopt it.  It was explained that it was being given active consideration but officers were keen to understand the achievability of meeting the standard.  The application to CLOCS was complex and there were a number of different strands that would be relevant for the Council including the Council’s own vehicles and fleet; the contracts let by the Council and the obligations it would need to place on contractors; acting as the planning authority in respect of decisions made around schools and mineral extraction sites; planning issues when the Council is a statutory consultee.  The Council was conscious that adopting the standard could cost the Council significant sums of money and so wanted to understand the implications thoroughly before making a commitment.

·       The Committee considered that the Council should move towards the CLOCS standard as early as was reasonably practicable.

·       The number of accidents on the A34 was raised and improvement was called for.  It was questioned whether Vision Zero could ever be achieved without the improvement of the A34.  The Committee was reminded that the A34 is managed by National Highways (formerly the Highways Agency).  Officers reported that discussions were ongoing with Thames Valley Policy about the possibility of using average speed cameras on the road which it was hoped would improve the situation.  There was a pilot in Hampshire which used them which would offer National Highways in Oxfordshire a model.

·       The Committee agreed that all users need to act sensibly, from drivers of HGVs to pedestrians, and also discussed how Vision Zero might best be communicated and behavioural change be encouraged.  The Committee was keen that corporate communications should focus on those with most power on the roads rather than the most vulnerable road users and communications from Transport for London recently were commended for the approach it had taken.  The Director of Highways agreed that he would bear this in mind with communication projects.

·       It was explained that the Safer Roads Foundation had been particularly strong at lobbying central government and holds data from across the United Kingdom and can explain, from a national perspective, where money should be targeted.  It was partly as a result of such lobbying that the Council had received £800k for each of Iffley and Banbury Roads in Oxford.  Funding had also been received for work around RAF Croughton.    Lobbying of ministers continues and the Government is aware of the importance of the issue.  The Committee was reminded that there had previously been nationally-set road safety targets.  Whilst they were no longer in place, there were now live conversations about reintroducing them.

·       Questions were raised as to whether the targets were unduly cautious and whether, it was appropriate to give weight to the perception of risk over actual risk.  There was recognition that there was data which demonstrated some locations were extremely dangerous and it was agreed that work should focus on improving those.  However, Thames Valley Police did have a website for self-reporting near misses which the Council was monitoring.  There was agreement on the importance of focusing on locations where there was significant actual risk rather than a perception of it but, at the same time, the Council considered it important to work with key stakeholders and local communities so that progress could be made on reducing the perception of risk.

The Committee RESOLVED to make the following recommendations to Cabinet:

Recommendation 1: That the Council provides an audit of what is included in contracts for infrastructure delivery and how far Vision Zero, Active Travel, and the LTCP are emphasised.

Recommendation 2: That the Council provides an audit of training of those responsible for implementing infrastructure delivery and how far Vision Zero, Active Travel, and the LTCP are emphasised.

Recommendation 3: That the Council should endorse additional targets and geographically focused targets within the Vision Zero workstreams.

Recommendation 4: That the Council should move towards the CLOCS Standard as soon as is reasonably practicable.

Recommendation 5: That the Council prepares a road safety campaign focusing on the need for behavioural change and, in accordance with the Highway Code’s hierarchy of users, gives the highest responsibility for change to those with most power whilst recognising the need for all to act responsibly.

Recommendation 6: That the Council prepares metrics regarding perception of risk as part of the Vision Zero workstreams that could be tracked with the intention of reducing them.

Recommendation 7: That the Council recognise the important need for Vision Zero and that funding for it is a priority in the upcoming budget cycle.