The Moorfield Road Action Group has received a reply from Rob Polhill, which has been written on his behalf by Halton Borough Council’s legal team. They refuse to acknowledge this online petition and will not be taking any further action with regards to our road safety issues on Moorfield Road. Please remember that none of our Local Councillors, either in the Farnworth or Halton View Wards, have supported us in the last 3 years of campaigning. A copy of the reply is as follows:

Dear Sir / Madam

I am writing to you further to your recent communications concerning traffic management and the driver behaviour of motorists using Moorfield Road, Widnes.

I trust that you will appreciate your communications make various references to the comments and observations of third parties and it has been necessary, as far as possible, for me to clarify first-hand the views of those parties and obtain further information from Council Officers in order to properly inform my response to you.

Whilst it is regrettable that the action group considers that the Council has ignored or dismissed the concerns of residents this does not appear to be supported by the information held by the Council and I have provided a summary below of the information that has been made available to me concerning the Council’s actions in this matter.

With regards to the Councils duty of care toward individual employees I am limited in what personal information I can share with third parties as a consequence of data protection legislation. Notwithstanding this I can confirm that in having reviewed the records held by the Council the suggestion that it has wilfully neglected its responsibilities toward the personal safety of individual employees, or failed to act in a timely manner as information has become known to it,  is wholly inaccurate.

Whilst I cannot divulge the exact nature of the conversations that have taken place with individuals I can confirm that the Council will continue to undertake the periodic site inspections / risk assessments that are in place in relation to school crossing patrol staff that form part of routine management practice. I can also confirm that such inspections have been undertaken at the Moorfield Road site on a twice termly basis and that no issues have previously been raised or identified.

It is regrettable that the action group consider that I and my colleagues have continued to ignore correspondence from the group and or residents in regards to driver behaviour.However the Council’s records would not support this view for the reasons explained below and it is the case that myself and colleagues have responded to numerous communications in preceding months.

I have summarised below the position of the Council. For the purposes of completeness it is inevitable that some of this information is that which has previously been communicated to individuals / members of your group.

Between 2003 and 2018 the Council has undertaken work on 18 separate occasions in order to raise driver awareness of the environment in which they are travelling. Whilst I would acknowledge the view that you have expressed concerning the extent to which driver behaviour has been influenced by these interventions such actions would not support the view that the Council has remained ignorant of the concerns raised by residents.

In addition, and following discussion with Police colleagues, Moorfield Road has been designated as a priority area for the use of the mobile speed camera. As you have advised me the Crime Commissioner David Keane believes that a static speed camera is not a viable option and that he will be supporting the removal of all such cameras within the county.

Unfortunately, I am still awaiting a reply from him regarding the suggestion that he considers there to be a lack of appropriate signage and that the installation of physical traffic calming measures as the only long-term solution to speeding traffic.

Notwithstanding this in October last year I requested that Officers revisit this situation in response to a complaint from a member of your group. Following a response being provided by the then Divisional Manager Stephen Rimmer the actions of Officers were also subsequently reviewed in accordance with the Council’s complaints procedure and a further detailed response on the matter was provided to the complainant in December by my colleague Michael Foy. These responses, of which you have had sight, provide details concerning the actual and potential interventions that have been considered by the Council.

I, and my colleagues, have from the outset recognised that the speed recording equipment does confirm that some drivers behave irresponsibly by exceeding the speed limit along Moorfield Road and unfortunately this is representative of other areas within the borough where speed recording equipment has been installed. Whilst this is the case existing traffic collision data provided to the Council by the Police does not indicate that there is a history of speed related accidents within the area.

I would also reiterate that the use of physical speed humps / bumps requires the consideration of a number of factors including the free flow of traffic, including emergency vehicles, the existing physical infrastructure, the potential for noise and vibration, particularly from heavier vehicles, affecting nearby properties and the prior occurrence of speed related collisions. In taking account of all material considerations, including the views expressed by the action group, Council Officers remain of the view the use of such measures would not be appropriate in this case.

Whilst acknowledging your position that none of the interventions implemented by the Council have had a positive effect on driver behaviour the Council considers that where individuals wilfully ignore all of these measures and drive in the manner that the action group has described then the targeted traffic enforcement action through the use of fines, penalty point endorsements etc. is the most appropriate means through which their behaviour can be addressed. The Council has, and will continue to work closely with Police colleagues with regards to such interventions and the proportionate use of available resources.

With regards to locating the combined 30 mph / camera signs to be placed on the lamp posts on the splitter islands at the junction of Camberwell Park Road, highways colleagues have confirmed that this would not be feasible. This is because of insufficient space to avoid signage clutter and the limited wind loading of the existing lampposts at that point.

I would however acknowledge your concerns regarding the potential for the speed camera sign adjacent to the hedging screen becoming obscured and arrangements are now being made to relocate that sign to a more visible location.

With regards to the SiD camera not recording speeds correctly it is unclear to colleagues how Police Officers could have determined this through visual observation and without the use of appropriate speed measurement equipment.

However in light of your comment I requested that Officers further check the accuracy of recorded speeds by the use of appropriate equipment. I can confirm that Officers have now checked the validity of the speeds as recorded by the SiD camera by using a dashboard mounted radar device which was calibrated by Cheshire Police. 

I would also confirm that the radar device recorded an average speed of 26.7 miles per hour whilst the speeds recorded by the Sid Camera were slightly higher at 28.7 mph.I also note your comments concerning the use of Moorfield Road by Heavy Goods Vehicles and this being observed by Officers from Cheshire Police. Whilst a local business has previously been contacted by a local Ward Member in this regard, and there is clear signage to confirm existing weight restrictions, it remains the case that the Council has no formal powers regarding the enforcement of traffic regulations.

However I will ask that Council Officers discuss this matter further with the Police colleagues and consider what opportunities may exist to contact local businesses to raise this matter with them and remind them of the potential consequences of drivers failing to adhere to the restrictions that are currently in place.

In taking account of all relevant considerations in this case the Council Officers have concluded that at this time the actions taken to date represent a proportionate and appropriate means by which responsible driver behaviour can be informed, influenced and encouraged, and in working with Police colleagues can be supported by enforcement action.

I would confirm that although the Council does have in place a process for the consideration of petitions unfortunately this does not extend to receiving petitions in online form. Should you wish to submit such representations could you please write to the Operational Director as detailed below confirming the nature and purpose of your petition and details of those who are in support of it.

Mr Tim Gibbs

Operational Director (Policy, Planning & Transportation)

Halton Council

Municipal Building

Widnes

Cheshire WA8 7QF

The petition will then be considered by the relevant Council Policy and Performance Board. The Board will review and or scrutinise decisions made by Officers and the actions taken in connection with the discharge of the Council’s functions in line with the Council Constitution.

Unfortunately at this point in time, and in taking account of relevant all circumstances, I am not in a position to deliver the outcome that you are seeking with regards to the installation of further traffic calming measures.