Agenda item

This proactive scrutiny session will allow the Panel to scrutinise and support the Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) in his intention to prevent and tackle traffic-related crime and nuisance, to improve road safety across Hampshire and the Isle of Wight.

 

This scrutiny will consider how the PCC is listening to and engaging partners, community associations and members of the public across the two counties in enhancing current prevention measures and review how effectively the PCC is holding the Chief Constable to account for policing community concerns related to traffic crime and disturbance.

 

The scope for this session is attached as Appendix One.  Written evidence has been received and is attached as Appendix Two. The Panel will hear oral evidence from the below stakeholders:

 

a) Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner

 

b) Hampshire Constabulary

 

c) Hampshire County Council

 

d) To be confirmed

 

Members heard that this was the second session of the Panel’s work programme for 2016/17, with this proactive scrutiny focussing on the topic of ‘The Impact of Traffic-Related Crime and Nuisance within Communities’.

 

The Chairman explained that the Panel had selected this topic for review to consider how well the PCC was listening to and engaging partners, community associations and members of the public across the two counties in enhancing measures to prevent the impact of traffic related crime and nuisance within communities. It was further noted that the review would also scrutinise how effectively the PCC was holding the Chief Constable to account for policing community concerns related to traffic crime and disturbance.

 

A scope for this review (see Appendix 1 to Item 5 in the Minute Book) had been agreed by the Plan working group, who had written to stakeholders in the previous weeks to collate evidence (see Appendix 2 to Item 5 in the Minute Book). Members of the Public were also invited to provide written evidence to the review and the Chairman acknowledged with thanks the breadth and volume of evidence which had been submitted by members of the public as well as from local community SpeedWatch groups and other organisations.

 

The key questions asked of witnesses were:

 

·      How well has the PCC, through holding the Chief Constable to account, ensured an effective policing response to community concerns related to traffic crime and disturbance?

·      How are the Commissioner and his office engaging with local partners, community groups and members of the public to enhance current prevention measures for traffic crime and nuisance to improve road safety?

·      What are the key priorities which need to be considered by the PCC to reduce and prevent traffic nuisance within the communities Hampshire and the Isle of Wight?

·      What best practice exists which could also be considered by the PCC in his approach to enhancing the approach to tackling and preventing traffic crime and nuisance to keep roads safer across Hampshire and the IOW?

 

The Chairman explained that the oral evidence giving session would take the format of a expert witness panel, with all representatives present being given the opportunity to answer questions from the wider Panel. Discussion was encouraged, and any questions that were not answered on the day would be fed back to witnesses for a written response after the meeting.

 

The expert witnesses were provided with the opportunity to introduce themselves and to give a brief overview of their organisation’s role in reducing the impact of traffic-related crime and nuisance within the communities of Hampshire and the IOW. They were further asked to comment the key constraints affecting their organisation from being able to more effectively respond to traffic related concerns:

 

Old Portsmouth Community SpeedWatch Team– The Old Portsmouth Community SpeedWatch (CSW) team started in 2015 and since this time they have noted little progress from efforts to compel vehicles to slow down. The volunteers feel that with only the occasional input from a PCSO,  they have been left alone to run the scheme but have tried to operate on a fortnightly basis to collect consistent and valuable data, capturing a complete profile of vehicles and the speed they were travelling at. They have been praised by Hampshire Constabulary as being one of the most dedicated and committed schemes in the area, but the volunteer’s enthusiasm is now wavering.

 

A key factor in their dissatisfaction is the handling and analysis by Hampshire Constabulary and Portsmouth City Council of the data being collected. The volunteers understood that the data they were collecting would be shared between the authorities, as a scheme jointly invested in by both. However there has been no evidence of a formal exchange of data between the force and the Council and therefore volunteers feel neither organisation has assessed the effectiveness of the scheme. The volunteers were clear that they were open to suggestions for improvement. Without this sharing of data and regular assessment through the Constabulary and City Council working together, the CSW team feel that they cannot be assured that the 20mph limits are effective, that speeding is reducing, and therefore if they are achieving value for money for taxpayers. A community association representative, who provides technical back-up to the Old Portsmouth team’s activities, approached the Chief Constable with a request to meet with officers to review the data they had produced and discuss sustainable solutions such as creating a 20mph zone with traffic calming. Their request was declined, however, and they were told that the scheme was an ideal tool to manage speed.

 

As outlined within written evidence submitted to the Panel, the volunteers have assessed some of the trends observed from their data and feel that the results are discouraging in terms of any long term effect on driver behaviour, with over three quarters of drivers consistently breaking speed limits. Reviewing these results has demonstrated no change in driver behaviour over a two year period. 

 

Droxford PC, Corhampton & Meonstoke PC and Exton Parish – All of these parishes sit within the South Downs National Park and have the A32 passing through them, which is a popular draw to motorbike riders. Whilst communities were happy to welcome all visitors, it was heard that there was a small minority of drivers who were shattering the peace of the park either through speeding or motorcyclists who illegally adapt their vehicles resulting in increased noise emissions. This had become a particular problem on Wednesday evenings in the summer months, and on Sundays along the roads that lay between the villages. A popular view amongst residents is that the installation of average speed cameras would be an effective prevention tool, with the previous PCC looking at a number of targeted approaches to address the issue. Residents now feel they are too far down the current PCC's list of priorities and would like more effective and direct communication with the PCC.

 

Hampshire County Council – The Council are currently working closely with the roads policing unit to focus on education, publicity, training and casualty reduction. They feel they have a good relationship with Hampshire Constabulary and are provided regularly with police accident data. The safety engineering team rely on this data to support the devising of engineering measures to seek to reduce and prevent future accidents. Successive rounds of funding cuts faced by the council have had an impact on resources available for road safety measures, therefore focus is applied to hot spots where serious and fatal accidents have occurred.

 

Sway Community Speedwatch Team– Sway sits within the New Forest National Park and on a busy commuter route. The New Forest is an accident hot spot, with 63 animal fatalities last year. The Sway CSW co-ordinator explained that he was also representing the views of CSW groups from five other nearby parishes. Local communities are particularly concerned about the potential increase of traffic density, of up to 14,000 vehicle movements per day, which may be generated by new housing developments proposed in the New Forest District Council draft local plan.

 

Sway Community SpeedWatch’s activities over the past 18 months have resulted in over 3,200 letters being issued and it was noted that a further 131 speeding drivers had been recorded during the week commencing 2nd October. The volunteers were concerned that Hampshire Constabulary rarely acknowledged receipt of the data submitted and although they had been able to obtain reports of letters generated etc, they were aware that this is not the norm for all CSW groups.

 

It was heard that local parish councils were keen to fund a vehicle speed indication display (SID), as the local CSW teams are only able to operate during short periods of time, however this has not been approved by Hampshire County Council.

 

Key to the concerns for the Community SpeedWatch Teams in and around the New Forest were stipulations introduced by Hampshire Constabulary last year that CSW teams were no longer allowed to operate on 40mph roads and must have three volunteers at the site in order to operate. These restrictions are in place in Hampshire but not other parts of the country and the Sway CSW team, and those they were representing, felt this hampered the effectiveness of the scheme. It was heard that Dartmoor National Park operate Community SpeedWatch on their 40 mph roads.

 

The volunteers felt that nobody within the Constabulary or OPCC seemed to care about their concerns or ideas and that even when raised nothing had appeared to change . At a conference early this year the PCC was heard to make a comment suggesting that CSW schemes were overloading police systems with data, however the volunteers felt strongly that it wasn’t the CSW schemes but the speeding drivers who were overloading the system.

 

Hampshire Constabulary – Members heard that the officer attending was responsible for the road policing teams for both Hampshire and Thames Valley and therefore represents a fairly large road network area. On average 130 people are killed on roads in the Hampshire and Thames Valley policing areas each year. The road policing teams are responsible for co-ordinating the Constabulary’s response to such collisions and holding people to account and a key element of their work is in promoting road safety. In Thames Valley the Safer Roads Team is responsible for CSW, in Hampshire CSW comes under the Neighbourhood Policing umbrella.  Thames Valley currently allow Community Speedwatch Teams to operate on 40mph roads, however it was understood that Hampshire Constabulary had restricted volunteers to operating on roads of 30mph and less for safety reasons.

 

OPCC – The Commissioner sent his apologies that he was unable to attend the scrutiny session and it was heard that the Chief Executive was attending to represent the Commissioner. The Chief Executive expressed that Commissioner appreciated the concerns of residents living in communities on the A32. A meeting was held in December where the OPCC met with community stakeholders, including Hampshire County Council and Hampshire Constabulary, and had a public debate regarding traffic concerns specific to the A32 and within this meeting heard from residents regarding the impact of these traffic concerns upon their quality of life. What was clear from the meeting was that the issues identified need to be tackled through partnership. The OPCC welcomed the Panel’s scrutiny and sees it as a mechanism to listen to the valued opinions of residents. The OPCC welcomes the Panel’s recommendations and hopes that they will form a basis for discussion with partners about future plans to improve road safety across Hampshire and the IOW.

 

The Chairman thanked members of the public gallery who were attending the meeting to observe the proceedings. As hearing public opinion had been identified as a key demonstrator of the value the Panel could deliver through this scrutiny, the Chairman decided to put aside Rule 31(2(a)) of the Panel’s rule of procedure, and to invite those members of the public present to address the witness panel with a brief concern of importance to them, so that the witnesses may take consideration of this in their responses. Five individuals took this opportunity to raise a concern, which related to motorcyclist fatalities on the A272, traffic crime on the A32, Community SpeedWatch operating restrictions and Hampshire Constabulary’s four key priorities.

 

The expert witness panel were then asked a number of questions relating to the written evidence received. Members heard:

 

Policing traffic related crime

 

• Restriction on resourcing and funding is currently the greatest challenge faced by the Constabulary, therefore priority is determined based upon identifiable threat, risk and harm and efforts are focussed on where the police can make the biggest difference.
• The Roads Policing strategy is targeted towards the ‘Fatal Four’ (speeding, use of mobile phones whilst driving, non wearing of seatbelts and driving under the influence of alcohol or illegal substances) which have been show to impact on casualties. This aligns with the wider national strategy.
• There is a limit to the number people who can be captured driving in excess of speed limits, ultimately determined by available court slots. Presently Hampshire Constabulary can bring to justice 80,000 – 85,000 people per year. This figure balances outcomes across driver awareness courses, penalty points on licence, and prosecution through the courts. Last year the Constabulary met this number of convictions. Clearly there is a capacity so prosecution needs to be balanced with driver education as well in an effort to change driver behaviour.
• Recent changes to legislation, along with some very serious incidents in Hampshire and Thames Valley involving the use of mobile phones has seen a significant reduction in the usage of mobile phones at the wheel and is a trend which is expected to continue as in car technology provides safer solutions. This is an area particularly heavily policed across Hampshire and the IOW with 97% of those caught using a mobile phone behind the wheel receiving a penalty.
• Dealing with noise offences by motorcyclists remains a challenge for the Constabulary as there are technical difficulties in securing evidence that is of a required standard for court. Noise measurement should be recorded in a sterile environment unfortunately it is not as simple as using a device at roadside. Police are also seeing offenders are also using more cleverly concealed illegal exhausts which might not be picked up by an MOT. However the use of bodyworn video across Hampshire and IOW now presents an opportunity to capture best evidence at the scene which can be used in court, to support what the officers saw and heard. Hampshire Constabulary stated that it is important to remember that those offending are the minority of motorcyclists, the majority of whom are law abiding.
• A collaboration of the Safer Roads Team between Hampshire and Thames Valley is planned for April 2018 which may lead to an opportunity to formalise Community Speedwatch across both forces. But this would need to be explored further. This could include standardising the approach on 40 mph roads. 
• Concern was raised from a number of the witness panel about the focussing attention only on post accident hotspots with concern that statutory bodies are waiting for accidents to happen, rather than proactively seeking prevention methods. A suggestion was raised that instead of solely relying on accident hotspots, police resources could instead be prioritised to locations where there are the most vulnerable road users.

 

Concerns regarding the A32

 

·         At the recent meeting (December 2016) regarding the A32, key stakeholders came together to discuss the current concerns, but from that did not develop a fully coherent plan to solve all of those problems raised.

·         Parish Councils on the A32 felt frustrated by their inability to use their own resources (people and finance) to provide solutions to the problems on A32. Local communities were willing to contribute but a quicker mechanism is needed to tap into this as a resource, to support the delivery of solutions within a reasonable timescale.

·         The work undertaken by the previous PCC to look at average speed cameras etc is considered to have fallen by the wayside because of costs. However Hampshire Constabulary explained that installing average speed cameras can move potentially dangerous behaviours onto other roads, where the risk of being killed or seriously injured is higher, and therefore this was an option which needed to be approached with caution.

Engagement with the PCC

 

·         A number of the witnesses commented upon a lack of engagement from the current PCC.

·         The Chief Executive responded, explaining that it was difficult for the PCC to meet personally with residents and community groups due to his diary commitments but that he is meeting regularly with partners to ensure that they are identifying the potential changes that could be made.

·         It was recognised that the OPCC had not yet had chance to meet with representatives from the New Forest in relation to traffic concerns but that they were keen to do so and consider what role the Commissioner can play in seeking to address concerns.

·         The OPCC considered the Panel’s review timely and that the recommendations from the Panel would be key in informing future plans to tackle traffic concerns. 

 

Community SpeedWatch

 

·         Speedwatch Co-ordinators would welcome the opportunity to meet with roads policing officers or experienced traffic control officers to inform the Constabulary about local speeding concerns. This would enable the Constabulary to demonstrate that they are working with the community, through setting up a formal system whereby everyone can put the available evidence on the table and find solutions.

·         Visible police presence during times groups are operating raises the kudos of CSW groups and helps to reduce negative opinion about their function. If this is not affordable then CSW groups would like to have some official looking Hampshire Constabulary signage to display, to make it obvious to drivers that they are officially sanctioned by the Constabulary. A comment was made that in some areas there are signs stating “You are now entering a Constabulary Community Speedwatch Area”

·         Hampshire Constabulary responded suggesting that a lot of local community policing teams currently come out to and support CSW volunteers, but recognises that across the entire force they could do more. 

·         Examples were provided where driver behaviour became worse when they observed a CSW team in action, with a driver being observed to use his mobile phone whilst driving to take a photo of them.

·         Repeat offenders were also discussed, with a feeling expressed that those captured speeding three or more times speeding by a CSW group should not be allowed the option of a speed awareness course and should instead receive the appropriate penalty. Hampshire Constabulary however explained that speed awareness courses had proven to be a very valuable tool in changing driver behaviour, and that the decision on whether or not to offer this as an alternative to a penalty was made on a case by case basis.

·         When asked whether the position taken by Hampshire Constabulary to restrict CSW volunteers to operate on 30mph or lower roads was likely to be revisited, it was explained that, whilst not in the remit of the officer attending, a recent paper had indicated that this was likely to remain in force due to volunteer safety. The danger to volunteers significantly increases with any increase in the speed of the vehicles being driven with, the stopping distance at 50mph being over twice that at 30mph.This was considered a particular concern as it has been recorded that such a significant number of drivers are regularly exceeding the speed limit and the safety of volunteers was a fundamental concern.

·         Thames Valley currently allow their CSW volunteers to operate on 40mph roads and it was suggested that Hampshire Constabulary should revisit this decision in April 2018, when a collaboration on road safety is planned between the two forces. It was important however to consider that all of the sites used by CSW teams are currently assessed by Community policing teams, and therefore if any suggestion was made to use 40mph roads again, consideration would need to be given on how this could be assessed.

·         There was a large volunteer base across Hampshire and the IOW who had been keen to get involved in CSW, however it appeared that enthusiasm from some of those volunteers was waning and that there was no quantifiable data demonstrating a sustained reduction in speeding. It was observed that there was a significant amount of evidence and data coming out of CSW schemes but little evaluation of the data is being undertaken by Hampshire Constabulary to understanding any trends in driver behaviour.

·         Sway CSW publish their data on internet and send a report to Hampshire Constabulary with every return, however to date they have found that this data is not used by the Constabulary.

·         The OPCC stated that those individuals who volunteer in communities are valued and the Chief Executive offered thanks on behalf of the Commissioner for their time and dedication. The Chief Executive remarked that it’s hard to hear that CSW operators didn’t feel valued or that they were making an impact. Whilst CSW is a constabulary scheme, he felt the OPCC could lend support to ensure that the commitment of volunteers was being utilised and suggested that the scheme may need to be reassessed. From today’s session he had noted that there were 93 schemes in operation across Hampshire and the IOW and that an action to be taken from this meeting was for the OPCC to locate these schemes and the data they are producing. The value of this data was recognised and it was felt that data driven understanding and outcomes should make a difference. It was suggested that the OPCC’s performance team could review the data available and share the findings with Hampshire Constabulary to inform future decision making.

Urban Concerns

 

·         It was heard that in many urban areas CSW do have a presence, with Basingstoke being provided as an example where 100% of urban parish councils operate CSW schemes.

·         Southampton currently have no CSW schemes in operation or “20 is plenty” style road messages, although 87% of road accidents in Southampton occur on roads with speed limits set at 30mph or below. Vulnerable road users are particularly at risk and there was little awareness around how statutory agencies were prioritising and addressing these concerns. 

·         Hampshire County Council explained that the safety of urban roads was important and that consideration was being given to approaches, such as the implementation of 20mph roads, where it would enhance safety.

Technological solutions to reduce traffic crime and nuisance

·         Whilst a number of local parishes and communities have indicated that they would be happy to fund permanent installation of a SID device, Hampshire County Council have determined that these can only be placed at known casualty reduction sites where all other measures have not been successful. Whilst it was heard that SID’s are much more commonly placed in other parts of the country, there is a current concern that wide spread use undermines their value and effectiveness as a casualty reduction measure.

·         Hampshire Constabulary recognises the potential for greater use of average speed cameras in the future, they however noted challenges including the risk of moving dangerous driving to other road areas and that the current limit on capture is 85,000 offenders per year, which the speed vans alone can capture. Average speed cameras which are mobile also need 4G data access, which is an issue in some of the more rural areas

·         A concern was raised about the times that the speed cameras and vans are in operation and that the speed enforcement actions are not happening at the time when problems are occurring. The A32 was given as an example where rush hour starts about 5am, but speed enforcement is never seen that early when vulnerable road users such a dog walkers have regularly observed drivers travelling at 20 and 30mph above the speed limits.

·         An example was given highlighting the value of educational enforcement. A local community asked for a 20mph limit to be in place next to a school due to the number of drivers exceeding the speed limit. By monitoring road users, it transpired that the speeding drivers were parents who were dropping their own children off at the school. 

·         James Payne, in response to Member’s questions, suggested that he would look at the viability of using mobile average speed cameras, where appropriate, once the data from the CSW teams had been fully analysed and discussed with Hampshire Constabulary. 

 

The Chairman thanked the witnesses for providing key evidence to the proactive scrutiny.

 

The Chairman explained that recommendations would be drafted based on the Panel’s consideration of the written and oral evidence received, and these would be sent to the Commissioner for comment in due course.