1. Developing a Local Authority Policy Document Jim Gibbins Cheshire County Council www.cheshire.gov.uk

2. Format of Presentation Background Implications for Cheshire County Council Cheshire’s Road Safety Audit Policy & Procedures What did the policy include Recommendations How to develop a Local Authority RSA policy The future of Safety Audit for Cheshire County Council

3. Background Objective of Road Safety Audit Integral element of road scheme design HD 19/94 & HA 42/94 Guidelines followed by Cheshire’s Road Safety Auditors Guidance indicated ‘3’ stages to be audited

4. Background IHT Guidelines for Shire County Councils Based on Cheshire’s collisions – 1.5 to 2 people required No direct staff provision for Road Safety Audit Six week target response time introduced Significant backlog of road safety audits to undertake

5. Background Cheshire Herefordshire Lancashire Leicestershire Nottinghamshire Worcestershire Highway Schemes Audited?  Section 38 schemes  Section 278 schemes  Developer-led schemes  Sustainable transport schemes  Maintenance schemes  LTP Safety schemes  Traffic management schemes Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Financial cut off for schemes to audit?No>£200kNo >£5kNo Number of staff involved in Safety Audits?52348? Information source taken from 2005

6. Background Numbers of safety audits undertaken prior to Cheshire’s Policy of HD 19/03

7. HD 19/03 HD 19/94 & HA 42/94 superseded HD 19/03 introduced in November 2003 Mandatory on Trunk Roads & Motorways Recommended for use by Local Authorities Responsibility of LA’s to establish their own policy Generated group discussions

8. Response to HD 19/03 Increased emphasis on road safety qualifications Highway Authorities considered too onerous Highway Authorities unable deliver to standard Suggest that Highway Authorities have greater problems than consultants The need to develop a formal documented procedure

9. Principal Changes & Implications PRINCIPLE CHANGE of HD 19/03IMPLICATIONS FOR CHESHIRE  An Audit Team consisting of an Audit Team Leader and at least one Audit Team Member  Must work together on all aspects of an audit at each stage  This would give rise to a significant staff resource issue for Cheshire’s Road Safety Unit  Previous requirement was for only one person to undertake an audit at each stage of a scheme’s design.

10. Principal Changes & Implications PRINCIPLE CHANGE of HD 19/03IMPLICATIONS FOR CHESHIRE  Specific requirements are stipulated acceptable training and experience relating to road safety engineering for all Audit Team Members. An Audit Team Leader must have achieved all the requirements of an Audit Team Member previously.  Both must achieve a minimum of 2 days per year CPD in Road Safety Audit, Accident Investigation or Road Safety Engineering.  The majority of the staff within the Collision Investigation Unit at the time were suitably qualified to be either Audit Team Leaders or Audit Team Members.  Additional costs to the Service in terms of externally provided training and development to ensure adequate CPD. Not all CPD needs to be attendance at courses and some can be accrued via research.

11. Principal Changes & Implications PRINCIPLE CHANGE of HD 19/03IMPLICATIONS FOR CHESHIRE  The Introduction of Interim Road Safety Audit.  This had minimal affect as interim Audits would only need to be undertaken on very large or major schemes.

12. Principal Changes & Implications PRINCIPLE CHANGE of HD 19/03IMPLICATIONS FOR CHESHIRE  At Stage 3, the Audit Team are required to examine the site during the hours of darkness so that hazards particular to night time operation can be identified.  This will result in staff being required to work during the evenings and late at night during the spring and summer months.  Would result in considerable additional costs to the Service in respect of overtime payments. Time off in Lieu was considered counter productive to the other work needed to be undertaken by the Road Safety staff.

13. Principal Changes & Implications PRINCIPLE CHANGE of HD 19/03IMPLICATIONS FOR CHESHIRE  An additional Audit Stage 4. Accident monitoring reports shall be prepared 12 and 36 months after the completion of the highway improvement scheme.  Significant staff resource issue, particularly for the 36 months ‘after’ audit which would involve a detailed in depth study of every scheme implemented and any collisions that occurred after.  Improvements identified during 36 month audits of development generated schemes should be funded by the developer, rather than funded by the Highway Authority.

14. Road Safety Audit Procedures To set out Cheshire County Council’s policy To set out standard procedures to be followed To provide a guide for all parties involved in road and development schemes Identifies roles & responsibilities The Purpose:

15. Road Safety Audit Procedures Clients – Planning & Transportation Departments, Developers Designers – Own in-house as well as external Road Safety Audit Teams – In house and external Development Control Officers – Planning & Transportation Local Politicians Who is the document aimed at?

16. Road Safety Audit Procedures Commission the auditclient Provide a brief, plans, etcproject manager Carry out the auditaudit team Respond to the auditproject manager Finalise actionclient Roles & Responsibilities

17. Road Safety Audit Policy Aims & Objectives Brief history of Road Safety Audit The various stages at which safety audits should be undertaken Typical numbers of safety audits undertaken Current staff resource issues What did the policy include?

18. Road Safety Audit Policy Impact and Implications What is required to undertake a safety audit - Safety Audit brief from the designer - Purpose of the scheme - Detailed scheme drawings (relevant to stages1, 2 or 3) - Known departures from standard - Previous exception reports relating to the scheme - and much more! Conclusion & Recommendation What did the policy include?

19. Road Safety Audit Policy Not possible to fully adopt HD 19/03 Current workloads & staff resources Considered the need to increase staffing to adopt fully Not compliance could lead to criticism of the County Council & potential litigation. Concluded that HD 19/03 can only be adopted partly Conclusion

20. Policy Recommendations ROAD TYPEEX TRUNKABCUNCLASSIFIED NUMBER OF AUDITORS Minimum 2 Minimum 2 111 MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS REQUIRED Yes DARKNESS AUDITS If appropriate No INTERIM AUDITS SCHEMES > £500k STAGE 4 - 12 MONTH ACCIDENT AUDITS No STAGE 4 - 36 MONTH ACCIDENT AUDITS No

21. Road Safety Audits Numbers of safety audits undertaken after part adopting to HD 19/03

22. Comparison of Audits Total Audits Prior to HD 19/03 Total Audits after part adoption of HD 19/03 YearNo of AuditsYearNo of Audits 20011092005150 200266200699 2003122200794 2004151200857 Total338Total400 Year 2008 to end of September

23. How to develop a RSA Policy Relevant to own requirements & resources Should be presented to local politicians for approval Seek help and advice Can be a ‘short’ or ‘long’ policy document Clearly identify roles & responsibilities The types of schemes to be audited and at what stages Establish who carries out the audit

24. How to develop a RSA Policy Training for safety auditors Who else is involved (e.g. Police) The format of the report Who writes exception reports An arbitration process Use of checklists

25. Ensure you Refer to your Policy !

26. The Future of Safety Audit for Cheshire County Council Revision of Road Safety Audit Policy Document - Cheshire splitting into 2 new unitary authorities from 1 st April 2009 Ensure policy & procedure is put in place Ensure it is approved and documented Ensure adequate training, skills and knowledge is maintained

27. And Finally….. There is no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ way of developing a Road Safety Audit policy, by having one you will have a greater chance if challenged at an enquiry or within a litigation case. A thought….. GET YOUR POLICY SORTED AND GET IT DOCUMENTED !

28. Thank You