Doncaster Metripolitan Council
Councillors:
56
Wards:
22
Committees:
25
Meetings (2025):
88
Meetings (2024):
113
Meeting
Communities and Environment Overview and Scrutiny Panel - Doncaster
Meeting Times
Scheduled Time
Start:
Monday, 21st October 2024
10:00 AM
Monday, 21st October 2024
10:00 AM
End:
Monday, 21st October 2024
2:00 PM
Monday, 21st October 2024
2:00 PM
Meeting Status
Status:
Confirmed
Confirmed
Date:
21 Oct 2024
21 Oct 2024
Location:
Meeting Attendees
Committee Member
Cabinet Member for Adults, Wellbeing and Culture
Guest
UNISON
Jonathan Preston
UNISON
Present, as expected
Secretary
Senior Governance Officer
Christine Rothwell
Expected
Vice-Chair
Councillor Nigel Cannings
Absent
Committee Member
Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods, Planning and Public Health
Committee Member
Councillor Aimee Dickson
Present, as expected
Committee Member
Councillor Debbie Hutchinson
Apologies
Committee Member
Councillor Emma Muddiman-Rawlins
Present, as expected
Committee Member
Councillor Thomas Noon
Present, as expected
Agenda
0
A. Reports where the public and press may not be excluded.
1
Apologies for absence.
Minutes
2
To consider the extent to which the public and press are to be excluded from the meeting.
Minutes
There were no items on the agenda.
3
Declarations of Interest, if any.
Minutes
There were no declarations made.
4
Minutes of the meeting held on 1st August 2024
Attachments:
Minutes
RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting held on 1st August 2024, be agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.
5
Public Statements.
(A period not exceeding 20 minutes for statements from up to 5 members of the public on matters within the Panel’s remit, proposing action(s) which may be considered or contribute towards the future development of the Panel’s work programme).
Minutes
There were no public statements.
6
Road Safety Issues
Attachments:
- Document C&E O&S Safer Roads Report DS App 1024 11 Oct 2024
- Document C&E O&S RS Pres DS app 1024 ver 1 11 Oct 2024
Minutes
The Panel received a presentation from a Principle Engineer to accompany the information set out in the report that examined the concerted efforts in creating safer roads and a well managed highway network.
The following areas were addressed by the Panel, in detail:
Vision Zero
Killed and seriously injured – the Panel noted the target to reduce by 50% and in response to a question it was report that the following statistics were from 2023:
South Yorkshire wide = 39 fatal and 802 seriously injured
Doncaster area = 5 fatal and 211 seriously injured
It was noted that there was still a lot of work to be undertaken to meet the target of 397 killed and seriously injured set out in the County wide strategy in 2022 and unfortunately current figures were approximately 830 in the last calendar year.
Crucial Crew – The Panel accepted that further information would be provided following the meeting but noted that nearly every child in year 6 had engaged with this scheme. With regard to the schools that had not taken part in the scheme, they were being contacted to encourage engagement.
With regard to community perceptions and feeling safe, it was noted that there were lots of variations that contributed to the strategic views and actions but the response needed to be consistent and persistent. For example action taken to address the “Car Meets” required highlighting in communities. If there were continuing road safety issues then a problem solving approach, using information and analysis would be undertaken.
In relation to road accidents partners worked together to analyse the incident, addressing common factors and driver error. If an accident was driver error then changes would not be made to the highway. It was noted that if obstructions on highways were implemented this could ultimately make driving conditions more difficult increasing the severity of potential accidents. It was noted that information was currently being provided to driving instructors to assist with educating new drivers.
Road Safety Engineering
Accessibility for disabled footpath and road users – Members noted that since 1995 accessibility, tactile paving and DDA compliance had been included in all new projects. Since that time there had been many guidance notes from the Department for Transport, the latest of which was 2021 and included in design projects. It was noted that when a scheme was designed (including Major Projects) local groups were approached for comment, for example, representing people who were visually impaired, to gain as much information as possible to provide the best possible solution.
The Panel learnt that all information and design of a proposed scheme were considered by Road Safety Audit, undertaken by an independent advisor and any omissions would be highlighted as part of the Audit. The highway designer then has a legal obligation to make a response to comments on the scheme’s Audit.
With regard to the Road Safety Policy it was noted that this and a number of other highway policies were currently being developed, including accessibility.
Road Safety Audit – Further to the information already discussed the Road Safety Audit stages were outlined as follows:
Stage 1 – desktop exercise that sets out the aspirations of the scheme, with the auditor highlighting any issues for further consideration;
Stage 2 – construction stage. A site visit undertaken by the auditor and make comment on the detailed design; and
Stage 3 – On completion – The audit team examine the scheme in detail with any issues highlighted and provide proposed amendments required.
Once completed the Road Safety report was legally binding.
Changes to speed limits – the Panel noted that there was no one element that decided whether speeds limits should be changed but when addressing if a speed limit required changing, data, evidence gathered from partners and the Department for Transport guidance were all taken into account and analysed. For example, following an accident, investigations would be undertaken to ascertain whether it was driver error, road conditions or speed limits etc. Members of the Panel provided examples where the community perceived that roads were dangerous due to drivers speeding, which were noted by officers.
Speed humps – following a Member seeking clarification on this type of traffic calming measure, its was explained that the Local Authority had moved away from such engineering schemes due to the high cost. Each traffic calming scheme was addressed on a case by case basis with other appropriate measures being developed.
Bus stops with no defined lines – in response to a question it was explained that some bus stops had line definition to ensure vehicles do not park in that area leaving it clear for buses to stop. This was called a bus stop clearway and was delivered in two forms as follows:
1. 24 hour clearway simply used the road markings; and
2. Time restricted, using the road markings and road sign that detailed the restriction times.
If a bus company raised an issue about accessing bus stops with the local authority, it would be investigated.
Pre-adopted roads on new housing estates – it was reported that road safety on pre-adopted roads was the responsibility of the land owner but officers provided a link between the land owner and Council. It was noted that the local authority could not dictate what was undertaken on private land unless it was detailed in a planning application however, if for example, residents were requesting double yellow lines the local authority would investigate with the developer to ascertain whether the scheme requested could be introduced in readiness for the road to be adopted.
A19 improvements – it was noted that finance for the project had been made available this year and pre-planning had just commenced. The Panel noted that all Ward Members would be contacted in the near future once the scheme had been drawn up.
Road safety education
Funding – It was reported that the Bikeability cycle training scheme was funded via Central Government. Road safety education was delivered by local authority staff and funded through the Council’s revenue streams.
CCTV cameras dedicated to schools – It was outlined that there were only 8 cameras available to cover 150 schools across Doncaster. When agreeing where the cameras should be sited, this was intelligence led, including looking at the number of complaints received from schools, working with the safer road team and reports of inappropriate parking outside schools. To be able set the cameras in place, street lamps to erect the cameras to and clear visibility were required. When in place and operating they were effective with monitoring identifying inappropriate parking spikes.
The cameras were moved every school term if possible and if problems persisted then they would remain for a longer time period. Communication was undertaken with schools to ensure they were aware of the cameras being sited. It was noted that one camera had been cut down but generally the use of cameras had been positive. It was also noted that when cameras were installed traffic enforcement camera signs must also be erected, and remained in place giving the road safety team the opportunity to reinstall the cameras if required. It was confirmed that the signs had not been erected outside all 150 schools but only where problems had been identified and in conjunction with CCTV installation.
In response to a member questioning the cost relating to mobile CCTV school cameras and revenue generated since implementation, it was noted that a written response would be provided following the meeting.
Traffic Regulation Order initiative around schools – it was reported that the idea behind the school streets was to close the road to any moving traffic, providing prohibition of driving to eliminate people parking on double yellow lines and parking immediately outside school. It was hoped that once the experimental TROs were in place data would be available within 18 months, examined and assessed as to whether the TROs were achieving aims of the experiment.
School parking education – It was reported that Doncaster Council banners were placed on school fences highlighting safe parking around schools. Members were asked to contact officers if there were schools where they were not displayed. The local authority worked in partnerships with schools and provided road safety leaflets, particularly for new parents.
With regard to whether safe parking was included in speed awareness courses, this could not be confirmed. It was also noted that speeding was not generally a factor outside schools. South Yorkshire Police had undertaken a lot of road safety sessions at schools and supported partnership initiatives where children have written and issued parking tickets to parents.
Road safety consultation with young people – the Panel noted that officers would investigate as to whether consultation was undertaken with the Youth Council and other young people in schools, following the meeting. In the past there have been initiatives with community police officers and young people using the speed cameras to highlight speed awareness and safe driving around schools. It was noted that during the first round of enforcement cameras children from Spa Academy created a video highlighting poor parking decisions around their school.
School Crossing Patrol Wardens – It was confirm that the local authority still employed people to undertake this role but with regard to the number of vacancies and recruitment, it was agreed that a response would be provided following the meeting. It was noted that there was a national problem in terms of recruitment generally due to the hours people were asked to work. Doncaster’s position could not be provided at the meeting but generally it was acknowledged that it was a role that retired people used to undertake. It was also noted that there was a move generally to look at other means of crossing, for example, pedestrian crossings with traffic lights.
To conclude the discussion on road safety education, a Member questioned whether the Bikeability and Crucial crew initiatives were reaching out to SEND schools and home schooling networks. Unfortunately this could not be answered during the meeting, but would be investigated.
Traffic Management
Time period for a TRO to become effective – if a road required this intervention, the time period was dependent on the complexities of each individual order. It was confirmed that the consultation period was 28 days but issues including resolving complicated objections could take a long period to resolve.
Newly designed roads – a Member expressed concern that due to changes in the highway code about priority for pedestrians at junctions, and described a problem with a recently resurfaced road. With regard to the design of the road the officer would address this outside the meeting.
Vegetation and trees obscuring road signs – a Member sought clarification on who addressed this problem and the Panel learnt that if it was vegetation or a tree on Council land then the local authority would rectify the position. If the vegetation or tree was privately owned the local authority would ask the owner to undertake the works. It was explained that monthly safety inspections of the classified highway network were undertaken with the remainder of the network having at least a yearly inspection. Reports from members of the public were also investigated and responded to. It was noted that the local authority held a soft enforcement approach to vegetation on the highway by writing to residents giving them 14 days to take out necessary works. If compliance was not met then a legal notice would be served and if still not undertaken, the works would be undertaken by the Council on a rechargeable basis. It was noted that overgrown vegetation was obviously seasonal and high on the list of issues to address in the growing season. Educational material was issued regularly to try and ensure residents regularly cut back their trees and hedges.
It was noted that if a member of the public wished to report overgrown vegetation they could report it through the central telephone number 01924 736000.
With regard to active speed cameras both static and on mobile routes it was reported that South Yorkshire Police and the local authority held a close working relationship and would bring overgrown vegetation to their attention if it was impacting on a speed camera’s ability to work.
Parking Service Enforcement
Penalty Charge Notices (PCN) – In response to a question it was confirmed that out of the 17,000 PCN’s 12034 were issued in the City centre and of those 9336 that were associated with contraventions on street, the remaining PCNs were in pay and display car parks. Car parks managed outside the City centre were free provision to assist the economy in towns and villages across the City area. It was noted that the City centre had more parking restrictions in place than in outlying areas.
With regard to how the Parking Services Team cover the City area, it was outlined that 14 officers operated mobile beats. They worked on intelligence led data and complaints to address hotspot locations. Parking enforcement was supported by the sub contractor, “Wise”, to enhance environmental crime for example, littering. It was noted however that the local authority had utilised the service to operate across the City area, by addressing people parking on double yellow lines, in taxi ranks and loading bays. It was highlighted that any vehicle, including taxis and local authority vehicles, if they had not been granted permission, would be issued with a PCN if in contravention of the parking regulations.
In relation to obstructive parking it was noted that there were two elements, if there was obstructive parking where there was a restriction in place, that was the local authority’s responsibility to enforce, if there were no restrictions then the local authority would work in partnership with South Yorkshire Police to address the issue. It was confirmed that any contravention or obstructive parking required witnessing by an authorised officer for action to be taken. Panel Members were encouraged to report repetitive parking contraventions to help the team build evidence of hotspot and problematic areas.
Enforcement by South Yorkshire Police
Community Speed Watch and speed cameras – with regard to the time period for speed cameras to be erected following a request, it was confirmed that there was no set time frame due to each case being different. It was explained that there was a set process to follow once a request had been made by the community, with different elements being analysed before a decision was made to provide speed cameras or community intervention. It was noted that South Yorkshire Police now utilised an IT platform that provided annual speeds undertaken by motorists for stretches of road and if the average speed exceeds the threshold then a review of the road could be undertaken.
Mobile cameras could not be adopted on a permanent site but were used in such a way that data and information from areas of concern were analysed by partners to provide sporadic enforcement on certain roads.
With regard to Community Speed Watch a scheme was currently being developed through the Policing community teams and would be subject to the demand within that team across the City area. If it was agreed that the scheme was centrally managed its siting could be achieved within a couple of weeks of request, but it was noted there would be an initial cost outlay for equipment. With regard to the length of time it had recently taken for an area to receive this initiative, it was noted that some of the equipment required recalibrating. Members noted that Community Speed Watch was required to be independent of any officers and run by volunteers. It was explained that a paper on the initiative was being presented to the South Yorkshire Executive Team and once the position was known it would provide further clarity for local groups that wished to be involved.
Retro Mike – In response to a question relating to whether police officers would be working with mechanical garages, it was explained that to do this officers would need to be removed from patrolling the streets. It was noted however that there were a number of officers that were interested in modified vehicles and therefore used that interest as a common ground to work with the people who were driving such vehicles. With regards to mechanical garages they were required to work in line with the Driver Standards Agency.
Use of HGV wagon to identify people committing motoring offences – It was reported that there were two operations, one that was run by SY Police used as part of a suite of operations a couple of times per month. This initiative was held as good practice and championed by partners. The second operation was the National Highways unmarked HGV, rented out to all Police Forces and run 5 to 6 times per year in Doncaster.
With regard to how often remote speed cameras were used at night compared to during the day, it was explained that there were speed check capabilities available 24 hours 7 days a week. Night-time speeding was generally seen during car meetings where police vehicles had the capability to record speeding.
Tackling Crime
Off-road motor bikes – In response to how this crime was addressed and intervention prioritised, it was recognised and explained that off-road bikes were a blight across South Yorkshire, particularly within the farming community where crops were regularly damaged. There was an active Team that had access to off road and quad bikes to respond to the issue appropriately. Other resources to tackle the threat included investigative approaches across neighbourhoods ensuring a well developed plan deployed to catch the offenders. Members were pleased to note that there had been some positive arrests recently with prosecutions being sought.
A Member expressed concern with regard to the off-road bikes being linked to organised crime groups (OCGs). It was confirmed there were approximately 14 OCGs in Doncaster particularly in the north and eastern parts of the area. The OCGs were involved with serious acquisitive crime and had access to a number of different weapons. There was a separate and dedicated response Team to address this crime.
Uninsured drivers – A member referred to an article relating to the high number in Doncaster and in response South Yorkshire Police were unaware of the article but it was a statistic that the Force would use to put measures in place to address. Within the motor insurance bureau there was police liaison that identified hotspot areas which in turn assisted the neighbourhood teams to act on the information and ultimately reduce the number of deaths and serious injury.
Vehicle related burglary – It was explained that there had been some spikes in this type of crime and could be attributed to OCGs, but due to the geography of the area the criminality could also stem from West Yorkshire. It was noted that this issue was being addressed regionally.
RESOLVED that: the Panel agreed that it had given appropriate consideration to the information provided and continued to support:-
1. The Safer Roads service deliveryincollaboration with councillors and communities;
2. Working with partners on the country wide strategy for vision zero; and
3. Further investments into road safety education.
The following areas were addressed by the Panel, in detail:
Vision Zero
Killed and seriously injured – the Panel noted the target to reduce by 50% and in response to a question it was report that the following statistics were from 2023:
South Yorkshire wide = 39 fatal and 802 seriously injured
Doncaster area = 5 fatal and 211 seriously injured
It was noted that there was still a lot of work to be undertaken to meet the target of 397 killed and seriously injured set out in the County wide strategy in 2022 and unfortunately current figures were approximately 830 in the last calendar year.
Crucial Crew – The Panel accepted that further information would be provided following the meeting but noted that nearly every child in year 6 had engaged with this scheme. With regard to the schools that had not taken part in the scheme, they were being contacted to encourage engagement.
With regard to community perceptions and feeling safe, it was noted that there were lots of variations that contributed to the strategic views and actions but the response needed to be consistent and persistent. For example action taken to address the “Car Meets” required highlighting in communities. If there were continuing road safety issues then a problem solving approach, using information and analysis would be undertaken.
In relation to road accidents partners worked together to analyse the incident, addressing common factors and driver error. If an accident was driver error then changes would not be made to the highway. It was noted that if obstructions on highways were implemented this could ultimately make driving conditions more difficult increasing the severity of potential accidents. It was noted that information was currently being provided to driving instructors to assist with educating new drivers.
Road Safety Engineering
Accessibility for disabled footpath and road users – Members noted that since 1995 accessibility, tactile paving and DDA compliance had been included in all new projects. Since that time there had been many guidance notes from the Department for Transport, the latest of which was 2021 and included in design projects. It was noted that when a scheme was designed (including Major Projects) local groups were approached for comment, for example, representing people who were visually impaired, to gain as much information as possible to provide the best possible solution.
The Panel learnt that all information and design of a proposed scheme were considered by Road Safety Audit, undertaken by an independent advisor and any omissions would be highlighted as part of the Audit. The highway designer then has a legal obligation to make a response to comments on the scheme’s Audit.
With regard to the Road Safety Policy it was noted that this and a number of other highway policies were currently being developed, including accessibility.
Road Safety Audit – Further to the information already discussed the Road Safety Audit stages were outlined as follows:
Stage 1 – desktop exercise that sets out the aspirations of the scheme, with the auditor highlighting any issues for further consideration;
Stage 2 – construction stage. A site visit undertaken by the auditor and make comment on the detailed design; and
Stage 3 – On completion – The audit team examine the scheme in detail with any issues highlighted and provide proposed amendments required.
Once completed the Road Safety report was legally binding.
Changes to speed limits – the Panel noted that there was no one element that decided whether speeds limits should be changed but when addressing if a speed limit required changing, data, evidence gathered from partners and the Department for Transport guidance were all taken into account and analysed. For example, following an accident, investigations would be undertaken to ascertain whether it was driver error, road conditions or speed limits etc. Members of the Panel provided examples where the community perceived that roads were dangerous due to drivers speeding, which were noted by officers.
Speed humps – following a Member seeking clarification on this type of traffic calming measure, its was explained that the Local Authority had moved away from such engineering schemes due to the high cost. Each traffic calming scheme was addressed on a case by case basis with other appropriate measures being developed.
Bus stops with no defined lines – in response to a question it was explained that some bus stops had line definition to ensure vehicles do not park in that area leaving it clear for buses to stop. This was called a bus stop clearway and was delivered in two forms as follows:
1. 24 hour clearway simply used the road markings; and
2. Time restricted, using the road markings and road sign that detailed the restriction times.
If a bus company raised an issue about accessing bus stops with the local authority, it would be investigated.
Pre-adopted roads on new housing estates – it was reported that road safety on pre-adopted roads was the responsibility of the land owner but officers provided a link between the land owner and Council. It was noted that the local authority could not dictate what was undertaken on private land unless it was detailed in a planning application however, if for example, residents were requesting double yellow lines the local authority would investigate with the developer to ascertain whether the scheme requested could be introduced in readiness for the road to be adopted.
A19 improvements – it was noted that finance for the project had been made available this year and pre-planning had just commenced. The Panel noted that all Ward Members would be contacted in the near future once the scheme had been drawn up.
Road safety education
Funding – It was reported that the Bikeability cycle training scheme was funded via Central Government. Road safety education was delivered by local authority staff and funded through the Council’s revenue streams.
CCTV cameras dedicated to schools – It was outlined that there were only 8 cameras available to cover 150 schools across Doncaster. When agreeing where the cameras should be sited, this was intelligence led, including looking at the number of complaints received from schools, working with the safer road team and reports of inappropriate parking outside schools. To be able set the cameras in place, street lamps to erect the cameras to and clear visibility were required. When in place and operating they were effective with monitoring identifying inappropriate parking spikes.
The cameras were moved every school term if possible and if problems persisted then they would remain for a longer time period. Communication was undertaken with schools to ensure they were aware of the cameras being sited. It was noted that one camera had been cut down but generally the use of cameras had been positive. It was also noted that when cameras were installed traffic enforcement camera signs must also be erected, and remained in place giving the road safety team the opportunity to reinstall the cameras if required. It was confirmed that the signs had not been erected outside all 150 schools but only where problems had been identified and in conjunction with CCTV installation.
In response to a member questioning the cost relating to mobile CCTV school cameras and revenue generated since implementation, it was noted that a written response would be provided following the meeting.
Traffic Regulation Order initiative around schools – it was reported that the idea behind the school streets was to close the road to any moving traffic, providing prohibition of driving to eliminate people parking on double yellow lines and parking immediately outside school. It was hoped that once the experimental TROs were in place data would be available within 18 months, examined and assessed as to whether the TROs were achieving aims of the experiment.
School parking education – It was reported that Doncaster Council banners were placed on school fences highlighting safe parking around schools. Members were asked to contact officers if there were schools where they were not displayed. The local authority worked in partnerships with schools and provided road safety leaflets, particularly for new parents.
With regard to whether safe parking was included in speed awareness courses, this could not be confirmed. It was also noted that speeding was not generally a factor outside schools. South Yorkshire Police had undertaken a lot of road safety sessions at schools and supported partnership initiatives where children have written and issued parking tickets to parents.
Road safety consultation with young people – the Panel noted that officers would investigate as to whether consultation was undertaken with the Youth Council and other young people in schools, following the meeting. In the past there have been initiatives with community police officers and young people using the speed cameras to highlight speed awareness and safe driving around schools. It was noted that during the first round of enforcement cameras children from Spa Academy created a video highlighting poor parking decisions around their school.
School Crossing Patrol Wardens – It was confirm that the local authority still employed people to undertake this role but with regard to the number of vacancies and recruitment, it was agreed that a response would be provided following the meeting. It was noted that there was a national problem in terms of recruitment generally due to the hours people were asked to work. Doncaster’s position could not be provided at the meeting but generally it was acknowledged that it was a role that retired people used to undertake. It was also noted that there was a move generally to look at other means of crossing, for example, pedestrian crossings with traffic lights.
To conclude the discussion on road safety education, a Member questioned whether the Bikeability and Crucial crew initiatives were reaching out to SEND schools and home schooling networks. Unfortunately this could not be answered during the meeting, but would be investigated.
Traffic Management
Time period for a TRO to become effective – if a road required this intervention, the time period was dependent on the complexities of each individual order. It was confirmed that the consultation period was 28 days but issues including resolving complicated objections could take a long period to resolve.
Newly designed roads – a Member expressed concern that due to changes in the highway code about priority for pedestrians at junctions, and described a problem with a recently resurfaced road. With regard to the design of the road the officer would address this outside the meeting.
Vegetation and trees obscuring road signs – a Member sought clarification on who addressed this problem and the Panel learnt that if it was vegetation or a tree on Council land then the local authority would rectify the position. If the vegetation or tree was privately owned the local authority would ask the owner to undertake the works. It was explained that monthly safety inspections of the classified highway network were undertaken with the remainder of the network having at least a yearly inspection. Reports from members of the public were also investigated and responded to. It was noted that the local authority held a soft enforcement approach to vegetation on the highway by writing to residents giving them 14 days to take out necessary works. If compliance was not met then a legal notice would be served and if still not undertaken, the works would be undertaken by the Council on a rechargeable basis. It was noted that overgrown vegetation was obviously seasonal and high on the list of issues to address in the growing season. Educational material was issued regularly to try and ensure residents regularly cut back their trees and hedges.
It was noted that if a member of the public wished to report overgrown vegetation they could report it through the central telephone number 01924 736000.
With regard to active speed cameras both static and on mobile routes it was reported that South Yorkshire Police and the local authority held a close working relationship and would bring overgrown vegetation to their attention if it was impacting on a speed camera’s ability to work.
Parking Service Enforcement
Penalty Charge Notices (PCN) – In response to a question it was confirmed that out of the 17,000 PCN’s 12034 were issued in the City centre and of those 9336 that were associated with contraventions on street, the remaining PCNs were in pay and display car parks. Car parks managed outside the City centre were free provision to assist the economy in towns and villages across the City area. It was noted that the City centre had more parking restrictions in place than in outlying areas.
With regard to how the Parking Services Team cover the City area, it was outlined that 14 officers operated mobile beats. They worked on intelligence led data and complaints to address hotspot locations. Parking enforcement was supported by the sub contractor, “Wise”, to enhance environmental crime for example, littering. It was noted however that the local authority had utilised the service to operate across the City area, by addressing people parking on double yellow lines, in taxi ranks and loading bays. It was highlighted that any vehicle, including taxis and local authority vehicles, if they had not been granted permission, would be issued with a PCN if in contravention of the parking regulations.
In relation to obstructive parking it was noted that there were two elements, if there was obstructive parking where there was a restriction in place, that was the local authority’s responsibility to enforce, if there were no restrictions then the local authority would work in partnership with South Yorkshire Police to address the issue. It was confirmed that any contravention or obstructive parking required witnessing by an authorised officer for action to be taken. Panel Members were encouraged to report repetitive parking contraventions to help the team build evidence of hotspot and problematic areas.
Enforcement by South Yorkshire Police
Community Speed Watch and speed cameras – with regard to the time period for speed cameras to be erected following a request, it was confirmed that there was no set time frame due to each case being different. It was explained that there was a set process to follow once a request had been made by the community, with different elements being analysed before a decision was made to provide speed cameras or community intervention. It was noted that South Yorkshire Police now utilised an IT platform that provided annual speeds undertaken by motorists for stretches of road and if the average speed exceeds the threshold then a review of the road could be undertaken.
Mobile cameras could not be adopted on a permanent site but were used in such a way that data and information from areas of concern were analysed by partners to provide sporadic enforcement on certain roads.
With regard to Community Speed Watch a scheme was currently being developed through the Policing community teams and would be subject to the demand within that team across the City area. If it was agreed that the scheme was centrally managed its siting could be achieved within a couple of weeks of request, but it was noted there would be an initial cost outlay for equipment. With regard to the length of time it had recently taken for an area to receive this initiative, it was noted that some of the equipment required recalibrating. Members noted that Community Speed Watch was required to be independent of any officers and run by volunteers. It was explained that a paper on the initiative was being presented to the South Yorkshire Executive Team and once the position was known it would provide further clarity for local groups that wished to be involved.
Retro Mike – In response to a question relating to whether police officers would be working with mechanical garages, it was explained that to do this officers would need to be removed from patrolling the streets. It was noted however that there were a number of officers that were interested in modified vehicles and therefore used that interest as a common ground to work with the people who were driving such vehicles. With regards to mechanical garages they were required to work in line with the Driver Standards Agency.
Use of HGV wagon to identify people committing motoring offences – It was reported that there were two operations, one that was run by SY Police used as part of a suite of operations a couple of times per month. This initiative was held as good practice and championed by partners. The second operation was the National Highways unmarked HGV, rented out to all Police Forces and run 5 to 6 times per year in Doncaster.
With regard to how often remote speed cameras were used at night compared to during the day, it was explained that there were speed check capabilities available 24 hours 7 days a week. Night-time speeding was generally seen during car meetings where police vehicles had the capability to record speeding.
Tackling Crime
Off-road motor bikes – In response to how this crime was addressed and intervention prioritised, it was recognised and explained that off-road bikes were a blight across South Yorkshire, particularly within the farming community where crops were regularly damaged. There was an active Team that had access to off road and quad bikes to respond to the issue appropriately. Other resources to tackle the threat included investigative approaches across neighbourhoods ensuring a well developed plan deployed to catch the offenders. Members were pleased to note that there had been some positive arrests recently with prosecutions being sought.
A Member expressed concern with regard to the off-road bikes being linked to organised crime groups (OCGs). It was confirmed there were approximately 14 OCGs in Doncaster particularly in the north and eastern parts of the area. The OCGs were involved with serious acquisitive crime and had access to a number of different weapons. There was a separate and dedicated response Team to address this crime.
Uninsured drivers – A member referred to an article relating to the high number in Doncaster and in response South Yorkshire Police were unaware of the article but it was a statistic that the Force would use to put measures in place to address. Within the motor insurance bureau there was police liaison that identified hotspot areas which in turn assisted the neighbourhood teams to act on the information and ultimately reduce the number of deaths and serious injury.
Vehicle related burglary – It was explained that there had been some spikes in this type of crime and could be attributed to OCGs, but due to the geography of the area the criminality could also stem from West Yorkshire. It was noted that this issue was being addressed regionally.
RESOLVED that: the Panel agreed that it had given appropriate consideration to the information provided and continued to support:-
1. The Safer Roads service deliveryincollaboration with councillors and communities;
2. Working with partners on the country wide strategy for vision zero; and
3. Further investments into road safety education.
7
Overview and Scrutiny Work Plan and Council's Forward Plan of Key Decisions
Attachments:
- Document MASTER WORK PLAN FINAL 202425 11 Oct 2024
- Document Forward Plan 1 Nov_28 Feb 2025 Cabinet 11 Oct 2024
Minutes
The Senior Governance Officer presented the Scrutiny Work Plan and Council’s Forward Plan of Key Decisions to the Panel for its consideration.
The Panel requested if a briefing on road maintenance could be added to the 14th January 2025 briefing session.
RESOLVED: That the report, be noted and a briefing note on road maintenance be requested for the briefing meeting scheduled for 14th January 2025.
The Panel requested if a briefing on road maintenance could be added to the 14th January 2025 briefing session.
RESOLVED: That the report, be noted and a briefing note on road maintenance be requested for the briefing meeting scheduled for 14th January 2025.
Previous Meetings
Join the Discussion
You need to be signed in to comment.
Sign in