14-2016 – Community Speed Watch – 22 March 2016
Executive Summary and Recommendation:
Following a Community Speed Watch (CSW) pilot scheme that operated between March and September 2015, across four districts in North Yorkshire (Selby, Harrogate, Hambleton and York), this Decision Notice recommends the full roll out of CSW across North Yorkshire.
Communities have told us that road safety, and speeding in particular, is a serious concern for them in their local areas. We will invest in a Community Speed Watch scheme across North Yorkshire. This will be managed and administered through additional employed staff in our Central Traffic Bureau and involve community volunteers at the roadside monitoring and recording speeding violations. Community volunteers will be fully supported by an employed volunteer co-ordinator.
There are financial implications in this Decision Notice, most notably capital investment for equipment and revenue costs for staffing to support the scheme. The Delivery Plan, including community roll out, can be seen at Appendix 1.
The public, during consultation with the Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) in July 2014 have been clear that road safety in North Yorkshire is a top priority and feedback for CSW has been positive throughout the pilot.
Decision
Police and Crime Commissioner decision: Approved
Signature: 
Date: 22 March 2016
Title: Police and Crime Commissioner
1. Introduction and Background
Speeding or perceived speeding is one of the factors that most affects the quality of life in communities and is a significant concern for many people in North Yorkshire. A road survey undertaken by the Commissioner in 2014 showed:
- 80 percent of respondents were concerned about road safety in North Yorkshire
- 72 percent believed that more needed to be done to improve road safety through education and enforcement
The Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) supported the introduction of a CSW pilot scheme, to ascertain whether it can assist in reducing speeding concerns on the County’s roads and improve the quality of life in towns and villages that have a real or perceived speeding problem. The six month pilot was launched in North Yorkshire in March 2015.
North Yorkshire Police are committed to providing an effective policing response to their public’s needs and priorities. Policing the roads effectively in North Yorkshire goes to the heart of meeting these priorities and as such a wide reaching strategy has been agreed. The ‘Policing the Roads Strategy 2015 – 2020’, led by Deputy Chief Constable Tim Madgwick QPM and NPCC Motorcycling Lead, sets the ongoing direction for focused activity up to 2020. The overarching vision is:
‘To provide an efficient and effective policing response to all road users and communities within North Yorkshire’
CSW forms part of that response and has been operating successfully in a number of other police force areas for some time.
A commitment was made in NYP to consider a CSW scheme. Following liaison with forces already managing such schemes, it was agreed a similar scheme should be made available in North Yorkshire, allowing members of the public to be active in the education of road users in their own community. Subsequently, a working group was established to implement the pilot scheme. The working group was made up of the Deputy Head of Police Volunteers, staff from the OPCC, operational and non- operational police officers and police staff.
This scheme supports the Police and Crime Plan ‘Priority 3’ – Prevention and Early Intervention. This priority specifically looks to develop effective strategies to keep all road users safe and to improve engagement with communities. This is achieved in the CSW scheme by engagement with NYP through Police Volunteers and direct contact with the Traffic Bureau.
Recommendation – Full roll out of Community Speed Watch (county-wide) within the Speed Management Protocol.
1.1 Description
Community Speed Watch has been well received by those who have taken part. Improvements have been suggested following a comprehensive benefits review, and this will make Community Speed Watch a simple, practical and effective way for communities to improve road safety.
1.2 SWOT Analysis
Strengths:
|
Weaknesses:
|
Opportunities:
|
Threats:
|
The Speed Management Protocol mentioned in the table above can be seen at Appendix 2.
Although the recommendation stated above is for a full roll out of Community Speed Watch within the Speed Management Protocol, it has been agreed that where applications are received outside of the stipulated criteria, consideration will be given to making an offer of CSW, only where external influencing factors allow. This will only be done following a suitable risk assessment and where distinct circumstances mean it would be appropriate to do so.
1.3 Benefits
There are multiple benefits to the scheme operating this way. It is a genuinely ‘community led’ approach which helps to address a key priority for the public as well as supporting the Police and Crime Plan Priority 3.
Partnership working is promoted through direct community involvement. Support from Safer Neighbourhood Teams (SNTs) will also develop relationships between local officers and PCSOs and their communities.
CSW could provide opportunities for further community led schemes, as well as help to bring communities together.
1.4 Risks
The risks associated with this approach are mainly based around the cost implications incurred if the investment is to be at the right level to ensure a successful roll out. The community being involved in this type (or any type) of direct activity will always carry risk, although small, stills needs to be managed and monitored.
| Description | Probability | Impact | Possible Actions |
| As with any activity, there are risks that need to be managed. E.g. Personal Injury. | Low | Major | There will be a robust site risk assessment process, training and guidance for those taking part. |
1.5 Investment Appraisal:
We recommend that the CSW scheme is rolled out using the following option;
This fulfils the requirement of a force-wide roll out of the scheme, with sufficient staff support to oversee and monitor all CSW activities, ensure new schemes are established and the back office functions are completed. 3 FTEs will ensure that there is cover for all groups during the week, with the flexibility to work weekends.
Using an initial 20 sets of equipment for 20 CSW schemes, the below capital is required. The rationale for 20 sets of equipment is that this figure is seen as manageable in the first instance. Less than 20 may not fulfil demand: more than 20 may result in surplus equipment. Additionally, the right level of infrastructure to disseminate the equipment and to train those who will be utilising it is required.
| Scale | Year 0 15/16 |
Year 1 16/17 |
Year 2 17/18 |
|
| Dedicated CSW Co-ordinator (incl. weekend working if required) | Sc 5 | £30,937 | £30,937 | |
| CSW Administrators ( 2x 0.75 FTE) | Sc 2/3 | £34,239 | £34,239 | |
| TOTAL EMPLOYEE COSTS | £65,176 | £65,176 | ||
| Startraq – CSW Module (allows for up to 40,000 violations per year) | £13,000 | £13,000 | ||
| Postage Costs | £10,400 | £20,800 | ||
| Stationary, Paper & Photocopying Costs | £1,600 | £3,200 | ||
| Repairs & Maintenance of Radars | £2,000 | £4,000 | ||
| Volunteer & Staff Travel Expenses | £1,480 | £1,480 | ||
| Office Equipment & Furniture | £620 | |||
| TOTAL SUPPLIES AND SERVICES | £620 | £28,480 | £42,480 | |
| Purchase of Handheld Radars & Equipment Costs | £20,000 | £20,000 | ||
| IT equipment (office computers) | £1,600 | |||
| TOTAL CAPITAL | £21,600 | £20,000 | £0 | |
| TOTAL EXPENDITURE | £22,220 | £113,656 | £107,656 | |
2. Other Options Considered
Other options considered:
2.1. Not proceeding with the scheme. (NOT RECOMMENDED)
Consideration was given to whether the CSW scheme should continue despite it having proved to be successful.
This is not recommended as the public are quite clear they would like to see more done to tackle road safety and it will be seen as a retrograde step should NYP not progress the scheme.
2.2. Full roll out, but outside the Speed Management Protocol. (NOT RECOMMENDED)
Consideration was also given to a full roll out of the scheme, but for it to be completely independent and outside of the SMP. During the pilot, some sites in Selby had not been through the SMP, so this approach has been tested.
This is not recommended as it does not allow for co-ordination within the Traffic Bureau and will potentially lead to a lack of consistency in how speed complaints are managed.
3. Contribution to Police and Crime Plan Priorities
Priority 3: Prevention and Early Intervention
CSW contributes to this priority by improving engagement and communication between the public and NYP. By reacting to the needs of the public in relation to road safety and providing an initiative which empowers local communities, positive relationships and opportunities for engagement between the public and NYP are formed.
This proactive response to improve road safety and reduce speed is an educative tool to raise awareness of drivers’ speed across North Yorkshire and York. As such, this acts as an early intervention method by reducing speed and potentially reducing the number of speed-related collisions in the long-term.
Corporate Priority – People First
CSW meets this priority by putting communities at the centre of speed reduction in their area. CSW develops relationships between the local public and NYP by empowering people to take responsibility for speeding issues in their locality, which is an issue of concern for many in North Yorkshire and York.
This active engagement shows that NYP is supporting its communities by providing a substantive response to road safety concerns.
5. Consultations Carried Out
Following the pilot and for the recommendation of this decision notice to roll out CSW in full, multiple stakeholders were consulted for their views on CSW as a solution to speeding issues in communities in North Yorkshire and York. The table below identifies those stakeholders:
| Stakeholders
|
Name | Comments / Feedback |
| Members of the Public | Road Safety Survey.
CSW members who were part of the pilot. CSW expressers of interest. |
|
| Working Group Members | Chief Inspector John Wilkinson
Police Sergeant Ed Simpson Chief of Staff Will Naylor (Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner) Sheree Evans, Case Worker Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner) Nigel Drayton (Deputy Head of Police Volunteers) Dave Brown (Traffic Bureau Manager) Andy Tooke (Criminal Justice Operations Manager) |
|
| Citizens in Policing | Mike Maiden, Chief Officer, Citizens in Policing | |
| Uniformed Operations | Safer Neighbourhood Team Inspectors and Sgts | |
| Road Safety Partners – ‘95 Alive’ | Steering Group (Strategic) | |
| Criminal Justice Department | Leanne McConnell | |
| Traffic Bureau | Andrew Tooke | |
| Corporate Communications | Louise Wood | |
| Human Resources | Rosemary Holmes | |
| Finance Department | Jane Palmer | |
| Legal Department | Jane Wintermeyer | |
| Unison | John Mackfall | |
| Federation | Mike Stubbs |
6. Compliance Checks
Financial Implications/Value for money:
The recurring revenue implications of this initial scheme can be funded from within the existing budget, utilising monies generated as a result of current road safety activities.
The capital spend will be funded from the Small Items Fund.
Legal Implications:
Having read this report and having considered such information as has been provided at the time of being asked to express this view, the Acting Force Solicitor and Head of Legal Services is satisfied that this report does not ask the PCC for North Yorkshire to make a decision which would (or would be likely to) give rise to a contravention of the law.
Human Resources Implications:
It is advised that any recruitment of police staff and volunteers needs to take account of appropriate policies and procedures in this regard.
Public Access to information
As a general principle, the Commissioner expects to be able to publish all decisions taken and all matters taken into account when reaching the decision. This Notice will detail all information which the Commissioner will disclose into the public domain. The decision and information will be made available on the Commissioner’s website.
Only where material is properly classified as Restricted under the Government Protective Marking Scheme or if that material falls within the description at 2(2) of The Elected Local Policing Bodies (Specified Information) Order 2011 will the Commissioner not disclose decisions and/or information provided to enable that decision to be made. In these instances, Part 2 will be used to detail those matters considered to be restricted. Information in Part 2 will not be published.
All decisions taken by the Commissioner will be subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).
Part 2
Is there a Part 2 to this Notice – NO
Report Information
Author(s) : PS 1792 Yvonne Taylor, Staff Officer to DCC Madgwick, PS 1579 Ed Simpson, Partnership Hub
Head of Department:
Executive Group Sponsor(s) : DCC Tim Madgwick
Date created: 4 February 2016
I confirm that all the above advice has been sought and received against this and any associated Part 2 information and I am satisfied that this is an appropriate request to be submitted for a decision
Signature: Y Taylor
Date: 7 March 2016
Download:
- Published on