PC HIGHWAYS POWERS AND CIL MONEY

Question

My understanding is that for a PC without the GPC it can only contribute to Highways "traffic calming " schemes and the erection of signs which advise of danger.   It does seem however that getting a precise definition of what traffic calming  includes and excludes is difficult . My Council has a budget for a generic  road safety heading  and seems to feel that for example installing a new kerbed footway is acceptable.  We are now being presented with CIL policy which clearly states it  can be spent on highways dedicated   pedestrian improvement  highways schemes.

Any views on what traffic calming excludes and if for example it excludes  dedicated  pedestrian schemes can the  CIL policy therefore  be acceptable? Hope that's clear

Answer 1

The Highways Act gives the following definition. So it specifically states vehicular or other traffic. So that could include pedestrian traffic. Also note that highway includes the footpath (and often the verge too). So yes a kerbed footway if the intention is to improve the safety for pedestrians would seem to fall under traffic calming works.

“ traffic calming works ”, in relation to a highway, means works affecting the movement of vehicular or other traffic for the purpose of— 

(a)

promoting safety (including avoiding or reducing, or reducing the likelihood of, danger connected with terrorism within the meaning of section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (c. 11)), or

(b)

preserving or improving the environment through which the highway runs;]

Comments

Got it HA 1980 S329 thanks

Answer 2

This is one of those issues that falls between the various legislative powers.

Traffic calming, as has been stated, must affect the movement of vehicular or other traffic and improve safety as a result. Traffic calming measures are defined in the Highways (Traffic Calming) Regulations 1999. In my opinion, a new footway is unlikely to be considered as traffic calming, unless the road becomes narrower as a result of installing it, so I'd be reluctant to rely on S274A for this. There is S43, which embodies the power to maintain footpaths, but not to install or improve them.

As is so often the case, we find ourselves reverting to our old friend S137, although expenditure is limited and highway works are frighteningly costly, so this is not always a reliable fallback. If all else fails, there's the catch-all S111.

Comments

S43 would be of no use. Footpaths and footways aka pavements are two completely different things. S43 think of rights of way across fields etc, not a pavement running alongside a highway.

---

Beat me to in AR.  DTC as an afterthought we seem to have regularly negotiated the painting of double yellow lines and various parking schemes  and paid for them all under the generic title of road safety . Is there a specific power for that or is it 137 again?