The Highways Committee met to discuss traffic calming measures in Seaham and Langley Park, as well as proposed changes to the Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) in Durham City. The committee endorsed proposals for a one-way system and traffic calming on Ash Crescent, Seaham, and for traffic calming on C62 Low Moor Road, Langley Park. They also endorsed changes to the Durham City TRO, including an increase to the road user charge.

Durham City Road User Charge

The committee endorsed proposed changes to the Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) in Durham City, including increasing the road user charge from £2 to £5 and extending its operating hours from 10am-4pm to 10am-2am, seven days a week. The Market Place Pedestrian Zone will have reduced vehicle access times, from a continuous 18-hour period to two six-hour periods. Elvet Bridge Pedestrian Zone access times will be reduced from a 16-hour period to an eight-hour period.

The committee heard that the road user charge was introduced in Durham in 2002, and had been successful in reducing traffic entering the city peninsula by 90%. However, changes in city centre use since then, including more outlets trading seven days a week and increased evening goods deliveries, meant that the charges and charging period were no longer appropriate.

The council received 86 objections and 59 responses in favour of the changes. Objections related to the impact of the changes to access times, visual clutter of the signage and the congestion charge.

S Harrod, Headteacher of Choristers School, objected to the application, arguing that the proposals were disproportionate and created a barrier for parents. She said that the increased congestion in the Market Place would be compounded by the restrictions. She also raised safeguarding concerns about young children walking the river path area, which she said was poorly maintained, slippery and dark in winter.

H Vaughan, a parent at Choristers School, said that the increased road user charge for access to the Bailey was unreasonable and not in line with salary increases. She felt that the charge was a revenue-making exercise rather than a traffic calming measure.

A Birk, also spoke against the proposal, highlighting the financial impact of the increased road user charge on parents with children at Choristers School. He suggested a no-charge period between 4pm and 4:30pm to avoid penalising parents collecting children from school, or the installation of speed cushions to slow traffic.

The Strategic Traffic Manager, Dave Lewin, responded that the road would still be open to users, but the increased road user charge would be applied after 10am. He said that school pick-up fell within times of higher pedestrian activity, so the £5 road user charge would be applied.

Councillor Angela Sterling said that issues with school drop-off and pick-up were not a matter for the Highways Committee, as road safety was the priority.

Councillor Douglas Oliver noted that the congestion charge had remained at the same level since its introduction in Durham in 2002, and that it should be increased. He moved the recommendation to endorse the proposal. Councillor Arnie Simpson seconded the proposal.

The committee resolved to set aside the objections and endorse the proposal, in principle, which will then guide the Corporate Director in the exercise of delegated decision making.

C62 Low Moor Road, Langley Park - Proposed Traffic Calming

The committee endorsed the proposal to introduce traffic calming features in the form of speed cushions on C62 Low Moor Road between the chicane features of C62 Low Moor Road and Finings Avenue, Langley Park.

The Strategic Traffic Manager, Dave Lewin, said that the speed cushions would reduce vehicle speeds but would not affect larger vehicles, and that the scheme had been designed with similar distances between sets of cushions to deter drivers from accelerating between them.

The council received three objections from residents in the Langley Park area, relating to noise and vibration, vehicle emissions, lack of necessity and perceived increased danger to cyclists/motorcyclists.

A representation was read on behalf of Councillor Coult, Local Member for Esh and Witton Gilbert, who said that residents had contacted her on multiple occasions to express concerns about the speed of traffic on the C62 Low Moor Road. She said that the road had seen an increased volume of traffic due to a new housing development and motorists using it as a cut-through to other villages. She added that a 24/7 speed survey in 2021 found that 12% of motorists were travelling at more than 36mph.

Councillor Simpson spoke as Local Member for Esh and Witton Gilbert, adding that similar schemes in areas such as Framlington Moor had improved road safety and slowed traffic.

Mr Shaley, a resident of Low Moor Road, spoke against the application. He said that speed cushions would not affect larger vehicles and trailers, and that chicanes would be more effective at slowing speeding vehicles. He also suggested moving one of the speed cushions to reduce road noise to adjacent properties.

The Strategic Traffic Manager, Dave Lewin, responded that the measures were a recognised solution to slow the speed of cars and buses would not be impacted. He added that the emergency services had been consulted and had raised no concerns.

The Lawyer (Planning and Highways), Neil Carter, advised the committee that changes to the scheme were not under discussion and urged members to consider the current proposal.

Councillor Douglas Oliver raised concerns about the potential damage to vehicles travelling at under 30 miles per hour. The Strategic Traffic Manager, Dave Lewin, clarified that the measures met the national maximum height allowance and that potential noise and vehicle damage would depend on the speed of the driver. The Civil Engineering Technician, Regan Parker-Platt, added that the speed cushion design had a length and height allowance to minimise discomfort to bus passengers.

Councillor Phil Heaviside asked if the changes had been budgeted for. The Civil Engineering Technician, Regan Parker-Platt, responded that the measures would be funded through local members' budgets.

Councillor Oliver moved the proposal, and Councillor Olwyn Gunn seconded it.

The committee resolved to set aside objections and endorse the proposal, in principle, which will then guide the Corporate Director in the exercise of delegated decision making.

Ash Crescent, Seaham - Proposed One-Way System/No Entry and Traffic Calming

The committee endorsed a proposal to introduce a one-way system and traffic calming on Ash Crescent, Seaham. The proposal includes a one-way system/no entry restriction throughout Ash Crescent, supported by six speed humps.

The council says that Ash Crescent has been subject to multiple complaints regarding road safety due to increased on-street parking, which has reduced the carriageway width and led to conflicts between vehicles. Durham Constabulary supports the proposals.

The council received one objection to the proposal during the formal consultation stage. The objector raised concerns about the necessity of the one-way system, the potential for increased danger, noise and pollution from the speed cushions, and the reduction in available parking space. They also questioned whether any surveys had been conducted to justify the measures.

The council responded that the scheme originated from local members following multiple issues of vehicle and pedestrian conflict due to increased parked cars. They added that one-way systems are known to increase vehicular speeds, so physical traffic calming measures were necessary to improve road safety.

The committee resolved to set aside the objection and endorse the proposal, in principle, which will then guide the Corporate Director in the exercise of delegated decision making.