Issue - meetings

This report explains that consultation on an early set of proposals took place earlier this year. The results of the consultation are summarised and discussed within the report.  The report explains that following consideration of the feedback from the consultation, the proposals, whilst still now involving adoption of a risk evaluation model, are significantly different from those originally proposed.

      i.        that it be agreed not to proceed with the proposed withdrawal of School Crossing Patrol officers at this time;

    ii.        that the Director of Environment & Neighbourhood Services, together with the Director of Children & Families, undertake a detailed consultation with schools, including governors, encouraging them to contribute voluntarily to the costs of the service and further promoting the importance of road safety education in schools;

   iii.        that the risk evaluation matrix, as set out in Section 4.2, based on rates of vehicular and pedestrian traffic flows, additional risk factors and evaluation of mitigation, and the safety ranking of sites implied by that matrix, be adopted;

   iv.        that this matrix be used to prioritise the deployment of school crossing patrol officers at such time when there is natural turnover of staff within the service, ensuring that sites with a higher risk assessment (with an adjusted score greater than 1x10⁶) are prioritised for cover;

    v.        that the prioritisation of risk mitigation measures at school crossing patrol sites, particularly the introduction of speed reduction interventions and controlled crossings that will continue to reduce the adjusted risk scores of sites, be noted.

The report from the Director of Environment and Neighbourhood Services explained that the School Crossing Patrol (SCP) service was a discretionary one and the council currently provided one of the largest services in London.  Since the SCP service was first provided by the council many physical measures have been introduced around school entrances to improve road safety. However, unlike most other council services, there has been no fundamental review to determine whether or not the service should continue to be provided and, if so, the extent to which the service should be provided.  Following a review and consultation, a set of proposals had been developed and were recommended for adoption. At the heart of the proposals was the use of a model to assess where priority should be given to providing a SCP. A threshold has been set above which priority would be given to providing cover. Over time, as a result of natural staff wastage, provision at lower priority sites would be discontinued unless alternative arrangements were agreed with schools. The report explained that consultation on an early set of proposals took place earlier in the year and that following consideration of the feedback from the consultation, the proposals, whilst still now involving adoption of a risk evaluation model, were significantly different from those originally proposed.

Councillor J Moher (Lead Member, Highways and Transportation) in introducing the report, acknowledged the concerns raised by petitioners earlier in the meeting. Regarding the consultation process he stated that it had been deferred to allow more time to consider the feedback. Councillor Moher advised that a task group comprising lead members and officers had met on a number of occasions and reviewed each site, refining criteria and making difficult choices with a view to reducing the number of patrol sites. However, it was now being recommended that no patrols be withdrawn at this stage and that schools be asked to share costs. Councillor Moher accepted that some schools would not have the resources and would need time to make alternative arrangements. He assured that the council would continue to mitigate risks through technical, physical measures and transport proposals.

Councillor John moved the recommendations in the report which were agreed and again thanked Mr Burn for his contribution.

RESOLVED:-

(i)         that it be agreed not to proceed with the proposed withdrawal of School Crossing Patrol officers at this time;

(ii)        that the Director of Environment and Neighbourhood Services, together with the Director of Children and Families, undertake a detailed consultation with schools, including governors, encouraging them to contribute voluntarily to the costs of the service and further promoting the importance of road safety education in schools;

(iii)       that the risk evaluation matrix, as set out in Section 4.2 in the report from the Director, based on rates of vehicular and pedestrian traffic flows, additional risk factors and evaluation of mitigation, and the safety ranking of sites implied by that matrix, be adopted;

(iv)       that this matrix be used to prioritise the deployment  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5