Public Asked for Views on SCC’s Proposal for Reduced Speed Limits

Published on: 28 May, 2025
Updated on: 28 May, 2025

By Martin Giles

Speed limits on some of Guildford and Waverley’s rural roads are being reviewed.

Currently, unless specific speed restrictions have been imposed, they are all subject to the national speed limit of 60mph.

But the aim of Surrey County Council’s Rural Speed Limit Project is to review a selection of roads where the 60mph applies, “with a view to reduce the speed limits appropriately”. Some adjoining roads (with posted speed limits lower than 60mph) may be reviewed to ensure continuity of the speed limit hierarchy.

Included in the proposed list are:

The council believes that by reducing speed limits the number of collisions can be reduced and road safety improved. It has been shown that the slower a vehicle is travelling then the less likelihood there is of a serious or fatal injury occurring.

It is also expected that accessibility for all road users will be improved by making affected roads feel safer for pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians, and will support sustainable travel more generally.

60mph is not regarded as a safe speed on many country roads. The Highway Code states: “It is often not appropriate or safe to drive at the maximum speed limit”. Image Wikipedia

Legislation requires that objections and comments from the public to be considered before a final decision is reached about whether or not to go ahead with the councils preferred scheme in its current form.

It is proposed that many roads in Shalford have speed limits reduced.

See SCC Webpage on the proposals here.

Those wishing to object, support, or comment on the proposal, please use the Online Survey linked at the bottom of the page, or alternatively, write to: Traffic Regulation Orders Team, Surrey County Council – Highways, Hazel House, Merrow Lane, Guildford, Surrey, GU4 7BQ. The survey has been extenfded and will now end on July 4.

Questions and Answers

The Guildford Dragon asked SCC several questions about the proposal. Here are its responses:

How much will imposing the new restrictions cost (including any enforcement costs)?

We have an estimate of about £200,000 for these area wide speed limit changes including legal costs, implementation including traffic management and diversions.

Where did the motivation for the proposal come from?

This is part of the Safe Speeds section of our Vision Zero Road Safety Strategy which states the following: The national default speed limit on single carriageway rural roads (without street lighting) is 60 mph. This 60 mph default speed limit is inappropriate for most minor rural roads because driving at this speed on such narrow and winding country lanes would be dangerous.

Surrey County Council has already embarked on a proactive, strategic review with the aim of replacing all the existing 60 mph national speed limits on rural roads with lower speed limits.

The new lower limits are being set at a more appropriate level in keeping with the use and nature of the road and the speed at which most drivers are travelling at. The first of these were implemented in July 2023.

Our aim will be for all existing national speed limits roads throughout Surrey to have been reviewed and new lower speed limits implemented where appropriate by the end of 2028.

If, in the public consultation, more are against than for the proposal will it still go ahead?

The results from the consultation will be shared with the local County Councillors and then it will be for them to decide whether to proceed or not.

How will any new speed limits be enforced? Is there an enforcement plan and, if so, has Surrey Police agreed it?

Surrey Police are key partners of the Surrey RoadSafe Partnership and have we have developed Vision Zero Road Safety Strategy with them. They have been consulted on the proposals and have not raised any objections.

The new speed limits are being set at a level close to what most drivers are already travelling at, so it is not expected that additional enforcement will be needed. Speed surveys will be undertaken following implementation to check on the compliance with the new speed limit to see if any addition measures might be needed to get the speeds down successfully.

Responses to Public Asked for Views on SCC’s Proposal for Reduced Speed Limits

Warren Gill Reply

May 28, 2025 at 4:03 pm

Are there council elections looming?

All we have had so far is an absolutely ridiculous 20 mph restriction on the A281 at Shalford, a 30 mph on Broadford Road with completely unnecessary islands which don’t even link with footpaths.

An expensive set of unused and utterly pointless set of traffic lights and the narrowing of the A3100 at Tilthams Corner Road.

However there’s a common denominator here the GBC councillor for Pilgrims, who’s also the SCC Cabinet Member for Transport, Infrastructure and Growth [and member for Shalford division].

Interesting.

The country lanes previously mentioned are usually treated with respect by locals, it’s only those from outside the area that treat them with disrespect and like a race track or go on the single track roads with passing places and then can’t deal with reversing back to a passing place in case they damage their precious “Chelsea Tractor”
- George Potter Reply
  
  May 29, 2025 at 3:08 pm
  
  A slight inaccuracy: the SCC Cabinet member for Transport, Matthew Furniss (Con), is the county councillor for Shalford but is the borough councillor for Pilgrims ward.
  
  The borough councillors for Shalford ward are Catherine Houston (Lib Dem) and Dominique Williams (Lib Dem).
  
  George Potter is a Lib Dem borough and county councillor.
  
  Editor’s response: Thank you for the correction. We have amended Mr Gill’s comment.
- Mark Percival Reply
  
  May 29, 2025 at 5:53 pm
  
  Mr Gill may find the speed limits “ridiculous” in Shalford but they had overwhelming local support.
  
  I fully supported these measures and am pleased that speeds are reduced in the village, which has an infant school now in the 20mph zone.
Jack Bayliss Reply

May 28, 2025 at 6:43 pm

I use most of these roads, some of them frequently. For some, there are nicer alternative footpaths or bridlepaths.

You only have to look at the last answer from SCC – “the new speed limits are being set at a level close to what drivers are already travelling at” – to see that this will be a complete waste of £200,000 of our taxpayers’ money.

The £35,429 (I figure I got as a result of a Freedom of Information request) spent, putting 200 metres of hatched white lines and two islands in the middle of Broadford Road between the A248 and the Portsmouth Road where the last recorded accident was in 2010, is another example.
Peter Davies Reply

May 29, 2025 at 10:28 am

As a cyclist, living in Guildford and cycling to and from the Shalford area, I support efforts to reduce speed limits, particularly for the narrower minor roads and lanes, to ensure a safer experience for cyclists and walkers, as well as motorists.
Nigel Keane Reply

May 29, 2025 at 1:35 pm

To Warren Gill’s question, no, there is no election as Sec of State for Local Government, Angela Rayner, has decided to Destroy Surrey as a county.

Shalford’s 20mph speed limit is the result of residents asking for a lower limit (The Street was designed for horses not 38 ton trucks).

Cllr Matt Furniss was able to help action the request after consultation. It has in fact taken several years to come into fruition

The islands in Broadford Road are there to make the road safer so that “boy racers” cannot easily ignore the speed limit and overtake traffic complying with the new limit.

As a resident living just off of Tilthams Corner Road I want to point out that the pedestrian lights on the A3100 allow us to access the bus stops for buses going into Guildford without risking our lives trying to cross a 40mph road, which been the risk up to now.

Our community is a satellite part of Peasmarsh and has elderly and schoolchildren residents who use the buses. We also note that many walkers come along the Wey navigation and then cut through to Portsmouth Road. As for “Chelsea tractors” we have farms and smallholdings in the area and 4-wheel-drive vehicles are necessary. Also, there are stables and I note that even locals do not always take care near horses.

As for single track roads with passing places, too many drivers bunch up instead of being one space behind a leading vehicle.
Helena Townsend Reply

May 29, 2025 at 1:59 pm

Isn’t this SCC Matt Furniss’ county council division? Reminds me of Cllr Graham Ellwood, Merrow councillor whose residential road was re-surfaced at taxpayer’s expense.

There are far more worthy roads that need such restrictions, the back station entrance on Guildford Park Road should be a 20MPH, Bridge Street / the main gyratory in Guildford should be a 20mph and the Epsom Road by Merrow shops too – most of the roads highlighted in the above plan are all quiet side streets with minimal traffic.

Editor’s comment: Unlike former councillor Ellwood, Cllr Furniss does not, we believe, reside in the areas proposed for reduced spped restricions.
Patrick Bray Reply

May 29, 2025 at 10:28 pm

The 20mph zone on the A281 was not universally supported by residents. Quite a number opposed the change. The consultation period was a poorly communicated affair seemingly undertaken after the decision was made.

When will we learn (perhaps from Wales) that roads are critical infrastructure to be maintained and protected.

The loudest most organised voices are rarely the (quiet) majority.
- Bethan Moore Reply
  
  June 1, 2025 at 11:20 am
  
  I guess it depends which papers you read. Wales also shows us that reducing speed limits saves lives. And I’m in favour of saving lives.
Roshan Bailey Reply

May 30, 2025 at 10:46 pm

Without going into intricate detail on individual roads, I do feel very strongly both as a driver and a walker that the default 60 mph speed limit is totally inappropriate for narrow, winding country roads and I would certainly support reductions for many of them.

As there are still so many in Surrey with the national speed limit and as it would be costly and time consuming to review each one individually, I would like to see a turn around in the default so that single carriageway unlimited country roads should default to, say, 40 mph until such time as they might be objectively assessed for suitability for 30, 40 or 50 mph speed limits.
Mike Garrett Reply

June 2, 2025 at 12:01 pm

Highway Code #146 states: do not treat speed limits as a target. It is often not appropriate or safe to drive at the maximum speed limit.

These roads are de-restricted (as in deemed not to require any restrictions as would be applied to a road with street lights, residential areas etc.) not deliberately speed limited to 60mph. As such, common sense and the Highway Code tell you to drive to the conditions.

Once again we are seeing change for change’s sake, wrapped up in a ‘whatiffery’ type argument.

SCC themselves state that “the new speed limits are being set at a level close to what drivers are already travelling at”. Therefore, this appears to be an utter waste of time/money or a potential revenue generation scheme, depending on what future enforcement may be deemed ‘necessary’.