Agenda item

The Deputy Leader and Portfolio Holder for Connected Communities and the Portfolio Holder for Response Environment and Energy presented a report, a copy of which had been circulated to each Member and a copy of which appears as Appendix 'A' to these minutes in the Minute Book. The Board was advised that the purpose of the Cabinet report was to present the outputs of a review of local and national 20mph initiatives and to seek endorsement for a programme to enable the delivery of 20mph speed limits to create safer neighbourhoods across the three towns and make journeys by all modes safer. It was proposed that this would be achieved in areas through consultation with residents in priority communities, and through the reinstatement of a dedicated 20mph speed limit budget allocation within the Council’s Local Transport Plan (LTP) Capital programme.  The Board was advised that there were approximately 77 areas across the conurbation that already had 20mph speed limits and further proposed areas were outlined in the appendix to the report. There were a number of issues raised by the Board including:

·     What would be addressed by the £149k budget and would this include any legislative changes required? It was noted that this budget would cover approximately three of the areas outlined on the map in the appendix to provide signage and roundels. There would also be a need for Traffic Regulation Orders for each 20-mph area introduced. Rolling out the process in area zones rather than by streets would be more cost effective.

·     The Deputy Leader confirmed in response to a question that it was their long-term ambition to create 20 mph roads as default for residential neighbourhoods, with some exceptions. This would be dependent upon the funding which could be achieved from the Department of Transport and based upon the advice from the RoSPA regarding the use of 20mph in residential neighbourhoods.

·     Some expressed the view that it was disappointing that all the areas could not be rolled out faster across the whole conurbation but appreciated that a dedicated budget was being introduced.

·     It was confirmed that there would be TROs introduced and the process for these followed in terms of consultation, for any of the 20 mph areas.

·     A member questioned why the money was being allocated for a number of schemes before consultation had taken place with the public on whether they wanted these to be introduced and commented that the public had lost confidence in Council consultations. In response it was noted that there were approximately sixty requests for 20mph schemes which had not yet been implemented. It was noted that a full consultation was expected to take up all of the money the report was requesting. A Councillor asked that if there was a consultation, everyone needed to be aware of it.

·     A member advised that they received lots of correspondence from residents seeking the implementation of 20 mph zones.

·     There was a need a flexible and sensible approach with a system of consulting where it had been found there was a demand.

·     It was questioned whether bus routes would be included in 20mph zones. It was noted that this would be considered for relevant roads. It was noted that bus companies suggested the bus average speed was 12-13 mph. It was therefore felt that the 20mph introduction would have a minimal impact.

·     It was suggested that some areas would need more than just sign language to make a 20mph zone work.

·     In response to a question, it was noted that the £300 million figure would be based on a zone approach to reduce speeds across the conurbation, including speed bumps, chicanes etc.

·     It was suggested that consideration should also be given to the provision of 20mph around pre-school settings.

·     The biggest issue in the area for speed was the congestion not the speed limit. It was quicker to drive through 20mph zones rather than using the peripheral roads.

·     The paper was welcomed by a number of Councillors in relation to the safety aspect particularly round schools and nurseries. Councillors also questioned how areas would be prioritised. Conversely others suggested there was little evidence that reducing speed limits from 30mph to 20mph made roads safer and that congestion and pollution increased with lower speed limits.

Following discussion a move was made, seconded, and subsequently amended to support the recommendation outlined in the report with a comment that when zones or roads come up there should be robust public consultation.

During discussion of the move a further proposal was made that Cabinet be recommended to support option A and that 20 mph scheme limits should be introduced as part of the delivery of schemes around schools and where historically significant numbers of casualties had arisen. Following a vote on the initial motion it was:

RESOLVED That Option B as outlined in the report, be recommended to Cabinet for its approval subject to Cabinet committing to robust and meaningful consultation on each 20mph area and that residents’ views be taken into account before any decisions on implementation are made.

Voting: For 8; Against 3

Note: Cllr Tarling left the meeting prior to the vote being taken.

The motion to recommend option A was not put to the vote as this would conflict with the previously agreed motion.

Following this, a further motion was put, seconded and it was:

RECOMMENDED that as part of the ongoing process, Cabinet considers focusing identifying areas around schools and pre-school settings for the introduction of 20mph road safety measures.

Voting: Unanimous