Agenda item

Councillor Jonathan Chilvers informed the committee that the call-in was initiated because of evidence from the 2013 Department for Transport (DfT) guidance and 2018 Atkins Report; and to enable communities who want 20mph limits in their area get them, and give them clarity on the process and cost with this without any bureaucratic obstruction. The 2013 guidance stated that benefits of 20mph schemes include quality of life, community benefits and encouragement of healthier and more sustainable transport modes e.g. walking and cycling; this was based on research from the previous 10 years. The 2018 report provided evidence and the numbers around this, and it said that within 20mph limits, 5% of people walked more, 2% of people cycled more and around schools, between 6-9% of children cycled to school once a 20mph limit was implemented. Councillor Chilvers stated that this proved 20mph was a modal shift method that worked especially with children. The TFG raised concerns with the speed reduction on 20mph but the Atkins report stated that a 20mph limit would delay journeys by 30 seconds if the journey was one mile and a minute if the journey was five miles. The DfT report said that 20mph had a positive affect on road safety and if residents are in favour then traffic authorities could introduce 20mph speed limits on major streets where there were/could be significant journeys on foot or pedal cycle movements and if this outweighs the disadvantage of longer journey times for motorised traffic. The authority would need to decide whether the disadvantage is outweighed by the benefits. Councillor Chilvers stated the committee should have this discussion. He concluded that the DfT said no additional enforcement should be expected from the police and the local authority would be responsible for reinforcing the speed limit through Speedwatch, flashing signs etc.

Councillor Tim Sinclair clarified that the TFG found out that each 20mph blanket approaches (20mph for a whole village/town) in Warwickshire would cost between £34,000-£141,000. Therefore, if every village and town in Warwickshire had a 20mph limit then it would cost £12.7 million. Evidence presented by the officers that 20mph limits in some areas could lead to speed increasing and more accidents if the speed limit is too low and drivers do not follow it. Certain roads are appropriate for 20mph limits, but a blanket approach was not. The TFG received information from ‘20's Plenty’ and officers and the evidence presented was somewhat partial. The TFG’s recommendation was community powered based, all 57 councillors have £35,000 to spend on improving their division including on a 20mph limit, providing it was a sensible proposal. Councillor Sinclair stated that the recommendation’s purpose was to get the members behind their communities and any 20mph limit trials should be run within Warwickshire instead of basing them on evidence from London and Portsmouth.

Councillor Jenny Fradgley said that the country was heading towards 20mph limits as this was being set by central government. The new Local Transport Plan focuses on promoting cycling, walking and making spaces in towns more suitable for the new hierarchy of pedestrians/cyclists first and private vehicles last. Stratford town centre was now 20mph permanently following Covid-19 restrictions and this received positive feedback from cyclists and pedestrians but not motorists. She had two active resident groups asking for 20mph on their streets which were used as ‘cut throughs’ by traffic. 20mph limits could be achieved through better signage and engineering. 20mph zones would be needed around schools to enable children to walk/bike to school instead of by car. She suggested a detailed briefing on how residents can achieve 20mph limits on their streets with the help of their Councillors and what signage and engineering, where appropriate, was possible in the cost.

Councillor Sarah Feeney queried the engagement with communities and how councillors would be able to afford 20mph limits with their delegated budgets.

Councillor Richard Spencer who also sat on the TFG said that he had implemented a 20mph zone around schools in St John’s Kenilworth with his delegated budget as well as the 20mph limit post-Covid. He added that members have access to road speed average data in their areas and resources for 20mph limits could be sought from town council and parish council CIL (Community Infrastructure Levy) funds. The difference between speed limits and zones is that zones have engineering works.

Councillor Sinclair confirmed that councillors could put their delegated budgets together to achieve a 20mph across divisions and that drivers would overtake drivers on straight residential roads with 20mph limits. He reiterated that it should be horses for courses.

Councillor Chilvers stated that the data provided was difficult to investigate and queried some of the costs and report contents e.g. that 1000 repeater signs would be needed for a 20mph blanket zone for Kenilworth but the DfT guidance said none would be needed. The 2018 report said that there was no evidence that drivers increase their speed if they feel the speed limit is too slow and people will intrinsically drive slower. He concluded that community groups needed clarity on the process to get 20mph limits. 

Paul Taylor (Delivery Lead - Minorworks & Forestry) informed the committee that the 20mph limit costings for Kenilworth were done based on every road having its own bespoke design. A lot of roads in Kenilworth were used as ‘through routes’ at 30mph. All schemes were designed to have to signs needed to effectively enforce a 20mph zone. He concluded that in his long experience signs and lines had never been enough to enforce a lower speed limit.

Councillor Wallace Redford stated that all the comments made in the meeting were possible to achieve through Cabinet’s decision. DfT guidance said that speed limits should be evidence led and not set in isolation but instead as part of a ‘package’ with other measures to reduce speeds. As well as member delegated budgets, the Community Action Fund could also be used to enforce 20mph speed limits; the Council had around £350,000 as part of the casualty reduction fund. He concluded that an update on the scheme would come back to Communities OSC in February 2023.

Councillor Sinclair clarified that the recommendations to Cabinet were meant to explain to members how they could use their budgets for 20mph limits when appropriate. The members of the TFG proposed that the recommendations be community powered led with local members trialling 20mph limits in their area and this progress being reported on. He concluded that in point 95 of the DfT guidance stated that signs alone would only slightly reduce average speeds and that the call-in was flawed.

Councillor Fradgley reiterated that schools would need 20mph zones around them to protect the children there.

Councillor Peter Butlin said that the TFG’s recommendations were ‘horses for courses’ and that zones would not be needed around all schools because some were in dead end roads while others on open roads. Communities would need to be onside for 20mph limits as he received pushback from villages when he tried to reduce a speed limit from 60mph to 50 when he was the Portfolio Holder for Transport & Planning. Parents and other drivers would need to be educated on speed reduction. He concurred that drivers would speed and dangerously overtake in a 20mph speed limits if they thought it was too slow. Sat Nav data would be used for implementing 20mph limits in Warwickshire and drivers would more likely follow 20mph limits if they felt the were appropriate. He concluded that the expensive part of reducing speeds was the TRO (traffic regulation order) consultation.

Councillor Fradgley stated members of the TFG not getting all the information earlier was the issue. She stated that they had walking zones around her grandchildren’s school and the traffic reduction would help nudge more children and parents into walking.

Councillor Andy Crump said that the Road Safety Partnership looked at a lot of traffic data and the main cause of road accidents was careless driving or driving under the influence. 20mph limits and zones should only be implemented in areas where drivers can see why there is one. Clear repeater signs would be needed to ensure a 20mph limit works. Councillor Crump stated that Councillor John Holland informed him that electric cars were heavier than normal ones and when they brake, they release particulate into the environment so fluctuating speed on electric cars damaged the environment. Congestion around schools at peak times meant stop cars from going above 20mph and it was the DfT’s responsibility to encourage more people to not use their cars. He concluded that 20mph limits should be evidence based and implemented with the community’s consent. 

Councillor Sinclair noted that it would be easier and quicker to put 20mph limits on connecting streets with signage alone than with engineering works too. He stated that the TFG received all the information and disagreed with the claim that some members of the group intentionally disregarded the idea of 20mph speed limits. He stated that Councillor Chilvers was the only member of the TFG who did not change their mind after being presented all the information. He also disputed the claim made by the public speaker in the Stratford Herald. Councillor Spencer concurred with these statements.

Councillor Chilvers stated that he did change his mind after receiving the evidence presented to the group. He concurred that 20mph limits should be implemented with communities and this should be part of the official process, including what the Council will need from them. The Atkins report stated that support for 20mph increased on average after implementation. TROs were only £3000 on average and covered any amount of land, the expensive things were repeater signs and roundels, but these costings were not clear. The TFGs recommendations stated that things needed to be clarified for members with the 20mph process with budgets, but this needed to be done for communities too with the Highways Action Fund application as this was not clear in some requests.

Councillor Richard Baxter-Payne stated that the debate evidenced why a blanket approach would not work because each division had different characteristics and needs. He concurred with getting residents onboard with 20mph and noted that speed limits were the maximum speed so people could drive 20mph in a 30mph area if they wanted to. He concluded that education of residents would be needed in engineering measures were not implemented.

The Chair noted that he was the previous Portfolio Holder for Transport & Planning and he was keen on 20mph limits being implemented where appropriate and around schools. It was up to members to nominate areas in their division for 20mph limits/zones it their residents want it. Residents responded better to 20mph limits if there was evidence for this and every implementation should be evidence based.

Councillor Chilvers proposed the following recommendations:

This committee comments that:

1. It recognises the benefits that the DfT guidance highlights that: “Important benefits of 20 mph schemes include quality of life and community benefits, and encouragement of healthier and more sustainable transport modes such as walking and cycling (Kirkby, 2002)” and asks the portfolio holder on behalf of cabinet to publicly affirm their wish to see more 20mph limit schemes in Warwickshire to help fulfil these objectives. 
2. The DfT guidance does not require additional police enforcement and recommends other measures such as community speed watch and speed triggered signs to aid speed reduction; the committee wishes to support this approach.
3. It is concerned that the process put in place for 20mph limits should not put up unnecessary bureaucratic barriers, but provide a clear, publicised, enabling process for communities that wish to have 20mph limits in their area. 
4. It asks to see a draft version of the process prepared by officers brought to the committee on the 21 September, including clear costs and funding options.

This was seconded by Councillor Fradgley.

Councillor Redford suggested that the committee consider approving a member seminar to explain and clarify the issues with the 20mph limit implementation process raised in the meeting. Councillor Chilver stated that he was happy to add this to his recommendations.

The meeting was paused to allow members to read the recommendations proposed by Councillor Chilvers

In response to the Chair, Councillor Redford stated that the initial report covered the first recommendation.

Councillor Sinclair stated he was mixed to Councillor Chilvers’ recommendations and stated some parts were contradictory. 

Councillor Sinclair proposed that:

The committee take no further action but request that a member seminar be held to clarify and lay out the 20mph limit process for members with delegated budgets and communities for the Highway Action Fund. 

This was seconded by Councillor Spencer

Vote

Three members voted for, and six members voted against the following recommendations:

This committee comments that:

1. It recognises the benefits that the DfT guidance highlights that: “Important benefits of 20 mph schemes include quality of life and community benefits, and encouragement of healthier and more sustainable transport modes such as walking and cycling (Kirkby, 2002)” and asks the portfolio holder on behalf of cabinet to publicly affirm their wish to see more 20mph limit schemes in Warwickshire to help fulfil these objectives. 
2. The DfT guidance does not require additional police enforcement and recommends other measures such as community speed watch and speed triggered signs to aid speed reduction; the committee wishes to support this approach.
3. It is concerned that the process put in place for 20mph limits should not put up unnecessary bureaucratic barriers, but provide a clear, publicised, enabling process for communities that wish to have 20mph limits in their area. 
4. It asks to see a draft version of the process prepared by officers brought to the committee on the 21 September, including clear costs and funding options.

This proposal was lost.

The committee voted unanimously for the following recommendation:

That the committee take no further action but request that a member seminar be held to clarify and lay out the 20mph limit process for members with delegated budgets and communities for the Highway Action Fund. 

This proposal this passed.

Resolved

That the Communities OSC take no further action but request that a member seminar be held to clarify and lay out the 20mph limit process for members with delegated budgets and communities for the Highway Action Fund.  

The meeting rose at 10:42

………………………….

Chair