Agenda item

To consider the decisions made by the Cabinet Member for Transport, Planning and Sustainability at his Decision Session on 19 July 2013 in relation to the above item, which has been called in by Cllrs Reid, Jeffries and Ayre in accordance with the Council’s Constitution. A cover report is attached setting out the reasons for the call-in and the remit and powers of the Corporate and Scrutiny Management Committee (Calling-In) in relation to the call-in, together with the original report and the decisions of the Cabinet Member.

Members received a report which asked them to consider the decisions made by the Cabinet Member for Transport, Planning and Sustainability on 19 July 2013, in relation to the delivery of the 20mph speed limit for residential roads across the West of York urban area, as a Council priority. The report to the meeting also set out details of the representations received following advertisement of the proposed order and to receipt of an e-petition entitled “Stop the 20mph Proposals” signed by 240 people.

Details of the Cabinet Members decision was attached at Annex A to the report, with the original report to the Cabinet Member attached at Annex B. The decision had been called in by Cllrs Reid, Jeffries and Ayre on the following grounds:

·        This policy does not enjoy public support – the report confirms that out of 13,000 residents consulted, only 7 responded in favour. This is abysmally low for a project that will cost £600,000 of taxpayers’ money in total.

·        Average speeds on many of the roads proposed for the new limit are already below 20mph and additional signage would make no practical difference, except to increase street ‘clutter’ and maintenance costs. As an example, over the last 5 years Moorcroft Road has a record of 1 slight accident, an 85th percentile speed of 19mph, and a highest recorded speed of 25mph.

·        This scheme does not target roads with safety problems – figures provided to us by officers show that of the 338 accidents recorded in West York over the last 5 years only 48 (13%) occurred on roads where it is now proposed to reduce the speed limit. In response to this point, the report claims that “The scheme has never been primarily focussed on casualty reduction” (paragraph 36). However, on paragraph 26 the report justifies the costs of implementation against the costs of accidents.

·        Evidence from elsewhere in the country with blanket schemes undermines the recommendation. In Portsmouth casualty levels are higher than before the scheme was implemented and in Oxford “a similar pattern is emerging”. In Bristol residents do not feel that the roads are safer or that speeding has reduced. And returning to Portsmouth, the scheme has not encouraged a ‘modal shift’ away from car use or encouraged cycling and walking with analysis concluding that the scheme “made little difference to the majority of respondents in the amount they travelled by their chosen mode”.

·        The evidence is that locally and nationally the police do not have the resources or inclination to enforce all new 20mphs, with the Association of Chief Police Officers telling Parliament in March that “We are not enforcing 20mph speed limits at this moment in time”.

·        The decision to take Option 3 in this report and exclude Trenchard Road and Portal Road is baffling. There will be other roads in the area where “residents are against the idea” so it is unclear why these roads have been singled out.

·        KSI (Killed or seriously injured) figures have steadily reduced in York over the last 10 years by taking an evidence-based approach and targeting resources on areas with accident records and/or high pedestrian footfall - targeted 20mph limits have played an important part in this. This report does not provide a convincing case that this targeted and evidence-based approach should change.

·        If the Cabinet Member is not prepared to abandon the scheme completely, then he should delay implementation for at least 18 months so that the impact of the 20mph limit – introduced earlier in the year in South Bank – can be assessed and more evidence can be produced from other schemes across the country. 

Members were asked whether to confirm the decision (Option a) or to refer it back to the Cabinet Member for re-consideration (Option b) as set out in the report.

Councillor Reid addressed the meeting on behalf of the Calling-In members expressing concern at the proposed roll out of the 20mph scheme in the West as the report did not provide a convincing case, and did not target roads with safety problems. Reference was made to Annex 2 of the original report to the Cabinet Member which provided casualty data from Oxford and Portsmouth in 20/30mph areas pointing out that this showed a rise in the accident rates over the period 2004 to 2011.  Concern was also expressed at the significant amount of signage required to promote any scheme with less money then available for proactive accident reduction work.

The Cabinet Member for Environmental Services responded, on behalf of the Cabinet Member for Planning, Transport and Sustainability, to the points raised. Pointing out that the consultation undertaken had only asked residents for their comments in relation to the proposals rather than asking for their support or otherwise, to ensure that all residents were fully aware of the proposals. Although the scheme required a significant culture change it was hoped that this would encourage walking and cycling. It was pointed out that the Portsmouth scheme had shown fewer accidents since its introduction and that if the York scheme reduced accidents by 30% it was considered that the money had been well spent.

In response to questions and points raised, Officers confirmed that the scheme had been agreed with the Police and that this fitted with their speed review process, to ensure that they would deal with any subsequent complaints following collection of speed data. Confirmation that other speed reduction measures had been considered however many involved expensive engineering works.

Members also drew attention to resident’s petitions, over a number of years, requesting 20mph limits on specific roads in the city.

Following further lengthy discussion it was

RESOLVED:                That Option (a) identified in the report be approved and that the decision of the Cabinet be confirmed.

REASON:                     In accordance with the requirements of the Council’s Constitution.