Agenda item

(i)         Report of the Director of Transformation and Partnerships.

(ii)        Presentation by the Head of Technical Services and the Traffic Asset          Manager, Regeneration and Local Services.

The Chairman introduced the Council’s Head of Technical Services, John Reed and Traffic Asset Manager, Keith Jameson to give a presentation on 20mph Speed Limits and a Project Update (for copy see file of minutes).

The Head of Technical Services reminded Members of the background to the 20mph limits, with Cabinet in December 2014 approving a 20mph part-time limits project, involving 33 schools, including those with the highest accident rates.  Subsequently, Cabinet asked Overview and Scrutiny to look at the prioritisation criteria for any further schemes.  It was explained that a Working Group had help develop a revised set of criteria and when an underspend was noted in terms of grant funding, the revised criteria was used to identify an additional 33 schemes for schools, which was approved by Cabinet in May 2016.

Members were reminded that 20mph part-time limits were advisory, “when lights show”, and were at school start and finish times.  It was noted these did not require a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO), only required only sign in each direction and were used for main/distributor roads.  Members were given details of the initial 33 and additional 33 schools, and also as regards some additional schemes as funded through Members’ Neighbourhood Budgets.

The Traffic Asset Manager noted the target dates for completion of the last of the additional 33 schemes, and added that a further 10 schemes were being funded by Members; Neighbourhood Budgets, and 1 by a school, with a further 14 requests be schools being looked at.

The Head of Technical Services noted that changing of signage was not enough, there was a need for engagement with the schools and local communities around those schools in order to compliment the works being carried out.  He added that this would include education for children and teachers, and also for parents and guardian, as well as social media messages and working with the Junior Road Safety Officers and Mini-Police.  It was explained that this had also included working with theatre companies and young people to encourage people to slow down when driving and also in terms of also encouraging young people to walk and cycle to school safely.

The Head of Technical Services added that the evaluation of the 20mph schemes was carried out independently by The Centre for Health and Inequalities Research at Durham University looking at the wider health and wellbeing outcomes such as increased active travel and improved feelings of safety.  He added that the review covered 10 study areas and collected data from 4 sources: school surveys; a case study; feedback from a Junior Road Safety Officer event; and a school census on active travel.  It was highlighted that there had been shown to be a positive impact in terms of the health and wellbeing outcomes, however, due to the small sample data, it was too soon to know whether there was any impact upon road casualty figures.

The Chairman thanked the Head of Technical Services and the Traffic Asset Manager and asked Members for their comments and questions.

Councillor B Avery noted he was pleased to hear as regards the schemes and asked how he could look to use his Neighbourhood Budget in relation to schemes in his area.  The Head of Technical services noted that the grant funding that had originally come from Public Health was now all allocated, however, further schemes could be developed where there was demand and funds found.

Councillor K Thompson noted a number of such zones in the Spennymoor area and that they appeared to be working, however, he asked where the Police came into the matter in terms of actually prosecuting people that did not slow down.  The Head of Technical Services reiterated that the 20mph part-time limits were advisory, where there were no physical traffic calming measures.  He added for 20mph zones within residential areas where there were physical calming measures, there should not be a need for enforcement as the physical measures should make it such that speeding was not possible.  The Head of Technical Services added that in the cases of those limits at schools, there was in many cases an issue in terms of congestion and the speed in these areas was already below 20mph.

Councillor J Maitland asked as regards 20mph limits and zones.  The Head of Technical Services noted the school advisory signs as described previously, and with very strict controls on zones in terms of signage and physical measures.  The Traffic Asset Manager noted that those included those areas to be looked at having average speeds of below 24mph and also physical traffic calming measures would not be placed on main roads, else this could redirect traffic along other less suitable side and estate roads.

Mr AJ Cooke noted the 20mph Limits were advisory only and asked if there were no prosecution, could that lead to complacency in relation to the limits.  The Head of Technical Services noted that DfT legislation only allowed for this choice, in terms of advisory limits.  He added that in conjunction with the advisory limits there was a need for a package of works to help change behaviour, to ensure that most people would respect the 20mph signs.  He added that most drivers were now aware of the schemes and they had been popular in localities with Members; Town and Parish Councils as well as interest groups.

Resolved:

    (i)        That the report and presentation be noted.

  (ii)        That the Safer and Stronger Communities Overview and Scrutiny Committee receive a further update report in early 2019/20 once the project is completed.