Agenda item

Councillor Steve Hamilton stated that there was no clear evidence in the report supporting the fact that accidents happen above 30 mph nor was there proof that a reduction of the speed limit on North End Road will reduce accidents. He suggested that the existing policy should remain unchanged.

The Leader sought clarification whether he was proposing no change or a variable speed limit in North End Road as there was evidence that  lower speed limits in some areas were worthwhile and reduced accidents.  Councillor Hamilton repeated that the existing policy was adequate for the area.

Mr Bainbridge was asked to comment on the proposals.  He reported that the Council had introduced several 20mph zones and limits since 2001.   The police would only record speed as a factor in collisions if the vehicles were travelling at over 30mph. They do not record whether the collision would have been avoided or less severe if the speed limit have been lower.  It is generally accepted that the likelihood of a child being killed in a collision at  20mph was around 20% rising to 50% at 30mph.  He noted that 29% of the respondents opposed introducing more 20mph roads while 71% were in favour of extending 20 mph limits (either for all  Borough roads or with the exception of some roads).

The Leader noted that there was sufficient evidence in the consultation response to show that residents do not want 20 mph on all main roads. The introduction of a 20 mph speed limit cuts deaths. The Council’s policy is to support a policy that would cut the number of road accidents and deaths in the Borough.  He said that the Mayor of London and TfL supports the introduction of 20mph limits and are doing it on their own roads in town centres.

Councillor Coleman stated that he had spoken to members of the North End Action Group and many residents in the area who supported the introduction of a 20mph limit. He asked Councillor Hamilton whether the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents support for the introduction of 20mph limit to reduce the number of accidents was wrong. Councillor Hamilton responded that the limits introduced should be acceptable and reasonable.  Limits could be lowered where there was a good reason to do so.  Councillor Harcourt noted that the report evidenced that lowering the speed limit will lead to a reduction of accidents and serious injury.

The Leader concluded that there were many good reasons to extend the 20 mph speed limit.  A reduction will save lives, cut serious injuries caused by accidents to children, cyclists and other road users and improve the quality of life for many residents.  The 20mph speed limit extension was part of a strategy to reduce deaths on the Borough roads.

1.1.        That approval be given to implement 20mph speed limits on the remaining non-main roads in the borough that currently have a 30mph limit, but only on main roads as they pass through the borough’s three town centres as shown on the map, at Appendix 2. The scheme to be fully funded from the £500,000 set aside from the TfL funded integrated transport programme for 2016/17 as approved by Cabinet on 2 November 2015.

1.2.        That approval be given to carry out initial design and consultation on a range of measures to support a reduced speed limit in certain roads. The studies to be informed by (a) the response to the public consultation in which specific roads were identified as needing physical measures to reduce traffic speeds, and (b) monitoring exercises to identify locations where non-compliance with the limit and a high number of collisions remain.

1.3.        That authority be delegated to the Cabinet Member for Environment, Transport and Resident’s Services in consultation with the Director for Transport and Highways to approve the implementation of such traffic calming measures.

1.4.        That subject to Cabinet approving the proposals as set out in the recommendations above, that delegated authority be given to the Director of Transport and Highways (or such other duly Authorised Officer) to deal with any representations arising out of the statutory consultation process under the Local Authorities Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 (as amended) (“The Regulations”) for the purposes of making the Traffic Regulation Order referred to in this report as the (“Order”).

1.5.        That all substantial objections (other than those matters previously raised through the consultation process that would normally be dealt with at officer level and therefore not regarded as having a material or otherwise adverse effect on the council’s decision-making process) in respect of the proposed Order/s be referred to Cabinet for consideration.