Members of the public may ask questions or make statements at this meeting if they have given notice (to include the text of the question/statement) to Edward Maxwell, Democratic Services Officer (contact details below) no later than midday on Friday 21 July. Each speaker should limit themselves to 3 minutes on any item. Members of the public who have given notice will be invited to speak:-
· At this point in the meeting if their questions/statements relate to matters which are not otherwise on the Agenda (subject to an overall time limit of 30 minutes);
· When the relevant Agenda item is being considered if they wish to speak on a matter which is on the Agenda for this meeting.
If you are exercising your right to speak at this meeting, but do not wish to be recorded, please inform the Chair who will instruct those taking a recording to cease while you speak.
Minutes:
Andy Jefferson registered to speak regarding Item 5 – Call In of the Executive Decision – Review of 20mph Speed Limit and Zone Policy. The following points were raised in his statement:
· The majority of road collisions involving children took place in residential areas, not near schools as claimed in the policy. The policy also failed to adequately consider the impact on elderly residents.
· The Council’s own climate targets required a large uptake in active travel, but cycling was much less popular on 30mph roads than 20mph. Implementing a default 20mph policy would make cycling easier without needing large investment to link existing cycle-friendly sections.
· The report failed to consider the long-term benefits on the health service from increased active travel, and the short-term benefits from reduced injury rates.
Allan McVeigh thanked Andy Jefferson for his question, and provided a response which included the following points:
· The report made no changes to the existing 20mph Speed Limit and Zone Policy.
· The policy and report were considered in accordance with the Equalities Impact Assessment which considered the impact on all road users, and where a need for supporting measures were identified, these would be installed.
· The policy’s general principle was to consult with local groups and introduced tailored schemes, rather than adopting a blanket approach which would be inefficient and wasteful.
Pam Fawcett registered to speak regarding Item 5 – Call In of the Executive Decision – Review of 20mph Speed Limit and Zone Policy. Being unable to attend, her statement was read by Ian Conlan on her behalf. The following points were raised in her statement:
· As a resident of Bellerby for many years, Ms Fawcett noted that the volume and speed of traffic had increased substantially over time and highlighted several recent traffic incidents near her house.
· The impact on pedestrians who felt unsafe crossing the road had led to an increased sense of isolation among residents, particularly the elderly and on schoolchildren.
· Ms Fawcett wished to know why NYC did not adequately consider the safety of local residents, and what steps would be taken to address the issues.
Allan McVeigh thanked Pam Fawcett for her question, and provided a response which included the following points:
· The reasons for not reducing the speed limit to 20mph on the A6108 through Bellerby had been explained to the Parish Council and accepted.
· As an alternative to introducing a 20mph on the A6108, an alternative scheme to implement it on other roads around community spaces in the village had been agreed with the Parish Council.
Roy Heap registered to speak regarding Item 5 – Call In of the Executive Decision – Review of 20mph Speed Limit and Zone Policy. Being unable to attend, his statement was read by Edward Maxwell (Democratic Services Officer) on his behalf. The following points were raised in his statement:
· Mr Heap claimed that NYC was too reliant on statistical data in selecting where to implement 20mph schemes and was too reactive in waiting for serious incidents to occur before acting.
Allan McVeigh thanked Roy Heap for his question, and provided a response which included the following points:
· Reducing the severity and frequency of accidents was a priority for NYC and had been considered extensively, but additional factors such as active travel and promoting modal shift were also important.
· The current approach was being expanded to develop a whole network strategy across the county.
Barry Warrington registered to speak regarding Item 5 – Call In of the Executive Decision – Review of 20mph Speed Limit and Zone Policy. The following points were raised in his statement:
· Mr Warrington questioned why, since 20mph zones reduced carbon emissions, promoted active travel, and improved road safety, the zones were not being widely rolled out.
· It was requested that the report reconsidered the evidence and was amended to reflect the urgent need for action to address climate change.
Allan McVeigh thanked Barry Warrington for his question, and provided a response which included the following points:
· The benefits of air quality were not in question and were explicitly stated in the report. Increasing active travel was also a target in the Council’s Climate Strategy.
· The literature review showed that evidence to support a blanket 20mph scheme was equivocal, and showed that signed-only 20mph schemes only resulted in poor speed reductions.
Mr Warrington asked a supplementary question:
· While it was not possible to achieve all the desired results immediately, why low-cost schemes were not being rolled out quickly. Mr Warrington believed that a blanket 20mph limit would be such a low-cost option that would support the council’s Climate Strategy.
Allan McVeigh responded:
· The policy would in fact allow low-cost schemes to be implemented where there was local support, which would be much quicker and cheaper than a blanket rollout across a county the size of North Yorkshre.