Agenda item

Considered:  A report of the Assistant Chief Executive, Legal and Democratic Services, seeking a decision on whether to refer the Executive decision of 4 July 2023 back to the Executive; to refer it to Full Council; or to take no further action.

 

The Chair invited Cllr Andy Brown, as signatory of the Call-In notice, to summarise their arguments.  Cllr Brown thanked members for attending the meeting, and delivered a presentation, the main points of which were:

 

·         The signatories were concerned about the impact of excessive speed in residential areas, citing recent examples of fatalities and serious injuries in their divisions.

 

·         It was felt that insufficient weight had been given to the evidence regarding the effectiveness of such speed management schemes (SMSs), and that widespread non-compliance had been assumed without adequate evidence.

 

·         Examples of successful default 20mph schemes in Cornwall and Edinburgh were cited.

 

·         Signatories felt that insufficient weight had been given to the ameliorating effect such schemes would have on pressures in local A&E departments, to the climate change benefits, and the positive health effects from improvements in air quality.

 

·         The consultation was felt to be inadequate, with members reporting some areas which believed their views had not been considered.  Examples were cited of Parish and Town Councils which had found it difficult to engage with the Highways Agency.

 

·         Cllr Brown suggested an alternative option, where a coalition of the willing be set up to deliver schemes quickly where local support was strong, scoping and costing applications promptly rather than a lengthy pipeline approach, dealing with each application in turn.

 

The Chair invited Allan McVeigh to respond.  The main points of the response were as follows:

 

·         The positive benefits of SMSs were not in dispute, and the scheme approved by the Executive explicitly recognised the health, climate change and safety benefits highlighted by the signatories. 

 

·         The default application of 20mph zones was seen as potentially damaging, introducing them to communities which did not want them, or were which not suitable. 

 

·         It was emphasised that the proposed SMS would lead to more 20mph zones in the county, not fewer.

 

·         Evidence was cited which suggested signed-only schemes, without physical measures, only resulted in a very modest speed reduction of 1-2mph.

 

·         The consultation was highlighted, which had sought the views of all 90 members.  Examples were cited of areas which had requested a 20mph zone and which had been accepted, showing that where appropriate these would be introduced.

 

The Chair invited the Executive Member for Highways and Transportation to respond, and the points raised are summarised below:

 

·         The Executive had worked closely with officers to develop a robust and evidence-based approach that would be suitable for local communities across the counties.

 

·         The alternative scheme proposed by the signatories, which sought implementation of SMSs where local support existed, was in fact close to the approach set out in the policy, working proactively with communities and responding where a clear need for 20mph schemes existed.  The issues extended beyond a simple default 20mph debate, with some communities needing individual solutions.

 

·         It was hoped that members saw the positive benefits of the scheme as an improvement to the existing approach, and called on members to support it so it could be quickly delivered.  Recent proposals from Area Constituency Committees, which had been rejected, had nevertheless been considered closely during the development of the policy.

 

·         It was accepted that better communication was needed, to keep members informed about proposed schemes in their divisions.

 

The Chair invited debate and comment from the committee, which is summarised below:

 

·         It was felt that the Executive had not given adequate weight to points raised by residents and Town and Parish Councils.  Proposals by the Area Constituency Committees had been rejected without explanation, and the policy consultation had been inadequate, failing to consider opposing points of view.  Some members argued that the local view should be weighted most heavily when considering applications for SMSs.

 

·         Members highlighted the minimal impact 20mph zones would have on journey times in practice, a factor which had been cited as a reason to reject default 20mph zones.

 

·         Instances were highlighted of strong local support for SMSs, including in Parishes where substantial precept increases had been levied to fund them.

 

·         Concern was expressed about the length of time it would take for such schemes to be set up in practice, and the large number of communities already eager for SMSs in their areas were highlighted.  Arguments regarding health, climate change and safety benefits should prompt the Council to rapidly implement schemes where there was local support.

 

·         The policy was praised by other members as being an important step which would assure local communities that the issue was being taken seriously.

 

·         It was argued that the Council needed to be mindful of financial limitations, which would hinder the rollout of physical measures to support 20mph zones.

 

·         Officers responded to the claims of poor consultation by highlighting how local representations were clearly highlighted in the policy.  It was accepted that communication could be handled better, with members being kept informed of progress and a more sensitive approach taken when engaging with local communities.

 

Resolved:  That no further action be taken.

 

Officers responded to the decision by reiterating that NYC would proactively engage with Parish and Town Councils to explain the next steps, and that members would be consulted to help shape the policy going forward.  The Chair highlighted that the policy would likely be reviewed annually by the TEEE Overview and Scrutiny Committee, so members would have opportunity to monitor its implementation.