Agenda item

Considered –

The written report of the Corporate Director – Business and Environmental Services to provide an update the committee with an update on the preparation of a revised 20mph Speed Limit policy.

David Kirkpatrick presented the report.  

David Kirkpatrick explained that work was in progress now and referred to the report detailing the progress against each of the recommendations put forward by the committee arising from its review.  Since the review had been undertaken, the landscape had changed due to the covid-19 pandemic and as a result active travel had come to the fore and that might possibly increase the support for 20 mph initiatives.

Since the review was completed some of the recommendations in the committee’s report had been discharged and built into the policy or finalising elements of the same.

David Kirpatrick said that one of the key things he would like to put forward is for the inclusion of 20mph zones in the policy; the committees’ recommendations had centred only on 20mph speed limits.  It was intended for the new policy to bring the delivery of 20mph speed limits and 20mph speed zones under a single document.  The assessment criteria was much the same for both of them.

He went on to note that the policy would not be an extensive document. 

Members made the following comments:

The Chairman said he had received several enquiries from members of the public and schools since the committee’s recommendations had been approved about the process for applying for 20mph speed limits.  This also included schools that had tried but failed previously to get 20mph speed limits outside the school.  They were questioning how to go about the process of applying to have a 20mph scheme introduced, and what had changed materially as a result of the committee’s recommendations.  They wanted advice on what their chances would be on being successful in getting a 20mph scheme outside their school.  However, there did not appear to be a single point of contact within North Yorkshire County Council for advice and guidance to help local communities be guided through the process.  A single point of contact in the council was required.  He referred to school within his division that had been trying for several years to have a 20mph speed limit outside the school and had recently had another application rejected but with no clear understanding as to why it had been rejected.  He understood that there needed to be a technical element in decision-making about whether an area qualified based upon historical accident data.  However, decision-making should not just be about the numbers; it should also be about local perception and local need.  The latter seemed to have failed to have been taken forward at this stage and he was concerned about.  Whilst it was a challenge to square the circle of accident history data versus public perception, the committee in its report had felt strongly that local need should have more weight than it had previously; the statistical evidence should not be the sole factor in decision-making.

David Kirkpatrick agreed about the points around communication and single point of contact.  He was responsible from a central point of view in putting together a policy for the Area Highways teams to deliver but those contacts would be included in the documents and there would be a generic email address.  There would be a clear means of contact for people to discuss their ideas with an appropriate member of staff.  He acknowledged that engineers’ could sometimes be focused on just assessing the technical statistical detail rather than other aspects.  This was understandable given their background and training and it was important to use the statistics as the basis for investment but there were some subtleties to be considered in relation to public concerns about speeding.  He referred to the Safer Roads Fund monies that the county council had received over the last two to three years.  This had a focus on funding projects relating to changing perceived risk, rather than the actual risk that the council had already invested in to tackle; so there was an understanding there about the importance of perception from a policy and funding point of view.  Added to this the growth of active travel was another policy driver.  Cycle ways would have an impact on how traffic moved on the road because they supported a lower speed limit.

County Councillor Andy Paraskos said that the criteria for 20mph schemes seemed to be stringent to meet.  There was a parish within his division that had been willing to pay for a scheme to be introduced in one of its villages so that North Yorkshire County Council did not have to fund it.  However the cost that the parish council was quoted was in the region of £100,000, which it could not afford.  There were no options to introduce a cycle lane because it was a linear village with the main road running through.  Speed surveys had shown that there was an issue with speeding through the village.  He said that three years’ worth of accident data was not long enough in order to base decisions on eligibility for a scheme, especially as the lockdowns arising from the covid-19 pandemic had led to a reduction in road traffic and so would skew the data.  He suggested five years’ worth of accident data made greater sense.

David Kirkpatrick replied that funding was an aspect that needed to be considered seriously.  He noted there were two arguments to that and it should never be a case that because a parish could potentially afford the implementation of a scheme that it should be introduced, and vice versa.   Any additional funding though that could be levered in to support funding from the county council would be welcome given the constraints on its budget.  In relation to the cost of £100,000 quoted for the scheme, he said that he suspected that was because it could be that additional traffic calming measures would need to be put in place to reduce the speed of vehicles and so that the speed limit would be self-enforcing.  Speed signs limit would for that location not physically reduce the speed of vehicles.  This would be the case with other locations.  The county council would be looking to set aside a capital budget for 20mph schemes but would also need to look at other funding mechanisms to use.  In relation to the three year time frame for recording accident statistics, that was a national standard because statistically three years provided the optimum length of time and of the reflection of the level of risk and how that that section of the network or junction was performing at that time.  The county council did extended searches to five years and even sometimes 10 years to get that longer-term trend.  He acknowledged that traffic flows had been skewed over the last 18 months because of the pandemic and the council was building that into its analysis.  He agreed it would be entirely appropriate to take a slightly longer term in light of this but going forward once past the pandemic period from a policy point of view it would be right to keep with the three years period of analysis.

County Councillor Paul Haslam mentioned that many people had contacted him about 20mph speed limits.  He said that he would like to see a timeline on when all the various recommendations put forward by the committee would be introduced.  In relation to statistics he said that about 1700 people died nationally on the roads last year as a result of accidents.  However, another 10,000 people died from premature deaths as a result of the emissions from vehicles.  He said that one of the factors that was often missed was that 20mph speed limits helped people feel safer.  This then provided a social return on the capital invested as it encouraged people to use active transport in less time than it took for cycle paths to be able to be introduced, and for there to be a reduction in carbon emissions.

David Kirkpatrick said that there was not an explicit date listed against each of the committee’s recommendation but he could provide more information after the meeting to provide greater assurance in terms of timescales for delivery.  He acknowledged the points raised by County Councillor Paul Haslam about the national statistics.  He said that a core element of the traffic engineering teamwork was about safety making the entire highway network as safe and as accessible as possible for multiple different users.  He acknowledged that in relation to active travel it was a ‘chicken and egg' situation in terms of which do you encourage first – that is to explicitly encourage active modes of travel or put in traffic calming measures such as 20mph speed zones first.  The issue was that expenditure was finite but officers did need to consider in greater detail as to how to promote the active travel agenda.   The DfT guidance on setting local speed limits would continue to be used and in that document it referred to the need to understand community needs, etc.  However, with the new policy it would also be about making sure that community needs would be applied through a policy process.

The Chairman said that whilst he noted about getting the right balance and the importance of the technical side of things, there was a need for greater weight to be placed upon local needs than was currently the case.

David Kirpatrick said that he agreed with that.  Local need could not be measured quite as well as it could be in relation to technical data and it would inevitably be the case that schemes would be agreed in some areas and not others.  It would be important to ensure the reasons for decisions would be captured clearly.

The Chairman asked for a list to be produced of the number of schools that currently had 20mph speed limits, noting that this was an aspect that the committee had requested previously when undertaking its review.  He said it was important for Members to have this list when discussing 20mph speed limits with their local communities and to know the reasons why they had been introduced.

David Kirkpatrick said that he agreed and acknowledged that there were gaps in the information that was available to the public.  Within the highways engineering team staff were having detailed conversations about how decisions were recorded and how those decisions would be monitored in future.  He noted that North Yorkshire was a large county with a lot of schools.  Records of the decisions taken were currently quite fragmented between the Area Highways offices.  The record of the decisions needed to be more structured and produced in a more useful way for staff to be able to use.

The Chairman noted that there was a strong case for having a top-down approach to decision-making to ensure a consistent approach across the county in relation to decisions taken about which areas warranted 20mph speed limits.

County Councillor Andy Paraskos mentioned about the benefits of having 20mph speed limits in relation to slowing down the average speed within an area.  Typically, if drivers saw a 30mph speed limit they would travel through that area at speeds up to 40mph.  If a 20mph speed limit was in place they would reduce their speed to down perhaps as far as 30mph.

The Chairman noted that the task group had discussed this.  However it was far easier to address speeding in an urban environment by introducing lower speed limits than it was in the county’s mostly rural environment.  Cost was also another factor.

The Chairman concluded by emphasising again the importance of consistent and transparent decision-making in relation to 20mph schemes.  He mentioned that in his division parishes had been trying for a long time without success to get 20mph schemes in their area.  They had been hopeful that there would be change after the County Council’s Executive had agreed to accept the committee’s recommendations.  There was no evidence though of this happening on the ground in terms of local need being taken into account.  Instead, there continued to be a reliance only on historical statistical data.

David Kirkpatrick said that these concerns were understood.  Over the past 12 months enquiries about 20mph schemes had grown and he referred back to the fact that there had been a changing mindset because of the covid-19 situation as more people wanted the ability to travel in different ways.  He said that he wished to assure the committee that the implementation of the new policy was a priority and the committee would be consulted in a timely fashion on the finalised draft version of the 20mph speed limit policy.  He would also follow-up to today’s presentation by providing timescales for the policy to be introduced.

Resolved –

a)         That the Committee notes the progress to date.

b)         That the Committee is consulted on the finalised draft version of the 20mph speed limit policy.