Merton Council

Home Home Merton Adult Education Home Home Jobs in children's social care Home Merton Means Business Home Wandle Valley Low Carbon Zone Home Safeguarding Children Board
How do I contact my councillor?

Agenda item

20 Mph Zones and limits

Minutes:

20 MPH ZONES AND ROAD SAFETY  (agenda item 8)

 

Chris Lee introduced the report and explained to the Panel that research had been undertaken in response to a request from the Panel, to enable members to undertake pre decision scrutiny on the proposals for the roll out of 20mph zones and limits across the borough. The report produced by consultancy Steer Davies Gleave looked at examples of 20mph zones and limits and the schemes implemented across London, nationally and internationally, to provide an evidence base to start a dialogue about the appropriate scheme for Merton. The position in Merton is that there are both 20mph zones and limits and there has been, over the past 2-3 years, a reduction in speed and accidents.

 

Chris Lee added that the DfT had also commissioned external research into 20mph schemes and the experiences of others reinforced the evidence emerging from this review and provided a feel for what is emerging regionally and nationally.

 

Dave Moffat and David Suranto consultants with Steer Davies Gleave commissioned to undertake this review, presented the findings:

 

·                                           Legal, regulatory and policy context

·                                           20mph zones and limits across London

·                                           Road safety rationale for 20mph speed limits

·                                           Impacts of 20mph schemes (pre and post monitoring)

·                                           Conclusions and considerations for Merton

 

Members were informed that both 20mph zones and speed limits are self enforcing and will incur different costs in terms of implementation. Both limits and zones require clear signage and physical measures. Limits are most common place as they are less financially onerous to implement.  Members also heard that the rationale for reducing speeds also relates to the duty placed on local authorities to contribute to public health (within the Health and Social Care Act 2012), as well as increased road safety and meeting associated targets and local policy commitments.

 

It was suggested to Members that the future policy direction of the council may be to implement zones and/or schemes on an area by area basis or that they may wish to look at a borough wide scheme if appropriate. Borough wide schemes are becoming more widespread across London, for example, central London boroughs such as Islington and Camden have 100% coverage of 20 mph limits/zones. However, the council should undertake monitoring and evaluation to look at collisions and traffic volumes when considering which model to adopt.

 

Furthermore, compliance can present many challenges. There is no expectation for additional resources for enforcement from the police and thresholds for action to be taken are in place.

 

Members should also consider the political appetite for schemes such as borough wide zones as this can often have a bearing on the policy direction the council takes. Other factors that can impact on the decision on the type of scheme to be adopted are environmental, traffic volumes, infrastructure and the effects of the scheme in the long term can be difficult to accurately predict.

 

Part of the challenge is to ensure a change in driving culture and social marketing is encouraged when schemes are implemented to stimulate this behavioural change. Education and engagement are key to this and whilst enforcement can be undertaken it should not be used in isolation without the appropriate mechanisms in place to facilitate behavioural change.

 

Conclusions drawn to members attention were:

·         To note that borough wide schemes ensure consistency for drivers

·         A case by case, area by area judgement is recommended as the most appropriate approach for Merton

·         This approach should be reviewed at a later stage dependent upon its success and outcomes

·         There should be a dedicated budget in place to encourage driver behavioural change

·         Evaluation of benefits should focus on the impact on road safety

·         The findings of the DfT review are expected in 2017 may be an opportune time to revisit the discussion about a borough wide scheme

·         Post implementation monitoring is required for at least 3 years

·         Opportunities for greater partnership working with the police should be explored

 

Councillor Janice Howard asked about the AA survey and noted that a 69% response rate would indicate that residents felt quite strongly about this. Proper consultation should be undertaken before a borough wide scheme is agreed. Dave Suranto agreed that research had shown that consultation with residents, the police, TfL and other key stakeholders way important.

 

Councillor Imran Uddin stated that enforcement was a critical factor in the success of the scheme adopted and asked if there was any data from other local authorities on how different types of enforcement impacted on behavioural change over a period of time. Dave Suranto explained that under the current legislative framework, only police can enforce limits. In Hackney, however, lobbying is underway for the council to acquire powers to enforce limits. This has yet to be decided. Some authorities also have existing partnerships and agreements with police on enforcement. Dave Moffat added that community speed watch, a residents group that they came across as part of their research, have a rota in place by which letters are sent to the police from residents when there is an enforcement issue. After 3 letters the resident can expect a visit from the police to address this. This is more of a community approach but it works very well. Councillor Imran Uddin added that there may be a role for Safer Neighbourhood Teams in this and that this should be considered as a priority at the local level.

 

Dave Moffat also highlighted another scheme to encourage behavioural change which involved stickers in car windows to demonstrate that people were driving too fast and not adhering to speed limits.

 

Councillor John Sargeant stated that there must be sophisticated signage in place to encourage behavioural change and that more advanced technology in this area should be explored. The most cost effective portable schemes that can be utilised on area by area basis were perhaps the best way forward for Merton.

 

Councillor Stan Anderson asked what impact 20mph zones/limits would have on congestion. Dave Suranto explained that there had been no increase in congestion resulting from these schemes found in the research. However, London buses have expressed concerns in the past about slowing down routes and therefore impacting on running times however once implemented, they found that their concerns did not materialise.

 

Councillor David Dean added that we should be mindful of the pressures on police resources already and the severity of the crimes they should be allocating resource towards in order to address them. There can also be confusion amongst residents regarding limits and there is a need for consistency and communication.

 

Councillor Andrew Judge informed the Panel that speed limits depend on adequate enforcement however the police have been unable to do so due to a lack of resources. It may be helpful for a discussion to take place on the powers of the council to enforce and perhaps an opportunity to lobby for such powers could be taken alongside Hackney.

 

Councillor John Sargeant noted that all recommendations within the report regarding the potential approaches the council could take regarding 20 mph zones and limits were acceptable but that the council needed to be more proactive. He added that there is a case for more experimental, portable signage in key locations to determine if improvements can be demonstrated and evidence gathered on the extent of behavioural change.

 

Chris Lee responded by suggesting that advice be sought from Steer Davies Gleave on signage.

 

RESOLVED: Panel noted the report and agreed its support for 20mph zones and limits to be considered on a case by case basis in the borough. The Panel agreed to forward a reference to Cabinet outlining its support and also requesting that further investigation be undertaken on radar based technology and signage, and associated costs and benefits.

 

 

Supporting documents: