Chris Lee introduced the report and explained that this was the first of possibly a number of reports to come to the Panel. He stated that research is still in early stages and evidence is emerging to show a slightly confusing picture from the studies undertaken. Chris Lee noted that the police do not treat enforcement of these zones/limits as a priority.

Councillor Dennis Pearce enquired about the height of signage and if the cost of implementation of these zones was justified by a 0.9% reduction in the average speed. Furthermore, if the speed limits/zones are not enforced, what other methods for slowing traffic could be employed.

Richard Lancaster explained that the 0.9% figure reflected the information gathered from benchmarking from research undertaken in Portsmouth. The council only hold 1 year of data post implementation and therefore this information needs to be treated with caution.

Mitra Dubet explained that the signage meets the requirements and standards set and that it is suitable for residential roads. Other traffic calming measures are available but have their own problems associated with them. . Historically 20 mph zones were introduced in areas with traffic calming measures and 20mph speed Limits where speeds were low.  The effectiveness of a lower speed is linked to physical measures as well as driver behaviour.

Councillor Ian Munn added that there was difficulty with the visibility of signage.

Mitra Dubet explained that there was a difference between zones and limits and that the council have received complaints that there are too many signs, not that they are not visible.

Councillor John Sargeant explained that this data was misleading. Data listed presented average figures and this was not helpful in terms of establishing the highs and lows. Until we have this information this cannot be judged. 

Councillor David Dean added that there was inconsistency around the borough in terms of limits. This should be looked at on all side roads and if they should be 20mph zones should be determined. Residents should be consulted on implementation also and any traffic calming measures should notbe a hindrance for residents.

Councillor Phillip Jones argued that there was a need for better signage at Wandle Road and that there have been frequent complaints on the Wandle Road site due to the speed cushions there.

Councillor Dennis Pearce added that areas should be targeted without using cushions.

Councillor Ian Munn asked about air pollution on roads with traffic calming measures.

Councillor Samantha George stated that she did not feel the report met the requirements of the Panel in that the data was misleading and the outcomes further to council motion on 20mph zones are not included.

Richard Lancaster explained that zones are self enforcing as they include traffic calming measures and limits are not supported by traffic calming measures. The research presented is inconclusive as there is only 1 years worth of data available at present. There is a need for further data to determine the impact. There is clear evidence, however, that zones have an impact on speed.

Councillor John Sargeant added that whilst zones would be effective, there was a need for more in other areas and that there should be a campaign around behavioural change in drivers. More analysis was required and should be presented to a future meeting for discussion.

Councillor Russell Makin requested that a more detailed report be brought to a future Panel meeting for discussion.

Councillor Andrew Judge added that this was an important topic for discussion but that it should be noted that certain roads made the implementation of traffic calming measures difficult. Enforcement is needed in some zones but the council has no powers to do so and the police in Merton have put less resource into this.

RESOLVED:  That a follow up report on 20mph zones/limits be brought to a future meeting of the Panel.