·         A report presented to the TWP in June 2016 detailed the rationale behind 20mph zones and limits in residential areas. The recommendation was for officers to carry out further investigation works in readiness to progress the schemes once the existing programme of 20mph zones outside educational premises was complete and when suitable funding became available.  The continuing works outside schools is detailed in Appendix 1 to the report and has been reported in previous Road Safety Initiative reports to this Working Party.

·         An allocation of 65k has recently been granted by Full Council specifically for road safety improvements including 20mph zones in residential areas part of Local Transport Plan Implementation Plan.  In view of this initial assessments have taken place of potential areas that may benefit from reduced speed limit.

·         As detailed in the 2016 report this scheme is supported as evidence from several town and cities across England suggest that this can reduce the number and severity of road traffic collisions.  However IJ advised that the 20mph restrictions will not solve a speeding issue in itself and the average is a 1mph speed reduction in areas where speeds are already low.  Guidance suggests that where speed is already low and where existing traffic calming is in place, a 20mph limit is self-enforcing.

·         In Appendix 3 to the report “Category A” features areas deemed most suitable in terms of self-enforcing zones and that already have traffic calming or engineered solutions in place.  These areas are relatively easy to implement and meet the self-enforcing criteria.

·         “Category B” areas would be more challenging and do not have traffic calming in place, but have environments that encourage slower driving.  Each location would be looked at in its own merit but may be more difficult to implement than Category “A” areas.

·         “Category C” are areas that are not considered suitable areas currently and would need engineering solutions to be added to be considered.

·         Appendix 3 also lists strategic routes that are not recommended for 20mph limits or zones.

·         It should be noted that none of the areas in categories “A” or “B” have evidence of a road traffic collision problem.  Also the Police do not consider the enforcement of 20mph a priority, they also support 20mph limits when they are self enforcing.

·         IJ advised that the Department of Transport were due to issue revised guidance on 20mph zones, however this has not yet been released therefore could not be included within the report.   There are no indications that the expected content will be detrimental, but IJ will report back if this is the case.  

·         IJ advised that if Category “A” areas are agreed, 2-3 areas could potentially be implemented.  If Category “B”, 1-2 areas are likely, due to the additional complexities.  IJ advised that the recommendation is for the priorities of sites to be agreed by the Executive Head and Executive Lead Member and progress reported back to the TWP.  IJ confirmed there would be consultation with stakeholders, including ward members and community partnerships before the schemes are progressed.  Limits will have to be advertised formally and objections may be received as a result.

·         JOD enquired why this allocation of funding was not being used to complete the 20mph zones outside educational premises that is still ongoing?  JOD felt this money should be used around schools where the chance of children running into the road is higher.  IJ advised that the works around schools are continuing subject to the available resources and officer capacity.  The 20mph limits in Category A are relatively straight forward to implement.

·         SD enquired why Audley Avenue is not featured in the categories when a child was involved in a serious collision in this location.  IJ confirmed that the analysis tends to go back 3-5 years and was unsure if this would have been prior to this time.  It is to be noted that that are always many factors to take into account when a collision occurs and these are looked at during annual site reviews.

·         Cricketfield Road and Cockington Village were suggested as possible sites also.  IJ advised Cricketfield may form part of the schools scheme and Cockington would more than likely fall under Category C without further engineering works.

     Recommendation

·           RE proposed to take forward as per recommendation in report.

            SD seconded – all in favour.