Apologies were received from Councillor Mario Creatura. Councillor Mike Fisher was present as his reserve.

None

None

None

Present for this item:
Councillor Kathy Bee, Cabinet Member for Transport and Environment
Councillor Robert canning, Deputy Cabinet Member, Transport and Environment
Jo Negrini, Executive Director Place
Steve Iles, Director of Streets
Mike Barton Highway Improvement Manager, Highways
Waheed Alam, Engineer
 

The Chair invited Councillor Sara Bashford to outline the reasons for the call-in, which she gave as being:

• The scheme does not represent good value for money
• Restrictions for a specific areas such as outside schools would be more effective to control speeds
• Councillor Bashford stated that the minority group supported the 20mph in specific roads where residents had identified problems and outside schools and care homes.
• The minority group did not support the spend of £300,000 in an area where the council survey already indicated that in 95% of roads the average speed was only 24mph.
• Questioned the response rate of only 3% of residents in the area.

Councillor Bashford asked the committee to consider what the £300k was being spent on, as it was not on additional calming measure or enforcement but on road signs.

Councillor Kathy Bee made a short presentation, a copy of which has been loaded to the council website at: https://secure.croydon.gov.uk/akscroydon/users/public/admin/kabmenu.pl?cmte=SOC
 

During the course of the presentation Councillor Kathy Bee provided the following information:

• 20 mph being introduced across other parts of London
• Introduction of scheme was a manifesto commitment
• Already been to Scrutiny in 2014 and Cabinet in March 2015, details of scheme have not changed since.

Why 20mph - 3 main reasons

• Accidents v casualties - better chance of survival if pedestrian stuck at 20mph
• Better environment - roads form majority of public realm but it's not just about moving cars
• Encourage walking and cycling - health benefits

Councillor Bee went on to say that evidence from other boroughs/towns showed that speeds did reduce once a scheme had been introduced and that support for a 20mph zone rose after implementation. There was also evidence of increased safety for pedestrians and cyclists and an increase in physical activity. In response to the question of response rate Cllr Bee said that the survey question was ‘do you support the proposal to lower the speed limit to 20 mph?' related to the whole area with 52.5% in favour.

In summing up Cllr Bee said that the cost to introduce the scheme to a single road was £6k whereas the proposed area wide scheme worked out at £750 per road. She also stated that there were no objectors from the area at the Traffic Management Advisory Committee meeting where the scheme was agreed.

The Chair of the Committee outlined how the meeting would continue, objectors would speak first and then those in favour and finally the Ward Councillors would speak. Each would be allocated 2 minutes. Members of the Committee would then question the Cabinet Member and officers.

On the basis of the information received, the Committee RESOLVED to consider the call in item North Croydon Area- wide 20 mph Speed Limit (Statutory consultation report on objections)

The following members of the public spoke:

Mr Morgan sought to raise a point of order and was advised that this was not a public meeting but a meeting of the Committee in public.

Mr Peter Morgan, representing Sense with Roads, speaking against the proposals:

• Evidence of cost has not been provided
• Challenged the distinction between £6k and £750.
• Challenged the consultation results as post code information has not been provided.
• His own research of post codes had indicated 3 areas against the scheme and 2 in favour
• Indicated that the police had raised concerns around 52 roads where speed exceeded 24mph
• There was evidence of ‘ballot stuffing'

Mr Roger Lawson representing Association of British Drivers, speaking against the proposals:

• Raised concerns about the cost against benefits of road safety
• City of London had introduced 20mph scheme and evidence is that injury accident figures increased
• No evidence that it would encourage walking or cycling
• £300k would be better spent on other road safety projects

Mr Jeremy Leach, representing 20's Plenty for Us, speaking in favour of the proposals:

• Evidence from a 2009 survey across London where reduction in speed limit introduce showed a reduction of casualties fell by 42%
• In 2014 Croydon has highest number of fatalities in London - 9 deaths on the roads
• In 2013 - 13 deaths on the roads
• 2014 Croydon second highest pedestrian casualties across London with 243 injured
• Introduction on 20mph changes the balance between vehicles and people making roads safer
• Will be an increase in enforcement through community road watch backed by police and TfL.

The following Councillors spoke:

Councillor Maggie Mansell, Norbury Ward

• 3 residents association requested introduction of 20 mph zones
• Residents want the scheme introduced now.
• Not all roads in the Ward included but residents keen for introduction
• Slower traffic will mean less serious injuries

Councillor Matthew Kyeremeh, Thornton Heath Ward

• Residents in favour of introduction of scheme
• £300K will be well spent if it stops one life being lost
• Grange Road traffic too fast and residents want slower speeds
• Has been introduced in other London boroughs as well as Portsmouth, Warrington and Edinburgh

Councillor Stuart King, West Thornton Ward

• Clear evidence that there is support for scheme
• Central part of the labour manifesto
• Supported by all councillors in north of the borough
• Police have no objections to the scheme
• Patchwork of 20mph or 30mph will not work and would be confusing

Councillor Karen Jewitt, Thornton Heath Ward

• Had never received any complaints against the proposed installation scheme but had lots of support
• Residents are impatient to get it installed
• Only complaints have been about the fly posters by anti 20mph group and the cost to the council to remove them.

Councillor Pat Ryan, Upper Norwood Ward

• 20mph will be very popular with residents and they are impatient for it to be installed
• 4 or 5 petitions for the introduction have been presented to council in recent years.
• Neighbouring boroughs of Southwark and Lambeth have introduced the scheme
• Local schools welcome the introduction of the scheme
• Will save lives and save money.

Councillor Vidhi Mohan, speaking on behalf of Councillor Yvette Hopley, Shadow Cabinet Member for Transport

• When spending £300k should be asking what is the problem?
• What is the real situation regarding accidents in roads where scheme being introduced, as never been given the evidence
• Accepts that one fatality is one too many.
• How many accidents will this scheme reduce?
• Clever at picking and choosing what evidence is given, there is evidence that casts doubt on whether a reduction in speed solves the problem of road safety
• There is evidence that shows where accidents have increased where it has been introduced
• Response rate of 3% is that value for money?
• Not been provided with responses on a road by road basis
• Should be targeted to certain roads for better value for money.

Councillor Robert Canning, Deputy Cabinet Member and member of Traffic Management Advisory Committee, Waddon Ward

• Waddon has a successful 20mph zone
• No objectors at TMAC meeting, no petition's in objection to the scheme, no local councillors objected to the scheme
• Clear case of silent majority agreeing to the project.
• Value for money if it saves one life.
• Funding coming from local implementation plan a TfL funding stream.
• Area wide approach is most cost effective way.

The Chair of the Committee advised that he had received a statement from Living Streets who had been unable to attend the meeting (the statement can be found on the Council website) in support of the scheme.

The Committee asked questions, including:

• Why wasn't post code and road by road analysis available?
• Consultation - were household results amalgamated, if so why?
• Why was the electoral roll not used?
• Enforcement - how will it be enforced?
• How was area decided?
• If an area doesn't vote for it what will happen?
• Where do the majority of accidents occur? Is this good value for money?
• How can Public Realm improve if there is more street clutter?
• Is there any evidence of ‘ballot stuffing'?

The following information was given:

Councillor Bee stated

• Post code information protected by Data Protection
• Road by road- local councillors had asked residents if they wanted it and many thought it a good idea
• Household vote amalgamated, 1:1 is a natural vote, 1:2 against etc set out in FAQs. This way gives a more balanced view. Report went to Cabinet a year ago and this point could have been raised then
• Enforcement - police will enforce as they do now where speeding is an issue. No objections from the police
• If an area votes against scheme will not be implemented.
• Vast majority of accidents on main road but implementation will make it easier for people to walk in residential streets
• Work is ongoing where roads have accident hotspots
• Street clutter would be decreased; roads will be painted with speed roundels to make it clear where the zones are.
• No evidence of ‘ballot stuffing', comments from outside the area were disregarded both yes and no

Mike Barton, Highway Improvement Manager, Highways

• Borough was split into 5 manageable areas, divided by the main road network used as natural boundaries

Jo Negrini, Executive Director Place

• Regarding the number of accidents in the northern area, data will be shared with the committee
• Streets in northern zone there is evidence that there have been accidents in the area.
• Area bounded by ‘A' roads, which will be the demarcation lines between 30mph and 20mph areas.
• Trying to make it easier for people to understand and to change people's behaviour generally as per an area rather than individual roads.
• More cost effective to do a whole area
• If the member of the public believes there was evidence of ballot stuffing he should raise a formal complaint with the council.
   

Following the question and answer session of the committee went on to discuss conclusions and recommendations.

The Chair proposed that scrutiny ask the Cabinet Member to review how the consultation was handled, what lessons could be learnt and what could be done better. He went on to say that the TMAC papers included a number of legitimate objections and responses and that when a new item comes forward on this matter that we are able to show that we have reviewed those objections, how they have been incorporated or considered them the council moves on to future areas.

The Chair then formally proposed that no further action was necessary in this matter.

The Committee RESOLVED by 4 votes to 2, that no further action was necessary in respect of the decisions taken by the Cabinet Member on 18th February 2016 following the recommendations from the Traffic Management Advisory Committee held on 9th February 2016 relating to item North Croydon Area- wide 20 mph Speed Limit (Statutory consultation report on objections) and confirmed that the decisions could now be implemented.