Issue - meetings

8.55pm

The Committee received a report from John Richards, Project Leader, Environment, Streets and Open Spaces.

 

The report outlined the outcomes of the Cambridge 20mph Project Phase 3 (South and West/ Central) public consultation and requested that West/Central Area provided recommendations to the Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport on how the project should be progressed. 

 

The recommendations were as follows:

 

i.        To note the consultations outcomes.

ii.       To provide comments and recommendations to the Executive Councillor           for Planning and Transport (Councilllor Kevin Blencowe) and the           Environment Scrutiny Committee at which a final decision on potential         implementation of the project will be made, specifically:

•        Whether to introduce a 20mph limit on unclassified         roads in the West /           Central phase area.

•        Whether to introduce a 20mph limit on all / none/ some   of the main          roads within the West/Central phase area.

 

Comments from the public: 

 

Pauline Goyal-Rutsaert (following statement was read out):

 

“An essential principle for consultation by public bodies is that sufficient information should be made available to stakeholders in order to enable them to make informed comments and decisions.

“I consider that insufficient information has been made available to residents to make an informed decision on the Citywide 20mph consultation, severely hampering the reliability of this consultation exercise.

“The reason is simple: the information to make an informed decision is not available. Based on my interaction with the project team and the documents made available to me, the costs and benefits of this project have not been assessed in any reasonable manner; no analysis of unintended consequences has been carried out.

“What I read in these documents is that the project is based on a list of arguments, borrowed from a campaign by a lobbying group. I am upset to realise that such a project has been the object of no reasonable analysis of costs, benefits and unintended consequence. To me it shows a lack of professionalism. To put together an initial reasonable cost benefit analysis, using existing literature, is not costly and should have been budgeted for.

To read that this project was voted unanimously by the councillors in the absence of any initial cost benefit analysis makes me wonder.

“In the consultation letter sent to residents, the same list of argument has been to a great extent reproduced – with any cost aspects removed. I am of the view that residents deserve objective information, including the pros and the cons as well as the unknown factors of this project. It is only on that basis that the outcome of the consultation exercise is meaningful.

I could mention several facts that residents should have been told about and that might have helped them make an informed decision. Here are a couple:

-        The impact on airborne pollution is not clear-cut because two factors play in opposite directions (less speeding and           breaking is good, lower gear is bad);

-        The value of lost time might get passed onto customers by     trade          driving a lot in residential areas (taxis, delivery vans, courier);

-        Other cities have recorded limited reduction in speed after similar    schemes – and these are often not significant from a statistic point of view;

-        The Department of Transport does not encourage the adoption of   20mph and encourage alternative options to be considered first;

-        Various parts of the UK police force do not consider this as an         effective           measure.

“Based on the above, I consider that the outcome of the consultation on 20mph cannot be considered as representative of what the residents would have decided had they received this information. I hope that the committee will take this statement into account and reconsider.”

 

The Chair thanked Dr Goyal-Rutsaert for her comments and advised the West / Central Area was not responsible for the consultation but had been asked to make recommendations based on a decision that had been taken by full Council.

 

John Lawton: The project has to be put into place to determine the outcome and not just rely on evidence based reports. Maids Causeway was a 20mph pilot scheme approximately four years ago and continues today. Hopefully lessons have been learnt from this arrangement.

 

Member of the public: 30km speed limits had been wide spread in Europe for a number of years resulting in lower accident rates involving children. How can you compare the cost of a life in road accident terms to the cost of implementing the scheme?

 

Colin Rosenstiel: Would the speed camera still be in use for 20mph enforcement on Victoria Avenue should the proposal be agreed.

 

The Project Leader, Environment, Streets and Open Spaces advised the camera was not approved by the Department of Transport for 20mph enforcement and therefore would be removed.

 

John Lawton: What is the difference between a speed camera and a safety camera? What type of enforcement camera could be used?

 

The Project Leader, Environment, Streets and Open Spaces reiterated that the camera was not type approved for 20mph. Average speed cameras would be able to measure the 20mph limit but the process for approval and installation was costly and time consuming. 

 

There was no difference between a speed and safety camera. The City Council had no control over the cameras in the City. It was the Police and the County Council who determined the location of the cameras. It would not be economical to leave the camera on Victoria Avenue as no revenue would be generated to cover the cost of the camera if this was to become a 20mph limit.

 

Colin Rosenstiel: What was the outcome from the North Area Committee on Chesterton Road and Victoria Road?

 

It was confirmed that Chesterton Road was left at 30mph and Victoria Road 20mph.

 

Comments from the Committee:

 

Councillor Reid: The North Newnham Residents’ Association has asked if the issue of signage could be raised and the impact of street clutter. Is there a budget for the removal of redundant signs in the areas highlighted in the Officers report?

 

The Environment, Streets and Open Spaces Project Leader responded that there would be a minimum installation of new signs while taking the opportunity to consolidate existing 20mph signage. Redundant signs would be removed.

 

Councillor Cantrill: Welcomed the 20mph limit for Grantchester Road and asked if the Officer could also provide an update on the installation of traffic calming measures.

 

The Project Leader, Environment, Streets and Open Spaces advised that the work would start in late 2015.

 

Councillor Cearns: Welcome the project but would reluctantly suggest that Victoria Avenue is left out as it could not be enforced. The Police would be asked to stretch their resources further to enforce this.

 

Councillor Bick: Would be best to keep enforcement on Victoria Avenue and could be looked at again when the redevelopment of Mitcham’s Corner had been completed.

 

The Committee:

 

Under the City Council’s constitution County Councillor Cearns did not vote on this item.

 

Councillor Cearns stated that as joint committee there should be joint decision making powers. The Chair requested that the voting rights be looked at by the relevant City Council Committee (ACTION).

 

i.        Resolved unanimously to introduce a 20mph limit on    unclassified roads in the West / Central phase area.

ii.       Resolved (4 Votes to 0, with 2 abstention) not to introduce a         20mph limit on Victoria Avenue, subject to retaining the   speed camera.

iii.      Resolved unanimously to introduce a 20mph limit on    Grantchester Road.

iv.      Resolved unanimously to introduce a 20mph limit on    Castle Street.