Issue - items at meetings - Brighton and Hove 20mph Limit - Formal SLO Consultation

skip navigation and tools

navigation and tools

Find it

Issue - meetings

Brighton and Hove 20mph Limit - Formal SLO Consultation

Meeting: 15/01/2013 - Transport Committee (Item 48)

48 Brighton and Hove 20mph Limit - Formal SLO Consultation PDF 136 KB

Report of the Strategic Director, Place (copy to follow).

Additional documents:

Appendix - 20mph Phase 1 - SLO Submissions/Objections, item 48 PDF 78 KB

Decision:

1. That, having taken account of all duly made representations and objections, the Committee approves as advertised the following orders

· Brighton & Hove (Phase 1, Area 1) (20mph Speed Limit) Order 20** (TRO-22a-2012)

· Brighton & Hove (Phase 1, Area 2) (20mph Speed Limit) Order 20** (TRO-22b-2012)

· Brighton & Hove (Phase 1, Area 3) (20mph Speed Limit) Order 20** (TRO-22c-2012)

· Brighton & Hove (Phase 1, Area 4) (20mph Speed Limit) Order 20** (TRO-22d-2012)

· Brighton & Hove (Phase 1, Area 5) (20mph Speed Limit) Order 20** (TRO-22e-2012)

· Brighton & Hove (Phase 1, Area 6) (20mph Speed Limit) Order 20** (TRO-22f-2012)

· Brighton & Hove (Phase 1, Area 7) (20mph Speed Limit) Order 20** (TRO-22g-2012)

2. It is recommended that, if the above orders are approved by the Committee, a comprehensive monitoring programme accompany and follow the implementation of the 20mph speed limits in the Phase 1 area and that should such monitoring indicate that the introduction of the reduced speed limit has had a significant negative impact in line with objections raised, that a report be brought to the Committee seeking approval for remedial actions

Minutes:

48.1 The Committee considered a report of the Strategic Director, Place that addressed the comments and objections relating to the draft Speed Limit Orders (SLO) that outlined proposals for the introduction of a 20mph speed limit in central Brighton and Hove as Phase 1 of a proposed city wide roll out.

48.2 Councillor Robins formally moved an additional recommendation (2.3) from the Labour & Co-Operative Group as follows:

2.3 Subject to the above orders at 2.1, remove all A roads and B roads where they form part of the city’s main bus network from Phase 1 of the 20mph scheme to reflect the recommendations in the Report of the 20mph speed limits/zones Scrutiny Panel and in line with submissions from the Bus Company and Taxi Trade.

48.3 Councillor Mitchell formally seconded the motion. Councillor Mitchell stated that concerns identified at the previous Committee regarding the taxi trade and bus company were still unresolved. Councillor Mitchell raised her concern of the potential for anti-social behaviour towards taxi drivers whose passengers may not be aware of the new limits and may think drivers were deliberately driving slowly to increase fares. Councillor Mitchell added her worries for safety at bus stops at night with a less frequent service. Councillor Mitchell supplemented that whilst she appreciated the road safety issues noted, and the simplification within the scheme as proposed, she believed that the public transport system and safety issues should not be compromised. The Labour & Co-Operative motion would remove roads such as Sackville Road and the seafront routes to ensure this. In addition, Councillor Mitchell noted the Scrutiny Panel recommendations of 2010 that stated 20mph limits should be introduced on residential streets in “clusters” not a blanket scheme.

48.4 The Chair asked for clarification on the specific roads the Labour & Co-Operative motion would remove.

48.5 Councillor Mitchell replied that, as the motion stated, this would be all A roads and some B roads used by the public transport network. The detail of specific roads would be undertaken by technical officers.

48.6 The Acting Assistant Head of Law clarified that the motion was correct legally and that officers would be able to identify and implement specific roads should the motion be passed.

48.7 Councillor West stated that he believed the motion was ineffective as some B roads already had 20mph limits. Agreeing the motion would mean increasing the limits on those roads which was illogical. Councillor West relayed that of 3,600 respondents to the consultation, 55% were in favour of implementation and, importantly, Sussex Police had not stated any objection to the scheme. Councillor West added that the average speed of traffic in the Phase 1 area was 24mph so 20mph would not be a significant reduction and that 70-80% of journey time in the city was spent at junctions or traffic lights and ‘smoother’ transit arising from driving at 20mph could improve traffic flow and air quality. Councillor West highlighted that 43% of pedestrian road casualties and 48% of cycle accidents in the city occurred within the area identified for the Phase 1 scheme. The Scrutiny Panel of 2010 had stated that “vulnerable road users need to be protected” and he believed the proposals within the report would ensure this. Councillor West stated that the scheme would necessitate coherency and consistency which the proposed Phase 1 area would deliver. Councillor West did not agree that A roads and some B roads could be exempt from the scheme.

48.8 Councillor Theobald stated that, just as the Brighton Station Gateway scheme had been deferred on the basis of concerns raised, so should any decision on the 20mph scheme. He added that he did not believe there was sufficient support for a blanket scheme and that a ‘cluster’ scheme would be more popular. Councillor Theobald agreed with the concerns raised regarding taxi passengers and safety at bus stops at night. However, he added that he could not support the Labour & Co-Operative motion as he believed a scheme in that form would cost more to implement due to the need for more signage and a list of roads was not present.

48.9 Councillor Follett stated that it was necessary that the scheme was coherent. He noted that there was no evidence of community safety problems arising from such schemes but there was evidence that road safety showed significant improvement.

48.10 Councillor Phillips stated she believed the proposals would not only improve road safety but enhance the environment and surroundings. Councillor Phillips noted that a recent study demonstrated over 60% support for such schemes with that support significantly comprised of women, young people and those of pensionable age.

48.11 Councillor Cox stated that he supported the scheme in principle on the basis of safety. However, he had misgivings that the taxi trade and bus company did not support the proposals. Councillor Cox stated that he had concerns for bus services in the city and night journeys in particular. Councillor Cox commented that recommendation 2.2 provided scope for monitoring and remedial action. However, he stated that he could not support the Labour & Co-Operative motion as it was not costed specifically regarding the additional signage required.

48.12 Councillor Janio noted that all three Conservative Party Councillors present at the Committee had campaigned for 20mph limits in their wards. Councillor Janio relayed his concern that the Scrutiny Panel recommendation for ‘cluster’ 20mph areas appeared to have been rejected because of the higher cost of implementation, particularly signage. Councillor Janio also noted that similar schemes implemented in Plymouth and Oxford may be reversed because they had not been effective. He asked that because of the issues divisiveness and lack of overwhelming support, any decision should be postponed and returned to once the Green Party had included the issue in their manifesto and were successful in an election.

48.13 The Chair replied that the Green Party had included the implementation of 20mph limits in their manifesto for the 2011 local elections.

48.14 Councillor Robins relayed that he made a living through driving and had never been convinced that 20mph limits improved safety. He stated that there were parallels with this scheme and the parking charges in London Road where he felt concerns had not been listened to and the scheme implemented regardless. Councillor Robins stated that the taxi trade and bus company were telling the Committee that the scheme would not work and they should listen.

48.15 The Chair replied that equal weight should be given to the very high number of residents who had addressed the Committee and completed the consultation requesting a 20mph scheme.

48.16 Councillor Theobald moved the following motion on behalf of the Conservative Group:

That the item is deferred subject to further consultation with taxi drivers and further details on the roads affected by the removal of all A roads and some B roads from the scheme

48.17 Councillor Mitchell formally seconded the motion.

48.18 The Chair put the motion moved by Councillor Theobald to the vote with the following result:

For: 5

Against: 5

48.19 Therefore, the motion was not carried

48.20 The Chair then put the following motion moved by Councillor Robins to the vote with the following result:

For: 2

Against: 5

Abstentions: 3

48.21 Therefore, the motion was not carried.

48.22 The Chair then put each of the recommendations to the vote.

48.23 RESOLVED-