Agenda item

(1)       The report set out the work the County Council and the Government were doing in developing new policy on the implementation of 20mph schemes. It recommended that whilst the work and the associated trials were ongoing, Members re-affirmed their support for the existing County Council policy. The policy stated that 20mph schemes would only be introduced where they could produce crash reductions as part of a Casualty Reduction Scheme. A full review of the policy would be brought to this Committee, once the trials had been evaluated, for Members to consider.

(2)     There were currently two different types of 20mph schemes that the County Council could legally implement. One required traffic calming to make the limit self enforcing, and were referred to as “zones”, whilst 20mph “limits” did not require traffic calming but simply relied on signing. The “limits” however must have existing traffic speeds at or around 20mph before a formal Traffic Regulation Order could be introduced and made the limit legal to avoid criminalising large numbers of motorists, presenting the Police with an unrealistic enforcement problem and generating driver frustration and impatience due to delays.

(3)     Over the last twelve months the Government had announced some changes to the way local Traffic Authorities could implement 20mph schemes to reduce time-consuming and costly bureaucracy.  The changes were intended to reduce the costs for Councils wanting to use 20mph schemes and act faster to respond to the needs of their residents while still ensuring drivers knew what speed they should drive at. The changes were set out in the report.

(4)       In response to a petition submitted to the local Maidstone Joint Transportation Board last year requesting the County Council implement blanket 20mph limits outside all schools and residential areas it was agreed to run a trial of cost effective speed management schemes outside Primary Schools in the Maidstone area. These sites, listed in the report, did not have an existing crash problem and therefore a key objective of the trial was to establish whether road users’ perception of safety would change as a result of the schemes.  The proposed trial had been limited to Primary schools within 30mph speed limits.  The results of the trials would be evaluated and included in the overall 20mph scheme policy review which would be presented to the Cabinet Committee next year.

(5)     The increased introduction of 20mph schemes without self enforcing traffic calming could leave to greater dependency on Kent Police to enforce the limits. During discussions with Kent Police it was made clear that Kent Police did not support 20mph limits unless they were self enforcing.

(6)     Due to recent press publicity requests for the County Council to implement 20mph schemes had increased. Both the Government and County Council were conducting trials into cost effective speed reduction schemes that, if successful, might enable the introduction of further 20mph schemes without the need for prohibitively expensive traffic calming or presenting an enforcement burden on the Police. While the trials were being conducted it was recommended that the existing policy for 20mph schemes should be promoted only as part of a Casualty Reduction Scheme be reaffirmed.

(7)     RESOLVED that:-

(a)       the existing policy be noted; and

(b)       new 20mph schemes be promoted only as part of a Casualty Reduction Scheme until the current trials had been evaluated, and a new formal policy had been adopted by the County Council.