Agenda item

5.1  Councillor Eckersley reminded the sub-committee that at the last meeting it had been agreed to take up the recommendations made in the MVA consultants report. He referred to a paper prepared by the head of transport planning (distributed at the meeting and attached to these minutes as appendix 1 for information) which sets out the current position against each of the recommendations in the MVA report.

5.2  The sub-committee agreed to discuss each of the recommendations in turn (these minutes use the reference numbers in the paper from the Head of Transport Planning) and agree the recommendations to be included in the Scrutiny Report.

6.2.2   The sub-committee discussed that work is already underway against this recommendation, but that other measures should be considered in the context of the budget available in addition to the “predominant” use of bumps and humps. This use of a wider range of measures would ensure that the comfort of drivers and passengers in emergency vehicles is taken fully into account.

It was agreed that the recommendation from MVA should be amended to remove the word “predominantly”

6.2.3   The element of this recommendation on sinusoidal humps has already been accepted as a deign norm. This was welcomed by the sub-committee.

On the second element of this recommendation about the speed reduction benfits of informal traffic calming measures, the head of transport planning confirmed that the Council is participating in two 20mph speed camera technology trials.

The first trial is in Salter Road, and is a test of a particular type of camera technology. These cameras are smaller and less intrusive, but have not yet been approved by the Government.

The sub-committee welcomed this trial and asked for further advice from the head of transport planning on what could be done to speed up the completion of the trial.

The second trial is in Albany Road and is part of a Transport for London (TfL) programme to evaluate the effectiveness of speed cameras as a speed calming measure.

The sub-committee welcomed the participation in these experiments but agreed that considerable caution would need to be used if there are plans to instal speed cameras with gantry requirements. In any instances where this is an option, there should be detailed consultation with local stakeholders

6.2.4   It was agreed that this recommendation should be accepted and that officers should be encouraged to make use of all available sources of research.

6.2.5   The sub-committee welcomed the advent of the design guide relating to street clutter. It was agreed that the wording of the recommendation should be altered from “considered” to “adopted”, so that the design guide will include the “quality audit” approach for older schemes.

6.2.6   This recommendation relates to the consideration of maintenance costs for 20mph zones. This will be covered in the design guide. The sub-committee welcomed this.

6.2.7   On the issue of the enforcement of 20mph zones and streets, the Head of Transport Planning reported that a proposal has gone forward to LGA for the establishment of a local camera safety partnership which would take the lead on this. The sub-committee welcomed this, along with the implementation of more local measures by safer neighbourhood teams which are appropriate to neighbourhood circumstances (e.g. speed guns in Dulwich).

6.2.8   The need to monitor the issue of displacement of traffic from 20mph zones is underway and will inform policy going forward. The sub-comittee welcomed this an emphasised that it will be an ongoing need.

6.2.9   As above

5.3  The sub-committee discussed forward plans for the roll out of 20mph zones in the borough. The head of transport planning advised that future schemes will be more holistic in nature, looking not only at speed and road safety but how the integration of other policy areas, e.g. parking, can assist in speed reduction.

5.4  The sub-committee welcomed the wider-ranging approach, and the need to look at whether roads are “fit for purpose” not just always use to speed humps as a default measure.

5.5  The sub-committee also re-emphasised the need for community consultation and economic impact assessments to be undertaken on future schemes to assess suitability.

5.6  Councillor Eckersley welcomed Jeremy Leach to the meeting from Living Streets, and thanked him for his written submission to the sub-committee (which is attached to these minutes as appendix 2). Mr Leach explained that Living Streets is a local branch of a national charity which is focused on improving road safety for pedestrians. Living Streets work closely with the council.

5.7  Mr Leach explained that his main interest is in town centres and would welcome the extension of the Walworth Road approach to other areas.

5.8  The sub-committee discussed with Mr Leach the distinction between areas with limits and areas which are zones. Mr Leach advocated the use of limits in town centres because they are enforceable.

5.9  To pursue this endeavour, which is in line with the MVA recommendations, would need the support both of the council and of TfL for red routes.

5.10  The sub-committee agreed to include a recommendation in the review report which would invite the executive to consider 20mph limits in appropriate town centre locations and invite TfL to do likewise on red routes.

5.11  The advice to both will recommend testing one scheme to begin with. If this is successful it will lead to natural pressure for more.

5.12  It was agreed that the recommendations on 20mph zones resulting from the review will be drafted, and circulated to the sub-committee members present at the meeting for agreement.