Conservative councillors have claimed the county council “skated on the thinnest of ice” to justify introducing 20mph zones in Cambridgeshire - and claimed consultations had fallen “woefully short” of showing substantial support for them.
But Liberal Democrat and Labour councillors, who form the joint administration with independents on the council, have rejected the claims and argued the lower speed limit could create a better environment and save lives.
Cllr Steve Count, the leader of the Tory opposition, presented a motion to the full council last week calling for a review of the schemes and demanded future decisions on large 20mph zones should be made at public meetings.
Cllr Count (Con, March North and Waldersey) said his motion was not about debating whether 20mph zones were “good or bad”, but about public backing for them.
He said: “The questions are: Do you have sufficient local support for one? Do the zones meet the current government guidance which is set out? Is there confidence in the decision-making process that got us to those points? I suggest that in some cases the joint administration would struggle to justify the county council’s actions.
“Consultation responses were woefully short of demonstrating substantial local support, technical assessments were borderline adequate and skated on the thinnest of ice to vindicate proposals, benefit-cost realisations were not carried out.
“The result of all of this throughout the county has been outcries from discontented members of the public who suddenly find that 20mph zones are right on their doorsteps.”
Having already agreed to introduce a 20mph zone in Cambourne last September, the following month the county council approved 20mph zones in 20 areas at a cost of £348,000, including in Cottenham, Fulbourn, Whittlesford, Giron, Meldreth, Orwell, Great Wilbraham. Willingham, Fowlmere, Westwick, Great Abington, Wicken, Linton and Harlton.
When asked about the implementation of Ely’s 20mph zone, which was approved last December, Cllr Alex Beckett (Lib Dem, Queen Edith’s), chair of highways and transport, said procedures were reviewed in light of the latest guidance and they were “confident” everything required was done and that the order was valid.
Cllr Piers Coutts (Lib Dem, Ely South) said the suggestion that the recent consultations, and in particular highlighted the Ely consultation, had been conducted in an “underhand or possibly illegal manner” was “just not true”.
He said they followed “established procedures” and said the Ely consultation had been run longer than required. It was supported by 122 people, with 65 writing in to oppose it.
Cllr Coutts highlighted that the new guidance was non-statutory guidance and that the county council was still able to make its own decisions.
He said: “Early on in my teaching career I came across a pupil who was hit by a car and died shortly afterwards. Coming to a choice of reducing injury and death, or complying with non-statutory guidance, I know which way I would go.”
Cllr Steve Tierney (Con, Wisbech West) claimed it was a “nonsense argument” to say they valued government guidance over human life.
He said the authority did have to “balance public safety versus public convenience”.
Cllr Tierney said the safety claims for reducing speed to 20mph were “equally true” for 10mph or lower and questioned how far this should go and accused others of being “anti-car”.
Cllr Neil Shailer (Lab, Romsey) said it was not the case that they wanted to “endlessly” lower speeds.
He said: “Actually it is about mixed modes of transport where the speed of the car is closer to the speed of other users, cyclists, how fast you can run, how quickly we can see oncoming vehicles, how quickly people can react to each other, it is not endlessly relative at all. Some speeds create a better environment than others.”
Cllr Peter McDonald (Lib Dem, Duxford) added that there was not a “war on motorists”, but that the “only war” was about the “prevention of accidents, casualties and deaths”.
Cllr Count’s motion was defeated.
