Dave, Moor Lane Very Much Acts As a Distributor Road and Is Only

CCF/3179 – Annex C

7. Copies of correspondence (emails/letters) involving/between the Twenty's Plenty national campaign organisation and the council, and Councillor Anna Semlyen.

Personal information and the names of officers below Head of Service Level have been removed- this is highlighted within the text as XXXXX. Individual email chains are separated by a solid line. Email disclaimers have been removed to reduce the size of the document.

From: XXXXX Sent: 28 March 2014 12:01 To: Cllr. D. Merrett Cc: Cllr. A. Semlyen; Cllr. G. Hodgson Subject: RE: Moor Lane traffic issues

Dave,

Moor Lane very much acts as a distributor road and is only residential in nature on both sides of the road for a short 400m stretch between Moorcroft Rd & Chaloner’s Rd. Otherwise it is nearly all open fields along it’s southern border and the road is fairly wide. The nature and feel of the road alone should preclude it from being 20mph limit.

However this is also backed up by speed survey data which was taken at 2 different locations along Moor Lane. I’m unable to pinpoint exactly where these 2 were taken but the data is such:-

Location 1 Mean speeds = 32mph (eastbound) & 29mph (westbound) Location 2 Mean speeds = 26mph (eastbound) & 27mph (westbound)

With these high mean speeds, we should not be considering it’s inclusion. The Police would also have considerable objections.

Best regards XXXXX

From: Cllr. D. Merrett Sent: 28 March 2014 07:48 To: XXXXX Cc: Cllr. A. Semlyen; Cllr. G. Hodgson Subject: Fwd: Moor Lane traffic issues

XXXXX,

See below. Has the road safety partnership done any recent speed surveys / had discussions on Moor Lane, and what are they showing / suggesting we need to do?

Dave

Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message: CCF/3179 – Annex C

From: "Cllr. A. Semlyen" Date: 27 March 2014 09:22:06 GMT To: XXXXX >, " XXXXX, "Cllr. D. Merrett" , " XXXXX >, "Cllr. G. Hodgson" Cc: YCC Mailbox

Subject: Moor Lane traffic issues

Dear XXXXX

Thanks for your email. Speeding traffic is a menace indeed.

The official way to register moving traffic offenses is with the police. Google 95 Alive, print the form, fill it in and post to the police to get an investigation.

Likewise cycling on the pavement is a police not council enforcement issue. You could ring 101 to report it. Or maybe this is enough as I copy in our local PC.

Re the 20mph limits, main roads were excluded as per police request and the manifesto promise was for residential 20mph.

I copy in Cllr Merrett the cabinet member so he is aware of your request to include Moor Lane and to XXXXX the 20mph officer plus the contact centre so it is logged.

If you'd like to call me I could talk you through more about speed limit setting and how to campaign for your road to be included as I manage the National 20mph campaign. This might for instance included asking the Police and Crime Commissioner to support Moor Lane's inclusion.

Cllr Anna Semlyen [email protected] Labour Cllr for Dringhouses & Woodthorpe 01904654355 07891989310 @AnnaSemlyen1

------Original message ------From: XXXXX Date:26/03/2014 20:12 (GMT+00:00) To: "Cllr. A. Semlyen" Subject: Moor Lane

Hi Anna,this is the first time i`ve written regarding these matters but i feel it is getting worse to the point where there may be fatalities on both issues. We live on Moor Lane in York yo24 XXXXX,and the speed with which some vehicles travel is reckless to the point of life threatening. We now have these 20mph zones but for some reason (which is beyond me as it is still a built up area and quite a narrow rd) ours is still a 30mph. I know the police do occassional speed checks but this does not seem to be stopping them,i think maybe The police should postition themselves near Chapmans court as most speeders know they are normally further down. The second problem that is getting worse is cyclists on the path these are youths ,mums and dads,and lone people so the whole spectrum who ride illegally and some at a very fast rate and if someone should step out from there gate it would cause them serious harm. Are the police still active in stopping this problem? because i have seen police driving past offenders and not doing anything. CCF/3179 – Annex C

Looking foward to your thoughts and solutions. Kind regards XXXXX

From: XXXXX Sent: 10 April 2014 12:18 To: 'Anna Semlyen'; Cllr. D. Merrett Cc: Adams, Frances; Clarke, Tony(Transport Planning) Subject: RE: 20mph rollout Importance: High

Dear Cllr Semlyen,

As you’ll know, the roll-out of the 20mph speed limits to the rest of York has been given very high priority and i was tasked with implementing this as a matter of urgency. The leaflet was drafted by myself and as is standard practice Cllr Merrett, as Cabinet Member for Transport, was consulted and subsequently approved the leaflet and my new project-plan and timescales for roll-out (which i may stress are now very tight). The EU elections purdah starts this coming Monday and therefore leaflets needed to be designed, approved, printed and delivered, and statutory SLO notices advertised all prior to this date. The leaflet itself is designed to be generic and non-controversial, and merely flag-up to residents to look out for the statutory SLO notices going up in their areas.

To briefly reply to some of your points though:-

 ‘Accident rates’ is the terminology used on the ROSPA website and was deemed more user-friendly than ‘collision frequency’ (which was the alternative term used by the DfT’s Setting Local Speed Limits), although i take your point.

 As mentioned above, this small leaflet could only contain so much info so as to keep it short and simple – the essential point it needed to get across was to look out for the 20mph SLOs. However it directs to the website which has much more info available if people seek it.

 I’m afraid the twitter address is incorrect. I was given a previous leaflet that XXXXX & XXXXX had devised and unfortunately this error wasn’t picked up. Luckily any search on twitter for York + 20mph comes up with our twitter address straight away.

 As a Council scheme, there was no point sending people from one website to another for info, so i reverted to using the York Council one for the dissemination of key info on the implementation and SLO notices etc. People expect to go to the council website for info on transport schemes such as these (plus using DIVA to maintain and update the other website had cost implications. Although it is of course still live and linked to on our website)

 In terms of what you’d have liked to have seen in the leaflet, I wished to keep it very business-like with key info and technical aspects of making the Orders etc. This is especially as myself, as Project Manager of implementing this city-wide roll-out, have to field all calls / letters / emails relating to this matter and i needed to devote my time to addressing the how and when of the roll-out, and not the CCF/3179 – Annex C

why – which i feel has been well covered in the few years since this project saw it’s inception in York.

Best regards

From: Anna Semlyen [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 08 April 2014 22:12 To: Cllr. D. Merrett Cc: XXXXX; Rod King; XXXXX @york.gov.uk Subject: Twitter wrong re urgent comments re 20mph leaflet

Dear Dave and XXXXX York's latest 20mph leaflet. I picked up the draft today in my councillor pidgeon hole. My first thought was is it too late to comment? It says urgent but not by when. Also I don't think you emailed me to say have a look for it.

It is already dowloadable from www.york.gov.uk/20mph

I hate the word accident and want it replaced with crash or collision. Accident is never used by RoadPeace etc as it implies no fault. Crash is more PC.

It is much better than the previous version but hardly inspiring. I am glad to see safety stressed but where is the good news on quieter roads for instance that the (old) website leads with? 50% less noise. Where are other proven benefits like a public health increase in walking and cycling other than in a businessman quote? Public Health England are recommending 20mph limits to tackle obesity which is much more convincing. WHO are recommending 20mph limits for pedestrian safety.

Is the Twitter address correct? NO I search what the leaflet says ie @20mphYork on Twitter and get no user found. I thought it was @York20mph which indeed it is and has tweeted once since Jan. ONCE

The website was www.York20mph.org before now its www.york.gov.uk/20mph and they dont look alike or match. Which is it? Having two hardly makes sense and isnt good practice I think.

I could go on but have read that leaflets have been delivered since Sunday so I really dont know why I am bothering to comment other than to show you both that yes I can copycheck. And request again the courtesy of including me before you print thousands of incorrect and I think uninspiring leaflets. There are no real people's faces on the photos which is a mistake. The point is protecting people's health!

Last time Dave you promised to ask me early about the leaflet design after I got very upset about the multiple inadequacies. But again it didnt happen before they were printed and distributed.

CCF/3179 – Annex C

I was not asked in time even though I have run the National 20mph Campaign for nearly 4 years

Perhaps you could change the downloadable one online to fix at least the Twitter name which is incorrect?

Can I please be asked to write or comment early enough on the next one? I have looked at other autjorities versions quite alit and really think we could do much better Ever hopeful

Anna Semlyen, 20's Plenty for Us Campaign Manager 07572120439 [email protected] Www.20splentyforus.org @AnnaSemlyen1

From: XXXXX] Sent: 01 June 2014 15:32 To: Cllr. I. Gillies Cc: XXXXX; Cllr. D. Levene; Cllr. A. Semlyen; Julian STURDY; Cllr. C. Steward Subject: Re: 20mph for Black Dike Lane - Traffic Concerns

Ian,

Many thanks for your response. We are aware of your presence at the afore mentioned gathering/meeting as my wife was present. Unfortunately I was not available on that date due to work commitments.

Regarding incidents that have materialised over the last few months, I have video evidence of numerous vehicles travelling at excessive speeds, including many large vehicles such as vans and heavy goods lorries.

I also have video evidence of cars using residents grass verges to enable passing of vehicles coming in the opposite direction.

It has reached a stage now that, I believe any sensible conscientious person would support traffic control measures if they had to witness the volumes and speed of traffic passing our property on a daily basis.

I intend to speak with parish councillor regarding my concerns.

Ian, we thank you for your support. If you wish, I would happily welcome you into our house during busy periods to witness some of the driving that occurs within half a metre of our kitchen window.

Many thanks Regards XXXXX

Sent from my iPhone CCF/3179 – Annex C

On 1 Jun 2014, at 12:04, "Cllr. I. Gillies" wrote: All,

You are indeed correct in the assumption that I have been busy with other duties, however I have read the emails.

To those who are unaware of the history, the complaints regarding speed and use of Black Dyke Lane has been the subject of comment from many parties for many years.

Traffic surveys have been carried out as have speed checks, the most recent in the last two years. In addition a site meeting took place attended by North Yorkshire Police traffic management, City of York Highways, Upper Poppleton Parish Council, the Project Manager of the Park and Ride development prior to the commencement, Julian Sturdy M.P., local residents, and myself.

It was reported that the majority of users were those who were resident in the village, no reportable accidents were on file, and whilst it was acknowledged that some road users flaunt speed restrictions there was no evidence of excess speed. We discussed various options to allay fears, however the police were not prepared to implement any special measures regarding speed or access, 20mph areas were rejected as has already been mentioned, and due the relatively light use of the road and other matters the Local Authority will not introduce any traffic calming measures without the support of other agencies.

It was agreed to keep the matter under review.

That was the situation and nothing has materialised in the last few months of major significance that I am aware of.

I would suggest that residents liaise with the Parish Council, whose chairman lives in Black Dyke Lane. Ward Councillors attend the P.C. meetings and pick up any relevant concerns affecting the village.

Regards,

Cllr. Ian Gillies Rural West York. Lord Mayor of York 2014/15

From: XXXXX Sent: 30 May 2014 16:49 To: XXXXX Cc: Cllr. D. Levene; Cllr. A. Semlyen; Cllr. I. Gillies; Julian STURDY Subject: Re: 20mph for Black Dike Lane - Traffic Concerns

XXXXX,

Many thanks for your below email and advice.

CCF/3179 – Annex C

For information, we are not entirely sure that a 20 mile an hour speed limit is our ultimate objective, we just want to look at the options available and try and introduce some form of traffic control measure. Over the next week also we intend to speak with all residents of Black Dike Lane and seek their opinion in relation to this matter.

It would be helpful to receive Ian Gillies opinion and hopefully support in relation to our concerns. To date I have received no feedback from Ian. Presumably he is busy being the Mayor of York.

Kind Regards

XXXXX

Sent from my iPhone

On 30 May 2014, at 15:52, " XXXXX " < XXXXX @york.gov.uk> wrote: XXXXX,

The implementation of the 20mph speed limit programme which I am project managing is only confined to residential streets within the York Outer Ring Road. Although there were once proposals to extend this programme beyond the A1237/A64 to the larger villages (such as Upper and Nether Poppleton), as it stands now, this is no longer planned.

Previously my office had also received representations from the Upper & Nether Poppleton Parish Council asserting that it did not wish to see any 20mph limits in the Parish (with the exception of the one outside Poppleton Ousebank School). I would suggest raising this matter with the Parish Council again and if there is consensus that Black Dike Lane is an issue, it can be considered separately as a road safety concern.

Kindest regards

From: Cllr. A. Semlyen Sent: 29 May 2014 00:12 To: XXXXX Cc: Cllr. D. Levene; XXXXX Subject: 20mph for Black Dike Lane - Traffic Concerns

Dear XXXXX. Yes I will. I copy Cllr Levene and XXXXX in to this and ask them to write to you please. Edinburgh and Paris have announced very wide 20mph limits see http://worldstreets.wordpress.com/2014/05/21/paris-to-limit-speeds-to-30-kmhr-over- CCF/3179 – Annex C entire-city/ and http://m.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/transport/council-unveils-city- centre-20mph-speed-limit-plan-1-3424899

Cllr Anna Semlyen [email protected] Labour Cllr for Dringhouses & Woodthorpe 01904654355 07891989310 @AnnaSemlyen1

------Original message ------From: XXXXX Date:28/05/2014 11:10 (GMT+00:00) To: "Cllr. A. Semlyen" Cc: "Cllr. I. Gillies" ,Julian STURDY Subject: Re: Black Dike Lane - Traffic Concerns Dear Cllr. Semlyan,

Thank you for your recent emails. I have contacted the Julia Mulligan and will await her response.

To date, I have received no response from the 20 mile an hour officer or Cllr. Levene. Perhaps you can chase this on our behalf.

Kind regards

XXXXX

On , " XXXXX > wrote:

F.A.O Julia Mulligan

Dear Ms. Mulligan,

Please refer to the below emails which have been issued by Anna Semlyan and us over the past few weeks.

Cllr. Semlyan suggested that you may be able to assist with our traffic concerns.

I look forward to receiving your feedback.

Yours sincerely

XXXXX

On Friday, 16 May 2014, 19:20, XXXXX wrote:

Many thanks for letting me know.

XXXXX

Sent from my iPhone

On 16 May 2014, at 18:21, "Cllr. A. Semlyen" wrote:

The last line was asking the Cabinet member and 20mph officer to respond to you and to CCF/3179 – Annex C cooy me in.

Cllr Anna Semlyen [email protected] Labour Cllr for Dringhouses & Woodthorpe 01904654355 07891989310 @AnnaSemlyen1

------Original message ------From: XXXXX Date:16/05/2014 18:14 (GMT+00:00) To: "Cllr. A. Semlyen" Cc: Julian STURDY ,[email protected] Subject: Re: Black Dike Lane - Traffic Concerns

Dear Cllr Semlyen,

Over the past 2/3 years, we have met with the North Yorkshire police, members of the Council and highways department to review the safety of Black Dike Lane. Unfortunately, the opinion of the highways, having monitored the traffic volumes and speeds is that they are acceptable.

Once again, I remind you that vehicles are legally allowed to travel at 30mph on Black Dike Lane alongside walking pedestrians. Surely this is justification to impose traffic restriction measures.

The final paragraph of your email doesn't appear to make sense.

Thank you for your email, I look forward to receiving your response.

Yours sincerely XXXXX

Sent from my iPhone

On 16 May 2014, at 17:46, "Cllr. A. Semlyen" wrote:

Dear XXXXX Thank you for contacting me and for the offer to visit your home. I have been on a course so apologies for the slight delay in replying.

Have you been through the filling in a 95 Alive form process? Google 95 Alive and youll find it. This is the official police form for registering speeding.

Moving traffic offences are a police matter. Also I suggest emailing Julia Mulligan the Police and Crime Commissioner about your concerns.

What the council is in charge of is road speed limits and highways. Icopy in the Cabinet member Cllr Levene and also the 20mph officer XXXXX for their response.

I hope that they can respond on what can be done and copy me in.

Cllr Anna Semlyen [email protected] Labour Cllr for Dringhouses & Woodthorpe 01904654355 07891989310 @AnnaSemlyen1

CCF/3179 – Annex C

------Original message ------From: XXXXX Date:15/05/2014 10:34 (GMT+00:00) To: "Cllr. A. Semlyen" Cc: Julian STURDY ,"Cllr. I. Gillies" Subject: Black Dike Lane - Traffic Concerns

Dear Cllr Semlyen,

Thank you for your time earlier today.

As I briefly explained, we live in Black Dyke Lane, Upper Poppleton, York. The current speed limit on this road is 30 mph.

Black Dike Lane is not provided with line markings, footpaths, has limited street lighting, several poor lines of vision and is a single track. It also has a weight restriction of 7.5 tonnes which appears to be ignored on a daily basis.

Over the past few years local residents have been communicating with Julian Sturdy, City of York Council Highways Department and North Yorkshire Police in an effort to introduce traffic control measures.

Recently, we presume due to the ongoing A59 park-and-ride construction works, the volume of traffic using Black Dike Lane has increased enormously. In addition, it appears that the speeds of vehicles has also increased.

Residents of Black Dike Lane have no option but to walk on the highway to get access to their properties. We find it hard to believe that vehicles can legally travel at 30 mph whilst pedestrians walk along side on the same highway.

We are not sure if you are the correct person to help with our concerns but we would welcome you into our house during busy periods of traffic to witness some of the dangerous driving we observe on a daily basis. Please note that our kitchen window is no more than 450 mm away from Black Dike Lane highway.

We look forward to receiving your response and hopefully support.

Yours sincerely

XXXXX

From: Cllr. A. Semlyen Sent: 09 July 2014 08:41 To: XXXXX Cc: Cllr. D. Levene; XXXXX Subject: Re: 20 mph Consultation?

Dwar XXXXX I will leave it to the others to answer you as they are responsible for policy implementation. The IAM inferences on casualty rises are bogus.with stats see CCF/3179 – Annex C http://t.co/GXMy7iyMPJ or bit.ly/1rrO9tT is 20's 0Plenty for Us press release in reply % Casualties rose because % of roads at 20mph rose massively. Its called a denominator effect. More roads more casualties yes.

20mph roads are still massively safer as liklihood of death on them is 2.5 times less per casualty.

One of the reasons casualties might rise is also increasing vulnerable road users

The IAM are boy racers who should grow up according to XXXXX

The BBCs more or less stats programme looked at this in 2012 and said there was no evidence of growing danger.

Cllr Anna Semlyen [email protected] Labour Cllr for Dringhouses & Woodthorpe 01904654355 07891989310 @AnnaSemlyen1

------Original message ------From: XXXXX Date:09/07/2014 00:14 (GMT+00:00) To: "Cllr. A. Semlyen" Cc: "Cllr. D. Levene" ," XXXXX " Subject: Re: 20 mph Consultation? Dear Anna,

I'm happy to agree to disagree but I'm left with my objections.

This wasn't about questioning the stats from areas such as Portsmouth, it was about asking are we really going to see the claimed benefits from accident reductions in areas where rates are already extremely low.

I've seen this as a blanket application because we're not seeing the assessment or application in the way the the DfT advised in it's circular the change over time and applicable.

I'll re-state that I believe that 20mph is safer. Where we seam to differ is the means of application to achieve the speed reductions, over time, to avoid drivers ignoring the limit as they do on Bishopthorpe Road or outside Heworth School - that may have been more effective as a variable limit as described in the circular.

I fear it's the blanket application, the lack of engagement and the speed of roll-out that's leading to the failures in the 20mph campaign. Indeed it may also be a contributory factor in the most recent statistics the show a rise in accident rates for 20mph zones, not just that we have a more significant proportion of the roads covered by these schemes.

If Mr XXXXX or Cllr Levene can help with this engagement it would be appreciated. We need to see better engagement to drive the change.

Best regards, XXXXX

CCF/3179 – Annex C

On 28/06/2014 17:28, Cllr. A. Semlyen wrote: > Dear XXXXX > We are going to have to agree to disagree about the stats. The case for wide area 20mph limits as a default with targetted 30mph is proven by numerous studies and is supported by every National Public Health body. See the second briefing at > http://www.20splentyforus.org.uk/briefings.htm > > You seem to be saying that the stats arent good enough because they are not from York. Somehow generalised ones arent going to apply here. Like smoking research people die from smoking wherever they live. We dont need a York based study to find that 20mph limits will reduce casualties. It will. By about 20%. > > No I disagree on spending more on specific sites instead of wide area limits. The evidence base is that micro engineering is not as effective as reducing driving speeds to a 20mph norm pound for pound on cost effectiveness and there would be none of the other wide area benefits like more walkibgcand cycling, reduced noise and pollution, health equality gains etc > > I agree that more engagement would be better and copy this to XXXXX the officer and Cllr Levene the cabinet member to rrply in the engagement plan > > Regards > > Cllr Anna Semlyen [email protected] > Labour Cllr for Dringhouses & Woodthorpe > 01904654355 07891989310 @AnnaSemlyen1 > > ------Original message ------> From: XXXXX > Date:28/06/2014 14:27 (GMT+00:00) > To: "Cllr. A. Semlyen" > Subject: Re: 20 mph Consultation? > > Anna, > > Thanks for taking the time to meet me the other day. > > I think my problem remains to be the generalised statistics and how the > proposed benefits are derived from an unknown number of incidents where > the significance leads them to be unrecorded. > > That this is a significant sum being spend across the city when there > may be more appropriate spending on sites with higher frequency > accidents with more serious outcome. > > I don't believe that we've treated all these sites and I fear that we're > depriving possible schemes of valuable funding. > > I'm rather disappointed that the consultation is being rushed and pushed > into 21 days, with notices omitted form many of the affected road and > public notice boards in our community. What ever the outcome, we're > certainly not going to get the engagement that crucial to making this work. > > Best regards, > XXXXX > > On 21/06/2014 21:08, Cllr. A. Semlyen wrote: >> I teach yoga at 10.30 Thursdays so I have yo be away by 10.10. So how about 9.45 at West Offices if you think 25 mins would be long enough? >> Regards >> CCF/3179 – Annex C

>> Cllr Anna Semlyen [email protected] >> Labour Cllr for Dringhouses & Woodthorpe >> 01904654355 07891989310 @AnnaSemlyen1 >> >> >> >> ------Original message ------>> From: XXXXX >> Date:21/06/2014 11:00 (GMT+00:00) >> To: "Cllr. A. Semlyen" >> Subject: Re: 20 mph Consultation? >> >> Hi Anna, >> >> West Offices is a good location, it's not far from my work. Face to face >> is always better but happy to call if that helps. >> >> I'm meeting one of our suppliers at 11am, I don't think I'll be free >> until 1pm. I could meet earlier if I can aim to head back around 10:45. >> >> Best regards, >> XXXXX >> >> On 20/06/2014 19:58, Cllr. A. Semlyen wrote: >>> Hi >>> Next Fri I am in Leeds doing 20mph presentation at a conference organised by Mind and the British Academy >>> >>> Thu I am at the Uni from 2-4 or later >>> So I can offer from 12.00pm Thu over lunch. >>> Meet you at West Offices reception? >>> Or else by phone if you preferr? >>> Cllr Anna Semlyen [email protected] >>> Labour Cllr for Dringhouses & Woodthorpe >>> 01904654355 07891989310 @AnnaSemlyen1 >>> >>> >>> >>> ------Original message ------>>> From: XXXXX >>> Date:20/06/2014 19:24 (GMT+00:00) >>> To: "Cllr. A. Semlyen" >>> Subject: Re: 20 mph Consultation? >>> >>> Anna, >>> >>> Are you able to meet on Thursday or Friday afternoon? >>> >>> My schedules have me out of York quite a bit at the moment. It's not so >>> much email is a problem but my Counsellors not answering the questions. >>> >>> I see good intentions behind 20mph but I'm not convinced it will make a >>> difference as planned in York. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> XXXXX >>> >>> On 17/06/2014 10:26, Cllr. A. Semlyen wrote: >>>> Dear XXXXX >>>> I welcome discussion with you and suggest meeting up face to face or by phone as clearly CCF/3179 – Annex C emails are not enough. When are you available? >>>> My availability is better daytimes as I teach yoga many evenings >>>> >>>> >>>> Cllr Anna Semlyen [email protected] >>>> Labour Cllr for Dringhouses & Woodthorpe >>>> 01904654355 07891989310 @AnnaSemlyen1 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ------Original message ------>>>> From: XXXXX >>>> Date:16/06/2014 6:22 PM (GMT+00:00) >>>> To: "Cllr. C. Funnell" >>>> Cc: "Cllr. B. Boyce" ,"Cllr. R. Potter" ,"Cllr. A. Semlyen" >>>> Subject: Re: 20 mph Consultation? >>>> >>>> Dear XXXXX, >>>> >>>> I feel Anna has a conflict of interest as a lobbyist and counsellor with >>>> regard to this issue. I'm also disappointed that you and Counsellor >>>> Boyce don't seem to want to engage on the benefit arguments. >>>> >>>> Whilst I am a driver, I commute to work by bike. Most of my miles are by >>>> bike or on foot, the layout of York doesn't suit cars. If part of this >>>> is intended to aide mode shift, I'd note that we've an extremely poor >>>> bus service in Burnholme. Residents who have difficulty cycling or >>>> walking don't have much in the way of alternative. >>>> >>>> None the less I'd be interested to hear Anna's arguments if it relevant >>>> and applicable to York. >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> XXXXX >>>> >>>> On 16/06/2014 13:22, Cllr. C. Funnell wrote: >>>>> Hello XXXXX >>>>> >>>>> I am sorry you are not reassured, so am not sure what else to say to you about the policy. As a car driver myself I can fully understand the frustration of some drivers, but I am also very concerned about child safety too and I do think 20mph is much safer for children than a higher speed. >>>>> >>>>> I appreciate the time you have taken to gather the information in your email, and have copied my colleague Cllr Anna Semlyen into this. She has access to much more data than I do and I am sure she will be happy to pick up some of the points you make in your email >>>>> >>>>> Best wishes >>>>> >>>>> Tina >>>>> >>>>> Cllr Tina Funnell >>>>> 6 Upper Price Street >>>>> York YO23 1BJ >>>>> tel 01904 613 041 >>>>> email [email protected] >>>>> mobile 07710 491 726 >>>>> >>>>> http://heworth.blogspot.com/ >>>>> >>>>> CCF/3179 – Annex C

>>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: XXXXX] >>>>> Sent: 14 June 2014 19:00 >>>>> To: Cllr. C. Funnell >>>>> Cc: Cllr. B. Boyce; Cllr. R. Potter >>>>> Subject: Re: 20 mph Consultation? >>>>> >>>>> Dear Cllr Funnell, >>>>> >>>>> I'm not really reassured, I've read the summary from Portsmouth #1 too >>>>> but also note some reporting such the Telegraph #2 and Portsmouth News >>>>> #3 on the controversy over the statistics. >>>>> >>>>> Atkins reports on Portsmouth shows there was little change in the mode >>>>> of transport used for the majority of respondents (84%). Most residents >>>>> thought there was no improvement in speed, air quality or noise. >>>>> >>>>> Many where dissatisfied with the scheme as cars still speed. This fits >>>>> with the comment from Paul Watters, head of public affairs at the AA: >>>>> "By just whacking up signs everywhere you are not going to change things >>>>> dramatically" >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The Telegraph reports "Research has found that when pedestrians are hit >>>>> by a vehicle at 20mph only one in 40 dies, compared with one in five at >>>>> 30mph. However only 15 per cent of fatal crashes and 5 per cent of all >>>>> accidents are caused by speeding." >>>>> >>>>> This would lead me to think there's some other more statistically >>>>> significant change that is affecting the overall accident rate which >>>>> fits with the reported expert criticism on the "Various statistical >>>>> terms are used incorrectly" and that "they've probably used the wrong >>>>> statistical test." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> That aside, whilst the number of recorded casualties fell, that's no so >>>>> true of the serious injuries and death. It's usual to use "fatality >>>>> weighted injury" (FWI) to assess the impact of minor to serious to >>>>> fatal, a small rise in serious and fatal can out weigh the benefits of >>>>> minor improvements. It would be good to understand how 800% benefit is >>>>> calculated. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> In the City of York News #4 I noted to your colleague tells us that we >>>>> attribute value from spending £189,519 to prevent a serious injury or >>>>> £14,611 from preventing a minor injury and would infer that avoiding a >>>>> fatality would be in the order of £2,500,000 (please correct me). That >>>>> would mean that that "slight" rise in serious and fatal experienced else >>>>> where doesn't fit with the predicted benefits and could add to the >>>>> "costs" or negative impact from the scheme by the order of £200,000 to >>>>> £2,500,000. >>>>> >>>>> Do we have any metric for York improvement yet? Considering the rates >>>>> from 2012 #5, if we achieve a 8% improved reduction (approximately 30 >>>>> accidents) comes close to showing value at £438300 but this benefit is >>>>> wiped by any increase in serious or fatal accidents all be it "one" may >>>>> be a statistical anomaly. >>>>> >>>>> I think that it's wrong to trot isolated statistic where the value isn't CCF/3179 – Annex C

>>>>> stated and that we ought to make a better comparison if we're to see the >>>>> value in York. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> To me it "feels" like the right thing to do but the figures just don't >>>>> seem to stack up. This is why I'd like the see the metrics associated >>>>> with the West and the consultation and debate on the benefit of the >>>>> wider roll-out. >>>>> >>>>> It strikes me that those rolled into the next phase have not been given >>>>> the opportunity to be convinced this is a good idea. Pushing to >>>>> statutory consultation only will be a street by street steam roller >>>>> where the whole benefit is rather tenuous. >>>>> >>>>> I recognise that this ought to be a long term measure to pay back but >>>>> the hot spots are not in the affected areas. It really doesn't look like >>>>> this £500,000 will affect anything significant in York except for a >>>>> longer term maintenance liability. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> It's also part of my rational when asking you how you are measuring >>>>> value for money and holding these plans and other plans to account. >>>>> >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> XXXXX >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> #1 >>>>> http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/speed-limits-portsmouth/speed-limits-portsmouth.pdf >>>>> #2 >>>>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transport/8038821/20mph-limit-has-not- made-roads-safer.html >>>>> #3 >>>>> http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/business/local-business/20mph-limits-in-firing-line-after- rise-in-accidents-1-4027011 >>>>> #4 >>>>> http://www.york.gov.uk/news/article/31/residents_views_considered_for_a_20mph_rollout_in_the_we st_of_york >>>>> #5 >>>>> http://road-collisions.dft.gov.uk/accident- map/york?Year=2012&AccidentSeverity=Slight&AgeBand=&VehicleType=#map-view >>>>> >>>>> On 13/06/2014 09:16, Cllr. C. Funnell wrote: >>>>>> Hello XXXXX >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you for your email and I am sorry for the delay in responding, I have been away and am only now catching up with emails. I note you are in correspondence with my colleague - Cllr Boyce - too. The benefits of wide area 20mph are now acknowledged as reducing casualties, for instance a 22% reduction in Portsmouth, this was 8% over the national trend, Warrington reported 800% rate of return on casualty prevention from their scheme. There are many other benefits including increased numbers of people walking and cycling, and noise reductions. The Department for Transport and Public Health England also support the 20mph schemes. >>>>>> >>>>>> I hope this goes some way to reassure you about the benefits >>>>>> >>>>>> Best wishes >>>>>> >>>>>> Tina >>>>>> CCF/3179 – Annex C

>>>>>> Cllr Tina Funnell >>>>>> 6 Upper Price Street >>>>>> York YO23 1BJ >>>>>> tel 01904 613 041 >>>>>> email [email protected] >>>>>> mobile 07710 491 726 >>>>>> >>>>>> http://heworth.blogspot.com/ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: XXXXX] >>>>>> Sent: 09 June 2014 19:54 >>>>>> To: Cllr. R. Potter; Cllr. B. Boyce; Cllr. C. Funnell >>>>>> Subject: 20 mph Consultation? >>>>>> >>>>>> Counsellors, >>>>>> >>>>>> I note that West of York was consulted before the 20 mph was >>>>>> implemented, are we not afforded the same in Heworth and Tanghall? >>>>>> >>>>>> Whilst the maps appear more reasonable than those implemented in the >>>>>> west, this still seems like a terrific waste of money give the lack of >>>>>> safety data to support the safety benefits. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> As an engineer I'm always challenged on improving safety and the >>>>>> expected benefits to be derived from any spend. We're seeing a wide >>>>>> range of issues across the city where no measure have been presented for >>>>>> safety or business benefits. >>>>>> >>>>>> How do you, as my representatives, evaluate proposals and value for >>>>>> money or seek to hold council departments to account more generally? >>>>>> Yours faithfully, >>>>>> >>>>>> XXXXX

From: Cllr. A. Semlyen Sent: 07 July 2014 07:43 To: [email protected] Cc: Cllr. D. Levene; XXXXX; Ferris, Neil Subject: EoY: 20mph on Hes Rd

Dear David, XXXXX and Niel I have been forwarded this correspondence and wanted to say that I agree with Hes Rd going 20mph limited. Please include it. The school children at St Lawrences primary and childrens centre users would benefit. As would shoppers, the Hospital users at the Retreat and the old peoples home and brain injury unit. Obviously it is a major walking and cycling route to and from the Uni. There must be many hundreds or thousands vulnerable road users there per day. CCF/3179 – Annex C

We have a statutory duty to protect vulnerable people. Its child protection. I would be surprised if average speeds along it were not already close to 24mph anyway. Indeed please send me and cllr DAgorne the speed surveys. Support the cyclists and walkers and other vulnerable road users please even if the police won't. Absolute compliance to the limit isnt as important in public health terms as reducing the speed curve so that the average vehicle is slowed down. You know it would also be cheaper in signage. So I beg you to reconsider.

Cllr Anna Semlyen [email protected] Labour Cllr for Dringhouses & Woodthorpe 01904654355 07891989310 @AnnaSemlyen1

------Original message ------From: "Cllr. A. D'Agorne" Date:06/07/2014 23:58 (GMT+00:00) To: "Cllr. D. Merrett" Cc: "Cllr. A. Semlyen" Subject: FW: 20mph Bishopthorpe Rd is far more of a challenge to achieve 20mph compliance than if Heslington Rd shops area was to be included in the limit, as this resident is cogently arguing for.

It seems common sense has been thrown out the window in response to political and police pressure. Signage would be far less intrusive and cheaper

-----Original Message----- From: XXXXX To: XXXXX CC: Cllr. A. D'Agorne ; Cllr. D. Taylor Sent: Thu, 3 Jul 2014 12:56 Subject: RE: 20mph Dear Andrew,

You make some very good points.

Bishopthorpe Road however was and still is an exception to the DfT policy (the policy which we are currently following when proposing which streets should / should not be included in this programme). The Bishopthorpe Road speed limit is a CYC trial to see whether 20mph speed limits enforced by signs alone can reduce speeds sufficiently on a longer stretch of a larger arterial road (as opposed to the purely residential nature of this current roll-out).

The DfT policy generally says that signed-only 20mph limits can be introduced on roads which are residential in nature, where you drivers might generally expect lower speeds anyway. They recommend (and the Police support this advice) that a road should only be reduced to a 20mph limit if the new speed limit is likely to be naturally obeyed by the majority of drivers, thus mean average speeds should already be below 24mph. This is because without physically slowing drivers down using traffic-calming etc, signs alone are not expected to reduce average speeds by more than a few mph.

I would still categorise this road as a ‘Distributor Road’ as per my previous email, however I concede that it is true that conditions experienced on Heslington Road are such that it is unlikely that the current mean average speed is greater than 24mph. Therefore I consider this road not quite as clear- cut as some of the others... Subsequently i envisage that this road will receive serious deliberation CCF/3179 – Annex C when this Speed Limit Order is considered by my Director at the end of this month, as I have received multiple representations regarding Heslington Road’s inclusion in the 20mph programme to date.

Best regards

XXXXX

From: XXXXX Sent: 30 June 2014 15:10 To: XXXXX Cc: Cllr. A. D'Agorne; Cllr. D. Taylor Subject: Re: 20mph

Dear XXXXX

Thank you for your prompt reply to my e-mail.

Without wishing to start a protracted correspondence (life's too short!) I feel that there are points you have raised that require a response.

I agree that there should not be a blanket 20mph limit throughout York. I am a former taxi driver and I realise that drivers need reasonable access to and around the city. But I am also a resident and a pedestrian, not a cyclist, and I feel that there occasions when the status of roads needs careful consideration and altering the speed limit for the streets off Heslington Road gives all of us that opportunity.

Bishopthorpe Road, for example, has a 20mph speed limit from the junction with Campleshon Road to the junction with Prices Lane for those going up Nunnery Lane, or Bishopgate Street for those going towards Skeldergate Bridge. There is no school on Bishopthorpe Road, although Knavesmire Primary School is close to the Campleshon Road junction. Heslington Road has shops on it, not as many as Bishopthorpe Road, but neither do we have a car park available to shoppers. At the same time we have much more through traffic over the whole length, including service buses on the number 4 and 44 routes, the occasional East Yorkshire buses, and long-distance coaches such as National Express and Megabus to/from Hull as well other traffic wishing to avoid Lawrence Street and Barbican Road, or go to/from the University.

I feel that the issue of the fire station is not relevant as there is already a 20mph zone on the road and my proposal would merely lengthen it. The 20mph zone on Bishopthorpe Road includes parts where the road is wider and less congested, near the Winning Post public house, and it is surely on the route from the new fire station to the old chocolate factory and the racecourse. My guess is that fire engines go faster than any speed limit where the driver deems it safe to do so, such as in Bishopthorpe Road, so why not in Heslington Road? After all buses already do!

The precedent has already been set in York for streets to have the designation changed with Bishopthorpe Road. I, amongst many others, would urge you, therefore, to reconsider your views on Heslington Road and change its designation also.

Best wishes XXXXX

-----Original Message----- From: XXXXX To: ' XXXXX CC: XXXXX < XXXXX @york.gov.uk> Sent: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 11:56 Subject: RE: 20mph CCF/3179 – Annex C

Dear Mr Bunney,

Thank you for the representation you have made regarding the 'Notice of Proposals – York Speed Limit Amendment (No 14/4) Order', which concerns implementing a new 20mph speed limit in residential streets in the East York area. As you might know, this is the statutory legal process for any proposed change of speed limit in England and gives the opportunity for representations from all concerned parties if there are any specific issues which it is felt should modify or stop the Order from being made. Once the closing date of 11 July 2014 has passed all representations pertaining to this Order will be fully assessed and a report detailing these will be presented to the Director of City & Environmental Services. The Director, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Transport, will then decide based on the report whether the Speed Limit Order should be implemented or rejected (or alternatively amended).

In terms of your particular point - that you consider that Heslington Road should be included as a 20mph limit - the rationale behind which streets are/are not included is contained within guidelines set out by the Department for Transport who advise that signed-only 20mph speed limits should only be introduced in a considered and measured approach in streets of a purely 'residential nature', on smaller less busy streets (as opposed to just a blanket limit across the entirety of York). This then leaves a comprehensive network of primary, secondary and feeder/distributor roads at their existing speed limits of 30mph or above.

Heslington Road was initially assessed as a key distributor road which is strategically important in the network, with a large number of buses using the road to and from the University, so therefore was considered not appropriate for a 20mph signed-only speed limit. In addition, this is the major emergency route to access the University area from the new fire station. It was also felt that to make the full extent of the road into a (signed-only) 20mph limit would weaken the effectiveness of the existing traffic-calmed 20mph school safety zone passing St. Lawrence’s School and therefore the police asked that the existing speed limits be maintained. However, I appreciate your views and rationale for why you consider that this street should be included, and much of it has merit.

As mentioned above, on considering all representations submitted, there is the opportunity for the Director to amend the Speed Limit Order to include/omit specific streets if she feels there is clear justification to do so having balanced up all arguments. Certainly Heslington Road will now be one such street for contention, and this decision is likely to be taken at the end of July 2014.

Again, my sincere thanks for your correspondence on this matter.

Regards

From: XXXXX] Sent: 29 June 2014 15:14 To: [email protected] Cc: Cllr. D. Taylor; Cllr. A. D'Agorne Subject: 20mph

Dear Neil Ferris

Many thanks for the plans for the introduction of a 20mph speed limit in the Heslington Road area.

I am disappointed, though, that the plans do not include Heslington Road itself. The exit from Belle Vue Street is very difficult with a tall hedge, parked cars in both directions and a bend. Having a reduced speed limit would make it much safer. CCF/3179 – Annex C

Extending the speed limit from further up Heslington Road to the junction with Cemetery Road, Barbican Road and Kent Street would mean that all the side streets would not have to have their own signage, saving an amount of money on this scheme, whilst at the same time improving safety.

I do hope that you will be able to incorporate my views into the completed scheme.

Best wishes XXXXX

From: XXXXX Sent: 07 July 2014 10:47 To: 'Anna Semlyen' Cc: Cllr. D. Levene Subject: EoY: Hospital Fields Rd in 20mph

Dear Cllr Semlyen,

The Speed Limit Order is under advertisement at present with the deadline for representations this Friday 11 July. I shall add your comments to these. In 2 weeks time, I will then present the feedback to my Director, in consultation with Cllr Levene, who will then take a decision – after considering all representations – whether to grant the Speed Limit Order as advertised, reject it, or alternatively amend the Order to include specific previously excluded streets (or exclude previously included streets).

In terms of your particular point - that you consider that Hospital Fields Road should be included as a 20mph limit - the policy which guides which streets should / should not be included is set out by the DfT who direct that signed-only 20mph speed limits are not a panacea to inappropriate traffic speeds, and they should only be introduced in a considered and measured approach in streets of a residential nature – where drivers might generally expect lower speeds anyway. It is important that we only go for a signed-only approach in streets we know it can work so as not to undermine the whole programme. The DfT recommends (and the Police support this advice) that a road should only be reduced to a 20mph limit if the new speed limit is likely to be naturally obeyed by the majority of drivers, without any engineering measures or police enforcement (beyond what is standard).

Hospital Fields Road was assessed by the Implementation Team as not adequately residential enough to be included. It is true that the top end closest to Fulford Road has a number of properties, but with many industrial units further down, it was considered not appropriate for a 20mph signed-only speed limit and the police stated that they would not be supportive of lowering the speed limit here. 85th percentile speed data for this location is currently 30mph (in both directions) which implies that the existing speed limit is probably the appropriate one.

However, I appreciate your views and rationale for why you consider that this street should be included and as mentioned above, on considering all representations submitted, there is the opportunity for the Director to amend the Speed Limit Order to CCF/3179 – Annex C include/omit specific streets if she feels there is clear justification to do so having balanced up all arguments. Hospital Fields Road will be one such street for contention.

Kind regards

From: Anna Semlyen [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 04 July 2014 22:10 To: Cllr. D. Levene Cc: XXXXX Subject: Hospital Fields Rd in 20mph

Dear David Surely the route to the Millenium Bridge should be included in 20mph? Its a major cycle motorway. There are more cyclists than car drivers. Its a basically a dead end. Drivers are passing two childrens nurseries and a national disability try out centre to make their first ever cycle trip. They travel Nationally for this. Yorks reputation relies on this route being safe. Please please include it and protect people fto heavy lorries and buses and coaches too

Anna Semlyen, 20's Plenty for Us Campaign Manager 07572120439 [email protected] Www.20splentyforus.org @AnnaSemlyen1

From: XXXXX Sent: 07 July 2014 15:59 To: XXXXX; Cllr Anna Semlyen Cc: Cllr. D. Levene Subject: EoY: 20mph roll out - Fishergate by Grange St

Dear XXXXX and Cllr Semlyen,

Thank you for the representation you have made regarding the 'Notice of Proposals – York Speed Limit Amendment (No 14/4) Order', which concerns implementing a new 20mph speed limit in residential streets in the East York area. As you might know, nationally this is the statutory legal process for any proposed change of speed limit and gives the opportunity for representations from all concerned parties if there are any specific issues which it is felt should modify or stop the Order from being made. Once the closing date of 11 July 2014 has passed all representations pertaining to this Order will be fully assessed and a report detailing these will be presented to the Director of City & Environmental Services. The Director, in CCF/3179 – Annex C consultation with the Cabinet Member for Transport, will then take a decision – after considering all representations – whether to grant the Speed Limit Order as advertised, reject it, or alternatively amend the Order to include previously excluded specific streets (or perhaps exclude previously included streets).

In terms of your particular point - that you consider that this section of Fishergate should be included as a signed-only 20mph limit (as an extension of the existing section), the policy we comply with which guides which streets should / should not be included is set out by the Department for Transport who direct that signed-only 20mph speed limits are not a panacea to inappropriate traffic speeds – as in reality, without physically forcing drivers to slow down using traffic-calming and re- engineering the road for example, signs alone are not expected to reduce average speeds by more than a few mph.

This programme’s policy says that signed-only 20mph limits should only be introduced in a considered and measured approach in streets of a ‘residential nature’ – on smaller less busy streets – where drivers might generally expect lower speeds anyway. This then leaves a comprehensive network of primary, secondary and feeder/distributor roads at their existing speed limits of 30mph or above. The DfT recommends (and the Police support this advice) that a road should only be reduced to a 20mph limit if the new speed limit is likely to be naturally obeyed by the majority of drivers, without any engineering measures or police enforcement (beyond what is standard). Thus mean average speeds should already be less than 24mph for the street to be considered.

This section of Fishergate was assessed by the Implementation Team as a primary ‘A road’, which is vitally important in the network as well as having mean average speeds in excess of 24mph, so therefore was considered as inappropriate for a 20mph signed-only speed limit. It is important that we only go for a signed-only approach in streets which we are confident they will work for, so as not to undermine the entire programme. Obviously there is the existing 20mph limit by St. George’s School, however the road here was deliberately re-engineered at the time (a few years ago) to reduce speeds here – by visually narrowing the traffic lanes using hatching; installing traffic islands; zebra crossing etc. This current roll-out is for signed-only limits and i’m afraid that any new engineering works required to enforce a scheme have not been budgeted for.

It was also suggested by the Police that to extend the existing length of 20mph any further may actually increase existing speeds past the school and shops and bring further problems with compliance. This would be counter productive, as the important site is the school area and therefore the police asked that the existing speed limits be maintained to protect the impact of this feature.

However, that being said (as mentioned above), on considering all representations submitted – there is the opportunity for the Director to amend the Speed Limit Order to include/omit specific streets (or sections thereof) if she feels there is clear justification to do so having balanced up all arguments. Certainly this section of Fishergate will receive serious deliberation and discussion at this meeting, as multiple requests have been received to include this section within the 20mph programme. CCF/3179 – Annex C

Again, my sincere thanks for your correspondence on this matter.

From: XXXXX Sent: 02 July 2014 22:48 To: Cllr Anna Semlyen Cc: Cllr. D. Levene; XXXXX Subject: Re: 20mph roll out Fulford Rd and Grange St

I would like to add my support for the 20mph roll out and request that the extension of the current 20mph limit outside St George's Primary School is extended toward the Cemetery Road junction. This is a difficult stretch of road to cross by foot for children and the elderly, as well as difficult for cyclists to pull out (as mentioned by XXXXX).

I too urge for this section to be included in the 2-mph roll out.

XXXXX

On 1 July 2014 07:42, Anna Semlyen wrote:

Dear XXXXX and XXXXX See below. I agree that it never made much sense to have speed up to 30mph here signs on the outbound carriageway on Fulford Rd just as drivers approach a blind bend by Grange Garth. Neither was it best practice to have the entrance to the 20mph limit signed after a bend on the inbound road. So yes please extend the 20mph limit to Grange St, where I live. This is a busy junction as there is traffic to Grange St, Grange Garth, Rosedale St, Levisham, Farndale and Hartoft Sts coming in and out and it us difficult to see due to the bend and a crossroads due to the cutting by the conservative club from Cemetery Rd

Anna Semlyen, 20's Plenty for Us Campaign Manager 07572120439 [email protected] Www.20splentyforus.org @AnnaSemlyen1 ------Original message ------From: XXXXX Date:30/06/2014 17:47 (GMT+00:00) To: [email protected] Cc: Anna Semlyen ,Andy D'Agorne Subject: 20mph roll out Dear Sir or Madam

First of all, congratulations on having the courage to roll out 20mph speed limits, it is very much appreciated by so many people.

However, I want to bring your attention to a short overlooked stretch that has a significant effect on road safety and the general amenity of the Fishergate corridor. This is the part of Fishergate between Cemetery Road and the beginning of the 20mph limit just before St George's Primary School. This CCF/3179 – Annex C length was left off the original Fishergate 20mph plan to make it more achievable in the face of potential criticism. As I understand it this stretch was to be reviewed once the original 20mph limit had become established.

At present, cars heading south are travelling too fast by the time you can see them when you exit Grange Street. This is particularly unnerving when trying to turn right on a bicycle. I have often been left stranded in the road as drivers speed past the junction.

Also, cars heading north are travelling too fast when you are trying to cross the road on foot with children to get to the Cemetery Road play park via Howard Street. Northbound cars are also travelling too fast by the time they meet the present 20mph limit. Cars reach this point a little blind, on a bend with a slight negative camber and I have witnessed many near misses at the patrolled pedestrian crossing opposite St George's Primary School.

This part of Fishergate constitutes a blind bend in both directions and narrows considerably as it heads north of Grange Street, with parked cars and bus stops along its route. To make this relatively short stretch a 20mph area would not adversely affect journey times but would greatly enhance the safety and general amenity of this residential area.

With the above in mind I urge you to include this part of Fishergate in your 20mph roll out. Many thanks for your attention.

Best wishes

XXXXX

From: XXXXX Sent: 24 July 2014 10:08 To: Cllr. A. D'Agorne; Cllr. D. Taylor; Cllr. A. Semlyen Subject: 20mph - East of York area

Dear Cllrs D’Agorne, Taylor & Semlyen,

As you might know, my report detailing representations received concerning the 20mph Speed limit Order for the East of York phase was considered on Tuesday 22 July 2014 by my Director, Sarah Tanburn – in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Transport, Cllr Levene. Following an in-depth discussion, approval was granted to implement the SLO as advertised and proceed with the implementation of the signed 20mph limits in this area. Furthermore, the decision was taken to advertise additional 20mph Speed Limit Orders for the following:-

1) Heslington Road, for the stretch between Cemetery Road and Fairfax House (where the existing school 20mph zone commences); 2) Hospital Fields Road.

It was felt that the wealth of local support (for the first); prevailing highway conditions; and crucially, existing traffic speeds on these two roads, meant that we as a highway authority could be satisfied that the new speed limit would receive adequate compliance / be self-enforcing.

CCF/3179 – Annex C

The full report and all representations can be seen here http://modgov.york.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?ID=4123

Thank you again for your contributions.

Regards