Questions have been raised about the support for some 20mph zones in Cambridgeshire as calls were made to review the schemes.

The leader of the opposition at Cambridgeshire County Council, Councillor Steve Count (Conservative), argued the consultation for some of the 20mph schemes had fallen “woefully short” of showing substantial support in the area.

He said the schemes needed to be checked to see if they meet the government’s latest guidance for 20mph zones.

Cllr Count presented a motion to a full council meeting this week (May 21) calling for the review of the schemes, and for future decisions on large 20mph zones to be made at public meetings.

However, his motion failed to get enough support from other councillors, who said all the correct procedures had been followed and that reducing the speed people drive at would help prevent accidents and deaths.

Cllr Count said his motion was not debating whether 20mph zones were “good or bad”, but said the question was whether there was enough support for the change in the area it was proposed.

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, [and] 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.”

Recommended Reading: Somersham housing development near Chatteris Road approved

Earlier on in the meeting when responding to a question about the implementation of the Ely 20mph zone, Councillor Alex Beckett (Liberal Democrat), chair of highways and transport, said they had reviewed the procedures in light of the latest guidance and were “confident” they had done everything required and that the order was valid.

Councillor Piers Coutts (Liberal Democrat) 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.

Cllr Coutts also 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.”

Councillor Steve Tierney (Conservative) 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”.

Councillor Neil Shailer (Labour) 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.”

Councillor Peter McDonald (Liberal Democrat) added that there was not a ‘war on motorists’, but that the “only war” was about the “prevention of accidents, casualties, and deaths”.