Minutes:
The Council had before it a Notice of Motion set out in the agenda papers standing in the names of Cllr Matt Jenkins, Cllr Beverley Nielsen, Cllr Tom Wells, Cllr Natalie McVey, and Cllr Malcolm Victory.
The motion was moved by Cllr Matt Jenkins and seconded by Cllr Natalie McVey, who both spoke in favour of it, and Council agreed to deal with it on the day.
Those in favour of the motion commented:
· “School Street” Schemes had been successfully trialled in many councils nationally. These schemes encouraged active travel and different modes of transport, made streets outside schools safer, improved air quality and improved the lives of local residents. The schemes usually involved the introduction of a Traffic Regulation Order prohibiting driving from Monday to Friday in school term time for a short period of time to coincide with school pickup and drop off times. At present, the Council did not have a “School Streets” policy and no way of applying for the introduction of a “School Street “scheme on the Council’s website
· At present, it was impossible to enforce zig-zag parking restrictions and 20 mph flashing speed limit signs outside schools without the introduction of a TRO
· There was clear evidence of “School Streets” schemes working effectively in many areas of the country, particularly in London. It was therefore unnecessary to report to the OSPB as proposed by the Cabinet Member with Responsibility for Highways and Transport
· The Chairman of the OSPB welcomed the suggestion by the Cabinet Member with Responsibility for Highways and Transport to provide a progress report on safer streets outside schools to OSPB. However, he requested that any suggestions made by OSPB should be accepted by Cabinet
· There was a mixed picture across the county in terms of the effectiveness and ability to introduce advisory speed limits and TROs outside schools
· It was requested that bus provision be included in any review of progress made on safer streets outside schools
· Encouraging people to park a little further away from schools reduced congestion and associated pollution levels and improved road safety
· The Council should consider introducing a “School Streets” pilot scheme in the county
· It was not justifiable to continue to encourage parents to drive their children to school given the negative impact on the local community and climate change
· The aim of a “School Streets” policy was to seek appropriate solutions for individual schools. It was recognised that for certain parts of the county, particularly rural areas, it might not be practical.
Those against the motion commented:
· The Cabinet Member with Responsibility for Highways and Transport commented that he had asked officers to update the website with information about how the “School Street” schemes could be introduced in the community. Any school wishing to take part in the scheme would need to notify the Council and provide evidence of support from a parent body, demonstrate support locally and have volunteers available to facilitate the scheme on a daily basis. He would be happy to report progress on safer streets outside schools to OSPB or the relevant scrutiny panel. In relation to the enforcement of keep clear zig zag lines, officers had been identifying troublesome areas and introducing TROs where economically viable which would be enforced accordingly. 20 mph speed limit flashing light signs were in operation constantly day and night which made mandatory enforcement impossible. Local councillors would be able to request speed reductions via the member portal from July 2023. The progress being made by the Council made this motion unnecessary
· Different areas of the county had different issues outside schools and therefore it would be impossible to introduce a generic “School Streets” policy. Each individual school needed to find its own solution
· The closure of roads outside schools would cause upset amongst residents in neighbouring roads. The enforcement of speed limits and addressing parent behaviour outside schools by the police would be the most appropriate solution
· The reality of modern-day pressures meant that parents/grandparents were more likely to want to transport their children to school by car irrespective of the availability of active travel schemes
· Local councillors had an important role to work with all parties to address safety issues outside schools
· It was not appropriate to compare the issues associated with the introduction of “School Streets” schemes in London with those experienced in a rural county such as Worcestershire
· It was not possible or practical for all parents to walk their children to school in this county. The key issue was to improve the behaviour of parents outside schools and that was an enforcement issue
· It was not possible for every child to attend their local school which meant that the use of a car had become a necessity for some parents. In addition, the road layout outside certain schools meant finding a workable solution was not possible.
On being put to the vote, the Motion was lost.