To consider Notices of Motion.

Motion 1 – Car park passes

 

The Chairman explained that the seconder to the car park passes motion had withdrawn since the publication of the agenda. Councillor Rone proposed the car park passes motion and asked for a seconder.

 

The motion was not seconded and was therefore withdrawn.

 

Motion 2 – 20 mph speed limits

 

In moving the motion Councillor Felicity Norman made the following points:

 

·         There was significant and growing support to reduce speed limits in residential areas.

·         The stopping distance at 20 mph was half that at 30 mph.

·         The introduction of 20 mph speed limits would encourage children to play outdoors and support public health objectives.

·         The lower speed limit would also contribute to environmental objectives by helping to reduce fuel use, improve air quality and reduce noise.

·         The recent Stockholm declaration on road safety supported 20 mph speed limits.

·         A wide range of public health, governmental and medical bodies supported 20 mph speed limits.

 

In seconding the motion Councillor Ange Tyler made the following points:

 

·         The Local Transport Plan (LTP) contained a speed management commitment to work with local communities to introduce 20 mph speed limits where appropriate.

·         Local communities were concerned about speeding.

·         The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA) had produced guidance which indicated that the severity of accidents was reduced by cars travelling at 20 mph.

·         To ensure compliance could be achieved area-wide speed limits would need to be introduced.

·         It was important to realise safer communities through road safety initiatives.

 

The following principal points were raised during the debate:

 

·         The LTP included provision for the introduction of 20 mph speed limit. Local residents should be consulted on implementing 20 mph limits.

·         There was concern that additional signage would cause the public realm to appear cluttered.

·         It was felt that even with a 20 mph limit there would still exist reckless drivers who would drive at excessive speeds.

·         The 20 mph speed limit would be difficult to enforce and would not be supported by the police force unless the limit was self-enforcing.

·         Speeding was a priority for a number of local parish councils.

·         Reduced speed in residential areas would improve the quality of life for local residents.

·         The introduction of 20 mph limits was consistent with objectives to reduce carbon emissions.

·         The motion called on the executive to undertake an investigation. During such an investigation the areas of concerns raised during the debate could be reviewed.

·         The implementation of 20 mph speed limits would require traffic regulation orders (TRO) to be progressed. It was noted that there was a significant waiting list for TROs.

·         The investigation should consider the impact of 20 mph zones on animals.

·         It was noted that Pembridge had requested a 20 mph limit and the request was currently on the TRO waiting list. It was suggested that a 20 mph limit in Pembridge could be used as a pilot.

·         A 20 mph limit could help encourage cycling and reduce congestion.

 

Proposed amendment – Proposed by Bernard Hunt, Seconded by Councillor Bob Matthews. This Council requests that the executive considers implementing a 20 mph speed limit alongside all schools and accident blackspots within existing 30 mph zones.

 

Councillor Bernard Hunt proposed the amendment and explained that the original motion was excessive in its scope. A more affordable proposal was to locate 20 mph speed limits outside schools and at accident blackspots. The proposed amendment would meet the objectives contained in the preamble to the original motion but would not alienate the public by introducing 20 mph limits on too many roads.

 

Councillor Bob Matthews seconded the amendment and explained that the projected increase in the number of cars would result in a reduction in the speed cars were able to travel. There should be a focus on removing cars from the roads by active travel measures and then area-wide 20 mph speed limits should be investigated. The 20 mph limits were felt to be unenforceable. 

 

The following principal points were raised during the debate on the amendment:

 

·         The amendment provided the opportunity to introduce 20 mph speed limits where they were substantiated by evidence.

·         RoSPA recommended that 20 mph limits were introduced where prevailing speeds were generally low.

·         The amendment proposed a narrower approach than the original motion and introduced restrictions on where 20 mph speed limits could be introduced. The implementation of 20 mph speed limits at schools and accident blackspots could be considered within the investigation proposed in the original motion

·         The amendment would require a greater number of TRO applications.

·         It was important that schools were targeted for 20 mph limits in the interests of road safety and air quality.

·         The scale of the investigation proposed in the original motion was significant and would be costly. The amendment would reduce the cost of the investigation.

·         Guidance suggested that 20 mph speed limits should only be considered where pedestrians were prominent and there was community support.

·         The amendment was a step towards targeting areas for implementation of 20 mph limits.

·         The proposal in the amendment could be explored in the investigation proposed in the original motion.

 

Councillor Felicity Norman, as proposer of the original motion, responded to the amendment. Schools could be included in the investigation proposed in the original motion. The investigation would look at other areas where 20 mph speed limits had been introduced successfully.

 

The amendment was put to the vote and was lost by a simple majority.

 

The original motion was put to the vote and was carried by a simple majority.

 

RESOLVED: That  

Herefordshire Council recognises the benefits associated with a 20 miles per hour speed limit in residential areas rather than a default of 30 mph which exists in most parts of the town and County.

There are fewer fatalities and injuries, greater survivability in traffic collisions, improved air quality, reduced fuel use and greater willingness of the population to walk or cycle – which has associated health benefits.

Many councils have or are in the process of implementing area-wide 20mph speed limits on residential and urban roads without traffic calming.

Many bodies with a remit for public health support a reduction in speed limits to 20mph on residential streets.

Area-wide 20mph limits rarely need traffic calming measures. They are an affordable way to improve health equality by creating child, disability, elderly and dementia friendly streetscapes that help reduce inactivity, obesity and isolation.

This Council requests that the executive undertakes an investigation concerning the introduction of area-wide 20mph speed limits across Herefordshire’s towns and major villages.

 

 

Councillor Gemma Davies left the meeting.

 

 

Motion 3 – Minor Injury Units (MIU) Closures

 

In moving the motion Councillor Paul Symonds made the following principal points:

 

·         The MIU closures over the winter months had occurred over the previous three years.

·         The reason provided for the closure had been patient safety.

·         It was understood that where significant service change was proposed there should be consultation and if no consultation was undertaken then reasons should be provided why it had not taken place.

·         The Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) had attended scrutiny but had not provided a business case for the closures nor provided evidence of any alternative options to closure that had been considered.

·         The lack of consultation required a referral to the Secretary of State to consider the process followed for the closures

 

The following principal points were raised during the debate:

 

·         Local residents relied upon the MIUs to treat minor injuries.

·         It was essential that consultation was conducted over such significant service changes.

·         The urgent closure of the MIUs in 2017 could have been avoided in later years with better planning of resources.

·         There had been frustration on the scrutiny committee with the lack of meaningful consultation conducted by the CCG and flawed statistics that had been used to justify the closures.

·         The power to refer to the Secretary of State was a tool available to the council which should be used in situations where there had been inadequate consultation on changes to local health provision. The Secretary of State should be asked to ensure that meaningful consultation was undertaken and provide a judgement on whether the closure constituted a significant service change.

·         The closure of the MIUs was felt to add to the pressures experienced by accident and emergency units.

 

Councillor Barry Durkin seconded the motion and explained that it was vital that the CCG conducted consultation on service change and was responsive to the replies it received. The referral should be undertaken to allow the Secretary of State to recommend an appropriate way forward.

 

Councillor Paul Symonds, as the mover of the motion, closed the debate and explained that the closure undertaken since the initial closure in 2017 constituted significant service change and consultation should have been conducted by the Wye Valley Trust and CCG. To not refer to the Secretary of State would be a failure of the council to represent the interests of local residents and would undermine the scrutiny committee. The intention of the referral was to ensure that proper consultation was conducted in the future on service changes and before any closure of the MIUs.

 

The motion was put to the vote and was carried unanimously.

 

RESOLVED: That

 

The repeated closure of Minor Injury Units in Herefordshire was scrutinised at this Council’s Adults & Wellbeing Committee on 13^th January 2020.

 

The NHS Trust and CCG submitted a report to this meeting which was incomplete and misleading. No evidence was given that any serious consideration had been given to enhancing community services to take pressure off A&E. There appeared to be a perception that it was the communities’ fault for not using the MIUs sufficiently, as opposed to the Trust’s failure to develop and promote these facilities.

 

The reason given for not consulting stakeholders prior to closing the MIUs was that it was not a ‘significant’ decision, hiding behind the shroud of ‘urgent patient safety’. Whilst this may not be significant in terms of NHS budgets, it is significant to the 30,000 or so residents of communities served by the MIUs in Herefordshire. Government guidance cites ward closure due to viral outbreak, not closures planned months ahead, as an example of urgent patient safety.

 

Assurances were given by the CCG & Trust to Ross Town Council that a public consultation on the future of community health services, including MIUs, would be forthcoming in February 2020. This has not happened.

 

Under The National Health Service Act 2006, the only power available to Herefordshire Council if it is not satisfied with service NHS provision is to refer such decisions to the Secretary of State for Health. The alternative to this is to accept at face value the decisions, statements and lack of consultation by Wye Valley NHS Trust and CCG, letting down the residents of Herefordshire.

 

This Council agrees that the decision by Wye Valley NHS Trust to close Minor Injury Units in Herefordshire for the last 3 winter periods be referred to the Secretary of State for Health because Herefordshire Council has not been consulted on these changes to service and is not satisfied with the reasons given by the Trust not to consult.