People in support/objective of 20mh zones

Authority	Office of the Clerk of Tynwald
Date received	2025-04-08
Outcome	Some information sent but not all held
Outcome date	2025-04-28
Case ID	4567450

Summary

The requester asked for the number and context of emails received by the Department of Infrastructure Minister supporting or objecting to 20mph zones. The authority responded that some information was sent but not all was held, providing correspondence regarding the implementation process and consultation rather than a statistical count of public emails.

Key Facts

The request targeted emails sent to Michelle.Haywood@gov.im regarding 20mph zones.
The outcome was 'Some information sent but not all held'.
Correspondence reveals dissatisfaction from MHK Rob Callister regarding the lack of a comprehensive list of proposed changes.
A consultation for the Living Streets Douglas Central 20mph scheme took place between April and June 2023.
20mph zone schemes prepared in 2021 were declined funding by the Treasury.

Data Disclosed

20mph
April and June 2023
2021
26 March 2025
19th March
21st February 2023
June 2023
42 pages
2 documents

Original Request

I would like to know how many emails did the current D.o.I MHK, received in support of 20mph zones, also general context of emails. Also how many emails have the D.o.I MHK received objecting to the 20mph zones and general context of emails. I'm referring to this email address below Michelle.Haywood@gov.im

Data Tables (1)

Full Response Text

EXTERNAL EMAIL - This email was sent by a person from outside your organization. Exercise caution when clicking links, opening attachments or taking further action, before validating its authenticity. From: Thomas, Chris Sent: 26 March 2025 08:49:39 To: Rob Callister; Michelle Haywood Cc: All Tynwald Members and Contacts; Curphey, Emily Subject: Re: 20mph Residential zones initiative Sensitivity: Normal Original mail: 20mph Residential zones initiative.msg ; Thanks Minister. You omit reference to the properly handled Living Streets Douglas Central 20mph scheme in respect of the commitment. Detailed specific consultation was carried out between April and June 2023 and a response document was then published which was available to debate in Tynwald. It is available from this link on consultation hub https://consult.gov.im/infrastructure/living- streets-scheme-in-douglas-central/ 20mph zone schemes were prepared in 2021 too, but Treasury declined to fund. Please can you or your offices send me the information I requested in response to 4 March email? Specifically: “ What information will you publish, if any, about objections following the notice?

Do you have road by road speed information and traffic counts at different times of day already? What is the baseline for monitoring impact and effectiveness? Do you expect both average speed and traffic volume to reduce and if so, by how much? “ I have also requested a copy of the actual order with an explanation of its legal basis and how it might be construed. How was it considered and was it signed off in a pink paper? For instance you seemed unaware of cost when first asked in media. Best regards Chris

Sent from Workspace ONE Boxer On 26 March 2025 at 07:34:38 GMT, Callister, Rob Rob.Callister@gov.im wrote: Good morning Minister (Michelle),

Thank you again for your correspondence regarding the introduction of 20mph residential zones in Douglas and Onchan.

Firstly, I want to clarify that I am not opposed to the implementation of certain 20mph zones within my constituency of Onchan. However, I must express my dissatisfaction with how the Department of Infrastructure (DOI) has managed this situation.

It is particularly concerning that you have requested the MHKs of Douglas and Onchan to "zoom" into a map to obtain details on the proposed changes.

This is totally unacceptable; as a publicly elected MHK, I am entitled to receive a comprehensive list of proposed changes to effectively respond to inquiries from my constituents. This situation underscores the lack of respect and transparency being demonstrated by you and your department towards Hon. Members regarding this matter.

As Chris Thomas pointed out in the Keys yesterday, the current map displays both existing 20mph zones and the proposed ones, which is confusing and time-consuming.

Furthermore, I want to clarify that I have never suggested that the Department lacks the mandate to implement this policy. What I have asserted is that the Department, under your leadership as the DOI Minister, is disregarding a clear Motion that was supported in Tynwald and debated on two separate occasions.

Rather than acknowledge this oversight, apologise and move on, you also have felt it necessary to emphasise the fact that I seconded a Motion from my colleague Ann Corlett on Tuesday 21st February 2023, relating to this matter.

As I have already stated, I am not against the introduction of specific 20mph zones in certain areas.

While you referenced “Part A” of that motion, which received support from Hon. Members, you have neglected to address Parts B and C.

Most importantly, you have overlooked the final part, which states that “the Department of Infrastructure should report to Tynwald with recommendations on the implementation of (a) and (b), guided by the principles in (c), for debate at the June 2023 sitting of Tynwald or sooner.”

I would strongly encourage you to start listening and working with Hon. Members, particularly when they are merely attempting to address an oversight by the department.

Effective communication and co-operation are essential for the successful implementation of policies that impact our Constituents.

Kind regards

Rob Callister CMgr, FCMI, FICA, Dip.(ITM), MHK House of Keys Member for Onchan

Legislative Buildings Finch Road Douglas IM1 3PW

Office: 01624 651513 Mobile: 07624 457511 Government e-mail: rob.callister@gov.im Personal e-mail: robcallister@manx.net Website: www.robcallister.im

Data protection privacy statement

From: Haywood, Michelle (MHK) Michelle.Haywood@gov.im Sent: 26 March 2025 06:13 To: Mercer, Robert (MLC) Rob.Mercer@gov.im; Callister, Rob Rob.Callister@gov.im; All Tynwald Members and Contacts Subject: RE: 20mph Residential zones initiative Importance: High

Dear Mr Callister

Thank you for your emails regarding the 20mph Residential zones initiative.

Re Lists of specific roads On 19th March, you were advised by email from a DoI Officer that the data about the proposed new speed limits can only be accessed via the map system. In order to see the road names you have to zoom in as they don’t show up if the resolution is set too wide. The existing data on road speeds is held on a different system, so it is not currently possible for anyone other than a limited number of Officers to see this information. I have asked Officers to investigate adding current speed limits to the MANNGIS system to allow the option to toggle between existing and proposed speed limits. That is being investigated but it may take a little time to resolve whether a) this is possible and b) what the costs and time required are.

I fully appreciate the nature of your request, especially for areas you may be unfamiliar with and for which you may not know the existing speed limits. I note that large parts of Onchan are already 20mph, but it is a reasonable question to ask what is changing. I am not as familiar with the roads in Onchan as you will be, but my understanding is that there are a limited number of roads that will have a speed limit of 20mph applied. I will share any further information about this as soon as I am able. Please note we do not hold a list of roads that you have requested.

Re Implementation The Traffic Regulation Order statutory period of notice closed on 21st March. A contractor has been appointed and some preliminary work has commenced installing sockets for signage around schools. No signs have yet been installed. We have started on the sockets near schools in accordance with the Tynwald resolution of February 2023 proposed by Mrs Corlett and seconded by yourself: a) The default speed limit in residential areas should be set at 20mph, with a priority focus on reviewing areas directly surrounding schools;

This was unanimously supported by Tynwald. I have directed that this preliminary work should continue. It is clearly unacceptable for any school not to be within a 20mph restriction.

In light of the feedback received Officers will check to established whether the proposed zones require modification (extension or reduction) and the final placement of the signs at the periphery of the zones will be dependent on this evaluation. The current target is to have all the signage that the Department feels is needed to support the zones in Douglas and Onchan in place by September 2025. This information was shared with Members at the DoI Briefing to Tynwald on Tuesday 11th March 2025.

Re Tynwald Debate and report back You are indeed correct that the original debate was July 2020, however the debate on the Road Safety Strategy in January 2019 also contained a strong argument for a 20mph limit that I suspect underpinned the July 2020/October 2020 resolution because Mr Shimmin introduced the concept of ’20 is plenty’. I note that you supported the vote in 2019 to accept and endorse the Road Safety Strategy 2019-2029 which heavily relied upon a Safe Systems approach.

In October 2020, Mr Baker’s amendment to Mr Shimmin’s motion was further amended by Mrs Corlett and seconded by Mrs Barber.

a) The default speed limit in residential areas should be set at 20mph, with a priority focus on reviewing areas directly surrounding schools; b) The Department of Infrastructure may set higher speed limits on certain roads within residential areas, including distributor roads, where appropriate; c) Our streets should cater to the needs of all users, ensuring they are safe, inclusive, and easy to navigate for all classes of road users; and d) The Department of Infrastructure should report back to Tynwald with recommendations on the implementation of points (a) and (b), guided by the principles established in point (c), by March 2021.

As Mr Mercer has noted, Mr Baker returned to brief Tynwald members in July 2021, but he had also written to all members on 14th May 2021, noting that the report back had been hampered due to restrictions on border travel and lockdown, which had hampered progress on conducting the assessment. We have managed to locate a copy of that presentation (attached) which clearly indicates the principles that were being followed, the progress in implementation, the use of maps to share the data and the intention to pursue a safe systems approach.

This motion was restated in 2023 by Mrs Corlett and seconded by yourself, with the date in part (d) amended to June 2023.

In the debate on 2023, Minister Thomas detailed the consultation work that had been carried out to date and promised to return with a report in June 2023. This didn’t happen.

As I thanked you for observing yesterday in the House, you are correct with your assertion that the Department has not brought this back to Tynwald for a debate; I can only apologise that this was not undertaken.

At the July 2024 sitting of Tynwald, in response to a question from Mrs Corlett regarding the Living Streets Scheme for Douglas (which was consulted on in 2023) Minister Crookall told the Court: I can confirm that detailed design work and further stakeholder engagement will be carried out during the current financial year, with a view to implementing the work on site during 2025-26, subject to funding. So, it is clear to me that Tynwald were aware that progress was being made to deliver the Tynwald resolutions.

I disagree with your assessment that the Department lacks the mandate to implement this policy, which has now twice been unanimously agreed by Tynwald. It would seem churlish to suggest that members would withdraw their previously unanimous support for the scheme because of details in an implementation plan, so I consider that an unlikely outcome. As I am sure Mrs Corlett will agree, asking for a Department to report back on how they are to achieve a Tynwald resolution is usually a good mechanism to ensure that actions take place and progress is made. It is not usually a mechanism for overturning the other parts of the resolution. I don’t expect that when Tynwald supported the 2020 resolutions anyone thought it would be 2025 before progress started being made.

However, I thank you for raising this omission about a Tynwald debate about the Department’s recommended implementation plan. The implementation plan is largely operational but I will ensure that it is collated and shared with members prior to the debate.

As we now have over 700 responses to the notice of the draft Traffic Regulation Order, I think it is reasonable that this data should also be shared in advance of the debate about the implementation plans as well. I shall look forward to the debate in May and to hearing members comments and suggestions about how the DoI plans to deliver this important scheme.

Kind regards

Michelle

P Please don't print this email unless you really need to.

From: Mercer, Robert (MLC) Rob.Mercer@gov.im Sent: 23 March 2025 21:02 To: Callister, Rob Rob.Callister@gov.im; All Tynwald Members and Contacts Subject: RE: 20mph Residential zones initiative

Hi Rob, further to this, please see attached email regarding said briefing which took place on 13th July 2021.

Kind regards Rob Mercer

From: Mercer, Robert (MLC) Rob.Mercer@gov.im Sent: 23 March 2025 20:50 To: Callister, Rob Rob.Callister@gov.im; All Tynwald Members and Contacts Subject: RE: 20mph Residential zones initiative

Hi Rob,

My recollection is that there was a Tynwald briefing on part d., and that was characterised by Tim Baker as being the response to Tynwald. Whilst I don’t agree with the way that this was handled by Tim Baker back in the day, I would like to reiterate my support for the 20mph approach being followed by the DOI and by the Minister and her team. We are nearly 40 years behind Europe on this matter. Whilst some people have some concerns about how this is being implemented, those who live in the neighbourhoods blighted by speeding cars have every right to demand safe streets. Furthermore, the project is entirely consistent with the extant Road Safety Strategy, and I sincerely hope that we will see similar reductions in KSI’s at least on a percentage basis similar to that being observed in Wales following their rollout. I am very happy to engage further with any member who has questions or concerns about this as this matter has been on my radar since at least 2018.

Kind regards, Rob Mercer From: Callister, Rob Rob.Callister@gov.im Sent: 23 March 2025 19:16 To: All Tynwald Members and Contacts Subject: 20mph Residential zones initiative

“Open email” Good Evening Minister (Michelle), 20mph Residential zones initiative I am writing to follow up on my earlier correspondence regarding the implementation of 20mph speed limits in residential zones.

I would like to express my sincere thanks to my colleague Chris Thomas, MHK, for his assistance in clarifying certain points. His insight has saved me considerable time that I might have otherwise spent searching through Hansard on a Sunday afternoon. On February 21, 2023, Mrs. Ann Colett, MHK, moved a motion stating that Tynwald noted the debates from July 22, 2020, and October 22, 2020, and reaffirmed its position that: a) The default speed limit in residential areas should be set at 20mph, with a priority focus on reviewing areas directly surrounding schools; b) The Department of Infrastructure may set higher speed limits on certain roads within residential areas, including distributor roads, where appropriate; c) Our streets should cater to the needs of all users, ensuring they are safe, inclusive, and easy to navigate for all classes of road users; and d) The Department of Infrastructure should report back to Tynwald with recommendations on the implementation of points (a) an

[Response truncated — full text is 85,232 characters]