North Wales council praised for 'getting it right' on 20mph limits

North Wales Live readers have been engaging in heated discussions about the contentious reduction of speed limits from 30mph to 20mph on Welsh roads and the impending reversal on some roads. This follows announcements from two Welsh councils that no alterations will be made on their 20mph roads.
Councils across Wales are currently assessing which 20mph roads could potentially return to a 30mph limit. In a divisive move back in September 2023, the Welsh Government lowered the default speed limit on restricted roads in Wales from 30mph to 20mph.
This decision sparked widespread public outrage, leading to a petition signed by hundreds of thousands of individuals. Despite early indications of a decrease in accidents and fatalities on our roads, there remains a strong demand for changes to be implemented.
Councils have always retained the authority to maintain some roads at 30mph - with some, such as Cyngor Gwynedd, fully utilising this prior to the 2023 change.
However, under Transport Minister Ken Skates, the Welsh Government revised the guidance last year, anticipating that this would result in more roads reverting to 30mph.
This has indeed been the case in certain areas, with Wrexham, Flintshire and Anglesey well into the process of implementing changes. However, just last week, Denbighshire and Ceredigion both announced they have no plans to make any changes after reviewing their 20mph roads.
The full list of roads set to revert back to 30mph can be viewed here.
One reader, Kthd, comments: "Denbighshire County Council at its finest yet again." Outofhere says: "Absolutely a joke and a con! Conwy CBC as usual done nothing but make statements!"
Yes-cymru questions: "Why did Gwynedd need a public consultation? They received 83 responses from population of over 125,000, waste of money."
Damojo asks: "Where was the change of speed limit survey response document displayed. I never saw one."
Co Dre comments: "Gwynedd working at a speed of 20 miles per year."
While Ofcourseitis suggests: "Just get the people from Gwynedd to visit each council area and sort out which roads should revert, and which ones should stay at 20mph, they are the only ones who have shown that they understand what the new law should look like, all others have failed miserably and have probably lost Labour the next Senned election."
Tinnybasher says: "Well at least it clears up and makes things consistent throughout Wales, need to copy and print the list for my dashboard."
Tjr42 believes: "What a huge mistake it was. Money down the drain. Those who vote Labour next year need to think again. Shambles."
Cymrucyw pleads: "C'mon Conwy, hurry up and revert please."
Totemlad1 asks: "How come Denbighshire County Council seems to be anti car when some areas have no alternatives, reverse the 20 limit."
Butterfly1722 adds: "It was no surprise that Denbighshire was one of the counties that wouldn't change course, even before reading the article. The reason is clear: they simply lack the funds to do so."
Tometoyou replies: "Not a single road reversal from Denbighshire County Council. It's unrealistic to expect the removal of 20 mph limits near estates, schools, and hospitals. I won't be voting for my current councillor again."
Forestdragon says: "Recall the initial rollout when 20 mph signs had 30 mph stickers that were ripped off overnight on 17th September 2023? Why not reapply 30 mph stickers as a temporary fix until permanent signs are installed? On a separate note, kudos to Gwynedd for getting it right from the start and saving taxpayers' money by correctly interpreting the guidelines."
Toxteth O'Grady answers: "The real motive is to continue generating revenue by catching drivers struggling to adhere to the speed limit."

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

South Wales Argus

17 minutes ago

• South Wales Argus

MPs share their own stories as assisted dying debate continues

Debating the proposal to roll out assisted dying in the UK, Sir James Cleverly described losing his 'closest friend earlier this year' and said his opposition did not come from 'a position of ignorance'. The Conservative former minister said he and 'the vast majority' of lawmakers were 'sympathetic with the underlying motivation of' the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, 'which is to ease suffering in others and to try and avoid suffering where possible'. But he warned MPs not to 'sub-contract' scrutiny of the draft new law to peers, if the Bill clears the Commons after Friday's third reading debate. Backing the proposal, Conservative MP Mark Garnier said 'the time has come where we need to end suffering where suffering can be put aside, and not try to do something which is going to be super perfect and allow too many more people to suffer in the future'. He told MPs that his mother died after a 'huge amount of pain', following a diagnosis in 2012 of pancreatic cancer. Sir James, who described himself as an atheist, said: 'I've had this said to me on a number of occasions, 'if you had seen someone suffering, you would agree with this Bill'. 'Well, Mr Speaker, I have seen someone suffering – my closest friend earlier this year died painfully of oesophageal cancer and I was with him in the final weeks of his life. 'So I come at this not from a position of faith nor from a position of ignorance.' Labour MP Siobhain McDonagh spoke int he assisted dying debate (House of Commons/PA) Labour MP for Mitcham and Morden Dame Siobhain McDonagh intervened in Sir James's speech and said: 'On Tuesday, it is the second anniversary of my sister's death. 'Three weeks prior to her death, we took her to hospital because she had a blood infection, and in spite of agreeing to allow her into intensive care to sort out that blood infection, the consultant decided that she shouldn't go because she had a brain tumour and she was going to die. 'She was going to die, but not at that moment. 'I'm sure Mr Speaker can understand that a very big row ensued. I won that row. 'She was made well, she came home and she died peacefully. What does (Sir James) think would happen in identical circumstances, if this Bill existed?' Sir James replied: 'She asks me to speculate into a set of circumstances which are personal and painful, and I suspect she and I both know that the outcome could have been very, very different, and the the moments that she had with her sister, just like the moments I had with my dear friend, those moments might have been lost.' He had earlier said MPs 'were promised the gold-standard, a judicially underpinned set of protections and safeguards', which were removed when a committee of MPs scrutinised the Bill. He added: 'I've also heard where people are saying, 'well, there are problems, there are still issues, there are still concerns I have', well, 'the Lords will have their work to do'. 'But I don't think it is right and none of us should think that it is right to sub-contract our job to the other place (the House of Lords).' Mr Garnier, who is also a former minister, told the Commons he had watched 'the start of the decline for something as painful and as difficult as pancreatic cancer' after his mother's diagnosis. 'My mother wasn't frightened of dying at all,' he continued. 'My mother would talk about it and she knew that she was going to die, but she was terrified of the pain, and on many occasions she said to me and Caroline my wife, 'can we make it end?' 'And of course we couldn't, but she had very, very good care from the NHS.' Conservative MP Mark Garnier said he would back the Bill (PA) Mr Garnier later added: 'Contrary to this, I found myself two or three years ago going to the memorial service of one of my constituents who was a truly wonderful person, and she too had died of pancreatic cancer. 'But because she had been in Spain at the time – she spent quite a lot of time in Spain with her husband – she had the opportunity to go through the state-provided assisted dying programme that they do there. 'And I spoke to her widower – very briefly, but I spoke to him – and he was fascinating about it. He said it was an extraordinary, incredibly sad thing to have gone through, but it was something that made her suffering much less.' He said he was 'yet to be persuaded' that paving the way for assisted dying was 'a bad thing to do', and added: 'The only way I can possibly end today is by going through the 'aye' lobby.' If MPs back the Bill at third reading, it will face further scrutiny in the House of Lords at a later date.

The Independent

33 minutes ago

• The Independent

Labour plans council tax shake-up that could see rich areas pay more

Labour is proposing a significant reform to council tax funding, aiming to make it fairer by directing more central government funds to areas with the highest need. The new approach seeks to alleviate the burden on local authorities that currently impose large council tax increases with little return, by enabling them to request lower rises. The reform will likely result in less central funding for areas where local services are not as stretched. A Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government official said the current system has led to "perverse outcomes" and the new plan aims to be fairer to councils that have historically faced difficult financial decisions. A consultation has been launched by the MHCLG to evaluate how new funding allocations will be made, including assessing needs for adult social care, children's social care, and Special Educational Needs and Disabilities funding.

Daily Mirror

38 minutes ago

• Daily Mirror

Millionaires may be eligible for Winter Fuel Payments in new rules

The Winter Fuel Payment U-turn could open up an unexpected loophole for wealthy retirees After facing severe backlash for cutting back Winter Fuel Payments shortly after winning the election last year, the Labour party has made a U-turn. Announcing new rules to means-test the seasonal benefit to assure vulnerable retirees are helped through the harshest months. To be eligible for the Winter Fuel Payment, which offers either £200 or £300 every winter to help cover heating costs, people over state pension age will need to have a taxable income of under £35,000 per year. ‌ Experts at Forbes Dawson warned: 'Although this may seem like a sensible approach, as many pensioners are asset-rich but have relatively low levels of income this could have unintended consequences and exclude many 'poor' people. ‌ 'Wealthy pensioners are generally in a unique position to control their level of taxable income on a year-to-year basis. Most pensioners will generally have some control over the amount of taxable income they extract from their pensions on an annual basis and many pensioners will have no 'income' and live off their built-up capital.' However, the experts added: 'We are not seriously suggesting that wealthy individuals will manipulate their income just to enjoy a £200 benefit, there will be cases where the very wealthy still qualify, while more deserving cases go without.' To break it down, the finance experts shared a fictional example of a retired NHS consultant called Dr Sam who has an estate worth £5million and makes specific moves with his money already in order to cut down a future Inheritance Tax bill. Including making loans to his Family Investment Company that sits outside his estate. As none of the shares are held by him directly, he doesn't pay tax on it and instead gets £200,000 annually as a repayment on his loan to the company. So while his general income is sitting at six-figures, his taxable income is zero so he will qualify under the new Winter Fuel Payment rules. In another fictional example, the money experts pointed out how people with less assets in retirement don't have as much control over their finances and might be excluded from the benefit. Retired teacher Doris uses a defined benefit public sector pension which is taxable income. ‌ She gets £40,000 a year from it, roughly £2,600 after tax, and with little money elsewhere she is reliant on nearly every penny so she can't cut it down. Because of her taxable income, she will not qualify for the benefit despite getting £160,000 less each year than Dr Sam. The new rules will make nine million more pensioners eligible for Winter Fuel Payments. And people can still opt out of receiving it but will need to do so before 15 September, 2025. Eligible people over state pension age will be receiving £200 between November and December 2025. Meanwhile those over the age of 80 who are eligible will receive £300.