Campaigners have called for 20mph speed limits to be "normalised" on roads in Staffordshire's villages and urban areas – but Staffordshire councillors have decided not to review the introduction of more at this time.

In recent years "20 is Plenty" schemes have been introduced outside Staffordshire schools to encourage drivers to cut their speed when pupils are arriving or leaving for the day. There are also a number of 20mph zones in built up areas, including some residential streets in Stafford.

The 20's Plenty for Us campaign is calling for more 20mph limits to be introduced to residential streets and town and village centres across the country. And the 20's Plenty for Staffordshire group has asked the county council to scrutinise its current policy on 20mph speed limits, as well as considering future plans, potential funding sources and budgets to roll out more schemes.

Mike Barr and Phil Jones from 20's Plenty for Staffordshire told this month's Prosperous Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting there were several benefits of introducing 20mph limits in existing 30mph areas and national surveys had shown they were popular with residents.

Group co-ordinator Mr Barr, from Newcastle, said: "They make areas better places to live in by reducing road casualties, traffic noise and pollution and making us generally safer and healthier and a nicer environment for walking and cycling, particularly for children and older people. Councils across the UK are increasingly adopting wide area 20mph speed limits where communities want this.

"Some councils have already achieved a really remarkable reduction in road casualties of 20% or more. We urge the committee to look at what these councils have achieved and suggest what aspects of their approach might be appropriate for future Staffordshire policy on 20mph.

"We believe villages and towns across Staffordshire deserve the opportunity to choose 20mph if their communities want this. If the council doesn't review its policy then we believe the council will be missing out a real opportunity to bring the proven benefits of 20mph to Staffordshire residents."

Technical lead campaigner Mr Jones, of Kinver, said: "We think Staffordshire is falling behind in best practice and we hope the committee will look into it. We're very happy to work collaboratively on that matter.

"We're talking about limits, not zones. Zones are small areas with traffic calming, typically just a few streets. Limits are just signs and markings for the most part and cover much wider areas, including the whole of some settlements that have gone 20 now – and they are supported by Government policy.

"What we are looking for is to simply change the speed limit without the need for expensive changes to the road, and that can be very effective across a wider area. It makes local High Streets more pleasant if traffic speeds are less and overall we think it will help make Staffordshire a better place to live, work and visit.

"It's much more cost-effective than traffic calming – 20's Plenty estimate it typically costs around £5 a head on average to implement a 20mph limit without any traffic calming."

Committee member Councillor David Smith spoke in support of the scheme. He said: "You don't need to sell (to) me, I'm already on your side. But whether we can persuade the county to go that way I don't know.

"In my division (Lichfield Rural South) where I have got 10 villages, all of them with rat-running problems, to see a 20mph limit placed on those would really be quite excellent. I would be delighted if the county wanted to do a trial programme to do it in my area."

But the committee voted instead for the introduction of additional 20 mph limits and zones in local neighbourhoods to continue as identified in the council's existing work programmes, or as local community priorities through the Members' Divisional Highways Programme. This programme sees councillors allocated a funding pot each year to spend on highway issues in the area they represent.

Committee members decided not to undertake further scrutiny of the introduction of 20 mph limits at this time but to consider reviewing the situation at a later date.

Councillor Graham Hutton said: "I agree that changing the driving habits of people is key to bringing down KSIs (number of people killed or seriously injured),

"However, looking at the costs and what the benefits are, our highways are very strapped for cash. It's one of the departments that struggles with a very small budget.

"I looked at your typical costs; carrying out a speed survey for £400, just moving a SID (speed indicator device) from one pole to another costs about £500. Every time you want to put a 20mph limit in that's £4,000 to start with on a Traffic Regulation Order. Every time we've had signs changed it's cost us more than £300.

"I agree it would be wonderful to reduce KSIs through altering drivers' behaviours. But I'm not convinced that a blanket 20mph speed limit in urban areas in Staffordshire is cost effective or will in fact work."

Committee chairman Councillor Tina Clements said: "We need to remember that traffic needs to flow and 20 is plenty on some of our roads just won't work. Every situation is different and should be decided locally and on its own merit."

Councillor David Williams, cabinet member for highways and transport, said: "Rat runs are one of the perfect examples where the problem isn't the 30mph zone, it's the people not taking any notice of the 30mph zone. Who's going to take notice of a 20mph zone where the police have already said they will not enforce 20mph?

"The signs and fitting of signs is around £2,000. It's not just the fitting, it's the insurance, legal frameworks and health and safety that goes with that. Also there is no enforcement.

"The funding at this present moment in time would have to be sought elsewhere because unfortunately at this moment in time we have no areas that have been highlighted from the assessments we have done that need to be 20mph at present, apart from the ones we have put around schools as advisories.

"We are happy to work with parishes and members should they wish to do that, but this is a community issue and they would need to come to us."