Lewisham councillors will oppose “shocking” and “irresponsible” proposals to cut school crossing patrols.

Plans to cut the service, which costs Lewisham Council £160k, forms a raft of cost-cutting proposals as the council looks to slash £30m from its budget over the next two financial years.

The school crossing patrol employs 28 staff and covers every ward except for Whitefoot.

Cllr Octavia Holland said the proposal conflicts with council objectives around obesity and air quality.

Discussing the cuts at a children and young people select committee, Cllr Holland said: “I actually find it quite shocking that this is on the table to be honest with you.

“It really conflicts with a number of things that we have said we are trying to do.

“We know that for children and young people the most likely cause of death is road fatality. Then we have a whole agenda round obesity [and] the environment.”

Cllr Coral Howard was opposed to the cut, and commented: “I just don’t think we could afford to have a child knocked over on their way to school or severely injured.”

Lewisham Council has proposed three options to reduce the cost of the service, including cutting the service completely, asking schools to pay for the patrols or just keeping the patrols on the most dangerous road crossings –  saving £54k.

Lewisham Council highways and transport manager Simon Moss said school crossing patrols were not a statutory service, but the safety of children and their carers could be at risk if the service was cut.

“School crossing patrols have got a special place in the mindset. Obviously we don’t want to cut it but that is what the proposal is,” he told the committee.

“The primary risk being safety risk – someone gets knocked over on the crossing. This leads to the second risk around perception of liability and how we might mitigate that. It is not a statutory service we have to provide but there is a political, reputational risk around that.”

But while asking already-stretched schools to pay for the service would be “problematic”, the council could also look at ways to lower risk to safety through road design, he said.

Cllr John Paschoud said any reduction in the service would increase the risk of harm and that the proposal was “highly irresponsible.”

“It is only one child this has to happen to,” he said.

Committee chairman Cllr Luke Sorba said the committee would recommend the mayor and cabinet reject the proposal.

“[the committee] unequivocally feels that the dangers arising from these cuts outweigh the savings, that it’s also in breach of council objectives around roads, walking, and healthy streets, and we could not accept increase in the risk of injury or death to a child that might result in the cuts,” he said.