Issue - meetings

To receive a report from the Director of Finance, Resources & Customer

Services outlining a Call-In received for consideration by Overview & Scrutiny

on the following reason: (Report No: 78).

Portfolio decision by Cabinet Member for Environment (18 August 2016): Approval of Cycle Enfield Proposals for the A105.

Decision included on Publication of Decision List No: 20/16-17 Key Decision

4342 (List Ref: 4/20/16-17) issued on 18 August 2016.

It is proposed that consideration of the Call-In be structured as follows:

·         Brief outline of reasons for the Call-In by representative(s) of the Members who have called in the decision.

·         Response to the reasons provided for the Call-In by the Cabinet Member responsible for taking the decision.

·         Debate by Overview & Scrutiny Committee and agreement on action to be taken.

The Chair invited Councillor Neville to present the Reasons for Call-In.  Councillor Neville began his submission by referring to the need for Members to act impartially, as this meeting should proceed without the ‘party whip’. Councillor Levy confirmed that all matters at Overview and Scrutiny are considered in this manner.

Councillor Neville stated that the Call-in was about the consultation undertaken in respect of the Cycle Enfield proposals for the A105, including consideration of the consultation findings and the adequacy of this.

He summarised the reasons for Call- In as follows:

• The leading law case which gives the criteria for a fair local authority consultation refers to two legal principles that are relevant here i.e. that ‘adequate time must be given for consideration and response’ and ‘the product of consultation must be conscientiously taken into account’  He did not think adequate time had been given for consideration as the consultation ended on 29 July 2016 with 1600 objections received, and the decision by the Cabinet Member to approve the scheme was signed by him on 17 August 2016.
• An objection had originally been given by Arriva Bus Company to the proposals, in particular the withdrawal of the bus lane going south from the Triangle, Palmers Green towards the North Circular Road and the impact/ delays of this on bus journeys.  Although the report refers to there being extensive discussion with TfL re a commitment to identify measures elsewhere on the route (mainly in Haringey) to mitigate this impact, we do not know what has been agreed with them.  He understands that even following recent meetings with officers, the Commercial Planning Manager of Arriva London (Bob Pennyfather) still has concerns about this scheme.
•  Reference was made to the Local Authorities Traffic Orders (Procedure) England and Wales Regulations 1996, that if an objection is made by a bus company to something that would restrict the movement of buses along the route, then the local authority is required to hold a Public Local Inquiry.  The objection from the bus company is not included in the schedule of objections received and the report does not state that the objections from Arriva have been withdrawn. As such a Local Inquiry is still required.  Under the same regulations there is a requirement to hold a public enquiry if an order is made prohibiting the loading or unloading of vehicles.
•  The air quality report acknowledged that there was likely to be some increase in NO² concentrations at junctions where there were some increases in queue length and delay time although with potential improvements if there was a modal shift from private car to cycling. However the report acknowledges that the shift from cars to cycles is not guaranteed and it is possible that the resulting air quality improvements may not be achieved.
• The London Ambulance Service (LAS) has set out serious reservations they have about the proposals. It appears that all three emergency services would be affected detrimentally by the scheme.
• The numerous objections received cannot  ...  view the full minutes text for item 131