Agenda and minutes

Attendees were welcomed to the meeting.

Apologies for absence were received from Simon Goulden and Tony Murphy. It was noted that Councillor Elaine Hayward was substituting for Councillor Joanne Laban.

The Chair then outlined how the meeting was to proceed. The meeting would focus on the reasons given on this occasion for two Call-ins – ‘Approval of Cycle Enfield – Proposals for Enfield Town’ and ‘Approval of Cycle Enfield – Proposals for the A1010 North’; questions likewise would be only taken on these items in relation to the ‘Reasons for Call-in’, cited reasons being the exclusive basis for this and any other particular call-in meeting.

The Chair also reminded members of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee that they need to be fully committed to ensuring that scrutiny works in Enfield by being impartial and leaving party politics out of the scrutiny process.

As both Call-ins related to the same overall programme, The Chair gave Councillor Neville the opportunity to present both call-ins simultaneously, however, Councillor Neville declined, explaining that as there were subtle differences between the two schemes and the reasons for call-in, he would prefer to present them separately.

Members of the Council are invited to identify any disclosable pecuniary,

other pecuniary or non-pecuniary interests relevant to items on the agenda.

No declarations of interest were received.

To receive a report from the Director of Regeneration and Environment outlining a Call-in received for consideration by Overview and Scrutiny on the following reason: (Report No: 151)

Decision by Cabinet (14 December 2016): Approval of Cycle Enfield

Proposals for Enfield Town.

Cabinet Decision included on Publication of Decision List No: 47/16-17 Key

Decision KD4112 (List Ref: 1/47/16-17) issued on Friday 16 December 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 Members responsible for taking the decision.

·         Debate by Overview

The Chair invited Councillor Neville to outline and substantiate the reasons for Call –In.

Councillor Neville stated that there were 7 key issues relating to why the decision to approve the scheme should be reviewed, which were as follows:

·         The specific details of the proposed scheme have not been subject to public consultation. Residents and businesses have not had an opportunity to comment on the proposals as this scheme was removed from the initial consultation process. 

·         The locality of the cycle lanes should be reviewed in line with The Mayor of London’s comments who states that cyclists should be diverted away from main roads on to quieter routes.

·         There has been no proper consultation with bus companies who operate approximately 15 bus routes which pass through Enfield Town. TFL have confirmed that they do not consult with bus companies.

·         To state that the emergency services have ‘No Objections’ is not strictly correct when you consider the detail of the responses received. Emergency Services have expressed concerns about increased congestion and journey times.

·         It is always useful to have detail on youth engagement, however, this was absent from the report.

·         Traffic analysis undertaken in July 2014 warns of delays and we regularly see delays through the centre of town, especially during the winter months.

·      The air quality report is very ambiguous. There will be some improvement in certain areas however there will be increased levels of poor air quality at junctions as traffic builds up. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Guidelines 2016 state that cyclists shouldn’t travel along main roads as they will inhale car exhaust fumes.  This should be about the health benefits for cyclists, however, the exhaust fumes being generated will have an adverse impact.

Councillor Neville requested that the decision be referred back to the Cabinet Member for Environment for reconsideration.

The Chair invited Councillor Anderson to respond, as follows:

·         Councillor Fonyonga, Cabinet Member for Community Safety and Public Health had wanted to attend the meeting but was unable and sent her apologies.   

·         He disagreed with Councillor Neville’s comments relating to a lack of consultation and confirmed that Richard Eason would provide further detail.

·         In response to the comments from the Mayor of London, Councillor Anderson wished to emphasise that these comments related to cycle super-highways and not mini-cycle schemes and David B Taylor would refer to a communication received from the Mayor of London’s Office.

·         Councillor Anderson referred to consultation with bus companies and disagreed with Councillor Neville’s opinion. All bus companies will be involved in the consultation stage of this specific scheme.

·         As the scheme has developed, many views have been considered.

·         Richard Eason gave details of the consultation that will be undertaken, including workshops with residents and local businesses allowing them to influence final designs. A series of public exhibitions will be held also.

·         Glenn Stewart provided clarification relating to the NICE Guidelines 2016 referred to by Councillor Neville. The Assistant Director for Public Health confirmed that the Nice Guidelines are  ...  view the full minutes text for item 326.

To receive a report from the Director of Environment and Regeneration outlining a Call-In received for consideration by Overview and Scrutiny on the following reason: (Report Ref: 152)

Decision by Cabinet (14 December 2016): Approval of Cycle Enfield – Proposals for the A1010 (North)

Cabinet Decision included on Publication of Decision List No: 47/16-17 Key

Decision KD4115 (List Ref: 2/47/16-17) issued on Friday 16 December 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 Members responsible for taking the decision.

·         Debate by Overview

The Chair invited Councillor Neville to outline and substantiate the reasons for Call –In.

·      Councillor Neville referred to the main area of concern, the response to the consultation exercise, detailing that of the 663 responses, only 43% supported this scheme. Cabinet should have considered these figures in more detail. He added that this lack of support is presumably as a result of the upheaval that will be caused. The A1010 North is a narrow road, with a high volume of traffic, often heavy vehicles and lots of buses.

·         The Cabinet report does not give any results from the ‘business walk’ and this lack of clear evidence of support is due to the impact that the scheme will have on retailers.

·         With a number of bus routes along this road, there should have been direct consultation with bus company operators. This is a bus dependent area but buses will be delayed. The emergency services are more in agreement with this scheme than Enfield Town but the London Ambulance Service have noted that minutes will be put on response times and they would prefer hump-free roads.

·         The impact on parking for residents and businesses must be considered further. Almost half of the resident’s bays will be removed and approximately a quarter of all loading and waiting bays which are highly utilised. Free footpath cross-overs are to be offered to residents who require one, however, officers have been unable to quantify this number.

·         The economic impact must be carefully considered. Many of the shops along this corridor are suffering and further disruption could see them go under.

·         In relation to air quality, Councillor Neville asked that the issues raised in relation to the Enfield Town scheme be applied to the A1010 north.

·         Councillor Neville concluded by saying that a dramatic modal shift is required but in his opinion that will not be achieved.

Councillor Neville requested that the decision be referred back to the Cabinet Member for Environment for reconsideration.

The Chair invited Councillor Anderson to respond, as follows:

• Councillor Anderson stated that the points raised in both call-ins were similar and he would ask Officers to respond on specific issues.
• In addition to the 663 people who responded directly to the consultation, Officers spoke to over 1,000 people as part of a survey. This was discussed at the Cabinet meeting
• Engagement is often challenging in the Eastern part of the borough so to mitigate this the business walk was carried out to ensure that businesses along the A1010 were aware of the opportunity to engage with the process of design and proved to be a useful event.
• The Council and relevant TfL stakeholders (including representatives from London Buses) meet regularly to discuss all Cycle Enfield schemes. As the detailed design for the A1010 North progresses, further engagement with TfL and the bus operators will continue.
• Figures quoted by Councillor Neville in relation to loss of parking were refuted and statistics given showing more detail of the impact on parking along the A1010.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 327.

To agree the Minutes of the meeting held on 10 November 2016.

The minutes of the 10 November 2016 were AGREED.

To note the dates of future meetings as follows:

The date of the next business meeting is 17 January 2017.

Provisional Call-in dates:

·         16 February 2017

·         8 March 2017

·         21 March 2017

·         12 April 2017

The next business meeting is scheduled for 17^th January 2017, with the OSC Budget meeting following on 19^th January 2017.