Venue: Council Chamber
Contact: Email: Democracy@enfield.gov.uk
Note: Please use this link to join meeting https://bit.ly/35zTWd0
No. | Item |
---|---|
WELCOME & APOLOGIES Minutes: The Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee welcomed members, officers and members of the public to the meeting and explained the process to be followed in hearing the Call-ins.
Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Margaret Greer for whom Councillor Ergin Erbil substituted and James Hockney for whom Councillor Stephanos Ioannou substituted.
The Committee AGREED to change the order of the agenda to enable the petition to be received before the Called-In items. |
|
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST Members of the Council are invited to identify any disclosable pecuniary, other pecuniary or non-pecuniary interests relevant to the items on the agenda.
Minutes: There were no declarations of interest. |
|
PETITION ON Stop roadblocks for pedestrians and cyclists PDF 176 KB To receive the petition from the Lead Petitioner, and in accordance with the Councils Petition scheme, allow consideration of the views expressed in the petition. Minutes: RECEIVED a petition from members of the community which asked the Council to stop roadblocks for pedestrians and cyclists – reduce emissions from the increased traffic these blocks cause. Stop discriminating against disabled car users who cannot walk nor cycle.
NOTED the report of the Director of Law and Governance, confirming that the petition was compliant and had sufficient numbers of signatures to trigger a debate at Overview and Scrutiny Committee, having 3,159 verified signatures.
NOTED the statement of Mr Tony Messina (on behalf the Lead Petitioner, Mr Apple) that: 1. The proposal did not take into consideration the protected characteristics identified under the Equalities Act. 2. The scheme would affect the daily lives of blue badge holders and other disabled road users with restricted mobility. 3. There had been insufficient scrutiny of the data informing the decision to implement Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs). 4. Traffic orders had been implemented without proper consultation or communication with local residents.
Cllr Barnes, Deputy Leader of the Council thanked Mr Messina for attending the Committee to present the petition on behalf of Mr Apple and responded as follows:
1. The purpose of the initiative was to reduce the injuries caused to disabled pedestrians who were five times more likely to be injured by vehicles and to provide safe corridors for the expected increase in the number of pedestrians and cyclists who would use the scheme. 2. It was recognised that a number of residents were very upset and disappointed regarding the inclusion of St Pauls school into the school street scheme. However, this scheme was to keep children and pedestrians near to school safe. 3. Extensive consultation with the population of the areas affected had been undertaken and the needs of blue badge holders had been taken into consideration before the decision to implement the proposal had been taken.
Cllr Caliskan thanked the petitioners for their time in presenting the petition to the Council and stated that petitions were an important part of the Scrutiny and democratic process.
1. The impact of the proposed scheme on the nine protected characteristics under the 2010 Equalities Act had been assessed by senior officers in the Legal Services of the Council. 2. The proposals were within the law, although an individual may not necessarily agree. 3. The Council had responded to resident’s anxieties and concerns by extending the criteria on which Blue Badges were awarded. 4. Support was being provided by the Council to applicants of the Blue Badge scheme, for which any resident was welcome to apply.
Questions, comments, and debate from Committee Members:
1. There were hidden disabilities, including mental held issues which could be exacerbated under the proposed scheme. 2. Would the proposal stop the free movement of traffic and would there be an increase in emissions from the stop/ start of vehicle engines? 3. How clear was the letter to residents in the roads affected by school streets? 4. Had there been engagement with the disability reference groups?
The Chair thanked ... view the full minutes text for item 3. |
|
CALL IN: North Middlesex Hospital Active Travel Improvements PDF 151 KB To review the decision of the Deputy Leader of the Council taken on 4 February 2022 as a result of the matter having been called-in. Additional documents:
Minutes: The Chair outlined the purpose and format of the call-in process and detailed the options available to the Committee. The Chair also reiterated that only questions relating to the reasons for call-in would be permitted from Committee Members.
Cllr Fallart was welcomed by the Chair and requested, as the Call-in lead, to provide the reasons for call-in:
The Chair thanked Cllr Fallart and asked the Deputy Leader of the Council, Cllr Barnes and Officers to respond.
Cllr Nesil Caliskan contributed the following responses to the reasons for the Call-In:
|
|
CALL IN: Fox Lane Area Quieter Neighbourhood PDF 153 KB To review the decision of the Leader of the Council taken on 7 February 2022 as a result of the matter having been called-in. Additional documents:
Minutes: The Chair outlined the purpose and format of the call-in process and detailed the options available to the Committee. The Chair also reiterated that only questions relating to the reasons for call-in would be permitted from Committee Members. The Chair requested Cllr Gunawardena, as the Call-in Lead, to provide reasons for call-in.
KD 5403 (Fox Lane Area Quieter Neighbourhood) was being called-in on the basis that there was a lack of any robust evidential basis to support the decision, nor the statement, as outlined in point 2 of the decision statement, which stated, “Taking into account the various matters set out in this report, it is considered the factors in favour of making the experimental traffic orders permanent outweigh the dis-benefits and/or disadvantages of removing the trial.”
The arguments for the call-in were summarised as follows:
The Chair thanked Cllr Gunawardena and asked the Leader of the Council, Cllr Caliskan and Officers to respond.
5. Contributions were sought from a range of people from protected groups to become involved. 6. The Council had considered the initiative and possible impact over a long period of time and understands the concerns raised by residents. It was not possible to implement any scheme without some upheaval. 7. The Administration do take into consideration the views of residents and do respond to comments. 8. There was no question regarding the professional judgement and integrity of the Officers who had put forward the proposals on behalf of the Administration. 9. The proposal would benefit the most socially and economically disadvantaged in the Borough. 10.There was congestion around the school, which was not in a School Street. However, this street was on the rollout list for School Streets to be implemented across the Borough and would be done as soon as possible, in collaboration with Headteachers. 11.As publicly stated in the direct letters to residents, the proposed scheme would, except for Blue Badge Holders, affect all residents in the area/Borough. 12.There was significant longstanding congestion around the Southgate ... view the full minutes text for item 5. |
|
DATES OF FUTURE MEETINGS The next meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee is scheduled for Monday, 21 March 2022 (previously scheduled on 24 March 2022 due to purdah). Minutes: The dates of future meetings of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee were NOTED as follows:
Business meeting - 21 March 2022 Provisional Call-In meetings – 24 March 2022 and 27 April 2022.
The Chair thanked Members, officers and members of the public for attending the meeting and wished everyone well. |