Agenda and 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. 

Members of the Council are invited to identify any disclosable pecuniary, other pecuniary or non-pecuniary interests relevant to the items on the agenda.

There were no declarations of interest.

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.

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.

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.

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:

1. The scheme would increase journey times for hospital patients who were elderly or who relied on private cars to access hospital services.
2. Consideration should also be given to patients who may need to access North Middlesex Hospital Accident and Emergency by car. Bull Lane was the most direct route from the south of the Hospital.
3. 82 percent of the objectors to the proposed traffic orders described themselves as having a disability.
4. The report acknowledged the proposed Bus Gate on Bull Lane and modal filters on Amersham Avenue and Shaftesbury Road would lead to traffic displacement onto Pretoria Road and Weir Hall Road. Enfield Council had suggested introducing a school street outside Wilbury Primary School on Weir Hall Road as a mitigation measure. The School Street was not included as part of the scheme. The effects of both schemes should be considered together.
5. The scheme was likely to displace traffic onto the already congested A10 Great Cambridge Road and A406 North Circular Roads. The Northbound A10 carriageway was often already severely congested south of the Great Cambridge Roundabout. This could impact journey times to the hospital. An assessment of potential displaced traffic onto these roads should be carried out.

The Chair thanked Cllr Fallart and asked the Deputy Leader of the Council, Cllr Barnes and Officers to respond.

1. The North Middlesex Hospital Active Travel Improvements formed part of the Enfield Healthy Streets programme, the purpose of which was to encourage people to walk or cycle more to the hospital for whatever reason.
2. The school streets at Wilbury Primary School would also create a safer environment for children and associated adults to travel to school by alternative methods of active travel.
3. Haringey were in favour of the scheme, as were very senior staff at the hospital, including the Chief Executive of Strategy Operations who actively encouraged staff to live and work locally. 
4. Surveys showed that many doctors wanted to cycle, however, considered it unsafe to do so.
5. The proposals would direct traffic onto the larger roads away from smaller residential roads, often used as ‘rat runs’ to minimise the journey time, often by only a few minutes. 
6. All routes in Enfield where open to the hospital, including bus gates from the south. 
7. Through routes were needed to secure safer environments for cycling.

Cllr Nesil Caliskan contributed the following responses to the reasons for the Call-In:

1. Hospital staff were the principal concern.  The Chief Executive of the hospital encouraged staff to live close to the hospital.
2. Figures indicated that where staff lived locally there were better medical outcomes.
3. There was a balance to be achieved with new homes being allocated to key workers.
4. The routes were  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

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.

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:

1. The assumptions made, and models used, were not presented in the report
2. Inadequate quality control measures had been used
3. Concerns about the survey methodology
4. Combining respondents from within QN with boundary road
5. Misleading statements about car ownership and systematic bias in reporting
6. Issues with the Equality Impact Assessment (EqiA)
7. Issues with Traffic Monitoring data
8. Issues with Bus data
9. The report failed to provide evidence that showed how it would mitigate the key objectives of Council’s Corporate Plan

The Chair thanked Cllr Gunawardena and asked the Leader of the Council, Cllr Caliskan and Officers to respond.

1. The report sets out the rationale behind the decision. The scheme would have needed to have been implemented for 18 months before a decision could be taken to change or modify the scheme but it would be possible to make future changes to the scheme once implemented. 
2. The roads on the boundary of the scheme would be reviewed continuously and it would be possible to make adjustments.
3. There were clear markers by which to measure the impact of the changes.
4. The proposals included both long-term and short-term actions.

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.

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).

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.