Agenda and minutes

The Chair, Cllr Susan Erbil welcomed all attendees to the meeting.

Apologies were received from Cllr Margaret Greer (substitue Ergen Erbil), Cllr Elif Erbil, Cllr Charif Gunawandera (substitute Cllr Daniel Anderson)

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

Cllr Susan Erbil declared a non pecurinary interest on item 4 and will not chair this item

To review the decision of the Leader of the Council taken on 31 December 2021 as a result of the matter having been called in.

Cllr Ebril introduced this item and outlined the process to be followed. It was

re-iterated that only comments and questions relating to the points included

within the Reasons for Call-in would be permitted. Cllr Erbil welcomed Cllr

Maria Alexandrou as the Call-in Lead.

NOTED:

Cllr Alexandrou expressed that the 18-month trial has not been a success. The reduction in traffic has been too small to reach the objectives. Data is missing from the report on 8 of the 29 roads and is incoherent with the bus time survey.

No survey on walking has been done. The scheme has had no overall effect on pollution, noise, or speeding. The report stated the accident rate within the quieter neighbourhood increased after the scheme was implemented. The cycling survey shows cycling in the area has declined. Offences have increased by 8% across Bowes and residents have raised concerns.

Warnings were given by the London Ambulance Service and this was ignored. The scheme has failed in all its objectives, it has not increased active travel but increased congestion. The clear negative opinions in the consultation made by residents were ignored. The negative impacts of this scheme far outweigh the positivises.

Cllr Erbil thanked Cllr Alexandrou and invited Cllr Nesil Caliskan, Leader of the Council to respond:

The response from the administration was shared and published in advance which set out in detail response to specific points raised in the call in. The government and TFL recognise due to growth expected in the borough over the next 15 years we need to improve the quality of air. We recognise it has been difficult for residents to adjust. We recognise that we can improve the scheme, subsequent reports are to be produced that explores improving access for residents with disabilities and school streets in Bowes Primary school.

We are in constant communication with emergency services, areas are being reviewed due to their feedback. Pedestrian data was monitored which did have seasonal variation.

NOTED: Cllr Hockney raised a point of order on the code of conduct.

The Chair thanked Cllr Caliskan and Officers for their response and then asked members of OSC to consider any questions.

The following issues were raised by Members and responded to by Cllr Caliskan, Cllr Barnes, Doug Wilkinson

Q1. When will exemptions for those with disabilities be introduced and will they be standard in quieter neighbourhoods.?

A1. It is being worked on now, an amendment cannot be made until a scheme is made permanent. Each scheme is unique to an area.

Q2. The report shows air quality figures are negligible, was this disappointing?

A2. Air quality is not the only factor made in the decisions, we need to think of the bigger picture and longer term.

Q3. Why didn’t Haringey install the LTN at the same time?

A3. We cannot speak on behalf of them. We have had close contact with them throughout the process, they are now proposing to join our LTN.

Q4. People with disabilities disapproved of this scheme, how  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

To review the Cabinet decision taken on 8 December 2021 as a result of the matter having been called-in.

Cllr Erbil excused herself from this item due to an interest. Cllr Yusuf nominated Cllr Aksanglu to be chair which was seconded and agreed. The chair then welcome the call in lead, Cllr Smith.

NOTED:

Cllr Smith explained the report was called in due to only providing a superficial level of information on the residential delivery programme. The Leader has said she has been provided with enough information to enable her to make the decision, but the report has a worrying absence of any strategic financial context in which to evaluate the scheme.

The report should have set out what the overall objectives of Meridian Water should be in terms of target size of the programme, details of the affordable homes mix, the maximum height of buildings, public open space and social infrastructure. We have not seen the progress that has been made in meeting targets.

The overall progress of the scheme has been so slow, and the overall costs have risen to such an extent. There has been reluctance to engage with the issues raised with the OSC workstream and no successful reports which highlight the key parameters and risk involved. The response to the call in has been inadequate. 

Cllr Aksanglu thanked Cllr Smith and invited the decision maker, Cllr Caliskan to respond;

Cllr Caliskan explained what was described my Cllr Smith is out of date, all relevant reports are referenced within this report, it is not practical to include all reports. They are worried about the lack of homes but at any opportunity they vote against investing to build homes therefore the argument is incoherent.

We are now the lead developer which gives us more control which enables up to speed up phase 4 to deliver more affordable homes. This also incorporates two skills academies, workspaces, and film studios. Every time there is a significant development or proposal it is detailed in cabinet reports, referenced in full council, and goes to planning committee. The report is not inadequate, I would welcome the contribution of members to look at if there is anything more, we can do.

Cllr Caliskan was thanked for her response and members were invited to ask any questions:

Q1. Why does point 9 say officers have not been directed to respond to matters arising out of scrutiny workstream? It is recognised that it is impractical to include all reports, but it is dismissive to offer an answer to the call in to be told substantial information was provided.

A1. Sufficient information is provided verbally and is in publicly available documents. The report does address the points, but the role of scrutiny is recognised so we can address relevant questions. The workstreams of scrutiny are responded to by officers. It would be impractical to ask officers to respond to work outside of the structure of our constitution. MEQ’s are in place, there is a scrutiny process where officers respond.

Q2. Is the administration still committed to deliver 10,000 homes?

Q2. The 10,000-home target is still  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

The next meeting of the Overview & Scrutiny Committee is scheduled for 10 February 2022.

The next meeting will be held on Thursday 10^th February 2022.