Agenda item

An issues paper prepared by the Opposition Group is attached for the consideration of the Council.

 

The Council rules relating to Opposition Business are attached for information. 

Before the start of this item Councillor Stewart moved, and Councillor Neville seconded a proposal that the time available for opposition business should be extended by 45 minutes, as there was so much public interest in the issue.

 

This was agreed without a vote.

 

Councillor Neville introduced the issues paper, prepared by the Opposition Group.  Issues highlighted were as follows: 

 

1.          That this was a major issue for the borough and it was very important that it be debated fully in terms of local democracy.

 

2.          Although the initial funding bid had been signed by the Opposition Group, this had been on the basis that the final scheme proposals would be subject to extensive consultation.  The Opposition were not opposed to enhanced cycle provision but felt that the final schemes would need to demonstrate wide public support. 

 

3.          Concerns were raised in relation to the consultation process on the A105 scheme in terms of:

 

a.           The membership of the partnership boards and resident involvement in them;

b.           The complex nature of the consultation proposals;

c.           The lack of hard copy consultation documents and the distribution of them;

d.           That the opening up of the consultation on line invited too many comments from outside the borough.

 

4.          Concerns were raised in relation to the way the outcome of the consultation process had been presented.  It was felt that there had not been a clear majority in support of either the A105 or the Enfield Town schemes.

 

5.          It was felt that the consultation carried out by David Burrowes MP’s better reflected the views of local residents.  Out of 17,000 letters sent, 2,800 responses had been received with 75% of these against.  It was also pointed out that the former leader of the Labour Group had expressed opposition in the local media.

 

6.          Concerns were raised that the consultation documents on Enfield Town had not included Option 4, which in his view was more likely to have received support. 

 

7.          This was a scheme that would not reduce pollution and traffic congestion, as suggested.

 

8.          The Mayor of London was saying that there should be more extensive engagement with the public and local businesses.

 

9.          The Opposition Group had concerns about the scope of the economic impact assessment. 

 

10.       In view of the concerns raised he called on the whole Council to reject the implementation of the current A105 and Enfield Town proposals and to support the four recommendations set out in the Opposition Priority Business Paper.  He felt that the Council should respond to the views of local businesses and residents, the majority of whom, in his opinion, were against the proposals.

 

Councillor B.Charalambous, Associate Cabinet Member for Enfield West responded on behalf of the Majority Group highlighting: 

 

1.          There was a need for change to make Enfield a better place to live and work.  The Council had a responsibility to provide new services which would make Enfield fit for the twenty first century.  Cycle Enfield was such a proposal. 

 

2.          He believed that an online consultation was more effective than a paper based one, as it could be accessed by more people.  He added that not everyone who would be affected by the scheme would necessarily live in the borough. 

 

3.          The population of Enfield was increasing and transport needs were changing.  Traffic speeds in London were now the same as over 100 years ago.  Building more roads was not an option, therefore better rail and cycling facilities were needed to improve transport links.

 

4.          A different approach to the problem was needed.  He argued that the opposition group had not put forward any constructive alternatives to the Cycle Enfield proposals.  He acknowledged that change was not always easy, but in this case it was necessary.

 

Other issues highlighted during the debate were as follows: 

 

a.          The need highlighted by the members of the Opposition Group:

 

·             To recognise that while they were not opposed to cycling in general, it was felt to be necessary to address the concerns of residents and to change the current proposals to ensure that they had the support of all stakeholders.

 

·             To recognise the outcome of David Burrowes referendum which they believed had clearly set out the arguments for and against the proposals in relation to the A105 scheme.

 

·             In relation to the Enfield Town scheme, to abandon the proposal to change the traffic flows around Church Street as it was felt that they would lead to increased congestion, pollution, noise and damage Enfield Town as a shopping centre. 

 

·             To alter the proposals so that people getting off a bus would not have to step into a cycle lane. 

 

·             To accept that a proposal originating from within the local community would be preferable to that proposed and would improve buy in to the schemes. 

 

·             To understand the view that the Southbury Road proposals would result in a loss of parking spaces, would cause even more congestion than exists at present, encourage rat running in neighbouring streets, and result in loss of business for the retail parks on the A10.

 

·             To acknowledge the impact on vulnerable and disabled people.  There was a fear that disabled parking bays would be lost, that the scheme would penalise disabled people as it would delay buses.  It would only benefit fit and healthy people. 

 

·             To accept the concern that there had not been enough consultation with the business community.

 

·             To acknowledge that the health benefits of cycling had been overstated.

 

·             To acknowledge that only 0.7% of people currently cycle and that people will always want to travel by car and the majority of road users were car drivers. Proposals which were not universally accepted would be difficult to implement.  Providing cycle lanes would not make people use them.  Most journeys would take too long. 

 

·             To accept that many vibrant businesses would be affected, including through the reduction in the number of parking spaces available.  Enfield’s record on regeneration was felt to be not as good as other boroughs and that this scheme would drive businesses away. 

 

·             To recognise that there was a lack of awareness locally about the Hertford Road scheme. 

 

·             To recognise concerns about the operation and membership of the Cycle Enfield Partnership Boards.

 

·             To realise that there was support for cycling as long as it did not damage the local economy or create additional congestion.

 

b.          The need highlighted by members of the Labour Group:

 

·             To recognise that there was evidence the cycling proposals would bring custom to the town centres, not drive it away.  Seventy five percent of visitors currently arrive by methods other than by car. It was felt a pleasant street scene, with less through traffic would only encourage more to visit town centres. 

 

·             To recognise that it was clear in the original cross party bid that the proposals always included the need for two miles of continuous segregated cycle lanes along Green Lanes, and that the original bid had had the clear support of the opposition leadership at the time. 

 

·             To acknowledge, especially during this time of significant budget pressures, that £42m for Cycle Enfield was a major external investment which would enable a transformation in the borough’s infrastructure, provide safer streets, better transport connections and improve the health of the community. 

 

·             To be aware that the consultation process had been nominated for a Local Government Chronicle Award. 

 

·             To acknowledge that the current proposals were initial drafts, a basis for consultation, not a final plan.  Revised proposals for the A105 scheme, which were being extensively reshaped following this initial consultation, would be presented to Cabinet on 10 February 2016.   

 

·             To recognise the importance of increasing physical activity and the amount of money spent by the NHS on coping with diseases which were often the result of a lack of physical activity.  People who cycle were four times more likely to do the recommended weekly amount of physical activity necessary to live a healthy life.  Cycling also promoted wellbeing and was good for everyone.  It also helped young people gain independence and avoided isolation among the old.

 

·             To acknowledge that more cycling would result in cleaner air leading to less pollution related deaths.

 

·             To recognise that there were currently 110,000 cars for 312,000 residents.  Future predictions indicate that by 2032 the number of cars would exceed 141,000 leading to a further increase in congestion.

 

·             To realise that only 6% of people met the current guidelines for physical activity, and that to improve these figures, it was essential to change travel behaviour to encourage more physical activity.  The scheme should be supported purely on health grounds. 

 

·             To recognise the fact that so many people were attending the meeting, had put forward their views and had responded to the consultation showed that they were, contrary to opposition concerns, informed about Cycle Enfield and were engaged in the consultation.  28,000 people had visited the consultation on the Council website. 

 

·             To understand that the annual air quality limit had already been breached this year indicating an urgent need to do something to reduce fumes from vehicles and improve air quality.  Many school children in the borough were affected by poor air quality.  One of the most polluted places in the borough was the junction of Green Lanes with the North Circular in Bowes Ward.  Concerns were raised that residents in Bowes ward appeared not to have been consulted as part of David Burrowes MP’s “referendum”. 

 

·             To recognise that cycling saved money, improved health and was not only good for those who cycle but for everyone, as it improved the local environment.  It was not enough that it should just be a leisure activity it needed to become a realistic alternative mode of transport. 

 

·             To be aware that the old way of shopping was in decline.  More and more people now shopped on line and there had to be other ways of encouraging people to visit shopping centres.  Parking spaces would still be maintained for car drivers.

 

·             To acknowledge that there were currently routes for pedestrians, trains and cars, but nothing for cyclists.  It should be a duty to provide safe routes for everyone.  Safe cycle routes would save lives.

 

·             To be aware that local ward councillors were the means by which local issues could be bought forward.  This discussion was a good example of local democracy in action.  Southbury ward councillors have been fully involved with local residents participating in discussions about the schemes and taking any concerns forward.  They have been actively promoting the consultation. 

 

·             To recognise that cities like Copenhagen were flourishing because of the cycling culture and that these proposals would stimulate the local retail economy. 

 

·             Cycle Enfield had the power to revolutionise cycling in Enfield and we should seize this opportunity to improve Enfield’s infrastructure.  The current traffic situation was unpleasant and could not continue. 

 

During the course of the debate, the time for Opposition Business was extended by another 15 minutes and then for a further 20 minutes.

 

At the end of the debate Councillor Neville summed up on behalf of the Opposition Group as follows:

 

·             In his view, it was clear following the recent meeting of the Cycle Enfield Partnership Board, that the proposals for the A105 scheme would be presented to Cabinet in the form considered by the Board.

 

·             The consultation pages on the Council website may have had 28,000 hits, but only 1846 people actually responded, reflecting the complexities of the consultation. 

 

·             Experts had concluded that there was no evidence that the scheme would improve air quality.  In fact, he felt that air pollution would increase because of the increased delays and congestion at junctions caused by the proposals.  

 

·             There was no real majority for the two main schemes for the A105 and Enfield Town.  He believed that the current administration was ignoring people’s concerns. 

 

·             In conclusion, although not opposed to cycling, he could not support the schemes as currently proposed in the light of what he felt to be the lack of clear public support and concerns raised around the consultation process.  

 

Councillor Taylor then summed up on behalf of the majority group by highlighting that the proposals were a joint partnership between the Conservative Mayor of London and officers.  They were built on an aspiration to improve the urban infrastructure, giving pedestrians, drivers, bus passengers and cyclists equal status.

 

In relation to the recommendations in the Opposition Priority Business Paper, he felt:

 

·             It was counter intuitive to suggest that work should be halted on the mini Holland part of the scheme while suggesting that there should be more consultation  It was difficult to understand whether the opposition wanted more consultation or not.

 

·             The Council would be engaging with all stakeholders including those who live and work in Enfield as well at those travelling through.  All those who have an interest in the proposals.

 

·             Option 4 in relation to Enfield Town, could not progress as it was not a scheme that Transport for London had indicated that they would be willing to fund.  He felt that it would be a sham to consult on a scheme that could not be implemented.  The provision of segregated cycle lanes, along Green Lanes, was a central part of the bid.  Its transformational nature was the reason it had been successful. 

 

·  Cabinet would be considering the Green Lanes proposals on 10 February 2016 and if agreed these would then be put out again for statutory consultation.  Transport for London would then take a final decision on whether or not to fund the scheme.

 

As an outcome of the debate the Leader of the Opposition requested that a vote be taken on each of the recommendations within the Opposition Priority Business Paper.  In accordance with section 15.4 of the council procedure rules this was on a roll call basis, with the results as follows:

 

AGREED not to approve the following recommendation within the Opposition Business Paper:

 

(1)        Recommendation 1 - Halt work on the Mini Holland part of the Cycle Enfield.

 

(2)    Recommendation 2 - Engage properly with our real stakeholders on the design of the schemes.

 

(3)    Recommendation 3 – Produce new plans based on:

 

(a)      Option 4 for Enfield Town

 

(b)      A different approach for A105;

 

(c)      Abandoning the Southbury Road Scheme; and

 

(d)      Revisiting the proposed Cycling Schemes for Edmonton and the Hertford Road.

 

(4)        Recommendation 4 - If a suitable outcome is not achieved, then accept that the schemes which do not have both resident and business support cannot be implemented and notify the Mayor of London accordingly. 

 

In support of the recommendations (1) – (4) above:  19

 

Councillor Erin Celebi

Councillor Lee Chamberlain

Councillor Jason Charalambous

Councillor Lee David Sanders

Councillor Dogan Delman

Councillor Nick Dines

Councillor Peter Fallart

Councillor Alessandro Georgiou

Councillor Robert Hayward

Councillor Eric Jukes

Councillor Michael Lavender

Councillor Andy Milne

Councillor Terry Neville

Councillor Anne Marie Pearce

Councillor Daniel Pearce

Councillor Michael Rye

Councillor Edward Smith

Councillor Jim Steven

Councillor Glynis Vince

 

Against recommendations (1) – (4) above:  36

 

Councillor Abdul Abdullahi

Councillor Daniel Anderson

Councillor Ali Bakir

Councillor Dinah Barry

Councillor Yasemin Brett

Councillor Alev Cazimoglu

Councillor Nesil Cazimoglu

Councillor Bambos Charalambous

Councillor Katherine Chibah

Councillor Gurney Dogan

Councillor Sarah Doyle

Councillor Christiana During

Councillor Nesimi Erbil

Councillor Turgut Esendagli

Councillor Krystle Fonyonga

Councillor Achilleas Georgiou

Councillor Christine Hamilton

Councillor Ahmet Hassan

Councillor Suna Hurman

Councillor Jansev Jemal

Councillor Doris Jiagge

Councillor Nneka Keazor

Councillor Adeline Kepez

Councillor Derek Levy

Councillor Mary Maguire

Councillor Don McGowan

Councillor Ayfer Orhan

Councillor Ahmet Oykener

Councillor Vicki Pite

Councillor George Savva

Councillor Toby Simon

Councillor Alan Sitkin

Councillor Andrew Stafford

Councillor Claire Stewart

Councillor Doug Taylor

Councillor Ozzie Uzoanya

 

 

Abstentions: 0

 

Councillor Joanne Laban declared a disclosable pecuniary interest as a result of her employment in the office of one of the Deputy Mayor’s for London.  She left the meeting during the debate and did not take part in the discussion.