Agenda item - Approval of Cycle Enfield Proposals for Enfield Town

Agenda item

Approval of Cycle Enfield Proposals for Enfield Town

A report from the Director of Regeneration and Environment is attached. This seeks approval to undertake detailed design and statutory consultation for segregated cycling facilities and public realm improvements at Enfield Town. (Key decision – reference number 4112)

 

Note: For ease of reference, the appendices to this report have been provided separately to the main agenda and are listed as a supplementary pack on the Council’s website.

(Report No.151)

(7.10 – 7.40 pm)

Minutes:

Councillor Taylor (Leader of the Council) welcomed those members of the public present at the meeting and advised all in attendance that a copy of the large scale plans for the proposals for both Cycle Enfield reports were available at the meeting for viewing, Appendix A to the reports referred.

 

Councillor Daniel Anderson (Cabinet Member for Environment) introduced the report of the Director of Regeneration and Environment (No.151) seeking approval to undertake detailed design and statutory consultation for segregated cycling facilities and public realm improvements at Enfield Town. Councillor Anderson drew Members’ attention to the Cabinet report and supporting pack of appendices setting out the detailed background information to the proposals under consideration.

 

NOTED

 

1.               That the proposals now presented were the result of a two year process of engagement. Section 4 of the report outlined the detailed consultation process which had been undertaken. A public engagement event had been held in February 2015 and, a TfL sponsor review had been carried out in June 2015, as set out in the report. A 12 week consultation had taken place, as outlined in section 4 of the report. This had included writing to approximately 53,000 properties within a 1km radius of the centre of Enfield Town; consultation with specific community groups; a business event; and, public exhibition. The public consultation had started on 25 September 2015 and had run until 18 December 2015. A high level of response had been received, as set out in the report. The results of the consultation and resulting changes to design were set out in Appendix B1 of the report.

 

2.               That throughout 2016, the Council’s designers had continued to amend the initial proposals to take account of the extensive consultation feedback, which had favoured Cecil Road remaining one-way with two-way cycle lanes, and Church Street remaining open for all vehicular access.

 

3.               The specific engagement which had been undertaken with young people, as outlined in section 4 of the report, to ensure that their views were considered; approximately 1,100 young people had been involved in the engagement events.

 

4.               The comments which had been received from the emergency services and the impact assessments which had been undertaken. Particular attention was drawn to the Economic Impact Assessment and Air Quality Assessment. Councillor Anderson highlighted the challenges faced with regard to air quality and reported that representations had been made to the Mayor of London that the proposed ultra-low emission zone needed to include the M25; restrictions were currently only proposed for Inner London; this would have a negative impact on outer London boroughs. The challenges faced by Enfield, due to an increasing population and increased car usage, were recognised.

 

5.               Councillor Anderson acknowledged the level of engagement and extensive comments which had been received and also noted the points that had been raised by Councillor Mike Rye in recent correspondence. All comments had been and would continue to be considered and fed into the scheme design process. Subject to Cabinet approval this evening, the scheme would progress to statutory consultation in the New Year. Co-design workshops would take place. Councillor Anderson highlighted the benefit of the scheme to Enfield including the potential improvement to the health and well-being of residents and improvements to the public realm.

 

6.               The recommendations set out in the report for Members’ consideration.

 

7.               At this point, Councillor Doug Taylor invited Councillor Mike Rye to present his deputation to the Cabinet. Councillor Rye raised a number of issues for Members’ consideration including the following points:

 

·       Thanks were expressed to Councillor Anderson for his prompt response to issues raised.

·       The vast range of shopping centres in the Borough relied on passing trade and the ability to park conveniently. It was noted that the capacity of roads in Enfield was limited.

·       Concern was expressed in relation to the impact of the cycle scheme on the viability of Enfield Town retail centre especially in the light of the number of current vacant retail units.

·       The Enfield Town Masterplan proposals were acknowledged.

·       The Economic Impact Assessment did not guarantee an uplift in trade but indicated that the scheme was likely to result in a downturn in trade particularly through the construction stage. This would require careful management and suggestions were made to consider the provision of appropriate free parking periods; clear signage; engagement with landlords; and, potential business rate relief for those adversely affected.

·       The displacement of traffic and potential negative pollution impact on residential properties in the surrounding area. Pollution levels could increase from queuing traffic in some areas.

·       The traffic survey had been undertaken in July 2015 in good weather and when schools were not at their full capacity. It was therefore not a true reflection of the impact on traffic flows at busier times of the year.

·       Displacement of traffic could have an adverse effect on particular junctions and areas such as Gentleman’s Row and Willow Road/Parsonage Lane.

·       Councillor Rye was pleased to note the changes that had been made to the original scheme as a result of consultation responses however there were a number of specific areas still to be addressed including access to the service areas in Cecil Road and loss of residents’ parking. Thorough consideration would be required of all of the issues that had been raised.

·       Councillor Rye welcomed the proposed public realm improvements however, he expressed concern regarding the bus terminus and ugly toilet block located opposite the Stag public house and asked that the Council and TfL give consideration to improving the public realm of this area which was an entrance to the town centre.

·       As the original scheme design had been subject to change, Councillor Rye requested that the consultation period be extended beyond the statutory period.

 

8.               Councillor Taylor thanked Councillor Rye for his deputation. He supported Councillor Rye in his concerns regarding the bus terminus and had also expressed the view that improvements needed to be made. Representations would continue to be made to TfL. It was noted that a number of issues had been raised for consideration. Members’ discussion continued on the proposals in the report as set out in the minutes below.

 

9.               Glenn Stewart (Assistant Director Public Health) responded to the issues which had been raised with regard to public health and air quality. He stressed the importance of increasing the physical activity of residents in the Borough and enabling exercise to become a part of everyday life. The huge financial pressures faced by the NHS in dealing with patients with long-term health conditions such as diabetes was noted together with the positive impact physical activity could have on reducing the instances of such conditions. Cycle Enfield was supported by public health and local NHS health care providers for the potential health benefits that it encouraged.

 

10.           In response to one of the questions raised, positive comparisons were made with other countries where cycling was encouraged and the benefits highlighted. In response to specific concerns with regard to air quality and potential pockets of increased pollution levels, Members were advised that the health benefits of cycling outweighed any pollution exposure. Whilst it had been acknowledged that there could be some increase in pollution at particular junctions the overall assessment was of a minor net benefit. Councillor Taylor requested that consideration be given to the use of appropriate planting and screening where possible to minimise the effects of any increased levels in pollution. The personal health benefits of cycling were reiterated by Councillor Oykener.

 

11.           That the consultation undertaken had been meaningful and comments received had been taken into account and, had resulted in changes to the original scheme proposals.

 

12.           Councillor Sitkin outlined his ambitions for town centres in the Borough and acknowledged the widespread issues that were currently being experienced due to other factors regardless of the introduction of cycle lanes.

 

13.           Councillor Taylor invited Councillor Terence Neville to present his deputation to the Cabinet. Councillor Neville raised a number of issues for Members’ consideration including the following points:

 

·       Councillor Neville acknowledged that town centres in general were already facing difficulties but emphasised the need to carefully consider the impact that the introduction of cycle lanes would have on the town centres. The Council was dependent on the success of its town centres and it was important to ensure that any negative impact on trade was minimised.

·       Councillor Neville questioned the consultation which had been undertaken and expressed the view that the revised scheme presented to Members’ this evening had not been subject to consultation. He requested that a full consultation process be undertaken on the revised scheme proposals rather than relying solely on the statutory consultation period. It was important that an opportunity was given for all views to be expressed prior to proceeding with the scheme. The consultation needed to make clear the proposals and what it would involve including loss of parking provision and loading bays and the subsequent inconvenience to residents and businesses. He felt that statutory consultation would not be sufficient. The public needed to see what was now proposed and have an opportunity to make its views known.

·       Councillor Neville questioned whether the Economic Impact Assessment related to the original scheme or the revised scheme and expressed concern that a business walk had taken place in relation to the A1010 (North) scheme but not for this scheme.

·       Members’ attention was drawn to paragraph 8.2.6 of the legal implications in the report which stated that “before making any decision with respect to this matter, the Cabinet must conscientiously consider the consultation responses”. Councillor Neville expressed the view that the consultation process was flawed and that a further period of consultation should be allowed.

·       Concerns were raised with regard to the potential impact on air quality and that the introduction of cycle lanes would not provide any improvement. It had recently been reported that cyclists in London were being harmed by air pollution and the Government needed to act. Councillor Neville reiterated his concerns on the potential negative impact on Enfield Town centre and on surrounding areas through displaced traffic flows.

 

14.           Councillor Taylor thanked Councillor Neville for his deputation and highlighted the issues raised for response by officers present.

 

15.           Councillor Yasemin Brett sought reassurance regarding the routes that would be available for use by the emergency services following the introduction of cycle lanes, particularly for instances of more than one emergency vehicle requiring access in opposite directions at any one time.

 

16.           At this point in the discussion, Councillor Taylor invited Clare Rogers, Co-ordinator, Enfield Cycling Campaign and Better Streets for Enfield representative, to present her deputation to the Cabinet. Clare Rogers raised a number of issues for Members’ consideration including the following points:

 

·       She felt that Enfield had achieved its capacity with regard to the level of car usage. The negative impacts of vehicle use included public health implications, increased number of car collisions, lack of physical activity, pressures on the NHS, air pollution, poor child development and health. Clare expressed the view that it was vital to improve public health and this could be assisted by providing safe routes for cycling reducing the current levels of vehicle use. The proposals would provide safe cycling routes including to schools and shopping centres and could potentially replace a lot of short car journeys.

·       Research had shown that the introduction of cycle lanes  reduced traffic congestion and would be of benefit to the future of Enfield Town. She expressed disappointment that the scheme had changed with regard to the proposals for Church Street, which would no longer be pedestrianised. She felt that it was important to put people first and encourage a healthier population in Enfield.

 

17.           Councillor Taylor thanked Clare Rogers for her deputation and acknowledged the issues that had been raised.

 

18.           David Taylor (Head of Traffic and Transportation) responded to a number of the issues that had been raised. Members were advised that the Economic Impact Assessment had been undertaken on the current scheme proposals. The overall conclusion was that the impact of the scheme was neutral or slightly positive dependent on the proposed mitigating measures. With regard to the emergency services, Members’ attention was drawn to the responses which had been received, as set out in the report. It was confirmed that emergency vehicles could pass on both directions on areas of lightly segregated cycle routes.

 

19.           With regard to the consultation, Officers present confirmed that the original proposals had been consulted on some time ago, the scheme had since evolved taking on board the significant feedback which had been received. There would be further opportunity for engagement in the New Year with an exhibition and co-design workshops. The public would be invited to give their views on the proposals. Leaflets would also be distributed to local households and businesses highlighting how they could become involved.

 

20.           In response to further questions raised by Councillor Neville, it was stated that a meeting had been offered to the Palace Exchange manager but that this had been deferred to the New Year at the manager’s request. Business Walks had begun in London Road and officers were engaging with local businesses. Regular meetings were held with TfL who had the duty to engage with their bus operators. There was a statutory requirement to notify bus operators of the proposals.

 

21.           In conclusion, Councillor Anderson acknowledged all of the points which had been raised in discussion and the responses which had been provided. The consultation undertaken had been extensive and there would be further opportunities for input into the scheme. The scheme proposals had been amended in response to the consultation responses received. The proposals were the result of two years of consultation and engagement. The proposals were seeking to make Enfield a better and healthier place for its residents.

 

22.           Councillor Taylor noted the comments which had been raised and sought clarification of the process going forward for the benefit of all present. He noted the differences of opinion which had been expressed.

 

23.           Subject to approval of the recommendations in the report, capital expenditure of £288,000, fully funded by TfL, would be used to develop the detailed design and undertake statutory consultation. Leading up to the period of statutory consultation there would be a public exhibition and engagement with residents and local businesses. Leaflets would be distributed inviting further comments. Consideration would be given to all related issues including traffic management, economic impact assessment, air quality assessment and equalities assessment before any final decision was taken to proceed further.

 

24.           Councillor Taylor reiterated a number of specific concerns that had been raised requiring further consideration including: loading and drop off facilities in Cecil Road; access for people with disabilities; the future of market square and millennium fountain; the challenges to be addressed particularly during the construction period and the options and potential impact in agreeing the way forward and timescales for implementation.

 

25.           Councillor Taylor thanked Councillor Mike Rye, Councillor Terence Neville and Clare Rogers for their contributions to the full and detailed discussion that had taken place.

 

Alternative Options Considered: NOTED, that the Council could decline the Mini Holland funding. However, this would mean forgoing £4.7 million of investment in the borough on this scheme, £37.6 million of investment on other Mini Holland schemes and the associated economic, health and transport benefits.

 

DECISION: Cabinet agreed

 

1.               To note the results of the public consultation on options 1 and 6A and the resulting changes made to the design.

 

2.               To note the air quality assessment, the economic impact assessment, the parking assessment, the traffic modelling, the equalities impact assessment and the comments of critical friends. These assessments had been made in respect of the emerging design following public consultation.

 

3.               That approval be granted to undertake detailed design and statutory consultation for lightly segregated cycling facilities and public realm improvements at Enfield town centre.

 

4.               That approval be granted for capital expenditure of £288,000 for detailed design and statutory consultation.

 

5.               That delegated authority be granted to the Cabinet Member for Environment to approve and implement the final design of the scheme subject to further traffic modelling, consultation and completion of all necessary statutory procedures and made any additional changes as appropriate.

 

Reasons: As follows:

·       To create better, healthier communities.

·       To make cycling a safe and enjoyable choice for local travel.

·       To make places cycle-friendly and provide better streets and places for everyone.

·       To provide better travel choices for the 34% of Enfield households who have no access to a car and an alternative travel choice for the 66% that do.

·       To transform cycling in Enfield.

·       To encourage more people to cycle.

·       To enable people to make short journeys by bike instead of by car.

·       To increase physical activity and therefore the health of cyclists.

·       To reduce overcrowding on public transport.

·       To enable transformational change to our town centres.

(Key decision – reference number 4112)

Supporting documents: