Agenda item

To receive a report from the Director of Finance, Resources & Customer

Services outlining a Call-In received for consideration by Overview & Scrutiny

on the following reason: (Report No: 78).

Portfolio decision by Cabinet Member for Environment (18 August 2016): Approval of Cycle Enfield Proposals for the A105.

Decision included on Publication of Decision List No: 20/16-17 Key Decision

4342 (List Ref: 4/20/16-17) issued on 18 August 2016.

It is proposed that consideration of the Call-In be structured as follows:

·         Brief outline of reasons for the Call-In by representative(s) of the Members who have called in the decision.

·         Response to the reasons provided for the Call-In by the Cabinet Member responsible for taking the decision.

·         Debate by Overview & Scrutiny Committee and agreement on action to be taken.

The Chair invited Councillor Neville to present the Reasons for Call-In.  Councillor Neville began his submission by referring to the need for Members to act impartially, as this meeting should proceed without the ‘party whip’. Councillor Levy confirmed that all matters at Overview and Scrutiny are considered in this manner.

Councillor Neville stated that the Call-in was about the consultation undertaken in respect of the Cycle Enfield proposals for the A105, including consideration of the consultation findings and the adequacy of this.

He summarised the reasons for Call- In as follows:

• The leading law case which gives the criteria for a fair local authority consultation refers to two legal principles that are relevant here i.e. that ‘adequate time must be given for consideration and response’ and ‘the product of consultation must be conscientiously taken into account’  He did not think adequate time had been given for consideration as the consultation ended on 29 July 2016 with 1600 objections received, and the decision by the Cabinet Member to approve the scheme was signed by him on 17 August 2016.
• An objection had originally been given by Arriva Bus Company to the proposals, in particular the withdrawal of the bus lane going south from the Triangle, Palmers Green towards the North Circular Road and the impact/ delays of this on bus journeys.  Although the report refers to there being extensive discussion with TfL re a commitment to identify measures elsewhere on the route (mainly in Haringey) to mitigate this impact, we do not know what has been agreed with them.  He understands that even following recent meetings with officers, the Commercial Planning Manager of Arriva London (Bob Pennyfather) still has concerns about this scheme.
•  Reference was made to the Local Authorities Traffic Orders (Procedure) England and Wales Regulations 1996, that if an objection is made by a bus company to something that would restrict the movement of buses along the route, then the local authority is required to hold a Public Local Inquiry.  The objection from the bus company is not included in the schedule of objections received and the report does not state that the objections from Arriva have been withdrawn. As such a Local Inquiry is still required.  Under the same regulations there is a requirement to hold a public enquiry if an order is made prohibiting the loading or unloading of vehicles.
•  The air quality report acknowledged that there was likely to be some increase in NO² concentrations at junctions where there were some increases in queue length and delay time although with potential improvements if there was a modal shift from private car to cycling. However the report acknowledges that the shift from cars to cycles is not guaranteed and it is possible that the resulting air quality improvements may not be achieved.
• The London Ambulance Service (LAS) has set out serious reservations they have about the proposals. It appears that all three emergency services would be affected detrimentally by the scheme.
• The numerous objections received cannot possibly have been considered in the time taken before the report was signed off by the Cabinet Member.  Between the 29 July 2016 to the 17 August 2016 there were only 13 working days to look at all issues raised.
• The original objections put forward by Councillor Neville and Arriva (Bus company) to the proposals were not listed in the schedule.
•  This is a very costly scheme and in all his years in the Council, Councillor Neville said he had never seen a scheme which had attracted so many objections.

The Chair invited Councillor Anderson to respond, which is summarised as follows:

• The decision had not been ‘rushed’, consideration of all issues had been undertaken over an 18 month period.
• Of the 1600 objections received, 1000 of these were similar objections in principle which were classified under the following ‘groupings’ -  
•  Objections about the principle of the proposals
•  Objections about a common feature of the proposals
•  Objections about a specific location
•  Objections based on a technical or procedural matter

• Consideration of objections had been dealt with as they were being received. Councillor Anderson had held daily conversations with officers to discuss issues as they were raised.   All representations and objections have been considered in detail.
• Arriva London have stated that they have withdrawn their formal objection to the scheme, their initial comments and officers responses are set out in paragraphs 5.17 to 5.21 of the report. A public inquiry is not required.
• There appears to be an assumption that vehicles cannot legally access the loading facilities but this is incorrect and the ‘response to reason for call-in’ para 3.15 to 3.21 sets out the proposed loading arrangements.
• The London Ambulance Service had not objected to the proposals. He referred to para 5.16 of the report regarding the use of traffic separators to segregate cyclists from other traffic to help minimise the impact on emergency service response times, allowing broken down vehicles etc to pull into the cycle lane if necessary.  The Police Service have said that the scheme would improve the safety for cyclists.  The Fire Brigade have no objections and he noted that their vehicles are larger than ambulances.

Councillor Levy pointed out that the decision to hold a public inquiry is not within the remit of this Committee.  In addition, Councillor Levy advised the meeting that as there was an appeal pending in the High Court, caution should be observed in relation to comments and questions.

The Chair then invited the Committee to put forward any questions/ comments which were as follows:

• Councillor Smith said it would appear that Councillor Neville is requesting that this matter be referred back to the Cabinet Member for Environment, for him to reconsider whether this should be the subject of a public inquiry as a result of changes to ‘waiting and loading’ restrictions and the restriction for public service vehicles. He asked if any pressure had been put on Arriva London to withdraw the original objection they had to the scheme?   David Taylor answered that a meeting had been held with Bob Pennyfather, the Commercial Planning Manager of Arriva London to examine their concerns. They discussed mitigation measures. Following on from this, Arriva then withdrew their formal objection to the scheme.
• Councillor Smith referred to the waiting and loading restrictions, which are to be introduced on an experimental basis by the use of a temporary order. He said at some point when they become permanent how will you avoid having a public inquiry?  David Taylor stated the waiting and loading restrictions would be introduced on an experimental basis to enable them to be modified in the light of feedback and operational experience.  As this is an experimental order there would be no requirement to hold a public inquiry. 
• It was questioned whether the time taken to consider objections could be considered as adequate. Councillor Neville said the statutory consultation period ended on the 29 July and the first report by officers was completed on 11 August and the draft given to Councillor Anderson.  Councillor Neville did not think there could have been sufficient time for adequate consideration of objections.  Councillor Anderson said officers had worked hard for 3 weeks on considering issues raised, the categorisation of objections made it possible to consider all representations and objections in a very efficient manner. 
• With reference to there no longer being any formal objections from public services, Councillor Neville said the main issue was how well or not objections had been considered. He said his objections and those from Arriva London had not been included in the schedule.
• Councillor Delman asked if information was available of when objections were received during the consultation process i.e. were the majority received during the last part of the consultation? It was answered that the majority were received via the on-line system and are date stamped.  A steady flow of representations had been received which officers were able to review as they ‘went along’ there was a fairly even spread of comments received.
• It was asked why Councillor Neville and Arriva London’s objections had not been included on the schedule, it was answered that the substantive issues raised were included in the main report.
• Councillor Anderson and officers were asked if they were satisfied that the withdrawal of Arriva London’s formal objection meant that a public inquiry would not be needed.  David Taylor confirmed that to be the case.
• Reference was made to objections about the principles of the proposals as listed in Table 1 in Appendix B of the report – Councillor Anderson commented that this was an efficient way of looking at generic objections.  
• Councillor Neville thought a public inquiry should be held – he said at the time the report on the scheme was presented to Councillor Anderson, the objection from Arriva London ‘still stood’.  It was only later that this objection was withdrawn. He reiterated his comments regarding the timetable of communications between officers and Arriva London and stated that he thought there appeared to be an element of ‘chicanery’ about this business.  This comment drew applause from the audience at which point Councillor Smith also showed his approval and applauded.  The Chair reminded Councillor Smith to be mindful of his earlier comments regarding declarations of prejudicial interests, reiterating those also requested by Councillor Neville about the need for committee members to act impartially.  Councillor Smith said he agreed with this, but had been persuaded by the points made by Councillor Neville.

The Chair then invited three questions to be put from members of the audience, which were as follows:

• Has Councillor Neville spoken to Arriva London?   Councillor Neville confirmed that he had spoken to them and understands that they still have concerns
• I know that two long reports received from David Burrowes and others would have been received by the department in the last 2 days of the consultation, could they have been adequately considered in the time given? It was confirmed that these reports were detailed and they had received careful consideration. Conversations had been held and there had been direct responses given.
• The email I sent raised two safety issues that were not included in the report and I have not had an answer?  Richard Eason confirmed that he had received the objections mentioned and the issues raised have been covered in the report.  It was stated that a written response would be sent to Mr Mandel.  (Post meeting note - An email was sent to Mr Mandel on 15.9.16, from Paul Rogers giving details of where the objections he had raised were covered in the portfolio report).

The Chair asked Councillor Anderson to summarise his position which was as follows:

• The essence of the objections raised appears to be about whether sufficient time had been spent in examining consultation replies and the objections put forward. This is a matter of opinion, and I have explained the process which enabled us to examine all issues raised. 
• The time taken to look at these issues was in fact three weeks and not the 11 days previously mentioned.
• The objection originally raised by Arriva London has been addressed – they no longer have a formal objection.
• The issue around ‘waiting and loading’ is addressed in the report.
• There have been no formal objections from the London Ambulance Service or from the Fire Brigade.

Councillor Neville summarised his position as follows:

• Councillor Anderson had spoken of whether adequate consideration had been given to objections raised as a matter of opinion – Councillor Neville did not agree that this was a matter of opinion.
• He said both his objections and those raised by David Burrowes had not been included in the schedule. He questioned whether there were other objections that had not been included. He therefore did not think all objections had been considered.  Arriva London had not been included on the schedule as having objections.
• There is an explicit requirement for a public enquiry regarding waiting and loading restriction changes and also in respect of objections from public service vehicles.

The Committee then voted on the decision

Councillors Abdullahi, Chibah andKeazor voted in favour of confirming the decision. 

Councillors Smith and Delman voted in favour of referral back to the Cabinet member for reconsideration.

The Chair therefore CONFIRMED the decision.