Agenda item

To receive a report from the Director of Regeneration and Environment outlining a Call-in received for consideration by Overview and Scrutiny on the following reason: (Report No: 151)

Decision by Cabinet (14 December 2016): Approval of Cycle Enfield

Proposals for Enfield Town.

Cabinet Decision included on Publication of Decision List No: 47/16-17 Key

Decision KD4112 (List Ref: 1/47/16-17) issued on Friday 16 December 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 Members responsible for taking the decision.

·         Debate by Overview

The Chair invited Councillor Neville to outline and substantiate the reasons for Call –In.

Councillor Neville stated that there were 7 key issues relating to why the decision to approve the scheme should be reviewed, which were as follows:

·         The specific details of the proposed scheme have not been subject to public consultation. Residents and businesses have not had an opportunity to comment on the proposals as this scheme was removed from the initial consultation process. 

·         The locality of the cycle lanes should be reviewed in line with The Mayor of London’s comments who states that cyclists should be diverted away from main roads on to quieter routes.

·         There has been no proper consultation with bus companies who operate approximately 15 bus routes which pass through Enfield Town. TFL have confirmed that they do not consult with bus companies.

·         To state that the emergency services have ‘No Objections’ is not strictly correct when you consider the detail of the responses received. Emergency Services have expressed concerns about increased congestion and journey times.

·         It is always useful to have detail on youth engagement, however, this was absent from the report.

·         Traffic analysis undertaken in July 2014 warns of delays and we regularly see delays through the centre of town, especially during the winter months.

·      The air quality report is very ambiguous. There will be some improvement in certain areas however there will be increased levels of poor air quality at junctions as traffic builds up. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Guidelines 2016 state that cyclists shouldn’t travel along main roads as they will inhale car exhaust fumes.  This should be about the health benefits for cyclists, however, the exhaust fumes being generated will have an adverse impact.

Councillor Neville requested that the decision be referred back to the Cabinet Member for Environment for reconsideration.

The Chair invited Councillor Anderson to respond, as follows:

·         Councillor Fonyonga, Cabinet Member for Community Safety and Public Health had wanted to attend the meeting but was unable and sent her apologies.   

·         He disagreed with Councillor Neville’s comments relating to a lack of consultation and confirmed that Richard Eason would provide further detail.

·         In response to the comments from the Mayor of London, Councillor Anderson wished to emphasise that these comments related to cycle super-highways and not mini-cycle schemes and David B Taylor would refer to a communication received from the Mayor of London’s Office.

·         Councillor Anderson referred to consultation with bus companies and disagreed with Councillor Neville’s opinion. All bus companies will be involved in the consultation stage of this specific scheme.

·         As the scheme has developed, many views have been considered.

·         Richard Eason gave details of the consultation that will be undertaken, including workshops with residents and local businesses allowing them to influence final designs. A series of public exhibitions will be held also.

·         Glenn Stewart provided clarification relating to the NICE Guidelines 2016 referred to by Councillor Neville. The Assistant Director for Public Health confirmed that the Nice Guidelines are only draft and the content has caused issues with many health professionals.

·         Glenn Stewart further commented that with a projected population of 400,000 in Enfield by 2032, there will be a large increase in the number of cars in the borough.

·         In response to Councillor Neville’s comments on the Mayor of London’s view, David B Taylor read out a communication received

from the Mayor’s Office ‘In his interview the Mayor stated that he wants to work with Councils to build Quietway routes - which do not follow main roads - “where they can”. Quietways are an important part of our overall strategy for encouraging more people to walk and cycle. However, Quietways are not the only type of cycle route that we are pursuing. A mixture of routes both on main roads and quieter roads is required to create a comprehensive cycling network. We are therefore also continuing to build Superhighway style cycle routes, on main roads, segregating cyclists from traffic.

·                          Councillor Pite (Chair of the Cycle Enfield Partnership Board) commented that Members should attend the meetings when possible to hear about the detail of the work being undertaken.

The following questions and comments were then taken from Members of the Committee:

Councillor Keazor asked if we would see a new design after the consultation?

Richard Eason reiterated that as part of the consultation process, views would be considered and reflected in the final design.

In highlighting an issue for disabled residents within the proposals for the A105 Cycle Enfield scheme, Cllr Hayward asked if facilities for people with mobility issues would be considered within the Enfield Town scheme?  David B Taylor replied that similar issues would be considered and reflected in the final designs.

Councillor Chibah asked how long the consultation would last? Richard Eason confirmed that the consultation would last for 4 weeks during spring with opportunities for residents to influence the final design at co-design workshops. Thousands of leaflets will be distributed to ensure as many people as possible are aware of the opportunities to contribute to the design of the scheme. 

Councillor Smith commented that air quality improvements would be marginal if any at all and considered that more information would be needed in this area. In addition, Councillor Smith asked how the Council would mitigate drivers trying to avoid Enfield Town and possible traffic congestion?

Councillor Abdullahi asked if there would be any areas where air pollution will increase?

In response to questions on air quality and traffic congestion, officers confirmed that both would be monitored.

A member of the public asked a question relating to the economic effect of the scheme, and what support could be provided to retailers?

Councillor Anderson confirmed that the Regeneration Team will be addressing these issues and engaging with retailers.

Before asking Councillors to summarise, the Chair obtained confirmation from Officers that Arriva, Go-Ahead and all other bus companies would be consulted before the final design is devised.

In summarising his response to Call-in, Councillor Anderson reiterated that there would be further consultation with the public, emergency services and bus companies. In addition, there would be workshops held to allow stakeholders to influence the final design of the scheme.

Councillor Neville then summarised the reasons for call-in and added that the Cabinet report should have been explicit in the need to consult with the people to gain their views. Councillor Neville requested the decision be referred back to the Cabinet Member for Environment for reconsideration.

The Committee then voted on the decision as follows:

Councillors Chibah, Abdullahi and Keazor voted in favour of the decision.

Councillors Hayward and Smith voted to refer the decision back to the Cabinet member.

The Chair CONFIRMED the decision.