Agenda item - LOW TRAFFIC NEIGHBOURHOOD SCHEMES

Agenda item

LOW TRAFFIC NEIGHBOURHOOD SCHEMES

To receive a presentation relating to Low Traffic Neighbourhood Schemes.

Minutes:

Cllr Hass Yusuf (Chair) advised that the following item is held for the benefit of the watching public and has never been on the work schedule until recently.

 

Since then LTN has become a big issue and this Committee rightly arranged an extra date and he would like to thank the governance team and audio offices for making this happen.

 

As the following comments were very detailed, the minutes were taken verbatim in order to capture the whole conversation for transparency and correctness

 

Cllr Yusuf : I tried to get this meeting delayed until after April 30th so that the lead figure of the LTN project could attend, however due to purdah restrictions, this was not possible. As chair given a choice to either go ahead or cancel debate and chose to keep this date.  Cleared for members of the Committee. I have received emails from many residents you thought that the meeting tonight was about taking a vote on LTN’s and I explained that as the LTN scheme was discussed earlier this year at full Council and by democratic vote and it was decided to go ahead, however that does not mean the door is shut on this debate so that is why we can scrutinise schemes like this on this Committee. Before that Council meeting, all Councillors received many emails from residents with the pro and con about the Scheme. After reading some responses that some of their criticisms had been ignored, I wrote to each resident who previous wrote, telling them about this meeting and that their concerns had been noted. However, I did not write back to any residents who were critical and insulting to officers or members of the council. Discussions will concentrate only on policy and no personal statements will be allowed.  Tonight’s structure will be as follows:

 

All panel members to initially ask two questions each and each debate will open up for more questions.

 

At 8.30pm the debate with officers will conclude. The panel will have a chat amongst themselves and agree their recommendations to the officers.  Our report will include all the findings.

 

A presentation was received from Richard Eason (Healthy Streets Programme Director) who leads on number of schemes based around increasing active travel and some town centre regeneration projects which includes the LTN scheme which fall under the ‘Quieter Neighbourhoods’ umbrella. The presentation can be viewed as an attachment to these minutes.

 

In response the following questions were received:

 

Councillor Maria Alexandrou, Conservative Councillor for Winchmore Hill Ward:

 

1.  There is support for school street restrictions which is a great way for parents and children to walk to school to avoid congestion before and after school hours and improve air quality.  The LTN scheme has done the opposite and created more traffic and more pollution. In other Boroughs the LTN’s have been removed for this reason as they have used pollution monitors to register and track pollutions where levels were seen to rise.  Enfield has failed to use any similar monitoring mechanisms.  According to the Kings College report, 33% of Londoners live in busy roads, breathing in pollution so the new scheme adds to the pollution for those people.  Therefore, there is no excuse for lack of monitoring as other Councils are providing this.

 

In response, Richard Eason advised that the Council are monitoring air quality using an approach that is common across London, building a model using an external company to compare data before and after the scheme. The results of this air quality monitoring will form a clearer picture.  If you are looking to reassign traffic onto the primary road network there will be potentially some impacts and we need to consider that air quality being one of the factors of monitoring with a wider area seeing more benefits in time.  Not that we are not monitoring air quality and building a model to do it is arguably a more robust way of understanding this.

 

2.  Please provide the reason and the rationale why an LTN exists at Fox Lane  as it was classed on the Mayors’ street space for London’s strategic neighbourhood analysis for suitability in the lowest category, namely traffic filtering schools, depravation and car ownership, therefore there is no reason to put Fox Lane in this category as it is unsuitable

 

In response, Richard Eason advises that this is not a singular intervention. If we are trying to change over the longer term how people move around, we have to think about their everyday door to door destinations. The Council has invested as many will know on high quality segregated infrastructure on some of its primary roads, Green Lanes being one of those. Residents living either side of those have got to feel safe and confident enough to leave their front door and be able to access that infrastructure. In some areas, such as Fox Lane, where high levels of motor vehicles cut thought, this has created an environment that is not conducive to encouraging people to travel in a more active way.  Our earlier thoughts were to pilot some of these lower traffic type neighbourhood approaches to residential areas that are adjacent to some of the earlier investment into the cycle lanes which provides some of the rationale why this area was looked at.

 

 

Cllr Charith Gunawardena thanked Officers for the presentation and asked the following questions:

 

1. Reduced traffic incidents have been seen since the 20 mph limits have been imposed.  I understand 40 accidents in Fox Lane in ten years (one serious), cutting the speed down has reduced incidents by 50/60%, as a transition in terms of managing the reductions, has this been considered. As air quality does not get worse by slowing down the traffic.

 

In response, Richard advised that in terms of 20 mph limits, within Fox Lane the trial includes 20-mph limits within the roads in that area. We have also introduced the same for Bowes and Connaught Gardens, Officers have been asked by Cabinet Members to look at 20mph limits more broadly and whether there are other areas where they are appropriate. 

 

2.  If you look at Southgate Roundabout, at the end of the consultation process, will there be a solution or not.  Some of the residents are asking what are the type of ideas that are out there.  There is a lot of traffic being seen here along the main roads, particularly from an equality point of view, roads with lower value houses being affected more. The victims who are facing the consequences of the Fox Lane LTN are the ones with these lower value homes.  What people are keen to know is if this continues to be a problem, how do we address this.  This needs to be shared in advance before the consultation period ends.

 

In response, Richard Eason advised different options for Southgate Roundabout have been looked at. Any changes for that type of junction would require significant funding and we would have to go through a series of feasibility studies to find out what is possible, and I think there has been some consideration of that in the past.  We really do need to get a good understanding of what the level of impact is, how many more vehicles a day are passing through there in the peak hours compared to how it was operating previously to be able to not only inform what would be the right next steps but start to build a case to potentially secure other funding to look at some other measures that might be a bit more transformative.   The leader might want to talk about the wider area in Southgate as she has been speaking to the community.

 

Cllr Caliskan also added the following:

 

1.  To reiterate what Richard said, it is important to make decisions about the scheme both in terms of amendments to the scheme or making final decisions, that those decisions are based on facts that we can assess.  Both LTNs are trialled and to address this important point on Southgate Roundabout, there are long-term issues associated with this around and raised many times when I did a walkabout.  The roundabout bares restrictions to it in terms of historic heritage and there are limitations to the changes that can be made to the shape and flow of the traffic.  The shape of the roundabout is part of the original design of the station and an obvious solution may be to change the shape of the roundabout and we are limited.  Richard confirmed that there are some heritage issues with any interventions around the tube station, but this can be confirmed.

 

A follow up question was received from Cllr Charith Gunawardena:

 

“we understand that we have to wait for the response, but can we have some rough plans and what residents are asking for this as they do not think that the traffic levels will sign go down and they want to know a rough idea and I believe this is a fair question to ask”.

 

Cllr Caliskan - Richard has answered the point in some detail although there is still evidence being gathered. Richard Eason to arrange for some community engagement to give residents some further assurance and take this on board.

 

Richard - we could look to hold a webinar in the Fox Lane area in the future. These are some of the specific issues we can talk though. ACTION: Richard Eason

 

 

The following questions were received from Cllr Mahmut Aksanoglu:

 

1.  How did we conclude the specific locations we are actually using so that it is clear to all parties how the initial process was decided. There are many positive things that the LTNs are going to bring and the residents want to know what engagement/consultations were completed in order to specify some of the locations identified by the Council.

 

In response, Richard Eason advised that in terms of how we chose the areas, the idea is that the original plan was the quieter neighbourhood interventions would follow the same pattern of the major investment schemes on the major corridors on Green Lanes and the Hertford Road. Improving pedestrian crossing and generally improving the safety of these roads.  The whole process of installing that infrastructure took longer than originally anticipated.  Original work that we started in Fox Lane many years ago was based on that premise and we wanted to continue to follow through with that community engagement and have further conversations. In terms of Bowes, on the basis of many years of residents raising their concerns, especially residents on Warwick Road, where this road was used as a cut through to the North Circular road, again the dialogue being received from the community and ward councillors showed a keenness to see some action in those areas, so when the opportunity came up for some funding we opted to look at that area. I do think that we are learning as we are delivering these schemes and there is an opportunity to reflect on these trials and have another think about moving forward and have a wider set of engagements to see how the community feels are the areas to focus next and also from an officer perspective we can bring some clarity to the criteria that we might want to consider in order to assess a particular area. There are several factors that need to be considered namely:  current volume and speed of traffic, look at the accident rates and communities’ access to other transport choices. There will be a series of different ways we can make that assessment and more work is needed to set these out and there is a clearer rationale for future projects and more opportunities for the community to be involved in this discussion.

 

2.  How is the monitoring is going, there must be some idea how it is going?

 

Richard Eason responded: “Too early to report now, the traffic is clearly in a completely different place that it would be in normal times.  We cannot come forward now with any reliable assessment with travel patterns affected so hugely as a result of Covid.  It is appreciated that people wish to know more, and we need to wait until the recovery kicks in and we will provide more traffic monitoring, but it is not available at this time.

 

Cllr Hass Yusuf advised that he has received a lot of the emails from Warwick Road residents who clearly like the scheme, so we have received some positive feedback.

 

 

The following questions were received from Cllr Lindsay Rawlings:

 

1.  What pre LTN data has been collected to benchmark the four benefits being claimed through the experiment and what targets need to be hit to declare the experiment a success in respect of the full benefits that have been mentioned, namely:

 

1. Reduce accidents

2. Improve air quality

3. Improve health and wellbeing

4. Enhance the feeling of community

 

She asked the question and was told that there was not much data pre the position of the LTN and was not sure how they were going to be judged a success or a failure. How can this be registered and measured?

 

In response, Richard Eason advised that with regard to Fox lane we do have baseline data, published on the project page both in terms of speed and volume and to understand the current volume of traffic going through that area and we are able to determine the changes there, With regard to the air quality we will be able to use this data to make some assessments as well.  The Enfield’s Health & Wellbeing Strategy looks to enable people to be more active, we are monitoring some of our cycle routes and seeing increase in usage. Particularly in Palmers Green, we are seeing an upward trend although there is still a long way to go but building on the network - this will hopefully increase.  In terms of community cohesion, in some of the schemes such as Bowes, the questions that we have asked residents is how well do you know your neighbours etc, to try get perceptions on how they feel about the area and if the reduction of speed and volume of traffic has an impact on their quality of life. More studies need to be done around this. Measures are not set in stone and these things are complicated with a multitude of different factors that need to be assessed and considered as part of the monitoring approach. This is the purpose of the report to be produced at the end of the trial that brings together and sets out all of those elements into a report, ready for the elected members to make some decisions based on the information that the officers present, outlining what they feel is the right thing to do and how these projects contribute to the climate change action work and the Health & Wellbeing strategy.

 

2.  With regard to The Mall - historically this was not a cut through, although there were speed humps with no possibility to speed.  The surrounding road closures such as The Green, Christchurch and Walker Ground, with a lot of the traffic on Waterfall Road, historically this was a direct route through to many places. I personally would not have been able to drop my kids to school on time if I was unable to use these roads. With speed humps in existence already, why was this road chosen again.

 

 

In response, Richard advised “the Mall does have speed humps and some residents on there would say they have suffered the most and some are delighted with the scheme. They have seen a prevention to cut through traffic and impact on the way they can move in and out of the area.  Speed humps are an intervention to attempt to slow people down. Many residents hate them, noise issues etc. Clearly, they are designed to slow speed, but we are trying to encourage over the long-term alternative ways for people to travel those short journeys and with regard to the longer journeys, the large road network is the correct approach.

 

The following two questions were received from Cllr Daniel Anderson:

 

1.  Many points have already been raised but with regard to the Key Performance Indicators, that it is much more complex than that. You suggested that there were no such clear identification criteria prior to installing these schemes and there was a range of complex considerations to be undertaken to form part of the report. The difficulty is to determine the basis to assess the success, with the criteria not being fixed, there should be clear criteria before during and after to determine how successful a project is.  The presentation provides a summary of the scheme in general, but there is considerable differences of opinion and strong opposition. For example, there is a 1600 signed petition calling for the Bowes scheme to be withdrawn.  The Fox Lane, Old Park Road and Devonshire Road were strong advocates of this scheme and many other residents have objections to this scheme.  Those who spoke louder did seem to get their positions favoured and those who were clearly less supportive have not been in such a favourable position.

 

It is interesting you say you are not seeking traffic calming but affectively different measures but the original proposals for the quieter neighbourhoods was about traffic calming, so you have acknowledged the shift. There seems to be a shift in argument, previously we were told the purpose of these schemes was that traffic would evaporate even though much of the evidence says that at best 11 or 12% of traffic does in practice and much of the rest of it does get displaced onto some of the other roads. Now we are hearing a shift in argument which says that it is deliberately aimed to displace traffic onto the main roads. The main roads do have a lot of people already and many accidents occur on these roads, with a high risk of more people being injured. 

 

2.  There has been a lot of talk about the article in the Guardian which was featuring the research that looked at these schemes and was critical of the Enfield proposals. It signalled out that Enfield was focussing on the Borough’s more affluent areas resulting in what the researchers determined to be the least equitable across all the different districts that there might be, and this is a concern. In the response from the Administration, there is a lot of investment taking place in segregated cycling on the A10 and North Circular Road - these were originally schemes from the Cycle Enfield coming to fruition but this is very different to these LTN’s and much of the focus as you are now coming forward to Connaught Gardens is also in the west. There is no evidence that shows the compound impact across one another and all seems to be based on an LTN in isolation but there are three in quite close proximity and all quite different and Bowes is a different scheme entirely and has much more negative consequences to residents in those areas because they are sandwiched between the A406 and Bounds Green, so the impact there is quite considerable. 

 

In summary I would like your response those two points, namely the changing arguments on traffic displacement as opposed to traffic evaporation and the other about the focus on the west of the borough as opposed to the east and there are diffident needs in those different areas, with those who have shouted loudest in certain roads have got more favourable treatment than those who are perhaps not represented by this who have seemingly been ignored.

 

In response Cllr Caliskan advised:

 

The Administrations’ commitment is to improve air quality and to make the lived environment more pleasant for residence. To see the overall number of cars in future years not increase and hopefully decrease in line with the Health & Wellbeing Strategy. Therefore, previous Administrations have made commitments around sustainable travel etc. The reasons for those are well rehearsed and well documented and feature in a number of strategic documents for the Administration, Health & Wellbeing Board work, the Corporate Plan,  the Labour Manifesto and even our Housing Growth Strategy, there are a number of key documents where our commitment to improving the quality of life through improving the environment is central to what we do.   

 

The point about reducing traffic overall versus traffic displacement, these two things are not incompatible. We know the number of cars will increase in the coming years in Enfield and everything we do is about trying to reduce vehicles on the road, especially for short journeys. Without doing this we genuinely risk our roads being clogged up and the reality is that major roads are the most suitable roads for vehicles to use and not residential roads. The key things are not wanting residents to use their cars for short journeys but acknowledge that the main roads will need to be used for the longer journeys.  The point has been made several times about the affluent areas benefit from schemes and I am pleased that some are acknowledging the schemes have benefits. We have consistently as an Administration said that school streets and, low traffic neighbourhoods are schemes that have a place across the Borough, and we must manage the following:

 

a.         the workload

b.        acknowledge that schemes can be disruptive and therefore an unwise thing to do. 

c.         responding to what residents are asking, When I became Leader it was very clear that there were residents in Fox Lane and Bowes Road areas that had for several years made representation to the local authority. Although there may have been other residents who had expressed concerns in other areas, but up until that point the local authority had probably done most of the areas that I referred to and it felt appropriate to begin there. The point of overall strategic planning and not just seeing schemes in isolation I entirely agree with that point. For example the work that the council officers are doing with the officers at Harringay, even Borough boundaries are not real, both have ongoing work being trialled and would it be good to work collaboratively and often it works well and if not, political leadership and commitment from various local authorities getting together to work collaboratively. Leader of Haringey and ourselves have both committed as have the relevant Cabinet Members to say to our respective officers work together so that there can be comprehensive look at the wider area.  Our commitment around health & wellbeing and looking to reduce car usage, not least because of air quality but obesity are all good reasons.

 

 

It is true that as the trials continue different residents and groups raise different concerns.  I acknowledge that we may spend some time talking about one aspect of the benefits and does not negate all the other reasons, but it is our effort to be as transparent as possible and provide the rationale such as:

 

1.         evidential basis for some of this decision

2.         political commitment - some may not agree, but we do have an obligation to provide some of the technical and political reasons.

 

 

We have had representation from Councillors from Edmonton and the eastern side of the borough, our residents ask for schemes in these areas, and whether the council have plans.  We need to do engagement with the residents, but we have had requests for other areas of the borough to consider but it is very early days.

 

Richard Eason agreed with the points and added the following:


“How we will judge the schemes, we have a set of aspects that we are monitoring for the scheme that will be included in the report, but also whether we think this is having an impact on the people who walk and cycle.  The equalities impact is also a key one. We are continuing collaboration with the emergency services and there may be some things when we take the assessment that require immediate attention and therefore the benchmarking will not be set at present for this reason.  This is a long-term behaviour change programme and results will not be seen overnight. The approach we take now defines how things unfold in the future.

.

 

Cllr Daniel Anderson:

 

“thank you for the response, when this is being assessed, the criteria being used is a political judgement and effectively any decision will be framed from a belief around a whole series of criteria and the evidence work along that criteria. There is a movement by the Mayor of London to push these programmes.  This is not the same as saying an independent analysis suggested something different then a different decision can be taken, and it sees there is a political drive, and this is an honest answer. Looking purely at the light of evidence, experience impact and all the other factors which would be the criteria would be an honest scientific approach. If it is a political decision first and foremost it will determine the potential outcome of where you go next.

 

Cllr Caliskan responded:

 

“all our decisions as with every council across the country are political ones.  Investments in regeneration projects, set up a poverty and equality commission, traffic schemes are driven by our commitment to reduce inequality in the Borough. We rely on the professionalism, knowledge, long term experience of officers in the local authority who advise us, provide us evidence and allow us to make a judgement.  We allow for trial periods and evidence to be gathered and ultimately it is up to a politician to trust the judgement and advice of officers and make a decision at local authority level and implement schemes. If there is not agreement to the political commitments that we have made to health and wellbeing and reducing equity that is really for them, but I can only express the commitments of the Administration.

 

Cllr Hass Yusuf asked the following questions on behalf of residents:

 

1. Is there any adequate warning at the end or beginning of Amberly Road to tell motorists not to enter which is in effect a “no through road”, to motorist going to Waterfall Road or Cannon Hill. There should be a sign as the journey is now three miles longer.

 

In response the following was received from Richard Eason:

 

“With regard to Amberley Road, there is signage throughout the area which provides advanced warning to suggest no longer access.  There is not one on every road and I do accept that in the early days, people are used to taking a particular route and people will get used to these changes over time.   If there are places that require more signage, happy for the team to go and have a look at that and this is all part of the trial.  I will look at this specifically. ACTION: Richard Eason

 

2. What makes Fox Lane LTN different from any other privileged gated community?

 

 

In response the following was received from Richard Eason:

 

“if this residential area is seeing a lot of through traffic then this is one of the approaches to help address this for all the reasons we have already covered.  There are several residents in the current areas that we are looking at who do not believe that the benefits outweigh the disruption, in that their own access is now limited.

 

In response the following was received from Cllr Caliskan:

 

“there is a consensus view that good design does not encourage vehicle rat runs, the reality is that we have existing roads and properties and dwellings, and we are trying to amend traffic schemes to create a better environment. I acknowledge there will be some disruption to some residents. We do not ignore issues as an Administration, and we are trying to deliver a tangible improvement to quality of life.

 

Cllr Maria Alexandrou put some further questions forward as follows:

 

Why were not the businesses contacted and were ignored and why did it take the council 6 months to contact blue badge holders who would have had the biggest impact.  Your response that commitment to clean air comes with some disruption - but adding 40 minutes to travel journeys is a huge disruption. 

 

Why didn’t the council bring in more school streets, Islington brought in 39 compared to our 12.  This would have had a better impact and improve air quality.  Why not bring in a bike scheme, or scooter trials. Sustainable travel yes but we should also offer alternatives. To bring the scheme in during a pandemic when people want to use their cars more, they will not use the bus, and some cannot walk, what should residents do. I would like to know the programme on healthy streets which needs to be rolled out at a larger scale.

 

Cllr Caliskan responded as follows:

 

“school streets have been welcomed and we will see to do that. LTN’s are something different but doing one does not mean we cannot do the other. Residents like the school streets and we can speed up some of the roll outs of these.  If there are specific areas, please flag this up with officers to be accelerated. We cannot over promise due to resource implications.

 

Other sustainable modes of transport are welcomed and tribute to Richard and his team to secure grants etc and our commitments need to be delivered.

 

Short journeys - the pandemic has seen a difficult period, vehicles on the road have increased and these are highly unusual circumstances. Most of the car usage in Enfield is for short journeys and so we must do everything we can not to use the car for short journeys, very different to saying cars should not be used.

 

Richard Eason added:

 

“businesses have not been ignored and have received the information on the consultation, within this there is an opportunity for them to identify themselves as a business who works in the area or outside and can home in on the points and issues they are raising. It is important for them to engage with us through this process. We continue to listen to business as the consultation is ongoing and we will write to all the businesses concerned to further consult with them.

 

With regard to Blue Badge holders - letters have gone out but GDPR issues have slowed us down and these should have been sent out earlier. Within the consultation there has always been the equalities assessment questions but the approach to writing directly to blue badge holders and invite them to comment further is the correct thing to do and will be done again in future.

 

School Streets - I am delighted that school streets are so welcomed. I am proud of the work that my team have done to bring forward those 12 school streets in a short space of time working collaboratively with the schools and in an environment where not everybody was welcoming of these as they were brought forward. These schemes are experimental.  Initially it involves the engagement of the school and the head of the school expresses an interest and work is done in partnership. Bike share schemes have been seen in the past, scooter trials are going on in some places and agree that alternative options are welcomed to best use the infrastructure and foundations that we have currently put in place.

 

Cllr Maria Alexandrou added:

 

“a resident went to over 50 businesses in Palmers Green and Alderman’s Hill area and 99% of them had very strong views but they were ignored, therefore I do not agree with your previous comments.  I think you should have contacted the businesses directly or done a virtual meeting or engaged with them more.  Expecting them to go on the website is not good enough.

 

Cllr Caliskan responded as follows:

 

“we have had an extensive high streets and town centres programme over the past two years where we have had well attended public meetings and personally had round table debates with all the businesses. I accept that the development of town centres is at different stages. In Palmers Green there has been a lot of engagement, but it is fair to say that there was not a specific engagement on this point, but not right to say that these businesses did not have an opportunity.  Going forward perhaps we need to create a specific opportunity to gather some more views.  If residents are not happy with something it does not mean that they have not been engaged with. Richard to post the survey to each of the businesses. ACTION: Richard Eason

 

 

Cllr Daniel Anderson asked a further question, as follows:

 

The AMPR and the cameras are making considerable amounts of money for the Council. This is a serious point where nearly £2m has been received in fines, broken down as follows:

 

Meadway in five months has made nearly £1m and

Warwick Road in six months has made £422 and

Fox Lane has made £371

 

Many residents have raised this issue with me.  These are genuine people, many of whom are elderly and others who have used these roads to navigate across the borough for many years. I have been advised that the signage is not clear.  Aside of agreeing with the use of AMPR, the issue here is that of signage.

 

If the onus is on making money from residents then this has been done but if discouragement of usage is the point of the exercise then clearer, not disputable signage is essential.  This would be fairer than charging them continually. Many people have not understood these measures. Can you look as clearly as possible, within the law, to seek to ensure those incidents/ mistakes and genuine errors can be avoided. 

 

Richard Eason responded as follows:

 

“the signage in my view is comprehensive and any income that we do get is ringfenced for traffic and highway purposes and typically in the past has been used for freedom passes. We want these schemes to work and the camera points have been put in through discussions with the emergency services as they are key routes identified by them.  With regard to signage, there are detailed traffic regulations they need to adhere to with suggestions that “No Entry” signs be put up as they are clearer and more recognised. In reality, we cannot legally disallow the emergency services from passing through there either and defeat the purposes of their existence which is to make sure that the areas remain permeable for the emergency services although I understand the cynicism.  In the early days as the scheme is embedded there is likelihood of higher non-compliance rates, but these are reducing as the scheme is now being recognised more. My department will look at the areas where the fines are the highest and enhance the signs if necessary. The motivation for doing this is to improve the lived environment and although there are easier ways to create income, this is not done for this reason.

 

Cllr Caliskan advised that previously in her ward a yellow junction box was installed.  A huge number of people received a fine at the peak and dropped off which is crucial to note, and the traffic scheme is working.  The Local Authority is not allowed to implement traffic schemes to generate business but is a deterrent to stop them breaking a rule and the money is not allowed to be spent on anything but this department.  All the information gathered, advice and evidence will be published on the website and whatever is presented to us as politicians will be exactly the same that is shared with the residents and all other councillors.

 

Councillor Hass Yusuf (Chair) thanked Councillor Nesil Caliskan and Richard Eason for their comprehensive and informative presentation to the Panel. He advised that the current mode of Scrutiny leaves less time to scrutinise in more depth as was previously undertaken and acknowledges that there have been many reports sent out on this subject which could not be discussed comprehensively.  He welcomed any further questions to be put to officers by the Panel Members.  They left the meeting at this point and the Panel continued with planning their work programme for 202-2021.