Agenda item

To review the Cabinet decision taken on 18 June as a result of the matter having been Called-in.

Cllr Lindsay Rawlings was welcomed as the Call-In lead and presented reasons for issuing the Call-in.

·         The Call-in reasons and responses are detailed in the report.

·         Activity 1, paragraph 1 the emphasis in the report of most of the activities is on improvements to the cycling infrastructure with pedestrians second best.

·         Paragraph 2 if the intention is to increase cycle hubs at stations that the word existing should be removed.

·         Paragraph 4 believes that this should be a holistic framework not just about cycling and walking without including public transport. Not sure how many residents are aware of the number of bus routes that can be used. On a number of areas where there is poor connectivity a more joined up approach would allow more people to see where they can get to with public transport.

·         Activity 2 paragraph 1, anecdotally that the rise of illegal use of e-scooters, riding cycles on pavements and also through public open spaces does put people off walking around. Rather that look at pure statistics for accidents would rather see data collected on changing habits of pedestrians because of perceived problems on pavements. Even with the increase in safe segregated cycle routes in the borough there does not appear to be less people riding on the pavements.

·         Activity 3 thought needs to be given in how to engage with more people need to gain the views of a wider range of residents.

·         Activity 4 pleased that the activities are not ranked in order, but this should be made clearer in the report. A wide range of views are needed on this.

·         Activity 6 point 10 the response does not give reasons for providing so few references to public transport throughout the report. One of the main thrusts of healthy streets cannot assume that getting people cycling or walking will get them to leave their cars behind some journeys will need to be taken by public transport.

·         Point 41 whilst agreed that other improvements can relate to pedestrians they do not do so obviously. Others reading the report may miss these.

·         Point 55 there should be an indication of much or how little people need to change their mods of travel in order to make a difference such as leaving the car at home one day a week, etc. If residents could see how making a relatively small change could make a difference to climate change, they may be more inclined to do so.

·         To sum up not totally against the healthy streets initiative and am pleased that the emphasis has moved away from just cycling to include walking and public transport. This report needs to show residents that it is serious in its support for walking across the borough.

The Chair thanked Cllr Rawlings and asked the Deputy Leader Cllr Ian Barnes and officers to respond.

• With regards to the point favouring cyclists over pedestrians throughout the report it talks about improving conditions for walking and cycling. The overall purpose of the report is to provide a framework for healthy streets. There are 10 indicators, and these achieve a balance between walking and cycling.
• To clarify regarding cycling hubs at stations this is not expansion of the cycle hubs already in place without evidence of demand but an increase in the number of good quality secure cycle parking spaces such as those found at station hubs are needed at other stations that do not currently have this facility.
• The paper relates to public transport as programming to facilitate walking and cycling. Most public transport trips will begin on foot. The focus of TfL’s healthy streets approach is walking and cycling journeys.
• With regards to people walking or cycling to Town Centres spending more than those arriving by car or public transport with no data to support this assertion. Links have been put in the response where the evidence can be read.
• Danger from motor vehicles to pedestrians and from the increasing use of e scooters and cyclists riding on the pavement. The response contains data on relative risk from different modes of transport. It was agreed that the use of e scooters and cycles on footways does cause distress to some people, this is a police matter. One of the reasons that Enfield did not take part in the e scooter trial scheme is that we want to see the results first.
• Fear of traffic is a reason that people often give for choosing not to walk or cycle. The National attitude survey is included which has a focus on walking or cycling. Segregated cycle lanes help with safety.
• With reference to where the report states that we will seek to involve those with protective characteristics. Everything will done to try to increase participation across these groups. The report mentions the establishment of a Healthy Streets Disability Reference group (HSDRG) this consists of 15 people with representation from various disabilities.
• Regarding point 10, the administration fully supports public transport and will do everything they can to expand this.
• Community engagement a variety of methods are used including leaflets, paper versions of the consultation and documents posted through doors and try to help residents with different languages.
• The comment on the mix of metric and imperial measures is noted.

The Chair invited questions and comments from Members, relevant to the call-in reasons

• In a response to a request for more information on the HSDRG officers advised that they are working with Transport for All which is a pan disability charity focuses specifically on the transport sector. The annex in the report sets out the equalities approach. The report sets out to make a commitment on how the council will engage with those with protective characteristics.
•  A comment was made that it is hoped that the points made in the call in will be taken on board. Going forward the linguistics and the way it is being communicated needs to be softened. Softer language is needed to engage people with the behavioural and cultural shift needed. Public transport is a major part of the report. Members were advised that the next step is to look at how this can be communicated in a softer way. Engagement with Councillor Rawlings would be welcomed on this.
• Activity 2 one of the main issues raised with Councillors is road safety. One of the frustration residents raise is that the accident rate is not high enough, and speeding is a policing issue. It is very difficult to get even modest measures put in place. Officers advised that funding is a challenge in order to best determine where to allocate scarce resources on road safety there has to be a tool to prioritise where the greatest need is. It is acknowledged that there are issues in other places and a wider more holistic approach is taken in these areas. The council receives lots of requests for road safety measures.
• How do we engage with groups who do not naturally engage? Members were advised that it will be the role of the HSDRG to reach out, they will be mentored by Transport for All. It was acknowledged that this will be a challenge.
• East of the borough the junction at Hertford Road/ Ordnance Road is challenging with cars parking at junctions, heavy traffic, issues with cycle lanes and the perception that this not safe. This is very confusing and there are also traffic signalling issues which have been raised with TfL. Officers agreed to look at this scheme.
• Following a query, it was confirmed that the putting in good quality cycle storage is resident led.

Cllr Rawlings in summing up said that there is not enough mention of public transport within the report. The links provided in the responses should be in the report. Agree with the data re accidents but need to investigate what stops people walking. Felt that there is too much emphasis on national surveys should focus Enfield specific. Different ethnic groups have their own reasons for not cycling or walking. The report needs to make clear that the points are not in order. Language used to be made gentler and more friendly. Cllr Rawlings happy to work with officers in making the report suitable for the public.

Overview & Scrutiny considered the reasons for the call-in and the responses provided.

Councillors Aksanoglu, Anyanwu, Demirel, Guzel and Levy voted in favour of the above decision and Councillors David-Sanders and Hockney voted against. The original Cabinet decision was therefore agreed.