Agenda item

To review the decision of the Deputy Leader of the Council taken on 4 February 2022 as a result of the matter having been called-in.

The Chair outlined the purpose and format of the call-in process and detailed the options available to the Committee. The Chair also reiterated that only questions relating to the reasons for call-in would be permitted from Committee Members.

 

Cllr Fallart was welcomed by the Chair and requested, as the Call-in lead, to provide the reasons for call-in:

1. The scheme would increase journey times for hospital patients who were elderly or who relied on private cars to access hospital services.
2. Consideration should also be given to patients who may need to access North Middlesex Hospital Accident and Emergency by car. Bull Lane was the most direct route from the south of the Hospital.
3. 82 percent of the objectors to the proposed traffic orders described themselves as having a disability.
4. The report acknowledged the proposed Bus Gate on Bull Lane and modal filters on Amersham Avenue and Shaftesbury Road would lead to traffic displacement onto Pretoria Road and Weir Hall Road. Enfield Council had suggested introducing a school street outside Wilbury Primary School on Weir Hall Road as a mitigation measure. The School Street was not included as part of the scheme. The effects of both schemes should be considered together.
5. The scheme was likely to displace traffic onto the already congested A10 Great Cambridge Road and A406 North Circular Roads. The Northbound A10 carriageway was often already severely congested south of the Great Cambridge Roundabout. This could impact journey times to the hospital. An assessment of potential displaced traffic onto these roads should be carried out.

 

The Chair thanked Cllr Fallart and asked the Deputy Leader of the Council, Cllr Barnes and Officers to respond.

1. The North Middlesex Hospital Active Travel Improvements formed part of the Enfield Healthy Streets programme, the purpose of which was to encourage people to walk or cycle more to the hospital for whatever reason.
2. The school streets at Wilbury Primary School would also create a safer environment for children and associated adults to travel to school by alternative methods of active travel.
3. Haringey were in favour of the scheme, as were very senior staff at the hospital, including the Chief Executive of Strategy Operations who actively encouraged staff to live and work locally. 
4. Surveys showed that many doctors wanted to cycle, however, considered it unsafe to do so.
5. The proposals would direct traffic onto the larger roads away from smaller residential roads, often used as ‘rat runs’ to minimise the journey time, often by only a few minutes. 
6. All routes in Enfield where open to the hospital, including bus gates from the south. 
7. Through routes were needed to secure safer environments for cycling.

 

Cllr Nesil Caliskan contributed the following responses to the reasons for the Call-In:

1. Hospital staff were the principal concern.  The Chief Executive of the hospital encouraged staff to live close to the hospital.
2. Figures indicated that where staff lived locally there were better medical outcomes.
3. There was a balance to be achieved with new homes being allocated to key workers.
4. The routes were next to some unique and strategically important areas, which were well connected with high density population. It was paramount that the traffic used the better roads elsewhere.
5. The provision of bicycle hangers and showers had been requested by the hospital. 
6. The Chair of the hospital Board was keen to engage the large diverse workforce at the hospital.  The workforce was critical to the North Middlesex Hospital. 
7. The Council was working at a strategic level with the hospital to bring together all parties, including residents.
8. The installation of camera operated bus gates would open for buses and emergency services, would create slower safer route and protect cyclists. 

 

At the request of the Chair, Officers provided the following information:

1. The bus gates, which would be in operation for 24 hours per day, would filter traffic into the areas which would reduce congestion and emissions from motor vehicles.
2. Impact assessments would be part of the post implementation monitoring.
3. TfL administered the Department of Transport Active Travel Fund Tranche 2.  Expenditure was fully funded by means of direct grant from TfL, therefore no costs fell on the Council.
4. Existing street lighting times could be extended and powered up as most were currently not on full power all the time.

 

The Chair opened the discussion to Members of the Committee for any comments or questions.

 

Q: Was the proportion of staff at the North Middlesex Hospital who walked or cycled to work and the distance known?

A: 60% of the staff at the hospital lived in the local area.

 

Q: How confident was the Cabinet Member that there would be lower carbon emissions?

A: Air quality monitoring data would be available to show the emissions had been and continued to be reduced.

 

Q: Where those proposing to introduce the scheme familiar with the area, particularly during the times of 4.30pm to 7pm, when the roads adjacent to the were gridlocked with many drivers trying to avoid the A10 and Fore Street?  Together with the impact on both commercial businesses and individuals?

A: The proposed routes would make it safer to commute to the hospital.

 

Q: How would the behavioural and cultural changes be encouraged, and would there be a choice, or would the use of the scheme be imposed on staff at the hospital and other stakeholders?

A: It was envisaged that the proposals would encourage positive behavioural and cultural changes and discouraged shorter car journeys.

 

Q: Not everyone would be able to participate immediately in active travel and there would be unrestricted access to the hospital for those who were not able to do so.  For example, those attending the hospital for tests or results. 

A: To make a real change to the area all residents and visitors needed to be encouraged to be involved and to adopt and use the active travel ethos.

 

Cllr Fallart, at the request of the Chair summarised the reasons for call-in.

1. As a result of the implementation of the active travel scheme, traffic would be displaced on to the main roads which would become congested, and ambulances would not be able to respond to calls.  This had not been taken into account.  Nor had the impact on the users of the North Middlesex Hospital, who would become stressed when waiting in traffic to reach the hospital.  This applied particularly to North Bull Lane diverted onto Wilbury Way.
2. The proposed alternative action would be to refer back to Deputy Leader for review of the decision.

 

The Chair confirmed that having heard the reasons for call-in and the responses to call-in, the Members of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee

would now be asked to vote. The options available to Members were:

 

i) Confirm the original decision.

ii) Refer the decision back to the Cabinet Member/Decision Maker for

further consideration.

iii) Refer to Full Council

 

Councillors Mahmut Aksanoglu, Birsen Demirel, Elif Erbil and Ergin Erbil   voted to confirm the original decision. Councillors Lee David-Sanders and Stephanos Ioannou voted against the original decision and Councillor Derek Levy abstained from voting.  The original decision was confirmed and could therefore be implemented.

 

(Action: Implementation of the original decision taken by the Deputy Leader of the Council).

 

Cllr Anderson was welcomed by the Chair and requested, as the Call-in lead, to provide the reasons for call-in:

 

KD 5372 (North Middlesex Hospital Active Travel Improvements) was being called-in on the basis that the report failed to provide any evidence that the measures proposed were essential, nor did it seek to weigh-up the scale of the alleged benefits that would be expected to balance against the significant disbenefits that the proposed intervention would cause. There was also no evidence provided that the £1.245m scheme would reduce carbon emissions, nor was there any baseline data on walking or cycling and no evidence that the project would increase active travel.

 

1.    Inadequate community and stakeholder engagement

2.    The scheme will be significantly detrimental to older people, the disabled and expectant mothers

3.    The scheme will have a significantly detrimental impact upon other road users

4.    There will be traffic displacement which will worsen the quality of life for many

5.    The overview of consultation report contains flawed logic

6.    There is no evidence provided for claims made regarding Environmental and Climate Change Considerations

7.    The identified risks of not making the proposed decision contains flawed logic

8.    There is no evidence provided for the identified risks of making the proposed action

9.    There is no reference to TfL’s managed decline, which could have huge consequences for the project’s viability

10.There are concerns over the financial viability of the project

 

The Chair advised that Cllr Elif Elgin, who had been absent for some of the discussion, would not be able to vote on this item.

 

The Chair thanked Cllr Anderson and asked the Leader of the Council, Cllr Caliskan and Officers to respond.  Cllr Barnes, as Cabinet Member also contributed to the responses.

1. The proposed scheme would improve the distribution of traffic in the neighbourhood, which would result in better care for the sick, with clearer routes for ambulances.
2. Extensive community and stakeholder engagement, which included staff employed at the hospital took place.
3. The use of the cycle lanes, once installed, would be monitored to compare the results with those before the proposed scheme had been implemented.  Cycling was encouraged by the medical profession to keep fit and active.
4. There was considerable evidence that aligned the proposals with the Council’s objectives for climate change.
5. That people would still wish to drive to the hospital had been recognised with the provision of access routes to the hospital.
6. There would be some impact on the availability of parking spaces around the hospital in that there would be a limited number of pay and display bays.  There would no impact on the wider area.

 

The Chair opened the discussion to Members of the Committee for any

comments or questions.

 

Q: Most of the concerns given by the lead for calling-in the decision was because of the lack of engagement.  What were the methods of engagement that were used?

A: The consultation undertaken had been proportionate to the scheme, this had included the Chief Executive, Director of Strategic Operations, and hospital staff.  Additional suggestions of methods of engagement and consultation were welcomed.

 

Q: How would the active travel scheme impact on parking?

A: There were currently a limited number of parking spaces available in the pay and display bays in the surrounding streets to the hospital.  There would be no impact on spaces available on the hospital site or on the wider area.

 

The Chair asked Cllr Anderson, as Call-in Lead, to summarise.

1.    There had been very poor use of finite funds.

2.    The report did not state how many of the 205 responses received were from the hospital staff and what opinion they had expressed.

3.    Residents were expected to walk more and to use public transport.  However, the proposals did not include improvements to the public transport network.  The £1.3m should be used to improve the public transport network.

 

The Chair confirmed that having heard the reasons for call-in and the responses to call-in, the Members of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee would now be asked to vote. The options available to Members were:

 

i) Confirm the original decision.

ii) Refer the decision back to the Cabinet Member/Decision Maker for

further consideration.

iii) Refer to Full Council

 

Councillors Aksanoglu, Demirel, Ergin Erbil and Susan Erbil voted to confirm the original decision. Councillors David-Sanders and Stephanos Ioannou and Derek Levy voted against the original decision.  The original decision was confirmed and could therefore be implemented.

 

(Action: Implementation of the original decision taken by the Deputy Leader of the Council).