Agenda item

To review the decision of the Leader of the Council taken on 7 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. The Chair requested Cllr Gunawardena, as the Call-in Lead, to provide reasons for call-in.

KD 5403 (Fox Lane Area Quieter Neighbourhood) was being called-in on the basis that there was a lack of any robust evidential basis to support the decision, nor the statement, as outlined in point 2 of the decision statement, which stated, “Taking into account the various matters set out in this report, it is considered the factors in favour of making the experimental traffic orders permanent outweigh the dis-benefits and/or disadvantages of removing the trial.”

The arguments for the call-in were summarised as follows:

1. The assumptions made, and models used, were not presented in the report
2. Inadequate quality control measures had been used
3. Concerns about the survey methodology
4. Combining respondents from within QN with boundary road
5. Misleading statements about car ownership and systematic bias in reporting
6. Issues with the Equality Impact Assessment (EqiA)
7. Issues with Traffic Monitoring data
8. Issues with Bus data
9. The report failed to provide evidence that showed how it would mitigate the key objectives of Council’s Corporate Plan

The Chair thanked Cllr Gunawardena and asked the Leader of the Council, Cllr Caliskan and Officers to respond.

1. The report sets out the rationale behind the decision. The scheme would have needed to have been implemented for 18 months before a decision could be taken to change or modify the scheme but it would be possible to make future changes to the scheme once implemented. 
2. The roads on the boundary of the scheme would be reviewed continuously and it would be possible to make adjustments.
3. There were clear markers by which to measure the impact of the changes.
4. The proposals included both long-term and short-term actions.

5.    Contributions were sought from a range of people from protected groups to become involved.

6.    The Council had considered the initiative and possible impact over a long period of time and understands the concerns raised by residents.  It was not possible to implement any scheme without some upheaval. 

7.    The Administration do take into consideration the views of residents and do respond to comments.

8.    There was no question regarding the professional judgement and integrity of the Officers who had put forward the proposals on behalf of the Administration.

9.    The proposal would benefit the most socially and economically disadvantaged in the Borough.

10.There was congestion around the school, which was not in a School Street.  However, this street was on the rollout list for School Streets to be implemented across the Borough and would be done as soon as possible, in collaboration with Headteachers.

11.As publicly stated in the direct letters to residents, the proposed scheme would, except for Blue Badge Holders, affect all residents in the area/Borough.

12.There was significant longstanding congestion around the Southgate roundabout, which was not fit for purpose in the 21^st Century.  Enfield Council would work collectively with Transport for London (TFL) to address this issue of concern. 

13.Adjustments would be made to the scheme, e.g., Meadway, would be opened-up should evidence indicate that this would be more beneficial to do so.  It was not the intention to close Meadway to residents which would be opened-up.   

14.It would not be legal to extend the Traffic Orders, nor would it be right to residents to do so before examining the evidence prior to making a final decision.

15.For context, residents were requested to provide feedback to their Ward Councillors and the Regeneration and Economic Development Scrutiny Panel would also feedback.  Anyone was welcome to respond to consultation and were actively encouraged to do so. 

16.Blue Badge Holders had a category of their own with their own specifications.

17.External advice had been sought and received on the scheme, together with extensive involvement of officers from the Environment and Legal Departments.

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

Q: What was being done ensure the protected characteristics of the disabled population were taken into consideration?

A: It had been publicly stated in at direct letter to residents that Blue Badge Holders were exempt.

Q: Had consideration been given to the responses received to the consultation and was it possible to evidence those responses? 

A: Consultation on the proposed scheme had been extensive and responses received had all been carefully considered.

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

Cllr Gunawardena summarised the issues, stating the points addressed were small scale in comparison to the extension to the traffic orders which would impact on the low socially disadvantaged.

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, Elif Erbil and Ergin Erbil voted to confirm the original decision. Councillors David-Sanders and Ioannou voted against the original decision. The original decision was confirmed and can therefore be implemented.

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.

The Chair requested Cllr Maria Alexandrou, as the Call-in Lead, to provide reasons for call-in.

According to the statement of reasons in the traffic order, the main purpose of the trial was to reduce motor traffic within the Fox Lane area, reduce the speed of motor traffic and to improve air quality within the area. Instead, traffic had been diverted onto boundary roads, causing severe congestion and localised concentrations of pollutants on boundary roads, three roads within the area had seen an increase in motor traffic, speed reduction is negligible and air quality had not improved.

The Chair thanked Cllr Maria Alexandrou and asked the Leader of the Council, Cllr Caliskan and Officers to respond.

1.    There were no doubts about the professional integrity of the Council’s Officers involved in the scheme.  The matter had been through a very rigorous process, including a QC experienced in this field.  A multi-disciplinary team was involved in developing the scheme, including the engagement of external specialists and industrial experts.

2. The QC consulted had found Enfield Council’s process to be legally sound and that the right process had been followed.

3.    The London Ambulance Service had not objected to the scheme.  Bollards had been replaced by the camera filter which was effective in this area.

4.    A review of the signage of the bus gates would be undertaken.  It was unrealistic to consult all the households in the Borough with leaflets.

5. The FOI enquiries had been fully addressed.
6. Consultation in surrounding areas had also taken place. However, more consultation could always take place.  Responses to the consultation from Blue Badge Holders would be welcomed.
7. Legally a decision had to be made to implement the proposed changes.
8. There were three new bus routes proposed in Holtwhites.
9. A review of all signage of the scheme, particularly around bus gates, would be undertaken and enhanced where necessary.
10. Officers had approached their job with integrity and had applied their technical knowledge to address increased traffic and a complicated traffic scheme.

Cllr Barnes contributed to the discussion and made the following points:

1. Following consultation, London Ambulance Service and London Fire Brigade had indicated that they supported the changes, which would be brought about by the implementation of the proposals. 
2. The emergency services vehicles would be able to pass through the camera filters.  This, together with the whole scheme, would continue to be monitored.
3. Objections sent by email were dismissed.
4. The proposed scheme would not have a detrimental impact on deliveries, buses and emergency services.

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

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

Cllr Alexandrou summarised the issues, stating that crime had been seen to reduce in those areas where LTN neighbourhoods had been implemented.  Lighting in other areas where LTNs had been implemented had been increased. Other areas had seen bushes cut down to reduce anti-social behaviour.

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, Elif Erbil and Ergin Erbil voted to confirm the original decision. Councillors David-Sanders and Ioannou voted against the original decision. The original decision was confirmed and can therefore be implemented.

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