Issue - meetings

The following documents are attached:-

(a)               Notice Invoking the Call-in and supporting information

(b)               Record of the Decision of the Environment Services and Community Safety Portfolio Holder and documentation sent.

Prior to the commencement of the consideration of the Call-In matter, the Chairman advised that the Portfolio Holder for Environment Services & Community Safety was in attendance at the Sub?Committee to respond to the call?in as part of the requirement of that process.

The Portfolio Holder for Environment Services & Community Safety had agreed a decision in relation to the Proposed West Harrow Area Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) – Results of Public Consultation.   A Call?In Notice calling in the decision had been subsequently received, signed by more than 150 members of the public and the decision had therefore been referred to this Sub?Committee for consideration.

The Sub-Committee received the notice invoking the call?in procedure, the report of the Corporate Director of Community & Environment submitted to the Portfolio Holder and the relevant Decision Notice.

The decision had been called-in on four grounds:

·                     inadequate consultation with stakeholders;

·                     absence of adequate evidence upon which to base a decision;

·                     decision contrary to the Policy Framework;

·                     potential human rights challenge

The Chairman, after outlining the procedure to be followed at the meeting, noted the submission of additional information by the West Harrow Residents Group.  The Sub?Committee agreed the information be considered and adjourned from 7.40 pm to 7.50 pm to allow members to consider the content of the additional papers.

Upon reconvening the meeting the Chairman invited Nick Goodhart to speak on behalf of the signatories.  Mr Goodhart addressed each of the points raised within the Call In Notice outlining the concerns the West Harrow Residents Group had with regard to each and where they felt failures had occurred to the process followed to date. 

MrGoodhart referred to the consultation documents circulated stating that he considered these to not fully set out the implications of the proposed CPZ, together with the implications of the loss of parking spaces that would result.  He further expressed the view that he did not believe all persons affected had been consulted and in referring to the evidence presented by officers noted the admission of discrepancies, stating that this demonstrated the decision had been made prior to the full evidence being available.  He referred to the policy framework and human rights elements of the Call In Notice setting out how he believed these had been contravened.  Mr Goodhart concluded by requesting the sub-committee to approve the reasons for Call In of the decision and to request that the matter be referred for consideration by the full Council.

Upon being invited to respond, the Portfolio Holder for Environment Services & Community Safety advised that the process leading to her decision had been underway for some considerable time and had included reports to Transport and Road Safety Advisory Panel.  The purpose of considering CPZ’s arose when an area was identified as experiencing issues with parking.  The process undertaken most recently had been an informal consultation process to seek the views of the affected residents and businesses in respect of whether they would wish such a zone to be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 43