Agenda and minutes

To note the attendance at this meeting of any duly appointed Reserve Members.

Reserve Members may attend meetings:-

(i)                 to take the place of an ordinary Member for whom they are a reserve;

(ii)               where the ordinary Member will be absent for the whole of the meeting; and

(iii)             after notifying the Chair at the start of the meeting.

RESOLVED:  To note the attendance at this meeting of the following duly appointed Reserve Member:-

To receive declarations of personal or prejudicial interests, arising from business to be transacted at this meeting, from all Members present.

RESOLVED:  To note that there were no declarations of interests made by Members present in relation to the business to be transacted at this meeting.

To consider whether any of the items listed on the agenda should be considered with the press and public excluded on the grounds that it is thought likely, in view of the nature of the business to be transacted, that there would be disclosure of confidential information in breach of an obligation of confidence or of exempt information as defined in the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985.

RESOLVED:  That (1) all items be considered with the press and public present; and

(2) in accordance with the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985, this meeting be called with less than 5 clear working days’ notice by virtue of the special circumstances and grounds for urgency stated below:-

Special Circumstances/Grounds for Urgency:  Under Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rule 22.6, a meeting of the Call-in Sub-Committee must be held within 7 clear working days of the receipt of a request for call-in.  This meeting therefore had to be arranged at short notice and it was not possible to publish the agenda 5 clear working days prior to the meeting.

That the minutes of the meeting held on 30 June 2004, having been circulated, be taken as read and signed as a correct record.

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 30 June 2004, having been circulated, be taken as read and signed as a correct record.

Further to Minute 15 of the Call-in Sub-Committee meeting held on 5 November 2002, the above protocol, which is being operated informally, is attached for information.

RESOLVED:  That the protocol be noted.

The protocol agreed by Cabinet on 17 December 2002, which applies in the event of a Portfolio Holder decision being referred back by the Call-in Sub-Committee,  is attached for information.

RESOLVED:  That the protocol be noted.

Members considered a decision of the Environment and Transport Portfolio Holder dated 18 October 2004 to introduce a pelican crossing in Station Road, Harrow, and to remove the restriction preventing taxis from turning right from Gayton Road into Station Road, which decision had been referred to the Sub-Committee under the call-in procedure.  The Sub-Committee received the notice invoking the call-in procedure, the record of the Portfolio Holder's decision, and the report to the Portfolio Holder on which the decision had been based.  A statement from the Portfolio Holder was also tabled at the meeting.

The decision had been called in on two grounds: inadequate consultation with stakeholders prior to the decision, and the absence of adequate evidence on which to base a decision.

A Member representing the signatories to the call-in notice was invited to put the case for the call-in of the decision.  She clarified that the call-in related only to the introduction of the pelican crossing, not to the removal of the right-turn restriction for taxis.  With regard to the grounds for the call-in, she stated that it appeared that consultation had only been carried out with businesses and not with residents.  She also felt that there was inadequate evidence for the decision as the street audit which had identified the need for the crossing had taken place in 2001, and there did not appear to have been any more recent investigations into this issue.  In addition, she felt that there was no evidence to suggest that other options to improve safety and access for pedestrians at the southernly entrance to the town centre had been explored.

Upon being invited to respond, officers advised that consultation on the crossing had been undertaken with a number of bodies, as detailed in paragraph 7 of the report to the Portfolio Holder and paragraph 5 of the Portfolio Holder's statement.  The practice with regard to pelican crossings was to consult statutory consultees, such as road user groups and the emergency services, and all premises within 50m to 100m of the proposed crossing; it was those premises which would be directly affected by the effects of a crossing, namely the restriction of parking, the noise of the beeping, and the congregation of pedestrians at that location.  In this case, there were no residential properties in the vicinity of the crossing and the premises consulted had therefore been businesses.  That notwithstanding, officers had sent the consultation papers to the local residents' association, but had had no reply.

With regard to the evidence for the decision, the street audit which had identified the need for the crossing had been carried out in 2001, but there had also been a technical assessment to justify the proposal which was much more recent; the surveys undertaken as part of that assessment had been carried out in 2003 and 2004.  Consideration had also been given to other options: it had not been considered acceptable to do nothing to improve safety or pedestrian facilities; a zebra crossing had been  ...  view the full minutes text for item 39.