Agenda and minutes

To note the appointment at the Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting held on 24 November 2004 of Councillor Mitzi Green as Chair of the Sub-Committee for the remainder of the 2004/05 Municipal Year.

RESOLVED:  To note the appointment at the Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting on 24 November 2004 of Councillor Mitzi Green as Chair of the Sub-Committee for the remainder of the 2004/05 Municipal Year.

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 Members:

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

Councillors Mitzi Green and Seymour declared personal interests in agenda item 8, “Call-in of Environment and Transport Portfolio Holder Decision: Stanmore CPZ – Consultation Results”, by virtue of being members of the Edgware Reform Synagogue, which was close to the area of the proposed extension to the CPZ.

RESOLVED:  To note the personal interests declared by Councillors Mitzi Green and Seymour in agenda item 8, and that the Members participated in the discussion and decision on that item.

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) agenda item 8, “Call-in of Environment and Transport Portfolio Holder Decision: Stanmore CPZ – Consultation Results”, be considered prior to agenda item 7;

(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 for the agenda to be published 5 clear working days prior to the meeting.

(3) in accordance with the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985, the following agenda items be admitted late to the agenda by virtue of special circumstances and urgency detailed below:-

(4) all items be considered with the press and public present.

To appoint a Vice-Chair of the Sub-Committee for the remainder of the 2004/05 Municipal Year.

RESOLVED: To appoint Councillor Jean Lammiman as Vice-Chair of the Sub-Committee for the remainder of the 2004/05 Municipal Year.

That the minutes of the meeting held on 3 November 2004, having been circulated, be taken as read and signed as a correct record.

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 3 November 2004, having been circulated, be taken as read and signed as a correct record.

Members considered a decision of the Environment and Transport Portfolio Holder dated 20 December 2004 to introduce limited extensions to the Stanmore CPZ, and to undertake further consultation with residents of a number of roads within the planned extensions.  The Sub-Committee received the notice invoking the call-in procedure, the record of the Portfolio Holder's decision, the documentation sent to the Portfolio Holder to inform his decision, and a statement from the Portfolio Holder, who was unable to attend 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.

At the meeting, a Member representing the signatories to the call-in notice stated that the concerns relating to the evidence on which the decision had been based had now been addressed by officers.  The concerns relating to the adequacy of consultation remained, however, and these applied specifically to paragraph (5) of the Portfolio Holder’s decision, which was as follows:

“that a Controlled Parking Zone be created in Howberry Road between Cloyster Wood and Wychwood Avenue including Howberry Close as shown at Appendix M of the officer report to operate, Monday to Friday, 2pm to 3pm, and the residents of Howberry Road and Howberry Close be written to in parallel to the statutory consultation in order to explain the benefits of the scheme”. 

It was confirmed that the remainder of the Portfolio Holder’s decision was not disputed.

The Member put the case for the call-in.  He felt that the officer report, specifically paragraph 2.3.11.11, had misrepresented the views of the Canons Park Residents’ Association (CAPRA), in that it suggested that CAPRA favoured a Controlled Parking Zone incorporating a residents’ parking scheme.  The Association’s preferred option was, in fact, yellow line waiting restrictions.  In addition, he felt that the results of the Council’s consultation had been inconclusive.  Consultation undertaken by CAPRA, the results of which were tabled at the meeting, showed that the majority of respondents did not want a residents’ parking scheme.  Residents wanted to be re-consulted and given the choice of a residents’ parking scheme or yellow line waiting restrictions.  The arguments for the call-in were endorsed by a Ward Councillor who was backbenching; he stated that the views of residents were not accurately reflected by the decision and requested that the properties in the affected area, of which there was approximately 68, be re-consulted.

Upon being invited to respond, officers advised that the report made no suggestion that the scheme offered in the consultation document was CAPRA’s preferred option, but  stated only that the relevant area was included in the consultation as a result of requests from CAPRA.  It was explained that the yellow line waiting restrictions preferred by CAPRA discriminated against residents without off-street parking, as they made no provision for residents parking during the restricted hour; when the Council had introduced the existing yellow line scheme south of Cloyster Wood, a number of complaints about this had been received.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 46.

Members considered a decision of the Environment and Transport Portfolio Holder dated 20 December 2004 to implement a scheme to improve traffic and pedestrian access at the Petts Hill Bridge junction.  The Sub-Committee received the notice invoking the call-in procedure, the record of the Portfolio Holder's decision, the documentation sent to the Portfolio Holder to inform his decision, and a statement from the Portfolio Holder, who was unable to be present.  In addition, appendix 19 to the Borough Spending Plan, which related to the Petts Hill Bridge Scheme, had been circulated to Members, and the public consultation document and the business case summaries for both the 3-lane and the 4-lane schemes were 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.

Upon being invited to put the case for the call-in, a Member representing the signatories to the call-in notice stated that the concerns relating to the evidence on which the decision had been based, specifically, the availability of the minutes of the Traffic and Road Safety Advisory Panel meeting on 1 December 2004, had now been addressed by officers.  He outlined the reasons why the decision had been called in on the grounds of inadequate consultation.  He highlighted that the Borough Spending Plan stated that the Petts Hill Bridge scheme “would be designed in consultation with local people”.  However, all the consultation about the scheme, including the public consultation document and the display of the proposals at Welldon Park First School, had only given the option of the 3-lane interim scheme, not the 4-lane new bridge option.

In addition, the Member considered that the public consultation document was inadequate as it had asked only two questions, namely “Do you feel that something needs to be done about the bottleneck at the Petts Hill Bridge?” and “Do you feel that this scheme will help to improve the situation?”.  The Member considered that, given the problems of congestion at the junction, these were loaded questions which were unlikely to elicit a negative response.  He also called into question the accuracy of the illustrations in the consultation document.

The Member made a number of other points about the two options for the scheme.  In particular, he expressed concern that the 3-lane scheme would not alleviate congestion in Northolt Road, and that the pedestrian tunnels proposed as part of the 3-lane scheme would be a focus for crime and vandalism.  He also pointed out that it would cost less to implement the 4-lane scheme (£7m), than to proceed with the interim 3-lane scheme now and to upgrade to a 4-lane scheme at a later date (£9.12m).  He questioned the efforts made to secure the funding for the 4-lane option and suggested that, if there were a round table discussion with local MPs, the Mayor and GLA Members, it may still be possible to find a way of securing this.  He  ...  view the full minutes text for item 47.

Further to this having been raised as an item of any other business, Members requested that call-in notices be date-stamped upon receipt.  Officers undertook to do this.