Agenda item

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 tabled some correspondence exchanged with the Portfolio Holder.

Upon being invited to respond, officers agreed that the 4-lane new bridge scheme would be the preferred option and would cost less in the long term.  However, it had not been possible to secure sufficient funding for the 4-lane scheme despite extensive efforts in this regard, which were outlined.  The Cabinet had therefore made a decision to proceed with the 3-lane interim scheme.  For this reason, the public had not been consulted on the 4-lane scheme.

With regard to the public consultation document, it was advised that this had been produced by the Council’s Communications section, which was experienced in producing such documents, and that it had been designed to maximise response.  Such documents needed to be short and simple, otherwise the public would not read and respond to them.  The first two questions had been designed to start to engage with consultees, and to get a flavour of high-level views.  A third question had invited comments about the scheme.  This had resulted in comments relating to 20 different aspects of the scheme, including pedestrian safety in the tunnels; it had therefore been successful in drawing out design issues.  It was also confirmed that the illustrations on the consultation document were accurate.

A Member who was backbenching argued that the consultation should have informed the public that it may be possible to proceed with a better, 4-lane option at a later date, and suggested that there should have been greater liaison with the London Borough of Ealing, as this may have produced a better consultation document.  Officers advised, however, that the consultation had been very much a joint exercise agreed with the London Borough of Ealing.  In addition, it was pointed out that there was no guarantee that the Council would ever secure the funding for the 4-lane new bridge scheme, as it did not currently feature in any published future spending plans of TfL or the Mayor of London.  The alternative to proceeding with the 3-lane interim scheme would therefore have been to do nothing; the questions in the consultation document had given the public the opportunity to choose that option.

Members asked detailed questions on a number of issues.  It was advised that the level of response to the public consultation document, of which 11,000 copies had been distributed, had been considered adequate.  A Member representing the signatories to the call-in notice stated that some residents had not received the consultation document.  It was advised, however, that the Council had not received any complaints about the leaflets not having been received.  In addition, Members noted that the consultation had been widely publicised in the press.

There was some discussion about the extent to which the comments made in response to the consultation had influenced the design of the scheme.  In addition, the Member representing the signatories to the call-in notice argued that the public had been presented with a fait accompli; he suggested that the consultation should have been carried out a year earlier in order to enable the public to have an input into the scheme design.  Officers advised, however, that it was normal practice to consult on a specific proposal, because if the public were presented with a blank piece of paper, it would not engage them.  In addition, it had not been possible to carry out the consultation a year earlier, as at that stage funding for the 3-lane interim scheme had not been confirmed.  If the Council consulted on a scheme for which the funding was not secured, this would raise public expectations which the Council may not be able to deliver on, and would be an abortive expense if the scheme did not go ahead.

It was also noted that, if the Council proceeded with the 3-lane interim scheme, the case for the upgrade to the 4-lane new bridge scheme would be reduced, because some of the benefits of the 4-lane scheme would already have been achieved.  However, this would be offset by the reduced costs that would be needed to upgrade from the interim scheme to the final new bridge scheme.  In addition, if the Council waited to go ahead with 4-lane new bridge scheme, funding for the 3-lane interim scheme would be seriously prejudiced and probably lost.

Discussion having turned to the decision before the Sub-Committee, Members agreed that the 4-lane new bridge scheme was the preferred option, but that there was no definite funding for it.  The Sub-Committee was also satisfied with the breadth of the consultation and that the consultation had been widely publicised.  With regard to the option which had been consulted upon, some Members felt that residents should have been given the alternative option of a scheme which may be several years away, and that the consultation was therefore flawed.  Other Members felt, however, that the consultation had given residents the opportunity to reject the 3-lane scheme, and that it would not have been right to consult on a scheme that might not be implemented.  It was therefore

RESOLVED:  That the grounds for the call-in be rejected and the decision be implemented.

[Note: Councillors Osborn and Seymour wished to be recorded as having voted against the above decision].