Agenda item

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.  In addition, officers considered that the consultation had not been inconclusive – of the 17 responses received, 13 had been in favour of the residents’ parking scheme offered in the consultation document, and 4 against, only two of which had requested a yellow line scheme.  There had also been two stakeholder meetings, to both of which CAPRA had been invited.  It was emphasised that the merits of both schemes had been fully debated at the Traffic and Road Safety Advisory Panel meeting on 1 December 2004, upon the recommendation of which the Portfolio Holder had made his decision, and that the Panel had reached the conclusion that the yellow line option would be an inferior scheme.

Members of the Sub-Committee asked detailed questions on a number of issues.  In particular, it was clarified that the initial consultation had only offered residents the option of a residents’ parking scheme, not the alternative of a yellow line scheme; Members representing the signatories to the call-in considered this the key failing of the consultation.  Ward Councillors had been consulted on the draft consultation documents, however, and had not raised this as an issue.  In addition, it was noted that over 60% of residents had not responded to the consultation.  It was advised that if residents were re-consulted, this may result in both a delay in the implementation of the scheme and additional costs.  It was noted, however, that the re-consultation could be carried out in parallel with the statutory consultation for the residents’ parking scheme in order to minimise any delay.

Discussion having turned to the decision before the Sub-Committee, Members were concerned that, although consultation had taken place, it had not offered residents both the available options.  It was therefore agreed to uphold the call-in of the decision.  A Member also commented that if the Council introduced a scheme to which residents were opposed, they would have to live with it for some time before it was reviewed; he suggested that residents be re-consulted, but also informed that the re-consultation may result in a delay in the implementation of the scheme and additional costs.

RESOLVED:  That (1) the call-in of paragraph (5) of the decision be upheld on the grounds of inadequate consultation with stakeholders prior to the decision, and that this part of the decision be referred back to the Portfolio Holder for re-consideration; and

(2) the remainder of the decision be implemented.