Agenda item

i)          Report of the Monitoring Officer

ii)         Report of the Director of Place and Sustainability TO  FOLLOW

iii)       Appendix (for information only)

a)    Copy of the ‘call-in’

b)    Draft minute extract of the Cabinet decision of 10 September 2013

c)    10 September 2013 Cabinet report - Local Implementation Plan Annual Spending Submission for Transport 2014/15, Cycling fund submission 2014-17 and Local Implementation Plan three year Delivery Plan 2014-17.

A decision on the above item was taken by Cabinet at the meeting on 10 September 2013.  The decision has been called in, in accordance with the provisions set out in the Council’s Constitution, by Councillors Jenks, Beacham, Engert, Whyte and Scott.

Councillor Jenks introduced the call-in:

·               The call-in was about asking for more consultation and transparency from the Council.  Councillor Jenks was first alerted to the consultation on 27 September 2012, and was informed that a full consultation would be carried out in March/April 2013.  He followed this up in January 2013 and July 2013 and found out on 8 August that there would be no consultation and the recommendations for the funding would go directly to Cabinet, based on the 2010 consultation.

·               Transport was a big priority for residents across the borough and there was a need for regular consultation, with a transparent decision making process.

·               Statistics for Priory Road and Park Road show an increase in accidents since 2010 – this proved that things have changed since 2010, and dialogue with local Councillors would have been useful, since there was new data available.

·               The Cabinet minutes of 10 September state that “Cabinet was advised that the allocations were based on an assessment of roads in the borough and this demonstrated that there was greatest need in the east of the borough; however, there was work planned for areas throughout the borough and these were detailed in the report”.  It seems that Cabinet accepted this without any evidence within the report and no definition of what was ‘East’.  The Cabinet needed to ensure that no preference was given to ‘Labour’ wards, and that the Council was operating as one Borough.

·               Expenditure was not equal across the Borough.  The seven wards to the West of the railways lines represent a third of the wards, and only a quarter of the expenditure.

·               Councillor Jenks requested that the report be referred back to Cabinet, as the decision maker, so that a full consultation can be carried out and recent data used.

The Chair invited Councillor Engert to speak, following her request to address the Committee:

·               Councillor Engert was speaking as the Chair of the Muswell Hill, Alexandra, Fortis Green and Highgate Area Forum and Committee.

·               She referred the Committee to the protocols for Area Committees, in particular paragraph 4.1.4 which states:

“Local Highway and Transport Improvements

Area Committees shall be able to submit ideas to the Local Implementation Plan, asked to prioritise between proposed schemes in their area, and consulted on the detailed design of successful schemes. Officers shall provide feedback to the Area Committee on the outcome of their recommendations”

·               Councillor Engert then provided the Committee with a list of issues which were raised at the Area Forum and Committee on 27 June 2012, and had been appended to the Area Plan for that Forum.  Highways had responded to these issues and advised that consultation for the 2014-17 LIP would commence in April 2013 for submission in September 2013.

·               Councillor Engert requested to know what had happened to the promise of consultation and who had decided not to go ahead with it.

Tony Kennedy – Sustainable Transport Manager – responded to questions from the Committee:

·               Extensive consultation was carried out in 2010. This took on board the views of the Area Forums, although there were strict objectives within the LIP which had to be adhered to.

·               The vast bulk of maintenance to the roads came from capital funds, which was separate from the LIP funding.

·               It was never stated that a full consultation would be carried out. However, the views of area forums would be taken onboard.

·               The borough had been split into 19 neighbourhoods which were then prioritised over a number of 3 year cycles. These delivery plans were reported to cabinet, although it was not known whether this had been fed back to Area Forums.

·               Any schemes identified but not carried out within the 3 year programme would be kept in reserve and dealt with over the whole 20 year period.

·               It was cost effective to address a whole neighbourhood at one time rather than fixing a number of small projects across the borough.

Councillor Bevan commented that the call-in had been made on a number of areas, not just about consultation, and he responded to the remaining aspects of the call-in:

·               With regards to consultation, TfL had advised that further consultation was not required, however the authority had still carried out local consultations.

·               The data used in the Cabinet report was from December 2012, and not 2010 data.

·               Spending was allocated using a range of criteria, including budget constraints.

·               The table on page 5 of the report detailed spend since 2011:

2011-12           61% spend in the West

2012-13           61% spend in the West

2013-14           53% spend in the West

The Chair agreed that there were concerns with regards to consultation. If residents were consulted on initial plans, then officers or relevant Cabinet Members should feed back to those same residents. He suggested that Councillor Bevan attend the next Muswell Hill, Alexandra, Fortis Green and Highgate Area Forum to speak to the residents who had wanted to contribute.

Councillor Winskill thanked Tony Kennedy for answering the questions of the committee.  He requested that information with regards to how decisions were made be available on the Council’s website.

Councillor Winskill proposed that the report be taken back to Cabinet and residents be given the chance to respond.

A vote was taken, with 2 Members in favour and 3 against.

The chair MOVED that no further action be taken.

A vote was taken and carried; 3 in favour and 2 against.

RESOLVED that no further action be taken.

The chair thanked all for attending.