Agenda item

The Chair acknowledged that there were a lot of people in attendance at the meeting and that a lot of the public that were present had very strong views on LTNs. The Chair advised that, as no written questions had been submitted to the Committee in advance, she would not be taking questions from the public.  The Chair requested that those present refrain from shouting out or disrupting the meeting as it was important that councillors were able to do their job by asking questions and scrutinising the LTN schemes.

*Clerks note – The Chair agreed to take the presentations for items 7 & 8 together and then questions would be taken at the end.*

The Committee considered a presentation which provided an update on Low Traffic Neighbourhoods. The presentation specifically focused on the implementation of the three LTNs that were approved by Cabinet in December 2021, namely Bounds Green, Bruce Grove/West Green and St Ann’s. The presentation was introduced by Bryce Tudball, Interim Head of Planning Policy, Transport & Infrastructure and Naima Ishan, Transport Planner as set out in the agenda pack at pages 9 to 30 of the agenda pack. Mike Hakata, the Cabinet Member for Climate Action, Environment, and Transport and Deputy Leader of the Council was also present for this item. The following arose during the discussion of this item:

a.    The Committee raised concerns about exemptions to the LTNs, particularly for those who had carer responsibilities and sought assurances about how delays in administering those would be resolved. In response, the Cabinet Member advised that targeted consultation with specific cohorts and groups was undertaken. The Cabinet Member advised that one of the main drivers for the scheme was the results of the disability and carers survey, along with a range of other sources of internal and external analysis. This analysis looked at how exemptions worked across different schemes around the country. Following this analysis, Haringey introduced one of the most comprehensive list of exemptions to LTN schemes anywhere in the country.

b.    The Cabinet Member acknowledged that there may be some issues in relation to processing exemptions and how the Council communicates applying for an exemption, and that he was happy to look into these. It was added that the schemes were still bedding-in and that changes would be made following feedback received from residents. The Cabinet Member emphasised the fact that, as an authority, Haringey had taken the lead in relation to LTNs and that he was not aware of another authority that had as comprehensive a list of exemptions as Haringey. Officers advised that a significant amount of engagement work had been done, particularly around the exemptions policy, and that the Council had made a commitment not to introduce LTNs until an exemptions policy was in place.

c.    The Chair noted that she had personally found the process of applying for an exemption as a Blue Badge Holder to be difficult to navigate and sought assurances about how the Council could make this process as easy as possible. The Panel also added that the Council needed to give consideration to how to improve the process of applying for an exemption for carers, some of whom would likely care-share, and to learn lessons for future roll-outs of the scheme. In response, the Panel was advised that there would be a communication send out shortly to all Blue Badge Holders around applying for an exemption, and which would pick up on the concerns outlined by members. The Cabinet Member emphasised that this was very much a learning process.

d.    In relation to concerns raised by the Panel about road safety and the possible impact of LTNs on traffic on neighbouring roads and ‘rat-running’, the Cabinet Member advised that a lot of time was spent analysing detailed designs for each scheme in a very high level of detail. The Cabinet Member advised that Road Safety was a top priority when it came to LTNs and that one of the ley aims was to reduce overall traffic levels and improve road safety. The Panel was advised that some of the learning that had come from other schemes across London was that speeding rates had dropped where LTNs had been introduced. The Cabinet Member acknowledged that there could be a short term adjustment period but that ultimately the Council was looking to improve road safety and decrease collisions.

e.    In response to concerns about engagement with emergency services, the Cabinet Member advised that officers had met with colleagues in emergency services extensively and, using their data, went through journey times to every location in the borough. In light of these discussions, the Council had agreed to implement camera enforcement rather than a physical filter at any location where there would be an adverse effect on journey times for emergency services.

*Clerk’s note at 19:10 – After several warnings by the Chair that disruption by

members of the public in attendance would lead to the meeting being adjourned, the meeting was adjourned.*

*19:41 – The meeting recommenced.*

f.     The Panel sought assurances that key outputs of the scheme were being monitored and whether assurances could be given that the LTNs would be pulled if their objectives were not being met. In response, the Cabinet Member reiterated that the schemes were still bedding-in and that there would be several opportunities to tweak them if they were not working as intended. The Cabinet Member set out that, ultimately, if the schemes did not work and the key metrics were failing then they would be pulled.

g.    The Panel questioned how the current locations of the LTN’s were determined and why, for example White Hart Lane or Northumberland Park were not used as initial locations. In response, the Panel was advised that these schemes were initially selected as part of  a narrow bidding window for funding and that this contributed to why certain locations were chosen for the initial rollout. The key driving force behind the location of the schemes was data, particularly in relation to metrics such as health indices, collision data, car ownership levels and traffic metrics. In relation to deprivation indices, these would be prioritised as part of future schemes and as part of the development of the Walking and Cycling Action Plan. 

h.    The Committee raised concerns that some of the signage for the schemes could be misleading and that, for example, zone signage that had X2 on it looked as though it referred to access was permitted for two vehicles. Members also questioned the clarity of communications that went out to residents and suggested that future communications should also be sent out to all councillors. In response the Cabinet Member advised that a lot of work had gone into providing comprehensive signage but that he would take the feedback on board and consider how to improve signage. Officers advised that information booklets on the LTNs were shared with all councillors, prior to being sent out to residents and businesses.

i.      In relation to a question about the inspiration for LTNs, the Panel was advised that these were being rolled out across London and that funding was being provided by the GLA. Haringey had taken on board feedback from schemes elsewhere in London and would continue to learn lessons from other boroughs going forwards.

RESOLVED

That the update in relation to Low Traffic Neighbourhoods was noted.