MINUTES of the MEETING of the OVERVIEW & SCRUTINY COMMITTEE HELD on THURSDAY 24 APRIL 2008 COUNCILLORS PRESENT Edward Smith
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
OVERVIEW & SCRUTINY COMMITTEE - 24.4.2008 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE OVERVIEW & SCRUTINY COMMITTEE HELD ON THURSDAY 24 APRIL 2008 COUNCILLORS PRESENT Edward Smith (Chairman), Achilleas Georgiou, Del Goddard, Robert Hayward and Henry Pipe. ABSENT Anne-Marie Pearce (Vice-Chairman) STATUTORY Rev. R. Knowling (Church of England diocese representative), CO-OPTEES: Rabbi Levy (other faiths/denominations representative), Carmel Tylee (Catholic diocese representative), Alicia Meniru & 1 vacancy - Italics show absence OFFICERS: Mike Ahuja (Head of Corporate Scrutiny Services), Gary Barnes (Assistant Director of Environment and Street Scene), Tim Strong (Assistant Director Human Resources) and James Kinsella (Democratic Services) Also Attending: Councillors Neville (Cabinet Member for Environment & Street Scene), Buckland, Orhan and Rodin. Tashin Ibrahim & Costas Georgiou (Enfield Business Retail Association) & 8 members of the public. 1017 WELCOME AND APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE The Chairman welcomed everyone to the meeting. An apology for absence was received from Councillor Pearce who was chairing a meeting of the Health Scrutiny Panel. 1018 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST NOTED that no members of the Committee had any personal or prejudicial interests to declare in respect of items on the agenda. 1019 CALL-IN: EXTENSION OF "PAY & DISPLAY" TO NEW AREAS AROUND THE BOROUGH Overview & Scrutiny Committee received a report from the Director of Finance & Corporate Resources (No.287) providing details of a call-in submitted in relation to the decision made by Cabinet (2 April 2008) on the extension of “Pay & Display” to new areas around the borough. The decision had been included on Publication of Decision List No.76/07-08 (Ref.4/76/07-08) issued on 4 April 2008. - 812 - OVERVIEW & SCRUTINY COMMITTEE - 24.4.2008 The Committee was advised that this decision had been called-in for review by 8 members of the Council. The reasons provided for the call-in had been as follows: • Consultation had not been clarified or illustrated and no resident views recorded. • Proposals made whilst Area Reviews and Place Shaping were underway. • No report had been provided on the financial impact on businesses. • The Parking Review had not yet been published and was still to report its findings. The alternative action proposed under the call-in was for the decision to be referred back to Cabinet for reconsideration with a request for implementation to be delayed until completion of the Area and Place Shaping reviews (where appropriate) and Parking Strategy & Policy Review. The members who had called-in the decision did feel that it was outside of the Council’s budget or policy framework, on the grounds that it had been taken before the Parking Strategy & Policy Review had been completed. NOTED 1. The following issues highlighted by Councillor Rodin (representing the members who had called the decision in for review) in support of the call-in: a. Concern was expressed that the Cabinet decision had been made in advance of the Parking Strategy & Policy Review having been completed. It was felt the extension of Pay & Display needed to be considered as part of an overall package of measures and approach towards a Parking Strategy across the borough. b. Concern was also expressed at the potential impact that the introduction of Pay & Display schemes may have specifically in relation to the following areas identified within the Cabinet report: • Ponders End – given the economic impact from the departure of Middlesex University and fact that the area had not previously been subject to parking charges. It was also felt the introduction of any Pay & Display scheme needed to be considered on a co-ordinated basis alongside the proposals being developed under the Place Shaping agenda & Area Action Plan; • Fords Grove – given the previous attempts to introduce charges and potential displacement of parking this may cause in neighbouring residential streets. c. In addition concerns were raised about the parking problems being experienced in Bowes specifically as a result of the introduction of a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) on the border by Haringey and commuter parking adjacent to Arnos Grove Tube station. 2. The following comments from Councillor Neville (Cabinet member for Environment & Street Scene) in response to the call-in: a. Whilst acknowledging that the Parking Strategy & Policy Review had been delayed it was anticipated that the final report would be available by May/June 08. The Cabinet decision had however recognised this - 813 - OVERVIEW & SCRUTINY COMMITTEE - 24.4.2008 with specific reference to the fact that any subsequent implementation of Pay & Display schemes would need to take account of the Parking Review. b. The decision made by Cabinet was only seeking approval to undertake impact assessments on the areas identified at this stage. Once the impact assessments had been completed a further report would be provided and this would form the basis of a formal statutory and non- statutory consultation process. The outcome of this process would then need to be presented to members for final approval before any implementation of schemes could proceed. c. The Cabinet decision was not designed to contradict any outcome from the Parking Strategy & Policy Review. Whilst not yet published the draft Parking Review report had identified the benefit of Pay & Display schemes in areas with recognised parking pressures as a means of ensuring a turn over of vehicles. All of the areas identified within the Cabinet report were recognised to have parking pressure. d. Enfield Business Retail Association (EBRA) had been involved in discussions over the use of Pay & Display schemes and support had been expressed for their introduction in specific areas. As an example the Committee had been provided with a letter of support from EBRA for the schemes in Winchmore Hill Green and Broadway. e. As part of the impact assessment process, consideration would need to be given to business support for any scheme and also its potential impact given the current circumstances in specific areas such as Ponders End. f. Although not directly related to the call-in, the Committee was advised that Enfield had objected to the introduction of the CPZ by Haringey on the border with Bowes in view of concerns regarding parking displacement. The CPZ had however been introduced and despite an indication to the contrary from the Mayor for London, Transport for London had advised that no funding would be available to assist in addressing the impact of the scheme in Enfield. Alternative funding bids were therefore being considered for the introduction of a potential CPZ in Bowes. At the same time the Committee was reminded that the proposals agreed by Cabinet related to Pay & Display schemes in local retail centres being funded as potential invest to save schemes and not CPZs. The following issues were raised by members of the Committee in response to the call-in: (a) Details were sought by Councillor Smith on the proposed timescale for the impact assessments. Gary Barnes advised that subject to the outcome of the call-in these were due to be commissioned within the next 4 weeks. (b) the need to recognise the individual circumstances within each area where impact assessments on the possible introduction of Pay & Display schemes were being undertaken. In terms of the consultation process Councillor Neville confirmed that a balanced approach would need to be - 814 - OVERVIEW & SCRUTINY COMMITTEE - 24.4.2008 taken when considering any views submitted particularly in relation to any differences between traders and local residents. (c) concerns were raised by Councillors Goddard & Georgiou about the decision to proceed with the impact assessments in advance of the outcome from the Parking Strategy & Policy Review having been finalised and members provided with an opportunity to consider them in more detail. In view of this, queries were raised as to whether the use of £64k to fund these assessments represented the most effective use of Council resources. Councillor Neville replied by reminding the Committee that Cabinet had not felt the decision to approve the impact assessments would contradict the final outcome from the Parking Review. In addition the Committee was advised that the Parking Review had been designed to focus on the overall parking strategy across the borough and how best to structure future provision given the competing demands rather than on the basic parking hierarchy. (d) Councillor Pipe, supported by Councillor Hayward, felt that it would be possible for the impact assessment process to commence alongside completion of the Parking Review given that it was likely the assessment process would not be completed until after the Review had been finalised and fact that Cabinet had made it clear that the subsequent implementation of any schemes would need to take account of the Review. The following issues were raised by other councillors and stakeholders present at the meeting: (a) general support was expressed by representatives from EBRA in support of the principles behind introduction of Pay & Display in town centres. At the same time, however, the need was highlighted to ensure that: • account was taken of the individual circumstances within each area including the setting of parking charges and potential for the introduction of an initial free 15 minute parking period; • full consultation was undertaken on any proposals; • any implementation was undertaken on a joined-up and co- ordinated basis with