Agenda, decisions and minutes

To receive apologies from Members of the Sub-Committee.

No apologies for absence were received.

The Chair to announce any items of urgent business circulated separately from the main agenda.

There were no items of urgent business.

Members to declare any personal and financial interests in items on the agenda. Attention is drawn to the Council’s Constitution; the Council’s Code of Conduct and associated advice.

Resolved-

That the list of Councillors’ memberships as Council appointed representatives on outside bodies, joint committees and school governing bodies is noted.

Members are requested to confirm as an accurate record the Minutes of the meeting held on 24 July 2023.

No motion or discussion may take place upon the Minutes except as to their accuracy, and any question on this point will be determined by a majority of the Members of the body attending who were present when the matter in question was decided. Once confirmed, with or without amendment, the person presiding will sign the Minutes

Resolved –

That the Minutes of the meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Call-in Sub-Committee held on 24 July 2023 be agreed and signed as a true and accurate record.

To consider the call-in of the Cabinet Member decision

Referred the decision back to the Cabinet Member for Climate Action, Environment & Transport, and requested that she consider the following comments when re-evaluating the decision made on February 29th.

1)   In light of the comments raised tonight, ensure she is satisfied with the adequacy of consultation that has taken place and will take place if the experimental order is implemented.

2)   Consider the amendments proposed by officers in the call-in report and addendum.

3)   Reflect on the specific comments made about specific roads.

4)   If the experimental order goes ahead, ensure there are adequate arrangements in place for monitoring impact, in particular for boundary roads and neighbouring areas.

The Sub-Committee was addressed by the signatory to the first call-in, Councillor Matt Hartley, who expressed concerns about potential disruptions to neighbouring areas, particularly Charlton. He emphasised that while he supports the principle of LTNs, their introduction should be based on demonstrated public support. He criticised the consultation process, highlighting that a significant percentage of respondents expressed negative opinions about the proposed options, yet the Council proceeded with only minor adjustments to the scheme.

Councillor Hartley raised specific issues regarding the consultation's integrity, noting that many residents felt the process was flawed and biased. He pointed out that the Council distributed a campaigning leaflet advocating for the scheme after the consultation had closed, which undermined public confidence. He questioned whether the decision to move forward with the scheme was predetermined, regardless of the feedback received, and sought clarity on how the Council planned to address the substantial opposition noted in the consultation responses.

In discussing the impacts on neighbouring areas, Councillor Hartley argued that the consultation did not adequately reach residents outside the immediate scheme area, who would be affected by increased traffic. He cited specific increases in vehicle traffic from previous schemes, contrasting them with the Council's reliance on contested academic studies that downplayed such impacts. He posed questions regarding the Council's willingness to proactively communicate with neighbouring residents in future consultations and whether they acknowledged the expected traffic increases in Charlton as a result of the scheme.

Councillor Hartley proposed an alternative decision, suggesting that the Council should develop a wider range of options that could command public support and conduct a thorough consultation on these options. He emphasized the need for an unbiased and inclusive approach to ensure that all affected residents have a voice in the decision-making process. As an interim measure, he recommended a specific consultation on the amended proposal to gauge public support for the changes made in response to the initial feedback.

In response to questions from the Sub-Committee, Councillor Hartley advised that the consultation questions were perceived as biased towards the Council's policy of reducing car use through traffic management schemes. He stated that while residents could express negative opinions, there was no opportunity to fundamentally oppose the entire approach. He added that questions focused on specific aspects of the scheme to be introduced, rather than allowing broader opposition.

In response to the first call-in, The Cabinet Member addressed concerns about the consultation process and decision-making for the neighbourhood traffic management scheme. She emphasised that the consultation was extensive, exceeding statutory requirements, and open to all respondents. While most respondents were from West Greenwich and East Greenwich, significant participation from outside the directly contacted area was noted. She rejected claims of predetermination, stating that while the council's policy supports a shift in travel behaviour, the consultations were genuine listening exercises that directly influenced the preferred option.

Regarding the consideration of consultation results, the Cabinet Member highlighted that the decision report detailed how feedback shaped the recommendations. Significant amendments were made to the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.