The papers for the meeting of the Environment & Sustainability Overview & Scrutiny Committee to be held on Thurs 17 July at 7:30 pm in the Salon, York House, Richmond Rd, Twickenham have been published

Here are the Officers’ Recommendations and Cllr Trigg’s responses to the points raised at the Transport Consultative Group [TCG] on June 18:

’Recommendation: That the Committee either:

2.1 Note the decision made by the Cabinet Member; or

2.2 Refer the decision back to the Cabinet Member for further consideration;

2.3 Specifically decide upon which of the two consultation options set out in paragraph 4.4 you prefer in the knowledge that the Cabinet Member for Traffic, Transport and Parking is prepared to accept either option; and

2.4 Note and agree the proposed further consultation for The Mews
and the service road off Bridge Road.

4. Response to call in issues

4.1 The following comments are made in response to the specific reasons for the call in.

4.2 “The due processes and consultations were flawed.”

The first reason for call-in is very general and it is therefore not possible to
provide a specific response. However, from the discussion at the TCG on 18
June 2008 six particular issues were raised and these are addressed below.

Issue No 1

“Results of the first stage June 2007 consultation showed a large majority against the introduction of a CPZ in St Margarets and the decision should not have been made to progress the study to a second stage consultation.”

The consultation was undertaken in line with the Council’s CPZ policy and procedures. The first stage consultation involved 43 roads and 2256 properties and was analysed on a road by road basis. While the first consultation showed an overall majority responding against a CPZ, the results showed support for a CPZ in the Moormead area and Orchard Road. The zone boundary was therefore reduced in response to the first consultation to include those roads that wished to be included, while leaving the other roads out and further consulting.

The two roads included in the proposed implementation of the CPZ extension show a majority in support. It was explained in the consultation letter that the Cabinet Member will consider proposals in full or in part on a street by street basis.

Issue No 2

“Results of the second stage results continue to show a majority against the
CPZ”.

As with the first stage consultation, the results were analysed on a road by road basis. The results showed support for a proposed extension in Bridge Road and Winchester Road and the Cabinet Member decided in line with the Council’s CPZ policy to implement the CPZ extension in these two roads.

Issue No 3

“Extending the CPZ to Bridge Road and Winchester Road will result in displacement to all other roads in the Moormead area.”

The Council is aware that the introduction of the CPZ extension could result
in the displacement of vehicles to roads not included in the extension. The
Council will review the introduction of the CPZ extension after six months of
operation.

Issue No 4

“Why has Sidney Road been excluded from the CPZ when the majority of respondents are in favour on Question 1 and further support is shown in Question 2?”

The results on Question 1 show a marginal number in favour of the CPZ extension (out of 54 who returned their questionnaires 27 (50%) voted in favour with 26 (48%) voting against with one (2%) undecided. The results from Question 2 show that a further eight residents would support the CPZ extension if adjacent roads had the CPZ extension introduced. With the exception of Winchester Road, the adjacent roads did not vote in favour of the CPZ and these were Kenley Road, Moormead Road and South Western Road.

Issue No 5

“There is a discrepancy in the number of properties in Winchester Road. The figure for the first stage consultation shows that there were 71 properties and the second stage shows 90 properties.”

The Council uses a property database to establish the number of properties in each road. Prior to undertaking a consultation, the Council will request an up to date list of all properties to ensure that any amendments since the last consultation have been included. This discrepancy is currently being investigated and a response will be provided at the meeting.

Issue No 6

“Addresses in The Mews were not consulted on the proposals.”

The properties in The Mews all have St Margarets Road addresses but are not part of the existing CPZ. The address database originally identified three addresses in The Mews, Nos 2, 3 and 4 and all three were sent a letter explaining the proposals for the proposed extension. The letter explained the formal consultation process which included the invitation to make representations to the proposals during the consultation period. (This is contained within Appendix A of the report to TCG on 18 June 2008). An audit of the properties show that there are in fact six properties all occupied as at 8 July 2008. These proposals did not include any proposed parking controls for The Mews.

No specific representations were received from the properties in The Mews. However, given the proposed inclusion of Bridge Road in the CPZ, it is recommended that The Mews properties are further consulted together with No 14 Bridge Road regarding the immediate inclusion of The Mews into the CPZ by way of an experimental traffic order or whether they wish The Mews to remain as present outside the CPZ with its position further considered as part of the six month post-implementation review.

There is an unnamed service road on the opposite side of Bridge Road to The Mews. This flanks No 1 Bridge Road and provides rear access to Nos 157 – 165 St Margarets Road. This is public highway and it is proposed to further consult the immediately adjacent properties on its inclusion in the CPZ in a similar manner to The Mews.

4.3 “That the review in 6 months time be open to all the residents who were originally consulted; and that the extent of consultation should not be circumscribed by local councillors and the Transport Consultative Group.”

4.4 The six month review will involve monitoring the initial operation of the new controls to see how they have worked and whether any restrictions are necessary. While it is possible to speculate as to what operational issues might arise following implementation, officer advice at TCG was to await operational experience before defining the extent of any consultation considered with the review, and then agreeing that extent with the ward councillors. This would enable the review to be properly focussed where there are perceived to be issues. If the Committee are unhappy with this approach and wish to predetermine the extent of the consultation then officers would advise that the second stage consultation area is selected together with any other adjacent roads where particular issues have emerged. You are accordingly asked to specifically decide between these two options. The Cabinet Member for Traffic, Transport and Parking has advised that he would be prepared to accept either option.’