Agenda and decisions

Venue: This will be held as a virtual online meeting

Contact: James Kinsella, Governance Manager  Tel: 020 8937 2063; Email: james.kinsella@brent.gov.uk

Note: The press and public are welcome to attend this as an online virtual meeting. The link to view proceedings can be accessed via the Live Streaming section on the Democracy page of the Council's website or through the link on the agenda frontsheet 

Media

Items
No. Item

1.

Apologies for Absence

Additional documents:

Decision:

An apology for absence was received from Councillor Conneely.

 

Apologies for lateness were received from Councillors Ethapemi and Hirani.

2.

Declarations of Interest

Members are invited to declare at this stage of the meeting, the nature and existence of any relevant disclosable pecuniary, personal or prejudicial interests in the items on this agenda and to specify the item(s) to which they relate.

Additional documents:

Decision:

None received.

3.

Deputations

To hear any deputations, agreed in accordance with Standing Order 32.

Additional documents:

Decision:

NOTED the following deputations received at the meeting:

 

·                Joel Davidson, on behalf of the Brondesbury Park Residents Association objecting to the Local Traffic Neighbourhood proposals in their area.

·                Mark Falcon, on behalf of Brent Cleaner Air Campaign highlighting their support for the principles and objectives behind Brent’s Active Travel Programme alongside the need for effective local engagement and monitoring.

·                Charlie Fernandes, on behalf of the Brent Cycling Campaign highlighting their support for Health Low Traffic Neighbourhoods.

4.

Petitions

For Members to consider any petitions submitted with more than 200 signatures, in accordance with the Council’s petition rules and Standing Order 66.

Additional documents:

Decision:

NOTED

 

1.          the following petitions presented at the meeting:

 

·                   Yogi Pandya – objecting to proposals within the Brent Active Travel Plan: Preston Area (PM29).

·                   Alexandra Kelly – objecting to the Low Traffic Neighbourhood proposals in the Kensal, Brondesbury & Queens Park Area (LTN 19).

·                   Christopher Mahon (on behalf of Kilburn Village Residents Association) – objecting to the Low Traffic Neighbourhood proposals in the Kilburn Area (LTN20).

 

2.          The response from the Lead Member for Regeneration, Property & Planning to both the deputations and petitions, which highlighted:

 

·                   the trial nature of the proposals which had been designed to address the climate emergency and encourage more active and local modes of travel;

·                   the need to ensure full cooperation and collaboration in recognition of the concerns raised, along with the wide ranging nature of the discussions and engagement undertaken to date and planned moving forward;

·                   the fast tracked nature of the government’s conditional funding made available to support the initiative and context within which the proposals had needed to be developed.  Whilst this had required consultation and engagement to be undertaken as part of the active trials, the Council was keen to encourage further local active participation and engagement as the experimental Healthy Neighbourhood schemes continued to be developed.

5.

Motions - Healthy Neighbourhoods Schemes pdf icon PDF 64 KB

In accordance with Standing Order 29, to debate the motion submitted by the members who have requisitioned this Extraordinary meeting of the Council.

 

A copy of the motion to be debated has been attached.

 

Also attached for consideration as a supplementary item (published on 15 October 2020) is a proposed amendment, submitted by the Labour Group, to the original motion.

Additional documents:

Decision:

Council RESOLVED to approve the following substantive motion (as amended):

 

Healthy Neighbourhoodsand their part in addressing air quality and climate change

 

That this Council:

 

§    embraces its obligations to ensure that every possible intervention against climate change is considered and explored;

 

§    recognises that air quality in this borough falls well below the standards that should be expected, not least in relation its impact on the physical health and wellbeing of its residents;

 

§    endorses the intention underpinning Brent’s experimental ‘Healthy Neighbourhoods’;

 

§    acknowledges the unorthodox conditions attached to conditional government funding necessitating public consultation and engagement within the six-month period of these low traffic trials and not prior to them as might more commonly be expected;

 

§    welcomes the many lessons that have been, are being, and will continue to be learned throughout this programme with regards to the initiative itself and the manner in which the organisation interacts with the communities it serves;

 

§    highlights the progress already made through planned and promoted public meetings, thanks each and every participant for their invaluable contributions thus far;

 

§    thanks those responsible within the organisation for their efforts to date, and commits itself – in light of the importance of these measures as a first tangible foray against climate change set in the context of the new behaviours and habits that they are designed to encourage – to continue providing comprehensive updates to the appropriate forums and committees, this one included, at the earliest opportunity, covering, but not limited to, the following:

 

-        Clarity of the rationale for the introduction of these temporary measures in the various areas;

 

-        Details about how these areas are chosen;

 

-        How we anticipate that they will impact on the council’s active travel, clean air, and climate change targets;

 

-        What stakeholder engagement is involved;

 

-        Comment on how the relative real or perceived pros and cons of these schemes will be weighted and proposed mitigations for addressing concerns of those residents that might feel that others’ ‘gains’ are their ‘losses’;

 

-        Consideration of the risk that some measures may increase congestion elsewhere and the implications that may have on emissions;

 

-        An explanation of overall methodology – including ensuring an adequate baseline for evaluating outcomes, including the goal of lower overall traffic how these schemes will be monitored, and how their viability will be assessed.

 

Councillors Colwill, Kansagra and Maurice abstained from voting on the amendment to the original motion and substantive motion (as amended) set out above, advising that as an alternative they supported the wording of the original motion.