Agenda item

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.

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.

Before moving on to consider the motion listed on the summons, the Mayor reminded members that, in accordance with Standing Orders, a total of 30 minutes had been set aside for consideration of the motion submitted for debate.

 

The Mayor then invited Councillor Gill to move the motion submitted by the members who had requisitioned the Extraordinary Council meeting.

 

In moving the motion Councillor Gill outlined why the members who had requisitioned the meeting had felt it necessary to do so, highlighting the strong and extensive level of representations received from members of the public and important issues being raised as a result.  Many of the concerns raised had been in relation to the lack of prior public consultation, although it was recognised that the process of engagement and consultation had been a result of the way in which central government had sought to introduce active trials.  Whilst those members who had submitted the motion retained faith in officers and the Lead Member in being able to justify the schemes, the need had been identified to ensure the background to their introduction was clearly explained and was seen more clearly in the context of the global climate emergency and concerns regarding air quality and pollution within Brent.  The difficulty in making meaningful changes to the environment in order to address the climate emergency and air pollution had been recognised, along with residents’ desire to see change which, in summing up, he felt highlighted the need to ensure the background, aims and flexibility behind the plans were fully explained along with the relevant outcomes and review process.  This had been what the motion sought to achieve.

 

Following the original motion being moved, the Mayor advised Members of an amendment submitted by Councillor Donnelly-Jackson, the details of which had been included with the supplementary agenda published in advance of the meeting and were set out below.  Councillor Donnelly-Jackson formally moved the amendment, highlighting what she felt was the need for the Council to continue taking a proactive and courageous approach in the face of the climate emergency.  Highlighting the Council’s commitment to being carbon-neutral by 2030, she felt it important to recognise the impact of pollution and poor air quality as a well-known cause of health issues, particularly within Brent.

 

Focussing on the pandemic, she felt this provided a unique opportunity to reimagine and adapt the borough’s streets, taking account of the financial support being provided by central government, which would provide more space for both pedestrians and cyclists.  Recognising that the Low Traffic & Healthy Neighbourhood proposals were experimental, Councillor Donnelly-Jackson pointed out there was much evidence at home and abroad that these schemes could have the desired effect with the amendment to the motion also accepting the importance and welcoming active scrutiny of the proposals as they continued to be developed.

 

The amendment moved was as follows:

 

“Title: Healthy Neighbourhoods Scheme (add) and their part in addressing air quality and climate change

 

TO ADD AT THE START:

 

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:

 

TO THEN AMEND THE WORDING OF THE ORIGINAL MOTION AS FOLLOWS:

 

Replace:

 

To instruct the Lead Member for Regeneration, Property & Planning to provide a comprehensive rational for the introduction of the temporary Heathy Neighbourhoods in the various areas.

 

With:

 

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

 

Breakdown and replace the remaining list as follows:

 

This to provide details about how these areas have been chosen;

 

-                             Details about how these areas are chosen;

 

how it impact targets; mitigations, if any; viability of the monitoring of the scheme;

 

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

 

what prior public and stakeholder engagement has taken plac;

 

-                             What stakeholder engagement is involved;

 

the equity of the trade-off between loser residential streets and gainers;

 

-                      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’;

 

the risk of increased congestion on certain residential roads and implications on emissions;

 

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

 

the methodology to be used to evaluate the outcome, notably the goal of lower overall traffic volumes; and the measurements in place to secure adequate baseline data for ALL streets affected (including the connector roads).

 

-                      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”

 

The Mayor then invited other Members to speak on both the original motion and amendment, which had been moved, with the following contributions received.

 

Councillor Dar opened the debate by praising the intentions of those in support of healthy low traffic neighbourhoods, and those members and officers involved in their implementation.  The schemes were, however, deemed unsuitable for Cricklewood given its location within the borough and important access links to important routes in surrounding areas.

 

Councillor Shahzad sympathised with cyclists and pedestrians and the impact that motor vehicle use had on air pollution levels, yet was not convinced that low traffic neighbourhoods were on their own the best way to reduce air pollution in the borough. It was suggested that the schemes would displace and encourage more traffic on main routes and therefore increase air pollution levels around them, with the need for more emphasis on encouraging the use of e-cars and prior consultation with affected stakeholders.

 

Councillor Kennelly, whilst recognising and supporting the public health benefits of the healthy neighbourhood proposals felt it was also important to focus on the concerns raised in relation to the level of public engagement and consultation prior to their implementation, as the cornerstone of local democracy.  The limited engagement of local residents to date had created concern given the material impact of the measures locally.  Speaking in support of the petition presented by Yogi Patel earlier in the meeting, he also questioned the suitability of the measures in Preston ward, which according to the Council’s own standards had lower levels of emissions and congestion, narrower roads and more green space than many other areas within the borough.  Concerns had also been raised about the design of the scheme, specifically given its impact on accessibility for more vulnerable local residents with the Lead Member urged to think again in terms of implementation to ensure a more targeted approach and to achieve the benefits being sought across the borough as a whole.

 

Councillor Kansagra began by thanking all local residents and stakeholders who had spoken earlier during the meeting for their contributions and supported the concerns raised about the low traffic neighbourhoods proposals appearing to have had been rushed through by the Council with little regard for the interests of local residents.  Whilst supportive of the need to tackle climate and air quality concerns he felt, if properly consulted, local residents would have been able to suggest alternative proposals more suited to their local areas. The Council was therefore encouraged to avoid rushing implementation and instead to work with local residents in implementing the schemes moving forward in order to avoid further local opposition and ensure the necessary level of engagement and consultation.

 

Councillor Nerva emphasised the need to encourage less traffic on the borough’s roads, pointing to the increase in traffic on residential roads in the past decade and the high proportion of journeys being undertaken that were under 2km or between 2km-5km and impact on air quality.  He felt this supported the need to encourage more active modes of travel, with specific examples provided within Queens Park ward.  Whilst the concern over the limited amount of prior public consultation was understood, he felt there was also a need to recognise that the requirement to implement low traffic neighbourhoods before public consultation had resulted from the way funding had been allocated for the schemes by central government.  In terms of further assurance, he also highlighted the need to recognise the experimental nature of the measures being introduced which would be subject to further consultation moving forward as the measures were developed.

 

Councillor Kelcher, taking the opportunity to address residents direct, also highlighted the air quality crisis faced within the borough, with Brent being one of the worst affected of all London boroughs in terms of air pollution.  Speaking in support of the amended motion, he felt the impact this created in terms of public health and in addressing the climate emergency needed to be fully recognised.  In this respect, low traffic neighbourhoods were seen as a proportional measure in an attempt to reduce pollution levels and improve air quality and would assist in creating a culture in which active travel was seen as the norm rather than car use for many short distance journeys.  In terms of the comments highlighted, whilst recognising the issues raised he felt that a majority of local residents understood the issues faced and would be supportive of the approach and measures being taken by the Council to tackle the climate emergency and encourage walking, cycling and the use of public transport as alternative modes of travel across borough.

 

Councillor Hassan encouraged the Council to ensure that there was appropriate consultation going forward to ensure that the measures remained in the public interest.  Highlighting her support for the proposed amendment and work of the Lead Member for Regeneration, Property & Planning in response to the concerns raised, she felt it was also important to recognise the outcome of the research undertaken in relation to the implementation of low traffic neighbourhoods, and the positive impact these schemes had achieved elsewhere.  Councillor Hasan was therefore keen to support the Council in taking any steps it could to change behaviour and reduce car usage in order to ensure the climate emergency was addressed.

 

Councillor Georgiou advised that he was also supportive of the need to address the climate emergency, including action to encourage residents to change their travel habits, the promotion of active travel as well as the provision of more affordable access to public transport.  He did feel, however, that the issues raised in relation to public consultation and engagement to date were of concern alongside the overall level of communication with local ward councillors as key stakeholders.  Given these concerns, Councillor Georgiou took the opportunity to propose that the Council set up a cross-party task group to further scrutinise the schemes and ensure the necessary outreach with local stakeholders.

 

Councillor Maurice then spoke to highlight what he felt was the anti-motorist nature of low traffic neighbourhoods, which he believed had been imposed on residents without the necessary public consultation.  Whilst supporting the need to tackle concerns relating to air quality he suggested that there were more significant causes of air pollution than neighbourhood traffic, such as overpopulation and the increase in delivered goods.  As a result, he felt the measures were likely to have the opposite effect to those intended by increasing air pollution on main roads creating additional congestion and the associated danger for pedestrians and cyclists.  Pointing out that similar concerns had also been raised in other parts of London leading in some case to schemes being removed, he encouraged the Council to consider taking the same action and postponing the implementation of any further schemes until they had been subject to due consideration and the necessary level of consultation and engagement with key stakeholders.

 

Councillor Long highlighted the benefits of low traffic neighbourhoods and the issue of tackling rat running in the borough, given the costs of installing the necessary traffic calming measures.  She therefore felt there was a need for the Council to continue being brave in tackling climate issues and in demonstrating the benefits of the experimental measures as a means of focussing public consultation.

 

Councillor Dixon, also speaking in support of the proposed amendment expressed her pride in the Council’s response and approach towards tackling the climate emergency, which she felt also honoured the wishes of younger generations across the borough.  With regard to public engagement, it was felt that retrospective consultation could be effective with the experimental nature of the trials identified as a means of the Council seeking to identify what would or would not work for residents in each area.  She also praised the work of the Lead Member for Regeneration, Property & Planning in terms of the efforts being made to engage with local residents and other key stakeholders in taking the proposals forward.

 

As the final speaker in the debate, Councillor Muhammed Butt, Leader of the Council, felt it was important for members to recognise the financial constraints and pressures under which the Council was continuing to operate following a decade of austerity and underfunding by central Government.  Thanking those members of the public and other stakeholders for their contributions at the meeting and recognising the efforts of the Lead Member in response to the issues identified, he pointed out that the introduction low traffic neighbourhoods had been designed to reflect Central Government requirements in terms of the process for their implementation and funding being allocated.  Despite the pressures and challenges identified, he took the opportunity to highlight how the Council was continuing to deliver to meet the needs and improve the quality of life for local residents of which healthy neighbourhoods were seen as one such example.  This was alongside other achievements such as being nominated as Council of the Year and delivering the Borough of Culture.  He therefore ended by urging all members to support the proposed amendment to the motion.

 

As the time available for the debate on the motion had expired, the Mayor thanked all members for their contributions and then moved on to invite Councillors Gill (as mover of the original motion) and Councillor Donnelly-Jackson (as mover of the amendment) to exercise their rights of reply.

 

As Councillor Gill had no additional comments to make, the Mayor moved straight on to Councillor Donnelly-Jackson who in summing up highlighted what she felt to be the Council’s duty to improve the quality of the lives for the residents it served.  Commenting on how proud she was of the Council’s approach in reacting to the climate emergency, she urged members to support the measures being trialled through healthy neighbourhoods as part of a smart approach to cut air pollution levels in the borough.  In recognising the importance of public engagement in this process, she ended by welcoming the ongoing efforts being made by the Lead Member for Regeneration, Property & Planning in this respect and reiterated the need for the measures to be seen as part of an overall approach towards improving the environment for all residents across the borough.

 

Having thanked Councillor Donnelly-Jackson for her closing remarks, the Mayor advised that he intended to move straight to the vote on the motion starting with the amendment, which had been moved.  The amendment, as set out above, was then put to the vote and this was declared CARRIED.

 

Councillors Kansagra, Colwill and Maurice abstained from the above decision advising they were in favour of the original motion.

 

Following its amendment, the Mayor then moved on to put the substantive motion  to the vote and this was declared CARRIED as follows.

 

“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”

 

Once again, Councillors Kansagra, Colwill and Maurice again abstained from the above decision advising they were in support of the original motion