Agenda item

The Chair explained that this topic had been brought forward by Councillors Krupa Sheth (Lead Member for Environment, Brent Council and Shama Tatler (Lead Member for Regeneration, Property & Planning, Brent Council) and they introduced the item to the Committee.

Councillor Tatler noted that this item was raised as the result of a Cabinet paper, and was a policy area that was introduced following emergency transport initiatives from central Government. The Council had explored an ambitious programme around school streets and healthy neighbourhoods; and following significant community interest in the matter the Council committed to a full engagement and independent consultation process. One of the overwhelming responses from residents was noted as reducing traffic, improving air quality as well as road safety. Residents had also expressed a desire to be involved in the co design of these initiatives, which was being embarked upon and continued. It was also announced that following analysis of the consultation on the new school streets programme, there would be 26 school streets made permanent in Brent, which was a total of 28 schools. This would mean that young people were able to walk more safely and active travel would be encouraged across Brent. It was explained that the name ‘Healthy Neighbourhoods’ was used in order to have a broader scope from which to consult with residents. The Council was also looking at establishing a team dedicated to healthy streets and parking agenda, which would look at how the Mayor of London’s objectives were supported.

The Committee was then invited to raise questions on the information provided, which focussed on a number of key areas, as highlighted below:

·                Regarding the funding from central government, it was asked how much funding was received for the school streets project and whether CCTV had been utilised in the deployment of the scheme. It was noted that the money was not specifically for school streets but also for the Healthy Neighbourhoods programme; this money had not come from the Brent revenue account but from Central Government. It was noted that due to the project requiring to be delivered at pace, rather than CCTV, planters and bollards had been a more effective solution. A policy was now being explored as to how CCTV cameras could be introduced within active travel schemes.

·                It was asked how much funding had been received; it was noted that the funding had been received in different phases. It was noted that there was around £130,000 was received in the first instance.

·                It was asked how the maintenance of school streets would work, to which it was answered that the status of new school streets was dependent on the financial status of TFL. The Committee was updated that when ANPR cameras were installed, this would be funded by TFL. Based on the assessments of the first two trials, the monies from Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) would cover the cost of the cameras.

·                In relation to school cameras, the Committee asked for an explanation as to why these were being installed; it was updated that these were in place to stop non-residential traffic from entering school pickup and drop off areas. Residents who lived on those roads would still have access, as well as exemptions such as blue badge holders. 

·                In relation to Project Centre Ltd and Living Streets, the Committee asked for clarification on the cost to date relating to work they had undertaken, to which it was answered that with Living Streets, this had totalled £25,000, and the technical assessments for the Healthy Neighbourhoods scheme had totalled around £28,000. This was money that had been bid for from TFL grants.

·                In relation to a query around Living Streets’ objectivity, it was answered that Living Streets were experienced in the area of active travel. Whilst it was acknowledged that the organisation had a particular view on active travel, this was also shared by the Council. In terms of engagement, there were lessons to be learned about how this was conducted, particularly as this was a divisive policy area.

·                Considering consultation, it was noted whilst there was learning to be gained from this; it would be useful to investigate this further. A quote from Brent Cycling Campaign was highlighted, asserting that the Council had not acknowledged its responsibility in the failure of the implementation of the programme. With that in mind, it was asked whether, as a Council, the challenges in the original consultation had an effect on the negative outcomes received from the public. It was answered that the speed of the scheme would not have been as fast if Brent were in control, and it was accepted that the ambitious plans may have been overwhelming to residents. It was also acknowledged that resident buy in was crucial, and the learning was around how to make the next iteration of this policy better, including that a one size fits all policy was not practical in Brent. It was posed that, though it was not Council core funding, the consultation could be perceived as wasteful, to which it was responded that 28 school streets ought not to be considered a failure and that learning had been taken for the Council. It was also noted as important learning in line with the Council’s aim to improve air quality and become carbon neutral by 2032.

·                In response to the consultation, it was noted that the Council had been mandated by the Government to hit target dates, and therefore the responsibility lay with the Government in terms of the consultation. Had the Council had the chance to conduct elements, it may have been better received. In relation to the quote from the Brent Cycling Campaign, it was noted that the Council had regular conversations with cyclists in relation to these policies.

·                The Committee asked for more detail regarding lessons learned and how this would affect future consultations; as well as the Council’s understanding between collaboration and consultation. In terms of lessons learned, one example cited was how air quality data was collected, as well as educating residents around air quality. In terms of consultation, it was stated that once the ANPR policies had been established, that there would be collaboration with residents and this could be brought back to scrutiny. It was also stated that a new service had been created recently to establish this new policy direction throughout 2022.  

·                Considering the consultation and collaboration around Healthy Neighbourhoods, it was asked whether this reflected consultation across the Council, to which it was answered that this would be better directed towards Councillor Knight.

·                It was asked if the initial consultation should have been ongoing with residents; it was noted that online consultation was open to all residents and there had been good engagement. It was clarified that the broader consultation structure of the Council was far more collaborative and emphasised co-design, citing the Citizens Lab initiative as well as the Black Community Action Plan. 

·                In relation to pollution and offsetting traffic, it was asked whether there were statistics available to show this effectiveness, to which it was answered that some schemes were not able to be fully implemented due to Local Ambulance Service requirements. It was reiterated that longer would have been required to ascertain a more detailed plan around collecting data. It was also noted that due to periods of Lockdown, it was not easy to determine the results of schemes.

·                In a wider point around consultation, it was asked whether the Council was formally adopting a review of its consultation structures, to which it was clarified that this was not a formal process, but looking at how this consultation and design could be improved.

It was RESOLVED:

(1)     That the following areas for improvement be noted:

·         For the Council to demonstrate how the lessons learned in relation to public consultation undertaken on the Schools Streets and Healthy (Low Traffic) Neighbourhood schemes will inform the Council’s wider consultation and engagement approach

(2)     The Committee made the following information requests:

·         To receive a breakdown of the funding received by Brent Council for the Schools Streets and Healthy (Low Traffic) Neighbourhood schemes and the proportion of this funding that remains unspent.