Agenda item - Call-in Request: Pedestrian Network, Phase 2 - 17 September 2009 Cabinet decision

Report of the Director of Strategy and Governance (copy attached).

23.1 Councillor Duncan introduced the call-in request relating to the 17 September Cabinet decision on the Pedestrian Network, Phase 2. The request was not about the merits of the scheme itself but about the presentation of residents’ views in the report agreed by Cabinet.

23.2 Councillor Duncan stated that some residents’ comments had not been directly reported to Cabinet. He pointed out that Appendix C to the Cabinet report did not include ‘Residents’ amongst the list of consultees and so some residents felt that their views were not included at all, he said.

23.3 At the invitation of the Chairman, three residents addressed the meeting. Their concerns included; short time for consultation replies, more people congregating outside, noise and licensing issues, vehicle access including disabled access and loading/unloading hours for businesses and clubs, and ‘sketchy’ diagram for their area. The residents did not think their views had been reflected in the report to Cabinet, although one resident had been given extra time to submit comments.

23.4 Councillor Theobald set out the process of the development of the scheme which he said had taken objections into account as far as possible. He said Ward Members had not made representations at Cabinet on behalf of residents. Although the response rate was relatively low, he and officers were aware of residents’ concerns as consultation responses were summarised in the report; consultees are not named in reports.

23.5 Councillor Randall who had spoken at the Cabinet meeting stated that he did not feel that enough evidence was presented in the report. Councillor Mitchell who had also spoken at Cabinet said she was told full pedestrianisation could be considered for the future.

23.6 Some Members asked in view of the small numbers of reply forms completed this time, how the council could elicit more consultation responses on other issues.

23.7 It was noted that the Traffic Regulation Orders were due to be advertised and this would allow additional comment.

23.8    The Chairman proposed an alternative to formal referral back, which involved further informal consultation with local residents including facilitating discussions with the Head of Licensing as part of the ongoing process. The Cabinet Member for Environment agreed however it was important that this should not introduce undue delay into the process.

23.9  Following debate a vote was held and passed which Councillors Randall and Davey opposed. Therefore the decision was not referred back on the basis that further timely informal consultation would be held with the residents present, on the licensing and access issues that they had raised.

23.10  RESOLVED that the decision be not referred back to Cabinet for reconsideration but that further timely informal consultation be carried out as minuted above at 23.8 and 23.9.