Issue - meetings

Forward Plan Ref: 2021/098

Contact: Naomi Barnes, Project Manager Tel: 07824 528681

Report by Corporate Director Environment & Place (CMHM4).

The report sets out the results of a pre-statutory consultation for a proposal to introduce a Low Traffic Neighbourhood scheme in East Oxford.  This would cover the areas of Divinity Road, St Mary’s and St Clement’s.  This includes key findings on which areas and filters are more widely supported or objected and by which user group.

The Cabinet Member for Highways management is RECOMMENDED to:

a.         Note the responses to the non-statutory consultation on the east Oxford low traffic neighbourhood including quietways (LTN).

b.        Agree that officers review the options based on the consultation output, update the proposals and reconsult

c.         Agree that the outcome of consultation on revised proposals be reported to a future Cabinet Member for Highways management meeting

d.        Instruct officers to fully assess the impact of the delay on resources and budget on the wider Active Travel programme.

Approved

Approved but having regard to the substantive arguments which are now known thatconsultation should be very specifically targeted and measured.

.

Approved

Approved

The Cabinet Member for Highways Management considered (CMDHM4) the results of a pre-statutory consultation for a proposal to introduce a Low Traffic Neighbourhood scheme in East Oxford covering the areas of Divinity Road, St Mary’s and St Clement’s and including key findings on which areas and filters were more widely supported or objected to and by which user group.

Prior to the public presentations the Cabinet Member read out the following statement:

“Doubts have been raised as to whether decisions with regard to LTNs are able to be made by an individual Cabinet Member at a delegated decision meeting or by the full Cabinet on the grounds that as the LTN crosses multiple cabinet competencies. Those doubts have been raised under Part 4.4 of the Oxfordshire County Council Constitution (Cabinet Delegated Decisions).

That section read: “In the event of a difference of view arising on what constitutes a “material departure” or “major implication”, the Leader of the Council will, if the question cannot be resolved by other means, determine whether or not reference should be made to the full Cabinet…”

He then confirmed that there had been no difference of view as the context here was the difference of view between Cabinet members, not between any other parties.  As such there was and had been no discussion about whether the matter should be referred to the Full Cabinet and it would be the Head of Paid Service (i.e. Chief Executive) who would liaise with the Leader of the Council over such an issue. There was no suggestion in paragraph 4.4 that it would be a routine matter for there to be such disagreement as it simply provided a mechanism for resolving any such intra-Cabinet disagreement.

This matter had featured in the first Forward Plan after the formation of the new Cabinet, quite clearly marked as a single delegated decision and the Cabinet Member confirmed that no discussions had taken place between the Leader of the Council and the Chief Executive for any requirement for this process to change and to be considered by full Cabinet and that this issue had always been intended as a delegated decision as evidenced by the Forward Plan history. It was not considered that this was a decision that had major implications for more than one portfolio, although it had been recognised that like many decisions it would have effects on other portfolio areas.

Mazhar Dogar spoke both as a lifelong resident of Oxford and on behalf of the Cowley Traders Association. LTNs had proved to be the most divisive and contentious issue he had experienced and a recent consultation of over 200 businesses many of whom were independent traders showed an overwhelming number opposing the LTN proposals. Those businesses had over the last 18 months faced huge problems and continued to do so. They needed support and assurances from the County Council but instead had been ignored from day one of this process with little or no consultation or involvement in its design  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4