The Pre-Decision Scrutiny Questions, and officer responses, were noted.

DECISION

1.    To note the results of the public consultation and engagement with businesses in the Brick Lane area.

2.    To approve Option One (of the two options set out on the report).

3.    To note that the Apprendix C – Equalities Impact Assessment to the report identifies a number of positive and negative impacts of the options upon individuals that share particular protected characteristics (summarised in paragraphs 4.1 – 4.3 of the report).

Action by:

INTERIM CORPORATE DIRECTOR, COMMUNITIES (RAJ MISTRY)

(Interim Director, Public Realm (S. Baxter)

(Interim Head of Highways and Transportation (A. Ali)

The Pre-Decision Scrutiny Questions, and officer responses, were noted.

For the record of discussion on this item, see minute for Item 6.4 Liveable Streets Bethnal Green consultation outcome and measures. The two items were considered together.

RESOLVED

1.    To note the results of the public consultation and engagement with businesses in the Brick Lane area.

2.    To approve Option One (of the two options set out on the report).

3.    To note that the Appendix C – Equalities Impact Assessment to the report identifies a number of positive and negative impacts of the options upon individuals that share particular protected characteristics (summarised in paragraphs 4.1 – 4.3 of the report).

4.1          Liveable Streets

The Committee considered the report that is to be considered by the Mayor in Cabinet on the 20 of September 2023. The report was presented by Simon Baxter, Interim Director of Public Realm, Raj Mistry, Interim Corporate Director Communities, Ashraf Ali, Group Manager Network Management presented the report.

Members made the following comments and questions:

• The public consultation made it clear the public has interest in continuing low traffic neighbourhoods. Can officers explain why road closures with mitigations was not explored within the paper, when other options were detailed? Officers stated that the paper is to advise members on the potential options, on what is considered a decisive public issues, not all options could be explored.
• Can officers provide more detail on the air quality data within the report, compared to areas without these measures? Officers confirmed that a number of factors see low air quality, including the type of vehicles used and number of vehicles in the area.
• Please detail the post consultation process with local residents within the target areas? Officers confirmed there was no engagement, as members are still being consulted on the various elements of the plan.
• Has there been engagement with emergency services on consultation? Officers referred to the report, highlighting the impact road closures could have on emergency vehicles.
• As ward councillors, we are not seeing any awareness of the consultation. Did the council ensure there was community engagement around the consultation, to ensure a diverse background took part? Officers stated that the consultation is flawed and did not use all the communication tools that the council has to engage with the borough on a correct scale.
• It feels like there has been no policy journey to ensure that the proposals bring in those who are supportive of liveable streets and those who are critical.
• The council has taken funding for many liveable street proposals, would it mean if changes were made, we would have to refund the TfL funding? Officers confirmed funding would not need to be refunded.
• The report details that some women who took part in the consultation did not feel safe, due to less traffic on the roads. The council should be acting on this data to make our streets safer.
• Are there any revenue generation schemes around the proposals? Officers stated there are no current plans.

The chair welcomed members to submit in writing further comments on the report.

The chair welcomed residents from Bethnal Green to address the committee to give feedback on the liveable streets scheme and the consultation. Residents highlighted the importance of air quality, the impact changes will have on disabled residents and how responses from the police, the local hospital and other stakeholders should have been taken into account.

Members made the following comments and questions:

• What caused residents to become more interested in supporting the liveable street scheme? Residents stated that it was seeing the benefits it brought to the local area, particularly vulnerable residents. But also, the council should  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4