Venue: This meeting will be held remotely. View directions
Contact: Simon Trevaskis
0208 7266000 Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Disclosure of Interests
In accordance with the Council’s Code of Conduct and the statutory provisions of the Localism Act, Members and co-opted Members of the Council are reminded that it is a requirement to register disclosable pecuniary interests (DPIs) and gifts and hospitality to the value of which exceeds £50 or multiple gifts and/or instances of hospitality with a cumulative value of £50 or more when received from a single donor within a rolling twelve month period. In addition, Members and co-opted Members are reminded that unless their disclosable pecuniary interest is registered on the register of interests or is the subject of a pending notification to the Monitoring Officer, they are required to disclose those disclosable pecuniary interests at the meeting. This should be done by completing the Disclosure of Interest form and handing it to the Democratic Services representative at the start of the meeting. The Chair will then invite Members to make their disclosure orally at the commencement of Agenda item 3. Completed disclosure forms will be provided to the Monitoring Officer for inclusion on the Register of Members’ Interests.
There were no disclosures of interest made at the meeting.
Urgent Business (if any)
To receive notice of any business not on the agenda which in the opinion of the Chair, by reason of special circumstances, be considered as a matter of urgency.
There were no items of urgent business.
Call-In: Crystal Palace and South Norwood Low Traffic Neighbourhood PDF 154 KB
To consider and respond to the Call-In in accordance with the procedure set out in the Council’s constitution.
The Chair of the Scrutiny & Overview Committee, Councillor Sean Fitzsimons introduced the Call-In of the ‘Crystal Palace and South Norwood Low Traffic Neighbourhood’ key decision. It was highlighted that two call-in requests had been received for this decision and although the Council’s Constitution only allowed one call-in per decision, it had been agreed that the spokesperson for each call-in would be allowed to address the Committee to highlight the reasons for making the request.
The Chair explained the process for considering a call-in, confirming that the Committee needed to agree whether to review the decision and if it was decided to proceed, to confirm how much time it wished to allocate for the discussion of the item. The Committee agreed that it would review the decision and allocated two hours and thirty minutes for its consideration.
The Chair went on to explain that there were three outcomes the Committee could reach as a result of its review. These were:-
1. That no further action was necessary and the decision could be implemented as originally intended.
2. To refer the decision back to the Cabinet for reconsideration, outlining the nature of the Committee’s concerns
3. To refer the decision to Council, if the Committee considered that the decision taken was outside of the Budget and Policy Framework.
At the outset of the item the Chair gave Councillors Stephen Mann and Gareth Streeter, as the spokesperson for their respective call-ins the opportunity to outline their concerns about the original decision.
Councillor Mann advised that he felt that a few amendments were required to the scheme in order to bring the community along. The current proposal had split the community, which in some cases had led to unacceptable abuse. There were long term road traffic issues in the area that the scheme was attempting to address, but consideration needed to be given to issues such as deliveries in the low traffic neighbourhood (LTN), what was the right amount of traffic in the zone and how to improve cross border communication.
Councillor Streeter advised that grounds for the call-in he had submitted looked at the fundamentals of the scheme, as it was perceived that the Council had not gathered enough evidence or could ever gather enough evidence to justify the scheme. Without this evidence, there was a worry that the scheme was fiscally motivated. Although, any money raised would be ring fenced, it meant that any money spent in a restricted way allowed other general funds to be spent elsewhere. In the next few months businesses would be reopening and there was a concern that the new scheme would deter people from visiting the shops at Crystal Palace.
Following the introduction to the call-in, the Council’s Head of Highways and Parking, Mark Averill, delivered a presentation to the Committee setting out the reasons why the scheme was being implemented. A copy of the presentation can be found on the Council’s website on the following link:-
The Cabinet Member for Sustainable Croydon, ... view the full minutes text for item 24/21
Exclusion of the Press and Public
The following motion is to be moved and seconded where it is proposed to exclude the press and public from the remainder of a meeting:
“That, under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act, 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information falling within those paragraphs indicated in Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972, as amended.”
This motion was not required.