The Climate Action, Environment and Highways Policy and Scrutiny Committee met on Tuesday 14 October 2025. The primary focus of the meeting was to review a call-in regarding the Cabinet Member Decision on the implementation of Cycleway 43 (Section B). After extensive discussion and consideration of the report and public responses, the committee voted to take no further action, allowing the Cabinet Member's decision to proceed.

Call-In of Cabinet Member Decision: Cycleway 43 (Section B) Implementation

The committee convened to review a call-in initiated by three Marylebone ward councillors concerning the Cabinet Member for Streets, Councillor Max Sullivan's¹, decision to implement Cycleway 43 (Section B). The call-in cited several reasons why the decision was deemed unsound, including the timing of the Traffic Management Order (TMO) consultation, discrepancies in maps provided, concerns about inadequate vehicle and cycleway widths, the loss of resident parking on George Street, and the potential impact of the Mayor of London's² Oxford Street pedestrianisation plans.

Councillor Max Sullivan, Cabinet Member for Streets, introduced the report, emphasising the necessity of the scheme due to a high incidence of road casualties. He highlighted that the scheme aimed to enhance safety and connectivity for active travel routes between Marylebone and Hyde Park, supporting a more sustainable and inclusive transport network.

The committee engaged in a detailed discussion, posing questions on various aspects of the proposal. Key areas of scrutiny included:

• Mitigation measures for safety around schools: Members sought clarification on the specific measures to ensure the safety of children and adults attending schools adjacent to the proposed cycle lane.
• Consultation period: The Cabinet Member was questioned on whether the timing of the final consultation round during the summer holidays, while the school was closed, was considered an issue.
• Alternative approaches: Members inquired about the consideration of alternative locations for the cycleway and whether consultations could have been conducted during school term time, noting the strong local opposition.
• Resident parking: Data on mean occupancy rates was presented, and members sought information on peak occupancy rates during residential permit hours and clarity on the loss of a white badge bay for a disabled resident.
• Impact on road widths: Concerns were raised about the impact of reduced carriageway widths on vehicle access, particularly for emergency services, loading, and deliveries, and the implications for vulnerable groups.
• Oversight and regulation: Members asked about independent oversight of the work and proposals.
• Pedestrian islands: Consideration for improving pedestrian crossing facilities, such as pedestrian islands, was discussed.
• Safety data monitoring: Support for the proposals was expressed, with a request for details on safety data monitoring and protocols for implementing adjustments if safety or access issues arose.
• Engagement with Wetherby Prep School: Clarity was sought on why concerns raised by Wetherby Prep School in May had not been addressed and whether the school had been notified about the consultation.
• Traffic Management Order (TMO) response: Members questioned whether emergency service response times might differ if the Mayor of London's proposed pedestrianisation plans for Oxford Street were implemented, and whether delaying the proposals to better assess the impact of the Oxford Street changes would be prudent to avoid wasted expenditure.

Following the discussion, a vote was held. The committee voted 4 to 3 to note the report and take no further action, thereby allowing the Cabinet Member's decision to be implemented. The meeting concluded at 18:43.