The Climate Action, Environment and Highways Policy and Scrutiny Committee met to review the call-in of a decision regarding the implementation of Cycleway 43 (Section B). After hearing from Councillor Max Sullivan, Cabinet Member for Streets, and discussing concerns raised by Marylebone ward councillors, the committee voted to take no further action, allowing the Cabinet Member Decision to be implemented.

Cycleway 43 (Section B) Implementation

The primary focus of the meeting was the review of the Cabinet Member Decision concerning the implementation of Cycleway 43 (Section B), a project aimed at enhancing active travel routes between Edgware Road and Gloucester Place. The decision, made by Councillor Max Sullivan, Cabinet Member for Streets, had been called in by Councillors Barbara Arzymanow, Ian Rowley and Karen Scarborough of the Marylebone ward. Councillor Barbara Arzymanow declared a conflict of interest, noting her position as a ward councillor for Marylebone.

The call-in was based on five key concerns:

• Timing of the Traffic Management Order (TMO) consultation
• Maps before and after the TMO consultation
• Inadequate vehicle highway and cycleway widths
• Loss of all Resident Parking spaces on George Street
• The potential pedestrianisation of Oxford Street and its effects on George Street

Councillor Max Sullivan, Cabinet Member for Streets, introduced a report defending the decision and responded to questions from the committee. He emphasised the importance of the scheme, citing a high incidence of road casualties and deaths.

Key points of discussion included:

• Mitigation measures for safety around schools: Assurances were sought regarding safety measures for children and adults near schools along the cycle lane.
• Consultation period: Concerns were raised about the timing of the final consultation round during the summer holiday period.
• Alternative approach: The possibility of alternative locations for the cycleway and running consultations during school term time was discussed.
• Resident use of parking bays: Members questioned peak occupancy rates of parking bays, particularly during residential permit hours.
• Equalities impact concerns: Clarity was sought on the equalities impact, specifically regarding the potential loss of a white badge bay for a disabled resident. It was confirmed that the bay was no longer needed by the previous permit holder.
• Impact on road widths: The committee discussed the impact of reduced carriageway width on two-way traffic, especially during loading and deliveries, and its effect on vulnerable groups.
• Oversight and regulation: Members inquired about independent oversight of the council's proposals.
• Pedestrian islands: The potential for improving crossing facilities with pedestrian islands was raised.
• Active monitoring of safety data: The committee discussed the monitoring of safety data and protocols for implementing quick adjustments if needed.
• Consideration to safety concerns: Councillor Max Sullivan, Cabinet Member for Streets, was asked to respond to previously raised safety concerns.
• Engagement: There was discussion on why concerns raised by Wetherby Prep School had not been addressed and when the school was notified about the consultation.
• Traffic Management Order (TMO) response: Members questioned whether the emergency service response to the TMO would change if the pedestrianisation plans for Oxford Street were implemented. The possibility of delaying the proposals was raised to better assess the impact on George Street.

Following the discussion, the committee voted 4-3 to take no further action and allow the Cabinet Member Decision to be implemented.

The appendices to the follow on agenda included: the Cabinet Member Report - Cycleway 43 (Section B) Implementation, General Arrangement Drawing, George Street Parking Assessment, Equality Impact Assessment, You Said We Did Report and TMO Report.

The Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA) considered the impact of the scheme on groups with protected characteristics¹, as defined by the Equality Act 2010². The EqIA identified potentially positive and negative impacts on eleven protected characteristics and outlined actions to address identified issues.