To receive a report of the Executive Member the Executive Member for Environment, Air Quality and Climate Change.

The Executive Member for Environment, Air Quality, and Climate introduced the report. The Committee were informed of the reasons why a TRO would be raised these included public safety and environmental issues. The Executive Member then detailed the process for setting up TROs such as a residents parking scheme in an area and the possible. The process involved a large amount of consultation with affected residents with up to three rounds of consultation taking between 6 and 18 months. If there was support for such a scheme then it would be implemented which could also take a long time.

In addition to residents all other stakeholders were consulted in relation TROs including the Ambulance Service, Police, local businesses, and bus services. Smaller scale TROs would have a single round of Consultation and only experimental TROs did not require consultation as they were for a fixed period of time. If an experimental TRO was to become permanent then consultation would be conducted at that point. The Executive Member then told the Committee about the cost assessments for each TRO. The cost assessments reviewed all associated costs such as planning, the original implementation, monitoring, and enforcement. Part of the process included discussions with the police around enforcement.

Following the overview of the report the Committee were given the opportunity to ask questions. The Executive Member explained that he had expected an officer to be present but he would answer as many questions as he could at the meeting and any he could not answer would be taken back and answers provided.

A Member of the Committee explained their involvement with TROs. The Member had received a list of all the TRO applications that were ongoing several years before. When they received the list they had found that there were hundreds of TROs with some of them going back ten years or more. As there was a large backlog of TROs and the service was only able to process a small number per year the Council prioritised all TRO applications and those of the highest priority were completed each year. This meant that there were many TROs on the Councils system which would never be completed. The Member explained that it was this process that they were interested in rather than the actual process of completing a TRO.

The Executive Member explained that while they were aware of the list they did not know about the processes related in maintaining and updating the lists. The Committee asked whether the list of TROs that had been submitted with the report was an exhaustive list. The Executive Member told the Committee that the list provided was not exhaustive and that such a list could be provided at a later meeting. The Committee agreed that further information relating process of adding and prioritising TROs along with an exhaustive list of ongoing TROs be provided at a later meeting.

A member asked about the proposed play streets scheme allowing residents to close streets temporarily to hold community events like street parties. The Executive Member informed the Committee that there were three pilot areas which would be holding events over the next twelve months. As these road closures were temporary they were not subject to the same procedures as permanent TROs. The residents who were part of the pilot scheme are expected to undertake consultation with the other residents on the street and put up posters on the street so that drivers are aware of the proposed closure. The Council is to be informed of the results of the consultation prior to the road closure going ahead. After the twelve month trial the Council would look at the feedback from the pilots and decide whether to roll out the scheme across the borough.

RESOLVED:

1)    That the report be noted.

2)    That an exhaustive list of ongoing TROs along with a description of the review process for TROs be brought to a later Committee Meeting.