Apologies for absence were received from Cllr Mundy (with Cllr Fraser substituting).

There were no declarations of pecuniary interest.

The minutes of the previous meeting were agreed.

Matters arising:

1.       Local Implementation Plan moved to 8 January 2020.

2.       The Director of Environment and Regeneration updated the Panel that the revised proposal for agreeing environmental permits is with the legal department for their input. 

Reason for urgency:

The Chair has agreed to the submission of this late report so that the agenda item can be discussed at the meeting and that comments made by the Panel can then be taken into account by Cabinet at its meeting on 15 July.

The Director of Environment and Regeneration introduced the report. There were over 3000 responses to the consultation and the issues raised have been reflected upon and influenced changes.

At the invitation of the Chair, residents shared their thoughts on the proposals. 

Sara Sharp: The scheme deems the health in the west of the borough is more important than the east. No extra public transport provision or cycling infrastructure. Doesn’t make sense to increase charges on one side of the borough but not on the other if you want air quality to improve. There is more that could be done. Stop the school application on one other boroughs most toxic air sites, air quality monitoring, scrap Christmas car parking, ensure TfL clean up the bus fleet, better anti idling campaign, include AQ measures in planning applications, address that 50% of free permits belong to council workers. 

Jamie Attle: Proposed charges are too high - ½ day parking increasing from £1.50 to £3.50 is a 133% rise. It’s a win/win for the Council but residents will suffer. It will have a negative impact on selling properties. A public meeting should be organised to hear resident’s views.

Transparency is needed with regards to how much it costs for parking administration as the charges should only cover the Council’s expenses.

Helen Clark Bell: LOVE Wimbledon fully support Air Quality proposals but this parking proposal does not have any measurable objectives in improving Air Quality. The only town centre change has been that of St Georges Road and Queens Road. The 20 minute free bays are monopolised by food delivery bikes. Electric Vehicle charging points are not mentioned, neither is impact of the ULEZ.

The Councils’ anti-idling campaign is weak. Dock less bikes are repeatedly dumped in the town centre.

Eve Cohen: I fully support any initiative that will improve air quality but the increase in residents parking permit charges will not do this. Only those in a CPZ and parking on street are affected by residents parking permits. It will not reduce cars in other areas or with off street parking.

The council is sending out a mixed message - Car park charges are being increased during the day but remaining at a low fixed fee for the evening. Does the council want people to reduce vehicle usage and improve air quality or not? Charges should be based on the level of vehicle emissions.

How does this policy tackle vehicle pollution when it is not tackling the through traffic including buses which causes much of the pollution across the whole borough? The walking and cycling experience needs to be made easier and better. Secure cycle parking is needed.

The anti-idling campaign needs to be ramped up. Those that truly need their cars for work e.g. electricians, plumbers, gas persons, nurses, doctors etc. should have some concession made until such a time as they can afford to change their vehicles to less polluting models.

Cllr Nigel Benbow: Highly unpopular decision.No evidence that this scheme  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

Councillor Ben Butler was appointed as Performance Monitoring Lead.

The Director of Environment and Regeneration addressed key points;

·         Veolia have sourced additional vehicles and staff to address the volume of fly tips. Not all the new vehicles have the I.T system installed so there is under reporting in terms of those collected in less than 24 hours.

·         We are finalising a planning enforcement action plan with additional resources to address the backlog of cases.

The Panel would like to see longitudinal analysis added to the performance data to follow long term trends as a Panel.

A Panel Member asked if we could produce data that matches that of LG inform? This would allow us to compare our data with other Boroughs. 

ACTION: Scrutiny Officer to discuss with Performance Team.

The Chair thanked those that attended the topic workshops on 20 May.

Work programme 19/20 was agreed.

The panel debated which task group to undertake. Majority felt that scrutinising Veolia and the new fly tipping strategy plus a task group on this subject would lead to a duplication of work. Therefore with six voting in favour and two against, the Panel has set up an Economy task group to look at how we can promote community wealth in Merton through local procurement. The task group will consider how procurement behaviour can be changed and how anchor institutions, such as the council, police, colleges, housing associations, can be encouraged to buy the goods and services they need from local businesses wherever possible. The Panel appointed Councillors Owen Pritchard, Ben Butler and Natasha Irons to this task group. An invitation will be extended to all members.