City of Westminster
Item No.
CMfED&T/
30/2005
Decision-maker
Date
Title of Report
CABINET MEMBER FOR
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
AND TRANSPORT
26
August
2005
Western Extension of the
Congestion Charging Zone –
Petition by residents of an area of
Little Venice.
FOR GENERAL RELEASE
Wards Involved
Policy Context
Financial Summary
Report of
Director of Transportation
Little Venice
The City Council remains opposed to the western
extension of the Mayor of London’s congestion charging
zone.
There are no financial implications arising from this report
directly, but the congestion charging scheme is affecting
the City Council’s parking income and transport related
expenditure. This is likely to continue if the existing zone is
extended.
1.
SUMMARY
1.1
On 6 July 2005 Councillor Melvyn Caplan received a petition from Dr.
Sophie Botros. The petition lobbies for residents living in this area to be
eligible for the 90% residents’ discount, should the western extension
go ahead.
2.
RECOMMENDATIONS
2.1
That the Cabinet Member for Economic Development and Transport
notes the petition and supports the request, which would increase the
number of residents due to receive the 90% discount.
2.2
That the Cabinet Member for Economic Development and Transport
endorses the response sent to Transport for London by the Director of
Transportation on 15 July 2005 (which supported the request contained
in the petition) and reaffirms the Council’s policy to seek the 90%
discount for all residents of the City of Westminster.
2.3
That Dr. Sophie Botros be notified of the Council's response to the
petition.
1
3.
DETAIL
3.1
The petition has approximately 330 signatures from residents living in
an area of W2, bounded by Harrow Road, Edgware Road, the Grand
Union Canal, Bloomfield Road and Westbourne Terrace.
3.2
It is understood that the City Council is not the sole recipient of this
petition, but the Director of Transportation delivered a copy of it to
Transport for London on 8 July 2005. In addition to the City Council,
copies of the petition were also sent to the Mayor of London, Transport
for London and Angie Bray, a member of the Greater London Authority.
3.3
The City Council’s response to the consultation on the western
extension of the congestion charge zone urges the Mayor of London to
extend the 90% residents’ discount to all residents of the City of
Westminster. The petition is therefore in line with the City Council's
approach and was specifically referred to in the response to Transport
for London sent by the Director of Transportation on 15 July 2005.
4.
LEGAL IMPLICATIONS
4.1
The Mayor of London will be under a legal duty to consider holding a
public inquiry to consider the petitioners’ request before deciding on his
course of action as requested in the City Council’s response to the
public consultation.
5.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
5.1
There are no financial implications.
6.
CONCLUSIONS AND REASONS FOR THE PROPOSED
DECISION
6.1
The petition is supported as it is in line with the City Council’s approach
to the proposed western extension of the central London congestion
charging zone.
If you have any queries about this report or wish to inspect
any of the background papers,
please contact Richard Case on 020-7641-3398 or by fax on 020-7641-2658
or by e-mail on rcase@westminster.gov.uk
Background Papers
The documents referred to in compiling this report are:

Petition from Dr. Sophie Botros; and
2

The City Council’s response to the Transport for London consultation on
the proposed western extension of the congestion charging zone dated 15
July 2005.
For completion by Cabinet Member
Declaration of Interest

I have no interest to declare in respect of this report
Signed ……………………………. Date ………………………………
NAME: Councillor Danny Chalkley, Cabinet Member for Economic
Development & Transport

I have to declare an interest
State nature of interest ……..……………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………..
Signed ……………………………. Date …………………………………
NAME: Councillor Danny Chalkley, Cabinet Member for Economic
Development & Transport
(N.B: If you have an interest you should seek advice as to whether it is
appropriate to make a decision in relation to this matter.)
For the reasons set out above, I agree the recommendation(s) in the report
entitled Western Extension of the Congestion Charging Zone - Petition by
Residents ofr an area of Little Venice and reject any alternative options
which are referred to but not recommended.
Signed ………………………………………………
Councillor Danny Chalkley, Cabinet Member for Economic Development &
Transport
Date …………………………………………………
If you have any additional comment which you would want actioned in
connection with your decision you should discuss this with the report author
and then set out your comment below before the report and this pro-forma is
returned to the Secretariat for processing.
Additional comment: …………………………………………………………………
3
………………………………………………………………………………………….
………………………………………………………………………………………….
NOTE: If you do not wish to approve the recommendations, or wish to make
an alternative decision, it is important that you consult the report author, the
Director of Legal and Administrative Services, the Director of Finance and, if
there are staffing implications, the Head of Human Resources (or their
representatives) so that (1) you can be made aware of any further relevant
considerations that you should take into account before making the decision
and (2) your reasons for the decision can be properly identified and recorded,
as required by law.
Note to Cabinet Member: Your decision will now be published and
copied to the Members of the relevant Overview & Scrutiny Committee. If
the decision falls within the criteria for call-in, it will not be implemented
until five working days have elapsed from publication to allow the
Overview and Scrutiny Committee to decide whether it wishes to call the
matter in.
4