GCC Special Meeting to discuss the ERC Consultation for the establishment of 20 mph traffic zones across East Renfrewshire. The meeting was held at St Ninian’s High School (Lecture Theatre) 6th September 2023

Cindy Berry (CB) opened the Special Meeting by welcoming everyone and read out recording policy and housekeeping rules.

Apologies received from Andrew Reid, Colm Merrick, Scott Van den Akker, Iain Wilkinson, Jack Wells, Cristina Scheefer, Joan Perry and Mary Montague.
CC Marian Miller, Cllr Gordon Wallace and Cllr Andrew Morrison were present along with approximately 50 members of the public.

CB explained and confirmed that GCC had called the Special Meeting within the required timeframe and emails were sent in accordance with ERC’s SoE.

Cllr Owen O’Donnell, Cabinet Leader and also chair of the committee on 20 mph proposals, communicated by email to ask from which departments GCC required representation. GCC received an email from Catriona McAuley, Director of Environment, informing GCC that no officers of ERC would attend. But stated ERC would be happy to meet with nominated representatives of GCC at a date and time mutually convenient to discuss any concerns regarding Non-Mandatory Traffic Monitoring Zones (NTMZ).

All members of the public, about 50 persons, were extremely disappointed by the non-attendance of ERC Officers.

CB informed the meeting that residents had requested questions be submitted to those who are proposing the implementation of the 74 zones targeted for 20 mph. CB read out the questions and thereafter the answers subsequently received from ERC. After each question and answer members of the public raised their own questions, through the Chair, to be addressed by Cllrs.

One question was: What evidence was considered by ERC when concluding ER be declared a climate emergency zone.

Cllrs were asked if they knew what the exact recorded levels of Co2 that currently exists in the atmosphere. They did not know. A member of public cited the recorded levels are in fact 0.04% and that is accepted that if Co2 levels fall below 0.02% plant life will begin to die off across the planet. Therefore, to reduce the level further will lead to the extinction situation for all plant and animal life. It is estimated that 3% of the 0.04% of Co2 in the atmosphere is attributed to by humans.

Another member of the public voiced their concern and stated if ERC stopped ripping out green spaces and building on them, that alone would help greatly with any alleged Co2 problem. The public all fully agreed with this by clapping loudly.

It was stated that ERC wanted to offer more attractive spaces throughout the whole of ER. Information concerning the source from which funding would be obtained was requested. CB explained that £375K had been allocated from SG and was to be given out in amounts of £75K over the next five years. It was to be at the council’s discretion as to how these funds were utilised.

20 mph zones were discussed along with limiting unnecessary traffic around schools. It was stated that there are 31 schools within ER yet 74 zones are identified and planned for. Without full disclosure the public cannot be expected to make an informed comment, therefore, any such consultation without full details disclosed would be seen as misrepresentation. It was also stated that the maps shown were without any relevant detail.

Most people agreed that there should be safety around schools and that this is already practised. A member of public asked if a 20-mph zone was implemented around schools, would the implementation include evenings, weekends and holiday periods. It was noted that Giffnock Police when asked, were unaware of any proposed changes to speed limits and closure of roads around schools.

It was felt that if the 74 zones were introduced then it would only serve to increase journey times, greater fuel usage, greater congestion, more accidents and frustrations all leading to increased fuel emissions. Such would be contrary to the reasons proposed for the introduction to address ‘climate change’.

CB informed that Newcastle and Warrington councils had both deemed their trial periods for these zones to have been unsuccessful and everything related to them would be removed. Therefore, it would be considered reckless if ERC knowing this, went ahead and spent taxpayer monies regardless.

A member of the public stated that ERC were good at laying down rules and railroading their decisions over us yet treat us with contempt when we disagree with them and ask them to attend a public meeting to discuss. It was mentioned that public transport in the area is poor, and that ERC promised as part of the planning of the Queen Elizabeth Hospital/demise of Victoria Infirmary that a bus would run directly to the QE from all parts of ER. To date, this has not happened.

It was noted that First Bus and other bus companies are privately owned and will only run a bus on a particular route if it is deemed profitable and that bus companies would pay no attention to ERC requesting they should put on a service in the areas they felt were necessary.

It was felt that the 74 zones were a precursor for introducing 15/20 min liveable neighbourhoods or the many other names applied to such areas. The majority of the public agreed with that suggestion. Some attendees stated that they had no idea what a 15/20 min city was. It was suggested they google to find out.

As part of the 74 zones plan and liveable neighbourhoods it is proposed to have people walk/cycle or take public transport rather than take or use cars. This was deemed completely ridiculous due to the fact that many people out and about during the day are mothers with young children, doing shopping and carrying large bags, elderly doing shopping, disabled doing shopping etc all impractical without their vehicles.

These people and those who are employed in health care for instance all need cars to be able to undertake their tasks. It was stated that the Scottish climate does not bode well towards such a plan. It was also noted that in the areas where such plans have already been implemented, it had made no difference to the number of people walking and only a slight difference to begin with to people deciding to cycle, where after a short period, the number returned to original levels.

A member of the public asked how many council workers would be willing to walk or cycle to work. Another member of the public stated he thought very few as they would most likely have the benefits of working from home. It was also stated that ERC did not have the space nor the funds to provide the infrastructure for everything required ie doctors, dentists, supermarkets, parks, post offices, banks, schools all to be within 15 mins cycle or walk of residents.

It was stated that many of the local doctor surgeries had been removed and placed in one large building to replace the clinic that had previously been so handy on Busby Road. Now most people are unable to travel to the new health centre due to, once again, inadequate public transport links and the site being too far for most people, particularly the disabled and elderly, to comfortably gain access.

It was mentioned by a member of the public in the already implemented 15 min cities, all that had been provided was large planters to block roads, excessive surveillance cameras and fines imposed for those disobeying. Nowhere had any new infrastructure been provided to give what was suggested.

It was put to Cllr Wallace that the public require him and other Cllrs to put forward a motion stating they are not in favour and will not back 20 mph/NTMZ/15/20 min cities/ liveable neighbourhoods. Cllr Wallace stated he did not know what a 15/20 min city/liveable neighbourhood was although later said he was in favour of them.

CB read out further questions submitted to ERC, but it was observed that none of the answers from ERC answered the questions asked.

CB stated that it was not acceptable that ERC were proposing to ask children their opinion on these proposals because children are too inexperienced in life to know and understand the consequences of such proposals. ERC disputed this and stated they were following the Equality Act as children will be sharing the spaces.

A member of the public stated that equality was not being adhered to when it came to disabled and elderly and young Mums etc who had no idea of any changes proposed to take place. It was noted that people were only being informed either online or in their local library if they knew to access the info there in the first place. It was suggested that everyone within ER should be informed by letter or some other means other than online only. Cllr Wallace said that would be too costly.

A member of the public stated that a spend of £95K to consult everyone by post out of a boasted budget under spend of £1.8 million would clearly be affordable, also noted the expenditure to carry out these consultations has already cost the taxpayer in excess of £4.1 million and still ongoing.

A member of the public further stated that Citizens Advice Bureau said that only 60% of their clients are online. ERC however say that 98% of people have access to the internet. Members of the public complained that the online survey and other online data from ERC is wholly inadequate, it constantly crashes and does only allow individual comments or opinion to the pre-set questions and circumvented answers which are analysed by computer models, easily skewed and not necessarily pertaining to relevant areas to the proposals.

Concerns were raised about ERC having discounted a lot of replies from previous online surveys because they allegedly were able to identify that they were duplicates. A member of the public made comment that the FBI are unable to do this and wondered how ERC have managed to crack the code.

Cllr Wallace took to the stand to explain how the relationship between the Cllrs and the council officers worked. He stated that the Cllrs were responsible for making policy and the council officers were responsible for enacting it. Council officers also have a high degree of autonomy in determining how polices should be delivered ie in situations such as traffic bollards. Council officers had authority to implement decisions without reference to councillors as funding was already in place. Therefore, no permission for spending was needed from the Cllrs. He stated the bollards were already in place before the Cllrs knew anything about them. He also stated that after much public pressure the Cllrs decided to stop the initiative.

Cllr Wallace stated that the council officers did not feel safe attending meetings like these after the situation they found themselves in the information meeting of the proposed Masterplan at the Avenue in Newton Mearns earlier this year. He further stated they felt intimidated and at risk of attack whilst there. A member of the public stated that was untrue and was in fact the opposite of what occurred.

The member of public asked if anyone in the room had experienced similar inappropriate behaviour from ERC representatives. More than a dozen people raised their hands in agreement. It was commented that perhaps the reason the representatives were uncomfortable was because they lacked knowledge and were unable to answer most of the questions put to them.

This is the reason GCC requested the presence of ‘senior’ officers of this project to attend tonight’s special meeting.

A member of the public who had already raised an official complaint to ERC on behalf of several residents who suffered the same abusive treatment, was brought to the attention of Cllr Wallace. Of which a copy of that complaint would be sent to him as proof of the facts.

During the masterplan discussion a question was raised as to whether that project had been superseded/suspended by the now proposed 74 zones. No clear answer was given.

A member of the public stated that trust of ERC as a whole was virtually non-existent. There was resounding agreement as the whole room applauded. This reaction was justified re the evidence of poor planning and blindly following SG diktats whereby wasting taxpayer money which needs to be used instead for the betterment of the people. These much-needed services and upkeep of existing infrastructure would result in improvement of wellbeing for all.

The meeting closed with the CB thanking all in attendance and for each contribution and conveyed the draft minutes of this meeting would be sent to ERC.

GCC draft minutes 20 November 2023

We have abridged these to reflect only the discussion regarding the 'Special' meeting
Approval of Special Meeting minutes 6 September 2023 (Newsline)

CB explained that Andrew Reid (ERC liaison officer) had emailed to say that the draft minutes were null and void as GCC was not a functioning community council at this time due to the fact that the nomination period 17 August 2023 to be in by 13 September 2023. There was no previous correspondence on the subject prior to this email.

A member of the public voiced their concern that this was in fact incorrect. CB confirmed confusion as this remit was contrary to previous protocol/explanation by Vincent McCulloch.

A member of the public stated that they had been in attendance at the SM and was present this evening in order they could verify the draft minutes as being a true representation of the SM.

The member of the public raised the point that two ER Cllrs were present at the SM and neither of them intimated that this meeting should not be held.

It was also stated that representation was made from three other CC’s at the SM. They identified themselves as such. Therefore, they had clearly not been informed either, that they were not eligible to conduct community council business at that time.

C Cllr Allan Steele (AS) interrupted and said that the SM was null and void and could not be registered as a CC meeting. AS stated he wanted minuted that he did not want to hear of Council Officers being miscalled in their absence.

This was in response to a member of the public stating they had less confidence in ERC’s communication than they had hoped for.

CB attempted to discuss this matter further however, was constantly interrupted and talked over and often not addressed through the Chair by AS who still insisted that the SM and minutes were not valid and the minutes were not minutes of a CC meeting.

AS further challenged the Chair on the legitimacy of the minutes and whether the meeting was quorate. Despite CB’s explanation that it was not necessary for the meeting to be quorate as no decisions were being made, AS asked the source of information and cut the Chair off from replying.

A member of the public attempted to explain quorate. AS repeatedly addressed the member of the public as ‘Sir! Sir! (in a raised voice) – you are a member of the public and not even from this area’, whilst wagging his finger and talking over him.
CB interjected asking AS as a member of GCC not to speak to a member of the public in such a manner.

AS stated he had addressed the member of public as Sir. CB said his tone of voice and pointing of finger was unacceptable.

AS said, member of the public was interrupting CC meeting and that he (AS) would now be quiet and wanted this too to be minuted.

The Chair intimated they were happy for AS to continue the conversation. Before CB could continue AS interrupted again and said – ‘We do not have conversations, we deal with business and that members of the public must not interrupt a meeting of CC’s and as this member of the public is in fact Chair of another CC ought to know better’.

CB stated that pointing a finger at a member of the public was not in order.
Member of the public said meetings of CC’s are held for the public to address concerns of the community.

AS again stated he wanted recorded in the minutes that a resident of an area outside of GCC’s remit continues to interrupt the meeting.

C Cllr Iain Wilkinson suggested the member of the public had a wealth of knowledge and was worth listening to.

AS said, member of the public is entitled to speak but not if interrupting any member of a CC as that could break down the meeting.

CB said I did not think the member of the public was interrupting the meeting and noted that there were only two members of the public present.

C Cllr Mairi Beers said there were a lot of members of the public at the SM and we would not have a list of names. AS went on to challenge the validity of the SM again and if the meeting was quorate. AS reiterated it was a meeting but not a GCC meeting and that the minutes were not official minutes.

Approval of October ‘returning meeting’ minutes (Andrew Reid - AR)
It was noted that there was a spelling error in the initial draft minutes and look to AR to amend this.

Matters arising from previous minutes

SM: CB brought to the CC members attention that Cllr O’Donnell had extended an invitation to GCC to meet with ERC officers to discuss NTMZ.

This was discussed and agreed that as representation had been made at the SM by three other CC’s who identified themselves as such and declared their interest in future meetings between CC’s and ERC on this matter.

GCC will write to Cllr O’Donnell to agree to meet with ERC officers and ask the invitation be extended to all CC’s at the same time to ensure accuracy/continuity of explanations to a wide variety of issues to be addressed and that all CC’s are given the same answers collectively in order they can pass accurate information to their communities.