Harrow Council has come under fire for its school streets programme, with critics accusing the council of prioritizing income targets over the well-being of residents. The scheme, which aims to reduce congestion and improve air quality around schools, involves restricting road access during pick-up and drop-off times using CCTV cameras.
The opposition Labour group has raised concerns about the council’s income targets, which amount to £1.48 million over three years. While the Labour councillors support the goals of the scheme, they worry that residents will be unfairly penalized due to hidden CCTV cameras and poorly placed signs.
Cllr David Perry, the leader of the Labour group, expressed his dismay at the council’s focus on financial targets over resident satisfaction. He criticized the appeal process for prioritizing income targets and called attention to the widespread installation of CCTV cameras in the area.
In response to Labour’s claims, Harrow Council defended its income targets, stating that the profit after three years would only amount to £47,688. The council also argued that their income targets were lower than those of similar schemes implemented by Labour in the past.
Conservative leader Cllr Paul Osborn stood by the council’s decision to enforce the school streets programme, emphasizing the importance of ensuring the safety of children in the community. He pointed out that the income forecast was based on previous schemes implemented by Labour and that the locations of CCTV cameras were chosen by the opposition party.
Harrow Council revealed that they plan to implement 18 School Street Schemes, which are projected to earn £810,000 in the third year of the programme. Cllr Osborn disputed Labour’s claims about the income figures, stating that the forecasted income of £45,000 per scheme per year was actually lower than the average income of similar schemes in other London boroughs.
Overall, the debate over Harrow Council’s school streets programme highlights the tension between financial targets and resident satisfaction. While the council argues that the scheme is necessary for the safety of children, critics are concerned about the potential impact on residents and the focus on income generation. As the programme continues to unfold, it remains to be seen how these issues will be addressed and whether adjustments will be made to ensure a balance between revenue generation and community well-being.