Agenda item

To consider a report concerning proposed temporary experimental traffic orders at Tudor Street. This proposal was previously approved by the Streets & Walkways Sub Committee and, pursuant to Standing Order 9(4), has now been referred to the Court of Common Council.

(Michael Welbank, M.B.E.)

14 March 2016

North-South Cycle Superhighway – Proposed Temporary Experimental Traffic Orders – Tudor Street

The Court considered a report which had been referred to it from the Streets and Walkways Sub Committee, relative to the introduction of experimental traffic orders in the Tudor Street area. The Sub Committee had agreed the introduction of these orders leading to the provisions of Standing Order 9(4) being subsequently invoked, whereby 20 Members of the Court of Common Council had requested in writing that the decision be referred to the Court with no action to be taken to implement the orders until such time as the Court had considered the matter.

The report, as presented to the Sub Committee and with some explanatory commentary associated with the invocation of Standing Order 9(4), was therefore put to the Court for consideration.

It was recommended that the Court of Common Council approve:

·      the making of experimental Traffic Orders under section 9 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, so that Tudor Street at its junction with New Bridge Street was closed to motor vehicles, Bridewell Place was returned to two way traffic and contra flow cycling was removed from Kingscote Street and Watergate;

·      the making of experimental Traffic Orders under section 9 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 in relation to loading and waiting restrictions and provision of parking spaces, so as to implement the mitigation measures as detailed in Appendix 6 of the report;

·      that the objectors and Transport for London be informed of the Court’s decision accordingly; and

·      that officers obtain a written undertaking from Transport for London to monitor and fund, if necessary, further mitigation measures in the Tudor Street and Temple area.

The Deputy Chairman of the Planning and Transportation Committee introduced the report, explaining that the Streets and Walkways Sub Committee had carefully considered the objections and concerns raised by a number of parties when making its decision. The Sub Committee had consequently concluded that it would be appropriate in the light of these concerns to agree to the orders only on an experimental basis of up to 18 months duration, in order to assess their impact and effectiveness. This would allow for a period of observation and comment before it was decided whether the scheme should be made permanent, and also for modifications to be made to the scheme in the light of operational experience or its removal more quickly should it be deemed necessary. The Deputy Chairman expressed her belief that this therefore represented a sensible approach that would ensure that officers’ recommendations, provided on the strength of professional and detailed analysis, could be tested and the traffic orders withdrawn should objectors’ fears prove to be well founded.

During debate a number of Members spoke in opposition to the proposals, highlighting the following concerns:

• No safety audit concerning the proposals had been made available to the Sub Committee when it was making its decision. Recent analysis undertaken on behalf of the Temples had highlighted serious concerns in this area which would may have altered the Sub Committee’s decision, had they been in full possession of the facts. The fact that the proposed orders were experimental did nothing to alter the safety considerations, which should be given due weight.
• Access and safety concerns were especially raised in respect of Bridewell Place and the intention to permit two-way traffic down such a narrow street. Concerns were also expressed in relation to the anticipated damage to the street caused by heavy goods vehicles, for which compensatory agreements had been agreed in advance with TfL.
• The traffic survey which had been undertaken to inform the proposals had only taken place over a single 24 hour period, calling in to question the validity of the data and the decisions based upon it.
• The Sub Committee’s decision had been made at a time when there were no proposed alterations to traffic flow on Fleet Street. With changes now also being made to Fleet Street, this may also have impacted the decision and the comments of consultees.
• There was at the least a perception that there had been insufficient consultation and a failure to follow proper processes. The volume of objections received which made reference to this perceived lack of consultation suggested that efforts should be made to rectify this before a decision was made.
• Particular concern was expressed that this insufficient consultation might damage the long-standing and positive relations with the Inner and Middle Temples and that inadequate consideration had been given to the strength of feeling of objectors.
• The full range of alternatives had not been considered, with reference made to an alternative route produced by experts commissioned by the Inner and Middle Temples which merited further exploration prior to decision making.

Several Members also spoke in support of the proposals, expressing the following views:

• It was inevitable that any proposed solution would result in objections and cause inconvenience to some parties. The current proposals had been arrived at after significant analysis and represented the most appropriate way in which to allow for the implementation of the Cycle Superhighway.
• The proposals included commitments made by Transport for London to monitor the impact of the traffic orders and it was certain that both the City Corporation and Inner and Middle Temples would also monitor their efficacy. The Sub Committee had proposed that the traffic orders be made experimental in recognition of this, which would thereby ensure that the proposals could be properly tested and the orders revoked at short notice were there any issues.
• Similar experimental orders had been introduced at Ludgate Hill and had proven successful in demonstrating that some objectors’ concerns had not been realised.
• Bridewell Place was noted as not being particularly narrow compared to other roads in the City, with reference made to several others that were narrower and accommodated two-way traffic without substantive safety issues.
• The rejection of these proposals would potentially be tantamount to a waste of public money, not only in respect of the development and analysis that had gone in to these proposals but also in necessitating another delay of at least six months.
• Rejecting the proposals would result in there being a gap in the North-South Cycle Superhighway, which could pose serious safety issues in relation to cyclists.

Motion – That, in accordance with Standing Order 11(9), the Question be now put.

Upon the Motion being put, the Lord Mayor declared it to be carried.

In concluding the debate, the Deputy Chairman stated that a safety audit had been conducted and that comprehensive consultation had been conducted by Transport for London. She reiterated her belief that the experimental orders represented a sensible compromise and would allow for all sides to assess the efficacy of the proposals prior to making any permanent decisions.

Upon the report then being put, the Lord Mayor declared it not to be carried.

Resolved – That the report be not carried.