Agenda item

Report of the Director of the Built Environment.

This report has been considered by the Streets and Walkways Sub Committee, the Planning and Transportation Committee, the Projects Sub Committee, and the Resource Allocation Sub Committee.

Members agreed to vary the order of items on the agenda so that the report on Bank Junction Improvements was considered first. The Assistant Director (Local Transportation) briefed the Committee on the background to the Bank Junction proposal, noting that Bank Junction was one of the busiest road junctions in London that was the subject of significant pressure in terms of road traffic and pedestrians.

At the invitation of the Chairman, five persons addressed the Committee from the public gallery: Richard Massett (Licensed Taxi Drivers’ Association), Peter Murray (Construction Industry Cycling Commission), Vincent Stops (London TravelWatch), Tom Bogdanowicz (London Cycling Campaign) and Jeremy Leach (London Living Streets) were heard.

The Chairman of the Planning and Transportation Committee noted that the experimental scheme offered several benefits, but at this early stage the primary benefit was public safety. Without doubt Bank Junction was one of the most dangerous in London and was one of only three corporate red risks facing the City of London Corporation – the proposal before the Committee was therefore a critical mitigation measure. The proposal had been considered and approved by both the Streets and Walkways Sub Committee and the Planning and Transportation Committee. Transport for London had examined the City Corporation’s proposal in detail and had agreed it was technically the best potential solution to issues at Bank Junction. The proposal had the support of local businesses, and it offered real improvements to bus journey times through the junction. He further noted that he had sympathy for black cabs and had met with their representatives to explore alternative solutions, which had been modelled. Nevertheless the proposal before the Committee remained the best possible solution. He concluded by emphasising that the proposed scheme was experimental and gave the assurance in his capacity as Chairman of the Planning and Transportation Committee that officers would report back to Members verbally after the first four weeks of operation and submit a formal report to Members after the first eight weeks of operation.

A Member stated that he had reservations over the proposed scheme but agreed that some form of solution had to be found for the issues at Bank Junction. Given the emphasis on improved journey times of buses he would welcome data on the use of buses through the junction. He would not oppose the scheme provided the City Corporation continued to actively consider other traffic management measures for the area.

In response to questions from a member, the Assistant Director (Local Transportation) clarified how close to the junction taxis could approach, and noted that the exclusion area had been modified in response to local consultation. He added that 15% of casualties in the past year involved both private hire vehicles and taxis compared to a 24% average City-wide.

A Member noted his support for the proposal, saying that the Committee should acknowledge the benefits for public transport and the potential to promote more free-flowing traffic in the area.

In response to a question, the Assistant Director (Local Transportation) confirmed that it was not anticipated that the scheme would have an adverse effect on people with disabilities.

A Member stated his opposition to the proposal, saying that he felt it was an ill-thought through scheme that did not address other risk factors in the wider City. It was his belief that the proposal would cause traffic chaos.

A Member noted that the issues at Bank Junction had been a problem for many years. The proposal before the Committee was experimental and it was in the best interests of the City to take a clear decision to seek to deal with those issues.

A Member added that the City Corporation’s traffic modelling had been rigorously scrutinised by Transport for London, and therefore Members should have confidence in the modelling that underpinned the proposal. The proposal was roundly welcomed by businesses, and formed part of the City’s longer-term aspirations for the area.

The Chairman thanked the members of the public and Members for their contributions. He supported the scheme, but added that more attention should be given to managing congestion in the area caused by buses and local deliveries. He emphasised that the scheme would be subject to review in the short term.

A motion was moved and seconded, to amend the recommendation of the report to include licensed taxis alongside buses and cycles. The motion was defeated by 18 votes to 6.

Members proceeded to vote on the recommendation in the report, which was approved by 22 votes to 1, with 1 abstention.

RESOLVED, that Members

·         Approve the recommendation of the Resource Allocation Sub Committee for the allocation of the S106 deposits set out in Table 3 (Appendix 1) totalling £121,052to the Bank junction experimental safety scheme;

·         Approve the recommendation of the Resource Allocation Sub Committee for the allocation of up to £670,948 from the On Street Parking Reserve account to the Bank Junction experimental scheme;

·         Approve the recommendation of the Resource Allocation Sub Committee for the inclusion of any Transport for London funding to the project budget that arises with a report to this committee to confirm the inclusion and resultant balance on the On Street Parking Reserve or S106 contributions;

·         Approve the experiment to restrict motor vehicles crossing Bank Junction to be bus and cycle only Monday to Friday, 0700-1900 for a period of up to 18 months.