Agenda item

Report of the Director of the Built Environment

The Sub-Committee received a report of the Director of the Built Environment concerning the City of London Corporation’s dockless cycle hire policy. Officers had reviewed the policy and confirmed that the Corporation does not have the power to prevent dockless cycle operators from operating within the City, but has the power to remove cycles if they were deemed to be causing an obstruction, danger or nuisance.

The recommendation was that officers would investigate whether additional management measures could be applied pending the adoption of the City’s new Transport Policy and in the meantime the Corporation could be more proactive in removing cycles in accordance with the Street Obstructions Policy. The Sub-Committee was advised that TfL was consulting on devising a London-wide byelaw which would enable the Corporation to licence dockless bike operators in coordination with other boroughs and TfL.

The Comptroller & City Solicitor drew the Sub-Committee's attention to the legal advice set out in the report. Whilst Members' frustrations were understandable, the matter had been looked at very carefully, and the general law does not permit the City to ban operators from operating in the City. Officers were continuing to work closely with the operators, and the Corporation retained the right to remove any dockless bikes that were an obstruction, nuisance or danger.

Members suggested that the opportunity be taken to undergo a wider review of the Corporation's Street Obstruction Policy to reconsider issues such as A-boards, road signs, and people congregating in large numbers to drink outside pubs. The current Street Obstructions Policy was agreed in 2014 and may need to be updated given the greater number of pedestrians in the City today. Members asked that a report be brought back on street obstructions generally.

A Member commented that the City had power to prosecute obstructions of the highway. A Member asked what was happening with regards to dockless cycles in other London Boroughs and cities elsewhere. The Director of the Built Environment responded that experience varied, but most London Boroughs had reported similar experiences to that of the City of London. TfL had a working group that was focussed on the issue in London. Mobike was withdrawing from Manchester because of operational issues and operators were now focussing more on London as they worked towards a profitable business model. Other countries had different experiences, affected by their relevant laws, China’s had been well documented; some US cities had banned them, others had problems with electric scooters. Most cities were having to balance encouragement of cycling with the fact that it could be a challenge to manage.

A Member enquired about the fee of £82.58 charged for removing a cycle and how this figure was reached. The Director of the Built Environment responded that the figure was the same as that applied to individual (private) bikes and could be reviewed.

A Member expressed disappointment that the report did not address comments or provide information requested by Members, such as measures introduced in other countries who seemed to have stricter rules, like Singapore, who operated on a basis of licensing all dockless cycle operators, with a limited number of licences available. The Corporation had the power to deal with obstructions and needed to make more use of those powers. The report needed to provide further detail about removals such as its impact on officer resources. It was suggested that officers look at the Metropolitan Streets Act 1867 and Schedule 4 of the Environment Act 1990, which had for example enabled authorities to take stricter action against supermarket operators when the dumping of shopping trolleys had become a problem.

A Member argued that the City of London was not a suitable location for dockless cycles and the operators should be told that they were not allowed to use the City of London. The Member highlighted limited capacity on the City’s streets and the Corporation’s responsibility to account for the impact of street obstructions on disabled people, as the streets could be difficult to navigate for them. It should be suggested that dockless bikes could be ridden in the City - but could only be parked outside of the City.

A Member suggested that the service could be a real benefit if it was well-run, and a possible way forward might be to designate areas where the cycles could be left, such as car parks like Baynard House. A Member added that it was not clear how significant an issue the cycles were as obstructions, as the report stated that poorly-parked cycles had often been ridden away by a customer between the cycle being reported to officers and the operator reaching the location. It was noted that the City's SEO or City Police had only had to remove bikes on three occasions since November 2017.

A Member asked officers to clarify whether the City of London was a Participating Borough (for the purposes of TfL’s Code of Practice (Dockless bike share). The Director of the Built Environment responded that the Corporation had not entered into a Memo of Understanding with operators as officers had been advised that these did not carry weight. The City has formal arrangements with 2 operators. Designated parking areas had been suggested before and work on this proposal could be brought forward. Geofencing was raised and it was suggested that the Corporation could give preferred locations to operators. Officers commented that the GPS technology on the bikes was not sophisticated enough to trigger charges if the bikes were left in the wrong location, as it was only accurate to within 100 metres. However, different technology such as Bluetooth could be explored. Mobike has a surcharge system for bikes left outside their operating area (which currently includes the City).

The Director of the Built Environment advised the Sub-Committee that the current arrangements with operators could be revoked and the operators could be asked not to operate within the City, but legally the Corporation could not stop them from doing so. A Member responded that the main issue was with using public pavement space. The operators could hire car parking space or private land to station their bikes. Provision for private bikes was already limited. The Corporation should take the proactive course of saying that dockless bikes could not be parked on public pavements to ensure the pavements were kept clear and safe, and if the operators wanted to so trade, they should follow the same rules as others. This would not be banning the bikes from the City but only from the public highway.

The Director of the Built Environment responded that officers needed time to assess the degree of obstruction being caused and to develop an understanding of the scale of any negative impacts that the bikes were causing. The upcoming Transport Strategy would also identify the level of public amenity provided by dockless cycle schemes, which could be set against the issue of obstructions. It was requested that officers be given time to gather more data and bring a further report back at a future meeting.

The Comptroller and City Solicitor advised the Sub-Committee that revoking the current arrangements with operators would not give the Corporation greater powers to act against them and would not make a difference to the City’s current ability to remove the bikes where they are causing an obstruction danger or nuisance. The Sub-Committee was advised that the City had a better ability to manage the situation if it continued to work with operators under the current arrangements, and that the Corporation would be better off being part of a London-wide model. Members' suggestions on previous legislation could be fed back into the discussions taking place on the establishment of a London-wide byelaw.

A Member stressed the need for a measured and proportionate response. A co-ordinated approach with other boroughs should be the central means of working with operators so that there is regulation across Central London, but officers need to keep up the momentum so as to make progress with this. Members recognised the need for a proper enforceable legal agreement with operators.

RESOLVED –

a) That officers take the comments of the Sub-Committee into account and produce this note of the Sub-Committee’s discussion, and previous reports, to the Planning & Transportation Committee ahead of consideration of the matter by the Planning & Transportation Committee; and

b) That officers be instructed to bring a report back to the Sub-Committee on the Corporation’s Street Obstructions Policy for review.