Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Alex Bain-Stewart, Alderman Alison Gowman and Christopher Hayward.

There were none.

To agree the public minutes and summary of the meeting held on 22 June 2015.

RESOLVED – That the public minutes of the meeting on 22 June 2015 be agreed.

Report of the Town Clerk.

The Sub-Committee received the current list of Outstanding References and discussed the following matters arising:

Skateboarding

The Chairman advised that a City-wide review of skateboarding would be considered at the next Sub-Committee meeting in September 2015. The Director of Transportation and Public Realm added that references would be made to the trial at St Pauls but the review would also seek to identify measures that might be utilised elsewhere in the City of London. Members of staff at the City Corporation who were also skateboarders had so far been consulted and wider consultation with local skateboarders would be carried out.

UKPMS Carriageway Condition

The Assistant Highways Director advised that a briefing session for Members to aid in the understanding of the formula for the condition index had been scheduled for 14:00 – 16:00 on 31 July 2015.

Eastern City Cluster

A briefing note summarising discussions held at a recent Board meeting for the Sculpture of the City would be circulated to Members before the next Sub-Committee meeting.

20mph Speed Limit

Details of enforcement and average speeds resulting from the 20MPH limit would be available shortly and a one-year review of its implementation would be reported to the next Sub-Committee meeting in September 2015.

Cycling

In response to a Member’s question, the City of London Police Sergeant advised that the recent accident near Bank Station was still under investigation. An initial hearing regarding a collision on Ludgate Hill was being heard at Court on 13 July 2015 to set a subsequent Court case and a person had been charged in relation to a third incident but a decision had yet to be made on whether the case would progress to Court.

RESOLVED – That the Outstanding References be noted.

The Sub-Committee received a report of the Director of the Built Environment that provided an update on progress made regarding the Aldgate Highway changes and Public Realm Enhancement. Members were advised a further report would be considered by the Sub-Committee in November 2015.

The Assistant Director of Local Transportation advised that works were on target to fall within the £18.35 million cap on construction costs. He added that the Section 278 funding for 16% of the project cost had been confirmed and received and negotiations would start shortly regarding the Section 106 funding for an additional 31% of the project cost.

The Chairman noted that it was pleasing to see an agreement had been made regarding the demarcation of London Wall. The Chairman also suggested that a City drinking fountain be installed in the garden space, along with a space of remembrance for Aldgate victims of the 7/7 bombings. These proposals would be considered in a further report submitted to the Sub-Committee in November 2015.

In response to Members’ questions, the Assistant Director of Local Transportation advised that enough funding had been received so far that use of the £10 million parking reserve had not been necessary yet. Reserves could hopefully be redistributed once designs were completed. In response to a question regarding cycling, he added that Transport for London (TfL) had administered a change to the cycling trial to include a wider carriageway with mandatory cycling lanes. TfL had been instructed to carry out detailed monitoring of the scheme for its impact on road users and pedestrians. City Corporation Officers would try to secure funding for a change to the scheme if deemed necessary by the monitoring process.

RESOLVED – That the report be noted.

The Sub-Committee considered a report of the Director of the Built Environment that sought approval to the return of the remaining Barbican Seating improvement project funding to the allocated Reserve committed to the delivery of projects from the Barbican Area Enhancement Strategy.

Members were advised that planters had been utilised by the Open Spaces Department in Golders Hill Park, not Golders Hill Green. Members also noted that owners of the freehold of properties included in the Barbican Estate needed to be included in future public consultations concerning the Barbican Area Enhancement Strategy.

RESOLVED – That:-

a)    the lessons learnt during the project be noted;

b)    the closure of the project be authorised; and

c)    thereturn of the remaining project funding of £121,725.34 to the allocated pot of On Street Parking Reserve, committed for the delivery of projects from the Barbican Area Enhancement Strategy, be approved.

The Sub-Committee considered a report of the Director of the Built Environment that sought approval to the progression of the Environmental Enhancement project at 1 Angel Court. Members were advised that sections of road surrounding 1 Angel Court would be raised and vehicle access would remain unchanged.

RESOLVED – That:-

a)    the streets identified for enhancement and the design objectives for Angel Court be approved;

b)    the detailed options developed to reach Gateway 4, at an estimated cost of £35,000, be approved; and

c)    the Comptroller and City Solicitor be authorised to enter into any necessary legal agreements with the developer to fulfil the requirements of the Section 278 remedial instructions in line with the Section 106 Agreement.

The Sub-Committee considered a report of the Director of the Built Environment that sought approval for the decision on the Gateway 4 (detailed options appraisal) regarding the Bart’s Close Enhancement project be delegated to the Town Clerk, in consultation with the Chairmen and Deputy Chairmen of the Streets and Walkways and Projects Sub-Committees.

Members were advised that the public consultation period lasted three weeks because considerable consultation had already been undertaken with relevant stakeholders and interested parties.

RESOLVED – That authority be delegated to the Town Clerk, in consultation with the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the Streets and Walkways Sub-Committee, to determine the Gateway 4 (detailed options appraisal) report for enhancements to Bart’s Close.

The Sub-Committee considered a report of the Director of the Built Environment regarding the Plough Place Environmental Enhancement project. Approval was sought for the preferred design options for the full pedestrianisation of the road, new seating, lighting, and soft landscaping.

Members were advised that costs for maintenance requirements would be covered for five years under the Section 106 Agreement. Officers had tried to negotiate additional years’ costs but this was not possible due to the fact that the Section 106 Agreement was made in 2009.

The Director of Transportation and Public Realm advised that motorcycle parking would be relocated a short walk way away Holburn, with 12 additional spaces provided. In response to a Member’s question, the Director added that a pedestrian crossing would be available at the top of the Fetter Lane junction with Feather Lane.

Members noted that it was good to see the Developers making additional contributions to the project beyond their contractual requirements.

RESOLVED – That:-

a)    the detailed designs be approved;

b)    the commencement of the project at a cost of £694,791 in line with the outline programme be approved;

c)    the budget for works, staff costs, fees and maintenance at a total estimated project cost of £694,791 be approved; and

d)    any underspend from the evaluation stage to be spent on implementation be approved.

The Sub-Committee considered a report of the Director of the Built Environment regarding Cycling Quietways.

Members were advised that the number of cyclists within the City of London had trebled since 2000; lots of support and resources had been provided by the City Corporation to the Greater London Authority regarding Cycling Superhighways, with TfL covering costs. The Assistant Director of Local Transportation advised that a Programme Board formedby TfL and comprising representatives from the City Corporation and other Central London Boroughs, Royal Parks, and the Canal and River Trust had considered the City’s Quietway proposals and recommended that the Quietway proposals through the East of the City of London be reconsidered and postponed, possibly beyond 2016. The Bishops Square area would not be suitable for any cycling routes as it was a highly pedestrianised area seven days a week. Members agreed and acknowledged that the route proposals would be postponed possibly beyond 2016.

Members considered the following matters regarding the proposals:-

·         Quietways were not suited to many of the City of London streets due to their unique structure and the environment of the streets and walkways, so City-only networks should also be explored;

·         Commuting cyclists were likely to choose more direct as opposed to quieter routes and less-active cyclists may wish to travel around the City of London on a variety of different routes;

·         The proposed alternative Quietway route in the North-West of the City included Hosier Lane and Cloth Fair to avoid busy one-way streets around Smithfield Market. Cyclists should be returned to carriageways where possible rather than shared walkways with pedestrians;

·         A TfL strategic link to join up Cycle Superhighways 2 and 3 had originally been considered by TfL but was not now included in TfL’s Superhighway Business Plan which was a cause of concern.

·         The addition

A Member noted his concern for the use of tactile paving at pedestrian crossings and its possible impact on elderly and disabled users. Members were advised that the guidance set by the Department for Transport on tactile paving had to be applied but different ideas and designs could be implemented by City Corporation Officers. For instance, red blister tactile paving was not used within the City of London.

In response to a Member’s question regarding project priority, Members were advised that details of priority projects were submitted to the Planning and Transportation Committee and Projects Sub Committee on a six monthly basis. Consultation exercises were carried out to determine future project prioritisation based on aspects such as political importance and additional funding received.

There was none.