Agenda and draft minutes

Apologies were received from Judith Pleasance.

Oliver Sells KC and Judith Pleasance observed the meeting virtually.

Deputy Lord declared an interest in Item 8 – Questions relating to matters in relation to the work of the Sub-Committee. In relation to the discussion on Arthur Street, they advised that they lived in the immediate vicinity. They advised that as a resident, they had not been consulted by TfL. Deputy Lord stated that they would not take part in the discussion on this item.

To agree the public minutes and summary of the meeting held on 14 February 2023.

RESOLVED, That the public minutes of the meeting of 14 February 2023 be approved as an accurate record of the proceedings.

Matters Arising

The Chairman reported that he and the Deputy Chairman had asked for a letter to be written from the Policy Chairman in relation to the proposal to stop the Number 11 bus route. Officers confirmed that this was being drafted. A Member stated that there was also a proposal to stop the Number 521 bus route. An Officer advised that there had been a report to the Sub-Committee towards the end of 2022 which detailed Transport for London’s (TfL) list of implications and issues. Members requested that Officers ensure that the Number 521 bus route be included in the letter.

A Member stated that a TfL impact assessment was required as the bus routes were accessible and were used by people with disabilities and people with children in pushchairs and it could be difficult to use Bank Station, particularly at the weekends, when the lifts were closed. An Officer stated that TfL would be asked to explain their rationale so that representations could be made about the services that the City wanted retained. The Chairman asked Officers to summarise the outcome of the TfL consultation and circulate this to Members of the Sub-Committee.

Report of the Director of the Built Environment.

The Sub-Committee considered a report of the Director of the Built Environment which was a Gateway 3 Issue Report updating the Sub-Committee on the project and requested authority to start the next stage of design – Stage 3.2 of the Public Realm and Transportation project around the Museum of London Site.

An Officer reported that works had been paused for further work on the Section 106 and associated Section 278 for the Museum of London. As a planning application had now been submitted and the Section 278 project had been agreed, authority was being sought to restart the project to ensure the Museum of London, Smithfield Meat Market and the public realm programmes aligned.

An Officer reported that stakeholder engagement would restart and a wider public consultation would take place. The Officer also reported that during the London Festival of Architecture in the summer, work would take place in relation to co-designing equity and inclusivity in the public realm.

A Member drew the Sub-Committee’s attention to the list of consultees in the Officer’s report and requested that the Smithfield Market Tenants Association be added to the list.

A Member asked for clarification on whether the summer activation and events could be funded from the On-Street Parking Reserve (OSPR). An Officer responded that there were constraints on the use of the OSPR. The Foundation for Future London was funding the summer activation and events. There would be some work to support the viability of these events, and this component would be funded by the OSPR.  A team of designers had been appointed following a design competition and the contract for the summer activities had been awarded to the Foundation for Future London. Officers would also be working with the Museum of London and there could be further funding from their budget,

Report of the Executive Director, Environment.

The Sub-Committee considered a report of the Executive Director, Environment which provided an update on progress of each element of the project, the issues encountered and proposed next steps. The report also sought approval to draw down additional funds from the previously approved budget to enable further scheme development.

An Officer stated that the project had five interrelated areas as outlined in the Officer report. He advised that, to deliver high quality schemes in all five areas, a bid for additional funding from the On-Street Parking Reserve (OSPR) and/or Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) would be submitted. If additional funding was not secured, value engineering methods could be used, e.g., lifting the old natural stone paving on the Eastern side of Moorgate and reusing the best paving stones. The Officer stated that it might not be possible to deliver certain elements of the scheme if additional funding was not obtained.

A Member asked for confirmation that the pedestrian overpass above Moor Lane would be included in the work. An Officer confirmed that these works would take place but a date was dependent on the progression of building work at 21 Moorfields. A Member stated that this delivery was a condition of 21 Moorfields being occupied.

A Member stated that the inclusion in the report of a map of the inter-related work areas would be useful. An Officer advised that there would be further reports on the specific schemes and drawings would be included in these.

A Member asked if it would be appropriate to combine the Finsbury Circus Western Arm project and the Finsbury Circus project rather than having two separate projects.

An Officer stated that currently work was taking place to secure funding for Finsbury Circus and progress with a contract for tenders. He advised that an appointment would take

Report of the Executive Director Environment.

The Sub-Committee considered a report of the Executive Director, Environment which provided details of the Anti-Terrorism Traffic Regulation Order currently in place and recommended the continuing need for it to remain in place.

RESOLVED, That the Sub-Committee

Approve the continuation of the ATTRO subject to a further review in three years’ time.

Report of the Town Clerk.

Dockless Vehicles

The Chairman asked for an update on the dockless vehicles item and was advised that Officers had met separately with Lime and Human Forest and the operators had been asked to propose how they would better manage their service to set standards. An Officer advised that both providers were willing to negotiate, understood the problems being encountered and were sympathetic to high priority issues e.g., around fire escapes. They were both in agreement that they would do more to address these issues with their users. The Sub-Committee were informed that the operators had started banning frequent offenders from using the services and Officers had asked them for their records of this and the penalties issued. The next stage would be to draw up agreements around potential funding. A similar model as that for e-scooters was being suggested where there was a fee per deployment in the City which meant the numbers of bikes could be managed and accommodated appropriately. There were challenges in finding more spaces but the operators could also use deployment management to assist with this.

A Member stated that he understood that every borough had a slightly different contract with the operators. He suggested the City should work towards an individual agreement rather than wait for a London-wide agreement which could take some time. The Chairman stated that there could be difficulties with reaching a Pan-London agreement but as central London boroughs shared similar issues, it could be that a central London borough agreement could be reached. The Sub-Committee were advised that Westminster Council had recently introduced new methods to tackle issues. The Chairman asked Officers to report back to Members of the Sub-Committee on the measures being taken by Westminster Council. An Officer stated that whether a Pan-London agreement or a more local immediate

A Member reported that there was TfL bus stop in King William Street that was moved to its current location whilst 33 King William Street was being built and while work was being undertaken on Arthur Street. The Member stated that its current location was inconvenient to road users and pedestrians. The Member requested that representation be made to return the bus stop to its previous location. Officers agreed to make representations to TfL.

A Member stated that TfL were undertaking consultation in relation to Arthur Street being closed to regular traffic and allowing cyclists to use it. An Officer stated that TfL were leading the consultation as they had the statutory duty to return the streets back to public use following their work. The Officer stated there were TfL junctions at the top and bottom of Arthur Street and as the street was a City street, TfL required the City’s agreement to return the street to public use. Officers considered that a report should be submitted to the Sub-Committee and a recommendation made back to TfL as the City was fundamental to the decision. The Officer advised that the way the area was now operating had changed as there was previously a weight limit at the beginning of the north side of London Bridge and this led to Arthur Street being used as a through route prior to the work being started. This weight limit had now been removed but instead there was a traffic order from TfL to restrict traffic on London Bridge to buses and taxis. This would mean that if the traffic order continued, Arthur Street would not return to being used as a through route. Officers would submit a report to the next meeting of the Sub-Committee. Officers would discuss this with TfL to ensure

There were no additional, urgent items of business for consideration.