Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Alderman Ian David Luder, Deputy Alastair Moss, and Judith Pleasance.

There were no declarations.

To agree the public minutes and summary of the meeting held on 03 May 2022.

RESOLVED, That the minutes of the meeting of 03 May 2022 be confirmed as an accurate account of the proceedings.

A Member suggested that a question referenced in paragraph 10 of the minutes (p.9 of the agenda) relating to clarification on aspirations around Bank Junction had not been answered, commenting that there had been an original aspiration - debated at high levels - to remove all traffic.

The meeting heard that the extent of change at the junction had been discussed at an earlier stage of the project at the Grand Committee which recommended an aspiration to close 2-3 arms of the junction. Complete pedestrianisation had been considered but the limitations of the funding for the project and the impact on the network meant this was not an agreed objective to be taken forward. The new Destination City strategy which was recently launched to boost the City’s leisure offer does not change the project objectives for the Junction apart from strengthening the weight of “improving the perception of place” which is one of the four original objectives.

The Chairman confirmed that the minutes of a part of the Committee’s discussion relating to Beech Street on 03 May 2022 would be available to the public, having been discussed in the meeting’s non-public section on that date. The Chairman issued an apology for the lack of clarity around the reason given for the exemption of that discussion, which should have clearly referenced Paragraph 3 of Schedule 12 of the Local Government Act 1997 relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the authority holding that information) taking into account the fact that the London Borough of Islington was in their pre-election purdah period at the time, when the discussion was expected to touch on LBI business. It was

To consider the report of the Executive Director Environment.

A Member sought clarification on whether there were options for amending the scope to take into account increased costs. The meeting heard that negotiations were under way to clarify the amendment of any scope given the likelihood of increased materials costs.

A Member asked what construction cost increases had been factored in, and the meeting heard that the new contract rates had been used.

The meeting heard that the previous governance processes noted that reports were submitted to the officer Corporate Project Board, but that reference to this would be removed from this and similar project reports in future. 

RESOLVED, That the Committee:

1.    Approve the budget of £50,000 to reach the next  Gateway,fully fundedfrom a Section106 agreement;

2.    Note the total estimated cost of the project at £200,000     (excludingrisk); and

3.    Authoriseofficers toenter intoa Section278 agreement   with the developer.

To consider the report of the Executive Director Environment.

The Committee considered the report of the Executive Director Environment.

RESOLVED, That the Committee:

1. Approve a budget of £100,000 to reach the next Gateway, fully funded from the relevant Section 106 agreement;

2. Note the total estimated cost of the project at £1,200,000 (excluding risk);

3. Authorise officers to enter into a Section 278 agreement with the developer.

To consider the report of the Executive Director Environment.

In response to a question from a Member on approval stages, the meeting heard that the Committee would be consulted at each stage of the plan. The committee would scrutinise the project on behalf of the Grand Committee and make recommendations for the Grand Committee and ultimately the Court of Common Council to consider.

A Member commented on the cost risk set out in paragraph 19 and asked whether a sum was to be submitted to the Court, and the meeting heard that cost estimates were awaited subject to approval of the overall approach.

A Member expressed concern that private vehicle hire interest groups might not fully support the proposals, and that their interests were not necessarily reflected in the equalities analysis that did not appear to reflect the make-up of that group. 

A Member commented that weekends were increasingly busy in the City, and that any plan should be future-proofed to take into account a 7-day week. The meeting heard that different timings had been considered (p.46 of the agenda pack), and that timing extensions were being considered. The meeting heard that pedestrians were still the top priority in future plans.

A Member commented that legalisation of private e-scooters would represent an increased risk, and asked whether such legalisation could be factored in as a way of future-proofing the proposals. The meeting heard that privately owned e-scooters were currently illegal (excluding trial e-scooters) and that if private e-scooters were legalised then further consideration would need to be given to the proposals, and they had not been included in modelling so far. The meeting heard that further information on the e-scooter trial was likely to be provided to the July meeting.

A Member commented that further consideration needed to be given to signage, including flashing lights, to alert drivers.  

RESOLVED,

To consider the report of the Executive Director Environment.

NB: Appendix 5 is non-public.

The Committee considered the report of the Executive Director Environment.

A Member commented that taxi app registration could potentially incorporate information on blue-badge holders that could make signage issues less complex, it was  noted that such a system would need to be London-wide, supported by TfL, and that the technology used would need to be reliable.  

A Member asked for clarification on U-turns on different types of streets, and the meeting heard that the issue was being further examined.  

A Member asked for clarification on taxi casualty fatality figures, and the meeting heard that the figures were intended to illustrate differences across modes of transport and that the term ‘taxi’ did not refer solely to licensed black cabs.

A Member asked for clarification on a bus shuttle provision, and the meeting noted that the term ‘shuttle’ was misleading and was no longer being used but was used to describe buses travelling alternately along a single traffic lane.

The Committee considered aspects of appendix 5 in the non-public section of the meeting.

RESOLVED, That the Committee

1.    Note the report;

2.    Agree that in this instance no public inquiry is necessary before making the orders;

3.    Consider the objections received and endorse that the traffic orders related to the All Change at Bank project be approved to be ‘made’, taking into consideration the objections received to the traffic orders as detailed below;

4.    Agree the modification of the proposed ‘at anytime’ loading restriction in Mansion House Place be modified from the advertised 15.6m to 15m at the junction with Mansion House Street; and

5.    Note that on this basis, construction of the All Change at Bank project will commence in the Autumn of 2022, subject to no legal challenge being filed.

To consider the report of the Executive Director Environment.

The Committee considered the report of the Executive Director Environment.

RESOLVED, That the Committee

1. Note and approve the contents of this report;

2. Note and agree that this project’s original Gateway 1/2 proposals for Leadenhall Street will not be progressed at this time;

3. Approve a change in project title to ‘Leadenhall Street Improvements – City Cluster Vision Programme’ to better reflect the approved scope of work;

4. Approve the amendment of the previously agreed budget (no change in the approved overall amount) detailed in Appendix 2, Table 2;

5. Approve the updated funding strategy set out Appendix 2, Table 3;

6. Approve a Costed Risk Provision (CRP) of £57,000 detailed in Appendix 3 (to be drawn down via delegation to Chief Officer);

7. Note that the requested CRP includes provision for the implementation of an experimental timed point closure on Leadenhall Street that can be seen in Appendix 4 should this be required (subject to recommendation 8).

8. By virtue of the promotion of experimental timed point closure proposals being placed within the risk register, that authority to implement this is delegated to the Executive Director Environment subject to their prior consideration of the statutory consultation responses, TfL’s TMAN process and the Equalities Impact Assessment (and to them being satisfied, following such consideration, that implementation should proceed);

9. Note that the next report to committee is planned for Q2 2023 when funding to progress the transformational scheme for Leadenhall Street may be in place.

To consider the report of the Executive Director Environment.

The Committee considered the report of the Executive Director Environment.

RESOLVED, That the Committee

1.    Approve the content of this outcome report noting that the project was delivered to meet the developers programme and within the budget approved at G5.

2.    Authorise the Chamberlain’s department to return unspent S278 funds to the Developer as set out in the s278 legal agreement (subject to the verification of the final account); and

3.    Agree to close the 60 London Wall project.

To receive the report of the Executive Director Environment.

The Committee noted that the report had been dealt with at the meeting of 03 May 2022 and had been dealt with at that meeting.

Report of the Town Clerk.

The Committee received the report of the Clerk.

On Beech St, a Member asked how pedestrian modelling might work given the changes in use of Farringdon Station (Elizabeth Line) and the likely increase in pedestrian flow. The meeting heard that some City-wide modelling had shown no significant increases in pedestrian flow but further surveys would be undertaken.  

A Member asked whether there were any developments on concerns previously expressed about heavy traffic on Tower Bridge, and asked whether accurate data was being collected on traffic on Tower Bridge. The meeting heard that dialogue with TfL was ongoing and that the Committee’s concerns had been clearly expressed, and that data was more accurate than it had been in the past.

A Member asked whether individual Members had been briefed ahead of the London Government Dinner where they had been seated next to senior TfL officers in order to convey key messages, taking into account the opportunities provided by such events. No briefings had been provided beforehand. The meeting requested that communication channels (including the sharing of seating plans) be optimised  and advance notification given to ensure that the potential benefits provided by such events could be fully exploited in future.

In response to a question about planning decisions and areas of responsibility around ‘stopping up’ and air rights, the Committee heard that the Grand Committee dealt with planning issues, including the ‘stopping up’ of highways (insofar as they were not delegated)  but that City Operations officers were was consulted on such issues.  

A Member asked whether there was a cohesive linking strategy around Healthy Streets initiatives, and the meeting heard that four areas had been identified around Healthy Streets and that the transport strategy covered overarching objectives among those four areas. A Member commented that there was merit in linking these with BIDs and proposing an overall masterplan, and the meeting heard that the City transport strategy had overarching objectives that also identified key projects.

A Member commented that Goswell Road’s City side needed extra work and that residents were looking for reassurance that the matter was being dealt with. The meeting heard that the boundary agreement was

The meeting heard an update on the City’s Platinum Jubilee celebrations.

Members commented that better communication was needed on City events and road closures, and that there was merit in giving residents opportunities to sign up to a newsletter. The meeting heard that the information (including information on road closures) was available on the website and that the City Twitter feed was being used as a real-time information update stream, in the wake of issues with Mailchimp.

MOTION – That under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Part I of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act as follows:-

RESOLVED, That Members agree to exclude the public.

To agree the non-public Minutes of the meeting held on 03 May 2022.