Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Alderman Ian David Luder.

There were no declarations.

To agree the public minutes of the meeting held on 06 September 2022.

RESOLVED, That the public minutes of the meeting of 06 September 2022 be approved as an accurate record of the proceedings.

To consider the report of the Executive Director, Environment.  

The Sub-Committee considered the report of the Executive Director, Environment.

RESOLVED, That the Sub-Committee

      I.         Agree the extension of the project programme from June 2022 to March 2023 to allow time to complete the project within the upcoming planting season and implement Phase 3 works;

    II.         Agree that the remaining project budget of £372,163 (including any interest accrued) is revised as set out in the finance tables in Appendix E; to complete the project in accordance with the Section 106 Agreement;

  III.         Approve of the budget adjustment summarised in table 2 Appendix E;

  IV.         Agree that the Corporate Programme Management Office, in consultation with the Chairman of the Operational Property and Projects Sub Committee and Chief Officer as necessary, is to decide whether any project issues or decisions that fall within the remit of paragraph 45 of the ‘City of London Project Procedure– Oct 2018’ (Changes to Projects: General), as prescribed in Appendix E of this report, are to be delegated to Chief Officer or escalated to the relevant committee(s); and 

    V.         Note that funding is subject to the capital programme review and that the final decision on whether to proceed will be dependent on the outcome of that review.

To consider the report of the Executive Director, Environment.

The Sub-Committee considered the report of the Executive Director, Environment.

A Member asked why Golden Lane was not a school street and sought clarification on the process for achieving school street status. The meeting heard that a combination of traffic mitigation measures and restrictions would be in place, and that the process involved seeking a Traffic Order to close a specific street around school start and finish times.  The meeting noted that parents with children were likely to have a view on option 1c and the increased traffic on Golden Lane, and that it was important that those voices be heard.

A Member asked what would be the cost of the consultation under option 1c, noting that many people would be unhappy with the probable rat run that would result from that option. The meeting heard that the consultation exercise would cost around £35K to £40K, noting that the City of London had been criticised in the past for perceived inadequate consultation on Beech St, and that it was unhelpful to second-guess the outcome of any consultation.

A Member asked whether a timeframe was required in order to align with Healthy Streets and asked whether the Healthy Streets programme would encompass the school street process. The meeting heard that London Borough of Islington (LBI) was reallocating resources to the Healthy Streets programme to prioritise Healthy Streets.

A Member asked how the LBI was able to apparently dictate the consultation options to the City of London, commenting that option 1c was a narrow area of consultation and that the public was being excluded from all options. The meeting heard that LBI was unwilling to support consulting on options 1a and 1b and that LBI would not be implementing the measures set out in those options.  The meeting heard that a notification

To consider the report of the Executive Director, Environment.

The Sub-Committee noted the report of the Executive Director, Environment.

On paragraph 12 of the report, a Member noted that it was critical to provide appealing public play spaces for younger children in order to credibly attract families. The meeting noted that there was a single playground in the City.

RESOLVED, That the Sub-Committee

1.     Note the progress update;

2.     Note that there is a funding gap for the delivery of future projects within the City Cluster programme and that a capital bid would be required as part of the funding strategy;

3.     Approve an increase of funding of £27,000 from the S106 contribution of 40 Leadenhall Street for staff costs, for the management of the City Cluster programme including communications, for the next reporting period. As set out in Appendix 1; and

4.     Regarding the St Mary Axe Improvements - Phase 1 project:

                                                  i.     Note and approve that the scope of the work be amended to include widened footways on the western side of St Mary Axe at the junction with Undershaft to shorten the pedestrian crossing distance and improve accessibility.

                                                 ii.     Increase the project’s existing approved delegated authority cost limit (inclusive of CRP) to £329,229 from £270,000 (an increase of £122,229), and.

                                                iii.     Approve the updated funding strategy as shown in Appendix 1 to accommodate the above increase.

To consider the report of the Executive Director, Environment.

The Sub-Committee received the report of the Executive Director, Environment.

A few Members commented that a greening element appeared to be lacking in the project that could include planters, and the meeting heard that there was a wish to enhance the greening in the area.

On appendix 3, a Member asked why there was no S106 money from the Salisbury Square Development, and the meeting heard that the S106 money was from older developments in the area, and that a different type of contribution was expected from the Salisbury Square Development and that CIL money was expected in the future.  

RESOLVED, That the Sub-Committee

1.     Note the change in the project name and boundary from Gateway 2 as shown in figures 1 and 2;

2.     Note the revised total estimated cost of the project of £276,254 (excluding risk) and the updated funding strategy set out in Table 3 Appendix 3, which includes a contribution from the Fleet Street Quarter BID of £35,000 that is still to be confirmed; and

3.     Approve that the budget is increased by £154,054 from £87,200 to£241,254 to reach the next Gateway, funded from Section 106 receipts as detailed in Table 3 Appendix 3.

To consider the report of the Director, Environment.

The Sub-Committee considered the report of the Executive Director, Environment.

A Member asked what was being done to ensure that delays were minimised, and whether materials were being pre-purchased to avoid inflationary consequences and subsequent budget adjustments. The meeting heard that materials were purchased early on and in bulk wherever possible, and that the risks were well-understood.  

RESOLVED, That the Sub-Committee

      I.         Revise the remaining project budget of £244,510 as set out in the finance tables in Appendix 3; including any interest accrued to complete the project in accordance with the Section 106 Agreement;

     II.         Approve of the budget adjustment summarised in table 2 Appendix 3;

   III.         Agree to undertake the Traffic Orders statutory consultation regarding the proposal to relocate up to four new Pay and Display parking bays in the project catchment area, as part of phase 2B public realm measures, as prescribed in Appendix 2. Subject to the outcome of the statutory consultation proceed to implement the relocated bays; and

   IV.         Agree that the Corporate Programme Management Office, in consultation with the Chairman of the Operational Property and Projects Sub Committee and Chief Officer as necessary, is to decide whether any project issues or decisions that fall within the remit of paragraph 45 of the ‘City of London Project Procedure – Oct 2018’ (Changes to Projects: General), as prescribed in Appendix 3 of this report, is to be delegated to Chief Officer or escalated to committee(s).  

To consider the report of the Executive Director, Environment.

The Sub-Committee considered the report of the Executive Director, Environment.

RESOLVED, That the Sub-Committee

1      Authorise officers to negotiate and enter into a S278 agreement with the developer/landowners, to implement the proposals, as detailed in this report. All costs associated with this project are to be fully funded by the developer. Note that this authority must be given by the Streets and Walkways (Sub) Committee; and

2      Delegate the following three decisions to the Chief Officer:

1.     Agree to the proposal as detailed in this report

2.     Approve a budget of £153,000 to reach the next Gateway

3.     Note the total estimated cost of the project at £166,000 (excluding risk). All costs associated with this project are to be fully funded by the developer.

To consider the report of the Executive Director, Environment.

The Sub-Committee considered the report of the Executive Director, Environment.

On the freight targets set out in appendix 1, a Member commented that further work needed to be done to adjust that target. The meeting heard that further consideration was expected to be given to the matter.

Members discussed whether a five-year review cycle might be more appropriate, with some suggesting that there was merit in assessing whether the review cycle was still appropriate once a consultation period had been completed.

RESOLVED, That the Sub-Committee

1.     Approve the review (RAG) status of the proposals; noting that those marked ‘Green – no change’ are not anticipated to be amended unless evidence or views during engagement suggest a need to; and

2.     Approve the engagement plan.

To consider the report of the Executive Director, Environment.

The Sub-Committee considered the report of the Executive Director, Environment.

A Member commented that the bollards used should be standard City of London bollards rather than being ‘Culture Mile’ branded. The meeting heard that these were temporary.

RESOLVED, That the Sub-Committee

I.               Revise the remaining project budget of £241,288 as set out in the finance tables in Appendix 3; including any interest accrued to complete the project in accordance with the Section 106 Agreement;

II.              Approve of the budget adjustment summarised in table 2 Appendix 3;

III.            Agree that the Corporate Programme Management Office, in consultation with the Chairman of the Operational Property and Projects Sub Committee and Chief Officer as necessary, is to decide whether any project issues or decisions that fall within the remit of paragraph 45 of the ‘City of London Project Procedure – Oct 2018’ (Changes to Projects: General), as prescribed in Appendix 3 of this report, is to be delegated to Chief Officer or escalated to committee(s);and

IV.            Note that funding is subject to the capital programme review and the final decision on whether to proceed will be dependent on the outcome of that review and approval by the Operational Property and Projects Sub-Committee.

To consider the report of the Executive Director, Environment.

The Sub-Committee considered the report of the Executive Director, Environment.

RESOLVED, That the Sub-Committee agree to the Stage 2 Scoring System as outlined in the report.

To consider the report of the Executive Director, Environment.

The Sub-Committee considered the report of the Executive Director, Environment.

A Member asked whether SuDS measures would be used for the Moor Lane project, and the meeting heard that sustainable drainage was expecting to be incorporated into that design, though there had been some constraints around that. 

The meeting noted that the use of permeable paving was an opportunity to align with the Sports Strategy.

RESOLVED, That the Sub-Committee

1.     Approve Option 2 to include SuDS measures in strategically located sites, noting the locations of the proposed sites; and

2.     Approve the budget of £185,000 for design and monitoring infrastructure for Phase 4 SuDS for Climate resilience to reach Gateway 4.

Report of the Town Clerk.

The Sub-Committee received the list of Outstanding References.

On Dockless Vehicles, the meeting heard that existing powers were restricted to managing obstructions and dangers (as a result of vehicles left in inappropriate places) that could be difficult to define. The City of London was engaging with operators on a regular basis, though some commitments on the part of operators had not been met.

A Member asked whether there was a process to withdraw approval, and the meeting heard that operators had the right to continue operating without approval.

Members commented that the current system did not appear to be working well, and that there was merit in incentivising operators and/or users to a greater extent to ensure bikes were returned to appropriate places. The meeting noted that fines were retained by operators. 

A Member asked whether bikes could be seized if they were tantamount to litter, and the meeting heard that the City’s powers were limited in that respect and that significant resources would need to be committed to remove bikes for that reason.

Beech St: the matter was discussed at that day’s meeting as a separate agenda item.

TfL Experimental Scheme: This is now linked to the Bishopsgate Scheme, and the issue is being handled by the Bridge House Estates Board. The Sub-Committee agreed that there was merit in monitoring traffic displacement, and in keeping abreast of BHE discussions on the matter.

Bank Junction: An update is expected during the first quarter of 2023.   

A Member asked when the City Walkway would be opened, and whether signage should be provided to guide people until such time as it was opened. The meeting heard that the works were delayed, mainly because of supply issues with the metalwork sub-contractor. It was hoped that the walkway would be completed by early 2023. A Member asked whether a contingency plan was in place in the event that the contractor went out of business, and the meeting heard that the issue appeared to be related to prioritising work rather than any danger of bankruptcy.

A Member commented that a pedestrian crossing and a dropped kerb at Cannon St/King William St was needed for safety, noting that the issue fell within the remit of TfL. The meeting heard that some improvements were planned at King William St that would improve the situation and that TfL were examining options around improvements at that junction.

A Member asked when Arthur St would be reopened, and the meeting heard that the shaft was still in place and therefore the street could not be reopened until agreement with TfL had been reached. 

There was no other business.

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 the public be excluded from the meeting under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972.

To agree the non-public minutes of the meeting held on 06 September 2022.

The Sub-Committee considered the non-public minutes of the meeting of 06 September 2022.

To receive the report of the Clerk.