Agenda and draft minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Deputy Alastair Moss.

There were no declarations of interest.

To agree the public minutes of the meeting held on 23 May 2023.

RESOLVED, That the public minutes of the meeting of 23 May 2023 be approved as an accurate record of the proceedings subject to an addition being made to the discussion on Item 5 in relation to commercial Apps being used to report issues (see below).

Matters Arising

Rerouting of Number 11 Bus

In response to a Member’s question, an Officer stated that he was not aware of the Policy Chairman having received a response from TfL to his letter about changes to the Number 11 bus route. The Officer would check this. The Member suggested that if a response had not been received, a letter be sent to a senior officer at TfL for a response. In response to the Chairman’s question, the Member advised that the bus had been rerouted and the letter was requesting it be routed back to the previous route.

Use of Commercial Apps to Report Issues

In response to the amendment to the minutes of 23 May 2023, an Officer stated that there were a number of routes which complaints, reports and queries came through and this was being streamlined. There was no intention to develop a City App and the preferred approach would be to leverage third party smartphone Apps as the primary reporting channel.

Report of the Executive Director, Environment.

The Sub-Committee considered a report of the Executive Director, Environment which was a Gateway 5 report informing Members on the results of the public consultation and seeking approval for the recommended option. An Officer stated that the linked Gateway 3 report for the Healthy Neighbourhood Plan was Item 5 on the agenda.

Members were informed that there were two distinct options for consideration. Option 1 would make the zero-emissions scheme permanent. Option 2 was recommended by Officers. This option was not to make the zero-emissions scheme permanent with Beech Street and Golden Lane continuing to operate as currently.

The Officer stated that the traffic had returned to 2019 levels, even through traffic across the City was at 85% of 2019 levels. Two-thirds of the Beech Street traffic was through-traffic that did not stop. Air quality had been measured for 12 months across 2022 and it showed a marginal breach of the national legal limits. The value was now 41 micrograms of Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) per metre cubed.

Members were informed that the consultation results showed an even split between those who were supportive and not supportive of the proposals.

The Officer outlined the reasons why Officers supported Option 2. He informed Members that the air quality breach was marginal and was a significant improvement on the 2019 levels which were over 60 micrograms of NO2 per cubic metre. There was an expectation that as air quality in London improved, as electric vehicle take up increased, the tunnel air quality would continue to improve. There were disbenefits to some residents in terms of access and deliveries with the previous zero-emission scheme and support amongst City residents was only 46%.

Members were provided with a revised Appendix 2 which corrected errors on some of the budgeted figures. They were advised the overall

Report of the Executive Director, Environment.

The Sub-Committee considered a Gateway 3 report of the Executive Director, Environment which asked Members to note the feedback from the public engagements run in parallel with the Beech Street consultation. The report also sought approval for increasing the project budget to continue to develop the plan with Islington Council.

Members were advised there had been 189 respondents to the consultation, making 895 comments in total.

In response to questions from a Member about the programme, progress to date and when the project would be delivered, an Officer stated that there would be an initial meeting with Islington to set out the programme. It was estimated it would take 8-12 months to fully develop the plan including any required traffic modelling, and working with TfL if there were any implications on bus journey times etc.

In response to the Chairman’s questions about how the project would be staffed and the methodology for joint project oversight and reporting, an Officer stated that both the City governance and committee processes would be followed and in Islington, their governance and committee processes would be followed. Concepts and ideas would be developed at a workshop. Islington had a dedicated half time Officer, and with the budget increase, the City would have resources to progress this through the next 12 months with a dedicated project manager. The Chairman stated that these details must be worked out at the start of the project and agreed with elected Members in both Local Authorities to avoid any unnecessary complexity, delay and expense.

A Member suggested that the Chairman and Deputy Chairman have an initial meeting with Officers and the relevant Cabinet Member at Islington Council and Councillors from Bunhill ward so there was Member level agreement in the methodology to be followed and the outcomes to be achieved.

Report of the Executive Director, Environment.

The Sub-Committee considered a Gateway 6 Outcome report of the Executive Director, Environment.

The Chairman commented on the successful outcome of the project and stated that there were several learning points which could be usefully applied to the Newgate Square project.

A Member stated that the partnership approach in this project was positive. This included support from TfL of £8m. The Member stated that this was one of the largest projects the City had undertaken. There was also a side project to transform Aldgate and The Minories. She stated the contractors had dealt well when walls and burial sites were found whilst digging and there had been problems filling in the underpasses. The Member stated that Officers had reacted in a dynamic way to keep the programme on track. The Member raised concerns about the Pavilion but stated these were outside the remit of the Sub-Committee. She stated that the project had transformed the area and residents on the east side of the city now had a yard in which to hold events and bring the community together. She thanked Officers and Members on the Streets and Walkways Sub-Committee at the time and stated she would welcome more of this type of project.

RESOLVED – That the Sub-Committee

1. Note and approve the content of the outcome report;

2. Authorise Officers to complete the final account for the project;

3. Note that the unspent Section 106 funds were to be reallocated to other projects in accordance with the requirements of their related legal agreements and a separate report would be brought to Members that sets out details of the proposed reallocations; and

4. Agree to close the project.

Report of the Executive Director, Environment.

Members considered a report of the Executive Director, Environment, which outlined the results of the extended review into dockless operator, Lime.

Members were informed that a review had taken place of both dockless operators, Lime and Human Forest following complaints regarding their performance around their operations in the City. In January 2023, it was decided to reapprove Human Forest to continue operating in the City but to extend the review into Lime to assess whether they were able to meet the City’s standards and requirements.

The Officer stated that the report summarised the results of the extended review and recommended that following a satisfactory review and extensive engagement with Lime, that Lime be approved to continue to operate in the City whilst maintaining ongoing performance reviews. This approach would enable further engagement and for work to be undertaken to improve operations in the City, especially whilst awaiting additional powers in the form of primary legislation to help regulate the industry. Members were informed that the report and recommendations did not propose any changes to the current approach to dockless cycles more generally, other than to recommend a limited trial of allowing users to end their journeys in some Sheffield stands and bike racks.

There was concern expressed from a Member that the City was judging the performance of the dockless cycle-hire vendors using statistics provided by the vendors themselves, and whether there was independent verification of their performance from Officers. An Officer responded that Officer verification would be ideal, but there were constraints due to the Officer time required for this.

In response to a Member’s question about the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), the Officer stated that Officers had worked with Human Forest and Lime to set agreed KPIs and they had also carried over some KPIs used in the

Report of the Executive Director, Environment.

The Sub-Committee considered a report of the Executive Director, Environment which outlined TfL’s proposals for Arthur Street.

The Officer stated that Arthur Street had been closed since 2015 to facilitate the Bank Station capacity upgrade. Since this time, users had had to use alternative options and travel routes and there had not been any significant issues with this. There was now the opportunity to consider whether or not Arthur Street should be reopened back to vehicles.

Members were informed that in the last year, Officers had had been in discussions with TfL to discuss the proposals to improve the Junction at King William Street. This would involve closing it to all vehicles except pedal cycles and emergency services vehicles. There had also been discussions about the junction at Upper Thames Street. The proposal also included a re-routing of the 344 bus route but since the report was written, TfL had decided that the southbound route could remain on Southwark Bridge but the northbound route would be re-routed to London Bridge.

A Member raised concern about the potential of the existing scheme to damage Southwark Bridge and asked if the Bridge House Estates had been fully consulted. An Officer stated that they had been consulted and there was concern about the structure of the bridge because of the additional traffic and heavy goods vehicles that might divert across to Southwark Bridge. The Officer assessment was that the volume of vehicles of 18 tonnes or over, likely to divert onto Southwark Bridge, was minimal and therefore on balance Officers considered that the impacts and benefits of the scheme outweighed the disbenefits.

An Officer raised concern about Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) using Tower Bridge. Although there was no breakdown of HGVs diverting onto other bridges, they created a disproportionate wearing effect. Looking at

Report of the Town Clerk.

The Chairman stated that dockless vehicles and Beech Street had been discussed. Bank Junction would be discussed at the next Court of Common Council meeting.

RECEIVED.

There were no questions.

There were no urgent items.

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:-

The Committee agreed to exclude the public from the Non-Public part of the meeting in line with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972.

RESOLVED – That the Sub-Committee notes the non-public appendix.

There were no non-public questions.

There was no urgent business to be considered in the non-public session.