Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Deputy Lord, Judith Pleasance, Oliver Sells and Ian Seaton. Oliver Sells KC observed the meeting virtually.

There were no declarations.

To agree the public minutes and summary of the meeting held on 17 January 2023.

RESOLVED, That the public minutes of the meeting of 17 January be approved as an accurate record of the proceedings subject to the following amendments:

100 Minories Phase Two: Public Realm Enhancements (pages 39-54 of the agenda pack)

The sentence, ‘A Member asked for further clarification on the permeable paving to be used that limited water going into drains.’ Be amended to read, ‘A Member asked for further clarification on the permeable paving (that comprises resin/rubber material) to be used that allows some rainwater to pass directly into the ground, thereby reducing storm water flow into sewers.’

Vision Zero Plan 2023-2028 (pages 191-200 of the agenda pack)

The wording of the minute be revised to read as follows –

‘The Committee considered the report of the Executive Director, Environment.

A discussion ensued, during which the following points were made:

-        Focus should be concentrated going forward on safe behaviours – approximately 50% of City accidents are caused by inattention, there are a significant minority of cyclists who flout the highway code and pedestrians who put themselves and others at risk by using their smart phones when crossing busy streets.

-        A commitment to eliminate KSIs by 2040 is unachievable – this is an admirable aspiration which should be maintained - but we should not be committing to outcomes that we know are unrealistic.

-        Proper enforcement of existing speed limits is critical, otherwise the benefit of recent reductions to 20mph is reduced;

-        Lower speeds reduce the incidence of serious injury in the event of a collision;

-        Consistent speed limits across boroughs would be welcome;

-        A cyclist could reasonably expect to travel at 15mph so if the speed limit was reduced to 15mph, cyclists would feel safer and this would encourage cycling;

-        Speed-limiting devices are currently fitted

To consider the report of theExecutive Director Environment.

The Sub-Committee considered the report of the Executive Director, Environment which outlined the reasons why the option to allow general traffic (all traffic) through the junction at all times was not feasible.

Officers advised that the next report due in May 2023 would be more detailed and would include more traffic modelling.

A Member asked the reason as to why Members were being asked to eliminate Recommendation D from the options. Officers advised that this option was forecast to increase the bus journey times on eight routes by 15 minutes and it would not be possible to mitigate these to a level acceptable to TfL.

A Member asked whether it would be possible to close a different arm to the one proposed. Officers advised that building work had already commenced following Committee and TfL agreement.

A Member commented that reducing traffic at the weekend should be encouraged.

Following a Member’s question about whether there was a clear definition of non-black taxi cab and whether ‘except taxi’ signage exemptions applied to them, an officer advised that this would be clarified in the May report to the Sub-Committee.

A Member asked for the definition of ‘powered two wheelers’ and an officer advised that this related to motorcycles and mopeds.

An Officer stated that modelling was only one part of the decision making and recommendation making process. It also included road danger reduction, equalities impacts and the look, feel and ambience of the space. TfL had made a number of changes to routes to facilitate the improvements.

A Member asked for clarification on why Finch Lane was one-way from North to South and not South to North. Officers advised that this had been in place for some time and was not a result of the Bank scheme. Officers stated that although no complaints

To consider the report of the Executive Director Environment.

The Sub-Committee considered the report of the Executive Director, Environment which presented the results of the experimental traffic order’s statutory and public consultation, sought approval for making the traffic changes permanent at King Street, Old Jewry and King William Street and reported on work that needed to be taken at other locations.

An Officer stated that this Gateway 5 report updated a report to the Sub-Committee in September 2022 which detailed a shift in focus from delivering interim improvements at various locations to delivering permanent Highway changes. This Gateway 5 report set out findings from the public consultation, the statutory consultation on the traffic order monitoring of the traffic experiment and the equalities and healthy streets assessments that had been undertaken. The formal traffic experiments began in January 2022 and would conclude in July 2023. An experimental traffic order for Chancery Lane would be commencing in the next week and would follow a separate timeline and pathway.

The Chairman asked for more information on the use of wands as there had been negative feedback in the consultation. An Officer advised that there were currently wands with a plastic footing secured by four bolts on King Street. An assessment was taking place of the suitability of the standard poles used in the City for these streets. If used, they would be less closely spaced that the existing wands. The number of wands required depended on how many were required to discourage vehicles from stopping and loading and unloading in cycle lanes. Screwed fittings into carriageways were being considered. A raised kerb was not possible as it could not be removed for events such as the Lord Mayor’s Show. Low plastic barriers called Armadillos were an option but vehicles could park and drive over these and they could not always be seen.

To receive the report of The Chamberlain.

The Sub-Committee considered the report of The Chamberlain which detailed the on-street parking accounts 2021/22 and the related funding of Highway improvements.

An Officer reported that there had been an annual net surplus of £9m to £10m in recent years so it was unlikely that the account would be in deficit in future years. Legislation stated that if there was ever a deficit, this would have to be remedied within four years and before any money could be spent on any capital revenue schemes.

The Chairman stated that the Sub-Committee had asked for details of future projects. An Officer stated that the currently approved schemes for revenue and capital would be submitted to the Priorities Board and any recommendations would be submitted to the Resource Allocation Sub (Policy and Resources) Committee.

The Officer stated that when there was an annual capital bidding process there had been delays but having a quarterly Priorities Board would reduce delays.

The Officer advised that a substantial amount of money was spent on capital and revenue schemes and money was also generated through on-street parking.

In response to a Member’s question about a need for a clearer understanding of the projects that funds could be used on, the Officer stated the criteria were stringent. A Member stated that the Resource Allocation Sub (Policy and Resources) Committee had requested training on schemes for which the Community Infrastructure Levy funds, On Street Parking Reserves and other ring-fenced funds could be used. It was suggested that Members of the Streets and Walkways Sub-Committees and all other Members be invited to attend.

Officers were thanked for providing the data for the public agenda. A Member stated that although the Sub-Committee no longer controlled the allocation of funds, the Sub-Committee might have a view on how funds should be spent.

Report of the Town Clerk.

The Sub-Committee noted the report of the Town Clerk detailing the Sub-Committee’s list of outstanding references.

Officers advised that meetings were taking place with dockless bike scheme operators and there would be a future report back to the Sub-Committee on this matter.

A Member commented that TfL were trying to lead on a pan-London approach and aimed to share proposals in June 2023. There could be a split in views between inner and outer London as issues were more significant in inner London.

Officers advised that the Beech Street consultation would close on 6 March.

The Healthy Neighbourhood consultation was being undertaken in parallel with the Beech Street consultation. Participants were providing feedback on aspirations and problems across the area and a consultant was pulling together key themes across all locations. Monthly working party meetings were taking place with Islington colleagues to develop proposals.

RECEIVED.

A Member raised concern about the alterations to the Number 11 bus route. An Officer advised that a response to the consultation had been submitted and the Chairman proposed that he and the Deputy Chairman would look into whether an alternative was proposed and decide whether it was necessary to raise concerns with the Chair of the Policy and Resources Committee.

A member commented that Alderman Luder was an appointee rather than an ex-officio member of the Open Spaces Committee and Paul Martinelli was an appointee rather than an ex-officio member of the Finance Committee and asked that this therefore be corrected in terms of future agenda sheets and Sub-Committee minutes.

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.

To agree the non-public Minutes of the meeting held on 17 January 2023.

The Sub-Committee considered the non-public minutes of the meeting of 17 January 2023 and approved these as a correct record.

There were no questions raised in the non-public session.

There were no additional, urgent items of business for consideration in the non-public session.