Agenda and draft minutes

Apologies were received from John Edwards, Deputy Marianne Fredericks and Deputy Alastair Moss.

In relation to Agenda Item 14, Ian Seaton declared that he was church warden at St Lawrence Jewry and Deputy Edward Lord declared that they were on the Guild Church Council of St Lawrence Jewry.

To agree the public minutes and summary of the meeting held on 30 January 2024.

RESOLVED, That the public minutes of the meeting of 30 January 2024 be approved as an accurate record of the proceedings.

Matters Arising

Barbican and Golden Lane Healthy Streets Plan

The Chairman stated that he had met with Councillor Rowena Champion, who held the Transport Portfolio at Islington Council and he advised that work was progressing well.

King William Street bus stop at the top of the steps under London Bridge

An Officer stated that TfL had replied to the request to relocate the bus stop and they had advised that it would not be possible to move it further south as it would be closer to the bridge and would interfere with the lanes. They had stated that buses could potentially get stuck behind each other when they were using the bus stop and this could lead to delays and congestion on the bus network. A Member stated that there was currently significant crowding by the bus stop and the steps by King William Street which made it very difficult for pedestrians to pass. They requested that TfL be asked to relocate the bus stop to the north where the pavement was wide and the bus stop would not interfere with lanes. The Officer stated he would request TfL to move the bus stop northwards and would also follow up with TfL on the bridge repairs request at the last meeting as he had not yet received a response.

Report of the Interim Executive Director Environment.

Members considered a report of the Interim Executive Director, Environment concerning the King William Street Transformation and Programme Updates as part of the Pedestrian Priority Streets.

Members were informed that scheme would include wider footways, a narrowed carriageway to 6.4m, the minimum for two-way buses, greening and substantial tree planting, new side entry treatments where they were not already in place to help people walking and wheeling, raised carriageway tables at King William Street at the junction with Lombard Street and Nicholas Lane junctions to complement the London Underground step-free accesses, two purpose built inset loading bays. The scheme accounted for TfL’s plans at Monument Junction so less work would be required on the City Network as part of that. It was proposed to start work in Summer 2024 and for work to last for 18 months.

In response to the Chairman’s question about the local Members consulted and their responses, the Officer stated that there had been minor comments about design elements e.g. street furniture but there was support from all the Members consulted. Following a Member’s question about specific feedback given, the Officer stated that there had been comments about the Lombard Street Corner and the number of people using the London Underground entrance. Officers had responded to the feedback and they would continue with design work on this corner. There were also comments on the cycle stands and trees. In response to a Member’s question, the Officer confirmed that black taxis at Bank Junction had not been raised.

In response to Members’ questions, the Officer confirmed that surveys had been undertaken and trees could be planted and the bicycle racks would be Sheffield stands. Also, the inset loading bay loading restrictions mirrored others in the area. Due to the bays being located on the footway, the restrictions

Report of the Interim Executive Director, Environment.

Members considered a report of the Interim Executive Director, Environment concerning details of the potential improvements to Ironmonger Lane as requested by Members at the last meeting.

An Officer stated that there had been discussion at the last sub-committee meeting around the options for potentially opening Old Jewry in a southbound direction and Members indicated support for Option 2 - the southbound reopening of Old Jewry at all times and then pausing any work on potential improvements whilst conducting an experimental traffic order around the reopening.  The Officer stated that there had also been discussion at the meeting about the potential for Ironmonger Lane. Officers were asked to consider how the two schemes might link and whether there was merit in looking at them together. The Officer stated that Officers had concluded that Ironmonger Lane was unlikely to be an alternative route to most of the people currently using Old Jewry as they were not on the same desire lines. Whilst this could change due to routes available to people walking in the area when the new route through a development on Frederick’s Place, Officers did not consider the projects to be linked and suggested that if Members chose to proceed with Option 2A, this scheme would be taken forward separately to any improvements to Ironmonger Lane. Members were informed that some of these improvements would come forward as part of a Section 278.

In response to a Member’s question, an Officer stated that the timeframes for the scheme were as outlined in the Officer report to the previous sub-committee meeting and Officers would provide these to the Member.

A Member commented that Ironmonger Lane was scheduled to reopen in July 2024 and asked whether it was appropriate to open it at this point if it would then be substantially

Report of the Interim Executive Director, Environment.

Members considered a report of the Interim Executive Director, Environment concerning the extension of the Pan-London rental scooter e-trial until May 2026.

The Officer stated that e-scooters were a form of dockless vehicle. They were managed very differently to dockless bikes as they were regulated in a way that dockless bikes were not. The e-scooter trial had been helpful in informing the forthcoming London wide contract and this could also improve dockless bike management.

The Chairman queried whether, if the City of London Corporation declined to participate, it would free up space for more dockless bikes. An Officer confirmed this would be the case, but the amount of increased space would not be sufficient to resolve the space issues. He added that Officers were looking to identify additional parking spaces for e-scooters and bikes. Officers had explored with TfL and London Councils the option of leaving the trial and having more spaces available and they were keen for the Corporation to stay in the trial. They found having a destination like the City of London as part of the trial was useful in understanding how people used e-scooters. The wider learnings for the trial were helpful in terms of informing the broader policy approach to the management of both bikes and scooters in the future.

A Member commented that the behavioural pattern between cyclists and e-scooters was different. He stated that there was a need to find more space for e-bikes rather than leaving the trial to gain more space.

A Member asked why delegated authority was being sought. An Officer stated that another extension was not anticipated but if there was one, it would be of a similar nature and it was considered that it would be appropriate to work with the Chairmen and Deputy Chairmen to process any

Report of the Interim Executive Director, Environment.

Members considered a report of the Interim Executive Director, Environment which provided an update on the works completed to date.

An Officer stated that the cathedral lighting was over 30 years old and was out of date in terms of technology and energy use. The Corporation had historically managed the lighting and once of the outcomes of this process was to hand control over to the cathedral. The Officer stated that the lighting trial was intended to prove the concepts and demonstrate the control that could be applied over the lighting of the cathedral. The ambition was to better reveal the architecture of the building at night, to improve the quality of the lit environment and to look at how technology could better deliver a low energy solution with approximately a 75% reduction in energy. There were considerable heritage considerations. The Officer reported that the trial was a success with a significant amount of positive feedback. Detailed design would now take place. He added there was considerable work needed to be undertaken around the consent process particularly with the cathedral itself and in relation to the buildings adjacent to the cathedral. The Officer stated the complexity of having to deliver the lighting on such an important building.

Members were shown a number of photographs from the lighting trial which focussed on the west elevation. Members were shown comparisons between the current lighting and the lighting trial with the concept of light coming from within the building to show that it was a live building and a place of worship. The new lighting would reveal the architecture of the building, showing depth and architectural details and features that were currently in shadow. The colour of the lighting would make the building stand out in the local and wider environment. The trials

Report of the Interim Executive Director, Environment.

Members considered a Gateway 3/4/5 options appraisal and authority to start work report of the Interim Executive Director, Environment concerning Stonecutter Court S278.

RESOLVED – That Members of the Sub-Committee

1.        Approve a budget of £631,400is approved to reach the next Gateway;

2.        Note the revised total estimated project budget is £696,400 (excluding risk);

3.        Approve a Costed Risk Provision of £100,000 (to be drawn down via delegation to Chief Officer) as set out in the risk register in Appendix 4 of the Officer report;

4.        Note the Commuted Maintenance sum of £45,100, is included in the budget and will cover any additional future maintenance costs for a period of 20 years;

5.        Approve the design option shown in Appendix 2;

6.        Note that the making of the necessary Traffic Orders, subject to no objections, or the resolution and consideration of any objections, is delegated to the Director of City Operations under the scheme of delegation;

7.        Delegate to the Executive Director Environment authority to approve budget adjustments, above the existing authority within the project procedures and in consultation with the Chamberlain, between budget lines within the approved total project budget; and

8.        Delegate to the Executive Director Environment authority to further increase or amend the project budgets in the future (above the level of the existing delegated authority) provided any increase be fully funded by the Developer.

Report of the Interim Executive Director Environment.

Members considered a Gateway 2: project proposal report of the Interim Executive Director, Environment concerning 65 Gresham Street S278.

A Member asked if St Lawrence Jewy would be involved in discussions and an Officer confirmed that they would be approached as a local stakeholder.

In response to a Member’s questions, an Officer stated that this proposal had come out of the 278 negotiation as part of the planning process. He added that this was a gateway report stating that there was a potential project in this space that the developer was happy to fund the first piece of work which was to investigate the possibility. He added that there would be transparency about what would be delivered. Any possible road closures would require the sub-committee’s approval and a public statutory consultation. Although there was a delegation for projects under £1million, given the traffic order requirement and the interest of members, this would come to the sub-committee.

A Member who was on the Guild Church Council of St Lawrence Jewry, raised concern that the church had not been consulted on the planning application and stated that under Section 106 there could have been greater engagement with St Lawrence Jewry.

RESOLVED – That Members of the Sub-Committee

1.        Approve a budget of £100,000 to reach the next Gateway as set out in Section 2;

2.        Authorise officers to instruct the Comptroller & City Solicitor’s department to negotiate and enter into a Section 278 agreement;

3.        Agree that the Corporate Programme Manager, in consultation with the Chairman of the Projects & Procurement 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 – November 2023’ (Changes to Projects: General) is to be delegated to

Report of the Interim Executive Director, Environment.

Members considered a Gateway 2: project proposal report of the Interim Executive Director, Environment concerning the Fenchurch Street Area Healthy Streets Plan.

RESOLVED – That Members of the Sub-Committee

1.        Approve a budget of £100,000 to reach the next Gateway;

2.        Note the total estimated cost of the project to develop the plan is £240,000 (excluding risk); and

3.        Approve the boundary of the Fenchurch Street Area Healthy Streets Plan as set out in Appendix 3 of the Officer report.

Report of the Interim Executive Director Environment.

Members considered a Gateway 6: outcome report of the Interim Executive Director, Environment concerning the Bevis Marks Sustainable Urban Drainage System (SUDS).

In response to a question from the Chairman, an Officer confirmed that engineers had stated the square meterage of paving that now flowed into the SUDS beds and the planting and permeable paving was 200 square metres. Officers would undertake a data review on the combined SUDS projects in terms of the amount of water saved from the drainage system and would also look to collate statistics of typical figures from summer storms and the impact of the schemes.

RESOLVED – That Members of the Sub-Committee

1.        Approve the content of this outcome report;

2.        Approve the budget adjustment summarised in section 13 and Table 2 of the Officer report;

3.        Agree to close this project once the budget adjustment to cover an increase in staff costs has been completed (refer to section 13 of the Officer report); and

4.        Agree for the unspent funds from this project to be re-allocated to the Climate Action Strategy programme – Phase 3.

Report of the Interim Executive Director, Environment.

Members considered a report of the Interim Executive Director, Environment concerning an update on the Anti-Terrorism Traffic Regulation Order.

RESOLVED – That Members of the Sub-Committee note the usage of the ATTRO during 2023, and that it will remain in place until the next review in two years’ time.

Report of the Town Clerk.

RECEIVED.

A Member stated that the Moorfields Highwalk had recently come into operation but the lifts and escalators were not working at weekends and evenings. She added that the highwalk was one of the main links to the Barbican Centre and was also used by residents so it was important it was accessible at all times. The Member asked about the planning requirements. An Officer stated that it appeared the developer was switching off the lifts and escalators out of hours. Officers were investigating the requirements of the planning consent. He also advised that from the point of adoption, the Corporation would have more ability to control the timing of the facilities.

There was no urgent business to be considered.

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 30 January 2024.

RESOLVED – That the non-public minutes of the meeting on 30 January 2024 be approved as an accurate record of the proceedings.

There were no non-public questions.

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