Agenda item

To consider the report of the Executive Director Environment.

The Committee considered the report of the Executive Director Environment.

A Member commented that little information was shown in the report that related to inter-dependence with neighbouring boroughs, suggesting that discussion on that matter should be taking place - particularly around traffic displacement.  The meeting heard that discussions with neighbouring boroughs had not taken place and that priority was being given to the impact on City roads, and that discussions with other boroughs lay within the remit of TfL. Detailed data on traffic displacement had not yet been provided, and further data would be sought. The Member commented that TfL should be encouraged to liaise with all relevant local authorities.

A Member asked whether a weight limit (excluding for access purposes) for Fore St and Moor Lane could be implemented to avoid their use as a bypass. The meeting heard that such a proposal would be examined, including enforcement measures.

A Member sought clarification on the impact of traffic on Eastcheap, Mincing Lane, Rood Lane, and other City streets, and asked whether monitoring equipment could be provided to measure any such impact. The meeting heard that further detailed data was awaited and that discussions with TfL were taking place around measures to mitigate the impact of traffic displacement. The meeting heard that TfL was monitoring the traffic impact, and that there may be gaps in some of the monitoring – such gaps would be discussed with TfL within the confines of future discussions. 

On item 4 (Bishopsgate Experimental Closure) a Member commented that there might be merit in the CoL being firmer in their stance. A Member asked for clarification on the extent of CoL’s involvement in that initiative and what timespan was used to measure the impacts of such a scheme given the evolving nature of traffic displacement. The meeting heard that there was no significant involvement in the scheme’s shaping, though discussions with TfL had been taking place as part of ongoing responses. The meeting heard that changes in traffic patterns caused by ETROs can be monitored for up to 18 months.

RESOLVED, That the Committee

1.    Agree the City Corporation’s response to the Bishopsgate ETO as set out in paragraphs 36 – 38 and agree that officers will continue working with TfL to resolve the objection;

2.    Delegate the final wording of the response to TfL to the Director of City Operations in consultation with the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of this sub-committee; and

3.    Note that a further report will be brought back to this committee setting out the outcome of the further discussions for agreement, more details of the London Bridge experiment, and also to confirm the City’s response to that ETO.