Agenda item

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 the routes available for HGVs to cross the river and travel eastwards, these were limited and becoming more difficult, especially as they also had to avoid Central London.

The Chairman stated that this reinforced the desirability of repurposing the cameras at Beech Street for the monitoring and enforcement of HGVs that should not be entering the City.

A Member asked if the layout of the road would allow the road to be used if it needed to be e.g. if there was an incident further down Lower Thames Street and the traffic needed to be moved, whether it could be opened and utilised. The Member also asked if it could used for abnormal loads when required. An Officer stated that under normal circumstances, using the road as an abnormal route should be avoided due to the impact with pedestrians crossing and cycle traffic but if these abnormal loads were random and off-peak, this should be possible. There could, however, be an issue with how much space would have to be redesigned to accommodate these vehicles especially if they required large turning circles. As the road was being designed to allow for emergency use, it would be able to be used in the event of diversions but these should be kept to a minimum.

An officer stated that non-standard vehicles such as big low loaders and mobile cranes had to notify their route each time they used it so there was not a standard route as the whole route had to be approved. Southwark Bridge was not a preferred one but the weight limit was unrestricted so it could take every abnormal movement. The Officer informed Members that the city was often a destination but it was also a route from the east where much of the equipment was stored, to the centre and south and west of London. Many of these vehicles came through the City on Upper and Lower Thames Street. Many of them had to go into Westminster to get across the river whereas using London Bridge and Arthur Street would be a simpler route.

An Officer stated that the Bridge House Estate Board could challenge the recommended traffic order once the consultation process began. The Officer also stated that before TfL decided Arthur Street should be shut, they undertook modelling work as outlined in the report. They had predicted that Blackfriars Bridge would take most of the diverted traffic and negligible traffic would be diverted to Tower Bridge.

In response to a Member’s question. An Officer stated that Blackfriars Bridge was suitable for accommodating all vehicles and that Blackfriars, Southwark and London Bridges could take all normal road going vehicles. In order of capacity for abnormal vehicles, Southwark Bridge was the least capable, then Blackfriars Bridge with London Bridge able to take any vehicle. Blackfriars Bridge was a north-south route as it was not possible to get onto Upper and Lower Thames Street without going through the local network. Southwark Bridge had a high proportion of normal HGVs going across it because they could turn right or left along Upper and Lower Thames Street.

When the City agreed to the loss of Arthur Street prior to Bank Station works, the benefit to the City was that all the HGVs delivering to that site would enter along Upper and Lower Thames Street and turn right into Arthur Street with no impact to the City network. At the time there were no restrictions on the heavier vehicles and abnormal vehicles using London Bridge.

The Chairman asked if, once the street was closed, there would be any opportunities for greening and making the street more accessible. The Officer stated that if this option was agreed, there would be further discussions with TfL to see how much they could further improve the layout including, greening, seating and materials. A requirement could be imposed before the traffic order was made.

RESOLVED – That the Sub-Committee

1. Agree and support TfL’s proposal as detailed under paragraph 10 of the Officer report.

2. Agree to commence the promotion of a traffic order to close Arthur Street at its junction with King William Street to all vehicles except pedal cycles.

3. Authorise the Executive Director Environment to consider responses to the traffic order consultation and if they consider it appropriate, to make the Order.

4. Agree that a requirement be imposed that improvements to the layout including greening, seating and materials take place prior to the traffic order being made.