Agenda item

A Member requested that a resolution from the Cripplegate by-election be discussed as the Court of Wardmote only sat once a year. She stated that the resolution related to the Barbican and Golden Lane Neighbourhood Forum. The Member asked to present this for discussion. She read the wording of the resolution as follows:

“This Wardmote respectfully requests that the Corporation of London acknowledges the important role of the Barbican & Golden Lane Neighbourhood Forum in local plan-making and policy development by:

a)         Reflecting that role within the Corporation's ‘Statement of Community Involvement’.

b)         Reflecting that role within the text of the City Plan 2040, placing the Forum on a par   with the non-statutory Business Improvement Districts in the City.

The Barbican & Golden Lane Neighbourhood Forum, under the Localism Act 2011, has statutory standing as a consultee in City planning policy and development control from the date of designation by the City, and not from the date of the Neighbourhood Plan. The City owes the Forum a statutory duty of cooperation from that same date.”

An Officer stated that the Barbican and Golden Lane Neighbourhood Forum was set up following this Committee's agreement of the statement of Community involvement in May 2023. The Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) mentioned neighbourhood forums and how to engage with them through the planning process. Officers stated they would update Appendix A of the SCI, which set out the specific groups that they would engage with to ensure the Neighbourhood Forum were mentioned specifically by name. The City Plan 2040 would be submitted to the Committee in January 2024 and it identified the Neighbourhood Forum within the relevant policy that related to the Smithfield and Barbican area. Furthermore, Officers within the Corporation worked closely with the neighbourhood forum in the development of their neighbourhood plan, in line with statutory duties. The Forum had been set up a consultee within the planning system for planning applications within their area. The Chairman thanked the Member for the question and asked Officers to ensure this was submitted to the Wardmote in writing for their next meeting.

A Member stated that she was a member of the London Cycling Campaign, and in their magazine they had mapped the most dangerous junctions in London between 2018 and 2022 for cyclists and pedestrians. She stated that as far as cyclists were concerned there were only two junctions, one at New Bridge Street at number 55 and 67 in the top 100. For pedestrians there was only one junction, but it was the fourth most dangerous with one fatality, four serious injuries and seven slight injuries to pedestrians. The junction was between Cannon Street, King William Street, Eastcheap, and Gracechurch Street. The Member asked whether Officers could advise if they were aware of these statistics and IF steps were being taken to improve this. An Officer explained that they were aware of those statistics and of the London Cycling campaign specifically the New City London Cycling Campaign Group. They had shared the statistics directly with the Environment Department. Officers were using this and cross referencing it against their own plans set out in both the Vision Zero plan and the Healthy Streets minor schemes programme. Regarding the junction which was the fourth most dangerous for people walking and wheeling, often referred to as the monument junction, this was part of the Transport for London's street networks. TfL were developing proposals for that junction and Officers had been working with TfL to improve this and to make it safer for people walking, wheeling and cycling and to travel through it. They were expecting to consult on the draft design of this project after the Mayoral elections in May 2024. There would be a briefing for local Members and stakeholders in advance. Finally, this was also on the agenda for the upcoming meeting with the TfL Commissioner which the Chairman of this Committee and the Chairman of Policy and Resources Committee would be attending.

A Member raised concern about Conway storage containers in her ward, including a number of Conway shipping containers which had been on Vine Street for many years. The Member stated that a large part of the pavement had been taken over with signs and bollards and asked when these would be moved. The Officer explained that they would consult colleagues and provide the Member with a written response.

A Member stated that one of the suggestions from a briefing that has taken place with a dockless cycle operator, was whether there was a way to get feedback from building tenants on the usage of their cycle bays, whether they were all being used and whether a frequency analysis report could be brought back to the Committee. It was possible that there was less usage of these bays than expected, if more people were hiring cycles instead. The Chairman asked Officers to provide the Member with a written response. He added that a report detailing the relationship with dockless operators would be submitted to the Streets and Walkways Sub-Committee, including the measures available, whether the regulatory frameworks meant conditions could be imposed, the way they operated and what good behaviour should entail. This could lead to a possible voluntary charter in the lack of any legislative legislation from central government. The Chairman asked that this report be submitted to the Streets and Walkways Sub-Committee and then to the Planning and Transportation Committee. A Member asked that this report include the background history including information on the memorandum of understanding with the previous dockless bike operators and she stated that they operated without the current negative impacts.