London Cycling Campaign in Hackney

Monthly Meeting

Wednesday, 4th June, 2014

Marcon Court and Aspland Estates Community Hall

Present: Kate Charteris (committee member without portfolio), Marian Farrugia (committee member without portfolio), Bill Ferguson, Carol Gray, Dave Harris (treasurer), Tom Harrison (ICAG), Jono Kenyon (committee member without portfolio), Richard Lufkin, Dave Lukes (sustainability officer), Trevor Parsons (co-ordinator), Oliver Schick (secretary, minutes), Adrian Weidmann, Chas Wilshere (workshop representative). Apologies: Siobhan Blackshaw (rides co-ordinator), Carol Gray, Brenda Puech (events co-ordinator).


1. Minutes and matters arising

2. Cross-boundary modal filtering in the Mildmay and Clissold areas

3. Events including: (a) Breakfast on the 18th June, 7-9 am (b) Dunwich Dynamo, night of Saturday 12th July (c) Burns Night (d) Hackney Cycling Showcase, Saturday 7th June

4. Quietway 38

5. 2014 elections post-campaign analysis and next steps

6. Fundraising

7. Old Street/City Road junction

8. Workshop update

9. Current consultations

10. Rides

11. Any other business

Action Summary:




2. Cross-boundary modal filtering in the Mildmay and Clissold areas
Organise a meeting of ward councillors in Shacklewell, Clissold, and Mildmay.


5. 2014 elections post-campaign analysis and next steps
Obtain Cllr Demirci’s full response to the ‘ward asks’.


5. 2014 elections post-campaign analysis and next steps
Obtain the ward ask supporters’ contact details from the LCC office.
5. 2014 elections post-campaign analysis and next steps
OS to find out from the LCC Campaigns Committee what the post-election plan was and whether there was a tool planned to track progress.


7. Old Street/City Road junction
Formulate and submit an FOI request about the junction.


9. Current consultations

Submit a response to the consultation on Hoxton Street Market.

11. Any other business: New events ‘bookmarks’

Produce more bookmarks.


1. Minutes and matters arising

DH asked for a correction in the minute on the finance item at the last meeting.

2. Cross-boundary modal filtering in the Mildmay and Clissold areas TH introduced the interest from the ICAG side in modal filtering in the area. He attended our meeting because the area straddled both Hackney and Islington, and it was not possible to consider modal filtering without involving both boroughs.

There was a question whether the King Henry’s Walk/Mildmay Road/Crossway and the Matthias Road/Boleyn Road alignments should be filtered. This would create a very large modally-filtered cell but might run into opposition, and it might be more expedient to filter the more minor streets first. There was also the 236 bus route running along Boleyn Road and Matthias Road. The presence of the bus would require bus-and-cycle filters.

The boundary streets of the largest possible cell would be Green Lanes, Stoke Newington Church Street, the A10, Ball’s Pond Road, Newington Green Road, and Newington Green. It would be more likely for Albion Road not to be modally filtered (to allow as vehicular traffic only buses and cycles), so that it might form a cell boundary street for the foreseeable future instead of Green Lanes.

ICAG had targeted King Henry’s Walk for filtering in particular. The new Islington councillors for Mildmay Ward were broadly supportive and had agreed to gauge local support, but had expressed concerns about possible displaced traffic on Matthias Road/Boleyn Road. There were other knock-on effects to consider, too, such as the impact on the main streets, and the problem of banned turns at Dalston Junction.

We also discussed the right turn going north from Boleyn Road into Barrett’s Grove. This had been a problem for years and had never been properly resolved.

RLu, who was a newly-elected councillor in Hackney’s Shacklewell Ward, said that the topic of rat-running through the ‘ladder’ streets in Shacklewell Ward had often come up on the doorstep, and residents were keen for action to be taken on it.

OS said that for filtering to be applied on a consistent and systematic basis, there was a need for methods to be applied by Council officers, such as templates for filters, e.g. bus-and-cycle filters. He also thought that a full Council decision might be needed to advance this type of ask.

RLu and TH volunteered to arrange a meeting between councillors in the three wards (Shacklewell and Clissold in Hackney and Mildmay in Islington) to decide on the next steps.

Action: RLu and TH to organise the meeting.

3. Events

(a) Breakfast on the 18th June, 7-9am

We discussed the logistics of organising the breakfast, e.g. getting food there. Mr Jones of Tower Hamlets Wheelers had said that he could help with dropping off stuff. Unfortunately, there was a temporary problem with access to our garage, as the key had been lost. DH asked about the shopping and said that he would deal with it together with BP.

(b) Dunwich Dynamo, night of Saturday 12th July

We called for more volunteers for helping with the catering. AW volunteered. KC said that Chris, who helped last year, was also available again.

We discussed the allocation of the revenue from the event. The year before, we had split the proceeds with the London Courier Emergency Fund and were hoping to do the same again this year, although we did not make a decision at the meeting. DH pointed out that Dunwich Dynamo catering was a key part of our fundraising now and that we would have to await the outcome of the event to decide how to use the money.

(c) Burns Night

BF had come to the meeting specifically about Burns Night. He said he had been sorry that the event had not taken place and volunteered to help with organising it in the future. OS said that one of the main reason why it had had to be cancelled a few times was that we had not found a venue to allow us to organise it in the same way that we used to when it was held at Sir Thomas Abney School, and that as we could not find an equivalent venue, we had to organise it on a smaller scale again. KC mentioned St Paul’s West Hackney Church Hall, which had not been available at the initial spring date we had envisaged for a ceilidh, but which we might be able to use for a ceilidh in the autumn. MF also mentioned the West Reservoir Centre.

(d) Hackney Cycling Showcase, Saturday 7th June

We finalised arrangements for this event. There was still a vacant Strawbale Sessions spot. We had contacted Cllr Feryal Demirci, Hackney’s Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods, about this, but had not had a reply. We decided to offer the spot to Cllr Vincent Stops, who would speak on ‘Co-existence or no existence—creating a better balance between walking, cycling, and public transport use’. He would not be speaking for Hackney Council, but in a personal capacity.

KC handed a roster around for people present at the meeting to assign themselves to slots and outlined some organisational details. Marquees would be arriving 8am and would need to be set up in the space behind Hackney City Farm. The main setting-up would take place from 9am. There would be a bike jumble, the Hackney Bike Workshop in a marquee, Cycle Hoop would place two cycle parking facilities in Goldsmith’s Row, London Green Cycles would attend, there would be a BMX programme from 10 to 1 with taster sessions, and a hardcourt bike polo try-out event, among other things. The Straw Bale Room was booked from 6pm to 10pm for the Green Kite Band to play and a post-showcase social.

The meeting thanked KC for her hard work on the event, a process which had started in December. She said she had heard that Goldsmith’s Row building works would still be going on next year, so we could perhaps return the event to London Fields, but it was too early to call.

4. Quietway 38

TP said that there was going to be a meeting the next evening at the LCC office to generate an overview of plans and a united approach to the project. It was an amalgam of two existing alignments, Route 9 (Black Path and Porters’ Route) and Route 8 (London Lane/Middleton Road etc.). Waltham Forest Cycling Campaign had raised concerns about what was going on when little was heard about the project. They were unhappy about the design proposals so far in their borough and asked what was happening in other boroughs.

TP said that according to Hackney officers there was still some discussion about the alignment inside Hackney. The original alignment that we had seen had gone east from London Fields via London Lane into St Thomas’s Square, Loddiges Road, Chatham Place, Churchwell Path and then carried on along Clapton Square, Clapton Passage, Powerscroft Road, and South Millfields. Then a variant alignment had been proposed by the Cycling Commissioner following the Narroway changes (making it permanently two-way for cycling and moving bus routes to Dalston Lane and Amhurst Road), along Clarence Place, Clarence Road, Mare Street Narroway, and Mare Street. While this was our long-desired alignment for Route 9 through Hackney Town Centre, it would not specifically qualify for the ‘quietway’ treatment. It also conflated two different issues, that of Hackney Town Centre, for which funding other than Quietway funding would be available to change all three junctions at the points of the Hackney Central triangle, and the possible ‘quietway’ arrangement.

We also noted that when plotted on a map, the route left Waltham Forest to go south and then west again, but that it would be more direct if it continued east to west out of Waltham Forest and, turning south-west, rejoined the alignment in Islington. However, TP said he thought that there was no chance of radically altering the alignment, e.g. taking out the large kink in the route. OS reminded the meeting that our attitude to route-based funding had always been to pragmatically get the maximum number of good schemes out of it.

KC asked how the route was going to be signposted considering that there were already old blue and white signs around. We didn’t know yet. OS said that signage was surprisingly difficult to get right. We also noted that our quietway alignment was supported by some of our existing ward asks, but TP pointed out that there was not yet funding allocated for the ward asks, as we had only just asked for them. JK said that quietways only functioned with better signposting and much less through motor traffic than in unfiltered areas. He also asked about crossing Mare Street at St Thomas’s Square. OS said that this staggered junction might be signalised, which would probably require removing the existing off-desire line pedestrian crossing a little further south. We had not seen any designs yet, however. TP said that minutes of the Quietway 38 meeting might become available.

5. 2014 elections post-campaign analysis and next steps

TP had noted that there was no post-election mode built into the 2014 election campaign web-site. For us, the question presented itself how we would continue to make the case for our ward asks and help ensure that they happened. We thought that we would need support from local residents. TP suggested contacting those members and supporters who had written to councillors in support of the ward asks. All agreed. We would be able to get the sub-database of Hackney ward ask supporters from the LCC office. We also thought we should organise a bigger meeting in the autumn, inviting activists from all the wards.

OS suggested finding ward ask ‘champions’ who might be interested in supporting the asks. KC pointed out that people travel across wards a lot. OS said that was absolutely right, but that the main power rested with local residents.

RLu asked whether we could e-mail councillors in the autumn to remind them. TP thought that this would be too late, and that we would have to follow up on the campaign now. RLu said that he would certainly appreciate input as to ‘his’ ward ask.

TP also pointed out that Cllr Demirci had sent a full response on the ward asks to the LCC and that we had not seen this yet. It wasn’t just phrased in simple yes/no terms as the way in which the campaign was set up might suggest.

KC asked whether we should set up a priority list to possibly advance some asks earlier. We decided to ask for a meeting with Cllr Demirci to ensure good co-ordination with the Local Implementation Plan. MF asked how the ward asks fit into the bidding for funds. OS said that there was the LIP process. MF asked about whether Hackney had already formulated plans for using Community Infrastructure Levy funding.

TP asked OS to find out from the LCC’s Campaigns Committee what was happening on this London-wide post-election, and whether there was a tool to display progress, which was much needed.

JK reminded the meeting that we had wanted to create videos on the ward ask themes before the election but had not got around to it. He thought that they might still be worth doing. All agreed. We did not assign a specific lead to the project but aimed to contact those people who had previously been interested in contributing.

Actions: TP to obtain Cllr Demirci’s full response and the ward ask supporters’ contact details from the LCC office. OS to find out from the LCC Campaigns Committee what the post-election plan was and whether there was a tool planned to track progress.

6. Fundraising

DH said that with the aspirations we had and the commitments we were making, we needed a consistent funding basis to finance it. He thought we needed to up our game on fundraising. We should develop a longer-term planning perspective, e.g. planning Burns Night better. We had come up short on organising it a few times.

TP asked for a bullet point list of fundraising options that we could explore. Suggestions made were:

  • Social events, e.g. dances

  • Quizzes can be good fundraisers

  • Treasure-hunts

  • Merchandise

  • Stall at Tour de France?

  • Film showings, e.g. outdoors with Magnificent Revolution or indoors, e.g. at the Picturehouse

  • Postcode-based social events

  • Mini-showcase evenings, indoors and inviting a few exhibitors

AW asked what would happen if cycling went on the decline and whether we would save some money for a rainy day? All agreed this was worth considering.

7. Old Street/City Road junction

OS introduced the problem at this junction. Transport for London were planning to convert the existing roundabout into a ‘peninsula’ layout by closing the north-west arm of the diamond to through motor traffic. We had always opposed this layout and were worried that a building might be erected on the central island. This would turn it into a junction reminiscent of the unattractive southern end of Westminster Bridge.

KC said that a grassroots campaign drawing on lots of organisations that would have an interest was required. OS said that we had already spoken to Living Streets and the Hackney and Islington Societies, but that getting more supportive organisations on board would be a good thing.

We resolved to submit a Freedom of Information (FOI) request for ‘all current and recent documentation regarding any meetings and plans in the vicinity of the Old Street/City Road junction’.

MF asked about what the Junctions Review had had to say on the junction. TP replied that the Junctions Review group had agreed the ‘peninsula’ plan and that traffic arrangements were most likely a precursor to further land use development plans at the site.

MF suggested generating publicity on the issue, including with an article in the London Cyclist and London Live. OS said that it could become an issue in the 2016 Mayoral elections.

Action: TP to formulate and submit an FOI request.

8. Workshop update

MF said that the workshop had had its AGM last week, and that the workshop now had a revised constitution. They could now fundraise independently and were working towards becoming more financially independent.

Their other news was that the Stoke Newington workshop’s venue (St Michael’s and All Angels Church in Northwold Road) might be done up, so that they might lose the use of this for a time at least. A different venue might be needed.

9. Current consultations

TP reminded the meeting about the LCCiH Engineering list, where we discuss traffic schemes, and encouraged members to respond and to participate in discussions. The main current consultation was on a scheme for Hoxton Street Market. We had a brief discussion about it and thought it was a good scheme, for which we had a number of constructive suggestions. Action: TP to submit a response to the consultation.

10. Rides The rides co-ordinator had a next ride in mind, but had been unable to make the meeting.

11. Any other business

Trailer: The subject of use of our trailer came up, as KC would have needed it to ferry materials around between events on the Hackney Cycling Week-end. We had a Columbus trailer but didn’t know where it was. We asked whether we should buy a new trailer. DL offered to lend KC the Carry Freedom trailer.

Post-meeting note: OS remembered that the Columbus had been at our temporary storage space in City Road but that it hadn’t been there when we had moved vehicles to our garage recently.

New events ‘bookmarks’: KC said that the little bookmarks which had a list of our events on it had proved really popular. She asked whether we could we have more. Action: TP to produce more bookmarks.

Conference: We had been given four free tickets for committee members to attend the Hackney Cycling Conference, and as five committee members were interested in one, we had agreed to sponsor another ticket at a cost of £25. JK had volunteered to buy a ticket and to be reimbursed.

The meeting closed at 10:02pm.

Date of next meeting: Wednesday, 2nd July, 2014, 7:30pm.

  Hackney LCC meeting 4th June 2014 in PDF