Hackney LCC meeting 5 April 2006

Minutes of London Cycling Campaign in Hackney April Meeting held at Marcon Community Space, Wednesday 5th April at 19:30

Attending
Richard Lewis – Joint Coordinator (CHAIR)
Trevor Parsons – Joint Coordinator
David Farnham – Secretary
Brenda – Treasurer
Oliver Schick – Council Liaison Officer
Mariana Tanti – Communications Sub Officer
Therese Kilpatrick – Communications Sub Officer
Roger Blake – Member / Hackney Council Officer
Geoffrey Whittington (Waltham Forest Cyclists Co-ordinator)
Tim Evans – Member
Steven Gray – Member
Rachel Aldred – Member

Amendments to Agenda

Treasurers Budget added at 1.4

1.0 GENERAL

1.1 Stoke Newington Gyratory

Richard summarised emerging proposals for the gyratory driven by traders and residents association who are trying to persuade TfL to restore one way running. These are being driven by a campaign group headed by Robert Lindsey. Apparently they are receiving a lot of report from Traders. The proposals are welcomed by LCCiH as they will massively increase permeability

Jenny Jones put a question to the Mayor at question times askwing whether he would fund a full feasibility study. This received an encouraging response suggesting it will go in the next spending plan – if not quite an absolute commitment. Richard explained that the GLA will not normally get involved in TfL work unless they deem it a priority area. Hopefully the Gyratory proposals will go forward from the Mayor to a senior Street Management officer and there will be some negotiation. At the moment the gyratory is not listed as a priority although is down as a possibility. Roger recalled that that Hackney had looked into proposals in 1998-99 but this never got anywhere. He suggested that a large part of the feasibility study would be revisiting this work and its conclusions.

Trevor noted that Robert Lindsey is interested in doing an event in the summer (possibly a car free day on parts of Rectory Road). Roger noted that Stoke Fest would provide an opportunity to push this idea further.

Agreed committee to liaise with Robert Lindsey re: Car Free Day event.

1.2 Manor Road Development

A planning application was recently submitted for this development. Oliver explained that the scale of propose development is far too high and whilst it contains no cycle parking. Hackney’s previous school travel plan co-ordinator had put in a proposal for 40% cycle parking but this was completely ignored. Oliver has put in a response objecting.

1.3 Cross borough Liaison with Waltham Forest Cyclists

Geoffrey (Waltham Forest Co-ordinator) was invited to give his views on issues in Hackney and the potential for future cross-borough campaigning and events.

Geoffrey explained he was eager that the two groups work together in closer partnership in the future as, with many Waltham Forest cyclists pass through Hackney on their daily commute, goings on in the Borough is of great interest. Hopefully this will mean some joint events and a continuation of existing liaison on issues such as the River Lea tow-path. The possibility of a joint tour of the Olympic site (proposed by e-mail by Charlie Llyod) was discussed and received enthusiastic support from all.

Geoffrey noted that gangs attacking cyclists on route seemed to be moving across ti WF from Islington and Hackney Attacks have occurred on the LCN1 route in Lee Valley and on Cobb Mill lane. WF police aren’t really aware of this yet – WFC have been encouraging safe neighbourhood teams to get out on the bike and check areas.

WFC were disappointed not to have commented on LCN+ Route 9. Geoffrey circulated a letter he has composed to Olu about the poor signage on this route. He would like to see Walthamstow signed as a destination from London Fields onwards alongside general lighting improvements. Trevor suggested that Geoffrey CC letters to LCCiH but considered signage improvements could be raised outside the context of the CRISP and it should be possible for this matter to be actioned quickly.

Another cross-Borough issue is on the River Lea tow path where there had been difficulties with cyclists riding too fast past the Anchor and Hope pub. HCC and WFC have liaised in the past with a leafleting/awareness raising campaign which helped initially though the situation has since deteriorated again. Though some relatively unobtrusive gates were trialled for a time as a means of mitigating speeds, these were ultimately unsuccessful and it has unfortunately since been necessary to install cycle gates as cyclists speeds remain high. Residents are very pleased with this solution.

Geoffrey has also commented on the proposed Spring Hill development noting that that greater motor traffic on this route would not be welcome as it is heavily used by cyclists. Trevor noted that there are new traffic calming facilties being installed in the area. The prospect of both groups jointly repainting the Spring Hill bridge which crosses the Borough boundary was discussed though there remains some doubt over who to contact – the ownership of the bridge not being entirely clear.

A discussion followed regarding LCCiH issues in Waltham Forrest.

Trevor raised the issue of the Grove Road / Warren Road one-way system in Walthamstow. Suggesting that this might now be removed now that traffic from the M11 link road has now been diverted else where.

Brenda raised concerns about trying to get from Hackney to Eastway crossing the motorway. Other members pointed out the presence of a cycle track but noted that it was overgrown and soon to be removed.

Marian considered that improvements are required to the Lea Bridge Road. This is terrible environment for cyclists who are forced onto a narrow, uneven and poorly surfaced pavement behind barriers. Geoffrey noted that this is the busiest route in WF and that improvements had been discussed during a recent CRIM. It is hoped that this will result in wider lanes (with some use of bus lanes) and the removal of obstacles. Richard suggested there were assessment mechanisms in LIPS (footways) that should be exploited to make the case for improvements. It was general felt that the entire road needs resurfacing. Trevor noted that Lea Bridge Road up to the Prince of Wales was Hackney.

In reference to issues raised over pot holes and the width of cycle routes on WFBC roads Geoffrey noted that these matters had been pointed out to WFBC engineers, but unfortunately the message is not yet filtering through.

1.4 Treasurers Budget

LCC will require us to submit our annual grant application this month. Brenda circulated a draft budget which she intends to send to LCC to accompany our grant application. Tim moved that we approve the draft budget – passed unanimously.

Marian queried whether money could be found to get a better venue. Brenda explained that this is being reviewed but for various reasons no alternative venue is currently available.

2.0 CONSULTATIONS

2.1.0 Borough Specific

2.1.1 Draft LCN + CRISP responses

Route 8: A response to the consultants poor draft CRISP report has been completed by Oliver, Richard and Trevor. Only introductory comments are required. Trevor explained that – due to the quality of the report – they have pretty much had to rewrite the document from scratch. Oliver noted that we have been quite clear that at the Stage 3 meeting we do not want to discuss the poor quality existing draft but a revised document incorporating our extensive comments. There is no likely date yet for this.

The poor quality of the draft CRISP has slowed the project down immensely. Even though it is now 2 years on from the CRIM it is only now reaching the stage of final responses. It was generally felt to be unsatisfactory that the same consultants are completing the work. For various political reasons there is little prospect of others being brought on board in their stead. Marian proposed that we complain about the quality of the consultants/reports. Trevor explained that the preface to the response effectively does this already. Geoffrey suggested that the LCC ought to be taking action on this given wide spread dissatisfaction with the work of consultants on this and other CRISPs.

In response to specific query by Geoffrey, Trevor confirmed that we have been emphasising the need for improved signage on this link, agreeing that there are many confusing gaps in the existing. A copy of the draft and our response will be given to Geoffrey and WF members to review.

Route 16: Work is yet to start on this response.

Route 10: Oliver, Richard and Trevor have again prepared a draft response for this Link. Geoffrey again noted the need to improve signage on this route – a common complaint from WF members since important destinations such as Stoke Newington Church Street and Balls Pond road are not signed.

There was a lengthy discussion regarding the most appropriate route across Balls Pond Road at Dalston Junction. Marian suggested that the diagonal crossing from North West to South East be converted to a Toucan. Other members pointed out that Route 10 would run along the west side of Kingsland Road, not the east. However, this may be of benefit to the Gillet Street proposals (see below). Trevor confirmed our current proposal is to cross via Kingland Passage. Roger noted that in the Route 38 bus improvement proposals, it is proposed to extend the existing bus stop back past Kingsland Junction by widening the carriageway around the corner – with compulsory purchase of properties if necessary. This would effectively rule locating the LCN+ crossing in this location. This was widely condemned. Committee to discuss further action on this issue.

2.1.2 Broadway Market

Trevor briefly summarised the background to proposed LCN+ improvements at the junction of Broadway Market and London Fields. There is a general consensus to create a shared space in this location to reflect the high levels of pedestrian activity and cycle flows. Recent poorly received consultants proposals have been rejected and there is now likely to be a ‘planning for real’ type event to agree an improved design and address parking issues in the area.

David recounted that there had been some discussion on the e-mail group about making Broadway Market the subject of a new shoppers survey, others having been carried out in other Borough locations in previous years. The information would prove valuable in informing a new design. Likewise a survey is likely to be undertaken on Stoke Newington High Street to inform the one way system work.

Rachel offered to assist in the development of the Broadway Market survey having a background in social research.

David agreed to coordinate future work on any Shoppers Travel Surveys.

Marian suggested that surveys should be undertaken of areas like Ridley Road Market that are outside of obvious centres.

2.1.4 Dalston Junction

Roger reported that the recent planning application has been given full approval. LCCiH interested here relates to two matters. Firstly the integration of cycling and the East London line. Roger confirmed there would be plenty of nearby cycle parking though this is unlikely to be a Finsbury Park style facility. He was unable to comment on whether it will be possible to take bikes on trains. Secondly, there will be a new bus interchange to the south east of the junction which busses travelling north-south on Kingsland Road will pull off and visit via a new access in the location of the existing Oxfam store. This will require the installation of a new signal junction and will obviously interfere with cycle flows along Kingsland Road. East-west routes will continue to run as existing (same stops etc…). This is considered to be a major problem but there is little prospect of now retreaving the situation.

2.1.5 Gillet Street

Trevor summarised the proposals which will see the installation of various traffic calming measures in support of a new 20 mph zone. Most of this was considered unproblematic (providing that road humps are used rather than cushions). Concerns focused around continuation and expansion of one way orders in the area though it is accepted that there is little prospect of removing those existing.

Marian raised the issue of a conflict between cyclists and turning motorists between Gillet Street and St Jude Street.

Roger suggested that it might be an idea to raise the potential for improvements to Bradbury Street. Trevor considered that this is likely to be proposed by the developers of Gillet Street.

We have until 18 April to put a response together. Marian and Richard will draft one out.

2.1.6 Council Liaison

Oliver explained he is has little to report but will be attending some committees over the coming month. However, Olu has reported that he is yet to receive a number of responses. These are:

Lamb Lane

Eagle Wharf Road 20mph Zone (done already)

Victoria Park 20mph

Agreed that the responses should be re-sent with a note confirming that they had been submitted previously.

Oliver reported that Howard (????) is leaving HBC. Tim expressed concern that this would set back proposals for Mill Fields Park / 5 Way Junction which Howard had agreed last year. Trevor noted that Howard had summarised it in a letter so we have something in writing. Roger suggested e-mail Gene Cantrell to maintain continuity.

Trevor discussed remedial work on Paul Street. A Stage 3 Road Safety Audit is under way. This should improve the current proposals which include a relatively poor cycle contraflow. Ralph Smyth of City Cyclists has strongly objected to this. Trevor moved to reply supporting the revised proposals. Passed unanimously.

3.2.0 Non Borough Specific

3.2.1 Highway Code response

A response is not due until late in May. Brenda moved to support the cycle campaigning networks (CCN) excellent response. Agreed we should update website with note supporting their stance and bin Richard’s draft response.

3.2.2 Road Safety Bill

Agreed to skip this item until next month.

4.0 FORTHCOMING LCCiH EVENTS

4.1 Seminar on Shared Streets

Richard suggested we should have a seminar on Shared Streets during the Bike Week. Others considered that Bike Week is not the week for this as likely speakers will be too busy. Oliver noted that Daniel Moylan is said to be very keen to come along but will need to give advance warning. Agreed we to arrange the Seminar for July.

4.2 Bike Week.

Bike Week will be 17-25 June – the week after Stoke Newington Festival. There are impending deadlines for giving notice of our intended activities. Potential events were discussed and agreed. These are:

Bike the bounds potentially linking into WF Eastway Ride (Saturday 17th)
Bike Breakfast (London Fields – Wednesday 21st)
Pit Stop (Middleton Road – Thursday 22nd)
Olympic Site Tour linking with WF Eastway Ride and other Boroughs (Sunday 25th)

Brenda noted that we’ll need to put up notices in advance to advertise the events to cyclists.

Trevor moved that we put aside some money to pay for mechanics and to purchase some cheap bike accessories. Agreed.

Marian raised that she had looked into getting kids to make films about cycling that could be shown at Stoke Newington Festival that could potential dovetail.

5.0 COMMITEE

5.1 Oliver moved to invite Tim to join committee as Cycle Training Officer. Passed unanimously.

Brenda pointed out that Marian is on the committee as Communications coordinator sub. Agreed that the website should be updated with this information.

6.0 A.O.B

Tim congratulated Richard on organising a successful cycling stunt that made it into the Hackney Gazette.

Roger noted that Hackney Council won the Cycling Award at the London Transport Award and considered that this was in a large part due to the genuine working partnership with LCC.

Marian noted she has discussed a Stoke Newington Social in accordance with Friends of the Earth. This would consist of ride and consultation ending up in the Rose and Crown. Agreed Charlie to provide list of N16 post codes so members can be contacted. Moved that we contribute some money to this for food. Agreed to budget £50.