Hackney LCC meeting 5th March 2014

London Cycling Campaign in Hackney

Monthly Meeting

Wednesday, 5th March, 2014

Marcon Court and Aspland Estates Community Hall

Present: Ben Fields, Becky Forrow, Duncan Forrow, Jono Kenyon (committee member without portfolio), Richard Lufkin, Jon Parker (committee member without portfolio), Trevor Parsons (co-ordinator), Brenda Puech (events co-ordinator), Oliver Schick (secretary, minutes), Chas Wilshere (workshop representative).

Apologies: Siobhan Blackshaw (rides co-ordinator), Kate Charteris (committee member without portfolio), Dave Harris (treasurer), Dave Lukes (sustainability officer).

Agenda:

1. Minutes and matters arising

2. Promotion of our ward asks and election manifesto

3. TfL’s announcements on Old Street/City Road, Seven Sisters Road and Stoke Newington

4. 2014-15 budget analysis for discussion

5. Rides

6. Other events

7. Any other business

Item

Action

Who

June 2013: Morning Lane/Mare Street junction

Take video of the situation to back up our case and to write to the Council with the video. Action carried over.

TP

September 2013: Minutes and matters arising: Morning Lane/Mare Street junction

Suggest to the Council to include some work on this junction in Hackney’s possible bid for the Hackney Central Triangle major scheme funding. Action carried over.

TP

November 2013: Report back from meeting with Hackney officers

Organise a Vision launch meeting with a possible Q&A session with Andrew Gilligan. Action carried over.

TP, BP, AC

November 2013: Report back from meeting with Hackney officers

TP to invite Andrew Gilligan. Action carried over.

TP

December 2013/1. Minutes and matters arising: Mare Street Narroway stall

Prepare having a stall. (Action delayed because of the unforeseen collapse of a building in Amhurst Road and suspension of the traffic order for the Narroway. Updated action: OS to investigate the status of the ETRO and when it might be the case that the order could be made permanent.) OS was awaiting a reply from Hackney.

JP, BC, DL, RLu, OS

2. Promotion of our ward asks and election manifesto

Organise the production of videos and other materials.

Committee, BF

2. Promotion of our ward asks and election manifesto

Enquire about bike polo.

OS

2. Promotion of our ward asks and election manifesto

Organise the ‘Space for Dancing’ ceilidh.

BP

3. TfL’s announcements on Old Street/City Road, Seven Sisters Road and Stoke Newington

Write and publish a press release.

TP, OS

4. 2014-15 budget analysis for discussion

Sort out garage space.

BP, TP

4. 2014-15 budget analysis for discussion

TP to discuss budget with Dave Harris.

TP

1. Minutes and matters arising

Vision launch: We did not have a full set of documents for the Vision launch yet,so carried over the action again.

Showcase: Kate Charteris had submitted an application for the Temporary Events Notice for Goldsmith’s Row, but as development was starting on the Queen Elizabeth’s Hospital site, we had not been granted it. TP and Kate went to a Hackney Entertainment Team (HEAT) meeting about the proposed event. Our backup plan is Haggerston Park, which would be a good venue, although less good from the point of view of attracting passing traffic. We should advertise the event well on Goldsmith’s Row if we go for Haggerston Park.

JP asked whether London Fields was off the agenda, and TP said that we had already made contact with Hackney City Farm and Hackney BMX Club (whose track is next to the farm), and it would be nice to keep these links. TP had had an offer from a friendly venue owner in Hertford Road, which was even further away from the beaten track, in case we needed to go indoors. We thought that we could take them up on their offer at another time, for another event.

In response to questions about publicity, TP said that we had no publicity out last year because we received permission to hold the event only two days in advance. This would be different this year.

Post-meeting update on the Narroway: It had been confirmed that the Experimental Traffic Order had been made permanent.

2. Promotion of our ward asks and election manifesto

We had finished both the draft manifesto and the ward asks between meetings and had submitted them to the LCC’s Activism Co-ordinator. TP explained the method of the campaign to the new attendees, which was to contact all council candidates, across all parties, and to get them to sign up to the ‘ask’ in their ward, which they would then help push in case they were elected.

We thought about things to do to publicise the asks and manifesto. BF asked whether the ward asks were available as a single document. TP said that producing one was one of the tasks we had to do. He said that we didn’t yet have material to go alongside the ward asks, e.g. photos and videos. JK said that StreetView links were quickly done, and TP said that he had already included these.

OS said that he was keen on illustrations of our positive proposals, along the lines of our drawing for the Old Street/City Road junction. DF said that he worked for a cartography company and might be able to help with maps. TP said that bird’s eye/oblique imagery worked well in illustrating proposals.

JP said that there were lots of filmmakers around. JP had a friend who might do films for very little; he had already done a professional quality video for a community initiative at a discounted rate. This would also mean consistent quality. OS asked if Peter Blach, a member who produced videos professionally, was still around and whether he might also be keen to help with video production. BF said that he had a helmet camera and could produce videos, but that he would be much happier to capture some footage than do all the final editing. We also thought of approaching Brian Jones, who had made a nice film about the Narroway.

TP said that it looked as if we were moving towards a number of thematic films. TP and JP thought that if we did topical films, we should align them with the manifesto points. We’d produce one each on modal filtering, gyratories, and liveable town centres at least, plus perhaps others. OS suggested including clickable links in YouTube videos to click through to individual web pages about the asks. JP said that we should have a Hackney LCC YouTube channel. TP said that we might already have one, but we hadn’t used it much.

We talked about the recent Museum of London work in which they had overlaid old pictures over new ones. DF knew the people at the Museum of London Centre for Digital Heritage (CDH) who had done this. he said that all CDH did was to take a new picture where the old picture was taken. JK said that there was already an app for that. OS also mentioned Hackney Archives, who probably would have photos of all the wards

JP stressed that, for him, the manifesto was the more persuasive document, and that the list of ten manifesto points was more important than the long and difficult list of ward asks. OS agreed that that was the case for the parties and the general public, but said that the idea was that ward candidates only had to see one ward ask each, which would be easier to digest.

JP asked how much budget we had for this. We decided to allocate a budget of up to £500. JP stressed that it was important to have a very solid and robust brief to make best use of the budget.

We then went through the ward asks one by one to try to decide what kinds of materials to produce for them, combining several of them together.

Cazenove and Springfield: We thought we could do a joint promo video for the Clapton Common ask and the Oldhill Street ask, as they go together very well. Gail Bristow and Walter Stabb at Tyssen might be interested, as might Tim Evans, who used to work at Tyssen.

Dalston: OS was keen to advance a possible design drawing for Lebon’s Corner (Dalston Lane/Graham Road/Queensbridge Road/Parkholme Road) which we might use to support the ask.

De Beauvoir: TP suggested doing a generic film about the existing modal filtering. BF and RL volunteered to help with a video of the area. BF said that he had some video production skills. TP was keen to have talking heads in the video. JP asked what we wanted in format and length, and said that we should be consistent in the materials we produce. We agreed that videos should be no more than two minutes.

Hackney Downs: Filtering Brooke Road area could be combined with

Victoria and Hackney Wick: BF said that he lived on Victoria Park Road and was keen to help with a video about the Victoria Park one-way system. OS said that we could do a video combining the return of Victoria Park to two-way with returning Stoke Newington to two-way.

Haggerston and London Fields: This joint ask could likewise be put together into one video, on modal filtering.

Homerton: TP said that the Richmond Road-Darnley Road-Elsdale Street rat-run was a much better rat-run to demonstrate the principle of modal filtering than all the others.

Hoxton/Shoreditch: TP suggested that this was a complex ask and quite different to the others, so that it could do with a separate film. He was keen to work on this.

Hoxton West: We thought of combining this ask with the film on the other gyratories. OS said that it lent itself well to good drawings.

King’s Park: OS said that we could do something with the local community here. There were a number of very active groups who might already have ideas for Chatsworth Road.

Leabridge: OS said that he would be able to work on this ask (for Clapton Town Centre).

Shacklewell: We were unsure what to do about this ask in terms of visual materials. It was still relatively vague and visual materials would be difficult to produce. A web page should be easy to produce, however.

Woodberry Down: OS said that we would need the support of the schools in Woodberry Grove to get this ask, to filter Woodberry Grove, done. We should try to talk to them.

TP reminded the meeting that LCC also wanted us to organise an event which would attract press coverage. BP suggested a bike ride connecting all the ward asks. We all liked this idea. OS said that the LCC probably wanted an event with more political impact, however. He asked if we knew what other local groups were doing about events. Nobody knew.

We thought about a possible date for a ride, and wondered how close to the election it should be. BP said that we wanted it in the newspaper a week before the election. TP disagreed, as he thought that it would be better about a month in advance. (The elections were going to take place on the 22nd May). This took us to a date in early to mid-April, e.g. just after Easter, which was going to be on the 20th April. The Hackney Gazette was going to come out on April 24th and the 1st May. We might be able to do 23rd April (Wednesday) evening. DF asked if a Saturday would be better, and to make it a daytime rather than an evening ride. Easter Saturday the 19th was a possibility but many people would be away. The ride should be called the ‘Space for cycling’ ride. OS suggested a ‘Transforming Hackney’ subtitle.

As we were still going to organise a ceilidh fundraiser, we thought of having one as the conclusion to the ride. BP suggested St Paul’s West Hackney as the venue. OS suggested the name ‘Space for Dancing’ and all liked it. We thought that we could also have an exhibition about the ward asks or the Vision at the event. Finally, there was the possibility of perhaps ending at London Fields for a Beginners’ bike polo session. OS said that he would enquire, but that he was sceptical that it would be possible.

Actions: Committee and BF to organise the production of videos and other materials. OS to enquire about bike polo. BP to organise the ‘Space for Dancing’ ceilidh.

3. TfL’s announcements on Old Street/City Road, Seven Sisters Road and Stoke Newington

TP said that this announcement had come just in the past couple of days before the meeting. It was separate from the previous announcement on the ‘Better Junctions’ review announcement that had come a little earlier. This was about implementing outcomes from the Roads Task Force report.

In Hackney, the projects cited were the Seven Sisters Road narrowing (moving from three lanes to two), the ‘peninsularisation’, which we opposed, of the Old Street/City Road junction, and some cosmetic changes to the Stoke Newington gyratory which would spend public money on something falling short of a return to two-way operation.

OS gave some background on the Roads Task Force, which he had attended on the LCC’s behalf. He said that the methodology developed there was good for Central London, as motor traffic capacity decreases were envisaged in some locations, but less good for other locations, where there were ideas to increase motor traffic capacity, especially orbitally, with various plans for road tunnels along the Inner Ring Road, or the Silvertown motorway tunnel. He thought that it was the wrong strategy to try to increase orbital motor traffic capacity to match radial capacity more closely, when it was radial capacity which needed to be decreased, but that it was a complex argument.

JK said that it was difficult to advocate Old Street/City Road junction without tracks/cycling-specific features. OS said that we had deliberately left out these details in order to stress the principle and to pull other organisations in, e.g. the local Living Streets groups, as well as the Hackney and Islington Societies. Whether the junction would end up with tracks or without, it was important to get a well-designed crossroads.

It was not entirely clear from TfL’s announcement what they had in mind for Stoke Newington, but it was felt to be a matter of concern that the announcement spoke of ‘an upgrade to the existing layout’ without returning the one-way system to two-way. Not tackling the one-way system would be a waste of money.

We discussed the former plan for a Cycle Superhighway on the A10. Our firm stance on this issue had certainly contributed to the Cycle Superhighway not going on the A10, particularly because we wanted Stoke Newington to be two-way and not merely fitted with a contraflow cycle track. While in Hackney there was a workable parallel alignment in the old Route 10, TP said that it was different in Haringey, where parallel routes did not easily present themselves, and the Haringey group were aiming to get it back on the A10 at that point.

TP had updated the stokenewingtontwoway.org.uk web-site.

OS suggested doing a press release with our position on these projects. All agreed.

Action: TP and OS to write and publish a press release.

4. 2014-15 budget analysis for discussion

Dave Harris, the treasurer, had tabled this for us to consider. He was going to be back at the April meeting, when we were going to have a full discussion. In the meantime, he asked the committee to think about the draft budget and to make suggestions.

BP thought that the reserve of £1,500 was too high. OS explained that the difference was between budgeting at the beginning of the year and having the ability to spend money on what comes up. The reserve didn’t mean that we always wanted to have that amount in the bank, but that our budgeting would allow for it to be available in case unexpected spending requirements came up.

We discussed the long-standing ambition to store our vehicles in a garage. This had become especially urgent given that we were about to lose our current storage place. BP said that there was now a waiting list for garages, as many had broken door handles. She would look into it again, with TP’s help.

BP asked if there was an assumption of a repeat of Dunwich Dynamo catering, and we all said yes. She said that we could double or triple the amount raised if we had more volunteers to produce more food and services there. BF said he was interested in helping.

TP said that our donation to the LCEF was not included in the draft budgeting, and that he would check with Dave about accounting for our donation to the London Courier Emergency Fund in 2013/14.

Action: BP and TP to sort out garage space. TP to discuss budget with Dave Harris.

5. Rides

Siobhan Blackshaw had announced a ride to the Thames Barrier on Sunday the 16h March, which she was going to advertise through the normal channels.

6. Other events

We talked briefly about the Cyclists’ Breakfast and other Bike Week events.

7. Any other business

Local Groups Forum: This was going to be on Wednesday the 12th March. TP asked whether anybody was keen to go along. As nobody else volunteered, he said he could cover it.

The meeting closed at 9:54pm.

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

   Minutes of Hackney LCC meeting 5th March 2014 in PDF