London Cycling Campaign in Hackney

Monthly Meeting

Wednesday, 8th January, 2014

Marcon Court and Aspland Estates Community Hall

Present: Siobhan Blackshaw (rides co-ordinator), Kate Charteris (committee member without portfolio), Natalie Gould, Dave Harris (treasurer), Charlie Lloyd, Richard Lufkin, Dave Lukes (sustainability officer), Trevor Parsons (co-ordinator), Brenda Puech (events co-ordinator), Oliver Schick (secretary, minutes), Chas Wilshere (workshop representative).

Apologies: Gail Bristow, Bill Chidley, Stewart Dring, Carol Gray, Katie Hanson, Jono Kenyon (committee member without portfolio), Dave Lukes (sustainability officer), Rosie Tharp (Canal & River Trust).


1. Minutes and matters arising

2. Manifesto

3. Burns Night

4. Finance

5. Hackney Cycling Showcase 2014:

6. Rides

7. Other events

8. Ward asks

9. Any other business

Action Summary:




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.


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.


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.


November 2013: Report back from meeting with Hackney officers

TP to invite Andrew Gilligan. Action carried over.


November 2013: Any other business: Hackney Bike Workshop

Workshop to come back with a proposed budget, including potentially higher rent. Action carried over.


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.)


1. Minutes and matters arising: ‘Half a million trips along Goldsmith’s Row’ celebration

Committee on standby to attend the prize-giving event. OS to correct December minutes.

Cttee, OS

2. Manifesto

Committee to finalise manifesto, distribute it, and speak to political parties. RLu to ask Hackney Labour when we might be able to attend a meeting. OS to write to parties with the manifesto asking for responses. We agreed to contact Labour, Greens, the Conservative Party, the Lib Dems, and Hackney First.

Cttee, RLu, OS

4. Finance

KC to create a list of possible publicity items, with an approximate cost, to be discussed at the next meeting.


5. Hackney Cycling Showcase 2014

KC to book dates and secure permissions, if needed.


1. Minutes and matters arising

Vision launch meeting: TP hadn’t organised a Vision launch meeting or invited Andrew Gilligan yet. Action carried over.

Morning Lane: Actions carried over.

Mare Street Narroway: Unfortunately, the progress of the traffic order to make the Narroway two-way for cycling and re-route buses around the Hackney Central Triangle had stalled. This was caused by cracks appearing in one of the old Gibbons buildings in Amhurst Road and the need to suspend the traffic order to route buses along the Narroway again. This meant that it was not possible to make the Experimental Traffic Order permanent in January, as it had not been in force for the required six months. We therefore also decided not to go ahead with a stall, which would have been in support of making the order permanent. Action: OS to investigate the status of the ETRO and when it might be the case that the order could be made permanent.

‘Half a million trips along Goldsmith’s Row’ celebration: The figure of 500,000 trips since the installation of the cycle counter in Goldsmith’s Row was likely to be reached the day after the meeting. As the counter had been reset to 0 at 474,710 trips going into the New Year, the figure it would actually display upon reaching 500,000 was now 15,290. TP pointed out that the minutes should consistently say ‘trip’ rather than ‘cyclist’. OS to correct. We had assigned a budget of £100 to mark the celebration, for prizes like a bottle of cava (champagne having been vetoed by the Chair in a time of austerity) or a track pump. We were also looking to have a stall with hot chocolate. Action: Committee on standby to attend the prize-giving event. OS to correct December minutes.

Post-meeting update: The 500,000th trip was recorded earlier than expected, in the morning of the day after the meeting (Thursday 9th January). TP managed to attend the event at short notice and gave an I.O.U. note worth £50 (as we hadn’t bought a prize yet, having expected the event to take place in the afternoon) to LCC in Hackney member Magdalena Kaplan, who turned out to be the lucky rider.

Building site next to the Wenlock Arms: TP thought that Bill Chidley might have been in touch with the housing organisation building next to the Wenlock Arms, as new signs had appeared.

2. Manifesto

RLu declared an interest, as he was standing as a Labour candidate in Shacklewell Ward. OS had produced a first draft of the manifesto. He said that two items, school cycling and cycling economy, still needed specific targets or specific proposals. He asked for feedback from the meeting.

Olympic Park: DH congratulated OS on the draft for the manifesto and said that he’d make point 9 (better access to the Olympic Velopark) more emotional, stressing the potential risk to riders, especially younger people.

Bill Chidley had been particularly interested in access to the Velopark when he proposed this item, but TP proposed widening it to ‘improve access to the Olympic Park’ rather than just the Velopark, which he thought would not be a travesty of Bill’s original intention.

We thought that a ramp should be created to the Wallis Road bridge (H14), which currently required the use of either a lift or stairs.

Cycling economy: KC asked whether more cycle parking outside commercial premises would be included in the cycling economy item. All agreed that this was a good idea, especially as we had only mentioned residential cycle parking in an earlier point.

OS said that for him the main focus of the item lay on building up the cycling-related economy, as well as those businesses choosing to conduct their activities by bike. He said that small business support for cycle-related businesses might be an idea. TP suggested wording along the lines of: ‘Use the Council’s economic planning function to encourage cycling-related businesses and to increase the uptake and use of human-powered vehicles and freight cycles within businesses. As the borough’s largest employer, the Council should increase cycle use, too, e.g. among Parks or Hackney Homes staff.’ He noted that the Council’s term contractors, Volker Highways, already sent their site managers around by bike.

OS suggested a regeneration project to create a ‘cycle hub’ (on a similar model as the ‘Fashion hub’). TP said that this would be a great item to include in captions of pictures. We would have to lay out the manifesto with interesting graphics in any case.

KC was keen to print off copies of the manifesto for events and other purposes.

School cycling: DH said that we should develop a realistic and ‘stretching’ school target. TP noted that we had not included cycle training as a standalone manifesto item but assumed that it would carry on. School cycle training was an important component of this. We should call on the Council to increase whole school cycle training and family cycle training (including adults).

KC noted that the Council had a key responsibility for health now. CL said that it was worth dropping in a couple of key concepts, e.g. life skills or health, as additional motivations to schools. TP said that it was important to stop the drop-off from cycling in teenagehood.

OS thought that it would be useful to get data from schools or the education authority to underpin our strategy on school cycling.

Targets: KC suggested revamping point 7 to make it clearer. TP suggested: ‘TfL have rebuffed the Council’s aspiration to increase the modal share of cycling to 20%.’

The meeting agreed for the committee to finalise the manifesto draft.

As for distributing the manifesto, TP said that the last time we requested responses and should do this again. OS volunteered to write to parties with the manifesto asking for responses. We agreed to contact Labour, Greens, the Conservative Party, the Lib Dems, and Hackney First.

We also aimed to attend party meetings. RLu said that there was going to be a meeting of the Hackney Labour Party soon and volunteered to ask whether it would be convenient for us to attend this. KC said that she would find out when the Green Party were meeting and also about Hackney First. TP and OS were going to ask the Lib Dems and Conservatives.

KC asked if we should tie the manifesto closely to the candidates for Mayor (as the ward asks were tied to ward candidates), to make it, in effect, a ‘Mayoral Manifesto’. OS said that party manifestos were not really separate from Mayoral candidates and that the distinction would be artificial. The ward asks in the 2014 campaign were asking ward candidates to deliver on things that for the most part wouldn’t be in a manifesto, so that they were separate, anyway.

KC also asked if we were going to do a hustings. OS said that experience with cycling-specific hustings in the past had been poor. Key candidates had not come and there had also been poor attendance from the public. We decided not to organise a hustings.

Action: Committee to finalise manifesto, distribute it, and speak to political parties.

RLu to ask Hackney Labour when we might be able to attend a meeting. OS to write to parties with the manifesto asking for responses. We agreed to contact Labour, Greens, the Conservative Party, the Lib Dems, and Hackney First.

3. Burns Night

Unfortunately, we had found out that we were going to have to cancel Burns Night this year. This was mainly because the Muckers were unavailable. Owing to the lack of a venue suitable for food preparation and dancing, we had been looking at holding the event at Limehouse Town Hall again, but the search for a better venue was very much continuing. The meeting thanked BP for her efforts.

DH asked if there was any other band we could ask, but TP thought that all bands would have been booked by then. We regretted cancelling it and were going to emphasise our new fundraiser at the Dunwich Dynamo in the summer.

4. Finance

At the last meeting, DH had called on committee members to send him details of projects for which some money might be required. We had also asked the Hackney Bike Workshop to give us details of any additional money required in case they might have to move venues. However, DH had not received any spending proposals.

KC said that she wanted to create publicity materials and suggested a budget in the range between £200 and £300. She was thinking of T-shirts and stall materials such as group-specific leaflets. TP suggested creating T-shirts saying: ‘In Hackney, every week is Bike Week.’

KC also said that the gazebo needed to be waterproofed. It was felt that this could be done easily and cheaply using just a spray can.

We discussed again what what kind of reserve we should aim at, and DH said £1,000. As we were not going to have Burns Night income this year, we decided to keep the LCC grant. This would enable us to maintain a £1,000 reserve.

We brainstormed other fundraising event ideas, e.g. on St George’s Day (23rd of April). TP was going to check whether the Muckers would be available around that time. We would probably look at making the event dance-only.

Action: KC to create a list of possible publicity items, with an approximate cost, to be discussed at the next meeting.

5. Hackney Cycling Showcase 2014

KC had met Council officers and discussed options. There was a possibility of holding the showcase just ahead of Bike Week, in conjunction with the Hackney Cycling Conference, which was going to be on Thursday 5th June or Friday 6th June. The Showcase could be on Saturday the 7th June. She envisaged the possibility of a film screening at the Hackney Picturehouse that Friday.

As for the venue, we had previously decided to hold it around Goldsmith’s Row and Haggerston Park. In Goldsmith’s Row, KC thought that we would have to apply for a street event licence. TP thought this might not be needed, as it was not commercial. However, if we had music, a licence would be required.

OS asked what would be held in Haggerston Park, e.g. grass track racing. KC said that Hackney BMX club were interested in contributing, and that there would be acitivity on the BMX track, with stalls just outside it. We were going to approach Matt Catt to contribute music again.

We also thought about possible rides in conjunction with the conference, but didn’t come up with concrete proposals. We might again do a tour of Hackney for conference participants. There could also be a few lectures as part of the Showcase.

The conference would be charged for again, as this had proced successful last year in preventing people from booking and then not turning up. We were going to get a few complementary places.

DH said that finance for the Showcase wouldn’t be a problem.

Actions: KC to book dates and secure permissions, if needed.

6. Rides

SB was planning a ride on the 2nd February to the Kirkcaldy Testing Museum in Southwark. She would send a message to the mailing list to announce it.

7. Other events

KC flagged up that the award-winning Bike Around the Borough event was going to happen again this year. We had had a discussion with Hackney Council about the possibility of making it a joint event, but decided not to join in organising it. We were happy to add our logo to the event, however. The date was probably going to be Thursday the 19th June.

8. Ward asks

RLu again declared his interest for this item, as he was a Labour Party candidate for Shacklewell Ward.

TP said that he had a plot of the new ward boundaries.

We took the wards in approximate south-north, west-east order. As discussion took a while, we only managed to determine ten of the 21 wards at this meeting.

Several of our asks did not fall into the categories distributed by the LCC.

Hoxton West: The members’ survey had shown much support for the crossing of City Road at Shepherdess Walk, but that project was already being tackled by LB Islington, so that we decided our main priority was returning the East Road/Provost Street/Vestry Street mini-gyratory to two-way operation. As this was partly with the aim in mind of reviving the former town centre there, e.g. the market that CL said used to be called ‘The Nile’, we filed this under ‘liveable town centres’. Liveable Town Centres.

Hoxton East and Shoreditch: Here, we plumped for the project, still outstanding from Phase I of the Shoreditch work in 2002, of removing Curtain Road from the TLRN, moving all through motor traffic to Shoreditch High Street, modally filtering Curtain Road, and improving the linkage of Curtain Road with Hoxton Street. The other priority left over from 2002, the Shoreditch ‘Apex’ junction (Great Eastern Street/Old Street/Pitfield Street) was already being worked on by Hackney and TfL. Liveable Town Centres.

Haggerston: The survey had four comments in favour of modal filtering in this area. We opted for modal filtering of the large cell bounded by Hackney Road, Queensbridge Road, Richmond Road, the borough boundary between Goldsmith’s Row and Mare Street, and Mare Street, as a joint ward ask with London Fields Ward. TP said that this would also cover the comments about cycling on the canal, as part of the momentum of our filtering proposal was to take traffic off the canal. Areas without through motor traffic.

Victoria: We decided to ask candidates to commit to working towards removing the Victoria Park one-way system (as a joint ask with Hackney Wick Ward), especially one-way working on Victoria Park Road. Given the potential complexity of the project, we should show our detailed draft Vision for the area to candidates. No category assignable.

Hackney Wick: See above under Victoria Ward for the joint ask.

London Fields: See above under Haggerston Ward for the joint ask. OS said that this would enable the Broadway Market Square project and we should push for this, too.

Homerton: The boundaries of Homerton Ward were changing, and it would now include almost all of the Frampton Park area, for which we had a long-standing proposal for modal filtering. Areas without through motor traffic.

Hackney Central: There were many comments about the ‘Pembury junction’ (Dalston Lane/Amhurst Road/Pembury Road). We agreed that this was a priority for action, but as Hackney were already committed to a total redesign of the junction, we decided to call for improvements to the unpopular Mare Street/Morning Lane junction, where a left-turn only lane made life difficult for cyclists. No category assignable.

De Beauvoir: We opted for modal filtering of the area north of Englefield Road. Areas without through motor traffic.

Dalston: The main long-standing priority in this area for the group had been Lebon’s Corner (Dalston Lane/Graham Road/Queensbridge Road). No category assignable.

We ran out of time at this point and decided to determine the asks for the other wards later. The eleven remaining wards were King’s Park, Lea Bridge, Hackney Downs, Shacklewell, Clissold, Brownswood, Woodberry Down, Stamford Hill West, Springfield, Cazenove, and Stoke Newington.

8. Any other business

There was none.

The meeting closed at 10pm.

Date of next meeting: Wednesday, 5th February, 2014, 7:30pm

  Minutes of Hackney LCC meeting 8th January 2014 in PDF