Attendees:
Neil Salt (Chair, SATG) | Helen Bird (Minutes of meeting) |
Pete Johnson (Deputy Chair, SATG) | Emma Elliott (LCR residents’ group) |
Robert Doyle | Penny Garcev |
Cllr Danny Adilypour (Cabinet member for sustainable transport) | Chris Whittle |
Cllr Nicole Griffiths | Suzy Lamont (Liveable Streatham Wells) |
Martin Abrams (StL Ward Candidate) | Luuk van Kessel (LBL) |
Jeremy Clyne | Jonny Dobbs-Grove |
David Harvey | Nicholas Wailes |
Cllr Scott Ainslie (Green Party) | Ridwan Omar |
Steve Fleming GTR | Leon Maurice-Jones |
Sarah Davies (Tierney Road resident) | Donna Lister (Liveable Streatham Wells) |
Teresa Loy | Anthony Gilmour |
Philip Loy |
|
1. | Welcome, apologies, introductions and declarations of interest.
● Martin Abrams declared that he will be standing as candidate for St Leonard’s Ward in the forthcoming local elections. He also mentioned that he has worked in Sustainable Transport for 10 years.
|
2. | Discussion with Cllr Danny Adilypour, co-lead Sustainable Transport, Environment and Clean Air, LBL, with a key focus on:
|
- | latest update on Streatham Hill and Tulse Hill LTNs’ post-stage 2 consultation, which ended in December 2021 ● NS confirmed he had previously met DA briefly on Wednesday, 09-Mar-2022 at the end of a SA public meeting on crime and community safety. ● DA reported that council officers are currently analysing data, looking at the proposed scheme, and coming to their initial recommendations; but as of the date of this meeting, they had not come back with anything to share as yet with the group. ● Their response is not anticipated until after the local elections on 5th May ● DA advised that the department is busy with lots of other schemes at the same time as the SH and LH LTNs. ● DA confirmed that the Railton and Oval LTNs are now permanent arrangements. |
- | update on Brixton Hill LTN consultation which ended on Friday 4th Feb
● DA reported some 1,000 responses were received from the public to the initial consultation; evaluation and initial working up will now commence. ● The scheme will involve elements of co-design working with local residents. ● DA advised a more formal consultation will take place in the second half of 2022 (Jul-Dec). ● A separate consultation is required for Blenheim Gardens. In reference to Railton and Oval schemes having already been approved, NS queried as to why it had taken so much longer to reach a decision on Streatham Hill and Tulse Hill LTNs, in comparison. ● DA advised there was nothing particularly controversial that was identified from the public consultations for those earlier schemes. ● There were different questions, which were more complex, associated with SH and TH LTNs. DA commented he did not think a decision needed to be rushed. ● NS asked if LBL had yet gone to consultation on the Brixton Hill LTN, which would entail Brixton Hill having a dual boundary with the Tulse Hill LTN? Will Tulse Hill LTN be going ahead? ● DA confirmed no formal consultation on BH LTN yet; so far it has been only an initial information gathering exercise. ● EE confirmed that LCR residents are awaiting a response from Cllr Hashi to the issues raised at the meeting held with him and 4 other councillors and MP Bell Ribeiro-Addy, on Sunday 5th December. ● EE advised that Cllr Hashi is not responding to communications, and therefore could LCR residents update DA in the meantime in the hope of some responses and clarity? ● DA confirmed he would direct unanswered queries to Cllr Jane Pickard, with the hope that EE and residents would receive their anticipated responses before purdah commences on 18 Mar 2022. ● SD queried as to why residents in Tierney Road, west of A23, were not included in the BH LTN consultation, as they are impacted by the congestion and pollution resulting from the likely BH LTN. ● DA advised that anybody was welcome to respond to consultations. He admitted they had not reached everyone, but would consider residents’ comments. ● TL queried if LBL planned to update all residents of LCR or only the LCR Residents’ Group? ● DA confirmed that he had acted upon an email circulation from Cllr JP, but would expand the distribution of communications as required.
ACTION: DA
|
- | Streatham Wells engagement process – latest update ● DA advised there had been a lot of engagement on the Commonplace consultation portal. ● LvK to provide a detailed update (see section 4.) |
- | pollution monitoring stations in central Streatham and reasons behind the station on Christchurch Road, at its junction with Palace Road, having been removed in 2020? ● DA advised the monitoring station was decommissioned in 2010; this was TfL’s decision. ● DA further advised LBL are investing in new equipment and online reporting, comprising 3 air quality monitoring stations and new lightweight monitors to be rolled out at some point in the relatively near future. ● In advance of this DA reported that there was extensive modelling being done. ● DA advised that LTNs were part of LBL’s transport strategy prior to the onset of COVID; however, the pandemic exacerbated issues and government made monies available to councils to implement LTNs as part of emergency measures. ● JC thanked DA for the admission on behalf of LBL about the decision to remove the monitoring station. ● DA corrected JC, saying he did not say it was LBL’s decision to remove the monitoring station, which is located on TfL land. ● EE asked DA where LBL are planning to place the new monitoring stations. ● SD noted the original TfL modelling for traffic congestion in their 2020 plan was based on data captured in 2018. She asked when SATG would see the modelling for the TfL A23 plan, ‘using up to date data from a much more congested A23 and A205’. ● LMJ noted that he thought it was parents of school children causing the increases in traffic, and made the suggestion of a council school bus scheme. ● DA acknowledged this point; advised the scheme comprises an education programme and greening schemes. He agreed the school bus sounded an excellent initiative, but there is no funding for this. ● NS noted that a lot of change had happened since the consultation, and asked if an extension to the current trial period could be considered as a means of examining further LCR traffic issues. ● DA advised LBL will continue to monitor traffic levels and there will be an opportunity for objections to be raised up until the point at which LBL makes any decision to make the scheme permanent. ● RD queried if LBL had indicated dispensations from LTN scheme for certain users, such as homecare professionals, etc. ● DA confirmed that an exemptions policy will be applied to LTNs when they are made permanent. ● RD noted this might be a long delay to an exemption decision. ● DA said he had not seen evidence of issues arising. ● NS thanked DA and asked him to return to update the group at some point prior to the end of the objection period. |
- | LTNs and how they may help/hinder meeting Lambeth’s pollution level targets for N02, PM 10 and PM 2.5 NS queried LBL’s Air Quality Targets (as adopted by LBL in December 2021) in light of SATG’s concerns expressed re. CERC report, which flagged up air pollution concerns at specific peak periods both at the jct of Christchurch Rd with SHR and jct of LCR/SHR NS had looked both at CERC report and LBL targets and was concerned about PM2.5 pollutant levels already being 25% ahead of LBL’s targets for 2030. DA advised that LBL’s air quality target policy was part of a bigger shift towards ‘active travel’; he stated that LTNs in isolation would not bring pollution levels down.
LMJ commented that providing safe active travel options was necessary. Pollution monitoring levels were not taken from inside LTNs. Providing more greenery on the boundary roads, where possible, would no doubt help. ● NS noted that recorded PM2.5 levels are at their highest levels outside a number of schools and that they are higher than recorded levels in other areas. ● He queried if installation of electric vehicle charging points would increase significantly. ● DA advised LBL’s target for charging points would ensure that no-one would be any further than 5 mins walking distance at any point in the borough, but stated that electric cars would create other PM pollution problems, and they would not address road safety concerns. LBL’s long-term ambition, therefore, should be to reduce the overall number of vehicles in use. ● RD highlighted the issue of vehicle fleets comprising much of the traffic at peak periods, based predominantly around facilities management and office support functions. ● DA noted that freight and heavy cargo should be encouraged to use the River Thames more. Confirmed that LBL and their contractors’ fleets will be electric vehicles. ● RD flagged up issues around white van drivers and how to reduce their need to be on the roads 5 days a week. ● JC expressed his doubts about SatNav routes being responsible for overall increase in traffic. ● JC advised a FOI has been lodged re. removal of pollution monitoring station, and will be progressing to Information Commissioner, as LBL had not responded to him when offered the opportunity to address this query. |
- | proposed new signalised pedestrian crossing outside Tesco Extra – update. ● DA reported some 270 responses to the TfL scheme and outcome of consultation. ● Agreement to go ahead with the proposed new crossing, subject to funding; but this means there is no timescale for the scheme. |
3. | Update discussions with LBL’s transport officers in relation to:
|
- | Streatham Wells LTN update on additional opportunities for local residents to input further to the engagement process, alongside those who will attend the Streatham Wells Walkabout on Saturday 19th March
● LvK advised SWLTN came into existence owing to variety of LBL measures in 2019, but was not part of any COVID plans. LBL now revisiting LTNs and will do things differently, including co-design with local residents. The Commonplace consultation exercise has been completed. ● LBL are now analysing the feedback received and moving to next phase of information gathering; LBL want to ensure face-to-face engagement, and are organising a walk and talk event on Saturday 19th March, with a lot of interest shown in this. As numbers and availability will be limited, LBL will post the document online to attempt to reach more people. ● 2 engagement officers are reaching out to local schools and TRAs. Workshops are planned, taking a different, broader approach to those used for emergency LTNs. ● LvK confirmed construction work commencing on Healthy Route crossing on LCR (Peckham to Streatham Healthy Route) with works ongoing until mid-May. ● NS asked when the Route would be up and running, in a complete end-to-end state. ● NS queried as to the relatively low level of numbers available for attending Walk and Talk event, and did LvK have a clear indication of where that representation came from. ● LVK was not clear on this, but suggested online availability of the event and resources would increase the number of participants. ● EE asked if LBL would consider removing Leigham Court Road as a boundary road for any upcoming SW LTN. ● LBL needs to achieve its climate emergency targets and, in that regard, its engagement officers want to tackle local residents’ issues and concerns. ● PJ suggested further use of E Bikes and also asked what measures LBL were taking to educate people about LTNs. ● PJ asked if there were any models currently in use. ● PG said she wanted to see public transport improved and other road traffic reduced. In that regard, an improved East-West bus service route across Streatham must be prioritised. ● LVK advised LBL needed to do a lot of things all at once; however, they will be doing traffic modelling before anything else. ● RD asked what would now happen with the rest of Streatham-Peckham Healthy Route, in terms of money, with the LCR crossing soon to have been completed. Would there be new signage indicating the Healthy Route? ● AG requested adequate signage from end to end of the route. ● LMJ also requested increased signage, whilst noting the ‘dangerous section’, and advised SATG are checking this for safety issues. ● LvK said the Healthy Routes should use London Cycle safety standards, and the signage should be adequate, but he didn’t have further details about these issues or the funding for them. |
- | update on Gracefield Gardens/SHR pedestrian crossing and banned turnings in to and out of Gracefield Gardens. ● No update as yet available for discussion. |
4 | Further update from Steve Fleming, GTR’s station manager for the 3 Streatham stations on: timetable updates, incl. cancellation of temporary running of Streatham Common-Victoria fast train service
NS – has the Streatham Common -Victoria temporary fast train service during recent Omicron outbreak now stopped? SF - this temporary fast-train service has been providing step-free interchange at Balham. ● Not possible to reinstate fast trains, because this would impact negatively on schedule and running of service. ● Whilst it is worth knowing what people want, any petition is very unlikely to succeed. ● NS asked for confirmation as to whether or not train numbers would be back to more normal levels in in a few months’ time. ● SF advised the current timetable runs until mid-May, with no planned increase in number of trains. ● SF stated that Streatham Common provides a ‘pretty decent service at peak times’; Thameslink services from Streatham continue to run quarter hourly. ● London Bridge to Crystal Palace service from Streatham Hill has been terminated; SF has raised concerns about the loss of this service. ● SF confirmed completion of pigeon-proofing works under roof of platform 2 at Streatham Hill Stn. ● SF confirmed that unfortunately the Streatham Hill service to Victoria is still only 2 trains per hour. ● RD stated that demand is clearly there for a Streatham Common to East Croydon service and beyond. This aspect has not been helped by the withdrawal of one fleet of trains. ● SF noted East Croydon is ‘massive bottle neck’; timetable allows for capacity increase (demand-led). ● AG suggested that one effect of increases in fuel duty, might be the increase in rail travel. ● SF admitted he had not considered this, and agreed it was a good point to investigate. ● MA queried whether the new timetable would be guided by stakeholder consultation. Cited renewed threats to station ticket offices and requested that the group might be notified of any threatened closures at Streatham stations. ● SF not aware of public consultations; large schools or employers may have an influence. Did not know about ticket offices but advised that approx. only 10% ticket sales are now made through station ticket offices. ● EE suggested rail operators consider retaining more station staff – this might ensure safer stations. ● PJ noted there should be greater emphasis on building better public transport and in particular railways, via high-frequency timetabling. ● SF and Cllr NG agreed with this. ● JC asked SF to investigate the public consultation process. ● NS reported to SF on feedback from a prior SATG meeting; overcrowding on buses during the morning peak from SH to Brixton tube, with too many people using them; this identifies a need for an increase in rail services from SH to Victoria at peak times. ● Strongest concern is the projected train timetable from mid-May and uncertainty about this. ● NS confirmed that, whilst the Streatham Passenger Group had been formed, it had not yet met subsequent to the pandemic period ending. PJ will convene a meeting of the group at some point soon.
ACTION: SF To use evidence from this meeting to support his investigative and representation efforts, and to report back with information about future consultation processes.
|
- | Streatham station’s accessibility works, latest update. SF confirmed that the Streatham Station lifts are at the planning application stage. He confirmed that 2 shops on the bridge are in the process of being refitted, which he sees as a good sign of Network Rail being “on the case” with tenancy arrangements on those shops. SF Can’t tell us anything as yet about the Streatham station lifts’ designs |
5. | Approval of draft minutes from meetings of Tuesday 7th December and Tuesday 25th January
● AG abstaining from agreeing minutes of 25th January 2022, as these had only been circulated a few hours prior to today’s meeting. ● NS apologised for the lateness in circulating that set of draft minutes. ● Minutes of Tuesday 7th Dec 2021 accepted. ● Minutes of Tuesday 25th Jan 2022 to now be read and approved at the next committee meeting in late May.
ACTION: NS
|
6. | Matters arising from the minutes not covered elsewhere on the agenda.
NS reported that the pollution monitoring station issue on Christchurch Road has been followed up with Simon Phillips. No details as yet received from David Wilson of LBL on their in-house analysis with regard to the TfL traffic data for A205 emailed to them at the request of SATG..
NS reported the impending loss of car parking on LCR owing to alternative redevelopment plans going ahead. SATG provided its response to the consultation process.
|
7. | Latest update from TfL on Streatham Hill reconfiguration scheme and impacts thereon from: - 3-year financial settlement with DfT having been delayed until on or around 24th March
TfL did not attend the meeting, so no further update. A long-term funding plan between the Government and TfL will not be decided upon until or around 24th March. No further confirmation on A23 reconfiguration until details of 3 year financial settlement clarified.
With purdah starting on 25th March, there will be no response from TfL until after local elections 5th May
|
- | Anticipated additional adverse timing for cyclists crossing A23 at jct with Christchurch Road. (6 mins)
NS noted the urgent need to press for further feedback on this issue. RD queried if bus garage feedback had been received in relation to adverse timing for cyclists.
ACTION: NS to pursue this issue.
DH noted that A23 detailed design stage had been reached and so asked if SATG could now see the design.
NS advised he understood there were last-minute issues with the design, meaning that the design would not be able to be shared with SATG until these issues had been sorted out..
ACTION: NS to raise the issue with TfL.
|
8. | AOB
Agenda Item - next meeting: ● Cllr Nicole Griffiths - bicycle hangar installation
|
9. | Date and time of next meeting.
Proposed date for next meeting: Tues 17th May 2022 - that date subsequently to be rescheduled until more issues are clarified
JC suggested hosting a Streatham Transport Issues hustings meeting prior to local elections.
ACTION: NS will suggest these issues be incorporated within any Streatham Action hustings that may be arranged.
|
Comentários