Agenda item

Councillors to consider the information contained in the report, and in appendices 1-6  (circulated to councillors separately).

Councillors considered the information set out in the report.

The chair allowed some contributions from the floor. The meeting heard that there were concerns about the scope of the consultation for site J. There had been no survey of the usage of the gate. Opening the gates to motorbikes and mopeds would have a negative impact on safety. If an alternative through Swann Street was considered, there should be consultation on this.

Matt Hill, public realm programme manager, explained that in terms of site H (Rothsay Street) the projections were that only 15 vehicles an hour would be displaced from Tower Bridge Road during peak hours. In terms of Site J, Matt explained that in officers’ opinion the consultation process had not been flawed. The consultation boundaries had been agreed with councillors, and there had only been a 10% response rate. The changes to the gates were a difficult “on-balance” decision, but potential motorbike activity would be monitored. He also explained that the Mayor of London’s cycling commissioner had given a commitment that TfL (Transport for London) would fund enforcement action and remedial action, if a large number of motorbikes did use the altered gate. 

The chair encouraged residents attending to submit their comments about the schemes to their ward councillors or to write directly to the cabinet member. The meeting also heard that the local member of the London Assembly had also been involved in looking at the sites. 

RESOLVED:

That the community council feed back the following comments regarding the individual sites:

·  Site H: There had been a considerable number of comments from residents about this site, and concerns had been expressed about the proposed changes. In particular, it was feared that these would push traffic into Alice Street from Tower Bridge Road. Residents of the Jam Factory had expressed concerns about possible rat-running and restricted access for emergency vehicles, as the road was very narrow already. Decima and Meakin estates residents had raised concerns about creating a bottleneck in Alice Street, which would impact on wheelchair and pushchair users especially. This would need looking at closely. 

·  Site I: there was general agreement with the plans set out for site I.

·  Site J: over the last month, there had been concerns raised by residents of Trinity Square about the changes to the gates at Trinity Street. These were supported by ward councillors. Changes to / widening of the gates would increase motorcycle traffic through the square, and no evidence to the contrary had been presented in the report. Furthermore, the recommendation in the report was not consistent with the proposal that had been consulted on. There was a possible alternative via Swann Street, which the cycle path could take. Ward councillors had given residents their full support in opposing any measures which would undermine the purpose of the gates. 

·  Site K: councillors were satisfied with the measures, and had not received any negative representations regarding the plans for this site. 

·  Site L: ward councillors said that they had not been approached about this item with negative comments. In addition to the proposals, residents should be consulted about moving the zebra crossing on the corner of Great Suffolk Street and Toulmin Street. Another issue which needed to be addressed in the area was people cutting across pavements at the corner of Weber Street. 

·  Site M: councillors were supportive of the plans set out for site M.