Agenda item

Resolved: the Committee agreed to refer its views to Mayor and Cabinet (see item 7).

The agenda was varied to consider this item before the parking policy update.

4.1    Josh Learner (Cycling and Walking Programme Manager) introduced the report. He noted that there had been more emphasis on cycling in the past year due to the Council’s development of the healthy streets initiative - in line with the Mayor of London’s transport strategy.

4.2    Brian Turpin from the Lewisham Cyclists was invited to address the Committee – the following key points were noted:

·         Lewisham Cyclists welcomed the report.

·         The proposals for the A21 corridor were vital to ensure the future of active travel in the borough. Its implementation would create a ‘tipping point’ in encouraging people to cycle and walk, rather than using their cars.

·         Healthy neighbourhoods and quiet way programmes were welcomed – but it was important that there were strategic links to London-wide cycling infrastructure.

·         The Cyclists believed that there was more work that could be done in and around Deptford Church street (following on from the work being carried out for the construction of the Thames Tideway Tunnel) to link cycling routes in the area with the wider strategic cycling network.

·         An outline feasibility study for Deptford Church street would be welcomed (this might draw on section 106 or community infrastructure levy funding).

·         There had been a recent fatality in Catford at a junction which was recognised for being dangerous. Urgent improvement works were needed.

4.3    Josh Learner and Alex Crush (Transport Policy and Development Manager) responded to questions from the Committee – the following key points were noted:

·         There were ongoing discussions between the Catford regeneration/road realignment and A21 corridor teams at Transport for London (TfL) and the Council to ensure that both pieces of work would be integrated.

·         TfL was undertaking further modelling on the road layout in Catford– to determine the best options. Further meetings between key parties were forthcoming.

·         e-scooters were illegal in London. It was possible that the law would change in the future – but the by-law being agreed by London Councils should be flexible enough to accommodate the use of e-scooters.

·         The Council had made it clear to TfL that it wanted to protect the green spaces adjacent to the A21 as part of any upgrade to the cycling network.

·         The current approach to the allocation of spaces in bike hangars could be better coordinated and managed. This was something that officers intended to do in future.

·         Officers had also been in discussion with Lewisham Homes about the potential to put bike hangars on housing estates. The plan was to start doing this from next year.

·         There was 93% occupancy of cycle hangars in the borough. The hangars were installed by the Council and managed by ‘Cycle Hoop’ (which was a company based in Sydenham). Residents were charged an annual fee (£60) for maintenance.

·         The Council did not receive ongoing revenue from the hangars.

·         Cycle Hoop provided an online map of all the cycle hangars in the borough.

·         Further work could be done to determine whether cycle parking had been included by any wards as a priority for local community infrastructure levy funding.

·         The Council’s approach to assessing demand was based on the numbers of requests received from residents in specific areas. It was recognised that more promotion could be carried out. More engagement would be carried out as part of the approach to delivering the healthy neighbourhoods schemes.

·         The Council had recently appointed a part-time ‘healthy streets’ officer. It was possible that this officer could be tasked with carrying out more work with employers in the borough to support cycling and the provision of cycling infrastructure – however – their time was limited and had to be prioritised accordingly.

·         New cycling schemes were being developed ‘holistically’ to ensure that they took account of the surrounding environment – as well as the potential to use those routes at different times of the day and night.

·         Work was being carried out by Govia Thameslink Railway – following a consultation period – to determine which of the proposals made through the ‘passenger benefit fund’ were feasible and deliverable.

·         Once that work had been completed - a workshop with councillors and other stakeholders would be set up to determine the priorities for delivery through the fund.

·         Officers had submitted an official response to the Rotherhithe movement plan detailing concerns about the potential impact on Trundley’s Road.

·         Lewisham had submitted a number of proposals to mitigate the impact of the plans.

·         Funding had been committed to the Waterlink Way crossing at Southend Lane. A design and plans had been developed and officers were currently carrying out a procurement process with the ambition of starting works early next year for completion by autumn 2020.

·         There were a number of dockless bike operators in London.

·         Electric dockless bikes were comparatively expensive to hire but it was hoped that innovation would lead to reductions in costs.

·         Consideration would be given in the future to the management processes for dockless bike operators (with specific reference to the locations in which dockless bikes could be ‘parked’ by users).

4.4    In Committee discussions the following key points were also noted:

·         Members were supportive of the rollout of bike hangars across the borough.

·         Members also asked about the potential for a borough wide communications campaign to support the delivery of the A21 spine.

·         There was a discussion about the proposals for the redevelopment of Catford – and the delivery of a ‘cantilever’ bridge extension for the bridge over the Hayes line.

·         Members noted the dangerous conditions for cyclists in Catford and committed to raising the issue of cycling again in future discussions about the redevelopment of the town centre.