Agenda item

Replacement of existing Croydon bus shelters, freestanding adverts and larger column adverts with the provision of new bus shelters and advertising panels, providing an opportunity to embed ‘Smart City’ technology and to upgrade the existing paper advertising with digital advertising screens.

Ward: All

Replacement of existing Croydon bus shelters, freestanding adverts and larger column adverts with the provision of new bus shelters and advertising panels, providing an opportunity to embed ‘Smart City’ technology and to upgrade the existing paper advertising with digital advertising screens.

Ward: All

Patrick Skingley from Grimshaw and Opama Khan from Croydon Council attended to give a presentation and respond to Members' questions and issues raised for further consideration prior to submission of a planning application.

The main issues raised at this meeting were as follows:

§  Concerns were expressed by Members around how antisocial behaviour, graffiti and vandalism would be addressed in the design of the shelters and advertising. The developers advised that tough glass and steel would be used and any issues to arise would be addressed with the contractor. Glazing was to be used predominantly in the shelters to reduce blind spots and CCTV cameras would be present for monitoring incidents through an independent contractor.

§  There was a request for rubbish bins to be included and integrated within the design, though the developers informed that this was not possible due to the maintenance and contractual challenges.

§  Members asked about shelter capacity and were informed that this was linked to providing shelter for two wheelchair users.

§  Questions were raised for clarification of what was meant by the proximity to the existing locations for shelters, and Members were informed that there may be opportunities for small limited movements due to highway arrangements, which was also linked to the poles on the bus stops designated by Transport for London (TFL).

§  There was support from Members for the detached advertising panels. There was reassurance from the Council’s officer of the Council’s ability to process and use data arising from shelters and advertising Panels.

§  Members debated the idea of green roofs and Patrick Skingley provided the rationale for not including them, linked to the design and ability to accommodate the technical equipment within the shelter design.

§  Members raised concerns around the stand alone digital advertisement creating street clutter particularly in conservation areas, and whether the idea of using existing street infrastructure had been explored. Members heard that much thought was going into how the design of the shelters and advertising panels could be minimised particularly by making them compact and appearing as a family of design. There was also an opportunity for annotations in the glazing of historical images to be included in places of interest.

§  Support was expressed by Members by the overall smart city of objectives and the capturing of data for the Council.

§  Support was expressed by Members for the annotation of the shelters to annotate a Town Centre quarter or a particular place.

§  Support was expressed by Members for the ten seconds of sixty seconds available to the Council for communication.

§  Members were informed that there was a balance happening throughout the project between a family of design versus having an element of uniqueness for particular locations, which needed to be within the parameters of the contract.

§  Members were informed that all shelters were digital and enabled.

§  Members queried the consultation process and the factors available to be consulted on.

§  Expressions of concerns and support by Members on the family of designs and uniqueness.

The Chair thanked the developers for their presentation.