Agenda item

This report provides an update on the Healthy Streets / Active Travel Programme including (Healthy Neighbourhoods, School Streets, Vision Zero, Cycling and Walking Strategy).

The Sub-Committee considered a report set out on pages 27 to 34 of the agenda, and in supplements, which provided an update on the Healthy Streets / Active Travel Programme including (Healthy Neighbourhoods, School Streets, Vision Zero, Cycling and Walking Strategy). The Chair explained the background of this item and stated that a briefing on the implementation and monitoring framework of Healthy Neighbourhood schemes had been held before the meeting, with notes of this meeting published as a supplement. The Head of Strategic transport introduced the item with a short presentation.

The Sub-Committee asked how when Transport for London (TfL) assessed the performance of different boroughs on Active Travel and Healthy Streets, that the intensity of public transport and the prevalence of hills was taken into account. The Head of Strategic Transport responded that this was taken into account at the objective setting stage and TfL was beginning to recognise the difference between public transport availability in Inner and Outer London. Public transport availability in Croydon was not on a par with Central London, but usage was high compared to other Outer London boroughs. Croydon had been identified as having a high potential for journeys made by bicycle, however, the was not currently being realised. The Croydon Cycling Strategy addressed topography, about which there was little the Council could do, and the Head of Strategic Transport suggested this could be addressed through the promotion of e-bikes. The Chair asked about possible funding streams to bring e-bikes into the borough and heard that this was difficult currently but that it was possible this could be achieved through Section 106 funding and the introduction of hire schemes. It was highlighted that e-bikes would require the same level of infrastructure as normal bikes.

The Chair asked the Cabinet Member for Streets and Environment about the manifesto commitment of the Mayor to review Healthy Neighbourhood schemes and the appearance that this had not undertaken. The Cabinet Members for Streets and Environment responded that a review of the original Traffic Management Advisory Committee decision had been undertaken and these were being implemented due to financial implications for the budget but with amended signage and road markings. The Sub-Committee asked whether this was contrary to the Mayor’s manifesto and heard that the Council was going above and beyond in it’s engagement with residents to ensure schemes were sensitive. The Head of Strategic Transport explained the process that needed to be followed at the end of the Experimental Traffic Management Orders (ETMOs) and explained that this would be running alongside extensive engagement including independent polling, receipt of objections, street audits and drop-in sessions. A comprehensive review of Healthy Neighbourhood schemes would be presented to Cabinet after 12 months with suggested next steps at the end of the ETMOs.

The Chair explained that the engagement approach did not necessarily mean that schemes would be removed as the default position in national policy was that unless significant harm from schemes could be proven then they would be retained. The Head of Strategic Transport explained that whilst there was a presumption that schemes would be retained, officers would need to draw together all material factors in the final report to Cabinet about whether schemes should be removed or made permanent. Officers would use their professional judgement to form these recommendations alongside the results of monitoring, ministerial guidance and resident engagement.

Members noted that data was being collected on schemes now but asked what data had been collected before schemes were implemented to evaluate how well schemes had performed. The Head of Strategic Transport explained that TfL had encouraged very quick implementation during the pandemic which had restricted advance data gather. As a result, other data had been used to form the picture pre-implementation of schemes, and these included traffic flow information and TfL databases including IBus data.

The Sub-Committee asked why private hire and taxis were treated differently in Healthy Neighbourhoods and heard that the signage used for schemes meant that Taxis were exempt, however, private hire vehicles were not.

Members asked about what lessons had been learned from other boroughs, who had adopted Healthy Neighbourhood schemes, regarding implementation, monitoring, engagement, and best practice. The Sub-Committee heard that there was a strong focus on delivery in Croydon, and that with the available resources it had not been possible to engage more widely.The Head of Strategic Transport explained that the Council was seeking to follow Secretary of State guidance on engagement and what was achievable within the available resource.

The Sub-Committee asked about the polarising nature of some of the communications that had asked for objections and not views in support of schemes. The Head of Highways & Parking Services explained that there was a statutory six-month period for ETMOs to receive objections and that this was why this language had been used. The Chair stated that a binary approach was also reflected in other communications, such as for School Streets, and asked if there were opportunities to invite other forms of responses. Members heard that the polarised opinions on schemes had been noted by central government who had recommended that Councils went out to find representative samples of residents, separate from those who would be motivated to attend drop-in sessions, and residents who had not previously been reached to ensure representative views on schemes were assessed. On questions about how this sample of residents would be found, the Sub-Committee heard that professional companies in the engagement field would be used.

The Chair noted communications from a group called ‘Open our Roads’ referencing data from the Department for Transport (DfT) published in September 2022. The Head of Strategic Transport explained that this data had previously been referenced in the original TMAC report on Healthy Neighbourhoods but had only been one part of numerous considerations that had been included. In future reports on progressing ETMOs for Healthy Neighbourhood schemes, this data was relegated to the environment section as, in the intervening period, central government had drawn its own conclusions about what this data showed about the national picture. Croydon was not resourced to reanalyse this data, although it could cross reference with other datasets, and at the end of 2021 TfL had presented contradictory data on traffic levels and this was likely due to the way the two organisations modelled traffic data for local neighbourhoods. There were also inconsistencies between carbon emissions from road transport estimates from TfL and DfT, and it was thought that this was likely due to the way central government was modelling traffic on local streets in Croydon. The Head of Strategic Transport explained that messaging from local government was still strongly in favour of pursuing the Active Travel agenda.

The Chair highlighted the founding of Active Travel England (ATE) and asked if work would be done to standardise monitoring frameworks between ATE and TfL.  Members heard it was clear how ATE would operate outside of London where the DfT had direct responsibility for funding of transport investment through local authorities, and ATE would be responsible for monitoring what was delivered. In London this was less clear, but it was unlikely that TfL would continue to fund Active Travel schemes for local authorities who failed to embed the DfT and TfL agenda, or who failed to deliver schemes to the standard that ATE would expect.

The Chair proposed that the meeting be extended to 10.00pm, and the Sub-Committee agreed.

RESOLVED: That the Sub-Committee be extended to 10.00pm.

The Sub-Committee asked what the key lessons where for ensuring that residents understood schemes that had been learnt from the implementation of the first tranche of School Streets. The Head of Highways & Parking Services explained that for the second tranche of School Streets, discussions had been held with school leaderships to ensure proposals were in line with what was wanted by schools before engagement went out to the wider community. The Chair asked if any other lessons had been learnt and Members heard that the need for advanced signage was vital. The Sub-Committee heard that for the first tranche of School Streets, informal consultation had been undertaken, and the results of this would be reported to Cabinet in October 2022; dependant on that decision it would then be decided whether to proceed with ETMOs. The Chair asked about how School Streets would be monitored and heard that work was being done with a third-party supplier and that monitoring would be installed on the schemes implemented by ETMOs in April 2022. Approval was being sought at Cabinet in October 2022 to continue this monitoring and to install air quality traffic monitors in the local areas of these schools.

The Sub-Committee asked about how Active Travel and Healthy Streets linked to wider policies around reducing traffic and road fatalities. The Head of Highways & Parking Services explained that additional funding had been offered from TfL for Croydon's third Local Implementation Plan (LIP3) and that this would include the implementation of road safety schemes. The Chair commented on current uncertainty until TfL funding settlements were known and asked how a more integrated approach could be adopted that told the story of these policies to residents. The Corporate Director of SCRER explained that it was always their aim to link up these policies as part of a coherent strategic approach, but that there was often a tension between achieving this and responding to disjointed funding offers to implement schemes. The Corporate Director of SCRER acknowledged that more could be done to bring these policies together but that there were always efforts to link schemes to a wider strategic picture. The Chair acknowledged this and highlighted the importance of taking the emotion out of the picture and presenting the benefits of policies to residents as a cohesive narrative.

The Chair asked about the absence of street scene improvements as part of ANPR Healthy Neighbourhoods and possible ways that this could be implemented. The Head of Strategic Transport explained that this was an element that would be important in contributing to the long-term success of schemes. Currently these schemes were established under ETMOs and so it was difficult to justify the additional cost of street scene improvements. This was a part of a longer-term vision for the schemes to try to change the way these roads related to different road users. The Chair noted that all money recovered from breaches of ANPR Healthy Neighbourhoods was ringfenced for transport and used to fund Croydon’s contributions to the Freedom Pass scheme.

Conclusions:

The Sub-Committee thanked officers for the very useful briefing on monitoring and engagement for Healthy Neighbourhoods in advance of the meeting and asked that once information on how monitoring data would be used that this be shared with Members.

The Sub-Committee concluded that the Council’s webpages on Active Transport and Healthy Streets should be brought together to allow for this to be more coherent and easier to understand for residents.

The Sub-Committee concluded that there was a strong central government drive for local authorities to adopt Active Travel policies, but that this was not widely understood. The detail on how Active Travel England fit into this picture was also unclear.

Recommendations:

1. The Sub-Committee recommended that key stakeholders were identified and engaged before the implementation of any new Healthy Neighbourhood schemes.

2. The Sub-Committee recommended that the Council look at developing a cohesive Active Travel policy that brought all these schemes together in a coherent and strategic way that provided a narrative that residents could easily understand.

3. The Sub-Committee recommended that there needed to be better communications with residents about the outcomes of Healthy Neighbourhood and School Street schemes that were in their localities.

4. The Sub-Committee recommended that the Council investigate developing a Kerbside Strategy to work in an integrated way alongside the Walking and Cycling Strategies.

5. The Sub-Committee recommended that the Council investigate attracting an e-bike hire scheme into the borough, possibly through Section 106 funding.