Transcript

[BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] Well, the problem will be the webcast, I guess, if we don't have these, but yeah, I can sort of hear this. There's a bit of a delay, I think, really, isn't there? [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] So first of all, we cover off the our bike community cargo bike scheme, which is a scheme whereby we effectively have a cargo bike that's being deposited in each of our local sensors. And the paper here sets out how well that scheme has been doing, and how often it's been used. And there's a translation in there as well about what it means in terms of impacts on carbon emissions. So there's positive news there. We then cover off the tripe before your bike scheme, and we note the numbers of residents and households who have used the tripe before your bike scheme to purchase cargo bikes. And then, again, an update on the ULA's Good Move scheme, which we reported to the committee, I think, in November. This is a scheme whereby people who give up their non-compliant ULA's vehicle are allowed to effectively join this Good Move scheme to get a grant office to help support purchase of cargo bikes. We consider the delivery of cargo bike parking based near schools, most of the counselors who, there's a list of locations here where we propose to install cargo bikes near schools. Counselors who represent these rewards should have been consulted on that, and we plan to install the first ones beginning in May. So that's that's that's that. And then we propose to have a cargo bike festival later in the year to effectively demonstrate and show off all the things that cargo bikes can do in terms of the movements of goods and people. And then there's also mentioning here of what we're currently doing on sustainable deliveries and freight consolidation. This is an area I think where we would like to do more work in the next 12 months, which is the ability of local centres coming together and having proposals and schemes whereby they can coordinate the delivery of goods locally. And also where they we can have waste consolidation. So instead of having the dust cart having to go up and down the street picking up for each individual business, they just go to a location where the waste is is collected and then take that away. Finally, as the government were consulted, as we were drafting this report, the government have announced a consultation on amending the rules for eBikes and for eBikes basically. And that we we we we cover off in the report as well. So generally speaking, the proposals, which would increase the power of a power assistance for eBikes would actually potentially help with cargo bikes because they would allow somebody who's carrying a cargo bike that's heavily laden with with freight or has children to be able to effectively moves move more comfortably around, particularly going uphill. We provide a bit of extra power. But unfortunately, as we highlight in the report, that benefit appears to be offset really by all the potential problems of having increased power and on eBikes more generally. And we listed in the committee paper, the sort of concerns that we have there. We have until Wednesday to sending response into the department for transport. And we set out in the report board the hour thinking on that. If members have anything that they'd like to add, we can include within within that response. So thank you, Councillor. Thank you, David. So try not to set off the feedback. Tim, you're happy to speak from there. Yeah. Okay. So whenever you're happy to begin, turn on your microphone, even though it disadvantages you in terms of the crowd assembled here, and then you'll get you'll get your three minutes and we'll then see if there are any questions from committee members. Thanks, Tim. [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] So I'm supportive of the idea that there's exploitable pockets smaller than the parking space that we're not necessarily using. But I think when it comes to the cargo bike specifically that we're discussing, they are large. I think we think that the bay will typically accommodate what three may be four, something like that cargo bike. [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] And the other thing is that unlike a car, they're going to be fairly blown. So, yeah, because some of the arguments about double-year lines is you put a car there, you block other people from seeing oncoming traffic. So what I'm saying is that by making use of these lots of double-year lines that can be used by bicycles and cargo bikes, you actually increase the pay flexibility and get people used to parking on the road instead of on the pavement. We'd be very happy to make offices available to do a walk around in your own ward as locations near schools where you think some of that is. But I think we are really saying with this cargo bike provision, we want to give them absolute kind of premium class locations rather than where we can find sort of odds and odds of spaces that may be useful in addition. Sure, sure, sure. And where I'm starting from. Yeah. The difference is that I'm not starting with a bit of having a whole car space. Okay, understood. It's a point you've been before. I accept it. I think you want to take the offer of offices and come in to take a look at some locations. We'll see whether there's an exploitable location. Councillor Mansfield is next. Thank you. I want to bring our attention to actually to the third recommendation, which is about the delegation to the Director of Place about the amendment in the legislation, electrically assisted pedal bikes. I can see the pros and cons have been listed in here and I just want to really talk about how when we are responding to the consultation, I think it's going to be really important that the risks are, in my view, heavily outweighing those pros of it. In particular, and I make reference to my own ward on the A316 where you have shared space between the cycle and the pedestrian facility. We already have a tension between cyclists and pedestrians in that area. With the pedestrians feeling cyclists are going too fast and cyclists feeling that the pedestrians are getting in their way. I think that would be hugely exacerbated by the proposals that have been set out by the government. I don't think that that part of it has been thought through, so I do want to make sure that the recommendation from this committee is very much to draw attention to the fact that we do not support the proposals as set out by the government. David, you've come in. I think that's very useful feedback. I think that the general steer is that we are, I think, at this stage, not persuaded by the proposals, as you say. But I do think that we need to leave the door open to the fact that well-constructed regulation about additional power can have some value to certain subclasses of vehicles. But I think the sort of wild west approach, which I would describe the present proposals as being, I think, is not something that has this council support, but David, do you want to add? No, I'd never be against the future proposals that might come to the table who don't know what they are, but the way they present at the moment. When we respond on the risk, we also need to highlight some of the opportunity too. So there are areas of opportunity where additional power could be useful, particularly for people, for example, with disabilities being able to access heavier classes of carrying machinery, for example. But David, do you want to... I'm not saying that in the future that might not be the instance. I think I completely see the positives, but the way the government has set out the proposals and the parameters that they've put within this are not going to allow that benefit to be felt without the risk being outweighing it. And I just want to check, but you're happy with us fielding a response, which says, Your present proposals are not ones we support, but we're not, as an administration fundamentally opposed to greater power in certain subclasses, if you were to do it, you should think about doing it in the following way. Like, yeah, okay, David, yeah. We picked up the same risks, Councillor, and as I understand it, and I say I may be wrong, but it certainly looks as if, particularly on the twist and go cycle, so these are the debugs that you do not need to peddle, that have a top speed of 50 miles an hour, which would require no physical efforts. To have vehicles go, which at winter is 20 miles an hour, is the limit on most of the roads in the boat, so to have vehicles travelling at that speed in shared use services just doesn't really seem to be right. And that's why I keep reading it thinking I've clearly read this wrong, but that does appear to be what the proposal is. I think the enforcement necessities here would be really problematic as well, making distinctions between vehicles that manifestly bicycles, but of different distinctions for the police will be incredibly difficult to do, and I think we should highlight that. But as long as it's brief, because you're jumping queue, Councillor, but it's also very important that the batteries are checked out. Sure, okay, so it's a number of problems with it. Understood. Councillor Richards is next. It's not working. I wanted to add an observation that I met someone who got a cargo bike through the good move scheme, and while I think he'd have preferred to have his old car, he's sort of happier having a cargo bike than he would be having nothing at all. So it would be, I don't know how we're trying to arrange a scheme, if you're trying to ditch your car, come here and we'll indoctrinate you into the world of e-bikes, which is, I don't know if we can even do that. Well, to that point, Councillor Richards, I think, David, do you want to say a bit more about some of the thinking that will result in the paper that will be about good move early thinking? And also, I mean, to capture Councillor Richards' point, I think we have done a job with the good move scheme, unless I'm mistaken, of capturing information of those who've used it. I think we've got a job ahead of ourselves in terms of kind of perhaps promoting some of the positive stories about transition, like Councillor Richards' friend perhaps. Well, as we mentioned, we will bring a paper to the next committee on the sort of the good move scheme and how we can expand it more widely. I have to say most people I've come across sort of purchased cargo bikes actually say it's changed their lives so that they think they're extraordinarily valuable and useful. But the other thing we could look at is we mentioned that the plan for the Cargo Bike Festival and that again might be a good place to have quite a lot of positivity at that event and to have any exhibitions and come along and see exactly what you can get and what you can do, and so we can publicise what the offers at that as well. Thank you, Councillor Richards. Thank you, David. Councillor interjecting. Thank you, Chair. Just to go back to the issue about Cargo Bike Spaces outside of schools, just to make the point that drop off and pick up isn't always just between 8.39 and 3.34. We've also got lunch times for nurseries and you've got pre-school and after-school. So it's not just at those pinch points where the traffic is really impacted, but there are other times of the day. So I'm very much in support of having dedicated Cargo Bike Spaces wherever possible. I did want to talk about the Cargo Bike Events, and I note the issue about having the proposal to have the Cargo Bike Festival. In the email that we received this afternoon from a, clearly a bicycle shop owner in Sheen, two of the ideas were about having regular events, and you do talk about the fact that you've run events at primary schools and the regular events. And I just want to weigh up the balance of having a one-off event that a lot of effort will go into, but making sure people can get there that it's available for everyone, to having regular events. Which way is our money better spent and the input better spent? Should we have a big one-off event or should we have smaller regular events in different parts of the borough that might actually access more people? I mean, obviously this is probably a funding issue and there might be sponsorship and there are other public aspects that I don't know about being involved, but I just want to raise that question with you about the balance of one-off against regular events. I mean, I'll come first, there's already a bit, I think, I mean, a lot of this has been a kind of political steer. And I think the initial thinking is let's try and do an event and then work out from there how successful or not elements of it are. And yes, maybe as it were kind of subordinating those into smaller events elsewhere might actually be more profitable, but I think at the moment we don't do as much as we could. And so my suggestion is we venture into this space and see if there are good ideas about different way of doing it, we'll consider them. But I think the resource consideration of running multiple events might well be quite burdensome too. So David, perhaps you want to comment a bit more on resource implications. I would probably say we could certainly look at those things we already often do. So there's the car free day, there's clean air day. There are certain events which our colleagues in the air quality and climate change teams run that we can clearly probably bring cargo bikes into. So that would be something we could do. But welcome further thoughts on that. If you think anyone's doing anything particularly well out there, we're happy to hear it. So thank you, Councillor. You're another one. But yeah, please. It was just again, Tim suggested the idea of having to pay a fee at town, if you book, if you come by car bike and other people suggested maybe a discount on their council tax. I mean, I do think incentives are a good idea, so we have the Richmond card. Is there anything that can be done, I think I've suggested before, to promote active travel through the Richmond card through cargo bike ownership through discounts? Is there something there that we can do? Because we give free parking with the Richmond card, could we not give some kind of active travel bonus instead, or in addition to, to encourage more people to use active travel as opposed to saying, Oh look, we give free parking with the Richmond card. That's the main bonus you get out of it. Is there something else we could do? I think what I'd say is, if you've got ideas, by all means, send them to myself and David Diddley. Because as part of the plan to bring forward what it is that succeeds could move, we'll see. I think one of the things we've got to tread carefully on though is that I think there is, as a cargo bike user myself, there is inherent value in the proposition without a financial inducement. There's actually quite a lot of financial inducement within it anyway, because it's so much more affordable, both a purchase and a car alternative. So I think we need to be careful about not overly feathering that financial nest a bit, but we're open to ideas. We don't have a hegemon on knowledge here, but I think actually probably we might be better spending the money that we might be proposing in some of those financial benefits to an individual on the kind of promotion and exposing of the opportunity, but David, do you want to add anything further? Any other points to make? Yeah, Councillor Chard. Yeah, I just had a couple of questions around these consolidation hubs issue. Am I correct in sort of inferring from the discussion at sort of 3.17? That some of the sort of service providers operating have essentially said to us, there are higher priority areas in London where there's greater density of businesses, greater density of people. We're not against getting involved, but it's probably not yet. That's sort of what I'm inferring from what's been said there, which is sort of understandable. And if you look at the TFL map of the opportunities around this, we're sort of a medium area or much of this area, particularly quick and enrichment towards more like a sort of medium opportunity areas rather than high opportunity areas. So it might be quite a case of not yet. Now, just going on from that, we sort of talk about allowing space within a Council car park for it. But are there other things that we need to do to make ourselves attractive as a location as they move on to these medium priority areas because there are things like if they're going to operate one of these hubs, they're going to need storage facilities, potentially they're going to need access for vehicles to stop the hubs, they're going to need potentially toilet facilities for people doing these things. I also slightly wonder whether Council car parks are necessarily the right place and maybe other locations. You know, the sort of space that they're needing 200 square metres, well, the front of your house is about 200 square metres. It's these kind of things. They're private facilities as well. So there are other things that these consolidation companies need that we need to think about in addition to just saying there's some space in all your own car park for you or whatever it may be. David, you want to respond? I'll have a go. Yes, it's the answer to the first part of your question, Councillor, that in other parts of London, a couple I can think of, and one with my other hat on, the companies effectively saw an opportunity and therefore did the running in terms of trying to find the space and being prepared to rent the space. And in this case, for this to work here, we perhaps need to offer the space instead. But the other thing is the amount of space that's needed, particularly for relatively local consolidation, is quite small. I mean, it really is only a few car parking spaces. It's generally all that's generally needed. And the one that I can think of with my other hat on is in a car park. So we know it can work and it has worked. So I think all I doubt is, I don't think we're saying there aren't other potential locations as per your point. But I think what we know from present deployment of these facilities is they have more typically than not used car park facilities. And therefore, I think that's our starting place. I also think one of the things that we're trying to think about in relation to this is one of your points you made as well, Councillor Child, which is about, it's all very well saying we've got a location that's perhaps large enough for fulfillment. But you need to think about what are the vehicles bringing in those materials and have they got suitable access and egress as well. And we're not creating some unpleasant experience for residents in some part of the borough where presently that sort of large consolidation doesn't take place. So I think we'll triage the car parks. I think the other thing that recognizes, as with car parks, as with any other facility, there is an opportunity cost. If we put in a consolidation hub, we might not be putting in housing or some other facility that we might otherwise use the land for. So we just have to think about it in the round. Yeah, Councillor Child, if you've got a follow-up. Yeah, just sort of thinking around that kind of thing, I mean, nothing against using Council parking space for these things. But there are things like, you've got spaces up towards the stadium, towards the stoop, and things like that, where they're very intensively used on match days, but generally not otherwise. They're also on main issue roads, so quite good for servicing. Some of the disadvantages about using those would be that maybe they're not as well located for cycle lanes and other things. But it's just, I think we need to think a bit more about what our offering is when these companies move from the high priority areas that they're doing at the moment, the medium priority ones. And it's about slightly more than creating space for the meetings, that understanding, and it's about the facilities around it, the onward access, the toilets, those kind of things. I'm curious just to develop that point a bit for me, Councillor Child. So you're suggesting that we should almost look beyond our council-owned assets into other third-party assets, then? Is that the implication? Because I mean, the depot is obviously a case in point potentially on that A316, but you made mention of the facilities, I assume, that are in the hands of Harlequins or whoever. Yeah, I mean, I don't think we should rule that sort of thing out. Clearly, the disadvantage with it is that we ourselves can provide our own facilities at zero cost to be more attractive to get people in, whereas Harlequins, or whoever, would it be? Whoever would expect some form of return, it might not be a large return, but I think we should be a little bit imaginative about it, and whether we can assist in other ways about setting those up. So you don't think we'd rule our partnership with him, but yeah, that's a good challenge. Thank you, Councillor Child. I had Councillor Milam next. Is he waiting up? Very briefly, and it may have been considered already, but we operate system where residents can apply for a bike hammer in their road, so to speak. Have you considered whether we could do something like designating parking bays for cargo bikes? No creating a cargo bike parking permit system? So, I mean, I'll answer first, David, if that's right. So we have considered it, Councillor Milam, and I think we're still considering it and how best to do it if we bring it to the borough. My understanding is there is a cycle hoop product that enables a secure storage, much like we provide for the bicycles for a cargo bike, I think it is a single cargo bike. And that's a consideration, as are the kind of approach that we're taking outside schools and having some ground anchors, so that cargo bikes could be secured potentially in residential areas where there's demand. I think we need to think a bit more, post the initial deployment of these, about how we might broaden the availability of the potential ask. David, do you want to say anything further? Because at the moment, that's not in scope, but I certainly wouldn't rule it out. So we have on the website information that basically says, if you're a resident and you've got a cargo bike and you don't have anywhere to park if you'd like to work with us on an option, please contact us. And it hasn't been, we haven't received too many queries about that, but we'd be happy to clearly work with anybody who would do that. I think one of the challenges is whilst the cargo bike can be left outside for a while, I think ideally most people would want them to be covered, or you know, out of the weather really, rather than just have them outside permanently, but it's something we can clearly consider. Those Tim and I as cargo bike owners, I think that would be an ideal, I think with anything of value, particularly when it's new. But I part mine my front garden chain tool, a wall with effectively a motorbike cover on it, I think you do much the same. So I think we may be sort of gilding the lily a little. But it's interesting that we've occasionally seen a bike outside somebody's house and thought that's blocking the pavement. Would you like to work with us on providing a proper facility for it in the street? But that's surprising, it's quite a rare occurrence at the moment. OK, thanks. I had Councillor butler next and Councillor Fries, I'm very pleased to see that you've acknowledged that it's OK to park a bike on the carriage way, which is greatly forward. But this concept of providing a little garage, a high area, well, I think we're getting a bit over carried away because it would have to be for one cargo bike. Correct, and that effectively would take out the space of probably about half a lengthwise, half a one car and a cargo bike. I think it pretty much takes out a car parking space. So it's one car for one cargo bike? Yes, I think we're getting a bit carried away. The other thing is that in case you haven't noticed bike's been stolen in this barber. They've been stolen from little sheds inside properties right now. And the idea of a cargo bike, I don't know the real cost of it, but decent cargo bike I would have made and really knocked out about sort of 3,000 pounds of thereabouts. So it's highly, shall we say, attractive to take out. I mean, we're losing things. I'm not saying, what I'm saying is, I don't really think we're going to save ourselves a lot. If we stop putting a let block on your bike while you took the kids into it and it is shopping in, I can accept that. But the idea of leaving your bike blocked up on the general highway, I can see. I think where I absolutely agree with your sort of hierarchy is, I think that in general, the priorities I see amongst cargo bike users is to have a secure location to store the bike so that it's less risk of theft than it is to necessarily have it protected from the elements. And I think that's the priority. And I think the biggest challenge of the cycle with the hangers is that, you know, it's quite challenging. I'm not saying it's not a challenge, we won't eventually embrace. It's quite a challenging proposition to say to residents of a road, actually we're going to remove a single car parking space and effectively give it over to the sole use of a single cargo bike owner. That may be perceived by some to be quite a challenge because we're effectively making a facility for whether one beneficiary where there might have been many in the past. So I think your point about that general availability of secure parking rather than necessarily making sure a vehicle is protected from the elements is probably the kind of first step in doing this. I had a councilor freeze next. I just wanted to turn to 3.19 3.20 about delivery lockers and just I know that note that you've got some sites identified in barns and what they can see. I'm just wondering what evaluation will be done on those because, I mean, I would hope that if we're going to do lockers, the states that we're housing is actually might then be looking lockers for apartment blocks those kind of places where we don't have individual front doors and we know deliveries more of a problem. So I'm just wondering what evaluation will be done for so looking forward to the future. I think David, I mean, I think it's a game cruel or run, right? We'll start with these and we'll see how successful they are. And I think in general, the approach that we take as a committee or as an area of activity, the council is all of these locations will be discussed with ward councillors and advance as well to make sure they generally meet with their approval if they don't, we wouldn't be looking to do them. How's the job? On a related point, might we discuss some of these things with Southwest railways. So a very obvious point where you might have lockers and so on is it stations, isn't it? Yeah, we can do that. Yeah. Do that and the fact I've got two lockers at my local station. Which happens, sadly, to not be in this borough. Okay. Any other points to debate? On that part, there are tubular signs, automatic build things, so you put it in and it goes and stick it up there. Cost of the vast amount, I mean, but, you know, if you're into, you can install them. No, it's not. I mean, they're done with cars and they're doing the bikes. They just actually push a bike in and it gets stolen up there or stolen there, sort of down there. Yeah, okay. So no other comments on this paper. If not, then does the committee agree to the recommendations? Yeah. Very, very minor point on the recommendations. Yeah. That's a point. It's 3.17, not 3.20. Okay. Item number two. Two. Just minor correction. That's not 3.20. 2.20. So 3.17 is amended to read what? 3.20. Other way round. Okay. Okay. Okay. We'll make sure that's corrected. But assuming that correction is made, can I take it that the recommendations are set on paragraph two of the report on page 15 of the agenda agreed. Thank you. Okay. We moved to item seven, which is a review of Transport Strategy Service. David, over to you again. Yes. Thank you, Chair. So this is a paper, this is a paper review in the Transport Strategy Service, which is effectively the team. That I have a privilege of managing. Now, I think probably the first thing I would probably say is that I think most, most teams and most managers would say, wouldn't it be nice if we could have some more resources because we're all very busy. And of course, that's a, that's something that I'm sure most all teams across the council could say. But it's not just me who's really saying this. I think that what's happened recently is that my own senior managers have been asking for extra projects and more work and counselors themselves are asking for quite a lot of things now. And rightly so. I think if we go back, maybe five years ago, we didn't have a school streets program. We didn't have an electric vehicle, not much of an electric vehicle charging program. We didn't have a bike hanger system. And they're not only do we have those, we've got to maintain them. And of course, there's demands for more as well. We provide them a report, a list of things that we could potentially additionally do with additional resources to help deliver member priorities and to speed up some delivery as well. So also the obviously one of the common concerns members have and what our residents have is the time that things take. So again, is that additional resources would help speed up delivery. And then we also set out in the report the potential benefits, not just in terms of delivery of more things and quicker things, but also the team is actually very well, well versed and well skilled. And bring an income into the council, which some of it comes back into the team budget, but a lot of it goes more widely to support the activities right across the council, particularly within the traffic and engineering team. And also some of the climate change project. So we mentioned particularly the funding that we receive from OSF for electric vehicle charging, but there's often also quite a lot of the projects that we deal with developers. And then just to also just maybe just say what the transport strategy team does as opposed to what the traffic and engineering team do. So, so we affect to be draft and write the policies of the council on the transport side. And we deal with most of the liaison with the public transport operators, transport for London network rail. And as I said, we manage some of these mass action programs and quite a lot of the papers that come before you're the committee drafted by members of the team, and to name a few of them. Because they've been here quite a few times at the week, because obviously you get to know the team members are. So that's Andy Flood and Margot Turner, Sidonee Feisbray, Lindy Liu, Mick Raphael. So it's those people who effectively help set the direction of the council's policy and deliver things. As opposed to the traffic and engineering side who also draft quite a lot of papers that come to you on parking and traffic management schemes. So just to distinguish between the two and it's that transport strategy side of things which we're really talking about here. And whilst this committee itself doesn't generally deal with the planning side of things, one other element that the team does is provide all the input into the development management service in terms of the transport and traffic implications of development and the mitigation that's needed in order to make development acceptable in the below, so we have a very strong relationship as well with the development management team. Thank you, Jay. Thank you, David. So we've got Tim London, who's speak on this item as of the last. So Tim, same procedure as last year in respect to three minutes to speak, so whenever you're ready. Thank you, Councillor. So which would like to do strongly support the suggestion to strengthen the transport strategy. Given the grain, you know, the grain mother time, and recalling the urgency and the effectiveness, the council showed in the mass delivery of school streets to lock down and the sheer volume of things that can and should be done. Around the area, we do agree the grain capacity is essential. In reviewing the paper, we'd suggest that the team does include or could include perhaps more specific remit in stairholder engagement, for example, living streets, rules and ourselves. An example, this is because the among the active travel group, the active travel advisory group, still seem to be meeting a very ad hoc fashion, and we unfortunately rarely get to see many of the schemes that seem to then come to come to consultation and review. We'd also like to ask you some of the time, potentially, of these new offices can be focused on understanding how to, quote, get the message out. The council has a range of schemes of varying levels of success. And in consultation with living streets representatives, we think there's great value in looking closely at really how the council shouts will allow it, what's going on, and how really stakeholder groups can support you to do that. And the only idea, obviously, of the cargo bike festival, we think, is a really good example of that. And finally, expanding on the idea of engaging more stakeholders in delivery and in support of the council, we would note that there's lots of excellent bike shots of businesses in the area, and we directly would love them to be more closely engaged to be able to amplify and support the work that officers do. An example of that is last summer, a Q summer cycle in Q Gardens, Richmond Cycling campaign teamed up with the local business to show cargo bikes as part of our stall at the summer cycle, and that was very, very effective. So, it's really an ask to see if there's a way to really amplify the value that these new staff could bring to the council and to cycling in the area. Thank you. Thank you. Any members have any questions for Tim Hern? If not, I'd just say to reflect on one of the points you made, I think the point about ATAG and the resource applied here I think is noted. And to be clear, I think David threw at me again if I'm wrong, but the team that you manage, both at present and the resource if given, it does serve that ATAG and PTLG engagement. And I still think we're finding our way through with you about the right way to make that work. I don't think we've nailed it yet. So, if it's okay with you, we'll take in points as made, but I guess my question is, does that enough for you or do you want to press the point only further than that? No, I think that's great. It's really to welcome the expansion of the team because we can see that's going to be a very useful thing for the area. And to really to kind of stress the, we and I know other groups in the area and actually have literally been talking to one of the online attendees during the meeting. Lots of people would love to see how much more we can help council to live here. Okay. No other questions, Tim? Okay, we'll move to the debate. There's a Tim, you're sort of recused, they don't have to move. We'll move to the debate. So, I can't freeze off the block. Thank you very much in support of this proposal and very much support some of the ideas and strategies that the additionality might bring, particularly things like additional cycle lanes, which we are in desperate need of. I also note, however, that we currently have 1.8 posts vacant. I know that this is a problem, not just for Richmond council, but for all councils. So, while we have post-fasons and they're not being filled and they're going to try and get additional posts, what is the likelihood that this is going to happen in the next six to nine months to a year, given struggles that we have with recruiting staff at the moment? Well, David's very well able to respond to that because there's a question, almost word for word I asked him, say David. Okay. Well, the vacant season is relatively recent and we were effectively waiting for what the members might say tonight, and in fact, in the other about how we then recruit that. And I would also say that's 1.8 vacant across the two councils, so Richmond's proportion of that is 42%, if that, yeah, yes. So, it's not a huge amount of vacancy that we need to fill. I think, though, as well, David, I think it'd be fair to say that in order to, were we as a committee to approve this and then finance were to approve the finance that supports this, I think you might expect that there might be some short-term temporary recruitment of consultant support and so on to enable the longer-term recruitment we need. And then in the next paragraph, you talk about the service will continue to be significantly stretched. Will this additionality just get you to a stage where you can cover what you're actually already doing and not be significantly stretched? Or will it actually provide you with additionality and extra resource? This is just in question, because I'm sure it would, I imagine we would be able to do, we'll be able to do more, but I'm sure we'll still be very busy. I mean, there's no part of the council, at least all in the transport side, that isn't considerably stretched. I think what's set out in the paper, though, is that there are work streams, some of which we would not be able to deliver without this resource. I think most notably, but not singularly, that 2040 strategy piece of work. So, I think they'll continue to be stressed and stretched, but we will do more. Any other debate points on this? Councillor Manns. It's really just a comment to say that if we want to achieve what we have ambition to achieve within the transport arena, we need this resource. And I think I completely support it in the sense of what it will deliver, will enable us to deliver against what we've said we want to. I mean, I don't want to leave the committee, but if I might on that too, I really want to strongly recommend that this is a decision we should take. I'm not withstanding that finance will need to make their own decisions thereafter, but I really do think that this team is incredibly important to the stretch that we have in this area. And I think that David's been kind of weaving gold from straw for far too long, frankly. If there aren't any other further points that people wish to debate, does the committee agree to the recommendation set out in paragraph 2? Councillor interjecting. Oh, sorry, forgive me, I haven't seen you, Councillor. There's always one of you, just cutting in, just at the last minute. Councillor interjecting. Councillor interjecting. Councillor interjecting. Councillor interjecting. Councillor interjecting. Councillor interjecting. To get a pallet at a time. Page 7, at the very bottom 4.8, pedestrian pilot program, which appears there's no activity at the moment. But one of the constant things I get my ears bent about is that we're spending all this money on cycles and messing things up, et cetera, et cetera. It's very easy to have that. But I don't even find it defending it and say, well, yes, we may have done this for the cycle, but we're also doing this for pedestrians, because we're not doing anything for pedestrians without the IC. And because that, I do think it's important. So the other thing, the second one, I was pleased about the assessment of the pavement channel, which I've banged on for the last 18 months. But what I'm saying is, can we turn that into some current activity rather than, no, no. Councillor interjecting. So on the second of the two points, I think, David, do you want to just comment on how close we are to actual deployment of the pilot activity relating to the charging cables? I'd certainly like it to be in the next couple of months, Councillor. [INAUDIBLE] On the broader point, I think you're doing a bit of a disservice if you allow me in terms of sort of the amount of effort and resource allocated to pedestrian amenity. I mean, we do spend a considerable, I don't have one to have, but we do spend considerable amounts on pavement repairs and improvements, on safety adjustments to footways and so on. And you can look at investments and things like Teddington Lockup Footbridge clearly through the pedestrian amenity that that continues to provide, and that's a significant sum of money too. What I would say is that there's a different starting point, though. On practically every road in the borough, on practically both sides of every road in the borough, there are two pavements allocated specifically to pedestrian amenity. We can question whether they're in an idealized state, but they're there. We don't have the same facility afforded to safe cycling. And that's why I think there is a greater effort placed on that than on pedestrian facility. If we're talking about the pavements of pedestrians, people tell me to tell you, you know, some of the cyclists use pedestrians on the pavement. So people don't take time into it. I'm not in any way pretending that the pedestrian amenity offered in this borough is perfect and doesn't require greater investment in effort. It does, but I just think we are at different starting points, both for cycling. I also recognise that we don't have money unlimited. No, sure. I'd like to see some frightening things. It's on the floor. The pedestrian priority is to see some specification so that we say, going forward this is what. There are various work streams going on, as it's been mentioned by the committee members, that pedestrian priority activity is in the plan that will go ahead. There are other things going on, as I said to you, I think, off book. There has been considerable work done on looking at how we can improve crossover construction to offer greater amenity to pedestrians too. And that's still to be formally resolved, but that will probably come back in some form to committee or at least pass your desk. Look, I'm very grateful for you being a strong champion for pedestrian amenity because we need people to do that and we mustn't forget that we need to do a significant amount for pedestrians as well as cyclists. But I think it's worth contextualising the challenges is slightly different. At present, I'm outside the tent. I'd like to be inside the tent and qualify to develop this. You're always welcome to pull aside the skin of the tent and come on. Yeah, Pat, going from this point on. Always, always, always. Yes, this tent is open to all. Are there any other? I just want to make a note to that. Yeah, David, please come in. I also just wanted to say, just because we say there's no current activity on the pedestrian pilot program, as Councillor Ayman said, that doesn't mean we're not doing lots of things for pedestrians in terms of new crossings and things like the pavement replacement program, et cetera. But what we're talking about here, we're simply looking at streets and making sure that the street furniture is located in the right place and the clutter is reduced. And the rationalisation of what's there is done in order to provide that added immunity and something extra. And that's what this pedestrian pilot program is all about. Can I just make a point on this? I haven't got the courses. I haven't done the courses. I haven't done the design at work. But I'm a human being. And I think about sitting down. I think about walking. And I see it every day. And this morning I did a delivery through one street and found areas in that particular street that should be getting rid of, get sorted very quickly. So I'm actually out there every day looking at the street from a walking point of view. So I do think that my unprofessional knowledge and, to say, a pedantic approach to life would be useful. A constant reminder, Councillor, that we must do more, I think, is more than welcome. But I think it's also worth bearing in mind that context of the various things we have done. We mustn't just kind of constantly flagellate ourselves. We have done quite a lot, too. I mean, you look at Richmond Bridge as an example with the pedestrian crossing that's there or mere way as an example. You know, we have made considerable improvements to pedestrian immunity and a number of places in the bar. I think what you're arguing is, great, let's do more of it. And I'm broadly with you, resource notwithstanding. So, point taken, as always, who are a champion for pedestrians and much as well as armed forces. Armed force pedestrians even more. Yeah, so anyway, right. So, as long as nobody else wants to cut in just as I'm summarizing again, does the Committee agree with the recommendations set on paragraph two of the report on page five of the supplementary agenda packet agreed? Thank you very much. So, we've got the fourth time now. Paul Chadwick, please introduce your remarks on this one. Well... (Pause) (Pause) (Pause) (Pause) (Pause) (Pause) (Pause) (Pause) (Pause) (Pause) (Pause) (Pause) Are there any items you want to add a mend or have comments relating to, though I've just cautioned us, we don't want to get into actual debates as those items. Council freeze. I just wanted to address the Gully trials. Will we see a paper before the trials happen or will it be a case of evaluating it when they come? Because we have been asking for this as well for a long time. I know all individual council members have, but I just wanted to know where they are. I think you have all of the necessary permissions to go ahead with the trial. One other quick point. On the review of bus services, David, could I talk to you about that separately? Yes, I'd like to. There is an intent to send around an email to all councillors inviting contributions. We've already asked for them, but another formal request. Thank you. That all? Yeah. No others, councillors? No. Councillor. No, no, you're just a twit. Any other items on the floor plan? Anybody else? No. If not, does the committee agree that the current Forward Plan for Committee Business be noted? That concludes the business and see if it is meeting. Thank you for attending, can the webcast please be seated? [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO]