Subscribe to updates

You'll receive weekly summaries about Hackney Council every week.

If you have any requests or comments please let us know at community@opencouncil.network. We can also provide custom updates on particular topics across councils.

Special Meeting, Scrutiny Panel - Monday 11 November 2024 7.00 pm

November 11, 2024 View on council website  Watch video of meeting or read trancript
AI Generated

Summary

The Scrutiny Panel voted to uphold the original decision made by Mr Tyler Linton, the Assistant Director of Street Scene for Hackney Council. The decision was about the adoption of Traffic Management Orders for the Amherst Road and Pembury Circus Transformation Scheme. The meeting was held to consider the validity of a call-in made against the scheme by five Hackney Councillors.

Pembury Circus

The most significant topic discussed was the design for the Pembury Circus junction. The junction is currently one of the most dangerous in the borough. The call-in councillors argued that the Council's scheme was not in the best interests of residents because:

  • An alternative design, the Circulating Cycle Stage (CCS) design, which was not considered in sufficient depth, would be safer for both pedestrians and cyclists.
  • The Council’s design removes a pedestrian crossing on Amherst Road that would be retained with the CCS design.
  • The scheme will deter people from cycling, particularly less experienced cyclists and children, because of the lack of protected cycle lanes, meaning that they are less able to access and enjoy the amenities in Hackney Central.

The call-in councillors also argued that the design for Pembury Circus junction has been excessively influenced by the design for the adjacent section of Amherst Road. In particular, the Council’s use of a single Multi Criteria Assessment to assess the entire project led to the prioritisation of place-making features, like Public Art and ‘surprise and delight’, at the expense of cycling safety. These criteria are not appropriate for Pembury Circus, because Public Art is not part of the design.

The call-in councillors also challenged the decision-making process, claiming that it lacked transparency. For example, the Forward Plan was amended without notice to stakeholders like Hackney Cycling Campaign. The plan had initially indicated that the decision about the scheme was to be taken by the Cabinet, but a few days before the supposed decision date, the plan was amended to indicate that the decision would be taken under delegated authority by Mr Linton.

The call-in councillors argued that the scheme’s emphasis on placemaking is contrary to the original Levelling Up Fund (LUF) bid, for which the scheme is being funded. The bid had committed to promoting cycling safety and Vision Zero, the Council's policy of eliminating all traffic fatalities by 2041. Hackney Cycling Campaign claimed that they would not have written a letter in support of the LUF bid if they had known about the final junction designs.

The call-in councillors also argued that the scheme’s design does not meet the standards set by Active Travel England’s (ATE) Local Transport Note 1/20 (LTN 1/20), the national guidance for cycle infrastructure, and by Transport for London (TfL), and that the Council's design would score poorly on the Junction Assessment Tool (JAT). The JAT assesses junctions against generic criteria and junction specific criteria, scoring each specific movement that a cyclist would make across the junction between 0-2. A percentage score of 70% is expected in order for schemes to be eligible for funding.

Mr Garmon ap Garth, from Hackney Cycling Campaign said:

25% as a JAT score, that is if you had a current junction with that kind of score it should be top priority to remove it, to redesign it. There is a design available which is completely safe, 95%, every movement being safe, what the council is proposing will not have any impact on the movement that Claudia had, that will happen again, to somebody else at some point. There is a better design available

He argued that the Council should request an independent assessment by Active Travel England.

Mr Linton acknowledged the concerns that had been raised about the scheme, and that:

developing proposals is a balancing act. We have to weigh up different considerations and needs based on technical data, professional judgment, several different guidelines, not just the ones that I heard tonight…and most importantly, informed by public engagement

He said that the decision about Pembury Circus had been informed by extensive engagement with stakeholders, including multiple meetings and email exchanges with Hackney Cycling Campaign. He insisted that the scheme would make it safer for cyclists and pedestrians than the current junction. He said that the decision would lead to a statutory consultation process, during which the public would have a further opportunity to comment. Mr Linton indicated that the consultation would last a minimum of 21 days, and that during the statutory consultation, he would consider carrying out further safety assessments and publishing the results, though he reserved the right to decide which tools were appropriate for the job.

Other issues

The panel also considered concerns that the proposed scheme may pose a danger to pedestrians, particularly those with visual impairments. Mr Andrew Hodgson, Vice President of the National Federation of the Blind UK, said that the Council’s design would be safer for visually impaired people because it has 12 sets of tactile paving, compared to 32 for the CCS design. He argued that the CCS design would create a “chaotic confusing and disorienting environment for blind, deafblind, and partially sighted people”. He said that the proposed two-way cycle track would effectively be a two-way route for cyclists, as many would ignore the one-way restriction. He also claimed that cyclists would “cut the corners off on the junctions” and ride across pavements.

He claimed that:

blind people using white canes and their guide dogs wouldn't be able to detect the cycle lane unless it had at least a 60 millimetre curb with higher curbs preferred, with rock curbs to allow wheelchair access and off the pavement. There is a grave danger that they and their guide dogs will likely walk into the bike lane.

Mr Hodgson expressed concern about the removal of the Amherst Road pedestrian crossing, arguing that cyclists would “not stop” at zebra crossings. He claimed that:

“blind people would not be able to use the area at all and would become further isolated in their home. They could not get to the nearby Hackney Downs station, Hackney Central town centre, or local bus stops."

Mr Vincent Stops, a Hackney resident, said that the CCS design would be “impossible for blind people to navigate” and “a nightmare for everyone else”. He argued that the Council’s design was necessary to keep cyclists and other micromobility vehicles off the pavement. He said that the CCS design would lead to cyclists travelling at speed in both directions on the pavement, not stopping at zebra crossings, and “leaving the track at will”. He claimed that cyclists would “race around the lights to get across at the same green signal as pedestrians”, and would “swerve around them, not give away”.

Decision

Councillor Alastair Binnie-Lubbock was the only panel member to vote to uphold the call-in. He argued that the decision should be referred to full council because the council’s design “breaches the policy framework”. He argued that the council should consider more evidence.

The other panel members – Councillors Sophie Conway, Ben Hayhurst, Joseph Ogundemuren, Sharon Patrick, and Ali Sadek – all voted to uphold the original decision.

Attendees

Documents