Councillor Lib Peck has responded to LJAG’s letter calling Lambeth to account with regard to planning and resources used to implement experimental road closure. A copy of Councillor Lib Peck’s response sent to LJAG and Councillor Jennifer Braithwaite is set out below.
“Dear Amanda,
Thank you for your letter about the Loughborough Junction road closures.
As a council we have a vision for a better Loughborough Junction. That’s why we wanted to we have worked closely with LJAG on plans to create a safer, cleaner, more pleasant place for people to live and work, and for the area to be a destination in its own right.
At the moment it is dominated by traffic – Loughborough Road sees an incredible 13,000 vehicles pass through on a typical weekday. We have worked closely with LJAG on plans to create open public spaces, safer conditions for pedestrians and cyclists, environmental improvements and a greater mix of retail outlets.
Regarding your concerns about communication, a letter was sent to 11,000 households one week before the closures with details of which roads would be closed, the rationale behind the closures and information on how the impact would be evaluated. This followed extensive consultation over the previous year.
In September 2014 a leaflet publicising the consultation and detailing opportunities to view the proposals and meet the design team was distributed to nearly 11,000 residents and business. There were also a series of drop-in exhibitions at the Loughborough Junction Centre and four consultation events were held by the council in and around the affected area, during which residents and businesses had the opportunity to meet the design team and ask questions.
The closures have also been covered extensively in the South London Press, Brixton Buzz, Brixton Blog and Evening Standard.
You also raised concerns about confusing signage. Cllr Jenny Brathwaite has been working very hard to improve the signage and I am told that compliance across the scheme has improved significantly during October, in part due to increased signage and the introduction of variable message signage on the Loughborough Road / Coldharbour Lane junction. There is further advance warning signage now installed on Herne Hill Road, Milkwood Road, Coldharbour Lane and Loughborough Road.
Traffic counts have been taken at 71 different locations in the surrounding area to measure the impact on neighbouring roads and repeat counts will be taken in key locations. This data will form part of the review, the results of which should be known in mid-November.
The review will also take into account;
· Traffic survey counts (including speed and volume surveys from 23 locations, and video surveys at six locations to assess the changes in volumes of motor traffic and cycling)
· Review of traffic flows (using the Council’s CCTV system to carry out a review of traffic flows on the key route of Coldharbour Lane.)
· Review of road safety issues
· Feedback from emergency services and King’s College Hospital
· Feedback from TfL
· Feedback from Southwark Council
· Feedback from Lambeth Cyclists
· A summary of all representations sent as part of the statutory consultation
· Evidence of impact on businesses (via face to face consultation by the Stockwell Partnership, including the business survey mentioned earlier)
· Evidence of impact on residents (via the ongoing Stockwell Partnership engagement)
· Analysis of crime data
The final decision on whether to proceed will be made by the Cabinet Member and will be based on a comprehensive report which will include officer recommendations. It is hoped that this will be available by mid-November and all evidence collected, as well as the full report, will be published openly online.
Clearly there is a lot of room for improvement in the way the closures have been introduced. It is a learning curve for all of us and the review process will help us identify what we can do better in future.
Thank you again for writing to me. Lambeth remains committed to improving Loughborough Junction and working with LJAG to establish place that everybody can enjoy.
Best wishes,
Lib
Councillor Lib Peck
Leader of Lambeth Council
Labour, Thornton ward
Phone: 020 7926 1167
Fax: 020 7926 2049
Email: [email protected]
Website: http://www.lambeth.gov.uk
Leader’s Office
Olive Morris House
Brixton
SW2 1RD
Lambeth – the cooperative council”
A copy of the email LJAG have sent to Councillor Peck on 11 October calling for an answer to questions raised:
“Dear Councillor Peck,
As you are already aware, the Loughborough Junction Action Group (LJAG) is concerned that the road closure trial has suffered from a lack of resource to enable effective planning, implementation and monitoring as listed below.
1. Inadequate communication around the closure in advance of implementation during the three weeks from Councillor approval to implementation
2. Confusing traffic signage at the outset which has been added to rather than rationalised
3. Inadequate traffic management that has confused drivers and put pedestrians at risk
4. Unclear objectives and measurements to determine the trial’s success or failure.
LJAG is open to a trial of the scheme, in particular to see if it would increase walking and cycling in the area and enable public realm improvements. We also promised the local community to hold Lambeth to account during the trial period. We have had many direct communications with Council representatives but feel our questions and concerns have gone unanswered.
The road closure trial scheme has proved highly controversial, which is no doubt aided by its poor execution. LJAG notes that the trial’s review has
been brought forward, and we welcome this opportunity to pause and take account of the urgent improvements needed for this trial to continue.
Below we reiterate the questions we raised with the council on 24 September 2015 which to date have remained unanswered:
We see these points as critical improvements that must be in place before committing to the trial continuing for a longer period. Indeed, it is a great shame they were not in place from the beginning.
Communications
1. Adequate communication to local residents, businesses and drivers of how the scheme will work and proof of minimising disruption. How many residents have been told of the trial, what is the evidence it was explained thoroughly enough, with a high level of understanding? What is being done to continue to communicate information on the trial and also how can people report problems / feedback?
Safety
2. A commitment to ensuring drivers’ and pedestrians’ safety is not compromised through poor signage, traffic lights not working, pavements blocked, etc. We also require commitment that non-drivers are able to access convenient bus routes and that emergency services will have clear access to those in need.
Measurement
3. Clarity on how the trial will be measured and what steps are being taken to ensure a fair and impartial outcome – e.g. how is impact to businesses being qualitatively and quantitatively measured? How will the public be reached to gather and assess views – e.g. formal surveys? What are the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) that this trial links to? And are these standard?
Reporting
4. Regular reviews of the traffic flows with public reports being made so that the community is aware of the scheme’s impact over the course of the trial. Frequency of information shared must be known to the community in advance so we can expect it.
Enforcement
5. Information on the trial’s enforcement and appropriate communication to this effect. What support is in place to help drivers and residents and how is non-compliance monitored and addressed? What is the basis of the agreement of how non-compliance is addressed?
Feedback
6. Lambeth to provide a central point to gather and coordinate feedback from the public and businesses, this must also be circulated widely so that the community is well aware of where comments can be shared.
Public meeting
7. Lambeth should organise a public event, with Councillors present, to air grievances from the trial’s beginning and also to provide direct information of the improvements being made, should this be the case.
LJAG sincerely hopes that there have been significant learnings from what has to this point been a very divisive event for our community. We remain available to assist where possible and appropriate, but believe the Council must ensure adequate planning and resources are in place for a trial of this scale.
We would appreciate a full response so we can communicate this prior to our Neighbourhood Planning Forum meeting on Thursday, 15 October.
Yours sincerely,
Amanda Kamin
LJAG Trustee”.
