Agenda item

Report of the Head of Strategic Transport Planning and Public Realm.

5.1       The Chairman referred to the Committee having previously held a public meeting in June 2015 at the University of Westminster Campus in Marylebone Road where the details of the Project were scrutinised.  This meeting had been well attended by members of the public, residents’ groups and local Ward Members.  A verbal update had then been provided by Graham King, Head of Strategic Transport Planning & Public Realm, at the meeting in September 2015.  A report had been provided for the current meeting with a further update on the Project including the results of the public consultation and also the proposed next steps.  

5.2       Mr King introduced the report.  He referred to the matters raised in the consultation responses, many of which had been outlined at the September meeting prior to the results being published and also what the proposed next steps were.  The report summarised the responses to the public consultation at Appendix A and then provided the officers’ comments in respect of the key issues raised in the consultation at Appendix B.  He made the point that this had been the biggest response to any Westminster consultation exercise in terms of numbers received and it had always been intended to be one of a number of consultations.  Before any report to the Cabinet Member for the Built Environment was provided, recommending a decision on the Project, there would be a report on the detail of traffic management, loading and parking.  This was of particular concern to a large number of small businesses, particularly to the south of the area set out in the proposals.

5.3       Mr King reported that an e-petition had recently been received against the Baker Street Two Way project which had been published on the Council’s website with 433 signatories.  Another petition was also understood to have been presented for the full Council meeting on 11 November by Councillor Adnan Mohammed.  Mr King stated that officers were not able to see this petition before the Council meeting on Wednesday.  However, the two petitions would be taken account of before any final recommendations were provided.

5.4       Mr King stated that there were a number of stakeholders, including residents’ groups and associations and schools, who were in communication with officers about the Project.  Dates were in officers’ diaries to meet stakeholder groups towards the end of November.  A report for Cabinet Member consideration was due to be submitted after the end of the consultation period with the stakeholders.  It was anticipated that the Cabinet Member report was likely to lead to a further round of consultation to be undertaken in early 2016.

5.5       The Chairman thanked the St Marylebone Society and North Marylebone Traffic Group for the papers they had provided which were circulated to the Committee ahead of the meeting.  He also invited Councillor Brian Connell, the Council’s Cycling Champion, to address the Committee.  Councillor Connell commented that the one way traffic status quo was unacceptable.  However, people needed to be encouraged to cycle that do not currently do so and one of the obstacles to this was safety.  If there was not to be physical segregation between cyclists and other road users in Gloucester Place, an ambitious stance was required in respect of the hours operated for the mandatory cycle lane.  He also requested that officers continue to consult cycling groups.  Mr King advised in response to Councillor Connell’s points that the hours for the cycle lane were being examined and officers were continuing to consult cycling groups.   

5.6       In response to questions from the Committee, Mr King made a number of additional points.  These included that there was not sufficient room to segregate cyclists and other road users in Gloucester Place, there was scheduled to be a separate TfL consultation on Cycle Superhighway 11 through Regent’s Park early in 2016 and discussions would take place with TfL about a 20 miles per hour speed limit for the scheme. 

5.7       The Chairman commended the work of the Evaluation and Performance Team who had created the consultation response report in Appendix A of the report detailing the results of the extensive consultation process.  He stated that it was likely the Committee would revisit this topic in early 2016.  It was clearly a contentious, controversial and high profile issue which had received a huge public consultation response and had been prominent in the recent Bryanston and Dorset Square Ward election.  He was reassured that officers now had access to an extensive database which enabled them to contact residents and other groups who had a specific interest in the Project.  He encouraged officers in consultation with the Cabinet Member for the Built Environment to have a further round of public dialogue on the proposals that would be put before the Cabinet Member, using the database.   

5.8      RESOLVED: The Committee recommended that officers in consultation with the Cabinet Member for the Built Environment proceed with a further round of public consultation on the proposals that are due to be put before the Cabinet Member.