Proposed changes to transform gyratory Consultation Report December 2019

1

Contents

Executive summary ...... 4 Next steps ...... 5 1. About the proposals ...... 6 1.1 Introduction ...... 6 1.2 Purpose ...... 7 1.3 Detailed description ...... 9 2. About the consultation ...... 11 2.1 Purpose ...... 11 2.2 Potential outcomes ...... 11 2.3 Dates and duration ...... 11 2.5 Methods of responding ...... 12 2.6 Consultation materials and publicity ...... 12 2.7 Analysis of consultation responses ...... 14 3. About the respondents ...... 16 3.1 Number of respondents ...... 16 3.2 About the respondents ...... 16 3.3 How respondents heard about the consultation ...... 16 4.1 Summary of responses to question 1 ...... 19 4.2 Summary of responses to question 2 ...... 20 4.3 Summary of responses to question 3 ...... 20 4.5 Summary of responses to question 5 ...... 22 4.6 Summary of responses to question 6 ...... 22 4.7 Summary of responses to question 7 ...... 23 4.8 Summary of responses to question 8 ...... 24 4.9 Summary of responses to question 9 ...... 24 4.10 Summary of responses to question 10 ...... 25 4.11 Summary of responses to question 11 ...... 25 4.12 Summary of responses to question 12 ...... 27 4.13 Summary of stakeholder responses ...... 29

2 4.14 Comments on the consultation...... 48 5. Next steps ...... 48 Appendix A: Consultation questions ...... 49 Appendix B: Consultation materials ...... 51 Appendix D: Stakeholder lists ...... 66

3 Executive summary

Between 19 October and 30 November 2018, we consulted on proposals to transform Stoke Newington gyratory into a better place for people. Our proposals were to introduce a new northbound cycle track with bus stop bypasses and a new southbound bus and cycle lane along Stoke Newington High Street, alongside introducing three new pedestrian crossings and a new 20mph speed limit. We proposed to introduce two-way traffic operation along Rectory, Manse and Evering Roads and new modal filters at the junctions of Tyssen, Hollar and Batley Roads. Three new ‘pocket parks’ could be created where these roads are closed to traffic. We proposed to restrict vehicular access eastbound to Evering Road from Manse Road and to Northwold Road from Rectory Road and introduce a new type of pavement treatment at side road junctions called a ‘continuous footway’. Finally, we proposed changes to formalize parking and loading bays and times.

We received 1,636 responses to the consultation (including 29 responses from stakeholders). Of the 1,607 public responses, 59 per cent supported or strongly supported the proposal to remove the gyratory and re-introduce two-way traffic, five per cent neither supported nor opposed them, 34 per cent opposed or strongly opposed them and one per cent didn’t know. One per cent did not answer.

Of the 1607 public responses, 59 per cent supported or strongly supported the proposed changes to introduce cycling facilities on Stoke Newington High Street, seven per cent neither supported nor opposed them, 32 per cent opposed or strongly opposed them and one per cent didn’t know. One per cent did not answer.

Of the 1,607 public responses, 49 per cent supported or strongly supported the proposed changes to bus routes, 17 per cent neither supported nor opposed them, 31 per cent opposed or strongly opposed them and three per cent didn’t know.

The main themes are highlighted below, with detailed analysis in section 4.

 Concern about rat-running on streets inside the gyratory, particularly Leswin Road and Lawrence Buildings and increased local congestion particularly on Rectory Road and Stoke Newington High Street

 Suggestions to return to a previous ambition for full-two way working for all traffic that includes Stoke Newington High Street

4  Concern that the proposals do not go far enough in terms of improving conditions for cyclists, particularly northbound, pedestrians and bus customers. This includes safety concerns at some junctions

 Concern that loading provision is inadequate and that loading bays need to be available earlier than proposed. Also concerns were raised about large vehicle movements on residential streets

Next steps

We plan to proceed with this scheme but with the following changes. These are a direct result of the feedback we received via the consultation portal, emails, letters and the questionnaire we sent to residents living close by. We’ve also incorporated feedback, where possible, from events and meetings we attended:

 At the junction of Stoke Newington High Street and Church Street We plan to implement a new separate cycle-gate/signal-controlled advanced stop line to allow cyclists to take primary position; the facility will run whilst northbound general traffic is held

 At the junction of Road with we plan to introduce a raised entry treatment to slow vehicles on the approach to the junction

 At the junction of Stamford Hill and Northwold Road, southbound cyclists will now have a separate facility from other vehicles with a dedicated signal

 On Northwold and Rectory Road we plan to change the proposed central median strip which separates opposing lanes. Instead we will now introduce an imprinted overrun area that seeks to visually narrow the road. Cyclists should still take primary position wherever possible. We have revised the shared-space design at the junction of Rectory Road with Northwold Road and are now proposing a 2m wide footway in standard paving, with a 1.5m wide cycle area in a different finish between the two areas to minimise conflict.

 At the junctions of Victorian Road, Victorian Grove and Dyvenor Road the continuous footway design has been revised to include tactile paving

 We plan to include a new southbound bus stop, in addition to what’s already been proposed, on Stoke Newington High street adjacent to Victorian Grove

5  We plan to change the loading hours on the High Street between Brooke Road and Stoke Newington Church to: Monday - Sunday from 10:00 - 13:00, 20 minutes loading only. During loading bay hours cyclists should merge with traffic before the start of the stepped cycle track, taking the primary position whenever possible.

 We will work with Borough of Hackney to see how we can help, within this scheme, achieve their ambition of 40 per cent canopy cover across the borough

 We are looking at contraflow bus lanes across London to try and develop best practice around both their design and their introduction. We intend to learn from this research and will apply it within the detailed design of these proposals and the subsequent change of operation.

1. About the proposals

1.1 Introduction

The A10 Stoke Newington gyratory lies in the London Borough of Hackney’s (LBH) Stoke Newington ward and forms part of the Transport for London (TfL) Route Network (TLRN). The gyratory runs along the border with ward to the east and Clissold ward to the west. Either side of the gyratory there are a large number of residential streets. Cazenove ward is to the north of the gyratory and ward to the south.

The gyratory is essentially an extensive one-way system that was originally introduced in the 1960s to reduce congestion through, and on the approaches, to Stoke Newington High Street. Currently, the gyratory operates in a clockwise direction as follows:

 Stoke Newington High Street (between Evering Road and Northwold Road) – three northbound only lanes varying between three general traffic lanes and two nearside bus lanes  Northwold Road (between High Street and Rectory Road) – single eastbound only lane  Rectory Road (between Northwold Road and Brooke Road) – two lanes southbound only, one bus lane and one for general traffic. The bus lane ends at Stoke Newington Common and the road widens to three southbound lanes

6  Brooke Road – two westbound only lanes linking Rectory Road and the High street  Manse Road/Evering Road – two lanes westbound only until the junction with the High Street where it narrows to a single lane

In 2008 we carried out a study into the operation of the gyratory to assess whether the current road layout could feasibly be altered to reintroduce two-way traffic flow on all or some of the roads that form the one-way system. The report concluded that there were no viable options for removing the gyratory. In 2010, LBH commissioned Ringway Jacobs to review the report and concluded that further traffic modelling was needed for each affected junction in order to determine whether the removal of the gyratory could be achieved. A public consultation was also recommended.

LBH undertook an initial 12 week consultation between October 2010 and January 2011 which sought the views of residents, businesses and visitors on the traffic conditions and associated problems with the current operation, the concept of potentially removing the gyratory and to see if there was support for complementary measures such as improved walking and cycling facilities.

Following on from the consultation, LBH commissioned Atkins in 2013 to conduct a feasibility study into options for improving the gyratory working in partnership with TfL and other stakeholders with a sole preferred option being taken forward to detailed design and ultimately implementation. The study summarised that three options should be progressed further so that a preferred option could be recommended.

In spring/summer 2015 a comprehensive traffic modelling report on the three options (3a, 3d and 4c) was undertaken and it was anticipated that two options (option one: full two way working (also known as 3a) and option two: introduction of southbound bus lane on the High Street south of Church Street (also known as 4c)) would have been brought forward for consultation in January 2016. However the project was put on hold as the impacts on bus journey times and the considerable loss of parking and loading were deemed likely to be unacceptable at the time and funding for the scheme was not included in our business plan. In 2017 a decision was taken to look at the scheme again using the Healthy Streets approach - a long-term vision to encourage more Londoners to walk and cycle by making our streets healthier, safer and more welcoming.

1.2 Purpose

Currently, residents, businesses and visitors to the area have a number of issues including high levels of traffic and congestion and a lack of controlled pedestrian

7 crossings, particularly on the High Street. Southbound buses are not currently able to serve the high street which can lead to a confusing interchange, especially for visitors. There is a lack of cycling facilities. For residents and businesses specifically there is currently low compliance with current parking/loading restrictions and there is rat-running in dense residential streets. LBH asked that we promote a scheme that looks to reduce rat-running, links cyclists to the places they wanted to go and sought to rejuvenate the area as a retail location.

We proposed this scheme to transform Stoke Newington gyratory into a place for people. Our proposals aim to overhaul the traffic-dominated one-way system that can make the area frustrating for people choosing to walk, cycle or use local bus services.

We have worked with Hackney Council on proposals for how Stoke Newington would look and operate after the gyratory is removed. Our plans would provide a new northbound cycle track on the A10 and a new bus and cycle lane enabling people to cycle southbound on Stoke Newington High Street.

This would remove a significant barrier to cycling in the area and provide new traffic- free public spaces to meet, shop, play and relax and a host of other improvements aimed at creating a more attractive and less traffic-dominated environment for people.

Our plans will accommodate the area’s future growth and encourage active travel, with more people choosing to walk, cycle and use public transport and less people travelling by car which is in line with the Mayor of London’s Healthy Streets Approach.

These proposals aim to improve the quality of life in the area by:

 Transforming the town centre by creating a single unified retail location with an enhanced environment for pedestrians and cyclists  Improving the public transport interchange, achieved through two-way bus operation, reducing congestion, and simplifying bus stops  Improving cycling facilities and access through the A10  Encouraging more journeys by walking, cycling or public transport to/from the High Street  Reducing rat-running in residential streets

8 1.3 Detailed description

We proposed to:

 Introduce a new northbound cycle track with bus stop bypasses on Stoke Newington High Street providing a dedicated space for people to cycle  Introduce a new southbound bus and cycle lane along Stoke Newington High Street. Most buses and bikes will no longer travel the longer route along Northwold, Rectory and Manse Roads when heading towards the City. This will provide better access to High Street facilities  Introduce two-way traffic operation along Rectory, Manse and Evering Roads  New modal filters at the junctions of Tyssen, Hollar and Batley Roads at their junction with the High Street. These closures are designed to reduce rat-running through residential streets  Create three new ‘pocket parks’ where these roads are closed to traffic, creating a more welcoming retail environment and encouraging people to spend more time in the town centre. There could be new seating areas, trees, local community gardens, entertainment, and cycling parking spaces  Restrict vehicular access eastbound to Evering Road from Manse Road and to Northwold Road from Rectory Road  Introduce a new type of pavement treatment at side road junctions called a ‘continuous footway’. Introducing continuous footways in Stoke Newington High Street intends to emphasise that pedestrians have priority  Introduce three new pedestrian crossings, all with pedestrian countdown, making streets in the area easier and safer to cross  Introduce a new 20mph speed limit and raised junctions and crossings to slow traffic speeds and reduce road danger  Formalise parking and loading bays, including hours of operation o High Street south of Brooke Road: Monday - Sunday from 07:00 - 19:00 , 20 minutes loading and one hour parking only o High Street between Brooke Road and Stoke Newington Church Street: Monday - Sunday from 07:00 - 10:00, 20 minutes loading only

1.3.1 Impact on pedestrians, cyclists, bus passengers & general traffic

We expect that the proposals could result in changes, both positive and negative, to journey times for all users once complete.

Pedestrians Our modelling work predicts that, compared to the existing situation, the proposed

9 scheme adds to the wait time for a pedestrian wishing to cross both Stoke Newington High Street and Rectory Road due to the amount of new signal time for cyclists and slightly more complex two-way operation. This should be balanced against the fact that there would be more safe places to cross and slower traffic speeds.

Cycling As the proposed scheme seeks to optimise the progression of cyclists through Stoke Newington High Street, with as much protection from general traffic as possible, we predict that cyclists would experience improvements in journey time both northbound and southbound. Southbound improvements are significantly greater due to the shorter distance involved.

Buses We predict that the proposed changes to road layout and operation of the local bus network will result in reductions in journey times on some routes and an increase on others. During the morning Routes 393 and 476 that currently have to use Rectory and Brooke Roads southbound could see a significant reduction in journey time if the southbound bus lane is installed. We predict minor increases in the morning peak (07:00-10:00) journey time to routes 76, 149 and 243 and further increases in journey time for routes 67 and 276 as a result of potential delays on Rectory Road. During the afternoon, we predict reductions in journey time across all routes as there are two possible routes for general traffic to progress northbound.

General traffic We predict that the proposed changes are likely to mean that journey times for general traffic can be expected to increase at certain times of day, whilst there could be reductions in journey times at certain times. General traffic in the morning is likely to see an increase in journey time in both directions due to more complex signal strategies to accommodate two-way traffic. Of the two directions, southbound is predicted to be significantly worse as that is the dominant movement in the morning and there is only one route via Rectory Road. Similar predictions are forecast in the afternoon but it’s likely that northbound journey times improve due to the traffic reduction caused by having two route choices.

1.3.1 Impact on air quality

An air quality assessment has been conducted to model concentrations of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and particulate pollutants due to road traffic emissions. Overall, the proposed scheme is anticipated to not have a significant impact on NO2 concentration at the majority of locations.

10 There are predicted to be reductions in concentrations due to a reduction in traffic flow which benefit locations along the A10 on Stoke Newington High Street, Rectory Road and Manse Road. The greatest reductions are predicted at the receptor with the highest concentration. A minor change of NO2 concentrations is predicted at a small number of locations in the wider area, due to changes in traffic flow.

The results of the assessment suggest that the impact on air quality of removing the Stoke Newington Gyratory would be primarily negligible in the study area, with some beneficial and minor effects due to changes in traffic along the A10. Overall these effects are considered to be balanced and not significant.

2. About the consultation

2.1 Purpose

The objectives of the consultation were:  To give stakeholders and the public easily-understandable information about the proposals and allow them to respond  To understand the level of support or opposition for the change/s for the proposals  To understand any issues that might affect the proposal of which we were not previously aware  To understand concerns and objections  To allow respondents to make suggestions

2.2 Potential outcomes

The potential outcomes of the consultation were:  Following careful consideration of the consultation responses, we decide to proceed with the scheme as set out in the consultation  Following careful consideration of the consultation responses, we modify the proposals in response to issues raised and proceed with a revised scheme  Following careful consideration of the consultation responses, we decide not to proceed with the scheme

Our conclusion and next steps are set out in Chapter 4.

2.3 Dates and duration

We launched the consultation on Friday 19 October, it ran for six weeks, closing on

11 30 November 2018. Six weeks is a typical length for a consultation of this size and scope.

2.4 What we asked

After supplying information about the proposed changes, we asked respondents:

1. How do you currently use the gyratory? 2. How often do you currently use the gyratory? 3. What do you think of our proposals to remove Stoke Newington gyratory and re-introduce two-way traffic? 4. What do you think or our proposals to close Tyssen Road, Hollar Road and Batley Road at their junction with Stoke Newington High Street to create new ‘pocket parks’? 5. What do you think of our proposals for new cycling facilities on Stoke Newington High Street? 6. This scheme proposes the use of continuous footways (sometimes known as a ‘Copenhagen crossing’). This is a new type of pedestrian crossing that intends to emphasis that pedestrians have priority. In order to create the feel of a continuous footway, tactile paving and kerbs are omitted from side road crossing points. Please let us know to what extent you support or oppose this new design feature. 7. Which of these buses do you use? 8. What do you think of our proposal to re-route these buses? 9. How will the proposed changes affect your journey? 10. What do you think of our proposals to change when vehicles can park and load in Stoke Newington High Street? 11. How and why would you like to see the new public space used? 12. Please provide any further comments, including the changes to bus services

2.5 Methods of responding

Customers where directed to our website to fill out a survey. Alternatively they could:  email us at [email protected]  write to us at/return a questionnaire to FREEPOST TFL CONSULTATIONS

2.6 Consultation materials and publicity

2.6.1 Website

A dedicated ‘Transforming Stoke Newington gyratory’ website was established which

12 detailed information about our proposals. Explanatory text, maps and computer generated images showing before and after were displayed to help explain the proposals. The website also included details of predicted impacts to pedestrians, cyclists, buses and general traffic.

The website also provided people with the opportunity to respond to the consultation by answering our questionnaire (see Appendix A)

2.6.2 Leaflets and questionnaires

In order to advertise the consultation, we sent 15,725 consultation leaflets and questionnaires to residents living close to the gyratory. The leaflets contained a summary of the proposals, maps and details of when and where the drop-in events would take place. We directed people to the website to have their say but also gave a freepost address to send back completed questionnaires. We received 199 completed questionnaires. We also left copies of the consultation leaflet and questionnaires at Stoke Newington and Stamford Hill libraries as well as at two drop- in sessions.

2.6.3 Emails

We sent an email about the consultation to c.90,000 people who travel through the area. The data was extracted from all registered Oyster users. We also sent an email to 77 key stakeholders.

2.6.4 Press & Media

We issued a press release to local media and the consultation was also publicised in Hackney Today.

2.6.5 Meetings with stakeholders

Before consultation began we met with the following stakeholders

London Borough of Hackney Living Streets London Cycle Campaign William Patten School

13 Additionally, during the consultation we held an accessibility forum on Monday 26 November 2018 to discuss the inclusion of continuous footpaths within these proposals and those in Tooting Town Centre. The following groups were represented:

 Alzheimer’s Society  Transport for All  London Vision (Thomas Pocklington Trust)  Parkinson’s UK  National Federation of the Blind UK  British Sign Language Interpreters  Royal Society for Blind Children/Wayfindr  Leonard Cheshire  Royal National Institute of Blind People  Age UK

2.6.6 Public meetings & drop-in events

During the consultation period we held two drop-in events. Members of the TfL team and colleagues from Hackney council were available at each of the exhbitions to discuss the proposals and printed materials of the proposed scheme were available to view. The drop-events were at:

 Stoke Newington Methodist Church: Wednesday 31 October 2018 from 15:00-19:00  The Old Fire Station: Saturday 10 November 2018 from 11:30-14:00  Additionally TfL and Hackney council officers attended the Stoke Newington ward forum on Monday 26 November 2018 to discuss the proposals

2.7 Analysis of consultation responses

Given the high number of responses predicted for this consultation, external consultants AECOM were appointed to undertake analysis of all the public responses received. This included the closed and open questions. The free text responses (the responses to the open questions) were coded into themes by AECOM for quantitative analysis. The themes were shared with TfL for approval. The coding process groups similar responses using numeric codes held within a code frame. Using the same code frame, TfL undertook analysis of the stakeholder responses received. Stakeholder responses were considered to be those received from:

14  London boroughs  Local Economic Partnerships  Politicians  Local businesses  Local resident and community groups  Accessibility groups  Transport User Groups  Other groups with a specific interest in the schemes

15 3. About the respondents

3.1 Number of respondents Respondents Total % Public responses 1607 98% Stakeholder responses 29 2% Total 1636 100%

3.2 About the respondents Respondents were able to choose more than one option for their response to this question.

Are you…. Total A local resident 1068 A local business owner 80 Employed locally 172 A visitor to the area 130

A commuter to the area 173

Not local but interested in the scheme 36

A taxi/private hire vehicle driver 101

Other 6 Total 1316

3.3 How respondents heard about the consultation

How respondents heard Total % Received an email from TfL 207 16% Received a letter from TfL 363 28% Read about in the press 92 7% Saw it on the TfL website 56 5% Social Media 369 28% Other 211 16% Not answered 309 Total 1607 100%

16 3.4 Methods of responding

Methods of responding Total % Website 933 80% Letter/email/ paper questionnaire 234 20% Total 1167 100%

3.5 Respondents location

Based on the postcodes provided, just over half of the respondents were local to the scheme (within 0.6miles as shown in the first map below. There were responses from a variety of locations and these are shown on the second map below.

17

3.6 Relationship between respondents and the scheme area

We asked respondents to describe their relationship using the categories below. The graph below shows a breakdown. Respondents were able provide more than one answer.

18 Respondent type 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Not local A A A local A visitor but taxi/priva Other A local Employe commute business to the intereste te hire (please resident d locally r to the owner area d in the vehicle specify) area scheme driver % 81% 6% 13% 10% 13% 3% 8% 0% Responses 1068 80 172 130 173 36 101 6

4. Summary of all consultation responses

We received 1,636 responses to the consultation. 1,607 were from members of the public and 29 were from stakeholders. A summary of the responses is set out in sections 4.1 to 4. The stakeholder responses are shown section 4.

4.1 Summary of responses to question 1 We asked respondents how they currently use the gyratory. 1,538 respondents answered this question. Respondents were able to provide more than one answer

19 How do you currently use the gyratory? 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Bus I don't use the Pedestrian Cyclist Driver passenger gyratory % 73% 68% 49% 59% 1% Responses 1129 1043 757 910 22

4.2 Summary of responses to question 2 We asked respondents how often they currently use the gyratory. There were 1,533 responses to this question.

How often do you currently use the gyratory? 50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Less than 3-6 days 1-2 days 1-2 days Every day once a Never a week a week a month month % 45% 26% 17% 7% 3% 1% Responses 694 405 262 108 52 12

4.3 Summary of responses to question 3 Question 3 asked respondents what they thought about our proposal to remove Stoke Newington gyratory and re-introduce two-way traffic. 1,541 respondents answered this question.

20

What do you think of our proposals to remove Stoke Newington Gyratory and re- introduce two-way traffic? 50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Neither Strongly Strongly Support support nor Oppose Don't know support oppose oppose % 42% 17% 5% 5% 29% 1% Responses 648 264 83 82 448 16

4.4 Summary of responses to question 4 Question 4 asked respondents what they thought about our proposal to close Tyssen, Hollar and Batley Roads at their junction with Stoke Newington High Street and create new ‘pocket parks’. 1,535 respondents answered this question.

What do you think of our proposals to close Tyssen Road, Hollar Road and Batley Road at their junction with Stoke Newington High Street to create new ‘pocket parks’? 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Neither Strongly Strongly Support support nor Oppose Don't know support oppose oppose % 39% 16% 9% 5% 28% 2% Responses 595 247 143 82 435 33

21 4.5 Summary of responses to question 5 Question 5 asked respondents what they thought about our proposals for new cycling facilities on Stoke Newington High Street. 1,535 respondents answered this question.

What do you think of our proposals for new cycling facilities on Stoke Newington High 50% Street? 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Neither Strongly Strongly Support support nor Oppose Don't know support oppose oppose % 45% 14% 7% 5% 27% 1% Responses 696 210 114 84 422 9 4.6 Summary of responses to question 6 Question 6 had two parts. Part ‘6a’ asked respondents to what extent did they support of oppose continuous footpaths. 1,339 respondents answered this question.

Please let us know to what extent you support

40% or oppose continuous footpaths 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Neither Strongly Strongly Support support nor Oppose Don't know support oppose oppose % 38% 17% 10% 6% 27% 2% Responses 509 230 135 85 359 21

Part ‘6b’ asked respondents if they had any comments about continuous footpaths. The main comments are in the table below.

22 Continuous footpaths Concerned that continuous footpaths will be confusing/cause conflict 147 Support continuous footpaths being added/will benefit the area 100 Oppose continuous footpaths being added/will disadvantage the area 36 Walking & Cycling Suggest more pedestrian-friendly infrastructure/more priority 60 Suggest making it safer for pedestrians/encouraging more pedestrians 42 Suggest more enforcement of poor cyclist behaviour 33 Oppose the addition of cycle lanes/cyclists receive too much support 29 Support making it safer for cyclists/providing more space/encouraging more 26 cycling Car users/traffic/roads Oppose – will cause more traffic/congestion/increase journey time/pollution 98 Suggest more enforcement of poor driver behaviour 76 Suggest less traffic/congestion/car-movement/car-free areas 26 Oppose – people need to drive/unfair to car users/road space important 26 Support less traffic/congestion/car movement/improving traffic flow 23 Oppose – will cause parking issues 16 Shops/businesses Oppose – will negatively affect business performance 22 Support – will benefit local business 5 General support/opposition Oppose – these planned changes are unnecessary/will make it worse 83 Support – these plans are a good idea/much needed 59 Other Comments about public transport 53 Other 52 Criticism of TfL/Hackney council 31 Suggest addressing air quality issues/local pollution 17 Indifferent/not sure/not applicable 11 Suggest more green space/trees/flowers 9 Suggest addressing local noise pollution 8

4.7 Summary of responses to question 7 Question 7 asked respondents what buses they use. 1,290 respondents answered this question.

23 Which of these buses do you use? 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 67 76 149 243 276 393 476 % 71% 80% 86% 76% 42% 43% 64% Responses 910 1031 1105 983 536 560 824

4.8 Summary of responses to question 8 Question 8 asked respondents what they thought of our proposals to re-route these buses. 1,516 respondents answered this question.

What do you think of our proposal to re-route these buses? 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Neither Strongly Strongly Support support nor Oppose Don't know support oppose oppose % 28% 21% 17% 6% 25% 3% Responses 417 321 259 94 376 49

4.9 Summary of responses to question 9 Question 9 asked respondents how these proposed changes might affect their journeys. 1,506 respondents answered this question.

24 How will the proposed changes affect your journey? 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Make it much Make it slightly Make it slightly Make it much No change better better worse worse % 26% 18% 15% 10% 30% Responses 399 270 226 157 454

4.10 Summary of responses to question 10 Question 10 asked respondents what they thought of our proposals to change when vehicles can park and load in Stoke Newington High Street. 1,512 respondents answered this question.

What do you think of our proposals to change when vehicles can park and load in Stoke Newington High Street? 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Neither Strongly Strongly Support support nor Oppose Don't know support oppose oppose % 25% 19% 23% 5% 20% 7% Responses 383 285 352 83 307 102

4.11 Summary of responses to question 11 Question 11 asked respondents how they thought the new public space should be used. The main comments and suggestions are in the table below.

25

Public space/parks Suggest more public spaces/parks/green space is introduced 245 Suggest pleasant/attractive design of public spaces/parks 75 Concerned about crime/anti-social behaviour/safety in public spaces/parks 57 Support more public spaces/parks/green space being introduced 29 Concerned about the location of public spaces/parks 3 Shops/businesses Suggest more seating for local businesses 48 Suggest that more support/space is given to independent shops 45 Oppose more café/restaurant/bar space/seating 13 Suggest more places to eat/drink 13 Community engagement/interaction Suggest encouraging/enabling community interaction/sense of community 88 Suggest designing the space for children/families 41 Support more pedestrian areas (walking and cycling) 25 Suggest making more space for those with disabilities/more consideration 4 Walking & Cycling Suggest more secure cycle parking spaces/facilities 65 Suggest making it safer for cyclists/providing more space/encouraging more 62 cycling Suggest more pedestrian friendly infrastructure/more priority 56 Suggest improving the quality/width of pavements/streets 13 Support making it safer for cyclists/providing more space/encouraging more 12 cycling Oppose the addition of cycle lanes/cyclists receive too much support 9 Suggest more enforcement of poor cyclist behaviour 7 Car users/traffic/roads Suggest less traffic/congestion/car movement/car-free zones 45 Oppose – will cause more traffic/congestion/increase journey time/pollution 41 Oppose – people need to drive/unfair to car users/road space important 11 Suggest more parking spaces/short-stay parking 10 Suggest less parking spaces 8 Oppose – will cause accessibility issues for deliveries and emergency services 5

Focus on local users Suggest that it should focus on people in the local area 5 Oppose – only benefits people in the local area 4 General support/opposition

26 Oppose these plans – changes unnecessary/will make it worse 96 Support these plans – good idea/much needed 11 Other Suggest addressing air quality issues/local air pollution 34 Comments about public transport 27 Other 22 Comments on the consultation/questionnaire 15 Suggest addressing local noise pollution 11 Indifferent/not sure/not applicable 8 Criticism of TfL/Hackney council 5

4.12 Summary of responses to question 12 Question 12 asked respondents if they had any further comments on our proposals, including the proposed changes to bus services. The main comments and suggestions are in the table below.

Walking & Cycling Suggest making it safer for cyclists/providing more space/encouraging more 91 cycling Support making it safer for cyclists/providing more space/encouraging more 63 cycling Suggest more pedestrian friendly infrastructure/more priority 56 Support making it safer for pedestrians/footways/encouraging more 51 pedestrians Oppose the addition of cycle lane/cyclists receive too much support 42 Suggest more enforcement of poor cyclist behaviour 32 Concerned about conflict between cyclists & buses sharing space 23 Concerned about conflict between cyclists & pedestrians sharing space 20 Concerned about the patchy cycling infrastructure 16 Oppose – unsafe pedestrian crossings/narrow pavements 14 Oppose – pedestrian journey times will increase 14 Suggest more secure cycle parking spaces/facilities 12 Public space/parks Support more public spaces/parks/seating/introducing green space 31 Suggest more public spaces/parks/seating/introducing green space 14 Car users/traffic/roads Oppose – will cause more traffic/congestion/increase journey time/pollution 124 Suggest more enforcement of poor driver behaviour 68 Oppose – people need to drive/unfair to car uses/road space important 56 Suggest changes/addressing issues on specified roads and junctions 55

27 Suggest less traffic/congestion/car movement/car-free areas 36 Suggest improvements to traffic lights/signals 27 Support segregation/modal filters 24 Concerned about air quality around William Patten school 23 Support less traffic/congestion/car movement/improving traffic flow 23 Concerned about confusing road markings/signs 13 Support proposed road closures 12 Concerned about vehicle access to Stoke Newington station 1 Traffic calming Support more traffic calming/speed reductions 38 Suggest more traffic calming/traffic lights/crossings/speed reductions 18 Oppose more traffic calming/speed reductions 12 Two-way working Oppose two-way working on specified roads 36 Support two-way working on specified roads 27 Support principle of removing gyratory 21 Oppose principle of removing gyratory 17 Parking & loading Oppose allowing loading in cycle lane 46 Oppose less parking and restricted loading bays 32

Suggest less parking spaces 16 Support allowing loading at certain times in cycle lane 6 Support less parking spaces 2 Concerned about parking on Rectory Road 1 Rat-running/traffic displacement Concerned about rat-running/increased traffic on streets inside of the gyratory 33 Concerned about rat-running/increased traffic on streets outside of the gyratory 26 Concerned about rat-running/increased traffic in general 15 Buses/public transport Oppose new bus stops 67 Suggest more support for public transport/providing more space/encouraging 50 greater use Suggest improving the quality of public transport 50 Generally oppose new bus routes 49 Suggest alternative location for/more bus stops 31 Generally support new bus routes 21 Oppose new route for 67 21 Suggest alternative/more bus routes 20 Oppose the addition of bus lanes/too much support for public transport 16 Suggest removing the bus stop outside William Patten school 16 Oppose new route for 476 11

28 Oppose new route for 393 10 Support new bus routes 5 General support/opposition Oppose – these changes are unnecessary/will make it worse 145 Support – these plans are a good idea/much needed 124 Other Other 79 Criticism of TfL/Hackney council 55 Comments on the consultation/questionnaire 46 Suggest addressing air quality issues/local pollution 45 Suggest more consideration for users with accessibility issues 35 Suggest addressing crime/anti-social behaviour 26 Suggest addressing local noise pollution 17 Indifferent/not sure/not applicable 10 Suggest focusing on more important issues 3

4.13 Summary of stakeholder responses This section provides summaries of the feedback we received from stakeholders. We have condensed some of the detailed responses into summaries. The full stakeholder responses are always used for analysis purposes.

Hackney Parks Team, London Borough of Hackney

Supported the proposals for transforming Stoke Newington Gyratory as it promises to enhance the experience of pedestrians in this area.

Had concerns about Stoke Newington Common due to past traveller incursions. Stated that they had worked closely with the Stoke Newington Common User Group to secure the boundary from this risk. Suggested that if existing barriers are removed they would like to see these either replaced or alternative vehicular barriers (boulders, ditches, landscaping etc.) to reduce this risk.

Councillor Vincent Stops, Ward, London Borough of Hackney

Stated that he is unclear as to why a full two-way operation has not been pursued. Suggested that short of two-way operation a bus and cycle lane / wide lane north of Brook Road would be far better for most cycles and improve northbound bus journey times, not lengthen them as the present proposals seem to do. Stated that it is intensely disappointing that TfL have put forward a proposal that actually results in slower northbound bus services and a poorer northbound facility for cycles than is presently the case.

Stated that it’s inexplicable that free local parking is prioritised as the best use of road space on an inner city high street. Stated that it should no longer be a priority

29 and suggested that the space would be far better used for pedestrian space or movement or could be used for tree planting and seating. Stated that the kerb height chosen for the cycle track will be at a height that will surely trip people as they dodge between cars and cycles to cross the road.

Supported the proposed road closures but stated that in Hackney they have found it better to close the street away from the junction. Suggested that the side roads of the high street should be prioritised for legitimate business loading and some paid for parking. Also suggested that street cafes should be on the street and the entry treatments should be conventional Hackney entry treatments so priority is easily understood.

Stated that the bus stop bypass is disrespectful of pedestrians and bus passengers and that neither would want to dodge cycles on the pavement. Stated that routing cycles around the inside of parked vehicles is a mistake because vehicle users are not expecting them to be there and will occasionally door cycles, or cycles will be concerned about being doored. Stated that providing a dooring zone in the bike lane of half a metre is insufficient.

Stated that the proposed design for the junction of Church Street could encourage cycles to cycle too close to the near side. Stated that this could lead to confusion as to who has priority at the junction and could lead to conflict. Stated that the cycle lane north of Church Street should be removed as the proposed design again encouraged cyclists to take up the wrong position.

Stated that the south bound junction at Northwold Road is confusing and as such dangerous. Mentioned that it requires left turning cycles to join the right hand lane. Commented that he would very much like to see TfL look again at the High Street design, particularly northbound with a view to either full two-way working or northbound provision being a general traffic lane and cycle / bus lane and bus gate.

Hackney Cycling Campaign

Supported our desire to improve the gyratory but thinks that these proposals do not deliver the best possible scheme for people walking and cycling. Suggested that the best outcome would be the removal of through motor traffic from Stoke Newington High Street south of Church Street / north of Manse Road, with the maintenance of bus access and loading during restricted hours.

Commented that within the proposed scheme, the 20mph speed limit, the northbound cycle track, the modal filtering and associated pocket parks and improvements to the streetscene were all welcome. Stated that the current scheme

30 could be improved by the removal of the central median on Rectory Road, which would create space for a southbound cycle track, (or, better still, with a slight widening of the carriageway, a bi-directional cycle track), and a commitment from TfL to prioritise adoption of Intelligent Speed Assistance on buses in the area.

Suggested that they believe that the opportunity exists to introduce a stepped cycle track northbound between Manor Road and Northwold Road. The Manor Road junction should be designed to allow cyclists to cross with pedestrians during the all- green pedestrian phase. Suggested that at the junction with Northwold Road, they would like to see a two-way cycle track running east along Northwold Road to join a two-way track running along the eastern side of Rectory Road. Suggested that the northbound cycle track should continue to the north of Church Street, with a bus-stop bypass, rather than retaining the current design, in which people must cycle around buses. Commented that at the very least, early-release signals for people cycling should be introduced to allow some separation at the junction.

Suggested that the proposed part-time inset parking bays on the cycle track between Stoke Newington Church Street and Manse Road are an inadequate solution as cyclists will be using the track at all times of day. Commented that the proposed loading periods coincide with school travel times - there is potential for the arrangement to exclude younger children and parents travelling to school.

Suggested that they would like to see loading restricted to 10am-12pm, with strict enforcement outside these hours. Commented that at the junction with Brooke Road that they would like to see visual continuity for people cycling indicated from one track to another, using paint. South of Brooke Road, they fully support the filtering of the side streets and implementation of ‘Copenhagen’ entry treatments. Mentioned that they would prefer to see all loading bays on the carriageway side of the cycle track, rather than inviting drivers to cross the cycle track. Suggested that they would like the loading bay south of Victorian Grove be changed accordingly.

Stated that they not believe that the current design on Rectory Road, south of Northwold Road is an appropriate ‘Healthy Streets’ approach, as it expects people cycling to share the carriageway with drivers. Stated that they do not believe that the median strip would make it easier for pedestrians to cross the road. Suggested the removal of the median, and the creation of a bi-directional cycle track along Northwold, Rectory and Manse Roads. Stated that at the junction with Evering Road, we do not believe ASLs are an adequate solution for cyclists. Suggest that they would like to see a modal filter at the junction of Rectory Road and Manse Road, to prevent rat-running drivers continuing southbound (or rat-running northbound) from Amhurst Road or Hackney Downs.

31 Suggested that on Church Street they recommend the relocation of bus stops further to the west to accommodate time-limited loading bays and reduce air pollution adjacent to the school entrance. This will provide clear space for traffic movements including cycles. Mentioned that in the longer-term, they hoped to see the reduction and, ultimately, removal of private motor traffic along Stoke Newington Church Street, except for buses and access.

London Cycling Campaign

Supported our desire to remove of the gyratory but think that these plans are far from being as bold and good for walking, cycling and public transport as they could be. Felt that the scheme should be reworked to do more on restricting and removing private vehicle traffic, particularly through traffic.

Suggested that fully protected provision for cycling in both directions north-south should be an absolute priority. Mentioned that north-south provision for cycling is important here, as Cycle Superhighway 1 (CS1) is failing to provide for the full potential of north-south cycling in the area and there are few viable high-quality routes available to the immediate east. Suggest that cycle tracks should be extended as far northwards as possible to connect with possible future routes and the Cazenove Road junction should be re-designed both to eliminate serious collisions and again with a future cycling scheme in mind.

Commented that asking people to cycle in bus lanes, mix with traffic of the volumes seen in this area and to cycle around loading bays doesn’t enable a larger number/wider range of people to cycle. Mentioned that if this scheme moves forward without extensive modification, early release signals should be used on the High Street even in bus lanes as a bare minimum approach. Commented that these alone will not be sufficient at the junction with Evering Road, which requires far more work to be safe enough for cycling. Similar comments were made about The Brooke Road/Rectory Road junction and the Evering Road/Rectory Road junction.

Echoed Hackney Cycling Campaign’s response that there appears to be ample space on Northwold Road and Rectory Road to replace wide lanes, loading bays and the median strip with a southbound protected cycle track.

Suggested that wherever possible, loading bays should be consolidated to one side of the road, or preferably moved to the end of side roads and off the main road altogether as loading bays reduce space available that could either be given to those cycling in the form of protected cycle tracks or, where possible, to people walking on wider pavements.

32 Sustrans

Support the desire to remove the gyratory and expect that these proposals will improve the area for pedestrians, cyclists and public transport but made it clear that despite supporting many elements of the scheme that they have a number of concerns about the level of service for cyclists.

Indicated that they support many of the proposals, including the proposed no-entries at Garnham Street, Northwold Road and Brooke Road and the road closures at the junctions of the High Street and Tyssen Road, Hollar Road and Batley Road. Supported the proposed continuous footway and increased footway widths that have been proposed. Supported that the removal of general traffic southbound and the proposals for a northbound cycle track on the High Street.

Commented that the proposed layout could reduce the convenience and appeal of cycling. Have concerns that the less confident cyclist might use the northbound track to cycle southbound, increasing the risk of collisions at side roads. Suggested that every effort should be made to provide cycle tracks on both sides. They suggest the removal of general traffic, reducing the overtaking space adjacent to bus cages and floating bus stops and reducing the loading provision is explored. Mentioned that clarity is needed on the bus/cycle lane hours. Mentioned that they are concerned that the designation ends on the approach to a junction. Clean Air 4 Schools (CA4S)

Whilst CA4S are in favour of encouraging walking and cycling, they cannot support the Stoke Newington gyratory removal proposals in its current form.

They would support the scheme if it would result in reduced air pollution at William Patten school. They suggest that the best way to do this would be to move the bus stop immediately from outside the school playground (westbound). They mentioned that they can see many other bus stops are proposed to be moved as a result of the scheme and this gives the opportunity to strategically plan their locations. They would like to see removal of the bus stop at William Patten take place well in advance of this scheme (now) because harm to children’s health is already happening.

They would also like to see other measures such as traffic calming on Stoke Newington Church Street and Stoke Newington High Street.

Vision Zero London

Would like to see a 20kph (12.4mph) speed limit for buses in the southbound bus

33 lane as they are sharing space with cyclists.

Enfield Transport User Group

Concerned about the impact on bus journey times. They feel that bus impacts are being ignored and under-estimated that the predicted impacts are averages that could be amplified with increased traffic over time. Indicated that the loss of the southbound flare for general traffic at the junction between Stamford Hill and Stoke Newington High Street will be catastrophic for general traffic and the bus lane here should be removed. Concerned that the proposed separate traffic light phases for buses and general traffic are unnecessary and will significantly harm journey times for all, massively increasing air pollution at this junction. Suggests that cyclist and bus only traffic lights should be demand dependent and not automatically green.

Commented that the consultation does not set out the impacts of the proposals on bus journey times and the impact on bus frequency, route length or the impact on bus resources. There is disappointment that the proposals do not address what is seen as a dreadful interchange to Rectory Road station. It is highlighted that in the proposals that Rectory Road/Brooke Road (Stop L) for southbound remains a 260m walk from Rectory Road Station, Manse Road (Stop N) is 265m and Rectory Road/Downs Road is 320m from the Station. Suggests another bus stop is needed southbound to be served by 67 & 276 bus to enhance the interchange with Rectory Road station. Suggests that the bus lanes and loading bays on and around Stoke Newington High Street must not be 24/7 along the A10 and should be open to general traffic, say, between 8pm and 6am. Also mentions that the bus lanes along Stoke Newington High Street should be available to Taxis.

Testi Restaurant

They didn’t leave a specific comment but from their answers to the questionnaire they strongly support all of the proposals apart from the proposed changes to parking and loading to which they neither support nor oppose.

Three Seed Garden

Suggest a new toucan crossing at the junction of Rectory Road and Brooke Road.

They also suggest that Rectory Road/Brooke Road bus stop ‘L’ should be moved from its current location as the pathway is too narrow and becomes congested when several buses stop at once. Suggests that the stop is moved closer to the Linden Children’s Centre where the footpath is wider. Further suggests that this is complemented by a new crossing.

34

Suggest that loading bays should be introduced on the left hand side of Rectory Road from the junction of Brooke Road heading South towards Manse Road, in order that residents living between 120-126 and even further south on Rectory Road to enable better disposing/recycling of waste.

Ruby Care Solutions

No specific comments but from their answers to the questionnaire they strongly support/support all of the proposals apart from the proposed changes to bus routes which they neither support nor oppose.

Clissold Housing Cooperative

No specific comments but from their answers to the questionnaire they strongly support/support all of the proposals apart from the proposed changes to parking and loading to which they neither support nor oppose.

Substance Studio

Supportive of the proposals and would like to see the area as more of a place to be not just to commute to/through. Commented that they would like to see less traffic and emissions and improved safety for children.

Pedal Me

Welcome the concept of removing gyratory systems for people cycling, as it improves the safety and journey times for our delivery and taxi services. Commented there is no need to re-introduce two-way working for general motor traffic. Suggested that roads could be kept one way for motor traffic and space could instead be reclaimed for people cycling to further increase safety and speed of cycles. Concerned that although their riders are trained to a very high standard and can cope with motor traffic environments, these proposals offer very little to the general public in terms of safer cycling. Mentioned that having to ride in primary position increases the workload on their riders and increases the chance of conflict between themselves and other road users. Suggested using segregated facilities, such as CS2 and the East-West Superhighway, as it not only gives a clear path to pass queuing motor traffic, but gives riders and their passengers a significant safety benefit.

35 They are concerned that the shared use facilities proposed will be difficult to navigate on a cargo bike. Mentioned that when fully loaded, it is incredibly difficult to access the push buttons for toucan crossings, or zig zag over dropped kerbs off a carriageway into shared space areas. Suggested focusing on cycle specific infrastructure, rather than trying to squeeze pedestrians and cycles into the same space.

Freiss Ltd.

Commented that clarification on whether Brooke Road would be two-way from Stoke Newington High Street was required. Mentioned that for cyclists this is really important.

Leswin Area Residents Association

Concerned that the proposed scheme is overly ambitious. Despite that, suggestions were made for improved facilities for parents and children, additional greenery and bicycle racks. Concerned that the proposed pocket parks may attract anti-social behavior and be of particular issues for residents of Tyssen, Hollar and Batley roads.

Suggest that if they were made smaller they could provide respite to Stoke Newington High Street and stop rat running into the Leswin/Bayston/Darville Road 'island'. Suggested that some more restrictions on turns onto the main two-way road arteries will have to be introduced to achieve this.

Stoke Newington Toys & Books

Concerned that as a shop owner in the High Street, the proposed loading times are completely unworkable. Mentioned that as the shop opens at 10:00 and due to the way couriers work that deliveries arrive in Stoke Newington High Street at anytime between 07:00 and 17:30. Suggested that unless loading times are increased considerably, most shops in the High Street will not be able to receive goods to sell.

Stoke Newington Bookshop

Concerned that the provision of loading bays on Stoke Newington High Street between Brooke Road and Stoke Newington Church Street is completely inadequate. The proposed loading hours of 07:00-10:00 is totally unworkable.

36 Mentioned that the majority of businesses in this section and certainly all those on the west side, have no rear access. Also mentioned that many don't open until sometime between 09:30 and 11:00 so need access to deliveries throughout the day. Commented that they cannot dictate when the deliveries arrive as the delivery companies are employed by suppliers not by themselves. Mentioned that without deliveries they cannot survive.

Active Planning

Supportive of the proposals for continuous footpaths, road closures for pocket parks and for re-routing buses but suggests that bus speeds are reduced to below 15mph between Brooke Road and Northwold Road. Manor Road to Northwold Road. Also supportive of the proposed northbound cycle track, including bus stop bypasses and the southbound bus and cycle lane between Brooke Road and Evering Road.

Welcomes the addition of bus lanes between Manor Road and Northwold Road and suggests there is also an opportunity to introduce stepped cycle tracks of 2.3m minimum with some merging of cycles and buses at the Northwold Road and Manor Road junctions. Suggested that the merges should be carefully designed with footway kerb 'nibs' to encourage cyclists to adopt the primary (central) cycling position through the junctions. Recognises that there is limited space between Northwold Road and Church Street. Suggests the introduction of two-way working for general traffic and that It may not be possible to introduce cycle tracks. Suggests the best alternative is to create a 'fietstraat' to create a 'no overtaking cycles' condition. Cycle pre-signals at each end should be introduced to give cyclists a head-start along the street. Suggests that loading bays be relocated further to the west on Stoke Newington Church Street as the current layout often creates conflicts.

Comments that there should not be a northbound cycle track between Church Street and Brooke Road. Suggest that a 'fietstraat' is introduced and access is filtered along this two-way section to buses, cycles and Hackney council commercial waste collection vehicles only in both directions outside of loading times. Suggests that the footway is then widened to create a better ambience and improved safety for pedestrians. Suggests inset flush loading bays should be provided in place of the cycle track, which become footways outside of the loading period. Suggests that Brooke Road should be two-way throughout with northbound non-bus motor traffic obliged to turn right outside of the loading hours. Suggests that the loading bays on the eastern side between Brooke Road and Evering Road should be extinguished and replaced with a southbound cycle track. Suggests that inset, limited period loading with-flow bays should be introduced on the northbound carriageway and the flush cycle bypass (with tactile edges) continued northbound with a 1.0m buffer and dropped kerbs for trolleys. Suggest that parking bays for disabled drivers should be

37 introduced at points along the length of this section and that these should also feature dropped kerbs for wheelchairs.

Commented that the junction of Stoke Newington High Street and Evering Road is not well laid out with regard to cyclist safety. Concerned that the use of Advanced Stop Lines creates left-hooking and is not advised. Suggests instead that cycles should share an 'all-green pedestrian phase' incorporating mini-zebras where there is a coincidence of cyclist and pedestrian movements.

Would like to see Amhurst Road filtered at its junction with Stoke Newington High Street and would like to see the introduction of a two-way cycle track on the north side of Northwold Road leading towards a two-way cycle track on Rectory Road.

Concerned that the proposed design on Rectory Road with the flush 'reservation' is sub-optimal with regard to the safety and comfort of cycling. Suggests instead that a two-way cycle track should be introduced through the adjacent park, meeting the carriageway at Brooke Road. Suggests a priority crossing should be provided over Stoke Newington Common and that the cycle track should continue southbound to the junction with Manse Road. Suggest that the continuation of Rectory Road should be filtered to prevent rat-running through the predominantly residential area. Suggests that a two-stage right turn movement at the junction of Rectory Road and Evering and Brooke Road to facilitate access for cyclists to the tracks suggested above.

Cycling Club Hackney

No specific comments but from their answers to the questionnaire they strongly support/support all of the proposals.

Rouge UK Ltd.

Concerned about the propose changes to loading times/bays ,specifically those in the northbound section between Brooke Road and the junction with Stoke Newington Church Street. Concerned that demand as it is currently means that it can be difficult to access a loading bay between 07:00-16:00 and that removing provision and reducing the available time will make that much more difficult.

Mentioned that his business and others, but not all, on the eastern side of Stoke Newington High Street in this section have no rear access so are reliant on provision from the front, our only access for goods in and out is through the front of the shop from the High Street. Mentioned that the business needs regular deliveries throughout that week and that none of the regular couriers used by our suppliers

38 deliver before 09:00. Concerned that are proposals mean for this business a one hour time slot for deliveries for which there no control about when the couriers will deliver.

Mentioned that the business could not continue to operate from the current location if these proposals are not amended. Suggested that the northbound cycle lane stops at the junction with Brook Roade and that loading is provided in its place between 07:00-16:00.

Stoke Newington Common User Group

Have a number of concerns but welcome proposals for two-way working on Rectory Road as they hope it might reduce car speeds. Their main concerns are at Northwold Road junction with Rectory Road they feel it’s a bit unclear if the 73 bus will be allowed to go east to Northwold Road from Rectory Road ( there ‘s a new 73 bus stop on Northwold Road – presumably the current stand). Similarly the 276. Wanted clarification on whether buses are allowed to drive east, but not cars. They are concerned that if the entrance to Northwold Road from Rectory Road is closed to traffic, drivers coming south from Tottenham /Stamford Hill are likely to use Cazenove Road and possibly the southern parts of Alkham, Kyverdale and Osbaldeston Roads to go east to get to the Roundabout, Road, etc. They feel that this may create rat -runs. Commented that Cazenove Road cannot take any more traffic and the junction between Cazenove Road and Stamford Hill is pandemonium, especially with double parking.

Mentioned that it’s nice to see the idea of greening at the junction between Northwold and Rectory Roads. But concerned about what will happen to the current tree, which was planted by local people and been looked after for about 30 years. They think it is very important that mature trees like this are allowed to stay. Mentioned that if drivers cannot get onto Rectory Road via that junction they will use Stoke Newington Common (Road), i.e. the other side of the common, i.e. increasing the traffic along there. Suggested that there is a great need for lights where that road meets Rectory Road, and for a pedestrian crossing there as lots of people try to cross at that point. Mentioned that they like the idea of Rectory Road becoming two- way, but suggested the air quality and sound levels are monitored as the people who live along it might suffer. Suggested more crossings across Rectory Road as the current plan only provides one. Suggested traffic speed along Rectory Road be monitored, eg by speed cameras. Suggest that the pictures imply that there will be more room for cyclists if Rectory Road becomes two- way but in their opinion, if the bus lane goes there will be less room for cyclists. Mentioned that if any fences, hedges or trees etc on Stoke Newington Common are damaged these need to be replaced.

39

They agree that improving safety for cyclists is an urgent requirement as many of them are cyclists. Mentioned that the strip of segregated cycleway along Stoke Newington High Street northbound is very short and it would provide about three minutes of protected cycling. Suggested that this achieves nothing for cyclists and also states that moving in and out of cycleways is more dangerous than simply cycling in a straight line along on a road. Commented that the pictures of the cycle way on the High Street imply that there will be car parking between the main thoroughfare and the cycleway. This would mean that people getting out of their cars would step right in front of a cyclist. Stated that is dangerous and will cause even more friction between car drivers and cyclists. Mentioned that after the junction with Brooke Road, cyclists have to avoid other parking bays and doors being opened suddenly and so are forced back into the main thoroughfare. After that they have to deal with the confused maelstrom of traffic between the junction with Church Street and the junction with Northwold Road. They suggested that safe cycle provision is needed all the way to Stamford Hill and beyond and they feel this plan does not provide it.

Suggested that there needs to be a kerb separating the cycle lane from the pedestrian path on one side and from cars on the other – as they do in Camden (eg Tavistock). They feel that this helps stop pedestrians walking in front of cyclists and make it less easy for cyclists to go onto the pavement. Commented that as Rectory Road has lost its bus lane going south, there would be provision for cyclists on this road. Despite the cycling logo being printed in the lovely picture on page five, cyclists have to share one lane with cars in each direction. There will be as much south- bound traffic as now, as they can’t drive south along the High Street. But they will be in one lane. Without the protection of a separated (bus) lane this would appear to make matters worse for cyclists. Suggested that the space used by the middle island bit in that picture could make a nice cycle way on one side at least. Mentioned that small businesses are absolutely vital to this area and to the sense of the local streets, as well as to the families who run them. Suggested that there are more limited loading bays and times allowed. Also suggested some more cheap parking spaces be created e.g., around Brooke Road, Lawrence buildings or Wilbur Place to enable the shops to continue.

Commented that curtailing the 67 short of Aldgate is a real disservice to local people. As there is no Tube service, local people use every bus to get to different places. Stated that no other bus goes to Aldgate from here and It is not enough to expect people to go to Liverpool Street. Lastly commented that continuous pavements seemed like a great idea some years back, but stated that they are very dangerous for disabled people and do not provide enough segregation between cyclists and pedestrians which causes conflict.

40

London Fire Brigade

Overall, the London Fire Brigade (LFB) believes that this is a positive proposal for Hackney and they ask Transport for London to remain mindful of the points raised below.

Commented that the redevelopment of the road and pedestrian areas around Stoke Newington is a key aspect to ensuring the area remains accessible and safe for all residents and visitors alike. The area is a popular route with pedestrians, visitors, cyclists, bus and car users. Stated that Stoke Newington can at times be very congested and creating “pocket parks” and restricting vehicle access does not assist the London Fire Brigade, as we have no option but to take longer driving routes.

However, LFB stated that they recognise the need to improve and maintain both the roads and pedestrian areas but suggested that it is important that in the process of improving the street architecture, access to the street and the surrounding area is not compromised for our crews and vehicles to access. Also mentioned that at certain times of the day, our fire appliances do need to use bus lanes when attending emergency incidents and that by making the bus lanes into dedicated cycle lanes, this will possibly delay our attendance.

Stated that they welcome the introduction of a new 20mph speed limit however it is worth noting that raised junctions can increase our attendance times when responding to incidents and possibly cause damage to appliances.

Royal National Institute of Blind People

As outlined below, the Royal National Institute of Blind People (RNIB) think that the proposed scheme will make the lives of blind and partially sighted people more difficult and risky than it already is, by removing and not adequately replacing the accessibility features currently provided by the dedicated footways, signal-controlled crossings, standard kerbs and national guidance adherent tactile paving. They feel that the plan also introduces new dangers from moving vehicles and bicycles into the footway experience, which are difficult or impossible for blind and partially sighted people to detect. They suggest that the design of the proposed scheme must be modified to prevent exposing blind and partially sighted people to greater levels of difficulty, and more disadvantages in their ability to make everyday journeys on foot.

Commented that they are concerned that blind and partially sighted people may have been excluded from the consultation process due to lack of accessible information. Suggest that to reassure them on these issues that TfL confirm how the consultation was made accessible to the public and individuals with sight loss, and

41 how many blind and partially sighted people TfL knows have directly contributed their views. Stated that they to object to the use of continuous footways because they expose blind and partially sighted pedestrians to contact with moving vehicles, and do not provide detectable features that enable them to know where the footway has changed into a surface which vehicles and cyclists will also be using. Stated that continuous footways do not enable people with sight loss to adapt their walking behaviour to protect their own safety and the safety of other road users. Suggest that dedicated footways should be used. Stated that they object to the proposed use of shared spaces elsewhere, such as on Evering and Rectory Road/Northwold Road.

Stated that they object to the use of level surfaces and areas where the road is raised to the level of the footway. Stated that level surfaces prevent the change in use of a street surface being clear and detectable with a white cane. Stated that level surfaces hamper the ability of blind and partially sighted people to orientate themselves accurately on the streetscape, read the geometry of the area or maintain a safe margin away from moving vehicles and cyclists. Wanted to note that their objection to the use of level surfaces must not be confused with design provisions for wheelchair users. Stated that they fully support the use of graded footway-to- carriageway crossing points for wheelchair users, providing they are marked with tactile paving that adheres to national guidelines. Suggest that every boundary where a pedestrian footway meets with a cycle track or road (and where there is no formal crossing) must be delineated by a kerb with an upstand not less than 60mm. Commented that the plan shows that a minimum 60mm kerb will be installed. They assume this height is taken from the research undertaken by University College London, commissioned by our sister charity Guide Dogs for the Blind. Wanted to highlight that the UCL research only considered detectability of kerbs for blind people and stated that the research did not consider whether or not 60mm kerbs were detectible to older people, at times of poor illumination or during inclement weather.

Asked for clarification as to the upstand of the footway to cycle track kerb in areas where there is proposed to be a stepped cycleway. As above, they expect this to be at least 60mm with a visually contrasting surface. They are concerned that older people and people with sight loss face a greater risk of trips and falls and suggest that consideration should be given to their preference for standard height kerbs.

Commented that they cannot support the use of Bus Stop Bypass (BSB) as proposed on Stoke Newington High Street. Mentioned that these concerns were raised with TfL in January 2018, and pressed for further investigation of this known risk and for the design to be modified to adjust for the issue. Stated that The BSB design proposed does not enable blind and partially sighted people to walk with confidence or comfort, and forces them to negotiate their right of way with cyclists when attempting to cross over to, or return from the bus stop island. Stated that the

42 BSB design exposes blind and partially sighted people to undetectable bicycles, and the inability of cyclists to avoid a collision. For example, where the pedestrian steps out because they believed no bicycle was approaching, but where the cyclist mistakenly interpreted the pedestrian as waiting for them to pass. Stated that when a bus stop is situated on a footway this issue does not come up. Mentioned that they are also concerned that with fewer bus stops, the walking distance between the one remaining bus stop near Stoke Newington Police Station, and the nearest bus stop to Stoke Newington Church Street, makes for an unreasonably long walk to reach either bus stop, for people who rely on mobility aids. Suggested that the number of bus stops should not be reduced. Stated that they to object to the proposed tactile paving designs in this plan, but will be able to support designs that adhere to national guidance. Stated that the tactile paving designs proposed do not adhere to the national guidance on tactile paving. For example, the tactile paving shown in the plan at the controlled crossings are not marked in red and the tactile tails are not 1200mm. Stated that they are very concerned about the lack of adherence to national guidance, and we have already objected to the TfL New Streetscape Guidance, because it falls short of essential design features for inclusive design, such as adequate visual contrast for pedestrians with visual impairment.

Stated that they fully support the proposals for formal crossing points which have been defined as signal-controlled crossings. However, they cannot support the plan where it proposes to remove a signal-controlled crossing on the north side of Stoke Newington Common near the railway bridge. Suggested that the new formal crossing proposed by the children’s centre should be a signal-controlled crossing.

The Hackney Society

Commented that they are particularly concerned about the quality of the public realm and our observations on the TfL proposals are focused on how they might enhance rather than diminish the public realm. They support the broad intention to return the one-way system to two-way. They support the new bus lane layout in Stamford Hill, the junction design at Brooke Road and Evering Road and the treatment of Rectory Road between Brooke Road and Evering Road. They mention specifically the removal of the centre line and a new pedestrian crossing at the Children’s Centre. They support southbound buses on Stoke Newington High Street.

However, in their view the negative aspects of the scheme currently greatly outweigh the benefits and need revision. In particular they are critical that the proposals are not for fully two-way working, leading to continued long detours for drivers in particular, but also cyclists. They state that there are no proposals for modal filtering in side streets except for filtering some streets at the High Street end, which is the wrong place for filtering. They suggest that local areas should be filtered in the

43 centre. They are critical of the junction designs at Stoke Newington High Street/Northwold Road, Northwold Road/Rectory Road, Stoke Newington High Street/Brooke Road and Stoke Newington High Street/Stoke Newington Road/Evering Road. They state that many banned turns, e.g. at the High Street/Brooke Road junction, or at the Rectory Road/Manse Road junction, leads to complexity, misunderstanding, conflict, misuse and errors.

They are critical of a number of other elements, including the quality of the proposed public space at Northwold Road/Rectory Road, the layout on Stoke Newington High Street, bus stop locations and an unnecessarily long detour of the route 106 does which ought to go directly west along Northwold Road. They also state that the proposal for Rectory Road through the common would not eliminate speeding, and present an intimidating layout for cyclists. They have suggested the following targets are met in any revision to this scheme: Consistent treatment along the A10, simplified street layouts, full two-way traffic to aid comprehension and avoid conflict, modal filtering of adjacent traffic cells, improved junctions with fewer banned turns, higher quality public space, workable loading facilities for businesses, better bus stops and finally changes to bus routes, e.g. a bus connecting Stoke Newington to Shacklewell Lane; the 106 to continue west along Northwold Road.

Hackney Living Streets

Welcome the proposals from TfL and Hackney and strongly support the aims and objectives of the scheme. They state that while the scheme is a very positive transformation, there are several elements that can be improved for pedestrians, and they suggest the following measures. Crossing points that are not on a junction should default to 10m in width, or as wide as possible within constraints. This should be delivered on for crossings: on the High Street near Dynevor Road and Victorian Grove and on Rectory Road south of Northwold Road and Brook Road. Crossing points that are on a junction can also be made wider, particularly where there are high pedestrian flows. There are missing crossing arms on major junctions on important desire lines (to Cemetery and Brook Road). These must be included and it is unclear why they are not. A continuous footway, or at least raised junction, must be installed at Cazenove Road as a key part of this scheme. This is a crucial link between housing, High Street and station, which is difficult to cross. Raised junctions need to be designed with visually impaired users in mind. They would welcome trialing audible countdown crossings. Design of continuous pavements should indicate clearly to the visually impaired that they are entering a motor traffic zone. They suggest a demarcated line and blister paving. Pocket parks should be designed in consultation with local people and build on the creativity and design expertise in Hackney – rather than standard TfL design. These should be green oases that respond to the uniqueness of Stoke Newington, not just hard

44 landscaping. They would like to see occasional parklets introduced in some rows of parking spaces (e.g. Evering Road and Manse Road). The segregated area between cycle path and carriage should be used for some wildflower greening, including SUDs schemes. The segregated area on bus stop bypasses should be used for street furniture such as cycle parking or seating to keep pavement clear of clutter. Focus on removing and rationalising clutter - especially any road and parking signs, particularly where pavements are not wide as they expect numbers of people to increase. They would welcome more seating. Use paving, not tarmac. They welcome the use of colour in the High Street carriageway. They’d welcome the use of imprint material, as has been used in Kingsland High Street, which has a calming effect on traffic.

They support the 20mph speed limit, and suggest that this is enforced through a speed camera in the High Street section (including of buses). Raised tables should also ensure that speeds are kept low throughout the scheme. As a general principle, they think that the scheme will benefit walking, cycling and public transport at the expense of private vehicles, which are often just passing through the area. They welcome attempts to restrict motor traffic through the area. They have previously supported the Walford Road modal filter project, and suggest that scheme be implemented alongside this one. They would welcome other modal filter schemes across the wider Stoke Newington Common area, and it is worthwhile looking at feasibility at this early stage.

They support having one bus route along Rectory Rd in both directions. It would be helpful to understand modeling that has been undertaken relating to maintaining the gyratory for private motor-vehicles. While this should benefit the High Street (although some vehicles will be forced to go north along the High Street and round the gyratory to go south), the gyratory will continue to generate increased traffic movements, which may have a detrimental impact elsewhere, including on air quality. Parking on the High Street should be restricted to Blue Badge parking for disabled people and short stay loading bays. They would welcome the opportunity to explore a workplace parking levy, as has been introduced in Hounslow.

They stated that it is clear that there can be conflicts between pedestrians and cyclists on bus-stop by-passes. Bypasses must be made safe for pedestrians crossing via at the very least raised tables with zebra marked crossings and signs indicating pedestrian priority. A minimum pedestrian width of 2m (or the minimum current pavement width) must be provided to ensure pedestrian comfort. They would welcome some of their group being involved at more detailed design stage. They believe that the median strip along Rectory Road is an inefficient use of space, and this would be better allocated to a wider pavement (or else a segregated cycle lane). They would like to see improved pedestrian access into Stoke Newington Common

45 Lastly, they support wider road pricing schemes across London that TfL should introduce to complement this type of scheme. They believe It would add significant additional value, and support Healthy Streets by providing a mechanism to financially support objectives related to walking, cycling and public transport – which will be required to reach 80% of traffic journeys.

Sustainable Hackney

In principle, they welcome the proposals and thanked TfL/Hackney for developing them. On the whole they believe this is a good scheme but would like to work with us through a series of workshops to plan it in detail and make sure it is a great success and achieves the wide range of policy objectives and challenges facing everybody.

Suggest that a Green Infrastructure Audit is undertaken in conjunction with local organisations and residents. Stated concerns that two-way working will make the High Street busier and more difficult for pedestrians/shoppers. They would like to see and discuss the evidence from previous gyratory removal schemes you have implemented in relation to this. Commented that the proposed shared space for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles doesn’t seem to take into account the Department for Transport announcement that it had halted any new development of these schemes as part of their mobility strategy. They would like to know what we are proposing instead. They are interested in what arrangements are being made to ensure that people with disabilities can continue to access Stoke Newington High Street.

Stated that they welcome better provision for cyclists and pedestrians and also commented on the proposed bus stop bypasses. They stated their concern is that pedestrians would have to cross the cycle lane in order to get to the bus stop which they do not think would be safe. They commented on the closures of Tyssen, Hollar and Batley Roads, and stated that these proposals may well calm the residential streets behind the High Street and that the creation of ‘pocket parks’ may be an asset. However, they also had a number of concerns, including, the streets are narrow so having cycles coming through any pocket park will limit their usefulness for residents. Businesses waste bins, including Eurobins, are permanently stored in these spaces. There will need to be a thorough review of waste and recycling facilities for businesses to develop optimum arrangements across the whole area.

Close work with the Council is needed to make sure these road closures and pocket parks are well designed and that there is money for maintenance. They stated that one of the objectives of the Mayor of London’s blue-green infrastructure policy is to release waterways from culverts and channels in order to create flood capacity. They mentioned that the brook runs along part of the streets to be altered so this should

46 be considered seriously. Stoke Newington Common along Northwold Road is subject to flooding and attention should be given to increasing capacity during these works. Suggested that porous pavements should be laid so as to reduce storm water runoff.

Suggested a comprehensive green infrastructure audit to be undertaken and maximum advantage taken to integrate defragmentation of habitat and develop green infrastructure as part of this scheme: Suggested that they want a serious approach to defragmenting major parks and green spaces abutting many of the roads in the area improving them for biodiversity. Stated that there is an opportunity to improve the planting for biodiversity on the area of the Common west of Rectory Road and that the green triangle at the junction of Northwold Road and Rectory Road should be retained and joined up with the rest of the common. Suggested that there are many opportunities to plant more trees, including large specimens. Suggested that there is scope for some wilding and installation of bug and bee hotels. They want to see these initiatives put in place. Stated that the road closures, responsibility for adjacent roads and required maintenance after the scheme is implemented require Hackney Council’s input and ongoing maintenance. Commented that TfL need to work with Hackney Council to develop a plan for the whole area and maintenance after it is implemented. Wanted to know how this would be funded, Lastly, commented on the bus stop outside no6. Brook Road requires more space. Stated that it is already cramped for pedestrians wishing to pass waiting passengers and that there is a refuge on the opposite side. Suggested that the refuge should be taken out and the space used to widen pavement at the bus stop.

Haringey Cycling Campaign

They welcome the desire to improve the gyratory, in particular the proposed 20mph speed limit, the northbound cycle track, the modal filtering and associated pocket parks and improvements to the streetscene. However, they stated that they think that these proposals do not deliver the best possible scheme for people walking and cycling and more could be done to follow Healthy Streets principles. They agree with the detailed comments made by Hackney Cycling Campaign colleagues.

They believe that the best outcome for people walking and cycling in the area would be the removal of through motor traffic from Stoke Newington High Street south of Church Street / north of Manse Road, with the maintenance of bus access and loading during restricted hours. They suggested that the current scheme could be improved by the removal of the central median on Rectory Road, which would create space for a southbound cycle track, (or, better still, with a slight widening of the carriageway, a bidirectional cycle track), and a commitment from TfL to prioritise adoption of Intelligent Speed Assistance on buses in the area.

47 4.14 Comments on the consultation Of those that responded, 1,303 indicated what they thought about the quality of the consultation and associated materials. Of those, 820 respondents (63 per cent) felt the quality of the consultation was good or very good, 276 (21 per cent) thought it was acceptable, and 207 (16 per cent) felt it was poor or very poor.

Additionally, 274 respondents left a further comment about the quality of the consultation. Of the further issues raised about the quality of the consultation, the main issue was concern that the consultation was not publicised well enough locally and that residents were not adequately consulted. Other issues raised included comments that more information was required to explain the predicted impacts on general traffic, pedestrians, cyclists and bus customers. There were concerns that the consultation material/maps were not clear, confusing or inaccurate, concern that the consultation was just a ‘tick-box’ exercise, and concern that there was no information about how the proposals would affect local pollution levels. There was good feedback about the use of before and after images were both useful and user- friendly. 5. Next steps

We plan to proceed with this scheme but with the changes listed below. These are a direct result of the feedback we received via the consultation portal, emails, letters and the questionnaire we sent to residents living locally. We’ve also incorporated feedback, where possible, from events and meetings we attended. Some of the other questions raised can be addressed during the detailed design stage, where we will continue to work closely with Hackney.

We plan to start work on site in autumn 2020 and we anticipate that work will take around 18 months to complete. We will make sure that local people are kept up to date on our plans throughout.

 At the junction of Stoke Newington High Street and Church Street, northbound cyclists will have a segregated approach to the junction with their own signal time so they are protected from other vehicles

 At the junction of Stamford Hill and Cazenove Road we plan to introduce a raised entry treatment to slow vehicles on the approach to the junction

 At the junction of Stamford Hill and Northwold Road, southbound cyclists will now be separated from other vehicles with a dedicated pre-start signal phase

48  On Northwold and Rectory Road we plan to drop the proposed central median strip. Instead we will now introduce an imprinted run-over adjacent to the kerb. Cyclists should still take primary position wherever possible

 At the junctions of Victorian Road, Victorian Grove and Dyvenor Road the continuous footway design has been revised to include tactile paving

 We plan to include a new southbound bus stop, in addition to what’s already been proposed, on Stoke Newington High street adjacent to Victorian Grove

 We plan to change the loading hours on the High Street between Brooke Road and Stoke Newington Church to: Monday - Sunday from 10:00 - 13:00, 20 minutes loading only

 We will work with LB Hackney on the gyratory scheme to see how we can help achieve their ambition of 40% canopy cover across the borough

 We are looking at contraflow bus lanes across London to try and develop best practice around both their design and their introduction. We intend to learn from this research and will apply it within the detailed design of these proposals and the subsequent change of operation. Appendix A: Consultation questions

Questions about our proposals

 How do you currently use the gyratory?  How often do you currently use the gyratory?  What do you think of our proposals to remove Stoke Newington Gyratory and re-introduce two-way traffic?  What do you think or our proposals to close Tyssen Road, Hollar Road and Batley Road at their junction with Stoke Newington High Street to create new ‘pocket parks’?  What do you think of our proposals for new cycling facilities on Stoke Newington High Street?  This scheme proposes the use of continuous footways (sometimes known as a ‘Copenhagen crossing’). This is a new type of pedestrian crossing that intends to emphasis that pedestrians have priority. In order to create the feel of a continuous footway, tactile paving and kerbs are omitted from side road crossing points. Please let us know to what extent you support or oppose this

49 new design feature.  Which of these buses do you us?  What do you think of our proposal to re-route these buses?  How will the proposed changes affect your journey?  What do you think of our proposals to change when vehicles can park and load in Stoke Newington High Street?  How and why would you like to see the new public space used?  Please provide any further comments, including the changes to bus services

Questions about the respondent

 All questions were optional:

 What is your name?

 What is your email address?

 What is your postcode?

 Are you: a local resident, a business owner, employed locally, a visitor to the area, a commuter to the area, not local but interested in the scheme, a taxi/private hire driver, other

 If responding on behalf of an organisation, business or campaign group, please provide us with the name:

 How did you find out about this consultation? Received an email from TfL, received a letter from TfL, read about it in the press, saw it on the TfL website, social media, other

 What do you think about the quality of this consultation (for example, the information we have provided, any printed material you have received, any maps or plans, the website and questionnaire etc.)? Very good, good, acceptable, poor, very poor

 Equality Monitoring

50 Appendix B: Consultation materials

An email to customers

51 A stakeholder email

52 A consultation leaflet

53 54 55

56

57 58 59

60 61 62 63

64 Webpage introduction

65 Appendix D: Stakeholder lists Stakeholders we consulted included:

Local Authorities, statutory and advisory bodies

Greater London Authority London Borough of Hackney London TravelWatch

Accessibility groups, community groups and charities

Cazenove Area Action Group Leswin Area Residents Association Stoke Newington neighbourhood panel Guide Dogs UK Blind Aid UK Transport for All Alzheimers UK Deafblind UK Royal Association for Deaf People Disability Rights UK Joint committee on mobility for disabled people Leonard Cheshire Disability National Pensioners Convention Muscular Dystrophy UK National Federation of the Blind Parkinson’s UK Royal National Institute of Blind People Scope UK Thomas Pocklington Trust Wheels for Wellbeing Whizz-Kidz Inclusion London Royal Society for Blind Children

Education and health

William Patten Primary School Princess May Primary School St Marys Primary School London Ambulance Service London Fire Brigade

66

Transportation, local business and user groups

Hackney Residents Participation team The RAC The AA London Cab Ranks Committee Freight Transport Association London Cycling Campaign Hackney Cycling Campaign Hackney Living Streets Sustainable Hackney

Government departments, parliamentary bodies and politicians

Members of Parliament Meg Hillier MP Diane Abbott MP

Assembly Members Jennette Arnold

Hackney Philip Glanville, Mayor Cllr Feryal Demirci, Cabinet Member for transport (at the time of consulting) Cllr Sophie Cameron Cllr Sadie Etti Cllr Ned Hercock Cllr Michael Desmond Cllr Sem Moema Cllr Anna-Joy Rickard Cllr Mete Coban Cllr Susan Fajana-Thomas Cllr Gilbert Smyth Cllr Anthony McMahon Cllr Sam Pallis Cllr Caroline Woodley Cllr Michelle Gregory Cllr Vincent Stops Cllr David Lufkin

67