Hoe Street and Wood Street Post Consultation

LONDON BOROUGH OF WALTHAM FOREST

Meeting Date: PLM – 26 November 2015

Title: Mini Holland Hoe Street and Wood Street area

Directorate: Neighbourhoods

Report of: Head of Highways and Infrastructure

Contact: Kathiravelu Valavan

Phone: Ext: 2525

E.Mail: [email protected]

Wards affected: Hoe Street and Wood Street Wards

Appendices: Appendix Ai : Map of proposals – Consulted Appendix Aii : Map of proposals – Final scheme Appendix B : Engagement approach for delivery Appendix C : Consultation questionnaire results Appendix D : Reasons and benefits of proposed changes Appendix E : Alternatives considered Appendix F : Full equality analysis Appendix G : Sustainability implications Status: Open

1. Summary

1.1 Waltham Forest was one of only three councils in London to be awarded Mini- Holland funding with an allocation of £27 million.

1.2 On 9 September 2014 Cabinet approved the delivery plan for the Mini Holland Programme.

1.3 The Mini-Holland Business Case was approved by Transport for London Surface Board on 18 November 2014.

1.4 On 10 February 2015 Cabinet delegated authority to the Director of Neighbourhoods in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Environment to approve future individual schemes of the Mini Holland Programme.

1.5 As part of the scheme development stage, the council has undertaken extensive engagement and consultation that has influenced the development of the final proposals.

2. Recommendations

2.1 For the reasons set out in this report the Director of Neighbourhoods, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Environment is recommended to:

2.1.1 Note the results of the consultation and the received resident emails and petitions.

2.1.2 Approve the preliminary scheme design for the Hoe Street and Wood Street area wide improvements scheme as shown in Appendix Aii and agree the scheme to proceed to detailed design and subsequent construction as part of the Mini-Holland Programme, as listed below:

Pedestrian priority schemes on Shernhall Street at the junctions with The Drive, Prospect Hill, Church Hill Road, Valentin Road, Addison Road and Oliver Road. And also on Church Hill (Between West Avenue Road and Folkestone Road).

Junction improvements - Install new speed table on Church Hill (junction with Rectory Road)

Cycle permeability schemes on Havant Road, Marlow Road, Saint Mary Church / Vinegar Alley, St Mary Road – Contra-flow cycling enabling works, Aubrey Road - Cycle Street / Public Art and Aubrey Road / Howard Road (Alley / link)

Blended Crossings (Copenhagen Crossings) on Hoe Street at the junctions with Aubrey Road, Brown's Road, Milton Road, Richards Place and Tower Hamlets Road.

Toucan Crossing on Roland Road.

Modal Filters on Aubrey Road, Barrett Road, Church Hill Road, Greville Road and Roland Road.

Public space improvements: Church Hill junction with Church Hill Road - Cycle permeability / Pedestrian priority Oliver Road / Greville Road / Shernhall Street - Streetscape improvements Browns Road junction with Hoe Street - Pocket Park West End Avenue junction with St Mary Road - Pocket Park Cairo Road - Cycle parking / Pocket Park Milton Road - Remove No Entry – two-way working (eastern side) Roland Road - Convert to two-way Aubrey Road - Convert to two-way (southern side)

2.1.3 Agree to delay a decision on Howard Road, Rectory Road and The Drive until the final design of The Bell junction and Forest Road route is complete. . 2.1.4 Once the design for The Bell junction and the Forest Road route is complete further consultation will be undertaken with local residents regarding changes to the original proposals that will inform the final design.

3. Background

3.1 Waltham Forest Council’s Mini-Holland Programme comprises of a set of integrated schemes that will deliver vast improvements in safety and convenience for cyclists and pedestrians, along with comprehensive public realm enhancements to support residential and local shopping areas.

3.2 The overarching objectives of the Hoe Street and Wood Street area improvements are to reduce the amount of through traffic using residential streets, and improve the look, feel and safety of the Hoe Street and Wood Street area for all road users.

3.3 This is to be achieved through a combination of road closures, traffic direction changes, creation of shared public spaces, greening and safety improvements.

3.4 In February 2015 Cabinet delegated authority to the Director of Neighbourhoods in consultation with Portfolio Holder for Environment to approve future individual schemes of the Mini-Holland Programme including the award of any contracts that are deemed to be key decisions.

3.5 The Hoe Street and Wood Street area scheme was initiated in March 2015 via an online “perception survey” that commenced on 13 March and concluded on 3 April 2015.

3.6 The perception survey was conducted within the Hoe Street and Wood Street area scheme area to gain an understanding of what residents and businesses thought about the area and the type of improvements they would like to see. In total 435 people completed the survey and provided 622 individual comments.

3.7 Following the perception survey, a detailed analysis report was prepared in April 2015, which highlighted various concerns and aspirations of the local community that were geographically mapped. This was used to inform the development of an initial concept design.

3.8 The areas which had the highest concentration of respondents who thought that the area was unsafe and unattractive, were also often the areas with the most traffic issues, and the highest demand for better cycling and pedestrian priority.

3.9 When asked what changes could be made to the local area to make it a better environment for walking and cycling, the four most popular responses were: slower traffic, less traffic, more attractive streets and more plants and trees.

3.10 In June 2015 the concept design was presented at a series of three workshops within the scheme area for the local community to co-design and further develop in conjunction with the design team. All local ward councillors were invited to attend these sessions.

3.11 All emergency services were requested to meet the design team to discuss the concept designs in more detail.

3.12 The workshop results were then analysed and included within a workshop analysis report, which influenced the development of the subsequent preliminary design stage in July/August 2015.

3.13 The preliminary design proposal included a mix of road closures (Modal Filters), traffic direction changes, creation of shared public spaces and safety improvements. The preliminary design was then taken to a full public consultation, which commenced on 28 September and concluded on 19 October 2015. The preliminary design is shown in Appendix Ai.

3.14 Over 4800 consultation documents and questionnaires were hand delivered by council officers and postal contractors to all addresses in the area. The council received reports that documents had not been received, therefore officers were mobilised to re-post documents to these addresses. To promote the consultation, street notices were erected in the area, council officers undertook ‘door knocking’ to remind local people to have their say on the proposals; and drop-in sessions were held on Thursday 8 October and Saturday 10 October at local venues. Officers also carried out various technical surveys, consulted with emergency services, utility companies, businesses, religious institutions and schools.

3.15 Photocopies of the questionnaire were received during the consultation that have been deemed as void to avoid potential fraudulent multiple copies influencing the consultation results, however, the comments received have been considered.

3.16 The results of the public consultation have been analysed and included within Appendix C.

3.17 This was an extensive consultation process undertaken by the Highways and Infrastructure team. During the engagement period the Council received and responded to hundreds of emails, over 64 residents attended design workshops, and over 105 residents attended drop in sessions. Council officers knocked on the doors of over 90% of the area to remind the community to respond to the consultation and discuss their views on the scheme if required. 14% of households within the consultation area responded to the final consultation questionnaire. For reference, most consultations attract a response in the region of 10% or below participating households.

3.18 The results of the consultation showed that 61% were in favour of the safer environmental proposals and 25% were not in favour. The results for the Modal Filters (Road Closures) for Series A were 40% in favour and 46% not in favour. The results for the Modal Filters (Road Closures) for Series B were 36% in

favour and 35% not in favour. This equates to 55% of households that were in overall favour of the scheme. It should be noted that of the respondents who live within Series B, 53% were very supportive or quite supportive, 41% were not very supportive or not supportive at all and 6% were neutral or said they did not know.

4. Options & alternatives considered

4.1 At each stage of engagement we have taken on board the feedback of residents and businesses, and many of their suggestions have been included in the design proposal. Some alternative options were proposed during the engagement periods by community groups and schools, which have been considered and have been incorporated or acknowledged through revisions to the design that was consulted upon. These include:

 Improved informal pedestrian crossing facility on Browns Road

4.2 Also, alternative options were proposed during the engagement periods by community groups and schools, which have been considered but not incorporated. These include:

 Introduce one-way system for the area bounded by Howard Road, Church Hill, Shernhall Street and Forest Road  Introduce yellow box junctions at Falmer Road and Forest Road and Hurst Road and Forest Road  Make Barrett Road one-way

4.3 Further information about why these proposals were not seen as viable options is included in Appendix E. In summary, pursuing these options would not achieve the aims of the Mini-Holland programme in the Hoe Street and Wood Street area scheme. The aims are to improve infrastructure to make it safer for road users, improve and create new public spaces and increase the number of people choosing to travel on foot, by bike and on public transport, in order to reduce road congestion and improve air quality.

5. Sustainable community strategy priorities (and other national or local policies or strategies)

5.1 Council Priorities: Bringing you better shopping, streets and leisure (regenerating the borough)

 Work to make our high streets thrive with a variety of shops and services to meet resident’s needs  Upgrade our pavements and roads

5.2 Mayor for London’s Vision for Cycling

 Safer streets for bikes.  More people travelling by bike.  Better places for everyone.

5.3 Transport for London - Improving the health of Londoners: Transport action plan

6. Implications

6.1 Finance, value for money and risk

6.2 The funding of the Hoe Street and Wood Street area scheme is allocated within the financial years 15/16 and 16/17, which will comprise £722,143 from Mini Holland funding, which will be supplemented by funding from the Outer London Fund, Section 106 funding and complementary funding.

6.3 The procurement of works and services will be carried out using existing framework or term contracts which have already received Council approval. When it is expected that better value for money can be obtained using an open tender process this will be undertaken.

6.4 There are always risks with a programme of this size, in particular delays or budget overruns. These risks will be ameliorated by good programming and planning. The Council has a good record of delivering major public realm projects in the last five years and will use this experience to minimise risk within this programme.

7. Legal

7.1 The Council as Highway Authority has a duty under section 41 of the Highways Act 1980 to maintain certain highways within its area. It also has a wide general power under section 62 of the 1980 Act to carry out works to improve the highways it has a duty to maintain and many other specific powers under the 1980 Act.

7.2 The Council may by order regulate the use of roads under section 6 and other specific powers of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.

7.3 All procurements under the programme will have to comply with the Council’s Contract Procedure Rules and, where necessary, the Public Contracts Regulations 2006 (as amended).

7.4 Under Part 3 of the Council’s Constitution Cabinet may delegate key decisions to an officer of the Council.

7.5 Appropriate Traffic Management Orders will be made under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and advertised in accordance with the Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996.

7.6 Before making these orders consideration must be given to section 122 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 which contains the Council’s duty to secure the expeditious, convenient and safe movement of vehicular and other traffic

and the provision of suitable and adequate parking facilities on and off the highway.

7.7 This proposal has been designed with due consideration of our Network Management Duty relating to Traffic Management Act 2004. Consideration has been given to all road users to secure the expeditious movement of traffic as far as practical.

8. Equalities and diversity

8.1 A full Equality Analysis (attached as Appendix F) has been undertaken, which has considered the impact of the proposal on those with protected equality characteristics. Although the proposals are likely to bring about positive improvements, the analysis has identified some potential for adverse impact and measures to help mitigate against these are set out.

8.2 Race/ ethnicity

8.3 No negative impacts are expected from the proposals on the community in respect of ethnicity.

8.4 Faith/ religion

8.5 No negative impacts are expected from the proposals on the community in respect of faith or religion.

8.6 Sexual orientation

8.7 No negative impacts are expected from the proposals on the community in respect of sexual orientation.

9. Sustainability (including climate change, health, crime and disorder)

9.1 The programme will have a positive impact on sustainability by encouraging a shift in transport mode from car use to cycling and walking. This will also contribute to improving the health and well-being of the local community and air quality. The design guide includes an aspiration to employ low energy use equipment e.g. lighting units; using SUDS (Sustainable Urban Drainage System) compliant materials; and following the Council’s Sustainable Procurement Strategy for sourcing materials. It is estimated that the Mini Holland programme will reduce CO2 emissions by approximately 1,000 Tonnes per year (see Appendix G).

9.2 The Mini-Holland programme will contribute to achieving the objectives set out within the councils Air Quality Action Plan.

9.3 Climate Change & Sustainability Impact Assessment

9.4 There are no climate impact implications to water, waste, land or buildings. Decreased congestion is considered to be a benefit to air quality. Any increase

1 to 15 to 1

56 47 63 2 55 64 76 19 24 60 3

75 9 31 to 45 1 to 17

30 3 17

48 6

111 72

109 47

Theatre 70

26 to 40 to 26

1 36 25

13 90

2 867 47

Lake 56 Lake 1 859 16 857 21 54a 65 Government 53

66 23 Offices 48 54 98 to 84

849 2

63 60

68 to 82 to 68

38 Library

42 37

847 8 43

52 to 66 to 52 10

87 827 9 to 16 85

51 to 60 817 to 823 51

16 837 37 839

Calver 63

1 42

Garage 30 Court

53 37 13

42 8 to 1 10 32 Forest Road

36 Waltham Forest College El Sub Sta

26 25

742

813 14

63 25

25 31 61

1 to 114 13

20 16

Ward Bdy 740 St David's 46 5

2 42

18 43 Court 32

39 PH 46

20 13 42

22 18

805 24 43 41 19

Town Hall

36 1 28

Landscaping 13 Copenhagen crossing

Water House

14 13

33 795 13 76

39 Waltham Forest

37 9

Civic Centre College 2

54 CR 14 30 12

41 Woodside Junior Schools

15 Ward Bdy 59a

32 59 7

27 34

6 CR 29

13 24

73 2 30

23 Albion Road 23 Foresters 12

26 El Sub Sta 4 Hall 44 2

Hall 12 61 Abbeydale Court

24 55 15

13 El 31 2 Lloyd Park Lodge

Sub Sta 49 18 22

Proposed two-way Public Art 18 Pond 24

13 39

20 74

46 2 14

1 to 12 1 16 1a

PC 16

1 442

436 to 440 to 436 531 62

569 14

Lloyd Park House Shelter Courthouse 25 1 to 4

434 to 23 24

577a 1 12

13 52

456 16a 10 48

13 71 424 to 430 to 424 9 El Sub Sta 102 to 132

579 8 Parkstone Road Hagger

688

38 Court 28

2 6

32 45 4 77

30 4

422 1 589 Surgery

28 680 58 134 to 164 64

527 591 4 Shelter 6 to 11 2 to 5 Ross Wyld 2 18

Salvation Army Hall 14 to 24

529 2 13

2 674

34 603 1 Lodge 89 Beech Court

63 1 5 to 8 to 5

458 1a 57

507 8 166 to 196

76 Road closure with feature No entry 36 509 416 to 406 75 1 7

Shelter 7 23 31 26 to 32 15

38 615 658 Thorpe Coombe Hospital

487 57 60 402 59

489 The Bell Garage 86

16 53

14 2a

485 656a 35 (PH) 27

2b 19 70 Surgery

9 to 12 to 9

89 617 Shernhall 74 PO 9 41

37 29 21

1 to 22

60 to 70 390 66 50 Mills

20 617a 13

617b 62 21 Government Office

43 29 House

CR 619 15 23 39

644 El Sub Sta El 52

380 621

49 Ward Bdy 68

Ward Bdy Sub 13 48

83 Shelter

8 Shelter CR 16 to 2

378 1 to 8 Sta

4 70

5 24

656 30 3 3a 38 Shelter 637 Forest Road 1 1a

12 Howard

81 Street

58 13 Mansions 28 31 to 38 to 31

Junction improvements Hallingbury Court 74

Works

516 9 to 14 45

72 to 72

520

524 89

18 588

45 4 Howard Mansions 6

642 1 to 4

86 528

526 6

5 532 The Holy Family College 81

20 534

536

Club 574 Golden Parade

8 20

22 30 to 25

590

538

26a 560 71 24 11 YMCA Hostel 1 to 5 to 1 Clay Court 71 103 Wood Street 61

51 37 67

2 1 to 6

20b

176 16

18 26 193

Gilbert 82 1

50 Horne

Woodpecker House 5 to 8 13

18 to 40 to 18

2 to 6 to 2 Garage House House 78 19 to 24 to 19 53 9a 1

48 74 1 to 28 to 1 75

69 65 49

11a

5a 7a 5a 72

74 13e Kingdom

Works

65 Club 36 d 13

16 37 68

642a

Hall Chestnuts Court 1

13a 168 79

76 10 69 111

13b

26 59 16 to 11 42

183

63 Streetscape improvements 25

13c

640 1 to 9 13

1 to 16 111a 61 Wyatt's Lane

81 to Sher 25 48

46 El Sub Sta 4 House 83

St Gabriels 13 115

38 38

38 7 El

Health Centre Church 12 59 27 Avonfield Court 1 to 12 85

57 Sub Sta 1 48 1 2a 10 to 25

1a Church

87 26 36a 1 to 21 49b 50 PO

50 52 The 3 to 1 2 61 49a

Mace House Manning House Lodge 89

65a 49 2a Brandon Mission

54 56 58 36 14

86 The Drive

1 47

14 58 171 12 154 13

CR 330 to 316

64 228 to 214 9 2

64 Trinity Hancocke El Sub Sta 9 to 4 84 49

40 1 to 20 15

13 House House 350 to 332 20

91 230 to 248 to 230

1 to 12 to 1

Ward Bdy 66 12 to 1 Matthew

26 1

Court 127

26 37 to 26 31 1 PH

Cycle improvements 86

Brantwood Cl Ward Bdy 1a 21

1 to 10 2 3

83 1 to 22 Hatton

10 4 3a

10 to 15 to 10

3 5

70 56 Lodge

19a 2 5a

Gaitskell House Southgate House 13

58 212

Hurst Road 7

Fanshaw House 88

4 to

37 74 4

11 250 to 276 159 Aubrey Road 2 1 to 12 to 1 352 to 376 194 2 Falmer Road

78 1

17 Howard Road

101

41 11

Hoe Street 176 El Sub Sta 52 78a Trades Hall

and Institute St Peter's in the

16 to 27 to 16

42 14 13

37 to

12 St Mary's RC Trecola

80 28

158

138 9 Forest Vicarage

38 14 Bisterne Terrace Junior School 29

82 Bradwell House 114

14 8 33 12 to 1

73 24 23

132 7 394 to 412

61 to 63 to 61

294 to 314 19 49 6 5 139

69 1 to 18 30 Havant Road 71 Latham

House 32 100 25 121 109 84

19 36

Batten House 33 The 15

Works 13 102 43 37 Georgian

62 O'Grady 85

4 12 to 1 House Village

Boyden 4 1 to 22 to 1 2

2 The Drive House 102a 378 26 48

25 48 394 to Kendrick 51

102 278

4a 104 142

21 47 15 59

111 292 to to

43 59 to Church Centre

16 1 to 18 to 1 81 2 Doctors Surgery

53 2a

42 1 to 12 156

55 Surgery

58 9 57 63a 2a 50 Kimm House 178 98

13 118 to 75

40 41 40 El Sub Sta

137 192

151 110

19 17 53 1 to 18 3 114 7 62 Cedars 1 to 18 Prospect 116

6 House 45

135 House Byron Road 9 St Gabriel's Vicarage

1 119 13 8 70

El Sub Sta

Newton House 67 Warehouse

14 6 5

Shelter 133

131 90 38a Maple

Newton 13 Tower Hamlets Road House 30 to

House 44

42 100 34a 7 38

5 112 to

PH 114

1 to 27 to 1

65 52 35a 37

13 Hilltop 1 to 18 to 1

45 63

40a 1 18 to 1 77 43 40 124 to 110 El Sub Sta 2 52

50 Brown's Road 51 1 to 6

39 127 35

112 1a 7 23 41 94

1 38a 96 to

Goddarts House Gower 1 to 18 39 39

58 117 2

115 House 9

Sunday School 1 to 37

3 10

78 163 1 to 8 118

2 106

Turner Road 104

2 46 36

43 Walton

14 House 116 to

Ashburn 44 29

Works 36a 2

Hall 104b

114 Robin Court 119

10 to 17 to 10 117 120

10 72 Mallard 36 Court Villas 104a 52

St Luke's Church 1a 12 25

33 129 116

42 Powell Court Marlowe Road

48 105

103

1 116 115 1 to 18 to 1 El 40 2 to 28

114 1 to 10 74 to 98 1 to

Sub 8 Shernhall 140 29

29 Sta 114 122

37 Hall 92

Works 29 to

2 Poplars House 13 27

Alliston House 38 70 Seaford Road 26 to 18 St Peters 40 72

13 13

51 The Drive 28 12

1 Court

137 67 Shelter Passage 6 to 1 26

Richards Place 40 El Sub Sta

1 89 126

Community Centre 87 Duke's 175 46 42 St Mary's C of E 7 80

44 PH 78b 85 Prospect Hill

Church Primary School

26 17 128 5 78a Street 16 53 78

28 PH 68 109

17 1 to 10 Attlee Terrace

140

8a to 8f 54 to 20

1 to 28 130

2 145 48 81 59

2a 17 23 Temple House 28 to

Garage 346

Crosbie 324

to 4 18

14 150

55 107 130 56

30 El Sub Sta

House 185 13

57 13 2

31 24 STOCKSFIELD 62

15 11

60 6b

29 59 10 20

75 El

22 ROAD 13

53 189

St Mary's C of E Sub Sta 105

23 Primary School 21 147

73 6a 150

19 23 191

Alliston 324 to 149 54

61 63 151 1a 56

130 346

House 148

El Sub Sta 6 16 Duke's Passage

54 12

67 7 Nash House

164 1

59 67 1 to 37 153 1c

52 44

14 29 155b 1 1b

2 2

3 to 13 to 3 2 15

St Luke's El Sub Sta 102

25 26 12 El Sub Sta

348 to 370 152 Vicarage 1 38 1 to 12 1 to 28

31 to 41 1

138 1b 157 13 El Sub Sta 5 159

73 1 to 171 56 to 150

6 41 6

71 168 5 to 7 to 5 St Columbas Wood Street

1a 8 to 19 Crosbie House

20 to 22 to 20 61 8 Station Rectory Road House Pavilion 59 Attlee Terrace 36 Astins House

49 57 62 Works

2 41 228 to 322 163 133

2 to 17 18 2

305 28 12

90 149

39 1 to 205 40 86 71

121 to 131 to 121 152 165

81 33 4 to 1 131 8

46 to 80 to 46

148 16

76 119

1 to 6 26 to 23 Northwood 7 Milton Road

23 Howard Road 167

64 Tower

1 Wood Street

150

16 83 to 89 160 El Sub Sta Milton House The Drive 4

17 Community

Centre 15 54 15 Milton 169 4

39a 41 1 152 Court 46

37b 39 Albert Whicher House 107 50 Aubrey Road

1 47

48 27 37a 178

34 12 37 171 1 24

180 154

150

224 226 148

1b Wood Street Station 136 2 150

182 Wood Street

30 United Reformed 176

Church 2 91

40 95

2a 168

12 45 184 to 222 99 24

46 101

154 El Sub Sta 16

44 29 13 124

24 25 97 1 Prospect Hill

1 9 27 81

37 Church Hill Road

65 35

36 1 33

15 Marlowe Road

112 93

6 Playground

103 to 119 to 103

55 26a

162 13 17 Shelter PH 69 45 67 PH The 173 101

48 1c The Lindens 173

35 Children's Lord 23

40 98 29 87

25 Home Brooke

7 (PH)

57 100 58 14 75 96

8 13 41 Cairo Road 38 37 El Sub Sta

Works 90

172

32 13

18 to 24 to 18

9 177 77

36 1

51 45

1 92 to 82

1 16 2 86

26 2 to 8 to 2

26 11 1 to 54

34 to 10 to 13 33

109

10 Works 11 The Holy Family El Court 72

1 6 to 9 24 1 18 2 to 5 1 17

32 14 Sub Sta 17 to College 31

31 79 Walnut 33

37 66

181 74 20 to 64

19 25

2 28

40 111a 47 63

182 to Vallentin Road

109a 111

to 113 13

109 11 to 14 2 35 52

28 34 to

27 2 Westbury House 111

23 PH 62 24 49

23 48

12 to 15 to 12 Teresa

25 26 2a 40

Hatherley House to 1 to 11

Mews 1 107 42 115

13 51

Churchbank 8 Shelter

Ward Bdy 56

1 to 39 50

18 7 97 26

2 to

7 to 10

CR 117 Shirley 36 50

7 Courts

119 91 Cottage 14 93 The 36 12 The 195 to Nook

Ward Bdy

197 186a 121

10 Cinema

1 to 26 77 34 190

123 2

84 21

1 to 6 1 23 Kevan 186b

12 Hoe Street 73 Woodview

13 24 Court Court

Church Hill 1 to 12 39 East eld Road

13 15 59

Vicarage Fairways 1c 117 1 to 32

20 Vinegar Alley 61 48

129 Baptist Church Hill 18 Barrett Road 48a 13 2

Chuch 1b 1 54 El Sub Sta Hall

205

11 22 14 52 Pavilion

1 85 to 95 65 3 1 Bank 192 to 188 5 80

33 The School 4 36

Sorting Electric House 31 Lodge 41 to 33

48 26

13 7 to 14 Factory 3

24 Alley 60 209

24 Office

36 67 Greenacre Gdnsto 57

6 6 10 Alfred Villas

31 42 5 El 4 Vinegar 94 29 3 Warwick Boys Sub Church Church Lane 5

194 to 200 to 194 2

65 to 83 School 29 33 Sta Browning Close Central Parade 1 Shernhall Street 1

27 2 Monoux Almshouses 7

17 28 73 46 105 43 56 to 42

26 8 West

17 8 28 32

97 7

56 El 7 Court 1 to 18 78 215 Walthamstow 53 to 63 11

5 Sub Sta 202 10

18 26

29 8 48 25 36

9 27

32 El Sub Sta School for Girls 16 Church Hill 24 Dane Court 19 9 30 41

1 to 6 54 1

40 19 38 Wood Street

39 33 to 51 10 45

20 31

1 38 44 Tabernacle 49

31 Tylers Court 2

43 14

53 21 21 2 32

37 West Court 4 42 29 46

11 to 15 to 11 33

34 31 19

35 36 36 Bank

Woodbury Road 96 55 1 11 Ross Wyld Hall 12 St Mary's Church 46 10 15 16 17 13 Brook eld Avenue 13 5 14 8 44 19 4 9 12 Warwick Boys School Depot

Club Works 53

8 42 Hall 2 10 15 1a 6

42 22

55 53 14 1 to 10 to 1 1 3a

Blacksmiths House 9 2a El Sub Sta

55 18 45

220

4 21 13 to 18 to 13 2 3

Folkestone Road 2

1 23 229 60

6 4 6 9 44 El 10

13 44 Sub Sta

43 235

1 15

36 10

12 8 33

61 to 78 to 61 84

17 Offices Church Lane

33 6

2 Government and Municipal

35a

37a

265 West Avenue Road 13

13 to 18 Merchants Lodge El Sub Sta 5

141 12 20

43 1 to 11 to 1

18 29 CR

11 29

15 263 20

1 to 6 to 1 12 15a 1 to 4 Holmfield 143 243

6 Courts 35 Youth

58 Wood Street 22 5 House

Centre

145 4 230

12 7

261 234 2

228

44 32 34

49 St Mary's 23

224 10

212 74

63 Works

147 222

10 77

33 4

1 to 6 to 1 245

5 to 8

259 to Infants School

218 Depot 2 to 6 to 2

Bank 220

10 47 32

149 43 20 6 Job Centre 216 Church Hill

6 2

Stainforth Road 1 to 4

255 234 36

3 21

214

59 12

2 Nursery 60 6 2 253 36

251 School 83 Burns Close 3

208

249 Church End 1a 17

5 19

Bank 1 20 1a 1 The 9 to 12 42

27 Und

241 18 Chestnuts 5 Factory 59 Barrett Road 26

155 34 1

21 1 1 51

240 247 to 253

Folkstone Road 7 93 Works

Hall Squire's Almshouses 32 13 44

62 23

224

52 18 Chestnut Avenue North 19 227 Evangelical Church 16 to 14

225 13 32a 49 17

223 12a 7 to 99 95

Works 24 221 Works 34a 161 73 27 219 7a 26 Spiritualist 47

13a National 72 7 34 250 to 242

Library El 54

163 Church 13b 14 Vestry House 7b Sub Ravenswood Road 10 to 20

101

165 2 Sta 215 15

211 24 11a Museum 13 11 10 213 5 to 8 PH Industrial Estate Kingfisher Nightingale

207 Church Path 85 12

5b 1b 9

13 Court 5 64 Court 200 198 200 3 4 to 1

209 167 Surgery 1a 40

Works 3 a 42 23 5a

196 Depot 11 203 14

10 2 2 1 50

257 to 273

169 Brooke Road 39 20 236

201 Bank 3b

56 to 61 to 56 6 8 6

188 14

1 to 9 37 6 Greville Road

186 171 3a

107 16 184 26

24 35 2 1b

173 41 Palace Parade 256 3

14 1 1 to 27 36

El Sub Sta 4 84

1a 16

175 40 1 55 to 50

1 to 9 to 1 Pelly Court 12

176 Road

66 32

22 19

13 Factory Hayward 2 Hainault Court

House Roland

88 St Mary Road 11 7 to 12 49 to 44 2

166 1

30 27 1 to 7 to 1 13 to 18

109 Evelyn Road 28

58 3 1 to 6

7 25

7a 12

248 9 29

8 275

1 to 6 to 1 CF

23 38 to 43 to 38 Works 64 25

66 19 22a

23 268 21 14 2 Rosslyn Road

187 72 17

El Sub Sta 37 to 32 24 Holmcroft House 28 22 Warwick Boys

254 74 23

35 29 School 15

121 76 41 13 St Mary's FW 1 to 30 CF El Sub Sta 13

13 34 94

14 Church House 41

3 20 51 1 Ward Bdy 3

Hillside 20

1 to 12

Def 1 15 18 21 13

80 to 84 St Mary Road 8 61 23 1 El

40 10 13 6 72 13 Roland 14 11 38 28 15 Sub

PCs 43 30 59 264

71 26 Sta

12 36 27 45 1 CR PH 45a 131 13 FW Clock 25 Boro Const and Ward Bdy

25 El Holland Court 2 32 81 1 45d

Sub Sta 14 House 37

6 18 Emberson House 3 CF

1 2 1

28 1

St Mark's House 39 5 16

6 Road

1 to 18 12 13 to 23 43 to 45 to 43

FW 2 18 104

16 6

1 to 12 to 1

24 37

38 1

Surgery 41 1

16 39 53

21 141

36 71 Amenia 17 Pond

14c 48

18 Cottage Depot CF 37

17 29

41 37 43 to 45 to 43

24 to 35 to 24 1 27 31

1to18 32

21 88 270 11 19 63

2 to 12 171 1 Clock 17 159 25 147 32 Pond

Depot CF Church of Our Lady House 2 to 12 St Mark's House 34

23 Works 21 153 Oliver Road 37

Community 23a Emberson House

13 16 1

and St George 69 11

Centre 18 25 Clinic

13 46

23 77 38 Council Offices 90 28

35 8 1

El Sub Sta 272 43 PO 1 Shern Hall 35 to 41 43a 20 4

1 94

CP 32 Methodist

43b 4 5 8 5 37

122 43c 20 Garage 277

1 2 Church 110 39

2 Works

41 Nursery Presbytery

Day 279 14 to 19 3 Def 22 33 2 Chestnut Avenue South

Ward Bdy Berthon Gardens 10 45 283

CR 34

2d 285

Walthamstow Central Station El 12 4

6 47 Henry Maynard 27

Sub Sta Works 1 173

23 Junior School 25 Dellwood

91 30 1 to 7 to 1

32 Surgery Shernhall Street Wood Street

40 281

278 Nita Villa 10 Hall Bank 38 Works 7 Henry Maynard

2 St Helen's

175 Pond 13 34 PH

280 1 to 25 Nursery Infants School

16 59 1

42 166 124

282 18 Ferndale Avenue 57 3

Felix

Court 20 Ward Bdy 22 9

284 1 1 287 1 to 124 Thomas 2 13 Court

2 22 El Sub Stas

4 9 1 to 11 to 1 103

71 Nursery 174

2 289 St GeorgesCourt 2 1 to 4

12 1 to 5 Whipps Cross House 4a 185

83 13 4

16 1 to 22 81 12 13

1 1 to 24

286 16

6 to 2 127

19 44 6 69 Chalmers House 129 12

24 288 39 1 to 7

136 1 Beuleigh

15 1 13 to 20 34 5 to 8 to 5 Village 125 CP 13

223 2 176 Court

73 12 7 Court

1 195 115 31 Marsh Street 14 15

73 16

36 23

20 to 31 225 36 United Reform 142 195a 13 and Trinity 9

95 Club 13

25 St Helen's RC 180 34a 46 18 to 20 23 115

37 111 1 227

10 66

290 to 298 to 290 Church 38a Infants School 195b

97 to 107

1 to 6 to 1 14 180a

48 23 5 to 8

21 to 29 to 21

61 to 71 to 61 Works

38 CR 25 56 105 Boro Const and Ward Bdy

13 130

24 21

32 to 37 to 32

46 300

35 99 125

60 1 to 4 1

38 22 13 150

125

49 to 59 to 49 91

43 60 152

34 El Sub Sta

11 118

El 45 1 304

15 3 Sub Sta 81 55

3 79a

15 Jacqueline Villas 22

239 77 27 79

2 14 15 45 57

104

13 2a 21 43

37 to 47 72 1 to 8

12 2 35

Walthamstow Queen's Road Station 50 69 El Sub Sta

Hastingwood Court 29 35 22

14 74 Ellis

2 61 19 2 89 13 37b

306 308 1 to 21 14 House

15 17 24 92

9 51 16 to 9 11

44 1

82 5 891 24 1 1 49 3

310

243

25 80 Raglan Road 2 17 90

18 37

7 60

34 4 2 149

13 CP 8 36 1 to 12

52 25 137

97 1 to 25 Vinewood

14 12 10 64 1 to 11 to 1 Jane

125 Court

1d 44 1

62 to 66 to 62 Sabina 13

316 1 to 2a

Harriet 8 6 54

25 1

13 251

Horatio6 to 1 House Collard's

3 3 877

5 199 1c Lodge Raglan

318 20

54 3 Almshouses Ellen Miller House

44 1 to 12 1 Court

56 45 111

Gresham Lodge 68 84 207

9 1

2 2 TA Centre

320 322

7 4 1 to 12 to

2 PH 13

1b 201 El Tom Smith 39 2a

Kelway House 74 House

32 60 99 865

70 Sub Sta

El Sub Sta 31 106 75b

11 20 1a

1 859

324

31a 3 PO Surgery 75a 60

2 Hall

7 Ecclesbourne 14

51 to 33 25 326 10 87

Ward Bdy

2 El a 83

El Sub Sta 33a 8 5a 231 10

Sub Sta 8a

261

Surgery 77 48 2a

2 Hall 61 6

1 to

Garage 1

35 225

4 75

16 70

16a 4a 10 4

CentralChurch Baptist 6

26 18

1 35a Eastern Road Algoa 2b 2a

38 2 37 1a 12 96 34

20 14

37 2 104 2 1 16 Garage

39 16 63

21 6 Warwick Terrace 2

39 26 10

13 Village 21a 1

18a 34 63 4

42 32 65 101 9

Court 18

36 8 12

44 51 16a 208 15 328

263 15

265 11

21 14 210 17 28

67 37 212 10 330 Lea Bridge Road 1

29 PH 214

3 5 96 103 2 1 Appendix Ai

267

31 112 47 2

332 16

103a 28a

Shelter 25 2 105 1 26 69 4 14

116 82

13 18

13 11

28b

41 334 13

23 39

PH 10 235

7 to 2a 15 15 14a

11 817 to 823 888

336 18

886

38 124 237

9 4 47 26

El Sub Stas

119 28 2

17 1 28

86 23

277 132

12 77 3

2 57

50 6

14 23 Hollow Pond

13 1

49 to 71

El Sub Sta 1

127 815 239

16 27 28

22 94 15

31 30

13 47 8 1

13 32 6

876 23

62 1 2

1 to 8 10

135 10 37 807 Garage

79 134 64a 13 Orchard Court

17 38a 2

159 Garage

76 64

29a 74 14

29 8

7 5 161

1 to 8 to 1

8 to 8

14 37

74a 145 32 39

55 216

18 218 797 13 13

8 3

104 2a

18 25 29

350 36 Acorn 86 155 27

8a 20 2b Lodge

38 11

1 59 23 789 1 to 6 to 1

860 2 CP

2 40 74

2 Lodge 33 1 26

285

19 6 147 El Sub Sta 54 37

787 856 93 100 55 21 5 12 23 14a 785

19a

25 241

114 Lime Court

45 to 74 13

102 14b 12

69 8 65 14 41

62 43 29

25 854

84 30 33

8 1 to 6 95 El Sub Sta 73 22

112 Factory

1 1a 28 The 38

56 39 1 to 30 to 1

287 Chestnut 35

1 7 to 12 58 3a

75 6 5 Tree

32 Queens Court 1 122 68a 79

35 1 356 (PH)

66 18 7 842

81 240 13 to 44 83 103

358 242 El Sub Sta 68 59 8

34 Park Court 25

6 289 92 70 40

50 38 43 755a

93 291 Sub Sta 1 50 40 35

1 to 8 74 98 El Club Skinner 2 43 753 to

2 Shelter 42 755

293 Julia Court

Court 80

11 12

7 830

78 69a Drain

31 to 44 to 31

42 10 11 2 69

51 48 729 to 751 13

104

1 10

28 46 123

80 to 90

40 15 10 364 125 127 53

9 to 12 to 9 119 121 135 244 PO to 21 246

16 32 39

48 1 53 248 820

to CR 36 38a 1 250 19

143

3 12 1 PH

59 117 191 Boro Const and Ward Bdy 20

36 Govt 115 193 74 4

4 to 9 Government

Office 12 75

79 17 77 Ward Bdy 151 27

Surgery 181 13 Office 35

120 64 62 Harvey 85 PO

173 113 808

66 29 Court 27

3 71 75 77 79 81

107 116 56

11 61

376 85 42 153 171 62 46 1 87 2 105 161

1 to 6 to 1 Selwyn 103 CR 10 23 806 to 800

69a 95 101 53 Whipps Cross

Court 22

El Sub Sta 37

7 to 12 to 7 69 97

8 68 295 to 299 108

5 Hospital

24 134 6

1 67 51

13 71 55 88 50

5 2

74 2 96

47 2

794 106 78 24 to 13 146

378 Garage 44 to 48

104

22 65 1 138

1 41

PW 62 Register 32 PH g 41

49 42

2 56 to 60 to 56 104

104 Office

d 48 60

1 86 1 727a 63

301 104

380 55

13 54

382

12 784 58

50b

65 2b 31 12

57 Claypole

88 384 45 53

50a

60 30

1 Court 46

7 to 12 to 7

44a El 386 307

2 Warehouse Sub Sta 1 to 6 to 1 St Stephens 65

388 35 67a

2 53

96 21

2 Church 38 Works

67 774 41 13

13 to 24 to 13

4 38

2 22 18 Vicarage 40 9 52 2 69 15 27

309 14 727 16

4 23 39 104 39

1 to 15 to 1

47 63 56 55 64 2 76 19 24 60 3

75 9 1 to 17

3 31 to 45

30 17

6 48

111 72

109 47

Theatre 70

26 to 40 to 26

1 36 25

13 90 2 867 47

19 Lake 56 Lake 1 859 21 16 65 857 54a Government 53

66 23 Offices 48 54 98 to 84

849 2

63 60

68 to 82 to 68

38 Library

42 37

43 847 66 to 52 87

9 to 16 10 85 827

51 to 60 817 to 823 51 16 837

37 839

1 Calver 42 Garage 30 Court

1 to 8 to 1 13 37

42 10 32 Forest Road

36 Waltham Forest College El Sub Sta

26 25

742

813 14

63 25

25 13 31 61

1 to 114 20 16

Ward Bdy 740

46 St David's 5

2 42

18 43

32 Court

39 PH 46

20 13 42

22 18

805 24 43 41 19

Town Hall 36

1 28

Landscaping 13 Copenhagen crossing

Water House

14 13

33 795 13 76

37 Waltham Forest 9

Civic Centre College 2

54 CR 14 30 12

41 Woodside Junior Schools

15 Ward Bdy 59a 32

8 59 7

27 34

6 CR 29

13 24

73 2 30

23 Albion Road 23 Foresters

28 63

4 26 El Sub Sta

44 2

Hall 12 Hall 61 Abbeydale Court 2

24 55

15 13 31 2 El Lloyd Park Lodge 49

Sub Sta 18 22

22 Proposed two-way Public Art 18

24 Pond

13 39

74 20

14 1 2 1 to 12 16 1a

PC 16 35

442 1

436 to 440 to 436 531 62

569 14

Lloyd Park House Shelter 1 to 4 434 Courthouse 25

to 23

24 1 577a 12 52

456 16a 10 48

13 71 424 to 430 to 424 9 El Sub Sta 102 to 132

579 8 Parkstone Road Hagger 688 38

Court 28

2 6

32 45 4 77

422 589 Surgery 1

680 58

4 134 to 164 6 to 11

18 2 to 5 527 591 2 Shelter

Salvation Army Hall Ross Wyld 14 to 24

529 2 13

2 674 34

603 1

Lodge 89 Beech Court

5 to 8 to 5 458 1

1a 57

507 8 166 to 196

Road closure with feature No entry 36 509 416 to 406 75 1 7

Shelter 7 23 31

15 26 to 32

38 615 658 Thorpe Coombe Hospital

17 57 487 402 60

Garage 59

489 The Bell 86

16 53

14 2a

485 656a 35 27 (PH) 2b 19

70 Surgery 9 to 12 to 9 617 Shernhall 74 89 PO 9 41

37 29

1 to 22 390 60 to 70

66 50 Mills

20 617a

13 62 21 617b 43 Government Office 29 House

619 15 23 39 CR 644

380 El El Sub Sta

49 621

Ward Bdy 68

Ward Bdy Sub 13 48

CR Shelter 16 to 2

378 8

Shelter 1 to 8 Sta

2 5

656 30 3 3a 38 Shelter 637 Forest Road 1a

12 Howard 1

81 Street 58 13

28 Mansions 38 to 31

Junction improvements 74 Hallingbury Court

516 Works 45

9 to 14

72 to 72 1

520

33 18

524 89

588

18 45

4 6

Howard Mansions 642

1 to 4

528

86 526 6

5 532 The Holy Family College

20 534 81

574 536

Golden Parade 8 Club 20

22 30 to 25

590 12

538

73 7 560

26a 11 71 24 to 1 YMCA Hostel Clay Court 1 to 5 71 103 Wood Street 61 51

37 2 67

1 to 6 20b

176 16 73

18 26 193 to

1 Gilbert

Horne 5 to 8

Woodpecker House 40 to 18 23 78

2 to 6 to 2 Garage House 19 to 24 to 19 9a 1 House 53 74

48 1 to 28 to 1 75

69 65 49 55

11a

5a 7a 5a 72

to 74 13e

Works Kingdom 65

13 d 13 Club 36 16

37 68

642a

Chestnuts Court 1 13a Hall

168 79 10

76 111 13b 69

59 16 to 11 26 42

31 9

183

63 Streetscape improvements 25

13c

640 1 to 9 13

1 to 16 111a 61 Wyatt's Lane

81 to Sher 25 48

46 4 El Sub Sta 83 House

St Gabriels 13 115 4

38 38 38

7 El Health Centre Church 12

59 27 1 to 12 85 Avonfield Court 57 1 Sub Sta 1

48 2a 10 to 25 62 Church 1a 26

87 36a 1 to 21 49b 50

50 52 The PO 3 to 1 2 61 49a

Mace House Manning House Lodge 89

65a 49 2a Brandon Mission 58 54 56 14 36

86 The Drive

14 1 171 47 13

58 CR 154 330 to 316 12 49

214 to 228 to 214

9 64 2

64 9 to 4

Trinity 84 49 Hancocke El Sub Sta

15 40 1 to 20 350 to 332

13 House 20 House 248 to 230 1 to 12 to 1 91

Ward Bdy 66 12 to 1 Matthew

26 1 127

Court 37 to 26 26 31

50 1 PH 86 Cycle improvements 1a

Brantwood Cl Ward Bdy

21 1 to 10 3

45 2 83 10 1 to 22 Hatton 3a

10 to 15 to 10

3 5

70 56 Lodge

19a Gaitskell House Southgate House 13 2

212 58

Hurst Road 7 88

Fanshaw House 9

4 19

37 74 4

11 82

159 2 250 to 276 1 to 12 to 1 Aubrey Road 194

352 to 376

2 Falmer Road 1

17 Howard Road

101

11 41

Hoe Street 176 52 78a Trades Hall El Sub Sta

and Institute St Peter's in the

16 to 27 to 16

42 13

14 to 37 1

12 St Mary's RC Trecola 28 80 158 138 9

38 14 Forest Vicarage Junior School 29 Bisterne Terrace

82 Bradwell House 114 14 8

33 12 to 1

23 7 24 132

394 to 412

61 to 63 to 61

19 49 294 to 314 6 5 139

69 1 to 18 Havant Road

71 Latham 30 100

House 32 25 121 109 84

72 19

36 33

Batten House The 15

102 Works 43

37 Georgian 85

62 12 to 1 O'Grady

House Boyden Village 4 1 to 22 to 1 2

2 The Drive House 102a 378 26 48

25 48 394 to Kendrick 51 102

278

27 104

4a 47

21 15 142 59

111 292 to to 43

59 to Church Centre

16 1 to 18 to 1 81 2 Doctors Surgery 53 2a

42 1 to 12 156

55 Surgery

58 9 57 63a

2a 50 Kimm House 178 13 98

118 75 to

40 41 40 El Sub Sta

137 192

110 151

19 17 53 1 to 18 3 114 62 7 Cedars Prospect 116 1 to 18

6 House 45

Byron Road 135 House

9 St Gabriel's Vicarage 1

1 15 119

13 8 70 Newton House 67 Warehouse El Sub Sta

14 6 5

Shelter 133

131 90 38a Maple

Newton 13 Tower Hamlets Road House 30 to

House 44

100 34a

7 42 38

5 112 to

PH 114

1 to 27 to 1 65

52 35a 37 13

1 to 18 to 1

45 Hilltop

1 to 18 to 1 63

40a 1 77 43 40 124 to 110 2

El Sub Sta 52

50 Brown's Road 51

39 127 1 to 6

1a 112 23 7 41 94

1 38a 96 to

Goddarts House Gower 1 to 18 39

39 117

58 115 House 2 9

1 to 37

Sunday School 3 10

1 78

163 106 1 to 8 118 2 104

2 Turner Road 46 36

43 Walton 66

14 House 116 to

Ashburn Works 2 29

36a 104b 114 Hall 17 to 10 Robin Court 119

10 120 117

72 Mallard 36 104a

Villas 52 Court

St Luke's Church 1a 12 33 25 129

42 Powell Court Marlowe Road 116

48 105 103

40 116 115 1 to 18 to 1

El 2 to 28 74 to 98

114 1 1 to 10 to

8 Sub Shernhall

140 29

29 114

Sta 122

Hall 37 92

Works 29 to

2 Poplars House 13 27

Alliston House 38 70

Seaford Road 26 to 18 St Peters

40 13 13

31 51

The Drive 28

1 Court

137 6 to 1 67 Passage 26 Shelter

40 El Sub Sta

Richards Place1

89 126

Community Centre 87 175 Duke's 80

46 42 St Mary's C of E 7

1 PH 78b

44 85 Prospect Hill

Church

Primary School 78a 17 128

26 Street 16 5 53 78 28 68 109

PH 17 1 to 10 Attlee Terrace

140

8a to 8f 54 to 20

1 to 28 130 72

145 48

2 81

17 23 to

2a Garage 28 Temple House 346 64 19 324

to 18 Crosbie 150

14 55 56 107

130

30 El Sub Sta House 13 185 2

57 13 31

24 STOCKSFIELD 62

15 11

60 6b

29 59 10 20

75 El

13 ROAD

53 St Mary's C of E 189 105 23 Sub Sta

21 Primary School 147

6a 150 19 23 191 54

324 149 61 Alliston to

63 151

1a 56 130 346 148

El Sub Sta House

16 Duke's Passage 6

54 7 12

67 17 Nash House 164

67 153

59 1c 1 to 37 15

52 44

1b 29 155b 1

2 13 to 3 2 2 15

El Sub Sta 102

25 26 St Luke's 12 14 El Sub Sta

348 to 370 152 Vicarage 1 1 to 28 38

1 to 12 31 to 41 1

138 1b 13 157

5 El Sub Sta 159 73 1 to 171 56 to 150

6 41 6

168 71 7 to 5 Wood Street

1a 8 to 19 St Columbas Crosbie House 20 to 22 to 20

61 Rectory Road House 8 Station Pavilion 59 Attlee Terrace 36 Astins House

49 57 62

2 41 Works 228 to 322 163 133

18 2 to

92 28 90 12 305

1 to 205 149 86 40

39 71

121 to 131 to 121

1 to 4 to 1 152 165

8 131

33 80 to 46 148 76 16

1 to 6 26 to 23 Northwood 119

7 Milton Road

Howard Road 167

23 64

1 Tower Wood Street 150

16 83 to 89

Milton House The Drive 4 160 El Sub Sta 17 Community

54 Centre 15 Milton 15 169 4

41 1

152 39a Court 46

37b 39 107 50 Aubrey Road Albert Whicher House

1 48

27 178 34 37a 7

12 37 171 1

154

180 a 150

26 148 22 224 226 1b

150 Wood Street Station 136

2 182 Wood Street

30 United Reformed 176

2 91

40 Church 95

2a 168 93

12 45 184 to 222 99

24 101

154

16 El Sub Sta 44

29 13 124

24 1 Prospect Hill 25 97 1 9 27 81

37 Church Hill Road

65 35

1 36 15 33 Marlowe Road 112

55 26a 119 to 103 Playground 14

162 17 13 Shelter 69 45 67 PH PH The 173

48 101 1c The Lindens 173

35 Children's Lord 23 98 29 40 87

25 Home Brooke

(PH) 57 100 58 14 75 96

8 41 13 Cairo Road 38 37 El Sub Sta

172 Works 15

32 13

18 to 24 to 18

9 177 77

36 1

35 to 10 51

82 to 92 to 82 45

1 1 86

16 16 2

26 2 to 8 to 2

11 1 to 54 26 80

34 to 10 to 13

33 109

11 Works El The Holy Family Court 72 1 6 to 9

24 1 18 2 to 5 1 17 14 32 Sub Sta 17 to 31

79 College

31 Walnut 33

37 66 74 64 181 20 to

2 25 28

40 111a 63

182 to 47 Vallentin Road 109a

to 111 113 13 89

109 2 11 to 14 35 52

28 34 to 27 2 Westbury House 111

23 62 PH 49 24 48

12 to 15 to 12 Teresa

26 25 40 to 2a Hatherley House 1 to 11

Mews 1 107 13 42 115

Churchbank 51

8 Shelter

Ward Bdy 56

1 to 39 50

18 7 26

2 to 97 7 to 10

CR 117 Shirley 36 50

7 Courts

119 14 91 93 CottageThe 36 12 The 195 to Nook

Ward Bdy

197

186a 121 10

Cinema 1 to 26 77 34 190 123 2

84 21

1 to 6 1 23 Kevan 186b

12 Hoe Street 73 Woodview

13 24 Court

Church Hill 1 to 12 Court 39 East eld Road

13 15 59 Fairways

1c Vicarage 117

20 Vinegar Alley 1 to 32 129 61 48

Baptist Church Hill 18 Barrett Road 48a

13 1b 2

Chuch 1

54 El Sub Sta Hall

205 11 22 52 1 14 85 to 95 65 3 1 Pavilion

Bank 192 to 188 5 80

33 The School 36 4

Sorting Electric House 31 Lodge 41 to 33

15 48 26 13 3 7 to 14 60 Factory

24 Alley 209

24 Office 36 67 Greenacre Gdnsto 57

6 6 10 Alfred Villas

31 42 5 El 4 Vinegar 94 29 3 Warwick Boys

Church Lane 5

194 to 200 to 194 Sub Church

2 65 to 83 School 29 33 Sta Browning Close

Central Parade 1 Shernhall Street

27 2 1 28 7

Monoux Almshouses 73

17 46

43 56 to 42 105 26 8

West

8 28 32 7 97 56 7 El Court 1 to 18 Walthamstow 53 to 63 78 215

202 11

5 Sub Sta 10

18 26 29 8

48 36 25 9

32 27 16 Church Hill 24 El Sub Sta School for Girls Dane Court

19 9 30 41 54

1 to 6

40 1 38 19 Wood Street 39

10 45 33 to 51

20 31

1 38 44

49 Tabernacle

Tylers Court 2 14

43 2

53 21

32 21

37 4 42 46

4 West Court 29

11 to 15 to 11 33

31 19 36 36 35 Bank

Woodbury Road 96

1 55 11 Ross Wyld Hall 12 St Mary's Church 46 10 15 16 Brook eld Avenue 17 13 13 5 14

8 44 19 4 9 12 Warwick Boys School Depot

Club Works 7 53 Hall 8 42 2 10 15 1a 6

42 22 55 53 14

1 to 10 to 1 1 3a

Blacksmiths House 9 El Sub Sta

55 18 2a 45

220

13 to 18 to 13 Folkestone Road 2 3

1 2 229

60 6 4 6 23 44

9 El 10

14 13

44 Sub Sta

43 235

1 10

36 15

12 8 33

61 to 78 to 61 84

17 Church Lane Offices 6

2 33

Government and Municipal 35a

37a

265 West Avenue Road 13

13 to 18 Merchants Lodge El Sub Sta 5

141 20

43 1 to 11 to 1 20 18 29

11 CR

15 29 1 to 6 to 1 263 20 12

15a 1 to 4 Holmfield 143 243

6 Courts 35 Youth 58

22 Wood Street

5 House

230 Centre 145 12 4

261 234 7 2

228

44 34

32 21 224

St Mary's 10 23

212 74

147 63

222 Works

33 77

1 to 6 to 1 4 245

259 to 5 to 8 218 Infants School

2 to 6 to 2

220 Depot

Bank 10 32

61 43 47 216 149 6

Job Centre Church Hill 20 2

6 1 to 4

Stainforth Road 234

255 36 3

214

59 21

60 12 2 6 2 253 Nursery 36

251 83 Burns Close

208

School Church End 1a

249 17 5 1 19

20 1

Bank 1a The 42 27 9 to 12

241 Und 18 5 Factory Chestnuts

59 Barrett Road 26

155 34

1 1

240

21 1 247 to 253 51

7 93

Folkstone Road 13

Hall Squire's Almshouses Works 32 44

62 23

224

51 33

18 52 Chestnut Avenue North 19

Evangelical Church 16 to 14 227 32a

225 49 17

223 7 12a to 99

Works 95 24 221 Works 34a 27 161 73 7a 26 219 47

Spiritualist National 72

242 to 250 to 242 7

Library 13a El 54 34

163 Church 13b 14 Vestry House 7b Sub Ravenswood Road

10 to 20

165 2 101 15 Sta 215 24

211 11a Museum 13 11 10 5 to 8

213 Church Path PH Industrial Estate Kingfisher Nightingale

207 12 85

5b 1b 9 13 64 Court 200 198 200 5 Court4 to 1 167 3 Surgery

209 1a 40

Works 42

23 a 5a 3 196

14 11 Depot 203 50

10 2 1 2 40

169 Brooke Road 257 to 273 39 236

20 Bank 3b

201 37 56 to 61 to 56 6 8 6

188 14 37 6 1 to 9 Greville Road

186 171 3a 107 16 184

26 24 35 2 1b

173 41

Palace Parade 256 3

14 1 36

1 to 27 4 84

1a El Sub Sta 16

175 1 55 to 50

1 to 9 to 1 40 Pelly Court

176 12 Road

22 19 13

Factory Hayward 2 Roland Hainault Court

44 to 49 to 44

House 88 11 2

166 St Mary Road 7 to 12 1

30 27

1 to 7 to 1 13 to 18

109 28

58 3 Evelyn Road 1 to 6

7a 12 25

9 31

248 29

25 13

275

1 to 6 to 1 23 CF 43 to 38 Works 64 25

66 19 22a

23 268 21 14 2 Rosslyn Road

187 72 17 19 32 to 37 to 32

24 El Sub Sta Holmcroft House 28 22 Warwick Boys

254 74 23

35 29 School 15

15 76 41 13 121 1 to 30 St Mary's CF FW El Sub Sta 13

13 94

14 34 41

3 Church House 20 51 1 Ward Bdy 3 Hillside 20 1 to 12

Def 80 to 84 St Mary Road 1 15 18 21 13 61 8 23 1 40 10 El

72 13 13 6 Roland

14 11 28 15 Sub

38 PCs 43 59 264 30 71

12 26 Sta 36 27 45 1 CR PH 45a 131 13

FW Clock Boro Const and Ward Bdy

25 25

El 2 81 32 1 45d Holland Court

Sub Sta 14 House

6 37 18 3 CF Emberson House

1 2 1

28 1

St Mark's House 5 39 16

6 Road

12 13 to 23

43 to 45 to 43 1 to 18 2 18

FW 104

6 16

1 to 12 to 1

24 37 38 1

41 1 Surgery 16

39 53

14 23

21 141 Amenia 36 17 71 Pond

86 14c 48

18 Cottage Depot CF 37

17 29

41 37 43 to 45 to 43

24 to 35 to 24 1

27 31 1to18 32

21 88 270 19 63

2 to 12 1 11 Clock

17 159 171 25 147 32 Pond Depot CF Church of Our Lady House

2 to 12 St Mark's House 34

23 Works 21 153 Oliver Road 37

23a

13 Community 16 1 Emberson House

69 11 and St George

18 25

Centre Clinic 13 46

23 77

38 90

Council Offices 28

35 8 1 El Sub Sta 272 43 PO 1 35 to 41 43a Shern Hall

20 1 4 94 CP 32 Methodist

43b 4 5 8

5 122 37

43c 20 277 110 Garage 1 2 39

21 Church

2 Works

40 41 Nursery Presbytery

279

14 to 19 Day 3 Def 22 33 2 Chestnut Avenue South

Ward Bdy Berthon Gardens 10 45 283

CR 34

2d 285

12 4

Walthamstow Central Station 47

El 6

27 1 Henry Maynard Sub Sta 173 Works 25

23 Junior School Dellwood 91 30

1 to 7 to 1 Shernhall Street

Surgery Wood Street 40 32

281 278

10 Nita Villa Bank 38 Hall Works 7 Henry Maynard

2 St Helen's 34 175 Pond 13 PH

280 1 to 25 Nursery Infants School

59 16 1

166 124 42 18

282 Ferndale Avenue 57 3

Felix 20

22 Court Ward Bdy 9

284 1 287 1 to 124 1 Thomas 2 13 Court

22 El Sub Stas

2 4

1 to 11 to 1 9 71 103

Nursery 174

2 St Georges 2 289 Court 12 1 to 4

1 to 5 4a 185 Whipps Cross House

83 13 4

16 1 to 22 81 12 13

1 1 to 24

286

16 2 127 6 to

19 44 6

129 12 288 69 Chalmers House

24 39 1 to 7

136

1 15 Beuleigh 13 to 20 34 5 to 8 to 5 1 Village 125 CP 13

223 2 176 73 12 Court

7 Court

195 31 Marsh Street 1 14 115 15

73 36 16

23 36 20 to 31 225 142 195a 13 United Reform and Trinity 9

95 Club 13

180 34a 25 46 St Helen's RC 23 115

18 to 20 37 1 227 111

10 66 290 to 298 to 290 Church 195b

97 to 107 38a Infants School

1 to 6 to 1

14 180a

48 23 5 to 8

21 to 29 to 21

61 to 71 to 61 38 Works 56 CR 25 105 Boro Const and Ward Bdy

13 130

24 21

32 to 37 to 32

32 46 35 300 125

60 1 to 4 99 1

38 22 13 150

125

49 to 59 to 49

43 91

60 152 34

El Sub Sta 118 45 11

1 El 304

15 3 Sub Sta 81 55

3 79a

15 Jacqueline Villas 22

239 77 27 79

2 14 15 45 57

104

13 2a 21 43 1 to 8

37 to 47 72 12 2 35

Walthamstow Queen's Road Station 50 69 El Sub Sta Hastingwood Court 29

35 14 22

74 2 61 Ellis 2 89 19

13 14 37b

306 308 1 to 21 House 17

24 92 15 9 51 16 to 9 11

44 1 5 24 1 82 1 49 3 891

310

243

25 80 Raglan Road

2 17

2 18 37

93 7

34 4 2 149 68

13 CP 8 36 1 to 12

52 25

97 1 to 25 137 Vinewood 64 12 10 11 to 1 14 Jane 125 Court

1d 44 1

62 to 66 to 62 13

316 Sabina

2a 1 to

Harriet 8

25 1 6 13

251 6 to 1 House Collard's

Horatio 3 3 877

199 5 1c Lodge

318 20 Raglan

49 54 3

Almshouses 44 Ellen Miller House 1 to 12

1 45 Court

111 84

56 68

Gresham Lodge 207 9 1

2 2

320 322 1a

4 TA Centre 1 to 12

7 6

201

1b PH Tom Smith

39 2a El

Kelway House 74 House

32 60

99 70 Sub Sta 865

106 El Sub Sta 75b

1a 11

1 859 324

31a 3 PO Surgery 75a 60

2 Hall

1 7 14 51 Ecclesbourne to

25 33

326 10 87

El Ward Bdy a 83

2 8

5a 33a 231 10

El Sub Sta 8a

Sub Sta 48

Surgery 261 2a 2

6 77 61 Hall

to 1

225

35 4 Garage 70

16 75 1

10 16a 8 4

Central Baptist 6

Church 26

18 2 1

35a 2a Eastern Road Algoa 2b 3 38

37 2 1a 12 96 34

20 14

104 37 2 2 1 16

39 16 63 Garage

21 6 Warwick Terrace 2

39 10 41 13 Village 21a 1

34 63 4 4

18a 42 65 9 101

32 18

Court 8 12

36 16a 15

328 44 51 208

15 263 11 21 265 17

14 210 28

67 212 10

330 37 Lea Bridge Road 1

29 214

PH 3 103 5 96 1 2

267

31 112 47

16 2 332

103a 28a Shelter 2 105 25 1

26 69 4 14 82

116 13

18 13 2

28b

41 334

23 39 13

10 235

to 7

15 PH 14a 2a 15

11 817 to 823 888

1 336

18 17

886

124 237 Appendix Aii 38

4 47 26

El Sub Stas

119

2 28

17 1 28

86 23

277

132 12

2 57

14 50 23

Hollow Pond

2 13

49 to 71 a

7 127

El Sub Sta 1 239

27 815 16 15 28

22 94

13 47 8 31 30 1

13 32 6

876 23

62 1 2

1 to 8 10

135

37 807 134 64a 79 Garage 13 Orchard Court

17 159

2 38a Garage

76 64

29a 14

74 12

29 17

8 5

7 161

1 to 8 to 1

8 to 8

14 74a 145 32 39

55 216

218 797 13 13

8 3 2a

47 104

a 13 25 18 29

350 36 155 Acorn 86 27

8a 20 2b Lodge

1 59 11 23 789 6 to 1

860 2 CP

2 40 74 2

33 Lodge

285 1 26

56 147

19 37 El Sub Sta 54

93 787 856 100 55 21 5 12 23

14a 785 19a 25 241

114 Lime Court 45 to 74

102 14b 12 13

69 8 65 41

62 14

43 29

25 854

30 33

8 1 to 6 95 73 22 El Sub Sta

112 Factory 1 28 1a 38

39 The 56 30 to 1

287 35

1 Chestnut

7 to 12 3a

75 58

6 5

32 1 Tree 122 Queens Court 68a 79

356 1

36 (PH)

66 18 7 842

83 240

13 to 44 103

85 358 El Sub Sta 68 59 242

34 Park Court 8 25

92 6 289 70 40

38 43 755a

10 2

93 11

291 Sub Sta 1 50 35

40 1 to 8 74 98 El Club Skinner 2 43 753 to

2 Shelter 42 755

293 Julia Court

Court 80

12 11

67 78

830 7

69a Drain 31 to 44 to 31 78 10

11 42 2 69

48 729 to 751 13

104 9

1 10

28 46 123

80 to 90 73 40

15 10 364 125

9 to 12 to 9 119 121 127 135 53 244 PO to 21 246

38 16 32 39

48 1 53 248 820 19

38a to 1 250 CR 19

12 143 1 3

PH 59 117 191 Boro Const and Ward Bdy 4

36 20 Govt 115 193 74

4 to 9 Government 12

75 Office 52

79 77 17 27 Ward Bdy 151

Surgery 13 81 181 Office 35 120

64 62 Harvey 85 PO

173 808

66 29 113 3 Court 27

71 75 77 79 81 116

107 56

11 61

376

42 85 153 171 62 46 1 87

2 105

1 to 6 to 1 161

Selwyn 103 10 CR 806 to 800

23 69a 53 Whipps Cross 95 101 22

37 Court

El Sub Sta 12 to 7 97 8 69 68 108 295 to 299

5 Hospital

6 134

24 6

1 67 51

13 71 55 88 50

5 2 96 2

47 2 106 794

146 13 to 24 to 13

78 378 Garage 44 to 48

104

65 1 138

PW PH a 41

2 42 56 to 60 to 56 104

104 Office d

48 60

1 727a 63 86 1 104

301

380 55

13 54 12

382

12 784 58

50b

2b 31

12 65

57 Claypole

384 45 53

88 50a

1 Court 46 30 8 7 to 12 to 7 34

44a

386 307 El 44

2 Warehouse

1 to 6 to 1 Sub Sta St Stephens 65

388 35 67a 2 53

96 21 2 38 Church

Works 1b

54 774

67 41 13

13 to 24 to 13

4 38

2 22 13 18 40 9 Vicarage 52 2 69 15

27 309 14 727 16

4 23 39 104 39 Hoe Street and Wood Street area wide improvements

Appendix B – Scheme Development and Engagement approach

The following document outlines the engagement approach for delivery for the Hoe Street and Wood Street area wide improvement scheme. Based on this extensive approach the Council has developed proposals which take on board the resident’s priorities, benefits the whole community and achieves the overarching aims of Mini Holland in the Hoe Street and Wood Street area.

The Hoe Street and Wood Street area wide improvements aim to reduce the amount of through traffic using residential streets whilst improving the look, feel and safety of the Hoe Street and Wood Street area for all road users.

The Council has followed an engagement approach for delivery, detailed in the table below. The sections in bold highlight the engagement stages. This was an extensive consultation process run by Highways and Infrastructure. We value the views of our residents and have been consulting on the Hoe Street and Wood Street area wide improvements scheme over an extensive period. We have talked to as many residents and local businesses as possible and have encouraged people to have their say at every opportunity.

Delivery Process Stage 1 Perception Survey Stage 2 Concept Design Stage 3 Workshops Stage 4 Preliminary Design (TfL Review) Stage 5 Public Consultation Stage 6 Detailed Design Stage 7 Statutory Process Stage 8 Construction Stage 9 Review

Stage 1 – Perception Survey

A perception survey was carried out as part of the early engagement for the scheme in March 2015. All households within the consultation boundary were hand delivered the survey on 13 March 2015. The response period was between 13 March and 3 April 2015.

The perception survey aimed to measure respondents’ views on how they felt about the area and why they felt this way. The study involved a continual assessment of people’s views and could be accessed by an online portal. Residents were encouraged to undertake the survey via the Commonplace online portal but those

1 did not have access to the internet were able to submit feedback questionnaires, which were entered into a central database for analysis.

The perception survey aimed to reveal concerns and aspirations that local people experience in their everyday lives. There is no one better at understanding the issues within a local area than those that live, work and play there.

Perception Survey Promotion

The survey was promoted through a variety of methods including; hand delivering surveys, social media, email newsletters, on-street posters featuring a QR code link to the survey, through councillor updates and partner companies such as London Cycling Campaign and Waltham Forest Cycling Campaign.

The Council met with local schools to inform them about the Hoe Street and Wood Street area scheme and to discuss issues around the school which discourage pupils, parents and staff from walking or cycling in the local area. Council officers had meetings with the schools on the following dates.

23 April- Walthamstow School for Girls 5 May- Woodside Primary Academy 5 May- St Mary’s C of E Primary School 6 May- Our Lady and St. George’s Catholic Primary School

The Council also informed parents about the Hoe Street and Wood Street scheme by having a gazebo up outside the school gates from 3pm- 4:30 pm. Council officers distributed leaflets and were able to answer any questions residents had about the Mini Holland Programme and the Hoe Street and Wood Street scheme. The gazebo was outside the schools on the following dates:

1 April- Woodside Primary Academy 1 April- St Mary’s C of E Primary School 19 May- Walthamstow School for Girls

Perception Survey Methodology The perception survey aimed to reveal issues that local people experience everyday while living, travelling and working in the Hoe Street and Wood Street area. Participants of the survey were asked a series of multiple choice questions designed to gain an insight and provide an overview of how people travel within the study area and what concerns them relating to the project. Users were not restricted to just one comment at one location, allowing them to give a broader/ less specific view.

Commonplace provided an interactive mapping tool for participants to select points within and around the study area to state how they feel and what they would like to see to encourage them to walk and cycle in the borough more. Participants were given the option to leave their own comments, opening up the range of issues which could be discussed.

Perception Survey Findings

The survey was undertaken in March 2015 and attracted 435 unique users, posting over 622 comments.

The survey initially asked respondents to highlight a point on a map of the Hoe Street and Wood Street area of importance to them, and used a scale to ask respondents to indicate how they felt about the highlighted area. It then asked respondents to select options asking why they feel this about the area and how they thought the area could be changed to make it a more pleasant environment for walking and cycling.

The next section allowed respondents to detail anything else that would encourage them to walk or cycle more in the area. Respondents were not limited to the number of comments they could post. Some respondents posted numerous comments in multiple locations, whilst others wrote one comment covering a wide range of issues. When categorising the comments, each comment was broken down into individual points covered, totalling 679 comments overall.

Question Analysis- how did respondents feel about the Hoe Street and Wood Street area?

The perception survey asked respondents to mark specific points on a map which they felt were important to them or needed improvements. Respondents were then asked to rate their feeling towards this particular area on a scale of 1 to 10 with 1 being the most negative and 10 being the most positive. 61% of the respondents stated their feelings about the local area is ‘below 5’.

The next question asked respondents to select different statements which reflect how they feel about the Hoe Street and Wood Street area.

This question highlighted that respondent’s feelings are primarily dominated by concerns for safety in the area with 215 respondents (49%) noting this as an issue in relation to the area they had highlighted on the map. The second most selected option was ‘it is unattractive’, with 170 of respondents (39%) selecting this option.

In comparison, 113 respondents (26%) stated that they felt their selected area felt safe, and 87 respondents (20%) felt their selected area is attractive.

Question Analysis- what changes would respondents like to see to make it a more pleasant environment for walking and cycling?

Respondents were able to select as many options as they wished from a series of multiple choice options. The most popular changes respondents would like to see in the Hoe Street and Wood Street area were more plants and trees, slower traffic, less traffic and more attractive streets (each selected 236 times). Respondents clearly demonstrated a wish to improve the Village by seeing less and slower traffic movement and a more attractive environment. Requests for better pavements, safer crossing points, protected cycle lanes and more green space also dominated the responses.

Question Analysis- open comments

Respondents were asked “Is there anything else that would encourage you to walk or cycle more in the area?” and left with an open field to write their comments. Although specifically asking for views on walking and cycling, analysis of responses reveals this section was used as a means for people to express a wide range of views relating to the Hoe Street and Wood Street area and the Mini–Holland proposals. The responses have been analysed and we have identified over 679 separate comments and issues that were raised. These can be broadly broken down into 9 categories:

Nicer environment proposals – the majority of comments (145) were made regarding nicer environment proposals. 33 specific comments were made about cleaner streets and 21 comments were made regarding better enforcement and patrols.

Traffic and road safety issues- 126 comments were made about traffic and road safety issues. Within this, 82 comments said that motorists should drive at slower speeds and had concerns about aggressive motorist behaviour. 25 comments also said that there should be a lower volume of traffic.

Pedestrian Issues – 81 comments were made regarding pedestrian safety issues. Of these, 69 comments requested improved pedestrian safety/facilities specifically while 12 comments made reference to the condition of footways and the need for comprehensive maintenance. The focus of comments lay around the south east of the area, in particular the Shernhall Street and Vallentin Road junction, Shernhall street and Oliver Road junction and the Roland road and Wood street junction.

Better Cycling Priority – 121 respondents posted positive comments in regards to cycling. 78 specifically requested improvements to cycle routes with segregated cycle lanes or further cycle safety measures. 19 respondents requested more and improved cycle parking. Other comments included suggestions to extend the Mini- Holland scheme, cycle training, promotion of considerate road use and the introduction of Boris bikes.

Parking Issues – 31 comments were made regarding parking. The focus of these comments was on the provision of fair and enforceable parking, reducing congestion around schools and protecting residents’ access to parking.

Against Mini–Holland – 46 comments were from those concerned that the Mini- Holland scheme would have a negative impact on: resident access, congestion, elderly and disabled residents, local business and worry that the scheme does not cater to the needs of all road users. Other comments thought that the scheme is a waste of money and no changes sould be made. These made up a relatively small number of such comments (4% of all received).

Positive Mini-Holland – 10 comments were made in praise of the overall Mini- Holland programme in general.

Site Specific Traffic Issues – 103 requests were made to change existing road layouts, including:

 Church Hill  Howard Road  Milton Road  Shernhall Street  The junction of Shernhall Street and Oliver Road.

Highway Maintenance – 16 comments were received highlighting areas of the network which were degraded or in need of maintenance and improvements.

Summary

The results of the perception survey highlight that people’s feelings towards the Hoe Street and Wood Street area are dominated by concerns over safety and attractiveness. Respondents clearly wish to improve the area by seeing less and slower traffic movement and a more attractive urban environment.

Requests for more planting, reduced traffic flows and improved road safety dominate the comments received.

With particular regards to how respondents could be encouraged to walk and cycle in the local area:

 Many respondents requested improved lighting on poorly lit streets and public areas, as well as requests for increased street patrols, regular street cleaning and the eradication of fly-tipping.

 Better cycling priority comments were generally positive about the schemes introduction. There were calls for increased levels of secure cycle parking; segregated routes and; requests to extend the Mini-Holland scheme and the promotion of considerate road use.

 Traffic and road safety concerns focused on rat running, speeding and the need for traffic calming measures to reduce speed. Approximately 20% of all additional comments were related to traffic and safety matters

 There were a large number of calls for improved pedestrian safety and new facilities along with comments made regarding the condition of footways and the need for comprehensive maintenance. A large number of comments related to the junction of Shernhall Street and Vallentin Road and the Shernhall Street with Oliver Road junction.

Stage 2- Concept Design

Based on the outcomes of the perception survey we developed a concept design for the area which includes lighting, speed humps and crossing points.

Stage 3- Workshops

In June 2015 the concept design was presented at a series of three workshops within the scheme area. The co-design workshops were for residents to give 5 feedback and suggested ways to develop the designs. Leaflets were delivered to all residents within the Hoe Street and Wood Street area to ensure that all residents were informed and invited to the meetings. A total of 64 people attended the workshops.

The workshops were held across the Hoe Street and Wood Street area, at three different locations:

Vestry House Museum- Tuesday 9 June Shernhall Methodist Church Hall- Thursday 11 June Vestry House Museum- Tuesday 16 June

The purpose of the workshop was to engage with residents to help shape our plans.

The format was:  Informative - we told residents about the results from the perception survey and our initial designs for the scheme  Inclusive - we wanted to hear residents views and what is important to them analyse and offer views on future proposals  Interactive - there were group exercises where residents helped develop the concept design.

The workshops were very productive and informative. Issues and opportunities were actively debated amongst the groups and the Council received many constructive suggestions on how to improve the scheme and the area overall. Attitudes and opinions varied across the three workshops. This allowed the Council to identify and address the different viewpoints and apprehensions felt in each of the locations. All the information received through the exercises was collated and has fed into the development of a scheme which was then put to consultation.

A summary of the key themes is outlined below.

Exercise 1- Route Mapping

In the first exercise, attendees were asked where they walked and cycled in the Hoe Street and Wood Street area. Collectively the attendees walked and cycled the majority of the area.

Exercise 2- Concept Co-Design

As part of the second exercise residents evaluated the concept design and highlighted areas that they thought needed to be changed. Residents were given a plan of the concept design and had the opportunity to amend or comment on:

 Road closures (modal filters)  Traffic calming  Crossing points  Improving streets for pedestrians  Improving streets for cyclists 6

Requests for further traffic calming measures often overlapped with areas in need of improved pedestrian and cyclist facilities. Attendees particularly requested these measures on the length of Shernhall Street, Vallentin Road, Prospect Hill and Church Hill.

Many attendees suggested a no entry to Howard Road sign at the junction with Forest Road.

Exercise 3- Public Realm Improvements

The third exercise of the workshop asked residents to consider what they would like to see implemented as part of the scheme. The results were marked up on a map of the area. More detailed results can be found in the report mentioned above, however the most popular areas for public realm improvements included:

 Public art on Vallentin Road and Cairo Road  Feature lighting on Wyatt’s Lane and Church Hill  Improved public spaces, pocket parks or a parklet at Wood Street station and St. Mary’s Road  More trees and planting on Church Hill

Through Stages 1-3 groups of residents on particular roads were keen to meet with us to discuss their issues further. We met with resident groups including, Roland Road, Aubery Road, Browns Road and Howard Road.

These engagement activities, as well as the traffic data gathered, have allowed the Council to design a scheme which will enhance the Hoe Street and Wood Street area and work for residents and businesses. We have listened to residents and businesses feedback, analysed the data from the perception survey and the workshops and developed a proposal based on this.

Stage 4 – Preliminary Design

The preliminary design was developed based on responses received from the perception surveys and workshops.

During this stage, Transport for London also reviewed the preliminary design and gave their comments, as summarised in the bullets below:

 Ensure costings are fully considered such as the cost of a toucan crossing.  Ensure design parameters are considered. For example, how two way cycling and cars will operate on Aubrey Road.  Address various category issues within the consultation documentation text such as clarifying what is included in a ‘Pedestrian Priotity Scheme’.  Provide various other details within the consultation documentation text.

 Ensure bus routes are considered. For example, if pedestrians improvements are going to be made to Church Hill, ensure that this does not take away from the carriageway for buses.

Stage 5 – Public consultation

Resident Engagement

On 28 September 2015 Council officers and postal contractors hand delivered over 4600 consultation documents to all residents and businesses within the Hoe Street and Wood Street consultation area.

The consultation period ran for three weeks from 28 September 2015 to 19 October 2015. During this period, the Council ran numerous engagement events and met with key stakeholders. A summary of the activities that took place are outlined below.

 Two drop in sessions were held at different locations in the scheme area. The first was on Thursday 8 October at Vestry House Museum from 6-9 p.m. The second was on Saturday 10 October at Shernhall Methodist Church Hall from 2-5 p.m. Over 105 residents attended over both days.  Council Officers door-knocked 90% of the Hoe Street and Wood Street area from 5 October 2015 to 19 October 2015, from 4pm to 7pm. This was undertaken to remind residents to respond to the consultation and was an opportunity for council officers to answer questions. During this period, council officers spoke to over 320 residents in person.  Council officers met with the councils refuse operators.  The Council shared the infographics of the perception survey results on Twitter.  The Council put up ten QR posters at junctions within the Hoe Street and Wood Street area. The posters contained a link to the Mini Holland website where residents could view the details of the proposed designs. In addition to the various engagement channels used by the Council, the consultation period also prompted local residents to also door knock their own street and local area and distribute leaflets with their personal feelings about the proposed changes. There were residents campaigning for and against the proposals which demonstrates that the consultation provoked discussion within the local community. Further Engagement In addition to the resident engagement carried out above, the meetings with representatives from the following groups took place on several occasions during the engagement period.  Clerk to the Directors Walthamstow and Chingford Almshouse Charity  Roland Road Resident Association  Aubrey Road Resident Association  Browns Road Resident Association  Howard Road Resident Association

 St Mary’s Church including Vicar  EMQ Residents Association  Barrett Road Tenant and Resident Association  Meeting called by Poets Corner residents at the Welcome centre  Meeting at Town Hall requested by Mayor regarding Cairo Road and Eastfield Road

Emergency Services Engagement

The following meetings with the emergency services took place during the consultation period.

7 October - London Fire Brigade 7 October - Police 5 November- London Ambulance Service

A meeting with the London Ambulance service was requested during the consultation period on three occasions. There was a delay in the London Ambulance Service responding to the Council’s correspondence due to a recent LAS restructure. We will now be meeting LAS regularly at our six weekly emergency services liaison meeting to discuss all Mini-Holland schemes.

The statement below is from the London Ambulance Service:

“The London Ambulance Service is working with Waltham Forest Council on traffic changes in relation to the Mini-Holland scheme. We’re engaging with the council to ensure that any changes take account of the needs of our ambulances crews and patients.”

Natasha Wills Assistant Director of Operations, East Central, London Ambulance Service NHS Trust.

The Council received 645 questionnaires from households within the consultation area. All the responses have been collated and analysed. A full report and analysis on the results is attached as Appendix C. The questionnaire responses reflect 14% of households in the consultation area.

Approximate dates for the next stages of the scheme are shown below.

Stage 6 Detailed Design – November 2015- January 2016 Stage 7 Statutory Notice - December 2015 Stage 8 Construction – December 2015- June 2016 Stage 9 Review If implementation takes place we will continue to monitor traffic levels and feedback from the area. We will commence a review of the measures from six months after full implementation.

Hoe Street and Wood Street area wide improvements

Appendix C- Consultation questionnaire results

This appendix looks solely at the results from the consultation stage. Appendix D of this report outlines the final measures and reasons for those measures. The measures are based on feedback received during the full engagement process, including the results highlighted below and any further suggestions that were made during the consultation period.

Consultation results All households were delivered the Hoe Street and Wood Street area wide improvement scheme consultation document and questionnaire by Council officers and postal contractors on 28 September 2015. Households were requested to send back their questionnaires (one per household) by freepost by 19 October 2015. The Council received 645 questionnaires from households within the consultation area. This is a 14% response rate.

About the respondents Respondents were initially asked to detail in what capacity they were responding to the consultation. The results are detailed in Figure 1.

Figure 1

About the proposals

All Measures Looking at all the proposed measures to be provided as part of the scheme, including the road closures, associated traffic management measures and safer environmental proposals of the 4861 selections (total responses to all questions), 55% were in favour of all measures, 29% were against the proposals and 16% felt neutral or did not know (Figure 2).

Figure 2

Safer environment proposals The questionnaire provided details of six different measures which aim to create a safer environment in the Hoe Street and Wood Street area. Households expressed how supportive they were of each of the measures. Residents were able to select one of five options: very supportive, quite supportive, neutral, not very supportive and not supportive at all.

Analysis shows that 61% of households were in favour of all the safer environment proposals (Figure 3).

Figure 3

Figure 4 shows the responses for implementing raised ‘Copenhagen’ style crossings at key junctions in the Hoe Street and Wood Street area which prioritise pedestrians and slow traffic down.

Figure 4

Figure 5 conveys the responses to improving the junction of The Drive and Shernhall Street.

Figure 5

Figure 6 visualises the responses to improving the junction of Church Hill Road, Shernhall Street and Turner Road.

Figure 6

Figure 7 shows the responses for improving the junction at Church Lane, Shernhall Street and Vallentin Road.

Figure 7

Figure 8 shows the responses for improving the junction of Church Hill and Rectory Road.

Figure 8

Figure 9 shows the responses for improving the junction at Prospect Hill and Shernhall Street.

Figure 9

Improving public spaces

In question two, residents were provided with descriptions of six schemes to improve public spaces in the area. Respondents were asked to tell us which were most important to them by selecting three of the six measures. The table below shows the most popular choices.

Popularity Public space improvements Number of order selections 1 The Drive- new park 275 2 Aubrey Road and Howard Road alleyway- shared 219 surface 3 Aubrey Road- shared surface 183 4 Cairo Road- pocket park 153 5 West Avenue Road- pocket park 148 6 Browns Road- public space 123

Road closures and traffic direction changes Question three of the questionnaire asked households to state how supportive they are of Series A and B of road closures, no entries and traffic direction changes. Residents were able to select one of six options: very supportive, quite supportive, neutral, not very supportive, not supportive at all or don’t know.

Series A (west)

Series A consists of the following proposals:

 Aubrey Road at the junction with Church Hill  Howard Road at the junction with Church Hill  Rectory Road at the junction with Church Hill  The Drive at the junction with Church Hill  Church Hill Road at the junction with Church Hill (north and south arm).

If the above measures are introduced the following changes to traffic direction must also be implemented:

 Milton Road- two way between Byron Road and Aubrey Road  Aubrey Road- two way between Church Hill and Milton Road  Howard Road- no entry from Forest Road  Yellow box marking on Forest Road at the exit from Falmer Road  Yellow box marking on Forest Road at the exit from Hurst Road.

Figure 10

Figure 10 shows that 40% were in favour of Series A and 46% were not in favour. 14% are neutral or did not know.

Further analysis shows how residents living on the roads where measures are proposed responded to Series A.

Aubrey Road 31 residents (44%) who live on Aubrey Road responded to Series A. Of these residents, 84% were very supportive or quite supportive and 16% were not very supportive or not supportive at all. This demonstrates that there was a high level of support for the modal filter proposed on Aubrey Road from residents living on the road.

Howard Road 73 residents (32%) from Howard Road responded to the question about Series A. Of these residents, 41% were very supportive or quite supportive, 1% were neutral, 57% were not very supportive or not supportive at all and 1% felt they did not know.

Rectory Road 29 residents (45%) from Rectory Road responded to Series A. Of these residents, 35% were very supportive or quite supportive, 3% were neutral, 59% were not very supportive ot not supportive at all and 3% said they did not know.

The Drive 24 residents (7%) from The Drive responded to Series A. Of these residents, 24% were very supportive or quite supportive, 12% were neutral and 64% said they were not very supportive or not supportive at all.

Church Hill Road 16 residents (22%) from Church Hill Road responded to Series A. Of these residents, 53% were very supportive or quite supportive and 47% were not very supportive or not supportive at all.

Series B (south east)

Series B consists of the following proposals:

 Barrett Road at the junction with Greenacre Gardens  Roland Road at the junction with Wood Street  Greville Road at the junction with Shernhall Street.

If the above measures are implemented the following changes to the traffic must also be implemented:

 Roland Road- make two-way

Figure 11

The results from Series B showed that 36% were in favour, 35% were not in favour and 29% were neutral or did not know.

Series B Roads

Of the respondents living on roads within Series B, 53% were very supportive or quite supportive, 41% were not very supportive or not supportive at all and 6% said they were neutral or did not know.

Barrett Road 31 residents (30%) who live on Barrett Road responded to Series B. Of these residents, 47% were very supportive or quite supportive, 7% were neutral and 43% were not very supportive or not supportive at all. This demonstrates that there was support for Series B on Barrett Road from residents living on the road.

Roland Road 12 residents (20%) who live on Roland Road responded to Series B. Of these residents, 58% were very supportive or quite supportive and 42% were not very supportive or not supportive at all. This demonstrates that there was support for Series B from residents living on Roland Road.

Greville Road 32 residents (53%) who live on Greville Road responded to Series B. Of these residents, 58% were very supportive or quite supportive and 42% were not very supportive or not supportive at all. This demonstrates that there was support for Series B from residents living on Greville Road.

Hoe Street and Wood Street area scheme area wide improvements

Appendix D- Reasons and benefits of the proposals

The proposals have been developed based on the results of the perception survey, concept design, workshops, preliminary design and public consultation. At every stage of the process we have adapted and developed the proposals based on feedback from residents, businesses and key stakeholders. As we have taken suggestions from residents and businesses, many of the current proposals vary from the earlier concept design stage.

This appendix provides detailed information about the proposed changes in Hoe Street and Wood Street area scheme and the benefits each proposal will bring to the community, which are to be considered by the Director of Neighbourhoods, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Environment.

Road closures and traffic direction changes

A core element of the proposal is the introduction of a series of road closures and traffic direction changes. The closures affect motored vehicles only; pedestrians and cycles will be able to pass through all the outlined closures. Where a closure is introduced, space will be provided to allow vehicles to turn around where feasible, as highlighted as a necessity by residents during the engagement process. All permanent road closures will be designed in a way that is in keeping with the local surroundings and enable the emergency services to operate effectively. To ensure this the design process will include liaison with and input from key stakeholders.

The closures will significantly reduce the amount of through traffic using the residential streets whilst maintaining access for residents, visitors, businesses and the emergency services. The remaining section of this report itemises the scheme proposal and looks at each series of measures of road closures and traffic direction changes individually. Each proposed change should not be looked at in isolation as there are interconnecting and reliant factors for each series of measures.

Series A (West) – Consultation proposals

● Modal filter on Aubrey Road at the junction with Church Hill ● Modal filter on Howard Road at the junction with Church Hill ● Modal filter on Rectory Road at the junction with Church Hill ● Modal filter on The Drive at the junction with Church Hill ● Modal filter on Church Hill Road at the junction with Church Hill (north and south arm).

If the above measures are introduced the following changes to traffic direction must also be implemented:

• Milton Road- two-way between Byron Road and Aubrey Road 1

• Aubrey Road- two-way between Church Hill and Milton Road • Howard Road- no entry from Forest Road • Yellow box marking on Forest Road at the exit from Falmer Road • Yellow box marking on Forest Road at the exit from Hurst Road.

Reasons and Benefits

Within the consultation responses, 40% supported these measures, 46% were against the measures, 14% said they were neutral or did not know.

This series looks at a number of streets within the western section of the Hoe Street and Wood Street area scheme. One of the key factors in the development of this scheme has been the number of rat running vehicles within the area. These proposals act to reduce that number and allow the scheme to achieve its core objectives.

Howard Road, Hurst Road and The Drive are common routes through this residential area for vehicles trying to bypass the surrounding main roads. Therefore, a series of closures are proposed that are reliant upon each other to gain maximum efficiency. Justification of the proposed closures is based upon local community responses within the perception survey, Automatic Traffic Count (ATC) data and community response within the workshops and public consultation.

The closures on Howard Road (41% in favour, 57% against), Rectory Road (35% in favour, 59% against) and The Drive (24% in favour, 64% against) were not supported in the consultation and thus will not be implemented as part scheme at this time. The effect of the removal of these closures on the local traffic system will be assessed during the scheme review period.

In light of this result we will also not be implementing the other elements of the scheme which have a direct dependency on these closures. These include Howard Road “No entry” and the yellow boxes at the junctions of Hurst Road and Falmer Road with Forest Road. In addition Copenhagen crossings will not be introduced on Howard Road, Falmer Road or Hurst Road at their junctions with Forest Road as the existing traffic levels are too high to allow the measures to operate effectively. The new park on The Drive will also not be implemented due to its dependence on the closure on The Drive.

However it should be noted that there is strong support for the closures on Aubrey Road (84% in favour, 16% against) and Church Hill Road (53% in favour, 47% against) and as such they will be included as part of the scheme.

Furthermore these closures have knock on effects for other schemes such as the new public realm scheme on Church Hill and Church Hill Road as well as Aubrey Road “Cycle Street” and Aubrey Road /Howard Road alleyway shared surface which ranked position 2 and 3 in the most popular public space improvements.

Series A (West) – Final measures

● Modal filter on Aubrey Road at the junction with Church Hill ● Modal filter on Church Hill Road at the junction with Church Hill (north and south arm) ● Milton Road- two-way between Byron Road and Aubrey Road ● Aubrey Road- two-way between Church Hill and Milton Road

Series B (South East) - Consultation proposals

● Modal filter on Barrett Road at the junction with Greenacre Gardens ● Modal filter on Roland Road at the junction with Wood Street ● Modal filter on Greville Road at the junction with Shernhall Street.

If the above measures are introduced the following changes to traffic direction must also be implemented:

● Roland Road - Make two-way

Reason and Benefits

Within the overall consultation responses, 36% supported these measures, 35% were against the measures and 29% said they were neutral or did not know.

The consultation responses from residents living within the series of roads were, 53% supported these measures, 41% were against the measures and 6% said they were neutral or did not know.

These closures allow us to remove through traffic from this area which has a number of schools within or adjacent to it. It is also a well-used route for people making onward walking and cycling journeys to other schools and other locations in the local area. Local schools were visited as a part of the engagement process and they reported on going issues of high traffic levels and conflict between motorists during the school run peak.

The closure on Greville Road will also allow us to provide a new community hub / public space in the area which has recently seen the adjacent business expanding.

The Roland Road filter will also allow us to provide a formal crossing point for pedestrian and cyclists across Wood Street and form part of the local cycle networks allowing safer onwards journeys across the borough. This will also allow the creation of new public space adjacent to a much loved local business with a resident aspiration to install art works at this location further improving the local streetscape.

It should be recognised that there was consistent support for the closures throughout consultation results. Within the overall consultation response, 36% supported these measures, 35% were against these measures and 29% said they were neutral or did not know. Of those living within the Series B area, 53% supported these measures, 41% were against these measures and 29% said they were neutral or did not know. On each individual road where measures are proposed there is also clear support for the scheme: Barrett Road (47% supportive, 43% not supportive), Roland Road (58% supportive, 42% not supportive) and Greville Road (58% supportive, 39% not supportive).

Creating a safe environment – Final Measures

● Implementing raised ‘Copenhagen’ style crossings at key junctions into Hoe Street and Wood Street area scheme which prioritise pedestrians and slow traffic down. ● The Drive and Shernhall Street - junction improvements ● Church Hill Road, Shernhall Street and Turner Road- junction improvements ● Church Lane, Shernhall Street and Vallentin Road- junction improvements ● Church Hill and Rectory Road – raised junction ● Prospect Hill and Shernhall Street- junction improvements

Reasons and Benefits

Within the consultation responses, 61% were supportive of all these measures overall, 25% were against the measures overall and 14% were neutral.

In order to fully achieve the benefits of the scheme we need to create a safe and pleasant environment for all road users. Therefore the final design includes a number of measures to reduce traffic speeds and to create a safer environment.

Residents have told us that reducing the risks of speeding traffic and creating a safer environment in Hoe Street and Wood Street area scheme are key priorities. In response, we are proposing the following:

Proposals to create a safe Reasons and benefits for changes environment

Raised ‘Copenhagen’ style Within the consultation responses, 61% crossings to be implemented supported these measures, 25% were against at key locations in Hoe Street the measures and 14% were neutral. and Wood Street area We will introduce ‘Copenhagen’ style crossings on scheme. the following junctions with Hoe Street in the area. Aubrey Road, Tower Hamlets Road, Byron Road, Richard’s Place and Milton Road The junction has a raised crossing and added space for cyclists and pedestrians to help slow 4

traffic and prioritise pedestrians crossing.

The Drive and Shernhall Within the consultation responses, 59% Street - junction supported these measures, 25% were against improvements the measures and 16% were neutral. This is a pedestrian priority scheme which will provide: improvements to the existing crossing points, footway widths and the attractiveness of the site. This will include improving sight lines and calming traffic via road width reductions road marking reduction.

Church Hill Road, Shernhall Within the consultation responses, 60% Street and Turner Road supported these measures, 23% were against junction improvements the measures and 17% were neutral. This is a pedestrian priority scheme which will provide: improvements to the existing crossing points, footway widths and the attractiveness of the site. This includes implementing blended crossings in adjacent streets to improve pedestrian facilities at this high pedestrian use location.

Church Lane, Shernhall Within the consultation responses, 72% Street and Vallentin Road- supported these measures, 28% were against junction improvements the measures. Pedestrian priority scheme, improving existing crossing points, footway widths and attractiveness of site including improving sight lines and calming traffic through installation of raised crossing points with restricted widths at crossing points.

Church Hill and Rectory Within the consultation responses, 55% Road- raised junction supported these measures, 27% were against the measures and 18% were neutral. Raised junction to calm traffic outside a school and on a busy pedestrian link to Walthamstow transport links.

It should be noted that to improve the pedestrian provision along Shernhall Street some rationalisation of parking will be required. Parking reduction will be kept to the minimum necessary to allow the improvement to pedestrian facilities.

New and improved public spaces – Final Measures The most popular measures were: 1. The Drive- new park 2. Aubrey Road and Howard Road alleyway- shared surface 3. Aubrey Road- shared surface 4. Cairo Road- pocket park

These measures will be implemented subject to available budget. The rest of the measures are listed in popularity order below. These measures will be implemented subject to further budget availability. 5. West Avenue Road- pocket park 6. Browns Road- public space

Reason and Benefits Based on the feedback and suggestions we received from the perception survey and at the resident design workshops, we identified public spaces that we will develop to enhance the look and feel of the area. Residents have told us which of the following are most important to them. We will take them forward in popularity order, when funds become available.

Proposals to create new Reasons and benefits for changes and improved public spaces

Aubrey Road and Howard Improvements to the Aubrey Road and Howard Road alleyway- shared Road alleyway will provide: surface ● Tree planting and greenery ● Improve access for pedestrians and cycles ● Encourage pedestrians and cycles to use the alleyway to reduce anti-social behaviour ● Link with local cycle network for onward journeys ● Create new public artwork. Aubrey Road – shared The Aubrey Road shared space proposal will provide: surface

● A new pedestrian and cycle street ● New layout to encourage walking and cycling ● Street art to encourage use and reduce anti- social behaviour ● Road closure to reduce non-local motor traffic ● Link with local cycle network for onward journeys.

The Cairo Road pocket park will provide: Cairo Road- pocket park

● New tree planting and greenery ● Introduction of cycle parking next to Hoe Street attractions ● Possible introduction of street art. West Avenue Road- pocket The West Avenue Road pocket park will: park ● Improve existing green space to create a local “pocket park” ● Act as a meeting place with plants for local people to enjoy ● Potential for a community project to create additional elements ● Signposts with information to local places of interest. Browns Road- public space The Browns Road public space will: ● Improve existing green space to create a local “pocket park” with trees and plants ● Act as a meeting place for local people to enjoy ● Potential for a community project to create additional greening such as foraging space. Cycle improvements The following improvements will take place to improve the local cycle network. Roland Road- Install a new formal shared pedestrian and cycle crossing point to allow safe passage across Wood Street at this location. St Mary’s Church Yard- Create a new pedestrian and cycle track through Church Yard and Vinegar Alley in co-operation with Saint Mary’s Church. St Mary’s Road- Create a two way cycling and one- way motor traffic street between Stainforth Road and West Avenue Road to allow direct access to Hoe Street and to the local cycle network. Back Road (Marlow Road Estate)- Install temporary elements, including greenery and lighting, to improve the area and provide a cycle route through the estate to Wood Street. Havant Road- Provide a new safe cycle track along this link, between Turner Road and Wood Street, to allow a safe route and improve connectivity with the local cycle network.

More cycle parking. A key element of the Mini Holland bid was the desire to improve the boroughs infrastructure for those

choosing to cycle. We therefore recommend creating more cycle parking across Hoe Street and Wood Street area scheme. We will ensure the parking facilities are in keeping with the environment. We are logging requests from residents about the location of this parking. These currently include new cycle parking facilities at; Cairo Road, Church Hill and Shernhall Street.

Area upkeep A number of maintenance issues have been brought to our attention by residents during the engagement process. As part of the scheme we will address a number of these by realigning current revenue, local maintenance and Section 106 funds in order to make improvements to the area. Work will start in early 2016 on the following and will continue over the next two years.

Proposed area upkeep work Reasons and benefits for changes

Road resurfacing As part of the Hoe Street and Wood Street area scheme we will be resurfacing the following streets: ● Brown’s Road - Annual planned maintenance programme ● Shernhall Street - Annual planned maintenance programme /TBC De-cluttering To de-clutter the area we propose to remove redundant street signs which will reduce the number of obstructions on footways.

Hoe Street and Wood Street Area Wide Improvements

Appendix E- Alternatives considered

At each stage of the engagement process we have taken on board the feedback and views of residents. Throughout the three month engagement process we have received and responded to hundreds of emails from community members. The Council has developed and amended the proposals at every stage to represent the feedback and views of residents.

This report considers the more common suggestions and recommendations made by residents and businesses.

Shernhall Street – Improved junctions and walking route improvements After visiting several schools with one or more sites located along Shernhall Street the issue of students being able to walk safely between sites and also safely to school was raised. Some schools had a requirement of a minimum three staff to guide students safely between each site which is a clear strain on resources. In response to this, we propose to improve the junctions on Shernhall Street and provide additional footway widths where feasible. This will provide improved pedestrian crossing points and allow safer walking and cycling routes along this road.

Browns Road – Improved informal pedestrian crossing facility Whilst meeting a member of the Browns Road resident association an aspiration of improved pedestrian crossing facilities in place of existing and defunct single yellow line was communicated. The resident’s association also requested that this new crossing point have greening added to it either by planting trees or providing planters. This proposal would provide accessible crossing point for pedestrians whilst also increasing greening in the area.

Howard Road – No Entry from Forest Road The Mini-Holland (MH) team was informed on several occasions that there was a long held aspiration to have a “No entry” restriction from Forest Road into Howard Road. As this proposal did not detract from the overall objectives of the scheme the measure was included in the consultation. However, this proposal was not well supported in the consultation responses. As part of the Mini-Holland Forest Road “Route” scheme, there will be designs developed for “The Bell” junction, which will have an effect and impact on the proposal for a potential No Entry in to Howard Road, which will need to be taken in to consideration at a later date once The Bell junction designs have been developed further. It is recommended that No Entry should not be included in the final plans at this time and we will continue to work with local residents to come up with a suitable scheme. Therefore, this will require further engagement with the local community before any possible implementation.

Howard Road, Church Hill, Shernhall Street and Forest Road Area- Introduce one way system A resident who attended the drop in session at Shernhall Methodist Church Hall on the 10 October 2015 had a proposal for Howard Road and the surrounding roads. The plan consisted of making alternate roads one-way to make the through route from Forest Road to Church Hill convoluted and difficult to traverse, whilst still allowing local residents to access Church Hill directly. After much discussion the MH team explained that this proposal would not fulfil the MH Villages brief of closing through routes to motor traffic. Therefore the proposal was declined and will not be taken forward.

Falmer Road & Hurst Road – Yellow box junctions at Forest Road These elements were suggested in light of the proposed closures of Howard Road, Rectory Road and The Drive. As the closures are not going to be implemented and because these elements provide no improvements for walking or cycling they will not be included in the final proposals. It should also be noted that several residents raised concerns regarding the installation of the yellow box junctions in their consultation responses.

Communications were received from several residents opposing the scheme; the details of each of these communications are shown below.

A resident from Howard Road first called the Council on 1st September requesting access to the perception survey results which were sent on the afternoon of the same day. The resident also requested the Automatic Traffic Count (ATC) data be sent, which was promptly provided. The MH team met with the resident and other representatives from the Howard Road Residents association at Low Hall. In addition to this the MH team attended a meeting in the Welcome Centre on Church Lane to discuss concerns and hear a presentation from the resident based on the ATC data provided.

A resident of Howard Road contacted the Portfolio Holder for Environment and requested a site meeting. The meeting was undertaken on 12th of November 2015 and involved residents, councillors and officers walking several roads; this allowed the resident to outline perceptions of the traffic issues or lack of in the local area. The resident expressed that a positive response to the wider scheme objectives, but did not believe the measures are required in this area.

A resident of The Drive initially met the MH team at the consultation drop-in session at The Vestry House Museum. The resident was handing out anti-Mini-Holland leaflets and also reported carrying out a survey to ascertain whether addresses within The Drive had received the consultation documents; and if these addresses supported the scheme. Upon receiving the list of properties that claimed not having received the consultation document, Council Officers promptly redelivered to these addresses. A further meeting was also held after the consultation period in which local residents took part in a site visit to outline to Officers and Councillors their concerns regarding the scheme.

Decision Date

What is an Equality Analysis (EA) for? Double click here for more information / Hide

The Council must have due regard to its Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) when social care provision or reduction of grants to voluntary organisations, whereas the making decisions at member and officer level. An EA is the best method by which performance of other functions will have less of an equalities impact, e.g. the the Council can provide the evidential analysis to comply with the equality duty, appointment of committees where only a limited assessment is required. In rare particularly for major decisions. However, the level of analysis required should cases, the Courts have said there may be no impact. If you think this may be the only be proportionate to the relevance of the duty to the service or decision. Some case, then you should undertake the EA screening process first to determine if you decisions will require detailed equalities consideration, e.g. a decision on adult need to complete this full EA and have a rational basis for this conclusion.

What is the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED)? Double click here for more information / Hide

The public sector equality duty (s.149, Equality Act 2010) requires the Council, need to: when exercising its functions, to have “due regard” to the need to: • Removing or minimising disadvantages suffered by people due to their 1. eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation and other protected characteristic conduct prohibited under the Act, • Taking steps to meet the needs of people from protected groups where these 2. advance equality of opportunity between those who share a “protected are different from the needs of other people including steps to take account of characteristic” and those who do not share that protected characteristic and disabled people’s disabilities and 3. foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected • Encouraging people from protected groups to participate in public life or in characteristic and persons who do not share it (this involves having due regard, other activities where their participation in disproportionately low in particular, to the need to (a) tackle prejudice, and (b) promote NB Please note that, for disabled persons, the Council must have regard to the understanding). possible need for steps that amount to positive discrimination, to “level the playing These are collectively referred to in this EA as the equality aims. Advancing equality field” with non‐disabled persons, e.g. in accessing services through dedicated car (the second equality aim) involves having due regard, in particular, to the parking spaces.

IMPORTANT NOTES: 1. THIS FRONT SHEET IS AN ESSENTIAL PART OF THE EA – COMPLETE THE TEMPLATE AND SUBMIT IT AS A SINGLE DOCUMENT. 2. IN RARE CASES, WHEN COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT IT MAY BECOME APPARENT THAT THE RECOMMENDATIONS WOULD LEAD TO UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATION E.G. A PROPOSAL TO PAY MEN MORE THAN WOMEN. IF SO, STOP, RECONSIDER YOUR PROPOSAL AND SEEK ADVICE. THE HEAD OF SERVICE OR DIRECTOR WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MEMBER LEVEL REPORTS MUST BE SATISFIED WITH THE FINALISED EQUALITY ANALYSIS AND FOR MAJOR PROPOSALS, IT IS SENSIBLE TO ENSURE YOUR LEAD MEMBER HAS BEEN CONSULTED.

Fostering good relations Double click here for more information / Hide

Fostering good relations involves having due regard, in particular, to the need to tackle prejudice and promote understanding.

Protected Characteristics Double click here for more information / Hide

Guidance on compliance with the PSED for officers and decision makers Double click here for more information / Hide

What to do if your proposal is scheduled for Cabinet/Committee? Double click here for more information / Hide

Waltham Forest Council EQUALITY ANALYSIS (EA) TEMPLATE Page 2 of 18

The Proposals: Mini Holland Programme and Hoe Street and Wood Street Area improvement Scheme

1. What is the Proposal?

The Hoe Street and Wood Street scheme forms part of the Mini Holland Programme. The Cabinet Report (9th September 2014) outlined the Mini Holland Programme and Procurement Options and sought the Cabinet approval for the delivery plan and the delegation on key decisions relating to the implementation of the associated schemes.

This programme underpins the Council’s priorities and links to the Waltham Forest Joint Strategic Needs Assessment 2014 (NHS)to embed health policy in the local authority Core Strategy, including: • Policy CS13 – promoting health and wellbeing, improving access to health facilities, promoting higher levels of regular exercise, reducing the proliferation of any land use which reduces people’s ability to be healthy.

Waltham Forest was one of the three Councils in London to be awarded £27 million from Transport for London (TfL) as part of the Mini Holland Programme to establish a number of integrated schemes designed to deliver dramatic improvements in safety and convenience for cyclists, coupled with imaginative public realm enhancements to improve residential and local shopping areas. The rationale of this programme is to encourage more people to cycle rather than use cars, particularly for short local journeys and the primary outcome will be an improved cycle network based on improving safety for all road users by providing a safer environment for all.

This programme will endeavour to promote the following:  reduction in traffic congestion in residential streets and improve air quality;  remove barriers to travel for all, particularly those living in deprived communities;  improve health outcomes due to increased exercise by active travel patterns;  create a more sustainable community with an attractive environment, new and improved public spaces and improved walking and cycling links; and encourage cycling as a viable mode of transport.

The proposal seeks to contribute to an increase in people cycling in the borough whilst also reducing road casualties and going some way towards transforming residential streets into vibrant people‐centred environments. This will encourage more children cycling to school, more employees cycling to work, as well as incorporating cycling to undertake work related activities e.g. site visits. It will also support better health and fitness amongst the population (which is difficult to measure) and reduced usage of the private car for some trips.

Within the wider Mini Holland Programme we are delivering a scheme known as the Hoe Street and Wood Street scheme (Hoe Street and Wood Street Wards), that will implement area wide improvements and includes a series of road closures to make it safer for cyclists and pedestrians (the reduction of pollution, congestion and rat running) and also to increase footfall in the area, to give the local economy a boost.

In March 2015, we collected feedback via an online perception survey to understand concerns and aspiration from the local community. Following this, we prepared a concept design that addressed and mitigated the community feedback, which led to a series of workshops with residents and businesses to further understand their views and co‐design the development of the concept design to a preliminary design. We have also sought the views of the Emergency Services, London Buses and important

Waltham Forest Council EQUALITY ANALYSIS (EA) TEMPLATE Page 3 of 18

1. What is the Proposal? frontline services (such as Dial‐a‐Ride, refuse and recycling collections, street cleansing etc) to ensure the final scheme proposal does not have a negative impact in terms of access to those services. The preliminary design was then taken to a full public consultation, which included two drop‐in session that the community were invited to attend. The results and analysis of the public consultation influenced the final detailed design.

This Equality Analysis has been prepared to comply with the Public Sector Equality Duty and assess the impact of the wider programme including the Hoe Street and Wood Street scheme on all the equality target groups directly or/and indirectly. This is a desktop evaluation, and is not based on survey or data collection for this programme.

2. What are the recommendations?

Approval is being sought for the implementation of the final scheme.

3. Who is affected by the Proposal? Identify the main groups most likely to be affected by the recommendations, directly and indirectly.

The implementation of the Hoe Street and Wood Street proposal is likely to affect: • anyone who currently cycles for transport, leisure or sport; • anyone who would potentially choose to cycle; • other road users including motorists, pedestrians, equestrians; • other users of the highways and off road paths e.g. pedestrians • participants in major cycling events; • cycling event organisers; • residents living on or near to popular cycling routes, for examples those around Lea Bridge Road that will have high levels of cycling; • residents living on or near roads/routes that could potentially have restricted vehicle access  businesses and visitors  Members of staff living in the borough as well as those that will be directly involved in delivery the scheme.

It is not foreseen that there will be a differential impact for individuals in the community or/and does not appear to have an adverse impact on any social group of the protected characteristics.

We recognise that cycling is not an activity that will be accessible to all residents in the borough, however two of the key aspects of the Hoe Street and Wood Street scheme are the public realm improvements, which are designed to increase permeability and ease of access to all road and footway users, and the reduction of traffic levels within primarily residential streets, in order to improve the living environmental for all users. It is these aspects of the scheme that will improve for those groups that do not have direct access to cycling.

Living environment has a great influence on health and wellbeing. Poor air quality is an issue experienced by residents of Waltham Forest as well as everyone who lives in London. Poor air quality can cause serious health problems and reduce life expectancy by up to eight months (Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), 2010). The Health Effects Institute panel concluded that the evidence is sufficient to support a causal relationship between exposure to traffic‐related air pollution and the

Waltham Forest Council EQUALITY ANALYSIS (EA) TEMPLATE Page 4 of 18

exacerbation of asthma.

The most vulnerable people include children and older residents. Individuals particularly at risk also include those with existing respiratory problems and chronic illnesses such as asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). There are approximately 690,000 asthma sufferers in London and 230,000 individuals suffering from COPD. It also found suggestive evidence of a relationship with onset of childhood asthma, non‐asthma respiratory symptoms, impaired lung function, total and cardiovascular mortality, and cardiovascular morbidity, although the data are not sufficient to fully support causality.

Long‐term exposure to Particulate Matter (PM2.5) aggravates respiratory and cardiovascular conditions. The statistics for each of the London boroughs as a fraction (%) of mortality attributable shows that Waltham Forest is 1.7% higher than the UK average and is ranked 21st in London. In 2008, the IOM research determined that 129 deaths were attributable to long‐term exposure to PM2.5 pollution in Waltham Forest (of which 7 in Hoe Street ward and 8 in Leyton ward) and 4,267 deaths in London.

Part of our Mini Holland objective is to reduce short local car trips. We will set a target to reduce single occupancy vehicle use mode share in the borough by 5% by 2020, to 35% (from 2011/2012 baseline of 40% for Waltham Forest. The proposal encourages these types of journeys are reduced and the users transfer to more sustainable means of transport. Reducing traffic levels will benefit all groups and not just those that have direct access to cycling.

The World Health Organisation defines healthy ageing as ‘the process of optimising opportunities for physical, social and mental health to enable older people to take an active part in society without discrimination and to enjoy an independent and good quality of life. Primary prevention actions to promote healthy ageing are, therefore, grounded in neighbourhoods and communities, affecting community and home life. Physical activity programmes can improve mental wellbeing and reduce mental illness. So the promotion of physical activity through cycling among older people will help to reduce risk of depression and dementia later in life. The effectiveness of exercise in the treatment of clinical depression is well documented. Physical activity such as cycling improves not only sub‐threshold, mild and moderate depression and wellbeing, improved mental health and wellbeing in deprived communities, improved mental wellbeing of those with schizophrenia and improved mental health outcomes in older people.

Age Double click here to add impact / Hide Check box if NOT applicable

Waltham Forest Council EQUALITY ANALYSIS (EA) TEMPLATE Page 5 of 18

Key borough statistics: The 2011 census shows that Waltham Forest has a compared to 32.7% and 16.4% across England and Wales. (Source: 2011 Census, Office population of 258,249. Broken down by broad age group, some 26.1% of the for National Statistics). Children in Care: As at December 2012, we had 289 children in population (67,303) were aged 0‐19, 35.8% (92,392) 20‐39, 28.2% (72,988) 40‐64 and our care. 56% were male and 44% female. Most are in the 12‐16 age bracket (35%) 10% (25,566) were aged 65+. Compared to London and England and Wales Waltham followed by 6‐11 age group (24%). Ethnic breakdown ‐ White: 42%; Black or Black Forest has a younger age profile with 8.1% of its population aged 0‐4 and 26.1% 0‐19 British: 28%; Mixed race: 19%; Asian or Asian British: 6%; Other: 4%. NB: These compared to 7.2% and 24.5% across London and 6.2% and 24% across England and statistics provide general data for this protected characteristic. You need to ensure Wales respectively. Those aged 20‐39 (35.8%) constitute the same percentage of the you have sufficient data about those affected by the proposals – see below under population in Waltham Forest as across London as a whole (also 35.8%) compared to “additional equalities data”. Ward based data is available here: only 26.9% across England and Wales. Smaller proportions of the borough population http://www.walthamforest.gov.uk/Pages/Services/statistics‐economic‐information‐ are found in the 40‐64 and 65+ age groups which constitute 28.2% and 10% and‐analysis.aspx?l1=100004&l2=200088 Double click here to show borough wide statistics / hide statistics Age Click and hover over the questions to find more details on what is required Additional Equalities Data (Service level or Corporate) Include data analysis of the impact of the proposals

 Hoe Street ward has 5,509 households with 14,600 people of which 3250 are children aged 0‐15.  11.8% of children in reception year and 24.7% children in year 6 are obese.  22.3% of dependent children in the ward are considered to living in out of work households.  8.4% of Hoe Street ward are over 65; this is lower than the Borough and London average.  The life expectancy age for males is 77.2 compared to the average of 79.7 in the borough and 79.7 in London. The life expectancy age for women is 82.1 compared to the average of 83.7 in the borough and 84.1 in London.  A higher than average percentage of the Hoe Street ward population is of working age (between 16 and 64) (69.2%). This is higher than the Borough and London average (67.8% and 68.6% respectively) (GLA SHLAA Trend ‐2015).  Hoe Street ward has an average employment rate (66.1%); the London average of 69.2%. 36.4% of the eligible population have Level 4 qualifications or above compared to the Borough average of 30.0%. 19% of the population in this ward have no qualifications compared to 20.8% in the Borough. Wood Street ward has 5,332 households with 14,150 people of which 3,450 are children aged 0‐15.  6.7% of households have no adults in employment, with dependent children.  Older people aged 65 and over make up 9.3% of the population.  Young people and elderly are often more dependent on modes other than the private car. According to Projecting Older People Population Information (POPPI), it has been projected that 4,857 people in Waltham Forest aged 65+ will have restricted mobility and they often need access to a car, dial‐a‐ride and other emergency services.  Fear of crime affects both older and younger people, as evidenced in the resident’s panel report 2009. This found that elderly people would avoid going out after dark, whilst younger people found teenagers hanging around shops a problem.  The proposed scheme does not limit or restrict access for the older people. The scheme has been heavily influenced by the comments received from residents of the local almhouses, care homes and dial‐a‐ ride. This took place during stage 2, 3 and 4 of the engagement.

Waltham Forest Council EQUALITY ANALYSIS (EA) TEMPLATE Page 6 of 18

Age Click and hover over the questions to find more details on what is required group more than the general population, including indirect impact This programme is expected to make a positive impact on all age groups. Improvements to the street network within the centre will improve the pedestrian environment generally; legibility (e.g. way finding) and sense of place will benefit Many studies show the potential health benefits of cycling for older people far older people as it will be easier to travel around the borough and town centre. outweigh the risks, and high levels of cycling among older people in the In addition to all the above, this programme will have the potential for the following Netherlands and Denmark demonstrate the potential. positive impacts:

The intervention is thought to improve the environment for all age groups • Improved safety for young people, who historically make up a high proportion of cycling casualties The reduction of traffic levels will create a safer environment for all users including • Increased independence for young people who aren't able to drive pedestrian accessing a number of destinations within the area including schools, • Improved safety for older people, who are more likely to be deterred from cycling parks and places of worship. The safer crossing location at the junction of Roland by safety concerns Road and Wood Street will improve cycling and pedestrian access to St Mary’s C of E Primary School and Woodside Primary Academy. This will benefit younger age During the engagement process concerns were raised around potential adverse groups. impacts on access for the elderly as a result of the road closures. Within the proposals all areas are still accessible by car, although different routes may need to Improved public realm, greater natural surveillance on streets, particularly in the be taken to access them. This may require a longer distance to travel when doing so evenings will improve community safety and help to reduce crime and fear of by car however all road closures will be permeable and allow for pedestrians, crime, which is a real concern to older people. cyclists and mobility scooters to go through.

Improved lighting should help the area to feel safer which will have a particular Improvements to areas adjacent to St Mary’s Church will improve accessibility for positive impact on older people and young people, who may currently feel all ages particular the elderly who will benefit from reduced traffic levels and intimidated in the evening. improved public realm on the approaches to the church yard.

Young people from low income families will benefit from an allocated fund to Where older people are reliant on access services or indeed where services such as subsidise cycle training. home care providers and friends/relatives that would need to visit could be inconvenienced by having to travel slightly increased distances. Improvements to the street network within the centre will improve the pedestrian environment generally; legibility (e.g. way finding) and sense of place will benefit Providing information about road changes is key for all those requiring access the older people as it will be easier to travel around the borough and town centre. area. There may be barriers to accessing information among some older people who are less likely to have Internet access and therefore may be excluded from the In addition to all the above, this programme will have the potential for the following benefits of an online website e.g. alternative route, partial road closures (certain positive impacts: parts of the day). During each stage of the engagement process leaflets were delivered to all properties within the area, door knocking was undertaken and meetings held with a number of organisations including the care homes within the area. We will continue this process during the final two stages of the scheme.

Waltham Forest Council EQUALITY ANALYSIS (EA) TEMPLATE Page 7 of 18

Age Click and hover over the questions to find more details on what is required

Disability Double click here to add impact / Hide Check box if NOT applicable

Key borough statistics: Look for update from latest APS / also see Borough profile be treated as a rough indicator of the prevalence of disability. As at January 2012, update Recent data from the 2011/2012 Annual Population survey suggests there some 1,299 children and young people had a statement of Special Educational Needs are 31,000 disabled people of working age (16‐64) living in Waltham Forest of which in Waltham Forest. around 16,000 are female and 15,000 male. This represents around 1 in 5 (20%) of (Source: 2011 Census, 2011/12 Annual Population survey, Office for National the working age population, a higher rate than found across London (16.9%) though Statistics, Department for Work and Pensions, Department for Education) Notes: lower than that found in England (20.5%). 2012 data finds that across the borough These statistics provide general data for this protected characteristic. You need to some 10,350 residents claim disability living allowance with rates tending to be ensure you have sufficient data about those affected by the proposals – see below higher in the southern and middle wards of the borough though this data should only under “additional equalities data”.

Double click here to show borough wide statistics / hide statistics Disability Click and hover over the questions to find more details on what is required Additional Equalities Data (Service level or Corporate) Include data analysis of the impact of the proposals

Walthamstow is within the top 5% most deprived areas, in terms of crime, in London. Fear of crime is higher amongst those with disabilities as evidenced in the resident’s panel report 2009.

According to the HNMA (2007) 24.2% of households in the borough include a member with a disability. 44.1% of those with a disability suffer from mobility difficulties and 6.2% contained a member who is a wheel chair user.

Sensory disability

In 2011, Waltham Forest had 875 older people registered as blind or partially sighted and 65 as deaf or hard of hearing. The rates were significantly lower for those who were deaf or hard of hearing compared to national rates, however, those that were registered as blind were significantly higher than the national rates.

Long‐term conditions

The association between physical inactivity (including overweight and obesity) and the following long term illnesses in London (particularly in residents of Waltham Forest) remains strong:

Diabetes ((both Type 1 and Type 2) remains a significant problem for the community and accounted as 13,214 in 2011/12. The estimated number of all deaths attributable to diabetes for those aged 20 to 79 in Waltham Forest is 14.6%, similar to other boroughs in outer and inner north east London but much higher than in England.

Waltham Forest Council EQUALITY ANALYSIS (EA) TEMPLATE Page 8 of 18

Disability Click and hover over the questions to find more details on what is required Cardiovascular disease remains the biggest killer of those aged 75 and under, and there are significantly higher rates in the poorer wards compared to more affluent areas. The increase in older Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) populations in the borough is important to plan for because these groups are more at risk of Cardiovascular disease. It is also the main contributor for health inequalities between Waltham Forest and England.

Representatives of disabled people (London‐wide) have expressed opposition to shared use pavements, due to concerns about being passed too close and fear of collisions.Walthamstow is within the top 5% most deprived, in terms of crime, in London. Fear of crime is higher amongst those with disabilities as evidenced in the resident’s panel report 2009.

The requirement that homes, shops and other facilities should be accessible to all members of the community and meet the needs of residents throughout their changing life cycle will benefit this group.

The adoption and delivery of the Mini Holland programme is likely to have a The following activity to be delivered as part of the scheme is likely to contribute to positive impact on the equalities aim and bring about specific benefits to advancement of disability equality and help mitigate against potential negative disabled people by adding more direct routes, widening footways, creating impacts identified: level surfaces, drop kerbs and tactile paving. Improvements to key pedestrian junctions (with removal of barriers at crossings, and pavement widening) within the centre will benefit those in wheelchairs/who Cycling is the third most popular sport among disabled people with just have restricted mobility. under 10% of cycling participants having a disability. Therefore action to enable more and safer cycling will have positive impacts for this group. Maintenance work of footways and reduced signage will help create well Structural improvements for cyclists using shared use of the footway will also maintained, even surfaces free from clutter and obstructions significantly influence benefit wheelchair users and buggy users. the comfort levels of people with impaired mobility.

Increased participation in physical activity such as cycling would have The environment will be designed to help disabled persons and parking issues will benefits in preventing and addressing many health problems that can result be considered during the design process and groups representing disabled persons in disability along with the overall health and well‐being of the individual. will be fully consulted. Blue badge holders will continue to be able to utilise the controlled parking bays in the close proximity to shops and local services without a The proposed improvements to new and existing public spaces and the routes permit. between them will have a positive impact on all equalities groups but will need to be done so in a way that does not encourage anti‐social behaviour as this would The final detailed design of closures and works would be subject to a wide range of have a negative impact on all equalities groups and particularly disabled people. scrutiny include following TfL designs standards and safety audits. Please find the attached link to such design standards. The proposal of this scheme is to promote cycling through the development of Waltham Forest Council EQUALITY ANALYSIS (EA) TEMPLATE Page 9 of 18

Disability Click and hover over the questions to find more details on what is required better places and liveable environment, although cycling itself may not be https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/shared‐space accessible to some people for instance people with visual or physical impairment, the liveable environment will be improved to benefit these groups. The final design will also take into consideration the need to maximise footway space to ensure that areas designated for shared use (pedestrians, buggy users, There may be issues of conflicts between users particularly for people with mobility wheelchair users and cyclists) are not restricted. The final design adheres to or sensory impairment. Potential conflict between pedestrians and cyclists. shared space guidelines and subject to safety audits that takes into consideration the needs of disabled people, in particular, those with visual impairment Representatives of disabled people (London‐wide) have expressed opposition to shared use pavements, due to concerns about being passed too close and fear of Provision of new social infrastructure e.g. installation of outdoor seating and collisions. Many disabled people, particularly those with visual impairments, feel parklets will serve to enhance the quality of life for the disability groups through the intimidated by bikes coming from behind as they are silent. introduction of the new community facility.

Some disabled people may experience problems in accessing information therefore The reduced impact of motor vehicles can be attractive to cyclists and it may this needs to be provided in alternative formats. encourage them to divert from other, less attractive cycling routes. However, pedestrian movements in the street are also likely to increase, creating potential for Access to open space is understood to have benefits in terms of physical and greater interaction with cyclists. In mitigation, research suggests that cyclists have a mental health. Improvement and improved access to existing open spaces (e.g. high awareness of pedestrians in shared space and tend to ride around them or give Town Square and Parks) within the centre (and beyond e.g. Walthamstow way. Cyclists were found to be more likely to avoid or give way too pedestrians than Wetlands) will be of benefit to those who spend a proportionately higher amount of vice versa. time in public spaces; which could include both young people and the elderly. As part of this scheme and throughout the Mini Holland Programme, there will be a targeted communications campaign including a dedicated and interactive website with clear sign postings and updates to residents on both progress and the scheme proposals. Information packs are being developed that will be issued to all households and businesses within the catchment area of future Mini Holland schemes along with contact details to address any concerns or queries. Information will also be exchanged with Disability Groups.

Waltham Forest Council EQUALITY ANALYSIS (EA) TEMPLATE Page 10 of 18

Pregnancy and Maternity Double click here to add impact / Hide Check box if NOT applicable

Key borough statistics: According to the 2011 census, 8.1% (20,839) of the Waltham compared with 37.1 across London and 35.5 across England and Wales. Source: 2011 Forest population is aged 0‐4 compared to 7.2% across London and 6.2% across Census, Conception statistics and Birth Summary Tables, Office for National Statistics. England and Wales. For those aged 0‐1 these percentages are respectively 3.3% NB: The total fertility rate measures the projected number of births born to a (Waltham Forest), 3% (London) and 2.5% (England & Wales). woman over her lifetime. These statistics provide general data for this protected The Total Fertility rate for Waltham Forest in 2011 is 2.69 (3rd highest across London) characteristic. You need to ensure you have sufficient data about those affected by compared to a London and England figure of 1.99. The teenage pregnancy rate in the proposals – see below under “additional equalities data Waltham Forest (2010) is 45.7 per 1,000 of the female population aged 15‐17 Double click here to show borough wide statistics / hide statistics Pregnancy and Maternity Click and hover over the questions to find more details on what is required Additional Equalities Data (Service level or Corporate) Include data analysis of the impact of the proposals. Hoe Street ward has a fertility rate of 79.7 compared to the borough average of 77.5 and the London average 67.0 (Census 2011). Wood Street ward has a fertility rate of 79.4.

Pregnant women and parents with young children on bike seats may have The final design also took into consideration the need to maximise footway particular safety concerns. Therefore enabling safer cycling will be of benefit space to ensure that areas designated for shared use (pedestrians, buggy of this group. users, wheelchair users and cyclists) are not restricted.

Public realm improvements, particularly to the street networks (a more All areas are fully accessible by car however different routes maybe required pedestrian friendly environment with removal of barriers) will improve the in order reach certain destinations. Local Health Centres will be fully pedestrian environment generally, but also be of specific benefit to pregnant consulted in the final scheme design to ensure that there are no negative women and women with your children. impacts of the proposals on pregnant women, those with young children and local health centre users in general. In addition, information will be passed Road closures could cause problems for pregnant women and mothers of to the local centres to pass onto customers about routes to the centre and young children in getting to doctors or healthcare appointments. location of appropriate parking.

Waltham Forest Council EQUALITY ANALYSIS (EA) TEMPLATE Page 11 of 18

Race Double click here to add impact / Hide Check box if NOT applicable

Key Borough Statistics: According to 2011 census data Waltham Forest’s White Europe (6,020/2.3%) and Baltic states (3,011/1.2%). Data on arrivals from other British population is 92,999, 36% of the total borough population. All other ethnic countries over the last 8 years show that Poland, Pakistan and Lithuania have supplied groups constitute 64% of the population (165,250). Broken down by specified the greatest number of migrants. (Source: 2011 Census, Office for National Statistics, ethnicity: White Other (37,472/14.5%), Pakistani (26,347/10.2%), Black Caribbean Department for Work and Pensions) (18,841/7.3%), Black African (18,815/7.3%), Indian (9,134/3.5%), Other Black NB: These statistics provide general data for this protected characteristic. You need (7,135/2.8%), Any other ethnic group (6,728/2.6%), Bangladeshi (4,632/1.8%) and to ensure you have sufficient data about those affected by the proposals – see Chinese (2,579/1%). Note: The more detailed ethnicity breakdown goes into more below under “additional equalities data”. detail and data for more recent arrivals includes: Polish (6,944/2.7%), Other Eastern Double click here to show borough wide statistics / hide statistics Race Click and hover over the questions to find more details on what is required Additional Equalities Data (Service level or Corporate) Include data analysis of the impact of the proposals

 Hoe Street ward is ethnically diverse with 50.7% BAME residents. This compares to 47.8% in Waltham Forest. 50.4% of Wood Street ward residents are BAME.

 Walthamstow has a high proportion of households which are classified as overcrowded (22.4%). Many of these homes are occupied by BME groups. (Walthamstow Socio‐Economic Master plan 2007).

 77.4% of BME households, who wished to move but stated an inability to do so, specified this was due to being unable to afford to buy a home.

 Walthamstow includes a significant number of local community areas which are amongst the top 5% most deprived areas in London (Walthamstow Socio‐ Economic Master plan 2007). BME groups are disproportionately more likely to be living in poverty.

 The 2006 AESOP study of ethnicity and psychosis (Department of Health, 2010) found inequalities in terms of incidence of mental illness amongst BME groups.

In some cultures, particularly women from some ethnic groups may be less likely The consultation and engagement process that we used to inform and shape the to cycle. Measures to promote and encourage cycling could be of benefit to this final design of the Villages scheme will continue throughout the Mini Holland group. Programme to ensure all stakeholders participate in the design process to mitigate against any potential negative impact on any equality groups. BME groups are disproportionately more likely to be living in poverty and in overcrowded homes. Increasing facilities for cycling and storage for bicycles will All publicity, communication and information will be produced in an accessible and benefit BME groups as cycling would be the cheaper mode of travel for this group. inclusive way ensuring that it is targeted as necessary.

Waltham Forest Council EQUALITY ANALYSIS (EA) TEMPLATE Page 12 of 18

Race Click and hover over the questions to find more details on what is required

Travel patterns of BME groups show a high share of public transport trips. The proposals will make the walking and cycling routes to and from the access points for public transport in a better and safer environment.

Evidence suggests BME groups are less likely to drive cars. Improvements to cycling, public transport and public transport accessibility will benefit BME groups.

Language could be a barrier with information materials, including cycling promotion and notification of events.

Religion or Belief Double click here to add impact / Hide Check box if NOT applicable

Key borough statistics: According to the 2011 Census the borough has 48.4% of its around 150 Christian Churches, 16 Muslim Mosques, 4 Hindu Temples, 3 Jewish population stating their religion to be Christian, Muslim 21.9%, Hindu 2.3%, Jewish Synagogues, 1 Sikh Gurdwara and 1 Tao Temple. NB: These statistics provide general 0.5%, Sikh 0.5%, Buddhist 0.8% and other 0.4%. Some 18% of residents claimed no data for this protected characteristic. You need to ensure you have sufficient data religion whilst 7.3% did not state an answer. The multi‐faith nature of Waltham about those affected by the proposals – see below under “additional equalities Forest is evidenced by more recent data which shows that Waltham Forest has data”.

Double click here to show borough wide statistics / hide statistics Religion or Belief Click and hover over the questions to find more details on what is required Additional Equalities Data (Service level or Corporate) Include data analysis of the impact of the proposals Type response here

What is the proposal’s impact on the equalities aims? Look for direct impact but What actions can be taken to avoid or mitigate any negative impact or to better also evidence of disproportionate impact i.e. where a decision affects a protected advance equality and foster good relations? The proposals will improve the access group more than the general population, including indirect impact to the Church for all modes and have been developed in conjunction with representatives from the church. We await the consent from the Church Council for the scheme as parts of the infrastructure will be located on church land.

Improvements to the car park will improve access via motor car and the improved footways and cycle track for walking and cycling respectively. Also reduced traffic levels will improve the pedestrian experience at this location.

LBWF staff met with religious institutions within the scheme catchment area to We will continue to engage with religious groups as part of the future scheme

Waltham Forest Council EQUALITY ANALYSIS (EA) TEMPLATE Page 13 of 18

Religion or Belief Click and hover over the questions to find more details on what is required elicit their views and concerns. The main concern raised was from Waltham Forest development proposals to ensure any concerns raised are addresses as part of the Counsel of Mosques in relation to parking during times of worship. final scheme design. All concerns raised have been taken into consideration.

Sex Double click here to add impact / Hide Check box if NOT applicable

Key borough statistics: The 2011 census put the gender split of Waltham Forest as NB: These statistics provide general data for this protected characteristic. You need Male: 128,970 (49.94%) and Female 129,279 (50.06%). (Source: 2011 Census, Office to ensure you have sufficient data about those affected by the proposals – see for National Statistics). below under “additional equalities data”.

Double click here to show borough wide statistics / hide statistics Sex Click and hover over the questions to find more details on what is required Additional Equalities Data (Service level or Corporate) Include data analysis of the impact of the proposals

 In the UK 1% of all transport trips by women are by bike, whilst for men it is 2% (DfT, 2008). Women in the UK currently cycle much less than their male counterparts, whereas this is not the case in countries which have high levels of cycling generally, such as Holland, Denmark and Germany (Garrard, 2003).

 DfT statistics for 2007 showed that only 29% of cycle trips were made by women. However statistics from The Netherlands, Germany and  Denmark demonstrates the potential for more women to cycle, with 55%, 49% and 45% of trips respectively. An Australian study showed that female commuter cyclists preferred to use routes with maximum separation from motorised traffic.

 In London, where levels of cycling have been increasing significantly over recent years, the gender gap is most evident in the youngest age group; 2% of females aged under 25 cycle, whilst 11% of males in the same age group do. In the 25 – 44 age group, 40% of males and 21% of females cycle, whilst in the 45 and above age group levels are similar at 12% for women and 14% for men (TfL, 2008). This shows that although women of all ages cycle less than men, there may be peaks of disparity in cycling levels at different stages of people’s lives.

Fewer women than men cycle and women tend to be less confident cycling A key aspect of the Mini Holland Programme is to encourage cycling proficiency and on the road. National research shows that safety issues are of a particular awareness in schools. This will increase participation from females concern in relation to cycling for women. Women prefer separate cycling facilities, either partially or totally segregated from motor traffic. Therefore In addition to this local cycle training groups will be providing free cycle training and enabling more and safer cycling will be of benefit. cycle maintenance for residents. It is also anticipated that this will increase participation. Waltham Forest Council EQUALITY ANALYSIS (EA) TEMPLATE Page 14 of 18

Sex Click and hover over the questions to find more details on what is required It is not foreseen that there will be a differential impact for individuals in the community if the proposed changes are adopted and implemented.

The proposed improvements to new and existing public spaces and the routes between them will have a positive impact on all equalities groups but will need to be done so in a way that does not encourage anti‐social behaviour as this would have a negative impact on all equalities groups and particularly women, young and old people and LGBT communities..

Sexual Orientation and Gender Reassignment Double click here to add impact / Hide Check box if NOT applicable

Key borough statistics: National estimates of LGBT population range from 0.3% to Office for National Statistics, Waltham Forest LGBT Matters). NB: These statistics 10% using different measures. A study commissioned by Waltham Forest Council provide general data for these protected characteristics. You need to ensure you suggested the population to be somewhere between 7,000 to 10,000 people in 2007 have sufficient data about those affected by the proposals – see below under (this is 4‐6% of the adult population). The study also suggested that there may be at “additional equalities data”. least 35 transgender individuals in the borough (Source: Measuring Sexual Identity –

Double click here to show borough wide statistics / hide statistics Sexual Orientation and Gender Reassignment Click and hover over the questions to find more details on what is required Additional Equalities Data (Service level or Corporate) Include data analysis of the impact of the proposals Type response here

What is the proposal’s impact on the equalities aims? Look for direct impact but What actions can be taken to avoid or mitigate any negative impact or to better also evidence of disproportionate impact i.e. where a decision affects a protected advance equality and foster good relations? group more than the general population, including indirect impact There are no negative impacts on this equality group to mitigate. Members of the LGBT community may often feel vulnerable in certain situations, in particular relating to public transport and walking around the area. This proposal can help to reduce this vulnerability by making the area more pedestrian friendly to walk around, creating community hubs and increasing natural surveillance through design.

Sexual Orientation and Gender Reassignment Click and hover over the questions to find more details on what is required old people, and LGBT.

Marriage and Civil Partnership Double click here to add impact / Hide Check box if NOT applicable

Key borough statistics: 2009 ‐ 2010 670 marriages registered in the borough and 32 Civil Partnerships NB: These statistics provide general data for these protected characteristics. You 2010 ‐ 2011 725 marriages registered in the borough and 27 Civil Partnerships need to ensure you have sufficient data about those affected by the proposals – see 2011 ‐ 2012 812 marriages registered in the borough and 25 Civil Partnerships below under “additional equalities data”. Double click here to show borough wide statistics / hide statistics Marriage and Civil Partnership Click and hover over the questions to find more details on what is required Additional Equalities Data (Service level or Corporate) Include data analysis of the impact of the proposals Type response here

The proposed improvements to new and existing public spaces and the routes There are no negative impacts on this equality group to mitigate. between them will have a positive impact on all equalities groups but will need to be done so in a way that does not encourage anti‐social behaviour as this would have a negative impact on all equalities groups and particularly women, young and old people, and LGBT.

Additional Impacts on Advancing Equality & Fostering Good Relations Double click here to add impact / Hide Check box if NOT applicable

See pages 1 and 2 for full details of these two aims. This section seeks to identify proportion of older residents feel differences are respected ‘definitely/most of the what additional steps can be taken to promote these aims or to mitigate any adverse time’ (86% aged 66+ years). Residents with a disability are less likely to feel differences impact. Analysis should be based on the data you have collected above for the 8 are respected (74%) than those without a disability (80%). The survey also shows that protected characteristics covered by these aims. Remember, marriage and civil participation in community activity is 75% for Asian residents and residents in North partnership is not covered. Chingford (72%). Participation is lowest amongst South Chingford residents (63%). Key borough data: From our 2011 Cohesion Survey, a third of our respondents NB: These statistics provide general data for these protected characteristics. You believe that differences are ‘definitely respected’. A further 46% believe this is the need to ensure you have sufficient data about those affected by the proposals – see case most of the time, and just 6% feels this is not the case. By age group, a higher below under “additional equalities data”.

Double click here to show borough wide statistics / hide statistics Waltham Forest Council EQUALITY ANALYSIS (EA) TEMPLATE Page 16 of 18

Additional Impacts on Advancing Equality & Fostering Good Relations Click and hover over the questions to find more details on what is required Additional Equalities Data (Service level or Corporate)

According to the GLA SHLAA Trend based population projection data of 2015, Hoe Street ward has a population density in the borough with 13,091 persons per square kilometre. Wood Street was has a population density of 7,694 per square kilometre. This compares to the borough average of 6,897 per square kilometre. Hoe Street ward also a high fertility rate of 79.7, Wood Street has a fertility rate of 79.4 in comparison to the borough average of 75.4 and the London average of 64.0 (Office for National Statistics).

Census data also indicates that Hoe Street ward has 3.1% of people travel by bicycle to work compared to the 2.8% of average for the borough and 4% for average of Londoners. Residents of this ward have fewer cars per household (0.6) in comparison to the borough average of 0.8 and the London average of 0.8. This ward has an average score for public transport accessibility in 2014 of 5.2 which is higher than the borough average of 3.6, in comparison to the London average of 3.8.

61.9% of the properties in Hoe Street ward are flat/maisonette or apartment compared to the borough average of 41.2% and 52.2% in London, with 31.1% of households living in private rented accommodation compared to a quarter in the borough and a quarter in London.

Census data indicates that the Wood Street ward has a higher proportion of people to travel to work by bicycle (3.7%). The number of cars per household is 0.7 compared to the borough and London average of 0.8. Wood Street ward had an average public transport accessibility rating in 2014 of 3.7.

54.1% of the properties in Wood Street ward are flat/maisonette or apartment and 23.5% live in private rented accommodation.

Are there any additional benefits or risks of the proposals on advancing equality What actions can be taken to avoid or mitigate any negative impact on advancing and fostering good relations not considered above? equality or fostering good relations not considered above? Provide details of how effective the mitigation will be and how it will be monitored. The extensive amount of community engagement work carried out before/during The Mini Holland Programme contains a number of complementary measures and after the trial helped to gauge the potential impact of the programme which include the provision of secure cycle sheds and cycle stands on the highway. proposals on different equality groups and results of the consultation on the trial This will make cycling far more accessible for those individuals that live in premises closures shaped and informed the final scheme design. . that cannot be used to store a bike.

Waltham Forest Council EQUALITY ANALYSIS (EA) TEMPLATE Page 17 of 18

Conclusion

Consider the Guidance below and set out your conclusions from the equalities appropriate. If it is helpful, refer to other documents e.g. the Cabinet report. You analysis of the 8 protected characteristics. If there are negative equalities impacts, may find it helpful to identify one of the 4 outcomes below as being closest to but you think that the proposals should still proceed in the current or amended your current proposals. (Use your conclusions as a basis for the “Equalities form, explain what the objective justification for this is, providing evidence as Implications” in the Cabinet report.)

This analysis has concluded that… In terms of summarising the responses received, 55% of respondents were in favour of the proposed measures to be introduced by the scheme and 29% were against.

The scheme has developed through consultation with a number of stakeholders including: cycling and access groups, religious groups, local Councillors, local businesses, residents groups and the Council staff. Elements of the scheme have received a lot of support and we are taking these elements forward. There has been some concern about the potential conflict between cyclists and pedestrians and the final scheme design addresses these concerns. Continuous dialogue with stakeholders will form the basis of the final design of all Mini Holland.

Outcome of Analysis Check one that applies

Outcome 2

No major change required when the assessment has not identified any potential for Adjustments to remove barriers identified by the assessment or to better advance discrimination or adverse impact and all opportunities to advance equality have equality. Are you satisfied that the proposed adjustments will remove the barriers been taken. identified?

Outcome 3 Outcome 4 Continue despite having identified some potential for adverse impacts or missed Stop and rethink when an assessment shows actual or potential unlawful opportunities to advance equality. In this case, the justification should be included discrimination. in the assessment and should be in line with the duty to have ‘due regard’. For the most important relevant policies, compelling reasons will be needed. You should consider whether there are sufficient plans to reduce the negative impact and/or plans to monitor the actual impact.

Signed off by Head of Service: Name: Date:

Waltham Forest Council EQUALITY ANALYSIS (EA) TEMPLATE Page 18 of 18 Appendix G - Matrix to Assess Climate Change Impacts

Aim is to reduce Carbon Positive impact Negative impact Mitigation measure Effect on CO2 Opportunity to promote Emissions (CO2) by emissions (+ or - 80% by 2050 tonnes of CO2) Water Use of Use permeable paving, Flooding exacerbated by Water Use and Flooding impermeable SUD systems. climate change can be material for cycling mitigated by using infrastructure could permeable materials and increase potential adhering to SUD flooding guidance. Their use will be encouraged. Energy Mini Holland will Energy efficiency and endeavour to use energy saving in renewable energy as far buildings, including as possible, e.g. to opportunities for power automatic cycle installation of renewable counters, lighting energy generation Air Mini Holland seeks to An annual reduction Air quality, pollution increase journeys made of 5% in CO2 by bike (10% by 2020), emissions would and reduce trips by car equate to (-5% by 2020). This will approximately have obvious air quality 3,700 Tonnes per benefits (e.g. reduction year. in NOx, PMs).

Waste – reducing, Contractors working on Waste disposed of Recycling and Re-use of reusing and recycling MH will be required to in landfill materials. Term contracts waste re-use and recycle include a performance materials wherever indicator which measures feasible. the amount of construction and demolition waste reused or recycled. Aim is to reduce Carbon Positive impact Negative impact Mitigation measure Effect on CO2 Opportunity to promote Emissions (CO2) by emissions (+ or - 80% by 2050 tonnes of CO2) Land N/A Use of brown-field and green-field sites

Bio-diversity Mini Holland aims to Effects on bio-diversity reduce motor traffic, including green space, which will have a trees, rivers and streams positive impact on biodiversity by reducing land take for roads/ parking, reducing road kill, noise and other disturbance, and a reduction in harmful emissions (NOx, PMs) which negatively impact on flora, fauna, air and water quality.

Transport Reduction in carbon Transport and the Staff and contractors will be 100 miles reduced Transport and the type of Travelling to deliver emissions through type of vehicles encouraged to walk, cycle lorry mileage [HGV vehicles used produce service. cycling, walking and the used produce and use public transport in 3.5 – 7.5 tonne] substantial carbon use of low emission substantial carbon the course of work to (161 kms) saves emissions. The term vehicles emissions. deliver the MH programme. 0.106 tonnes of contracts include a Where the use of motor CO2. performance indicator to vehicles is necessary, fuel- So for every mile of measure conformity with efficient, low emission reduced lorry travel Euro standards. vehicles will be preferred. saves 1.06kgs of CO2. (Source: Defra)

Aim is to reduce Carbon Positive impact Negative impact Mitigation measure Effect on CO2 Opportunity to promote Emissions (CO2) by emissions (+ or - 80% by 2050 tonnes of CO2) Buildings N/A Adaptability of buildings to heat or flooding. Use of green roofs, rainwater harvesting etc.

Commentary on any differences in financial costings for climate change mitigation / adaptation measures including energy efficiency and potential external grant sources

Potential “whole life costing” savings ie: increased installation costs will achieve running cost savings over lifetime; including reduced use of resources eg: water saving devices

Explanation of Proposal chosen in context of results matrix assessment, including what mitigating steps can and have been taken

Total Tonnes of CO2 & DEC rating of building to be occupied

An annual reduction of 5% in CO2 emissions would equate to approximately 3,700 Tonnes per year.