APPENDIX 5

DEPARTMENT: HEALTH AND COMMUNITY SERVICES – STREETSCENE

CYCLE SUPERHIGHWAY 1 (CS1) SUPPLIMENTARY SCHEME APPROVAL AREA ROAD CLOSURES CONSULTATION DETAILS

1.0 BACKGROUND

In spring 2013 the Mayor of published his Cycling Vision for London – a 10 year strategy with approximately £1bn investment to increase the levels of cycling in London. One of the primary objectives of the strategy is to create a “tube network for the bike” – a mixture of fast commuter cycle routes offering dedicated cycle facilities on key main routes “Superhighways”, complemented by a number of “Quietways”, which together will form a network of direct, joined-up cycle routes throughout London. CS1 will provide a safe, direct, continuous and comfortable way of getting from outer London into central London by bicycle.

TfL has been working with the of Hackney, Haringey and , and is proposing a major new cycle route between Tottenham and the . Cycle Superhighway Route 1 (CS1) would run from White Hart Lane to Liverpool Street station, forming part of the London-wide network of Cycle Superhighways.

CS1 aims to provide safe and convenient journeys along its 11km north-south route, improving conditions for existing cyclists and making cycling attractive to more people. For much of its length, CS1 would run along residential streets, away from the majority of car, freight and bus traffic. Within the borough the CSI runs from Wilson St in the south to Holmdale Terrace in the north.

The proposals will help improve road safety for all road users, particularly cyclists and pedestrians. The proposals will also help encourage and promote cycling, and walking, as sustainable modes of travel, which in turn has a number of significant benefits in terms of public health, air quality and reducing the volume/impact of motorised traffic within the boroughs residential roads.

The Council is committed to promoting and encouraging cycling as a clean, healthy and efficient way to travel, and Hackney has been recognised as a leading cycling borough for the work we have undertaken in this respect to date. Hackney now has record levels of cycling amongst residents and visitors in the borough and the Council's intention is to continue to promote and encourage cycling as a sustainable transport alternative to private motor vehicle use, due to the wide range of benefits it provides, both at an individual level and to the wider transport network and environment. To help achieve these objectives the Council is committed to delivering a range of projects and programmes that will enhance the road environment for cycling, through measures aimed at improving safety, accessibility, permeability and rideability.

Transport for London is the strategic Traffic Authority for London. In spring 2013, The Mayor of London published a policy document setting out his Vision for Cycling in London. In response to this policy, Transport for London have developed a number of programmes that are intended to deliver the objectives and ambitions set out in the Policy in terms of making London the worlds’ most cycleable city.

The Cycle Superhighways programme was initiated in 2010 with the intention of providing a set of ten strategic routes that will provide a safe, direct, continuous and comfortable way of getting from outer London into central London by bicycle along recognised commuter routes. The Superhighways programme was initiated prior to the 2013 policy document but the policy has resulted in some changes to TfL’s objectives for the Cycle Superhighways routes and the required “level of service” that should be provided. All routes to be delivered after spring 2013 should therefore conform to the new objectives and “levels of service” arising from the 2013 policy.

The alignment of Cycle Superhighway 1 was originally proposed along the A10 corridor between Stamford Hill and Shoreditch, aligned along roads where Transport for London is the Highway and Traffic Authority. As such, Transport for London were due to lead on the feasibility assessment, design, consultation and delivery of highway improvements/interventions associated with the project. In response to the 2013 Policy and taking into consideration a number of significant challenges associated with providing a Cycle Superhighways Route to the required level of service along the A10 corridor, Transport for London approached the Council to discuss potential alternative alignments along primarily Borough controlled roads.

Following discussions at both Officer level and between the Mayor’s Cycling Commissioner and Hackney’s Cabinet Member of Neighbourhoods, it was agreed that a new alignment for CS1 would be along a parallel, existing London Cycle Network + route located just to the west of the A10 corridor, aligned primarily along borough roads.

As any proposed improvements/interventions associated with CS1 would now take place on borough controlled roads, both Authorities agreed that London Borough of Hackney should take on a number of roles and responsibilities in respect to the development and delivery of Highway improvement proposals for CS1, with TfL acting as the Client and project sponsor.

Between November 2013 and January 2015 Hackney Council, in partnership with TfL, designed and developed a range of highway improvements as part of the CS1 project in order to substantially improve conditions for cyclists on approximately 7km of borough road network along the route. The proposals included a mixture of carriageway resurfacing and traffic calming upgrades, junction improvements, new pedestrian and cycle crossings, road closures and parking layout changes.

Cycle Superhighway 1 De Beauvoir area consultation details 2

These original proposals were publicly consulted upon between 16 February and 29 March 2015, with over 55000 leaflets being delivered to properties within a 0.25 mile radius of the affected roads. Because of the length of the route, the proposals were broken down into 19 sections as follows:

• Section 1: Paul Street (south) – Sun Street • Section 2: Paul Street (Blackall Street to Scrutton Street) • Section 3: Paul Street (north) • Section 4: Old Street / Great Eastern Street • Section 5: Pitfield Street (south) • Section 6: Pitfield Street (junction with New North Road) • Section 7: Pitfield Street (north) – De Beauvoir Road • Section 8: De Beauvoir Road – Culford Road • Section 9: Balls Pond Road: Options A and B • Section 10: Wordsworth Road - Kingsbury Road • Section 11: Defoe Road - Wordsworth Road • Section 12: Heathland Road – Defoe Road • Section 13: Holmdale Terrace - Heathland Road • Section 14: Ermine Road - Holmdale Terrace • Section 15: Ermine Road - West Green Road • Section 16: Broad Lane - Town Hall Approach Road • Section 17: Philip Lane • Section 18: Napier Road - Broadwater Road • Section 19: Broadwater Road - White Hart Lane

Overall, 1,036 responses were received to the consultation, of which 77% supported or partially supported the proposals.

Of the 1,036 respondents who responded to the consultation, 650 (63%) provided specific comments about different aspects of the overall scheme.

A full analysis of consultation feedback/responses received is included within the attached CS1 DA report (Appendix 1).

After considering all responses the scheme was recommended for approval, and subsequently agreed, with a number of changes and further investigations to be Cycle Superhighway 1 De Beauvoir area consultation details 3

undertaken. Those which affect London Borough of Hackney are detailed below the most significant of which are (Hackney specific issues highlighted in italics): 1. Hillside Road/East Bank alignment TfL plan to deliver CS1 to the alignment consulted on, via St Ann’s Road, with a view to launching the route in spring 2016. However, TfL will also work with the London Boroughs of Hackney and Haringey to develop proposals for improvements along alternative roads via East Bank/Hillside Road. TfL will consult on these proposals in due course 2. Balls Pond Road TfL and the Council will continue progressing with Option B (two-way segregated cycle track), subject to technical and operational feasibility 3. Junction of Wordsworth Road/Boleyn Road a simplified design for the junction of Wordsworth Road/Boleyn Road will be prepared and taken forward as part of CS1, omitting the closure/banned movements for motor traffic proposed during consultation. The Council will investigate a supplementary scheme to reduce the impact of motor traffic from Wordsworth Road and surrounding roads. Any revised proposal would be subject to further local consultation to ensure it meets local needs 4. Junction of Ardleigh Road/Culford Road/Englefield Road the Council is currently assessing the merits of the design proposed during consultation against alternative suggestions to ensure the final scheme provides as many benefits as possible for different roads users. The Council will also consider the representations made by a number of residents in the area regarding potential traffic displacement and the need for an area wide traffic management treatment to reduce the impact of through traffic. The Council will determine the best way to engage with local people based on the outcome of our further investigation

• Emergency access via Pitfield Street To accommodate the needs of emergency vehicles, particularly those using Old Street Fire Station, TfL and the Council will design the Pitfield Street closure to allow access to emergency vehicles • Butterfield Green/Allen Road The Council will investigate further measures to improve safety for all road users, such as additional traffic-calming on both Nevill Road and Wordsworth Road and/or changes to parking restrictions • Charles Square loading bay The proposed loading bay in Charles Square, at the junction with Pitfield Street, has been removed from the proposal • Junction of Paul Street and Tabernacle Street The shared space scheme linking these two streets to Tabernacle Square will no longer be implemented, with the road configuration staying largely as it is with minor adjustments

Cycle Superhighway 1 De Beauvoir area consultation details 4

• Resurfacing We are reviewing requirements on a site-by-site basis, and resurfacing will only take place where necessary

The remainder of this approvals report relates to the highlighted item 4 above and the subsequent proposals that have been developed and consulted upon.

2.0 PROPOSALS

The original CS1 scheme consulted upon in February/March 2015 included proposals to close Ardleigh Road to motorised traffic at the Englefield Road/Culford Road/Ardleigh Road junction. This proposal was put forward in order to simplify the layout of the junction – by reducing the number of conflicting vehicle movements and making it easier for cyclists and pedestrians to navigate – and to reduce the volume of traffic using Ardleigh Road as a through route in the area. Plans showing the original CS1 proposals for the De Beauvoir area (Section 8) is included in Appendix 2.

Feedback to the original consultation and specific to the De Beauvoir Area is shown in the table below (table extracted from CS1 report in Appendix 1). Of the 812 responses received relating specifically to the section of the route that included the De Beauvoir area, 590 (73%) indicated support or partial support to the changes proposed in this area.

Support Total Partial Not No Don’t Section Support or partial responses support sure opinion Support support Section 499 91 590 18 76 128 812 7-8 (62%) (11%) (73%) (2%) (9%) (16%)

Modal filter on Ardleigh Road: Support for principle of filtering motor traffic from residential streets, but concerns over traffic displacement to nearby roads.

While the consultation feedback showed overall support for the proposed changes in this area one of the key themes raised by residents related to the proposed closure of Ardleigh Road to through traffic at the Englefield Road/Culford Road/Ardleigh Road junction. Residents expressed support for the principle of filtering motor traffic from residential streets, but concerns over traffic displacement impact onto nearby roads such as Culford Road, Culford Mews and Buckingham Road.

Cycle Superhighway 1 De Beauvoir area consultation details 5

Furthermore, the Council and TfL received 3 petitions from the De Beauvoir area in response to the original Cycle Super Highway 1 consultation in February/March 2015. The details of which are as follows:

1. De Beauvoir Road residents, 50 names, Close De Beauvoir Road between Englefield Road and Downham Road to remove non-local motor traffic

2. Northchurch Terrace residents, 13 names, Realign CS1 away from Northchurch Terrace; tackle inconsiderate cycling/pedestrian safety; retain planter in Northchurch Terrace

3. De Beauvoir area residents, multiple roads, 294 names, Call for area-wide motor traffic management scheme to reduce the impact of non-local through traffic .

In light of the feedback received to the proposals in this area – both for and against – the Council and TfL felt that the planned changes to the Englefield Road/Culford Road/Ardleigh Road junction, including the proposed closure of Ardleigh Road to through traffic, could not be recommended for approval and that a supplementary scheme would be investigated and developed. This scheme would seek to take on board comments and representations received, and would be taken through a further public consultation process.

The following additional proposals have subsequently been developed

In response to feedback from residents during the Cycle Superhighway Route 1 (CS1) consultation in early 2015, the Council and TfL have put forward proposals to close the following 5 junctions to through traffic:

1. Ardleigh Road / Culford Road / Englefield Road junction 2. Culford Road / Culford Grove junction 3. De Beauvoir Road / Stamford Road / Englefield Road junction 4. De Beauvoir Road / Buckingham Road junction 5. De Beauvoir Road / Tottenham Road junction

The proposals to close the five junctions to motor traffic is aimed at reducing non- local motor traffic using some residential streets, making the De Beauvoir area a safer and more pleasant place in which to live, walk and cycle.

Complementing existing junction closures in this area, the proposed closures would restrict through motor traffic to roads better suited to larger volumes of motor traffic, such as Balls Pond Road, Englefield Road, Kingsland Road and Southgate Road.

Existing motor traffic access to properties in the De Beauvoir area would be retained, and there would be minor changes to parking restrictions. Some parking bays would be added and some removed. There would be no overall reduction in parking.

The proposals include significant improvements for pedestrians, such as wider footways, safer junctions, and new pedestrian crossings.

Cycle Superhighway 1 De Beauvoir area consultation details 6

This proposal would also complement an existing TfL proposal (consulted on summer 2015) to close the junctions of Stamford Road and Tottenham Road at the A10 to motor traffic .

Proposed changes at each junction

Plans showing an overview of the road closure locations within the area along with details of each specific location are included on pages 10-14.

Ardleigh Road / Culford Road / Englefield Road (see junction 1 plan on pg 11)

Closing the junction of Ardleigh Road and Culford Road to motor traffic was consulted upon as part of CS1 during February-March 2015. In response to feedback from the consultation, there have been two changes compared with the design previously consulted upon: • New zebra crossing west of the junction • Entry to junction-wide speed hump moved south of junction with Ardleigh Road

The original proposal included the following, which have been retained in the updated design: • Bollards and widened footways between Ardleigh Road and Culford Road • Ardleigh Road, Culford Road and Englefield Road junction realigned to make north-south journeys safer and more convenient, with junction-wide speed hump to calm traffic • Existing motor vehicle access retained to all properties • New trees (subject to further investigation), paving and cycle parking • Parking bays on east and west sides of Ardleigh Road reduced by 3.5 metres • Parking bay on east side of Culford Road reduced by 4 metres • Parking bay on west side of Culford Road extended 11 metres (there would be no overall change in parking)

Impacts of our proposals • No motor traffic movements between Ardleigh Road and Culford Road, except refuse and emergency vehicles • Pedestrians and cyclists could still pass through the junction. We would ensure access widths are sufficient for non-standard cycles • Improved safety for pedestrians and cyclists, such as north-south CS1 journeys • Motor vehicle access retained for all properties • Reduced through motor traffic in Culford Road and Culford Grove • Safer crossings for pedestrians

Culford Road / Culford Grove junction (see junction 2 plan on pg 12)

Cycle Superhighway 1 De Beauvoir area consultation details 7

Proposals • Footway widened at junction • Bollards installed on Culford Road, south of Culford Grove, to restrict through motor traffic • One parking bay removed at on Culford Road opposite Culford Grove, with four more bays added on Culford Road near junction with Buckingham Road

Impacts • Bollards would prevent north and southbound movements for motor traffic at the southern side of the junction of Culford Grove and Culford Road, except for refuse and emergency vehicles • Pedestrians and cyclists could still pass through the junction. We would ensure access widths are sufficient for non-standard cycles • Existing motor vehicle access retained for all properties • Reduced through motor traffic on De Beauvoir Road

De Beauvoir Road / Stamford Road / Englefield Road junction (see junction 3 plan on pg 13)

Proposals • Widen the footways and plant trees (subject to investigation) to prevent motor traffic passing between De Beauvoir Road and Englefield Road. • Remove the mini-roundabout and redesign the junction where De Beauvoir Road joins Stamford Road, removing the traffic island, widening footways and planting new trees (subject to investigation) • Junction-wide speed hump on Stamford Road to calm traffic

Impacts • Improved safety for all road users • No motor traffic movements between De Beauvoir Road and Englefield Road, except for refuse and emergency vehicles • Pedestrians and cyclists could still pass between De Beauvoir Road and Englefield Road. We would ensure access widths are sufficient for non- standard cycles • Existing motor vehicle access retained for all properties • Reduced through motor traffic on De Beauvoir Road

De Beauvoir Road / Tottenham Road & De Beauvoir Road / Buckingham Road junctions (see junction 4 plan on pg 14)

Proposals

Cycle Superhighway 1 De Beauvoir area consultation details 8

• Install gates and bollards on Tottenham Road and Buckingham Road, to the west of junctions with De Beauvoir Road Impacts • No motor traffic movements between De Beauvoir Road and Tottenham Road or Buckingham Road, except for refuse and emergency vehicles • Pedestrians and cyclists could still pass between De Beauvoir Road and Tottenham Road and Buckingham Road. We would ensure access widths are sufficient for non-standard cycles • Improved safety for cyclists and pedestrians using Tottenham Road, Buckingham Road and De Beauvoir Road • Existing motor vehicle access retained for all properties • Reduced through motor traffic on Buckingham Road and Tottenham Road

Cycle Superhighway 1 De Beauvoir area consultation details 9

Cycle Superhighway 1 De Beauvoir area consultation details 10

Cycle Superhighway 1 De Beauvoir area consultation details 11

Cycle Superhighway 1 De Beauvoir area consultation details 12

Cycle Superhighway 1 De Beauvoir area consultation details 13

Cycle Superhighway 1 De Beauvoir area consultation details 14

3.0 Consultation

3.1 Consultation overview

This consultation ran from 19 October to 16 November 2015, with information on the consultation and an opportunity to respond published at tfl.gov.uk/cs1-De-Beauvoir .

When responding online, respondents were asked to answer a mandatory closed question, asking for their level of support for the overall proposals. The choices were ‘support’, ‘partially support’, ‘don’t support’, ‘not sure’ or ‘no opinion’. Next, respondents were given the option to provide comments on the proposal in an open text field.

The consultation was originally scheduled to run from 19 October until 2 November 2015, but due to feedback from some stakeholders during consultation, the period was extended by another two weeks. Another CS1-related consultation that was running concurrently, which proposed a motor traffic reduction scheme for the Wordsworth area (tfl.gov.uk/cs1-Wordsworth-rd), was also extended.

Stakeholder meetings

The Council and TfL engaged with the following groups before and during consultation to explain the proposals and gather feedback:

Stakeholders

• Hackney refuse and recycling • Emergency services • De Beauvoir ward councillors • De Beauvoir Road petition organisers • Culford Road petition organisers • Northchurch Road petition organisers • Hackney Living Streets • London Cycling Campaign in Hackney • Hackney People on Bikes • St Matthias Church • Our Lady & St Joseph Primary School

Businesses

• E & E Lusardi Motors • Gullaksen Architects • Healthy Bag Company

Cycle Superhighway 1 De Beauvoir area consultation details 15

• Leyland SDM • Mick’s Body Shop • N1 Garden Centre • Scooterden • The Talbot Public House • Yummy’s Café.

3.2 Consultation material, distribution and publicity

On 06 October 2015, detailed information on the proposals was published at tfl.gov.uk/cs1-De-Beauvoir. The consultation information on TfL’s website was also made available on paper on request via FREEPOST.

Paper response forms were available at public events, where members of the project team were present to discuss the proposals with visitors and answer questions.

The consultation was publicised via the following channels:

Letter to properties: TfL sent a 2-page (4-sided) colour A4 letter outlining the proposals to all addresses within 0.25 miles of the scheme (nearly 11,000 properties). The letter summarised the proposals and encouraged recipients to find out more and respond via the consultation website. The letter and distribution map are reproduced in Appendix 3.

Emails to individuals : TfL emailed around 50,000 people on the TfL database who are known to cycle, drive or use public transport in the area (see the email in Appendix 4). The email briefly described this and the other two proposed schemes associated with CS1, and invited recipients to find out more and respond via the consultation website.

Emails to stakeholders: TfL emailed approximately 1000 stakeholders (see Appendix 4 for the email and Appendix 5 for the list of recipients). The email contained a summary of the proposals and a link to the consultation website. Recipients included:

• Police and emergency services • Politicians (national, regional and local) • Local authorities • Disability rights groups • Residents’ associations • Transport user groups

Cycle Superhighway 1 De Beauvoir area consultation details 16

• Road operator groups Public drop-in events: The Council and TfL held three public drop-in events for the three CS1 consultations taking place concurrently. One drop-in was held near Broadwater Road to provide the best opportunity for people in that area to give feedback. The other two events were in Hackney near the De Beauvoir and Wordsworth Road proposed schemes:

• St Matthias Church Hall, Wordsworth Road, London, N16 8DD 3pm-7pm, Friday 23 October 2015

• CLR James Library, Dalston Lane, London, E8 3BQ 1pm-5pm, Saturday 24 October 2015

• Miller Memorial Methodist Church, The Avenue, London, N17 6TG 6.30pm-8.30pm, Wednesday 21 October 2015

Individuals and stakeholders were invited to respond by either using the online survey on our website, by emailing TfL at [email protected], or by filling in a paper feedback form (available at events or by post on request).

Public meeting: At the request of councillors from the De Beauvoir ward, Hackney Council and TfL officers, along with Hackney’s Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Ward Councillors, attended a public meeting at Kingsgate Community Centre, where they presented the benefits of the scheme and fielded questions from 70-80 local residents, including representatives of residents’ associations and local businesses.

• Kingsgate Community Centre, Tottenham Road, N1 7.30-9.30pm, Monday 19 October 2015

3.3 Consultation feedback/responses

The sections below provide a summary of the feedback received to the consultation process. Transport for London are currently preparing a detailed consultation analysis report which is due to be published in May 2016. For the purpose of this Decision Audit the key consultation information has been provided but not the full consultation analysis due to its extensive nature and unnecessary duplication of work.

Cycle Superhighway 1 De Beauvoir area consultation details 17

Consultation feedback analysis

1182 responses were received to the consultation. Below is an overview of the level of support for all responses. Summary of all responses received to consultation

Table 1: Summary of all responses to consultation

Responses Support Support Partial Don’t Not sure No opinion or partial support support support 1182 673 (57%) 609 (52%) 64 (5%) 496 (42%) 5 (<1%) 8 (1%)

Summary of responses within De Beauvoir area – excluding boundary roads

There were 349 respondents from roads within the De Beauvoir area, excluding those on the boundary of the area (Southgate Road, Downham Road, Balls Pond Road and Kingsland Road). Below is an overview of support for the proposal:

Table 2: Summary of De Beauvoir area responses – excluding boundary roads

Responses Support Support Partial Don’t Not sure No opinion or partial support support support 349 189 (54%) 161 (46%) 28 (8%) 151 (43%) 4 (1%) 5 (1%)

Don’t support: Support and 43% partial support: 54%

Cycle Superhighway 1 De Beauvoir area consultation details 18

Map 2: Responses within De Beauvoir

Summary of responses from main roads on boundary of De Beauvoir area

There were 114 responses to the consultation from Southgate Road, Balls Pond Road, Downham Road and Kingsland Road. Almost all were from Southgate Road.

Table 3: Responses on main roads outside De Beauvoir Responses Support Support Partial Don’t Not sure No opinion or partial support support support 114 20 (18%) 11 (10%) 9 (8%) 94 (82%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)

Respondents by postcode

969 respondents supplied a postcode. 324 respondents provided an N1 4xx postcode, which is corresponds with addresses closest to the scheme. 189 respondents provided an N1 3xx postcode, and 87 respondents an N1 5xx postcode, as the next nearest postcodes.

There were 25 other N1 postcodes. 68 respondents provided an N16 postcode, and 51 another N postcode. 66 provided an E8 postcode, and 44 an E5 postcode, with 42 another E postcode. 63 provided a postcode in . There were 10 postcodes from outside Greater London.

Figure 1: Postcodes provided by De Beauvoir area respondents Cycle Superhighway 1 De Beauvoir area consultation details 19

Summary of comments

Of the 1182 people who responded to this consultation, 833 (70%) provided a comment in the open text box for the scheme. The most frequently raised issues were the impact of the scheme on local people including residents within the area, motorists, pedestrians and cyclists. Key themes are as follows:

• Respondents provided positive comments, supporting the principle of reducing through motor traffic in the De Beauvoir area and beyond, saying the proposals would be beneficial for cycling, pedestrians, residents, road safety and pollution • Respondents expressed concern about motor traffic displacement to nearby roads, with most concern for Southgate Road and Englefield Road. There were related concerns about increased congestion and environmental impacts • Respondents said the proposal was not necessary due to current closures or motor traffic levels, with calls for measures to reduce motor traffic speeds rather than volumes • Respondents expressed concern about the effect of the scheme on deliveries to and from businesses, and to domestic premises, along with the effect on trade • Other issues raised included the impact on crime, buses, schools, churches and emergency services

Cycle Superhighway 1 De Beauvoir area consultation details 20

• Respondents expressed concern about the danger to pedestrians from cycling, with calls for stricter enforcement of road rules • A number of comments on issues outside the scope of the De Beauvoir proposal, including the proposed scheme on the A10/Stamford Road/Tottenham Road

• There were a significant number of responses about the consultation process, including calls to extend the consultation and provide more information

Support and 3.4 Summary of stakeholderpartial support: responses 18% 38 responses were identified as coming from stakeholder groups, including local businesses and organisations. There is a summary of responses below:

Local stakeholdersDon’t support: 82% Andrew Magurran Photography Opposed. Supported calm traffic, but concerned about access for business.

Barry’s Locks Opposed. Concerned about effect on local business.

David Turner Workshop Supported. Welcomed scheme’s positive contribution to the area. Called for Bentley Road between Balls Pond Road to become one-way.

De Beauvoir Association Opposed. Expressed concern about motor traffic displacement and congestion, longer journey times, right turns on Englefield Road, effect on businesses/deliveries, and cycling danger to pedestrians. Called for limited or zero closures and more zebra crossings.

De Beauvoir Candle Co Opposed. Concerned about cycling danger to pedestrians. Opposed blue paint.

De Beauvoir Place Residents’ Association Partial support. Concerned about scheme’s effect on sheltered housing, particularly potential congestion in Tottenham Road caused by ‘bottleneck’ at Bentley Road, including difficulties for emergency services and deliveries.

E & E Lusardi Motors Opposed. Concerned about potential congestion in nearby roads, and parking and road maintenance problems.

Cycle Superhighway 1 De Beauvoir area consultation details 21

Flowers Galore and More Opposed. Concerned about potential for increased motor traffic in Southgate Road, including effect on buses, businesses and churches.

Gullaksen Architects Opposed. Called for measure to reduce motor traffic speed, not volume. Concerned about potential displacement of motor traffic, increased congestion, lack of right turns on Englefield Road, increase in crime, effect on businesses/deliveries, cyclist safety, cycling danger to pedestrians, effect on church and schools, community division. Called for more pedestrian crossings.

Healthy Back Bag Company Opposed. Called for measure to reduce motor traffic speed, not volume. Concerned about potential displacement of motor traffic, increased congestion, lack of right turns on Englefield Road, increase in crime, effect on businesses/deliveries, cyclist safety, cycling danger to pedestrians, effect on church and schools, community division. Called for more pedestrian crossings.

Honey and Thyme Opposed. Concerned about movements of and access for larger delivery vehicles.

Leyland SDM Opposed. Concerned about movements of and access for larger delivery vehicles, including turning issues at junctions of Englefield Road/De Beauvoir Road and De Beauvoir Road/Tottenham Road, including school’s safety. Comments on A10 proposal.

Living Streets Hackney Supported. Welcomed proposals to improve conditions for pedestrians and cyclists.

London Cycling Campaign in Hackney Supported. Welcomed reduced motor traffic, lower vehicle emissions, safer/quieter roads, wider footways and new pedestrian crossings, improvements for cycling. Called for filtering of Englefield Road, improved crossing for cyclists, and filter at De Beauvoir Road/Downham Road.

Michael van der Ham Opposed. Concerned about deliveries to business premises.

Mick’s Body Shop Opposed. Concerned about potential congestion in nearby roads, and parking and road maintenance problems.

Micycle East Supported.

The Millinery Works Opposed. Concerned about increased motor traffic on Southgate Road.

N1 Garden Centre Cycle Superhighway 1 De Beauvoir area consultation details 22

Opposed. Concerned about access for suppliers/customers/emergency services, potential for community division and increased crime. Called for traffic lights at Englefield Road/Stamford Road, and consideration of a one-way system. Asked for resurfacing to take place outside peak period. Called for consultation extension.

Oakley Road and Crowland Terrace Residents Association Opposed. Concerned about potential impact on Southgate Road.

Pro Bike Service Opposed. Called for speed reduction.

Rosemary Works Opposed. Noted poor public transport in this area.

Scooterden Opposed. Concerned about effect on business/deliveries, congestion, cycle safety, community division, cycle danger to pedestrians,

St Peter’s Church Opposed. Concerned about access. Called for trial scheme.

Sweet Thursday Opposed. Concerned about displaced motor traffic on Southgate Road, effect on trade.

The Talbot Opposed. Concerned about effect on trade/deliveries, displacement of motor traffic, increased crime, effect on pollution, and cycling danger to pedestrians. Questioned CS1 alignment. Called for safety improvements at Southgate Road/Northchurch Road, and resurfacing in Englefield Road. Concerned about noise pollution from buses.

Wilson Solicitors Supported. Said scheme would benefit staff by improving cycle safety.

X Industries Not sure. Welcomed safety improvement for cycling. Concerned about deliveries and potential for increased crime.

XFilm Opposed.

Yummy’s Café Opposed. Concerned about effect on trade and cycle safety. National stakeholders

Association of British Drivers Opposed. Concerned scheme would displace motor traffic to other roads. Cycle Superhighway 1 De Beauvoir area consultation details 23

British Motorcyclists Federation Opposed. Objected to removal of through motor traffic, and growth of trees/shrubs.

Camden Music Service Supported.

Historic No opinion.

London Remembers Supported.

Wheels for Wellbeing Supported.

3.5 Summary of petition

Petition from Helene Gullaksen

A petition of 932 names and covering letter was received from Helene Gullaksen, resident of De Beauvoir Road. The petition opposed the closures to motor traffic and the covering letter called for future decisions to be evidence-driven. The petition did not set out any reasons for the objections but the lead petitioner had cited a number of concerns about the impact of the proposals in a number of previous questions asked to the Council and TfL, which were duly responded to. The responses to these questions are set out below. However, of the 932 signatories objecting to the scheme, through a brief analysis of the petition, it would appear that there were 333 residents that signed the petition from within the area immediately impacted by the proposals. There were a further 21 entries that were either duplicate or appeared to be signed as different names by the same person. It would appear that 26 - 38 businesses signed but with a total of 117 people signing from them. 67 people signed from the boundary roads. This petition should be considered together with the previous petitions that triggered the wider traffic management proposals following the first consultation on the CS1 route. These were: De Beauvoir Road residents: 50 names (40 properties) Close De Beauvoir Road between Englefield Road and Downham Road to remove non-local motor traffic

De Beauvoir residents :247 names (180 properties) Call for area-wide motor traffic management scheme

Cycle Superhighway 1 De Beauvoir area consultation details 24

These earlier petitions are clearly in advance of the current proposals details being developed but it is also not clear to the extent that those signing the petition were aware of the detail of the actual proposals either. The petitions set out a conflicting position and set of views within the community and it is therefore considered appropriate to give due consideration to the consultation responses where residents and businesses were given detailed information on the proposals either through the leaflets that were delivered in the area or the information that was available on-line. The consultation response actually generated more objections from the perimeter road than the petition and it is these roads that are more impacted in terms of additional traffic from the proposals. These concerns were considered as part of the analysis of the results and taken into account in the decision. These roads being more main roads and more appropriate for through traffic than residential roads such as De Beauvoir Road and Ardleigh Road. Furthermore, some of the concerns relate to access to De Beauvoir Road, particularly for the businesses and this has been mitigated to a degree in the modifying the proposals to allow southbound access to De Beauvoir Road from Englefield Road. The petition also cited a number of concerns about the impact of the proposals based on a number of previous questions asked to the Council and TfL, which were duly responded to, as set out below.

1. Please provide data collected to demonstrate that De Beauvoir has a problem of high volumes of non-local motor traffic using some residential streets

Officer response: Traffic flow data collected on a number of roads in the area is attached for your information. There is strong evidence that Ardleigh Road and De Beauvoir Road are routes used by non-local motor traffic. This scheme has been proposed primarily in response to feedback from the original CS1 consultation, during which many residents complained about non-local motor traffic using their roads as ‘rat-runs’. These residents want their roads to benefit from fewer motor traffic journeys, making them more pleasant place to live, walk and cycle.

From the Council’s perspective these closures to motor traffic would also benefit people using Cycle Superhighway 1, making this route more attractive for cycle journeys, as well as serving a wider strategic purpose to encourage more walking and cycling, which is a key policy objective for the council and TfL due to the wider benefits of sustainable transport in reducing pollution and road danger, along with improving personal mobility and public health.

Complementing existing junction closures in this area, the proposed closures would restrict through motor traffic to roads better suited to larger volumes of motor traffic, such as Balls Pond Road, Englefield Road, Kingsland Road and Southgate Road.

2. Please provide a traffic management plan

Cycle Superhighway 1 De Beauvoir area consultation details 25

i. What level/numbers of standing rush hour traffic (and associated pollution) do you estimate/anticipate on Englefield road in both directions?

Officer response: Officers believe that the impact on Englefield Road is likely to be neutral, if not slightly positive, if the current right turn bans at the junctions with Kingsland Road and Southgate road are maintained. A sizeable proportion of the traffic that uses Englefield Road does so as part of the wider east-west route between Englefield Road in Islington and Richmond Road. This movement will be unaffected by the proposals. This traffic is however supplemented by an equally large number of vehicles travelling along only certain parts of Englefield Road as part of wider journeys that cut through the area – e.g. there are sizeable vehicle movements along Ardleigh Road–Englefield Road–De Beauvoir Road in both directions, Englefield Road (from LBI)–De Beauvoir Road (southbound) and Stamford Road (north-east bound), and between Englefield Road (westbound from the A10)–Beauvoir Road (southbound). All of these specific journeys will no longer be possible as part of the proposed scheme which could help reduce traffic on Englefield Road. While there are some obvious alternatives along the boundary roads (Southgate Road, Downham Road, A10 and Balls Pond Road) we do not expect all journeys that currently pass through the De Beauvoir area will switch to these roads. Many motorists using local roads are making journeys that originate outside De Beauvoir. If local roads were made unavailable, they could transfer to roads immediately adjacent, or they could choose to change their journey significantly, avoiding the area completely.

Similarly, reducing motor traffic in local roads could mean that some journeys that are currently driven are likely to switch to other modes, such as walking and cycling. Sustainable transport journeys have risen considerably in this area in recent years (cycling in Hackney has more than doubled in the last decade), and this scheme forms part of a London-wide strategy to increase sustainable modes of transport.

We do however recognise that transport patterns within an area are more complex than just 2 or 3 key routes and it is impossible to predict the impact/change on every conceivable journey through the area – this is why we are suggesting that the overall impact is likely to be neutral as while the changes should reduce some journeys as detailed above, inevitably some will continue to use Englefield Road as part of wider journeys through the area . ii. How can the cars that are currently going up Ardleigh road get onto Southgate Road when there is no right turn at the traffic lights?

Officer response: Motor vehicles that are currently going up Ardleigh Road cannot get on to Southgate Road via Englefield Road due to the banned right turn. Motorists wanting to go in this direction would use alternative routes – for example, via Balls Pond Road or Downham Road. iii. How can cars get onto Kingsland Road from De Beauvoir when no right turn from Englefield road?

Cycle Superhighway 1 De Beauvoir area consultation details 26

Officer response: Vehicles in De Beauvoir will be able to access the A10 from Englefield Road (left turn only) and from Downham Road (left and right turns permitted).

Removing the existing right turn bans on Englefield Road at the A10 and Southgate Road junctions is not being considered at this time. These restrictions have been in place for over 50 years and removing them could have significant ramifications. The potential volume of right turning traffic is extremely difficult to quantify and the junction layouts provide limited opportunity to accommodate large volumes of right turning traffic. Allowing these movements could result in significant junction blocking leading to larger queues and congestion on Englefield Road. Allowing the right turn movements is also likely to make Englefield Road a more attractive route for motor traffic moving between Islington and Hackney. Should the scheme go ahead, a formal review of these junctions could be implemented as part of a scheme- monitoring process. iv. Why close the exit from Stamford Road onto Kingsland Road?

Officer response: The Stamford Road/Tottenham Road/A10 junction proposals have been proposed by TfL as part of a separate project, but have been developed in conjunction with the current CS1 scheme. These proposals were put forward for the following reasons: • Improve motor traffic flow on A10 by removing median strip, freeing up extra carriageway space, and banning turning vehicles to prevent blockages of the main road • Improve the public realm for pedestrians/residents where these roads meet by enlarging the footways • Improve cycling safety on the A10 (preventing left hooks from northbound motor traffic) • Improve cycling access from the A10 to CS1 via Stamford Road

3. Please provide traffic simulation model data demonstrating the anticipated effects of the proposals

Officer response: Tactical/Strategic vehicle reassignment modelling has not been undertaken for this scheme. The development of Tactical/Strategic reassignment models is an extremely lengthy and costly process and is reserved for major road improvement/change schemes that are likely to significantly impact the main road network in London. E.g – new roads, major gyratory removals, etc. Reassignment modelling is a useful tool in helping predict the impacts of changes to roads that carry a significant proportion of London’s traffic, where volumes are in the order of 1000+ vehicles per hour in each direction, but they have limitations in terms of reflecting human/driver behaviour and so have a margin of error associated with them. It is not uncommon for predicted changes to be to the nearest 100 vehicles, which means a 90% degree of accuracy or more on roads with significant volumes, but a much lower degree of accuracy when considering roads such as those in this area with hourly volumes in the hundreds of vehicles in each direction. Given the limitations/margin of error with traffic reassignment models, the significant time and Cycle Superhighway 1 De Beauvoir area consultation details 27

cost implications, and that officers believe that the potential traffic displacement in this area can be reasonably estimated using existing data, officers decided reassignment modelling was not a proportionate approach in this case.

4. Please provide the number of petition signatures that triggered these closure proposals

Officer response: We received the following petitions from residents in the De Beauvoir area in response to the CS1 consultation:

De Beauvoir Road residents 50 names Close De Beauvoir Road between Englefield Road and Downham Road to remove non-local motor traffic

Northchurch Terrace residents 13 names Realign CS1 away from Northchurch Terrace; tackle inconsiderate cycling/pedestrian safety; retain planter in Northchurch Terrace

De Beauvoir residents 294 names Call for area-wide motor traffic management scheme

5. Please provide data showing frequency of muggings on the roads already blocked i.e. Northchurch Road, Lawford Road, Ufton Road, Mortimer Road and Hertford Road

Officer response: Our analysis of crime figures has not found that crime is more prevalent in roads that are closed to through motor traffic than those where through motor traffic is allowed. For these reasons, we don’t expect our proposal to affect crime levels. In regard to the specific roads named and the frequency of muggings, the, list below provides details of recorded/reported muggings during the period Sep 12-Aug 15. We have also attached data for the entire area during this period, listed by road.

Northchurch Road 0 Lawford Road 1 Ufton Road 6 Mortimer Road 0 Hertford Road 14 (source: https://www.police.uk/metropolitan/E05009371/crime )

In response to the concerns over increased crime due to a lack of passive surveillance, while it might sound intuitive that a road without through motor traffic is more prone to crime because it is ‘quieter’ – according to the , people in cars typically do not provide an effective source of natural surveillance for Cycle Superhighway 1 De Beauvoir area consultation details 28

an area because of their high speeds. Encouraging slower-moving cyclists and pedestrians could increase natural surveillance if they are encouraged to use the route by the removal of through motor traffic.

6. Please provide London/nation-wide data demonstrating recorded benefits/problems with road closures. In my experience, road closures creates 'muggers paradise’ as there is no passive supervision. It also makes it impossible for the police to get through when needed. Urban designers/architects are routinely asked to remove previous closures on redevelopment schemes as they are deemed to have created more problems than they have solved, particularly regarding crime and anti-social behaviour. A prime example is Marquess Estate in Islington which became a much more pleasant and safe place after it was re-opened to through traffic

Officer response: We are not aware of any London/nation-wide data or research that has been completed specifically discussing the benefits/problems associated with closure schemes. The benefits, as briefly discussed in response to item 1, relate to providing a more pleasant place for residents to live while also encouraging more walking and cycling in general, which in turn has a number of wider strategic benefits including but not limited to: road danger reduction, improved air quality, managing and mitigating pressure on the road and public transport networks, and facilitating/encouraging more active lifestyles within the community as a means of trying to tackle the significant public health issues we are currently facing.

In response to the concerns over increased crime due to a lack of passive surveillance, please see our response to Q5 above.

The Marquess estate provided planners with a specific set of circumstances to respond to, and does not provide a general blueprint for traffic management.

7. Please provide alternative traffic control options that deal with reducing speed rather than volume of cars. For example narrowing of the roads (bottle neck) at intervals, thereby reducing speed and making the roads safer, yet unattractive to rat-run cars. This has been very successful in reducing traffic volume and speed on Ockendon Road

Officer response: The problem identified by residents during the CS1 consultation was high volumes of non-local motor traffic in certain roads. We are not in a position to allocate resources towards developing alternative traffic-calming options such as those suggested because these would not address the problem at hand, in that they could reduce motor traffic speeds but are highly unlikely to reduce volumes.

Additional questions

1. How will the daily lorry deliveries turn around to get back out of the southern part of De Beauvoir road if closed at the Englefield road junction?

Cycle Superhighway 1 De Beauvoir area consultation details 29

3-point turns will be dangerous (if not impossible) - as will reversing back down to Downham Road.

Officer response: The proposed closure location on De Beauvoir Road at the junction with Englefield Road has initially been put forward to help simplify the junction, which is a local collision hotspot, and allow residents/businesses to access De Beauvoir Road from Downham Road, which is less constrained in terms of not having any banned movements at the Downham Road/A10 and Downham Road/Southgate Road junctions.

The servicing of businesses is clearly a key consideration in any proposals of this nature and every effort has been made to provide circulation routes within the area to minimise the need for three-point turns or reversing. It is however recognised that some vehicles, on certain roads, may have to perform manoeuvres of this nature.

However, we are not aware of any evidence that slow vehicle manoeuvres of this type pose a significant risk of harm to pedestrians, cyclists or other road users in De Beauvoir or elsewhere in Greater London. We are confident that any minor negative impacts of turning traffic are outweighed by the safety benefits of removing a significant number of vehicles in peak hours from local roads. There is, however, a degree of flexibility as to the location of the De Beauvoir Road closure and we are happy to work with residents and businesses to find the most appropriate location.

2. Can the current speed bumps be made continuous across the roads? The current split speed bumps are a real safety hazard for cyclists. Cyclists veer out to go in between the bumps and cars veer in to position the bump between the wheels, thereby creating dangerous situations

Officer response: We agree that full-width speed humps with a smooth profile provide the best balance between safety, comfort and speed reduction for all road users. Along the CS1 route, speed cushions are being replaced with full width humps. Away from CS1, it is difficult to justify speed hump replacement works as part of the CS1 project.

3. Cyclist will still have to cross Englefield road which will be even more busy due to the road closures. How will you secure safe crossing for cyclists at this point?

Officer response: The proposals for the Englefield Road/Ardleigh Road/Culford Road junction would simplify the junction arrangement for all road users and remove a proportion of traffic using the junction – particularly vehicles travelling to and from Ardleigh Road. A new raised junction would slow all traffic. These measures would improve safety for all road users. In addition, in the latest proposals pedestrians are catered for with a new zebra crossing. This crossing would also provide help to cyclists crossing by creating gaps in east-west motor traffic.

Cycle Superhighway 1 De Beauvoir area consultation details 30

As described in Q2 above, the impact on motor traffic along Englefield Road is likely to be neutral if the current right turn bans at the junctions with Kingsland Road and Southgate Road are maintained

4. No pedestrian (zebra) crossings are proposed by the two primary schools. How will you secure safe crossing for children at these points?

Officer response: TfL/Council feel that motor traffic is the main risk to pedestrians, and to all other road users, and is this supported by collision statistics across London. Collision analysis for CS1 (an 11km route), found that between November 2011 and November 2014, cycle traffic was involved in only three incidents with pedestrians of (two serious injuries and one slight injury), with two of these occurring within the carriageway of Tottenham High Road.

By contrast, across the same area there were 47 incidents where motor vehicles caused harm to pedestrians (of all ages), including 1 fatality, 10 serious injuries and 36 slight injuries. Removing through traffic therefore represents the most significant safety improvement on these roads. The need for zebra crossings by the 2 schools is not something that has been raised with TfL or the Council before, while motor traffic has continued to use these roads. However, TfL/Council recognise that residents and pedestrians have concerns over high volumes of cyclists and pedestrian/cycle conflict and so residents can put forward suggestions for additional improvements along the route and where possible these will be taken into consideration.

5. How will cyclist behaviour be policed? Cyclist are speeding through the area, often with no lights, and are posing safety risk to pedestrians

Officer response: TfL and Hackney are aware that some residents have concerns over inconsiderate cycling, and this is a major, and much wider challenge in terms of helping sell the benefits of cycling to residents and the wider public. We work closely with cycling groups, the police and a range of other organisations to deliver extensive publicity, training, awareness and enforcement programmes to encourage cyclists to use the roads considerately and safely.

For details of this extensive work, please refer to the attached document: ‘TfL and the Police improving road user behaviour’.

The Council is happy to look at any specific locations for targeted work in these areas. However, it is important to recognise that inconsiderate cyclists are the minority. It is also important to note that in De Beauvoir (as is the case across Greater London and the UK), the vast majority of harm to pedestrians is caused by people in motor vehicles.

The improvements to safety as part of CS1 are intended to encourage a wider range of people to cycle. While the route is branded as a Cycle Superhighway, it differs from most other Cycle Superhighways in London in that it largely follows residential streets rather than main roads. As such, it is much more line with a Quietway route. Cycle Superhighway 1 De Beauvoir area consultation details 31

We recognise that a number of faster commuter cyclists currently use the route and will continue to do so. However, the main aim is to attract a wider range of new people to cycle, particularly those who are less confident on busy roads such as recreational cyclists, women, children, families, older people, and so on. Normalising cycling and attracting a much wider demographic of people is the key focus of all the current investment in cycling within London, it is not just about providing faster routes for commuters.

6. Have residents on Englefield road (Islington side) been consulted given the potentially substantial increase in traffic on their road?

Officer response : Residents in the Islington section of Englefield Road have been included in the consultation process and are able to express their views. As per the response to item 2 in the first section, we do not believe that the Islington section of Englefield Road will see any change in the volume of traffic using the road.

Frequently Asked Questions

In response to the questions raised in section 3.5 above, and a number of other questions received from residents and stakeholders, a Frequently Asked Questions document was prepared for this scheme and is included in Appendix 6.

4.0 SUMMARY

Considering all responses received to the consultation (1182), 52% supported the proposals, 5% partially supported the proposals and 42% did not support the proposals.

However, of the 1182 responses received, 349 (from within the De Beauvoir area) were from roads that could be considered most affected, or potentially most affected, by the proposals.

Considering these 349 responses from within the De Beauvoir area, 46% supported the proposals, 8% partially supported the proposals and 42% did not support the proposals.

In view of the favourable support from the overall consultation area and also from those directly impacted by the proposals, it is recommended that the De Beauvoir Area Road Closure is progressed on a trial basis and introduced using experimental traffic management orders.

Cycle Superhighway 1 De Beauvoir area consultation details 32