MEETING CABINET
DATE AND TIME MONDAY, 23 JANUARY 2006 AT 7.00 PM
VENUE THE TOWN HALL, THE BURROUGHS, HENDON, NW4 4BG
Please note Draft Local Implementation Plan (agenda item 6): Because of the size of the draft plan (347 pages) o Cabinet Members are asked to retain their copies of this document; o Members of the Cabinet Overview & Scrutiny Committee only will receive hard copies; o Copies will be placed in the Group Rooms; o The document will be published with the papers for this meeting on the Council’s web site at http://committeepapers.barnet.gov.uk/democracy ; o Hard copies can also be inspected by contacting Nick Musgrove on 020 8359 2024.
TO: MEMBERS OF THE CABINET (Quorum 5)
Chairman: Councillor Brian Salinger
Councillors:
Fiona Bulmer Mike Freer John Marshall Melvin Cohen Christopher Harris Matthew Offord Anthony Finn Lynne Hillan
You are requested to attend the above meeting for which an agenda is attached.
John Marr Democratic Services Manager
Democratic Services contact Nick Musgrove 020 8359 2024
FACILITIES FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES
The Town Hall has access for wheelchair users including lifts and toilets. If you wish to let us know in advance that you will be attending the meeting please telephone Nick Musgrove on 020 8359 2024. People with hearing difficulties who have a text phone, may telephone our minicom number on 020 8203 8942. All our Committee Rooms also have induction loops.
Town Hall Hendon NW4 4BG
ii
ORDER OF BUSINESS
Item No. Title of Report Page Nos.
1. MINUTES OF MEETING HELD 5 DECEMBER 2005 -
2. ABSENCE OF MEMBERS -
3. DECLARATION OF MEMBERS’ PERSONAL AND - PREJUDICIAL INTERESTS
Report of the Leader of the Council 4. “Barnet: A First Class Suburb” – a sustainable Community 1 – 12 Strategy for Barnet, 2006 – 2016
Report of the Cabinet Member for Resources 5. Human Resources Employee Relations Policies 13 – 16
Report of the Cabinet Member for Environment & Transport 6. Local Implementation Plan (LIP) (Transport) 17 – 27
Reports of the Cabinet Member for Planning and Licensing Services 7. Unitary Development Plan – Direction from Secretary of State 28 – 45
Report of the Cabinet Member for Community Services 8. Annual Performance Review of the Council’s Adult Social 46 – 60 Services
Report of the Cabinet Member for Children 9. Annual Performance Review of the Council’s Social Services 61 – 85 (Children & Families)
10. ITEMS REFERRED FROM OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY - COMMITTEES No items have been referred. -
11. ANY OTHER ITEMS THAT THE CHAIRMAN DECIDES ARE - URGENT
iii
Fire/Emergency Evacuation Procedure If the fire alarm sounds continuously, or if you are instructed to do so, you must leave the building by the nearest available exit. You will be directed to the nearest exit by Committee staff or by uniformed porters. It is vital you follow their instructions. You should proceed calmly; do not run and do not use the lifts. Do not stop to collect personal belongings. Once you are outside, please do not wait immediately next to the building, but move some distance away and await further instructions. Do not re-enter the building until told to do so.
iv
AGENDA ITEM: 4 Page nos. 1 – 12
Meeting Cabinet Date 23 January 2006 Subject Barnet: A First Class Suburb – A Sustainable Community Strategy for Barnet 2006-2016 Report of Leader of the Council Summary This report summarises the public consultation responses to Barnet’s draft Community Strategy, suggests changes as a consequence, and recommends Council to approve the final Strategy.
Officer Contributors Head of Corporate Performance Office Policy & Performance Manager Community Partnerships Manager Status (public or exempt) Public Wards affected All Enclosures Barnet: A First Class Suburb: A Sustainable Community Strategy for Barnet, 2006-2016 (enclosure to follow shortly) Developing a new Community Strategy for Barnet – summary of consultation For decision by Council Function of Council Reason for urgency / Not applicable exemption from call-in (if appropriate)
Contact for further information: Hester Fairgrieve, Policy & Performance Manager 020 8359 7011.
1 1. RECOMMENDATIONS 1.1 That Cabinet recommend Council to approve the Sustainable Community Strategy for Barnet in the light of the response to consultation outlined in this report.
2. RELEVANT PREVIOUS DECISIONS 2.1 None
3. CORPORATE PRIORITIES AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS 3.1 This Community Strategy fulfils the Council’s requirements under the Local Government Act 2000 to prepare a plan for improving the economic, environmental and social well-being of the area. Local authorities must prepare this in partnership with local organisations and agencies as well as consult and seek participation and involvement from local communities. 3.2 The new ten year Strategy has been developed through extensive consultation with partners represented on Barnet’s Local Strategic Partnership (LSP), community groups, local businesses and residents to ensure that it meets the Council’s core objective of ‘Putting the Community First’. 3.3 The following Council priorities are reflected in the Strategy: • A First Class Education Service • Tackling Crime • Supporting the Vulnerable in our Community • A Cleaner Greener Barnet.
4. RISK MANAGEMENT ISSUES 4.1 The principal risk is failure to deliver the ambitions in the Strategy. A detailed action plan which sets out how the Local Strategic Partnership will deliver the strategy is currently being developed. This will include partnership projects and key targets by which success against the Community Strategy will be measured. A rigorous performance management framework will be implemented to monitor and challenge performance against the strategy on a regular basis.
5. FINANCIAL, STAFFING, ICT AND PROPERTY IMPLICATIONS 5.1 The Strategy is not accompanied by additional resources, and the activities which underpin delivery of the strategy will be delivered within existing budgets of the Council and partner organisations.
5.2 The printing and promotion of the strategy will be met through an annual payment to the LSP from the Learning and Skills Council. The ongoing costs of performance managing the strategy will be met within existing CPO budgets.
6. LEGAL ISSUES 6.1 None, other than what is contained in the body of the report.
2 7 CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS 7.1 The Community Strategy is part of the policy framework, and its approval is reserved to full Council on recommendation from Cabinet.
8 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 8.1 Under the Local Government Act 2000, all authorities are required to develop a strategy for promoting the economic, environmental and social well-being of their community. Barnet’s second Community Plan, ‘Barnet First Class’, was produced by Barnet’s LSP and adopted in 2003. The Plan covered the period from 2003-2006. As the current Community Plan expires in March 2006, a new longer term Community Strategy, ‘Barnet: A First Class Suburb’ has been developed to cover the period 2006-2016. The strategy will be reviewed every three years. 8.2 A draft of the Community Strategy was produced in August 2005 following detailed discussions around joint priorities with members of Barnet’s LSP, which is chaired by Tom Nathan, Commercial Director of Brent Cross Shopping Centre, on which the Leader represents Barnet Council. The draft strategy was also produced following an analysis of residents’ priorities (as identified through the Best Value Review Survey 2003/04 and Annual Residents’ Survey 2004/05) and a review of key challenges facing the borough now and in the future. 8.3 The draft strategy has been discussed with Cabinet Members to ensure that the document accurately reflected the Council’s commitments. Feedback from this was incorporated into the Strategy that went out to public consultation. 8.4 The draft Strategy went out to consultation during October-December 2005. Every household in the borough received a copy of Barnet First which highlighted the contents of the draft strategy and asked residents to express their views. The strategy was also available in public places and on various partner websites. The strategy and questionnaire was sent to all members of Barnet’s Citizen’s Panel and presentations were given at various events including the Civic Network and the area forums. There were also focused workshops with older people, young people, people with disabilities, faith groups and Black Minority Ethnic (BME) communities. In total 738 people responded to the consultation, whether through a formal questionnaire or being involved in a focus group/workshop. 8.5 Summary of changes to the Community Strategy following consultation A detailed summary of the consultation findings is available in the appendix. Views expressed during consultation understandably varied depending on the individuals or groups consulted. However, there were some re-occurring themes. These and the responses proposed as a result are highlighted below: • The overwhelming majority of respondents shared the vision for Barnet in 2016 (82% of those surveyed). Suggested response – the vision will be kept as it is but more explicit reference will be made to ‘affordable and decent homes’, as this, despite being an ambition, was not specifically referred to in the vision
3 • The themes expressed in order of importance were ‘Safer, Stronger & Cleaner’, ‘Investing in Children & Young People’ ‘Healthier Barnet’ and ‘Growing Successfully’ • There is too little on older people and how their needs will be addressed over the next ten years. Suggested response - make older people a sub-theme of ‘Healthier Barnet’ and make explicit reference to older people in the ‘health and care is targeted at the most vulnerable’ ambition. Add another ambition specifically focused on older people - ‘maximising choice and independence for older people’. • There is not enough information on how the vision will be achieved. Suggested response – the final strategy will include key measures of success and examples of partnership projects which will help to deliver the ambitions. Explicit reference will also be made to the specific strategies that support each ambition. Readers will also be signposted to the detailed action plan that underpins the Strategy. • Concerns over the risk of over-development and the need to protect the Green Belt. Suggested response - re-name the Community Strategy ‘A Sustainable Community Strategy’ and integrate sustainable development throughout1. • Provide value for money. Suggested response – providing ‘value for money’ will underpin the work of the LSP and the partnership projects outlined in the action plan. • Provide better quality/more/affordable leisure & sports facilities. Suggested response – it is proposed that this issue is explored further through a Best Value Review of sports and leisure • Provide more things in the borough for young people to do. Suggested response – this will need to be addressed in the Children and Young People Plan. The Community Strategy will link to this plan. • The voluntary and community sector should be valued and supported – they play an important role in delivering the strategy. Suggested response – BVSC are on the LSP and there is a ‘strong and cohesive communities’ theme. The LSP are currently reviewing their membership with a view to strengthening the VCS representation. A Best Value Review of the voluntary and community sector is also underway and recommendations will arise from this.
Other changes proposed in light of consultation responses include:
• Word ‘inclusive’ added to the vision • Words ‘multicultural borough’ referred to in the text • Section added on how the public can contribute to the success of the strategy • Recognition of Barnet’s religious, as well as ethnic diversity added
1 The Office of Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) is currently consulting on proposals to re-name Community Strategies ‘Sustainable Community Strategies’. See ‘Local Strategic Partnerships: Shaping their future - a consultation paper’. Developing a Sustainable Community Strategy for 2006 will ensure Barnet meets requirements ahead of any legislation.
4 • ‘Social’ added to the ambition – ‘health and social care is targeted at the most vulnerable’
8.6 The proposed changes to the Strategy are highlighted in blue in the appended document (to follow shortly). These have been discussed by the Community Strategy Project Board, which the Leader is a member of. The LSP is responsible for overseeing the Strategy and will consider these changes at their meeting on 17th January. A verbal update on changes to the Sustainable Community Strategy agreed at this LSP meeting will be presented to Cabinet.
9 . LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS 9.1 None BS: JEL CFO: CM
5
DEVELOPING A NEW COMMUNITY STRATEGY FOR BARNET – SUMMARY OF CONSULTATION
Introduction
This report summarises the consultation undertaken on the draft Community Strategy for Barnet, 2006-2016 during October-December 2005. More detailed consultation findings are available upon request.
Methodology
The consultation on the Community Strategy comprised awareness building (in order to raise the profile of the draft strategy and encourage as many general responses as possible) and focussed consultation exercises (in order to ensure a representative cross section of the community responded, particularly those from hard to reach groups).
Awareness building
A number of promotional methods were employed during the consultation period in order to raise awareness of the draft strategy and encourage responses. These included:
• Putting copies of the consultation strategy in public places, including libraries, Council First Contact Points and Brent Cross Shopping Centre • A one page article on the draft strategy (and promotion on the front cover) in Barnet First, the Council magazine, which was delivered to all households in Barnet • Putting copies of the consultation strategy on the websites of partner organisations • News article in the November edition of the Chamber of Commerce website – ‘Business Leader’ and in the Barnet Voluntary Service Council (BVSC) network newsletter • An article in the staff newsletter ‘Barnet First Team’ which went to all Council employees • A presentation at three of the November Area Forums - Childs Hill and Golders Green Area Forum, Edgware, Burnt Oak and Mill Hill Area Forum, Whetstone Area Forum, where the consultation document was handed out – approx 80 attendees
This resulted in the following responses:
• Website survey - 33 responses • Pull out questionnaire - 48 responses
6
Consultation
In addition to promoting the draft strategy in various public places and at numerous events, the following consultation exercises were also undertaken:
• Survey to all members of Barnet’s Citizens’ Panel – 405 responses • Focus group with young people through Barnet’s Youth Board – 7 participants • Interactive voting with school children at the Mayors conference – 33 responses • Focus group with the Executive of Disability Action in the Borough of Barnet (DabB) – 5 participants • Focus group with Barnet’s Faith Executive – resulting in a response from the Faith Forum – 23 members • Focus group with representatives of Barnet’s BME community – 9 participants • Small focus groups with older people at three of Barnet’s day centres –19 participants • An agenda item at the Older People Strategic Partnership Board - 12 attendees • A presentation and question and answer session by the Chair of the LSP at the November Civic Network event – 108 attendees • An agenda item at Barnet’s Refugee Forum – 15 attendees • An agenda item at the Physical and Sensory Impairment Network – 6 attendees • An agenda item at the Learning Disability Network – 15 attendees.
Summary of findings
Quantitative survey results
1,000 members of the Citizens Panel received a copy of the strategy and a questionnaire at the end of October. In total 405 people responded, representing a 40% response rate. A more detailed report of findings has been produced but the key findings, based on weighted data, are listed below. These have been combined with the 48 pull out questionnaire responses and 22 internet responses, received during the consultation.
The majority of respondents (82%) share the vision for Barnet in 2016; 18% do not. For those who do not share the vision the top reasons given were (based on 83 responses):
• This is not a vision but unsubstantiated claims (10%) • Provide better quality/more/affordable leisure & sports facilities (7%) • Statements too vague/more information needed/too narrow (7%) • Timescale to fulfil the vision should be sooner (7%) • Invest in arts/culture1 (7%)
The four themes, ranked in order of importance were:
• Theme 2 – ‘Safer, Stronger & Cleaner Barnet (the top priority for 48% of respondents)
1 There was an organised campaign by Barnet Borough Arts Council to get arts and culture in the strategy. This may therefore have skewed the results (arts and culture did not feature highly at all in the Citizens Panel responses) 7
• Theme 1 – ‘Investing in Children & Young People’ (the top priority for 33%) • Theme 4 – ‘Healthier Barnet’ (the top priority for 13%) • Theme 3 – ‘Growing Successfully’ (the top priority for 6%)
Under the ‘Investing in Children & Young People’ theme, the ambitions in order of importance were:
• Children & young people are safe and healthy - 54% • Children & young people achieve their educational potential – 43% • Both of equal importance - 3%
Under the 'Safer, Stronger and Cleaner Barnet' theme, the ambitions in order of importance were:
• Residents feel safe - 67% • Strong and cohesive communities - 19% • Clean and green - 13% • All of equal importance – 1%
Under the ‘Growing Successfully’ theme, the ambitions in order of importance were:
• Good quality transport and reduced traffic congestion - 40% • Affordable and decent homes - 31% • People are equipped with the right skills to take advantage of employment opportunities - 19% • Minimises waste and maximises recycling - 10% • All of equal importance – 1%
Under the 'Healthier Barnet' theme, the ambitions in order of importance were:
• Access to good quality health services - 69% • People are supported to take responsibility for their own health - 16% • Health and care provision is targeted at the most vulnerable - 15% • All of equal importance – 1%
While the majority of respondents (53%) did not feel there were any ambitions/priorities for Barnet that had been missed out, the 47% (208 respondents) who thought there were, wanted to see the following included (based on the eight most popular responses):
• Provide more facilities/resources for the elderly – 10% • Provide more facilities for youths/children – 9% • Invest in arts/cultural facilities – 8%2 • Provide better quality/more/affordable leisure and sports facilities – 8% • Do not increase Council tax/reduce Council tax – 6% • More visible police presence needed – 5% • Protect green belt/restore green areas/parks – 5%
2 There was an organised campaign by Barnet Borough Arts Council to get arts and culture in the strategy. This may therefore have skewed the results (arts and culture did not feature highly at all in the Citizens Panel responses 8
• Provide more care for elderly/disabled – 5%
Of those who had general comments on the vision, theme and ambitions, the most popular responses were:
• Strategy is good/well thought out - 5% • Spend more money on health-centres/NHS/hospitals – 4% • Stop wasting money/give value for money – 3% • Provide more quality/more/affordable leisure and sports facilities – 3% • Prevent over-development – 3%
Focus Groups and meeting discussions
The following are main points raised by participants during focus groups and discussions.
Young People
Youth Board Focus Group • Agreed with vision. Need more about meeting the needs of disabled people • Need to make affordable and decent housing a priority • Safety is a concern, particularly outside school and in quieter, residential areas • By 2016 there should be no form of discrimination – it should be a multi-cultural borough • Generally not much for young people to do in the borough • Need more services for disabled people • Public transport around the borough definitely needs improving, particularly the frequency of buses and attitudes of drivers • GP’s are inaccessible – hard to get one in the area you live and long waiting times • Need more part-time jobs for young people and advice on how to get one.
Mayors Conference with Young People (Making the Mayor more accessible) Consultation was undertaken on the Community Strategy along with the Children’s Plan. Children were asked a series of questions about the strategy using interactive voting equipment. Below is a summary of the responses. These are broadly in line with the responses of the Citizens Panel.
Investing in Children & Young People: • Children and young people in Barnet achieve their educational potential - 32% • Children and young people in Barnet are safe and healthy – 51% • No response – 17%
Safer, Stronger and Cleaner Barnet: • Residents in Barnet feel safe – 46% • Barnet has strong and cohesive communities – 30% • Barnet is clean and green – 14% • No response – 10%
9
Growing Successfully: • There are affordable and decent homes – 35% • There is good quality transport and reduced traffic congestion – 27% • People in Barnet are equipped with the right skills to take advantage of employment opportunities – 14% • Barnet increases the amount it recycles and reduces the amount it wastes – 14% • No response – 10%
Healthier Barnet: • People in Barnet are supported to take responsibility for their own health – 3% • Health and care provision is targeted at the most vulnerable people in Barnet - 5% • There is access to good quality health services – 78% • No response – 14%.
Main points made during the consultation group exercises on improvements young people would like to see in Barnet were:
• Safety initiatives inside and outside of school to combat bullying • Activities that are open later and more concessions for young people • More community events • More causal and part-time employment available locally to young people • Safer travel on public transport • More police (although a few people thought that seeing more police on the streets may make them feel more unsafe as they would think the area was not very nice or something bad had happened).
BME communities
BME Focus Group • Nothing about culture and tourism • Should refer to Barnet as a multi-cultural borough • Need to say more about how Barnet will meet the needs of new communities coming into the borough • Problems with accessibility to hospitals – hard to get to them • General issues with transport, particularly inconsiderate drivers. This is a problem for the elderly, pregnant etc • Unlikely Barnet will become a healthier borough without voluntary and community sector support • The education system needs to be reviewed for those whose first language is not English – they will not achieve their educational potential unless they have a good grasp of the English language.
Barnet’s Refugee Forum • Very little about older people • No mention of voluntary and community organisations and the contribution they will make to achieving this strategy • Should refer to residents as partners – this strategy will not succeed unless residents sign up to it.
10
Faith
Faith Executive Focus Group • Broadly in agreement with the stated intentions for the future of the borough • Some reservations about the size of the regeneration in connection with Brent Cross and Cricklewood, especially in light of ‘Growing Successfully’, Believe quality and affordable housing is of a higher priority than levels of financial returns of investment in those properties • Want to see the whole borough grow successfully, rather than piecemeal growth and not to see one area grow at the expensive of others – means issues such as transport, community facilities and housing need to be tackled in a holistic way. • Would like to see more acknowledgment of the needs and aspirations of older people • Under the commitment, diversity, would like to see the contribution of faith communities more clearly affirmed.
People with disabilities
DABB Executive Focus Group • Broadly in agreement with the vision but needs the word ‘inclusive’ in it to make everyone feel they are part of it • Emphasis should not just be on affordable and decent homes but ‘lifelong’ homes that meet needs of disabled and elderly • Needs to make more reference to the voluntary sector and the work they do.
Learning Disability Network • Fully support vision • Access to health services is a key issue for people with learning disabilities – often have the highest level of need • People with learning disabilities account for the highest number of ‘NEET’. Therefore need to address this if the LSP is to achieve on this ambition • Public transport in the borough is a problem – unfriendly, inconsiderate drivers. This needs to be addressed • There should be a stronger focus on voluntary organisations and what they can do to help.
Physical & Sensory Impairment Network • Need to show what Barnet will do to increase the life chances of disabled people over the next ten years – this is not clear from the draft strategy • There is not enough about older people • The final version must be available in accessible forms.
Older People
Older People’s Strategic Partnership Board • Little reference to older people and not identified as a theme • Strategy is too general and there is not enough detail about how it will be achieved.
11
Day Centres • Vision generally accepted • Disappointment that little attention has been paid to older people • Would have liked more reference to community support services like home care and day care – theme should not just be about health but care as well • Most important themes are jointly ‘Investing in Children & Young People’ and ‘Healthier Barnet’ • Want more visible policing in the borough • Public transport is an issue – cannot get on them and/or there are none in the area. Bus drivers can also be rude • Hospitals are too far away and difficult to get to • Want more health and social care services together • Agreed that health and care should be targeted at the most vulnerable but thought that the rest of the plan did not reflect this.
BACKGROUND PAPERS:
1. Citizens Panel. Community Strategy Consultation
2. Developing a new Community Strategy for Barnet. Detailed focus group and workshop findings.
12 AGENDA ITEM: 5 Page nos. 13 – 16
Meeting Cabinet Date 23 January 2006 Subject Human Resources – Employee Relations Policies Report of Cabinet Member for Resources Summary This report seeks the Committee’s approval to revisions to the following major HR polices and sets out a process for reviewing the remaining policies: 1. Misconduct, 2. Managing Change 3. Grievance 4. Dignity at Work – Harassment, Bullying & Victimisation
Officer Contributors John Kitching, Policy & Strategy Manager Status (public or exempt) Public Wards affected N/A Enclosures Appendices (separately circulated) A: Misconduct Policy, B: Managing Change, C: Grievance Policy D: Dignity at Work – Harassment, Bullying & Victimisation E: HR Policy Development Framework, F: Policy Development Proposed Timetable for 2006 For decision by Cabinet Function of Executive Reason for urgency / N/A exemption from call-in (if appropriate)
Contact for further information: John Kitching, Policy & Strategy Manager, Tel 020 83597952
28 1. RECOMMENDATIONS 1.1 That the following revised Human Resources policies be approved: • Misconduct • Managing Change • Grievance • Dignity at Work – Harassment, Bullying & Victimisation 1.2 That the proposed policy development framework for Human Resources policies be approved.
2. RELEVANT PREVIOUS DECISIONS 2.1 Personnel Executive Committee 24th November 1993 – decision number 3 (Disciplinary Rules and Procedures). 2.2 Personnel Executive Committee 24th November 1993 – decision numbers 2 and 3 (Managing Change Policy) 2.3 Personnel Executive Committee 19th June 1996 – Grievance Policy 2.4 Personnel Executive Committee 24th April 1997 – Dignity at Work – Harassment and Bullying
3. CORPORATE PRIORITIES AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS 3.1 The Council’s Corporate Plan 2004/05 - 2007/8 reports on the contribution that Human Resources as part of the Resources Directorate must deliver in improving performance and improving organisational efficiency in terms of ‘A better Council for a better Barnet’. On 1st September 2005, Resources Overview and Scrutiny Committee approved a Human Resources Action Plan. A key objective of this action plan was to develop and modernise underpinning strategies and policies as part of an overarching HR strategy.
4. RISK MANAGEMENT ISSUES 4.1 Human Resources have not revised any major employee relations policies over the last 8 years. The majority of the policies date from between 1992 and 1996. An absence of a revision process has however, lead to the current position where changes in employment legislation and case law have not been addressed. Some elements of the current polices are therefore no longer fully compliant with legislation. The current grievance procedure, for example does not contain a modified statutory grievance procedure as required by the Employment Act 2002. To fail to update these policies could leave the Council open to challenge at employment tribunals.
5. FINANCIAL, STAFFING, ICT AND PROPERTY IMPLICATIONS 5.1 Briefing sessions for managers on the application of the revised policies can be accommodated within the existing corporate core training programme. 5.2 There are no staffing, property or ICT implications associated with these proposals.
14 6. LEGAL ISSUES 6.1 The 4 policies have been amended to account for the following employment law legislation. • The Employment Rights Act 1996 • The Employment Relations Act 1999 • Employment Act 2002 • The Employment Relations Act 2004 and incorporate recent case law and address issues from equalities legislation.
7. CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS 7.1 Constitution Part 3 – Responsibility for Functions: section 3 – Powers of the Executive.
8 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 8.1 The misconduct and grievance policies now require revision following the Employment Act 2002 (Dispute Resolution) Regulations 2004 (SI 2004/752) – which came into force on 1 October 2004. This legisaltion introduced statutory dismissal, disciplinary and grievance procedures and changed the levels of compensation where the employer fails to follow the correct statutory procedures. Whilst the current policies meet most of the requirements in there are ommissions. A new edition of the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures also came into force on the same day and the revised polices have been written in accordance with the code of practice. 8.2 In addition to legislative issues identified earlier, the current employee relations policies no longer follow best practice in terms of guidance from ACAS and professional bodies such as the Chartered Institute for Personnel and Development. The current written advice and guidance provided to employees is out of step with current people management practices and the do not provide a modern framework. The revised policies will form part of an overarching HR strategy and have been written after benchmarking of HR best practice. The intention is that the policies are; • Complementary • Flexible - able to adapt to changes in strategy and direction • Open and transparent • Suited in tone to the culture of the organisation. • Developed through the involvement of trade unions, employees and managers. • Easily understood, written in plain English and containing no jargon. • Published on the Intranet • Have clear implemtation plans including briefings sessions for managers
8.3 Consultation has been ongoing with the Council’s senior officers, HR professionals and Trade Unions to ensure that there is a broad agreement on
15 the direction of the policies. Amendments have been incorporated into the polices presented to Cabinet. 8.4 Attached at Appendix E is a proposed HR policy development framework to provide a structured process to review and develop HR policies.
9 LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS 9.1 No n e
Legal: JEL CFO: CM
The appendices to this item are circulated separately.
16
APPENDIX A
DISCIPLINARY RULES AND PROCEDURES
MISCONDUCT
DISCIPLINARY RULES AND PROCEDURES
MISCONDUCT
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 These procedures apply to all Barnet employees for the purposes of dealing with matters of misconduct, unless their terms and conditions of employment specify other procedures for these purposes namely;
i) Employees during their probationary service ii) Chief Officers whose disciplinary rules and procedures are attached as an Appendix. The procedure below applies to other Hay graded officers. iii) Head Teachers, teachers and school-based staff
1.2 These procedures recognise that in many cases, normal day-to-day and informal performance management may be used to deal with minor situations where an employee's conduct does not meet the required standards.
1.3 A separate procedure, Performance Management – Capability should be used for poor work performance and competence issues.
1.4 In devising the following Disciplinary Rules and Procedures, the Council follows the ACAS Code of Practice 1- Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures. The Council is committed to putting the community first in that customers are entitled to expect high standards of conduct and integrity from Council employees, who are employed in positions of trust.
2. GUIDING PRINCIPLES
2.1 Procedures should be used primarily to help and encourage employees to improve their performance/modify their behaviour rather than as a method of imposing a punishment. Decisions will be made on the balance of probabilities.
2.2 Employees have the right to be accompanied and represented by a ‘companion’1 who must either be a trade union representative or Barnet Council colleague at all stages of the procedures. Reference to "employee" in these procedures includes her/his representative. These procedures do not allow for an employee to be accompanied and represented by anyone other than a trade union representative or Barnet Council colleague.
2.3 In cases of misconduct, no employee will be dismissed for a first disciplinary offence. A formal warning will be issued in accordance with the disciplinary penalty schedule set out in Appendix B. Employees will only be dismissed for a first disciplinary offence if it is a case of gross misconduct.
2
2.4 Employees should be informed of the complaint against them, be provided with an opportunity to state their case before a decision is made and be given the opportunity to appeal.
2.5 Employees should be given a written explanation for any disciplinary action taken against them.
2.6 Investigations and hearings should be dealt with as thoroughly and promptly as possible.
2.7 Appeals are designed to review the decisions at the original hearing and decide whether they were reasonable in the circumstances. Appeals are not rehearings.
2.8 To ensure that all employees are dealt with fairly and in a dignified manner, support will be provided to employees who do not possess the requisite literacy skills. Additional support, where appropriate will also be provided to disabled employees.
3. GROSS MISCONDUCT
3.1 Gross misconduct is misconduct which is serious enough to destroy the employment contract between the Council and the employee, and to make any further working relationship and trust impossible. The following are regarded as examples of gross misconduct which if proven could result in summary dismissal:
• Intentional direct discrimination (including harassment and bullying) and intentional victimisation on the grounds of race, sex, marital status, sexuality, disability, age or religious belief • Bringing the Council into disrepute • Undermining trust and confidence • Sexual offences • Conduct which places at risk the health and safety of other staff and/or service users • Unauthorised absence • Unauthorised removal of Council property • Falsifying, damaging or destroying official records or documents • Disregard of management instructions/rules which have previously been brought to the employee’s attention • Offences of dishonesty; theft, fraud, obtaining property by deception, improper use of an official position for financial advantage etc • Fighting; physical assault and threats of violence • Falsification of timesheets, subsistence and expenses claims etc • Malicious or reckless damage to Council property
3
• Corruption • Incapability for work due to being under the influence of drugs or alcohol • Evasion of statutory payments • Fraudulent claims for benefits • Gross negligence • Unauthorised disclosure of confidential information • Being an accessory to an act of gross misconduct • Knowingly providing false evidence in relation to a disciplinary matter • Unauthorised employment during working hours, sick leave and special leave • Becoming involved in the financial or personal affairs of service users or contractors without authority
3.2 This list is neither exclusive nor exhaustive and there may be other offences of similar gravity which are fundamentally damaging to the relationship of trust and confidence with the Council and could constitute gross misconduct. The list therefore can only be regarded as illustrative.
4. MISCONDUCT
4.1 The following examples of misconduct, although not normally considered gross misconduct are regarded as unacceptable behaviour by employees of Barnet Council. The list is neither exclusive not exhaustive and dependant on the circumstances any of the following could be deemed to constitute gross misconduct.
• Unauthorised absence from work without sufficient cause • Poor time keeping • Sleeping whilst on duty • Conduct likely to offend decency • Refusal to carry out duties that are a reasonable requirement of the employee’s role • Negligence • Knowingly making false, misleading or inaccurate written or oral statements • Disregard of health and safety rules which have been previously brought to the employees attention • Canvassing of Council Members through non official channels in order to gain a personal advantage
4
5. STAFF CONVICTED, BOUND OVER, CAUTIONED OR CHARGED WITH A CRIMINAL OFFENCE
5.1 Employees must immediately inform their Head of Service and line manager if they are convicted of any criminal offence, bound over (to keep the peace and be of good behaviour), have accepted a caution from the police, or have been charged with a criminal offence.
5.2 An employee who is charged with a criminal offence must, in confidence, keep her/his Head of Service or line manager informed of the progress of the case. The key issue when considering disciplinary action is whether the offence, or alleged offence, is one that makes the employee unsuitable for their role in the Council.
DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURE
6. INVESTIGATIONS WHICH COULD LEAD TO A FORMAL HEARING
6.1 Before formal action is taken the case should be fully investigated by a nominated manager to establish the facts and that the action is reasonable in the circumstances. As part of this investigation the employee and any witnesses will be interviewed and statements taken.
6.2 Once the investigation has been completed, and there is a case to be answered, the employee is so advised and the complaint(s) referred for hearing to an appropriate manager as defined in paragraph 10.1.
6.3 Following an investigation the employee should be informed of the proposed action, either to;
• Refer the matter to a formal hearing • Deal with the matter informally • Deal with the matter through one to one meetings • Deal with the matter under the Performance Management - Capability procedure • Take no further action
6.4 If, following an investigation, an employee is suspected of having committed a criminal offence in connection with their employment, the Police will be notified in all cases. This does not, however preclude the continuation of the Council’s disciplinary procedure.
5
7. MEASURES PENDING COMPLETION OF AN INVESTIGATION AND/OR PENDING A FORMAL HEARING
Precautionary measures
7.1 An employee may remain at work and be removed from all or some of their normal duties as a precautionary measure pending completion of an investigation into alleged gross misconduct (or where the employee has been criminally convicted, has been bound over, has been cautioned) which is serious enough that the employee's dismissal may result.
7.2 Precautionary measures include:
• placing the employee on limited duties • temporarily transferring the employee to other duties and/or another workplace • providing the employee with work to do at home • where appropriate, employees may be sent off duty for a cooling-off period for the rest of the day on which the incident occurs and no more than one complete day in addition
An employee who is subject to one of the above measures will continue to receive full contractual pay.
The use of precautionary measures is not disciplinary action, however, the use of such measures does not imply a lessening of the seriousness of the issues under investigation or awaiting consideration at a formal hearing.
Suspension
7.3 Where it is not possible for the employee to carry out any duties, it may be necessary to suspend the employee from duty pending completion of the investigation. Suspension will normally be on full contractual pay and is a precautionary measure not disciplinary action.
7.4 Where the individual is known to be a member of a trade union, the appropriate Trade Union Branch Secretary or Convenor must be informed of the suspension by telephone. Confirmation in writing with the terms of the suspension should be sent as soon as possible and no later than the following working day.
7.5 During a period of suspension, the employee can still take annual leave with the approval of their line manager. An employee who has been suspended should ensure that they are available to return to duty and must be available to attend investigative meetings. Whilst suspension should be a short term measure, occasionally investigations may take sometime to establish the facts
6
of a case. In such cases there should be periodic reviews to establish the reason(s) for any delay. Any suspension which exceeds 2 months should only be extended following a review by the employee’s Head of Service.
7.6 Line managers should maintain regular contact with employees who are suspended (at a minimum on a fortnightly basis) to ensure that any welfare needs can be addressed and where possible to update them on the progress of the investigation. In some cases, however in order to ensure that an investigation is not compromised, it may not be possible to provide a suspended employee with any information, other than the likely timescale for the completion of the investigation. Advice should always be sought from Human Resources.
7.7 In cases concerning fraud and serious financial irregularities or where an employee has been charged with a criminal offence, (and their presence would affect the Council’s interests, other staff and/or the service) suspensions pending a hearing may be on no pay or reduced pay where appropriate. An employee on no or reduced pay suspension would be entitled to reimbursement of any loss of pay if formal disciplinary action does not proceed or the complaint(s) is not substantiated at a formal hearing.
7.8 Staff who are suspended should be provided with the contact details for the Counselling Service.
Measures pending a formal hearing
7.9 On completion of an investigation and if decided that the case should be referred to a formal hearing, measures described in paragraphs 7.1 to 7.8 may be applied, continued or amended, pending a formal hearing. 7.10 The employee will be advised, in writing, of the conditions attached to any changes in working arrangements/duties or suspension from duty. The letter should state that use of any of the above measures pending completion of an investigation and/or pending a formal hearing is not a disciplinary penalty and does not imply any decision has been made about the merits of the case.
7.11 Failure to comply with these conditions, failure to co-operate with an investigation, impeding an investigation and the destruction/ alteration of evidence, are disciplinary offences. Employees who are suspended from duty with pay may have their pay stopped immediately if they take these actions.
7.12 Heads of Service and their nominated representatives are responsible for authorising any changes to employees' working arrangements/duties or suspensions. If the appropriate Head of Service (or a delegated manager) is unavailable to sanction a suspension from duty (or some other appropriate measure), and circumstances are such that an employee should no longer remain at work, managers/supervisors may send an employee out of the
7
workplace and seek endorsement by another Head of Service (or named delegated manager) within two working days.
7.13 Changes to an employee’s working arrangements/duties as a precautionary measure pending completion of an investigation or pending a formal hearing must be reviewed by the appropriate Head of Service (or delegated manager) on a regular basis.
7.14 Any proposed measures in relation to a Trade Union representative should be discussed with the appropriate Trade Union Branch Secretary or Convenor. No formal disciplinary action will be taken against a Branch Secretary or Convenor before a Regional Officer has been made aware of the facts. The Head of HR Policy and Strategy must be consulted in any such situation.
8. ARRANGEMENTS FOR A HEARING
8.1 The employee is to be given a minimum of seven working days written notice of the date, time and place of the hearing. The employee is also to be advised of the following;
Nature and details of complaint
Written details of the complaint(s) against her/him, in as much depth as possible to enable the employee to know what is being alleged about her/his conduct or relevance of a criminal conviction to her/his employment.
Right to Representation
The right to be represented by one Trade Union representative or Barnet Council colleague (see paragraph 2.2 above).
Failure to attend
The hearing may proceed in the absence of the employee if s/he fails to attend, unless
• there is medical evidence that the employee is unfit to attend or • she/he requests a postponement due to the chosen companion not being available at the time proposed for the hearing by management and an alternative time is proposed which is reasonable and within five working days following the date of the proposed hearing
Only one postponement will normally be allowed.
Officers hearing the case and range of penalties
8
The name and designation of the manager hearing the case (the presiding officer) and the range of penalties that s/he may impose. Where appropriate, the employee will be informed that the allegation(s) under consideration could result in dismissal if found, because;
i) the allegation(s) could constitute gross misconduct or ii) the existence of a previous disciplinary record.
Warning of financial recovery
Where relevant a warning that recovery of any financial loss to the Council (usually by deductions from pay) will be made should misconduct be proven.
Copy of the procedures
A copy of these procedures should be enclosed.
Documentation
8.2 Any evidence gathered by either party as part of their investigations which will be presented as evidence at the hearing will be exchanged with the other party at least five working days before the hearing.
8.3 In exceptional circumstances the manager hearing the case may allow additional documents to be presented at the hearing, if they could not reasonably have been presented within the stipulated time and subject to the other party being allowed to seek an adjournment to consider the documents.
8.4 A copy of the allegations/details of the conviction and the documentation sent to and received from the employee, should be sent to the manager hearing the case at least three days before the hearing.
9
APPENDIX A
9. FORMAL DISCIPLINARY HEARING - PROCEDURAL RULES
9.1 Minutes of the proceedings at the hearing will be taken. These will not be a verbatim record but should give an adequate account of proceedings.
9.2 The manager hearing the case and her/his HR Adviser may question or seek clarification from either party and witnesses at any stage.
9.3 Witnesses are called as required and after giving evidence may be released by the manager hearing the case after consultation with all parties.
9.4 The employee indicates whether;
a. in the case of alleged gross misconduct or misconduct whether s/he admits the allegation(s) as set out in the letter convening the hearing OR
b. the details of the criminal conviction are correct OR
c. the allegation(s) is/are not admitted
9.5 Where the allegation(s) is/are not admitted proceed to paragraph 10.12
THE ALLEGATION IS ADMITTED, OR CRIMINAL CONVICTION(S) IS/ARE CONFIRMED
9.6 The presenting officer provides a brief outline of the case and gives the employee's general employment record with the Council including, length of service and any formal disciplinary action on file. The employee may challenge any of the details given.
9.7 The employee or representative may make a brief statement and present mitigation with reasons why a lenient penalty would be appropriate. S/he may call character witnesses (or present written statements). The management representative may question or challenge any information given.
9.8 Both parties leave the hearing. The manager hearing the case decides the appropriate penalty. See Appendix B.
9.9 Both parties are recalled and informed of the disciplinary action to be taken. All decisions are implemented with immediate effect.
9.10 The employee is informed that s/he may appeal in writing to the Head of Service within 5 days of the date of receipt of the letter notifying the outcome of the hearing on the grounds set out in Appendix C.
10
9.11 The decision and right of appeal are confirmed in writing to the employee within 5 working days.
WHERE THE ALLEGATION(S) IS/ARE NOT ADMITTED
MANAGEMENT SUBMISSION
9.12 The management representative presents the case, giving evidence of the complaint and calling any witnesses.
9.13 The employee or representative may question the management representative and any witnesses.
9.14 The management representative may re-examine the witnesses on matters raised.
EMPLOYEE SUBMISSION
9.15 The employee or representative presents their defence, giving evidence and calls any witnesses.
9.16 The management representative may question the employee directly and any witnesses.
9.17 The employee or representative may re-examine the witnesses on matters raised.
CLOSING STATEMENTS
9.18 The management representative makes a closing statement, followed by the employee or representative. No new evidence can be introduced in the closing statements. Both parties then leave the hearing room.
DECISION
9.19 The manager hearing the case decides whether, on the balance of probabilities, the allegation(s) is/are substantiated. Both parties are recalled to the hearing room and are informed of the decision. If the decision is not to uphold the allegation(s) the hearing ends.
9.20 If the decision is to uphold the complaint(s), the management representative gives the employee's general employment record with the Council including, length of service and any formal disciplinary action on file. The employee may challenge any of the details given.
11
9.21 The employee may make a brief statement and present with reasons why a lenient penalty would be appropriate and s/he may call character witnesses (or present written statements). The management representative may question or challenge any information given.
9.22 In some circumstances, the manager hearing the case may require time to consider the evidence rather than making a decision on the day of the hearing. The decision therefore may be conveyed through correspondence within 3 working days, or the hearing reconvened to announce the decision.
12
APPENDIX B
10 AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE DISCIPLINARY PENALTIES
10.1 Directors, Heads of Service and their named nominees have the authority to summarily dismiss employees or dismiss with notice.
10.2 Directors, Heads of Service and their named nominees, where appropriate have the authority to suspend employees on no or reduced pay.
10.3 For action short of dismissal, it is the responsibility of each Head of Service to specify who has the authority to:-
• Issue oral warnings – for minor offences, with a record of the warning placed on the employee’s personal file • Issue first written warnings – for a serious offence or where previous oral warnings have proved ineffective • Issue final written warnings – for serious misconduct or where a previous written warning has proved ineffective • Suspend employees on pay • Take other precautionary measures other than suspension
10.4 If an employee is employed by one service Area but
• provides a service for another service area or • is located within another service area or • is supervised by staff from another service area
it is the responsibility of management in the latter service area to notify the employing service of any misconduct that may merit disciplinary action. The employing service area will be responsible for applying this procedure.
10.5 The range of penalties open to different managers and the period of time that the oral/written/final written warning remain on personal files are;
13
PERIOD MANAGERS PENALTY OF WARNING (to remain on personal file) Directors & Heads Summary dismissal for gross misconduct of Service Dismissal with notice or payment in lieu of notice
Final written warning (that further proven 1 to 3 years to be misconduct will normally result in dismissal) stipulated
Written warning (about future conduct) 1 to 2 years to be stipulated Managers Dismissal with notice or payment in lieu of notice designated by Heads of Service Final written warning (that further proven 1 to 3 years to be who hold misconduct will normally result in dismissal) stipulated significant managerial Written warning (about future conduct) 1 to 2 years to be responsibility over stipulated a defined service/area Other managers Final written warning (that further proven 1 to 3 years to be designated by misconduct will normally result in dismissal) stipulated Heads of Service as authorised to Written warning (about future conduct) 1 to 2 years to be impose these stipulated penalties
Notes • All the above managers can impose an oral warning which will remain on file for a specified period of between 6 and 12 months. Normally this penalty for minor misconduct would be imposed by managers below Head of Service level.
• All the above managers can authorise the recovery of any financial loss to the Council.
• Warnings imposed as penalties in cases relating to child protection or vulnerable adults issues, may not always be ‘spent’ in terms of providing references for future employment. In these cases the advice of legal services will always be sought.
14
APPENDIX C
11. APPEALS PROCEDURE
Grounds of appeal 11.1 When registering an appeal (which must be within 10 working days of the date of receipt of the letter notifying the outcome of the hearing) the employee must state her/his grounds and provide full details of the grounds for appeal in writing.
Case Appeal on following grounds
Gross 1. Against the decision to uphold the allegation(s). Misconduct & Misconduct AND/OR
2. Against the penalty imposed.
AND/OR
3. That the procedures at the original hearing were significantly breached as to result in an unfair hearing.
AND/OR
4. New evidence has come to light which would have had an effect on the original decision.
Notice of the Appeal Hearing
11.2 The appellant is given at least 7 working days notice of the date, time and place of the hearing and is advised in writing of the following:
o The right to be represented by a trade union representative or Barnet Council colleague (see paragraph 2.2).
o The appeal hearing will proceed in the absence of the employee if s/he fails to attend unless there is medical evidence that the employee is unfit to attend or she/he requests a postponement due to the chosen companion not being available and an
15
alternative time is proposed which is reasonable and within five working days following the date of the proposed appeal hearing
o Only one postponement will normally be allowed.
o The composition of the Staff Appeals Committee or details of the manager hearing the appeal
o That the penalty may be lessened or increased at the appeal
Copies of any documents which either party presented in evidence at the disciplinary hearing and the notes of the original hearing will be made available at the appeal and are enclosed for the appellant. If any further written documentation is to be presented by the appellant in support of his/her appeal this should be provided to her/his service area at least 5 working days prior to the appeal hearing. New evidence may only be introduced if it has become available since the date of the original hearing and its existence could not have been reasonably known of or foreseen before that hearing.
The appellant shall be provided with a copy of these procedures.
Appeal Hearing
11.3 For appeals against dismissal only, the appeal will be considered by the Staff Appeals Committee.
For all other appeals, a more senior manager than the manager who conducted the original hearing will consider the appeal.
The appeal is not a rehearing but is intended to review the decisions at the original hearing and decide whether they were reasonable in the circumstances.
11.4 No manager will hear an appeal if s/he was personally involved in giving evidence at the original hearing or if s/he was the manager who heard the case originally.
The senior officer responsible for taking the disciplinary action will present the management case against the appellant, supported by documentary evidence or witnesses as appropriate. In cases brought before the Staff Appeals Committee, this will be the Head of Service or his/her representative.
11.5 The appellant may be represented by a ‘companion’1 who must either be a trade union representative or Barnet Council colleague.
16
11.6 New evidence may only be introduced if it has become available since the date of the original hearing and its existence could not have been reasonably known of or foreseen before that hearing. Witnesses may be called only to present new evidence with the agreement of the panel/Head of Service considering the appeal and may be questioned and re-examined. After giving their evidence witnesses may be released in consultation with all parties.
11.7 Witnesses may be called by the parties to the appeal and evidence may be given either orally, in writing or both. Witnesses should only be brought forward if their testimony has a direct and essential bearing on the case as stated by the appellant.
11.8 Witnesses will only be called into the hearing when required. They may be called by either side, subject to the agreement of the officer hearing the appeal or the Chair of the Staff Appeals Committee. All witnesses shall withdraw from the meeting immediately after answering any questions following the conclusion of his/her statement but shall be available for recall.
11.9 The appellant or his/her representative shall present his/her case in the presence of the management representative.
11.10 The management representative shall have the opportunity to ask questions of the appellant or any of his/her witnesses on the evidence they give.
11.11 The management representative shall present the case against the appellant in the presence of the appellant and his/her representative.
11.12 The appellant or his/her representative shall have the opportunity to ask questions of the management representative and any of the council’s witnesses on the evidence they give.
11.13 The members of the Staff Appeals Committee or officer hearing the appeal shall have the opportunity to ask questions of the appellant or any of his/her witnesses on the evidence they give.
11.14 The members of the Staff Appeals Committee or officer hearing the appeal shall have the opportunity to ask questions of the management representative and any of the Council’s witnesses on the evidence they give.
11.15 The management representative shall sum up his/her case, if he/she so wishes.
11.16 The appellant or his/her representative shall sum up his/her case, if he/she so wishes.
17
11.17 The Staff Appeals Committee or officer hearing the appeal shall deliberate in private, when only a Human Resources adviser, or in the case of the Staff Appeals Committee, the Head of Human Resources Strategy or his/her representative remains in attendance in an advisory capacity. The appellant and the management representative are recalled only to clear points of uncertainty. If recall is necessary, both parties return, notwithstanding the fact that only one is concerned with the point giving rise to doubt.
11.18 The Committee or officer hearing the appeal shall inform the parties of its decision either at the conclusion of the hearing or indicate that the decision will be conveyed to them in writing within seven days.
11.19 In the event of the decision of the Staff Appeals Committee requiring any alternative or additional form of action, then the Chief Officers shall take the necessary action immediately to implement the Committee decision.
18
Appendix D
DISCIPLINARY RULES AND PROCEDURES FOR CHIEF OFFICERS
1. PROCEDURE
(Pre-hearing Action) Preliminary Investigation
When a disciplinary or capability issue is raised against a Chief Officer, a preliminary investigation is carried out by the Chief Officers Disciplinary and Capability Investigatory Panel comprising 5 elected Members.
The purpose of a preliminary investigation is to determine if a question of discipline exists which, if established, could not be resolved informally, for example, through an unrecorded informal warning.
All parties, e.g. the Chief Executive/Elected members, who are required to use the process should be fully trained in its operation.
Before progressing to a formal Investigating Panel, the Council will need to be certain that:
• The Chief Officer has been notified, in writing, of the allegations which are being investigated and given the opportunity to make representations on their behalf • The matter cannot be resolved through informal counselling • The individual has been interviewed by the appropriate manager and afforded the right to be represented by their Trade Union or accompanied by a fellow employee of their choice. Care must be taken not to compromise individuals who may be interviewed at a subsequent stage in this procedure • It has been determined whether or not suspension is appropriate
SUSPENSION
Where the Chief Officer’s continuing presence at work compromises the investigation or impairs the efficient exercise of the Council’s functions, the Chief Officer may (subject to whatever consultation or approval may be required under the Authority’s Constitution) be suspended from duty. The Chief Officers Disciplinary and Capability Investigatory Panel or the Chief Executive acting under delegated powers, may carry out such suspension on full pay. Written notice
19
stating the reasons for any such suspension shall be given at the earliest opportunity possible.
The necessity for the Chief Officer to remain suspended should be reviewed at regular intervals and where possible lengthy periods of suspension should be avoided.
DISCIPLINARY PANEL
Where the preliminary investigation determines that there is a potential case to answer, the Chief Officers Disciplinary Panel will be established. The Five Member Panel, including a Member of the Executive, should not include any member or officer who has a direct personal involvement in the complaint or who has participated in the preliminary investigation.
THE DISCIPLINARY HEARING
The Chief Officer will receive not less than ten working days written notice of the Disciplinary Panel’s meeting. Before the meeting the Chief Officer has the right, if so requested, within a reasonable time, (i) to receive further details of the complaint made and/or (ii) to a postponement of the meeting for a jointly agreed period not exceeding 14 days. The chief officer may circulate a written statement to the Chief Officers Disciplinary and Capability Investigatory Panel before the hearing.
At the meeting, it must be verified that:
• The employee concerned knows the details of the allegation • He/she has the opportunity to put his/her case
The Chief Officers Disciplinary Panel can:-
(i) exonerate the Chief Officer
(ii) state their opinion as to whether (and if so the extent to which) the evidence they have obtained supports any allegation of misconduct against the chief officer
(iii) determine the disciplinary action (if any) or range of actions which appear appropriate to take against the chief officer. The appropriate course of action will be drawn from the following list:-
1. recorded oral warning 2. written warning
20
3. suspension on half pay or no pay for a specified period 4. relegation (i.e. a reduction in salary) for a specified period 5. an invitation to resign or accept retirement 6. dismissal with notice
The final decision will be given to the Chief Officer in writing at the earliest opportunity following the hearing.
If a warning is given, it should clearly indicate;
a the level of improvement required b the date by which it is to be achieved c what will happen if it is not d the appeal process
Alternatively the Panel may explore other alternatives, for example:
a early retirement b secondment c redeployment to a more junior post where there are issues relating to capability
2. APPEAL PROCESS
The Chief Officer is allowed a full right of appeal to full council. The procedure for an appeal hearing should follow the above procedure. Members who participated in the previous investigation may attend to give evidence but must be excluded during the consideration of the decision of the Council or Panel.
3. CAPABILITY
Where appropriate, a preliminary investigation, as detailed above should be undertaken where there is any question or complaint regarding the capability of a Chief Officer.
If the preliminary investigation concludes that there is a question of substance as to the Chief Officer’s capability, the Chief Officer should be advised formally. There should be a full discussion covering:
1. The reason for incapability
2. Problem areas
3. What needs to be done to improve performance, including any training requirements
21
4. Time frames over which improvements should be demonstrated. (Unless there has been a previous warning or there is evidence of serious incapability which is not likely to be remedied within a reasonable time).
5. When it is felt that there is no prospect of improving the Chief Officer’s performance a satisfactory outcome may be achieved by the Chief Officer actively seeking other employment, resigning or accepting retirement.
At capability hearings an officer subordinate to the Chief Officer may give evidence of fact. Where the parties disagree on technical or professional matters it may be useful to refer to an appropriately qualified independent third party.
Any time period should be sufficient to allow a reasonable opportunity for the Chief Officer to show whether an improved performance or that the conclusion of the preliminary investigation was mistaken.
22
APPENDIX B
MANAGING CHANGE
MANAGING CHANGE
1. INTRODUCTION
Barnet Council is a dynamic and modern organisation. To remain so we need to review the needs of our service users, the priorities of our members, our legal obligations, the successful application of new technology and budgetary requirements.
Meeting these demands means that we need to be flexible in how our workforce is structured and distributed and in the number of people we employ. We recognise that our employees are our most valuable resource and that managers need to deal with organisational reviews in a way that reduces the disruptive effects of change. When employees are affected by an organisational change, this procedure will ensure that;
• the employees concerned will be treated in a fair and equitable way • advance notice of the impending change is given to the employees concerned as soon as possible • change will be brought about through consultation and by wherever possible through agreement, • the need for compulsory redundancy will be minimised but balanced against the Authority’s need to retain employees with the skills and experience necessary to best meet future service requirements • redeployment opportunities will be maximised
2. CONSULTATION
Before consultation begins, the proposals must be agreed by the appropriate Head of Service.
2.1 CONSULTATION FRAMEWORK
In line with the European Union Directive (April 2005), management will consult with recognised trade unions and staff on all issues which;
• involve changes to contracts of employment, other than where all individuals affected by the changes are in agreement • relate to discretionary aspects of implementation of national agreements • potentially lead to redundancy • involve major changes in working practices, location of employees etc, irrespective of whether these changes are provided for in the employment contract • involve introduction of, or changes to, local procedural agreements
This does not preclude consultation on any other issues as appropriate.
24
2.2 CONSULTATION DEFINED
• presenting written proposals to all affected staff. Other methods should be used if required e.g. for employees with disabilities or where employees are not fluent in English
• if the appropriate trade union representative(s) are not part of the staff group affected, giving them the opportunity to attend the presentation and have copies of the proposals in writing
• explain the background to the proposals, and the reasons why they are being made
• providing opportunities to discuss the proposals, ask questions and give clarification
• giving a reasonable amount of time for trade union representatives to consult their members, and for staff and trade union representatives to make comments to management
• giving serious consideration to comments received and where they cannot be accepted, explaining the reasons why
• notifying staff and their trade union representatives in writing of any revised proposals
Special arrangements apply to potential redundancy situations (see section 4).
2.3 TIMESCALES
Formal consultation is a minimum of 15 working days. Longer or shorter periods can be jointly agreed. When the consultation period has finished, where no Committee decision is required, the proposals, as amended by the consultation process will be implemented, unless written notification has been received from the trade union(s) outlining their failure to agree.
2.4 CORPORATE ISSUES
Where consultation relates to corporate issues involving changes to local procedural agreements, and other corporately applied local and national conditions of service, consultation will take place with trade union officials, and not necessarily with all staff affected. These issues will normally be submitted to the Corporate Joint Negotiation and Consultation Committee for formal ratification, prior to being submitted to the General Functions Committee.
2.5 SERVICE AREA ISSUES
Any difficulties arising from joint officer discussions within the service area should be referred to the Area Joint Negotiation and Consultation Committee. Trade union representatives may
25 at any time during consultations requisition a special meeting of the Area JNCC which must be held within 10 working days of such a request. If it is not possible to resolve an issue at the Area JNCC, the matter may be referred by either side to the Corporate Joint Negotiation and Consultation Committee with a view to seeking to reach agreement. Service Area issues can only be referred to the Corporate JNCC following consultations at the Area Joint Negotiation and Consultation Committee.
If a Committee decision is required, or if a failure to agree has been declared by the Corporate JNCC, a report will be submitted to the next available meeting of the General Functions Committee, and the trade union(s) will have the opportunity to submit written comments. Existing rights to requisition a special meeting of the Corporate JNCC will continue to apply. If there is a long delay before the next meeting of the General Functions Committee, the Chairman may be consulted on whether a special meeting may be convened.
2.6 REVIEW OF CONSULTATION ARRANGEMENTS
The consultation arrangements set out in this section may be terminated by either side giving three months’ notice, following consideration at a meeting of the Corporate Joint Negotiation and Consultation Committee.
3. VARYING EMPLOYMENT CONTRACTS
If employment contracts need to be changed for efficiency reasons, management will attempt to reach agreement through consultation with the trade unions and staff at the earliest opportunity, in accordance with the redundancy procedure (Section 4).
If it is not possible to reach agreement with either the Trade Unions on a collective basis or individual employees, it may be necessary to inform staff and their representatives that the change will be introduced from a stated future date. Employees will then be given the appropriate notice of termination of their existing contracts and offered immediate re- engagement on a new contract under the new or revised terms.
If a member of staff is unwilling to accept a new contract of employment or the new contract does not constitute suitable alternative employment, the redeployment procedure (Section 5) will be used to assist the employee in finding alternative work within the council, on his/her existing salary, grading and other conditions of employment.
26 4. THE REDUNDANCY PROCEDURE
Management use careful forward planning to ensure as far as possible the security of employment for its employees
It is recognised, however, that there may be changes in services user’s needs, member’s priorities, technological developments and budgetary requirements which can affect staffing needs. In consultation with the Trade Unions, management will try to minimise the effect of redundancies by putting sufficient time and effort into finding alternative employment. Where compulsory redundancy is inevitable, redundancy will be managed in a fair, consistent and sympathetic manner.
4.1 REDUNDANCY DEFINED
A redundancy payment under the Employment Rights Act 1996 is made if employees are dismissed for either of the following reasons;
• the council has ceased, or intends to cease, to carry on the functions for the purposes of which the employee was employed, or
• the requirement of the council to carry out work of a particular remit or for employee to carry out work of a particular kind has decreased or diminished
4.2 AVOIDING COMPULSORY REDUNDANCY
Before consultation, management should consider the following ways of avoiding redundancy:
• Deletion of vacant posts • Recruitment restrictions • Retraining staff • Reduction or elimination of overtime • Retirement of those employees already beyond normal retirement age • Termination of agency staff and non renewal of temporary or fixed term contracts • Freezing the filling of posts which may offer the prospect of redeployment and give “at risk” staff first consideration for such vacancies (for more information on redeployment, see section 5).
SPECIFIC ISSUES
The following are specific issues that should be considered to avoid compulsory redundancy.
4.2.1 ASSIMILATION
Assimilation is where an employee is matched to a post without the need for an interview. Assimilation should only be used where;
27 • there is a new or existing post available in the same work area and the post is almost identical to the post which is being deleted • the new existing post is within the same spinal column point range as the post being deleted • there is the same number or fewer redeployees than available matching posts
If an employee unreasonably refuses to accept an offer of assimilation where the offer is considered suitable alternative employment, this will affect the right to a redundancy payment (see section 5.2, suitable alternative employment).
4.2.2 EARLY RETIREMENT
Early retirement could also be considered but costs to the council need to be considered carefully. Voluntary redundancy involves a one-off payment whereas early retirement usually involves a longer-term financial commitment in the form of a pension.
For further information please refer to the early retirement scheme (Personnel procedure Manual Section 2, 2.16).
Before early retirements are agreed managers must complete Appendix A.
Requests for early retirement should be made to Human Resources.
4.2.3 VOLUNTARY REDUNDANCY
One acceptable method of selection is to invite employees to consider voluntary redundancy or redeployment.
In selecting volunteers management must consider the need to maintain skills and experience. An imbalance in these can effect the efficient operation of the service. Volunteers must be aware that requests are not always approved. Costs to the council will also need to be considered.
The principles for evaluating volunteers should be the same as those for compulsory redundancy.
Before voluntary redundancies are agreed, managers must complete Appendix A.
Requests for redundancy and pension figures should be made to Human Resources.
4.2.4 TRANSFERRED REDUNDANCY (BUMPED)
Transferred redundancy is known as ‘bumped efficiency’, where an employee who would otherwise be dismissed due to redundancy can be redeployed into a post occupied by a volunteer.
28 If any ‘bumped redundancy is to be considered, managers must take into account the cost implications.
The decision on whether or not to accept such “bump redundancies” will lie with the Head of Service.
4.3 SPECIFIC CONSULTATION RELATING TO REDUNDANCY
Consultation should commence with the trade unions and affected staff at the earliest opportunity. Legislation requires the following minimum notice periods:
• At least 90 days before the first dismissal takes effect if 100 or more employees are to be made redundant over a period of 90 days or less. • At least 30 days before the first dismissal takes effect if 20 to 99 employees are to be made redundant over a period of 90 days or less.
Another requirement is to notify the Department for Trade and Industry. Managers must therefore inform Central Human Resources of all proposals before any redundancy notices are sent to the effected employees. The Central team will then inform the DTI in writing, using form HR1 (Appendix B).
Management must make sure that staff are aware of the consultation process and the opportunity to make representations.
Managers also have a duty to act fairly and reasonably in handling redundancies and informing and consulting affected employees individually, regardless of the number of dismissals.
The formal consultation process begins when the following information has been disclosed in writing to the Trade Unions and before notices of redundancy are issued:
• Reasons for the proposed redundancies • Numbers and descriptions of those affected • Proposed method of selecting the employees who may be dismissed • Proposed method of carrying out the dismissals, including the period over which the dismissals are to take effect • The method for calculating the amount of redundancy payments to be made to those who are dismissed • The proposed timetable for implementation
4.4 GENERAL FUNCTIONS COMMITTEE
Following the consultation process and before any employee is selected for compulsory redundancy a report must go to General Functions Committee for approval. The report must include comments from the Trade Unions. When the report has been approved the selection process can begin.
29
4.5 THE SELECTION OPTIONS
Selection for redundancy is a management responsibility. To avoid unfair selection, managers must determine justifiable criteria for selecting the required number for redundancy. The Trade Unions should be consulted on the selection method and if possible agreement reached.
Where agreement is not reached, management must make a decision based on fair and objective assessment in consultation with Human Resources and provide the trade unions with a written reason for the decision.
The following sections describe the methods to be used for selection:
4.5.1 COMPULSORY SELECTION CRITERIA – where there are no changes to affected posts
Where assimilation, voluntary redundancy, early retirement and bumped redundancy have not produced suitable volunteers or the required number, the following criteria will be used for compulsory redundancies where there are no changes to the affected posts. These criteria have been agreed with the Trade Unions: a. Where the savings require the deletion of a specific group of staff as identified by reference to employment contracts (i.e. staff at a specific location or appointed to a specific shift or working pattern) then that group will be selected in its entirety for redundancy. b. Where a specific and unique post is deleted the individual post holder will be regarded as selected for redundancy. c. Where there is a choice between employees, case law requires selection to be based on objective criteria. Subjective selection decisions, without objective evidence, have been found unfair by Employment Tribunals.
Attendance Records:
Weightings will be given for the number of absences and the length of absences.
Exclusions should be made from records (where clearly notified with supporting medical evidence):
• Maternity/paternity related absence • Industrial injuries • Work related stress • Disability related absence
One off longer term absences e.g. broken leg should be considered favourably if the underlying attendance record is satisfactory (an average of 7 days per person per year).
30 Weighting for attendance records will be:-
Each absence = 5 points Each day of absence = 1 point (E.g. one day sick is equal to 5 + 1 = 6 points)
Before calculations are made, managers must ensure records are accurate.
Disciplinary Records:
Weightings will be given for the following unexpired warnings:
Final written warning = 20 points Written warning = 10 points Oral warning = 5 points
Attendance and disciplinary records will be analysed for the previous 12 months with effect from the date of the issue of redundancy notices.
Skills, Competencies and Qualifications
An objective assessment of the skills competencies and qualifications required for the role based on a weighting system. The Trade Unions must be consulted as each selection exercise will require an objective assessment of different skills, competencies and qualifications.
4.5.2 COMPULSORY SELECTION CRITERIA – where there are changes to affected posts
Where reductions are proposed within an identifiable group of staff, but with associated changes in job role or responsibilities such that the new jobs are significantly different to the previous jobs, then all the staff will be put at risk of redundancy and be entitled to apply in limited competition amongst the existing post holders for the new jobs.
RINGFENCING
Where there are available similar posts to those being made redundant, these may be ring fenced in the first instance reserved for those at risk of redundancy to apply, without wider advertisement.
The drawing of a ring fence is an essential first step where there is a competitive selection process. Ring fences will be determined for groups of identical or similar posts. Having established which posts fall within a given ring fence, a decision has to be made as to which existing post holders are qualified to apply for posts within a given ring fence. These arrangements will be the subject of local consultation. Normally ring fences will be confined within a service area. The following examples
31 illustrate how ring fences will be determined. These examples are illustrative and not exhaustive.
A. a group of identical posts being reduced, where the agreed redundancy criteria has not reduced the number of posts to the required level. A ring fence is drawn round the reduced number of posts and all existing post holders are able to be considered for these posts.
B. a group of similar/identical posts being reduced. Where a group of similar/interchangeable posts is being reduced/restructured it may well be appropriate to draw a ring fence around all such posts. In these circumstances the posts will not necessarily be the same grade, although generally there will not be excessively wide range of grades. Employees who currently occupy posts that have duties/responsibility and require skills/experience that have significant overlap with the new posts will be able to be considered for these posts. Such ring fences may encompass posts from more than one existing unit.
C. "Cascading" ring fences. Where reductions/changes in the organisation are required at succeeding levels it will be necessary to establish a series of ring fences for each level or tier. The selection process will start at the highest level and work down. In these circumstances employees who are not successful in one ring fence may be considered in the ring fence at the tier below, once staff at this level have been interviewed and vacancies remain. Employees may be considered in further ring fences in the 'cascade' on promotion if they meet the essential criteria on the person specification. For example, a three tier ring fence: Post Current Required Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4 numbers numbers Manager 3 2 Interviewed Interviewed for for the the team leader manager posts if posts vacancies remain If vacancies Team 6 4 Interviewed Interviewed for remain posts Leader for the team the manager can be Internal and leader posts post on offered to external promotion or the redeployees advertisement officer posts if who meet the vacancies person remain specification Officer 18 12 Interviewed Interviewed for requirements for the the team leader officer posts posts on promotion if vacancies remain
32
Determining whether a ring fence applies
Human Resources should be consulted to perform an analysis comparing old and new posts. They will be able to provide an objective opinion and ensure consistent application of the policy.
4.6 APPEALS PROCEDURE
If an employee feels the selection criteria has been unfairly applied, they can appeal. The employee must submit a request for a review in writing to their Head of Service. This must be within seven calendar days of receiving written notification, that the selection process has been completed and they have been selected for redundancy. The written submission should explain their grounds for an appeal.
The Head of Service or a nominated senior manager, who has not been involved in the selection process, will carry out a review. The review will not take the form of a hearing but, it may be helpful for the assessment of the selection process, to be discussed with the individual.
The decision made after the review will be confirmed in writing to the employee within 10 working days of receipt of when the appeal was made and before the date of dismissal.
If the selection was carried out by the Head of Service the appeal must be addressed to the Chief Executive who will nominate a Head of Service or Director to carry out a review.
4.7 NOTICE OF DISMISSAL
Notices of dismissal should follow after the following:
• agreement has been passed through General Functions • consultation has been carried out • a fair selection process has been followed
Where it is necessary to issue a notice of dismissal for reasons of redundancy, the letter should either be handed to the employee or posted to their home address. The letter should;
• give full contractual notice or pay in lieu. (Payments in lieu of notice are made only when termination of employment is compulsory, and is considered to be in the best interest of the organisation) • specify the date of termination • give the reason for dismissal • provide details of payments due, including any redundancy/severance pay • offer support and assistance (see section 5, redeployment procedure).
33 5. THE REDEPLOYMENT PROCEDURE
5.1 INTRODUCTION
This procedure applies to all employees who are seeking redeployment due to organisational changes, redundancy or ill health, capability. It is the Council’s policy to avoid redundancy wherever possible. The procedure therefore aims to support and provide assistance so that employees can find suitable alternative employment.
5.2 SUITABLE ALTERNATIVE EMPLOYMENT
The employee decides whether to accept the offer of alternative work however, an employee who unreasonably refuses an offer of suitable alternative work will lose their entitlement to a redundancy payment. Managers should be aware that the following factors may influence the employee’s decisions.
• Protection of pay: Earnings may be protected at the rate of the substantive post, (see section 6, salary protection)
• Location: Any increase in travelling time should be considered in relation to health and domestic circumstances of the employee
• Working environment: This may be important for employees who suffer a health complaint or disability
• Hours of work: Any changes in hours of work e.g. shift patterns, may be considered unsuitable if it fails to account for personal circumstances.
Any offer should be in writing, even where the manager believes it may be rejected. The offer should show how the new employment differs from the old and by law must be made before their previous contract ends. The offer must be for the new contract to start either immediately after the old contract has ended or after an interval of no more than four weeks.
5.3 FOUR WEEK TRIAL PERIOD
An employee who is under notice of redundancy has a statutory right to a trial period of four weeks in an alternative job where the provisions of the new contract differ from the original contract. The trial period gives the employee an opportunity to decide whether the new job is suitable without necessarily losing the right to a redundancy payment.
The four week trial period can be extended for retraining purposes by an agreement which is in writing, specifying the date on which the trial period ends and sets out the employee’s terms and conditions after it ends. After the four week/extended trial period, the employee’s redundancy entitlement will be lost because the employee will be deemed to have accepted the new employment. Managers must communicate this to the employee when the alternative job offer is made.
34 The manager should also use the trial period to assess the employee’s suitability. Should the manager wish to end the new contract within the four weeks for a reason connected with the new job, the employee will preserve the right to a redundancy payment under the old contract. If the dismissal was due to a reason unconnected with redundancy, the employee may lose that entitlement.
5.4 THE REDEPLOYMENT PROCESS
Before a vacancy is advertised, managers should contact Central Human Resources to find out if there are any employees seeking redeployment. If so, the vacancy in the first instance should be placed internally only
Redeployees check the vacancy list on a weekly basis to search for suitable work where they meet the essential criteria and the position is graded the same or lower* than their substantive post
Employees inform the Recruiting Manager that they are a redeployee so, that a redeployment application form (Appendix C) is id
The Recruiting Manager will ensure all redeployment applications are considered before other applicants
If the redeployee/s meet the essential criteria and the post they are applying for is graded the same or lower they must be given a priority interview. This includes jobs involving work of a different kind, where the individual’s skills and attributes suggest the employee is capable of satisfactorily undertaking the work, or will be within a reasonable timescale following a short period of training. Suitable training in this context will normally be on the job training but may in exceptional cases include off the job training where funding exits. The outcome of the interview should be determined before other applicants are considered.
If the redeployee is selected all relevant If the employee is not short listed or pre-employment checks will be carried out. appointed after interview, it is essential for managers to provide clear feedback. The feedback form (Appendix D) can be used to assist. If all. checks are satisfactory an offer will be made in writing and a four week trial period will commence. The manager will complete a trial period assessment form. 35 *An employee is not considered a redeployee for positions graded higher than their substantive post and must apply for such positions on promotion in the same way as other applicants.
5.5 OTHER REDEPLOYMENT OPTIONS
Human Resources Officers will inform the Central Human Resources Team of those looking for redeployment. The Central Team will contact each employee to arrange a joint or individual meeting to explain the redeployment process and other support options available:
• a meeting to establish job preferences, skills, knowledge and experience in order for both employee and HR to identify potentially suitable jobs. Skill gaps may be identified and suitable training recommended
• arrange for employees can view vacancies within the council
• explain salary protection
• provide employees with details of how to view vacancies in other local authorities
• putting employees in touch with the local Job Centre Plus, who provide a free service bringing together employers with vacancies and people looking for work including the provision of on site facilities for interviewing, assisting writing job applications and providing advice on benefits
• provide assistance in how to search for jobs on-line
• support in completing applications forms or writing cv’s
• providing in-house training courses or outplacement services for the following: applying for jobs and interview skills or planning for your retirement
• arranging for employees to see a Careers Advisor
• explaining the financial effects of redundancy (redundancy pay, pension, state benefits) by putting you in touch with a member of staff from the Pensions Department
• provide a list of suitable agencies to sign up with
• If the employee’s contract has ended, continuing support will be provided for a further month. Any member of staff appointed to a vacancy would be re-employed with recognition of their previous service
36 5.6 TIME OFF TO LOOK FOR NEW WORK/TRAINING
Employees, who are under notice of redundancy and have been continuously employed for at least two years, qualify for a statutory entitlement to a reasonable amount of paid time off to look for another job or to arrange training.
Barnet employees with less than two years continuous service should also be offered the same opportunities.
5.7 SPECIFIC REDEPLOYMENT PROTOCOLS/ REDEPLOYMENT PLUS
Management and Trade Unions may agree on additional redeployment measures for specific restructure exercises, for an example, please refer to Appendix E.
6. SALARY PROTECTION
Salary Protection applies to all staff who have been given notice of redundancy and have found redeployment or for those who have been offered suitable alternative employment due to organisational change.
Where the grade of the new post is lower than the redundant post, employees will normally be appointed at the top of the grade. Employees will also receive protection of salary from the spinal point of your previous post. This applies to basic salary only and up to a maximum of eight spinal column points. Salary will then be frozen for a length of time (see table below) and will not increase due to pay awards or through incremental progression until the spinal column point of the new post meets or overtakes the protected grade.
All other conditions of service included in the offer of alternative employment shall be those attached to the new job and detailed in the new statement of employment particulars.
Where the job offered is more than eight spinal points lower than the existing grade, the salary will be protected at an eight spinal point differential. For example: a redeployee whose grade is point 32, is offered a post at point 22, they will be protected at point 30.
The protection period begins from the date immediately following successful completion of the four week trial period. If the trial period is extended, the protection will begin on the 5th week. If however, the trial period begins or continues after the previous contract has been terminated, protection will apply from the start of the new post.
When the protected period has ended, salary will be revised immediately and paid in accordance with the salary grade on appointment and which protection was given.
The period of protection will be based on the length of continuous service with the London Borough of Barnet, as follows:
37
Completed Continuous Years’ Service With Barnet
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10+
Length of Protection 2 2 3 3 4 4 4 4 5 (years)
Protection of salary will cease when:
• the protection period has ended • the salary of the new post reaches or overtakes the protected salary • If an employee applies voluntarily for, and is appointed to, another position within the authority, where the salary is lower than that protected
REDEPLOYMENT FOR A SECOND TIME
For a member of staff who is redeployed to a post on a lower grade for a second or subsequent time whilst already protected, the current protection will cease after the four week trial period (as explained above). A revised protection will then be calculated based on the spinal point offered for the new position and an eight spinal point differential from substantive post. A new period of protection will then continue.
WHO PAYS FOR THE COST OF PROTECTION?
The protection will be paid by the service area that made the employee redundant.
Example:
An employee has 3 years continuous service and their current spinal point is 21 (£19,068). They are redeployed to a new post appointed on spinal point 18, (£17,277) from 1 November 2005.
The employee is entitled to 2 years protection at £19,068.
Dates Protected Salary Salary at point 18 Cost of Protection £ £ £ 1 November 2005 19,068 17,277 746 Nov – March 1 April 2006 19,068 17,795* 1273 April – March 1 April 2007 19,068 18,329* 739 April - March 31 October 2007 18,329 18,329 0
If the employee was redeployed for a second time on spinal point 15, (£16,266) from
38 1 April 2006 with 4 years continuous service, they would receive protection from this date for three years.
Dates Protected Salary Salary at point 15 Cost of £ £ Protection £ 1 April 2006 18,329 16,266 2063 April – March 1 April 2007 18,329 16,754* 1575 April – March 1 April 2008 18,329 17,257* 1072 April – March 1 April 2009 18,329 17,775* 0
* salary increased due to estimated pay award
7. REVIEW
This document will be reviewed annually.
FURTHER INFORMATION:
Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS) – www.acas.org.uk Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) – www.dti.gov.uk Redundancy Payments Office, help line 0845 145 0004 Job Centre Plus Office – www.jobcentreplus.gov.uk
39
* APPLICATION FORM FOR
1. VOLUNTARY EARLY 2. REDUNDANCY * Please tick RETIREMENT – Reg. 31 as 3. VOLUNTARY SEVERANCE 4. PREMATURE RETIREMENT IN appropriate THE INTERESTS OF EFFICIENCY
Name of Applicant: Pay No. Service Area/Department: Post No: Designation: Grade: Current inclusive salary: Date of Birth: Proposed last day of service: Date commenced continuous Local Government Service: Date commenced London Borough of Barnet (or constituent authority):
FOR COMPLETION BY PENSIONS SECTION
Period of Reckonable Service years days
Additional added years allowable under scheme years days
Annual Pension Lump Sum Retirement Grant
£ Scheme Benefits £
Enhancements £ £
Total Benefits £ £
COSTS TO THE SERVICE: Option 1 Option 2 One off cost to the service: If paid over three years the cost to the service is:
£ Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 & ongoing £ £ £ £
Ongoing enhanced pension
£
40 SEVERANCE PAYMENT (a) Completed years of service * (b) Average weekly earnings * (max 20 years) x £ x 2 = £
PAYMENT IN LIEU OF NOTICE (Maximum 12 weeks)
TOTAL SEVERANCE PAYMENT £
Remarks
Note: This form should be completed and sent to the Pensions Section at least 28 days before the date of the proposed early retirement.
Head of Service’s supporting narrative with indication of how savings can be achieved and the estimated annual amount thereof:-
Signed: ______Date: ______2_____ Head of Service
Approved Approved
Signed: ______Signed: ______Head of Human Resources Borough Treasurer
Date: ______2 ____ Date: ______2 ____
41
REDEPLOYMENT APPLICATION FORM
Personal Information
Surname First Names
Address Contact Details: tel no e-mail address
Current Post Details
Job Title Hours per week Service Area/Section/School Salary Range and Grade
Current Duties/Responsibilities
Absence due to illness (during last 12 months) Please list causes of illness Number of days How many periods
44
Relevant Education/Qualifications/Training
Other Relevant Experience/Employment
Supporting Statement (Please indicate how you meet all of the short listing criteria set out in the person specification, drawing on all aspects of your education and experience, including paid employment and unpaid work)
If you are attaching any continuation sheets, please indicate how many in the box:
If you consider yourself to have a disability and have any requirements to aid you at interview, please specify (e.g. sign language, Braille/taped recruitment literature etc):
Signed: ______Date: ______
This application form should be returned to the Recruiting Officer, please contact Central Human Resources if you require any information regarding your application 45 REDEPLOYMENT FEEDBACK FORM
Name Post Applied For Grade
Reasons for Rejection: 1. Appointment of another redeployee Another redeployee had higher priority Another redeployee scored higher on the person specification
2. Failure to meet the requirements of the person specification The redeployee failed to meet the minimum requirements of the person specification and could not have met them within a 4 week or extended trial period. Please answer the following questions on a separate sheet for each element of the person specification that the redeployee failed to meet: Person specification requirement:
Why it is essential that the redeployee satisfy this requirement within the 4 week trial period? Why could the shortfall not have been made up during the 4 week trial period? When would the training be available?
How much would the training cost?
3.Attendance Record The redeployee was rejected because of concerns about her/his level of sickness absence:
Redeployee’s level of sickness absence over the last 12 months Likely impact of sickness absence on service delivery
4. Disability If the redeployee was rejected because he/she has a disability that would prevent them carrying out the full duties of the post: How would the redeployee’s disability affect his/her ability to carry out the duties of the post? What reasonable adjustments were considered to enable the redeployee to do the job? Why were these reasonable adjustments not appropriate? Was specialist advice sought? If yes, who was the advisor?
46
5. Unsatisfactory pre-employment checks The redeployee did not have a satisfactory reference/s
The redeployee did not have a satisfactory medical report
The redeployee did not have criminal records bureau clearance
The information set out above is an accurate account of the reasons for not appointing.
Signed Position Date
47 MODERNISING CORE SYSTEMS – NEW SKILLS TRAINING AND REDEPLOYMENT PROTOCOL
1. INTRODUCTION
The Modernising Core Systems (MCS) Programme will have a profound effect on how the Council undertakes its Finance, Payroll, HR and Procurement functions. Existing structures are reliant on time consuming manual processes which are inefficient, are not always effective and do not meet the requirements of modern local government.
The active participation of staff in this major change process is essential to ensure that the Council realises the full benefits of the changes to enhance the service delivered to the local community. The change process will however, significantly affect how current staff in some service areas undertake their duties and the numbers of staff required, viz.
• Automated systems replacing manual processes • Streamlined delivery of services, through business re-engineering • Greater flexibility with more cross-functional working • Current roles and responsibilities will change with new skills sets required for the new ways of working • Some current posts will no longer be required as processes and/or systems change
The Council would ideally wish to guarantee that there would be no compulsory redundancies as a result of the implementation of MCS, however it is unlikely that all displaced staff will be redeployed. The Council will however, endeavour to re-skill affected staff and re-deploy as many staff as possible.
2. APPROACH
Normally, the Council would operate the Managing Change procedure to effect redeployment and redundancy. The MCS project is however, an unprecedented change to the way in which Barnet Council conducts its business and its scope far exceeds previous organisational change processes. To strictly adhere to the procedure would not adequately serve the interests of the Council’s most valuable resource, its staff.
The Council will provide new skills based training and operate a revised change process to reflect the implications of the MCS project which will be based on the following principles;
• affected staff will be consulted with on a regular basis and at each key project milestone. • all staff affected by this change process will receive SAP training to enhance their skills profiles and to open up other employment pathways within Barnet and outside. • every attempt will be made to minimise redundancies through effective redeployment and new skills training. • redeployment processes will be enhanced – Redeployment Plus • additional trade union representation will be afforded to the project with facility time for a full time post to account for the size of the project and the level of staff involvement • regular monthly meetings will be held between the MCS Project Team, HR and the Trade Unions
48 3. STRATEGY – NEW SKILLS TRAINING AND REDEPLOYMENT PLUS
Management recognises that staff will be requested to assist and co-operate in a change process that will in some cases result in them leaving the service of the Council. At the same time, during the lifespan of the project, staff that were not affected by the project may opt to undertake duties that could place them at risk of redundancy in order to keep services operating.
Management will endeavour to redeploy staff identified as ‘at risk’ though the normal redeployment procedures and will offer an enhanced service to account for the exceptional nature of the MCS project. This process will be Redeployment Plus for staff ‘at risk’ and will comprise of;
• Prioritisation for staff ‘at risk’ in applying for suitable vacant posts before internal and external advertising. • Conversion training and new skills training will be provided for staff to take on different roles within the Council. • Skills profiles will be developed for staff at risk to identify skills gaps and transferable skills. • Training opportunities will be targeted at skills gaps. • Interview skills training and basic IT skills training will be provided where appropriate • Guidance on completion of CVs will be provided. • Staff will be given information on how to market their skills and abilities. • Information on which employment agencies staff on the basis of their skills and abilities should consider will be provided following analysis of skills sets. • The Council will inform other local authorities of the implications of the MCS project and at appropriate milestones, invite them to interview displaced employees. • *Information on posts with other local authorities will be provided to staff ‘at risk’. • *With individual agreement. skills sets and CVs will be forwarded to other London Boroughs. • *With individual agreement, details of staff will be provided to local Job Centres. • Staff selected for redundancy will be advised of new posts which they are eligible for.
Attached at appendix 1 is a draft new skills training and redeployment programme.
Management will consider further proposals from staff and their trade union representatives to adapt to the fluid demands of the MCS project.
• Subject to Data Protection principles.
4. DELIVERY
From the menu of options listed above it is envisaged that the Council will be able to offer most of the new skills training and redeployment plus functions, however where necessary services will be commissioned in to ensure that our employees needs are successfully met. The two areas where this may occur are;
5. Conversion training and new skills training for staff to take on different roles within the Council. 6. Skills profiles development to identify skills gaps and transferable skills.
49 5. TIMETABLE
Management will keep staff informed by publishing a timetable for the project, providing key project milestones. Regular updates will also be produced.
50
APPENDIX C
GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE
GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE
1. INTRODUCTION
This procedure applies to all Barnet Council employees with the exception of those employed in schools for whom separate arrangements are in place.
This procedure aims to ensure that grievances can be resolved sensitively, consistently and within reasonable timescales.
Employees have an absolute right to raise a grievance relating to their employment with the Council with the following exceptions:
• matters relating to the grade and/or designation of their posts • matters relating to tax and/or national insurance • the operation of the pension scheme • disciplinary matters • early retirement, ill health retirement and selection for redundancy and any other matters for which separate appeal arrangements operate.
Employees may, however, use the grievance procedure when a Head of Service has failed to make a decision which would have given rise to a right of appeal under matters listed above.
When a grievance rises to an important policy issue, either of the Joint Secretaries of the Corporate Joint Negotiation and Consultation Committee may place that matter on the agenda for consideration. Employees wishing to raise such matters should do so via the Employee’s Side Secretary. In the event of a failure to agree, advice will be sought from the Joint Secretaries of the Greater London Provincial Council.
If, as a result of the investigation of a grievance, it is found that a disciplinary offence may have been committed by another person, action will be taken in accordance with the Council’s disciplinary procedures as appropriate.
Occasionally grievances may be lodged by an employee who is subject to a capability or disciplinary process. Both processes will normally run at the same time, however, consideration may be given to suspending the capability or disciplinary procedure if management considers it appropriate.
Management must ensure that those dealing with the disciplinary or capability are not involved in the investigation of the grievance and vice versa. Relevant matters arising from a grievance may be submitted as evidence in any disciplinary process by the employee. This would be without prejudice to an employee’s right to have the grievance dealt with under this procedure.
52
2. GRIEVANCE FLOW CHART
Stage 1
Mediation Successful, Grievance raised case closed informally with * line manager Not appropriate/ Monitor/Review Not successful
Stage 2 total process 1 month
Formal Grievance Line manager to acknowledge grievance made in writing, to * line within 5 days manager, copy sent to HR
Investigation carried out by *line manager
Decision made by Decision accepted by Case closed,
*line manager employee line manager to provide mediation/support and
Complainant unhappy with to monitor/review where necessary decision
total process 2 months Stage 3
**Appeal sent to Director/ Head of Service/ Senior Manager
Decision at Stage 3 is final total process 3 months
* If the grievance is against the line manager, then the case is referred to the Director/Head of Service (who may delegate it to a senior manager).
** If the grievance/appeal is against the Director/Head of Service, then the case is referred to the Chief Executive to arrange for it to be allocated to another Director/Head of Service.
An exception3. TYPES to this OFis for GRIEVANCE recruitment and selection (shortlisted internal candidates), grievances should be directly to Director or Head of Service recruiting (who53 may delegate to a senior manager).
Grievances are concerns, problems or complaints that employees raise with their manager. The following list identifies the main types of grievances that can be brought under this procedure:
• terms and conditions of employment • health and safety • work relations • new working practices which have a detrimental effect • indirect or direct discrimination • organisational change • equal opportunities • working environment • a collective grievance (a grievance submitted by team or group of employees)
Please note that separate procedures exist for Dignity at Work- harassment, Bullying and Victimisation.
This list provides the main types of employment related grievances that staff may have. To provide an exhaustive list is not possible and staff should use their judgement when applying Council standards and policies but should also be guided by the principle that the determining issue is how the member of staff is affected, not the intent.
4. TRAINING
Barnet Council understands that with our diverse workforce, our staff are likely to have different expectations of the kinds of behaviours that are acceptable at work. We therefore, provide training for all staff who are supervisors or managers on how to recognise, prevent and deal with grievances. We expect all managers to attend this training.
5. THE ROLE OF HUMAN RESOURCES
Human Resources are responsible for advising managers on all aspects of the operation of this policy and maintaining a consistent application. Managers should always consult Human Resources in relation to grievances.
Human Resources will monitor the outcome of all formal grievances and take action where necessary to tackle/eradicate unfair treatment in the workplace.
6. CONFIDENTIALITY
We will always deal with grievances in the strictest confidence. Managers and staff involved in cases must not breach confidentiality beyond those involved in the management of the grievance, without the specific agreement of the parties.
7. RECORD KEEPING
It is important and in the interests of both employer and employee, to keep written records during the grievance process. Records should include:
• the nature of the grievance raised • a copy of the written grievance 54 • the manager’s response • action taken • reasons for action taken • where there was an appeal and if so, the outcome and subsequent developments • minutes of meetings
Records should be treated as confidential and kept in accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998, which gives the individuals the right to request and have access to certain personal data. Copies of meeting records should be given to the employee including any formal minutes that may have been taken. In certain circumstances, for example to protect a witness, some information may be withheld.
8. THE PROCEDURE
8.1 STAGE ONE – INFORMAL RESOLUTION
• Informal procedures concentrate on conciliation, not sanctions, for example asking someone to apologise. The Council provides a mediation service to help with conciliation and this should be considered before making a formal grievance.
• Most grievances should be resolved informally with line managers.
• It should take no more than one month to deal with a grievance at Stage 1. If the complainant, however, is not satisfied with the handling of the grievance or timeliness, they may submit a formal grievance.
8.1.1 MEDIATION
Mediation should be considered if both parties are willing and the matter is appropriate for mediation.
Line managers may need to carry out an informal investigation to determine whether mediation is appropriate. Line managers can contact the Council’s Employee Assistance Officer for advice.
If mediation is suitable, then both parties should confirm that they understand what this involves and are happy to proceed. If there is agreement on this, the manager should contact the Employee Assistance Officer to arrange a mediator.
The aim of mediation will be for both parties to reach a mutually acceptable outcome and to feel able to maintain their working relationship. Here are some examples of types of disputes that could be solved through mediation:
• behaviour, management/work styles • working arrangements • environmental conditions
If mediation is not possible, the grievance can still be dealt with under the informal/formal procedures.
8.2 STAGE TWO – FORMAL GRIEVANCE 55
8.2.1 GRIEVANCE IN WRITING
This grievance process commences formally when the matter is raised in writing, normally within three months of the event or issue occurring. The complainant should complete a staff grievance form (Appendix A) and send it to their line manager with a copy to Human Resources for monitoring purposes.
The complainant’s line manager will deal with all grievances unless the grievance is against the line manager, in which event it will start with the Director or Head of Service who will be responsible for ensuring the grievance is dealt with. The Director or Head of Service may delegate to a senior manager not involved in the grievance ensuring the senior manager is not closely associated with the complainant or any person complained about.
Similarly, if the grievance is against a Director, the process will start with the Chief Executive.
Alternatively, a manager from another service area can investigate the grievance where it is agreed that this is appropriate and necessary. Human Resources should be consulted in these circumstances.
In some straightforward cases the manager assigned to deal with the grievance may be able to reach a decision based on written evidence without the need for a hearing to be arranged and convey the decision to both parties in writing.
8.2.2 REPRESENTATION
• If either complainant or person subject to the complaint is invited to a hearing/meeting to discuss the grievance, they should be advised of their right in writing to be accompanied by a Trade Union representative or a Barnet Council colleague. Both parties can be represented throughout the process.
• The representative must be permitted to address the hearing and to confer with the person they are representing during the hearing in order to clarify issues. The representative is not, however, entitled to answer questions on behalf of that person.
• The complainant must attend the meeting/hearing. If the complainant’s represenative cannot attend on the proposed date an alternative date can be proposed so long as it is reasonable and not more than five working days after the date originally proposed. A postponed hearing may, however, proceed if the represenative is not available within five working days of the original postponed hearing date.
• It is not appropriate for someone to insist on a representative whose presence would prejudice the hearing or who might have a conflict of interest.
• Disabled employees and employees whose first language is not English may request additional assistance/representation.
56
8.2.3 TIMESCALES
An essential feature of this procedure is making sure that we deal with grievances quickly:
• It may be appropriate to deal with the grievance immediately to ensure the safety of the complainant. Such action could include reorganising or relocating work to avoid close or regular contact. In serious cases, pending a short urgent investigation, the subject of the complaint may have be suspended as a precautionary measure.
• Following receipt of the grievance form (Appendix A), the manager should contact the complainant in writing normally within 5 working days to set up a meeting to discuss the grievance and the arrangements for investigation or mediation where appropriate. Where it is not possible to respond within specified time periods the complainant should be given an explanation for the delay and told when a response should be expected.
8.2.4 INVESTIGATION
• If an investigation is required, this must begin as soon as possible. For complex cases a time period of two months is reasonable to conclude a grievance.
• The investigation must gather all the facts which are relevant to the matters under consideration.
• Those conducting the investigation will be guided by the principles for investigations contained in the Council's Misconduct and Capability Procedures.
• In conducting the investigation and reaching a decision the investigator must follow the rules of natural justice, i.e. the employee must:
• know the grievance against him/her • have the opportunity to state his/her side of the case before any decision is made • have the opportunity to be represented and • must be dealt with fairly, reasonably and impartially at all times
• For any type of grievance the complainant should be kept advised of progress and given an explanation for any delay. They should also be told when a response can be expected.
• In situations where action has not been taken within the time-scales and without a satisfactory explanation, the complainant should raise this with their Head of Service.
8.2.5 MAKING A DECISION 57
• Investigation and decision making must be thorough and objective. The decision and what action is to be taken must be based on evidence collected and on the balance of probabilities.
• The complainant (and any other party(s) involved), should normally be advised of the decision in writing within 5 working days of the decision.
• If the manager investigating the case reaches the conclusion that formal disciplinary procedures should be implemented, a formal disciplinary hearing will be scheduled. The purpose of this will be to determine whether specific charges are substantiated; the severity of the incident(s), and if formal sanctions are required. This hearing will be heard by a senior manager not involved in the grievance.
8.2.6 POST INVESTIGATION
• The complainant (and any other party(s) involved) should be seen by the manager and informed of the outcome of the investigation and the appeals procedure. This should be confirmed in writing.
• At the end of the investigation, the manager will draft a report normally within 10 working days outlining the process followed, the decision reached and the reasons for the conclusion. The report will be made available to the complainant and their Trade Union Representative and the person(s) who were the subject of the grievance.
• This investigative report will be the basis of the case file. It may also be used as a management statement of the case for any formal disciplinary hearing or used at any appeal hearing under this Grievance Procedure.
• If there is no case to answer all written records will be destroyed.
• Human Resources in confidence retain details of grievances and the outcomes for monitoring purposes.
• If the Council's disciplinary procedure is invoked and the allegation is upheld action may be taken up to and including summary dismissal.
• If an allegation cannot be substantiated following a formal investigation and there is a reasonable belief that the complainant acted maliciously, disciplinary action may be taken against him or her. The complainant should be reminded before the investigation begins that making a malicious allegation constitutes a disciplinary offence. The manager to whom the grievance is made, however, needs to be made aware that this is not to be done in such a way as to discourage grievances and should be handled sensitively.
• In cases where the parties are to remain in the service of the Council, yet are from the same work area, it may be necessary for them to be separated. It will be the offender who is moved if a grievance has been upheld against him/her. Even if the grievance is not upheld the complainant and the alleged offender may still be separated, where practical, in the interests of good working relations.
58 • Where parties are not separated review dates should be arranged and agreed to monitor the situation after the procedure has been completed to ensure that a good working relationship is in place (after one, three and six months) this should include the following.
the view of both parties about the situation since the meeting confirmation that agreement and targets have been met checks that no further problems and no victimisation has taken place
8.3 STAGE THREE - APPEAL
• The complainant can appeal against the manager's decision following the investigation. This appeal must be made to the Director/Head of Service in writing within 5 working days of receiving the decision in writing.
• This appeal will be to the Director/Head of Service, who may delegate the matter to a senior manager (i.e. a manager senior to the manager who made the decision). The appeal should not be delegated to a manager who has had any direct involvement in the grievance, or where there may be a conflict of interest. The agrieved employee will be interviewed by the Head of Service who will be supported by a Human Resources manager.
• The manager dealing with the hearing should give a decision within 10 working days. This decision is final, except when it is felt that a grievance rises to an important policy issue, either of the Joint Secretaries of the Corporate Joint Negotiation and Consultation Committee may place that matter on the agenda for consideration of the policy issue (not a rehearing of the grievance).
• The person who is the subject of the grievance can also appeal against the manager's decision unless the decision was to implement the disciplinary procedures against them. They will, however, have a right of appeal under the disciplinary procedures.
9. MODIFIED STATUTORY GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE
Wherever possible a grievance should be dealt with before an employee leaves the Council. If an employee has already left before the grievance procedure was commenced or completed a modified grievance procedure can be used if the former employee and management agree to this in writing. Under the modified procedure the employee should write to the Council setting out the grievance, as soon as possible after leaving employment and the former employee must write back setting out their response.
The full statutory procedure is set out in Schedule 2 to the Employment Act 2002.
FURTHER INFORMATION CAN BE OBTAINED FROM:
ACAS: www.acas.org.uk DTI: www.dti.gov.uk CIPD: www.cipd.co.uk
59 For a hard copy of this procedure or any of the links, please contact Human Resources.
60 STAFF GRIEVANCE FORM Appendix A
Your Name:
Service Area: Job Title:
Your work address:
Your work telephone number:
What is your Grievance? (Please continue on separate sheet if required and attach supporting documents if available)
Did you speak informally to your manager about your grievance? Yes/No Date:
Why are you dissatisfied with this response?
What do you think should be done to resolve this grievance?
Your Signature: Date:
Please send a copy of this form to your line manager* and your HR Unit (for monitoring purposes).
* to your Head of Service if the grievance is against your line manager.
61
APPENDIX D
DIGNITY AT WORK – HARASSMENT BULLYING & VICTIMISATION
DIGNITY AT WORK – HARASSMENT BULLYING & VICTIMISATION
1. INTRODUCTION Barnet Council promotes a work environment where all staff can expect to be treated fairly and with respect. This policy provides a framework for dealing with harassment, bullying and victimisation at work in line with the Council’s Equal Opportunities Employment Policy.
The Council does not measure harassment/bullying/victimisation on the basis of what the perpetrator (the person believed to be bullying harassing or victimising the employee) intends but on whether the employee finds the behaviour unacceptable or unwelcome. Failure to deal with harassment, bullying or victimisation could:
• generate poor morale and poor employee relations • cause a loss of respect for managers and supervisors • lead to poor performance • result in absence from work • lead to resignations • damage the Council’s reputation • become the subject of an employment tribunal
There is a body of legislation concerning harassment, bullying and victimisation at work. Failure to deal effectively with allegations or incidents may lead to legal action against the Council as well as individual employees.
2. DEFINITION OF HARASSMENT
2.1 The legal definition of harassment is: direct discrimination under any of the protected areas covered by anti-discrimination law but not limited to gender, race, disability, age, sexual orientation, religion or belief. It is behaviour which is:
• unwanted • unreciprocated • unwarranted • causes humiliation, offence or distress • interferes with job performance or creates an unpleasant working environment
2.2 Examples of harassment can include but are not limited to:
• verbal, written or e-mailed comments of an offensive nature, use of bad language or gossiping • lewd, suggestive or overfamiliar behaviour
63
• displaying or circulating sexually suggestive material or other offensive material • insulting or ridiculing a person • criminal acts such as indecent exposure, physical attacks or sexual assault
3. DEFINITION OF BULLYING
Workplace bullying is offensive, intimidating, malicious, insulting or humiliating behaviour which affects an individual or group of employees.
Employees could experience bullying in the following ways:
• persistent actions eg. persistent taunting (verbal abuse) • criticisms or personal abuse either in public or private which humiliates, intimidates, undermines or demeans the individual involved • physical effects • emotional effects for example, anxiety, depression, aggressive feelings • less obvious ways of making an individual feel frightened or demoralised such as; o failure to be promoted/considered for promotion o exclusion from normal workplace conversation or social events o unfair allocation of work and/or responsibilities
4. DEFINITION OF VICTIMISATION
Victimisation occurs when an individual is treated less favourably because:
• they have made a complaint of discrimination, bullying or harassment • acted as a witness in connection with a complaint • been involved in any way in a complaint • intend to complain or become involved in a complaint
5. SCOPE OF THE POLICY
5.1 The policy applies to all Barnet Council Employees (including temporary employees and job applicants). It should be recognised that managers can also be subjected to harassment, bullying and victimisation are offered the same protection as staff.
5.2 It does not apply to school employees as there are separate arrangements in place.
5.2 Partners, contractors and agency staff are also required to comply with the principles outlined in this policy.
5.3 If employees are concerned about something which does not seem to be included in this policy they may want to use Barnet Council’s grievance procedure to pursue their concerns.
64
6. PRINCIPLES
6.1 REDUCING THE NUMBER OF CASES
All employees have a clear role to play in creating a working climate where mistreatment is unacceptable. In particular, employees should be aware of their own conduct, avoid inappropriate behaviour and cooperate fully in any complaint procedure. Managers and supervisors have a responsibility to raise awareness of the issue, respond positively to any complaints and challenge and stop unacceptable behaviour in the workplace.
6.2 TRAINING FOR MANAGERS
We accept that it is our responsibility to provide mandatory training for supervisors on recognising, preventing and dealing with mistreatment.
Human Resources will make sure that the principles of this policy are reflected in other policies and procedures currently in place as well as those produced in the future.
6.3 HUMAN RESOURCES
Human Resources will also be responsible for monitoring previous cases of mistreatment in order to highlight areas where change is needed as well as establishing a point from which to measure the progress of the policy in effectively increasing awareness of mistreatment and successfully dealing with cases.
They will advise managers on all aspects of this policy and assist management in creating a safe working environment where employees are treated fairly and with respect and feel welcome, comfortable and valued.
Human Resources, where appropriate, will make sure that necessary actions are implemented in response to complaints and monitor harassment, bullying and victimisation at work, making appropriate recommendations to the Chief Officer/Members as appropriate based on this information.
6.4 MANAGEMENT
Managers have a responsibility to familiarise themselves with this policy, circulate it to all their employees and make them aware of its content. They must make sure that they set a good example by treating all their employees fairly and with respect and ensure that their own behaviour is free from harassment/bullying/victimisation. Managers must consistently reinforce appropriate standards of behaviour.
Managers must deal with complaints brought to their attention both appropriately, quickly, sensitively and impartially, seeking advice from Human Resources as well as informing Human Resources of the outcome at each stage of the process. Managers must take complaints seriously and not
65
underestimate the effect on the employee’s feelings. Managers have a duty to follow up any case brought to them and monitor the situation to ensure that any harassment victimisation and bullying stops.
6.5 TRADE UNION REPRESENTATIVES
The Council recognises that the Trade Unions share the Council’s objectives of eliminating harassment/bullying/victimisation and encourage Trade Union representatives to assist their members who have been mistreated, including supporting them in making complaints. The Council encourages all members who are concerned about mistreatment to speak to their Trade Union representatives.
6.6 EMPLOYEE SUPPORT OFFICERS
Support Officers are available to offer support, discuss the options open to the employee and help them determine if and how they want to progress matters. This will take place in total confidence and without pressure as to the course of action the employee may wish to take. This is not intended, however, to be a professional counselling service. If employees require professional counselling they can be referred to People At Work Ltd. who use external trained counsellors.
Daphne Pullen and Carol Johnson are the Employee Support Coordinators who are to be contacted in order to be linked with a suitable Support Officer.
6.7 EMPLOYEES Employees also have a role to play by
• making it clear that they find such behaviour unacceptable
• supporting their colleague(s)
• ensuring no victimisation of a complainant occurs
6.8 CONFIDENTIALITY Strict confidentiality is required when dealing with cases. Disclosure of criminal activities or information that will put the health and safety of employees and/or the public at risk will be acted upon.
Unnecessary disclosure of confidential information at any stage may lead to disciplinary action. This does not rule out a confidential consultation with a workplace colleague or Trade Union representative for support. All sensitive information should be dealt with under the guidelines of the Data Protection Act 1998.
66
Confidential advice will be available to employees who themselves may not be the subject of mistreatment but are concerned about the mistreatment of others.
7 COMMUNICATION A copy of the Council’s Harassment Bullying and Victimisation Policy can be found on the intranet and also in the staff handbook. The Council will communicate this to new employees during induction and training. All organisations working with the Council will be given a copy and asked to comply with the Council’s anti-harassment strategy in the delivery of projects that are being coordinated on our behalf.
8 MONITORING AND REVIEW
Line managers will be responsible for tracking complaints to make sure that the reported behaviour has stopped.
The Staff Complaint form will be used by Human Resources to monitor the results of cases and assist in the review of the policy periodically. Information will be collected on an anonymous and aggregated basis only.
Human Resources will assist in the evaluation of the policy’s effectiveness through some of the following methods;
• exit interviews
• return-to-work interviews
• informal feedback
• staff attitude surveys
67
HARASSMENT/BULLYING/VICTIMISATION PROCEDURE FLOWCHART
Individual Mistreated
Stage 1 – Informal Stage Alledged perpetrator asked to stop (with the help of Line Mistreatment stops Manager, Trade Union Rep., workplace colleague)
No further action Mistreatment continues
Stage 2 – Mediation Conducted by the Employee Mistreatment stops Assistance Officer & People at Work No further action Mistreatment continues
Stage 3 – Formal Stage Written complaint submitted to Investigating Officer (by the complainant) – to be acknowledged within 7 working days*
Investigation Findings published within 14 days Conducted by the Investigating of the start of the investigation Officer (both parties to be interviewed at the start of the investigation – within 7 days of Appeal Process complaint being acknowledged) Head of Service to review
Head of Service Decision (14 working days of appeal)
Complaint Upheld Complaint Upheld Complaint not upheld Issue taken forward Action other than disciplinary via Disciplinary taken to prevent further Procedure mistreatment
*Time scales may not be reasonable in all instances. Parties will be informed of any alterations in the time scale.
68
9 COMPLAINTS PROCEDURE
9.1 STAGE ONE – INFORMAL RESOLUTION
9.1.1 Some people are unaware that their behaviour in some circumstances is bullying, harassing or victimising. If it is clearly pointed out to them that their behaviour is unacceptable, the problem can sometimes be resolved.
9.1.2 If possible, the complainant should first ask the alleged perpetrator to stop the behaviour and make it clear what aspect of their behaviour is offensive and unacceptable and the effect it is having.
• this can be done either verbally or in writing
• if the complainant feels unable to approach the person responsible directly, their line manager, a workplace colleague, or Trade Union representative can make the approach
• if the complainant is unable to approach any of the above they can approach a Support Coordinator who will provide informal support regarding steps that can be taken, in confidence
• no further action will be taken without the consent of the complainant
9.2 STAGE TWO – MEDIATION
9.2.1 If both parties are willing and the matter is appropriate for mediation then this process will be considered, under guidance from Human Resources. If agreed then this will be conducted by the Employee Assistance Officer in conjunction with the external counselling provider, People at Work Ltd.
9.2.2 If, however, mediation fails to amend the situation then Stage Three of this procedure should be adopted.
9.3 STAGE THREE – FORMAL COMPLAINT
9.3.1 If informal action or mediation does not stop the mistreatment, or a formal complaint is made, the third stage of the complaints procedure should be initiated and a formal report made.
9.3.2 The complainant should be made aware of the procedure and be allowed to be accompanied at all stages of the decision making process by a workplace colleague or a Trade Union representative.
69
9.3.3 The manager/supervisor should inform the alledged perpetrator at an early stage about the complaint, as well as their right to be accompanied by a Trade Union representative or a workplace colleague to all meetings. 9.3.4 In the case of the alledged perpetrator being;
• the direct line Manager, the complaint should be referred to that manager’s line Manager • a Senior Manager, it can be referred to the Head of Service • the Head of Service or Director, it can be referred to the Chief Executive • the Chief Executive, it should be referred to Cabinet (who under the guidance of the Borough Solicitor will appoint an external independent investigator) • a Member of the Council, should be referred to the Council’s Monitoring Officer
9.3.5 The person whom the complaint is referred to will normally be the Investigating Officer.
9.3.6 An employee who believes that they have been the subject of mistreatment should submit the Staff Complaint Form (Appendix A) to the Investigating Officer (i.e. your Line Manager or a Senior Manager) and a copy to Human Resources.
9.3.7 The Investigating Officer will consult with the next-in-line manager and Human Resources to ensure all reasonable avenues of investigation have been considered.
10 THE INVESTIGATION
10.1 The investigation will be carried out in the context of the disciplinary procedure and may be conducted with the assistance of Human Resources. The investigation must gather all the facts which are relevant to the matters under consideration. Decisions are made on the balance of probabilities.
10.2 Both parties to be interviewed by the Investigating Officer within 7 days of a complaint being acknowledged. Every effort will be made to deal with the complaint as quickly as possible but it should be recognised that some cases may take more time to investigate, therefore specified time limits may need to be extended after consultation with both parties.
10.3 During the investigation it may be necessary to consider suspension or temporary transfer of the alleged perpetrator as set out in the Disciplinary Rules and Procedures.
10.4 Where allegations of criminal acts such as indecent exposure, physical attack or sexual assault have been made, the complainant should be advised that they may report the matter to the police.
70
11 FINDINGS
11.1 The Investigating Officer should write to both parties within 14 working days of publishing the findings of the investigation.
• the Head of Service will then arrange for any necessary actions to be carried out
• where the investigation does substantiate the allegation the Line Manager, with guidance from Human Resources, will decide whether or not to initiate the disciplinary procedure
11.2 The Staff Complaint Form (Appendix A) must be submitted at the end of the investigation by the Investigating Officer to the Head of Service as well as to the Human Resources.
12 THE OUTCOME
12.1 If the complainant is unhappy with the outcome or has not received a reply in the agreed time and wishes to pursue the matter, they may refer the matter to the Head of Service for review. 12.2 Unless dismissal has resulted from the Disciplinary Procedure, as part of the formal complaint, the line manager/senior manager involved has a responsibility to ensure that there is some reconciliation between both parties to enable them to work effectively in the future.
• this will be undertaken by People at Work Ltd
• if this fails, relocation may prove necessary and in these cases the alledged perpetrator and not the complainant, should be relocated unless the person complaining requests otherwise
13 MALICIOUS COMPLAINTS
The Council will treat all complaints of harassment/bullying/victimisation with the utmost seriousness and investigate as outlined above. If, however, the investigation reveals that a claim of harassment/bullying/victimisation is malicious, the employee will be advised that investigation will be carried out into the false allegations under and the disciplinary procedure which may result in dismissal.
14 REVIEW This Policy & Strategy will be reviewed by Human Resources after 1 year of operation initially and then after 3 years or before if monitoring necessitates amendment.
71
15 HARASSMENT OF STAFF BY THE PUBLIC
Managers and supervisors who receive complaints from members of their staff, must take appropriate action to reduce the risk of such incidents occurring and provide support to the employee concerned (full details are available in the “Policy for the Prevention of Harassment and Violence at work” obtainable from the Health and Safety Unit).
16. FURTHER INFORMATION
Commission for Racial Equality www.cre.gov.uk
Disability Rights Commission www.drc.org.uk
Equal Opportunities Commission www.eoc.org.uk
Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service www.acas.org.uk
CIPD (Employment Law updates) www.cipd.co.uk/subjects/dvsequl/harassmt/
People at Work Limited (Barnet Council’s Employee Counselling Service) Tel: 01733 750008 Email [email protected]
72
APPENDIX A
LONDON BOROUGH OF BARNET - STAFF COMPLAINT FORM
Some of the information contained on this form is classified as 'sensitive' under the Data Protection Act, and will be treated in strict confidentiality.
TO BE COMPLETED BY THE COMPLAINANT
Name:
Job Title: Service Area:
Male Disabled: Yes Age: 16 – 24 Female No 25 – 49 50+ Ethnic Origin
White: Mixed: British White & Black Caribbean Irish White & Black African Greek White & Asian Greek Cypriot Other…………………………… Turkish Turkish Cypriot Asian or Asian British: Other…………………………… Indian Pakistani Black or Black British: Bangladeshi Caribbean Other…………………………… African Other…………………………… Chinese or Other Ethnic Group: Chinese Other……………………………
Have you tried to deal with this informally? Yes No
If yes, what was the outcome? ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………
73
Nature of the Complaint
Date complaint initiated :…………………………………………………………………………….
Complaint initiated at: Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3
What is your Complaint? Type of mistreatment? (Please continue on separate sheet if required) ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………
The Alledged Perpetrator
Name:
Job Title:
Service Area:
Relationship between parties: Complaint Resolution: Manager*/staff Complaint resolved at: Staff*/Manager Stage 1 Colleagues in same team Stage 2
Other Complaint referred to: *alleged perpetrator Stage 3
Name: ………………………………………………
Signed: ……………………………………….……. Date: ………………………
74
To be completed by Human Resources for monitoring purposes ONLY.
Complainant:
Outcome of Stage 3 Complaint
Complaint not upheld :
Details:
Complaint upheld:
Disciplinary Hearing : Complaint upheld: action other than Yes disciplinary No Yes (please specify below) No Details:
Outcome of Disciplinary Hearing:
Verbal warning Written warning Final written warning Transfer of perpetrator Dismissal with notice Dismissal without notice No action Action other than a disciplinary sanction (please specify below) Action other than a disciplinary sanction:
Name: ………………………………………………
Signed: ……………………………………….……. Date: ………………………
75 APPENDIX E
HR POLICY DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK HR POLICY DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK
Scanning (proactively) Programmed Review New issues (reactivity) e.g. new legislative of existing policy i.e. shift in Council needs requirement
HR Policy Developers Head of Resources Develop policy in accordance with: Approves submission to Directors Group and • Consultation with stakeholders (Directors, Heads of Service, Managers, Trade Management Board Unions, Members, HR colleagues) • Controlled documentation (audit trail of policy development in a policy file) • Corporate/HR template Directors Group and • Manager’s guidance (standard operating procedures)– where required Management Board • Raise issues with Head of HR Strategy agree principles of new • Ensure effective consultation or revised policy • Implementation Plan including training, seminars, briefings, liaison with Communications Team • Prepare policy launch • Publication of the policy Corporate JNCC (when appropriate, depending on the implications)
HR Strategy Team (Policy Clearing House) • Support and advise policy developers Cabinet or General Functions • Final Quality check Committee • Raise issues with Director of Resources ● Sign off policies with major corporate implications
APPENDIX F
POLICY DEVELOPMENT- PROPOSED TIMETABLE 2006
POLICY DEVELOPMENT – PROPOSED TIMETABLE 2006
Policies Initial consultation prior to Cabinet/General Functions the Committee process with Committee Directors Group, Heads of (for approval) Service, Managers, Trade Unions etc. • Misconduct October – Cabinet 23rd January • Grievance December 2005 • Harassment Managers briefings to follow • Managing Change • Capability January - March 2006 Cabinet 3rd April • Managing Absence • Relocation & Car Users allowances
• HR Strategy March to June 2006 Initial report to scrutiny in March 2006
Cabinet 3rd April 2006 • Recruitment and Selection Policies* February to April 2006 Cabinet Report 3rd April 2006 • Rehabilitation of Offenders Final approval 12th June 2006
*Some elements may not require committee approval
*Timescales lined to phase 2 of MCS
• Code of Conduct April to June 2006 Cabinet 12th June 2005 • Whistleblowing • Fraud and Corruption • Information Technology April to June 2006 Information Technology – to • Salaries and conditions of General Functions as revisions to service Part 1 ( linked to existing policies 21st June 2005 pay and grading review) First report to general Functions on Salaries and Conditions 24th July • Staff Guides – TBC Autumn 2006 consolidation of earlier work • Salaries and conditions of July to October 2006 Dependent service Part 2 ( linked to on progress on part 1 late 2006/early 2007 pay and grading review)
98 AGENDA ITEM: 6 Page nos. 17 – 27
Meetingeeting Cabinet Date 23 January 2006 S u bjec t Subject Local Implementation Plan (LIP) (Transport) R e port of Report of Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport S um m ary Summary The report updates on the preparation of the LIP since approval of the consultation draft, and recommends that the final LIP be submitted to the London Mayor for approval.
Officer Contributors Nick Bell/Jane Shipman, Highways Group. Status (public or exempt) Public Wards affected All Enclosures Appendix A: London Borough of Barnet Final LIP (circulated separately – see page 22) Appendix B: Summary of main changes to the LIP since publication of the consultation draft. For decision by Cabinet Function of Executive Reason for urgency / N/A exemption from call-in (if appropriate)
Contact for further information: Nick Bell, Highway Strategy Manager, Highways & Design, 020 8359 3053
17 1. RECOMMENDATIONS 1.1 That Cabinet approve the changes to the draft Local Implementation Plan (LIP) for submission to the London Mayor for his approval. 1.2 That Cabinet delegate authority to approve further revisions to the LIP prior to and following submission to the London Mayor to the Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport. 1.3 That Cabinet receive a further report on the LIP after the approval of the London Mayor has been received.
2. RELEVANT PREVIOUS DECISIONS 2.1 Cabinet 4 July 2005 (item 7) – approved the consultation draft Local Implementation Plan (LIP) for statutory consultation under Section 145(2) of the GLA Act 1999 and delegated authority to agree any final changes to the consultation draft LIP prior to the commencement of statutory consultation to the Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport. 2.2 Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport – 28 July 2005 approving the final version of the consultation draft LIP prior to the consultation.
3. CORPORATE PRIORITIES AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS 3.1 Activities and functions included within the LIP have cross-cutting impacts across all five corporate priorities with particular emphasis on ‘Repairing roads and pavements’ and ‘Cleaner Greener Barnet’. The LIP also draws on the Council’s Transport Strategy (January 2004) and the outcomes of the Transport Policy Best Value Review reported to Cabinet on 4 July 2005. 3.2 As a Statutory Plan prepared under Section 145 of the GLA Act 1999, the primary policy consideration in preparing the LIP has been the London Mayor’s Transport Strategy published in July 2001.
4. RISK MANAGEMENT ISSUES 4.1 As a Statutory Plan for which the approval of the London Mayor is required there are several areas of risk primarily resulting from potential differences in policy approach between the Council and the London Mayor. 4.2 Failure to submit ‘Final’ LIP by 24 February 2006 – The London Mayor had indicated that he would consider issuing a Direction under Section 153 of the GLA Act 1999 if the borough failed to comply with our agreed timetable. For reasons outlined in this report, an extension to the original submission date to 24 February 2006 has been agreed. However the risk of direction remains if this date is not met. Section 147 of the GLA Act 1999 gives the London Mayor powers to prepare a LIP on behalf of a London borough, and recover his costs from that borough, if it fails to comply with a Direction under Section 153 in relation to the submission of a LIP for Mayoral approval. 4.3 Failure to submit an approvable LIP – The Council has a statutory duty to prepare a LIP which the Mayor may only approve if he considers it to be consistent with his Transport Strategy and adequate in terms of the proposals and the timetable for implementing those proposals. If the London Mayor is unable to approve a borough LIP, the borough is required to prepare a new
23 LIP. Alternatively, by serving notice on the borough, the London Mayor may choose to prepare a new LIP on behalf of the borough at the borough’s cost. 4.4 This risk has been reduced by taking into account TfL’s consultation response and working with them to develop the LIP in a way that will make Mayoral approval more likely. The changes outlined in this report are considered necessary to obtain Mayoral approval of the LIP. TfL have recently introduced a new stage in the process whereby if they identify any areas of clarification, concern or inconsistencies they will contact the borough to discuss whether amendments could be made in a short timeframe. 4.5 TfL envisage that this may apply if amendments could be made under officer or Member delegated authority only. As changes to a Council approved LIP cannot be made under delegated authority it has been necessary to alter the Council’s own approval process. In order to minimise the risk that the borough’s LIP is not approved by the London Mayor, Council adoption of the LIP will now take place after Mayoral approval. This will permit changes to be made under delegated authority in line with TfL’s proposal. 4.6 Failure to implement the LIP – Section 151 of the GLA Act 1999 requires London Boroughs to implement proposals contained within their LIP in accordance with the timetable set out. If they do not, Section 152 of the GLA Act 1999 gives the London Mayor powers to implement the proposals on behalf of the borough, and recover the reasonable costs of doing so. 4.7 This creates a significant area of financial risk for the Council. If funding is not made available by TfL, the London Mayor could require the Council to use its own funds to implement schemes and proposals even if funding for these has not been included within the Council’s budget. Paragraph 5.2 of this report gives further details on this issue.
5. FINANCIAL, STAFFING, ICT AND PROPERTY IMPLICATIONS 5.1 Transport for London has allocated the borough a maximum of £70,000 in 2005/06 towards the costs of preparing its LIP. The actual cost has exceeded this figure and the difference will be met from existing Highways revenue budgets. TfL will make a further £15,000 available for 2006/07. 5.2 Although boroughs are required to include adequate measures in their LIPs for the purposes of implementing the Mayor’s Transport Strategy (see chapter 12 of the LIP), the GLA Act 1999 does not require the London Mayor to fund these. Although the LIP identifies lack of funding as a risk to delivery of schemes, it is understood that the London Mayor may exercise his powers under the GLA Act even if caveats are included in the LIP. Some of the proposals included in the LIP relate to activities which the Council does not currently undertake, or do not currently have funding allocated to them. If the London Mayor requires implementation of proposals without additional funding, it may be necessary to revise existing budgets in order to fund those schemes. 5.3 LIPs are intended to cover the same time period as the Mayor’s Transport Strategy, but TfL’s guidance states that boroughs should concentrate on the four years 2005/06 to 2008/09 inclusive. Therefore implementation of the LIP is, in effect, already underway.
24
5.4 The staffing, ICT and property issues for implementation of the LIP are likely to be affected by changes to the structure of the Environment Theme. As these form the basis of chapter 11, further revisions to chapter 11 may be required.
6. LEGAL ISSUES 6.1 None
7. CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS 7.1 Constitution Part 2 Article 4.02 and Part 3, Section 3.8. The Local Implementation Plan is part of the Policy Framework and its adoption is reserved as a function of the full Council on recommendation from Cabinet. (This is a stage that will be reached following the approval of the London Mayor)
8 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 8.1 The Mayor of London published his first Transport Strategy (MTS) in July 2001. Under Section 145 of the GLA Act 1999, all boroughs must prepare Local Implementation Plans (LIPs) containing their proposals for implementing the strategy in their area ‘as soon as is reasonably practicable’ after publication. Barnet’s agreed LIP preparation programme originally required the Final LIP to be submitted to the Mayor by 6 January 2006 for his approval. 8.2 Statutory Consultation on the draft consultation LIP took place between the end of July and the end of September. Responses have been received from a number of consultees, including extensive detailed comments on all areas of the LIP from TfL. In view of a delayed consultation response from TfL and the need for discussion with them over proposals for some programmes, an extension to the Final LIP submission date to 24 February was agreed. 8.3 Following Cabinet approval of the changes to the LIP, consultees will be sent information about the revisions made to the Final LIP and the version submitted to the Mayor will be made available on the council’s website. 8.4 The LIP guidance issued by TfL lists the Transport Strategy policies and proposals having particular relevance to boroughs, and the Mayor requires responses to those proposals. In deciding whether to approve a LIP, the Mayor will consider the adequacy of the responses. TfL’s assessment of the LIP will lead to a recommendation to the Mayor regarding whether the LIP is approvable. Further discussions have been held with TfL following receipt of their consultation response and additions and revisions have been made to address the issues raised by them and other consultees. For ease of reference, some of the more significant changes made to the LIP in response to the consultation, and to take account of new information, are set out in appendix B. 8.5 The current version of the full LIP is appended to this report for Cabinet approval prior to formal submission to the London Mayor in line with the agreed revised timetable.
25 8.6 Delegated Authority for the Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport to agree further changes to the LIP prior to and following submission to the London Mayor will reduce the risk of TfL having to recommend to the Mayor that the LIP is not approvable. There would be insufficient time for further changes to the LIP to be approved by Cabinet. 8.7 Following approval by the London Mayor, a further report will be made to Cabinet with the recommendation that Cabinet recommend Full Council adopt the final LIP in accordance with Part 2 Article 4 of the Council’s Constitution.
9 LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS 9.1 The Mayor’s Transport Strategy, GLA, July 2001 9.2 London Borough of Barnet Consultation Draft LIP 9.3 Draft LIP Consultation responses
BS: JEL CFO: CM
26 APPENDIX A
DRAFT LIP
Because of the size of the draft plan (347 pages) o Cabinet Members are asked to retain their copies of this document; o Members of the Cabinet Overview & Scrutiny Committee only will receive hard copies; o Copies will be placed in the Group Rooms; o The document will be published with the papers for this meeting on the Council’s web site at http://committeepapers.barnet.gov.uk/democracy ; Hard copies can also be inspected by contacting Nick Musgrove on 020 8359 2024.
27 London Borough of Barnet
Cabinet Meeting
23 January 2006
DRAFT LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
CONTENTS
1. Local Socio Economic / Demographic Context
2. Local Transport Context
3. Borough Policy Statement
4. Equality Impact Assessment (of LIP)
5. LIP Proposals for MTS Priority Areas, Targets and Appendix C
6. Road Safety Plan
7. Parking and Enforcement Plan
8. School Travel Plan Strategy
9. Performance Measures
10. Consultation Results
11. Borough Core Capacity Statement
12. Funding Implications
1 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
1. Local socio-economic/demographic context
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Transport is key to maintaining Barnet’s economic prosperity and our ability to meet the needs of our growing population. We share many of the transport challenges experienced across London; increasing traffic congestion, balancing the needs of road users and pedestrians, and a perception that public transport is overcrowded unreliable and expensive. Additionally, we face more local challenges to improve the transport infrastructure to support our ambitious regeneration programme.
1.2 Situated in north London (see Figure 1.1), Barnet is the fourth largest London borough in terms of area. It has boundaries with five other London boroughs (Camden, Brent, Haringey, Harrow and Enfield), and also with the district of Hertsmere in Hertfordshire.
Figure 1.1 - Location Map
1.3 A large proportion of Barnet is within the Green Belt, which forms a green wedge in the middle of the borough. The borough does not have a single centre; the largest town centre, Edgware, is situated at the extreme north west of the borough at the boundary with the London Borough of Harrow (refer to Figure 1.2). There are, however a large number of district centres, and the Brent Cross Regional Shopping Centre is situated in the south of the borough.
2 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
Figure 1.2 – Map showing town and district centres in Barnet
BARNET’S POPULATION
1.4 Barnet has the second largest borough population in London. The Census 2001 recorded 314,000 residents and in common with London as a whole, the borough has a greater proportion of the population in the 20-40 age range than the UK average. Census data for 1991 and 2001 show a population increase of 7.1% but subsequent adjustments by the Office for National Statistics to 1991 population estimates suggest that the actual change was slightly lower at 5.7%, (refer to Figure 1.3)
Figure 1.3 – Population figures in Barnet
3 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
1.5 Barnet is also the 20th most ethnically diverse area in England, its population reflecting the diversity found across many parts of outer London. The borough also has the highest proportion of Jewish residents (14.6%) and Chinese residents (2%) of any local authority in England and Wales.
Table 1.1 – Ethnic origin of Barnet residents
Ethnicity Barnet Outer Greater England London London White 74.0% 74.6% 71.2% 90.9% Mixed 3.0% 2.7% 3.2% 1.3% Asian or 12.3% 13.0% 12.1% 4.6% Asian British Black or 6.0% 7.5% 10.9% 2.1% Black British Chinese 2.0% 0.9% 1.1% 0.4% Other 2.6% 1.3% 1.6% 0.4% Figures may not total 100% due to rounding Source Census 2001
Table 1.1a – Ethnic origin of Barnet residents – full ethnic groupings
White British 59.9% Irish 3.4% Other White 10.8% Mixed White and Black Caribbean 0.5% White and Black African 0.5% White and Asian 1.0% Other Mixed 1.0% Asian or Indian 8.6% Asian British Pakistani 1.3% Bangladeshi 0.5% Other Asian 2.0% Black or Caribbean 1.3% Black British African 4.3% Other Black 0.3% Chinese or Chinese 2.0% Other Ethnic Other Ethnic Group 2.6% Group Source Census 2001
1.6 Barnet was ranked 193 out of 354 local authorities in England in the 2004 indices of multiple deprivation (where rank 1 indicates the most and 354 the least deprived). This masks significant pockets of deprivation in the borough, with some areas only just outside the most deprived 10% in the country (refer to Figure 1.4).
4 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
Figure 1.4 – Indices of multiple deprivation in Barnet
1.7 There is an average of 36 persons per hectare in Barnet, putting Barnet 26th out of 33 London boroughs for population density. At ward level this varies between only 16 persons per hectare in Totteridge and Mill Hill, to 74 persons per hectare in Burnt Oak. There are 2.48 persons per household in Barnet as a whole (including residents of communal establishments). Figures for individual wards vary from 2.25 in East Finchley to 2.83 in Golders Green.
ECONOMY, EMPLOYMENT AND EDUCATION
Economic Activity
1.8 Barnet is a prosperous borough with a thriving local economy. Unemployment is relatively low; of the 228,123 residents aged between 16 and 74, 145,920 are employed either full or part time. There are over 16,000 local employers and about 59,600 residents work within the borough with 86,300 working elsewhere, (refer to Figure 1.5).
1.9 In total, 106,906 people work within the borough – about 59,600 borough residents and 47,300 who commute into the borough.
5 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
Figure 1.5 – People aged 16-74 living or working in Barnet
1.10 Over 12% of the population are self-employed, the highest level of any London borough.
Table 1.2 - Economic Activity of Barnet Residents Percentage of resident Barnet Outer Greater England and population aged 16 to 74 London London Wales Employed 61.6% 62.1% 60.2% 60.6% Unemployed 3.4% 3.6% 4.4% 3.4% Economically active full time 2.8% 2.8% 3.0% 2.6% students Retired 10.1% 11.1% 9.8% 13.6% Economically inactive students 7.4% 5.4% 6.5% 4.7% Looking after home/family 7.5% 7.2% 7.2% 6.5% Permanently sick or disabled 3.4% 4.0% 4.5% 5.5% Economically inactive (other) 3.7% 3.6% 4.3% 3.1% Source: 2001 Census, ONS
Employment
1.11 The 2001 Census indicates that Barnet’s residents work in a range of industries that is fairly typical for Outer London. However there are rather higher proportions of residents working in real estate and business, wholesale and retail trades, health and social work and education, (see Figure 1.6). These are also the four largest industries of employment for Barnet residents.
6 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
Figure 1.6 - Employment of Barnet Residents
1.12 Employee jobs within the borough (taken from the annual business inquiry employee analysis (2003) which uses a slightly different categorisation) shows that Barnet has higher than average jobs in distribution, hotels & restaurants, and in public administration, education & health compared with London or the UK as a whole, (Table 1.3). Unsurprisingly compared to London as a whole there are relatively fewer jobs in the finance, IT, other business activities, even though many residents work in this sector. These jobs will tend to be concentrated in Central London.
Table 1.3 - Employee jobs within Barnet Barnet Barnet London GB (%) (employee jobs) (%) (%) Total employee jobs 106,821 100.0 100.0 100.0 Full-time 73,500 68.8 74.8 68.1 Part-time 33,312 31.2 25.2 31.9 Manufacturing 3,783 3.5 5.7 12.6 Construction 3,639 3.4 3.2 4.4 Services 99,123 92.8 90.8 81.4 Distribution, hotels & 33,198 31.1 22.8 24.7 restaurants Transport & communications 6,014 5.6 7.7 6.0 Finance, IT, other business 25,938 24.3 31.8 19.8 activities Public admin, education & 28,795 27.0 21.9 25.8 health
7 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
Other services 5,178 4.8 6.5 5.2 Tourism-related 8,988 8.4 8.6 8.1 Source: annual business inquiry employee analysis (2003)
Students and Qualifications
1.13 As Table 1.4 highlights, Barnet’s working age population is amongst the most qualified in the country. Only 14 local authorities have a more qualified population, of which 11 are also in London. Eighty nine percent of 16 and 17 year olds are in education – the second highest proportion in London, and the borough has a high proportion of students generally.
1.14 Approximately 48,000 children attend Barnet LEA schools each day. Ninety percent of the primary school population are Barnet residents. However, by the secondary phase, this figure has dropped to 70 per cent. Many of the borough’s secondary schools are positioned near the borough boundaries (13 out of 21 being less than a mile distant), many students travel some distance northwards from Haringey, Camden and Islington. Others come west from Enfield and east from Brent. There are also three Voluntary Aided schools in the South of the Borough, whose admissions criteria place proximity lower than ‘faith’ factors. These schools average 57% of students from outside Barnet. The three Grammar schools attract students from a wide area of Hertfordshire and North London. In addition there are around 30 independent schools within the borough.
Table 1.4 – Percentage of people with qualifications living in Barnet Qualifications None 1 Level 1 2 Level 2 3 Level 3 4 Level 4/5 5 Other 6 Barnet 19.60% 11.20% 18.00% 10.80% 35.50% 4.90% Garden Suburb 9.00% 6.10% 15.40% 12.10% 54.60% 2.80% Ward Burnt Oak Ward 30.80% 15.20% 18.50% 8.60% 20.90% 6.10% Outer London 24.40% 15.10% 19.20% 9.40% 26.00% 6.00% Greater London 23.70% 13.00% 17.10% 9.80% 31.00% 5.40% England & Wales 29.10% 16.60% 19.40% 8.30% 19.80% 6.90% Source: 2001 Census, ONS
1 No qualifications: No formal qualifications held 2 NVQ 1 equivalent: e.g. fewer than 5 GCSEs at grades A-C, foundation GNVQ, NVQ 1, intermediate 1 national qualification (Scotland) or equivalent 3 NVQ 2 equivalent: e.g. 5 or more GCSEs at grades A-C, intermediate GNVQ, NVQ 2, intermediate 2 national qualification (Scotland) or equivalent 4 NVQ 3 equivalent: e.g. 2 or more A levels, advanced GNVQ, NVQ 3, 2 or more higher or advanced higher national qualifications (Scotland) or equivalent 5 NVQ 4 equivalent and above: e.g. HND, Degree and Higher Degree level qualifications or equivalent 6 Other qualifications: includes foreign qualifications and some professional qualifications
8 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
Expected population increases
1.15 Barnet’s population is expected to increase from 314,000 in 2001 to around 365,000 in 2016. In addition to the background level of population growth in the borough, Barnet has a number of large scale regeneration sites, that will increase the population significantly.
1.16 The GLA have been working on a new set of borough level population projections that have yet to be adopted as part of the London Plan. This latest set of projections is for Barnet’s population to rise to 360,000 in 2016. This is significantly above the levels assumed when the London Plan and Mayor’s Transport Strategy were developed.
1.17 Growth from the major regeneration sites in the borough has now been included in the estimates, although we understand some recent additions to the regeneration areas are not reflected in these figures. Also the rate of development prior to the regeneration areas making an impact appears lower than currently expected (at only 414 households per year). Scenarios 2, 3 and 5 in table 1.5 make allowance for these issues.
1.18 Office of National Statistics (ONS) mid-year population estimates for 2001- 2003 gave an annual increase of 2000 additional households each year, however this is considered to be an overestimate and local data from the council tax register suggest an annual increase of about half this in recent years.
1.19 However given the scale of the redevelopment happening in the borough the background level of other growth in the borough is unlikely to reach 1000 households per year as in some areas the potential sites are included in the regeneration areas. A figure of 900 additional households per year other than that related to the regeneration areas is therefore used in scenario 3 to make allowance for this.
1.20 ONS trend level projections (which assume that past population trends will continue) produced a population estimate of 366,000 for Barnet in 2016 and 351,000 for 2011. These projections have historically overestimated population growth in Barnet but explicitly take no notice of projected large scale developments
1.21 The GLA projection assumes a fall in average household size between 2011 and 2016. This appears consistent with recent trends, and the approach has been used in the development of scenarios 3 and 5. The regeneration areas are expected to have a rather lower average household size than the borough as a whole (and it is understood that GLA scenario 8.07 will not have made allowance for this). Consequently an average value of 2 has been used in table 1.5 where the regeneration areas are considered on their own, but figures approximating the GLA projections have been used for the rest of the borough.
9 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
1.22 Scenario’s 2 and 3 in table 1.5 are considered to be the most realistic, although scenario 2 probably slightly underestimates the borough’s future population as additional development in the borough prior to the regenerations has not been included. Both scenarios will be particularly sensitive to changes in the rate of redevelopment in the regeneration areas and to the average household size of in the borough.
1.23 In the longer term the total amount of additional housing provided in the regeneration areas is likely to be reasonably close to the predicted total. However the rate of redevelopment could be particularly volatile, dependant as it is upon the actions of private developers – with development feasibly +/- 50% of that shown by 2011.
1.24 Also if it is assumed that the GLA’s projections for household sizes hold for the whole borough (with lower household sizes in the regeneration areas compensated by slightly higher household sizes elsewhere) then an extra 4,000 residents by 2011 might be expected.
1.25 For the purposes of this plan, a population of 348,000 by 2011 is assumed as the most likely scenario. However the issues above might result in a population up to 10,000 lower or 14,000 higher than this by 2011 (from 338,000 – 362,000).
1.26 The regeneration areas will also result in increased jobs in the borough, particularly in the Cricklewood area. The London Plan predicted 5000 new jobs at Cricklewood/West Hendon and 500 each at Colindale and Mill Hill East by 2016. These are likely to be significant underestimates, but overall the ratio of new jobs to new residents is expected to be of a similar order to the ratio of jobs to residents for the borough as a whole.
Table 1.5 - Predicted population growth in Barnet
Basis Pop’n 2011 Pop’n 2016
Scenario
1 GLA 8.07 344,000 360,000 1,2 2 GLA 8.07 plus allowance for additional regen 348,000 364000 1,3,4 3 Additional 900 households per year plus regen 348,150 366,500 4 ONS trend based projections (2003) 351,000 366,000 1,3,4 5 Additional 1000 households per year plus regen 350,600 370,000 1,3 6 ONS projections plus regen 371,000 399,000 1 Average household size in regeneration areas taken to be 2 persons per household 2 Additional 2000 units from ‘Eastern Lands’ at Cricklewood 3 Based on 10,000 units complete by 2011 and 16,500 units complete by 2016. 4 Projected average household size (exc regen) taken as 2.48 in 2001, 2.42 in 2011 and 2.38 in 2016
10 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
Figure 1.7 – Proposed regeneration schemes in Barnet
11 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
2. Local Transport Context
EXISTING TRANSPORT NETWORK
National and International context
2.1 The M1 corridor along the west side of Barnet forms a main route from North London to the rest of the country, (refer to Figure 2.1). Freight sidings are also available at Cricklewood in the south west of the borough permitting rail freight to and from the East Midlands, Central London and the South Coast.
2.2 Future development of the Thameslink and the Channel Tunnel Rail Link will enhance rail transport to the south coast and the continent.
Figure 2.1 - National and international transport links
12 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
ROAD NETWORK
2.3 As Figure 2.2 shows the road network in Barnet is dominated by the corridor of radial routes along the west side of the borough that incorporates the M1, A1, A41 and A5, and the orbital A406 North Circular Road.
2.4 The A1000 and A598 link many of the borough’s town centres, but also cater for radial movements through the borough.
Figure 2.2 - Road network and congestion
TFL (2004), London Travel report, roads where percentage of time spent stationary was greater than 50%
2.5 The A406 suffers significant congestion, in particular between its junctions with the A5 and A1 and at the eastern side of the borough adjacent to Enfield. This congestion has an adverse knock on effect on many borough roads.
PUBLIC TRANSPORT
Accessibility
2.6 In outer London, greater distances, more dispersed settlement patterns and less widespread public transport provision, coupled with a tendency for travel
13 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
into London to be less of a dominant factor make car use more important, and car ownership more common. In particular the green belt wedge in the middle of the borough presents a significant barrier to travel across the borough by public transport, but the east of the borough also suffers from limited public transport accessibility. Figure 2.3 highlights public transport accessibility in Barnet. There is good public transport accessibility exists for services that cater for radial movements towards Central London.
Figure 2.3 - Public Transport Accessibility, February 2003
Source: Transport for London (2004)
Bus Network
2.7 Barnet resident make about 11% of all trips by bus, and bus is the only real public transport option for east-west trips through the borough. However routes catering for such movements and for trips north into Hertfordshire are fewer and less frequent than those for movements into London and often a number of changes have to be made to complete a journey. Figure 2.4 shows the approximate number of buses per hour travelling in one direction during the daytime.
14 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
2.8 The network general caters well for those who are reliant on the bus for their accessibility needs, despite some areas of lower accessibility, especially compared to many areas outside London.
Figure 2.4 - Bus network in Barnet
Underground and rail networks
Underground Network
2.9 Barnet is served by two branches of the Northern line (refer to Figure 2.5). The Piccadilly line also runs just to the east of the borough, providing a service to residents in that area. The Jubilee line runs close to the north-west of the borough, providing an alternative to the Northern line for some residents.
Rail Network
2.10 Currently, trains are relatively lightly used in Barnet, accounting for only 1.4% of all trips by residents, although around 5% of trips to work are made by train.
15 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
2.11 There is little or no morning peak capacity on Thameslink or WAGN trains down the west and east of the borough, with trains mostly full on reaching stations such as Cricklewood, Mill Hill Broadway and Oakleigh Park.
Figure 2.5 - Underground and rail network
WALKING
2.12 Walking forms a part of virtually every journey, and there are a wide range of walking routes within Barnet. These range from local streets that provide access to bus stops and local shops, to rural footpaths that provide valuable leisure opportunities.
2.13 Barnet’s main priorities are those walking routes that form, or have the potential to form a significant part of the regular journeys of residents and others. This leads to an approximate hierarchy of routes based on their use (refer to Figure 2.6): • Footways in shopping roads; • ‘Busy urban road’ footways; • Other footways beside roads and scheduled urban footpaths (including London and Barnet strategic walks through urban areas);
16 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
• London and Barnet strategic walks linking urban areas (mainly through parkland); and • Other rural public footpaths and walking routes (including London and Barnet strategic walks in rural areas, mainly London Loop). Figure 2.6 - Walking routes in the borough
CYCLING
2.14 There are relatively few cyclists in Barnet, (0.6% of trips undertaken by Barnet residents are by cycling, refer to Table 2.1). This may, in part at least, be explained by the borough’s topography; a series of ridges and valleys cross the borough result in steep gradients in many areas (Figure 2.7). Settlements
17 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
and main roads have historically tended to develop on the more level ground and therefore routes that are more attractive for cycling tend also to be the busiest with other traffic. Figure 2.7 - Elevation
2.15 However also partly as a consequence of the topography routes through the green belt, as well as off road routes, provide a pleasant environment for leisure cyclists.
2.16 In order to provide some facility for cyclists along routes heavily used by other traffic, cycle lanes have been provided on many main roads in the past. However these have rarely well served the needs of either experienced or inexperienced cyclists.
2.17 Many experienced cyclists do not wish to feel constrained to a narrow strip of road at the edge of the carriageway which is punctuated by drain grids, often in less good condition than the carriageway as a whole and accumulates debris. These cyclists have the confidence and experience to ride safely in heavy traffic, and would prefer to make full use of the road.
2.18 On the other hand less experienced cyclists are encouraged to use cycle lanes, believing them ‘safe’. They then have to contend with the hazards within the lane that the more experienced cyclist prefers to avoid, as well as the close proximity of heavy traffic, diverting around parked cars or loading vehicles that may obstruct the lane and negotiating sometimes complicated junctions, which are the very areas where cycle lanes are often forced to end.
18 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
2.19 Another barrier to cycling, and also a significant hazard to cyclists as well as to motorcyclists, is poorly maintained carriageways. Travelling by bicycle on a poorly maintained road is an uncomfortable experience at best. However if the rider of a two wheeled vehicle drives into a pothole, injury is far more likely than if a car were to drive into it. However swerving to avoid potholes can be even more hazardous; cyclists may fall off or swerve into the path of another vehicle. Also other traffic swerving to avoid the discomfort and possible damage of hitting a pothole may fail to notice cyclists.
2.20 As a result Barnet’s approach is to maintain: • Well surfaced, uncomplicated carriageways on main roads which provide a convenient, safe and comfortable ride for confident, experienced cyclists; • Well maintained carriageways on alternative routes along quieter roads; which although less direct, provide a comfortable, safer alternative for less confident adult cyclists and for children cycling with adults or alone; and • A number of off road routes that complement the above.
2.21 In addition the Council will work with cycle groups to identify where new cycle facilities are required, focussing particularly on: • school journeys; • providing secure cycle parking at stations; • around town centres; and • other potential cycle trip generators.
19 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
Figure 2.8 - Existing off carriageway cycle routes
EXISTING TRANSPORT DEMAND
2.22 Around 830,000 trips are made by Barnet residents each day, (LATS 2001). Fifty five percent of trips are made to destinations within the borough, (once trips home have been excluded). Of the other trips made, 20% are made to adjoining London boroughs (Camden 6%, Brent 5%, Haringey 4%, Enfield 3% and Harrow 2%); 9% are to Westminster, 2% to the City of London and 2% to Islington; 2% are to other destinations inside the M25 and 3% to other destinations outside the M25.
2.23 Trips to Camden (40%), Westminster (44%), City of London (62%) and Islington (46%) are more likely to be made by public transport, with underground trips dominating. Bus travel also played an important role in trips to Haringey (17%), Brent (14%), Enfield (14%), Harrow (13%) and destinations inside the M25 (14%). Destinations where car trips was the dominate mode included trips to Enfield (71%), Harrow (68%) and destinations outside London both within (73%) and outside (81%) the M25.
20 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
2.24 A greater proportion of other work (57%) and personal business trips (60%) are made by car. Trips to the usual workplace (41%) or to the shops (42%) are less likely to involve car use.
Table 2.1 - Trips by Barnet Residents
Main mode % National rail 1.4 Underground/DLR 9.5 Bus (+school/wk bus/coach/tram) 10.9 Taxi 0.8 Other 0.0 Car driver 36.0 Car passenger 14.2 Van/Lorry 1.1 Motorcycle 0.5 Cycle 0.6 Walk 25.1
Destination purpose Home 40.2 Usual workplace 13.5 Delivering/loading 0.3 Other work 3.7 Entertainment/sport/social 10.9 Shopping 12.6 Use Services/Personal Business 4.8 Education 6.4 Drop off/pick up - work 0.6 Drop off/pick up - school /college 3.9 Drop off/pick up - other 2.9 Other 0.1 Source: LATS 2001
TRAVEL TO WORK AND EDUCATION
2.25 Travel to schools and colleges by foot is lower than average for an outer London borough, but public transport use is significantly higher, with only slightly higher car use (refer to Table 2.2). This lower walking rate but higher public transport use is probably reflecting greater distances travelled.
Table 2.2 - Trips to school or college
Usual mode of travel to education (residents) Mode Barnet Outer London Car Driver 3% 3% Motorcycle Driver 0% 0% Pedal bike 1% 1% Car Passenger 28% 26%
21 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
Small van / minibus 0% 1% Passenger Bus 24% 21% Tube 10% 5% Train 1% 3% Walk 32% 39% Other 1% 1% Source: LATS 2001
2.26 Of people working in the borough, 49.2% either travel more than 5km to work or have no fixed workplace. It therefore seems likely that a large proportion of those using a car are travelling distances that would be impractical by foot or cycle.
Table 2.3 - Usual mode of travel to work
Resident population Workplace population Mode Barnet Outer London Barnet Outer London All working (Number) 145,920 2,065,353 106,906 1,636,845 Work mainly at or from home 10.6% 8.5% 14.5% 10.8% Underground/metro/light rail 22.9% 13.4% 6.5% 4.7% or tram Train 5.2% 13.3% 3.0% 5.3% Bus/mini bus / coach 8.8% 9.2% 10.8% 10.4% Motorcycle / scooter / moped 1.1% 1.3% 0.9% 1.1% Driving a car or van 40.6% 41.7% 50.7% 52.7% Passenger in a car or van 2.8% 3.2% 3.3% 3.7% Taxi 0.6% 0.6% 0.7% 0.7% Bicycle 0.9% 1.6% 0.9% 1.7% On foot 6.0% 6.9% 8.2% 8.6% Other 0.4% 0.3% 0.4% 0.4% Source: Census 2001
CAR OWNERSHIP AND USE
2.27 An estimated 630,000 car trips are made each day in or through Barnet. Just over a quarter of these trips are trips wholly within the borough. Nearly half either start or end in the borough, with the remaining quarter being purely through trips.
2.28 Car ownership within Barnet is relatively high, with 73.3% of households having access to a car and an average number of cars per household of 1.09, compared with 71.4% and 1.04 respectively for Outer London.
2.29 Conventional wisdom suggests that increased car ownership leads to increased car use, and conversely decreasing car ownership would lead to decreased car use.
22 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
2.30 However when levels of car use for the journey to work and car ownership are compared across Barnet, and indeed across London as a whole, although there is clearly some correlation between car ownership and use, there is a considerable degree of scatter in the results.
2.31 A much closer relationship is seen if the level of car ownership is compared with a factor related to both car use for the journey to work, and the level of affluence in an area. The measure of affluence used is the percentage of residents not deprived in any of the four areas (employment, education, health and disability or housing) recorded in the 2001 census. This relationship holds at borough level across London and at ward level across Barnet.
Figure 2.9 – Measure of Affluence in the Borough
Drive to Work v Access to Car Drive to Work + Affluence v Car Ownership 100 80 100 60 80 40 60 20 40 access toaccess a car 0 20 % of households with % of households 0204060% to access a car 0 050100 % of working popln. who drive to work % drive to w ork + % not deprived
2.32 The prevalence of driving to work in Barnet is heavily influenced by the ease with which journeys (especially into London) can be made by other modes. Generally this means that residents living closer to central London or close to tube stations are less likely to drive to work. This, coupled with levels of affluence, affects levels of car ownership; where access to a car is not a necessity many residents still choose to own one, even though they may not use it frequently.
2.33 Although car ownership, choice to drive and deprivation/affluence are likely to be inter-dependent, with each affecting both of the others to some degree, it would appear that levels of car ownership are largely an effect rather than a cause of the relationship.
2.34 Consequently efforts to try to limit car use by limiting car ownership would have only a partial effect. It might well lead to increased travel to Central London for work by residents, potentially increasing the numbers travelling longer distances into the borough to work, who are more likely to drive than residents.
2.35 These results relate to travel to work, and clearly households with access to a car are likely to use it for other purposes, but a significant factor in the decision to own a car would appear to be the need to use it for travel to work.
23 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
Expected increases in transport demand
2.36 Given the expected population growth in Barnet over the next ten years, demand for transport can be expected to increase significantly. Even without considering growth from the regeneration areas in the borough, the incremental population growth is expected to be about 4.5%.
2.37 During the 10 years to 2001 the 5.7% population increase coincided with a 7.5% increase in traffic on Barnet’s roads. Assuming a similar relationship in future a 5.9% increase in traffic demand from incremental growth could be expected in the 10 years to 2010.
2.38 Transport demand in Barnet is, of course, also influenced by people who are not borough residents. Indeed it is estimated that less than half of all car trips affecting the borough are made by residents. However anticipated growth in the North London sub-region and in the south-east as a whole suggests this level of growth is not an unreasonable expectation.
2.39 In addition to this incremental growth is that contributed by the regeneration areas – a further 6.4% growth in the borough’s population between 2001 and 2011. These regeneration sites are likely to be developed in such a way to limit over-reliance on car use, but a consequent increased demand for other modes could be expected.
2.40 The developments are not likely to affect demand for journeys that simply pass through the borough. It is estimated that a quarter of all car trips affecting the borough fall into this category, and a significant proportion of train trips.
2.41 Assuming levels of car use from residents and those working in the regeneration areas or visiting for any reason are around 20% less than the Barnet average (based largely on expectations for Brent Cross/West Hendon/Cricklewood) a 3.8% overall increase in demand for car trips might be expected from the regeneration areas, together with a 10.7% increase for demand on public transport.
2.42 Therefore taking the background and regeneration growth together, 9.7% growth in demand on the road network and 15.2% increase on public transport networks would be expected.
Managing increased demand
2.43 Road traffic growth of 9.7% would exacerbate levels of congestion in the borough, and limit any benefit seen from other initiatives. The modelling carried out for the Mayor’s Transport Strategy forecast only 7.5% traffic growth in Outer London by 2011 in its base scenario, but predicted that full implementation of the strategy could reduce this to 5%.
2.44 Consideration has been given to the reductions in traffic growth that might be achieved from the proposals contained within this document. While many
24 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
proposals could achieve a modal shift in the number of trips made, relating this to the distance travelled has proved less straightforward.
2.45 Consequently it has been assumed that implementation of the MTS could result in a reduction in traffic growth in the borough, (in the same way it results in a 2.5 percentage point projected reduction in the general outer London figure).
2.46 Given the assumptions that have already been made with regard to lower traffic growth from the regeneration areas, the scope for this scale of change probably does not exist in these areas. However assuming implementation of the MTS could result in a reduction of 2.5 percentage points in traffic growth within the rest of the population, resulting in only a 3.4 percentage point increase in road traffic from the incremental population growth, this could reduce traffic growth in the borough to 7.2% between 2001 and 2011.
2.47 This predicted traffic growth figure of 7.2%, provides a target figure for 2011 (Target 5) of 1778 Million vehicle kilometres. It is envisaged that growth until 2008 will be principally at the background rate, consequently 2.4% growth by 2008 (or 1698 Million vehicle kilometres) is estimated.
2.48 This reduction in road traffic growth would require a increase in public transport provision and use of around 4.1% taking the overall increased provision and use needed to 19.3%.
Road network
2.49 Even with a major effort to attract car users to other modes there will be a very significant increase in road traffic demand in the borough by 2011.
2.50 Improvements to junctions on the TLRN and the North Circular Road in particular will be essential to manage this extra traffic, particularly in conjunction with the regeneration areas.
2.51 Barnet is committed to junction improvements and other work on its own network that will improve traffic flow for all road users, however without improvements on the TLRN network this can have only limited effect.
2.52 Attempting to maximise modal shift to other modes will be essential, and this will be a significant challenge in itself. However it can only hope to be successful if the necessary capacity can be provided on these other modes.
Bus network
2.53 London Buses expect to increase bus capacity by 40% between 2001 and 2011. While a high proportion of increased capacity will no doubt be related to Central London and the congestion charge zone, a total TfL increase in bus capacity of 40% would appear hard to achieve unless a significant proportion of it occurred pan-London including in the London Borough of Barnet.
25 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
2.54 It would appear that this should be able to provide ample projected capacity for any modal shift that might be achieved between car and bus, however much of this capacity is likely to be made available outside the peak movement periods.
2.55 It is important to note that the bus is the only realistic public transport option for orbital travel, and much current car use falls into this category. Increased bus provision on orbital routes will have to play a key role in meeting the transport needs of current and future residents.
2.56 As noted earlier bus provision for those who are reliant on it is relatively good, particularly when compared with areas outside London. However the lower frequencies and need to change buses to make many orbital or out of London trips is a deterrent to those residents that can choose to use a car or take a taxi.
2.57 Rates of bus trips to surrounding boroughs that cannot be accessed easily by underground is slightly higher than to those that can, but does not come close to the proportions that use the underground where this is an option.
2.58 Car trips to these areas are correspondingly higher. Although measures can and are taken to make car travel less attractive to some areas (through the use of parking restrictions and charges for example) this is impractical for many trips and may limit the ability to travel of some groups as well as having economic consequences to some businesses and town centres.
2.59 At least as necessary is the provision of attractive bus routes that provide a realistic alternative to private car use to a wide range of destinations.
2.60 The citizen panel highlighted that the top three factors that would encourage bus use were increasing the frequency (66%), improving reliability (55%) and better coverage (38%). The most unattractive features were that they are unreliable (17%), dirty or filthy (8%), slow (7%) and infrequent (7%). However eleven percent described the buses as good or comprehensive.
Underground network
2.61 TfL are currently predicting a 17% increase in total underground capacity by 2011. This includes signalling improvements at Camden Town by 2011 and station improvements within Barnet by 2010, both contributing to an overall 21% increase in capacity on the Northern line by 2012.
2.62 It is reasonable to assume that Barnet residents (rather than residents elsewhere along the route) will in future be able to make use of their share of this 17% increase in capacity, therefore allowing an increased usage by Barnet residents of 17%.
2.63 London Underground do not believe station capacity will cause operational difficulties for the ‘foreseeable future’, although congestion relief works are
26 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
being undertaken at the 4 most congested Northern Line stations: Camden Town, King’s Cross, Tottenham Court Road and Bank which will have a beneficial impact for the residents of Barnet.
2.64 Although some Barnet residents will also use the Piccadilly Line and possibly the Jubilee line, the main tube line serving the borough is the Northern line. As the increases in capacity on the Northern line are projected to be greater we can perhaps assume a higher figure of additional capacity of around 20% across all underground provision relating to Barnet.
2.65 It would appear, therefore, that assuming TfL’s predicted capacity increases come on line this will be adequate to cope with the increased population and a significant degree of modal shift.
2.66 The citizen panel highlighted that Underground’s most unattractive features was its unreliability (18%), expensive (18%), overcrowded (15%) and dirty or filthy (14%). The Underground was no rated as favourably as buses with only 9% described the Underground as good/comprehensive. Their view of the top three factors that would encourage use of the underground were improving reliability (60%) decreasing its cost (54%) and increasing the frequency (30%).
Rail network
2.67 The overland train network represents a fundamental element of the Mayor’s plans for delivering the public transport capacity required to meet the needs of Barnet.
2.68 The Mayor’s Transport Strategy model assumes a 9% increase in train capacity to 2011 excluding the major Crossrail and Thameslink projects (27% including these).
2.69 A new Thameslink/Great Northern (WAGN) franchise bidding process is currently underway. The new franchise will combine services from WAGN and Thameslink to create a single train operating company, initially for 4 years but with scope for extension to a total of 9 years.
2.70 Thameslink 2000 will provide extra capacity at Mill Hill Broadway and Hendon by platform lengthening and generally has potential to improve capacity on both national rail lines in the borough. Some of the improvements could be introduced locally earlier but the decision has been made nationally not to do so.
2.71 With much of the regeneration expected in areas served by the existing Thameslink line in the West of the borough, and limited capacity on trains on this line at present, such improvements will be vital in meeting increased demand from the regeneration areas and modal shift.
2.72 Crossrail, as currently envisaged, will not directly affect train capacity within Barnet but could influence travel patterns. By providing additional distribution
27 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
capacity within Central London it could make both Thameslink and Great Northern services more attractive to borough residents by offering interchange at Farringdon for journeys say to Canary Wharf. This would relieve the Northern Line and particularly the Bank branch. However, Thameslink trains could become increasingly overcrowded.
2.73 There is potential for rail services to contribute significantly to the increased transport requirements of the borough. Thameslink 2000 will be central to this, but any benefits are unlikely until after 2011.
2.74 The citizen panel highlighted that the rail’s most unattractive features was the cost (13%), unreliable (7%), and dirty or filthy (6%). Less than 25 respondents on the citizen panel described the service as good/comprehensive, in fact 11% said they rarely or never used the trains. Their view of the top three factors that would encourage use of the underground were decreasing its cost (66%) increase reliability (48%) and increasing the frequency (42%).
28 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
3. Borough Policy Statement
INTRODUCTION
3.1 This chapter of the Local Implementation Plan describes the range of issues reflecting the context of the transport challenges facing the London Borough of Barnet. The first part of the chapter will set out the Mayor’s Transport Strategy and the London Plan. The chapter will then focus attention to Barnet’s role in the wider, sub-regional context within the North London Transport Forum.
3.2 It is recognised that it is important to put transport in the wider policy context, and thus the role of transport within the borough-wide context of the Community Plan, the Corporate Plan and the Air Quality Action Plan needs to be understood. The next section of the chapter will therefore demonstrate the consequential role that transport can play in these strategies. The remaining sections will give an overview of transport specific policies that have been developed by the London Borough of Barnet, as outlined in the Unitary Development Plan (Revised Deposit Draft).
MAYOR’S TRANSPORT STRATEGY
3.3 The Mayor of London’s vision for London is to make the Capital an exemplary sustainable world city based upon a strong and diverse economic growth, social inclusivity to allow all Londoners to share in London’s future success, and fundamental improvements in environmental management and the use of resources. Achieving this vision of London as an exemplary sustainable world city will make London: • A prosperous city: in which all share the benefits of wealth created in London’s dynamic economy; • A city for people: a liveable city of safe, attractive streets, where goods and services are within easy reach and where everyone feels safe and secure; • An accessible city: with fast, efficient and comfortable means of transport, and access to affordable homes, education and training, health, leisure and recreation; • A fair city: showing tolerance and abolishing all forms of discrimination, where neighbourhoods and communities have a say in their futures; and • A green city: making efficient use of natural resources and energy, respecting the natural world and wildlife, using to the full the varied patterns of open space, eco-friendly design and construction methods, recycling waste and creating new ‘green industries’.
3.4 The key implications of the vision for transport are outlined below:
29 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
Making London a prosperous city by: • Removing barriers to competitiveness, efficiency and growth; • Providing adequate capacity for future growth and reduce congestion; • Complementing regeneration initiatives; • Supporting and developing the role of London’s town centres; • Complementing wider initiatives to tackle unemployment and social exclusion; • Providing improved, local, regional, national and international access to key employment and development locations; and • Supporting and encouraging balanced spatial growth across London.
Making London a city for people by: • Contributing towards making new and existing neighbourhoods and residential areas more sustainable, safe, attractive and cohesive place to live; and • Benefiting London’s urban fabric, visual amenity and environment, particularly in town centres, and supporting the development of London as a cultural and leisure centre.
Making London an accessible city by: • Improving the efficiency, effectiveness and reliability of London’s transport system; • Encouraging and enabling patterns of land use that support sustainable patterns of travel; • Integrating transport, spatial development and economic development policies to ensure sustainable access for people and goods; • Identifying and creating locations with good public transport access to encourage the appropriate scale, form and type of development in ways that reduce car travel; and • Improving travel choice and quality.
Making London a fair city by: • Providing transport links to jobs, facilities and services which meet the particular needs of people with mobility problems, women, older people, young people, children, members of black and ethnic communities and those on low incomes; • Improving the safety and personal security of users of the transport system; and • Ensuring that the TfL workforce reflects London’s population and diversity, and pressing for greater equality of opportunity in other transport agencies.
Making London a green city by:
30 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
• Promoting transport services and patterns of movement that contribute to improvements in air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, noise and the treatment of waste; • Ensuring that the development of the transport system contributes to the protection and enhancement of the natural environment and biodiversity; and • Promoting the health of Londoners, including encouraging more walking and cycling.
LONDON PLAN
3.5 The Spatial Development Strategy for London, The London Plan, published in 2004, underlines the guiding transport objectives outlined in the Mayors Transport Strategy above. The London Plan sets out the framework for a spatial strategy with the following objectives: • To accommodate London’s growth within its boundaries without encroaching on open spaces; • To make London a better city for people to live in; • To make London a more prosperous city with strong and diverse economic growth; • To promote social inclusion and tackle deprivation and discrimination • To improve London’s accessibility; and • To make London a more attractive, well-designed and green city.
3.6 The London Plan outlines the following five transport policy areas which are supported by the London Borough of Barnet: • Closer integration of transport and spatial development; • Enhancing international, national and regional transport links; • Better public transport in London; • Reducing congestion and making better use of London’s streets; • Improving freight movements and the distribution of goods and services.
SUB-REGIONAL STRATEGIES AND POLICIES
Regional and Sub-Regional Opportunities
3.7 North London partnership includes the London Boroughs of Barnet, Enfield, Haringey and Waltham Forest. North London Transport Forum (NLTF), subgroup of the North London Strategic Alliance (NLSA), is the sub regional focus for transport development in North London. The partnership’s work is based upon principles of partnership, sustainability and joint sector working. It has developed policy on major sub-regional transport themes and is taking practical action to secure these policy objectives. NLTF will be the instrument through which the Borough priorities and regional interests are effectively implemented.
31 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
3.8 The recently completed North London Transport Study aimed at producing an Action Plan for the next five to ten years. The Action Plan aims to ensure that: • Transport activities within North London, the Upper Lee Valley and the • Strategic Opportunity Areas are complementary; • Projects are identified within the Upper Lee Valley and Strategic • Opportunity Areas which should be developed in order to secure the necessary funding for the co-ordination of all the partners responsible for the delivery of projects; • Projects reflect TfL targets which are focussing on the improvement of public transport; • Projects need to be cost effective, sub-regional in nature and capable of having maximal input on the improvement of existing transport infrastructure and the management of the transport demand; • Projects improve accessibility of all North Londoners, bearing in mind that 50% do not have access to a car; and • Priorities of individual boroughs do not compromise the need for a sub regional approach to project development.
3.9 The quality of North London’s infrastructure and public service underpins the ability of the sub-region to successfully accommodate growth. In common with the rest of London, a programme of massive investment in vital infrastructure and public services is needed. Rising to this challenge will require the boroughs to adopt innovative solutions and work closely with partners from across the public and private sectors. A reliable, sustainable, affordable and integrated transport system is fundamental to improving quality of life, social inclusion and the economy in North London.
3.10 The Councils, as part of the North London Strategic Alliance, support the agreed set of sub regional transport priorities included in the North London Strategy - Working Together for London. These are as follows: • The development of an action plan for the A406 North Circular Road that addresses the need for effective orbital transport in North London. • The support of proposals for major rail investment in North London. • The exploration of the opportunities for developing orbital rail and light rail transit schemes. • To make the case for the construction of a second branch of the Victoria Line serving Northumberland Park Station; • The use of opportunities provided by major development sites to improve the sub-regions transport infrastructure; • The development of integrated transport hubs across the sub- region. • To work across borough boundaries to reduce traffic congestion;
32 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
• The co-ordination of parking activities in North London; and • The identification and implementation of measures to assist freight access to the regeneration areas of North London.
3.11 In addition, the North London Transport Forum will: • Work in partnership to improve air quality in the sub-region. Proposals for Low Emissions Zones in North London will be progressed in line with the studies being undertaken within London. • Explore with North London public agencies, the scope for practical improvements in service delivery and procurement with the objective of achieving greater sustainability and more efficient use of transport resources. Local authorities, educational and health organisations have a strong impact on the sub-region. Innovation and best practice applied to transport will be an important component in the effort to counteract congestion.
STRATEGIC PLANS IN BARNET
Corporate Plan
3.12 The Corporate Plan (2004/05 – 2007/08) is a map of how the council seeks to put the community first, through providing services that meet the needs of our residents and communities taking forward the council’s key priorities; • A First Class Education Service; • Tackling Crime; • Supporting the Vulnerable in our Community; • A Cleaner Greener Barnet; and • Repairing Roads and Pavements.
33 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
Figure 3.1 - Barnet Policy Map 2005/06
34 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
3.13 The Corporate Plan also meets key requirements for the Best Value Performance Plan, a statutory performance monitoring document, by including: a summary of the authority’s strategic objectives and priorities for improvement; the arrangements for addressing the authority’s improvement priorities and the outcomes that are expected to be achieved as a result. Service level Performance Management Plans, informed by the issues that are key to residents, present the service priorities for the coming year and look ahead to future years.
Community Plan
3.14 Our vision for Barnet is a place: • where people want to live and work; • where first class services are offered to all its residents; • where successful communities are working and thriving, and as a result; and • where quality of life continues demonstrably to improve.
3.15 The ‘Community Plan for Barnet (2003-2006)’ is a strategy to promote the economic, environmental and social well-being of the community. It brings together the priorities of the public, private and voluntary agencies involved in providing services in Barnet. This work is co- ordinated through the Local Strategic Partnership, a coalition of local interests which includes the London Borough of Barnet, the Police & the Primary Care Trust.
3.16 The partners are committed to working with communities to meet their needs. The key to successful partnership working is ensuring it makes a real difference in practice towards delivering better services for our communities. Individuals also have a key part to play in making Barnet a better place by taking personal responsibility for their actions. Through consultation, the following issues are those which matter most
35 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
to Barnet’s communities, and which can only be solved by working together:
• Secure and Supportive Community Even though crime figures are among the lowest in London, fear of crime and anti-social behaviour is one of the biggest issues that affects the quality of life locally, and the Police, local authority and many others are working together to create a safer Barnet. Barnet is recognised as a cohesive community and we wish to remove any barriers that prevent any section of the community from playing their full part as responsible citizens with pride in their community.
• A Healthy and Caring Community Good health is the greatest gift of all and the Council and Health Service partners are committed to high quality and responsive services that meet patients’ needs, and to addressing all the factors that cause ill-health. We also need to ensure that vulnerable people have access to the care that they need. Individuals also need to take responsibility for leading healthier lifestyles.
• A Learning Community Learning throughout life opens opportunities for employment and personal development, and we are committed to providing quality learning opportunities, from pre-school through to school through to adult learning, as well as working with young people to ensure all their needs are met.
• An Environmentally Responsive Community Barnet’s environment is one of the most attractive in London and we need to ensure that it is protected and kept clean for future generations, and that housing is available for all in well-balanced communities.
• Fostering an Enterprising Community Economic prosperity is essential to a successful community and there is much that can be done to assist business to flourish through ensuring that transport in the Borough, learning facilities and the physical infrastructure meets their needs.
Air Quality Action Plan
3.17 The Air Quality Action Plan is the culmination of work since 1997 to investigate the Borough’s main air quality problems and identify solutions. It has an important role in delivering air quality improvements under the Council’s Local Air Quality Strategy. Most of the Action Plan measures are aimed at reducing levels of pollution from vehicle exhausts’ emissions. This is essential because air quality research commissioned by the Borough has predicted that levels of Nitrogen
36 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
Dioxide and fine particles produced by vehicle engineers will result in widespread failures of Government air quality targets.
3.18 These findings led to the whole Borough being declared as an Air Quality Management Area in April 2001 due to predicted levels of Nitrogen Dioxide and fine particles. Additional research indicates that this designation remains correct. The Action Plan measures developed by the Borough have been carefully assessed and subject to a 3-month public consultation period, launched in June 2002. This was the fourth main public consultation on the Borough’s air quality work held since 1999.
3.19 Many organisations and individuals have been involved in the consultation process. The comments received have helped to shape this final report. Comments from government have resulted in a more detailed treatment of cost effectiveness. The Mayor of London has requested that a number of additional action points are included to reflect his London Air Quality Strategy and it has been possible to accommodate many of these.
3.20 Delivering the action points will involve a combination of new and existing measures. Whether it is feasible to implement measures such as vehicle emissions testing and The London Borough of Barnet Air Quality Action Plan a London-wide Low Emission Zone will depend on current London-wide projects.
3.21 The assessment of local air quality will remain ongoing. Government is presently consulting on ways in which the process can be simplified and information from local air quality monitoring used more effectively. Under the proposals public consultation on air quality work would remain a requirement. The Borough will continue to work to engage and inform stakeholders on local air quality and build sustainable partnerships for its improvement.
CRIME AND DISORDER AND DRUGS STRATEGY
3.22 The Crime and Disorder and Drugs Strategy for Barnet 2005-2008 was adopted in April 2005. This document sets out targets for the borough to reduce levels of crime within the borough and increase the proportion of residents who feel safe. This is addressed through four broad themes that focus on particular components of crime and disorder. There are no individual programmes or direct reference to programmes that address location specific problems. This document is designed to provide a broad strategy for addressing crime and disorder in the borough and can be used to support parallel bids for specific programmes that address crime near, around and on public transport and the transport system. A key topic area within the strategy is crimes against people, since these crimes often occur around transport interchanges and town centres (Barnet Crime and Disorder Audit 2004)
37 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
any activities that address this topic are likely to focus on these areas of Barnet.
3.23 The Overall theme of the strategy is one of reassurance and communication. Barnet has a Safer Communities team who coordinate joint working and liaison with the police and others on crime, disorder and drug related topics. Barnet coordinates with the police monthly RAID (Review and Improvement Department) where partners including Barnet Primary care and council representatives attend. It is through this forum that TfL and the GLA are invited to participate in ongoing review of the strategy. Highways and Design will become more involved in this group to ensure transport related issues are raised and holistically addressed in the future.
3.24 There are four targets set out in the Strategy that works and programmes in the local implementation plan can help to achieve. Namely; Reduce robbery by 15.3% over the next three years Reduce wounding and assaults by 7.9% over the next three years Reducing the number of repeat victims of domestic violence, racial/faith related crime and homophobic crime by 10% over the next three years Reduce vehicle crime by 19.5% over the next three years
3.25 The following points are examples of where on or around transport Barnet is taking action which will help to met the strategies targets:
The Police are currently trialling the use of tri signs in raising awareness and deterring motor vehicle theft in identified priority streets.
To reduce the fear of crime Alcohol Free Zones have been put in place around stations and in town centres. Barnet has three locations, North Finchley, Hendon and Finchley Church End.
Existing CCTV coverage (high definition) includes areas around the following station: o Edgware o Burnt Oak o Cricklewood (National rail) o Hendon (National rail) o Hendon central o Golders Green o High Barnet
Provide capital funding for CCTV improvements in two town centres for each of the next two financial year. The 05/06 funding covers Mill Hill and Finchley Central, while the 06/07 funding covers Whetstone and East Finchley.
38 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
The Council has a zero tolerance policy on graffiti and in 2004/05 spent £250,000 on cleaning graffiti. Priority is given to 13 of the Borough’s town centres, often incorporating transport interchanges. These areas are checked daily Monday to Friday and any graffiti spotted – even if it is not on council property – is tackled immediately. Any reported graffiti facing the borough’s ‘A’ roads is removed within the week, while racist and offensive graffiti is tackled within 24 hours.
TRANSPORT SPECIFIC POLICIES AND PRINCIPLES
3.26 With significant growth in population and jobs in the borough during the period covered by this LIP, the Council is aware that pressure on roads in the borough will increase as indicated in paragraph 4G.61 of the MTS. Although paragraph 4H.2 of the MTS states that in outer London cars are unquestionably the main means of transport, through the use of land use planning and improved public transport facilities, the Council believes that public transport use by the borough’s residents will remain high.
3.27 However, as set out in our response to LIP target 5, the Council anticipates that traffic growth in the borough will exceed the 6% maximum target outer North London even with the application of travel demand management measures.
3.28 Since many of the borough’s roads are already suffering from considerable congestion, especially during the peak hours, the Council is concerned that congestion in the borough is likely to increase. In order to counter this, we have already embarked on a programme of congestion reduction measures which mirrors TfL’s own pinchpoint programme.
3.29 Barnet’s unique pattern of small and medium-sized town centres, many of which are located on strategic roads, creates unusual travel patterns and poses particular challenges in managing the road network. Most of the town centres have very limited off-street parking and rely on on- street parking to help shops and other businesses remain viable, but these town centres also suffer from some of the worst congestion.
3.30 Paragraph 4A.19 of the MTS identifies buses as the principal public transport mode in outer London with the need for priority measures to improve bus services and tackle traffic congestion. Whilst low-level priority measures such as bus stop clearways can help, proposal 4F.6 of the MTS identifies the need for the reallocation of streetspace to protect buses against congestion.
3.31 In Barnet, except for the approaches to some key junctions, most borough roads are single carriageways with only one lane in each
39 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
direction. Only the A5, A1000 and parts of the A598 are generally wide enough for the provision of more than one lane which is a pre-requisite for streetspace reallocation to be an option. Given the existing high volumes of traffic and predicted growth, significant levels of streetspace reallocation is likely to increase congestion and this in turn may affect buses at locations where they cannot be protected from the effects of congestion.
3.32 For this reason, the Council has adopted what has been described as the “Freeflow approach” – the aim being to maximise the movement capacity of borough roads whilst having regard to the needs of frontagers. This tackles the root cause of congestion and reduces or eliminates the need for bus priority measures. There is another benefit with our approach to improve major road network movements. Making these routes more attractive to vehicle users reduces the need to rat- run through residential areas.
3.33 The length of GLA Roads and motorway in the borough is amongst the highest in London and the near parallel A41/A1/M1 routes in the western side of the borough all form a key links into North London from Hertfordshire and the M25. The A406 North Circular Road is the only main orbital route existing between the M25 and the inner ring road. The GLA Roads and M1 in the borough carry very high volumes of traffic and major bottlenecks occur at the at-grade junctions on these routes.
3.34 Evidence has shown that congestion on these routes has led to traffic using the borough road network as an alternative, which is contributing to the congestion referred to above. The Department for Transport and TfL have identified the need for improvements to the North Circular Road which would reduce pressure on the borough road network.
3.35 In preparing this LIP, the Council has assumed that significant improvements to the A406 will be implemented in the near future, but not during the period where detailed proposals are required to be included. If the improvements to the A406 lead to a significant reduction in traffic on the borough roads for which streetspace reallocation may be feasible, further proposals will be introduced through the BSP process.
Unitary Development Plan (UDP) - To be updated
3.36 Barnet was the first London borough to adopt a UDP in the initial round in 1991. The Council commenced its review of the UDP in 1998. It now expects to adopt the revised deposit UDP in spring 2006 and maintain, through the LDF and UDP policies an up to date plan that can direct future development in Barnet.
40 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
3.37 Once adopted, the emerging policies of the review UDP will be saved for a period of three years. These policies were scrutinised at a Public Local Inquiry in spring 2004. The UDP Inspector’s Report was published by the Council in November 2004. The Council will consider the Inspector’s recommendations and prepare its formal response in UDP Modifications. Until the Local Development Framework replaces all of the saved policies, the policies of the review UDP (adoption expected in Spring 2006) will continue to be used by the Council, along with the Mayor’s London Plan, to determine planning applications. Under the new planning system the Mayor’s London Plan has development plan status.
Local Development Framework
3.38 The Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 reforms the development plan system replacing the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) with the Local Development Framework (LDF). Part 2 of the Act requires the submission of a Local Development Scheme (LDS) setting out the three year project plan for each LDF document the Council will produce for Barnet.
3.39 The main elements of the new planning framework are: - • The adoption of a spatial planning approach to ensure the most efficient use of land by balancing competing local demands. This spatial approach is not just concerned with the physical aspects of locations but also with economic, social and environmental matters • A planning system which facilitates the creation, up-dating and replacement of planning documents so as to ensure the planning system is constantly up-to-date • The statutory development plan will be the starting point in the consideration of planning applications for the development or use of land
3.40 Barnet Council is committed to preparing a LDF (refer to Figure 3.2) which reflects the up-to-date national, regional and local context, the development potential of the Borough and realises the local community’s aspirations for the area.
41 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
Figure 3.2 – Barnet’s Local Development Framework
42 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
Regeneration
3.41 Council has adopted a ‘three strand approach’ to planning for development within the Borough, one of protection, enhancement and growth. Planning policy will support growth in designated regeneration areas. Chapter 1 of the LIP identified the locations and size of possible future regeneration projects. Enhancements to the transport system will be sort through these regeneration projects. Transport projects will play a key role in the regeneration of three key sites; Colindale Area, Mill Hill Triangle (Inglis Barracks) and the Cricklewood, Brent Cross and West Hendon Regeneration Area
3.42 The council is currently committed to the preparation of a spatial development framework for Colindale. This framework will cover the three key development sites of Grahame Park estate, Colindale Hospital and RAF East Camp. Significant design work has already been completed for the Grahame Park estate and council is working towards securing funding through a section 106 agreement for improvements to the Colindale Underground Station, pedestrian environment, existing public space and to local public transport. Similar agreements will be sort with the developers of the other sites in this area. The development of these sites is currently restricted by Aerodrome Road, Council is seeking to address this capacity constraint (see Form 1-24).
3.43 Colindale has been identified as part of phase two of the Mayor’s programme for 100 public spaces. The council will continue to work with the regeneration partners in the area to ensure that enhancements are made to the public realm and walking environment. To move this project forward Levitt-Bernstein Landscape Architects were appointed by council and Choices for Grahame Park to develop an overall open space strategy and work on the detail design.
3.44 The largest regeneration area in the borough is to the south and covers Cricklewood, Brent Cross, and West Hendon. A spatial development framework already exists for the area. This framework incorporates a transport vision that includes improvements to the pedestrian and cycling environment, new and improved public transport and better integration between modes. The pedestrian strategy for the area is based around the Brent River Walkway and new High Street, which will act as a pedestrian spine linking public transport with new urban squares and residential areas.
3.45 The aim of these works is to improve the pedestrian environment making trips on foot within the site more attractive. Better integration between public transport and the new town centre will be developed. A key component in the delivery of better integration is the proposed Rapid Transit System. Other proposed works that will improve public transport and provide a better integration public transport system include; an improved Brent Cross Bus Station, the replacement of Templehof Bridge over the A406 to better accommodate all modes of transport, an additional national rail station and a new link to the A5 from the site via the new rail station.
3.46 The Council has resolved to grant an outline planning permission on the West Hendon site in the north of the area. This outline approval incorporates the
43 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
widening of The Broadway removing the need for the current gyratory. In combination with the widening of the pavement on Herbert Road these works will improve pedestrian access to the nearby Hendon Station. A new public square will also be created off The Broadway that will provide an additional functional social space.
3.47 The planning for Mill Hill Triangle is the least progressed of the three major regeneration sites within the borough. A consultant has been engaged to draft a spatial development framework for the area. This consultancy will look broadly at transport issues, which need to be resolved to facilitate the development of this site and to mitigate the impact of any development on the local transport network.
3.48 The details of the final schemes and the traffic management works associated with these regeneration projects will only be determined once detailed planning application are lodged. This is when a full range of options will be investigated, programmed and funded.
44 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
4. Equality Impact Assessment
4.1. Barnet Council is committed to ensuring equality of access and opportunities for everyone in Barnet by aiming to improve the quality of life of all residents and service users. Putting the Community First: Barnet Council's Equalities Policy outlines its commitment to challenging all forms of inequalities by accepting that discrimination affects people in complex ways.
4.2. Barnet Council has undertaken an Equality Impact Assessment on its Local Implementation Plan (LIP) as a demonstration of its commitment to providing a non-discriminatory LIP which promotes equality and fulfils our duties under the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000.
4.3. The majority of schemes had positive or neutral impacts on the majority of the target groups. Potential low adverse impacts on older people and disabled people were identified for schemes involving the introduction of street trees and some cycling proposals, and actions to mitigate this have been identified. No high adverse impacts were identified to any target group.
Equality Target Groups
4.4. The Equality Target Groups used for the assessment of the LIP are:
• women; • black and minority ethnic people; • young people and children; • older people; • disabled people; • lesbians, gay men and bisexuals; • transgendered people • people from different faith groups.
Particular Concerns of Target Groups
Women
4.5. A study for the Equal Opportunities Commission “Promoting gender equality in transport”: Kerry Hamilton, Linda Jenkins, Frances Hodgson and Jeff Turner: 2005 found that there are differences in the travel patterns of men and women, which are particularly influenced by the greater time women spend on care-related roles.
4.6. It notes that the existing transport system is geared towards the requirements of men, for example in the extent of radial routes in public transport compared to orbital ones, and the emphasis on the peak-time periods in the provision of bus and rail services.
4.7. Particular differences in the transport use of men and women included:
45 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
• Men tend to travel further than women, although they make a similar number of trips; • Men are much more likely than women to travel as car drivers; • Women are more likely to travel as car passengers, or on foot. • Women are slightly more likely than men to travel by public transport, especially to work • Women use buses more than men – men make slightly greater use of trains. • Men are more likely to travel for commuting or business; • Women are more likely to travel for shopping or taking children to school; • More men than women have driving licenses in all age groups – and in two person households men are more likely to be the main car driver; • People in low income groups (which will contain many lone parent households that are mainly headed by women) were more likely to use public transport.
4.8. The study also supports the view that safety concerns can restrict women’s travel at particular times, for example at night. Research for the DfT (People's perceptions of personal security and their concerns about crime on public transport. Published 11 May 2004) confirms women’s greater safety concerns at night. Our annual resident’s survey (2003/04) found that in Barnet women feel only slightly less safe than men during the day (75% and 77% respectively saying that they feel very or fairly safe) but the discrepancy increases sharply after dark when 41% of men feel very or fairly safe compared to just a third of women, and previous surveys had similar findings (e.g. Town Centre surveys (2002) and Citizens Panel VIII).
Black and Minority Ethnic People and faith groups
4.9. Research for the DfT into the transport requirements of minority ethnic and faith communities (Public Transport Needs of Minority Ethnic and Faith Communities Guidance Pack: 2003: Social Research Associates) highlights a range of issues. These include:
• Inadequate understanding by service providers of the transport needs of minority ethnic and faith communities • Language can be a barrier to knowledge of services but provision of written information in community languages may not be the best solution in many cases. • Views of minority ethnic and faith communities may be left out of consultation for a variety of reasons. • Racist behaviour by staff or other passengers is a problem for passengers in minority ethnic and faith communities. Complaints procedures may not be accessible because of language difficulties. • Fear of racist attacks and general personal safety concerns on the transport network, including when walking or waiting at bus stops or in stations, can be a barrier to using the transport network. • Transport services that do not reflect the travel patterns or needs of changing local communities. The extent of radial routes compared to
46 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
orbital ones can make journeys longer and more complicated and expensive, and may not reflect the needs of particular communities. • Young people from minority ethnic and faith communities are very concerned about bullying and violence on the transport network, both on vehicles and while waiting at bus stops and stations.
4.10. Local consultation with groups of 8-11 year olds and 11-21 year olds has also highlighted that young people, particular those from minority groups, do not feel safe on public transport.
4.11. The proportion of households without access to a car is higher among Black people in Barnet than among other ethnic groups. Also the level of Council tenants without a car is high. Black African and “Other Black” groups make up 10% of Council tenants in the borough, but less than 5% of the population as a whole, and it seems likely these groups are the most likely to be without access to a car.
Fig 4.1 ‘No vehicle’ households (residents survey 2004/05)
4.12. Bus travel is the most common mode of public transport for Asian, black and minority ethnic communities, with 55% using bus travel on three or more days a week (compared with 47% of white respondents). (DfT: People's perceptions of personal security and their concerns about crime on public transport. Published 11 May 2004) Many ethnic minority groups are strongly represented among bus passengers (TfL)
4.13. Black children are disproportionately likely to be involved in road traffic accidents (LAAU).
47 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
Young people and children
4.14. Consultation for a Best Value Review on services for Children and Young People in Barnet included discussions with groups of 8-11 year olds and 11- 21 year olds, and highlighted particular transport issues related to personal safety, road safety and public transport.
4.15. Personal safety concerns focused on bullying on public transport. In particular minority groups did not feel safe on public transport. Also on the street young people felt that more lighting in streets and alleyways would help them feel safer.
4.16. Road Safety was seen as important. Young people felt there were may not be enough pedestrian crossings with some roads particularly difficult to cross - in particular North Circular Road and Great North Way were mentioned. Vehicles driving inappropriately, insufficient safe places to cycle and difficulties in accessing cycle training were cited as concerns.
4.17. Public transport issues were also raised by both age groups. The younger group saw public transport as fun and good because it was free (buses and some accompanied weekend underground journeys) and viewed the tube as a good thing about Barnet. However some buses and bus shelters were seen as dirty and unsafe. There were issues with frequency and waiting times for buses and it was highlighted that travel to the nearest leisure facilities or across Barnet often requires two buses, and travel takes too long.
4.18. High levels of traffic are likely to contribute to the limited freedom to travel independently and to play outside experienced by some children.
Older people
4.19. The DfT’s report Older people: their transport needs and requirements highlights a number of issues for older people using various forms of transport.
• Social and leisure trips are areas in which there is unmet need even in urban areas, partly affected by the radial nature of many transport services that may make trips to neighbouring areas difficult. Many older driver’s are concerned that they will be unable to continue their existing activities if they are unable to drive.
• The poor state of maintenance and repair of pavements is a significant issue for many older people, who are concerned about falling.
• Limited or poorly maintained waiting facilities for buses and trains and poor levels of lighting are issues that particularly concern older people, causing practical difficulties and safety concerns.
• Physical difficulties boarding and alighting vehicles and negotiating steps are an issue for many.
48 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
• Older people are more likely to be injured in traffic accidents than the general public.
• They are more likely to be public transport users, especially using buses.
Disabled people
4.20. Various issues can limit the accessibility of transport for disabled people. Considerable guidance is available on best practice for improving accessibility, but much of the country’s transport infrastructure developed prior to this type of guidance being available, and the guidance is still often inconsistently applied.
4.21. Within the street limited space, steps, steep gradients, street clutter and uneven surfaces can all be barriers to those with mobility or sensory difficulties – and in some cases can render particular routes unusable.
4.22. People with disabilities or conditions that prevent them learning to drive may be particularly reliant on public transport, but access to vehicles, stations or transport interchanges may be difficult or impossible.
4.23. People with visual impairments are often particularly reliant on a good level of lighting.
4.24. People with learning disabilities or sensory impairments may not be able to access information provided in some forms.
Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered people
4.25. People in these groups may be the victims of hate crime, and consequently measures to enhance security are likely to be of particular value to them, as to other groups that have security concerns. A survey by GALOP (London’s Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender community safety charity) in 1998 among young people found that 31% of the incidents of abuse and assault suffered by respondents had occurred in the street, with 1% on public transport. The Barnet Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Network is a multiagency partnership committed to raising issues of interest and concerns of Lesbian, Bisexual and Gay people and meets regularly. The network was originally created to respond to the growing incidents of homophobic attacks. This network would be valuable for assessing views on transport matters in the future.
Geographical representation of equality target groups
4.26. The 2001 Census collected wide ranging information about people, and this has been used to help identify areas of the borough that have higher than average numbers of residents belonging to particular equality target groups.
49 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
4.27. This has allowed us to consider whether the location of particular schemes will have a disproportionate impact on some groups. This particularly applies to minority ethnic and faith groups, but also to the age of residents.
4.28. Burnt Oak and Golders Green wards have at least 20% more children under 16 than the borough average, Childs Hill, Colindale, Golders Green and Hendon have at least 20% more people aged 16-25 than the borough average and Garden Suburb and High Barnet have at least 20% more people aged over 75 than the borough average.
Fig 4.2 Wards within the London Borough of Barnet
Black and minority ethnic people and faith groups
4.29. The census collected information on the ethnic group of people and also included an optional question regarding their religion.
4.30. Table 4.1 identifies those wards in the borough that have significantly higher than average numbers of residents from different ethnic groups than the borough average and table 4.1a provides a breakdown of the representation of different faith groups by ward. Also figure 4.3 identifies areas that have particularly high concentrations of some groups, which may not be apparent from the ward breakdown.
4.31. Parts of Totteridge and West Finchley wards had particularly high numbers of people from the ‘other ethnic group’ census category. The same areas also
50 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
had higher than average numbers of people who gave their religion as Buddhist. This is believed to represent the Japanese community living in this area.
4.32. Residents in West Hendon and Colindale were also more likely to record the ‘other ethnic group’ census category. In Colindale this probably represents the Malaysian community in this area.
4.33. There are also relatively high levels of residents who were born in Afghanistan in Colindale and other wards along the western boundary of the borough.
4.34. There is a concentration of Greek Cypriot people living in parts of Brunswick Park ward. This community extends across the borough boundary into Enfield and Haringey.
51 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
Table 4.1 Representation of different ethnic groups in Barnet wards Chinese or Other White Mixed Asian or Asian British Black or Black British Ethnic Group White & White Black and White Other Other Carib- Black and Other Bangla- Other Carib- Other Ethnic British Irish White bean African Asian Mixed Indian Pakistani deshi Asian bean African Black Chinese Group Brunswick Park 63.23 3.14 12.6 0.55 0.41 0.8 0.76 7.67 1.03 0.7 2.54 1.4 2.21 0.28 1.64 1.04 Burnt Oak 52.12 5.08 5.7 0.93 0.95 1.17 1.24 8.3 1.49 0.34 2.83 2.88 9.98 0.79 3.1 3.1 Childs Hill 49.85 4.55 19.25 0.59 0.54 1.26 1.36 5.58 1.43 0.39 2.02 1.31 5.09 0.5 2.16 4.13 Colindale 39.34 4.24 8.05 0.99 1.22 0.84 1.26 11.68 3.19 0.35 3.76 3.51 12.84 1.37 4.34 3.02 Coppetts 58.56 4.16 10.93 0.83 0.65 1.38 1.05 8.63 0.74 0.53 1.77 1.81 4.27 0.48 2.51 1.7 East Barnet 75.13 2.93 8.51 0.55 0.37 0.83 0.65 4.21 0.51 0.23 1.55 0.72 1.96 0.1 0.86 0.88 East Finchley 60.33 4.45 11.73 0.71 0.61 1 1.09 6.99 0.97 0.72 1.26 1.55 4.42 0.47 1.25 2.45 Edgware 64 2.27 6.81 0.450.45 0.63 0.7 12.16 1.33 0.53 1.73 0.99 4.62 0.2 1.64 1.48 Finchley Church End 58.98 2.45 12.74 0.30.38 1.19 0.93 9.35 1.19 0.32 2.22 0.76 3.79 0.2 1.85 3.35 Garden Suburb 65.3 1.51 17.71 0.22 0.2 1.08 0.94 3.4 0.88 0.19 1.38 0.58 2.32 0.08 1.3 2.93 Golders Green 53.88 2.39 16.97 0.4 0.52 1.05 1.11 7.04 1.61 0.68 2.04 0.92 5.37 0.33 2.12 3.58 Hale 61.39 3.33 6.68 0.490.53 0.86 0.87 9.99 1.38 0.55 2.36 1.52 5.13 0.43 2.55 1.93 Hendon 55.91 2.67 14.05 0.4 0.53 1.09 0.99 9.14 1.29 0.5 2.2 1.06 4.73 0.33 2.11 3 High Barnet 80.01 2.72 6.69 0.47 0.3 0.86 0.68 3.29 0.32 0.24 0.82 0.57 1.12 0.06 1.08 0.77 Mill Hill 64.45 3.14 9.03 0.55 0.44 1.32 0.77 6.8 1.48 0.37 1.91 1.13 4.35 0.23 2.23 1.8 Oakleigh 70.38 3.6 9.3 0.370.35 0.92 0.72 6.5 0.82 0.22 1.67 0.73 2.03 0.13 1.11 1.16 Totteridge 62.36 2.57 10.07 0.21 0.26 0.99 1.06 8.5 1 0.27 1.61 0.6 1.92 0.11 2.56 5.9 Underhill 74.72 3.51 5.44 0.51 0.47 0.81 0.8 4.06 0.51 0.52 1.54 1.05 3.28 0.26 1.18 1.34 West Finchley 50.84 3.41 11.97 0.48 0.43 1.09 1.31 15.84 1.21 0.63 1.71 1.01 2.74 0.27 2.46 4.61 West Hendon 41.11 3.89 10.1 0.54 0.37 1.32 0.84 19.11 3.06 0.75 2.98 2.06 6.23 0.32 3.24 4.07 Woodhouse 55.78 4.2 11.27 0.61 0.63 0.97 1.02 13.96 1.08 0.62 1.89 1.38 2.67 0.39 1.4 2.15
Barnet 59.86 3.35 10.82 0.530.51 1.02 0.96 8.62 1.26 0.46 1.99 1.31 4.34 0.35 2.03 2.59
Greater than double the borough average At least one and a half times the borough average At least 1.3 times borough average
52 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
Table 4.1a Representation of different faith groups (percentages) in Barnet wards
Figure 4.3 Representation of ethnic groups in small areas (for areas with high representation of a particular group over a whole ward, see table 4.1).
53 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
Equality target groups and public transport accessibility and regeneration
4.35. Although Barnet is a generally prosperous borough - a place where those who have choice, choose to live - there are some people living in Barnet who experience a disproportionately high level of deprivation. Residents living in these areas are more likely to suffer, among other things, from higher crime, lower educational attainment, higher unemployment and poorer health.
4.36. As identified in chapter 2, some parts of the borough have low public transport accessibility. Some of these are fairly affluent, with higher levels of car ownership, although the lower public transport accessibility in these areas will still tend to impact on anyone who does not have access to a car.
4.37. However other areas with low public transport accessibility are coincident with areas of deprivation and lower car ownership. Notable as areas with high deprivation, low car ownership and low public transport accessibility are the Stonegrove estate in Edgware ward and the Grahame Park Estate in Colindale ward, which will particularly impact on Black people (especially Black African) and Bangladeshi and Chinese people.
4.38. However both of these areas are likely to benefit from the regeneration schemes in the borough, directly through transport improvements linked to the regeneration schemes and indirectly through improved availability of local services reducing the need to travel.
4.39. Other areas of the borough that are the focus of regeneration schemes are such as Cricklewood/West Hendon and the Dollis Valley estate are also among the most deprived areas of the borough, and parts of these areas also have lower public transport accessibility, although this does not have an obvious disproportionate impact on particular minority ethnic or faith groups.
Scheme Assessment
4.40. Assessment of the schemes and programmes contained within the LIP has been carried out based on the methodology employed by TfL. That is a stage 1 ‘screening’ assessment is carried out on all schemes, and a stage 2 ‘detailed’ assessment only carried out where a high level negative impact is identified for any equality target group.
4.41. The results of this screening are summarised in table 4.2. Comments on the overall effect of schemes addressing each of the Mayor’s priority areas are given below. Some schemes impact on more than one of the priority areas, so may be duplicated in the table.
I Improving Road Safety
4.42. Improving road safety benefits all groups. Individual local safety schemes will tend to have a more positive effect on people living in their immediate area. The spread of schemes in the programme (which have been selected based
54 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
on the accident record of sites) benefits most groups. There are particular benefits to children, through one of the local safety schemes in particular and through the road safety education, school travel planning and safer routes to school programmes.
4.43. Some of the proposals could particularly benefit black children who are known to be disproportionately represented in road accidents. The regeneration schemes in the borough may also have positive impact in this respect.
II Improving bus journey times and reliability
4.44. These schemes benefit most groups, but particularly those with higher levels of bus use and the proposal focussing on orbital routes is potentially of particular benefit to those groups (women, BME groups, older people) where it has been identified that radial routes may not meet their particular needs. The clearway programme is also likely to be beneficial to non-bus users. No disproportionate negative impact on any group has been identified.
III Relieving traffic congestion and improving journey time reliability
4.45. Reduced congestion benefits all groups regardless of the mode of transport they use through improved journey times and reduced pollution. Improved coordination of streetworks will particularly benefit some groups. Particular benefits may also accrue to those suffering adverse health effects of pollution.
IV Improving the working of parking and loading arrangements
4.46. This proposal has no particular differential impact on any group. Specific decisions made at a local level will have to weigh competing demands but the overall effect is likely to result in similar benefits to all through reduced congestion leading to improved journey times and reduced pollution, and through ensuring parking is available to those who need it most.
V Improving accessibility and social inclusion on the transport network
4.47. These scheme provide benfits to most groups, but especially to disabled people and older people with restricted mobility. No disproportionate negative impact on any group has been identified.
VI Encourage walking
4.48. The schemes provide benefits to most groups. There are potential negative impacts to older people and disabled people from the if tree planting results in problems from leaf fall or disrupted paving. These are well understood areas of concern among those planting and maintaining street trees, and the need to choose street trees wisely to avoid the potential adverse impacts on disabled or older people is highlighted in the proposal.
VII Encourage cycling
55 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
4.49. Generally positive for all, however could be dis-benefits to disabled people and vulnerable pedestrians if increased cycling on shared routes or on the footway results. However improved conditions for cyclists which are managed to avoid this type of conflict may be beneficial in this regard. In order to mitigate this impact, consultation on any proposal that will involve shared pedestrian and cycle facilities needs to take place with representatives of disabled people (with particular focus on blind people) and representatives of older people, in order that the impact can be understood and considered in the local context.
VIII Bring transport infrastructure to a good state of repair
4.50. Maintenance work and bridge strengthening is mainly carried out based on objective assessments of the carriageway or footway condition or of the carrying capacity of the bridge. Work is carried out where the need for it is greatest based on the assessments. The work benefits all road users, whatever mode of transport they use. There are however particular benefits to older people and disabled people through footway improvements and these groups and children are likely to benefit most from improvements to streetworks co-ordination and planning.
Other schemes
4.51. No disproportionate impacts on any equality target group were identified for the scheme for development of Freight Quality Partnerships; the only scheme included in the LIP that does not have a direct impact on one of the Mayor’s priority areas.
56 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
Table 4.2 - Impact of schemes addressing MTS priority areas on equality target groups.
MTS priority areas Table key
I. Improving road safety ++ High positive impact/benefit to a particular group II. Improving bus journey times and reliability + Low positive impact/benefit to particular group III. Relieving traffic congestion and improving journey time In some cases may represent a positive differential impact – ie reliability proposal is beneficial to all, but particularly beneficial to group IV. Improving the working of parking and loading arrangements considered. V. Improving accessibility and social inclusion on the transport network 0 Neutral for a particular group (or no differential benefit) VI. Encourage walking VII. Encourage cycling - Low negative impact/disadvantage to particular group VIII. Bring transport infrastructure to a good state of repair -- High negative impact/disadvantage to particular group
Scheme number and description Gender Race Age Reasons/Comments MTS priority area Disabled people Lesbians, gay men and bisexuals Trans-gender people Different faith groups Men Women Asian or Asian British people Black or Black British people Chinese people and ‘other’ people People of mixed race White (including Irish) people Older people Younger people and children I 11 Local Safety Scheme – 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 + Benefits to disabled people if pedestrian facilities incorporate improved facilities for A1000 Buckingham Ave- disabled people. Differential benefit to Christians due to higher than average Lyonsdown Road Christian population in Oakleigh Ward 12 Local Safety Scheme – 0 0 + + + + 0 + 0 0 + 0 + Colindale has higher than average proportions of many black and minority ethnic Colindale Ave groups and minority faith groups – differential benefit to these groups. Benefits to disabled people if pedestrian facilities incorporate improved facilities for disabled people. Location of pedestrian facilities near post office likely to be of particular benefit to some older people. 13 Local Safety Scheme – 0 + + 0 0 0 + + 0 0 0 ++ + Particular benefits to children as new pedestrian facilities outside (non-faith based) Claremont Road school. Benefits to disabled people if pedestrian facilities incorporate improved facilities for disabled people. Also slight differential benefit to women who are more likely to be escorting children. Golders Green has higher than average Jewish population and slightly higher than average Muslim population. Higher than average ‘other white’ population and Bangladeshi people – so differential benefit to these groups. 14 Local Safety Scheme – Barnet Road j/w Field End 15 Local Safety Scheme – High 0 + + 0 0 0 0 + + + 0 0 + Benefits to disabled people if pedestrian facilities incorporate improved facilities for Road, North Finchley disabled people. Benefits to groups with higher than average security concerns as improved lighting. Higher than average Indian/Hindu populations in Woodhouse Ward so differential benefit to these groups. 16 Local Safety Scheme – 0 + + ++ + + 0 + + + 0 0 + Benefits to disabled people if pedestrian facilities incorporate improved facilities for Burnt Oak Broadway disabled people. Benefits to groups with higher than average security concerns as improved lighting. Higher than average proportions of many black and minority ethnic groups especially black people (may help address disproportionate levels of accidents among black children). 17 Local Safety Scheme - 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 + Benefits to disabled people if pedestrian facilities incorporate improved facilities for Colney Hatch Lane / disabled people. Higher than average Indian/Hindu populations in Woodhouse
57 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
Scheme number and description Gender Race Age Reasons/Comments MTS priority area Disabled people Lesbians, gay men and bisexuals Trans-gender people Different faith groups Men Women Asian or Asian British people Black or Black British people Chinese people and ‘other’ people People of mixed race White (including Irish) people Older people Younger people and children Woodhouse La Ward so differential benefit to these groups. 18 Local Safety Schemes – 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 + Benefits to disabled people if pedestrian facilities incorporate improved facilities for Hendon Wood La, High disabled people. Higher than average Indian/Hindu populations in Woodhouse Ward so differential benefit to these groups. Other areas broadly average Road/Summers La, and demographically. Dollis Road 19 Future year local safety 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Insufficient information at this time to consider impacts on different groups. schemes However local safety schemes are selected using objective assessment of the sites with the worst accident record. 20 Practical pedestrian training 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ++ 0 Particular focus on children – high benefit to this group 21 School gate congestion 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ++ 0 Particular focus on children – high benefit to this group project 22 Safer routes to school 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ++ 0 Particular benefit to children 23 School travel plan 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ++ 0 Benefits to all through reduced congestion. Also particular benefits for children, and coordinator slight differential benefit to women who are more likely to be escorting children. overall 0 + + + + + + + + + + ++ + Individual local safety schemes particularly benefit people living in their immediate area. Spread of schemes (which have been selected based on the accident record of sites) benefits most groups. Particular benefits to children. II 6/7 Introduce bus priority at 0 + + + + + 0 0 0 0 + + 0 Differentially beneficial to groups with higher bus use including women BME groups appropriate locations on A older people and younger people/children. (Mix of routes involved means areas roads and busy bus routes that particularly benefit, taken together, are broadly average demographically). 8 Bus stop clearway provision 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 + + 0 Benefits to all from fewer delays to all traffic as buses not obstructed at bus stops. Particular benefits to groups that need the bus to pull in to the kerb to allow easier access – this may include those with small children (disproportionately women), some older people and disabled people. 10 Orbital bus priority 0 ++ ++ ++ ++ 0 0 0 0 0 ++ + ++ Differentially beneficial to groups with higher bus use including women BME groups assessment and older people and younger people/children. Potentially of particular benefit to those (women, BME groups, older people) where radial routes may not meet their prioritisation particular needs. overall 0 + + + + + 0 + 0 0 + + + Benefits most groups (clearway programme likely to be beneficial to non-bus users too)– no disproportionate disbenefit to any group III 29 Review of the worst 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Benefits to all, regardless of mode through reduced congestion leading to improved congestion bottlenecks journey times and reduced pollution 47 Workplace travel plans 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 No particular impact on those not in employment (other than through reduction in traffic) but generally equal impact on all. 46 Travel Plan co-ordinator 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lesser impact on those not in employment. Otherwise equal impact on all 36 Car club feasibility study 0 + 0 + 0 0 0 +/- 0 0 + 0 0 Likely to have greater benefits to lower car owning/using groups. May be benefits to disabled people who have difficulty accessing public transport, but will not be an accessible option to all disabled people. 30 Local directional signing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Equal impact to all (benefits to disabled people if obstructions eliminated as intended – potential disbenefits if additional obstructions introduced). 26 Parallel initiatives 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Benefits to all, regardless of mode through reduced congestion leading to improved
58 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
Scheme number and description Gender Race Age Reasons/Comments MTS priority area Disabled people Lesbians, gay men and bisexuals Trans-gender people Different faith groups Men Women Asian or Asian British people Black or Black British people Chinese people and ‘other’ people People of mixed race White (including Irish) people Older people Younger people and children journey times and reduced pollution 48 Developing links to North 0 + 0 + 0 0 0 + 0 0 + + 0 Particular benefits for groups with lower car ownership/use and for those who may London hospitals need to make more visits to hospital to follow up on particular conditions. 31 Streetworks Coordination 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 + + 0 Beneficial for all – but differential positive impact for groups that are most vulnerable to poorly planned roadworks because of uneven surfaces or road/site safety considerations. overall 0 + 0 + 0 0 0 + 0 0 + + 0 Reduced congestion benefits all groups regardless of the mode of transport they use. Improved coordination of streetworks will particularly benefit some groups. Particular benefits may also accrue to those suffering adverse health effects of pollution. IV 24 Waiting and loading on A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Benefits to all, regardless of mode through reduced congestion leading to improved roads and busy bus routes journey times and reduced pollution and ensuring parking available to those who need it most. and CPZ reviews overall 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Similar benefits to all V 3 New Southgate Station + + + + + + 0 0 + + 0 0 + Differential positive impact for men, as they are more likely to suffer a violent attack. Differential positive impact for groups with greater security concerns (women, visible ethnic minorities and faith groups, LGBT groups). 4 Access audit of National + + + + + + + + + + + 0 + Benefits for disabled and older people through improved surface/lighting/dropped Rail stations kerbs and possible removal of obstructions. Benefits to groups with greater security concerns through improved lighting/visibility. People living in areas served by the stations concerned are more likely than average to be white. Greater rail use by men. 9 Improving bus stop 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 ++ 0 0 ++ 0 0 Measures to make entering and exiting buses easier will particularly benefit those accessibility disabled and older people who otherwise find this difficult or impossible. Also of benefit to those with small children (disproportionately women). 45 Support for Community 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 + 0 0 Contribution to freedom passes beneficial to older and disabled people. Transport 38 CCTV + + + + + + 0 0 + + 0 0 + Differential positive impact for groups with greater security concerns. Installation at Whetstone may be particularly beneficial to members of the Barnet, Lesbian and Gay group, which meets regularly there. Differential positive impact for men, as they are more likely to suffer a violent attack. overall + + + + + + + ++ + + ++ 0 + Benefits to most groups – especially disabled people and older people with restricted mobility. No disbenefit to any group. VI 1 Enhancing Transport 0 0 + + + + 0 - 0 0 - 0 + Many wards affected by the presence of busy roads and few street trees also have Corridors above average BME populations. Provision of trees may introduce hazards for disabled or older people through poor positioning, tree roots disturbing paving or leaf fall causing a hazard. 2 Creating a green 0 0 + + + + 0 - 0 0 - 0 + Many wards affected by the presence of busy roads and few street trees also have environment above average BME populations. Provision of trees may introduce hazards for disabled or older people through poor positioning, tree roots disturbing paving or leaf fall causing a hazard. 49 Greening the fleet 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Minor disbenefits to groups under-represented in the workforce as they would not have access to some of the possible benefits (however as these generally relate to defraying additional costs of green travel to work disbenefit considered marginal). 25 Parking discount scheme for + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Differential benefit for those with higher car use (who choose to convert to
59 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
Scheme number and description Gender Race Age Reasons/Comments MTS priority area Disabled people Lesbians, gay men and bisexuals Trans-gender people Different faith groups Men Women Asian or Asian British people Black or Black British people Chinese people and ‘other’ people People of mixed race White (including Irish) people Older people Younger people and children alternative fuel vehicles alternative fuel and do not already have parking privileges) – but no disbenefit to those without a car. Other groups environmental benefits only. 3 New Southgate Station + + + + + + 0 0 + + 0 0 + Differential positive impact for men, as they are more likely to suffer a violent attack. Differential positive impact for groups with greater security concerns (women, visible ethnic minorities and faith groups, LGBT groups). 4 Access audit of National + + + + + + + + + + + 0 + Benefits for disabled and older people through improved surface/lighting/dropped Rail stations kerbs and possible removal of obstructions. Benefits to groups with greater security concerns through improved lighting/visibility. People living in areas served by the stations concerned are more likely than average to be white. Greater rail use by men. 5 Regeneration Schemes – 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Likely to be benefits to many groups through improved accessibility to this major Cricklewood regeneration area – proposals to general at present to assess fully. 35 Local Bus Access/ 0 0 + ++ + + 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 Improved accessibility to Colindale area. Higher than average proportion of Regeneration Schemes – younger people and children living in this area and BME groups. Therefore differential benefits to these groups particularly black groups, who are also less Aerodrome Road likely to own a car. 37 Footway Maintenance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 ++ 0 0 Particularly beneficial for older people who have been identified as having particular concerns about poorly maintained footways. Also beneficial for disabled people as uneven footways can be a particular barrier to this group. 39 Local Walking Initiatives 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + + + + 0 + Benefits for disabled and older people through improved surface/lighting/dropped kerbs and possible removal of obstructions. Benefits to groups with greater security concerns through improved lighting/visibility. 41 Introduction of Pedestrian 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 + + 0 Particular benefits for more vulnerable groups, especially where new pedestrian Phasing at traffic signals facilities provided. Incorporation of facilities to help disabled people will also be beneficial for this group. 40 Healthy walking campaign 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Equal benefit to most groups. No disbenefit to groups who find walking difficult.. 27 Town centre audits 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 + 0 0 Benefits for all – but likely to be particular benefits for disabled or older people through removal of barriers to use of town centre. 38 CCTV + + + + + + 0 0 + + 0 0 + Differential positive impact for groups with greater security concerns. Installation at Whetstone may be particularly beneficial to members of the Barnet, Lesbian and Gay group, which meets regularly there. Differential positive impact for men, as they are more likely to suffer a violent attack. overall + + + ++ + + 0 + + + + + + Benefits to most groups – however potential disbenefits to older people and disabled people if tree planting results in problems from leaf fall or disrupted paving VII 3 New Southgate Station + + + + + + 0 0 + + 0 0 + Differential positive impact for men, as they are more likely to suffer a violent attack. Differential positive impact for groups with greater security concerns (women, visible ethnic minorities and faith groups, LGBT groups). 4 Access audit of National + + + + + + + + + + + 0 + Benefits for disabled and older people through improved surface/lighting/dropped Rail stations kerbs and possible removal of obstructions. – Benefits to groups with greater security concerns through improved lighting/visibility. People living in areas served by the stations concerned are more likely than average to be white. Greater rail use by men. 42 LCN+ + 0 0 0 0 0 0 +/- 0 0 0 + 0 Differential benefits to men and younger people due to greater rates of cycling among these groups. Potential dis-benefits to disabled people and vulnerable pedestrians if increased cycling on shared routes or on the footway results. Improved conditions for cyclists which are managed to avoid this type of conflict
60 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
Scheme number and description Gender Race Age Reasons/Comments MTS priority area Disabled people Lesbians, gay men and bisexuals Trans-gender people Different faith groups Men Women Asian or Asian British people Black or Black British people Chinese people and ‘other’ people People of mixed race White (including Irish) people Older people Younger people and children may be beneficial however. 43 Cycle Training 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ++ 0 Particular focus on children – high benefit to this group overall + + + + + + + +/- + + +/- + + Generally positive for all, however could be dis-benefits to disabled people and vulnerable pedestrians if increased cycling on shared routes or on the footway results. Improved conditions for cyclists which are managed to avoid this type of conflict may be beneficial however. VIII 32 Principal Road Maintenance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Benefits to all – areas selected on objective assessment of carriageway condition 33 Non-Principal Road 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Benefits to all – areas selected on objective assessment of carriageway condition Maintenance 34 Bridge Strengthening 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Benefits to all – bridges selected on objective assessment of need 37 Footway Maintenance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 ++ 0 0 Particularly beneficial for older people who have been identified as having particular concerns about poorly maintained footways. Also beneficial for disabled people as uneven footways can be a particular barrier to this group. 31 Streetworks Coordination 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 + + 0 Beneficial for all through reduced delays – but differential positive impact for groups that are most vulnerable to poorly planned roadworks because of uneven surfaces or road/site safety considerations. overall 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 + + 0 Maintenance work and bridge strengthening is mainly carried out based on objective assessments of the carriageway or footway condition or of the carrying capacity of the bridge. Work is carried out where the need for it is greatest based on the assessments. The work benefits all road users, whatever mode of transport they use. There are however particular benefits to older people and disabled people through footway improvements and these groups and children are likely to benefit most from improvements to streetworks co-ordination and planning. 44 Freight Quality Partnerships 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Equal benefits to all other
61 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
5. LIP Proposals for MTS Priority Areas, Targets and Appendix C
INTRODUCTION
5.1 This Chapter of the LIP contains all of the transport-related schemes and proposals that are forecast for further development or implementation between 2005/06 and 2010/11 within Barnet. Most of the schemes and proposals are in response to the objectives of the Mayor’s Transport Strategy.
5.2 A response to mandatory objectives could consist of either an update of where an existing programme is up to and/or what it has achieved. Alternatively, where no schemes have been undertaken in the past or are currently being undertaken, then a detailed proposal or scheme outlining how the Borough proposes to address an objective has been included.
5.3 A copy of all Form 1’s forms the basis of Appendix A. Referencing of LIP forms is relatively simple and each scheme has a unique reference number. Form 2 (Proposal Summary Sheet) is identical to that provided in the LIP Guidance. The purpose of Form 2 is to show a summary of the Borough response to the strategies and policies in the Mayor’s Transport Strategy.
Completed Scheme Forms
5.5 All completed Form 1’s are contained within Appendix A The summary Form 2 is included as a part of this chapter (Table 5.1).
5.6 LIP Proposal forms were returned putting forward a large number of options for work over the next 3 years from the 2005/06 financial year.
Borough Response
5.7 A detailed breakdown of the Borough response to each Mayoral objective together with proposed scheme/s is attached as Appendix A. This breakdown is based on the headings contained within the LIP Guidance document. It is a useful reference tool to identify the existing Borough actions in response to a particular aspect of the Mayor’s Transport Strategy and whether a scheme is proposed.
5.8 An explanation for each of the columns in the table contained in Appendix A is as follows: • Column 1 – Mayor’s Transport Strategy policy reference number • Column 2 - Borough Response statement taken from LIP Guidance Document • Column 3 - Borough action and progress statement • Column 4 - Scheme required (y- yes/n- no) • Column 5 - Scheme reference number • Column 6 - Scheme name
62 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
• Column 7 - Funding source/s • Column 8 - Estimated cost • Column 9 - Estimated timing of Scheme
LIP Proposal Summary Sheet
5.9 The LIP Proposal Summary Sheet (Table 5.3) at the end of this Chapter lists the Mayoral outcome areas and contains cross-references to the relevant schemes. The inclusion of this table is a requirement of the LIP Guidance Document. Many of the schemes relate to more than one outcome area and are identified as such. It is noted that some of the priority areas do not have schemes listed against them and the current Council response to those areas is detailed in Appendix A of the draft LIP.
Summary of Schemes
5.10 The following list (Table 5.1 - Summary of Schemes) is a summary of the schemes in the LIP listed under the headings provided in the LIP Guidance document.
5.11 The following provides an overview of some of the key schemes detailed above and within Appendix A It is listed according to headings contained within the LIP Guidance.
Table 5.1 – Summary of Schemes
Development Scheme Proposal Plan/Strategy Number
Strategies 1 Tree planting along transport corridors 2 Creating a green environment Underground No schemes DLR & Tramlink No schemes 3 New Soutgate Station Access audit of National Rail Rail 4 stations 5 Cricklewood Regeneration 6 Bus Priority (Barnet) 7 Bus Priority (LBPN) 8 Bus stop clearway provision Improving bus stop accessibility Bus 9 Orbital bus priority assessment and 10 prioritisation
63 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
11 LSS - A1000 Buckingham Avenue
12 LSS - Colindale Avenue 13 LSS - Claremont Road 14 Barnet 15 LSS - High Road, North Finchley
16 LSS - Burnt Oak Broadway 17 LSS - Colney Hatch Lane 18 LSS Schemes under £100k • Dollis Road • Hendon Wood Lane • High Road / Summers Lane
19 Future LSS scheme funding
20 Practical Pedestrian Training 21 School Gate Congestion Project Streets 22 School Travel Plan / SRTS 23 School Travel Plan Co-ordinator
Waiting & Loading on A roads and 24 Busy bus routes 25 Alternative fuel parking discount schemes 26 Parallel Initiatives 27 Town Centre Audits 28 Street lighting Review of the worst congestion 29 bottlenecks 30 Local Direction Signage 31 Streetworks Co-ordination 32 Principal Road Maintenance Non-Principal Road Maintenance 33 34 Bridge Strengthening 35 Regeneration Scheme - Aerodrome Road Car 36 Car Club Feasibility Study Walking 37 Footway Renewal 38 CCTV 39 Local Walking Initiatives
64 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
40 Healthy Walking Campaign 41 Programme for the investigation and introduction of pedestrian phases.
42 LCN+ Cycling 43 Cycle Training Freight 44 Developing FQP International Issues No schemes Water No schemes Taxi No schemes Accessible 45 Community Transport schemes Transport 46 Travel Plan Co-ordinator 47 Workplace Travel Plans Integration Developing links to North London 48 hospitals 49 Greening the fleet campaign Major Projects No schemes
STRATEGIES
Barnet Unitary Development Plan (UDP) 5.12 Post inquiry revisions currently being made to the UDP and will be updated in the Final LIP. Barnet was the first London borough to adopt a UDP in the initial round in 1991. The Council commenced its review of the UDP in 1998.
5.13 We now expect to adopt the review UDP in autumn 2005 and maintain, through the LDF and saved review UDP policies, an up to date plan that can direct future development in Barnet.
5.14 Once adopted, the emerging policies of the review UDP will be saved for a period of three years. These policies were scrutinised at a Public Local Inquiry in spring 2004. The UDP Inspector’s Report was published by the Council in November 2004. Until the Local Development Framework replaces all of the saved policies, the policies of the review UDP (adoption expected in autumn 2005) will continue to be used by the Council, along with the Mayor’s London Plan, to determine planning applications. Under the new planning system the Mayor’s London Plan has development plan status.
Consultation with local voluntary and community groups
65 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
5.15 Barnet Council regularly undertakes Public Consultation exercises on specific issues of concern to the community or about how we manage and deliver our public services. We try to get as broad a range of views as possible. We consult with representatives from community organisations and the Barnet Civic Network. (The Network brings together organisations that represent the full range of local communities to think through key issues for the future of the Borough).
5.16 We also have our own Citizen’s Panel to help us gauge the opinions and comments of residents. The panel is made up of 1,000 Barnet residents, selected to be representative of the adult population of the whole borough – based on ward, age, gender, ethnicity, socio economic status, employment status, housing tenure, faith and disability. The panel helps to obtain an accurate picture of Barnet residents' views. Services use the panel to find out residents' views on various aspects of council services, their concerns about living in Barnet and their perception of the council and any other aspect that may affect residents. (refer to CHapter 5 - para ? for further detail).
5.17 Barnet Voluntary Services Council (BVSC) is an active member of the Local Strategic Partnership and Safer Communities Board and worked with the Council and Barnet Volunteer Bureau to develop the Voluntary and Community Sector Compact. This provides a framework for joint working between the sector and the Council and recognises the contribution the sector makes to development of local policy and delivery of services.
5.18 The compact includes a Code of Practice on consultation and communication with the Voluntary and Community Sector to ensure the benefits of the consultation are maximised. A Best Value Review of Working with the Voluntary and Community Sector is currently taking place.
5.19 Barnet has recently carried out a Best Value Review of transport which has also informed the LIP. This included consultation with the Citizens Panel and an external challenge event involving representatives from a range of voluntary and community groups including BVSC, the Federation of Residents Associations in London Borough of Barnet (FORAB), the Barnet Borough Senior Citizen s Forum and Barnet Community Transport. Disability Action in the Borough of Barnet (DAbB) were unable to send a representative to the event, but have been consulted on the draft LIP.
5.20 A Transport User Group has recently been established in North Finchley specifically to discuss issues related to footway works in that area. Consultation with this group will help to inform future schemes and the Streetscape Design Guide that is currently being prepared.
5.21 Consultation with Voluntary and Community groups regarding the detailed development of schemes follows the principles laid out in the Voluntary and Community Sector Compact. Groups are consulted about issues that are relevant to their members, where they can genuinely influence the decisions made.
66 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
Air Quality 5.22 The whole of London Borough of Barnet was declared an Air Quality Management Area in April 2001. Barnet's Air Quality Action Plan, which takes account of the proposals relevant to borough AQAPs set out in the Mayor's Air Quality Strategy, was approved by the cabinet in January 2003. It includes the action point to make the borough a LEZ by including the borough in a London-wide LEZ, although stated that the decision whether or not to include Barnet in a London wide LEZ will only be taken when the feasibility study and options have been fully assessed by the Council.
5.23 Following publication of the feasibility report Scientific Services briefed Cabinet members and Barnet’s representative on the ALG Transport and Environment Committee on the findings of the Report for the TEC meeting in October 2003. At this meeting, there was support in principle for the LEZ concept, subject to a final decision by the TEC; in particular for a manual approach targeted at lorries, buses and coaches.
5.24 However, there were some outstanding concerns and therefore a need for more information, which is still awaited. Also concerns remain that the costs of such a scheme to the community as a whole may not be justified, given that the changes would be achieved in any event albeit over a slightly longer timeframe.
Ambient Noise 5.25 The opportunity in the Cricklewood regeneration area for the use of rail freight will be exploited. Barnet will continue to work closely with rail companies to minimise noise due to track and embankment maintenance work. The use of SMA for road surfaces (quieter road surfacing material) will be continued.
Biodiversity 5.26 A programme of tree planting is being developed to counteract pollution and noise and to enhance transport corridors. This will include; • Provision of street trees particularly in areas that currently have few of these; and • Provision of areas of tree planting, particularly (where possible) in areas of poor air quality, and/or other sites near major roads to counteract pollution and/or noise.
Waste 5.27 The North London Waste Authority (NLWA) will only support the transfer of waste by rail wherever this can be shown to offer Best Value. This issue has been raised with TfL and needs to be discussed further with the NLWA as it could result in an increase in road freight outside Barnet’s control.
UNDERGROUND
5.28 See the below section on Rail for information on Crime and Disorder Strategy and Barnet’s actions working towards Safer Travel at night and Chapter 3.
67 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
DLR AND TRAMLINK
5.29 DLR and Tramlink is not applicable to Barnet.
RAIL Crime & Disorder 5.30 The crime & disorder strategy 2005- 2008 has recently been updated and approved by Cabinet (see chapter 3 for more detail).
Safer Travel at Night 5.31 Barnet’s website is currently undergoing significant redesign. Clear and easy to find links will be established on our new website to promote TfL's Safer Travel at Night initiatives, including the underground’s women’s campaign, text home and Taxi One Number campaigns. Barnet will also assist in distrusting information leaflets throughout Council offices and public buildings.
5.32 From 14 January 2005 NightCab, a late night marshalled taxi service, had offered a safe environment and transportation for people travelling from Edgware Bus Station to surrounding areas. The six month trial marshalled and operated by taxi firm Computer Cab plc, provided shared licensed taxis for passengers on their final stretch home. A service controller met passengers and allocate taxis. Women only taxis will be available if required and CCTV is in operation in the waiting area. The cost to a passenger is a standard £5.00 and the service is available to addresses within postal areas NW7, HA7 and HA8. Unfortunately, the trial was not extended as Computer Cab found that the exercise was costly and patronage was not high enough to sustain the service. Council will review the results of this trial and investigate whether lesions learnt from this trail could help to develop a feasible NightCab service in the borough.
5.33 Currently all Thameslink stations within the Borough meet the Secure Stations criteria. Barnet will work with the WAGN franchise to assist in bring all WAGN stations within the Borough up to the secure station standard. New Southgate will be the first station where works will be undertaken to improve security (See Form 1-3)
Accessibility 5.34 There are only two tube stations and one train station within Barnet that currently have step free access. These are Woodside Park and West Finchley on the High Barnet branch of the Northern Line and the southbound platform at Hendon on the Thameslink line. Council will investigate whether these stations are appropriately served by ground floor buses and whether ample disabled parking is provided. Four additional tube stations have been identified to undergo works to provide step free access to the platforms. The borough will encourage schemes that establish a core network of accessible National Rail stations including those within the borough. Some of these stations are in need of a major refurbishment and that opportunity for investment should be used to procure facilities for full accessibility at the same time. Council will work with TfL to provide appropriate disable parking and
68 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
other near station improvements as TfL’s station improvement program is implemented.
5.35 A partnership with LB of Enfield will see the Installation of CCTV and improved lighting on the roads and footpaths in the area surrounding New Southgate rail station (WAGN). The work crosses the boundary between Barnet and Enfield and a co-ordinated approach is required to prevent problems being displaced from one side of the boundary to the other.
5.36 An audit of walking and cycling routes within approximately 800m of New Barnet, Oakleigh Park, New Southgate Stations (WAGN stations) and Mill Hill (Thameslink) will help to identify barriers to walking and cycling to stations. Where simple low cost solutions are readily apparent these improvements will be implemented including signing or lighting improvements, localised footway improvements including provision of dropped kerbs where appropriate. A programme will also be developed of higher cost measures that may be required. If such measures are required and the audits highlights the need for more comprehensive schemes further work will be coordinated in the form of a Station Access - Area Based Scheme.
5.37 Accessibility to Cricklewood and Hendon stations will be improved as part of ongoing regeneration in these areas. (See Chapter 3, 3.37 and 3.38 for more detail)
BUS
Bus Priority Enforcement 5.38 The Council is committed to effective enforcement of bus priority and works closely with other LBPN agencies.
5.39 All bus routes are on our Priority 1 gritting routes which are pre-treated before ice or snow is expected. Outlined below is the priority criteria for gritting on bus routes during periods of cold weather.
• Priority 1 - Principal Roads, Class 1 District Roads which are used as main commuter routes and Bus Routes. • Carriageways on these highways are pre-treated with grit (rock salt) when ice or frost may form. Gritting is normally carried out at night, starting when the evening traffic peak is over. In times of snow, Priority 1 routes will be gritted first and until these routes are found to be safe and running, treatment of Priority 2 routes will not commence.
• Priority 2 - Carriageways and footways in the vicinity of Shopping Centres, Railway Stations, Hospitals, Public Buildings and Schools. Cul-de-sacs with steep gradients. • The highest risk footways, as detailed in paragraph 4.1 (b) below, will be pre-treated when severe frost or snow is forecast. Other footways and carriageways will be treated only in times of snow.
69 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
• Priority 3 - Remaining carriageways and an appropriate side of footways. • Priority 3 roads are only treated in times of heavy snow and then only when Priorities 1 and 2 have been completed.
• In order to optimise the efficiency of the available fleet of gritting vehicles, the gritting of carriageways in Priorities 2 and 3 may be combined in times of snow.
Standing / garage facilities 5.40 Without prejudice to its duties as a Local Planning Authority and other legislative requirements, the Council will assist London Buses/bus operators to procure garage space as far as reasonably practicable. The Council would welcome suggestions of suitable locations for new bus garages from TfL and is aware that a gap exists in provision in the eastern/central areas of the borough.
Bus Priority (Streetscape) 5.41 The Council is pursuing the "freeflow" objective, demonstrated at Temple Fortune, at many of its town centre hotspots, and is seeking to expand this principle at junctions and across the road network where both physical improvements and waiting / loading restrictions can show benefits to all road users, including those in buses.
Clearways 5.42 The Council is setting out a programme of local clearway protection of all bus stops on main roads and busy bus routes. Hours of operation for clearways will reflect bus operating hours and local conditions.
5.43 The programme will be integrated with the bus stop accessibility programme as the provision of a clearway marking is usually essential to achieve full accessibility.
5.44 Many stops in the borough already have clearway markings though these need to be reviewed to ensure they are enforceable. Implementation of new clearways will be prioritised according to volume of passengers and buses and local conditions. In relation to the Strategic Road Network, the approval of TfL's Network Assurance team will be sought, and similar consideration of the needs of all road users will be taken into account in all other locations.
5.45 The council considers the introduction or extension of a clearway to be a significant change to the waiting and loading restrictions and as such, should be subject to similar consultation to that undertaken for general waiting and loading restrictions.
5.46 In locations where the conflicting needs of frontagers and buses cannot be resolved, consideration will be given to the relocation of the bus stop in agreement with London Buses in accordance with established procedures.
70 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
Bus Priority (Traffic Enforcement) 5.47 The Council recognises the important role buses have in the movement of people around the borough, particularly in areas subject to regeneration. The Council will assist in ensuring that buses are protected against unnecessary congestion so far as is practicable using traffic management measures agreed with TfL through the LBPN process. Priority measures used will be appropriate to individual sites and in relation to the Strategic Road Network, will be subject to approval by TfL's Network Assurance team. Similar consideration of the needs of all road users will apply to all other borough roads, and where appropriate, a multi-modal corridor approach will be considered.
Accessible Bus Stops 5.48 The Council has set out a programme to make, where practicable, all bus stops fully accessible. With limited funding available, the bus stop accessibility programme will be prioritised according to volume of passenger movements and other local factors - for example stops near hospitals or other facilities with higher than usual volumes of passengers who would benefit from accessibility measures.
5.49 In order to deliver this programme in a cost effective and targeted manner, the council considers the first step to be an audit of conditions and requirements at all stops in the borough. The has been discussed with TfL and funding bids have been included within the borough's BSP submission.
Coach Parking 5.50 The Council will propose new purpose built coach pick up / set down facilities in association with local buses at the Cricklewood Rail Lands regeneration scheme.
STREETS
Powered two wheelers 5.51 There are no areas of high demand for powered two-wheelers(P2W) in Barnet. There are a small number of motorcycle parking areas in the borough, the general position is that solo motorcycles may park free of charge in the Council’s permit parking places and pay and display spaces.
Signage 5.52 There are regular meetings with TfL and bus operators to discuss enforcement and maintenance issues and no significant problems have been identified.
Road Safety 5.53 The Road Safety Plan is detailed in Chapter 6 and the School Travel Plan Strategy is detailed in Chapter 8. A programme of Local Safety Schemes is identified each year.
Parallel Initiatives
71 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
5.54 A number of the borough’s strategic roads, other A roads and busy bus routes have numerous conflicting demands as they fulfil multiple purposes. The same road may be a transport route for a wide range of modes, a shopping street, a business area and a residential area, and at some points it will fulfil many of these functions simultaneously.
5.55 These roads are likely to have multiple proposals made in the next few years, aimed at meeting different transport objectives. In order to ensure that these are managed in such a way that synergies can result, and manage the inevitable conflicts between the different demands we propose that a series of corridor studies are undertaken. These studies will take account of the different demands and constraints on the routes and the different proposals that are currently identified (and others that are identified as a result of the study) can be developed in the light of this, and any measures implemented in the most cost effective way.
5.56 As identified in chapter 3 the Motorway and GLA road corridors incorporating the M1, A1 and A41 and the A406 have a major impact on the borough and these should ideally be studied first. However changes to these routes are unlikely to occur in the short term and it is not feasible to delay proposals for the other roads.
5.57 It is therefore intended to carry out multi-modal corridor studies on routes in Barnet with a view to co-ordinating scheme proposals taking account of route demands and constraints, and managing conflicts between different demands as set out below.
A1000 2006/07 A5 2006/07 A110 2006/07 A5100 2007/08 A598 2008/09 A5109 2008/09 A504 2009/10 A1003 2009/10 B550 2009/10
Town Centres 5.58 The historical development pattern of Barnet has created many small town centres with no one dominate centre. The London Plan identifies twelve district centres and one major centre (Edgware) within Barnet, making Barnet the most populous borough in term of town centres.
5.59 At the end of the 1990’s Barnet embarked on a program of streetscape improvements in a number of the town centres. This project had a budget of roughly £800,000. This budge primarily covered improvements to street furniture, removal/replacement of guard rails, additional plant beds, some entry treatments and pedestrian refuses. However, since the budget per town centre was relatively small only minor improvements were made to each town centre.
72 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
5.60 The council is currently preparing an urban design guide for the borough. This will include design guidance for town centres’ streetscapes.
5.61 The borough supports the North London Transport Forum proposal for audits in the regions’ metropolitan and major centres (Form 1- 27). The completion of such an audit in Edgware will assist Barnet to prepare future area based scheme in this town centre and is crucial to Barnet’s town centres program.
5.62 In 2005/2006 £1m of prudential borrowing is being spent on footway maintenance mainly targeted at pavements in Town Centres with North Finchley Town Centre being identified as the first Town Centre for major repairs at an estimated cost of £500k (Form 1 - 30). In order to maximise the improvement to the street scene, necessary action will be taken to tidy up any associated infrastructure and eliminate street clutter generally. The detail design work considered the following issues: the immediate surrounds and compatibility of design drop kerbs and ramps at crossing and junctions ease to reinstate pavement if disturbed remove barriers that restrict use by visually and mobility impaired users (including making bus stops accessible) tidy up any associated infrastructure and eliminate unnecessary street clutter
5.63 The works at North Finchley provide an example of how planned footway and carriageway maintenance will be coordinated and how the community will be consulted on future projects. The works were coordinated with the resurfacing of Ballards Lane as well as with other planned works and activities such as block cleansing and local shop delivery schedules. Meetings were held with representatives of the police, London buses, TfL, Arts Depot, local traders and residents association, Barnet borough sight impaired group, contractors and other interested parties. Regular reports were circulated to cabinet members, senior management, residents and traders.
5.64 There are a number of other work programs that will take place in town centres, these included carriageway resurfacing (form 1 – 27, 28), directional signs (form 1 - 26), various local safety schemes (form 1 - 8, 10, 11 and 12), CCTV (form 1 - 41) as well as work associated with the lighting PFI. Table 5.2. provides a summary of information on planned and completed works within town centres. The publication of this information is the first step towards better coordination of these works both internally and with TfL projects. Burnt Oak, Colindale, Golders Green and Whetstone are the four town centres with the most planned works in the next 3 financial years. Barnet will work with TfL, through improved two way communication, to move towards a more integrated area based approach to these works. Barnet will also consult with TfL when these works involve the strategic road network and throughout the development of our corridor approach.
5.65 Where town centres fall within major regeneration areas the any works in the town centre will be coincide with the regeneration project. Development will
73 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
happen in these areas over a number of years and different contribution will be sort from each planning approval through a section 106. These works and the design of these works will be coordinated by special regeneration team within Highways and Design.
Table 5.2. Town Centres, phasing of environmental street improvements Town Centre Planned LSS Planned CCTV Station Regen. Previous maintenance Station Parking area works improv. review (97/98) Brent Street 05/06 No Carriageway Burnt Oak 06/07 - NRF 06/07 Exists Yes – S Chipping Barnet 06/07 2010 Exists Proposed Yes – M Footway Church end, 07/08 - NRF 2007 05/06 Yes – S Finchley (central) Colindale 07/08 - NRF 05/06 2007 Exists Major No at Tube Cricklewood 06/07 - NRF Exists Major No East Finchley 05/06 06/07 Yes – VS Footway Edgware 2010 Exists Yes – VS Golders Green 06/07 - NRF 06/07 Minor Yes – S Hendon Central 2007 Exists Mill Hill Thames- 05/06 Proposed Yes – S Link New Barnet WAGN Proposed Yes – VS North Finchley Current 06/07 Exists Minor No project Whetstone 07/08 - NRF 2007 06/07 Proposed No Temple Fortune redesign & Yes - S resurfaced Previous works size – VS = very small under 60K, S = Small 60K to 100K, M = Medium over 100K NRF – Neighbourhood Renewal fund, funding source OPDM, bid document has been submitted Phase – 1= pre2008, phase 2 2009 – 2011, rg= with regeneration, C = current, D = complete.
Parking and Enforcement Plan 5.66 The Parking and Enforcement Plan is detailed in Chapter 7.
LTCC 5.67 The Council currently produce weekly programme of the Councils work on the public highway. Further details on Council’s approach to streetwork co- ordination are included in Form 1-31.
Highways Asset Management Plan 5.68 Barnet will implement the below programme which will ensure that council meets the timetable defined by the Department for Transport for Traffic Management Act Implementation.
5.69 The Department for Transport has release Guidance Document for Highway Infrastructure Asset Valuation but has indicates that the publication of the
74 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
other Codes of Practice surrounding co-ordination of works on the roads will be delayed. In addition, permitting will come into force Spring 2007
5.70 Highways Asset Management System Programme 1. Tender documents issued – 28 November 2005 2. Tender award for HAMS – 23 December 2005 3. Post tender negation – 27 January 2006 4. Development of links with SAP – 24 February 2006 5. Implementation of HAMS and migration from Symology – 10 March 2006 6. Implementation of SAP links – 31 March 2006 7. Implementation of new co-ordination and inspections practice – Autumn 2006 8. Implementation of Permitting – Summer 2007
5.71 Additionally, there will be information feeds for TfL LondonWorks at a date to be agreed; at this point it is envisaged that this will be included in the HAMS implementation.
5.72 Tender timescales are designed around award prior to Christmas 2005, allowing 3 clear months to develop and test links to SAP, to implement the new system and train staff as appropriate. Development, testing and implementation of the links with SAP are scheduled to be included with the SAP phase 2 implementation, due April 2006.
5.73 Detailed Year 1 implementation Regional Working Groups - Continue to attend and provide feedback at quarterly LOTAG 2 meetings. Align Systems - SAP Works Order Management Module has been implemented from the 1/8/05, and is operational. To compliment this Highways Asset Data Management will be contained in a data HAMS system. (See programme) Identify Asset Groups etc - Main areas outlined in SAP, the remainder will be developed alongside the implementation of HAMS Compile Data, unit rates, models - The collecting point for all this will be in the HAM System – see timetable below. The processes for collecting the data will be uploading data we already have, data cleansing, specific surveys for specific areas, and agreeing that some will gradually come together with a combination of all of the above, and current inspections. Trial the Asset Valuation - Asset valuation will be undertaken within SAP, and the system has been designed to act as the vehicle for holding all balance sheet details. Data from HAMS will be constantly uploaded into SAP (which provides the procurement and finance functions), and from this construction and asset data will be updated to inform asset condition and value.
CAR
Park and Ride
75 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
5.74 The location of the London Borough of Barnet on the outer northern boundary of Greater London fits within the Mayor’s Transport Strategy as a location where a park-and-ride scheme could be considered. The M1, midlands mainline corridor provides a high order link into London from northern areas and could be suitable for a major park-and-ride site. A site along this corridor could provide a linkage between the motorway network and high frequency public transport.
5.75 If a site was to be developed along this corridor it could also provide an interchange with regional bus services that currently stop at Golders Green. Developing a park-and-ride site along this corridor would either require the major redevelopment of an existing station or the development of a new train station along this corridor. The preferred location for a new station for park- and-ride purposes would be at the existing Scratchwood Services where a direct connection with the M1 could be created. Any assessment of a park- and-ride along this corridor must consider the whole corridor and from where motorists would be attracted from.
Review of parking provision 5.76 A quick evaluation of tube and national rail stations within the borough has been conducted to identify suitable stations where a review of current car parking could be undertaken with the intention of increase the number of car parking spaces. This quick analysis was based on a number of criteria and is presented in Table 5.3.
Table 5.3. Assessment of Stations Station Rail line Step Outer Low Limited Good Existing Name free suburb annual bus connection parking access location patronage with SRN Mill Hill Thames Yes Yes Yes 52 Broadway -link Edgware 2010 Yes - Burnt Oak Yes 200 +/- High 2010 Yes Yes Yes 200 Barnet New WAGN Yes Yes 90 +/- Barnet Oakleigh WAGN Yes Yes - Park Totte & Yes Yes Yes 87 Whetstone Mill Hill Yes Yes 45 East
5.77 The four stations which should be considered in a first round review of parking are Mill Hill Broadway, High Barnet, Totteridge and Whetstone and New Barnet.
76 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
Car Sharing 5.78 The North London transport website (www.northlondontransport.org) was the first of six sub-regional websites that between them now cover the whole of the Greater London area. One aspect of the website is a car-sharing scheme for North London, which provides users with free access to a database of people willing to share their journeys with other members of the Car Sharing scheme. Users can search the database for other users whose registered journeys match their own, or enter their own journey and be contacted by the system when a match becomes available.
WALKING
Walking Schemes 5.79 A rolling programmes of planned footway renewal works are formulated annually. Form 1- 30 provides more detail on how the annual program is formed. While Paragraphs 5.51 and 5.52 provide an example of the detail design considerations and a more detailed consultation process.
Walking Plan 5.80 The Council will promote walking routes on boroughs website. Currently leaflets and information is available on Barnet’s Millennium Walk, Woodridge nature trail, Oak Hill Woods trail, Dollis Valley Greenwalk, and the London LOOP. www.barnet.gov.uk/environment_transport/park_count_open/walks_trails.php3
5.81 Barnet’s Health and Sports Development Team currently run a program called Walk for Life. This program offers ongoing support to lead community based walks.
Strategic Routes 5.82 The Strategic Walks Project has the responsibility of implementing 6 strategic walks throughout London. Two of these Strategic Walks cross the Borough of Barnet, the London LOOP runs from Scratch Wood through the green belt to Cockfosters, and the Capital Ring cuts across the south of the Borough between the Welsh Harp and Cherry Tree Wood. The Capital Ring would connect four of Barnet’s Premier Parks.
5.83 These strategic walking routes will be protected through the Local Development Framework (LDF).
5.84 The London Borough of Barnet will review the signage along these walks and will allow the placement of additional signs where a review shows there is a need. The borough will continue to maintain these walking routes, to there current standard.
Pedestrian phasing at traffic signals 5.85 A feasibility study will be carried out to examine signal timings at junctions to establish whether a pedestrian phase could be introduced. The scope of these works would allow the borough to consider the impact on traffic movements that a pedestrian phase may have, and what improvements could be made
77 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
(either physical or timing based) to make pedestrian movements more convenient.
Access improvements 5.86 The Citizens Panel will be used to consult on local pedestrian priorities.
CYCLING
London Cycling Action Plan 5.87 Barnet has a significant number of cycle routes through parks and along green corridors. In particular, extensive routes along the Dollis Valley, along Waterfall Walk and through Oak Hill Park* which are scheduled to form part of the LCN+ network.
5.88 Additional signed routes exist through the following parks: Silkstream Park, Colindale Park, Hendon Park*, Sunny Hill Park*, Clitterhouse Park, Bethune Park, Glebe Land open space, grounds of Barnet’s Copthall Sports Centre
5.89 Currently, where paths are through “premier parks” (marked with * above), maintenance would occur through the premier parks investment program. The popular London Cycle guides are now used in TfL’s route planning software, and free paper copies are available. Significant additional information is also provided on TfL’s website. Links to this information are to be provided on the Council’s remodelled web-site.
5.90 An internet questionnaire survey is being undertaken among members of Barnet Cyclists to fill in the gap in knowledge created by the apparently low number of cyclists amongst Barnet’s Citizens Panel. This seeks a range of views from cyclists regarding their needs and preferences.
5.91 The Mayor’s Charity Sponsored Cycle Ride is an annual event organised by the Council in conjunction with Barnet Cyclists. Alternative routes are offered through Barnet and Hertfordshire, with an off-road route in the Dollis Valley available for children and families not wishing to cycle on roads.
LCN / LCN+ 5.92 The intention is that studies for LCN+ routes should be incorporated into the proposed corridor studies where appropriate. Where the proposed route does not follow a major road a stand alone study will be carried out. In most cases it is envisaged that some implementation work based on the outcome of the corridor study will commence in the same financial year as the study takes place. However exact timing of the implementation of any cycling measures will depend on the results of the study and co-ordination with other elements of work identified. The proposals for each LCN+ link are set out below.
78 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
Corridor study or LCN+ Link No/description Study stand alone study commence A1000 Link 5 2006/07 Link 6 (part) West Finchley-Barnet A5 Link 10 2006/07 Link 9 (part) A110 Link 4 2006/07 A5100 Link 9 2007/08 A598 Link 7 2008/09 A504 Link 6 (part) Brent Cross-West 2009/10 Finchley Stand alone study Link 8 2007/08
Traffic Management 5.93 The Council has not previously looked at accidents based on user type, but carries out cluster site analysis to identify locations where there is a cluster of personal injury accidents.
5.94 Twenty Three (23) sites in the borough appear to be significant cycle accident locations. Owing to relatively low numbers of accidents in the borough some of these sites have fewer than 1 cycle accident per year on average. However a significant proportion of cycle accidents in the borough are occurring on a few main routes. Fifteen (15) of the sites occur on the following 4 main routes, the A1000, A110, A598 or A5. It would be more appropriate to address these sites through the proposed corridor studies and in conjunction with implementation of the LCN+ than through isolated remedial safety works. Two others sites are at junctions on the A406 (TLRN). One at the junction with the A41 (also TLRN) and one at the junction with the A502.
5.95 The remaining locations are: • A407 Cricklewood Lane (A5-Claremont Road) • A411 Wood Street • A1003 j/w Summers La • Sussex Ring (Westbury Road-Chanctonbury Way)** • A504 Gravel Hill • Grahame Park Estate ** Sussex Ring is also on an LCN+ route, but as an isolated location may also be suitable for a local solution.
5.96 As mentioned above, the numbers involved for many of these are quite low, and in some cases the apparent existence of a small cluster may simply be the result of chance. Nonetheless, it is proposed that the 6 sites above be reviewed along with the next batch of identified personal injury cluster sites, to better determine whether a genuine cluster exists that has not already been addressed and, if so, to establish whether an appropriate traffic management solution can be identified. These can then be prioritised against other sites in the usual way.
79 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
Cycle Audits 5.97 Specific measures including all works carried out on the highway where justified and substantiated through detailed accident history as part of T.M. policy. The Council carries out safety audits on all major schemes; these will take into account the needs of the cyclists. All schemes seek to accommodate the demands placed by the different travel modes.
Additional cycle access 5.98 Where new access or turning restrictions for general traffic are being considered, exemptions for cyclists will be considered as a matter of course. At other locations, in collaboration with Barnet Cyclists, locations which prevent access will be identified so potential solutions can be developed. No specific locations have been identified at this time.
Advanced stop lines 5.99 Barnet has reservations about mass use of advanced stop lines for cyclists, especially where other constraints mean a full width cycle lane cannot be provided on the approach.
5.100 Although ASLs are considered to only introduce minimal additional delays at traffic signals (except where they would result in loss of a traffic lane), at many locations in the borough, where congestion is already a significant issue, even these minimal increases are difficult to justify. On routes where a series of these measures are introduced the cumulative effect is likely to be significant. Also in many cases, in order to provide an adequate approach facility the loss of a general traffic lane would often result.
5.101 Barnet has concerns about options that do not involve an approach lane as encouraging cyclists to travel up the inside of queuing traffic can be hazardous. Also where space is not available for a dedicated lane the existence of an advanced stop line may tempt cyclists on to the footway to access it.
5.102 Despite these reservations Barnet may consider Advanced Stop Lines at: Signalled junctions on LCN+ routes Other signalled junctions where facilities are being reviewed.
If alternative cycle facilities are available appropriate signage may be a more appropriate option, but if other alternatives are not feasible and appropriate lead-in facilities can be provided ASLs on busy approaches to traffic signals will be considered if this does not adversely affect junction capacity.
Access and parking 5.103 The Council will continue to support the implementation of Cycle Parking Programme for schools. This will include the provision of cycle training to support this scheme which will be included as part of the School Travel Plan. (Refer to Chapter 8).
5.104 An audit is to be undertaken to identify existing cycle parking provision across the borough and the need for an increase in provision. This will permit the
80 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
locations of existing stands to be plotted on the corporate GIS system, which is also available to the public through the Council’s website, permitting subsequent incorporation of locations in printed maps as appropriate.
5.105 Locations where additional provision is needed will be identified from research with Barnet Cyclists, identification of locations where ‘fly-parking’ currently occurs, identifying locations where existing stands are frequently at or near capacity and identifying public buildings, community facilities and shopping areas where minimal provision should ideally be made even if no current significant demand is evident.
5.106 Proposed programme: 2006/07 - Audit of existing cycle parking locations and any significant areas of ‘fly-parking’ (Possibly utilising the Highway inspectors). Plot locations on GIS. Identify with Barnet cyclists any known areas of concern re: under-provision. 2007/08 - Determine other areas where provision should ideally be made. Identify locations where provision might be met through regeneration or S106 agreements, LCN+ and through other schemes. Develop rolling programme for installation of stands at other locations that cannot be addressed through S106/LCN+/other streetscape schemes, commencing with sites identified with Barnet cyclists (estimate - 10 Sheffield stands £2000). 2008/9-2010/11 - Continue provision through s106/LCN+/other streetscape schemes supplemented by rolling programme of 10 stands/year, (BSP).
5.107 Cycle park at Schools - The Council will continue to support the implementation of the Cycle Parking Programme for schools. This will include the provision of cycle training to support this scheme which will be included as part of each school’s School Travel Plan. (Refer to Chapter 8).
5.108 Cycle parking in new developments - Minimum cycle parking standards for the new developments at Cricklewood/ Brent Cross are included in the latest amendments to the UDP. At other new developments developers are expected to provide convenient, safe and secure facilities although specific levels are not stated. Houses will usually have general purpose space that can be secured that can be used for cycle parking.
5.109 Cycle parking at stations - Most national rail and LT stations in the borough have provision for cycle parking. In some cases this is provided on station property: in other cases on the public highway adjacent to the entrance. Cycle parking is also available near the Finchley and Golders Green bus stations. At some locations parking is provided on only one side of stations that are accessible from both sides. At most locations cycle parking is provided in uncovered Sheffield stands.
5.110 New Southgate national rail station and Mill Hill East and Finchley Central LT stations have no cycle parking provision, although there seems to be no obvious physical barrier to provision.
81 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
5.111 Information available regarding the provision of cycle parking is mixed. The national rail website provides information on all the national rail stations (although the train operating companies vary on the information they provide). The information on the LT tube map and that provided in the cycling section on LTs website is not entirely accurate. The information about individual stations provided via the Tube Guru facility on TfL’s website does not include cycle parking provision.
5.112 Proposed actions: • provide cycle parking (London Underground property or on-street) at Mill Hill East (through improvements linked to Mill Hill East Regeneration area). • Encourage London Underground to make provision for cycle parking at Finchley Central, either within the car park or on LU land in front of station. • Work with TfL to ensure provision of cycle parking is accurately reflected on the tube map and their website, and incorporate with other cycle parking information on borough GIS. • Take opportunities provided through redevelopment of regeneration areas, to provide enhanced cycle parking provision at appropriate stations. • Investigate options for provision of cycle parking at New Southgate station in conjunction with proposed improvements at New Southgate station. • Consider improved cycle parking as appropriate in conjunction with accessibility audits for stations.
Cycle Training
5.113 Cycle training is offered annually to all year 6 pupils in the borough – some 3,500 children. Of these about 10% currently take up the training. Following a successful pilot, further targeted training on routes to school is now also being offered to all year 7 and 8 pupils, providing an opportunity for pupils who have not been trained at primary school to receive training and increase skills among those who were trained in year 6.
5.114 Adult cyclists are provided with guidance and advice and directed to appropriate resources, cycling groups or private training provision as best meets their individual needs. Links are also being set up on Barnet Council’s website to cycling groups and companies providing this service.
FREIGHT
Low Emission Zone 5.115 The whole of London Borough of Barnet was declared an Air Quality Management Area in April 2001. Barnet's Air Quality Action Plan, which takes account of the proposals relevant to borough AQAPs set out in the Mayor's Air Quality Strategy, was approved by the cabinet in January 2003. It includes the action point to make the borough a LEZ by including the borough in a London- wide LEZ, although stated that the decision whether or not to include Barnet in a London wide LEZ will only be taken when the feasibility study and options have been fully assessed by the Council. The Borough is awaiting instructions from the Mayor/GLA as to how to progress.
82 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
5.116 The Hendon Rail Transfer station already receives much of Barnet's waste as well as waste from other North London Waste Authority constituent boroughs and others including the West London Waste Authority. The waste is compacted into containers and transported, by rail, to a landfill site in Bedfordshire. The deposit UDP contains policies to safeguard, in particular, railway lands at Cricklewood and encourage their use for movement of bulk freight, and the opportunity for access by rail would be one factor considered in siting of waste management facilities.
INTERNATIONAL
5.117 No schemes are proposed in relation to International activities.
WATER
5.118 No schemes are proposed in relation to Water.
TAXI
Taxicard 5.119 The London Borough of Barnet (LBB), in association with the Mayor of London, already funds a Taxicard service in the borough. The service has been available to eligible Barnet residents since 2004. Eligibility criteria adopted are as per set out by the Association of London Government (ALG).
ACCESSIBLE TRANSPORT
5.120 One of the objectives of the "Community Plan for Barnet 2003-2006" is to ensure that barriers to opportunity for disabled people are tackled. The objective intends to (a) deliver programme of advice, training and awareness raising to address issues that prevent services from being fully accessible to all disabled people (b) ensure all buildings comply with the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) for accessibility.
Shopmobility 5.121 Barnet Council and Brent Cross shopping centre run a 'Shopmobility' service which offers easier access for people with mobility problems. This service may be extended to other shopping centre in the future.
Door to door transport 5.122 There are a number of organisations that deliver door-to-door transport services for disabled people in Barnet. These include Barnet Community Transport and North London Dial-A-Ride.
Taxicard 5.123 The London Borough of Barnet (LBB), in association with the Mayor of London, already funds a Taxicard service in the borough. The service has
83 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
been available to eligible Barnet residents since 2004. Eligibility criteria adopted are as per set out by the Association of London Government (ALG).
Local Mobility Consultation 5.124 The "Improving Access Action Team" brings together key local disability organisations and is the most suitable existing organisation to contribute to Transport for London's (TfL) overall strategic framework for door-to-door services, including dispensing information about community transport services available to qualifying Barnet residents.
Blue Badge Scheme 5.125 The Blue Badge Scheme enables Barnet Council to issue car badges which provide exemption from certain parking regulations. People may be eligible for a badge if they are registered blind or have a permanent disability, which affects their walking and travel as a driver or a passenger.
INTEGRATION
Journey Planner 5.126 The North London transport website (www.northlondontransport.org) provides regionally specific transport information and acts as a portal to more general information about transport options and services in London such as online timetables, routing information and the TfL Journey Planner.
Travel Plans and Travel Awareness 5.127 North London has been allocated two of the Travel Plan Co-ordinators being funded within sub regions by TfL. One is based in Islington and covers Haringey, Islington and Camden, whilst the other is based in Enfield and cover Barnet, Enfield and Haringey.
Community Safety Partnership 5.128 Barnet has a Safer Communities Team whom coordinate the distribution of information and liaisons with the police and others on crime, disorder and drug related topics. Barnet coordinates with the police monthly RAID (Review and Improve Department) where partners including Barnet Primary care and council representatives attend.
MAJOR PROJECTS
5.129 No schemes are proposed at this time in relation to major projects.
84 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
6. Road Safety Plan
INTRODUCTION
6.1 The Road Safety Plan seeks to improve road safety in Barnet by setting out a strategy to address the Borough’s particular road safety issues and reduce casualties in line with both national and London-wide targets and as part of its statutory duty to promote road safety under the Road Traffic Act 1988.
6.2 Barnet is the fourth largest London borough in terms of area and has a population of 314,000 (source: Census 2001), the second largest population among London boroughs. Of this population, the greatest proportion is in the 20-40 age group. Barnet has boundaries with five other London boroughs, Harrow, Brent, Camden, Haringey and Enfield. The Hertfordshire county and Hertsmere district is situated to the north of the borough.
6.3 The main road network in Barnet includes the M1, A1, A41 and A5, crossing the borough from north to south and the A406 North Circular Road crossing it from east to west. These strategic routes carry over a quarter of a million vehicles a day through the borough. The A1000 and A598 also support radial movements through the borough and link many of the borough’s town centres.
6.4 In 2004 there were 1570 casualties in Barnet as a result of road traffic accidents. This represents a reduction of 5.3% compared with 2003 figures and a continuation of the generally downward trend in casualties in the borough in recent years.
Figure 6.1 – All road casualties in Barnet 1990-2004
Road Casualties in Barnet 1990-2004
2500
2000
1500
1000 casualty numbers casualty
500
0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 year
85 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
6.5 The Council is committed to further reducing the number of casualties and making Barnet’s roads safer for all road users through improved management of the road network. This Road Safety Plan provides information about road casualties in Barnet up to and including 2004, where possible, and identifies the borough’s road safety targets for the next five years (to 2010).
6.6 The Plan has been developed within the framework of guidelines set by the Government and the Mayor of London and within the context of policies developed under plans and strategies adopted by the Council.
6.7 The report considers progress towards national and regional targets and identifies local casualty trends based on analysis of accident data. In most cases data has been used from the period of 1990 to 2004 to demonstrate recent trend patterns. From this information, a series of aims and objectives have been identified to tackle Barnet’s specific road safety issues. Proposed actions to reduce casualties have been specified according to the road user group to which they apply and have been reviewed, along with progress, in the Summary of Key Actions.
6.8 Funding for road safety measures is allocated through the Borough Spending Plan, a document submitted annually to TfL outlining anticipated schemes and spending requirements for each financial year. Funding is also apportioned from Barnet capital funds.
6.9 Although there has been a decline in casualty figures in the borough in recent years, the Council is continually seeking ways to achieve further reductions through a range of engineering, education and enforcement initiatives. The Council recognises that road safety issues cannot be tackled independently, and therefore values the importance of working in partnership with other agencies such as the Metropolitan Police, Transport for London, other London boroughs, road user associations, and local schools and businesses, in order to meet the challenging new national and regional targets.
POLICIES, OBJECTIVES AND TARGETS
6.10 Under Section 39 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, Barnet has a statutory duty as a highway authority to “prepare and carry out a programme of measures designed to promote road safety”. After the Greater London Authority Act 1999, responsibility for trunk roads transferred to Transport for London (the Transport for London Road Network or TLRN) with boroughs retaining responsibility for road safety on the remaining roads.
6.11 National and local policies seek to improve road safety by setting out a framework of aims, objectives and targets based on accident and casualty statistics that enable the effective development and monitoring of road safety policy.
6.12 The Government set new national road casualty reduction targets in its road safety strategy Tomorrow’s Roads – Safer for Everyone, which was published
86 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
in March 2000. The new targets for 2010, measured against a baseline figure of the average casualty figures for the 5 years from 1994-1998 are; • 40% reduction in total KSIs (killed and seriously injured); • 50% reduction in child KSI (under 16 years); and • 10% reduction in the slight casualty rate (injuries per 100 million vehicle kilometres)7.
6.13 Additional road casualty reduction targets have been set for London, in the Mayor’s Road Safety Plan, published in 2001. These reflect the particular circumstances for vulnerable road users in London. Taking the same baseline as national targets (comparison to 1994-8 averages), these additional targets aim by 2010 to achieve; • 40% reduction in the number of pedestrians killed or seriously injured; • 40% reduction in the number of cyclists killed or seriously injured; and • 40% reduction in the number of motorcyclists (P2Ws) killed or seriously injured.
6.14 The Council is committed to achieving these targets and has developed its Road Safety Plan with consideration to national and regional guidelines including the Mayor’s Transport Strategy and within the context of other plans and strategies adopted by the Council. These include:
Corporate Plan 2005/6 – 2008/9 6.15 The Corporate Plan identifies the Council’s key priorities, which are as follows; • A first class education service; • Tackling crime; • Supporting the vulnerable in the community;; • A cleaner, greener Barnet; and • Repairing roads and pavements.
6.16 The Road Safety Plan supports these priorities, and particular reference is made to maintenance of the road infrastructure and the issues faced by vulnerable road users.
Community Plan 2003-2006 6.17 The Community Plan 2003-2006 commits the Council to major investment in infrastructure with the aim of improving transport and accessibility within the borough. Objectives include reducing traffic congestion, improving public transport and repairing roads and pavements.
Revised Deposit Draft Unitary Development Plan (UDP) 6.18 The Council’s Revised Deposit Draft UDP aims to ensure that the safety of road users, particularly those at greater risk, is taken fully into account when considering development proposals. (Policy M11). The Council will seek to
7 The Government is yet to produce guidance on how this rate will be measured, so until this is available, the number of casualties has been used.
87 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
reduce accidents by refusing proposals which unacceptably increase conflicting movements on the road network or increase the risk, or perceived risk, to vulnerable road users. (Policy M12) Furthermore, the Council will expect developers to provide safe and suitable access for all road users (including pedestrians) to new developments. Where it is necessary to make improvements or changes to the road network to ensure this, the Council may require these to be financed by the development through the use of planning obligations attached to planning permissions. (Policy M13). Post inquiry changes to the revised UDP are currently being considered.
Traffic Management Strategy 2002 6.19 Barnet’s Traffic Management Strategy seeks to create a safer community for residents and those who work in the borough by maximising the main road network capacity and optimising use of the major road network thereby minimising the need for extraneous traffic to use local roads to avoid main road queues. The performance of the network will be reviewed to identify problematic locations. These locations will, in turn, be overlaid with the personal injury accident map to highlight those places that suffer from the dual problem of congestion and accidents/accident delay. The dual-problem locations will then be investigated in detail and traffic engineering techniques applied to maximise capacity and obtain accident savings.
Best Value Review of Transport Policy 6.20 The Council has sought to identify the movement issues associated with a significant increase in population predicted between 2005-2016. The Review details a strategy for keeping Barnet moving and a series of initiatives are identified within an Action Plan to provide appropriate and safe travel choices.
TARGETS
6.21 Table 6.1 shows the individual targets set by the Government and the London Mayor and states Barnet’s progress towards these targets in 2004.
6.22 There has been a reduction in the number of casualties within all the categories and significant progress made towards the set targets, however it should be noted that for some targets, the base number of casualties is comparatively small and large random fluctuations in percentage change are to be expected. In the case of total slight casualties and cyclist KSI casualties, the targets have been exceeded. For total KSI casualties, the number in 2004 was only 4% above the target figure and on the assumption that this trend can be maintained, looks set to achieve the target reduction well before 2010.
88 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
Table 6.1 – Progress towards targets
1994-1998 Target Number 2010 target % change average percentage in 2004 casualty from (baseline) reduction by numbers baseline 2010 Total number killed or 268.8 40 172 161.3 -36% seriously injured Total pedestrians killed 70.4 40 55 42.2 -21.90% or seriously injured Total cyclists killed or Already 14.4 40 6 -58.30% seriously injured achieved target Total powered two 32 40 30 20.4 -6.20% wheeler riders killed or seriously injured Total children killed or 31 50 24 15.5 -22.60% seriously injured Slight casualties (by Not yet Not yet Not yet Not yet 10 distance travelled) available available available available Slight casualties (in 1772.8 10 1398 1595.5 -21.10% numbers) (source: LAAU)
Local Targets
6.23 The Council’s strategic objectives for transport, emerging as a result of the Best Value Review are as follows; • Reduce the need to travel; • Improve the attractiveness and use of a choice of transport modes; • Maximise the efficiency of the local road network; • Secure safer transport networks; and • Take the opportunities presented by the regeneration areas to deliver high quality transport provision and mode choice.
6.24 Barnet’s Local Public Service Agreement 2003-2006 includes targets additional to those set nationally to improve the condition of local roads. Performance is measured against Best Value Performance Indicators (BVPIs) 97a and 97b, and the targets agreed to 2006 are as follows:
Without PSA agreement With PSA agreement BVPI 97a 50% 65% BVPI 97b 81% 87%
6.25 BVPI 97a refers to non-principal classified roads of which there are 21km in the borough, and BVPI 97b refers to non-principal unclassified roads which
89 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
comprises the majority of borough roads, a total of 575km of road length. Both the targets for 2006 have been exceeded. At the end of the 2004/5, national standards were achieved for 88% of non-principal classified roads, and 89% for non-principal unclassified roads. ROAD ACCIDENT CASUALTIES IN BARNET
6.26 In 2004 there were 1570 road accident casualties in Barnet, (comprising 12 fatalities, 160 serious injuries and 1398 slight injuries) which represents an overall reduction of 5.3% over 2003 figures and an continued downward trend in casualties in the borough in recent years.
6.27 As Figure 6.2 below shows, Barnet has achieved a 36% reduction in killed and seriously injured casualties (KSIs) from the baseline figure and trends indicate that the Council is likely to achieve the Government target of a 40% reduction before 2010.
Figure 6.2 - KSI casualties in Barnet 1990-2004
450
400
350
300
250
200 no. of casualties 150
100
50
0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 year (source: LAAU) casualties 1994-98 baseline 2010 target
6.28 Figure 6.3 shows that Barnet has achieved a 21% reduction in slight casualties and has therefore exceeded the Government target of a 10% reduction by 2010. Slight injuries have been measured in absolute numbers of casualties until Government guidance is produced on how the slight casualty rate is to be measured.
Figure 6.3 - Slight casualties in Barnet 1990-2004
90 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
2500
2000
1500
1000 no. of casualties
500
0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 (source: LAAU) year slight casualties baseline 2010 target
Casualties in Barnet in comparison to other London Boroughs 6.29 Using a calculation of ‘casualties per head of population’ allows Barnet’s casualty data to be directly compared to that of other London boroughs. Figure 6.4 shows Barnet’s casualty rate per 100,000 head of population by mode of travel in comparison to other London boroughs for the year 2003.
6.30 Barnet’s casualty rate is slightly below average compared to the rest of London and lower than all neighbouring boroughs with the exception of Harrow. Casualty rates also need to be considered against road length and volume of traffic which makes Barnet’s ranking reasonable given the significant length of busy motorway, TfL road and borough principal roads.
Figure 6.4 - Casualty rates in Greater London 2003
Casualty rates for LB Barnet compared with other London Boroughs per 100,000 head of population
1200
1000
800
600
400
200 casualty rate per 100,000 head of population
0 Brent Ealing Sutton Barnet Bexley Enfield Merton Harrow Bromley Islington Croydon Camden Hackney Kingston Lambeth Newham Havering Haringey Hillingdon Hounslow Richmond Lewisham Redbridge Southwark Greenwich Westminster Wandsworth Tower Hamlets Waltham Forest BarkingDagenham & Kensington Chelsea & Hammersmith Fulham & car occupants pedestrians P2WS cyclists other
91 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
Casualty trends by user group 6.31 Figure 6.5 shows the number of casualties in Barnet by mode of travel, taking the 3-year average from 2001 to 2003. As the chart indicates, the majority of casualties in the borough are car occupants, comprising 60%, which reflects the fact that a high proportion of journeys in Barnet are made by car, as common to most outer London boroughs. This is in contrast to inner London boroughs where injuries to vulnerable road users make up a much greater proportion.
6.32 There are also relatively large numbers of pedestrian and power two-wheeler casualties, the latter showing a significant increase in recent years typifying a trend throughout London, associated with an increase in popularity of this mode. Both pedestrian and power two-wheeler casualties represent groups being targeted by the Mayor of London to achieve 40% reductions in casualties and therefore these will be individually monitored.
Figure 6.5 - Casualties in Barnet by mode of travel (3 yr average 2001-2003)
6.33 Figure 6.6 shows casualties by mode of travel since 1990 and demonstrates a longer-term trend pattern for each user group. Although the figures fluctuate from year to year, there has been a general reduction in casualties for all travel modes over the last decade. Whilst most trends are downward, casualties to P2Ws have increased, which could reflect increased ownership and use in London, particularly since the introduction of the central London Congestion Charging scheme in 2003. There has also been a slight increase in the number casualties to bus or coach occupants since 2000. This may also reflect increased use of this mode, promoted by the Mayor’s Transport Strategy and increases in the number and frequency of services.
92 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
Figure 6.6 - Casualties by mode of travel 1990-2004
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
no. of casualties 600
400
200
0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 year Car occupants Pedestrians P2Ws Cyclists Bus/coach occupants Taxi occupants
Casualties by Highway Authority
6.34 Barnet has an extensive road network, which includes over 750kms of road space, comprising approximately 11km of motorway, 30km of Transport for London Road Network (TLRN) and 700kms of roads maintained by the borough. The Highways Agency and Transport for London are the traffic and highways agencies for the motorway and trunk roads respectively.
Figure 6.7 - Percentage of the road network in Barnet by Highway Authority
TLRN HA 4% 1%
Borough 95%
6.35 Although the Council is responsible for 95% of the road network in the borough (Figure 6.7), these roads have lower volumes of traffic, and over 25% of casualties resulting from road traffic accidents in Barnet occur on roads for which the Council is not the highway authority (Figure 6.8).
93 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
Figure 6.8 - Casualties by highway authority – 3 year average 2002-2004
TLRN 26%
HA 2%
Borough 72%
PROPOSED SAFETY MEASURES
6.36 Methods available to local authorities to help reduce road accidents generally fall into one of the following categories: engineering, education or enforcement. The type of accident reduction initiative proposed depends primarily on the user group for which it is aimed, although many safety measures will benefit more than one group.
CAR OCCUPANTS
Figure 6.9 - KSI casualties to car occupants 1990-2004
200
180
160
140 120
100
80 no. of KSI casualtiesof no. 60
40
20
0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 year
Car occupants
94 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
6.37 Car occupants comprise the largest proportion of road casualties in Barnet, and therefore represent an important target group for the Council to pay particular attention to in its approach to road safety. The average number of car occupant casualties over the last three years in the borough was 1070, which is over four times greater than the number of pedestrian casualties, as the table below shows:
Table 6.2 – Car occupant casualties Mode 2002 2003 2004 Average Car occupants 1130 998 962 1030 Pedestrians 262 251 234 249 Power two wheelers 238 216 203 219 Bus or coach occupants 82 83 68 78 Pedal cycles 61 71 52 61 Goods vehicle occupants 51 25 30 35 Taxi occupants 5 5 10 7 Other vehicle occupants 21 9 11 14
6.38 Since car occupants account for such a high proportion of casualties, the Council recognises the need to pay particular attention to this group in its approach to road safety.
6.39 The Council is aware that increased car use and congestion are placing greater demands on drivers and other road users within the borough and recognises the importance of taking a strategic approach towards management of the road network.
Maintenance 6.40 The Council currently maintains almost 700 kilometres of roads and pavements. It recognises the importance of keeping the road network operational and preventing the deterioration in condition of the transport infrastructure. Repairing roads and pavements is one of the Council’s five Corporate Priorities and a maintenance programme has been developed to improve the condition of the borough’s footways and local roads to improve the environment for all road users and reduce the occurrence of accidents attributed at least in part to an ageing infrastructure.
6.41 Maintenance of street lighting and road signs is also important to road safety. Reduced night-time visibility caused by defective lighting can contribute to accidents, and presents particular risks to vulnerable road users. In 2003 more than 400 accidents occurred in the hours of darkness, resulting in 9 fatalities. The Council acknowledges that high quality street lighting will benefit all road users, increasing visibility so that road users have greater awareness of approaching hazards. The Council is currently negotiating, as part of a 25-year Private Finance Initiative (PFI) contract, a programme to improve street lighting which includes the following measures: • Maintaining the proportion of street lights working at any one time to at least 99%; • A rapid response to dealing with faulty lights; and
95 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
• Replacing outdated and failing stock.
6.42 Ensuring the appropriate use of traffic signs and markings on the road and ensuring the maintenance of these signs can also achieve improved safety. Inappropriate or damaged road signs can cause unnecessary confusion to road users and may lead to risky manoeuvres on the road, thereby increasing the likelihood of accidents.
Congestion 6.43 Increasing congestion on roads is a major problem throughout London and poses a hazard to the safety of all road users. Barnet is strategically positioned within North London’s major highway network, and is crossed from north to south by the A1, A41, A5 and the M1 and from east to west by the North Circular Road (A406). These strategic routes carry over a quarter of a million vehicles a day, with a substantial proportion of these journeys being made by “through traffic”. As these routes become more congested, traffic is increasingly likely to divert onto less suitable borough roads, increasing the likelihood of accidents.
6.44 Around three quarters of road traffic accidents in the Borough occur on ‘local’ roads and increased use of these roads by through traffic poses a particular hazard to vulnerable road users such as children and the elderly. In order to manage future predicted movement demands, the Council is currently carrying out an audit of the borough’s road network. Corridor studies info. 6.45 Poorly managed works on the public highway can also lead to accidents both directly and indirectly through the effects of increased congestion. The Council aims to ensure better management of these works in order to keep traffic flowing and reduce the risk of accidents.
Local safety schemes 6.46 Engineering measures can improve road safety at locations that have been identified as local accident blackspots. Collision patterns are analysed at locations where there have been a relatively high number of accidents, and the most appropriate engineering schemes are proposed for that location. Accident locations are identified in terms of cluster sites. Typically these are at junctions, where there is a higher potential for road user conflicts. Locations with an above average number of collisions involving injury within the last 3 years are identified annually.
6.47 A programme of local safety schemes is proposed annually based on detailed accident investigations and bids for funding for these schemes are identified in the Borough Spending Plan. Accident data is monitored before and after schemes are implemented in order to gauge the effectiveness of engineering measures. The 2005/6 Local Safety Scheme programme is included as Table 6.3 identifies ten accident cluster sites where large numbers of accidents have occurred.
6.48 Engineering programmes have contributed significantly to the reduction in casualties across the borough. A table listing the borough’s Local Safety
96 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
Scheme programme since 2000 with before and after accident data for the treated sites is attached in Table 6.6. Accident figures are monitored for 36 months before and after scheme implementation. In the case of recent schemes, the figures have been factored up in order to give the anticipated accident reduction for that scheme.
Actions ¾ The Council will continue to invest in a programme to improve the borough’s roads and pavements, to monitor and improve the condition of street lighting and traffic signs.
¾ The Council will continue to monitor traffic flows on roads in the borough and will seek to improve flows on borough principal roads to reduce the incidence of rat-running in residential streets.
¾ The Council will undertake an annual programme of Local Safety Schemes at identified accident cluster sites across the borough and will monitor the effectiveness of these schemes after implementation.
Table 6.3 - Local Safety Scheme programme (2005/06)
97 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
Total Predicted Scheme name Scheme description Target accidents cost (£000) accidents accident saving (36 months) (36 months) Renew pedestrian crossing facilities. Pedestrians A1000 Buckingham Ave to Introduce waiting restrictions. Junction accidents and 230 27 10 Lyonsdown Rd improvement to reduce right turning accidents in the accidents. dark. Junction improvements. New signal Turning accidents Colindale Avenue installation. Improve pedestrian and pedestrian 170 21 7 environment at junctions. accidents. New zebra crossings. Upgrade Turning accidents Claremont Road roundabouts. Improve crossing points. and accidents in the 140 10 6 Increase width of footpath near bus stop. dark. Review & adjustments of signal timings. Pedestrian and Review and enhancements to pedestrian High Street, Barnet powered two 170 40 10 crossing facilities. Improve carriageway wheeler accidents. markings. High Road, Whetstone Widening of Totteridge Lane to facilitate Pedestrians and including Totteridge Lane pedestrian refuge across mouth of powered two 180 48 12 and Oakleigh Road junction. Localised widening of footpath. wheeler accidents. Realign footway. Rephase lights at junction with A5 to remove conflict with Pedestrians and bus Station Road, Edgware 80 53 12 vehicles turning left from Station Road. passengers. Improve crossing at exit to bus station. Relocate pelican crossings. Relocate bus Pedestrians and bus Watling Avenue stops to reduce uncontrolled pedestrian 100 20 7 passengers. movements. Kerb re-alignment. Remove mini-roundabouts and convert to traditional junction layout with STOP lines. Drivers failing to Graham Park Way 70 22 5 Introduce waiting restrictions to improve give way or stop. sight lines. Relocate pelican crossings and bus stops. The Broadway, Mill Hill Remove pinch point. Review loading and Pedestrians 80 40 10 waiting restrictions. Improve crossing facilities. Remodel Bell Brent Street Lane junction. Create improved bus Pedestrians 160 31 8 stopping facility.
PEDESTRIANS
6.49 Pedestrian KSI casualties have fallen steadily over the last few years, and, in 2004, were 22% below the 1994-1998 baseline figure. A continuation of the current trend would indicate that Barnet is likely to achieve the Mayor’s target of a 40% reduction in casualties by 2010.
Maintenance 6.50 Well-maintained footways make journeys by foot safer and more attractive. High standards of footway maintenance help reduce the risk of accidents, particularly in areas with high levels of pedestrian movements, such as town centres, access to public transport, and routes to schools. Good quality lighting is also important at night , particularly in town centres, where there are greater numbers of pedestrians.
Figure 6.10 - Pedestrian KSI casualties in Barnet 1990-2004
98 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
140
120
100
80
60 no. of casualtiesno. of
40
20
0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 year Pedestrian KSI casualties 1994-98 baseline 2010 target
6.51 As part of the Winter Maintenance Service 2004/5, precautionary gritting was carried out on selected footways following risk assessments. The assessments considered usage, location and gradients and the footways highlighted were mainly in town centres or in the vicinity of public transport interchanges.
Vehicle activated signs 6.52 Barnet has a number of vehicle activated signs at select locations across the borough, which are used to display hazard warning messages to passing traffic. These signs use a radar system to detect the speed of vehicles and are used on roads where inappropriate speed has led to car occupant or pedestrian casualties.
6.53 There are currently vehicle activated signs at the following locations in the borough: a) Frith Manor School, Lullington Garth 2 x school “slow down” b) Monk Frith School, Monk Frith Way 1 x school “slow down” c) King Alfred School, North End Road 1 x school “slow down” d) Hadley Highstone 2 x 30 mph e) Mays Lane 4 x 20 mph f) Longmore Avenue 2 x 30 mph
6.54 The Council also has plans for five mobile signs that can be deployed around the borough at accident hotspots during 2005/6.
Actions ¾ The Council will set out an annual footway maintenance programme to improve the condition of borough footways, with priority given to areas with high numbers of pedestrian movements.
99 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
¾ The Council will set up a rolling maintenance programme of all zebra crossings in the borough and will carry out a programme to review pedestrian phasing at all signal controlled junctions. ¾ The Council will expand the use of vehicle activated signs across the borough, with the addition of mobile signs to be deployed at borough accident hotspots. ¾ The Council will investigate
ETHNIC BREAKDOWN OF PEDESTRIAN CASUALTIES
In 1995 traffic police began recording the ethnic origins of casualties of road traffic accidents. Figure 6.11 shows pedestrian casualties in 2001 by ethnic group, as recorded by the Police.
Figure 6.11 – Pedestrian casualties in 2001 by ethnicity
22%
1% 2% 53%
7%
12%
3% white skinned european dark skinned european afro-caribbean asian oriental arab not known Not all of the identification categories for ethnic grouping used by the police match those used in the 2001 Census, and can only be loosely correlated for the following three (Table 6.4) in order to compare the ethnic breakdown of pedestrian casualties to that of the borough population as a whole.
As table 6.4 indicates, in 2001, although only 7% of the borough population was classed as black or black other, 12% of pedestrian casualties in 2001 were from these groups. Similar disparities occur in child pedestrian casualties. It should be noted, however, that in almost a quarter (22%) of casualties, the ethnicity was not known or not recorded. In order to investigate the relationship between the risk of pedestrian injury and ethnicity, more detailed information would be beneficial.
Table 6.4 – Ethnic group representation as % of borough population and as % of pedestrian casualties
100 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
TfL/Stats 19 2001 Census classifications Ethnic group as a Ethnic group as a % % of borough of pedestrian population (2001) casualties (2001) White Skinned White – British/Irish/Other White European 74% 53%
Afro-Caribbean Mixed – White and Black Caribbean/African 7% 12% Black/Black British/Caribbean/ African/Other Asian Mixed – White and Asian/Other mixed Asian/Asian British/Indian/ 13% 7% Pakistan/Bangladesh/Other
MOTORCYCLISTS
6.55 Despite a decline in the number of casualties to motorcyclists over the last two years, the longer trend pattern shows a steady increase in casualties to this group. In 2004 there were 30 killed or seriously injured casualties of powered two-wheelers in Barnet. Although this represents a reduction of 25% over 2003 numbers (40), the number of KSIs is only 6.3% below the 1994-98 baseline figure and represents the category furthest from the Mayor’s target reduction number (20).
Figure 6.12 - P2W KSI casualties in Barnet 1990-2004
101 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
60
50
40
30
no.of KSI casualties 20
10
0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 year P2W KSI casualties 1994-1998 baseline 2010 target
6.56 The increase in P2W casualties is a London-wide problem, and reflects increased ownership and use of these vehicles in the capital in recent years, and in particular since the introduction of the central London Congestion Charging scheme in 2003.
6.57 The Council acknowledges that this problem merits further consideration, and will continue to monitor patterns of motorcyclist accidents in the Borough as part of its ongoing accident review programme. The Council will also continue to refer motorcyclists to the British Motorcycle Federation (BMF), who run training courses for all abilities of riders, from beginners to advanced. In addition the Council believes that the issue should also be addressed on a London-wide basis.
Actions ¾ The Council will continue to monitor levels of P2W casualties and locations where these accidents occur. Further analysis of the causation factors will be carried out to ascertain the most likely causes of P2W accidents in order to determine which preventative measures can be taken. ¾ The Council will continue to refer motorcyclists to the BMF for training and will support London-wide publicity materials relevant to this travel mode.
Cyclists 6.58 There has been a significant reduction in the number of casualties to cyclists since 1990. KSI numbers have reduced significantly since 1990, although as the numbers are generally very low, annual fluctuations tend to distort the trend line.
102 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
Figure 6.13: Cyclist KSI casualties in Barnet 1990-2004
25
20
15
10 no. of KSI casualties
5
0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 year
Cyclists baseline 2010 target
6.59 The Council considers child cyclists an important target in relation to casualty reduction as they comprised 21% of 2003 cycle casualties and are most likely to respond to educational road safety measures. The number of children cycling to school could potentially increase with the development of School Travel Plans.
6.60 It should be noted that as the 1994-98 baseline figure for cyclist KSI casualties is low, an increase in the popularity of cycling, as promoted by the Mayor’s Transport Strategy could result in an increase in casualties amongst this user group.
Cycle training 6.61 Cycle training is currently offered to all Year 6 pupils, and comprises a mixture of practical and theory sessions. Training in undertaken during school holidays and aims to develop confidence through a range of classroom, playground and on-road instruction.
6.62 Training is also offered to Year 7 and 8 pupils who want to cycle to school. After an initial assessment, pupils are trained on their route to and from school on an individual basis. The main emphasis of this training is to give the pupils risk management skills which will enable them to develop other cycling routes other than the ones they have been trained on.
6.63 The Council is also working with local cycle groups to assess the feasibility of running adult cycle training courses. This is likely to focus initially on those adults who have cycling experience but are keen to improve their skills and build up their confidence on the road.
103 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
Actions ¾ The Council will continue to organise cycle training courses for Year 6 pupils, and will look to expand the number of training sites in order to increase the number of pupils trained. ¾ The Council will continue to offer Year 7/8 cycle training to all secondary schools within the borough, and will consider ways to facilitate and expand the provision of this training. ¾ The Council will also assess the feasibility of organising adult cycle training courses.
BUS AND COACH OCCUPANTS
6.64 There has been a slight increase in the number of KSI casualties to bus and coach occupants over the last decade. In this same timescale both the frequency and patronage of bus services have risen considerably.
6.65 Although it has limited powers to directly influence bus and coach occupant casualty numbers, the Council is keen to improve accessibility at bus stops by ensuring that buses are able to pull into the kerb properly allowing passengers to board and alight safely.
Figure 6.14: Bus & Coach KSI casualties 1990-2004
18
16
14
12
10
8
no.casualties of KSI 6
4
2
0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 year
Bus & coach KSI casualties
CHILDREN
The number of children injured on Barnet’s roads has fallen significantly since 1990. In 2004 there were 24 children killed or seriously injured on the
104 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
borough’s roads. This represents a 22% reduction from the 1994-1998 baseline figure of 31, and considerable progress towards the Mayor’s 2010 target of a 50% reduction.
Figure 6.15 – Child KSI casualties in Barnet 1990-2004
50
45
40
35
30
25
20 no. of casualties
15
10
5
0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 year KSI KSI Baseline KSI target School Travel Plans 6.66 School Travel Plans highlight concerns and issues related with travel to school based on information from staff, parents, children and other interested parties, such as the Police. In its School Travel Plan a school will identify practical initiatives, set targets and provide a programme for implementation to reduce traffic in the vicinity of schools. It also aims to improve safety within the walking environment to encourage more pupils and parents to walk to school, and will work in conjunction with the Council to promote initiatives such as SRTS.
6.67 There are 152 schools in Barnet, consisting of 118 LEA schools and a further 34 independent schools. Of these, 47 are currently in the process of writing a School Travel Plan. The Council is keen for all schools in the borough to develop travel plans in line with Government targets for 2010 and has set its own target to have 30 School Travel Plans completed by 2006. Further details of local objectives and targets are included in Barnet’s School Travel Plan Strategy (Chapter 8).
Review of safety around schools
6.68 A review of safety will be completed around 122 schools (80%), by 2008, based on the predicted STP programme, as part of the School Travel Plan process. This involves a comprehensive safety audit of the school’s locality
105 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
completed in consultation with the school staff. In order to meet the regional target of safety to be reviewed around all schools by 2008 the Council commits to carrying out independent reviews around the remaining 30 schools (20%) during the academic year 2008-09 in preparation for starting a STP plan with these schools.
6.69 To complete the review of safety, members of the traffic management and safety team will visit the school location to assess all aspects of highway, footway, parking facilities, street furniture, crossing facilities, signs and lines and will consider issues such as parking, congestion and pressure on crossing points. The use of 20 mph zones will be considered at sites where inappropriate speed is a primary concern.
Safer Routes to School 6.70 The Safer Routes to School programme consists of both engineering measures on the roads around the school and educational projects within the school designed to help children become safer and more independent road users. As well as the health benefits for the children who are encouraged to walk or cycle to school, schemes can help reduce congestion in the vicinity of the school and the surrounding area. Engineering measures typically include elements such as;
• improved signage and carriageway markings; • parking restrictions around school areas; • pedestrian crossing improvements; and • visibility improvements.
School-based projects 6.71 The Road Safety Team supports a number of school-based projects such as the Healthy Activities & Practices with Pre-School Years (HAPPY) project, ‘Let’s be safe’, and Safer Moves. These consist of a combination of classroom-based and practical training for children from pre-school to Year 6, which are run with the support of teaching staff and/or parents.
Walking bus 6.72 A walking bus is a scheme where a minimum of two adults (usually parents) accompany a group of children along a set route to and from school. The walking bus scheme encourages parents and children out of their cars and therefore helps reduce the impact of the school run. It also allows children to gain the health benefits associated with exercise and to develop their road safety skills. The Council’s Road Safety Unit are involved in setting up and monitoring the scheme, and safety checking the proposed routes.
6.73 There are currently four schools (Christchurch, Frith Manor, Queenswell, Monken Hadley) operating a walking bus scheme to/from school, although it is anticipated that other schools may identify a demand to run a similar scheme when compiling their STP.
106 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
School Crossing Patrols 6.74 Barnet currently has school crossing patrols at 10 sites across the borough. The Council’s Road Safety Team is responsible for the evaluation of proposed patrol sites and the training and monitoring of personnel. School crossing patrols are currently employed at the following sites;
a) Dollis Junior School, Pursley Road, NW7 b) Colindale School, Poolsford Road, NW9 c) St Vincent School, The Ridgeway, Mill Hill NW7 d) All Saints School, Cricklewood Lane, NW2 e) Brunswick Park School, Osidge Lane, N14 f) Frith Manor School, Lullington Garth, N12 g) Bell Lane School, Hendon, NW4 h) Brookland Infant & Junior School, NW11 i) Moss Hall Infant School, N3 j) Parkfields School, NW4
6.75 A number of additional sites have been identified as part of the School Travel Plan process and School Crossing Patrol personnel have been recruited to fill two of these.
Actions ¾ The Council will publish its School Travel Plan Strategy and will encourage schools to develop travel plans aimed at reducing car use on the school run. A programme of Safer Routes to School engineering schemes will be undertaken on an annual basis to support the school travel plan process. ¾ The Council will carry out a review of safety around all schools, where possible as part of the school travel plans process. ¾ The Council will continue to identify suitable locations for school crossing patrols and to support the recruitment of additional School Crossing Patrol officers. ¾ The Council will endeavour to reduce school gate parking and will carry out a review of school keep clear restrictions around schools.
107 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
SUMMARY OF KEY ACTIONS
6.76 The Action Plan presents the Council’s proposals to reduce the number of road casualties in Barnet. The Plan will be reviewed on an annual basis in order to monitor progress towards casualty reduction targets and to measure the effectiveness of road safety proposals.
Table 6.5 - Summary of Key Actions
Current Actions Progress to date Future Actions/Targets For all road users To continue to monitor traffic Ongoing To identify emerging trends accident data. using accident data analysis. To carry out post-fatal site Site visits carried out as visits in conjunction with the requested. Police. To improve the condition of all Barnet has exceeded LPSA To continue investment towards borough roads. target for non principal classified Government 2010 targets and and unclassified roads. corporate targets. (LIP c/way targets) To monitor the condition of PFI contract secured. Significant To nominate PFI partner by street lighting and illuminated improvements planned. April 2006. 75% of street traffic signs. lighting furniture to reach European Standards by the end of 2010. To undertake a programme of A programme of LSS schemes is To monitor the cost/benefit Local Safety Schemes at identified annually. effectiveness of LSS schemes identified accident cluster sites on an annual and 3-year basis. across the borough and monitor their effectiveness. To monitor the effects of the The movement capabilities of the To complete the initial corridor External Road Network on borough’s Strategic Road studies to identify future Barnet’s roads. Network has been discussed with investment and improvement TfL and road network corridor opportunities. studies are being prepared. The first two will cover A406 (Hanger Lane to Bounds Green) and A5/A41 corridor. To make the borough’s streets De-cluttering of roads and more accessible for all road footways is being carried out as users by removing part of the carriageway and unnecessary street clutter. pavement improvement programme. Pedestrians To conduct a survey, of all Survey recently completed. To put in place a responsive zebra crossings in the maintenance programme by borough. end (2005/06). To carry out a programme to A feasibility study will be carried To carry out detailed design on review pedestrian phasing at out during 2006/7. 6 junctions without pedestrian all signal controlled junctions. phasing. To improve the condition of all A footway maintenance To continue the maintenance borough footways. programme is currently underway programme targeting town and areas with high numbers of centres and high usage areas pedestrian movements have such as schools, hospitals.
108 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
been identified. (LIP footway targets). To expand the use of vehicle There are currently twelve signs To put together a programme of activated signs at accident across the borough. The Council suitable locations for the mobile hotspots across the borough. plans to have five additional VA signs and monitor their mobile signs for deployment effectiveness. This will be around the borough during carried out in consultation with 2005/6. the Police. P2Ws To conduct further analysis of Ongoing. To identify emerging trends in P2W accidents. P2W accidents. To continue to refer Ongoing. To refer qualified motorcyclists motorcyclists to the BMF for to the Bikesafe scheme to initial training. improve rider skills. Cyclists To organise cycle training 14 courses are currently planned To increase the number of sites courses for children aged 10 for 2005 which will provide in the borough where training to 11 years (year 6) during the training for over 400 children. can take place. To consider school holidays. running training outside the conventional school holidays to include pupils from faith schools. To organise cycle training for Following a pilot scheme, Year To expand the promotion and Year 7/8 children for journey 7/8 training is offered upon facilitate the provision of Year to/from school. request. 7/8 training. To assess the feasibility of Barnet has set up links on its running adult cycling courses website to cycling groups offering in conjunction with local training. cycling groups. Bus/coach To continue to monitor Ongoing. To encourage TfL to take direct accidents involving buses or action in their role as bus coaches to determine likely provider for London. cause. To improve bus stop Audit of bus stops to be Set up a programme of works accessibility. undertaken. for various bus stops on busy bus routes. Children To publish the Council’s The Strategy forms Chapter 8 of The Strategy will be reviewed School Travel Plan Strategy the LIP. and consulted upon annually. and distribute to school representatives. To encourage individual 8 STPs have been completed, The Council has set a target to schools to develop travel and 60 schools have initiated the oversee the completion of 30 plans aimed at reducing car process. STPs per year for the next three use on the school run. years. To undertake a programme of For 2005/6 engineering schemes To set out annual programmes engineering measures around have been programmed for 9 at schools who have initiated schools in conjunction with schools in the borough. the STP process. SRTS. To carry out a review of safety Reviews are being carried out as To complete a safety review of around all schools. part of the STP process. 80% of schools (122) by 2008. Independent reviews of the remaining schools to be carried out during the academic year 2008/9. To identify locations suitable There are currently 10 sites in the To continue to identify locations for school crossing patrols. borough with school crossing for SCP officers as part of the patrol officers. STP process. To continue to support the The Council’s School Travel Plan Officers to promote the SCP
109 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
recruitment of SCPs. Strategy supports initiatives to service as part of the STP evaluate recruitment issues. process. To work with parking Review of school keep clear To set up an enforcement list of enforcement officers to reduce restrictions around schools schools to be monitored. school gate parking. complete.
Table 6.6 - Local Safety Scheme programme since 2000
2000/2001 Programme Location Scheme Description Cost Date installed Finchley Road/GoldersGreen Re-introduction of left turn into Golders Green £35,000 Jun-Jul 00 Road NW11 Road and signal modification at junction Highwood Hill/Marsh Lane Traffic signals £40,000 Oct-Nov 00 NW7 Osidge Lane N14 (Chase Side Traffic management measures £11,000 Nov-Dec 00 to Hampden Square) Dollis Road/Nether Street N3 Mini-roundabout £113,000 Jan-Feb 01 Lichfield Road NW2 Improved pedestrian facilities and traffic (Cricklewood Lane to management measures £45,000 Mar-01 boundary) A5 West Hendon Broadway Pedestrian facilities on A5 between Herbert (including Wilberforce Road and Garrick Road and traffic £30,000 Mar-Apr 01 Road/Herbert Road area) management measures in Wilberforce Road
Casualities Before After Change Change (total) % Change F S SI F S SI F S SI -13 -18.6 2 13 55 5 52 -2 -8 -3
2001/2002Dryfield Road, Programme Burnt Oak Traffic management measures £17,000 Feb-Mar 02
Location Scheme Description Cost Date installed Before After Change Change % Change (total) Ballards Lane (Nether Street to FTraffic S management SI F S measures SI F Sand SI -41 -41.8 Alexandra Grove) junction works £150,000 Apr-May 01 Casualities 0 16 82 0 9 48 0 -7 -34 A5 j/w The Hyde Pelican crossing by Sainsburys £20,000 Jun-Aug 01 Meadway/Potters Road/Potters Lane Traffic islands £17,000 Aug-Sept 01 Barnet Lane (by Ravenscoft School) Pedestrian crossing facilities £20,000 Sep-01 Totteridge Common (Hendon Wood Lane to pond – approx. 300m) Carriageway markings £2,000 Sep-01 Southover/Northiam (Sussex Ring to Laurel View) Pedestrian refuges £15,000 Sep-01 Hampden Way (Chase Way to Mandeville Road) Junction control £20,000 Oct-Dec 01 North End road NW11 (West Heath Drive to borough boundary) Traffic management measures £22,000 Jan-Mar 02 Pedestrian facilities and traffic £15,000 Jan-Mar 02 Nether Street N3 (C management measures East Barnet Road (Victoria Road to Revised junction control and zebra Margaret Road) crossing by Sainsburys £180,000 Jan-Mar 02 Alexandra Road NW4 Traffic management measures £17,000 Feb-Mar 02 Brunswick Park Road (Osidge Lane to Brunswick Avenue) Traffic management measures £30,000 Feb-Mar 02
110 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
2002/2003 Programme Location Scheme Description Cost Date installed Meadway NW11 (Hampstead Way to Kingsley Way) Traffic management measures £30,000 June 02 Conversion of junction control from Friern Barnet Road/Station Road mini-roundabout to traffic signals £41,000 Jun-Jul 02 Longmore Avenue/Netherlands Road/York Road Modified junction control £78,000 Jul 02 Brent Street NW4 (Bell Lane to Brampton Grove) Improved street lighting £133,000 Jan-Mar 03 East End Road (Ossulton Way to Traffic management measures and Stanley Road) traffic signals at Ossulton Way £70,000 Feb-Mar 03 Barnet Gate Lane (Barnet Road to Mays Lane) Improved street lighting £115,000 Feb-Mar 03 Improved street lighting and pelican Station Road, East Barnet crossing at Warwick Road junction £65,000 Feb-Mar 03 Oakleigh Road South Improved street lighting £25,000 June 03 Hale Lane, Edgware (Broadfields Avenue to Selvage Lane) Improved street lighting £80,000 Mar 03 Edgware Road/Kingsbury Road NW9 Improved street lighting at junction £28,000
Casualties Before After Change Total Change % change F S Sl F S Sl F S Sl -13 14.4 1 18 71 2 75 -1 -16 4
(F= fatally injured, S=serious injuries, Sl = slight injuries, as defined by DfT
111 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
7. Parking and Enforcement Plan
7.1 Introduction
7.1.1 As a large outer-London borough Barnet has a considerable variety in its make-up. Vibrant diverse local centres of both town centre scale and smaller local centres depend on custom to remain in business and residents and visitors need to have access to a full range of leisure, cultural, and recreational activities and local services. It is inevitable that in a borough with high car ownership many people will seek to use their cars to do this, and this may lead to significant congestion unless parking is adequately managed at destinations.
7.1.2 Barnet has many railway and underground stations within its boundary, and these will attract commuter-parking by people continuing their journey on public transport. This can have a significant negative effect on local communities around stations. The parking and enforcement plan informs the manner in which these issues are addressed. 7.1.3 Barnet’s Corporate Plan includes the key priorities: • Supporting the Vulnerable in the Community • A Cleaner Greener Barnet.
7.1.4 A Parking and Enforcement Plan has a direct impact on the movement of vulnerable people in the community. This is with regard to both the parking of vehicles – for example disabled badge holders, and also to dealing with parking that has an adverse impact on the vulnerable by obstructing footways, or in other inconsiderate ways.
7.1.5 As part of its Cleaner Greener strategy, Barnet is committed to reduce congestion. The Parking and Enforcement Plan contributes to this by managing and regulating parking so as to secure the safe and expeditious movement of traffic, and by managing parking provision in accordance with the needs of specific areas.
7.1.6 Through consultation, priorities that matter most to the community have been agreed. The Council is committed to delivering real changes having regard to these priorities which include getting the borough moving – improving transport and accessibility, and ensuring a good climate for business.
7.1.7 The Parking and Enforcement Plan contributes to these priorities as effective management of parking has a direct impact on dealing with congestion and assisting traffic flow and improves accessibility by managing kerbspace to deal with competing needs of people with disabilities, users of public transport, and other road users. The plan contributes to meeting the needs of businesses in particular with regard to access and servicing.
112 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
7.1.8 The Council is committed to a continuing programme of reviewing local parking needs and issues and consulting on whether the design of controlled parking zones, or a process of reviewing existing CPZs, might be applied to manage parking to the benefit of the area. The programme is developed and reviewed taking into account local representations, for example from residents or Ward Members and this informs priorities.
7.1.9 Where there appears to be good reason to investigate the provision of a new CPZ the Council will generally consult first on whether such a scheme would be supported, and if so what type of scheme. This ensures that if any design work is progressed, it is focused on the area where there is support, and has proposed hours and days of control that take into account local opinion.
7.1.10 The Council has agreed to set up a working party (including elected members) to carry out detailed work on parking issues to look at how Controlled Parking Zone's are working and delivering for local communities, and to consider future options relating to cashless systems, charging, permits and vouchers and enforcement and representation issues.
7.1.11 The Council intends to continue to develop its parking strategy in response to predicted increases in car ownership and in response to (and anticipation of) developments of land in the borough.
7.1.12 The Parking and Enforcement Plan sets out in a single document the Council's parking policies, strategies and practises. It forms a comprehensive document that enables officers to deliver services in accordance with agreed aims and objectives of the Council in a consistent manner and provides a common understanding and frame of reference for the borough’s residents and businesses, elected Members and other stakeholders.
7.1.13 Barnet has evolved parking practises through a continual process of development. There has been consistency in application through the dialogue that takes place between officers and elected members, and in many individual papers and reports. Policies have been created, amended and developed, but have not generally been set out in any consolidated policy documents. The Parking and Enforcement Plan addresses this and provides clearer direction.
7.1.14 In writing this Plan, the aim has been to draw on and document current practice, policy and procedure which in many cases has evolved over the last eleven years of decriminalised enforcement and twenty years of controlled zone design in the Borough, coupled with a legacy of controls designed and implemented prior to this. In view of this extended evolution, no attempt has been made to identify and document in this Plan the diverse source policy documents, reports and briefings that have brought the Council to its present position.
113 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
7.1.15 The aspiration is to set out a definitive position in a single document to form a baseline and common understanding of the Council’s current parking strategy, to link that to the ways that this will contribute to the LIP and thus contribute to implementing the Mayor’s Transport Strategy, and to serve as a basis for further development.
7.1.16 This Plan remains a “live” document subject to review and development. Barnet is committed to responding to changing needs and updates to elements of the parking plan may be considered and produced from time to time.
7.2 Parking Management in Barnet – Context
7.2.1 Barnet Council manages parking with the aim of maximising movement through the easement of congestion caused by inconsiderate and inappropriate parking, to make it easier for residents to park near their homes and to increase the turnover of parking to help users of local services, businesses and shops.
7.2.2 The Council seeks to use parking controls to help businesses load and unload and prioritises the needs of the disabled (blue badge holders) offering concessions going beyond the legislative requirements. Our strategy assists motorcyclists who can park free at pay and display and permit parking places.
7.2.3 Restrictions are not unnecessarily proscriptive and where waiting is prohibited, loading restrictions take into account local needs and are less restrictive, or not applied at all thus assisting local businesses and people with disabilities.
7.2.4 One element of non-essential car journeys is that of commuters driving into the borough and parking on-street near stations to continue a journey – typically into central London. Barnet controls the amount of parking which is available to commuters and thus seeks to reduce this movement by means of controlled zones that provide primarily parking for those with a need to be in the area such as residents, local businesses and visitors including shoppers. Thirteen tube or railtrack stations currently have CPZs associated with them (refer to Figure 7.1).
7.2.5 CPZs are the primary tool for managing parking. However, in areas where CPZs are not introduced but the streets are adversely affected by high volumes of daytime parking as a result of commuting or other pressures, the Council will seek to implement waiting restrictions at appropriate locations leaving other kerbside parking uncontrolled so as to promote safety and assist traffic movement.
114 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
Figure 7.1 Location of Controlled Parking Zones and Car Parks within the London Borough of Barnet
7.2.6 The Borough will, in implementing parking controls, seek to avoid designating parking that contributes to congestion, and will seek to use waiting restrictions with the aim of reducing congestion, particularly at the
115 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
busiest times. Moving traffic is less polluting and reducing congestion also improves all movements including buses.
7.2.7 Overall an aim of parking controls is to create a safer environment for all road users making it more attractive to those who wish to walk, cycle and use public transport, whilst providing for necessary vehicle use (including motorcycles which are recognised to be an efficient use of road space).
7.2.8 In accordance with the RTRA 1984 the Council will have regard to seeking the expeditious, convenient and safe movement of vehicular and other traffic (including pedestrians) and to provide suitable and adequate parking facilities on and off the highway.
7.2.9 Barnet recognises that the continued vibrancy and diversity of services offered in its town centres and smaller retail and mixed-use areas depends on access by all who wish to use them. A balance must be found that encourages people to use local businesses in preference to out-of-town retail developments and this will be reflected in the provision of parking which encourages turnover whilst retaining facilities for loading and for the disabled.
7.2.10 In addition to managing parking by a review and consultation programme of CPZs and by the use of controls on waiting in specific areas, linear controls along main routes are used to assist traffic flow, facilitate loading and access, and improve sightlines for turning traffic.
7.2.11 Outside CPZs parking may also be managed by pay and display or other paid time-constrained parking facilities along “high-street” locations. This is in response to the situation in outer London where a surrounding residential area may be used for parking in a responsible manner, and no controls are necessary or supported by the local community, but a shopping street in the centre may be subject to competing pressures such that management of parking is necessary.
7.2.12 Throughout the borough individual parking places are designated on application and subject to legislative process for people with disabilities, and to assist doctors.
7.2.13 Car ownership is an aspiration of many who perhaps see it as granting freedoms they would not enjoy without it. Even if changes cause people to make less use of their cars, they will still wish to park them near to their homes and although Barnet has a great deal of between-wars development with driveways and off-street parking, in much of the Authority the only parking option is on the highway.
7.2.14 As with all London boroughs, the past decades have seen a complete reversal from the position where there may have been an acceptance that the only right on the highway for a motorist was to pass and repass over it to today’s position where motorists expect parking to be available – including at their homes. In many places kerbspace is simply not adequate to cope with
116 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
such demands, so zonal parking schemes enable local areas to even out demands, restricting parking to those with a need to be in the area.
Consultation
7.2.15 The Council is committed to consultation on parking controls. The local community and elected Members are involved in the process.
7.2.16 The Council aims to be inclusive in its consultation and proposed CPZs and most other proposed parking restrictions will be the subject of direct mailings to households and businesses in a consultation area as well as street notices and statutory advertisements.
7.2.17 Whilst the Council will have regard to petitions submitted, greatest weight is given to the views expressed through returned questionnaires as by this means the Council can be assured that the person participating was doing so without the pressures of a person canvassing for signatures.
7.2.18 The Council will consult at a formative stage of the process and is receptive to all possible outcomes including those which substantially alter the proposal, or which result in no scheme being implemented. Prior to any detailed design work being completed for a proposed CPZ the Council will carryout a preliminary consultation to assess the likely support for a scheme. This ensures design resources are focussed on areas where schemes are supported, but at the consultation on the detailed design stage does not preclude areas outside the controls proposed from “opting-in.”
7.2.19 After implementation all CPZs will be reviewed in the light of operational experience during which period the Council will encourage those affected to make representations about the scheme. This may result in changes being implemented.
Development in the Borough
7.2.20 The borough has considered the factors that may impact on parking in the borough in the future (see chapters 1 and 2). These include changing land use likely to arise at development sites contributing to a 25% increase of population over 10 years. There may also be issues arising from changing household make-up. Whilst there is a trend for smaller household size as people seek independence, those who continue to remain with parents may seek independence through the ownership of a car leading to more households with multiple cars.
7.2.21 Overall it is therefore expected that car ownership is set to significantly rise in the Borough. However the current situation is that the borough’s CPZs are able to accommodate the vehicles owned by residents that cannot be kept off-street and the permit pricing strategy and maximum entitlement is suitable for this purpose. Barnet recognises that there may come a time in certain areas where this will change, but a process of regularly reviewing
117 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
existing zones will provide an opportunity for the need for any change to be examined with the involvement of the users of the CPZs.
Pro-active Parking Management
7.2.22 Many of the Council’s CPZs are comparatively recent and whilst each newly implemented zone will have been reviewed in the light of operation experience and the views of the users, there has been no specific programme of pro-active zone review within established zones. (Though some further reactive reviews take place responding to local needs). A programme for review of existing CPZs is therefore being prepared to address this.
7.2.23 Barnet will also seek to apply resources to a more pro-active approach, revisiting CPZ and waiting and loading controls along key routes to ensure that movement is maximised on the public highway. We will further investigate the need for changes to better meet local needs, changing land- use and demographics.
7.3 PARKING CONTROLS – A SUMMARY On-Street Controls
7.4.1 The Council manages parking on-street with waiting restrictions, controlled zones and other controls. Over the years this has developed from basic use of waiting restrictions to a sophisticated mix of designated parking and waiting, loading and other restrictions with diverse hours of control proposed and consulted on to reflect local needs.
7.4.2 The Council prohibits, permits and regulates parking using powers within the RTRA 1984. In 1994 following a brief period where decriminalised enforcement covered three areas the Council applied for an order to be made designating the whole borough a Special Parking Area which was duly done - with the exception of the current Transport for London Road Network and the M1 motorway. Consequently the Council is empowered to enforce the full range of “decriminalised” parking controls that it implements in any borough road.
7.4.3 The full range of controls that the Council implements and / or enforces are detailed in this Plan.
Charges
7.4.4 In designating parking the Council sets charges for permits, vouchers and for paid-parking. In setting the former the Council recognises that the ownership of a permit gives the holder a right to use a vacant parking space – a right that a person without a permit does not have. This right has a value and Barnet therefore may set a permit charge that is greater than that required to cover the operational costs of running a permit parking scheme. The same principle applies to vouchers.
118 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
7.4.5 In considering whether permit and voucher charges should vary in different parts of the borough, or for different hours of operation, or different levels of congestion and “usability” the Council considers that the fairest and most equitable methodology is to levy a standardised flat-fee across the borough.
7.4.6 The Council recognises that parking charges must not be set for the purpose of raising revenue but, having invested in the parking service such revenue as is considered necessary, will use any surplus generated as a result of its charging strategy for the purposes set out in the RTRA as amended.
7.4.7 Barnet does not designate specific projects as being funded by the parking surplus – rather the surplus contributes to the overall expenditure on permitted uses. This ensures residents do not feel that any contribution that they may have made to the surplus is being used in an area that does not affect them. The surplus is instead seen as being used throughout the borough. Table 7.1 shows the annual declarations on parking income and expenditure.
7.1 - Annual Declarations on Parking Income and Expenditure 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 £ £ £ £ £ Income
Penalty Charge Notices (2,482,882) (2,584,507) (4,373,272) (5,961,832) (5,017,121) Residents Permits (193,181) (211,290) (252,633) (425,589) (875,731) Pay & Display (816,416) (1,021,678) (1,118,453) (1,524,926) (2,718,767) CCTV Bus lanes 0 0 0 (1,432,409) (614,924) Total Income (3,492,479) (3,817,475) (5,744,358) (9,344,756) (9,226,543) Operating Expenditure 1,487,930 2,020,075 2,372,758 3,553,942 4,367,771 Net Operating Surplus (2,004,549) (1,797,400) (3,371,600) (5,790,814) (4,858,772) Add Capital Expenditure 139,949 260,649 533,156 700,009 16,214 Net Expenditure in Year (1,864,600) (1,536,751) (2,838,444) (5,090,805) (4,842,558) Balance brought forward (1,243,918) (958,518) (495,269) (103,713) (19,518) Appropriation to General 2,150,000 2,000,000 3,230,000 5,175,000 4,850,000 Fund Balance Carried Forward (958,518) (495,269) (103,713) (19,518) (12,076)
7.4.8 The pay and display charge is set to encourage a turnover of parking. The Council has adopted a principle of setting a standard tariff structure across the borough, but has a range of maximum stay period from 1 hour to 4 hours and, where capacity is sufficient, for a period corresponding to the full permitted parking hours of the parking place.
Off-Street Public Car Parks
7.4.9 Barnet operates several car-parks (listed at 7.10) as a part of its parking strategy generally as pay and display areas but in some cases allowing
119 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
permit parking for residents or businesses. With compatible permit entitlement and pay and display charges, the car parks assist in meeting local demands.
7.4.10 The car parks are run in an integrated manner with the controlled zones. The charging policies are implemented in the same way as on-street.
7.4.11 A number of sites owned by the Council in areas of comparatively low parking-pressure are run as uncontrolled car parks freeing-up space on- street. This is a simple means to encourage people to park off the highway and there are no specific proposals to introduce charges in those car parks to manage the parking by duration of stay and price. The Council will review free car park usage in the light of any changes in local circumstances.
Other Off-street Car Parking issues
7.4.12 The Council’s policies regarding off-street parking associated with developments are covered in its Unitary Development Plan. The document has been undergoing active development and change and extracts included in this plan are those current at the time of drafting, but are subject to a consultation period before consolidation into a formally approved Unitary Development Plan (UDP) before the end of 2005.
7.4 ON-STREET PARKING STRATEGY
7.4.1 The Council is empowered to prohibit waiting or permit parking subject to constraints, conditions and charges under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, and in using these powers it has a duty amongst other considerations to secure the expeditious, convenient and safe movement of vehicular and other traffic and the provision of suitable and adequate parking facilities both on and off the highway.
7.4.2 Inevitably these considerations may be mutually exclusive at some locations and the need to provide adequate parking may be constrained by the number of vehicles that can be safely accommodated. In congested areas parking may be a compromise to achieve this aim, though in areas with sufficient kerbspace all appropriate needs might be accommodated.
7.4.3 A hierarchy of parking need informs the design process and generally parking provision reflects parking need in the following order: (i) Disabled people. (ii) Suppliers of goods and services. (iii) Local residents and their visitors. (iv) Businesses, their clients, customers and shoppers.
7.4.4 The management of parking is generally through the use of controlled zones, but not exclusively so, and Barnet will use local waiting controls to address local needs if this is the most appropriate solution.
120 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
7.4.5 The Council recognises that implementation of controls is subject to consultation and will consider all responses with an open mind and be receptive to all possible outcomes.
7.4.6 In consulting on parking controls, the Council considers that the views of those directly affected, ie frontagers of streets subject to the proposals have the greatest weight when consideration is given to representations and comments. However, all views expressed through the consultation process will be given consideration.
7.4.7 Operational hours of parking controls are intended to reflect local needs taking into account consultation responses. However Barnet recognised that this can lead to complexity and potential confusion for motorists and a balance has to be found so that users of the schemes are not confronted by too many different hours of control in individual streets.
7.4.8 Controlled Parking Zones will not be designed to be unnecessarily proscriptive and yellow-lined waiting restrictions are minimised to those required for facilitating the movement of traffic, allowing loading, maintaining safe sight lines and other essential reasons. Parking is permitted where it is safe, but in CPZs it will be regulated and managed.
7.4.9 Barnet has a three-year rolling programme of consultation and implementation of CPZs which is reviewed on at least an annual basis when further proposed schemes are included. The Council seeks to extend and introduce CPZs in response to local needs – typically from local residents, but will also consider pro-actively proposing controlled zones in areas where the parking demands exceed the safe capacity of the streets.
7.4.10 The means of managing on-street parking used by the Council are explored in detail in the following sections.
7.5 ON-STREET PROHIBITIONS AND RESTRICTIVE CONTROLS
Waiting and Loading Restrictions
7.6.1 The basic means of controlling waiting is the yellow lined waiting restriction. This is used throughout the borough where such a need exists. Historically it has not been used to control obstruction as this remains a police-enforced offence, but in some areas motorists appear to be parking with less and less regard to other road-users, and police commitments to dealing with serious crime may mean that the Council will need to review this and use waiting restrictions at locations where obstruction is a problem.
7.6.2 As waiting restrictions permit many acts – loading, or parking by blue badge holders for example, the council will use loading restrictions at locations where vehicles should not wait at all.
121 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
7.6.3 Loading restrictions are not unnecessarily proscriptive and if possible, even on main routes loading will be permitted off peak, or in wider areas of carriageway where traffic flow is not impeded.
7.6.4 The Council will consult on and implement temporary waiting restrictions for specific events such as maintenance or to facilitate site access. Special Temporary Waiting Restrictions are implemented by Notice for special events.
7.6.5 The Council considers that parking is becoming increasingly irresponsible in some uncontrolled streets and this creates an unsafe situation compromising safer routes to schools, particularly where people cross roads such as street corners. As a result, the Council is increasingly looking to the use of waiting restrictions at junctions to improve sightlines in the vicinity of schools and routes to them.
7.6.6 Because of the apparent trend to park ever closer to uncontrolled junctions the Council is also increasingly using waiting restrictions at junctions to assist traffic flow as, where turning movements are impeded by inappropriately parked vehicles, the knock-on effects can affect many. In the first instance those travelling along the road in which a vehicle is turning from will be held up causing disruption to all including bus passengers on that street, but in addition, turning movements may be impeded to an extent that causes essential and emergency vehicles to be unable to access certain streets.
7.6.7 The Council is reviewing its parking work-programme to integrate into the team’s CPZ work a rolling programme of waiting and loading review.
Match-day restrictions
7.6.8 The Council has, in early 2005, implemented a package of waiting restrictions under an experimental order designed to control parking in the vicinity of Barnet FC Underhill stadium with the aim of creating a safer environment, facilitating crowd movements and assuring accessibility by emergency vehicles. The success of this scheme will be monitored and a decision made on the scheme’s future.
Pedestrian Crossings
7.6.9 Suitably placed markings setting out limits of pedestrian crossings are an integral part of the measures used to manage parking. Each case is considered on its merits to ensure that appropriate length zig-zag markings are used to ensure they are respected and that they will not become over- used and disregarded.
122 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
School Keep Clear Markings
7.6.10 The Council has a programme of conversion of advisory keep-clear markings to mandatory ones enforceable by the Council. Barnet recognises that such controls have a significant part to play to improve safety near schools, but abuse of such controls by motorists – in particular people dropping children off is seen to be increasing if parking attendants are not present. The parking service will work closely with road safety officers to seek solutions to address this trend.
Restricted Bus Stops
7.6.11 The Council recognises that by 31 December 2006 the current situation where some bus stop “cages” have waiting or waiting and loading restrictions within them will be changed such that there is either a “cage” with a clearway, or no cage. Work is in hand to address this. Bus stop issues are covered elsewhere in the LIP.
7.6.12 Barnet Parking meets regularly with bus operators and Transport for London (TfL) to discuss enforcement priorities and review issues of concern such as maintenance, and identified “hot-spots”.
Restricted Taxi Ranks
7.5.13 In the event of there being difficulty in taxis using taxi ranks, the Council is receptive to applications from the Public Carriage Office to implement “no stopping” clearway restrictions.
Footway Parking Prohibition
7.5.14 Footway parking was prohibited throughout London in 1974. It can obstruct pedestrians, particularly the disabled and those with wheelchairs, buggies or prams and can endanger the visually impaired. It can damage the footway and services beneath it as footways are not, as a matter of course, designed to take the weight of vehicles.
7.5.15 The prohibition applies to every part of the highway that is not a carriageway and so also applies to islands and refuges, kerb extensions, verges, and hard-standings not made-up as footways. Whether the vehicle is causing an obstruction is not an issue.
7.5.16 The Council recognises that the 1974 Act permits an exemption for loading provided the vehicle is attended at all times.
7.5.17 The Council has provided authorised parking areas on footways in some streets, but there had not been a continuous programme of this and little has taken place for some years. Recently – catalysed by an increase in parking attendants, improved “contactability” of the enforcement service, and possibly a greater tendency of people to report footway parking, the Council
123 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
has received requests to exempt more areas from the prohibition and in some cases it is recognised that this could be safely accommodated.
7.5.18 In 2006 a work programme will be set up to manage these requests, establishing clear criteria to maintain access along the footway for users, particularly the disabled and those with buggies and prams.
7.5.19 In several recent cases residents of certain streets have indicated that they have parked for many years in this manner, and believed that margin strips in block or bitumised macadam had been provided for this purpose. Given that in the past there may not have been enforcement levels to alert residents to the issues, the Council will in such circumstances withdraw enforcement in streets where active consideration is to be given to permitting footway parking.
Parked More Than 50cm From The Kerb
7.5.20 This prohibition applied to Barnet with effect from the LLAA 2004. As a new issue development of a suitable enforcement strategy will be considered in the context of enforcement of other restrictions.
Parked In Front Of Dropped Footways
7.5.21 The Council has noted the new legislation permitting the enforcement of this task. The enforcement of this is covered under the enforcement section
7.6 ON-STREET PERMITTED PARKING
7.6.1 Barnet Council is committed to using various combinations of the wide range of permitted parking options set out in this section to seek to meet the specific needs of local areas. Permitted hours will also take into account local needs.
7.6.2 Parking Places have been designated in the borough for many years. Inevitably different standards will have been worked to during this period leading to inconsistencies in conditions of use of parking places. In 2005/6 a programme to review the borough’s Traffic Orders will commence to ensure they are drafted to a common standard with the aim of ensuring equitable service delivery across the borough.
Resident Permit Parking
7.6.3 To manage unnecessary intra-zone short journeys resident parking is zone- specific and managed by annual permits. Table 7.2 identifies the number of permits issued by London Borough of Barnet. Permit issue is user-friendly and whilst there are no public counters allowing “instant” purchase and renewal the Council will permit vehicles to park without valid permits displayed for a time as soon as a transaction has taken place whilst the
124 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
permit is posted back. This is managed through the parking attendant’s hand held computers.
Table 7.2 - Number of permits issued
Resident Business Zone First Second Third Total Total Permit Permit Permit Barnet CPZ (c) 919 260 28 1207 88 Barnet CPZ (d) 164 33 1 198 0 Brent Cross CPZ (b) 130 22 0 152 0 Brent Cross Station (bx) 399 82 10 491 29 Church End CPZ 1018 196 13 1227 246 Colindale CPZ 83 9 0 92 Cricklewood CPZ (1 hour) 466 93 6 565 15 Cricklewood Terraces CPZ 128 26 1 155 0 Cricklewood CPZ (the Groves) 119 18 3 140 1 Edgware CPZ (j) 225 31 5 261 3 Edgware CPZ (k) 128 22 1 151 0 Edgware CPZ (inner) 9 0 0 9 0 East Finchley CPZ 1372 277 36 1685 70 North Finchley CPZ 1526 309 33 1868 366 Golders Green CPZ (g) 414 99 12 525 75 Golders Green CPZ (h) 1018 274 39 1331 0 Hendon CPZ (hc1) 270 64 11 345 63 Hendon CPZ (hc2) 470 114 12 596 88 Hendon CPZ (hc3) 43 10 3 56 0 Mill Hill East CPZ 32 3 0 35 0 Mill Hill CPZ (e) 390 68 5 463 6 (wh1) Sub Zone 385 66 3 454 20 Perryfield Sub Zone (wh2) 129 6 0 135 16 West Hendon 1 Hour Zone (wh3) 128 21 2 151 2 9965 2103 224 12292 1088
7.6.4 By the same means the Council will also take steps to facilitate the use of courtesy cars if a resident’s usual vehicle is not useable.
7.6.5 A system of reminder letters and automated telephone payment provides for easy renewal when a permit-holder’s details remain the same.
7.6.6 The Council seeks suitable proofs to provide assurances that permit applicants are genuine residents within a CPZ. As controls become more widespread in boroughs closer to central London, it is anticipated that there will be an increase in the possibility of fraudulent applications from people wanting to park in the borough and continue a journey by public transport. Consequently the Council will, in future consider requiring more supporting evidence from applicants, may make more frequent checks and/or make pro- active checks on permit usage patterns.
125 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
7.6.7 The Council will recognise residents as being the regular keeper and user of company cars and hired vehicles for the purpose of permit issue provided suitable proofs are provided.
7.6.8 Whilst no decision has yet been made on the future of conventional paper- based permit schemes in Barnet, the Council is committed to examining the suitability of new technology and will be evaluating the potential benefits of radio-tag systems, bar-coded cards, number-plate databases and similar schemes.
7.6.9 A height constraint applies to permit holders’ vehicles to minimise the impact on the streetscape of high-sided goods vehicles.
7.6.10 As part of the Council’s “Cleaner Greener” strategy the charges for a second and subsequent permit per household is higher than the first permit. In 2004/5 a three-tier approach was trialled but it was subsequently decided that the simplicity of a two-tier structure was preferable. A green permit is available at a discount for electric, LPG and similarly fuelled vehicles.
7.6.11 This is the current strategy, but the Council is also examining the provision of free parking for electric or all green-fuelled vehicles as a further incentive for change.
7.6.12 An element of restraint is provided in that there is a “per-household” limit of three permits. Properties in multiple-occupancy will be considered as separate households if each unit is an individual self-contained dwelling.
7.6.13 Charges have been reviewed, most recently on an annual basis. From April 2005 the annual permit costs £40 for a first permit, £70 for subsequent permits, and £15 for “green” fuelled vehicle permits.
7.6.14 In setting the charge the Council does so on the basis that aside from covering operational costs, the value of a permit to a holder may also be considered. The ownership of a permit gives the holder a right to use a vacant parking space – a right that a person without a permit does not have. Consequently Barnet sets a permit charge that is greater than that required to cover the operational costs of running a permit parking scheme in reflection of this value. Consideration will be given to affirming this by making a policy statement “freezing” the permit value in real terms, increasing it only in line with inflation.
7.6.15 In the interests of simplicity and equity the Council sets the permit fee at standard rates throughout the borough. There are many variables across the borough that affect parking pressures and “useability” of permits and many arguments can be made as to why any of them – proportion of resident parking spaces, hours of operation, density of car-ownership, might mean that the value of a permit could be considered to be higher or lower. Consequently a simple approach is adopted as the fairest.
126 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
7.6.16 As much of the borough is relatively recently controlled by CPZs the parking provision generally remains that provided after the initial consultation, implementation and six-month review. The Council intends to apply a policy of pro-active zone review as it is likely that local changes in land use will have changed the balance of local demand.
7.6.17 The Council recognises that whilst it may make commitments with regard to the pricing structure and/or the permit entitlement, there is only a finite kerb- space available for safe parking. Consequently if car ownership were to increase beyond that which could be accommodated proposals would have to be put forward on managing the situation. This could, for example, lead to the three permits per household policy being reviewed taking into account the ratio of permits sold to spaces designated. However there are no plans to do so at present.
Business Permit Parking
7.6.18 The forgoing section on residents permit generally applies also to business permits. They are also zone specific and primarily intended to assist businesses that have a need to base vehicles near their premises. A user- friendly system of application and renewal applies, and private vehicles used in connection with a business will be considered for business permits if the business can make a suitable case for this and confirm the vehicle is being used for business purposes.
7.6.19 A regulatory mechanism to deter unnecessary use is price; the fee from April 2005 being £300 per year. There is a limit of 3 permits per business.
7.6.20 As with residents permits, the Council considers the value that a permit has to a permit holder, and that an equitable simple cross-borough single charge rate is most appropriate. Table 7.1 identifies the number of permits issued by London Borough of Barnet.
7.6.21 Any policy of introducing pro-active zone review will also take into account business parking provision. The Council anticipates that in future further regulation may be needed if take-up exceeds what can be reasonably accommodated, taking into account other needs, and will consider the use of needs-assessments having regard for what used the vehicles are put to, and/or giving consideration to the extent to which off-street parking is available.
Resident’s Visitor Parking
7.6.22 One-day scratch cards are available to residents at a current cost of £10 for ten. They can only be used in the zone in which the resident lives, and only where residents permits may be used.
7.6.23 A restraint-based principle to manage use is a limit of 200 vouchers per household in any 12-month period.
127 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
7.6.24 The Council expects that residents will use vouchers for builders, plumbers electricians etc. but for significant projects will consider the issue of a £35 permit valid for 3-months.
7.6.25 A system for carers currently operates whereby people who meet certain criteria may be issued with a free permit which they can allow any visitor to use. The Council recognises the potential for abuse and an alternative may be proposed whereby residents with carers would be entitled to a greater number of “standard” one-day vouchers in view of the service they provide, but with additional entitlements and discount rates in recognition of the service that carers provide.
Paid Parking
7.6.26 Paid Parking, where provided in the borough, is now exclusively by pay & display parking places, all individual parking meters having been replaced. The Council recognises that machines can be vulnerable to vandalism and is concerned that adjudications have gone in favour of motorists when machines have been out of order. This may lead to people jamming machines to obtain free parking as became the case with clockwork parking meters in much of London some years ago.
7.6.27 Whilst steps are taken through regular market-testing to seek to ensure that the most robust machines are installed to maintain a service for customers, the Council will consider other options – in particular those that offer convenient cashless alternatives. The Council will seek to introduce any new payment regimes in parallel with pay and display so as to retain a pay-with- coin option as not all customers will have access to alternatives.
7.6.28 The Council manages parking duration with a non-linear charging regime. Short-stay - less than an hour - is charged at a proportionately lower “per- minute” equivalent rate than the rate for medium-term stay countering the concern expressed by local businesses that the lack of cheap short-term parking may drive away passing and “impulse” trade. Longer stay has a proportionately higher charge thus encouraging turnover.
7.6.29 Where capacity allows, a whole-parking-day charge permits stay for the full extent of the charging hours. From April 2005 the tariff is:
Up to: Tariff 15 mins. £0.30 30 mins. £0.50 45 mins. £0.80 1 hour £1.50 1½ hour £2.50 3 hours £3.00 Over 3 hours £4.00
128 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
7.6.30 By this means short stay and a turnover of parking is encouraged. The longer stay tariffs only apply where there is sufficient capacity. Elsewhere, in congested areas, maximum stay will be limited.
7.6.31 There is a wide range of maximum-stay limits – 1, 1½, 2, 3, and 4 hour being used dependant on local circumstances. Where capacity allows, the maximum stay is for the whole charging period, the regulatory mechanism then being price only.
7.6.32 In considering tariff and occupancy the Council will take into account local circumstances, and amongst other measures will consider the use as an indicator of an 80% - 85% occupancy rate in line with LPAC recommendations in the past and subsequently endorsed in Traffic Management and Parking Guidance for London by the Secretary of State.
7.6.33 There are no current proposals to reduce the availability of long stay parking as it is not seen that where it is currently provided it is affecting availability of short stay or permit parking. This is taken to be a reflection of the situation in an outer-London borough whereby the capacity of streets is not subject to the same parking stress as an inner London authority. If in future changing local needs results in long term parkers taking space that is needed by residents, visitors, and users of local businesses and shops, consideration would be given to reducing the amount of long stay spaces in favour of permit parking or short term paid parking (subject to statutory process and consultation).
Green Fuel Initiative
7.6.34 In 2005/6 the Council will be seeking to identify funding to work with Waltham Forest, Enfield and Haringey (the North London Transport Forum members) with a view to introducing discounted or free parking for “green- fuelled” vehicles in an integrated manner across the borough boundaries, the aim being that a scheme covering several boroughs will be more attractive and be more likely to encourage motorists to invest in alternative-fuelled vehicles.
Limiting stay without charge
7.6.35 The Council does not consider free “limited stay” parking as a useful option for the borough as the enforcement of such parking places is entirely reliant of repeat visits by the same parking attendant who must log details of all legally parked vehicles. This is impracticable given the other commitments on the officer to patrol other streets. Time-restricted parking will therefore be regulated by means that require only a single visit to detect a contravention – currently pay and display.
Waiting restrictions in parking places
7.6.36 In certain locations in paid parking places the Council makes use of waiting restrictions that apply to the parking places at the start and/or end of the
129 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
controlled hours. At some locations this is to facilitate loading to local businesses. At others waiting and loading controls are applied during peak hours to assist the flow of traffic and minimise congestion.
Shared Use
7.6.37 Where there are non-conflicting demands on kerb-space Barnet combines parking place usage in dual or multiple use – pay and display with resident permit holders, business permit holders with resident permit holders etc.
Loading Places 7.6.38 Where there are competing pressures, the Council uses loading places as an option. These have four principle uses: • Where blue badge holders prevent businesses from loading or unloading from yellow lines (in such circumstances disabled parking will also be provided in the area); • Where it is desirable to reserve space for loading for longer than a local waiting restriction operates; • To restrict waiting to a defined period greater or less than the 20 minutes allowed at a waiting restriction; or • To limit loading to goods vehicles. Motorcycle Parking
7.6.39 Whilst there are a small number of motorcycle parking areas in the borough, the general position is that solo motorcycles may park free of charge in the Council’s permit parking places and pay and display spaces.
7.6.40 The Council recognises motorcycles are an efficient use of road space, and in considering any alternative strategy parking controls will continue to favour and encourage the use of motorcycles, with the continuance of free parking options.
Free Parking Places
7.6.41 The Council has a long-standing policy of providing free parking places in controlled zones. This is however inconsistent with the general principles adopted of management of parking within CPZs by duration, price, permit or voucher.
7.6.42 In some areas a resident’s lifestyle may make it easy to use the free parking places, whilst a person adjacent to such a parking place may have a lifestyle that results in a permit being necessary – an inequitable and undesirable position. Furthermore, whilst a CPZ in principle reduces commuting by car, the free parking places continue to allow it – albeit restricting it to a first- come basis. Consequently the Council recognises that in reviewing CPZs in future changes in the balance of free and other parking places may be made subject to consultation.
130 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
Parking For People With Disabilities
7.6.43 In addition to the national concession of permitting blue-badge holders to use pay and display parking free of charge, Barnet allows free use for unlimited periods of permit parking places.
7.6.44 In some congested town centre areas the Council provides time-limited free blue badge parking to achieve a turnover and assist visitors.
7.6.45 The Council provides blue badge holder parking places for people with disabilities close to their homes if they have no off street parking and there is local parking congestion.
7.6.46 Such parking is provided (at no cost to the applicant) on the basis that it should assist parking near the applicant’s home. However the growth of blue badge use means that in some areas it may be that a parking place will be occupied by a person other than the applicant which can be a great inconvenience where the applicant is profoundly disabled, requiring others to provide assistance to go to and from a vehicle. The Council will, in such circumstances – consider designating a “Dedicated” Parking Place for the exclusive use of the applicant.
7.6.47 The Council is concerned at the reported high incidence of blue badge theft and misuse, but recognises little can be done in the absence of any database of stolen badges, However the Council will be working with its IT provider with the aim of at least providing a local database accessible by parking attendants. All vehicles displaying badges which can be identified as stolen, forged, copied, or altered will be treated as if no badge was displayed and penalised.
7.6.48 When the Traffic Management Act powers regarding blue badges are available to the Council they will be implemented.
Doctor Parking
7.6.49 Doctor parking places are provided near to surgeries where no off street parking is available. The primary purpose is not for the convenience of the doctor, but to ensure that a car is nearby in the event that a doctor is called out in an emergency. For group practises, consideration will be given to the provision of an additional space.
7.6.50 The Council recognises the London-wide Health Emergency Badge which can be used by health professionals called to life threatening and emergency situations.
Key Worker Vouchers
7.6.51 From 2003 Barnet piloted scratch card vouchers for certain groups of users providing valuable services in the community such as the Primary Care Trust and the North London Cancer Hospice. These are used in the same way as
131 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
visitor vouchers (and are currently provided at the same cost) though – reflecting the broad area covered by some workers, they are multiple-zone rather than zone specific.
7.6.52 As this is a relatively new initiative, and so far introduced on a service- specific basis, the use of such vouchers will be reviewed in 2005/6, a policy and criteria for issue will be defined and the range of bodies entitled to the vouchers may thus be amended. The baseline principle is, however, one of necessity, not convenience and the vehicle must be seen as directly contributing to the quality of the service delivered.
Car Club Parking
7.6.53 The Council currently provides no car club parking but recognises that car clubs can offer an alternative means of giving people access to a car in a potentially more effective manner.
7.6.54 As infill development may bring high density residential accommodation to areas where the on-street capacity cannot absorb additional resident’s cars, the Council recognises that car-clubs may be a useful option, possibly working with developers to provide this in combination with car-free developments through S.106 agreements.
7.6.55 The council therefore expects to give consideration to the provision of car club parking places in the future.
7.7 ON-STREET CONTROLLED PARKING ZONES
7.7.1 In applying the foregoing on-street parking measures to manage parking extensive use has been made of controlled parking zones. As previously mentioned this continues with a rolling programme of consultation and proposed implementations of new and extended CPZs across the borough, focussed particularly on areas where the community has directly or through Ward Members expressed a desire for controls, or in areas where it is identified that “boundary effects” around existing CPZ may be having an adverse impact.
7.7.2 The Council’s hierarchy of parking will inform the prioritisation of the types of control in CPZs and in addition to those general principles the Council will avoid designating parking places where there are post boxes, fire hydrants, refuse bin chambers, and areas where there is a frequent need to set down passengers. In long runs of parking where the remaining carriageway has been reduced to a single lane, the parking will be interrupted by waiting restrictions at intervals so as to provide passing places, and at junctions sufficient space will be provided for vehicles to wait for oncoming vehicles to pass.
7.7.3 New zones continue to be proposed for the borough; a programme of consultation is under active review but at the time of drafting has not been
132 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
agreed or finalised. In 2005 zone extensions have been introduced in North Finchley and Chipping Barnet and consultation is concluding on a scheme for Temple Fortune. The locations for future consideration could include New Barnet, East Barnet, Burnt Oak, Whetstone, Oakleigh Park, Cockfosters and New Southgate.
7.8 SIGNING THE RESTRICTIONS
7.8.1 The Council is committed to providing and maintaining such signs as are necessary to support the foregoing restrictions and does so to at least the minimum standards of the legal requirements, providing additional signage where local circumstances require it, whilst seeking to reduce the use of unnecessary signs and mounting posts so as to achieve low levels of street clutter.
7.8.2 In cases where there is no specific legal standard the Council recognised the Traffic Signs Manual as the definitive source of minimum standards.
7.8.3 In residential areas with little distracting street furniture and with wide footways to facilitate good visibility, the Council will use parking place and waiting and loading restriction signs at the “back” (building-line) of the footway on low posts so as to further reduce street clutter and improve the visual amenity of the street.
7.9 MAINTENANCE
7.9.1 The Council recognises that effective and timely maintenance of parking- related equipment, road markings, and signs is essential to support an efficient parking operation, and to this end has restructured the parking service to create a dedicated manager for this service area from April 2005.
7.9.2 In 2005/6 the pay and display team will be reorganised and retrained to achieve faster repair using more locally based staff to reduce down-time of machines thus offering a better service to customers.
7.9.3 At the same time a specific resource will be appointed to provide a directly responsive maintenance service for signs and lines defects reported by parking attendants or in the context of penalty charge representations. Being within the parking service this will ensure that remedial action is always with reference to traffic orders, so ensuring that the on-street environment is kept in line with the defined restrictions and maximising “enforceability”.
7.9.4 The effects of this will be to support the aim of achieving better compliance with restrictions and ensuring turnover at paid parking places thus contributing to the council’s traffic management objectives.
133 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
7.10 OFF-STREET PARKING
Public Car Parks
7.10.1 The Council runs several car parks (refer to Table 7.3) as an integrated part of its controlled parking operations. These are generally pay and display car parks, although some have permit parking spaces. The aim is to integrate the off-street operation with the on-street, and charges and where applicable permit use conditions are directly comparable.
Table 7.3 - Off Street Public Car Parks Location Spaces Disabled Spaces Strafford Road 7 resident permit 0 Burroughs Gardens 24 Business permit 2 20 Resident permit East Barnet Rd (N) 37 P&D 2 East Barnet Rd (S) 20 P&D 2 Lodge Lane 214 P&D 9 Stanhope Road (3 car parks) 116 P&D 2 Castle Road 48 P&D 1 Stapylton Road 61 P&D 0 Moxon Street 56 P&D 3 Perryfield Way (N) 61 P&D 2 Perryfield Way (S) 19 Business permit 2 Bunns Lane 199 P&D 5 Watling Market 194 P&D 5 23 Business permit Fitzjohn Avenue 75 P&D 2 Woodhouse Road 10 P&D 2
A full audit is taking place of off- Not available n/a street free car parks following the transfer of the management of these to the parking team
7.10.2 Charging policy: The aim is to encourage short stay and turnover, and to assist local traders by the use of proportionally cheaper short stay charges. However it is also recognised that where there is sufficient capacity and low demand, beyond a certain threshold an “all-day” rate can be applied. At the time of drafting this is £4 but it is proposed to reduce this to £3 and monitor the effect on usage.
7.10.3 Some car parks have no “all-day” option, and in some it is limited to only a proportion of spaces so as to ensure adequate parking is available for short- term parking.
134 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
7.10.4 The tariff (proposed from January 2006) will be as follows;
Up to: Tariff 15 mins. £0.30 30 mins. £0.50 45 mins. £0.80 1 hour £1.50 1½ hour £2.50 Over 1½ hour £3.00
7.10.5 Disabled badge holders are permitted to use all pay and display car park spaces free of charge for an unlimited period, and specific disabled badge holder only parking spaces are also provided.
7.10.6 As part of a review of occupancy and parking turnover on-street arising from CPZ review, or reviews of main routes it is intended to review the off-street operation concurrent with this so as to make the most effective use of on and off-street facilities to best meet local needs.
7.10.7 The Council, having adopted a strategy of equal on-street and off-street charges, has noted that car parks are currently less well used than in the past and this is attributed to a significant proportion of use having been for most, if not all, of the charging hours, but the long stay charge having risen in 2003 and 2004 in line with on-street charges.
7.10.8 It is therefore currently proposed to reduce the long term charge from £4 to £3 in January 2006 and monitor the effect of this. The aim is to increase use of off-street space where capacity allows for longer term parking, maintaining a higher charge on-street whilst still ensuring that there is sufficient capacity for short-term parking.
7.10.9 The use of car parks will be monitored to ensure that disablilty parking is not compromised. Where necessary specific disabled parking spaces will be increased if the free parking concession and existing disabled parking spaces is insufficient to meet local needs.
7.10.10 This reduction will specifically seek to attract more custom to the off-street car park at Bunns Lane, which is under-used and close to Mill Hill Broadway Thameslink station.
7.10.11 Consideration will be given, for off-street car parks close to shopping areas, to identifying scope for the use of illuminated “spaces available” signs to encourage shoppers to go direct to off-street parking and reduce motorists driving around looking for on-street spaces.
Off Street Private Parking
7.10.12 The Council will encourage development in locations which will reduce the need for travel, promote the use of public transport and other non-car modes
135 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
and reduce the number and journey length of those trips which are made by car.
7.10.13 Generally, providing additional facilities for the car simply increases car ownership and use. Although unrestrained car usage could eventually reach a natural saturation level, this level is beyond that which could be accommodated. Transport measures such as traffic calming and parking management have been used in an attempt to ameliorate some of the problems but can sometimes just displace the problem elsewhere. In 2001 Barnet had 1.1 cars per household (8th highest in London) and 73% of households had access to a car (10th highest in London). Development orientated towards car use can exclude a significant percentage of the population.
7.10.14 The Council will expect that major development proposals with the potential for significant trip generation should be in locations which are, or will be made, highly accessible, by a range of modes of transport, in particular public transport, walking and cycling. In assessing the suitability of such proposals, the Council will make reference to established accessibility models and further refinements in consultation with strategic authorities.
7.10.15 In considering planning applications for new development, the Council will require developers to submit a full transport impact assessment, where it will have significant transport implications. This will include an analysis of accessibility by non-car modes and measures to assist in meeting Barnet’s traffic reduction targets.
7.10.16 Travel Plans are one of the many tools available for reducing road traffic. By drawing up these plans, organisations identify ways in which their employees, and in some cases customers, can be helped and encouraged to travel using methods other than the car. Measures can include provision of a safe cycle parking and showering facilities, recruiting staff or attracting customers from areas accessible by public transport and the setting up a car sharing register. There is also a need for travel plans to contain measurable outputs. PPG 13 paragraph 90 states that these outputs might relate to targets in the local transport plan, and should set out the arrangements for monitoring the progress of the plan, as well as the arrangements for enforcement, in the event that agreed objectives are not met.
7.10.17 The sites potentially generating the largest traffic flows are considered to be the first priority for implementing Travel Plans. Below a certain level of employment/trip generation, the value of a Travel Plan will be less. The Council believes that Travel Plans have a significant role to play in achieving road traffic reduction. The Council is developing a plan for its own employees and will encourage employers to voluntarily adopt plans themselves. In appropriate situations, through the use of planning obligations, the Council will require occupiers of new developments to adopt and maintain Travel Plans. Guidance on developing travel plans is published by many organisations, including the ODPM/DfT 2002 publication. Using the
136 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
planning process to secure travel plans; Best practice guidance for local authorities, developers and occupiers..
7.10.18 For significant trip generating developments, the Council will require the occupier to develop, implement and maintain a satisfactory Travel Plan to minimise any increase in road traffic and encourage the use of transport modes other than the car. The Council will lead by example with policies which help its employees.
7.10.19 Where it is considered necessary as a result of development, the Council may introduce measures including parking controls to reduce the effects of traffic on the environment and the community. Where the need for such measures is directly related to the development and any planning permission, the Council will seek to secure a planning obligation from the developer.
7.10.20 The Council will expect developers to provide safe and suitable access for all road users (including pedestrians) to new developments. Where improvements or changes to the road network are directly related to the development and any planning permission, the Council will seek to secure a planning obligation from the developer.
7.10.21 The London Plan seeks to ensure that on-site car parking at new developments is the minimum necessary because overprovision could undermine the use of more sustainable non-car transport modes. The London Plan sets out parking restraints policy that balances the desirability of reducing car use with the need to provide for attractive, viable town centres. It recognises that many people will continue to use their car for travel particularly in the suburbs. In the most accessible locations there could be car-free development but less restrictive policies will generally be appropriate in suburban London. Appropriate parking for disabled people should always be provided and provision should also be made for cycle and motorcycle parking.
7.10.22 The Council ’s approach to parking provision is to accept the need for restraint, but to apply it with sensitivity to local circumstances. The parking standards will vary across the borough to reflect the accessibility of individual locations. This will be dependent upon the public transport accessibility of the site, the level of on-street parking control, population density in the surrounding area and other relevant planning and highways considerations. The standards will contain a degree of flexibility with the intention that a more restrictive provision will be expected as changes in people’s habits occur and the infrastructure for non-car modes is developed. The car parking standards that apply to the borough are to be found in the London Plan, Annex 4 ‘Parking Standards’, and will be subject to review during the lifetime of this plan. However, two exceptions are made. First, in relation to residential parking, the standards are as follow:
137 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
Table 7.4 – Residential Parking Standards
Prominent Detached and semi- Terraced houses Mostly flats Housing Type detached and flats Number of 4 plus bedrooms 2 to 3 bedrooms 1 bedroom Bedrooms Car Parking 2 – 1.5 spaces per 1.5 – 1 space per 1 to less than 1 Provision unit unit space per unit
7.10.23 In applying these standards, the Council will exercise flexibility by taking account of locality, public transport accessibility and local parking stress. The second exception is made in the case of office (B1) development where the London Plan standard of 1:100m² may not be appropriate for an outer London borough. In assessing parking provision, the Council will have regard to the likelihood of parking occurring on-street and any detrimental effect on highway conditions and road safety.
7.10.24 The Council will expect development to provide parking in accordance with the London Plan (February 2004) parking standards, except: (i) in the case of residential development the standards will be 2 to 1.5 spaces per unit for detached and semi-detached houses, 1.5 to 1 space per unit for terraced houses and flats, and 1 to less than 1 space per unit for development consisting mainly of flats (ii) in the case of office (B1) development where a maximum standard of 1:50 square metres will apply.
Individual Frontagers’ Private Parking – Crossovers
7.10.25 The Council has little control over the creation of residents’ off-street parking. However in areas such as conservation areas where planning constraints apply the Council will apply those constraints.
7.10.26 The Council will not permit the construction of crossovers where there is insufficient land available to safely accommodate a vehicle and/or where the proposed location of the crossover would create a hazard to traffic or pedestrians.
7.8 PARKING ENFORCEMENT
Background
7.8.1 An essential element of the management of parking by implementation of restrictions and controls intended to be matched to local needs is the enforcement of those restrictions during their hours of operation. The Council enforces the parking controls it implements through the use of directly employed Parking Attendants. We provide a firm, equitable, fairly delivered enforcement service.
138 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
7.8.2 Under the Road Traffic Act 1991 the Council took over the enforcement of all parking places on the highway in 1994. Following a pilot in three areas, it applied for an Order designating the whole borough a Special Parking Area and took over all decriminalised parking enforcement on the Borough Roads in the same year.
7.8.3 The deployment strategy seeks to match resources to levels of non- compliance of the controls implemented by the Council. The service also enforces contraventions of specific Acts such as that for footway parking. Due to the size of the borough there is a reactive element to the borough- wide enforcement tasks so as to focus of areas of greatest need.
7.8.4 Foot patrols focus on Controlled Parking Zones and mobile officers on motor scooters cover linear routes, main roads and bus routes, scattered restrictions at junctions, sensitive areas, doctor and disabled parking places, and respond to specific enforcement requests.
Service Development 7.8.5 The enforcement service has undergone a full root and branch review and a service improvement plan started in September 2004. A new uniform has improved “presence” and authority and, with clear and neat corporate branding, has contributed to presenting the borough in a positive manner. Management and supervision is changing to create a more responsive workforce and more quality control measures are being introduced.
7.8.6 All officers have been provided with refresher training to ensure they are working to a common standard and training in dealing with and defusing difficult situations has been provided.
7.8.7 The Council recognised that PA levels had lagged behind the spread of CPZs and a rolling recruitment programme increased PA numbers from 37to 57 between September 2004 and April 2005, with recruitment continuing in 2005 to help target non-compliance.
7.8.8 A vehicle was obtained in 2005 to ensure quicker deployment to outlying areas with measurable success and consideration will be given to expanding this to reduce unproductive time.
7.8.9 Whilst performance monitoring to ensure high quality is essential, and output measurement is a key tool to ensure effective service delivery the Council does not set arbitrary “target” penalty issue rates, instead measuring outputs against benchmarks for specific beats that are established and reviewed by senior enforcement staff. The Council has no reward or bonus scheme linked to PCN issue and believes such schemes offer no benefit and present enforcement services that use them in a bad light.
7.8.10 The Council is seeking to work with local press to promote a positive understanding of the benefits that parking enforcement brings to the community.
139 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
Deployment
7.8.11 Overlapping shifts cover the “working day” including morning and evening peaks. As part of a continuing service improvement plan, consideration is being given to a proportion of the early shift being made available at an earlier time and the effectiveness of this will be monitored. A dedicated shift commences in the late afternoon providing additional cover for the evening peak and delivering a mobile patrol through to 1am. “Call-out” arrangements for after 1am are being reviewed and consideration given to having a rota to cover this period, as officers on “call-out” often find reported contravening vehicles have moved on their arrival.
Loading Observations 7.8.12 There is a conflict when seeking to provide fair service delivery. If an authority has a defined “observation time” to see if loading is taking place, this will result in some people exploiting the time given to park for just under that time to make quick visits to adjacent premises, for example to make purchases.
7.8.13 This can tie up limited space and prevent those who are entitled to use it from doing so, including people making deliveries to businesses and residents, and people with disabilities. As people who return to their vehicle within an observation period can then drive away with impunity (as it is not permitted to serve a notice by post in such circumstances) this has led to some authorities considering a move to reduce or cease observations times.
7.8.14 However, that practice causes those who are loading to have to follow a path of making representations and submitting evidence – a situation that creates ill-feeling toward a council and a belief that the authority is acting unreasonably.
7.8.15 After a period of years during which the Council has had no observation time other than that taken to take down vehicle details and prepare a penalty, a new policy will be considered in 2005: PAs are to be alert to the possibility that loading might be taking place when enforcing in a street and will record this in their pocket book including when they are some distance from the vehicle concerned, taking it into account when they reach it. In any event, for all vehicles likely to be used in a loading or delivery act – vans, lorries, estate cars with the seats down, motorcycles and hackney carriages, etc. – the vehicle will be observed for at least 5 minutes before a PCN is prepared. The Council will void any penalty in preparation if loading is then confirmed, and in the event of a PA observing loading after a PCN has been issued, he or she is permitted to take back the penalty for subsequent cancellation.
7.8.16 This will still result in some representations being made on the ground of loading, but the benefits of seeking to keep parking places and waiting restrictions available for those entitled to use them are seen to outweigh the additional bureaucracy that is caused by the genuine users having to appeal – typically those who were loading.
140 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
Footway Parking
7.8.17 Due to the large size of the borough, comparatively low parking pressures in many areas, and initially a small workforce due to there being few controlled zones, there was no pro-active coverage of footway parking contraventions across the borough. Instead a reactive service which added locations reported by residents and others to a log for subsequent action and monitoring was adopted.
7.8.18 However, much has changed and this is no longer considered appropriate. For a time it has created a situation where some people feel that footway parking is condoned in some streets (as no complaints are made) yet some of those streets are unsuited to footway parking, either due to width of footway or its construction. Furthermore where footway parking might be acceptable, it needs still needs managing to keep it within acceptable limits.
7.8.19 In view of this a new strategy involving an element of publicity to inform the public is being developed for 2005/6 moving towards a more pro-active approach. The Council will phase this in on an area basis to manage the situation adequately, as the increased reactive enforcement demonstrates that a pro-active approach is certain to catalyse applications to be made for footway parking to be authorised
“Borough-Wide” Enforcement Issues
7.8.20 The Council intends – having brought the enforcement service up to new standards and scale – to send a message to the community on several changes simultaneously, focusing on the positive benefits that effective enforcement brings to the community.
7.8.21 The Council will set out the benefits of parking management and encourage residents, businesses and other stakeholders to contribute to identifying areas of concern and helping the Council to focus on hot-spots and problem areas.
7.8.22 We will also provide publicity on issues that feedback indicates to be poorly understood which may include specific publicity on footway parking, the borough-wide night time commercial vehicle waiting prohibition, parking more than 50cm from the kerb, and parking in front of dropped footways.
7.8.23 In order to best focus an enforcement service on meeting the needs of the community the Council considers that the enforcement strategy for potentially widely applicable regulations such as parking more than 50 cm from the kerb (ie blocking people in by double parking, or parking in the centre of a road) will be subject to a principle of providing enforcement in response to requests for action and complaints.
141 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
Enforcement Near Schools
7.8.24 The Council has developed a ‘Safer Routes to Schools’ programme and schools are preparing their own travel plans to make access to schools safer, to discourage unnecessary car journeys to and from school and discourage parking on main traffic routes.
7.8.25 The increase in the enforcement resource is bringing parking attendants into greater contact with people picking up and setting down children near to schools. Whilst rigorous enforcement of mandatory School Keep Clear markings is carried out, the Council has recognised that for young children boarding and alighting might need to include leaving a vehicle unattended on other restrictions whilst a child is taken to or from premises, (and it is noted that some adjudications have confirmed this).
7.8.26 Consequently the Council has one pilot scheme where vehicles may wait for a short period in the vicinity of a nursery (not on a keep clear marking) with the use of an “identifier” card placed in windscreens issued through the nursery that, whilst having no legal significance, help to regularise the situation, and draws a parking attendant’s attention to the proximity of the nursery if he or she is unfamiliar with the area.
7.8.27 This is not so much a concession as an interpretation of boarding and alighting. As such it applies only to parking places and waiting restrictions, but not to mandatory keep clear markings.
7.8.28 Full consideration will be given to whether there is a future for such schemes for other nurseries or infants schools in the context of safe routes to school issues.
Future Improvements
7.8.29 The Council intends to develop the enforcement service to improve accuracy of reporting and create more robust data to assist in pursuing unpaid penalty charges whilst also providing assurances to motorists that evidence collected in issuing a penalty could only have been collected by a parking attendant at the location and time given on the penalty issued. Consideration may be given to the use of: • GPS to verify location. • Scanning of radio tags in place of permits. • GPRS for near-instantaneous uploading of PCN data. • Cameras to capture images of vehicles and what – if anything was displayed on them.
Persistent Evaders
7.8.30 The Council is concerned at reports that a significant proportion of vehicle owners do not register their cars, and considers this, and the possibility that
142 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
false addresses are used to be a means by which people evade payment of penalties.
7.8.31 The Council is working with its PCN processing system provider to improve the ability to report on persistent evaders and means will be explored to deal with the issue.
7.8.32 The parking debt team is revising the way it works with bailiffs to ensure that all avenues are taken to trace vehicle owners, and the service is building internal links to make better use of possible intelligence gained through abandoned vehicle investigation as untaxed vehicles investigated as possible abandoned vehicles are likely to also be unregistered. A project has been started to provide details of persistent evaders who have no registered address or who appear to be untraceable at the address held by the DVLA to the police to use in conjunction with automatic number plate recognition.
7.8.33 The Council will monitor the outcome and progress of the scheme piloted between Camden, Islington and TfL and through the ALG review how it might contribute to London-wide actions to deal with persistent evaders.
Places Of Worship & Funerals
7.8.34 In the event of funerals in the vicinity of the home of the deceased and/or at a place of worship, or on religious festival days and other holy days and religious holidays of significance likely to result in motorists attending a place of worship, the Council's stance is that whilst not condoning unlawful parking, it will – if requested – apply a sensitive approach by directing routine parking enforcement patrols away from the affected street for the duration of the event.
7.8.35 It is emphasised that the Council does not condone unlawful parking, and in the event of complaints being made or specific enforcement requests being received, the parking service will direct parking attendants to enforce the restrictions in the affected area by the issue of penalty charge notices.
7.8.36 This operational policy will be applied to only to specific streets in the immediate vicinity of a place of worship, or the home of the deceased. It will not be applied to primary roads and other main roads and key routes. In so far as is possible the policy will be time-specific permitting enforcement to take place up to and after agreed times.
7.8.37 This provides for a consistent application of the discretionary element of the RTA whereby there is no mandatory requirement to issue a penalty - only a power that a parking attendant may issue a penalty (S66).
Enforcement On Bus Routes
7.8.38 The borough has worked with TfL to agree a SLA for Bus Route enforcement. At the time of drafting a revised Phase 2 SLA is actively in the process of being reviewed with the aim of concluding an agreement.
143 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
7.8.39 Both during the life of the previous SLA, and since it expired, regular quarterly meetings take place hosted by the parking enforcement team and including TfL, bus operators, the parking service, police representation and the Council’s public transport officer. These meetings discuss enforcement issues, identify hot-spots of non-compliance to focus enforcement to those areas, seek to resolve issues where maintenance or signs may be affecting compliance and seek change with the aim of improving bus services.
7.8.40 The borough also enforces contraventions by the monitoring of 9 cameras covering locations along bus lanes on the A5. No map is readily available for the camera locations.
Abandoned Vehicles
7.8.41 When enforcing parking controls officers will be alert to the possibility of abandoned vehicles and if they meet certain criteria will report them to an abandoned vehicles officer. Vehicles that are parked unlawfully and do not move accumulating three PCNs will also be reported, and checks will be made with the police in case they have been dumped after theft.
7.9 OTHER PARKING ISSUES
Review of bus stops
7.9.1 As covered elsewhere in this document, the council recognises that some bus stop restrictions will no longer be valid after the end of 2006. An audit of all bus stops is currently being incorporated into work programmes to inform a process of conversion, where necessary, so that by this deadline all bus stops where restrictions are needed will be enforceable.
7.9.2 Through the regular meetings with operators and TfL and through a commitment to improve the mechanism for parking attendants to report defects, together with the recruitment of a dedicated site investigation officer to deal exclusively with parking-related defects, the Council during 2005/6 will improve its ability to maintain bus stop restriction signage, both existing, and arising from the review.
7.9.3 As part of the review, the allocation of kerbspace for buses will be reviewed in order to ensure that sufficient space is allocated for buses to reach the kerbside at bus stops to facilitate accessibility of buses. The parking team will work closely with the lead officers to ensure that enforcement practices are modified in line with the implementation of changes restrictions as they are rolled out.
Review of Controls on A Roads, Bus Routes, etc.
7.9.4 As described elsewhere in the Parking and Enforcement Plan, the Council is committed to engaging the local community to a high level when consulting
144 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
on schemes. The commitment is to identify “packages” of controls that best meet the needs of local areas, taking into account specific circumstances.
7.9.5 Nevertheless, it is recognised that circumstances and local needs change. For example loading and disabled parking in the past has often been catered for by yellow lined waiting restrictions. In some areas this is no longer adequate to manage the competing demands. The Council has begun the use of specific loading places and disabled parking places in town centre and other busy locations, limiting duration of stay where appropriate to encourage turnover.
7.9.6 The Council also recognises that hours of restriction may no longer be suitable for local needs, and that space previously allowed for bus movements may no longer be relevant for modern buses.
7.9.7 Barnet will therefore define a programme of review of A roads, other main routes, busy bus routes, and local centres that, through concurrent review of all parking controls in each study area, will seek to propose and provide the best balance of waiting, loading, and parking place controls. This will address the need of specific road users by means of bus stop clearways, disabled parking places, and loading places and through the use of the most appropriate balance of waiting, and waiting and loading restrictions to ensure that movement along the highway is facilitated, whilst still providing for loading to businesses.
7.9.8 The Council will seek the views of local disablement organisations to identify suitable sites for additional blue-badge parking provision.
7.9.10 The review may also include changes to the physical layout such as has been implemented in Temple Fortune.
7.9.11 The review is a significant undertaking, and it is anticipated that a two year programme will be necessary to identify and agree all areas for review and to define the scope and scale of each. This will commence in 2006, and will inform the consultation and implementation programme that will also commence in 2006 and which is expected to take 5 years to complete.
7.9.12 Prioritisation will draw on analysis of when records show controls to have been first introduced combined with inputs from TfL or bus operators and the aforementioned bus stop review, and inputs from local business communities.
7.9.13 The priorities will address the need to ensure that sections of A roads and busy bus routes are identified for review to suitable timescales, and will take into account parallel initiatives where possible.
7.9.14 The review will take into account issues arising from the bus stop audit, and where possible the two actions will occur concurrently.
145 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
Review of Controlled Parking Zones
7.9.15 The Council recognises that in recent consultation exercises, controlled parking zones covering wide areas are less well supported, and minded of the need for an order-making authority to have proper regard to the outcome of consultation, it is expected that in the current environment there will be less demand for significant controlled zones.
7.9.16 However, it is also recognised that existing CPZs, the oldest of which date from the mid 1980s should be reviewed, and resources will be directed increasingly to this task. This will include pro-actively engaging the local area on all aspects of the zone operations.
7.9.17 This programme will be based on age of the existing zones, identifying areas where local needs have changed as a result of changes in land use or other factors, and on the need to consider the surrounding areas when main roads and busy bus routes are reviewed.
Occupancy Surveys
7.9.18 Historically occupancy surveys have not generally formed a part of usage and review of CPZs. Generally reviews that have taken place have included responsive actions and local responsive occupancy surveys building on issues arising from the local community. The Council recognises that a more pro-active approach will be necessary in future, particularly if demands get closer to supply and intends to explore the use of occupancy surveys to inform reviews and to assist in prioritisation.
Stakeholder Review
7.9.19 To bring an element of scrutiny to the parking operations in Barnet the Councils Cleaner, Greener Scrutiny Committee has formed a Working Group to consider a range of operational policy issues. To inform this Stakeholders have been invited to participate in a review of issues relating to accessibility, zone review, observations times, grace periods to introduce a degree of proportionality for some contraventions, quality of signage, the effect of charges on custom for local shops, and permit charges.
Suspensions
7.9.20 The Council may suspend parking places from time to time. The current policy is to seek to give at least three days advance notice (though this may be reduced for pay and display parking) so as to ensure minimum adverse impact on resident permit holders and other parking place users.
Temporary Waiting Restrictions
7.9.21 The Council will make temporary traffic orders and special temporary waiting restrictions for events, works and other reasons. In doing so the Council is committed to providing advance notification by street notices and leaflets to
146 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
minimise local impact, and alert residents and or businesses in a customer- focused manner.
Exemptions
7.9.22 The Council has adopted conventional measures in its traffic orders consistent with other authorities which permit exemptions and exceptions:
7.9.23 Parking attendants are to be alert to identifier boards of the type approved for use by the utility companies, which whilst not in themselves an exemption can alert the officer to the likelihood that the vehicle is in use in connection with nearby works and permitted to wait.
7.9.24 All vehicles in use for fire police and ambulance purposes are exempted from restrictions as are vehicles delivering certain statutory functions.
7.9.25 Vehicles in use for Removals are exempt from the 20 minute maximum that applies to loading.
7.9.26 The Council recognises the HEB scheme used by health professionals in emergency situations.
Football Club Enforcement
7.9.27 For the latter part of the 2004/5 season the Council has implemented match day only waiting restrictions in the vicinity of Barnet FC (Underhill) Stadium.
7.9.28 This is an experimental scheme introduced after dialogue with the club and the police with the aims of improving local safety, crowd movements, and emergency vehicle access.
7.9.29 The council is monitoring the impact of the scheme and encouraging local residents to contribute their views prior to a decision being made on the future of the scheme and how it might apply in the 2005/6 season.
7.9.30 Enforcement is provided after advance notice is given of the next match day.
Penalty Charge Level
7.9.31 Whilst additional parking charges are set by the ALG after the involvement of the Mayor of London and the Secretary of State, the borough may apply to the ALG for the application of the charge band(s) felt appropriate to the borough’s circumstances. Barnet applies charge band “B” throughout the Authority’s area (currently £80). This is considered a fair and equitable policy as the Borough considers that contraventions anywhere in the authority have an impact on one locality that is as important as the impact on another locality.
7.9.31 The Council notes that application of Band “A” is still predominately focused on part or all of 12 authorities in inner London. It is also noted that band “A”
147 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
has been applied in some town centres in outlying boroughs. However, the application of band B remains broadly consistent with other outer London Authority’s chosen penalty charge band and the Council does not intend to apply to vary this. We will seek to deal with any apparent increase in irresponsible parking in some areas by improving the focus of patrols on such streets rather than by the use of a more punitive charge.
Clamping And Removal
7.9.32 Barnet has not used clamping and removal as a tools to support parking enforcement activities and has considered these to be unnecessarily punitive measures. It is recognised that disruption can be caused by inconsiderate parking in some areas such as at waiting and loading restrictions, in disabled parking places, at restricted bus stops, within pedestrian crossing limits, and similar situations and that this may impact on traffic flow including pedestrian and cycle movements, bus operations, disabled access, and safety, but the initial focus has been on carrying out the aforementioned review of enforcement operations and this will continue with the aim of targeting non- compliance.
Penalty Charge Notice Processing
7.9.34 Effective efficient enforcement requires the support of equally effective processing. During 2005/6 a programme of service improvements is being progressed, focused on a realignment of the team to improve customer focus and achieve prompt closure of cases.
7.9.35 The service has recognised a need to ensure that improvements are made in considering factors in representations in a flexible manner that seeks proofs and evidence that is appropriate to each case making judgments on the most likely position derived from a balance of probabilities in line with the requirement to work within the applicable standards of civil law.
7.9.36 Standardised letters will be reviewed and developed taking into account the Council’s customer care ethos with the aim of providing more detail in supplementary paragraphs where appropriate to better explain reasons for upholding or cancelling penalties where this had not previously happened.
7.9.37 The service will also establish better feedback mechanisms with a view to driving quality improvements in the enforcement team.
7.9.38 The Council accepts that where enforcement is primarily based on visual observation of vehicles, it is possible for vehicles to be penalised when they are being used for exempt activities if the permitted act is taking place out of sight of the attendant. It also accepts that in even the best run service mistakes are possible. To minimise inconvenience, the Council considers representations from people prior to issuing a Notice to Owner, holding the charge at the discount period if this still applies, though the Road Traffic Act does not place an obligation on the Council to do either.
148 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
7.9.39 This is part of the Council’s customer-focused approach applying fairness to service users, including those issued with penalties.
7.9.40 However, the Council also recognises that the proper pursuit of correctly issued penalties is essential to create and maintain a regime whereby the Council’s restrictions are respected by the motorist. The Council will therefore pursue all unpaid penalties, registering them as debts and passing them to bailiffs to recover.
7.9.41 The Council will also invest resources into analysing data with the aim of identifying persistent evaders and seeking the most appropriate means of dealing with this issue
Camera Enforcement
7.9.42 Whilst the Council does currently use cameras to enforce bus lanes, there are no proposals to expand the service to cover “moving traffic” offences by seeking to decriminalise them, however the Council will note the development of this in London following the initial pilot scheme.
Publicity
7.9.43 The Council intends to develop publicity – particularly on its website, but also in other appropriate media, to address the negative reporting that delivery of a parking service attracts. The aim will be to present the service in a manner that emphasises the benefits to the community in managing parking.
7.9.44 The Council’s website is also being developed in late 2005 to provide specific information on parking issues including downloadable documents and guidance and to provide responses to frequently asked questions.
7.9.45 Further developing a customer focus, the service will better explain through publicity the way enforcement is delivered, the reasons why penalties are issued, and how – if applicable – a person might best present a representation to the Council regarding a penalty and what supporting evidence might be required.
7.9.46 Barnet will also publicise the agreed parking plan, providing a digest and interpretation to facilitate a better understanding of its contents and will use the parking plan as the basis of operational policy.
149 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
8. School Travel Plan Strategy
OVERVIEW
8.1 The Council is responsible for promoting School Travel Plans at a Borough wide level, together with assisting and enabling schools to develop them individually. The Council’s resources will help schools implement actions identified in their Travel Plans. This School Travel Plan (STP) Strategy incorporates Safe Routes to School project work that promotes modal shift and seeks to contribute to casualty reduction. The strategy also considers cross boundary school transport issues.
8.2 School Travel Plans will be deemed to be successful if they reduce traffic congestion and contribute to the quality of life in the Borough through the reduction of noise and air pollution. In addition, they may help to combat social exclusion, improve an area’s sense of community and enhance personal safety and perceptions of security.
8.3 The aim of the Strategy is that all schools within Barnet have an approved travel plan in place by the end of the academic year 2009-2010.
NATIONAL AND LOCAL POLICY CONTEXT
National 8.4 The London Borough of Barnet aims to work towards and meet the targets set by Central Government. An outline of relevant national and local policy relating to school travel is shown below.
8.5 The Government’s White Paper: A New Deal for Transport considers the problems of providing sustainable transport and sets out the approach to achieve an integrated transport policy.
8.6 The issues of journeys to school are also included in the National Road Safety Strategy- Tomorrow's Roads: Safer for Everyone and the National Cycling Strategy. Both of these documents highlight the fact that the school journey, in line with most journeys, has changed to become much more car-dependent and travel by all other modes has fallen.
Local 8.7 Barnet casualty reduction targets have been set by the Government for the year 2010, and contained in the national road safety strategy document “Tomorrow’s Roads: Safer for Everyone”. The main casualty reduction target figure influencing School Travel Plans is a 40% reduction in all fatal and serious road casualties by 2010 from their average level for the years 1994- 98.
150 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
School Travel: An Action Plan 8.8 The Departments for Transport and for Education and Skills have devised a joint initiative to promote School Travel Plans in schools. This is accompanied by the document Travelling to School: an action plan. The target is that all schools in the UK have a travel plan by 2010. This is designed to respond to the fact that the National Travel Survey in 1996 showed that car use on the school run had doubled in the ten years previous to the survey, and that there have been knock-on consequences of increased congestion and increasing levels of obesity in children which may be partly caused by the decrease in physically active travel habits.
8.9 The initiative offers capital funding to schools that develop School Travel Plans – this is currently available until 2008 – and funding for local authorities to employ a School Travel Plan Advisor (STA).
8.10 The STP strategy addresses national education, health and other policies involving children through the development of School Travel Plans. These policies are summarised below:
8.11 Choosing Health (Department of Health, November 2004) - This white paper states ‘The components of good health will be a core part of children’s experience in schools’ and will be developed through ‘a coordinated ‘whole school’ approach to health – in lessons, sport, provision of food, personal advice and support, and travel arrangements.’
8.12 Choosing activity: a physical activity action plan (Department of Health, March 2005) - This action plan sets out the Government’s plans to encourage and co-ordinate the action of a range of departments and organisations to promote increased participation in physical activity. Included is the development of transport plans to encourage activity.
8.13 Every Child Matters (Government Green Paper ,September 2003) - Every Child Matters outlines five national outcomes for children, which all services for children must endeavour to achieve for all children. School Travel Plans can contribute to ‘being healthy’ through the promotion of physical activity, ‘staying safe’ and ‘enjoying and achieving’ by furnishing the children with road safety skills necessary in adult life and embedding healthy transport choices in their minds for future years.
8.14 Healthy Schools Guidance (Department of Education and Employment) - School Travel Plans have clear links to several elements of the Healthy Schools Guidance. Physical activity can be boosted through a variety of STP schemes such as WOW (Walk on Wednesdays) and Park and Stride. The benefits of walking and cycling can be taught in associated lessons. Safety of the school population is addressed through the STP process and the development of a Safe Routes to School project.
8.15 “Every day Sport” Campaign (Sport England) - This campaign promotes commuting, including the school run, as an opportunity for “everyday sport”;
151 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
thirty minutes activity five times a week , so walking, cycling or running becomes part of the journey.
Barnet’s Objective’s 8.16 The council’s primary objectives relating to School Travel Plans are as follows: • To assist in the reduction of reported injury accidents for school journeys in accordance with targets contained in national guidance; • To increase journeys to school using more sustainable forms of transport; • To increase coverage of road safety awareness and impact of education, training and publicity; and • To reduce congestion outside of schools.
Regional Targets
The Mayor’s Transport Strategy 8.17 School Travel Plans link to objectives contained within the Mayor’s Transport Strategy. The Greater London Authority Act (1999) provided for the Mayor to set statutory targets with respect to the implementation of any of his strategies. In relation to School Travel these are;
• Target 2 School Road Safety: Boroughs are to review road safety around all primary and secondary schools in London by 2008.
• Target 8 School Travel Plans: Boroughs are to work with schools or groups of schools to review travel to all schools by March 2008, with significant progress having been made by March 2006.
8.18 The regional target of 25% of the boroughs schools to have a completed STP by March 2005 has not been met. This would have required some 39 schools to have a completed STP in less than a year. Delays can be attributed mainly due to the original School Travel Plan Co-ordinator leaving the post, and the subsequent time it took to find a suitable replacement.
8.19 Revised interim year targets have been developed in order to meet the Mayor’s target of all schools having a School Travel Plan by 2009; one year ahead of the national target. Regional targets are not explicit between financial, academic and calendar year. As it is schools that engage in the STP process, the Council will therefore work to academic years.
8.20 The milestones were determined on the basis that during the academic year 2005-06 24 School Travel Plans will be completed with 30 completed in each of the following 4 academic years. Travel to school is reviewed at the start of the School Travel Plan process leading to the given review of travel milestones. All schools are deemed to need a School Travel Plan. Schools that have completed their travel plans will be expected to implement their STP the following academic year.
152 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
Table 8.1:Interim targets for the completion of School Travel Plans
Academic Schools Plans completed year involved in (percentage) developing STP 05 – 06 24 32 (21%) 06 – 07 30 62 (41%) 07 – 08 30 92 (61%) 08 – 09 30 122 (80%) 09 – 10 30 152 (100%)
8.21 By March 2008 122 (80%) of the Borough’s schools will have begun the School Travel Plans, included in which is a review of travel. In order to meet the regional target of working with schools or groups of schools to review travel to all schools by March 2008, a review of travel to the remaining 30 schools will be instigated in the Spring Term 2008 in preparation for them beginning their School Travel Plans. Table 8.2 shows the target number of schools where travel will have been reviewed.
Table 8.2:Target number of schools reviewed
March March 2006 2008 Number of 75 152 schools (49%) (100%)
8.22 Schools will be expected to implement their School Travel Plans during the academic year following completion of the STP document. Table 8.3 shows the target number of schools to have a School Travel Plan implemented.
Table 8.3 : Target number of schools with travel plans implemented (academic year)
2007- 2008- 2009- 2010- 08 09 10 11 Nos. 62 92 122 152 schools % 41 61 80 100 schools
8.23 A review of safety will be completed around 122 schools (80%), by 2008, based on the predicted STP programme, as part of the School Travel Plan process. This involves a comprehensive safety audit of the school’s locality completed in consultation with the school staff. In order to meet the regional target of safety to be reviewed around all schools by 2008 the Council commits to carrying out independent reviews around the remaining 30 schools
153 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
(20%) during the academic year 2008-09, in preparation for starting a STP plan with these schools.
8.24 To complete the review of safety, members of the traffic management and safety team will visit the school location to assess all aspects of highway, footway, parking facilities, street furniture, crossing facilities, signs and lines and will consider issues such as parking, congestion and pressure on crossing points. 20 mph zones will be considered in situations where inappropriate speed is an issue.
8.25 Table 8.4 shows the future year milestones for the review of safety around all schools. The predicted number of schemes to be implemented is based on practice to date, but future schemes will be reliant on the findings of the safety reviews.
Table 8.4: Target number of schools with safety reviewed and schemes implemented.
2006 - 07 2008 - 09 No. of schools 62 152 reviewed Percentage of 41 100 schools reviewed No. of schools with schemes 15 31 implemented Percentage of schools with 10 20 schemes implemented
Safer Routes to Schools (SRtS) 8.26 Safer Routes to Schools is a programme that is funded through the Borough Spending Plan (BSP) process and London boroughs bid annually to TfL, who in turn allocate money against agreed measures.
8.27 The work is undertaken by the Highways Group, who responds to requests from schools. Measures are identified when physical features can achieve change in mode of travel and enhance safety on the journey to school. Examples of works include measures such as new signage and pedestrian crossings. It is now policy that if a school approaches Barnet for engineering works, an STP must be written prior to agreement of any works. The following works are planned for the 2005-06 SRtS programme:
154 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
Table 8.5: Works planned for the 2005-06 SRtS programme
School Scheme description Barnet Hill School Introduce new pedestrian island. Widen footway near school exit. New PGR and bollards to protect footway. Fairway School Introduce new pedestrian island. Improve footway near subway. New PGR and bollards to protect footway. Introduce 'wig-wag' lights and improve signage. Review School keep clear provision outside school. Garden Suburb Schools Improve pedestrian facilities at two exits to schools. Introduce measures to reduce school gate parking. Investigate the introduction of one-way operation on slip road off Willifield Way. Localised widening of footways. Hasmonean Girls’ School Introduce VAS on Page Street. Improve school signage. Construct 'Park & Stride' lay-by near school and measures to reduce footway parking near main entrance. Whitings Hill School Introduce VAS on Quinta Drive. Improve school signage. Construct pedestrian crossing and improve existing facilities. amend School keep clear provision outside school. Underhill Schools (Infant/Juniors) Localised footway widening. Introduce measures to reduce footway parking near school gate. Improve PELICAN crossing facility. Brunswick Park School Improve pedestrian facilities at exit to school. Introduce measures to reduce school gate parking. Introduce improvements at School Crossing Patrol location. Parkfield School Introduce new pedestrian island crossing. Reduce parking near school exit and around junction. Review School keep clear provision outside school. Colindale School Introduce new pedestrian island. Reduce parking near school exits. Review School keep clear provision outside school. Improve crossing facilities at School Crossing Patrol location.
THE JOURNEY TO SCHOOL
Trips to School by mode 8.28 The ways in which children travel to school have altered markedly over the last ten years. The modal split for journeys has changed towards those modes that are associated characteristically with longer journeys, especially the private car. According to the National Travel Survey, for example, in 1989-91, 27% of trips to school taken by 5-10 year olds were in a car or van; by 1999- 2001 this figure had risen to 39%. Since the majority of trips to school usually take place at the same time each morning and evening, they can have a major impact on levels of congestion in residential areas. At the morning peak at 8.50am, an estimated 17 per cent of all cars on the road in urban areas are taking children to school, (refer to Table 8.6).
Table 8.6: Trips to and from school per child per year by main mode
Percentages Age 5-10 Age 11-16 1989-91 1999-20011989-1991 1999-2001 Walk 62 54 48 43 Bicycle 1 1 5 2
155 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
Car/van 27 39 14 18 Private bus 4 3 10 9 Local bus 4 3 20 23 Rail - - 1 2 Other 1 1 3 2 All modes 100 100 100 100 Source: National Travel Survey, Department for Transport
Journey Characteristics: Perceived Safety 8.29 Busy roads, increased car use and pressures on parents mean that vehicle congestion on the ‘school run’ is increasing and the number of pupils walking or cycling is decreasing. Many parents feel that they have no realistic alternative than to drive their children to and from school because of their fears for the children’s safety both from traffic and other issues. Parents need reassurance and convincing that they and their child will be able to use the roads safely and conveniently if there is to be a significant shift in travel mode.
School Choice 8.30 Parents are able to and do exercise their rights to choose the most appropriate school for their child’s educational needs. This may result in children attending schools that are further away from home. As a consequence, more children are likely to travel to school by car. This is especially the case for orbital movements across the borough, where there is overall poor public transport alternatives available at school times. This results in higher levels of car use. Barnet also has a large number of faith schools that attract pupils from both within the borough and from outside. These again tend to attract a larger number of car journeys, as often pupils are travelling considerable distances to attend these schools.
8.31 Through the STP process, schools with large catchment areas will be encouraged to disseminate information on possible routes to school that minimise car use to parents/carers and pupils through their school prospectus, newsletters and information evenings, so that informed choices can be made. Car sharing will be promoted and park and stride schemes set up to reduce congestion around the school. Links will be made to neighbouring Boroughs so that the same message will be given to parents.
Distance to School 8.32 Trips to school account for over a quarter of all trips taken by under 16s. In 1999-2001, children of secondary school age took considerably longer on average to get to school than younger children. Significantly, children living in London took the most time of all. In 1989-1991, children living in London aged 5-10 years of age took on average 25 minutes to travel to school, whilst in 1999-2001 took 26 minutes, an increase of 4%. In 1989-1991, children living in London aged 11-16 years of age took on average 35 minutes to travel to school, whilst in 1999-2001 took 43 minutes, an increase of 23%.
156 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
Table 8.7: Mean time taken to travel to school: by age of child and area type of residence
Minutes Age 5-10 Age 11-16 1989- 1995- 1999- 1989- 1995- 1999- 1991 1997 2001 1991 1997 2001 London boroughs 25 22 26 35 35 43 Metropolitan built-up areas 27 21 23 31 30 29 Large urban over 250,000 24 21 19 29 27 29 Medium urban 25,000 to 250,000 23 19 20 26 29 29 Small urban 3,000 to 25,000 22 18 20 27 26 27 Small/medium urban 10,000 to 25,000 .. .. 19 .. .. 29 Small urban 3,000 to 10,000 .. .. 20 .. .. 25 Rural 18 17 18 30 27 28 Source: National Travel Survey, Department for Transport
8.33 This increase for both younger and older children can be attributed to varying economic, demographic, social and cultural changes. However, one significant factor in these variations is the distance children live from their schools. Children aged 5-10 travel, on average, 2.6 kilometres to their school, whilst for that aged11-16 this figure is 4.8 kilometres. See Table 8.8 below.
Table 8.8: Average national journey length to school (km)
Age 5-10 Age 11-16 1989-1991 1999-2001 1989-1991 1999-2001 Average length (kilometres) 2.0 2.6 4.5 4.8
Source: National Travel Survey 2001, Department for Transport
SCHOOL TRAVEL WITHIN BARNET
Journey to school by mode 8.34 The proportion travelling to school by car in Barnet is relatively high compared to the national average, which itself has seen an approximate doubling of car use since 1990. The school run has therefore been a major contributor to traffic congestion on Barnet’s roads at peak periods.
157 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
Figure 8.1 – Mode of Travel for usual journey to school
0% 1% 4%
1%
Not asked 35% Motorcycle Driver 34% Pedal bike Car Passenger Van/minibus Passenger Motorcycle Passenger Bus Tube Train Walk 1% 0% Other 4% 0% 20%
8.35 Figure 8.2 highlights the relatively large proportion of school children travelling to school by car when compared to other London Boroughs.
Figure 8.2 - Mode choice for usual journey to work
120
100
80
60
Percentage 40
20
0
t y t y n h g n n e d t D e n g ld c w w n n s & n le e le o in e i o in o lo to to g n to e r x r d l fi w rr r d s s r id o t r B a e B m y a n n a e g n g e r m u o B B ro ro E e v in n b h S F E H a ll u i M d c B C re H i o K e i m H H R a G R h lt a W Borough
All public inc.taxi All Private inc. m/c walk/cycle
8.36 Many households own a second car that is available for the school journey, and are therefore more able to drive children to school. The use of the car is
158 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
increased by the fact that few of the Borough’s Secondary schools are located in areas of high PTAL scores. A map of Barnet’s public transport accessibility level (PTAL) shows that many parts of Barnet (except for a few isolated areas around major town centres) have limited access to convenient bus and train services (refer to Local Implementation Plan (LIP), Chapter 2, Figure 2.3).
8.37 For those living in areas served by limited public transport, some parents understandably feel there is no alternative to the car, especially if the school is some distance away and cannot practically be reached walking or cycling. In addition to rising car use and ownership, a number of factors have also contributed to increased use of the car for the journey to school:
Cycling 8.38 Schools show a reluctance to allow pupils to cycle to school because of parking and security problems. Parents have echoed this reluctance because of the perceived dangers to young cyclists. Initiatives to promote cycling (i.e. supplying secure cycle parking facilities), may help to address these issues. In addition, other factors beyond the control of facilities can restrict levels of cycling significantly. Barnet’s undulating topography means that its hills are a significant barrier to achieving high levels of cycling.
8.39 However, there is increasing interest being shown by secondary schools to the promotion and use of cycles and many now encourage pupils to receive training to allow them to ride to school. The promotion of cycling to school children is included as a regular resource to schools. Currently Barnet Council offers cycle training to all year 6 pupils in the borough. Cycle training for years 7 and 8 is also offered to all schools within the borough. This is promoted via letters sent out to all schools at the beginning of the academic year. Pupils and parents are asked whether they would like to cycle to school, and if so whether training would assist them in doing so. Based on the response, assessment days are held at the school. Individualised training is then given that reflects the child’s needs so that they can cycle the selected route with confidence.
Walking
8.40 The lack of road skills and awareness is apparent with the current high proportion of road casualties in the 10-14 age group. Figure 8.3 below illustrates this, with over 950 accidents happening to the 10-14 age group alone in 2002, (refer to the Road Safety Plan, paragraph….).
159 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
Figure 8.3 - Pedestrian casualties by age and severity in Greater London 2002
Source: Tfl pedestrian casualties in Greater London June 2003 factsheet
Public Transport
8.41 Barnet currently encourages schools to promote healthy and sustainable modes of travel and attempts to highlight the issues concerning car travel. In addition, Barnet works with schools and public transport providers to help them promote public transport in schools to students, parents and staff alike. This is of particular relevance due to the recent introduction of free travel on buses for anyone under the age of sixteen.
8.42 Bus use across London is on the increase. London Buses are now carrying the highest number of passengers since 1969 and there is now the fastest rate of growth in passengers since 1945. (Source: Tfl)
8.43 The Council acknowledges buses are a viable and popular mode of transport for Secondary School pupils and will continue to seek to increase bus use through understanding the barriers that stop young people using this form of transport. Bus use tends to be lower in the Primary sector due to smaller catchment areas so pupils have to travel less distance. Data collected through the STP process will enable the Borough to identify bus use and needs which can be shared with the bus providers. Barnet continues to support and encourage Private bus services operated by schools.
8.44 Unruly behaviour, sometimes resulting in serious damage to vehicles, is known to be a problem on buses carrying schoolchildren. The presence of large numbers of school students is also a deterrent to other passengers. Initiatives such as the London Transport Museum’s Safety and Citizenship initiative and the Metropolitan Police’s Junior Citizen scheme may address these issues and will be promoted as part of the School Travel Plan process. Safer Schools Team Police Officers work with their allocated schools to develop strategies to encourage appropriate behaviour and safe travel.
160 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
SCHOOL TRAVEL PLANS: THE MECHANISM FOR DELIVERING CHANGE
Senior Level Support
8.45 Cabinet members for the Environment and Transport and Education fully support the School Travel Plan Strategy. The Strategy is actively supported in the Education Department through the involvement of the Chief Education Officer and Learning Network Inspectors.
School Travel Plans
8.46 There are currently 152 schools within the Borough of Barnet (4 dedicated nurseries, 93 primary, 21 secondary, and 34 independent schools). Barnet’s School Travel Strategy sets the policy framework within which schools are encouraged to develop individual travel plans.
8.47 A School Travel Plan (STP) is a document that sets out a package of measures to encourage walking, cycling and the use of public transport to get to school. The aim of this work is to reduce car use for journeys made to and from school by parents and school staff, and to improve the safety of the journey for those who walk, cycle or use public transport when travelling to and from school.
8.48 The increase in children travelling to school by car has created a number of problems, including; • Higher levels of traffic and parking leading to an increase in congestion around schools; • Disturbance to local residents; • Increase in atmospheric pollution around schools; • Less opportunity for children to develop road safety skills; • Lack of exercise; • Reduction in children’s independence and social interaction; and • Development of travel habits that will be difficult to change later in life.
8.49 The schools themselves produce the STP, supported by the Council, and often work in partnership with other external agencies as appropriate. The measures that the school identify are based on the research of how its community (pupils, parents and staff) travels, and the issues that the school faces with travel arrangements and road safety near to school. It may include awareness-raising activities, travel training, engineering, working with parents or local residents, incentive ideas to encourage specific activities (e.g. walking to school), and should be absorbed into school policy.
8.50 A School Travel Plan must contain the following elements: • A brief description of the location, size and type of school;
161 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
• A brief description of the travel/transport problems faced by the school/cluster of schools. This includes all pupils travel needs, including travel to and from school at the beginning and end of the day, travel to and from extra-curricular/ after school activities and travel within the school day to events at other locations; • The results of a survey show how students currently travel to and from school, how they would like to travel to and from school, and what things they feel they need to support them in travelling in the way that they would like (for example, cycle storage might make cycling to school possible); • Clearly defined targets and objectives; • Details of proposed measures; • A detailed timetable for implementation; • Clearly defined responsibilities; • Evidence of consultation with all interested parties; and • Proposals for monitoring and review.
Methodology
8.51 In order to increase the number of schools with STPs, we will; • Encourage schools to produce STPs; • Provide guidance on how to produce a STP; • Facilitate and support the production of STPs where necessary; and • Monitor and advise on the quality of STPs; • Coordinate borough led school travel initiatives that schools can join in with that will support the development and implementation of their STPs; and • Coordinate all borough programmes relating to school travel so that STPs can become part of a range of linked programmes that help schools to address their travel needs and issues, reduce congestion, increase the use of sustainable transport and promote the independent and safe travel of young people in Barnet.
Role of the School Travel Plan Coordinator
8.52 The post of STP Coordinator is situated in the Traffic Management and Road Safety office which allows continuous liaison between the Coordinator, Road Safety Officers and the Safer Routes to School Senior Engineer. The School Travel Plan Coordinator and the two Road Safety Officers form the School Travel Team who work directly with schools to develop School Travel Plans.
Working with Schools:
8.53 Through discussion, Barnet has established how the borough intends to work with all schools to engage them in the STP process. • The needs of the schools will be assessed as part of the School Travel Plan process, through the School Travel Plan Coordinator; • Each school will be supported in the process by a member of the School Travel Team, either the School Travel Plan Coordinator or a Road Safety
162 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
Officer. The school’s needs will dictate the level of support provided but will involve regular communication and visits. • When developing the actual School Travel Plan support will be provided not only through the allocated Council officer but also through a comprehensive information pack as well as a detailed website, which is currently in development. Data collection and analysis is facilitated by the School Travel Team in order to relieve this time consuming process from the schools. • Schools are encouraged to send in draft copies of their School Travel Plans. These are then evaluated against the Department for Transport (DfT) / Department for Education and Skills (DfES) quality assurance criteria and suggestions made for revisions. Where a school needs extra support in completing their plan an officer will work directly with the school. • Each individual School Travel Plan will identify areas for improvement at each school, whether the need be for information, training, education, journey sharing initiatives or physical measures; • These needs will then be referred to the respective officers, with any need for physical measures being referred to engineers within the highways team. The implementation of these physical measures will be carried out through the Safer Routes to School programme.
8.54 Details of the stages for developing a School Travel Plan are summarised below :
Stage 1 – Collecting baseline data • Initial contact with the school to get their commitment to the process; • First session – What is a School Travel Plan? • Information pack presented to the school; • Lead person identified by the school (School Champion); • Postcode pin maps presented to the school– Where the children live; • Hands up survey completed by the school – How the children travel to school; • Staff survey completed by the school – How the staff travel to school; • Comprehensive Questionnaires prepared, printed and delivered to school; • Questionnaires handed out by the school to pupils, parents/carers and staff; • Information from questionnaires analysed by the School Travel Team.
Stage 2 – Baseline data complete and analysed • Traffic and pedestrian counts completed, if necessary, by Borough’s traffic Enumerators. • Analysis of the hands up survey and pupil and parent/carer questionnaires presented to the school. • Issues raised from questionnaires identified and discussed. • Core group formed consisting of those involved in the school community.
Stage 3a – Initiatives identified and agreed: Draft plan being prepared. • Engineer visit to the site to identify possible solutions to issues raised. • Information provided on the projects available and possible engineering solutions to issues raised.
163 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
• Ideas and strategies to tackle issues found identified by core group.
Stage 3b – Writing the School Travel Plan • Draft plan written by core group. • Draft plan shared with parents/carers, pupils, governors for consultation. • Support provided by School Travel Team via phone, e-mail and visits when requested. • Draft plan passed to School Travel Team. • Plan assessed against Quality Assurance statements and feedback given to the school. • Plan reviewed and revised by core team and reassessed.
Stage 4 – Plan complete and signed off • The final School Travel Plan authorised by Headteacher and Chair of Governors. • STP checked and authorised by STP Coordinator. • Read by Learning Network Inspectors and signed off by Chief Education Officer. • Plan submitted and then authorised by Regional School Travel Advisor(London). • Action plan added to the School Improvement Plan and shared with the staff, governors, pupils, parents/carer; • School Travel Plan promoted by the school.
Stage 5 - Monitoring • Funding released for on and off site projects as identified in the action plan. • Initiatives identified in the action plan put into place by the school with support from School Travel Team. • Core team to meet termly. • Progress reviewed by School Champion and supporting member of School Travel Team. • Hands up survey completed by the school at the same time each year. • Action plan reviewed and revised annually as part of the School Improvement Plan.
Selection of schools
8.55 Currently schools begin the STP process for the following reasons: • Incident or issue identified by school, parent/carer, local resident or School Travel Team. • Desire identified by school for engineering changes outside school. • Desire identified by school for Road Safety education. • Involvement in Barnet Healthy Schools Scheme. • School in the same area as one already developing a STP, sharing the same issues.
164 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
8.56 In order to ensure that the targets set for the number of School Travel Plans completed, signed off and then implemented are achievable and met, a new approach for working with schools is currently being developed. In the future schools identified in the ways described above will be invited to join clusters of similar schools (by school type) to start the STP process. To meet the Borough’s yearly quota of schools developing a STP, other LEA and Independent schools, who have not yet initiated contact, will be invited to join a suitable cluster.
8.57 Representatives from the each school in the cluster will attend two group training sessions in order to support them through the STP process as described above. Each school will continue to have a member of the School Travel Team allocated to them to provide specific support through phone calls, e-mail and regular visits to the school.
8.58 Where a school is unwilling to develop a School Travel Plan the barriers that are stopping them will be investigated and extra resources put in place to facilitate its development. The School’s Learning Network Inspector and Local Education Authority (LEA) Governors will then be involved in gaining a commitment to the writing of a School Travel Plan. By 2008 a review of safety will have been carried out around all schools so the findings can be used to engage with any schools who have not yet started the STP process.
8.59 Currently, there is no means to force schools to develop their STP. This needs to be dealt with at a London wide or National level.
Special Educational Needs
8.60 Barnet works with the Head Teachers of special schools, and with the Special Educational Needs (SEN) Co-ordinators to develop training programmes for those students who would show awareness to be responsible to travel by themselves either now or in the future.
Outcomes and Solutions
8.61 All schools, involved in the School Travel Plan process, have differing needs and will be supported in the identification of a number of measures including on-site and off-site engineering as well as non-engineering measures such as Theatre in Education, cycle infrastructure and curriculum resources in order to deliver their plans. Funding for these measures will be sought as part of the Borough Spending Plan and LIP funding processes administered by TfL.
COMPLETION OF STP’S IN BARNET: PROGRESS TO DATE
8.62 As stated previously, there are currently 152 schools within the Borough of Barnet. Of these, a total of 60 schools are involved in the School Travel Plan process. In order to assist monitoring of progress towards completion, schools are deemed to be at varying ‘stages’ of progress made towards completion of a School Travel Plan. The stages are defined as follows:
165 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
Stage 1: Collecting baseline data (current travel characteristics) Stage 2: Baseline data complete and analysed. Discussions based on this data continuing Stage 3: Initiatives identified and agreed: Draft plan being prepared. Stage 4 Complete: Plan completed, and signed off. Stage 5 Monitoring: School is being monitored for modal shift and implementation of schemes outlined within plan.
8.63 Table 8.9 shows the 60 school engaged in the STP process and their current stage. (Data correct up until October 2005)
Table 8.9: Schools engaged in STP process
School Type Category Stage
Akiva- Steinberg Centre Primary Independent 3 Ashmole Secondary Foundation 1 Barnet Hill Primary Community 1 Bell Lane Primary Community 2 Belmont Junior Independent 1 Brookhill Nursery Community 1 Brunswick Park School Primary Community 3 Brookland Infant Primary Community 1 Brookland Junior Primary Community 1 Christ Church Primary Voluntary Aided 1 Christ College (Sec) Secondary Community 1 Colindale Primary Community 1 Compton Secondary Community 1 Danegrove Primary Community 1 Dollis Infant Primary Community 1 Dollis Junior Primary Foundation 1 Edgware Infant Primary Community 1 Edgware Junior Primary Community 1 Fairway Primary Community 4 Foulds Primary Community 1 Frith Manor Primary Community 2 Garden Suburb Infant Primary Community 4 Garden Suburb Junior Primary Community 4 Hasmonean High (Girls) Secondary/Sixth Form Voluntary Aided 1 Hendon Secondary Foundation 1 Henrietta Barnett Secondary Voluntary Aided 1 Holly Park Primary Community 5
166 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
Holy Trinity Primary Voluntary Aided 3 The Hyde Primary Community 1 Lyonsdown Primary Independent 1 Mathilda Marks Kennedy Primary Voluntary Aided 5 Martin Infant Primary Community 1 Martin Junior Primary Community 1 Monkfrith Primary Community 1 Moss Hall Infant Primary Community 2 Moss Hall Junior Primary Community 2 Moss Hall Nursery Nursery Community 1 Menorah Primary Voluntary Aided 1
Menorah Secondary Independent 1
Monken Hadley Primary Voluntary Aided 4 Mill Hill Secondary Foundation 4 Northway Primary S.E.N Community 3 Od Yosef Hai (OYH) Primary Independent 1 Our Lady of Lourdes Primary Voluntary Aided 2 Parkfield Primary Community 2 Queenswell Infant Primary Community 3 Queenswell Junior Primary Community 3 Ravenscroft Secondary Community 1 Rosh Pinah Primary Voluntary Aided 1 Sacred Heart Primary Voluntary Aided 1 St Catherine’s Primary Voluntary Aided 1 St Joseph’s Primary Voluntary Aided 1 St Mary’s & St John’s Primary Voluntary Aided 1 St Mary’s EN4 Primary Voluntary Aided 1 St Theresa's Primary Voluntary Aided 2 Underhill Infant Primary Community 4 Underhill Junior Primary Community 2 Wessex Gardens Primary Community 1 Whitings Hill Primary Community 4 Woodridge Primary Community 1
Good Practice
8.64 The lack of road At present eight schools have successful travel plans that meet the DfT and DfES criteria. It is expected that a further 24 will be able to submit their plans in March 2006. Examples of good practice amongst these schools include:
167 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
• Whitings Hill – The creation of a new ramped entrance has enabled all of the pupils, including the new Nursery, to access the site safely and has improved the security on site. • Our Lady of Lourdes – Partnership with a local business has enabled the school to set up and actively promote a park and stride scheme from the car park of a local leisure complex.
8.65 Successful initiatives within Barnet that have strong links to School Travel Plans are described below.
Walking Bus
8.66 There are currently four walking buses operating in Barnet. Barnet has named the scheme ‘Kidz Conga’, with the intention of giving added appeal to both children who are likely to use the scheme and parents themselves. Responsibilities for the Kidz Conga schemes are shared between both the School Travel Plan Coordinator and a Road Safety Officer.
8.67 In order for a walking bus scheme to be successful, it appears that the main factors linking these schemes and their success are as follows: • High level of support from parents • A pool of parent volunteers available to run the scheme • A desire from the children to use the service (i.e. secondary school children show greater concern over their image amongst their peers, and are often more independent than primary school children.)
8.68 Each have differing numbers of children using the bus on varying days of the week, so it is therefore difficult to quantify the precise number of users. However, a brief summary of the current schemes is shown below in table 8.10:
Table 8.10: summary of current schemes in Barnet School Name Number of pupils Type Christ Church 15 Nursery Queenswell 20 Primary Monken Hadley 40 Primary Frith Manor 10 Primary
Barnet Healthy Schools Barnet Healthy Schools Scheme
8.69 Barnet Healthy Schools Scheme (BHSS) encourages schools to adopt a holistic approach to promoting the health of their pupils, staff and community. The scheme is jointly funded by the London Borough of Barnet and the Barnet
168 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
Primary Care Trust, and has led the way in developing a healthy schools approach.
8.70 As part of the National Healthy Schools Scheme, BHSS achieves its objectives through various modules which schools sign up to. Each module has a module leader to guide and advise the school in achieving the award.
Modules • Emotional Health and Well-being • Environment • Food and Nutrition • Physical Activity • Relationships and Family Life • Safety* • Substance Use and Drug Education
(* Road Safety Officer leads this module)
8.71 The module leader will conduct an audit with a key member of staff within the school related to their module. They will guide the school in putting together an action plan with a number of core principles in mind. Once the school has worked through their action plan they will be visited again and will look at sustaining the module.
8.72 A new development that has occurred recently is to link the Safety module to the School Travel Plan process. Both need to satisfy a number of core principles listed below and require the creation of a core team to write the action plan/School Travel Plan. The School Travel Plan will therefore satisfy the criteria applied to this module of BHSS.
8.73 Core principles encouraged within the project are as follows; • Consulting and involving young people; • Consulting and involving parents; • Ensuring equal opportunities for the whole school community; • Involving the wider community and outside agencies; and • Providing staff development and training opportunities.
LOCAL PARTNERSHIPS
Internal
8.74 In order to ensure successful STPs are prepared and the targets met, there are close working relationships formed with the following groups.
169 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
Education
8.75 All plans written by schools must be approved by the Council’s Head of Education. The borough’s Learning Network Inspectors are encouraged to be involved in the development of their schools’ School Travel Plans through the core group, where possible, and play a key role in examining each School Travel Plan, giving their views. Their knowledge and opinion is crucial when assessing if the schools targets are reasonable and likely to be met.
Home to School Transport
8.76 Provision is managed by the Education Department within Barnet. Children living over 3 miles (or two miles depending on age) from the closest suitable school qualify. A child is entitled to a free bus pass for zones 1-4 and a small number are provided with train travel. Parents are able pay a top-up fee to increase a bus pass to a travel card.
8.77 There are 589 SEN pupils receiving home to school travel assistance via either minibus (433) or saloon (156). It must be noted that the operation and procedure are to change as Transport for London is offering free bus travel to all under 16 year olds from September 2005, and will extend this to all under 18 year olds in September 2006. This obviously has crucial implications for modal shift within Barnet. The promotion of free travel passes will form an essential part of achieving modal shift for those Schools currently writing STPs, and Barnet will ensure the promotion of passes at every possible opportunity.
Cross Boundary Home to School Transport
8.78 Whilst TfL is a major public transport provider in the Borough many journeys to school originate in other counties (i.e. Hertfordshire) where public transport provision is not as comprehensive. At present financial assistance is offered for cross boundary travel equivalent to the transport costs to the nearest suitable school within the borough.
Road Safety
8.79 The very close working relationship with the borough’s Road Safety Officers enables the School Travel Team to play a crucial role in terms of advising schools, parents, and pupils about road safety. Perceived safety is often a major issue when schools come to write their STP. Surveys will be conducted in the area around each school to obtain a current audit of signage, road and path markings, other relevant engineering measures and any other relevant observations relating to school travel and safety. This is to be done in conjunction with formulating a School Travel Plan.
Education.
170 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
8.80 Education of pupils and parents can play as crucial a role as engineering and ‘hard’ methods. Education plays a vital role in ensuring School Travel Plans succeed. Barnet currently has a wide range of resources available to all age groups within schools, as outlined in Table 8.11.
Table 8.11 – Current Road Safety Education Resources
School Year Group Resources a) Happy Project: Reception, b) Tool Box Years 1 &2 c) Children's Traffic Club Year 3: Lets Be Safe, Out and About. Years 3 & 4 Year 4: Safer Moves
Years 5 & 6 Young Voyager & Transitional services
Drama based education i.e. Whose life is it Secondary anyway? The Price
8.81 Furthermore, Barnet has initiatives to target existing pupils and parents, as well as new admissions to schools. These initiatives include ways to encourage thoughtful and advanced driving skills amongst adults. Especially important are the methods adopted to increase highway rules and regulations compliance, particularly among parents, to alleviate problems on the school run and set good examples to their children.
School Crossing Patrols
8.82 The team have been able to start more patrols where children are walking to school across busy roads, in turn helping to encourage parents to let their children walk to school. Details outlining the number and location of School Crossing Patrols are detailed in Barnet’s Road Safety Plan, section ?.
Cycle training
8.83 Training courses are offered to children to teach them about safe cycling on the roads as well as how to maintain their cycles. The cycle training scheme is available to all Year 6 school children over the Easter and summer holidays and, depending on demand, during the October half-term holiday. All Year 7 and 8 pupils are offered cycle route training, which is catered to their specific route to and from school. Further initiatives include direct encouragement for parents to create/use existing local and national car sharing schemes as appropriate to reduce traffic volume. An example is the North London transport car share group. This is being monitored using annual baseline surveys in order to check that car use on the school run has not increased.
171 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
Highways
8.84 Delivery of projects such as the Engineering aspects of the Safer Routes to School programme and area based road safety improvements.
Transport Planning
8.85 Responsible for policy and direction – monitoring latest developments, best practices and legislation as well as identifying potential areas of funding and pioneering pilot schemes. Informs the STP team of any of the above that is of particular relevance.
Planning
8.86 Provide the STP team with advice and consultation on planning issues such as increasing school sizes or new developments. All relevant applications for alterations to school premises are referred to the STP team. Obligations, generally through section 106 agreements, are arranged by planning for the necessity to provide an STP before permission can be granted.
8.87 Areas for future development include links with the following departments: • Street Enforcement • Children’s Information Service
External
8.88 In addition to these departments, assistance is often sought from outside the local authority.
Regional School Travel Advisor and School Travel Advisor (STA) network
8.89 The School Travel Plan Co-ordinator and Road Safety Officers have regular contact with the Regional School Travel Advisor in order to obtain guidance and advice. Interaction takes place with the London School Travel Advisor network through attendance at quarterly regional meetings, training and the sharing of good practice.
Police representatives 8.90 The police, through the Barnet Safer Schools Team, frequently assist the STP team by providing education to school children and parents, particularly to alleviate fears over ‘stranger danger’ and crime on the journey to school. This is often cited as a parental reason for not letting children travel to school on their own. Links have been made with the existing local Metropolitan Police’s Safer Neighbourhood Teams; this will be expanded when the remaining teams are formed.
Residents/ residents associations
172 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
8.91 As schools are often sited in the heart of local communities, it is essential to liase with residents and residents associations before major decisions to alter the physical nature of the street take place. This is often achieved by consulting residents through letters and announcements, usually when physical measures are introduced or altered.
PROMOTION AND COMMUNICATION STRATEGY
8.92 There a number of ways in which we are promoting the development of STPs to schools in Barnet and maintaining their momentum;
• Local promotion; The main method of promoting Barnet STPs has been to make certain that all schools in Barnet are aware that a School Travel team exists and are here to help. Although this may sound simplistic, making sure schools are aware of School Travel Plans is Barnet’s most valuable promotional method. This is being achieved in a number of ways using all available relevant communication channels:
• Improved Barnet website: Will highlight current situation, achievements and schemes. Will aim to have all resources (i.e. surveys, questionnaires) available online for downloading, as well as providing news, updates and contact details.
• Use of local press/newspapers: Aims to keep topic in press, boost moral and keep the issue as a talking point. Will highlight positives and progress of schemes.
• Highlighting case studies, best practice and success stories: Vital so as to gain momentum and keep interest in STPs high.
• Presentations: Mainly at LEA meetings (Chairs of Governors, Primary/Secondary Head teachers termly meeting).
• Use of Newsletters/Journals: LEA newsletter, Barnet Healthy Schools journal. Possibility of articles in educational publications.
• Email: Barnet School Travel Plan termly email updates are to be sent out to all schools.
FUNDING
8.93 There are various sources of funding available to Barnet in order to help implement STP’s throughout Barnet:
Capital grants 8.94 An incentive for LEA schools to develop voluntary Travel Plans is the DfES/DfT capital grant, although LEA schools which develop Travel Plans for other purposes are still eligible for the grant. School receive the capital grant
173 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
only once and their Travel Plan must meet the criteria as set out by DfES/DfT. Primary Schools receive £3,750 plus £5 per pupil and secondary schools receive £5,000 plus £5 per pupil. The provision of these grants has been secured until March 2008. March 2004 saw 2 schools successfully submit Travel Plans and attain grants; Whitings Hill Primary School (£4800) and Mathilda Marks Kennedy (£4,780). March 2005 saw 5 schools awarded capital grants; Monken Hadley Primary School (£4,701), Garden Suburb Infant School (£5,085), Garden Suburb Junior School (£5,510), Holly Park Primary School (£6,140), and Underhill Infant School (£4,610).
Safe Routes to School 8.95 Funding for ‘Safer Routes to School’ engineering measures is available from Transport for London. The SRtS work is funded to ensure that the roads around schools are designed to be safe for alternative modes or transport, especially pedestrians and cyclists accessing the specific school. In considering SRtS and School Travel Plans, there is an issue of transient populations at schools. It is important that schools will need to be revisited to ensure the annual intakes of pupils understand the School Travel Plan and SRtS initiatives.
8.96 A number of Safer Routes to School schemes have been implemented in the Borough over the past five years. In recent years the level of grant funding has allowed a maximum of two large-scale schemes per year. The School Travel Co-ordinator will seek to identify opportunities from both internal and external partnerships for ways of making maximum use of resources and for obtaining additional resources.
Revenue budget 8.97 The Council is not wholly reliant on BSP funding and is committed to continue to fund School Travel Plan outcomes through the revenue budget. For example supporting School Crossing Patrol persons and the educational projects currently offered to schools. The Safer Routes to School budget is supplemented to enable the completion of minor engineering works.
Other forms of funding 8.98 Where appropriate the Council will seek to bid for Lottery funding and to involve sponsorship .
School Travel Advisor/Coordinator post 8.99 The School Travel Coordinator post at Barnet is currently funded by DfT/DfES funding. Funding is secured until March 2008. It is an embedded position in the borough’s staffing structure and a commitment is in place to fund the post once DfT/DfES funding has ended. Funding will be sourced for its continuation through SRtS and BSP funds.
174 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
MONITORING
8.100 Local authorities are required to collect baseline data and to set local targets on modal shift for individual schools. These will be reported in the annual progress and monitoring report (refer to LIP, Chapter 9 for further information). Other relevant data to be reported annually includes; • Number of schools benefiting from physical works; • Number of schools benefiting from particular education, training and publicity; • Number of schools benefiting from other measures; • Number of schools adopting travel plans in the previous year; • Total number of schools with travel plans; and • Number of pupils affected by a travel plan.
8.101 The success of the strategy and individual plans will be measured using the above data and the following indicators.
8.102 An annual survey (required as part of DfT funding) will be carried out to assess modal shift. This will be achieved with the cooperation of schools via the use of hands-up surveys. The modal shift information will be then be forwarded to the Regional School Travel Advisor at Transport for London. The Council will advise schools on current best practice in monitoring pupil and staff travel choices.
8.103 Barnet will establish systems for aggregating the data to assess year by year impact of the STP strategy on mode shares. Barnet has already developed a monitoring database with details of all schools undertaking Travel Plans. When an STP is complete details can be added as to when Barnet should be expecting updated information. Overall modal shift will be monitored through the LATS household surveys carried out by Transport for London. It is recognised that the number and split of journeys to educational establishments within Barnet will include journeys made to the University and College and therefore will not be an entirely reliable measure of the STP strategy’s effect.
Strategy review
8.104 The information gathered through the annual monitoring process will form the basis of an internal annual review of the School Travel Plan Strategy. This will take place at the end of the academic year and will provide an opportunity to promote procedures that are performing well and revise those that are performing poorly. Consultation will then follow at the start of the next academic year with those concerned with the development and successful implementation of the strategy, including members of the Safer Routes to School Team, The Chief Education Officer, the Learning Network Inspectors and a cross section of Head Teachers and School Champions.
175 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
Consultation
8.105 Consultation of the School Travel Plan Strategy has been carried out as part of the Borough’s wider Local Implementation Plan consultation process. (See LIP, Chapter 10) In addition the draft strategy has been circulated to The Chief Education Officer, the Learning Network Inspectors and a cross section of School Champions for comment.
176 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
9. Performance Indicators
9.1 This chapter deals with Performance Indicators (PI) and their related Targets. TfL have indicated 8 priority areas and 14 specific targets that are to be addressed over the next few years and which all Boroughs will be monitored against.
9.2 There are two types of PI to be considered: • Those that indicate how well the outcomes are being achieved; and • Those that measure how well a borough is doing in implementing the measures that are intended to achieve the desired outcomes.
9.3 Table 9.1 overleaf presents the targets and related PI’s, alongside baseline data and indicative dates for achieving these targets. A majority of the targets have related PI’s; however a number of them are still currently under development by TfL.
9.4 The baseline year and figures for each target have been determined primarily from TfL sources, and are aimed to provide the baseline against which target progress is recorded and monitored.
9.5 Targets have been set to indicate the pace of delivery of the MTS that the Mayor expects. Achievement of these targets will require input from both TfL and boroughs. These targets are not solely for boroughs to achieve and, indeed, could not be achieved by boroughs alone. The targets are set, with further details about the background and their current position, in Transport Strategy Implementation Targets, available from the GLA and TfL17.
177 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
Table 9.1 - Performance Indicators and Targets
Priority Area Target Performance Source BASELINE LATEST DATA AVAILABLE FUTURE YEAR MILESTONES Cross-reference to Indicator TARGET ACHIEVEMENT other parts of the LIP/proposals Target 1: Road Safety I) Improving Road To achieve 40% Number of killed or TfL – ‘Towards 1994-1998 average KSI data 2004 KSI data KSI targets KSI targets Refer to Chapter 6 Safety seriously injured the year 2010: (Road Safety Plan) reduction in the Total no KSI 268.8 Total no KSI 172 End 2006 End 2008 2010 number of overall. monitoring KSI 169 164 KSI 161.3 casualties in people Killed and Seriously Barnet’
Injured (KSI) by 2010 compared Number of killed or TfL – ‘Towards 1994-1998 average Breakdown data (by 2004 Breakdown data (by mode) Breakdown targets (by mode) Breakdown targets (by mode) Refer to Chapter 6 with the 1994- seriously injured the year 2010: mode) (Road Safety Plan) P2W 30 2006 2008 2010 1998 average. separately for monitoring P2W 32 P2W 25.8 23.1 P2W 20.4 pedestrians, for casualties in Pedestrians 55 Pedestrians 70.4 Pedestrians 53.5 47.9 Pedestrians 42.2 cyclists and Barnet’ Cyclists 6 Cyclists 14.4 motorcyclists. The 2010 KSI target for cyclists has The 2010 KSI target for already been achieved by Barnet. cyclists has already been achieved by Barnet.
Number of children TfL – ‘Towards 1994-1998 average KSI data 2004 Baseline KSI data Breakdown targets (by mode) Breakdown targets (by mode) Refer to Chapter 6 killed or seriously the year 2010: (Road Safety Plan) Total no KSI 31 Total no KSI 24 2006 2008 2010 injured. monitoring Total no KSI 20.7 18.1 Total no KSI 15.5 casualties in Barnet’
Number of slight TfL – ‘Towards 1994-1998 average Overall slight 2004 Slight casualty rate data The 2010 Slight casualty rate target of The 2010 Slight casualty Refer to Chapter 6 casualties overall. the year 2010: casualty rate data Slight casualty rate 1398 1595.5 has already been achieved by rate target of 1595.5 has (Road Safety Plan)
monitoring Barnet. already been achieved by casualties in Slight casualty rate 1772.8 Barnet. Barnet’
Number of pedestrian TfL Pedestrian injuries data 2003 Pedestrian injuries data To achieve 40% reduction in the To achieve 40% reduction in Refer to Chapter 6 injuries broken down All Child All Child number of people Killed and the number of people Killed (Road Safety Plan) by Ethnic group. WSE 1582 73 WSE 804 24 Seriously Injured (KSI) by 2010 and Seriously Injured (KSI) by 2010 compared with the 1994- DSE 94 6 DSE 86 1 compared with the 1994-1998 average. 1998 average. AC 110 10 AC 161 17 AS 149 7 AS 177 4 OR 20 2 OR 33 2 AR 12 0 AR 14 0 DK 160 9
Number of injuries TfL – ‘Towards 1994-1998 average All injuries data (by 2004 All injuries data (by mode) All injuries targets (by mode) All injuries targets (by mode) Refer to Chapter 6 broken down by the year 2010: mode) All 2006 2008 2010 (Road Safety Plan) vehicle classification. monitoring All P2W 203 P2W 153.8 137.6 P2W 121.4 casualties in Barnet’ P2W 202.4 Pedestrians 234 Pedestrians 228 219.8 Pedestrians 193.9 Cyclists 52 Car 956.4 855.7 Car 755.0 Pedestrians 323.2 Cyclists 103.4 Car 962 Bus/Coach 55.5 49.6 Bus/Coach 43.8
Car 1258.4 Bus/Coach 68 Taxi 5.3 4.8 Taxi 4.2
Bus/Coach 73.0 Taxi 10 Goods 30.0 30.0 Goods 30.0
Taxi 7.0 Goods 30 vehicles vehicles
Goods 60.2 vehicles Other 10.6 9.5 Other 8.4
vehicles Other 11 The 2010 injuries target (62) Other 14.0 The 2010 injuries target (62) for for cyclists has already been cyclists has already been achieved achieved by Barnet. by Barnet. Target number 2: School Road Safety To review road Number of primary Borough 2004Number of schools reviewed 2005Number of schools reviewed Target number of schools reviewed Target number of schools Refer to Chapter 8 safety around all and secondary reviewed primary and Primary 2 Primary 23 2006/07 (School Travel Plan schools reviewed 2008/09 Strategy) secondary Secondary 0 Secondary 1 Nos. schools 62
178 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
schools in Nos. schools 152 London by 2008. Percentage of schools reviewed Percentage of schools reviewed Percentage of Borough Target % of schools reviewed Target % of schools reviewed Refer to Chapter 8 primary and Primary 1% Primary 15% 2006/07 2008/09 (School Travel Plan secondary schools Secondary 0 Secondary 0.7% Strategy) reviewed Nos. schools 41% Nos. schools 100%
Number of primary Borough Number of schools with schemes Number of schools with schemes Target number of schools with Target number of schools with Refer to Chapter 8 implemented implemented and secondary schemes implemented schemes implemented (School Travel Plan schools with schemes Primary 2 Primary 7 2006 2008 Strategy) implemented Secondary 0 Secondary 0 Nos. schools 15 Nos. schools 31
Percentage of Borough Percentage of schools with schemes Percentage of schools with Target % of schools with schemes Target % of schools with Refer to Chapter 8 primary and implemented schemes implemented implemented schemes implemented (School Travel Plan secondary schools Primary 1 2006 2008 Strategy) with schemes Primary 5 Secondary 0 implemented Secondary 0 Nos. schools 10 Nos. schools 20
Target 3 Bus Excess Wait Time II. Improving Bus EWT (High London Buses 2003 / 2004 Estimated Waiting Time Same as baseline data TfL are to reduce bus EWT to 1.3 TfL are to reduce bus EWT to bus journey TfL to reduce frequency routes), Quality of (EWT) London wide - 1.4 minutes minutes per passenger journey by 1.3 minutes per passenger times and bus EWT to 1.3 minutes per customer Service 2009/10. journey by 2009/10. reliability minutes per Indicators passenger journey by 2009/10.
Target 4 Borough Bus Total bus lane Total bus lane in Barnet (2005) Same as baseline data Target to be set by TfL in summer Target to be set by TfL in Target, Bus km/hours in operation 3.345km 2005 summer 2005 Lanes, Bus in borough Hours of operation: Priority Mon–Sat, 7am-10am & 4pm-7pm junctions, Bus
stop clearways, Number of bus Number of bus priority junctions in Same as baseline data Accessible bus priority junctions in Barnet (2005) = 6 stops operation in borough Number and An audit will be carried out to confirm Same as baseline data percentage of bus this. stops with clearways in borough Number and Approximately half of all bus stops in Same as baseline data percentage of Barnet are accessible. An audit will be accessible bus stops carried out to confirm this. in borough Target 5 Traffic volumes in central, inner, outer London and town centres. III. Relieving TfL and Outer London Traffic (DfT National Estimated traffic flows for all motor Estimated traffic flows for all 2008 – 1698 Million vehicle 2011 – 1778 Million vehicle traffic boroughs are to figures Road Traffic vehicles motor vehicles kilometres (2.4% increase on 2001 kilometres. (This represents an congestion and achieve, Survey for figures) 7.2% increase in Barnet improving journey between 2001 borough level) between 2001 and 2011) and 2011, an 2001 – 1659 Million vehicle kilometres 2004 – 1656 Million vehicle time reliability kilometres including through absolute the use of travel reduction in demand weekday traffic measures. of 15% in central Plans should London, zero have growth across regard to the the rest of inner particular traffic London, and a conditions in reduction in different parts growth in outer of London London by a third, from 7.5% to 5%, with the aim of achieving zero growth in
179 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
outer London town centres.
Target 6 General Traffic journey time reliability
TfL and PI provides journey TfL developing PI to cover more of TfL developing PI to cover boroughs are to time variation for AM day and road network to enable a more of day and road network ensure peak TLRN only. more thorough monitoring of to enable a more thorough disruption and Based on surveys progress towards achievement of monitoring of progress towards variability of during Oct/Nov. target. achievement of target. journey times for general traffic on ‘A’ Roads and Busy Bus Routes is reduced, or not increased, year on year (new target). Until a new DfT ITIS survey is in place, progress against this target will be measured for the TLRN, a.m. peak only. The process of monitoring borough roads will be discussed with boroughs once survey data is available.
Target 7 Modal share
TfL and Proportion of TfL – LATS 2001 - Barnet Same as baseline data TfL and boroughs are to maintain or TfL and boroughs are to boroughs are to personal travel made Education Work increase the proportion of personal maintain or increase the maintain or on each mode Rail 0 4 travel made by means other than the proportion of personal travel increase the Underground 9 27 car. made by means other than the proportion of car. personal travel / DLR made by means Bus 23 10 other than car. Taxi 0 0 Other 0 0 Car driver 7 41 Car 29 4 passenger Van/lorry 0 1 Motorcycle 0 2
Cycle 0 1
Walk 31 10
Highlighting TfL – LATS Non car proportion (2001) Same as baseline data TfL and boroughs are to maintain or TfL and boroughs are to proportion made by increase the proportion of personal maintain or increase the proportion of personal travel non-car means. Education – 63% travel made by means other than the car. made by means other than the Work – 55% car.
Target 8 School Travel Plans, School travel – modal share, non-car modes, Work travel – modal share, non-car modes Boroughs are to Number & percentage Borough March 2004-Number and percentage of March 2005-Number of schools Target number of schools reviewed Target number of schools work with of schools where schools reviewed reviewed reviewed schools and travel plan has been
180 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
groups of completed Nos. Percent Nos. % March March schools to Primary 2 1 Primary 38 25 2006 2008 review travel to Secondary 9 6 Nos. schools 75 Nos. schools 152 all schools by Secondary 0 0 % of schools 100 March 2008, Percentage of 49% schools with significant progress having Number & percentage Borough Travel Plans deemed necessary at 152 Same as baseline data Target nos. and % of schools where Target nos. and % of schools been made by of schools where schools. travel plan deemed necessary and where travel plan deemed March 2006 travel plan deemed developed (academic year) necessary and developed (new target, with necessary and Nos. % (academic year) regard to developed schools schools national DfT/DfES 2006/07 62 41 2009/10 ‘Travelling to 2007/08 98 61 Nos. schools 152 School: an 2008/09 122 80 % schools 100 action plan’ target)*.
Number & percentage Borough There are a 152 schools in Barnet. In Same as baseline data Target nos. and % of schools with Target nos. and % of schools of schools where 2004 a total of 8 schools (5%) had travel plans completed (academic with travel plans completed travel plan has been completed travel plans. year) (academic year) completed Nos. % 2009/10 schools schools Nos. schools 152 2006/07 62 41 % schools 100 2007/08 92 61 2008/09 122 80 Number & percentage Borough March 2004-Number of School Travel March 2005-Number of School Target nos. and % of schools with Target nos. and % of schools of schools where Plans implemented Travel Plans implemented travel plans implemented (academic with travel plans year) implemented (academic travel plan has been implemented Nos. % Nos. % Nos. % year)
Primary 0 0 Primary 2 1% schools schools 2009/10 Secondary 0 0 Secondary 0 0 2006/07 62 41 Nos. schools 152 2007/08 92 61 % schools 100
2008/09 122 80
School trips by non- Borough % of School trips by non-car modes Same as baseline data To maintain or increase the proportion To maintain or increase the Refer to Chapter 8 car modes of personal travel made by means proportion of personal travel (School Travel Plan Education other than the car. made by means other than Strategy) Rail 1 the car.
Underground 4
Bus 20 Other 1 Unknown 4 Cycle 1 Walk 35
Proportion of Borough Proportion of trips (2001) To maintain or increase the proportion To maintain or increase the mechanised and non- of personal travel made by means proportion of personal travel mechanised trips (as Mechanised – 64% other than the car. made by means other than defined by LTDS) Non mechanised – 36% the car.
Work trips by non-car TfL – LATS 2001 To maintain or increase the proportion To maintain or increase the modes Work of personal travel made by means proportion of personal travel Rail 4 other than the car. made by means other than
Underground/ DLR 27 the car.
Bus 10 Taxi 0 Other 0 Car driver 41 Car passenger 4 Van/lorry 1
Motorcycle 2
181 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
Cycle 1
Walk 10 Proportion of TfL – LATS Proportion of trips (2001) mechanised and non- mechanised trips (as Mechanised – 89% defined by LTDS) Non mechanised – 11%
Target 9 IV. Improving the Boroughs are to Compliance factors to Boroughs are to achieve Boroughs are to achieve working of achieve be reported for a improvements in compliance with improvements in compliance parking improvements in number of non- parking and loading regulations from with parking and loading and loading compliance with moving a baseline to be agreed between regulations from a baseline to arrangements to parking and contraventions and Boroughs and TfL. be agreed between Boroughs provide fair, loading will be analysed for and TfL. reasonable and regulations from different days of the effective a baseline to be week. enforcement of agreed between Compliance factors regulations, boroughs and for moving offences recognising the TfL by will be reported for a needs of December 2004. single day’s data at business each static camera for servicing and location on a monthly delivery as well basis as other road users, thus contributing to easing congestion and improving access to town centres and regeneration areas. Target 10 V. Improving The number and Number and rate of TfL – LATS 2001 (Barnet) Disabled people (all As baseline To achieve year on year To achieve year on year accessibility and rate of trips trips on each mode disabilities aggregated all day) improvements in the proportion of improvements in the made by E&I proportion of trips made by social inclusion by: % of trips trips made by equality and inclusion on the transport target groups, • Disabled people target groups. equality and inclusion target Rail 0 network. Plans the percentage (all disabilities groups. Underground/ DLR 1 should have of pedestrian aggregated all regard to safety crossings with day) Bus 6 and security facilities for • Older people Taxi 1 disabled people for women & (over 65, all day) Other 0 vulnerable users (BV165) • Women travelling Car driver 17 between 19:00- Car passenger 12
07:00 hrs Van/lorry 0
Motorcycle 0
Cycle 12
Walk 50
Older people (over 65, all day) % of trips Rail 0.8 Underground/ DLR 2.6 Bus 16.5 Taxi 1.0 Other 0 Car driver 35.3 Car passenger 16.5 Van/lorry 0.4 Motorcycle 0.2 Cycle 0.2 Walk 26.6
182 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
Women travelling between 19:00-07:00 % of trips Rail 1.2 Underground/ DLR 7.5 Bus 8.1
Taxi 2.8
Other 0
Car driver 41.8
Car passenger 24.3
Van/lorry 0
Motorcycle 0.4 Cycle 0.3
Walk 13.6
Target 11 Taxicard Boroughs to Milestone: Borough / ALG No data available as rejoined scheme No data available as rejoined Barnet is unable to set delivery Barnet is unable to set delivery ensure that their Achievement of in 2003. scheme in 2003. targets until an all London standard is targets until an all London Taxicard compliance with agreed. standard is agreed. scheme London wide conforms to an standard agreed all- London standard in terms of service quality, eligibility assessment and entitlement by 2006
Target 12 Volume and rate of walking trips, Condition of footway VI. Encourage TfL and Number and rate per TfL - LATS 2001 – Number of walking trips by As baseline 10% increase in trips in Barnet = 2011 – London walking by boroughs are to person of walking Londoners recorded by LATS 228,363 improving achieve an trips per annum, as household survey – 5,498,969 10% increase in number of the street increase of at measured by LTDS 10% increase in trip rate = 0.73 trips trips = 6,048,866 environment, least 10% in Rate = 0.75 trips pp/day pp/day 10% increase in trip rate = conditions for journeys made on foot per 0.825 trips pp/day pedestrians and 2001 Number of walking trips by person in through the use Barnet residents - 207,603 London between of travel demand measures 2001 and 2015 Rate = 0.66 trips pp/day
All figures relate to trips where the person walks the whole way. Proportion of footway TfL Road 2003 / 2004 81% (First 50% network) 2004 data 2006 – 84% (first 50%) 2006 – 84% (first 50%) in categories 1, 1a Network Second 50% of network = 71% and 2 as per BV Operations 2008 – 89% (first 50%) 2008 – 89% (first 50%) performance indicator annual 187a. statistics 2010 – 91% (first 50%) 2010 – 91% (first 50%) based on UK PMS system.
Target 13 Volume and rate of cycling trips VII. Encourage TfL and Number and rate per TfL - LATS 2001 - Number of cycling trips by As baseline 80% increase in number of trips by 2011 - London cycling by boroughs are to person of cycling trips Londoners recorded by LATS Barnet residents = 9203 80% increase in number of improving achieve an per annum, as household survey = 282,847 80% increase in rate = 0.029 trips trips = 509,124 conditions for increase of at measured by LTDS Rate = 0.039 trips pp/day pp/day least 80% in 80% increase in rate = 0.070 cyclists and trips pp/day through the use cycling in 2001 - Number of cycling trips by of travel demand London between Barnet residents recorded by LATS measures 2001 and 2011 household survey = 5113 Rate = 0.016 trips pp/day
183 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
All figures relate to trips where the person cycles the whole way. Target 14 Condition of ‘A’ roads and busy bus routes VIII. Bringing TfL and Road condition, share Road2000 2003 / 2004 BV96 Principal Roads (A BV96 Principal Roads (A Roads) BV96 Principal Roads (A transport boroughs are to of TLRN and BPRN Team for the BV96 Principal Roads (A Roads) Roads) 2006 2008 2010 Roads) infrastructure bring all ‘A’ carriageway lower Mayor based 87% 2004 data - 93% 94% 95% 96% 2010 to a state of Roads and Busy than score of 70 from on UKPMS 96% good repair Bus Routes up UKPMS BV97a Classified non principal roads to serviceable BV97a Classified non principal Borough 2003 / 2004BV97a Classified non (B Roads) BV97a Classified non principal standard – that based on roads (B Roads) principal roads (B Roads) 2006 2008 2010 roads (B Roads) is, a UK PMS UKPMS 2004 data - 88% 82% 2010 score of 70 or system 90% 91% 92% below – by 92% 2010.
184 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
10. Consultation
General
10.1 Barnet Council regularly undertakes Public Consultation exercises on specific issues of concern to the community or about how we manage and deliver our public services.
10.2 We try to get as broad a range of views as possible. We consult with representatives from community organisations and the Barnet Civic Network. (The Network brings together organisations that represent the full range of local communities to think through key issues for the future of the Borough.)
10.3 We also have our own Citizen’s Panel to help us gauge the opinions and comments of residents. The panel is made up of 1,000 Barnet residents, selected to be representative of the adult population of the whole borough – based on ward, age, gender, ethnicity, socio economic status, employment status, housing tenure, faith and disability.
10.4 The panel helps to obtain an accurate picture of Barnet residents' views. Services use the panel to find out residents' views on various aspects of council services, their concerns about living in Barnet and their perception of the council and any other aspect that may affect residents.
10.5 The Community Plan, which sets the overarching agenda for the Borough is developed by Barnet’s Local Strategic Partnership. As well as public sector organisations such as the Council, the Health Service and the Police, the LSP also provides a forum for the private, voluntary and community sectors to directly influence the strategic direction of the borough at the highest level. North London Chamber of Commerce, Brent Cross shopping centre, Barnet Voluntary Services Council and Barnet Multi-Cultural Community Centre (which represents groups from a range of cultures) are among the organisations represented.
10.6 Barnet Voluntary Services Council (BVSC), as an active member of the Local Strategic Partnership and Safer Communities Board, worked with the Council and Barnet Volunteer Bureau to develop the Voluntary and Community Sector Compact. This provides a framework for joint working between the sector and the Council and recognises the contribution the sector makes to development of local policy and delivery of services.
10.7 This compact includes a Code of Practice on consultation and communication with the Voluntary and Community Sector to ensure the benefits of the consultation are maximised, and not neutralised by “consultation fatigue” caused by duplicate and inappropriate consultation. Consultation with Voluntary and Community groups regarding the detailed development of schemes follows the principles laid out in the Voluntary and Community Sector Compact. Groups are consulted about issues that are relevant to their members, where they can genuinely influence the decisions made.
185 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
10.8 For example, in North Finchley where a new high specification de-cluttered footway and improved pedestrian crossing facilities are being delivered the scheme has been prepared by consulting and involving the wider community by establishing a focus group which includes local disabled groups.
10.9 Barnet has recently carried out a Best Value Review of transport which has also informed the LIP. This included consultation with the Citizens Panel and an external challenge event involving representatives from a range of organisations including BVSC, the Federation of Residents Associations in London Borough of Barnet (FORAB), the Barnet Borough Senior Citizens’ Forum and Barnet Community Transport.
Local Implementation Plan consultation
10.10 The Council has prepared its Local Implementation Plan (LIP) to comply with the requirements of Sections 145 & 146 of the GLA Act 1999. This requires us to prepare a plan setting out how we will implement the Mayor's Transport Strategy in the borough and submit it to the Mayor for his approval. The Mayor may only approve a borough's LIP if it is consistent with his strategy and adequate for the purpose of implementing the strategy.
10.11 Under Section 145 of the GLA Act boroughs are required to consult with: • The relevant Commissioners(s), (Metropolitan Police Service and City Police); • Transport for London; • Such Organisations representative of disabled people as the council considers appropriate; and • Each other London borough whose area is likely to be affected by the plan.
10.12 The Metropolitan Police Commissioner is the relevant Commissioner for Barnet, and Disability Action in the Borough of Barnet (DAbB) are considered and appropriate organisation representative of disabled people.
10.13 In addition the LIP guidance issued by TfL recommended that consultation also be carried out with: • The Fire and Emergency Planning Authority (LFEPA) and London Ambulance Service representatives; • The Highways Agency; • Network Rail and the SRA (involving TfL’s London Rail business), where appropriate; • Local Mobility Forum, or equivalent and other equality target groups; • Representatives of business, local environment, transport and community groups; and • Neighbouring Local Authorities (for outer London boroughs).
10.14 The Strategic Rail Authority is being abolished so it was not considered appropriate to formally consult with them.
186 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
10.15 As business and the voluntary and community sectors have been heavily involved in setting the strategic priorities for the borough andhave recently provided input to the Transport Best Value review, and to limit ‘over- consultation’ in accordance with our code of practice for consulting with the voluntary and community sectors, it was not considered appropriate to include a wide range of local groups in the Full LIP consultation.
10.16 However the London Transport Users Committee (LTUC) and Barnet Community Transport specifically asked to be consulted and they were therefore included in the consultation as organisations representing or having knowledge of issues affecting public transport users, equality target groups and community groups.
10.17 Consequently formal consultation on the Consultation Draft LIP was carried out with: • Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police • Transport for London • DAbB – Disability Action in the Borough of Barnet • London Borough of Enfield • London Borough of Haringey • London Borough of Camden • London Borough of Brent • London Borough of Harrow • London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority (LFEPA) • London Ambulance Service • The Highways Agency • Network Rail • Hertfordshire County Council • Hertsmere District Council • London Transport Users Committee (LTUC) • Barnet Community Transport
10.18 The document was also made available for public information on the internet, but as a whole was not subject to a full public consultation.
10.19 All schemes, plans and proposals contained within the LIP will be subject to appropriate levels of consultation and Member agreement at a later date.
10.20 The Statutory Consultation on the Consultation Draft LIP commenced on 29 July 2005 and finished on 30 September 2005.
10.21 Consultation responses have been received from the following, and are summarised in the next section:
• Police • Transport for London • London Borough of Camden • London Ambulance Service
187 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
• The Highways Agency • Hertsmere District Council • London Transport Users Committee
10.22 Although not statutory consultees, and therefore not detailed here, the Countryside Agency and the Green Party have also provided helpful comments.
188 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
LIP consultation responses
Respondent Summary of response Revisions made / Comments Police Proposed action in table 6.4 to Table 6.4 amended to reflect continue to monitor accident Police comment. data and carry out site visits in conjunction with Police suggests the involvement of the Police beyond the current post- fatal-collision site visits undertaken. Suggests that unless an extension of current practice is proposed would be Action included to consult with more accurate to reword this. Police on VAS sites.
Would welcome the chance to carry out site visits prior to deployment of the five mobile vehicle activated signs mentioned at 6.54 with the possibility of joint enforcement Action included to refer and education initiatives at motorcyclists to Bikesafe where these sites that could be co- appropriate ordinated through the local casualty reduction forums.
At 6.65 ask that, in addition to referring motorcyclists to the BMF, also consider referring Noted motorcyclists to the Bikesafe scheme and include this in the LIP. Whilst the Bikesafe scheme is not a training scheme it aims to improve rider skills and therefore reduce casualties through education.
Support and agree with statement in 6.9, valuing the multi-agency partnership working and look forward to putting this into practice in the future. TfL Extensive detailed comments TfL’s assessment of the LIP will on all areas of the LIP. lead to a recommendation to the Mayor regarding whether the LIP is approvable. Consequently significant additions and revisions have been made to address the
189 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
Respondent Summary of response Revisions made / Comments issues raised by TfL in order to provide an approvable LIP. London Borough Despite the boroughs’ common boundaries of Camden there have been few cross-boundary issues in the past, but would expect that the liaison and cooperation that has taken place in the past on schemes where there may be a cross-boundary impact will continue in the future. From the schemes listed in Table 5.1 none stand out as of any concern to LB Camden. Current potential projects include possible traffic proposals for the Ranulf Road area (the vast majority of which lie in Barnet), and I trust that you feel that the liaison arrangements around the major traffic diversions which are likely to arise from the reconstruction of Kilburn Road bridge are adequate.
It has been suggested locally in the past that a coordinated project for the Cricklewood Town Centre would be of benefit. Whilst Camden is responsible for only the east side of the southern margins we would be happy to take part in any project here. We have said the same in our response to LB Brent.
London No ‘corporate’ comment to No further comment received Ambulance make. Draft plan passed to from LAS. At a local level Service local management team to consultation and coordination invite their comments with all the emergency services especially with regard to with regard to ‘priority routes’ is ‘priority routes’ for emergency currently ongoing, as well as services and other local issues. liaison over local issues. The Highways The Highways Agency’s Study for the M1/A5/A41 Agency interest relates to the motorway corridor may have an impact on and all purpose trunk road the M1. However this study network that it manages on the would necessarily involve Secretary of State’s behalf. In consultation with the Highways the case of Barnet this directly Agency in developing any relates to the M1 motorway and proposals. indirectly to the M25 and A1.
The Agency would be concerned about any policy or proposal that would adversely impact on the M1 in terms of additional traffic. However I cannot see anything in the
190 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
Respondent Summary of response Revisions made / Comments current version of the LIP that would do so. Hertsmere The only comment we have Cycle map revised to include District Council relates to the document's cycle this and other off-road links that map on page 18 of the main had been omitted. document. The map currently does not include an off-road cycle link from Barnet to Hertsmere via Edgwarebury Lane, one of the key links in the proposed network of Hertsmere's Watling Chase Greenways Project. We would like to see this route included. London i) Schemes We would like to Transport Users have read more of actual Committee schemes, projects and programmes, at least in the early years, planned to be delivered flowing from Barnet’s policies and proposals. London ii) Streets for people. We The following schemes and Transport Users would like to see this as an information has been included Committee overarching agenda - our in Barnet’s LIP to address the (cont) streets are not just places to streets-for-people policy area. travel through and park cars, Regeneration creating Street- but the space where we, and for-people our children, walk, play rest and do business. The Committee Colindale has been identified as has adopted a transport part of phase two of the Mayor’s hierarchy with pedestrians at programme for 100 public the top then cyclists, public spaces. The council will transport users, etc – private, continue to work with the non essential, vehicles at the regeneration partners in the bottom. area to ensure that enhancements are made to the The Committee very much public realm and walking supported the Jan Gehl/TfL/ environment. Central London Partnerships approach, Towards a fine city Barnet’s transport vision for for people, to incrementally Cricklewood, Brent Cross, and improve our streets to favour West Hendon includes pedestrians, cyclists, bus users improvements to the pedestrian and amenity, thereby creating a and cycling environment, new better balance between traffic and improved public transport and people. and better integration between modes. The pedestrian In terms of your LIP we believe strategy for the area is based this will mean wider footways, around the Brent River
191 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
Respondent Summary of response Revisions made / Comments better pedestrian crossings Walkway and new High Street, (informal and formal located on which will act as a pedestrian desire lines), slower speeds, spine linking public transport removing obstacles from with new urban squares and footways (including guard residential areas. railing) and selective streetscape improvements. Schemes that improve street Associated streetscape for people improvements should be part of Local Safety Schemes address all schemes. many of the pedestrian accident ‘hot-spots’. These schemes seek to improve pedestrian crossing and overall transport user safety.
Signal timings at junctions will be analysed and establish whether a pedestrian phase could be introduced. This will allow the borough to consider the impact on traffic movements that a pedestrian phase may have, and what improvements could be made (either physical or timing based) to make pedestrian movements more convenient.
In 2005/2006 £1m of prudential borrowing is being spent on footway maintenance mainly targeted at pavements in Town Centres with North Finchley Town Centre being identified as the first Town Centre for major repairs at an estimated cost of £500k. Council will use this opportunity to remove obstacles from footways and improve the overall streetscape.
192 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
Respondent Summary of response Revisions made / Comments London iii) One-way systems and One-way streets and one-way Transport Users roads. These are very systems, whilst present in Committee problematical in all sorts of Barnet, are generally small (cont) ways to bus passengers, scale and not a major feature of cyclists and walkers. For bus the streetscape. passengers they extend journey time, confuse The comments provide by passengers and often do not LTUC include some of the pass passenger objectives. draw-backs of such systems. They encourage higher vehicle While these are valid in the speeds and so endanger and general sense, given the discourage cycling and walking. multiplicity of demands on our They create a poor walking streets, there will also be environment and cause benefits of such systems (most community severance. If there obviously to traffic flows) in are such systems and roads in some instances. Barnet (I write generally without local knowledge) we would like Recent work in North Finchley to see a policy statement has re-introduced two-way seeking to remove them and traffic on a road that was proposals to tackle them. formerly one-way, and regeneration proposals in West Hendon also involve work to permit the removal of a one-way system.
However the Council takes the view that a specific policy to remove or ‘tackle’ one way streets would not be appropriate in Barnet’s situation and that decisions regarding the future introduction or removal should be made, taking into account all available information (both disadvantages such as LTUC mentions as well as potential benefits) based on the conditions that apply locally.
193 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
Respondent Summary of response Revisions made / Comments iv) Managing demand The The Local Implementation Plan Committee welcomes Barnet’s is a document that addresses Parking Plan policies insofar as the short to medium term. they acknowledge the need to Consideration has been given ‘lock in’ or enhance the benefits elsewhere (through the of controlled parking zones by Council’s Best Value Review of price and permit allocation. transport) to the appropriateness of congestion We would like to see policies charging and/or road user that recognise the issue of charging in the borough in the congestion/road user charging long term. as a necessary part of the mix of solutions to tackle traffic There is widespread support for growth and congestion in the the concept that road pricing medium to long term across the may be the only viable long borough and wider area. term solution to transport problems both within London and nationwide. However a key issue is that it should be progressed in a way that will minimise adverse, differential effects that may be encountered through piecemeal implementation. This effectively requires a nationwide or at minimum a region-wide scheme. Statement in LIP? London v) Footway Parking. The London Borough of Barnet does Transport Users Committee opposes footway not generally condone footway Committee parking. The disabled and parking. However many areas (cont) visually impaired have enough of the borough are difficulties navigating the characterised by particularly footways. Too add yet more wide footways, even though obstacles onto the footway will carriageways may not be wide. make travel for this group of In some instances residents vulnerable users more difficult. have parked on the footway for Where demand for parking many years believing that exceeds supply the Committee margin strips in block or supports the rational bituminous macadam had been management of parking by provided for this purpose. permit and price – controlled parking zones. As set out in the Parking and Enforcement Plan it is recognised that in some cases this parking could be safely accommodated, and that formalising it may be a more appropriate response than penalising residents. The
194 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
Respondent Summary of response Revisions made / Comments decision whether it is appropriate to formalise footway parking in certain areas will depend on a range of issues and local circumstances, including how busy the area and what other demands exist. However maintaining access for pedestrians and especially for disabled people, will be an essential requirement. vi) Bus priority. Barnet’s policies seem to confuse bus priority with improving the flow of all traffic. There appear no actual bus priority schemes proposed, even in the early years of the plan. This is disappointing as the Committee believes that without improving bus priority, buses will become less attractive thereby lessening the opportunity for modal switch away from the private car to buses. We believe there should be a greater emphasis on the reallocation of road space to bus priority. We would like to see policies and programmes to review loading and waiting controls on bus routes, giving priority to buses over stationary vehicles.
The committee recently identified route 263 as a particularly problematic route. There was an issue with the access to Barnet and Chase hospital. We recommend that the local authority, Tfl and the hospital study the access road. We also noted that illegal and inconsiderate parking at bus stops was adding to delays and would therefore welcome more enforcement.
195 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
Respondent Summary of response Revisions made / Comments vii) Bus stop accessibility. The LIP is not as supportive as we would wish with respect to bus stop clearways. These are an absolute requirement if buses are to be able to sensibly approach and pull away from kerbs such that those with disabilities etc can board buses easily. Bus stop clearways should be of London Bus Initiative standard. The problems of bus lay-bys are well rehearsed. We would like to see policies and proposals to fill in bus stop lay-bys, if they exist in Barnet, as part of you bus stop accessibility programme. viii) Rail station access. The The proposed audit of walking Committee would like to see all routes to WAGN stations has Barnet’s stations, identified and been expanded both in terms of assessed with a view to geography and modes of travel implementing improved access that are covered. The audit will for the sustainable modes and now cover all national rail by the disabled. stations outside the regeneration areas. ix) Supporting town centres. Revisions have been made to We would like to see the LIP the LIP to strengthen identify all of Barnet’s district information provided on and local centres and markets Barnet’s planned improvements with a view to implementing to town centres. The LIP now improved access for the contains a summary of sustainable modes and by the information on planned and disabled. completed works within all of Barnet’s town centres. These works included footway resurfacing, carriageway resurfacing, directional signs, various local safety schemes, CCTV as well as work associated with the lighting PFI.
196 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
Respondent Summary of response Revisions made / Comments x) Consultation. Consultation Barnet’s approach to and engagement is essential, consultation as described but so too is the earlier in this chapter is far implementation of good wider than “a referendum of transport schemes based on frontagers”. However with policy and the wider public regard to the detailed impact of interest. The Committee would individual schemes the views of like to see a strategy to consult frontagers are likely to be an with all street users including important part of the whole. those that pass through, not just frontagers, and to give due weight to the wider public interest and to those that do not respond to formal consultation. This is vital if a balanced and informed view is to be arrived at rather than a referendum of frontagers.
197 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
11. Borough Core Capacity Statement 11.1 This Chapter sets out the main non-financial aspects of the borough’s current core capacities. 11.2 The Highways department is currently undergoing major restructuring which will include the addition of a new service area. As part of this restructure, any additional capacity required in order to deliver the LIP will be taken into account. Details of the restructure will not be completed until the end of the financial year (March 2006).
Capacity Current Status Tangible Resources
Organisation and People Barnet Council employs 9300 staff in a variety of posts that are full time, part time and job share. The organisation of the Council is shown on the Corporate Management Team structure chart (refer to Figure 11.1). The Highways Group is part of the Highways and Design Service within the Environment Directorate, as shown on the Highways & Design structure chart (refer to Figure 11.2).
The Group employs approximately 190 staff. There are re-structuring proposals being developed but the current arrangements comprise: • Infrastructure: maintenance, improvement and development of roads, footways, signs, lines and markings. • Traffic & Development : development and introduction of new traffic management schemes, improving road network performance and safety. • Traffic Data • Traffic Signals • Highways Services: maintenance, improvement and development of street lighting, and drainage. • Dropped Kerbs and Vehicle Crossings • Transport Policy: Review and development of policies for use on the public highway, including public transport and key highway planning issues. • Parking: The management, control and enforcement of both on and off-street parking, including the development of new schemes.
198 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
Figure 11.1 - Corporate Management Team structure chart
199 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
200 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
Figure 11.2 - Highways & Design structure chart
Head of Highways & Performance & Design Development Executive Assistant Manager
Highways Parking Operations Asset Management Building Control
Engineers Parking Design Asset Management Team Structural Management
Technicians Processing Team Technical Support
Inspectors Enforcement Team Clerk Of Works
Administration Maintenance Energy Data Input
Highways Strategy
Data Analyst
NRSWA
School Crossing Patrol
201 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
202 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
Management Systems – Highways office staff have use of PC’s, with server Hardware & Software based printing and faxing facilities, supported by Barnet’s IT Department. Specialist software systems used are: • Barnet’s “Eye Maps” GIS system • AutoCAD • Symology Asset Management & Ordering System, including UKPMS and NRASWA. • Mayrise Streetlighting Management System • Profess Time Recording & Project Management • LAFIS financial system • CIVICA Parking Management System • Delphi Human Resources System
The Council is in the process of implementing an integrated SAP system, with a “Go Live” date of 1st August 2005. This will replace the existing financial, procurement and human resources systems. Depots, Machinery, Mill Hill Depot is the base for the Council’s Direct Equipment etc. Service Organisation and provides: • Refuse collection service and associated vehicles and equipment • Highways responsive maintenance (including winter maintenance) and associated vehicles and equipment • Sign shop • Stores • Transport workshop for maintenance of vehicles and equipment • Tyre shop for Council vehicles Works and services are also provided by external organisations under contractual arrangements.
Intangible Resources
Plans & Policies A full list of Barnet’s Plans and Policies can be found on the Council’s current Policy Map (refer to Figure 3.1).
203 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
Decision Making Process / The Council has a Corporate Consultation and Stakeholder involvement Engagement Strategy, and a Consultation Team which co-ordinates and advises on market research, staff and public consultation. It co-ordinates and holds information on the Citizens' Panel and the Annual Residents' Survey. Highways consult with Lead and Ward Councillors, Emergency Services, Public transport Services, Residents and Local Businesses regarding the planning and implementation of schemes.
Data Collection and Sets Barnet collects traffic flow data on a monthly basis from automatic traffic flow sites situated upon the Borough roads, Principal roads and Trunk roads and downloads the results into a Traffic flow database. On an ad-hoc basis manual traffic/pedestrian counts are carried out at required locations together with a proactive programme of manual counts at various strategic locations within the Borough. Census data and other Borough statistics and information are available as part of the Council’s GIS system.
Quality Management & In April 2005 the Council was successful in being Quality Assurance awarded full Investors in People status for the high standards it has demonstrated in developing, engaging and communicating with its staff.
CPA Assessment, Barnet’s overall Comprehensive Performance CharterMark, Best Value8 Assessment for 2004 was “fair”, with an overall service score of 3, and an “ability to improve” score of 2. The Council’s Best Value Review Programme for 2004/2005 included a review of Transport Policy. The Review is currently going through the approval process.
204 London Borough of Barnet Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11
12. Funding
12.1 The purpose of this Chapter is to describe the funding implications raised by the preparation of the schemes and programmes listed in Chapter 5. A table template was prepared by TfL and has been used for this Chapter to provide a clear summary of the schemes and projects proposed for completion from the 2005/06 financial year through to the end of the 2008/09 financial year.
12.2 Table 12.1 - ‘Summary of LIP Funding’, provides a summary of LIP budget requirements by showing a spread of funding needs over the next 4 years. Please see Chapter 5 for further indication of schemes within each theme area.
Table 12.1: Summary of LIP funding
Year of Delivery 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/9 Net Parking Revenue £ 2,950,000 £ 3,145,000 £ 3,200,000 £ 3,200,000 Revenue Support Grant £ 380,800 £ 1,291,800 £ 1,859,800 £ 1,759,100 S106 £ 235,000 £ 1,608,000 £ 3,193,000 £ 1,010,000 BSP £ 2,677,000 £ 2,855,000 £ 5,405,000 £ 5,360,000 SRB/ODPM £ - £ 2,000,000 £ 5,000,000 £ - Private Finance Initiative £ 2,600,000 £ 2,665,000 £ 2,731,625 £ 2,799,915 Prudential Borrowing £ 5,400,000 £ 3,300,000 £ 2,000,000 £ 2,000,000 Other £ 40,000 £ 40,000 £ 40,000 £ - Total Sources £ 14,282,800 £ 16,904,800 £ 23,429,425 £ 16,129,015
205 Form Number 1 London Borough of Barnet LIP PROPOSAL DELIVERY FORM Summary of Proposal: Enhancing transport corridors
Location: Various
Dates: 2006/07 – 2008/09
Description of Main Elements:
A programme of tree planting is being developed to counteract pollution and noise and to enhance transport corridors. This will include; • Provision of street trees particularly in areas that currently have few of these; and • Provision of areas of tree planting, particularly (where possible) in areas of poor air quality, and/or other sites near major roads to counteract pollution and/or noise.
The choice of trees will be crucial in the urban environment. Species will not be introduced that are an undue future maintenance burden because of their size. The rate of growth or leaf-fall is preferred. Semi-mature specimens could help with establishment in areas where vandalism is identified as a potential problem. Where areas of planting on open land are proposed native species would be preferred in most cases.
Benefits of this programme will include; • Lock up of carbon emissions; • Filtering out pollution from road traffic; • Attenuate noise; and • Increase the attractiveness of transport corridors.
FUNDING REQUIRED TO DELIVER PROPOSAL TOTAL FUNDING TABLE (£K) 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 Total (£K) FUNDING REQUIRED FROM BSP - £25k £70k £70k £165k FUNDING FROM OTHER SOURCES (Details To Be Provided Below) TOTAL FUNDING REQUIRED - £25k £70k £70k £165k STATUS AMOUNT OTHER FUNDING SOURCES (Requested, COMMENTS (£k) Approved) TFL OUTSIDE BSP BOROUGH RESOURCES PARTNERS (please specify) OTHER (please specify)
Evaluation Framework (Form 1) 206 Date:
Key Delivery Partners, Dependencies and Risks: Partners – London Borough of Barnet (Environment and Neighbourhood) Dependencies - Funding Risks – Funding not forthcoming
Delivering the Mayor’s Transport Strategy in the borough:
MTS Proposal/ Policy Enhancing natural habitats and biodiversity along transport corridors. Priority Area Target Number number (Appendix C)
VI 7, 12 3.Pr2, 3.Pr5
Modal Impact Impact (Positive, Negative, (Please list the Modes affected) Neutral) All Positive
Impact Cross Cutting Goals (see section 4.5 of this Guidance) (Positive, Negative, Neutral, N/Al)
Promoting safety & perception of safety for all travel modes: N/A
Encouraging sustainable means for travel: Positive
Balanced road space allocation: N/A
Requirements for sustainable developments: Positive
Equality & Inclusion Target Group (please specify): Positive Low - Minority ethnic groups and faith groups. Negative Low - Older people (60+) and Disabled people Positive
Evaluation Framework (Form 1) 207 Date: Form Number 2 London Borough of Barnet LIP PROPOSAL DELIVERY FORM Summary of Proposal: Creating a green environment – tree planting
Location: North London
Dates: 2006/07 – 2008/09
Description of Main Elements:
This proposal has been submitted by the North London Transport Forum and is fully supported by the London Borough of Barnet. This form 1 has been included in Barnet’s Local Implementation Plan to demonstrate our support for this initiative. Funding for supplies and planting of trees. Tree planting will occur on highways, mainly on principal roads where practicable and mainly in the south of the borough. Tree Planting will improve air quality and shielding at specific air pollution hot spots across borough. Areas of poor air quality identified from consistent monitoring of carbon monoxide and partisols (PM10 and PM2.5). The location of air pollution hot spots within the sub region will be identified through the provision of consistent air quality statistics from various monitoring locations. Programme of tree planting of native species to maximise vegetation absorption and filtration of air to improve air quality of local traffic pollution hotspots, on principal roads (Budgeted for approximately 150 trees in each borough), will use 'Trees & sustainable air quality' documentation by the Centre for Ecology & Hydrology regarding suitable species to improve air quality. Tree species, planting location and positioning determined by Council’s Arboricultural Officers, Air Quality Officers and Biodiversity Office. Planting of additional trees within the borough will benefit the whole community and provide many advantages to the environment for residents and those employed within North London. Not only through the creation of additional green spaces for people to enjoy but Trees also reduce energy use, clean the air, enhance wildlife habitats and offer psychological benefits for humans that research is just beginning to define. Older and larger trees often maximise these benefits. (One large tree can provide oxygen requirements for approximately four people.) Future maintenance costs are included in the bid.
FUNDING REQUIRED TO DELIVER PROPOSAL TOTAL FUNDING TABLE (£K) 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 Total (£K) FUNDING REQUIRED FROM BSP £10k £20k £20k £50K FUNDING FROM OTHER SOURCES (Details To Be Provided Below) TOTAL FUNDING REQUIRED £10k £20k £20k £50K STATUS AMOUNT OTHER FUNDING SOURCES (Requested, COMMENTS (£k) Approved) TFL OUTSIDE BSP BOROUGH RESOURCES A North London Transport Forum PARTNERS (please specify) proposal OTHER (please specify)
Evaluation Framework (Form 1) 208 Date:
Key Delivery Partners, Dependencies and Risks: Partners – North London Transport Forum Dependencies – funding forthcoming
Delivering the Mayor’s Transport Strategy in the borough:
MTS Proposal/ Policy Improved air quality Priority Area Target Number number (Appendix C)
Vi 7, 12 3.Pr2
Modal Impact Impact (Positive, Negative, (Please list the Modes affected) Neutral)
All modes Neutral
Impact Cross Cutting Goals (see section 4.5 of this Guidance) (Positive, Negative, Neutral, N/Al) Promoting safety & perception of safety for all travel modes: N/A
Encouraging sustainable means for travel: N/A
Balanced road space allocation: N/A
Requirements for sustainable developments: Positive
Equality & Inclusion Target Group (please specify): N/A
Evaluation Framework (Form 1) 209 Date: Form Number 3 London Borough of Barnet LIP PROPOSAL DELIVERY FORM Summary of Proposal: New Southgate Station
Location: New Southgate Station
Dates: 2006 - 2007
Description of Main Elements:
Installation of CCTV and improved lighting on the roads and footpaths in the area surrounding New Southgate rail station (WAGN). The work crosses the boundary between Barnet and Enfield and a co-ordinated approach is required to prevent problems being displaced from one side of the boundary to the other. TfL are already funding installation of CCTV on the rol-ling stock used by WAGN serving this station. A problem has existed for some time with passengers leaving the station being mugged. This is in part related to the exit on the western side of the station which connects to an off-road footpath, approximately 700m in length between Friern Barnet Road and the North Circular Road. The footpath is used to access the station from residential areas to the west of the rail line and to the south of the North Circular Road. Provision of CCTV on the western side of the station (Barnet) only could result in the problems being displaced to the eastern entrance on Station Road (Enfield). The aim of this proposal is to deliver a single scheme which reduces any possibility of cross-borough displacement. A survey is currently underway to identify numbers and locations of cameras, lighting upgrade requirements and linkage to borough control rooms. Options for secure cycle parking will be investigated with the introduction of CCTV.
FUNDING REQUIRED TO DELIVER PROPOSAL TOTAL FUNDING TABLE (£K) 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 Total (£K) FUNDING REQUIRED FROM BSP £70k - - £70k FUNDING FROM OTHER SOURCES (Details To Be Provided Below) - TOTAL FUNDING REQUIRED - £70k - - £70k STATUS AMOUNT OTHER FUNDING SOURCES (Requested, COMMENTS (£k) Approved) TFL OUTSIDE BSP BOROUGH RESOURCES Joint Area Based Scheme bid PARTNERS (please specify) with LB Enfield OTHER (please specify)
Evaluation Framework (Form 1) 210 Date:
Key Delivery Partners, Dependencies and Risks: Partners – LB Enfield, WAGN Dependencies – Funding Risks – Funding not forthcoming, Agreement over CCTV control room
Delivering the Mayor’s Transport Strategy in the borough:
MTS Proposal/ Policy Rail Priority Area Target Number number (Appendix C) Walking and Cycling
Improving personal safety and security in getting to and from national rail stations V 10, 11 4E.Pr9, 4E.Pr13,
Modal Impact Impact (Positive, Negative, (Please list the Modes affected) Neutral) Rail Positive Walking Positive Cycling Positive Impact Cross Cutting Goals (see section 4.5 of this Guidance) (Positive, Negative, Neutral, N/Al)
Promoting safety & perception of safety for all travel modes: Positive
Encouraging sustainable means for travel: Positive
Balanced road space allocation: N/A
Requirements for sustainable developments: N/A
Equality & Inclusion Target Group (please specify): Positive High – women. Positive Low - Minority ethnic groups, Lesbians, gay men and transgender people and faith groups Positive
Evaluation Framework (Form 1) 211 Date: Form Number 4 London Borough of Barnet LIP PROPOSAL DELIVERY FORM Summary of Proposal: Access audit of National Rail stations
Location: New Barnet, Oakleigh Park, New Southgate and Mill Hill Broadway Stations
Dates: 2007/08 - 2008/09
Description of Main Elements:
An audit of walking and cycling routes within approximately 800m of New Barnet, Oakleigh, New Southgate and Mill Hill Broadway Stations will help to identify barriers to walking and cycling to stations. These audits are not proposed for the two national rail stations within the borough (Cricklewood and Hendon) as access to these stations will be significantly improved through regeneration projects in the surrounding areas.
Physical problems addressed by the scheme include, physical obstructions, fear of crime or unpleasant environment acting as a barrier to walking and cycling to the station. The audits will consider key routes between the bus stops within the 800m and ensure that these routes are fully accessible by visually impaired users and those with mobility difficulties. Cycle facilities and signage at and near station will also be reviewed during the audit. The audit at Mill Hill Broadway will also consider the walking links to and within the town centre.
Where simple low cost solutions are readily apparent these improvements will be implemented including signing or lighting improvements, localised footway improvements including provision of dropped kerbs where appropriate. A programme will also be developed of higher cost measures that may be required. If higher cost measures are deemed to be required a more comprehensive schemes will be developed. This further work will be coordinated in the form of a Station Access Area Based Scheme and submitted through the BSP process. The funding identified below is only for the audit and minor works.
Benefits of this programme will include; • Increased use of train for appropriate journeys; • Increase in walking and cycling as a means of accessing the station; • Less reliance on car journeys where appropriate alternatives exist.
FUNDING REQUIRED TO DELIVER PROPOSAL TOTAL FUNDING TABLE (£K) 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 Total (£K) FUNDING REQUIRED FROM BSP - - £100k £40K £140k FUNDING FROM OTHER SOURCES (Details To Be Provided Below) TOTAL FUNDING REQUIRED - - £100k £40K £140k STATUS AMOUNT OTHER FUNDING SOURCES (Requested, COMMENTS (£k) Approved) TFL OUTSIDE BSP BOROUGH RESOURCES PARTNERS (please specify) OTHER (please specify)
Evaluation Framework (Form 1) 212 Date:
Key Delivery Partners, Dependencies and Risks: Key Delivery Partners – WAGN and Thameslink Dependencies - Funding Risks – Funding not forthcoming
Delivering the Mayor’s Transport Strategy in the borough:
MTS Proposal/ Policy Rail Priority Area Target Number number (Appendix C) Walking cycling V 7, 10, 11, 12 4E.Pr13 Improving personal safety and security in getting to and from national rail stations
Modal Impact Impact (Positive, Negative, (Please list the Modes affected) Neutral) Rail Positive Walking Positive Impact Cross Cutting Goals (see section 4.5 of this Guidance) (Positive, Negative, Neutral, N/Al) Promoting safety & perception of safety for all travel modes: Positive
Encouraging sustainable means for travel: Positive
Balanced road space allocation: N/A
Requirements for sustainable developments: N/A
Equality & Inclusion Target Group (please specify): Positive
Evaluation Framework (Form 1) 213 Date: Form Number 5 London Borough of Barnet LIP PROPOSAL DELIVERY FORM Summary of Proposal: North London Transport Forum - Haringey Heartlands / Cricklewood regeneration
Location: Cricklewood
Dates: 2006/2007 to 2009/2010
Description of Main Elements:
This proposal has been submitted by the North London Transport Forum and is fully supported by the London Borough of Barnet. This form 1 has been included in Barnet’s Local Implementation Plan to demonstrate our support for this initiative.
Further funding is sought to continue supporting LDA activities as cited in the Regional Economic Development Strategy and the Corporate Plan of the London Development Agency. Transport projects in the area will focus on the provision of transport to these areas, particularly schemes that promote social inclusion for North London residents. Such provision will include identifying missing strategic links, the need for bus and rail infrastructure and the provision of non-motorised mode facilities.
The Barnet element of the 2005/06 allocation is being used to carry out a detailed assessment of options for public transport accessibility and permeability issues, particularly in relation to the severance created by the Midland Main line, on which services are operated by Thameslink. This line passes through both the Cricklewood and Colindale regeneration areas but at present its effect is to reduce rather than enhance opportunities for public transport in these areas, due to the influence of railway bridges on the ability to provide bus access to the area. The assessment will consider movements both within and between the regeneration areas.
To facilitate the regeneration in the area, better public transport access is needed in the long term. The area, has constraints for access on all sides, whether it is the residential areas to the north and north-west, the Northern Line and congested Colindale Avenue to the south, or the Midland Main Line to the east. It is this last route that presents the best opportunity for good access into the regeneration area, but changes are needed to rail bridges on Aerodrome Road to allow bus access. This could eventually be a £12 million scheme. The current allocation will help develop these ideas and deliver smaller scale improvements to bus access in the short term.
FUNDING REQUIRED TO DELIVER PROPOSAL TOTAL FUNDING TABLE (£K) 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 Total (£K) FUNDING REQUIRED FROM BSP £80K £200K £200K £480K FUNDING FROM OTHER SOURCES (Details To Be Provided Below) TOTAL FUNDING REQUIRED £80K £200K £200K £480K STATUS AMOUNT OTHER FUNDING SOURCES (Requested, COMMENTS (£k) Approved) TFL OUTSIDE BSP BOROUGH RESOURCES North London Transport Forum PARTNERS (please specify) proposal OTHER (please specify)
Evaluation Framework (Form 1) 214 Date:
Key Delivery Partners, Dependencies and Risks: Partners – North London Transport Forum Dependences – funding, Aerodrome Road bridge replacement scheme. Risk – future funding not forthcoming
Delivering the Mayor’s Transport Strategy in the borough:
Improving accessibility and social inclusion on the transport network. MTS Proposal/ Policy Priority Area Target Number number (Appendix C) V 10 4E.Pr13
Modal Impact Impact (Positive, Negative, (Please list the Modes affected) Neutral)
Rail Positive Tube Positive Walking Positive Cycling Positive Positive car Impact Cross Cutting Goals (see section 4.5 of this Guidance) (Positive, Negative, Neutral, N/Al) Promoting safety & perception of safety for all travel modes: Positive
Encouraging sustainable means for travel: Positive
Balanced road space allocation: Neutral
Requirements for sustainable developments: Positive
Equality & Inclusion Target Group (please specify): Minority Ethnic groups positive
Evaluation Framework (Form 1) 215 Date:
Form Number 6 London Borough of Barnet
LIP PROPOSAL DELIVERY FORM Summary of Proposal: Introduce bus priority at appropriate locations on A roads and busy bus routes
Location: Various
Dates: 2005/06 – 2008/09
Description of Main Elements:
Various bus priority schemes as proposed through LBPN agencies.
Schemes programmed for 2005/06 include; • Hendon Brent Street (Route 183) • Cricklewood Lane close by Cricklewood Broadway (Route 260) • Barnet High Street; Normandy Avenue – Park Road (Route 263/307) • Barnet Hill; junction with Underhill (Route 263/307)
FUNDING REQUIRED TO DELIVER PROPOSAL TOTAL FUNDING TABLE (£K) 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 Total (£K) FUNDING REQUIRED FROM BSP £180,000 £321,000 £552,000 £618,000 £1,671,000 FUNDING FROM OTHER SOURCES (Details To Be Provided Below) TOTAL FUNDING REQUIRED £180,000 £321,000 £552,000 £618,000 £1,671,000 STATUS AMOUNT OTHER FUNDING SOURCES (Requested, COMMENTS (£k) Approved) TFL OUTSIDE BSP BOROUGH RESOURCES PARTNERS (please specify) OTHER (please specify)
Evaluation Framework (Form 1) 216 Date:
Key Delivery Partners, Dependencies and Risks: Key Delivery Partners – TfL, LBPN Dependencies - Funding Risks – Funding not forthcoming
Delivering the Mayor’s Transport Strategy in the borough:
MTS Proposal/ Policy Improving bus journey times and reliability Priority Area Target Number number (Appendix C)
4F.Pr2, 4F.Pr6, II, III 3, 4 4F.Pr8
Modal Impact Impact (Positive, Negative, (Please list the Modes affected) Neutral)
Bus Positive
Impact Cross Cutting Goals (see section 4.5 of this Guidance) (Positive, Negative, Neutral, N/Al) Promoting safety & perception of safety for all travel modes: N/A
Encouraging sustainable means for travel: Positive
Balanced road space allocation: Positive
Requirements for sustainable developments: Positive
Equality & Inclusion Target Group (please specify): Positive
Evaluation Framework (Form 1) 217 Date: Form Number 7 London Borough of Barnet LIP PROPOSAL DELIVERY FORM Summary of Proposal: Introduce bus priority at appropriate locations on A roads and busy bus routes
Location: Various
Dates: 2005/06 – 2008/09
Description of Main Elements:
Various bus priority schemes as proposed through LBPN agencies.
FUNDING REQUIRED TO DELIVER PROPOSAL TOTAL FUNDING TABLE (£K) 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 Total (£K) FUNDING REQUIRED FROM BSP £940,000 £1,474K £828,000 £927,000 £4,169k FUNDING FROM OTHER SOURCES (Details To Be Provided Below) TOTAL FUNDING REQUIRED £940,000 £1,474K £828,000 £927,000 £4,169k STATUS AMOUNT OTHER FUNDING SOURCES (Requested, COMMENTS (£k) Approved) TFL OUTSIDE BSP BOROUGH RESOURCES PARTNERS (please specify) OTHER (please specify)
Evaluation Framework (Form 1) 218 Date:
Key Delivery Partners, Dependencies and Risks: Key Delivery Partners – TfL, LBPN Dependencies - Funding Risks – Funding not forthcoming
Delivering the Mayor’s Transport Strategy in the borough:
MTS Proposal/ Policy Improving bus journey times and reliability Priority Area Target Number number (Appendix C)
4F.Pr2, 4F.Pr6, II, III 3, 4 4F.Pr8
Modal Impact Impact (Positive, Negative, (Please list the Modes affected) Neutral)
Bus Positive
Impact Cross Cutting Goals (see section 4.5 of this Guidance) (Positive, Negative, Neutral, N/Al) Promoting safety & perception of safety for all travel modes: N/A
Encouraging sustainable means for travel: Positive
Balanced road space allocation: Positive
Requirements for sustainable developments: Positive
Equality & Inclusion Target Group (please specify): Positive
Evaluation Framework (Form 1) 219 Date: Form Number 8 London Borough of Barnet LIP PROPOSAL DELIVERY FORM Summary of Proposal: Bus stop clearway provision
Location: Various
Dates: 2007 - 2008
Description of Main Elements:
An audit of bus stopping places is required to determine signing and lining, cage lengths, kerb heights, street furniture, siting etc. From this information a programme for expansion of bus stop clearways and improvements in accessibility can be drawn up and properly costed. (Please refer to Form 6 - Bus stop accessibility for further details).
FUNDING REQUIRED TO DELIVER PROPOSAL TOTAL FUNDING TABLE (£K) 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 Total (£K) FUNDING REQUIRED FROM BSP - - £50k - £50k FUNDING FROM OTHER SOURCES (Details To Be Provided Below) TOTAL FUNDING REQUIRED - - £50k - £50k STATUS AMOUNT OTHER FUNDING SOURCES (Requested, COMMENTS (£k) Approved) TFL OUTSIDE BSP BOROUGH RESOURCES PARTNERS (please specify) OTHER (please specify)
Evaluation Framework (Form 1) 220 Date:
Key Delivery Partners, Dependencies and Risks: Key Delivery Partners – TfL Dependencies – Funding, Consultation Risks – Funding not forthcoming
Delivering the Mayor’s Transport Strategy in the borough:
MTS Proposal/ Policy Improving bus journey times and reliability Priority Area Target Number number (Appendix C)
II 3, 4 4F.Pr7
Modal Impact Impact (Positive, Negative, (Please list the Modes affected) Neutral)
Bus Positive
Impact Cross Cutting Goals (see section 4.5 of this Guidance) (Positive, Negative, Neutral, N/Al) Promoting safety & perception of safety for all travel modes: N/A
Encouraging sustainable means for travel: Positive
Balanced road space allocation: Positive
Requirements for sustainable developments: N/A
Equality & Inclusion Target Group (please specify): N/A
Evaluation Framework (Form 1) 221 Date: Form Number 9 London Borough of Barnet LIP PROPOSAL DELIVERY FORM Summary of Proposal: Improving bus stop accessibility
Location: All bus stops in Barnet
Dates: 2005/06 – 2008/09
Description of Main Elements:
2005 / 06 Provision is for specific bus stop accessibility improvements.
2006/07 – 2008/09 An audit of bus stopping places is required to determine signing and lining, cage lengths, kerb heights, street furniture, siting etc. From this information a programme for expansion of bus stop clearways and improvements in accessibility can be drawn up and properly costed.
FUNDING REQUIRED TO DELIVER PROPOSAL TOTAL FUNDING TABLE (£K) 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 Total (£K) FUNDING REQUIRED FROM BSP £43k £80k £55k £55k £233k FUNDING FROM OTHER SOURCES (Details To Be Provided Below) TOTAL FUNDING REQUIRED £43k £80k £55k £55k £233k STATUS AMOUNT OTHER FUNDING SOURCES (Requested, COMMENTS (£k) Approved) TFL OUTSIDE BSP BOROUGH RESOURCES PARTNERS (please specify) OTHER (please specify)
Evaluation Framework (Form 1) 222 Date:
Key Delivery Partners, Dependencies and Risks: Key Delivery Partners – TfL Dependencies - Funding Risks – Funding not forthcoming
Delivering the Mayor’s Transport Strategy in the borough:
MTS Proposal/ Policy Improving bus journey times and reliability Priority Area Target Number number (Appendix C) Improving accessibility and social inclusion
V 10, 11 4F.Pr11
Modal Impact Impact (Positive, Negative, (Please list the Modes affected) Neutral) Bus Positive Walking Positive
Impact Cross Cutting Goals (see section 4.5 of this Guidance) (Positive, Negative, Neutral, N/Al) Promoting safety & perception of safety for all travel modes: Positive
Encouraging sustainable means for travel: Positive
Balanced road space allocation: N/A
Requirements for sustainable developments: Positive
Equality & Inclusion Target Group (please specify): Positive
Evaluation Framework (Form 1) 223 Date: Form Number 10 London Borough of Barnet LIP PROPOSAL DELIVERY FORM Summary of Proposal: Orbital bus priority assessment and prioritisation
Location: North London
Dates: 2007 - 2008
Description of Main Elements:
This proposal has been submitted by the North London Transport Forum and is fully supported by the London Borough of Barnet. This form 1 has been included in Barnet’s Local Implementation Plan to demonstrate our support for this initiative. The agreed sub-regional transport priorities include the improvement of orbital public transport links. Car dependency is particularly high with regard to orbital trips. The London Plan has identified development and regeneration opportunities in the Upper Lee Valley, Cricklewood, Tottenham Hale and Haringey Heartlands. Whilst some of these areas have good public transport accessibility to and from central London, all suffer from poor public transport access to other parts of North London. In order to open up opportunities for all of the diverse population of North London to benefit from the economic and social opportunities that the regeneration areas will bring, good quality and accessible public transport is required to link these strategic development areas to the communities of North London. The proposal is to undertake a study of the potential for orbital bus routes, appropriately enhanced by priority measures, to deliver a step-change in orbital accessibility across North London, helping to provide access to jobs and other opportunities in key regeneration sites for everyone throughout the sub-region. The study will include: Assessment of orbital routes in North London to understand their role in delivering the economic and social strategies for North London. Essentially, an assessment of whether the routes link key strategic development sites with the people who may benefit from the emerging opportunities. An assessment on each route of significance in delivering the outcomes required of how quicker journey times and more reliable timetabling would improve accessibility, and the attractiveness of orbital bus services Detailed analysis will need to be carried out to assess the potential benefits of bus priorities, to model their impacts and to better understand the implications. To fully establish the order of precedence with which such local bus priorities should be brought forward, a analysis of the benefits and viability of potential schemes is required to identify a future bidding strategy to secure funding for bus priority improvements. Has strong links to improving access to town centres, stations and other public transport interchanges. The provision of better orbital bus services will improve access to the important regeneration sites in North London, and help reduce dependency on the car. The scheme proposal has been agreed by the North London Transport Forum. Approvals would be required on a scheme by scheme basis for any proposals that came out of the study. Similarly, consultation on detailed schemes would be undertaken locally as and when scheme proposals come forward. FUNDING REQUIRED TO DELIVER PROPOSAL TOTAL FUNDING TABLE (£K) 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 Total (£K) FUNDING REQUIRED FROM BSP - - £50k - £50k FUNDING FROM OTHER SOURCES (Details To Be Provided Below) TOTAL FUNDING REQUIRED - - £50k - £50k STATUS AMOUNT OTHER FUNDING SOURCES (Requested, COMMENTS (£k) Approved) TFL OUTSIDE BSP BOROUGH RESOURCES A North London Transport Forum PARTNERS (please specify) proposal OTHER (please specify)
Evaluation Framework (Form 1) 224 Date:
Key Delivery Partners, Dependencies and Risks: Partners – North London Transport form, London buses
Delivering the Mayor’s Transport Strategy in the borough:
MTS Proposal/ Policy Improved bus service and priority Priority Area Target Number number (Appendix C)
Ii, iii, iv 4, 5, 7 4F.Pr2, 4F.Pr8
Modal Impact Impact (Positive, Negative, (Please list the Modes affected) Neutral) Bus positive
Impact Cross Cutting Goals (see section 4.5 of this Guidance) (Positive, Negative, Neutral, N/Al) Promoting safety & perception of safety for all travel modes: Neutral
Encouraging sustainable means for travel: positive
Balanced road space allocation: positive
Requirements for sustainable developments: Neutral
Equality & Inclusion Target Group (please specify): Neutral
Evaluation Framework (Form 1) 225 Date: Form Number 11 London Borough of Barnet LIP PROPOSAL DELIVERY FORM Summary of Proposal: Local Safety Schemes
Location: A1000 Buckingham Avenue to Lyonsdown Road
Dates: 2005/06
Description of Main Elements:
Remedial measures include the following: • Renew pedestrian crossing facilities. • Introduce waiting restrictions. • Junction improvement to reduce right turning accidents. • Investigate junction control options for Lyonsdown Road.
Total Accidents: 27 Predicted Accident Reduction: 10 1st Year Rate of Return (FYRR): 105%
FUNDING REQUIRED TO DELIVER PROPOSAL TOTAL FUNDING TABLE (£K) 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 Total (£K) FUNDING REQUIRED FROM BSP £230k - - - £230k FUNDING FROM OTHER SOURCES (Details To Be Provided Below) TOTAL FUNDING REQUIRED £230k - - - £230k STATUS AMOUNT OTHER FUNDING SOURCES (Requested, COMMENTS (£k) Approved) TFL OUTSIDE BSP BOROUGH RESOURCES PARTNERS (please specify) OTHER (please specify)
Evaluation Framework (Form 1) 226 Date:
Key Delivery Partners, Dependencies and Risks: Key Delivery Partners – TfL Dependencies - Funding Risks – Funding not forthcoming
Delivering the Mayor’s Transport Strategy in the borough:
MTS Proposal/ Policy Improving Road Safety Priority Area Target Number number (Appendix C)
I 1, 2 4G.Pr7
Modal Impact Impact (Positive, Negative, (Please list the Modes affected) Neutral)
All Neutral
Impact Cross Cutting Goals (see section 4.5 of this Guidance) (Positive, Negative, Neutral, N/Al) Promoting safety & perception of safety for all travel modes: Positive
Encouraging sustainable means for travel: Neutral
Balanced road space allocation: Neutral
Requirements for sustainable developments: N/A
Equality & Inclusion Target Group (please specify): All Positive
Evaluation Framework (Form 1) 227 Date: Form Number 12 London Borough of Barnet LIP PROPOSAL DELIVERY FORM Summary of Proposal: Local Safety Schemes
Location: Colindale Avenue
Dates: 2005/06
Description of Main Elements:
Remedial measures include the following: • Junction improvements A5/Colindale Avenue/Annersley Avenue. • New signal installation. • Introduce two islands. • Locate pedestrian facility near post office. • Improve pedestrian environment at junctions.
Total Accidents: 21 Predicted Accident Reduction: 7 1st Year Rate of Return (FYRR): 100%
FUNDING REQUIRED TO DELIVER PROPOSAL TOTAL FUNDING TABLE (£K) 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 Total (£K) FUNDING REQUIRED FROM BSP £170k - - - £170k FUNDING FROM OTHER SOURCES (Details To Be Provided Below) TOTAL FUNDING REQUIRED £170k - - - £170k STATUS AMOUNT OTHER FUNDING SOURCES (Requested, COMMENTS (£k) Approved) TFL OUTSIDE BSP BOROUGH RESOURCES PARTNERS (please specify) OTHER (please specify)
Evaluation Framework (Form 1) 228 Date:
Key Delivery Partners, Dependencies and Risks: Key Delivery Partners – TfL Dependencies - Funding Risks – Funding not forthcoming
Delivering the Mayor’s Transport Strategy in the borough:
MTS Proposal/ Policy Improving road safety Priority Area Target Number number (Appendix C)
I 1, 2 4G.Pr7
Modal Impact Impact (Positive, Negative, (Please list the Modes affected) Neutral)
All Neutral
Impact Cross Cutting Goals (see section 4.5 of this Guidance) (Positive, Negative, Neutral, N/Al) Promoting safety & perception of safety for all travel modes: Positive
Encouraging sustainable means for travel: Neutral
Balanced road space allocation: Neutral
Requirements for sustainable developments: N/A
Equality & Inclusion Target Group (please specify): All Positive
Evaluation Framework (Form 1) 229 Date: Form Number 13 London Borough of Barnet LIP PROPOSAL DELIVERY FORM Summary of Proposal: Local Safety Schemes
Location: Claremont Road
Dates: 2005/06
Description of Main Elements:
Remedial measures include the following: • Introduce two new zebra crossings. • Relocate zebra crossing near Whitefields School. • Upgrade roundabouts. • Provide crossing points near roundabouts. • Increase width of footpath near bus stop. • Formalise existing footway parking in various locations.
Total Accidents: 10 Predicted Accident Reduction: 6 1st Year Rate of Return (FYRR): 104%
FUNDING REQUIRED TO DELIVER PROPOSAL TOTAL FUNDING TABLE (£K) 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 Total (£K) FUNDING REQUIRED FROM BSP £140k - - - £140k
FUNDING FROM OTHER SOURCES (Details To Be Provided Below)
TOTAL FUNDING REQUIRED £140k - - - £140k STATUS AMOUNT OTHER FUNDING SOURCES (Requested, COMMENTS (£k) Approved) TFL OUTSIDE BSP BOROUGH RESOURCES PARTNERS (please specify) OTHER (please specify)
Evaluation Framework (Form 1) 230 Date:
Key Delivery Partners, Dependencies and Risks: Key Delivery Partners – TfL Dependencies - Funding Risks – Funding not forthcoming
Delivering the Mayor’s Transport Strategy in the borough:
MTS Proposal/ Policy Improving road safety Priority Area Target Number number (Appendix C)
I 1, 2 4G.Pr7
Modal Impact Impact (Positive, Negative, (Please list the Modes affected) Neutral)
All Neutral
Impact Cross Cutting Goals (see section 4.5 of this Guidance) (Positive, Negative, Neutral, N/Al) Promoting safety & perception of safety for all travel modes: Positive
Encouraging sustainable means for travel: Neutral
Balanced road space allocation: Neutral
Requirements for sustainable developments: N/A
Equality & Inclusion Target Group (please specify): All Positive
Evaluation Framework (Form 1) 231 Date: Form Number 14 London Borough of Barnet LIP PROPOSAL DELIVERY FORM Summary of Proposal: Local Safety Scheme
Location: Barnet Road nr junction with Field End
Dates: 2005/06
Description of Main Elements:
Total Accidents: Predicted Accident Reduction: 1st Year Rate of Return (FYRR):
FUNDING REQUIRED TO DELIVER PROPOSAL TOTAL FUNDING TABLE (£K) 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 Total (£K) FUNDING REQUIRED FROM BSP £75,000 £75,000 FUNDING FROM OTHER SOURCES (Details To Be Provided Below) TOTAL FUNDING REQUIRED £75,000 £75,000 STATUS AMOUNT OTHER FUNDING SOURCES (Requested, COMMENTS (£k) Approved) TFL OUTSIDE BSP BOROUGH RESOURCES PARTNERS (please specify) OTHER (please specify)
Evaluation Framework (Form 1) 232 Date:
Key Delivery Partners, Dependencies and Risks: Key Delivery Partners – TfL Dependencies - Funding Risks – Funding not forthcoming
Delivering the Mayor’s Transport Strategy in the borough:
MTS Proposal/ Policy Improving road safety Priority Area Target Number number (Appendix C)
I 1, 2 4G.Pr7
Modal Impact Impact (Positive, Negative, (Please list the Modes affected) Neutral)
All Neutral
Impact Cross Cutting Goals (see section 4.5 of this Guidance) (Positive, Negative, Neutral, N/Al) Promoting safety & perception of safety for all travel modes: Positive
Encouraging sustainable means for travel: Neutral
Balanced road space allocation: Neutral
Requirements for sustainable developments: N/A
Equality & Inclusion Target Group (please specify): All Positive
Evaluation Framework (Form 1) 233 Date: Form Number 15 London Borough of Barnet LIP PROPOSAL DELIVERY FORM Summary of Proposal: Local Safety Scheme
Location: High Road, North Finchley
Dates: 2006/7
Description of Main Elements:
To implement a scheme aimed at reducing pedestrian, night time and right turning accidents.
Remedial measures will include improvements to pedestrian facilities. Junction sightlines will be improved through modifications to junctions and waiting restrictions. Lighting in the area will be evaluated and improved.
Total Accidents: 30 Predicted Accident Reduction:10 1st Year Rate of Return (FYRR): 121%
FUNDING REQUIRED TO DELIVER PROPOSAL TOTAL FUNDING TABLE (£K) 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 Total (£K) FUNDING REQUIRED FROM BSP - 200k £200k FUNDING FROM OTHER SOURCES (Details To Be Provided Below) TOTAL FUNDING REQUIRED £200k £200k STATUS AMOUNT OTHER FUNDING SOURCES (Requested, COMMENTS (£k) Approved) TFL OUTSIDE BSP BOROUGH RESOURCES PARTNERS (please specify) OTHER (please specify)
Evaluation Framework (Form 1) 234 Date:
Key Delivery Partners, Dependencies and Risks: Key Delivery Partners – TfL Dependencies - Funding Risks – Funding not forthcoming
Delivering the Mayor’s Transport Strategy in the borough:
MTS Proposal/ Policy Improving road safety Priority Area Target Number number (Appendix C)
I 1, 2 4G.Pr7
Modal Impact Impact (Positive, Negative, (Please list the Modes affected) Neutral)
All Neutral
Impact Cross Cutting Goals (see section 4.5 of this Guidance) (Positive, Negative, Neutral, N/Al) Promoting safety & perception of safety for all travel modes: Positive
Encouraging sustainable means for travel: Neutral
Balanced road space allocation: Neutral
Requirements for sustainable developments: N/A
Equality & Inclusion Target Group (please specify): All Positive
Evaluation Framework (Form 1) 235 Date: Form Number 16 London Borough of Barnet LIP PROPOSAL DELIVERY FORM Summary of Proposal: Local Safety Scheme
Location: Burnt Oak Broadway
Dates: 2006/7
Description of Main Elements:
To implement a scheme aimed at reducing pedestrians and night time accidents.
Remedial measures will include improvements to pedestrian facilities. Improvements will be made at junctions with improvements to street lighting. Total Accidents: 38 Predicted Accident Reduction: 10 1st Year Rate of Return (FYRR): 121%
FUNDING REQUIRED TO DELIVER PROPOSAL TOTAL FUNDING TABLE (£K) 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 Total (£K) FUNDING REQUIRED FROM BSP - 200k £200k FUNDING FROM OTHER SOURCES (Details To Be Provided Below) TOTAL FUNDING REQUIRED £200k £200k STATUS AMOUNT OTHER FUNDING SOURCES (Requested, COMMENTS (£k) Approved) TFL OUTSIDE BSP BOROUGH RESOURCES PARTNERS (please specify) OTHER (please specify)
Evaluation Framework (Form 1) 236 Date:
Key Delivery Partners, Dependencies and Risks: Key Delivery Partners – TfL Dependencies - Funding Risks – Funding not forthcoming
Delivering the Mayor’s Transport Strategy in the borough:
MTS Proposal/ Policy Improving Road Safety Priority Area Target Number number (Appendix C)
I 1, 2 4G.Pr7
Modal Impact Impact (Positive, Negative, (Please list the Modes affected) Neutral)
All Neutral
Impact Cross Cutting Goals (see section 4.5 of this Guidance) (Positive, Negative, Neutral, N/Al) Promoting safety & perception of safety for all travel modes: Positive
Encouraging sustainable means for travel: Neutral
Balanced road space allocation: Neutral
Requirements for sustainable developments: N/A
Equality & Inclusion Target Group (please specify): All Positive
Evaluation Framework (Form 1) 237 Date: Form Number 17 London Borough of Barnet LIP PROPOSAL DELIVERY FORM Summary of Proposal: Local Safety Scheme
Location: Colney Hatch Lane/Woodhouse Road
Dates: 2006/7
Description of Main Elements:
To implement a scheme aimed at reducing pedestrian and right turning accidents.
Remedial measures will include a signal junction re-design to improve pedestrian facilities. Right turning facilities will be improved through modifications to lane positioning and signal timings.
Total Accidents: 17 Predicted Accident Reduction: 6 1st Year Rate of Return (FYRR): 121%
FUNDING REQUIRED TO DELIVER PROPOSAL TOTAL FUNDING TABLE (£K) 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 Total (£K) FUNDING REQUIRED FROM BSP - £120k £120k FUNDING FROM OTHER SOURCES (Details To Be Provided Below) TOTAL FUNDING REQUIRED £120k £120k STATUS AMOUNT OTHER FUNDING SOURCES (Requested, COMMENTS (£k) Approved) TFL OUTSIDE BSP BOROUGH RESOURCES PARTNERS (please specify) OTHER (please specify)
Evaluation Framework (Form 1) 238 Date:
Key Delivery Partners, Dependencies and Risks: Key Delivery Partners – TfL Dependencies - Funding Risks – Funding not forthcoming
Delivering the Mayor’s Transport Strategy in the borough:
MTS Proposal/ Policy Improving road safety Priority Area Target Number number (Appendix C)
I 1, 2 4G.Pr7
Modal Impact Impact (Positive, Negative, (Please list the Modes affected) Neutral)
All Neutral
Impact Cross Cutting Goals (see section 4.5 of this Guidance) (Positive, Negative, Neutral, N/Al) Promoting safety & perception of safety for all travel modes: Positive
Encouraging sustainable means for travel: Neutral
Balanced road space allocation: Neutral
Requirements for sustainable developments: N/A
Equality & Inclusion Target Group (please specify): All Positive
Evaluation Framework (Form 1) 239 Date: Form Number 18 London Borough of Barnet LIP PROPOSAL DELIVERY FORM Summary of Proposal: Local Safety Scheme
Location: Various
Dates: 2006/07
Description of Main Elements:
The following schemes have been identified as part of the 2006/07 LSS programme. These schemes are subject to member approval.
Dollis Road – Remedial measures will include improved signage and the introduction of anti-skid surfacing on the bend. £65k
Total Accidents: 5 Predicted Accident Reduction: 4 1st Year Rate of Return (FYRR): 149%
Hendon Wood Lane – Remedial measures will include improved signage and the introduction of anti-skid surfacing on the bend. £40k
Total Accidents: 5 Predicted Accident Reduction: 2 1st Year Rate of Return (FYRR): 121% These schemes are aimed at reducing pedestrian and night time accidents.
High Road/Summers Lane To implement a scheme aimed at reducing pedestrian and right turning accidents. Remedial measures will include signal junction re-design with improvements to pedestrian facilities. £30K Total Accidents: 7 Predicted Accident Reduction: 4 1st Year Rate of Return (FYRR): 97% ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION PROGRAMME FEASIBILITY STUDY
FUNDING REQUIRED TO DELIVER PROPOSAL TOTAL FUNDING TABLE (£K) 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 Total (£K) FUNDING REQUIRED FROM BSP - £135k £135k FUNDING FROM OTHER SOURCES (Details To Be Provided Below) TOTAL FUNDING REQUIRED £135k £135k STATUS AMOUNT OTHER FUNDING SOURCES (Requested, COMMENTS (£k) Approved) TFL OUTSIDE BSP BOROUGH RESOURCES PARTNERS (please specify) OTHER (please specify)
Evaluation Framework (Form 1) 240 Date:
Key Delivery Partners, Dependencies and Risks: Key Delivery Partners – TfL Dependencies - Funding Risks – Funding not forthcoming
Delivering the Mayor’s Transport Strategy in the borough:
MTS Proposal/ Policy Improving road safety Priority Area Target Number number (Appendix C)
I 1, 2 4G.Pr7
Modal Impact Impact (Positive, Negative, (Please list the Modes affected) Neutral)
All Neutral
Impact Cross Cutting Goals (see section 4.5 of this Guidance) (Positive, Negative, Neutral, N/Al) Promoting safety & perception of safety for all travel modes: Positive
Encouraging sustainable means for travel: Neutral
Balanced road space allocation: Neutral
Requirements for sustainable developments: N/A
Equality & Inclusion Target Group (please specify): All Positive
Evaluation Framework (Form 1) 241 Date: Form Number 19 London Borough of Barnet LIP PROPOSAL DELIVERY FORM Summary of Proposal: Local Safety Scheme
Location: FUTURE YEARS
Dates: 2007/08 – 2008/09
Description of Main Elements:
FUNDING REQUIRED TO DELIVER PROPOSAL TOTAL FUNDING TABLE (£K) 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 Total (£K) FUNDING REQUIRED FROM BSP - £1,000 £1,000 £2,000 FUNDING FROM OTHER SOURCES (Details To Be Provided Below) TOTAL FUNDING REQUIRED £1,000 £1,000 £2,000 STATUS AMOUNT OTHER FUNDING SOURCES (Requested, COMMENTS (£k) Approved) TFL OUTSIDE BSP BOROUGH RESOURCES PARTNERS (please specify) OTHER (please specify)
Evaluation Framework (Form 1) 242 Date:
Key Delivery Partners, Dependencies and Risks: Key Delivery Partners – TfL Dependencies - Funding Risks – Funding not forthcoming
Delivering the Mayor’s Transport Strategy in the borough:
MTS Proposal/ Policy Improving road safety Priority Area Target Number number (Appendix C)
I 1, 2 4G.Pr7
Modal Impact Impact (Positive, Negative, (Please list the Modes affected) Neutral)
All Neutral
Impact Cross Cutting Goals (see section 4.5 of this Guidance) (Positive, Negative, Neutral, N/Al) Promoting safety & perception of safety for all travel modes: Positive
Encouraging sustainable means for travel: Neutral
Balanced road space allocation: Neutral
Requirements for sustainable developments: N/A
Equality & Inclusion Target Group (please specify): All Positive
Evaluation Framework (Form 1) 243 Date: Form Number 20 London Borough of Barnet LIP PROPOSAL DELIVERY FORM Summary of Proposal: Practical Pedestrian Training
Location: Various
Dates: 2006/07 – 2008/09
Description of Main Elements:
To promote road safety and raise travel awareness through a range of initiatives including:-
Safer Moves – Practical Pedestrian Training • To increase the delivery of school based practical pedestrian training to all Year 4 classes in Barnet • To further develop and increase the use of the 'Safer Moves' resource pack and deliver PPT to all Year 4 classes in Barnet. To increase staffing used to deliver the practical element of the project as well as reviewing and updating the pack. • Schools involved in the pilot will carry out surveys either as part of their school travel plan or separately. These will be monitored every six months.
FUNDING REQUIRED TO DELIVER PROPOSAL TOTAL FUNDING TABLE (£K) 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 Total (£K) FUNDING REQUIRED FROM BSP £50k £35k £30k £115k FUNDING FROM OTHER SOURCES (Details To Be Provided Below) TOTAL FUNDING REQUIRED £50k £35k £30k £115k STATUS AMOUNT OTHER FUNDING SOURCES (Requested, COMMENTS (£k) Approved) TFL OUTSIDE BSP BOROUGH RESOURCES PARTNERS (please specify) OTHER (please specify)
Evaluation Framework (Form 1) 244 Date:
Key Delivery Partners, Dependencies and Risks: Partners – TfL, Schools Dependencies - Funding Risks – Funding not forthcoming
Delivering the Mayor’s Transport Strategy in the borough:
MTS Proposal/ Policy Improving road safety Priority Area Target Number number (Appendix C) Encouraging walking
Encouraging cycling I 1, 2 4G.Pr7
Modal Impact Impact (Positive, Negative, (Please list the Modes affected) Neutral) All Positive
Impact Cross Cutting Goals (see section 4.5 of this Guidance) (Positive, Negative, Neutral, N/Al) Promoting safety & perception of safety for all travel modes: Positive
Encouraging sustainable means for travel: Positive
Balanced road space allocation: N/A
Requirements for sustainable developments: N/A
Equality & Inclusion Target Group (please specify): Positive
Evaluation Framework (Form 1) 245 Date: Form Number 21 London Borough of Barnet LIP PROPOSAL DELIVERY FORM Summary of Proposal: School Gate Congestion Project
Location: Various
Dates: 2007/08 – 2008/09
Description of Main Elements:
To promote road safety and raise travel awareness through a range of initiatives including:-
School Gate Congestion Project - Resource development • To develop a school based resource aimed at increasing children’s awareness of school gate congestion issues and solutions to reduce car use and a shift to more sustainable travel choices. • To work with Educational Learning Network Inspectors to develop lesson plans and resources that will form a resource pack for Year 5 teachers. • The project will have clearly defined objectives which will be measured through the project evaluation. Schools involved in the pilot will carry out surveys either as part of their school travel plan or separately. These will be monitored every six months to consider modal shift.
•
FUNDING REQUIRED TO DELIVER PROPOSAL TOTAL FUNDING TABLE (£K) 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 Total (£K) FUNDING REQUIRED FROM BSP £60k £30k £90k FUNDING FROM OTHER SOURCES (Details To Be Provided Below) TOTAL FUNDING REQUIRED £60k £30k £90k STATUS AMOUNT OTHER FUNDING SOURCES (Requested, COMMENTS (£k) Approved) TFL OUTSIDE BSP BOROUGH RESOURCES PARTNERS (please specify) OTHER (please specify)
Evaluation Framework (Form 1) 246 Date:
Key Delivery Partners, Dependencies and Risks: Partners – TfL, Schools Dependencies - Funding Risks – Funding not forthcoming
Delivering the Mayor’s Transport Strategy in the borough:
MTS Proposal/ Policy Improving road safety Priority Area Target Number number (Appendix C) Encouraging walking
Encouraging cycling I 1, 2 4G.Pr7
Modal Impact Impact (Positive, Negative, (Please list the Modes affected) Neutral) All Positive
Impact Cross Cutting Goals (see section 4.5 of this Guidance) (Positive, Negative, Neutral, N/Al) Promoting safety & perception of safety for all travel modes: Positive
Encouraging sustainable means for travel: Positive
Balanced road space allocation: N/A
Requirements for sustainable developments: N/A
Equality & Inclusion Target Group (please specify): Positive
Evaluation Framework (Form 1) 247 Date: Form Number 22 London Borough of Barnet LIP PROPOSAL DELIVERY FORM Summary of Proposal: Safer Routes to School
Location: Selected schools are listed below
Dates: 2005/06 – 2008/09
Description of Main Elements:
The Safer Routes to School program includes various components such as data collection, observations and accident data, consultations, education and remedial works. Together these form a well rounded programme that aims to address safety problems around schools and promote the use of walking and cycling to schools. During 2005/06 a programme of works has been identified at the following schools: 1. Barnet Hill School 2. Fairway School 3. Garden Suburb Schools 4. Hasmonean Girls School
Small scale improvements are also planned to various schools as part of the introduction to STP process. With the increase in schools developing school travel plans, the need for physical measures outside schools will increase and we estimate that around 10-15 schools per year will seek improvements. More details of the Safer Routes to School programme is provided in the School Travel Plan Strategy. During 2006/07 a programme of works has been identified at the following schools: 1. Martin School (Primary) 2. Bell Lane Primary School 3. St Theresa’s Primary School 4. Moss Hall (Nursery) 5. Frith Manor Primary School 6. Northway Primary School (SEN) 7. Hendon School (Secondary) 8. Christ College Secondary School
FUNDING REQUIRED TO DELIVER PROPOSAL TOTAL FUNDING TABLE (£K) 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 Total (£K) FUNDING REQUIRED FROM BSP £258k £200k £300k £300k £1,058k FUNDING FROM OTHER SOURCES (Details To Be Provided Below) TOTAL FUNDING REQUIRED £258k £275k £300k £300k £1,058k STATUS AMOUNT OTHER FUNDING SOURCES (Requested, COMMENTS (£k) Approved) TFL OUTSIDE BSP BOROUGH RESOURCES PARTNERS (please specify) OTHER (please specify)
Evaluation Framework (Form 1) 248 Date:
Key Delivery Partners, Dependencies and Risks: Partners – TfL, Schools Dependencies - Funding Risks – Funding not forthcoming
Delivering the Mayor’s Transport Strategy in the borough:
MTS Proposal/ Policy Improving road safety Priority Area Target Number number (Appendix C) Encouraging walking
Encouraging cycling I 1, 2 4G.Pr9
Modal Impact Impact (Positive, Negative, (Please list the Modes affected) Neutral)
All modes Positive
Impact Cross Cutting Goals (see section 4.5 of this Guidance) (Positive, Negative, Neutral, N/Al)
Promoting safety & perception of safety for all travel modes: Positive
Encouraging sustainable means for travel: Positive
Balanced road space allocation: N/A
Requirements for sustainable developments: Positive
Equality & Inclusion Target Group (please specify): Positive
Evaluation Framework (Form 1) 249 Date: Form Number 23 London Borough of Barnet LIP PROPOSAL DELIVERY FORM Summary of Proposal: School Travel Plan Co-ordinator
Location: Barnet
Dates: 2005/06 – 2008/09
Description of Main Elements:
To match fund 50% of the salary costs of a School Travel Plan Co-ordinator post, where the remaining 50% will be met from the Councils’ own funds. The Councils’ element of the funding has been identified as a growth item within the Highways & Design staffing budget and the Head of Highways and Design has delegated authority to add this post to the staffing structure without additional approvals. The Council has an existing and on-going commitment of two officers other than the School Travel Plan Co- ordinator working on the delivery of School Travel Plans, which are wholly met from Council funds.
Barnet has 120 LEA Schools and 32 independent Schools. DfES/DfT funding for this post for 2004-05 and 2005- 06 was £40,000 per year based on a formula according to the number of schools in the borough. The high number of schools in Barnet necessitates a sustained programme of development, implementation and monitoring in order to introduce STPs in all schools. The current evaluation of the STP process has identified that the demand and support required from schools when developing their school travel plan is high and any reduction in staffing would not meet this. The Co-ordinator post is essential to meet both the National and Mayoral targets for all schools to have a school travel plan in place by 2009/10.
FUNDING REQUIRED TO DELIVER PROPOSAL
TOTAL FUNDING TABLE (£K) 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 Total (£K)
FUNDING REQUIRED FROM BSP £20k £20k FUNDING FROM OTHER SOURCES (Details To Be Provided Below) £40k £40k £40k £20k £140k TOTAL FUNDING REQUIRED £40k £40k £40k £40k £160k STATUS AMOUNT OTHER FUNDING SOURCES (Requested, COMMENTS (£k) Approved) TFL OUTSIDE BSP BOROUGH RESOURCES £20k S106 PARTNERS (please specify) OTHER (please specify) DfES / DfT funding for 2005/06 – £120k Programmed 2007/08
Evaluation Framework (Form 1) 250 Date:
Key Delivery Partners, Dependencies and Risks: Partners - TfL Dependencies - Funding Risks – Funding not forthcoming
Delivering the Mayor’s Transport Strategy in the borough:
MTS Proposal/ Policy Improving road safety Priority Area Target Number number (Appendix C) Encouraging walking
Encouraging cycling I 1, 2 4G.Pr9
Modal Impact Impact (Positive, Negative, (Please list the Modes affected) Neutral)
All Positive
Impact Cross Cutting Goals (see section 4.5 of this Guidance) (Positive, Negative, Neutral, N/Al)
Promoting safety & perception of safety for all travel modes: Positive
Encouraging sustainable means for travel: Positive
Balanced road space allocation: N/A
Requirements for sustainable developments: N/A
Equality & Inclusion Target Group (please specify): Positive
Evaluation Framework (Form 1) 251 Date: Form Number 24 London Borough of Barnet LIP PROPOSAL DELIVERY FORM Summary of Proposal: Review of waiting & loading on A roads and busy bus routes
Location: Borough wide
Dates: 2007/2008 to 2009/2010
Description of Main Elements:
This form sets out the programme for the review of waiting and loading restrictions on ‘A’ roads and busy bus routes. This programme has been formulated to ensure that all A roads and Busy Bus routes have had their waiting and loading restrictions reviewed by 2010. The review proposed only covers those roads where other works which incorporate waiting and loading restrictions are not already proposed, this including the review of Controlled Parking Zones. Therefore this programme is very dependent on the progress of other works programmes and will need to be modified or expanded depending on changes in any of the works programmes identified. The other works programmes that will incorporate parking and load review include non-principal road maintenance (Form 31), footway resurfacing (Form 35), Local Safety Schemes (Forms 11-18), bus priority (Form 6,7) and Parallel Initiatives (Form 25). The outstanding sections of road that will not have there waiting and loading restrictions reviewed as part of other schemes have been detailed below with an associated time when the independent review will take place: Great North Road (A1000) – north of Dury Road, completed during 2007/2008 Friern Barnet Road (A1003) – eastwards of the B550, completed during 2009/2010 Various segments of the A5, including Brockley Hill, The Hyde, Cricklewood Broadway/Edgeware Road south of the A406 completed during 2006/2007. Finchley Lane (A504) Between the A1 and A502, completed during 2009/2010 Hale Lane (A5100) between the A1 and the A5109, completed during 2007/2008 A5109 including Deansbrook Road, Deans Lane and Selvage Lane, completed during 2008/2009 Regents Park Road and Charter Way (A598) completed during 2008/2009 Friern Hatch Lane (B550), completed during 2009/2010 Through concurrent review of all parking controls in each of these study areas, will seek to propose and provide the best balance of waiting, loading, and parking place controls. This will address the need of specific road users by means of bus stop clearways, disabled parking places, and loading places and through the use of the most appropriate balance of waiting, and waiting and loading restrictions to ensure that movement along the highway is facilitated, whilst still providing for loading to businesses. The Council will seek the views of local disablement organisations to identify suitable sites for additional blue- badge parking provision. The review will take into account issues arising from the bus stop audit, and where possible the two actions will occur concurrently. FUNDING REQUIRED TO DELIVER PROPOSAL TOTAL FUNDING TABLE (£K) 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 Total (£K) FUNDING REQUIRED FROM BSP FUNDING FROM OTHER SOURCES (Details To Be Provided Below) £300K £345K £400K £1,445K TOTAL FUNDING REQUIRED £300K £345K £400K £1,445K STATUS AMOUNT OTHER FUNDING SOURCES (Requested, COMMENTS (£k) Approved) TFL OUTSIDE BSP BOROUGH RESOURCES £1,445K Net Parking Revenue PARTNERS (please specify) OTHER (please specify)
Evaluation Framework (Form 1) 252 Date:
Key Delivery Partners, Dependencies and Risks: Dependencies – Bus stop audit, Parallel Initiatives and the work to be undertaken outlined in this form 1 is to complement other waiting and loading reviews that is to be done as part of other borough schemes. This programme has been formulated to ensure that all A roads and Busy Bus routes have had there waiting and loading restrictions reviewed by 2010 by identifying locations on this network where other works which incorporate waiting and loading restrictions. Therefore this programme is very dependent on the progress of other works programmes and will need to be modified or expanded depending on changes in any of the works programmes identified. Risk – competing pressures on the parking review team, funding not becoming available or too many other works programmes deferred or cut that contain budget for parking review on these roads.
Delivering the Mayor’s Transport Strategy in the borough:
MTS Proposal/ Policy Priority Area Target Number number (Appendix C) Improving the working of parking and loading arrangements
Relieving traffic congestion 9 4G.Pr15, 4G.Pr18 IV, III
Modal Impact Impact (Positive, Negative, (Please list the Modes affected) Neutral) Bus Positive Car Positive
Impact Cross Cutting Goals (see section 4.5 of this Guidance) (Positive, Negative, Neutral, N/Al) Promoting safety & perception of safety for all travel modes: Neutral
Encouraging sustainable means for travel: N/A
Balanced road space allocation: Positive
Requirements for sustainable developments: N/A
Equality & Inclusion Target Group (please specify): all, disabled Neutral, Positive
Evaluation Framework (Form 1) 253 Date:
Form Number 25 London Borough of Barnet
LIP PROPOSAL DELIVERY FORM Summary of Proposal: Alternative fuel parking discount scheme
Location: North London wide
Dates: 2006/2007
Description of Main Elements:
This proposal has been submitted by the North London Transport Forum and is fully supported by the London Borough of Barnet. This form 1 has been included in Barnet’s Local Implementation Plan to demonstrate our support for this initiative. A feasibility study for the implementation of a (cashless) discount parking system for vehicles running on alternative fuels. This research would examine the options open to North London and recommend a costed programme for alternative fuel parking initiative. North London wishes to offer those travelling within north London using alternative fuel vehicles discounted parking as an incentive for people to convert and a reward for those who already have. This is also an opportunity for North London to examine the benefits of the cashless parking systems now available. There are a number of options available for the cashless system: Radio Frequency Identification transponder card (currently in use in Hammersmith and Fullham) Smartcard technology with a chip which stores and manages the electronic value left on the card Text messaging (as trialled in Hull) All publicity materials will be designed in line with Good Going and TfL branding
FUNDING REQUIRED TO DELIVER PROPOSAL TOTAL FUNDING TABLE (£K) 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 Total (£K) FUNDING REQUIRED FROM BSP £30k £30k FUNDING FROM OTHER SOURCES (Details To Be Provided Below) TOTAL FUNDING REQUIRED £30k £30k STATUS AMOUNT OTHER FUNDING SOURCES (Requested, COMMENTS (£k) Approved) TFL OUTSIDE BSP BOROUGH RESOURCES A North London Transport Forum PARTNERS (please specify) proposal OTHER (please specify)
Evaluation Framework (Form 1) 254 Date:
Key Delivery Partners, Dependencies and Risks: partners - North London Transport Forum, borough fleet managers and parking policy sections dependencies – funding forthcoming
Delivering the Mayor’s Transport Strategy in the borough:
MTS Proposal/ Policy Improved air quality Priority Area Target Number number (Appendix C)
Vi 7, 12 3.Pr2, 4K.Pr4
Modal Impact Impact (Positive, Negative, (Please list the Modes affected) Neutral) Car positive
Impact Cross Cutting Goals (see section 4.5 of this Guidance) (Positive, Negative, Neutral, N/Al) Promoting safety & perception of safety for all travel modes: N/A
Encouraging sustainable means for travel: positive
Balanced road space allocation: N/A
Requirements for sustainable developments: Positive
Equality & Inclusion Target Group (please specify): Neutral
Evaluation Framework (Form 1) 255 Date: Form Number 26 London Borough of Barnet LIP PROPOSAL DELIVERY FORM Summary of Proposal: Parallel Initiatives
Location: A1000, A5, A110, A5100, A598, A5109 etc
Dates: 2006/07-2008/09
Description of Main Elements:
To carry out multi-modal corridor studies on routes in Barnet with a view to co-ordinating scheme proposals taking account of route demands and constraints, and managing conflicts between different demands. 2006/07 Route Cost* A1000 £10k A5 £10k A110 £5k
Future years It is intended that similar studies also be carried out in future on the following routes. Where particular schemes are planned for a route, it is assumed that the development of these will contribute to the study either in terms of funding or through carrying out elements of work that contribute to the study as a whole. A5100 2007/08 A598 2008/09 A5109 2008/09 A504 2009/10 A1003 2009/10 B550 2009/10
FUNDING REQUIRED TO DELIVER PROPOSAL TOTAL FUNDING TABLE (£K) 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 Total (£K) FUNDING REQUIRED FROM BSP £25,000 £25,000 FUNDING FROM OTHER SOURCES (Details To Be Provided Below) TOTAL FUNDING REQUIRED £25,000 £25,000 STATUS AMOUNT OTHER FUNDING SOURCES (Requested, COMMENTS (£k) Approved) TFL OUTSIDE BSP * BOROUGH RESOURCES * PARTNERS (please specify) * OTHER (please specify) *
Evaluation Framework (Form 1) 256 Date:
Key Delivery Partners, Dependencies and Risks:
Delivering the Mayor’s Transport Strategy in the borough:
MTS Proposal/ Policy Priority Area Target Number number (Appendix C)
Modal Impact Impact (Positive, Negative, (Please list the Modes affected) Neutral)
Impact Cross Cutting Goals (see section 4.5 of this Guidance) (Positive, Negative, Neutral, N/Al) Promoting safety & perception of safety for all travel modes:
Encouraging sustainable means for travel:
Balanced road space allocation:
Requirements for sustainable developments:
Equality & Inclusion Target Group (please specify):
Evaluation Framework (Form 1) 257 Date:
Form Number 27 London Borough of Barnet
LIP PROPOSAL DELIVERY FORM Summary of Proposal: Town Centre Audits
Location: Town Centre
Dates: 2007/8 to 2008/09
Description of Main Elements:
This proposal has been submitted by the North London Transport Forum and is fully supported by the London Borough of Barnet. This form 1 has been included in Barnet’s Local Implementation Plan to demonstrate our support for this initiative. The completion of such an audit in Edgware will assist Barnet to prepare future area based scheme in this town centre and is crucial to Barnet’s town centres program. Planning Policy Statement 6 (PPS6) on Planning for Town Centres states that ‘comprehensive, relevant and up-to- date monitoring is essential to the effective planning and management of town centres’. We therefore propose that the study of transport needs in North London’s town centres is based upon a structured programme of Town Centre audits in North London as advised in PPS6. Such monitoring will inform town centre strategies, enable targeted actions to be taken and the delivery of cross-cutting town centre policies to be achieved. Using the guidance set out in PPS6 we propose to conduct Audits in the Metropolitan Centre of Wood Green and the three Major Centres of Edgware, Enfield Town and Walthamstow. For each town, an audit will: • Assess the vitality and viability of the town centre; • Identify town centre weaknesses in the areas of accessibility, environment, land use, safety and stakeholders; • Identify the priorities that will lead to improvements in the town centre For each town centre, the same set of indicators (based on PPS6) will be collected under the headings ‘accessibility’, ‘environment’, ‘land use’, ‘safety’ and ‘stakeholders’. The data will be weighted depending on the type of town centre e.g. Metropolitan Centre or Major Centre. By collecting the same data the town centres will also be benchmarked against each other and strengths and weaknesses highlighted. This technique will also enable local identities to be recognised and strengthened. This last factor is important, as it is vital that in any study of the sub-region’s town centres, their distinctiveness and identity is recognised, and each centre’s role and importance to North London is acknowledged. In the future, these audits will provide a basis on which to inform future bids under TfL’s guidance on Area Based Schemes. Similarly, consultation on detailed schemes would be undertaken local as and when scheme proposals came forward. The town centre must embrace its role as a transport hub and implement the necessary provision that serves all modes, with particular attention being paid to the suitable arrangement of the road user hierarchy that offers equality of access to all modes.
FUNDING REQUIRED TO DELIVER PROPOSAL TOTAL FUNDING TABLE (£K) 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 Total (£K) FUNDING REQUIRED FROM BSP £80K £80K £160K FUNDING FROM OTHER SOURCES (Details To Be Provided Below) TOTAL FUNDING REQUIRED £80K £80K £160K STATUS AMOUNT OTHER FUNDING SOURCES (Requested, COMMENTS (£k) Approved) TFL OUTSIDE BSP BOROUGH RESOURCES A North London Transport Forum PARTNERS (please specify) proposal OTHER (please specify)
Evaluation Framework (Form 1) 258 Date:
Key Delivery Partners, Dependencies and Risks: This is a North London Transport Forum proposal. Future area based scheme within Edgware are dependent on this audit being completed.
Delivering the Mayor’s Transport Strategy in the borough:
MTS Proposal/ Policy Improved town centre Priority Area Target Number number (Appendix C) Improved conditions for walking and cycling
Improved transport interchanges 4G.Pr11, 4E.Pr10, VI 7 4I.Pr3
Modal Impact Impact (Positive, Negative, (Please list the Modes affected) Neutral) Walking Positive underground Positive busses Positive car neutral Impact Cross Cutting Goals (see section 4.5 of this Guidance) (Positive, Negative, Neutral, N/Al) Promoting safety & perception of safety for all travel modes: Positive
Encouraging sustainable means for travel: Positive
Balanced road space allocation: N/A
Requirements for sustainable developments: Positive
Equality & Inclusion Target Group (please specify): reduced mobility, women and vulnerable groups Positive
Evaluation Framework (Form 1) 259 Date: Form Number 28 London Borough of Barnet LIP PROPOSAL DELIVERY FORM
Summary of Proposal: Street Lighting
Location: Borough wide
Dates: 2005/06 – 2008/09
Description of Main Elements:
FUNDING REQUIRED TO DELIVER PROPOSAL TOTAL FUNDING TABLE (£K) 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 Total (£K) FUNDING REQUIRED FROM BSP FUNDING FROM OTHER SOURCES (Details To Be Provided Below) £2,600K £2665K £2,731,625 £2,799,915 £10,796,540 TOTAL FUNDING REQUIRED £2,600K £2665K £2,731,625 £2,799,915 £10,796,540 STATUS AMOUNT OTHER FUNDING SOURCES (Requested, COMMENTS (£k) Approved) TFL OUTSIDE BSP BOROUGH RESOURCES PARTNERS (please specify) OTHER (please specify) £10,796,540 PFI
Evaluation Framework (Form 1) 260 Date:
Key Delivery Partners, Dependencies and Risks:
Delivering the Mayor’s Transport Strategy in the borough:
MTS Proposal/ Policy Priority Area Target Number number (Appendix C)
Modal Impact Impact (Positive, Negative, (Please list the Modes affected) Neutral)
Impact Cross Cutting Goals (see section 4.5 of this Guidance) (Positive, Negative, Neutral, N/Al) Promoting safety & perception of safety for all travel modes:
Encouraging sustainable means for travel:
Balanced road space allocation:
Requirements for sustainable developments:
Equality & Inclusion Target Group (please specify):
Evaluation Framework (Form 1) 261 Date:
Form Number 29 London Borough of Barnet
LIP PROPOSAL DELIVERY FORM Summary of Proposal: Review of the worst congestion bottlenecks
Location: Barnet
Dates: 2007/08 – 2008/09
Description of Main Elements:
To carry out a study to determine the locations where congestion plays a key role in restricting traffic movements. This will help to formulate and prioritise a programme which targets locations with that aim of reducing congestion and delays to all road users. Works could include signal timing reviews, junction redesigns or removal of physical restrictions that impede traffic flow. The identified locations will be checked against those that have a high personal injury accident record to ensure that any improvements will be complementary and non-……conflicting.
FUNDING REQUIRED TO DELIVER PROPOSAL TOTAL FUNDING TABLE (£K) 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 Total (£K) FUNDING REQUIRED FROM BSP £110k £120k £230k FUNDING FROM OTHER SOURCES (Details To Be Provided Below) TOTAL FUNDING REQUIRED £110k £120k £230k STATUS AMOUNT OTHER FUNDING SOURCES (Requested, COMMENTS (£k) Approved) TFL OUTSIDE BSP BOROUGH RESOURCES PARTNERS (please specify) OTHER (please specify)
Evaluation Framework (Form 1) 262 Date:
Key Delivery Partners, Dependencies and Risks: Partners - TfL Dependencies - Funding Risks – Funding not forthcoming
Delivering the Mayor’s Transport Strategy in the borough:
MTS Proposal/ Policy Relieving traffic congestion Priority Area Target Number number (Appendix C)
III 5, 6, 7, 8 4G.Pr20
Modal Impact Impact (Positive, Negative, (Please list the Modes affected) Neutral)
All Positive
Impact Cross Cutting Goals (see section 4.5 of this Guidance) (Positive, Negative, Neutral, N/Al) Promoting safety & perception of safety for all travel modes: Positive
Encouraging sustainable means for travel: Positive
Balanced road space allocation: Positive
Requirements for sustainable developments: N/A
Equality & Inclusion Target Group (please specify): Positive
Evaluation Framework (Form 1) 263 Date:
Form Number 30 London Borough of Barnet
LIP PROPOSAL DELIVERY FORM Summary of Proposal: Local Direction Signing
Location: Various
Dates: 2006/2007 – 2008/09
Description of Main Elements:
Through the Council’s programme of town centre enhancement schemes we have already adopted good practice in reducing the street clutter and intrusion caused by signs. In addition we have used “diamond grade” sign face materials, where legally possible, to maximise night-time visibility without incurring the expense and running costs of illumination.
Our first priority will be ensuring signing continuity from the recently re-signed primary route network to the local destinations. We will also; (a) Standardise signing on major routes; (b) Ensure consistency with signing on primary network; and (c) Add / improve signing to indicate most appropriate route.
FUNDING REQUIRED TO DELIVER PROPOSAL TOTAL FUNDING TABLE (£K) 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 Total (£K) FUNDING REQUIRED FROM BSP FUNDING FROM OTHER SOURCES £5,000 £5,000 (Details To Be Provided Below) £5,000 £15,000 TOTAL FUNDING REQUIRED £5,000 £5,000 £5,000 £15,000 STATUS AMOUNT OTHER FUNDING SOURCES (Requested, COMMENTS (£k) Approved) TFL OUTSIDE BSP BOROUGH RESOURCES £15,000 Revenue Support Grant PARTNERS (please specify) OTHER (please specify)
Evaluation Framework (Form 1) 264 Date:
Key Delivery Partners, Dependencies and Risks: Partners - TfL Dependencies - Funding Risks – Funding not forthcoming
Delivering the Mayor’s Transport Strategy in the borough:
MTS Proposal/ Policy ■ Relieving traffic congestion Priority Area Target Number number (Appendix C) ■ Improving road safety
4G.Pr22
Modal Impact Impact (Positive, Negative, (Please list the Modes affected) Neutral)
All Positive
Impact Cross Cutting Goals (see section 4.5 of this Guidance) (Positive, Negative, Neutral, N/Al) Promoting safety & perception of safety for all travel modes: Positive
Encouraging sustainable means for travel: Positive
Balanced road space allocation: N/A
Requirements for sustainable developments: N/A
Equality & Inclusion Target Group (please specify): Positive
Evaluation Framework (Form 1) 265 Date: Form Number 31 London Borough of Barnet LIP PROPOSAL DELIVERY FORM Summary of Proposal: Streetworks Co-ordination
Location: Borough wide
Dates: Ongoing
Description of Main Elements:
Barnet council has recently undergone restructuring to bring all people who deal with works on the highway into one division. This will also allow Barnet to more effectively deal with our network management duties. All these sections are under the direction of the traffic manger. To support these teams in their work Barnet is currently undertaking a major investment in new software that will support the highways asset management functions. This new system will contain details of all activities on the public highway (as defined by the TMA). It will facilitate more efficient work practices including remote access of information by inspectors, allow information to be displayed geographically and will meet all the requirements set out in legislation. A Business Analyst is currently setting out specifications for the software for the tendering process with a proposed roll-out of the new system before the end of the financial year. In response to the NRSWA, the borough has a team of three Area Inspectors and a central coordinator role. All notices are collated and reviewed centrally to ensure compatibility and coordination of Borough’s and the Statutory Authorities works. This approach of having area based inspectors allows these inspectors to know the particulars of each area well and provide consistent reviewing and checking of completed reinstatement work. Having a strong area based knowledge also allows each inspector to provide detailed advice into the consultation process on larger works. It is the intention of the Borough that these positions continue to be self-financing. The borough has taken and will continue to play a pro-active role in the co-ordination of major and emergency street works. Staff members conduct quarterly meetings with utility companies where all proposals for major work are submitted and discussed. Officers also actively take part in the quarterly meetings with each neighbouring borough and are working to strengthen these relationships. Currently the borough completes cyclic inspections of the highway, for major roads on a 6 monthly basis and annually for other borough roads. It is the intention of the borough to increase the frequency of these inspections to monthly for major roads and quarterly for borough roads. The Borough is currently considering the resources required to undertake this increase and is expecting to employ an additional 4 Highways Inspectors to take the total Highways Inspectors to 10. All faults or request for highway repairs are processed centrally and are prioritised with all streetworks into one of four categories. These are either emergency repairs required to be completed within 4 hours or 48 hours, or more minor or complicated repairs that are set for completion within 7 or 28 days. FUNDING REQUIRED TO DELIVER PROPOSAL TOTAL FUNDING TABLE (£K) 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 Total (£K) FUNDING REQUIRED FROM BSP FUNDING FROM OTHER SOURCES (Details To Be Provided Below) £120K £120K £120K £120K £480K TOTAL FUNDING REQUIRED £120K £120K £120K £120K £480K STATUS AMOUNT OTHER FUNDING SOURCES (Requested, COMMENTS (£k) Approved) TFL OUTSIDE BSP BOROUGH RESOURCES £480K Revenue Support Grant PARTNERS (please specify) OTHER (please specify)
Evaluation Framework (Form 1) 266 Date:
Key Delivery Partners, Dependencies and Risks: Key partners – Statutory Authorities (utility companies), neighbouring boroughs and TfL (in particular the LTCC) Dependencies – open sharing of information between LTCC, Boroughs and statutory authorities Risks – Section 74 funds do not cover cost of inspectors. That we do not discover all damage to the highway within a sufficient time nor have the resources to effectively deal with emergencies. We do not respond in time to a defect and an accident is caused. Communication between organisations breakdown.
Delivering the Mayor’s Transport Strategy in the borough:
MTS Proposal/ Policy Bringing transport infrastructure to a state of good repair Priority Area Target Number number (Appendix C)
Vii 4G.Pr23, 4G.Pr24, 14 4G.Pr19, 4G.Pr26
Modal Impact Impact (Positive, Negative, (Please list the Modes affected) Neutral) Car, Bus, Cycling, Motorcycling and walking
Positive
Impact Cross Cutting Goals (see section 4.5 of this Guidance) (Positive, Negative, Neutral, N/Al) Promoting safety & perception of safety for all travel modes: Positive
Encouraging sustainable means for travel: Neutral
Balanced road space allocation: N/A
Requirements for sustainable developments: Neutral
Equality & Inclusion Target Group (please specify): All
Evaluation Framework (Form 1) 267 Date:
Form Number 32 London Borough of Barnet
LIP PROPOSAL DELIVERY FORM Summary of Proposal: Principal Road Maintenance
Location: Various
Dates: 2005/06 – 2008/09
Description of Main Elements:
• To maintain roads and footways to a good standard, to make journeys pleasant and efficient. • To maintain the appearance of surfacing and general aesthetics to a good standard. • To provide a safe road and footway network. • Improving the condition of highway assets.
Schemes in 2005/06 include; 1. A5 Burnt Oak Broadway - Montrose Avenue to North Road (Worst sections) 2. A411 Barnet Road – Hendon Wood Lane to Arkley Lane 3. A5135 Rowley Lane – Interchange with A1 Barnet By-Pass 4. A411 Wood Street - Manor Road to A1000 Barnet Hill 5. A1000 High Road East Finchley – Baronsmere Road to Borough Boundary 6. A1000 High Road East Finchley - Hertford Road to A504 East End Road 7. A504 East End Road - Deansway to A1000 High Road East Finchley 8. A5109 Marsh Lane – Westfield Road to A1 9. A5109 Marsh Lane – Westfield Road to Highwood Hill 10. A5109 Selvage Lane – Glendor Gardens to Hale Lane 11. A5 Cricklewood Broadway - Longley Way to A407 Cricklewood Lane 12. A1 Charter Way 13. A1000 Barnet Hill - Milton Avenue to Mays Lane 14. A1000 High Road East Finchley - Bedford Avenue to Baronsmere Road 15. A1000 High Road Whetstone - Downland Close to Friern Mount Drive
• FUNDING REQUIRED TO DELIVER PROPOSAL TOTAL FUNDING TABLE (£K) 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 Total (£K) FUNDING REQUIRED FROM BSP £1,415k £1,718k £1,000k £1,000k £4,686k FUNDING FROM OTHER SOURCES (Details To Be Provided Below) TOTAL FUNDING REQUIRED £1,415k £1,718k £1,000k £1,000k £4,686k STATUS AMOUNT OTHER FUNDING SOURCES (Requested, COMMENTS (£k) Approved) TFL OUTSIDE BSP BOROUGH RESOURCES PARTNERS (please specify) OTHER (please specify)
Evaluation Framework (Form 1) 268 Date:
Key Delivery Partners, Dependencies and Risks: Partners - TfL Dependencies – The principal road network is the basis for all road use and the maintenance and upgrade of this system is critical to all other schemes by providing a safe and efficient network, Funding. Risks – Funding not forthcoming
Delivering the Mayor’s Transport Strategy in the borough:
MTS Proposal/ Policy ■ Bringing transport infrastructure to a state of good repair Priority Area Target Number number (Appendix C)
VIII 14 4G.Pr25
Modal Impact Impact (Positive, Negative, (Please list the Modes affected) Neutral) Car, Bus, Cycling, Motorcycling Positive
Impact Cross Cutting Goals (see section 4.5 of this Guidance) (Positive, Negative, Neutral, N/Al) Promoting safety & perception of safety for all travel modes: Positive
Encouraging sustainable means for travel: Neutral
Balanced road space allocation: N/A
Requirements for sustainable developments: Neutral
Equality & Inclusion Target Group (please specify): All
Evaluation Framework (Form 1) 269 Date: Form Number 33 London Borough of Barnet LIP PROPOSAL DELIVERY FORM Summary of Proposal: Non-Principal Road Maintenance
Location: Various
Dates: 2005/06 – 2008/09
Description of Main Elements:
• To maintain roads and footways to a good standard, to make journeys pleasant and efficient. • To maintain the appearance of surfacing and general aesthetics to a good standard. • To provide a safe road and footway network. • Improving the condition of highway assets.
FUNDING REQUIRED TO DELIVER PROPOSAL TOTAL FUNDING TABLE (£K) 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 Total (£K) FUNDING REQUIRED FROM BSP FUNDING FROM OTHER SOURCES £4,160,800 £1,650,000 £2,484,800 £2,364,100 (Details To Be Provided Below) £10,659,700 TOTAL FUNDING REQUIRED £4,160,800 £1,650,000 £2,484,800 £2,364,100 £10,659,700 STATUS AMOUNT OTHER FUNDING SOURCES (Requested, COMMENTS (£k) Approved) TFL OUTSIDE BSP Net Parking - £600,000 BOROUGH RESOURCES £10,659,700 Prudential Borrowing - £7,250,000 Revenue Support Grant - £2,809,700 PARTNERS (please specify) OTHER (please specify)
Evaluation Framework (Form 1) 270 Date:
Key Delivery Partners, Dependencies and Risks: Partners - TfL Dependencies – The principal road network is the basis for all road use and the maintenance and upgrade of this system is critical to all other schemes by providing a safe and efficient network, Funding. Risks – Funding not forthcoming
Delivering the Mayor’s Transport Strategy in the borough:
MTS Proposal/ Policy ■ Bringing transport infrastructure to a state of good repair Priority Area Target Number number (Appendix C)
14 4G.Pr25 VIII
Modal Impact Impact (Positive, Negative, (Please list the Modes affected) Neutral)
Car, Bus, Cycling, Motorcycling Positive
Impact Cross Cutting Goals (see section 4.5 of this Guidance) (Positive, Negative, Neutral, N/Al) Promoting safety & perception of safety for all travel modes: Positive
Encouraging sustainable means for travel: Positive
Balanced road space allocation: N/A
Requirements for sustainable developments: Positive
Equality & Inclusion Target Group (please specify): Positive
Evaluation Framework (Form 1) 271 Date:
Form Number 34 London Borough of Barnet
LIP PROPOSAL DELIVERY FORM Summary of Proposal: Bridge Strengthening
Location: various
Dates: 2005/06 – 2008/09
Description of Main Elements:
Assessment and strengthening to comply with the Government’s directive that all bridges found to be incapable of carrying the 40 tonne assessment loading safely, should be strengthened or reconstructed unless other permanent measures could be put in place.
Benefits Improving the condition of infrastructure assets. Employment of quality design and materials will reduce the frequency of future maintenance that is required. Improved safety of the road and footway network. Will be an important contribution to the general appearance of the borough.
2005/06 programme 1. Quakers Course Subway 2. Bell Lane Bridge 3. Regents Park Road Culvert 4. Station Road Hendon Railway Bridge
FUNDING REQUIRED TO DELIVER PROPOSAL TOTAL FUNDING TABLE (£K) 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 Total (£K) FUNDING REQUIRED FROM BSP £76k £185k £185k £185k £631k FUNDING FROM OTHER SOURCES (Details To Be Provided Below) TOTAL FUNDING REQUIRED £76k £185k £185k £185k £631k STATUS AMOUNT OTHER FUNDING SOURCES (Requested, COMMENTS (£k) Approved) TFL OUTSIDE BSP BOROUGH RESOURCES PARTNERS (please specify) OTHER (please specify)
Evaluation Framework (Form 1) 272 Date:
Key Delivery Partners, Dependencies and Risks: Partners - TfL Dependencies - Funding Risks – Funding not forthcoming
Delivering the Mayor’s Transport Strategy in the borough:
MTS Proposal/ Policy ■ Bringing transport infrastructure to a state of good repair Priority Area Target Number number (Appendix C)
14 4G.Pr25 VIII
Modal Impact Impact (Positive, Negative, (Please list the Modes affected) Neutral)
Impact Cross Cutting Goals (see section 4.5 of this Guidance) (Positive, Negative, Neutral, N/Al) Promoting safety & perception of safety for all travel modes: Positive
Encouraging sustainable means for travel: Neutral
Balanced road space allocation: Neutral
Requirements for sustainable developments: N/A
Equality & Inclusion Target Group (please specify): Neutral
Evaluation Framework (Form 1) 273 Date:
Form Number 35 London Borough of Barnet
LIP PROPOSAL DELIVERY FORM Summary of Proposal: Local Bus Access/Regeneration Schemes
Location: Aerodrome Road
Dates: 2005 - 2008
Description of Main Elements:
The development of sustainable access opportunities into the key regeneration areas of North London underpins the whole of the sub-regional strategy, allowing all the community to benefit from new employment, social and leisure opportunities. Building on its proximity to London's largest shopping centre, Brent Cross, Barnet Council is working with private sector partners to redevelop this large brownfield site as major new centre providing business, retail and residential opportunities.
The Barnet element of the 2005/06 North London Transport Forum’s allocation is being used to carry out a detailed assessment of options for public transport accessibility and permeability issues, particularly in relation to the severance created by the Midland Main line, on which services are operated by Thameslink. This line passes through both the Cricklewood and Colindale regeneration areas but at present its effect is to reduce rather than enhance opportunities for public transport in these areas, due to the influence of railway bridges on the ability to provide bus access to the area.
Transport projects in the area will focus on the provision of transport to these areas, particularly schemes that promote social inclusion for North London residents. Such provision will include identifying missing strategic links, the need for bus and rail infrastructure and the provision of non-motorised mode facilities.
The proposal is to widen the bridges over Aerodrome road, providing increased headroom and better facilities for non-motorised modes. This section of road currently operates at a reduced capacity and could provide a good link between the two regeneration areas. The height restriction of the two railways bridges currently restricts bus services to this area of the borough, it should also be noted that the carriageway currently provides no cycle facilities and the pedestrian facilities are limited to a narrow path on one side of the road. With the introduction of thousands of dwelling units the capacity will be restrained and will not provide any public transport options for these new residents contrary to the Mayor’s objective of providing accessible public transport options.
This scheme is supported by the North London Transport Forum, with the initial 2005/06 funding was sort through a joint bid. FUNDING REQUIRED TO DELIVER PROPOSAL TOTAL FUNDING TABLE (£K) 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 Total (£K) FUNDING REQUIRED FROM BSP £50k £1,000k £1,000k £2050k FUNDING FROM OTHER SOURCES (Details To Be Provided Below) £100K £3143K £6250K £250K £9743K TOTAL FUNDING REQUIRED £150K £3143K £7,250K £1,250K £11,793K STATUS AMOUNT OTHER FUNDING SOURCES (Requested, COMMENTS (£k) Approved) TFL OUTSIDE BSP BOROUGH RESOURCES PARTNERS (please specify) OTHER (please specify)
Evaluation Framework (Form 1) 274 Date:
Key Delivery Partners, Dependencies and Risks: Partners – TfL, ODPM Dependencies - Funding Risks – Funding not forthcoming
Delivering the Mayor’s Transport Strategy in the borough:
MTS Proposal/ Policy Improving bus journey times and reliability Priority Area Target Number number (Appendix C) Encouraging walking
Encouraging cycling VI 7, 12 4G.Pr10
Modal Impact Impact (Positive, Negative, (Please list the Modes affected) Neutral)
All Positive
Impact Cross Cutting Goals (see section 4.5 of this Guidance) (Positive, Negative, Neutral, N/Al) Promoting safety & perception of safety for all travel modes: Neutral
Encouraging sustainable means for travel: Positive
Balanced road space allocation: Positive
Requirements for sustainable developments: Positive
Equality & Inclusion Target Group (please specify): Positive
Evaluation Framework (Form 1) 275 Date:
Form Number 36 London Borough of Barnet
LIP PROPOSAL DELIVERY FORM Summary of Proposal: Car Club Feasibility Study
Location: North London
Dates: 2006/07
Description of Main Elements:
This proposal has been submitted by the North London Transport Forum and is fully supported by the London Borough of Barnet. This form 1 has been included in Barnet’s Local Implementation Plan to demonstrate our support for this initiative. This bid is to complete a feasibility study in to demand and scope for car club for North London. The research will investigate the demand required to establish a car club and the possible scope such a car club. If the initial findings support a car club for North London the research will also investigate; what size of fleet is required? are there any particular vehicle requirements? what would be the membership and hire cost for users?. The value of other incentives for car club members? (eg. bus and rail discounts, exemption from congestion charge for car club fleet) This research would also include how a North London car club would fit with the North London car sharing scheme and the CityCarClub. The research would also cover any possible synergies with the council car pool. Previous car clubs have found that by allowing local authority staff to block book car club vehicles during “off peak periods” increases the financial viability of the car club and reduces the necessity for council pool cars. North London travel coordinator will complete the initial set-up of this scheme and co-ordinate the implementation of the scheme. All publicity materials will be designed in line with Good Going and TfL branding.
FUNDING REQUIRED TO DELIVER PROPOSAL TOTAL FUNDING TABLE (£K) 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 Total (£K) FUNDING REQUIRED FROM BSP £25k £25k FUNDING FROM OTHER SOURCES (Details To Be Provided Below) TOTAL FUNDING REQUIRED £25k £25k STATUS AMOUNT OTHER FUNDING SOURCES (Requested, COMMENTS (£k) Approved) TFL OUTSIDE BSP BOROUGH RESOURCES A North London Transport Forum PARTNERS (please specify) proposal OTHER (please specify)
Evaluation Framework (Form 1) 276 Date:
Key Delivery Partners, Dependencies and Risks: partners - North London Transport Forum, possible partners North London car sharing scheme and the CityCarClub dependencies – funding forthcoming
Delivering the Mayor’s Transport Strategy in the borough:
MTS Proposal/ Policy Improving accessibility and social inclusion on the transport network. Priority Area Target Number number (Appendix C) Relieving traffic congestion iii and v 7 4H.Pr3
Modal Impact Impact (Positive, Negative, (Please list the Modes affected) Neutral) Pedestrians and mobility impaired persons Positive Community transport Positive Impact Cross Cutting Goals (see section 4.5 of this Guidance) (Positive, Negative, Neutral, N/Al) Promoting safety & perception of safety for all travel modes: Neutral
Encouraging sustainable means for travel: Positive
Balanced road space allocation: Positive
Requirements for sustainable developments: Positive
Equality & Inclusion Target Group (please specify): neutral
Evaluation Framework (Form 1) 277 Date: Form Number 37 London Borough of Barnet LIP PROPOSAL DELIVERY FORM Summary of Proposal: Footway Renewal
Location: Various
Dates: 2006/07 – 2008/09
Description of Main Elements:
Aims of program • To maintain footways to a good standard, to make journeys pleasant and efficient. • To maintain the appearance of surfacing and general aesthetics to a good standard. • To provide a safe road and footway network. • Improving the condition of highway assets. • Encourage walking by improving the pedestrian environment • Improving access to bus stops and train/tub stations
Prioritisation of Footway maintenance works
The program for footway maintenance is formulated annually, corresponding to the financial year and budget allocation. The footway maintenance program is formulated based on a technical assessment and local use factors. The technical assessment is an assessment of the current condition of the footway ensuring that the worst areas are addressed first. While the local use factors ensure that the maintenance program focuses on areas that will provide better return in terms of usage. The weighting of the components of the local use factors is given in the table below;
Description Maximum Comments score Population Density 5 High density the higher the score, based on ward density Car Ownership density 5 The lower car ownership the higher the score Schools 5 Hospitals and Care homes 2 Main Shopping Areas 5 Bus Routes 5 Tube and train Stations 3
Once a program is developed this is distributed to Council staff to ensure the program integrates with other work undertaken by Council. This ensures that the program matches, regeneration priorities, station improvement projects, local safety schemes, security initiatives and environmental street improvements in town centres.
FUNDING REQUIRED TO DELIVER PROPOSAL TOTAL FUNDING TABLE (£K) 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 Total (£K) FUNDING REQUIRED FROM BSP £500K £500K £1,000K FUNDING FROM OTHER SOURCES (Details To Be Provided Below) £1,250K £2,960,800 £1,750K £1,870K £7,830,800 TOTAL FUNDING REQUIRED STATUS AMOUNT OTHER FUNDING SOURCES (Requested, COMMENTS (£k) Approved) TFL OUTSIDE BSP BOROUGH RESOURCES PARTNERS (please specify) OTHER (please specify)
Evaluation Framework (Form 1) 278 Date:
Key Delivery Partners, Dependencies and Risks: Partners - TfL Dependencies - Funding Risks – Funding not forthcoming
Delivering the Mayor’s Transport Strategy in the borough:
MTS Proposal/ Policy ■ Bringing transport infrastructure to a state of good repair Priority Area Target Number number (Appendix C) ■ Encouraging walking
7, 12 4I.Pr2, 4I.Pr8 VI
Modal Impact Impact (Positive, Negative, (Please list the Modes affected) Neutral) Walking
Positive
Impact Cross Cutting Goals (see section 4.5 of this Guidance) (Positive, Negative, Neutral, N/Al) Promoting safety & perception of safety for all travel modes: Positive
Encouraging sustainable means for travel: Positive
Balanced road space allocation: N/A
Requirements for sustainable developments: Neutral
Equality & Inclusion Target Group (please specify): Positive
Evaluation Framework (Form 1) 279 Date:
Form Number 38 London Borough of Barnet
LIP PROPOSAL DELIVERY FORM Summary of Proposal: CCTV installation program
Location: Borough wide
Dates: 2005/2006 to 2006/2007
Description of Main Elements:
Council is currently in the middle of a three year program of installing CCTV cameras throughout the Borough. By the time that this program has been completed the majority of town centres will be covered as well as a number of other crime hotspots. In 2004/2005 twenty six cameras were installed. Between Twenty and twenty four cameras will be installed in 2005/2006 and presently 15 new cameras are planned for installation in 2006/2007
Existing CCTV coverage (high definition) includes areas around the following station: Edgware Burnt Oak Cricklewood (National rail) Hendon (National Rail) Hendon central Golders Green High Barnet High Definition CCTV coverage also exists at: East Barnet (Cat hill, Barnet Road and Church Hill) Osidge Lane, N11 North Finchley, High Road Friary Park Watling Park, Burnt Oak Grahame Park Granville Road estate in Cricklewood
Capital funding for CCTV improvements in two town centres for each of the next two financial year has been secured. The 05/06 funding covers Mill Hill and Finchley Central, while the 06/07 funding covers Whetstone and East Finchley. Funding post 2006/2007 is uncertain however the corporate plan contains a target of one new CCTV scheme per year and it is assumed that this target will continue to be met.
FUNDING REQUIRED TO DELIVER PROPOSAL TOTAL FUNDING TABLE (£K) 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 Total (£K) FUNDING REQUIRED FROM BSP FUNDING FROM OTHER SOURCES (Details To Be Provided Below) £400K £300K £700K TOTAL FUNDING REQUIRED £400K £300K £700K STATUS AMOUNT OTHER FUNDING SOURCES (Requested, COMMENTS (£k) Approved) TFL OUTSIDE BSP BOROUGH RESOURCES £700K Prudential Borrowing PARTNERS (please specify) OTHER (please specify)
Evaluation Framework (Form 1) 280 Date:
Key Delivery Partners, Dependencies and Risks: Key delivery partner - CCTV control room Dependency – continued budget allocation
Delivering the Mayor’s Transport Strategy in the borough:
MTS Proposal/ Policy Walking Priority Area Target Number number (Appendix C) Rail and Underground 4C Pr12, 4E Pr9, VI, V 10, 12 4I Pr2, 4P Pr5
Modal Impact Impact (Positive, Negative, (Please list the Modes affected) Neutral) Pedestrian Cycling – reduce bicycle theft. Positive Rail and underground
Impact Cross Cutting Goals (see section 4.5 of this Guidance) (Positive, Negative, Neutral, N/Al) Promoting safety & perception of safety for all travel modes: Positive
Encouraging sustainable means for travel: Positive
Balanced road space allocation: N/A
Requirements for sustainable developments: N/A
Equality & Inclusion Target Group (please specify): All
Evaluation Framework (Form 1) 281 Date: Form Number 39 London Borough of Barnet LIP PROPOSAL DELIVERY FORM Summary of Proposal: Local Walking Initiatives
Location: Various
Dates: 2007/08 – 2008/09
Description of Main Elements:
A number of schemes will be implemented aimed at encouraging walking within the borough by provided an attractive footway network within the borough. The proposed works, aim to meet the 5 C’s as outlined in the Mayor’s draft walking strategy being, Connected, Convivial, Conspicuous, Comfortable and Convenient. Vegetation trimming, street lighting and improved pavement surface will improve walking conditions and encourage people to see walking as a viable option for short distance journeys.
This program will focus on improving personal security for vulnerable groups and women. The funding of this program will be used to re-enforce other work completed by the Council such as the CCTV program as well as assisting to improve the walking environment around transport interchanges in line with station improvements. As part of the further development of this program input will be sort from the Safer Communities Partnership. deals with footways that do not adjoin streets.
FUNDING REQUIRED TO DELIVER PROPOSAL TOTAL FUNDING TABLE (£K) 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 Total (£K) FUNDING REQUIRED FROM BSP £100k £100k £200k FUNDING FROM OTHER SOURCES (Details To Be Provided Below) TOTAL FUNDING REQUIRED £100k £100k £200k STATUS AMOUNT OTHER FUNDING SOURCES (Requested, COMMENTS (£k) Approved) TFL OUTSIDE BSP BOROUGH RESOURCES PARTNERS (please specify) OTHER (please specify)
Evaluation Framework (Form 1) 282 Date:
Key Delivery Partners, Dependencies and Risks: Partners - TfL Dependencies - Funding Risks – Funding not forthcoming
Delivering the Mayor’s Transport Strategy in the borough:
MTS Proposal/ Policy Walking Priority Area Target Number number (Appendix C)
7, 12 4I.Pr2, 4I.Pr3, 4I.Pr8 VI
Modal Impact Impact (Positive, Negative, (Please list the Modes affected) Neutral)
Walking Positive
Impact Cross Cutting Goals (see section 4.5 of this Guidance) (Positive, Negative, Neutral, N/Al) Promoting safety & perception of safety for all travel modes: Positive
Encouraging sustainable means for travel: Positive
Balanced road space allocation: N/A
Requirements for sustainable developments: N/A
Equality & Inclusion Target Group (please specify): Positive
Evaluation Framework (Form 1) 283 Date:
Form Number 40 London Borough of Barnet
LIP PROPOSAL DELIVERY FORM Summary of Proposal: Healthy Walking Campaign
Location: North London wide
Dates: 2007/08 to 2008/09
Description of Main Elements:
This proposal has been submitted by the North London Transport Forum and is fully supported by the London Borough of Barnet. This form 1 has been included in Barnet’s Local Implementation Plan to demonstrate our support for this initiative. North London wishes to develop a Healthy Walking Campaign which will encourage healthy walking routes linked to the need for daily exercise and the adverse effects of sedentary, car reliant lifestyles. Useful walking routes across North London linking town centres, areas of employment, green spaces, and heritage trails are to be identified. The healthy walking campaign will be linked to existing campaigns such as walking buses and travel plans. In addition the campaign will be marketed through a range of mediums and will be based on successful models developed by other London boroughs. Current problems that will be addressed by the scheme include: Lack of information and inspiration for helping individuals build a healthy life style Lack of information regarding potential walking environments Increased dependence on the private car for the majority of journeys. The healthy walking campaign seeks to promote walking as a leisure pass time and as a general purpose mode for distance under 2km. The campaign seeks to advertise the benefits of integrating walking trips into every day life through a variety of mediums, these include the internet, leaflets and directly through a serious of road shows. In addition literature will be produced that indicates safe and pleasant walking routes within the borough and the sub region. These routes will link up the sub regions key facilities and provide details of routes that can be used for pleasure.
FUNDING REQUIRED TO DELIVER PROPOSAL TOTAL FUNDING TABLE (£K) 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 Total (£K) FUNDING REQUIRED FROM BSP £50K £20k £70K FUNDING FROM OTHER SOURCES (Details To Be Provided Below) TOTAL FUNDING REQUIRED £50K £20k £70K STATUS AMOUNT OTHER FUNDING SOURCES (Requested, COMMENTS (£k) Approved) TFL OUTSIDE BSP BOROUGH RESOURCES A North London Transport Forum PARTNERS (please specify) proposal OTHER (please specify)
Evaluation Framework (Form 1) 284 Date:
Key Delivery Partners, Dependencies and Risks: This is a North London Transport Forum proposal. Funding and continued political support
Delivering the Mayor’s Transport Strategy in the borough:
MTS Proposal/ Policy Encourage walking Priority Area Target Number number (Appendix C)
VI 12 4I.Pr3
Modal Impact Impact (Positive, Negative, (Please list the Modes affected) Neutral) Walking Positive
Public transport Positive
Impact Cross Cutting Goals (see section 4.5 of this Guidance) (Positive, Negative, Neutral, N/Al) Promoting safety & perception of safety for all travel modes: Positive
Encouraging sustainable means for travel: Positive
Balanced road space allocation: N/A
Requirements for sustainable developments: N/A
Equality & Inclusion Target Group (please specify): Positive
Evaluation Framework (Form 1) 285 Date: Form Number 41 London Borough of Barnet LIP PROPOSAL DELIVERY FORM Summary of Proposal: Introduction of Pedestrian Phasing at traffic signals
Location: Various Signal Controlled junction in the borough
Dates: 2006/7 - 2008/9
Description of Main Elements:
There are 50 signal controlled junctions in the borough. 39 of these junctions currently have either complete or partial pedestrian phasing with the remaining 11 junctions having no pedestrian phasing. The priority for the programme will be to investigate those junctions with no pedestrian phasing followed by sites with existing facilities where improvements would be introduced to improve pedestrian movements and to support the Best Value performance indicator BVPI165.
2006/7 – To carry out a review of all signal controlled junctions to determine the feasibility of introducing a pedestrian phase or upgrading the existing facilities.
2007/8 – To carry out detailed design and signal modelling for 6 junctions and implement 2 signal improvement schemes.
2008/9 – Implement 2 signal improvement schemes and carry out detailed design and signal modelling for 6 junctions.
The attached programme prioritises the review, looking at junctions with no pedestrian phase in the first instance, followed by junctions which would qualify for BVPI165. Priority would be given to junction where there is an identified pedestrian personal injury accident history, where the introduction of a pedestrian phase may help to reduce or prevent this from happening in the future. Consultation will also be carried out to inform and support the prioritisation of works to introduce pedestrian phases. The consultation group will be dependant on the location of the signals, and the hinterland it serves. The review and re-design of signal controlled junctions for pedestrian prioritisation will be coordinated with the introduction of bus priority at appropriate locations on A roads and busy bus routes as outlined in Form 1-4. The review of pedestrian prioritisation at other intersections not covered by the bus priority study will ensure through detailed modelling of these intersections that the bus priority target will not be adversely affected.
FUNDING REQUIRED TO DELIVER PROPOSAL TOTAL FUNDING TABLE (£K) 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 Total (£K) FUNDING REQUIRED FROM BSP - £150k £150k £300k
FUNDING FROM OTHER SOURCES (Details To Be Provided Below) £6k £6K
TOTAL FUNDING REQUIRED - £6k £150 £150k £306k STATUS AMOUNT OTHER FUNDING SOURCES (Requested, COMMENTS (£k) Approved) TFL OUTSIDE BSP BOROUGH RESOURCES £6K Revenue Support Grant PARTNERS (please specify) OTHER (please specify)
Evaluation Framework (Form 1) 286 Date:
Key Delivery Partners, Dependencies and Risks: Partners -TfL Traffic Signals Section Dependencies – Funding; Reliant on the delivery of signal equipment and testing of modelling Risks – Funding not forthcoming
Delivering the Mayor’s Transport Strategy in the borough:
MTS Proposal/ Policy Walking Priority Area Target Number number (Appendix C)
7, 12 4I. Pr2, 4I.Pr7, 4I.Pr8 VI
Modal Impact Impact (Positive, Negative, (Please list the Modes affected) Neutral)
Walking Positive
Impact Cross Cutting Goals (see section 4.5 of this Guidance) (Positive, Negative, Neutral, N/Al) Promoting safety & perception of safety for all travel modes: Positive
Encouraging sustainable means for travel: Positive
Balanced road space allocation: N/A
Requirements for sustainable developments: N/A
Equality & Inclusion Target Group (please specify): Older People, Disabled, Children Positive
Evaluation Framework (Form 1) 287 Date:
Form Number 42 London Borough of Barnet
LIP PROPOSAL DELIVERY FORM Summary of Proposal: LCN+
Location: LCN+ links in Barnet
Dates: 2007/08-2008/9
Description of Main Elements:
Review of existing cycle route provision on link 8 (the whole of this proposed link has some £7k form of signed cycle route already, or an equivalent parallel signed route exists within a short distance), Contribution to the cost of corridor studies on other proposed LCN+ routes (2007/08 and £35k 2008/09) – see programme below Contribution to the implementation of agreed cycle measures on LCN+ routes in Barnet as £38k identified through corridor studies or stand alone study for link 8 (2007/08 and 2008/09) Programme for consideration of LCN+ links within corridor studies. Corridor study or LCN+ Link No/description Study commence stand alone study A1000 Link 5 2006/07 Link 6 (part) West Finchley-Barnet A5 Link 10 2006/07 Link 9 (part) A110 Link 4 2006/07 A5100 Link 9 2007/08 A598 Link 7 2008/09 A504 Link 6 (part) Brent Cross-West Finchley 2009/10 Stand alone study Link 8 2007/08
FUNDING REQUIRED TO DELIVER PROPOSAL TOTAL FUNDING TABLE (£K) 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 Total (£K) FUNDING REQUIRED FROM BSP £40,000 £40,000 £80,000 FUNDING FROM OTHER SOURCES (Details To Be Provided Below) TOTAL FUNDING REQUIRED £40,000 £40,000 £80,000 STATUS AMOUNT OTHER FUNDING SOURCES (Requested, COMMENTS (£k) Approved) TFL OUTSIDE BSP BOROUGH RESOURCES PARTNERS (please specify) OTHER (please specify)
Evaluation Framework (Form 1) 288 Date:
Key Delivery Partners, Dependencies and Risks:
Delivering the Mayor’s Transport Strategy in the borough:
MTS Proposal/ Policy Priority Area Target Number number (Appendix C)
Modal Impact Impact (Positive, Negative, (Please list the Modes affected) Neutral)
Impact Cross Cutting Goals (see section 4.5 of this Guidance) (Positive, Negative, Neutral, N/Al) Promoting safety & perception of safety for all travel modes:
Encouraging sustainable means for travel:
Balanced road space allocation:
Requirements for sustainable developments:
Equality & Inclusion Target Group (please specify):
Evaluation Framework (Form 1) 289 Date:
Form Number 43 London Borough of Barnet
LIP PROPOSAL DELIVERY FORM Summary of Proposal: Cycle Training
Location: Various
Dates: 2005/06 – 2008/09
Description of Main Elements:
Year 6 Cycle Training Cycle training if offered to all Year 6 pupils at all primary and junior schools across the borough and comprises a mixture of practical and theory sessions. Training is undertaken during the Easter, summer and October half term holidays and aims to develop confidence through a mixture of classroom, playground and on-road instruction. Each course runs for 2 days, with the content as follows: Day 1 morning: Registration/bike check, theory session, mock road set up in playground Day 1 afternoon: On road session 1 (no turns, passing a junction), on road session 2 (left hand turns, major to minor and minor to major roads) Day 2 morning: On road session1 (left major to minor, right minor to major road), on road session 2 (left minor to major, right major to minor road) Day 2 afternoon: Theory session, quiz, roundabouts layout in playground Barnet has held 15 courses over this past academic year, details of which are below: Easter courses Summer courses October half term TOTAL (PUPILS) Attendance 101 237 9 347 No shows 20 59 5 84 Pass 89 203 7 299 Fail on Day 1 11 34 1 46 Fail on Day 2 1 0 1 2 All training currently takes place in one school, however Road Safety Officers are looking to expand the number of training sites in order to increase the number of pupils trained. There is approximately 1 instructor per 2.5 pupils, and each pupil receives 4.5 hours of on road training over the 2 day course, with the remaining time being classroom or playground based. Barnet therefore conducts 67.5 hours of on road training over the 15 courses, and 60 hours of off road training. The remaining time is spent on bike checks, registration, breaks etc. Pupils and parents are asked to fill in evaluation sheets and all pupils that passed the Year 6 course were given fliers promoting the Year 7 and 8 cycle training. Barnet hopes to train 500 pupils in the forthcoming year, at an increased number of sites throughout the borough. Attention will also be given to running training outside the conventional school holidays to include pupils from faith schools. Year 7 and 8 Cycle Training Training is offered to Year 7 and 8 pupils who want to cycle to school. All secondary schools within Barnet are offered this training. If pupils are interested in taking part, they attend an assessment stage at their school. This includes a theory and practical session. Pupils that have passed the Year 6 cycling scheme will not require assessment. Pupils that pass the assessment stage, draw their routes to and from school on a map with the help of their parents/carers. Barnet cycle instructors will train pupils along these routes. There are 2 instructors per pupil during this on road training, with emphasis given to equipping pupils to manage the risks along their route. The course was rolled out across Barnet last year, and currently 2 secondary schools have taken this on, translating to 17 pupils having received or are in the process of receiving their route training. Another 6 schools have expressed an interest in taking part. Pupils receive enough training to ensure they are able to manage the risks along their route. The Road Safety team are investigating alternative means of assessing pupils other than within the school as organising this with the school slows down the process. Evaluation tools, via questionnaire to pupils, parents/carers and the school will also be more comprehensive. Adult Cycle Training Barnet will provide information and advice to adults requesting cycle training. Links will also be set up on Barnet Council’s website to forward those interested onto cycling groups and companies providing this service. FUNDING REQUIRED TO DELIVER PROPOSAL
Evaluation Framework (Form 1) 290 Date:
TOTAL FUNDING TABLE (£K) 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 Total (£K) FUNDING REQUIRED FROM BSP £40k £43k £48k £52k £183k FUNDING FROM OTHER SOURCES (Details To Be Provided Below) TOTAL FUNDING REQUIRED £40k £43k £48k £52k £183k STATUS AMOUNT OTHER FUNDING SOURCES (Requested, COMMENTS (£k) Approved) TFL OUTSIDE BSP BOROUGH RESOURCES PARTNERS (please specify) OTHER (please specify)
Evaluation Framework (Form 1) 291 Date:
Key Delivery Partners, Dependencies and Risks: Partners – TfL, Schools (LEA and Private), Cycle Trainers Dependencies - Funding Risks – Funding not forthcoming
Delivering the Mayor’s Transport Strategy in the borough:
MTS Proposal/ Policy Encouraging cycling Priority Area Target Number number (Appendix C) Improving road safety VII 13 4J.Pr8
Modal Impact Impact (Positive, Negative, (Please list the Modes affected) Neutral)
Cycling Positive Walking - (Improved training will limit pavement cycling) Positive Other Neutral
Impact Cross Cutting Goals (see section 4.5 of this Guidance) (Positive, Negative, Neutral, N/Al) Promoting safety & perception of safety for all travel modes: Positive
Encouraging sustainable means for travel: Positive
Balanced road space allocation: N/A
Requirements for sustainable developments: N/A
Equality & Inclusion Target Group (please specify): Children Positive
Evaluation Framework (Form 1) 292 Date: Form Number 44 London Borough of Barnet LIP PROPOSAL DELIVERY FORM Summary of Proposal: Developing Freight Quality Partnerships
Location: North London
Dates: 2005/06 – 2008/09
Description of Main Elements:
This proposal has been submitted by the North London Transport Forum and is fully supported by the London Borough of Barnet. This form 1 has been included in Barnet’s Local Implementation Plan to demonstrate our support for this initiative. Freight quality partnership seeks to identify a practical course of action to move freight as efficiently as possible, without worsening local congestion. Measures investigated by the partnership to date seek to address the ongoing problems faces by the local community stakeholders, such as operators, local authority, private sector etc. and includes making better use of rail and waterways for freight. Building on the success of the Brimsdown Freight Quality Partnership, a similar approach will be used in other areas of concern. In particular, there are freight and delivery problems in several town centres, such as Wood Green, Edgware, Enfield, Green Lane and High Barnet. FQPs reinforce the development of North London’s economy and town centres
Funding is required to inaugurate further FQPS that effectively deal with freight and delivery problems in Wood Green, Edgware, Enfield, Green Lane and High Barnet. Activities will include: • Identifying scope for further partnerships - The FQP will undertake an audit of freight and distribution industry in the identified area, identify specific traffic problems in each area and analyse the cause in order to identify the scope of traffic related problems and those affected. • Identifying and coordinating partners for the FQP in Wood Green, Edgware, Enfield, Green Lane and High Barnet. - as a result of the scoping study partners will be approached and a marketing campaign will be developed to target the affected sectors of the freight community and other stakeholders in the local business community. At this stage information about the success of other such FQP’s will be advertised to the targeted potential partners. • Identifying the issues surrounding freight and distribution activities in these areas – The first actions of the partnership will be identify traffic problems common to the local community and identify their particular characteristics.
FUNDING REQUIRED TO DELIVER PROPOSAL TOTAL FUNDING TABLE (£K) 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 Total (£K) FUNDING REQUIRED FROM BSP £20k £50k £100k £170K FUNDING FROM OTHER SOURCES (Details To Be Provided Below) TOTAL FUNDING REQUIRED £20k £50k £100k £170K STATUS AMOUNT OTHER FUNDING SOURCES (Requested, COMMENTS (£k) Approved) TFL OUTSIDE BSP BOROUGH RESOURCES A North London Transport Forum PARTNERS (please specify) proposal OTHER (please specify)
Evaluation Framework (Form 1) 293 Date:
Key Delivery Partners, Dependencies and Risks:
Delivering the Mayor’s Transport Strategy in the borough:
MTS Proposal/ Policy Reducing congestion, especially in town centres Priority Area Target Number number (Appendix C) Improve loading iii 5,6 4K.Pr2
Modal Impact Impact (Positive, Negative, (Please list the Modes affected) Neutral) Freight Positive Car Positive Bus Positive
Impact Cross Cutting Goals (see section 4.5 of this Guidance) (Positive, Negative, Neutral, N/Al) Promoting safety & perception of safety for all travel modes: N/A
Encouraging sustainable means for travel: Positive
Balanced road space allocation: N/A
Requirements for sustainable developments: Positive
Equality & Inclusion Target Group (please specify): Neutral
Evaluation Framework (Form 1) 294 Date:
Form Number 45 London Borough of Barnet
LIP PROPOSAL DELIVERY FORM Summary of Proposal: Financial Support for Community Transport schemes
Location: London Borough of Barnet
Dates: 2006/07 – 2008/09 (05/06)
Description of Main Elements:
Concessionary Fares – FREEDOM PASS
FUNDING REQUIRED TO DELIVER PROPOSAL TOTAL FUNDING TABLE (£K) 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 Total (£K) FUNDING REQUIRED FROM BSP FUNDING FROM OTHER SOURCES £2,500K £2,500K £2,500K (Details To Be Provided Below) £2,500K £10,000K TOTAL FUNDING REQUIRED £2,500K £2,500K £2,500K £2,500K £10,000K STATUS AMOUNT OTHER FUNDING SOURCES (Requested, COMMENTS (£k) Approved) TFL OUTSIDE BSP - - - BOROUGH RESOURCES £10,000K Net Parking Revenue PARTNERS (please specify) OTHER (please specify)
Evaluation Framework (Form 1) 295 Date:
Key Delivery Partners, Dependencies and Risks: Partners – Barnet Community Transport, TfL Dependencies - Funding Risks – Funding not forthcoming
Delivering the Mayor’s Transport Strategy in the borough:
MTS Proposal/ Policy Improving accessibility and social inclusion Priority Area Target Number number (Appendix C)
V 10, 11 4O.Pr1, 4O.Pr3
Modal Impact Impact (Positive, Negative, (Please list the Modes affected) Neutral)
Impact Cross Cutting Goals (see section 4.5 of this Guidance) (Positive, Negative, Neutral, N/Al) Promoting safety & perception of safety for all travel modes: N/A
Encouraging sustainable means for travel: N/A
Balanced road space allocation: N/A
Requirements for sustainable developments: N/A
Equality & Inclusion Target Group (please specify): Disabled, Elderly Positive
Evaluation Framework (Form 1) 296 Date: Form Number 46 London Borough of Barnet LIP PROPOSAL DELIVERY FORM Summary of Proposal: Travel Plan Co-ordinator
Location: North London
Dates: 2005/06 – 2008/09
Description of Main Elements:
This proposal has been submitted by the North London Transport Forum and is fully supported by the London Borough of Barnet. This form 1 has been included in Barnet’s Local Implementation Plan to demonstrate our support for this initiative. North London has been allocated two of the Travel Co-ordinators being funded within sub regions by TfL North London would wish to see these posts extended into 2006/7 and beyond North London has been allocated two of the Travel Co-ordinators being funded within sub regions by TfL. One is based in Islington and covers Haringey, Islington and Camden, whilst the other is based in Enfield and cover Barnet, Enfield and Haringey. The Travel co-ordinator based in Islington is already in place and the Co-ordinator for Barnet, Enfield and Haringey is currently being appointed. North London would wish to see these posts extended into 2006/7 and beyond. As well as working with local companies and developers to produce sound travel plans, the travel plan coordinators will also organise local events under the Good Going branding. All publicity materials will be designed in line with Good Going and TfL branding.
FUNDING REQUIRED TO DELIVER PROPOSAL TOTAL FUNDING TABLE (£K) 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 Total (£K) FUNDING REQUIRED FROM BSP £35k £55k £35k £35k £160k FUNDING FROM OTHER SOURCES (Details To Be Provided Below) TOTAL FUNDING REQUIRED £35k £55k £35k £35k £160k STATUS AMOUNT OTHER FUNDING SOURCES (Requested, COMMENTS (£k) Approved) TFL OUTSIDE BSP BOROUGH RESOURCES A North London Transport Forum PARTNERS (please specify) proposal OTHER (please specify)
Evaluation Framework (Form 1) 297 Date:
Key Delivery Partners, Dependencies and Risks: Partners – North London Transport forum as well as Enfield and Haringey. Dependencies – funding Risks – funding not forthcoming or not being able to fill the position
Delivering the Mayor’s Transport Strategy in the borough:
MTS Proposal/ Policy Improving road safety Priority Area Target Number number (Appendix C) Encouraging walking Encouraging cycling iii 7 4P Pr4, 3 Pr7
Modal Impact Impact (Positive, Negative, (Please list the Modes affected) Neutral) Walking Positive Cycling Positive Public transport positive
Impact Cross Cutting Goals (see section 4.5 of this Guidance) (Positive, Negative, Neutral, N/Al) Promoting safety & perception of safety for all travel modes: Positive
Encouraging sustainable means for travel: Positive
Balanced road space allocation: Neutral
Requirements for sustainable developments: Neutral
Equality & Inclusion Target Group (please specify): Neutral
Evaluation Framework (Form 1) 298 Date: Form Number 47 London Borough of Barnet LIP PROPOSAL DELIVERY FORM Summary of Proposal: Work Place Travel Plans
Location: North London
Dates: 2005/06 – 2008/09
Description of Main Elements:
This proposal has been submitted by the North London Transport Forum and is fully supported by the London Borough of Barnet. This form 1 has been included in Barnet’s Local Implementation Plan to demonstrate our support for this initiative. Operational budget for North London Travel Plan co-ordinators will include: Production of promotional materials and advertising campaigns for business travel plans including leaflets, posters, marketing packs and display boards for Travel co-ordinators to use to raise awareness and attract interest within local businesses. Offer grants to small – medium sized businesses to encourage them to develop travel plans (as recommended in Making smarter choices work) Development of Travel plans: providing advise and guidance to businesses on what is available such as ticketing initiatives, video conferencing, potential public transport improvements and how to implement plans. Monitoring progress – To establish attitude to travel plans within and beyond travel companies involved. Annual survey amongst businesses with and with out travel plans via a short self completion questionnaire distributed with employee payslips. This will also be able to give an indication of modal split. Travel plan co-ordinator will also keep a record of the number of travel plan up and running and under development Dissemination of best practice – Travel co-ordinator will organise travel plan network within each borough which will provide a forum for passing on elements of good practice and keep the momentum of the travel plan going beyond Monitoring and Evaluation All publicity materials will be designed in line with Good Going and TfL branding
FUNDING REQUIRED TO DELIVER PROPOSAL TOTAL FUNDING TABLE (£K) 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 Total (£K) FUNDING REQUIRED FROM BSP £20k £10k £20k £20k £70k FUNDING FROM OTHER SOURCES (Details To Be Provided Below) TOTAL FUNDING REQUIRED £20k £10k £20k £20k £70k STATUS AMOUNT OTHER FUNDING SOURCES (Requested, COMMENTS (£k) Approved) TFL OUTSIDE BSP BOROUGH RESOURCES A North London Transport Forum PARTNERS (please specify) proposal OTHER (please specify)
Evaluation Framework (Form 1) 299 Date:
Key Delivery Partners, Dependencies and Risks: Partners – North London Transport forum as well as Enfield and Haringey. Dependencies – funding Risks – funding not forthcoming or not being able to fill the position
Delivering the Mayor’s Transport Strategy in the borough:
MTS Proposal/ Policy Improving road safety Priority Area Target Number number (Appendix C) Encouraging walking
Encouraging cycling iii 7 4P Pr4, 3 Pr7
Modal Impact Impact (Positive, Negative, (Please list the Modes affected) Neutral) Walking Positive Cycling Positive Public transport positive
Impact Cross Cutting Goals (see section 4.5 of this Guidance) (Positive, Negative, Neutral, N/Al) Promoting safety & perception of safety for all travel modes: positive
Encouraging sustainable means for travel: positive
Balanced road space allocation: Neutral
Requirements for sustainable developments: Neutral
Equality & Inclusion Target Group (please specify): Neutral
Evaluation Framework (Form 1) 300 Date:
Form Number 48 London Borough of Barnet
LIP PROPOSAL DELIVERY FORM Summary of Proposal: Developing links to North London’s Hospitals
Location: North London
Dates: 2007 – 2008
Description of Main Elements:
This proposal has been submitted by the North London Transport Forum and is fully supported by the London Borough of Barnet. This form 1 has been included in Barnet’s Local Implementation Plan to demonstrate our support for this initiative. In light of clear evidence to suggest that public transport links to the sub regions hospitals are inadequate to fulfil patients, staff and visitor needs, it is proposed that a study be undertaken to link up all the evidence sources, in association with any necessary extra investigation in order to highlight the gaps and develop solutions. Access to hospitals in North London is a vital issue. Good public transport is required in order to ensure that equality of opportunity for healthcare services is provided for the people of North London, regardless of where they live, or their particular personal circumstances. Health access needs to be singled out because it is one service that is used by all groups in the populations at some time in their lives. The study will take a holistic view of all public transport provision and provide solutions for all of the user groups and their individual needs. The access to hospitals in North London study will consider the following areas: • reference to catchment areas, • medical service provision, • the differing needs of staff, patients and visitors • shift working and the 24 hour nature of Hospitals, • and finally existing transport provision in terms of current public transport provision serving the hospitals In order to consider these factors a number of sources and user groups will be investigated in order develop a realistic and deliverable set of solutions,and consideration of how to promote these schemes to Transport for London, Council Transport and the voluntary and private sector. Has strong links to orbital bus improvements and other measures to provide better access by non-car modes to important facilities and services across North London
FUNDING REQUIRED TO DELIVER PROPOSAL TOTAL FUNDING TABLE (£K) 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 Total (£K) FUNDING REQUIRED FROM BSP £50k £50k FUNDING FROM OTHER SOURCES (Details To Be Provided Below) TOTAL FUNDING REQUIRED £50k £50k STATUS AMOUNT OTHER FUNDING SOURCES (Requested, COMMENTS (£k) Approved) TFL OUTSIDE BSP BOROUGH RESOURCES A North London Transport Forum PARTNERS (please specify) proposal OTHER (please specify)
Evaluation Framework (Form 1) 301 Date:
Key Delivery Partners, Dependencies and Risks: Partners – North London Transport Forum, local hospitals and health facilities Dependencies – funding forthcoming
Delivering the Mayor’s Transport Strategy in the borough:
MTS Proposal/ Policy Reduce reliance on the private car Priority Area Target Number number (Appendix C) Encourage the use of public transport iii 7 4P.Pr4
Modal Impact Impact (Positive, Negative, (Please list the Modes affected) Neutral) Walking Positive
Public transport positive
Impact Cross Cutting Goals (see section 4.5 of this Guidance) (Positive, Negative, Neutral, N/Al) Promoting safety & perception of safety for all travel modes: Neutral
Encouraging sustainable means for travel: Positive
Balanced road space allocation: N/A
Requirements for sustainable developments: Positive
Equality & Inclusion Target Group (please specify): Positive
Evaluation Framework (Form 1) 302 Date: Form Number 49 London Borough of Barnet LIP PROPOSAL DELIVERY FORM Summary of Proposal: Greening the Fleet campaign
Location: North London
Dates: 2006/07 – 2008/09
Description of Main Elements:
This proposal has been submitted by the North London Transport Forum and is fully supported by the London Borough of Barnet. This form 1 has been included in Barnet’s Local Implementation Plan to demonstrate our support for this initiative. The scheme dovetails with the travel awareness schemes by increasing the choices available to businesses when they are looking at how to improve, update or replace their fleet cars. The key element is to make environmental impact of a vehicle as important to businesses and drivers as the safety or image of the vehicle Cashless alternative fuel parking discount scheme Promotion of conversion of vehicles to alternative more environmentally friendly fuels, campaign will have two focuses; Council employees and Fleet managers/large local employers. The scheme aims to create the conditions for clean fuel vehicles to be practically and economically viable for large employees around the borough. Finally the scheme will include a Promotional campaign amongst local employers emphasising the benefits of alternative fuels (financial, Health and environmental and advise on new technology and buying a cleaner vehicle in the UK. The Council will provide funding to subsidise additional costs of fitting emission reduction equipment for Council employees’ vehicles, whom participate in the Council’s Green Travel Plan. The campaign includes leaflets, posters, maps and information on appropriate refuelling locations and advise for businesses on what options are available to them, are grants are available and how to apply for them.
FUNDING REQUIRED TO DELIVER PROPOSAL TOTAL FUNDING TABLE (£K) 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 Total (£K) FUNDING REQUIRED FROM BSP £20k £20k £20k £60K FUNDING FROM OTHER SOURCES (Details To Be Provided Below) TOTAL FUNDING REQUIRED £20k £20k £20k £60K STATUS AMOUNT OTHER FUNDING SOURCES (Requested, COMMENTS (£k) Approved) TFL OUTSIDE BSP BOROUGH RESOURCES A North London Transport Forum PARTNERS (please specify) proposal OTHER (please specify)
Evaluation Framework (Form 1) 303 Date:
Key Delivery Partners, Dependencies and Risks: Partners – North London Transport Forum, business fleet managers, local employers with large fleets Risks – fleet managers’ do not come on board Dependencies - funding
Delivering the Mayor’s Transport Strategy in the borough:
MTS Proposal/ Policy Improved air quality Priority Area Target Number number (Appendix C)
Vi 7, 12 3.Pr2, 4K.Pr4
Modal Impact Impact (Positive, Negative, (Please list the Modes affected) Neutral)
Car positive
Impact Cross Cutting Goals (see section 4.5 of this Guidance) (Positive, Negative, Neutral, N/Al) Promoting safety & perception of safety for all travel modes: N/A
Encouraging sustainable means for travel: Positive
Balanced road space allocation: N/A
Requirements for sustainable developments: Positive
Equality & Inclusion Target Group (please specify): Neutral
Evaluation Framework (Form 1) 304 Date: 4Q.Po1 4Q.Pr7 Policy Ref No. undertaken byTfL. feasibility oftheCrossRiverTramproject,being for theongoinginvestigationsandstudiesinto they willcontinuetoengagewithandprovidesupport Greenwich Waterfronttransitproposalsandidentifyhow the WestLondonTramandEast Relevant boroughsareencouragedtotakeaccountof support increasedpublictransportcapacity. Boroughs areencouragedtosetoutlocalproposals MTS-MAJORPROJECTS(Borough Response) No majorprojectsplannedinBarnet
BOROUGH PROGRESS N N Scheme Required
Scheme Ref Nos. Proposal APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF MAIN CHANGES TO THE LIP SINCE PUBLICATION OF THE CONSULTATION DRAFT
Main revisions made Made in response to: Chapter 1 Future population estimates revised. New population data from GLA and revised Local Socio Economic/ internal estimates. Demographic Context Chapter 2 Future traffic growth estimates revised. New population data from GLA and revised Local Transport Cycle map amended. internal estimates. Context Consultation response from Hertsmere BC. Chapter 3 Transport specific policies and principles added. Consultation response from TfL. Borough Policy Information on UDP updated. Updated to reflect current situation. Statement Chapter 4 Details of equality impact assessment added. An Consultation response from TfL Equality Impact equality impact assessment has been carried out (assessment insufficiently developed to Assessment (of LIP) to consider the impact of schemes within the LIP include in consultation draft). on the following equality target groups. • women; • black and minority ethnic people; • young people and children; • older people; • disabled people; • lesbians, gay men and bisexuals; • transgendered people • people from different faith groups. This has included a desktop study to identify the Main revisions made Made in response to: particular concerns of equality impact groups from previous national and local research, and a screening process to consider whether the schemes included in the LIP will be beneficial to or disadvantage any of the groups. Schemes which have a high adverse impact on any target group would be subject to a further detailed assessment. The majority of schemes had positive or neutral impacts on the majority of the target groups. Potential low adverse impacts on older people and disabled people were identified for schemes involving the introduction of street trees and some cycling proposals, and actions to mitigate these have been identified. No high adverse impacts were identified to any target group.
Chapter 5 Additions and more details provided to text of Consultation response fromTfL. LIP proposals for MTS chapter 5 expanding and clarifying proposals. Consultation response from London Priority Areas, Targets Areas where major additions have been made Transport Users Committee (LTUC) and Appendix C include: 2006/07 BSP bid announcement. • Proposals for town centres • Proposals linked to stations • Cycling proposals
These additions are reflected in an appendix of Main revisions made Made in response to: the LIP that comprises a matrix of our responses to specific MTS policies and proposals (Appendix C of LIP guidance) and scheme proposal forms.
Additional scheme/programme proposal forms include North London Transport Forum proposals which relate to: Creating a green environment Cricklewood regeneration Orbital bus priority assessment and prioritisation Parking discount for alternatively fuelled vehicles Town Centre audits Healthy walking campaign Developing freight quality partnerships Travel Plan co-ordinator Workplace travel plans Developing links to North London Hospitals Greening the fleet campaign Other scheme proposals added relate to: Waiting and loading restriction and CPZ reviews Corridor studies CCTV LCN+ Main revisions made Made in response to:
Also some proposed schemes have been removed, rescheduled or funding assumptions revised to take account of the recent BSP funding announcement from TfL.
Chapter 6 Additional cross-referencing to LIP proposals. Consultation response from TfL. Road Safety Plan Minor rewording to clarify existing joint site visit Consultation response from Metropolitan arrangements. Additional actions added to Police. consult with police regarding future vehicle actuated sign locations and to refer motorcyclists to Bikesafe scheme where appropriate.
Chapter 7 Additional information included on existing Consultation response from TfL. Parking and parking facilities. Enforcement Plan
Chapter 8 Methodology for developing school travel plans Consultation response from TfL School Travel Plan revised and targets updated accordingly. Strategy Additional details included about programmes, methods and links to national policies on health. Barnet’s existing good practice highlighted.
Chapter 9 Targets and performance indicators included that Consultation response from TfL Performance measures were previously not stated – others stated more explicitly – some amended. In particular target for traffic growth revised downwards to reflect lower Main revisions made Made in response to: and population forecast and effect of implementing MTS.
Chapter 10 Expanded to include: Consultation response from TfL. Completion of chapter to reflect Consultation • general information on consultation including consultation responses. citizens panel surveys, residents survey and consultation undertaken as part of best value reviews that have informed the LIP, • details of LIP consultees, and respondents, • Details of the responses received (other than from TfL), and how these have been addressed within the LIP. Chapter 10 also notes that TfL provided extensive detailed comments on all areas of the LIP. As TfL’s assessment of the LIP will lead to a recommendation to the Mayor regarding whether the LIP is approvable significant additions and revisions have been made to address the issues raised by TfL in order to provide an approvable LIP, which are not detailed in chapter 10.
Chapter 11 This chapter will be revised following the review of Consultation response from TfL and internal changes. Borough Core Capacity the structure of the Environment Theme area. Statement
Chapter 12 Expanded to include all funding sources. Consultation response from TfL Main revisions made Made in response to:
Funding
AGENDA ITEM: 7 Page nos. 28 – 45
Meeting Cabinet Date 23 January 2006 Subject Unitary Development Plan – Direction from Secretary of State Report of Cabinet Member for Planning and Licensing Services Summary A direction from the Secretary of State not to adopt Barnet’s Unitary Development Plan has been made. The Secretary of State has directed the Council not to adopt the UDP until requested modifications to the affordable housing thresholds and employment related car parking standards are made. Further public consultation is required if the Council agrees to make Post Direction Modifications if requested.
Officer Contributors Ros Ward Status (public or exempt) Public Wards affected All Enclosures Appendix A (proposed modifications) Appendix B (Letter from the Government Office for London on behalf of the Secretary of State to modify the Council’s proposals for the London Borough of Barnet’s Unitary Development Plan , and Appendix C ( risk analysis) For decision by Council Function of Executive Reason for urgency / N/A exemption from call-in (if appropriate)
Contact for further information: Ros Ward, 0208 359 4657
28 1. RECOMMENDATIONS 1.1 That Cabinet recommend the Council to a) agree the schedule of proposed modifications to the draft UDP set out in Appendix A in response to the direction from the Secretary of State b) agree to publish the modifications for the statutory six week consultation period during which time representations may be made on the proposed modifications. c) If no representations are received then to proceed to adoption.
2. RELEVANT PREVIOUS DECISIONS 2.1 Cabinet in March 2005 agreed Post Inquiry Modifications to the UDP and agreed to advertise them in accordance with the Regulations with the intention to proceed to adopt the Plan later in the year. 2.2 Cabinet on 11October 2005 agreed to non material modifications to the draft UDP and recommended Council on 8 November 2005 to adopt the UDP which was agreed pending any direction from the Secretary of State.
3. CORPORATE PRIORITIES AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS 3.1 The UDP is the land–use and planning development plan for the borough over the next 3 to 6 years and will guide future development and changes of use. It will ensure that many of the council’s five key priorities and other key objectives are delivered, in particular to ensure a Cleaner Greener Borough. 3.2 Under the new planning system, introduced by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the UDP will eventually be replaced by the ‘Local Development Framework’ (LDF). UDP policies are automatically ‘saved’ for three years from the date it is adopted. The delay in UDP adoption means a delay to the start of the three year period.
4. RISK MANAGEMENT ISSUES 4.1 The Council has two options which run at different levels of risk – these are set out in Appendix C. 4.2 Failure to have an up to date development plan in place will affect next year’s Planning Delivery Grant settlement for Barnet in future years. Delays to adoption of the UDP have a knock on effect for commencing the LDF and taking forward the Three Strands Approach strategy and other key policy areas including the flagship Cricklewood, Brent Cross and West Hendon regeneration. It will also weaken the council’s legal position to defend development control decisions and deliver high quality development and sustainable communities.
5. FINANCIAL, STAFFING, ICT AND PROPERTY IMPLICATIONS 5.1 The cost of advertising adoption of the UDP and printing the document will be met from the Planning Service’s approved budget and placing the document
29
on the council’s web page should reduce the costs compared with production of the previous UDP. 5.2 Additional unbudgeted costs would be incurred if the Council challenged the Secretary of State direction in the Courts and this would escalate into hundreds of thousands of pounds if it resulted in a long drawn out process or re-opened UDP Inquiry.
6. LEGAL ISSUES 6.1 None.
7. CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS 7.1 Part 3 of the Council’s constitution – Section 3 – responsibility for executive functions.
8 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 8.1 The schedule of proposed modifications to the draft UDP and notice to adopt the UDP were agreed to at the October and November Cabinet meetings. A notice of intention to adopt the UDP was published on 17 November 2005 and the intention was to adopt the UDP after 15 December 2005. .
8.2 THE SECRETARY OF STATE’S DIRECTION 8.2.1 The Secretary of State has the power to direct a modification under the 1990 Town & Country Planning Act. His planning powers are wide, extensive and far reaching. Although these powers are normally used sparingly, recently LB Westminster, LB Richmond and RB Kingston have received directions to modify their UDPs in respect of their affordable housing policy. The full direction letter on Barnet’s UDP is attached in Appendix B. 8.2.2 The direction from the Secretary of State is dated 15 December 2005 and prevents Barnet adopting its UDP until it seeks to modify certain policies. The Secretary of State directs the Council to modify the proposals as follows:- 8.2.3 a) The threshold at which affordable housing will be expected in compliance with policy H5 is set so that the policy applies to proposals of 10 or more units and sites of 0.4 hectares or more; 8.2.4 b) the UDP employment parking standards are brought into line with the London Plan policy; and 8.2.5 c) it will also be necessary to make consequential changes to the reasoned justification for these policies and any related policies and accompanying reasoned justification in the UDP. 8.2.6 The Council has to decide on the changes that will be necessary to comply with the Government direction and carry through the normal procedures leading to the final modification of the plan. If the Council does not propose to make any changes it must give reasons. This report recommends that the plan be modified to comply with the direction as set out in Appendix A.
30
8.2.7 COMMENTS ON THE DIRECTION AND PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS 8.2.8 The threshold for affordable housing proposed under the direction (10 units and 0.4 hectares) was the original threshold proposed in the Second Deposit Draft, March 2001. Proposed changes were set out in the Pre-Inquiry Changes to the Unitary Development Plan – January 2003 to change the threshold from 10 to 15 units to accord with Government advice. The UDP Inspector agreed to the change from 10 to 15 units. Proposed modifications were made in accordance with the Inspector’s recommendation of 15 units and sites of 0.5 hectare and or more agreed by Barnet Council on 11 October and 8 November 2005. 8.2.9 National policy on affordable housing changed since the UDP review commenced and when the Inspector’s report was produced. The consultation draft PPS3 – Housing (ODPM December 2005) states that local authorities should set minimum site-size thresholds, expressed as number of homes or area, above which affordable housing will be sought. It sets an indicative national minimum threshold of 15 dwellings but states that local planning authorities may set a different threshold or series of threshold where this can be justified. 8.2.9 The document associated with PPS1 – the Planning System: General Principles states (Paragraph 14) that emerging Government policies in the form of draft circulars and policy guidance can be a material consideration depending on the context. 8.2.10 The London Plan (February 2004) is part of the development plan under section 38 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. The London Plan states that boroughs should set thresholds above which affordable housing requirements will apply at no greater than 15 units and that they are encouraged to seek a lower threshold through the UDP process where this can be justified (Paragraph 3.46 – London Plan). 8.2.11 The Secretary of State has proposed changes to Policy H5. One of the main reasons for this proposal for change is from evidence presented to the inquiry in terms of the significant level of housing need in the borough and the recent rise in house prices. The Secretary of State considers the contribution from smaller sites to affordable housing is significant. The Secretary of State also attaches weight to the consultation document produced in December 2005 which consisted of the Council’s letter dated 17th August 2005 to GOL and 4th November 2005 to support the Council’s approach to affordable housing. 8.2.12 The Council had set out a robust case within the two letters supporting the threshold of 15 units prior to receiving the direction. The Council considered that any imposition of a lower threshold would have some non-beneficial impacts. It could have an overbearing and potentially adverse effect on affordable housing delivery and other planning objectives including overall supply. The Secretary of State has rejected these submissions due to other overriding evidence. 8.2.13 The Council has two options (i) agree to comply with the Secretary of State’s proposal to amend the threshold of units from 15 to 10 within Policy H5 and paragraph 8.3.21 to comply with current government guidance or (ii) challenge the decision in the courts.
31
8.3 CAR PARKING STANDARDS – EMPLOYMENT USES 8.3.1 The Secretary of State is directing the Council to bring its car parking standards for employment generating uses into line with the London Plan and policy T3 of RPG9 (Regional Planning Guidance for the South East March 2001). The London Plan sets a range between 1:100m2 and 1:600m2 for outer London. Barnet’s draft UDP states a standard 1:50 m2 Policy T3 states that local authorities should adopt maximum parking standards for B1 uses and that in outer London Boroughs the range of off street parking spaces for employment generating development is from 1:100 to 1:600m2 of floorspace. Provisions for departure from standards set out in PPG13 (Para 54) and Annex 4 (Para 11) is only intended in individual circumstances where a case can be made. The Secretary of State considers that insufficient evidence has been produced to warrant an exception in Barnet’s case. 8.3.2 The Secretary of State states that the car parking standard for B1 development in low accessibility locations should be amended in line with the UDP Inspector’s recommendation 7.85(v). 8.3.3 The Council considers that the London Plan’s strategic car parking standards apply to Barnet and therefore adopt them locally. At the modifications stage the Council considered it necessary to allow for local circumstances for example low public transport accessibility and high private transport use therefore the parking standards for office (B1) development to be set at one parking space per 50m2. 8.3.4 The Council again has two options: (i) to amend Policy M14 to comply with the London Plan and the Inspector’s recommendation and address the Secretary of State’s direction on this parking policy, (ii) challenge the direction in the courts. 8.3.5 Officers will seek an informal opinion from the Government Office as to whether the proposed modifications within Appendix A comply fully with the Secretary of State’s direction. 8.3.6 Other objections: Other objections received regarding residential parking, lifetime homes, etc have been rejected by the Secretary of State. 8.3.7 Subject to any decision of the Council meeting of 31 January 2006 it will be necessary to publish the further post-direction modifications for the statutory six week consultation period during which time representations may be made on the proposed modifications. Any representations must be considered before deciding whether to amend the modifications or proceed with adoption (subject to the Secretary of States’s approval of the final modifications).
9 LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS 9.1 The Inspector’s Report into objections to the London Borough of Barnet’s UDP. (November 2004) 9.2 The London Borough of Barnet’s List of Proposed Modifications Based on the Inspector’s Report. (June 2005) 9.3 Statement of Decisions and Reasons in Response to the Inspector’s Report into Barnet’s UDP Public Local Inquiry. (June 2005)
32
9.4 Summary of Objections to Post Inquiry Modifications Report (2005) and Council’s Response – Council agreed to changes 8.11.05 9.5 Secretary of State’s Direction to modify the proposals to the UDP dated 15 December 2005. 9.6 The London Borough of Barnet’s List of Proposed Modifications in response to the Secretary of State’s Direction dated 15 December 2005 9.7 Letter to GOL regarding affordable housing thresholds dated 17 August 2005 9.8 Letter to GOL regarding affordable housing thresholds dated 4 November 2005
BS: JEL CFO: PA
33
Appendix A
Barnet UDP Modifications Directed by the Secretary of State.
This appendix sets out first, the wording agreed by the Council on 28th June 2005 and 11th October 2005 following the Inquiry into objections to the Revised Draft UDP to policies H5 – Affordable Housing and M14 - Car Parking Standards, and second, the proposed modified wording following the Secretary of State’s direction of December 15th 2005.
Affordable Housing Threshold
1. Existing text
National policy context 8.1.5 PPG3 – Housing (2000) introduces a sequential approach to housing development which involves using previously developed land before Greenfield sites. The guidance highlights the importance of increasing densities in order to minimise the amount of land required for new development. It recommends that when considering sites for residential development its location and accessibility to public transport needs to be taken into account. The other main objectives of the guidance are to ensure that there is greater choice of housing to reflect the needs of all the community, to promote mixed use developments and socially mixed communities, to ensure that new housing is well designed and that it contributes towards improving the quality of urban life and promotes urban renaissance.
8.1.6 Circular 6/98 deals specifically with the provision of affordable housing and recommends that local authorities provide a mix of dwellings and encourage mixed and balanced communities to avoid social exclusion. The circular encourages the development of policies that seek an element of affordable housing and indicate how many affordable homes will be needed through the plan period.
Regional policy context 8.1.9b The London Plan specifies that 50% of new housing in Barnet should be affordable in a 70:30 split for social rented to intermediate housing with no threshold applicable. An appropriate tenure split for Barnet will be clarified in the forthcoming Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) on Affordable Housing. The production timetable for this SPD is set out in Barnet’s Local Development Scheme.
Provision of Affordable Housing 8.3 20 Circular 6/98 states that, in outer London, local authorities should only seek affordable housing on housing developments of 25 or more dwellings or sites of one hectare or more, unless it is possible to demonstrate a level of housing need which will justify a lower threshold. It does not provide specific advice on
34 the proportion of affordable housing to be sought, except that this should be related to the need in the borough. The London Plan states that boroughs in setting targets for affordable housing should take account of regional and local assessments of need, the Mayor’s strategic target for affordable housing that 50% of housing provision should be affordable, and within that, the London-wide objective of 70% social housing and 30% intermediate provision, and the promotion of mixed and balanced communities.
8.3.21 However, based on the council’s own assessment of need and a review of the size of housing sites developed in Barnet to date, the council considers that having regard to the London Plan’s overall 50% target, it will seek to negotiate the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing on sites of 15 dwellings or more gross or on sites of 0.5 hectares or more minimum. This could either be delivered by transferring completed homes to a registered social landlord approved by the council, or by transferring a proportion of the site which is clear, free of contamination and with planning permission to a registered social landlord approved by the council for the provision of social rented or intermediate housing. Further guidance on the circumstances in which the council will expect contributions towards affordable housing will be clarified in the forthcoming Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) on Affordable Housing.
Policy H5 Having regard to the council’s target that half the housing provision over the plan period should be affordable, the council will seek to negotiate the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing on sites of 15 or more units gross or 0.5 hectares or more and to ensure that these units will continue to be affordable for successive occupiers.
2. Modified text following the Secretary of State’s Direction
National policy context 8.1.5 PPG3 – Housing (2000) introduces a sequential approach to housing development which involves using previously developed land before Greenfield sites. The guidance highlights the importance of increasing densities in order to minimise the amount of land required for new development. It recommends that when considering sites for residential development its location and accessibility to public transport needs to be taken into account. The other main objectives of the guidance are to ensure that there is greater choice of housing to reflect the needs of all the community, to promote mixed use developments and socially mixed communities, to ensure that new housing is well designed and that it contributes towards improving the quality of urban life and promotes urban renaissance.
8.1.5a The government has published draft Planning Policy Statement 3 – Housing, for consultation (December 2005). This states that local planning authorities should
35 set minimum site-size thresholds, expressed as numbers of homes or area, above which affordable housing will be sought. It sets an indicative national minimum threshold of 15 dwellings but states that local planning authorities may set a different threshold or series of thresholds where this can be justified.
8.1.6 Circular 6/98 deals specifically with the provision of affordable housing and recommends that local authorities provide a mix of dwellings and encourage mixed and balanced communities to avoid social exclusion. The circular encourages the development of policies that seek an element of affordable housing and indicate how many affordable homes will be needed through the plan period. Paragraph 8 of this Circular indicates that in preparing plans, authorities should ensure that planning policies for affordable housing are compatible with their objectives for land-use planning and economic development. This means that thresholds, set to determine the size of schemes to which policies seeking affordable housing will apply, should not frustrate delivery of housing more generally, by inhibiting smaller schemes.
Regional policy context 8.1.9b The London Plan specifies that 50% of new housing in Barnet should be affordable in a 70:30 split for social rented to intermediate housing with no threshold applicable. An appropriate tenure split for Barnet will be clarified in the forthcoming Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) on Affordable Housing. The production timetable for this SPD is set out in Barnet’s Local Development Scheme. The London Plan does not stipulate a London-wide affordable site size threshold but states that boroughs should set thresholds above which affordable housing requirements will apply at no greater than 15 units and that they are encouraged to seek a lower threshold where this can be justified (paragraph 3.46 of the London Plan). Evidence on thresholds in London has been provided in ‘Thresholds for Application of Affordable Housing Requirements’, Three Dragons, March 2003 which suggests that in terms of development economics, thresholds lower than 15 are capable of delivering affordable housing without reducing overall supply.
Provision of Affordable Housing 8.3 20 Circular 6/98 states that, in outer London, local authorities should only seek affordable housing on housing developments of 25 or more dwellings or sites of one hectare or more, unless it is possible to demonstrate a level of housing need which will justify a lower threshold. It does not provide specific advice on the proportion of affordable housing to be sought, except that this should be related to the need in the borough. Consultation draft PPS3 – Housing, states that local planning authorities can set a threshold of lower than 15 where this can be justified. The London Plan states that boroughs in setting targets for affordable housing should take account of regional and local assessments of need, the Mayor’s strategic target for affordable housing that 50% of housing provision should be affordable, and within that, the London-wide objective of
36 70% social housing and 30% intermediate provision, and the promotion of mixed and balanced communities.
8.3.21 However, Based on the council’s own assessment of need and a review of the size of housing sites developed in Barnet to date, the council considers that having regard to the London Plan’s overall 50% target, it will seek to negotiate the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing on sites of 15 10 dwellings or more gross or on sites of 0.5 0.4 hectares or more minimum. This could either be delivered by transferring completed homes to a registered social landlord approved by the council, or by transferring a proportion of the site which is clear, free of contamination and with planning permission to a registered social landlord approved by the council for the provision of social rented or intermediate housing. Further guidance on the circumstances in which the council will expect contributions towards affordable housing will be clarified in the forthcoming Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) on Affordable Housing.
Policy H5 Having regard to the council’s target that half the housing provision over the plan period should be affordable, the council will seek to negotiate the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing on sites of 15 10 or more units gross or 0.5 0.4 hectares or more and to ensure that these units will continue to be affordable for successive occupiers.
Car Parking Standards – Employment Uses
1. Existing text
Regional Planning Policy Context 7.1.15 Boroughs are reminded to have regard to the interrelationships between London and the rest of the South East. For the outer London boroughs, such as Barnet, these interrelationships are even more important.
Parking 7.3.50 The council’s approach to parking provision is to accept the need for restraint, but to apply it with sensitivity to local circumstances. The parking standards will vary across the borough to reflect the accessibility of individual locations. This will be dependent upon the public transport accessibility of the site, the level of on-street parking control, population density in the surrounding area and other relevant planning and highway considerations. The standards will contain a degree of flexibility with the intention that a more restrictive provision will be expected as changes in people’s habits occur and the infrastructure for non-car modes is developed. The car parking standards that apply to the borough are to be found in the London Plan, Annex 4 ‘Parking Standards’, and will be subject to
37 review within the lifetime of this plan. However, two exceptions are made. First, in relation to residential parking, the standards are as follows:
Prominent housing Detached and semi- Terraced houses and Mostly flats type detached flats Number of bedrooms 4 plus bedrooms 2-3 bedrooms 1 bedroom
Car parking provision 2-1.5 spaces per unit 1.5-1 space per unit 1 to less than 1 space per unit
In applying these standards, the council will exercise flexibility by taking account of locality, public transport accessibility and local parking stress. The second exception is made in the case of office (B1) development where the London Plan standard of 1:100sq.m may not be appropriate for an outer London borough. In assessing parking provision, the council will have regard to the likelihood of parking occurring on-street and any detrimental effect on highway conditions and road safety. The public transport accessibility levels (PTALs) for individual locations can be obtained from Transport for London (see Policy C8 of the Cricklewood chapter for car parking in that regeneration area).
Policy M14 The council will expect development to provide parking in accordance with the London Plan (February 2004) parking standards, except: (i) in the case of residential development the standards will be 2 to 1.5 spaces per unit for detached and semi-detached houses, 1.5 to 1 spaces per unit for terraced houses and flats, and 1 to less than 1 space per unit for development consisting mainly of flats. (ii) In the case of office (B1) development where a maximum standard of 1;50 square metres will apply.
2. Modified text following the Secretary of State’s Direction
Regional Planning Policy Context 7.1.15 Boroughs are reminded to have regard to the interrelationships between London and the rest of the South East. For the outer London boroughs, such as Barnet, these interrelationships are even more important. Policy T3 of Regional Planning Guidance for the South East (2001) (RPG 9) stated that outer London boroughs should adopt maximum car parking standards for B1 uses within the range from 1:100 to 1:600 sq.m. of floorspace. The London Plan policies 3C.22/23 and Table A4.1 in annex 4 on parking standards are consistent with those in RPG 9, and the London Plan now forms part of the Development Plan.
Parking 7.3.50 The council’s approach to parking provision is to accept the need for restraint, but to apply it with sensitivity to local circumstances. The parking standards will vary across the borough to reflect the accessibility of individual locations. This
38 will be dependent upon the public transport accessibility of the site, the level of on-street parking control, population density in the surrounding area and other relevant planning and highway considerations. The standards will contain a degree of flexibility with the intention that a more restrictive provision will be expected as changes in people’s habits occur and the infrastructure for non-car modes is developed. The car parking standards that apply to the borough are to be found in the London Plan, Annex 4 ‘Parking Standards’, and will be subject to review within the lifetime of this plan. However, two exceptions are made. First, in relation to residential parking, the standards are as follows: However, an exception is made in relation to residential parking, for which the standards are as follows:
Prominent housing Detached and semi- Terraced houses and Mostly flats type detached flats Number of bedrooms 4 plus bedrooms 2-3 bedrooms 1 bedroom
Car parking provision 2-1.5 spaces per unit 1.5-1 space per unit 1 to less than 1 space per unit
In applying these standards, the council will exercise flexibility by taking account of locality, public transport accessibility and local parking stress. The second exception is made in the case of office (B1) development where the London Plan standard of 1:100sq.m may not be appropriate for an outer London borough. In assessing parking provision, the council will have regard to the likelihood of parking occurring on-street and any detrimental effect on highway conditions and road safety. The public transport accessibility levels (PTALs) for individual locations can be obtained from Transport for London (see Policy C8 of the Cricklewood chapter for car parking in that regeneration area).
Policy M14 The council will expect development to provide parking in accordance with the London Plan (February 2004) parking standards, except in the case of residential development, the standards will be 2 to 1.5 spaces per unit for detached and semi-detached houses, 1.5 to 1 spaces per unit for terraced houses and flats, and 1 to less than 1 space per unit for development consisting mainly of flats. (ii) In the case of office (B1) development where a maximum standard of 1;50 square metres will apply.
39
Appendix C
Option 1: accept the Secretary of State’s direction as being a major success in reducing issues of controversy down to the outstanding policies on employment parking and thresholds of affordable housing. The only risk of direction compliance is a third party challenge to the next stage of adoption, which is considered low risk, in terms of likely success.
Option 2: not accept the direction and challenge the Secretary of State in the courts, as a small number of local planning authorities have done. Westminster has challenged their UDP direction on affordable housing and after 11/2 years has not yet succeeded in overturning the objections, nor adopted its UDP. It has also incurred very considerable legal costs and delays to adoption and moving forward. It is anticipated that the risk associated with challenging the direction could amount to a year’s delay to Barnet’s UDP adoption, many hundreds of thousands of pounds legal costs and no guarantees of success against the Secretary of State whose planning powers are wide and far reaching. There is no contingency in the Planning budget for taking forward challenge and to support the legal costs which would have to be drawn from central balances.
Given the new planning system nationally and the Mayor of London’s conformity powers regionally, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the Government intends to seek ‘consistency’ on affordable housing policy across all 33 London Boroughs in line with the Mayor’s London Plan. In that environment a challenge by a single London borough on a key national government and London Mayor policy issue is unlikely to be successful in the courts. On the affordable housing threshold, the UDP Inquiry Inspector supported the Council but the Mayor objected and Secretary of State has demonstrated a recent shift in housing and planning policy and therefore ‘conformity’ across London on the 10 unit threshold looks inevitable for all London Boroughs in due course. On employment parking, Barnet’s UDP standards are out of step with PPG13 national policy guidance on transport and the Mayor’s London Plan and little evidence exists to support a continuance of departing from this position. The Council would more than likely fail on any challenge to this policy direction.
45 AGENDA ITEM: 8 Page nos. 46 – 60
Meeting Cabinet Date 23 January 2006 Subject Annual Performance Review of the Council’s Adult Social Services Report of Cabinet Member for Community Services Summary To inform Cabinet of the Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) review of the Council’s performance as a local authority with statutory social services functions.
Officer Contributors Assistant Director, Performance & Strategy, Adult Social Services Status (public or exempt) Public Wards affected All Enclosures Appendix A: Performance Ratings for Social Services: CSCI Letter December 2005 Appendix B: Performance Review Report Adult Social Care For decision by Cabinet Function of Executive
Contact for further Irene Findlay (Adult Social Services) on 020 8359 information: 4123
46 1. RECOMMENDATIONS 1.1 That the Annual Performance Report issued by the Commission for Social Care Inspection be accepted. 1.2 That the improvements in Adult Social Services performance be noted.
2. RELEVANT PREVIOUS DECISIONS 2.1 None
3. CORPORATE PRIORITIES AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS 3.1 The Council’s statutory Social Services functions as delivered through Adult Social Services are central to the achievement of the corporate priority of supporting the vulnerable in our community.
4. RISK MANAGEMENT ISSUES
4.1 Key risk areas as summarised in the report: • Performance management and the reliability of performance data • Financial pressures continue to remain a challenge for the Council. 4.2 These areas are being addressed by creating a controlled business environment that includes effective risk management, service planning, reporting, monitoring and decision-making. A business strategy is being developed that encompasses key priority improvement areas for older and younger adults and performance, strategy and financial activities.
4.3 Qualification of Best Value Performance Indicators by external auditors 4.4 Although the department is working closely with internal audit related to managing the risk of BVPIs being qualified, this remains a risk. Changes are being made to business processes and retrospective work is being done to ensure information on service users is held accurately on Swift and the client file to mitigate the risk of the PIs being qualified this year.
5. FINANCIAL, STAFFING, ICT AND PROPERTY IMPLICATIONS 5.1 Financial, staffing, ICT and property implications identified by CSCI include: • Pressure on financial management systems and budget pressures. However, CSCI recognises the additional investment and increased capacity that has been provided through the implementation of the SAP finance system. • Reliability of management and performance information. However, the report acknowledges that this area has received considerable attention and that improvements continue to be made.
6. LEGAL ISSUES 6.1 None
47 7. CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS 7.1 Constitution, Part 3: responsibility for Functions – section 3: Powers of the Executive
8. BACKGROUND AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION 8.1 The judgement for Adult Social Services published in November 2005 was that the service is ‘serving some people well and with promising capacity for improvement’. This judgement relates to the performance year 2004/5 ending in March last year. This represents good progress from the 2003/4 position where the judgement was that the capacity for improvement was uncertain. Significant further improvements have taken place since the end of the 04/05 performance year which are referred to later in the report. 8.2 The Annual Performance Review Report (Appendix B) reflected a programme of performance assessment that incorporated: • two major statistical/performance returns to CSCI - the spring and autumn Delivery and Improvement Statements (DIS); • review meetings between the Director of Adult Social Services and the CSCI Business Relationship Manager which provided the opportunity for the council to provide evidence of performance, developments etc; • the Annual Review Meeting (ARM). 8.3 The Adult Performance Review report (Appendix B), highlighted a number of improvements, some of which were: • The service is committed to improving the efficiency, quality and effectiveness of service provision across Adults Social Care in line with national priorities with strong corporate and councillor commitment to support vulnerable people. • The service delivered within the budget reflecting better financial planning and financial control. • The appointment of a new Director of Adults Services and a new head of performance has been an important step in driving improvement. • The service has devoted considerable attention to providing better performance data and performance management and that improvements have been made, although they came too late to affect CSCI’s 2004/5 report • There have been improvements in involving carers and service users in the development of services and in the way the Council woks with local health services and the voluntary sector. • There has been an increase in the number of people receiving direct payments that allow residents to purchase their own care. • There has been progress in reducing the level of admission to residential and nursing care. • There has been a good increase in the number of people with mental health problems helped to live at home.
48
8.4 CSCI also highlighted some areas for improvement, all of which have improved since the Performance Review was carried out: • The need to ensure all service users receive a statement of needs. The current position is that 90% of service users received a statement of their needs in November 2005 showing a significant increase on the March 2005 figure of 78%. Continuing in the current trajectory this should reach the 96%-100% by the end of this performance year. • The need to ensure that services are reviewed regularly. There has been major work done in this area resulting in a rise in the numbers of service users receiving a review from 40% to 60% - an increase of 859 in the number of reviews carried out compared with the same time period last year. Work is being carried out which will result in this improving further by the end of the performance year. • The need for further work to ensure that people receive assessments in good time and that care packages following an assessment are delivered within acceptable waiting times. A barrier to performance management was the inability to produce locally disaggregated performance data reports. This has now been rectified and there is robust investigation of situations where targets are not met. Performance has now improved from 45.5 (at this time last year) to 65.5. (can we explain what these figures are i.e. percentages or numbers). The trend shows an expected further rise by the end of this performance year. • The need for further work to promote independence through helping more people to live at home and to provide more intensive home care. There is a relationship between these indicators and how funds are spent to achieve the best quality services most efficiently. Barnet’s strategy is to ensure that there are sufficient low cost services through preventative measures to offer greater choice to those wishing to continue living at home and prevent them having to unnecessarily enter high cost residential and nursing care. CSCI refer to this in the Performance Review report as strength in Barnet. It is now being recognised nationally that the current way of assessing performance in this area does not reflect this strategy and changes in how this is measured in the future are expected.
9. LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS 9.1 None.
BS: JEL CFO: CM
49 CSCI London Region T: 020 7979 8022 Finlaison House F: 020 7979 8010 3rd Floor E: [email protected] 15-17 Furnival Street www.csci.org.uk London, EC4A 1AH
CONFIDENTIAL: EMBARGOED UNTIL 1 DECEMBER 2005 Ms Irene Findlay (OBE)
Director of Adults Services 26 October 2005 London Borough of Barnet
Barnet House Ref: SR/05/LR 1255 High Road London N20 0EJ
Dear Ms Findlay,
Performance Ratings for Social Services: December 2005
I am writing to inform you of the confirmed performance ratings for your council’s social services. The adult social care judgement contributes to the comprehensive performance assessment for all local government services, along with the children’s services rating undertaken jointly by CSCI and Ofsted. a) Judgements and Rating The judgements and rating for your council are as follows:
Social Care Services for children Serving people well? Some Capacity for improvement? Promising
Social Care Services for adults Serving people well? Some Capacity for improvement? Promising
Social Care Star Rating Your social services performance rating is 1 star.
As a result of our internal moderation process, the judgments above may differ from the provisional judgments sent to you during the last month. If you require any further information please contact your BRM who will be pleased to discuss the detail with you.
50
We welcome your feedback to help us improve our service. Please feel free to contact the Customer Service Unit on 0845 015 0120
b) Context The star ratings range from zero to three stars. The categories for “serving people well?” are no, some, most and yes. These relate to the 4 descriptors agreed by the Local Services Inspectorate Forum. The categories for “capacity for improvement?” are poor, uncertain, promising and excellent.
Social Care judgements use CSCI’s descriptors as follows:
LSIF Local Services Inspectorate CSCI Ratings CSCI Ratings Ratings Forum (LSIF) Descriptors Serving People Capacity to Well Improve A service that delivers well above 4 minimum requirements for users Yes Excellent A service that consistently 3 delivers above minimum Most Promising requirements for users A service that delivers only 2 minimum requirements for users Some Uncertain A service that does not deliver 1 minimum requirements for users No Poor
The final decisions on star ratings were made by the Chief Inspector.
The Children’s Services APA letter sent separately by Ofsted summarises the joint CSCI/Ofsted assessment of the council’s contribution to children and young people’s services and includes the related assessments of Education and Children’s social care services.
For Adult social care, the record of performance assessment was sent to you following the annual review meeting earlier this year. This sets out the context and summarises separately the performance of social care services for adults. Improvements since the last review are detailed, as are the priorities for further improvement that were discussed and agreed.
c) Evidence In assessing performance for adult social care, CSCI reaches judgements about performance against a set of standards and criteria, drawing on evidence from a number of standard sources. Further details are set out in CSCI’s Operating Policies available at: http://www.csci.org.uk/council_performance/paf/operating_policies.htm
The sources include:
♦ The published PAF performance indicators and other statistical data up to 2004-05, plus data supporting planned targets for 2005-06. ♦ Monitoring information from the Delivery and Improvement Statement. ♦ The reports of CSCI inspections and inspections conducted jointly with 51
We welcome your feedback to help us improve our service. Please feel free to contact the Customer Service Unit on 0845 015 0120
other inspectorates, where applicable
Equivalent arrangements apply for the assessment of children’s services and children’s social care – at the Ofsted website link: http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/childrenandyoungpeople/
d) Further Changes to Star Ratings
Current CSCI policy on star ratings is that they will be published each year, and for the most part will not be changed during the year. For councils with a zero star rating, a higher rating may be awarded later if robust and substantial evidence of performance improvement becomes available. Conversely, if serious concerns about performance arise during the year, a council’s rating may be adjusted to zero stars, and special monitoring arrangements put in place.
e) Further Information and Publication
The new performance ratings and underlying judgements will be published on Thursday 1 December. The record of performance assessment for your council and a copy of this letter will also be available on the CSCI website on 1 December 2005 at http://www.csci.org.uk/council_perfomance/star_ratings/
We will send you an e-mail containing the embargoed star ratings for all councils on Tuesday 29 November. Both this letter and the e-mail setting out the star ratings for all councils are sent to give you time to prepare local briefings - for example, to handle press enquiries. If you require help or advice on dealing with the media, CSCI press officers, Andy Keast-Marriot, Michelle Doyle, Sharon Ward and Ray Veasey are available to assist. Their contact numbers are 0207 979 2090/2089/2094/2093.
Any questions about your star rating that are not answered by the guidance, including the guidance on Children’s Services APA published by Ofsted, or by the contents of this letter or the APA letter with their associated attachments should be addressed in the first instance to me or to your CSCI Business Relationship Manager.
Access to the Performance Indicators website for councils which is password protected will be issued on November 29th with guidance details.
f) Representations
The letter and accompanying guidance issued to councils by David Behan, Chief Inspector on 12th September 2005 (letter CSCI – CI(2005) 6) explained the introduction of a Representations procedure for our judgements. This indicated that you would have the opportunity at this stage to make a formal representation. The procedures for representations 52
We welcome your feedback to help us improve our service. Please feel free to contact the Customer Service Unit on 0845 015 0120
are available at www.csci.gov.uk
The Representations Office will be dealing with these matters from 26th October 2005. In the interim, matters that are subject to ongoing discussion should continue to be dealt with at a regional level with your BRM.
All notifications of intent to make representation should be made by Friday 28th October at 4pm and actual written representations should be sent to CSCI for the attention of Louise Guss ([email protected]) Representations Officer by Wednesday 2nd November at 4pm or alternatively Jenny Wright ([email protected]) Business Services Senior Administrator at the Representations Office (contact details below).
CSCI St Nicholas Building St Nicholas Street Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 1NB Fax number: 01484 770 420
A panel of senior CSCI managers and external experts will consider your case. It will make a recommendation to the Chief Inspector about whether the case made by the council requires a change to a judgement.
Yours sincerely,
Mike Rourke Regional Director CSCI London
Copies: Mr Leo Boland, Chief Executive
53
We welcome your feedback to help us improve our service. Please feel free to contact the Customer Service Unit on 0845 015 0120
PERFORMANCE REVIEW REPORT FOR ADULT SOCIAL CARE
Name of Adult Services Authority
Barnet
Business Relationship Manager: Nigel Thompson Date: 20/08/2005
- 1 -
Performance Review Report
Summary of Improvements
There is strong corporate leadership and member commitment to support vulnerable people. The Council is continuing to improve its planning and partnership arrangements. Planning and service development is showing more user and carer involvement. The Council responded decisively in 2004 to the challenges posed by poor service performance, and a new Director of Adult Services was appointed in September 2004. There is now a greater understanding of the barriers to further improvement and there are robust plans in place and a commitment to deliver better outcomes. Adult Services are now better placed to deliver improvement. The Service delivered within budget. This was a significant achievement following significant pressures in previous years and is evidence of better financial planning and control. The Council has continued to make progress in reducing the level of admissions to residential and nursing care. There has been some success in increasing the number of people with mental health problems helped to live at home. The provision of Direct Payments is a key objective and the numbers of people receiving direct payments has been increasing.
Summary of Areas for Improvement Weak performance management and performance data is a serious challenge to service provision and development. The lack of confidence in data and in some cases the absence of baseline data creates a serious challenge for the service. The Council has acknowledged the seriousness of the problem and its resolution has received considerable attention. However, improvements have come too late to impact the position for 2004/05. Improvement is needed in promoting independence, as there has been a fall in the number of older people, people with learning disabilities and people with physical disabilities, helped to live at home. Provision of intensive care is significantly below the levels found in comparator authorities. Improvement is also required in ensuring that all service users receive a statement of needs and that these services are reviewed regularly. More work is needed to ensure that people receive assessments in good time and that care packages following an assessment are delivered within acceptable waiting times. The number of carers who received an assessment or a review is low and continues to be an area for improvement.
STANDARD 1: National Priorities And Strategic Objectives The council is working corporately and with partners to deliver national priorities and objectives for social care, relevant National Service Frameworks and local strategic objectives to serve the needs of diverse local communities Improvements achieved/achievements consolidated since the previous annual review
- 2 -
o The Council’s priorities reflect national priorities. Supporting vulnerable people in the community is a key priority, and the promotion of independence and improving assessments of need are important objectives. The agreed priorities of the Local Strategic Partnership also link with National Priorities; o Services have been restructured in order to better align with its health partners in order to promote better working together. There is evidence that partnership working is becoming increasingly effective; o A fully integrated health and social care service and local partnership board for learning disabled people has been established; o User involvement is integrated into the working of all the local partnership boards. There is an innovative reference group for older people that supports consultation; the Barnet Voice for Mental Health, a service user organisation, delivers a range of services, including advocacy and involvement in planning for service development o The Electronic Social Care Records project has been established and should support information sharing and joined up working; o There has been a steady reduction in the number of reimbursable days, as a result of delayed transfers of care, that are social services attributable over 2004/05; o A placement co-ordinator has been funded to assist the discharge of self- funders, previously identified as a source of delay.
Areas for improvement o Difficulties in relation to providing robust and accurate management information impact the Council’s ability to measure progress against targets such as the provision of breaks for carers. The Council needs to place itself in a position where it has reliable baseline information that can inform progress and planning to meet National Priorities; and o Targets for assessments started within 48 hours and assessments completed within four weeks, have only made a slight improvement and continue to be a challenge.
STANDARD 2: Cost and efficiency Social services commission and deliver services to clear standards of both quality and cost, by the most effective, economic and efficient means available Improvements achieved/achievements consolidated since the previous annual review
- 3 -
o The outturn for 2004/05 was 0.5% under budget. Given the pressures experienced in previous years, this is evidence of improved financial management and planning. There is evidence that resources are now better matched to need; o The 2004/05 budget includes £4.6m investment in community care to cover increased placement costs and investment in ICT. The Council are taking steps, along with its health partners to look at high cost placements, which have been a significant budget pressure; o There is a finance and performance review group, chaired by the Chief Executive, which meets with Director and heads of service on a regular basis to ensure that priorities are being delivered; o Two million pounds of capital receipt from former Learning disability homes has been reinvested into the learning disability reprovision programme; o Agreement has been reached to invest the Reimbursement Grant in lieu of fines, to support extra services, including, EMI nursing home places, increased intermediate care, a home finder for self-funders and a hospital discharge care and repair service. o Home Care contracts have been rationalised and new home contracts were let in June 2004; o There has been further investment in IT systems, including the development of the Single assessment process, that will improve financial control information and accountability, following its implementation in August 2005; o A programme and project management model has been introduced to improve management information, IT systems and communication; and o The unit cost of residential and nursing care for older people has risen slightly but remains below the level of comparator groups.
Areas for improvement o The Council’s financial standing is improving but continues to remain an area for continued attention; o The Council recognise that there are significant weaknesses in financial systems and is responding with additional investment and increased capacity. This will continue to be an area of significant challenge; and o The level of intensive care provision has fallen slightly and remains below the levels of comparator groups. The unit costs of homecare for adults and older people have risen slightly and remains high.
STANDARD 3: Effectiveness of service delivery and outcomes Services promote independence, protect from harm, and support people to make the most of their capacity and potential and achieve the best possible outcomes Improvements achieved/achievements consolidated since the previous annual review
- 4 -
o Admissions of older supported residents to residential or nursing care has fallen from 98.9 per 10,000 to 86.1 per 10,000 and remains a very good level of performance; o The admissions of younger residents, aged 18-64, has also fallen and is now a very good level of performance; o There has been a good increase in the number of people with mental health problems helped to live at home; o There is an innovative contract for mental health clients over 65 who receive homecare, specifically for those with dementia o Crisis Resolution teams are now established and there has been a reduction in delayed transfers of people with mental health problems; o The level of direct payments has increased from 54.9 per 100,000 in 2003/04 to 74 per 100,000 in 2004/05. This is higher than comparator groups. Advisors have been identified against each specific service users group, working with care managers and improving awareness and training; o Floating Support, a service for people aged 60 or over, who need assistance, was launched in January 2005. There is evidence to suggest that this is beginning to produce positive outcomes; and o Plans are in place to set up Telecare by April 2006. A multi-agency steering group, including the voluntary sector, users and carers has been set up.
Areas for improvement o The number of people supported to live at home is generally low. Older people helped to live at home has made little improvement and remains an area for focus. However, the Council reports that they are providing increased hours above the 10 hour definition that is supporting people with higher needs to live at home. o There has been a fall in the number of people with learning disabilities and people with physical disabilities helped to live at home; o The level of intensive home care has fallen and is now an adequate level of performance, and is significantly below the levels in comparator groups; and
STANDARD 4: Quality of services for users and carers Services users, their families and other supporters, benefit from convenient and good quality services, which are responsive to individual needs and preferences Improvements achieved/achievements consolidated since the previous annual review o Almost all single adults and older people going into permanent residential and nursing care were allocated single rooms. This remains a very good level of performance; o There has been an improvement in the proportion of equipment and adaptations delivered within 7 working days. It is now a good level of performance; o The Council has successfully focused on reducing what had been a significant occupational therapy waiting list, down to zero; o A mapping of preventative services across the Council, NHS Trusts and voluntary sector has taken place. This should enable the Council to maximise the support offered to vulnerable people in the community; o Work is taking place to improve the quality of residential and nursing care in the independent sector, through a series of seminars, bringing together professionals from across the various sectors; o Project work to improve recording and data quality problems is beginning to impact on service performance. In particular, the establishment of more robust business processes and error reporting is starting to increase confidence in data; o There are robust plans to implement the Single Assessment Process and a cross sector stakeholder group has been set up to drive the process.
Areas for improvement
- 5 - o Although, there has been a general improvement in the quality of services for both users and carers, performance remains low. The challenge to improve levels of performance in this area is clearly affected by the difficulties experienced in data collection that may or may not accurately reflect the level of performance; o The proportion of people receiving a statement of their needs and how they will be met has improved from 78.8% to 83.2%. However, this remains a low level of performance and is below the level of all Barnet’s comparator authorities; o 45.3% of clients received a review, compared with 38.8% of clients in 2003/04. Although this is a good improvement, the level of performance remains low; o The proportion of younger carers who received an assessment or a review in the year increased from 3.9% in 2003/04 to 15%. However, this remains significantly lower than the level found in similar authorities; o Similarly, the proportion of carers aged 65 or over who received an assessment or a review in the year rose from 4.1% to 14.2%. But again, performance is significantly below the level found in similar authorities; o There has been an improvement in the numbers of people who receive assessments within acceptable waiting times from 40.5% in 2003/04 to 47.4% in 2004/05; However, this remains low and significantly below the levels found in Barnet’s comparator group; and o There has been a fall in the number of people who receive care packages within acceptable waiting times, from 83.8% in 2003/04 to 74.4% in 2004/05. This is well below the levels found in Barnet’s comparator group.
STANDARD 5: Fair access Social services act fairly and consistently in allocating services and applying charges Improvements achieved/achievements consolidated since the previous annual review o A reference group for older people has been set up for consultation on the production of user-friendly information, the monitoring and evaluation of current service provision and the development of new services; o The older adults access team has been redesigned to improve access to services for all service users and carers across the diverse community; o There is access to services 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, except for home care services, which are not accessible during the night; o The assessment of the impact of the Council’s policies on ethnic minorities, in line with the requirements of the Race Relations (Amendment Act) is work in progress. o A mental health black and ethnic minority strategy has been agreed by the Partnership Board. There are initiatives in place to improve consultation arrangements; and o People with Learning Disabilities have been involved in the planning and implementation of training programmes.
Areas for improvement o There has been a fall in the proportion of assessments that lead to the provision of a service. Although this is still an acceptable level of performance, it remains significantly below the level of Barnet’s comparator groups; o The level of assessments of new clients fell slightly, and again, although an acceptable level of performance is significantly below the level of Barnet’s comparator groups; and o People from the black and minority ethnic community are able to access assessments easily, although again, the proportion of assessments that lead to the provision of a service is low.
- 6 -
STANDARD 6: Capacity for improvement The council has corporate arrangements and capacity to achieve consistent, sustainable and effective improvement in social services Improvements achieved/achievements consolidated since the previous annual review o The Council is clear about its priorities and members are committed to improving services for vulnerable adults and older people; o There is strong leadership at senior management level that is clear about the vision for social care in Barnet; o The Council has worked to strengthen corporate arrangements for performance management. This has been supported by stronger corporate scrutiny of services and budgets by members and senior management; o The Council has taken steps to respond to weaknesses in performance management and performance data in community care; o A number of audit reviews of community care took place in 2004 and identified issues in relation to performance data and performance management. There is evidence that significant work has gone into understanding the problems and challenges that the service faces. This analysis has resulted in clear actions and plans that are both robust and realistic; o The First Stat process is strength and has received national recognition. Additional training and development for both members and officers on the use of first stat has taken place; o The appointment of a new Director of Adults Services and a new head of performance has been an important step in driving improvement; o Adults and older peoples services have been restructured to align with health partners. These changes place the service in a much better position to take forward the Partnership agenda; o There is evidence of improved financial management and control, with the outturn for 2004/05 coming in slightly below budget; o A robust recruitment campaign has been agreed and salaries at team manager, social worker and Occupational Therapists level have been increased to a more competitive level; and o There have been significant improvements in relation to workforce with staff turnover improving significantly, falling from 15.53% in 2003/04 to 5.56% in 2004/05. This is a lower level of staff turnover than any of Barnet’s comparator groups. Similarly, the proportion of vacant posts fell from 27.89% in 2003/04 to 8.18% in 2004/05.
Areas for improvement o The Council recognises the weaknesses in performance management and the reliability of performance data. The Council has recognised the need to strengthen its arrangements for the collection, verification and reporting of performance, and financial activity. It is likely that the serious nature of the data weaknesses means it will be 2005/06 before any significant improvement in this position is reported. Although, there are indications that there is beginning to be more confidence in performance data; and o Financial pressures continue to remain a challenge for the Council.
- 7 - AGENDA ITEM: 9 Page nos. 61 – 85
Meeting Cabinet Date 23 January 2006 Subject Annual Performance Review of the Council’s Social Services Report of Cabinet Member for Children
Summary To inform Cabinet (“the relevant executive committee”) of the Commission for Social Care Inspection’s (CSCI) review of the Council’s performance as a local authority with statutory Social Services functions.
Officer Contributors Head of Children’s Services Status (public or exempt) Public Wards affected All Enclosures Appendix A: Performance Ratings for Social Services: CSCI Letter December 2005 Appendix B: Children and Families Annual Performance Assessment Letter December 2005 Appendix C: Representations to CSCI
For decision by Cabinet Function of Executive
Contact for further Paul Fallon (Children & Families) on 0208 359 5799 information:
61
1. RECOMMENDATIONS 1.1 That the annual performance reports be accepted, and that the relevant Chief Officers be instructed to: • ensure appropriate action against the improvement areas outlined in the performance reports; • inform CSCI of the date on which this report was presented; • copy the CSCI letter and reports to the Council’s appointed auditor and to relevant partners.
2. RELEVANT PREVIOUS DECISIONS 2.1 None
3. CORPORATE PRIORITIES AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS 3.1 The Council’s statutory Social Services functions as delivered through Children and Families are central to the achievement of 3 of the corporate priorities: • A First Class education service • Supporting the vulnerable in our community • Tackling crime
4. RISK MANAGEMENT ISSUES 4.1 For Children and Families, areas for improvement are summarised in the report as: • Looked after children’s health checks • Assessment timescales • Timescales for child protection review meetings 4.2 These have all been addressed and are on course to improve by 31st March 2006
5. FINANCIAL, STAFFING, ICT AND PROPERTY IMPLICATIONS 5.1 For Children and Families, the planning and management of resources is described by CSCI and Ofsted as being ‘very strong’. (Appendix A )
6. LEGAL ISSUES 6.1 None other than what is contained in the body of the report.
62 7. CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS 7.1 Constitution, part 3, Responsibility for Functions – Section 3: Powers of the Executive.
8. BACKGROUND AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION 8.1 2005 is the last year of the current system of Social Services star ratings. 8.2 It has been a transitional year at the end of which the Children and Families Service rating contributed to both the Social Services and overall Children’s Services ratings. 8.3 The Annual Performance Assessment Letter 2005 (Appendix A) is the culmination of a rolling programme of performance review that incorporates: • Two major statistical/performance returns to government - the spring and autumn Delivery and Improvement Statements (DIS) • Quarterly review meetings between the Head of Service and Barnet’s CSCI Business Relationship Manager • The Annual Performance Assessment Meeting (APA) • Evidence from service inspections and audits conducted during the year 8.4 It is important to note that the statistical returns underpinning this judgement relate to performance up to 31st March 2005 and in some cases September 2004. Since that time; • Action has been taken to correct the technical reporting error referred to below (8.5). Compliance with timescales for child protection reviews is now running at 100% • Our PCT partners have now filled the vacancies which led to performance slipping with respect to looked after children’s health assessments • There has been sustained progress on most of the other PIs most notably with respect to the educational achievement of looked after children 8.5 The Children’s Services Annual Performance Assessment letter (Appendix A) from OFSTED and CSCI, outlines a summary of achievements and improvement areas for 2005/6 and clearly states that: "Improvement in (children’s) social care provision has been remarkable and resulted in much improved outcomes and some innovative practice. There is a clear vision across all agencies and at all levels of the service to improve outcomes for children…….There is evidence that social care practice is improving and planning and joint work remains strong… The council has good capacity to improve further”. Out of 21 performance indicators, CSCI only commented on three as slipping back. With the remaining 18 we have either progressed or held steady. In spite of this progress, last year’s rating (‘serving most well with excellent prospects’) has been down-rated this year to ‘serving some well with promising prospects’.
63 The reason for this is entirely due to a technical error (undetected for 4 years by external audit and CSCI inspectors alike) in recording Child Protection review due dates on the computer system. This was discovered this year and resulted in the Child Protection reviews for 14 families being held one week later than they should have been. Unfortunately this Performance Indicator is one of 4 'key threshold indicators' in respect of which any performance below 92% automatically limits us to a performance rating of ‘serving some children well’. 8.6 This CSCI judgement: • Does not impact on our overall rating for Children’s Services (with Education) or the capacity to improve – both of which are rated as ‘good/promising’ (3 out of 4) • Has therefore not impacted negatively on the council’s CPA rating • ‘Does not mean that the Council’s services are unsafe’ (CSCI letter 25/11/05 Appendix B). It is simply a question of the application of the ‘ministerial rules’ relating to this particular key PI, despite our representation to CSCI • Has, however, had the disproportionate effect (in the last year of Social Services Star Ratings) of reducing the overall rating from 2 to 1 star, despite the improved performance of both Adult and Children’s Social Services
9. LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS 9.1 Performance Ratings for Social Services – CSCI letter (26/10/05) – appended to ‘Annual Performance Review of the Council’s Adult Social Services’ Report on the same agenda
Legal: MAM CFO: JB
64
CSCI T: 0191 233 3662 Legal Services F: 01484 770 420 St Nicholas Building E: [email protected] St Nicholas Street Newcastle www.csci.org.uk NE1 1NB
Paul Fallon 25th November 2005 London Borough of Barnet Floor 5, Barnet House Ref: PAWRC06 1255 High Road
Whetstone
N20 0EJ
Dear Mr Fallon
RE: PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
I write to confirm the decision of the Representation Panel regarding the written representations upon award of your Council’s social care judgements and performance rating. The Panel considered your representations in detail.
Written representations were made in relation to the following social care judgements;
• Children’s Services – Performance • Children’s Services – Capacity to Improve
The decision of the Panel is to dismiss your written representations. The reasoning behind this decision is as follows;
Children’s Services – Performance
The Panel did not uphold your representation about the Key Threshold. However, the Panel acknowledges that this does not mean that the Council’s services are unsafe. The Panel did not consider that there were sufficient grounds for overturning the judgement of ‘Some’ within the context of the ministerial rules governing Key Thresholds. CSCI must accept the validated and agreed figures provided to it by DH/DfES.
Children’s Services – Capacity to Improve
The Panel considered that there are a range of key outcomes for looked after children that have either slipped back or not improved enough to show recent sustained progress for an ‘excellent’ council. These outcomes relate to: children attending their statutory reviews; health of children looked after; and adoption figures. Therefore, within the context of the
75 Chief Inspector’s expectations as set out in the letter CI(2005)6, there are reservations about whether there has been sustained recent progress which is a key element of ‘excellent’ capacity. The slippage in performance also raised questions about the effectiveness of performance management and working with health partners.
The Panel’s recommendation was taken into account in the Chief Inspector’s final recommendations upon ratings to the CSCI Commissioners. The Commissioners met on the 17th November 2005 and accepted the Chief Inspector’s recommendation.
The social care judgements for your council are confirmed as being as follows:
Children’s Performance – Serving Some People Well Children’s Capacity to Improve – Promising Adults Performance – Serving Some People Well Adults Capacity to Improve – Promising
The performance assessment process for 2005 has now concluded, and your rating will be published on 1st December. Should you remain dissatisfied with the decision of CSCI with regard to your rating you should seek your own legal advice.
Yours sincerely
Louise Guss Representation Officer and Head of Legal Services Commission for Social Care Inspection cc: Mike Rourke, Regional Director, CSCI Ian Bainbridge, Deputy Regional Director, CSCI Euston Copeland, Business Relationship Manager, CSCI
76 Appendix C
Representation in relation to the proposed 2005 Children’s Social Care Service
Performance Rating
Paul Fallon
Head of Children’s Services and Director of Social Services London Borough of Barnet
1 November 2005
77 Representation in relation to the proposed 2005 Children’s Social Care Service Performance Rating
1. Background to the 2005 Performance Rating
1.1 “There had been considerable improvements to children’s services since the last inspection in 2001 … There was a shared vision and a clear commitment across the agencies at all levels … to improve services for children … the potential for improving outcomes had not yet been fully realised. During a period of major change, progress had been made on outcomes for children but these needed to be consolidated ... The service was performing strongly in the areas of strategic planning, cost and efficiency, and management and resources.
In consideration of all these factors, ... we concluded that the service was serving most people well with excellent prospects”
CSCI – Inspection of Children’s Services, Barnet, July 2004 [Attachment 1]
1.2 The action plan agreed to address the 18 recommendations contained in this report was signed off by our BRM as completed in June 2005.
1.3 “The Council has made significant improvements in its strategic approach to children’s services ... The changes have placed the Council in a good position for future improvements”
2004 CSCI Performance Review Report [Attachment 2]
1.4 ● Children – serving most children well with excellent prospects • Adults – serving some people well with uncertain prospects • Overall - a 2-star social care service
CSCI - November 2004 Performance Rating
1.5 “Improvement in (Children’s) social care provision has been remarkable and resulted in much improved outcomes and some innovative practice …. Planning and the management of resources in children and families are very strong. There is evidence that social care practice is improving and planning and joint work remains strong”
CSCI/Ofsted – 2005 APA letter, 27/10/05 [Attachment 3]
78 1.6 “I am writing to inform you of the confirmed performance ratings for (Barnet’s) social services …”
• Children – serving some children well with promising prospects • Adults – serving some people well with promising prospects • Overall – a 1 star social care service
CSCI Performance Rating letter – 26/10/05
1.7 Unable to establish a clear, transparent linkage between the evidence base and this judgement, we sought clarification from our BRM. He helpfully wrote on 27/10/05 setting out the official rationale for this apparent slump in our assessed performance and prospects, such a short time after a full children’s services inspection, and following two subsequent annual performance review letters both acknowledging further progress:
• “The council had failed to meet the Key Threshold for C20 (CP Reviews – 92.5%) and performance below this level limits the judgement to ‘some’.” • “Your overall performance against the indicator set evidenced a fall in performance. This change meant that judgement of capacity for improvement could no longer be considered excellent.”
BRM Letter – 27/10/05 [Attachment 6]
2. Failure to meet Key Threshold C20
2.1 PAF indicator CF/C20 – Reviews of child protection cases - was introduced with Quality Protects in 1998/9. It became a Best Value Performance Indicator (BVPI -162) in 2001/2.
2.2 We fully acknowledge and regret our technical failure to achieve the required threshold of 92.5%. However we would wish to stress that:
• The ‘counting error’ underlying this failure, whilst longstanding, has quite clearly resulted in no detriment to outcomes for children • Throughout the period in question, the associated child protection outcome indicators CF/A3 and CF/C21 have demonstrated continual improvement and are both currently in the top (green) performance bands • For the reasons set out below, this should not be seen as a failure in capacity or staff compliance but rather as a genuine recording error • Our social workers have in fact achieved 100% compliance with the due dates notified to them by the computer system
79 2.3 When we first submitted our PAF data set earlier this year, we did so in good faith convinced that we had achieved 100% compliance, an improvement on last year’s 95%. In parallel, Robson Rhodes (our external auditors) were undertaking the annual audit of our BVPI’s, the fourth since 2001/2. Given that none of the three previous audits (two under Price Waterhouse Cooper and one under Robson Rhodes) had raised any concerns*, we were very surprised when they told us that ‘qualification’ was being considered because instead of entering the actual review date due, clerical staff had been entering the last day of the month in which the review fell due. Anxious to avoid ‘qualification’ we immediately recalculated and resubmitted the data using the ‘actual’ due dates.
Clearly, had this been brought to our attention as a result of any of the previous three audits, we would by now have corrected this situation.
2.4 I enclose [Attachment 4] the schedule detailing the reviews which were, we discovered, held late as a result of this error leading to the apparent reduction of 26% in our performance by the ‘Second Cut’ of the PAF PIs. As you will see, they involve 27 children in 14 families. All but 2 children’s reviews were held less than one week late and those 2 were held 8 and 13 days’ late respectively.
2.5 We also undertook an immediate review to establish how this situation had come about:
• Back in 1998/9 when this indicator was established, Barnet’s client database (such as it was) was held on the CRISSP system. The ratio of PCs to staff was 1:20 • It appears that, due to perceived limitations of the CRISSP system, it was not possible to enter the actual due review date into the appropriate field • I am told that, following a discussion with the then SSI link inspector, our then AD Children instructed the register administrator to enter the last day of the relevant month instead • Despite upgrading of the client record system (from CRISSP to SWIFT) in November 2003 and achieving a ratio of 1 PC to 1 member of staff, this practice has continued undetected until this year’s BVPI audit (July 2005)
2.6 We have, however, taken immediate corrective action and would ask that the Review Panel allow us a 12 month ‘bridging period’ to re- establish compliance. We are confident that we will be able to achieve this, despite the fact that it was almost half-way through the current accounting year before the error was identified.
* If confirmation is required, contact Emma Turner, Manager, RSM Robson Rhodes LLP, Daedalus House, Station Road, Cambridge, CB1 2RE. Tel: 01223 222930. 80 3. Our indicator set evidences a ‘fall’ in performance
3.1 This is simply not the case. Whilst accepting that progress evidenced last year by reference to our indicator set falls a little short of our own aspirations, a careful analysis does not support the contention that our performance has fallen back. Indeed, 2004/5 has very much been a year of consolidation and further innovation as planned (see paras 1.1. and 1.5 above).
3.2 We have continued to re-align and forge ever-stronger partnerships across children’s services, as acknowledged in this year’s APA letter (27 October 2005):
“The Inspection of Children’s Services in July 2004 recognised the considerable improvements made in the years following the last inspection in 2001. It highlighted shared vision and a clear commitment across all agencies and at all levels of the service to improve services to children.
The delivery of services to children and families in the past year continues to reflect that judgement. There is evidence that practice is improving and planning and joint working are strengths.
Barnet has undergone major structural and cultural change and has placed itself in a strong position to meet the requirements of Every Child Matters. The effectiveness of leadership has been evidenced by the way in which these changes have been managed.
There is evidence of significant multi-agency working to ensure that children are safe. There is effective partnership working and planning is very strong. There are effective arrangements in place to manage child protection. Significant work has taken place across the Council and with partners to ensure that there are good policies and procedures. There are systems in place to monitor how effective arrangements are, and the role of the local Safeguarding Children Board is clear. The LSCB has been established to consider the broader agenda of safeguarding and the promotion of welfare, and not child protection matters only.”
3.3 We concur with this evidence-based description and stress that, in addition, we have continued to promote successful innovation with nationally acknowledged results in the following specific areas:
• Recruitment and retention of staff • Recruitment and retention of foster carers • Mobile working with enhanced personal security for all non office- based staff via handheld Xda devices
81 • Our unique ‘education champions’ scheme, which achieved very encouraging first year results for looked after children sitting GCSEs in June 2005 (data which, of course, was not available when the 2005 PAF indicators were compiled – but see below)
3.4 During periods of restructuring and rapid development, organisations are well known to be vulnerable to reduced performance. We would argue that we have, in fact, positioned ourselves well ahead of many other councils in relation to achieving the challenges of ECM whilst maintaining our upward trajectory – albeit at a slowed pace. We believe that our staff deserve positive recognition for this not inconsiderable achievement, which is very difficult to reconcile with the proposed loss of their second star.
3.5 Turning to the indicator set [Attachment 5] in more detail, but excluding new indicators with respect to which it is not possible to determine direction of travel:
C&F Comments
Placement stability – consistent top band performance since 2000/01. CF/A1 Even within that a sustained positive trajectory.
LAC Educational qualifications - acknowledged in the APA letter as “an improvement on previous years and higher than the national average”, a statement based on a consideration of the full LAC education data set (including the OC2 return) rather than on CF/A2 in isolation. In our view, this is probably the most important of all of the outcome indicators for children in terms of impact on life chances. Of course, the GCSE results for this year’s (2005) cohort of LAC were not available for the data set underpinning the inspector’s judgement. They are now. Our OC2 data for the last 3 years demonstrates a journey of significant, continual improvement and certainly places our children well ahead of last year’s national averages: CF/A2 % achieved 1 GCSE % achieved 5 GCSE A* - G A* - C 2003 15 6 2004 24 8 2005 24 20
Clearly, this is due, at least in part, to our innovatory Education Champions scheme, which we are now extending to include LAC in years 5 and 9.
CF/A3 CP re-registrations – an improvement from 2 to 4 blob performance.
82 C&F Comments
Care Leavers’ Education, employment and/or training – sustained top CF/A4 band performance since 2002/03.
LAC in substitute family placements – an apparent drop in performance to 1 percentage point below the previous years ‘green’ band performance level. CF/B7 However, the impact of the ‘Hillingdon ruling’ masks an underlying improvement in performance.
LAC unit costs – whilst this is shown as a reduction from 3 to 2 blobs, performance is, in fact, in line with our successful strategy to reduce the number of LAC and re-invest in earlier intervention. We always anticipated that, as CF/B8 numbers (and therefore gross LAC costs) began to fall, unit costs (which is what CF/B8 measures) would increase to reflect a concentration of children with the most complex needs in the LAC population.
LAC final warnings and convictions – remained within the 3 blob performance band. To quote our APA letter “The proportion of LAC … rose from 1.3% to 2.1%. However, this is still lower than comparable authorities … most CF/C18 encouragingly, the re-offending rate of those on community penalties with whom the YOT intervenes is lower than those on first tier penalties who are likely to be at a lower level of offending.” LAC Health – a very worrying fall in performance fully anticipated, acknowledged and explained in the APA meeting. This was entirely due to unplanned vacancies amongst our LAC nurses employed by the PCT. This has CF/C19 now been addressed and, in fact, our partner agency has invested additional resources in this area, which has allowed us to employ two GPs on a sessional basis to undertake this work. A number of our LAC were directly involved in the recruitment process. CP Reviews – discussed in detail above, the correction of this serious recording CF/C20 error has resulted in the spurious impression being given of a falling off in performance. Duration on the CP register – an improvement to top band CF/C21 performance.
Younger children in substitute family placements – sustained top CF/C22 band performance.
CF/C23 Adoptions – no change.
CF/C24 LAC missing school – no change.
LAC – long term stability – improved performance within same band CF/D35 and now only 1% below threshold for next performance banding. Relative spend on family support – improved performance in line with CF/E44 ‘invest to save’ strategy – (cross refer to CF/B8 above)
CF/E45 Ethnicity CIN - No change.
83 3.6 To summarise, of the 16 PIs where it is possible to evidence direction of travel:
• 7 have actually improved • 6 remain the same (but 2 of these are already within the top performance banding) • 3 have fallen back – although in one case this is in line with our established ‘invest to save’ strategy.
3.7 As I hope the review panel will feel able to agree, this can hardly be cited as evidence to support the view that, our “overall performance against the indicator set, evidenced a fall in performance. This change in performance meant that judgement of capacity for improvement could no longer be considered excellent” [See Attachment 6].
4. Summary and Conclusion
4.1 So, as recommended by our 2004 inspection and acknowledged by our 2005 APA, 2005 has been a year of consolidation, preparation to embrace fully the ECM agenda, continued innovation, and a sustained positive trajectory in terms of outcomes for children.
4.2 All of this has been achieved whilst delivering a balanced financial out- turn in 2004/5 and remaining on track to repeat this in 2005/6.
4.3 To quote our 2005 APA letter, “Improvement in social care has been remarkable and resulted in much improved outcomes and some innovative practice … Planning and management of resources in children and families are very strong. There is evidence that social care practice is improving and planning and joint work remains strong”.
4.4 It is very difficult to square these objective, evidenced-based statements with a judgement of ‘some and promising’ which [see Attachment 7] would be tantamount to saying to elected members, my staff and the residents of Barnet: ‘Ofsted and CSCI take the view that our services for the most vulnerable children in the borough have not progressed at all since November 2003. Despite acknowledged improvements in both Children’s and Adult Social Care during the last twelve months, we are now deemed a one star Social Services authority whilst we were adjudged to be two stars at this time last year.’
84 4.5 As I hope to have demonstrated, far from ‘falling back’, our continued, steady progress amply justifies a continued judgement of ‘excellent’ prospects.
4.6 Whilst fully appreciating the thinking behind the Key Threshold rules, in this case I would argue strongly that their rigid application would result in a perverse outcome with a quite disproportionate negative impact on: the reputation of our services, the morale of our hardworking staff, and the confidence of the general public. If we were serving most children well last July when inspected, then by any objective measure we are serving even more children well now.
Paul Fallon
Head of Children’s Services and Director of Social Services London Borough of Barnet
1 November 2005
85