Summary of Engagement with Emergency Services for St Peter's

Appendix 1

Summary of engagement with emergency services for St Peter’s, Canonbury East, Canonbury West and Clerkenwell Green

Summary of concerns raised and actions taken

St Peter’s

Service Concerns Raised Actions Taken LFB (27/05) Where possible, use existing Used existing width width restrictions and camera restrictions at Colebrook Row enforcement and Prebend Street to allow emergency access LAS (3/06) Cameras preferred over Cameras used instead of bollards bollards at Colebrook Row and Prebend Street MPS (16/06) Police and other emergency Changed no entry signs to no services are not able to travel motor vehicles signs so that through ‘no entry signs’ emergency services are able to legally travel through the filters LFB (30/07) Wharf Road and Danbury Wharf Road bollards Street bollards could cause immediately removed so that too much delay on a popular location is camera enforced route for LBF drivers Danbury Street reviewed and following further discussion to remain as at present.

Canonbury East

Service Concerns Raised Actions Taken LFB (25/06) Gap of 3m should be retained Design has both elements (either with removable A balanced distribution of bollard or camera enforced) cameras with 6 camera Parking restrictions should be enforced closures and 4 24/7 physically enforced closures MPS (26/06) Use ‘no motor’ vehicles rather No motor vehicle signs used than ‘no entry signs’ across scheme Camera enforcement A balanced distribution of preferred over physical cameras with 6 camera closures enforced closures and 4 physically enforced closures

Appendix 1

LAS (10/07) Struggle to support any A balanced distribution of scheme with bollards cameras with 6 camera enforced closures and 4 physically enforced closures LFB (30/07) Haliford Road bollards could Haliford Street bollards cause too much delay on a swapped for camera popular route for LFB drivers enforcement with Elmore street which is a less popular LFB route

Canonbury West

Service Concerns Raised Actions Taken MPS (19/08) 1. Are there exemptions for Response being drafted by banned turns? 2. Will all LBI emergency service vehicles be exempt from the prohibitions without justification? LFB No concerns raised LAS No concerns raised

Clerkenwell Green

Service Concerns Raised Actions Taken MPS (19/08) 1. Querying types of physical 1. Lockable bollards will be measures proposed. 2. Query used. 2. Vehicles will be able about access to Sans Walk. to get within 16 metres of 3. Will there be emergency any property access in Sans service exemptions for Walk. 3. Yes - The intention banned turns? would be to allow emergency vehicle exemptions. LFB (24/07) 1. Clarifying if removable 1. Removable bollards will be bollards are to be used. 2. used. 2. Specific closure no Querying a proposed closure. longer part of plans. LAS (21/07) 1. Query if certain roads will 1. Confirmation these roads remain uni- or bi-directional. will operate in the same way. 2. Querying details of access 2. Details of possible routes routes into specific areas. 3. provided by narrative and Querying types of physical map. 3. Confirmation that measures proposed. one proposed closure has been removed and lockable bollards will be used for another.

Appendix 1

Timeline of engagement with emergency services for St Peter’s, Canonbury East, Canonbury West and Clerkenwell Green:

26 May 2020 – First contact made with London Ambulance Services (LAS), Metropolitan Police Service (MPS), London Fire Brigade (LFB) this email gave a broad overview of the programme and reference to having traffic restrictions in place. There is a table attached which has the traffic filters listed for a few areas in Islington including St Peter’s. (In Documents A, B, C, G, H, I)

27 May 2020 – Response received from LFB on St Peter’s traffic filter locations: Having looked at the proposals I would support option A, where possible to use existing width restrictions and convert the existing cameras to enforce road closures. Using bollards & planters at these locations will delay any attendance to addresses in these areas. If a removable post / barrier was to be provided allowing fire appliances access the delay would be minimal but would still have an impact on our attendance times. I would need to carry out further work to establish whether this would result in the Brigade not be able to meet our attendance times for the areas (Document B)

3 June 2020 – Response received from LAS on St Peter’s traffic filters: I would support the use of Cameras where possible, as any closure will impact ambulance egress. (Document A)

16 June 2020 – More detailed proposals for St Peter’s traffic filters are sent to LAS, LFB and MPS (In Document A, C)

17 June 2020 – Response received from MPS on St Peter’s traffic filters. There are a few emails back and forth until 29 June largely related to the use of No Entry signage. The signage is therefore changed to “no motor vehicles” to accommodate the MPS request. (Document C)

25 June 2020 – Canonbury East filter locations sent with details of the types of filters and reasons for that type (Documents G, H, I)

25 June 2020 – Response received from LFB on Canonbury East closures. A few questions raised by LFB which are answered across a few back and forth emails. (Document H)

26 June 2020- Response received from LAS on Canonbury East closures. The response specifies a preference for Camera enforcement and some specific questions on signage and future plans. There is subsequent exchange of various emails between LAS and Islington between the 26 June and 10 July. The final response from LAS is as follows: as previously stated we would struggle to support schemes where bollards are locked due to the lack of keys carried. Our crews do have access to Waze and Google maps on their IPads so have alternative navigation means. In conclusion we appreciate that need to introduce measure to support safer neighboured traffic schemes but cannot fully support a scheme with locked bollards due to the lack of access to keys and potential for delayed responses. Like all schemes that are introduced we would continue to monitor and ask crews to report any significant delays or patient safety

Appendix 1 concerns as a result of traffic management via our Datix system. Should we have an incidents reported we will feed this back to the Islington Highways Team with the aim to review and change schemes if required. (Document G)

26 June 2020 – Response received from MPS on Canonbury East Closures. A few questions are answered across a few back and forth emails. The final response from MPS on the 1 July 2020 is as follows: As you have assured me that there is, and will continue to be, adequate access for the emergency services, I have no objections to this scheme at this stage. (Document I)

6 July 2020 – St Peter’s traffic filters installed

20 July 2020 – First contact between Islington and emergency services regarding the Clerkenwell Green closures. (Document S, T, U)

27 July 2020 – Islington senior management follows up a phone call with senior management in the fire department with an email that mentions raising any issues with him directly. (Document E)

29 July 2020 - Revised plans for Clerkenwell Green sent to emergency services. Response from MPS on the same day: Thank you for the updated plans and for taking into consideration my comments on your initial proposals. (Document T) Response from LFB on the same day: Thank you for the updated plans, I don’t see anything that is going to cause issues for the Fire Brigade. (Document S) Response from LAS on the same day: thank you for taking our concerns into account. As it standards I cannot foresee any major issues with these proposals as access is easy achieved for crews. (Document U)

30 July 2020 – Specific issues were raised by LFB with the traffic filters on Wharf Road, Danbury Street, and Halliford Street. In response to the issues raised an immediate review of those locations was undertaken. (Document E)

31 July 2020 – An update is sent to LFB with the results of this review. The two removable bollards are removed at Wharf Road and not implemented at Halliford Street as was planned. A request for a meeting with further discussion around the Danbury Street closure is proposed. LFB response to this update is as follows: Thank you for your reply and quick response to our request to review the measures in place. The Wharf Road issue was my biggest concern and I am pleased with the action taken to open up this route. (Document E)

3 August 2020 – A letter is sent from Islington Senior management to LAS senior management in response to a letter received by them. On 5 August a follow up request is sent for a meeting with LAS to better understand their views and discuss some of the issues raised by LFB. (Document J and L)

4 August 2020 – A meeting takes place between Islington officers and LFB officers to discuss the whole people-friendly streets programme and specific issues raised. Minutes are sent following that meeting where it is agreed that the issues at Wharf Road and Halliford Street are now resolved and that Danbury Street can remain as is. (Minutes are Document N)

Appendix 1

10 August 2020 – A meeting takes place between LAS and Islington officers to discuss the whole People-friendly Street programme. Minutes are sent following that meeting. (Minutes are Document O).

11 August 2020 – An email sent from Events Team in MPS to PFS asking for more details about the proposals. LBI recommend a meeting takes place between MPS and LBI Officers to discuss any outstanding issues and general principles in more detail. (Document F)

13 August 2020 – Works in Canonbury East near completion. Following discussion with LFB and LAS it has been decided that it would be appropriate to change the camera enforced closure at Elmore to a physical closure and the physical closure planned at Halliford to a camera enforced closure as this is a more convenient emergency access route. Changes implemented in Canonbury East.

14 August 2020 – Updated designs for Canonbury West sent to emergency services showing that all four filters will be enforced by ANPR. (Documents P, Q, R)

19 August 2020 – Response from LFB regarding Canonbury West plans: I am satisfied that these measures should not impact on our current attendance times to incidents within the immediate area or surrounding areas within the Borough. (Document P) Response from MPS regarding Canonbury West plans: Can I thank you, X and your team for listening to our views, and for altering your proposals accordingly to accommodate our concerns. (Document Q)

20 August 2020 - Meeting date for MPS and Islington.

21 August 2020 – Response from LAS regarding Canonbury West plans: I really do appreciate the time and effort by the team listening to our concerns and adapting the plans, thank you. As the plans allow for unhindered access I cannot foresee and major issues from in relation to this plan moving forward. (Document R)