Rights of Way Imrovement Plan 2010-2020

Appendix C

Rights of Way Improvement Plan

2010 - 2020

Forward

This is the Rights of Way Improvement Plan (RoWIP) for the London Borough of Redbridge 2010 – 2020.

It sets out how we intend to improve our public rights of way, namely footpaths, bridleways and byways, for the benefit of all current and future users. Where possible these improvements are linked to proposals outlined in existing borough policy documents which will also work toward meeting a number of objectives set out in the overarching London strategies.

The Plan has been prepared by consultants working on our behalf and has been approved by Members.

I would like to thank all those who have assisted with the preparation of this document.

Dave Renvoize Chief Highways and Engineering Officer

Contents

The Vision Page

1. Introduction 1

2. Aims of the Rights of Way Plan 1 2.1 Requirements 1 2.2 Guidance 2 2.3 Assessment 3 2.4 Scope and Objectives 3 2.5 Benefits of public rights of way 4

3. About Redbridge 4 3.1 Geography 4 3.2 Demographics 6 3.3 Open Spaces and the Countryside 6 3.3.1 Open Spaces 7 3.3.2 Traditional Parks 9

4. Current Policies and Strategy 10 4.1 London wide 11 4.2 Borough wide 15

5. The Definitive Map and Statement (DMS) 21 5.1 Statutory duty 21 5.2 History of the Definitive Map and Statement (DMS) for Redbridge 22 5.3 The public rights of way network 22 5.4 Maintenance of the public rights of way network 23 5.5 Review of the current network – Ease of Use survey 23 5.6 Current provision 25 5.7 Changes to the public rights of way network 26 5.8 Future review of the PRoW network 28 5.9 Promoted routes 28 5.9.1 Walking 28 5.9.2 Cycling 29

6. Assessment and Evaluation 30 6.1 Responses 31

7. Statement of Actions 43

8. Funding 48

9. Programming 50

10. Appendices 55

Appendix 1: Copy of RoWIP questionnaire

Appendix 2: Copy of RoWIP article

Appendix 3: Map extracts from the sub Regional Development Framework (SRDF) – East London (May 2006)

Appendix A: The London Borough of Redbridge – Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 to 2010/11:

THE VISION

In November 2004 The London Borough of Redbridge adopted a new “vision”:

“Our ambition is for Redbridge to be a better place to live”

To reflect the wide range of Council responsibilities and to meet this vision the Council adopted six key aims:

• Redbridge: A safer place to live • Redbridge: A cleaner, greener place to live • Redbridge: A better place to learn • Redbridge: A better place to care • Redbridge: A better place for business • Redbridge: A better place to live together

These aims are reflected within the strategic policies of the Council and are further endorsed within the Rights Of Way Improvement Plan. The Rights of Way Improvement Plan will help to deliver these aims and meet the overarching vision by outlining the Council’s commitment to delivering a rights of way network, including cycling, within the borough, that provides access to open spaces, is accessible by all and well maintained. The Core Actions set out in the Statement of Actions will demonstrate how this will be achieved.

The London Borough of Redbridge will recognise the Rights of Way Improvement Plan and Statement of Actions as a strategic policy and where possible will co-ordinate with existing strategic plans and documents to secure funding for delivery. It is proposed to re-assess the outcome of this RoWIP and republish a new RoWIP within 10 years.

1. Introduction

The Council is the highway authority for all highways within the Borough (except the Transport for London Road Network) including classified roads, streets, byways, restricted byways, cycletracks, bridleways and footpaths. Together these form the network of routes that enable people, visitors and residents alike, to travel around the Borough, whether for work, shopping, exercise, getting to school or for whatever other purpose.

Most of the highways are roads with pavements alongside. However, a small but significant portion are routes that are recorded on the Definitive Map and Statement (DMS). These routes are footpaths, bridleways, byways and restricted byways and are referred to as 'public rights of way' (PRoW) and it is these that the Rights of Way Improvement Plan (RoWIP) is mainly concerned with. Other routes that are included within the scope of the RoWIP are:

Cycle tracks: these routes are designated for cycle use only and possibly on foot. They may form part of the footway where shared use (segregated or unsegregated) has been formalised. They can also exist where definitive footpaths have been formally converted to cycle track. They are not recorded on the DMS.

Permissive routes: the use of these routes is by permission of the landowner and can exist as footpaths, bridleways or cycle tracks. They are not recorded on the DMS, and the use can be revoked at any time by the landowner.

2. Aims of the Rights of Way Improvement Plan (RoWIP)

2.1 Requirements The RoWIP is a strategic document, which demonstrates how the highway authority intends to improve the PRoW for the current and future needs of all users of the network. The requirement to draw up a RoWIP comes from section 60 of the Countryside & Rights of Way Act 2000. This places a duty on all local highway authorities to prepare a plan which must: • cover the whole of their area;

• include an assessment of the current Public Rights of Way (PRoW) network; • assess the extent to which local rights of way meet the present and likely future needs of the public; • assess the opportunities that local rights of way provide to the public for exercise and other forms of open air recreation and for the enjoyment of the area; • assess the accessibility of the rights of way to blind or partially sighted people and others with mobility problems; • highlight how the provision of local rights of way link to other strategic policies already in place with the Council; • produce a Statement of Action (SoA) that should outline Core Actions that will meet the requirements as highlighted from the assessment.

2.2 Guidance The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) issued detailed guidance in 2002 as to how plans should be prepared and this draft plan has been researched and written with that as its guide1.

There is also a body of other legislation that concerns public rights of way and their management; this legislation will be referred to, briefly, at the relevant parts within the plan. Where considered helpful, extracts are included.

The intention of the RoWIP is to set out how those ‘routes’ considered to be ‘public rights of way’, and referred to above, can be improved to meet the current and foreseeable future needs of users, including those with mobility problems. It is important that the RoWIP is seen as a strategic proposal for action and the 'Statement of Actions' will play a key part in the implementation of the programming of improvements.

_ 1 Adapted as Good Practice Guide. Visit www.iprow.co.uk/gpg

2.3 Assessment As discussed above the document must include an assessment of the current PRoW network. This assessment was undertaken by way of a questionnaire that was inserted within the free magazine “Redbridge Life” and accompanied by an article outlining the purpose of the questionnaire and directing the public to the webpage. The magazine was delivered to all households within the borough. The questionnaire was also made available at key points, namely OneStopShops, libraries, including the mobile library, and receptions at all Council buildings, and was also accessible from the Redbridge website (www.redbridge.gov.uk). The period of consultation took place for 6 weeks from 23rd June to 1st August 2008. See Appendix 1 for a copy of the ROWIP Questionnaire. See Appendix 2 for a copy of the ROWIP article. The responses have been analysed and are discussed at section 6.1. The consultation exercise was conducted in accordance with section 2.3.13 of the Defra guidance. This included the neighbouring Authorities, namely the London Boroughs’ of Newham, Barking and Waltham Forest, and PRoW user groups as well as the general public.

2.4 Scope and objectives. The scope and objectives of the RoWIP are much wider than detailed in this particular document as it is recognized that the borough does not have an up-to-date Definitive Map and Statement (DMS) for the area that makes up the London Borough of Redbridge. However, there are 166 routes that are used and considered to be PRoW, which are inspected and maintained as such, and it is with consideration to them that this document has been drafted. The Statement of Action (SoA) will set out Core Actions that aim to meet the statutory obligations and to develop and improve the PRoW network once it has been legally defined. In particular Core Action A addresses the requirement for the borough to have an up-to-date DMS and work has already started on mapping routes previously recorded in Essex which are now located in the London Borough of Redbridge.

2.5 Benefits of Public Rights of Way (PRoW) Greater public access to the outdoors has many benefits to both the individual and to society as a whole.

For the individual, benefits include:

• better physical health – reduced obesity and disease associated with sedentary lifestyles; • better mental health – reduced stress and increased self-esteem through direct contact with wildlife, greenspace and landscape etc.; • Improved overall quality of life – outdoor recreation with friends and family, source of artistic inspiration and cultural creativity.

The wider benefits to society and individuals by increasing access to the outdoors include:

• greater support and contribution to nature conservation activities; • increased understanding and respect for the natural environment; • An increase in economic spend by visitors and to the leisure sector in general.

3. About Redbridge

3.1 Geography

The London Borough of Redbridge is situated on the edge of the Olympic boroughs between the Thames Gateway and M11 corridor. The borough is located north east of London and forms part of Outer London which is a group of 20 London Boroughs that form a ring around Inner London. Together with 12 Inner London Boroughs and the City of London, these boroughs form the administrative area of Greater London.

Map of London Boroughs: Outer London boroughs are shown numbered in black, Inner London boroughs are shown numbered in red, the City of London is shown black. The London Borough of Redbridge is shown as number 14. Redbridge covers an area of approximately 5,600 hectares, with one third of this lying within Green Belt Land; it is therefore considered to offer one of the best living environments in the London area.

Location of Redbridge within Greater London

3.2 Demographics There are approximately 240,000 residents in Redbridge and this number is forecast to increase. Over half of the residents travel to work in other London boroughs thereby increasing the need for an integrated travel network. With reference to the forecasted increase in population in the East London sub-region, projected to rise by 233,000 to reach 2.24 million by 2016, the London Plan set a target to build a minimum of 142,300 new homes between 1997 – 2016; 10,650 are set to be built in Redbridge, a target of 1,065 new homes per annum. With this proposed development in mind, it is essential that the public transport system and its integrated network is developed and / or improved to meet this projected rise in demand. The RoWIP will contribute toward the strategies set out in the London Plan and other associated policies, and will highlight areas where public rights of way, for both walking and cycling, can be provided both within the existing environment and also through development areas.

3.3 Open Spaces, Parks and the Countryside

Redbridge has over 1,200 acres of forest, a large part of this being located within Epping Forest. In addition, there are 14 Conservation areas and 600 acres of green space and parks. The green spaces include parks with a more natural appearance and less formal layout, ideal for open recreation, as well as several traditional formerly structured parks, some with the inclusion of lakes, which together offer ideal areas with a variety of facilities for enjoyment, recreation and healthy walks for both children and adults. It is acknowledged that whilst most green areas have good access generally, there are some areas of high density housing within the borough which restricts the availability of localised open space areas. It is hoped that the RoWIP can recognise these areas and highlight, where appropriate, the need for improved access to the wider green areas of open space and therefore encourage widespread enjoyment of this facility.

These ‘green areas’ can be grouped as follows: 3.3.1 Open Spaces (i) Epping Forest Epping Forest stretches for about 12 miles, running from the town of Epping in Essex to Wanstead in East London, and is the largest public open space located within the London area.

The Corporation of London, a local authority responsible for the City of London, manages the forest and a number of other public open spaces within Greater London. Much of the Forest is woodland with open green areas, heathland and a number of ponds, with a considerable amount designated as a ‘Site of Special Scientific Interest’ (SSSI). The Forest hosts many notable species of trees, shrubs, plants, and fungi along with rare and endangered species as well as the more traditional inhabitants such as deer, woodpeckers and wildfowl and provides many opportunities for walking, mountain-bike trails, horse riding and fishing, thus encouraging the aspirations for a healthier lifestyle. The Forest is easily reached by trains, buses and the underground, and crosses the local authority areas of Essex, Redbridge and Waltham Forest.

(ii) Valentines Park Valentines Park is the largest and most historic park within the borough of Redbridge and covers an area of approximately 125 acres. It is set out as a formal park and hosts a Grade II listed Mansion as well as a walled area of garden laid out in the early 18th century that is included in the English Heritage Register of Parks and Gardens at Grade II. The area has been public parkland since the end of the nineteenth century and offers areas of horticulture that reflects the changing garden fashions encountered during the Park’s history as well as providing facilities for sports and recreation. The Park is maintained to a high standard and is currently applying for Green Flag status. It is possible that this achievement will increase the number of visitors to the park. Therefore, the possible impact on the current provision of access may need to be considered for improvement.

(iii) Hainault Forest Country Park Hainault Forest Country Park covers more than 300 acres and in 2006 celebrated 100 years of becoming an ‘open space’. The Park received the Green Flag Award for 2006/07, recognition of the high standard of maintenance and the provision of excellent facilities and amenities. A small area of the park has been designated as a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). The Park hosts a fishing lake and rare-breeds farm as well as a Nature Trail and guided walks with a Visitor Centre where further information on events and activities can be obtained along with interpretation guides for the many species found within the Park. Notice boards around the park illustrate the extensive network of permissive bridleways, walks and footpaths. It is possible that this feature could be extended to other parks and is discussed further in section 6.1.7.

(iv) Hainault Lodge Nature Reserve Hainault Lodge Nature Reserve was officially opened in 1995 and was the first officially recognised local nature reserve to be designated in the London Borough of Redbridge. The Reserve spans over 14 acres and has limited access to prevent damage to the variety of flora and fauna and its relevance to local history.

(v) Roding Valley Park Roding Valley Park is located on the west of the borough in a ‘Green Corridor’ extending from the Redbridge Roundabout in the south to the borough boundary in the north. The Park offers a number of recreational facilities including walking, cycling, and horseriding.

(vi) Fairlop Waters Country Park Fairlop Waters Country Park is located in the north east of the borough and is one of the biggest Country Parks in Redbridge being part of a larger expanse more commonly known as Fairlop Plains. The Park has large areas of open grassland, patches of scrub and woodland, three lakes, golfing, surfing and sailing facilities. There are many paths meandering through the park for walkers and horseriders and the main walkway around the main sailing lake is suitable for wheelchair users. These

routes are thought to be permissive, but further investigation will be required, and will be addressed in Core Actions A7 and A8. Redbridge Council has recently taken on the responsibility of the Country Park, and following a public consultation exercise, it was concluded that the open character of the area should be maintained and amenities within the park should be improved. It is envisaged that the RoWIP will assist with this project, both through funding sources and general improvement of the overall network.

3.3.2 Traditional Parks There are a number of traditional parks within the borough offering a variety of recreational facilities, particularly for the younger generation. All twenty-five popular recreational areas located within the parks and open spaces are fenced off offering a safe and clean haven for play. Sports facilities are available within the parks, including tennis, and pitches for rugby, football and cricket can be hired. There are also thirteen bowling greens located around the borough including a ring for casual play. These facilities are recognised for their contribution toward the development of a healthier lifestyle for all members of the borough and access to them is considered as a Core Action and discussed at sections 4.2.2 and 4.2.3.

(i) Seven Kings Park Seven Kings Park is an open space that provides a selection of sports facilities, including a skate park and a Re-Cycle Circuit (cycle circuit built from recyclable materials). It also hosts a bandstand where music can be enjoyed free of charge.

(ii) Goodmayes Park Goodmayes Park provides a range of activities, including a Re-Cycle Circuit, basketball, bowls, a children’s play area, a Trim Trail and is currently applying for Green Flag status.

(iii) Clayhall Park Clayhall Park is accessible by both train and bus and has many recreational facilities, including a zip wire. It also has a maze that is accessible by wheelchair users and a rose garden.

(iv) Barley Lane Recreation Ground Barley Lane Recreation Ground offers facilities for both adults and children.

(v) Christchurch Green Christchurch Green is a quiet patch of Green Space offering a childrens play area ideal for simple outdoor fun.

(vi) Westwood Recreation Ground Westwood Recreation Ground is a fenced-off children’s play area with specialised surfacing offering a safe environment for play.

Other recreational areas include Loxford and Ray Park and Salway Gardens.

These parks and open spaces provide many opportunities, both recreational and more formal, for people of all ages and abilities to enjoy the open environment despite their location within the urban confines of London. The RoWIP will look at ways to improve and, where possible, to create additional links to access these areas with the aim of making more areas accessible to a wider community. This will be discussed further at Section 4 where it will be linked to objectives currently in place in existing policies and strategies.

4. Current Policies and Strategies The Secretary of State has issued guidance on how the Rights of Way Improvement Plan (RoWIP) is to be drawn up and states that the RoWIP must link to relevant plans and policies and be developed within the context of documents prepared by the Council. Provision of a sustainable transport system is a major concern for all highway authorities and in order to support and encourage the move away from vehicular dependency to public transport and more environmentally acceptable means of transport, it is essential that the Public Rights of Way (PRoW) are considered and integrated into the programmes of current and future developments.

This section reviews strategies and policies currently in place within the wider context for London as well as those specifically drafted for the London Borough of Redbridge. The overarching documents are the Mayor’s Transport Strategy and the London Plan, which are delivered through the London Borough of Redbridge – Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11 (LIP) and other associated policies. Key areas where the RoWIP can be linked to these documents are highlighted and where appropriate, improvements to the PRoW network will be outlined in the Statement of Actions together with a programme for delivery.

4.1 London Wide (i) The Mayor’s Transport Strategy (MTS) The Mayor’s Transport Strategy (MTS) highlights the need for vast improvement to the London transport network in general. In particular, the strategy encourages a change of travel options, and includes the provision of more walking and cycling facilities within the City and surrounding areas. It includes an intention to promote the responsible use of open space and to protect and preserve biodiversity where possible whilst also promoting the additional benefits of utilising the area(s) for sustainable transport corridors and benefits to health.

The MTS includes a number of key deliverables as set out in Transport for London (TfL) guidance, but only those that are relevant and linked to this document have been reviewed. The MTS follows a 10-year plan and all boroughs have a requirement to contribute toward its delivery. The strategy covers all modes of transport within London, including walking and cycling, and promotes their development to protect and enhance the natural environment. It is envisaged that by developing and promoting the walking and cycling network in this way it will encourage more usage which will benefit the health and well being of the community. This strategy is very closely linked to the aims of the RoWIP. Local Implementation Plan (LIP)2 policies that can be linked with the RoWIP, and which would assist with the delivery of both strategies, are listed below with some being reviewed later in this section.

_ 2 The London Borough of Redbridge – Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11: Chapter 3

LIP Policies that are relevant to this RoWIP a. School Travel Plans 2005/6 – 2010/11 b. 20mph Zones 2005/6 – 2010/11 Footways and Carriageway c. 2005/6 – 2010/11 Refurbishment d. Strategic Walking Routes 2005/6 – 2010/11 e. Walking Plan 2005/06– 2009/10 Support for the London Cycling f. 2005/06– 2009/10 Action Plan Policy to make the cycling g. environment safer and more 2005/06– 2009/10 convenient to use Implementation Programme for the h. 2005/06– 2009/10 London Cycling Network (LCN+)

(ii) The Spatial Development Strategy for London (SDS) - (The London Plan 2000) The London Plan is the spatial strategy for London as prepared by the Mayor of London, whose aim is to provide transport to meet the predicted increase in the capital’s population by 800,000 people by 2016. It provides the framework for all other London policies, including those prepared by any one of the 32 boroughs that make up Greater London.

East London, which includes the borough of Redbridge, has been highlighted as one of the main areas for development, including employment, infrastructure improvements and housing. This development will link Redbridge with the wider regeneration taking place through Thames Gateway London Partnership and London-Stansted-Cambridge- Peterborough growth corridors as well as the regeneration of Stratford and the Lower Lea Valley area associated with the 2012 Olympics. As such, funding could become available to contribute to the delivery of Core Actions set out in the RoWIP.

As mentioned previously, the housing development target within Redbridge is set at 10,650 new homes by 2016. To support this level of improvement the London Plan

proposes the development of a sustainable transport system within the City and surrounding boroughs, to include the provision of pedestrian and cycling routes where possible whilst also protecting and improving open spaces. Key objectives set out in the London Plan that specifically link to the RoWIP are:-

• to accommodate London’s growth within its boundaries without encroaching on open spaces; • to promote social inclusion; • to improve London’s accessibility.

The London Plan further emphasises the need for these routes to be safe and accessible, both within the City, and the surrounding boroughs. It is advised that where practicable, these routes should link to existing public rights of way (PRoW), including pedestrian routes to school, and where possible, should include access for the less-abled.

To meet these objectives, the RoWIP will acknowledge existing and possible future links within these development proposals and the PRoW network, and will set out Core Actions to meet this requirement.

Furthermore, it is envisaged that by meeting these key objectives, as stated above, there will be a reduction in the use of the car which will help toward meeting the Mayor’s Air Quality Strategy targets.

These proposals will link to measures outlined in TfL Walking Plans for London, TfL Cycling Action Plan, London Cycle Network Plus and the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) which are discussed later in this section.

In addition to the proposals outlined above, The London Plan also promotes six strategic walks across London, and instructs individual boroughs, where possible, to implement the missing links within these routes. The RoWIP will acknowledge this

requirement as a Core Action where it arises within the borough of Redbridge (see section 7).

The London plan further outlines a proposal to extend the Thames Path toward London’s eastern boundary (the Blue Ribbon network) to create new routes for both walkers and cyclists, and for these to link to existing routes where possible.

(iii) The Sub Regional Development Framework (SRDF) – East London (May 2006) This document links to an underlying aim of the RoWIP as it identifies the importance of open spaces, parks and wildlife sites within the borough and, in particular, their contribution to the quality of life. The SRDF highlights opportunities that would enable these facilities to become enhanced and better managed and particularly notes the areas where there are deficiencies in the provision of this facility. For reference purposes, maps highlighting locations of parks and areas of deficiency are included at Appendix 3. The following quote highlights how the RoWIP links to, and enhances, the ideals set out in the SRDF through the Green Grid strategy and it is envisaged that funding for the implementation of the RoWIP may be obtained from this source. “The vision for East London is to enhance its mosaic of existing open space and create a strategic network of interlinked multi-functional, high quality open spaces, providing connectivity to and between town centres, public transport nodes, leisure and recreation uses, the Green Belt /Green Arc, the Thames and major employment and residential areas. This is known as the Green Grid”.3

Additionally, this development of open spaces and recreation will encourage more visitors to the area which will increase the value of tourism to the borough.

(iv) Thames Gateway London Partnership (TGLP) This partnership represents the interests of 12 local authorities who contribute at officer level through the TGLP’s Transport Task Group and Integrated Transport Working Party. External funding has been secured to implement various sustainable

_ 3 Source: The London Plan, Sub-Regional Development Framework, East London (May 2006)

transport projects, including the Roding Valley Way cycleway. Additional initiatives exist within the TGLP which include: • the London Thames Gateway Cycling Strategy and Action Plan, published February 2005; • the TGLP “Cycling Linkages” initiative – a partnership between TGLP and Sustrans to progress national cycle routes along the Thames Gateway.

4.2 BOROUGH WIDE (i) Local Development Framework Core Strategy (Development Plan Document) - March 2008 The Local Development Framework Core Strategy Document (LDFCS) provides the basis for all other Local Development Framework documents and sets out the long-term objectives for the strategic development of Redbridge. As well as conforming with the Spatial Development Strategy for London, (referred to as the “London Plan” and discussed above), the LDFCS Document also sets out the following policies which can be seen as potential areas for delivering or contributing to the delivery of Core Actions set out in the RoWIP.

• Borough Wide Primary Policies Development Plan Document – sets out policy for dealing with planning applications through development control. This will identify infrastructure improvements and links to the objective to create links to existing public rights of way; • Development Sites with Housing Capacity Development Plan Document – identifies areas for housing and mixed-use development and links to the objective to provide pedestrian and cycling routes where possible; • Development Opportunity Sites Development Plan Document - identifies sites for development, including transport network improvements and links to the objective to protect and improve open spaces.

(ii) The Community Strategy - “Making a Difference in Redbridge – A Community Strategy” (2003). (Now superceded - see iii below). The Community Strategy “Making a Difference in Redbridge” was adopted in October 2003 and its aims were to improve the quality of life for all people living in Redbridge. It focused

on key ambitions to improve people’s health, care and well-being and promoted a positive attitude to the environment and have a cleaner, greener Redbridge. The strategy set out five ambitions of which the following are relevant to the RoWIP:

• Ambition 2: “To promote a positive attitude to the environment and have a cleaner, greener Redbridge” – “by protecting the environment; enhancing green open spaces; minimising waste; and providing effective public transport and reducing traffic congestion”

• Ambition 3: “To improve people’s health, care & well-being” – by “delivering quality modern services to everyone, when and where they are needed; being healthy; giving children a healthy start to life; and promoting a culture of ‘feel good, feel better”.

(iii) A Sustainable Community Strategy for Redbridge - “Shaping Our Future Together” (2008 – 2018) This document supersedes the Community Strategy (see point (ii) above) and sets out the vision for the borough for the next 10 years. The Redbridge Strategic Partnership (RSP) have decided to keep the vision and aims adopted in the first Community Strategy as referred to above. However, the ambitions are more detailed and can be linked to the RoWIP more specifically as follows:

Ambition 2: “Improve / protect public green spaces – by promoting and developing public green open spaces, and modernising their infrastructure”. This proposal is closely linked to those set out in the LDFCS and London Plan and will be linked to a Core Action set out in the RoWIP, thus providing a potential source of funding for implementation of this strategy.

Ambition 3: ”Improve people’s health, care and wellbeing through increasing physical activity – by providing more opportunities for adults and the less-abled and by promoting the uptake of active travel with an increase in walking and cycling”. Also, “improving /developing local facilities – by ensuring equal access for all and by developing the Greenway through Redbridge and an environmentally sustainable facility at Fairlop Waters”.

These projects can be seen as opportunities to assist in the delivery of Core Actions set out in the RoWIP as funding for implementation could be provided.

(iv) The London Borough of Redbridge – Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11 (LIP) The LIP contains, amongst others, the Borough’s proposals for the implementation of the Mayor’s Transport Strategy for London, discussed earlier in this section. Where considered appropriate references to associated chapters within the LIP have been given. The Mayor and TfL are committed to working in partnership with many governmental groups, both local and national and to include strategic operators, forums, authorities, and other functional bodies to implement the MTS. Through this working partnership it is envisaged that funding will be made available to implement and/or support core actions as set out in the RoWIP particularly where they link to the provision of the wider transport network improvement strategy.

(v) Unitary Development Plan (UDP) / Local Development Framework (LDF) (2007)

Government and regional planning guidance identifies the requirements for sustainable development which includes reducing the amount of travelling and encouraging people to use environmentally friendly modes of transport such as walking and cycling. The transport principles set out in the UDP reflect this guidance and include policies to increase walking and cycling and to reduce car travel and its associated environmental impacts, thus improving air quality within the borough. Policy VS17 “Pedestrians and Cyclists” states:

“The Council will seek to provide safe and convenient conditions for pedestrians and cyclists, by providing appropriate facilities and will seek to expand the borough’s cycle route network”.

The RoWIP will assist in the delivery of this policy.

Although the Local Development Framework (LDF) superceded the UDP in 2007, it still focuses on the same deliverables as the UDP through Local Development Documents

and builds upon existing local and regional strategies and initiatives, in particular the Sustainable Community Strategy, discussed above. The LDF particularly focuses on protecting open spaces and related facilities and to improve access to these areas through, among others, cycle and on foot. It is anticipated that this link will enable funding to be directed toward the development and implementation of the RoWIP.

(vi) Cross London Partnership for Strategic Walking Routes in London The London Borough of Redbridge is a partner in the Cross London Partnership for Strategic Walking Routes in London which is managed by the Corporation of London as the lead borough. The project promotes six strategic walking routes: • London Outer Orbital Path • The Capital Ring • The Thames Path • The Jubilee walkway • The Green Chain Walk • The Lee Valley Walk These routes cover over 500km in total, and cross nearly all of the London boroughs, including Redbridge. Funding is available to implement and promote them, and whilst it is not known whether any sections of these promoted routes cross or include public rights of way, it is possible that a desktop study could highlight where additional links could be added in the future to include sections of the PRoW network. As Redbridge is committed to providing a wider strategic framework for the development of additional local walking schemes across the borough, the opportunity exists to create further links to neighbouring boroughs. By increasing the amount of walking undertaken by the people of Redbridge, and thus reducing the use of the car, it will improve the air quality of the borough, thus meeting a requirement as set out in chapter 3 of LIP.

(vii) The Walking Plan for London The Plan is in place to encourage more journeys to be made on foot, thus reducing the number of car journeys, and also to promote health and well being within the community. The Plan links to the key strategies as set out in the Cross London Partnership for Strategic Walking Routes in London and The London Plan 2000 as

discussed earlier in this section. The long term target of the Plan is to increase the average number of walking trips per year by 10% within the next 15 years. More information for planning walks in and around London can be found by visiting: www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/gettingaround/walkfinder/.

(viii) Walking policies Ambitions set out in the Safety in the Vicinity of Schools Initiative and The Local Sustainable Access Improvements Package4 have led to improvements to the walking network which include improving the signage, implementing surface repairs on public rights of way and helping people with disabilities. Redbridge subscribes to the Strategic Walks Network Commission Statement5. Further details can be found by visiting www.redbridge.gov.uk and searching for “Strategic Walks Network Commission Statement”. By increasing the available network and encouraging more people to walk it is envisaged that there will be an increase in the number of people walking to work, recorded as 6% in 2001 census. The ‘Walk to Health’ group’ offer guided walks in a number of parks within the borough. Their aim is to promote walking as a way to keep fit and improve health and general wellbeing. Further details can be found on the link: Walk to Health Details of other promoted walks are discussed at section 5.9.

(ix) London Cycling Action Plan There are currently 36km of cycle network within the borough which form part of the London Cycling Network (LCN). A number of Non LCN cycling schemes (LCN+) such as the Roding Valley Way scheme are being implemented in partnership with neighbouring authorities, thus increasing the total distance of cycling network available across the borough and linking to adjoining boroughs. It is envisaged that these proposals will increase the current 1% of people cycling to work (2001 census).

_ 4 The London Borough of Redbridge – Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11: Section 2.18 5 The London Borough of Redbridge – Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 – 2010/11: Appendix A1

The Cycle Working Group is updating the Council’s policy on cycling and will adopt an integrated approach, linking it to the London Cycling Action Plan, produced by TfL and setting a target of delivery by 2009/10. This is set to be a continuous strategic route, however, it is possible that links could be made through existing public rights of way which could be converted to cycle tracks to provide off-road links for less confident users. The borough also promotes cycling through the TGLP Cycle Strategy and Action Plan as referred to above.

(x) Equality Impact Assessment (EIA) There are a number of policies surrounding the delivery of the EIA, but notably the pledge from the Mayor of London that an integrated transport system will be developed for the whole city that is inclusive and promotes equality of opportunity for all. Reference to these associated policies promoted through Redbridge LIP can be found at Chapter 4 of that document.

(xi) The Disability Discrimination Act 2005 (DDA) The Disability Discrimination Act 2005 requires public bodies to promote equal opportunities for disabled and less-abled people. This includes access to facilities and services, therefore, service providers eg: highway authorities, have an obligation to make reasonable adjustments to the way they provide their service – this includes the provision of access to the PRoW network. A “reasonable adjustment” will be determined in accordance with what is practical in the service provider’s individual situation and what resources are available. In some instances, it will not be required to make changes if they are considered impractical or beyond the means of the provider. Failure or refusal to provide a service to a disabled or less-abled person that is offered to other people is considered to be discrimination unless it can be justified.

(xii) Redbridge Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) There are a number of good examples of habitats, particularly woodlands and hedgerows within the borough of Redbridge. These include Roding Valley, Fairlop Plain,

Claybury Park and Fairlop Plains. There are also 2 areas of Special Scientific Interest (SSI) and one local nature reserve. The local authorities act as custodians for the natural environment and it is essential, that whilst we develop and maintain sustainable modes of transport, as promoted through a number of strategies, including the RoWIP, consideration is given to the protection of biodiversity. The Biodiversity Action Plan can be viewed at:

www.redbridge.gov.uk/leisure_culture/parks_and_open_spaces/nature_conservation

5 The Definitive Map and Statement (DMS) 5.1 Statutory Duty

Local Surveying Authorities have a statutory duty to maintain and keep the Definitive Map and Statement of public rights of way (DMS) under continuous review6. Local Highways Authorities are responsible for ensuring that ways are adequately signposted, maintained and free from obstruction.

Copies of the DMS and all associated Orders must be made available free of charge at all reasonable hours at one or more places within the Borough.

The Definitive Map and Statement should identify and record the following public rights of way: Footpaths: a public right of way for walkers; Bridleways: a public right of way for walkers, horseriders and those leading a horse (use by cyclists on a bridleway is permitted as a result of the Countryside Act 1968); RUPPs / Restricted Byways: a road used as public path. As the use along this category of PRoW became so confused, legislation has now been passed to re-classify any existing RUPPs to ‘restricted byways’ - the rights being on foot, on horseback, leading a horse and a right of way for vehicles other than mechanically propelled vehicles, with or without the right to drive animals, thereby giving a right of way for pedal cyclists and drivers of horse-drawn vehicles.

_ 6 S53 Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981

Byways Open to All Traffic (BOATS): a carriageway being a right of way for vehicular traffic, but one used mainly for the purposes for which footpaths and bridleways are used.

5.2 History of the Definitive Map and Statement (DMS) for Redbridge The London Borough of Redbridge was formed in 1965, under the London Government Act 1963. This Act combined the Municipal Boroughs of Ilford, Wanstead and Woodford, the northern part of Dagenham and a small area around Hainault in the south eastern part of Chigwell Urban District and created the area now known as the London Borough of Redbridge.

Ilford and Dagenham were previously part of Essex and were therefore included in the ’mapping’ of the Definitive Map and Statement for Essex, the relevant date being 1st January 1953, published in 1961. A DMS for the post 1965 London Borough of Redbridge, as referred to above, has not been produced and is addressed as Core Action A.

5.3 The Public Rights of Way Network

As discussed above (5.2), The London Borough of Redbridge was formed in 1965 when the Boroughs of Ilford, Dagenham, Wanstead and Woodford, were merged. For the purpose of this document, the legally defined PRoW network only covers the routes recorded on the 1953 DMS for Essex at that time (see below). The routes for the remainder of the borough have not, as yet, been legally defined and hence are not included within the following statistics.

Number of routes recorded on the 1953 DMS that fall within the current boundary of the London borough of Redbridge:

Ilford Footpaths 12 RUPPs / Restricted Byways 1

Dagenham Footpaths 6

Wanstead and Woodford Footpaths 4 RUPPs / Restricted Byways 1

Chigwell Footpaths 3

Walthamstow Footpaths 4

There are a total of 31 routes recorded on the 1953 map, however, as mentioned before, it is acknowledged that Redbridge are currently inspecting 166 paths albeit they may not all be legally defined. One of the outcomes of this document is to identify those rights of way that are, and should be, legally defined and this element is included in the Statement of Actions. 5.4 Maintenance of the Public Rights of Way Network

Responsibility for maintaining public rights of way is shared between the landowner and the council.

Landowners are responsible for keeping paths on their land free from obstruction and for keeping gates and stiles in good repair.

The Council is responsible for ensuring:

• that the network is adequately maintained;

• that public rights of way are correctly signposted where they leave a metal road and waymarked where required;

• that all paths are passable and free from obstruction.

Although the network has not been previously defined, the borough has maintained most of their urban footpath network together with the remainder of their publicly maintainable highways to a similar standard of footways alongside carriageways.

5.5 Review of the current network - Ease of Use Survey The Audit Commission’s Best Value Performance Indicator (BVPI 178) recommended that a 5% sample of the network is surveyed biannually in May and November in accordance

with an agreed methodology, commonly referred to as the ‘Ease of Use’ Survey. It is not clear whether the survey has been undertaken with full regard to this methodology although it has been used as a guide. For the purpose of reviewing the table of results shown below it is taken that a route has ‘passed’ if it is clear from obstructions. However, it is noted that there may be issues regarding signage which will be addressed as a Core Action. As previously mentioned at 2.4, Redbridge Council consider their network to consist of 166 paths with a total length of 28854m (28.9km) and 5% of these have been inspected on an annual basis, at the early part of each year. The following table represents the results of the surveys for 2006, 2007 and 2008.

Table 1 Ease of Use Survey Total number of FP’s = Date of 5% Survey 166 April 2006 April 2007 March 2008 Number of footpaths surveyed 8 8 8 Number PASSED 8 6 4 Number FAILED 0 2 4 % Pass Rate 100% 75% 50%

5.5.1 Survey undertaken April 2006 The 5% surveyed (8 routes) were clear of any obstructions and therefore considered to have passed the survey. However, 6 routes did not have any signs erected at either end and 2 routes had signs in place for both pedestrians and cyclists. Further investigation will be required to determine whether these routes have been formalised for cycle use under the provisions of the Cycle Tracks Act 1984.

5.5.2 Survey undertaken April 2007 Of the 5% surveyed (8 routes) 6 were clear of any obstructions and therefore considered to have passed the survey. The 2 routes that failed the survey were obstructed by overgrown vegetation and, in one case, a shopping trolley and mattress had been dumped thus increasing the difficulty in passing. Signage was in place at both ends of 1

route, whereas 6 routes did not have any signs erected at either end and 1 route had signs in place for both pedestrians and cyclists. Further investigation will be required to determine whether this route has been formalised for cycle use under the provisions of the Cycle Tracks Act 1984

5.5.3 Survey undertaken Feb / March 2008 Of the 5% surveyed (8 routes) 4 were clear of any obstructions and therefore considered to have passed the survey. The 4 routes that failed the survey were obstructed by overgrown vegetation, rubbish and trees. Signage was not in place on 7 routes and 1 route had “no cycles” sign erected at both ends. Further investigation will be required to determine whether the sign has been erected under the provisions of a Bylaw or Traffic Regulation Order.

It is clear that the pass rate has shown a gradual decline over the previous 3 years, and it appears that the main issue is the cutting / clearing of vegetation. Whilst it is a statutory duty to keep public rights of way clear from obstructions, this requirement will be included within the Core Actions as part of a future programme of maintenance for the legally defined PRoW. It is also acknowledged that there does not appear to be a stringent process in place for surveying or benchmarking the condition of the PRoW network. This will also be addressed as a Core Action.

A further desk-top study will be undertaken as a Core Action to determine the legality of the signage as referred to above.

5.6 Current Provision As mentioned above, over the previous 3 years, the pass rate has demonstrated a gradual decline. However, it is not known whether, prior to 2006, there has been a high or low pass rate or indeed if there has been any consistency in the surveying of the network. It is not known whether any issues have arisen from the obstruction of those paths surveyed. However, it has been acknowledged that a standardized process / methodology is not currently in place and that the ‘network’ of 166 routes currently being surveyed have not all been legally defined. As mentioned at 5.5, this will be addressed as a Core Action.

It is also acknowledged that an up to date DMS is not currently available for the London Borough of Redbridge. Due to the historical development of the Borough of Redbridge it is necessary to publish the DMS in 2 parts. Part 1 will show all routes as previously recorded on the 1953 DMS for the Boroughs of Ilford, Dagenham, Wanstead and Woodford, and a separate ‘blank map’ (Part 2) will be produced for the remainder of the borough. The DMS’ (Parts 1 & 2) will then be updated through a ‘staged’ process as outlined in Core Actions A1 – A12.

5.7 Changes to the Public Rights of Way Network

The recording of a route on the DMS is conclusive evidence, in law, as to its status, position and existence without prejudice to the existence of any other rights that may exist7.

Once a PRoW is recorded on the DMS, it remains in place until a statutory order is made that may create, divert or extinguish the route.

The most commonly used procedures for legally changing the network are as follows:

i. Creations:

Creation Agreements Highways Act 1980 S25

Creation Orders Highways Act 1980 S26

Side Road Orders Highways Act 1980 S14, 18

ii. Diversions:

Diversion Orders Highways Act 1980 S116, S119

Town & County Planning Act 1990 S247, 257

Side Road Orders Highways Act 1980 S14, 18

iii. Extinguishments:

Extinguishment Orders Highways Act 1980 S116, S118

_ 7 The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 – Section 56

Town & County Planning Act 1990 S247, 257

Side Road Orders Highways Act 1980 S14, 18

Further, the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 introduced new powers for the creation, diversion and extinguishment of rights of way to be added to the powers already existing under the Highways Act 1980. These include the right to apply for:

• diversion or extinguishment by landowners or occupiers in the interests of agriculture, forestry or the breeding or keeping of horses;

• Diversion or extinguishment in the interests of crime prevention;

• Diversion or extinguishment in the case of rights of way that cross school premises in the interest of protecting pupils and staff at the school;

• Diversion for the protection of Sites of Special Scientific Interest;

• Temporary diversion of a footpath or bridleway for up to fourteen days a year in a case where dangerous works are being carried out.

Cycle tracks are created under the Cycle Tracks Act 1984 but are not recorded on the DMS. When a cycle track Order is made over a public footpath shown on the DMS, an Order must be made to remove the footpath from the DMS.

New routes can be added by way of a Modification Order if there is sufficient evidence to support their existence and status8.

Anyone may make an application to the Borough to modify the DMS. Once the Borough has received an application it has a duty to consider whether to make an Order to modify the DMS. If they fail to make this decision within twelve months, the applicant may request the Secretary of State to direct the authority to make the Order within a prescribed time. If the authority decides there is insufficient evidence to justify an Order to modify the _ 8 The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 – Section 53

map, the applicant may appeal to the Secretary of State. In both these processes the relevant Government Office for the Region carries out the Secretary of State’s role.

Where an authority decides to make an Order, it enters into a process of public consultation. This involves notifying landowners and prescribed organizations (e.g. Ramblers’ Association, British Horse Society, Byways and Bridleways Trust, the British Driving Society, etc.) as well as placing a notice on the route and in a local newspaper. Once the consultation period is over the authority may confirm the order themselves or, if there have been unresolved representations or objections, they must submit the Order to the Secretary of State who can make the Order, not make the Order (both without reason) or call a local public inquiry and make a decision once the Inspector has reported.

5.8 Future review of the PRoW network Whilst the BVPI178 has now been withdrawn, it is intended that the criteria and methodology for the survey will be adapted and adopted as a means of monitoring and general management of the network once the PRoW routes have been properly identified.

Future maintenance will continue as previously until the DMS is brought up-to-date, at which time, any changes that are identified will be incorporated within future programmes.

5.9 Promoted Routes 5.9.1 Walking Redbridge is host to a number of promoted routes and is committed to proposals, where possible, to establish links within longer routes that cross the borough. Existing permissive routes that cross the London Borough of Redbridge include the Epping Forest Centenary Walk, Essex Way, the London Loop and Three Forests Way.

A number of paths connect Epping Forest with the Lee Valley Park that is located within the neighbouring borough of Waltham Forest and links with Hertfordshire and Essex.

• Epping Forest Centenary Walk was created to celebrate the centenary of the Act of Parliament that saved the Forest from development to provide an area for public enjoyment. This walk connects Epping to Manor Park in East London. The Centenary walk crosses the local authority areas of Essex, Newham, Redbridge and Waltham Forest.

• The London Loop is one of six promoted routes within the Cross London Partnership for Strategic Walking Routes in London.

The London Walking Forum pioneers the walk and further information can be found by visiting;

http://www.ramblers.org.uk/info/paths/londonloop.html

• Three Forests Way is a circular route that crosses Epping, Hatfield and Hainault Forests. The route was created to commemorate the Queens Silver Jubilee in 1976 and crosses Havering, Essex and Redbridge highway authorities.

The fore-mentioned routes are just some of the walks available within and around the London borough of Redbridge. Many more are promoted through transport for London (TfL) websites, along with a number of cycling routes, which are discussed further throughout this section.

5.9.2 Cycling

Cycle routes exist through Valentines Park, Goodmayes Park, Loxford Park, Seven Kings Park and Roding Valley Way. These routes all link to the boroughs strategic cycle network.

In addition, cycling facilities exist in Hainault Forest Country Park, Fairlop Waters, Claybury Park and all Epping Forest Land (excluding Wanstead Park), bur it is not clear whether these are permissive or dedicated routes.

6. ASSESSMENT AND EVALUATION

Within the RoWIP, the authority is directed to assess: “… the opportunities provided by local rights of way (in particular footpaths, cycle tracks, bridleways and restricted byways) for exercise and other forms of open-air recreation and the enjoyment of their area”9; “the accessibility of local rights of way to blind or partially sighted persons and others with mobility problems”10; “….the extent to which local rights of way meet the present and likely future needs of the public”11.

Whist it is accepted that there is not currently a DMS for the Borough of Redbridge, the questionnaire has sought to assess how the public view what they see or recognise as public rights of way. It is possible that some routes that are considered in this way may be “adopted footway’s” which may or may not be recorded on the DMS. It is also possible that some routes that the public consider to be a ‘public right of way’ are private alleyways or non-maintainable public highways. Research will be required to determine their exact status and whether they should be recorded on the DMS. This action is included within the Statement of Action (SoA).

As discussed earlier in section 2.3 the assessment was undertaken by way of a questionnaire distributed throughout the borough via the free magazine entitled “Redbridge Life”.

_ 9 The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 – Section 60(2)(b) 10 The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 – Section 60(2)(c) 11 The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 – Section 60(2)(a)

6.1 Responses The free magazine (“Redbridge Life”) has a circulation of around 100,000. 96,000 are delivered to households; 4,000 are deposited at key areas (see section 2.3); A total of 34 responses were received; 3% of these responses were via the website.

Unfortunately this was a very low response rate and it is possible that the results do not reflect the views of the wider community. However, the results have been analysed and are shown graphically in the following tables and charts.

6.1.1 Q1 - How satisfied are you with the PRoW network. Chart 1

How satisfied are you with the PRoW network

40% 35%

30%

25% Access to open spaces 20% Access to amenities 15% General urban routes 10% 5% 0% Poor Good

V Poor V Good Adequate The response to Access to open spaces • Of those who responded, 9% considered access to be very good, 31% considered access to be good, 19% considered access to be adequate, 25% considered access to be poor 16% considered access to be very poor.

Access to amenities • Of those who responded, 7% considered access to be very good, 29% considered access to be good, 36% considered access to be adequate, 21% considered access to be poor 7% considered access to be very poor.

Access to general urban routes • Of those who responded, 0% considered access to be very good, 35% considered access to be good, 38% considered access to be adequate, 27% considered access to be poor 12% considered access to be very poor.

It can be generally stated that, overall, of those who responded, access to amenities, general urban routes and open spaces was considered to be good. However, more people considered access to amenities, general urban routes and open spaces to be poor than to be very good.

6.1.2 Q2 – What use do you make of the network? Table 2 Activity – %age of total responses Walking Cycling Horseriding Motorcycling Driving Using mobility aid Footpaths 100 33 3 0 7 10 Bridleways 73 33 20 0 3 3 Byways 63 13 10 3 17 0 Paths in Parks 90 43 17 0 0 3

Footpaths • 33% indicated they rode cycles along footpaths – an illegal use; • 3% indicated they rode horses along footpaths – an illegal use; • 7% indicated they drove vehicles along footpaths – an illegal use (unless there is a private right). Bridleways • 3% indicated they drove vehicles along bridleways – an illegal use (unless there is a private right). Paths in Parks • It is not clear whether these routes have been provided for a specific user group or whether all users have access to them. It is therefore not possible to discuss their use in detail. However, it can be seen that walkers are by far the most common user of these paths.

It can be said, that generally, of those who responded, walkers are the most prolific users of these paths, and that horseriders have very little use of them. It is not clear whether this is due to a low percentage of horseriders within the borough or whether it is due to a lack of provision for them. Further research could be undertaken to determine this.

6.1.3Q3 - How frequently do you use the network? Chart 2:

How frequently do you use the network 3% 6%

Daily Several days/week Weekly 54% Monthly Very infrequently 28%

Over 50% of those who responded use the network daily, and almost 30% use the network several times per week.

Less than 20% of those who responded indicated they used the network less frequently.

6.1.4 Q4 - Main reasons for using the network. Chart 3:

Main reasons for using the network

90%

80%

70%

60% 1 - Most important 50% 2 - Very important 3 - Important 40% 4 - Less important 5 - Not important 30%

20%

10%

s t n r g k s l s s or o a r p o e e p ti c kin o o o ti n s a e l w h h ili it n e h a o s sc c F a cr t w T o a tr e o g T o l f & f r t t o T a th o ir l c l e a A D i a d ed e o en H m p m O o nv T E

The respondents were asked to rate the importance of using the network for various purposes. The table shows that over 80% considered the network to be important in providing an environmental mode of transport and over 60% considered it to be important for open-air recreation. The network was also seen to be important for those accessing medical facilities and 50% considered it to be an important provision for health and fitness.

6.1.5 Q5 – Where do you obtain information. Chart 4:

Sources of information 100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

e s s c s s t g n e t p e e d o c e a n n e ti fi g i r l a f n M z te w s o ti a n o i il s g I n n c o a K a n p M l rg u n a o g c O C i o S L Over 90% of information is obtained from local knowledge, with over 30% stating that their information is gained from signposting etc. Organisations provide approximately 30% of information whilst Council Offices and the internet are seen to each provide approximately 10% of information. Provision of information will be addressed as a Core Action.

Additional comments included the library, OS maps and TfL cycle maps as a source of information.

6.1.6 Q6 – Would you use the Council website for information. Of those who responded 62% indicated they would use the internet as a source of information whilst 30% said they would not; 8% declined to answer this question, although some stated they would use the internet if they had access.

6.1.7 Q7 – What could be done to make PRoW more convenient. Chart 5:

How to make the network more convenient

40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% e ity c g c n nage ig ighti / S Publi L ing k ar m Remove barriers leaning /maintenan Way C

Of those who responded, 35% indicated they would like the network to be better maintained. Maintenance is a statutory requirement and provision of this service will be reviewed and an advisory programme of maintenance will be drafted as a Core Action.

Almost 30% of those who responded indicated that more signage and waymarking would make their use of the network more convenient. With reference to the responses to Q5 (Where do you obtain information) where it was indicated that over 30% gained information from waymarking / signposting, it suggests that this is considered to be an important source of information / guidance for using the network. It is therefore reasonable to accept that if the routes were inspected more often (ie:

biannually) and a procedure set, it is probable that a large group of users and potential users would be encouraged to use the network more. Signage and procedures for inspection will be addressed as a Core Action.

Approximately 5% of those who responded stated they would like barriers to be removed suggesting that only a minority of users consider there to be any difficulties with using the network.

It is proposed that a wider consultation with the less-abled user group(s) will be undertaken as a Core Action to ensure that compliance with DDA requirements is being met.

Other comments included introducing separate cycle paths and a revision of no cycling in parks. Whilst there are a high number of cycling provisions within the borough, it is acknowledged that many of these are ‘on road’. Any introduction of cycle routes within rural areas would need to consider the additional use by equestrians as it is recognised that there are very few bridleways within the borough.

Interpretation/information boards were seen as a requirement. This will be reviewed as a desk top study to conclude whether provision of interpretation/information boards within Parks would be beneficial or whether it would be more appropriate to provide leaflets as part of a publicity exercise. This is dealt with as a Core Action.

Monitoring & management was considered to be an element of improvement for the network. As discussed earlier, procedures will be drafted as Core Actions to ensure statutory duties are met and the possibility of a monitoring system will be investigated.

Improving links to open spaces was seen as an area for possible development; this will be reviewed as a Core Action.

6.1.8 Q8 – What could be done to make PRoW more enjoyable. Chart 6:

How to make the network more enjoyable

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

s c tes ce an w links darie ion et e ten oun p n u b s main circular rou e os cr interpretat Open a Better Creat More

Create links

Respondents indicated that creation of links between existing routes and across boundaries would make the network more convenient to use; as above, this will be reviewed as a Core Action. Maintenance of the network is also recognised as an area for improvement and an advisory programme of maintenance will be drafted as a Core Action.

6.1.9 Q9 – What users do you encounter problems with. Table 3: Route type User type Walkers Horseriders Cyclists Motorcyclists Vehicles Footpaths 21% 6% 38% 24% 21% Bridleways 15% 9% 21% 15% 3% Byways 3% - 12% 24% 12% Cycle tracks 18% - 3% 18% 18% Paths in Parks 15% 6% 38% 12% 12% Footways (footpaths 12% 6% 44% 15% 26% beside carriageways) Independent Footways 9% 3% 6% 6% 12% (adopted paths linking highways)

The chart above shows the percentage of problems from types of users on particular routes. Of those using footpaths: • 38% stated they encountered problems with cyclists; • 24% encountered problems with motorcyclists; • 6% encountered problems with horseriders.

Of those using Bridleways: • 21% stated they encountered problems with cyclists (it is noted that there is no restriction on cyclists using Bridleways); • 15% stated they encountered problems with motorcyclists.

Of those using Byways: • 24% stated they encountered problems with motorcyclists (it is noted that there is no restriction on motorcyclists using Byways).

Of those using Cycle Tracks: • 18% stated they encountered problems with walkers (it is not clear whether the cycle tracks are for segregated use); • 18% stated they encountered problems with motorcyclists (this could constitute an offence); • 18% stated they encountered problems with vehicles (this could constitute an offence).

Of those using Paths in Parks: • 38% stated they encountered problems with cyclists (it is not clear whether the paths are for segregated use); 15% stated they encountered problems with walkers (it is not clear whether the paths are for segregated use); • 12% stated they encountered problems with motorcyclists and vehicles (this could constitute an offence).

Of those using Footways (footpaths beside carriageways): • 44% stated they encountered problems with cyclists (this could constitute an offence). • 26% stated they encountered problems with vehicles (this could constitute an offence).

Of those using Independent Footways (adopted paths linking highways): • 12% stated they encountered problems with vehicles (this could constitute an offence). • Very few problems were experienced from other users.

It can be concluded that cyclists presented most problems for users of footpaths, bridleways, paths in parks and footways. However, walkers were considered to present the most problems on cycletracks. Very few problems were encountered with horseriders, possibly because there aren’t many in the area.

It appears that cyclists are considered to be more problematic than any other type of user. More investigation will be required to determine the full extent of this issue and these comments will be further addressed during proposals to update the Council’s cycling strategy as discussed at section 4.2.

General information Of those who responded, 53% were members of organisations or user groups.

A detailed response was received from the Epping Forest Riders Association highlighting the lack of bridleways within the borough. A number of improvements were suggested which will be reviewed as a Core Action to address the possibility of increasing this facility.

Additional comments made reference to specific issues, namely, access to the river, enforcing prohibition of cycling on footpaths, more direct public transport, distances of routes and possible links. These comments will be considered where appropriate.

7. STATEMENT OF ACTIONS The Statement of Action (SoA) outlines proposals for the long-term management and improvement for the PRoW and cycling network within the borough. It is acknowledged that whilst there is not a dedicated officer for public rights of way, the officers responsible for this function will continue to work closely with the implementation team to deliver the Core Actions set out in the RoWIP.

The SoA will identify what will be delivered as Core Actions and demonstrates how they will be delivered through links with strategies outlined in section 4.

As stated at section 5.3, the public rights of way network has not been legally defined and a project is currently in place to produce a DMS that will record those routes as defined during the mapping process of 1953. It is proposed that the DMS will be updated through Core Actions as set out below.

CORE ACTIONS Core Action A Requirement: Produce a Definitive Map and Statement (DMS).

Action A1: Produce a DMS (Part 1) for the London Borough of Redbridge based on the 1953 DMS for Essex and subsequent Statutory Orders that have been made since. Implementation: Consultants are currently engaged and it is proposed to have a published DMS by March 31st 2009.

Action A2: Produce a ‘blank’ DMS (Part 2) for the remainder of the borough. Implementation: Consultants are currently engaged and it is proposed to have a published DMS by March 31st 2009.

Action A3: Review routes that are recorded on the DMS (Part 1) for the London Borough of Redbridge (produced at Action A1) to determine those that may require formalising to reflect changes that may have occurred since 1953 Implementation: Desk top study to be undertaken. It is not clear whether an in-house resource exists to undertake this task. Funding will be required.

Action A4: Where applicable, formalise those routes identified in Core Action A3 by way of processing Public Path Order(s) and/or Modification Order(s). Implementation: It is not clear whether an in-house resource exists to undertake this task. Funding will be required.

Action A5: Review signage in place on routes to confirm that the formal process has been completed and the status is correct. Implementation: Desk top study to be undertaken. It is not clear whether an in-house resource exists to undertake this task. Funding will be required.

Action A6: Where considered appropriate, formalise those routes identified through Core Action A5. Implementation: Process Traffic Regulation Orders and/or Cycle Track Conversion Orders where applicable. It is not clear whether an in-house resource exists to undertake this task. Funding will be required.

Action A7: Undertake a desktop study to determine whether those routes (166) currently being surveyed should be recorded as legally defined PRoW. Implementation: It is not clear whether an in-house resource exists to undertake this task. Funding will be required.

Action A8: Review supporting evidence for those routes not previously legally defined (confirmed through Action A7). Implementation: Assistance will be required to undertake this action. Funding will be required.

Action A9: Produce Modification Order(s) to add all routes confirmed at Action A7/A8 above to the ‘blank’ DMS (Part 2), produced at Action 2. Implementation: Assistance will be required to undertake this action. Funding will be required.

Action A10: Carry out research to confirm status of pre-existing RUPPS (CFR’s) currently being shown on the newly published DMS (Part 1) as Restricted Byways, and process Modification Order(s) where necessary. Implementation: Assistance will be required to undertake this action. Funding will be required.

Action A11: Determine submissions made under section 53 Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981; set up a register for such submissions; report accordingly and process Modification Orders as necessary. Implementation: Assistance will be required to undertake this action. Funding will be required.

Action A12: Produce a Consolidated DMS for the London Borough of Redbridge. Implementation: Assistance will be required to undertake this action. Funding will be required.

Core Action B Requirement: Maintain a network that is adequately signed, well maintained and free from obstruction.

Action B1: Continue to survey all legally defined PRoW. Implementation: It is not clear whether an in-house resource exists to undertake this task. Funding will be required.

Action B2: Draft and adopt an appropriate process / methodology to ensure consistency of inspection and maintenance and formalise criteria for long-term benchmarking. Implementation: Assistance will be required to undertake this action. Funding will be required.

Action B3: Once the formal network has been identified, regularly survey and maintain those routes in accordance with the methodology adopted through Action B2. Implementation: It is not clear whether an in-house resource exists to undertake this task. Funding will be required to support the long-term requirement.

Core Action C Requirement: To assess and improve current access to Parks and Green Open Spaces and create network links where possible.

Action C1: To liaise with relevant departments within the Council to integrate the current PRoW network with the development of new infrastructure and create links where possible. To have regard to the protection of existing green open spaces whilst managing this development. Implementation: It is not clear whether an in-house resource exists to undertake this task. Funding can be obtained through projects set up under the Local Development Framework Core Strategy, the London Plan and the Sustainable Community Strategy for Redbridge. The Local development Framework promotes this approach.

Action C2: Liaise with user groups, including less-abled, to ensure access for all is provided as far as is possible and that all DDA requirements are met. Implementation: It is not clear whether an in-house resource exists to undertake this task.

Action C3: Liaise with stakeholders associated with the development of Fairlop Waters to develop the network for horseriders and walkers, whether permissive or dedicated, and link to the current highway network where possible. Implementation: It is not clear whether an in-house resource exists to undertake this task.

Core Action D Requirement: To assess opportunities provided by local public rights of way and the associated network to increase physical activity for all users. Provision for all users, including walkers, cyclists, equestrians and the less-abled will be considered when developing the strategies set out in this Core Action. Consideration will be given to the DDA where applicable. Where proposals affect cross boundary routes, the benefits of working with neighbouring authorities will be encouraged.

Action D1: Develop a Walking Strategy. Implementation: There are a number of promoted walks through London, and some sections cross through the borough of Redbridge. It is not clear whether the borough have a Walking Strategy in place that will utilise these already existing sections and promotion of shorter, quicker round route walks could be enjoyed by individuals, groups and/or families on a more leisurely basis. A Walking Strategy will promote the benefits of walking for a healthier lifestyle and will meet objectives set out in the SCSR.

Action D2: To liaise with relevant departments and stakeholders, including the Thames Gateway London Partnership, to ensure possible walking and cycling routes are identified through development areas and linked to existing ProW. Where necessary, undertake cycle track conversion orders to formalise sections of the cycling network that run coincidental with definitive footpaths. To ensure cycling and walking routes are safe and convenient as set out in the UDP. Implementation: It is not clear whether an in-house resource exists to undertake this task.

Action D3: Develop an Equestrian Strategy. Implementation: There are a limited number of bridleways within the borough of Redbridge, and in London generally. Through the development of an equestrian strategy it will be possible to identify both creation possibilities and limitations that exist on the provision of this facility.

Core Action E: Requirement: Improve information sources to the public.

Action E1: Promote the benefits of PRoW through leaflets and make them available at all Council outlets; publish articles in “Redbridge Life“ to promote the network and its benefits; provide information on environmental issues and habitats linked with PRoW; provide information boards in parks, as far as is practicable; make all information available on the website as far as possible: www.redbridge.gov.uk Implementation: It is not clear whether an in-house resource exists to undertake this task.

8. FUNDING

As mentioned above, production and publication of the Definitive Map and Statement (DMS) (Parts 1 and 2) (Core Actions A1 – A2) is in place and is being funded from existing revenue budgets.

Funding for subsequent work to bring the DMS up to date (Core Actions A3 – A12) will be required from future revenue budgets as this is a statutory duty.

Further to annual revenue budgets, there are currently no funds available from Government to implement Core Actions A1 – A12, B1 – B3, C1 – C3, D1 – D2 and E1 as set out above, although it is recognised that some of these actions are statutory duties. It is therefore necessary to fund delivery of these Core Actions through their association with current strategies outlined in existing policy documents and other sources. These could be, among others:

• Existing management and maintenance budgets; • Thames Gateway London Partnership; • Regeneration of Stratford and Lower Lea Valley (2012 Olympics); • Town and Country Planning Act 1990 – section 106 agreements; • Development of the Blue Ribbon Network; • Development of Fairlop Waters;

• Deliverables set out in LIP: Chapter 3 - promotion of transport development to protect and enhance the natural environment; Section 2.18: - improvements to the walking network; • Health Strategies; • Walking Strategies; • Cycling Strategies; • Development and promotion of walking and cycling routes London wide; • Transport for London (TfL). Additionally, some grant schemes are available to improve and maintain woodland areas for the benefit of the public at large, namely:

• The English Woodland Grant Scheme (EWGS), supported via the Rural Development Programme for England. The EWGS aims to sustain and increase the public’s benefit gained from existing woodlands and to help in the creation of new woodlands to deliver additional public benefit. Applications can be made for a number of grants, in particular and possibly specific to the London Borough of Redbridge, would be: (a) The Woodland Improvement Grant (WIG) – to create, enhance and sustain public benefits within existing woodlands. A WIG is available for “woodland public access”; projects that meet National and Regional programmes will be given priority. (b) The Woodland Management Grant (WMG) – a contribution designed to protect the provision of existing benefits to the public whilst improving the sustainable management of the existing woodland.

European funding is also available where sites for regeneration are identified which meet specific criteria, namely: • The European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) contributes funding towards a number of measures to promote regional development. Supporting Regulation (EC)12 outlines the following areas for assistance:

(a) improved access and regeneration of economic sites and industrial areas suffering from decline, Article 4(8) (b) depressed urban areas, Article 5(2) (c) rural areas, Article 4(6) whereby priorities are given to tourism, promotoion of natural assets and protection and enhancement of natural heritage

Applications and submissions for grants require time and resource. Funds will therefore be required for this stage of the funding process.

9. PROGRAMMING The following table outlines a programme of delivery for the Core Actions set out in section 7 above and makes reference to resource requirements. In most cases a delivery date is not specified as funding and available resources are currently unknown. However, a scheduled programme of delivery will be adopted when resources become available/established.

Table 4

Core Action Proposal Resource Delivery Outcome A1 Produce a Consultants March 2009 A DMS (Part 1) DMS (Part 1) are currently will be published. based on the engaged. 1953 DMS for the Parishes of Ilford and Dagenham. A2 Produce a Consultants March 2009 A DMS (Part 2) DMS (Part 2) are currently will be published. for the engaged. previously unmapped area now forming the London Borough of Redbridge. A3 Review Resource tbc The number of routes that required. routes that are recorded require legal on the DMS amendment

(Part 1) Funding resulting from (produced at required. changes that A1) and have occurred determine since 1953 will be those that known. require legal amendment.

A4 Process Resource tbc Routes recorded Public Path required. on the DMS (Part Orders 1) ‘mapped’ area and/or will be correctly

Modification recorded. Order(s) to Funding legally required. amend those routes highlighted at point A3. (DMS Part 1). A5 Review Redbridge tbc Inappropriate legality of Officer/ signage will be signage additional highlighted. along all resource routes. required. A6 Process Resource tbc Routes will be relevant required. signed correctly. orders, where appropriate, Funding for those required. routes detailed at point A5 A7 Determine Redbridge tbc Surveying and which routes Officer/ maintenance will are being additional be undertaken on surveyed. resource legally defined required. routes. A8 Review Redbridge tbc The number of supporting Officer/ routes that evidence for additional should be ‘added’ those routes resource to the DMS will not required. then be known. previously recorded on

DMS (Part 2) produced at point A2.

A9 Process Resource tbc Routes will Modification required. become legally Order(s) to defined. add those Funding routes required. highlighted at point A8.

A10 Undertake Resource tbc RUPPS will research to required. become legally confirm defined on DMS status of pre- (Part 1 and/or Funding existing Part 2). required. RUPPS being shown as Restricted Byways on newly published DMS and process Modification Orders where necessary. A11 Determine Resource tbc Statutory duty submissions required. (WCA81) to keep made under DMS under section 53 continuous Funding Wildlife & review will be required Countryside met. Act 1981. A12 Produce a Resource tbc DMS’ (Parts 1 & 2), consolidated required. produced at A1 & DMS. A2, and Funding subsequent required public path and modification orders will be amalgamated to produce a consolidated

DMS for the whole borough. B1 Maintain a Redbridge A Statutory duty network that Officer. will be met. is adequately signed and well maintained. B2 Draft and Redbridge tbc A standardised adopt an Officer/ methodology to appropriate additional ensure the methodology resource network is and required. surveyed procedure to regularly and ensure Funding consistently. consistency required of inspection and maintenance. B3 Regularly Redbridge The network will survey and Officer. be regularly maintain surveyed to a those routes consistent identified as standard. legally defined PRoW network. C1 Assess and Redbridge This will meet improve Officer strategic aims. current access to Funding Parks and required – Green Open UDP, TLP, Spaces SCS through integration with proposed development s. C2 Assess and Redbridge This will meet improve Officer. strategic aims. current access to

Parks and Green Open Spaces through liaison with relevant user groups. C3 Assess and Redbridge This will meet improve Officer. strategic aims. current access to Fairlop Waters through liaison with stakeholders. D1 Develop a Redbridge This will meet Walking Officer/ strategic aims. Strategy. additional resource required.

Funding required D2 Identify Redbridge This will meet future Officer. strategic aims. walking and cycling Funding routes required – through TGLP, UDP. liaison with TGLP and other stakeholders. E Improve Redbridge This will meet information Officer. strategic aims. sources to the public Funding and promote required – the benefits TGLP, UDP, of PRoW. MTP.

Appendices 1,2,3 & A

55 APPENDIX 1 London Borough of Redbridge

Rights of Way Improvement Plan Questionnaire

The London Borough of Redbridge, being both highway and surveying authority, are in the process of preparing a Rights of Way Improvement Plan, as required under the Countryside & Rights of Way Act 2000.

Please can you assist by filling in the attached questionnaire to represent the views of one member of your household. Other members of your household may complete additional questionnaires.

Please return your completed questionnaire before 25st July 2008

By post to: In the Prepaid Envelope (attached).

For all other general enquiries please contact the London Borough of Redbridge Customer Contact Centre on 0208 554 5000.

1. How satisfied are you with the condition of the public rights of way network within the borough

Very Good Good Adequate Poor Very Poor

Access to Open Spaces/Rural

Access to amenities (e.g. shops, schools, medical facilities, etc)

General Urban routes

2. What use do you make of the public rights of way network Please tick as many boxes as you wish

Walking Cycling Horse Motor Driving Using a Riding cycling mobility aid

Public footpaths

Public bridleways

Public byways

Paths in the local authority parks

Others, please specify

3. How frequently do you use the rights of way network in the borough

Daily Quarterly

Several days per week Annually

Weekly Very Infrequently

Monthly Never

4. What are your main reasons for using the public rights of way network List in priority order, starting at 1

Health and fitness

Environmentally friendly mode of transport

Open air recreation / enjoyment

As an alternative to using a vehicular route

Dog walking

Transport to work

Access to shops

Access to school

Access to medical facilities

Other, please specify

5. Where do you obtain information about where to walk, cycle and horse ride in the borough Please tick as many boxes as you wish

Local knowledge

Organisation, clubs, groups

Council offices

Signposting and way marking

Maps

Magazines

The Internet

Other, please specify

6. Would you use the Council website to help plan your routes if authorised routes within the Borough were categorised and shown on a map on the site

Yes No

7. What do you think the Council could do to make the public rights of way network within the Borough more convenient to use Please use an additional sheet of paper, if necessary

8. What do you think the Council could do to make the public rights of way network within the Borough more enjoyable to use Please use an additional sheet of paper, if necessary

9. What users do you encounter problems with when using the rights of way network Please tick as many boxes as you wish

Walkers Horse Cyclists Motor Vehicle Riders Cyclists Drivers

Public footpaths

Public bridleways

Public byways

Surfaced cycle tracks

Paths in local authority parks

Footways (running adjacent to the road)

Independent footways (linking between roads and /or other footways/footpaths)

Through routes (alleyways/passageways)

Other, please specify

10. If you would like to make any further comments about how we could address your needs relating to public rights of way, please attach an additional sheet/s when returning this questionnaire. This may include details of specific changes you would like to see made to the public rights of way network locally to where you live and/or more general concerns relating to the network within the Borough as a whole

11. Are you a member of any rights of way user groups, organisations or clubs

Yes No

12. What is your postcode

……………………………………

Rights of Way Improvement Plan 2010-20

APPENDIX 3

Source: The Sub Regional Development Framework (SRDF) – East London (May 2006)

Map 4D.1 Regional and Metropolitan Parks

Rights of Way Improvement Plan 2010-20

Source: The Sub Regional Development Framework (SRDF) – East London (May 2006)

Map 4D.2 District Park Indicative Deficiency Areas

Rights of Way Improvement Plan 2010-20

Source: The Sub Regional Development Framework (SRDF) – East London (May 2006)

Map 4D.3 Green Arc Initiative Area

Rights of Way Improvement Plan 2010-20

Source: The Sub Regional Development Framework (SRDF) – East London (May 2006)

Map 4D.4 Green Grid Strategic Framework

Rights of Way Improvement Plan 2010-20

Source: The Sub Regional Development Framework (SRDF) – East London (May 2006)

Map 4D.5 Green Grid Sub-Areas

LONDON BOROUGH OF REDBRIDGE Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 - 2010/11 Appendix

APPENDIX A

Common Statements by LCN+, LBPN, SWN, TGLP

Final LIP Appendix.doc LONDON BOROUGH OF REDBRIDGE Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 - 2010/11 Appendix

A. Common Statements

A.1 London Cycle Network (LCN+) Common Statement

A.1.1 Policy Context

The Mayor’s vision is to make London a city where people of all ages, abilities and cultures have the incentive, confidence and facilities to cycle whenever it suits them. Cycling is integral to the Mayor’s vision to develop London as an exemplary sustainable world city.

The Mayor’s Transport Strategy (MTS) includes a commitment to prepare a plan to guide the development of cycling initiatives. To meet this commitment Transport for London published the London Cycling Action Plan (LCAP) in February 2004. LCAP includes a target increase in cycling of at least 80% by 2010, and 200% by 2020 when compared to year 2000 levels.

LCAP sets out a balanced package of measures that will help achieve the Mayor’s vision and deliver all the economic, social and environmental benefits of an increase in cycling.

Objective 1 in LCAP is to complete the delivery of the London Cycle Network+ (LCN+) by 2009/10. This is to be a 900 Km long network of strategic routes that will provide cyclists with fast, safe and comfortable conditions.

This authority is committed to the implementation of LCN+ network links numbered 158, 159, 160 on land under its control (as shown on the attached map in Fig A1). We confirm that these routes and sites are safeguarded, to give protection against contrary proposals.

Additionally this authority commits to working with TfL’s Lead Borough (London Borough of Camden, LBC) and TfL and other stakeholders to achieve this.

The Traffic Management Act imposes a network management duty on all local traffic authorities to secure the expeditious movement of traffic (including pedestrians and cyclists) on their road networks, and to facilitate the expeditious movement of traffic on other authorities’ networks.

In fulfilment of its responsibility to deliver LCN+ schemes, this authority is committed to securing the expeditious movement of traffic (including pedestrians and cyclists), and will ensure a balance of network capacity and safety for all modes. Given that cyclists are particularly vulnerable road users, this borough undertakes to pay particular attention to accommodating their needs through sites where works are taking place.

A-1 Final LIP Appendix.doc LONDON BOROUGH OF REDBRIDGE Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 - 2010/11 Appendix

Figure A.1 – LCN+ Network Links

A.1.2 Programme

LCN+ is programmed to be substantially completed by 2009/10.

The table below is an outline programme to deliver the LCN + network over this period.

Link Number Crisp Study (yr) Works commence Works complete (yr) (yr) 159 / 162 2004 / 06 2006 2009 160 2005 / 06 2006 2009 158 2006 / 07 2007 2009

A-2 Final LIP Appendix.doc LONDON BOROUGH OF REDBRIDGE Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 - 2010/11 Appendix

A.1.3 Process

The LCN+ programme for the London Borough of Redbridge will be developed with our officers and the LCN+ team at LBC.

In order to ensure that the LCN+ network requirements are to be met, the individual scheme proposals will be initiated through the Cycle Route Implementation Stakeholder Plan (CRISP) process. This is a feasibility assessment on an LCN+ link that is intended to support this borough in scheme planning, programming, design and implementation by engaging stakeholders at an early stage. Using information gathered on existing conditions, opportunities and constraints, the CRISP assessments will recommend strategic solutions on each link. This borough is committed to use the CRISP process.

Additionally, this borough is committed to ensuring that schemes are designed in accordance with the TfL’s London Cycling Design Standards (LCDS).

In pursuance of this commitment, this borough will send scheme design proposals to TfL’s Lead Borough (LBC) for checking using the ‘LCN+ Design Check Procedure’.

All the links within the LCN+ network will have been subject to a CRISP assessment by 2007/8.

This borough commits to using existing and new processes that may be developed to support the delivery of this programme, including for example: the Monthly Monitoring (MM) reporting forms and the variation pro-forma, for network and scheme change control.

This borough commits to using road safety audit procedures on cycling schemes.

A.1.4 Monitoring and Performance

Delivery of LCN+ by 2009/10 is a key task in LCAP as a contributor to the achievement of the LCAP objective of an 80% increase in cycling in London.

Progress on the LCN+ programme will be measured by: ♦ the number of CRISP assessments completed, ♦ schemes designed and ready for implementation, ♦ additional route length delivered. A method for measuring additional route length (based on measures of level of service) is being developed by TfL.

The above is reported through the LCN+ Annual Report produced for TfL by LB Camden.

Another action arising from LCAP is the need to support highway authorities to maintain cycling routes and facilities to give confidence and demonstrate the long term commitment of TfL. A pilot asset management initiative was undertaken in 2004/05 and this will be reviewed and developed further in 2005/06.

A-3 Final LIP Appendix.doc LONDON BOROUGH OF REDBRIDGE Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 - 2010/11 Appendix

A.2 London Bus Priority Network (LBPN) Common Statement

A.2.1 Introduction

The London Bus Priority Network (LBPN) was originally an 865km network of borough roads across London that complemented the Priority (Red) Routes. It was developed in 1994 by the 33 boroughs and London Transport who jointly developed in liaison with the Government Office for London (GOL) and the then Traffic Director for London, a cross boundary bus network for the whole of London. To aid boroughs with funding and to assist buses off the original Network from 2003, the LBPN covers all borough roads that carry buses.

The LBPN partnership is well established and recognised by TfL and boroughs alike. The LBPN is now in its eleventh year and has been preparing a consistently accepted annual bid on behalf of boroughs for bus priority.

A.2.2 Project Development

The cost for the implementation of bus priority schemes on the London Bus Priority Network should continue to be financed at no cost to the local authorities. Over the eleven years the project has been allocated a total of £146.65 million and the recent announcement of a further £19 million for expenditure in 2005/06 is testimony to the success of the LBPN as a partnership delivering effective bus priority schemes across the Capital.

Up to the end of March 2004 the LBPN as a project has resulted in the boroughs implementing over 3,500 bus priority schemes.

A.2.3 Continuing support for the LBPN Partnership

Redbridge is committed to the continued support for the LBPN as a partnership that will: ♦ allow a co-ordinated approach to bus priority and provide a London-wide strategy that all boroughs could follow. ♦ ensure that the management structure remains in place to allow the boroughs to retain their independence but at the same time provide a co-ordinated approach and effective working on the project. ♦ co-ordinate future year’s package bids for funding through the appropriate bidding processes.

A-4 Final LIP Appendix.doc LONDON BOROUGH OF REDBRIDGE Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 - 2010/11 Appendix

A.3 Strategic Walks Network (SWN) Common Statement

A.3.1 A Cross London Partnership for Strategic Walking Routes in London

The London Borough of Redbridge is a partner in the Cross London Partnership for Strategic Walking Routes in London which is being managed by the Corporation of London as lead Borough.

Works carried out through this partnership will be complimentary and additional to the other works relating to walking contained in the London Borough of Redbridge submission.

This project is London-wide and will complete and promote the six strategic walking routes. These are the London Outer Orbital Path, the Capital Ring, the Thames Path, the Jubilee Walkway, the Green Chain Walk and the Lee Valley Walk.

In doing so it will: ♦ Make a significant contribution to making London one of the most walk friendly cities in the world. ♦ Promote walking in London and encourage more people to walk. ♦ Improve conditions for pedestrians along the 500km of route in the GLA area, bringing the six routes up to a standard where they are Connected, Conspicuous, Comfortable, Convenient and Convivial. ♦ Provide high quality walking experiences making London a more attractive place to live, work or visit. ♦ Increase the amount of walking generally but specifically the number of walk journeys made on the six strategic routes. This would have consequent benefits for individual physical and mental health and the local economy. Where these replace journeys otherwise made by vehicles there will also be indirect benefits including less traffic congestion, better air quality, lower noise pollution and a stronger sense of community. ♦ Offer attractive, cheap and reliable ways of seeing London, taking pressure off congested public transport in central London. ♦ Provide a strategic framework for the development of more local networks of walking improvement schemes, set exemplar standards for the design, management and promotion of quality walking environments and link the different authorities across the capital providing opportunities for people to walk north, south, east and west. The London Borough of Redbridge is committed to completing and promoting the six strategic walks and where the Borough has responsibility for maintaining these routes the Borough will continue its maintenance duties following the completion of any works.

A-5 Final LIP Appendix.doc LONDON BOROUGH OF REDBRIDGE Local Implementation Plan 2005/06 - 2010/11 Appendix

A.4 Thames Gateway London Partnership (TGLP) Common Statement

A-7 Final LIP Appendix.doc

LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

COMMON STATEMENT BY THAMES GATEWAY LONDON PARTNERSHIP

FINAL

MARCH 2005

LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION PLANS – COMMON STATEMENT BY THAMES GATEWAY LONDON PARTNERSHIP

1. PURPOSE OF THIS DOCUMENT

This document sets out a Common Statement for Local implementation Plans (LIPs) for 2006 – 2011 due to be approved by the Mayor by the end of 2005. TGLP, as a non-statutory sub- regional partnership, is not required to produce a LIP itself; however, LIP Guidance produced by Transport for London in July 2004, states that partnerships may contribute to LIPs by providing a sub-regional context (plans, policies and themes) within which boroughs can place their LIP proposals1. In addition, TGLP will produce a Regional Spending Plan (RSP) in July 2005 which will heavily draw upon, and cross-reference closely to, individual borough LIP submissions (See Section 7).

This document is therefore aimed principally at providing a sub-regional context for boroughs’ Draft Consultation LIPs and subsequent stakeholder consultation in the first quarter of 2005. An updated version, including details of the Partnership’s proposed capital programme 2006-2011, and reflecting TGLP’s own review of Draft Consultation LIPs, will be produced alongside the Regional Spending Plan in late July 2005, in order to feed into boroughs’ Final LIP submissions.

2. THAMES GATEWAY LONDON PARTNERSHIP

The principal objective of the Thames Gateway London Partnership is the economic, social and physical regeneration of East London.

Since 1995 TGLP has forged a unique sub-regional alliance committed to this aim, consisting of thirteen local authorities2, the London Development Agency (LDA), five universities, two Strategic Health Authorities and the London East Learning and Skills Council. This alliance works actively with the private sector, Central and Regional Government and local communities to bring about the sustainable regeneration of the area and the delivery of cross- cutting priorities for economic regeneration, training and education, health, social inclusion and environmental enhancement.

In particular, TGLP has a long and close engagement with London Government to this end and with the aim of enabling the sustainable growth of population and employment committed in the Mayor’s London Plan and the Government’s Sustainable Communities Plan.

In the last year, the Partnership has worked closely with the Greater London Authority (GLA), Transport for London, the London Development Agency, the Housing Corporation, English Partnerships and the National Health Service in London to draw up the London Thames Gateway Development and Investment Framework (LTG-DIF) combining key partners’ skills, resources and capacities in setting out a strategic framework for delivering sustainable communities in the London Thames Gateway. The Partnership is also working with the GLA to develop the East London Sub-Regional Development Framework (SRDF), due to be published in consultation form shortly, in order to inform boroughs’ Local Development Frameworks up to 2016 as well as the future revision of the London Plan itself.

1 Section 3.4.2 of the LIP Guidance. 2 TGLP includes the London Boroughs of Barking and Dagenham, Bexley, Greenwich, Hackney, Havering, Lewisham, Newham, Redbridge, Tower Hamlets and Waltham Forest, together with the City of London Corporation and, beyond the Greater London boundary, Dartford and Thurrock.

MARCH 2005 (DRAFT) PAGE 2

LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION PLANS – COMMON STATEMENT BY THAMES GATEWAY LONDON PARTNERSHIP

Transport is a key element of TGLP’s activities for supporting wider economic and social objectives. The Partnership aims to promote an approach to sustainable regeneration and community building which meets the current and future employment, residential and service aspirations of the sub-region based on concepts of multi-modal and socially equitable accessibility, without a commensurate and unsustainable increase in traffic levels, congestion and associated negative impacts.

Figure 1 – Thames Gateway London Partnership and the Zones of Change

3. THE LONDON THAMES GATEWAY

3.1 Population and Employment

The London Thames Gateway is part of the East London sub-region, highlighted in the London Plan as a focus for key housing and employment, education and leisure and supporting infrastructure. This integrated approach is also supported at Central Government level through the Sustainable Communities Plan, published by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister in mid-2003.

The current population of East London, as defined within the London Plan, is estimated to be 1.9 million people – 27% of the London total. This is forecast to grow by at least 300,000 to 2.2 million in 2016. A significant proportion of this growth – potentially over 200,000 - will be in six “Zones of Change”, broadly consistent with the London Plan Opportunity Areas and Areas of Intensification, as set out in Table 1.

Around 1.1 million people are currently employed in East London, around 25% of the London total. This is forecast to increase by around 250,000 by 2016, a rise of around 23%, with the largest increases forecast for Tower Hamlets, Newham, City of London and Greenwich.

MARCH 2005 (DRAFT) PAGE 3

LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION PLANS – COMMON STATEMENT BY THAMES GATEWAY LONDON PARTNERSHIP

Table 1 – Forecast Population Growth in London Thames Gateway Zones of Change

Zone of Change 2003-2006 2007-2011 2012-2016 Total

Isle of Dogs 15,643 2,563 1,210 19,416

Greenwich-Deptford-Lewisham 17,355 6,464 0 23,820

Greenwich Peninsula 5,453 13,420 10,064 28,937

Stratford and Lower Lea 14,025 29,602 41,808 85,435

London Riverside 11,638 1,960 38,157 51,755

Charlton-Erith 8,920 7,486 1,163 17,569

TOTAL 73,033 61,495 92,403 226,932

Source: LTG-DIF (2004)

As well as being a focus for future growth, East London contains significant pockets of deprivation. The overall Index of Multiple Deprivation for the sub-region is well below the London average3, spread across all areas of deprivation including income, employment, health, education and housing. Table 2 shows average ward scores for deprivation by borough, showing that Tower Hamlets, Newham and Hackney are particularly deprived. A key challenge is for transport links to support regeneration of existing communities and social inclusion by improving access for people in deprived areas to employment, educational and other personal opportunities.

Table 2- Indices of Deprivation by Borough

Borough Indices of Deprivation 2000 (Average of Ward Scores) City of London 16.0 Barking and Dagenham 37.9 Bexley 17.0 Greenwich 37.9 Havering 16.6 Hackney 57.3 Newham 56.2 Redbridge 21.9 Tower Hamlets 61.3 Lewisham 36.8 Average East Sub-Region Ward Score 35.9 London 28.7 Source: Office of National Statistics

3 The Index of Multiple Deprivation for East London is 1,197 compared to the London weighted figure of 2,418 and English median rank of 4,208.

MARCH 2005 (DRAFT) PAGE 4

LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION PLANS – COMMON STATEMENT BY THAMES GATEWAY LONDON PARTNERSHIP

3.2 Demand for Travel

Demographic growth poses a range of transport challenges. The number of cars and vans in East London increased not just in absolute terms but also per householder between 1991 and 2001. Overall the number of cars increased by 19% over the period compared to an increase in the number of households of 10%. As Figure 2 shows, car ownership is particularly high in the Outer London boroughs; there are, however, significant rates of increase in Inner London from a lower base. The forecast is for significant future growth in car ownership and traffic generation across the sub-region.

Figure 2 – Car Ownership in East London

Number of cars or vans per household 2001

120000

100000

d 4 cars or vans 80000 3 cars or vans 60000 2 cars or vans 1 car or van 40000 No of HouseholNo of No car or van 20000

City Bexley Hackney Newham Havering Redbridge Lewisham Greenwich Tower Hamlets Waltham Forest Waltham

Dagenham Barking &

The pattern of car ownership (and use) partially reflects public transport accessibility, as shown in Figure 3. Outside of Central and Inner London, large parts of East London, including some major brownfield development areas in Bexley, Barking and Dagenham and Havering, suffer from poor accessibility, limiting their potential for high density, high quality regeneration for housing and employment and perpetuating a pattern of travel dependent on the private car.

Figure 4 shows 2001 Census data for mode share for the journey to work for the TGLP boroughs. Whilst only around 25% of trips are by car in Inner London, reflecting lower levels of car ownership and greater public transport accessibility, the proportion rises to over 50% in parts of Bexley and Havering, with consequences for the rate of traffic growth and congestion.

Between 1991 and 2001, levels of cycling across East London largely remained constant. Walking, however, continues to decline, despite the fact that a sizeable proportion of trips are under 2 miles in length.

MARCH 2005 (DRAFT) PAGE 5

LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION PLANS – COMMON STATEMENT BY THAMES GATEWAY LONDON PARTNERSHIP

Figure 3 – Public Transport Accessibility in East London

Figure 4 – Mode Share for East London Journey to Work (2001 Census)

Total East London Outer Boroughs Inner Boroughs

Havering Car Bexley Public Transport Barking and Dagenham Walk Redbridge Cycle Greenwich Work at Home Waltham Forest Other Lewisham Newham Hackney Tower Hamlets City 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Mode Share Source: 2001 Census

MARCH 2005 (DRAFT) PAGE 6

LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION PLANS – COMMON STATEMENT BY THAMES GATEWAY LONDON PARTNERSHIP

4. TRANSPORT ISSUES AND PROBLEMS WITHIN THE GATEWAY

East London contains a number of characteristics which need to be addressed in a way that is consistent with the London Plan, Mayor’s Transport Strategy and TfL Five Year Investment Programme. Key issues include:

♦ significant traffic congestion on the strategic road network, with key radial and orbital routes and junctions operating at or near capacity in the peak and growing pressure on the existing highway river crossings;

♦ consequent environmental and economic problems, including poor air quality, noise and severance impacts on local communities as well as increased operational costs for business;

♦ lack and fragmentation of existing public transport networks, both rail and bus, and a frequently poor standard of passenger interchange, including access by walk and cycle modes and interoperability between infrastructure and service providers;

♦ vulnerability of scheduled bus services due to traffic congestion and on-street parking, exacerbated by lack of bus stop and lane facilities and effective enforcement. Furthermore, bus services often fail to penetrate fully into development areas and local communities or provide attractive frequencies or hours of operation;

♦ a scarcity of river crossings connecting north and south banks within and beyond London, compared with the west side of the Capital, including effective bypass routes for road and rail passenger and freight traffic in the Lower Thames;

♦ a public transport environment which often does little to deter crime or foster a perception of personal security, often discouraging the most vulnerable user groups from travelling;

♦ poor travel conditions, and lack of dedicated infrastructure, for cyclists and pedestrians in many parts of the sub-region, including long-distance strategic paths along or adjacent to the Thames;

♦ current and growing capacity constraints on the road and rail networks for freight traffic both to and from, and through, the Gateway;

♦ a pattern of land use and transport services which in many areas predates principles set out in the Urban White Paper and the revised PPG13 and strongly favours, and relies upon, access by car in terms of location, function, mix and parking designation; and

MARCH 2005 (DRAFT) PAGE 7

LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION PLANS – COMMON STATEMENT BY THAMES GATEWAY LONDON PARTNERSHIP

♦ a need for greater co-ordination in transport and planning policy and practice between the TGLP authorities, and partners in North Kent and South Essex on parking management and traffic restraint issues including consistency between the London Plan and Regional Planning Guidance for Eastern Region and the South East.

Failure to plan transport effectively to support the proposed scale of regeneration will not only result in high – and economically and socially unacceptable – rates of traffic and congestion growth. Not meeting the transport needs of business will serve to deter interest in development and inward investment, whilst not planning improved accessibility for the Thames Gateway’s communities will result in acute social exclusion remaining untackled and individual choice and aspirations being unfulfilled.

The London Health Commission has identified the use of transport measures as one of four key priorities for health improvement in London. Tackling safety and personal security and the protection and enhancement of the environmental amenity are all part of the TGLP Transport Agenda, the Mayor’s Transport Strategy and the London Plan to create sustainable and accessible communities to support growth and regeneration in the Thames Gateway.

There will also be a requirement to improve overall air quality in East London. For transport related CO2 emissions, road traffic accounts for 65%, rail and underground 25% and aviation for the remaining 10%. Current levels of CO2 emissions will not meet Kyoto targets although local pollutants such as sulphur dioxide; nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxide are projected to reduce substantially by 2010 as fuel and vehicle technology improves.

5. VISION, OBJECTIVES & STRATEGY

The overall vision for the Thames Gateway as set out in the London Thames Gateway Development and Investment Framework (LTG-DIF) is:

“By 2020, London Thames Gateway will be a destination of choice for living and working. It will form a new city within a city, with a well designed mixture of houses, a range of job opportunities, excellent social and cultural infrastructure and good transport connections to the rest of London, South East England and Europe.

Tapping into the development potential of the Thames Gateway will help to accommodate London’s growth without encroaching on green field sites or the Green Belt, will deliver significant quantities of affordable housing, and will improve quality of life through integrated social, environmental and economic revitalisation for existing communities.

Public sector agencies, and local and regional authorities, will work with the private sector to build new housing that is integrated with – and reflects the character of – East London’s existing communities, that centres on hubs served by new and existing public transport, and that is designed to include buildings and public space of the highest quality.”

MARCH 2005 (DRAFT) PAGE 8

LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION PLANS – COMMON STATEMENT BY THAMES GATEWAY LONDON PARTNERSHIP

The LTG-DIF also contains a more specific vision for transport and accessibility for the sub- region:

“A vibrant and prosperous Thames Gateway with an integrated and sustainable transport system offering access to town centres, employment areas and local communities and regional destinations by a real choice of transport modes. Public transport will be extensive, rapid and reliable, safe, convenient and integrated into local areas. Walking and cycling are preferred options for local mobility and use of the car and road-based modes for movement of people and goods is carefully balanced with the needs of environmental protection and social inclusion. Access and transport considerations are at the heart of every planning brief and the Thames has ceased to be a barrier to movement or perception. Land use and technology are creatively deployed to reduce the need to travel and create a natural and built environment which enhances peoples’ lives and daily experience”.

Taking this vision as the starting point, the Partnership has identified five key policy objectives which are consistent with Government overarching national objectives for transport, the Shared Priorities and the Mayor’s Transport Strategy. These are as follows:

♦ the enhancement of local and regional accessibility and transport capacity to support growth and regeneration, focusing on the Zones of Change and their commuter hinterlands and ensuring that all social groups benefit from the regeneration project;

♦ the improvement of environmental amenity including better air quality, enhancements to the public realm, preservation of natural resources and ensuring access by all the sub-region’s communities to open space;

♦ the promotion of social inclusion with respect to access to opportunities and ease of use of the transport system by target groups;

♦ the enhancement of safety and personal security in relation to public transport, road safety and public realm;

♦ the maximisation of resource efficiency, including tackling congestion, capacity utilisation within and between modes and transport networks, energy conservation and cost effective investment.

6. THE TRANSPORT AGENDA

Given the recognised importance of the Thames Gateway as a regional and national development opportunity, it is essential that the infrastructure and transport policy needs of the sub-region continue to feature highly in the Mayor’s priorities and are reflected in revisions to TfL’s Five Year Investment Programme, the revision of the London Plan and Mayor’s Transport Strategy and allocation of BSP funding to support local transport.

In addressing the challenges raised by sub-regional growth and regeneration, three principles are of vital importance:

MARCH 2005 (DRAFT) PAGE 9

LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION PLANS – COMMON STATEMENT BY THAMES GATEWAY LONDON PARTNERSHIP

♦ high density and high quality development must be delivered to promote the optimal land use solutions at accessible locations connected by, and phased alongside, the public transport system providing links locally, sub-regionally and to the international gateways within London and the South East. An appropriate mix of uses, inclusion of integral walking and cycling networks, parking management and travel planning must be at the heart of new planning briefs and masterplans;

♦ significant investment is needed to provide a hierarchy of high quality sustainable transport modes and networks which is efficient, safe and with sufficient capacity to encourage mode shift away from the private car and provide a robust demand base for new forms of urban mobility. New public transport connections are needed as well as a step change to the quality, capacity and connectivity of existing rail and bus networks;

♦ effective management of demand for car use through targeted initiatives to encourage behavioural change, when combined with land and sustainable transport measures. A combination of “smarter choices” and physical and price- based measures are likely to be required in the long-term, including re- allocation of roadspace, parking controls, Intelligent Transport Systems and consideration of direct user charging.

These three principles are mutually reinforcing and only adoption of all of them, in a balanced way will deliver the wider vision, with the benefits of enhanced public transport and selective upgrades to the highway network being “locked in” through an appropriate package of demand management. If progressed in this way, then the regeneration of East London can be undertaken within the capacity of the existing and planned transport networks and without an unsustainable growth in traffic congestion and costs to business and local communities.

Within these three principles, TGLP wishes to see action in a number of key areas as part of an integrated sub-regional transport and regeneration strategy:

♦ the Thames Gateway River Crossings package, with a focus on Thames Gateway Bridge, but expanded to include Crossrail Line 1 and further crossings of the Lower Thames east of Dartford. In particular, TGLP has pushed hard to secure innovative tolling and public transport provision for Thames Gateway Bridge. Looking longer-term, the Lower Thames Crossing has the potential to provide a strategic connection of regional and national importance by offering an eastern bypass of London for long-distance passenger and freight traffic;

♦ rapid progress towards powers to construct Crossrail Line 1 and approval of funding from the Treasury in parallel with the current Hybrid Bill process. TGLP is also pressing for a Crossrail station at Woolwich and the extension of services to Ebbsfleet;

♦ development of a sub-regional Thames Gateway Transit beyond the initial phases for the East London and Greenwich Waterfront Transit schemes in the TfL Five Year Investment Programme and using high-quality bus-based transit technology to offer a step-change from “conventional” bus services;

MARCH 2005 (DRAFT) PAGE 10

LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION PLANS – COMMON STATEMENT BY THAMES GATEWAY LONDON PARTNERSHIP

♦ extensions to the Docklands Light Railway, particularly to Woolwich, Dagenham Dock and other locations dependent on the outcomes of the 2020 Horizons Study;

♦ maximising the benefits of Phase II of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link, including the introduction of attractive levels of CTRL Domestic Services via Stratford and Ebbsfleet from 2007;

♦ improving key corridors of the existing rail network, including the East London Line Extension, Thameslink 2000, c2c and North Kent Lines and enhancing the capacity and quality of interchange at locations such as Stratford and Lewisham;

♦ improved surface access to ports and airports, in particular in the context of demand growth and a second runway at Stansted, as set out in the Aviation White Paper;

♦ selective improvements to the highway network where these provide environmental relief or provide essential capacity to serve development sites;

♦ enhancements to bus services as effective local and feeder public transport which can be delivered in the interim ahead of longer-term fixed-track system;

♦ the promotion of walking and cycling, through early completion of the LCN+ and progression of National Cycle Network routes 1 and 13 north and south of the Thames, as well as a sub-regional programme of cycling training and promotional activities, linked to employer and school travel plans;

♦ promotion of sustainable distribution principles for the movement of freight, including Freight Quality Partnerships for selected town centres and industrial areas; and

♦ an effective and appropriate demand management strategy, including re- allocation of highway capacity to bus and transit services, flexible tolls on new road river crossings, and progression of an intensive and targeted programme of travel awareness and travel planning activity. In the longer-term, there is evidence that road user charging may offer the most effective means of managing demand across the network.

Delivery of the full programme of improvements will go beyond the life of the current London Plan and TfL Five Year Investment Programme and will require commitment of resources within and beyond the timescale of borough LIPs.

Figure 5 shows the future transport schemes that are proposed and or planned by 2016, by TfL and others, to facilitate the growth in the Thames Gateway. Particular focus is given to those schemes which are not yet fully committed or funded, and for which TGLP continues to press key decision makers. The phasing of key transport investments is set out in Appendix A of this document.

MARCH 2005 (DRAFT) PAGE 11

LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION PLANS – COMMON STATEMENT BY THAMES GATEWAY LONDON PARTNERSHIP

Figure 5 – Future Transport Schemes in the London Thames Gateway

The Partnership continues to support regional and local transport and access improvements aimed at opening up housing and employment sites, boosting developer confidence and allowing quality developments to be brought forward more quickly. To this end, the Partnership supported and now welcomes the recent announcement of a number of schemes shortlisted for funding consideration through the Government’s Community Infrastructure Fund (CIF). Boroughs and other delivery agents are now providing appraisal information for schemes worth £45 million in East and North East London, together with funding for the first phases of East London Transit and Greenwich Waterfront Transit. This funding, which will support delivery of enhancements in 2006-2007 and 2007-2008, will provide a valuable additional resources for borough LIP proposals supplementary to BSP funding from TfL.

Effective management of demand for car use through targeted initiatives to encourage behavioural change, intelligent transport systems, parking restrictions and pricing measures, when combined with sustainable land use patterns and effective public transport alternatives, will reduce the incentives to travel and discourage inessential car use. It will also play a crucial role in achieving a modal shift to alternative modes and more efficient use of the car in terms of the available network capacity and hierarchy. Direct pricing for road use is already used for cross-river trips at the Dartford crossing and is planned for Thames Gateway Bridge. (TGLP believes there is a case for extending this principle to other river crossings, key centres and, ultimately, area wide across the sub-region, whilst effective network management will also be vital to ensure sustainable distribution of goods and services within East London and to and from surrounding areas. This area is likely to form an important part of TGLP research over the next year, drawing on the findings from the Gateway Integrated Land Use and Transport Study (GILTS) when the current work programme is completed.

MARCH 2005 (DRAFT) PAGE 12

LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION PLANS – COMMON STATEMENT BY THAMES GATEWAY LONDON PARTNERSHIP

7. TGLP REGIONAL SPENDING PLAN

TGLP supports the Mayor’s objectives and priorities set out in his Transport Strategy. In particular, it supports the priorities for reducing traffic congestion, providing new cross- London rail links, new Thames river crossings and improving access to town centres and regeneration areas in order to:

♦ complement regeneration initiatives;

♦ support and develop the role of London’s town centres;

♦ complement wider initiatives to tackle unemployment and social exclusion;

♦ provide improved local, regional, national and international access to key employment and development locations;

♦ encourage and enable patterns of land use that support sustainable patterns of travel; and

♦ improve travel choice and quality.

TGLP provides both a sub-regional context and funding mechanism for boroughs in progressing their LIPs. In particular, in July 2005, TGLP will be developing a Regional Spending Plan that will closely link to borough LIPs and include some of the schemes highlighted above. TGLP boroughs are progressing with their Draft Consultation LIPs currently and TGLP will be assisting them in the development of their Final LIPs where required, including in the context of future funding bids.

For 2005-2006, TGLP received substantial annual funding award for local transport improvements in East and South East London. This totals £3.4 million and will support schemes to improve town centres, interchanges, walking and cycling and the promotion of travel plans to employers. Figure 6 breaks down the 2005-2006 allocation by topic area. Amongst the schemes which will benefit from funding in 2005-2006 are:

♦ the construction of a new interchange between the Docklands Light Railway and local bus services in Beckton (Newham);

♦ environmental and traffic management improvements on the A1306 between Dagenham and Rainham, related to its “detrunking” after the opening of the new A13 between Dagenham and the M25 (Havering);

♦ additional support for measures to reduce traffic dominance and give greater priority to buses, pedestrians and cyclists in Woolwich and Ilford town centres (Greenwich and Redbridge);

♦ continued construction of the Roding Valley Way, a shared pedestrian and cycle path between Woodford and Beckton, as well as support for other measures to promote cycling and walking (Redbridge, Barking and Dagenham and Newham);

♦ travel awareness and travel plan promotion and marketing across the whole of the TGLP area through TGLP’s own Travel Plan Co-ordinator; and

MARCH 2005 (DRAFT) PAGE 13

LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION PLANS – COMMON STATEMENT BY THAMES GATEWAY LONDON PARTNERSHIP

♦ support developing best practice in Freight Quality Partnerships in town centres and employment areas, focusing particularly on the Belvedere Employment Area (Bexley), but with scope for wider dissemination of good practice.

Taking this and previous funding awards into account, the Partnership has now successfully secured over £12.5 million for transport investment from TfL since the Mayor’s election in 2000. Substantial additional investment for transport in the London Thames Gateway is also coming from the Government’s Sustainable Communities Fund, Community Infrastructure Fund and the mainstream programmes of the TfL Business Plan.

Figure 6 – Breakdown of TGLP Regional Spending Plan Programme by Topic Area 2005-2006

Travel Awareness Management 2% 5% Freight 1% Town Centres Cycling 26% 10%

Station Access 28%

Streets for People 28%

Source: TGLP, based on 2005-2006 Baseline Programme Proforma.

The Regional Spending Plan to be produced by the Partnership in July 2005 will support boroughs’ LIPs by including funding bids for:

♦ the completion of current area-based schemes (e.g. Ilford Town Centre) and proposals for new projects (e.g. Catford);

♦ scheme development for Station Access proposals at locations across East London, building on work already carried out by SELTRANS south of the river;

♦ proposals for bus priority and measures to support bus services, especially where schemes cross borough boundaries, or represent demonstration projects for new concepts in roadspace allocation or vehicle technology;

♦ cycling initiatives, including completion of the Roding Valley Way and the shift of funding to the commencement and/or continuation of delivery of National Cycle Network routes 1, 4 and 13, in partnership with Sustrans;

♦ complementary schemes for TfL Major Projects, particularly focused on Thames Gateway Transit, the DLR and the East London Line;

MARCH 2005 (DRAFT) PAGE 14

LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION PLANS – COMMON STATEMENT BY THAMES GATEWAY LONDON PARTNERSHIP

♦ a continuing programme of targeted travel planning and travel awareness activity; and

♦ further development of Freight Quality Partnerships.

The programme will be delivered by TGLP working closely with its member boroughs, TfL, the LDA and other stakeholders as necessary. Whilst each project will be managed by a Lead Borough, activities will be monitored through the TGLP Transport Task Group, the Integrated Transport Working Party and the Transport Team based within the TGLP Unit.

The Regional Spending Plan will also include an updated Common Statement to accompany boroughs’ Final LIP submissions to the Mayor/TfL.

8. IMPLEMENTATION

The Mayor and TfL will need to develop and work in partnership with the boroughs and other strategic stakeholders, such as the East London Urban Development Corporation and private sector, to deliver the full transport agenda in East London as set out above. Delivery of an effective transport programme for the sub-region will require:

♦ the promotion of the required improvements in key planning documents, such as the TfL Business Plan, Regional Planning Assessments, the emerging Regional Spatial Strategies for the South East and East of England, revision of the London Plan and boroughs’ Local Development Frameworks and Local Implementation Plans;

♦ the securing of additional funding over and above current TfL commitments, especially for Crossrail Line 1 and other enhancements to the rail network, as well as local enhancements designed to promote regeneration and support growth;

♦ a closer phasing of the introduction of new public transport capacity to planned development, including through more tightly focused Section 106 Agreements;

♦ joint working with TfL and the boroughs to consider transport investments as elements in a comprehensive network rather than stand-alone competing schemes; and

♦ action by boroughs to identify and safeguard roadspace and land to support segregated alignments for light rail, transit and bus services, assisted as necessary by TfL and other partners in support of feasibility planning and funding commitments; and

♦ the active consideration by boroughs, supported by TfL and TGLP as necessary, of safeguarding of land for new river crossings and their approach routes, and the development of appropriate complementary measures, including bus and transit connections.

MARCH 2005 (DRAFT) PAGE 15

LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION PLANS – COMMON STATEMENT BY THAMES GATEWAY LONDON PARTNERSHIP

9. FURTHER DETAILS

Further details of the East London sub-regional context for borough LIPs and linkages between LIP proposals and TGLP funding bid submissions will be set out in full in the Regional Spending Plan submission in July. The full TGLP document will be included with the BSP submission from LB Barking and Dagenham as the Accountable Body for TGLP.

Further details of TGLP’s activities and the 2006-2011 submission can be found on www.thames-gateway.org.uk.

MARCH 2005 (DRAFT) PAGE 16