London Councils’ Transport & Environment Committee

Thursday 14 June 2018 Supplementary Agenda 2:30pm in the Conference Suite, London Councils, 59½ Southwark Street, London SE1 0AL

Labour Group: Meeting Room 4 at 1.30pm

Conservative Group: Meeting Room 1 at 1.30pm

Liberal Democrat Group: Meeting Room 8 at 1.30pm

Tel: 020 7934 9911 Contact Officer: Alan Edwards Email: [email protected]

Supplementary Agenda Papers

7 Electric Vehicle Rapid Charging-Point Sub Group

12 Funding Flood Alleviation in London

16 Direct Vision Standard for Heavy Goods Vehicles Update

17 Taxicard Update

18 Freedom Pass Progress Report

London Councils’ Transport and Environment Committee

Electric Vehicle Rapid Charging-Point Item Sub Group No: 07

Report by: Alan Edwards Job title: Governance Manager

Date: 14 June 2018

Contact Alan Edwards Officer:

Telephone: 020 7934 9911 Email: [email protected]

Summary: This report sets out the arrangements for the Electric Vehicle Rapid Charging-Point Sub Group (EV Rapid Charging-Point Sub Group or EVRCP). The EVRCP Terms of Reference can be found at Appendix A of this report.

Recommendations: The Committee is asked to:  Review the membership of the EV Rapid Charging-Point Sub Group for the municipal year for 2018/19; and  Note the report and approve the EV Rapid Charging-Point Terms of Reference at Appendix A.

Background 1. The increase in electric vehicle rapid charging points is an important element of the Go Ultra Low City Scheme (GULCS) jointly delivered by TfL, the GLA and London Councils. In response to concerns about the rate of installation of rapid charging points and consistent with a recommendation of the 20 March 2018 Leaders’ Committee, this Committee on 22 March 2018 agreed to set up a Member-level EV Rapid Charging-Point Sub Group.

2. The Terms of Reference of the EVCP have been updated to provide clarity on the operation of this TEC sub-committee and are attached, with tracked changes at Appendix A. In particular, the changes clarify that this sub- committee’s activities complement the work undertaken by the GULCS in this area and that it operates separately to the GULCS in accordance with London Councils’ own governance arrangements. It is anticipated that the work of this sub-committee will be shared with the GULCS by London Councils’

EV Rapid Charging-Point Sub Group London Councils’ TEC – 14 June 2018 Agenda Item 7, Page 1

representatives on the GULCS Steering Group in accordance with TEC’s and GULCS’ separate governance structures.

3. At the TEC meeting on 22 March 2018, it was agreed that the composition of the EV Rapid Charging-Point Sub Group would be as follows:

Cllr Julian Bell (LB Ealing, Labour - Chair) Cllr Feryal Demirci (LB Hackney, Labour Vice Chair) Cllr Jennifer Brathwaite (LB Lambeth, Labour) Cllr Phil Doyle (RB Kingston, Conservative Vice Chair) Cllr William Huntingdon Thresher (LB Bromley, Conservative) Cllr Jill Whitehead (LB Sutton, Liberal Democrat Vice Chair)

4. The above composition of the EV Rapid Charging-Point Sub Group will need to be reviewed at this meeting to take into account any changes to the membership, as a result of the recent London local elections that were held on 3 May 2018.

Recommendations

 Review the membership of the EV Rapid Charging-Point Sub Group for the municipal year for 2018/19; and  Note the report and approve the EV Rapid Charging-Point Terms of Reference at Appendix A. Financial Implications

5. There are no financial implications to London Councils arising from this report.

Legal Implications

6. These are included in the body of this report.

Equalities Implications

There are no equalities implications to London Councils arising from this report

Background Papers

Short Title of Date File Location Contact Officer Exempt Info Document Para under Schedule 12A TEC Minutes 22 March London Councils’ Alan Edwards N/A 2018 Offices, Southwark St

EV Rapid Charging-Point Sub Group London Councils’ TEC – 14 June 2018 Agenda Item 7, Page 2 Appendix A

Electric Vehicle Rapid Charging-Point Sub Group

The Electric Vehicle Rapid Charging-Point Sub Group is a Sub-Committee of TEC, formed to consider the emerging pan-London response to developing Electric Vehicle Rapid Charging- Point issues.

Aim

To seek to enhance the provision of rapid Eelectric Vvehicle charging-points across London through discussion and provision of advice to TECand to consider setting appropriate targets for their installation.

Quorum

The quorum shall be one third of the membership . as set out in London Councils Standing Orders1.

Membership The group will comprise six members, three drawn from the Labour Party, two from the Conservative Party and one from the Liberal Democrat Party

Terms of Reference

1) To provide a dedicated TEC member- level forum Sub-Committee for discussion of eElectric Vvehicle rapid charging-point issues and to offer advice on any pan-London response to TEC.

2) To consult and engage with relevant stakeholders, including the Go Ultra Low City Scheme, in relation to the development of policy in respect of electric vehicles rapid charging-point issuesTo monitor any targets set for installation and report on them.

3) The Members’ GroupSub-Committee will report back to the GULCS Steering Group, TEC and, where appropriate, its Executive, having no delegated authority of its own.

1 Standing Order 6.1 The quorum shall be one third of, the nearest number to one third, but not less than three members

Appendix A: EV Charging-Point Sub Group London Councils’ TEC – 14 June 2018 Agenda Item 7, Page 3

London Councils’ Transport & Environment Committee

Flooding Investment in London Item no: 12

Report by: Katharina Winbeck Job title: Head of Transport and Environment, London Councils Sarah Smith Flood and Coastal Risk Manager, Environment Agency

Date: 07 June 2018

Contact Officer: Nana Bonsu

Telephone: 020 7934 9829 Email: [email protected]

Summary Flooding is a very costly natural hazard in the UK and is projected to increase under future climate change scenarios. Flood risk management in England is primarily managed through a six-year capital investment programme, running from April 2015 until March 2021. This report gives TEC its annual update from the Thames Regional Flood and Coastal Committee (Thames RFCC) and explains the background to flood risk management in London. In collaboration with the Environment Agency (EA), this report presents a business case, on behalf of Thames RFCC for an increase in locally- raised levy (1.99 percent) to invest in flood risk management schemes across the Thames catchment.,.

Recommendations Members are asked to; • note and discuss the report; • suggest potential projects to be included in the long list for the next six year programme; • provide a steer to the TEC members who sit on the Thames RFCC regarding a levy increase of 1.99 per cent for 2019/20.

Flooding Investment in London London Councils’ TEC – 14 June 2018 Item 12, Page 1 Background

1. This report follows on from the last report TEC received, in October 2017, highlighting boroughs flood risk management projects, sustainable drainage and sub-regional flood partnerships projects.

2. There are several sources of flooding, including from rivers, the sea, groundwater, overwhelmed drains and sewers. In urban areas, heavy rainfall can lead to surface water flooding, as the water cannot drain away quickly in built up areas. The primary piece of legislation that provides the drivers for flood risk management in England is the Flood and Water Management Act (2010). The success in managing flood risk relies on Local Authorities, Water Companies, the Environment Agency and other organisations working together to support vulnerable/flood risk communities. In London’s case, the Thames Regional Flood and Coastal Committee (RFCC), help bring together these partners across the Thames catchment, and make it possible to manage potential flood risks.

3. The Flood and Water Management Act (2010) created the role of Lead Local Flood Authorities (LLFAs). Every London borough is a LLFA and its duties are to:

• Develop and publish a local flood risk management strategy • Investigate flooding incidents • Establish and maintain a register of structures and features which are likely to have an effect on a flood risk in its area.

4. The Thames RFCC is one of 12 regional committees established by the Environment Agency under the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, which implemented the recommendations of the Pitt Review: Lessons learned from the 2007 floods. It engenders partnership working by bringing together risk management authorities alongside independent members who have a specific interest in flood risk management. Its purpose, as set out by the Environment Minister, is:

• to ensure there are coherent plans for identifying, managing and communicating flood risks across catchments • to encourage efficient, targeted and risk-based investment that represents value for money and benefits for local communities • to provide a link between the Environment Agency, local authorities, other risk management authorities, and other relevant bodies to engender mutual understanding of flood and coastal erosion risks in its area

5. There are three sources of funding for capital projects:

i) Grant in Aid provided by the government; ii) Local levy which is paid by local authorities on an annual basis; and iii) Third party contributions, usually secured from beneficiaries of the scheme, which could include water companies, businesses or funding from section 106 agreements following planning obligations of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

Flooding Investment in London London Councils’ TEC – 14 June 2018 Item 12, Page 2 6. HM Treasury has made £2.5 billion of Grant in Aid available for this six-year programme nationally, which is overseen by Defra and managed by the Environment Agency. The 12 Regional Flood and Coastal Committees (RFCC) provide advice on the prioritisation of projects and schemes that reduce the risk to flooding, ensuring local authorities’ views are taken into account. The three conditions associated with the £2.5bn of Grant in Aid allocated to the current six-year programme are: to better protect 300,000 homes; to ensure 10 per cent efficiency savings, and to find 15 per cent partnership funding contributions.

7. The Thames RFCC raises a levy in the order of £11m per year to support schemes within the Thames catchment. One of the uses of levy is to support local authority surface water projects, as it recognises that surface water flooding is a significant risk within the Thames RFCC area. The levy enables local authorities to carry out investigative works that would not be otherwise funded. The Thames RFCC aims to achieve a surface water scheme in each local authority. This approach has increased the demand on levy, as more projects have come forward from local authorities.

8. A 1.99 per cent increase in levy each year was agreed in principle by the Thames RFCC for the duration of the six year programme, in January 2015. This was agreed with the condition that there must be an annual report back to TEC in each successive financial year. The business case provides more detail on this.

9. TEC voted ‘in principle’ to continuously support an annual levy increase in each year of the six year capital project up until 2020/21, on condition to receive annual updates on progress. For that reason, TEC has supported levy increases since October 2015 through to October 2017. This levy increase has since helped Thames RFCC to maintain a sustainable programme, supporting major and longer term flood risk schemes such as the River Thames Scheme, and the Oxford Schemes as well as supporting the early development work of many local authority surface water schemes..

10. TEC appoints seven elected members to the Thames RFCC who represent their sub- regional partnerships on behalf of London. Thames RFCC covers an area that includes: London; Surrey; Berkshire; Hertfordshire; Oxfordshire; parts of Warwickshire; Gloucestershire; Hampshire and Essex. The London boroughs, unitary authorities and county councils in the catchment have a statutory role as Lead Local Flood Authorities.

Thames Catchment Flood Risk Landscape

11. The River Thames flows from the Cotswolds down through Oxford and Reading and into London, where it becomes tidally influenced. It has several tributaries, and its wider catchment of the fluvial Thames forms the basis of the Thames RFCC boundary (refer map below). It is important to note that the Thames catchment is one large river basin system so interventions outside of London can benefit London too.

Flooding Investment in London London Councils’ TEC – 14 June 2018 Item 12, Page 3 Local Councils in the Thames RFCC boundary

12. Within the Thames RFCC boundary, there are properties at risk from fluvial (river), tidal, surface water and groundwater flooding. Across the catchment, there are 28,000 properties at high risk of flooding from rivers and seas, and a further 99,000 properties at a medium risk. The Thames barrier, tidal walls and embankments provide London with a high standard of protection against tidal flooding, but many of the tributaries and the upstream part of the Thames are less well defended.

13. The Thames RFCC Periodic Report (published in summer 2017 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment _data/file/638117/Thames_RFCC_Periodic_Report_290717.pdf) recognises the risks Thames RFCC faces from surface water flooding. It shows 265,000 properties at high or medium risk from surface water flooding, whilst 160,166 properties with high or moderate flood risk from rivers and/or the sea.

Thames RFCC key achievements and priorities over the last financial year

14. Thames RFCC is expected to exceed its overall targets for reducing flood risk in 17/18, with a forecast of 7,770 homes better protected as a result of investment in flood risk management against a target of 5,808 homes. A total of £61.2m was invested in flood risk management across the catchment during 17/18. This is a combination of national Flood Defence Grant in Aid (FDGiA), local levy and other partnership funding contributions.

15. The Committee continues to invest levy into projects across the Thames catchment. This funding, alongside national Grant in Aid, helps to progress the development of these schemes while partnership funding is sought. Below are some examples of schemes that

Flooding Investment in London London Councils’ TEC – 14 June 2018 Item 12, Page 4 have benefitted from levy funding during 17/18 and also some major projects supported by the committee which have received Grant in Aid funding.

 The Oxford Flood Alleviation Scheme seeks to address flood risk to thousands of properties, infrastructure, schools and businesses. Nine organisations are joined in partnership, working with over 150 community and local interest groups to deliver a scheme that will protect 1,200 properties, create at least 5ha of new habitat and bring in over £1bn of benefits from damage avoided over the next 100 years. The scheme is now fully funded, thanks to £14m of levy, £33.2m of Grant in Aid, as well as contributions from partners and the Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP). Planning permission has been submitted and Full Business Case approval is due in late 2018. This will allow construction to commence in early 2019, delivering benefits in late 2021.

 Buckskin Lane in Basingstoke is a lead local flood authority project aiming to reduce ground and surface water flooding. The area suffered significant flooding in the 13/14 Winter Floods and addressing flood risk here is a high priority for Hampshire County Council, Basingstoke & Deane Borough Council and the active local community and flood groups. Hants CC and Basingstoke & Deane BC have provided a total financial contribution of approximately £2.3m to the project. This, alongside the levy contribution of £3.6m, has released £1.22m of Grant in Aid for the scheme. The scheme development throughout 2017 meant the Outline Business Case could be approved in April 2018. The scheme is due to complete in July 2019, better protecting 170 properties and delivering some environmental enhancements including habitat creation and water body enhancements.

 In Thamesmead, the Lake 4 Pumping Station, which is critical to managing flood risk within the low-lying Thamesmead area, has recently been refurbished. The pumping station is the largest of four pumping stations, which discharge flows from the canal and lake system draining Thamesmead and the Wickham Valley to the River Thames. The project brought the pumping station back to a high operational standard, improving and updating several of the operational systems. This has made the pumping station more reliable and more efficient, as well as reducing flood risk to 1,863 properties. The project was delivered through the Thames Estuary Asset Management (TEAM) 2100 programme and is expected to cost £2.8m, funded completely with Grant in Aid.

 In 2017, the London Borough of Enfield completed a project to reduce surface water flood risk at Firs Farm Playing Fields. A total of £600k Grant in Aid, £200k levy and £500k of contributions was spent on the scheme, obtained from various partners including Thames Water, the Greater London Authority and Enfield Council. This allowed the council to restore 500 metres of the Moore Brook, create a new flood defence, diffuse urban pollution and create several amenity enhancements like an outdoor classroom, new pathways and a dipping platform. Since its creation the park has been visited by over 1,000 school children. This shows the levy contribution not only reducing surface water flood risk to over 100 nearby properties and the A10 Great Cambridge Road, but providing space for the wellbeing of urban dwellers.

Flooding Investment in London London Councils’ TEC – 14 June 2018 Item 12, Page 5  The Thames RFCC is also supporting a London based pilot to determine the benefits implementing a large number of smaller drainage interventions across a catchment can have on surface water flood risk. The pilot, into its second year, is funded with local levy and will deliver some of these interventions during the second phase of the pilot. The pilot is being developed across six London boroughs; Camden, Enfield, Kingston, Hillingdon, Westminster and Southwark. Thames Water and Transport for London are involved with the project offering expertise and resource. Thames Water have also committed to matching the levy allocated to the pilot, which will benefit inner London borough’s with combined sewers.

16. Thames RFCC priorities over the last financial year include:

 Advancing the concept of Natural flood management (NFM) i.e. the process of using natural features, such as woody debris, to slow the flow of water, continues to be a priority nationally. Last year the government released funding specifically for NFM projects which could be used for catchment or community scale schemes. Locally, we were successful in obtaining funding for 14 schemes (9 of these in London). These schemes are progressing at pace, as Minister Coffey is keen to learn from these interventions, and all of the catchment projects received initial business case approval by March 2018.

 Supporting the development of more projects suitable for natural flood management (NFM) measures, with the creation of a task and finish group in October last year. The group has been very successful in bringing together various partners to share their experiences of natural flood management. The lessons learnt in this project will be released by July 2018, with documents helping NFM knowledge transfer and making recommendations for how the RFCC can continue to support NFM projects in the future.

 Ensuring effective and coherent plans for identifying, communicating and managing flood and coastal erosion risks across catchments.

London Council’s priority is to work with the Committee and to help lobby the Mayor and other policymakers in considering the implications of the wider catchment on flood risk to London.

Thames Flood Advisors Team

17. The Thames RFCC continues to fund a team of 12 Thames Flood Advisors that support the Lead Local Flood Authorities (LLFAs) to deliver their flooding schemes. They do this by providing additional capacity to work on projects, building capability within the Authorities and engaging potential partners. This team also supports the development of new LLFA led schemes, which strengthens the current capital programme and builds the next. 18. Working with LLFAs on projects also allows the team to support the development of local cross boundary, cross organisational partnerships particularly with key regional partners such as Thames Water. By working directly with Thames Water, the Thames Flood Advisors have helped include £65m for surface water management in Thames Water’s

Flooding Investment in London London Councils’ TEC – 14 June 2018 Item 12, Page 6 draft business plan. This is a 200 per cent increase on their ambition from their previous Asset Management Period (AMP6) and has potential to have a significant impact in urban environments. 19. London represents a significant proportion of the capital programme and so half of the Thames Flood Advisors focus their efforts to support London Authorities. Analysis of the 2018/19 published programme, show that London Boroughs are committed to delivering 72 flood risk management projects and delivering 1,777 homes better protected between April 2015 and March 2021. 20. The Thames Flood Advisors are actively involved with 17 schemes in London, supporting the reduction in flood risk to 3,100 homes throughout the Greater London Authority area. Though the majority of their work involves flooding from surface water, the team are involved in projects seeking to manage risk from ordinary watercourses, groundwater, and reservoirs. The team are also regular attendees and contributors to the seven sub-regional partnership meetings across London where they promote integrated working opportunities. 21. The team has managed to increase the number of boroughs that have projects included in the capital programme, and expect to increase this further with new proposals expected from the London Borough of Lewisham, and City of London.

Business case for the 1.99% increase

22. The Business Case detailed in ‘Appendix A’, sets out reasons for supporting another year’s levy increase. This has been prepared by the Environment Agency, on behalf of the Thames RFCC, in line with ‘in principle’ agreement to continuously support annual levy increase for the six year capital project up until 2020/21. The business case sets out:

i) London’s flood risk management projects; and ii) Funding for flood risk management projects within the Thames region.

Planned flood risk management projects

23. Planned investment for flood risk management projects in London between 2018/19 until 2020/21 encompasses:

 A total investment of £9 million at the Thames Barrier and walls and embankments along the Thames to ensure risk of tidal flooding in London remains at current levels;

 £6 million of Grant in Aid investment in reducing the risks from surface water flooding in London;

 £17 million of Grant in Aid investment to reduce the risk of flooding from rivers including large-scale schemes in Kingston, Streatham, Bromley and Tottenham;

 A total of £33m Grant in Aid allocated to London representing 58 schemes in the programme.

Flooding Investment in London London Councils’ TEC – 14 June 2018 Item 12, Page 7 24. As shown in Table 1 below, the Thames RFCC programme to April 2021 currently attracts a total of £270 million Grant in Aid capital funding. This is supported by a potential expenditure of £104.1 million of local levy across the six-years. The Thames RFCC will manage the ongoing balance between levy and Grant in Aid on an annual basis.

25. Over the next two years the Thames RFCC aims to invest levy in schemes that help meet the national target for better protecting 300,000 homes by 2021. This could be to schemes where high numbers of properties are being protected, but where there is currently a funding gap.

Table 1: Planned investment in the Thames RFCC area to April 2021

Year Properties at Properties at Thames RFCC Grant in Aid reduced risk reduced risk in Levy Investment allocation (millions) London (millions) 2015/16 4,132 2,820 £4.8 £34 2016/17 3,363 2,749 £3.8 £47.9 2017/18 7,770 4,845 £9.5 £51.5 2018/19 5,180 4,933 £16.2 £52.1 2019/20 4,730 2,409 £37.9 £34.9 2020/21 10,687 7,512 £31.9 £50.1 Total 35,862 25,268 £ 104.10 £ 270.50 Note: 2015/16 and 2016/17 shows actual figures, 2017/18 is based on the in-year forecast from April 2018, 2018/19 onwards shows planned six-year programme figures from the 2018/19 published programme.

26. The reasons for the 1.99 per cent annual increase include:  The need to retain the real value (i.e. adjusted for inflation) of the levy over the six years. Schemes in the six-year programme are based on present day values from when they were added to the programme, and retaining the real value is needed to account for cost inflation for all schemes;

 The Thames RFCC has supported a number of project investigations, particularly local authority led schemes to manage surface water flood risk. Experience tells us that most schemes arising from these investigations are unlikely to be fully Grant in Aid funded and will therefore require levy funding and further partnership funding to be completed and benefit local communities.

 Given the scale and nature of flood risk we are faced with in Thames, and particularly in London, some investigations will not result in a viable solution being found and will drop out of the programme. It is important that we are able to ‘over-programme’ in sufficient levels to compensate for this.

 We need to continue to support further investigations to strengthen the current programme and develop a robust ‘pipeline’ of projects beyond 2021.

27. Table 2 below sets out indicative levy amounts which would be paid by each London borough in 2018/19.

Flooding Investment in London London Councils’ TEC – 14 June 2018 Item 12, Page 8

Table 2: Indicative levy amounts with a 1.99 per cent increase

1.99% Levy paid increase on in levy paid in Estimate for levy in 2019/20 Borough 2018/19 2018/19 if 1.99% increase applied Barking & Dagenham £110,715 £2,203 £112,919 Barnet £322,094 £6,410 £328,504 Bexley £77,831 £1,549 £79,380 Brent £217,147 £4,321 £221,468 Bromley £221,000 £4,398 £225,398 Camden £201,993 £4,020 £206,012 City of Westminster £292,398 £5,819 £298,216 City of London £16,366 £326 £16,692 Croydon £282,883 £5,629 £288,512 Ealing £256,637 £5,107 £261,744 Enfield £217,891 £4,336 £222,227 Greenwich £169,973 £3,382 £173,355 Hackney £161,469 £3,213 £164,683 Hammersmith & Fulham £176,700 £3,516 £180,217 Haringey £174,969 £3,482 £178,451 Harrow £191,702 £3,815 £195,517 Havering £184,161 £3,665 £187,825 Hillingdon £224,847 £4,474 £229,322 Hounslow £188,030 £3,742 £191,772 Islington £177,426 £3,531 £180,957 Kensington and Chelsea £218,642 £4,351 £222,993 Kingston upon Thames £141,456 £2,815 £144,271 Lambeth £244,461 £4,865 £249,326 Lewisham £196,220 £3,905 £200,125 Merton £168,230 £3,348 £171,578 Newham £171,326 £3,409 £174,736 Redbridge £198,552 £3,951 £202,503 Richmond upon Thames £201,471 £4,009 £205,480 Southwark £228,964 £4,556 £233,521 Sutton £165,083 £3,285 £168,368 Tower Hamlets £215,826 £4,295 £220,121 Waltham Forest £169,801 £3,379 £173,180 Wandsworth £296,596 £5,902 £302,498 Note: data supplied by the Environment Agency. Levy is calculated based on the number of Band D properties a borough has in April each year. Until this is calculated, the above figures for 2018/19 remain subject to change.

Projects overview

28. There are currently 316 schemes in the Thames RFCC capital programme that will be funded in 2018/19. Of these, 113 schemes are in London. The Thames RFCC wants to encourage the authorities that do not have projects on the programme to develop them, and support can be provided by the levy funded Thames Flood Advisors team as well as Environment Agency teams.

Flooding Investment in London London Councils’ TEC – 14 June 2018 Item 12, Page 9 29. The full project list for the Thames RFCC for 2018/19 is provided at Appendix B. This list shows which projects have been allocated money in 2018/19, the source of funding and the forecasted spend.

Recommendations:

30. Members are asked to:

• Note and discuss the report;

• Review their local priorities and suggest potential projects to be included in the long list for the next six year programme; and

• Provide a steer to the TEC members who sit on the Thames RFCC regarding a levy increase of 1.99 per cent for 2019/20.

Financial Implications 31. There are no financial implications for London Councils arising from this report. If the Thames RFCC does vote for a levy increase then all London Boroughs will need to budget for this increase in April 2019.

Legal Implications 32. There are no legal implications for London Councils arising from this report.

Equalities Implications 33. There are no equalities implications for London Councils arising from this report.

Appendix A – Levy Business Case for London within the Thames Catchment

Appendix B – 2018/19 Capital Programme Project List

Flooding Investment in London London Councils’ TEC – 14 June 2018 Item 12, Page 10 Item 12 - Appendix A: Levy Business Case for London within the Thames Catchment

1.0 Introduction Flood risk management in England is primarily managed through a six-year investment programme, running from April 2015 till March 2021. HM Treasury has made £2.5 billion of Grant in Aid available for this six-year programme, which is overseen by Defra and managed by the Environment Agency. The 12 Regional Flood and Coastal Committees (RFCC) provide advice on the prioritisation of projects and schemes that reduce the risk to flooding, ensuring that local authorities’ views are taken into account. The three conditions associated with the £2.5bn of Grant in Aid allocated to the current six-year programme are: • to better protect 300,000 homes; • to ensure 10% efficiency savings; • to find 15% partnership funding contributions. The six-year programme is refreshed annually, to account for any changes to the programme and to provide the opportunity to bring forward more projects. This refresh cycle commences every May and requires input from Risk Management Authorities (local authorities, the Environment Agency and organisations such as Thames Water who also have certain flood risk management responsibilities). The updated programme is then published in January or February the following year, upon approval from the Board of the Environment Agency and RFCCs. The allocation of funding to flood risk management projects is based on an established Defra framework. There are three main sources of funding for flood defence projects: • Flood Defence Grant in Aid from central government (‘Grant in Aid’); • Local levy contributions from Lead Local Flood Authorities; • Partner/beneficiary contributions, for example from developers and businesses. The maximum amount of central government funding on offer to each project is based on the outcomes it achieves, which are defined by Defra. This includes protecting properties, wider economic benefits and creating new habitats. The projects that have large outcomes relative to their cost are eligible for full funding from central government, for example works to the Thames tidal defences. Many projects that address surface water, groundwater and river flooding require local contributions to secure the central government funding because their cost-benefit ratios are not as strong. It is recommended that London Councils’ Transport & Environment Committee members support a 1.99% increase of the local levy contribution to the Thames RFCC, which totals £221,479 for London in 2019/20. The 1.99% increase would be applied to the 47 London boroughs, unitary and county councils in the Thames RFCC area, as part of the agreed six-year programme. This business case below sets out: London’s flood risk; funding for flood risk management projects in the Thames region; planned investment for flood risk management projects in London; and the use of levy and business case for levy increase. 2.0 London’s flood risk The Thames RFCC covers a large area from the source of the Thames in the Cotswolds, through Oxfordshire, Berkshire, Surrey and London and out to the sea. London is at risk of flooding from a range of sources: tidal flooding from the Thames; river flooding from the many rivers and streams across London; surface water flooding, which can occur after heavy rainfall; and groundwater flooding. Table 1 summarises the number of properties at risk from these sources. As can be seen, a number of properties remain at high risk of flooding (i.e. more than a 1 in 30 chance of being flooded in any year), with flooding from surface water affecting the most properties. Table 1: Flood Risk in London by Category (rounded to nearest 1000)

Surface Water Flood Risk* River & Tidal Flood Risk** Residential Non Total Residential Non Total residential residential High 68 000 12 000 80 000 8 000 2 000 10 000 Medium 165 000 26 000 191 000 40 000 5 000 45 000 Low 445 000 54 000 499 000 78 000 10 000 88 000 Total at 678 000 92 000 770 000 126 000 17 000 143 000 risk *Source: GLA modelling based on the GeoInformation Group (2016) UK Map and Environment Agency Risk of Flooding from Surface Water (2017) taken from the London Environment Strategy

** Source: Total number of properties (NRD2014) in areas at risk of flooding from rivers and sea (RoFRS March 2018) 3.0 Funding for flood risk management projects in the Thames region The Thames Regional Flood and Coastal Committee (Thames RFCC) programme aims to reduce the number of properties at risk from all sources of flooding and is delivered predominantly by the Environment Agency and local authorities. The initial six-year programme of capital projects to reduce flood risk across the catchment was agreed by the Thames RFCC in January 2015. The programme is now in its last three years and will conclude in March 2021, with 35,862 homes forecast to be better protected. As shown in Table 2, the Thames RFCC programme to April 2021 currently attracts a total of £270 million Grant in Aid capital funding. This is supported by a potential expenditure of £104.1 million of local levy across the six-years. The Thames RFCC will manage the ongoing balance between levy and Grant in Aid on an annual basis. Based on the current programme there is currently £33 million Grant in Aid specifically allocated to London for the next three years of the six-year programme. Please note: the programme, as published in January 2018, has been used to provide figures for years 2018/19, 2019/20 and 2020/21, and ‘actual’ spend has been used for any figures from years 2015/16, 2016/17 and 2017/18.

Table 2: Planned investment in the Thames RFCC area to April 2021

Year Properties at Properties at Thames RFCC Grant in Aid allocation reduced risk reduced risk in Levy Investment (millions) London (millions) 2015/16 4,132 2,820 £4.8 £34 2016/17 3,363 2,749 £3.8 £47.9 2017/18 7,770 4,845 £9.5 £51.5 2018/19 5,180 4,933 £16.2 £52.1 2019/20 4,730 2,409 £37.9 £34.9 2020/21 10,687 7,512 £31.9 £50.1 Total 35,862 25,268 £ 104.10 £ 270.50 Note: 2015/16 and 2016/17 shows actual figures, 2017/18 is based on the in-year forecast from April 2018, 2018/19 onwards shows planned six-year programme figures from the 2018/19 published programme.

Each year, the Thames RFCC has the opportunity to refresh the six-year programme to take account of any delays, projects determined to be unviable, and any new projects coming forward for the programme. This annual refresh cycle allows for continual strengthening of the programme, as data and information improves and new opportunities arise, whilst maintaining the certainty of a six-year programme as opposed to a series of one-year programmes. Following the most recent refresh, the programme includes £140.8 million of Grant in Aid being allocated for the Thames RFCC for the remaining three years of the six- year programme. This is allocated to 145 potential schemes, of which 63 are being led by local authorities. Efficiencies made throughout the six-year programme allow Grant in Aid to be reinvested across further projects. The Thames RFCC remains on track to exceed the target of 10% efficiency savings on our Grant in Aid allocation. The majority of these savings are found through innovation and value engineering, packaging, control of project scope, standardisation and streamlining. Up to Quarter 3 in 2017/18, we have successfully achieved £5.6 million worth of efficiencies on projects within the Thames RFCC programme. This is already £1.1 million over our total 2017/18 target of £4.5 million, with Quarter 4 efficiencies still under review. In the first two years of the programme we have achieved £12.5 million of efficiencies against an £8.8 million target, so are well positioned to hit our six year target of £37 million by the end of March 2021.

4.0 Planned investment for flood risk management projects in London Based on the current 2018/19 programme, the planned investment within London between 2018/19 until 2020/21 comprises: • A total investment of £9 million at the Thames Barrier and walls and embankments along the Thames to ensure that the risk of tidal flooding in London remains at current levels; • £6 million of Grant in Aid investment in reducing the risks from surface water flooding in London; • £17 million of Grant in Aid investment to reduce the risk of flooding from rivers including large-scale schemes in Kingston, Streatham, Bromley and Tottenham. The refresh for this year also focusses on strengthening the ‘pipeline’ of projects and future programme beyond 2021. Specifically, it will look to include new schemes from all Risk Management Authorities that could commence after 2021. This information will be used to inform discussions with Defra and HM Treasury around a future long term settlement, which would begin after the current six-year programme completes in March 2021. 5.0 Use of levy and business case for levy increase In October 2014, the Thames RFCC committee reviewed its use of levy and recognised the value it had added to developing and constructing schemes, as well as developing new schemes through investigations and ways of working through pilot initiatives. In all, the use of local levy had helped to unlock other funding sources, including Grant in Aid. To ensure the best return on investment on the levy for the six-year programme, it was recognised that the levy should be increased annually. In January 2015, the Thames RFCC considered a number of different values for the annual increase of levy for the length of the six-year programmes, ranging from 0% up to 5%. It was agreed in principle to increase the levy amount by 1.99% per annum until the end of 2021, with an annual vote to be taken by the appointed members of the Thames RFCC to confirm this in principle decision. The reasons for the 1.99% annual increase include: • The need to retain the real value (i.e. adjusted for inflation) of the levy over the six years. Schemes in the six-year programme are based on present day values from when they were added to the programme, and retaining the real value is needed to account for cost inflation for all schemes; • The Thames RFCC has supported a number of project investigations, particularly local authority led schemes to manage surface water flood risk. Experience tells us that most schemes arising from these investigations are unlikely to be fully Grant in Aid funded and will therefore require levy funding and further partnership funding to be completed and benefit local communities. • Given the scale and nature of flood risk we are faced with in Thames, and particularly in London, some investigations will not result in a viable solution being found and will drop out of the programme. It is important that we are able to ‘over-programme’ in sufficient levels to compensate for this. • We need to continue to support further investigations to strengthen the current programme and develop a robust ‘pipeline’ of projects beyond 2021.

These considerations from 2015 remain fully valid today. Furthermore, there are a number of additional advantages of having a longer term agreement for levy. Notably, it improves the ability to plan, form partnerships and secure Partnership Funding contributions. The in principle levy agreement provides certainty of funding and can help to unlock funding contributions from others. Finally, it is important to note that the Thames RFCC developed its six-year programme based on the in principle agreement, which has served its objectives to reduce flood risk well. If the levy is not increased there will be a deficit in the levy balances, which would result of the removal of approved projects currently in the programme. This will impact the number of properties that can be better protected from flooding, and may result in an increased cost and damages if flooding occurs in the interim. 6.0 Conclusion It is recommended that London Councils’ Transport & Environment Committee members support a 1.99% increase of the local levy contribution to the Thames RFCC, which totals £221,479 for London in 2019/20. The 1.99% increase would be applied to the 47 London boroughs, unitary and county councils in the Thames RFCC area, as part of the agreed six-year programme. This will ensure that the planned investment in flood risk management over the next 3 years will provide the maximum benefit to people and properties.

Item 12 - Appendix B. 2017/18 Current Forecast Financial Position by Scheme * *Some budgets are zero but have forecast. These projects are either slippages from previous years, acceleration opportunities where we have pulled forward initial assessments from future years in the consented programme or in year opportunities that are not yet in the consented programme. These projects will help form our in year over programme.

County Project Title Lead RMA Budget GiA Local Levy Contributions Forecast

Bramingham Flood Alleviation Luton Unitary Bedfordshire 20,000 0 20,000 0 35,000 Scheme Authority

Houghton Regis Flood Storage Environment Bedfordshire 1,825,000 1,825,000 0 0 347,191 Area Agency

Luton Town Centre Flood Luton Unitary Bedfordshire 110,000 0 110,000 0 0 Alleviation Scheme Authority

Poynters Road and Pastures Luton Unitary Bedfordshire 0 0 0 0 0 Way Flood Alleviation Scheme Authority

Environment Berkshire Bisham Flood Alleviation 128,274 0 128,274 0 3,480 Agency

Boxford Flood Alleviation West Berkshire Berkshire 0 0 0 0 0 Scheme Unitary Authority

Bracknell Forest Berkshire Brock Hill 0 0 0 0 3,200 Unitary Authority

Environment Berkshire Charvil Flood Alleviation 0 0 0 0 124,629 Agency

Environment Berkshire Cock Marsh, Cookham - 4,305 Agency County Project Title Lead RMA Budget GiA Local Levy Contributions Forecast

West Berkshire Berkshire Cold Ash Hill Phase 1 0 0 0 0 0 Unitary Authority

Colnbrook - County Ditch and Environment Berkshire 50,000 0 50,000 0 54,792 Colne Brook Agency

Cookham Flood Risk Environment Berkshire - 36,837 Management Scheme Agency

Dunstan Park Flood Alleviation West Berkshire Berkshire 1,242,000 656,283 572,717 13,000 925,000 Scheme Unitary Authority

West Berkshire Berkshire Dunstan Park Study 0 0 0 0 39,650 Unitary Authority

Environment Berkshire Emmbrook Flood Mitigation 0 0 0 0 16,282 Agency

Environment Berkshire Eton Wick Flood Alleviation 35,000 0 35,000 0 34,191 Agency

Environment Berkshire Great Shefford 55,000 55,000 0 0 192,464 Agency

West Berkshire Berkshire Hampstead Norreys 25,000 0 21,250 3,750 25,000 Unitary Authority

Environment Berkshire Holy Brook Flood Mitigation 0 0 0 0 782.01 Agency

Hurley Flood Alleviation Environment Berkshire 0 0 0 0 57,216 Scheme Agency County Project Title Lead RMA Budget GiA Local Levy Contributions Forecast

West Berkshire Berkshire Lambourn East PLP 184,000 0 184,000 0 0 Unitary Authority

Environment Berkshire Newbury FAS 0 0 0 0 4,337 Agency

Environment Berkshire Pangbourne Flood Alleviation 30,840 0 30,840 0 58,973 Agency

Environment Berkshire Poyle Channel 50,000 0 50,000 0 0 Agency

Purley on Thames Property West Berkshire Berkshire 60,781 0 60,781 0 0 Level Protection Unitary Authority

Environment Berkshire Reading - Caversham FAS 0 0 0 0 267,016 Agency

Restoration of the Lower Environment Berkshire Kennet SSSI - Chamberhouse 25,000 25,000 0 0 0 Agency to Brimpton

Restoration of the River Environment Berkshire 0 0 0 0 27,000 Kennet at Eddington Agency

Restoration of the River Environment Berkshire Kennet at the Sherman 225,000 225,000 0 0 0 Agency Hatches/Peartree Bottom

Restoration of the River Environment Berkshire 120,000 120,000 0 0 0 Kennet at the Wilderness Agency County Project Title Lead RMA Budget GiA Local Levy Contributions Forecast

River Lambourn SAC - fish Berkshire passage and habitat EA - 232,811 enhancement

Environment Berkshire River Loddon Soft Engineering 0 0 0 0 344.72 Agency

West Berkshire Berkshire SE Thatcham 150,000 0 150,000 0 1,655,000 Unitary Authority

Environment Berkshire Slough FAS 150,000 50,000 100,000 0 0 Agency

Stanford Dingley Flood West Berkshire Berkshire 0 0 0 0 0 Alleviation Scheme Unitary Authority

Swallowfield Flood Mitigation Environment Berkshire 0 0 0 0 4,631 Measures Agency

Environment Berkshire Thames Catchment Storage 0 0 0 0 496,615 Agency

Thames Weirs High Priority Environment Berkshire 0 0 0 0 8,600 Programme Package 1 Agency

Waller Drive, Newbury - West Berkshire Berkshire Property Level Protection 80,135 80,135 0 0 0 Unitary Authority Scheme

Winterbourne Flood West Berkshire Berkshire 35,000 0 0 35,000 183053 Alleviation Scheme Unitary Authority County Project Title Lead RMA Budget GiA Local Levy Contributions Forecast

Bourne End - North and South Environment Buckinghamshire 0 0 0 0 34,055 mitigation Agency

Chesham Flood Alleviation Environment Buckinghamshire 174,000 0 174,000 0 184,107 Scheme - Vale Brook Culvert Agency

Cores End Flood Alleviation Environment Buckinghamshire 250,000 0 250,000 0 53,905 Scheme Agency

Buckinghamshire Buckinghamshire Hughenden Flood Mitigation 40,000 14,158 17,842 8,000 12,862 County

Environment Buckinghamshire Marlow FAS 4,070,000 600,000 2,220,000 1,250,000 3,824,898 Agency

Marlow Surface Water Buckinghamshire Buckinghamshire 189,550 0 189,550 0 90,000 Drainage Pre-Feasibility Study County

Medmenham Flood Mitigation Environment Buckinghamshire 0 0 0 0 11,542 measures Agency

Misbourne Flood alleviation Environment Buckinghamshire and water management level 0 0 0 0 30,000 Agency strategy

Pednormead End, Chesham Buckinghamshire Buckinghamshire Surface Water and Ground 30,000 0 0 30,000 30,000 County Water Management Scheme

River Wye Catchment Surface Buckinghamshire Buckinghamshire 250,000 57,300 192,700 0 0 Water Scheme County County Project Title Lead RMA Budget GiA Local Levy Contributions Forecast

Stoke Brook Flood Alleviation Aylesbury Vale Buckinghamshire 0 0 0 0 15,000 Scheme District

Thames Weirs Gates Environment Buckinghamshire 0 0 0 0 1,061,490 Replacement Agency

City of Churchill Gardens Flood City of 100,000 100,000 0 0 88,000 Westminster Alleviation Scheme Westminster

City of Westminster North West Westminster 0 0 0 0 0 Westminster Strategy London Borough

City of Westmoreland Terrace Flood City of 50,000 50,000 0 0 0 Westminster Alleviation Scheme Westminster

Frog Island Tidal Sluices Environment Essex 20,700 20,700 0 0 60,627 Penstock Automation Agency

Harlow (Brays Grove) Flood Essex Essex County 0 0 0 0 386,911 Alleviation Scheme

Harlow (Kingsmoor) Flood Essex Essex County 0 0 0 0 163,544 Alleviation Scheme

Harlow (Latton Bush) Flood Essex Essex County 10,000 0 10,000 0 0 Alleviation Scheme

Harlow (Stewards) Flood Essex Essex County 10,000 0 10,000 0 0 Alleviation Scheme

Environment Essex Hillman Cottages FAS 0 0 0 0 18,062 Agency County Project Title Lead RMA Budget GiA Local Levy Contributions Forecast

LFRC Control Structures Ware Environment Essex 41,400 41,400 0 0 0 to Enfield Island - Gantry Hoist Agency

Nazeing Flood Alleviation Environment Essex 0 0 0 0 125,910 Scheme Agency

Oval Road Pumping Station, Environment Essex 25,875 25,875 0 0 86,952 Dagenham – Refurbishment Agency

Rainham Tidal Sluice, Rainham Environment Essex 41,400 41,400 0 0 89,442 - Power Supply Agency

Rammey Sluice, Waltham Environment Essex Abbey - Replacement of Flood 103,500 0 103,500 0 85,349 Agency Control Structure

River Roding Strategy Works Environment Essex From: Resistance and - 0 Agency resilience

Roding Valley Meadows, Site Environment Essex of Special Scientific Interest 50,000 50,000 0 0 0 Agency (SSSI), River Roding.

Environment Essex Shonks Mill Flood Storage Area 200,000 0 0 200,000 92,829 Agency

Stanstead Mountfitchet Flood Environment Essex 44,000 44,000 0 0 84,998 Alleviation Scheme Agency

Woodford Access Environment Essex 72,450 72,450 0 0 0 Improvements - River Roding Agency County Project Title Lead RMA Budget GiA Local Levy Contributions Forecast

Environment Gloucestershire Bourton on the Water 0 0 0 0 98,954 Agency

Churn Strategy Local Environment Gloucestershire 0 0 0 0 3,498 Interventions Agency

Cirencester Flood Storage Environment Gloucestershire 50,000 0 50,000 0 53,502 Areas Agency

River Churn Strategy Phase Environment Gloucestershire 60,000 60,000 0 0 0 two Agency

Environment Greater London Future Thames Barrier sites - 25,000 Agency

Environment Greater London TBAG Barking Barrier Repair - 27,411 Agency

Environment 30,000 Greater London Thames Barrier Dara Upgrade - 29,730 Agency

Alton Attenuation And Flood Environment Hampshire 80,000 78,136 1,864 0 0 Study Agency

Basingstoke Flood Reduction Environment Hampshire 107,594 50,000 57,594 0 0 Scheme Agency

Buckskin Lane Flood Hampshire Hampshire Alleviation Scheme, 450,000 410,000 0 40,000 362,000 County Basingstoke

Hampshire Chawton Flood Alleviation Environment 5,000 2,566 2,434 0 0 County Project Title Lead RMA Budget GiA Local Levy Contributions Forecast

Scheme Agency

Crondall Flood Alleviation Environment Hampshire 0 0 0 0 16,123 Scheme Agency

Environment Hampshire Fleet Flood Alleviation Scheme 5,000 4,047 953 0 28,355 Agency

Hampshire HDC- Phoenix Green FAS Hart District 64,700 64,700 0 0 17,500

Hampshire HDC Mill Corner Hampshire Hart District 0 0 0 0 0

Kingsway, Blackwater Flood Environment Hampshire 40,000 39,657 343 0 87,500 Alleviation Scheme Agency

Local Groundwater Flood Hampshire Hampshire 70,000 35,000 35,000 0 0 Alleviation - A32 Corridor County

North Yateley Flood Impact Environment Hampshire 64,876 50,000 14,876 0 26,071 Reduction Project Agency

Rectory Road Flood Alleviation Hampshire Hampshire 6,000 0 0 6,000 0 Scheme County

Sandy Lane Ditch Flood Environment Hampshire 0 0 0 0 10,698 Alleviation Scheme Agency

Sycamore Road Flood Hampshire Hampshire 191,000 185,000 0 6,000 0 Alleviation Scheme County

Environment Hampshire Tadley Flood Reduction Study 10,646 0 10,646 0 20,303 Agency County Project Title Lead RMA Budget GiA Local Levy Contributions Forecast

Tudor and Cricket Hill Stream Environment Hampshire 50,000 19,239 30,761 0 42,634 Flood Reduction Project Agency

A120 Little Hadham Bypass Environment Hertfordshire 171,220 171,220 0 0 1,015,286 flood storage area Agency

Cheshunt Flood Alleviation Environment Hertfordshire 0 0 0 0 96,137 Scheme Agency

Darkes Lane Surface Water Hertfordshire Hertfordshire and Watercourse Flood Risk - 20,467 County Modelling

Hardmead Sluice, Ware - Replacement of Flood Control Environment Hertfordshire Structure – now merged with 103,500 0 103,500 0 174,753 Agency Stanstead, and Amwell Bailey Bridge, Ware

Environment Hertfordshire Harpenden FAS 130,000 130,000 0 0 26,556 Agency

Hertfordshire Natural Flood Hertfordshire Hertfordshire 50,000 0 50,000 0 20,000 Management County

Kimpton Groundwater Flood Hertfordshire Hertfordshire Risk Management Options 500,006 240,413 259,593 0 0 County Study

Knebworth Surface Water Hertfordshire Hertfordshire 0 0 0 0 27,960 Study County County Project Title Lead RMA Budget GiA Local Levy Contributions Forecast

London Colney Flood Risk Environment Hertfordshire 30,000 30,000 0 0 109,314 Study Agency

Papermill Stream Penstock, Channel and Bridge, Standon - Environment Hertfordshire 20,000 20,000 0 0 0 M&E Upgrade & structural Agency repairs

Redbourn (Rose Acre, Ridgedown, Snatchup, Lybury Hertfordshire Hertfordshire 126,422 0 126,422 0 0 Lane) Surface Water County Management

River Mimram Chalk Stream Environment Hertfordshire 306,469 0 0 206,469 0 Restoration Project Agency

Robbery Bottom Lane Surface Hertfordshire Hertfordshire 40,000 0 40,000 0 0 Water Management County

Environment Hertfordshire Rye Meads SSSI 40,000 20,000 0 0 0 Agency

Stanstead Abbots Flood Environment Hertfordshire 138,000 34,057 103,943 0 35,738 Alleviation Scheme Agency

Stevenage Brook Roebuck Hertfordshire Hertfordshire Gate Combined Flood Risk 15,000 15,000 0 0 0 County Assessment

Violets Lane – Furneux Pelham Environment Hertfordshire 39,849 15,068 24,781 0 60,300 Flood Alleviation Scheme Agency County Project Title Lead RMA Budget GiA Local Levy Contributions Forecast

Watford Combined Surface Hertfordshire Hertfordshire Water and Fluvial Flood Risk 0 0 0 0 0 County Study

Critical Drainage Area 018 - London Borough London Borough Decoy Brook Catchment Flood 150,000 91,300 58,700 0 0 of Barnet of Barnet Alleviation Scheme

London Borough Silk Stream, Colindale Flood Environment 0 0 0 0 43,029 of Barnet Alleviation Scheme Agency

London Borough Great Breach Dyke culvert Environment 750,000 750,000 0 0 25,667 of Bexley clearance (Alsike Road) Agency

London Borough Environment Lake 4 Priority Works 1,850,000 1,850,000 0 0 2,160,855 of Bexley Agency

London Borough Tokyngton and Stonebridge Environment 200,000 0 200,000 0 30,606 of Brent Flood Alleviation Scheme Agency

London Borough Environment Kyd Brook FAS 90,000 0 90,000 0 79,466 of Bromley Agency

Ravensbourne (East Branch) at London Borough Environment Southborough flood alleviation 57,000 0 57,000 0 56,363 of Bromley Agency study

London Borough Environment Beckenham Hill Trash Screen - 14,000 13,939 of Bromley Agency

London Borough St James Stream at Upper Environment 84,800 84,800 0 0 74,438 of Bromley Elmers End Agency County Project Title Lead RMA Budget GiA Local Levy Contributions Forecast

The Beck (East Branch) at London Borough Environment Langley Park flood alleviation 64,000 0 64,000 0 29,893 of Bromley Agency study

London Borough Caterham Bourne Flood London Borough 450,000 350,000 50,000 50,000 0 of Croydon alleviation scheme of Croydon

London Borough London Borough Kenley FAS 117,000 117,000 0 0 36,800 of Croydon of Croydon

Critical Drainage Area 001 - London Borough London Borough Aintree Road, Perivale Surface 30,000 30,000 0 0 5,000 of Ealing of Ealing Water Study

Critical Drainage Area 003 - London Borough London Borough Carr Road, Northolt - Flood 50,000 50,000 0 0 50,000 of Ealing of Ealing Risk Study

Critical Drainage Area 005 - London Borough London Borough Yeading Lane, Southall - Flood 50,000 50,000 0 0 50,000 of Ealing of Ealing Risk Study

Critical Drainage Area 007 - London Borough London Borough High Street Acton Flood 20,000 20,000 0 0 25,000 of Ealing of Ealing Alleviation Scheme

Critical Drainage Area 008 - London Borough London Borough Northfield Avenue Surface 20,000 20,000 0 0 15,000 of Ealing of Ealing Water Study

Critical Drainage Area 041 - London Borough London Borough 50,000 50,000 0 0 50,000 Beech Avenue, East Acton - County Project Title Lead RMA Budget GiA Local Levy Contributions Forecast of Ealing Property level protection, of Ealing community engagement and SuDS

London Borough Greenford Flood Management Environment 32,085 32,085 0 0 32,084 of Ealing Scheme Agency

Islip Manor Estate Redevelopment - London Borough London Borough Disconnection of surface water 80,000 80,000 0 0 0 of Ealing of Ealing drainage and implementation of SuDS

London Borough Bullsmoor Lane Flood London Borough 67,956 55,635 1,971 10,350 0 of Enfield Alleviation Scheme of Enfield

London Borough East Enfield Flood Alleviation Enfield London - 45,000 of Enfield Scheme Borough

London Borough Enfield Town Flood Alleviation London Borough 392,728 292,728 0 100,000 0 of Enfield Scheme of Enfield

London Borough Green Lanes Flood Alleviation London Borough 59,070 42,180 6,540 10,350 0 of Enfield Scheme of Enfield

London Borough Enfield London London Strategic SuDS Pilot 0 0 0 0 75,000 of Enfield Borough

London Borough Salmons Brook Flood Environment 0 0 0 0 250,814 of Enfield Alleviation Scheme Agency

London Borough Salmons Brook Natural Flood Enfield London - 55,000 County Project Title Lead RMA Budget GiA Local Levy Contributions Forecast of Enfield Management Borough

London Borough Turkey Brook Flood Alleviation London Borough 0 0 0 0 20,000 of Enfield Scheme of Enfield

Clothworkers Wood - Wet London Borough London Borough Woodland Flood Storage 25,000 0 25,000 0 25,000 of Greenwich of Greenwich Scheme

London Borough Marsh Dykes sluice repairs and Environment 1,000,000 1,000,000 0 0 139,614 of Greenwich permanent access works Agency

London Borough London Borough NFM Oxleas Wood 35,000 24,020 0 10,000 34,020 of Greenwich of Greenwich

London Borough London Borough RBG Groundwater preparation 0 40,000 0 0 0 of Greenwich of Greenwich

London Borough London Borough RBG Little Quaggy FAS 0 25,000 0 0 25,000 of Greenwich of Greenwich

London Borough London Borough RBG Ordinary Watercourses 40,000 40,000 0 0 0 of Greenwich of Greenwich

London Borough London Borough River Shuttle Upper Catchment 0 25,000 0 0 25,000 of Greenwich of Greenwich

London Borough Environment Sutcliffe Park Trash Screen 0 1,025,000 0 0 1,080,826 of Greenwich Agency

London Borough TBAG BMS and PA System Environment 0 10,950 0 0 17,128 of Greenwich Upgrade Agency County Project Title Lead RMA Budget GiA Local Levy Contributions Forecast

London Borough Environment TBAG Drive Equipment 1,398,501 1,665,059 0 0 1,977,511 of Greenwich Agency

London Borough Environment TBAG Mesh Network 0 0 0 0 6,308 of Greenwich Agency

London Borough TBAG2 Dartford Barrier MEICA Environment 0 82,475 0 0 92,376 of Greenwich Works Agency

London Borough TBAG2 PLA Thames Barrier Act Environment 480,000 480,000 0 0 194,771 of Greenwich Navigation Reimbursements Agency

London Borough Team 2100 Programme - Environment 14,594,446 14,594,446 0 0 13,395,749 of Greenwich Thames Delivery Agency

London Borough Thames Barrier Resilience Environment 0 1,182,731 0 0 1,218,731 of Greenwich Works Agency

London Borough Wickham Valley Water Course London Borough 30,000 30,000 0 0 30,000 of Greenwich Flood Storage Scheme of Greenwich

London Borough Hackney Catchment Based Hackney London - 60,000 of Hackney Hydraulic Analysis Borough

Thames 20 for 20 Project - London Borough Hackney London Gullies replacement - 20,000 of Hackney Borough programme in Wick Road

London Borough Moselle Brook Culvert Environment 128,000 91,486 36,514 0 70,311 of Haringey Refurbishment Agency

Surface Water - Roundway London Borough London Borough 6,211 1,014 5,197 0 0 (A10)_Warkworth Road_063 County Project Title Lead RMA Budget GiA Local Levy Contributions Forecast of Haringey (Moselle Catchment) of Haringey

London Borough Newton Park River Restoration London Borough 0 0 0 0 542,172 of Harrow and Flood Storage Area of Harrow

London Borough Dovers Corner Emergency Environment 0 0 0 0 211,819 of Havering Works Agency

London Borough Havering Park Flood Mitigation Havering London - 44,780 of Havering Scheme Borough

London Borough River Rom Flood Alleviation Environment - 54,562 of Havering Scheme Agency

Cannon Brook and Mad Bess London Borough Environment Brook Flood Management 115,000 115,000 0 0 18,661 of Hillingdon Agency Scheme

London Borough Cranford Park Flood Alleviation London Borough 228,678 0 228,678 0 0 of Hillingdon Scheme of Hillingdon

London Borough Environment Pinn Flood Alleviation Scheme 0 0 0 0 105,891 of Hillingdon Agency

London Borough Brentford Flood Alleviation Environment 80,000 80,000 0 0 134,668 of Hounslow Scheme Agency

London Borough Brentford North Flood London Borough 0 0 0 0 30,000 of Hounslow Alleviation Scheme of Hounslow

London Borough Hounslow Town Centre Flood London Borough 0 0 0 0 30,000 of Hounslow Alleviation Scheme of Hounslow County Project Title Lead RMA Budget GiA Local Levy Contributions Forecast

London Borough Sustainable Drainage Systems London Borough of Kensington and in Royal Borough of of Kensington 300,000 220,000 0 80,000 0 Chelsea Kensington and Chelsea and Chelsea

London Borough London Borough CDA 13 London to Woking Rail of Kingston upon of Kingston upon 65,000 0 65,000 0 0 Link Thames Thames

London Borough London Borough of Kingston upon CDA 16 Old Malden FAS of Kingston upon 65,000 0 65,000 0 0 Thames Thames

London Borough Environment 46,000 of Kingston Upon Kingston and Surbiton FAS 0 92,000 0 90,392 Agency Thames

London Borough Kingston Town Centre Flood Environment of Kingston upon 200,000 100,000 100,000 0 0 Alleviation Scheme Agency Thames

London Borough London Borough Brockwell Park FAS 133,000 133,000 0 0 0 of Lambeth of Lambeth

London Borough Environment Lewisham and Catford FAS 3,930,846 2,111,240 1,819,606 0 1,398,478 of Lewisham Agency

London Borough Cottenham Park Flood London Borough 280,000 280,000 0 0 0 of Merton Alleviation Scheme of Merton

London Borough Environment Graveney FAS 229,600 229,600 0 0 162,487 of Merton Agency County Project Title Lead RMA Budget GiA Local Levy Contributions Forecast

London Borough Seely Road Flood Alleviation London Borough 225,000 225,000 0 0 0 of Merton Scheme of Merton

London Borough Assessment of SW Flood Risk London Borough 20,000 0 20,000 0 0 of Redbridge at Wanstead Flats of Redbridge

London Borough Chadwell Heath Flood London Borough 50,000 25,000 25,000 0 0 of Redbridge Alleviation Scheme of Redbridge

London Borough Clayhall Flood Alleviation London Borough 207,000 100,500 106,500 0 0 of Redbridge Scheme of Redbridge

London Borough Illford, Seven Kings Water Environment 0 0 0 0 15,578 of Redbridge Flood Alleviation Scheme Agency

London Borough Loxford Water, Westwood Rec London Borough 0 0 0 0 35,000 of Redbridge Flood Alleviation Scheme of Redbridge

London Borough Woodford Surface Water London Borough 0 0 0 0 0 of Redbridge Flood Alleviation Scheme of Redbridge

London Borough Environment of Richmond on Barnes FAS 300,000 300,000 0 0 0 Agency Thames

London Borough Mereway Sluice, Twickenham - Environment of Richmond upon 103,500 103,500 0 0 88,477 Gate Replacement Agency Thames

London Borough East Camberwell FAS Phase 1 - Southwark 0 55,000 195,000 494,500 0 of Southwark Coleman Road London Borough County Project Title Lead RMA Budget GiA Local Levy Contributions Forecast

London Borough London Borough East Camberwell FAS Phase 2 250,000 0 0 0 0 of Southwark of Southwark

London Borough Peckham Rye Flood Alleviation London Borough 100,000 100,000 0 0 30,000 of Southwark Scheme of Southwark

London Borough Anton Crescent FSA H and S Environment 67,500 0 67,500 0 18,000 of Sutton Improvements, Sutton Agency

London Borough Beverley Brook at Worcester Environment 0 0 0 0 28,626 of Sutton Park Agency

London Borough CDA 22 Worcester Park London Borough 35,000 0 35,000 0 0 of Sutton Surface Water FAS of Sutton

London Borough London Borough SuDS in Sutton Schools 310,000 0 0 0 90,000 of Sutton of Sutton

London Borough Wallington Station and South London Borough 50,000 0 50,000 0 0 of Sutton Beddington of Sutton

London Borough London Borough Chestnuts Showground Flood of Waltham of Waltham 50,000 0 50,000 0 20,000 Alleviation Scheme Forest Forest

London Borough Dagenham Brook Flood Environment of Waltham 168,000 60,877 107,123 0 132,393 Alleviation Scheme Agency Forest

London Borough London Borough Fillebrook Surface Water of Waltham of Waltham 0 0 0 0 20,000 Investigation Forest Forest County Project Title Lead RMA Budget GiA Local Levy Contributions Forecast

London Borough London Borough South Chingford Surface Water of Waltham of Waltham 0 0 0 0 20,000 Investigation Forest Forest

London Borough Clapham Junction Flood London Borough 300,000 300,000 0 0 1,393 of Wandsworth Alleviation Scheme of Wandsworth

Environment Northamptonshire Banbury FAS 6,000 8,180 Agency

Environment Oxfordshire Abingdon River Ock FAS 700,000 200,000 0 500,000 149,951 Agency

Abingdon St Helens Wharf Mill Environment Oxfordshire 0 0 0 0 122,138 Wall Agency

Benson Flood Risk Environment Oxfordshire 0 0 0 0 48,081 Management Scheme Agency

Environment Oxfordshire Bicester Town Brook 5,000 5,000 0 0 2,961 Agency

Bloxham (Tadmarton Road) Oxfordshire Oxfordshire Flood Risk Management 70,000 56,000 14,000 0 0 County Scheme

Bloxham Flood Alleviation Environment Oxfordshire 92,550 42,550 50,000 0 23,727 Scheme Agency

Boundary Brook Catchment Environment Oxfordshire (Florence Park) Flood 368,350 200,000 168,350 0 32,867 Agency Alleviation County Project Title Lead RMA Budget GiA Local Levy Contributions Forecast

Chalgrove Flood Risk Environment Oxfordshire 0 0 0 0 36,672 Management Scheme Agency

Environment Oxfordshire East Hagbourne FRM Scheme 0 0 0 0 25,269 Agency

Godstow Weir B Environment Oxfordshire 0 0 0 0 90,366 refurbishment Agency

Goring on Thames Flood Risk Environment Oxfordshire 335,500 76,992 258,508 0 15,041 Management Scheme Agency

Henley-on-Thames Flood Risk Environment Oxfordshire - 20,231 Management Scheme Agency

Islip Flood Risk Management Environment Oxfordshire 0 0 0 0 18,873 Scheme Agency

Environment Oxfordshire Madley Brook, Witney 0 0 0 0 33,629 Agency

Oxford Flood Alleviation Environment Oxfordshire 8,010,000 5,030,000 2,150,000 830,000 6,026,287 Scheme Agency

Environment Oxfordshire Paddle Rymer Package 2 15,474 15,474 0 0 19,065 Agency

Environment Oxfordshire Paddle and Rymer H and S 4,000 4,000 0 0 3,021 Agency

Environment Oxfordshire Remenham Flood Mitigation 0 0 0 0 384.32 Agency County Project Title Lead RMA Budget GiA Local Levy Contributions Forecast

Environment Oxfordshire Steventon and Milton 25,000 0 25,000 0 10357.54 Agency

Sutton Courtenay Flood Risk Environment Oxfordshire 75,947 0 75,947 0 27,337 Management Scheme Agency

Environment Oxfordshire Wendlebury FAS 100,000 100,000 0 0 15,509 Agency

Addlestone Flood Alleviation Environment Surrey 0 0 0 0 6,862 Scheme Agency

Alfold Crossways Flood Surrey Surrey County 20,000 0 20,000 0 0 Alleviation Scheme

Ash Surface Water Flood Relief Surrey Guildford District 0 0 0 0 0 Scheme

Bagshot Flood Alleviation Environment Surrey 55,000 47,586 7,414 0 82,165 Scheme Agency

Surrey Balcombe Road Horley FAS Surrey County 100,000 100,000 0 0 0

Environment Surrey Bell Weir Refurbishment 0 0 0 0 139,839 Agency

Bookham Flood Alleviation Mole Valley Surrey 75,000 75,000 0 0 0 Scheme District

Bramley, Fisher Rowe Close Environment Surrey 135,809 0 135,809 0 0 Flood Alleviation Scheme Agency

Surrey Brockham and Strood Green Surrey County 35,000 35,000 0 County Project Title Lead RMA Budget GiA Local Levy Contributions Forecast

FAS

Burpham Flood Alleviation Surrey Guildford District 0 0 0 0 0 Scheme

Burstow Stream at East Horley Environment Surrey 100,000 100,000 0 0 5,000 FAS Agency

Byfleet and Weybridge Flood Environment Surrey 100,000 0 100,000 0 157,753 Alleviation Schemes Agency

Surrey Caterham Hill FAS Surrey County 75,000 0 75,000 0 0

Chobham Flood Alleviation Surrey Heath Surrey 0 0 0 0 47,000 Scheme District

Chobham South Flood Environment Surrey - 24,802 Attenuation Scheme Agency

Surrey Copthorne Stream FAS Surrey County 380,000 380,000 0 0 0

Cranleigh Flood Alleviation Surrey Surrey County 15,000 15,000 0 0 15,000 Scheme

Crawley Villages Options Environment Surrey 150,000 150,000 0 0 3,931 Investigations Agency

Environment Surrey Dead River 74,000 74,000 0 0 500 Agency

Ewell Town Centre and South Surrey Surrey County 15,000 0 0 0 0 Horton FAS County Project Title Lead RMA Budget GiA Local Levy Contributions Forecast

Surrey Flexford Flood Relief Scheme Guildford District 0 0 0 0 0

Godalming Flood Alleviation Environment Surrey 700,000 550,000 150,000 0 615,599 Scheme Agency

Guildford Flood Alleviation Environment Surrey 229,000 0 229,000 0 179,193 Scheme Agency

Environment Surrey Hell Ditch Fish Pass Project - 87,000 Agency

Hoe Valley flood alleviation Surrey Woking District 123,625 0 79,000 44,625 0 and WFD Scheme

Hydraulic Ram Replacement at Environment Surrey 20,700 20,700 0 0 0 Huntsmoor Weir Agency

Environment Surrey Leatherhead and Fetcham FAS 100,000 0 100,000 0 58,638 Agency

Leatherhead and Middle Mole Environment Surrey 0 0 0 0 -46,518 FAS Agency

Environment Surrey Lower Mole FAS 0 0 0 0 9,350 Agency

Environment Surrey Lower Mole FAS Asset Plan 10,000 0 0 0 32,376 Agency

Environment Surrey Lower Mole Safety Booms 7,000 7,000 0 0 656,365 Agency

Surrey Lower Road Effingham Guildford District 140,000 0 140,000 0 0 County Project Title Lead RMA Budget GiA Local Levy Contributions Forecast

Environment Surrey NFM Dorking FAS 50,000 50,000 9,700 Agency

Norcott Road CDA 19 SWFAS Surrey Surrey County 60,000 60,000 0 0 0 LB Hackney

Environment Surrey Penton Hook Restoration 730,957 730,957 0 0 362,884 Agency

Environment Surrey Redhill FAS 135,000 0 135,000 0 75,495 Agency

Reigate and Surrey Reigate Town Centre FAS 25,000 0 25,000 0 15,000 Banstead District

River Ash and Staines Environment Surrey 100,000 100,000 0 0 65,404 Reservoirs Aqueduct Agency

Environment Surrey River Rythe FAS 50,000 25,000 25,000 0 16,635 Agency

River Rythe: Flood Relief Environment Surrey Culvert intake screen 20,000 20,000 0 0 16,635 Agency modification/replacement

River Thames Scheme - Environment Surrey Capacity Improvements and 3,611,000 3,351,000 114,000 146,000 3,656,531 Agency Flood Channel

River Thames Scheme - Environment Surrey 2,321,000 1,821,000 500,000 0 1,143,907 Delivery Programme Agency County Project Title Lead RMA Budget GiA Local Levy Contributions Forecast

River Thames Scheme - Surrey Surrey County 390,000 390,000 0 0 0 Funding Strategy

River Thames Scheme - Major Environment Surrey 0 0 0 0 10,172 Incident Planning Agency

River Thames Scheme - Surrey Surrey County 160,000 160,000 0 0 0 Procurement Strategy

River Thames Scheme - Environment Surrey 899,000 899,000 0 0 270,019 Property Level Protection Agency

River Thames Scheme - Surrey Surrey County 1,500,000 1,500,000 0 0 0 Property Purchase

River Thames Scheme Environment Surrey Community Resilience 0 479,427 Agency Measures

Environment Surrey River Wey Weir Refurbishment 1,000,000 1,000,000 0 0 605,346 Agency

RuBC - Lyne and Chilsey Green Environment Surrey - 0 FAS V1 Agency

Smallfield Flood Alleviation Surrey Surrey County 0 0 0 0 20,000 Scheme

Surrey South Earlswood FAS Surrey County 9,655 0 9,655 0 0

Stoke d'Abernon Flood Surrey Surrey County 40,000 0 0 0 16,554 Alleviation Scheme County Project Title Lead RMA Budget GiA Local Levy Contributions Forecast

Surbiton Crescent Flood Surrey Surrey County 51,760 0 51,760 0 0 Alleviation Scheme - CDA12

Sutton Green Flood Surrey Woking District 150,000 0 150,000 0 0 Alleviation Scheme

Environment Surrey The Woking Initial Assessment 0 0 0 0 -11,868 Agency

Upper Hogsmill at Epsom and Environment Surrey 15,000 0 0 0 11,785 Ewell FAS Agency

Vale Farm Road Flood Surrey Surrey County 15,000 0 15,000 0 0 Alleviation Scheme

Walton Terrace Flood Alleviate Surrey Surrey County 15,000 0 15,000 0 0 Scheme

Wey Meadows Flood Environment Surrey 5,000 0 5,000 0 0 Alleviation Scheme Agency

Windlesham Flood Alleviation Environment Surrey 0 0 0 0 26,353 Scheme Agency

Woodford Flood Alleviation Surrey Surrey County 43,660 0 43,660 0 0 Scheme

Environment Various Lower Thames Guard Piles 123,500 123,500 0 0 0 Agency

Environment Various South London culvert, trash 50,000 50,000 0 0 6,500 screen and bridges blockage Agency County Project Title Lead RMA Budget GiA Local Levy Contributions Forecast

study

Environment Various TE2100 Habitat Creation 0 10,000 0 0 7,500 Agency

TE2100 Implementation Environment Various 0 130,000 0 0 130,000 Planning Agency

Team 2100 Programme IDT Environment Various 3,969,546 3,969,546 0 0 4,544,969 Services Agency

Thames Temporary defence Environment Various 0 0 0 0 466,875 Project Agency

Environment Various TRFCC Levy Posts 16/17-20/21 660,000 0 660,000 0 565,000 Agency

West Thames Packaged Environment Various 0 0 0 0 58,210 Projects Agency

Environment West Sussex Upper Mole FAS 2,013,293 713,293 0 1,300,000 2,254,547 Agency

Aldbourne Flood Alleviation Wiltshire Wiltshire - 150,000 Scheme

Covingham and Nythe Flood Wiltshire Swindon 250,000 175,000 0 75,000 50,000 Alleviation Strategy, Swindon

Great Bedwyn Surface Water Wiltshire Wiltshire 0 0 0 0 260,000 Drainage Improvements

Wiltshire Haydon Wick FAS Environment 0 0 0 0 30,973 County Project Title Lead RMA Budget GiA Local Levy Contributions Forecast

Agency

Kingshill Flood Risk Environment Wiltshire 0 0 0 0 20,226 Management Scheme Agency

Restoration of Kennet SSSI - Wiltshire Wiltshire Council 50,000 50,000 0 0 0 Marlborough to Ramsbury

London Councils’ Transport and Environment Committee

Direct Vision Standard for Item No: 16 Heavy Goods Vehicles

Report by: Alex Williams Job titles: Director, City Planning, Transport for London

Date: 14 June 2018

Contact Officer: Alina Tuerk, Delivery Planning Manager (Freight), Transport for London

Telephone: 0207 027 9583 Email: [email protected]

Summary: This report is an update on the development of a Direct Vision Standard (DVS) for Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) and the HGV Safety Standard Permit Scheme (HSSP) to reduce road danger in London.

TfL is seeking TEC’s support to use London Councils’ London Lorry Control Scheme (LLCS) traffic order (“1985 TRO”) as the most efficient legal mechanism to implement and enforce the HSSP Scheme, subject to TEC’s endorsement. The detail of the project has developed and matters are now moving to a point where the European Union can be notified of the HSSP proposals.

Recommendations: Members are asked to: 1. Note the progress made in developing the DVS and proposals to ban or restrict the most unsafe HGVs from London’s roads. 2. Note the timeline and future TEC requirements 3. Support in principle the use of London Councils’ LLCS traffic order as the most efficient legal mechanism to implement and enforce the HSSP Scheme (any final proposal to be subject to the outcome of statutory consultation) 4. Endorse the formal notification of the HSSP Scheme to the European Commission by the Government under Directive(EU) 2015/1535 on the basis that the 1985 TRO is the implementation mechanism.

Direct Vision Standard Report London Councils’ TEC – 14 June 2018 Agenda Item 16, Page 1

Overview

1. The Direct Vision Standard (DVS) has been developed in order to address the high number of collisions involving HGVs and vulnerable road users. The DVS objectively measures a driver’s direct view through the windows of a HGV cab. This is communicated as a star rating from zero (poor) to five (excellent), which indicates the level of risk to vulnerable road users near to the vehicle.

2. This is the fourth time the DVS has been reported to TEC.

3. The last report in March 2018 outlined proposals to use DVS alongside a HGV Safety Standard Permit (HSSP/ Scheme) to reduce potential road danger from the operation of heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) over 12 tonnes (Gross Vehicle Weight) in Greater London. It is proposed that the traffic order that established the LLCS (the 1985 TRO1) would be amended to enable the proposed HSSP Scheme to operate in parallel with the LLCS under that order. Agreement was given by TEC for TfL and London Councils to send a joint letter to the Department for Transport, requesting the Government’s support in notifying the European Commission of the intended use of the 1985 TRO for enforcing the proposed HSSP Scheme.

4. This report updates the Committee on the following progress:

• Technical development of DVS star ratings • HGV safe system • Implementation and enforcement • Additional data collection • Consultation • Vehicle exemptions • DVS at EU level

5. TfL is seeking TEC’s continued support to use the existing LLCS TRO as the appropriate legal instrument to introduce the HSSP proposal. Any final scheme proposal will be subject to the outcome of further policy and statutory consultation, assessments of costs, review of risks and legal advice.

Background

Need for a HGV Safety Permit for London

6. In 2016, 23 per cent of pedestrian and 50 per cent of cyclist fatalities involved a HGV, despite HGVs only making up four per cent of road miles in London. Restrictions in a HGV driver’s field of vision, or ‘blind spots’, are a significant contributory factor in these collisions.

7. In the long-term, increasing drivers’ direct vision from HGV cabs of nearby vulnerable road users(VRUs) has the potential to save lives as part of a holistic approach to reducing road danger by improving the safety of vehicles, drivers and quality of HGV operations.

8. However, until more vehicles can be designed with reduced blind spots and then used in significant numbers, other aspects of vehicle technology and design will have a role to play in

1 The Greater London (Restriction of Goods Vehicles) Traffic Order 1985 (as amended) which was made by the Greater London Council (GLC) under section 6 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. The 1985 TRO was kept in force on abolition of the GLC and the TEC is its statutory successor as regards the operation of the Order.

Direct Vision Standard Report London Councils’ TEC – 14 June 2018 Agenda Item 16, Page 2 reducing road danger, alongside better training of drivers and better designed roads and junctions.

Developing a Direct Vision Standard for HGVs

9. TfL has worked with London Councils staff, HGV manufacturers and academics to produce the world’s first ‘direct vision’ standard. The standard is the first initiative of its kind to categorise HGVs depending on the level of a driver's direct vision from the HGV cab. The volume of space directly visible to the driver around the cab is objectively measured and weighted by area of greatest collision risk. This measurement is then converted to a star rating depending on the level of direct vision from zero (poor) to five (excellent).

10. The DVS forms part of the Mayor of London and TfL's Vision Zero approach to reducing road danger.

Development of a HGV Safety Permit following Vision Zero principles

11. TfL’s research into the impacts of the original proposals has shown that direct vision from the current HGV fleet is poor. However, it will be some years before manufacturers can produce enough vehicles with the highest levels of direct vision to replace vehicles with poorer direct vision in the existing fleet. TfL have therefore examined what additional safety measures would reduce road danger from HGVs over 12 tonnes which do not meet the minimum DVS star thresholds. Following the ‘Vision Zero’ principles set out in the Mayor’s Transport Strategy, TfL proposes the use of a permit scheme combined with a ‘safe system’ approach (see below) to set the ambition wider than direct vision alone.

12. A permit-based scheme is considered necessary to introduce measures based on DVS principles. Unlike, for example, Euro emissions standards which exist in regulations and are included within existing vehicle registration data, the DVS rating of an individual HGV cannot be identified from existing vehicle registration data.

13. A permit scheme allows a vehicle to be assessed for its direct vision performance as part of the permit application process. Permits are also a proportionate, cost effective and practical way of implementing safety improvements (“safe system” measures) on the most potentially dangerous HGVs without operators having to replace vehicles prematurely. The permit is likely to be electronic or virtual, recording vehicle details on a database, rather than a physical document.

14. Under TfL’s proposals, all HGVs over 12 tonnes (largely N3 class) would be covered by the permit scheme. It would be unlawful to operate a HGV of 12 tonnes or above in Greater London without a permit issued under the Scheme. It is not proposed to charge operators for the permit.

15. The proposed Scheme would be delivered in phases:

- October 2019: The permit scheme will go live, allowing permit applications to be made on a voluntary basis for 12 months.

- October2 2020 would require all HGVs over 12 tonnes operating in London to apply for and be granted a permit with one star set as the minimum required DVS threshold. Zero star HGVs would be banned unless they demonstrate compliance with safe system requirements and implement additional safety measures.

2 This is the same date that under the proposed enhancements to the Low Emission Zone (LEZ), heavy vehicles will have to meet emission requirements or pay a daily charge across the same area.

Direct Vision Standard Report London Councils’ TEC – 14 June 2018 Agenda Item 16, Page 3 - October 2024 would see the permit requirement retained and three stars set as the minimum DVS threshold. Zero, one and two star HGVs would be banned unless they demonstrate compliance with ‘progressive safe system’ requirements and implement additional safety measures.

- The progressive safe system will be an update of the safe system which includes advances in proven safety technology not available in 2020.

16. The specific measures in the safe system are linked to existing HGV industry recognised safety standards – further information is provided below. Only those vehicles not meeting the minimum DVS star rating threshold and not complying with the safe system would be banned. Permit conditions would require the HGV to operate the safe system. It would be unlawful to operate the vehicle in breach of those safe system permit conditions.

Implementation and enforcement of the HSSP scheme proposal

17. The following details on the proposed implementation and enforcement of the scheme will be brought back to TEC to agree at a later stage.

18. TfL and London Councils propose using their traffic regulation powers to implement the HSSP Scheme. Legal advice, jointly commissioned by TfL and London Councils, has confirmed that the Scheme can be implemented under highway safety traffic order powers3 to make it unlawful (1) to operate a HGV over 12 tonnes in Greater London without a permit or (2) to breach Safe System permit conditions where they are imposed (on zero star HGVs in 2020 and those with less than 3 stars in 2024).

19. It is recommended that the current 1985 TRO under which the LLCS is legally established and operates, is used as the appropriate legal measure to implement the HSSP Scheme, as there are synergies in terms of there being a single instrument for HGV operating standards in London, covering both environmental and highway safety issues. The LLCS would continue to operate under the 1985 TRO. Incorporation of the HSSP scheme into the Order can be achieved without altering the LLCS current movement restrictions on 18 tonne vehicles during unsocial hours off the Excluded Route Network. This has several advantages. Except for the London borough of Barnet, which left the LLCS in 1996 the 1985 TRO covers the whole of Greater London, and all borough roads and the TLRN. In addition, contravention is already decriminalised with penalty charge levels set at effective deterrent levels: £550 for hauliers/ operators and £130 for drivers, reduced by half if paid within 14 days. The alternative implementation mechanism would be for one or more separate but complementary traffic orders to be made by TEC/boroughs and TfL to provide Greater London coverage on the TLRN and all borough roads - the police would enforce contraventions using the normal penalties that apply for criminal traffic offences: a relatively low £50 fixed penalty notice or, in exceptional cases, a maximum £1000 fine in the magistrates court4.

20. The Scheme proposal introduces a new ‘technical standard’ for HGVs. As a result, it must be notified by the Government to the European Commission5. The Government’s notification must happen at a point when the proposed implementing measure (the Amendment Order) is still amenable to amendment, which is likely to be prior to the final statutory consultation on

3 Section 6 of the Road traffic regulation Act 1984 4 The level of the FPN could, in principle, be raised to a more effective deterrent level, and/ or the contravention decriminalised by the Secretary of State making secondary legislation. However this would only provide for a single level of FPN or decriminalised penalty charge (in contrast to the two-tier LLCS) and it is likely Brexit will reduce the Government’s available time and resources to pass the necessary legislation. 5 Under Directive (EU) 2015/1535

Direct Vision Standard Report London Councils’ TEC – 14 June 2018 Agenda Item 16, Page 4 the proposals, Stage 2b. The relevant procedures allow the Commission to impose a standstill of between six months and 18 months while it considers any legal issues under EU laws, including what action (if any) it proposes to take at a EU-wide level under vehicle type approval legislation (e.g. the proposed General Safety Regulation) and whether to allow it to proceed. Subject to notification, it is proposed that the HSSP Scheme is confirmed by November 2019 and becomes operational in November 2020. This is also subject to any transitional agreement as part of Brexit, the UK will leave the EU at the end of March 2019. Notwithstanding Brexit the notification requirement under the Directive applies and must be complied with for so long as the UK is subject to Single Market requirements and its legal framework.

21. Notification under the Directive is by central Government. TfL is working with the DfT to prepare the notification. TEC is the legal successor to the Greater London Council which originally made the 1985 TRO, which it is proposed to amend to incorporate the HSSP proposals alongside its existing LLCS provisions. TEC is therefore the legal body responsible for the 1985 TRO. TEC’s endorsement is sought to the Government’s notification, on the basis that the 1985 TRO is the legal implementation mechanism for the proposed HSSP.

22. Incorporation of the HSSP scheme proposals into the 1985 TRO, to operate alongside its current LLCS provisions, involves TEC approving changes to its text by promoting an “Amendment Order” that follows the same applicable statutory traffic order-making process. It is anticipated that this statutory process would start in 2019 with a public and stakeholder consultation (Stage 2b) on the final HSSP scheme package of proposals, coupled with the first formal statutory notice of the proposed Amendment Order6. A 12 weeks consultation and objection period then follows after which, if there were valid objections, a public inquiry would have to be held before an independent inspector. TEC would have to decide whether to continue with the Scheme in light of the inspector’s recommendations. It is anticipated TEC would be asked in March 2019 to formally approve the Amendment Order, with or without modification. Publication of a formal statutory notice confirming its making would follow and a High Court legal challenge could be brought within six weeks of that date. Subject to any legal challenge, the operational enforcement of the HSSP scheme would start in October 2020 to allow a reasonable pre-compliance period and to align with the proposed start date for the proposed enhancements to the Low Emission Zone for heavy vehicles.7 Applications for permits could commence in October 2019. This timeline is, however, subject to the notification to the European Commission as above, objections and any public inquiry or subsequent legal challenge.

Progress to date

Technical development of DVS star ratings

23. The DVS methodology has been finalised in consultation with the primary truck manufacturers through a series of expert panels and bi-lateral engagement.

24. DVS star ratings for Euro VI HGVs were sent to the manufacturers for review and validation in February 2018. Since 22 March 2018, operators have been able to contact their

6 This is formal Notice of Proposals or Intention. 7 On 9 June the Mayor confirmed that Euro VI will be the Londonwide emission standard for heavy vehicles from 26 October 2020.

Direct Vision Standard Report London Councils’ TEC – 14 June 2018 Agenda Item 16, Page 5 manufacturers to find out about the star rating of their vehicle. The DVS page on the TfL website has been updated to reflect this8. 25. DVS star ratings for Euro IV and V vehicles and the technical rating protocol that will allow vehicle manufacturers to rate new ranges as they come to market will both be available later this year.

HGV safe system

26. Under the safe system approach, all sources of road danger should be considered as part of a system and not addressed in isolation.

27. Widening the approach beyond direct vision to tackle road danger through a safe system approach allows a broader range of risks to be addressed. While poor direct vision poses a particular danger to VRUs, it is not the only threat – specific manoeuvres by cyclists and drivers, the physical impact of a collision, unsafe behaviours or a lack of awareness are all additional risks that should be considered.

28. The safe system has been developed through ongoing consultation with a dedicated independent group with defined terms of reference, including representatives from VRU groups, freight trade associations, vehicle manufacturers and the Department for Transport.

29. Following advice from this independent group, TfL has outlined the key components of a safe system see Appendix A:

Scheme implementation and enforcement

30. The operating model for the implementation and enforcement of the scheme is based on the following high level scheme principles:

• All vehicle operator (HGVs >12 tonne GVW) entering Greater London must request a safety permit. • Permits will not be issued if the vehicles are not compliant with the applicable DVS. • The permit is issued for travel anywhere within the Greater London boundary at any time of day (24/7) for a period of:

o 10 years for vehicles rated 3 star and above o Until October 2024 for vehicles rated 1 star and 2 star and for vehicles rated 0 star with a safe system.

• The permit scheme will go live in October 2019 allowing permit applications to be made on a voluntary basis for 12 months. When legal enforcement begins in October 2020, vehicle operators and drivers run the risk of being caught and issued a PCN if they do not have a valid permit.

• The requirements to which TfL is designing the implementation of the scheme vary according to three high level scenarios depending on a vehicle’s applicability:

o Compliant: 1-5 star rated vehicles o Compliant: 0 star or unrated with a safe system

8 https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/deliveries-in-london/delivering-safely/direct-vision-in-heavy-goods-vehicles

Direct Vision Standard Report London Councils’ TEC – 14 June 2018 Agenda Item 16, Page 6 o Non compliant: 0 star or unrated

31. The scheme requirements to which TfL is designing the enforcement of the scheme fall into the following categories:

• Monitor Compliance: compliance will need to be monitored so that action can be taken where necessary if a permit is not held. • Issue PCNs and deal with appeals: PCNs will need to be issued and customer representations and appeals dealt with • Enforcement arrangements, including whether these will be undertaken by TfL on behalf of TEC/the Boroughs (and if so, any necessary delegations or appointments) are also being considered. • If the scheme is implemented as proposed using the LLCS TRO, recipients of PCNs would have the right to appeal to the Environment and Traffic Adjudicators via London Tribunals, subject to TEC approval.

32. In addition TfL is considering the options for compliance spot checks.

Additional data collection

33. A full Integrated Impact Assessment (IIA), which considered the likely economic, social and environmental impacts, statutory equalities, traffic movement and traffic management to inform the development of the HSSP and safe system proposals, was published as part of the Phase 2a consultation. This impact assessment is being updated ahead of the Stage 2b consultation.

34. In order to refine the range of impact, additional data collection was carried out in March 2018 to more accurately assign the HGVs operating in London by make and model against the DVS star ratings.

Consultation update

35. In implementing the Mayor’s proposals, a phased consultation approach is being followed to ensure feedback from all stakeholders is considered at each stage of development. To date, two phases of consultation have been held to help develop a scheme proportionate to the problem of HGV and VRU safety.

36. Phase 1 of the consultation (January to April 2017), sought views on the concept of DVS and the methodology used to create it. There was overwhelming support for the principle of DVS.

37. Phase 2a, was a policy consultation (November 2017 – January 2018) that included feedback from the first consultation and an Integrated Impact Assessment which considered the likely economic, social and environmental impacts, statutory equalities, traffic movement and traffic management to inform the development of the HSSP Scheme and safe system proposals.

38. The full Phase 2a consultation report and responses to issues raised document is available on TfL’s consultation website. The results of both consultations have been previously reported to TEC.

39. Feedback from Phase 2a is being used to refine the final HSSP scheme proposals, which if it is decided to proceed, will be followed by a further consultation (Phase 2b) in early 2019. This

Direct Vision Standard Report London Councils’ TEC – 14 June 2018 Agenda Item 16, Page 7 phase would present the final package of proposals for public and stakeholder consultation in early 2019 following the notification to European Commission. The Phase 2b consultation materials will include matters such as the process for obtaining a permit to operate and the safe system measures. It would be accompanied by the first statutory notice of the Amendment Order, as outlined above. (This timeline is subject to further TEC approval, and the outcome of DfT and European Commission notification and support.)

Vehicle exemptions

40. There are no foreseen exceptional circumstances which suggest that operational vehicles over 12 tonnes used by the London boroughs could not comply with the relevant star rating required or the safe system permit conditions.

41. Specialist gritting and snow plough vehicles will be exempt as they are specialist, very low mileage vehicles that are only utilised in certain weather conditions.

42. Road sweepers and gully emptier/ suckers will be exempt where applicable from side guards only.

43. A full list of proposed vehicle exemptions can be found on the DVS webpage.

DVS at EU level

44. In addition to the proposed London scheme, TfL has been lobbying at EU level to influence direct vision in the next generation of HGV cab design.

45. On May 17, 2018 the European Commission published its proposals for the Third Mobility Package which includes direct vision for HGVs.

Legal Implications

46. This section covers legal issues not covered elsewhere in this report. As previously reported, the London borough of Barnet left the LLCS in 1996. It would be possible for Barnet to “re- join” the 1985 TRO to again become part of the LLCS as well as the HSSP or solely for the purposes of the HSSP Scheme if it wished to.

47. Formal notification of the HSSP Scheme proposals to the European Commission under the Transparency Directive would be required whether the Scheme was implemented using the 1985 TRO as the implementation mechanism or through by separate stand-alone traffic orders.

Next Steps

48. Work is ongoing on the potential delivery options of any HGV permit scheme, how it will be operated and enforced, including how this might be achieved as an amendment to the LLCS’ 1985 traffic order.

49. TfL is committed to working with London Councils as they continue to develop this proposed scheme and the potential use of the LLCS’ traffic order as an implementation mechanism.

50. The Scheme’s requirements amount to a new technical standard for HGVs operating in London and so it fall under a EU Directive that requires it to be notified by DfT to the European Commission. This must happen before the Stage 2b statutory consultation

Direct Vision Standard Report London Councils’ TEC – 14 June 2018 Agenda Item 16, Page 8 commences (scheduled for January 2019). Authority to start the notification process was agreed by TEC at its meeting of 22 March 2018

51. The notification will contain the following information: • Draft TRO • Draft Policy • Permit conditions (safe system) • Summary of the expected scheme impacts (demonstrating proportionality) • Summary of administration & enforcement

52. TfL will work closely with London Councils to develop in further detail the processes around scheme implementation and enforcement. This will include discussions with Barnet about their re-inclusion within the scheme TRO.

53. A summary timeline of the key milestones is included below:

Figure 2. Summary timeline

Recommendations Members are asked to: 1. Note the progress made in developing the DVS and proposals to ban or restrict the most unsafe HGVs from London’s roads. 2. Note the timeline and future TEC requirements 3. Support the use of the 1985 TRO as the most efficient legal mechanism to implement and enforce the HSSP Scheme 4. Endorse the formal notification of the HSSP Scheme to the European Commission by the Government under Directive (EU) 2015/1535 on the basis that the 1985 TRO is the implementation mechanism.

Financial Implications The proposed HSSP scheme would be developed at no implementation cost to TEC or the London boroughs.

Equalities Implications There are currently no equalities implications arising from the recommendations. A full Integrated Impact Assessment, including an equalities impact assessment, was published as part of the Phase 2a consultation (see link below) and this will be updated for the Stage 2b consultation expected in early 2019.

Background Information

Direct Vision Standard Report London Councils’ TEC – 14 June 2018 Agenda Item 16, Page 9

• Information and supporting documents on the closed phase 2a consultation at: www.consultations.tfl.gov.uk/roads/direct-vision-standards-phase-2/

• Information on the DVS and HGV safety permit can be found at: www.tfl.gov.uk/direct- vision-standard

• The European Commission’s proposal for direct vision in trucks: https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/1/2018/EN/COM-2018-286-F1-EN-MAIN- PART-1.PDF

Direct Vision Standard Report London Councils’ TEC – 14 June 2018 Agenda Item 16, Page 10 Appendix A: Safe System requirements for heavy goods vehicles over 12 tonnes

Area of risk HGV safety permit requirement

All vehicles must obtain a star rating under the DVS system. Direct Vision Every vehicle must meet a minimum DVS star rating of one star by 2020 (three star from 2024) Principal requirement

OR Vehicles that do not meet the minimum one star direct vision rating shall have front and side blind spots completely eliminated or minimised as far as practical and possible, Indirect Vision through the use of a fully operational Camera Monitoring System, both Class V and VI mirrors, a sensor system with driver alerts All vehicles that do not meet the minimum one star direct vision rating shall be equipped with enhanced audible Warning of intended means to warn other road users of a vehicle’s left manoeuvre manoeuvre, and prominent signage that visually warns other road users not to get too close to the vehicle.

Physical impact of a All vehicles that do not meet the minimum one star direct Supplementary requirements hazard vision rating shall be fitted with side under-run protection

All drivers (including those exempt or not in scope of Driver Certificate of Professional Competence) should undergo

undertaking Driver training specific training on the safety of vulnerable road users and the use and limitations of supplementary vehicle safety equipment. (not mandatory) Advisory

Direct Vision Standard Report London Councils’ TEC – 14 June 2018 Agenda Item 16, Page 11

London Councils’ Transport and Environment Committee

Taxicard Update Item No: 17

Report by: Stephen Boon Job title: Chief Contracts Officer

Date: 14 June 2018

Contact Officer: Stephen Boon

Telephone: 020 7934 99951 Email: [email protected]

This short report provides members with a summary of Taxicard Summary: scheme performance in 2017/18 and updates members with progress towards implementation of the new Taxicard supply contract in October 2018.

• To note the contents of this report. Recommendations:

Background

1. The Taxicard scheme provides subsidised taxi and private hire vehicle (PHV) journeys to approximately 62,000 London residents with serious mobility impairments, or who are severely sight impaired. The scheme, which has a budget of £12.7 million in 2018/19, is funded by TfL (81%) and the boroughs (19%).

2. Each borough receives a proportion of the TfL funding based on a formula agreed by the Transport and Environment Committee and is responsible for setting its own budget, trip allocations and subsidies for its members / users. London Councils administers the scheme on behalf of the boroughs.

3. In March 2018, this committee agreed to award a new Taxicard supply contract to City Fleet Networks Ltd., the incumbent supplier. This report provides a brief update on final performance in the 2017/18 financial year. It also describes progress towards the launch of the new contract in October 2018.

Taxicard Update London Councils’ TEC – 14 June 2018 Agenda Item 17, Page 1 Performance in 2017/18

4. Until January 2018, the number of journeys taken by Taxicard members was set to increase for the second year in a row. However, the bad weather in February and March served to significantly reduce the number of journeys taken in the final two months of the financial year. By 31 March 2018, Taxicard members had taken a total of 1.25 million trips, which represents a slight decrease (2%) on the previous year.

5. The reduction in the number of trips meant that the financial outturn for the year was 8.63% less than budgeted (£11.433 million compared to a budget of £12.513 million). Only three boroughs had overspends and these were kept to manageable levels, not exceeding £5,500 in the individual boroughs concerned.

6. Overall levels of performance on the contract were generally high and exceeded agreed service levels. The primary measures for performance are the percentage of vehicles which arrive on time. For advance bookings, the measure is 95% within 15 minutes of the agreed arrival time and for as soon as possible bookings, it is 95% within 30 minutes of booking. Actual performance against these measures in 2018/19 was 96.23% and 97.06% respectively, giving a combined average of 96.64%.

7. Performance targets for advance bookings were exceeded in 26 boroughs, the remaining seven boroughs experienced performance of between 92.54% (Lambeth) to 94.5% (City of London). Performance targets for as soon as possible bookings were exceeded in 31 boroughs with two (Enfield and Wandsworth) slightly below target (94.85% and 94.77%). Combined performance was exceeded in 29 boroughs, with a lowest combined performance of 94.13% (Lambeth).

8. This represents a slight reduction on the previous year, where the average combined performance was 96.75%. Officers consider that this reduction is in large part a consequence of the adverse weather conditions at the end of the financial year. Officers also note that meeting performance targets in central London boroughs continues to prove more challenging for the supplier due to increased competition for Taxi and PHV supply from other commercial and private customers. Officers will continue to work with the supplier to address this, particularly in light of the new contract.

New Contract

9. The results of the Taxicard supply procurement exercise were announced to participating bidders in April 2018, following the TEC decision in March. There was a 10 day standstill period after the results were announced in accordance with EU procurement regulations. Officers are pleased to announce that no challenges were made to the decision by any of the unsuccessful bidders.

10. Since passing the standstill period, the contracting process with City Fleet has been progressing well. The March 2018 report to TEC noted that officers would work with the supplier to obtain a fixed price model that offered price certainty to customers, as well as savings to the scheme over and above those already notified to TEC. The focus of activity to date has been on this. Officers will report back to committee in due course to highlight the effect of the new pricing on demand for the service and by extension, scheme costs.

11. The next steps are to agree improvements to the customer service model, particularly complaints handling and also the introduction of technological innovations, such as more active supply management in locations where supply has been more challenging. Officers are confident that these measures will further improve customer experience and address

Taxicard Update London Councils’ TEC – 14 June 2018 Agenda Item 17, Page 2

issues of cost and reliability identified in a consultation with Taxicard members conducted prior to the re-procurement exercise.

Financial Implications for London Councils

The Director of Corporate Resources reports that the indicative outturn position for 2017/18, as highlighted in paragraph 5, will be reflected in the provisional financial results for the year due to be reported to the meeting of the TEC Executive Sub-Committee on 19 July.

The financial implications arising from the award of the new Taxicard contract will be reported back to this Committee during the autumn.

Legal Implications for London Councils

None

Equalities Implications for London Councils

None

Recommendations

Members are asked to:

• Note the contents of this report

Background Papers TEC – Retendering of Taxicard Supply Contract (Taxi and Private Hire Vehicle Services Framework – 22 March 2018 (Item E1 (Restricted)) TEC – Taxicard Procurement – 15 June 2017 (Item 17) TEC – Taxicard Progress Report – 23 March 2017 (Item 9) TEC – Taxicard Update – 8 December 2016 (Item 10)

Taxicard Update London Councils’ TEC – 14 June 2018 Agenda Item 17, Page 3

London Councils’ Transport and Environment Committee

Freedom Pass Progress Report Item No: 18

Report by: Tony O’Connor Job title: Mobility Services Manager

Date: 14 June 2018

Contact Officer: Tony O’Connor

Telephone: 020 7934 9501 Email: tony.o’[email protected]

Summary: This report provides Members with an update on the Freedom Pass mid-term review and 2018 renewal exercises. It also sets out the result of negotiations with the Rail Delivery Group (RDG) regarding previous disruptions on Southern Rail.

Recommendations: Members are asked to:

1. Note the outcome of the Mid-Term Review of eligibility of Freedom Passes that expire on 31 March 2020 2. Agree that Eligibility Reviews are carried out every year 3. Note progress on the renewal of Freedom Passes that expired on 31 March 2018 4. Accept the Rail Delivery Group’s offer of compensation and agree to apportion the amount amongst boroughs in proportion to the number of Freedom Pass journeys undertaken by pass holders in each borough on National Rail in the year in question

Background

1. The Freedom Pass has been in existence since 1998, and is the most generous concessionary fares scheme in the country, offering free travel for older and disabled London residents on all Transport for London (TfL) travel modes (bus, Tube, London Overground, TfL rail, DLR and Tram) 24 hours a day, and on most National Rail routes after 9.30am Monday to Friday and at any time on weekends and public holidays. It also allows travel on local buses anywhere in England.

Freedom Pass Progress Report London Councils’ TEC – 14 June 2018 Agenda Item 18, Page 1 2. To be eligible for a Freedom Pass people have to have their sole or principal residence in one of the London boroughs and meet either the age or disability criteria. There are currently 1.007 million older, 166,000 statutory disabled and 9,600 discretionary disabled passholders. Approximately 348 million journeys are taken on TfL modes and 19 million journeys on National Rail per year.

3. The Freedom Pass is funded by the London boroughs at a cost of £346 million in 2018/19. The cost is negotiated annually by London Councils on behalf of the boroughs with TfL and the Rail Delivery Group (RDG) who represent the National Rail train companies that operate in London. The agreed amount is then apportioned amongst the boroughs based on usage.

4. A report outlining progress on the Freedom Pass Mid-Term Review and Renewal exercises was noted by this Committee in March 2018.

Mid–Term Review of 2020 expiry date passes

5. Before 2010 Freedom Passes were issued for a period of two years. After that date, in line with the Concessionary Bus Travel Act 2007, passes became valid for five years. As many passholders who change address, including moving outside of London, do not inform us, we undertake a mid-term review (MTR) of eligibility at roughly the half-way stage of its validity. This is intended to keep our records up to date and to reduce costs by preventing continued use of the scheme by people who are no longer eligible. This is done by commissioning a data matching company, Experian, to carry out checks against various other data sources to flag up people who they believed were no longer at the address that we had on our database.

6. The first one of these was done in 2012/13, which proved to be a cost-effective exercise, as many people who had moved away and were no longer eligible were still using their passes and consequently had their passes stopped. Those passes issued in 2010 were subject to a major renewal exercise in 2015 and it was agreed to hold a further mid-term review of 2020 expiry date passes.

7. The current mid-term review (MTR) exercise of 2020 expiry passes is now almost complete. We sent letters to 56,650 pass holders asking them to provide proof of their sole or principal London residence. 17,414 (31%) of these confirmed their address. 37,770 (66%) did not respond and 1,466 (3%) pass holders provided insufficient evidence that they still lived in London. 27% provided proof online and 73% provided proof by post. Initial analysis shows that the results of the data matching exercise by Experian was 80% accurate, but further detailed analysis remains to be done.

8. The plan to stop (hotlist) passes of those who did not respond in tranches over a two month period was outlined to committee in March, and this exercise is now complete with 37,770 passes being hotlisted. The passes hotlisted at each stage were a mixture of recently used passes and passes which had not been used over a longer period. This was to minimise the impact on the contact centre from calls and e-mails.

9. Passholders whose passes have been stopped, but who still reside in London, have had to provide proof of their London address either via e-mail or post. Once the proof of address has been verified a new pass has been sent to the passholder.

10. More analysis remains to be completed on the MTR, but from a sample of 600 contacts to our contact centre from those whose passes had been hotlisted:

Freedom Pass Progress Report London Councils’ TEC – 14 June 2018 Agenda Item 18, Page 2 • Approximately 25% had not moved from the address on the database. • 63% of these said they did not receive a letter. • Of the 75% who had reported that they moved, 95% said that they did not receive a letter. • Of the 75% of passholders who moved, 98% reported that they had moved within London.

Of those who confirmed they had received a letter but did not respond, there were a number of reasons, but the vast majority of these were as follows:

• Waited too long to respond • They were out of the country • Letter had been misplaced • Did not understand the process • Forgot to respond • Limited understanding of written English (often in these cases, the post-hotlist call was made by a family member or a friend)

11. To date around 30% of those who had their passes hotlisted have since successfully provided proof of address in London and have been issued a new pass. The majority of these had moved within London, but had not informed us.

12. The Project Board overseeing the MTR held its final meeting on 16 May, where it reviewed lessons learnt. These are summarised into relevant headings below:

• Call volume forecasts were difficult to accurately forecast. There is a need to use data collected from this MTR to improve forecasting for future reviews. • Analysis to be carried out with users to find out why the percentage providing proof online was 30%, which is low compared to the figures for first time applicants and renewals. • Feedback during the MTR suggested that some pass holders were concerned about whether the letter was genuine. For the next letter production borough logos will be printed on to the MTR letter to reassure recipients that the letter is genuine to increase the number of responses. • Consideration will be given to including disabled pass holders for boroughs to review addresses in future MTR exercises. • London Councils believes the data matching results to have been approx. 80% accurate; however this needs to be benchmarked against other similar exercises. London Councils will investigate further how to reduce the number of false matches before the next review.

13. The Mid-Term Review has cost £200,000 to date compared to a budget of £257,000. £195,000 and £5,000 from the 2017/18 and 2018/19 budgets respectively. There were considerably fewer phone calls and e-mails than expected during the main exercise, but these numbers have increased as passes have been hotlisted and people have called to find out why. There will continue to be a low-level residual spend as some passholders who have not yet provided proof of continued eligibility do so.

14. As well as keeping the database current, one of the main reasons for undertaking the mid-term review is to prevent the fraudulent use of Freedom Passes by those who are not eligible because they no longer live in a London borough. It is estimated that cost avoided from fraudulent use will be in the region of £1.5m by 31 March 2020. This results in a net

Freedom Pass Progress Report London Councils’ TEC – 14 June 2018 Agenda Item 18, Page 3 cost avoided figure of around £1.29m taking into account the expenditure on the mid-term review.

15. If there are annual eligibility reviews in future, rather than just mid-term reviews of the years when there are large-scale numbers of passes to expire, the boroughs will make further savings. Table 1 below estimates the cost and potential savings for the current exercise and for the next two years.

Table 1 Pass Expiry Annual Estimated Estimated Estimated Net Date Review Held Cost Saving Saving 2020 2017/18 £210,000 £1,500,000 £1,290,000 2021 2018 £55,000 £262,242 £207,242 2022 2019 £31,673 £127,922 £96,249 Total £296,673 £1,890,164 £1,593,491

16. Based on these substantial savings, officers recommend that members agree to hold eligibility reviews on an annual basis in future, although those in the next few years will be considerably smaller in scale, with the next large one being the review of 2025 expiry passes in 2022.

Renewal of 2018 expiry date passes

17. Freedom Passes are issued for five years and expire on 31 March in the fifth year of issue. Each year, London Councils carries out renewal exercises with passholders whose passes are due to expire. In respect of 2018, letters were sent to 60,488 older passholders in February inviting them to renew online or by post. To date 80% (48,512) have successfully renewed. This figure excludes Camden who automatically renewed 1,193 passes after undertaking internal evidence checks. Appendix 1 shows the breakdown by borough, which ranges from 87% in Bexley to 69% in the City of London. 79% of those who have renewed have done so online, with 21% renewing by post.

18. The renewal of Disabled Person Freedom Pass holders was the responsibility of the local authority. Boroughs had to confirm the continued eligibility of their pass holders against the Transport Act 2000 criteria and check residency, updating the database of any changes by 8 February. 6,064 passholders not deactivated by the borough by that deadline were sent a replacement pass.

19. The 2018 passes stopped working on 31 March, but a short grace period was agreed with TfL and the rail companies where those who renewed late were allowed to travel if they showed their passes for visual inspection. This grace period is now over and anyone who has not renewed their pass must do so before travelling with their Freedom Pass again.

20. The project board also looked at lessons learned from the renewal. These include:

• The reason that many people did not renew by the deadline was because they changed address and did not inform us, resulting in their not receiving the renewal letter. We will make the wording regarding the importance of informing London Councils about a change of address more prominent on the letter that is sent to new passholders. The information leaflet issued with passes already makes this clear and the wording on the Freedom Pass website has also been strengthened.

Freedom Pass Progress Report London Councils’ TEC – 14 June 2018 Agenda Item 18, Page 4 • The cut-off date to deactivate the CMS records of non-eligible disabled pass holders may be extended for smaller renewals. Some boroughs did not complete all their reassessments by the 8 February deadline, resulting in some passholders being stopped who subsequently provided proof of eligibility before their passes expired. This resulted in new passes having to be issued to them. • Boroughs should try to start their renewals earlier than some currently do to avoid problems for pass holders who have changed boroughs and need to reapply to their new local authority. • Improve the e-mail process for those who apply online by creating an account. Those who previously used the fast track renewal route (whereby a user does not need to set up an account to renew online) has caused login issues for pass holders who subsequently go on to create an account at a later stage; the database thinks there is already an existing account.

21. To date approx. £214,000 has been spent of the £238,000 budget, with £198,000 allocated to the 2017/18 financial year and £16,000 allocated to 2018/19. There will be some residual costs in the next few months, but it is expected that the exercise will not exceed the budget.

Disruption on Southern Rail

22. Following significant disruption on Southern Rail in 2016/17, TEC members tasked London Councils officers with investigating whether compensation was due. Officers met with the RDG to consider whether the disruption was sufficiently extensive to trigger relevant compensation clauses in London Councils’ agreement with the RDG.

23. In the final analysis, officers did not consider that there was a strong enough case to argue that conditions had been met for compensation to be payable. Nevertheless, the RDG did accept that in all likelihood disruption would have caused Southern Rail users to shift to other modes. Therefore, the RDG and Southern Rail have offered a one-off goodwill payment of £150,000.

24. Officers recommend that members accept this offer and agree to apportion the amount amongst boroughs in proportion to the number of Freedom Pass journeys undertaken by pass holders in each borough on National Rail in the year in question.

Financial Implications for London Councils

The Director of Corporate Resources reports that, as detailed in paragraphs 14,15 and 21, the cost of the mid-term eligibility review and the 2018 renewal process can be met from the approved overall budgetary provision of £1.518 million for 2017/18 and £1.518 million for 2018/19. The Mid-Term review and renewals taking place in 2018/19 are considerably smaller in scale, with a commensurately lower spend and can be met from the approved budget. RDG will issue a credit note to London Councils for the £150,000 compensation payment due for service disruption and this amount will be deducted from the boroughs’ Quarter 3 payments to London Councils and a revised schedule of payments will be issued.

Legal Implications for London Councils

None

Freedom Pass Progress Report London Councils’ TEC – 14 June 2018 Agenda Item 18, Page 5 Equalities Implications for London Councils

None

Recommendations

Members are asked to:

1. Note the outcome of the mid-term review of eligibility of Freedom Passes that expire on 31 March 2020 2. Agree that Eligibility Reviews are carried out every year 3. Note progress on the renewal of Freedom Passes that expired on 31 March 2018 4. Accept the Rail Delivery Group’s offer of compensation and agree to apportion the amount amongst boroughs in proportion to the number of Freedom Pass journeys undertaken by pass holders in each borough on National Rail in the year in question

Background Papers

TEC – Freedom Pass Progress Report - 22 March 2018 (Item 10)

Freedom Pass Progress Report London Councils’ TEC – 14 June 2018 Agenda Item 18, Page 6 Number Number Borough Number of Renewed % renewed Renewed % Renewed Automatic % Renewed Total Number Total % Passes Passes Expiring Borough Online online Paper Paper Renewals Automatic Renewed Renewed 2018 Barking & Dagenham 526 58.31% 183 20.29% 0 0.00% 709 78.60% 902 Barnet 2125 64.77% 502 15.30% 0 0.00% 2627 80.07% 3281 Bexley 1408 67.99% 397 19.17% 0 0.00% 1805 87.16% 2071 Brent 1435 58.12% 406 16.44% 0 0.00% 1841 74.56% 2469 Bromley 2004 69.44% 433 15.00% 0 0.00% 2437 84.44% 2886 Camden 0 #DIV/0! 3 #DIV/0! 1190 99.75% 1193 #DIV/0! 0 City of London 73 58.40% 13 10.40% 0 0.00% 86 68.80% 125 City of Westminster 1055 54.02% 313 16.03% 0 0.00% 1368 70.05% 1953 Croydon 1846 63.26% 546 18.71% 0 0.00% 2392 81.97% 2918 Ealing 1640 61.61% 462 17.36% 0 0.00% 2102 78.96% 2662 Enfield 1648 63.68% 392 15.15% 0 0.00% 2040 78.83% 2588 Greenwich 1113 64.45% 305 17.66% 0 0.00% 1418 82.11% 1727 Hackney 715 54.71% 256 19.59% 0 0.00% 971 74.29% 1307 Hammersmith and Fulham 733 60.53% 207 17.09% 0 0.00% 940 77.62% 1211 Haringey 1080 59.67% 296 16.35% 0 0.00% 1376 76.02% 1810 Harrow 1502 65.22% 321 13.94% 0 0.00% 1823 79.16% 2303 Havering 1488 66.31% 431 19.21% 0 0.00% 1919 85.52% 2244 Hillingdon 1460 63.92% 408 17.86% 0 0.00% 1868 81.79% 2284 Hounslow 1259 62.82% 315 15.72% 0 0.00% 1574 78.54% 2004 Islington 820 58.07% 255 18.06% 0 0.00% 1075 76.13% 1412 Kensington and Chelsea 831 53.82% 271 17.55% 0 0.00% 1102 71.37% 1544 Kingston upon Thames 873 62.67% 228 16.37% 0 0.00% 1101 79.04% 1393 Lambeth 977 55.89% 345 19.74% 0 0.00% 1322 75.63% 1748 Lewisham 1063 56.91% 335 17.93% 0 0.00% 1398 74.84% 1868 Merton 943 60.29% 283 18.09% 0 0.00% 1226 78.39% 1564 Newham 953 56.16% 296 17.44% 0 0.00% 1249 73.60% 1697 Redbridge 1475 63.63% 377 16.26% 0 0.00% 1852 79.90% 2318 Richmond upon Thames 1267 65.65% 317 16.42% 0 0.00% 1584 82.07% 1930 Southwark 955 57.43% 319 19.18% 0 0.00% 1274 76.61% 1663 Sutton 1279 78.42% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1279 78.42% 1631 Tower Hamlets 700 55.16% 223 17.57% 0 0.00% 923 72.73% 1269 Waltham Forest 955 57.25% 296 17.75% 0 0.00% 1251 75.00% 1668 Wandsworth 1193 58.77% 333 16.40% 0 0.00% 1526 75.17% 2030 Total 37394 61.83% 10067 16.65% 1190 1.97% 48651 80.44% 60480