Public Document Pack
Committee Agenda
City of Westminster
Title: Environment Policy & Scrutiny Committee
Meeting Date: Monday 19th January, 2015
Time: 7.00 pm
Venue: Rooms 5, 6 & 7 - 17th Floor, City Hall
Members: Councillors: Ian Adams (Chairman) Thomas Crockett Jonthan Glanz Louise Hyams Vincenzo Rampulla Karen Scarborough Cameron Thomson Jason Williams
Members of the public are welcome to attend the meeting and listen to the discussion Part 1 of the Agenda
Admission to the public gallery is by ticket, issued from the ground floor reception at City Hall from 6.00pm. If you have a disability and require any special assistance please contact the Committee Officer (details listed below) in advance of the meeting.
An In duction loop operates to enhance sound for anyone wearing a hearing aid or using a transmitter. If you require T any further information, please contact the Committee Officer, Jonathan Deacon, Senior Committee and Governance Officer.
Tel: 020 7641 2783; email: [email protected] Corporate Website: www.westminster.gov.uk
Note for Members: Members are reminded that Officer contacts are shown at the end of each report and Members are welcome to raise questions in advance of the meeting. With regard to item 2, guidance on declarations of interests is included in the Code of Governance; if Members and Officers have any particular questions they should contact the Head of Legal & Democratic Services in advance of the meeting please.
AGENDA PART 1 (IN PUBLIC)
1. MEMBERSHIP To note any changes to the membership.
2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST To receive declarations by Members and Officers of the existence and nature of any personal or prejudicial interests in matters on this agenda.
3. MINUTES (Pages 1 - 18) To approve the minutes of the meeting held on Monday 10 November 2014.
4. UPDATE FROM CABINET MEMBERS (Pages 19 - 30) Question And Answer Session With The Deputy Cabinet Member For The Built Environment, Councillor Richard Beddoe (7.05pm – 7.35pm)
5. PROCUREMENT STRATEGY FOR WASTE DISPOSAL (Pages 31 - 50) CONTRACT Presentation of the Waste and Recycling Manager.
6. BROADBAND COVERAGE (Pages 51 - 104) Report of the Head of Economic Development.
7. PRESS RELEASES The Committee to consider whether it wishes to issue any press releases in relation to its work.
8. ANNUAL WORK PROGRAMME AND ACTION TRACKER (Pages 105 - 2014/15 112)
Report of the Scrutiny Manager.
9. ANY OTHER BUSINESS THE CHAIRMAN CONSIDERS URGENT
DATES OF FUTURE MEETINGS 2014/15 Municipal Year: 2 March 2015, meeting in April 2015 TBC
Peter Large Head of Legal & Democratic Services 9 January 2015
This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 3
Minutes of a meeting of the ENVIRONMENT POLICY & SCRUTINY COMMITTEE held at 7:00pm on Monday 10 November 2014 at City Hall, Victoria Street, SW1
Members of Committee: Councillors Ian Adams (Chairman), Thomas Crockett, Jonathan Glanz, Louise Hyams, Vincenzo Rampulla, Karen Scarborough, Cameron Thomson and Jason Williams.
Also Present: Councillor Ed Argar, Cabinet Member for City Management, Transport and Infrastructure, Councillor Heather Acton, Cabinet Member for Sustainability and Parking and Councillor Brian Connell.
1. MEMBERSHIP
1.1 There were no apologies for absence. All Members of the Committee were present at the meeting.
2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
2.1 There were no declarations of interest.
3. MINUTES AND MATTERS ARISING
3.1 RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting held on Monday 15 September 2014 be signed by the Chairman as a correct record of proceedings.
4. UPDATE FROM CABINET MEMBERS
4.1 The Committee received written updates from the Cabinet Member for the Built Environment, the Cabinet Member for City Management, Transport and Infrastructure and the Cabinet Member for Sustainability and Parking on significant matters within their portfolios.
4.2 The Chairman welcomed Councillor Argar and Councillor Acton to the meeting. The Cabinet Members gave brief introductions. Councillor Argar stated that he had recently signed the Council’s Cabinet Member report adopting the Municipal Waste Management Strategy 2016 – 31 following receipt of approval from the Mayor of London. It was now intended to proceed with the procurement process for the waste disposal contract and consult the Committee on the initial stages of the process in the early part of 2015. Councillor Acton highlighted that the parking transformation programme and transfer of activities had been implemented successfully and paid tribute to the hard work of officers. Councillor Acton also advised she
1 Page 1 and Councillor Argar would be considering the Westminster Cycling Strategy Cabinet Member report in the near future. She thanked the Sustainability Task Group for their contribution in reviewing the draft Environmental Sustainability Strategy. It was intended that an updated version of the Strategy would be available in December 2014. The Chairman informed those present that the Sustainability Task Group had met earlier in the evening and it had been agreed that members of the Task Group would receive a copy of the Strategy in mid December prior to it being considered by Cabinet.
4.3 The Committee put questions to and received responses from Councillor Argar on the following matters that were relevant to his portfolio:
4.4 Highways Performance Targets – Councillor Crockett referred to the performance table for repairing highways defects during September 2014 included within the Cabinet Member update and asked whether not meeting the targets had been a failure of the service provider. Councillor Argar replied that there were two factors that were primarily responsible for the targets not being met. One was the transition process with the new contract which took place at the start of the new financial year when key work was taking place regarding the annual maintenance programmes. There were a number of points to sort out as part of the procurement which were resolved satisfactorily but slightly delayed the formal award of the contract. Secondly, there was a transition in the transferring of information from the Legacy IT systems to the new service provider. Some data had been lost during this process which was subsequently recovered. Councillor Argar added that the October performance figures were much more encouraging. The priority 1 two hour response was circa 90%, the priority two twenty four hour response was just below 94%, the priority 3 ten day response was 100% and the priority 4 twenty eight day response was 99.6%. Priorities 3 and 4 were ahead of target and he was confident that the figures for priorities 1 and 2 would improve by year end.
4.5 Waste Strategy – Councillor Thomson made the point that as part of the new waste contract there was the potential for a significant increase in disposal costs. In the light of this, as much waste as possible needed to be recycled rather than sent to landfill. He asked what measures were being taken to encourage recycling. Councillor Argar responded that it had been the case that the previous waste disposal contract had locked in disposal costs at a low level over a lengthy period. He believed it would be possible to mitigate against a worst case scenario in terms of costs with an effective procurement process. A higher recycling target of 35% by 2020 had been set and the Council would be pushing increased commercial recycling. The Council would continue to make it as easy as possible for people to recycle including with the provision of black recycling bins and doorstep collections. There was an approximate churn of a third of the population each year which led to a lack of knowledge of the correct practices and the recycling facilities available. There was a continuing campaign supported by the Greater London Authority promoting recycling and there would be an additional promotion in the New Year on the environmental and financial benefits for the City of recycling.
2 Page 2
4.6 Councillor Rampulla asked which of the action points in the Waste Strategy Councillor Argar considered would have the biggest impact in terms of recycling. Councillor Argar replied that he believed the most important measures were to continue to make recycling as easy as possible, to educate and argue the case. He did not wish to pursue a policy of reducing waste collections in order to try and force a change. This was particularly as this was not reasonable or fair given that many residents in Westminster lived in small flats where it was not practical to store waste for a couple of weeks at a time. Campaigns made a great deal of difference. Knocking on doors and informing people assisted given the lack of knowledge as a result of the churn of residents. Councillor Rampulla asked for further clarification specifically on commercial recycling where he made the point that the target was particularly challenging. The Cabinet Member added that he believed the commercial waste and recycling offer was a very positive one. He was looking at freight consolidation and working with the BIDS and some of the larger estates regarding commercial refuse consolidation which would ease congestion, improve air quality and help to control the look of the street.
4.7 Public toilets – Councillor Hyams asked for an update on the Covent Garden public toilets. Councillor Argar advised that he had had a meeting with the private operator of the public toilets to remind them of their obligations. There was also monitoring of the sites, including Covent Garden public toilets, via the Westminster wardens to ensure an accurate picture of where there are currently problems and also have an evidence base should the Council require legal action to enforce the terms of the lease. He had met with Capital & Counties Properties PLC, who own key assets in Covent Garden, to discuss alternative methods within the terms of the contract to enhance public lavatory facilities in the area.
4.8 Public Lighting – Councillor Glanz commented that it was positive that the number of long term faults was reducing. He asked whether a series of lights such as the ones that were on the left hand side of Argyll Street when looking from Liberty counted as one fault or several. Councillor Argar stated that it was his understanding that each light constituted a fault. He added that Westminster was focussed on reducing the faults but was also reliant on UK Power Networks in terms of the power supply.
4.9 Cleansing Performance – Councillor Scarborough raised the point that there had been a number of complaints in the ward she represents, Marylebone High Street, about the dumping of rubbish. She expressed concerns that Section 34 of the Deregulation Act would lead to more rubbish being left on the street. Councillor Argar stated that complaints overall were marginally up from the previous year with complaints specific to bulky waste being less than 1% up. He had met with an individual in Marylebone who had written on the topic of the dumping of rubbish and had also met Karen Buck MP and Councillor Dimoldenberg to discuss possible solutions. There had been no reduction in resources towards addressing the problem. Possible options included continuing to enforce although this was difficult as people had to be physically caught or identified. There was also communication in terms of
3 Page 3 educating people and advising people what the rules are. The Cabinet Member was also exploring whether alongside notices, harder hitting warnings could be made to those who did not comply with the rules. He was also exploring whether letting agents could include guidance on the disposal of rubbish with tenancy details.
4.10 Councillor Williams requested further information on the type of complaints received in respect of street cleansing. He was concerned that fly tipping was on the increase in Lupus Street in the ward he represents, Churchill. Councillor Argar stated that the increase in fly tipping overall in comparison with the previous year was relatively small. Cleansing teams had been carrying out an audit on refuse and the Cabinet Member was expecting the data from this audit soon. He would write to Councillor Williams with more specific data regarding the complaints.
4.11 The Committee put questions to and received responses from Councillor Acton on the following matters that were relevant to her portfolio:
4.12 Westminster Cycling Strategy – The Chairman requested information from the Cabinet Member regarding how cycle hangers were reflected in the Cycling Strategy. This had been specifically examined by the Cycling Task Group. Councillor Acton replied that there are some concerns expressed in relation to positioning hangers on the street. It was being proposed that there are two pilot areas on or near estates. One would be located in the north of the borough and the other in the south and the effectiveness of the hangers would be assessed. Surrounding boroughs were introducing cycle hangers and the Council was starting to receive requests for secure cycle parking.
4.13 Oxford Street West – air quality project – Councillor Glanz noted that the Council had been successful in its application to the Mayor’s Air Quality Fund for £100K to support work to consolidate servicing and delivery trips in the Oxford Street West area to improve local air quality. He asked whether the efforts of the Council and those who had already investigated this issue such as The Crown Estate would be co-ordinated to ensure the consolidation of vehicle trips and improve air quality. Councillor Acton stated that the Council would be working with the major landowners and the New West End Company to make sure there was no duplication of effort.
4.14 Vehicles - Councillor Scarborough asked whether the Cabinet Member had looked at clamping foreign registered vehicles that transgress. Councillor Acton advised that it had been looked at but currently the Council did not clamp any vehicles which transgress and had no plans to introduce this. The Council would be keeping an eye on the impact of the DVLA’s plans to close loopholes relating to drivers of foreign registered vehicles who avoid paying tax and fines in the UK each year. Councillor Scarborough asked whether vehicle clamping was something that the Council could outsource which would mean that it would not have to employ additional staff. Councillor Acton made the point that it would still require additional organisation. She added that she would arrange for a written response to be provided to Councillor Scarborough.
4 Page 4
4.15 Parking – Councillor Rampulla commented that he had received complaints from drivers that they had received Penalty Charge Notices despite paying for parking and asked whether this issue had come to the Cabinet Member’s attention. Councillor Acton responded that she was shocked to hear this. The errors should not in theory take place under the new service being provided after 3 November as the Traffic Marshall’s hand held device would be able to show whether the driver had paid for parking or not. If a mistake was made the driver could go online to make a representation. Councillor Rampulla recommended that a driver received a receipt when challenging a PCN. The Cabinet Member made the point that if a representation was made online then an e-mail was sent acknowledging this.
4.16 Noise – Councillor Williams asked whether there had been an increase in helicopter noise complaints and did the Council liaise with the Civil Aviation Authority on addressing this issue particularly in relation to night flights. There had been concerns amongst residents of Churchill that there were flights causing noise nuisance near to the Thames and he was keen to know where the flights were coming from. Councillor Acton stated that it was her understanding that the Council did liaise with the CAA. As a Hyde Park ward councillor where events were held and there was the use of helicopters it was not always easy to obtain this data. She would investigate and report back to Councillor Williams.
4.17 Code of Construction Practice – Councillor Hyams noted that officers were hoping to extend the current CoCP beyond the impacts from major infrastructure and the largest development sites, to include all major and significant medium and small sized developments. She suggested that developers be encouraged to liaise with each other and co-ordinate the timescales of their developments to minimise nuisance to residents in areas such as St James’s where concentrated development was taking place. Councillor Acton stated that this topic was also relevant to Councillor Davis’ portfolio as the Cabinet Member for the Built Environment and she would need to liaise with him. She believed that it was a good idea that could be undertaken by the major developers in areas of single land ownership. There was no means of controlling timings for smaller developments such as basement works which could take place in a number of properties in close proximity to each other at any one time.
4.18 Biodiversity and Open Space – Councillor Thomson asked what specific steps might be considered in the Council’s Biodiversity and Open Spaces Strategy regarding having a greater number of species. Councillor Acton informed him that there had been a meeting in the summer with partners who were keen to be involved with the Strategy. This would link in with the Sustainability Strategy. Data was currently being collected on species. Councillor Thomson recommended giving guidance to developers on how they should best use roof space if they are intended to create roof gardens. There was a risk that cost or ease of maintenance would limit options for biodiversity. It would be a good idea for the Council to set out what the possible options are. Councillor Acton stated that it was an objective of the Sustainability Strategy to
5 Page 5 encourage green corridors and that species move along the green corridors. Pollen creating plants were potentially harder to maintain but were needed to ensure biodiversity.
4.19 Councillor Crockett requested that Councillor Acton provide a business case for biodiversity in Westminster. Councillor Acton explained that there was a business case for bees with hives being included on roof gardens. It was necessary to protect food production, including in Westminster. Councillor Thomson made the point that large urban areas were not intensively treated with pesticides so sometimes one could find a greater variety of species than in rural areas. It was important to protect the green spaces.
4.20 ACTION : The following actions arose from questions raised by the Committee:
• That a written response be provided setting out more detailed information on the complaints relating to street cleansing (Councillor Argar and Mark Banks, Group Manager, Waste and Parks). • That a written response be provided on the Council’s current position relating to vehicle clamping (Councillor Acton and Kieran Fitsall, Service Development Manager). • The Cabinet Member to investigate whether there has been an increase in noise complaints resulting from helicopter flights (Councillor Acton and Andrew Ralph, Service Manager - Noise & Licensing, Premises Management).
4.21 RESOLVED : That the written updates from the Cabinet Members be noted.
5. TFL'S CONSULTATION ON THE EAST WEST CYCLE SUPERHIGHWAY
5.1. Martin Low, City Commissioner of Transportation, introduced the report at the meeting. He thanked the Deputy Mayor for Transport, Isabel Dedring and Leon Daniels, Managing Director, Surface Transport at Transport for London (‘TfL’) for agreeing to receive the Council’s response to TfL’s consultation on the East West Cycle Superhighway up until 30 November. It provided an opportunity for the consultation to be discussed at the meeting and the two Cabinet Members in attendance, Cllrs Argar and Acton, would be able to take a decision on a response to the consultation. Mr Low paid tribute to TfL officers and Andrew Gilligan, Cycling Commissioner, Mayoral Team for their assistance throughout the process. The biggest challenge to date, however, had been the lack of meaningful information on the impact of the scheme, including how it is constructed and also on special events. The lack of information had meant that it had not been possible thus far to give a comprehensive view of the scheme in its current form. Officers had taken the opportunity to look at an alternative route along part of the East West Cycle Superhighway via Northumberland Avenue, Trafalgar Square, Admiralty Arch and The Mall. At the moment under existing plans for the route, during the Changing of the Guard there would have to be a diversion whilst roads were closed to traffic. The other concern that officers had with the current proposed route alignment was that traffic heading across Westminster Bridge would
6 Page 6 have to leave the TfL network into Parliament Square to re-enter Bridge Street to turn left into Victoria Embankment and vice versa. The principle of the Cycle Superhighway and a scheme to help cyclists was supported but there were other important road users including pedestrians. The consultation proposals did not set out the full impact on bus passengers. Mr Low added that TfL’s modelling work had sensibly looked at the schemes that were likely to be implemented by 2016, including those in Westminster namely Haymarket (Piccadilly 2-way), Lambeth Bridge Northern roundabout and Cycle Superhighway Route 5. There was an opportunity through TfL’s consultation in respect of sections of the route through the Royal Parks that was scheduled to take place in January 2015 to incorporate any refinements arising from the consultation such as the alternative route via Trafalgar Square and proposals for Lancaster Gate Gyratory which John Walton, Honorary Secretary, Paddington Residents' Active Concern on Transport (‘PRACT’) would be referring to. The current proposals in the consultation would achieve a great deal but there were a few problems which needed to be resolved.
5.2 The Committee heard evidence from witnesses Leon Daniels; Alan Bristow, Director of Road and Space Management, TfL; Andrew Gilligan; John Walton and Councillor Brian Connell, Cycling Champion.
5.3 Mr Daniels gave a presentation to the Committee. He provided some background to the East West Cycle Superhighway proposals. Both this route and the North South route had been launched as part of the Mayor’s Cycling Vision in March 2013 and looked to provide a high quality cycle route segregated from traffic through the heart of London. It was just one of the Mayor’s major cycling schemes which included the Central London Grid, Quietways and Mini-Hollands. The public and press were demanding that safety concerns relating to cycling in the capital were addressed. Cyclists accounted for a quarter of all traffic in Central London. There had been 4600 cycle collisions on London's roads last year. What was being proposed was a real step change in the provision of facilities for cyclists. The measures would encourage cycling, create a better environment and contribute to the good health of Londoners. Overall the benefits would outweigh the disbenefits.
5.4 Mr Daniels advised that the design principles for the East West route included introducing a substantially segregated cycle facility (cyclists separated from traffic in either space or time through junctions). Segregation would avoid ‘swarming’ of cyclists around queuing traffic which took place particularly at junctions. The new facility within the existing road footprint meant reassigning road space from other traffic users to cyclists. It was not possible to ban cyclists from using the rest of the carriageway. However, TfL’s experience from past projects was that the overwhelming majority of cyclists would use the segregated facility. A wide segregation platform would be introduced where possible. People or freight would not be directed towards the cycle superhighway. The East West Cycle Superhighway had been designed to ensure connectivity with other cycling routes across London. It was proposed that there would be improvements to pedestrian facilities and the urban realm, including widened pedestrian refuge islands such as at Victoria Embankment
7 Page 7 and widened footways such as at Parliament Square and Hyde Park Corner. There would be new crossings at Bayswater Road, Lancaster Gate and Westbourne Terrace.
5.5 Mr Daniels commented that the traffic modelling for the project had been extensive, surpassing that of the 2012 Olympic Games. The models assumed that all road users had perfect knowledge and that there were no disruptions to the network. It was not possible to model accurately other scenarios. The modelling had taken into account the aggregate effect of 21 major schemes across London that it was anticipated would be underway or completed at the same time as the Cycle Superhighway. It took into account the effects of an advanced traffic signal management programme and changes to journey times which were assessed to be a 12% increase during the morning peak time and a 17% increase during the evening peak time. The journey times were believed to be a worst case scenario as a combination of an advanced traffic signal management programme, would involve a change in timings of traffic signals, and traffic users changing their habits would result in the modelling being on the pessimistic side. There would be a huge increase in resources for enforcement. A lot of work was being taken forward in respect of freight and servicing. The key to reassigning road space to cyclists was that deliveries and servicing were not taking place during peak hours. Mr Daniels stated that there were some advantages and some disadvantages for bus services across the network with some being quicker and others slower. There were measures so that in some areas buses would get to the front of the queue and in other areas where more time was being taken, there would be improvements further along the route.
5.6 Mr Daniels provided an update on the consultation process. As stated by Mr Low, the public consultation had formally closed on 9 November but responses were being accepted up until 30 November. A stakeholder workshop was scheduled for 13 November where a small number of interested parties were invited, including Westminster Council. After 30 November, TfL would analyse all the responses and prepare a report, with recommendations to the Mayor expected in early 2015.
5.7 The Committee next heard from Mr Walton. He stated that PRACT’s objectives included ‘the promotion of public transport and other transport facilities available to Paddington residents’ but also ‘protection of the local environment from the impact of all-London transport projects’. He was concerned about the potential for better facilities for people cycling in London, on the one hand, but on the other hand longer bus journeys and damage to parts of the local environment. He had read in the Evening Standard that the Mayor’s target is for cycling to account for 5 per cent of journeys in the capital. He questioned what about the other 95 per cent? He believed some might be unaffected, for instance most journeys on foot. Others might even benefit, through lesser demand – for instance, journeys by tube or overground. But a lot of journeys would be affected adversely, for instance London buses, long- distance coaches, and vans making deliveries to London businesses. He did not believe the social costs of these delays had yet been quantified.
8 Page 8 5.8 Mr Walton stated that PRACT endorsed all that was proposed in paragraphs 2.1, 2.2 and 2.6 of the report. In PRACT’s response to TfL he would be requesting a full environmental assessment, such as was provided, for instance, for the Crossrail project. PRACT sought information on increased air pollution, not only along the route but also along the parallel routes to which vehicles will divert. PRACT also sought improved pedestrian crossings at various points in Bayswater.
5.9 In respect of the Lancaster Gate area, PRACT considered that different solutions from those initially proposed by TfL were essential, if severe damage to a number of local businesses was to be avoided. He was particularly referring to Lancaster London Hotel and the two horse riding stables. PRACT agreed that the best new solution should be discussed with stakeholders and that there should be renewed consultation with the public at large. This should be at the same time as the delayed consultation on the Hyde Park section of the superhighway.
5.10 Mr Walton made the point that PRACT considered that there was a problem in relation to Westbourne Terrace and the parallel roads. Only the southern section was covered in the present consultation. The critical junctions with Bishop’s Bridge Road, a major east–west route, was excluded. Consultation on this northern section would be part of that on the A40 Westway extension, which is delayed to next year. Because of the interactions between the two sections, PRACT was of the view that consultation on the northern section should be accompanied by a revisit of the southern section. There was a further compelling reason for this. The present consultation on the southern section had not provided information on traffic diversions to the parallel roads, which could damage the residential environment in the area to the west. On traffic diversions, PRACT shared the concerns of the report, mentioned at paragraph 4.19, that there was likely to be over-saturation of vehicular traffic in both Westbourne and Gloucester Terraces, which would propagate beyond the peak hours. PRACT was also deeply concerned about the timing of construction in Westbourne Terrace. PRACT considered that in 2016 it would be impossible to halve the traffic lanes there, by putting in segregated cycle lanes at that time. Crossrail had informed PRACT that up to late 2018 they would require the ability to divert eight bus routes in both directions along Westbourne Terrace, in case they needed to close Eastbourne Terrace at short notice. Further, PRACT believed that the case for installing segregated cycle lanes in Westbourne Terrace would stand or fall on a decision to proceed with the Westway extension, which appeared to be open to doubt at present.
5.11 Councillor Brian Connell, in his capacity as the Council’s Cycling Champion, addressed the Committee. He referred to the data in Mr Daniels’ presentation that cyclists accounted for a quarter of all traffic in Central London. It was not a small minority who were using this mode of transport. The Council’s direction of travel was in general aligned with the Mayor’s. Cycling was good for people’s health and the environment. It was however necessary to facilitate the correct routes. He was cautious on the Trafalgar Square route as it was a busy junction and it did not connect up with the westbound traffic
9 Page 9 on the Embankment. Parliament Square had more connectivity. Councillor Connell agreed with Mr Walton regarding the proposals for Lancaster Gate Gyratory. The alternative route known as option 3 had merit and should be considered. In his capacity as a Bayswater Ward Member, Councillor Connell stated that he had supported the Westbourne Terrace route onto the proposed Westway extension from when the Cycle Superhighway proposals had first been mooted. He was of the view that the extent of the Cycle Superhighway at this location would potentially have to be re-examined in the event that the Westway extension did not proceed.
5.12 The Committee responded to the report and the points made by the witnesses in the ensuing discussion. The following matters were raised:
• The Chairman asked whether there were projections in terms of lives that would be saved or accidents avoided, particularly in Westminster, as a result of the East West Cycle Superhighway proposals. Mr Daniels stated that the average number of fatalities amongst cyclists had averaged fourteen over a number of years. More than half of those had involved lorries or construction vehicles. Segregating cyclists by space and by time would reduce the number of fatalities and injuries, particularly at junctions. It was only possible to do so much however. There was also an onus on all road users to comply with the rules once the segregated lanes were introduced. Mr Gilligan added that of the 24 who had died since the Mayor’s Cycling Vision had been launched, 11 had been in locations where it was proposed to introduce segregated lanes. Mr Bristow commented that in Holland there had been a 60% drop in deaths as a result of segregated lanes. • It was questioned whether there were projections of the number of people who would give up longer bus journeys and use the underground trains instead as a result of the Cycle Superhighway. Mr Daniels made the point that the numbers cycling for the first time or cycling more extensively would have the benefit of taking pressure off the buses or underground trains. There were historically high numbers of people currently using the underground trains. Traffic speeds in London were starting to worsen again in London as a result of increased economic activity and population growth. He believed that bus times that involved a couple of minutes extra journey time were within most people’s tolerance levels but when this increased to ten minutes then it might put users off. TfL was still working to edge down the estimated bus journey times and there were bus priority measures in place for longer journeys to make up time elsewhere on the route. • Mr Gilligan and TfL representatives were asked to provide a business case for the East West Cycling Superhighway to those residents who do not cycle. Mr Gilligan responded that the case to non-cyclists was that everyone who cycles is freeing up a place for another person who wishes to use the bus or the underground trains. The schemes that were introduced led to a shift in the changes of use regarding the modes of transport. He provided the example of Cycling Superhighway 7 in South London which had not created the degree of segregation proposed for the East West Cycle Superhighway and yet 32% of the cyclists there had
10 Page 10 shifted from other modes of transport. This was the equivalent of 750 people during the peak three hours. Considerably more modal shift was expected from the East West Cycle Superhighway. There was also the case that every person who cycled also improved everybody else’s health as they would not be adding to pollution. • TfL representatives were asked whether the traffic lights would be time sensitive. Mr Bristow informed Members that the objective was to ensure that traffic was controlled in a more focussed way. The traffic lights would adapt to what could be seen on the road network. As the traffic changed its nature, the SCOOT traffic lights would change and align with it. The traffic lights could also be controlled or overridden from a 24/7 operations centre. • Mr Daniels advised that it was unpractical and unnecessary to ban cyclists away from the segregated lanes. To do so would require traffic regulation orders for every stretch of the East West Cycle Superhighway. The evidence was very few cyclists did not use them. It could be revisited if that was found not to be the case along this route. He also informed Members that pedicabs would not be permitted to use the segregated lanes and that enforcement would be even handed for all road users, keeping traffic moving. • Mr Daniels stated that the volume of people using buses was expected to grow and there was no plan to reduce them. Mr Gilligan added that one of the reasons the East West route was chosen was that there were no bus services on 90% of it. • It was explained to Members that TfL was currently working on the Environmental Impact Assessment (‘EIA’). It would not be published before 30 November but any comments that were made in the consultation responses in relation to it would be taken into account. Mr Gilligan explained that the traffic modelling had taken a number of months and had been completed at the end of September 2014. Only once the modelling was completed could the scoping assessment begin on the EIA. • Mr Low made the point that Westminster had worked closely with TfL on the findings of the modelling exercise to date but information had not been made available regarding the impact on pedestrians at some of the key locations. The concern was not the principle of the scheme but any adverse implications coming to the fore despite mitigating measures being introduced. The public were commenting on the consultation, having received information published on 26 September which only particularly related to two junctions, Parliament Square and Hyde Park Corner. In the final report to the Cabinet Members on the scheme there needed to be a good understanding of what was being proposed. Mr Gilligan responded that that was the purpose of having given Westminster officers considerable access to the findings of the modelling exercise. Mr Low identified that the issue was not a lack of access to the findings but that there was additional modelling that was yet to be carried out. It was accepted by all parties that it would take time to produce this data. The Chairman stated that meant the Committee’s response to the consultation would have a caveat as there was data that was currently not available. • TfL representatives were asked why they had chosen to take the route through Central London. Mr Daniels explained that there were a thousand
11 Page 11 cyclists an hour on the East West Cycle Superhighway route already. It was important to provide safety and connectivity to other Superhighways. The advantage of the Victoria Embankment route was that there are no junctions on the south side due to the river. It is also reasonably wide, has significant footway space and a limited number of frontages. Other routes had been looked at but there would have been additional complexities of dealing with smaller roads, lack of carriageways and large numbers of junctions and bus stops. Councillor Rampulla made the additional point that it would be useful to have a cost benefit analysis of why the specific aspects of the route had been selected. Mr Gilligan gave examples of the benefits of having Parliament Square as part of the route, including that there were currently no safe cycling routes through Central London and that there would be more pedestrian space. • Mr Daniels confirmed there would be a reduction of coach spaces along the route. TfL was working with the relevant bodies to ensure that there was alternative adequate coach parking available and that there were suitable places to load/unload without disrupting the traffic. • Mr Gilligan advised that the start date for the consultation in respect of sections of the route through the Royal Parks was still scheduled to be January 2015 but was subject to final discussion with the Royal Parks. He envisaged a period of six weeks for this consultation.
5.13 RESOLVED:
1. That the Committee’s response to the TfL's Consultation on the East West Cycle Superhighway be finalised and forwarded to TfL by the deadline date of 30 November 2014.
2. The Committee considered that there was reassurance in terms of the key conclusions around the safety of the proposals and their ability to reduce fatalities on Westminster roads. The Committee also welcomes Transport for London’s strong commitment to equal enforcement across all road users:
3. The Committee recommended that:
1) TfL provide more data and technical analysis on the proposed changes to this landmark scheme, to ensure that Westminster City Council’s submission is formed on the basis of clear evidence. This should include data referred to within the officer’s report to the Committee and further data on smaller, side streets and pedestrians;
2) TfL provide evidence that the proposals have undergone an Environmental Impact Assessment; including a thorough assessment of air quality / emissions impact as a consequence of increased traffic congestion cause by the scheme; and,
3) TfL seriously considers the alternative schemes as proposed by Westminster City Council officers in relation to Lancaster Gate Gyratory and Parliament Square.
12 Page 12
4. The Committee supports, in principle, the development of the East-West Cycle Superhighway, on the condition that the Committee’s recommendations are rigorously examined by TfL.
6. UPDATE ON THE PROGRESS OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF A WESTMINSTER COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE LEVY
6.1. The Committee received a report on the steps taken to date in the development of a Westminster Community Infrastructure Levy (‘CIL’). A CIL can be charged on developments in a local authority’s area with the money raised being used to pay for the provision, improvement, replacement, operation or maintenance of infrastructure that is needed to support development in the City. Infrastructure funded through a Westminster CIL would be directed towards projects that the Council, local community and neighbourhoods consider are required to help support, and address the demands of, new growth from development. The Council had initiated the first stage of consultation for the introduction of the CIL through the publication of the Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule (‘PDCS’).
6.2 The PDCS consultation had concluded after the Committee report was published. The Committee therefore received a verbal update on the consultation process at the meeting. Rachael Ferry-Jones, Principal Planning Officer, advised that officers were currently working through the 32 consultation responses received to date. Some of the submissions were lengthy and many of them had been received immediately prior to or shortly after the deadline. She stated that it was likely there would be a requirement to produce some further evidence to demonstrate and justify the Council’s proposals. Officers would be working with the Council’s viability consultants, BNP Paribas, to address this. BNP Paribas are widely used by local authorities, particularly London boroughs, to assist in developing a CIL and their approach had been endorsed at many Examination-In-Public hearings. It was clear that the level and detail of comments received at Westminster were greater than other local authorities embarking on developing CIL proposals.
6.3 Ms Ferry-Jones informed Members that a number of submissions had been received that were in support of the proposals. She also described some of the issues that had been raised in the responses. These included the view being expressed that the viability, methodology and evidence base is insufficient. There was a query over the number of proxies being used which were scenarios used to test viability. The proxies (actual planning permissions for the most part) were deemed by the Council to be representative of development typologies most typical to Westminster. Ms Ferry-Jones stated that the 92 proxies used by Westminster to test viability were far more than any other local authority had introduced. Concern had also been expressed regarding the sensitivity testing and costs included in the viability reports which had taken into account Westminster development costs and had been discussed previously with Westminster Property Association. Other points made included whether the evidence was sufficient in relation to the specific charging zones and that there is a concern that charging a
13 Page 13 Westminster CIL will drive the level of affordable housing down. In terms of governance and spend of CIL receipts, there were queries regarding how the Council would spend the money and prioritise schemes. There were a number of assurances throughout the evidence base that the Council will be developing a replacement supplementary planning document in respect of s106 planning obligations and CIL which would provide further transparency. The draft regulation 123 list, setting out the infrastructure that the Council may choose to fund through CIL, would be revised and would contain more detail as the CIL proposals were developed.
6.4 Ms Ferry-Jones explained that given the volume of responses and the need to undertake further detailed work in partnership with the Council’s viability consultants, including meetings with key stakeholders, it was likely to lead to a revised timetable for the development of the Westminster CIL. The draft PDCS would be likely to be published in early 2015 and it was unlikely that the CIL would be in place by 1st April 2015. Officers would use their best endeavours to be as close to that date as possible. If it was not implemented by April, the Council would need to an interim approach to how it used planning obligations as the use of s106 planning obligations to provide infrastructure would be restricted.
6.5 The Chairman asked officers what would be the most useful inputs from the Committee going forward. Barry Smith, Operational Director, City Planning Delivery Unit, replied that it would be useful to receive a steer from the Committee on the themes of the consultation responses. A potential way forward was to have a CIL Task Group or a presentation during or outside of the scheduled P&S meetings. He added that there would be a potential impact on financing from s106 planning obligations in the event CIL implementation took place after 1st April 2015.
6.6 The Committee asked a number of questions on this topic. These included Councillor Glanz’s request for a table showing what other London Boroughs had proposed in terms of their CILs (this had been referred to in paragraph 4.35 of the report). Mr Smith stated that it would be possible to provide a table, including a comparison of the various rates. In response to questions from Councillor Scarborough, Ms Ferry-Jones and Laurence Brooker, Principal Planning Officer, advised that there would be further testing on a wide range of sites in respect of affordable housing so the evidence was as robust as possible. It would be possible to review the rates at the next round of consultation. It was currently envisaged that there would be a two year review cycle to review rates after CIL implementation. Councillor Rampulla compared the infrastructure funding gap with the CIL income projections and asked whether it was intended that 14.3% of the funding gap over the next five years would be financed through CIL. Ms Ferry-Jones and Mr Smith replied that the Government had made it clear that whilst CIL could be a contributor to reducing the funding gap, it was not envisaged to fully fill the infrastructure funding gap. It was agreed that a written response would be provided to Committee Members explaining these figures.
14 Page 14 6.7 Councillor Williams asked about the contributions received for affordable housing. Ms Ferry-Jones explained data included in an appendix to the report that total contributions negotiated between 1 April 2008 and 31 March 2013 were £246,842,873 and total contributions received during that period were £31,113,022. Mr Brooker added that more money would be obtained from the contributions negotiated as developments proceeded. In response to a question from Councillor Hyams, it was confirmed that CIL cashflow received would be expected to be superior to section 106 agreements. An average of £2.3 million per annum had been received in infrastructure payments for the Mayor’s CIL from 1 st April 2008 to 31 st March 2013. Councillor Thomson made the point that it would be important in the governance arrangements for it to be made crystal clear that the money will be used for community benefit and this should include how the regulation 123 list had been constructed, which projects were then being funded and how much money was going toward each of the projects. Mr Smith stated that these details were being worked through and further information would be brought to the Committee for Members’ views in due course. Mr Brooker also advised that following implementation the Council would have a duty to report annually and inform how the money was being collected and spent. Councillor Crockett expressed concerns that other authorities had already introduced the CIL and that it was unlikely to be established in Westminster before April 2015. Mr Smith explained that it had been known that of all the boroughs in London Westminster would be under the most scrutiny in attempting to adopt a CIL. It had been important to assess CIL implementation in other local authorities. The regulations had changed every year since the CIL concept had been brought in by the previous Government. There was a need for robust evidence if the CIL was going to be implemented in Westminster at all and although Westminster had used more proxies than any other Council as an evidence base, this was still not deemed to be sufficient by responding parties.
6.8 The Chairman stated that the loss of community revenue in the event CIL was not introduced in April 2015 was a concern for the Committee but it was also appreciated that there was a balance to be struck as the Council was under a great deal of scrutiny in developing the CIL. It was agreed that the Committee would receive a detailed briefing on CIL, potentially immediately prior to the next Committee meeting and that Members would then give consideration to whether to establish a task group.
6.9 ACTION : The Committee requested the following:
• That a comparison table be produced showing what other London Boroughs had proposed in terms of their CILs (Rachael Ferry-Jones, Barry Smith and Laurence Brooker) . • That a written response be provided to Committee Members explaining the CIL income projections in relation to the infrastructure funding gap (Rachael Ferry-Jones, Barry Smith and Laurence Brooker) .
6.10 RESOLVED: That a detailed briefing be provided on CIL prior to the Committee giving consideration as to whether to establish a task group.
15 Page 15
7. WESTMINSTER'S CITY PLAN - CONSULTATION BOOKLETS
7.1 Lisa O’Donnell, Head of Spatial and Environmental Planning, introduced the item. She provided Members with a summary of the issues raised in the responses to the consultation booklets from the previous round of 6 booklets. She advised that some of the key issues raised overall in the consultation responses to date were: concern about the requirement for reduction in on- site open space to be 100% reprovided as green infrastructure; digital signage; car free development; one way to two way working and also pedicabs.
7.2 The Committee had been encouraged to provide comments on two booklets prior to public consultation. These were Energy and also Heritage, Views and Tall Buildings. Ms O’Donnell advised that a key theme of the latter booklet was that it focussed on the benefits of heritage including business investment and location and tourism, rather than it being seen as a burden on development. Key new policies included criteria for demolition, considering both the architectural merits and its performance e.g. energy use, and a policy on the World Heritage site. Much of the final detail from this booklet rested on the Tall Buildings study currently being undertaken. This was due to report before Christmas. In respect of the Energy booklet there was a small window of opportunity to obtain payments in lieu of any failure to meet the required standards. From 2016, zero carbon residential buildings would become mandatory. From 2019 it would become mandatory for all non residential buildings to be zero carbon. By 2020 all new development would have to be zero carbon. The aim was to apply this as an interim measure for as long as possible, using the funds to improve performance on the Council’s estates and buildings and the Council reducing its own and residents’ energy bills.
7.3 Ms O’Donnell informed Members that in addition to the comments on the two booklets where comments had already been sought prior to the public consultation, it was also intended that the Committee’s comments would be sought in the near future on the Mixed Use and Office to Residential booklet and the Affordable Housing booklet prior to the public consultation.
7.4 The Chairman made the point that the Energy and Heritage, Views and Tall Buildings booklets had been received by Members of the Committee a couple of weeks previously and some Members had already responded. It was agreed that Members would forward any additional comments on the two booklets by the end of the week and the Committee’s overall response would then be forwarded to the Cabinet Member for the Built Environment.
7.5 RESOLVED: That the Committee’s response, incorporating the comments of Members, to the Energy and Heritage, Views and Tall Buildings booklets be forwarded to the Cabinet Member for the Built Environment.
8. PRESS RELEASES
16 Page 16 8.1 The Chairman informed those present that the Council had issued a press release in respect of the East West Cycle Superhighway the previous week. This would be reviewed in light of the conversations with TfL representatives.
9. ANNUAL WORK PROGRAMME AND ACTION TRACKER 2014
9.1 The Chairman commented that he was content that the action tracker accurately reflected the actions sought by the Committee and the steps taken by officers to respond to these. The Chairman stated that taking into account Councillor Argar’s comments and Members of the Committee’s wish to scrutinise the Waste Strategy, the item should be added to the work programme in the New Year. Mark Ewbank, Scrutiny Manager, made the point that the Air Quality Strategy was currently scheduled for the meeting on 19 January 2015 but due to the timetable of the work relating to the Sustainability Strategy and Task Group, it might be appropriate to consider this item at a later date and replace it with another item such as the Waste Strategy. The Committee agreed that it was appropriate to replace the Air Quality Strategy with the Waste Strategy on 19 January. The Committee noted that the other item currently scheduled for 19 January was two-way traffic flows. Councillor Hyams recommended that broadband was also added to the work programme due to concerns that had been expressed that it was questionable whether residents and businesses had access to world class broadband in this world class city. The Committee agreed that this item was appropriate for inclusion on the work programme.
9.2 Mr Low advised the Committee that as part of the Cycling and Walking in Westminster item scheduled for the meeting on 2 March 2015, he was likely to be able to provide an update on the East West Cycle Superhighway.
9.3 ACTION : That the following be taken forward:
• The Waste Strategy replace the Air Quality Strategy on the Work Programme for the meeting in January 2015 and the relevant officers be informed accordingly (Mark Ewbank, Scrutiny Manager) . • Broadband be scheduled as an item for the Work Programme at one of the January, March or April 2015 meetings (rounds four to six) (Mark Ewbank, Scrutiny Manager) . • An update on the East West Cycle Superhighway be incorporated into the Cycling and Walking in Westminster item at the 2 March 2015 meeting (Martin Low, City Commissioner of Transportation) .
9.4 RESOLVED : That the Annual Work Programme be amended to take into account the new items requested by the Committee.
10. ANY OTHER BUSINESS
10.1 There was no additional business for the Committee to consider.
11. CLOSE OF MEETING
17 Page 17 11.1 Meeting ended at 10.13p.m.
Chairman: ______Date: ______
18 Page 18 Agenda Item 4
Environment Policy and
City of Westminster Scrutiny Committee
Title of Report: Update from Cabinet Member s
Date: 1 9 January 201 5
This report sets out the briefing updates from the three Cabinet Members whose portfolios are currently scrutinised by the Environment Policy and Scrutiny Committee.
Cabinet Member for the Built Environment (Appendix 1)
Cabinet Member for City Management, Transport and Infrastructure (Appendix 2 – to follow)
Cabinet Member for Sustainability And Parking (Appendix 3)
The Deputy Cabinet Member for the Built Environment, Councillor Richard Beddoe, is due to attend the Environment Policy and Scrutiny meeting on 19 January 2015 to answer questions from Members of the Committee. The updates are intended to provide Committee Members with advanced information and to assist them in the preparation of possible questions.
Page 19 This page is intentionally left blank Appendix 1
Environment Policy and Scrutiny Committee Briefing
Date: Monday 19 th January 2015
Briefing of: Cabinet Member for the Built Environment
Please contact : Matt Greet x 2 852 [email protected]
1. Neighbourhood Planning
1.1 The City Council continues to experience a huge level of interest in neighbourhood planning, far greater than any other London borough.
1.2 Once neighbourhood areas have been designated, communities in these areas will be able to apply to become the designated neighbourhood forum for that area for the next five years. As a representative neighbourhood forum, these groups will be able to undertake neighbourhood planning and produce their own statutory neighbourhood plan.
1.3 Westminster designated the first neighbourhood forum in Mayfair in January 2014. At the Forum’s request, officers are now engaged in helping them form their various working groups. An officer attended the Mayfair Neighbourhood Forum Steering Group on 19 th November 2014 and also met with the Forum’s chosen consultants just prior to Christmas. The Forum have undertaken informal consultation within the neighbourhood area, and are beginning to work on their neighbourhood plan by discussing a potential vision and associated objectives.
1.4 Neighbourhood forums in Soho, Church Street Ward, and Westbourne were designated in August 2014. Belgravia and Notting Hill East Neighbourhood Forums were designated in October 2014. Public consultations for the St. James’s and Fitzrovia West Forum proposals closed in August 2014, with Cabinet Member reports now in final draft to enable me to take a decision in each area. Public consultation on the Pimlico Neighbourhood Forum finished in October 2014 and officers met with its representatives on 1 st December to discuss potential recommendations.
1.5 Consultation regarding the application received for Marylebone Neighbourhood Forum is due to conclude on 21 st January, whilst representations regarding the proposed Victoria Neighbourhood Forum can be submitted up until 20 th February.
Page 21 1
1.6 The application for the creation of Vincent Square Neighbourhood Area had its period for representations extended over the Christmas period. Further engagement is also continuing on the proposed Covent Garden Neighbourhood Area.
2. Westminster’s City Plan – consultation booklets
2.1 Officers are continuing to take forward work on the detailed City Management policies which will be incorporated with the Strategic Policies to form Westminster’s City Plan – a unified local plan for the City. This builds on previous work on the City Management Plan initiated in 2007. The current stage is the publication of a series of topic-based booklets for informal consultation. We are also taking the opportunity to review the strategy more broadly and ask key consultation questions in the latter booklets, including questions around how to achieve the desired growth in a Westminster context.
2.2 The Committee was updated on previous policy booklets in June 2014, whilst the Energy and Heritage, Views & Tall Buildings booklets formed a substantive item on the Committee’s agenda on 10 th November 2014.
2.3 I formally signed off the Spatial Policy & Implementation and Mixed Use & Office to Residential Conversion policy booklets prior to Christmas and they were both issued for formal public consultation on 15 th December 2014. That consultation will last until 27 th February.
2.4 I signed off the final tranche of City Plan policy booklets – Energy, the West End, Affordable Housing and Heritage, Views & Tall Buildings – for public consultation earlier this month.
3. Development of a Westminster Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)
3.1 CIL is a new levy which is the government’s preferred vehicle for replacing significant portions of section 106 contributions. It can be charged on developments in a local authority’s area with the money raised being used to pay for the provision, improvement, replacement, operation or maintenance of infrastructure that is needed as a result of development.
3.2 The development of a Westminster CIL was tabled as a substantive item for this Committee’s consideration on 1st April 2014. At that meeting it was agreed that the Committee should have an active and, where possible, formal role in the ongoing development and future governance of the Westminster CIL. A substantive item covering progress and governance arrangements, including the Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule (PDCS), was discussed on the Committee’s agenda on 10 th November 2014.
Page 22 2
3.3 Officers continue to work on responding to the outcomes of the PDCS stage consultation, as well as meeting with BNP Paribas Real Estate to discuss the comments received and to establish a work programme and timetable going forward.
4. Crossrail
4.1 Crossrail (Line 1) is the largest infrastructure project in Europe, connecting Reading and Heathrow in the west through London to Shenfield and Abbey Wood in the east. Upon completion it will cover over 100km of track, including 21km of new twin-bore rail tunnels, through ten new stations. Its goals are to reduce journey times across London, ease congestion and offer better connections for passengers.
4.2 Crossrail (Line 1) is currently on time and on budget. The tunnelling and civil engineering was completed in 2014 and the stations, with their commercial developments, are scheduled for completion by 2018.
4.3 The City Council bid for Crossrail Complementary Measures (CCM) funding, which was an additional sum of £28.5m made available by TfL for public realm enhancements along the Crossrail route. The City Council’s CCM Scoping Applications were submitted to TfL on 1 st August 2014, for surface level improvements around the Westminster stations (Paddington, Bond Street and Tottenham Court West).
4.4 TfL have notified the City Council that in view of the level of extra support already provided, they were not able to provide funding from this source. However, we are continuing under the aegis of the West End Partnership with TfL and Crossrail to investigate further funding options and improvements. These opportunities have already proved promising in looking to ensure we have an improved public realm in these sites for the opening of the new railway in 2018.
4.5 Crossrail Line 2 is a further proposed sister line to the one already underway. Its preferred route, announced on 28 th October 2014, links their proposed new Crossrail 2 station at Victoria to Clapham Junction via a new station on Chelsea’s Kings Road.
4.6 The proposed route would traverse Westminster through Tottenham Court Road and Victoria. It is now clear that, as proposed, the construction of Crossrail Line 2 will require the use of Victoria Coach Station’s Departure Hall site to allow the site to be used for construction works and a ventilation shaft. The construction of Crossrail 2 is expected to start from 2020.
4.7 A wider review of safeguarded routes was launched in November 2014. Officers are in the process of preparing a response to the safeguarding consultation ahead of the 29 th January closing date.
Page 23 3
4.8 Whilst continuing support for Crossrail Line 2, there are a number of issues on which we will be discussing impacts and options with TfL to ensure residential amenity, continuation of business and the best package of transport measures will be provided. The further development of the project and later reviews of the safeguarded route, which are all due later this year, will enable discussions on the project itself and for the diverse impacts at Victoria and in Soho be considered further.
5. Victoria Area Schemes
Victoria Coach Station
5.1 The construction and operation of Crossrail Line 2 at Victoria is expected to force the Coach Station’s closure in the early 2020s, meaning its relocation needs to be secured imminently.
5.2 September 2014’s Grade II Listing of the Coach Station’s Departures Hall is unlikely to impact significantly on the short-term coach operations and long-term future and redevelopment of this site.
Victoria Station
5.3 Network Rail continue to develop their master plan to improve conditions in the mainline station and are seeking funding for their proposals within the mainline station, with bridge strengthening works over their tracks scheduled for the spring. TfL are developing their options for the removal of some bus services from the front of the station and are considering future arrangements for the Inner Ring Road around and through the area.
5.4 London Underground’s Victoria Station Upgrade (VSU) works are progressing as planned, with the new northern ticket hall due to open in 2016. Once VSU have finished their works in Bressenden Place, the land will be returned to Land Securities to allow them to develop the eastern part of their 5.5 acre Nova scheme.
6. Victoria – Nine Elms Bridge
6.1 Wandsworth Council launched their bridge design competition on 8 th December 2014. Their appointed consultants are seeking to set up a residents’ review panel, including representatives from local communities in Wandsworth, Lambeth and Westminster, to consider competition entries.
6.2 The City Council continues to hold serious concerns about the proposed landing sites in Westminster, but will continue to work with the Partnership, Wandsworth Council and TfL to try and find a less detrimental solution.
Page 24 4
7. Thames Tideway Tunnel
7.1 The Thames Tideway Tunnel is a proposed new 16 mile-long sewer project required to protect the tidal river from increasing pollution.
7.2 The Thames Tideway Tunnel Development Consent Order was approved on September 12 th 2014. Following approval, Thames Water hosted a Thames Tideway Tunnel Planning Forum to update affected local authorities and key stakeholders on the project, legal agreements, forums and working groups.
7.3 A Thames Tideway Tunnel inter-borough meeting was held on November 21 st . The City Council has signed a Service Level Agreement with Thames Water for full cost recovery for non-statutory work associated with implementation of the Development Consent Order.
8. Garden Bridge
8.1 The London Garden Bridge is a proposed new public garden crossing of the river Thames, linking the South Bank to Temple station. It is designed by Thomas Heatherwick and led by the Garden Bridge Trust.
8.2 A full planning application for the Garden Bridge was submitted by TfL on behalf of the Garden Bridge Trust, on 29 th May 2014. The application was approved by Lambeth Council on 11 th November 2014 and by my Planning Applications Committee on 2 nd December 2014. The Mayor of London gave his approval to the Garden Bridge project before Christmas.
8.3 The Trust plans to begin building the bridge later this year, pending raising their target funding, with an anticipated opening in 2018.
9. Development Planning
9.1 My previous update to the Committee highlighted the Department for Communities and Local Government’s (DCLG) technical consultation on planning. Chief amongst Westminster’s concerns was the proposed removal of the exemption currently granted to the Central Activity Zone (CAZ) for offices (B1(a)) to become housing (C3) as permitted development subject to prior approval.
9.2 The City Council provided a response to the formal consultation, as well as supporting a letter co-signed with the Mayor of London, Planning Officers Society London, British Property Federation and London First, outlining our opposition to these measures. We are expecting the government to publish their response by the end of January.
9.3 Furthermore, before Christmas the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) published a set of revisions to the National Planning Guidance. These chiefly relate to Section 106 obligations imposed on developers and the financial incentive offered to developers called ‘vacant building credit’.
Page 25 5
The new guidelines now advise that schemes delivering 10 units or less do not have to provide Section 106 contributions towards local infrastructure, education provision and more importantly affordable housing. Our current policy requires affordable housing targets when a development includes at least ten units, whereas now we can only trigger this on schemes of eleven units or more.
More important for Westminster is the ‘vacant building credit’ incentive. This credit will apply to any unoccupied building being brought back into use or being demolished to be replaced by a new building. In short, it will mean that any affordable housing contribution sought from developments will only be triggered on any increase in floorspace and not, as is currently the case, on the entire square footage. The previous floorspace of the vacant building either being brought back into use or redeveloped will be netted off, meaning that affordable housing contributions from these types of development will significantly decrease.
There is still much detail to be released around these new guidelines and officers will examine them very closely as the picture becomes clearer. The implications of these proposals are being examined as they stand with colleagues in other authorities in order to form a unified response.
9.4 From April this year, it will be compulsory for all new developments to include a Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS). These systems are designed to reduce the potential impact of new schemes on surface water drainage discharges.
The DCLG has announced that from April, local planning authorities will have responsibility for approving and maintaining SUDS, despite the concerns raised by more than two-thirds of those responding to the government’s consultation on the issue. The full details on how we will carry out this function are still awaited, but it will inevitably create an added pressure on our planning officers during the pre- application stage.
9.5 In the calendar year of 2014 the City Council received a total of 12,845 planning applications. This shows that there is no sign of a reduction in the schemes coming before us as we remain the busiest planning authority in the country.
Page 26 6 Appendix 3
Environment Policy and
Scrutiny Committee Briefing
Date: Monday 19th January 2015
Briefing of: Cabinet Member for Parking and Sustainability
Briefing Author and Heather Acton x5614 Contact Details: [email protected]
1. Parking
1.1 The new contracted Parking Service is now fully operational with NSL. Following the Pay to Park switch-over in July, customers quickly adapted to the change. Differences in the payment system from the previous pay by phone system were noted by a few customers but any inconsistencies were quickly rectified with just a handful of complaints received against tens of thousands of daily transactions . 1.2 The new Business Processing and Technology contract was implemented in November. Careful and detailed planning ensured that the transition occurred without major problems and immediate remedial steps were taken as necessary in line with the pre-planned contingency measures. Resourcing levels for agents manning the telephones were increased and, whilst call volumes and wait times were initially high, they were brought back to acceptable service levels within a few days.
1.3 A few people experienced difficulties using the new on-line resident permit service and some disabled badge holders also faced delays. Manual intervention ensured that permits were issued quickly and applicants were contacted (by telephone where possible) to be given reassurance. The service is now operating as expected and further improvements to the self-serve web portal will be implemented over the next few months. 1.4 The Marshalling approach continues to be positively received by members of the public. The feedback from Marshals is that we are already seeing a positive shift in customer attitude and behaviour and this is supported by the fact that we have seen a significant reduction in the volume of complaints and the number of physical/verbal assaults against Marshals. Under the contract, Marshals were issued with new handheld technology to support their role, and have quickly adapted to the new equipment. Performance has returned as anticipated to pre-implementation levels within a few weeks. Further enhancements will be delivered in the coming months and Marshalls will be authorised to take action on engine idling.
Page 27 1
1.5 The bay sensors and the new ParkRight app were fully implemented in October and the team is already working on a new version of the app for release in the spring/summer
2. The Environmental Sustainability Strategy
2.1 A final draft of the strategy was reviewed by EMT during December. Minor alterations are being made and a copy will be sent to this committee for information. The strategy will then be submitted to Cabinet for adoption in February. The Cabinet Member would like to place on record thanks to this committee for its valuable role in helping to draft the strategy.
3. Nine Elms & Westminster Bridge
3.1 Wandsworth Council are keen to progress a proposed pedestrian/cycle bridge between Nine Elms and Pimlico to the build stage. Although not yet a live project, they launched their bridge design competition on 8 th December in order to identify a team capable of producing a viable design: www.nepbridgecompetition.co.uk . They plan for Stage 2 of the competition to be launched in March, which would then specify preferred landing sites in both Wandsworth and Westminster.
3.2 Whilst WCC officers and local ward councillors have expressed their strong opposition to the proposed bridge and its landing in Pimlico Gardens – Wandsworth’s current preferred landing site – we shall continue to work with Wandsworth and their Nine Elms Development Partners to try to identify an alternative solution, which, should the scheme go ahead, would have a potentially less detrimental impact in Westminster.
4. Residential Lead Electric Vehicle Recharging Proposal
4.1 Cabinet Members have been asked for their views on trialling an electric vehicle recharging service for residents. This would be designed for an area with low parking pressure and a high demand for electric vehicle users.
4.2 Currently the Council has a waiting list of 22 residents asking for an electric vehicle recharging space. Two residents have decided not to buy an electric vehicle due to lack of supporting infrastructure.
5. Blue Point London (Source London)
5.1 Blue Point London are the operators of the Source London Network (a pan London electric vehicle recharging network). The City Council has agreed to the change of operators, but has concerns over the proposed changes to the Source London’s scheme. Negotiations are on-going to resolve these concerns.
Page 28 2
6. Biodiversity and Open Space Update
6.1 A team comprising of landscape architects and ecologists has undertaken surveys of our green and open spaces, and interviewed the users. More than 200 sites are in the audit programme, including amenity green space within housing areas and private communal gardens.
6.2 Results are currently being analysed and will be used to frame the Council’s Biodiversity and Open Spaces Strategy.
7. Code of Construction Practice (CoCP)
7.1 EMT requested that officers continue to work with services to determine potential revenue savings that can accrue from moving to a pro-active charging model, and this remains underway.
7.2 Legal advice is being sought from Counsel on the enforceability against basement and other developments which are at the smaller end of the construction scale.
8. Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ)
8.1 TfL is currently consulting on its proposals for the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ), a scheme proposed by the Mayor to reduce levels of pollution in central London. The ULEZ will be beneficial for local air quality and public health, but may have economic impacts for owners of vehicles required to comply with the new emission standards. The Council has responded to the consultation. Key issues are:
- Concern that the proposals of the ULEZ standard will fail to achieve predicted emission savings while still having economic impacts;
- No formal evaluation of the ULEZ is proposed - limited ability for businesses to plan and no link to ULEZ achieving air quality aims;
- Impacts on WCC residents and businesses; and
- Public realm implications from predicted move to electric taxi and bus fleets.
9. Cycle Strategy and Projects
9.1 Abandoned Bikes – A bike building scheme has been identified as the recipient of the abandoned bikes that the City Council collects. A venue is being sought that will allow secure storage of the bikes and tools. It is expected that this will be resolved by late spring.
9.2 Promotion of bike marking/security – The police will be attending our regular Cycle Station events (see below) and will be providing bike marking. We are also promoting Bike Marking events via social media and the new website.
Page 29 3
9.3 Bike Loan Scheme – We are delivering 80 places to loan out bikes with support measures. There will be 60 places at our Bike it Hub schools and 20 places for users of the Beethoven centre near Queens Park.
9.4 Marketing and social media – The cycling pages of the WCC site have been revised. Branded material (flags, leaflets and cards) are being produced to enhance the branding at cycling events. Production of short videos will begin next month when the weather improves and tibia planned to include cycle trainees who are happy to be interviewed.
9.5 Ride Leader training - This is being offered to community groups who want to ride together.
9.6 Big Spring Event – We are awaiting comments from a number of venues about the possibility of staging a Big Spring Cycling Event in April 2015.
9.7 Westminster Cycle Station – This launched on the 12 January 2015 at Paddington Station and will run on the first four Mondays of each month at this and three other locations.
9.8 Bike Building Course – This will be run within the abandoned bikes programme once we have a suitable venue.
9.9 Incentive Scheme – In conjunction with Public Health, we are developing a smartphone app that will help people increase their activity levels.
10. School Travel Plans Another three schools have submitted their travel plans for students and staff. This means that 45% of all schools in Westminster now have active travel plans in place. We are on target for 50% of schools with a travel plan by March 2015.
Page 30 4 Page 31 Page Waste Disposal Contract Procurement Strategy Agenda Item 5
15 th January 2015 Overview Current Waste Disposal Contracts expire September 2016 and new arrangements are needed.
Key Stages: • Internal Scoping - define requirements & understand the Page 32 Page market ; • Draft Waste Strategy – Public Consultation; • Final Waste Strategy - GLA approval ; • Procurement. Current Arrangements 184,000 tonnes per year. Annual Cost - £10.5m.
10% 4% 14%
40% Litter Landfill Page 33 Page Residents Recycling
Businesses 82% Energy from Waste 50%
Source Disposal Route Current Contract Arrangements
Annual Supplier Contract Expiry Extension? Value
Veolia • Energy from Waste • Recycling £8m Sept 2016 1 year • Landfill
Page 34 Page Veolia • Transfer Station £760K Sept 2016 1 year Cory • Transfer Stations • Energy from Waste Up to 16 • Recycling £1m Sept 2016 Years • Composting • ‘Household Tip’ Veolia • Waste Collection £36m Sept 2017 Up to 7 years • Street Cleansing Service Drivers • Collection services meet needs of residents and businesses;
Page 35 Page • Compliant with National and Regional Waste Strategies;
• Affordability. Members Task Force
• Cllrs Cox, Hyams, Mukerji and O’Connell
• Infrastructure Visit – Southwark MBT and MRF Page 36 Page • Recommendations • Structure and content of consultation exercise • Incentives – Community benefits Public Consultation
Source of Responses No. of Responses Residents (Doorknocking) 12,064 Page 37 Page
Residents (Online 450 questionnaire) Businesses (Online 49 questionnaire) Consultation Responses
Additional Materials – Food, Batteries and WEEE.
Flats Recycling – Improved bag delivery system
Food Waste – 43% would use, 25% don’t know/no preference Page 38 Page Garden Waste – 50% support policy
City Tip – 55% would use, 15% wouldn’t, 30% didn’t know
Incentives – 40% community benefit, 28% environmental information, 25% wanted direct financial benefit. WCC Current Mayor’s Strategy WCC Strategy Performance Target 2020 Target 2020
50% 35% 14% Page 39 Page
86% 50% 65% Current Waste Sources and Disposal Routes (2013/14)
100000
90000
80000
70000 Page 40 Page T 60000 o Residual Waste n 50000 n e 40000 s 30000 Recycling 20000
10000
0 Street Litter Residential Commercial Mayor’s Environment Advisor Matthew
Pencharz said of our Waste Strategy (Sept 2014) “I welcome the clarifications and changes made notably • Setting higher recycling targets (35% by 2020, 40% by 2025 and 45% by 2031); • WCC’s intention to procure solutions meeting the Mayor’s CO2 emissions performance standard (EPS) and carbon intensity floor
Page 41 Page (CIF); • A commitment to use your upcoming waste procurement (starting winter 2014/15) to explore opportunities and innovation to achieve high reuse and recycling performance in the City; • WCC not being wedded to any particular technologies or waste management approach; • A commitment to significantly boost commercial waste recycling services” Waste Strategy Targets (2016 – 2031)
To achieve zero growth in the amount of waste produced by each household per year by 2020.
To reduce the amount of household waste not re-used, recycled or composted by the residents of Westminster to 225 Page 42 Page kg per capita by 2020.
To achieve a municipal waste recycling rate of 35% by 2020, 40% by 2025 and 45% by 2031.
To maximize diversion of biodegradable municipal waste from landfill to exceed 2020 national targets. Scope of Requirements
• Treatment and Disposal of residual waste • Provision of public tip (HWRC) • Disposal/treatment of organic waste • Disposal of dry recyclables Page 43 Page
• Operation and management of transfer station? At What Price? Grade / material / type of facility Median Range
Materials Recovery All £10 -£100 to £96 Facility (Recycling) Contracts starting in 2013 or later £0 -£43 to £96
Organics Open-air windrow (OAW) £24 £6 to £63 In-vessel composting (IVC) £46 £8 to £66 Anaerobic digestion (AD) £40 £19 to £63 Page 44 Page Mechanical £84 £25 to £104 Biological Treatment (MBT) Energy from Waste Pre-2000 facilities £58 £35 to £100 (EfW) Post-2000 facilities £94 £62 to £112
Landfill Non hazardous waste gate fee incl. £102 £89 to £130 Landfill Tax £80 per tonne.
Treatment/disposal gate fees (£ per tonne) (WRAP 2014) Municipal Waste Recycling Rates (WCC) actual (yellow) and targets (red) 2002/3 to 2031/2
50
45
40
35
30
Page 45 Page 25
20
15
MunicipalWaste Recycling Rate (%) 10
5
0 Timetable
Winter 2014/15 Soft Market Testing
Summer 2015 GLA Sign Off Tender Doc Page 46 Page
Summer 2015 Commence Procurement
Summer 2016 Contract Award Contract Packaging - Proposed Tonnage Duration Package Options
Residual Waste 160K t 6.5 years (up to 8 year ext.) Option to split into 2 or 3 lots.
Dry Recyclables 25K t 3.5 years (up to 4 year ext.) Mixed dry Recyclables, Mixed Glass
Page 47 Page Mixed Paper and Card
Food Waste 2Kt 3.5 years (upto 4 year ext.) Single lot proposed. What next?
• Return to Committee when we understand the implications of the tenders Page 48 Page Questions? Page 49 Page This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 6
Environment Policy and
Scrutiny Committee
Date: 19 th January 2015
Classification: General Release
Title: Broadband Coverage
Report of: Acting Head of Economic Development, Business & Growth
Cabinet Member Portfolio Cross Portfolio
Wards Involved: All
Policy Context: Enterprising City
Report Author and Steve Carr x6551 Contact Details: [email protected]
Introduction
1.1 This paper reviews fixed line broadband coverage in Westminster (ie: not mobile broadband). It proposes how the City Council could work with broadband providers, business organisations and residents groups to establish the reasons for those places and premises which lack access to good preforming superfast broadband and to work with others which have also been expressing concern about broadband coverage and service in central London (eg: Central London Forward, the GLA, the West End Partnership, London First and the Federation of Small Business).
1.2 According to the regulator, Ofcom, only 47% of Westminster premises ‘have access’ to super-fast broadband - services advertised as over 30 Megabits per second (Mbp/s), the EU definition of superfast broadband. For those parts of the city which areas covered, there are significant patches of the borough where average broadband speeds appear to be poorer than in other parts of London. However, caution is needed on these statistics as the definition of what constitutes ‘access’ is unclear. For example this term may only relate to premises within direct exchange areas where fibre is being rolled out, rather than actual access to broadband cabinets which are actually connected to fibre. This coverage is remarkably poor given the intensity of ‘dark fibre’ in the centre of London, the network of fibre optic networks which are
Page 51 primarily used to support major corporate companies with leased lines.
1.3 Broadband providers have been asked to attend the meeting and supply a short statement on their business model and views on the key issues which is available on request. The Federation of Small Business has also been invited as it is running a campaign on broadband access.
1.4 A debate on broadband in Central London was held in the House of Commons in September 2014. It was led by Mark Field MP, following which the Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy, Ed Vaizey, pledged support for faster broadband coverage in London. The Mayor of London has since picked up this dialogue (see below on actions) and following a Connectivity Summit in September 2014 attended by the Leader of Westminster City Council, the GLA established a Connectivity Advisory Group on which Westminster’s Chief Information Officer, Ben Goward, now sits. The outcome of this committee meeting will therefore feed into Westminster’s participation in both the CLF and GLA programmes.
Annex 1: International Broadband speeds Annex 2: Map of BT Exchanges in Westminster Annex 3: Example of Dark Fibre network in Westminster/London Annex 4: Exchanges in Westminster, Profile of Connectivity (SamKows)
Page 52 Context
2.1 UK cities lag behind world cities which have invested in fibre optic communications direct to the premises, and no UK cities are ranked in the top 50 cities for such connectivity. (Source: FTTH Handbook Edition 6, 18/02/2014, Fibre to the Home, Council of Europe). Download speeds in Hong Kong, Singapore and Paris are also far faster than in Central London. Karin Ahl, President of the FTTH Council Europe which represents cable industry: "The UK does not appear in the FTTH ranking because the country has not yet reached the 1% threshold. FTTH is the only future-proof way to build broadband access networks Governments need to make the right decisions for the future, not ones based on the past, in order to build it once, and build it right." The figures revealed that London's broadband speeds are failing to support its burgeoning digital economy. The top five European capitals broadband speeds are currently all two times faster than London. Bucharest tops the table with an average of 81.2Mbps.
2.2 The extensive copper network in the UK, which has until recently been able to carry compressed digital information at high speeds, is one possible reason for the slow development of fibre optic technology until recently. Legacy copper networks can deliver reasonable download speeds of up to 10 megabits per second (Mbit/s), with 4Mbits/s required to watch programmes on BBC iPlayer. The vast majority of BT exchanges were upgraded in the 1990s to run ‘digital’ ADSL technology which is capable of running at these speeds and some exchanges have ADSL2 capable of 24 Mbp/s. However, demand for bandwidth continues to grow by 10 times every 5 years, as residential consumers look for high definition TV and film on demand and businesses seek better upload speeds for transfer of documents and data (FTTH handbook, Edition 6). Telecoms and cable providers are therefore investing in fibre optic technology to provide services and are offering next generation ‘superfast broadband’, which both Ofcom and the EU defines as speeds advertised above 30Mbits/s. Cable operators use a mix of fibre optic and coaxial cable to transmit data to the end user, whilst fibre networks are mainly Fibre to the Cabinet (FTTC), which use fibre to transmit data from the exchange to the street cabinets and copper/aluminium to the premises and in some cases fibre direct to the premises (FTTP).
2.3 According to Ofcom, average broadband speeds have increased to 18.7 Mbit/s nationally and superfast service speeds have increased to 47Mbit/s on average, a leap of 26% between May 2013 and May 2014. Ofcom has recently reported that broadband operators described as ‘cable’ (such as Virgin) are now providing higher average superfast broadband speeds than ‘fibre’ to the cabinet operators such as those on BT’s Open Reach system and BT Infinity. Virgin is offering superfast speeds of up to 152 Mbit/s (average of 141.9 Mbit/s) in some parts of the country.
Page 53
2.4 In relation to business users, UK telecommunications regulation has successfully created a supply side competition in connectivity for London’s large corporations who are prepared to pay for high bandwidth connections and leased lines. Competition has created a network of wholesale fibre-optic cables across London laid by a variety of companies under the telecoms act (the ‘dark fibre’ network). There is no map available and no study providing a review of the coverage or service is available from Ofcom. Intelligence on this wholesale sector is therefore difficult to chart. Coverage of such wholesale fibre technology is believed to be good in Westminster, given the number of operators working here (Venus, UK Broadband, Hyperoptic). However, there is a gap between this wholesale fibre-optic network and the retail network that serves small businesses and residential properties in London and there are clear geographic patches of communities which are not able to access superfast broadband. This is the main focus of focus of concern. Added to this is the inability of many businesses to access products such as BT’s ‘Infinity’ packages, which have sharpened the debate about access and price of broadband in this part of London.
Broadband providers (examples, there are others)
3.1 British Telecom remains the main provider of broadband services. Following a ruling by the European Commission in the late 1990s, BT was required to open up its network and enter into leasing agreements with communications providers using its exchanges and street cabinets, but is not obliged to share its ducts that carry fibre cables. Fibre To The Cabinet (FTTC) in Westminster is therefore ‘owned’ by BT, which delivers fibre broadband from a range of providers who rent from it under what is called Local Loop Unbundling (LLU) . Numerous communications providers thus supply broadband services over the BT Openreach network in this way, and increasingly this approach is the default for the emerging fibre optic networks. LLU providers in Westminster include Sky, Plusnet, BT, John Lewis, Zen and TalkTalk. A full status report on each exchange in Westminster from SamKnows consultants is contained in the annex to this report. Speeds are said to be as high as 100Mbps in parts of the city, depending upon location, provider and package. The remaining run to the premises is from copper wires, so this is a hybrid fibre/copper technology, rather than fibre to the home/business and not as advanced as the fibre networks being rolled out in major cities elsewhere in the world. There is a current debate about whether BT should also share its cabling ducts with other operators. The UK Competitive Telecoms Association has recently lobbied Ofcom and the Government on this issue, which is effectively a challenge to the OpenReach franchise that BT currently holds.
3.2 BT’s OpenReach programme is the main way in which broadband connectivity is being delivered in the UK. BT is tasked by the
Page 54 Government with covering two thirds of the UK by the end of 2015 via OpenReach, a target that is likely to be met early. OpenReach provides access to other operators than BT, under protocols regulated by Ofcom. The build programme is believed to be operating at full capacity, with labour and expertise being brought in from abroad to support the final leg of installation. BT is nearing the end of its £2.5bn investment programme, which the company says means “that 2.9 million business and residential premises in London now have the ability to access fibre broadband, in addition to business premises in London which have the ability to access business-grade connectivity services”. Media reports suggest that BT has reigned back on its fibre to the premises (FTTP) programme (originally set a 25% target across the UK, but now only 0.7% of the OpenReach network) and is now focussing on fibre to the cabinet (FTTC) instead. The Advertising Standards Authority recently cleared BT of any wrongdoing in advertising its retail product as being fibre, even though the run to the home/premises is usually copper.
3.3 According to Ofcom's last report, around 88% of London premises can access fibre broadband, mostly using the Openreach network, and this should rise to approximately 91% based on current investment plans. In addition, BT have recently announced additional investment in UK cities including London, so coverage will rise still further, but the company says, probably “not beyond 95% as the cost of provision of service to the remainder is unlikely to be economic for any provider”. It is not clear where the remaining 5% uncovered is located.
3.4 There is also an issue of how BT/Openreach assesses commercial viability, and if it does so according to the number of lines per cabinet and/or exchange. It appears that BT deem an exchange ‘commercially unviable’ when less than half of the lines are residential and there is no competition. That could be because the drop in revenue as business with from leased lines typically run at 10 to 20 Mbp/s whilst BT Infinity runs at around 70 Mbit/s download and 20 Mbit/s upload. The unusually large number of exchanges in Westminster (eighteen – see Annex) in addition to the high cost of connection, may well count against the likelihood of the four remaining exchanges without FTTC broadband connectivity being deemed to be commercially viable for BT. The exchanges that appear not to be programmed in for fibre (FTTC) are Howland Street (Soho), Mayfair, Whitehall and Westminster.
3.5 Virgin Media pulled out of its leased contract with BT in 2012 and having restructured and refinanced under new ownership and it is now rolling out its own programme of investment. Virgin Media’s network in Westminster exclusively uses FTTP (Fibre To The Property) broadband at speeds up to 100Mbp/s in some parts of Westminster, and up to 120Mbp/s in upgraded areas (industry newsletter, Fibrebroadband.uk web site). Virgin’s network in Westminster is not
Page 55 extensive but it has approached the authority to learn more about demand, growth and development where it might work with the authority to extend its fibre network and several positive meetings have been held with the company to start this process. (Note: Virgin has a number of contracts with Westminster City Council to provide connectivity such as the Council’s own data network and schools networking through the London Grid for Learning). BT also believed to have promised an extra £50 million of investment, specifically aimed at expanding coverage in urban areas.
3.6 Community Fibre was established in 2012 Westminster City Council and City West Homes (the Council’s arms length affordable housing provider) created a new initiative with the private sector to bring superfast broadband to residents in social housing developments. Community Fibre has a business model that does not require public sector subsidies. It is already the largest provider of Fibre to the Home connections in London. This service started as a pilot of 1,000 properties but is now planned extended to cover 22,000 properties across Westminster and may also extend to investment in regeneration and renewal areas. The project aims to install a fibre optic telecommunications network into the Council’s social housing and associated commercial property stock. This provides ultrafast (100 megabytes per second) broadband and television services (Sky and Freeview) via fibre to the premises. These will provide a package of both free and paid for television, telephone and internet services to the Council’s residents and businesses, with charged services provided on a pay as you go as well as the 12+ month contracts usually required by other providers. Residents are not charged for connection and they do not have to take the premium services over the basic services. The scheme is now being extended to include local businesses which can access the fibre optic system via radio technology. Community Fibre has successfully connected businesses to superfast broadband which have complained to local Councillors about lack of access to BT Infinity.
3.7 Sohonet is an example of an industry-led response to the need for faster, better broadband services at speeds in excess of 100 mega bytes per second. It was founded in 1995 by a group of Soho based post-production companies as a community of interest network for the television, film and media production community. Sohonet links many of the British film studios to London's post-production community and also provides access to the internet, and private wide-area links to other countries around the world.
3.8 Venus is a Westminster business based on Oxford Street from where all of its engineers and apprentices work. Venus provides coverage across the whole of Westminster, offering fibre to the premises (FTTP) from local exchanges at speeds of up to 10Gbit/sec (ie 100 Mbp/s). The company report that it has connected around 1,000 businesses across London and expects to reach 10,000 by 2019. Its network map
Page 56 is published on its website and customers can check availability. Venus is a very active user of the Government connection vouchers, having helped 150 customers to get this funding to date.
3.9 Hyperoptic. This company lays fibre to (mainly) residential premises, and has reached 75,000 home on 480 sites with a target to reach 75,000 homes by 2018. In London, Hyperoptic's gigabit footprint now extends across the length and breadth of the city; from central riverside apartments, all the way to the developments situated near the M25. The service is also live in Cardiff and Bristol, and installations are underway in Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds and Reading. The company works in partnership with developers and builders such as Barratt, St George (Berkeley Group) and Regis. It offers packages of 2Mbps, 100 Mbp/s and 1 Gigabit (just over 1,000 Mbp/s).
3.10 Universities and Incubators. The other challenge for small firms are those in incubator units which often have to access broadband separately. Well managed incubator units have started to invest in fibre connectivity for their tenants. For example, those linked to the UCL/CISCO project have developed access to superfast fibre connection direct to the premises. Academic spin off enterprises have access to the academic JANET which is a global system. This is another possible future area for discussion in Westminster’s strategy of improving access given the large presence of higher and further education in the city.
Government Policy
4.1 Broadband UK (the Government body promoting broadband and directing subsidies which reports to DCMS) aims for 90% broadband coverage by 2016, with fibre being provided past an additional 4.2 million premises under Phase 1 of the programme currently underway - both households and business premises. Some 44,000 additional premises are being passed each week, the fastest roll out of broadband in Europe.
4.2 The Government’s broadband programme has been focussed on supporting access to high speeds in rural areas and secondary cities where DCMS/Broadband UK funding has supported installation. For example Durham has moved from 6% premised coverage to 26% in two years. The major metropolitan cities have not been the focus of this Government programme because the market is expected to address needs.
4.3 The Government (DCMS) has been running a broadband connection voucher offering up to £3,000 for small businesses with less than 250 employees and turnover under £40m a year (it assists with the cost of a leased line and fibre to the premises FTTP, average voucher). Westminster City Council has promoted this voucher through its direct mail to businesses and in newsletters. However, the take-up has been
Page 57 patchy – across London 3,277 applications and 2,232 vouchers have been issued against a target of 4,260. London accounts for 40% total national value at present. Westminster has the highest take up and Virgin MB and TalkTalk are largest providers for those using the voucher but Venus has also been very active in promoting it. A further year of funding has been announced by Broadband UK (£30m nationwide) but we understand that this may not cover major cities. At the Birmingham Future Cities event on 5 th December DCLG announced that there would be another £10m provided for cities, plus whatever is left unspent from current funds. Westminster is meeting BDUK on 12 January to press for more support in promoting the scheme in the city.
Why Broadband is Important to Westminster
5.1 All major cities require advanced broadband to compete internationally. Westminster is host to 49,700 enterprises, 65% of which are small or medium sized firms. Connectivity is especially important to cities such as Westminster with a high proportion of high growth firms in diverse sectors such as the media, design, digital and telecommucations. The City Council’s last full Business Survey (2012) identified that nearly half (43%) of businesses in the city conduct the majority of their business online.
5.2 London has the biggest concentration of ‘digital’ businesses in Europe with 23,000 firms and over 390,000 employees in this sector (GLA 2012 study), with the vast majority of these being in Westminster, which has a far larger tech sector than either TechCity in Tower Hamlets or the City. However, employment growth in the sector does not appear to have increased relative to other sectors since 2005. It is not clear whether broadband access and speeds are a major factor in this growth rate over other issues such property and operating costs but it is often an issue cited in business surveys. According to a recent study by CBRE, growth of the digital, media, tech, creative sector now provides over 250,000 jobs in the centre of London (Westminster, the City and Tower Hamlets).
5.3 Many of these firms require super-fast broadband, over 98% of the UKs visual effects firms are in the Soho area of London bordering Covent Garden, which is one of the broadband ‘not spots’. Although there is a private fibre optic network called Sohonet and there are other ‘fibre to the premises’ firms such as Venus, not all small and growing firms will be able to afford such connectivity. Such smaller firms rely on the main retail broadband providers such as BT and Virgin products and the other telecoms companies on the OpenReach network.
5.4 According to Federation of Small Business Annual Survey of London Boroughs Small Business Burdens “Among the potential issues facing London’s small businesses, broadband quality and availability was seen as the most important, followed by the availability and quality of
Page 58 public transport”. Broadband quality and availability was seen as by far the most important issue to small businesses, with 58% of survey respondents saying it was very significant for their business and a further 26% stating it was quite significant. Around 65% of small businesses access broadband through a wired connection but FSB says that 12% have fibre-optic connection (there are no figures specific to London or Westminster). In addition, the London Chamber of Commerce and Industry has raised concern about the low poor broadband connectivity which it feels is compounded by the very poor 4G mobile connection speeds in London (set out in a recent report by RootMetrics).
Poor Broadband Coverage and Speeds
6.1 According to the regulator Ofcom, a large concentration of central London postcode areas are unable to even obtain BT Openreach’s hybrid copper/fibre services (up to 78Mbp/s). Analysis Masons, who advise the Mayor of London and Ofcom, suggest that only 47% of premises in Westminster are covered by this next generation broadband service. BT Openreach’s “Superfast Fibre Access” tool (www.superfast-openreach.co.uk/where-and-when/) confirms this uneven picture.
6.2 According to BT, there are eighteen exchanges in Westminster, of which four are not within its business plan to receive fibre-optic FTTC broadband services because they are not currently commercially viable, although the precise meaning of this is not clear to us. BT appears to assess commercial viability according to the business case over a ten to fifteen year return for each cabinet in relation to the existing number of lines it carries, the cost of connecting to power (which can be up to £40,000), labour costs and locational challenges. It is possible that no differentiation between residents and businesses is considered in considering demand for broadband. We would like to clarify this with BT in our future working with them.
6.3 The American research company Samknows which now monitors broadband across the UK provides detail on all connectivity by exchange. The full profile of each of the eighteen exchange is provided in the Annex . This reveals that coverage of fibre to the cabinet is good in Westminster other than in a few exchanges – Pimlico, Westminster, Whitehall, Mayfair Howland Street, Gerrard Street (Soho).
6.4 There are various web sites which capture self reporting on broadband coverage, speeds and connectivity ‘at a reasonable price’. These sites are not an accurate portrayal of availability but give a picture of issues residents and businesses are facing. “Broadband Not Spot” website (www.broadband-notspot.org.uk/) suggests that there are substantial areas of Central London where users report that broadband speeds above 2 megabits per second are unavailable. Areas which appear to
Page 59 face poor broadband include Belgravia, Pimlico/Vauxhall Bridge Road, Baker Street/Marble Arch, Covent Garden and Edgware Road/Church Street, Buckingham Gate/North Victoria area. There have also been reports on poor access in Paddington, St John’s Wood, and also Clifton Villas, Randolph Avenue and Warwick Avenue and the whole of Westbourne ward in Westminster.
6.5 The take up of fibre optic broadband connectivity is only 16% in areas where fibre is provided on OpenReach. The demand for superfast broadband is therefore not a simple picture. BT point to a survey of demand for OpenReach in Techcity which it says showed that of 30,000 potential businesses, only 8 responded to the survey seeking information on improved superfast connectivity. Virgin figures are thought to be higher in areas where it has provided fibre availability because their service is currently driven by TV media demand from residents.
6.6 One reason for low take-up could be that speeds up to 10Mbits/s are available on ADSL lines and in some cases up to 24Mbits/without fibre optic support and many micro-firm firms can make use of this and pay premiums for large and periodic uploading within the pricing bands of their internet providers.
6.7 Anectodal evidence reported to members and officers of Westminster City Council suggest that small firms have tried to access BT broadband but have found out that BT Infinity is not available to them, especially in Soho (Berwick Street) and Covent Garden. However, in response, BT has said that where it believes the cost is uneconomic it will assist companies and can offer to provide ‘fibre on demand’ - where a local cabinet has fibre - and if a businesses or resident group wishes to pay the difference between the economic and non economic cost.
Can Other Broadband Services Plug the Gap?
7.1 The newly formed Westminster Connectivity Group of officers has reviewed the options for improving other forms of broadband connectivity in the city, including wireless and micro-wave connectivity on mobile networks.
§ Wireless Metro (02) Service Concession Contract – this is managed by WCC highways currently (£7m total contract value). Wireless Metro was installed prior to the Olympics to provide free Wi-Fi spots in parts of WCC that previously did not have coverage. This runs out in December 2017 and the exclusivity clause as expired – meaning that other companies can ask WCC to use our assets (lampposts etc) to locate technology. The installation of technology on WCC assets has to be considered in the context of public realm, conservation and ultimately commercial income generating considerations for the authority. The market is potentially large. Telecoms regulator Ofcom
Page 60 has approved European Commission plans to make more airwaves available to mobile broadband users, by reallocating frequencies currently used by broadcasters to operate digital television services, such as Freeview. Ofcom estimates that ‘demand for mobile data could be 45 times higher by 2030 than it is today, and this could create a rush among mobile operators to find assets on which to locate new equipment.
§ Existing WCC Telecoms Estate – this is managed by Corporate Property which has appointed Carter Jonas agents to assist in a commercial review of existing telecoms located on our estate. Current income is small, only £250,000 a year, but could grow significantly in future years. One of the opportunities here could be to market assets for 5G technology when it becomes available but the small cell coverage required for 5G would need many assets located densely in the urban centre of the city. This work could focus on the growing mobile broadband network. For example, Vodafone has announcened plans for a broadand and TV service.
§ BT Legacy Agreement (BT wireless City via SERCO) – this contract was awarded in 2006 to support primarily Wireless CCTV operations for parking enforcement. It involves mobile cameras connected Wirelessly via BT antenna on WCC lamp columns. Along with a further legacy BT agreement, this contract is due to expire shortly and future options need to be commercially reviewed. BT is to be asked to clarify its position on this contract.
7.2 One of the issues for the authority is going to be to balance economic development with commercial/income generating objectives in relation to telecoms and broadband providers. At the recent Birmingham Smart Cities event it was reported by various providers (ITS, City Fibre and Hyperoptic), that they prefer to work with authorities ho provided non- exclusive access and where more concerned with economic growth than short term revenue. Exclusive concessions were said tend to lead ‘to lock-ins to current technologies’ when the need is for inter- flexibility into the future.
Laying Broadband in Westminster Streets
8.1 Broadband providers point to the cost of providing fibre cabling in the street and provision of cabinets as the major cost barrier to extending their networks. Until Permitted Development Rights were introduced under planning legislation in 2012, providers required planning permission to locate boxes in the highway/pavement but now only need to get a highways permit to install and upgrade equipment. The impact of boxes in the highway, especially in conservation areas, has been a major concern for the authority and the Leader wrote to telecoms providers on this in 2013.
Page 61 8.2 Westminster City Council never refuses new cable upgrades/installations. We do ask that installations in a certain location are deferred or undertaken in a different way due to our statutory duty to manage disruption in an area. If, for example, a street is being used to take considerable additional traffic as part of a diversion, we would require Virgin to not excavate it to install cables until demand was returned to normal. If a street had just been resurfaced we would allow the utility to dig it up for the new service (as we take a broad view of the definitions of exemptions to the protection offered to resurfaced streets under S58 of NRSWA) but would just ask for an upgraded reinstatement to minimise the impact on the street and public purse.
8.3 Because the location of boxes was taken outside of planning legislation two years ago and so the controls over the location of broadband telecoms boxes is through a code of practice which the Government asked the industry to produce (and which our Director of Planning helped compile). Control over the quality of reinstatement of pavements and the materials through Built Environment
Permit Scheme.
8.4 The London Permit Scheme is fully compliant with the 2007 telecommunications regulations as they applied at the time of the implementation of the Scheme. The DFT are now retrospectively updating the Regulations but that does not, at present, require London Boroughs to change their permit scheme. Officers are part of the working party, along with Virgin Media, that is advising the DfT on the new Guidance. The situation prior to the introduction of the Permit Scheme should be remembered. Utilities provided little to no notification of their works. Quality of workmanship was poor and information to the travelling and resident public was below standard. The utilities seek to return to this situation in an effort to reduce their costs.
8.5 London Boroughs were united in their view that the Scheme has to apply to all streets. If you do not apply the scheme to residential roads there will be a two-tier system, which will lead to certain works being poorly planned or managed and abandoned in favour of the main highway network.
8.6 The main benefits of the Scheme as it stands is to allow works to be co-ordinated. This reduces costs for utilities and contractors as they can “book road space”. Removing the Scheme from residential roads will potentially increase costs for utilities as it means they will have no certainty as to the potential to undertake works. Residents and businesses would also have longer-duration works interfering with their daily operations and with less notice of the activity.
8.7 Permits on residential roads are already more flexible than those on main roads. Works windows are booked with flexible start and end
Page 62 dates so there is more operational flexibility to deliver their services without extra costs. The City Council has always prioritised residents’ needs for new services and is known for being flexible in agreeing work programmes by utilities to accommodate their needs as best possible. The London Permit Scheme as operated by the City Council already applies discounts to Permits for work on main streets that are undertaken out of Traffic Sensitive times. The Regulations as they stand do not allow for the Permit Scheme to only be applied at certain times of day.
8.8 The charging of Westminster fees is at the maximum DfT-set levels but this is because, along with many other Boroughs, our actual costs were found to be higher than the maximum fees allowed. We have therefore had to set our fees below the costs that the matrix (approved by DFT and utilities) indicated we should be charging.
Reinstatements
8.9 The City Council leads national pressure for use of new and innovative excavation techniques. The claim made of resistance to new technology is not recognised by Officers and is rejected in the strongest terms. Most Highway Authorities have had difficulties with micro-trenching in the past as it has been used by cable companies to lay communications cables just below the surface of the highway in locations that are poorly recorded and liable to damage by third-party works or other surface damage. Concerns were raised at the hazards to operative digging the road and finding unexpected cables at above normal depths. Councils have also been concerned at the reliability of supply that their residents or business enjoy from such shallow cables. However, Westminster City Council has allowed such technology in the past and is keen to work with fire broadband operators and other utilities to improve its use.
8.10 Another complaint from broadband providers in the past has been the cost of parking whilst carrying out works. The City Council only charges a significantly reduced rate for parking suspensions to utilities. It is accepted by the City Council that utilities have a statutory right to work in the highway and the reduced charges aim to assist them in their works by enabling them to have surety of access to the highway for their planned works.
8.11 The Council only charges a flat administrative rate for suspensions by utilities. This covers the provision of suspension signs on street and enforcement against incorrectly parked vehicles. Non-utilities would be charged a daily charge per bay and, in the case of paid parking, any loss of income. Utilities do not face charges for loss of income or daily charges.
What Can be Done?
Page 63 What the Mayor (and GLA/LEP) is doing
9.1 The Mayor’s Connectivity Summit in September was attended by the Leader of Westminster City Council. The Mayor has commissioned a programme of work with which Westminster is now engaging and which includes:
• A Wired Property Scheme for London based on ones run in New York and Hong Kong. Commercial property owners self register properties and receive a bronze, silver, gold rating to help maximise rents and attract occupiers based on the quality of connectivity. We are talking with Westminster Property Association about supporting this scheme in the city. The GLA is going out to tender to seek a partner.
• Stimulating Demand – extension of the current Government/DCMS voucher scheme. London accounts for 40% total national value at present. However, DCMS only provided capital to local authority and other administrators of the voucher scheme not revenue so advertising and promotion have been constrained. Lobbying is now required to secure further voucher funding
What the City of London is Doing
9.2 The City of London’s connectivity to the Open Reach network is far lower than Westminster’s. As in Westminster, many major corporate businesses in the square mile pay for dedicated leased lines from BT (ethernet coverage) and other providers and so the wider network is not as in demand. However, many small firms require broadband and cannot find provision currently. The City has traditionally resisted the location of street cabinet boxes on its streets because of safety and terrorism concerns. It has therefore been working with BT/Open Reach on a new approach which brings fibre to the basement of offices (known as FTTB). Fibre to the basement avoids the need for street furniture, civil engineering works and road closures. The City of London’s new Connections Charter is attempting to establish wayleave agreements between landlords and Telecoms companies and is hoping to overcome indemnity caps. BT is testing two locations with the aim of providing download speeds of up to 80Mbps for homes in Middlesex Street Estate and to 50 SMEs based at 65 London Wall. BT committed to working with the City of London to investigate how new forms of technology can benefit local SMEs. The City is also done a building by building survey of connectivity, making the results available to would be suppliers.
What York City Council is Doing
9.3 Several ISPs have announced joint initiatives to fill gaps in broadband provision, most recently in York, where four telecoms groups (Sky,
Page 64 TalkTalk, CityFibre and Fujitsu) have revealed plans to build a fibre to the premises (FTTP) network capable of delivering speeds of up to 1 Gigabit per second (1 Gbps). York City Council is also working with these providers and has been strategically reviewing its role in promoting the market. This project is the ‘biggest challenge yet to BT’s dominance of the UK’s fixed-line communications market’ according to media reports.
What More Could Westminster City Council Do?
9.4 A Westminster Connectivity Group has been established. The group is looking at connectivity in the round including broadband. This work will be led jointly between Growth Planning and Housing (economic development and housing), City IT and Operational Services and Communities (street works/highway teams). Some of the workstreams that have been identified include:
§ Hold a Connectivity Summit specific to Westminster – inviting providers and others to collaborate on solutions and make recommendations back to the authority by the end of 2015.
§ Continue to press for clarification on the data used on connectivity and speeds . For example, how does BT measure connectivity when a customer has a number of phone lines but chooses to enable only one for Broadband? If a business has four BT lines but is then upgraded to enable broadband on one line with BT but the other lines with other companies does BT count this as 100% upgrade or only partial? What is the basis for determining commercial viability by premises, cabinet and exchange? What are the average speeds over time over OpenReach at different times of day and the week?
§ Map current levels of connectivity in Westminster using a combination of self-reporting (perhaps using business improvement districts, networks of start-ups and SMEs coordinated through the supported workspaces supported by Westminster’s Civic Enterprise Fund and neighbourhoods as a means of collecting information) and data secured from industry and other sources to identify underserved areas and to use this information to understand the factors underlying this. Part of this will be to produce a map of where fibre-optic broadband has been laid to date and will be laid (albeit taking into account commercial sensitiveness on future build plans). We are also looking at legal powers. Local Authorities have powers under security legislation to map utilities (as was done under the Olympics) which could be looked at as a legal basis for demanding that all broadband providers provide full and transparent maps of their cables and equipment across the city to read against the connectivity reports.
Page 65 § Continue to promote the Government Voucher scheme using Council publicity . Take-up has been better in Leeds and Bradford where the local authority promoted take up with a leaflet to all business rate payers. We are meeting Broadband UK on 12 January to stress the need for more marketing of the scheme as no revenue funding from BDUK or DCMS was provided to support promotion of the voucher scheme.
§ Promote the GLA’s ‘Wired Property Scheme’ based on a successful initiative in New York, with gold, silver, bronze ‘rating scheme’ for property owners which will enable owners to market their buildings to occupants according to the quality of digital connection. This is expected to stimulate demand for broadband. (The scheme could also be extended to add ratings for existing old technology such as copper and aluminium as well as fibre). Some property owners may also seek to pay for and install fibre to the premises in order to provide Ethernet connectivity to tenants. The GLA is procuring an agency to run the programme and Westminster can work with that agent.
§ Review use of Council Assets and Property to improve connectivity and engage commercially with operators. We are moving away from a concession approach to broadband providers to a negotiated approach. We have appointed Carter Jonas to advise the authority on commercial relations with telecoms providers relating to WCC assets. TfL is looking to commercialise its asset base and is moving away from a service concession approach to working with telecoms and cable/fibre companies. BT has a legacy agreement with WCC and Ofcom through which they provide antenna on WCC lamp columns with fibre connections back to an operator in BT exchanges, this being an alternative to cabinets in streets. We believe that BT is seeking to extend this contract (TBC).
§ Develop an understanding of the implications of new technologies , particularly development of mobile broadband “5G”, the next major phase of mobile telecommunications which might take the form of super-fast mobile networks requiring dense networks of base stations in urban areas, or converged fibre- wireless networks with “short” wireless connections to a fibre network via “access points”.
§ Re-issue our statement on Street Works in Westminster for broadband providers. Work with the providers to identify current and future implementation issues, such as management of streetworks (including the scope for “microtrenching”), use of street furniture as access points, planning policies to facilitate connectivity in new developments and exploring options for cost sharing (in implementing public realm projects, for example).
Page 66 § Ask Ofcom to clarify its view on coverage and set a target for Central London . In particular, whether how proactive it can be to encourge collaboration between operators. For example it is unclear whether BT lets other operators share its ducts under the PIA (physical infrastructure access) obligations at prices which those operators accept are in their interests. Sharing of ducts would avoid several operators competing to lay their own fibre in the same streets and we would encourage more cooperation between providers on this issue.
§ Encourage new and smaller entrants into the market in those areas where main providers are not connecting small firms and residents to superfast broadband or providing adequate and consisent upload and download speeds. This would need to be tested legally, but could be justified as compliant with European state aid grounds and UK competition grounds if a case can be demonstrated that there has been ‘market failure’ and such public sector intervetion is required. Such an approach would need to be built up from demonstratoin of demand from business and residents and selection of areas where there is no adequate coverage. (In the meantime, it appears legitimate for the authority to signpost residents and businesses to ‘alternative’ providers, where main broadband providers have been able to connect to standard superfast broadband products, although the that would require us to signpost to all providers available in order to not to distort the market).
If you have any queries about this Report or wish to inspect any of the Background Papers please contact Steve Carr [email protected]
BACKGROUND PAPERS
Nil return
Page 67 ANNEX 1: Broadband in Other World Cities
Page 68 ANNEX 2: MAP OF BT EXCHANGES IN WESTMINSTER
Exchanges with Fibre to the Cabinet : Bayswater, Belgravia, Covent Garden, Gerrard St, Kensal Green, Lords, Maida Vale, Marylebone, North Paddington, Paddington, Pimlico, Primrose Hill, Sloane, South Kensington. Exchanges without Fibre to the Cabinet : Howland St, Mayfair, Whitehall, Westminster
Page 69 Page Annex 3 (Example of 1 Dark Fibre network in London – blue lines)
Page 70 Page
Annex 4
Westminster Telephone Exchanges
Samknows Profile of Connectivity
Page 71 Terms Used: Glossary
Local Loop Unbundling . The process of permitting alternative network operators to install their own equipment on a passive network. Numerous CP’s provide alternative broadband services over the BT Openreach network in this way, and increasingly this approach is the default for the emerging fibre optic networks.
21st Century Network . BT's replacement core network, which is being rolled out between 2007 and 2012.
Asymmetric Digital Subscriber Line . This is the most common way in which broadband is delivered in the UK.
Asymmetric Digital Subscriber Line, version 2+. A form of ADSL offering up to 24Mbps downloads, and up to 2.5Mbps upstream (for the Annex M version).
Communications Provider . BT's terminology for their wholesale customers which are largely ISPs.
Data Over Cable . A technology that allows broadband data signals to be transmitted over a cable TV network. Version 3.0 permits up to 200 Mbps but more typically 50 Mbps is deployed today
Digital Subscriber Line Access Multiplexer . The device installed in telephone exchanges that terminates copper pairs to provide xDSL connections.
Fibre To The Cabinet. FTTC The process by which fibre optic cables are laid from a central point to a street cabinet. Traditional copper connections then run from the street cabinet to the premises.
Fibre To The Premises – FTTP or sometimes FttH (home). Fibre optic cables delivering services directly to the premises from a local POP or telephone exchange.
Internet Protocol . The most commonly used set of rules governing how information is sent over networks (not necessarily just the Internet).
Internet Service Provider . A provider of internet access services.
Local Loop Unbundling . The process of permitting alternative network operators to install their own equipment on a passive network. Numerous CP’s provide alternative broadband services over the BT Openreach network in this way, and increasingly this approach is the default for the emerging fibre optic networks.
Lower Super Output Area . A standardised geographical area defined by the Office of National Statistics (ONS) for reporting purposes.
Network operators are organisations that own and operate their own networks. Not all ISP’s are network operators as many rely on BT’s infrastructure.
Next Generation Network . The generic name given to a new breed to communications networks. The main example of which is FttP.
Point of Presence . A site in which a communications provider hosts equipment for terminating connections. In BT’s network this is the telephone exchange.
Symmetric Digital Subscriber Line . A DSL service in which the upstream and downstream channels operate at the same speed.
The fastest member of the xDSL family able to provide higher broadband speeds but over very short distances. This is the main technology used on FttC deployments, and is often considered as a bridge to true NGN’s.
Page 72 Bloomsbury Aka Howland St Exchange
General Information Exchange name: Bloomsbury Aka Howland St Exchange code: WEWBLO Location: London London Postcode: W1T4JZ Our map | Multimap | Maps: Streetmap 4,128 residential premises Serves (approx): 3,667 non-residential premises. Broadband availability overview ADSL: Yes SDSL: Yes LLU services: Yes Cable: Yes Wireless: Yes BT Wholesale information ADSL status: Enabled as of 31/03/2000 ADSL Max status: Enabled as of 05/01/2006 SDSL status: Enabled 21CN WBC status: Enabled FTTC status: Not available FTTP status: Not available Wireless broadband availability Now Wireless: Not available Urban Wimax: Enabled Kijoma: Not available EMNET Notts: Not available iDaq Networks: Not available Orbital / VFast: Not available Cable Broadband Availability Virgin Media: Available in some areas Smallworld Media: Not available Who are all of these providers?
Page 73 Bloomsbury LLU operator presence AOL: Not available O2 / Be: Enabled Enabled as of C&W: 15/06/2003 Edge Telecom: Enabled Entanet: Not available Fluency: Not available KC (Kingston): Not available Lumison: Not available Timico Partners: Not available Node4: Not available Pipex: Enabled Redcentric: Not available Rutland Telecom: Not available Sky: Enabled Smallworld: Not available Spectrum: Not available TalkTalk (CPW): Enabled Enabled as of Tiscali: 25/07/2007 Enabled as of Tiscali TV: 25/07/2007 WB Internet: Not available Zen Internet: Enabled
Ofcom Classification Market 3 Four or more 'principal' operators provide broadband services at this exchange. Service in this area has been deregulated!
Page 74 Whitehall Exchange General Information Exchange name: Whitehall Exchange code: WRWHI Location: London London Postcode: SW1A2DB Our map | Multimap | Maps: Streetmap 1,010 residential premises Serves (approx): 1,377 non-residential premises. Broadband availability overview ADSL: Yes SDSL: Yes LLU services: Yes Cable: Yes Wireless: Yes BT Wholesale information ADSL status: Enabled as of 31/03/2000 ADSL Max status: Enabled as of 31/03/2006 SDSL status: Enabled 21CN WBC status: Enabled FTTC status: Not available FTTP status: Not available Wireless broadband availability Now Wireless: Not available Urban Wimax: Enabled Kijoma: Not available EMNET Notts: Not available iDaq Networks: Not available Orbital / VFast: Not available Cable Broadband Availability Virgin Media: Available in some areas Smallworld Media: Not available Who are all of these providers? Spotted an error? Let us know Location Map
Page 75
Whitehall LLU operator presence AOL: Not available O2 / Be: Enabled Enabled as of C&W: 15/06/2003 Edge Telecom: Not available Entanet: Not available Fluency: Not available KC (Kingston): Not available Lumison: Not available Timico Partners: Not available Node4: Not available Pipex: Not available Redcentric: Not available Rutland Telecom: Not available Sky: Enabled Smallworld: Not available Spectrum: Not available TalkTalk (CPW): Enabled Tiscali: Not available Tiscali TV: Not available WB Internet: Not available Zen Internet: Enabled Ofcom Classification Market 3 Four or more 'principal' operators provide broadband services at this exchange. Service in this area has been deregulated!
Page 76 Mayfair Exchange General Information Exchange name: Mayfair Exchange code: WEWMAY Location: London London Postcode: W1J5RR Our map | Multimap | Maps: Streetmap 3,012 residential premises Serves (approx): 4,292 non-residential premises. Broadband availability overview ADSL: Yes SDSL: Yes LLU services: Yes Cable: Yes Wireless: Yes BT Wholesale information ADSL status: Enabled as of 31/03/2000 ADSL Max status: Enabled as of 05/01/2006 SDSL status: Enabled 21CN WBC status: Enabled FTTC status: RFS date set : 30/09/2014 FTTP status: Not available Wireless broadband availability Now Wireless: Not available Urban Wimax: Enabled Kijoma: Not available EMNET Notts: Not available iDaq Networks: Not available Orbital / VFast: Not available Cable Broadband Availability Virgin Media: Available in some areas Smallworld Media: Not available Who are all of these providers? Spotted an error? Let us know Location Map
Page 77 Mayfair LLU operator presence AOL: Not available O2 / Be: Enabled Enabled as of C&W: 15/06/2003 Edge Telecom: Enabled Entanet: Not available Fluency: Not available KC (Kingston): Not available Lumison: Not available Timico Partners: Not available Node4: Not available Pipex: Enabled Redcentric: Not available Rutland Telecom: Not available Sky: Enabled Smallworld: Not available Spectrum: Not available TalkTalk (CPW): Enabled Enabled as of Tiscali: 27/01/2008 Enabled as of Tiscali TV: 27/01/2008 WB Internet: Not available Zen Internet: Enabled Ofcom Classification Market 3 Four or more 'principal' operators provide broadband services at this exchange. Service in this area has been deregulated!
Page 78 Pimlico Exchange General Information Exchange name: Pimlico Exchange code: WRPIM Location: London London Postcode: SW1P1EE Our map | Multimap | Maps: Streetmap 15,698 residential premises Serves (approx): 1,481 non-residential premises. Broadband availability overview ADSL: Yes SDSL: Yes LLU services: Yes Cable: Yes Wireless: Yes BT Wholesale information ADSL status: Enabled as of 31/03/2000 ADSL Max status: Enabled as of 31/03/2006 SDSL status: Enabled 21CN WBC status: Enabled FTTC status: Available in some areas FTTP status: Available in some areas Wireless broadband availability Now Wireless: Not available Urban Wimax: Enabled Kijoma: Not available EMNET Notts: Not available iDaq Networks: Not available Orbital / VFast: Not available Cable Broadband Availability Virgin Media: Available in some areas Smallworld Media: Not available Who are all of these providers? Spotted an error? Let us know Location Map
Page 79
Pimlico LLU operator presence AOL: Enabled O2 / Be: Enabled Enabled as of C&W: 15/06/2003 Edge Telecom: Not available Entanet: Not available Fluency: Not available KC (Kingston): Not available Lumison: Not available Timico Partners: Not available Node4: Not available Enabled as of Pipex: 27/05/2007 Redcentric: Not available Rutland Telecom: Not available Sky: Enabled Smallworld: Not available Spectrum: Not available TalkTalk (CPW): Enabled Enabled as of Tiscali: 01/12/2006 Enabled as of Tiscali TV: 01/12/2006 WB Internet: Not available Zen Internet: Not available Ofcom Classification Market 3 Four or more 'principal' operators provide broadband services at this exchange. Service in this area has been deregulated!
Page 80 Westminster Exchange General Information Exchange name: Westminster Exchange code: WRWMIN Location: London London Postcode: SW1H0AY Our map | Multimap | Maps: Streetmap 2,197 residential premises Serves (approx): 649 non-residential premises. Broadband availability overview ADSL: Yes SDSL: Yes LLU services: Yes Cable: Yes Wireless: Yes BT Wholesale information ADSL status: Enabled as of 31/03/2000 ADSL Max status: Enabled as of 31/03/2006 SDSL status: Enabled 21CN WBC status: Enabled FTTC status: Not available FTTP status: Not available Wireless broadband availability Now Wireless: Not available Urban Wimax: Enabled Kijoma: Not available EMNET Notts: Not available iDaq Networks: Not available Orbital / VFast: Not available Cable Broadband Availability Virgin Media: Available in some areas Smallworld Media: Not available Who are all of these providers? Spotted an error? Let us know Location Map
Page 81
Westminster LLU operator presence AOL: Not available O2 / Be: Enabled Enabled as of C&W: 15/06/2003 Edge Telecom: Not available Entanet: Not available Fluency: Not available KC (Kingston): Not available Lumison: Not available Timico Partners: Not available Node4: Not available Pipex: Not available Redcentric: Not available Rutland Telecom: Not available Sky: Enabled Smallworld: Not available Spectrum: Not available TalkTalk (CPW): Enabled Tiscali: Not available Tiscali TV: Not available WB Internet: Not available Zen Internet: Not available Ofcom Classification Market 3 Four or more 'principal' operators provide broadband services at this exchange. Service in this area has been deregulated!
Page 82 North Paddington Exchange General Information Exchange name: North Paddington Exchange code: WEWNPN Location: London London Postcode: NW15BZ Our map | Multimap | Maps: Streetmap 12,129 residential premises Serves (approx): 1,115 non-residential premises. Broadband availability overview ADSL: Yes SDSL: Yes LLU services: Yes Cable: Yes Wireless: Yes BT Wholesale information ADSL status: Enabled as of 31/03/2000 ADSL Max status: Enabled as of 31/03/2006 SDSL status: Enabled 21CN WBC status: Enabled FTTC status: Available in some areas FTTP status: Not available Wireless broadband availability Now Wireless: Not available Urban Wimax: Enabled Kijoma: Not available EMNET Notts: Not available iDaq Networks: Not available Orbital / VFast: Not available Cable Broadband Availability Virgin Media: Available in some areas Smallworld Media: Not available Who are all of these providers? Spotted an error? Let us know Location Map
Page 83
North Paddington Exchange LLU operator presence AOL: Enabled O2 / Be: Enabled Enabled as of C&W: 15/06/2003 Edge Telecom: Enabled Entanet: Not available Fluency: Not available KC (Kingston): Not available Lumison: Not available Timico Partners: Not available Node4: Not available Pipex: Enabled Redcentric: Not available Rutland Telecom: Not available Sky: Enabled Smallworld: Not available Spectrum: Not available TalkTalk (CPW): Enabled Enabled as of Tiscali: 07/03/2008 Enabled as of Tiscali TV: 07/03/2008 WB Internet: Not available Zen Internet: Not available Ofcom Classification Market 3 Four or more 'principal' operators provide broadband services at this exchange. Service in this area has been deregulated!
Page 84 Paddington Exchange General Information Exchange name: Paddington Exchange code: WEWPAD Location: London London Postcode: W21QS Our map | Multimap | Maps: Streetmap 10,247 residential premises Serves (approx): 945 non-residential premises. Broadband availability overview ADSL: Yes SDSL: Yes LLU services: Yes Cable: Yes Wireless: Yes BT Wholesale information ADSL status: Enabled as of 31/03/2000 ADSL Max status: Enabled as of 31/03/2006 SDSL status: Enabled 21CN WBC status: Enabled FTTC status: Available in some areas FTTP status: Not available Wireless broadband availability Now Wireless: Not available Urban Wimax: Enabled Kijoma: Not available EMNET Notts: Not available iDaq Networks: Not available Orbital / VFast: Not available Cable Broadband Availability Virgin Media: Available in some areas Smallworld Media: Not available Who are all of these providers? Spotted an error? Let us know Location Map
Page 85 Paddington Exchange LLU operator presence AOL: Enabled O2 / Be: Enabled Enabled as of C&W: 15/06/2003 Edge Telecom: Enabled Entanet: Not available Fluency: Not available KC (Kingston): Not available Lumison: Not available Timico Partners: Not available Node4: Not available Pipex: Enabled Redcentric: Not available Rutland Telecom: Not available Sky: Enabled Smallworld: Not available Spectrum: Not available TalkTalk (CPW): Enabled Enabled as of Tiscali: 27/01/2008 Enabled as of Tiscali TV: 27/01/2008 WB Internet: Not available Zen Internet: Not available Ofcom Classification Market 3 Four or more 'principal' operators provide broadband services at this exchange. Service in this area has been deregulated!
Page 86 Lords Exchange General Information Exchange name: Lords Exchange code: WEWLOR Location: London London Postcode: NW89RD Our map | Multimap | Maps: Streetmap 15,396 residential premises Serves (approx): 370 non-residential premises. Broadband availability overview ADSL: Yes SDSL: Yes LLU services: Yes Cable: Yes Wireless: No BT Wholesale information ADSL status: Enabled as of 31/03/2000 ADSL Max status: Enabled as of 05/01/2006 SDSL status: Enabled as of 10/07/2005 21CN WBC status: Enabled FTTC status: Available in some areas FTTP status: Available in some areas Wireless broadband availability Now Wireless: Not available Urban Wimax: Not available Kijoma: Not available EMNET Notts: Not available iDaq Networks: Not available Orbital / VFast: Not available Cable Broadband Availability Virgin Media: Available in some areas Smallworld Media: Not available Who are all of these providers? Spotted an error? Let us know Location Map
Page 87
Lords Exchange LLU operator presence AOL: Enabled O2 / Be: Enabled Enabled as of C&W: 15/07/2005 Edge Telecom: Not available Entanet: Not available Fluency: Not available KC (Kingston): Not available Lumison: Not available Timico Partners: Not available Node4: Not available Enabled as of Pipex: 25/09/2006 Redcentric: Not available Rutland Telecom: Not available Sky: Enabled Smallworld: Not available Spectrum: Not available TalkTalk (CPW): Enabled Enabled as of Tiscali: 01/12/2006 Enabled as of Tiscali TV: 01/12/2006 WB Internet: Not available Zen Internet: Enabled Ofcom Classification Market 3 Four or more 'principal' operators provide broadband services at this exchange. Service in this area has been deregulated!
Page 88 Marylebone Exchange General Information Exchange name: Marylebone Exchange code: WEWMAR Location: London London Postcode: W1U5LD Our map | Multimap | Maps: Streetmap 4,847 residential premises Serves (approx): 2,169 non-residential premises. Broadband availability overview ADSL: Yes SDSL: Yes LLU services: Yes Cable: Yes Wireless: Yes BT Wholesale information ADSL status: Enabled as of 31/03/2000 ADSL Max status: Enabled as of 31/03/2006 SDSL status: Enabled 21CN WBC status: Enabled FTTC status: Available in some areas FTTP status: Not available Wireless broadband availability Now Wireless: Not available Urban Wimax: Enabled Kijoma: Not available EMNET Notts: Not available iDaq Networks: Not available Orbital / VFast: Not available Cable Broadband Availability Virgin Media: Available in some areas Smallworld Media: Not available Who are all of these providers? Spotted an error? Let us know Location Map
Page 89
Marylebone LLU operator presence AOL: Not available O2 / Be: Enabled Enabled as of C&W: 15/06/2003 Edge Telecom: Enabled Entanet: Not available Fluency: Not available KC (Kingston): Not available Lumison: Not available Timico Partners: Not available Node4: Not available Pipex: Enabled Redcentric: Not available Rutland Telecom: Not available Sky: Enabled Smallworld: Not available Spectrum: Not available TalkTalk (CPW): Enabled Enabled as of Tiscali: 27/01/2008 Enabled as of Tiscali TV: 27/01/2008 WB Internet: Not available Zen Internet: Enabled Ofcom Classification Market 3 Four or more 'principal' operators provide broadband services at this exchange. Service in this area has been deregulated!
Page 90 Primrose Hill Exchange General Information Exchange name: Primrose Hill Exchange code: WEWPRI Location: London London Postcode: NW86LL Our map | Multimap | Maps: Streetmap 13,576 residential premises Serves (approx): 691 non-residential premises. Broadband availability overview ADSL: Yes SDSL: Yes LLU services: Yes Cable: Yes Wireless: No BT Wholesale information ADSL status: Enabled as of 31/03/2000 ADSL Max status: Enabled as of 05/01/2006 SDSL status: Enabled as of 10/04/2005 21CN WBC status: Enabled FTTC status: Available in some areas FTTP status: Not available Wireless broadband availability Now Wireless: Not available Urban Wimax: Not available Kijoma: Not available EMNET Notts: Not available iDaq Networks: Not available Orbital / VFast: Not available Cable Broadband Availability Virgin Media: Available in some areas Smallworld Media: Not available Who are all of these providers? Spotted an error? Let us know Location Map
Page 91
Primrose Hill LLU operator presence AOL: Enabled O2 / Be: Enabled Enabled as of C&W: 15/07/2005 Edge Telecom: Not available Entanet: Not available Fluency: Not available KC (Kingston): Not available Lumison: Not available Timico Partners: Not available Node4: Not available Pipex: Not available Redcentric: Not available Rutland Telecom: Not available Sky: Enabled Smallworld: Not available Spectrum: Not available TalkTalk (CPW): Enabled Enabled as of Tiscali: 27/01/2008 Enabled as of Tiscali TV: 27/01/2008 WB Internet: Not available Zen Internet: Enabled Ofcom Classification Market 3 Four or more 'principal' operators provide broadband services at this exchange. Service in this area has been deregulated!
Page 92 Kensal Green Exchange General Information Exchange name: Kensal Green Exchange code: LWKGRE Location: London London Postcode: W104NB Our map | Multimap | Maps: Streetmap 20,619 residential premises Serves (approx): 1,263 non-residential premises. Broadband availability overview ADSL: Yes SDSL: Yes LLU services: Yes Cable: Yes Wireless: No BT Wholesale information ADSL status: Enabled as of 31/03/2000 ADSL Max status: Enabled as of 31/03/2006 SDSL status: Enabled 21CN WBC status: Enabled FTTC status: Available in some areas FTTP status: Not available Wireless broadband availability Now Wireless: Not available Urban Wimax: Not available Kijoma: Not available EMNET Notts: Not available iDaq Networks: Not available Orbital / VFast: Not available Cable Broadband Availability Virgin Media: Available in some areas Smallworld Media: Not available Who are all of these providers? Spotted an error? Let us know Location Map
Page 93
Kensal Green LLU operator presence AOL: Enabled O2 / Be: Enabled Enabled as of C&W: 31/08/2006 Edge Telecom: Not available Entanet: Not available Fluency: Not available KC (Kingston): Not available Lumison: Not available Timico Partners: Not available Node4: Not available Enabled as of Pipex: 17/07/2006 Redcentric: Not available Rutland Telecom: Not available Sky: Enabled Smallworld: Not available Spectrum: Not available TalkTalk (CPW): Enabled Enabled as of Tiscali: 15/03/2006 Enabled as of Tiscali TV: 15/03/2006 WB Internet: Not available Zen Internet: Enabled Ofcom Classification Market 3 Four or more 'principal' operators provide broadband services at this exchange. Service in this area has been deregulated!
Page 94 Maida Vale Exchange General Information Exchange name: Maida Vale Exchange code: WEWMAI Location: London London Postcode: W91QD Our map | Multimap | Maps: Streetmap 17,694 residential premises Serves (approx): 1,284 non-residential premises. Broadband availability overview ADSL: Yes SDSL: Yes LLU services: Yes Cable: Yes Wireless: No BT Wholesale information ADSL status: Enabled as of 31/03/2000 ADSL Max status: Enabled as of 31/03/2006 SDSL status: Enabled 21CN WBC status: Enabled FTTC status: Available in some areas FTTP status: Not available Wireless broadband availability Now Wireless: Not available Urban Wimax: Not available Kijoma: Not available EMNET Notts: Not available iDaq Networks: Not available Orbital / VFast: Not available Cable Broadband Availability Virgin Media: Available in some areas Smallworld Media: Not available Who are all of these providers? Spotted an error? Let us know Location Map
Page 95
Maida Vale LLU operator presence AOL: Enabled O2 / Be: Enabled Enabled as of C&W: 15/06/2003 Edge Telecom: Not available Entanet: Not available Fluency: Not available KC (Kingston): Not available Lumison: Not available Timico Partners: Not available Node4: Not available Pipex: Not available Redcentric: Not available Rutland Telecom: Not available Sky: Enabled Smallworld: Not available Spectrum: Not available TalkTalk (CPW): Enabled Enabled as of Tiscali: 01/12/2006 Enabled as of Tiscali TV: 01/12/2006 WB Internet: Not available Zen Internet: Enabled Ofcom Classification Market 3 Four or more 'principal' operators provide broadband services at this exchange. Service in this area has been deregulated!
Page 96 South Kensington Exchange General Information Exchange name: South Kensington Exchange code: WRSKEN Location: London London Postcode: SW33AB Our map | Multimap | Maps: Streetmap 12,904 residential premises Serves (approx): 1,308 non-residential premises. Broadband availability overview ADSL: Yes SDSL: Yes LLU services: Yes Cable: Yes Wireless: Yes BT Wholesale information ADSL status: Enabled as of 31/03/2000 ADSL Max status: Enabled as of 30/11/2005 SDSL status: Enabled 21CN WBC status: Enabled FTTC status: Available in some areas FTTP status: Available in some areas Wireless broadband availability Now Wireless: Not available Urban Wimax: Enabled Kijoma: Not available EMNET Notts: Not available iDaq Networks: Not available Orbital / VFast: Not available Cable Broadband Availability Virgin Media: Available in some areas Smallworld Media: Not available Who are all of these providers? Spotted an error? Let us know Location Map
Page 97
South Kensington LLU operator presence
AOL: Enabled O2 / Be: Enabled Enabled as of C&W: 15/06/2003 Edge Telecom: Not available Entanet: Not available Fluency: Not available KC (Kingston): Not available Lumison: Not available Timico Partners: Not available Node4: Not available Enabled as of Pipex: 27/05/2007 Redcentric: Not available Rutland Telecom: Not available Sky: Enabled Smallworld: Not available Spectrum: Not available TalkTalk (CPW): Enabled Enabled as of Tiscali: 07/03/2008 Enabled as of Tiscali TV: 07/03/2008 WB Internet: Not available Zen Internet: Enabled Ofcom Classification Market 3 Four or more 'principal' operators provide broadband services at this exchange. Service in this area has been deregulated!
Page 98 Sloane Exchange General Information Exchange name: Sloane Exchange code: WRSLO Location: London London Postcode: SW1X9DF Our map | Multimap | Maps: Streetmap 4,751 residential premises Serves (approx): 555 non-residential premises. Broadband availability overview ADSL: Yes SDSL: Yes LLU services: Yes Cable: Yes Wireless: Yes BT Wholesale information ADSL status: Enabled as of 31/03/2000 ADSL Max status: Enabled as of 31/03/2006 SDSL status: Enabled as of 17/07/2005 21CN WBC status: Enabled FTTC status: Available in some areas FTTP status: Available in some areas Wireless broadband availability Now Wireless: Not available Urban Wimax: Enabled Kijoma: Not available EMNET Notts: Not available iDaq Networks: Not available Orbital / VFast: Not available Cable Broadband Availability Virgin Media: Available in some areas Smallworld Media: Not available Who are all of these providers? Spotted an error? Let us know Location Map
Page 99
Sloane Exchange LLU operator presence AOL: Not available O2 / Be: Enabled Enabled as of C&W: 15/03/2005 Edge Telecom: Not available Entanet: Not available Fluency: Not available KC (Kingston): Not available Lumison: Not available Timico Partners: Not available Node4: Not available Pipex: Not available Redcentric: Not available Rutland Telecom: Not available Sky: Enabled Smallworld: Not available Spectrum: Not available TalkTalk (CPW): Enabled Enabled as of Tiscali: 17/02/2008 Enabled as of Tiscali TV: 17/02/2008 WB Internet: Not available Zen Internet: Not available Ofcom Classification Market 3 Four or more 'principal' operators provide broadband services at this exchange. Service in this area has been deregulated!
Page 100 Bayswater Exchange General Information Exchange name: Bayswater Exchange code: WEWBAY Location: London London Postcode: W24LG Our map | Multimap | Maps: Streetmap 21,050 residential premises Serves (approx): 1,551 non-residential premises. Broadband availability overview ADSL: Yes SDSL: Yes LLU services: Yes Cable: Yes Wireless: Yes BT Wholesale information ADSL status: Enabled as of 31/03/2000 ADSL Max status: Enabled as of 31/03/2006 SDSL status: Enabled 21CN WBC status: Enabled FTTC status: Available in some areas FTTP status: Not available Wireless broadband availability Now Wireless: Not available Urban Wimax: Enabled Kijoma: Not available EMNET Notts: Not available iDaq Networks: Not available Orbital / VFast: Not available Cable Broadband Availability Virgin Media: Available in some areas Smallworld Media: Not available Who are all of these providers? Spotted an error? Let us know Location Map
Page 101
Bayswater Exchange LLU operator presence AOL: Enabled O2 / Be: Enabled Enabled as of C&W: 15/06/2003 Edge Telecom: Not available Entanet: Not available Fluency: Not available KC (Kingston): Not available Lumison: Not available Timico Partners: Not available Node4: Not available Enabled as of Pipex: 27/05/2007 Redcentric: Not available Rutland Telecom: Not available Sky: Enabled Smallworld: Not available Spectrum: Not available TalkTalk (CPW): Enabled Enabled as of Tiscali: 15/03/2006 Enabled as of Tiscali TV: 15/03/2006 WB Internet: Not available Zen Internet: Not available Ofcom Classification Market 3 Four or more 'principal' operators provide broadband services at this exchange. Service in this area has been deregulated!
Page 102 Soho Aka Gerrard Street Exchange General Information Exchange name: Soho Aka Gerrard Street Exchange code: WEWSOH Location: London London Postcode: WC2H7BQ Our map | Multimap | Maps: Streetmap 1,661 residential premises Serves (approx): 3,629 non-residential premises. Broadband availability overview ADSL: Yes SDSL: Yes LLU services: Yes Cable: Yes Wireless: Yes BT Wholesale information ADSL status: Enabled as of 31/03/2000 ADSL Max status: Enabled as of 31/03/2006 SDSL status: Enabled 21CN WBC status: Enabled FTTC status: RFS date set : 30/09/2014 FTTP status: Not available Wireless broadband availability Now Wireless: Not available Urban Wimax: Enabled Kijoma: Not available EMNET Notts: Not available iDaq Networks: Not available Orbital / VFast: Not available Cable Broadband Availability Virgin Media: Available in some areas Smallworld Media: Not available Who are all of these providers? Spotted an error? Let us know Location Map
Page 103
Soho Exchange LLU operator presence AOL: Not available O2 / Be: Enabled Enabled as of C&W: 15/06/2003 Edge Telecom: Enabled Entanet: Not available Fluency: Not available KC (Kingston): Not available Lumison: Not available Timico Partners: Not available Node4: Not available Pipex: Enabled Redcentric: Not available Rutland Telecom: Not available Sky: Enabled Smallworld: Not available Spectrum: Not available TalkTalk (CPW): Enabled Tiscali: Not available Tiscali TV: Not available WB Internet: Not available Zen Internet: Enabled Ofcom Classification Market 3 Four or more 'principal' operators provide broadband services at this exchange. Service in this area has been deregulated!
Page 104 Agenda Item 8
Work Programme 2014-15 Environment Policy and Scrutiny Committee
Date 19th January 2015
Classification General
Report author Mark Ewbank (ex.2636) and telephone [email protected]
1. Introduction
1.1. The Environment Policy and Scrutiny Committee (hereon the Committee) examines a range of council services and projects that fall within the portfolios of:
• Cabinet Member for the Built Environment
• Cabinet Member for City Management, Transport and Infrastructure
• Cabinet Member for Sustainability and Parking
1.2. This document presents a Work Programme and Action Tracker for the Committee for the 2014-15 period.
1.3. The Committee may also undertake special investigations and may appoint Sub- Committees or Task Groups on either a formal or informal basis, with the past examples including:
• Cycling Strategy Task Group
• Highways & Transportation Contract Re-let Task Group
• Waste Disposal Strategy Task Group
Page 105 2. Recommendation
2.1. That the Committee note and comment on the scheduled items for rounds 5 (2 March 2015) and 6 (date TBC in April).
Page 106
ROUND ONE ( 30 June 2014)
Agenda Item Reasons & objective for item Represented by: Cabinet Member Q&A To hold to account and give • Cabinet Member for ‘critical friend’ challenge to the City Management, portfolio holder. Transport and Infrastructure
• Cabinet Member for Sustainability and Parking River crossings To review proposed Garden • Rosemarie MacQueen Bridge and Nine Elms river crossings
City Plan and To assess the consultation • Rosemarie MacQueen Consultation Booklets booklets as part of the City Plan
ROUND TWO ( 15 September , 2014)
Agenda Item Reasons & objective for item Represented by: Cabinet Member Q&A To hold to account and give • Cabinet Member for ‘critical friend’ challenge to the the Built Environment portfolio holder. • Cabinet Member for City Management, Transport and Infrastructure • Cabinet Member for Sustainability and Parking Utility Company Operation Annual discussion on the • Rosemarie MacQueen in Westminster (with a operation of utilities companies in • Martin Low Regulator focus) the borough, with a specific focus on regulator investment in utility company infrastructure projects.
Two -Way Flows For the Committee to assess the • Rosemarie MacQueen introduction of two-way flows at a • Martin Low number of points in Westminster.
1
Page 107
ROUND THREE ( 10 Nov, 2014)
Agenda Item Reasons & objective for item Represented by: Cabinet Member Q&A To hold to account and give • Cabinet Member for ‘critical friend’ challenge to the City Management, portfolio holder. Transport and Infrastructure • Cabinet Member for Sustainability and Parking Westminster Community To assess progress and • Built Environment Infrastructure Levy (CIL) governance arrangements, including proposed charging schedule Westminster’s City Plan To update the committee on the • Lisa O’Donnell “Consultation Booklets” consultation outcomes and (follow on from June continued development of meeting ) booklets as part of the City Plan
TfL transport modelling To update the committee on the • Martin Low impact of transport schemes including cycling super highway
ROUND FOUR ( 19 Jan, 2015)
Agenda Item Reasons & objective for item Represented by: Cabinet Member Q&A To hold to account and give • Deputy Cabinet ‘critical friend’ challenge to the Member for the Built portfolio holder. Environment
Waste Strategy To review the waste strategy for • Mark Banks the Council • Phil Robson
Broadband Connectivity To examine the availability and • Steve Carr in Westminster suitability of Westminster’s broadband infrastructure.
2
Page 108
ROUND FIVE ( 2 March , 2015)
Agenda Item Reasons & objective for item Represented by: Cabinet Member Q&A To hold to account and give • Cabinet Member for ‘critical friend’ challenge to the City Management, portfolio holder. Transport and Infrastructure • Cabinet Member for Sustainability and Parking
Two -Way Flows To update the Committee on the • Graham King (follow-on from introduction of two-way flows at a • Martin Low September meeting ) number of points in Westminster.
Walking in Westminster To assess the development of • Barry Smith the Walking Strategy.
ROUND SIX (TBC during April )
Agenda Item Reasons & objective for item Represented by: Cabinet Member Q&A To hold to account and give • Cabinet Member for ‘critical friend’ challenge to the the Built Environment portfolio holder.
Westminster Community To assess progress, including in • Barry Smith Infrastructure Levy (CIL) respect of consultations and • Rachael Ferry-Jones governance arrangements.
Climate Change To consider the Council’s • Built Environment approach and activities relating to reducing emissions, improving energy efficiency and adaptation of the physical environment to more extreme weather events. UNESCO World Heritage To consider the value and • Built Environment Listing of Palace of current and future status of the Westminster and UNESCO World Heritage Listing Westminster Abbey incl. Saint Margaret’s Church
3
Page 109
Other Committee Events & Task Groups
Reason Type Sustainability Complete Task group Task Group Cycling Task Complete Task Group Group
4
Page 110
ROUND ONE ( 30 June 2014)
Agenda Item Action and responsible officer Update Item 4 – update Details of the current methodology used and Complete from Cabinet latest statistics from the City Survey results be members provided to Councillor Williams
Item 4 – update A written rationale be provided to the Committee Complete from Cabinet on the collection of refuse in response to the members questions of Councillors Scarborough and Thomson Item 4 – update In the event that the Council secures the GLA’s Complete from Cabinet agreement to the draft municipal waste members management strategy 2016 2031 during the summer recess, a written update be provided to the Committee Item 5 – That clarification be provided as to whether the Complete Westminster’s basements booklet adequately covered the City Plan impact on air quality
ROUND TWO (15 September 2014)
Agenda Item Action and responsible officer Update Item 5 – Utility That a written estimate of the costs be provided Companies by UKPN of meeting its ten year programme target of replacing 4000 link boxes against the figures set by Ofgem in the draft determination On track and what UKPN would need in additional funding to achieve the replacement of the same number of link boxes over a five year period
Item 5 – Utility That Ms Frerk be requested to provide a Companies definitive response as to whether CIL money On track could be used towards the resilience of the network Item 6 – Two -way That the Committee be kept informed of any progress regarding the Baker Street Two Way Complete Scheme, including in the event of the commencement of the public consultation Item 8 – Work The Council’s CIL consultation timetable be set Programme out in a note to Maxine Frerk Though letter sent to Ofgem
Page 111 Item 8 – Work A copy of the City Plan Consultation Booklets be Programme provided to the Committee ahead of the agenda Complete papers being published
ROUND THREE (10 November 2014)
Agenda Item Action and responsible officer Update Item 4 – CMU That a written response be provided setting To be sent in out more detailed information on the advance of Jan complaints relating to street cleansing 19 th meeting
Item 4 – CMU That a written response be provided on the To be sent in Council’s current position relating to vehicle advance of Jan clamping 19th meeting Item 4 – CMU The Cabinet Member to investigate whether there has been an increase in noise Complete – complaints resulting from helicopter flights emailed on 2 nd Dec
Item 5 – TfL That the Committee’s response to the TfL's Consultation on the East West Cycle Complete via ML Superhighway be finalised and forwarded to (with the TfL by the deadline recommendations) in December
Item 6 – CIL That a comparison table be produced showing Complete – what other London Boroughs had proposed in th emailed on 4 terms of their CILs Dec Item 6 – CIL That a written response be provided to Complete – Committee Members explaining the CIL th income projections in relation to the emailed on 4 infrastructure funding gap Dec Item 9 – Work The Waste Strategy replace the Air Quality Programme Strategy on the Work Programme for the meeting in January 2015 and the relevant Complete officers be informed accordingly
Item 9 – Work Broadband be scheduled as an item for the Programme Work Programme at one of the January, March or April 2015 meetings Complete
Item 9 – Work An update on the East West Cycle Programme Superhighway be incorporated into the Cycling and Walking in Westminster item at the March On track 2015 meeting
Page 112