Transport Overview and Scrutiny Committee - Thursday 20 November 2025, 7:30pm - Wandsworth Council Webcasting

Transport Overview and Scrutiny Committee
Thursday, 20th November 2025 at 7:30pm 

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Forums

Speakers

Votes

 
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
  1. Webcast Finished

Good evening, everyone, and welcome to this meeting of the Transport Overview and Scrutiny
Committee.
The meeting is being webcast and some officers, I don't think we've got anyone actually,
virtually, no.
We don't have anyone accessing virtually, so that's fine.
My name is Councillor Mayorkas.
I'm the chair of the Transport Overview and Scrutiny Committee.
Members of the committee, I will now call your names in alphabetical order.
Please switch on your microphone to confirm your attendance. Once you've confirmed your tenants, please remember to switch off the microphone
Councillor Belton
Look at that
That is timing
Critchard
Annamarie Crichard tooting Beckwood Councillor Hamilton Councillor Hamilton
Councillor Walker
Councillor Locker from Thamesfield Ward.
Councillor Owens.
Councillor Owens from the Northcote Ward.
And Councillor Tiller.
Matthew Tiller, Roehampton Board.
Thank you everyone. Also in attendance is Councillor Jenny Yates, the cabinet member for transport on my left.
And apologies for absence received from Councillor Lawless and Councillor de la Sejour.
and apologies for the lateness from Councillor Cooper.
I imagine she'll be with us around about eight o 'clock.
All being well.
Members are reminded to ensure that your microphone
is turned off unless you're speaking.
When you are called to speak and every time you speak,
please do state your name and bear in mind
that the committee must remain core at all times.
We have a number of officers present
who will introduce themselves when they address
the committee at relevant stages.
So we're now moving on to agenda item one, which is the minutes of the last meeting of
the Transport Overview and Scrutiny Committee, which was held on Thursday the 18th of September.
Are those minutes of the Transport Overview and Scrutiny Committee agreed, and can I sign
them as a correct record of the meeting?

1 Minutes of the Previous Meeting

Wonderful.

2 Declarations of Interests

At General Item Number 2, Declarations of Interests, are there any declarations of either
pecuniary or other registrable or non -registrable interests? Please declare any interest, quoting
the item and paper number in which you have interests, and describing the nature of your
interests, including whether or not you will be taking part in the item.
Thank you. I have already been asked this. I am a member of the Wandsworth, the London
cycling campaign and the Wandsworth cycling campaign. But as I have said
previously I have I'm going to come to my conclusions with the evidence that
presented before me and I don't think this is certainly not a pecuniary
interest. Thank you very much. Anyone else? No, perfect. Okay we're moving on to
Agenda item number three, which is Putney Bridge Junction, paper number 25 -398.

3 Putney Bridge Junction (Paper No. 25-398)

There are, before we get into the introduction, there are four deputation requests for this
agenda item, as outlined in the supplementary agenda.
So I just ask the committee if they agree to receive the deputations.
Wonderful.
So before we move to those, I will ask Henry Chung to introduce this paper.
Thanks, Henry.
Thank you, Chair.
Good evening, Councillors.
I'd like to do a quick intro on the paper, if I may.
So the Council has invested $4 million in recent years of measures to support Putney
High Street and its environs as a place to live, work and visit.
This has included measures to improve local air quality, the public realm and to improve
the local environment for walking and cycling caused by narrow footways and vehicle dominance.
In late 2024, the Council implemented changes to the junction at Putney High Street and
Lower Richmond Road and Putney Bridge after local feedback expressing dissatisfaction
with road safety and experience for vulnerable road users.
This was supported by the local councils at the time, along with cabinet members, street
compiling and transportation.
The council sought to bring improvements to walking and cycling whilst minimising wider
traffic impact.
The council fully appreciates and acknowledges that whilst there have been clear benefits
improvements for pedestrians and cyclists, the change have had an acceptable impact on
local traffic that needs to be improved.
The Council has listened to and engaged with residents, businesses and stakeholder groups
to appreciate all of the concerns being raised and has been working with Transport for London
to seek to address these understandable concerns.
This report's main focus is to summarise the current traffic challenges on the High Street,
set out the actions already taken to date and highlight measures that are pending as
well as further optioneering ideas under investigation.
The Council followed all correct processes and guidance for delivering the changes in
the area, which has had TFL sign -off, given TFL is responsible for all traffic signals
in the capital as well as the responsibility for busses.
It is worth noting that the agreed and sign -off process proposed timing for the model junctions
that was approved by TFL was not implemented by TFL at the outset.
And this has affected the performance of Lower Richmond Road and Putney Bridge Road.
This was only apparent post TFL signal validation
and optimization process,
and when the council received the operational timetable.
Working with TFL and listening to local concerns
being raised, the council loved the TFL
for additional green time for side roads
and proposed changes to the operation of the junctions.
In early October, TFL allocated additional green time
for Lower Richmond Road and Pudley Bridge Road,
and further green time was added in late October
as part of the update to the junctions.
Comparing to the September timetable,
Lower Richmond Road and Pudley Bridge Road
have seen an increase of 32 % and 13 % extra green time
during the AM peak.
These recent changes appears to be helping
to improve traffic flow and bus performance,
with some early TRL bus data indicating bus journey time
and low -rich morale have improved,
and TRL will continue to monitor this.
There are clearly, however, further improvements needed,
and the paper sets out the next steps
and further plans around this.
Thank you very much, Henry.
So what we'll do now is we'll take questions
from members of the committee to Henry
if there are any. Councillor Critchard. Thank you Mr. Chiang. I just wondered if you could
clarify a bit of context around this. One of the statistics I find very interesting
when we're discussing motor traffic particularly is my understanding is around 50 % of the households
households in Wandsworth don't have a car.
So we've got about 140 ,000 households, which means half of them,
so only 70 ,000 have access to a car.
That's the first question, is that right?
And then I've also been looking at the stats on pages 44 to 46.
I was wondering when I was reading this myself is,
I think I'm right in thinking that we actually, there are a large number of people who cycle over the bridges.
So if you're looking at 44 to 46, and I just wanted to make,
get some sort of sense that we've got those split down as cycles,
motorbikes, lots of different categories.
But if you're looking at people who are likely to be in their own vehicle,
There are actually an awful lot of people cycling as well as people in their own cars,
probably about two -thirds.
Is that about right?
So just a bit of context in terms of the sort of people who are going over the bridges and
up and down Putney High Street and what they're using.
They are fine at river crossings since the closure of Hammersford Bridge.
Looking at the data that we retrieve on Putney Bridge, and yes, there is a strong presence
of cycling and there are certainly cars and busses which makes up the trip. If you look
at the 2021 data from the bar chart and the 2025, you will see that there has been a growth
in cycling numbers, but in terms of vehicles, it is pretty stagnant for general traffic.
Councillor Hamilton. Thank you very much, Chair. Could I just begin
by thanking the residents who were in the gallery this evening for attending? I think
We're very used at these meetings to being alone and nobody being here to watch.
So it is good to have some company this evening.
But I think it also shows the strength of feeling on this issue.
And I think whatever the good intentions were behind the scheme originally, things haven't
gone exactly as they were intended to.
They haven't completely gone to plan.
And there have been, I think, some significant consequences for side roads, residential areas
in proximity to the scheme.
Well I think in previous meetings Councillor Belton we've not been
allowed to make a comment on the report. Not at all, you're a charming man. I'm very happy to just make a
very quick comment before that. There are a couple of things I think we we need to
look at in the report. I think it notes the impacts on the Lower Richmond Road
and Putney Bridge roads being detrimental and therefore I will move
to a question which is why did it take a full year for the post implementation
report to be concluded.
I think it's been clear for a while
from some of the correspondence we've been receiving
from residents that there has been a problem.
But the reports that we have in front of us
are dated the 26th of September and October, 2025.
So just wanted to know why it took so long
for this review to be carried out.
And then I have further questions.
Yeah, so the junction improvement works were completed
before Christmas, December 24.
However, the resurfacing didn't take place
until late February, early March.
And what that means is TFL couldn't instal
their sensor loops, which were completed in early March.
And in terms of signal operation and optimization,
they needed a few months to validate all that data.
So by the time the traffic signal system
were on the SCOOT system,
where it's managed by the urban control centre,
that that wasn't implemented until mid -June,
which is the timetable.
The council subsequently carried out surveys
to further understand what has the change been
since the scheme was last surveyed in 21,
and that's where we started getting information
and the timing that was proposed in the model
wasn't actually implemented onsite by TFL.
And through that process, we've engaged with TFL
on a regular basis, looking for increased green time
for both Lower Richmond Road and Putney Bridge Road.
And that ultimately led to the changes being made
in early October and also late October
to deliver the vast improvements of green time
in the tune of 32 % and 13 % for Lower Richmond Road
and Putney Bridge Road respectively.
And currently, as the paper has presented,
there are still things that are being worked on
and being developed and some have already been delivered.
Namely, they would move over the bus lane
outside the Odeon Cinema, the WL lines have gone in,
and we are looking for additional changes that will have a significant impact in terms of easing the friction on the high street itself.
And the hope is that the friction outside TK Max is resolved because Georgia bus changeovers,
that would then allow more green time to be reallocated back to the side roads
because there's now less friction on the north and south movement for the busses.
Thank you. At risk of upsetting Councillor Belton further with another question.
The report talks about the fact there's been, the report speaks about the fact that there's
been changes recently to ease congestion and I'll be interested to know when residents
can expect to see some benefit from those changes but similarly if those changes that
have been put forward do not produce the intended results, what will the council do next?
Is there a further plan for how we look at this?
An additional question to that, there's a mention in the report about how these changes
cannot be reversed.
I think it would be useful to hear from officers the reasons behind that and the conversations
that they've had with TFL on that particular point.
In terms of the measures, so early indication we've had one, two weeks of IBUS data and
the thought TFL has provided us is that there has been improvements on bus journey time
along Richmond Road and there will be ongoing monitoring as part of the TFL dashboard to
look at bus performances.
I think, you know, referred to in paragraph 30
in the report, there are still changes that are coming
regarding the bus stops M, which is outside TK Max,
which will reduce the friction.
Now these do take time, and we are proposing
both widening of the carriageway and by reducing
the footways opposite and outside TK Max,
and because of the two phone boxes,
there will be a bit of time lag in terms of
successfully getting those removed
and doing the curb works and the signal processes.
We want going through the validation process
with TFL to improve those.
I would say it takes a number of months
and therefore improvements to be made
because first you need to make the physical change
and then you need a period of monitoring to let it bed in.
And it is over a period of time
that we need to observe with TFL
and look at what improvements these changes can bring.
In paragraph 31, it also talks about additional,
the ideas that are being explored.
These are more complex.
We've not detailed this in the committee paper,
other than give a very high level overview
that potentially removing the Refuge Island
just north of Putney Bridge Road and on Putney High Street,
that would potentially ease the turning movements
and of traffic leaving Putney Bridge Road
and joining the Putney High Street.
And that in hope will allow more vehicles
to stack on Putney High Street,
which then in turn reduces the queue length
on both Putney Bridge Road and as an example.
So there are many, many things being worked on,
but some of it requires TFL validation and approval
through modelling of the processes,
and those are being explored.
So there are lots and lots of steps still to be taken,
and before we're at a stage where absolutely
everything has been exhausted.
So just to add to Henry's comments in relation to that,
I think the report does talk about some additional green time that has been brought back.
Clearly, we've been out there a lot looking at that, talking to the FL.
We're observing by very clear queue length distances and observations on the side roads.
There's been some small improvement and it's clearly there.
I don't think anyone's kidding themselves that that's it.
We clearly want to gain more.
As Henry said, we've got lots of ideas there.
The one thing Mr. Chong just needs to pick up on is your second question, Councillor,
about just covering the reasons why we wouldn't support
the reversal of the proposals.
They are back to what it was previously.
Mr. Chong, would you mind speaking up?
Yep, so regarding the old layout,
so there were three stage crossings,
which we currently have the two stage crossings.
So the old refuge islands, they were small and narrow,
and it caused a lot of pedestrians to cross,
jaywalking, if I can use that term,
because there's overcrowding on the refuge islands.
But by having the two new two -stage crossing
and by having larger refuge islands,
that's improved the pedestrian comfortness
and the other crossing.
And most importantly, one of the biggest changes
to the current scheme is facilitating a two -day crossing
on the Putney Bridge itself.
So that never used to have existed.
And as demonstrated in the Appendix 1 of the report,
it clearly highlights that there's a high demand
for pedestrians across Putney Bridge
and similarly across Putney High Street.
and this is reflective of the scheme, what it's trying to achieve, which is to improve walking and cycling.
Councillor Belton.
Thank you, Mr. Shew. I wonder whether you could ask two questions, I think.
First of all, given the scale of the whole project, you write about and you speak about things yet to be done,
how much of it would you say is finished or done?
Give me a percentage.
I mean, obviously this is not a statistic,
but I mean, like is it 60 % done or 80 or?
I have no feel for it.
I would say probably 30 % currently,
because we've had.
So what percent?
In terms of the prompt change.
So in terms of further improvements to be had,
I'll probably value the prompt change
and the timing changed approximately about 30%.
In terms of the biggest improvements, you know, outside DK Maxx,
and I expect that will bring it,
and the changes of the suspension of the left turn for cyclists,
that would add quite a lot of additional green time
that can be redistributed on Putney Bridge and Putney High Street.
And I would say that that's probably a good point.
Interrupting, in which case can I ask you
whether you think reviewing it when only 30 % in your estimate of the benefits are through
is an unnecessary waste of time and premature,
or whether it's good monitoring as we go along
through a project and we'll merely improve yet further
what happens as an end.
And then we really ought to do a full review
when it is finished and not pretend
that we're doing anything else.
What do you think?
Yeah, I think that's very important.
I think, you know, clawing back the model green time
and that was approved by TFL, that has been critical.
But obviously we still need to address the concerns
of the friction that TFL have highlighted,
which is why they've prioritised
the north and south movements
over the east to west movements.
And I think once those two things are both realised,
now we're probably 70, 80 % in terms of maximising
the capacity of the junction.
I think one thing to note is there is only so much finer
highway space and there is a competing demand
in both in terms of pedestrians, cyclists, busses,
general traffic, and we need to take a really balanced view
and look at the almost transport or highway users.
And most importantly, we need to address the safety elements
that the scheme was brought about.
So in the report, it talks about clearly the statistics
relating to the collision history,
and 74 % of vulnerable road users,
and when the first project was identified
and looks at the data, more recently,
that's 83 % vulnerable load users,
and they're being harmed as a result of the changes,
and the price of the changes being made.
And over the coming years, we'll be monitoring that,
because there was a lag in terms of collision data
being provided, so there are a whole load of things
to look at and consider and explore,
in terms of weighing up whether the scheme
is of value or not.
And finally, if I may, as far as you know,
Zahaad, bipartisan, I'm sorry if a third or fourth party is listening, but at the moment
it's bipartisan, Zahaad bipartisan support in the council?
I don't think that's a question for an officer.
Well, he knows which way the votes went, I think.
Can I put it that way?
Were there any votes against?
He was fully supported on both sides.
I'm going to go to Councillor Tiller and then Councillor Locker.
Yeah, so as a lifelong resident of SW15, I well remember the old junctions and the old
traffic islands and how unpleasant it was to cross.
Yes, I think Mr. Shuns covered my first question about the figures of accidents beforehand.
And what I'd like to ask is, so since the changes have come in, have there been any
days when the picture was not complicated by roadworks or closures elsewhere?
Because we, I seem to have noticed an awful lot of other things going on, I'm connected
to this, such as roadworks and closes in other roads.
So if you'd like to comment on that.
Yeah, I mean, it's fair to say that in the new year
and up to now, there has been considerable amount
of roadworks, whether it's inside the borough
or outside the borough.
For example, TFL got their works on Ballysebridge Road,
which was recently completed.
then that would have had a major impact on the networks.
The council has its own Queenstown rail works,
but more importantly, there's been emergency gas works
and on new connexions needed for development.
So Upper Richmond Road, that took out Friday,
Saturday and Sunday on two consecutive weekends
back in September.
The Chiswick Bridge and the impact of the lane closure
and the road closure around Burlington Lane.
So there has been significant road works throughout,
from January until the end of October.
I think even most recently at the half term,
that there's been, albeit we try to coordinate
all the impacts of the rail works.
I think in early November, it's sort of the first time
we haven't seen major impacts of rail works in the area.
And coincidentally, it has coincided with the timing
and the problem changes.
So I'm hoping as we approach a quieter period,
that it is a decent time to conduct some thorough monitoring
looking at purely how the junctions operates on its own
without the noises of rail works elsewhere,
which is causing an impact in this area.
Thank you, Councillor.
Councillor Tiller, would you mind just
turning your microphone on?
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Cheng, for your answers so far.
I think it is right to say that there was
a consensus of support for improving
this junction at this location
because of the problems that you've highlighted.
In the early days, I recall that there were
a number of design options considered,
including something akin to Oxford Circus in central London,
or we have closer at Ballum,
where there is single stage crossing.
We talked a lot about a cyclops design,
which is a very technical design for those in the audience,
but it has that sort of effect.
And my recollection is that the council officers
went away and consulted with TFL,
and TFL declined or advised against those designs,
and instead AECOM came up with this compromise solution, which was presented to committee
in September 2023.
I went back and I looked at the committee paper, and I also looked at the – followed
the video of it.
There was no warning about risks, no warning about potential congestion to problems in
the side roads, et cetera.
And that just makes me wonder, and so my question to you is,
was the TFL modelling flawed, or is it the fact
that TFL did not implement the traffic light phasing
that the AECOM design assumed that has caused the problems
that the residents of Putney have had to experience
in recent months?
It is true that other options were looked at,
and in terms that would provide better pedestrians
and potentially cyclists and road safety at the junctions.
There's a cycle of all the mile -a -direct crossings.
But it's also important to stress that
by having a single -stage crossing,
that increases the amount of green time
added to the pedestrians, and ultimately,
that would lead to reduced green time for vehicles.
I wouldn't say that the modelling is flawed.
And I think by the indicative model
that AECOM have carried out as part of the review,
it has demonstrated that the Q -Lens experience currently
is as modelled and that using latest data
in terms of what was gathered in July 25.
I think the fundamental point is that
TFL hasn't implemented anywhere near close
to the approved model that they've approved.
I appreciate the previous committee paper
did not go into it explicitly and the detail
or potential congestion and the risk.
However, I would stress that all traffic signals
in the capital are managed by Transport for London.
They are the experts and any councils across London
don't have the expertise.
Most councils rely on consultants
who put together information and TFL marks the homework.
So ultimately, they are best placed to advise
and whether a model and itself appropriate
in terms of reflection of the current status
and at model stage and post -modelling
and when it's in a real life situation.
I think one more thing I would like to say is that TFL,
they have approximately 6 ,000 and a half
signals equipment across the whole capital,
whereas the council potentially,
we are just looking at Lower Richmond Road
and Putney Bridge Junction.
Do they have to balance all the finite river crossings
or the traffic lights?
And they have to weigh in a lot of other,
and congestion or concerns across the whole capital,
and we don't have visibility of that.
And I mean, it's fair to say that we were late
in clocking that TFL, and it hasn't implemented
the approved model when it's so far out,
but they did offer an explanation to us
in a sense that after further review
and live data monitoring, they needed to make
some safety adjustments, which as a result of that,
increasing the intergreen time,
where the vehicles on one road gets the green
before the other one does.
And that meant, again, reduced green time for vehicles.
And I think what's more important as well to highlight
is pedestrian demand and that it's been significant.
It's not something we've foreseen.
So if you look at one of the appendix at the back,
I think it's appendix three, it looks at the green time.
There's a minimum green time that the left turners get,
for example, on Richmond Road,
and there's a number in brackets.
And what that number in bracket means is,
assuming that the pedestrian face is not called,
then that green time will go to vehicles.
But because it's called so often,
that in itself reduces the green time available
for the left -turners.
So that's what we found out in terms of the change in pattern
that the pedestrian demand, the cycle demand,
which means that there has been that reduced green time
as a result of other modes of transport,
putting in that demand to reduce the left -turners.
Thank you very much for your answers, Mr. Chung.
And I don't know if you've been reading my notes,
but you sort of led on very nicely
to a couple of technical questions
I had about traffic light phasing.
The first is, when will we actually have,
or when will the actual TFL traffic light phasing
be implemented that was assumed in the AECOM design.
So I can see that there are changes still to be made,
but the report doesn't set time scales.
And I think it'd be really important to have
an understanding of what the time is going to be
to get to that level that was assumed in the design.
And the second point is that somewhere in the AECOM report,
it talks about the problem that you were talking about,
or the issue that we were talking about
in terms of people using the traffic lights
and pressing the buttons, it talks about a smart detection system that is deployed at
many other junctions across London, which helps efficiently manage the demands on time.
Is that a solution that's been investigated with TFL for implementation at this junction?
Thank you.
So, at the minute, you know, we're four seconds off in terms of the modelled approved green
time.
So our model showed 29 seconds for the left turn
for Lower Richmond Road.
Currently we're operating at 25.
So we're four seconds shy of that.
And what I was referring to about friction early
on the High Street, it is hoped that, you know,
currently there are green time on the High Street,
but not necessarily occupying or allowing vehicles to pass.
It's also when there's a bus stationary outside DK Max
that prevents traffic behind the bus to overtake that bus
to get into that gap.
So we are getting close to it.
And what I would say is, the recent prom change,
we have moved away slightly from the design that AECOM
and proposed and TFL have approved.
And the reason that is is because we are trying to address
the very, very high pedestrian demand
by tinkering some of the phasing within the stage
of how the junction operates.
That has in itself improved green time
for vehicles leaving Lower Richmond Road.
And another point to note is that suspension
of the ban left turn and we're introducing for cyclists from Putney Bridge Road onto
Putney High Street, that that in itself will bring in about 15 seconds of green time, which
is vast if you look at the current green time available.
But that is still being worked through in terms of how that 15 seconds needs to be reprioritized,
whether that's for the High Street or whether it's for Putney Bridge Road or whether it's
a combination of both.
The reason why this is important is because there's only so much space on the High Street
itself and that even if you have the green time on Putney Bridge Road joining
the Putney High Street and if there's no room on Putney High Street to receive
the green the vehicles then you'll just get a stagnant green where vehicles are
held back behind a yellow box on Putney Bridge Road without proceeding onto
Putney High Street. I have Councillor Hamilton followed by
Councillor Cripshard and then Councillor Owens. No thank you. Mr. Chung made reference to
TFL marking people's homework. It does seem as if when it comes to this scheme
All the failings of the implementation here seem to be on TFL's part.
And it seems to be plenty of other schemes that we look at, whether it's the maintenance
of the high roads or this scheme in particular where TFL hide behind, I think, a cloak of
some anonymity.
And I understand that they were invited to the meeting this evening in order to explain
their failure but declined to attend.
I would just be interested in a comment from officers about how you go about communicating
with them displeasure or examples of failings with TFL and how they respond to them.
And I ask this again, not aggressively, but from a political perspective, the cabinet
member, how do you go about holding TFL to account on a political level for their failings
and their unwillingness to come here and take valid questions from councillors?
Mr. Edgerton?
If I can just take that one, Councillor, I think just before that particular point, it's
It's worth adding just a bit of context to what Mr. Chung has very helpfully set out,
that whatever you model and however good the model is, it's a point in time measurement.
And there are things that happen outside of that in time, live and beyond that will wobble
and slightly adjust matters.
So we've had factors that no one foresaw.
For example, other boroughs making changes to their roads that's displaced traffic over,
and little things that have, just small little increments that have pushed traffic here and
there.
So it's meant that you have a life situation that constantly has to be tweaked all the
way around.
Obviously, we've talked with TFL throughout the process.
In relation to your specific point, which I think is completely right, in terms of accountability,
we've obviously expressed through myself in particular, as head of the service, our annoyance.
And obviously, we've made a point of expression.
There's a lot of residents that are clearly unhappy, and we are there working on their
behalf, and we need TFL to work with us and them in relation to communicating what's not
working, why it's not working and being more open with that. We've had a number
of meetings with TfL via a very helpful parliamentary group again with
Councillor Yates and chairing a lot of those meetings along with the local MP
in relation to looking at all of those issues. We've had separate meetings with
TfL at senior level so all of the key directors there in terms of road space
where we've highlighted this is the single biggest issue that we want to get
resolved and the good thing is we've got a very responsive group now of officers
from TFL who are actively engaging with us on a regular basis, as Mr Chung said, to pick
these things up. It's not a kind of start and then leave it. They're actively engaged
and they will be for and committed to for a length of time. So we have very strongly
communicated the displeasure, the need for engagement and the ongoing commitment from
them to go take things forward.
Thank you. Councillor Yeates.
Thank you, Councillor Hamilton. Well, I could only really reiterate what Mr O 'Donnell has
I mean, I've met with TFL numerous times.
The bus task force, which is convened by Fleur Anderson, it's met every month.
The first meeting was back in December.
We decided to make it a regular meeting.
We've met every month.
It brings together TFL with the utility companies because we need to ensure excellent coordination
with them because obviously Putney High Street and the surrounding area is under such pressure
that is absolutely essential, that utility works
are coordinated and planned as far as is possible.
I mean, obviously emergency utility works
do sometimes need to take place,
and it's essential that they do,
or our utilities would start working,
and no one wants that.
So the utility company's there,
the bus companies are actually there
that are contracted by TFL to run the busses,
and then there's a number of council officers
and TFL officers.
if Fleur Anderson isn't available,
then I will chair that meeting.
But like I say, it is convened by Fleur Anderson, the MP.
So that has been a very useful meeting.
It's met every month.
We've worked through all the issues.
I've also had other very high level meetings with TFL
to explain the concerns that the congestion,
particularly on Lower Richmond Road and Putney,
bridge roads and on the side roads,
has caused to our residents
and how it's absolutely essential
that measures are taken to ease that congestion.
So those meetings will be ongoing.
I'm very pleased with the changes that TfL has agreed to make and we will be continuing
to work with them.
Councillor Critchard.
Oh, thank you.
I think one of the things that is worth highlighting to everybody is actually any change in roads
over a period of time in traffic is actually very, very complicated.
And I suspect like most things, as Mr. O 'Donnell says, this is a model.
We had a model to start with and things have changed.
So we're obviously looking really hard to try and make it as best as it possibly can be for
as many of the road users as possible.
One of the things I think that sounds like it's been very successful with this is more pedestrians are using the crossing.
And that presumably has to be a good thing.
We want people to walk and we want them to cycle.
Dare I say it, they're voting with their feet.
And one of the things I think is worth making a point about is that pedestrians,
if they're walking up and down the High Street,
and I know this is a concern for Putney High Street, they probably are doing that,
they're much more likely to stop and shop.
It's one of the things that happens is people on their bikes and on foot
and much more like to see something that they think, oh, I need that and go and use it.
And hopefully maybe that will also be a bit of a boost for the high street as well.
Councillor Owens.
Yes, thank you.
I'm just following on from what was recently mentioned on busses, and I also have a point
to make on air quality.
We've had various emails, particularly from a former Conservative Councillor, Councillor
and goes to hospital in Tooting.
And it relates to all the busses, actually.
In fact, why can't the bus drivers, for example,
change further up the High Street
rather than closer to the bridge?
There's a bus garage up there, I think, beside Chelverton.
And also, other busses perhaps at All Saints Church.
There's a turning point, I think,
in All Saints Church, from Putney Common.
In relation to air quality, you said in the report
that Putney High Street now meets UK air quality
objective levels, but isn't it the case
that congestion and pollution have simply been pushed
onto the residential streets off Putney High Street.
So will you publish any side roads,
air quality and traffic data alongside the High Street data
so that residents can see the full picture,
not just the current flashing one, thank you.
So on a question about busses,
and this is something we are working on with TFL.
We have expressed concerns
and what the drivers' changeovers have had
on the High Street itself, whether it's outside TK Maxx,
whether it's on Lower Richmond Road
before the turn onto Putney Bridge,
or actually going westbound towards Barnes.
So you'll know recently TFL have agreed
to suspend the bus stop P,
which is outside Kenilworth Court,
and that's been moved approximately 40 metres to the west.
And that has done is to allow a little bit more
stacking space for traffic coming off Putney High Street.
And ultimately that would then ease congestion
going over the bridge because previously
if traffic from Putney High Street
can't join Lower Richmond Road,
that leads to stacking and you only need
a couple of stacks in a cycle
and that would have a knock -on effect
not just on Putney High Street itself
but on Putney Bridge Road and so forth.
So that is something we're working with TFL.
We've had some useful discussions around
two bus stops on Lower Richmond Road.
So that's bus stop Q and P, and these are being looked at.
Further meetings are planned with TFL busses and operations
to see how we can go about looking at
making better use of the space on a public highway.
Similarly, that's the case at TK Maxx,
but we're hoping that the widening of the carriageway
and the lowering of the footways
will address that friction that I've talked so much about,
which is leading to loss of green time, potentially,
for traffic.
regarding air quality.
David is online, our air quality officer,
so he'll be able to answer some of that questions
you've got on the side roads.
Good evening, Council.
Yeah, in terms of air quality,
we have an extended monitoring
around the Patnae High Street,
that cover as well as on the secondary road.
So far, we've been seeing a downtrend in terms of pollution.
As you mentioned, now we are complying with the UK objectives.
We are still aiming to reach the interim WHO level limits.
But again, it's very extensive monitoring around the area and not just on the high street,
so we should be able to pick it up, any change, and we will carry on liaise with the transport
team.
Thank you very much.
Any further questions?
Just consciously want to make sure the deputations have a decent amount of time as well.
Okay.
Thank you very much, Mr. Cheng and Mr. O 'Donnell for your responses.
So we'll now move on to the deputations.
So I'll call you forward in a moment.
But each deputation will have one speaker each and five minutes to present their thoughts,
after which members of the committee will have the opportunity to ask them questions
directly.
So, first up, I will call Ms. Anne -Claire Dupuis from Wandsworth Cycling Campaign.

6 Deputation Request (Paper No. 25-412)

And just press the other button in the middle when you're ready to speak.
Perfect.
Please go ahead.
Good evening.
So my name is Anne -Claire Dupuy.
I live in East Patney and I speak here on behalf of myself, local cyclist and one for
cycling campaign.
So cycling is my main mode of transport and I would like now here to explain how the new
junction layout fix many issues that we had in the previous layout.
So for cyclists cycling from Putney Bridge Road,
turning right into Putney High Street,
and then going straight to Putney Bridge.
So the first of these issues was first
accessing the cycle box on Putney Bridge Road
was almost impossible when cars were queuing up
the red traffic signal light, blocking the way.
So it was the first issue.
But then also during the turn, turn right
into Putney High Street was quite a chaotic junction with two motor traffic lanes turning
right into one, theoretically one lane of traffic on Putney High Street.
So quite chaotic and then having cyclists in the middle of this was really unsafe and
often also actually cars would completely ignore the advisory cycle lane on Putney High
those four cycles of course very unsafe.
Then reaching then the next junction was also tricky
because if you would stay on
the cycle lane and wanted to go straight,
you might have been blocked by cars turning
left into lower Richmond Road.
So it was a bit silly,
so you had to wait for the next traffic light cycle.
And the alternative was to then merge into the motor traffic
lane, which is a very stressful situation because it's quite
objectively very dangerous.
And especially if you are inexperienced and not
confident cyclist, not something you are likely
that you don't want to do, actually.
So it's something that you don't want to do.
But even if you're confident and experienced,
it's actually still dangerous.
So it was really not a good situation for cyclists.
And then crossing the junction was again a very busy or maybe messy junction, if I can say,
with two lanes merging into only one lane to the bridge.
And I can only remember that it was very, very stressful to cross this junction
and I had an immense feeling of relief when I would reach the bridge.
really it was like, OK, this time again I
managed to go through without any trouble.
But it was the whole stretch from Putney Bridge Road
up to the bridge was really a stressful stretch,
I mean, a stressful route for cyclists.
And now it is so much better.
There is no stress anymore.
It's really, really safe.
And so much so that now I would allow my teenage sons
to cycle through these junctions without me being there,
while before it was clearly a no -go.
So I would like to thank you for this,
because it's really changed this life of cyclists
who take this route.
And also, I would like also to point to the fact
that pedestrian cyclists and car drivers
are not fixed and mutually exclusive groups.
So what I mean is that someone might one day choose to cycle,
and the next day they choose to drive their car
or they choose to walk.
So there are many factors, of course,
influencing their decisions.
But some of them are in your hands.
And for example, increasing the safety of cyclists
or having proper infrastructures will encourage many more
people to cycle or to cycle more often.
and that will also help with congestion.
Thanks very much.
Any questions from the committee
and welcoming Councillor Cooper to her place.
Councillor Belson.
Thank you.
Can I say Claire?
That was very helpful and heartwarming.
Seeing that you need to have a Victoria Cross
or possibly is it a George Cross to cycle in London streets,
and you found it stressful.
What would you have done if you'd actually given in
and not cycled?
And why didn't you?
Why didn't you do something else?
How would you have made that journey, whichever journey it was,
if you hadn't cycled?
Yeah, I could have driven, or I could have taken tubes and busses.
So depending on the journeys, of course.
And if it was as much safer as you clearly think it is, how many more people do you think
would – silly question, I suppose, because how are you going to put a figure on it – but
do you think it would be used much more by cyclists?
It's really hard to answer that sort of question.
But what I can say is that during one year I had to travel really up north and the whole
journey, taking the direct routes was there, but many, many points that were really stressful.
And so I decided to go over back roads to have less, you know, to minimise the risk.
And the last tricky bit was Putney Bridge, so I mean this junction and all the rest.
It was longer but over back roads it was then much safer journey
So, you know try to adopt the journey, but there was no alternative to cross the river. That was safe enough. Thank you
Councillor Locker
Thank you for the presentation. It was really helpful. Thank you
And I think it matches some of the feedback that we've had and obviously elements of the report that
The junctions in question themselves are safer for cyclists
But as a cyclist myself and speaking to some other residents,
I have to admit I have noticed problems elsewhere now in the area in Putney.
So for instance, if I cycle out of Wadham Road and try to turn right onto Putney Bridge Road,
it's really difficult when the traffic is completely backed up to that point which it wasn't before.
I almost got knocked off my bicycle actually trying to come out of Oxford Road recently.
because there's a mini roundabout there
and I had right of way, but a moped driver
was speeding through the stationary traffic
down the side and he obviously didn't see me,
but fortunately I stopped in time.
So I just wondered, have you seen any trade -offs
or have your members reported any trade -offs
with problems elsewhere as the traffic and congestion
has been pushed elsewhere away from the main junctions?
Thank you.
I'm sorry, my name is Celia Duncan.
I coordinate the Wandsworth Cycling Campaign.
I came along specifically for this point because I, obviously, have been talking to lots of
people over the last few months.
The short answer is no.
I think Putney has been very congested in terms of motor traffic for many, many years.
And I think there's a perception of, when there's been a change, that it's because
of the change that you've got the problems, but actually if you go back five years, there
was a lot of motor traffic backed up at certain points. And you can take a photo when it's
completely static and you can take a photo another time when it looks quite clear. So
I've not had any clear picture of that. I have had some feedback on, it's not statistically
significant but Lower Richmond Road is more backed up. I stood for a long time with people
who are not Wandsworth residents who cycle Putney Bridge, Lower Richmond Road, Lower
Richmond Road, Putney Bridge and going from Putney Bridge right into Lower Richmond Road
was very uncomfortable on a bike and is still very uncomfortable on a bike. We couldn't
decide whether it was worse or better or different. But coming from Lower Richmond Road on to
to Putney Bridge. This particular chat was talked about struggling to get past the stationary
traffic because it's all, I mean, I think we need to mention the size of vehicles here
as a factor as against five years and ten years ago getting past. But also some rat
running, so if a driver was coming off Lower Richmond Road, a driver going eastbound, going
around some side streets to try and get back on,
and then blocking the westbound motor traffic.
So basically, then if you're a cyclist,
you're trying to get past the stationary vehicles,
and then you've got blockage the other way,
so the whole thing.
So there is some impact there, I would say.
Putney Bridge Road, I haven't had a sense
of people saying, no, it's worse than it was before,
but I would say I have had some evidence,
or some anecdotal evidence.
Thank you, that's been really helpful. Thank you very much, Cecilia.
Councillor Cripshire.
Thank you. Thank you very much for coming to talk to us. I hope it's not been too intimidating.
Just from my own perspective, I think I'd comment. I'm very interested to hear what you say about that particular junction.
I don't ever have to... I perhaps... I think I never have to drive over Putney Bridge.
which I always have to drive over Wandsworth, but I cycle over quite a few of them.
And I would say my roots when I have to go towards Fulham,
Fulham Palace Park, which is a very popular destination for me.
I have never in the past used that junction because I've always felt it was very dangerous.
And I'm hoping now that maybe what we're saying will mean that I'll feel more confident about going.
and you're looking at a cyclist with getting on for 50 years
experience of cycling in London.
Tony, do I get a Victoria Cross for that?
To add something, firstly, there's
some really great stuff in this paper.
And so thank you to the officers for all the work on this.
I think we do need to emphasise that there's
all this evidence of a significant increase
in the volume of people who are cycling and walking,
and as Councillor Critchard says, that's kind of the aim,
that was the aim of these changes.
And at the same time, we've got flat or falling
motor traffic volumes on all four bridges either side,
all the four bridges either side of Hammersmith Bridge
since 2018.
So all this stuff about it's all because of Hammersmith
Bridge being closed is not in the slightest bit
borne out by the data.
What's shown in the paper is clear evidence
of motor traffic evaporation, and I mean evaporation, not displacement. It's evaporation when people
who don't need to drive the shorter distances can then feel confident enough to get on a
bike or to walk and shift to sustainable methods of transport. And I think there's some odd
paragraphs in the paper which talk about congestion because of the closure of Hammersmith Bridge,
But if you read the paper in its entirety, it is a fantastic advertisement for shifting how people get around
Thanks so much based any further questions before we move on okay, thank you very much both that's very helpful
Just give you a moment
Thanks so next up we have mr. Karen McCarthy from Putney News, please
Please go ahead.
Just very briefly on the pedestrian,
we're talking a lot about this increase in pedestrians.
I live just off the high street
right in that part of Thamesfield.
And one of the reasons there's many more pedestrians
is the traffic is so bad that people just decide to walk.
So I just walk over Putney Bridge to get to the tube.
It's literally, there's no point in doing it any other way
because the traffic is so bad.
So we should look at the data on that.
Anyway, good evening.
I'm Kieran McCarthy.
I'm the editor of Partner .News.
Thank you for hearing my deputation.
So everybody wants the same thing,
which is traffic at tolerable levels
and a junction that works safely for all users.
And if the proposals in this paper can get us there,
residents will absolutely support them.
But residents also want to know what went wrong
and to know if these fixes don't work
that they don't have to mount another major campaign
to be heard about it.
Tonight Fran from Putney Action Group
will share the results of a survey
of over a thousand residents.
I'm bringing you a survey that Putney News ran
of over 750 residents.
And our survey opened on Sunday.
It closed on Tuesday night, this Tuesday night.
All those responses were collected after this paper came out and people had a chance to
digest it.
And it came out a month after these changes that were made in October.
So people have had enough time to get used to the changes.
In total, we got 763 people that responded.
Ninety -one percent of them were live in Putney.
91 % of them said that their journeys are now worse.
81 % said they were much worse.
And that isn't just drivers.
It was 92 % of bus users say it's worse.
80 % of pedestrians say it's worse.
77 % of cyclists say it's worse.
And only six people entirely said
we should accept the current situation.
So, combined with the Pundit Action Group survey, that has over 1 ,700 responses that
are telling you the same pattern.
So residents have worked extraordinarily hard for a year on this issue.
There's been two surveys.
There was a thousand signature petition by our local councillors.
There was a motion and debate in the council.
I know that you're all there.
And there was a contentious meeting last month, partly with the leader of the council.
And that shouldn't have been necessary.
When you spend 835 ,000 pounds producing a design that doesn't work and then follow it
up with 9 ,000 pounds in emergency fixes, residents shouldn't have to fight this hard to be hurt.
The council paper has pointed, and you have in this meeting as well, quite hard at TFL
for these signal failures.
So I asked TFL who it felt was responsible.
They got back to me on Wednesday.
And they place blame on one of their own departments.
But then they also said that the council was in charge of the scheme.
So no one is taking responsibility here.
And I think one of the fundamental problems that we have.
I asked TFL why there was a four month delay
between the council reporting these problems in June
and them being implemented in October.
And its response was that the changes went through
a rigorous design and technical assurance process.
But that was the same six stage process
that approved this original design.
And that meant four months in which presidents were dealing with gridlock.
Most revealing is I asked them how common variations are between the modelling and reality,
and their response was it is not uncommon for network conditions to evolve.
So TFL is telling us that junctions regularly don't work as they are designed to work, and
they consider this normal.
So, if no one investigates why, there's nothing to prevent this from happening again.
This paper, the Pune Bridge Junction paper, identifies technical improvements, and we
hope these work.
But it doesn't address the systemic questions, which is why did the signals diverge from
the approved model?
Why did they diverge?
How did this pass through six approval gates and not work?
and what lessons can be learned from this whole year of gridlock in Pi.
And it's not about blame, it's about learning,
which is exactly what a Scrutity Committee is there to do.
Just to say that is five minutes. I'm happy to let you finish if you've got a bit more.
Just one little bit. Thank you.
So, from our survey, 82 % of people don't believe a proper consultation took place.
89 percent didn't know about this Cyclops proposal that Councillor Locker raised, and
99 percent said they want to see some action.
And they want two things.
They want the nightmare to be fixed, and they want to understand what went wrong.
And the fact that 42 percent want a formal investigation, which is nearly as many as
the 50 percent who want to revisit designs of Fig.
8.
And the people stuck in the traffic want accountability.
Anyway, I will get to my last point, which is some specific requests for this committee.
One is support these proposals.
They're good proposals.
I know this junction well.
They will help significantly.
But establish monthly progress monitoring.
Establish a task and finish group to investigate what exactly went wrong here and prevent this
from reoccurring in other junctions.
define success by journey times that residents can verify,
ensure that there is proper consultation
before there's any more changes made,
and lastly, establish a clear escalation process
if these fixes don't improve the situation.
That's on my request.
Thank you very much.
If I could just ask you to pop the microphone off.
Thank you very much.
Thanks for that.
Councillor Hamilton with the first question.
Thank you very much and also thank you for your advanced
site of your reputation this afternoon.
Data is obviously a good thing.
It helps us understand public feelings.
So I just had a simple request if you could possibly
share with the committee the data tables and underlying data
around the study you've done.
Thank you.
Any other questions?
No, perfect.
Thanks very much.
Thank you very much, Karen.
I'll give you a moment.
Next up we have Ms. Francesca Odedra from Putney Action Group.
Thank you.
Thanks very much. Similarly, you guys will have five minutes and then we'll take questions.
So just let me know when you're ready and I'll start the time.
Good evening. My name is Francesca, speaking on behalf of the Putney Action Group, representing
over 1000 members and the 1373 residents who completed our survey back in August. Putney
has not lost faith in politics. It has lost faith in the process, a process that has not
listened or acted on residences lived reality.
For more than a year, residents have been warning
that the new Putney Bridge Junction
would worsen congestion.
When works began in September 24,
the immediate gridlock proved those warnings right.
That dismissal of community concerns
is why the Putney Action Group, or PAG, was formed.
The redesign aimed to improve air quality
and cycle and pedestrian safety.
Yet instead, residents report severe gridlock,
emergency vehicles being stuck, children walking
to school between idling traffic, cyclists feeling
less safe, overwhelmed residential streets, and
heavy goods vehicles intensifying fumes on our roads.
Data suggests air quality on the high street has
improved, and that traffic levels are lower than
years ago.
But car ownership may be down and cycling up
across London yet congestion in Putney feels intensified. On Putney Bridge Road,
the lower Richmond Road, the spread across residential streets now carrying
traffic volumes they were never designed for. Putney was renowned for being the
most polluted location in the UK if not Europe. Levels have improved over the
last decade yes but residents are watching those gains reverse as traffic
is pushed into our residential neighbourhoods. Whether there are less cars on the road, it's
the spread of the idling traffic which only exposes the failure of the current junction
layout. We want to be absolutely clear, PAG is not anti -cyclist or anti -car. We support
cycle safety, efficient public transport and reduced reliance on cars where possible. What
doesn't work for all. The economic impact is mounting. Businesses are losing trade,
residents are missing essential appointments and people are arriving late for work or paying
extra childcare because short journeys now take longer. These are real socio -economic
losses which reaches far beyond just traffic data. And after substantial spending on the
redesign, even more public money is now being used to patch a scheme residents warned would
fail. At a recent public meeting with MP Fleur Anderson, Fleur and Councillor Simon Hogg
acknowledged the junction was failing, yet key officers of TfL did not attend. Only now,
after months of pressure, has a December walkabout been secured with TfL thanks to Councillor
Leonie Cooper and Councillor Jenny Yates. We welcome it, but it should not have taken
this long. Putney is not interested in blame anymore or who approved what. Blame will not
open Hammersmith Bridge. Blame will not fix the junction or clean our air. Residents want
solutions transparency and action. Authorities have legal duty under the Highways Act and
Traffic Management Act to maintain safety and traffic flow for all. Those duties must
now be met whether by revisiting the junction, accelerating bridge solutions or adopting
a coordinated cross borough approach. Tonight we ask the committee for three commitments,
an independent review, ongoing engagement with the community and coordinated regional
planning across the affected boroughs. To understand the human cost, I quote, my street
is now overwhelmed by idling traffic and morning rat running. I used to cycle my children to
school, but now it's too dangerous." Second quote, I missed a life -saving chemotherapy
appointment because I was trapped in traffic for hours. Busses terminate early, the district
line fails constantly, and taxis refuse to come to Putney. This is daily life. PAG will
continue working constructively cross party with anyone committed to improving Putney.
That includes Councillor Leona Cooper, Councillor Ethan Brooks, Councillor Jenny Yates, Councillor
Simon Hogg, Councillor Nick Austin and our MP Fleur Anderson alongside the wider community.
Our community deserves more.
Thank you, Chair Maracas and members of the committee.
Thank you very much for that contribution and the work that you guys have been clearly
doing.
Any questions for the team?
Councillor Owens.
And thank you.
Thank you, Francesca, for that very powerful statement.
You highlighted that obviously perceptions of safety, safety of children, idling, et
the economic impacts are a key part of what you have been saying.
You mentioned an independent review, ongoing engagement, coordinated regional planning.
Do you think some of the wider economic losses perhaps need to be looked at and perhaps a piece
of research on that because obviously there are day -to -day issues, lots of local businesses, etc.,
as well as families trying to sort of get about their daily life? Thank you.
Let Fran rest her voice.
Thank you very much for the question.
So I think there's a few things to unpack there.
And I think first of all, thinking about sort of the first concentric circle, if you like,
in terms of economic impact on businesses, and I think the survey obviously spoke to
that.
We do have anecdotal evidence from businesses that they are seeing sort of lower footfall.
and I know our colleagues spoke of the assumption
that the football would actually increase.
That isn't being bearing out from the anecdotal data.
We have two very clear examples of businesses
that have closed down, and they are attributing that
to some of these changes and basically the nightmare,
the traffic nightmare.
So both Wardo's Autos have closed down
after 40 years service, and Physical Culture Gym
are struggling to stay afloat as members are leaving
due to the congestion and travel issues
with actually reaching their destinations.
That's the first concentric circle, if you like.
But I think we need to think a little bit wider
in terms of value for money here
because and our survey spoke to some of the huge impacts
that this is causing on daily life
in people's terms of people's work,
in terms of people being able to actually access
public services, missed appointments.
I cannot even count just personally how many appointments
that I've missed across the bridge for my children
as a result of this traffic.
And I know Kieran spoke of people getting out
to have to walk.
And I think on the face of it, that doesn't sound too bad.
But I think that when you are disabled,
when you've got two or three children,
when you've got neurodivergent children
who are trying to get across the capital,
it has become an absolute nightmare.
And I don't think that this is defensible anymore.
So I think let's just think about value for money
and public access to public services
because that at the moment is being a waste of money,
wasted appointments, a waste of people's time
even attempting to make these appointments.
Sorry, Michael Stone, co -founder of PAG with Francesca and Kerry.
I'd just like to make two personal points, if I may.
I witnessed in Putney High Street a paramedic vehicle on an emergency call.
Now, I did 15 years in the Metropolitan Police Service as a community support officer.
The last five, I was responsible for the 1 ,500 PCSOs in London, so I was attending meetings
with the senior leadership team of the Metropolitan Police on a regular basis.
I know how important that call is.
and I saw a bus driver pull into a gap in the middle of the traffic in Putney High Street
and wouldn't move.
And my friend who was with his 98 -year -old mum who is sadly dying on her feet from old
age, and we had to scream, and I mean scream at this bus driver, to get him to move while
these people were on a call.
Secondly, and more importantly, in 2010, my son had a bad accident, and he received an acquired brain injury.
It was a long time ago. I was very, very fortunate that the LAS people got him to Charing Cross very, very quickly.
If it was today, my son would be dead.
And I would be taking legal action and finding out who was responsible for that situation.
So we were very, very lucky that in 2010 it wasn't this bad.
Yes, I've been in Putney since 1984.
My son, you know, that I mentioned was born here.
And it's always been difficult.
but this is worse than anything I've ever seen.
I use all modes of transport, I will not cycle anymore.
It is too dangerous.
And the danger on the road is spreading onto the pavements
by frightened cyclists who are now putting pedestrians
at risk by trying to save themselves.
Thank you very much for hearing me.
Thank you very much. Any further questions from the committee?
Councillor Critchley.
Yes, thank you very much. So I'd just like, would something that struck me obviously about
how this initially started, is obviously is there is a safety measure. And I think, correct
me if I got this right, you've asked for an independent review of the changes, more
more cross London involvement and more engagement with the residents.
Now, what I'm wondering is given that we've heard this,
obviously the initial change to make the crossing is a safety issue.
Have you had any thought, I mean what are you hoping is going to happen specifically with that junction around the safety?
and I'd also probably ask a little bit more about what you feel would be more engagement.
Your first, your second point just in terms of more engagement, I think one thing just having
a very very clear timeline of how the rest of these, 70 % of the rest of the activities will
actually be going on and having a very, very clear channel of accountability back for questions
like this kind of forum would be very, very helpful.
In terms of what hopes for safety, I think we need to – we obviously appreciate very,
very much that there's been reported safety increases for cyclists around some of the
the areas that we've been speaking about,
less so around the Putney High Street,
Lower Richmond Road to Putney,
Putney High Street and Putney Bridge.
I think the specific kind of ask really would be
to be considering how safe it is to be having idling cars,
which are causing people to frankly cross the road
at any given point,
and cyclists who are becoming so frustrated
with the delay in actually getting from Lower Richmond Road
across the bridge to actually just running the lights.
And I think we've all, all of us who've been around
that junket have probably witnessed an incident
where there's been somebody who's nearly been run over
by a cyclist who has jumped the lights.
My children now know several swear words
which they didn't know before,
but I've said to them they're allowed to use them
when a cyclist jumps the lights.
I'm a cyclist.
My husband's a cyclist.
I want us to be safe.
But I think we really need to look at that junction
in terms of that safety too.
And the kinds of behaviour that that might be incentivizing.
Sorry, in response to that as well,
funny enough I had a chat with somebody
about this last week.
I think, with respect, I'm 69 years old.
So there's a few people in here that lean towards my age.
And I think that I would say to those people, you will remember the days of the trains where they stopped at Vauxhall,
when everybody got off and walked along the tracks in the snow to get to Waterloo.
In those days, we didn't get any announcements or anything.
These days, we get regular, you know, if you stop in a tube, they'll tell you there's a red signal, you're moving in two minutes.
You go to a bus stop and there's like a digital display.
And I think that helps.
And I know that when we started this group, you know, there was a lot of consternation, concern and anger about the lack of information in that way.
Since we have worked with Leonie Cooper, Jenny Yates, John Locker, Ethan Brook, Kieran McCarthy, Fleur Anderson, it's better.
But I've been to two or three meetings where I've spoken to people and said, listen, you
need to communicate better and more information.
If there's nothing to say, tell us there's nothing to say.
I learned that in the Met.
You know, I never told people, I said, well, if there's nothing to say, tell us there isn't.
And the more information we can get out, you can use us, the neighbourhood watch group people,
and we'll dispense that and distribute that information.
We just need to get more information out if it's going wrong, or it's not going to happen
Let us know and we can philtre it out
We can help you get it out to the people because that's what is one of the main
Contensions is that there's a lack of communication. There's a lack of consistency a lack of accountability and detail
Thank you
Thanks, I just ask you to turn microphone off. Thank you councillor Belton
Thank you for a very persuasive and committed comment.
Can I say the gentleman said at the end something?
I wasn't going to go along this line, but I will.
You're a youngster.
You're a youngster.
Some of us have been around a lot longer than a mere 69.
And when I was first on the council, the first year was 71.
I think the major concern we had during that year
was Putney High Street.
I'm not quite sure whether it was 1971,
Putney High Street, but one year,
there was a serious plan put forward for making,
I can't remember which way around they were,
but Oxford Road, essentially a southbound highway.
That was a bit in the, you know, we'd just opened the M1
and motorway seemed to be all the thing.
And the Putney High Street was gonna be the northbound one.
That was one version then and that had consultation.
And there'd been several others.
We had spent years and years about Putney parking schemes.
Gosh almighty.
From a mere Battersea point of view,
it seemed at times as though we always spent
all our time doing about Putney.
So I'm not dismissing it, I'm just saying we have taken it very seriously for a very long time.
And lots of people, lots of storeys I can tell you about Pantly High Street.
So we are very concerned about it and concerned to get it right.
But my question to you is, you heard no doubt Claire earlier talking about it for cycling.
And clearly, if you've ever pushed a pram or a person in a wheelchair over the traffic islands,
you don't want to go over the traffic islands as they were before, because it's just deadly.
And therefore, there are some improvements.
We've been told it's, and I was frankly amazed at this, 30 % complete.
I expected the comment 50, 60, 70 or 80 or something,
but in terms of the benefits,
we can't really seriously do stop this programme
that was agreed by both sides when it's so short,
so when it hasn't delivered.
It's got another, I don't know how,
I don't think I asked Mr. Cheung the time scale
for the end of it.
But what we can do is review it completely when it is finished.
We can't, we can't halfway through when we've had half the benefits and
admittedly probably 80, 90, 100 % of the harm say we've got to review it afterwards.
So I'd turn to you and say something else.
I don't see us frankly making a change substantially this evening,
because that's the situation.
But I am appealing to you to say, okay, well,
when it is complete and then it's time for review,
and then we'll have to review it totally,
which might include going back some degree of the way.
I can't see how we go back all the way
because then we'd have these minuscule islands in the middle
of where you can't take a pram.
So we'll have to look at it again, but we have to see it
through now in order to review the whole when it is completed, I think.
The only problem with that, Councillor, is that the time that that may take, we may see
deaths.
We may see people with life -changing injuries.
We may see people made disabled.
I have a disabled son, and I know what that's like.
I mustn't, I'm sure I won't be told, I mustn't get into a debate with you.
We'll have our own debate.
I take that point, but I could equally play the line and say if we went back to the small islands and we had deaths then,
I mean it was equally valid. We've got to consider it afterwards, I think.
I think really all we're looking for is something to be looked at the options.
Let's have a proper, as Fran said, a proper crossbar, a cross -partly, however you want to call it,
discussion and see what we can do to improve it and avoid any any fatalities or injuries.
Just want to add one point. Respectfully, the junction is complete in the eyes of pedestrians,
cyclists, road users. The junction is complete. So now being told that yes, I think there's
a difference. We're talking about two different things. The junction is finished, but the
tweaks which have been outlined in the August letter that was sent out to
residents. That is ongoing and it did it did give a time frame of between
October and November. We're now almost at the end of November and you're
saying that 30 % of those changes or tweaks have been implemented. So again,
going back to a timeline, what is the timeline for then us to come back and
address and see if it is working and it's a functioning junction for all. Thank you.
Councillor Cooper. Thanks chair. Great to see you guys and congratulations on being here this
evening. We did talk about that when I met with you earlier and I know you've been doing an awesome
job on a very cross -party basis talking to councillors, independent, conservative, Labour
and putting your case across this evening.
Now, it's obvious from reading the paper that there have been some changes made,
but it's a work in progress with more changes still to be made.
It seems that one of the issues is about how successful the changes are,
whether they're ones that we're asking TfL to implement,
or whether they're ones that the council itself has completely within its own domain
and can just get on with. So we need to keep you updated as to what's happening
and we also need to tell you about any possible delays. What would be the best
way for us to do that? We've just mentioned the walkabout that's coming up.
Would it be helpful to have a regular catch -up or something like that
rather than feeling that you need to kind of beat down the you know the door
to come and talk to people just until we've got to the point where people feel that the
changes that are coming in have been agreed and are in the paper are starting to have
an impact. What can we do to regain that confidence from local people rather than you feeling
that you've got to sort of shake us like this all the time, either as a council and of course
TFL?
So.
I'm sure we can both answer that.
Again, it just comes, yes, completely,
that would be great to update us.
It comes back down to the transparency and yes, updating.
And giving a timeframe.
So for example, you're saying we're at 30 % now.
We now would like a timeframe to go back
to residents and our members and say,
okay, we're gonna be honest, they've been honest,
and they've said we're at 30%.
So, but they're outlining that it will be x amount
will be done by this date and x amount will be done
by this date.
But there has to be an insight of these tweaks
and changes and reviews and extra surveys
and just more costs.
So it would be great to have a better outline, yes.
Sorry if I made you, also if there's slippage,
I'm not saying that's ever happened at TFL before,
but it may have done.
To let you know that there might be a change in the time scale and keeping you informed of that, would that also be an important part of that process?
For those of us who love TFL and work with it on a regular basis, I mean that may have happened.
And I think our meeting on the 8th of December will be fundamental because I'm hoping we can go down the residential streets and not just be at the junction,
and kind of look at it really in detail
with residents, with PAG members,
you know, from a real resident's point of view
and not just from the surveyor's hat at the junction
and reviewing it from all angles across PAG me
is real fundamental here.
I know that Councillor Yates and I
both have been putting a lot of work into making sure
that we get quite a number of people there
and I believe that two hours have been set aside,
so I would hope that what you're talking about
is something that can happen,
but I was also looking beyond that
to make sure that if there is slippage
in things happening,
making sure that we have a regular communication
so that people understand,
because Chair, thank you for indulging me,
coming back to the deputation there,
but I do think it's a really important issue for us,
because otherwise residents are feeling
that they're not being listened to and heard,
and I think it's really important that there is a lot of work going on,
but I think we need to make sure that we let people know that that work is taking place as well,
and perhaps we could think about how we can do that in a more structured way
than people feeling that they have to make us hear what they're saying.
Thank you.
Thank you very much, Councillor Cooper.
Just before you come in, I think this 30 % figure has probably been –
it was perhaps unfair to put that on someone,
I might just ask Mr O 'Donnell and the timeline just to provide a bit of clarification around that and yeah. Yeah sure
Thank you chair and just to say
completely heard or the really helpful and very valid points made and
Very very conscious of your time and the effort you've put into it. So thank you first of all for that obviously
We're making a very conscious effort to listen and to make sure that we are responding to the concerns that you've raised
I've taken down all the points you've made tonight
and I thank you for that.
Just to say in relation to timeline,
the reason why people hasn't got an explicit timeline
on some of those measures is because they are measures
that are actively being worked up with TFL.
I make no apologies for the fact that
when we try and pull together schemes with TFL,
it is a difficult process because there are lots
of different teams within TFL,
lots of processes they have to go through,
lots of knowledge they have to go through.
So because we are heavily dependent on their sign off
for a lot of these changes,
and it involves sometimes the bus operators, et cetera,
it's difficult to pin down an exact, it will be two weeks,
because it sometimes goes into a bit of a dark place.
What we will definitely commit to is trying to give you
indicative time frames around those elements.
And you'll have to give us a little bit of leeway,
because it is a little bit out of our hands,
but we'll give you a sense of,
that'll be about two weeks, that'll be about four weeks.
And we're happy, and I think it's a very good point,
about we'll make sure that's a regularly updated
communication, so if things do slip, they do,
we say, by the way, that one's on schedule,
that one slipped by a week, that one slipped by two weeks.
So I think that it's a very good point about the communication and thank you for that, Councillor Coop, as well.
I think we need to make sure that by yourselves and us, we'll have this regular dialogue and this regular updating.
So we can make sure that you're always in the loop of what's happening and why.
So at least if things are slipping, you're straight on the case of knowing why, when, and how.
What I would say to that is obviously, as Councillor Yates knows,
Leonie knows, and probably one or two others.
You have our email address and you're quite welcome to call my personal mobile number.
And any emergencies, that's fine.
You know, I'm retired.
Fran and Kerry are career women with young children and young families to run, so you
can come to me, not a problem.
If it's email, it's fine.
If it's urgent, give me a ring, it's not a problem.
Thank you.
Thanks very much.
Mr Shelley?
Would I just be able to very quickly just,
I think what might be helpful is if the PAG put together
sort of an indicative kind of template, if you like,
that we would expect maybe on a biweekly basis
or every three weeks or at an agreed cadence,
if we could be provided with the information in that,
things like the expected slippage,
that you'd think about, you know,
sort of other meetings that are due to take place.
And then maybe we could also have a sort of a blank space,
if you like, which the PAG members could actually submit
kind of bespoke questions, if you like,
for that kind of particular round, if you like,
of reporting, if you like.
And I think those kind of measures
just show really nice proactivity on your part.
And it actually allows you to communicate
the kinds of relationship that you have with TFL.
And I think that's a really nice thing that can be shared around and hopefully relatively
easy to kind of put together and very, very easy for the PAG to disseminate.
Mr. Chiang.
Thank you, Chair.
I'm sorry that, you know, I put the number 30%, 40 % out there.
It clearly upset hairs running.
But what I would say is, you know, if I can refer people to paragraph 30 and just to talk
a little bit about that and then I can explain a little bit more where I sort of come up
with that number off the cuff literally.
So the first point in paragraph 30 talks about the trans suspension of the southbound bus
lane outside the Aeolian cinema.
The reason why that bus lane has been suspended on a temporary basis is because during the
PM in particular that there's a lot of traffic wanting to turn left onto Putney Bridge Road
and they can't turn left because of the bus lane.
And what that happens is that leads to congestion
because everyone's waiting to turn left,
albeit they are in the straight ahead lane
going onto Putney High Street.
That is a big friction that reduces
the left turning capacity,
and that leads to congestion on both Putney Bridge
and Lower Richmond Road, that is a big thing.
I mean, I'm pleased to say that is in now,
and we are gonna be monitoring that very closely with TFL
over the next few months to see how that goes.
The double yellow lines, which is an upgrade
to the single yellow lines, it's a very simple thing.
But it is because single yellow lines,
typically you're allowed to park on it
before seven and after seven.
And everyone knows that Peacower and Putney
starts at seven, if not earlier.
And that's both morning and evening.
And that's something that would help.
Because often you do see occasionally
cars parked on Putney Bridge Road
or even on Putney High Street.
and it does happen.
The reassigned lane on Putney High Street,
outside Putney Station, we expect that to bring
some improvements because currently there are three lanes.
There is the left and the head, the head lane,
and the right turn lane.
And that goes onto the Putney High Street
because of the busses and the way the busses are,
the two stops outside the station.
That is deterring and putting traffic off going ahead,
going into that left -hand lane.
By doing some adjustments there,
that hopefully gets traffic out of the high street
and onto Putney Hill a bit quicker,
and that should ease congestion.
The main one I'm gonna go on to,
it's the space outside TK Maxx,
because on the observed time, 31 minutes of an hour,
there's a bus parked in that,
and that causes a lot of friction.
That is where we believe we're gonna get the most gain
in terms of optimization between running the junction
from Putney Bridge Road onto the Lower Richmond Road
Junction, that's where the gain is.
And suspension of the permitted left turn
and for cyclists currently, that will free up 15 seconds.
Now if a cycle is only 106 seconds, I think it is,
and 15 seconds is a lot of time,
and you get a lot of cars through.
So while 30 % might seem quite low,
and overall, a lot of good work has already been done
in terms of reintroducing all green type of vehicles.
I must admit, on Lower Richmond Road,
there isn't that much more improvements to come.
And the reason I say that is,
one of the biggest friction now is the two bus stops
outside P and Q.
In terms of the lights, in terms of how the junction
and the pedestrians operate,
that is pretty much at its optimum.
We are currently four seconds, 12%,
off the design and approved green time.
And we are looking at the friction on the high street
that's causing it.
We're looking at the bus changeovers,
particularly off -peak hours.
I mean, I don't know how many residents are familiar
with the sort of the morning and the afternoon peak
on Lower Richmond Bridge.
Very, very, very, very, very, very familiar with theirs.
In the morning, clearly, there's a very, very high demand
for the left turn onto Putney Bridge itself.
However, in the PM, most of the traffic is turning right.
And because of the way the lane markings are,
we have to overcompensate them for the busses changing over
at bus stop Q on the bridge side,
which is why there is that westbound friction at bus stop P,
which is why that's been moved further west.
And the hope is that, you know, working with TFL,
if we can look at the two bus stops together,
that will give us the chance to re -look at the lane markings
and the hope is that that will create a more
through -throw and from Lower Richmond onto the bridge
in the morning and equally the same for the evening.
And that in itself, there's more space
in the closest to the junction, that means less queue length
on Lower Richmond Road because I come to work
by Lower Richmond Road and I know it really well.
There's some really bad days and it goes as far
as that's partly common and beyond the roundabout.
You know, in the last couple of weeks, it has improved
and it is further up, but it still needs improving,
and we are hoping to address those frictions
on the two bus stops, and that's where
we're potentially gonna see improvements
on Lower Richmond Road, and when the friction
on High Street is reduced, that in the hope
is we'll give more green time for the east
and westbound movement, as opposed to the north
and south movements currently,
because we are managing that friction,
or TFL is managing that friction on the High Street.
So please don't, you know, get really hung up
on the percentages, but they are really substantial
improvements that are pending that I think I've shared
tonight in the report.
And these are the things to look out for.
And it clearly sets out, we've done some of those.
We're hoping to do the lane re -signment outside
the station in December.
And again, in January, it's the widening on one side.
Hopefully the widening on both sides of it,
depending on where BT is with the phone boxes.
And more importantly, the additional green time
will get back for banning that left turn for cyclists
on a temporary basis.
Thank you.
I'm just conscious of time.
I know we've got another deputation to get through
and another paper, or two more papers.
So I will just ask for any final comments
from you guys, if that's okay.
Oh, sorry, questions?
I was just gonna go back to you, Mr. Chang.
In terms of, you know you've mentioned a lot
about certain sides of Putney Bridge Road,
but you haven't mentioned the main side coming out,
turning right from Putney Bridge Road,
if you're on the other side,
not the coming left by the Odeon.
Another key factor in the traffic as well
is turning the bus lane, which used to be,
you could use it between certain,
you could use it on a Sunday,
you could use it between two and four,
and that is now seven days a week,
and I appreciate that's probably due to the new layouts
and how it works with the cycle scheme, safety scheme.
But would that be consideration in terms of
changing that bus lane back to certain times of the day?
Sundays are particularly bad in Putney, very, very bad.
Because lo and behold, people want to go out
and visit family or do stuff in their cars.
But we can't leave, so residents are trying not
to use cars in the week and they're doing all they can.
And then on the weekends, we're facing it even further.
Sundays particularly, I find coming out of Oxford Road
down Putney Bridge Road.
And I just, I used to find,
and no residents have found that bus lane very helpful
in easing that traffic backing right up
to towards Montworth Park.
Thank you.
So the bus lane is currently on a trial.
So the old operation hours were Monday to Saturday,
seven to 10 and four to seven.
And so the trial is the extension between 10 and four,
Monday to Saturday, and it's all day Sunday.
So TFL expressed concerns regarding bus journey times
on Putney Bridge Road as a result of change,
and the council has agreed to trial
and some extended bus lane hours
to see how that would improve bus journey times
in particular.
It also lends its hand to helping cyclists
because at the stop line currently,
there's one lane and there's a cycle lane.
And the hope is that it's a better flowing system
going onto the Putney High Street.
Because in the old days where you had a very short
second right turn lane, there was always the challenge
if there was a lorry or a bus,
there was only ever one vehicle.
And ultimately, there is a finite amount of space
between the high street and the refuge island
on Putney High Street to allow that vehicle
to turn smoothly onto the right hand side.
So under the modelling that's been reviewed
by both ACOM and TFL and look at the signal timing,
it was believed that in timing itself and adjustment,
having the right amount of stacking space
on Putney High Street, there isn't that detrimental impact
in terms of losing that lane.
There's often the misconception that,
oh, we used to have two left turn lanes
onto Lower Richmond Road, outer Lower Richmond Road,
and two right turn lanes out of Putney Bridge Road.
And that's what's causing the congestion.
I can assure you that's not in the modelling,
both ACOM and TFR have looked at it.
There is very limited gain by having the old two lanes back
purely because of the spaces available,
the space that's been assigned for cyclists,
and it's the safety and concerns that has been raised
that the council and TFR have looked to address
because a cyclist will always get crammed.
So you've heard from my first deputation
what a difference that makes by only having one vehicle
waiting at the stoplight at both junctions.
Thank you.
I suggest that we, one more final?
No, this is not for the deputation, it's more a bit of a pick up around the updates.
The one thing I think is I appreciate there's obviously a lot of work being done with Putney Action Group,
but we will have had four deputations here and I think that the update idea is great,
but we should also make sure we use our own channels such as Wandsworth News
and also make sure that the other people from other deputations know what's going on.
I mean, is that something we can make sure we've arranged, particularly Mr. O 'Donnell and the cabinet member?
So I think we've got to remember there are people who will want the information but who aren't necessarily in the action groups.
Sorry, I was perhaps just directing my comments back to the speakers at the table, but my intention would be that we would have a wider communication.
We will certainly look at a number of methods, including local letter drops as well, which we've used for a number of recent letter drops in the area.
we've done two in the last few months,
we would continue further letter jobs,
and obviously use other channels such as social media,
the council's website, et cetera,
to allow that information to be submitted
in a number of different ways.
So whilst obviously I've directed my comments initially
to our colleagues at the end of the table,
it would go to wider groups,
and we'd make sure that's as widely circulated as possible.
Cool, thanks very much, guys.
We'll move on to the next deputation.
I'll give you a moment.
Thanks very much.
So next we have Ms. Ruth Pates from Wandsworth Living Streets.
So Ruth probably seen by now, if you push the big button in the middle to speak and
then you've got five minutes and then we'll do questions.
Thanks very much.
Right.
Thanks for inviting us.
So I'm going to give a bit of my own personal perspective as a person walking around Putney
and also from Wandsworth Living Streets.
So I've lived in Putney for over 30 years.
kids grew up here, now a grandmother, and I mostly walk and use public transport, but
I do drive and I do sometimes cycle.
So I think, like most of the people here, I'm multimodal.
So the first thing I wanted to say is if you just look narrowly at the junction itself,
I just think it's a big improvement for people walking.
I feel safer crossing the road.
You don't have that moment of panic on the tight island where you think you're going
to be mown down by a truck.
And I think that's a definite improvement,
and that's really reflected in the stats
that are in the reports about more people crossing
and fewer people crossing on red lights
or other dangerous things.
So I think in the first sense, that's great.
But I think now, what I'd really like the committee
to think about, and I guess one's worth to think about,
is to keep your eye on the main goal.
I mean, the purpose of all this work
wasn't just to have a better junction.
It's safety is a kind of minimum necessary thing.
And it's great.
And I think there's improvements to be made.
But it's much better than what went before.
But I think this whole work was initiated
to make Putney High Street a better place,
to encourage people to walk and cycle more
if they're able to do that, and to get, I think,
what's missing maybe from the report is
the balance between the focus on movement,
How many cars can you cram in a space?
Let's reduce some friction.
Let's get through that junction as fast as we can.
And there's been a bit less on how we're gonna investigate
and monitor the impact that's having on our high street
as a destination for shoppers and residents
and the life of the high street.
And we know from other places,
if you pay attention to people walking
and people on bikes, it's good for the local economy as well.
I'd really like to see in all the monitoring
and assessment going forward
that you haven't lost track of the purpose, which
is to make the destination a better place
and to work on that and get the evidence
as you're building for that.
And also just listening, I was really encouraged
that pedestrian demand of pushing that green button
has gone up.
And it's pleasing to think that that's happening
and that should be seen as a positive thing
and how can we build on it rather than just thinking
vehicle movements are important, but how can we think about how
to make more of that.
And I just echo what other speakers have said.
I'm encouraged that you're going to be monitoring, taking a step,
looking at the impact it's had, taking another step.
And if you could just continue to involve local residents
and all the groups represented here
and who haven't come today to keep us informed and updated,
again, with the primary goal of let's make Putney High Street
a better place.
So just to kind of wind up, I think the junction
is better for pedestrians.
I feel safer that's borne out by the numbers, but please please please don't stop here
remember where you're going with this and
Think of Putney High Street and the local places like Waterman's Green
Connecting with the Thames embankment all those things that survey after survey after survey has said it to people
Keep a focus on that
Vehicle congestion is an issue
How can we get the best balance between walking and cycling and this pause here and sometimes when things go wrong?
It's a chance to refocus on why you're doing something,
what the main goals are, how you're going to get there,
and how you're going to measure it.
So thanks for letting us take part.
Thank you very much.
If you wouldn't mind just tag me if you want.
Thank you very much.
Any questions for Ruth?
Locker.
Thank you very much for the presentation.
and the very useful feedback.
I think you're right that obviously we step back
and remember back to what the objectives were here.
A key part was to improve the safety
for pedestrians as well,
and it was part of a high street fund.
So some of the funding for the scheme
actually came from central government,
and I think there were three projects.
One was about the refurbishment of the library
to create a workspace.
One was this junction,
and I think the third was Waterman's Green.
So it is good that, you know, it is all about the vitality
and then trying to improve the high street,
which really matters to people.
I just want to cheque, though, have you had any feedback,
a bit like the question I asked for the ones
with Cycling Group.
Have you had any feedback, though, about whether or not
there's been knock -on effects or problems elsewhere,
such as, has it made it harder to cross on Lower Richmond
Road as a pedestrian, or Putney Bridge Road,
in your experience or the experience of your members.
Thank you.
I haven't done anything systematic.
Some people sitting there,
we haven't done a systematic survey.
I think there's been a lot more formal feedback
about the lower Richmond Road
and the traffic backed up there.
I can't, mostly from drivers on Putney Bridge Road,
but I live in a road that's a kind of feeder street
for Putney High Street,
and I don't know what's happened in the last few weeks,
But I've noticed that maybe a month ago our street was always backed up, whereas it had
never been historically.
But in the last few weeks that's not happening anymore.
So maybe there's been some improvements in the last few weeks, but I have no science
and no systematic way of answering that.
Councillor Belton.
And may I just say thank you for your comment.
And I think there's a lot of support here for it on both sides.
Can I just say that a very long time ago, we were faced by the option of developing a major town centre
version like Croydon has or like Kingston has in Bentles and at the cost of other centres.
And we went for a five equal town centre policy, which both sides have maintained.
and it's been complete unanimity on that.
Both sides have maintained that.
It's got to change now a bit because of the
Battersea Power Station is now kind of sixth town centre.
But on both sides, we're completely committed
to the vitality of those town centres.
So there is a strong agreement about Punyhustu.
Thank you very much.
Any further comments?
Great, thanks very much, Ruth.
And just take the opportunity to thank all the deputations, all the work that's gone
into it, all the hard work, very much appreciated.
I will now invite councillors to comment and add further questions.
Councillor Hamilton, then Locker.
Thank you.
It's just a very simple request which may actually be one connected to the work plan
later in the meeting, but if we could potentially keep this on the agenda for the next committee
cycle meeting in February and have some kind of an update in as far as is possible about
how these changes are, betting in any advantages.
That would be great just to have it on the agenda so we can keep a close eye on this.
Just to say, yeah, I think it's part of what we talked about in terms of a – I've written
down myself a kind of comms plan that we would develop.
I think just to be absolutely clear, we wouldn't see this coming back again as a standalone
paper in February.
We don't think that's appropriate, but what is appropriate is an update to the next committee in terms of what's happened
What's changed as part of a wider series of updates on other products within the borough and that'd be my recommendation
Thank you and thank everyone for the contributions they've been really helpful tonight and officers for the report
I think one of the things that is clear is that we can do a better job of implementing schemes
and I think we can learn the lessons
that have been outlined in this paper.
One of the things that's been stressed,
and I completely agree with this communication,
so I think tonight the sense I get
and the mood I get from the gallery
is that people are pleased to hear
there are still a number of improvements to make.
So according to Mr. Chung,
I think he outlined them in paragraph 31,
where I think he initially said
we're about 30 % of our way through
the amendments or tweaks.
What I would urge the council to do is to try and expedite the rest of the 70 % of those
improvements and as I think, and I think we have a consensus here, if we could communicate
an indicative times table to residents with when those other changes will take place such
as the left -hand turn on Putney Bridge Road onto the High Street, et cetera, and perhaps
keep a copy of the time plan at somewhere on the council website so that when it is
updated, whether that's every two, three weeks, et cetera,
people have the latest information to hand.
I think that would be really helpful,
and I think that will help residents understand
and be able to track the improvements and keep going.
If the things that are, or these amendments
that are listed in paragraph 31 don't deliver,
then I think we probably should come back to this committee
to discuss what the next options are.
But that's just my sense of where the discussion
has gone tonight and that's for my request is as I say that we have a timetable outlining
the remaining actions with indicative time scales which is kept refreshed on the council
website. Thank you.
Thank you Councillor Locker. Any further comments or questions? Councillor
Critchard. Thank you. I mean I'm actually thinking the
the timetable is it's not set up as a timetable,
but the two paragraphs that explain what's happening.
I think it's 30 and 31 maybe.
That's sort of like the skeleton of it.
First of a point I am quite keen to make is
one of the things that is clear is that
that the air quality actually has improved a lot.
I mean, it was always very difficult in Putney.
And I think we probably need to remember that the change in the types of busses that are going through,
and the ultra low emission zone, have probably helped Putney a lot.
And obviously, it's another arm of the mayoral, it's also part of TFL as to what's been happening.
So there's obviously been some complications with working with TFL, but
other benefits that have, I think, made a direct improvement in Putney.
I would also like to ask though, the one thing that worried me a little about this,
is there are various changes about potential changes of suspensions
permitted left turn onto Putney High Street from Putney Bridge Road.
and various other things, I would be very anxious about making sure that none of the other changes that might be happening
would then make things worse for cyclists or pedestrians.
So there are some things that are clearly going to make them, that are going to be helpful for everyone,
like the way the busses are working and the move of the bus stop.
But I'd probably say is what reassurance have we got that these next changes aren't going to then provide an adverse impact?
And the last part is pretty much a comment, is usually it's about six months when we review,
our standard review time for a major traffic scheme is usually six months, if I remember.
So we're looking at work being ended in February 26.
So I would think we probably won't have enough data
on the whole change until, help me, to August.
I know it sounds like an awfully long time for residents, but obviously that would take it through lots of cycles,
give us data when traffic is moving properly,
if there's been further road work.
So it might even be September before we know enough.
Thanks very much.
Any further questions or comments on this paper
before we move on?
I think I actually did ask if Mr. Chung
that we could guarantee there weren't going to be,
make things worse.
With the things that have been changed for cyclists and pedestrians, you're suggesting
about taking out an island and the term.
So yes that's correct Councillor Critchard.
So paragraph 30 you know sort of sets out things that we can see for in the very coming
months and these are important changes that we more or less have agreement principle you
with TFL and that these will happen and will have no impact and to any existing
provisions on the High Street itself. Paragraph 31, you know there are four
bullet points on there if I can just run through each one of those.
Exploring the removal of the small traffic island on Putney High Street, yeah that's
not going to expect any impact because the idea of removing that location is to
ease the right turning movements for traffic coming out of Putney Bridge Road
onto Putney High Street and the hope is that it will make it smoother and
quicker for them to get on it, so that would have no bearings.
However, I must stress that if we were to make enhancement
in terms of Putney High Street, that could potentially
impact northbound cycling.
But again, things need to be done in incremental processes,
because we need to monitor, to make that change,
and to see if that has enough impact.
If we are still concerned about that impact not being
sufficient, then we may have to look at other things in terms of further road
layout. The second point talks about the reintroduction on the suspended left
turn lane for cyclists, reinstating that, so that's not going to have any impact.
The thinking behind that is to move the existing pedestrian crossing on
Putney High Street across Putney High Street sort of south, so by
moving that slightly further down, you then create enough room and therefore
stop line for cyclists on Putney High Street itself, so that will have no
in terms of traffic movements,
but it will allow cyclists to again turn left.
But what I would stress is as observed in the report,
that cyclists don't currently make that movement a lot.
And the likelihood is that they probably use Oxford Road,
Israeli Road, and Roanworth Road
to access Putney High Street.
And alternatively, if they stay on Putney Bridge Road,
you will see a lot of them dismounting
and then using the pedestrian crossing
and on that corner to get across to access
but the High Street, whether, you know,
through Falchion Road and so forth.
The next point, which talks about reviewing bus stop
locations and drivers changeovers in the area,
we don't expect that to have any impact
on the movement of traffic.
I guess it is the exception to that,
and that potentially would be for busses
and bus passengers, because either the bus stop
is relocated, the changeover location is relocated,
or, you know, there are some alternative proposals
has been worked on in terms of managing
that bus stop locations.
And the final point, it talks about monitoring
of the side roads, so we've done a bit of monitoring
on the likes of Wirtz, Etsraeli, Chilfordton.
We've done some roads on off Lower Richmond Road
and Putney Bridge Road.
We're trying to get a sense, has traffic volume
really changed on those side roads?
And is it because at peak hours there's a bit more
route running, and these are the things
that we're looking at and looking into.
So we'll be doing, we'll continue to monitor that
through analysis of before and after data,
and just collecting those.
And there are other things that we are exploring,
but those are more challenging,
and they may not have any mileage in it.
But we're leaving those stones unturned,
is what I would say, in terms of exploring.
And if there's any major impact or changes that are proposed,
I'm sure the cabinet member will be asking us to come back
and sort of explain so that a proper debate
can be considered regarding to more potential changes
that could have an impact on other modes of transport.
Thank you, Mr. I'm keen to move on.
So two final, final points, questions.
Councillor Locker.
Thank you.
Yes, just to explain a little bit and follow up
on the point made by Councillor Crichard.
I think one of the reasons, this has been an unusual scheme
because it was finished last Christmas
and that's why the residents make the point
it's been complete, the junction's been complete
and they've been waiting and pushing
and felt like they had to grab us to get our attention
to try and get the improvements,
which have largely, by the sounds of it,
been in the realms of TFL,
because it's all been about traffic light facing.
It's why they've come tonight.
They've been suffering quite a bit in recent months,
so I just want to make that point.
That's why the residents are pushing for immediate action
and for us to expedite.
And that sort of leads on to my substantive point.
So like I said, I made the previous point before
about I think we can do a much better job
with communication of residents
and keeping them informed of what's going on
and what improvements are going to be made.
But I'm conscious tonight, we've made quite a bit of progress
and we've got into quite a level of detail,
but we do have a guest missing, TFL.
So my question, my open question to all of us,
is what can this committee do to try and improve
the working relationship with TFL
and to get their buy -in and commitment
to these improvements, which are outlined in paragraph 30 to 31,
to get them done as quickly as possible
so that the residents of Putney see the benefits.
Thanks, Councillor Locker.
Any final, final comments on this paper?
No? Okay.
Thank you very much, everyone.
That's definitely the longest agenda item
I've ever been part of, too,
but I think well worth it and very, very useful.
I'm aware that members of the public in the gallery may not wish to stay for the next
paper so I might just give you a moment if you do want to leave and then we'll carry
on if that's okay.
.
Great, thanks everyone.
So we're now moving on to agenda item number four, which is on delivery bikes.

4 Delivery Bikes: Overview (Paper No. 25-399)

And I will pass over to Mr. Tiddley for an introduction.
So just, if I should wait for Councillor Critchard.
I'm happy for...
She wants to chat.
Come on, come on.
OK.
Thank you Councillors, David Tiddley, the Head of Transport Strategy.
Members made a request for a paper to come to the committee
outlining issues relating to delivery riders.
And I don't recall the matter ever coming to a committee before,
so this is the first paper you've received on this issue
and probably quite a timely one as well.
So it's a first stab at some of the key issues
affecting delivery riders in Wandsworth
and what we mean by... what I'm really referring to here,
that effectively people who make deliveries on mopeds
and e -bikes and cycles, usually delivering food
and part of the gig economy.
And I think it's fair to say that when I, in terms of the numbers of emails or correspondence
I receive, and I imagine quite a lot of the councillors receive, generally came from a
relatively negative point of view about riders using illegal bikes, doing, breaking traffic
laws, questioning their right to work in the UK and congregating in locations that cause
inconvenience to passing pedestrians and sometimes in residential streets and littering.
So, as I say, a relatively negative number of comments.
But then the more I sort of investigated and looked into it, the more you actually come
to see that there's very large numbers of delivery riders making a living.
they're often relatively low paid, they're not particularly well protected by employment
regulations or employment law. They tend to be under significant pressure to make relatively
quick deliveries to get good ratings to maintain their ability to continue to be asked to provide
services. And in fact I'd also probably say that there's clearly a lot of takeaways and
other retail and food establishments in the borough
that are actually heavily reliant on them.
And if that option of home delivery was not available
for many of our businesses, those businesses would struggle.
So that's a sort of bit of background there.
And in terms of identifying areas
which I think we should be investigating,
obviously the councillors yourselves will advise us
on whether or not you think this is an area you want to have further work and investigations about.
But we just highlight in the paper, effectively, the things that we think we need to be considering.
So promoting purchase, use, and safe storage of legal bikes to provide more better cycle infrastructure.
One of the most interesting points here was the numbers of cyclists and e -bike riders
who are actually very pro -safety and cycle schemes,
because effectively they spend their day
making 10, 20 deliveries and are sort of
in traffic all the time and have that conflict
on a daily basis and therefore they generally
are very supportive of measures that improve highway safety.
There isn't really necessarily a single voice to use
engage with, but again, we probably need to engage delivery riders more in the development
and consultation on schemes and have them as a consultee to identify locations where
delivery riders can wait safely between deliveries and to look at areas where we can safely provide
space and waiting facilities for them.
And then also to – clearly to improve rider behaviour and minimise illegal activity.
and then also to challenge the platform providers to effectively take greater
degree of responsibility for the riders. So there's a few ideas there obviously
I'm happy to take questions and we suggest that we would probably come back
to another committee with with more details of anything that you you want us
to investigate. Thank you. Thank you very much Mr. Tiddley. I have Councillor Hamilton
and then Councillor Pelton. Thank you very much and thank you to officers for
this report together. I think there's a lot of good in the report. I actually
particularly welcome some of the discussion here about road safety. I
think it makes a lot of sense for delivery drivers who know the streets in
the borough intimately to be involved in in these types of consultations. But
there are a couple of points here which I think could lead to, I think,
potential mutiny amongst residents. In particular in point 5 .1 where we
talk about, for example, identifying locations where delivery drivers can
wait safely between deliveries. Now my concern there is nothing to do with
safety but rather we already see in quite a lot of built up urban parts of
the borough particularly in Tooting I notice where particular side streets off
the main roads you will often see that at busy times Friday Saturday nights
you can see 15 20 delivery bikes parked up and I would question how popular it
is likely to be for there to be these sort of designated areas particularly
with facilities which you mentioned, Mr. Tidley.
So I think we should be very careful, I think,
before advancing that particular proposal.
I think, again, the thing I would also be concerned about,
it's more of a political point on the paper.
And whilst I accept we have a Labour Council,
I think some of the language in the reports, which seems to,
I think, call into question will be very, very critical
of the very organisation and business
model of these organisations.
And whilst I accept that the individuals are self -employed and the employment structure
may not appeal to everyone, it does allow for a considerable amount of flexibility.
And there's a lot of people who are employed in these delivery companies who welcome the
fact they can log on whenever they want.
They welcome the fact they're not tied to one employer.
And in fact, many of these delivery drivers are working on several platforms and earning
very good money with it.
So I think we should be rather careful about attacking the entire business model of these
organisations.
and I do notice that some, I would say some explicitly socialist language has found its
way into the report, which I'm sure was Councillor Mayorkas's intention, but just an observation.
Councillor Belton, then Councillor Orens. Oh, sorry.
I just want to come back very quickly on that, because you correctly make the point that
many riders value the flexibility of the working arrangements, and many really do like working
outside as well and I think we put that in the paper somewhere but also some of
the wording that you refer to was taken from the all party parliamentary group
for walk -in cycling so it was almost lifted word for word I didn't make up
some of that language that you're referring to it it did come from the all
party working group to be clemished in my my comments about the direction of
the report were not focused on officers I haven't been called a socialist since
I think it's a fantastic, I think it's a really good paper and I'm really pleased.
I doubt there's anything like it anywhere in London that you know of, nothing like it.
I think it's fantastic in all sorts of ways and I completely reject in a friendly kind of way Councillor Hamilton's comment.
Most of the papers in Wandsworth Council is reaped through the essential nature of private enterprise, right, left and centre.
And no one ever complains about that.
The gig economy is one of the worst things in all sorts of ways that has happened in social change in the last few years.
I'm sure some people like the flexibility and other people like the fact that they get labour as cheap as they possibly can.
and squeeze all sorts of benefits which is referred to, and you referred to it just now, sickness pay, all sorts of things like that.
So I'm really pleased that there's a discussion with a relevant and interesting trade union.
I'm sure there's all sorts of things we can do about it.
I particularly noticed just as Councillor Hamilton, the groups of nearly all men,
even though I have seen the occasional woman on bikes collecting in places like St. John's Road in various places,
or the bottom end of Northcote Road.
And you can feel and imagine the irritation of all sorts of established Wandsworth residents about this.
the kind of people who manage to not see the benefits when
these people go and find relief elsewhere around the corner on the street or
something because there are no facilities and it's precisely for that kind of reason that this paper's so interesting.
Because I'm not saying we're going to suddenly, well let's provide automatic lose specifically for this.
but we ought to at least be cognizant of the problem
and see if there are arrangements that can be made.
And this is, and the kind of people who object
are the kind of people,
here's a summary which is totally, totally, totally
a generalisation, completely unjustified,
and I can't possibly defend it,
but nonetheless it's true,
who no doubt order deliveries and things like,
God knows what because I can't be bothered to cook any day of the week and they're using these guys
and expecting them to arrive in two minutes flat meaning the guys have to break all the rules about
driving and speed and all those other things. So this is really important that we get hold of this
and it's incredibly important. One of the areas you haven't mentioned which I hope is helpful
because I think in certain circumstances it might be useful to have the planning
development people talking or thinking about this as part of development
control and you sit on the committee often so you know exactly what I'm
talking about but we provide electric, we provide, it is a condition to provide
electric, you know what I mean talking about charges in various parking places in larger
developments in developments where the use looks like being shopping and catering of
this kind.
I think there are possibilities so perhaps I suggest adding to this brilliant paper consideration
as a planning applications issues as well.
Yes, so as I think we mentioned,
in many locations the existing restaurants
now offer a delivery option,
and of course those were approved,
legacy restaurants were approved long before
this came along, but then you correctly point out
that clearly any new, particularly any new applications,
it would be absolutely right to say,
well, you know, where are the delivery riders gonna wait?
Where is the charge point for their electric bike?
And that clearly is something that we should be
looking at with our planning colleagues.
Sorry, you will know, Mr. Tiddley,
that in a very substantial proportion of applications
for restaurants, they just wouldn't be big enough
for some of this.
Baffsey power station in retrospect would have been superb up there.
But it's been late in the day for that.
Maybe not, maybe there are other developments coming along that could fit.
But I think it would be really important and a good paper.
Councillor Owens, I think.
Thank you.
Just one point, in the highway code hierarchy, pedestrians come first.
And there's a strong focus here in the paper on new cycling infrastructure,
of course, as we mentioned in the amenities hubs, which of course we all support.
But there's only one short section on rider behaviour and enforcement.
And residents I talk to want to know, would you actually be cracking down on illegal
riding on pavements and through pedestrianised areas and how, and also what are we
to get illegal e -bikes off the streets.
Thank you.
I think our justification for cracking down on poor behaviour
and having better degrees of enforcement would be assisted
by providing some of the sort of good bits of this,
if you like.
So by engaging and providing ideally some spaces
for delivery riders and providing some good practise and telling them where they can find
affordable good e -bikes and working with shops. That then gives us more leverage, I think,
to take a harder line or to deal with the enforcement issues and some of those law breakings
as well. And sorry, the second point was...
The illegal e -bikes.
So the police and the fire brigade particularly have initiatives to try and deal with that,
particularly the fire brigade who have put out guidance and clearly we're more than happy to work with them on that
and the distribution of those.
I mean, a couple of things which we don't...
One thing we mentioned in the paper is clearly e -bikes which are stored at home,
That leads to fires basically in the home when they're illegal.
So that's a clear interest from our housing side of things.
Plus we also have a problem with waste management,
where we actually have had dust trucks with batteries being picked up and setting fire to them.
So we're mindful that there are services that would help by an improved level of that
and happy to work with those services and the police and the fire brigade.
I just wanted to ask on the fired data if we have any what so we want specific data
on that because you did dilute obviously the report.
Thank you.
I can try and find what we have.
The secretary.
Thank you.
Yes, I'm a bit with Councillor Belton.
It is, you know, if we weren't all getting our stuff delivered, our food delivered, then
of course this wouldn't exist.
and I think there is a problem about how it is arranged in terms of how the riders work.
And actually quite a lot of the newspaper reports do focus on how difficult it is.
And if we want to support, yeah, we want to, how difficult it is and what tough conditions they work under.
What I was wondering about were sort of three things.
have we got any information from other boroughs?
And I've also seen something on a charter from Manchester,
I'd like to hear a bit more about that.
I guess when we're looking the next steps on this,
our focus has got to be on things
that we can do within Wandsworth.
But going on to the waiting, I know for example,
Waitrose and Ballum has a waiting area set aside
in its car park for the delivery drivers.
when we've been talking about facilities, perhaps actually it should be around the food licencing is
if you're going to have delivery drivers you let them use your facilities because then that gets away from
them going wherever they fancy, which is good, it's a good start.
And yeah, we've got problems, particular problem at the top of roads off the top of Tooting Beck,
which we actually can't resolve. One of the reasons also is that the
drivers park in parking, or the riders park in parking spaces and there is
nothing we can do from a parking perspective. I think you've seen this
one Mr. Tiddly haven't you? Is there anything we can do about
enforcement of where you park if you have an e -bike, if you're waiting for
delivery so you're not taking up space and sort of it's the congregating is
what people really find, the residents find tricky
is there's a lot of people all in one place.
And they all obviously enjoy talking to each other
because when you watch the group outside the Waitrose
Ballam, there's lots of chat going on,
everyone's on their phones waiting for the next order.
It's not, I wouldn't like to be out there in the cold,
but it is at least a quiet, a space where you can park
without being in anyone's way.
Thank you, Councillor. I'm not sure we'll be able to solve all the problems. We mentioned
in the report potentially looking at some trial areas. I take Councillor Hamilton's
point that it may well be that residents will not particularly like an area near their home
to be allocated for delivery riders. But as you yourself have highlighted, in Ballum,
The space has been identified at the Waitrose car park which is used.
I think that could be improved and be more of a suitable waiting area rather than just
effectively a parking bay that just basically at the moment says delivery riders and it
has no other sort of facility there.
So making better use of those sorts of facilities might be more popular than trying to provide
Spaces in residential streets certainly and then going on to the issue of other boas
I'm not as I think I've mentioned with with Councillor Bolton as well. I'm not aware of any other boas having
Looked at this issue as we've done tonight
Maybe they have but I don't think there's a great deal to learn necessarily from other brothers
Although there is some guidance that's come from London councils relating to safety of e -bikes particularly
and then going on to Manchester. Manchester's food delivery charter was
it's signed up to buy Deliveroo Amazon the delivery companies plus the
mayor of Greater Manchester and of the fire brigade and other organisations and
it covers the things that we mentioned here so there's a commitment to road
safety, the companies will always cheque the legal requirements to work.
There's a commitment to decarbonize the vehicles to move them from effectively
petrol, fuel, mopeds, and motorbikes to electric or pedal cycles.
There's a commitment to reporting accidents and collisions.
So whenever a rider does fall off or hit something, because a lot of them,
they'll just dust themselves down and go on.
So they'll report that to get some decent data from that.
A commitment to checking bike standards at management and say improving ways of working.
So those are the sorts of things that you can work with the sector.
Any further questions or comments?
Councillor Cooper.
I'm sure it would be pretty easy to get from the fire brigade the details of how many fires
in e -bikes there are.
As far as I understand it, it's about one every two days in London now, so you can do
the maths of how many that is.
How many of those are e -bikes of delivery riders is a different question, but I'm sure
I could certainly get hold of that information if that is something that the committee is
interested in.
And it is possibly an area that the fibre -gaze attention should be drawn to.
They've just been generally looking at thermal runaway and LI batteries where people, but
they also know that in some cases it's because people have done botched conversions, which
obviously is an issue that's in the paper.
So I could actually undertake to find that out if that's something the committee is interested in.
I do think providing or encouraging the people who have created this, you know, the companies who are now asking people to show up and take things out as deliveries,
which wasn't even a thing that existed maybe even five years ago, it wasn't really much of a thing.
I think it really took off during the pandemic,
you know, asking them to contribute to facilities.
And one thing that a lot of people have raised with me,
this applies to bus drivers actually also,
is this whole thing about facilities.
People don't like people going to the toilet in their garden.
Let's not put too fine a point on it.
And that applies to the delivery riders.
If they're hanging about in an area and there's lots of them,
You know, someone does actually have to take responsibility for them in that sense as well,
just as bus drivers have to be given assistance in finding somewhere to go.
Let's just say that.
So it's the same issue for me.
That, I think, almost apart from anything else, is really important.
The development of McDonald's and the ones with town centre is really welcome.
and also I think the developments of Waitrose in Ballum.
And I think we need to have something similar everywhere else as well.
Because there have been a lot of tales about big fights breaking out near McDonald's in Tooting
between riders and that's also something that people are not keen on walking past 30 or 40 people in.
Because you can't see who they are because some of them will still kick their crash helmets on having a fight.
And that's really not good either.
So I think it's a very welcome paper.
Thank you.
Councillor Rowan, do you want to?
Yes, just following up with that,
with the point about facilities for the riders,
but also perhaps Uber drivers and others.
One of the things I've noticed,
particularly since the pandemic,
but lots of children have noticed in my ward,
is that as it becomes a bit darker on Wandsworth Common,
there are lots of people releasing,
well, the words have just come from my head,
Yeah, you're basically using the common as a facility within relieving themselves.
Sorry, Peter Madison just sprung to mind.
The same one too, the same one too, in common as well.
But the children themselves say things like in a quite innocent way, there are pairs of
eyes everywhere.
And that's when you realise it's more than just the old person relieving themselves.
It's actually, that's what they see.
And it's completely different to how it was before the pandemic.
Thank you.
Councillor Belton. I didn't want to get into all of this. I mean,
I thought it was a good idea and easy developing. Let me just point out just as a fact, it's
not the pandemic, it's the fact that this council and many others closed every public
lieu in the borough, at least a dozen, maybe more. I could name a large in the 90s.
Councillor O 'Brien.
Councillor O 'Brien.
As someone who has spent 16 years on Wandsworth Common, it has really come to the fore in
the last five years.
Thank you.
Cool.
Perhaps we'll leave it there.
I think, yeah, as chair, I mean, I think this has been a useful conversation.
I think, obviously, the intention is to bring a more detailed paper back to the committee
in February.
I would love that to be a cross -party venture
and I'd advise to have a kind of follow -up
work programme meeting with Councillor Hamilton
if you're up for it and others, obviously welcome
to find the core issues that we think matter the most
to residents on this and progress it.
I think people are right to point out
that it's only useful to look at things
that the council can do.
I think we do have an opportunity to do something innovative
and I think if we're thinking about the streets
of the future, they are, delivery riders and bikes
will be here to stay and I think it's about how you
accommodate that and also looking at bike share model,
it just sort of happened to us without much choice
and I think that the same thing could happen
and if we can proactively charge ahead
with something innovative, I think that could be useful.
So thanks very much.
Moving on to the final agenda item
as we approach 10 o 'clock,
is the work programme paper.

5 Transport Overview and Scrutiny Committee: Work Programme (Paper No. 25-400)

So I'll just get mine up.
So that's for, yeah, 11th of February committee.
So hopefully delivery bikes in depth.
I think it'll be useful to have some external speakers
there as well.
A review of the walking and cycling strategy,
an update report on the local plan.
And then obviously the standing and general item
of the work programme.
I don't think anything, well,
Nothing came out of our previous work programme planning meeting, I don't think, apart from
this, the Putney paper, which we've done.
So any comments, questions on the future work programme?
Sorry, can I just add, as per earlier discussion, we talked about the fact that we wanted to
come back with an aspect on Putney, and what we've suggested is perhaps there's a wider
paper that picks up on key projects within the borough that we'll update on in February,
if council's happy with that and that would obviously cover the the key
aspects of the putney update within it. Yeah if everyone else is happy. Sorry could I just clarify what does the local plan item refer to is that the update from the
the planning inspector at discussion of the local plan or something else?
I believe so.
I think it's really important that before we go into an election
that we're having a discussion about the changes to the local plan
because they were a major plank of this administration's work.
So I mean I for one having worked on the previous local plan,
want to know what's happening and what changes are going to be made to it
just to say as per the last planning meeting we did have that conversation
request was made to bring it to this meeting but we've not don't believe the
council's yet received that feedback so I think it was felt that February was a
better time to have that discussion but certainly I think we had even in the
summer yeah all righty I think that means we can bring the meeting to a
Thanks very much everyone.