Interactive webcast player

Transport Overview and Scrutiny Committee
Thursday, 24th September 2026 at 7:30pm

 
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
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

1 Minutes of the Previous Meeting

testing.
I think that works.
Good evening and welcome to this meeting of the Transport Overview and Scrutiny Committee.
This meeting is being webcast and some officers may be accessing virtually.
Please bear with us if we experience any technical difficulties.
My name is Councillor Noel Dupe.
I am the Chair of the Transport Overview and Scrutiny Committee.
Members of the Committee, I will call your names in alphabetical order.
Please switch on your microphone to confirm your attendance.
Once you have confirmed your attendance,
please remember to switch off your microphone.
Councillor Asante.
Yes, I'm here.
Councillor Watson, can I talk to you?
Sorry.
Councillor, Mrs. Graham.
Thank you, Chair.
Angela Graham, Walters Common, Councillor.
Councillor Hopkins.
Toby Hopkins, South Ballum Ward.
Councillor Wilds.
Councillor Zara Wilds, St Mary's Ward.
Councillor Yates.
Councillor Jenny Yates, Councillor for Bromhampton Ward.
Also in attendance is Councillor Austan, Cabinet Member for Transport.
Councillor Nick Alston, West Putney Ward and Cabinet Member for Transport.
And finally, Councillor Sweet.
Hello, Wales Sweet, Councillor Thain, Alms Ward.
There are no apologies for any absences, so we'll move on to the next item.
So members are reminded to ensure that your microphone is turned off unless you are speaking.
When you are called to speak and every time you do speak, please state your name.
Please bear in mind that the committee must remain corey at all times.
We have a number of officers present who will introduce themselves when they address the
Committee.
Okay, so now we'll move on to agenda item number one.
So minutes of the last meeting of the Transport Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on Wednesday,
11 February, 2026.
So, are the minutes of the Transport Overview and Strengths Committee held on 11 February
agreed and can I sign them off?
Agreed.
Okay.
Thank you.
So, we move on to Agenda Item Number 2.

2 Declarations of Interests

declaration of interest.
Are there any declarations of either pecuniary
or other registrable or non -registrable interests?
Please declare any interests.
Yes, Councillor Nicollstein.
I don't think it'll be an issue this evening,
but just for the interest of transparency,
under the London Plan response,
I do work in the property industry
and do work with several developers
that have sites within the borough.
It doesn't come under my portfolio,
but it does come under this committee.
So I just want to declare that.
Thank you, Councillor Alston.
So we move on to agenda item number three.

3 Questions to the Cabinet Member

So this is questions to the cabinet member.
In accordance with section three of the overview
and scrutiny committee procedure rules,
we will now take questions to the cabinet member for transport.
I will be allocating a maximum of 15 minutes for this agenda item.
In the interest of fairness, each councillor will have the opportunity to ask one question
and further questions will be permitted after all councillors have had the opportunity
to ask questions to the cabinet member of transport.
First question, Councillor Yates.
Thank you very much, Chair.
I would like to ask the cabinet member about car clubs and where we are up to now.
As members of the committee probably know, unfortunately, Zipcar withdrew from operating
from the UK at the beginning of this year.
And of course, that was very detrimental
to ones with residents as there were more than
60 ,000 car club members in the borough at that time.
So in paper 2634 to the Transport Committee
on the 11th of February, we updated the committee
on the efforts the council make
to attract alternative car club providers.
So it'd just be really good to get an update
from the cabinet member on what's been done since
to attract alternative providers,
to get an update on how many of the 122 bays
that were left vacant by Zipcar or were unoccupied
have now been taken by other car club operators.
It would be helpful to get an indication
of when the vacant car club bays will be repurposed
for other uses and to confirm what was set out
and agreed in paper 2634 that the order of preference
for the usage of the vacant car club bays
unlikely to be taken by any other car club operator
would be first of all e -bikes, e -scooter bays,
then bike hangers, then EV charging,
and then finally resident parking permit bays.
Thank you very much.
Thank you very much, Councillor Leat.
Just wanted to say before I start,
just to welcome her back and say that,
I'd just like to thank her for that.
I know she worked very hard for the residents
of Wandsworth in this position over the last three years,
and I just wanted to put on record a thank you
for that hard work over the last three years.
And I want to thank you also for advanced sight
of the question.
So on point A, providing an update
and attract alternative providers,
we have waived any fees up until at least April 2027
and agreed less administration to reduce operator costs
such as not requiring formal contracts.
and there's been regular officer contact
with the current and potential operators.
On point two, number of bays,
there are currently 133 on -street car club bays
in the borough roads, 87 of which were vacated by Zipcar,
and some of the others were also vacated.
66 car club bays are now occupied or committed
to car clubs, including two new operators to the borough,
and by the end of Q4 2026, we will have car clubs
operated by Enterprise, Co -Wheels,
Hire Car and Kendall Go.
On point three, indicating how the club bays
will be repurposed.
Following the change of administration,
changes in ward councillors, we have reconsulted
on replacing car club bays and expect them
to be repurposed in Q4 2026 and Q1 2027.
And then in final point of order of preference,
this paragraph was revised by the committee on the night
and follows no changes been made since then.
So that was one, e -biking new scooters,
two, bike hangers, three, an EV charging,
four, new country and number four, community use,
and number five, residents parking permits.
Final decisions have yet to be taken
and ward council reviews will be important in that process.
There is no need to amend this order of preference.
We know from a paper elsewhere on the agenda
that more e -bike bays are required.
However, the suitability for card club bays
and bike hangers, charge points,
and community use are considered.
Next question, Councillor Mrs Graham.
Thank you, Chair.
My question to you is how has the impact of fair funding affected the financial situation
in transport?
Thank you very much, Councillor Graham.
We've been hit from both sides, as we will find out later on,
with the London Plan response.
The London Plan has asked for us to double our housing provision
in the plan over the next four years,
yet it has actually cut our sill
that we will receive from that provision by 50%.
That is then also on top of an £84 million reduction
in our central government funding
that will start being phased in as of April 2027
over a three year period.
So we are having to look at the budget very carefully.
As I'm sure this will come up more in the finance committee
and people will be able to ask Councillor Peter Graham
questions on the budget and on financing.
We are still looking at that budget and making those decisions.
But as you know from the paper later on there are some
and they have some difficult choices that have had to be made as a result.
Any more questions? Councillor Asante.
Thank you, Chair. I would like to ask the cabinet member, has the Battersea Park CPZ
reduced problems for residents and will the Council review its impact? Thank you.
Thank you very much, Councillor Sandie, and also welcome to your place here as well, and
I hope you enjoy the meetings that we have. Thank you, Mr. Addiford, for his response
on this. Changes introduced by the Bath Sea Park CPZ following the 2024 review have delivered
significant improvements for resident permit holders and their visitors. By extending the
operational days and hours of the zone, the scheme has successfully discouraged commuter
and destination parking associated with Battersea Power Station and the nearby Underground Station,
helping to ensure that the parking spaces remain available to local residents. The review
also incorporated a number of road safety improvements, including the introduction of
double yellow lines at the junctions and other locations where parked vehicles were causing
visibility issues or obstructing the safe movement of traffic and pedestrians.
While some concerns were raised during the implementation phase,
particularly regarding the loss of some parking spaces,
due to additional double yellow lines
and the requirement for visitors to pay for parking,
these concerns have largely subsided.
More recently, the council has received very few complaints
regarding the operation of the CPZ.
This contrasts with the position prior to the review
when residents living in the surrounding roads,
sorry, visiting in the roads surrounding Battersea Park
regularly reported difficulties in finding parking spaces
for themselves and their visitors, especially at weekends.
The reduction in complaints together
with the improved parking conditions
now being experienced by residents
indicates that the current arrangements
are operating effectively,
and that further review of the CPZ
is not considered necessary at this time.
The council's records show that complaints
relating to the implementation of the Battersea Part CPZ have been limited and do not indicate
any significant ongoing concerns.
Next question, Councillor Wilds.
Thank you, Chair.
Councillor Wilds, St Mary's.
I think maybe historically with – can't hear me?
No, you don't need me.
Everyone.
There tends to be or has been a feeling that we have a lot of individual schemes going
on, different major works on the bridges, on the transport systems.
I just wanted to ask the cabinet member if there is a look at the cumulative effect across
the borough as a whole, taking into account traffic displacement when we do something
on one road or close one road and whether we're working with officers to look at that
sort of projected domino impact of when we're putting in place particular works rather than
just isolated schemes.
Thank you very much, Councillor Wells. Yes, so we, there are a number of issues that happen
within the borough and one of them is emergency works and another is planned works that cause
traffic disruption to all users whether it be bicycle, pedestrian, vehicle or bus.
And I have asked the officers to look at that and make sure that going forward especially in
in hotspot areas like Lower Richmond Road, Putney High Street, Battersea Bridge Road, Tooting Broadway, places that those
permits are put in place.
It absolutely is emergency work that needs to be carried out and any routine maintenance work can be done outside of
of peak time, so during half term school holidays, summer periods.
We also have the issue that the number of bridges in the area
just keeps reducing and reducing.
We now we have Hammersmith Bridge, which we are all very,
very aware of.
And we have Albert Bridge that is now closed
and we have Vauxhall Bridge with a weight restriction.
So that traffic is being suppressed into areas like Battersea Park
and St Mary's and into areas like Putney.
We need to look at how we can get that traffic
of all types and moving.
I had a meeting with TFL today on a couple of schemes
of which the bus times and the slowing down of bus times
in these areas was brought up.
And myself and the leader of both supported
major structure fund bids recently for Albert Bridge
and for Vauxhall Bridge.
It remains the administration's position
that we will not support any structures fund bid
for Hammersmith Bridge that does not open it to all traffic.
Thank you. Any more questions for the cabinet member?
Councillor Yeats.
Thank you, Chair, for permitting another question from me.
And thank you to the cabinet member
for the update on the car clubs.
And it's good to know about the new operators.
Now, my question is about the scheme
that we announced in February this year
to make grants available to residents
to instal cross -pavement EV charging cable channels outside their properties. Obviously,
these won't be suitable for all properties, but they will be for some, and some residents
are very keen to instal them. Obviously, this would prevent trip hazards from residents
just going ahead and putting a cable across the pavement. The Council received a grant
of £175 ,000 for the Department for Transport for this scheme, but it doesn't yet appear
to be operational, so please could the cabinet maybe give us an update on when that grant
scheme is going to get started and why it hasn't started yet.
Thank you very much, Councillor, for that. And thank you again for an advanced side to
the question. Whilst the direction of travel has clearly been signposted that there is
cross -party support for cross -pavement charging solutions, when the matter was considered
by the OSC, there was no formal authority
to introduce the scheme, and the chronology
of that, we went into the pre -election period in March.
Then had the new administration in May,
and the subsequent changes in decision
was not considered an urgent matter.
But we anticipate the scheme to be up and running this year.
In the interim, people have been able to register
of their interest online and we'll contact them accordingly.
Just say on top of that, since it was brought
to my attention in your question,
it'll be something I'll certainly be following up on.
If somebody lives on a residential road
with on -street parking, it's something
I'm keen to see implemented.
Thank you, Councillor Sweet.
Thank you, Chairman.
I'm a Councillor for Nine Elms Ward
and I don't normally sit on this committee,
so I hope you'll allow me to ask a specific question about my ward.
Chelsea Bridge is an important conduit into the borough that you've already alluded to.
It's in a very poor condition aesthetically.
I don't believe it's been painted for many, many years.
There's a lot of graffiti on it.
The paint is peeling off and it's a pretty unpleasant experience
for residents of Nine Elms and Battersea Park wards to walk across.
I understand that the bridge is not owned
or maintained by Wandsworth,
but I wondered whether you would undertake
to write to the relevant neighbouring authorities
to request them to maintain the aesthetic appearance
of the bridge better.
Thank you very much for that, Councillor Sweet.
You'll have to forgive me that I'm not completely
up to speed on that.
However, as you know, there was a number of bridges
that were owned by Ausan Network Rail
that were repainted in the last 12 months,
and we certainly want to see the rest of those things.
So I will certainly take that away
and make sure that I push that for him.
Councillor Yates.
Thank you very much, Chair Yeates.
Final question from me.
So I wanted to thank the cabinet member
for responding so swiftly and positively
to the petition that I presented
at the full cabinet, full council meeting in July
from the Putney Vale residents associations
who are very anxious to have zebra crossings
on the big roundabout by ASDA just off the A3
and at the entrance to the Putney Vale Estate.
The residents association members were really,
really thrilled by that positive response
and I just wondered if we could get an update on progress
and with designing those zebra crossings.
I know there has to be TFL approvals
and when they might be likely to be installed.
And thank you very much, Councillor, for that question.
Yes, no, when you presented the position
earlier on in the year, it's certainly something
that pricked my ears, as somebody goes down that area
as well to use the supermarket and things down there.
So the form response is officers are currently reviewing
the design options internally and would, in due course,
submit our proposal to Transport for London
for their comments and approval.
It's worth noting that this can be a lengthy process,
as there are various site constraints
at the roundabout by ASDA,
and TFL has previously considered a signalised roundabout
as the best course of action.
At present, it is not possible to revise
on an implementation timetable,
as the project scope may evolve
depending on the TFL's feedback.
However, I can assure you that officers are aware of this
and have made it a priority scheme.
I think that myself and Councillor Asante are probably particularly interested in this,
but to my earlier point, it has a knock -on effect across the rest of the borough.
Could we have a status update on discussions with TfL on proposals for Battersea Bridge
and the impact that's causing in St. Mary's,
Battersea Park, and the wider area.
Yes, thank you very much, Councillor, for that question.
Myself and the officers had a meeting with TFL today
on a number of schemes and proposals
from the ones with one -way system
and Putney High Street along with Battersea Bridge Road as well.
As you know, that road is a TFL road
it is solely within their discussion as to what they do
with that road.
They have made some significant changes and that is in the
process of ongoing as well.
And I think that TFL were left in no uncertain terms how I
feel that the scheme needs to be progressed and how the
changes need to be made in order to get safety levels up
and traffic moving down that road.
I'm meeting with councillors and officers on site on Wednesday.
I will extend an invitation to you later on if you would like to join us for that in order
to discuss and have a walkabout of the area.
Thank you.
Councillor, Mrs Graham.
Thank you, Chair.
It's actually coming back to the question on the electrical connexions for cars coming
from the homes.
Are you saying that, I just want to repeat the question, you got a grant for that, did
you? And so how much would the grant, could I speak through you, how much was the grant
for?
So it was for £175 ,780.
Yes. And so thank you for that clarification. But my question is, I think it's a little
is, will the council have the responsibility of putting those in?
That's an opposite answer.
Because who would have the responsibility
if it became a trip hazard?
Would it be the council?
Or that may be a practical question as regards to.
But also, as it's a grant, it will run out.
and so first come, I presume would be first served.
Thank you.
Thank you very much, Councillor, for that.
I'm actually, if I can, revert to Mr. Tiddley
on this question as he knows the detail.
Thank you, Chair.
David Tiddley, the Head of Transport Strategy.
So yes, the government has given us a grant
to help subsidise the delivery of the cable gullies
so residents will pay the council
effectively less than they would normally have to pay for such works.
The cable itself will actually be buried within the pavement,
so it would not present a trip hazard.
As you rightly suggest, it would be on a first -come, first -serve basis.
And I think the only other thing I'd probably also add
is that the government have also signposted that they expect shortly
to amend the permitted development order
to make the actual delivery of a charge point in your house a permitted development,
which will also make it cheaper for residents to apply and to get the scheme into the street.
Thank you.
Thank you. There's no further questions for the cabinet member.

4 Lane Rental Scheme (Paper No. 26-214)

Okay, so we move on to agenda item number four,
which is the lane rental scheme,
and it's Mr Giles Radford, I believe.
Chair, I just had a question of clarification.
So with the spending review paper that came late,
when are we going to take that paper?
So that will be the last item.
The last item, okay, thank you.
Yes, go on, please.
We welcome the introduction of the Lane -Rancliffe scheme and it is something that I've discussed
with officers.
Oh, I'm terribly sorry.
I thought you were asking for questions.
No, no, sorry.
So yes, so we move on to the Lane -Rancliffe scheme and this is Mr Giles Redford.
Thank you, Chair.
I'll just introduce myself.
I'm Charles Radford, Director of Highway Operations
and Street Scene.
The paper in front of you today asks members
to support the next stage in developing
a lane rental scheme for Wandsworth.
Lane rental allows the council to charge utilities
and other works promoters for occupying
the most traffic -sensitive roads at the busiest times,
creating a financial incentive to reduce disruption
and complete works more efficiently.
The decision before members here today
is to approve further development of the scheme,
commence a required consultation process,
and allow officers to take the scheme
through the statutory approval process.
We will then return to committee with a paper in early 2027
with a view to implementation from the 1st of April, 2027.
Happy to take any questions.
Any questions for Mr Radford?
Councillor Yates?
Thank you very much, Chair, and thank you for the introduction to the paper, Mr. Radford.
So with this lane rental scheme, so this is something I discussed with officers of the
cabinet member and have been waiting for officers to bring forward. I'm very glad that it has
come forward now. We welcome its introduction. Now in paragraph 3 .8 of the paper, it says
the scheme will apply to quotes, designated traffic sensitive routes. So please could
would you tell us which these routes are?
And I would further urge officers to really crack on
with developing and getting this scheme in place.
Like I said, it has been pending for quite a long time
and a lot of other boroughs do have it already.
So I'm not really quite sure why Wandsworth is so behind.
Yeah, just to answer the question.
Yeah, so yeah, traffic sensitive streets are set by TFL
as part of the routes.
You do have an opportunity to say
if there's additional routes you feel that would merit
going on that list as well.
So do make that clear to us.
That comes as part of the consultation
and the statutory process.
In terms of timing, it's all about the tranches
that have been working through with TFL.
So Tran2 has gone.
This is the next trance.
It's a London, pan -London exercise.
So we're doing it in partnership with some of the other
boroughs at the same time as well.
So we have to go in line with when the tranches
are available to progress.
Any other questions?
Councillor Yeats.
Sorry, Wells.
Thank you, thank you, Chair.
Just following up from Councillor Yeats,
perhaps the question is perhaps part
of the consultation process.
Are you assessing particular,
apart from designated sensitive areas,
particular criteria that will be applied
in order to put this scheme in place for certain roadworks?
Is that part of the consultation process, first question?
And second question is, how are we thinking about
measuring the impact of implementing this?
Mr. Redford?
No problem, yeah, so it's pan -London,
TFL set the routes, the opportunity for a bit of
give and take on the routes, but not much more than that.
So it's all to do with the traffic sensitivity aspect.
They have their routes dedicated across London,
we have to play by that.
Second one, sorry just reiterate your question there.
So it's how do we measure kind of success
is what I felt like with that.
Yeah so there's obviously the permitting scheme
that comes in place.
We'll monitor that.
There's a set amount of data that comes out of this
where you have like a digital business partner
that can analyse all the information for you.
And obviously there's a monetary incentive as well.
So for them to do their work within a certain amount
of time.
So there's the monetary aspects as well.
So there's the efficiencies, there's the data capture
So we can provide that to yourselves.
And then obviously any overruns or anything of that nature
will be a monetary value as well.
So we would look down the line
once it's implemented onto the impact it's having
in terms of improving the timing efficiency
for the roadwork.
That would be measured.
Okay.
Thank you.
Counsellor Assiante.
Yeah, I just wanted to ask,
and what evidence is there from other borrowers
that have already used the network intel,
that they do actually reduce end -conjuration,
and then it'll result in a better work coordination
as stated in the paper.
Thank you.
So there's, obviously not in this paper,
but there's a series of data across London
of other boroughs that have taken this on board.
A lot of boroughs are progressing with this,
which would allude to the fact that it's successful
and it works well.
And there's a Pan -London group as well
that takes that kind of data and analyses it.
this process is to be working well across London.
I can bring you further details on that, but yeah.
Councillor, Mrs. Graham.
Thank you, Chair.
So, I'll say a couple of consultation.
About two summers ago in Heathfield Road,
we had a very successful nursery.
And naturally Thames Water, I do believe,
has a commitment up until 2030 to complete piping
within our borough as such.
And it was very distressing for that nursery in the fact
that it literally did reduce the success of the business.
And they came to me.
And I'm very glad they did, because not
that they forget, they just think in their terms and not
the impact on businesses and people living within the borough
which has the impact of all these holes for a long time.
So in your consultation, are you actually
going to consult businesses and the wider public
So that A, it actually does advertise the fact
that we're very keen on it being short and sweet.
And residents should have a say.
I don't know where it is, but it doesn't say consultation.
But I know you are going to consult
as soon as we agree this.
I just wondered, will it go to Chamber of Commerce?
And so you can actually get the bigger picture,
because it really does impact definitely on congestion of cars but also on the businesses
as well. Just one bit of reassurance please.
Yes, so again to refer back to the point that the TFL set the standard of what the Consultation
Statutory Process looks like so we must follow that. It's their scheme, it's their initiative
but we utilise it for our traffic sensitive streets. I would say in the other example
go back to Thames Water, that new roads, street works act and the traffic management act still
apply to all utility works, whether they're on the traffic sensitive street or your everyday
street as well. So there's other acts there that apply to that kind of the processes of
utilities working upon our roads. So hopefully that answers your question.
I do have concern for businesses because they really are suffering and I just wonder perhaps
some media awareness also separately through our services.
We could advertise this.
It's just my thought anyway.
Thank you.
Sorry, can I just jump in on that point?
The scheme's designed to allow people who use,
working on the lanes to reduce the time
that they're on there as much as possible,
not leave works hanging and leave things out.
So I would this is absolutely designed for businesses in order to keep the roads
free and clear as quickly as possible with any major work, so I would
Hope and intention is that that has a major positive impact on businesses in the area
Any more questions we've got in the paper
Yeah
Thank you. So the report is just for information. So move on to the next item on the agenda,

5 Hire E-Bikes Fair Use Charter (Paper No. 26-215)

item number five. So it is the Higher e -bikes Fair Use Charter. And we have Mr Tittle.
Thank you, Chair. This paper recommends a fair use charter for e -bikes. E -bikes provide
a convenient 24 -7 travel option for many people and journeys contributing to sustainable travel
objectives. They've quickly become part of the transport mix in the borough. In excess
of 10 million e -bike trips in Wandsworth are expected this year and growth has been at
about 20 % per annum. But e -bikes bring major challenges in respect of the management with
large numbers of complaints about poor rider behaviour and poor parking. Despite efforts
to better manage the bikes, including through the operators issuing warnings and fines,
and the council having occasional crackdowns and removing offending vehicles.
Operators are still failing to adequately address many of the poor parking problems
that we see, particularly leading to many complaints to the council.
The proposed fair use charter attempts to address this by taking a more robust approach
to managing the schemes.
It takes the best from our existing arrangements with the operators,
strengthening this by adding more visible reporting and monitoring of behaviour,
a greater expectation of the apps and IT to foresee problems before they happen,
rather than having to be responsive to problems.
And also proposes the establishment of a dedicated council enforcement team
to ensure expectations of the operators are met,
specifically to avoid the daily complaints that we receive about often the same issues and the same locations which could not be inadequately addressed.
Members of the Committee are invited to consider the Charter and may wish to suggest additions or deletions, strengthening or softening in advance of the matter being considered by Cabinet.
Going forward, the Cabinet paper recommends that the Director of Growth and Place has delegated powers to make amendments to the Charter as considered necessary.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you.
Any questions regarding the paper?
Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Mr Sidli.
I welcome the implementation of this charter.
I think it's great to put in the two -hour removal
and looking at the additional base.
I would just ask if there was consideration
of enough accountability given to the operators
should these measures not be adhered to?
And perhaps the charter isn't strong enough
on what those accountability points
might be for the operators.
Is that something still under review
or something we can consider further?
How are we holding them to account
for not meeting these new measures?
Okay, so we propose to have regular,
the operators are required to provide us
with regular monitoring data,
we would have monthly meetings to discuss their performance,
and if they're not being seen to be meeting their requirements,
they would be expected to put in place mitigation measures
to get them back on track.
And then clearly we also have the ability
for the enforcement against offending bikes,
and ultimately, the ultimate sanction
would be to cancel arrangements
or seek to amend the arrangements more permanently.
I'm more than happy to consider how we might strengthen that element in the charter.
Thank you.
Yeah, I think maybe we can look at some specific measures for that.
Thank you.
Councillor Yates.
Thank you, Chair.
Yeah, so with the e -bikes, goodness me, this took up a lot of my time as the cabinet member.
I had many discussions with Lime, with Forest, with officers.
as Mr. Tiddley couldn't tell you, I'm sure.
So I think one thing we do need to recognise at the beginning
that huge numbers of Wandsworth residents
are using these e -hired bikes.
They're enormously popular in this borough.
I mean, the paper gives us some data.
In July, there were 1 .2 million e -bike trips in Wandsworth.
Now, they won't all be by Wandsworth residents.
They're just trips that start and more are within the borough.
But the paper says there are 150 ,000 active users.
You know, that's an enormous number.
We've got 330 ,000 residents in Wandsworth.
And so we need to welcome the bikes,
because evidently our residents are finding them
extremely useful.
And also, obviously, if they're using the bikes,
then hopefully that means they're not using cars,
and we've got improved air quality and less congestion
on our roads.
So I think we really need to start by noting
and welcoming that.
And we really welcome, and I thank the cabinet member
for the paper's commitment to continuing
the flexible parking model.
So we introduced a system whereby you have to park
within a designated bay in our busy town centres,
but you can park flexibly outside those busy areas
as long as you park the bike responsibly.
And there's good evidence showing, for example,
that that improves women's safety.
They can get home safely at night.
They really value that.
So I'm really pleased that you're continuing basically that model, which had unanimous
support from all of us, from one Labour and Conservative, during the Labour administration.
Now under Labour, we already put in place MOUs with the operators. They're not recent.
We put them in place some time ago, and then they were updated earlier this year, as the
paper says. I also obliged Lime to draw up an operational improvement plan to get them
to manage their bikes better.
And we introduced an enforcement scheme
that came in last September, and it operated until March.
It was due to carry on, but then there
was the change administration, the spending review.
There's been a gap.
So it's good that the enforcement scheme
is coming back in and that you've strengthened it.
I'm very relieved that you now have access
to the Lime dashboard on where the Lime bikes are,
because that was something that was a great bone of contention
for us with Lime.
and we had many discussions with Lime
about why they hadn't given us that access,
which they were supposed to give us
under our agreements with them.
So, now I think that really exemplifies an important point.
I mean, the Fair Use Charter, it's a good thing,
but basically what's in it is what is already in the MOUs
and in the Comco UK accreditation document
that Lime and Forest just signed up to.
So, I do think that there is a key issue,
which is, it is there in the paper, it says,
in paragraph on page 16, that it's compliance
with commitments that the operators have already made
that is the issue, it's that compliance,
as you know, and Councillor Wiles was raising that point.
And it also says on page 14 that the council
doesn't currently, isn't satisfactorily resourced, it says,
to enforce breaches of the MOUs,
and I do think that that is the case.
So, it would be good to get some more kind of assurance from officers or the cabinet
member on how the Fair Use Chart is really going to help, given they're already obliged
to do nearly all the things that are in it.
And then I would...
I assume that's the question.
And my next question is, or, you know, comment is that I do really agree that there needs
to be more staff resource, not just for the enforcement, but for that dialogue with the
operators.
We were already having monthly meetings with them,
but basically this has grown hugely
and we don't really have enough staff resource
to hold the operators to account.
And we need more staff resource
to get all these new bays in, which is quite complicated.
And then I want to just draw your attention
to two particular areas where line bikes continue to be.
A really big problem for residents,
and they have been for a long time.
And one of them is Thessaly Road in Battersea,
and Councillor Apps is tearing her hair out about that.
that's been going on for ages.
And Councillor Austin, if you're able to get
some real attention on that with the operators,
that would be fantastic.
It's really a problem.
And then on Grant Road also in Battersea,
the line bikes are blocking the entrance to the Falcons.
I got an extremely angry email about that this week
with a lot of photographs.
So yes, I mean, they're good things,
but it's that compliance and it's that capacity
in the council that I think are the issues.
Thank you very much Councillor Rogers. I'll jump in on the general bits and then Mr.
Bradford and Mr. Tidley can jump in on the detail. First of all, yes, I think I mentioned
at full council last week with regards to the flexible scheme that we've adopted with
this and I had long discussions with Councillor Hedges, the cabinet member, for opportunity
on this and she pressed the point of rider safety,
particularly female safety, and it's actually something
that's at the heart of that decision making.
I think all of our inboxes are getting a lot of emails
of problem areas in all of our wards.
I arrived this evening on a line bike,
other operators are available, and I arrived
at 11 o 'clock this morning for a meeting on a line bike.
again, other operators are available.
So it is something that I use frequently
and I'm a big supporter of,
and want to see the very much increased growth
within the borough.
And as you said, we've got 150 ,000 users
and 1 .2 million trips.
Actually, the vast majority of those trips
are short resident trips, not from out of boroughs.
So it is actually quite surprising
how many people are hopping within the borough
from work to home and like myself.
We do have issues and we need to make sure
that we clamp down those issues.
If you ask tail counselling apps,
I will get on to her and come back to her on that tomorrow.
The enforcement knowledge has been something
that I have been, if we're going to do this,
we need to absolutely make sure that we've got
the teams in place to enforce them.
Mr. Radford and Mr. Sidley have been working hard on that,
so I'll defer to their better knowledge on that one.
Councillor Mrs Graham.
Thank you, Chair.
I've actually got three, so I'll knock them in.
Oh, it's not me.
Oh, yeah, Mr Radford.
That's okay, thank you.
Yeah, so I think David's explained
from the policy point of view
how the charts will work and function.
From an enforcement point of view,
we've got dedicated operatives
with the vehicles going around the borough,
The providers have a timeframe to do what they need to do with them,
but we are going out and enforcing as well.
We have already been doing that and we are going to continue to do that moving forward.
So you will have a dedicated workforce that take that on.
We could also, when we do get hold of that,
we can also charge that back to the providers as well, so it covers our costs.
Mr Tittle, anything to add?
I just wanted to probably just pick up on Councillor Yates' points as well.
about sort of what's different and what's changed.
Obviously, this summer we've seen, say,
a 20 % increase in usage.
So that's led to additional demands
and additional complaints.
So it's something that we clearly needed
to respond to as well.
As you say, one of the bigger problems
isn't so much that they're not expected
to address problems within fixed time scales,
but to a certain extent, they're not doing it.
And you rightly raised the issue of Fezzily Road,
where every morning there's an email about how poor the condition is there.
So quite clearly what we're trying to do is to ensure that the operators
are able to address that themselves more adequately to begin with,
and then if they can't, we will have the resource to deal with it.
So there's really two things that we're looking for really,
is just better compliance on their side and better compliance
and the ability to enforce on our side as well. Thanks.
Thank you.
I think Mrs. Graham had a question which was cut off.
Thank you, Chair.
My questions, I note in 3 .12, updated,
supplemented to accommodate the adoption of the charter,
which is welcome, but there's a timeframe.
And also, how are you going to manage the mix of bikes?
Because they'll be coming in like dribs and drabs.
My next question is, even though it's not e -bikes,
but it's e -bikes, I have a business who sells pizzas.
And I have 12 pizza bikes, e -bikes.
And it was actually taking up the cycling
loops for residents.
Are you actually looking at licencing and businesses in the future? That is a further question.
But also, as regards to e -bikes, I've always done junior citizens and I do feel that should be an opportunity to make those aware of the potential of e -bikes.
and my other one is housing.
How far are we involved with housing
as regards to e -bikes, especially on the council roads,
but also the estate roads as well?
I'm sorry, it's a long one, but.
Okay, I'll try to take, I'll take them in turn.
Yeah, I'll take them in turn.
OK, so the fleet size is currently set out in our agreements
and will be repeated in future agreements.
So although we would generally
acknowledge that the numbers of bikes in the borough
may be plus or minus a few percent either side of that,
generally speaking, we won't accept a fleet size in the borough
to be substantially higher than that permitted.
And we now know what that is because we have access to their dashboard.
So we effectively have access to their systems now, which allow us to go into their system
and we can see exactly how many bikes there are in the borough at any one time.
So that's something that can now be relatively easily managed.
In terms of the pizza issue, I think you're probably talking more about e -bikes more generally
here, private e -bikes and sometimes illegally modified e -bikes.
And then you have advertising on it, what have you got in their diocesan?
Yeah, it's probably a different issue, but nevertheless, ourselves and Councillor
de la Suheil's, with the Hurley Enforcement Hat and Neil Furlow, the Director of Public Protection,
we are all speaking together on how we deal with that issue, but it's not part of the higher e -bike
scheme as such. It's a rule that for a rider with an e -bike, a higher e -bike needs to be 18,
so it shouldn't necessarily be an issue for... We do occasionally get underused users of it.
If underused people are using e -bikes, they're probably using them illegally. So that's something
that we're happy to take up as well. And yes, problems on housing estates will be considered
just like problems anywhere else. Thank you. So that sounds like an enforcement issue.
Just on Councillor Graham, just on the, I think what you were saying, the big wheels,
fat bikes that are used by delivery drivers, I'm actually meeting with the Borough Commander
to do an enforcement day, I won't say where, this week, at a certain time. It is,
as Councillor de Ziaoziul can't be with us,
so I'm standing in for her.
It is something we were ramping up.
They come under a different,
they're probably wearing bikes
that go over a certain kilowatt and a certain speed.
That is a criminal matter,
not a, these are perfectly legal licenced bikes
that we're dealing with in this paper.
Councillor Hopkins, you had a question?
Thank you.
We note the paper says the executive director
for growth and place is going to consider
of the merits of tendering for e -bike operators.
And I think there may be a good number of merits,
including strengthening around enforcement and compliance
that we've talked about.
Because we've talked about the challenges that people
walking face with e -bikes.
We talked about the opportunities
that people have using e -bikes.
150 ,000 e -bike users every month.
Is that a quarter or maybe as much as half
of Wandsworth residents using e -bikes to get around.
So I just wanted to ask the cabinet member,
will the cabinet member ensure that the tender process
provides the best possible offer for residents
and isn't just about the best financial result
for the council?
Thank you very much.
Yes, absolutely.
It's an all -around tender process.
It is not done on one criteria,
so we'll be looking at all elements of it.
Councillor Sweet.
Thank you, Chairman.
My question is about the financial impact
on the Council of the Enforcement Team.
And I think Mr. Tiddley said something
I'd love to get a bit more detail on.
I completely understand and support the idea
of the Council being able to enforce the MOU
and make sure that providers are being respectful
of residents' needs.
You said that where the Council has to intervene
on a compliance matter, we would be compensated
by the operators.
How will that work?
And in particular, given that the Fair Use Charter
commits to a two -hour timescale for the operators
to remove bikes.
I just want to make sure that we're not needlessly spending
money that should actually be delivering a service
paid for by operators.
Okay, so I'm following the process through.
So at the moment, part of the current MOUs
and future agreements, the operators are required
to pay the council a sum of funding
to effectively, for the benefit of operating in the borough.
So some of that money will be used to fund the enforcement effort.
That said, the enforcement effort will also require the operators
to basically pay to get their bikes back.
So that should then provide an income stream
which would make any enforcement effort self -financing after a certain time.
You're absolutely correct.
What we really want to see is improved compliance by the operator,
improve performance and then we would not need to spend money on our own
enforcement as well.
Councillor Santi.
So we are glad to see the current administration introducing and strengthening this enforcement scheme.
Yes, what I wanted to find out is what hours will the scheme operate
and will it operate at weekend as well? Thank you.
Mr Tepe, do you have anything to answer that?
I think that this is sort of yet to be...
We have the power to deal with obstructions to the highway 24 -7
and so anything that's dangerously obstructing the highway
as can potentially be removed at any time.
I would primarily see the enforcement
be in peak mornings and afternoons
when we have a huge buildup in the borough,
particularly in and near some of our stations,
which cause considerable problems.
But I think we'll just effectively be able
to adjust the enforcement against how we observe
behaviour going forward.
Thank you.
Yes, Councillor Lait.
Thank you, Chair.
So under the access for all scheme, once with residents who are members of access for all,
they got a 50 % discount on using the Lyman Forest bikes.
And now sadly, the Conservative administration is ending access for all.
So please could the cabinet member tell us how are you going to ensure that residents
on low incomes still get discounts on hiring the Lyman Forest Vikes?
I'll have to speak with the cabinet member for finance and come back to you.
No decision has been made as of yet.
I will get more detail and come back to you.
Do members support the recommendations?
questions? Thank you.
Councillor Haynes.
Chair, do we have to move on because we did have a couple more questions?
I thought we just agreed.
I think Councillor Hopkins had his hand up.
Sorry.

6 London Plan Response (Paper No. 26-216)

Yeah, okay. So we'll move on to the next item on the agenda, which is item number six. So
is the London Plan response and I think it's Ms Victoria Gagan.
Thank you, Chair. My name is Victoria Gagan. I'm the Director of Place Planning. I'm also
accompanied by my colleague, Daniel Goodman, who is Principal Policy Officer. So this report
sets out the Council's response to the Mayor's draught London Plan. The London Plan is the
Mayor's strategic planning framework for London and it forms part of our development plan
and sits alongside the council's local plan
in guiding how planning applications are decided and determined.
So it's particularly important for two reasons.
It sets the borough's housing target
and the council's local plan must be in general conformity
with the London plan, which can limit our choices available locally
in the future, so that's why it's important.
I won't go into detail in the report,
but note that while we support its overall ambition for growth,
We are seeking changes to ensure the targets and the policies affecting Wandsworth are realistic,
deliverable and responsive to local circumstances.
For example, on housing, the plan proposes a 20 % increase in Wandsworth's housing delivery target,
and that's increasing to 2 ,343 homes per year.
Whilst we support increasing housing delivery, we question whether this figure is achievable
giving the slowing build -out rates across the borough, falling capacity of
locations such as Nine Elms for example and the challenging housing market
conditions. We also have concerns about the assumption that industrial land will
deliver around 3 ,600 homes so part of our target will be an industrial land.
Given the importance of these sites to the borough's economy we believe
decisions on their future should be determined locally rather than through
London -wide assumptions. We also oppose the proposed removal of the opportunity area status
from Clapham Junction, which risks weakening the case for the investment needed to support its
future growth in station improvements. On affordable housing, we support the objective
of increasing delivery and that we are in the affordable housing band A with a 35 % threshold,
but we're also seeking greater flexibility
to reflect local needs and viability,
particularly around tenure,
the tenure split of affordable housing and mix.
On density in tall buildings,
we're concerned that the opposed approach
to tall buildings and the optimization framework
contained in the plan may not adequately reflect
one's worth diverse character.
We are therefore seeking safeguards
to ensure density remains design -led
and can continue to be shaped through the local plan, our frameworks and our site allocations.
In summary, the Council does support the draught plan's overall direction, but seeks amendments
to ensure that growth expectations are realistic and that the borough retains appropriate local
flexibility. Thank you.
Thank you for your statement. Any questions from members? Councillor Yates.
Thank you very much. So on the affordable housing tenure, which is on page 26, so we're
against that proposed 60 -40 social
to intermediate tenure split.
And our Regulane 19 established a 70 -30 split in Wandsworth
and that was signed off by the planning inspectorate.
The draught London Pen would weaken our policy.
The council's response agrees that forcing 60 -40 split
across the board isn't a good idea,
although the wording focuses on the loss
of local plan autonomy rather than affordable housing.
So I'd like to ask what split does the administration think is the right one?
We adopted a 70 -30 split and it was accepted by the Planning Inspector,
so will the administration commit to pushing for that? And we secured a 70 -30 split on major
schemes even before it was the policy, so will you continue to negotiate upwards on
affordable housing as we did?
Is that for the cabinet member?
Yeah, I mean, I think our response will ultimately be saying
that we want ultimate flexibility in how we set those tenures,
so that can change over time.
So, you know, when the next version of the local plan comes forward,
we'll obviously be looking at that again.
If it concludes 70 -30 is the right tenure split,
then that will go forward in the local plan,
or whatever it concludes at that time.
But the response that we're going to send back is asking for flexibility and saying we don't want it fixed at 60 -40.
Thank you. Councillor Sweet.
I think on this point, labour members would be wise to look at their track records under their policies.
The reality is that housing delivery and planning commission delivery was atrocious on their
watch and the policies that Councillor Yates appears to be so proud of did not deliver
for Wandsworth residents.
70 % of nothing is nothing.
So I fully support this paper giving us flexibility to introduce policies that will actually deliver
housing of all ten years.
Thank you. Any other questions? Councillor Ays.
Yes, I just have to come back on Councillor Sweet. I absolutely disagree with your completely
inaccurate comments on our track record. We did a tremendous job on delivering new council
homes. Of course, there has been a downturn in the housing market across London, ones
with respect to it like every other borough.
Thank you. Any other questions?
Sorry, do members support the recommendation to move back?
Sorry, I have another question.
Sorry, late to be coming on this.
Sorry, I thought we were talking to that specific point.
Oh, yeah. Thank you. Apologies.
The paper states on page 35, paragraph 29,
that the draught plan proposes lower affordable housing requirements for several forms of
development than the current London plan, including public sector land, industrial land
and schemes of 10 to 35 homes, reflecting a greater emphasis on supporting development,
viability and delivery.
The Council's response is proposed to welcome the principle of introducing a more nuanced
policy approach to affordable housing, which reflects the differences in viability in different
parts of London and different sizes of sites.
I want to make clear that Labour doesn't welcome the lower affordable housing requirements
in the draught plan and I want to ask again, why is this administration welcoming a weakening
of affording full housing requirements?
Thank you.
I'm trying, because of the, I'm trying not to, this is obviously a political question.
The cost of a skip has gone up by two pound fifty per metric tonne.
The cost of a piece of two by four has gone up by five pounds a yard.
The cost of building and construction has gone up by twenty five percent.
We're not saying that we are, what we are saying is we want that ultimate flexibility
to actually be able to afford to deliver housing.
Fifty percent of zero is still zero.
Seventy percent of zero is still zero.
So we need to work within the parameters of affordability
and viability on the schemes,
and we need to get the number of units delivered
in this borough back up again.
So following up on that, the Labour administration
delivered a large number, hundreds of new council homes
across the borough.
We see council homes being scrapped
as the Tory administration comes in.
But the key point here is that our own planning officers
could demonstrate that we could hit 45 % fast -track approach for affordable housing on the majority
of our major sites. So the question is, you're talking about the general context across London,
why are you undermining our local context and one's worth unique conditions to prop
up arguments about London -wide viability?
Can we stick to the paper, please?
As was put down in the paper, we're asking for flexibility.
We're not asking for numbers.
It will be delivered on a viability scheme
on a case -by -case basis.
Thank you.
So, Councillor, yes, last question.
So, please, can officers tell us
when we'll get an update on the Regulation 19
small sites policy that was signed off by the inspector,
and are we getting our £50 ,000 per site
towards council housing?
So that policy has been implemented.
We have seen a slowdown in residential applications
coming forward more generally,
but the policy is implemented.
So if somebody comes in with a site for nine units or less,
that policy will apply to them.
Thank you. Do members support the recommendation? Yeah, thank you. So we move on to the next

7 Putney High Street Update (Paper No. 26-217)

item on the agenda, which is the Putney High Street update and is Mr Henry Chang.
Thank you, Chair. Good evening, councillors. This paper presents an update on Putney High
Street posted November 25 Committee paper. There has been lots of improvements since
including the recent removal of the traffic island
outside Snappy Snaps and the Carriageway Widening Works
outside TK Max reported in that paper.
There have also been new interventions,
such as removing the bus lane trial on Putney Bridge Road
and reinstating two traffic lanes on Putney Bridge Road
leading to the high street, reinstatement of the left turn
for cyclists from Putney Bridge Road onto Putney High Street
and a current one -way trial on Wyse Road.
If you can indulge me for a brief second,
I'd like to give a quick update on what's the bridge
because we removed the temporary traffic lights
north of the bridge on Monday evening,
and this is actually improved traffic flow
on and on to the roundabouts,
and this in turn has a positive impact
on Putney Bridge Road.
The main ask in this paper is to relocate
the bridge crossing further south,
and this will mean the allocated green time
for Lower Richmond Road would not be dependent
on pedestrian demand.
Effectively, based on current timing,
this will mean Lower Richmond Road
will enjoy 42 seconds consistently,
as opposed to 25 seconds when someone presses a button
and for the pedestrian crossing on the bridge.
Other recommendations in the paper
include making the various trials
that are currently underway permanent,
and this will include the likes of removing
the bus lane outside the Odeon Cinema,
and WO lines on Partly High Street, Partly Bridge Road,
and Lower Richmond Road, which has proven
to be effective in easing traffic.
Regarding the current trial on Wise Road,
I just want to say we are currently using
a temporary traffic order to bring in
this trial restriction quickly
towards ongoing traffic concerns since 2023,
when residents of Wise Road presented them
the council with a petition asking for one -way street
from Litchburn Road towards Felsham Road.
Please be assured no trial will be made permanent
without proper residents consultation.
This is likely to take place post the bridge crossing work
and there will be a regular monitoring of traffic throughout this period.
Residents may have already noticed there are black tubes on the ground in the local area
currently. These are traffic surveys collecting speed and traffic volume data to inform the
child's effectiveness and its impact. Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Mr Chiang. Any questions regarding the paper?
Councillor Sweet.
Thank you Mr Chian for the very helpful update.
I just want to get a bit of clarity on the movement of the pedestrian crossing further south.
I completely support these measures to improve the flow of traffic, which is a long -standing issue,
which I know that ward councillors have been standing up for for many years.
How will we, however, ensure that it's safe for pedestrians
to cross the road as well as for cars to navigate
the Nola Richmond Road intersection?
Thank you, Councillor.
So just pre -scheme, and the reason why the scheme
was necessary was because there were safety concerns
for both pedestrians and cyclists,
and as part of that implementation,
and we removed the very small traffic islands
that were having various three -stage crossings
across the whole junction,
and we introduced two -stage crossings on all three arms,
including a cycle gate,
and an advanced stop -start line for cyclists,
and a segregated cycling pedestrian
on Pawnee High Street for cyclists.
With the current proposal to relocate the crossing,
I don't think it compromised safety at all,
and the reason that is is because we're retaining
the large traffic islands that we have done.
We've continued to retain two of the two -stage crossings
and it's because we need to separate the dependency
of the bridge crossing from the left turns,
which is why we've opted to move that further south.
Notwithstanding the fact that able bodies
may choose to ignore them and not follow
the prescribed route for pedestrians to cross the road,
but in terms of safety provisions,
it is still absolute that we have provided
the right measures and taking a balance view
for all road users for the use of this junction.
Thank you, Mr. Shen.
Councillor Ayers.
Yeah, thank you for this paper.
So obviously, I really recognise that the negative impact
on residents of congestion on Putney Bridge
and on Putney High Street,
which has been a very long -standing issue,
but yes, the junction changes did result
in unexpected congestion.
The changes to this junction,
And it was a scheme that we inherited
that the previous conservative board council has pushed very
hard for.
And other Putney stakeholders, such as the Putney Society,
they wanted it in order to make the junction safe
for pedestrians and cyclists.
And the junction changes have done that.
We published the data on that last November.
Many more pedestrians and cyclists
are going through the junction.
There's really been, it's really important
to note that more pedestrians and cyclists are going
through this junction, many more than they were a few years ago.
and fewer pedestrians are crossing on the red lights.
But that unexpected congestion,
I was really, really concerned about that.
And I know it was very difficult for residents,
and it slowed the busses that so many people rely on.
So we took a whole number of measures
to improve the traffic flow.
And they did improve the traffic flow,
particularly the change in the light timings
that were implemented late last year
that we got TFL to implement.
So they did reduce the queuing on Lower Richmond Road.
So that is now really a morning peak, our issue.
And no more needs to be done, so I'm very glad to see that the cabinet member is continuing
with measures that we had started but were still in progress when the administration
changed.
But we are really, really concerned about the proposal to revert to the three -stage
crossing over Putney Bridge for the reason that Councillor Sweet raised, because it will
make it slower, it will make it more difficult for people
to cross the bridge.
And that is a key crossing point because it's
on the Thames path.
It's where people cross the road to continue on the Thames path.
And it's moving the crossing point away from the desire
line.
So it's moving the crossing point
from where people actually want to cross.
So as Mr. Chung just said, it is very likely
that pedestrians will just choose
to ignore the fact that there isn't
any longer a pedestrian light there and just
across the road anyway through the traffic, which would
obviously be an unsafe thing to do.
So we are very worried that it will make the junction less
safe for pedestrians.
And there really isn't anything in the paper
about road safety.
You haven't set out a clear case for this very radical change,
which basically undermines a central objective of the scheme
to make the junction safe for pedestrians.
And you haven't presented any data
to justify making such a radical change.
and it's going to cost £450 ,000.
Sorry, can you ask the question, please?
So my questions are, will the cabinet member reconsider
and instead focus on the other changes
to improve the operation of the junction?
So some of them are very recent
and you haven't seen their impact
and they need to be assessed.
Will you consult residents before going ahead
with this radical change?
Because the paper says that residents want this change,
but yes, some residents want this change,
but undoubtedly other residents won't want this change.
And will you consult residents?
But if you're going to insist on going ahead,
will you commit to monitoring
what happens to pedestrian safety?
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
I'll answer the point started.
Mr. Chun Kim coming at the end.
We will always monitor pedestrian safety
and we will continue to monitor pedestrian safety
throughout all of it.
We have looked at various different changes on this,
and you looked at changes on this
when you were the cabinet member.
We've even looked at the option
of reopening the tunnel underneath the bridge
so that people can pass underneath the bridge,
just not cost viable in order to do that.
As with regards to pedestrian safety,
there's certainly something that's monitored,
and it is obviously at the forefront
of every officer's mind, and myself,
and everybody in this room,
and we will continue to monitor that.
I'm told by the officers that it is not going to have an adverse impact on pedestrian safety.
However, the tailback of traffic, my friend Hillary was hit by a lorry on Lower Richmond
Road four weeks ago.
I've watched videos that have been sent to me of children outside Hotham School and Our
Lady of Victory School in St. Mary's Primary that are having to endure horrendous rat running
down Felsham Road.
At the moment, I've had a client of mine that was hit on Farlow Road by a car that was trying
to get off the Lower Richmond Road onto one of the back roads.
We've displaced part of the safety concerns into the Lower Richmond Road and onto Putney
Bridge Road.
The difficult choices have to be made and the roads have to be safe for every single
user.
and this is the option that will increase that green time
by 17 seconds onto the bridge,
allowing more traffic off the Lower Richmond Road
and onto the bridge.
Please ask a follow -up question.
Yeah, go on.
So, on that issue of cars turning off Lower Richmond Road
and going along Belgium Road and those side roads,
but there are other ways to deal with that,
and officers had come up with a range of options,
and it had been our intention,
had we continued to run the administration,
to consult residents, and instead what you've done
is go ahead with that one way on Weiss Road
that residents weren't consulted on.
So wouldn't it be a better idea to consult residents
on those other options that would stop
that cut through of Lower Lichman Road?
This week I've met with members from the one's with cycling lobby, I've met with the Putney Action Group and I've met with other residents.
And I'll spare in mind, I am a resident myself, I live there, just off Vice Road round the back.
So, I mean, on the first day that that one -way operating, I had to make a quick stop because I'd forgotten about my own one -way restriction that had been put in the week before.
So I got caught by, the police raid is a trial,
and that is all at this moment in time.
There is, currently the wires are down on the road,
monitoring is being conducted,
and then we will go back to residence
with the results of that.
There are also, myself and the officers are looking at
various other schemes that can also be looked at
in order to put into place, in order to stop that running.
Nothing is off the table, nothing has been decided,
and nothing is permanent.
Thank you.
Mr. Chen, do you want to add anything?
Just to add on the safety point,
all our designs are subject to safety audited.
And in this case, TFL is responsible
for all traffic lights in the capital.
And they'll be screwed to the design itself,
and they will be designing the junction itself
in terms of operation and timing of the junctions.
So in terms of safety,
it's not just being considered by Wonsworth,
but it is also considered by TFL
and are most independent with a safety order for the scheme.
And we will always carry on monitoring as we do.
And then, so there's plenty of scrutiny in terms of safety
for pedestrians and cyclists and cars for the project.
Thank you.
Any other questions?
Yeah, Mr. Hopkins.
I echo Councillor Yates' concerns about some of the changes
now being proposed and how they could increase
road danger for people walking and cycling.
We're also concerned about the removal of the cycle lane
and the ones on Putney Bridge Road
in the run up to the junction,
and would like to see these reinstated.
We feel that removing them makes the road
much less safe for people cycling,
and critically it really won't bring much benefit
for motor vehicle traffic.
There was a long paper in November
that came to the transport committee,
and that concluded that the impact of the reduced lane at that point was considered negligible.
So can you tell us why the cycle lane has been taken out?
I mean it just seems to make the road less safe for people that are cycling
and not to make much difference for motor traffic flow.
Thank you, Councillor. So I'm conscious what was said in the November Committee paper.
The difference at that time was that the administration has opted to maintain the extended bus lane hour trials.
At present, the current administration have chosen to suspend that trial, meaning it's
no longer necessary.
There's reduced hours of the bus lane, which means that two -lane traffic is possible, which
wasn't at the time when the papers presented in November.
Because of the demand at this junction, we have already seen that there is more than
1100 vehicles crossing that stop line during the morning peak and the afternoon peak hours,
meaning it's actually getting a lot more vehicles
through that and onto the high street.
And thanks to the widening works that's been done
before Putney Bridge Road and afterwards,
in essence, we are reducing the queue length
of Putney Bridge Road due to various concerns
that have been raised with the council
regarding the congestion on it.
Thank you.
Councillor, Mrs. Quayle.
Thank you, Chair.
I'm just following on from Councillor Hopkins.
He may cycle, which is good because this is basically
been for the cycling lobby.
And I think what is being proposed now
is certainly helping traffic flow so that people
can get on with life.
I mean, before, with those wands at the bottom of Putney Bridge
road, I actually use the 270 where I live.
And I thought, great, I'm going to Putney.
And then suddenly you find a load of cars by,
I call it, Leader's Garden.
But I don't know whether it's Leader's Gardens.
And then I look in front.
There are four busses, two 220s, two 220s, two 270s, four 83.
and ultimately I think what we've also got to consider is the actual mental and well -being
and quality of life of those people sitting on the busses, because they too have got to go to work or wherever they're going.
Now, when the ones were removed, I could not believe it, that the busses began to flow, the cars began to flow,
And I think one of the most important things
is that yellow, whatever you call it,
at the bottom of Putney Bridge Road with Putney High Street,
because people will get a ticket.
And that does give cars and busses in Putney High Street
the flow.
And with the actual new bus stop in Putney High Street
now I mean this is an added plus as regards to the walkways where we're
talking at the junction with the high street the bridge I personally feel that
the what is actually being designed is a natural pedestrian flow I actually when
when I have come back to catch the 270 round in Puckley Bridge Road, my question is the fact that
it blocks people. It's very, very confusing the way the actual walkways are at the moment,
and I actually support this paper.
I just had two follow -up questions.
To Mr Chung, I really don't understand that explanation about the justification for getting
rid of the cycle lane and the ones on Putney Bridge Road because the bus lane is still
there.
It's just that the hours are reverting to 7 to 10 and 4 to 7.
So I don't understand why that means that it justifies getting rid of the cycle lane
and the ones because you always assured me that the impact on the traffic flow would
be negligible and what was important was the light timings and that was set out in the
November paper last year but the bus lane's always been there and the bus lane stops before
you have got the bus lane, the bus stop anyway just before you've got those two very short
stretch of two lanes at the light.
And for the cabinet member, yes, I'm
very pleased to hear your commitment
to pedestrian safety.
So please, will you commit to bringing back
a future paper which will set out
the data on the pedestrian safety,
and not just the data on the proportion of pedestrians
crossing on the red lights, but whether or not
pedestrians are basically just crossing the bridge where you've
removed the crossing from the middle of Putney Bridge
to the west side.
Thank you.
Mr Chair.
Thank you, Councillor.
As I mentioned earlier, and it's not done in isolation,
the removal of the cycle ones was made possible
for other reasons.
So for example, the cycle lane that was removed
on the High Street, that created the extra room,
extra capacity.
The widening outside TK Maxx and also Marks & Spencer's,
that created improved flow on the High Street,
which means essentially there's now scope
for Putney Bridge Road to have the same amount
of green time but have more stacking space
on the high street to receive it,
which is why it's possible to remove the wands
and to allow more cars to get through
from Putney Bridge Road onto the next section
of Putney High Street.
I think the wands, there's a misperception
that they provide absolute safety for cyclists.
What I would suggest is cyclists,
if they are concerned about their safety,
they should take the cycling at primary position,
so just like a car, and occupy either one
of those lanes on Putney Bridge Road
to navigate around onto the high street,
whether it's a left turn or a right turn
on the high street.
Thank you, Mr. Shaw.
carbonate member.
Thank you very much.
So just from my side,
as the only living just up the road on this,
my experience of the Putney Bridge Junction
is that the busses coming down
that then needed to move into the right -hand lane
in order to enter the main highway to turn the corner
has led to a stacking up of the busses
up Putney Bridge Road,
and which led to the bicycles mounting the pavement
in between the bus stop and the MK Hotel
in order to get round the busses
that they couldn't get past in the bus lane
or having to come into incoming traffic in the middle,
including myself, which was incredibly dangerous.
So that's my experience of it.
With regards to the figures,
I'll absolutely make any figure available
to Councillor Yeats that she wishes.
Thank you. Do your members support the recommendation?
We need our objection to the removal of the two -stage crossing to be clearly stated in
the minutes. We do not support that recommendation in the paper.

8 Transport Overview and Scrutiny Committee: Work Programme (Paper No. 26-218)

All right. We will move on to the next item, which is item number 8. So it's the transport
and the Scrutiny Committee Work Programme.
That's Mr Michael Flowers.
Good evening. Thank you, members.
I'm mindful that you would have seen the report.
So, with regards to the upcoming work programme,
what's being proposed, I think, in consultation
with the chair and cabinet member
is that we've retained the previous format
under the previous administration.
Councillor Yeas, you'll recall we held
dedicated work programming sessions outside the meeting
with cabinet member, chair and opposition speaker.
Members would be asked where they have items of interest
they want to discuss that aren't items, key decision items,
if you can relay those to your relevant counsellor,
and then in those work programming sessions,
a schedule would be arranged for the quarterly meetings
to decide the order of which they'll be considered
and when.
Happy to take any questions as well, thank you.
Any questions regarding the paper?
Councillor Aysen.
Sorry, I need to ask a question of clarification.
I'm not quite sure what's being proposed.
Are you stating, Mr Flowers, that we shouldn't make any suggestions for the future work programme
now and instead they would be discussed in a separate meeting with the cabinet member?
and would be included in that meeting?
No, so to clarify, members can discuss now items.
I know, for example, you've mentioned the previous item
being brought back at a future date to discuss data.
So you're welcome to obviously discuss it here
and that can inform yourself
and the cabinet member and chair.
The work programming session specifically
would then be used based on what members have discussed
to set out the items.
So because there might be a lot of different topics
that you want to discuss,
but then those work programme sessions would work out
when would be a suitable time based on
how long reports might take to prepare,
the types of priorities for you as a committee as well.
But yeah, you can use these meetings
to discuss them as well and the work programme
and you might have new ideas outside the meeting.
Any other questions?
Councillor Hopkins.
So if we were, if we're talking about potential items for the future programme, I noted another
point of agreement across the committee that came up on the last topic was around road
safety and ensuring the best that we can in road safety.
Last year, two people were killed and 155 people were seriously injured on Wandsworth
Roads.
and this is one of those subjects that if we don't address it directly and take it on,
then it becomes something that we simply wring our hands about but just keeps on happening.
We have the Mayor of London's Vision Zero programme which sets out the goal by 2041.
All the deaths and serious injuries will be eliminated from London's transport network.
There's a range of initiatives that could address this.
TFL has partnered with some boroughs to address it.
So I would like to see the committee consider as a point of work how we can move forward
toward Vision Zero here in Wonsworth.
I have just nodded to Mr. Flowers.
But from my side, I am obviously very aware of the Vision Zero and we are working towards
that.
But we certainly put it on the agenda.
Sorry.
Just a very quick question.
Sorry, Mr. Fluhr.
Just to be clear, we can discuss now or we can discuss at arranged work programme meetings
for the next committee.
You can do both.
So things you can say, it's not a case that you discuss it now and then you cannot discuss
it again.
I just wanted to confirm that so we can discuss it not now.
Thanks.
Okay, thank you. I assume no other questions. Do members support the recommendation?

9 Outcomes of the Spending Review: Transport Remit (Paper No. 26-229)

Okay, so now we move on to the last item on the agenda, which is the outcomes of the spending
review. And we've got Mr Chadwick and Ms Mosea who are saying, I'm not sure who's going first.
Okay, thank you, Chair.
So I think Mr. Sal from this is saying
we'll do a bit of a double act of an introduction.
I'll focus on the revenue points
and Mr. Saler will cover capital.
I think the first thing to say,
this is the transport committee's extra
of the spending review that's going forward
to the 12th of October cabinet.
Challenging times, of course.
page seven summarises the savings that we will need to find by four years time.
The next base budget reduction is five million pound, but that to get to that level, we'll
need to have made 7 .7 million with the savings across the two directors by then in revenue
terms.
A lot of money, but I would say we're confident in delivering that.
We've got a talented team, cross -board directorates,
officer team, I would say, working on it,
working on sensible proposals, proposals that do their level
best to not impact adversity on our residents,
as much as, well, we avoid that as much as possible anyway.
For revenue, I guess I'd say there are four themes, really.
One is income and extra income generation.
The report does mention the obvious, perhaps obvious need
for us to look at increases on off -street parking charges
and permit charges.
Another theme is, in fact, the implementation of schemes
that a couple of which have been discussed tonight,
actually lane rental or enforcement issues around e -bikes,
that there are more where we're introducing schemes
that have as an objective, it's not a fiscal objective,
but they will have as a result extra income from enforcement and the like.
A third category is just simply efficiency of process.
We know we can always improve our processes.
We can use systems, IT and the like to do that.
Councillor Yates has been involved in some early thoughts around processes around PCNs,
for example.
I might improve that and that will be followed through with Councillor Austin.
Probably a final category is our staffing structures themselves will be reviewing over
time and finding more effective ways of delivering our services with fewer staff, frankly.
We have four years to do that.
I'm confident we can do that without, given the usual churn in an organisation or our
scale, I'm confident we can do that without serious impact on individuals, but that's
the fourth category.
So, yeah, I sit here confident,
and I think Mrs. Hussain is as well,
that we can hit our expectations
of base budget reductions through a range of measures
on the revenue side, but over to Mrs. Hussain for Capital.
Good evening, and thank you, Mr. Chadwick.
So, just following on from that,
we of course will also be looking
to make revenue savings and efficiencies
across all of the work that we do,
and of course you've had a paper tonight
on e -bike charter again.
That's also about bringing income into the council.
Under point three of the paper, one of the things
that members have asked us to look at is not only
the package of policy intentions, but also our
approach to income capital resources,
critically borrowing and reserves.
And it's within that context that we have looked
at the capital programme.
And you will see set out here a number of schemes
where we have looked to either release uncommitted
funding or to reduce the scope of current programme
to ensure that we are delivering in line with the priorities that are being set
out by the administration. There is as Mr Chadwick has said, the pertinent schemes
are outlined here and this evening you've had a number of papers including
Putney High Street which are mentioned within this capital programme. As always
capital programmes are subject to review and as we move forward and we deliver
this is a live set of numbers but these are the intentions and you will
see where we have continued to make improvements around the priorities of
as we've talked about tonight, pedestrian safety,
around the talkative improvements in our town centres,
and critically, refocusing our capital
and releasing or pausing lower priority schemes.
We're happy to take questions, thank you.
Any questions regarding the paper?
Councillor Ayers.
Yeah, thank you very much.
So on this paper, yeah, we were absolutely appalled
by the administration's recent announcement
that you're doubling council tax
with an annual average increase of £958,
and that's during a cost -of -living crisis.
That's totally unnecessary.
Labour had a plan to keep the increase to no more than 5 %
while making necessary savings.
And now in this paper, you say you're planning
to increase parking charges,
which will just put further pressure
on hard -pressed residents.
So please could the cabinet member tell us by how much you are planning to raise parking
charges?
And would the cabinet member consider any alternative to raising parking charges by
the same amount for everyone?
For example, would you consider making parking fees fairer by charging more for heavier vehicles
that do more damage to our roads and for higher emitting vehicles as other councils have already
done?
Thank you very much.
On the, I'll tell you that we're looking at all proposals and no decisions have been made
on any increase as of yet.
As you know, they'll be going and they'll be coming to a paper later on in the cycle
because they'll be implemented in March of next year at that meeting.
So those discussions are still ongoing and we look at absolutely everything.
The fundamental point here, and to go to your first point,
which is obviously a very political point,
is that this borough is one of the highest net contributing
boroughs in the country.
We're in the top four.
We're losing 84 million pounds a year in funding,
and for every pound that we put into the government coffers,
we get 4p back, which is 8p below the national average
for a council.
There is one way of stopping any more of this having to go on,
then that's give us our money back.
Councillor Sweet.
If I understood Councillor Yates correctly,
I think you said that Labour had a plan
to increase council tax by, did you say 5 %?
No more than 5 % as in our manifesto.
Okay, and you also said that you would make
appropriate savings, and that's a lot of savings.
And I'd love to hear a bit from you
about which things you would have cut
to make up the shortfall.
And taking a look at the numbers on page seven,
there's really very significant savings
that you would have to find over and above
what is identified in these papers.
So great to hear a bit more from you about that.
In case the Council Suite isn't aware,
the savings that need to be made
to the General Fund Revenue Budget,
and the paper we have here is about the capital budget,
but the reason I was making the, well,
as the cabinet member and committee members may know,
transport is a net contributor to the revenue budget.
Now, the point I was making is that residents
are now facing this enormous increase in their council tax,
but you're also gonna put up parking charges
to add further pressure on them.
And regarding Labour's plan, the Leader of the Opposition,
Councillor Hoge, set out that at the last council meeting.
Thank you. Any other questions?
Please.
Thank you. I won't go on on this,
but just to clarify, page seven does cover revenue.
Councillor Hayes, it looks like you want to...
Yes, the paper very largely deals with the capital spend
because that is the most important element
of the transport budget coming under this committee.
Now, in terms of the capital programme,
the paper refers to the capital programme,
the last published capital programme
that went to the finance committee on the 18th of February
and then it went to the cabinet on the 23rd of February
and I've got it here, it's paper 2664.
and in the spending review document,
it refers under the capital table
to the February 2026 programme,
but I am very confused by some of the figures
in this table, and in particular,
it says for the February 2026 programme
that in 27 -28, there was a forecast capital spend
of 63 .1 million pounds, but I've got no idea
where that figure comes from because there was never
any plan to spend that much money
within that financial year.
I think that would have been extremely difficult to achieve.
Indeed, in the February 2026 capital programme paper,
the entire committed capital programme
only came to 46 .4 million pounds.
Even if I take the committed programme for 2728 of 18 .7
million, plus the new schemes, which
were expected to cost 3 million at that time,
plus the development pool schemes forecasted
for 2022 million, that only comes to 44 million
for 27, 28.
So please can you tell us where is this
63 million pound figure coming from
and are you inflating spending forecast figures
to justify cuts?
And please could you also tell us,
and this is where I really would like a commitment
to an answer outside this meeting if you can't give us now,
please could the cabinet member or officers tell us
under other cuts of £1 .8 million in the table in 26 -27,
please can you tell us what are those other cuts
that are forecast to save £1 .8 million?
And then under other investment of £700 ,000 for 26 -27,
what is that other investment for?
Thank you very much.
I think you have the papers which some of us don't, so I will let the officers answer
what they can.
I think that's right, Chair.
I'll just simply start by saying clearly this report before you focuses on the changes,
not on the total.
So that's, I guess, in a way, unhelpful given the questions from Councillor Yates, but it
is what we're focusing on in this paper.
But we're going to turn to Alex Moreland for what we can get from him in terms of those
more aggregate budgets.
So it's an interesting question and I don't have the answer to what exactly makes up the
the headline item on the spending review total.
I think it will include at the end of the financial year
25 -26, we would have had a degree of slippage then
that would have moved into re -profiling the capital budget
which wouldn't have been in the paper that was taken
to the February meeting.
So at each point in time we will re -profile
the capital budget.
So that would be why it wouldn't be immediately obvious
from looking at the February paper what the capital programme is made up of.
Thank you Mr Moylam. It's still very confusing though because it shows on the table slippage
as minus, it shows it as minus £200 ,000. So it does show slippage but it shows it as
a negative figure, i .e. it would be less. So I do think that figure is very confusing
and if you could get back to me on that and the other questions I asked about the 26,
27 other savings and other investment, I'd be very grateful.
I would be able to provide a reconciliation, yes.
Thank you, Councillor Ett. Any other questions?
Yes, Mr Hopkins, Councillor Hopkins.
Please, can you stick to this paper, not the previous papers?
I certainly will stick to this paper, as I have on previous occasions tonight.
And I hope in future committees, the administration won't have lost £63 million on the bank.
So, I mean, you know, we talked about reducing or pausing lower priority schemes.
The walking and cycling strategy was agreed unanimously by this council in November 2022
and due to continue to 2030.
And that commits to make active travel enjoyable, attractive and safe through consistent investment
in capital projects supported by training
and other revenue projects.
This paper sets out plans to cancel
or cut back no fewer than 12 schemes
for walking or cycling or improving the public realm.
That goes from big things like Tooting Town Centre
right down to neighbourhood zebra crossings.
And the question really is for the cabinet member
as to what has he left alive
for the walking and cycling strategy.
I need to come back to the Councillor on specifics.
Also, I'd like to welcome you to your chair
at the beginning, so I'm sorry about that.
And welcome to everybody else, and not yourself.
So, welcome, and thank you for coming this evening.
This is an entirely political thing.
I think we'll come back with specific examples,
and I'll have to come back to you on that.
We are going to bat this backwards and forwards
at exactly the same rate for the rest of the evening.
is what's happened between 2022 and 2026
is Angela Rayner has taken 84 million pounds a year off us.
That has resulted in decisions that have to be made
in order to change our spend.
It is as simple as that.
The last thing anybody on the administration benches
wanted to do was put up council tax
by the level that it was announced last week.
However, we had an underfunded council,
we had a massive budget gap,
and in three years time we're losing 85 million pounds a year.
Those difficult decisions have had to be made as a result of that.
These are the decisions that we have made and still continue to make.
Just to remember, this is a supplementary paper.
It's only come to us recently after the full Council meeting, so I'm guessing decisions
haven't been fully made, so let's remember that.
Councillor Hopkins, you...
Yeah, so just to say, you know, it's clear my question wasn't about the total overall
cuts, but it was about the nature of the cuts in a paper that talks about getting traffic
flowing, you know, the language of Rishi Sunak.
And so that was why I raised that question.
And to follow on from that, you know, you appear to be halving the funding of bike hanger
expansion in 2026 to 27, and cutting all of it in 2027 to 28,
although they're a long waiting list for bike hangers
in many parts of the borough.
And I'm asking, can we commit to continuing
the bike hanger expansion programme in 2027 to eight,
and to allocating funds for this?
We'll continue to roll out bike hangers
from a highest priority need outwards
within the budget constraints that we have.
So we will continue to roll out bike hannies.
We'll be starting with the areas of highest amount of demand.
So people who want one, please do contact us
in order to make sure that we are aware of that demand
in those areas, and we will continue to roll it out
within the budget constraints that we have.
Yeah, I think we've got an answer over there.
Thank you, Chair.
sorry, Nick O 'Dell, Director of Traffic and Engine,
just to try and help some points that were made,
I think, by councillors in terms of some of the details,
just to try and add some information to that.
It's worth also remembering that decision was taken
to retain and complete the walking and cycling scheme
across Bournsworth Bridge.
The good news is that's gonna be completed
a month ahead of schedule, so ahead of time and on budget.
I would point towards the fact that we do have
of a number of walking and cycling elements
that people sometimes overlook.
So I would point towards the roads and pavements programme.
It's one of the biggest, if not the biggest in London.
We're gonna be spending 11 million pounds
improving, upgrading our roads and pavements.
That's a massive, massive benefit to pedestrians
in particular, as well as cyclists on the road.
I'm not aware of any other borough in London
that's spending that level at the moment.
So I know it's a tough time.
I know there's lots of cuts going,
but we are focusing still on trying to protect
a lot of the core network.
And the good news is we've had some very positive engagement
with local groups, so Wandsworth Cycling Campaign,
I know you know well, Councillor, and others as well,
in relation to try and focus some of that
more limited spending.
So for example, within Wandsworth Town Centre,
we've engaged with local groups and we've worked through
what they would like to see within Wandsworth itself,
as in the core area of Wandsworth,
close to where we are here.
We've listened to that, we've responded to that,
and we do have funding secured to deliver a number
of walking and sight and improvements that will be delivered over the next couple of
years. So there are positives that are there. They will come forward in papers and due courses.
I don't want this to end on a sort of doom and gloom. There's no money left and nothing
will be delivered. There are things out there that are being actively delivered. I just
wanted to highlight some of those just to give some positives at the end. Thank you.
Thank you.
Yes, I am very concerned to read in a paper that Queenstown Road corridor scale will be
I know my administration delivered fantastic new cycle lanes from Queen Circus to Chelsea
Bridge and pedestrian improvement, but improvements for walking and cycling are still badly needed
on Quinton Road from south of Battersea Park Road, which is a very busy road here.
So my question is, could the cabinet member explain what he means by scaling back the
scheme and will he reconsider and go ahead with the previous plan?
Thank you. If I can just clarify. So we had a budget of 3 million. Initially, it's been
cut back to 1 .6 as the paper sets out. Our intention is to deliver a scheme south of
Battersea Road. So the details of that are still being worked through. Thank you.
I don't know if Mr. Ching wants to jump in as well on that with the detail.
Just on Queenstown Road, I think it's fair to say that we had to consult on a scheme
and that is something we're hoping to do in the autumn and not too long from now.
And there's still a lot of design work that needs to be carried out, but there are a few
pinch points that we recognise where it really benefits from the highway improvements for
both walking and cycling, which is why how we've currently priced it as a high level
estimate and when the detailed design is actually finished post -consultation, then that will
be the opportunity to review the actual costing of the proposed works.
Thank you Mr. Chiang. Any other questions?
Yes, thank you. We are dismayed that you're cutting funding for both the Tooting Town
centre improvement scheme and improving
Montsworth town centre.
They're both really busy areas and I was really shocked
by the state of the road, Mitcham Road,
outside Tooting Broadway Station and further on down
the road which is incredibly busy, you know,
cracked pavements, ponding, I think it was about 80 %
of these street lights failed the lighting test.
So some great work was done there but it's not finished.
and we were working hard with TfL in plans to improve
the one -way system, again a very, very busy area
of our borough where there are significant growth plans.
So I wanted to ask the cabinet member,
are you abandoning work with TfL to transform
Wandsworth Town Centre?
And given the years of neglect of tooting Town Centre,
could you commit to continuing with those improvements
in that very busy area?
With regards to Wandsworth Town Centre,
I actually, myself and the officers actually met
with Transport for London today, this morning,
on the Wandsworth Town Centre proposal,
and the consultation on that will be starting on Monday,
in the statutory consultation period.
With regards to taking Town Centre,
it is a continuing movement,
no decisions have been made on that currently.
Thank you.
Councillor Hopkins, please stick to the paper.
The spending review, as I have done on each occasion tonight,
I will speak to the paper, Councillor Duda.
The spending review paper says there will be a stronger approach
to tackling poor driving and parking
and that camera -based enforcement will be introduced at 13 priority sites.
Can you tell us what is meant by the stronger approach
and which of the 13 sites where there will be new sites
camera enforcement?
Thank you.
With regards to my take on poor driving, I got a video and I got a photograph of a gentleman
who had parked his car over a drop curb this morning in the David House Conservation Area,
so that would be an example of poor parking.
With regards to the 13 specific sites, I'll defer to Mr Bradford on that.
I see potentially Cameron Fortson at the other box junctions for safety and to allow for
free movement.
Thirteen sites currently being reviewed at the moment, so I can't confirm them at the
moment, but we're looking at them.
Thank you.
Last question.
Councillor Ayers.
Thank you, Chair, although I'm not really sure why it should be the last question, because
This is the most important paper in front of the committee,
and it is only 25 past nine.
I think you've indulged yourself.
So, yeah, when I became the cabinet member for transport
in May 2023, I was very shocked to find out from officers
that every year, ones with roads and pavements
were getting worse.
So officers rather euphemistically
called that managed decline.
So let's think about that.
It meant that every year there were more potholes and more
trip hazards on our pavements.
and that's why we introduced the Decade of Renewal,
committing to more than doubling annual investment
in roads and pavements, with a commitment
to invest $100 million over 10 years.
Now, that started in 24, 25, and that's
to get all our roads and pavements up to a good standard,
with funding for that coming from developer levies.
So Mr. O 'Donnell's mentioned the magnitude of that programme
and the importance of it, and I just
wanted to ask the cabinet member,
because it's not clear from this paper,
are you committing to continuing that really needed
investment in our roads and pavements?
So we don't get in a position again where every year
the network is getting worse.
From my side on this, we obviously take the condition
of roads and pavements very seriously.
And Giza, when you became a cabinet member in 2023,
that you brought in the Decade of Renewal of the Gas,
that with 100 million pounds.
I'll go back to it again.
We've lost 85, four million pounds in funding,
plus the number of planning applications
by major developers has reduced significantly
in the last four year period,
and so we don't have the still money coming through.
So we have to reprioritize and rebudget accordingly,
but we will do everything we can
within the budget constraints that we have.
Councillor Asante. The paper says that the budget for zebra crossing
has been reduced. I was very concerned to learn this actually, yeah. So we were very
proud of our zebra crossing programme under my administration, yeah. So we installed 26
zebra crossings compared to the current administration, just another seven, yeah,
and the fourth. We still need more zebra crossing in Wanswa to improve road safety
and respond to residents' demands. So please, can the cabinet member tell us how much
money is left in the budget for new zebra crossings and how will he commit to
continuing our zebra crossing programme to make our roads safer?
Thank you. I hope that Councillor Yates will be able to support me in the fact that I'm
very committed to pedestrian crossings, as before she left the chamber the night she
handed in her position, I'd already emailed the officers and asked them to press ahead
with her zebra crossing. If there is a need for zebra crossings, I will look at each and
every single one, and we are committed to safety. So if you need zebra crossing, please
do contact me directly, and I will certainly look at it.
Thank you.
I just wanted to ask, following up on things that were picked up in this conversation,
have the council members opposite fallen silent with questions and does the chair want to
close the meeting?
Because you are not confident of the maths, the hurriedly done in the background, which
which is requiring the doubling of council tax
for one to half residents.
Councillor Oski.
Thank you.
Sorry.
No, I'm going to...
Absolutely not at all.
I'm happy to go on all night,
if that's where you want to go.
It's not hurried maths in the background.
It's still decisions that have been made.
There's still...
There's £79 million worth of savings
that have to be found.
There is still budget constraints that have been looked at
and we are still working incredibly hard
in order to deliver for this borough.
Thank you.
Councillor Sweet.
I think the reality is this is a short paper
that sets out the initial position.
Councillor Austin has repeatedly, I think,
given fantastic reassurances that he'll look in detail
at specific schemes, many of which there's clear consensus
about on both sides of the table.
I don't think that tonight is the moment
to dive into every single line of which programmes
will continue or will not continue.
And indeed many times, Councillor Austin
has had to come back and say that he will look further.
I'm sure this committee will in future meetings
discuss those schemes in great depth
and Councillors will be able to scrutinise his work.
But we have had a very good debate tonight
and I think it's probably time now to move on.
Can I add one point to that, please? Thank you, Councillor Sweet. I agree with that.
I think there'll be deeper dives into these, but I think is it fair to say at the moment
there's a review of the prioritisation of these and the measures being put in, and it's
at that point down the line we can have a look at these in more detail.
Also, can I add that this evening I asked the cabinet member how has the impact of fair
funding or the unfair funding has affected the financial situation in transport.
So, you know, losing the money, we have to find some money somewhere else.
And so at this moment, we're in this situation.
And I know it's very important that you raise your voice, but we're in that situation.
Thank you. Yes, I think this will be discussed by the cabinet on the 12th of October.
So I guess the next time we can answer this properly.
Thank you.
So yes.
Sorry.
Just to round these up, I think it is a nine page paper
with some headline figures and there will be certainly
more detail coming in in future papers.
We're gonna go backwards and forwards.
You're gonna tell me that we can do it
within your manifesto plan of 5 %
and you have a fully funded, fully costed plan.
I'm gonna tell you that Angela Rayner has removed
84 million pounds a year in funding in three years time
and it's gonna go back into that.
There's a lot of this that actually is pointing
at the questions to the cabinet member for finance
and we'll be at the finance committee
at the end of this as well,
which is where a lot of these questions
can also be scrutinised.
Thank you.
I think with that, do members support the recommendation?
No, we don't support the recommendations in the paper.
We can't support those and we've outlined
some of our reservations and objections, and we want those minitudes.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
That concludes the business of the Committee.
Thank you all for your attendance.