Agenda item

To consider the Council’s strategy for the public realm and the implications of the management of current public health concerns.

Councillor Sheth, Cabinet Member for Environment introduced a report on the public realm strategies for Brent, including Brent Council priorities, strategies and policies, planned strategy review and the impact of the COVID19 epidemic and public health restrictions. The Committee was then invited to raise questions on the report, which focused on a number of key areas as highlighted below:

·         In response to a question from the Committee, it was noted that a climate change strategy had not been included in the report because the Council had been undertaking a much larger piece of work encompassing all portfolios. The report was focused primarily on the emergency response to COVID19, and in particular the efforts to encourage active travel across the borough.

·         The Council had been successful in its bid for funding from Transport for London (TfL) and the Department for Transport (DfT) for 33 new school streets. In deciding where these would be, it would consider air quality as well as where it would be logistically possible. Officers were working directly with schools to develop an understanding of how school streets would be managed, and all 33 school streets would be in place by September.

·         The Council had been using air quality data and public health indicators to measure success in improving the use of active travel and reducing motor vehicle use. It would also take evidence from school surveys as these gathered information on how children travelled to school and the Common Place platform would provide the Council with information on residents’ current experiences. The Council would also continue to engage with community groups such as Clean Air for Brent and utilise the Air Quality Task Group’s findings. It did not expect habits to change immediately and as such this would be a medium term plan, which required a cultural shift. The next stage for the council would be to engage with stakeholders, such as the National Health Service (NHS) and schools, to ensure they can work together to realise the benefits of active travel for all parties.

·         It was noted that TfL was in a difficult financial position which had been exacerbated by the effects of COVID19. The Council had been directly bidding for funding from TfL which it felt took a surprising approach and did not consistently apply the criteria and timeframes the council had been working towards. There had been disquiet amongst many London councils about how TfL had distributed these funds and many would have liked to have seen a more strategic approach and recognition of the ambition of those councils which were in the infancy of their active travel plans. The Committee were reassured that the Council had worked tirelessly to put itself in the best position to receive this funding. Funding that had been received would go towards projects such as school streets and a strategic cycle route along Harrow Road. Engagement with residents would focus on what they want to see in their borough, gathered via the Common Place platform, whilst recognising the financial and logistical constraints of any proposals. Once this had informed the Council’s planning it would look to engage with ward councillors and local residents about what would work in their wards. It was noted that these plans were a medium to long term ambition and so engagement would not start immediately.

·         It was noted that the COVID-19 pandemic also provided significant opportunities for the Council to adopt radical new approaches and implement a range of measures that will help address wider priorities around public health, inequalities, air quality and climate change. Its immediate point of call was to gather evidence, which would include conversations with local authorities across Europe as well as local residents about how these measures would have a positive impact on their lives. Particular focus needed to be given to instilling a cultural change in the borough, which included understanding the way residents travel as a health as well as an environmental benefit. With working patterns changing and there being a shift towards mobile working, the Council would look to ensure that any time in the office would be a pleasant experience, perhaps looking at the public realm, the commute and diversification of the high street.

·         In response to a question about cycle hangars, it was noted that the cheapest car permit in the borough was lower than the cost of using a hangar. However, cycle hangars cannot be reduced in price due to the cost of their construction and maintenance. The Council would soon be looking at parking as a whole and could look at prices as part of this. There had been some instances of cycle hangars being misplaced across the borough. The Committee was reassured that there was a consultation process in place for ward councillors and local residents to comment on proposals, and that hangars were constructed in localities that had requested them. Moreover, in instances in which they were replaced, the Council would not need to cover the cost.

·         A question was asked about the consideration the Council had given to disabled and elderly residents when designing the new public realm. The Committee was assured that it was standard policy that all proposals be inclusive of all users. The Disability Forum had also been consulted, and any proposals would follow the Royal National Institute of Blind People ‘s (RNIB) guidelines.

·         It was noted that community gardens would be included in plans in the public realm to enhance the appearance of localities and encourage community cohesion. The Council was working with the Communications team to promote this, local community groups to facilitate this and examining possible funding opportunities. A private company would maintain the planters that the council intended to use for its low traffic neighbourhood for their first year and it hoped to work with ward councillors to encourage local residents to help maintain these. It was suggested that some of the mutual aid groups formed due of COVID19 could be utilised for this purpose.

·         The Council had committed to a number of priorities regarding transport and public realm schemes aimed at creating healthy, sustainable places and increasing the number of journeys made by walking and cycling. However, this did not include the A5 corridor. It was noted that it had a partial scheme developed with Camden Council for the Kilburn High Road section, however a wider strategic conversation was needed. The corridor was originally part of TfL’s priority list but has since fallen off their radar. Brent and Camden had been attempting to engage with Barnet, Westminster and Harrow to bring this conversation forward.

·         The Committee asked if there were any plans to introduce a 20mph speed limit across the borough. It was noted that proposals on this were being explored before COVID19 and once the initial emergency measures were in place the Council would again look at this. The main difficulty its implementation faced was enforcement, because at present the only body able to enforce speed limits was the police. Having said this, there were clear benefits to 20mph zones. People were more likely to be confident in active travel if motor vehicles were travelling at less speed. Also, poor air quality was largely due to motor vehicles stopping and starting, hence why levels were high around schools and high streets. Another point highlighted was that some initiatives may not have a direct impact on air quality, such as landscaping, but do have indirect impacts such as encouraging active travel.

·         It was noted that low traffic neighbourhoods would stop areas becoming rat runs and would divert traffic onto main roads, therefore encouraging more walking and cycling. In any one area there could be three points in which a road is closed, and the Council would use planters to do so. The council was currently looking to address some concerns highlighted by emergency services regarding access, after which it would announce where these low traffic neighbourhoods would be.

·         In response to a question regarding the Council’s long-term vision for adapting roads for non-carbon travel it was noted that it would want to encourage several modes of transport to be adopted by residents. It would hope more people engage in active transport and as a result see better health outcomes for residents. The Council was committed to working towards becoming carbon-free by 2030. Moreover, it was looking at what it could do to support buses in becoming electric, and assured the Committee that it would work alongside TfL to fulfil this when the technology is available. While it appreciated that buses take up much of the borough’s road space, they could carry a number of people at any one time and potentially reduce the use of cars as a result. In relation to the A5 corridor, the Council was looking to put a strategic plan together with Camden, Barnet, Westminster and Harrow to address this specifically.

In summing and in considering proposals for recommendation to the Cabinet, it was proposed to recommend to Cabinet that the new parking strategy ensures that it is always cheaper to park a bike than a car in the borough, overcoming the anomaly that the cheapest resident parking permit is currently more expensive than using a bike hangar. It was also proposed that the Cabinet should bring forward a timetable to ensure that the borough has a default 20mph speed limit on its roads, subject to an environmental audit.

It was proposed that it should be recommended to Cabinet that it ensures that any slippage from the capital budget was reinvested into active travel as a viable and beneficial capital spend. It was also suggested that the Council’s Health and Wellbeing Board should consider a paper on how the NHS could contribute to active travel (as a public health issue) across multiple boroughs in North West London. It was suggested that the Chair write to the Greater London Authority Transport Committee to encourage them to investigate and scrutinise the allocation of active transport funds.

It was also proposed to recommend that the department ensure that any future transport strategies/plans include clear measurements and modelling for active transport and the impact on air quality and that low traffic streets were rebranded in a way that is clearer for the public to understand, for example as ‘healthy’ or ‘peaceful’ streets.

Resolved

That it be recommended to Cabinet;

1.  That the new parking strategy ensure that it is always cheaper to park a bike than park a car in Brent, thereby ensuring  that the cheapest resident parking permit is more expensive than using a bike hangar

2.  That 20mph be adopted as the default speed on Brent roads, subject to an environmental audit, and that a timetable be drawn up for the introduction of a 20mph speed limit across the borough. 

3.   That unspent balances in the capital budget be reinvested in active travel.

4.  That  any future transport strategies and plans include clear measurements and modelling for active transport and the impact on air quality.

5.  That low traffic streets be rebranded in a way that is clearer for the public, for example ‘Healthy Streets’ or ‘Peaceful Streets’. 

and

1. That correspondence be addressed to the Greater London Authority Transport Committee to encourage them to investigate and scrutinise the allocation of active transport funds.
2. That correspondence be addressed to the Health and Wellbeing Board to suggest that it receive a report on how the NHS can contribute to active travel, as a public health issue, across multiple boroughs in North West London.

The Committee also made the following information requests:

1.    A breakdown of how the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) is being spent on public realm projects.

2.    An indication of the total percentage of the CIL being spent on the public realm.