Agenda item

The Programme Manager, Enjoy Waltham Forest, will be in attendance to give a presentation in relation to Waltham Forest Council’s Liveable Neighbourhoods Programme.

 

Recommendation: for Panel to determine whether further information is required.

 

Chris Proctor, Programme Manager, Enjoy Waltham Forest, gave a presentation in relation to Waltham Forest Council’s Mini Holland and Liveable Neighbourhoods Programmes.

 

Waltham Forest was an outer London Borough in north east London.  It was a diverse Borough from land use and geography, through to demographics.  South of the Borough, towards inner London it was more dense, with a predominantly Victorian road network.  To the north the Borough was a lot more suburban with less density of properties and increased green infrastructure. 

 

In 2014, Waltham Forest had polluted residential streets, traffic congestions, lack of cycling facilities and green spaces, a poor walking environment and few places to sit and enjoy.

 

Waltham Forest Council set out its objectives to address the issues as follows:

 

•           Join up cycle routes into a network.

•           Rebalance streets to be safer for everyone.

•           Reach 10% of journeys by bike by 2020.

•           Create better public space and environment for everyone.

•           Make Waltham Forest better connected for everyone.

•           Demonstrate best practice – nationally and internationally if possible, by             looking at what had worked on the continent and how that could be applied.

•           Attract growth into the area by enabling growth and regeneration and             ensuring policies were car free and supported with the necessary transport             infrastructure. 

•           Support other Council objectives.

 

The Mayor of London introduced the Mini Holland funding programme in 2014.  The programme included the introduction of cycle superhighways in London and the quiet network.  A number of outer London boroughs that were traditionally car dependent areas, were awarded funding to transform infrastructure and encourage behaviour change.  Waltham Forest Council was successful in obtaining funding from the Mini Holland programme, originally for 3 years but eventually for 5 years.

 

The vision for Waltham Forest Council’s Mini Holland included:

 

•           Lea Bridge Road – a street for everyone.

•           Four Walthamstow Village schemes.

•           Four Town Centre Schemes.

•           A network of high quality cycle routes.

•           Complementary measures.

•           Secure cycle parking.

 

The north circular road cut the Borough in half and provided quite a neat boundary to separate the higher and lower density housing.  There needed to be an integrated and holistic set of improvements, rather than just a route or an area based scheme.  The scheme tried to invoke a step change in terms of how people would travel around the Borough.

 

A core grid of high quality cycle routes was implemented on the primary or main road network and given the nature of traffic they were separated from vehicles and pedestrians.  There were also some quieter routes, using lower volume residential streets and green spaces, to build a skeletal network so that people had a real choice.

 

Around the town centre there were some local area based schemes designed to make roads in these areas better for walking and cycling without putting in dedicated infrastructure.  So not necessarily having formal segregated cycle lanes, or crossings but looking at traffic reduction measures and making areas more suitable for walking and cycling so that theoretically, local trips could be made without using a car.  Schemes were also implemented in the secondary town centres to make them more accessible and attractive and try to reduce the need for cars for these trips by joining up areas with cycle routes and public transport.   Some of the key barriers as to why people did not walk and cycle included: way finding, cycle parking, training, road safety awareness and education. 

 

It was important to have strong policy backing and documentation setting out the process and the objectives for the scheme as well as working with stakeholders, community, developers and partners.  There was an annual cycle and walking count which was a snapshot of each year and in total since the project began.

 

The Panel were shown photographs of before and after views of several schemes implemented by Waltham Forest Council including residential areas, a public square and a major bus interchange.  At total of 50 small schemes had been implemented, working with the community to encourage ownership of the spaces created and involve the public in maintenance where appropriate.

 

The project also tried to enable multi-modal journeys.  Cycle parking was a major barrier to people both at work and at home.  Secure cycle parking had been provided at all train stations so that people could cycle in for their daily commute.  There was a £25 annual fee to access the cycle hubs and also secure parking hangars.  Spaces for adapted bikes were also provided.

 

In terms of encouraging behaviour change, the following had been made available:

 

•           Cycle skills training and maintenance. 

•           All ability Cycle Club. 

•           School Travel Plans.

•           School Streets.

•           Community Walking and Cycling fund.

•           Zero Emissions Delivery (ZED) Service.

 

ZED was a fleet of electric bikes that ran deliveries to quite a few businesses in the borough both in the supply chain and providing goods to residents.  ZED was now almost fully self-sustaining in terms of the operating finance.

 

The Liveable Neighbourhoods programme was introduced in 2018 and work had started on several programmes, taking principles from the Mini Holland schemes from previous years.  Delivery was just about to start when the Covid-19 Pandemic reached the UK which had impacted on funding.  The Coppermill Scheme included some large development areas in terms of sustainable new housing growth and linking it into the Mini Hollands.  The Coppermill Master Plan included interventions such as new crossings, cycle infrastructure, road closures to through traffic, walking improvements along some of the main roads, looking at the walking environment.  It was an area based scheme with 40 or 50 interventions in it. 

 

Key achievements included:

 

•           More than 40km of segregated cycle lanes.

•           80 modal filters (road closures to through traffic).

•           160+ Copenhagen Crossings (continuous footways).

•           35 new formal crossings, 61 upgraded pedestrian/cycle crossings.

•           Planted more than 700 trees and created 40 pocket parks/public spaces.

•           1,850 metres square of land returned back to the forest at Whipps Cross.

•           540 cycle hangars

•           Provided 7 station cycle hubs with 546 secure parking spaces.  4 more in             construction.

•           Over 10000 school children and 7500 adults had received free cycle training.

•           311 people had taken part in All Ability Cycling sessions.

•           Almost 4000 bikes had been serviced by Dr Bike.

•           392 residents had utilised the Community Bike Loan scheme and 101             residents had utilised the Cargo Bike Loan Scheme.

 

In terms of the economic benefits there had been some case studies about the economic benefit of public realm improvements.  One study had looked at vacancy rates in shops and whether they had changed since schemes were implemented. 

 

There had also been a review of the first village scheme in the area which showed a reduction in vehicle numbers and increases in walking and cycling.  Most people were accepting of the measures although some wanted them reduced or removing altogether.   A study by the University of Westminster found that people living in Mini Holland areas were walking an extra 32 minutes and cycling an extra 9 minutes per week compared to the outer London average. 

 

In the last 6 to 9 months there had been a study on the impact of low traffic neighbourhoods, changes in car ownership, road traffic, road traffic collisions, crime, emergency service response times and research started to show that there had been some change and positive outcomes. 

 

Some of the key arguments and reasons for opposition to the schemes included:

 

•           Impact on emergency services.

•           Displacement – concerns over increased traffic, pollution and congestion on             some roads..

•           Longer journey distances and times for those who needed to drive.

•           Only intended to benefit the few.

•           Community severance.

•           Impact on businesses.

•           Lack of consultation.

 

Strategies employed to overcome the challenges included:

 

•           Strong political leadership and senior leadership team.

•           More data and research needed to myth bust/outline benefits.

•           Continually adapting and enhancing engagement approach.

•           Part of wider transport/behaviour change strategy to reduce traffic volume             and impact.

 

It was acknowledged that the availability of different transport modes in London was greater than in Middlesbrough.   It was important to try and form an understanding of what trips took place in the town and how infrastructure could be designed.   

 

AGREED that the information provided was received and noted.