The Committee received a report from the
Director of Law and Governance outlining details of a call-in
received on the portfolio decision taken by the Cabinet Member for
Environment & Sustainability on-
Cycle Enfield Proposals for the A1010 North.
invited Councillor Rawlings to give an outline of the reasons for
stated that there were originally five reasons for call-in but of
these only two had been allowed.
Although she had asked the Director of Law and Governance for
information relating to this, she had not received a reply and felt
she had been denied an opportunity for an additional reason to be
accepted. Councillor Georgiou
stated that the Committee is only able to focus on the two reasons
that had been allowed.
set out the reasons for calling in the decision:
- The first reason
relates to the safety of bus boarders.
A review was being carried out by Transport for London and a recent
Parliamentary Inquiry had concluded that shared space had become a
major issue for a number of disabled people. Local Authorities who were designing new schemes
involving shared space had been asked to pause such schemes to
consider how they could be adapted to enhance
Rawlings said when buses pull-in to a bus point they can lower exit
to pavement level and therefore this constitutes a shared
- Whilst a review is
being carried out by Transport for London and their findings are
expected to be given September/ October, any new cycle path works
should be deferred.
- There is no
information given in the report about ‘near misses’ in
Enfield that have occurred relating to bus boarders at cycle
- Whilst local
authorities must ensure that the public can walk safely on
pavements, they also need to safeguard their access to public
transport. For visually impaired people
who use guide dogs, problems can occur as training for dogs would
involve them stopping at kerb sides - they are not trained to look
out for cyclists at shared spaces.
- Cyclists are not
always aware that they must give way to pedestrians alighting from
buses and therefore this is a potential danger.
- The second reason for
call-in concerns the contractor Ringway Jacobs who have been
appointed to carry out the construction works. Delays and cost overruns had occurred on the A105
cycle lane works under the same contractor. She felt that a further tendering exercise should
have taken place. Delays for previous work had meant that the work
took twice the time it was expected to take and barriers in front
of premises were in place longer than the two weeks expected.
- Councillor Rawlings
understands that Ringway Jacobs have acquired a business that carry
out modelling work for the cycling schemes as well as the
construction works – this would seem to be a conflict of
alternative action requested by the Councillors calling-in the
decision was to refer the report back to the Cabinet member to
enable further information and justification of the proposals to be
Cabinet Member for Environment & Sustainability and officers-
Doug Wilkinson (Director of Environment &
Operational Services), and Richard Eason (Healthy Streets Programme
Director) provided information in support of the decision as
Department for Transport (DfT) had
previously requested local authorities pause the introduction of
new shared space schemes that feature a level surface, and which
are at design stage. Item 6 of the table introduced at para 5.7
provides reference to recent DfT
guidance on shared space and explains how features such as bus
boarders are not included in the request to pause design. Since the
original guidance DfT have also issued
a clarification note on this issue.
main works will be delivered by Ringway Jacobs via the London
Highways Alliance Contract (LoHAC). The
LoHAC is a cost- effective way for
London boroughs to procure a contractor with TfL. Ringway Jacobs is
the appointed contractor for our region and it would not be
possible for Enfield to change this. If desired Enfield Council
could conduct its own tendering process for these works, however,
this would be an expensive and time-consuming process that was not
considered necessary. This would be the third major Cycle Enfield
project delivered via this contract, enabling the ongoing
development of good practice and continuity of experience to meet
the specific construction requirements of the project. Officers
stated that good work was demonstrated by the contractor when the
A1010 south, scheme was completed.
design and build approach, is a recognised way to complete schemes
of this type in an efficient way and does not represent a conflict
of interest issue.
issues raised by members and responded to by officers as
member stated that bus boarders appeared to be a clear risk for
people who are partially sighted or for those with hearing
problems. He wanted to know how many bus boarders there were on the
A1010. It was mentioned that a passenger had needed to step back
quickly on to a bus when he alighted at the bus boarder and was
nearly hit by a cyclist.
Richard Eason said there were approximately 16 bus
boarders along the A1010 North proposed route. The key issue is around the balance of risk. In
some places where there is available space it is possible to have a
cycle path around the back of a bus stop but it is not always
possible to do this. Cyclists should
use common sense and have regard for bus passengers who take
priority. Road designs are used at bus
boarders to emphasize this – cycle lanes are ramped upwards
and there is a change in road materials used with block paving used
to indicate that cyclists must slow down. It was confirmed that works proposed are not
contrary to the DfT shared space
guidance and that designs must be approved by TfL.
member referred to the review being undertaken by DfT and asked for reassurance that any findings
from this review would be incorporated into Enfield’s cycling
scheme. It was confirmed that they were evolving designs and
changes would be implemented for Enfield. Funding for any changes would be met by TfL, we
would not have to rely on council funding for this.
nature of the contract with Ringway Jacobs was discussed –
Councillor Smith said on a framework such as the LoHAC there are usually several contractors. He
asked if there were constraints on us having to continue with
Ringway Jacobs especially after complaints relating to their work
for the A105 scheme. Richard Eason
explained that Ringway Jacobs is the appointed (by TfL) contractor
for our region. A separate tendering process would be required to
appoint a different contractor, however, we had to consider whether
we would want to restart with someone new. This would mean using
new processes and additional costs involved in the tendering
process and would not have the economies of scale of the London
wide contract. He referred to the benefits of improved
understanding from lessons learnt that can be taken forward from
one project to the next one. Richard
confirmed that they were happy with the works undertaken by Ringway
Jacobs for the A1010 South and were happy to continue with them.
The decision had therefore been taken to continue with Ringway
Jacobs for the A1010 North project.
summing up by Councillor Rawlings that
is a shared space at bus boarders when buses lower entry to the
road surface, cyclists would have to wait in the cycling lane
whilst passengers alight, and this is a potential
have been incidents which have not been included in the Portfolio
decision report – One cyclist fell over handlebars, and a bus
passenger had to get back on to a bus when a cyclist was riding
fast in the cycling lane to prevent a collision. Councillor
Rawlings said these incidents are on the council
website. Whilst we do have to take into
consideration the risks for cyclists, we also need to be mindful of
vulnerable people who are reliant on public transport.
should defer work on this scheme until findings are available from
the DfT following their
works carried out by Ringway Jacobs had not been satisfactory in
the past and a different contractor should be considered for future
Councillor Georgiou said there was a learning curve for both
passengers and cyclists when using bus boarders on cycle
Overview & Scrutiny
Committee considered the reasons provided for the call-in and
responses provided. Having considered the information provided, the
Committee agreed to confirm the original Portfolio
‘1. To approve the final design of the proposals for the
A1010 North shown on the plans in Appendix A and take all necessary
steps to implement the scheme including:
Making the traffic management orders specified in Schedule 1 of
The design is amended to include an additional loading bay on the
A1010, close to the junction with St Stephens Road and the zebra
crossing by Freezy Water St
George’s school be upgraded to a Pelican Crossing.
Implementing the raised entry treatments, flat top speed tables and
raised junctions specified in Schedule 2 & 3 of Appendix C.
Implementing the Zebra crossings and associated zig-zag markings
specified in Schedule 4 of Appendix C.
Implementing the ‘Parallel crossings’
and associated zig-zag markings specified in Schedule 5 of Appendix
Introducing designated disabled persons parking
places and all waiting and loading restrictions using the
experimental powers provided by S9 of the Road Traffic Regulation
2. To note that
Transport for London will be providing funding for the delivery of
this project and approve the spend allocation.’
Bedekova, Bond, Boztas, Georgiou, Gunawardena and Lappage voted in
favour of the above decision. Councillors David-Sanders and
Smith voted against. The
original Portfolio decision was therefore agreed.
From this point of the
proceedings Councillor Erbil took over from Councillor Georgiou to
chair the meeting. Councillors Bond,
Rawlings and Laban left.
thanked Councillor Georgiou.