1 Contact: Martin Newton Tel: 020 8871 6488 e-mail: mnewton ...

Chief Executive and Director of Administration 

Gerald Jones 

Wandsworth Borough Council 

Administration Department 

The Town Hall Wandsworth High Street 

London SW18 2PU 

Contact: Martin Newton 

Tel: 020 8871 6488 

e-mail: mnewton@wandsworth.gov.uk 

Date: Tuesday, 5th January 2010 

THE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION OVERVIEW AND 

SCRUTINY COMMITTEE are hereby summoned to attend a MEETING of the 

COMMITTEE which will be held at the TOWN HALL, WANDSWORTH HIGH STREET, 

LONDON SW18 2PU (ROOM 123) on WEDNESDAY, 13TH JANUARY, 2010 at 

7.30 p.m. 

The agenda for the meeting is set out below. 

G. K. JONES 

Chief Executive and 

Director of Administration 

COMMITTEE: Councillor Miss Allan (Chairman); Councillor Mrs. A. Graham (Deputy 

Chairman); Councillors Bowes, Dawson, Finn, Pugh, Randall, Thom, Walden and Wilkie. 

Under the Council’s Constitution, a member of the Executive designated by the Leader of the 

Council shall normally attend meetings of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee. That 

member may speak at the meeting to present a report, to answer questions on it, or to 

comment on matters raised in discussion. In addition, the Leader of the Council and the 

Leader of the Opposition may attend meetings and take part in the discussion. 

MINUTES 

1. 4th and 16th November 2009 

AGENDA 

To confirm and sign as a correct record the minutes of the Planning and Transportation 

Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting held on 4th November 2009 and the minutes of 

the special meeting held on 16th November 2009. 

1

PERSONAL AND PREJUDICIAL INTERESTS 

2. Declarations 

To receive any declarations of personal and prejudicial interests in any of the matters to be 

considered at the meeting. 

BUDGET 

3. Revenue Budget 2009 - 2013 (Paper No. 10 - 44) 

To receive, as information, report by the Director of Finance on the planning and 

transportation revenue budget 2009-2013. (Attached) 

PARKING MATTERS 

4. Tooting Broadway CPZ Review (Paper No. 10 - 45) 

To consider report of the Director of Technical Services on the review of the Tooting 

Broadway controlled parking zone central area, SW17 (Tooting and Graveney). (Attached) 

PLANNING MATTERS 

5. London Plan (Paper No. 10 - 46) 

To consider report of the Borough Planner on the consultation version of the draft 

replacement London Plan. (Attached) 

6. Opportunity Area Planning Framework - Vauxhall Nine Elms Area (Paper No. 10 - 

47) 

To consider report of the Borough Planner on the consultation draft of the Opportunity Area 

Planning Framework for the Vauxhall Nine Elms Area. (Attached) 

7. Local Development Framework (Paper No. 10 - 48) 

To consider report of the Borough Planner on the Local Development Framework. 

(Attached) 

TRANSPORT MATTERS 

8. Bus Issues (Paper No. 10 - 49) 

To consider report of the Director of Technical Services on bus issues in the Borough. 

(Attached) 

9. School Travel Strategy (Paper No. 10 - 50) 

To consider report of the Director of Technical Services on progress on the school travel 

strategy. (Attached) 

2

10. Mayor's Transport Strategy and LIP Guidance (Paper No. 10 - 51) 

To consider report of the Director of Technical Services on the Mayor’s Transport Strategy 

for London and Local Implementation Plan Guidance. (Attached) 

11. Local Implementation Plan (Transport) Allocation - 2010/2011 (Paper No. 10 - 52) 

To consider joint report of the Director of Finance and the Director of Technical Services on 

the Local Implementation Plan (Transport) Allocation for 2010/11. (Attached) 

TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT MATTERS 

12. Dover House Road - 20mph Speed Limit (Paper No. 10 - 53) 

To consider report of the Director of Technical Services on a proposal to introduce a 20mph 

speed limit in the Dover House Road area, SW15 (West Putney and Roehampton). 

(Attached) 

13. Church Lane (Paper No. 10 - 54) 

To consider report of the Director of Technical Services in response to a petition by local 

residents requesting traffic enforcement and the consideration of other traffic measures in 

Church Lane, SW16 (Graveney, Bedford and Furzedown). (Attached) 

14. Bedford Hill - Accident Reduction Study (Paper No. 10 - 55) 

To consider report of the Director of Technical Services on an accident reduction study for 

Bedford Hill, SW12 (Balham, Bedford and Nightingale) between the junctions of Balham 

High Road and the Borough boundary. (Attached) 

15. Aldrington Road / Mitcham Lane (Paper No. 10 - 56) 

To consider report of the Director of Technical Services on the outcome of consultation for a 

proposal to remove the existing banned right turn movement from Aldrington Road into 

Mitcham Lane, SW16 (Furzedown). (Attached) 

16. Putney Hill - Local Safety Study (Paper No. 10 - 57) 

To consider report of the Director of Technical Services on a local safety study in Putney 

Hill, SW15 (East Putney and West Putney). (Attached) 

CYCLING MATTERS 

17. Tooting Bec Common and Wandsworth Common - Operation Review of Cycle 

Routes (Paper No. 10 - 58) 

3

To consider report of the Director of Technical Services on the operational reviews of cycle 

routes on Tooting Bec Common, SW12 and SW16 (Bedford and Furzedown) and 

Wandsworth Common, SW11 and SW12 (Wandsworth Common, Northcote and 

Nightingale). (Attached) 

18. Cycle Route Proposals (Paper No. 10 - 59) 

To consider report of the Director of Technical Services on proposed cycle routes for 

Burntwood Lane, SW17 (Wandsworth Common), Bolingbroke Grove, SW12 (Northcote), 

Albert Bridge Road, SW11 (Queenstown, St. Mary’s Park and Latchmere) and Chillerton 

Road / Rectory Lane, SW16 (Furzedown and Graveney). (Attached) 

19. Cycle Superhighways (Paper No. 10 - 60) 

To receive, as information, report by the Director of Technical Services on the latest position 

on the Mayor of London’s cycle superhighways initiative. (Attached) 

AIR QUALITY 

20. Grant (Paper No. 10 - 4) 

To consider report of the Director of Technical Services on the 2009 air quality grant 

awarded to the Council by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. 

(Attached) 

COMPUTER SYSTEM 

21. Financial and Project Management Computer System (Paper No. 10 - 61) 

To consider report of the Director of Technical Services concerning the arrangements for 

tendering for the provision of a financial and project management computer system for the 

Technical Services Department. (Attached) 

PETITIONS 

22. Petitions Presented to the Council (Paper No. 10 - 62) 

To receive, as information, report by the Chief Executive and Director of Administration on 

petitions presented to the Council on 9th December 2009 and referred formally to the 

Committee. (Attached) 

4

PAPER NO. 10-44 

WANDSWORTH BOROUGH COUNCIL 

PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY 

COMMITTEE - 13TH JANUARY 2010 

Report by the Director of Finance on the Planning and Transportation Revenue 

Budget 2009-2013 

SUMMARY 

The original revenue budget for 2009/10 for services within the terms of reference 

of this Committee has been adjusted for the effect of inflation and developments as 

follows:- 

2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 

£’000 £’000 £’000 £’000 

2009/10 Original Budget 10,424 10,424 10,424 10,424 

Effect of inflation to November 2009 326 283 283 283 

Net Effect of Developments - 2,441 - 4,015 - 4,015 - 4,015 

GENERAL REVENUE BUDGET 8,309 6,692 6,692 6,692 

The expenditure requirement for Planning and Transportation summarised above 

and detailed in this report will be consolidated within a Council-wide summary to 

be considered by the Executive on 25 th January 2010, in which the Executive will 

be asked to approve the budgets as the first stage in the general revenue budget 

framework for 2010/11. 

The Director of Finance will undertake statutory consultation with the Wandsworth 

Business Forum on the detailed capital and revenue service plans set out in this and 

the other Overview and Scrutiny Committee budget reports. 

Recommendations 

1. The Planning and Transportation Overview and Scrutiny Committee are asked 

to note that in the general revenue budget summary report, the Executive are 

being asked:- 

a) to set a revised budget for Planning and Transportation of £8,309,000 

for 2009/10 (paragraph 6); and 

b) to incorporate an expenditure requirement for Planning and 

Transportation of £6,692,000 for 2010/11, £6,692,000 for 2011/12, and 

£6,692,000 for 2012/13 within the overall general revenue budget 

framework that it will recommend to the Council for the coming 

financial year (paragraph 6).

Planning and Transportation Revenue Budget 

2. If the Overview and Scrutiny Committee approve any views, comments or 

additional recommendations on this report, these will be reported to the 

Executive for consideration alongside the general revenue budget summary 

report. 

Introduction 

3. The original revenue budget for 2009/10 for each service within the remit of 

this Committee has been updated and extended into future years to take 

account of inflation and developments as set out in the following paragraphs. 

Inflation 

4. As a first stage, page 6 of this report reprices the original revenue budget 

approved by the Council last March to take account of inflation between 

November 2008 and November 2009 in both the current year and a full year. 

Major pay settlements include the provisional single status pay award of 1.0% 

from April 2009. Contracted services are increased in line with the Retail 

Price Index or other relevant index from the annual contract review dates. 

Running costs are generally cash limited in 2009/10 to the 1.5% allowed for 

when deciding the council tax, but for 2010/11 the inflation provision reflects 

the actual change in prices between November 2008 and November 2009. 

Provision for inflation on expenditure from the November 2009 cost level to 

outturn for 2010/11 will be considered by the Executive when recommending 

the Council’s overall revenue requirements. This will include inflation and 

other changes on precepts and levies including the Concessionary Fares 

charge made by London Councils. 

Developments 2009-2013 

5. 2010/11 sees the adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards by 

local authorities, which will bring about the most significant changes to the 

content and presentation of local authority accounts for many years. A report 

was considered by the Audit Committee on 26 th November 2009 on the 

detailed changes. The introduction of these changes has provided the 

opportunity to bring fully the Council’s charges for the consumption of the 

economic benefits of its assets in line with the Best Value Accounting Code of 

Practice (BVACOP). Depreciation on buildings, infrastructure and equipment 

will now be charged directly to individual cost centres. This accounting 

change will not impact on the Council’s overall budget, but there will be 

effects on individual service budgets which are shown within the following 

pages. The repriced budget is adjusted to include the revenue effects of 

approved and unavoidable service developments and budget transfers during 

the year to produce the revised budget for 2009/10 and subsequent years as set 

out on pages 6 to 15. The full effect of developments is shown as an 

adjustment to continuing expenditure on existing services. 

(Paper No. 10-44) - 2 -

Major developments included within the budget are:- 


2009/10 

£’000 

2010/11 

£'000 

2011/12 

£'000 

2012/13 

£'000 

Parking Enforcement Contractor 569 -160 - 160 - 160 

Parking & Traffic Enforcement Income 

Review 800 1,200 1,200 1,200 

Summary of Revenue Budget 

6. The following statement summarises the effect of inflation and developments 

as described in the earlier paragraphs:- 

2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 

£’000 £’000 £’000 £’000 

2009/10 Original Budget 10,424 10,424 10,424 10,424 

Effect of inflation to November 2009 326 283 283 283 

Net Effect of Developments - 2,441 - 4,015 - 4,015 - 4,015 

GENERAL REVENUE BUDGET 8,309 6,692 6,692 6,692 

This requirement will be consolidated within a Council-wide budget summary 

report to be considered by the Executive on 25 th January 2010. As part of this 

process the Executive will be asked to set a revised budget for Planning and 

Transportation of £8,309,000 for the current year, and to include the budget 

requirement shown above for future years for the services within the remit of 

this Committee when recommending the overall general revenue budget 

framework for 2010/11 to the Council. 

Capital Programme 

7. The Capital Programme shown on page 16 does not include the Transport for 

London (TfL) schemes included in the Local Implementation Plan (LIP) 

(Paper No.10-52) reported elsewhere on this agenda. All the TfL schemes are 

100% grant funded. 

- 3 - 

(Paper No. 10-44)


Consultation 

8. Section 65 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 provides for nondomestic 

ratepayers to be consulted annually on the Council’s spending 

proposals for the next financial year. For services within the remit of this 

Committee, the revenue expenditure plans compared with the original budget 

for the current year are set out in the accompanying tables, together with a 

schedule of the current capital programme schemes. These will be provided to 

the Wandsworth Business Forum for consideration at their next meeting with 

any representations received being reported back to the Executive when it 

considers its final recommendations to Council on the budget for next year. It 

is also proposed to consult with local partner organisations through the Local 

Strategic Partnership (LSP) at their meeting on the 19th January 2010. 

The Town Hall, 

Wandsworth, 

SW18 2PU. 

CHRIS BUSS 

Director of Finance 

5th January 2010 

Background Papers 

The following background papers were used in the preparation of this report:- 

1. The Council's Budget Publication 2009/10. 

2. Paper No. 09-825 (Capital Programme) Corporate Resources Overview and 

Scrutiny Committee 23 rd September 2009. 

3. Budget Variation reports approved by the Executive. 

All reports to Overview and Scrutiny Committees, regulatory and other committees, 

the Executive and the full Council can be viewed on the Council’s website 

(www.wandsworth.gov.uk/moderngov) unless the report was published before May 

2001, in which case the relevant Committee Secretary, Mr. M. Newton (Tel:020 8871 

6488; e-mail:mnewton@wandsworth.gov.uk) can supply a copy if required. 

(Paper No. 10-44) - 4 -


REVENUE BUDGET 

- 5 - 

(Paper No. 10-44)


PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION OVERVIEW 

AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE SUMMARY 

2009/10 REVISED BUDGET 2010/11 REVISED BUDGET 

2009/10 

ORIGINAL 

BUDGET 

INFLATION 

TO NOV. 09 

DEVELOP- 

MENTS 

TOTAL 

INFLATION 

TO NOV. 09 

DEVELOP- 

MENTS 

£'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 

TOTAL 

REVENUE EXPENDITURE BY TYPE 

Salaries 6,587 92 93 6,772 91 -38 6,640 

Wages 55 1 - 56 1 - 56 

Indirect Employee Expenses 69 1 -2 68 1 -2 68 

Premises 

- Street Lighting Electricity 719 -31 - 688 -62 - 657 

- Other Premises 872 12 -65 819 12 -59 825 

Use of Transport 117 1 -1 117 2 -1 118 

Concessionary Fares 6,260 4 2 6,266 4 1 6,265 

Supplies and Services 3,335 39 -67 3,307 45 -85 3,295 

Agency and Contracted Services 

- Precepts and Levies 644 - - 644 - - 644 

- Parking Enforcement 4,319 65 -758 3,626 39 -1487 2,871 

- Parking Pay & Display Machine Mtce 737 11 - 748 10 - 747 

- Other Agency & Contracted Services 5,747 47 638 6,432 66 -601 5,212 

Central & Technical Support 4,300 84 -163 4,221 74 -217 4,157 

Depreciation and Impairment 8,904 - -3,828 5,076 - -3,828 5,076 

Government Grants -121 - -206 -327 - - -121 

Other Income -32,120 - 1,916 -30,204 - 2,302 -29,818 

10,424 326 -2,441 8,309 283 -4,015 6,692 

REVENUE EXPENDITURE BY SERVICE 

Bridges, Structures and Drainage 306 - - 306 2 - 308 

Footway and Carriageway Maintenance 3,590 45 440 4,075 53 -562 3,081 

Traffic Management 407 4 -1 410 5 -1 411 

Street Lighting and Furniture 1,566 -32 - 1,534 -52 - 1,514 

Parking Service and Traffic Enforcement -15,301 213 811 -14,277 185 411 -14,705 

Technical Services General 9,701 22 -3,437 6,286 21 -3,441 6,281 

Concessionary Fares 6,260 4 2 6,266 4 2 6,266 

Planning Services 3,895 70 -256 3,709 65 -424 3,536 

10,424 326 -2,441 8,309 283 -4,015 6,692 

(Paper No. 10-44) - 6 -


PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION OVERVIEW 

AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE SUMMARY 

BUDGET 2009-2013 

2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 

£'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 

2009/10 ORIGINAL BUDGET AT 

NOVEMBER 2008 PRICES 10,424 10,424 10,424 10,424 

INFLATION 326 283 283 283 

2009/10 ORIGINAL BUDGET REPRICED 10,750 10,707 10,707 10,707 

AT NOVEMBER 2009 PRICES 

DEVELOPMENTS 

Bridges, Structures and Drainage - - - - 

Footway and Carriageway Maintenance 440 -62 -62 -62 

Traffic Management -1 -1 -1 -1 

Street Lighting and Furniture - - - - 

Parking Service and Traffic Enforcement 811 411 411 411 

Technical Services General -3,437 -3,441 -3,441 -3,441 

Concessionary Fares 2 2 2 2 

Planning Services -256 -263 -263 -263 

TOTAL DEVELOPMENTS -2,441 -3,354 -3,354 -3,354 

Part of Developments already included 

in - 661 661 661 

Original Budget 

NET ADDITION TO 2009/10 BUDGET -2,441 -4,015 -4,015 -4,015 

REVISED BUDGET TOTALS 8,309 6,692 6,692 6,692 


Bridges, Structures and Drainage 306 308 308 308 

Footway and Carriageway Maintenance 4,075 3,081 3,081 3,081 

Traffic Management 410 411 411 411 

Street Lighting and Furniture 1,534 1,514 1,514 1,514 

Parking Service and Traffic Enforcement -14,277 -14,705 -14,705 -14,705 

Technical Services General 6,286 6,281 6,281 6,281 

Concessionary Fares 6,266 6,266 6,266 6,266 

Planning Services 3,709 3,536 3,536 3,536 

BUDGET TOTALS 8,309 6,692 6,692 6,692 

7 

(Paper No. 10-44)


BRIDGES, STRUCTURES & 

DRAINAGE 

BUDGET 2009-2013 

2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 

£'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 


NOVEMBER 2008 PRICES 306 306 306 306 

INFLATION - 2 2 2 

2009/10 ORIGINAL BUDGET REPRICED AT 

NOVEMBER 2009 PRICES 

306 308 308 308 

DEVELOPMENTS 

TOTAL DEVELOPMENTS - - - - 

Part of Developments already included 

in - - - - 


NET ADDITION TO 2009/10 BUDGET - - - - 

REVISED BUDGET TOTALS 306 308 308 308 


Bridges and Other Structures 227 227 227 227 

Surface Water Drainage and Sewers 79 81 81 81 

BUDGET TOTALS 306 308 308 308 

(Paper No. 10-44) 8


FOOTWAY & CARRIAGEWAY 

MAINTENANCE 

BUDGET 2009-2013 

2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 

£'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 



INFLATION 45 53 53 53 

2009/10 ORIGINAL BUDGET REPRICED 


3,635 3,643 3,643 3,643 

DEVELOPMENTS 

Insurance Review -21 -21 -21 -21 

Highway Maintenance 500 - - - 

Technical Services - Staff Review -1 -2 -2 -2 

Depreciation Adjustment -42 -42 -42 -42 

Transfers between Committees 

- Flyposting Removal 12 12 12 12 

- Depot Review 5 5 5 5 

- Respread of Central Support Charges 1 - - - 

Transfer within Committee - 

- Highways income review -14 -14 -14 -14 

TOTAL DEVELOPMENTS 440 -62 -62 -62 

Part of Developments already included in 


- 500 500 500 

NET ADDITION TO 2009/10 BUDGET 440 -562 -562 -562 



Programmed Maintenance 2,716 1,719 1,719 1,719 

Winter Maintenance 186 189 189 189 

Administration 1,173 1,173 1,173 1,173 

BUDGET TOTALS 4,075 3,081 3,081 3,081 

9 

(Paper No. 10-44)


TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT 

BUDGET 2009-2013 

2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 

£'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 


NOVEMBER 2008 PRICES 407 407 407 407 


2009/10 ORIGINAL BUDGET REPRICED 411 412 412 412 


DEVELOPMENTS 

Depreciation Adjustments -1 -1 -1 -1 

TOTAL DEVELOPMENTS -1 -1 -1 -1 

Part of Developments already included in - - - - 


NET ADDITION TO 2009/10 BUDGET -1 -1 -1 -1 

REVISED BUDGET TOTALS 410 411 411 411 


Traffic Management 410 411 411 411 

BUDGET TOTALS 410 411 411 411 

(Paper No. 10-44) 10


BUDGET 2009-2013 

STREET LIGHTING 

AND FURNITURE 

2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 

£'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 



INFLATION -32 -52 -52 -52 



DEVELOPMENTS 

TOTAL DEVELOPMENTS - - - - 



NET ADDITION TO 2009/10 BUDGET - - - - 



Street Lighting Maintenance 1,258 1,235 1,235 1,235 

Street Furniture Maintenance 276 279 279 279 

BUDGET TOTALS 1,534 1,514 1,514 1,514 

11 

(Paper No. 10-44)


BUDGET 2009-2013 

PARKING SERVICE AND 

TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT 

2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 

£'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 


NOVEMBER 2008 PRICES -15,301 -15,301 -15,301 -15,301 

INFLATION 213 185 185 185 

2009/10 ORIGINAL BUDGET REPRICED 


-15,088 -15,116 -15,116 -15,116 

DEVELOPMENTS 

Discount Card Review - -13 -13 -13 

Harmonisation of Hours - -3 -3 -3 

Parking Enforcement Contract 569 -160 -160 -160 

Parking & Traffic Enforcement Income 

Review 800 1,200 1,200 1,200 



Transfers between Committees: 

- IT Infrastructure 15 - - - 

- IT Support -12 -12 -12 -12 

- Respread of Central Support Charges 4 2 2 2 

TOTAL DEVELOPMENTS 811 411 411 411 



NET ADDITION TO 2009/10 BUDGET 811 411 411 411 

REVISED BUDGET TOTALS -14,277 -14,705 -14,705 -14,705 


Parking Administration and Income -13,630 -14,056 -14,056 -14,056 

Parking Zone Projects and Reviews 563 561 561 561 

Bus Lane and Traffic Enforcement -1,210 -1,210 -1,210 -1,210 

BUDGET TOTALS -14,277 -14,705 -14,705 -14,705 

(Paper No. 10-44) 12


TECHNICAL SERVICES GENERAL 

BUDGET 2009-2013 

2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 

£'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 






DEVELOPMENTS 


Depreciation Adjustments -3,421 -3,421 -3,421 -3,421 

Transfers between Committees: 


- IT Support -25 -25 -25 -25 

- Respread of Central Support Charges 7 10 10 10 

- Land Charges -15 -15 -15 -15 

- Wandsworth Community Transport 25 25 25 25 


- Highways income review -6 -6 -6 -6 

TOTAL DEVELOPMENTS -3,437 -3,441 -3,441 -3,441 



NET ADDITION TO 2009/10 BUDGET -3,437 -3,441 -3,441 -3,441 



Precepts and Levies 644 644 644 644 

Wandsworth Community Transport 224 224 224 224 

Engineer Services 520 513 513 513 

School Crossing Patrols 200 199 199 199 

Administration and Support Services 4,698 4,701 4701 4701 

BUDGET TOTALS 6,286 6,281 6,281 6,281 

13 

(Paper No. 10-44)


CONCESSIONARY FARES 

BUDGET 2009-2013 

2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 

£'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 






DEVELOPMENTS 

Levy Adjustment -14 -14 -14 -14 



- Highways income review 20 20 20 20 

TOTAL DEVELOPMENTS 2 2 2 2 



NET ADDITION TO 2009/10 BUDGET 2 2 2 2 



Elderly Persons Freedom Passes 5,018 5,018 5,018 5,018 

Disabled Persons Freedom Passes 805 805 805 805 

Taxicard Scheme 200 200 200 200 

Administration 243 243 243 243 

BUDGET TOTALS 6,266 6,266 6,266 6,266 

(Paper No. 10-44) 14


PLANNING SERVICE 

BUDGET 2009-2013 

2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 

£'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 






DEVELOPMENTS 

Harmonisation of Hours - -7 -7 -7 

New Burdens Grant -17 - - - 



Transfers between Committees 

- Land Charges -30 -30 -30 -30 

- DTS Budget Review -18 -18 -18 -18 


- Respread of Central Support Charges 3 -1 -1 -1 

TOTAL DEVELOPMENTS -256 -263 -263 -263 

Part of Developments already included in - 161 161 161 


NET ADDITION TO 2009/10 BUDGET -256 -424 -424 -424 



Development Planning 1,729 1,668 1,668 1,668 

Development Control 1,519 1,412 1,412 1,412 

Building Control 190 187 187 187 

Transportation 271 269 269 269 

BUDGET TOTALS 3,709 3,536 3,536 3,536 

15 

(Paper No. 10-44)

CAPITAL SCHEMES 

The revenue effects of the following capital schemes 

are included in the budget. 

HIGHWAY SERVICES 

ESTIMATED 

CAPITAL PROGRAMME 

TOTAL 

COST OF 

SCHEMES 

2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 

£'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 

WBC Funded Schemes 

Capitalised Repairs: - 

Carriageways 1,983 1,000 - 5,500 

Footways 1,160 600 - 3,546 

Footway and Carriageway Reconstruction 392 - - 1,480 

Provision of New Trees on Public Highway 36 20 - 80 

Street Lighting Installation of Electronic Ballasts 104 104 103 414 

Town Centre Streetscape Projects 119 - - 258 

Traffic Management Schemes 244 100 - 803 

4,038 1,824 103 

TfL Funded Schemes 

20 MPH Zone 280 300 - 655 

Bridge Assessment and Strengthening 50 - - 50 

Bus Priority Network 534 320 70 1,333 

Bus Stop Accessibility 64 - - 150 

Cycling on Greenways 72 - - 127 

Cycling - Non London Cycle Network 83 - - 142 

Environmental Initiatives 15 - - 92 

Local Area Accessibility 60 40 - 140 

Local Safety Schemes 575 150 - 1,412 

London Cycle Network 250 - - 610 

Principal Road Maintenance 240 166 - 563 

Schools Travel Strategy 100 - - 343 

SWELTRAC 631 50 - 905 

Trial Funding 100 - - 100 

Walking Projects 200 - - 439 

3,254 1,026 70 

Section 106 agreements under the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 

Wandsworth Shopping Centre (Fairfield) 115 - - 115 

2-6 Hardwicks Way (Southfields) 30 - - 30 

Riverside Quarter 100 - - 100 

John Milton School Site (Queenstown) 103 - - 103 

1-9 Hardwicks Way (Southfields) 48 - - 48 

81-85 St Johns Hill (Northcote) 10 - - 10 

Pine Tavern 25 - - 25 

63-65 Garratt Lane (Fairfield) 10 - - 10 

Magdalen Road (Wandsworth Common) 100 - - 100 

541 - - 

TOTAL HIGHWAYS SCHEMES 7,833 2,850 173 

PLANNING SERVICES 

Conservation/Enhancement Grants 187 140 - 474 

TOTAL PLANNING SERVICES 187 140 - 

TOTAL PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION 8,020 2,990 173 

(Paper No. 10-44)

PAPER NO.10-45 



COMMITTEE – 13TH JANUARY 2010 

EXECUTIVE – 18TH JANUARY 2010 

Report by the Director of Technical Services on the review of the Tooting Broadway 

controlled parking zone (CPZ) central area, SW17 (Tooting) (Graveney). 

SUMMARY 

Background. A CPZ was introduced in Tooting Broadway in May 1999 (operating 

from 9.30am to 5.30pm, Monday to Saturday). The parking arrangements in 

Tooting Broadway were last reviewed in 2005. Since that time, several requests to 

re-examine how the parking controls operate have been received from residents in 

the area as well as representations from the business community. It was agreed that 

a review of the parking situation should be conducted. This paper reports the results 

of the review, which was carried out in June and July 2009. 

Policy. The aims of this review fall within existing Council policies of asking 

residents and businesses their views on whether the current controls are providing 

effective parking for them and their visitors. 

Issues/Proposals. A petition was received from some residents of Ashvale Road 

and Longmead Road in July 2009 requesting a separate zone operating in the roads 

closest to Tooting Broadway Underground Station to prevent, in particular, permit 

holders from roads furthest from the station from parking there. 

Supporting Information. A copy of the summarised results of the consultation is 

available from the parking policy team (Mr. T. Shishodia – 020 8871 8050 or 

tshishodia@wandsworth.gov.uk) 

Comments of the Director of Finance. The cost of the further surveys and any 

required works proposed in this report will need to be contained within the existing 

Parking revenue budget. 

Conclusions. In response to this review, it is recommended that the feasibility of 

introducing a separate sub-zone is thoroughly investigated with a view to making 

more parking spaces available in the roads nearest the station. It is also 

recommended that surveys are undertaken to measure the usage of ‘pay and display 

only’ or ‘shopper’ bays. The results of these investigations along with any 

recommendations for action will be reported to a future meeting of this Committee. 

It is also recommended to make amendments to the Traffic Management Order 

creating more parking space from some redundant lengths of yellow line. It is not 

Page 1 of 16 (Paper No. 10-45)

Tooting CPZ Review Results 

recommended that any changes should be made to the operational hours and days 

of control as a result of this review. 

GLOSSARY 

PCN Penalty Charge Notice 

CPZ Controlled Parking Zone 

CEO Civil Enforcement Officer 

TMA Traffic Management Act, 2004 

1. Recommendation. The Planning and Transportation Overview and Scrutiny 

Committee are recommended to support the recommendations in paragraph 3. 


recommendations in the report, these will be reported to the Executive for its 

consideration. 

3. The Executive is recommended to: - 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

(d) 

(e) 

(f) 

(g) 

note the results of the review consultation carried out in the Tooting 

Broadway CPZ, central area; 

agree that no changes should be made to the days and hours of parking 

control arising from the review consultation; 

hold pay and display charges at their current levels throughout the 

calendar year of 2010; 

investigate the feasibility of introducing a separate sub-zone in the 

roads close to the underground station and report the results to future 

meetings of this Committee and the Executive along with any 

recommendations for action; 

undertake surveys to measure the usage of ‘pay and display only’ or 

‘shopper’ bays and report the results to a future meeting of this 

Committee along with any recommendations for action; 

make the appropriate amendments to the Traffic Management Order 

creating more parking space from redundant yellow lines as identified 

during the review; and 

instruct the Director of Technical Services to inform residents and 

businesses in the area of the results of the consultation and to publish 

the results on the Council’s parking web-site. 

(Paper No. 10-45) Page 2 of 16

Tooting CPZ Review 

4. Introduction. A CPZ was introduced in Tooting Broadway in May 1999 

(operating from 9.30am to 5.30pm, Monday to Saturday). The parking 

arrangements in Tooting Broadway were last reviewed in 2005. At that time, 

the majority of respondents said that parking controls had made parking easier 

and wanted the days and hours of control to remain the same. Since that time, 

several requests to re-examine how the parking controls operate have been 

received from residents in the area as well as representations from the business 

community. It was agreed that a review of the parking situation should be 

conducted. 

The review area (Appendix A) did not include all the residents and businesses 

in both the E1 and E2 sub-zones but focused on the roads located in the central 

area. 

5. Review consultation. Residents and businesses were consulted about the 

operation of the CPZ by letter and questionnaire in June and July 2009. The 

consultation documents explained the reason for the review consultation, 

contained information about how a CPZ works, and asked respondents to 

complete and return the questionnaire using the pre-paid facility. Separate 

questionnaires were sent to residents and businesses. The questionnaire for 

residents followed a format previously used in the Council’s parking review 

consultations. In order to determine whether the CPZ was working effectively, 

a series of questions were asked about any current problems, possible 

remedies and whether the existing operational times and days were suitable. 

The questionnaire for businesses was of a similar format but also included 

questions relating to the experience of customers. Return dates for completed 

questionnaires were 3 rd July 2009 for residents and 17 th July 2009 for 

businesses. 290 questionnaires were returned. However, respondents did not 

answer every question. Therefore, the number against “responded” refers to 

each question only. For reasons of clarity, some figures have been rounded up 

or down to avoid decimal places. 

6. Summary of responses to the review consultation. 

Response rate 

Response rate 

Residents Businesses TOTAL 

Delivered 4455 505 4960 

Returned 290 (7%) 133 (26%) 423 (9%) 



7. Responses from residents 

Q1. Are you happy with the current parking arrangements? 

Responded Yes No 

286 119 (41%) 167 (59%) 

Q2. (a) If you answered No to Q1, please specify why by ticking one box only. 

Responded 

My parking problems 

are in the evening 


are during the hours 

of control 

My parking problems are at all 

times 

155 26 (17%) 55 (35%) 74 (48%) 

Q.2 (b) Please specify the problem 

Residents' responses from Tooting 

Broadway CPZ 

200 

180 

160 

140 

120 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

Responded 

A 

B 

C 

D 

E 

F 

G 

H 

I 

J 

K 

L 

M 

Problems 

Responded = 187 

A = 64 (34%) No space/not enough resident only permit parking/until late at night 

B = 27 (14%) Parking charges are too high P&D/Visitor permits 

C = 14 (7%) CPZ on weekends is not necessary/CPZ on Saturday is too long 

D = 3 (2%) Over 60s’ permit & visitors permit price are too high 

E = 7 (3%) Trading problems/Problems with school in the area/Obstructive parking 

F = 13 (7%) Clearer signs & lines are required/ Too many suspensions on the road 

G = 31(17%) Not enough parking spaces 

H = 9 (5%) Too much traffic/gridlock on weekends 

I = 3 (2%) Residents are ‘intra-zone commuting’ to the centre 



J = 3 (2%) Parking restrictions on school days 

K = 3 (2%) People park in my disabled bay 

L = 3 (2%) No space for visitors/Suggest free visitors passes for residents 

M = 7 (3%) Various 

Residents' responses from Tooting 

Broadway CPZ 

180 

160 

140 

120 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

Q.2 (c) How can we fix it? 

Responded 

A 

B 

C 

D 

E 

F 

G 

H 

Solutions 

J 

K 

L 

M 

N 

O 

P 

I 


A = 7 (4%) Extend CPZ to operate on Sat, Sun & bank holiday 

B = 17 (11%) Remove P&D on Saturday/Reduce P&D charge/times 

C = 21 (13%) Reduce parking charges/times/max hourly stay 

D = 11 (7%) Redo signs & lines (bay lines) in the area/warning signs & speed restrictions 

E = 2 (1.25%) Allow 2 wheels on the pavement/create off street parking 

F = 37 (23%) More ‘residents only’ bays/Remove or reduce P&D/Free bays 

G = 5 (3%) More information 

H = 5 (3%) Introduce separate inner zone to counter ‘intra-zone commuting’ 

I = 8 (5%) Designate shopper bays but not at expense of residents 

J = 2 (1.25%) Increase loading bays/times/more 20 min free bays 

K= 17 (11%) Abolish CPZ/Free parking for residents/Visitors 

L = 15 (9%) Increase restrictions (times) and one-way roads 

M=2 (1.25%) More CEOs and closer monitoring 

N = 2 (1.25%) Reduce number of permits issued 

O = 5 (3%) Some free and simpler parking for visitors 

P = 3 (3%) Various 

Q.3. (a) Do you think the days / hours of control should: 

Remain the 

Responded same Be shorter Be longer Be removed 

279 137 (49%) 78 (28%) 37 (13%) 27 (10%) 

Q.3 (b) If you indicated that controls should be shorter 

or longer, please give details. 

08:30-18:30 2 

09:00-17:00 3 

09:30- 19:00 2 

09:30-16:30 4 

10:00-16:00 2 

8:00-22:00 Sun-Sat 2 

Bingo goers should use their car park. 2 

Extend hours 9 



No CPZ on Saturdays 12 

No spaces 3 

Reduce hours 3 

Resident only 2 

Various 45 

Yellow line abuse 2 

Grand Total 93 

8. Responses from businesses 

Q1. Are you happy with the current parking 

arrangements? 


122 11 (9%) 111 (91%) 

Q2 (a). If you answered No to Q.1, please specify why by ticking one box only. 

Responded 


are in the evening 

My parking problems are My parking problems 

during the hours of are at all times 

control 

117 0 (0%) 73 (62%) 44 (38%) 

120 

Q.2 (b) Please specify the problem 

Resident responses from 

Tooting Broadway CPZ 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

Responded 

A 

B 

C 

D 

E 

Problem 

F 

G 

H 

J 

I 


A =1 (1%) Parking charges are too high, including PCN 

B = 38 (37%) Not enough parking spaces/extend max stay 

C = 8 (8%) More ‘business only’ bays 

D = 4 (4%) Clearer signs & lines 

E = 12 (12%) Trade is suffering 

F = 22 (22%) More loading bays outside shops & extend loading time 

G = 8 (8%) More short stay bays 



H = 5 (5%) Do not allow disabled parking in loading bays 

I = 1 (1%) Remove CPZ on Saturday 

J = 2 (2 %) Difficulty in obtaining business permit 

90 

Q.2 (C) How can we fix it? 

Resident responses from Tooting 

Broadway CPZ 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

Responded 

A 

B 

C 

D 

Solutions 

E 

F 

G 

H 


A = 33 (42%) Lower all parking charges, including PCN 

B = 6 (8%) One type of bay 

C = 6 (8%) Remove CPZ 

D = 5 (6.5%) One free business permit per business/loading only bays 

E = 18 (23%) Provide more business/loading only bays 

F = 5 (6.5%) Free Parking/Saturday 

G = 4 (5%) Provide more parking for disabled blue badge holders 

H = 1 (1%) Clearer instructions 

Q.3: Are your customers happy with the parking 

arrangements? 


116 4 (4%) 112 (97%) 

Q.4 (a): If you answered No to Q.3, please specify why. 

Afraid of receiving a PCN 8 

Cannot get deliveries 1 

Charges are too high 56 

Clearer signage 6 

Confusing restrictions and cost 1 

Customers cannot park 3 

Feeling rushed to shop 4 

HGV van parking in doctors bay 1 

Loss of trade 3 

Not enough parking bays 22 

Stop controls earlier 1 

Too restricted 1 

CEOs are over zealous 2 



Cars o/s business are towed after 4pm 1 


Q.4 (b) How can we fix it? 

Build parking area 5 

Business discount cards 1 

Clearer signs 4 

Ease parking restrictions 1 

Fixed fee for 2 hours 1 

More short stay bays 4 

One type of machine for all bays 1 

Power to shop with freedom 1 

Provide more parking spaces 7 

Reduce CPZ times 4 

Extend loading time 1 

Extend bays until 5:30 1 

Lower / abolish charges 63 

Enforce HGVs loading in doctors' bays 1 

Make bays 2 hours max stay 1 


Q.5 (a) Do you think the days / hours of control should: 

Responded Remain the same Be shorter Be longer Be removed 

123 12 (10%) 69 (56%) 10 (8%) 32 (26%) 

Q5 (b) If you indicated that controls 

should be shorter or longer, please give 

details 

09:30-15:30 6 

09:30-16:00 12 

10:00-15:30 1 

10:00-16:00 17 

10:00-17:00 2 

09:30-16:30 1 

10:30-15:00 1 

No controls at the weekend 2 

Various 19 


9. Summary of results. The results show that there was a higher than normal 

response rate from the businesses in the area (26%) but a low one from the 

residents (7%). This gave an overall response rate of 9%, which is lower than 

has been obtained from similar parking reviews conducted in other parts of the 

Borough in previous years. 

10. The majority (59%) of those responding to the residents’ questionnaire 

(question one) said they were dissatisfied with the current parking 



arrangements. A more decisive majority (91%) of those responding to the 

businesses’ questionnaire expressed their dissatisfaction with the present 

parking arrangements. 

11. The responses to question two indicated that the problems encountered by 

residents and businesses can occur at any time. The problems encountered by 

businesses are most acute during the hours of control. 

12. When residents were asked to specify the problems they are experiencing, the 

responses indicated a wide range of concerns. However, the more prevalent 

issues included the lack of available parking space and complaints about the 

level of parking charges. The issue of residents living in roads furthest from 

the centre, who regularly park in the roads near the tube station, was raised by 

a small number of respondents. The issue of ‘intra-zone commuting’ is the 

subject of a petition from some residents of centrally located roads and is dealt 

with elsewhere in this report. 

13. A wide range of solutions was offered by residents responding to question 

two. The most common solutions included measures to prioritise parking for 

residents such as re-designating parking bays to allow residents only to park, 

and reducing the length of time (maximum stay) visitors are permitted when 

paying and displaying. Other suggestions related to reducing parking charges, 

and removing controls on Saturday. 

14. When businesses were asked to specify the problems they are experiencing, 

the responses indicated a wide range of concerns. However, the more 

prevalent issues included the lack of available parking space, complaints about 

the maximum stay being too short and the lack of loading facilities near the 

shops. 

15. A wide range of solutions was also offered by businesses responding to 

question two. The most common solutions included lowering parking charges 

and providing more loading and business only bays. 

16. Questions three and four of the businesses’ questionnaire asked about 

customers’ parking experience. The level of dissatisfaction with the parking 

arrangements (97%) was high. The problems were wide ranging but the most 

prevalent ones were the high parking charges and the lack of parking spaces. 

The solutions offered were many but the most common ones were to provide 

more parking space and to lower or abolish the parking charges. The responses 

to these questions bear close similarities to those of earlier questions. 

17. The majority (49%) of residents responding to question three about the days 

and hours of parking control felt that they should remain the same. When 

asked to specify which days and hours they would prefer, the most common 

responses requested an extension to the operational hours and for the CPZ to 

no longer operate on Saturdays. 

18. The majority (56%) of businesses responding to this question (Q.5) felt that 

they should be shorter. When asked to specify which days and hours they 



would prefer, most respondents said they would prefer controls to operate 

from 10.00 am to 4.00 pm. 

19. Analysis of results. The difference in the response rate between residents and 

businesses, in addition to the levels of dissatisfaction expressed in response to 

question one, could indicate that parking is considered a more pressing 

concern by the businesses, rather than the residents, of Tooting. 

20. The common complaint by residents and businesses about the lack of available 

parking space highlights a fundamental conflict between the two groups and 

one that is not easy to reconcile since they are both competing for the same 

road space. Residents tend to favour measures, which prioritise parking for 

themselves such as re-designating parking bays to allow residents only to park, 

and reducing the maximum stay for visitors. The implementation of these 

measures would be to the detriment of visitors and businesses. 

21. Businesses complain about the maximum stay being too short and the lack of 

loading facilities near the shops. Increasing the maximum stay for businesses 

and visitors would allow their vehicles to stay for longer thereby reducing the 

availability of space for other users. A large number of businesses in the area 

are based on Tooting High Street and Upper Tooting Road, which is part of 

the Transport for London Road Network (TLRN), formerly known as the Red 

Route. Transport for London is the authority responsible for the design and 

enforcement of parking arrangements on this road, not the Council. Therefore, 

the re-designation of some parking bays to loading bays would necessitate 

converting some shared-use bays in the side roads, which allow both permit 

holders and visitors to park, thereby reducing the number of spaces in which 

residents are entitled to park. Changes can nevertheless be made but not before 

an evaluation is undertaken of the relative needs of each user group. 

22. Pay and display only or shopper bays, which operate for a maximum stay of 

one hour only, are installed in several side street locations off the main roads 

(Tooting High Street, Upper Tooting Road, Garratt Lane and Mitcham Road). 

The aim of the bays is to prioritise some parking for shoppers by preventing 

permit holders from parking. The one hour maximum stay ensures a high 

turnover of vehicles and regular access to of spaces. Recent inspections of 

these bays have indicated that some are underused. In response to concerns 

from businesses about the lack of available space and the length of stay, which 

may inhibit their customers, it is recommended that surveys are undertaken to 

measure the usage of these bays and to make any changes which are 

considered appropriate. 

23. The proposal to remove controls on Saturday was expressed by several 

residents and businesses. Some people may be tempted to conclude that the 

removal of parking charges, or parking controls in their entirety, would 

improve parking conditions. However, charges and a maximum stay are 

important in ensuring a turnover of vehicles in busy locations so that all users 

have an equal access to a limited parking resource. The removal of these 

measures is likely to lead to vehicles staying for long periods, preventing 

others from parking or even loading or unloading from taking place. 



24. The majority of residents, who responded to the questionnaire, supported the 

retention of the existing hours and days of control. However, the majority of 

respondents to the businesses’ questionnaire supported a reduction in the 

controlled hours to 10.00 am to 4.00 pm. As explained above, the removal or 

reduction of controls may tempt some to believe that parking conditions will 

improve but they are unlikely to do so. The reduction in parking controlled 

hours will allow vehicles to park up until 10.00 am and after 4.00 pm without 

time limit. This will significantly reduce the ability of businesses and their 

customers from parking near their premises in order to park for a short period 

or merely to load or unload. 

25. In response to the views expressed by respondents underlining the lack of 

available parking space, an inspection of the restrictions was undertaken into 

the existing design of the scheme to determine whether it would be possible to 

reduce some redundant lengths of yellow lines and replace them with parking 

bays. Several locations were identified in the roads near the station as a result 

of this inspection, and several new spaces will be created. 

26. Parking charges are reviewed annually with the most recent review taking 

place in June 2008. The charges for visitors ‘paying and displaying’ were held 

at their then current levels. Prior to 2008, similar reviews had been carried out 

earlier in the year with any changes to charges becoming effective from 1st 

April. There has not therefore been an increase in pay and display charges 

since April 2007. Many of the inner London boroughs with whom we may 

directly compare ourselves, charge more, in some cases considerably so, than 

our current charge of £1.80 an hour in Tooting. Permit charges were not 

increased in 2009. This freeze on parking charges has been part of the 

Council’s strategy of protecting its residents as much as it can in the face of 

the economic downturn. 

27. Some respondents complained about the price level of Penalty Charge Notices 

(PCNs). Under the terms of the 1991 Road Traffic Act, as amended by the 

Greater London Authority Act 1999, it is London Councils that is responsible, 

subject to agreement by the Mayor of London and the Secretary of State, for 

setting additional parking charges on borough roads within London. These 

additional parking charges include penalties for contraventions of parking 

regulations (PCNs). 

28. Analysis of comments. 

Residents 

Parking charges are too high 31 

Various 30 

Not enough space 14 

Traffic management problems 8 

More resident only bays are required 7 

Make signs clearer 6 

Satisfied with present system 4 

CEOs are over-zealous. 4 

Inadequate information with review 4 

Extend CPZ times 3 



Remove controls on Saturday 3 

Against CPZ 2 

Do not freeze permit fees 2 

Make it easier to obtain visitor permits 2 

Total 120 

Businesses 

Various 16 

Trading has gone down since recession 10 

Reduce business/pay & display charges 7 

Signs and lines need to be clearer 4 

Review restrictions to make shopping easier for customers 4 

CEOs are too harsh 3 

Abolish parking charges 3 

Build a car park 3 

Free parking on Saturday 3 

Increase loading bay times 3 

Loss of trade due to parking charges 3 

More loading bays 2 

Shorter CPZ times will encourage customers to come to Tooting 2 

1 free permit per household 2 

Disabled customers park in loading bay for more than 3 hours at peak time 2 

Total 67 

29. Response to comments. A high number of respondents to both 

questionnaires raised singular issues. These have been listed above as 

‘various’. The most common responses from residents related to concerns 

about the parking charges being too high and that there is not enough available 

space. The highest number of comments made on the business questionnaire 

related to concerns about businesses suffering as a result of the recession and 

suggesting that parking controls and charges ought to be eased to facilitate 

trade in response. Issues raised on both questionnaires related to the clarity of 

signs and lines and the conduct of Civil Enforcement Officers (CEOs). 

30. In response to the comments, the issues of parking charges, lack of space, 

removing controls on Saturday and easing parking controls for businesses are 

dealt with above (see ‘analysis of results’). The maintenance of traffic signs 

and lines forms part of the Council’s ongoing maintenance programme. 

Officers regularly respond to specific reports from the public. All road signs in 

Wandsworth have been approved and are in accordance with the Department 

for Transport’s Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions, 2002. 

31. The issue of CEOs being over zealous is a difficult one on which to comment 

without specific examples. The Council’s enforcement policy allows for 

flexibility in various aspects (Page 5 of the ‘Parking enforcement protocol in 

Wandsworth’ refers). Instances where an invalid ticket has been allegedly 

issued, or a CEO has reportedly behaved in a way that is not in accordance 

with Council policy, are regularly investigated and the appropriate action 

taken. However, it should be noted that the level of training undertaken by 

CEOs is a lot more rigorous since the introduction of the Traffic Management 



Act 2004. The success of the scheme relies on the efficient enforcement of the 

regulations. 

32. Petition from residents of Ashvale Road and Longmead Road, SW17. A 

petition (Appendix B refers) was received from some residents of Ashvale 

Road and Longmead Road in July 2009 requesting a separate zone operating 

in the roads closest to the tube station to prevent permit holders who reside in 

roads furthest from the station from parking there and causing parking 

problems for the residents. The petition also reports cases of fraud whereby 

previous holders of E2 sub-zone permits, who have moved away from the 

area, continue to use their permit to park in these roads. 

33. The petition was in the following form: 

‘We, the undersigned, petition Wandsworth Council to have a separate 

small sub-zone for the residents in the vicinity of Tooting Broadway 

underground station’. 

34. Response to the petition. The annual review of parking policy that was 

considered (Paper No. 05-11) by the then Regeneration and Transport 

Overview and Scrutiny Committee and the Executive in January 2005, 

detailed a number of criteria by which petitions should be prioritised for 

action. These are:- 

(a) 

the number of people who signed the petition relative to the area it 

covers; 

The petition bearing 26 signatures represents 21 properties. There are a 

total of 111 properties in Ashvale Road and Longmead Road. The 

petition represents 19% of the total number of properties in these two 

roads. The level of support for the petition among residents and 

businesses in this area is considered good when compared with 

response rates to previous petitions received. 

(b) 

the last time the area was reviewed/consulted; 

The parking arrangements in Tooting Broadway were last reviewed in 

2005. No changes were made at that time which may affect this 

proposal. 

(c) 

the extent of any problem identified by our investigations; 

Several inspections of the roads located near the centre of Tooting 

Broadway CPZ were conducted by Council officers in July 2009 and 

September 2009. The aims of the inspections were to establish the 

extent of the parking problems experienced by residents and whether 

there was evidence that a significant cause of this was the number of 

permit holders, who do not reside in the road, but park there in order to 

be nearer to the centre. This activity is known as ‘intra-zone 

commuting’. Officers confirmed the problems currently experienced 

by residents since very few vacant spaces were observed in all the 

centrally located roads. In addition, significant numbers of vehicles, 



belonging to permit holders residing in roads further from the station, 

were observed parking in the following roads: Ashvale Road, 

Longmead Road, Undine Street, Bickley Street, Woodbury Street, 

Gilbey Road, Coverton Road, Garratt Terrace. Problems were less 

acute in these roads: Valnay Street, Graveney Road, Selkirk Road and 

Gambole Road. 

(d) 

the potential impact of any changes on the wider area; 

Officers can confirm the parking difficulties reported by the petitioners 

and agree that a separate sub-zone in the roads around the station, 

which prevents those based in outer roads from parking there, should 

be considered. However, further investigation will be required to 

establish the feasibility of a separate sub-zone and to guard against the 

creation of new problems such as overspill parking into the roads 

immediately adjacent to any new zone. It is likely that the process will 

necessitate consultation with residents and businesses of the area 

because such a change could mean a significant modification to the 

operation of the zone. It is hoped that, by preventing permit holders 

who do not reside in the roads near the station from parking, the 

number of vacant spaces will rise, bringing benefits for both residents 

and businesses. It is recommended that the feasibility of introducing a 

separate sub-zone is thoroughly investigated with the results being 

reported to a future meeting of this Committee and to the Executive. 

35. Proposal. In response to this review, the following is recommended - 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

(d) 

(e) 

that the feasibility of introducing a separate sub-zone is thoroughly 

investigated with a view to making more parking spaces available in 

the roads nearest the station; 

that surveys are undertaken to measure the usage of ‘pay and display 

only’ or ‘shopper’ bays; 

to hold pay and display charges at their current level throughout the 

calendar year of 2010; 

the results of these investigations along with any recommendations for 

action will be reported to a future meeting of this Committee and to the 

Executive; 

to make amendments to the Traffic Management Order creating more 

parking space from some redundant lengths of yellow line. It is not 

recommended that any changes should be made to the operational 

hours and days as a result of this review. 

36. Comments of the Economic Development Officer. The response rate of 

26% is exceptional for the business community and contrasts sharply with the 

minimal response from residents. Previous parking consultations in Tooting 

with businesses in 2005 achieved an 8% response rate. This has been achieved 

as a result of considerable efforts by the Tooting Business Network to 



encourage its members to make their voices heard and complete and return the 

forms. 

37. Businesses’ views are clear. 91% say they are not happy with the current 

parking arrangements, and cite the chief problems as being not enough parking 

spaces, and a need for more loading bays and an extension of loading time. 

42% want to see parking and PCN charges lowered. 97% of business 

respondents stated that their customers are not happy with the current parking 

arrangements and this may well be contributing to the short dwell times and 

comparatively low spend by shoppers which the Experian survey has 

identified. 

38. Parking has been an issue for Tooting’s businesses for many years and in the 

context of growing concern about the future of Tooting has become 

increasingly important. Earlier this year the Tooting Business Network 

formally presented a series of proposals to the Council (12 th March 2009). The 

Council response was to open a free Saturday shoppers’ car park in the 

Professional Centre. This was welcomed by the Tooting Business Network. 

39. The CPZ consultation into a wider context. The Tooting Gap Analysis study 

undertaken by leading retail consultants Experian (Paper No. 09-1005) 

highlighted serious concerns about parking. 800 on-street surveys were carried 

out over the course of a week, and parking achieved the lowest score out of all 

the criteria addressed by the survey respondents. Of the consumer respondents 

who gave parking a rating of 5 or less (out of 10), 27% said there were not 

enough spaces in Tooting, 26% felt that parking was too expensive, and 15% 

said that the traffic was too busy to park. 

40. Businesses rated Tooting only 5.5 out of 10 as ‘a place to park’; and multiples 

rated Tooting 4.2 out of 10 in the same category. 29.5% of independents and 

33.2% of multiples cited ‘more parking provision; as the way Tooting could 

be most improved. Given that attracting more major retailers to Tooting is 

unequivocally regarded as key to its future success, these views must be taken 

seriously. 

41. The work undertaken over the past eighteen months on the Tooting Together 

initiative, and the gap analysis identifies parking as a potential barrier to 

investors and a problem for existing retailers and their customers. The 

availability of affordable parking in competing centres provided a strong 

incentive for a key retailer to leave and their customers to follow. The 

proposals (the review of the one hour parking bays, and the possibility of 

creating more parking spaces from redundant yellow line area), may go some 

way to meeting business aspirations. 

42. Comments of the Director of Finance. The cost of the further surveys and 

any required works proposed in this report will need to be contained within the 

existing Parking revenue budget. 

43. Delivering excellence consultation. As part of the Council’s ongoing 

monitoring of the effectiveness of its consultation process, feedback on the 

consultation document was invited: 



• Residents 

Of the 263 respondents to question 4, 253 (96%) thought the 

consultation document was easy to follow. Of the 246 respondents to 

question 5, 211 (86%) thought that enough information was provided. 

• Businesses 

Of the 116 respondents to question 6, 108 (93%) thought the 

consultation document was easy to follow. Of the 101 respondents to 

question 7, 81 (80%) thought that enough information was provided. 

________________ 


Wandsworth, 

SW18 2PU. 



W. G. MYERS 

Director of Technical Services 

The following background papers were used in the preparation of this report: - 

1. The summarised results of the consultation – July 2009 -Mr T Shishodia – Tel 

020 8871 8050; tshishodia@wandsworth.gov.uk 




2001, in which case the Committee Secretary (Mr. M.Newton – 020 8871 6488; email 

mnewton@wandsworth.gov.uk can supply it if required). 


Parking review consultation 

Tooting Broadway CPZ – Core area 

Appendix A 

to Paper 10-45 

E2 - Tooting Broadway 

9.30am to 5.30pm Monday to Saturday 

Maximum stay per visitor - 4 hours 

E1 

E2 


9.30am to 5.30pm Monday to Saturday 

Maximum stay per visitor - 4 hours 


10.00am to 11.00am Monday to Friday 

Permit holder only parking 

TfL Red Route 

Responsibility of Transport for London 

© Crown copyright. All rights reserved. 

Wandsworth Borough Council Licence LA 1000019270 (2009) DTS.1385 (12.09)

This page is intentionally left blank






Report by the Borough Planner on the consultation version of the draft replacement 

London Plan. 

SUMMARY 

Background. The London Plan, consolidated with alterations since 2004, was adopted 

by the previous Mayor in February 2008. The present Mayor set out his vision for a new 

spatial development strategy in “A new plan for London” which was published in April 

2009. The strategy has now been further developed, and the Mayor is now consulting on 

a draft replacement London Plan. The consultation period on the plan officially ends on 

12th January 2010, however the GLA have indicated that, given the timing of the 

consultation, late responses will be accepted from boroughs. 

Policy. Under the Greater London Authority Act 1999, the Mayor of London is 

responsible for the producing a “Spatial Development Strategy” for London, known as 

the London Plan. The London Plan together with the Council’s adopted local plan, 

currently the Unitary Development Plan (UDP), adopted August 2003, forms the 

Development Plan for the Borough. 

As part of its responsibilities under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the 

Council is in the process of developing its Local Development Framework (LDF), which 

when adopted will replace the UDP. The Council’s Development Plan documents, 

which together form the LDF, have to be in general conformity with the London Plan. 

Issues/Proposals. As the London Plan forms part of the Development Plan for the 

Borough, used in the assessment of planning applications, and the Council’s planning 

policy documents have to be in general conformity with the London Plan, it is essential 

that as far as possible, the London Plan represents the views of the Council. Whilst there 

is much in the replacement London Plan that reflects the Council’s views, e.g. the 

approach to affordable housing, there are a number of areas where this is not the case. 

This report details the main areas where the replacement London Plan represents a 

change to the current London Plan policy and the areas where the Plan may adversely 

affect the Borough or the Council’s own ability to develop local planning policies. 

GLOSSARY 

C2 

EiP 

GLA 

HCS 

Use Class C2 Residential Institutions 

Examination in Public 

Greater London Authority 

Housing Capacity Study 


The London Plan 

LDA London Development Agency 

LDF Local Development Framework 

LSEB London Skills and Employment Board 

LSOAs 2001 Census Lower Layer Super Output Areas 

OAPF Opportunity Area Planning Framework 

PTAL Public Transport Accessibility Level 

SHLAA Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment 

VNEB Vauxhall, Nine Elms, Battersea 

UDP Unitary Development Plan 


Committee are recommended to support the recommendations in paragraph 3 

of the report. 


recommendations on this report, these will be reported to the Executive or the 

appropriate regulatory and other committee for their consideration. 

3. The Executive is recommended to agree that the comments contained in 

paragraphs 12 – 53 and the Appendix of this report should be forward to the 

GLA as the Council’s formal representations. 

4. Introduction. Under the Greater London Authority Act 1999, the Mayor of 

London is responsible for the producing a “Spatial Development Strategy” for 

London, known as the London Plan. The London Plan together with the 

Council’s adopted local plan, currently the Unitary Development Plan (UDP), 

adopted August 2003, forms the Development Plan for the Borough. 

5. On 12th October 2009, the Mayor published ‘The London Plan – Spatial 

Development Strategy for Greater London, Consultation draft replacement 

plan’ (the Replacement London Plan). The Plan will replace ‘The London 

Plan, consolidated with alterations since 2004’, which was adopted by the 

previous Mayor in February 2008. In December 2009, the Mayor published 

revised waste apportionment figures in “Minor alteration to the consultation 

draft London Plan”, which is also dealt with in this report. 

6. As the London Plan forms part of the Development Plan for the Borough, used 

in the assessment of planning applications, and the Council’s planning policy 

documents have to be found in general conformity with the London Plan, it is 

essential that as far as possible, the London Plan represents the views of the 

Council. 

7. The Replacement London Plan was published alongside public consultation 

documents of the draft Transport Strategy (reported elsewhere on the Agenda) 

and the Mayor’s Economic Development Strategy. The closing date for 

consultations on all the documents is 12th January 2010, however the GLA 

have recognised the difficultly being faced in relation to committee cycles and 

have agreed to accept late representations, subject to receiving officer 

comments before the closing date. 

8. Following consultation, the next formal stage in the development of the 

London Plan will be the holding of an examination in public (EiP), led by an 



independent panel, who will review the document, based on the comments 

received. It is expected that the EiP will be held in the summer and autumn of 

2010. The Panel will produce a report recommending changes to the draft 

replacement Plan for the Mayor’s consideration. The Mayor is then required 

to send a revised draft plan to the Government Office for London. Ministers 

then have six weeks to decide whether or not they wish to direct any changes 

be made to the plan. The replacement plan can then be formally published. 

Publication of the replacement London Plan is expected to take place in late 

2011. 

9. The Replacement London Plan. The Context and Strategy Section of the 

document identifies the following trends, challenges and opportunities to be 

addressed: - 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

(d) 

(e) 

(f) 

(g) 

a continually growing and changing population; 

a growing and ever-changing economy which enables London to 

maintain its success and competitiveness; 

persistent problems of poverty and disadvantage; 

improving the environment and tackling climate change; 

ensuring the infrastructure to support growth; 

securing the legacy of 2012; and 

ensuring a high and improving quality of life. 

10. Six key over-arching objectives set out in more detail how this over-arching 

vision should be implemented: - 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

(d) 

(e) 

(f) 

a city that meets the challenges of economic and population growth; 

an internationally competitive and successful city; 

a city of diverse, strong, secure and accessible neighbourhoods; 

a city that delights the senses; 

a city that becomes a world leader in improving the environment; and 

a city where it is easy, safe and convenient for everyone to access jobs, 

opportunities and facilities. 

11. The consultation document sets out those policies which the Mayor believes 

will enable him to meet the objectives outlined above, as well as seeking 

feedback in response to particular issues. This report focuses on the policies in 

the replacement London Plan which either represent a change to existing 

London Plan Policy and/or have the greatest impact on the Borough. 

12. General Comments. The new structure and improved clarity including the 

identification of policies relating to strategic, LDF preparation or planning 

decisions is welcomed and provides clarity in relation to the objectives of the 

policies. However, in a number of areas the plan still goes into unnecessary 

detail which is not required at a strategic level. The replacement Plan is still 

281 pages long including appendices and uses a smaller type face than the 

previous plan. 

13. Whilst the focus of the plan now extends beyond Zone 1, a criticism of the 

existing London Plan, and more detail is provided on outer London, strategic 

issues and policies relating to inner London outside the Central Activity Zone 

(CAZ), are not covered in any depth. 



14. The lack of detail on implementation of the plan is a major omission. With the 

exception of detail on transport infrastructure, it is unclear whether the new 

plan can be delivered. This is particularly important in relation to the areas of 

greatest change, e.g. the Vauxhall, Nine Elms, and Battersea Opportunity 

Area. 

15. London’s Places (Chapter 2). This chapter sets out policies to support 

delivery of the Mayor’s vision for ensuring that London is a city that meets the 

challenges of economic and population growth and becomes a world leader in 

improving the environment. It sets out special policies for those areas of 

London facing particular needs or with distinctive parts to play in the capital’s 

development over the period to 2031. 

16. Sub-regional Structure. The replacement Plan introduces a new sub-regional 

structure for London with 5 sub-regions, including a Central one. These will 

be used as a basis for monitoring the implementation of the plan (Policy 2.5). 

Wandsworth forms part of the South sub-region which stretches from 

Richmond to Bromley. Wandsworth is the only inner London borough in the 

South sub-region as Lambeth and Southwark are in the Central sub-region. 

There has previously been discussion about the use of fuzzy boundaries and it 

is clear that the council will need to engage closely with both the West and 

Central sub-regions. 

17. Inner London, Outer London, Central Activity Zone. Specific strategic 

policies are included relating to the issues facing outer London, inner London 

and the Central Activity Zone (CAZ). The Policy on Inner London (Policy 

2.9) lacks detail in terms of how identified issues are to be addressed when 

compared to the policies for outer London and the CAZ. 

18. The Nine Elms area and part of Battersea are in the CAZ and the policy 

outlined for the CAZ will be applicable to that part of the borough. The CAZ 

policy on strategic priorities (Policy 2.10), requires boroughs to identify the 

detailed CAZ boundary in the LDF Development Plan Documents. This could 

be introduced in the Area Spatial Strategy for Queenstown Road to Nine Elms 

included in the Council’s Site Specific Allocations Document, the Preferred 

Options Version of which was approved for public consultation by the 

Executive on 23rd November 2009 and shown on the revised LDF Proposals 

Plan. 

19. Opportunity Areas. The policy on Opportunity Areas and Intensification 

Areas (Policy 2.13) states that: “The Mayor will provide proactive 

encouragement, support and leadership for partnerships preparing and 

implementing Opportunity Area Planning Frameworks to realise their growth 

potential in the terms of Annex 1, recognising that there are different models 

for carrying these forward”. 

20. For the Vauxhall, Nine Elms, Battersea (VNEB) Opportunity Area, Annex 1 

indicates an indicative employment capacity of 15,000 jobs and 10,000 

minimum new homes. This compares to at least 15,000 jobs and 16,000 new 

homes in paragraph 6.23, 20,000 – 25,000 jobs and approximately 16,000 

new homes in the VNEB Opportunity Area Planning Framework Consultation 

Draft (OAPF) published by the Mayor on 5th November 2009, and 8,000 jobs 

and 3,500 homes in the adopted London Plan. 



21. The Council’s Local Development Framework has to be in conformity with 

the adopted London Plan and those targets are therefore included in the Core 

Strategy. Work undertaken as part of the Strategic Housing Land Availability 

Assessment (SHLAA) in conjunction with the GLA has indicated that it is 

expected that the area has the capacity to accommodate around 10,000 new 

homes (7,250 in Wandsworth, 2,750 in Lambeth). Given this fact, the current 

uncertainty over the pace of the recovery, uncertainty over the exact mix of 

uses that will be delivered in the area, and the outstanding work on the 

delivery of an infrastructure strategy which is essential for the delivery of the 

OAPF, there is some doubt over the achievability of the targets for the 

Opportunity area contained in the replacement Plan. It is therefore proposed 

that Annex 1 should state a minimum of 8,000 new homes and that a figure of 

around 12,000 new homes should be identified as the full potential in 

paragraph 6.23. 

22. The draft consultation version of the OAPF is currently subject to public 

consultation and is reported in more detail elsewhere on the agenda. 

23. Regeneration Areas. Map 2.5 of the Replacement London Plan shows Areas 

of Regeneration. It is understood that these are based on the 2007 

Communities and Local Government Indices of Deprivation. If this is the case 

it is considered that the percentiles should be calculated using the rank out of 

2001 Census Lower Layer Super Output Areas (LSOAs) in England, which is 

more usual, rather than being based on the results for London alone. Using a 

country-wide comparison, Wandsworth has more LSOAs in the 20% most 

deprived including parts of West Hill, Southfields, Furzedown and 

Roehampton wards currently missing from Map 2.5. The Replacement 

London Plan suggests that designation as a regeneration area could lead to a 

prioritisation for investment and the areas currently excluded could benefit 

from such a designation. 

24. Town Centres. The classification of the Borough’s existing town centres in 

the Replacement London Plan, is unchanged. Clapham Junction, Putney, 

Tooting and Wandsworth are classified as Major centres and Balham is a 

District centre. Potential future changes to the town centre network are 

identified in Annex 2, Table A2.2. This includes the classification of 

“Battersea” as a CAZ Frontage. This is assumed to relate to the proposed 

Power Station development. The table notes that reclassifications are subject 

to capacity analysis, impact assessments, land use and accessibility, planning 

approvals, town centre health checks and full implementations. A CAZ 

Frontage is described as a “mixed use area usually with a predominant retail 

function”. Only the most significant CAZ frontages are identified, these range 

significantly in nature and include Lower Marsh/The Cut in Lambeth to 

Victoria Street and Covent Garden/Strand in Westminster. Given the range in 

nature of these areas, the identification of Battersea as a potential future CAZ 

frontage would not appear to provide any difficulties in relation to the 

assessment of the Power Station application and the impact the current 

proposals may have on the Borough’s existing centres, particularly Clapham 

Junction and Wandsworth will be subject to full impact assessments.. 

25. London’s People (Chapter 3). This chapter sets out policies on how to 

ensure that London is a city that meets the challenges of economic and 



population growth; is a city of diverse, strong, secure and accessible 

neighbourhoods; and to ensure that it is a city that delights the senses. 

26. Housing Targets. Policy 3.3 C states that: “Boroughs should seek to achieve 

and exceed the relevant minimum borough housing annual average target in 

Table 3.1 and, if a target beyond 2021 is required, roll forward and seek to 

exceed that in Table 3.1 until it is replaced by a revised London Plan target”. 

27. The Replacement London Plan identifies a 10 year (2011-2021)/annual target 

for Wandsworth of 12,800/1,280 units based on the GLA led SHLAA. The 

Council has raised objections to the derived capacities in the SHLAA due to a 

methodological flaw. Details of previously raised and unaddressed concerns, 

together with further comments on the conclusions of the study report 

published in October 2009 are given in the Appendix to this report. In 

response to the Council’s comments made on the SHLAA, the GLA informed 

the Council that these would not be addressed separately but should form part 

of the Borough’s response to the London Plan. 

28. There is no commitment to review targets until 2015/2016 and it could take an 

additional 1-2 years to adopt revised targets. Wandsworth is at a more 

advanced stage, when compared to other London Councils, in identifying sites 

for future housing and these have input to the SHLAA. This puts 

Wandsworth at a disadvantage in comparison with other boroughs as we have 

had a higher housing target set, with implications for funding, planning 

decisions and our Core Strategy examination could be far reaching over this 

timescale. The Mayor’s intention to produce supplementary guidance on 

implementation of these targets will not detract from the fact that 

Wandsworth’s target is too high to begin with and actual measurement will be 

against the target set out in the replacement London Plan. 

29. Definition of Components of Total Dwelling and Affordable Homes 

Targets. The replacement London Plan continues to use different definitions 

of dwelling supply and affordable housing to those used in national indicators, 

i.e. NI154 Net additional homes provided and NI 155 Number of affordable 

homes delivered. The main differences relate to the inclusion of non selfcontained 

dwellings and vacant dwellings brought back into use. Whilst the 

contribution that these sources of accommodation can make to supply is 

recognised, it would be helpful if they were measured separately from 

conventional dwelling provision. The definition used in the replacement 

London Plan cannot be supplied consistently across authorities and causes 

unnecessary confusion in relation to why two different sets of figures can be 

quoted. 

30. The separate measurement of 'long-term vacant properties brought back into 

use' would prevent unreliable data impacting on whether housing targets are 

met. The problems with measuring this component of supply have been 

continuously highlighted. The planning system has no control over this 

component and numbers can swing substantially from year to year depending 

on whether Council tax departments have done a full audit of vacant 

properties. In addition to the numbers themselves being unreliable, there is no 

information on tenure of these properties. Therefore, long term vacant 

properties brought back into use should not be included as a source of 

affordable housing. 



31. Quality and Design of Housing Developments. Improving the quality and 

design of housing is supported, but this is an area which should be left to the 

boroughs and is not felt to be a strategic issue. 

32. The minimum space standards given in Table 3.3 of the replacement London 

Plan are considered to be too large and conflict with Policy 3.8 Housing 

Choice which states. “Londoners should have a genuine choice of homes that 

they can afford and which meet the requirements for different sizes and types 

of dwellings in the highest quality environment”. Enforcing a minimum 

dwelling size of 50 sq m is likely to price a number of single people out of the 

market who would otherwise have been able to purchase a dwelling which 

they felt meets their needs and therefore reduces choice. As an indication of 

satisfaction with the Borough’s current space standards, the results of the 

Wandsworth New Housing Survey 2004, indicated that 86% of respondents 

were satisfied with the “Overall size of accommodation” and that 90% of 

respondents of market housing were happy or very happy with their home. 

33. The table below compares the Wandsworth current dwelling size 

requirements, Guidelines for Housing Development, November 2001 with the 

proposed standards contained in the LDF Preferred Options Development 

Management Policies Document, November 2009, and the replacement 

London Plan Standards. 

Minimum dwelling 

size by floor area. 

Current 

Wandsworth 

Standard (sq.m.) 

Proposed 

Wandsworth 

Standard (sq.m.) 

Replacement 

London Plan 

(sq.m.) 

1 bed/studio, 1 30 33 

person 

1 bed, 2 person 45 48 50 

2 bed 57 (3 bed space) 60 61 (2 bed, 3 

person) 

2 bed, 4 person 60 (4 bed space) 67 70 

3 bed , 4 person 60 (4 bed space) 75 74 

34. If the Mayor wishes to advise boroughs on dwelling sizes it is felt that it 

would be more appropriate to include these in the Housing Supplementary 

Planning Guidance rather than as part of the London Plan. 

35. Provision for Play and Informal Recreation. Policy 3.6 of the replacement 

London Plan should clearly permit play space calculations to be undertaken 

using up to date local borough data on child yield where available. Appendix 

B of the Mayor’s SPG ‘Providing for Children and Young People’s Play and 

Informal Recreation’ (March 2008) details how to calculate child yield based 

on GLA Data Management and Analysis Group Briefing 2005/05 which 

incorporates analysis from Wandsworth’s 2004 New Housing Survey. 

Unfortunately the SPG makes selective use of the data available. For example 

a 1 bedroom flat of private tenure is assumed to have a child yield of 0.11 per 



dwelling, whereas the 2004 New Housing Survey results showed a child yield 

of 0.01 per dwelling. This could make a considerable difference to estimated 

child yield. 

36. Large scale residential developments and infrastructure. Policy 3.7. of the 

Replacement London Plan identifies that all sites of over 5ha. Or 500 

dwellings should be subject to a planning framework. Whilst the principle of 

co-ordinating the provision of social, environmental and other infrastructure 

for large scale developments is supported, it is felt that the proposed scale of 

the development which would require a planning framework is set too low and 

could involve the Council in significant unnecessary additional work. It is 

proposed that the threshold for the requirement of a planning framework 

should be increased to 10 hectares or 1,000 dwellings. 

37. Application of Affordable Housing Targets to C2 Developments. The 

comment in paragraph 3.43 of the replacement London Plan supports that 

“boroughs in seeking application of the principles of its affordable housing 

policies (Policies 3.11-3.14) to the range of developments – including those 

falling within Use Class C2 – which cater specifically for older people” is 

welcomed. However, given that the majority of boroughs will not have such a 

policy in place, the replacement London Plan should explicitly state that C2 

developments are excluded from affordable housing targets. 

38. Monitoring of Shared Accommodation and Houses of Multiple 

Occupation. – Paragraph 3.46 indicates that boroughs should monitor the net 

effects of the loss of shared accommodation and houses in multiple occupation 

in the Annual Monitoring Reports. Given that permission is not required for 

shared accommodation not classified as a house in multiple occupation and 

that many houses in multiple occupation do not have permission/are not 

registered, it is considered this reference should be deleted. 

39. Affordable Housing. The replacement Plan’s London-wide target of 13,200 

affordable homes per annum represents around 40% of the total target for new 

homes per annum (33,400 p.a.). The plan outlines criteria for the development 

of borough level targets in LDFs. See also comments above re the definition 

of affordable housing. For clarity, the thresholds for the provision of 

affordable housing stated in Policy 3.14 and paragraphs 3.70 and 3.71 should 

state “10 or more homes (gross)”. 

40. London’s Economy (Chapter 4) – Offices. The replacement London Plan 

supports the provision of office floorspace (Policy 4.2). The policy recognises 

the need for boroughs to “work with sub-regional partners to develop coordinated, 

phased strategies to manage long term, structural changes in the 

office market, focusing new capacity where there is strategic as well as local 

evidence of demand”. There are concerns, e.g. in west London, that without 

more London-wide co-ordination, there may be a future over-supply of office 

floorspace. Any over supply of floorspace could, in turn impact on the 

viability of regeneration proposals elsewhere, including those for Vauxhall, 

Nine Elms, Battersea. 

41. Small Shops. In Policy 4.9 support for the provision of small shops is given 

through: the Mayor seeking planning obligations for the provision of 

affordable units suitable for small or independent retailers in large retail 



development; and by stating that “Boroughs should, develop local policies 

where appropriate to support the provision of small shop units” in their LDFs. 

The Council is also keen to support the provision of small shop units to assist 

the retention of independent retailers. However, provision of such units in 

large retail developments could lead to retailers relocating to new 

developments at the expense of established local parades. Additionally, the 

use of planning obligations for this purpose could impact on the provision of 

other priorities which would be expected to be delivered though planning 

obligations, e.g. affordable housing. It is therefore felt that the wording of this 

policy needs careful consideration and may need to include relevant caveats to 

prevent unsatisfactory outcomes at the local level. 

42. London’s Response to Climate Change (Chapter 5). Renewable energy – 

Policy 5.7 states that “The Mayor seeks to increase the proportion of energy 

generated from renewable sources” and the Planning decisions part of the 

policy states that “Within the framework of the energy hierarchy, major 

development proposals should provide a reduction in carbon dioxide 

emissions through the use of onsite renewable energy generation, where 

feasible”. This is much weaker than the existing London Plan policy which 

states that “boroughs should, in their DPDs adopt a presumption that 

developments will achieve a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions of 20% 

from on-site renewable energy generation…”. 

43. The existing London Plan policy is carried through in to the Council’s Core 

Strategy Submission Version in Policy IS2 d. This states that “Developments 

will be required to achieve a reduction in carbon emissions in line with 

London Plan targets (currently 20%) through on-site renewable energy unless 

it can be demonstrated that such provision is not feasible”. The change in 

London Plan policy will make the status of the Core Strategy policy uncertain 

and make it more difficult to negotiate an acceptable level of on-site provision. 

It is therefore proposed that the replacement London Plan should retain a 

requirement for the provision of 20% on-site renewable energy production 

where this is feasible. 

44. Waste Capacity comments from the Director of Leisure and Amenity 

Services. It is disappointing that the Mayor of London has stated that the 

methodology used previously for the apportionment of London’s waste 

arisings across waste planning authority areas should be retained. This 

methodology requires Wandsworth to allocate enough land for waste related 

development to deal with its total forecast arisings of municipal, commercial 

and industrial waste, despite the fact that the Belevedere Energy-from-Waste 

incinerator will process its residual municipal waste for the duration of the 

period covered by the London Plan. 

45. New waste apportionment figures, indicating the capacity of waste 

management facilities which have to be accommodated in each borough, were 

released on 7th December with a consultation period ending on 1st February 

2010. The new figures represent a small reduction on previous figures which 

will impact upon the allocation of waste sites in the Council’s Site Specific 

Allocations Document. Further time is needed to fully assess the impact of the 

revised figures and any relevant conclusions will be reported at Committee. 



46. Despite the small reduction compared to previous figures, the forecasts for 

municipal waste tonnage for Wandsworth given in Table 5.2 of the “Minor 

alteration to the consultation draft London Plan” published in December 2009 

appear to be too high. The chart attached at Appendix 1 of that document 

combines these forecasts with actual municipal waste tonnage data for recent 

years and illustrates the marked reversal of the recent downward trend that the 

forecasts imply. In particular, the forecast of 126,000 tonnes for 2011 

implies an increase of 21,000 tonnes compared to the expected tonnage for the 

current year. This seems highly unlikely to occur in practice given the recent 

downward trend and the Council’s new emphasis on reducing waste, and casts 

doubt on the reliability of forecasts for subsequent years. 

47. The London Plan forecasts are based on recent data for the quantity of waste 

produced per household and assume that this will remain unchanged. The 

projected increases result solely from the annual housing targets proposed for 

Wandsworth which, as stated at paragraph 28 above, are too high. However, 

the London Plan forecasts are based on the low end of the range predicted by 

the forecast model used rather than the mid point. 

48. It is difficult to assess the suitability of the forecasts for commercial and 

industrial waste as the Council does not hold accurate data on recent tonnage 

arisings for waste it does not handle. 

49. The forecasts for municipal waste tonnages should again be reduced, and be 

reduced further should the Housing targets for Wandsworth also be reduced. 

Having said this, the London Plan is intended to ensure that enough land is 

allocated in each borough for sufficient waste processing capacity to be 

provided in each Borough to deal with London’s waste arisings. Forecasts for 

waste arisings may therefore need to be on the high side to achieve a high 

level of confidence in this. 

50. Transport (Chapter 6). The Transport chapter of the London Plan notes that 

the main source of policy on transport is the Mayor's Transport Strategy 

(MTS), which is also the subject of public consultation. A more detailed report 

and comments on the MTS are provided elsewhere on this agenda. 

51. Crossrail. Policy 6.5 of the replacement London Plan refers to the use of 

funds from planning obligations to help fund Crossrail and other significant 

transport infrastructure. Wandsworth supports the use of planning obligations 

for transport improvements, but would reiterate our position that developments 

in areas that will not benefit directly from Crossrail should contribute instead 

to other locally important infrastructure. This includes the VNEB opportunity 

area in the Central Activities Zone, where contributions to a Northern Line 

extension would be more appropriate. We therefore support this aspect of the 

content of paragraph 6.23. 

52. Infrastructure Delivery Timetable. The replacement London Plan would 

benefit from more detail on the expected delivery times for major transport 

infrastructure. For example, Policy 6.4 refers to the Chelsea-Hackney line 

(Crossrail 2) being developed "later in the plan period". The Council supports 

Crossrail 2 and would like to see a firmer commitment and timescale attached 

to this project. 



53. Use of PTALs. There are several references to the use of Public Transport 

Accessibility Levels (PTALs) in the Plan, in particular in the section on 

maximum car parking standards (paragraph 6.39 and Table 6.1). PTALs are 

also mentioned in the housing chapter (Table 3.2), in relation to housing 

densities. Whilst the principle of PTALs is supported, the Plan's wording 

should be revised to encourage more caution in their use, since their presence 

in Tables may encourage a blanket application. An explanatory note on the 

application of PTALs might be of use, including advice that PTAL maps are a 

guide only and should not be used to calculate PTALs for a specific location. 

The main concern is that PTALs alone should not be used to guide what 

housing densities or parking standards should apply in an area. Among other 

factors, public transport capacity (existing and planned) should be considered 

as well. 

54. Cycle Parking Standards. Clarification is required on the proposed 

minimum cycle parking standards given in Table 6.2. The standard for health 

facilities/clinics (1 per 5 staff) differs from TfL's previously published 

standards (1 per 50 staff). It appears that one of these must be a typographical 

error. 

55. London’s Living Places and Spaces (Chapter 7). This chapter focuses on a 

broad range of policy areas that impact directly on how people perceive and 

use the places they live in, e.g. an inclusive environment, secure design, local 

character, public realm, tall buildings, heritage, views, air quality/ pollution, 

public open space, rivers, etc. 

56. Tall Buildings. The new plan presents a more restrictive/sensitive approach to 

tall buildings (Policy 7.7) than is adopted in the existing London Plan. This is 

more consistent with the approach adopted by the Council in the Core Strategy 

and developing Site Specific Allocations Document and Development 

Management Policies Document. 

57. Comments of the Economic Development Officer. The Replacement Plan 

is one of a set of strategies that the GLA group are currently consulting on. 

These are the Mayor’s Economic Development Strategy, The London 

Development Agency’s (LDA’s) Draft Investment Strategy (subject of a 

report to the Regeneration and Community Safety Overview and Scrutiny 

Committee on 12 January 2010) and the Mayor’s Transport Strategy. This is a 

positive move and is supported. However, each provides a partial picture of 

strategic developments across London. Stronger links between the policies and 

actions within the three strategies ought to be highlighted. 

58. Some form of agreement on capacity issues with the GLA is clearly critical to 

establishing a consensus and agreed way forward on strategic developments, 

and the infrastructure needs of the Nine Elms Area for example. 

59. A current problem facing some businesses is the lack of available property. 

This is an urgent strategic issue that requires immediate action. This is not 

fully recognized or given priority in the draft plan. The plan argues that ‘in 

overall terms there is sufficient market provision’. This does not seem to 

recognize the pressure that the sustained push to meet housing demand has put 

on industrial and commercial land. There is a need to ensure that more 

commercial property is bought forward rapidly. This issue is a major 



constraint to the development of London’s economy, especially in areas such 

as Wandsworth. Much attention has in the past been given to the provision of 

housing (especially affordable housing) at the expense of workspace. London's 

predicted jobs growth cannot happen without an increase in workspace, in 

many parts of London and not just for financial services jobs in the City and 

Docklands 

60. The support in the Plan for increased focus of town centres is welcome but a 

wider range of specific activities is required to strengthen the economic 

performance of town centres beyond the Central Activity Zone. There is no 

detail as to what specific actions the Mayor proposes to put in place to support 

town centres. The focus on outer London town centres may leave inner 

London’s town centres vulnerable. They are in many ways more vulnerable 

than those in outer London. They face the same competitive pressures, but are 

characterised by few parking opportunities older physical stock less attractive 

to modern retailers and limited opportunities for improvement. The plan 

should also reflect these regeneration needs. 

61. While the aim to support a successful and diverse retail sector is laudable, it is 

not clear how the measures set out in the draft plan will achieve this in 

Wandsworth. There is limited scope within planning legislation to promote the 

measure proposed (eg. Street and farmers markets) and it is unclear how the 

proposals to use s106 will benefit the more marginal shopping parades in the 

Borough and could indeed undermine them. 

62. Higher education is an area where London has a world reputation and has the 

potential to grow further so the support for higher and further education 

facilities and for new and emerging economic sectors is welcome – as is the 

link to ensuring the availability of sufficient workspaces appropriate to 

emerging centres of the London economy. This is one area where the GLA 

/LDA could use its strategic influence and regeneration funding to support 

economic development within Roehampton for example. 

63. The recognition that the planning system has a role to play in improving 

economic opportunities for all is very welcome. It is a key area for 

collaborative working between the Mayor, the LDA, Government agencies 

(e.g. Jobcentre Plus and the Learning and Skills Council) and London 

boroughs include developing new holistic models for tackling worklessness 

and increasing London’s employment rate in deprived parts of London (in 

places such as Roehampton). Enterprise is an important route out of 

unemployment for some people and there should be links to activities to 

reduce worklessness. Wandsworth supports the aims of the London Skills and 

Employment Board (LSEB) for a more integrated and customer focused 

employment and skills service and the need for personalised support, focused 

on the needs of the individual. However, only limited progress seems to have 

been made on this front, despite it being a Mayoral manifesto commitment. 

London boroughs are very well placed to provide this sort of support and 

ensure that services are better joined up than currently. There are examples of 

good practice, such as the Job Shop in Battersea, that are worth considering 

and spreading to other parts of London. One of the strategic barriers to 

delivery has been the complex and ever-changing architecture of national and 

regional funding and delivery bodies. Allied to this is the short-term and 

shifting nature of the funding pots, most recently seen with the LDA’s own 



funding programme and the associated uncertainties with their new 

commissioning programme. While the draft plan recognises the importance of 

giving all Londoners the opportunity to take part in London’s economic 

success, it does not appear to make the link between this and promoting 

enterprise and self employment. 

___________________ 


Wandsworth, 

SW18 2PU. 

A. G. MCDONALD 

Borough Planner 




1. The London Plan, Spatial Development Plan for London, Consultation draft 

replacement plan, October 2009. 

2. The London Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment and Housing 

Capacity Study 2009, October 2009. 

3. Vauxhall, Nine Elms, Battersea Opportunity Area Planning Framework, 

Consultation Draft, November 2009. 

4. Mayor’s Transport Strategy, Public Draft, October 2009. 

5. Wandsworth Core Strategy: Submission Version, March 2009. 

6. A new plan for London, Proposals for the Mayor’s London Plan, April 2009. 

If you wish to inspect any of these papers, please contact Martin Howell; Tel: 020 

8871 6647; email mhowell@wandsworth.gov.uk. 



(www.wandsworth.gov.uk/committ) unless the report was published before May 

2001, in which case the Committee Secretary (Mr M Newton – 020 8871 6006; email 

mnewton@wandsworth.gov.uk) can supply it if required. 



Appendix to Paper No. 10-46 

Concerns Relating to the Housing Targets for Wandsworth in the draft 

replacement London 

Introduction: Housing capacity figures from the Strategic Housing Land 

Availability Assessment (SHLAA)/Housing Capacity Study (HCS) 2009 study were 

subject to scenario testing to: 

• test the sensitivities of the assumptions built into the study system for 

potential large sites; 

• test assumptions underlying small site estimates; and 

• test sensitivity of other potential policy considerations. 

Paragraph 5.4 of the SHLLA/HCS states that “from the outset it was expected that 

any significant changes in the figures would indicate high degrees of sensitivity that 

would be important considerations when setting targets for the London Plan”. For 

the reasons outlined below, the Council does not consider that outcomes of the 

scenario testing have been fully considered, particularly at the local level, when 

setting targets for the London Plan and have led to an inflated and unrealistic target 

for Wandsworth. 

Potential Large Sites: The SHLAA/HCS 2009 report concludes that overall, scenario 

testing generated marginal changes to the large site capacity and that any changes to 

constraints applied to a site will not significantly alter the overall achievement of the 

capacity identified. Different scenarios were tested to increase or decrease the effect 

of constraints, but only very minor changes to housing output resulted. At a Londonwide 

level, this may be true. However, at the local level the effects of constraints are 

magnified in areas of major change which rely on delivery of significant new public 

transport and other infrastructure. An adjustment from 75% probability to 50% 

probability (Table 5.1 - local Infrastructure) on Wandsworth sites in the VNEB 

Opportunity Area equates to approximately 1,250 dwellings in delivery phases 2 and 

3. This represents 15% of Wandsworth’s large site allowance and 10% of the overall 

housing provision target in the Consultation Draft Replacement London Plan. This is 

considered to be a significant proportion of Wandsworth’s proposed new housing 

target and therefore delivery of large scale infrastructure projects in the Opportunity 

Area should have been taken into account when setting the Mayor’s proposed new 

housing targets. 

Small Site Assumptions: No reference is made in the SHLAA/HCS study report to 

implementation of key local policy changes which will directly impact on levels of 

housing achieved on small sites. Following a change in conversions policy in 

Wandsworth, it is calculated that 50 less dwellings per year will be created (500 over 

the 10 year period 2011-2021 or 10% of the small site component). Whilst evidence 

has been provided to demonstrate the impact of this policy change, no allowance has 

been made in setting targets. 

Other Potential Policy Constraints: Paragraph 5.22 of the SHLAA/HCS report 

details how HSE consultation zones do not mean ‘no’ development although the risk 

or harm to an individual is greater the closer to the installation. Under specific 

circumstances a development proposal may be constrained by the advice of the HSE. 

Page 1 of 2

Housing development is particularly sensitive... and the executive may or may not 

advise against the proposal. Looking at 3 scenarios of reduction in yield within HSE 

consultation zones, the SHLAA/HCS study concludes that there is a minimal impact 

on overall capacity in London and goes on to say that ‘the impact of hazardous sites 

should be more properly considered at the more detailed planning stage when affected 

sites come forward to development’. One third of identified large site capacity in 

Wandsworth is located within HSE Gas Safety Zones. If the 3 scenarios were applied 

to yields on these sites, this could translate into a reduction of up to 1,264 dwellings in 

Wandsworth, 16% of Wandsworth’s large site identified capacity. Due to the scale of 

these identified sites and their proximity to hazardous installations, there is a very real 

risk that lack of assessment of impact at the local level in deriving new targets will 

have a negative impact on the Council’s housing delivery performance. It is 

reasonable for the study to advise proper consideration at the detailed planning stage, 

but it is also reasonable for the SHLAA/HCS results to properly assess the local 

impacts of hazardous installations when the results have been used to set housing 

targets. 

Borough LDF Progress 

Each London borough is at a different stage in the development of their Local 

Development Framework. Prior to the SHLAA/HCS study, Wandsworth had already 

undertaken significant work to identify future development sites as part of the Site 

Specific Allocations DPD. This included a call for sites from developers and land 

owners and documenting sites where interest had been shown during pre-application 

discussions with Officers. As a result, Wandsworth has been in the position to update 

the SHLAA/HCS database with details of many sites which were not initially 

identified. As a result of this work, it seems that Wandsworth has been penalised with 

a higher housing target, where other boroughs who had little or no information on 

future potential sites simply did not add them to the system and have subsequently 

avoided a significant rise in housing target. 

Page 2 of 2






A report by the Borough Planner on the consultation draft of the Opportunity Area 

Planning Framework for the Vauxhall Nine Elms area. 

SUMMARY 

Introduction. The London Plan identifies Vauxhall / Nine Elms / Battersea 

(VNEB) as an opportunity area, stretching between Lambeth Bridge and 

Chelsea Bridge. In January 2008, the Greater London Authority (GLA) 

commenced work on producing an Opportunity Area Planning Framework 

(OAPF) for this area. The work has been progressed in partnership with 

Lambeth and Wandsworth Councils, the London Development Agency, Design 

for London, Transport for London and English Heritage. The Council is now in 

receipt of a Consultation Draft dated November 2009, and consultation 

commenced on 2nd November 2009 and comments are required by 29th 

January 2010. 

Policy. The Vauxhall, Nine Elms, Battersea Opportunity Area is identified in 

the London Plan and the GLA are required to produce a Planning Framework. 

The Council’s Local Development Framework also identifies the Opportunity 

Area and indicates a proposed minimum level of development that could be 

accommodated. 

Issues and Proposals. The OAPF considers five development scenarios and 

proposes to take forward a preferred option based on the highest level of 

development. This will require significant levels of additional infrastructure. 

The population and child yield figures are questioned as they appear very high 

compared to data taken from other recent development in the Borough. It also 

proposes a significant retail element, primarily located at Battersea Power 

Station (BPS). This is partly reflected in the current planning application for 

BPS and it is proposed to undertake an independent assessment of the retail 

impact on the Borough’s other town centres. The OAPF also proposes the 

relocation of Cringle Dock, but this is not supported with the current evidence. 

The preferred development scenario requires substantial infrastructure 


Opportunity Area Planning Framework 

improvements including the extension of the Northern Line (NLE) from 

Kennington to BPS. The NLE is now identified in the replacement London 

Plan and Mayor’s Transport Strategy, but will require private funding. The 

GLA is proposing to commission an Infrastructure and Funding Study to 

complete the OAPF. There are current discussions to finalise the brief and 

funding for this additional work. 

Comments of Director of Finance. A basic assessment of the costs and 

potential value derived from the development of the Nine Elms area has been 

undertaken by officers within the Finance Department with some external 

assistance. The results of this exercise show that the estimated potential costs of 

the public realm proposals suggested by the GLA including transport , open 

space and other community benefits exceeds £1.1 billion excluding any 

community benefit from affordable housing. The GLA proposal of a 

levy/section 106 agreement of £250 per m2 for commercial units and £17,500 

for residential would only raise less than £400 million. This leaves a deficit 

exceeding some £700million which cannot be funded from within the current 

proposed development plan even if the GLA levels of contribution are 

achievable. Therefore without a significant public sector contribution, 

alternative funding sources, a scaling back in the amount of public realm 

improvements or a reduction in the level of affordable housing the development 

plan is not viable in the current market. 

GLOSSARY 

BPS 

CAZ 

GLA 

LUL 

NLE 

OAPF 

TfL 

VNEB 

Battersea Power Station 

Central Activities Zone 


London Underground Limited 

Northern Line Extension 


Transport for London 

Vauxhall, Nine Elms and Battersea 


Committee is recommended to support the recommendations in paragraph 3. 


recommendations on the report, they will be submitted to the Executive for 


3. The Executive is recommended to:- 



(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

note the content of the consultation draft of the OAPF as summarised in 

paragraphs 6-9 and Appendices 1 and 2; 

approve the comments set out in paragraphs 10-33, the Way Forward, as 

the basis for the Council’s representations on the consultation draft OAPF; 

and 

approve the promotion of appropriate governance structures for taking the 

Planning Framework forward and promoting the NLE. 

4. Introduction. The London Plan identifies Vauxhall / Nine Elms / Battersea 

(VNEB) as an opportunity area, stretching between Lambeth Bridge and Chelsea 

Bridge. In January 2008, the Greater London Authority (GLA) commenced work 

on producing an Opportunity Area Planning Framework (OAPF) for this area. 

The work has been progressed in partnership with Lambeth and Wandsworth 

Councils, the London Development Agency, Design for London, Transport for 

London and English Heritage. In addition, a stakeholder consultation process has 

been set up including all of the key landowners in the opportunity area. A first 

draft OAPF was published in January 2009, but this did not contain a number of 

study elements, including the Transport study. 

5. The Council is now in receipt of a Consultation Draft dated November 2009, 

which was launched at a New London Architecture Event on 27th October 2009. 

The public consultation on this Planning Framework commenced on 2nd 

November 2009 and comments are required by 29th January 2010. 

6. Planning Framework. The purpose of the OAPF is to set out a strategic policy 

framework for development within the area, up to 2026, based on a series of 

objectives listed in Appendix 1 to this report. The OAPF looks at existing activity 

and anticipated future change within the area and proposes 5 broad development 

scenarios for the future as outlined in Appendix 2 to this report. It identifies a 

preferred land use strategy and then provides commentary on development 

capacity, housing and social infrastructure and strategies for transportation, public 

realm, tall buildings, energy, safeguarded wharves, waste and water and finally 

considers Section 106 funding. This is backed up by a number of technical 

appendices in support of the various strategy elements. It should be noted that the 

boundary of the Opportunity Area has been extended to the Wandsworth Road in 

the south, where it previously ran along the borough boundary with Lambeth. 

7. The OAPF is not a development plan document and sits below the London Plan 

and any adopted Council Development Plan Documents, but above other site level 

or area wide master plans developed by individual landowners and developers or 

public sector. It is not proposed to create policy but to clarify how policy will 

relate to a specific spatial context, providing a framework in which development 

can take place. It is intended that it should give greater certainty to the 

development process and achieve material weight upon which planning decisions 

can be made. 



8. The consultation draft Planning Framework supports a high density option 

looking to mixed use development, based on a slightly modified version of 

Development Scenario 5, as outlined in Appendix 2 to this report. It looks to 

deliver:- 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

(d) 

(e) 

(f) 

(g) 

(h) 

(i) 

(j) 

(k) 

(l) 

(m) 

(n) 

(o) 

(p) 

16,000 new homes; 

maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing on a site by site basis; 

20,000 to 25,000 jobs (increased from 15,000 to 20,000 in the current draft 

document); 

200,000 sq.m of commercial / employment floorspace throughout the OA 

(excluding Battersea Power Station); 

60,000 sq.m of retail at Battersea Power Station; 

160,000 sq.m of office at Battersea Power Station; 

80,000 sq.m of other employment related floorspace at Battersea Power 

Station; 

open space to the London Plan requirements; 

a linear park connecting Vauxhall to Battersea Power Station; 

new schools, health facilities, community centres, libraries and places of 

worship; 

a combined cooling heat and power/ combined heat and power network 

and anaerobic digestion facility on the NCGM; 

rationalisation of the New Covent Garden Market onto its main site; 

protection of the safeguarded wharves; 

retention of the Stewarts Road Industrial Area as Strategic Industrial Land; 

Northern Line Extension (NLE) between Kennington and Battersea Power 

Station; and 

other transport measures including improvements to the Vauxhall 

interchange and gyratory and bus service enhancements. 

9. The potential level of development will depend on the provision of appropriate 

infrastructure and in particular the NLE. The OAPF also contains a tall buildings 

strategy, which takes on board the London Views Management Framework 2007 

and its recent 2009 review, which supports a cluster of high buildings at Vauxhall. 

It supports high density development elsewhere with blocks of 8-10 storeys with 

some tall buildings elsewhere going up to 60-70metres (20 storeys). It also poses 

an opportunity to relocate a modernised Cringle Dock to the east of its existing 

location. It proposes that a tariff system will be introduced through the Section 

106 process, but that this will be further developed in an Infrastructure Study 

discussed below. 

10. The London Plan – Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London. The 

consultation draft replacement plan has now been published for consultation and 

is reported elsewhere on the agenda. It identifies a number of opportunity areas 

throughout London including the Vauxhall / Nine Elms / Battersea opportunity 

area. It identifies an indicative employment capacity of 15,000 jobs and a 

minimum of 10,000 to 16,000 new homes compared with 8,000 jobs and a 



minimum of 3,500 homes in the existing London Plan and the Council’s Core 

Strategy. It also identifies the addition of Battersea as a potential future change to 

the town centre network as a Central Activities Zone (CAZ) Frontage, albeit 

subject to capacity and impact assessments, accessibility etc (Table A2.2). It is 

noted that the OAPF proposes significantly higher employment levels than either 

the Council’s Core Strategy or the London Plan identified for this area. 

11. Housing and Population. The Council holds detailed information on housing 

and population statistics. A comparison has been undertaken between the 

population and child yield predictions in the OAPF and those produced using 

recent experience in Wandsworth. The OAPF assumes 2.34 persons per dwelling 

and 0.6 children per dwelling. While the Wandsworth experience has been 1.84 

persons per dwelling and 0.24 children per dwellings. On this basis the OAPF 

predicts a population of 39,000 with 10,000 children. The Wandsworth figures 

estimate a lower population of 31,000 with 4,400 children. It is considered that 

the OAPF has overestimated the likely population and child yield that can be 

achieved in the area, which would have a knock on effect on the levels of 

infrastructure required to support the Opportunity Area. A detailed report on this 

issue has been forwarded to the GLA for its consideration. 

12. Retail. The OAPF is proposing a new town centre on the Battersea Power Station 

site, broadly in line with the proposals in the existing planning application. In 

floorspace terms this is about the size of Clapham Junction and Wandsworth put 

together. The OAPF suggests that this will require retail impact assessments and 

while it is generally considered that the Borough currently loses a lot of retail 

expenditure from the Borough, it is expected that this quantum of retail at 

Battersea Power Station will take trade from Clapham Junction and to a lesser 

extent from Wandsworth and Putney. The Council’s retail needs assessment 

identified that this quantum of retail at Battersea Power Station (BPS) is likely to 

limit the scope of any future development in Clapham Junction. The extent of 

this impact will be dependent upon the type of shopping offer and the 

accessibility of the site. The BPS application contains a proposal for more than 

52,000 sq.m. of retail and a further 15,000 sq.m. of restaurants and bars. The 

accompanying retail assessment and impact report suggest that this has only 

limited impact on the Borough’s existing town centre. This report will be the 

subject of an independent evaluation as part of the consideration of the planning 

application and this work will be used to guide future retail provision in the area. 

13. Linear Park. The OAPF proposes the provision of a linear park between BPS 

and Vauxhall, running south of Nine Elms Lane. It will require separate landowners 

to make provision for it as part of any redevelopment. The general 

concept of this link is supported, although it is considered that this is likely to 

vary considerably in scale and nature along its length. 

14. Transport. The OAPF contains the output from an associated Transport Study 

undertaken by transport consultants, commissioned by TfL. It includes strategic 



rail and road based assessments, looking at the existing situation and modelling 

the impact of the different development scenarios. It identified a package of 

interventions for each scenario, which are contained in Chapter 8 of the OAPF. It 

then looked in more detail at the requirements for Scenario 5 to include walking, 

cycling, public transport highways and freight proposals. 

15. TfL and LUL are working with Treasury to take forward proposals for the NLE. 

The NLE appears in the Replacement London Plan and Mayor’s Transport 

Strategy for the period post 2018, reported elsewhere on the agenda. However, 

TfL has confirmed that it would have to be privately funded. If the higher 

development scenarios are preferred then the NLE becomes the key to the OAPF 

and there has to be concern about when and if the NLE will be provided. It is 

likely that a number of major planning applications will be received looking to the 

OAPF densities, prior to either the Transport and Works Act Powers or any 

confirmation of funding mechanisms being obtained. 

16. There is less detail on other transport interventions and there is a need for 

improvements at both Battersea Park and Queenstown Road stations, which 

currently are in a poor state of repair with poor accessibility. It is also likely that 

the area will have in the region of 12,000 additional parking spaces and this 

quantum of parking could have a considerable impact over the wider highway 

network, which is already congested in the peak periods. It is considered that this 

has not been fully addressed. While the Executive Summary of the OAPF 

suggests Wandsworth officers had agreed the Transport Study, a number of 

concerns are still outstanding. 

17. Cringle Dock. A proposal to relocate Cringle Dock is new to this draft of the 

OAPF. While the logic of building a new facility on an alternative site has 

benefits in terms of reducing disruption, it has significant impacts to the overall 

development potential of adjoining sites. This proposal needs further 

consideration in light of its potential impact and it is proposed that its relocation is 

not supported at this time. 

18. Section 106. The OAPF considers a tariff / standard charge based approach to 

financial contributions based on a price per residential unit and m2 of commercial 

floorspace. The tariff would be directly related to the cost of public transport and 

highway provision and social infrastructure, open space and public realm 

requirements. It looks at an initial estimate of a standard charge, but currently has 

no estimate of what funding will be required for infrastructure interventions. 

With a charge of £250 per m2 of commercial and £17,500 per residential unit, it 

estimates that £385m could be collected. Clearly this sum is both optimistic and 

yet would still fall short of funding the Northern Line Extension, let alone any 

other interventions within the area. One large site has recently had a resolution to 

grant planning permission and has agreed to pay a little over £1m for strategic 

transport, when the OAPF tariff would have required £11.25m. However, this 

particular proposal could be a major catalyst for development in the area. Other 



major landowners are also suggesting that they should not pay either a Crossrail 

or NLE tariff. 

19. The Government’s current proposals to introduce the Community Infrastructure 

Levy (CIL) would also prevent the Council introducing a tariff based S106 

scheme for the Nine Elms Area, whilst CIL would have to be applied to 

development across the Borough and could only be limited geographically on the 

basis of economic viability. 

20. Investigations are ongoing into possible S106 tariffs (possibly CIL in the future), 

incremental revenue streams, supplementary business rates and Tax Incremental 

Financing. The GLA consider that further work is required on infrastructure 

requirements and its funding and are proposing to commission a study, which 

would feed into Technical Appendix 8 of the OAPF, which is currently blank. 

The GLA consider that this study will cost £150K and take 3 to 4 months to 

complete. However, they do not currently have the funding to take this forward. 

Officers are in discussion with the GLA to agree a brief for this wider 

Infrastructure and Funding Study with a view to contributing towards the cost up 

to an agreed maximum. In the interim a more basic assessment has been 

undertaken internally and is detailed below in the Director of Finance comments. 

21. Comments of the Economic Development Officer. The OAPF and the potential 

developments planned for the area represent a unique opportunity to create a new 

quarter for London. It is potentially the largest regeneration area in London, close 

to the centre. 

22. The Mayor’s economic development and transport strategies surprisingly appear 

to exclude the employment potential of jobs to be created in the Nine Elms area. 

23. The scale of the potential would be considerable and even assuming the lower 

population and child yield predictions, could result in a population of over 40,000 

people in the opportunity area (perhaps 75% of which is within Queenstown 

ward). It would be by far the most densely populated ward in Wandsworth. In 

the daytime, the population could be swollen by a working population of 27,000 

people though action should be taken to make sure that a significant percentage 

would live locally. 

24. The scale of the development will require significant improvements to 

infrastructure – critically transport infrastructure – but also a wide range of other 

facilities including education, social, medical, retail and leisure facilities. Nine 

Elms is not within the primary shopping catchment area for any of Wandsworth’s 

town centres, except possibly Clapham Junction. The impact of these proposals 

impact on Clapham Junction would need to assessed. However, this area is 

currently not well served by retail or other facilities. The creation of retail and 

leisure provision at Nine Elms would also help reduce the leakage of retail spend 

to centres outside the Borough and draw custom away from central London. The 



development may also serve to improve trading conditions at the eastern end of 

Battersea Park Road. 

25. It will also be important to put mechanisms in place to ensure that the Borough’s 

existing local people and businesses are able to take advantage of the new 

opportunities to be created. The plans should accommodate provision to facilitate 

this – for example the Job Shop in Battersea – to ensure that deprivation in the 

wider area is addressed. Moreover, a business relocation study should be carried 

out to smooth the path of the development proposals for the whole of the OAPF 

area in order to minimize the disruption to existing businesses in the area. 

26. The OAPF also includes the Stewarts Road area but is largely silent about its 

future except that it will remain a Strategic Industrial Location. The EDO, with 

funding from the London Development Agency is currently carrying out a study 

into the future of this area. The objectives of this study include contributing to the 

realisation of the Nine Elms area’s considerable economic development potential. 

For example, it could act as an area where firms affected by major redevelopment 

could relocate to. 

27. The balance between the various uses, in particular the balance between housing 

and employment space, will need to be carefully planned. The commercial space 

will need to include accommodation to meet the demand from small businesses, 

the bedrock of Wandsworth’s economy. If there is a policy of providing a high 

proportion of affordable housing then it is highly likely that this would be at the 

expense of workspace for small businesses. Nine Elms predicted jobs growth 

cannot happen without an increase in workspace for small businesses as well as 

the many larger corporates and institutions (eg US Embassy) that are likely to find 

this area attractive. 

28. In order to realise the opportunity in full it is important that the key partners agree 

and champion a realistic vision and delivery mechanism. At present, there is a 

loose partnership with all the key interests represented on the Nine Elms 

Opportunity Board. This does not yet give one voice for Nine Elms or the 

leadership necessary to secure the wide range of benefits that could be realised. A 

financial mechanism in addition to Section 106 Agreements which will enable 

sufficient funds to be secured to carry out the infrastructure works – of which the 

NLE would form the largest element – will probably need to be established, 

together with a more formal partnership to draw partners together and take 

ownership of an agreed vision for Nine Elms. Studies have been initiated to 

identify the most appropriate governance and financing model. Further work is 

needed to ensure that the proposals are viable and funding can be attracted to 

deliver the OAPF. 

29. Comments of Director of Finance. A basic assessment of the costs and potential 

value derived from the development of the Nine Elms area has been undertaken 

by officers within the Finance Department with some external assistance. The 



results of this exercise show that the estimated potential costs of the public realm 

proposals suggested by the GLA including transport , open space and other 

community benefits exceeds £1.1 billion excluding any community benefit from 

affordable housing. The GLA proposal of a levy/section 106 agreement of £250 

per m2 for commercial units and £17,500 for residential would only raise less 

than £400 million . This leaves a deficit exceeding some £700million which 

cannot be funded from within the current proposed development plan even if the 

GLA levels of contribution are achievable. Therefore without a significant public 

sector contribution, alternative funding sources, a scaling back in the amount of 

public realm improvements or a reduction in the level of affordable housing the 

development plan is not viable in the current market. 

30. The proposal to fund the Northern Line extension through Tax Increment 

Financing would require legislation and the Treasury forgoing the increased 

revenues from the increase in national non domestic rates from the commercial 

and retail development proposed. There are significant timing issues involved in 

this which would require underwriting of the capital investment and initial 

borrowing costs until the development of the sites with consequential rate income 

come “on stream”. 

31. Consideration should be given to reducing the level of affordable housing from 

that contained within the OAPF. This could be supported in the light of the high 

existing level of social housing in the area both in Wandsworth and Lambeth as 

well as on the basis of providing additional resources to fund the needed public 

realm and infrastructure works. 

32. The above assessment, is by its nature limited due to the need to respond to the 

GLA by the end of January and the proposal to support a wider Infrastructure and 

funding study is supported. Any contribution towards the costs of this study 

would be met from existing Council resources. 

33. Way Forward. It is essential that the opportunity is not lost to create a major 

new quarter in the Vauxhall / Nine Elms area. However, it is important that this 

fully meets Wandsworth’s aspirations and vision for the area. This will require 

the Council to work closely with the GLA, Lambeth Council and the key 

landowners in the area. The Council already has a good working relationship 

with the key stakeholders and in particular the major landowners, of which 

uniquely for an area of this size there are only a few key players. It is proposed 

that there is an ongoing dialogue with all stakeholders so that the Council is able 

to press its aspirations and concerns for the area. In taking the Planning 

Framework forward, further consideration is required over its preferred 

governance. It is considered that the Council should take a lead in moving 

forward the Nine Elms Strategy. This may best be achieved through the 

development of a Vauxhall / Nine Elms group, consisting of the GLA, Lambeth 

Council and this Council, with representation at both the political and officer 

level, and led by this Council. However, formal terms of reference will need to be 



developed for this group and the preferred level of involvement of landowners 

will need to be agreed. A further report will be produced on this matter in due 

course. In parallel, it will also be necessary to consider the governance of the 

NLE project, which will require significant technical input to progress it through 

the TWA process. It is proposed that this would be better led by TfL/LUL or 

Treasury Holdings. 


Wandsworth, 

SW18 2PU. 


_______________ 

A.G.MCDONALD 




1. Mayor’s Transport Strategy - Mayor of London – October 2009; 

2. The London Plan – Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London – Mayor of 

London – October 2009; and 

3. The Core Strategy: Submission Version – March 2009. 

Reports to Overview and Scrutiny Committees, regulatory and other committees, the 

Executive and the full Council can be viewed on the Council’s website 

(www.wandsworth.gov.uk/moderngov) unless the report was published before May 2001, 

in which case the Committee Secretary (Mr M Newton – 020 8871 6488; email 



Appendix 1 to Paper 10-47 

Objectives for the Opportunity Area 

Using the existing policy documents referred to above nine objectives are identified for 

the Opportunity Area: - 

a. To achieve London's growth within its boundaries, protecting and 

enhancing open spaces and the natural environment. Deliver housing 

including affordable housing to meet the highest access, design and 

environmental standards. Secure a social infrastructure to support new 

and existing residents. 

b. To ensure London's continued economic success with strong and diverse 

long-term economic growth. 

c. To promote social inclusion and tackle deprivation and discrimination. 

d. To ensure a joined up approach to planning diverse places and for delivery 

of transport and other infrastructure needed to support the growth. 

e. To meet the environmental challenge, making London an exemplary world 

city in mitigating and adapting to climate change and a more attractive, 

well designed and a green city. 

f. To protect and enhance London's historic assets based on an 

understanding of their special character as part of the wider urban 

improvement agenda. 

g. Improve the public realm and connecting green spaces and other areas, 

providing a clean, safe and well managed environment with high-quality 

buildings and design. 

h. To set out a strategic and co-ordinated tall buildings strategy which 

considers both local and strategic impacts within the broader regeneration 

context. 

i. Encourage the boroughs to pool Section 106 contributions to fund major 

transport and public realm improvements. Promote a standard charge 

approach in partnership with the borrowers. 

Page 1 of 3

Appendix 2 to Paper 10-47 

Development Scenarios 

Est. 

Resident 

Population 

Scenario 1 

Low density 

residential 

(60% Resi: 

40% Emp) 

Scenario 2 

Medium 

density 

residential 

(75% Resi: 

25% Emp) 

Scenario 3 

High Density 

residential 

(85% Resi: 

15% Emp) 

Scenario 4 

High Density 

residential 

with retail 

destination 

(80% Resi: 

20% Emp) 

9,830 19,890 37,440 39,200 39,200 

Scenario 5 

High density 

residential 

with retail and 

office 

destination 

(68% Resi: 

32% Emp) 

Child yield 2,530 5,120 9,640 10,100 10,100 

Residential 4,200 8,500 16,000 16,750 16750 

Units 

Tenure 

split 

35% Aff.:65% 

Pvt. 

35% Aff.:65% 

Pvt. 

35% Aff.:65% 

Pvt. 

35% Aff.:65% 

Pvt. 

35% Aff.:65% 

Pvt. 

Jobs 8,000 8,000 8,000 12,000 27,000 

Total built 494,000sqm 795,000sqm 1,320,000sqm 1,472,500sqm 1,722,500sqm 

area 

Open 

Space 

(calculated 

on basis of 

London 

Plan 

policy for 

site 

provision) 

25,000sqm 51,000sqm 96,000sqm 101,000sqm 101,000sqm 

Parking 

spaces 

Average 

building 

height: 

Resi: 2,100 

Emp: 135-200 

Resi: 4,250 

Emp: 135-200 

Resi:8,000 

Emp: 135-200 

Resi: 7,700 

Emp: 3500 

+265 to 400 

(retail) 

Resi: 7,700 

Emp: 

3,500+300 to 

450 (retail) 

2-4 storeys 4-7 storeys 8-10 storeys 8-10 storeys 8-10 storeys 

Page 2 of 3

Land use: 

Primary 

schools 

required: 

Secondary 

schools 

required: 

Predominantly 

employment 

uses at ground 

floor with 

residential 

above; 

relatively low 

density 

development 

Predominantly 

employment 


floor with 

residential 

above; 

relatively 

medium 

density 

development 

with a greater 

requirement 

of open space 

at grade. 

Predominantly 

employment 


floor with 

residential 

above; 

relatively high 

density 

development 

with 

significant 

requirement 

of open space 

at grade. 

Predominantly 

employment 


floor with 

residential 

above; 


density 

residential and 

retail/office. 

1 2 3 3 3 

0 1 2 2 2 

Predominantly 

employment 


floor with 

residential 

above; 


density 

residential and 

retail/office. 

Page 3 of 3







Report by the Borough Planner on the Local Development Framework. 

SUMMARY 

Background. This is a report on the progress on the Local Development Framework (LDF), 

including a recommendation that the revised Local Development Scheme approved by the 

Executive on 13th July 2009 shall take effect from 19th January 2010, updates on the 

Examination of the Core Strategy Development Plan Document (DPD) and consultation on the 

preferred options versions of the Development Management Policies Document and Site 

Specific Allocations Document. 

Policy. The LDF was introduced in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and is 

guided by Planning Policy Statement 12 – Local Spatial Planning. The LDF, which will 

replace the adopted Unitary Development Plan and provide the Council’s Spatial Policy, has to 

be in conformity with the London Plan and the Council’s Sustainable Community Strategy 

(Our Wandsworth 2018). 

Issues/Proposals. Following Executive approval, the Local Development Scheme (LDS), 

setting out the Council’s programme for the development of its Local Development 

Framework (LDF) was submitted to the Mayor of London and Secretary of State. The Council 

has now been informed that the Mayor and Government Office for London do not require any 

changes to be made to the LDS and the Council is now required to agree that the LDS takes 

effect. 

GLOSSARY 

AMR 

DMPD 

DPD 

EH 

GLA 

GOL 

LDF 

LDS 

PINS 

SSAD 

UDP 

Annual Monitoring Report 

Development Management Policies Development Plan Document 

Development Plan Document 

English Heritage 


Government Office for London 

Local Development Framework 

Local Development Scheme 

Planning Inspectorate 

Site Specific Allocations Development Plan Document 

Unitary Development Plan 


LDF 


Committee are recommended to support the recommendations in paragraph 3 

of the report. 


recommendations on this report, these will be reported to the Executive or the 

appropriate regulatory and other committees for their consideration. 

3. The Executive is recommended to agree that the Local Development Scheme, 

approved by the Executive on 13th July 2009, shall come into effect on 19th 

January 2010. 

4. Introduction. The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 introduced a 

range of reforms to the planning system, including a new system of 

development plans in which Local Development Frameworks (LDF) will 

replace Unitary Development Plans (UDPs). The LDF is a portfolio of 

documents, which are to be produced in line with the Local Development 

Scheme (LDS), which sets the programme for the preparation of the various 

Development Plan Documents (DPDs) and Supplementary Planning 

Documents (SPDs). The Council is currently working on three documents: the 

Core Strategy; the Development Management Policies Document (DMPD); 

and the Site Specific Allocations Document (SSAD). 

5. Local Development Scheme. In response to changes in legislation and 

unforeseen staff vacancies in the Policy and Information Group, the Borough 

Planner reported (Paper No. 09-548) a revised LDS setting out a modified 

programme for completing the Council’s LDF to Committee in July 2009. 

Following Executive approval on 13th July 2009, the LDS was submitted to 

the Mayor of London and Secretary of State for approval. Both the Mayor and 

the Government Office for London subsequently informed the Council that 

they did not wish to make any amendments to the LDS. The Council is now 

required to resolve that the revised LDS takes effect. 

6. Key dates in the revised programme are given in the table below. As required 

by the regulations, the LDS has been made available on the Council’s website. 

Revised Local Development Scheme Key Dates 

Preferred 

Options 

Consultation 

Pre 

Submission 

(Publication) 

Consultation 

Core Strategy 

Sep/Oct Sep/Oct 

2007 2008 

Development Management Jan/Feb Sep/Nov 

Policies DPD 

2010 * 2010 

Site Specific Allocations Jan/Feb Sep/Nov 

2010 * 2010 

Submission 

to Secretary 

of State for 

Examination 

30 Mar 

2009 

May 2011 

Adoption 

Sep 2010 

Apr 

2012 

May 2011 Apr 

2012 

* Consultation began on 11th December 2009 and ends on 5th February 2010. 


LDF 

7. Core Strategy. The Core Strategy (Paper No. 09-207) was submitted to the 

Secretary of State for examination on 20th March 2009. Following 

submission, the Inspector undertaking the examination identified concerns in 

relation to the policies and supporting evidence on affordable housing and tall 

buildings, and the lack of a comprehensive table indicating the relationship 

between Core Strategy policies, the related infrastructure required to deliver 

the policies and the indicators which will be used to monitor delivery of the 

plan. The Council subsequently provided the Inspector with additional 

information, including an Affordable Housing Economic Viability Assessment 

and a Stage One Urban Design Statement and proposed a number of changes 

to the Core Strategy, which were reported (Paper Nos. 09-548 and 09-744) to 

this Committee on 2nd July 2009 and 10th September 2009 respectively. As 

recommended by the Inspector, the Council undertook consultation on the 

proposed changes to the Core Strategy to allow stakeholders to make 

representations (comments), or modify previous representations, regarding the 

soundness of the proposed changes. The six week consultation period took 

place between 25th September and 6th November 2009. 

8. The Council received responses to the consultation from 35 representors. 

Sixteen responses received referred to the changes to the affordable housing 

policy and ten responses referred to tall buildings. Four respondents withdrew 

previous representations and four confirmed they had no further comments. A 

range of other issues were raised including comments relating to the Council’s 

policy on Nine Elms/Battersea. A number of representors commented on 

more than one issue. 

9. The Inspector held a Pre Hearing Meeting on 8th December 2009, which 

provided details of the five public Hearing Sessions which will take place 

between 2nd and 16th February 2010 and how they will be managed. 

Following the Pre Hearing Meeting, the Council and named representors were 

invited to submit written statements on a range of issues set out by the 

Inspector. The Council was requested to submit statements on 18 topics, as 

required these will be submitted on 7th January 2010. Copies of all the 

statements will be made available on the Council’s website. 

10. The Council is due to receive the Inspector’s binding report on the Core 

Strategy by the end of May 2010. This should allow the Council to formally 

adopt the Core Strategy in September 2010 as indicated in the LDS. 

11. Development Management Policies Document (DMPD) and Site Specific 

Allocations Documents (SSAD). The Preferred Options versions of the 

DMPD and the SSAD were approved for consultation in November (Paper 

No. 09- 920). The DMPD and the SSAD complement the Core Strategy, 

providing detailed policies to be applied in the assessment of planning 

applications and details of what the Council wishes to see on major 

development sites in order to ensure the delivery of the vision for the Borough 

set out in the Core Strategy. 

12. Formal consultation on the Preferred Options versions of the DMPD and the 

SSAD commenced on 11th December 2009 and ends on 5th February 2010. 


LDF 

This is two weeks more than the statutory minimum to allow for the Christmas 

and New Year period. Following a review of the responses, and further 

discussions with key stakeholders, Proposed Submission (Publication) 

versions of the documents will be prepared. The Proposed Submission 

versions of the documents will be reported to a special meeting of the PTOSC 

to be held in July 2010. They will then be published and representations 

sought prior to the preparation of the final, Submission, version of the 

documents. These will then be reported to the Committee and Executive for 

approval for submission to the Secretary of State for examination. 

___________________ 


Wandsworth, 

SW18 2PU. 

A. G. MCDONALD 





1. Wandsworth Local Development Scheme, June 2009 

2. Wandsworth Core Strategy: Submission Version, March 2009; 

3. Proposed Changes to the Core Strategy: Submission Version, September 2009 

4. Wandsworth Core Strategy Development Plan Document, Pre-Hearing 

Meeting Guidance Notes, November 2009 (Planning Inspectorate) 

5. Wandsworth Development Management Policies Document: Preferred 

Options Version, November 2009 

6. Wandsworth Site Specific Allocations Document: Preferred Options Version, 

November 2009 

If you wish to inspect any of these papers, please contact Martin Howell; Tel: 020 

8871 6647; email mhowell@wandsworth.gov.uk. 




2001, in which case the Committee Secretary (Mr M Newton – 020 8871 6488; email 








Report by the Director of Technical Services on bus issues in the Borough. 

SUMMARY 

Background. Transport for London (TfL) provides bus services in London, but the Council as 

the highway authority is responsible for the majority of highway where bus services operate 

and where bus stops are located. The Council is able to assist bus reliability and bus journey 

times by regulating parking, waiting and loading controls on bus routes, at bus stops and 

stands, and by making infrastructure changes to the highway. Where needed, the opportunity is 

also taken to improve the local environment and provide benefits for other users such as 

residents, pedestrians, cyclists and motorists. 

Policy. Support for sustainable modes of transport is a key element of national, London-wide 

and local transport policy. Buses provide an essential service for many local residents and 

workers, particularly for those without access to private transport. The Council actively 

encourages the provision of bus services in the Borough, and assists TfL to improve services 

and access to them. However, bus priority measures need to be considered in the light of 

impacts on other road users and on local people. 

Issues/Proposals. TfL have announced that their proposals to alter route G1, on which they 

consulted during 2009, will be implemented in May 2010. Detailed measures are now 

recommended to assist route G1 service reliability, reduce journey times and improve 

operations at a number of locations, including changes to parking and waiting restrictions in 

Wickersley Road, SW11 (Shaftesbury), small sections of additional waiting restrictions in 

Tyneham and Eversleigh Roads SW11 (Shaftesbury), Aboyne Road and Strathdon Drive, 

SW17 (Earlsfield), and stop line set back at the junction of Broomwood and Northcote Roads, 

SW11 (Northcote). 

It is also proposed to extend a westbound bus stop in Putney Heath, SW15 (Roehampton). 

TfL have also announced that a majority of consultation responses to their proposal to extend 

route 255 from Streatham Hill to Balham Station are in favour of the route proposed, and they 

are now considering options to address the concerns of objectors, particularly in Old 

Devonshire Road, SW12 (Balham) where 79% of responses objected to the proposal. 

Comments of the Director of Finance. The Council’s Capital programme includes £534,000 

for Bus Priority Measures and £64,000 for Bus Stop Accessibility Measures in 2009/10, both 

financed by capital grant from Transport for London. Any measures proposed in this report 

will need to be financed from these provisions, but if the work is not completed by the 31 st 


Bus Issues 

March 2010, and unless agreement can be reached with TfL to carry it forward, the grant 

funding is lost, which would require the balance of the costs to be met from the 2010/11 

resources. 

Conclusions. The proposals in this report would assist the operation of bus services in this 

Borough, and access to these services by residents and workers, but need to be carefully 

balanced against the potential impact on residential amenity and other road users. 

GLOSSARY 

TfL - Transport for London 

CPZ – Controlled Parking Zone 

DDA – Disability Discrimination Act 

1. Recommendations. The Planning and Transportation Overview and Scrutiny 



recommendations on the report, these will be reported to the Executive for its 



(a) 

note the outcome of the consultation undertaken by TfL on proposed changes to 

Bus route G1, as described in paragraphs 5 to 8; 

(b) approve the proposals to improve Bus Route G1, described in paragraphs 8 to 18; 

(c) 

(d) 

note the proposed works to the bus stop in Putney Heath, described in paragraph 

19; 

note the outcome of the consultation undertaken by TfL on the proposed 

extension of route 255 via Old Devonshire Road, as described in paragraphs 20 to 

22; 

(e) instruct the Director of Technical Services to: - 

(i) 

(ii) 

(iii) 

undertake public consultation on proposals to improve bus operations in 

Shaftesbury Estate, as described in paragraphs 9 to 15 of this report; 

subject to there being no objections that cannot be resolved arising from 

recommendations (i), agree to implement the proposals; 

make the necessary Traffic Management Orders under Section 6 of the 

Road Traffic Act 1984 to effect recommendation (ii). 

4. Introduction. Buses play an important role in providing the overall public transport 

network within London. They are able to access areas not served by rail and 

(Paper No. 10-49)

Bus Issues 

Underground services, and can be extremely flexible in terms of their routes, frequency 

and type of service. Bus passengers include disproportionately high numbers of elderly 

people, ethnic minorities and children. It is important to ensure that those with mobility 

problems, accompanying children or carrying items, are able to access buses easily and 

conveniently, and that delays to bus services are kept to a minimum. It is also important 

that bus services are planned to serve as much of the Borough as possible, to provide the 

best service possible for people to access employment and shops, and to reduce the need 

to use private motor vehicles. The Council can facilitate the improvement of bus services 

by removing or reducing causes of delays and improving highway infrastructure to 

support bus services. 

5. Proposed changes to Bus Route G1. Proposals by TfL to make alterations to bus 

Route G1 (Streatham High Road to the Shaftsbury Estate in Battersea, SW11 

(Shaftesbury)) were reported (Paper No. 09-749) to this Committee on 10th September 

2009, and the Executive on 14th September agreed to ratify an officer-level letter as the 

Council’s formal response to TfL’s consultation. 

6. TfL have recently announced that they will proceed with all their proposed changes in 

May 2010, at which time the operator of the route will change, following re-tendering of 

the service. The changes will be: 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

The Sunday bus service will increase from once an hour to twice an hour; 

The route will be changed to operate the full length of Northcote Road instead of 

serving Wakehurst Road and Belleville Road; and 

The route will be altered in the area of St George’s Hospital to operate from 

Fountain Road, around the perimeter road at St George’s Hospital to Blackshaw 

Road and Tooting High Street, rejoining the current route at Tooting Broadway. 

This would eliminate the section of the route in Garratt Lane from Fountain Road 

to Tooting Broadway. The main entrance to the Hospital would continue to be 

served in both directions. 

7. In response to TfL’s stakeholder consultation the Council requested that the new contract 

specify a quieter engine type to address residents’ complaints about noise from G1 buses. 

However, TfL has ignored the Council’s request and the same type of bus as present will 

be used in the new contract. 

8. The amended route down Northcote Road requires a left turn manoeuvre by the bus into 

Broomwood Road. It is proposed to set back an advanced stop line in Broomwood Road 

by 1.5m to accommodate this turning manoeuvre. An advanced stop line on Northcote 

Road at the same junction also needs to be moved back by 4 m to accommodate existing 

left turns of bus route 319. These proposals are shown on Drawing No. 

OS/CES/992176/05 which will be on display in the Committee room on the evening of 

the meeting. It is recommended these proposals are implemented. 

9. Bus Route G1 Operational Difficulties in the Shaftesbury Estate, SW11 

(Shaftesbury). The bus operator for Route G1 has reported a number of operational 

difficulties accessing the bus stand on Wickersley Road in the Shaftesbury Estate due to 

parked vehicles. Buses enter the Shaftesbury Estate via Sabine Road, turn left into 

Tyneham Road, then right into Eversleigh Road and right again into Wickersley Road. 

Buses turn around in the turning head at the end of Wickersley Road, and then wait at a 


Bus Issues 

bus stand on the western side of the road. The G1 route provides an important transport 

link from the Shaftesbury Estate to Clapham Junction and beyond, and is well used by 

residents. This part of the route is ‘Hail and Ride’, and is almost entirely along residential 

streets. 

10. On Wickersley Road there are several residential properties, John Burns Primary School, 

and a Scout Hall. There is also a Greek Orthodox Church nearby and alleyways through 

to several other residential streets. In addition to the bus stand there is a bus stop on the 

western side of the road, and formal parking spaces for six vehicles which are in the C3 

controlled parking zone, operating from 9.30am to 5.30pm, Monday to Friday. The 

remainder of the road has single yellow waiting restrictions which operate during the 

same hours as the CPZ. A 25m section of road outside the School has a School Keep 

Clear marking in addition to the single yellow line, which is operational from 8.15 to 

9.45am, and 3 to 4.30pm, Monday to Friday. 

11. The operator has reported that obstructive parking on sections of single yellow line on 

Wickersley, Tyneham and Eversleigh Roads in the evenings and weekends often makes it 

impossible for the G1 bus to turn into and within Wickersley Road, especially on 

Sundays between 11am and 3pm when the Church holds its Sunday Service. There are 

reports of bus drivers reversing their buses onto the bus stand. On occasions the operator 

has to despatch a controller to the stand to help buses turn around, and sometimes buses 

have become stuck and had to be towed from the road. This can result in the bus service 

being suspended from the Shaftesbury Estate for a period of time, which adversely affects 

the service for residents of the Estate. The operator advises that service disruption occurs 

once or twice a month, but that there are also undocumented occasions when buses have 

to turn short of Wickersley Road, and therefore do not serve the whole of the route. 

Buses also experience difficulties turning from Tyneham Road into Eversleigh Road, and 

from Eversleigh Road into Wickersley Road due to parked vehicles. The operator has 

indicated that if the issues with obstructive parking are not resolved, the bus service may 

have to be withdrawn from the Estate. 

12. Sections of double yellow line waiting restrictions are recommended to prevent 

obstructive parking to allow the bus to safely manoeuvre into and out of Wickersley Road 

and to turn around in the turning head. Site visits and electronic tracking of bus 

movements have been used to determine the extent of double yellow lines required, 

which have been kept to a minimum to reduce disrupting spaces for resident’s parking. A 

weekday parking survey showed a high utilisation of the parking spaces on Wickersley 

Road, but plenty of spare capacity on Eversleigh Road. On a weekday night, a parking 

survey showed only one vehicle on Wickersley Road had a parking permit for the 

Shaftesbury CPZ zone, whereas the majority of vehicles on Eversleigh and Tyneham 

Roads had residents’ parking permits, which may indicate that some of the vehicles 

parked in Wickersley Road were visitors to the area. 

13. In 2008 the bus stop on Wickersley Road was upgraded to be fully accessible and DDA 

compliant. At this time, a separate bus stand was created to fulfil TfL’s aspiration to 

separate stands from bus stops where possible. The bus stand was created on the site of a 

mobile library that was no longer used, and involved removing one parking space. With 

the current problems of accessing the bus stand, the operator and TfL have indicated they 

would prefer to have double yellow lines in these locations, and revert back to a 

combined bus stop and stand. The current location of the bus stand could be converted to 

three CPZ parking spaces. The single yellow line adjacent to the school keep clear 

(Paper No. 10-49)

markings would be retained and would be available for parking in the evenings and 

weekends. 

Bus Issues 

14. Proposals to reduce obstructive parking near Wickersley Road to allow the G1 bus to 

access the bus stand are shown on Drawing No. OS/CES/992176/001 which will be on 

display in the Committee room on the evening of the meeting. The proposals consist of: 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

(d) 

Double yellow lines at the corners of the junctions of Tyneham Road/Eversleigh 

Road and Eversleigh Road/Wickersley Road, and replacement of 7m of residents’ 

parking bay with double yellow line outside No. 261 Wickersley Road to enable 

the G1 bus to turn in and out of these roads. 

Double yellow lines and a yellow box junction in the turning head of Wickersley 

Road to stop obstructive parking which prevents buses and other large vehicles 

from using the turning head. 

Conversion of the bus stand outside the Scout’s Hall to three residents’ parking 

bays, and extension of the parking bay on the east side of the road to 

accommodate one more vehicle. 

Conversion of the existing bus stand to a combined bus stand/stop and minor 

amendments to the bus flag and shelter. 

15. The changes to the available parking spaces are summarised below. There would be an 

overall gain of three CPZ parking spaces, and an overall loss of up to ten 

overnight/weekend parking spaces on single yellow line, totalling a net loss of seven 

overnight/weekend parking spaces. It is believed this parking can be accommodated in 

nearby Eversleigh Road which appears to have spare parking capacity. 

Area 

East side of Junction of 

Tyneham Road and 

Eversleigh Road 

Existing 

restriction 

Single 

yellow line 

Proposed 

restriction 

Double yellow 

line 

Affect on parking 

Loss of one overnight/weekend 

parking space on single yellow 

line 

North side of junction of 

Tyneham Road and 

Eversleigh Road 

CPZ parking 

bay 

Double yellow 

line 

Loss of one CPZ parking space 

Junction of Wickersley 

Road and Eversleigh 

Road 

Single 

yellow line 

Double yellow 

line 

Loss of three overnight/weekend 

parking spaces on single yellow 

line 

Wickersley Road west 

side 

Bus stand 

CPZ parking 

bay 

Gain of three CPZ parking spaces 

Wickersley Road east 

side 

Single 

yellow line 

CPZ parking 

bay 

Gain of one CPZ parking space 

outside No. 2 Wickersley Road 

Wickersley Road turning 

head 

Single 

yellow line 

Double yellow 

line 

Loss of up to six 

overnight/weekend parking 

spaces from the turning head 

area. Parking in this location 

obstructs the turning movement 

of large vehicles including buses. 


Bus Issues 

16. It is proposed that these changes listed in paragraphs 9 to 15 are consulted upon and 

implemented provided there are no objections arising from consultation that cannot be 

resolved. 

17. Bus Route G1 route improvements. A bus route test identified a number of other 

locations where drivers experience difficulties due to obstructive parking. It is proposed 

to install short sections of double yellow lines at: 

(a) 

(b) 

Strathdon Drive outside Nos. 4 to 8 (20m). This is required to enable the G1 bus 

to turn out of St George’s Grove without over-running the pavement. This would 

result in the loss of three overnight parking spaces on single yellow line. 

The mouth of Aboyne Road near the junction with Garratt Lane. Double yellow 

lines are required on both sides of the road to prevent vehicles parking near the 

pedestrian refuge. 

18. These proposals are shown in Drawing Nos. OS/CES/992176/002 and 

OS/CES/992176/003 which will be on display in the Committee room on the evening of 

the meeting. It is recommended the proposals are implemented subject to statutory 

consultation. 

19. Putney Heath bus stop improvement, SW15 (Roehampton). The Council has received 

a complaint from a resident regarding the accessibility of a westbound bus stop on Putney 

Heath. A zebra crossing was installed upstream of the bus stop which resulted in a 

reduction in the length of the bus stop. When more than one bus is at the bus stop, 

passengers have to board and alight the second bus from the grass verge. It is therefore 

proposed to extend the hardstanding of the bus stop to the west, as shown in Drawing No. 

OS/CES/JS/994621/01 RevB, which will be displayed in the Committee Room on the 

evening of the meeting. The Putney Common Conservators have no objection to the 

measures. There are no frontages at this location. The proposal will be implemented in 

2010. 

20. Proposed extension of route 255 via Old Devonshire Road, SW12 (Balham). TfL’s 

proposal to extend route 255 (Pollards Hill-Streatham Hill) to Balham Station was 

reported to this Committee on 15th April and 10th September 2009 (Paper Nos 09-364 

and 09-749). TfL undertook public consultation on their proposal in June and July 2009, 

and a petition bearing 41 signatures of residents primarily in Old Devonshire Road 

opposing the proposed bus route was presented to the Council on 22nd July 2009 by 

Councillor Mrs. Usher. The petition was reported to this Committee on 10th September, 

and the Executive on 14th September resolved to note its contents and to ask TfL to 

address these in their final proposals for the bus route. 

21. TfL have now announced the results of their consultation process. A large part of the 

proposed route extension would be in the Borough of Lambeth. TfL report that the 

majority (68%) of the 689 respondents were in favour of the proposed route, 27% against 

it, and 4% had no opinion. Of the 119 respondents in Wandsworth, 62% were in favour, 

and 29% against, although in Old Devonshire Road (the chief road affected) only 17% of 

the 34 responses were in favour and 79% were against. 

22. TfL are now considering options to address the concerns of objectors. A bus test was 

conducted on 8th December, to consider the possibilities for an alternative route from 

Streatham to Balham. The conclusions of this process will be reported to this Committee 

(Paper No. 10-49)

and Executive at future meetings. 

Bus Issues 

23. Comments of the Economic Development Officer. The Balham Partnership has 

welcomed the proposed extension of the 255 route and its potential to bring more 

customers to Balham. However it shares concerns with the residents of Old Devonshire 

Road about its suitability for the route. TfL’s consideration of alternative routes from 

Streatham to Balham is therefore welcome. 

24. Comments of the Director of Finance. The Council’s Capital programme includes 

£534,000 for Bus Priority Measures and £64,000 for Bus Stop Accessibility Measures in 

2009/10, both financed by capital grant from Transport for London. Any measures 

proposed in this report will need to be financed from these provisions but if the work is 

not completed by the 31 st March 2010, and unless agreement can be reached with TfL to 

carry it forward, the grant funding is lost which would require the balance of the costs to 

be met from the 2010/11 resources. 

____________________ 

TheTown Hall, 

Wandsworth, 

SW18 2PU 

W. G. MYERS 



Background papers 

No background papers were used in the preparation of this report. 

All reports to Overview and Scrutiny Committees, regulatory and other committees, the 


(www.wandsworth.gov.uk/moderngov) unless the report was published before May 2001, in 

which case the Committee Secretary (Mr. M Newton – 020 8871 6488; email 




PAPER NO: 10-50 





Report by the Director of Technical Services regarding progress on the School Travel 

Strategy. 

SUMMARY 

Background. The Council has an active School Travel Strategy also known as the 

Sustainable Modes of Travel Strategy (SMTS), a programme designed to improve 

safety on the journey to and from school, reduce the number of cars used on the 

school run, and increase the number of journeys made on foot and by bicycle. 

Schools are encouraged to have a travel plan detailing how they intend to do this. 

Currently, 92 schools in Wandsworth have a travel plan, with 11 schools having 

submitted plans in the year to March 2009. 

Policy. The Education and Inspections Act 2006 requires all local education 

authorities to have a SMTS. The Technical Services Department has led on the 

production of the SMTS, given its promotion of sustainable travel. The Council 

reviews and updates its SMTS on an annual basis. The most recent version of the 

strategy was approved by the Committee in July 2009 (Paper No. 09-547). 

Issues/proposals. Transport for London’s stated target for all London schools to have 

an approved travel plan was December 2009. 92 schools have approved travel plans, 

and the Council is currently working with an additional 12 schools to develop their 

plans by the end of March 2010. The remaining 10 schools (mainly very small 

schools) are declining to take part in this voluntary initiative for various reasons. The 

Council will maintain contact with these schools and will help them develop their 

travel plan when it becomes a priority for the schools. The Council may also 

consider ways to provide these schools with more direct assistance. 

The Council runs a number of projects that promote sustainable school travel, and is 

currently developing a number of new projects to promote cycling to school. 3 

Wandsworth schools recently received Walking to School Initiative Grants from the 

Department for Transport. 

Engineering measures are proposed for implementation during the 2009/2010 year 

for Lion House School, SW15 (East Putney) and Finton House School, SW17 

(Wandsworth Common). Engineering measures have been implemented for Ibstock 


School Travel Strategy 

Place School, SW15 (Roehampton) under the Standing Order 83A procedure. 

Comments of the Director of Finance. The works proposed in this report are 

estimated to cost £36,000 and will be met from within the provision for Schools 

Travel Strategy in the approved capital programme funded by capital grant from TfL. 

Conclusion. The Council’s School Travel Strategy is successful and well regarded. 

The proportion of children being driven to school continues to fall, and this reduction 

is greater at those schools with travel plans. Supporting over 100 schools in the 

development of promotional activities, implementation of travel plans and, where 

necessary, on-street engineering measures, is a significant undertaking. The 

Council’s capital funding from Transport for London to support engineering 

measures is relatively low in 2009/2010, limiting the number of schemes that can be 

implemented this financial year. 

GLOSSARY 

DfCSF 

LIP 

SMTS 

TfL 

TLRN 

DfT 

Department for Children, Schools and Families 

Local Implementation Plan 

Sustainable Modes of Travel Strategy 


Transport for London Road Network 

Department for Transport 




recommendations on this report, these will be reported to the Executive for its 



(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

(d) 

note progress on school travel plan activity, as described in paragraphs 

8 - 13; 

approve the implementation of measures benefiting Lion House 

School, SW15 (East Putney), as described in paragraphs 15 – 19; 

approve the implementation of measures benefiting Finton House 

School, SW17 (Wandsworth Common), as described in paragraphs 20 

– 25; 

approve the making of traffic management orders under section 6 of 

the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and section 90(c) of the 

Highways Act 1990 to effect recommendations (b) – (c); and 



(e) 

note progress on the implementation of measures benefiting Ibstock 

Place School, SW15 (Roehampton), as described in paragraph 26. 

4. Introduction. This is a progress report on the continuing implementation of 

the School Travel Strategy. It describes a number of measures proposed to 

improve safety and people’s perception of safety on the journey to and from 

school, reducing the impact of the school run by improving conditions for 

pedestrians and cyclists and promoting healthier and more sustainable modes 

of travel. 

5. Background. The School Travel Strategy, also known as the sustainable 

Modes of Travel Strategy (SMTS is an ongoing programme of activities and 

works to improve the safety and quality of journeys to and from school and to 

raise awareness of travel issues, by promoting an increase in the use of 

sustainable travel modes and reducing the proportion of journeys to school by 

car. The Education and Inspections Act 2006 requires all local education 

authorities to have a SMTS. The Technical Services Department has led on 

the production of the SMTS, given its promotion of sustainable travel. The 

Council reviews and updates its SMTS on an annual basis. A series of reports 

on the strategy have been considered by the Committee and the Executive, the 

most recent (Paper No.09-547) in July 2009. 

6. The strategy has two main elements. Firstly, schools are encouraged to 

support promotional activities with a view towards increasing the proportion 

of journeys to and from school made on foot, by bicycle and by public 

transport. These activities are given focus by national and London-wide 

campaigns, such as Walk to School Week, Bike Week and the Walk on 

Wednesday campaign. Schools are encouraged to develop formal travel plans 

setting out targets and incorporating school travel-related activities into the 

curriculum. Currently, 92 schools have approved travel plans. The Council 

and TfL provide financial support for schools to meet the cost of developing a 

travel plan by paying for teacher supply cover, if necessary, once an 

approvable travel plan has been produced. The DfCSF provides a financial 

reward to schools with a travel plan: Secondary and Special schools receive 

£5,000 + £5 per pupil, and Primary schools receive £3,750 + £5 per pupil. 

Schools have 3 years to spend this funding on capital items related to the 

promotion of sustainable school travel, such as cycle parking or a wet weather 

waiting area for parents. 

7. The second element of the strategy is the identification and provision of 

physical measures on the street to increase safety near schools and improve 

facilities for those travelling on foot or by bicycle. 

8. Update on School Travel Plan activity. In 2008/2009, 11 schools submitted 

a travel plan to the Council for approval, bringing the total number of schools 

with travel plans to 87. Since then, another 5 schools have submitted travel 

plans for approval, and the Council is currently working with an additional 12 

schools to help them develop travel plans. 



9. In previous years, the Council has run a series of workshops to help schools 

develop their travel plans. To give the remaining 22 schools without travel 

plans extra encouragement to take part in the voluntary initiative, the Council 

now offers to meet with these schools on a one to one basis to guide them 

through the process and to provide additional assistance. Once schools have 

drafted their travel plan they are invited to a drop-in session where the Council 

helps them complete their travel plan. These sessions are also an opportunity 

for schools to meet each other and share ideas. 

10. The London target promoted by TfL was for all schools to have an approved 

travel plan by December 2009. Therefore, the Council’s focus for the last 6 

months has been on helping those remaining schools that would like to take 

part in this voluntary initiative complete their travel plans. By the end of 

December 2009, 92 of 114 schools had approved travel plans and the Council 

is working with 12 schools that should finish their travel plans by the end of 

March 2010. There are 10 schools (mainly very small schools) that have 

currently declined to take part in this voluntary initiative for various reasons 

(see appendix A). The Council will remain in contact with these schools and 

will help them complete their travel plans when they become a higher priority 

for the schools. 

11. In addition to helping schools complete their travel plans, the Council ran a 

number of projects for schools with approved travel plans to take part in over 

the last 6 months: - 

(a) 34 schools took part in Walk to School Month in October 2009; 

(b) 33 schools are currently taking part in the Walk on Wednesday 

campaign; 

(c) 10 schools hosted a visit from BMX Inertia (a group of professional 

BMX riders to tour schools promoting safe cycling to school); and 

(d) 6 schools have walking buses and the Council is currently helping set 

up new walking buses at 3 more schools. 

12. The Council is also in the process of developing a number of new projects to 

be launched in the spring. ‘Cyclicious’ and ‘Cyclone’ will promote cycling to 

school to secondary school-aged girls and boys respectively, while ‘Treasure 

Trails’ will promote cycling to school to primary school-aged pupils. These 

projects replace the ‘Bike It’ initiative, which came to an end in Wandsworth 

in July 2009. The Council is also developing a scooter training programme to 

encourage pupils to scoot to school, and to do so safely. 

13. In November 2009, 3 Wandsworth schools received Walking to School 

Initiative Grants from the DfT. St Michaels C of E Primary School, SW18 

(East Putney) received £1,000 to cover the costs of running their walking bus, 

as well as promoting car sharing and park-and-stride, running a pedestrian 

quiz, and developing a licence scheme for older pupils wanting to walk to 

school independently. Hillbrook Primary School, SW17 (Tooting) received 

£500 to set up and run a breakfast club to which membership is a reward for 

pupils who walk to school. Hotham Primary School, SW15 (Thamesfield) 

received £500 to fund a project which requires pupils to identify safe, 



enjoyable walking routes in the area around the school and to share their 

findings at assembly. If the schools request it, the Council will assist these 

schools to set up and run these projects. 

14. Proposals for engineering measures. The Council receives regular enquiries 

about traffic around schools. Where possible, the Council investigates 

feasibility and develops designs to address any concerns in readiness for 

consultation and implementation should funding become available. In July 

2009, engineering designs benefiting Lion House School, SW15 (East 

Putney), were approved for implementation subject to there not being any 

objections that could not be resolved (Paper No. 09-547). In October 2009, 

consultation began on designs benefiting Finton House School, SW17 

(Wandsworth Common) and, following complaints of congestion and 

dangerous parking, double yellow lines have been introduced in the vicinity of 

Ibstock Place School, SW15 (Roehampton). 

15. Lion House School, SW15 (East Putney). Following public consultation, a 

raised table crossing point in Gwendolen Avenue was implemented in front of 

Lion House School in early 2009. There was already a raised entry treatment 

at the junction of Gwendolen Avenue with Upper Richmond Road, north of 

the school. The public also supported an entry treatment in Gwendolen 

Avenue south of the school at the junction with Hazelwell Road, but the Police 

opposed it as in their view it would be inconsistent with DfT guidance given 

its close proximity to a roundabout. As an alternative measure to slow traffic 

approaching from the south before it reaches the raised crossing immediately 

outside the school, it is proposed to implement a raised table for the Howard’s 

Lane/Gwendolen Avenue junction. The proposals are shown on drawing 

OS/CES/972159 which will be on display in the Committee Room on the 

evening of the meeting of the Committee. 

16. The consultation was undertaken over a three-week period, ending 6th 

November 2009. 40 consultation letters were delivered and 19 returned, a 

response rate of 48%. The results of the consultation are as follows: 

Proposal 

(a) Raised junction at the intersection of Howard’s Lane and 

Gwendolen Avenue 

Support 

Yes No 

10 9 

17. The results are inconclusive. The reasons respondents gave for not supporting 

the proposal were that they did not want measures benefiting an independent 

school to be funded using Council tax, they did not want the Howard’s 

Lane/Gwendolen Avenue junction to be made any narrower, and that they did 

not consider additional traffic calming measures to be necessary. 

18. Although Lion House School is an independent school, independent schools 

are included in the DfCSF’s target for all schools to have an approved travel 

plan. Lion House School has an approved travel plan, and the travel plan 

specifically mentions that parents/carers and staff have difficulty crossing 

Gwendolen Avenue due to the speed of traffic. The proposals will be funded 



using TfL grant from the Council’s LIP allocation. The proposals will not 

reduce the width of the Howard’s Lane/Gwendolen Avenue junction. A 

number of the respondents that did support the proposal commented that they 

also found the speed of traffic on Gwendolen Avenue to be a concern. The 

raised table would slow traffic on the approach to the raised crossing outside 

Lion House School, thereby improving safety. The proposal would also 

benefit Noddy’s Nursery, which is located immediately south of Lion House 

School. 

19. It is proposed that the raised table for the Howard’s Lane/Gwendolen Avenue 

junction be implemented. 

20. Finton House, SW17 (Wandsworth Common). The Bursar of Finton House 

School has contacted the Council on several occasions to express his concern 

relating to the traffic conditions outside the school in Wandle Road. The 

proximity of the school to Trinity Road, which is part of the TLRN, makes for 

a relatively poor environment for pedestrians whose journeys involve access 

from or across Trinity Road. In addition, a resident living opposite the school 

has requested the yellow line across the crossover outside his property be 

converted to a parking bay. This has resulted in the removal of the only clear 

stretch of kerb in Wandle Road opposite the school. On the school-side of 

Wandle Road there are ‘School – keep clear’ markings, but the many small 

children who cross Wandle Road have to negotiate parked cars on the opposite 

side of the road. 

21. The following measures are proposed:- 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

install a footway build out on Wandle Road opposite the school 

(resulting in the loss of 1 red-route parking bay); 

apply red thermoplastic surfacing to the carriageway between the build 

out and the opposite kerb; and 

shorten the ‘School – keep clear’ markings to allow the introduction of 

1 new permit parking bay. 

22. The proposals are shown on drawing CES/TA/992127, which will be on 

display in the Committee Room on the evening of the meeting. 

23. In September 2009, the Council wrote to 30 residents of Wandle Road 

outlining proposals (a) and (b) and inviting comment. Only 6 responses were 

received. None of the respondents supported the proposals on the grounds of 

the loss of the red-route parking bay. As a result, the scheme has been 

amended to include proposal (c) to address the respondents’ concerns. 

24. The respondents also objected to funding the scheme using Council tax as 

Finton House School is an independent school. Although Finton House 

School is an independent school, it is included in the DfCSF’s target for all 

schools to have an approved travel plan. Finton House School has an 

approved travel plan, and the travel plan specifically mentions that 

parents/carers and staff have difficulty crossing Wandle Road due to the speed 



and volume of traffic. The proposals will be funded using the TfL grant from 

the Council’s LIP allocation. 

25. The proposals would improve safety for pedestrians crossing Wandle Road. 

Residents will be compensated for the loss of the red route parking bay with 

the introduction of a permit parking bay (operational 11.30am – 12.30pm, 

Monday – Friday). It is proposed that the measures in paragraph 21 be 

implemented. 

26. Ibstock Place School, SW15 (Roehampton). Ibstock Place was the subject 

of engineering measures in 2006, including a zebra crossing in Priory Lane 

and double yellow lines on corners to reduce congestion caused primarily by 

parents’ parking. A recent investigation has been carried out following new 

concerns about congestion and dangerous parking. To address these concerns, 

double yellow lines were introduced on the eastern side of Priory Lane from 

Clarence Lane to Bank Lane under the Standing Order No. 83A procedure in 

November 2009. 

27. Comments of the Director of Finance. The works proposed in this report are 

estimated to cost £36,000 and will be met from within the provision for 

Schools Travel Strategy in the approved capital programme funded by capital 

grant from TfL. 


Wandsworth, 

SW18 2PU. 

____________________________ 

W G MYERS 








2001, in which case the Committee Secretary (Mr M Newton– 020 8871 6488; email 




Appendix A to Paper No. 10-50 

List of schools in Wandsworth not taking part in the School Travel Plan initiative 

School 

Al Risaala 

The Dominie 

Eaton House the Manor School 

Elliot School 

Hall School Wimbledon 

Home and Hospital Tuition Unit 

Honeywell Infant School 

Prospect House School 

Somerset Nursery School 

The St Michael Steiner School 

Reason for not taking part 

Other priorities at this time 




Do not feel the initiative is suitable for 

their school as pupils do not live locally 

and there is little public transport. 

Do not feel the initiative is suitable for 

their type of school (pupils only work with 

them for very short periods of time while 

they in are hospital or at home recovering 

from illness or injury) 


Already have an informal travel plan and 

therefore feel joining the National initiative 

is unnecessary. Do not need the financial 

incentives. 


Other priorities at this time







Report by the Director of Technical Services on the Mayor’s Transport Strategy for 

London and Local Implementation Plan guidance. 

SUMMARY 

Background. Under the GLA Act 1999 the Mayor of London is required to produce 

a Transport Strategy and the Council is required to produce a Local Implementation 

Plan (LIP) detailing how it intends to implement this strategy. The Council’s first 

LIP covers the period 2006-2011 and was approved by the then Mayor in January 

2007. The Mayor’s Transport Strategy (MTS), covering the next 30 years, has 

recently been revised and published in draft form for public consultation. Alongside 

the draft MTS, Transport for London and London Councils have jointly issued draft 

LIP guidance for London boroughs to steer the development of their second LIPs 

covering the period 2011-2014. 

Policy. The consultation draft MTS has been developed following earlier 

consultation by the Mayor on his “direction of transport” document Way to Go! and 

his Statement of Intent. Six goals have been identified in the draft strategy to achieve 

the Mayor’s transport vision for London: - 

(a) supporting economic development and population growth; 

(b) enhancing the quality of life for all Londoners; 

(c) improving the safety and security of all Londoners; 

(d) improving transport opportunities for all Londoners; 

(e) reducing transport’s contribution to climate change, and improving its 

resilience; and 

(f) supporting delivery of the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic 

Games and its legacy. 

The MTS includes 35 Policies and 129 Proposals covering all aspects of transport, 

which aim to contribute towards meeting these goals. The full list of Policies and 

Proposals is provided in Appendix 2 to this paper. 

The proposed process for new LIPs is much more streamlined than that experienced 

for the first round of LIPs, and focuses on achieving desired outcomes relating to the 


Mayor’s Transport Strategy 

draft MTS. The draft LIP guidance says second LIPs will give greater ownership to 

boroughs, and should reflect local priorities within the overall framework provided 

by the revised MTS. It is intended that new LIPs should be approved by the time the 

new MTS comes into force in spring 2011. 

Issues and Proposals. In order to meet consultation deadlines, officer level responses 

to the two consultations (Appendix 3 and Appendix 4) have been drafted and 

submitted. It is recommended that these are endorsed as the Council’s formal 

responses, incorporating any amendments as required. 

Comments of the Director of Finance. Funding for the implementation of the 

Mayor’s Transport Strategy is provided via the LIP spending approvals. TfL have 

approved funding of £3,514,000 for 2010/11 whilst resources for 2011/12, 2012/13 

and 2013/14 will be announced in 2010 based on a formula. In addition to this 

formula based award funding for principal road and bridge maintenance will be 

awarded according to condition assessments and funds may be provided for areabased 

schemes. 

Comments of the Economic Development Officer. While there is much to welcome 

in the MTS there are some disappointing omissions. In addition the absence of a 

specific link to regeneration proposals is surprising given the concurrent 

consultations on the Replacement London Plan the Mayors Investment Strategy and 

the LDA's investment strategy. The absence of explicit mention of the Wandsworth 

one-way system is particularly disappointing and could have a negative impact on 

investment decisions in the area. Explicit mention of the Northern Line Extension is 

also welcome but considerable work is required on this project and the wider benefits 

of this project in an area of considerable deprivation and to London more generally 

merit consideration of TfL funding. Again failure to take a more positive stance on 

this project could have a negative impact on others investment decisions. TfL are in a 

strong position to attract other funds and should use this leverage. 

Supporting information. A list of policies and proposals in the Mayor’s Transport 

Strategy are provided in Appendix 2. Appendix 3 and Appendix 4 are officer level 

responses to the two consultations on which decision is sought. 

Conclusions. The Mayor of London is consulting on his draft Transport Strategy, 

and TfL and London Councils are also consulting on draft guidance to borough 

councils on developing Local Implementation Plans, required to put the Mayor’s 

strategy into action locally. This report summarises the content of each document. 

The Committee and Executive are asked to endorse officer comments on the draft 

Mayor’s Transport Strategy (Appendix 3) and draft Local Implementation Guidance 

(Appendix 4) as the Council’s responses to the respective consultations. 



GLOSSARY 

DfT 

GLA 

HLOS 

KSI 

LAA 

LDA 

LIP 

MTS 

NI 

ODA 

RPI 

SCOOT 

SRTP 

TfL 

TLRN 



High Level Output Specification (from 

Government for the railway network) 

(No. of people) Killed/Seriously Injured 

Local Area Agreement 

London Development Agency 



National Indicator 

Olympic Delivery Authority 

Retail Price Index 

Split Cycle Offset Optimisation Technique 

(advanced traffic control system) 

Sub-Regional Transport Plan 






recommendations on the report, they will be submitted to the Executive for its 



(a) 

(b) 

note the content of the consultation draft Mayor’s Transport Strategy as 

summarised in paragraphs 5 - 23 and Appendix 2, and endorse Appendix 3 

(incorporating any changes) as the Council’s response to the consultation; 

and 

note the content of draft LIP guidance for 2011/12-2013/14 as described in 

paragraphs 24 - 48 and endorse Appendix 4 (incorporating any changes) 

as the Council’s response to consultation on the guidance. 

4. Background. Under the GLA Act 1999 the Mayor of London is required to 

produce a Transport Strategy and the Council is required to produce a Local 

Implementation Plan (LIP) detailing how it intends to implement the Mayor of 

London’s transport strategy. The Mayor’s Transport Strategy (MTS) has recently 

been revised and published in draft form for public consultation. The Council’s 

first LIP covers the period 2006-2011 and was approved by the then Mayor in 

January 2007. Alongside the draft MTS, Transport for London and London 

Councils have jointly issued draft LIP guidance for London boroughs to steer the 

development of their second LIPs covering the period 2011-2014. 



5. Draft Mayor’s Transport Strategy. The consultation draft MTS has been 

developed following earlier consultation by the Mayor on his “direction of travel” 

document Way to Go! and his Statement of Intent. Council responses to these 

phases of MTS development were agreed by the Executive in 2009 (Paper No. 09- 

90 and Paper No. 09-546 respectively). 

6. Public consultation on the draft MTS was launched on 12 th October 2009 and 

closes on 12 th January 2010. The Mayor intends to publish the final strategy in 

spring 2010. In agreement with TfL, to accommodate Committee and Executive 

responses to the strategy, an officer response (Appendix 3 to this paper) will be 

sent to meet the deadline, and any changes to this response as agreed by the 

Committee and Executive has been sent to TfL subsequently. The officer 

response has been sent to the Cabinet Member and opposition spokesman for 

review before submission to TfL. 

7. The Mayor’s stated ambition is for London to be the “best big city on earth”, and 

his transport strategy – covering the period to 2031 - is intended to help achieve 

this ambition. 

8. The MTS is underpinned by a large amount of demographic data, modelling and 

forecasting. The challenge for the Mayor is to ensure that demand for transport 

can be met against a backdrop of growing population and employment in London, 

and a desire to improve quality of life, including reduction in emissions that are 

harmful to local and global environments. Analysis indicates that delivery of the 

strategy could achieve the following changes in mode share by 2031: 

Mode 

% of trips made by 

mode (2006) 

% of trips made by 

mode (2031) 

Cycling 2 5 

Walking 24 25 

Public Transport 32 34 

Private Motorised Transport 43 37 

9. The Mayor’s transport vision is: - 

“London’s transport system should excel among those of global cities, providing 

access to opportunities for all its people and enterprises, achieving the highest 

environmental standards and leading the world in its approach to tackling urban 

transport challenges of the 21 st century.” 

10. Six goals have been identified in the strategy to achieve this vision: - 

(a) supporting economic development and population growth; 

(b) enhancing the quality of life for all Londoners; 

(c) improving the safety and security of all Londoners; 

(d) improving transport opportunities for all Londoners; 



(e) 

(f) 

reducing transport’s contribution to climate change, and improving its 

resilience; and 

supporting delivery of the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games 

and its legacy. 

11. The strategy describes challenges and desired outcomes associated with each 

goal, and these are detailed in Appendix 1 to this report. 

12. The Mayor has launched a consultation website and has distributed summary 

leaflets describing the draft MTS and seeking responses from the public. Leaflets 

are available from the Technical Services Department and Borough libraries. The 

summary sets out the Mayor’s proposed key improvements: - 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

(d) 

(e) 

(f) 

(g) 

Transforming the Tube – a major programme of renewal, rebuilding and 

refurbishment, delivering 30 per cent more capacity. Potential for 

extensions to Tube lines (e.g. Northern Line to Battersea/Nine Elms) in 

the longer term; 

Enhancing Rail - including delivery of the Crossrail east-west link, and 

working with Network Rail and train operators to improve integration with 

TfL services, including use of Oyster card; 

The Cycling Revolution – the Mayor aims to deliver a cycling revolution 

by improving infrastructure, information and training. Proposals include 

the Mayor’s Cycle Hire Scheme (6,000 bicycles in central London 

initially), a network of Cycle Superhighways (including the A24 corridor 

through Clapham South, Balham and Tooting as one of the first routes) 

and an invitation for boroughs to become “Biking Boroughs”, creating a 

culture of cycling; 

Making Walking Count – by improving the quality and provision of 

information and resources to facilitate more walking journeys, and to 

improve the urban realm to create safer, more comfortable and attractive 

conditions for walking; 

Improving London’s Buses – including better information, integration 

with other transport, and more environmentally friendly engines. The 

Mayor also plans to launch the “New Bus for London” to replace the 

Routemaster; 

Better Information – including local journey planning tools and real-time 

travel information; 

Easier Interchange – through enhancements at rail, Underground and bus 

stations, as well as making it easier to travel between places in Inner and 

Outer London without having to go through Central London; 



(h) 

(i) 

(j) 

Better Streets and Improved Environment – the Mayor plans a series of 

“better streets” schemes in Central London and town centres, encouraging 

pedestrians and vehicles to interact in a new and balanced way with 

reductions in signs, railings and traffic infrastructure. The Mayor also 

wants to encourage uptake of low emission vehicles, including proposals 

for 25,000 electric vehicle charging points by 2015; 

Facilitating Freight – the Mayor wants to see the rail network and river 

used to their full potential for freight movement, to complement road 

deliveries which will remain important. Local freight schemes 

encouraging cleaner vehicles and new ways of delivery will be 

encouraged; and 

Making Better Use of the Thames – as well as encouraging more freight 

onto the river, the Mayor wants to raise standards on passenger river 

services and introduce Oyster card on all such services, while reducing 

their impact on the environment. 

13. The summary also notes that fares, information and a fair system of road user 

charging may still have a role in managing demand to cope with forecast 

congestion, which will still affect many journeys made by both public and private 

transport. 

14. The full version of the draft MTS collates details of many committed transport 

improvements, both under the Mayor’s control (e.g. planned London 

Underground upgrades) and those planned by national government and other 

parties (e.g. on the national rail network). 

15. A full list of draft MTS policies and proposals is given in Appendix 2. 

Considerable weight is given to the role of borough councils in helping to deliver 

the MTS, and the need for constructive partnership working. Some particular 

issues of interest for Wandsworth include: - 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

(d) 

Policy 7 – improving orbital transport connections and people’s awareness 

of them; 

Policy 27 – following the spirit of the London City Charter, by working in 

partnership with borough councils and others; 

Policy 28 – developing a London sub-regional transport plan for each of 

five sub-regions (Wandsworth being in the south sub-region); 

Policy 29 – working with councils to ensure LIPs are consistent with 

MTS; 



(e) 

(f) 

(g) 

(h) 

(i) 

(j) 

(k) 

(l) 

(m) 

(n) 

(o) 

(p) 

(q) 

(r) 

(s) 

(t) 

Policy 34 – seeking developer contributions for transport, with 

contributions to Crossrail (where appropriate to seek them) given higher 

priority than other public transport improvements; 

Proposal 1 – encouraging more international rail services and 

opportunities (which may reduce air travel and demand at Heathrow); 

Proposal 3 – relieving London of rail freight which does not originate or 

end up in the capital; 

Proposal 8 – rail capacity improvements; 

Proposal 9 – safeguarding new rail links such as the Chelsea-Hackney 

Line (Crossrail 2); 

Proposal 11 – capacity enhancements at the most congested stations, 

including Clapham Junction among the top priorities; Balham is also 

mentioned as a station with moderate congestion requiring improvements; 

Proposal 14 – improving orbital movement on London Overground; 

Proposal 16 – reviewing the benefits of extensions to Tramlink (although 

there is no specific mention of possible routes to the borough of 

Wandsworth); 

Proposal 22 – seeking Tube upgrades including the Northern Line upgrade 

2, and a “privately funded” Northern Line extension to Battersea; 

Proposal 30 – smoothing traffic flow to manage congestion, including the 

use of SCOOT traffic control, targeted road network improvements, and 

piloting “pedestrian countdown” at crossings; 

Proposal 36 - development of river services; 

Proposal 37 – providing more pier capacity; 

Proposal 38 – making more use of the River Thames and canals for 

waterborne freight; 

Proposal 46 - improving interchange including on orbital public transport 

routes (e.g. Clapham Junction); 

Proposal 47 - opposing further capacity increases at Heathrow Airport; 

Proposal 49 – improving access to airports by public transport (e.g. 

Airtrack, which the Mayor supports in principle subject to caveats); 



(u) 

(v) 

(w) 

(x) 

(y) 

(z) 

(aa) 

Proposal 51 – encouraging councils to become “Biking Borough” pilots, 

creating a local culture of cycling; 

Proposal 53 – delivering cycling improvements including Cycle 

Superhighways, the Mayor’s Bike Hire scheme, etc; 

Proposal 94 – continuing the London Low Emission Zone (LEZ); 

Proposal 97 – supporting car club expansion; 

Proposal 124 – encouraging pricing differentials for car parking based on 

emissions; 

Proposal 127 – removing the congestion charge Western Extension zone, 

subject to consultation on the making of a draft order for this purpose; and 

Proposal 129 – considering the use of pricing incentives (including road 

user charging) to help meet MTS objectives if required. 

16. In the section of the MTS covering implementation, it is notable that there is no 

specific mention of Wandsworth one-way system improvements - only “further 

gyratory, one-way system and bottleneck improvement works” for completion 

“post 2020”. In contrast some other road schemes (like the removal of Tottenham 

Hale gyratory) have a specific listing and proposed completion before 2020. 

17. Monitoring and reporting on the MTS will be carried out using a range of 

transport targets and indicators. Annual reporting will be via the Travel in 

London report. 

18. MTS costs, resources and funding. The draft document says that funding via 

Government and other sources covers the strategy’s implementation to 2017/18, 

but similar levels of funding will be needed beyond then. It says that TfL will be 

innovative about funding and financing for transport investments, and the Mayor 

may pursue other funding sources– e.g. the Government’s Community 

Infrastructure Fund or European Union funds. Generally the MTS says that there 

is a need to get value for money from subsidies to public transport, and in 

particular there will need to be a review of bus subsidies, while seeking an 

appropriate balance between fares, service levels, quality, social benefits and 

affordability. 

19. The TfL Business Plan will be revised annually to reflect MTS priorities. The 

latest TfL Business Plan was published at the end of October 2009 and covers the 

period 2009/10-2017/18. Against a backdrop of the collapse of Metronet, and a 

£700m gap in Tube fares income due to the recession, TfL has made efficiency 

savings amounting to £5bn over the period of the plan. The business plan outlines 



how the MTS will be delivered to 2018. It includes the East London Line 

extension phase 2 (Surrey Quays to Clapham Junction) by 2012. Among other 

areas, the plan includes a prototype “New Bus for London” by end of 2011 and 

roll-out of a new Countdown real-time information system at bus stops from 

2011-2012. 

20. The plan assumes future annual fares increases of RPI plus 2 per cent, though the 

final decision on fares will be for the Mayor. 

21. MTS consultation questions and response. The draft MTS includes a list of 

consultation questions on which views are sought from members of the public and 

stakeholders. A Wandsworth Council officer level response (Appendix 3) will be 

sent to the Mayor to meet the consultation deadline of 12 th January 2010. It is 

proposed that this response, incorporating any amendments as desired, is endorsed 

by the Committee and Executive as the Council’s formal response to the 

consultation. 

22. In general, the draft MTS is a pragmatic one which seeks to make the most of 

available resources in a difficult financial climate. However, it is disappointing 

that some specific proposals that would benefit Wandsworth – e.g. a committed 

scheme to remove Wandsworth one-way system, and potential extension of 

Tramlink to the borough (Tooting and Wandsworth) - have been omitted, while a 

timetable for delivering Crossrail 2 is also absent. The proposed extension of the 

Northern Line to Nine Elms/Battersea is described as “developer funded”, though 

there would be wider benefits other than those associated with new developments, 

so there is a case for public funding or other funding streams to be investigated – 

such as Tax Increment Financing – and for these options to be included in the 

Mayor’s Strategy. 

23. Much of the detail of delivery will be down to affordability, and TfL’s annual 

review of Business Plans will be crucial in taking forward the policies and 

proposals in the MTS. 

24. Draft LIP guidance. The new MTS is currently scheduled for adoption in April 

2011 and it is anticipated that the second round of LIPs will be approved and 

“live” from a similar date, subject to approval by the Mayor. 

25. Guidance for the first LIPs was very prescriptive and resulted in a cumbersome 

and time-consuming process of LIP development, consultation, review and 

approval. The average time taken by each borough to reach Mayoral approval for 

their LIP was 2 years 5 months, and the final borough LIP was not approved until 

January 2007, more than a two year later than the target date of December 2005 

that had been set out in LIP guidance. 

26. TfL, London Councils and individual borough councils have learnt many lessons 

from the first round of LIPs. There is a desire to make the process for second 



LIPs much more streamlined, and for LIPs to focus more on achieving desired 

outcomes. The draft guidance says second LIPs will give greater ownership to 

boroughs, and should reflect local priorities within the overall framework 

provided by the revised MTS. 

27. Timescales for preparation and approval of second LIPs. The proposed 

timescales for second LIPs are as follows: - 

Milestone 

Date 

TfL and London Councils issue draft Second 12th October 2009 

LIP Guidance for consultation with boroughs 

and statutory consultees 

TfL runs workshops on preparation of Second October 2009 – January 2010 

LIPs and boroughs start local engagement on 

local priorities* 

Consultation closes 18th December 2009 

Mayor publishes the revised MTS and the final April 2010 

Second LIP Guidance 

Boroughs commence Second LIP preparation in Early 2010 

detail 

Boroughs submit Annual Funding submission September 2010 

to TfL for 2011/12 

Boroughs submit their consultation draft December 2010 

Second LIP for consideration by TfL. 

TfL responds to boroughs, indicating whether February/March 2011 

the Second LIP is acceptable or whether 

changes are needed 

If required, boroughs amend their Second LIPs. April – June 2011 

Mayoral approval to follow submission of final 

Second LIP 

*NOTE: no workshops were arranged before 2010. 

28. Policy context for second LIPs. In developing and implementing their transport 

interventions, borough councils will be required to take account of the goals, 

challenges and outcomes set out in the new MTS. Robust justification must be 

provided where interventions will contribute to contrary outcomes and/or where 

any Mayoral goal is not considered applicable locally. 

29. The MTS goals that must be addressed by LIPs are listed above in paragraph 10 

and Appendix 1. One goal - supporting delivery of the London 2012 Olympic 

and Paralympic Games and its legacy – is part of the draft MTS but boroughs are 

not formally required to work towards this in their LIPs. 

30. Councils will also need to take account of other Mayoral strategies and the TfL 

Business Plan and Investment Programme in preparing LIPs. They are 



encouraged to make links with their own Sustainable Community Strategy and 

Local Area Agreement. Further, LIPs should be aligned with the Council’s Local 

Development Framework, reported elsewhere on the Agenda. 

31. In accordance with the greater focus on regional planning in the new MTS, 

borough LIPs are required to take account of the emerging Sub-Regional 

Transport Plans (SRTPs), which themselves will be dynamic and updated on an 

ongoing basis. More details of SRTPs are expected over the coming months. 

Account will also need to be taken of the final recommendations of the Outer 

London Commission (due for publication shortly). 

32. LIP funding. TfL allocates funding to borough councils to deliver transport 

projects, and many of the Council’s transport schemes – including local safety 

schemes, principal road renewal and school travel plan measures – are funded via 

this process. Most LIP funding allocated by TfL for the period 2011-14 will be 

decided by a formula. A three year allocation for the LIP funding areas of 

Neighbourhoods, Corridors and Smarter Travel will be announced in 2010. This 

multiple-year funding is intended to provide boroughs with certainty of funding in 

determining their LIP programmes, but annual funding submissions will still be 

required, in which boroughs set out in more detail how they intend to spend funds 

in each area. The formula approach has been used for the first time in allocating 

LIP funding to borough councils for 2010/11. Wandsworth’s funding through the 

formula for 2010/11 is similar to that received for 2009/10 but is higher in general 

than the amount allocated in recent years. However, TfL may revise and refine the 

formula in the future so a continued level of funding at this level cannot be 

guaranteed. It should also be noted that overall, LIP funding for the period 

covered by second LIPs will be frozen at £150m per year, spread across all 

London boroughs. 

33. Major schemes (costing £1m or more) will be funded through a competitive 

bidding process (replacing the Area-Based Scheme process). Maintenance 

funding for principal roads and bridges will continue to be allocated according to 

an assessment of need (based on condition surveys). 

34. Content of Second LIPs. The guidance advises that new LIPs should be more 

concise than first LIPs. TfL have provided an “Example LIP” which is 62 pages 

long; in contrast Wandsworth’s first LIP ran to 333 pages plus six appendices. 

35. The draft guidance says a LIP must have three distinct sections: - 

(a) a description of Borough Transport Objectives for 2011-2014 and beyond; 

(b) a Delivery Plan 2011/12 to 2013/14 consistent with three-year funding 

allocations which will be announced in 2010; and 

(c) a Performance Monitoring Plan with locally specified targets for certain 

fixed indicators. 



36. Borough Transport Objectives. According to guidance, this section should be 

evidence-based and objective-led. It should include a description of the local 

context for the LIP (e.g. key origins/destinations, corridors, gateways to strategic 

networks such as tube stations, national rail or major roads); evidence from 

demographics/transport trends/etc to identify how MTS goals, challenges and 

outcomes will be addressed; and the identification of locally-specific LIP 

objectives. 

37. Delivery Plan. In a LIP Delivery Plan each borough council is required to: - 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

provide a high-level breakdown of proposed spend, by year (i.e. separately 

for 2011/12, 2012/13 and 2013/14), and by category (the Programme of 

Investment); 

identify from where the required funding would be resourced, including 

TfL LIP Funding, Council capital and revenue-based funding and third 

party commitments (e.g. section 106 or government grants); 

identify which of the revised MTS goals each programme category 

supports; and 

(d) set out their programme of formula-funded interventions for 2011/12 

(separate annual submissions will be required for 2012/13 and 2013/14), 

and describe the overall approach or process for drawing up their annual 

programme. 

38. The Programme of Investment should include proposed spend by year and by 

broad category for Corridors, Neighbourhoods, Smarter Travel, Maintenance and 

Major Schemes. It does not need to provide details of every scheme or measure, 

or the component details of proposed packages of measures. Levels of spend 

should be indicative only, reflecting increased borough flexibility to change 

annual programmes in response to delays, feedback, changes in priorities etc. 

39. Annual spending submissions are also required to make specific reference to how 

the Council’s proposed LIP interventions will help deliver the following high 

profile outputs identified by the Mayor: - 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

(d) 

(e) 

(f) 

cycle highways schemes; 

cycle parking; 

electric charging points; 

Better Streets; 

cleaner local authority fleets; and 

net increase in street trees. 

40. Performance Monitoring Plan. Councils are required to: - 



(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

(d) 

(e) 

agree locally specific targets (with annual milestones or trajectories) for a 

set of mandatory MTS / LIP indicators; 

demonstrate a clear link between their LIP objectives, their Programme of 

Investment and the proposed set of targets; 

for each target, provide evidence that the target is both ambitious and 

realistic, given indicative funding levels; 

identify key actions needed to achieve the target; and identify the principal 

risks to target achievement and how these will be managed; and 

outline how they propose to keep progress against targets under review 

and address areas of over or under-performance. 

41. A core set of mandatory performance indicators has been defined by TfL, and 

borough councils will be required to set their own challenging but locally specific 

targets for these indicators, through negotiation and agreement with TfL. Other 

local targets and indicators can also be set by boroughs to support local priorities. 

42. Data for the mandatory performance indicators will be collected and reported by 

TfL. The proposed indicators are: - 

MTS strategic indicator 

Mode share 

Public transport reliability 

Asset condition 

Road traffic casualties 

CO2 emissions 

LIPS 2 formal indicator (proposal) 

Mode share at borough level for all residents for all 

trip purposes (links to NI 198 Mode Share for 

journeys to school) 

NEW reliability indicator to be developed based on 

iBus data (subject to software development cost yet 

to be established). 

NI 168 – principal road maintenance. Note this is an 

established National LAA indicator. 

NI 147 - KSIs. We also plan to also track total 

casualties as this is more statistically relevant for 

many boroughs. 

As revised MTS (tonnes/year or per capita). Note 

potential method conflict with equivalent LAA 

indicator. 

43. In addition, TfL intends to work with London Councils to establish how to 

measure and report on progress in delivering the high profile outputs listed in 

paragraph 39 above. 

44. LIP approval process. TfL, on behalf of the Mayor, will review all borough 

LIPs to ensure that the core requirements of the guidance are met, and if so, the 



LIP will be approved. Where any requirements appear not to have been met, TfL 

may request that boroughs re-submit a revised LIP, within a given timescale, or 

may choose to meet with boroughs to discuss outstanding issues. 

45. LIP reporting and engagement with TfL. In addition to annual funding 

submissions, borough councils will be required to keep their live Programme of 

Investment up to date on the “Borough Portal” web-based financial and project 

management system. 

46. TfL will also meet each borough at least once a year to discuss LIP progress, risks 

and annual reporting of outcome data. TfL expects the outcomes of these 

meetings, which will be documented by an annual review letter, will assist the 

Audit Commission in preparing their Comprehensive Area Assessment of the 

borough. 

47. At the end of the three-year LIP period in 2014, boroughs will be required to 

submit a final Delivery Report describing achievements and outcomes relating to 

implementation of the three year Delivery Plan. 

48. LIP consultation response. Councils were invited to comment on the draft LIP 

guidance by 18th December 2009. Accordingly, officers sent a response to the 

consultation questions (Appendix 4) by the deadline. It is proposed that this 

response (incorporating any amendments as desired) should be endorsed by the 

Committee and the Executive. 

49. Comments of the Economic Development Officer. While there is much to 

welcome in the MTS there are some disappointing omissions. In addition the 

absence of a specific link to regeneration proposals is surprising given the 

concurrent consultations on the Replacement London Plan, the Mayor’s 

Investment Strategy and the LDA's investment strategy. The absence of explicit 

mention of the Wandsworth one-way system is particularly disappointing and 

could have a negative impact on investment decisions in the area. Explicit 

mention of the Northern Line Extension is also welcome but considerable work is 

required on this project and the wider benefits of this project in an area of 

considerable deprivation and to London more generally merit consideration of 

TfL funding. Again failure to take a more positive stance on this project could 

have a negative impact on others’ investment decisions. TfL are in a strong 

position to attract other funds and should use this leverage. 

50. Comment of the Director of Finance. Funding for the implementation of the 

Mayor’s Transport Strategy is provided via the LIP spending approvals. TfL have 

approved funding of £3,514,000 for 2010/11 whilst resources for 2011/12, 

2012/13 and 2013/14 will be announced in 2010 based on a formula. In addition 

to this formula based award funding for principal road and bridge maintenance 



will be awarded according to condition assessments and funds may be provided 

for area-based schemes. 

____________________ 


Wandsworth, 

SW18 2PU 

W. G. MYERS 





1. Mayor’s Transport Strategy – Public Draft (GLA October 2009); 

2. Guidance on Developing the Second Local Implementation Plans – Draft for 

Consultation (TfL and London Councils, October 2009); and 

3. TfL Business Plan 2009/10-2017/18 (TfL, October 2009). 




in which case the Committee Secretary (Mr. M Newton – 020 8871 6488; email 




Appendix 1 to Paper No. 10-51 

MTS Goals, Challenges and Outcomes 

Goals Challenges Outcomes 

Support economic 

development and 

population growth 

Supporting sustainable 

population and 

employment growth 

• Balancing capacity and demand for 

travel through increasing public 

transport capacity and/or reducing 

Enhance the quality of 

life for all Londoners 

Improve the safety and 

security of all 

Londoners 

Improving transport 

connectivity 

Delivering an efficient 

and effective transport 

system for people and 

goods 

Improving journey 

experience 

Enhancing the built 

and natural 

environment 

the need to travel 

• Improving people’s access to jobs 

• Improving access to commercial 

markets for freight movements and 

business travel, supporting the needs 

of business to grow 

• Smoothing traffic flow (managing 

road congestion and improving 

journey time reliability) 

• Improving public transport 

reliability 

• Reducing operating costs 

• Bringing and maintaining all assets 

to a state of good repair 

• Enhancing use of the Thames for 

people and goods 

• Improving public transport customer 

satisfaction 

• Improving road user satisfaction 

(drivers, pedestrians, cyclists) 

• Reducing public transport crowding 

• Enhancing streetscapes, improving 

the perception of the 

• urban realm and developing better 

streets initiatives 

• Protecting and enhancing the natural 

environment 

Improving air quality • Reducing air pollutant emissions 

from ground-based transport, 

contributing to EU air quality targets 

Improving noise 

impacts 

Improving health 

impacts 

Reducing crime, fear 

of crime and antisocial 

behaviour 

• Improving perceptions and reducing 

impacts of noise 

• Facilitating an increase in walking 

and cycling 

• Reducing crime rates (and 

improving perceptions of personal 

• safety and security) 

Page 1 of 2

Improve transport 

opportunities for all 

Londoners 

Reduce transport's 

contribution to climate 

change, and improving 

its resilience 

Support delivery of the 

London 2012 Olympic 

and Paralympic 

Games and its legacy 

Improving public 

transport safety 

Improving 

accessibility 

Supporting 

regeneration and 

tackling deprivation 

Reducing CO2 

emissions 

Adapting to climate 

change 

Contributing to a 

successful 2012 

Games and its legacy 

• Reducing casualties on public 

transport networks 

• Improving the physical accessibility 

of the transport system 

Improving access to services 

• Supporting wider regeneration 

• Reducing CO2 emissions from 

ground-based transport, 

• contributing to a London-wide 60 

per cent reduction by 2025 

• Maintaining the reliability of 

transport networks 

• Transport infrastructure and services 

• Physical and behavioural transport 

legacy 

Page 2 of 2


List of Policies and Proposals in the draft Mayor’s Transport Strategy 

Policies 

1 The Mayor, through TfL, and working with the DfT, the Department for 

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) and other government agencies, 

regional development agencies, Network Rail, train operating companies, 

London boroughs and other stakeholders, will seek to develop London’s 

transport system in order to accommodate sustainable population and 

employment growth. 

2 The Mayor, through TfL, and working with the DfT, government agencies, 

Network Rail, train operating companies, London boroughs, coach operators 

and other transport stakeholders, will support sustainable capacity 

enhancements to inter-regional, national and international rail and coach 

services and high-speed rail hubs, and the strategic road network serving 

London. 

3 The Mayor, through TfL, and working with the DfT, Network Rail, train 

operating companies, London boroughs and other stakeholders, will seek to 

improve public transport accessibility and conditions for cycling and walking 

in areas of lower PTAL, where there is an identified need for improving 

accessibility; and to improve access to economic and social opportunities and 

services for all Londoners. 



improve people’s access to jobs, business’ access to employment markets, 

business to business access, and freight access by seeking to ensure 

appropriate transport capacity and connectivity is provided on radial corridors 

into central London In particular, the Mayor will seek to maximise public 

transport connectivity and capacity benefits on the two main east-west and 

north-south corridors (incorporating the Crossrail and Thameslink projects 

respectively). The Mayor will also explore opportunities to make greater use 

of the Thames for east-west passenger and freight transport across the city. 



ensure efficient and effective access for people and goods within central 

London through providing improved central London connectivity and 

appropriate capacity. This will include improving access to major public 

transport interchanges for pedestrians, cyclists and by public transport. 


operating companies, London boroughs and other transport stakeholders, will 

seek to ensure the provision of appropriate connectivity and capacity on radial 

transport corridors into metropolitan town centres. 

Page 1 of 25



seek to increase public awareness of existing and planned orbital public 

transport connectivity in Inner London and seek to improve orbital 

connectivity in Outer London, particularly between adjacent metropolitan 

town centres, where shown to be value for money. 



support a range of transport improvements within metropolitan town centres 

for people and freight that help improve connectivity and promote the vitality 

and viability of town centres, and that provide enhanced travel facilities for 

pedestrians and cyclists. 



use the local and strategic development control processes to seek to ensure 

that: - 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

(d) 

(e) 

all high trip generating developments are located in areas of high 

public transport accessibility, connectivity and capacity (either 

currently or where new transport schemes are committed); 

the design and layout of development sites maximise access on foot, 

cycle and to public transport facilities, for example, via safe walking 

and cycling routes and provision of secure cycle parking; 

access for deliveries and servicing, maximise the opportunities for 

sustainable freight distribution where possible; 

land for transport use is safeguarded in line with London Plan policy 

and Supplementary Planning Guidance; and 

planning contributions are sought for transport improvements where 

appropriate. 


operating companies, London boroughs and other stakeholders including the 

private sector, will seek to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the 

operation of the transport system, bring transport assets to a good state of 

repair and then maintain them in that condition. 



reduce the need to travel; encourage the use of more sustainable, less 

congesting modes of transport (public transport, cycling and walking and the 

Blue Ribbon Network); set appropriate parking standards; and through 

investment in infrastructure, service improvements and promotion of smarter 

travel initiatives and further demand management measures as appropriate, 

aim to increase public transport, walking and cycling mode share. 


operating companies, London boroughs and other stakeholders including 

business and the freight industry, will seek to improve the distribution of 

freight through Delivery and Service Plans, and other efficiency measures 

across London.


operating companies, London boroughs and other stakeholders, will expand 

the capacity and quality of public transport services, improve passenger 

comfort and customer satisfaction, reduce crowding, and improve road user 

satisfaction. 



improve transport’s contribution to the built and natural environment. 

15 The Mayor, through TfL, and working with Defra, the DfT, Network Rail, 

train operating companies, freight operators, London boroughs and other 

stakeholders, will seek to reduce emissions of air pollutants from transport. 


operating companies freight operators, London boroughs and other 

stakeholders, will seek to reduce noise impacts from transport. 

17 The Mayor, through TfL, and working with the DfT and other government 

agencies, London boroughs, health authorities and other stakeholders, will 

promote healthy travel options such as walking and cycling. 



reduce the rate of crime, the fear of crime and antisocial behaviour on 

London’s transport system. 


operating companies, London boroughs and other stakeholders including the 

police and road safety partnerships, will seek to improve road safety for all 

communities in London and implement measures that contribute to any targets 

that may be set by the Mayor from time to time. 


operating companies, London boroughs and other stakeholders, will 

implement measures that seek to improve operational safety and security on 

public transport. 



increase accessibility for all Londoners by promoting measures to improve: - 

(a) the physical accessibility of the transport system, including streets, bus 

stops, stations and vehicles; and 

(b) information provision, staff service and the travelling environment. 

22 The Mayor, through TfL, and working with the LDA, DfT, Network Rail, train 


enhance connectivity, reduce community severance, promote community 

safety, enhance the urban realm and improve access to jobs and services in 

deprived areas.

23 The Mayor, through TfL, and working with the LDA, DfT, Network Rail, train 

operating companies, London boroughs and other stakeholders, will support 

regeneration of Opportunity Areas and Areas for Intensification as described 

in the London Plan. 

24 The Mayor, through TfL, and working with the DfT, Defra and other 

government agencies, Network Rail, train operating companies, freight 

operators, London boroughs and other stakeholders, will take the necessary 

steps to deliver the required contribution from ground-based transport to 

achieve a 60 per cent reduction in London’s CO2 emissions by 2025, from a 

1990 base and to contribute to any further targets that may be set by the Mayor 

from time to time. 

25 The Mayor, through TfL, and working with the DfT, Defra and other 

government agencies, Network Rail, train operating companies, London 

boroughs and other stakeholders, will take necessary steps to adapt the 

transport system and improve public safety and resilience to the anticipated 

impacts of climate change. 

26 The Mayor, through TfL, and working with the ODA, DfT, Network Rail, 

train operating companies, London boroughs and other stakeholders, will 

ensure delivery of the committed transport infrastructure required for the 

London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games, and its successful operation 

during the Games; and will maximise the benefits of its physical and 

behavioural legacy. 

27 The Mayor and all parties involved in the delivery of this transport strategy 

will follow the approach of the London City Charter and the spirit of the 

principles (originally set out in ‘Way to Go!’) which underpin the strategy 

These are: to provide value for money, work in partnership, ensure appropriate 

integration and phasing of programmes, a fair allocation of available resources 

across modes and delivery agents, London’s regions and boroughs, and a fair 

funding regime for taxpayers and fare and chargepayers. 

28 The Mayor, through TfL, and in consultation with the boroughs and other 

stakeholders, will develop a London sub-regional transport plan for each of the 

five sub-regions of London. 

29 The Mayor, consistent with the approach of the London City Charter, will 

work with TfL and the London councils to seek to ensure the requirements for 

a LIP to demonstrate consistency with the policies and proposals set out in this 

MTS, and that other legal requirements are kept to a minimum The boroughs 

will develop LIPs which set out their transport objectives, a delivery plan and 

a performance monitoring plan. The goals that are required to be addressed by 

boroughs in their LIP are: - 

1. supporting economic development and population growth; 

2. enhancing the quality of life for all Londoners; 

3. improving the safety and security of Londoners; 

4. improving transport opportunities for all Londoners; and

5. reducing transport’s contribution to climate change and improving its 

resilience. 

30 The Mayor, and TfL, will make the case to Government for long-term 

investment in the transport network to secure the outcomes set out in this 

strategy. 

31 The Mayor, and TfL, will maximise any available efficiencies, subsidise 

services at appropriate levels and ensure that value for money is otherwise 

achieved from the existing and planned transport network, while reviewing 

fares levels to provide, if required, a residual means of achieving the goals of 

this transport strategy. Innovative ways of financing investment and services, 

including making the most of the value of transport infrastructure, will be 

explored. 

32 The Mayor, through TfL, will keep the level of subsidy for bus operations 

under constant review to ensure the correct balance between fares income, bus 

service levels and quality, social benefits and affordability, in the context of 

the overall level of funding available for transport. 

33 The Mayor, through TfL, and working with the DfT, Network Rail, the train 

operating companies and other stakeholders will work to secure the necessary 

investment in London’s rail network through additional capital funding and 

enhancements to rail services through rail franchises. 

34 The Mayor, and TfL, will work with the boroughs to secure developer 

contributions to transport through planning obligations in order to secure the 

success of each development and to mitigate any negative impacts on the 

existing transport system in accordance with relevant legislation and policy 

guidance. As set out in the proposed London Plan policy, where it is 

appropriate to seek a Crossrail contribution, this should generally be given 

higher priority than other public transport improvements. TfL will work with 

the GLA and boroughs to develop a protocol to implement the policy. 

35 The Mayor, through TfL, and working with the boroughs and other 

stakeholders, will seek to secure further investment from a variety of sources 

that help improve the quality and range of transport services available to 

Londoners. 

Proposals 

1 The Mayor, through TfL, and working with the DfT, Network Rail, the 

operators of international rail services and other transport stakeholders, will 

encourage more international rail services direct to a wider range of European 

destinations, and that some of those new services also stop at Stratford 

International station. 


operating companies, freight operating companies, boroughs and other 

transport stakeholders, will support the development of more rail freight

terminals in or near London, including connections to HS1 for international 

freight, in line with London Plan policy to identify new sites for strategic rail 

freight interchanges. 



transport stakeholders, will support the development of National Rail routes 

that relieve London of freight without an origin or destination in the Capital. 

4 The Mayor and TfL support the development of a national high-speed rail 

network and will work with the DfT, Network Rail, High Speed Two and 

other transport stakeholders to ensure that the London terminal for any new 

high-speed line is centrally located, well-connected to the existing public 

transport network, and widely accessible in order to maximise access to jobs 

and London’s population It is currently considered that Euston best meets 

these criteria and further evaluation will be made of this and other locations. 



transport stakeholders will seek to ensure that Crossrail is delivered by 2017, 

and that it is fully integrated with the rest of London’s public transport system; 

that the impacts of construction on residents and businesses are minimised so 

far as possible; and that the future benefits Crossrail brings are monitored to 

ensure the rail link achieves its objectives. 


operating companies and other stakeholders, will consider future extensions of 

Crossrail that reduce congestion and improve connectivity on London 

commuter routes. 

7 The Mayor, through TfL, will seek to ensure that Network Rail and the train 

operating companies deliver the committed improvements to the rail network 

and services in London as set out by the DfT’s High Level Output 

Specification for the period 2009-2014. 


operating companies, boroughs and other transport stakeholders, will seek 

further rail capacity across London’s rail network, beyond those schemes 

already committed. The highest priorities are to further increase capacity on 

London Overground, southwest routes, the West Anglia Main Line and at 

congested stations. 

9 The Mayor supports new rail capacity in the broad southwest to northeast 

corridor, for example, new lines or services using the Chelsea-Hackney line 

safeguarded alignment. TfL will undertake a review of the route to ensure it is 

providing the maximum benefits and value for money. 

10 The Mayor, through TfL, will seek to ensure that the DfT, Network Rail and 

the train operating companies achieve the HLOS ‘public performance 

measure’ for reliability, as well as an overall reduction in significant lateness 

and cancellations for London and southeast services.


operating companies and boroughs, will seek to deliver capacity enhancements 

at some of London’s most congested stations The highest priorities include: - 

(a) central London termini station congestion relief and onward 

distribution enhancements (the potential of all onward modes will be 

considered); 

(b) Clapham Junction Station capacity enhancement (new improved links 

between platforms, additional entrances and more ticketing facilities); 

(c) improved capacity at National Rail stations with severe congestion, 

including Finsbury Park, Bromley South, Wimbledon, Vauxhall and 

Barking; and 

(d) improved capacity at National Rail stations with moderate congestion, 

including Willesden Junction, Balham, West Croydon, Norwood 

Junction and Surbiton. 

12 The Mayor, through TfL, and working with Network Rail, train operating 

companies and other transport stakeholders will encourage the achievement of 

a ‘seven day railway’ by better planning and management of necessary 

engineering and maintenance work on the railway. 

13 The Mayor, through TfL, and working with Network Rail, train operating 

companies and other transport stakeholders will encourage the provision of 

rail services in London that meet common service standards including 

improved ambience, amenities and wayfinding at all stations, and staff 

availability at each station. It is intended these improvements will be rolled out 

as franchises are renewed. 

14 The Mayor, through TfL and working with DfT and Network Rail, will 

investigate the feasibility of providing extra capacity to assist orbital 

movement on the Overground network and will review potential benefits of 

extensions to the network of services. 

15 The Mayor, through TfL, will investigate the feasibility of further capacity and 

network expansion of the DLR including an extension to Dagenham Dock, as 

part of the housing proposals for Barking Riverside, and further network 

extensions, including options south of Lewisham, west of Bank and north of 

Stratford International. 

16 The Mayor, through TfL, and working with the London boroughs and other 

transport stakeholders, will investigate the feasibility of providing extra 

capacity on the Tramlink network and will review potential benefits of 

extensions to the system. 

17 The Mayor, through TfL, will seek to deliver upgrades to all Tube lines in a 

phased programme to provide a significant increase in network capacity. This 

will involve a combination of new rolling stock and/or signalling systems and 

other asset replacement. As part of this, continued investment to bring the 

network to a good state of repair and maintain it at that level will be supported.

18 The Mayor, through TfL, will continue to deliver an ongoing programme of 

Tube station refurbishments and asset stabilisation to ensure stations are 

operable and deliver customer service requirements, as well as continuing to 

improve station accessibility over the life of the strategy. 


transport stakeholders, will develop and implement a prioritised programme to 

deliver station capacity and accessibility enhancements at London’s most 

congested Underground stations, including: - 

(a) congestion relief schemes to complement Tube line upgrades and/or 

integrate with Crossrail at the key central London interchanges of 

Victoria, Tottenham Court Road, Bond Street, Paddington 

(Hammersmith & City) and at Bank; 

(b) schemes at further strategic Tube interchanges that are critical to 

London’s transport system (e.g. Vauxhall, Finsbury Park, Highbury & 

Islington, Holborn, Camden Town, Oxford Circus, Edgware Road and 

Northern line City branch, in particular Old Street and Moorgate); and 

(c) major strategic multi-modal/National Rail interchanges on to the 

Underground network to disperse onward demand arising from 

National Rail proposals (HLOS2 and HS2 proposals), e.g. London 

Bridge, Euston, Liverpool Street, Paddington, Elephant & Castle and 

Waterloo. 

20 The Mayor, through TfL, will implement the following measures in order to 

cool the Underground: - 

(a) new air-conditioned rolling stock across the sub-surface (Metropolitan, 

Circle, Hammersmith & City and District) lines, introduced 

progressively from 2010; 

(b) improved ventilation shafts and replacements of out of service fans. 

21 The Mayor, through TfL, will continue to develop and implement measures to 

deliver the highest standards of customer care on the Underground, including 

the high quality provision of information about engineering works that affect 

regular Tube services, and an accessible Tube map showing step-free and 

mostly step-free routes 


operating companies, boroughs and other stakeholders will seek longer-term 

enhancements and extensions to the Underground network, including: - 

(a) a further upgrade of the Northern line (Northern line Upgrade 2) to 

significantly increase train capacity through the City; 

(b) a privately funded extension of the Northern line to Battersea to 

support regeneration of the Battersea/ Nine Elms area; 

(c) a potential southern extension to the Bakerloo line will be reviewed 

further to utilise spare line capacity, improve connectivity and journey 

times, while providing relief to congested National Rail approaches to 

central London from the south/southeast, subject to resources and the 

results of further study; and 

(d) a link at Croxley to join the Watford branch of the Metropolitan line to 

Watford Junction (funding to be secured by Hertfordshire County 

Council in conjunction with the DfT).


stakeholders will keep the development of the bus network under regular 

review to cater for growth in population and employment, maintain ease of 

use, attractive frequencies and adequate capacity, reliable services, good 

coverage and good interchange with other modes. All proposals for change 

will be appraised to ensure that they deliver good value for money and that the 

funds available are being invested in optimum service improvements. 


stakeholders, including developers, will improve bus passengers’ journeys by 

measures, including: - 

(a) incentivised bus operating contracts and expanding staff training in 

order to consolidate reliability improvements; 

(b) introducing measures such as bus priority at critical locations; 

(c) ensuring that the appropriate enforcement of bus priority is carried out; 

and 

(d) implement the Countdown 2 project to deliver expanded access to realtime 

information and develop further integration with digital 

communications to provide real-time bus information. 

25 The Mayor, through TfL, will upgrade its bus fleet to meet increased 

emissions standards and will appoint bus manufacturers as part of the New 

Bus for London project by the end of 2009. It is intended that the first 

prototype will enter service during 2011. 


stakeholders will support improvements to the taxi service through a number 

of measures, including: - 

(a) continued highway priority for taxi services, for example, access to bus 

lanes; 

(b) reduce taxi vehicle emissions and develop low emission taxis; 

(c) provision of parking and waiting facilities, including rest facilities; 

(d) the provision of ranks and facilities at interchanges; 

(e) taxi marshalling; 

(f) action against touting and illegal cabs; 

(g) improved driving behaviour, to be encouraged through the licensing 

procedure of taxi drivers; 

(h) ensuring regulated taxi fares changes allow drivers and owners to 

continue to recover the costs of providing the taxi service and provide 

a sufficient incentive for taxi provision to meet demand, in particular at 

night; and 

(i) continuous process improvements to provide a modern and cost 

effective licensing service. 


stakeholders will support improvements to private hire services (especially 

minicabs) through the following: - 

(a) initiatives that deliver further the success of the Safer Travel at Night 

scheme;

(b) 

(c) 

(d) 

(e) 

provision of facilities to pick up as well as drop off passengers where 

appropriate; 

action against plying for hire, touting, unroadworthy vehicles and 

illegal cabs; 

continuous process improvements to provide a modern and cost 

effective licensing service; and 

lower emissions from PHVs. 

28 The Mayor, through TfL, and working with the London boroughs, coach 

operators and other stakeholders, will seek to maximise the use of the existing 

facilities to increase capacity for coaches, given the anticipated growth in 

demand for coach use and to develop parking standards for coaches. In the 

longer-term, the Mayor will work with all relevant partners to investigate the 

feasibility of developing a series of coach hubs or the potential for alternative 

locations for coach station facilities to provide easier access to the coach 

network, while retaining good access to central London for coach operators. 


stakeholders will encourage and support the community transport sector’s 

contribution to the development and provision of transport services in London. 


stakeholders will introduce measures to smooth traffic flows to manage 

congestion and improve journey time reliability for all people and freight 

movements, and maximise the efficiency of the road system from a business 

and individual perspective by, for example: - 

(a) Investment in intelligent traffic control systems and the infrastructure 

to support it; 

(b) allowing motorcycles and scooters to use TLRN bus lanes for a trial 

period and evaluating its impact; 

(c) upgrading, optimisation and rationalisation of equipment at signal 

controlled junctions; 

(d) working with the DfT to pilot and develop the concept of pedestrian 

countdown at traffic signals to optimise the amount of ‘green time’ for 

both pedestrians and road traffic; 

(e) implementing a targeted programme of road network improvements, 

potentially including junction upgrades, to improve traffic flow on the 

most congested sections and to improve conditions for all road users; 

and 

(f) working with utility companies to reduce the impact of their street 

works on traffic congestion. 

31 The Mayor, through TfL, and working with the London boroughs and utility 

companies will seek to minimise the impact of planned interventions on the 

road network on the movement of people and goods by: - 

(a) utilising ‘LondonWorks’ to provide a way of improving street works 

planning and coordination; 

(b) 

(c) 

developing a new roadworks permit system; and 

developing the concept of ‘lane rental’ charges for utilities to reflect 

the value of their temporary possession of road capacity (in terms of 

cost of delay to the road user).


stakeholders, will improve the real-time management of unplanned 

interventions and incidents on the road network, and improve communications 

to minimise the disruption and improve public satisfaction with road network 

management. 


stakeholders, will utilise advances in ITS technology to better manage the road 

network, improve real-time traffic management capability and lay the 

foundations for communication with in-vehicle systems, with the aim of 

developing a state-of-the-art traffic signal control system for the 21st century. 


stakeholders will take a criteria-based approach to road schemes which would 

allow them to go ahead if there is an overall net benefit, taking into account 

the following factors: - 

(a) the contribution to London’s development/regeneration; 

(b) the extent to which congestion is reduced; 

(c) how net benefit to London’s environment can be provided; 

(d) how conditions for pedestrians, cyclists, public transport users, freight 

and local residents can be improved; and 

(e) how safety for all is improved. 


stakeholders will work in collaboration with the boroughs and other 

stakeholders to cost-effectively maintain London’s road network assets in a 

good state of repair in order to maximise their operational effectiveness and 

safety, and to promote road user satisfaction. This will include: - 

(a) conducting programmes of roads, pavements, bridges, tunnels and 

traffic systems maintenance so that the TLRN and borough road 

network is serviceable; 

(b) 

(c) 

continuing to ensure highway structures are inspected regularly; and 

developing a Tunnels Safety Enhancement Programme with regards to 

fire, closure and monitoring, lighting, communications and 

surveillance. 

36 The Mayor, through TfL, and working with the Port of London Authority, the 

ODA, boat operators, pier owners, riparian boroughs and other interested 

parties will continue the River Services Concordat to work together to enable 

the development of London’s river services to reach their full potential and to 

better integrate river services into the overall transport network. 


stakeholders, will encourage the provision of more pier capacity, particularly 

in central London and will seek financial support for new piers when 

considering development proposals in the vicinity of the Thames. The Mayor, 

through TfL, will also work with the Port of London Authority, boroughs and 

operators to identify and promote suitable boat yard facilities in London.

38 The Mayor, through TfL, and working with the Port of London Authority, 

London boroughs and operators, will seek to ensure that existing safeguarded 

wharves are fully utilised for waterborne freight (including waste), and will 

examine the potential to increase the use of the Thames and London’s canal 

network for waterborne freight transport. 


stakeholders, will progress a package of river crossings in east London, 

including: - 

(a) a new fixed link at Silvertown to provide congestion relief to the 

Blackwall Tunnel and provide local links for vehicle traffic; 

(b) an upgraded Woolwich Ferry and consideration of a new vehicle ferry 

at Gallions Reach to improve connectivity; 

(c) 

(d) 

(e) 

(f) 

local links to improve connections for pedestrians and cyclists; 

consideration of a longer-term fixed link at Gallions Reach to improve 

connectivity for local traffic, buses, cyclists and to support economic 

development in this area; 

support for maximising the impact of new rail links including High 

Speed One domestic services, Crossrail and the DLR extension to 

Woolwich to enable more people to use public transport where 

possible; and 

support for government proposals to reduce congestion at the Dartford 

crossing. 

40 The Mayor, through TfL, and working with the DfT, Network Rail, the 

London boroughs and others to improve the physical accessibility of the 

transport system by prioritising step-free access at strategic interchanges, 

improving street accessibility in town centres and around accessible stations 

and maximising the accessibility benefits of new transport schemes, such as 

Crossrail. In doing so, the Mayor will seek to maximise the benefits of 

investment by ensuring that resources are focused on improving accessibility 

for the maximum number of people, while ensuring an equitable balance 

across London. 


stakeholders, will improve the availability, quality, quantity and timeliness of 

information about the transport system to remove barriers to travel. 


stakeholders, will improve attitudes of transport staff and travellers towards 

each other to ensure excellence in customer service and a courteous, safe and 

friendly travelling environment that does not present a barrier to travel. 

43 The Mayor, through TfL, will work to ensure a greater staff availability to 

provide direct assistance to customers and continue to improve customer 

experience, by enhancing staff training, to ensure that the access needs of 

disabled passengers are understood by all frontline staff. 

44 The Mayor, through TfL, will support Dial-a-Ride services for mobility 

impaired people who require this form of transport service.

45 The Mayor, through TfL, and working with Network Rail, the train operating 

companies, boroughs and other stakeholders will improve the customer 

experience and physical accessibility at interchanges across London through 

the application of the principles set out by the TfL Interchange Best Practice 

Guidelines of ‘efficiency’, ‘useability’, ‘understanding’ and ‘quality’ to all 

interchange schemes in London. Such measures include: - 

(a) provision of consistent and enhanced travel information; 

(b) improved walking and cycling facilities at, and on routes to, public 

transport stations and stops; 

(c) improved integration of public transport services in London, both in 

terms of service planning and physical location; 

(d) improved efficiency, effectiveness and quality of interchanges across 

London to further integrate London’s transport system; 

(e) 

(f) 

provision of consistent customer service delivery standards; and 

assurance that interchange facilities have sufficient capacity to meet 

travel demand. 


companies, boroughs and other stakeholders will prioritise improvements to 

strategic interchange that will: - 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

provide opportunities for orbital public transport services; 

provide interchange opportunities before arriving in central London, in 

order to reduce interchange capacity pressure at London’s rail termini; 

and 

provide opportunities to accommodate population and employment 

growth, with developer contributions towards the interchange 

improvements sought in appropriate circumstances. 

47 The Mayor recognises that adequate airport runway capacity is critical to the 

competitive position of London in a global economy, but opposes any further 

increases in capacity at Heathrow. 

48 The Mayor supports the position of the Government’s White Paper ‘The 

Future of Air Transport’, which states that airport operators should be 

responsible for paying the costs of upgrading or enhancing road, rail or other 

transport networks or services where these are needed to accommodate 

additional passengers travelling to, and from, expanded or growing airports. 

49 The Mayor, through TfL, and working with the London boroughs, DfT, airport 

operators, Network Rail, train operating companies and other stakeholders, 

will seek to improve access to London’s airports for passengers and staff by 

public transport, particularly from those parts of London which do not 

currently have good access by rail or bus, and for goods through better 

management of the road network, development of consolidation/break-bulk 

centres and encouragement of access by rail and waterway. 


stakeholders, will provide support, including sharing best practice, to enable 

and empower boroughs, employers, schools, community groups, other 

organisations and individuals to deliver the improvements necessary to create 

a cycling revolution in London.

51 The Mayor, through TfL, and working with the London boroughs that are keen 

to pilot the ‘Biking Borough’ approach, will develop the Biking Borough 

scheme including measures such as cycle hubs and marketing initiatives to 

promote cycling. 

52 The Mayor, through TfL, will work with the DfT, boroughs and stakeholders 

to raise the profile of cycling using information and behavioural change 

measures, including smarter travel initiatives, and major events. 


stakeholders, will deliver improvements to cycling infrastructure and training 

to support the cycling revolution, including: - 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

(d) 

(e) 

(f) 

(g) 

(h) 

the London Cycle Hire Scheme in 2010 in central London; 

twelve Cycle Superhighways will be developed for commuters and 

others to cycle to central London, improving the capacity of the radial 

network; 

enhanced cycle links to the Olympic Park by 2012 and the 

development of a wider network of Greenways across London; 

cycle hire schemes and cycle superhighways introduced elsewhere, 

particularly in Outer London, if the initial schemes are successful and 

there is sufficient demand; 

increased provision of secure bicycle parking facilities, particularly at 

stations, workplaces, schools, retail and leisure sites; 

improving the permeability of the road network for cycling; 

delivering road enhancements to make cycling easier and safer, 

including managing car access to residential areas, through physical or 

design measures, to create pleasant and safer cycling environments; 

and 

offering cycle training for people of all ages. 

54 The Mayor, through TfL, and working with the London boroughs and the DfT, 

will encourage changes to be made to the Highway Code that improve 

conditions for cyclists. 


stakeholders, will press for specific primary legislation to establish an 

effective legal framework for pedicabs, including specific licensing powers for 

the boroughs. 

56 The Mayor will seek to use his planning powers set out in the London Plan 

and work with the boroughs to encourage cycling by supporting development 

that: - 

(a) provides cycle parking to an appropriate standard; 

(b) 

(c) 

integrates the needs of cyclists into the design; and 

promotes the co-location of key trip attractors to make cycling a more 

viable and attractive travel option. 


companies and boroughs, will aim to implement minimum levels of cycle 

parking provision at any new station or as part of any comprehensive station

edevelopment works, in accordance with guidance laid out in the London 

Plan. Additional cycle parking provision will also be provided at other stations 

to meet demand, wherever possible. 

58 The Mayor, through TfL, and working with London boroughs, employers, 

schools, community groups, other organisations and individuals will bring 

about a step change in the walking experience in London to make walking 

count. 


stakeholders, will improve the walking experience by enhancing the urban 

realm and taking focused action to ensure safe, comfortable and attractive 

walking conditions, including: - 

(a) development of the Key Walking Route approach; 

(b) providing direct, convenient pedestrian access (for example, with 

surface crossings) where appropriate; 

(c) street audits to identify pedestrian needs and guidance (such as 

pedestrian comfort levels); 

(d) completing the seven Strategic Walking Network routes; 

(e) training for those involved in the design and delivery of walking 

schemes; 

(f) enhancing pavement space for pedestrians and removing guardrails and 

other obstacles; 

(g) seeking to manage car access to residential areas, through physical or 

design measures, to create pleasant and safer walking environments; 

(h) 

(i) 

(j) 

(k) 

tackling the fear of crime and feeling unsafe on the streets; 

supporting major projects such as high street revitalisation through 

good quality urban realm designed to support regeneration of small 

businesses and encourage local shopping and activity; 

improving access and safety between the station and surrounding areas 

for pedestrians (and cyclists) to encourage active and smarter travel; 

and 

encouraging the extension of a network of linked green spaces (i.e. a 

green grid approach) throughout London. 


stakeholders, will improve the quality and provision of information and 

resources for walking, especially at stations, interchanges and in town centres, 

by: 

(a) creating an online one-stop walking resource to facilitate walking, 

linked to an enhanced Journey Planner with advanced walking options; 

(b) developing consistent wayfinding formats and making use of new 

wayfinding technologies; and 

(c) roll out of Legible London to other areas. 

61 The Mayor, through TfL, and working with London boroughs, developers and 

other stakeholders will promote walking and its benefits through information 

campaigns, events to raise the profile of walking, and smarter travel initiatives 

such as school and workplace travel plans

62 The Mayor, through TfL, and working with the London boroughs, Network 

Rail, train operating companies and other stakeholders, will seek to reduce 

accidental fatality and injury rates on London’s transport system further; and 

will aim to reduce London Bus road user fatality, major and minor injury rates. 

63 The Mayor, through TfL, and working with the London boroughs, Highways 

Agency, road safety partnerships and other stakeholders, will seek to achieve 

any new national road safety targets and such further road safety targets as the 

Mayor may set from time to time. 

64 The Mayor, through TfL, and working with the Highways Agency, boroughs, 

road safety partnerships and other stakeholders, will develop a new Road 

Safety Plan to reflect any new road safety targets to be set by the Government 

or the Mayor and review progress every five years. 

65 The Mayor, through TfL, will continue to publish road safety casualty reports 

and research. 

66 The Mayor, through TfL, and working with the London boroughs, the DfT and 

other stakeholders, will undertake public information and engagement to 

improve road user behaviours and reduce the risk of collisions. 

67 The Mayor, through TfL, and working with the DfT, boroughs, road freight 

operators and other stakeholders, will improve safety for cyclists in the 

vicinity of HGVs, by: - 

(a) encouraging the Government to amend legislation and remove the 

current exemption for HGVs being fitted with sideguard protection; 

(b) working to increase the number of HGVs with sideguards or fitted with 

electronic warning devices that detect cyclists. 

68 The Mayor, through TfL, and working with the DfT, boroughs, road freight 

operators and other stakeholders, will seek enhanced vehicle and driver safety 

from organisations operating corporate fleets by working with the freight 

sector and other stakeholders, promoting increased membership of the Freight 

Operator Recognition Scheme, and encouraging operators to uptake and 

demonstrate freight best practice. 

69 The Mayor, through TfL, and by working with the DfT, boroughs and Health 

and Safety Executive, will seek to improve road safety by developing 

initiatives and working with employers to increase work-related road safety 

and to reduce casualties involving work-related vehicles and activities. 


Agency and other stakeholders, will implement targeted physical engineering 

and other design considerations to improve road safety across London’s road 

network. 

71 The Mayor, through TfL, and working with the DfT, boroughs, vehicle 

manufacturers and other stakeholders, will encourage the early introduction of 

voluntary ‘intelligent speed adaptation’, subject to the outcome of trials in

corporate fleets, including freight, passenger transport and company cars and 

vans. 


enforcement partners will continue implementing effective enforcement 

measures, targeted at locations with poor collision records across London’s 

road network, including new time-distance cameras which will be trialled, for 

example, on main roads and for enforcing speed in 20mph zones. 

73 The Mayor, through TfL, and working with the London boroughs, transport 

operators, the police and local communities, will establish a statutory 

community safety partnership for transport and travelling in London. These 

partners will seek to ensure a strategic, effective, integrated and financially 

sustainable approach to improving safety and security across the transport 

system The partnership will develop and implement a rolling three-year 

community safety strategy to tackle crime, fear of crime and antisocial 

behaviour. The strategy will set out shared priorities, objectives and targets 

based on a joint annual strategic assessment. 

74 The Mayor, through TfL, and working with the London boroughs, the police 

and other stakeholders, will make best use of available resources, basing 

decisions on evidence and shared intelligence to: - 

(a) increase the visibility and accessibility of uniformed staff and officers, 

including special constables, at the right times and locations and 

provide them with the right powers to maximise their impact on crime, 

antisocial behaviour and public confidence in travelling in London; 

(b) target enforcement activity on priority crimes, antisocial behaviour and 

behaviour that feeds the fear of crime using a problem-solving 

approach; and 

(c) create a small joint intelligence unit between TfL and policing agencies 

to improve intelligence sharing and the efficiency and effectiveness of 

resource deployment. 


and other stakeholders will integrate local policing structures on the transport 

system; improve co-ordination and deploy resources collectively. Joint tasking 

of uniformed staff will help maximise their effectiveness. 


and other stakeholders, will integrate reporting systems for antisocial 

behaviour, crime and disorder on the transport system. 


stakeholders, will introduce a package of measures including marketing, 

education and engagement activities to help passengers make informed, safer 

travel choices, and raise awareness of the effect of inconsiderate and antisocial 

behaviour on others. 

78 The Mayor, through TfL, and working with the London boroughs, the police, 

and other stakeholders, will seek to ensure that: -

(a) 

(b) 

safety and security considerations are incorporated into the planning 

and design of transport facilities; and 

existing transport infrastructure, including pedestrian routes and cycle 

parking facilities, are kept in a good state of repair and have adequate 

lighting, signage, clear lines of vision and CCTV coverage where 

appropriate. 


and other stakeholders, will exploit the opportunities provided by new 

technology to prevent crime and disorder. 


and other stakeholders will seek to: - 

(a) improve the safety of night time public transport services; 

(b) improve the safety of cabs; and 

(c) provide better information about, and access to, safer travel options. 


and other emergency services and stakeholders, will seek to reduce the 

likelihood and impact of potential terrorist attacks on the transport system. 


stakeholders, will use the principles of ‘better streets’ to seek to improve town 

centres, in particular: removing clutter and improving the layout and design of 

streets; enhancing and protecting the built and historic environment; increasing 

the permeability of streets; and creating clear and easily understandable routes 

and spaces to make it easier for cyclists, pedestrians and disabled people to get 

about. 


stakeholders, will introduce accessible for all, ‘better streets’ initiatives 

Consideration will be given to trialling the removal of traffic signals where 

safe and appropriate. 

84 The Mayor, through TfL and the LDA, and working with the London 

boroughs, Network Rail and other stakeholders, will seek to implement 

integrated and complementary improvements to town centres, streets and 

pedestrian and cycling routes directly adjacent to where major public transport 

investment projects are being delivered, using sustainable materials. 


stakeholders, will target the provision of noise reduction measures and noise 

mitigation measures in areas significantly affected by transport noise, to 

improve perceptions of noise and reduce the impacts of noise by: - 

(a) timely and effective rail maintenance and replacement works; 

(b) working to the TfL Health Safety and Environment policy; 

(c) ensuring all new transport projects consider noise mitigation; 

(d) introducing road maintenance programmes to replace road surfaces 

with low-noise surfacing where possible; 

(e) improving traffic management and signal control techniques;

(f) 

(g) 

(h) 

introducing speed enforcement measures which do not encourage 

noisy, rapid acceleration and deceleration; 

introducing quieter buses; and 

procuring new quieter public sector service vehicles, potentially 

through joint procurement to achieve efficiency. 

86 The Mayor, through TfL, and working with the London councils, London 

boroughs, freight industry, and other stakeholders, will explore opportunities 

to use the London Lorry Control Scheme to encourage companies to operate 

quieter vehicles as well as to promote improvements in air quality and reduce 

CO2 emissions. 

87 The Mayor, through TfL, and working with the London boroughs, motorist 

organisations, the freight industry and other stakeholders will encourage 

quieter driving through publicity campaigns aimed at private drivers and 

motorcyclists, and training programmes for professional drivers. 

88 The Mayor, through TfL, and working with DfT, the national air traffic control 

service, and the European Commission will: - 

(a) encourage the development and use of quieter aircraft; and 

(b) seek to coordinate flight paths so they minimise their impact on 

London. 

89 The Mayor, through TfL, and working with the DfT, Highways Agency, 

London boroughs, Network Rail, and other stakeholders, will work to make 

the most of open spaces across the transport system (e.g. green spaces 

alongside roads, rivers, cycle Greenways, strategic walking routes, green 

grids, roof tops, and railway lines) to improve the quality and diversity of 

London’s natural environment. 

90 The Mayor, through TfL, and working with London boroughs, transport 

operators and other stakeholders, will promote behavioural changes to reduce 

vehicle emissions by: - 

(a) promoting walking and cycling, the use of car clubs, car sharing, the 

use of fuel-efficient vehicles and smarter driving techniques and 

raising awareness about air quality; 

(b) implementing eco-driving training for all GLA/functional body and 

bus drivers; 

(c) the Mayor will also reduce emissions from the wider fleet by 

supporting eco-driving training for members of the public, freight 

drivers (through the existing FORS scheme) and tackling emissions 

caused by unnecessary idling; and 

(d) providing better information about emissions from the public transport 

fleet. 

91 The Mayor, through TfL, and working with the London boroughs, DfT, 

Network Rail, train operating companies, and other stakeholders, will 

introduce measures to reduce emissions, including: - 

(a) cleaner buses which pollute the air less; 

(b) cleaner taxis, PHVs;

(c) 

(d) 

(e) 

further rail electrification, including the recently announced Great 

Western line electrification scheme, and the Barking to Gospel Oak 

line; 

cleaner passenger boats and other river vessels, which use more 

environmentally friendly fuels; and 

encourage the introduction of cleaner public service and local authority 

vehicles. 


stakeholders, will take further action to reduce private vehicle emissions by: - 

(a) supporting the uptake of low emission vehicles, such as electric cars 

and vans ; 

(b) incentivisation of low emission vehicles through pressing for changes 

to vehicle excise duty and parking regulations; and 

(c) working with the European Commission, the Government and vehicle 

manufacturers, the Mayor will seek new technologies which help 

vehicles be cleaner, such as better tyres which wear less, more 

sophisticated abatement technology and automatic hybrid-switching. 


stakeholders, will introduce targeted local measures at air quality hotspots to 

reduce emissions and improve local air quality. 

94 The Mayor, through TfL, will continue to operate the existing London LEZ. 

The Mayor will consider further tightening of the standards of the current 

LEZ, as well as the introduction of further emissions control schemes to 

encourage the use of cleaner vehicles in London: - 

(a) The current LEZ scheme will continue to operate to reduce emissions 

from the heaviest vehicles, and phase four will be introduced in 2012; 

(b) the Mayor will defer the implementation of phase three of the scheme 

covering LGVs and minibuses (which was due to commence in 2010) 

to 2012; 

(c) in 2015, the Mayor will, subject to technical feasibility, introduce an 

emissions standard for NOx (EuroIV) into the London LEZ for HGVs, 

buses and coaches (phase five); 

(d) if necessary, the Mayor may consider introducing minimum 

requirements for other vehicles or tighter standards in particular 

locations within London; and 

(e) the Mayor will work with boroughs that wish to take local action to 

address air quality through local low emission zones or similar 

measures. 


operators and other stakeholders will promote behavioural change and smarter 

travel measures aimed at encouraging more use of lower carbon modes, ecodriving 

practices and better vehicle maintenance to reduce CO2 emissions 


operators, and other stakeholders, will support, promote and improve 

sustainable, low CO2-emitting transport (including public transport, cycling

and walking, and rail and water for freight), and reduce the need to travel 

through integration of transport and land use planning. 

97 The Mayor, through TfL, and working with the London boroughs, car club 

operators, and other stakeholders, will support expansion of car clubs and 

encourage their use of ultra low carbon vehicles. 

98 The Mayor, through TfL, and working with the London boroughs, road freight 

operators and other stakeholders, will: - 

(a) adopt planning conditions that specify Delivery Service Plans for 

major developments (by spring 2011); 

(b) aim for 50 per cent of HGVs and vans serving London to be members 

of Freight Operator Recognition Scheme by 2016; 

(c) encourage, and where appropriate specify, improved freight movement 

efficiency through, for example, greater consolidation, more off-peak 

freight movement and greater use of water and rail-based transport; 

and 

(d) support freight industry land requirements for locally focused 

consolidation and/or break-bulk facilities and access to waterways and 

railways. 

99 The Mayor, through TfL, will introduce automatic train control (a tool that can 

optimise energy efficiency through driving style) across the Tube network. 

Drivers of non-automatic railways, such as London Overground, will be given 

training on energy efficient driving style, as will London’s bus drivers 

100 The Mayor, through TfL, or otherwise, will work with the DfT to promote 

research, investment and regulation to achieve improved aviation carbon 

efficiency. 


Agency, and other stakeholders, will implement a package of measures 

(including the rephasing and co-ordination of traffic signals) to reduce road 

traffic emissions by smoothing the flow of traffic and optimising the efficiency 

of London’s road network. 

102 The Mayor, through TfL, and working with the London boroughs, will 

encourage the purchase and/or use of low CO2-emitting road vehicles and low 

carbon fuel sources where feasible. The Mayor will lobby Government and 

other stakeholders to follow suit in order to establish a package of integrated 

incentives across national, regional and local government to ensure low carbon 

road vehicles are price competitive with conventional technology 

103 The Mayor, through TfL, or otherwise, will continue to examine the feasibility 

of increasing the use of sustainable biofuels in vehicle fleets controlled or 

regulated by Mayoral bodies, and will encourage the boroughs and other 

vehicle fleet operators to do likewise. 


stakeholders, will enable and support the development and mass market uptake 

of low carbon road vehicles (including electric vehicles) through, for example,

the delivery of infrastructure required for the distribution of alternative 

transport fuel sources, including electric recharging points by 2015. 

105 The Mayor, through TfL, and working with Network Rail and the DfT will: - 

(a) provide low-loss electricity supply infrastructure and regenerative 

braking on London’s rail networks; 

(b) implement regenerative braking across the entire LU network; and 

(c) develop, trial and seek to implement measures to minimise the loss 

through electricity distribution on the Underground. 

106 The Mayor, through TfL, and working with DfT, energy companies, and other 

stakeholders, will deliver additional low/zero carbon electricity-generating 

capacity and investigate the potential for micro-generation at sites on the 

transport system. 


stakeholders, will promote CO2 standards for vehicles and infrastructure 

controlled, procured or regulated by the Mayor, GLA Group and/or other 

public sector bodies (e.g. public transport vehicles, taxis, street and station 

lighting and infrastructure embodied carbon) to reduce emissions from 

existing and new vehicles and infrastructure, including the following specific 

measures: - 

(a) the Mayor, through his functional bodies, will have an increased 

electric-powered vehicle fleet by 2015; 

(b) all new buses entering fleets operated on behalf of the Mayor from 

2011/12 will be lower carbon; 

(c) completion of the Low Carbon Taxi Development Programme by 

2012, working with vehicle manufacturers and the taxi trade to develop 

a new low carbon and low air pollutant version of the London taxi; 

(d) a three-year trial of at least five hydrogen-powered buses from 2010; 

(e) 

(f) 

(g) 

trialling of low energy station lighting and automatic meter reading; 

LED traffic signals preferred to conventional technology when 

replacing life-expired signal sets and trialling of LED street lighting; 

and 

major infrastructure schemes will conduct a carbon footprint 

assessment. 


Highways Agency, and other stakeholders, will keep under review the option 

of road user charging and/or regulatory demand management measures to 

influence a shift to more CO2-efficient private and commercial road vehicles 

and to lower carbon travel options such as walking, cycling and public 

transport. 

109 The Mayor, through TfL and by working with the boroughs, Network Rail, 

Highways Agency, airport operators and other stakeholders, will determine the 

vulnerability of transport assets to the impacts of climate change and maintain 

existing infrastructure (including remedial works where effective and 

affordable) to improve resilience to climate change.


Rail, and other stakeholders, will prepare adaptation strategies to improve 

safety and network resilience to threats posed by climate change and ensure 

that new transport infrastructure is appropriately resilient. 

The adaptation strategy should include: - 

(a) Climate change impacts risk assessment of infrastructure and 

operations to identify key risks and mitigation opportunities; 

(b) the prioritisation of identified risks and proposals for appropriate 

management and/or mitigation action plans, including emergency 

planning and investment plans; and 

(c) guidelines for major procurement contracts (including design, 

construction and maintenance) to demonstrate a climate risk 

assessment for the lifetime of the investment. 


Rail and other transport infrastructure owners, will ensure the transport system 

is developed with climate change in mind by: - 

(a) designing, locating and constructing new infrastructure to withstand 

climatic conditions anticipated over its design life; 

(b) introducing energy efficient air-conditioned rolling stock where 

feasible, for example, on London Overground services and sub-surface 

Tube lines; 

(c) continuing to investigate the feasibility of innovative methods of 

cooling the deep tunnelled sections of the Tube network; and 

(d) ensuring that all new buses entering the London fleet will feature 

specific climate change adaptation measures. 


Rail and other transport infrastructure owners, will plant an additional 10,000 

trees on London’s streets by 2012, with the ambition of an additional two 

million trees in London by 2025. 


Rail, and other stakeholders, will develop and test plans and procedures to 

minimise risk to person and property, manage disruption and ensure rapid 

transport system recovery from the impact of climate change-related events. 


Network Rail, train operating companies, and other stakeholders, will enhance 

the provision of information to improve customers’ knowledge and 

understanding on service availability, delays and other information to improve 

customer satisfaction and the way in which Londoners use public transport and 

make travel decisions by: - 

(a) upgrading the TfL web-based Journey Planner, allowing further 

improvements to real-time performance, accuracy and personalisation; 

(b) providing customers with a range of paper-based information (tube, 

cycle and bus ‘spider’ maps, timetables, fares and service changes); 

(c) raising public awareness and knowledge of existing public transport 

provision, particularly, orbital public transport services; 

(d) further development of journey planning, including web-based 

information, for local trips to town centres; and

(e) 

developing town centre journey planning tools. 


stakeholders, will work with the boroughs and other stakeholders to use 

smarter travel initiatives across London to facilitate more efficient use of the 

transport system, achieve mode shift to cycling, walking and public transport 

and encourage the take-up of healthier travel options. 

116 The Mayor, through TfL, and working with the London boroughs, and other 

stakeholders in the public and private sectors, will improve the efficiency and 

effectiveness of freight operations through the promotion of ‘delivery and 

servicing plans’, ‘construction logistics plans’, the Freight Operator 

Recognition Scheme and other efficiency measures, across London. 

117 The Mayor, through TfL, and working with the London boroughs, the freight 

industry, and other stakeholders, will develop the London freight information 

portal to exchange information and share knowledge to ultimately improve the 

performance of freight operators, boroughs and TfL. 

118 The Mayor, through TfL, and working with the London boroughs, freight 

operators and other stakeholders, will support the introduction of consolidation 

centres and break-bulk facilities where appropriate, especially at Strategic 

Industrial Locations to allow distributed goods to be transferred from lorries 

using the trunk road network to more environmentally friendly vehicles for 

servicing urban centres. 

119 The Mayor will ensure that fares provide an appropriate and necessary level of 

financial contribution towards the cost of providing public transport services 

to ensure that public transport continues to play a central role in London’s 

transport system and overall economic development. 

120 The Mayor will keep the range of concessions for which he is responsible 

under review to ensure that they are focused on where they will be most 

effective at helping those in most need of them Concessions for schoolchildren 

are also conditional on good behaviour If removed for poor behaviour, 

concessions can be earned back through programmes of community activity 

and good behaviour. 

121 The Mayor, through TfL, will seek to conclude the creation of a fullyintegrated 

fare collection system for London that covers both TfL and National 

Rail services, with a common set of travel products simplified to the maximum 

extent possible, in co-operation with the Association of Train Operating 

companies (ATOC) and the DfT. 

122 The Mayor, through TfL, and working with the London boroughs, train 

operating companies, other transport operators, and other stakeholders, will 

explore ways to reduce the cost of revenue collection and to make fare 

payment quicker and more convenient for passengers through the use of new 

technology and other initiatives.

123 The Mayor, through TfL, and working with the London boroughs, London 

councils, and other stakeholders, will seek to ensure fair and consistent 

enforcement of parking and loading regulations across London, together with 

more consistent regulations, clearer signage, and more advance information 

regarding parking availability. Pan-London parking provision and regulations 

information will be published on the internet in an easy to access format. 

124 The Mayor, through TfL, and working with the London boroughs, car park 

operators, and other stakeholders, will encourage implementation of pricing 

differentials based on vehicle emissions, including banded resident parking 

permits and other on and off-street parking charges, including incentives for 

electric vehicles. 

125 The Mayor, through TfL, and the LDA, and working with the boroughs and 

other stakeholders, will seek to ensure that new developments generating 

significant volumes of freight activity provide adequate off-street lorry parking 

and waiting facilities. 

126 The Mayor, through TfL, and the LDA, and working with the London 

boroughs and other stakeholders will support those park and ride schemes in 

Outer London that lead to an overall reduction in congestion, journey times 

and road vehicle kilometres. 

127 The Mayor, through TfL, subject to consultation, will remove the Western 

Extension of the central London Congestion Charging zone after putting in 

place such measures in mitigation of negative impacts as are both desirable 

and practicable. 

128 The Mayor, through TfL, will operate and monitor Congestion Charging in the 

original central London Congestion Charging zone, with periodic reviews to 

enable the Mayor to make variations to ensure the continued effectiveness of 

the policy, reflect best practice, improve the operation of the scheme, or to 

help it deliver the desired outcomes of the transport strategy. 


stakeholders, may consider managing the demand for travel through pricing 

incentives (such as parking charges or other charging regimes) in order to 

meet the overall objectives of the transport strategy. The Mayor may consider 

road user charging schemes if other measures at the Mayor’s disposal are 

deemed insufficient to meet the strategy’s objectives and where there is a 

reasonable balance between the objectives of any scheme and its costs and 

other impacts. Any scheme would need to take account of local conditions, as 

well as the impact on surrounding regions, and to be fair and flexible relating 

charges to the external costs of travel, with sensitivity to time of day and with 

scope for discounts or exemptions for specific user groups. The Mayor will 

also consider imposing charges or tolls to support specific infrastructure 

improvements, such as river crossings.


MTS Consultation – stakeholder questions and officer responses 

Vision 


Q: Please give your views on the Mayor’s vision for London’s transport system 

Officer Response: 

The vision statement is clear and ambitious, and is appropriate for a major 

world city. 

Transport Proposals 

Managing and enhancing the transport system 

Q: A range of proposals are set out in the draft strategy to manage and enhance 

London’s transport system. For each of the areas below, please give your views on 

the measures proposed and the top priorities: 

• National Rail, Crossrail, London Overground, DLR, Tramlink 

• London Underground 

• London’s bus network 

• Taxis, private hire, coaches, community transport 

• Managing the road network 

• The Blue Ribbon Network 

• London’s airports 

• River crossings 

• A more accessible transport system 

• Integrating London’s transport system and services 

Please also describe any other measures that you think should be included in the 

strategy to manage and enhance our transport networks and services 


On National Rail, Crossrail, London Overground, DLR, and Tramlink, 

the MTS proposals are considered appropriate. Particular support is given for 

Proposals 8, 9 and 10, to increase rail capacity on routes in south west 

London, and potentially to deliver Crossrail 2 (Chelsea-Hackney Line) along 

the SW to NE London corridor, though it would be much more encouraging if 

the latter were to have a firm commitment and timetable for implementation 

attached. It is important that the Mayor works with Network Rail and the DfT 

to achieve the objectives of the High Level Output Specification (HLOS) for 

rail and sets strong but realistic targets for HLOS2. Proposal 11, which seeks 

to deliver capacity enhancements at Clapham Junction and Balham stations, is 

also welcome, as are proposed improvements to orbital rail services on 

London Overground via Clapham Junction. Plans to improve Wandsworth 

Town station with the assistance of developer funding from nearby town 

centre sites are well-advanced and reference to this station in the MTS would 

Page 1 of 9

e useful. It is recognised that many rail initiatives will involve close cooperation 

with third parties such as the DfT, Network Rail and train operating 

companies, and we will support the Mayor in his endeavours to ensure 

improvements are delivered. The Mayor should use his influence to expedite 

use of the redundant Eurostar platforms at Waterloo Station by local services, 

bringing relief to overcrowded lines in south west London. This Borough still 

desires an extension of Tramlink to Tooting and possibly Wandsworth town 

centre, and we would like this to be reconsidered as part of the review 

promised in Proposal 16. 

On London Underground, we welcome all the phased improvements 

promised by the MTS, but we would appreciate greater clarity on which 

particular schemes have been deferred or dropped (e.g. proposals to provide 

step-free access at stations). Planned improvements to the Northern Line are 

welcomed. We are also pleased to see the proposed Northern Line extension 

to Battersea mentioned in the strategy; however, we consider there is a case 

for TfL to provide an element of funding for this route, rather than for it to be 

referred to solely as “privately funded”. Some public funds could be essential 

to lever in more private funds and make early progress in delivering the 

proposal. The MTS should also look to investigate other innovative funding 

streams for major infrastructure projects, such as Tax Increment Financing. 

Regarding London’s bus network, we consider good quality bus services to 

be essential for our Borough. Many of our residents and visitors are reliant on 

the bus as their main form of transport, given that rail and underground routes 

are limited in their geographical reach and are often crowded by the time they 

reach stations in the Borough. It is pleasing that the Mayor also supports bus 

improvements, including a replacement for the Countdown real time 

information system. Buses can be oppressively hot in summer months and 

future contract specifications should aim to address this problem, which we 

have raised previously with TfL. While we understand the importance of 

appraising all options and ensuring value for money, we would be wary of any 

actions to erode bus services which have improved markedly in recent years in 

our Borough, as this could lead to creeping mode shift to private vehicles 

resulting in greater traffic congestion, in conflict with the Mayor’s desired 

transport outcomes. Suggestions that fares may rise in order to reduce the 

overall level of subsidy would also be of concern, having the potential to 

adversely affect many people who do not qualify for travel concessions but 

rely on public transport for their everyday transport. TfL should have a 

primary focus on efficiency and cost-effective operation in preference to 

raising fares to meet income shortfalls. 

MTS proposals for taxis, private hire, coaches and community transport 

are generally supported. 

Proposals for managing the road network are generally supported, provided 

that they lead to a balanced outcome facilitating the safe and expeditious 

movement of all traffic, and that no particular user groups suffer detrimental 

impacts. The detail of the proposed pedestrian countdown pilots will be of 

interest. We are disappointed that the most significant road network 

improvement required in this Borough – the removal of the Wandsworth one- 

Page 2 of 9

way system – is not mentioned, and we would urge this to be included in the 

MTS as an important proposal. 

Proposals for the Blue Ribbon Network are supported. As a riparian 

Borough we see great potential in making the most of the River Thames and 

other waterways for transport purposes. 

We agree with the Mayor’s approach to London’s airports, in particular that 

further expansion at Heathrow should not be permitted. We are pleased that 

the Major supports the principle of Airtrack to improve public transport access 

to Heathrow and look forward to working with all parties to resolving any 

barriers to its implementation. 

Most of the river crossings mentioned in the MTS are in east London, and as 

such we have no comment to make on these. However, we note that Proposal 

39 suggests that local pedestrian and cycling links may be appropriate in this 

part of London. The Mayor should also be aware that in conjunction with the 

London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham and the Royal Borough of 

Kensington and Chelsea, we have studied the potential for a new pedestrian 

and cycle bridge alongside the West London Line leading to the recentlyopened 

Imperial Wharf station. The business case for such a bridge is positive 

and inclusion of this proposal in the MTS would be welcome. 

Proposals for a more accessible transport system are supported, particularly 

given changes in demographics and the likely increase in older population 

over the period covered by the MTS. Where the Council has invested in 

measures to increase the accessibility of the bus network, this needs to be fully 

supported by TfL, the Mayor and bus companies by ensuring that bus drivers 

pull into accessible bus stops whenever possible. 

The MTS proposals for integrating London’s transport system and services 

are also supported, and it is most welcome that agreement has finally been 

reached to make Oyster pay-as-you-go available on national rail services in 

London. The next step to improve integration will be to rationalise fares so 

that some of the anomalies of pay-as-you-go fares are eliminated (e.g. so that 

fares for a particular origin-destination pair, or for similar zone-zone journeys, 

are consistent). 

Encouraging more cycling and walking 

Q: A range of proposals are set out in the draft strategy to bring about a cycling 

revolution. Please give your views on the measures proposed and the top priorities. 


strategy which would encourage more cycling 

A range of proposals are set out in the draft strategy to make walking count. Please 

give your views on the measures proposed and the top priorities. Please also describe 

any other measures that you think should be included in the strategy which would 

encourage more walking 

Page 3 of 9


Regarding cycling, the proposals seem reasonable in general, and the Mayor’s 

ambition to increase cycling’s mode share from 2% to 5% of journeys is 

supported. The detail of individual initiatives (such as the Cycle 

Superhighways) should be decided in partnership with borough councils. As 

top priority, the single most effective way of improving the cycle experience 

will be to create better conditions for cycling on London’s streets – often this 

might not mean the provision of cycle lanes, but could include lower speed 

limits, better road maintenance (e.g. to repair potholes) and improved street 

care (e.g. sweeping up puncture hazards). Funding to support these initiatives 

would be required. Measures to improve cycle parking at trip ends – 

particularly by retro-fitting cycle parking to housing – should also be 

prioritised. We welcome proposals to establish ‘Biking Boroughs’ and look 

forward to more details in due course. 

Proposals to make walking count are supported. New urban realm proposals 

and initiatives to provide direct crossings, better signing (e.g. Legible London) 

and improved routes are all welcome. We believe that the top priority should 

be for walking to be considered as an integral part of any transport 

scheme/intervention, both as a mode in its own right and as an access mode to 

other forms of transport. As such, any proposals that reduce time/space 

available for pedestrians should be evaluated carefully before proceeding, and 

likewise consideration should be given to increasing time/space available for 

pedestrians where demand suggests this will have net benefits. 

Improving safety and security 

Q: A range of proposals are set out in the draft strategy to improve safety and 

security. For each of the areas below, please give your views on the measures 

proposed and the top priority: 

• Improving public transport safety 

• Improving road safety 

• Reducing crime, fear of crime and antisocial behaviour 

• Responding to the threat of terrorism 


strategy to improve safety and security 


Measures aimed at improving public transport safety are supported. We 

believe that improvements to bus driver training (Proposal 24) will help 

achieve this, as it is our perception – supported by anecdotal evidence – that 

some bus drivers practice sharp braking and acceleration that can cause 

discomfort for passengers and increase risk of falls and injury. Driver training 

should be a priority. 

Improving road safety should remain a very high priority, though it will be 

challenging to continue making the same rate of improvements achieved 

Page 4 of 9

across London in this area over the last decade and more. The priority should 

be for TfL to provide adequate funding to target casualty hotspots, and support 

this with effective enforcement initiatives and campaigns of awareness and 

training for all road users. 

Reducing crime, fear of crime and antisocial behaviour will remain a very 

important aspect of the MTS, and the Mayor is uniquely placed as chairman of 

the Metropolitan Police Authority in helping to drive this agenda forward. 

On-street, the priority should be to create places where people want to be – 

such as exemplar urban realm schemes - as this will help generate a virtuous 

circle of safety-in-numbers and feelings of conviviality and security. On the 

public transport network, the presence of staff at stations can make an 

important contribution and is supported by the public. 

The Mayor’s proposal responding to the threat of terrorism is supported. 

Improving London’s environment 

Q: A range of proposals are set out in the draft strategy to improve London’s 

environment For each of the areas below, please give your views on the measures 

proposed and the top priorities: 

• Creating ‘better streets’ 

• Improving noise impacts 

• Enhancing transport’s contribution to the natural environment 

• Improving air quality 


strategy to improve London’s environment 


Proposals for creating ‘better streets’ are supported. A clearer idea of what 

constitutes a ‘better street’ would be welcome, and it is suggested that the 

priority should be to create streets and places where people want to be and 

which they will enjoy passing through. 

We support proposals to improve noise impacts. Noise emanating from rail 

and tube lines is a particular problem in our Borough where many residential 

properties are close to public transport routes. The introduction of quieter and 

cleaner buses should be a priority for the Mayor, and it is an issue we have 

raised previously with TfL with regard to noise from some Volvo double-deck 

vehicles and from the Euro 3 engines of buses on route G1. Improved driver 

training can also have a role to play in helping to reduce the noise impact of 

buses. The Council also supports the encouragement of quieter aircraft and 

co-ordinated flight paths that minimise the impact on this Borough, as 

suggested by MTS Proposal 88. 

Enhancing transport’s contribution to the natural environment is also 

supported. However, we note that borough councils have been given a role in 

Page 5 of 9

increasing the number of street trees, without a clear mechanism for how this 

will be funded. LIP funding should be used for transport interventions, and 

while street trees might form part of broader LIP-funded schemes for ‘better 

streets’ we do not believe that transport funding in general should be used to 

plant trees. 

The Mayor’s proposals for improving air quality are broadly supported, 

though we are wary of the suggestion that parking regulations should be used 

to incentivise uptake of low emission vehicles, as we consider that parking 

controls should primarily have a traffic management justification rather than 

one based on air quality. Support for electric vehicles is cautiously welcomed, 

with the caveat that the market is developing rapidly and care needs to be 

taken that a large network of charging infrastructure is not created at great 

expense only to become quickly obsolete. The biggest priority in this area 

should be to promote mode shift to lower-polluting modes of transport, 

including walking and cycling. 

Reducing transport’s contribution to climate change and improving its resilience 

Q: A range of proposals are set out in the draft strategy to reduce CO2 emissions. 

Please give your views on the measures proposed and the top priorities. Please also 

describe any other measures that you think should be included in the strategy which 

would reduce transport’s contribution to climate change. 

A range of proposals are set out in the draft strategy to increase the resilience of the 

transport system and adaptation to climate change. Please give your views on the 

measures proposed and the top priorities. Please also describe any other measures 

that you think should be included in the strategy which would improve resilience to 

climate change 


In general the proposals to reduce CO2 emissions are supported, although the 

same caveats apply as for the section on improving air quality above. Perhaps 

the Mayor’s greatest influence in this area will be in procuring new vehicles 

and specifying CO2 standards in contracts for buses, etc. 

On climate change adaptation, the highest priority should be the preparation of 

a climate change adaptation strategy as described by Proposal 110. As 

mentioned earlier, funding will be needed to work towards the target to 

increase the number of street trees, and we do not believe it will be appropriate 

to divert from existing transport budgets to achieve this. 

Managing the demand for travel 

Q: A range of proposals are set out in the draft strategy to manage the demand for 

travel. For each of the areas below, please give your views on the measures proposed 

and the top priorities: 

Page 6 of 9

• Better journey planning and information 

• Smarter transport for both people and freight 

• Fares and ticketing 

• Parking and loading 


strategy to manage the demand for travel 


Better journey planning and information is supported. We believe there is 

potential to make more of new technologies to support journey planning, 

including the use of hand-held devices, but we also believe that there will 

remain a need for paper-based information. For many people there is no 

substitute for a paper map or timetable. 

Smarter transport for both people and freight is supported as a relatively 

low-cost means of relieving traffic congestion. Smarter travel interventions 

should be well-targeted so that they do not just reach people who already 

travel by more sustainable modes of transport (a criticism of some past cycling 

promotions). 

Proposals for fares and ticketing are broadly supported, on the 

understanding that fares will remain affordable to Londoners. Significant 

fares increases could lead to mode shift from public transport to car, adding to 

traffic congestion and running counter to the Mayor’s desired transport 

outcomes. We are very pleased that the use of Oyster card has been rolled out 

to national rail services in London, and as mentioned earlier a top priority 

should be to work with the rail industry and the DfT to align fares so that the 

system is understandable and fair for passengers (Proposal 121). 

Parking and loading proposals are generally supported, though we would 

oppose the introduction of any park-and-ride scheme in Outer London were it 

to add to overcrowding on our key public transport corridors (Proposal 126). 

We also reiterate that the justification for parking charges should primarily be 

for traffic purposes rather than the control of emissions, and that councils 

should be free to set charges at rates determined by their own local 

circumstances (Proposal 124). 

Road user charging for economic and environmental aims 

Q: Despite all the improvements outlined in the draft strategy, increasing population 

and demand for travel means congestion and CO2 emissions might still be a 

significant problem for London. The draft strategy proposes that in this case it may 

be necessary to introduce a fair system of road user charging to reduce congestion 

To what extent do you agree or disagree that a fair system of managing demand for 

road use should be used if necessary? 


Page 7 of 9

We agree with the Mayor that the introduction of new road user charging to 

manage transport demand should be retained in the strategy as an option, 

should congestion levels dictate that further action is required beyond the 

other proposals included in the MTS. Although a new charge would have a 

beneficial impact on CO2 emissions, we think it should be justified primarily 

on transport and congestion grounds rather than on an environmental basis. It 

would be helpful for the Mayor to set out more clearly the circumstances in 

which he would consider new road user charging options (e.g. by setting 

milestones for congestion during the period covered by the MTS, and stating 

that charging would be considered where milestone targets are not reached). 

The most important factors we would urge for any new scheme would be to 

ensure it is fair, it is related to the contribution made to congested conditions, 

and that it does not disproportionately affect any particular section of the 

community. 

Western Extension zone 

Q: The draft strategy proposes to remove the Western Extension to the Congestion 

Charging scheme and introduce measures (including improved 

traffic control systems and a roadworks permit scheme) to mitigate as far as possible 

the impact of its removal 

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the proposal to remove the Western 

Extension? 


We support the removal of the Western Extension to the Congestion Charging 

scheme, provided that it will not lead to an unacceptable increase in traffic 

congestion and delay in our borough. 

Priorities 

Q: Of all the different measures that are proposed, please give your views on what the 

top priorities are for London 


The priorities should be: 

• Ensuring we get the best from existing transport networks and that 

these operate as effectively and efficiently as possible. 

• Delivering large scale infrastructure improvements, particularly on the 

public transport network. 

• Maintaining an affordable and efficient bus service network. 

• Enabling transport choice by providing infrastructure, facilities and 

information to support all modes of transport. 

• Creating places and streets that are pleasant to be in and to pass 

through. 

Page 8 of 9

• Ensuring adequate funds are reserved for transport projects, both pan- 

London and at borough level. 

Are there any areas proposed that you disagree with? 

The Mayor’s Transport Strategy sets out six strategic goals for London. Please give 

us your views on the extent to which you think the measures set out in the strategy 

will assist in meeting these. 


The goals themselves appear sensible ones to adopt for the strategy. We have 

set out in our responses above the areas which we think are worthy of review 

before the final MTS is published. 

One important aspect that is not discussed in depth is how to proceed where 

areas of the strategy appear to be in conflict – e.g. to smooth traffic flow, 

time/space may need to be taken from pedestrians and given to road traffic, 

but this would be in conflict with the desire to facilitate an increase in 

walking. In the absence of a road user hierarchy, some more clarity of the 

approach to prioritising interventions would be welcome. 

Page 9 of 9



LIP Consultation - Officer Response to TfL 

In general terms the new LIP guidance and the process for drafting and approving 

LIPs is to be welcomed as a significant improvement over first LIPs. In particular, we 

welcome: 

• Fairer allocation of LIP funding 

• Greater flexibility in the use of LIP funding 

• Greater leeway for boroughs to prioritise their transport projects/interventions, 

within the overall framework of the MTS 

• Shorter three-year timeframe, so that LIPs remain relevant 

The main issues we would like to see addressed in the final guidance are: 

• Greater clarity and understanding of the indicators used to monitor a borough, 

so that they accurately reflect borough council actions rather than those of 

third parties or other external factors; and 

• A clearer transition process to the third round of LIPs. 

We also think it would be worthwhile to have clear nomenclature for different stages 

of LIPs. In the first round of LIPs, terminology was very confusing (e.g. “Final LIPs” 

were not actually the final version, as they subsequently became “Approved LIPs”). 

Perhaps “Draft LIP”, “Submission LIP” and “Approved LIP” could be used to 

describe the different stages. 

More detail on the issues mentioned above is provided in answer to the consultation 

questions as follows. 

Consultation Responses 

1. Is it clear what is required of boroughs in producing their Second LIPs, in 

particular in relation to the key changes since LIPs were first prepared in 

2004-2007? 

Yes the changes and requirements are clear. 

2. Is it clear what is required in a LIP and what is discretionary? 

Yes, it is clear. 

3. Do you have any views on whether this should change? 

No. 

4. What aspects of the Second LIP process and Guidance are boroughs and other 

organisations likely to find most challenging? How can TfL provide additional 

assistance to boroughs to better understand and address these challenges? 

The proposed timescales are likely to prove challenging, as they did for the 

first LIPs (see question 7). Although the demands of second LIPs should be 

less, for the first LIPs TfL provided financial assistance to help boroughs

2 

complete the process alongside day-to-day work. It appears that this 

assistance is not being offered this time, but staff resources/expertise to help 

develop the LIP would be useful. 

5. Are the proposed mandatory performance indicators appropriate for 

boroughs? 

It is hard to say at this stage, but experience from the first round of LIPs was 

not good, and it is worrying that at least two of the proposed indicators raise 

questions, being either unproven (the public transport reliability indicator 

relies on software that does not yet exist) or in conflict with other indicators 

(the CO2 indicator does not match the equivalent LAA indicator). This was a 

problem with the first LIPs, and has led to performance monitoring of LIPs to 

be largely irrelevant to date. 

It is also worth noting that borough transport actions are only a small part of 

what influences transport behaviour. In aggregate across London the data may 

prove useful for assessing whether or not the MTS is “working” in broad 

terms, but we believe that any attempts to try to relate changes locally to 

individual schemes or packages of interventions should be made with great 

caution. 

Furthermore, if annual reports on progress are to be used by the Audit 

Commission in helping evaluate council performance, as suggested by TfL, 

we would expect the indicators and targets selected to be ones over which the 

borough council has direct influence. For example, the indicator for road 

traffic casualties should include data for borough roads but not the TLRN, 

over which the council does not have control. Other indicators (e.g. public 

transport reliability) are almost wholly the responsibility of third parties (TfL 

and bus operators) rather than the borough council and should not therefore be 

used in reporting how successful a borough has been in implementing the 

MTS. 

6. Do you have views on how best to measure and monitor the ‘output’ 

indicators? 

It would be easier to make suggestions if the outputs themselves were more 

clearly defined at this stage – e.g. what constitutes a “better street”? All our 

interventions on streets are intended to make them “better”. It is also debatable 

whether there is much merit in measuring “outputs” alone – for example, it is 

relatively easy to say how many cycle parking spaces or electric vehicle 

charging points have been delivered, but these pieces of information (and 

those initiatives) will be of little use unless the cycle parking spaces and 

charging points are actually used in practice. Therefore, if reporting is required 

against these outputs we would suggest that some link is made to positive 

outcomes, rather than merely outputs. Notwithstanding this, any measures 

developed should be simple and the data should be easy to collect. 

7. Do you have any views on the proposed timetable for completing your LIPs? 

2 of 3

It is not clear when boroughs are expected to consult with the public on their 

draft LIPs. There are a number of constraints on when this can sensibly occur, 

given that 2010 is an election year and that it is not desirable to consult in the 

middle of the summer holiday period. It would be useful to factor in time both 

for local consultation and revision of draft LIPs to take account of responses 

received. This could usefully be included in a revised Table 1.2. 

In addition, we note that in contrast to the first round of LIPs, TfL will be 

expecting to receive each borough’s LIP at around the same time. We wonder 

how this peak will be managed and whether this will lead to delays in approval 

of LIPs. 

There is a requirement for boroughs to submit the Three Year Delivery Report 

to TfL for April 2011-March 2014 by July 2014, but it is not clear how this 

will be possible, given that (a) TfL will be reporting monitoring data back to 

boroughs annually in Nov/Dec - i.e. by July 2014 we may only have data 

covering 2011/12 and 2012/13 to include in our three-year reports; and (b) in 

July 2014 we are still likely to be closing details of the 2013/14 financial year. 

Perhaps it would be better to incorporate the requirement for Three Year 

Delivery Reports into the guidance for the third LIPs? It appears that we will 

need to be preparing for the third LIP at some point in the final year (2013/14) 

in any case. 

Further, Appendix F of the guidance (paragraph F1.4) says that TfL will use 

the Three Year Delivery Reports to influence formula funding for the third 

round of LIPs, but these LIPs must be live from April 2014 (prior to Delivery 

Reports being produced). Overall, the guidance needs to illustrate a clearer 

transition from LIP2 to LIP3, if only in terms of key milestone dates. 

3 of 3







Joint report by the Director of Finance and the Director of Technical Services on the 

Local Implementation Plan (Transport) Allocation for 2010/11 

SUMMARY 

Background/Policy 

Transport for London (TfL) funds transport projects that are considered to be in 

conformity with the Mayor of London’s transport strategy. To date, councils 

have been required to make an annual bid for funding to TfL by providing 

detailed descriptions of the schemes for which they are seeking TfL grant. From 

2010/11, this annual bidding system has been replaced, with TfL instead 

allocating most of the grant on the basis of a formula, taking into account such 

things as public transport reliability in a borough, congestion and road accident 

casualties. 

The majority of LIP funding is now pre-allocated for three programme areas of 

Corridors, Neighbourhoods and Smarter Travel. Funding processes for highway 

and bridge maintenance (which are allocated according to condition indices), are 

area-based schemes (which are subject to a separate, structured submission 

system) remain unchanged. These allocations incorporate some former 

‘partnership’ programmes. 

The Council has been strongly supportive of the move away from the previous 

system of funding to one involving far less red tape and more financial flexibility to 

Boroughs. The Council also sought to ensure that the new formula approach 

resulted in a better overall and balanced allocation for the Borough, which has been 

achieved, despite an overall freeze in TfL’s budget. 

Issues/Proposals 

This report reviews spending approvals available to the Council under the 2010/11 

Local Implementation Plan (Transport) Allocation. TfL announced the Local 

Implementation Plan (LIP) Allocation for 2010/11 on 11th December 2009 in 

response to submissions by London Borough Councils in September 2009. As 

reported to Committee in July 2009 (Paper 09-748), the Council was already aware 



of the proposed funding allocation as it was to be based on a new formula approach 

to funding, supported by the Council. The Council, therefore, submitted proposals 

to the value of the proposed allocation, avoiding wasting resources on overbidding. 

Financial Issues 

Grant funding of £3,514,000 for 2010/11 spending has been made available by 

TfL. Of this approval, £297,000 is for revenue schemes. 

Supporting Information 

The intended application of resources is outlined in the body of the report. 

Conclusion 

The increased grant with the new flexibility is welcomed, especially in the current 

financial climate. 

The Executive is recommended to approve capital budget variations of 

£2,191,000 in 2010/11 and -£70,000 in 2011/12. There will be no requirement 

for revenue budget variations as approved schemes are fully funded by revenue 

grant. 

GLOSSARY 

LIP 

MTS 

ABS 

TfL 

SWELTRAC 



Area Based Schemes 


South West London Transport 

Conference 






3. The Corporate Resources Overview and Scrutiny Committee will be asked to 

consider the proposed capital budget variations mentioned in paragraph 4b, in a 

separate report to be submitted to that Committee. 



4. The Executive is recommended to approve:- 

(a) 

(b) 

the additions to the capital programme detailed in paragraph 8; and 

Capital budget variations of £2,191,000 in 2010/11 and -£70,000 in 

2011/12. 

5. Introduction. The Local Implementation Plan is the Council’s five-year 

transport plan for the period 2006-2011. It is a requirement of the Greater 

London Authority Act 1999 that the Council submit a plan to the Mayor of 

London for his approval, setting out how it would assist in the delivery of the 

Mayor’s Transport Strategy. The Council’s Plan was produced in draft form in 

May 2005, and after public consultation, was submitted in final form to Transport 

for London (TfL), acting on behalf of the Mayor of London, in July 2006. The 

Mayor of London approved the Plan on 15th January 2007. The Plan included the 

funding assumptions behind it, and the expected TfL contribution to local 

transport projects. 

6. A new system has been introduced for LIP funding from 2010/11, details of 

which were reported to the Committee and Executive (Paper No. 09-546) in July 

2009. The approved programme is summarised in five categories, as follows: 

Programme Area £’000 

Corridors - includes bus priority, bus stop accessibility, 

cycling, road safety, walking 

Neighbourhoods - includes environment, freight, regeneration, 

20mph zones, controlled parking zones, 

accessibility 

Smarter Travel - includes school travel plans, workplace travel 

plans, travel awareness and road safety 

education/training 

Flexible Funding - resources to be applied where required 

within the programme 

1,609 

1,171 

424 

100 

Maintenance - covering principal road and bridge renewal 210 

TOTAL 3,514 

7. TfL announced the allocations for 2010/11 on 11th December 2009. The 

approvals reported here relate to the Council’s schemes and partnership projects 

where agreements have already been determined. 



8. 2010/11 Council Scheme Allocations. Allocations are generally for specific 

schemes and projects. Detailed allocations for 2010/11 are as follows:- 

(a) 

Corridors (£1,599,000). Capital funding has been provided for the 

following schemes:- 

(i) Clapham Junction Exemplar – numerous projects in combination 

incl. new crossings, footways, decluttering, St John’s Road 

resurfacing etc, SW11 (Northcote/Shaftesbury): £570,000; 

(ii) Southfields bus routes 39 and 493 enhancements – proposals to 

ease bus access and improve bus reliability, SW18 (Southfields): 

£30,000; 

(iii) Old York Road Corridor – review of bus stops and 

loading/waiting, SW18 (Fairfield): £20,000; 

(iv) Putney Hill corridor – combined local safety/bus corridor scheme, 

SW15 (West Putney/East Putney): £200,000; 

(v) Garratt Lane corridor – Inset parking at Earlsfield to ease bus 

access and associated cycle parking, SW17 (Earlsfield): £100,000; 

(vi) Queenstown Road corridor – Inset parking, bus lane widening, 

pedestrian crossing and resurfacing, SW11 (Queenstown): 

£249,000; 

(vii) Tibbett’s Corner road safety improvements – Implementation of 

scheme following feasibility / investigation works, SW19 

(Roehampton/West Hill): £300,000; 

(viii) Blackshaw Road corridor – combine bus lane, parking and 

pedestrian crossing proposals, SW17 (Tooting): £30,000; and 

(ix) Various Borough junctions/links – Investigations in road traffic 

casualties at the top 10 priority sites: £100,000. 

Revenue funding of £10,000 has been provided for the following scheme:- 

(i) 

Scheme development – a review of areas of transport needs to help 

target funding in future years: £10,000. 

(b) 

Neighbourhoods (£1,171,000). Capital funding has been provided for the 

following schemes:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

(iii) 

Broadwater Road neighbourhood scheme - incorporating school 

travel plan measures for Broadwater, Smallwood and Gatton 

Schools, SW17 (Tooting): £20,000; 

Clapham Junction Exemplar - numerous projects in combination 

incl. new crossings, footways, decluttering, St Johns Road 

resurfacing etc, SW11 (Northcote/Shaftesbury): £700,000; 

Cycle parking programme - Including on-street, interchanges, 

public spaces, residential: £55,000; 



(iv) 

(v) 

(vi) 

West Putney and Dover House Road – proposed 20 mph zone, 

traffic calming/management measures, SW15 (West Putney): 

£300,000; 

Crime prevention on the highway – Improved safety/security on 

routes through underpasses/ bridges (various locations): £30,000; 

and 

Bus Stop accessibility programme – bring bus stops up to 

accessible standards enabling buses to be used by disabled people: 

£66,000. 

(c) 

Smarter Travel (£137,000). Capital funding has been provided for:- 

(i) 

(ii) 

(iii) 

(iv) 

Car Clubs – significant number of new on street car club bays 

under new strategy: £30,000; 

Brandlehow School Travel Plan implementation – measures to 

reduce impact of traffic and improve road safety around 

Brandlehow School, SW15 (Thamesfield): £46,000; 

Electric vehicle charging points – installation of up to 5 more 

charging points for public use and associated publicity: £30,000; 

and 

St Anne’s School Travel Plan implementation – school warning 

signs and crossing facilities at St. Anne’s School, SW18 

(Fairfield): £31,000. 

Revenue funding of £287,000 has been provided for the following 

schemes:- 

(i) Bike Week and cycle promotions – to include programme of Dr 

Bike safety checks and bicycle maintenance sessions: £10,000; 

(ii) Travel Awareness programmes – implementation of 

Neighbourhood or Corridor schemes: £10,000; 

(iii) Climate change/air quality theatre show for children – air quality 

themed transport show to help reduce pollution: £4,000; 

(iv) Voluntary vehicle emissions testing – raising awareness in car 

parks with vehicle emissions test: £3,000; 

(v) School Travel Plan support – general support including staffing, 

grants, revenue funding: £75,000; 

(vi) Walk on Wednesdays – provision of materials for walk to school 

on Wednesday campaign: £13,000; 

(vii) Walk to School – provision of materials, etc for Walk to School 

week/month campaigns: £7,000; 

(viii) Cycle Training – Cycle training for school pupils and adults: 

£60,000; 

(ix) Road Safety training – pedestrian training and adult/children’s road 

safety shows: £70,000; 



(x) South London Freight Quality Partnership membership – 

continuation of joint funding; to reduce impact of deliveries/freight 

movements: £10,000; 

(xi) Travel plan support through SWELTRAC – cycle parking and 

match funding schemes for Wandsworth Businesses: £5,000; and 

(xii) Smarter travel for elderly/disabled people – match funding of pilot 

Silver Trailblazer scheme initiated by Adult Social Services: 

£20,000. 

(d) 

(e) 

Flexible Funding (£100,000). Capital funding to be spent on any project 

consistent with the emerging Mayor’s Transport Strategy. 

Principal Road Renewal (£210,000). Capital funding has been provided 

for the following scheme:- 

(i) St John’s Hill, SW18 (Fairfield): £210,000. 

9. General and comment. The Council’s funding of £3,514,000 in 2010/11 

compares to £3,472,000 allocated in 2009/10. 2010/11 will be an interim year for 

funding arrangements, and it is likely that from 2011/12 funding proposals will 

need to be aligned with the new Mayor’s Transport Strategy. These interim 

arrangements result in the Council receiving an increase in grant in 2010/11 

compared with the current year, which itself represented a significant increase 

over the previous year. Moreover, the grant is better tailored to meeting the 

Council’s priorities, which include improving town centres and neighbourhoods 

for the benefit of all users rather than introducing ad hoc improvements for 

specific modes. This is particularly welcome given the constraints or reductions 

now expected for significant numbers of public sector bid allocations for 2010 

and beyond. 

10. It should be noted that the allocation of funds is for the stated categories in the 

specified financial years. There is no automatic carry-over of funds from one year 

to the next. If the specified categories are not fully spent, the funding is lost 

unless the specific approval of TfL is obtained. The Council avoids applying for 

funding where there is little realistic prospect of being able to develop and deliver 

projects, as to do so would undermine future year funding applications. 

11. These allocations incorporate some former partnership allocations such as 

SWELTRAC, for which TfL will no longer identify separate finance. The 

Council will be able to use its own LIP programme resources for partnership 

schemes where appropriate. 

12. TfL have requested bids for additional resources to fund Area Based Schemes to 

be submitted by the 15 th January and the DTS will be assessing which schemes 



will be appropriate to submit. Any allocations for Bridge work will be announced 

in due course. 

13. The new TfL funding arrangements allow extra flexibility by permitting 

authorities to switch up to 20% of individual programme resources from one area 

to another, but it is not proposed to use this flexibility initially. Councils have 

been encouraged to over programme submissions by 20% (25% in the case of 

maintenance), however the total spending on specific schemes will ultimately be 

limited to the programme limits notified by TfL. 

14. There is provision in the Council’s capital programme of £1,096,000 for 

approvals agreed in 2009/10 for schemes in 2010/11 and 2011/12. These schemes 

are included in the approvals agreed for 2010/11 totalling £3,217,000 detailed in 

this report. The Executive will be required to approve a capital budget variation 

of £2,191,000 in 2010/11 and -£70,000 in 2011/12, however, there would be no 

call on the Council’s capital resources, as all expenditure would be fully matched 

by capital grant from TFL. 

15. No budget variation is required for revenue schemes totalling £297,000 as they 

are fully funded by TfL revenue grant. 

16. Comment of the Economic Development Officer. The health of London and 

the Borough’s economy is underpinned by good quality transport provision and 

the explicit recognition of that “Economic Development and Growth” is a key 

high level outcome for the MTS is very welcome. The LIP settlement for 2010/11 

is a welcome increase and the more flexible approach with more local autonomy 

will be an opportunity to align the LIP with local priorities as defined in the 

Sustainable Community Strategy or other priorities agreed by the Local Strategic 

Partnership. This should include projects to assist the Council to deliver their 

regeneration priorities in Battersea and Roehampton including plans for the 

regeneration of Roehampton; and town centre proposals including the Clapham 

Junction Exemplar scheme. 

________________________ 

W. G. MYERS 



Wandsworth, 

SW18 2PU. 

CHRIS BUSS 

Director of Finance 






1. Correspondence with Transport for London and lead boroughs - Mr D. Tidley - 

020 8871 6662; email dtidley@wandsworth.gov.uk 



(www.wandsworth.gov.uk/moderngove) unless the report was published before May 

2001, in which case the Committee Secretary (Mr. M. Newton – 020 8871 6488; email 








Report by the Director of Technical Services on a proposal to introduce a 20mph speed 

limit in the Dover House Road area, SW15 (West Putney, Roehampton) 

SUMMARY 

Background. Residents and Ward Councillors have expressed concerns about the speed and 

volume of through traffic in the Dover House Road area which is bounded by Upper 

Richmond Road, Roehampton Lane, Putney Park Lane, Putney Heath, Medfield Street and 

Ponsonby Road. Investigations have confirmed that this area would benefit from the 

introduction of a 20mph speed limit. 

Policy. The Mayor of London approved the Council’s Local Implementation Plan (LIP) 

2006-2011 in January 2007. This document shows how the Council is assisting the 

implementation of the Mayor’s Transport Strategy to the year 2011. Policy number LIP15 

states “The Council will provide for the safe and convenient movement of all road users.” 

LIP 20 mentions that “The Council will promote improvements to the road network, which 

benefit pedestrians, cyclists, people with disabilities and public transport” and LIP 40 states 

“The Council will ensure that provision for pedestrians and their safety is given due 

consideration in the planning, programming and design of all traffic management, highways 

and development proposals, by means of walking audits where appropriate.” 

This study has been undertaken as part of the Council’s 20mph zone programme and the 

measures proposed are consistent with the Council’s policy, which includes the 

consideration of 20mph zones and speed limits to improve road safety conditions. 

Issues/Proposals. Following an investigation into the existing recorded vehicular speeds in 

the Dover House Road area a scheme proposal has been developed in accordance with 

current recognised guidelines. 

As a result it is proposed to introduce a 20mph speed limit in the Dover House Road area 

enforced by speed limit signs and associated road markings with additional traffic calming 

measures on Dover House Road where recorded existing vehicular traffic speeds are higher. 

The proposed 20mph limit area is that area bounded by the Upper Richmond Road, 

Roehampton Lane, Putney Park Lane, Putney Heath, Medfield Street and Ponsonby Road. 


Dover House Road 20mph limit 

Comments of the Director of Finance. The cost of the proposed measures, estimated at up to 

£135,000 can be met from the 2009/10 provision in the approved capital programme for 

20mph zones funded by TfL. If the work is not completed by the 31 st March 2010 and 

unless agreement can be reached with TfL to carry it forward the grant funding is lost which 

would require the balance of the costs to be met from the 2010/11 resources. 

Conclusions. The introduction of a 20mph speed limit in the Dover House Road area, 

bounded by Upper Richmond Road, Roehampton Lane, Putney Park Lane and Putney Heath, 

Medfield Street and Ponsonby Road, would reduce vehicular traffic speeds and thereby 

reduce both the numbers and severity of road traffic accident casualties. The 20mph limit is 

also intended to discourage through traffic using Dover House Road to avoid congestion on 

Roehampton Lane. 

Due to the recorded vehicular speeds on Dover House Road it would be necessary to include 

additional vehicular speed reducing measures in the road to permit its inclusion within the 20 

mph speed limit. It is suggested that the outcome of a proposed consultation would assist in 

the determination of this. 

GLOSSARY 

DfT 

TfL 

LIP 





Committee are asked to support the recommendations in paragraph 3. 




3. The Executive its recommended to: - 

(a) 

approve the proposal to implement a 20mph speed limit in all roads in the 

area bounded by Upper Richmond Road, Roehampton Lane, Putney Park 

Lane, Putney Heath, Medfield Street and Ponsonby Road subject to 

consultation as shown on drawing No OS/CES/EH/972412/01; and 

(b) instruct the Director of Technical Services to: - 

(i) 

(ii) 

carry out statutory consultation on the proposals; 

carry out a public consultation with local residents and businesses 

on the proposals as described in this report; and subject to the 

outcome of the consultation and no unresolved objections to; 



(iii) 

(iv) 

advertise the associated notices to make any necessary orders 

under the Traffic Regulation Act 1991; and 

to make the Traffic Management Order and implement the 

proposals as detailed in the report. 

4. Background. The Director of Technical Services has identified the Dover House 

Road area as suitable for the introduction of 20mph speed limits or zones. 

Casualty reductions resulting from such schemes contribute to the achievement of 

the Government’s National Road Traffic Casualty Reduction Targets and the 

Mayor of London’s Casualty Reduction Targets included in London’s Road 

Safety Plan, endorsed in the Council’s Road Safety Plan. These targets are to be 

met by the year 2010. 

5. A funding application bid to Transport for London (TfL) for the investigation and 

implementation of measures associated with a proposed 20 mph speed limit for 

the Dover House Road area has been supported by TfL. Paper No. 09-89 reported 

to this Committee in January 2009 detailed the funding provided for this scheme 

as part of the LIP allocation for Wandsworth for 2009/10. 

6. The area bounded by the A205 Upper Richmond Road, Roehampton Lane, 

Putney Park Lane, Putney Heath, Medfield Street and Ponsonby Road is a largely 

residential area. The Upper Richmond Road and Roehampton Lane form part of 

the TfL road network and are busy routes which often suffer from congestion and 

contribute to the through traffic problem the study area experiences. 

7. Bus route 430 uses Dover House Road with a frequency of 6 to 12 minutes 

between 5am and 12am. There are no controlled parking zones in the area. 

A Borough Cycle Route runs along Crestway, Putney Park Lane, Upper 

Richmond Road and sections of Roehampton Lane and Putney Heath. 

8. Dover House Road already has a combination of speed cushions, mini 

roundabouts and pedestrian refuges which were implemented in 1995 to address 

high traffic speeds and traffic accident casualties. The scheme was very effective 

in lowering vehicle speeds and personal injury accidents. However, the Council 

received requests from residents in the area to reduce the number of vertical 

traffic calming features. In light of changes made by the Department for 

Transport (DfT) to regulations governing the placement of speed cushions, the 

Council’s then Regeneration and Transport Committee decided that the existing 

scheme in Dover House Road should be reviewed. Following this review in 

2001, it was proposed that mini roundabouts be put in place at three of the 

junctions on Dover House Road and that some of the existing speed cushions be 

removed. 

9. Furthermore Paper No. 08-863 considered by this Committee and approved by the 

Executive in November 2008 approved the implementation of a formal crossing 

point in Dover House Road at its junction with Crestway in response to requests 



from a local residents association. This crossing is programmed to be 

implemented in the last quarter of 2009/10. 

10. The proposals for Ponsonby Road to deter through traffic using Dover House 

Road were considered by this Committee in January 2009, and approved by the 

Executive, Paper No. 09-85 refers. Following the necessary approvals from TfL, 

the order for the banned turn restrictions has been advertised and the works are 

programmed to commence on site in February 2010. 

11. Accident analysis. A review of the road traffic accident statistics show there has 

been 19 personal injury accidents within the proposed 20mph zone bounded by 

Upper Richmond Road, Roehampton Lane, Putney Park Lane, Putney Heath, 

Medfield Street and Ponsonby Road in the three-year period to July 2009. 

12. Of the 19 accidents 1 was serious and 18 were slight, resulting in a total of 25 

casualties. 16 of the 19 accidents occurred at road junctions. The serious casualty 

was a pedestrian who in April 2008, according to the police report, “staggered” 

into the road and was hit by a vehicle. This occurred on Dover House Road 30m 

north of its junction with Coppice Drive. The Metropolitan Police list the main 

contributory factors to the accidents and these are indicated in Table 1 below. 

“Driver/ rider failed to look properly” was most commonly noted as a 

contributory factor with “Driver careless/ reckless/ in a hurry” the second most 

common causation factor. Other common contributory factors mentioned are 

pedestrians failing to look properly and drivers failing to judge other people’s 

paths/ speeds. Excessive speed was contributory in 2 accidents. 

Table 1 – Road Traffic Accident Contributory Factors – Dover House Road area. 

Driver / rider 

failed to look 

properly 

(se = serious accident and sl = slight accident). 

Contributory factors recorded for each collision (each collision can include multiple factors) 


failed to judge 

other persons 

path or speed 


careless / 

reckless / in a 

hurry 

Pedestrian 

crossed road 

masked by 

stationary or 

parked 

vehicles 

Pedestrian 

failed to look 

properly 

13. Traffic Surveys. Roads where traffic speeds could be problematical within the 

proposed 20mph limit study area were surveyed using automatic recorders during 

Pedestrian 

failed to judge 

vehicles path 

or speed 

Location 

Total no. of 

collisions 

Poor turn or 

manoeuvre 

Dover House Road 1se, 4sl 1 4 2 1 1 2 

Huntingfield Road 2sl 1 

Medfield Street 1sl 1 1 

Putney Park Lane 1sl 1 1 

Parkstead Road 

1sl 

Posonby Road 2sl 2 1 1 

Putney Heath 4sl 1 3 3 

Rodway Road 1sl 1 1 1 1 

Roehampton High Street 2sl 1 2 2 1 1 

1se 

1se 

Total 

18sl 3sl 13sl 4sl 7sl 1sl 5sl 4sl 



a week in June 2009 within the school term times. The results are summarised in 

table 2 below. 

Table 2 – Recorded Vehicular Speed – Dover House Road area. 

Overall - Both Directions 

Road Average vehicles/ hour Mean speed 

Crestway 22 21 

Dover House Road (nr. Greenstead) 180 24 

Dover House Road (nr. Westmead) 188 26 

Dover Park Drive 31 23 

Elmshaw Road 10 19 

Hawkesbury Road 12 13 

Highdown Road 5 19 

Huntingfield Road 15 19 

Longwood Drive 9 19 

Medfield Street 325 23 

Parkmead 7 19 

Parkstead Road 14 19 

Pleasance Road 21 20 

Putney Park 5 15 

Rodway Road 24 19 

Roehampton High Street 107 17 

Sunnymead Road 33 23 

Swinburne Road 8 14 

The Pleasance 15 20 

Westmead 6 18 

14. Comment. There are two different methods of introducing 20mph speed controls 

on roads, described below. 

15. 20mph speed limits. Current DfT criteria permits roads that have a recorded 

vehicular mean speed of 24mph or below to have a 20mph speed limit introduced. 

This would be indicated on site by the presence of 20mph traffic signs (and 

repeater signs at regular intervals) but without the requirement for any/additional 

physical traffic calming measures. 

16. 20mph zones. DfT regulations require 20mph zones to be ‘self-enforcing’. This 

requires physical measures such as speed humps to slow traffic down and are 

generally introduced where recorded vehicular speeds are in excess of 24 mph. 

These measures have to be placed at regular intervals throughout the zone. 

17. It is not considered acceptable to mix 20mph limits and 20mph zones in a single 

defined area. 



18. The results of the surveys show that the recorded mean vehicular traffic speeds in 

all roads in the study area, except Dover House Road, fall below 24mph. The 

survey results for part of Dover House Road show that the mean speed exceeds 

24mph and whilst the recorded mean speed of 24 and 26 mph are well within the 

current speed limit for the road it is in excess of the 24mph DfT threshold for 

enforcement of 20mph speed limits by signs alone. Therefore, additional traffic 

calming measures would be required in order to reduce traffic speeds so that the 

mean traffic speed on Dover House Road falls below 24mph. 

19. Proposals; 20mph speed limit in the Dover House Road area. It is proposed to 

introduce a 20mph speed limit in all the roads within the area bounded by the 

Upper Richmond Road, Roehampton Lane, Putney Park Lane, Putney Heath, 

Medfield Street and Ponsonby Road. 

20. However, Dover House Road would require additional traffic calming features in 

certain locations to ensure the mean traffic speed was 24mph or below to enable it 

to be included in the 20mph speed limit. It is hoped that the required measures 

would be limited to the areas of Dover House Road where recorded vehicular 

speeds indicate that this is required. However this is yet to be fully determined. It 

is noted that the number of vertical traffic calming features was reduced 

previously, at the request of residents and more recently there have been issues 

raised by residents regarding alleged noise and vibration associated with the 

measures on Dover House Road. It is therefore necessary to seek the views of 

residents about this issue, in addition to the proposed speed limits on other roads 

in the area. 

21. It is recognised that the most effective traffic calming features are vertical 

deflection measures consisting of tables or humps built on top of the road surface. 

As Dover House Road is a bus route the only options considered to be feasible in 

terms of meeting the objective to reduce vehicular speeds consistently are raised 

carriageway junctions or speed cushions or a combination of these two measures. 

22. Chicanes and priority give way measures were considered but discounted as they 

are unsuitable and require the loss of parking spaces, which the residents have 

considered in the past as necessary to maintain and maximise where possible. 

23. If the outcome of the consultation did not support the proposal for Dover House 

Road to become part of a 20mph speed limit, due to the requirement for additional 

traffic calming measures, it would not necessarily affect the proposal to introduce 

a 20mph speed limit on the surrounding roads in the study area. 

24. The introduction of a 20mph speed limit in this area is intended to assist in the 

reduction of both the numbers and severity of road traffic personal injury 

accidents and also discourage through traffic from using Dover House Road. 



25. Programme of works. Subject to the outcome of the consultation it is 

anticipated that the implementation of the proposals could commence in the final 

quarter of the financial year 2009/10. Scheme completion would be expected by 

the 2 nd quarter of 2010/11. 

26. Comments of the Director of Finance. The cost of the proposed measures, 

estimated at up to £135,000 can be met from the 2009/10 provision in the 

approved capital programme for 20mph zones funded by TfL. If the work is not 

completed by 31st March 2010 the balance of the costs will need to be met from 

the 2010/11 resources. 

27. Conclusion. Based upon traffic surveys undertaken, the vast majority of the 

Dover House Road area can be considered for the implementation of a 20 mph 

limit without the need for any additional physical traffic calming measures. To 

include Dover House Road it would be necessary to reduce vehicular speeds 

sufficiently to permit its inclusion. As a result, it is recommended that the 

residents of Dover House Road be consulted about this issue to seek their views to 

permit a decision to be made. 

28. The proposals aim to reduce vehicle speeds and thereby reduce the numbers and 

severity of accidents. The measures will also have the benefit of improving 

pedestrian and cycling facilities by reducing the speed of vehicles. The proposals 

are in line with the Council’s policies and casualty reductions achieved will 

contribute to the achievement of the Road Traffic Casualty Reduction Targets. 


Wandsworth, 

SW18 2PU. 



________________ 

W G MYERS 



1. Accident Statistics 2006-2009 - Maryrose Page, Tel: 020 8871 6685, email 

mpage@wandsworth.gov.uk. 




in which case the Committee Secretary (Mr M Newton– 020 8871 6488; email 









Report by the Director of Technical Services in response to a petition received from 

residents of Church Lane, SW16 (Graveney, Bedford & Furzedown) requesting traffic 

enforcement and the consideration of other traffic measures in Church Lane. 

SUMMARY 

Background. This report sets out the terms of a petition received by the 

Council in August 2009 from residents of Church Lane, nearby roads and also 

visitors to the area and provides a response to the request for the enforcement 

of the existing lorry ban, introduction of a 20mph speed limit, introduction of 

a vehicle actuated sign and to reduce the size of the existing flat topped tables. 

Policy. The study is considered within the existing Council policies on traffic 

management and enforcing traffic restrictions. The outcome is consistent 

with the Council’s policy, which justifies the consideration of traffic 

management where vehicular speed and volumes exceed defined thresholds 

and to address road safety conditions. 

Issues/proposals. The existing traffic calming scheme in Church Lane was 

introduced in the early 1990s following a public consultation. Church Lane is 

a bus route and therefore the scheme introduced accommodates buses and 

emergency service vehicles, comprising a combination of flat topped tables 

and speed reducing cushions. The Director of Technical Services is not aware 

of any evidence supporting property damage in Church Lane being submitted 

to the Council since these measures have been implemented; the likelihood of 

damage is considered as extremely unlikely. Investigation of traffic 

conditions, the road environment and analysis of road traffic accident 

casualties on Church Lane, SW17 (Bedford/Graveney/Furzedown) were 

undertaken in 2007 and 2008 as part of Local Safety Scheme programmes; 

Paper No.08/206 and Paper No.09/82 submitted to this Committee refer. 

Arising from this, it was approved by the Executive to extend existing waiting 

restrictions at junctions to address poor junction visibility and associated road 

traffic accident risk. The traffic studies determined that although peak traffic 

volumes were high, peak vehicular mean speeds were below the speed limit. 

This demonstrates that the existing speed reducing measures are effective at 


Church Lane Petition 

maintaining low speeds along the road. A review of the personal injury 

accident statistics in the previous three-year period ending June 2009 shows 

that road traffic accident casualties are below thresholds warranting action, 

further supporting the effectiveness of the existing scheme. The Council 

introduced a ban on vehicles exceeding the 7.5tonnes Gross Vehicle Weight 

(GVW) and public service vehicles entering an area including Church Lane in 

1987, with the aim of preventing large vehicles diverting from the main road 

network. The ban is operational 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. There is an 

exemption for vehicles making deliveries, for local buses to allow passengers 

to board or alight and to access garaging facilities. The Council is responsible 

for enforcement under the terms of the London Local Authority and Transport 

Act 2003 and currently has a prioritised list of areas to enforce. Enforcement 

action on Church Lane was carried out in November 2009 when only one 

infringement occurred during the period of the enforcement operation. 

Supporting information. Terms of the petition representing residents and 

users of Church Lane – August 2009. The petition has been considered in 

association with the most recent investigations of local traffic conditions, 

vehicular speeds and volumes in Church Lane and accident statistics. A copy 

of the summarised results of the survey and road traffic accident data is 

available from Contract Engineering Services (Ms M Page – 020 8871 6685 

or mpage@wandsworth.gov.uk) 

Conclusions. The existing measures in Church Lane are effective at 

maintaining reduced vehicular speeds and a low incidence of road traffic 

accident casualties. Therefore further action on traffic calming measures, 

such as introducing vehicle actuated signage or new speed limits, is not 

warranted. It is proven that high vehicular traffic speeds increases the number 

and severity of road traffic accident casualties, therefore it is not 

recommended to reduce the size or effectiveness of the current vehicular 

speed reducing scheme in Church Lane. 

GLOSSARY 

GVW 

PIA 

Gross Vehicle Weight 

Personal Injury Accident 

1. The Planning and Transportation Overview and Scrutiny Committee are 

recommended to support the recommendations in paragraph 3. 

2. If the Overview and Scrutiny Committee approve the views, comments or 

recommendations in the report these will be reported to the Executive for 




3. The Executive is recommended to note the terms of the petition received from 

the residents and users of Church Lane:- 

(a) 

(b) 

to agree in response to the petition that no further action on traffic 

management is justified; and 

instruct the Chief Executive and Director of Administration to inform 

the lead petitioner/s of the action being taken by the Council. 

4. Introduction - petition. This report presents a petition presented by the 

Liberal Democrats Graveney Focus Team in August 2009 containing 138 

signatures from residents and users of Church Lane, SW17, who are concerned 

about heavy lorries, which cause noise and vibration while traversing the road. 

The petitioners ask the Council to take enforcement action against drivers of 

vehicles, which are prohibited from using it, introduction of a 20mph speed 

limit, introduction of a vehicle actuated sign and to reduce the size of the 

existing flat topped tables in the southern section of Church Lane between the 

junctions of Mantilla Road and Mitcham Road. The petition is presented in 

the following terms: 

“Petition concerning traffic measures in Church Lane, SW17 

We, the undersigned, are concerned about the effects of traffic in Church 

Lane. We call on the Council to reduce noise from traffic, to reduce 

consequent house shaking and to improve safety. We call on the Council to 

consider the following measures: - 

a) enforce the ban on lorries over 7.5 tonnes 

b) reduce the speed limit to 20mph 

c) erect a roadside sign that shows drivers their speed 

d) reduce the size of the large road humps outside 50, 80, 106 and 130.” 

5. Background. Church Lane, SW17 (Bedford/Graveney/Furzedown) runs in a 

north-east to south-west direction and is approximately 1.4km in length. It 

connects Tooting Bec Road (A214), a Transport for London Road Network 

road in the north to Mitcham Road (A217) in the south. The northern part of 

Church Lane is a classified road – the B241; the southern section is 

unclassified and is mainly residential on both sides of the road. Church Lane 

and Rectory Lane are within an area in which the Council has introduced a 

prohibition on heavy goods vehicles exceeding 7.5 tonnes GVW and public 

service vehicles. The prohibition includes exemptions to allow a vehicle to 

enter the area to access or make deliveries to premises within the area or to 

access garaging facilities and, in the case of public service vehicles, to allow 

passengers to board or alight. 

6. Additionally Church Lane forms part of the G1 bus route. This route provides 

a ‘hail and ride’ service along the southern section of Church Lane. Therefore, 

there are no predefined stops. The northern section of Church Lane has no 

designated parking along its length and is marked predominately with a single 



yellow line. The southern section has marked parking on both sides of the 

road and is within the Tooting Broadway Controlled Parking Zone E2 sub 

zone, with varying hours of restriction, operating between Monday and 

Saturday. 

7. There are existing speed reducing measures on Church Lane; between the 

junctions of Mantilla Road and Mitcham Road consisting of seven flat-top 

road humps; five sets of speed cushions and a roundabout at the junction with 

Furzedown Road, Rectory Lane and Mantilla Road. These were introduced in 

the early 1990s. In conjunction with a local development scheme, traffic 

calming was introduced in January 2006 on the northern section of Church 

Lane, between the junction of Mantilla Road and Tooting Bec Road, 

comprising five sets of speed cushions and two flat-top road humps 

incorporating pedestrian refuge islands. In the intervening period there has 

been no proven report of damage to properties on Church Lane related to the 

traffic calming measures. 

8. Road traffic accidents. A review of the personal injury accident statistics in 

the previous three-year period ending June 2009 shows that there have been 

seven road traffic accidents, resulting in eight casualties, 3 of which were 

serious and 5 slight injuries. Six of the accidents occurred at intersections 

along Church Lane and are attributable to poor turning movements. None of 

the accidents resulted in pedestrian casualties. 

9. Investigation of traffic conditions, the road environment and analysis of road 

traffic accident casualties on Church Lane, SW17 were undertaken in 2007 

and 2008 as part of the annual Local Safety Scheme programmes; Paper 

No.08/206 and Paper No. 09/82 submitted to this Committee refer. The 

proposal from these studies, approved by the Executive, was to extend existing 

waiting restrictions at junctions to address poor junction visibility and 

associated road traffic accident risk. These were implemented on site in 

March 2009 

10. Traffic surveys were undertaken in December 2007 using automated traffic 

counters to determine traffic speed and the effectiveness of the existing traffic 

calming reducing measures. The survey results for the southern section of 

Church Lane determined the average peak weekday traffic speed as 25.4mph 

northbound and 24.6mph southbound. In the northern section of the road the 

average peak weekday traffic speed as 25.2mph northbound and 23.9mph 

southbound. 

11. Enforcement of lorry ban. The Council's Enforcement team have 

undertaken a programme of active enforcement of the Rectory Lane Lorry 

Bans in partnership with the police. During November 2009, an enforcement 

operation was carried out at both Rectory Lane and the southern section of 

Church Lane. During this enforcement period, which was over 6 hours in 

duration, there was only one recorded infringement of the regulations in 

Church Lane. In an equivalent period for Rectory Lane, there were 18 

infringements enforced. The enforcement team will continue to enforce the 

lorry bans in Church Lane from time to time on a priority basis, however this 



exercise has demonstrated that there are few breaches of the ban in this section 

of Church Lane. 

12. Comment. The traffic surveys have demonstrated that the existing vehicular 

speed reducing measures are effective at maintaining low speeds along the 

road. Reduced vehicular traffic speeds have a proven positive effect on the 

number and severity of road traffic accident casualties. The recorded 

vehicular speed data is below the Council’s criteria warranting further action 

on traffic management measures, and the review of the personal injury 

accident statistics in the previous three-year period ending June 2009 

demonstrates that road traffic accident casualties are below thresholds 

warranting action, typically 3 personal injury accidents (PIA) at a junction or 

12 PIA’s per kilometre, further supporting the effectiveness of the existing 

scheme. 

13. The criteria and thresholds for consideration of traffic calming, as mentioned 

above, have been introduced to ensure the Council targets those areas in most 

need. It is important to prioritise and use the Council’s finite resources in such 

areas. As Church Lane already has effective traffic calming there is no clear 

justification for considering the introduction of a vehicle speed activated 

roadside sign or a 20mph speed limit. 

14. The existing traffic calming features have been inspected which confirmed 

that they are constructed correctly and within current guidelines. They have 

been in place for many years without undue complaints. Whilst it is 

recognised that some ground borne vibrations can be produced by heavy 

traffic traversing traffic calming features, research and advice from the 

Department for Transport have confirmed that the likelihood of damage to 

property is extremely unlikely. It is also known that the perception of such 

vibrations varies with individual people, with the great majority not being 

adversely affected. 

15. Reducing the width of the speed tables is not feasible as Church Lane is a bus 

route and is also used by the emergency services; the needs of the bus 

operators and the emergency services need to be accommodated. Large 

vehicles carrying heavy loads such as buses and fire appliances have firmer 

suspension than vehicles such as cars, therefore to accommodate passengers, 

health and safety obligations and also journey times, design guidelines suggest 

that where speed tables are justified there should be a minimum 6 metre 

plateau to accommodate large passenger vehicles. 

16. Conclusion. It has been noted that Church Lane was the subject of a recent 

local safety investigation and changes have been made at junctions to improve 

sight lines for traffic. It is too early to analyse the effects of these changes. 

Traffic vehicular speeds are low and the existing traffic calming measures are 

considered to be correctly constructed and effective. It is proven that high 

vehicular speeds increase the number and severity of road traffic accident 

casualties, therefore it is not recommended to reduce the size of the current 

speed-reducing scheme, as this would lead to increased vehicular speeds. 



17. In conclusion it is recommended to take no further action on introducing 

further measures or amending the existing measures as requested by the 

petitioners. 

_________________ 


Wandsworth, 

SW18 2PU. 


W.G. MYERS 




1. London Accident Analysis Unit 3-year accident statistics to June 2009 – 

(Maryrose Page, Tel: 020 8871 6685, email mpage@wandsworth.gov.uk.). 

2. Traffic Survey Data compiled by Contract Engineering Services - Consultancy 

2007 – (Maryrose Page, Tel: 020 8871 6685, email 

mpage@wandsworth.gov.uk.). 




2001, in which case the Committee Secretary Mr. Martin Newton (Tel: 020 8871 

6488); email: mnewton@wandsworth.gov.uk can supply it if required. 



Paper No. 10-55 




Report by the Director of Technical Services on an accident reduction study for Bedford 

Hill, SW12 (Balham, Bedford & Nightingale) between the junctions of Balham High 

Road, SW12 (Balham) and the borough boundary. 

SUMMARY 

Background. This report presents the results of a road traffic accident reduction study, 

including an investigation of traffic conditions, the road environment and an analysis of 

personal injury casualties associated with road traffic accidents on the classified road, 

Bedford Hill (B242). The study area includes the length of Bedford Hill from its 

junction with Balham High Road to the boundary with the London Borough of 

Lambeth. The report also sets out the terms of a related petition received by the 

Council in July 2009 from the Streatham Labour Party on behalf of 207 local people 

and provides a response to their request for an additional Zebra crossing pedestrian 

facilitiy on Bedford Hill near the junction with Sistova Road. 

Policy. The Mayor of London approved the Council’s Local Implementation Plan 

(LIP) 2006-2011 in January 2007. Policy number LIP24 states “The Council will 

review road safety annually and will produce a road safety plan detailing proposals to 

reduce road casualties in the borough. Road casualties will be monitored to establish 

priorities from remedial engineering measures.” 

The study has been undertaken within the Council’s 2009/10 local safety scheme 

programme and the measures proposed are consistent with the Council’s policy to 

improve road safety conditions and encourage walking strategies and the use of 

sustainable transport. 

Issues/Proposals. The investigation determines that all but one of the road traffic 

accidents along Bedford Hill occur at junctions. There were 17 road traffic accidents 

in the period resulting in 17 casualties, 6 of which are classified as serious and the 

remainder are classified as slight. Speeding or travelling too fast is a contributory 

factor in approximately 24% of the accidents. Recorded mean vehicular speeds were 

low at less than 25mph, although approximately 13% of vehicles travel in excess of the 

speed limit. There were 4 pedestrian casualties, 2 of which are classified as serious, 


Bedford Hill Accident Reduction Study 

and the causation factor for these accidents are attributed to pedestrian error - crossing 

the road carelessly, recklessly, in a hurry, failure to look properly and alcohol 

impairment. The study considered local concerns of insufficient pedestrian crossing 

facilities on Bedford Hill near the junction with Sistova Road, where there is a 

pedestrian desire line linking the shopping parade area to Balham Rail & Underground 

Station. The scheme proposals are designed to address this by proposing a raised 

Puffin crossing in this area. The proposals aim to address the prevalence of accidents 

at specific junctions by introducing a raised table on Bedford Hill at the junction of 

Elmbourne Road and an entry treatment incorporating kerb extensions at the junction 

with Hillbury Road. It is also proposed to raise the carriageway at the site of the 

existing signalised crossing south of the junction with Byrne Road to assist pedestrians 

and to moderate vehicular speeds. It is proposed to upgrade all junctions locally as 

appropriate to include dropped kerbs and yellow line waiting restrictions. The raised 

carriageway measures proposed are in accordance with guideline requirements for the 

buses and emergency services that use this route and are also consistent with existing 

features on the B242 corridor, including the section that continues into the Borough of 

Lambeth. 

Comments of the Director of Finance. The cost of the proposed works is estimated to 

be £90,000 and can be met from the provision in the approved 2009/10 capital 

programme for Local Safety Schemes funded by TfL. If the work is not completed by 

the 31 st March 2010 and unless agreement can be reached with TfL to carry it forward 

the grant funding is lost which would require the balance of the costs to be met from 

the 2010/11 resources. 

Supporting Information. The proposed scheme has been developed following the 

investigation of accident trends in the previous 3-year record period and a review of the 

local traffic conditions, speeds and volumes and pedestrian demand. Local views 

received by letter and at local meetings, and raised by ward councillors and local 

businesses, have also been considered in the development of the proposals. A copy of 

the summarised results of the survey and road traffic accident data is available from 

Contract Engineering Services (Ms M Page – 020 8871 6685 or 

mpage@wandsworth.gov.uk) 

Conclusions. The scheme aims to reduce the frequency of road traffic accident 

casualties by improving pedestrian crossing facilities and by improving sightlines at 

junctions and reducing speed at main conflict points. It is also intended to improve 

road safety generally by the removal of obstructive parking at specific junctions and 

removing street clutter that is distracting to drivers. It is recommended to undertake 

the detailed design of the proposals and to undertake a public and statutory consultation 

with the Emergency Services, Transport for London (TfL) and stakeholders, in order to 

proceed with implementing the local safety proposals. 



GLOSSARY 

DFT 

LAAU 

TfL 

TLRN 


London Accident Analysis Unit 





2. If the Overview and Scrutiny Committee approve the views, comments or 

recommendations in the report, these will be reported to the Executive for its 



(a) 

(b) 

approve the proposals described in the report and illustrated in drawing 

No.OS/CES/992048/10 Rev0; 

Instruct the Chief Executive and Director of Administration to inform the 

lead petitioner/s of the action being taken by the Council; and 

(c) Instruct the Director of Technical Services to: - 

(i) 

(ii) 

(iii) 

(iv) 

(v) 

carry out the detailed design for the scheme; 

carry out statutory consultation on the proposed improvements; 

carry out public consultation with local residents and businesses on 

the proposals; 

make the necessary Traffic Management Orders; and 

to implement the proposals as detailed in the report, subject to no 

unresolved objections being received. 

4. Petition. A petition was presented by the Streatham Labour Party in July 2009 

containing 207 signatures from local residents and users of Bedford Hill, SW17, 

who are concerned about pedestrian crossing facilities on Bedford Hill at the 

junction with Sistova Road. The petitioners ask the Council to introduce a Zebra 

crossing to assist pedestrians to cross the busy road and to promote walking. The 

petition is presented in the following terms: 

“Help make Balham Safer for Pedestrians 

Petition to Wandsworth Council from 207 Balham Residents 



We, the undersigned, are concerned for the safety of pedestrians in Balham when 

they are crossing Bedford Hill at the junction with Sistova Road. Many people 

including families with young children use this route to access the centre of 

Balham and they are currently forced to cross a busy road unaided. 

We call on Wandsworth Council to install a zebra crossing at this junction which 

will help pedestrians to cross Bedford Hill safely and encourage walking to and 

from Balham”. 

5. Background. Bedford Hill (B242) is classified as a local distributor and an 

important north-south link between Wandsworth and the London Borough of 

Lambeth. It links Balham High Road (A24) in the north to Tooting Bec Road 

(A214) via Garrads Road in Lambeth in the south at the borough boundary with 

Streatham. Balham High Road and Tooting Bec Road are on the Transport for 

London’s Road Network (TLRN). The section of Bedford Hill between the 

junction of Balham High Road and Hillbury Road is mainly residential with retail 

and business units near to the junction with Balham High Road. It also provides 

access to Balham Rail and Underground Station. 

6. There are existing junction signals with pedestrian facilities on Bedford Hill at the 

junctions with Balham High Road and Balham Station Road. There are two 

signalised pelican crossings, one south of the junction with Byrne Road and a 

raised table crossing facility on Bedford Hill south of the junction with Culverden 

Path. In 2005 a raised junction table was introduced at the junction with Sistova 

Road to provide a safe crossing point for pedestrians. 

7. There are seven existing carriageway pedestrian refuges on Bedford Hill located 

outside property numbers 132, 146, 158, 168, 190 and another one located 

approximately 20 metres south of the Wimborne House access. In 2003, a raised 

table signalised pedestrian crossing facility was introduced on Bedford Hill near 

to Culverden Path. The scheme has been effective in improving safety for 

pedestrians and the raised table is successful at reducing the speed of vehicular 

traffic in the vicinity of the crossing. Two Vehicle Actuated Signs are located on 

Bedford Hill, one on the southbound approach to the junction with Dornton Road 

and another 250 metres north of the borough boundary southbound approach. 

8. The London Borough of Lambeth introduced a traffic management scheme in 

early 2009 comprising speed-reducing tables in Garrads Road (B232). One of the 

tables is located within Wandsworth in Bedford Hill just north of the borough 

boundary. 

9. In September 2005 Paper No. 05/685 was submitted to the Committee 

recommending a signalised junction proposal at the junction with Balham Station 

Road and Fernlea Road, which was to include a pedestrian phase on all arms, 

subject to the outcome of traffic modelling. The proposals aimed to resolve local 



concerns regarding insufficient crossing facilities in the section of Bedford Hill, 

between the junctions of Balham Station Road and Balham High Road. The 

detailed traffic modelling was undertaken in association with TfL and the 

outcome determined that the impact of the proposals on traffic conditions on the 

TLRN and local roads rendered the proposals unfeasible. Therefore, it was 

decided not to progress the proposals to implementation. 

10. Bedford Hill is in the Tooting Bec and Balham Controlled Parking Zones D3 & 

H3 subzones; the hours of operation are 9:30am to 4:30pm, Monday to Saturday. 

The section of Bedford Hill, between the junctions of Hillbury Road and Garrads 

Road, is bounded by Tooting Bec Common on both sides and is straight with 

good visibility. There is single yellow line waiting restrictions for the entire 

length of this section, which is generally clear of parked cars. 

11. One bus route, the 315, travels along the length of Bedford Hill. It is a ‘hail and 

ride’ service, with 6 bus stops along the road on both sides. 

12. Road traffic accidents. A review of the personal injury statistics compiled by 

the London Accident Analysis Unit (LAAU) and the Metropolitan Police in the 

previous three-year period ending June 2009 shows that there have been 17 road 

traffic accidents in the study area, which is equivalent to approximately 11 

accidents per kilometre. This is slightly less than the baseline 3-year average of 

12 accidents per km for link roads defined in the Council’s Road Safety Plan. 

Associated with the accident statistics, there have been 17 casualties, 6 of which 

are classified as serious and the remainder classified as slight. Four of the road 

traffic accidents, including 2 serious accidents, involved pedestrians. There were 

5 powered 2-wheeler casualties and 1 pedal cyclist. 16 of the accidents occurred 

at intersections along Bedford Hill, 2 of which occurred on the TLRN at the 

junction with Balham High Road. The causation factors for the majority of 

junction accidents are attributed to poor turning movements or failure to “look 

properly”. Inspection of the accident data shows that there are two distinct 

accident clusters, one at the junctions of Larch Close and also at the junctions of 

Elmbourne Road and Hillbury Road 

13. Traffic surveys. Automated traffic surveys were undertaken in November 2008 

over a 7-day 24-hour period to ascertain the volume and speed of vehicles. In 

addition, pedestrian surveys were undertaken in the vicinity of the junction with 

Sistova Road to assess pedestrian volumes, in November 2009. 

14. Traffic speed. The vehicular speed limit in the area is 30mph. The average 

mean speed recorded in the 12-hour weekday period is 24mph. However, 13% of 

vehicular speed recorded were in excess of the speed limit. 

15. Traffic volume. The traffic volume on Bedford Hill is consistent with the 

classification of the road. The average traffic volume recorded in the 12-hour 



weekday period is 1162vph with an average peak volume of 1432vph between 

5pm and 6pm. 

16. Pedestrian conditions. A survey of the number of pedestrians crossing within a 

50 metre radius of the junction with Sistova Road, indicated to be the local 

crossing desire line, was undertaken on a typical weekday in November 2009. 

Six hours of data was collected, in the AM and PM peak hours and also during 

two off peak hours. The pedestrian surveys determined a maximum pedestrian 

demand of 609 pedestrians in the morning peak hour. Off-peak, the pedestrian 

demand is constant at approximately 200 pedestrians per hour. 

17. Proposals. In recognition of the local demand for additional pedestrian crossing 

facilities from the residential area and shopping parade to the north and Balham 

Rail & Underground Station, and in consideration of the decision not to progress 

the introduction of pedestrian facilities at the junction of Bedford Hill with 

Balham Station Road, it is proposed to introduce a controlled pedestrian crossing 

facility adjacent to the existing raised junction table at the junction with Sistova 

Road. The Department for Transport (DfT) guidance relating to the conflict of 

pedestrians and vehicles has been used as a basis of determining the need for a 

formal crossing point , and confirmed the need for a signalised pedestrian 

crossing. 

18. A Puffin crossing is proposed on a raised carriageway platform, which will adjoin 

the existing raised junction. As required by DfT design requirements, waiting and 

loading restrictions will be introduced, which will necessitate the removal of up to 

3 parking bays. In consideration of loading requirements to local businesses, it is 

proposed to introduce a loading bay outside 35 Bedford Hill, which will operate 

between 7am and 4:30pm. A Puffin crossing is a signalised pedestrian crossing 

that is an updated version of a Pelican crossing. Puffin crossings have sensors 

built in which can detect a pedestrian waiting and make sure that traffic remains 

stopped until all the pedestrians have crossed the road. Puffins do not have a 

flashing green man for pedestrians or a flashing amber for drivers. The sensors 

also can tell when someone has pressed the wait button but then has crossed 

before the green man, in this case the sensors cancel the pedestrian phase to 

prevent drivers being forced to stop at an empty crossing. This will prevent 

unnecessary traffic disruption in the area, but would still provide pedestrians a 

safer crossing place. 

19. It is also proposed to introduce a raised table at the existing pelican crossing north 

of the junction with Larch Close. A raised table is where the road surface is 

raised to be level with the footway. The aim is to slow traffic, improve sight lines 

for cars and improve conditions for pedestrians crossing the road, particularly the 

disabled and pedestrians with buggies. A raised crossing would also help slow 

traffic even when there is no pedestrian demand and this will improve conditions 

for all road users in this vicinity. 



20. To address the road traffic accident casualties that occur at junctions related to 

sightlines, it is proposed to introduce a raised table on Bedford Hill at the junction 

with Elmbourne Road and an entry treatment with integrated kerb extensions at 

the junction with Hillbury Road. The measures will include associated ‘at 

anytime’ waiting restrictions. These measures will improve sightlines for 

vehicles emerging from the side roads and will also improve conditions for 

pedestrians wishing to cross the road, particularly for disabled and vulnerable 

pedestrians. The raised junction table at the intersection with Elmbourne Road 

will have the further advantage of reducing vehicular speed in this area and 

raising driver awareness and perception of danger. All of the accidents in this 

area have causation factors attributed to failure of drivers to observe local 

conditions; a reduction in vehicular speed will address this type of driver 

behaviour. To further improve pedestrian conditions it is proposed to enhance the 

existing pedestrian refuge islands with tactile dropped kerb crossing arrangements 

and remove unnecessary street furniture clutter. 

21. The raised carriageway measures proposed are consistent with guideline 

requirements for the buses and emergency services that use this route and are also 

consistent with existing features on the B242 corridor, including the section that 

continues into the Borough of Lambeth. 

22. Programme of works. Subject to the outcome of the consultation, it is 

anticipated that the implementation of the proposals could commence on site 

during the last quarter of 2009/10. Due to the proposals for a signalised crossing 

this aspect of the works would be programmed for the 2 nd or 3 rd quarter of 

20010/11. 

23. Comments of the Director of Finance. The cost of the proposed works is 

estimated to be £90,000 and can be met from the provision in the approved 

2009/10 capital programme for Local Safety Schemes funded by TfL. If the work 

is not completed by the 31 st March 2010 and unless agreement can be reached 

with TfL to carry it forward the grant funding is lost which would require the 

balance of the costs to be met from the 2010/11 resources. 

24. Conclusion. Albeit that recorded mean vehicular speeds are within the speed 

limit, speeding vehicles are still a contributory factor in over 24% of the accident 

statistics and 13% of vehicles travel in excess of the speed limit. Maintaining a 

consistent vehicular speed reduction along this busy traffic corridor would 

proactively contribute to a reduction in the number of road traffic accident 

casualties. 

25. The proposed improvements for the specific junctions where poor sightlines for 

emerging vehicles has caused road traffic accident casualties, would not only 

address this type of accident but will also improve conditions for pedestrians 

crossing the side roads. The introduction of the proposed signalised Puffin 

crossing would reduce resident’s perception of danger and respond to the petition 



received by the Council, as noted in this report. This formal crossing point would 

also increase pedestrian usage at a point leading to public transport links, leisure 

and amenity centres and retail outlets, as supported by the petitioners’ concerns. 

It complies with the Council’s strategy to promote sustainable transport such as 

walking initiatives. 


Wandsworth, 

SW18 2PU 


________________ 

W. G. MYERS 




1. LAAU 3-year accident statistics to June 2009 – Maryrose Page, Tel: 020 8871 

6685, email mpage@wandsworth.gov.uk. 

2. Traffic Survey Data compiled by Contract Engineering Services - Consultancy 

2009 – Maryrose Page, Tel: 020 8871 6685, email mpage@wandsworth.gov.uk. 












Report by the Director of Technical Services on the outcome of consultation for a 

proposal to remove the existing right turn banned turning movement from Aldrington 

Road (Furzedown) into Mitcham Lane, SW16 (Furzedown). 

SUMMARY 

Background. This report details the outcome of the design for a proposal to remove the 

existing right turn banned turning movement from Aldrington Road into Mitcham Lane 

and the subsequent consultation exercise undertaken. . The proposals were developed 

in response to a petition from residents of Westcote Road and Eardley Road. 

Policy. The Mayor of London approved the Council’s Local Implementation Plan 

(LIP) 2006-2011 in January 2007. This document shows how the Council is assisting 

the implementation of the Mayor’s Transport Strategy to the year 2011. Policy number 

LIP15 states “The Council will identify congestion hotspots and bottlenecks and will 

work with Transport for London (TfL) and neighbouring authorities to develop 

proposals to make the network more efficient.” 

Issues/Proposals. A detailed traffic modelling exercise to determine the effects of 

removing the banned right turn from Aldrington Road into Mitcham Lane has been 

undertaken with the aim of reducing traffic congestion and improving traffic conditions 

in the Westcote Road and Eardley Road triangle. A design submission was issued to 

TfL for agreement and they confirmed their consent to the proposal in September 2009. 

A public consultation was undertaken with residents and businesses with 435 being 

consulted in October 2009. 57 responses were received, and of these the majority, 

88% supported the proposed amendments. It is therefore recommended to implement 

the proposals. 

Director of Finance Comments. The cost of the proposed works estimated to be £5,000 

will be met from the provision in the capital programme for Traffic Management 

Schemes in 2009/10. 

Supporting Information. A summary of the consultation results was used in preparing 

this report which is available from Contract Engineering Services (Ms M Page – 020 

8871 6685 or mpage@wandsworth.gov.uk). 

Conclusions. In consideration of the outcome of the detailed traffic analysis of the 


Westcote Consultation 

signalised junction and local support for the proposals it is recommended to proceed 

with the detailed design and implementation of the proposed scheme. 

GLOSSARY 

LIP 

TfL 






recommendations on the report these will be reported to the Executive for its 


3. The Executive is recommended to instruct the Director of Technical Services to:- 

(a) 

(b) 

make the necessary Traffic Management Orders; and 

subject to no unresolved objections being received to implement the 

proposed scheme. 

4. Investigation. This report presents the outcome of a traffic modelling submission 

and also the outcome of a public consultation on a proposal to modify the 

Mitcham Lane junction signals with Aldrington Road, with the aim of reducing 

traffic congestion and improving traffic conditions in the Westcote Road and 

Eardley Road triangle. The proposals comprise removing the existing right turn 

banned traffic turning movement from Aldrington Road into Mitcham Lane. 

These proposals were developed in response to a petition from residents of 

Westcote Road and Eardley Road presented to the Council by Councillor Mrs. L. 

Cooper on 9th July 2008, requesting the introduction of traffic management 

measures in Westcote Road, Paper No. 08-864 reported to this Committee in 

November 2008 refers. 

5. Traffic signals in London are operated, implemented and maintained by TfL. 

TfLs procedures require all new requests for proposed installations or amendment 

to existing signals to be submitted to them for approval. Comprehensive traffic 

modelling of the proposed amendments for the Mitcham Lane/Aldrington Road 

junction signals was undertaken and the effect on traffic conditions over a wider 

area was determined by specialist traffic signals consulting engineers on behalf of 

the Council. The result of the traffic modelling was submitted to TfLs Director of 

Traffic Operations in summer 2009 for consideration and approval. 

6. Consultation. The Council received TfLs consent to implement the amendments 

to these signals in September 2009. A public consultation exercise regarding these 

proposals was prepared and undertaken with local residents and businesses to 

assess local support for the scheme. A consultation letter was hand-delivered by 



council officers to 435 properties in the consultation area in mid October 2009, 

with a pre-paid facility to return the questionnaire by 6th November 2009. 57 

responses were received, which represents a 13% response rate. Although 

comparatively low, this is a typical response rate for public consultations on 

similar traffic signal issues. Of those that responded the majority, 88% (50), 

supported the proposed amendments; 7%(4) were not in favour and the remainder 

(3) had no opinion. Several comments were received from respondents, generally 

supporting the aim of reducing congestion in the area. 

7. Statutory consultation with the Emergency Services and Police was also 

undertaken with no comments being received. 

8. Proposal. Therefore it is proposed to proceed with the implementation of the 

removal of the banned turning movement from Aldrington Road into Mitcham 

Lane. The existing pedestrian phase within the current signal arrangements would 

also be reviewed and optimised as appropriate. 

9. Programme of works. The proposed changes to the signals are programmed to 

be implemented in the final quarter of 2009/10, however a confirmed programme 

date is yet to be established with TfL who would be undertaking the works to the 

signals. 

10. Comments of the Director of Finance. The cost of the proposed works 

estimated to be £5,000 will be met from the provision in the capital programme 

for Traffic Management Schemes in 2009/10. 

11. Conclusion. It is recognised that the response rate to this type of public 

consultation can often be low; however, there is a clear majority of respondents 

that support the proposals. The scheme aims to improve conditions for all road 

users and remove unnecessary traffic from the Westcote Road/Eardley Road 

triangle in line with local requests and Council policies. 


Wandsworth, 

SW18 2PU. 

_______________________ 

W. G. MYERS 








1. Public consultation summary results November 2009 – (Maryrose Page, Tel: 020 

8871 6685, email mpage@wandsworth.gov.uk.). 












Report by the Director of Technical Services on a local safety study in Putney Hill 

SW15 (East Putney, West Putney). 

SUMMARY 

Background. Putney Hill, SW15 has consistently appeared in the list of roads 

with a high road traffic accident casualty record and is identified in the 

Council’s road safety plan 2009/10 priority list for action. This report presents 

the results of an investigation into personal injury road traffic accidents 

occurring in Putney Hill and proposes measures to improve road safety and to 

reduce the overall number of road traffic accident casualties. 

Policy. The Mayor of London approved the Council’s Local Implementation 

Plan (LIP) 2006-2011 in January 2007. Policy number LIP24 states “The 

Council will review road safety annually and will produce a road safety plan 

detailing proposals to reduce road casualties in the Borough. Road casualties 

will be monitored to establish priorities from remedial engineering measures.” 

This study has been undertaken as part of the Council’s local safety scheme 

(LSS) programme and the measures proposed are consistent with the Council’s 

policy, which includes the introduction of local safety schemes to address sites 

with high recorded incidents of road traffic accident casualties and improve 

road safety conditions. 

Issues/Proposals. Following investigation of the road traffic accident casualties 

it is proposed to implement raised junction entry treatments at the junctions 

with Kersfield Road, Westleigh Avenue, Cambalt Road and St John’s Avenue. 

Also proposed is the rationalising of street furniture to improve intervisibility at 

junctions and enhancement of the tactile paving and dropped kerbs at various 

locations. To assist in the improvement of vehicular journey times by removing 

obstructive parking and to improve visibility for drivers, waiting restrictions 

operating at any time are proposed along sections of Putney Hill. 

These proposals are shown on drawing No. OS/CES/MA/972404, which will 

be displayed on the evening of the meeting in the Committee room. 

Director of Finance Comments. The proposed scheme is estimated to cost 

£85,000 and will be met from the provision in the approved 2009/10 capital 

programme for Local Safety Schemes funded by Transport for London. If the 


Putney Hill Local Safety Study 

work is not completed by 31 st March 2010 and unless agreement can be reached 

with TfL to carry it forward the grant funding is lost which would require the 

balance of the costs to be met from the 2010/11 resources. 

Supporting Information. Traffic survey data and traffic accident statistics are 

available from Martin Hoare, mhoare@wandsworth.gov.uk. 

Conclusions. The proposals are intended to address the causes of accidents by 

slowing traffic and improving visibility at junctions. The proposals aim to 

improve road safety and reduce the overall number and severity of personal 

injury traffic accidents on Putney Hill particularly those involving cyclists and 

motorcyclists. In addition, measures are proposed to improve the movement of 

traffic along this route and aid visibility for drivers. 

GLOSSARY 

TfL - Transport for London 




recommendations on the report these will be reported to the Executive for its 



(a) approve the proposals described in the report and illustrated on 

drawing number OS/CES/MA/972404; and 


(i) carry out the detailed design; 

(ii) carry out statutory consultation on the proposed improvements; 

(iii) notify local residents, businesses, cycle groups and other 

relevant bodies of the proposals; 

(iv) advertise the associated notices under the Highways Act 1980; 

and 

(v) subject to no unresolved objections being received, to 

implement the proposals. 

4. Background. Putney Hill (A219) is approximately 830m long and links the 

Upper Richmond Road (A205) to Tibbett’s Ride to the south of Putney Hill 

along the A219. The speed limit is 30 mph and vehicular traffic volumes are 

in the order of 20,000 vehicles per day. There is a speed camera near the 

junction with Kersfield Road that was implemented following a fatal road 

traffic accident in 2004. Putney Hill is bordered on both sides by common 

(Paper No. 10-) Page 2 of 6


land between Tibbet’s roundabout and Putney Heath, and residential 

properties between Putney Heath and Upper Richmond Road. 

5. Waiting restrictions operate along the entire length of Putney Hill between 

7am and 7pm Monday to Friday. 

6. The junction with Chartfield Avenue is signalised and includes a pedestrian 

phase. Also, there are 3 centre island refuges along Putney Hill that provide 

pedestrian crossing points. 

7. Putney Hill forms part of the Borough cycle route network and has a 

southbound advisory cycle lane marked in the carriageway. 

8. Bus routes 14,37,39,85 and 93 run along Putney Hill and there is a northbound 

bus lane which operates between 7am to 7pm Monday to Saturday. 

9. Traffic Speeds and Volumes. Vehicular traffic speeds and volumes were 

monitored in Putney Hill using an automatic traffic counter for two weeks in 

April / May 2009, during school term time. 

10. The total daily volume and mean average speed recorded in this survey from 

Monday to Friday over 24hrs are 20,000 vehicles per day and 25.1mph 

respectively. 

11. Road Traffic Accident Casualty Analysis. A review of the road traffic 

accident casualties in the three-year study period to April 2009, when the 

study was undertaken, shows there have been 36 accidents in Putney Hill with 

a total of 42 casualties; 29 of the accidents were recorded as slight and 7 as 

serious. Of the 42 casualties, 2 were pedestrians, 10 were cyclists, 12 were 

motorcyclists, 7 were car occupants, 4 were Public Service Vehicle passengers 

and the remaining 1 was unclassified. 

12. 30 of the recorded accidents occurred at junctions. 2 of these accidents 

involved pedestrians, 10 involved cyclists and 14 involved motorcyclists. A 

particular concern on Putney Hill is the high number of road traffic accidents 

involving motorcycles and pedal cycles. Of the two accidents involving 

pedestrians, one of them crossed into the path of a vehicle and one was hit on 

a pelican crossing. 

13. The Metropolitan Police list the main contributory factors relating to these 

accidents as poor turning or manoeuvring; failed to look properly; 

careless/reckless driving; failed to judge other vehicle’s path/speed and 

travelling too fast for the road conditions. 

The results are summarised in table 1 below. 

Page 3 of 6 (Paper No. 10-)


Location 

along 

Putney Hill 

Upper 

Richmond 

Rd to St 

John’s Ave 

Cambalt 

Rd 

No.of 

Accidents 

Passenger 

fell as bus 

braked 

Pedestrian 

crossed into 

path of 

vehicle 

(Paper No. 10-) Page 4 of 6 

Driver failed 

to stop/giveway 

/destructed/ 

lost control 

/Shunt 

8 1s 2s 2s 1se 2s 

Right/left/u-turning 

injudiciously 

3 2s 1se 

Carlton Rd 7 7s 

Lytton 

Grove 

2 1s 1s 

Westleigh 

Avenue 

4 1s 1se 2s 1se 

Kersfield 

Road 

1 1s 

Manor 

Fields 

3 1s 2se 

Putney 

Heath 

8 2s 5s 1se 

Total 36 2s 2s 7s 1se 18s 6e 

Table 1: Road Traffic Accident Summary 

14. Proposals. Junction entry treatments. 11 of the 36 accidents involved 

turning movements at junctions without entry treatments with contributory 

factors including failing to look properly, poor manoeuvring and travelling too 

fast for the road conditions. The provision of entry treatments should 

contribute towards the reduction of this type of accident. 

15. Junction entry treatments are an established method of slowing traffic through 

a junction and also improves intervisibility between vehicles emerging from 

junctions and those on the main road. This type of measure will also assist 

pedestrians particularly those with pushchairs and wheelchairs since the entry 

treatment provides a level surface between the footways and carriageway. 

16. Coloured surfacing in advisory cycle lanes across junctions. All 10 of the 

collisions involving cyclists occurred at junctions with the southbound 

advisory cycle lane. To improve the conspicuity of the cycle lane and assist 

motorists in anticipating the presence of cyclists at these locations it is 

proposed to provide green coloured surfacing in the cycle lane across the 

junction in the carriageway. 

17. Rationalisation of existing street furniture. Four junctions currently have 

timber bollards adjacent to them which reduces the usable footway width and 

also restricts intervisibility between vehicles emerging from the junction and


those on Putney Hill. As 10 of the 36 accidents occurred at these junctions 

and the Metropolitan Police list failing to look properly as contributory factor, 

an improvement in intervisibility should assist in the reduction of road traffic 

accident casualties at these locations. It is therefore proposed to rationalise the 

timber bollards adjacent to these junctions after assessing their continued 

requirement on site. Where timber bollards have to be retained they would be 

replaced with thinner units thereby improving upon the visibility at these 

locations. 

18. Similarly, a review of the signage and other street furniture along Putney Hill 

has identified a number of items that can be relocated onto nearby light 

columns, sign posts or to a new highway location with the aim being to assist 

in improving intervisibility. 

19. Waiting restrictions. To maintain clear visibility at junctions and sections of 

Putney Hill where bus operators have reported obstructive parking, double 

yellow lines are proposed, as shown on drawing number OS/CES/MA/972404. 

By maintaining clear visibility at junctions the possibility of road traffic 

accidents taking place where poor visibility is a contributory factor is reduced. 

20. Programme of works. Subject to the outcome of the consultation, it is 

anticipated that the implementation of the proposals could commence on site 

during the last quarter of 2009/10. 

21. Comments of the Director of Finance. The proposed scheme is estimated to 

cost £85,000 and will be met from the provision in the approved 2009/10 

capital programme for Local Safety Schemes funded by Transport for London. 

If the work is not completed by 31st March 2010 and unless agreement can be 

reached with TfL to carry it forward the grant funding is lost which would 

require the balance of the costs to be met from the 2010/11 resources. 

22. Conclusion. The proposals aim to reduce vehicular speeds through junctions 

and improve inter-visibility, thereby reducing the numbers and severity of 

road traffic accidents that have been occurring at these locations along Putney 

Hill. The proposals also seek to improve pedestrian facilities and are in line 

with the Council’s policies relating to walking and road traffic accident 

casualty reduction. Casualty reductions achieved will contribute to the 

achievement of the road traffic casualty reduction targets. 

23. Furthermore, to address issues associated with the free and safe movement of 

traffic along Putney Hill waiting restrictions are proposed to deter obstructive 

parking. 

_________________ 


Wandsworth, 

SW18 2PU. 


W. G. MYERS 


Page 5 of 6 (Paper No. 10-)



The following background papers were used in the preparation of this report: 

1. Accident statistics May 2006 – April 2009 – Martin Hoare, Tel: 020 8871 

6664, email mhoare@wandsworth.gov.uk. 

2. Road safety plan 2006/2007 – Martin Hoare, Tel: 020 8871 6664, email 

mhoare@wandsworth.gov.uk. 




2001, in which case the Committee Secretary (Mr. M Newton – 020 8871 6488; email 


(Paper No. 10-) Page 6 of 6





EXECUTIVE 18TH JANUARY 2010 

Report by the Director of Technical Services on the operational reviews of the 

Commons’ cycle routes, Wandsworth Common, SW11 and SW12 (Wandsworth 

Common, Northcote and Nightingale) and Tooting Bec Common, SW12 and SW16 

(Bedford and Furzedown) 

SUMMARY 

Background The two cycle routes across Wandsworth Common and Tooting Bec 

Common became operational, following Public Inquiries and confirmation of their 

respective Cycle Track Orders, in March and November 2006 respectively. 

In June 2007, the Council commissioned consultants to undertake operational reviews 

of both of the Commons cycle routes. The findings were then used to put forward 

recommendations for possible improvements to these cycle routes. 

The principal issue examined was whether the current segregated, shared use operation 

of the cycle routes should continue or be removed in favour of a shared, unsegregated 

route. 

Policy. In accordance with Council policies relating to cycling and walking in the 

Local Implementation Plan (LIP), policy number LIP48 states: ‘The Council will 

complete a network of safe and convenient cycle routes using the most appropriate 

roads and paths’ For walking, LIP45 states: ‘The Council will improve and promote 

traffic-free walking routes in the Borough, including the Thames Path, Capital Ring 

and Wandle Trail.’ 

Issues/proposals. Transport for London (TfL) and Sustrans (the sustainable transport 

charity) have commissioned the production of Design Guidance for use on Greenways 

(off-highway) walking and cycling schemes, and these are due for publication in March 

2010. The intention is for TfL/Sustrans to be able to offer local authorities a set of 

guidance and a toolkit which can be used to help assess off-road walking and cycling 

facilities, and to aid the decision-making process when designing improvements. The 

segregated shared-use facility on Tooting Bec Common, which is well used throughout 

the week by a variety of different people of all ages, has been selected as one of the six 

proposed sites London wide to test the draft toolkit and guidelines. 

Therefore, it is considered prudent that any recommendations for improvements to the 

commons’ cycle routes, that would fundamentally change the existing segregated 


Review of Cycle Routes on Commons 

shared usage, be deferred for further consideration and review until completion of the 

trials on Tooting Bec Common and publication of the new greenways design guidance 

Comments of the Director of Finance The cost of the proposed study on the Tooting 

Bec Common cycle route is to be undertaken this financial year as part of the Design 

Guidance for Greenways and will be met by TfL. 

Conclusions. The Director of Technical Services (DTS) has examined the proposals for 

both commons’ cycle routes, put forward by the independent consultant. In view of the 

major work being carried out by TfL/Sustrans into cycle design guidance and the 

production of a toolkit to assess cycle schemes, he considers it sensible to defer a 

decision on any proposals for Wandsworth and Tooting Bec Commons at this time. 

The DTS will submit a report to this Overview and Scrutiny Committee following 

publication of the design guidance and its application to assessing the cycle routes on 

these commons. 

GLOSSARY 

DoLAS 

DTS 

LIP 

TfL 

Director of Leisure and Amenity Services 









3. The Executive is recommended to defer any decisions on the operation of the 

cycle routes on both Wandsworth Common and Tooting Bec Common, until 

the trials by TfL/Sustrans on Tooting Bec Common have been completed and 

the published toolkit can be used as an aid to assess both commons’ routes. 

4. Introduction. The implementation of both the Wandsworth and Tooting Bec 

Commons’ cycle routes was very protracted, being the subject of two Public 

Inquiries and involving considerable officer and financial resources. After 

almost 10 years since their inception, the two routes became operational, 

following confirmation of their respective Cycle Track Orders, in March and 

November 2006 respectively. 

5. The cycle routes were originally designed and approved in the mid 1990s as 

segregated shared use to address the concerns raised by the Wandsworth 

Access Group about suitability for use by disabled people. 

6. Operational reviews of both commons’ cycle routes. In June 2007, the 

Council commissioned consultants to undertake operational reviews of both of 



the commons’ cycle routes. The consultants considered various issues and the 

findings were then used to put forward recommendations for possible 

improvements to the routes. The final draft operational reports for both 

commons’ cycle routes were distributed to stakeholders for comment and 

feedback, before being submitted to the DTS. 

7. Design Guidance for use on Greenways (off-highway) walking and cycling 

schemes. TfL/Sustrans has commissioned the production of Design Guidance 

for use on Greenways (off-highway) walking and cycling schemes, and these 

are due for publication in March 2010. The intention is for TfL/Sustrans to be 

able to offer local authorities design guidance and a toolkit, which can be used 

to help assess off-road walking and cycling facilities, and to aid the decisionmaking 

process when designing improvements. 

8. The first stage of the project consisted of collecting and assessing use and 

behaviours on different types of Greenway, in conjunction with stakeholder 

consultations. Phase 1 of this project concluded in March 2009 and produced 

a draft set of design guidelines and a draft toolkit. 

9. Phase 2 is being undertaken between now and March 2010 and is largely 

concerned with testing the drafts by applying the guidance and toolkit at new 

locations, which were not assessed during Phase 1. TfL/Sustrans have 

identified a list of six sites across London to test the toolkit. This list is 

intended to cover a range of location-types that were not included in the 

original Phase 1, and also locations where a scheme is planned and so the 

toolkit may aid the design process. The segregated shared-use facility on 

Tooting Bec Common, which is well used throughout the week by a variety of 

different people of all ages, has been selected as a proposed site to test the 

draft toolkit and guidelines. 

10. Proposal. The DTS, in liaison with the Director of Leisure and Amenity 

Services (DoLAS), has examined the details contained in the consultant’s 

Operational Review reports and has considered their conclusions and 

recommendations for both commons’ cycle routes. Both the DTS and DoLAS 

have also taken into account that, as mentioned above, there is currently major 

work being undertaken by TfL and Sustrans into the production of Design 

Guidance for Greenways. This work, due to be completed by next spring, 

incorporates an investigation, using the associated toolkit, to assess the 

operation of the cycle routes on Tooting Bec Common. 

11. On balance, the DTS concludes that any recommendations for improvements 

to both the Wandsworth and Tooting Bec Commons’ cycle routes be deferred 

for further consideration and review following completion of the trials on 

Tooting Bec Common and publication of the new greenways design guidance. 

12. The DTS will prepare a comprehensive report for consideration at future 

meetings of the Planning and Transportation Overview and Scrutiny 

Committee, the Environment and Leisure Overview and Scrutiny Committee 

and any other OSC and approval by the Executive on the outcome of the 

Operational Reviews of the Wandsworth and Tooting Bec Commons’ cycle 



routes. This would be undertaken following the conclusions of the toolkit 

exercise and publication of the design guidance. 

13. Comments of the Director of Finance. The cost of the proposed study on 

the Tooting Bec Common cycle route is to be undertaken this financial year as 

part of the Design Guidance for Greenways and will be met by TfL. 

14. Comments of the Director of Leisure and Amenity Services. The Director 

of Leisure and Amenity Services supports the proposal that any 

recommendations for improvements to the cycle routes on both Tooting and 

Wandsworth Commons be deferred for further consideration once the new 

Greenways design Guidance has been published. 

15. Conclusion. The operational reviews undertaken by the independent 

consultants considered the cycle routes on both commons’ routes and made 

recommendations regarding changes to these cycle routes. 

16. However, preparation of new design guidance and an associated toolkit to 

assess Greenways (off-highway) walking and cycle schemes, due to be 

completed in March 2010, may influence the decision regarding how to 

proceed with Wandsworth and Tooting Bec Commons’ cycle routes. In these 

circumstances, the DTS considers that a decision to defer any proposals until 

the design guidance and toolkit have been used as aids to the final assessment 

of these routes makes sound, technical sense. 


Wandsworth, 

SW18 2PU. 

5 th January 2010 


_____________ 

W. G. MYERS 



1. Operational Review of Wandsworth Common Cycle Route. Final report – 

December 2008. 

2. Operational Review of Tooting Bec Common Cycle Route. Final report – 

December 2008. 



(www.wandsworth.gov.uk/committ) unless the report was published before May 

2001, in which case the Committee Secretary (Mr. M Newton – 020 8871 6006; email 







EXECUTIVE - 18TH JANUARY 2010 

Report by the Director of Technical Services on proposed cycle routes for Burntwood 

Lane, SW17 (Wandsworth Common), Bolingbroke Grove, SW12 (Northcote), Albert 

Bridge Road, SW11 (Queenstown, St Mary’s Park and Latchmere) and Chillerton 

Road/Rectory Lane, SW16 (Furzedown and Graveney) 

SUMMARY 

Background. In June 2007, the Council commissioned consultants to prepare 

an options report for cycle provision for the section of Burntwood Lane 

between Sandgate Lane and Trinity Road, SW17 (Wandsworth Common). 

An associated request has been received from Councillor Beddows (Northcote) 

to investigate the feasibility of introducing an off-carriageway cycle route in 

Bolingbroke Grove along the footway, between Nightingale Lane and Chivalry 

Road, SW12 (Northcote). 

In addition, as part of the ‘missing links’ programme for the Non - London 

Cycle Network (LCN) plus routes, studies have been undertaken by the 

Director of Technical Services (DTS) into the feasibility of introducing a cycle 

route on Albert Bridge Road (between Albert Bridge and Battersea Park Road), 

SW11 (Queenstown, St Mary’s Park and Latchmere) and upgrading the cycle 

route on Chillerton Road/Rectory Lane, SW17 (Furzedown and Graveney). 

Policy. The proposals are in accordance with Council policies relating to 

cycling and walking in the Local Implementation Plan (LIP). In terms of 

cycling, policy number LIP48 states: ‘The Council will complete a network of 

safe and convenient cycle routes using the most appropriate roads and paths’ 

For walking, LIP45 states: ‘The Council will improve and promote traffic-free 

walking routes in the borough, including the Thames Path, Capital Ring and 

Wandle Trail. 

Issues/proposals. Following the outcome of the options report from the 

consultant and other investigations carried out by the DTS, measures are 

proposed for implementation, affecting four cycle routes. One of the projects, 

Burntwood Lane (between Sandgate Lane and Trinity Road) involves proposed 

modifications to an existing section of the cycle route as a result of reviews of 

its current operation. The proposals for all of these routes are provided in detail 

in paragraphs 8 - 20 of this report and drawings for all four schemes will be on 

Page 1 of 8 (Paper No 10-59)

Missing links cycle routes 

display in the Committee Room on the evening of the Committee meeting. 

Comments of the Director of Finance. The cost of the Burntwood Lane, 

Bolingbroke Grove and Chillerton/Rectory Lane schemes totalling £45,000 will 

be met from the provision in the 2009/10 capital programme for Cycling – Non 

London Cycle Network funded by TfL. If the work is not completed by the 31 st 

March 2010 and unless agreement can be reached with TfL to carry it forward 

the grant funding is lost which would require the balance of the costs to be met 

from the 2010/11 resources. The proposed Albert Bridge Road scheme will be 

funded in 2010/11 from the LIP resources reported on this agenda (paper 10- 

52). 

Supporting information The following document was used:- 

(a) Options report for the Burntwood Lane (between Sandgate Lane and 

Trinity Road) cycle route, prepared by Mayer Brown Ltd. December 2008, 

which will be made available in the Members’ Room prior to the 

Committee meeting. 

Conclusions. The proposals outlined in this report will complete missing links 

in the existing Wandsworth Cycle Route Network to provide a continuous and 

coherent Borough cycle network that will contribute to making cycling safer 

and more convenient for cyclists and encourage sustainable means of travel. 

GLOSSARY 

DTS 

DoLAS 

LCDS 

LCN 

LIP 

TfL 


Director of Leisure and Amenity Services 

London Cycling Design Standards 

London Cycle Network 









(a) 

approve the proposal to implement cycle measures resulting from the 

study of: - 

(Paper No.10-59) Page 2 of 8


(i) 

(ii) 

that section of Burntwood Lane between Sandgate Lane and Trinity 

Road, as described in paragraphs 8 and 9 and as shown on drawing 

number OS/CES/992150/01-A; 

that section of Bolingbroke Grove between Nightingale Lane and 

Chivalry Road, as described in paragraphs 10 - 13 and shown on 

drawing number OS/CES/992150/01-A; 

(iii) that section of Albert Bridge Road between Albert Bridge and 

Prince of Wales Drive Road, as described in paragraphs 14 and 16 

and shown on drawing number OS/CES/992150/02-A; and 

(iv) Chillerton Road/Rectory Lane, as described in paragraphs 16 and 

18 and shown on drawing number OS/CES/992150/01-A. 


(i) 

(ii) 

carry out public and statutory consultation on the proposals in (a) 

above; 

carry out the necessary procedures under Section 65 of the 

Highways Act 1980 to convert those parts of the footways to allow 

for a cycle track for schemes (a) (ii), (iii) and (iv) above; and 

(iii) subject to no unresolved objections being received, to implement 

the proposals in (a) above. 

4. Background. The Council commissioned the consultants, Mayer Brown Ltd. of 

Woking, Surrey, to prepare an options report for the section of Burntwood Lane 

between Sandgate Lane and Trinity Road, SW17 (Wandsworth Common). The 

commission was issued to consider, and bring forward options to address, the 

conflicts arising from illegal cycling on the footway in this part of Burntwood 

Lane. This issue was also brought to the attention of the DTS by ward 

councillors. The terms of reference specified by the Council were: ‘To investigate 

(a) the feasibility of a cycle lane or cycle track on Burntwood Lane between 

Sandgate Lane and Trinity Road or (b) improvements to the existing 

signage/markings, to reduce the incidence of footway cycling’. 

5. The consultant submitted his final report on the proposals for Burntwood Lane in 

December 2008. Following examination of the options by Council officers, 

recommendations are put forward in this report for consideration by this Overview 

and Scrutiny Committee and subsequent approval by the Executive. 

6. An associated request has been received from Councillor Beddows (Northcote) for 

officers to investigate the feasibility of introducing a cycle route in Bolingbroke 

Grove along the footway adjacent to Wandsworth Common, between Nightingale 

Lane and Chivalry Road, SW12 (Northcote). The DTS has prepared a feasibility 

report and put forward proposed measures for this cycle route that are described 

more fully later in this report. 

Page 3 of 8 (Paper No. 10- 59)


7. Transport for London (TfL) have provided funding under the ‘missing links’ cycle 

route programme for the Non-LCN+ cycle routes. The DTS has used this funding 

to undertake a feasibility study to identify the necessary works to provide a 

continuous and coherent Borough cycle route network. This study focused on the 

fourteen existing missing links in the Borough cycle network, that are shown as 

proposed routes on the current Wandsworth Cycle Route Network map. The 

results of this study have been analysed and prioritised for implementation. It is 

proposed to progress works in this financial year on the cycle route on Chillerton 

Road/Rectory Lane, SW17 (Furzedown and Graveney) .The proposed measures 

for this cycle route are detailed later in this report. The remaining thirteen links, 

starting with Albert Bridge Road (between Albert Bridge and Prince of Wales 

Drive), SW11 (Queenstown and St Mary’s Park) will be implemented later in the 

programme subject to available funding. 

8. Burntwood Lane (Sandgate Lane to Trinity Road) cycle measures – options 

report findings. As outlined in paragraph 4, the consultant Mayer Brown Ltd 

was commissioned to produce an options report for the above section of cycle 

route to address the problem of illegal cycling on the footways. The final report 

comprises options for cycle facilities to address the problem of illegal cycling on 

the footway; and a summary of recommendations based on these options. 

9. Twelve options were put forward by the consultant, setting out the advantages and 

disadvantages of each. An assessment of each option is then presented, followed 

by recommendations for implementation. The DTS has examined the options and 

recommendations within the report and proposes to implement the following 

measures (cross-referenced to the option numbers in the consultant’s report): - 

(a) 

(b) 

Option 2 (part) – Cycle logos on-carriageway westbound; and 

Option 4 – Re-organise lane markings, to create a longer lead-in cycle 

lane eastbound on the approach to Trinity Road, 1.5 metres wide and 80 

to 100 metres long. 

These proposals are shown on drawing number OS/CES/992150/01-A, which will be 

on display in the Committee Room on the evening of the meeting. 

10. Bolingbroke Grove (between Nightingale Lane and Chivalry Road) cycle 

route – feasibility. As outlined in paragraph 6 above, Councillor Beddows 

requested that a feasibility study be prepared on the introduction of a cycle route 

on the footway of Bolingbroke Grove. 

11. Bolingbroke Grove forms part of the Wandsworth Borough Cycle Route Network. 

The existing cycle route is an on-carriageway cycle route sharing the road space 

with high traffic volumes including buses and lorries. There are road narrowings 

at pedestrian refuge crossing points along this route and there is a history of road 

traffic accidents involving cyclist casualties on Bolingbroke Grove. Whilst these 

road traffic accidents have been addressed by measures recently implemented on 

site, supported by this Committee and approved by the Executive (Paper No. 07- 

1027), there is a further opportunity to improve the safety of the cycle route by 

providing an off carriageway facility for cyclists. The existing carriageway width 



prohibits the provision of a dedicated cycle lane without extensive loss of parking. 

An off-carriageway cycle facility is therefore preferable. Given the existing oncarriageway 

traffic conditions, it has been observed that a large number of cyclists 

use the footway (albeit illegally); therefore formalising conversion to shared use 

would provide the opportunity to create a safer highway environment. 

12. Bolingbroke Grove's western footway adjacent to Wandsworth Common is 

suitable for the conversion to an unsegregated shared use cycletrack. From 

Nightingale Lane to opposite Salcott Road, the footway has a width ranging 

between 3.2m - 3.9m, which exceeds the desirable minimum width of 3m as 

recommended by the London Cycle Design Standards (LCDS). There are a few 

locations where street furniture, large trees or bus stops narrow the available width 

to below 3m. The relocation of street furniture is recommended where 

appropriate. This would be pursued, in particular the sewer vent pipes, which line 

the footway for most of its length at regular intervals. Where relocation is not 

practical, warning signs, bollards or footway markings may be considered to alert 

cyclists and pedestrians of the reduced width. At all entry and exit points with the 

common or pedestrian intersections, signage and tactile paving will also be 

required in accordance with the LCDS to reduce the potential for pedestrian and 

cyclist conflict. 

13. The remaining section of footway from opposite Salcott Road to Chivalry Road 

has an average width of 2m for a distance of 75m, which nonetheless complies 

with the absolute minimum width of 2m for an unsegregated shared use cycle 

track as outlined in the LCDS. To widen the footway into the carriageway at this 

location to achieve the desirable minimum width of 3m would necessitate 

narrowing the northbound traffic lane from 4.5m to 3.5m; thereby creating a 

pinch-point adjacent to parked cars, which is not advisable. Additionally given 

that public open space is premium land and as such is heavily protected from 

development by planning laws, requesting even a narrow strip of land from the 

Common to widen the footway to achieve 3m is unlikely to succeed. A 2m 

minimum width of unsegregated shared use cycletrack between Salcott Road and 

Chivalry Road would nevertheless be consistent with the similar facility that was 

implemented between Chivalry Road and Battersea Rise as detailed in Paper No. 

07-1027, which to date has operated successfully since June 2009 without any 

reported pedestrian/cyclist conflict incidents. 

14. Albert Bridge Road, between Albert Bridge and Prince of Wales Drive cycle 

route – feasibility. Albert Bridge Road is predominately residential on the west 

side with Battersea Park on the east side. Battersea Park is currently accessed by 

cyclists at the Albert Gate/Carriage Drive West entrance using the existing 

Borough cycle route along Parkgate Road and Carriageway Drive North. There 

were 8 reported accidents over the three year period up to June 2009 resulting in 

10 slight casualties. Three of these accidents involved cyclist casualties. All 

casualties were slight and two involved collisions with vehicles that included a car 

door opening into the path of a cyclist. To improve cyclist safety it is proposed to 

introduce an unsegregated shared use cycle track on the eastern footway of Albert 

Bridge Road adjacent to Battersea Park between Albert Bridge and Prince of 

Wales Drive. The eastern footway has an average width of 3.2m with frequent 

signage and street furniture mainly offset 0.4m from the kerb line. This footway 



width generally exceeds the desirable minimum width of 3m as recommended by 

the LCDS. Proposals for the section of the cycle route at its junction with the 

entrance to Battersea Park are discussed in detail below in paragraph 16. 

15. Specific measures to improve safety/continuity also include; a flat top speed table 

with refuge island to the north of the existing width restriction that will also 

provide a crossing facility for the proposed Thames Cycle Route; a flat top speed 

table with refuge island to replace the existing refuge island opposite the 

pedestrian park entrance (access way to Worfield Street), that would provide a 

safe crossing point for northbound cyclists who wish to use the unsegregated 

shared use cycletrack on the eastern footway; a 3m dropped kerb at Prince of 

Wales Drive to provide access to the existing advisory cycle lane; a new advisory 

northbound cycle lane from Prince of Wales Drive to the proposed flat top speed 

table opposite the access way to Worfield Street. These proposals are shown on 

drawing No. OS/CES/992150/02-A. 

16. It is the intention of the DTS to provide a continuous cycle route facility along the 

length of Albert Bridge Road as outlined in paragraphs 14 and 15 above. It will 

be necessary to discuss in detail with the Director of Leisure and Amenity 

Services (DoLAS) the detailed design of the proposals for this section of the route, 

on the approaches to and at the junction with Carriage Drive, the entrance to 

Battersea Park. This junction has a concentration of pedestrian, cyclist and 

vehicular movements that would require careful detailing to ensure that all of 

these users are accommodated safely. Therefore, at this stage there are no 

proposals shown on the drawings. The final proposals would be determined with 

the key objectives being to provide a continuous cycle route linking with the 

proposed footway cycle routes either side and to accommodate safely all user 

requirements at this location. There are other issues that require further discussion 

with the DoLAS relating to the listed status of Battersea Park and how this would 

need to be reflected in any required paving and signage associated with the 

proposed cycle route where it is adjacent to Battersea Park. 

17. Chillerton Road/Rectory Lane cycle route. Rectory Lane forms part of the 

Wandsworth Borough Cycle Route Network. The existing cycle route is oncarriageway 

southbound with a segregated cycle track on footway northbound. 

Traffic calming measures comprising road humps were introduced approximately 

10 years ago. There is an existing street tree directly in the middle of the short 

length of cycletrack that links Rectory Lane to Chillerton Road. At other 

locations on the northbound cycle track approaching the roundabout, several street 

tree pits encroach into the cycle track. 

18. It is proposed to rationalise and upgrade the signage and road markings on 

Rectory Lane in accordance with the current LCDS, and undertake associated 

minor footway works consisting of local resurfacing to improve the safety and 

continuity of the cycle route. On the link between Chillerton Road and Rectory 

Lane, it is proposed to realign the segregated cycle track to avoid the existing 

street tree. These proposals are shown on drawing number OS/CES/992150/01-A, 

which will be on display in the Committee Room on the evening of the meeting. 



19. Programme of works. It is anticipated that the proposals could be implemented 

as shown in table 1 below. 

Table 1 

Proposed cycle route scheme 

Implementation 

programme 

Burntwood Lane February-March 2010 

Bolingbroke Grove March 2010 

Albert Bridge Road Apr 2010 to Mar 2011 

Chillerton Road/Rectory Lane March 2010 

Based upon this programme and the impending works due to take place to Albert 

Bridge by the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, the proposal for a flat 

top speed table with refuge island to the north of the existing width restriction, if 

approved, would have to be implemented following completion of the works to 

the bridge. The site compound for the bridge works is to be sited along this section 

of the carriageway for the 18-month duration that the works are expected to take. 

Hence programming to implement this proposed flat top speed table at this 

location would be discussed with our colleagues at the Royal Borough of 

Kensington and Chelsea. 

20. Financial implications. The estimated costs of the proposals for all four-cycle 

routes, including fees and consultation, are shown in Table 2 below. 

Table 2 

Proposed cycle route scheme Estimated cost (£ ‘000) 

1) Burntwood Lane 5 

2) Bolingbroke Grove 20 

3) Albert Bridge Road 70 

4) Chillerton Road/Rectory Lane 10 

Total 105 

21. Comments of the Director of Finance. The cost of the Burntwood Lane, 

Bolingbroke Grove and Chillerton/Rectory Lane schemes totalling £45,000 will 

be met from the provision in the 2009/10 capital programme for Cycling – Non 

London Cycle Network funded by TfL. If the work is not completed by the 31 st 

March 2010 and unless agreement can be reached with TfL to carry it forward the 

grant funding is lost which would require the balance of the costs to be met from 

the 2010/11 resources. The proposed Albert Bridge Road scheme will be funded 

in 2010/11 from the LiP resources reported on this agenda (paper 10-52). 

22. Comments of the Director of Leisure and Amenity Services. The Director of 

Leisure and Amenity Services comments that the proposals to improve facilities 

for cycling in the borough set out in this report are to be commended. However 

there are some concerns regarding the interaction between the cycle route and the 

Albert Gate entrance to Battersea Park. In this respect the intention of the 

Director of Technical Services to consult with the Leisure and Amenity Services 



Department on the detailed design of the cycle route in this area, set out in 

paragraph 16, is noted and welcomed. 

23. Additionally, the report indicates that the cycle route proposed in Bolingbroke 

Grove will run along the footway immediately adjacent to Wandsworth Common 

and that signage will be required at points where the proposed cycle route and 

footpaths on the Common converge. It should be noted that, in line with the 

requirements of ‘Commons’ legislation, the erection of any signage, new or 

relocated, on the Common would be subject to obtaining Secretary of State’s 

approval. 

24. Conclusion. This report details cycle proposals for Albert Bridge Road, 

Bolingbroke Grove, Burntwood Lane and the Chillerton Road/Rectory Lane area 

that are all aimed to complete missing links in the existing Wandsworth Cycle 

Route Network. These measures would enhance and add to the cycle route 

network provision already available in the Borough. Implementation of the 

measures is programmed to commence on site in the final quarter of 2009/10 with 

scheme implementation continuing, subject to available funding during 2010/11. 

25. The proposals are in accordance with both the Council policies relating to cycling 

and walking in the Local Implementation Plan and the Mayor’s Transport 

Strategy. 

_____________________ 


Wandsworth, 

SW18 2PU. 

W. G. MYERS 





1. Options report for the Burntwood Lane (between Sandgate Lane and Trinity 

Road) cycle route, prepared by Mayer Brown Ltd. December 2008. 

If you wish to inspect this document, please contact initially the Committee Secretary 

on 020 8871 6488. 




2001, in which case the Committee Secretary (Mr M Newton – 020 8871 6488; 

mnewton@wandworth.gov.uk) can supply if required. 







Report by the Director of Technical Services on the latest position regarding the 

Mayor of London’s Cycle Superhighways initiative. 

SUMMARY 

Background. A comprehensive overview report on cycling matters was 

submitted for information (Paper No. 09-753) to this Overview and Scrutiny 

Committee in September 2009, in which the Mayor of London’s initiative to 

introduce Cycle Superhighways (CSHs) was mentioned. These routes are 

intended to provide a safe, fast, direct, continuous and comfortable way of getting 

from outer London into central London by bicycle along recognised commuter 

routes. 

Two CSHs, Routes 7 and 8, will run through the Borough, the former on the A24 

road corridor and the latter on the A3/A3205 road corridor. Route 7 has been 

chosen by Transport for London (TfL) as one of two pilot routes, originally to be 

implemented by May 2010, but now officially revised by TfL to be by Summer 

2010. The programmed implementation date for Route 8 is yet to be confirmed, 

however is expected to be in 2011. 

Policy. The Mayor of London, in reviewing his Transport Strategy, announced 

his intention to introduce a series of CSHs. These form a key part of the Mayor’s 

Cycle Revolution to improve cycling in London, as set out in his ‘2008 Mayor’s 

Manifesto Pledge’ and ‘Way to Go!’ document. 

The principle of CSHs is in accordance with Council policy relating to cycling 

and complements the Local Implementation Plan (LIP). Policy number LIP48 

which states: ‘The Council will complete a network of safe and convenient cycle 

routes using the most appropriate roads and paths’. However, the LIP also 

considers that on the Transport for London Road Network (TLRN), including the 

Route 7 and Route 8 corridors, there should be a general presumption in favour of 

high volume strategic traffic and the distribution of goods. 

Issues/proposals. This report provides for information details of the progress 

made on the two Wandsworth CSH routes (7 and 8), in terms of meetings held 

and activities undertaken, since the last report (Paper No. 09-753) in September, 

2009. Several meetings have taken place between the Director of Technical 

Services (DTS) and TfL, primarily relating to Route 8 alignment proposals, 


Cycle Superhighways update 

programme, powers, consents and the Council’s aspirations for the route. 

Route 7 activities have included: a presentation by TfL to the Tooting Town 

Centre Partnership Board in Tooting; feedback by the DTS on the Urban Realm 

aspects of the concept and design of the route; fortnightly e-mail updates from 

TfL to the DTS on route concept progress; and feedback by the DTS on the 

preliminary detailed design of the route. In view of the particular technical 

challenges surrounding part of this route (particularly the portion through Tooting 

Town Centre) the DTS has expressed his concerns to TfL about the very short 

‘turn round’ period given for both of the feedback activities. Because of these 

challenges, there are also a number of specific concerns about the preliminary 

design of the route, as listed in paragraph 9(d) and Appendix B to this report. 

Finally, following guidance received from TfL, the DTS submitted bids for the 

CSH Smarter Travel measures in the total sum of £163,000. These included: 

£60,000 for cycle training; £5,000 for bike maintenance classes; £10,000 for 

Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV) Cycle safety; £3,000 for Dr. Bike sessions; £30,000 

for cycle parking – flats/housing estates; £30,000 for cycle parking – workplaces; 

£5,000 for CSH and cycling promotions; and £20,000 for cycle parking – onstreet. 

£63,000 was subsequently approved by TfL in December 2009 with 

funding of a further £50,000 subject to agreement. 

Comments of the Director of Finance. The implementation of the Cycle 

Superhighways will be fully funded by TfL. For 2010/11 the Council has 

received revenue funding of £13,000 for cyle maintenance/travel awareness and 

for 2009/10 and 2010/11 capital funding, totalling £50,000 for cyle parking. A 

further £50,000 may be awarded subject to details being agreed with TfL. 

Supporting information. The following documents are included in this report:- 

Appendix A – Route 7 cycle superhighway Urban Realm feedback. 

Appendix B - Route 7 cycle superhighway preliminary design feedback. 

Conclusions. The Council has expressed concerns over the overall Route 7 

project timescale in view of the particular physical challenges and the consequent 

pressures on Borough consultation periods to date if the best scope for resolution 

and improvement is to be achieved. In relation to Route 8, TfL have agreed in 

principle for an extended turnaround period for comments on these proposals. 

the Council will continue to work positively with TfL in the development and 

implementation of the cycle super highways, to improve cycling facilities and 

promote cycling for both commuting and leisure purposes in Wandsworth to 

achieve the Mayor’s objectives of significantly increasing cycle usage and 

reducing cycle casualties, as well as furthering the Council’s own complementary 

policies. 

The Executive are recommended to approve a capital budget variation of £25,000 

in 2009/10 and £25,000 in 2010/11. There will be no requirement for a revenue 

budget variation as approved schemes are fully funded by revenue grant. 



GLOSSARY 

CHIP 

CRIM 

CSH 

DfT 

DTS 

HGV 

LIP 

TfL 

TLRN 

Cycle Highway Implementation Plan 

Cycle Route Inspection Meeting 

Cycle Superhighway 



Heavy Goods Vehicle 

Local implementation Plan 




Committee is recommended to support the recommendations in paragraph 3. 


recommendations on the report, they will be submitted to the Executive for 


3. The Executive are recommended to approve a capital budget variation of 

£25,000 in 2009/10 and £25,000 in 2010/11. There will be no requirement for 

a revenue budget variation as approved schemes are fully funded by revenue 

grant. 

4. Introduction. Paper No. 09-753, submitted to this Overview and Scrutiny 

Committee in September 2009, provided a comprehensive overview on 

cycling matters. Amongst the topics covered was the Mayor of London’s 

initiative to introduce a series of Cycle Superhighways (CSHs). A total of 

twelve CSHs will be introduced, their purpose being to provide a safe, direct, 

continuous, visible, comfortable, informative and value for money way of 

getting from outer London to Central London by bicycle along recognised 

commuter routes. 

5. Two of the twelve CSHs pass through Wandsworth and follow the A24 and 

A3/A3205 road corridors. These are categorised as Routes 7 and 8 

respectively and are shown on drawing no.DTS/HT/CSH/1, which will be on 

display in the Committee room on the evening of the meeting. Route 7 forms 

one of the two pilot routes that were originally programmed to be operational 

by May 2010, but are now due by Summer 2010. 

6. In May 2009, a Cycle Revolution Forum was held, attended by councillors and 

senior officers London-wide, to give details of the concepts of the CSH 

scheme. In addition, also in May, a CSH Corridor Forum was held with 

boroughs that are working on the two pilot schemes (Routes 3 and 7) 

originally to have been delivered by May 2010. 

7. Other preliminary meetings and discussions, including: a Cycle Route 

Inspection Meeting (CRIM); debate about Smarter Travel measures and cycle 

training; a cycle parking site meeting; a presentation to both the London 

Borough Cycle Officer Group and the London Technical Advisors Group 

attended by borough officers; and submission of a Cycle Highway 



Implementation Plan (CHIP) for review for Route 7, were reported in Paper 

No. 09-753. Appendix G to that paper provided details of those parameters 

that will be included in the CSHs. 

8. Cycle Superhighways concept. The basic concepts for CSHs are listed 

below: - 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

(d) 

(e) 

(f) 

(g) 

(h) 

(i) 

(j) 

(k) 

(l) 

(m) 

workplace offerings, such as business events, tailored packages for 

employees and provision of cycle facilities; 

home end offerings, such as marketing campaigns, tailored packages to 

individuals and residential cycle parking; 

cycle support for school leavers by encouraging students to cycle to 

work once they leave school/college; 

targeting organisations with large numbers of HGV and freight drivers 

who will travel along the CSHs by introducing measures to help avoid 

collisions with cyclists; 

blue branding of routes – all relevant CSH infrastructure, including 

surfacing material, signage etc. will be coloured blue; 

wide, continuous cycle lanes (new or improved), typically 1.5 metres 

to 2.5 metres in width; 

continuous lanes through junctions, i.e. through junctions and slip 

lanes where traffic joining or leaving has to cut across cyclists 

travelling ahead; 

mirrors at traffic lights, known as Trixi mirrors, to prevent collisions 

by revealing cyclists and pedestrians hidden in lorries' blind spots. 

Their use is subject to Government approval and TfL is currently in 

talks with the Department for Transport to secure the go ahead 

following a series of accidents involving lorries turning left at 

junctions; 

cycle-friendly studs/reflectors at potential conflict locations to 

reinforce cycle lane markings and to raise awareness of cyclists to 

turning motor vehicle drivers; 

entry treatments (raised carriageways) at side road junctions to 

minimise the speed of turning vehicles; 

the closure of some side roads (with cycle access retained) to minimise 

conflict; 

possible diversions to avoid difficult junctions; 

speed restrictions, where locations have high activity/high risk and 

reduce speed limit to 20mph where viable; and 



(n) 

navigation measures, such as ‘spurs’ on roads off the CSH leading to 

other popular destinations and alternative routes through quiet roads, 

including links to London Cycle Network plus routes. 

9. Further progress. Since the September meeting of this Overview and 

Scrutiny Committee, a number of additional activities relating to CSHs have 

taken place, both in general and route-specific. These are shown below: - 

(a) 

Route 7 fortnightly updates. As stated above, Route 7 follows the A24 

road corridor in the Borough and passes along Tooting High Street, 

Upper Tooting Road, Balham High Road and Balham Hill, SW17 and 

SW12 (Tooting, Graveney, Bedford, Nightingale and Balham). It is 

wholly situated on the TLRN, for which TfL are the highway and 

traffic authority. 

It has been agreed that TfL will provide Council officers with an 

update on the general progress of Route 7 every two weeks. The 

updates are in the form of e-mails from the TfL Project Manager for 

CSHs and provide brief details of activities undertaken and meetings 

that have taken place or are planned. These include: the Smarter 

Travel Forum; the bidding process for funding for Cycle 

Superhighways complementary measures and the outcome of the bids; 

latest details of the CHIP report and progress on the programme plan 

for Route 7; progress on the design of the urban realm improvements; 

details of the signage strategy; and the development of the trials for the 

use of blue surfacing through junctions. 

(b) 

(c) 

(d) 

Route 7 presentation to Tooting Town Centre Partnership Board. At 

its meeting on Tuesday 6th October 2009, the Tooting Town Centre 

Partnership Board was presented with details of the Route 7 CSH, 

which will pass through Tooting town centre. Representatives from 

TfL’s CSH project team delivered the presentation. 

Route 7 Urban Realm feedback. In October 2009, TfL requested 

feedback from the Council on the Urban Realm aspects of the Route 7 

concept and design. Urban Realm refers to the desire for a quality 

streetscape, by rationalisation of street furniture using planned decluttering 

initiatives; a uniform and co-ordinated colour scheme and 

associated measures. Full details of the Council’s response are shown 

in Appendix A to this report. 

Route 7 draft preliminary design feedback. The DTS received from 

TfL the preliminary design details for Route 7 of the CSH on 4th 

November 2009, with a request for comments to be returned by 11th 

November 2009. Given the particular technical challenges associated 

with developing a suitable solution over parts of Route 7 – in particular 

the congested and width-constrained stretch through Tooting Town 

Centre, it did prove difficult to respond fully and satisfactorily within 

these short turnaround targets: nevertheless DTS officers were able to 

collate internal information and ideas and respond positively, although 

given availability within the time period, were unable to brief fully the 



ward Councillors responsible for the area where the measures are 

proposed. 

In his response on the preliminary design for Route 7, the DTS did 

emphasise that there were a number of serious issues regarding the 

impact that the scheme could have on the highway environment along 

the route. Additionally, he requested TfL to give assistance in tackling 

issues by providing an outline programme up to the proposed 

operational date for Route 7, and in particular milestones for any likely 

information to be provided to the Council for comment and any 

proposals for consultation, be they formal or informal, with residents 

and businesses along this CSH corridor. This will ensure the best 

chance of resolving design issues in the most satisfactory way. A 

meeting between DTS and TfL was arranged to then progress design 

development with this aim. 

The formal response to the preliminary design for Route 7 is attached 

as Appendix B to this report. Reference to the list of basic concepts of 

CSHs, shown in paragraph 8 above, together with scrutiny of 

preliminary design drawings, which will be on display in the 

Committee room on the evening of the meeting, will be of use in 

appreciating the detailed comments in the Appendix. In summary, the 

principal issues on which the DTS has commented regarding the 

preliminary design for Route 7 are: - 

(i) 

(ii) 

(iii) 

(iv) 

(v) 

(vi) 

concerns that there appears to be a departure from the original 

agreement, which stated that blue lanes would not be 

introduced where there was an existing coloured surfaced 

facility that could be used by cyclists (e.g. a green cycle lane or 

a red bus lane); 

clarification as to whether some existing sections of pedestrian 

guard railing that are not shown on the plans are to be removed; 

inconsistencies in the configuration of the blue cycle lane along 

the route, for example: the lane passing through some parking 

bays and not through others; the blue square “super highway 

branding” appearing next to some parking bays and not others, 

and also next to some bus stops but not others; conflicting 

markings where the blue cycle lane passes through pelican 

crossings; 

a request to explain what a Virtual cycle lane is and whether the 

blue surfacing will actually be marked on the highway at these 

locations. 

to consider a minimum cycle lane width of two metres where 

carriageway width/running lanes are very wide; 

clarification as to why a number of sections of road have single 

red line restrictions only, so vehicles can park there after 7pm 

and on Sundays, thus rendering the “Cycle Superhighway” 



redundant. This also applies to the loading and parking bays on 

the A24, most of which allow parking or loading between 10 

and 4, and when occupied will create pinch points for cyclists; 

(vii) 

problems in a number of locations where pedestrian refuges 

reduce the lane width to below four metres, which will create a 

pinch point for cyclists. There are also a number of pedestrian 

refuges that don’t have dropped kerbs leading to them; 

(viii) whether new signage requirements, which are not shown on 

plans will create further street clutter or be fixed to existing 

street furniture; 

(ix) 

(x) 

(xi) 

(xii) 

confirmation, or otherwise, that businesses and residents along 

the route corridor will have the opportunity to review and 

comment upon the outline proposals before implementation; 

a request to confirm the net increase or decrease in parking in 

Wandsworth due to the proposals; 

a request for additional cycle parking at various key locations, 

for example at Balham, Clapham South and Tooting Broadway 

Stations; and 

various other location-specific issues. 

A meeting was held on 9 th December 2009 to discuss these DTS 

concerns with TfL. TfL have provided a written response to the issues 

raised that are being considered. The DTS awaits details of the final 

detailed design for the route 7 CSH to determine if the issues have all 

been adequately addressed. 

(e) 

Route 8 progress meetings. The proposed Route 8 alignment passes 

along the A3/A3205 road corridor in the Borough taking in 

Roehampton Vale, Kingston Road, West Hill, Putney Bridge Road, 

Armoury Way, Swandon Way, York Road, Battersea Park Road and 

Nine Elms Lane, SW15, SW18, SW11 and SW8 (Roehampton, West 

Hill, East Putney, Fairfield, St Mary’s Park, Latchmere and 

Queenstown). Route 8 is predominantly situated on the TLRN, for 

which TfL are the highway and traffic authority. However, localised 

sections of borough roads, such as Old York Road, SW18 (Fairfield) 

and Queenstown Road, SW11 (Queenstown), are also included for 

consideration. Drawing number DTS/HT/CSH/1, showing proposed 

Route 8 will be on display in the Committee room on the evening of 

the meeting. 

Two meetings have taken place regarding Route 8. The first was 

convened at Wandsworth Town Hall on 17th September 2009. Issues 

discussed included: the proposed route alignment; the anticipated 

delivery programme; the Council’s aspirations for the route; and 

powers and consents. 



The second meeting took place on 10th November 2009, also at the 

Town Hall, and covered issues in greater detail. These included: - 

(i) 

(ii) 

(iii) 

(iv) 

(v) 

an overview of the Cycle Superhighway programme, including 

the two pilot routes (3 and 7), as well as phasing for the next 

ten routes. Designers will be appointed by TfL to take forward 

four routes to design stage, two of which will be implemented 

in May 2011 and two completed by October 2012. The 

remaining CSH routes will be delivered by 2015; 

in specific relation to Route 8, concurrence that the proposed 

route alignment along Roehampton Vale and West Hill would 

suit existing cycle facilities there. Officers pointed out that 

there is a proposed Council safety scheme at Tibbet’s Corner 

(Paper No. 09-927, considered by this Overview and Scrutiny 

Committee in November 2009, refers) that needs to be 

considered in relation to Route 8 and enquired if the southwesterly 

route along West Hill, currently intended to be located 

in the carriageway, could be moved onto the footway. TfL will 

consider this request; 

TfL officers highlighting the desire to take the CSH off the 

TLRN (at Swandon Way) and diverting it along Old York 

Road. The Council’s response was that local residents may be 

averse to this idea but Public Realm funding may provide 

highway improvements that could satisfy residents; 

a discussion about the redevelopment of Wandsworth Town 

Centre and the associated highway scheme, and that any 

agreement to a CSH route would be subject to approval/ 

rejection of the planning application for this project; 

recognition that most of the proposed Route 8 is on the 

Olympic Route Network (ORN), which needs to be assessed 

further. TfL indicated that they would be meeting with the 

ORN team on 17th November 2009 to discuss this further; 

(vi) concerns expressed by Council officers about the Route 8 

alignment along Wandsworth Plain and the possibility of using 

Ram Street as an alternative. This will form part of the agenda 

for the pre CRIM in December 2009, with the actual CRIM 

taking place in January 2010; 

(vii) 

TfL indicating that they would be interested in signing Section 

8 agreements with Wandsworth Council to carry out works 

along Borough owned roads (Queenstown Road and Old York 

Road). (Section 8 of the Highways Act 1980 relates to local 

highway authorities entering into agreements with each other 

for or in relation to the construction, reconstruction, alteration, 

improvement or maintenance of a highway for which any party 

to the agreement are the highway authority). However, this 

would depend on the works to be carried out; 



(viii) discussions on the reimbursement of costs incurred by the 

Council in dealing with the CSH programme. It was agreed by 

TfL that they would refund the costs associated with Route 8, 

for example, time spent on Section 8 agreements, consultant’s 

fees and associated charges. TfL requested that details be 

provided in advance of any costs relating to Route 8 so they can 

be agreed and forecast into their budget; 

(ix) 

(x) 

concerns conveyed by Council officers that an inadequate time 

period had been provided for the return of comments for Route 

7 and a request that this would not be repeated for Route 8. 

TfL undertook to address this problem; and 

Council officers asking about any proposed consultation on the 

proposals with frontagers. TfL stated that the frontagers would 

be informed of the proposals, rather than consulted, unless a 

proposal was likely to affect them directly, for instance, a 

change to parking/loading restrictions. 

10. A CRIM has since been arranged for Wednesday 3rd February 2010, whereby 

borough officers and all key stakeholders will cycle the route to review 

existing conditions and assess barriers for cyclists along the entire route 

corridor. 

11. Programme of works. Routes 7 and 8 are the only routes in the overall CSH 

programme that run through the Borough. Indicative timescales for 

implementation of both routes are shown in Table 1 below. These are subject 

to change, depending on the complexity of the works, unforeseen 

circumstances and other associated factors. 

Table 1 – CSH Programme (Routes 7 and 8) 

Cycle Superhighway scheme 

Estimated completion 

Route 7 May 2010 

Route 8 2011 

12. Financial implications. The estimated cost of the proposals for the two pilot 

schemes (Routes 3 and 7) is £22 million (source: Cycle Superhighways 

Questions and Answers. Transport for London, October 2009). The work on 

these two routes will help TfL determine in detail the scope and cost of the 

CSHs. TfL will test new interventions on the two pilot routes and monitor 

their effectiveness. This will determine the future cost of the whole 

programme, which will be wholly funded by TfL. TfL will reimburse costs 

incurred by the Council in working on aspects of the CSH scheme. 

13. In September 2009, TfL sent bidding guidance to the Council for CSH 

Smarter Travel measures. Bids were subsequently submitted to TfL in 

October 2009 for Route 7 and a further meeting was convened on 23rd 

November between TfL and the Council to discuss those bids in detail before 

a final decision on the awards was made in December 2009. Table 2 below 

gives details of the individual elements, together with the amounts bid for, the 



approved bids and any appropriate comments. It should be noted that all of 

the funding requests apply to the 2010/11 financial year (with the exception of 

cycle parking bids, which may straddle this financial year and next). The DTS 

stated in his reply to TfL that the restrictions imposed by next May’s local 

(and possibly national) election would prevent the promotion of smarter travel 

activity until May at the earliest and therefore these could influence the 

Council’s delivery of these Smarter Travel measures. 

Table 2 – CSH Smarter Travel measures bid (Route7) 

Description 

Bid 

(£‘000) 

Approved 

(£‘000) 

Cycle Training 60 0 

(40 on hold) 

Bike Maintenance Classes 5 5 

HGV-Cycle Safety 10 0 

(10 on hold) 

Dr Bike Sessions 3 3 

Cycle Parking - 

flats/housing estates 

Cycle Parking - 

workplaces 

(Paper No.10-60) Page 10 of 12 

Comments 

Cycle training to be 

provided by external 

cycle trainers. 

Extension of scheme 

carried out. 

30 30 Cycle parking 

associated along the 

corridor of the CSH 

30 0 Cycle parking 



CSH and Cycle 

5 5 

Promotions 

Cycle Parking - on-street 20 20 Cycle parking 



Total 163 63 Approved 

(50 on hold) 

14. For the sums on hold totalling £50,000, TfL will be contacting the Council in 

January 2010 with the aim being to be able to approve and therefore release 

this funding by the end of January 2010. 

15. Comments of the Director of Finance. The implementation of the Cycle 

Superhighways will be fully funded by TfL. For 2010/11 the Council has 

received revenue funding of £13,000 for cycle maintenance/travel awareness 

and for 2009/10 and 2010/11 capital funding totalling £50,000 for cycle 

parking. A further £50,000 may be awarded for cycle training and HGV Cycle 

Safety subject to details being agreed with TfL. TfL anticipate the cycle 

parking schemes to begin immediately so the expenditure is expected to span 

two financial years. The Executive are therefore recommended to approve a 

capital budget variation of £25,000 in 2009/10 and £25,000 in 2010/11 for the 

cycle parking. 

16. Comments of the Economic Development Officer. One of the findings from 

the Economic Development Officer’s Greening Business project was that one 

of the more popular actions implemented by Wandsworth businesses included 

businesses encouraging their staff to cycle to work. This would indicate that 

more can be done with businesses through travel plans to encourage more to


cycling and the cycle super highways project could make it safer and more 

convenient to cycle to work. Nevertheless, the detailed planning and 

implementation of the proposals should be developed with care and to ensure 

that the many small businesses along the proposed route are actively involved 

to ensure that short term parking and deliveries to these small businesses are 

not adversely affected. 

17. Members of Transport for London’s Cycle Superhighways team presented to 

the Tooting Town Centre Partnership on 6 th October 2009. Following this 

presentation a number of concerns were raised by partners. These comments 

included:- 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

It is unclear how the very busy and congested stretches of Tooting 

High Street and Upper Tooting Road are going to be able to 

accommodate the predicted increase in cyclists safely, as TfL have 

acknowledged that these roads are not wide enough for mandatory blue 

cycle lanes; 

There are concerns about the potential impact on loading and delivery 

patterns along the Tooting stretches of the A24, which are already 

cause significant stress for traders; and 

the Tooting Town Centre Partnership also has concerns about the 

proposed speed of implementation as this does not appear to allow for 

sufficiently thorough consultation. 

18. Given that Tooting falls within one of the key pilot routes (Merton to the City) 

it is clear that resolving these issues early would be advisable. The Tooting 

Town Centre Partnership has formally offered to support TfL if it wishes to 

trial any particular elements in Tooting. In this context, it should be noted that 

encouraging cycling is a current Tooting Town Centre Partnership Business 

Plan objective. The Tooting Town Centre Manager has already submitted a list 

of possible cycle hoop locations to TfL. 

19. Conclusion. On behalf of the Mayor, TfL propose to introduce twelve CSHs, 

to provide a safe, fast, direct, continuous and comfortable way of getting from 

outer London into central London by bicycle along recognised commuter 

routes. Two of the twelve CSH, Routes 7 and 8, pass through Wandsworth, 

and follow the A24 and A3/A3205 road corridors respectively. Route 7 forms 

one of the two pilot routes that are programmed to be operational by summer 

2010. In response to a bid made for Smarter Travel measures associated with 

Route 7 TfL have awarded the Council £63,000 with a further £50,000 on hold 

as detailed in this report. 

20. Route 7 includes sections (primarily through Tooting) with special design 

challenges due to limited road width and existing congestion. Dialogue with 

TfL has progressed to seek the best solutions. The Council has expressed 

concerns that the overall Route 7 project timescale should enable full and 

sufficient borough consultation periods. In relation to Route 8 TfL have 

agreed in principle for an extended turnaround period for comments on these 

proposals. To resolve all remaining challenges as far as possible, the Council 

continues to work effectively and positively with TfL in the development and 



implementation of the cycle super highways, to improve cycling facilities and 

promote cycling for both commuting and leisure purposes in Wandsworth to 

achieve the Mayor’s objectives of significantly increasing cycle usage and 

reducing cycle casualties, and the Council’s own complementary policies on 

cycling. 

_________________ 


Wandsworth, 

SW18 2PU. 

W. G. MYERS 





1. Transport for London presentation document on Cycle Superhighways. 

Undated. 

2. Cycle Superhighways Smarter Travel measures bidding guidance. Undated. 

3. Cycle Superhighways Questions and Answers. Transport for London, October 

2009. 

If you wish to inspect any of these documents, please contact initially the Committee 

Secretary on 020 8871 6488. 




2001, in which case the Committee Secretary (Mr M Newton – 020 8871 6488; 

mnewton@wandworth.gov.uk)can supply if required. 


Appendix A to Paper No. 10-60 

Response to Urban Realm detailed design for Cycle Superhighway Route 7 

File Section/page ref. Comment Importance 

(high/medium/low) 

091019 Standard Construction Details – 

12 no. drawings 

091019 Standards St Furniture Details – 

10 no. drawings 

No Comments n/a 

No Comments n/a 

091019 10232.07.GA.03 Street furniture paint colour shown as 

RAL9007 (grey aluminium). Black paint 

preferred. RAL colour reference tba. 

091020 Schedules GA and SC - Tooting 

Broadway 

090903 CS 002 DRAFT 2 (03 Sept 

2009) - Pages 10, 20 & 21 Re: 

Tooting Broadway 

Street furniture paint colour shown as 

RAL9007 (grey aluminium). Black paint 

preferred. RAL colour reference tba. 

Street furniture to be grey or black. Black 

paint preferred. Net increase in cycle parking 

required following proposed de-cluttering. 

The Council is presently consulting on a 

Local Safety Scheme (LSS) for Mitcham 

Road. Please ensure that the CSH proposals 

are compatible with this scheme. (Paper No 

09-559 reported to July PTOSC). 

Suggested action 

Medium Bollards, light columns, 

traffic lights, railings & 

service boxes to be painted 

black 

Medium Bollards, light columns, 

traffic lights, railings & 

service boxes to be painted 

black 

High Street furniture to be 

painted black. Increase 

cycle parking facilities. 

Ensure compatibility with 

borough LSS. 

Page 1 of 2

090903 CS 002 DRAFT 2 (03 Sept 

2009) - Page 10 Re:Tooting Bec 

090903 CS 002 DRAFT 2 (03 Sept 

2009) - Page 11 Re: Balham 

090903 CS 002 DRAFT 2 (03 Sept 

2009) - Pages 11, 22 & 23 Re: 

Clapham South 

Public realm improvements are currently 

ongoing. A significant increase in cycle 

parking facilities is still required to meet the 

existing demand. 

Net increase in cycle parking required 

following proposed de-cluttering. In addition, 

to providing additional cycle parking under 

the bridge, the feasibility of new cycle 

parking facilities on private land 

(Sainsbury’s/Exhibit) opposite the tube 

station entrance on Balham Station Road, 

which would be more accessible, should be 

investigated. 

Net increase in cycle parking required 

following proposed de-cluttering 

Page 2 of 2 

High Increase cycle parking 

facilities. 


facilities. 


facilities.

Appendix B to Paper No. 10- 60 

Response to preliminary detailed design for Cycle Superhighway Route 7 

Drawing no. Comment 

Y3S00041E/004/014 · Need to see detailed designs on alterations to entry treatments on Hazelbourne Road, Gaskarth Road, Cathles Road and 

private entryways where footway is proposed to be reclaimed as carriageway/cycle lane 

· Is widening the carriageway going to increase traffic flows along these sections of the road? 

· Why is there no blue lane between Gateway House and Clapham South Tube? 

· The large area of blue surfacing outside Clapham Common Station will be very unsightly and does not appear to be 

consistent with the other junctions and bus stops. Is this supposed to deter motorists from using this section of the 

carriageway? 

· From Cathles Road to Ravenswood Road the route markings switch between a blue lane and blue squares so often it 

will be confusing for cyclists and motorists alike. Near Yukon Road southwards the cycle lane gets very patchy. Is there 

any scope to widen the carriageway between Yukon Road and Dinsmore Road to provide space for the cycle lane?. 

· Clapham South is a key area where cycle parking is needed, as cyclists currently have to lock their bikes to the 

pedestrian guardrail on the island at the junction in Nightingale Lane. There is scope on the NW side of the road for a lot 

of additional cycle parking, but none is shown on the plans. There is also scope to put additional cycle parking directly 

outside the station northwest of the bus stop. 

· The widening of carriageway will require removal or relocation of a number of trees, some quite mature. These are not 

shown on the plan. Will the trees be relocated or replaced? 

· Outside Burger King there is a very wide footway with some bollards in the middle of the footway. Could any 

seemingly redundant bollards be removed as part of the scheme to create more room for cycle parking? 

· There is a recessed loading bay on the east side of the road outside 143 Balham High Road that is not shown on the 

drawing. 

· The pedestrian refuge here narrows each lane down to 3.7m (both directions) and creates a pinch point for cyclists 

Y3S00041E/004/015 · Cycle stands outside 71 Balham High Road create a pinch point on footway. They might be better located further 

northeast, outside numbers 63 - 71 where the footway is slightly wider. 

· Cycle parking outside 87-89 Balham High Road will obstruct movement along the pavement – this pavement really 

Page 1 of 3

looks too narrow for any cycle parking facilities. If any cycle parking were provided it would need to be parallel to the 

kerb. 

· Please explain the “virtual cycle lane” opposite Balham Grove. 

· Why are there no cycle facilities on the approach to the Balham High Road-Chestnut Grove-Balham Station Road 

junction? 

· Cycle parking facilities at Balham Station are at a premium and more need to be provided near the station. Additional 

cycle parking could be provided on the footway outside Woolworth’s (where there are already four cycle racks). There 

may be scope to provide some on the other side of the road as well. 

Y3S00041E/004/016 · Outside Steel House the parking bay is to be inset and cycle parking relocated, however it doesn’t show where the cycle 

parking and other street furniture is to be relocated. There is a public toilet at this location – is this to stay? Is parking 

needed at this location? It looks like vehicles can park in this bay at any time of the day. 

· Is there any reason why the kerb build-out outside 218 is to be retained? The adjacent running lane is only going to be 

2.5m, which may encourage vehicles to encroach into the cycle lane. 

· There are no dropped kerbs in the footway leading to the pedestrian refuge outside 195 Balham High Road. 

· The blue squares are missing from bus stop between Ravenstone and Elmfield Roads 

· Partially insetting the bus stop outside Du Cane Court is likely to make it less accessible to wheelchair users and the 

mobility impaired, and also does not appear to cater for more than one bus at a time. A second bus may stick out into the 

carriageway causing more obstruction than the current arrangement. This would appear to be a retrograde step for buses. 

· Need to see detailed design for raised table at Upper Tooting Park-Balham High Road junction – there are emergency 

bus stands on Upper Tooting Park so the entry treatment must be “bus friendly” (no greater than 75mm high, and at least 

6m long). 

· By proposing the removal of the central island along Balham High Road at this location and the associated railings this 

may encourage pedestrian cross movements. What assessment has been undertaken to determine the likelihood of such 

movements occurring and the potential for road traffic accident casualties? 

Y3S00041E/004/017 · Support introduction of new northbound bus lane leading into bus stop north of junction. 

· Wide footway outside 4-8 Upper Tooting Road is cluttered with phone boxes, signs and posts, guardrail, litter bines etc. 

If the street furniture were rationalised it would provide a much nicer environment for pedestrians. 

· Detailed design needed of Trinity Crescent-Balham High Road junction 

· Detailed design for Beechcroft Rd-Upper Tooting Road junction is required. 

Page 2 of 3

· New advance cycle line – will this affect timing of signals as stop line will be set further back? 

· At junction of Upper Tooting Road and Beechcroft Road the blue cycle lane is shown on top of the yellow box marking 

– this will invalidate the Yellow Box Junction marking. 

· Why is it proposed to remove the existing road hump in Beechcroft Road? 

Y3S00041E/004/018 · Ansell Road junction – will this create a pinch point for cyclists wanting to enter Ansell Road? Looks narrower than 4m. 

May cause some concern with residents? 

· There appears to be a lot of unnecessary guardrail on this section of the route. Has this section of the A24 been included 

as part of the TfL Pedestrian Guard Rail rationalisation programme or are these issues being dealt with under the CSH 

proposals? 

· The junction near Letchworth St and Hereward Rd has turning bays into the side roads and loading bays close to the 

junction, and looks like it may create a pinch point for cyclists. 

.Parking bay on Gatton Road to be shortened by 1.5m. 

Y3S00041E/004/019 · Will extra cycle parking be provided near Tooting Broadway station? 

· The blue squares are missing from many of the bus stops 

· The pedestrian refuge outside 81 Tooting High Street makes a pinch point of only 3.4m. 

· Much of the cycle lane appears to be “virtual”. What is the advantage of having this? 

· A cycle gate is to be provided into Garratt Terrace – will motorists exiting Garratt Terrace be expecting cyclists to be 

coming the other way down this road? 

· Object to blue surfacing over half of bus lane. 

Page 3 of 3




ENVIRONMENT AND LEISURE OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE 

– 5TH JANUARY 2010 




Report by the Director of Technical Services on the 2009 air quality grant awarded to 

the Council by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 

SUMMARY 

Background. The Government’s Air Quality Strategy for England, Scotland, Wales 

and Northern Ireland (July 2007) contains national objectives and strategies for 

meeting European Union limit values for specific air pollutants. Local authorities 

are responsible for working towards meeting the air quality objectives for seven air 

pollutants through a process known as Local Air Quality Management (LAQM). 

Local authorities are invited annually to apply to the air quality grant programme 

run by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) for 

funding to support statutory duties for local air quality management, and to deliver 

actions contained in Air Quality Action Plans. This is the fourth year in which the 

current grant programme has been operating. The Council was awarded grants of 

£32,000 in 2006/07, £57,000 in 2007/08, and £114,000 in 2008/09, the highest 

amount awarded to any authority in that year. 

Priorities set by DEFRA for the 2009/10 grant programme included air pollution 

monitoring equipment; emission inventory work; air pollution dispersion 

modelling; and for work in connection with Air Quality Action Plans. 

Policy. The whole of the Borough was declared an Air Quality Management Area 

(AQMA) in January 2001. As a direct result of the declaration of the AQMA, the 

Council was required to produce an Air Quality Action Plan, which was formally 

adopted in January 2004 (Paper No. 04-1). The Plan sets out a series of measures, 

which aim to reduce emissions of air pollutants within the Borough in order to meet 

air quality objectives. 

Issues/proposals. The Council submitted twelve specific bids; of which three were 

for funding for air pollution monitoring equipment, two for funding for emission 

inventory work and seven for funding in connection with the Council’s Air Quality 

Action Plan. 

In total, the Council was awarded £78,937, the fourth highest amount awarded to 

any local authority for 2009/10, and the highest of any London borough outside of 

the Corporation of London. As part of the above, the Council was awarded the 

highest emission inventory award of £35,000 of any local authority in the country. 

Grants were awarded for fine particles monitoring equipment, a local emissions 

inventory for Putney High Street (Thamesfield), works to assess and reduce 

emissions from our vehicle fleet, adverts to promote air quality initiatives in GP 

surgeries, emissions strategy work and temporary hire of air quality monitoring 

Page 1 of 7 

(Paper No.10-4)

Air Quality Grant 2009/10 

equipment. The Council must provide DEFRA with a progress report on each of 

the approved projects within nine months of the grant payment being made; and a 

final report on completion of the approved project. The grant does not have to be 

spent within the financial year in which it was awarded. 

The Executive are asked to approve the details of the grants awarded. The 

Overview and Scrutiny Committees are asked to support the recommendations. 

Comments from the Director of Finance. The revenue grant awarded by DEFRA 

will be utilised to fund the specific schemes identified in this report. The grant is 

not time limited but is subject to the submission of reports to DEFRA on 

completion. Any additional cost of completing the projects will need to be 

contained within existing Environmental Services and Community Safety budgets. 

Conclusion. The award is testament to the quality of work undertaken by the 

Environment Team in Environmental Services and Community Safety and 

recognises the ability of the Technical Services Department to deliver on the 

projects. The amount of grant funding received also reflects the quality of the 

innovative bids submitted by the Council and the general standing of the Council 

within DEFRA. The Division would not be able to carry out this work if the grant 

had not been received from DEFRA. 

GLOSSARY 

ANPR Automatic number plate recognition 

AQMA Air Quality Management Area 

ATC Automatic Traffic Count 

CO 2 Carbon Dioxide 

Cenex Centre of Excellence for Low Carbon Technologies (Industry 

led private-public partnership) 

DEFRA Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 

GVW Gross Vehicle Weight 

LAQM Local Air Quality Management 

LESDP Low Emissions Strategies Development Programme 

NO 2 Nitrogen Dioxide 

NO x Oxides of Nitrogen 

µg/m³ Microgram per cubic metre 

PM 10 Particles of 10 microns or less in diameter 

SWELTRAC South and West London Transport Conference 

TfL Transport for London 

VRM Vehicle Registration Mark 

1. Recommendations. The Overview and Scrutiny Committees are recommended 

to support the recommendation in paragraph 3. 

2. If either of the Overview and Scrutiny Committees approve any views, 

comments or additional recommendations on the report, these will be reported 

to the Executive for their consideration. 

3. The Executive are recommended to agree the individual projects and 

expenditure of the grant awarded for each project as outlined in the ‘Detail of 

the Grants Awarded’ section (paragraphs 12 to 23). 



4. Introduction. The Government’s Air Quality Strategy for England, Scotland, 

Wales and Northern Ireland (July 2007) contains national objectives and 

strategies for meeting European Union limit values for specific air pollutants. 

Local authorities are responsible for working towards meeting the air quality 

objectives for seven air pollutants through a process known as Local Air Quality 

Management (LAQM). The legislation requires local authorities to review and 

assess local air quality and work towards achievement of the prescribed 

objectives. 

5. In January 2001, the whole of the London Borough of Wandsworth was 

declared an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA), following a detailed 

review and assessment of air quality, because of the likelihood that some of the 

standards set out in the air quality objectives would be exceeded within the 

Borough, predominantly in some areas close by a number of main roads. 

6. As a direct result of the declaration of the AQMA, the Council was required to 

produce an Air Quality Action Plan, which was formally adopted in January 

2004 (Paper No. 04-1). The Plan sets out a series of measures, which aim to 

reduce emissions of air pollutants within the Borough in order to meet air 

quality objectives. 

7. Local authorities are invited to apply to DEFRA’s air quality grant programme 

annually to support expenditure on their statutory duties for local air quality 

management, and delivery of the actions contained in Air Quality Action Plans. 

This is the fourth year in which the current grant programme has been 

operating. 

8. The Council was awarded grants of £32,000 in 2006/07, £57,000 in 2007/08, 

and £114,000 in 2008/09, the highest amount awarded to any authority in that 

year. 

9. Air Quality grant application. Priorities were set by DEFRA for the 2009/10 

grant programme with bids invited for air pollution monitoring equipment; 

emission inventory work; air pollution dispersion modelling; and for work in 

connection with delivering Air Quality Action Plans. Wandsworth submitted 

twelve specific bids for funding: three were for funding for air pollution 

monitoring equipment, two were for funding for emission inventory work and 

seven were for funding in connection with the Council’s Air Quality Action 

Plan. 

10. In total, the Council was awarded £78,937, of which £19,437 is to be spent on 

air pollution monitoring equipment; £35,000 on emission inventory work and 

£24,500 is to be spent in connection with the Air Quality Action Plan. This is 

the fourth highest amount awarded to any local authority for 2009/10, and the 

highest of any London borough outside of the Corporation of London. The 

Council was awarded the highest emission inventory award of any local 

authority in the country. 

11. The grants are awarded by DEFRA for specific approved projects and the 

Council is bound by the terms and conditions under which the grant is awarded, 

as set out in the award letter from DEFRA: Air Quality Grant Determination 

Page 3 of 7 

( Paper No.10-4)


(2009/10): No 31/1305. The Council must provide DEFRA with a progress report 

on each of the approved projects within 9 months of the grant payment being 

made; and a final report on completion of the approved project. The grant does 

not have to be spent within the financial year in which it was awarded and can be 

carried over financial years. If the grant is not spent or the final report on the 

approved projects is not accepted that element of the grant must be repaid in full. 

12. Details of the grants awarded 

13. A hand held light scatter particle monitor (‘Osiris’). This instrument will be 

purchased to provide valuable information on dust levels from major 

construction and industrial sites within the Borough so that their relative impact 

on air quality and potential for nuisance can be assessed. The monitor will be 

used as a screening tool and to verify the implementation of the Mayor of 

London’s Best Practice Guidance on the Control of Dust from Construction and 

Demolition. 

14. There are many large construction sites in the Borough located close to sensitive 

residential areas, either ongoing or proposed, giving rise to a risk of airborne 

particles. Some of these will be classified as major developments under the 

Mayor of London’s Best Practice Guidance on the Control of Dust from 

Construction and Demolition. In addition, cement batching plants are located in 

close proximity to residential properties, e.g. in the vicinity of Silverthorne 

Road, SW8 (Queenstown), there are two cement batching plants and an 

aggregate plant located very close to residential properties. The full amount 

applied for, £7,437, was awarded. 

15. Local emissions inventory for Putney High Street. Diffusion tube screening 

monitoring on and around Putney High Street, SW15 (Thamesfield) revealed 

consistently high concentrations of NO 2 over time. These high concentrations 

are being further confirmed by the initial monitoring results that are being 

received from the temporary continuous air quality monitoring that is now 

located in the high street. These results are yet to be fully ratified, and therefore 

should be treated with care. However, the initial results are indicating high 

hourly nitrogen dioxide concentrations. There are no industrial or large scale 

sources of this pollutant in the area, suggesting that the cause is traffic based. 

Officers now wish to obtain a detailed inventory of vehicle types, numbers, and 

related data, to allow a proper Air Quality assessment and to provide the 

evidence to target remedial measures. 

16. The proposed scheme is to create a local vehicle emissions inventory for Putney 

High Street, (Thamesfield), by the use of a vehicle automatic number plate 

recognition (ANPR) system to record every vehicle number plate passing the 

cameras over a set period. This acts as a traffic counter, but has substantial 

added benefits. It is proposed that the system would be used on one specific 

week day during different seasons to account for any seasonal variation and 

then one day at a weekend. The ANPR data captured will include information 

on Vehicle Registration Mark, date first registered, vehicle category, body style, 

marque description, range description, model variant, engine capacity, Euro 

band, gross vehicle weight, fuel type, drive type, fuel economy, CO 2 , 

particulates, and NO x . This data will be analysed and a report submitted that 



will form the basis for a local emissions inventory. Additionally, a summary of 

basic vehicle statistics would be provided for each test day, including the 12 

hour diurnal flows, shown in 5-minute totals. The survey will not require or 

collect personal details regarding owners of the vehicles, and even if vehicle 

details were requested at a later date these would not be provided by the DVLA. 

The make, model variant, engine capacity, age of the car etc. will only be used 

for the purposes of calculating emissions for correlation with continuous 

monitoring data obtained from the Air Quality Monitoring Stations. The survey 

data will also be used to calculate the numbers and percentages of buses, vans, 

heavy goods and diesel vehicles using the roads and again this will be used to 

identify any trends leading to poor air quality at different times of the day. 

17. The emissions inventory obtained from the analysis could then be related to the 

real-time monitoring data to be measured from the same location (a roadside 

site and a background site). This can be used to provide a better understanding 

of the effect of road traffic on air pollution levels, through source apportionment 

or temporal trends, for example. The ANPR data will be supplemented by 

automatic traffic count (ATC) data. The inventory would also be able to provide 

accurate data for future modeling work and could also be used to influence 

future road schemes locally and throughout the Borough in respect of air quality 

impacts. The application was for £20,000 and a total of £10,000 grant was 

awarded. 

18. Assessing and reducing emissions from the Council’s vehicle fleet. This work 

will involve building upon the emissions data already gathered for the Council’s 

vehicle fleet and putting into place various measures to reduce emissions from 

the existing fleet. Such measures could involve fuel management, reducing the 

demand for travel, driver behaviour change training and the installation of 

alternative fuels and technologies to reduce emissions from specific targeted 

vehicles. The implementation of such measures will have benefits for local air 

quality and global air quality. The application was for £40,000 and a total of 

£25,000 grant was awarded. 

19. Television advertisements to promote air quality initiatives in GP surgeries. The 

Life Channel has 37 sites in Wandsworth located mainly in GP surgeries. In 

each surgery a TV has been installed with a dedicated network set up to provide 

information, educational and entertaining content that embraces the healthy 

living and well-being focus of the channel. The programmes are all approved by 

the Department of Health and are supplemented with adverts for local services. 

Adverts of 30-second duration have been produced for two of the air quality 

initiatives that are being promoted within the Borough; airTEXT and the 

provision of electric vehicle charging points. The grant application was for 

£19,000 and a total of £9,500 grant was awarded for the cost of displaying the 

adverts every 20 minutes in all of the GP surgery waiting rooms within the 

Borough. This is sufficient to provide these adverts for a period of 8 months. 

20. The temporary hire of an air quality monitoring station. This is intended to 

supplement other monitoring taking place within the Borough. The grant 

funding has been provided to hire a small temporary monitoring station and 

position it at the roadside in York Road SW11 (St Mary’s Park and Latchmere) 

for a period of one year to assess hourly nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ). (Fine particles 

(PM 10 ) data will also be collected at the same time.) It will be sited in a location 

Page 5 of 7 

( Paper No.10-4)


representative of exposure by individuals walking along the high street, or 

people living above the shops, where the hourly objective may be exceeded. 

21. At present there is no real-time monitoring data for the part of the Borough 

where the real-time monitoring station is being proposed. We have only limited 

monitoring data from the proposed monitoring area e.g. Battersea, based on a 

two year study using nitrogen dioxide diffusion tubes that was carried out by 

Faber Maunsell. The real-time data will build upon the existing diffusion tube 

data which yielded readings of greater than 60 µg/m³, indicating that the hourly 

NO 2 objective may be being exceeded. The grant application was for £25,000 

and a total of £12,000 grant was awarded. 

22. Low emissions strategy work. The Council is a member of the local authority 

peer group under the ‘Low Emission Strategies Development Programme’ 

(LESDP). The Council’s individual outline project is to: produce a 

Supplementary Planning Document on Air Quality and Low Emission 

Strategies; to produce template Low Emission Strategies; and enable the 

approach to be adopted by the Council. 

23. The grant awarded provides matched funding for delivery of the ‘Low Emission 

Strategies Development Programme’ (LESDP), enabling the Council to 

participate in and benefit from this work. The LESDP is a collaborative project 

working with a number of partners, including the Air Quality Beacon Councils, 

Cenex, DEFRA and a local authority peer group of approximately 8 to10 Local 

Authorities. The programme aims to demonstrate ‘progress in managing the 

transport impacts of new developments through the use of low emission 

strategies'. It will do this 'by encouraging wider adoption of low emission 

strategies, supporting the use of more ambitious measures and driving 

development of effective local policies and practice.’ The work builds on the 

'Beacons Low Emission Strategies Guidance', (see: www.cenex.co.uk). The 

initiative will provide tailored support for local delivery of low emission 

strategies, covering areas such as: policy development, negotiation of Section 

106 agreements, technical assessment and internal training/communications. 

The funding will partly be used for the development of tools to evaluate 

emission reduction benefits of low emission strategies and measures, supporting 

development of new Low emission Strategy agreements. The full amount 

applied for, namely £15,000 was awarded. 

24. Comments of the Director of Finance. The revenue grant awarded by DEFRA 

will be utilised to fund the specific schemes identified in this report. The grant is 

not time limited but is subject to the submission of reports to DEFRA on 

completion. Any additional cost of completing the projects will need to be 

contained within existing Environmental Services budgets. 

25. Conclusion. It is gratifying to receive such a high level of grant to assist in 

working towards improving the air quality within the Borough. The award is 

testament to the quality of work undertaken by the Environment Team, 

Environmental Services and Community Safety in the past and recognition of 

the ability of the Technical Services Department to deliver on the projects. 

26. The amount of grant funding received also reflects the quality of the innovative 

bids that were submitted by the Council and the general standing of the Council 



within DEFRA. The Division would not be able to carry out this work if the 

grant had not been received from DEFRA. 

__________________________ 

W. G. MYERS 



Wandsworth, 

SW18 2PU. 

23rd December 2009 



1. AIR QUALITY: Third round of Review and Assessment of Air Quality: 

Progress Report 2008 

http://www.wandsworth.gov.uk/downloads/file/141/progress_report_2008 

2. DEFRA’s letters inviting bids and advising of the award determination can be 

found at the following link: 

http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/quality/air/airquality/local/aqgrant/docum 

ents/annex-a-c.pdf 

All reports to the Overview and Scrutiny Committees, regulatory and other committees, 

Executive and the full Council can be viewed on the Council website 


2001 in which case the Committee Secretaries Mr D Jones-Owen – 020 8871 7032; 

mail to: djonesowen@wandsworth.gov.uk) and Mr M Newton – 020 8871 6488; mail 

to: mnewton@wandsworth.gov.uk) can supply a copy if required. 

Page 7 of 7 

( Paper No.10-4)







Report by the Director of Technical Services concerning the arrangements for 

tendering for the provision of a Department-wide financial and project management 

computer system. 

SUMMARY 

Background. Technical Services have reviewed the business processes throughout 

the Department and identified the need of a computer system to enable full control 

of capital and revenue work programs, project management and budgets. In 

addition the system must have the capability of dealing with the requirements of the 

Traffic Management Act 2004 and link to Geographical Information Systems. 

Policy. The letting of this contract falls within the Public Contracts Regulations 

2006, classified as an A Service and therefore a notice in the Official Journal of the 

European Union (OJEU) is required to seek expressions of interest. 

Issues/Proposals. It is vital that the new computer system meets the prescribed 

needs of the Department. Specific functionality is required. Costly or time 

consuming development of a system that is not quite right needs to be avoided. For 

these reasons it is proposed that the MEAT procedure be followed having 80% 

price, 10% quality, 10% technical. Such an approach is not uncommon when 

considering the purchase of a new computer system. Formal approval to award the 

contract using the MEAT approach is sought. 

Comments of the Director of Finance. The cost of the new computer system is 

expected to be in the range of £100,000 to £150,000. The cost can be met from the 

DSO Appropriation Account accumulated surpluses, the DSO trading accounts and 

from user general fund existing budgets. The proportion falling to each funding 

source will be dependant on the result of the tender process. Annual maintenance 

costs would be likely to be around the current level of approximately £19,000 p.a. 

and could therefore be met from existing DSO and general fund revenue budgets. 

The system will also need to be fully compatible with the Council’s new ledger 

system. 

Supporting Information. A copy of the proposed contract documentation has been 

placed in the Member’s Room. 

Conclusions. The report recommends that the contract for the provision of a 

Departmental wide financial and project management computer system is tendered 


Finance Project Management Tender 

on the basis of the MEAT procedure and that approval of the short-listing and of 

the contract award are approved using SO83(A). 

GLOSSARY 

OJEC – Official Journal of the European Community 

PAG – The Council’s ‘Procurement and Advisory Group’ 

MEAT – Most Economical and Advantageous Tender 

UNIX – a type of computer operating system 

PQQ – Pre-Qualification Questionnaire 



2. If the Planning and Transportation Overview and Scrutiny Committee approve 

any views, comments or recommendations on this report, these will be 

reported to the Executive and/or appropriate other committees for 



(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

(d) 

(e) 

(f) 

approve the draft tender documentation for the letting of the contract 

for the purchase and ongoing support and maintenance of the computer 

system; 

authorise the Chief Executive and Director of Administration, in 

conjunction with the Borough Solicitor, to make any necessary minor 

modifications to that documentation; 

approve letting the contract for the purchase and ongoing support and 

maintenance of the computer system under the MEAT procedure as 

described in paragraph 9 

approve authorisation of approval to the shortlist of contractors by 

Standing Order No. 83(A) as indicated in paragraph 16 

approve authorisation of the award of the contract by Standing Order 

No. 83(A) as indicated in paragraph 18 

approve the timetable indicated in paragraph 19 for the tender process 

4. Introduction. The Council’s Procurement Advisory Group (PAG) has 

considered the proposed purchase of a Departmental wide computer system 



for the Technical Services Department. Under the Public Contract 

Regulations (2006) the purchase of this computer system is classified as an A 

Service and as a result requires a notice to be placed in Europe to seek 

expressions of interest. At the meeting PAG supported the approach to 

award the contract on the basis of most economically advantageous tender 

(MEAT) . This report is seeking formal approval to proceed on this basis. 

5. Background. Technical Services have reviewed the business processes 

throughout the Department and identified the need for an all-encompassing 

computer system to enable full control of capital and revenue work programs, 

project management and budgets. In addition the system must have the 

capability of dealing with the requirements of the Traffic Management Act 

2004 and link to Geographical Information Systems. 

6. Operational Services currently uses a 20 year old financial system that is 

‘running’ on a very old UNIX server. The computer is showing signs of 

fatigue and the UNIX SCO OpenServer operating system is so old it is no 

longer supported by the Supplier and is supported by Wandsworth IT Services 

on a ‘best endeavours’ only basis. The functionality of the current system is 

crucial for supporting the ‘back-office’ functions of Operational Services. 

Details of every order are held within the system enabling extracts for payroll 

for 350 staff, payment details and generation of £24m of invoices per annum 

to various clients. 

7. The Director of Technical Services has instructed Operational Services not to 

replace their computer system, but wait for inclusion within a Departmental 

solution. The new system will encompass the needs of senior management, 

budget holders controlling and commissioning works, project engineers and 

engineering design teams as well as operational staff. The system will be able 

to control engineering schemes from initial conception and investigation 

through all the design stages to final implementation. Immediate financial and 

progress reporting will be available to all. It must be capable of meeting the 

needs of the Traffic Manager for Wandsworth regarding the Traffic 

Management Act 2004. It should have mobile working solutions and be fully 

compliant with the new corporate infrastructure of the Council. 

8. Process. A project was raised with our IT Liaison Officer and a small team 

was set up to formally explore the marketplace and investigate a new solution. 

The results of this investigation found that solutions were readily available 

which were reported to PAG who noted the need for the computer system and 

instructed that an advert should be placed in Europe using the restricted 

procedure. 

9. It is vital that the new computer system meets the prescribed needs of the 

Department. Specific functionality is required. Costly or time consuming 

development of a system that is not quite right needs to be avoided. For these 

reasons it is proposed that the MEAT procedure be followed having 80% 

price, 10% quality, 10% technical. Such an approach is not uncommon when 

considering the purchase of a new computer system. A scoring system will be 

devised prior to the tender stage to ensure a consistent approach to all 

tenderers regarding the 10% quality and 10% technical which will consider 



such things as closeness to the specified functionality, the implementation plan 

and support. 

Scope of the contract 

10. Contract specification. The Contractor will be expected to provide a browser 

based financial and project management system. The system is required to 

hold detailed breakdown of all jobs at individual cost level, full stock and 

purchasing management and vehicle workshops monitoring. In addition, the 

system must have mobile working capability such as PDA’s, Geographical 

Information Systems interface and be able to hold information relating to the 

Traffic Management Act 2004. 

11. Period of the contract. It is proposed to award the contract for a period of 5 

years. In the event that the contract proves to be successful, and there are no 

pressing reasons to terminate the contract, it is proposed that provision be 

made within the contract documentation for an optional extension of up to 5 

years and further subsequent extensions to be exercised by mutual agreement 

between the Council and contractor. 

12. The tender documentation is currently in draft form and a copy of the contract 

has been placed in the Members’ Room. The draft documentation may require 

minor changes prior to tender invitation. Therefore, approval is sought for the 

Chief Executive and Director of Administration, in conjunction with the 

Borough Solicitor, to make any such minor changes for incorporation into the 

final version. 

13. The letting of this contract falls within the Public Contracts Regulations 2006, 

classified as an A Service and therefore a notice in the Official Journal of the 

European Union (OJEU) is required to seek expressions of interest. 

14. The contracting process will follow the restricted procedure, which includes 

the selection of a tender list and subsequent invitation for selected 

organisations to submit tenders. 

15. Criteria for shortlisting. The criteria for selection are included in the 

advertisement, a copy of which is attached as Appendix A. In summary these 

are:- 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

(d) 

(e) 

(f) 

(g) 

The evaluation of the completed PQQ. 

Evidence of at least 5 years experience of similar contracts enabling 

the Council to obtain suitable references. 

Proven technical competence and capability in providing a similar 

managed service including system/database administration, 

maintenance and support for the software application. 

Compatibility with the Council’s IT network and infra-structure. 

Adequate disaster recovery capability. 

Sufficient suitably qualified staff. 

Three years of acceptable financial accounts and suitable insurance 

cover. Public Liability to a minimum of £5,000,000 per occurrence, 

Employers Liability to a minimum of £10,000,000 and Professional 

Indemnity to a minimum per claim of £2,000,000. 



(h) 

(i) 

(j) 

(k) 

An annual turnover equivalent to at least twice the contract value. 

A sound record of quality standards including complaint handling. 

Sound policies as required including health and safety and equalities. 

A sound record of data protection and confidentiality. 

16. Approval to the shortlist of contractors. Shortlisting will be carried out on 

receipt of the PQQ and on completion authority to approve the shortlist by 

Standing Order No. 83(A) will be sought. 

17. Criterion for contract award. The contract will be awarded using the MEAT 

procedure having 80% price, 10% quality, 10% technical. 

18. Authority is sought to obtain approval to award the contract by Standing Order 

83(A). 

19. Indicative timetable. This is outlined below:- 

(a) Advertisement inviting expressions of interest, January 2010 

(b) Closing date for expressions of interest, February 2010 

(c) Approval to shortlist under Standing Order No. 83(A) procedure, April 

2010 

(d) Tender invitations to be issued, April 2010 

(e) Tender return, May 2010 

(f) Approval to award contract under Standing Order No. 83(A) 

procedure, May 2010 

(g) Allowance for Alcatel standstill period where appropriate, June 2010 

(h) Final Contract award, June 2010 

(i) Implementation of system, lead in period until ‘go-live’, October 2010 

20. Comments of the Director of Finance. The cost of the new computer system 

is expected to be in the range £100,000 to £150,000. The cost can be met from 

the DSO Appropriation Account accumulated surpluses, the DSO trading 

accounts and from user general fund existing budgets. The proportion falling 

to each funding source will be dependant on the result of the tender process. 

Annual maintenance costs would be likely to be around the current level of 

approximately £19,000 p.a. and could therefore be met from existing DSO and 

general fund revenue budgets. The system will also need to be fully 

compatible with the Council’s new ledger system. 

21. Comments of the Head of Corporate ICT. The Head of Corporate ICT 

confirms the precarious current state of the existing (ROCC) computer system 

used by Operational Services for many years. A new system utilising current 

technology, (hardware and software), is therefore essential, and would provide 

a very significant improvement in reliability and resilience. 

The solution may be hosted internally, or externally. Were it to be hosted 

internally, it would be expected that it would be consistent with the Council’s 

enterprise infrastructure architecture. 

The Head of Corporate ICT understands that the estimated tender value 

includes the cost of support and maintenance for a period of five years. 



22. Conclusion. A Departmental system incorporating financial and project 

control with suitable functionality in relation to the Traffic Management Act 

and mobile working is required. A Departmental solution will enable 

improvements and efficiencies to be made in future as the relevant information 

will be available to all users from the initial inception of a scheme through to 

implementation without the need to re-enter information onto various 

individual systems. 

____________________ 

Town Hall, 

Wandsworth, 

SW18 2PU. 

W.G. MYERS 




No background papers were used in the preparation if this report:- 




2001, in which case the Committee Secretary (Mr. M. Newton – 020 8871 6488; 

email mnewton@wandsworth.gov.uk can supply it if required). 




PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE – 

13TH JANUARY 2010 

Report by the Chief Executive and Director of Administration on petitions presented to the 

Council on 9th December 2009 and referred formally to this Overview and Scrutiny 

Committee. 

SUMMARY 

This report sets out the terms of three petitions that 

were presented to the Council on 9th December 2009. 

The petitions are being referred formally to this 

Overview and Scrutiny Committee. 

Reports in response to these petitions will be submitted 

to this Committee, and to the Executive, as 

appropriate, at future meetings. 

1. Recommendation. This report is submitted to the Planning and Transportation 

Overview and Scrutiny Committee for information. No decisions are required on it by 

the Council, the Executive or the regulatory and other Committees. 

2. However, if the Overview and Scrutiny Committee decide that recommendations on it 

need to be made, these will be reported to the Executive and/or appropriate regulatory 

and other Committees for consideration. 

3. Introduction. Three petitions, in the terms set out below, were presented to the 

Council at its meeting on 9th December 2009 and are being referred formally to this 

Overview and Scrutiny Committee. 

4. Petitions. The petitions are as follows:- 

(a) Beclands Road – Traffic management and parking bays. Presented by 

Councillor Mrs. L. Cooper and bearing 23 signatures of residents of Beclands Road, 

SW17 (Furzedown), in the following terms:- 

“We, the undersigned, support the call by Sadiq Khan, MP and the Furzedown 

Ward Labour Campaign Team, Councillor John Farebrother, Councillor 

Leonie Cooper and Mark Thomas, that Wandsworth Council consider making 

Page 1 of 3

Beclands Road a one-way street in view of its narrowness and further 

increases the provision of parking bays in the Road.” 

(b) Closure of Garratt Lane end of Algarve Road. Presented by Councillor Mrs. 

A. Graham and bearing 58 signatures of residents of Algarve Road, SW18 

(Earlsfield), in the following terms:- 

“We, the undersigned, petition Wandsworth Council to close off the Garratt 

Lane end of Algarve Road to traffic, thus making it a one-way street with an 

entrance / exit at Earlsfield Road only.” 

(c) Totterdown Street, SW17 – reduction in traffic speed and congestion. 

Presented by Councillor Gibbons and bearing 54 signatures of residents of 

Totterdown Street, SW17 (Graveney), in the following terms:- 

“We the undersigned demand that Wandsworth Borough Council’s Planning 

and Transportation Overview and Scrutiny Committee make a positive 

commitment to reduce traffic levels and vehicle speeds in residential 

Totterdown Street, SW17. We the residents demand equal rights and 

considerations from Wandsworth Council for proper controlled traffic 

management into Totterdown Street, to introduce: a 20 mile an hour speed 

limit: and reduction in traffic congestion. We say the Council is unfair and 

unreasonable to both admit that traffic levels are above their agreed target 

levels but to dismiss this due to these supposedly being lower than 2007 

levels; we say that the Council’s calculation of vehicle levels and speeds are 

inaccurate and are presented in a dismissive way to suit their ‘do nothing’ for 

Totterdown Street agenda. We the residents know that traffic is unacceptable, 

for the Council to do nothing is not an option!” 

5. Action. Reports by the Director of Technical Services in response to the issues raised 

in the petitions will be submitted to the Committee and the Executive, as appropriate, 

at future meetings. Copies of the respective reports will be sent to the organisers of 

the petitions, as soon as they are published. 

___________________ 


Wandsworth, 

SW18 2PU. 


G. K. JONES 

Chief Executive and Director of Administration 



Page 2 of 3

All reports to the Overview and Scrutiny Committees, regulatory and other Committees, the 


(www.wandsworth.gov.uk/moderngov) unless the report was published before May 2001, in 

which case the Committee Secretary (Mr. M. Newton on 020 8871 6488 or 


Page 3 of 3

1 Contact: Martin Newton Tel: 020 8871 6488 e-mail: mnewton ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?