Agenda item

LTN - Lower Ham Road

To provide feedback to the Committee on a number of workstreams, which includes consultation responses (portal/email/ETMO), comment on traffic surveys and air quality assessments and potential impacts and to seek a way forward with the measures.

Decision:

RESOLVED to defer the decision till the September or later meeting by which time the mechanics and signage required by the Committee had been resolved. The Committee was mindful to approve, subject to the finer details of the mechanism for closure and signage being agreed.

 

Voting: Unanimous

 

Minutes:

The committee had before it a report titled Lower Ham Road Low Traffic Scheme - Experimental Traffic Management Order review by the Assistant Director Highways, Transport and Regulatory Services. The report provided feedback to the Committee on a number of work streams, which included consultation responses (portal/email/ETMO), comment on traffic surveys and air quality assessments and potential impacts and asked the committee to agree a way forward.

 

The report noted that the changing travel patterns and the COVID 19 pandemic, had presented both an opportunity and a threat. The opportunity was that the council was able to bring forward a number of ‘low traffic neighbourhood’ (LTN) projects. These would make Kingston a clean, green and safe borough for all residents. It was therefore important that their analysis looked at other factors such as the impact of the schemes on air quality, traffic flows and cycling patterns. LTNs were an important tool to make local roads safer for pedestrians and cyclists, and so to help tackle the climate crisis, improve air quality and make Kingston neighbourhoods better places to live making local roads safer for pedestrians and cyclists. The report noted that LTNs encouraged active travel, which in the long term would help to protect the environment and reduce carbon emissions. The report noted that the Council had originally identified the LTN location for Lower Ham Road in the report to the Response and Recovery Committee on 30 July 2020 which included 3 other locations for LTN’s. The scope of the scheme area could be seen on the plan at Annex 1 to the report. The report noted that the process used to implement the LTNs was an ‘Experimental Traffic Management Order’ (ETMO) which was the process strongly encouraged by central government and TfL. This process allowed the immediate implementation of measures and a consultation running in parallel with the implementation of the experiment. This was not the ‘usual’ way that Kingston has implemented traffic management and improvement projects. The ETMO process included a six month engagement period at the start of the trial which could remain in place for up to 18 months in total. In addition to the formal traffic order consultation, residents were able to submit their views about the LTN schemes online ‘informally’ using the Kingston Let’s Talk portal. Over 152 residents submitted their views via Kingston Let’s Talk on the LTN on Lower Ham Road. The engagement process had also included reaching out to stakeholder groups, setting up the Street Talk publication and feedback through the Streetspace email inbox and via Members. The engagement feedback was, however, only part of the overall analysis process, which included the longer-term policy ambitions for the Council. The report noted that the Council wanted to make Kingston a clean, green and safe borough for all residents. It was therefore important that analysis looked at other factors such as the impact of the schemes on air quality, traffic flows and cycling patterns. Although there was a formal process by which responses to the ETMO could be made, it was felt the series of questions used for the Let’s Talk survey would capture more precisely people’s experiences and attitudes to the LTNs.

 

 

The Committee was mindful to approve, subject to the finer details of the mechanism for closure and signage being agreed.

 

RESOLVED to defer the decision till the September or later meeting by which time the mechanics and signage required by the Committee had been resolved.

 

Voting: Unanimous

 

Supporting documents: