The Council Procedure Rules provide for a maximum of four petitions to be discussed at an Ordinary Meeting of the Council.

 

The attached report presents the received petitions to be discussed. Should any additional petitions be received they will be listed to be noted but not discussed.

 

 

5.1 Petition regarding Improve the safety and amenity of the Thames Path at the gate to KEMP (King Edward Memorial Park)

 

Hazel Parker- Brown addressed the meeting on behalf of the petitioners, and responded to questions from Members. Councillor Sabina Akhtar, Cabinet Member for Culture, Arts and Brexit then responded to the petition.

 

She thanked the Petitioner for attending the meeting and stated that the Council noted the importance of improving the quality of streets and addressing concerns people raised. A number of different agencies managed the Thames Pathway, including the Free Trade Wharf Group and the Port of London Authority. However, the Council’s Project Manager worked closely with these agencies, responsible for the improvement programme.

 

She undertook to keep the Petitioners up to date on the discussions on the improvements plans, and the availability of Council funding for the works.

 

RESOLVED:

 

1.     That the petition be referred to the Corporate Director, Place, for a written response within 28 days.

 

5.2 Petition regarding Stop the trial of all the time bus lanes

 

Azad Miah addressed the meeting on behalf of the petitioners and responded to questions from Members. Mayor John Biggs then responded to the matters raised in the petition. The Mayor provided an update on Council’s approach to responding to the changes introduced by TfL, including the work to engage with residents and businesses to understand their concerns and ensure they were not disadvantaged. 

 

The Mayor expressed an intention to ensure that the Council continued to engage with the community and to make representations to TfL about the changes to ensure the Borough’s views were taken into account.

 

RESOLVED:

 

1.     That the petition be referred to the Corporate Director, Place for a written response within 28 days.

 

5.3 Petition regarding stop the structurally discriminating consultation process on Liveable street programme

 

Mohammad Rakibaddressed the meeting on behalf of the petitioners, and responded to questions from Members. The Council debated the issues and Mayor John Biggs responded to the matters raised in the Petition. He thanked the Petitioner for his contributions and passed on his best wishes to the representatives who were unable to attend the meeting.

 

The Mayor reflected on the key issues raised, from his point of view, during the debate regarding: the adequacy of the consultation exercise (in terms of contacting those with protected characteristics), equalities issues and the wider concerns with the proposals. Whilst he was of the view that the issues had already been taken into account, he expressed a commitment to further review these issues and to produce a further written response to the Petition.

 

During the debate, Councillor Rabina Khan moved and Councillor Andrew Wood seconded a motion (as set out below).

 

This Council notes:

 

1.       The petition presented to the full council by residents, which has gathered over 2,100 signatures stating that they have been discriminated against by the Liveable Streets’ Contractor, PCL Consult.

2.       The petition and the residents supporting the petition state that they have been directly and indirectly discriminated against on the basis of their protective characteristics of race, faith, gender, disability, age and socio-economic inequalities.

3.       That the petition represents not a single isolated incident, but over 2,500 individual complaints covering all demographics and all geographic areas that make up the diverse community of Tower Hamlets. Representing institutional and systematic discrimination by PCL Consult, the Tower Hamlets Council contractor.

4.       That protective characteristics are protected by law under the Equality Act of 2010 and Tower Hamlets Council has a Public Sector Equality Duty to ensure that its residents are not discriminated against on the basis of their protective characteristics.

5.       The MacPherson principles of the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry, which states that all complaints about incidents of racism should be recorded and investigated as such when they are perceived by the complainant or someone else as acts of racism.

6.       The Equality Act 2010 incorporates the MacPherson Principle to cover all protected characteristics in the Act

7.       In 2020, the following related petitions were on the Council’s website:

 

•       2,127 signatures so far on the Council website for the petition “Stop the structurally discriminating consultation process on Liveable Streets’” programme, which ends on 31st January 2021

•       1,724 signatures for a “Petition to allow residents’ vehicles and taxis access through the Wapping Bus Gate during operating times”

•       1,668 signatures for “Stop The Burdett Road Entrapment!”

•       514 signatures for a petition to “Re-Open Old Ford Road”

•            2,365 signatures to “Get the local council to stop using the blunt instrument of road closures to stop rat running through Tower Hamlets”

•       That these are the largest petitions on the Council website in 2020 together with petitions regarding Whitechapel Bell Foundry, parking mini-zone change and the Community Language Service

 

This Council further notes:

 

1.       To date, the Council has spent £1 million on the Liveable Streets’ consultation programme. At a time of national crisis with our borough having to make cuts left, right and centre, it is inexcusable for this council to continue to spend one more penny on a flawed and divisive programme, which has only paid lip service to the required consultations.

 

2.       The cost of such a scheme is unreasonable at a time when the Council is having to borrow money to deliver its Town Hall programme.

 

3.       A Judicial Review was granted against Tower Hamlets Council in the High Court for indirect discrimination against Black, Asian and Ethnic Minority community projects in 2019.  Judge Roger ter Haar QC stated: “I am particularly concerned about the indirect discrimination in the case.”

 

4.       There are clear flaws in the Equality Impact Assessment. The report states that people with the protected characteristics of disability and age, “limiting or reducing car provision could have a negative impact on this group. Naturally, road closures would have this effect.

 

5.       It then states that there would be “no impact”. 

 

6.       The report states that car users “may be required to take an alternative route” without considering the affect on older and disabled residents. This has not been investigated and no evidence has been provided.

 

7.       The EQIA assessment has deliberately been omitted vital feedback to fit the PCL Consult’s agenda.

 

8.       East End Enquirer’s investigation identified that only one of the seven Liveable Streets’ schemes (in Bow) had an Equality Impact Assessment undertaken. which was carried out by Council officers directly involved in the scheme, or external consultants hired to deliver the scheme.

 

9.       The report titled “Report on Structural Discrimination in the Liveable Streets’ Consultations” by Cllr Puru Miah.

 

10.      That the High Court has today 20th January handed down two judgments in R (UTAG & LTDA) v Transport for London & Mayor of London [2021] EWHC 72 (Admin) and R (UTAG & LTDA) v Transport for London & Mayor of London  [2021] EWHC 73 (Admin) which quashed the Mayor of London's Streetspace Plan and TfL’s Bishopsgate Traffic Management Order, The High Court Judge held that the Mayor and TfL had failed to have regard to the status and unique role of London taxis in formulating the Streetspace Plan and Guidance and on this basis alone she held both to be unlawful. Also mentioned was a lack of an Equality Impact Assessment.

 

This Council resolves:

 

1.      That Equality Impact Assessments (EIA) are:

·             Always carried out on schemes that change residents’ daily lives

·             Carried out by individuals not involved in the delivery of projects and who lack expertise in this specialist area, and not undertaken by those who have a personal/professional or commercial commitment to the projects’ delivery.

·             That they be centralised (perhaps within Public Health) into one department that does the EQIA for all Council projects to ensure standardisation, expertise and independence.

·             That the Council makes clear that if a project fails, or partially fails its EIA, it be suspended and rethought.

 

2.     That the Council looks again at how it consults residents and why it does so:

·             That for locally specific consultations, the Council sends – via Royal Mail – consultation documents to those blocks that are difficult to access.

·             That the Council provides consultation information in other languages

·             That where external companies are used in consultations, they do not have a commercial interest in its outcome, and that their commercial interest is to ensure a fair response.

·             That the Council provides a mechanism for returning consultation materials that are not online

·             That the Council makes clear under what circumstances and by whom consultation responses are not taken up

 

3.       To test the use of electronic camera-controlled gates that allow the following vehicle types through:

·             Local residents (based on the postcode of the vehicle registration e.g. E1W)

·             Licensed taxis (hackney carriages) based on the rules that TfL use for their bus lanes

·             Electric vehicles (vehicle types can be confirmed via the DVLA as TfL currently do)

·             Royal Mail (this is an easy visual check)

·             All ambulances

·             All school or special needs buses

·             TfL buses

·             Last mile related delivery vehicles (to be defined)

 

4.       That the £65 penalty charge will more than cover the costs of such a scheme, both the implementation and administration (see Blackwall bus gate).

 

5.       To expand the provision of live air quality monitor sensors across the Borough, as the four sensors we have are not in places where people live, work or study, but either in parks or right next to main roads. The Council’s own Love Your Neighbourhood app routinely shows air quality in the borough as being low (low meaning low levels of pollutants). To treat the petition and the signature as a complaint of discrimination of protected characteristics of residents and investigate it as such.

 

6.       To treat the petition and the signature as a complaint of discrimination of protected characteristics of residents and investigate it as such.

 

7.       That Council’s safeguarding measures should be implemented, and PCL Consult should be suspended pending investigation to protect members of the public.

 

This motion moved by Councillor Rabina Khan was put to a vote and was defeated

 

During the debate, Councillor Dan Tomlinson moved and Councillor Asma Islam seconded a motion (as set out in the resolution below).

 

The motion moved by Councillor Tomlinson was put to a vote and was agreed

 

RESOLVED:

 

This Council notes:

1.    Tower Hamlets’ status as a busy Inner London borough provides us with immense challenges as well a great opportunities in terms of transport.

2.    We have more vehicles passing through the borough each day than anywhere else in the country, with many drivers from other boroughs cutting through Tower Hamlets, and at the same time we are one of the most well-connected boroughs in London when it comes to public transport.

3.    Many local vehicle journeys are essential for the economic life of our borough, business owners and taxi drivers contribute to the local economy and at this time of economic hardship we need to do all we can protect and support businesses.

4.    Further, although 1 in 3 local car trips in the borough are for journeys less than 1.2 miles, there are many reasons why local residents may need to make journeys via car.

5.    However, it is not sufficient to simply blame our congestion and poor air quality on outsiders. There are too many local vehicle journeys that are short and could be better carried out by other means. The school run sees massive traffic flows at many schools and it is often tempting to get in the car for very short journeys when other choices could be made.

6.    We must recognise how significant the health impacts of pollution are – particularly in a borough like Tower Hamlets with such a young population. We know that even though we have one of the lowest rates of car ownership of anywhere in the UK, 77% of the population in Tower Hamlets live in areas that exceed recommended limits for air pollution.

7.    The introduction of school and play streets which recognises the needs of our young population and enables us to create areas where children can safely walk or wheel to and from school.

 

This Council further notes that:

1.    The 2018 Tower Hamlets Labour local election manifesto, whose commitments and policies were adopted into our local Strategic Plan, stated:

‘Tower Hamlets has many main arterial roads going through it, serving the strategic Transport for London road network. Through-traffic should by and large stick to these main roads but many of our residential neighbourhoods have seen huge increases in rat-running traffic, making them more dangerous, noisy and polluted. We will create low traffic neighbourhoods, keeping through-traffic to main roads, in any residential area where residents want them, with an ambition to have started on at least half of the borough’s neighbourhoods by 2022.’ 

and

‘We recognise that many residents need their cars - for work, for family – but we recognise too that levels of congestion and poor air quality mean that something must change. Electric and lower emissions cars will help, although for many those are not easy to afford and Government must help through a scrappage scheme or other measures. We will recognise the many essential reasons residents and businesses have for driving in our borough, including for family and employment reasons, and will respect and facilitate these.’

2.    The Liveable Streets programme was introduced in 2018 with the stated aim to:

‘improve the look and feel of public spaces in neighbourhoods across the borough and make it easier, safer and more convenient to get around by foot, bike and public transport.’

and

‘to reduce people making ‘rat runs’ and shortcuts through residential streets to encourage more sustainable journeys and to improve air quality and road safety.’

 

3.    The Liveable Streets programme, as with equivalent schemes in other areas, has seen polarised debate with very strong views on different sides.

4.    That the implementation of bus gates and road closures in particular have significantly divided views.

 

This Council believes:

1.    There is an urgent need to improve air quality in Tower Hamlets, and we need to do all we can to make residential streets safer for everyone, particularly for children and pedestrians.

2.    That a vital part of the Liveable Streets scheme is about making our communities safer for everyone.

3.    That we need to reduce ‘through traffic’ from other boroughs, whilst recognising that many local vehicle journeys are essential for our local residents, but also that for real change to happen local drivers need to use their cars less often too.

4.    That our streets and roads are in need of investment, and that Liveable Streets is delivering such investment following detailed and wide consultation.

5.    That any large changes we make to the way roads work will be controversial, but that doing nothing and letting the current situation continue is also not an option.

6.    That the Mayor and Cabinet Member should review how we engage with residents on Liveable Streets to identify how we could engage more.

 

This Council resolves:

1.    To ensure that we meet our 2018 manifesto commitment.

2.    To continue to listen to all residents via detailed and open consultation when making changes to the way our roads work, making sure that views from across our diverse community and heard and considered in full.

Response to the Petition

1.  That the petition be referred to the Corporate Director, Place for a written response within 28 days.