Agenda item

CALL-IN: REVIEW OF SCHOOL STREETS

Minutes:

The Portfolio Holder for Transport, Highways and Road Safety commenced by making the following statement:

 

‘The premise of the ‘Call ins’ and the questions is incorrect, School Streets are not ending and remain one option as the Council continues to support active travel and road safety outside our schools. Whilst not being actively promoted, each application will continue to be assessed on its merits.

 

By their nature, most primary schools recruit from a relatively small catchment area. In most cases children live within walking distance and this is the primary form of active travel in School Travel Plans. Some faith schools and those in rural areas have wider catchment areas and therefore these children may have to travel by public transport or in some cases by car. Children in years five and six are encouraged, wherever possible, to walk to school without parental support to develop their independence and confidence and prepare for transition to secondary education.

 

Every school in Bromley is encouraged to produce a Travel Plan and the Council's School Travel Team assists each school to ensure that their plan is tailored to the school's circumstances. In 2019, when the last accreditation  took place, Bromley had amongst the highest number of gold or silver accreditations, for increases in the number of children walking to school. TfL is currently conducting a fresh accreditation. Changes in the way children travel to school are measured and this allows the Council to determine the efficiency and effectiveness of the various measures used to promote active travel in the Borough.

 

There are several measures available to the Council to promote active school travel, School Streets being one of them. The cost benefit of each measure must be considered, along with the resource implications. The Council supports an anti-idling campaign for schools; cycle and scooter training; active travel campaigns to support walking, scooting, and cycling; road safety education and the introduction of pedestrian crossing facilities on routes to school; the Junior Travel Ambassadors Scheme; as well as supporting school crossing patrols at schools that want them.

 

The Council does not support the introduction of  ANPR cameras. Each camera costs around £25,000 with annual running costs of £5000 a year. Enquiries with other councils has not produced any evidence that enough PCNs would be issued to pay for their cost. For a school with two cameras, 1000 PCNs would have to be issued to match the cost of the cameras and in any event it is not the purpose of such cameras to be used for income generation. Income from PCNs is not ring fenced and is subsumed in the general Council income. Even if the revenue generated were ring fenced to the School Travel budget, the expenditure of an average of two cameras per School Street at £60,000 for around 90 minutes a day for 190 school days a year would be poor value for money.

 

School Streets at some schools help in the promotion of active travel but they are not a panacea and are not suitable at all schools. Experience has shown that schools which were considering introducing them decided not to when they realised the commitment which would be required by the staff. Again, it is impractical to expect residents within a School Street to take on the commitment as, inevitably, the burden would rest on the retired or those working from home to operate barriers, in all weathers, twice a day for 190 school days. Should residents, under the auspices of a school wish to support a school within their travel plan in this way, then the Council would clearly have no objection--provided there were no reasons why such a School Street would be impracticable.

 

At the pilot School Street in Hayes, the consultation exercise showed that most residents of the streets just outside of the School Street itself were not in favour of the School Street continuing, with 79% being against the School Street, primarily due to the displacement of traffic and other nuisance.’

 

The meeting then moved on to the hearing of oral questions with responses from the Portfolio Holder. The questions and responses are detailed in the appendix to the minutes. It was noted during the course of the meeting that the written and oral questions received had been published on the Council website.

 

Councillor Michael Tickner attended the meeting to represent Beckenham Town Centre and Copers Cope Ward. He informed the Committee that in his Ward, two School Streets were currently operational which were well supported by local residents. He acknowledged the fact that the issue of School Streets was an emotive one and said it was important that debate was not stifled. He acknowledged the benefits of School Streets in terms of cleaner air, the benefits of walking,  and less accidents because it was safer for children. In his view the proposed decision did support the continuation of School Streets. He mentioned that the School Street in Westgate Road had been well supported by local residents. The School in Westgate Road had said that it did not wish for the School Street to continue in its present form and that was because they did not want to have the burden of paying staff to man the barriers. The school was happy to support the School Street if the parents wanted to get involved and man the barriers. Councillor Tickner concluded by saying that he supported the decision in its present form and suggested that no further action should be taken.

 

The Chairman opened the floor to the Labour Group (as the main opposition party that had called in the Decision) and asked them to explain their concerns and the reason for calling in the decision. Councillor Alisa Igoe spoke first. She said that a quick look at the last ‘Hands Up’ survey conducted at Hayes Primary School last November, showed that walking levels had increased, scooting levels were up, bus use was up, park and stride use was up, cycling was up and car use was down from 32.7% to 14.6%, a drop of 18.1%. The report noted that 136 fewer children travelled to school by car and 68 more children parked and strode, and this was in the winter period. She expressed the view that Hayes School Street was a success and the decision should be reconsidered as it treated the report as a failure.

 

Councillor Igoe explained that the first reason that the Labour Group had called in the decision was that they believed the LIP provided strong evidence that School Streets were needed and as shown on page 130 of the Plan, they clearly met the first four Outcomes of the Mayor’s Transport Strategy:

1.  Outcome 1: London’s streets will be healthy and more Londoners will travel actively:

2.  Outcome 2: London’s streets will be safe and secure:

3.  Outcome 3: London’s streets will be used more efficiently and have less traffic on them:

4.  Outcome 4: London’s streets will be clean and green:

 

Councillor Igoe explained that the LIP was the Local Implementation Plan, a statutory document, which set out how Bromley would implement the Mayor of London’s Transport Strategy in the Borough. The document promoted behavioural change--how people should travel around the Borough by active modes in future, particularly on short journeys. It stated that the Council would work to reduce air pollution in areas where vulnerable people may spend significant amounts of time, then gave the example of schools. Councillor Igoe commented that in her estimation, there was not really a better way of reducing pollution around schools other than promoting the use of School Streets. 

 

Councillor Igoe explained that the LIP estimated that Bromley’s population was due to increase by 30,000 by 2032. To avoid further traffic congestion and worsening pollution the mode share target for Bromley was for 60% of trips to be made by public transport, walking and cycling by 2041. The document stated that a key Council objective was reducing the car mode share for travel to school by promoting a mode shift to both public transport and active modes. 

 

Cllr Igoe stated that it was estimated that across London, 25% of peak hour traffic was associated with the school run. She said that in Bromley this figure was higher at 40%. 

 

Councillor Igoe referenced page 7 of the LIP where it stated that walking investment would be directed to promoting walking to school to reduce the negative traffic and parking impacts associated with the school run and to promote healthy active lifestyles from a young age. Promoting and expanding public and active travel options for school journeys was essential to reduce school-run trips which caused these problems and safety concerns at the beginning and end of the school day. It was hoped that a good experience of public and active travel would maintain good health and make these modes of travel the default options for later in life.

 

Councillor Igoe said that in the LIP it stated that Bromley Council was committed to making roads safer by adopting the Zero KSI of no deaths or serious injuries by 2041. She said that she was mentioning this, as at the ECS PDS Committee on 21st June, it had been observed that there was a red alert on the ECS Performance Overview Report for the KSI numbers for 2020/21. The figure was 109, which was a 26% increase on the ‘target’ figure of 86. 

 

Cllr Igoe quoted from the LIP where it said, “it will be necessary to reduce the impact of the school run by shifting school trips from cars to other modes. The Council will, therefore, aim for 50% of travel to school to be by active modes and 20% by public transport by 2020/21.” 

 

Councillor Igoe quoted as follows from page 51 of the LIP: - ‘that the Council will consider implementing School Streets in areas where these can be shown to have a clear benefit to mode share and safety, that they play an important role in select cases as promoting active travel to school and reducing vehicle movements in the vicinity of schools where they are implemented. They will be focused on residential streets where school run traffic has the greatest negative impacts’.

 

Councillor Igoe concluded by asking the Committee to refer the decision to the Executive to reconsider, in part, on the basis that the original decision did not consider evidence that School Streets achieved the objectives set out in the Local Implementation Plan; of vehicle pollution reduction, reduction in collisions and injuries to children and increasing the percentage of journeys to school made by active travel modes, and therefore the decision failed to consider that the Pilot demonstrated the contribution of school streets towards the delivery of the Council’s policy objectives.

 

Councillor Jeal joined the meeting virtually and explained that this was because he had tested positive for Covid 19.  He said that in his view there had been a lack of engagement with schools and residents. He stated that Hayes Primary School had submitted comments but that these comments were not part of the report that had been presented to the Committee. In his view this was not conducive to a proper assessment of the viability of the Hayes Primary Pilot Scheme.

 

Councillor Jeal stated that 279 local residents had been consulted, but only 85 had responded—this meant that it was not possible to conclude that local residents were not supportive. He said that many parents were supportive of the Hayes Pilot Scheme and that the Pilot had achieved its objectives. He also referred to the limited period of consultation that had been undertaken with schools and noted that this had been done in Summer 2020 when the main concern of schools was the pandemic and social distancing. During that time, schools would have been suffering from staff shortages and traffic had decreased. Councillor Jeal stated that many schools were interested in School Streets, but had not had the opportunity to express this interest to Council Officers. 

 

Councillor Jeal stated that a TfL survey had shown that when parents were consulted with respect to School Streets, 81% were supportive. He expressed the view that the consultation process undertaken by Bromley was not wide enough and had not taken the views of most Bromley schools into consideration. He also referenced road safety and the recent increase in KSI levels and pointed out that a child had recently been struck by a car outside of Leeson’s Hill Primary School. 

 

In summing up, Councillor Jeal asked that the School Streets decision be referred to the Executive for re-consideration. He felt that the Pilot Scheme was not properly representative of the situation in Bromley and that the decision had been made on the basis of a consultation process that was out of date and incomplete. 

 

The next Councillor to speak on behalf of the Labour Group was Councillor Kathy Bance. She said that she had supported the Call In of the Decision as she was of the view that the decision should be reversed and that School Streets should be actively supported. 

 

Councillor Bance expressed surprise that the Council had supported the amendments that had been proposed by Councillor Fawthrop at the previous meeting. She cited the following reasons and said that in her opinion:

 

·  It strengthened the Council’s Ability not to support School Streets

·  The amendments made it difficult to get new School Streets approved even if a school had requested one

·  The amendments made it easier to close School Streets

Councillor Bance said that in her view the response to public questions was one of contempt and that it was wrong that no-one had been provided with an advance copy of the Portfolio Holder’s statement. 

Councillor Bance felt that the consultation process was inadequate because it was limited to primarily the results from the Hayes Pilot School Street along with feedback from a small selection of other contemporary School Street venues. She expressed the view that as Bromley had so few School Streets, the consultation process should have included Boroughs that had far greater numbers of School Streets and more experience of their positive outcomes. She pointed out that 2017 saw the launch of the first School Street in Camden and that at the time of the meeting London had 511 School Streets. She said that Many of London’s boroughs had successful School Streets so Bromley should have consulted with some of them before reaching such a negative decision on School Streets. She highlighted that Croydon Council were planning to introduce a further 11 or 12 School Streets which would then bring their total to 34 or 35. 

Councillor Bance said that Lewisham Council had 36 School Streets and their new seven-point action plan on cutting pollution levels within 5 years, included the introduction of more School Streets, which they regarded as a pollutant reduction measure. She stated that Ealing Council had launched their first School Street in 2020 and an 18-month consultation showed 80% of those surveyed agreed that School Streets were a good idea.  So, 11 more schemes were delivered that year bringing their number to 18. In 2022 many of those School Streets were made permanent.

Councillor Bance said that the reason these councils supported School Streets was because they focussed on tackling:

·  Air pollution

·  The vulnerability of children during the school run

·  Children leading inactive lifestyles

·  Traffic Congestion

 

Councillor Bance remarked that School Streets played a vital role in improving both the physical and mental health of both children on their way to and from school, as well as the residents who lived along the streets where schemes were in place. They provided clear evidence of a reduction of children’s exposure to toxic air pollution. She felt that the Council should be promoting walking and cycling and encouraging both parents and children to lead active lifestyles. In her view this would mean that a child’s journey to and from school would be safer, cleaner, healthier, was good for mental health and would make children calmer before the start of the school day.

 

Councillor Bance commented that the implementation of School Streets would mean an end to the emission of pollutants caused by vehicles idling. She said that a study conducted by Transport for London found that the School Street initiative helped to reduce nitrogen dioxide emissions by 23% during the morning drop off. This also helped to reduce the number of state schools located in areas with illegal levels of nitrogen dioxide pollution by 97%. She said that there were 455 London schools over and above the safe pollution level in 2016 and this had reduced to just 14 in 2019. She felt that the Council should be brave enough to take action to protect children and vulnerable adults from pollution. Cllr Bance stated that the Council’s  priorities should be to protect the planet, children and vulnerable people, so how therefore could the Council justify this very negative decision?

 

Councillor Bance urged the Committee to reconsider the supporting of School Streets in Bromley and to introduce a new consultation with other boroughs who firmly supported their School Streets. She asked that the Committee refer the decision to the Executive as in her view it failed to consider methods of implementation for School Streets which had been undertaken by other Councils. She said that the decision had not considered alternative implementation models at lower costs and that the decision had failed to consider the value of better health outcomes and the reduction of pollution levels. She stated that the positive impacts of active travel, particularly with respect to the reduction of childhood obesity, was not taken into account. 

 

Councillor Ireland spoke as leader of the Liberal Democrats and she referred to the ‘Making Bromley Even Better’ document. She said that this was a very good document and one of the leading ambitions outlined in the document was that children should lead healthy, safe and independent lives

 

 

The document stated that one of the priority ambitions for Bromley was that children and young people should thrive and that children and families would be at the heart of the Council’s ambitions. She therefore expressed the view that the previous executive decision with respect to School Streets was contrary to the ambitions as laid out in the ‘Making Bromley Even Better’ document. She expressed the view that School Streets provided very obvious tangible benefits for children and also in terms of air quality. She said that TfL figures reported that where School Streets were in operation, nitrogen dioxide levels dropped by 23%.

 

She expressed the view that the adoption of the School Street decision made at the previous meeting, would in effect mean the end of School Streets in Bromley. She expressed the view that to expect schools to maintain the measures needed to run School Streets was not sustainable. Councillor Ireland stated that nearly all of the School Streets around London used camera enforcement to make them successful. She stated that she wanted to address the two main objections to School Streets as outlined in the previous report which was to do with money and resistance from neighbours. In her view the health of children was more significant than money. Councillor Ireland reported that she had communicated with various councils that operated School Streets and she said they all used cameras, and in terms of costs were able to break even. In her view, it was therefore the case that the Council was not able to make this decision solely based on cost.

 

Councillor Ireland stated that it normally took two to three years for new ideas to be accepted. She said that in terms of resistance from neighbours there was no data from the Council with respect to Poverest School apart from the fact that it was noted in the report that the School Street there had been well received. She referred to the Hayes Pilot Scheme and said that acceptance in the catchment area there was 60%. She summed up by saying that as there was no convincing argument that School Streets should be discontinued in terms of cost and also that there was no convincing data in terms of neighbour resistance, that the previous decision should be referred to the Executive for reconsideration because it was contrary to one of the primary ambitions of ‘Building a Better Bromley’ which was to promote the health and well-being of Bromley’s children and young people.

 

Councillor Chloe Jane Ross spoke on behalf of the Liberal Democrats and pointed out that the Government was committed to Active Travel. The Government had recently appointed Chris Boardman as the first permanent  National Active Travel Commissioner. She said that the Government had recently published it's ‘Decarbonizing Transport’ one year review which recognised active travel as key to its success. The Government had also published a decarbonizing transport tool kit for local authorities which also emphasised the use of active travel. She expressed the view that if no funding was currently available for School Streets then it needed to be found. She said that a better policy was required than the one that had been outlined in the previous School Streets report. She felt that in line with central government commitments and ambitions, that the Schools Streets decision should be referred back to the Executive for review.

Councillor Will Connolly (on behalf of the Liberal Democrats) said that a third of the pupils in the Hayes Pilot Scheme either walked or cycled to school despite its large car park. He highlighted the better air quality that School Streets provided especially since 1/11 pupils suffered with asthma.

 

Councillor Connolly reported that the Deputy Head of Poverest Primary School had stated that the school needed the support of the Council so that its School Street could continue and that local action groups were also in support of the School Street. He referred to page 4 of the Council’s Corporate Strategy which said that the Council would encourage more sustainable forms of travel like cycling and walking. He also referred to the Council website which noted the major benefits to the community and individuals that was associated with active travel. He requested that the School Streets Decision be re-considered by the Executive.

 

Councillor Alison Stammers wanted to make a statement but the Chairman explained that as she had not called in the decision she could ask a question but was not allowed to make a statement.

 

Councillor Webber asked the Committee to note figures from the WHO which showed that Bromley’s Air Quality needed to be improved.     

 

The Chairman reminded the Committee that there were two courses of action available to them, they could either support the original decision and vote that no further action be taken, or they could vote to refer the decision to the Executive for review.

 

RESOLVED that:

 

No further action on the call-in be taken. This meant that the decision stood and could be implemented. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Supporting documents: