Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Nina De Ayala Parker, Rishi Madlani and Stephen Stark who was substituted by Councillor Gio Spinella.

Members will be asked to declare any pecuniary, non-pecuniary and any other interests in respect of items on the agenda.

Councillor Kirk declared that he used lime bikes and water in relation to items 7 and 8 on the agenda.

Webcasting of the Meeting

The Chair to announce the following: “In addition to the rights by law that the public and press have to record and film public meetings, I would like to remind everyone present that this meeting will be broadcast live by the Council to the Internet and can be viewed on our website for six months after the meeting.  After that time, webcasts are archived and can be made available on DVD upon request.

If you are seated in the room it is likely that the Council’s cameras will capture your image and you are deemed to be consenting to being filmed and to the use of those images and sound recordings for webcasting and/or training purposes.”

Any other announcements

The Chair announced that the meeting was broadcast live by the Council to the Internet and could be viewed on the website for six months after the meeting.  After that time, webcasts were archived and could be made available on DVD upon request. Those who were seated in the room or participated via Teams were deemed to have consented to their contributions being recorded and broadcast and to the use of those sound recordings and images for webcasting and/or training purposes.

Requests to speak at the Committee on a matter within its terms of reference must be made in writing to the clerk named on the front of this agenda by 5pm two working days before the meeting.

The Chair informed members that three deputations had been received and accepted, copies of the deputation statements were included in the supplementary agenda.

The first two deputations were from Frank Lampen and Tony Travers respectively and related to item 7 Thames Water and would be heard when that item was reached on the agenda.

The third deputation related to item 8 Dockless Bike Hire Scheme and a paper on mode choice, sustainability and the environmental impacts of shared micro mobility. One of the authors of the paper Professor Kay Axhausen was present to answer any questions the Committee might have on the paper. In addition, Hamish Birchall was also attending remotely to ask questions on this item. This would also be considered when the item was reached on the agenda.

There was none.

To approve and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 14^th December 2023.

RESOLVED –

THAT the minutes of the meeting held on 14^th December 2023 be signed as an accurate record.

Report of Thames Water.

This report provides an update on works and investment carried out by Thames Water in Camden and action taken by the organisation following the recent Belsize Road and South Hampstead bursts (17/12/22: 42-inch pipe burst and 5/09/23: 15-inch pipe burst).

Consideration was given to the report of Thames Water.

Consideration was also given to the deputation statements referred to in Item 4 above.

The following responses were given by the deputees to members questions:

• In terms of engagement and the compensation offered by Thames Water to residents impacted by the flood on Belsize Road, there was a lot of engagement when the incident happened with a representative and van present on site. In relation to compensation a lot of the residents claimed through their insurance company.
• The questions and issues raised with Thames Water were around how long it took to get the water shut off, the focus of the group now was around the response since the flooding of evaluating what needed to be done to prevent a recurrence in the future.
• What residents and the South Hampstead Flood Action Group were requesting was that Thames Water and the Council had a coordinated and comprehensive approach. Looking at all the different things that had happened in the area which were all connected causing erosion and was likely to lead to more pressure on the pipes leading to more flooding in the area. There does not appear to be a coordinated approach between the different organisations.
• Thames Water seemed to be looking at the number of leaks rather than the devastating impact on residents.
• In terms of obtaining flood insurance for the area this was a major issue. It was a bit of the luck of the draw with some people unable to sell their flat because purchasers had not been able to get insurance for their flat.
• In terms of the 2022 flood there had been a lot of satisfaction with Thames Water sorting out repairs and compensating people for the damage.
• What was worrying people was the need to pay out £20,000 to reinstate their flat and the constant fear that the flooding might happen again.
• What residents were asking from Thames Water was a full and accurate response rather than assertions on soil composition and traffic in reports which local residents and their expert advisers believe were inaccurate.
• With regards to contents insurance there were some residents in the area that could not afford contents insurance and when their property was flooded lost everything .and almost lost their lives.
• In terms of whether the Council had the power to implement proposals such as lane rental charges, TfL had the lane rental charge powers, there were fines for over running projects with a number of London Boroughs fining Thames Water for this.
• The idea was for this to act as an incentive for Thames Water to comply with the regulations and make life easier for residents, there was also a huge demand on Council officers time to check everything.
• The aim was if there were penalties for work undertaken out of hours and powers for councils to step in and complete reinstatements and charge costs to the utility companies this would act as an incentive to reduce such  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

Report of the Director of Environment and Sustainability.

This report outlines the progress made in enhancing the dockless bike hire schemes in Camden and what further actions are planned going forward.

Consideration was given to the report of the Director of Environment and Sustainability.

The Committee noted the written submission of Hamish Birchall on sustainability concerns regarding the e-scooter and e-bike hire trial andnoted that Professor Kay Axhausen was present to answer questions on his paper about mode choice, sustainability and the environmental impacts of shared micro-mobility.

Professor Kay Axhausen gave the following responses to Committee members questions:

·       He was not aware of the work done by Steer and could not therefore comment on how they arrived at 8% mode shift from cars.

·       The starting point for discussion about transport modal shift in London was the London Area Transport Study which conducted a big survey of transport in London.

·       The Zurich study of the environmental impact of shared micro mobility was based on intensive observation of the impact of shared systems because each person using each vehicle could be tracked using a GPS tracking survey. It was possible for Camden to conduct similar observation perhaps jointly with other boroughs by spreading the cost.

·       The learning from the study was that it could not be assumed that shared systems would result in a beneficial environmental impact, the modes replaced, vehicles used and mode of operation needed to be looked at to determine the carbon impact.

·       Local authorities could improve its policies in this area by looking at local numbers derived from the London Area Transport Study and in collaboration with TfL looking at the mode choice behaviour for the boroughs, so they had an idea whether the numbers provided by the operators were realistic.

·       In central London, a lot of the shared systems appeared to be driven by tourists and an option would be to look at the alternative impact of a tourist on the tube or on a bus and then also consider the behaviour of the local community.

·       Linear transport studies should provide a clearer picture of what to expect.

·       The numbers provided by the operators appeared to be high, this would need to be cross checked and verified, the paper by Steer might be a good point to start from.

·       It should not be surprising that the data had indicated that mass deployment of e-bikes had little impact on car use, given that shared bicycles were mostly used as last mile, first mile modes and could not replace the car because these were not trips undertaken by car.

·       What was different was where people acquired their own e-bike or scooter which was available when and where they needed it and was a different policy. Ownership of privately owned bikes and scooters was probably more worthwhile than having big reliance on shared systems.

·       In terms of whether the figures quoted from the Dockless Bike providers about carbon emissions saved and fewer motor vehicle trips were plausible these would have to be considered in appropriate context before determining if these were plausible figures.

·       It was important for the Council to monitor the progress E-Bike Hire firms made on their life  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

Consideration was given to the report of the Cabinet Member for Investing in Communities, Culture and an Inclusive Economy.

Responding to questions Councillor Danny Beales (Cabinet Member for New Homes, Jobs and Community Investment) made the following comments: 

·       The civic space in Kingsgate Community hub was being explored to be used as a similar model to Highgate Road. It was to be used as a space used by a range of community organisations and would be financially sustainable, self-financing.

·       Regis Road was owned by 14 different landowners of which Camden was one. A provisional agreement had been reached with U-Capital to purchase the site subject to a number of conditions one of which was the delivery of new affordable homes, replacement of Council facilities and the re provision of the Recycling Centre. It was envisaged that there would be continuity of the recycling centre provision.

·       With regards to HS2 and Euston, the Council had met with the local community to understand the impact of the pause. The Council was working with partnership organisations to facilitate the delivery of temporary meanwhile uses on sites. For instance, there has been discussion with sports organisations to run outdoor sports, pop up outdoor space to promote business activities. The Council also continued to discuss with the government the need to ensure it honoured its commitment to Camden.

·       The Kings Cross Construction Skills Centre was running apprenticeships providing opportunities to learn new skills and also working with local schools.

The Cabinet Member was thanked for attending the meeting and his response to questions.

RESOLVED –

THAT the Annual Report of the Cabinet Member for New Homes, Jobs and Community Investment be noted.

Report of the Executive Director Supporting Communities.

This paper provides an update on the work programme for the Committee for the 2023/24 municipal year and tracks actions from previous meetings.

Consideration was given to the report of the Executive Director Supporting Communities.

The Committee discussed the Work Programme, with a member suggesting that Royal Mail be included on the Work Programme to discuss issues with post-delivery in the borough.

The Principal Committee Officer indicated that he would check whether this was within the Committees terms of reference.

Action By Principal Committee Officer

RESOLVED –

THAT the Work Programme be noted.

There was none.