For GC: Mr Anthony Austin, Mrs Liz Delap, Mr Stephen Craven, Mr David Senior
For LBG: Cllr Rajwant Sidhu, Cllr Peter Brookes, Mr Jawaid Kazi Mr Donald Anyiam (LBG) was indisposed but had submitted written responses to questions raised in advance.
1. Old Royal Naval College
GC had asked in advance about progress with this work.
LBG's written response: "Since October, there was progressive discussion with colleagues and Greenwich Cyclists. Works Orders have since been issued, and the works are now progressing on site. I emailed Greenwich Foundation, Sustrans, Tony Austin as well as other Group Members in December to inform them of our plans to have the fanfare opening ceremony sometime in Spring; as soon as the weather becomes more amenable. I've received favourable responses from both the Foundation and Sustrans, and would hope the Group will also support this suggestion."
It was also reported at the meeting that work had just begun in Park Row at the eastern end of the site. Because alterations would have to be made to drainage as well as surfacing, it would take about two weeks. Signage would then be required before the route could be officially opened.
At the western end of the site, it is still unclear whether cycling is permitted on the continuation of King William Walk because it used to be a public road or whether it is covered by the (unenforced) cycling ban in Cutty Sark Gardens. It is uncertain whether the official exit of the route will be through the Lewin gate (GC's preference) or the gate onto the riverside walk (definitely no cycling) by the pier. Cllr Brooks said he would check this.
GC suggested that the Mayor's ride (date to be confirmed) would be a suitable occasion to declare the path open.
2. Greenwich Reach East
GC had asked in advance about the Section 106 agreement for a bridge over the creek.
LBG's written response: "There's been exchange of correspondence between the Group and Greenwich Planning, culmination in written assurance from Fred Brown that the developer has commissioned new architects to design the bridge across the Creek, and it will be firmed up early in this new year and submitted to the Council. Fred undertook to ensure that the Group are consulted on this important link."
Anthony has confirmed with Planning Officer Fred Brown that the S106 (which has to be signed before construction starts) does include a bridge to be constructed before apartments are occupied.
3. Hexagon estate
GC had asked in advance about progress on removing the illegally built wall.
LBG's written response: "There's been no further development on the situation regarding the closed cycle path. There was correspondence between the Council and Westcombe Society that the closed path has the status of both a footpath and a cycle path, and the footpath has the status of a pedestrian right of way, due to continued use over a long period. It is therefore appropriate that the footpath should be re-opened, at least by making a pedestrian passageway through the wall. We're waiting for the developer to comply."
Cllr Brookes had talked to David Jessop and the developers have been told to remove the wall. GC reiterated that the route was part of the LCN and it was not up to the Council to keep the diversion in force. If antisocial behaviour is the reason for tenants not wanting a public path through the estate, that is a matter for the police to investigate.
4. Cycle training
GC had asked in advance about the Council's policy and practice on cycle training in schools.
LBG's written response: "Further to recent discussion with the Group on this, I write to confirm the information shared as follows:
GC stated that we wished to co-operate with the Council in providing training and will meet Mr Attride. Lewisham Borough offers 1 hour free training for adults, and Southwark 2 hours; it is hoped that LBG could offer something similar.
5. Foot tunnels
GC had asked in advance about current and future planned works to improve the tunnels and in particular a £20,000 funding allocation for the staircase of Greenwich Foot Tunnel referred to in a Southwark Borough document.
LBG's written response: "I can confirm that the entry in the Southwark Council document is the Approval for the Application for funding made by LB Greenwich, which has been wrongly listed by TfL. The funding will naturally be transferred to Greenwich, and is for the spiral Cycle Channel works at Greenwich Foot Tunnel which has been discussed with the Group at previous meetings. My colleague Jeff Horsman and I are dealing with this."
Cllr Brookes reported that the rumble strips in the Woolwich tunnel introduced by Mr Horsman had not been a success; there had to be a gap in the centre for drainage and cyclists were still riding through these gaps. It was therefore down to education: clearer signage explaining the byelaws would be considered.
ODA (Olympic Delivery Authority) funding had been secured for lift renewal before 2012: The cycle channels would probably be included as part of the same contract. The idea of replacing each large lift with a pair of smaller ones had been rejected as unworkable. Improved low-energy lighting in the tunnels is also being considered.
6. Greenwich town centre
LBG's written statement: "Traffic Model is still not finalised. There were problems with the survey data which the consultant is still working to rectify."
GC reminded the Councillors that the King William Walk contraflow cycle lane had been discussed several times before but appeared to be no nearer implementation. It was acknowledged that getting cyclists across the junction with Romney Road would be a problem.
7. Westminster Estate (Thames Path 'missing link')
LBG's written statement: "[The] Missing Link is now to be pursued via development opportunities in due course, based on LCN+ request that Link 56 (Thames Path) be deleted from the Borough's network, due to its shortcomings in fulfilling the Strategic Network Criteria everywhere along its route; taking the LCN+ Time To Completion Programme into consideration."
Cllr Sidhu said he has now visited the site. Mr Kazi said the idea had been dropped because the Thames Path is not a Right of Way. Cllr Brooks said any improvements could be part of an overall redevelopment of the Warspite Road area in the longer term as a result of the Charlton Strategic Review. The Port of London Authority had blocked any idea of a waterfront route on top of the flood wall. He would continue to look at other possibilities.
LBG's written statement: "Works on implementation is ongoing, in collaboration with the LCN+ Office at Camden, the client group representing TfL."
GC expressed concern that improvements agreed through the CRIM/CRISP process often do not get implemented. We would like feedback from TfL on what is actually planned and would like LBG to be more proactive in following up the agreements.
9. Mast Pond Wharf
GC restated a previous concern that the wooden bridge on the Thames Path at this point is poorly lit and dangerously slippery with a hazardous raised bar. Cllr Brookes said that Comber Homes is responsible. If enough complaints were made via the Council they would be able to support their request for action. Jeff Horsman is involved. Cllr Brookes asked for details of any accidents and near-misses, saying that he had also fallen off his bike at this point. GC agreed to forward such cases.
10. Cycle parking facilities
GC expressed frustration that there has still been no improvement to facilities in Greenwich town centre despite agreement some time ago to provide new racks at (e.g.) Straightsmouth, Somerfield and Cutty Sark Gardens. Mr Kazi said that Mr Anyiam was aware of the Group's concerns.
11. Greenwich Park It was noted that the inquest on the death of Leonard Woods is to be held on 22 January 2008 at Southwark Coroners Court. David and/or Stephen may be able to attend. A meeting with park management would be arranged thereafter. LBG said they would support a proposal for a 20mph speed limit in the park though it would not be their decision.
To be arranged in April.