Docstoc

Attendance - DOC 8

Document Sample
Attendance - DOC 8 Powered By Docstoc
					ALG TRANSPORT AND ENVIRONMENT EXECUTIVE SUB COMMITTEE

Minutes of a meeting of the ALG Transport and Environment Executive Sub
Committee held on Wednesday 12 July 2006 at 9.00 am in Meeting Room 3, 1st
Floor, ALG TEP, 59½ Southwark Street, London SE1 0AL.

Present:
Cllr Daniel Moylan (Chairman)                        RB Kensington & Chelsea
Cllr Matthew Offord                                  LB Barnet
Cllr Gareth Bacon                                    LB Bexley
Cllr Brian Haley                                     LB Haringey
Cllr Heidi Alexander                                 LB Lewisham
Cllr Tariq Ahmad                                     LB Merton
Cllr Martin Elengorn                                 LB Richmond upon Thames
Cllr Colin Hall                                      LB Sutton
Mr Archie Galloway                                   City of London

Cllr Colin Smith                                     LB Bromley (Deputy)

1       Declarations of Interests
Archie Galloway and Cllr Martin Elengorn (LB Richmond upon Thames) declared
their interests as holders of Freedom Pass. It was agreed that for future meetings it
would be automatically noted that they are holders of Freedom Passes.

2      Apologies for Absence
Apologies were received from Cllr Malcolm Grimston (LB Wandsworth). Deputy: Cllr
Colin Smith (LB Bromley).

3. Draft Minutes of the TEC AGM meeting held on 15 June 2006
The minutes of the TEC AGM held on 15 June were noted.

Matters Arising:
Cllr Heidi Alexander (LB Lewisham) informed the meeting that she had now been
confirmed as the Labour Vice-Chair for the whole of year and that Cllr Brian Haley
(LB Haringey) was the additional Labour member of TEC Executive Sub Committee.

Cllr Daniel Moylan (RB Kensington & Chelsea, Chairman of TEC) also welcomed Cllr
Colin Hall (LB Sutton) as the Liberal Democrat Vice-Chair and Group Leader.

4       Pre-Audited Final Accounts for TEC 2005/06

The Executive Sub Committee received a report that detailed the provisional pre-
audited final accounts for the Transport and Environment Committee for 2005/06.

Cllr Moylan raised his concerns about the fact there was a net deficit. Members’ view
that TEC’s reserves were not sufficient had been raised a number of meetings ago
and the current report noted that the level of reserves was dangerously low.

Nick Lester (Director of TEP) explained that the main reason for the deficit was the
trends in the Parking and Traffic and Congestion Charging Appeals Service. There
were timing differences between the receipt of income for appeals and the
expenditure on adjudication fees which meant that the surplus in 2004/05 included
income received in advance for cases heard in 2005/06. This issue has been
addressed by a change in accounting policy.




ALG TEC Executive Sub Committee                   1                            Agenda Item 3
Minutes of TEC Executive Sub Committee Meeting on 12 July 2006             14 September 2006
There had also been changes to TfL’s policy and procedures with regard to the way
they process representations and appeals to the Adjudicators which resulted in a
significant reduction in the number of Congestion Charge Appeals heard during the
year. However, it was worth noting that the ALG had made a surplus of £85,000 on
the Congestion Charging Appeals service in the previous year.

Nick Lester also explained that from 2006/07 ALG had an agreement in principle
from the GLA that the level of charge per appeal would increase to reflect the fact
that the remaining appeals had become more complex and tended to take up more of
the adjudicators’ time. This would be made retrospective to April 2006. In practice,
TfL’s policy changed during 2005/06 but the time-lag before the effects of the change
became apparent was 4-5 months. ALG had been aware of the initial change in
policy but had not been aware that in reality the remaining cases would end up being
so complex.

Cllr Moylan noted the change in policy and hoped that ALG’s relationship with TfL
was such as to ensure the confusion did not arise again and that the contract and
notice period covered for this situation in the future.

Archie Galloway (City of London) asked if there was any connection with the fact that
Item 13 (Possible Unification of Parking and Traffic and Congestion Charging
Tribunals Report) had been withdrawn from the meeting’s agenda; Nick Lester
explained it was not connected and that the financial information was not ready until
the day before the meeting. He also confirmed unification would need the Lord
Chancellors’ approval as well as TEC’s.

Cllr Martin Elengorn (LB Richmond upon Thames) asked if there was a forecast
outurn for March 2007 and David Sanni (ALG Finance Manager) agreed to write to all
TEC members with a forecast outurn.

Cllr Matthew Offord (LB Barnet) enquired about bad debt provision for the Lorry
Control Scheme. Nick Lester explained that the provision for registering debts at the
County Court had only just started, so at the moment ALG could not estimate the
percentage that would be recovered.

Cllr Moylan raised his concern about the sentence at the end of page 7 – “Informal
discussions have taken place with TfL/GLA officials who have indicated that they
would be willing to fund any deficits that arose in respect of congestion charging
transactions during 2006/07, provided the total sum did not exceed the total amount
paid to the ALG in 2005/06.” Nick Lester reassured Cllr Moylan that ALG were fairly
confident and expected the full costs to be recovered.

Cllr Moylan also asked if the London Centre of Excellence (LCE) project had
delivered savings. Nick Lester said there was a compensating “over achievement of
income” to offset the expenditure on the project. Cllr Moylan asked if this could be
presented in a clearer way in future reports and that budgets should be revised to
take into account externally funded projects that arise during a financial year.

Cllr Moylan noted that in the past TEC had transferred underspends on the Freedom
Pass Survey and Reissue costs to the Transport Operators Fares Increase Reserve
(TOFIR). The reserve is used to offset the cost to boroughs of future Concessionary
fares settlements. Cllr Moylan pointed out that the report provided no guidance or
direction on what course of action to take now reserves were so low. Nick Lester
noted this was for TEC to observe and direct accordingly.



ALG TEC Executive Sub Committee                   2                       Agenda Item 3
Minutes of TEC Executive Sub Committee Meeting on 12 July 2006        14 September 2006
Cllr Matthew Offord (LB Barnet) agreed that TEC should provide a steer for ALG
officers and suggested the underspend should go into the TOFIR. Cllr Moylan
agreed with Cllr Offord, although this would mean ending the year with a deficit on
one account (appeals) and a surplus on the other (Freedom Pass). He also
reiterated that it was a disappointing position to be in, especially as previous TEC
meetings had taken an interest in the issue.

Cllr Moylan asked if TEC could have a Reserves Policy drafted within the next
fortnight, so it could be discussed with further. David Sanni agreed to do this.

Cllr Hall noted it was interesting to get an idea of the Government’s possible change
of policy on clamping vehicles. Cllr Brian Haley (LB Haringey) responded that the
Government’s proposal was to reduce clamping fees and only target persistent
offenders/evaders. This would result in a reduction of revenue for boroughs.

Nick Lester added that the aim had always been that the costs were covered. He
noted that one of the consequences of the Government proposal was that it was
likely to be much more expensive for boroughs. It was proposed there would be a
minimum period of 60 minutes from when the PCN was issued. This would give
every motorist notice that their vehicle was being clamped. Cllr Moylan asked if there
had been consultation on the changes and Nick Lester responded that it was in the
Traffic Management Act.

Cllr Haley noted that the clamping scheme would cost LB Haringey more. He said
there would be a database system that would track persistent evaders.

It was noted that a further briefing on this issue was required and recommended a
TEC report on clamping policy to be produced for a TEC Executive Sub Committee
meeting in the future.

Decision: The Executive Sub Committee:

       approved the provisional pre-audited final accounts for 2005/06;

      approved the transfer of £57,000 from the General Reserve to the Transport
Operators Fares Increase Reserve (TOFIR) to offset the cost of the Concessionary
Fares Settlement to the boroughs in 2007/08, in accordance with usual practice;

       noted the earmarked elements included in the Committee’s General Reserve
that need to be applied for these purposes, as detailed in paragraphs 23-25 of the
report.


5      Transport Expenditure Priorities
The Executive Sub Committee received a report that offered members an opportunity
to review ALG priorities for transport spending in London, which had been
determined in 2004, and to consider future engagement with TfL on TfL’s Business
Plan in the context of those revised priorities.

Cllr Moylan noted that at the last meeting it was agreed to look at the priorities further
but that he was not content that a definitive list was ready.




ALG TEC Executive Sub Committee                   3                           Agenda Item 3
Minutes of TEC Executive Sub Committee Meeting on 12 July 2006            14 September 2006
Cllr Heidi Alexander commented that as a stand-alone document, the paper did not
set out a strategy for infrastructure. She referred to TfL’s projections for increases in
population and jobs as set out in their T2025 document and suggested that the
committee should consider the predicted need for additional transport capacity. Cllr
Moylan questioned the reliability of T2025’s predictions and said that boroughs had
to try and balance immediate needs and future needs. He said that strategic
investment was not distributed evenly across different spending areas and therefore
only benefited parts of London at a time. He also noted that ALG avoids borough-
specific issues.

Cllr Moylan noted that paragraph 6 (page 2, 3 rd Dispatch) was a pre-curser to the
final draft of priorities - “to facilitate civilised, sustainable and economically successful
places and communities.”

Cllr Elengorn said he was not unhappy with the paper as it was currently presented.

Cllr Tariq Ahmad commented that it was better to improve the system rather than just
maintain it.

Cllr Offord said there needed to be more clarity and purpose. TEC needed to look at
TfL’s expenditure and ensure boroughs were getting value for money. London’s
transport network should be fit for purpose. Cllr Brian Haley suggested all boroughs
would agree that less bureaucracy and simpler procedures were required.

Cllr Colin Hall agreed. He also enquired about traffic signals delivery and Cllr Moylan
reported back from the meeting with Peter Hendy on 5 July. Cllr Moylan explained
that TfL were convinced they needed improved “visibility” (capacity to plan), and that
they wanted to relate traffic signals work for boroughs to LIP and BSP programmes.
Cllr Moylan feared that if traffic signal work did not appear in borough LIPs, they
would not in future get processed. Nick Lester also explained there had been a
shortage of engineers and that there was currently a two year backlog; approximately
700 schemes get completed each year, and last year about 120 of these were
borough schemes.

It was reported that ALG had regular meetings with TfL Traffic Signals, which was
starting to get some answers regarding the problems. Feedback would be reported
to TEC.

Cllr Moylan noted that in the past, the ALG had explored independence for borough
traffic signals from TfL and he wondered if the legal advice could be revisited.

Cllr Moylan said it was important to emphasise the links between planning and
transport and to ensure that London’s transport system operated primarily to serve
Londoners, rather than commuters from further afield. He recommended working
with planning departments and reducing the need for travel – for example, focussing
on shorter journeys – providing economic and social benefit to town centres, and he
observed that issues such as walking and cycling and the public realm were all
legitimate transport objectives.

There was also discussion about whether ALG should be involved in discussions on
fares policy and support more innovative and experimental approaches to road safety
issues. While competing priorities mean that there are limits to what the ALG and
boroughs could achieve, it was suggested that TfL needed a transport network that
was fit for purpose rather than extravagant. Cllr Haley said he sympathised with the
difficulties of conflicting priorities but did not agree that the plan should be “just fit for



ALG TEC Executive Sub Committee                   4                              Agenda Item 3
Minutes of TEC Executive Sub Committee Meeting on 12 July 2006               14 September 2006
purpose”. (“Just” was used in the sense of merely.) Cllr Moylan noted that any plan
should be one that works for Londoners.

Cllr Moylan asked that further work on the priorities be done over the Summer,
making the report more reflective of borough needs and providing more substance.

Cllr Moylan asked if email correspondence could be circulated in August, at least with
some clarification about the wording that TEC members disagree with.

Decision: The Executive Sub Committee:

     reviewed transport spending priorities as agreed in 2004 to consider whether
      they should be amended to reflect current circumstances (see paragraphs 6 -
      8 and appendix two)
     agreed that a further report should be considered at the next Executive Sub
      Committee meeting
     considered borough officer views on TfL’s current business plan (as
      developed at a meeting with borough officers on 18th May (see paragraphs
      12-17).


6      London Freight Plan Consultation
The Executive Sub Committee received a report that set out some initial issues for
consideration in relation to the draft London Freight Plan. The document was
currently the subject of a Transport for London (TfL) consultation – closing date for
comments was 5 September 2006.

Cllr Moylan noted the consultation was a product of the London Sustainable
Distribution Partnership (LSDP) and that the issue was frustrating as Elected
Members were not allowed on the LSDP and noted that the policy had a significant
impact on boroughs.

Cllr Moylan suggested a robust response to the consultation including the fact that
TEC regretted their lack of involvement in the formation of the strategy; did not
accept the strategy but were willing to engage with TfL. Cllr Moylan queried their
adherence to sub-regional structures as he felt they were not coherent from a
borough point of view.

Cllr Moylan thought TfL needed to engage in a better relationship and have more
borough involvement. Cllr Offord noted there should be better policy and that TEC
needed to point out the pitfalls of proposal.

Cllr Moylan also mentioned the Low Emission Zone (LEZ) proposal. He said that the
scheme’s benefits were minimal and costs were very large and TEC should provide
their input on how the scheme should proceed. It was noted that the LEZ response
was circulated as an urgency report in the June AGM papers.

Cllr Haley asked for last two bullet points under paragraph 6 (page 44) to remain as
he had contributed to their input. Cllr Haley said he sympathised with other TEC
members but did not share the same experience. He said he had been involved in
the freight consultation and was active in launching a new waste function.

Decision: The Executive Sub Committee:




ALG TEC Executive Sub Committee                   5                       Agenda Item 3
Minutes of TEC Executive Sub Committee Meeting on 12 July 2006        14 September 2006
     commented on the issues raised in the report, especially with regards to the
      proposal in the London Freight Plan concerning the London Lorry Control
      Scheme (paras 8 to 12)
     noted that any ALG response would be required to go through ALG TEC
      urgency procedures due to the timing of the closing date for consultation.


7      Mobile phone parking payments in London
The Executive Sub Committee received a report updating them on the efforts to
introduce a user friendly system within London for payment of parking charges using
mobile phones.

Cllr Moylan explained that the service was to assist motorists so they only had to
register with one vendor and use one telephone number.

The company Lynxx had also written directly to the TEC Executive members in
advance of the meeting about their provision of the service. It was noted the ALG
solution gives the boroughs more choice and allows the process to be put out to
tender.

Cllr Offord said he was happy with the ALG solution but asked how the costs could
be controlled. Nick Lester responded that by putting the process out to tender, the
specification would be drawn up with boroughs and be output driven. He said that
the boroughs would not be experts in the specifications but in the regulations and
governance required. Nick Lester assured Cllr Offord that boroughs were better
placed than most to assist with the initial process. Consultants may be required later
on as the solution suggested.

Cllr Gareth Bacon (LB Bexley) enquired about LB Wandsworth’s costs for the pilot
scheme. It was confirmed there were no set up costs. Cllr Bacon requested more
information on how the scheme works in other pilot boroughs, including financial
arrangements. A further report was requested for a future TEC meeting.


Decision: The Executive Sub Committee:

       noted the contents of the report
       agreed that there needs to be a consistent approach across London for all
        authorities wishing to use mobile phone payment systems, and
       agreed that the ALG should seek to facilitate this coordinated approach
       approved further exploration of the possibility of ALG providing the central
        hub for parking transactions


Managed Services Contract.
Cllr Moylan took this opportunity to raise the issue of the Managed Services Contract.
He reminded members that each political group needed to seek a member to be
involved in the tender process. There was no obligation but it would be useful to be
part of the process. He noted the critical times were in September/October when
design solutions would be discussed and in November/December when there would
be a formal invitation to tender.

Cllr Colin Hall said he would be the Liberal Democrat representative. The other two
parties agreed to go away and discuss.




ALG TEC Executive Sub Committee                   6                         Agenda Item 3
Minutes of TEC Executive Sub Committee Meeting on 12 July 2006          14 September 2006
8      Moving Traffic Contraventions Enforcement
The Executive Sub Committee received a report seeking approval for applications by
the City of London and the London Borough of Hillingdon to commence enforcement
of moving traffic contraventions.

Cllr Moylan asked a borough to volunteer for a pilot scheme for “Officers on Hot
Spots” for manual enforcement of moving traffic contraventions, as the pilot in LB
Ealing did not deliver the information required. Rikki Hill (ALG Service Development
Officer) explained that some borough officers had undertaken a camcorder test and
that he had been encouraging more officers to do so. He informed TEC that there
was another meeting with officers the following day and he would continue to push
the issue forward.

Decision: The Executive Sub Committee:

   agreed that permission be given to the City of London and the London Borough of
    Hillingdon to enforce moving traffic contraventions using CCTV.


9     TEC Operational Statistics
The Executive Sub Committee received a report that detailed the ALG TEC
Operations Section’s quarterly performance statistics.

It was noted that in the recommendations it should read “results from comments
made by PATAS” rather than rebills. Ron Beckett (Head of TEP Operations) noted
that the process was much more acceptable to PATAS now that they used the
enquiry letter system before issuing a PCN.

Decision: The Executive Sub Committee noted the monthly performance outcomes
and the following in particular:-

   Lorry Control observations were showing higher levels of compliance. However,
    the lower number of PCNs reflected the introduction of enquiry letters preceding
    the issue of PCNs. The additional process results from comments made by
    PATAS adjudicators when considering Lorry Ban Appeals.

   Taxicard use continues to grow at about 18% p.a.


10      Freedom Pass Apportionment
The Executive Sub Committee received a report explaining that now the pass for
concessionary fares for disabled and elderly Londoners (Freedom Pass) uses Oyster
card technology, it is possible to get a significant amount of usage data. This means
it is possible to consider apportioning the costs to boroughs using this rather than the
current method which is based on numbers of passes issued.

Cllr Moylan said the report had not included information as to how boroughs might be
affected individually. He added that the Leaders’ Committee were very interested in
this paper. He noted that the figures could bring discussions to deadlock; but asked
if TEC could agree on any solutions or in principle. He noted that RB Kensington &
Chelsea would be a loser if the new method went ahead.




ALG TEC Executive Sub Committee                   7                         Agenda Item 3
Minutes of TEC Executive Sub Committee Meeting on 12 July 2006          14 September 2006
Cllr Elengorn agreed in principle. He noted the method was not dissimilar to waste
authorities moving to an apportionment method based on tonnage. Cllr Alexander
also agreed and said work needed to be done on the apportionment method. Cllr
Moylan said it would be possible to phase in the change over a number of years. He
added that this should be reported to Elected Officers.

It was noted that it was on the agenda for Elected Officers meeting for 20 July and
that would influence whether a further report was required for the next TEC Executive
Sub Committee meeting on 14 September.

Decision: The Executive Sub Committee:

     considered whether they wished to change the apportionment method; and
     subject to further discussions at Elected Officers, that a move to
      apportionment was in principle the right way to go. However it would be best
      to wait until the position on the changes in 2008 were clearer and in any case,
      any change should be phased in over two or more years


11    Taxicard 2006/07 Budget update
The Executive Sub Committee received an oral report on the Taxicard issue.

Nick Lester explained that TfL had agreed there should not be a cap on the Taxicard
budget in 2006/07, but boroughs and TfL would need to agree a way forward for
2007/08

Cllr Moylan asked if boroughs were willing to put extra funds in their Taxicard budget
to meet TfL’s standards or were boroughs willing to have a reduction in
service/tighter criteria. Cllr Moylan envisaged further funds would be required. Nick
Lester added that there would be meetings early next month with TfL to discuss this
further. Cllr Moylan recommended TEC members discuss the issue with their
borough treasurers as soon as possible.

Decision: The Executive Sub Committee:

   noted the oral update on the Taxicard issue
   acknowledged Cllr Moylan’s recommendation that TEC members should discuss
    the issue with their borough treasurers.


12     London Plan Draft Supplementary Planning Guidance on Land for
Transport Functions
The Executive Sub Committee received a report setting out the proposals contained
within the London Plan Draft Supplementary Planning Guidance on Land for
Transport Functions.

Cllr Moylan noted that boroughs were already aware of this consultation and had
made their own responses. Cllr Moylan also noted paragraph 9 (page 29, 2 nd
dispatch) and said that he did not see bus priority schemes as a planning issue.
Under paragraph 10 it was noted that Trams/ Bus Transits were a borough issue. It
was also noted that under 10 (iii) “requests” should not be used in SPGs – the ALG
should comment that “guidance is guidance.”




ALG TEC Executive Sub Committee                   8                       Agenda Item 3
Minutes of TEC Executive Sub Committee Meeting on 12 July 2006        14 September 2006
It was also noted that under paragraph 12, Taxi Ranks, that the Public Carriage
Office (PCO) had the power to do this without SPG. However, Nick Lester noted it
was in the guidance in the context of new developments.

Cllr Haley asked if the guidance could identify wharf sites for transport movements.
He said the infrastructure was in place and the method was sustainable in parts of
London. Cllr Moylan said this was an issue for a borough response and noted that
GLA had safeguarded wharfs.

Under paragraph 18 noted that all heliports are privately owned and requested that
the ALG response asked that the paragraph be re-worded to state “heliports limited
to private use”.

Cllr Moylan said TEC needed to identify areas where SPG was not the appropriate
vehicle and needed to sharpen up anything that was within boroughs’ powers. This
included areas where developers could put pressure on boroughs, so Cllr Moylan
reminded boroughs to try and ensure they have as much control over their areas as
they could. He also noted that he thought there was too much detail for an SPG in
the proposal and said boroughs do not require as much detail as this.

Cllr Haley took the opportunity to ask about another consultation and asked why
C324 & C326 relating to freight had been omitted from the Further London Plan
Alterations. It was agreed that Marisa Ker (ALG Transport and Planning Officer)
would respond.

Decision: The Executive Sub Committee:

   considered the proposals contained within the public consultation draft of the
    London Plan Draft Supplementary Planning Guidance on Land for Transport
    Functions

   agreed that the ALG response to this consultation should be restricted to the
    general planning issues related to this SPG, as set out in paragraph seven,
    leaving individual boroughs to comment on the proposals for the safeguarding of
    land for specific transport projects.


13    Possible Unification of Parking and Traffic and Congestion Charging
Tribunals

This item was withdrawn before the meeting.



The meeting ended at 10.55am.




ALG TEC Executive Sub Committee                   9                         Agenda Item 3
Minutes of TEC Executive Sub Committee Meeting on 12 July 2006          14 September 2006