Council sticks with Pembury Circus design in blow to campaigners

Campaigners’ efforts to overturn Hackney Council’s “dangerous” redesign of Pembury Circus were dealt a blow last night as councillors voted to keep the plans unchanged.

Activists, residents and councillors met on Monday at a special scrutiny meeting triggered by opposition members, who were backed by the local branch of the London Cycling Campaign, Hackney LCC.

While those at odds with the council’s design were hoping the rare ‘call-in’ would force the cabinet to ask Active Travel England to review the plans, in the end a majority of the scrutiny panel voted to uphold the officers’ original decision.

“Obviously we’re disappointed. What we wanted was an independent review by experts, and they wouldn’t grant even it,” a Hackney LCC spokesperson said.

For months, cyclists and others had roundly criticised the council’s plans over fears that the proposals meant cyclists would have to share space with fast-moving and heavy motor vehicles.

Hackney LCC had put forward an alternative design, commissioned by a “top” traffic engineer who works for another London borough.

It added protected, segregated cycle paths in keeping with the international road safety strategy, ‘Vision Zero’.

The group had also used the Junction Assessment Tool (JAT) to analyse the redesign’s safety, looking at cycle movements and “potentials for conflict”.

Active Travel England states that road schemes must complete a JAT check on certain types of junctions, with a minimum score of 70 per cent.

Hackney Council’s design scored just 25 per cent, campaigners argued.

Cllrs Zoë Garbett (Green) and Claudia Turbet-Delof (Independent Socialist), who had asked for the decision to be called-in, spoke at the meeting in support of Hackney LCC.

They stressed that the objective was not to weigh the pros and cons of each design, but to evaluate whether the council had “sufficiently” taken on concerns in its decision.

Cllr Garbett said: “We are responding to concerns raised to us by our constituents, acting on evidence that’s been presented to us about the way this decision was taken, to highlight the disastrous consequences of continuing with this decision as is.

“We’re not expecting [members] to be experts in safe road design, but if warnings from experts are ignored, you do share the responsibility for the decision taken.

“This is your opportunity to consider whether you truly believe that all has been done to deliver the best Vision Zero, child-friendly design in line with our transport and climate policies.”

Mark Philpott, a chartered civil engineer with highway expertise, was also present on behalf of Hackney LCC.

He argued that the council’s plan was not up to Active Travel England standards: “This is the sort of design we would have seen 20 years ago.

“Although pedestrians have controlled crossings, the layout is nonetheless awkward for walking, especially wheeling.

“Given the council secured a significant budget for the project, there is an ideal opportunity for a complete redesign of the space.

“And given the objective and subjective safety issues, cycling should be at the heart of such a design.”

In recent weeks, the campaign gathered momentum and support from residents and others, including from the parents of Harry Webb, who was fatally struck by a car in Homerton last year.

Claudia Schergna, a 25-year-old woman who was knocked off her bike at the junction and treated for a serious head wound, was also present.

She voiced her opposition to the council’s plans, pleading with members to reconsider.

“The road safety audit on the junction design found that the exact movement I made on that night is a known risk, but the new design put forward by the council isn’t addressing that risk at all.

“Why pass a design that ignores not just a known risk, but the one that caused my accident and is likely to cause many others, when there is an option that would eliminate it altogether?” she asked.

Members also heard from supporters of the current junction plan.

Andrew Hodgson, from the National Federation of the Blind (NFB), criticised the campaign’s alternative plans over their complexity, arguing that it would endanger partially-sighted or blind pedestrians and their guide dogs by making it harder to navigate crossings.

Hackney resident and ex-councillor Vincent Stops also spoke in favour of the council’s proposal.

“I want to challenge the notion that there is nothing in the current design for cycling and cyclists.

“Removing traffic volume by 35 per cent will mean fewer collisions—the proposal does that by restricting general traffic from Amhurst Road East.

“A third of the area of the junction will become footway area, the alignment will slow motor traffic through the junction, and cyclists will be safer.

“An unrecognised and key safety issue is that all road layouts should be intuitive and self-explaining, with a simple and udnerstandable layout.

“All users will be far clearer as to where they should be on the road. Contrast that with the confusion and chaos of the Hackney LCC proposal,” he said.

Tyler Linton, assistant director of Streetscene for the borough, defended the decision-making process which had produced the controversial design.

“We know there are strong and often differing views on any highway scheme and in particular on this one.

“Developing proposals is a balancing act. We have to weigh up different considerations and needs based on technical data and professional judgment.

“If there’s a question about whether or not I’ve considered the evidence put forward by stakeholders, I certainly did.

“We met with Hackney LCC in the winter, they put forward their view that there should be protected, separated cycling lanes at this junction.”

Linton explained that consultants had drawn up a scheme that accounted for segregated cycle paths, but that after a “multi-criteria” assessment, officers opted for a “simpler, pedestrian-focus design”.

While he acknowledged the JAT method, he argued that the design had been considered with other tools in line with Local Transport Note (LTN) 1/20—government guidance that local authorities use to plan cycling infrastructure.

Scrutiny members quizzed officers and representatives from the Hackney LCC before deliberating in private.

Returning to the chamber, they voted to uphold the council’s original decision by a clear majority of five to one.

While this means that the design will move on to the public consultation phase, campaigners and councillors had hoped for more.

Cllr Garbett said: “We know that there is a consultation period. We will be looking to get as many expert contributions to that.

“Obviously, only the council can call Active Travel England to do a review. We thought that was a really clear aim, and we’re really disappointed that the majority of the scrutiny panel didn’t vote for that option.

“I think residents will be really disappointed with that.”

Cllr Turbet-Delof, who is herself partially-sighted, said opposition members simply wanted to be fully assured of the design’s safety for all.

“We don’t want to go back to an old system, we want to be progressive, and we were just asking for one more assessment so that we could all agree.”

Stops, who was pleased with the decision, suggested the debate had become too polarised.

“It’s not a simple decision about bike lanes versus no bike lanes. There’s a whole raft of issues around it all,” he said.

But one outcome of the meeting was that scrutiny chair, Margaret Gordon, asked how council officers could consider including a JAT assessment of the design in their upcoming consultation process.

Despite their disappointment, cycling campaigners welcomed this small reprieve.

An HCC spokesperson said: “I’m pleased that the chair asked officers to run the JAT for Pembury Circus junction.

“We expect the result of that assessment in the consultation, as that will show just how poor their design is for cyclists’ safety.”

Update: this article was amended at 11.10am on 15 November 2024. The story previously stated that the council had been asked to use the ‘JAT’ tool during the consultation, but Hackney Council said this is not technically the case. Rather, the chair was only asking how they could ‘consider’ using the assessment.