Mr Al Scott 38 Clerkenwell Green London EC1R 0DU 12 March 2018 Dear Mr Scott, Re: Petition: Clerkenwell Green improvements Environment and Regeneration Islington Council, Room 205, 2nd Floor Islington Town Hall London N1 2UD T. 020 7527 2776 E. martijn.coojmans@islington.gov.uk W. www.islington.gov.uk Thank you for your petition titled ‘Keep Clerkenwell real, keep Scotti’s alive’ submitted by email on 10 January 2018 in respect of the proposed changes to Clerkenwell Green. I have responded to each of the points you raised in turn. I have included your comments in this response in italic text. 1. Plans proposed by Islington Council are set to gentrify the area, by way of major pedestrianisation, creating a two-way street outside Scotti’s, and a total ban on parking. This will have a devastating impact on the current character of Scotti’s and I fear for its future. The Council wants to improve Clerkenwell Green so that it can be enjoyed by the local community, workers and visitors. Clerkenwell Green is currently dominated by traffic and parking and the Council wants to create a place where people can meet, gather and enjoy the space’s unique character. 2. Islington Council have deemed Scotti’s, a family business of over 50 years, serving the ever evolving community, business and residential, as not worthy as a place of interest. The Council values its business community, and recognises that Scotti’s has been a key part of the Clerkenwell community for over 50 years. Reducing through-traffic and increasing public space will create a more welcoming and less polluted Clerkenwell Green. The changes at Farringdon Station are expected to introduce new visitors to Clerkenwell Green. Increased footfall will present opportunities for local businesses to attract new customers and potentially adapt to respond to the increased visitors. 3. Clearly I attract the wrong sort of clientele! As set out at 1, the council wants to change Clerkenwell Green to reduce traffic dominance and increase its enjoyment as a public space and walking route. Customers to Scotti’s Snack Bar who drive and need to park in the area will still be able to do so. Further information on parking is provided at sections 6, 7 and 10. 4. This is social cleansing by stealth. As set out at 1, the changes proposed to Clerkenwell Green aim to make the space a place for everyone. The changes will make sure that the place is more welcoming for those with limited mobility and children by addressing level changes and reducing traffic dominance. 90% of Clerkenwell residents live in flats, and Clerkenwell has very little open space and a very high population density. The changes will provide a high quality open space that all residents can enjoy, particularly those without access to private courtyards or gardens. 5. We also want improvements to the area. But a place for all people and users. The Council shares the view that Clerkenwell Green should be a place for all people and users. More space will be created for pedestrians, the largest and fastest growing group of users of the space, ensuring that the Green can be enjoyed as a public space and as part of daily journeys. Although access arrangements are changing, other users, including cyclists and motorists, will continue to be able to use the space. 6. A modicum of parking and access is required for all businesses on the Green. The removal of parking from Clerkenwell Green was strongly supported at public consultation, with 64% of those making comments on parking expressing support for removing parking from Clerkenwell Green. Parking will still be available in the immediate vicinity of the Green at Vine Street Bridge, Farringdon Lane, Clerkenwell Close, Aylesbury Street and Sekforde Street. Parking surveys undertaken in November 2016 indicate that there would be capacity in the wider area to meet demand for car parking if parking was to be removed from Clerkenwell Green. The next stage of the project will include a review of the current residential, business and pay and display parking in the area to indicate where changes to parking may be required to improve parking efficiency. The customers of Scotti’s Snack Bar would be considered as part of this parking review. 7. Current plans proposed by Islington Council to remove all 42 parking bays on Clerkenwell Green will force vehicles to look for non-existent parking bays in the surrounding residential streets populated by the Peabody Estate. Car ownership in Clerkenwell, Islington and London is decreasing, demonstrating less reliance on private cars than ever. The Mayor of London has set out ambitious targets to achieve major changes to how people travel around London, as set out in the Mayor’s Transport Strategy. The proposals for Clerkenwell Green have been prepared in the context of the Mayor’s objectives. 8. This would create a ‘rat run’, severely increasing the pollution levels on the Green and Close. The council estimates that the proposals would result in reducing traffic in the neighbourhood by 66% and the removal of 93% of through-trips. This means that whilst the road adjacent to Scotti’s would change from being one-way to two-way, there will be much less traffic in the area than currently. Whilst traffic in the area will reduce, the quality of the environment will improve and will encourage people to visit and stay in the area, enjoying the characterful surroundings. As set out in the response to 2, this in turn would create additional trading opportunities. We believe that by removing parking, significantly reducing through-traffic and relocating bus stands we will see significant air quality improvements in the local area. In terms of through-traffic, this is expected to reduce significantly as a result of the proposed road layout and access arrangements at Clerkenwell Green, which would result in improved local air quality. 9. The only beneficiaries of the proposed plans are the residents of the Sekforde Street, by its access only route turning it into Clerkenwell’s own ‘Private Millionaire Row’. This class distinction has to stop! Residents of Sekforde Street would not be permitted to use the proposed eastbound access-only road: this would only be for use by those requiring access to garages on the eastern side of Clerkenwell Green. The proposals have been developed to improve both the Green and the local area. Whilst access to Sekforde Street will change and only be possible from St John Street, the changes would see an overall reduction in non-local traffic, benefitting the wider area. Some residents of Sekforde Street have expressed support for the plans, and some have expressed concern that parking will be affected and that there will be additional traffic. 10. We ask Islington Council to withdraw these proposals and re-draw its plans, and the reinstatement of some parking bays on the Green. The proposals for Clerkenwell Green were strongly supported at public consultation, with 82% of the total responses received expressing support for the proposals. The responses indicate that most people welcome the planned changes to the Green, including the removal of parking and reduction of traffic so that it is a place that people enjoy living nearby, working in the area, visiting or using as part of a commute. As set out in the response to 6, the council will review parking in the area so that it best responds to local needs, for example, those needing to park close to the Green. I trust this responds to your petition. However, should you have any further queries please do not hesitate to contact Eshwyn Prabhu on 020 7527 2450. Yours sincerely, Martijn Cooijmans Head of Economic Development, Projects and Transport Planning Planning & Development Islington Council Dear Mr Cooijmans 25th March 2018 Many thanks for your response to my petition. I have read it with interest , but there are points I would like to raise with you. The word “Over Populate “ is used in reference to the parking on Clerkenwell Green , But , essentially, without any definition what quantifies Over Populate. The parking bays are NOT CONSISTENTLY taken up , with many empty bays throughout the day I can provide photographic evidence if required. But the streets you have suggested ,as an alternative for parking, currently have more static vehicles ,i.e. residential permitted cars ,which do not move during the week , Over populate does not apply here. Also , after 50 years trading , and With all due respect to your qualification as Head of Economic Development, I do know my clientele better than yourself . The attraction is the parking close to the cafe, for short time use , and not to circle around the area looking for a parking spot a quarter of a mile away.. Time is valuable for these drivers. Also, You have not answered Why is it better to SEEK parking on the surrounding narrow residential streets ? Furthermore, there is no explanation on how the three proposed loading bays are going to be sufficient to deal with the 100 or so deliveries that currently service the Green on a daily basis . This is without the foresight of the extra demand for delivery space when the Sessions House opens. However , I welcome your comments to Article 6 , where a review of parking is being considered. I also welcome your recognition that some Sekforde Street residents have concerns about the proposed changes , represented in percentages quoted from your collected data. Nevertheless,It is disappointing that your letter FAILS to acknowledge and quantify the amount of the EVERYDAY users of Clerkenwell Green who signed the petition against your proposal . This gives credence to our concerns of being sidelined from the continued future use of the Green . (ref your letter 10th April 2017. The Clerkenwell Green Stakeholder Group is predominantly made up of groups representing heritage interests, local residents, local businesses and key local facilities. In the interests of ensuring that the Stakeholder Group is of a workable size, we have taken the approach of inviting only representatives of groups to be part of the Stakeholder Group, rather than individual businesses or residents. The Bee London Business Improvement District (BID) has been invited to the Stakeholder Group to represent the strategic interests of businesses in the area. I believe your plan mainly focuses on the workers in the week , with little consideration for the cold winter evenings or indeed the Church ,with its Sunday congregation ,funerals .and weddings. Clerkenwell Green was an ideal location for Cllr Donovan (chair of the Stakeholder Group) to park her Route Master Bus outside Scottis, escorting her guests ,including other local councillors. the short distance , to her wedding ,at St James”s Church. Even Karl Marx Library has evening and weekend functions where parking is a necessity ,as recently used by our MP Emily Thornberry. So what really is the future plan for the Green? Surely a mass of bland concrete, in an OFFICE BASED SQUARE, is not enough attraction for the expected new visitors, especially when we have two large parks in the area ,St James Gardens ,and Spa Fields , Why is the council adamant to pave the area outside the Sessions House . and not pave outside Scottis ,the sunniest side of the square ? (Ref:” The Council feels the need to make a feature of our only Grade 2 Listed Building of the area [The Sessions House” Dianna Walker ) And what is going to happen to the public conveniences or shall i say, inconveniences ? Surely a commercial enterprise seems likely . Is the Green ,with the proposed joining of the island to the Sessions House, going to become a major Social/Recreation square.? Is the removal of cars just a PHASE ONE SMOKESCREEN ? The residents need to know what Councils’ future vision of the Green is ? (ref : “Look at the success of Granary Square” Eshwyn Prabhu) Other plans can be drawn up , The proposed plan shows a camera controlled Access Only, on the east side of the Green . (travelling to Sekforde Street ) Why not make it Access Only from Farringdon Lane ,and only allow the legitimate vehicles to enter the Green and exit onto Clerkenwell Road ,eliminating the need to use Clerkenwell Close. And allow vehicles to enter from Aylesbury Street and exit on Clerkenwell Road. What were the parameters that helped formulate your plan.? Also, you should not use data from just one week in November 2016 to change the character of historic Clerkenwell : a busy working environment on week days ,reverting to a village atmosphere at weekends. It really is truly unique .! Indeed .since the advent of the TfL Cycle Super Highway on Farringdon Road,, there has been a considerable “Material Change of Circumstance (MCC) to the area ,thus your survey ,is now outdated. The subsequently traffic congestion on Farringdon Road, stretching from Clerkenwell Road to Rosebery Avenue, has meant that vehicles now use Rosebery Avenue as the main thorough route around the area . The through traffic on Clerkenwell Green has diminished considerably. it nullifies the councils argument about rat-running,. and in whole ,renders your PROPOSED PLAN as UNJUSTIFIABLE . £3 million can be much better spent elsewhere . Kind Regards , Al Scott Resident . Business Owner, Voice of Concerned Everyday Users of the Green.