Beak Street Pedestrian Zone - Carnaby Shopping Area extends to Beak Street - Vehicles redirected to other parts of Soho
Updated 27 February
WCC have not done the leaflet drop yet and the latest version of the consultation leaflet has a date of 15 March for a response date. The issue of whether there will be a “do nothing” option is still not resolved despite being raised on Monday 24 February.
Updated 26 February
The United Cabbies Group that represents taxi drivers have given us permission to share their submission to the Council on Beak Street. It makes interesting reading:-
The breakdown and percentages for taxis referred to in the Norman Rourke Pryme report are perceived as “rat running”. For taxis this gives an indication of a genuine lack of understanding on your part of our principle activity. Soho as an area is not designed in a way that a professional taxi driver would legitimately consider using as a regular short cut. The nature of the layout is limited to which side you can enter and then exit to get your passenger to their destination. Your survey does not take into account that those taxis as recorded as not dropping off in Beak Street, but driving through, may have dropped their passenger in Broadwick Street or Marshall Street and would then need to exit the area, plying for hire, to obtain their next fare.
Here is the full document. This contradicts both Shaftesbury and Westminster City Councils suggestion that Beak Street is a rat run. As of today, the proposed Westminster consultation to be carried out by F M Conway still does not have a “do nothing” option.
Updated 23 February 2020
We had a meeting with Council officials to express our concerns about the scheme and the consultation process on 13 February.
In the meeting it was confirmed:-
there will still be no “do nothing” option - contrary to the press comments by Cllr Mitchel in October last year. Indeed we were told a “do nothing” option in the consultation would be against council policy and had been specifically ruled out by the official’s line manager, the reason given for this was unconvincing. Towards the end of the meeting there were comments that its “just a consultation” but in the absence of a clear answer to a straight forward question our woking assumption is that WCC’s consultation will not include an unambiguous do nothing option.
They did agree to extend the leaflet drop area to Wardour Street which is welcome.
They did agree to do a road safety audit before implementation of the scheme which is to be welcomed.
They did at one point confirm that if over 50% are against the scheme will not proceed - but without a clear option to express that view not sure how helpful that is.
Toby and Dean (from WCC and F M Conway respectively) were unable to discuss anything in relation to Shaftesbury’s financial interest and role in the matter - Toby expressed no view on whether Shaftesbury had a financial interest one way or the other in closure of the street despite repeated pressing. If not Toby (and I fully accept it may not be an issue for him), someone at WCC should be aware of the risks that this raises. I have previously raised with Cllr Glanz but he dismissed our concerns.
What was clarified is that the council is relying on traffic reports paid for and commissioned by a property developer that has a significant financial interest in the outcome of a council decision on the closure of the street. In the closed Kingly Street, Shaftesbury has used the public street for bar and restaurant tables and chairs for its tenants on an extensive basis. Beak Street has a significant number of bars and restaurants where Shaftesbury is the freeholder.
On the substantive decision, WCC is proposing to close 1 of the 3 already heavily congested exits from the west part of Soho - they believe this will reduce congestion. It has not done any of its own measurements but has relied on information procured by Shaftesbury who are conflicted. In our small survey 70% of residents think that the scheme should not proceed because it will make things worse in terms of congestion and pollution.
WCC has NOT carried out its own traffic survey.
Further, the 2017 traffic report commissioned by Shaftesbury says that the street should not be closed without significant mitigation otherwise traffic will back up - but that appears to have been ignored in later reports and by WCC. Toby had no answer to this. There maybe a mitigation at Great Marlborough Street (which we heard of for the first time) but the timescale for that is unknown.
Surely we need to now why the problems identified in 2017 have been removed from the later reports commissioned by Shaftesbury?
A wider plan for all of Soho’s traffic is some time off - the team for that has not yet been identified.
All of this begs the question "why now?" which was not answered.
On 18 February Cllr Smith said:-
“I have now had confirmation that the consultation, when it is issued will include a make no changes option. “
On the 21 February the officers sent the revised consultation document WHICH STILL DOES NOT CONTAIN A “DO NOTHING” OPTION.
Latest Consultation Document can be downloaded from the link.
It just has 2 options:-
Following a review of the responses to this consultation, there are a number of options as to how this scheme could be taken forward. These may include minor amendments to aspects of the scheme in response to comments and one of the following:
Option A: Implementation of the scheme as an Experimental Traffic Order (ETO) which would operate for a period of 6 months. After this period a decision will be taken to make the arrangement permanent or if further review and amendments are required. The duration of the ETO continues to act as a consultation period where we welcome your feedback on the operation and success of the pedestrian zone.
Option B: Implementation of the scheme as a permanent traffic order. The success of the scheme would still be monitored during this period, however, this would not act as an official consultation stage.
We encourage you to respond with both support and constructive comments. Also, please indicate if your preference would be to implement the scheme as an Experimental Traffic Order (Option A) or a Permanent Traffic Order (Option B).
There is no Option C - which in our view would be to do nothing to Beak Street and instead work with residents on a scheme for all of Soho that would limit vehicle entry to Soho with number plate recognition and would not involve any further pedestrianisation schemes.
So what Cllr Smith is on about is anyone’s guess. We have raised the issue with Cllr Smith and officials. As yet to no avail.
You will have until the 6 March to respond. It’s an e-mail response - we suggest you just say Option C as described on the Soho Society’s website if you are one of the 70% on residents opposed to the scheme.
Consultation responses should be emailed to BSPZ@fmconway.co.uk with the subject line of “Beak Street Consultation Response”.
You can also just complete the Society’s own survey here which does have a “do nothing” option.
Earlier Posts below.
The Council is proposing to consult on either a temporary or permanent closure of Beak Street - there is no option to leave Beak Street as is. So the consultation is flawed. The closing date is 6 March 2020.
This is the consultation Letter.
This is the Plan.
There is strong opposition to these plans locally of which the Council is aware and is clearly intent on ignoring. In previous communications the Council has confirmed that it is working in “partnership” with Shaftesbury plc - whatever that means.
If you want to help with the Society’s campaign on this issue please, join the Society, if not already a member, and also complete the form below.
You may also want to politely (it is very important that we remain polite despite our frustration) express your concerns to the Councillor responsible, Andrew Smith, who has recently replaced Tim Mitchell. Tim said in October 2019:-
“The part-pedestrianisation of Beak Street is an early proposal, one of a number of ideas to make Soho’s streets cleaner, greener and safer.
“This is still in the very early planning stages and any clear proposals will be put out for public consultation, where we welcome feedback from residents and business owners.”
(our emphasis)
Cllr Andrew Smith can be contacted on asmith@westminster.gov.uk
Complete this form if you want to help with out campaign.
November 2019
We have now obtained the traffic reports from 2017.
We thought this seems relevant:-
So back in 2017 the traffic consultants thought that any closure of Beak Street would require the creation of a new exit from Soho or increases in capacity in the existing exits.
They also thought Option 4 was unworkable.
By 2019 WCC and Shaftesbury appear to have been pursuing Option 4 despite the concerns expressed in their own traffic report.
There has been a ding dong in the press.
We said this on the 25 October
Claims plan to ban cars from back street is bid to create ‘Westfield Soho’
Concern proposal to stop vehicles using Beak Street will push the traffic elsewhere
25 October, 2019 — By Dan Carrier
Soho Society chairman Tim Lord: ‘We are pretty firmly against it’
BANNING cars from a Soho back street under new plans drawn up by Westminster Council have been criticised amid claims the scheme would push traffic elsewhere.
Soho Society chairman Tim Lord warned that blocking vehicles from using Beak Street appeared to be pandering to business interests, with little advantages for residents.
He said: “There is scepticism and grave concerns. We are pretty firmly against it. We would agree with anything that removes traffic, but this sounds an odd proposal.”
The society consulted its members and two-thirds are against the plan, with primary reasons being how traffic will be displaced.
They claim surrounding streets would take on the burden if the key east-west route through Soho was cut off.
Under the plan, which is being put out to public consultation, there would be limited access for delivery vehicles before 11am each day.
Mr Lord told the Extra that they had asked developers Shaftesbury, who own large tracts of land in Beak Street, and the council three times for access to the traffic modelling, but despite the plan being considered for the past 12 months, no information had been made available and they had to use the Freedom of Information Act to read the findings.
He said: “We have one of the reports but we still need more information. Their estimate of the closure of Beak Street means traffic will go elsewhere, and 60 per cent of traffic on Beak Street use it as a rat-run. But we have no way of knowing how they reached that figure.”
If there was no reduction in traffic numbers, it would force cars into Denman Street, Great Marlborough Street and Golden Square and therefore not solve the problem, he said.
“This a conservation area and it has a narrow street structure,” he said. “We do not think it is historically appropriate. This is just about footfall. They simply want more and more people to walk past their shops. It appears they want the area to become ‘Westfield’ Soho.”
He also cited a previous plan to permanently pedestrianise Old Compton Street and how it led to a rise in anti-social behaviour while traffic-free periods were tested.
He said: “If they simply want to turn Soho into a tourist and entertainment place, then we need to ask if that is right.”
Property owner Shaftesbury, who first suggested the scheme, said: “We are supportive of Westminster City Council’s aspiration to improve Beak Street, which is currently used as a traffic rat-run.
“We understand the city council will be launching a public consultation on its proposals to reduce traffic on the street and we look forward to working with the council on any scheme that they decide to take forward.”
Traffic chief, Conservative councillor Tim Mitchell added: “The part-pedestrianisation of Beak Street is an early proposal, one of a number of ideas to make Soho’s streets cleaner, greener and safer.
“This is still in the very early planning stages and any clear proposals will be put out for public consultation, where we welcome feedback from residents and business owners.”
Living Streets wrote to the West End Extra about the coverage on 25 October -
WE are all now agreed that we simply have to reduce the amount of traffic in the West End.
The pollution caused by vehicle emissions is literally killing us and the amount of killed and seriously injured collisions in Westminster is truly horrifying.
One of the worst causes of this nightmare is the rat-running traffic which will not stick to the main traffic routes and brings misery to residents and businesses alike in an attempt to save a few minutes on the journeys.
It is with these views well in mind that we at Living Streets are always sympathetic particularly to residents concerned about displacement of traffic to other streets.
And we can well understand the views of the Soho Society with the possibility of closing Beak Street to through-traffic, (Claims plan to ban cars from back street is bid to create ‘Westfield Soho’, October 25).
This is nothing new and every traffic-limiting proposal that is introduced has faced exactly the same concerns.
Fortunately, with the experience of the huge number of successful schemes that have now been completed all over the UK, it’s a fact that in the vast majority of cases this displaced traffic just disappears.
Motorists either go back to the main routes which they should have stayed on in the first place or simply abandon their car journeys which is exactly what we want them to do.
The benefits of traffic-free streets, particularly in big conurbations like London, are so blindingly obvious that we simply can not go on finding reasons not to introduce them.
Dramatically reduced pollution, a safe environment and, equally important, a calm and noise-reduced atmosphere, allows us all to go about our business in relative peace whether living or working in an area.
I would implore the Soho Society to support all proposals for ridding their wonderful part of our city of the scourge of rat-running traffic. It is probably the one thing that can overnight improve our quality of life with little inconvenience and at minimal cost.
PETER HARTLEY
Chair, Westminster Living Streets
The Soho Society’s response below:-
We have asked WCC for the report showing the rat run traffic calculation. They have not replied. We look forward to working with WCC on a proposal that does have support from residents once the election is over.
Background
We understand that Westminster City Council is working in partnership with Shaftesbury plc on proposals to extend the Kingly Street / Carnaby Street pedestrianised shopping area further south to encompass Beak Street. The pedestrianisation would extend along Beak Street from Warwick Street to Upper James Street. All westbound traffic on Beak Street would be routed down Upper James into Golden Square and then on to either Brewer Street or Denman and then presumably Shaftesbury Avenue.
Deliveries would take place between 7 am and 11 am in the morning - when traffic would flow, leaving the rest of the day (and night) from 11am to the following morning at 7 am for pedestrians only and commercial activity though increased pedestrian footfall for shopping. This proposal would also facilitate increased use of the carriage way for tables and chairs and overflow from the pub. This may cause greater noise nuisance at night for residents.
Marshall Street junction with Beak Street would also be closed with all Broadwick street west bound traffic routed down Lexington. Traffic will be reversed on Bridle Lane.
These proposals are intended to increase comfort for pedestrians and are based on a traffic survey provided by Shaftesbury and “generally support the modal shift to pedestrians in this area.”
Next steps are an informal consultation with the local community. If there is “broad support” there will be an experimental traffic order and formal consultation.
The Soho Society’s own informal survey is below. Based on an initial analysis of the results the Soho Society is minded to oppose these proposals and seek instead a more thorough review of traffic mitigation in Soho that does not involve the partial closure of an arterial exit route from Soho for most of the day and night.
The Councillor leading this project is Tim Mitchell who can be contacted as follows:-
Correspondence address:
Westminster City Hall
64 Victoria Street
London
SW1E 6QP
Bus. phone: 020 7641 5371 (Cabinet Team)
Email: tmitchell@westminster.gov.uk
Following a Freedom of Information Act request we have obtained a copy of the “Beak Street Preferred Option Assessment version 1.2” prepared by Norman Rourke Pryme and Produced for Shaftesbury plc. It does not attempt to show the alleged reduction is traffic following the closure which is in an earlier document which we will try to obtain. It shows worst case traffic reassignment and the possible mitigation if traffic is reduced as drivers avoid Beak Street as it no longer gives them access to Regent Street.
The April 2014 Soho Public Realm Study is available here.
Shaftesbury have asked us to include this statement:-
“We encourage and welcome a full consultation on the Beak Street proposals. Naturally, we have been working with the Council on these proposals, but the aspiration to improve Beak Street is not a new one and was in fact first mooted with the Soho Action Plan back in 2007, and again in the council’s Soho Public Realm Study (as a priority project) back in 2014. With our long term commitment to the area, why would we not help the council to deliver improvements?
We have a long standing record of investing in Westminster’s public realm all over the West End, which has helped to improve residential amenity and the way that people can move about the city more easily on foot. We have always discussed projects with the Council in line with their publicly stated policy objectives. We agree with both you and Matthew that this particular project has been in gestation for way too long. Ideally we would have wanted open consultation on it at least a year ago.
We also agree that a look across Soho as a whole is crucial to devise the best way for the area to go forward in the future. For this reason, when we asked a traffic consultant to look at what could be done in Beak Street we made sure that the traffic study they did, surveyed the whole of Soho to ensure that this would not be a project considered in isolation of how all of Soho moves and operates.
With the whole of Soho in mind, we support the Council’s policies on improving air quality and reducing traffic, as opposed to an approach which would re-open streets up.
We would welcome inclusion of wording in the summary at least which highlights that between 30% and 60% of the traffic using Beak Street has no purpose in Soho whatsoever, and is rat running via a route past Soho Parish School. If the majority of that traffic was eliminated from the area the proposals could improve pedestrian safety along the entire length of Beak Street, for the residents who live there and those that work on and visit the street.”