Agenda, decisions and minutes

1.1   Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Cllrs Hercock,, Coban, Ozsen, Fajana- Thomas and Chauhan.

2.1  Cllrs Webb, Hanson, Snell, Stops and Race declared a simple interest as members of the London Cycling Campaign

RESOLVED:

1.  That the Committee recommends to Full Council, the development and adoption of the new pan-London Dockless Byelaw as proposed by the London Councils Transport and Environmental Committee [LCTEC] and also recommends the delegation of the Borough’s functions relating to making and promoting the pan-London dockless byelaw to LCTEC.

2.  That Committee recommends to full Council the Chief Executive as the authorised person to delegate the borough’s functions in recommendation 2.1 of the report.

3.1  Malcolm Smith introduced the report relating to the Pan-London Dockless byelaw prohibiting bike operators from parking dockless bikes other than at approved dockless parking spaces. 

3.2  Mr Smith stated that the Transport for London had a code of practice on dockless bike operations that required operators to manage their schemes so that bikes did not restrict or affect the use of footways or public spaces but this had not always been effectively managed.  Moreover, Councils had limited scope to effectively manage the parking of dockless bikes and the aim of the byelaw was to move from each Local Authority’s individual agreements with operators to borderless operations throughout London.  The London-wide proposed byelaws had been drafted to provide the appropriate controls and sufficient scope to enable boroughs to retain control of bike hire schemes that would be managed locally.

3.3  Mr Smith emphasised that the Council’s Legal Services had submitted its proposed changes to the draft byelaw that included extending enforcement to the customer as well as the bike hire operator.  It was anticipated that a further report seeking approval of the final wording of the proposed byelaw would be submitted to the London Councils Transport and Environmental Committee (LCTEC) on 10 October 2019.  Members were requested to recommend to the next Full Council the recommendations outlined within the submitted report.

3.4  Councillor Race enquired about the Council’s approved dockless bike operators, the current powers to prevent unauthorised bike operators operating within the borough and the difference between an authorised contractor and non-contractor operator under the proposed byelaw.  Mr Cunningham replied that the Council had appointed Beryl and Jump as its operators of the dockless bike hire scheme in Hackney and that the contract would initially be for a period of two years and expected to commence at the end of October 2019.  Mr Cunningham emphasised that the Council currently had no powers to take enforcement action against dockless bike companies operating within the borough.  However, the proposed byelaw would enable the Council to designate dockless cycle parking spaces for its authorised operators and any bikes left outside these spaces would be subject to enforcement action.  The purpose of the proposed byelaw was to enable the Council to work more closely with bicycle hire companies.

3.5  Councillor Hanson sought further clarification regarding the implementation of the proposed byelaw and whether enforcement action could be taken against customers of non-contracted operators leaving their bikes in non-designated spaces.  Mr Smith explained that under the current arrangements, action could only be taken against an operator and that the Council had proposed extending enforcement action to customers.  Mr Smith added that the Council had been working with the local dockless bike operators Beryl and Jump and they had formally committed to operating from their bikes from designated parking spaces.  Under the new byelaws, the operators including non- contracted operators would be responsible for informing their customers of any enforcement action if they failed to comply with the byelaw. 

3.6  Councillor Williams asked whether the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

4.1  There was no other urgent business.