We are creating a place the world will watch with wonder, on London’s iconic site of human ingenuity.
rough our masterplan, we will reimagine the very fabric of living, working and urban wellbeing for London and future spaces.
Attracting the world’s most inventive, imaginative and extraordinary minds. at place is Earls Court.
Nature
A celebration of nature and its ability to connect and revive.
Innovation
A showcase for climate and clean innovation and skills.
Our four place pillars underpin our vision and set the ambitions for the place we want to create.
Culture
A cultural ecosystem for the future of talent.
Neighbourhood
An inspiring neighbourhood designed for all stages of life.
Foreword
After four years of deep consideration and collaboration with stakeholders and local people, The Earls Court Development Company (ECDC) is delighted to present the ambitious future plans for this iconic Site.
We formed in 2021 during the lockdown imposed by the first global pandemic in a century, an era which was both disruptive and formative, demanding that we reflect and reassess how we will be living in the future. There could be no more engaging mission for a team specifically assembled to design a place fit for the 22nd century.
As a team, ECDC shares a passion for transformational inner-city projects, and collectively have wide-ranging experiences from diverse international projects. Together, we are driven to fulfil the opportunities of this complex strategic site for London and rightfully put Earls Court as a place back on the global map.
Our intent from the very beginning, was to take a different approach to community involvement in shaping design. Setting up as a local business and being right next to Site everyday, working closely with both local authorities, the Mayor’s office, local businesses and our neighbours has been fundamental in shaping our plans for the Site, which we believe are more relevant and exciting for it.
We have listened and taken huge inspiration from Earls Court’s heritage, as a place that dared — to showcase, to entertain and celebrate the spectacular. A place that was so clearly cherished for being bold and brave, welcoming people from across the globe.
Our plans retain that innovative spirit that embraces future thinking an approach we believe has become more important now than ever before. An approach that continues to drive
us to create a global exemplar of sustainability.
We understand our responsibility to deliver much needed homes and employment opportunities for London. Critical to achieving these aims is creating a place with personality, a place that once again becomes a destination with a broad cultural appeal and is fully inclusive to all that come to experience it.
The masterplan has been created to prioritise urban wellbeing and includes a network of Exhibition Gardens that will be open and accessible for everyone to enjoy. We’re creating a pedestrian-first environment alive with daytime and evening active uses. This generosity of open space is evident at key arrival points as well as the unique Table Park and Lillie Sidings.
Our commitment to create a better piece of city has been evidenced over the last three years as we have welcomed over 500,000 people back onto Site to enjoy a programme of events that nod to the past and point to the future of Earls Court.
ECDC began with a mantra ‘to make haste slowly’ and ensure we took the time to both listen and appreciate the world of Earls Court, which helped to establish the early vision to bring the wonder back to Earls Court.
Now, after over four years of consideration, we are proud to present our hybrid planning submission to the authorities for determination a key milestone to enable the future of Earls Court as a place, once again, to discover wonder.
Rob Heasman CEO e Earls Court Development Company
AppendixA – Transport Assessment Scoping Report and Responses
Appendix B – Policy Review
Appendix C –Accessibility Figures
Appendix D – Bus StopAudit
Appendix E – Parking Survey Results
Appendix F – Accident Data Review
Appendix G – Parameter Plans and Illustrative Proposed Development
Appendix H –Access Drawings
Appendix I – Stage 1 RSAand Response
Appendix J – Active Travel ZoneAssessment and Safety Inclusion Assessment
Appendix K – Maximum Development Parameters Technical Note
Appendix L – Cumulative Development Note
Appendix M – Trip Generation Note
Appendix N – PCLAnalysis
Appendix O – CycleAnalysis
Appendix P – Station Modelling Reports
Appendix Q – Traffic Flow Diagrams
Appendix R – Junction CapacityAssessment Results
Appendix S – VISWALKAnalysis
Appendix T – Mitigation Drawings
Appendix U – Mitigation Junction CapacityAssessments
Appendix V – Detailed Components Transport Statement
1.0 Introduction
Overview
1.1 This Transport Assessment (TA) has been prepared by WSP and is submitted as part of two Hybrid Planning Applications, one submitted to the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (‘LBHF’) and one submitted to the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (‘RBKC’) in relation to the redevelopment of the land bounded by West Cromwell Road, Warwick Road, Philbeach Gardens, Eardley Crescent, Lillie Road, Old Brompton Road and the West London Railway Line (‘WLL’); and 1 Cluny Mews in RBKC (the ‘RBKC Site’) and North End Road, Beaumont Avenue, West Cromwell Road, the WLL, land comprising the Empress State Building (‘ESB’), Aisgill Avenue, the former Gibbs Green School properties fronting Gibbs Green Close, and properties fronting Dieppe Close (the ‘LBHF Site) which straddle the boundary between the two boroughs (together forming ‘the Site’). The Proposed Development will form the new Earls Court Development. The Hybrid Planning Applications have been submitted on behalf of Earls Court Partnership Limited (‘ECPL’), (“The Applicant”).
1.2 The RBKC Hybrid Planning Applications is formed of detailed development proposals in respect of Development Plots EC05 and EC06 for which no matters are reserved ("RBKC Detailed Component"), and outline development proposals for the remainder of the RBKC Site, with all matters reserved ("RBKC Outline Component"). The RBKC Detailed Component and RBKC Outline Component together are referred to as the “RBKC Proposed Development”.
1.3 The LBHF Hybrid Planning Applications is formed of detailed development proposals in respect of Development Plots WB03, WB04 and WB05 for which no matters are reserved ("LBHF Detailed Component"), and outline development proposals for the remainder of the Site, with all matters reserved ("LBHF Outline Component"). LBHF Detailed Component and LBHF Outline Component together are referred to as the “LBHF Proposed Development”.
1.4 Together the RBKC and LBHF Proposed Developments form the Earls Court Development which comprises the redevelopment of the Site. The Earls Court Development will provide residential dwellings, purpose-built student accommodation, assisted living, workspace, culture, community, retail and leisure facilities alongside high quality public realm and open spaces.
1.5 The purpose of the TA is to consider the impacts of the Proposed Development on the transport network and to detail the process that has been undertaken to develop the proposals from a transport perspective.
1.6 This TA has been prepared in accordance with Transport for London’s Healthy Streets TA Guidance1 The TA forms part of a suite of transport documents that accompany the planning applications including the Framework Travel Plan (FTP), Framework Delivery
1 Healthy Streets TA Recommended Contents & Chapters (17.06.2019) available at: healthy-streets-ta-format.pdf (tfl.gov.uk)
and Servicing Plan (FDSP), Construction Traffic Logistics Plan (CTLP) and Framework Parking Design and Management Plan (FPDMP). These documents are inter-related and should be read in conjunction with the TA.
1.7 Separately an Environmental Statement (ES) has been prepared in accordance with the requirements for Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). The findings of the TA have fed into the preparation of the Transport and Accessibility Chapter of the ES.
1.8 The Proposed Development is currently anticipated to be delivered in eight main phases and over an estimated programme of approximately 19 years. The eight main phases encompass the full build out of the Proposed Development. The indicative development programme is based on the assumption that planning permission is secured in Q3 2025. Elements of infrastructure works are expected to commence prior to Q3 2025. Where applicable, separate applications have already been submitted or may be submitted for these works as described in chapter 5 and the Infrastructure Works section of the submitted Environmental Statement. The impacts of these works have been considered as part of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for completeness and robustness.
1.9 Therefore, for the purpose of the indicative development programme, the Proposed Development works are anticipated to be undertaken over 13 years for the Early Phases (completion targeted for Q2 2037) and 19 years for the All Phases (completion Q2 2043). First residential occupation is likely to be in 2030.
1.10 No significant delay is anticipated between the phases. However, realising vacant possession of the LBD is complex and whilst an indicative programme has been agreed with London Underground Limited (LUL), it is subject to ongoing review, detailed preparation and design, and additional consents. It may change and could delay vacant possession beyond the timescales currently anticipated.
1.11 Due to the above, the Hybrid Planning Applications consider and assess two different scenarios. These are:
All Phases: comprising the entirety of the Proposed Development. This is currently anticipated for completion by 2043.
Early Phases: Phases 1-4 (the ‘Early Phases’) are completed, but the Depot remains operational and is delivered to a different programme from that currently anticipated in the All Phases scenario.
1.12 This report considers each of these scenarios. For further information in relation to phasing and development scenarios, refer to the submitted Planning Statement and Environmental Statement.
Site Location
1.13 The Site occupies an area of approximately 18 hectares (179,956sqm) and is located in both the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (LBHF) and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC), in West London. The Site area associated with the RBKC Hybrid Planning Applications is approximately 8 hectares (78,561sqm) and the Site area associated with the LBHF Hybrid Planning Applications is approximately 10 hectares (101,395sqm).
1.14 The LBHF and RBKC administrative boundary bisects the Site along a northwestsoutheast axis from Lillie Road to West Cromwell Road.
1.15 The RBKC Site is bound to the north by West Cromwell Road, to the east by Warwick Road, Philbeach Gardens (including 1 Cluny Mews) and Eardley Crescent, to the south by Lillie Road and Old Brompton Road and to the east by the West London Railway Line (WLL), and 1 Cluny Mews.
1.16 The LBHF Site is bound to the west by North End Road, Beaumont Avenue, the former Gibbs Green School, properties fronting Gibbs Green Close, and properties fronting Dieppe Close, to the north by West Cromwell Road, to the east by the West London Railway Line (WLL), to the south by Lillie Road and to the south east by land comprising the Empress State Building and AisgillAvenue.
1.17 The Site is a large brownfield site with railway infrastructure and comprises the following:
Cluny Mews – The far northeastern part of the Site comprises an office building at approximately 4 storeys, an annex building which comprises 3 storeys of residential flats and associated paved roads with parking. This is currently activated as a temporary meanwhile use.
Land formerly home to the Earls Court Exhibition Centres – The eastern and southeastern parts of the Site (roughly triangular shaped and to the east of the WLL) and the southwestern part of the Site (to the west of the WLL) comprise extensive areas of open hardstanding. These areas of hardstanding were previously occupied by the Earls Court Exhibition Centres which were demolished between 2015 and 2017. The Table spans the WLL between the hardstanding areas. Beneath is an extensive network of railway infrastructure including the District Line and Piccadilly Line. Parts of this element of the Site are currently activated with temporary meanwhile uses.
Empress Place – The southern and southwestern parts of the Site comprise 3-4 storey terrace buildings fronting Empress Place and Lillie Road. These are currently activated with temporary meanwhile uses.
Bus Facility – To the west of Empress Place is a bus turning and waiting facility accessed from Lillie Road. This area comprises a bus layover area with capacity for up to four buses and a small standalone structure that includes welfare facilities for bus drivers.
Lillie Bridge Depot (LBD) – The western, northern and northwestern part of the Site comprise the LBD. The LBD is currently used as a maintenance facility by London Underground Ltd (LUL) and as a TfL training facility. The LBD uses and on-Site structures comprise office buildings, rail tracks, road to rail vehicle (RRV) delivery and access point, articulated lorry access and delivery area, carpenter/rail workshops, storage buildings, train stabling box, associated infrastructure and parking.
9 Beaumont Avenue – A 2 storey building located in the far northwestern part of the Site. This is currently activated as a temporary meanwhile use.
1.18 The location of the Earls Court Development Site, relative to the stations is shown in Figure 1 (reproduced at a larger scale in Appendix C). The Site and its surroundings are described in more detail within Section 3
Planning History
1.19 The Site benefits from a number of existing planning permissions. Within RBKC the following planning permissions are of relevance:
Outline Planning Permission (ref. PP/11/01937) dated 14th November 2013, as amended by various NMAs; Reserved Matters for ‘Earls Court Village Area’ (ref. PP/13/07062) dated 3rd April 2014; Reserved Matters for Development Zone WV03 (ref. PP/16/07386) dated 3rd May 2017; and
In October 2021, planning permission (ref. PP/21/00272) was granted at 344-350 Old Brompton Road (OBR), for the redevelopment of the site to provide a nine-storey residential and commercial building adjacent to the Earls Court Site. The Applicant was ECPL. Subsequently, an NMA (ref. NMA/23/02884) was granted to OBR for minor below ground structural changes to facilitate the relocation of High Voltage cables adjacent to the consented development.
1.20 Within LBHF the following planning permissions are of relevance:
Figure 1: Earls Court Development Site Location
Outline Planning Permission (ref. 2011/02001/OUT) dated 14th November 2013, as amended by various NMAs. Reserved Matters for Earls Court Village Area (ref. 2013/05200/RES) dated 10th April 2014.
1.21 In addition, a number of temporary planning permissions have been granted on the site for meanwhile uses. Further information on this can be found in Section 3.
Consented Development
1.22 Under previous ownership proposals for the redevelopment of the Site were secured (RBKC reference PP/11/01937 and LBHF reference 2011/02001/OUT). The consented scheme was granted outline planning permission in November 2013 and included a site area that stretched in excess of the land now being considered. This previous boundary (Figure 2) included the Earls Court Exhibition Centres, the LBD, and the West Kensington and Gibbs Green Housing Estates. Table 1 provides a summary of the previously consented scheme
Table 1: Consented Scheme Maximum Development Quantum
Figure 2: Consented Scheme Extents
1.23 A series of transport documents were approved for the consented scheme, including ‘Earls Court Project Applications 2 TA’ (February 2012). This TA presented a site wide assessment of the Proposed Development including Planning Applications 1 for development within RBKC and Planning Applications 2 for development within LBHF. This considered background growth plus all committed developments in a future year of 2031.As a cumulative scenario, the TA also assessed the scheme plus background growth and all committed developments in combination with the proposals at Seagrave Road in 2031.
1.24 After planning permission was granted the exhibition centres were demolished. A Strategic Transport Review Group (STRG) was formed to monitor the implementation of transport obligations associated with the consented scheme. The STRG was subsequently placed in abeyance whilst a new scheme and planning applications for the Site were developed.
Planning Engagement and Scope ofAssessment
1.25 As part of development of the new scheme an exercise has been undertaken to engage with the local community and transport stakeholders in the area. Formal preapplications meetings have been held with the main Transport Stakeholders (consisting of TfL, LBHF and RBKC) since 2021. A summary of the meetings held is provided in Table 2
Table 2: Transport Stakeholder Engagement Held to date
Date
8 March 2023
Commentary / Topics Covered
West Brompton and West Kensington Station demand and mitigation options
10 May 2023 Transport Assessment Scoping Note
12 July 2023
Planning Programme, Proposed Development focus areas, Warwick Road Cycle Infrastructure, Bus Strategy, Active Travel Zone Assessment, Mund Street
12 July 2023 Meeting to discuss construction traffic routing
7 September 2023
13 September 2023
27 September 2023
10 October 2023
Transport workshop covering bus strategy, cycle infrastructure and highway modelling
West Brompton and West Kensington station demand and mitigation options
Site visit walkover with LBHF and TfL
Site visit with TfL to discuss cycle infrastructure. Pre app meeting to discuss maximum development parameters, Strategic modelling assumptions, Parking Strategy
8 November 2023 Off-site cycle infrastructure improvements
13 December 2023
Construction phasing, parking, station mitigation, off-site cycle infrastructure improvements
10 January 2024 Transport Strategy, EC1 Detailed applications, EC2 Detailed applications
14 February 2024 Planning Strategy
13 March 2024
Maximum Development Parameters, Warwick Road Cycle Infrastructure
19 March 2024 EIA Scoping Discussions
10 April 2024 Transport meeting with LBHF
8 May 2024 Station Mitigation, Warwick Road Cycle Infrastructure
1.26
Separate discussions have been held with the Transport Stakeholders over a similar timescale to agree the scope of and develop the strategic transport modelling that underpins the analysis contained within this TA. This process and the methodology adopted is discussed in more detail in Section 7.
1.27 A Transport Assessment Scoping Report (TASR) was issued to the Transport Stakeholders in February 2024. This TASR along with responses is included within Appendix A of this TA.
Table 2: Transport Stakeholder Engagement Held to date
1.28 Key areas of scope that have been agreed and included within this TA include:
Use of TfL’s strategic transport models to consider the impacts of the development proposals across a range of modes
The use of traffic surveys undertaken in March 2022 at the start of the strategic modelling process to inform this TA
An Active Travel Zone (ATZ) assessment including daytime and night-time site visits for 26 key routes in the local area
A Parking Survey of the streets immediately surrounding the site boundary to understand existing parking occupancy.
An assessment of the Detailed Components of the planning applications. This is included within Appendix V of this TA.
1.29 This TA has been prepared to consider the transport impacts of the outline component of the planning applications
The Proposed Development
What is being built?
1.30 The Proposed Development seeks to redevelop the Site to deliver a mixed-use scheme including residential, employment, retail and cultural uses. The Proposed Development is described in more detail in Section 4.
1.31 The Applicant, ECPL, has prepared a Development Specification which defines and describes the Proposed Development and provides information in relation to, the Outline Components and Detailed Components of the planning applications.
Why is the Development Proposed
1.32 Scheme proposals for the re-development of the Site were previously developed and gained planning consent. The site was subsequently sold and a new development team brought onboard, The Earls Court Development Company (ECDC). ECDC have engaged a design team to develop new Development Proposals The Proposed Development seeks to create a destination to discover wonder, a home for creative talent and a showcase for one of the fastest growing industries in the world – clean and climate technology.
1.33 The Proposed Development has been established around four place pillars as outlined in Figure 3
1.34 Key benefits of the Proposed Development include:
Up to 3,900 new homes
Up to 12,000 new jobs
60% of the site will be unbuilt, and plans include a generous network of Exhibition Gardens and open spaces; and Three new cultural and performance venues, providing an ecosystem for the future of creative talent.
Planning Strategy
1.35 As outlined above in the introduction, two Hybrid Planning Applications are to be submitted, one to each of RBKC and LBHF, with the red line boundary to define them drawn along the borough administrative boundary line. Land within the red line boundary to the east of the borough boundary line forms the RBKC Hybrid Applications Site and land to the west forms the LBHF Hybrid Applications Site. Both applications submissions are submitted in duplicate to either borough, with each one submitted in outline (the ‘Outline Component’) but with a part submitted in detail (the ‘Detailed Component’), making them ‘hybrid’ planning applications
1.36 Figure 4 sets out the planning strategy and the supporting documentation that accompanies the submission.
Figure 3: Four Place Pillars for Proposed Development
1.37 The majority RBKC and LBHF Hybrid Applications are submitted in outline (with all matters reserved) and are referred to as the “Outline Component” of each applications.
1.38 The Hybrid Applications seek approval for the parameters of the RBKC and LBHF Outline Components, which are set out in the Development Specification and the Parameter Plans and the Design Code (together referred to as “Control Documents”). These will define and guide the detailed design and development of the Outline Components through the submission of future Reserved Matter Applications (RMAs)
1.39 The subsequent RMAs that will be submitted pursuant to the Outline Components will relate to all parts of Proposed Development that are not approved for the Detailed Components under the Hybrid Applications. They will demonstrate that detailed design proposals are compliant with approved Parameter Plans and Design Code and land use mix and floorspace quantum identified in the Development Specification. Compliance with approved parameters will be set out in RMA Reconciliation Statements, the template for which is submitted for information with the Hybrid Applications
1.40 Each applications for RMA will also include relevant supporting documents and detailed drawings submitted for approval.
1.41 It is important to note, as set out in the Detailed Component drawings that the extent of the detailed planning area is the building line. As a result, elements outside of this detailed area, although relevant to the detailed plots, such as adjacent servicing bays
Figure 4: Planning Strategy
or parking not within plot are subject to the Outline elements of the Site and would therefore be subject to an RMA pursuant to the outline applications
1.42 Whilst it is acknowledged that the adoption of this strategy results in a situation where outline elements are linked to the detailed applications, the application of this approach is well established and utilised on other large-scale London based schemes. It allows for flexibility and best design to come forward at the appropriate time, and doesn’t limit the development to be tied to potentially inefficient design principles that were set years prior to construction.
1.43 From a transport perspective this specifically affects elements such as access which is a reserved matter pursuant to the outline applications. This means that elements such as the access points onto the highway network, access routes through the public realm and the location and form of parking and servicing that is outside of the boundary of the Detailed Components are not determined at this stage but will instead come forwards as RMAs pursuant to the outline applications in due course. Within this TA reference is made to access designs, routes and parking and servicing areas which are all illustrative at this stage unless stated otherwise.
1.44 To provide comfort that matters relating to access, parking and servicing that affect the Detailed Components can be secured it is anticipated that conditions will be attached to the planning consent requiring these elements to be approved prior to occupation. No Plots would be occupied without suitable means of access having been implemented.
Transport Strategy
1.45 The last few years have witnessed a significant change to the transport environment. Changing travel trends have emerged, accelerated by the Covid-19 Pandemic, which has resulted in a shift in the way people live and work. From a work perspective a more hybrid approach has emerged, mixing home and office type working. In addition, there has been significant growth in online retail.
1.46 The emergence of new technology is offering new opportunities for alternatives to the private car. Micro-mobility schemes, which offer a range of lightweight vehicles, such as e-scooters and e-bikes, supplement the established Santander cycle hire scheme and provide an alternative to the car and traditional public transport for shorter journeys.
1.47 There has also been a relative shift towards low and zero emission vehicles, which has been further stimulated by changes to policy, including the 2021 London Plan and the new Building Regulations Part S.
1.48 As well as the above wider changes that have occurred, the emergence of ride hailing services such as Uber and increasing development of autonomous vehicles and consolidation of deliveries represent key emerging trends that the Proposed Development should respond to.
1.49 The Proposed Development that has been developed for Earls Court has sought to fully embrace these emerging technologies to create a sustainable development that is able to adapt to a changing environment and respond to a societal shift towards net zero carbon as required by the Climate Change Act 2008 This approach is reflected in the transport strategy and transport network assessment reported in this document.
1.50 The Transport Strategy has sought to respond to this and established a set of Transport Priorities that align with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and Mayor’s Transport Strategy as illustrated in Figure 5
1.51 The full Transport Strategy is detailed within Section 4
1.52 At the heart of the Proposed Development is the aim to maximise the ‘people first’ public realm throughout the Site. The Transport Strategy has responded to this by creating a hierarchy of movement for trips made on-site to ensure that a ‘people first’ approach to the public realm is delivered, this is illustrated in Figure 6
1.53 For trips made off-site we have set an ambitious set of mode share targets, aligned to the objectives of the London Plan and Mayor’s Transport Strategy which the Transport Strategy will use reasonable endeavours to achieve:
60% of all trips made to/from the development to be undertaken by public transport; 30% of trips to be made by walking/cycling; and The remaining 10% of trips to be made by vehicle (private vehicle, taxi, private hire and servicing)
Figure 5: Transport Priorities
Figure 6: Hierarchy of Movement On-Site
Transport Policy and Guidance
1.54 The Proposed Development has been developed with consideration of the national, regional and local planning framework and legislative guidance and supplementary documents. The Development Proposals have been considered in the context of the following policy and guidance:
NPPF (MHCLG, 2023);
National Planning Practice Guidance (MHCLG, 2023);
The London Plan (GLA, 2021);
The Mayors Transport Strategy (GLA, 2018) and Supplementary Proposal (GLA 2022); Transport for London Healthy Streets Transport Assessment Guidance (TfL 2019)
Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Local Plan (2019);
Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Local Plan Review (NLPR) (2024);
Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea: Transport and Streets SPD (2016);
Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea: Earls Court OpportunityArea. Placemaking Framework SPD (2023);
London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Local Plan (2018);
London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Planning Guidance (2018); and
London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham and Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Earls Court OpportunityArea Placemaking Framework SPD (2023)
1.55 The Proposed Development and supporting strategies have been prepared in line with the relevant national, regional and local policies outlined above. The subsequent sections of this TA demonstrate where appropriate how the Proposed Development accords with the relevant policies. A summary of the relevant planning policy framework is provided in Appendix B.
1.56 The following key policies have been considered when developing the Transport Strategy:
Optimising development in highly accessible locations:
NPPF Paragraph 109 – significant development should be focused on locations which are or can be made sustainable
London Plan Policy GG2 Making the best use of land;
Mayors Transport Strategy Policy 18 London’s Links With The Wider South East And Beyond;
Mayors Transport Strategy Policy 21 Transport for Good Growth; and
RBKC Local Plan Policy CA4: Earls Court Exhibition Centre.
Providing high quality / high productivity jobs:
Mayors Transport Strategy Policy 21 Transport for Good Growth.
Providing sustainable transport choices and active travel:
The London Plan Policy T2 Healthy Street;
Mayor’s Transport Strategy Policy 1 Changing the transport mix;
Mayor’s Transport Strategy Policy 2 Active, inclusive and safe travel;
Mayor’s Transport Strategy Policy 18 Public Transport And The Night-Time Economy;
Mayor’s Transport Strategy Policy 23 New Transport Services;
RBKC Local Plan Policy CA4: Earls Court Exhibition Centre;
RBKC Local Plan Policy CT1 Improving Alternatives to Car Use; and
LBHF: Policy T3 Increasing and Promoting Opportunities for Cycling and Walking
Supporting Cycling:
The London Plan Policy T5 Cycling;
The London Plan Policy T2 Healthy Street;
Mayor’s Transport Strategy Policy 2 Active, inclusive and safe travel;
Mayor’s Transport Strategy Policy 23 New Transport Services;
RBKC Local Plan Policy CT1 Improving Alternatives to Car Use; and
LBHF: Policy T3 Increasing and Promoting Opportunities for Cycling and Walking
Supporting Walking:
The London Plan Policy T2 Healthy Street;
Mayor’s Transport Strategy Policy 2 Active, inclusive and safe travel;
Mayor’s Transport Strategy Policy 23 New Transport Services;
RBKC Local Plan Policy CT1 Improving Alternatives to Car Use; and
LBHF: Policy T3 Increasing and Promoting Opportunities for Cycling and Walking
Assessing and mitigating the impacts of development:
The London Plan Policy T4 Assessing and mitigating transport impacts;
RBKC Local Plan Policy CT1 Improving Alternatives to Car Use; and
LBHF Policy T6 Borough Road Network – Hierarchy of Roads
Report Structure
1.57 Following this introduction, the remainder of this TA is structured to align with TfL’s Healthy Streets TA format and is as follows:
Section 2: Transport Planning for People;
Section 3: Site and Surroundings;
Section 4: Transport Strategy, Development Quantum and Phasing;
Section 5: Proposed Access Strategy;
Section 6: ATZ and Healthy Streets assessment;
Section 7: Modelling Approach
Section 8: London Wide Network;
Section 9: Mitigation;
Section 10: Demolition and Construction; and
Section 11: Summary and Conclusions
2.0 Transport Planning for People
Introduction
2.1 This section identifies who the Proposed Development will be for and their likely travel trends. This includes the most likely travel patterns and characteristics for each of the different users of the Proposed Development; with a focus on sustainable modes of travel (walk, cycle and public transport), reflecting the transport strategy for the Site.
Healthy Streets and Vision Zero
2.2 This TA adopts the TfL Healthy Streets approach. The Healthy Streets approach is a strategy to deliver a healthier, more inclusive environment which encourages walking, cycling and public transport over and above the use of the private vehicle and is a key theme of the London Plan (March 2021) and Mayor’s Transport Strategy (MTS) (2018). In the context of the Proposed Development the 10 Healthy Streets indicators (Figure 7) can help to shape the Proposed Development to deliver a development that aligns with the policies set out in the London Plan.
2.3 Within the London Plan and MTS is also the target to eliminate all deaths and serious injuries on London’s Transport network by 2041, referred to as Vision Zero.
Figure 7: Healthy Streets Indicators
2.4 A summary of the key policies and guidance and their applications in the Proposed Development is set out in Table 3
3: Summary of Policy and Guidance Principles and Development Conformity
Policy 1 –80% of all trips in London to be made on foot, by bicycle or using public transport by 2041
Policy 2 – by 2041 all Londoners will do at least 20 minutes active travel each day
Policy 3 – All deaths and serious injuries eliminated from London’s streets by 2041
Policy 4 – crime and fear of crime remain low on London’s streets and transport system through designing secure environments
The Proposed Development will be ‘car lite’ with the aim of exceeding the 80% sustainable mode share target
The Proposed Development seeks to take a ‘people first’ approach and will provide a ‘people first’ public realm that encourages first and last mile travel by active modes.
The street network across the Proposed Development has been designed to prioritise active travel with limited access for vehicles. This will contribute towards achieving the Mayor’s policy.
Safety has formed a key priority when developing the Proposed Development and a separately prepared security strategy details how the site will contribute towards this policy
The Proposed Development will encourage sustainable travel and provide electric vehicle charging points in line with building regulations. The scheme also incorporates various landscaping proposals (e.g. trees) to absorb air pollution with the overall aim of being air quality positive
Things to see and do
People feel safe
People choose to walk and cycle
The Proposed Development includes a variety of different land uses, with active ground floor frontages and various landscape design and play spaces which will encourage people to dwell as well as offering the ability to undertake day to day trips on site.
The variety of land uses and ground floor active frontages will ensure that the Site is active at all times, creating natural surveillance.
The Proposed Development will offer a range of amenities on site and is in walking and cycling distance of a variety of public transport nodes and local amenities. Permeability will be improved by the Proposed Development, whilst cycle parking will be provided in accordance with London Plan standards.
Table 3: Summary of Policy and Guidance Principles and Development Conformity
Policy / Guidance Criteria
People feel relaxed
Not too noisy
Easy to cross
How will People Travel
Conformity
The Proposed Development will provide public realm areas that will provide places to sit and to relax for residents, employees and visitors
The Proposed Development prioritises active travel and seeks to maximise the area of ‘people first’ public realm.
The Proposed Development will provide new east-west and north-south pedestrian and cyclist connections with improvements to routes off-site. Routes have been designed to be accessible by all.
2.5 To identify how the users of the Proposed Development will travel a range of different sources have been considered:
The London Travel Demand Survey (LTDS) is an annual survey undertaken by TfL to understand travel patterns within London; Travel in London is a summary report produced using data from the LTDS; 2021 Census Travel to Work data; and Outputs from the strategic transport modelling used in this TA.
Mode of Travel
2.6 The London Plan sets a target to achieve 80% of all trips in London to be made on foot, by bicycle or using public transport by 2041.
2.7 Table 4 reports the mode share of journeys made by residents of LBHF and RBKC for all trip types as reported by the Travel in London 2023 data set (2023 being the latest dataset available).
and sustainable
Table 4: Indicative active, efficient
mode share for LBHF and RBKC.
Source: Travel in London 2023 – Annual Review
2.8 Table 4 reports the existing mode share for all trip types that are taking place within LBHF and RBKC across the day and shows that currently residents are broadly meeting the target established in the London Plan. The mode shares reported do not breakdown whether the trips are linked or how the vary by purpose. They also do not provide a detailed temporal breakdown of the trips reported.
2.9 The population at the Proposed Development will consist predominantly of residents and workers and during the peak hours (the focus of this TA) a large proportion of trips will be for work purposes.
2.10 As such the 2021 Census travel to work data has been analysed. Tables 5 presents the mode share for outgoing (resident) trips to work for the Middle Layer Super Output Area (MSOAs) surrounding the existing site. Due to the Covid-19 Pandemic (which impacted how and when people could travel) the proportion of works from home was very high. The data has been re-categorised with works from home removed and the percentage mode share recalculated across the remaining modes to provide a mode share for journeys made external to the home.
Source: 2021 Census TS061 – Method Used to Travel to Work
Table 5: 2021 Census Method used to travel to work mode share for LBHF and RBKC.
2.11 Table 5 demonstrates that existing residents in the areas surrounding the site utilise public transport for approximately 50% of their work based journeys. Car travel represents nearly 20% of trips with walking and cycling making up the rest. This data correlates well with the travel data for all journey types presented in Table 4 and shows that work journeys broadly meet the London Plan target within RBKC (80%) whilst they nearly achieve the target in LBHF (74%).
2.12 The transport modelling that underpins this TA has been based upon outputs from TfL’s Mode of Travel in London (MoTiON) model. A process has been undertaken to review and refine the outputs from this model to make them appropriate for use in the TA. This is discussed in more detailed within Section 7.
2.13 The resultant mode share for trips originating from (productions) and destinated for (attractions) the Proposed Development in the completed development scenario (All Phases) is outlined in Table 6
*Row values may not sum to total row and column value due to rounding.
2.14 It should be noted that the mode shares in Table 6 take account (at a strategic level) of the Proposed Development proposals. The Transport Strategy for the Proposed Development proposes a set of mode share targets for all trips as follows:
60% of trips to/from the Proposed Development to be undertaken by public transport; 30% of trips to/from the Proposed Development to be undertaken by walking/cycling/wheeling; and 10% of trips to/from the Proposed Development to be undertaken by vehicle
2.15 The mode shares reported by the strategic models align well with these targets. Further information on how these mode share targets will be achieved is presented in Section 4
Transport Classification of Londoners (TCOL)
2.16 As part of the ongoing commitment to monitor London’s travel trends, TfL published the Transport Classification of Londoners (TCoL) report in 2017.
2.17 The TCoL is a study presenting a multi-modal segmentation of Londoners on the basis of the travel choices and the motivations of those travel choices. These segments were aggregated into nine key groups, the distribution of these across London is shown in Figure 7
Table 6: Motion Proposed Development Mode Share
2.18
Figure 8 shows the Transport Classification of Londoners (TCoL) profiles used in the TCoL Report. There are approximately seven key variables used to help determine the TCoL segmentation. These are as follows:
Propensity to change travel (a composite variable based on recent changes to travel behaviour);
Mode usage and Dominant mode (a composite variable based on use of different modes);
Life stage (a composite variable of age, household structure and employment status); Income; Ethnicity; Changes in behaviour motivated by health / fitness; and Use of mobile phones for e-mail.
Figure 7: TCoL Map of London
2.19
Table 7 provides a summary of the travel characteristics for each of the Transport Classifications
Table 7: Summary of Transport Classifications
Transport Classification Summary of Travel
Affordable Transitions
City Living
Detached Retirement
Educational Advantage
Family Challenge
Settled Suburbia
Students and Graduates
Suburban Moderation
Their car use is generally quite low and use of public transport correspondingly high. Walking is average but cycling above average.
Those in the City Living segment have very high levels of Underground use while also above average use of bus, rail, walking and cycle hire.
Travel is dominated by the car with some use of rail, but very little bus or active modes.
This segment relies on public transport and walking, with very low car use. They have a high propensity for change.
Car ownership and use is around the average for this segment, as is their use of active modes, while bus use is well above average.
Car use is high and use of active modes particularly low. Use of bus, rail and underground also well below average.
Car use is low so rely on public transport and active modes for travel, particularly bus and walk.
Car use is high, with use of public transport and active modes below average.
Figure 8: Transport Classifications of Londoners Segment Summary
Transport Classification
Summary of Travel
Urban Mobility
The Urban mobility segment has low car use and relatively high levels of cycle use. Bus use is also high, while walking and Underground use is average.
2.20 Data from TCoL (2017) has been extracted and Table 8 provides a summary of the existing LBHF and RBKC Transport Classifications.
2.21 Figure 9 (reproduced at a larger scale in Appendix C) provides a visual representation of local TCoL surrounding the site. Information for the site itself should be ignored.
Table 7: Summary of Transport Classifications
Table 8: LBHF and RBKC Transport Classifications Borough Profiles
Figure 9: Transport Classifications Surrounding Site
2.22 Figure 9 shows that the Transport Classifications in the immediate vicinity of the site are:
Urban Mobility; Family Challenge; Educational Advantage; Students and Graduates and City Living
2.23 Figure 5 generally shows transport classifications with a higher propensity to use public transport, walking and cycling as their main modes of travel with low car ownership. This is reflected in the mode shares reported in Table 4 and Table 5.
2.24 The Proposed Development seeks a flexible consent with a range of land uses and for the residential land use a range of housing types. It is therefore not appropriate to assign a particular Transport Classification to the Earls Court Proposed Development However, the ‘car lite’ development proposals and prioritisation of active travel within the transport strategy mean that it is unlikely that detached retirement, suburban moderation and settled suburbia characteristics would predominate at the site. Table 9 shows the anticipated residential Transport Classifications.
Table 9: Expected Residential Transport Classifications
2.25 Table 10 shows the anticipated transport mode attitudes for each segment identified above in Table 9.
Table 10: Transport Classifications of Future Residents
2.26
The TCoL analysis identifies that the residents on the site are unlikely to require access to private vehicles with public transport, cycling and walking modes being the predominant modes likely to be used. This aligns with the Transport Strategy which proposes a ‘car-lite’ approach to car parking and prioritisation of active and public transport modes.
3.0 Site and Surroundings
Introduction
3.1 This section sets out the existing transport conditions in the immediate surroundings of the Site.
Existing and meanwhile uses
3.1 The Earls Court Site was previously home to a large-scale exhibition and conference centre comprising a private and closed off space with ticketed entrances. The Exhibition Centres closed in 2014 and were demolished in 2015 by the previous Site owners.
3.2 ECPL have already brought early uses to the Site with the Underbelly Festival, the Lost Estate immersive theatre and the BBC Earth Experience featuring Seven Worlds One Planet narrated by Sir David Attenborough. A new Skills Centre opened in 2023 offering training opportunities to local people. In 2023, planning permission pursuant to a meanwhile use applications was granted for 5 padel courts adjacent to the new Skills Centre (Ref. 2023/02631/FUL) which have now been built and are in use.
3.3 In addition to these meanwhile uses, a series of pre-enabling works are being undertaken, including site clearance and ground strengthening. This is in preparation for the main phase of works once planning permission is granted.
3.4 The Earls Court development will continue to build on the existing and meanwhile uses, establishing Earls Court as a major cultural and employment destination, with venues, events and pop-up space throughout the development.
3.5 The wider Site also includes the Lillie Bridge Deport (LBD), an operational LUL depot, District Line Train Stabling, maintenance and training facility as well as an isolated plot on Cluny Mews that is currently formed of an office building.
The surrounding area
3.6 The Proposed Development is located in an area of high accessibility benefiting from its position adjacent to three railway stations (Earls Court, West Brompton and West Kensington), a number of bus stops (located on Lillie Road, Warwick Road and North End Road), the A4 West Cromwell Road and A3220 Warwick Road which form part of TfL’s strategic road network (Transport for London Road Network (TLRN)).
3.7 The A4 West Cromwell Road forms a boundary to the north of the site whilst the A3220 Warwick Road forms a boundary in the east. Warwick Road forms part of the Earls Court gyratory which consists of Earls Court Road and Warwick Road connecting the A4 in the north with Chelsea Embankment and Battersea Bridge in the south. Earls Court Road is also a local centre providing access to amenities including local shops, cafes and restaurants.
3.8 To the south the site is bound by Lillie Road and Old Brompton Road which connects the Earls Court gyratory in the east with Hammersmith in the west. Brompton Cemetery is located immediately to the southeast of the site on Old Brompton Road. Fulham Broadway, another local centre is located approximately one kilometre to the south of the Site.
3.9 North End Road to the west of the site provides access to amenities including local shops and cafes, as well as health care facilities. Normand Park is located approximately 600-metres to the southwest from the edge of the site on Lillie Road Hammersmith town centre is located approximately 1.8 kilometres to the west of the Proposed Development site measured from its western boundary
3.10 To the north the Kensington Tesco site provides further local facilities along with also providing an access to the development site.
3.11 There is an established network of footways and pedestrian connections coming out of and surrounding the Site. Footways are provided along each of the adjacent roads, with additional connections around the area. The network allows pedestrians to travel directly to and from the Site and permeate through the boroughs to public transport nodes and other destinations.
3.12 Cycle infrastructure is provided on Lillie Road and Old Brompton Road to the south which connects with Kempsford Gardens where the TfL designated cycle route Quietway 15 commences providing connections to the east.
3.13 The location of the Site, relative to the stations and key local destinations is shown in Figure 10 (reproduced at a larger scale in Appendix C)
Active Travel Zone
3.14 The Active Travel Zone (ATZ) is an area broadly corresponding to a 20-minute cycling distance and is used by TfL as the study area for considering active travel associated with a development proposal.
3.15 The extent of the ATZ neighbourhood varies however depending on the context (central, suburban, etc.), the proposed land uses and the density of amenities. The TfL guidance2 refers to this area as the ATZ ‘neighbourhood’ area. Within this neighbourhood area the key destinations should include all the above-mentioned transport hubs and facilities, town centres and amenities and access to a cycle network. Figure 11 illustrates the ATZ.
2 Active Travel Zone Guidance available at: http://planning.data.tfl.gov.uk/ATZ%20Assessment%20explanation%20and%20Case%20Study%20by%20Momentu m.pdf
Figure 10: Earls Court Development Site Location
3.16 A more localised ATZ has then been considered representing a 10-minute walk from the edge of the site. This localised ATZ is shown in Figure 12
Figure 11: Active Travel Zone
LocalAmenities
3.17 The Site is well located to access a wide range of amenities within the local area. Key local centres in close proximity include North End Road, Earls Court Road and Old Brompton Road. Access to amenities is generally measured with reference to those facilities within a two kilometre walk or five-kilometre cycle. In this instance, given the number of amenities accessible, up to two kilometres (maximum walking distance) has been considered. A distance of two kilometres equates to a walking time of approximately 25 minutes (based on a walking speed of 4.8kph). Table 11 provides a summary of amenities measured from the centre of the Site.
Figure 12: Localised Active Travel Zone
Pedestrian Network
3.18 The Site is located in an urban area with a comprehensive network of footways which facilitate pedestrian routes to a wide range of amenities and facilities. The isochrone displayed in Figure 13 shows a two-kilometre (0-25 minutes) catchment for access on foot, assuming a walking speed of 4.8km/hr and measured from the centre of the Site. Two kilometres is generally regarded as the maximum distance a person is willing to travel to access amenities and facilities3
3.19 From the centre of the Site it is possible to reach the key transport corridors on the edge of the Site within five minutes. From there destinations such as Earls Court, West Kensington, Hammersmith, and Fulham can be reached within a 20-minute walk, whilst parts of Central London and further locations in West London are within a 25-minute walking distance.
3 Preferred Maximum acceptable walking distance as shown in Providing for Journeys on Foot, CIHT (2000)
Figure 13: Pedestrian Isochrone (note: no access is currently available across the Site)
3.20 In line with best practice the most prominent walking routes and amenities have been assessed in the ATZ assessment, the results of which are presented in Chapter 5.
3.21 An enlarged version of the pedestrian isochrone figure is provided in Appendix C.
Cycle Network
3.22 As set out in The London Plan, development should facilitate and encourage cycling, and reduce car dependency and the health problems it creates. Cycling is a spaceefficient mode compared to cars so making streets attractive for cycling can bring benefits to all road users while also improving the experience of living, working and spending time in the city4 Figure 14 shows the cycle catchment isochrones, demonstrating that the majority of Central London and surrounding areas are reachable within a 30-minute cycle (equating to five minutes). In particular, destinations such as Hammersmith, Putney, Battersea and Paddington are all within a reasonable cycling distance. Figure 14 is reproduced at a larger scale in Appendix C
3.23 Figure 15 shows the existing Cycle infrastructure surrounding the site. This infrastructure is generally on-road and in the form of either quieter streets considered
4 Paragraph 10.5.1, The London Plan - 2021
Figure 14: Cycle Isochrone (note: no access is currently available across the Site)
suitable for cycling (Quietway 15 for instance) or on carriageway advisory cycle lanes (such as those found on Lillie Road and Old Brompton Road).
3.24 Chapter 5 this TA describes the existing streetscape and the relationship between vehicles and cyclists as part of the ATZ Assessment.
3.25 The isochrones and adjacent Cycleway connections illustrate the Site is well located with regards to cycle accessibility, in terms of time and distance, to Central London. However, improvements are likely to be required off-site to facilitate cycle connections to the wider area. When reviewing at a more detailed level, it is evident that in sections the existing network is not well connected with the Site, and the surrounding links are vehicular dominant deterring cycling as a favourable mode of travel.
Figure 15: Existing Cycle Infrastructure and Gaps
TfL Cycle Hire
3.26 At present, the closest Cycle Hire Docking Station is located at Trebovir Road approximately 100m from the access to the Site on Warwick Road. There are also a number of other cycle docking stations within close proximity to the Proposed Development location, as seen in Figure 16 This plan is reproduced at a larger scale in Appendix C
3.27 The highest concentration of cycle hire docking stations are located to the east of the Proposed Development, reflecting the Site’s location on the edge of the existing network.
3.28 There are docking locations at West Kensington and roads to the west, such as Star Road and Normand Park.
Micromobility
3.29 Micromobility is the term used to refer to lightweight and small-sized transport mostly designed for the individual5 . Generally, this includes e-scooters but can also equally be applied to e-bikes.
3.30 These new forms of transport work through geo-fencing Whilst historically they have been able to be picked up and set down at any point within participating Boroughs, the Boroughs are now moving towards providing specific set down locations.
3.31 Since June 2021 electric scooters (e-scooters) have been available to rent in a number of London boroughs. The three providers are Dott, Lime and TIER. London Boroughs participating include LBHF and RBKC.
3.32 In addition to e-scooters e-bikes are also available across London. The location of ebikes will vary day to day dependant upon where users end their trips and park.
3.33 However, as part of the electric scooter rental scheme that LBHF and RBKC are participating in, parking spaces for e-scooters have been provided alongside a number of electric vehicle charging bays as well as purpose built corrals to house the escooters.
Figure 16: Santander Cycle Hire Docking Station Locations
5 Buro Happold (2022) Micromobility Street Design Manual
3.34 The location of the dedicated e-scooter parking in RBKC is illustrated in Figure 17 No such map currently exists for LBHF.
3.35 The closest e-scooter parking to the site is located on Penywern Road adjacent to Warwick Road to the east of the site. LBHF have not provided the exact locations of the e-bike and e-scooter parking locations they are currently promoting. However, a set down point has been established on Empress Place within the South of the Site.
Public TransportAccessibility
3.36 The Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) is a TfL methodology which measures how accessible a location within London is to local public transport services. PTALs are scored from ‘1’ or ‘very poor’ to ‘6’ or ‘excellent’. PTAL takes into account the time taken to access the public transport network, including:
The walk time to various public transport services; The average waiting time for each service; and The reliability of each service.
3.37 The methodology is based on a walk speed of 4.8kph and considers railway stations within a 12-minute walk (960m) of a Site and bus stops within an 8-minute walk (640m). The PTAL assessment is undertaken using the AM peak hour operating patterns of existing services.
Figure 17: E-scooter and E-bike docking locations in RBKC
3.38 The existing PTAL of the site is shown in Figure 18
Figure 18: Existing PTAL of Site
3.39 Figure 18 demonstrates the Site has ‘the best’ level of public transport accessibility throughout a large proportion of the development as a result of being located adjacent to three London Underground / Overground Stations and numerous bus routes. However, the site does feature a PTAL of 2 and 3 adjacent to the LBD and 4 and 5 on North End Road and around West Kensington
3.40 The stations located adjacent to the site provide a range of services that operate frequently, with the interchange opportunities reflected in the TfL online time mapping calculator as shown in Figure 19. The Travel Time Map (TTM) illustrates how far a person can travel in any given time, in this instance, it is used to illustrate journey times to the Site from other parts of London.
3.41 The TTM shows that the Site can be accessed from a wide part of London, including the immediate surrounding areas of Kensington and Chelsea, and Hammersmith and Fulham as well as central London within 30 minutes.
London Underground & Overground Services
3.42 The Site benefits from access to three London Underground Stations directly adjacent to the Site. These stations provide access to the District Line, with Earls Court also providing access to the Piccadilly Line and West Brompton providing access to the London Overground and National Rail services operated by Southern
Earls Court Underground Station
3.43 There are approximately six District Line services from Earls Court Underground Station towards Ealing Broadway Underground on the westbound service during the AM peak of 08:00 to 09:00 and six services that run in the PM peak 17:00 to 18:00 towards Ealing Broadway.
3.44 The eastbound service from Earls Court Station provides 15 services during the AM peak towards Upminster Underground Station and 13 services towards Upminster in the PM Peak.
3.45 Earls Court Station also provides access to the Piccadilly Line. There are approximately 18 services running eastbound towards Cockfoster in the AM peak and PM peak. There are approximately four services heading west to Uxbridge in the AM peak and seven in the PM peak.
Figure 19: Existing TTM for Site
West Brompton Underground Station
3.46 West Brompton station provides access to the District Line as well as National Rail services from London Overground and Southern There are approximately eight District Line services running eastbound towards Upminster Station in the AM peak of 08:00 to 09:00 and four in the PM peak of 17:00-18:00 towards Upminster.
3.47 The westbound service from West Brompton on the District Line provides 16 services running westbound to Wimbledon Station in the AM peak 08:00 to 09:00 and 16 in the PM peak of 17:00-18:00.
3.48 West Brompton Station also provides direct access to the London Overground network. During the AM peak there are three services that run south towards East Croydon and seven services in the PM peak.
3.49 The northbound service to Willesden Junction provides five services in the AM peak and four in the PM peak. Willesden Junction provides onwards connections to Barking, Stratford, Euston, Watford Junction and Richmond.
3.50 Outside of the peak hours Southern also operate services from West Brompton servicing destinations such as Hemel Hempstead, Watford, Clapham Junction and Croydon. In addition, as part of the national rail network the line is known to carry freight and heritage services.
West Kensington UndergroundStation
3.51 West Kensington station provides access to the District Line on the Richmond and Ealing Broadway branch.
3.52 There are approximately seven services running eastbound to Upminster in the AM peak and 10 services running in the PM peak period. For services running westbound towards Ealing Broadway there are a total of six services in the AM peak and six in the PM peak.
3.53 For services running westbound to Richmond there are approximately five services in the AM peak and seven in the PM peak period.
3.54 Figure 20 shows the locations of the three stations closest to the Site and the routes available. This plan is reproduced at a larger scale in Appendix C.
3.55 The Proposed Development will also benefit from the number of bus services operating near the Site with the Route 190 also featuring a terminating bus stop on the site within the Lillie Road Bus Layover. Figure 21 shows the location of bus stops in the immediate vicinity of the Site. This plan is reproduced at a larger scale in Appendix C Table 12 shows details of the services available.
Figure 20: Station Locations Surrounding the Site
Bus Network
Figure 21: Bus Stops Surrounding the Site
Table 12 - Local Bus Services - Peak Hour Frequencies
Table 12 - Local Bus Services - Peak Hour Frequencies
North End Road (B317) - Stop BH
306 Acton Vale* (westbound) and Sands End (eastbound)
28 Kensal Rise (westbound) and Wandsworth*
Lillie Road (A3218) – Stop BA
74 Putney (westbound) and Baker Street* (eastbound)
430 Roehampton (westbound) and South Kensington* (eastbound)
190 West Brompton* (eastbound)) to Richmond (westbound)
3.56 Figure 21 and Table 12 highlight that the Proposed Development is extremely well connected within the local area and further afield also, with frequent bus services operating across London.
3.57 The Lillie Road Bus Layover is an operational bus layover facility used by TfL Buses for the regulation of their services. Located at the south western corner of the site, the facility features a shared access with the Mayors Office for Police and Crime (MOPAC), retained access for LBD and access to the former exhibition centre site.
Bus Stop Audit
3.58 A bus stop audit of the bus stops within close proximity to the site has been undertaken. The audit was undertaken with reference to TfL’s Accessible Bus Stop Design Guidance (TfL, 2017).
3.59 A total of 24 Public Transport Waiting Areas (PTWAs) were identified in the vicinity of the site for review based upon the PTAL analysis of the site Figure 22 highlights in yellow the stops that were included in the analysis. This plan is reproduced at a larger scale in Appendix C These PWTAs were reviewed as the closest stops to the Site and therefore the most likely to be used by passengers of the Proposed Development.
3.60 For ease of review, the 24 PTWAs which have been reviewed as part of this Bus Stop Audit, have been split by road link.
3.61 The Accessible Bus Stop Design Guidance (TfL, 2017) provides the following criteria which have been used for the purposes of this assessment:
Security (Level of illumination, overlooked(safety) and clear line of sight)
Bus Stop Post and Flag
Surface marking for buses (bus cage dimensions/clearway)
Bus passenger Shelter and Seating
Figure 22: Bus Stops Included In Audit
3.95 The route is street lit and there is no dedicated cycle infrastructure located along the road in the vicinity of the site.
3.96 The A4 West Cromwell Road provides a route to key destinations such as Tesco Kensington Superstore including Pharmacy; West Kensington Underground Station; Barons Court Underground Station; Hammersmith Town Centre; and Sainsburys (South Kensington)
Mund Street / AisgillAvenue
3.97 Mund Street and Aisgill Avenue are a two-way single carriageway road which are accessed from North End Road. The roads are of an urban character situated within a residential development and lie immediately to the west of the site. They are subject to a 30-mph speed limit, with parking restrictions enforced with designated Permit Holder or Pay by Phone parking bays on each side of the carriageway.
3.98 Mund Street provides pedestrian facilities via footways on either side of the carriageway. The route is street lit.
Cluny Mews
3.99 Cluny Mews is a single lane carriageway road that connects Warwick Road in the east with Philbeach Gardens in the west. It is a private road and features a level of lighting but not to a highway design standard.
Fenelon Place
3.100 Fenelon Place is a single carriageway road with one lane running in each direction that connects Warwick Road in the east with access to the Kensington Tesco Superstore. The Tesco Superstore features a multi-storey car park. A vehicular route is provided through the basement level of the car park to the Earls Court site.
3.101 Chapter 5 of this TA provides a detailed analysis of the local highway network as part of the Active Travel Zone assessment.
Parking and Car Clubs
Off-street Parkingand Car Clubs
3.102 Figure 24 sets out a selection of the available car parks in the immediate vicinity of the site. This identifies that the number of car parks available in the local area is limited. Those car parks that do exist either have limited waiting (for example Tesco and Coomer Place) or are private car parks associated with hotels.
Figure 61: WB05 Refuse Collection on Aisgill Avenue
Figure 62: WB05 Tower Two Refuse Collection on Aisgill Avenue Swept Path
5.26 Beaumont Avenue will be a key gateway to the Site as it will not only serve as the primary vehicular access to the part of the Development Proposals located on the LBD it will also be a key route for access to and from West Kensington Station and bus services accessible on North End Road. Whilst no physical changes to the North End Road junction with Beaumont Avenue are proposed it is proposed to re-configure the parking on Beaumont Avenue. The parking that is currently half on half off the carriageway will be relocated into a full size parking bay on the northern side of the carriageway to maximise carriageway space. Beaumont Avenue itself will be realigned at its eastern end to align with the new access road.
5.27 An extract of the illustrative landscape Proposed Development for this part of the Site is shown in Figure 69 with the highway design drawing in Figure 70 and the swept path analysis in Figure 71. The illustrative landscape Proposed Development is reproduced at a larger scale in Appendix G whilst the access drawings are reproduced at a larger scale in Appendix H.
Figure 69: Extract of Illustrative Landscape Proposed Development for Beaumont Avenue
Figure 70: North End Road junction with Beaumont Avenue Highway Layout
5.28 Access to Development Zone R will be achieved from the Warwick Road junction with Cluny Mews. The junction currently operates informally as in only and access rights then permit exit from Development Zone R across the neighbouring Three Cluny Mews to exit onto Philbeach Gardens. No physical changes are proposed to the adopted highway at Cluny Mews.
5.29 An extract of the illustrative landscape Proposed Development for this part of the site is shown in Figure 72 with the highway design drawing in Figure 73 A swept path analysis is provided in Figure 74 The illustrative landscape Proposed Development is reproduced at a larger scale in Appendix G whilst the access drawings are reproduced at a larger scale in Appendix H.
Figure 71: North End Road junction with Beaumont Avenue Swept Path Analysis
Warwick Road/ Cluny Mews
Figure 73: Cluny Mews Highway Arrangement
100 West Cromwell Road Basement
5.30 ECPL has a Deed of Grant providing unfettered access into the Earls Court site via a route from Fenelon Place and through the basement of 100 West Cromwell Road Once construction has largely completed on the RBKC side of the site this access, in accordance with the Deed of Grant this should be provided for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles.
Retainedaccess for TfLand Network Rail
5.31 TfL and Network Rail have access rights across the Site to maintain their assets. Figure 75 shows the location of maintenance access points across the Proposed Development along with the route proposed to be safeguarded for access within the Site This plan is reproduced at a larger scale in Appendix C.
Figure 74: Cluny Mews Swept Path Analysis
5.32 Currently access to LBD is required by a 91ft (27.8m) long vehicle (referred to as the TfL Long Vehicle). Abnormal Indivisible Load (AIL) vehicle accesses the site via the Lillie Road Bus Layover. When the LBD vacates the Site this access right will be extinguished. However, in the interim access will need to be maintained. A swept path for the TfL long vehicle using the reconfigured Lillie Road Bus Layover is shown in Figure 76 This drawing is reproduced in Appendix H
Figure 75: TfL and Network Rail Retained Access Plan
Intended Access
5.33 The access and movement parameter plan (Appendix G) identifies a number of additional access points that are intended to be delivered but require third party agreement to deliver. These are described in more detail below.
Cluny Mews
5.34 An access point that links St Cuthbert’s Lane to Cluny Mews would require a stepped connection to overcome the level difference in this area. A concept for how this access could be achieved is shown in Figure 77. This would involve constructing a set of steps and lift on land outside of the control of ECPL. The link is primarily proposed as a pedestrian connection. Delivery of this link would be subject to third party agreement.
Figure 76: TfL Long Vehicle Access Through Lillie Road Bus Layover
5.35 Allowance has been made within the Proposed Development for a pedestrian and cycle connection to the neighbouring former Fulham Boys School. This connection could be delivered if LBHF redevelop the site as intended for residential development.
5.36 Allowance has been made for a pedestrian access onto Gibbs Green Close. An extract of the illustrative landscape Proposed Development for this part of the site is shown in Figure 78.
Figure 77: Potential Cluny Mews Connection
Fulham Boys School
Gibbs Green Close
A4 West Cromwell Road
5.37 Two points of access are shown onto the A4 West Cromwell Road to the north of the Proposed Development. It is proposed that either of these connections would be delivered depending upon the final design of Development Zone X. Initially, when LBD is developed it is intended that a connection using the existing bridge at the eastern end of West Kensington Station would be utilised to form a pedestrian and cycle connection to the A4. From there it is proposed that the southern footway on the A4 is widened using land within the Station to facilitate a connection to a new pedestrian and cycle crossing of the A4. This pedestrian and cycle crossing forms part of the transport mitigation proposals for the project and is discussed in more detail in Section 9.
Figure 78: Extract of Illustrative Landscape Proposed Development for Gibbs Green Close
6.0 Active Travel ZoneAssessment
Introduction
6.1 This Chapter provides a more detailed qualitative analysis of the active travel network surrounding the Proposed Development, with an ATZ assessment undertaken in accordance with TfL Healthy Streets guidance.
6.2 TfL’s Healthy Streets approach is one of the core themes of the London Plan (March 2021) and the Mayor’s Transport Strategy. Policy T2-D Healthy Streets of the London Plan outlines that:
6.3 ‘Development proposals should:
Demonstrate how they will deliver improvements that support the ten Healthy Streets indicators in line with TfL guidance. Reduce the dominance of vehicles on London’s streets whether stationary or moving. Be permeable by foot and cycle and connect to local walking and cycling networks as well as public transport.’
6.4 The Healthy Street guidance10 set outs that its intention is to be used by a variety of stakeholders to develop a more people focused approach to assessment. Taken from the guidance, the following extracts are important to note;
“This guide has been produced to help you think about these important issues that affect the experience of using and spending time on a street and consider what changes could be made, by you or others, to improve the experience of being on a street. It is not design guidance or a tool for objectively measuring the performance of a street against the Healthy Streets Indicators. Instead it uses a series of questions to highlight the many factors that influence how well a street is performing.
Healthy Streets is about people’s experience of the street. Whether you are a resident, a visitor, a business owner or someone walking or cycling through, there is almost always something that can be done to improve your experience. While it is not possible to generalise completely about what can be done where, this guide should be used to help identify issues that could be addressed and what possible improvements might be.” [Emphasis added]
6.5 Policy T4 (Assessing and Mitigating Transport Impacts) of the London Plan makes clear that TAs in London must follow relevant national and local guidance. TfL’s latest online guidance for planning applicants includes step by step instructions for carrying out an ATZ Assessment as part of a Healthy Streets TA . The guidance sets out that ATZ assessments are helping planners and transport planners in London to genuinely prioritise the human experience of moving around actively to access specific local
destinations that people will want, or sometimes even need, to get to on a regular basis.
ATZ Route Identification
6.1 The ATZ is an area broadly corresponding to a 20-minute cycling distance and is used by TfL as the study area for considering active travel associated with a development proposal.
6.2 The extent of the ATZ neighbourhood varies however depending on the context (central, suburban, etc.), the proposed land uses and the density of amenities. The TfL guidance11 refers to this area as the ATZ ‘neighbourhood’ area. Within this neighbourhood area the key destinations should include transport hubs and facilities, town centres and amenities and the local cycle network. . Figure 79 shows the ATZ for the Proposed Development. This drawing has been reproduced at a larger scale in Appendix C
6.3 The purpose of the ATZ assessment is to provide a qualitative assessment of key routes that users of a development would typically utilise to/from key facilities and
11 Active Travel Zone Guidance available at: http://planning.data.tfl.gov.uk/ATZ%20Assessment%20explanation%20and%20Case%20Study%20by%20Momentu m.pdf
Figure 79: Active Travel Zone
amenities off-site such as public transport nodes, shops, parks etc when walking, cycling or wheeling.
Destination Priority
6.4 Table 21 sets out the key destination prioritisation applied to identify the routes for assessment.
Table 21- Key ATZ Destination Prioritisation
Destination Type Priority Justification
Strategic Cycle Network High
Public Transport (Bus Stops) High
Public Transport (Rail Stations)
High
Supermarke ts Medium
Green Space Medium
School Medium
Some of the future residents, occupiers, employees and visitors of the proposed development are expected to cycle on a regular basis
A high public transport mode share is expected for residents, occupiers, employees and visitors to / from the proposed development
Higher Education Facility Medium
Hospitals / Health Centres Low
6.5
Local supermarkets and other food stores will be a medium priority for the residents, occupiers and employees of the proposed development. The development proposals seek to provide retail facilities on-site which will reduce the need for external trips to supermarkets and local food stores
Green spaces in Central London are important leisure and recreation spaces, particularly during spring / summer months
The development is comprised of a large proportion of residential dwellings of mixed sizes. It is likely therefore that some of these units will be occupied by residents with school-age children. The medium priority has been awarded to schools as not all apartments may have children that need to travel to school.
Student accommodation is included within the development proposals and therefore a proportion of residents will attend higher education facilities, therefore higher education facility has been classified as medium.
The Development Proposals may include healthcare facilities but likewise the accessibility assessment contained in Section 3 demonstrates that there are facilities in the local area and therefore this destination was categorised as low.
Initial review of the area surrounding the site identified the following key destinations:
Public TransportServices and Stops:
Earls Court Station – District and Piccadilly Line Services
West Brompton Station – District, Overground and National Rail Services
West Kensington – District Line Services
Bus Stops accessible along Old Brompton Road, Warwick Road, Earls Court Road and North End Road
Strategic Cycle Network:
Quietway 15 – originating on Kempsford Gardens
Cycleway 39 – originating on Russell Road
Sustrans Local Routes along Warwick Road, Lille Road and Old Brompton Road
Town Centres:
Earls Court Road, North End Road, High Street Kensington
Amenities:
Parks – Brompton Cemetery, Brompton Park and Normand Park
Retail – Tesco Superstore West Cromwell Road
Education – Bousfield Primary School, Normand Croft Community School, Fulham Prep School, Collingham College and William Morris Sixth Form
Medical – North End Pharmacy, Earls Court Chemist and North Fulham Surgery
Activity – Queen’s Club and Normand Park Outdoor Gym
6.6 Based on the prioritisation exercise and initial key destinations identified, alongside liaison with the transport stakeholders a series of routes were identified for assessment as follows:
Route 1: West Kensington Station to Baron’s Court Station
Route 1b: Barton Road and Palliser Route
Route 2: Fulham Broadway Station to West Kensington Station via Lillie Road and North End Road
Route 3: Earls Court Road to Warwick Road Tesco via Warwick Road
Route 4: Lillie Road to Brompton Park via Seagrave Road
Route 5: Lillie Road to Normand Park via Lillie Road
Route 6: Warwick Road to A4 via Warwick Road / Penywern Road / Earls Court Road
Route 7: West Kensington Station to Warwick Road Tesco via A4
Route 8: West Kensington Station to Kensington Olympia via North End Road, A315 and Olympia Way
Route 9: Warwick Road Tesco to Kensington Olympia via Warwick Road / Russell Road and connection to A315
Route 10: Warwick Road to Earls Court Road via Trebovir Road
Route 11: Warwick road to Kensington Olympia via Nevern Square / Nevern Road / Cromwell Crescent / Warwick Gardens and Kensington High Street
Route 11b: Pembroke Gardens and Kensington High Street
Route 12: Nervern Road to Earls Court Road via Nevern Square
Route 13: Lillie Road to Earls Court Road/Quietway 15 via Lillie Road / Old Brompton Road (Plus connection on Warwick Road)
Route 13b: Warwick Road Connection
Route 13c: Old Brompton Road and Earls Court Road
Route 14: North End Road via Mund Street / Aisgill Avenue / Thaxton Road
Route 15: West Cromwell Road A4 to North End Road via Edith Villas
Route 16: West Cromwell Road A4 to North End Road via Mornington Avenue
Route 17: North End Road to Charing Cross Hospital via Star Road / Greyhound Road / Aspenlea Road / A219 Fulham Palace Road
Route 18: Old Brompton Road to Fulham Broadway via Brompton Cemetery and Fulham Road
Route 19: Extension to Quietway 15 from Earls Court Road to Gloucester Road via Braham Gardens / Collingham Gardens and Harrington Gardens
Route 20: Site to North End Road via Gibbs Green Close and Beaumont Crescent
Route 21: Old Brompton Road to Bousfield Primary School
Route 22: Harrington Gardens to Hyde Park via Gloucester Road / St Alban’s Grove / Kensington Court Place
Route 23: Fulham Road to Cremorne Gardens via Hortensia Road / Edith Grove / Ashburnham Road
Route 24: Old Brompton Road to Chelsea and Westminster Hospital via Finborough Road / Ifield Road
6.7 The key routes were then mapped onto the localised (neighbourhood scale) ATZ representing a 10 minute walk from the edge of the Site as shown in Figure 80
ATZAssessment Methodology
6.8 The ATZ Assessment adopts the Healthy Streets approach, a framework for embedding public health into transport, public realm and planning. The Healthy Streets framework consists of ten indicators as shown in Figure 81
Figure 80: Neighbourhood and Most Important Journeys
6.9 These indicators are explained in more detail in Table 22.
Indicators Commentary
HS1: Pedestrians from all walks of life
Streets should be welcoming and places for everyone to walk, spend time in and engage in community life.
Figure 81: Healthy Streets Indicators
Table 22 – Healthy Streets Indicators
Table 22 – Healthy Streets Indicators
Indicators Commentary
HS2: Easy to cross
HS3: Shade and shelter
HS4: Places to stop and rest
HS5: Not too noisy
HS6: People choose to walk, cycle, and use public transport
HS7: People feel safe
HS8: Things to see and do
HS9: People feel relaxed
Streets without suitable crossing facilities make walking and cycling less appealing. It should be made easy for pedestrians of all ages to cross, with limited physical barriers to facilitate this.
Exposure to high winds, heavy rain and direct sun may affect some pedestrians’ ability to travel using no-car modes and spend time in the area.
Ensuring there are places to stop and rest benefits everyone, therefore people will be more willing to visit, spend time in, or meet other people on the streets.
Reducing the noise impacts of motor traffic will directly benefit health, improve the ambience of street environments, and encourage active travel and human interaction.
A successful public transport system will encourage and enable more people to walk and cycle often, being the most attractive option.
The whole community should always feel comfortable and safe on our streets, as this will encourage people to use the streets. People should not feel worried about road danger or experience threats to their personal safety.
A lack of resting places can limit mobility for certain groups of people. Ensuring there are places to stop and rest benefits everyone, including local businesses, as people will be more willing to visit, spend time in or meet other people in our streets.
A wider range of people will choose to walk or cycle if our streets are not dominated by motorised traffic, and if pavements and cycle paths are not overcrowded, dirty, cluttered or in disrepair.
HS10: Clean air Improving air quality delivers benefits for everyone and reduces unfair health inequalities.
6.10 The ATZ assessment is a qualitative analysis of the cycle and walking network surrounding the Proposed Development. The methodology has been developed by TfL to support the Healthy Streets Approach and Vision Zero. The ATZ assessment is carried out to assist the understanding of the Proposed Development’s potential to contribute and promote active and sustainable travel.
6.11 The main aim of the ATZ Is to determine how people of all abilities can access the Site through car-free transport modes.
6.12 To undertake the ATZ Assessment site visits were undertaken during both daylight and the hours of darkness. On each route the criteria above were reviewed and noted down within a proforma. Photographs were taken every 150m along the route to document the issues identified. The results from the site visits were then summarised and
benchmarked against the Healthy Streets indicators. This methodology aligns with TfL’s methodology12
ATZ Summary and Potential Improvements
6.13 The ATZ was undertaken under day and nighttime conditions, as agreed with the Transport Stakeholders (TfL, LBHF and RBKC) during scoping discussions.
6.14 In completing the ATZ assessment, and taken from the TFLATZ Guidance document , there is a requirement to review deficiencies and how this relates to the local area, as set out below:
‘Explain any critical severance (e.g. to access public transport) or deficiency (e.g. street density, green space). How are local changes (e.g. LIPS schemes, other planning apps) affecting this? How has your proposed development been designed to respond?’13
6.15 As such there is a need to identify any potential issues along key routes and consider how the development impacts those and the existing users. As set out in the TfL guidance, at this stage any safety improvement ideas generated may not necessarily be funded by the development specifically14 .
6.16 As per the TfL methodology, although safety improvements were identified, the review is without prejudice and doesn’t indicate acceptance that the development is responsible for any of the improvements identified.
6.17 The full route by route results for the ATZ are contained in Appendix J
6.18 To summarise the results a number of opportunity areas were identified following completion of the ATZ assessment, which are highlighted within Figure 82 and described in more detail below.
Cut back vegetation where it obscures lighting, signage and visibility at junctions etc…
Fix street lighting that is broken
Enforce parking restrictions to prevent footway parking
Consider additional street benches to create rest areas
Review the condition of the footways to remove trip hazards and uneven surfaces
Management of waste collection to prevent waste build up on footways which restricts footway width
Warwick Road Corridor
Improve connectivity for cyclists across Warwick Road to access the wider cycle network from the Proposed Development
Implement more frequent crossings for pedestrians along the length of Warwick Road to meet key desire lines.
Consider measures to reduce vehicle speeds on Warwick Road
Implement pedestrian control at the junction of Old Brompton Road/Warwick Road
Figure 82: Earls Court ATZ Opportunity Areas
Implement ramp access for mobility impaired users within Tesco Superstore public realm.
Consider potential for uncontrolled crossing on Philbeach Gardens near St Cuthbert’s Church
Consider potential for cycle route on Warwick Road to the north of A4 West Cromwell Road
Warwick Road North Corridor
Improve pedestrian crossing facilities at the Warwick Road/A4 West Cromwell Road junction
Implement ramp access for mobility impaired users within Tesco Superstore public realm.
Consider potential for cycle route on Warwick Road to the north of A4 West Cromwell Road
Nevern Square Area
Implement dropped kerbs with tactile paving where not provided, particularly on Trebovir Road and Nevern Place
Introduce a cycle lane westbound on Nevern Place
Earls Court Road Corridor
Review footway widths and parking/loading bays to improve pedestrian comfort levels along this link
Cromwell Road/Collingham Road Junction
Review the potential for a pedestrian crossing on the western arm of the Collingham Road/Cromwell Road junction
A3220/Kensington High Street Junction
Review pedestrian crossing at junction to see if it can be relocated closer to the pedestrian desire line
Old Brompton Road/Lillie Road Opportunity Area
Consider cycle improvements to enhance connectivity from this site access to the wider cycle network
Improvement of public realm outside West Brompton Station and to the south of the proposed development through widening of footway and realignment of existing pedestrian crossing to follow desire lines between the station and the site to disincentivise informal crossing.
Improve pedestrian crossing facilities at the Lillie Road/Seagrave Road junction
Improve footway conditions on Lillie Road to the west of the Lillie Road Bus Layover
Improve pedestrian crossing facilities at Lillie Road/North End Road junction
A4 West Cromwell Road/North End RoadJunction
Improve pedestrian crossing facilities at the A4 West Cromwell Road/North End Road junction
Consider potential for cycle route along the A4 West Cromwell Road
Review tactile paving at the Edith Villas junction with North End Road
Fulham Road Corridor
Review cycle infrastructure on A3220 and Edith Grove
Review ability to relocate pedestrian crossing on A3220/junction with A308 northern arm
Review potential for controlled crossing at southern entrance to Brompton Cemetery across Fulham Road
Review measures to slow cycle speeds in Brompton Cemetery
North End RoadArea
Review footway provision on Mund Street, Gibbs Green Close and Aisgill Avenue
Pembroke Gardens
Review potential for controlled pedestrian crossing facilities within traffic signal junction at junction of Pembroke Road with Warwick Gardens
Review street furniture on Pembroke Gardens
Star Road Corridor towards Hammersmith
Consider the potential for improved cycle infrastructure on this link
Improve pedestrian dropped kerbs (inc tactile paving) at margravine Road junction with St Dunstan’s Road
Consider potential for pedestrian crossing at Fulham Palace Road junction with Aspenlea Road
Internal Development Links
6.19 A review of key internal links has been undertaken as requested by the Transport Stakeholders. This review has highlighted a number of areas for further consideration at the next stage of design. The internal ATZ is contained in Appendix J
Safety Inclusion Assessment
6.20 During discussions on the ATZ scope with the Transport Stakeholders TfL identified the need to consider vulnerable user safety, particularly focusing on the safety of women and girls.
6.21 WSP have developed a bespoke assessment process referred to as the Safety Inclusion Assessment (SIA) to consider vulnerable user (a person who considers themselves vulnerable either because of a physical or mental impairment, their gender or race) safety.
6.22 The SIA has therefore been used as a supplementary tool to the ATZ to ensure that active travel is considered holistically within the development of this TA.
6.23 A key element of the SIA has been engagement with the Earls Court Public Realm Inclusivity Panel (PRIP), a group formed to engage and input into the design of the Proposed Development.
6.24 The PRIP have helped to inform the SIA which considered six of the ATZ routes closest to the Site. These six routes are shown in Figure 83
Figure 83: SIA Study Area
6.25 The full SIA including a description of the methodology followed is contained within Appendix J.
Recommendations
6.26 The following recommendations were identified from the SIA process:
Route 14 (Mund Street / Aisgill Avenue / Thaxton Road) is identified as a priority route for improvement. Several personal safety concerns were observed along this route, the resolution of which is crucial to prevent social exclusion. As this Route will form a key desire line for users of the Proposed Development this will be discussed with LBHF as part of ongoing planning discussions. Beaumont Avenue was noted as a key area of concern from a personal safety perspective; however, this is a focal point to the development which will be addressed. Enhancements around Normand Park, particularly regarding crossings and lighting, require thorough consideration, especially considering the frequent presence of young children in the area.
Regular maintenance of trees and canopies near lighting fixtures is necessary to prevent obstruction and ensure optimal illumination.
Seating shortage is a prominent constraint observed across all routes, as evidenced during the participatory site walks.
6.27 The following areas were noted as particular areas of concern:
Warwick Road junction with A4
Old Brompton Road / Warwick Road junction
Lillie Road / North End Road junction (roundabouts)
Provide lighting at informal crossing on Lillie Road outside Norman Croft School
ATZ and SIA Combined Recommendations
6.28 A number of the items identified within the SIA and ATZ relate to existing issues for which the respective highway authorities are responsible. These include:
Cutting back vegetation where it obscures lighting and signage
Fixing street lighting that is broken
Enforcing parking restrictions to prevent footway parking
Remediating footways where there are trip hazards present
6.29 In addition, the management of waste collection is the responsibility of the local authority.
6.30 The above issues are the responsibility of the relevant authorities and the information provided within this TA should enable specific issues to be addressed.
6.31 An initial set of targeted improvements have been identified that aim to address some of the recommendations of the ATZ and SIA along with responding to the accident data review and findings of the transport network assessment which are outlined within Section 9.
7.0 ModellingApproach
Transport Modelling Process
7.1 Through the pre-applications consultation process with the Transport Stakeholders (TfL, RBKC and LBHF) it was agreed that owing to the scale of the Development Proposals and spatial extents over which impacts resulting from the Development Proposals would occur that TfL’s suite of strategic models should be used as the basis for assessment. For the overarching strategic assessment of change in trip patterns by mode and journey purpose, the following model has been used:
Model of Travel in London (MoTiON)
7.2 MoTiON is a multi-modal strategic transport demand model of London and the surrounding area. MoTiON can model how many trips there are likely to be, their origins and destinations and their modes of transport. MoTiON Version 3.0.19 was used within this TA. It should be noted that this is not the most recent version of MoTiON but is the version that was available at the time of starting the strategic modelling.
7.3 Within MoTiON, there are strategic assignment models which are directly integrated related to specific modes of transport, including the following:
Railplan, a public transport assignment model
London Highway Assignment Model (LoHAM), a highway assignment model Cynemon, a cycling assignment model
7.4 The assignment models cover all of Greater London in detail. Railplan and LoHAM are the assignment models which have been used in conjunction with MoTiON to assess the impact of the development.
7.5 Railplan encompasses rail and bus travel modes, also incorporating a walk mode to account for individuals needing to walk to/from bus stops and stations.
7.6 LoHAM, includes private car users, taxis, private hire vehicles and goods vehicles, whilst also interacting with the Cynemon model (as part of the MoTiON run process) to include cycle flows at junctions.
7.7 The strategic assignment models are then used to inform more detailed microsimulation models, utilising the following software:
VISSIM - a highway micro-simulation modelling tool
Legion - a pedestrian micro-simulation modelling tool used for assessment of the Stations
VISWALK – a multi-modal micro-simulation modelling tool.
7.8 Figure 84 graphically sets out the hierarchy of transport models which have been used to assess the Proposed Development.
Early Phases
8.24 Table 38 shows the results of the bus route capacity assessment for the 2031 Base Minus and Early Phases in the 3-hour AM peak period.
Table 38: 2031 Early Phases Bus Capacity Assessment – AM 0700 to 1000 (3 hour)
*Values have been rounded to the nearest whole number
8.25 Table 39 shows the results of the bus route capacity assessment for the 2031 Base Minus and Early Phases in the 3-hour PM peak period.
*Values have been rounded to the nearest whole number
8.26 In the Early Phases, the analysis presented in Tables 38 and 39 demonstrates the forecast bus network has the capacity to accommodate the additional bus demand which has been estimated for the development during the network peak periods of 07:00-10:00 and 16:00-19:00 on a weekday
All Phases
8.27 Table 40 shows the results of the bus route capacity assessment for the 2041 Base Minus and All Phases in the 3-hour AM peak period.
Table 40: 2041 All Phases Bus Capacity Assessment – AM 0700 to 1000 (3 hour)
*Values have been rounded to the nearest whole number
8.28 Table 41 shows the results of the bus route capacity assessment for the 2041 Base Minus and All Phases in the 3-hour PM peak period.
*Values have been rounded to the nearest whole number
8.29 In the All Phases, the analysis demonstrates the forecast bus network has the capacity to accommodate the additional bus demand which has been estimated for the development during the network peak periods of 07:00-10:00 and 16:00-19:00 on a weekday
Bus Stop Boarding and Alighting Analysis
8.30 Bus stop boarding and alighting has been determined by aligning the increase in flow anticipated in Railplan at the Site access points to the nearest bus stops available to that access point 2011 Census travel to work distribution was then utilised to assign boarders and alighters between bus stops at the Earls Court Station stops on Warwick Road and Earls Court Road given the one-way direction of the bus routes at these locations Census data was used to distribute trips at a more local level than is possible with Railplan. Figure 90 sets out the bus stops which have been the focus of the boarding and alighting assessment undertaken Whilst this does not cover every bus stop where a passenger associated with the development may board or alight it does represent the bus stops in the local vicinity of the site likely to witness the greatest level of change as a result of the Proposed Development.
8.31 The approach taken to determine the future number of boarders and alighters by bus stop in the respective forecast scenarios involved the following steps:
Deriving existing 1 hour demand by bus stop from 2023 BUSTO 16data
Applying increases in bus demand taken from the London Plan core reference case, calculated pro-rata in order to determine initial 2031 and 2041 forecast boarding and alighting by bus stop 16 TfL’s bus database
Figure 90: Bus Stops considered in Boarding and Alighting Analysis
Adding development boarding and alighting demand as anticipated using the methodology outlined in Section 7.
8.32 The development trips were adjusted to represent a 1-hour peak in the AM (0800-0900) and PM (1700-1800) by applying the following adjustment factors to the development trips. These factors are those which TfL guidance17 recommends for use when considering station demand:
0.45 in the AM to convert from 3 hour (0700-1000) to 1 hour (0800-0900)
0.41 in the PM to convert from 3 hour (1600-1900) to 1 hour (1700-1800)
Early Phases
8.33 Table 42 shows the boarding and alighting for the 2031 Base Minus and Early Phases in the AM peak hour.
Table 42: 2031 Early Phases Bus Stop
& Alighting – AM 0800 to 0900 (1 hour)
*Values have been rounded to the nearest whole number
Supermarket (West Cromwell Road Bus Stop E) where 214 boarders are expected. This is followed by the stop on Warwick Road outside of Earls Court Station where an additional 195 boarders could be expected in the PM peak. All other stops show modest increases in demand.
8.36 The level of demand shown at the stops on Lillie Road, outside of Tesco Kensington and Earls Court Station could require changes to bus services and infrastructure. However, it should be noted that currently the bus demand has been added in addition to the total public transport demand which has been applied to rail for the purposes of this TA (as explained in Section 7). Therefore, these numbers represent an absolute worst case. In reality demand is likely to be lower.
All Phases
8.37 Table 44 outlines the boarding and alighting for the 2041 Base Minus and All Phases in the AM peak hour.
Table
*Values have been rounded to the nearest whole number
8.38 Table 45 outlines the boarding and alighting for the 2041 Base Minus and All Phases in the PM peak hour.
Table 44: 2041 All Phases Bus Stop Boarding & Alighting – AM 0800 to 0900 (1 hour)
Table 45: 2041 All Phases Bus Stop Boarding & Alighting – PM 1700 to 1800 (1 hour)
*Values have been rounded to the nearest whole number
8.39 The analysis for the All Phases shows that the bus stop which is likely to witness the biggest change in demand is outside of the Tesco Kensington Supermarket (West Cromwell Road Bus Stop E) where 210 boarders are expected during the PM peak hour The next busiest stop is identified at Empress State Building on Lillie Road. In the All Phases scenario an additional 174 boarders could use the stop. This is followed by the stop on Warwick Road outside of Earls Court Station where an additional 150 boards could be expected in the PM peak. All other stops show modest increases in demand.
8.40 The level of demand shown at the stops on Lillie Road, outside of Tesco Kensington and Earls Court Station could require changes to bus services and infrastructure. However, it should be noted that currently the bus demand has been added in addition to the total public transport demand which has been applied to rail for the purposes of this TA (as explained in Section 7) Therefore, these numbers represent an absolute worst case. In reality demand is likely to be lower.
Table 45: 2041 All Phases Bus Stop Boarding & Alighting – PM 1700 to 1800 (1 hour)
Rail Impacts
8.41 The impacts of the Proposed Development on the rail network have been considered both in terms of impacts on the network as well as at the three closest stations to the site, namely Earl’s Court, West Kensington and West Brompton. These Stations were selected for further analysis as those likely to witness the greatest increase in trips as a result of the Proposed Development and the assessments have been split down by Scenario.
Rail Network Impacts
London-wide Impacts
8.42 Table 46 and Table 47 set out the peak hour operational passenger crowding levels expected on the rail network across London in the various scenarios assessed using Railplan outputs. This analysis shows that as rail demand increases in 2031 and 2041 compared to the 2016 base, the proportion of the rail network which falls into higher passenger crowding bands increases.
8.43 Table 46 shows that in the AM peak in 2031, the development leads to minor increases in the proportion of lines which are within the 0-1 sqm and 2-3 sqm crowding bands. In 2041, the only increases related to the development which occur are in the 0-1 sqm band.
Table 46 – AM Rail network capacity assessment
8.44 Table 47 shows that in the PM peak in 2031, the development leads to minor increases in the proportion of lines which are within the 1-2 sqm crowding band. In 2041, the development leads to minor increases in the proportion of lines in the 0-1 sqm band, 23 sqm and 3-4 sqm bands.
8.45 Overall, the London wide analysis of impacts on the rail network is in line with what would be expected for a large-scale development within Central London with small changes in capacity identified as a result of the Development Proposals. This does not flag any particular areas of concern. Set out below is analysis by route.
Line Impacts
8.46 At a line level, consideration has been given to the anticipated crowding density as a result of the Proposed Development. For context, and to aid understanding of the results, Figure 91 provides a visual representation of what the crowding densities mean from a user perspective. This diagram was provided by TfL as part of ongoing discussions regarding the strategic modelling and are only a visual representation to aid understanding and do not necessarily accurately reflect conditions.
Table47 – PM Rail network capacity assessment
8.47 Table 48 provides a summary of the passenger standing densities for the West London Line (London Overground) in the AM peak hour.
8.48 Table 49 provides a summary of passenger standing densities for the West London Line in the PM peak hour.
Figure 91: Visual Representation of Crowding Density
Table 48 – AM West London Line impact
8.49 Table 50 shows the passenger standing densities for the District Line in the AM peak hour.
Table 49 – PM West London Line impact
Table 50 – AM District Line impact
Table 50 – AM District Line impact
8.50 Table 51 shows the passenger standing densities for the District Line in the PM peak hour.
Table 51 – PM District Line impact
10.0 Demolition and Construction
Introduction
10.1 A separate Construction Traffic Logistics Plan (CTLP) accompanies the planning applications that sets out the construction strategy in more detail. This is summarised within Chapter 5: Demolition and Construction Description within the ES. An assessment of demolition and construction effects is then set out within the various technical specialist chapters of the ES that accompanies the planning applications
10.2 This chapter does not seek to repeat the detail or assessments presented in the other documents but instead provide a summary of the values and trip generation that has been derived to inform those assessments.
Early Phases – 2031
10.3 Figure 114 outlines the available points of access during the 2031 Early Phases Demolition and Construction period, as available in Appendix 5.1 in ES Volume 3.
10.4 The various access points during the 2031 Early Phases stage are set out. The construction strategy has been developed to include as many one-way routes as possible to minimise the turning manoeuvres required on-site.
Figure 114: Early Phases 2031 Demolition and Construction Time slice
10.5 The majority of movements will be via Fenelon Place, using St Cuthbert’s Lane (through the 100 West Cromwell Road basement) to access the Site. Other access points are also proposed on Warwick Road, Lillie Road and Old Brompton Road. A smaller construction access is also proposed on Mund Street, although it is understood that the Mund Street access for construction periods will not be able to accommodate large vehicles (up to a large tipper could use it, but no articulated lorries).
10.6 Provision of access for construction traffic from Mund Street/ Aisgill Avenue is proposed to assist with construction sequencing and to allow construction traffic to as much as possible be segregated from vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists generated from the occupied plots of the Early Phases stage. It would also provide resilience for construction of the Early Phases Site by facilitating at least two points of construction access.
Traffic Data and Trip Generation
10.7 The Early Phases demolition and construction assessment considers the worst-case impact of peak demolition and construction movements. For the purposes of assessment, the peak demolition and construction flows, predicted to occur in September 2028 has been applied to the future year of 2031
10.8 The vehicle activity was provided by the Applicant’s construction advisor. The routeing and access used within this assessment has been informed by the information within the CLP and Chapter 5: Demolition and Construction Description of the ES and loaded into the models manually. Table 82 provides the total construction vehicular movements (daily) for the Early Phases.
10.9 The demolition and construction trip generation identifies a daily total of 175 arrivals and departures at the Site. During the Early Phases build out, not all access points are available, and the vehicular flows are distributed across the accesses shown in Figure 114
10.10 In terms of construction personnel, ES Chapter 5: Demolition and Construction Description sets out the forecast combined labour projections. Figure 115 replicated from that chapter outlines the peak personnel period falls within the same months assumed for vehicular movements, i.e. September 2028.
Table 82: Early Phases Demolition and Construction Trip Generation (Total Daily)
10.11 Applying the same assumptions in terms of daily working hours available in the peak month (September 2028), the forecast peak number of daily construction workers are approximately 592.
10.12 These workers would not all travel in peak hours and would be spread throughout the day as they are involved in specific construction tasks. As set out above, the forecast includes the equivalent of 36 daily white-collar workers. It has been assumed that these would be similar to typical office-based workers and would seek to travel in AM and PM peak hours.
All Phases - 2041
10.13 As identified above, the peak month and daily demolition and construction demand has been assessed under the 2031 stage.
10.14 Reviewing the time-slices information in the CLP and ES chapter, post 2031 the level of construction and demolition activity significantly reduces and becomes concentrated. The reduction in activity is considerably lower than that assessed in the 2031 Early Phases assessments, to the point that the resulting activities are not considered to result in any material or significant environmental effect.
10.15 The same access points as set out in Figure114 would be applicable for the All Phases demolition and construction stage assessment.
10.16 In addition, and as set out in the CTLP, the construction activity in the years that are aligned to the All Phases delivery, i.e., 2041 – is limited to the LBD proportion of the Site. As such, the inclusion of Beaumont Avenue as a construction access becomes available.
Trip Generation
10.17 As set out in the CLP and Chapter 5 of the ES, the construction activity post 2041 is limited to the LBD Site only.As such the peak month in that period has been chosen ‘July 2041’ for review. It should be noted that current forecasts indicate that from 2035 onwards, July 2041 represents the peak month up until completion of the development.
10.18 Table 83 provides the total construction vehicular movements (daily) forecast in 2041.
Figure 116: Early Phases Demolition and Construction Forecast Labour
10.19 The construction traffic movements generated during the construction phase in 2041, are considered to represent only a fraction of the traffic subsequently generated by the completed development They are also significantly lower than the peak construction traffic assessed in the Early Phases assessment.
Demolition and Construction Management
10.20 The CTLP provides a framework for the requirements for the management of transport effects associated with the construction phases of the Proposed Development. It is part of a suite of documents, which address the transport effects of the Proposed Development and identifies where mitigation measures may be required.
10.21 The document provides details on the requirements for the management of transport effects associated with the construction phases of the Proposed Development. Once the Principal Contractor has been appointed, there will be an opportunity for them to review and adjust the CTLP as well as to produce the CEMP in agreement with the local authorities.
10.22 The CTLP provides detailed information regarding the construction traffic, including: construction vehicle routeing; proposed programme and duration; number of construction personnel including travel arrangements and mitigation; number of construction and delivery vehicles using the public highway; and traffic management
10.23 The aims of the CTLP are to set out the measures minimising any potential effects of the traffic associated with the construction of the Proposed Development. The CLP has the primary objective of minimising impact and disruption to existing users of the public highway network and the surrounding community, forming the framework within which all contractors are expected to work. This will be achieved by:
adhering to the Demand Management Plan (i.e. a Travel Plan for construction staff); minimising the number of vehicular trips required for the movement of material and people; ensuring construction traffic trips and routes used are planned to be safe, efficient and timely; encouraging greater use of sustainable freight modes; ensuring the impact to nearby residents, local sensitive receptors and the travelling public are minimised; and encouraging the most efficient use of construction freight vehicles.
10.24 A traffic management plan would be developed around the need to analyse the options for the transportation of the workers to and from the Site. The strategy would include the following:
Table 83: July 2041 – All Phases Demolition and Construction Trip Generation (Total Daily)
Measure for reducing the effects of construction road traffic; Procedure for the reduction of congestion during peak periods; Control of material deliveries to the Site; Protection of the public;
Personnel transportation on and off-Site; Separation of vehicle and pedestrian traffic; Enforcement of obligations; and Control of delivery by smaller vehicles.
10.25 During demolition and construction operations the wheel washing facilities would be located adjacent to the main exit and all traffic leaving the Site would use this equipment in order that the main egress routes from the Site and public roads do not become contaminated
10.26 Measures to ensure effective management of HGV traffic include:
Suppliers informed of specified approach and departure routes to prevent use of unsuitable roads.
Scheduling of HGV deliveries to avoid peak periods. Clearly signed approach and departure routes and clear controls for access to the Site.
Parking Management and Staff Travel
10.27 As part of the CTLP, all operatives would be encouraged to use sustainable means of transport (i.e. public transport). Key transport nodes for operatives arriving by public transport and foot are as follows:
Earls Court tube station
West Brompton station
West Kensington tube station.
Bus stops on A4, Lillie Bridge Road, Warwick Road etc.
10.28 The use of bicycles as a form of transport would be encouraged, with bicycle storage and shower facilities made available on-Site.
10.29 Any parking for operatives or contractors would be provided within the Site boundary and coordinated with the works by the Site Manager. Visitor parking would also be provided within the Site boundary.
10.30 At the appropriate time sales parking would also be provided associated with the sale of the units and this would be located to suit the buildings handed over and the location of the sales office and show apartments.
10.31 As set out above, it is expected that the effects associated with the demolition and construction phase of the Proposed Development would be temporary, and no longterm environmental effects are expected.
11.0 Summary and Conclusion
Summary and Conclusion
11.1 WSP has been commissioned by ECPL to prepare a Transport Assessment (TA) for the Earls Court Development Site. Significant engagement has taken place with the Transport Stakeholders (TfL, LBHF and RBKC) pre-application to generate the development proposals and transport strategy for the Proposed Development and agree the scope of assessment. A range of topics have been discussed and this has informed the package of improvements identified in this TA which will be secured as part of any planning consent
11.2 The TA forms part of a suite of transport documents that accompany the planning applications including the Framework Travel Plan, Framework Delivery and Servicing Plan, Framework Parking Design and Management Plan and Construction Traffic Logistics Plan. These documents are inter-related and should be read in conjunction with one another.
11.3 The Proposed Development benefits from its location adjacent to three railway stations (Earl’s Court, West Brompton and West Kensington) and a number of high frequency bus routes. This is reflected in the high PTAL afforded to much of the Site (acknowledging that some areas in the west feature lower PTAL scores of 2 and 3). The Site is also located adjacent, and takes access from, the TfL’s road network (TLRN) which consists of the A4 West Cromwell Road, A3220 Warwick Road and Earls Court Road. A series of local highway connections in the form of North End Road, Lillie Road, Old Brompton Road, Beaumont Avenue and Aisgill Avenue border the Site and provide further connections
11.4 The roads around the Site are vehicle dominated and despite increases in active travel in recent years this vehicle dominance can be a detractor to the uptake of walking and cycling. The Proposed Development has responded to this by embedding the Healthy Streets approach which includes the promotion of active travel and public transport ahead of the private vehicle as a key design principle coupled with a ‘car lite’ approach to car parking provision which will limit the availability of the private car and ensure that public transport and active travel are the main modes of transport for trips external to the development. This approach is aligned to the London Plan’s target to achieve 80% of all journeys by walking, cycling and public transport by 2041.
11.5 The last few years has seen significant change in the way people live their lives and travel on a day-to-day basis. The emergence of shared micro-mobility and ride hailing services has created new opportunities for travel and the growth of online shopping and home working has reduced the need for travel for some. These changes have been fully considered in the development of the proposals which seeks a flexible transport strategy that responds not only to the needs of today but is adaptable to change in the future.
11.6 A flexible planning approach has been adopted that seeks planning permission for a range of land uses expressed as a series of maximum development quantum . The TA
has adopted a worst-case assessment (from a transport trip generation perspective) to ensure a robust approach to the TA by identifying a series of maximum development parameters which have been used to test the impact of the development on the Transport Network. The impacts of the development are tested in two broad scenarios reflecting the broad phasing of the development. This trip generation is fed into the separately prepared Environmental Statement.
11.7 The planning strategy seeks detailed planning consents for five Plots (no matters reserved) and outline permissions for the remainder of the Site (all matters reserved). Access is therefore a reserved matter to be determined at a later date. To provide comfort that a suitable access strategy can be achieved this TA has provided illustrative layouts for the points of access onto the highway and junction capacity assessments have been undertaken where appropriate to demonstrate how they would operate in the context of the future year scenarios assessed. A road safety audit and design organisation response has been prepared for the site access proposals.
11.8 The outline applications have been considered in two phases, All Phases: comprising the entirety of the Proposed Development. This is currently anticipated for completion by 2043. Early Phases: Phases 1-4 (the ‘Early Phases’) are completed, but the LBD remains operational and is delivered to a different programme from that currently anticipated in the All Phases scenario. Completion of Early Phases is anticipated in approximately 2037.
11.9 The Development Proposals have been tested using TfL’s suite of transport models to a scope that has been agreed with the Transport Stakeholders. The strategic modelling packages have enabled consideration of the impacts of the Proposed Development in the two scenarios across a range of modes and at different spatial scales. The transport models have fixed future years and as such the Early Phases of the development have been tested in 2031 with the All Phases of the development tested in 2041. These future years account for growth on the wider transport network associated with other committed developments in the wider area.
11.10 In accordance with TfL’s Healthy Streets TA Guidance an Active Travel Zone (ATZ) assessment has been undertaken across a network of 26 routes which were agreed with the Transport Stakeholders alongside consideration of the network of routes that will be created across the Site. This ATZ has been complemented by a Safety Inclusion Assessment (SIA) that considers vulnerable user safety in addition to the Healthy Streets indicators considered within the ATZ. A series of opportunities have been identified for the transport network surrounding the Site and a selection of these opportunities have been developed to a concept scheme level and tested within the highway network assessment.
11.11 The impacts of the Proposed Development on walking and cycling have been tested through use of Pedestrian Comfort Levels (PCLs) for key locations around the Site, a Cycle Level of Service (LoS) for key corridors around the Site and more qualitatively through the ATZ and SIA. A package of measures has been developed which aim to address the issues identified by this analysis. Some of these measures, such as improvements at the Lillie Road/North End Road junction will have an impact on highway network performance and as such will require further discussion with the Transport Stakeholders as a balance will need to be struck between safeguarding vehicular journey times and pedestrian and cycle amenity.
11.12 The impacts of the Proposed Development on public transport have been considered both on the bus and rail network. The assessment has been underpinned by outputs from Railplan, TfL’s public transport demand model. The bus assessment has focused
on both route and bus stop capacity with the existing network assessed through a bus stop audit. The findings of the route assessment are that the bus network can accommodate the demand arising from the Proposed Development in both phases of development assessed (Early Phases and All Phases).
11.13 The bus stop assessment identified that demand was likely to be concentrated at a small number of stops surrounding the Site. For the Early Phases and All Phases the level of demand could require further infrastructure/service provision. However, the bus assessment treats the bus demand in addition to the wider public transport demand and therefore very much represents a worst-case scenario. Discussions will be held with TfL Buses post-applications to agree what mitigation if any is required to be implemented.
11.14 The impacts of the Proposed Development on the rail network have been tested both in terms of network capacity as well as station capacity. The network capacity review identified that whilst the network will be busy in the future years of 2031 and 2041 that the impacts of the development are relatively small across the wider network and that the level of crowding anticipated was within the range expected for a busy urban rail network during the peak hours and was therefore considered acceptable. Detailed micro-simulation modelling of the three stations surrounding the Site has been undertaken as agreed with TfL These Stations represent where the greatest proportion of trips are anticipated from the Proposed Development.
11.15 At Earl’s Court the modelling identified that background growth would result in congestion on the District Line platforms and on the stairs between the Piccadilly Line Mezzanine and District Line platforms. No significant impacts resulting from the Proposed Development were identified through the station modelling and therefore no mitigation is proposed at this station.
11.16 At West Brompton the modelling identified that the station currently suffers capacity constraints with congestion evident on the platform and stairs at Platform 4 (London Overground Northbound) and Platform 3 (London Overground Southbound). To manage demand at the station the lateral entrance is currently left open during peak periods. With background growth these issues are exacerbated, and this is made worse once the Proposed Development demand is introduced. A mitigation scheme including a new gateline within the ticket hall, relocation of staff accommodation within the station, adjustments to the entrance to the ticket hall, widening of stairs and passageways and Platform 4 have been considered alongside the introduction of stepfree access to Platform 1 where no step-free access is currently available. This package of mitigation is shown to significantly improve the operation of the station and mitigate more than the impact of the Proposed Development. With the inclusion of the lateral entrance the performance of the station will improve further.
11.17 At West Kensington the current station operates satisfactorily. However, background growth means that by 2041 there is congestion in the ticket hall and on the stairs to the Eastbound platform. With the inclusion of the All Phases development demand in 2041 conditions deteriorate further. A mitigation scheme incorporating a widened gateline, reconfigured station accommodation and ticket machines, high level walkway and new stairs has been developed. This also allows for introduction of step-free access at the station. This package of mitigation is shown to significantly improve the operation of the station and mitigate more than the impact of the development.
11.18 Discussions will need to be held with TfL post-applications to agree the final package of mitigation at each of the stations alongside any phasing requirements and a proportionate contribution made to any improvements.
AppendixA– TransportAssessment
Scoping Report and Responses
The Earls Court Development Company (ECDC)
EARLS COURT MASTERPLAN
TRANSPORT ASSESSMENT SCOPING REPORT
QUALITY CONTROL
Issue/revision First issue Revision 1 Revision 2
Date March 2023 – Draft to Client team April 2023 – Issue to Transport stakeholders for discussion February 2024 –Update for Preapplication
Prepared by Jack Oswin Jack Oswin Will Forster
Signature
Checked by Alex Smith Alex Smith Alex Smith
Signature
Authorised by Justin Sherlock Justin Sherlock Justin Sherlock
Project No.: 70077004 | Our Ref No.: TASR February 2024 The Earls Court Development Company (ECDC)
Figure 4-6 - Active Travel Zone Neighbourhood
Figure 4-7 - Routes and Links throughout the site to be considered for ATZ (Indicative)
Figure 4-8
APPENDICES
TRIP GENERATION NOTE
ATZ METHODOLOGY
ACCESS FIGURES AND HEALTHY STREETS MAPS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 OVERVIEW
1.1.1. WSP has been commissioned by The Earls Court Development Company (ECDC / the ‘Applicant’) to provide transport consultancy services in respect of the development of the Earls Court Site (the ‘Proposed Development’).
1.1.2. This Transport Assessment Scoping Report (TASR) has been prepared to provide an overview of the Development Proposals and outline the proposed Transport Assessment (TA) methodology for discussion and agreement with the Transport Stakeholders (Transport for London (TfL) as strategic transport authority, Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC) and the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (LBHF) as local highway authorities).
1.1.3. This TASR has been prepared with reference to TfL’s Healthy Streets Transport Assessment Best Practice Guidance1 (February 2019) and the National Planning Policy Framework2 (NPPF) (2023).
1.2 SITELOCATION
1.2.1. The 40-acre Earls Court Site is located on land within RBKC and LBHF. Figure 1-1 shows the proposed planning application boundaries in the context of the borough boundaries.
1.2.2. The Development benefits from being located adjacent to Earls Court, West Brompton and West Kensington stations. Earls Court provides access to the District and Piccadilly Lines which provide routes across London. West Brompton station is located on the Wimbledon branch of the District Line as well as the West London Line which provides access to London Overground and National Rail services. West Kensington is located on the Richmond and Ealing Broadway branch of the District Line.
1.2.3. The A4 West Cromwell Road, Warwick Road and Earls Court Road form part of the Transport for London Road Network (TLRN), where TfL is the Highway Authority. The two London Boroughs form the Highway Authority for the other roads. Warwick Road and Earls Court Road are one-way northbound and southbound respectively and form the Earls Court One Way System (ECOWS) which is part of the strategic north-south corridor between the A40 Westway and Chelsea Embankment. Warwick Road (A3220) and West Cromwell Road (A4) form the eastern and northern boundary of the site respectively. Whilst Lillie Road/Old Brompton Road and North End Road form the southern and western boundary of the site.
1.3 BACKGROUND
1.3.1. Masterplan proposals for the re-development of the site were previously developed and gained planning consent. The site therefore benefits from two outline planning permissions (Permission 1 RBKC reference: PP/11/01937 and Permission 2 LBHF reference: 2011/02001/OUT), referred to herein as the ‘consented Earls Court Masterplan (ECM)’. In addition, further consents have been granted in the interim for various meanwhile uses.
CONSENTED MASTERPLAN
1.3.2. The consented ECM was granted outline planning permission in November 2013 for the redevelopment of a site in excess of the site boundary now being considered. This boundary (Figure 1-2) previously included the Earls Court Exhibition Centres, the Lillie Bridge Rail Depot, and the West Kensington and Gibbs Green Housing Estates.
1.3.3. Table 1-1 provides a summary of the land uses previously consented.
Table 1-1 – Consented ECM Maximum Development Quantum
Land Use
GEA m² / no of units
C3 - Residential 6,775 units
B1 - Business 94,833sqm
A1-5 Retail
C1 - Hotel/Serviced Apartments
C2 – Private Hospital
D1/D2 Education/Health/Community/Culture/Leisure
Ancillary
1-2 – Extant Consent Boundary
Figure
1.3.4. A series of transport documents were approved for the consented ECM, including ‘Earls Court Project Application 2 TA’ (February 2012). This TA presented a site wide assessment of the masterplan including Planning Application 1 for development within RBKC and Planning Application 2 for development within LBHF. This considered background growth plus all committed developments in a future year of 2031. As a cumulative scenario, the TA also assessed the ECM plus background growth and all committed developments in combination with the proposals at Seagrave Road in 2031.
1.3.5. After planning permission being granted a Strategic Transport Review Group (STRG) was formed to monitor the implementation of transport obligations associated with the consented ECM. The STRG was subsequently placed in abeyance until such time as it is considered appropriate to re-activate.
1.4 2024DEVELOPMENTPROPOSALS
1.4.1. The Proposed Development for which this TASR relates comprises of a mixed-use scheme, including residential, employment, retail and cultural uses. The planning application proposed to be submitted in Summer 2024 will be hybrid with the majority of the site in outline (all matters reserved) and five plots in detail (no matters reserved).
1.4.2. The outline elements will be secured through approval of a Development Specification, Parameter Plans and Design Guide (the Control Documents) and will allow some flexibility in terms of uses and quantum. An illustrative masterplan has been developed to inform the hybrid planning application and this demonstrates a reasonable potential way in which the whole site could ultimately be delivered in line with the Control Documents. The detailed application will be secured by means of plot layout plans.
1.4.3. Whilst the majority of the site is vacant (the former Earls Court Exhibition Centre (ECEC) land) the Lille Bridge Depot (LBD) is an operational London Underground facility. Owing to the timescales for decant of this facility the phasing is proposed such that development will come forwards on the former exhibition centre part of the site in advance of LBD.
1.4.4. The Transport Assessment (TA) and Environmental Statement (ES) propose to reflect the planning strategy by assessing three scenarios:
Detailed Phase – five plots with three located in LBHF and two in RBKC
Early Phases – land occupied by the former ECEC including the detailed phase
All Phases – Early Phases plus land occupied by LBD
1.4.5. A separate Technical Note3, setting out the Maximum Development Parameters4 for assessment was issued on 25 September 2023 to the Transport Stakeholders. This provided details on the approach adopted for assessment purposes.
1.4.6. Chapter 3 provides further details on the scenarios and breakdown of uses that will be assessed in the planning application TA.
3 Technical Note 57 - Maximum Development Parameters (September 2023)
4 Please note, EC-09 has been subsequently removed from the detailed element of the scenarios as set out in the September version of the Max Parameters note.
SINGLE APPLICATION
1.4.7. The previous consent was split into two separate applications, reflecting the two boroughs and development quantum located in each. Whilst each application was supported by individual TAs, these took into account the other application via cumulative analysis.
1.4.8. With the availability of new strategic modelling packages, alongside the new masterplan and phasing, a single TA will be prepared to cover the site as a whole. The development phasing includes, from the beginning phases, units in both Boroughs. Therefore, there is no benefit from splitting this down further without the risk of under-estimating potential cross Borough cumulative impacts.
1.4.9. The strategic modelling packages being utilised, discussed further in this TASR, have been agreed to be used with the Transport Stakeholders to establish the potential impacts and required mitigation on the various different elements of the transport network, as well as informing any proportional contributions and S106 discussions.
1.5 WIDERTRANSPORTENVIRONMENT
1.5.1. The last few years has witnessed a significant change to the transport environment. Changing travel trends have emerged, accelerated by the Covid Pandemic, which has resulted in a shift in the way people live and work. From a work perspective a more hybrid approach has emerged, mixing home and office type working. In addition, there has been significant growth in online retail.
1.5.2. The emergence of new technology is offering new opportunities for alternatives to the private car. Micro-mobility schemes, which offer a range of lightweight vehicles, such as e-scooters and e-bikes, supplement the established Santander cycle hire scheme and provide an alternative to the car and traditional public transport for shorter journeys.
1.5.3. There has also been a relative shift towards low and zero emission vehicles, which has been further stimulated by changes to policy context, including the 2021 London Plan and the new Building Regulations Part S.
1.5.4. As well as the above wider changes that have occurred, there are opportunities to explore other key areas which could facilitate a reduction in car ownership and private car usage. This includes, but is not limited to, the emergence of ride hailing services such as Uber and increasing development of autonomous vehicles and consolidation of deliveries.
1.5.5. The masterplan that has been developed for Earls Court has sought to fully embrace these emerging technologies to create a sustainable development that is able to adapt to a changing environment and respond to a societal shift towards net zero. This approach is reflected in the transport strategy and trip generation outlined within this document.
1.6 UPDATEDDESIGNPRINCIPLES
1.6.1. The masterplan has been established around four place pillars as set out in Figure 1-3
Figure 1-3 - ECDC - Earls Court Design Principles
1.6.2. The Transport Strategy has sought to respond to this and developed a set of Transport Priorities to work to (Figure 1-4).
Figure 1-4 - Transport Strategy: Transport Priorities
1.6.3. Further details of the Transport Strategy are provided in Section 3 of this TASR.
1.7 ENGAGEMENTWITHSTAKEHOLDERS
1.7.1. Extensive engagement has taken place with the Transport Stakeholders as part of development of the masterplan for the site starting in 2020. A summary of engagement from 2021 to date is provided in Table 1-3
Table 1-2 – Recent Transport Discussions and Engagement Held to date
13 June 2021 Project update / demand assessment / bus provision / Warwick road Access
21 January 2022 Access / Station Capacity & Improvements / Buses / Warwick Road & A4 / Air Quality
7 March 2022 Timescales / Assessments required / TfL Process / Station Works
28 March 2022 Active Travel / Healthy Streets
13 July 2022 Emerging Movement Strategy
6 September 2022 Transport Modelling Process / North Edge connectivity
19 October 2022 Servicing Strategy / Waste Strategy
14 December 2022 Trip Gen methodology / Warwick Apron Design Evolution / Logistics Hub
11 January 2023 Trip Generation feedback / Bus Demand / Bus layover site visit
25 January 2023 Bus Demand feedback / Bus layover site visit feedback / Station demand and mitigation options
8 February 2023 Access, movement and servicing strategies / Highway network changes
8 March 2023 West Brompton and West Kensington Station demand and mitigation options
10 May 2023 Transport Assessment Scoping Note
12 July 2023 Planning Programme, masterplan focus areas, Warwick Road Cycle Infrastructure, Bus Strategy, Active Travel Zone Assessment, Mund Street
12 July 2023 Meeting to discuss construction traffic routing
7 September 2023 Transport workshop covering bus strategy, cycle infrastructure and highway modelling
13 September 2023 West Brompton and West Kensington station demand and mitigation options
27 September 2023 Site visit walkover with LBHF and TfL
10 October 2023 Site visit with TfL to discuss cycle infrastructure. Pre app meeting to discuss maximum development parameters, Strategic modelling assumptions, Parking Strategy
8 November 2023 Off-site cycle infrastructure improvements
13 December 2023 Construction phasing, parking, station mitigation, off-site cycle infrastructure improvements
10 January 2024 Transport Strategy, EC1 Detailed application, EC2 Detailed application
1.7.2. The above list is not exhaustive and numerous other meetings on modelling, design and masterplanning have also been undertaken with the consultancy team since 2020.
1.7.3. Regular meetings are also scheduled throughout this year. This had led to a collaborative and open discussion forum, ensuring that points and issues raised are noted and addressed.
1.7.4. Alongside feedback from within the pre-application meetings, formal feedback from the stakeholders in relation to the original version of this TASR were provided on the following dates;
TfL – dated 26 May 2023
RBKC – dated 21 June 2023
LBHF – dated 11 December 2023
1.7.5. Separate responses have been provided to each party, in general however, the following key elements were raised;
Masterplan and public realm strategy
Access points to the site
Emerging cycling infrastructure requirements
Parking strategy, including local impacts and surveys
Updated ATZ routes and assessment methodology
Trip generation and modelling, with specific reference to phasing, Pedestrian impact including Pedestrian Comfort Level (PCL) analysis, Public Transport Strategy and discussions with TfL buses teams, and Construction and build out.
1.7.6. This updated TASR has sought to provide clarifications on the items summarised above. As previously set out, a suite of transport surveys was undertaken in 2022 and are being used to inform the modelling which will underpin the TA and the ES Transport Chapter. WSP had separately agreed the scope of the traffic and pedestrian surveys with the Transport Stakeholders based on a cordoned area around the Site.
1.7.7. Further details are provided in the Transport Modelling Scope and are detailed in Section 4 of this TASR.
1.7.8. A separate Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Scoping exercise was undertaken in 2023. Where relevant items raised in that scoping exercise have been considered in the TASR.
1.8 REPORTSTRUCTURE
1.8.1. Following this introduction, the remainder of this TASR is structured as follows:
Section 2: Site and Surroundings; Section 3: Development Proposals; Section 4: Assessment Approach; and Section 5: Supporting Documents.
2 SITE AND SURROUNDINGS
2.1 OVERVIEW
2.1.1. This Chapter provides a summary of the development Site in the context of its existing uses and the surrounding transport network.
2.1.2. The Earls Court Site is located in an area of high accessibility benefiting from its position adjacent to three railway stations (Earls Court, West Brompton and West Kensington), a number of bus stops (located on Lillie Road, Warwick Road and North End Road) and the TLRN to the north and east of the site.
EXISTING AND MEANWHILE USES
2.1.3. Earls Court was previously a large-scale exhibition and conference centre but was always a private and closed off space with ticketed entrances. In recent years it has lain derelict, the Exhibition Centres closed in 2014 and were demolished in 2015 by the previous site owners.
2.1.4. ECDC have already brought early uses to the site with the Underbelly Festival, the Lost Estate immersive theatre and the BBC Earth Experience featuring Seven Worlds One Planet narrated by Sir David Attenborough. A new Skills Centre has opened, and the Padel Club is currently being expanded to offer five courts.
2.1.5. In addition to these meanwhile uses, a series of pre-enabling works are being undertaken, including site clearance and ground strengthening, particularly near to underground lines etc. This is in preparation for the main phase of works once planning is granted.
2.1.6. Whilst still developing, the masterplan will continue to build on this, establishing Earls Court as a major cultural and employment destination once again, bringing venues, events and pop-up space throughout the development.
THE SURROUNDING AREA
2.1.7. The Proposed Development comprises an area of approximately 40 acres located within a predominantly urban setting.A range of facilities and amenities are in the local area. These include the Warwick Road entrance to Earls Court Underground Station which is located directly opposite the masterplan site boundary in the east. West Brompton Station is located on the southern side of Old Brompton Road at the southern boundary to the site. West Kensington Station is located adjacent to the northwest boundary of the masterplan site.
2.1.8. Kensington Tesco Superstore is located on the northern side of the A4 opposite the northeast boundary of the masterplan site. Several amenities are located along Earls Court Road within the town centre approximately 600-metres to the east from the centre of the site, including retail uses, health, and leisure facilities. Figure 2-1 shows the site boundary in the context of the Station locations.
Figure 2-1 - Site Location Plan
2.1.9. Brompton Cemetery is located immediately to the southeast of the site. Fulham Broadway is located circa 1.1-kilometres to the south of the masterplan site.
2.1.10. North End Road to the west of the site provides access to amenities including local shops and cafes, as well as health care facilities. Normand Park is located approximately 600-metres to the southwest from the centre of the site. Hammersmith town centre is located approximately 1.8-kilometres to the west of the masterplan site.
2.1.11. There is an established network of footways and pedestrian connections coming out of and surrounding the Site. Footways are provided along each of the adjacent roads, with additional connections around the area. The network allows pedestrians to travel directly to and from the Site and permeate through the boroughs to public transport nodes and other destinations.
2.2 PEDESTRIANNETWORK
2.2.1. The Site is in an urban area with a comprehensive network of footways which facilitate pedestrian routes to a wide range of amenities and facilities. The isochrones displayed in Figure 2-2 show 0-30 minutes catchment for accesson foot, assume a walking speed of 4.8km/hr, measured from the centre of the site.
2.2.2. From the centre of the site, it is possible to reach the key transport corridors on the edge of the site within five minutes. From there, destinations such as Earls Court, West Kensington, Hammersmith
and Fulham can be reached within a 20-minute walk, whilst parts of Central London and further locations in West London are within a 30-minute walking distance.
Figure 2-2 - Pedestrian Isochrones
2.2.3. Further review of the existing pedestrian network and infrastructure in the vicinity of the Site will be undertaken as part of the TA.
2.3 CYCLENETWORK
2.3.1. As set out in The London Plan, development should facilitate and encourage cycling, and reduce car dependency and the health problems it creates. Cycling is a space-efficient mode compared to cars so making streets attractive for cycling can bring benefits to all road users while also improving the experience of living, working and spending time in the city5 .
2.3.2. Figure 2-3 shows the cycle catchment isochrones, demonstrating that the majority of Central London and surrounding areas are reachable within a 30-minute cycle. In particular destinations such as Hammersmith, Putney, Battersea and Paddington are all within a reasonable cycling distance.
5 Paragraph 10.5.1, The London Plan - 2021
Figure 2-3 - Cycling Isochrones
2.3.3. Figure 2-4 showsthe existing Cycle infrastructuresurrounding the site. This infrastructure isgenerally on-road and in the form of either quieter streets considered suitable for cycling (Quietway 15 for instance) or on carriageway advisory cycle lanes (such as those found on Lillie Road and Old Brompton Road). The TA will describe the existing streetscape and the relationship between vehicles and cyclists. Reference will be made to cycle counts extracted from manual classified counts at local junctions.
2.3.4. The isochrones and adjacent Cycleway connections illustrate the Site is well located with regards to cycle accessibility, in terms of time and distance, to Central London. However, improvements are likely to be required off-site to facilitate cycle connections to the wider area. When reviewing at a more detailed level, it is evident that in sections the existing network is not well connected with the site and the surrounding links are vehicular dominant deterring cycling as a favourable mode of travel.
2-4 - Existing Cycling Provision and Gaps
TFL CYCLE HIRE
2.3.5. At present, the closest Cycle Hire Docking Station is located at Trebovir Road approximately 100m from the access to the Site on Warwick Road. There are also a number of other cycle docking stations within close proximity to the Proposed Development location, as seen in Figure 2-5
2.3.6. The highest concentration of cycle hire docking stations are located to the east of the Proposed Development, reflecting the Site’s location on the edge of the existing network.
2.3.7. There are docking locations at West Kensington and roads to the west, such as Star Road and Normand Park.
Figure
Figure 2-5 - Cycle Docking Locations
MICROMOBILITY
2.3.8. Micromobility is the term used to refer to lightweight and small-sized transport mostly designed for the individual6. Generally, this includes e-scooters but can also equally be applied to e-bikes.
2.3.9. These new forms of transport work through geo-fencing rather than traditional docking stations.
2.3.10. Since June 2021 electric scooters (e-scooters) have been available to rent in a number of London boroughs. The three providers are Dott, Lime and TIER.
2.4 PUBLICTRANSPORTACCESSIBILITY
2.4.1. Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) is used by TfL as a means to quantify and compare accessibility to public transport services for given Sites. It takes into account the time taken to access the public transport network, including: The walk time to various public transport services; The average waiting time for each service; and The reliability of each service.
6 Buro Happold (2022) Micromobility Street Design Manual
2.4.2. The methodology is based on a walk speed of 4.8kph and considers railway stations within a 12minute walk (960m) of a Site and bus stops within an 8-minute walk (640m). The PTAL assessment is undertaken using the AM peak hour operating patterns of existing services.
2.4.3. TfL’s online WEBCAT tool shows a PTAL of 2 and 3 adjacent to the Lillie Bridge Depot, PTAL scores of 4 and 5 on North End Road and around West Kensington and scores of 6b and 6a across the eastern portions site, as shown in Figure 2-6
2.4.4. Figure 2-6 demonstrates the Site has ‘the best’ level of public transport accessibility throughout a large proportion of thedevelopmentas a result of being located adjacent to three London Underground / Overground Stations and numerous bus routes. The stations provide a range of services that operate frequently, with the interchange opportunities reflected in the TfL online time mapping calculator as shown in Figure 2-7. The Travel Time Map (TTM) illustrates how far a person can travel in any given time, in this instance, it is used to illustrate journey times to the Site from other parts of London.
Figure 2-6 - Site PTAL Assessment
Figure 2-7 - Travel Time Mapping – Journey Time to Proposed Development
2.4.5. The TTM shows that the Site can be accessed from a wide part of London, including the immediate surrounding areas of Kensington and Chelsea, and Hammersmith and Fulham as well as central London within 30 minutes.
2.5 LONDONUNDERGROUND&OVERGROUNDSERVICES
2.5.1. The Site benefits from access to three London Underground Stations directly adjacent to the site. These stations provide access to the District Line, with Earls Court also providing access to the Piccadilly Line. The frequency of these services in the AM and PM Peaks are highlighted in Table 21
Table 2-1 – Earls Court - London Underground and Overground Service Frequencies
2.5.2. Earls Court station provides a total of 84-86 services per peak hour across the District and Piccadilly Lines which provide access across London including Richmond, Westminster Heathrow, Ealing Broadway and Uxbridge.
2.5.3. West Brompton station provides access to the District Line, Wimbledon Branch. The peak hour frequencies by line and direction are summarised in in Table 2-2. London Overground and
2.6.2. The figure and table highlight that the Proposed Development is extremely well connected within the local area and further afield also, with frequent bus services operating across London.
Figure 2-8 - Existing Bus Stops
Table 2-4 - Local Bus Services - Peak Hour Frequencies
Warwick Road (A3220) – Earls Court Stop A
North End Road (B317) - Stop BH
Lillie Road (A3218) – Stop BA
2.7 LOCALHIGHWAYNETWORK
2.7.1. The A4 West Cromwell Road, Warwick Road and Earls Court Road form part of the TLRN, where TfL is the Highway Authority. The local road network is managed by LBHF and RBKC. Warwick Road and Earls Court Road are one-way northbound and southbound respectively and form the Earls Court One Way System (ECOWS) which is part of the strategic north-south corridor between the A40 Westway and Chelsea Embankment. Warwick Road (A3220) and West Cromwell Road (A4), which forms the eastern and northern boundary of the site respectively.
2.7.2. Figure 2-9 shows the highway network in the context of the Site.
PARKING AND CAR CLUBS
2.7.3. Given the previous use of the site and the highway locally, it is pertinent to understand the parking availability around the development. As set out in Chapter 3 in more detail, the development is to be predominantly car free.
2.7.4. Figure 2-10 sets out a selection of the available car parks in the immediate vicinity of the site. This identifies that the number of car parks available in the local area is limited. Those car parks that do exist either have limited waiting (for example Tesco and Coomer Place) or are private car parks associated with hotels
Figure 2-9 - Highway Network Surrounding Site
2-10 – Existing Local Car Parks and Car Club Parking Permit Locations
2.7.5. A review of the off-street parking areas in the local area identified that whilst some parking locations allow users to book in advance, not all guarantee space availability on the day. This limits emergency or unplanned visits. In addition, especially for trades people, the off-site nature of the provision could require multiple trips carrying goods / tools etc.
2.7.6. The figure also identifies some of the local car club (Enterprise / Zip Car) permitted parking spots. Given the nature of car clubs, these may not always be available if already booked / being utilised etc.
On-street parking availability
2.7.7. Figure 2-11 shows the parking restrictions on the roads surrounding the site currently in place (within a 250m walking distance from the site).
Figure
Figure 2-11 – Nearby Parking Restrictions
2.7.8. All the nearby residential areas are subject to some level of parking restriction. In most cases, parking is for permit holders and covers the core daily time periods (limiting use by call out / trades etc). Several areas also adopt limits on the duration of stay.
2.7.9. The full TA will provide a description of the local and strategic highway network, including information relating to the following:
Road widths;
Speed limits;
Parking restrictions and car club provision in more detail; Junction types;
Description of routes to local key amenities; and
Street lighting provision etc.
3 DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
3.1 INTRODUCTION
3.1.1. This section provides a summary of the masterplan, transport strategy and development proposals.
3.2 MASTERPLANCONTEXT
3.2.1. Earls Court has always been a unique part of the city in the heart of West London. From horticultural gardens around the basin of Counter’s Creek, to the arrival of the railway and underground lines in the 19th Century, the site has always been at the forefront of historic, economic and societal change
3.2.2. The new Earls Court needs to respond to the issues of today, celebrating the wonder of its history whilst leading the drive for future change by delivering:
Homes and workspaces which respond positively to the environment
Providing resilient solutions to the climate emergency
Where wellbeing and safety is prioritised
Striving for genuine inclusivity
Providing accessible green public spaces
Inclusive neighbourhoods, innovation, culture and nature are at the core
3.2.3. Four place pillars have been established for the masterplan which set a clear set of objectives that the Transport Strategy has responded to:
3.2.4. Underpinning the Place Pillars is a Sustainable Development Charter (SDC) which seeks to maximise the benefits of the masterplan. The SDC contains several KPIs of which those of relevance to transport are as follows:
Beyond Net Zero Carbon:
Mix of land uses to reduce the need to travel
Car free development (provision for disabled persons parking only)
All parking spaces provided with EV charging capability
An electric vehicle fleet for the on-site Car Club
Off-site commercial land use consolidation for sustainable deliveries to site
On-site consolidation for sustainable last mile deliveries
Healthy Living
Delivering a pedestrian priority public realm
Cycle parking in accordance with London Plan policy
On-site cycle and micromobility docking stations
3.3 TRANSPORTSTRATEGY
3.3.1. The Transport Strategy has sought to respond to the four Place Pillars and SDC and developed a set of Transport Priorities to work to:
3.3.2. At the heart of the Transport Strategy is the aim to create a great place to live, work and play. Our transport strategy therefore proposes a hierarchy of movement for trips made on-site to ensure that a people first public realm is delivered:
3.3.3. For trips made off-site we have set an ambitious set of targets which the Transport Strategy will seek to deliver, which aligns with the Mayor’s ambition to achieve 80% of all trips by sustainable modes by 2041:
60% of all trips made to/from the development to be undertaken by public transport
30% of trips to be made by walking/cycling
The remaining 10% of trips to be made by vehicle.
3.3.4. The individual modal strategies set out below have been designed to achieve the transport vision and priorities set out above.
3.4 ACCESSSTRATEGY
PEDESTRIAN ACCESS
3.4.1. The masterplan seeks to re-open the Earls Court site to the public for the first time in 150 years. This will be facilitated by creating a people first public realm that places the pedestrian at the top of the movement hierarchy for trips made on site.
3.4.2. The Transport Strategy seeks to prioritise walking as the main mode of travel for trips up to 2km with an overall mode share target of 15%. This will be achieved through:
Creation of a people first public realm
Separating servicing and delivery trips from the public realm (where possible)
Minimising provision of and access to car parking
Ensuring access to a range of amenities and facilities within easy walking distance
Enhancing access to key destinations off-site through targeted improvements identified within the Active Travel Zone and Safety Inclusion Assessments
3.4.3. A series of gateways will be created where pedestrians will be welcomed to the site. These key pedestrian gateways will be as follows:
Warwick Road at the former entrance to the Earls Court Exhibition Centre
Lillie Road at Empress Place
Old Brompton Road at West Brompton Station
Beaumont Avenue
3.4.4. A series of secondary access points will also be available to ensure that the masterplan is permeable to those on foot. These include:
Aisgill Avenue in the west
Lillie Road at the Lillie Road Bus Layover
Cluny Mews7 and the Northern Access Road8 in the north-east of the masterplan
The A4 adjacent to West Kensington Station
3.4.5. Figure 3-1 shows the pedestrian routes that will be created by the masterplan and how they connect with the existing network off-site.
7 Subject to third party landowner agreement
8 Subject to delivery of an onward connection by the neighbouring development site
Figure 3-1 – Pedestrian Overview Plan
3.4.6. In addition to the above, there may also be a connection via Cluny Mews in the northeast of the site, which will seek delivery of a pedestrian and/or cycle connection subject to agreement with neighbouring landowners.
3.4.7. The Northern Access Road (NAR) which runs from Warwick Lane internally through the site to Fenelon Place via the Tesco Basement access is also a route choice in the future. ECDC have a deed of grant that secures vehicular and pedestrian access through the Tesco Basement. Seven Capital are obligated through their S106 to provide a safe pedestrian and cycle route through the Tesco Basement upon completion of construction works of the Earls Court development.
CYCLE ACCESS
3.4.8. The masterplan seeks to prioritise travel by active modes through provision of a people first public realm and a car free development. Cyclists will be provided with high quality infrastructure to ensure that cycling is a viable mode for trips to/from the Proposed Development. A series of cyclable routes
have been developed to provide north-south and east-west connectivity across the site. These routes will connect with existing and future cycle infrastructure to then enable onward connections to key destinations across London.
3.4.9. The vision for cycling is to prioritise cycling and micromobility as the main modes of travel for trips between 2 kilometres and 5 kilometres with an overall target of 15% of all trips by bicycle / micromobility. It has already been noted that the existing network is not well connected with the site and the surrounding highway links are vehicular dominant. The cycle strategy therefore proposes consideration of where wider improvements on the network external to the site are required to facilitate a shift towards active travel.
3.4.10. The cycle strategy will be achieved by:
Provision of secure cycle parking in accordance with London Plan policy;
Provision of clear north-south and east-west routes through the masterplan site for cyclists Creation of cycle/micromobility hubs at key transport nodes to allow efficient interchange; Appropriately scaled contributions towards targeted off-site improvements to address gaps in infrastructure provision and improve connectivity; and Set of incentivised travel planning measures.
3.4.11. The cycling and micromobility strategy overview plan is shown in Figure 3-2
Figure 3-2 – Cycling Strategy Overview Plan
OFF-SITE CYCLE IMPROVEMENTS
3.4.12. Whilst the scope of off-site cycle improvements will be informed by the outcomes of the ATZ and SIA two areas of focus have been considered as part of the development of the masterplan: Warwick Road connecting the site with Quietway 15 and routes to/from the north Lillie Road/Old Brompton Road connecting with Quietway 15 and facilitating access to the development.
3.4.13. To connect the development site to Quietway 15 in the east which will be a key corridor for trips into/out of Central London the deliverability of a contra-flow cycle lane has been considered on Warwick Road.
3.4.14. A range of options have been considered which have been presented and discussed with the Transport Stakeholders. Site visits and pre-application meetings discussing the cycle infrastructure were held to ensure everyone was aware of the constraints and opportunities available. An option that runs between Trebovir Road and Earls Cout Square has been provisionally selected as the preferred option which will be summarised and assessed within the planning submission TA. This option is shown in Figure 3-3 and Figure 3-4. However, the final option delivered will be subject to further design work post-application. It is envisaged that this proposal will be secured by S106.
3.4.15. On Lillie Road/Old Brompton improvements have focused on enhancing the existing infrastructure and integrating it with the proposed site access points. Improvements are proposed between the Lillie Road Bus Layover in the west and Kempsford Gardens in the east as shown in Figure 3-5, Figure 3-6 and Figure 3-7. At Kempsford Gardens an alternative arrangement (Figure 3-8) is shown which shows how the proposals could tie into the proposed turning restriction developed by RBKC.
Two options have been explored for the Lillie Road/Seagrave Road junction with an option to restrict traffic movements also being considered. This is shown in Figure 3-9.
PUBLIC TRANSPORT
3.4.16. The Site benefits from excellent access to public transport with three stations on the doorstep of the site and access to numerous bus routes. The Transport Strategy envisages that public transport will be the primary mode of transport for trips to and from the Proposed Development with an overall mode share target of 60%. To achieve this, we have been working with the Transport Stakeholders to understand the likely level of demand resulting from the masterplan and to develop a series of targeted improvements that can provide the capacity required to accommodate the proposals.
3.4.17. Figure 3-10 illustrates the surrounding public transport network and the public transport strategy.
3.4.18. The public transport strategy has been developed based upon the following over-arching design principles.
Facilitating step free connections across the masterplan and to all main public transport nodes accesses / entrances off-site
Delivery of mobility hubs at public transport nodes to facilitate modal interchange
Reconfiguration of the bus layover on-site to facilitate enhanced access to the development
No through route for buses will be provided within the Masterplan
Figure 3-9 – Lillie Road/Seagrave Road Alternative Arrangment with Turning Restriction
Public realm improvements will be made to connect the site with entrances to stations and bus stops located around the site
3-10 – Public Transport Strategy Overview Plan
3.4.19. Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) is a metric used by TfL to measure access to public transport. Figure 3-11 shows the existing PTAL alongside the anticipated future PTAL once the masterplan is in place.
Figure 3-11 – Indicative changes in PTAL levels with the development
Base Proposed
Figure
3.4.20. The PTAL analysis indicates that 50% of the grid (100m x 100m squares) improve their PTAL rating with the development and associated links. Some of the squares show no change in level, largely due to the high levels of public transport accessibility already afforded to them.
3.4.21. The development will undoubtedly improve the PTAL characterises of the area, without the need for any changes to the public transport network in the vicinity of the site.
Lillie Road Bus Layover
3.4.22. The Site includes the Lillie Road bus layover. This layover will be reconfigured in the proposals, subject to agreement with LBL, to provide an enhanced facility that will be integrated within the development design.
3.4.23. Our proposals for the Lillie Road Bus Layover have been driven by a desire to create a more efficient access to the site. Currently the Bus Layover accommodates:
Bus movements associated with the bus layover and final alighting stop on the Route 190
Vehicular access including long vehicle (up to 91ft) access to LBD
Pedestrian and vehicular access to MOPAC
Access to the former Earls Court Exhibition Centre
3.4.24. When considering the need for change the following rationale was identified:
Complex set of movements and potential increased demand
Opportunity for improved public realm
Ability to better integrate development
Need to accommodate the development plots that will sit alongside and above the layover
3.4.25. More specifically, in future the Lillie Road bus layover will need to accommodate:
MOPAC vehicular, cycle and pedestrian access
Bus movements associated with the bus layover and final alighting stop on the Route 190
Pedestrian and vehicular access including long vehicle (up to 91ft) access to the Lillie Bridge depot
Construction traffic associated with the Earls Court Masterplan
Servicing movements associated with the Earls Court Masterplan
Taxi pick-up/drop off associated with the Earls Court Masterplan
Cyclists and pedestrians arriving and departing associated with the Earls Court Masterplan
3.4.26. Our proposals for the Lillie Road bus layover are shown below in Figure 3-12. This layout has been consulted on with TfL and discussions are ongoing.
Figure 3-12 - Lillie Road Bus Layover - Proposed Changes
Earls Court, West Brompton and West Kensington Station Improvements
3.4.27. Initial pre-feasibility studies have been completed to identify the areas of the Stations that might need to be improved and the options for this. The results of these pre-feasibility studies have been presented to the Transport Stakeholders. This work involves detailed pedestrian modelling which is ongoing and will be informed by strategic model outputs, discussed further in Section 4 of this TASR.
3.4.28. Provisional pedestrian modelling results for Earls Court Station indicates that an enhancement to the gateline of the Warwick Road entrance along with re-commissioning of an additional stairwell connecting the District Line platform with the Piccadilly line entrance could help to relieve capacity constraints identified.
3.4.29. At West Brompton, initial analysis identified that additional gatelines along with new stairways would be required. Additional improvements in the form of step-free access and improved stairways and passageways are currently being considered.
3.4.30. At West Kensington a gateline improvement within the existing station along with step-free access are currently being considered. Detailed pedestrian analysis and modelling work is ongoing to refine the proposals, which will be detailed as part of the TA.
VEHICULAR AND SERVICING ACCESS
3.4.31. The masterplan seeks to prioritise active travel and proposes a people first public realm. To facilitate this, vehicular routes have been limited to the periphery of the site and servicing movements segregated from the public realm where possible. The development is also proposed to be ‘car lite’ with parking provided for disabled users only alongside a car-club and requirements for servicing. As such, the street network has only been designed to accommodate low volumes of vehicular traffic.
3.4.32. Acknowledging a need to accommodate servicing trips a micro-consolidation strategy has been proposed to reduce vehicular trips where possible and replace them on-site with trips on foot or by cargo bike. It is recognised that the detailed plots have been designed to accommodate a traditional servicing strategy as they will be delivered first. In addition, the site seeks to deliver a commercial logistics plot, also known as EC07, which is considered to provide consolidation for the site as well as the external market.
3.4.33. The main vehicular access points to the site will be as follows:
Lillie Road junction with Lillie Road bus layover
Old Brompton Road junction with Eardley crescent Warwick Apron North End Road junction with Beaumont Avenue Tesco Basement
3.4.34. Figure 3-13 sets out the indicative vehicular and servicing access points across the site.
Figure 3-13 - Vehicular Access Points
Warwick Apron
3.4.35. Warwick Apron will be a key entrance point to the development site. Access is proposed from both the northern and southern sides of the Apron. The current proposed design strategy is show in Figure 3-14.
3-14- Extract of current Warwick Apron Access Arrangement
Lillie Road and Empress Place
3.4.36. The improvements to the bus layover have been discussed above, but at the junction with Lillie Road, changes to the geometry will be required including radii and kerb adjustments.
3.4.37. In addition to Warwick Road, Lillie Road provides a further connection to Quietway 15 as well as to the Borough’s local cycle routes to the south and west. Enhanced cycle facilities are proposed on Lillie Road in combination with new signal access junctions to the development site as shown in Figure 3-15.
Figure
Figure 3-15 - Indicative Lillie Road and Empress Place access arrangements
Old Brompton Road
3.4.38. Further east, the development proposes a one-way (southbound / exit only) junction with contra-flow cycle lane at the access with Old Brompton Road.
3.4.39. Figure 3-16 shows the indicative access arrangements.
Figure 3-16 - Indicative Old Brompton Road access arrangements
3.4.40. In addition, the highway works, there are significant improvements proposed to the adjacent public realm area outside West Brompton Station, including;
Widening of footways
10m wide pedestrian crossing
Widened mandatory cycle lanes
North End Road / Beaumont Avenue
3.4.41. The North End Road / Beaumont Avenue access is shown in Figure 3-17. Proposals for this junction to provide better connectivity to/from the west for cyclists and pedestrians are currently being developed.
Figure 3-17 - Indicative North End Road / Beaumont Avenue Access
Mund Street
3.4.42. Vehicular access is proposed from Mund Street to allow access to the LBD part of the masterplan. Figure 3-18 shows the current access arrangement on Mund Street. It is acknowledged that delivery of this access will require agreement with LBHF as it passes over land in the ownership of LBHF.
3-19 – Aisgill Avenue North
Figure
Figure 3-20 – Aisgill Avenue South
3.4.47. Once the depot is vacated, access for long vehicles (91ft vehicles) will no longer be required via Lillie Road. The access via Beaumont Avenue will be utilised for future road to rail vehicle access.
Taxis and Private Hire Vehicles
3.4.48. Taxis will be encouraged to utilise set down areas proposed across the masterplan site. From these points residents, employees and visitors will be expected to travel on foot to their origin/destination.
3.4.49. The security control points will enable access for those users who need access direct to plot such as at night or mobility impaired users.
Emergency Vehicles
3.4.50. The masterplan has been designed to ensure that appropriate emergency vehicle access can be provided to all plots. A tracking exercise has been undertaken on the illustrative masterplan which is shown in Figure 3-22. The detail for each plot will be secured at the RMA stage.
Figure 3-22 – Fire Tender Tracking
SERVICING STRATEGY
3.4.51. As noted above, vehicle access to the Site will be predominately for servicing vehicles, alongside limited Blue Badge parking and emergency vehicle access. In keeping with local and national policy the servicing strategy will seek to:
Reduce the total number of servicing and delivery trips generated by the Site (via delivery and servicing management measures)
Reduce emissions associated with servicing and delivery trips to the Site, and Ensure vehicles enter and egress the Site in a safe manner.
3.4.52. Figure 3-23 outlines the various routes across the site for servicing.
Figure 3-23 - Servicing Strategy
3.4.53. The servicing strategy proposes:
On-site consolidation which will receive the majority of deliveries to residential properties. Residents will be encouraged to collect packages from the consolidation hub. A delivery service will be offered to residents should they wish
The consolidation hub/s will be able to accommodate most deliveries but will not facilitate perishable goods or large goods such as furniture. These items will be delivered direct to plot
The commercial land use will benefit from off-site consolidation which will enable the total number of trips to and from the site to be reduced
3.4.54. Figure 3-24 provides a process diagram for how the masterplan servicing strategy is anticipated to operate.
3-24 - Servicing Strategy Process Diagram
3.4.55. As shown on Figure 3-24, some plots may utilise servicing routes at different times to avoid interaction with public realm users, i.e., The Boulevard. This is a well-established operational model and when effectively managed allows servicing vehicles to use public realm routes / corridors at times when pedestrian and cyclist demand is at its lowest. This continues to be developed, as alternative options, such as using sub-terranean routes and access points are being considered where practical and feasible to do so.
3.4.56. The illustrative masterplan includes dedicated servicing bays on-street to facilitate those servicing trips that need to take place direct to plot whilst the roads within the masterplan are designed to accommodate a range of different vehicles depending on their function. The final geometry will be secured through reserved matters planning applications pursuant to the outline consent.
3.4.57. However, details of minimum widths will be secured through the design code, a control document within the outline planning application. A plan showing the types of vehicle anticipated to use each road across the masterplan is shown in Figure 3-25
Figure
WASTE STRATEGY
3.4.58. A range of waste options were considered when developing the proposals for the masterplan which alongside traditional methods included Underground Refuse Collection (URS) systems and vacuum waste collection (such as Envac). Owing to the site being split across two London boroughs with a number of physical constraints created by the railway lines it was decided that a more traditional waste strategy would be most appropriate.
3.4.59. The waste strategy is fully aligned with the London Plan and seeks to achieve if not exceed the London Plan target to recycle 65% of waste. The waste strategy includes:
Encouraging compaction where appropriate to reduce waste vehicle trips
Use of consolidation within the commercial land use to reduce refuse vehicle trips through the public realm
Separation of waste at point of entry to system to encourage recycling
Explore opportunities for reuse and composting on site to reduce volumes being generated for export from site
Working within the framework established by LBHF and RBKC to deliver a cost-effective solution for users of the site
Figure 3-25 – Street hierarchy
The key drivers align with the following policy and strategies:
Mayors Transport Strategy9 – aiming for 80 % of trips in London to be made by walking, cycling and public transport by 2041. It also aims to reduce the number of lorries and vans entering central London in the morning peak by 10% by 2026.
London Plan – 202110
Para 10.1.3 (Policy T1) - 10.1.3 The Mayor will work with partners to minimise freight trips on the road network including through consolidation. He will promote safe, clean, and efficient freight functions, including by road, rail, water and, for shorter distances, cycle.
Policy T2 – Bullet point D.
Development proposals should: 2) reduce the dominance of vehicles on London’s streets whether stationary or moving.
Policy T7 Extracts.
F Development proposals for new consolidation and distribution facilities should be supported provided that they do not cause unacceptable impacts on London’s strategic road networks and:
(1) reduce road danger, noise, and emissions from freight trips.
(2) enable sustainable last-mile movements, including by cycle and electric vehicle.
(3) deliver mode shift from road to water or rail where possible (without adversely impacting existing or planned passenger services).
TfL Cargo Bike Action Plan11
Focus from TfL to develop a cargo bike market, including consolidation.
3.5.5. The proposed layout of the commercial logistics hub (Figure 3-28) seeks to allow flexibility in the final method of operation with the ability for deliveries to be undertaken solely by e-cargo bike or by a combination of e-cargo bikes and electric vans (up to 3.5t panel vans). The site has been designed to accommodate deliveries from upstream within the supply chain of up to 10m rigid vehicles.
Figure 3-27 - Commercial logistics hub delivery model
3.5.6. The site has been designed to accommodate vehicles up to 10m long rigid HGV. These larger vehicles will be used for the incoming and outgoing goods delivery / re-stocking with the end mile deliveries being undertaken by E-Cargo bikes and E-Vans / LGVs. Cargo bikes and electric vans are assumed to be stored on plot when not in use.
3.5.7. The access strategy proposes that all deliveries to/from the commercial logistics hub by vehicles of up to 10m rigid will use the Northern Access Road – Tesco Basement – Fenelon Place. Cargo bikes will be able to use the Northern Access Road – Warwick Lane – Warwick Road or Northern Access Road – Tesco Basement – Fenelon Place. The latter route only being available once construction on the RBKC part of the site has completed. Staff may arrive and depart using any of the masterplan access routes. However, entrance to the EC07 plot for staff on foot is located in EC06.
3.5.8. A disabled parking space for use by staff/visitors will be provided within the EC07 plot along with staff cycle parking. Visitor short-stay cycle parking will be located in the public realm in accordance with the masterplan parking strategy.
3.6.1. The planning application will seek a flexible planning permission that permits a range of land uses to come forwards across the site. To capture this within the TA and ensure that a worst-case trip generation and transport network assessment is put forwards a series of maximum development parameters were devised and issued to the Transport Stakeholders in September 2023.
3.6.2. Subsequent to this, the masterplan has continued to evolve and Table 3-1 sets out a draft set of quantum’s that will be applied for in the outline planning application. To reflect the flexible nature of the planning application a series of minimums and maximums are proposed. This will be controlled through an overall cap on land use quantum which is currently anticipated to be 705,000sqm.
Table 3-1 – Proposed Minimum and Maximum Development Quantum
3.7 SITELAYOUT
3.7.1. The site layout will be secured by means of a series of parameter plans. Underpinning the parameter plans is an illustrative masterplan that shows one way in which the masterplan could come forwards. Figure 3-29 shows the framework ground floor plan from the illustrative masterplan. The plan shows a number of units of varying scale and massing throughout the site, with an intended mix of commercial, retail and residential uses alongside other ancillary land uses.
INDICATIVE PHASING
3.7.2. Whilst the phasing of the development has not yet been fixed it is proposed that for the purposes of the Environmental Statement (ES) and TA that the following phases of development will be assessed:
Detailed Plots (comprising plots EC05,06 and WB-03,04,05)
Early phases which is anticipated to be constructed and occupied by approximately 2034. All phases which is anticipated to be constructed and complete by approximately 2043.
3.8.1. Figure 3-30 sets out the location of the detailed plots, access points that will be available for the detailed plots in some form (temporary or permanent) and the routes that will be available across the masterplan by different modes.
Figure 3-30 – Detailed Plots Access Strategy
3.8.2. In terms of access per user group, Table 3-2 provides a summary of the EC1 plots (EC-05/06) and the EC2 detailed plots (WB-03, WB-04 and WB-05)
Table 3-2 – Detailed Plots Access Strategy
User Group Routes / Access Provision
Pedestrians EC1
Pedestrians will be able to access the plots via the Northern and Southern Warwick Road access points, and the Warwick Square. The public realm within the site will then facilitate access via Warwick Lane, Warwick Crescent and the central public realm.
An east-west pedestrian connection will be provided from Warwick Road through to Aisgill Avenue connecting with a north-south connection to facilitate access to Lillie Road and along the West London Line to connect with the crossing on Lillie Road adjacent to West Brompton Station.
EC2 The primary pedestrian access to WB03, WB04 and WB05 is proposed to be via The Boulevard, The Cascades and Aisgill Gardens.
User Group
Routes / Access Provision
An east-west pedestrian connection will be provided from Warwick Road through to Aisgill Avenue connecting with a north-south connection to facilitate access to Lillie Road and along the West London Line to connect with the crossing on Lillie Road adjacent to West Brompton Station.
Cyclists
EC1
EC2
Most of the routes available to pedestrians as described above will also be available to cyclists to access the EC1 plots as shown on the figure.
Notably, there will be an East / West connection from Aisgill Avenue, across the site via the Cascades and the Table Park, past EC1 and through to Warwick Road, via the northern and southern Warwick Road access points (no cycle access is permitted within Warwick Square).
The Boulevard will provide a key connection from Lillie Road to the Cascades for those wishing to access EC1 plots from the south and southwest.
The primary cycle access to WB03, WB04 and WB05 is proposed to be via The Boulevard, The Cascades and Aisgill Gardens.
An east-west connection will also be available from Aisgill Avenue through to Warwick Road via The Cascades and Table Park.
It is anticipated that e-bikes servicing WB03 and WB04 will use the vehicular service road described below.
Vehicles
EC1
EC2
Vehicular access for servicing and access to parking will be provided from the northern side of Warwick Apron via Warwick Lane and Warwick Crescent. Warwick Crescent will initially be a two-way road with a turning head to facilitate turning around if required.
Refuse collection, move-in/move-out and large goods delivery will be provided from the Northern Access Road and into the EC07 basement where loading bays are proposed to serve EC05 and EC06.
Emergency service vehicles will be able to use either Warwick Lane or the Northern Access Road.
Vehicular access to WB03, WB04 and WB05 will primarily be achieved from Lillie Road using the Lillie Road Bus Layover. A service road is proposed along the boundary with MOPAC providing access to disabled parking, car club and servicing bays. Residential lobbies will be accessible from this service route.
An additional vehicular access is proposed from Aisgill Avenue providing for refuse collection from WB05.
Access for the TfL Long Vehicle will need to be maintained through this route until TfL’s access rights are extinguished when they vacate Lillie Bridge Depot.
EARLY PHASES ACCESS STRATEGY
3.8.3. Figure 3-31 sets out the access points that will be available for the early phases plots and the routes that will be available across the masterplan by different modes .
Figure 3-31 – Early Phases Access Strategy
3.8.4. Table 3-3 provides a summary of the access strategy for the early phase scenario.
Table 3-3 – Early Phases Access Strategy
User Group Routes / Access Provision
Pedestrians The Early Phases will build upon the access routes available for the detailed EC1 and EC2 plots described in Tables 3-1 above.
The Northern Access Road becomes a pedestrian link up to the site boundary with onward connection through the Tesco Basement potentially delivered once construction on the Earls Court site (excluding Lillie Bridge Depot) has finished (subject to third party agreement).
A further potential connection could be delivered to Cluny Mews from the Northern Access Road (subject to third party agreement).
User Group Routes / Access Provision
A further connection is provided to Old Brompton Road allowing plots located on West Brompton Lane and West Brompton Crescent to be accessed. This new link will also provide a connection through to Warwick Road.
Pedestrian access to Plot EC21 is achieved from Cluny Mews.
Cyclists Like pedestrian links, further cycle connections will become available via the additional Old Brompton Road access.
Cyclists will potentially be able to connect to/from the north using the Northern Access Road and Tesco basement once construction on the Earls Court site (excluding Lillie Bridge Depot) has finished (subject to third party agreement).
Vehicles (Disabled users)
In addition to those set out for the detailed plots, blue badge users will be able to access the site via the additional Old Brompton Road access point and the Northern Access Road.
Further internal connections also become available. For example, Warwick Crescent, which was a two-way link during the detailed EC1 plot phase, will become a one-way loop road connecting with Warwick Lane further west and to the Northern Access Road.
Vehicles (Servicing)
Vehicles (Emergency)
In addition to the routes available for the detailed plots, servicing and delivery vehicles will be able to utilise the additional Old Brompton Road access point and the Northern Access Road route via the Tesco Basement and Fenelon Place.
Emergency service vehicles will be able to use all the vehicle access points identified above. In addition, they will also be able to use the pedestrian and cycle connection on Aisgill Avenue and Empress Place.
ALL PHASES ACCESS STRATEGY
3.8.5. Figure 3-32 sets out the access points that will be available for all phases plots and the routes that will be available across the masterplan by different modes.
Figure 3-32 – All Phases Access Strategy
3.8.6. Table 3-4 provides a summary of the access strategy for the All phases scenario.
Table 3-4 – All Phases Access Strategy
User Group Routes / Access Provision
Pedestrians In addition to the Early Phases, the All Phases scenario allows pedestrian access from Beaumont Avenue as well as additional access on Aisgill Avenue, Mund Street and Gibbs Green Close.
To the north, further pedestrian connections onto the A4 through the site will be provided. This access will be phased with access initially provided via the existing bridge link to the west of plot WK03. In the longer term it is anticipated that this link will transition to between WK03 and WK04.
Internal routes from the northern plots to central, south and the Table will also become available, ensuring that the site becomes fully accessible.
4 ASSESSMENT APPROACH
4.1 INTRODUCTION
4.1.1. This Chapter provides a summary of the intended assessment of the Development Proposals that will be undertaken for the TA.
4.1.2. Numerous separate discussions and details on the modelling elements have already been completed. It is not the intention to repeat everything in this TASR, but the planning submission TA will outline the supporting material and analysis in full.
4.2 TRANSPORTASSESSMENTOVERVIEW&APPROACH
REVIEW OF RELEVANT POLICIES
4.2.1. The masterplan has been developed with full consideration of National, Regional and Local planning policy, legislation and guidance. Compliance of the proposals with the following policy and guidance documents will be outlined within the TA:
National Planning Policy Framework (MHCLG, 2023)
National Planning Practice Guidance (MHCLG, 2019)
The London Plan (GLA, 2021)
The Mayor’s Transport Strategy (GLA, 2021/22)
RBKC’s Local Plan (RBKC, 2019)
RBKC’s Draft Transport and Streets SPD (RBKC, 2016)
LBHF’s Local Plan (LBHF, 2018)
LBHF’s Planning Guidance SPD (LBHF, 2018)
LBHF’s Local Development Scheme (LDS) (LBHF, 2018)
4.3 TRIPGENERATION
4.3.1. A provisional trip generation for the masterplan has been developed based upon the maximum development parameters.
4.3.2. An updated Trip Generation Technical Note (TN) has been prepared separately to set out the methodology and provisional forecast demand associated with the Earls Court Masterplan (ECM). The full TN has been provided in Appendix A
4.3.3. Historically, the transport impacts of the Proposed Development have been presented within two separate TAs split by Borough. It is not proposed to adopt this approach again. Instead, the trip generation and impacts will be considered cumulatively across both Boroughs.
4.3.4. The MOTiON demand model being used as part of the TA will also create a forecast trip generation for the Development Proposals. The trip generation will be used as a comparator to ensure that the trip generation that then feeds into the strategic public transport (Railplan) and highway (LoHAM) models replicates as closely as possible the Development Proposals.
ALL LAND-USE TRIP GEN – ALL TRIPS TO AND FROM THE DEVELOPMENT
4.3.5. Applying the methodology as set out in the Trip Generation TN, Table 4-1 sets out the total person trip generation by mode for all journey purposes to and from the development – for the All Phases scenario
Table 4-1 – Trip Generation: All Trips to and from the Development
4.3.6. The resulting mode shares are shown as below in Table 4-2
Table 4-2 – Resulting Mode Shares
4.3.7. Table 4-1 indicates that during the peak hours, the majority of trips (46-49%) to and from the development will be by train or underground, 14-15% by bus and approximately 30-35% of trips on foot / by bicycle.
SERVICING AND DELIVERIES
4.3.8. Additional to the travel demand generated by new residents and workers within the development, account needs to be taken of the servicing trips that are likely to occur throughout the day. It is anticipated that servicing and collection of waste will be undertaken on a daily basis.
4.3.9. The servicing and waste strategies outlined in the previous chapter show how the site is anticipated to operate.Owing to the phasing of the development, it is noted that consolidation may not be achievable from the outset but will be introduced in a phased manner.
4.3.1. The Trip Generation TN also considers servicing demand at the site. Table 4-3 sets out the resulting delivery and servicing peak hour trip generation, including consolidation that is forecast to be generated by the residential elements.
4.4.1. Through pre-application consultation with the Transport Stakeholders, it has been agreed to assess the development’s impacts on the highway and public transport network using TfL’s strategic transport models. WSP and ECDC have been licensed by TfL to utilise these models for the purposes of the EC Masterplan planning application.
4.4.2. To adequately assess the proposals, a suite of strategic transport models are being used. For the overarching strategic assessment of change in trip patterns, the Model of Travel in London (MoTiON) is being utilised. MoTiON is a multi-modal strategic transport model of London and the surrounding area. MoTiON can model how many trips there are likely to be, their origins and destinations and their modes of transport.
4.4.3. Future year models are available in five-year intervals from 2026 to 2041. The development’s phasing (as outlined above) means that the two future years which sit best with the development’s build-out are 2031 and 2041. The demand from MoTiON for the Proposed Development will be sense checked against our provisional trip generation. The following will be updated within MoTiON for the specific zones which cover the consented and latest EC development site:
London resident population
Trip attractions (Land use information)
Spatial disaggregation of forecast growth
4.4.4. The outputs will then be fed into Railplan, a strategic public transport model for London and the south-east and London Highway Assignment Model (LoHAM), which is a strategic model representing routeing and congestion of motorised highway trips using London’s highway network. Both LoHAM and Railplan follow the same five year future year model intervals as MoTiON.
4.4.5. MoTiON will be used to identify 2031 and 2041 future year demand with and without Earls Court. As Earls Court is a consented development the modelling team have been going through a process of agreeing with TfL how it should be removed from the MoTiON model.
4.4.6. The versions and approaches in terms of the running of the strategic model and application of the model outputs, with regards to how these feed down the lower levels of modelling suites have been set out in relevant Modelling Expectation Documents (MED’s) and pre-application meetings with the Transport Stakeholders.
MODELLING SCENARIOS
4.4.7. Utilising the above methodology and acknowledging that the TfL models will have prescribed future years the development will be tested in a number of scenarios.
4.4.8. It should be noted that WSP has used 2022 traffic surveys to establish baseline traffic movements including existing traffic at the site and the surrounding network. The use of 2022 surveys and the survey process was agreed with the Transport Stakeholders.
4.4.9. The scenarios proposed to be tested are as follows and shown visually in Figure 4-1:
Operational Assessment
Baseline scenarios (varying, 2016 – 2022 dependent on modelling suite)
2031 Base Minus
2031 Base Minus + Early Phases
2041 Base Minus
2041 Base Minus + All Phases
Construction Assessments (to be considered in the ES only)
2031 Base Minus + Early Phases + Construction
2041 Base Minus + All Phases + Construction
Figure 4-1 - Modelling years by Transport model
4.4.10. As set out above, the VISSIM micro-simulation model is using 2022 data for the base year models going through the VMAP process.
4.4.11. Also, a 2022 baseline will be derived by adjusting 2016 LoHAM base year output flows for the ES. The 2016 LoHAM files will be exported from the assignments and adjusted to 2022 using local data sources.
4.5 DEVELOPMENTIMPACT
4.5.1. The strategic modelling approach outlined above will enable future demand flows to be generated that can then be used in detailed modelling that will identify at a local scale the impacts of the Proposed Development on the transport network. The following assessments are proposed to be undertaken within the TA utilising the strategic model outputs: Pedestrian modelling and gate line / station mitigation reviews; Line load assessments of the rail network; Bus demand assessment as reported by Railplan; Highway Impact assessment, including local junction modelling (VISSIM); and Junction capacity assessments (PICADY/ARCADY/Linsig)
4.5.2. In addition to the quantified assessments outlined above the following additional assessments will also be undertaken: Bus stop audits; Healthy Streets Assessment; Stage 1 RSA and Design Organisation Response of site access points and any identified off-site highway infrastructure
PEDESTRIAN MODELLING
Legion
4.5.3. WSP have been provided with the Legion models of the three underground stations, Earls Court, West Kensington and West Brompton from TfL. WSP have updated these models using 2019 NUMBAT data. NUMBAT is a dataset produced by TfL to provide statistics on usage and travel patterns on TfL railway services. It is the most comprehensive multi-rail demand data set available for London. NUMBAT can be used to assess train service provision and demand profiles.
4.5.4. It has been separately agreed with TfL that the model for West Brompton will be re-built using the latest version of Legion due to the age of model and complex interaction of flows taking place at this station.
4.5.5. Once the 2031 and 2041 Earls Court Railplan matrices are complete the matrices will be fed into the Legion models and the impacts of the Earls Court development assessed for 2031 and 2041. A 2041+35% scenario will be undertaken as a sensitivity test as required by TfL guidance. This process will highlight the key bottlenecks and constraints at the stations and improvements which are required to deliver the development.
4.5.6. Whilst some preliminary work and provisional mitigation measures developed which has been discussed with the Transport Stakeholders, these were based on the masterplan at the time and so will be refined during the application preparation period. Separate meetings have been held between WSP’s modelling team and TfL and Borough counterparts to discuss the pedestrian modelling being undertaken.
PCL
4.5.7. Pedestrian Comfort Level (PCL) analysis will be undertaken to supplement the above Legion modelling. This will primarily focus on the external areas immediately outside the stations as this typically will see the highest concentrations of footfall and movements.
4.5.8. Figure 4-2 shows the locations that the PCL analysis will be undertaken. The points indicate the general areas that will be focused upon, and it should be noted that measurements either side or near to the points identified will also be undertaken. Also, where relevant, PCL of both footways either side of the carriageway will be undertaken.
Figure 4-2 – PCL Locations
4.5.9. The PCL Locations to be reviewed are as follows;
1: Lillie Road, around layover access points
2: Lillie Road / Empress Place access and adjacent footways
3: Lillie Road – start of Lillie Bridge
4: Lillie Road – Crossing point
5: Old Brompton Road – East of Bridge
6: Old Brompton Road – Eardley Crescent
7: Warwick Road – footway adjacent to southern access
8: Warwick Road – Crossing point
9: Warwick Road – footway adjacent to northern access
10:Beaumont Avenue – Internal into site
11:Beaumont Avenue – approach to North End Road / West Kensington
12: North End Road – south of West Kensington Station
13: North End Road – West Kensington station entrance and adjacent links
14: Aisgill Avenue
15: A4 – at potential crossing location on north west of site.
16: A4 – midpoint along link
4.5.10. Each PCL will use the relevant forecast outputs to review the comfort levels with and without the development, utilising the standard TfL methodology. The TA will summarise the findings, alongside any mitigation strategies that may be required.
PUBLIC TRANSPORT ASSESSMENT
4.5.11. The Earls Court development will result in an increase in the number of public transport trips to / from the development using Earl Court, West Brompton and West Kensington Stations and surrounding bus routes. To understand the likely impact of these trips on public transport services which use the stations, a strategic public transport modelling study is required.
4.5.12. WSP propose to use TfL’s strategic public transport assignment model (Railplan) to assess the impact of the Development Proposals on London’s public transport network and stations, including the wider impacts both positive and negative on nearby public transport interchanges. Railplan is TfL’s standard tool for assessing the impact of developments on the public transport network. Public transport demand in the Railplan model is extracted from the MoTiON model which uses population and employment forecasts to predict the number of trips in London in the future, as well as the mode, origin and destination of those trips.
4.5.13. WSP propose to undertake assessment of the public transport impacts within both the AM and PM peak periods. Assessments for 2031 and 2041 will be undertaken as described above. Modelled flows will be compared against observed data from the following sources:
TfL’s NUMBAT dataset for LU and London Overground passenger numbers; BUSTO data for buses;
Station passenger counts of entries and exits for West Brompton and Earls Court; LUL timetables; and TfL bus routes and service frequencies.
4.5.14. Once we have 2031 and 2041 Earls Court scenario models these will be reviewed to ensure the differences which are being seen between the scenarios and the reference case are intuitive. The Railplan model will ultimately be used to assess the impact of the Earls Court development proposals on the following key parameters:
Passenger line loadings (peak and 3-hour flows) on LUL services;
Crowding levels (passengers standing per m2) on each service;
Passenger boarding, alighting, interchange and station entries / exit flows;
Passenger interchange walk and journey times; and
Bus passenger flows on corridors and boarding / alighting passengers at stops
4.5.15. The station passenger interchange flow matrices will then be provided to the pedestrian modelling workstream to inform the assessment of station infrastructure. The closest local bus stops to the site are located on A3320 Warwick Road, B317 North End Road and A3218 Lillie Road. These bus stops provide connections to the following locations:
A3320 Warwick Road:
328 – to Golders Green
C3 – to Earls Court
74 – to Baker Street Station
C1 – to White City
B317 North End Road:
306 – Acton Vale to Sands End
28 – Kensal Rise to Wandsworth
A3218 Lillie Road:
74 – Putney to Baker Street Station
430 – Roehampton to South Kensington
190 – West Brompton to Richmond
4.5.16. Demand for bus based public transport will be reported in the TA to allow TfL to determine what changes to service provision might be required to facilitate the Proposed Development.
Mitigation Testing
4.5.17. The Railplan model will be used to identify demand across the wider public transport network. Localised modelling at Stations will be used to understand specific impacts and from this mitigation measures will be developed (where appropriate).
HIGHWAYS IMPACTS
4.5.18. Although the main impacts of the Earl Court development are likely to be on Public Transport, it is important that the operation of the local highway network is also assessed. Highway network assessment is also important as the data is used by air quality and noise specialists within the Environmental Statement.
4.5.19. The highway impacts will be assessed using recognised TfL highway models as set out above. The highway assessment has been informed by the agreed traffic survey scope, which was agreed with the Transport Stakeholders prior to commission.
4.5.20. As noted previously, the car free nature of the scheme will result in limited generation of primary vehicular trips. As such the traffic analysis relates to servicing as well as any existing and future operational traffic. It is primarily based on the proposed servicing demand likely to be generated by the Development Proposals. Figure 4-3 below sets the study area for junction assessment.
Figure 4-3 - Study Area for Junction Assessment
4.5.21. WSP propose to use TfL’s strategic highway assignment model (LoHAM) to assess the impact of the Development Proposals on London’s strategic highway network. LoHAM is TfL’s standard tool for assessing the impact of changes in demographics, highway transport policy / infrastructure and services.
4.5.22. Highway transport demand in the LoHAM model is extracted from MoTiON. The output may influence the road and junction layout, resulting in changes to the existing road layout.
LOCAL AREA TRAFFIC MODELLING
4.5.23. WSP had previously developed a VISSIM micro-simulation model to inform assessment of the impact of the consented ECM. WSP is in the process of updating this VISSIM micro-simulation model utilising new survey data collected in 2022.
4.5.24. WSP will produce an updated Model Expectations Document which will be issued to TfL for comment. This sets out the requirements for the VISSIM modelling work, including the development of the new 2022 VISSIM model for the AM and PM peaks. Figure 4-5 above shows the likely extent of the VISSIM modelled network.
4.5.25. Once calibrated / validated the VISSIM models will be used as the basis for quantifying the impact of future year traffic flows on the local highway network. Forecast year (2031 and 2041) peak hour traffic flows will be extracted from the LoHAM 2031 and 2041 forecast models, and growth applied incrementally to the base year flows.
4.5.26. This approach will therefore take account of London’s projected population / employment growth, the effect of major infrastructure proposals as well as the proposed development on the local network.
4.5.27. The highway trips included in the model consist of the following:
Servicing
Disabled parking
Taxis
TfL operational (buses and LBD access)
MOPAC operation
Background traffic from Tesco / Tesco redevelopment
4.5.28. WSP will assess the impacts using a combination of junction VISSIM and LINSIG modelling using the standard indicators of performance, including turning counts, degree of saturation, queue lengths, and overall journey time.
ROAD SAFETY AUDIT
4.5.29. A stage 1 Road Safety Audit (RSA) and Design Organisation Response will be completed for the proposed highway and public realm design, and this will be submitted with the TA document. The RSA will consider the safety implications of the proposed junction and public realm proposals outlined above.
4.6 CARPARKING
4.6.1. In response to some of the comments raised by the stakeholders, it is proposed to undertake car parking beat surveys in the following locations, as shown in Figure 4-4
4-4 – Car Parking Review Locations
4.6.2. The links identified to be reviewed include those that form connections to the site’s proposed access points.
4.6.3. The surveys are required to inform the impact that the loss of existing on-street car parking would have, which is available to existing residents, should parking be removed to facilitate the development. It is proposed to follow a parking beat survey analysis methodology, reviewing the available parking areas and how utilised they are over the following time periods;
0600-0900 1100-1300 1800-2100
4.6.4. Hourly parking beat surveys will be undertaken, capturing the level of parking demand at each link. These time periods have been selected to capture the likely peak utilisation periods (e.g., when most residents will be at home, or when commuters have parked before starting work).
Figure
Table 4-5 - Healthy Streets Assessment Indicators
Indicators Commentary
HS1: Pedestrians from all walks of life
Streets should be welcoming and in places for everyone to walk, spend time in and engage in community life.
HS2: Easy to cross Streets without suitable crossing facilities make walking and cycling less appealing. It should be made easy for pedestrians of all ages to cross, with limited physical barriers to facilitate this.
HS3: Shade and shelter
HS4: Places to stop and rest
Exposure to high winds, heavy rain and direct sun may affect some pedestrians’ ability to travel using non-car modes and spend time in the area.
Ensuring there are places to stop and rest benefits everyone, therefore people will be more willing to visit, spend time in, or meet other people on the streets.
HS5: Not too noisy Reducing the noise impacts of motor traffic will directly benefit health, improve the ambience of street environments and encourage active travel and human interaction
HS6: People choose to walk, cycle and use public transport
HS7: People feel safe
HS8: Things to see and do
HS9: People feel relaxed
A successful transport system will encourage and enable more people to walk and cycle often, being the most attractive option.
The whole community should feel comfortable and safe on our streets at all times, as this will encourage people to use the streets. People should not feel worried about road danger or experience threats to their personal safety.
A lack of resting places can limit mobility for certain groups of people. Ensuring there are places to stop and rest benefits everyone, including local businesses, as people will be more willing to visit, spend time in, or meet other people on our streets.
A wider range of people will choose to walk or cycle if our streets are not dominated by motorised traffic, and if pavements and cycle paths are not overcrowded, dirty, cluttered or in disrepair.
HS10: Clean air Improving air quality delivers benefits for everyone and reduces unfair health inequalities.
4.8.6. The main aim of the ATZ is to determine how people of all abilities can access the Site through carfree transport modes. The ATZ is defined as a 20-minute cycle around the Site.
4.8.7. The ATZ assessment is undertaken using three maps:
Map One: The ATZ and all potential active travel destinations.
Map Two: Key active travel destinations and routes at a neighbourhood scale.
4.8.8. The ATZ is defined as the area that encompasses all zones within a 20-minute cycle journey. The indicative ATZ area for the Proposed Development is illustrated in Figure 4-6.
4.8.9. The key destinations will be reviewed based on the expected main users of the Site and their most common journeys. Full scale figures are included within Appendix C
Public Transport Services
4.8.10. Notable transport hubs and bus stops within the ATZ, National Rail Stations and Underground Stations are as follows:
Earls Court Station (London Underground)
West Kensington (London Underground)
West Brompton (London Overground / Southern Rail)
Earls Court Station Bus Stop (Stop B/C)
West Brompton Station Bus Stop (Stop P/O)
Empress State Bldg W Brompton (Stop (Stop BA/T)
Figure 4-5 - Active Travel Zone
Strategic Cycle Network
4.8.11. A range of cycle routes are accessible from the Site. The routes include a Sustrans Local Route to the south and west of the site, as well as the Sustrans National Route that runs along the north of the River Thames (c. 1.6-kilometres to south). It should be noted that several cycle improvements are proposed as part of TfL’s London Streetspace Plan (LSP). This will help improve connectivity and shorten journey times into the City of London and the wider network. Schemes like the proposed extension of Cycleway 9 to Kensington, whilst not directly linked to the Earls Court site, will have added benefit for new employees and residents.
4.8.12. Extensions to the London Cycling Network will be an integral feature within the design of the masterplan. These elements of the network will provide space and high-quality public realm to
ensure a comfortable walking and cycling experience. The routes will be well maintained and legible with lighting, signage, and the use of quality materials.
Town Centres and Amenities
4.8.13. Key local amenities within the ATZ include parks, schools / education institutions, medical practices, shopping centres and street retail, as well as places of worship. The key destinations are set out in more detail below.
MAP TWO – NEIGHBOURHOOD SAFETY AND MOST IMPORTANT JOURNEYS
4.8.14. It is acknowledged in the TfL guidance that the ATZ extends for a distance equivalent to 20 minutes cycling from the Site. However, within London most people will rely on a smaller area for access to key destinations by active travel.
4.8.15. Another indication of the ATZ neighbourhood extent in London could be the willingness to walk to a public transport node which in accordance with TfL’s PTAL assessment is up to 960m, equivalent to 12 minutes walking. Using a similar approach for cycling; this would be a cycle time of 10 minutes.
4.8.16. Nevertheless, the extent of each ATZ neighbourhood varies depending on the context (central, suburban, etc.), the proposed land uses and the density of amenities. The TfL guidance refers to this area as the ATZ ‘neighbourhood’ area. Within this neighbourhood area the key destinations should include all the above-mentioned transport hubs and facilities, town centres and amenities and access to a cycle network.
4.8.17. In addition, TfL have identified ‘neighbourhood friendly streets’, a network of quiet roads suitable for walking or cycling. Future changes to the baseline such as any major committed developments and safety improvements should also be considered.
4.8.18. The most important destinations within the neighbourhood and the most likely routes are selected based on the destination’s priority and proximity.
Destination Priority
4.8.19. Based on the Proposed Development being a mixed-use scheme, the relevance of key destinations for the Proposed Development have been prioritised as follows:
Public transport services – high priority
Strategic Cycle Network – high priority
Amenities – high priority; and Parks – medium priority
4.8.20. The key destinations have been prioritised, as shown in Table 4-6, based on the expected main users of the Site and their most common journeys.
Table 4-6 - Key ATZ Destinations
Destination Type Destination
Public Transport (Bus Stops)
Public Transport (Stations)
Current and Future
Strategic Cycle Network
Amenities
Parks
Earls Court Station (Stops B/C)
West Brompton Station (Stops (P/O)
Empress State Bldg W Brompton (Stops BA/T)
Earls Court Underground Station
West Kensington Underground Station
West Brompton Overground Station
Local Cycleway 26
Regional Cycleway Q15
Expanded Strategic Network
The Gym / Tesco
Fulham Primary School / Bousfield Primary School
Snowflake School / Collingham College
High Yes
Cromwell Hospital High Yes
Philbeach Gardens
Marcus Garvey Park
Braham Gardens Medium Yes
4.8.21. Based on public transport services and the strategic cycle network being considered to be the high priority destination types, the most important routes to and from the Proposed development within the ATZ have been determined as follows (not in priority order):
4.8.22. These routes were submitted to stakeholders in advance, and any feedback provided were incorporated into the route designation. The site visits for the ATZ Assessments started on the 30th January 2024. The final list is as follows;
Route 1: To Barons Court Underground Station
Route 2: To Lillie Road via North Ends Road
Route 3: To Tesco via Warwick Road (modified to allow for potential connection from Cluny Mews and Philbeach Gardens)
Route 4: To Brompton Park
Route 5: To Normand Park
Route 6: To A4 via Earls Court Road
Route 7: To Warwick Road Tesco via A4 West Cromwell Road
Route 8: To Kensington Olympia via North End Road
Route 9: To Kensington Olympia via Warwick Road and Kensington High Street
Route 10: To Earls Court Station via Trebovir Road
Route 11: To Kensington Olympia via Warwick Gardens
Route 12: To Earls Court Road via Nevern Place
Route 13: To Quietway 15 links via Lillie Road / Old Brompton Road (plus connections)
Route 14: To North End Road via Mund Street / Aisgill Avenue / Thaxton Road
Route 15: To North End Road via Edith Villas
Route 16: To North End Road via Mornington Avenue.
Route 17: Extended to Charing Cross Hospital and connection to Cycle Route C34
Route 18: Added through Old Brompton cemetery and connecting with Fulham Broadway. Note the route through the cemetery can only be reviewed during daylight hours.
Route 19: Added to extend along Quietway 15 to the east
Route 20: Added to allow for a potential pedestrian connection to Gibbs Green Close from plot WK01
Route 21: Route to Bousfield Primary School along Old Brompton Road
Route 22: Route to Kensington Gardens/Hyde Park following Quietway 15 (Along Ashburn Place, Grenville Place, Launceston Place, St Albans Grove and Kensington Court Place to Kensington High Street and Hyde Park
Route 23: Route to Cremorne Gardens via Hortensia Road, A320 and Edith Grove (note some one way streets)
Route 24 – Route to Chelsea and Westminster Hospital via A3220 Finborough Road and Ifield Road (some one way streets) – Also acts as an alternative route during nighttime to travel south to Cremorne Gardens and to get to Fulham Broadway
4.8.23. The plans are provided in full within Appendix C and present the initial findings and suggested routes. Each of the routes will be reviewed against the Healthy Streets indicators as given below:
Easy to cross
People feel safe
Things to see and do
Places to stop and rest
People feel relaxed
Not too noisy
Clean air
Shade and shelter
4.8.24. Whilst safety is one of the indicators, it was also discussed with TfL that a review of the routes at night should also be completed to ensure that adequate lighting and over-looking / safety aspects specifically during this period was also considered.
Figure 4-6 - Active Travel Zone Neighbourhood
4.8.25. As per the TfL methodology, although safety improvements will be identified, the review is without prejudice and doesn’t indicate acceptance that the development is responsible for improvement. The ATZ will include opportunities for wider improvement alongside those linked directly to the potential impact of the proposals. Recommendations identified could also be opportunities for the local authorities and future developments to deliver and assist in improving the conditions for active travel.
4.8.26. The station improvements being proposed as part of the development will feed into the Healthy Streets analysis, as these provide not only mitigation for public transport users, but also improve public realm and inter-connectivity between sustainable modes.
4.8.27. As agreed with the Transport Stakeholders at the 8th February 2023 pre-application meeting, in addition to the external routes to be included within the ATZ, the routes within the development itself will also be subject to an assessment.
4.8.28. The routes through the site to be considered under the ATZ analysis are shown highlighted within Figure 4-7 below. It should be noted that the key links will be reviewed in more depth and the smaller side routes will be commented upon.
Figure 4-7 - Routes and Links throughout the site to be considered for ATZ (Indicative)
4.8.29. In response to a pre-application meeting and comments raised on 14th February 2024, a review into the cycle capacity and density of the connections from the development onto the wider network will be considered within the TA alongside the ATZ analysis.
Night Time Review
4.8.30. Following on from the TA scoping discussions it was noted that a night-time assessment should be included. As part of the ATZ assessment therefore, it is proposed to undertake appropriate13 daytime and night-time reviews of the routes.
4.8.31. For a night-time assessment the assessment methodology remains broadly the same as that shown above for the main routes. However, there will be further analysis of the following criteria/indicators, set out in further detail below.
4.8.32. These indicators also link with the GLA guidance listed above. As set out in the Safety in Public Space guidance, “a sense of safety is much more complex than avoidance of crime. Safety can be understood through three lenses: freedom from violence, harassment and intimidation; usability; and sense of belonging.” Figure 4-8 represents these points.
13 In this regard, the auditors will undertake a post PM peak hour review which may or may not be in darkness depending on the time of year. Auditors will seek to cover the same areas as the daytime review – however some routes may not be as accessible, and this will be reported within the ATZ analysis.
Figure 4-8 - Three Lenses of Safety – from Safety in Public Space - Women, Girls and Gender
Diverse People
4.8.33. Whilst the above is equally applicable to all user groups, particular focus will be made on those that could be marginalised even further through poor design or lack of consideration.
4.8.34. Focusing on the indicators, the following list sets out the additional night-time assessment and safety perceptions to be included. This is not an exhaustive list but sets out a summary of the likely elements to be accounted for when auditing.
Pedestrians from all walks of life
Discuss where areas do not cater for all users, especially public realm areas at night, Can improvements be identified that foster a sense of empowerment and belonging, via public art installations, place names, advertising campaigns and community events etc.
Easy to Cross
- To discusshow well lit are crossings at night and identify crossings that could be improved and those that are poorly lit.
- Commentary on whether there are appropriate waiting areas for all users whilst waiting.
People Feel Safe
- Discuss and identify areas that potentially lack CCTV or are not overlooked at night and those that are perceived to provide a safe environment with active frontage at night and well trafficked.
- Identify areas that are both well-lit and those that are poorly lit, do they pose safety concerns for users.
- Discuss whether routes are visible to users, can the end of links be seen at the start – e.g. clear sight lines – is there appropriate signage available
- Can additional safety measures be introduced, such as emergency phones to improve usage and perceptions of safety,
- Identify areas where neighbourhood policing is present.
Not too noisy
- Identify areas that are quiet and those that are too loud during night-time activity.
- Discuss opportunities to reduce noise levels at night.
People feel relaxed.
- Is the street laid out so that it is easy to navigate at night.
- Is there step free access across the site? Do users have to take significantly longer journeys to reach the step free access?
- Discuss the level of street furniture and cleanliness of the route during night-time travel.
Safety Inclusion Assessment (SIA) and Women Safety Review
4.8.35. Following on from the initial TA scoping discussions it was noted that not only a night-time assessment should be included as part of the scheme, but that use of WSP’s Safety Inclusion Assessment (SIA) to inform active travel infrastructure improvements across key routes surrounding the Earls Court development, should also be completed.
4.8.36. The purpose of the Safety Inclusion Assessment is to:
Assess real and perceived personal safety risks early in the design process
Highlight specific areas of concern for those who are most vulnerable
Identify viable design solutions to address safety issues
4.8.37. The SIA seeks to encourage an uptake of public transport, active travel, and greater use of public space, by identifying viable design solutions which address issues of personal safety. The SIA improves the representation of user groups in the design process and draws on best practice research, UK design standards, and crime prevention through environmental design principles (CPTED). The approach considers both qualitative and quantitative data across five key criteria, listed below, as well as a series of sub-criteria.
Surveillance, Space Activation, Legibility, Women’s Safety, and Inclusiveness.
4.8.38. The focus areas for the assessment have been determined by the extensive research WSP have undertaken in understanding gender sensitive design and safety perceptions on public transport and in the built environment. It seeks to resolve inequalities and disadvantages in our urban environment, developed from biased or gendered social structures, that limit the opportunities and rights of any person, regardless of gender.
4.8.39. Personal safety is subjective, therefore capturing both qualitative and quantitative data is critical to understanding local context and personal safety issues. As such, where possible, stakeholder engagement with local end users and expert groups will also be undertaken to validate and strengthen the SIA findings. This can help us to understand diverse user perspectives and how to enhance the use of public space and active travel infrastructure.
4.8.40. The findings of the SIA assessment will enable TfL, Hammersmith and Fulham and Kensington and Chelsea to prioritise interventions that are deliverable and provide the greatest benefit to users.
4.8.41. The SIA will likely adopt the following methodology stages;
Stage 1: Desktop Assessment
Undertake a virtual desktop SIA assessment within the scheme extents outlined above with the assistance of Google Maps / Google Street View. This will help to identify potential existing safety issues their locations which we will use to inform our in-person site visits.
Stage 2: SIA tool in-person assessment
The feeling of safety is challenging to capture via a desktop assessment, as such we would propose to undertake a secondary assessment to validate the SIA and its initial findings. This requires site
visits to assess the sites in person. This will seek to use the same ATZ outputs being collected wherever possible, but focusing on a smaller number of key routes. In addition to the above, the night-time assessments include:
Space interaction - How interaction with the space changes after dark. This includes assessing the number of users in the site and the type of activity taking place. For example, if there is a heavy amount of alcohol consumption taking place, how is this managed and how does it impact the feeling of safety.
Lighting – Lighting is a key factor determining the level of visibility and surveillance after dark. This aspect of the assessment evaluates how the street lighting works: does the lighting create any shadows or blind spots, which areas are better lit than others, whether there is a correlation with lighting and nighttime activity, transport hubs etc.
Land use - This examines the type of sites that are open in the area and whether there are any sites, for example shops or restaurants, open late.
As part of the assessment, each criterion will be assigned a score from 0-3. A score of zero would indicative more comprehensive design issues, whereas a score of three would highlight that appropriate design and / or high levels of personal safety are observed.
Stage 3: Analysis and reporting
The findings will then be summarised into a report to include:
A Power-BI dashboard with personal safety issues spatially mapped, The safety issues identified within the desktop and in-person site visits (including site observations and photos), Our recommended solutions.
4.8.42. The solutions identified will be prioritised based on an assessment of their impact and deliverability, which will allow decision makers to identify priorities for changes and/or investment.
5 SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS
5.1 OVERVIEW
5.1.1. The planning application will be accompanied by a suite of transport documents that will provide a comprehensive assessment of the impacts of the Proposed Development on the transport network along with measures to mitigate its impacts. This Section provides a summary of the documents that will be provided.
5.2 TRANSPORTASSESSMENT
5.2.1. The TA will be prepared in line with TfL’s Healthy Streets Guidance and will include details on the following:
Introduction
Summary of proposals and how it aligns with Policy
Transport Planning for People
Healthy Streets, Vision Zero and the emphasis on people
Demographics
Site and Surroundings
Setting out baseline conditions
Development proposals and movement strategy; Masterplan access strategy;
Pedestrian and cycle movement; Active travel and cycle parking strategy; Car Parking (accessible parking only); and Delivery and servicing strategy
ATZ and Healthy Streets assessment;
London-wide network
Trip generation and impact assessment (more details below);
Mitigation and management strategies.
Additional Borough Analysis
Construction
Conclusions
5.2.2. Owing to the car-free nature of the proposals and sustainable aspiration of the masterplan, travel to the Site will be predominantly undertaken by public transport and active travel modes.
5.3 MODELLING
5.3.1. As set out above, there is a comprehensive suite of supporting modelling packages being utilised to assess the scheme. Where relevant, reports from those will be appended to the TA. In certain cases, the modelling documentation will sit separately to the TA. Where this occurs, suitable summaries will be provided within the TA.
5.4 PUBLICTRANSPORTSTRATEGY
5.4.1. The Public Transport Strategy (PTS) will assess in detail the capacity of the existing network and then consider the mitigation measures that might be required to facilitate the demand associated with the Proposed Development. The PTS will form an appendix to the TA.
5.4.2. The PTS will set out the developer’s intentions in terms of public transport provision and will include:
A review of specific public transport policy and guidance;
A public transport vision for the site and aspirations of the PTS;
A review of the existing conditions in relation to existing public transport services and their accessibility from the development site;
A summary of the modelling undertaken for bus and rail based public transport;
Details of the mitigation measures considered and the preferred approach to mitigating the impacts of the proposed development.
5.5 TRAVELPLAN
5.5.1. As the proposed Earls Court development is a mixed-use development, the TA will be supported by an over-arching Framework Travel Plan (TP). This will form the parent document which specific Travel Plans (TPs) can be completed for individual land uses when appropriate.
5.5.2. The Framework TP will include:
A review of specific travel planning policy and guidance;
Vision and objectives, connected to the masterplan priorities and transport strategy;
The existing conditions in relation to existing opportunities for sustainable travel and accessibility to and from the development site;
Travel planning measures - realistic, achievable and appropriate measures will be identified to support existing opportunities and to encourage more trips by sustainable modes to and from the site; Targets - in line with national and local policy requirements, a commitment will be set out for appropriate targets to be set;
Monitoring and review – the TP will set out the expected monitoring strategy for the site. It is expected that any monitoring will comprise some travel behaviour surveys, although this will be agreed with TfL and Local Boroughs before surveys are undertaken; and
Management, implementation and funding - implementation and funding will be in relation to timescales and phasing of measures. An Action Plan will identify potential measures, timescales and responsibilities.
5.5.3. The overall objective of the TP will be to encourage sustainable travel to the site and to minimise single-occupancy private car journeys. Indicative targets will be set for residents and employees to travel to/from the site by sustainable travel modes. These initially indicative targets will be set based on the existing travel patterns calculated through recent surveys and forecastmodelling. It is expected that final targets for the TPs will be set following the first round of monitoring surveys.
5.6 OUTLINECONSTRUCTIONLOGISTICSPLAN(CLP)
5.6.1. The TA will be accompanied by an Outline Construction Logistics Plan (CLP). This will be completed by the construction consultants appointed by ECDC. The Outline CLP will seek to follow the latest TfL’s CLP Guidance (2021)14 and will look to provide the following information if available:
Context, considerations and challenges
Construction Programme and Methodology
Vehicle Routing and Site Access
Strategies to reduce impacts
Estimated vehicle types and movements
An implementation and monitoring plan
5.7 FRAMEWORKDELIVERYANDSERVICINGPLAN(DSP)
DELIVERY AND SERVICING
PLAN
5.7.1. The TA will be accompanied by a Framework Delivery and Servicing Plan (DSP). The DSP will be prepared in accordance with relevant policies including TfL’s guidance for delivery and servicing plans 15. Confirmation from LBH of any further specific local guidance which should be considered is welcomed.
5.7.2. The Outline DSP will be prepared to accompany the planning application and provide a strategy for the delivery and servicing arrangements for the day-to-day workings of the Proposed Development, and to minimise the impact of delivery and servicing vehicles on the environment and the surrounding road network.
5.7.3. Considering the proposed mixed-use nature of the Site, the Proposed Development will be designed to cater for both residential and commercial deliveries and various vehicle types. This will enable the Site to manage its deliveries alongside the commercial logistics and vehicles of the Site by efficiently using the loading bays and service yards on-site. The Outline DSP will therefore outline how the services and deliveries necessary for the Site will interact with the other vehicles that may be present. The DSP will cover the following;
DSP Objectives
The DSP will seek to achieve several objectives in order to proactively manage deliveries and servicing trips, identify and promote areas where safe and legal loading can take place and promote best practice such as the Freight Operator Recognition Scheme (FORS).
Deliveries and Servicing Proposals
The Outline DSP will set out the expected number of delivery and servicing trips generated by the Proposed Development on a neutral weekday during expected servicing hours.
Delivery and Servicing Management
The Outline DSP will provide delivery and servicing management measures for the operation of the Proposed Development.
Action Plan
The Outline DSP will provide an action plan for the implementation of the various measures to be considered when setting out the Detailed DSP.
14 Construction Logistics Planning (CLP) Guidance – developed by TfL and adapted by Construction Logistics and Community Safety (CLOCS), April 2021
15 Delivery and Servicing Plan Guidance: Planning for Safe, Clean, and Efficient freight in London. TfL 2020
5.7.4. The implementation of the DSP is to be secured by a planning condition or via the S106 agreement. This will include recommend measures such as central procurement and delivery scheduling. Deliveries can be managed by scheduling allocated slots and enforcing maximum dwell times, particularly during the peak hour. This reduces the risk of queueing at the servicing area during the key peak times and reduces traffic movements during peak periods of pedestrian activity.
5.8 OPERATIONALWASTEMANAGEMENTPLAN(OWMP)
5.8.1. Opportunities to reduce waste during the operational phase are being considered to ensure that operational or municipal waste is reduced as muchas possible as required by the London Plan (2021). As such, an Operational Waste Management Plan (OWMP) will be prepared to fulfil the following:
Identify the volume of waste streams likely to be produced during the operations of each land use to establish the potential for reuse and recycling; Identify possible options for waste to be ‘designed out’; Identify opportunities for waste minimisation and management; Identify the most significant opportunities to increase re-use and recycling rates; and Consider appropriate site practices such as how materials will be segregated and the measures that will be used for raising awareness among site operative for waste reduction, reuse and recycling.
5.9 CARPARKMANAGEMENTPLAN(CPMP)
5.9.1. Given the nature of the proposals, it is considered prudent to set out an initial Car Park Management Plan (CPMP), which can be updated as per a planning condition / individual RMA attached to the application. The outline CPMP will set out further details regarding the on-site parking and loading areas, and how these will be managed by the operational management teams (OMT/s).
5.9.2. The CPMP will also detail the EV parking strategy for the development. The Parking strategy will build upon the London Plan requirements as well as recent stakeholder discussions with regards to visitor parking and loading / delivery provision.
5.10 ENVIRONMENTALSTATEMENT
5.10.1. The Transport Assessment will not form part of the ES but will be submitted as a standalone report. The Transport and Accessibility ES Chapter will be self-standing.
5.10.2. In addition to the TA, the ES will also review transport implications using the ‘Guidelines for the Environmental Assessment of Road Traffic’ (GEART) (1993), IEMA Guidelines for Environmental Assessment of Traffic and Movement (2023) (EATM); and Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) ‘LA 112 Population and human health’ and ‘LA104 - Environmental Assessment and Monitoring’.
5.10.3. As suggested by the IEMA Guidelines, it is proposed that to identify the relevant links to be assessed within the Transport, Accessibility and Movement chapter, an analysis of the model data will be undertaken. The guidelines set out the following two rules that will be applied to the model outputs:
Completed Development Stage:
5.10.9. The proposed development would be phased and as such two future baseline assessment years will be considered for the completed development transport and accessibility assessment. In accordance with the available TfL future forecast model years, the two future baseline years would be 2031 and 2041. It is likely that the early phases of the proposed development would be completed after 2031; however, 2031 would represent a reasonable worst-case future baseline.
5.10.10. Future baseline years 2031 and 2041 include background growth, approved development (cumulative schemes), committed infrastructure, but excludes the consented Earls Court development. No additional approved development or infrastructure changes beyond what is included in the TfL 2031 and 2041 strategic model years are proposed to be added into the assessments.
5.10.11. Resultant Completed Development scenarios will be as follows:
Scenario 1: Existing Baseline (2022);
Scenario 2: Future Baseline (2031);
Scenario 3: Future Baseline (2041);
Scenario 4: Future Baseline (2031) + Proposed Development (Early Phases); and
Scenario 5: Future Baseline (2041) + Proposed Development (All Phases).
TRIP GENERATION NOTE
The Earls Court Development Company (ECDC)
EARLS COURT MASTERPLAN
Trip Generation Note
QUALITY CONTROL
Remarks
Date 05/12/22 12/12/22 16/12/22 04/04/2023 05/02/2024
Prepared by S Thomas S Thomas S Thomas W Forster W Forster
Signature
Checked by A Andrews A Andrews A Andrews A Smith A Smith
Signature
Authorised by J Sherlock J Sherlock J Sherlock J Sherlock J Sherlock
Signature
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
1.1.1. This Technical Note (TN) has been prepared by WSP on behalf of The Earls Court Development Company (ECDC) to set out the methodology and provisional forecast demand associated with the Earls Court Masterplan.
1.1.2. It should be noted that whilst the forecast demand has been based upon a provisional masterplan, as set out in the Maximum Development Parameters Note (issued 25th September 2023), a robust approach assessing the highest tripgenerating land uses hasbeen adopted. As such, this note utilises the maximum development uses throughout, acknowledging that the final scheme may result in a lower trip generation. This TN was originally issued with the Transport Assessment Scoping Report (TASR) in April 2023. This updated version of the TN has updated assumptions to reflect more recent data sources, In addition, it should still be noted that the development proposals used in this TN are different to those presented in the previously issued version of this note.
1.1.3. The purpose of this note is to provide a trip generation and forecast demand for the Earls Court development to allow comparison with the demand from the strategic modelling.
1.2 DEVELOPMENTPROPOSALS
1.2.1. In accordance with the planning strategy, the development proposals have been split into three assessment scenarios:
Detailed Application (five masterplan plots that we are seeking detailed planning permission for as part of the hybrid planning submission), Early Phases (the area of the masterplan formerly occupied by the Earls Court Exhibition Centres) including the detailed application, and All Phases (the full masterplan) including the detailed application and early phases.
1.2.2. The quantum of development assessed in the Transport Assessment is set out in the Maximum Development Parameters Note which was issued to the Transport Stakeholders on the 25th September 2023.
1.2.3. For the purposes of this Trip Generation note, the proposed development quantum used reflects the All Phases development (full masterplan) as set out in Table 1-1
Table 1-1
–Development Quantum Assumed – All Phases
1.2.4. For robustness, the following assumptions have also been used when considering the trip generation: the student rooms have been assessed as traditional residential, albeit acknowledging that students do have differing trip generation profiles compared to C3 land uses. The trip generation does not consider trips associated with the community, social infrastructure or the consolidation hubs land uses as it is considered that these will only generate trips internal to the development.
1.3 REPORTSTRUCTURE
1.3.1. Following this introduction, the remainder of this TN is set out as follows:
Chapter 2 sets out the methodology and anticipated person trip generation, Chapter 3 sets out adjustments that have been made to account for the location of the site and proposed transport strategy, and Chapter 4 sets out the trip generation associated with servicing and deliveries.
2 PERSON TRIP GENERATION
2.1 INTRODUCTION
2.1.1. The following paragraphs detail the total person trip rates and total person trip generation related to the proposal for the following uses:
Residential Employment Cultural Retail
Leisure Education
2.1.2. The trip generation presented utilises the traditional network peak hours of 08:00-09:00 and 17:0018:00. It is acknowledged that some land uses may have peaks that sit outside of these peak hours. This will be explored in more detail in the Transport Assessment.
2.1.3. It should be noted that at this stage, the trip generation calculations take no account of existing / consented trips, internal or linked trips. This is covered in Chapter 3.
2.2 RESIDENTIAL
2.2.1. The industry standard Trip Rate Information Computer System (TRICS) database has been interrogated to identify appropriate trip rates representing this land use. The residential TRICS report is contained in Appendix A.
PRIVATE FLATS
2.2.2. The trip rates associated with the proposed private residential units have been forecast using surveys from the TRICS database, the survey site selection was based on the following criteria:
Land use – Residential – Private Flats
Weekday surveys – All
Location – Sites within Greater London
Location – Town Centre, Edge of Town Centre, Suburban.
>100 units
PTAL 4 plus
2.2.3. No sites were deselected from the TRICS database following the initial search criteria. The resulting sites are summarised in Table 2-1.
2.2.4. The resulting total residential person trip rates derived from the sites above are outlined in Table 22
Table 2-2 – Total Person Trip Rates – Private Flats
Trip
AFFORDABLE FLATS
2.2.5. The trip rates associated with the proposed affordable residential units has been forecast using surveys from the TRICS database, the survey site selection was based on the following criteria:
Land use – Residential – Affordable/Local Authority Flats
Weekday surveys – All
Location – Sites within Greater London
Location – Town Centre, Edge of Town Centre, Suburban Area, Edge of Town, Neighbourhood Centre
> 50 units
PTAL 4 plus
2.2.6. No sites were deselected from the TRICS database following the initial search criteria.
2.2.7. The search criteria above have been widened in comparison to the private flats due to the limited availability of affordable flatted surveys within TRICS. The number of units has been dropped to 50+ and more location types have been selected, including Edge of Town and Neighbourhood Centre. The selected sites are summarised in Table 2-3
2.2.8. The resulting total residential person trip rates derived from the sites above are outlined in Table 2-4
Table 2-4 – Total Person Trip Rates – Affordable Flats
Trip Rates
2.2.9. At this stage it is anticipated that there is likely to be a mixture of private, affordable, build to rent and student accommodation. However, the quantum of these has not yet been fixed. As such, a 65% private unit and 35% affordable unit split has been used. The trip rates in Table 2-2 and Table 2-4 have been combined to provide a residential trip rate, set out in Table 2-5
Table 2-5 – Total Person Trip Rates – Combined Residential (Private and Affordable) Trip
2.2.10. Based on approximately 3,967 residential units, and the person trip rates set out in Table 2-5, the total person trip generation for the residential land use is provided in Table 2-6
Table 2-6 – Total Person Trip Generation – Combined Residential (Private and Affordable)
2.2.11. Based on 3,967 units, it is anticipated that the proposed residential development will generate approximately 2,130 two-way trips during the morning peak hour, and 1,680 two-way trips during the evening peak hour.
2.3 EMPLOYMENT
COMMERICAL OFFICE
2.3.1. For theemployment trip generation,a hybridapproach utilising firstprinciples and the TRICS database has been used. At this stage limited information is available as to the split of employment uses.
2.3.2. Therefore, it is sensible to apply a first principles approach to determine the level of jobs that could be generated from the site, before using generic TRICS arrival and departure profiles to inform the split of users approaching and departing the site in the peak hours.
FIRST PRINCIPLES APPROACH
2.3.3. The first principles approach determines the office trip generation based upon a forecast number of employees. The forecasted number of employees was developed by applying the following:
1 employee per 11sqm NIA
2.3.4. The proposed commercial workspace is 201,023sqm GIA, which is considered equivalent to a NIA of 160,819sqm. This has therefore resulted in the total anticipated number of employees totalling 14,620.
2.3.5. At any one time an office is not typically fully occupied, as such a robust assumption using an 85% occupancy rate at the development has been applied, equating to 12,427 employees.
2.3.6. This total employee number was then applied to the percentage proportion of AM and PM peak hour arrivals and departures, calculated from a generic daily Employee profile, as illustrated in Table 2-7. This daily profile has been based upon a TRICS search, with the relevant report contained in Appendix A
Table 2-7 – AM And PM peak hour proportions of Daily trips
2.3.7. This daily profile was then applied to the forecasted employee number of 12,427 to develop the peak hour employee trip generation as illustrated in Table 2-8.
Table
2-8 – First Principles Peak Hour Employee Trip Generation
COMMERICAL RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT
2.3.8. Given the varying nature of R&D facilities, it was considered that a TRICS search should be undertaken using the category ‘Business-Park’ as this category is generally used where there would be multiple commercial research and development buildings. The TRICS report is contained in Appendix A
2.3.9. The survey site selection was based on the following criteria:
Land Use – Employment – Business Park Weekday Surveys – All weekdays
Location – All sites within Greater London <10 years old (to derive a suitable survey selection) >1000 sqm floorspace
2.3.10. The resulting sites are summarised in Table 2-9
Table 2-9 – Selected Commercial Business Park / R&D Sites
2.3.11. Based on the selected sites shown in Table 2-9, the resulting commercial business park employment trip rates per 100sqm are summarised in Table 2-10.
Table 2-10 - Total Person Trip Rates – Commercial Business / R&D – per 100sqm (GIA)
Peak (0800-0900)
2.3.12. Based on the 67,008 sqm (GIA) of commercial office space, and the person trip rates set out in Table 2-10 the total person trip generation for the commercial employment land use is provided in Table 2-11
Table 2-11 – Total Person Trip Gen. – Commercial Business / R&D – Trip Gen
Trip
2.3.13. The analysis indicates that based on the TRICS sites, the R&D employment land use would be anticipated to generate approximately 707 two-way trips in the AM peak hour, and 677 trips during the PM peak hour.
2.4 CULTURAL
2.4.1. The cultural land use on the site seeks a flexible consent enabling a range of different performance type venues to be delivered. The largest of these would be a 600 seated (1000 standing) venue. However, as the maximum development parameters scale down the amount of cultural land use and
replace it with either commercial office or retail a quantum of 3,634 sqm has been used in this assessment. For the purposes of the trip generation this is assumed to be a single venue, albeit in reality it would be made up of multiple venues split across the site.
2.4.2. The trip rates and trip profile used in the 2018/03100/FUL planning application for the Redevelopment of Olympia were interrogated due to the lack of sites available for the most recent five-year period within the TRICS database for such a venue. Upon detailed review, it was determined that the trip profile for the cultural element of the Olympia Redevelopment was not suitable due to the synthesised arrival and departure profile.
2.4.3. Initially, trip rates for a Cinema were utilised to capture the cultural land uses. Feedback from stakeholders suggested that a different land use should be applied in this instance.
2.4.4. Therefore an alternative leisure use was identified that was considered to still be relevant to culture based trips, whilst providing a robust trip generation that capture movements throughout the day. As such, it was considered that an Art Gallery/Museum/Exhibition would provide a suitable alternative, and in turn would likely see a higher peak hour trip rate than that of a theatre or cinema. The site selection criterion has been extended to the latest 15-year period, with the survey site selection based on the following criteria:
Land use – Leisure – Art Galleries/Museums /Exhibitions
Weekday surveys – All
Location – Sites within Greater London
Location – Town Centre, Edge of Town Centre, Suburban Area, Edge of Town, Neighbourhood Centre
2.4.5. Two site was identified and selected from the TRICS database following the initial search criteria. The TRICS report is contained in Appendix A. This resulted in the following site selection shown in Table 2-12.
Table 2-12 – Selected Cultural Sites
2.4.6. The resulting person trip rates per seat for the proposed cultural land use are summarised in Table 2-13.
Table 2-13
– Total Person Trip Rates – Cultural
Rates - Cultural
2.4.7. Based on a potential 3,634 sqm culture land use venue, the person trip rates set out in Table 2-13, the total person trip generation for the cultural land use are provided in Table 2-14
Table 2-14 – Total Person Trip Generation – Culture – 3,634 sqm venue
2.4.8. The analysis indicates that based on the TRICS sites, the culture land use would be anticipated to generate approximately 73 two-way trips in the AM peak hour, and 153 trips during the PM peak hour.
2.5 RETAIL,FOODANDBEVERAGE
2.5.1. The retail land use will comprise of a mixture of uses including retail, financial and professional services and Restaurants and cafés. For the purposes of the trip generation exercise this has been split into two main categories, retail and F&B.
RETAIL
2.5.2. This proposed retail quantum used in the maximum development parameters is circa 11,301 sqm. For the retail trip generation, the TRICS database has again been used. The TRICS report is contained in Appendix A
2.5.3. The TRICS database was interrogated for Retail trip rates. Primarily, Retail – Shopping Mall sites in London and other large cities. In addition to this, due to the mixture of retail uses proposed, a TRICS search into Retail – Other Individual Non-Food Stores was undertaken. The survey site selection based on the following criteria:
Land use – Leisure – Retail / Mixed Shopping Malls
Weekday surveys – All
Location – Sites within Greater London and South East
Location – Town Centre, Edge of Town Centre, Suburban Area, Edge of Town, Neighbourhood Centre
2.5.4. Table 2-15 provides a summary of the selected Retail – Shopping Mall site and Retail – Other Individual Non-Food Stores site.
Table 2-15 - Selected Retail Sites
2.5.5. Many of the retail trips would be local walk-in trips with many likely to be linked or pass-by trips associated with another journey of the masterplan site – particularly when the PM peak hour is being assessed. This is considered in Section 3
2.5.6. A combination of the two retail land uses has been used to develop a trip rate. The retail person trip rates per 100sqm are summarised in Table 2-16 below.
Table 2-16 – Total Person Trip Rates – Retail – per 100sqm
Trip
2.5.7. Based on a proposed quantum of 11,301sqm, and the person trip rates set out in Table 2-16 , the total person trip generation for the retail land use are provided in Table 2-17
Table 2-17 – Total Person Trip Generation – Retail – 13,301 sqm
Trip
2.5.8. As shown above, the analysis indicates that based on the TRICS sites, the retail land use would be anticipated to generate approximately 230 two-way trips in the AM peak hour, and 442 trips during the PM peak hour.
FOOD AND BEVERAGE
2.5.9. The proposed development will provide up to 8,614 sqm of food and beverage.
2.5.10. For the food and beverage trip generation, the TRICS database has again been used. The TRICS report is contained in Appendix A. The survey site selection based on the following criteria:
Land use – Hotel Food & Drink – K Cafe
Weekday surveys – All
Location – Sites within England
Location – Town Centre, Edge of Town Centre, Suburban Area, Edge of Town, Neighbourhood Centre
2.5.11. Whilst it is acknowledged that the site will seek to deliver a mix of café style premises as well as other restaurants / bars, Café was used in the trip generation as it’s considered to be the most robust in terms of peak hour trip generation impacts. Table 2-18 provides a summary of the selected Cafe sites.
Table 2-18 – Selected Food and Beverage Sites
TRICS 7.10.4
2.5.12. Many of the food and beverage would be local walk-in trips with many likely to be linked or pass-by trips associated with another journey of the masterplan site – particularly when the PM peak hour is
being assessed. This is considered in Section 3. The retail person trip rates per 100sqm are summarised in Table 2-19 below.
Table 2-19 – Total Person Trip Rates – F&B– per 100sqm
Trip
2.5.13. Based on a proposed quantum of 8,614 sqm, and the person trip rates set out above, the total person trip generation for the retail land use are provided in Table 2-20.
Table 2-20 – Total Person Trip Generation – F&B– 8,614 sqm
Trip
2.5.14. The analysis indicates that based on the TRICS sites, the retail land use would be anticipated to generate approximately 810 two-way trips in the AM peak hour, and 701 trips during the PM peak hour.
2.6 EDUCATION
2.6.1. The proposed development will provide up to 70 Nursery places and 470 secondary education places. For the education trip generation, the TRICS database has again been used. The TRICS report is contained in Appendix A
NURSERY
2.6.2. It is to be noted that for Nursery education there was a lack of sites within London and therefore the search was widened to England. The survey site selection based on the following criteria:
Land use – Education / Nursery
Weekday surveys – All
Location – Sites within England (Nursery
Location – Town Centre, Edge of Town Centre, Suburban Area, Edge of Town, Neighbourhood Centre
Table 2-21 – Selected Educational Sites (Nursery(
2.6.3. A proportion of the educational trips would be local walk-in trips with many likely to be linked or pass-by trips associated with another journey of the masterplan site. This is considered in Section 3
2.6.4. The educational person trip rates per student are summarised in Table 2-22.
Table 2-22 – Total Person Trip Rates – Educational (Nursery) – Per student
2.6.5. Based on a proposed quantum of 70 nursery places, and the person trip rates set out above, the total person trip generation for the retail land use are provided in Table 2-23
Table 2-23 – Total Person Trip Generation – Educational (Nursery)
2.6.6. The table aboveindicates that based on the TRICS sites, the retail land use would be anticipated to generate approximately 56 two-way nursery trips in the AM peak hour, and 5 two-way nursery school trips during the PM peak hour.
SECONDARY
2.6.7. The survey site selection to cater for the secondary school element has been based on the following criteria:
Land use –Education / Secondary Weekday surveys – All
Location – Greater London (Secondary)
Location – Town Centre, Edge of Town Centre, Suburban Area, Edge of Town, Neighbourhood Centre
2.6.8. A proportion of the educational trips would be local walk-in trips with many likely to be linked or pass-by trips associated with another journey of the masterplan site. This is considered in Section 3
2.6.9. The educational person trip rates per student are summarised in Table 2-25.
Table 2-25 – Total Person Trip Rates – Educational (Secondary) – Per student
Trip
- Retail
2.6.10. Based on a proposed quantum of approximately 470 secondary school places, and the person trip rates set out above, the total person trip generation is shown in Table 2-26.
Table 2-26 - Total Person Trip Generation – Educational (Secondary)
Trip Generation - Retail
2.6.11. The secondary education use would be anticipated to generate approximately 375 secondary school trips in the AM peak hour, and 28 secondary school trips during the PM peak hour.
2.7 ALLLANDUSES
2.7.1. The application of the above person trip rates to the maximum development parameters for all phases results in the person trip generation shown in Table 2-27. It should be noted that at this stage trip generation calculations take no account of existing / consented trips, internal, pass-by or linked trips. Specific adjustments are set out in Chapter 3. It is noted that all trips are presented as rounded numbers and therefore when adding column totals the results may not present the exact sum.
Table 2-27 – Total Person Trip Generation by Land Use
3 TRIP ADJUSTMENTS AND MODE SHARE
3.1 TRIPADJUSTMENTS
3.1.1. The weekday AM (0800-0900) and PM (1700-1800) peak hours have been used as the development peak periods, and the journey purposes relating to these time periods (as sourced from the London Travel Demand Survey (LTDS)) have been applied to the appropriate person trips. The following journey purposes have been referred to for the Trip Generation Model:
Residential to work
Residential to leisure / shopping / personal
Residential to education primary (incl. escort)
Residential to education secondary
Residential to employers’ business
Commercial Office from home
Employers Business from home
Education Nursery from home
Education Secondary from home
Culture from home
Retail from home
F&B from home
3.1.2. The proposals seek to deliver a comprehensive masterplan with significant potential to provide for a range of complimentary land uses within the application site, to negate the need for people to travel longer distances by modes other than by foot or cycle, with the regeneration of the site being based around attractive and accessible public realm.
3.1.3. It is estimated that a percentage of total journeys will be undertaken within the site boundaries, which will therefore have no impact upon the wider transport networks. The adjustments to each of the journey purposes to account for this potential is set out below. The standard definition used to qualify a trip as internal is as follows.
‘Internal trips begin and end within the development. These trips form part of the total development trip generation but do not use the external transport networks.’
RESIDENTIAL TO WORK
3.1.4. It is assumed that 10% of residents could live and work on-site. This seems a conservative estimate given that the masterplan offers approximately 3,900 residential units adjacent to some 201,000m² (GIA) of high-quality office space in a desirable area of London.
RESIDENTIAL TO LEISURE / SHOPPING / PERSONAL
3.1.5. It has been assumed that 20% of total person peak hour residential trips to leisure/ shopping/ personal would begin and end within the development. A 20% reduction has therefore been applied to account for the anticipated internalisation.
RESIDENTIAL TO PRIMARY EDUCATION (INCLUDING ESCORT)
3.1.6. No primary school is included within the development masterplan, and it therefore assumed that all primary education related trips would be made externally.
RESIDENTIAL TO SECONDARY EDUCATION (INCLUDING ESCORT)
3.1.7. It is assumed that 25% of trips for residents to secondary education will originate on, and it therefore assumed that 75% secondary education related trips would be made externally.
RESIDENTIAL TO EMPLOYERS’ BUSINESS
3.1.8. It is assumed that 90% of trips to employment will be off-site. A 10% reduction has therefore been applied to account for the anticipated internalisation as set out above.
COMMERICAL OFFICE FROM HOME
3.1.9. Whilst it is anticipated that up to 10% of residential to work trips will originate within the site, and the equivalent should then be applied to the commercial office from home trips. However, given that these are different journey purposes, which may inhibit different profiles, for robustness no internalisation factor has been applied to avoid double counting. The resulting trips are then assumed to be external to the development.
EMPLOYERS BUSINESS FROM HOME
3.1.10. As with the commercial office from home purpose, whilst it is considered appropriate that an adjustment could be made, for robustness no internalisation factor has been applied to avoid double counting. The resulting trips are then assumed to be external to the development.
EDUCATION NURSERY FROM HOME
3.1.11. It is anticipated that 100% of nursery trips will originate within the site. These have been taken off the Education Nursery land use corresponding arrivals/departures in each peak hour.
EDUCATION SECONDARY FROM HOME
3.1.12. It is anticipated that 25% of secondary school trips will originate within the site. These have been taken off the Education Secondary land use corresponding arrivals/departures in each peak hour.
CULTURE
3.1.13. It is anticipated that, in the main, all cultural uses will generate demand externally, and no internalisation factor has therefore been applied.
RETAIL
3.1.14. It is anticipated that 80% of retail trips will be internal. An 80% reduction has therefore been applied to account for the anticipated internalisation.
FOOD AND BEVERAGE
3.1.15. It is anticipated that 80% of F&B trips will be internal. An 80% reduction has therefore been applied to account for the anticipated internalisation.
SUMMARY
3.1.16. A summary of the internal trip adjustments made by each journey purpose is set out in Table 3-1.
Table 3-1
– Internal Trip Adjustment Summary
Journey Purpose Adjustment Rationale
Residential to Work 10% reduction Assumed that 90% of employment will be off site
Residential to Leisure / Shopping / Personal 20% reduction Adjusted to account for internal retail trips
Residential to Education Primary (incl. escort trips) No adjustment Assumed that all primary education trips will be off site
Residential to Education Secondary 25% reduction Assumed that all 75% education trips will be off site
Residential to Employers Business No Adjustment No adjustment
Commercial Office from Home No AdjustmentNo adjustment
Commercial R&D from Home No Adjustment No adjustment
Employers Business No AdjustmentNo adjustment
Education Nursery 100% reduction Assumed 100% of nursery education trips will be internal and 0% off site.
Education Secondary 25% reduction Assumed that all 75% education trips will be off site
Culture from Home No adjustment All cultural uses to generate demand externally
Retail from Home
F&B from home
80% reduction Adjusted to account for 20% internal retail trips
80% reduction Adjusted to account for 20% internal F&B trips
3.2 TRIPADJUSTMENTSUMMARY
3.2.1. The trip adjustment assumptions set out in Table 3-1 have been applied to the trip generation set out in Table 2-27. The trip adjustment changes undertaken account for internalisation, pass-by and linked trips, with the revised trip generation set out in Table 3-2
Table 3-2 – Trip Generation following Trip Adjustment
*A manual adjustment has been applied to remove the linked residential trips from the commercial office from home trips.
3.2.2. A comparison of the trip generation before and after the trip adjustment process is set out in Table 33.
Table 3-3 – Trip Adjustment Summary
3.2.3. Table 3-3 illustrates that the trip adjustment process results ina reduction of 1383 two-way trips during the AM peak hour, and a reduction of 1511 trips during the PM peak hour on the external transport network.
3.3 MODE SHARE
3.3.1. The adjusted person trips shown in Table 3-2 have been further disaggregated by main mode, as indicated in the following paragraphs. Table 3-4 shows the main mode share by journey purpose that has been applied to the proposed development.
3.3.2. It is acknowledged that as part of the first or final journey stage, public transport trips will essentially be walking trips, and this will need to be considered as part of the final Transport Assessment when assessing demand on the pedestrian network.
JOURNEY PURPOSE
2021 census data for or the MSOAs covering the proposed development site (Hammersmith and Fulham 015: E02000386 and Kensington and Chelsea 015: E02000591, Kensington and Chelsea 017: E02000593) with adjustments made to suppress car driver and passenger trips and increase cycle mode share
Sourced from travel to work 2021 census data for or the MSOAs covering the proposed development site (Hammersmith and Fulham 015: E02000386 and Kensington and Chelsea 015: E02000591, Kensington and Chelsea 017: E02000593) with adjustments made to suppress car driver and passenger trips and increase cycle mode share
Sourced from travel to work 2021 census dataresidents for the MSOAs covering the proposed development site (Hammersmith and Fulham 015: E02000386 and Kensington and Chelsea 017: E02000593)
Sourced from RBKC School Travel Plan Data. Car passenger includes car, park & walk, and car share. with adjustments made to suppress car driver and passenger trips and increase cycle mode share
Sourced from RBKC School Travel Plan Data. Car passenger includes car, park & walk, and car share with adjustments made to suppress car driver and passenger trips and increase cycle mode share
Sourced from NTS0409
Sourced from travel to work 2021 census dataresidents for the MSOAs covering the proposed development site (Hammersmith and Fulham 015: E02000386 and Kensington and Chelsea 017: E02000593) with adjustments made to suppress car driver and passenger trips
SOURCE
JOURNEY PURPOSE
Mode share taken from NTS0409 2021car driver/passenger supressed on to public transport and taxi.
SOURCE Mode share taken from LBHF and RBKC Travel Plan Data.Car passenger includes car, park & walk, and car share Mode share taken from LBHF and RBKC Travel Plan Data. Car passenger includes car, park & walk, and car share Mode share taken from NTS0409 2021car driver/passenger supressed on to public transport and taxi.
3.4 RESIDENTIALTOWORK
3.4.1. The mode share for the residential to work journey purpose has been based on the travel to work 2021 census data, for the MSOAs covering the proposed development site (Hammersmith and Fulham 015: E02000386 and Kensington and Chelsea 017: E02000593) with adjustments made to suppress car driver and passenger trips.
3.4.2. The site location benefits from easy access to a wide range of local amenities (including those proposed on the site), cycle infrastructure is available and will be improved, in addition to public transport infrastructure which will also be enhanced.
3.4.3. The congestion charging zone is located some 3.7km to the east of the site which discourages car travel to and from central London from Monday to Friday between 0700-1800 and 1200 – 1800 on weekends and Bank Holidays. The site is located within the ULEZ and LEZ zones which are operational 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
3.4.4. The mode share for the residential to work journey purpose set out in Table 3-4 has been applied to the trip generation. Table 3-5 sets out the total person trip generation by mode for the residential to work journey purpose.
Table 3-5 – Residential to Work: Forecast Trips by Main Mode Mode
Peak (0800 – 0900)
3.5 RESIDENTIALTOLEISURE/SHOPPING/PERSONAL
3.5.1. The mode share for the residential to leisure / shopping / personal journey purpose has been based on the 2021 NTS0409 Mode Share Data.
3.5.2. Table 3-6 sets out the total adjusted person trip generation by mode for the residential to leisure / shopping / personal journey purpose.
Table 3-6 – Residential to Leisure / Shopping / Personal: Forecast Trips by Main Mode
3.6 RESIDENTIALTOEDUCATION–PRIMARY
3.6.1. The mode share data for the residential to primary education journey purpose has been sourced from RBKC School Travel Plan Data.
3.6.2. Table 3-7 sets out the total person trip generation by mode for the residential to leisure / shopping / personal journey purpose.
Table 3-7 – Residential to Education - Primary: Forecast Trips by Main Mode
3.7 RESIDENTIALTOEDUCATION–SECONDARY
3.7.1. The mode share data for the residential to secondary education journey purpose has been sourced from RBKC School Travel Plan Data.
3.7.2. Table 3-8 sets out the total person trip generation by mode for the residential to secondary education purpose.
Table 3-8 – Residential to Education - Secondary: Forecast Trips by Main
3.8 RESIDENTIALTOEMPLOYERS’BUSINESS
3.8.1. The mode share for the residential to employers’ business has been based on travel to work 2021 census data for the daytime population for the North End and Earls Court Wards.
3.8.2. Table 3-9 sets out the total person trip generation by mode for the residential to employers’ business journey purpose.
Table 3-9 – Residential to Employers Business: Forecast Trips by Main Mode
3.9 RESIDENTIALTOALL
3.9.1. Table 3-10 sets out the total person trip generation by mode for all journey purposes from the residential development, summing Table 3-5 to Table 3-9
Table 3-10 – Residential to All: Forecast Trips by Main Mode
3.10 COMMERICALOFFICEFROMHOME
3.10.1. The mode share for the commercial office from home journey purpose has been based on the travel to work 2021 census data, using data for the respective MSOAs.
3.10.2. Table 3-11 sets out the total person trip generation by mode for the business to home and employers business journey purposes combined.
Table 3-11 – Business from Home: Forecast Trips by Main Mode Mode
3.11 EMPLOYERSBUSINESSFROMHOME
3.11.1. The mode share for the employers business from home uses the same as the commercial office from home as set out above.
3.11.2. Table 3-12 sets out the total person trip generation by mode for the employers business journey purpose.
Table 3-12 – Employers Business from Home: Forecast Trips by Main
3.12 COMMERICALR&DFROMHOME
3.12.1. The mode share for the R&D element has been calculated from 2021 Census data, and is the same as the commercial office from home and employer business from home journey purposes.
3.12.2. Table 3-13 sets out the total person trip generation by mode for R&D from Home journey purpose.
Table 3-13 – Commercial R&D from Home: Forecast Trips by Main Mode Mode
3.13 EDUCATION(SECONDARY)FROMHOME
3.13.1. The mode share for the Education Secondary from home journey purpose has been based on the LBHF and RBKC School Travel Plan Data.
3.13.2. Table 3-14 sets out the total person trip generation by mode for the business to home and employers business journey purposes combined.
Table 3-14 – Education Secondary from Home: Forecast Trips by Main Mode
– 0900)
3.14 CULTUREFROMHOME
3.14.1. The mode share for the culture from home journey purpose has been based on the 2021 NTS0409 mode share data. Table 3-15 sets out the total person trip generation by mode for the culture from home journey purpose.
Table 3-15 – Culture from Home: Forecast Trips by Main Mode
3.15 RETAILFROMHOME
3.15.1. The mode share for the retail from home journey purpose has been based on the 2021 NTS0409 mode share data. The car driver / passenger mode share has been suppressed and re-distributed to the walking mode share. This is to reflect the nature of the proposals, which include no parking provision.
3.15.2. Table 3-16 sets out the total person trip generation by mode for the retail from home journey purpose.
Table 3-16 – Retail from Home: Forecast Trips by Main Mode
3.16 FOODANDBEVERAGEFROMHOME
3.16.1. The mode share for the food and beverage from home journey purpose has been based on the 2021 NTS0409 mode share data. The car driver / passenger mode share has been suppressed and redistributed to the walking mode share. This is to reflect the nature of the proposals, which include no parking provision.
3.16.2. Table 3-17 sets out the total person trip generation by mode for the F&B from home journey purpose.
Table 3-17 – F&B from Home: Forecast Trips by Main Mode
3.17
ALLTRIPS
Table 3-18 sets out the total person trip generation by mode for all journey purposes to and from the development, summing Table 3-10 to 3-17.
Table 3-18 – Trip Generation: All Trips to and from the Development
3.17.1. The resulting mode shares are shown as below in Table 3-19
Table 3-19 – Resulting Mode Shares
3.17.2. Table 3-19 indicates that during the peak hours, the majority of trips (46-49%) to and from the development will be by train or underground, 14-15% by bus and approximately 30-35% of trips on foot / by bicycle.
4 SERVICING AND DELIVERIES
4.1.1. Additional to the travel demand generated by new residents and workers within the development, account needs to be taken of the servicing trips that are likely to occur during the AM and PM peak hours. This note builds on the servicing note previously provided and provides further information and a breakdown of numbers.
4.1.2. The same development quantum’s have been applied in terms of residential units (retaining the assumption that the student numbers are treated as homes for robustness), commercial office (combining office and R&D) and Commercial Retail (combining retail and F&B). Whilst it is acknowledged that there are other land uses within the development parameters, these are considered to be more ad hoc servicing trip generators, and typically would benefit from consolidated servicing trips.
4.2 RESIDENTIALSERVICINGANDDELIVERIES
Servicing Rates
4.2.1. The trip rate applied to each residential unit is 0.3 delivery trips per unit per day. This has been determined using a first principles approach, then benchmarked against other sites.
4.2.2. Assuming 2 deliveries per week per household (2 deliveries / 7 days) results in a delivery trip rate of 0.29 per unit. Rounding up to 0.3 per unit is sensible to provide some resilience. For an application in Wembley (using surveyed data from nearby residential apartment block in 2019) – resulted in a trip rate of approx. 0.1 deliveries per day per unit for residential. Similarly, a review of survey data of Elephant and Castle One in 2018 returned a residential servicing trip rate of 0.2 per unit.
4.2.3. As such, applying a first principles based approach (2 deliveries per household per week) and ratifying this against other sites, outlines that 0.3 per unit is suitable.
Delivery Breakdown
4.2.4. Research undertaken by Westminster University pre-Covid indicated the following breakdown of household deliveries:
Groceries (8%)
Non-food small items (84%)
Non-food large items (0.5%)
Take-away (7.5%)
4.2.5. It is anticipated that servicing of waste will be undertaken on a weekly basis and outside of peak hours. However, for robustness, waste trips have been accounted for within the below analysis.
4.2.6. Residential delivery and servicing trips have been apportioned into the following delivery journey purposes and vehicles as set out in Table 4-1. These have been estimated at this stage based on the likely use of vehicles and accesses available at the development.
Table
4-1 – Forecast Delivery Types and Vehicles: Residential
4.2.7. Based on the number of residential units (3,967 units), it is anticipated that there will be approximately 1,190 delivery trips per day. As set out above, it is anticipated that there will be up to three waste trips per week per borough (total of 6). The resulting delivery and servicing daily trip generation based on the delivery journey purpose and vehicle type is set out in Table 4-2
Table 4-2 – Residential Delivery and Servicing Trip Generation: Daily
4.2.8. A peak hour conversion rate of 15% has been applied to calculate the number of residential delivery and servicing trips by peak hour. For waste, it has been assumed that as a worst case 50% of RCV’s would be on site at the same time during the peak hour.
4.2.9. Table 4-3 sets out the resulting delivery and servicing peak hour trip generation.
Table 4-3 –
Residential Delivery and Servicing Trip Generation: Peak Hour
4.2.10. It is anticipated that there will be a 25% level of consolidation to residential units (excluding Waste). The resulting delivery and servicing daily trip generation based on the delivery journey purpose and vehicle type with consolidation is set out in Table 4-4.
4.3.1. It is anticipated that servicing and collection of waste will be undertaken on a daily basis.
4.3.2. The trip rate applied to the commercial office is 0.22 delivery trips per 100sqm per day, and the trip rate applied to the commercial retail is 0.8 delivery trips per 100sqm per day.
4.3.3. In terms of the commercial office trip rate, a review of other applications / sites has been undertaken to provide ratification on the numbers used. The Elephant and Castle (2016) applied 0.11 per 100 sqm for Office in that consented TA. More recently, 55 Bishopsgate, applied City of London rates (ready reckoner rates as shown in Table 3.6 of the TA in reference 22/00981/FULEIA) - and then sought a 50% reduction for consolidation. As such, this is comparable and follows a similar methodology applied below.
4.3.4. For retail, a review of the consented Elephant and Castle site (submitted 2016) outlined that the site applied 0.73 per 100 sqm for retail uses. On that basis, using 0.8 per 100 sqm is considered defendable.
Delivery Breakdown
4.3.5. Commercial delivery and servicing trips (office, R&D, retail and F&B) have been apportioned into the following delivery journey purposes and vehicles as set out in Table 4-6
Table 4-6 – Delivery Types and Vehicles: Commercial
4.3.6. Based on the total commercial floorspace it is anticipated that there will be 616 delivery trips per day.. The resulting delivery and servicing daily trip generation based on the delivery journey purpose and vehicle type is set out in Table 4-7. In terms of waste, there are multiple commercial plots in the illustrative masterplan which will have varying waste strategies. To account for the RCV vehicles, its assumed that on average there would be approximately 3 private waste vehicles per day as worst case.
Table 4-7 – Commercial Delivery and Servicing Trip Generation: Daily
/ Servicing
4.3.7. A peak hour conversion rate of 15% has been applied to calculate the number of commercial delivery and servicing trips by peak hour.
4.3.8. Table 4-8 sets out the resulting delivery and servicing peak hour trip generation.
4.3.9. It is anticipated that all deliveries will be delivered directly to plot.
4.3.10. It is anticipated that there will be a 50% level of consolidation to commercial units. Waste trips have been excluded from the consolidation calculations.
4.3.11. The resulting delivery and servicing daily trip generation based on the delivery journey purpose and vehicle type with consolidation is set out in Table 4-9
Category : C - FLATS PRIVATELY OWNED MULTI-MODAL TOTAL PEOPLE
Selected regions and areas:
This section displays the number of survey days per TRICS® sub-region in the selected set
Primary Filtering selection:
This data displays the chosen trip rate parameter and its selected range. Only sites that fall within the parameter range are included in the trip rate calculation.
Parameter: No of Dwellings
Actual Range: 160 to 472 (units: )
Range Selected by User: 100 to 493 (units: )
Parking Spaces Range: All Surveys Included
Parking Spaces per Dwelling Range:All Surveys Included
Bedrooms per Dwelling Range: All Surveys Included
Percentage of dwellings privately owned: All Surveys Included
Public Transport Provision: Selection by: Include all surveys
Date Range: 01/01/12 to 14/11/19
This data displays the range of survey dates selected. Only surveys that were conducted within this date range are included in the trip rate calculation.
Selected survey days:
1 days
days
days
days
This data displays the number of selected surveys by day of the week.
Selected survey types: Manual
days Directional ATC Count
days
This data displays the number of manual classified surveys and the number of unclassified ATC surveys, the total adding up to the overall number of surveys in the selected set. Manual surveys are undertaken using staff, whilst ATC surveys are undertaking using machines.
This data displays the number of surveys per main location category within the selected set. The main location categories consist of Free Standing, Edge of Town, Suburban Area, Neighbourhood Centre, Edge of Town Centre, Town Centre and Not Known.
Location Sub Categories:
This data displays the number of surveys per location sub-category within the selected set. The location sub-categories consist of Commercial Zone, Industrial Zone, Development Zone, Residential Zone, Retail Zone, Built-Up Zone, Village, Out of Town, High Street and No Sub Category.
Secondary Filtering selection:
This data displays the number of surveys per Use Class classification within the selected set. The Use Classes Order 2005 has been used for this purpose, which can be found within the Library module of TRICS®.
Population within 500m Range: All Surveys Included
This data displays the number of selected surveys within stated 1-mile radii of population.
within 5 miles:
or More 4 days
This data displays the number of selected surveys within stated 5-mile radii of population.
within
This data displays the number of selected surveys within stated ranges of average cars owned per residential dwelling, within a radius of 5-miles of selected survey sites.
This data displays the number of surveys within the selected set that were undertaken at sites with Travel Plans in place, and the number of surveys that were undertaken at sites without Travel Plans.
PTAL Rating:
5 Very Good
days
6b (High) Excellent 1 days
This data displays the number of selected surveys with PTAL Ratings.
1 BM-03-C-01 BLOCKS OF FLATS
RINGER'S ROAD BROMLEY
Town Centre Built-Up Zone
Total No of Dwellings: 160
Survey date: MONDAY 12/11/18
2 BT-03-C-02 BLOCKS OF FLATS
ENGINEERS WAY WEMBLEY
Suburban Area (PPS6 Out of Centre)
Development Zone
Total No of Dwellings: 472
Survey date: WEDNESDAY 30/11/16
Survey Type: MANUAL
Survey Type: MANUAL
3 HM-03-C-02 BLOCKS OF FLATS HAMMERSMITH AND FULHAM GLENTHORNE ROAD HAMMERSMITH
Town Centre Built-Up Zone
Total No of Dwellings: 194
Survey date: TUESDAY 30/04/19
4 IS-03-C-07 BLOCK OF FLATS
Edge of Town Centre
Development Zone
Total No of Dwellings: 185
Survey date: THURSDAY 06/06/19
Survey Type: MANUAL
Survey Type: MANUAL
This section provides a list of all survey sites and days in the selected set. For each individual survey site, it displays a unique site reference code and site address, the selected trip rate calculation parameter and its value, the day of the week and date of each survey, and whether the survey was a manual classified count or an ATC count.
Calculation factor: 1 DWELLS BOLD print indicates
01:00-02:00
02:00-03:00
03:00-04:00
04:00-05:00
05:00-06:00 06:00-07:00
This section displays the trip rate results based on the selected set of surveys and the selected count type (shown just above the table). It is split by three main columns, representing arrivals trips, departures trips, and total trips (arrivals plus departures). Within each of these main columns are three sub-columns. These display the number of survey days where count data is included (per time period), the average value of the selected trip rate calculation parameter (per time period), and the trip rate result (per time period). Total trip rates (the sum of the column) are also displayed at the foot of the table.
To obtain a trip rate, the average (mean) trip rate parameter value (TRP) is first calculated for all selected survey days that have count data available for the stated time period. The average (mean) number of arrivals, departures or totals (whichever applies) is also calculated (COUNT) for all selected survey days that have count data available for the stated time period. Then, the average count is divided by the average trip rate parameter value, and multiplied by the stated calculation factor (shown just above the table and abbreviated here as FACT). So, the method is: COUNT/TRP*FACT. Trip rates are then rounded to 3 decimal places.
Calculation
Land Use : 03 - RESIDENTIAL
Category : D - AFFORDABLE/LOCAL AUTHORITY FLATS
MULTI-MODAL TOTAL PEOPLE
Selected regions and areas:
This section displays the number of survey days per TRICS® sub-region in the selected set
Primary Filtering selection:
This data displays the chosen trip rate parameter and its selected range. Only sites that fall within the parameter range are included in the trip rate calculation.
Parameter: No of Dwellings
Actual Range: 90 to 250 (units: )
Range Selected by User: 90 to 250 (units: )
Parking Spaces Range: All Surveys Included
Parking Spaces per Dwelling Range:All Surveys Included
Bedrooms per Dwelling Range: All Surveys Included
Percentage of dwellings privately owned: All Surveys Included
Public Transport Provision:
Selection by: Include all surveys
Date Range: 01/01/11 to 27/06/16
This data displays the range of survey dates selected. Only surveys that were conducted within this date range are included in the trip rate calculation.
Selected survey days: Monday 1 days
1 days Friday 1 days
This data displays the number of selected surveys by day of the week.
Selected survey types: Manual count 3 days
Directional ATC Count 0 days
This data displays the number of manual classified surveys and the number of unclassified ATC surveys, the total adding up to the overall number of surveys in the selected set. Manual surveys are undertaken using staff, whilst ATC surveys are undertaking using machines.
Selected Locations: Edge of Town Centre 1 Suburban Area (PPS6 Out of Centre) 1 Neighbourhood Centre (PPS6 Local Centre) 1
This data displays the number of surveys per main location category within the selected set. The main location categories consist of Free Standing, Edge of Town, Suburban Area, Neighbourhood Centre, Edge of Town Centre, Town Centre and Not Known.
Selected Location Sub Categories: Residential Zone 3
This data displays the number of surveys per location sub-category within the selected set. The location sub-categories consist of Commercial Zone, Industrial Zone, Development Zone, Residential Zone, Retail Zone, Built-Up Zone, Village, Out of Town, High Street and No Sub Category.
Inclusion of Servicing Vehicles Counts:
Servicing vehicles Included 2 days- Selected
Servicing vehicles Excluded 1 days- Selected
Secondary Filtering selection:
Use Class: C3
3 days
This data displays the number of surveys per Use Class classification within the selected set. The Use Classes Order (England) 2020 has been used for this purpose, which can be found within the Library module of TRICS®.
Population within 500m Range:
All Surveys Included
Population within 1 mile:
50,001 to 100,000 1 days
100,001 or More 2 days
This data displays the number of selected surveys within stated 1-mile radii of population.
Population within 5 miles:
500,001 or More 3 days
This data displays the number of selected surveys within stated 5-mile radii of population.
Car ownership within 5 miles:
0.5 or Less 2 days
0.6 to 1.0 1 days
This data displays the number of selected surveys within stated ranges of average cars owned per residential dwelling, within a radius of 5-miles of selected survey sites.
Travel Plan:
No
3 days
This data displays the number of surveys within the selected set that were undertaken at sites with Travel Plans in place, and the number of surveys that were undertaken at sites without Travel Plans.
PTAL Rating:
4 Good 1 days
5 Very Good 2 days
This data displays the number of selected surveys with PTAL Ratings.
1 HG-03-D-03 BLOCKS OF FLATS HARINGEY COMMERCE ROAD
WOOD GREEN
WOODSIDE PARK
Suburban Area (PPS6 Out of Centre)
Residential Zone
Total No of Dwellings: 90
Survey date: FRIDAY 26/09/14
Survey Type: MANUAL
2 IS-03-D-02 BLOCKS OF FLATS ISLINGTON COPENHAGEN STREET
ISLINGTON BARNARD PARK
Neighbourhood Centre (PPS6 Local Centre)
Residential Zone
Total No of Dwellings: 250
Survey date: THURSDAY 28/11/13
Survey Type: MANUAL
3 IS-03-D-04 BLOCKS OF FLATS ISLINGTON LIVERPOOL ROAD HIGHBURY
Edge of Town Centre
Residential Zone
Total No of Dwellings: 247
Survey date: MONDAY 27/06/16
Survey Type: MANUAL
This section provides a list of all survey sites and days in the selected set. For each individual survey site, it displays a unique site reference code and site address, the selected trip rate calculation parameter and its value, the day of the week and date of each survey, and whether the survey was a manual classified count or an ATC count.
TRIP RATE for Land Use 03 - RESIDENTIAL/D - AFFORDABLE/LOCAL AUTHORITY FLATS
MULTI-MODAL TOTAL PEOPLE
Calculation factor: 1 DWELLS
BOLD print indicates peak (busiest) period
Total People to Total Vehicles ratio (all time periods and directions): 6.79
00:00-01:00
01:00-02:00
02:00-03:00
03:00-04:00
04:00-05:00
05:00-06:00 06:00-07:00
22:00-23:00
23:00-24:00
This section displays the trip rate results based on the selected set of surveys and the selected count type (shown just above the table). It is split by three main columns, representing arrivals trips, departures trips, and total trips (arrivals plus departures). Within each of these main columns are three sub-columns. These display the number of survey days where count data is included (per time period), the average value of the selected trip rate calculation parameter (per time period), and the trip rate result (per time period). Total trip rates (the sum of the column) are also displayed at the foot of the table.
To obtain a trip rate, the average (mean) trip rate parameter value (TRP) is first calculated for all selected survey days that have count data available for the stated time period. The average (mean) number of arrivals, departures or totals (whichever applies) is also calculated (COUNT) for all selected survey days that have count data available for the stated time period. Then, the average count is divided by the average trip rate parameter value, and multiplied by the stated calculation factor (shown just above the table and abbreviated here as FACT). So, the method is: COUNT/TRP*FACT. Trip rates are then rounded to 3 decimal places.
Land Use : 02 - EMPLOYMENT
Category : A - OFFICE MULTI-MODAL TOTAL PEOPLE
Selected
and areas:
Calculation Reference:
This section displays the number of survey days per TRICS® sub-region in the selected set
Primary Filtering selection:
This data displays the chosen trip rate parameter and its selected range. Only sites that fall within the parameter range are included in the trip rate calculation.
Parameter: Gross floor area
Actual Range: 1215 to 26639 (units: sqm)
Range Selected by User: 1215 to 26639 (units: sqm)
Parking Spaces Range: All Surveys Included
Public Transport Provision:
Selection by: Include all surveys
Date Range: 01/01/12 to 28/06/22
This data displays the range of survey dates selected. Only surveys that were conducted within this date range are included in the trip rate calculation.
survey days:
This data displays the number of selected surveys by day of the week.
Selected survey types:
This data displays the number of manual classified surveys and the number of unclassified ATC surveys, the total adding up to the overall number of surveys in the selected set. Manual surveys are undertaken using staff, whilst ATC surveys are undertaking using machines.
This data displays the number of surveys per main location category within the selected set. The main location categories consist of Free Standing, Edge of Town, Suburban Area, Neighbourhood Centre, Edge of Town Centre, Town Centre and Not Known.
This data displays the number of surveys per location sub-category within the selected set. The location sub-categories consist of Commercial Zone, Industrial Zone, Development Zone, Residential Zone, Retail Zone, Built-Up Zone, Village, Out of Town, High Street and No Sub Category.
Inclusion of Servicing Vehicles Counts:
Secondary Filtering selection:
Use Class: Not Known 10 days
This data displays the number of surveys per Use Class classification within the selected set. The Use Classes Order (England) 2020 has been used for this purpose, which can be found within the Library module of TRICS®.
Filter by Site Operations Breakdown:
All Surveys Included
Population within 500m Range: All Surveys Included
Population within 1 mile:
10,001 to 15,000 1 days
50,001 to 100,000 4 days
100,001 or More 5 days
This data displays the number of selected surveys within stated 1-mile radii of population.
Population within 5 miles:
250,001 to 500,000 1 days
500,001 or More 9 days
This data displays the number of selected surveys within stated 5-mile radii of population.
Car ownership within 5 miles:
0.5 or Less 4 days
0.6 to 1.0 6 days
This data displays the number of selected surveys within stated ranges of average cars owned per residential dwelling, within a radius of 5-miles of selected survey sites.
Travel Plan:
Yes 3 days
No 7 days
This data displays the number of surveys within the selected set that were undertaken at sites with Travel Plans in place, and the number of surveys that were undertaken at sites without Travel Plans.
PTAL Rating:
4 Good 1 days
5 Very Good 2 days
6a Excellent
6b (High) Excellent
days
This data displays the number of selected surveys with PTAL Ratings.
1 CI-02-A-02 OFFICES CITY OF LONDON GRACECHURCH STREET CITY OF LONDON MONUMENT
Town Centre
Commercial Zone
Total Gross floor area: 9803sqm
Survey date: FRIDAY 29/11/13
Survey Type: MANUAL
2
STREET
OFFICES
Town Centre
Commercial Zone
Total Gross floor area: 1951sqm
Survey date: FRIDAY 29/11/13
Survey Type: MANUAL
3 CN-02-A-03 PLANNING & ENGINEERING CAMDEN FITZROY STREET FITZROVIA
Town Centre
Built-Up Zone
Total Gross floor area: 26639sqm
Survey date: WEDNESDAY 06/12/17
Survey Type: MANUAL
4 CN-02-A-04 OFFICE CAMDEN CHARTERHOUSE STREET FARRINGDON
Town Centre Built-Up Zone
Total Gross floor area: 20129sqm
Survey date: TUESDAY 28/06/22
Survey Type: MANUAL
5 HM-02-A-01 REGUS OFFICES HAMMERSMITH AND FULHAM QUEEN CAROLINE STREET HAMMERSMITH
Town Centre Built-Up Zone
Total Gross floor area: 2036sqm
Survey date: MONDAY 13/11/17
Survey Type: MANUAL
6 KN-02-A-01 FRUIT DRINKS COMPANY KENSINGTON AND CHELSEA LADBROKE GROVE KENSAL GREEN
Neighbourhood Centre (PPS6 Local Centre) Built-Up Zone
Total Gross floor area: 2255sqm
Survey date: MONDAY 17/06/19
Survey Type: MANUAL
7 LB-02-A-01 START UP OFFICES & STUDIOS LAMBETH DURHAM STREET VAUXHALL
Edge of Town Centre Built-Up Zone
Total Gross floor area: 10200sqm
Survey date: MONDAY 19/11/18
Survey Type: MANUAL
8 LB-02-A-02 MUSIC COMPANY LAMBETH
STREATHAM HIGH ROAD
STREATHAM
Town Centre
High Street
Total Gross floor area: 3054sqm
Survey date: TUESDAY 05/11/19
Survey Type: MANUAL
9 TH-02-A-01 OFFICE SPACE FOR RENT TOWER HAMLETS
CAMBRIDGE HEATH ROAD
BETHNAL GREEN
Neighbourhood Centre (PPS6 Local Centre)
High Street
Total Gross floor area: 7049sqm
Survey date: WEDNESDAY 06/03/19
Survey Type: MANUAL
10 WH-02-A-02 OFFICES WANDSWORTH
BATTERSEA PARK ROAD
BATTERSEA
Town Centre
Built-Up Zone
Total Gross floor area: 1215sqm
Survey date: THURSDAY 10/05/12
Survey Type: MANUAL
This section provides a list of all survey sites and days in the selected set. For each individual survey site, it displays a unique site reference code and site address, the selected trip rate calculation parameter and its value, the day of the week and date of each survey, and whether the survey was a manual classified count or an ATC count.
TRIP RATE for Land Use 02 - EMPLOYMENT/A - OFFICE
MULTI-MODAL TOTAL PEOPLE
Calculation factor: 100 sqm
BOLD print indicates peak (busiest) period
NOTE: TRICS USED TO APPLY ARRIVAL AND DEPARTURE PROFILES ONLY
Total People to Total Vehicles ratio (all time periods and directions): 17.47
00:00-01:00
01:00-02:00
02:00-03:00
03:00-04:00
04:00-05:00
05:00-06:00
06:00-07:00
This section displays the trip rate results based on the selected set of surveys and the selected count type (shown just above the table). It is split by three main columns, representing arrivals trips, departures trips, and total trips (arrivals plus departures). Within each of these main columns are three sub-columns. These display the number of survey days where count data is included (per time period), the average value of the selected trip rate calculation parameter (per time period), and the trip rate result (per time period). Total trip rates (the sum of the column) are also displayed at the foot of the table.
To obtain a trip rate, the average (mean) trip rate parameter value (TRP) is first calculated for all selected survey days that have count data available for the stated time period. The average (mean) number of arrivals, departures or totals (whichever applies) is also calculated (COUNT) for all selected survey days that have count data available for the stated time period. Then, the average count is divided by the average trip rate parameter value, and multiplied by the stated calculation factor (shown just above the table and abbreviated here as FACT). So, the method is: COUNT/TRP*FACT. Trip rates are then rounded to 3 decimal places.
Actual Trip Rate Calculation Parameter Range 2614-15111 sqm GFA Date Range
Land Use : 02 - EMPLOYMENT Category : B - BUSINESS PARK
Selected regions and areas:
This section displays the number of survey days per TRICS® sub-region in the selected set
Management Services Ltd 2 London Square Guildford
Primary Filtering selection:
This data displays the chosen trip rate parameter and its selected range. Only sites that fall within the parameter range are included in the trip rate calculation.
Parameter:
Gross floor area
Actual Range: 2614 to 15111 (units: sqm)
Range Selected by User: 1000 to 169960 (units: sqm)
Parking Spaces Range: All Surveys Included
Public Transport Provision: Selection by: Include all surveys
Date Range: 01/01/15 to 13/09/22
This data displays the range of survey dates selected. Only surveys that were conducted within this date range are included in the trip rate calculation.
Selected survey days: Tuesday
This data displays the number of selected surveys by day of the week.
Selected survey types: Manual count
This data displays the number of manual classified surveys and the number of unclassified ATC surveys, the total adding up to the overall number of surveys in the selected set. Manual surveys are undertaken using staff, whilst ATC surveys are undertaking using machines. Selected Locations:
This data displays the number of surveys per main location category within the selected set. The main location categories consist of Free Standing, Edge of Town, Suburban Area, Neighbourhood Centre, Edge of Town Centre, Town Centre and Not Known. Selected Location Sub Categories:
This data displays the number of surveys per location sub-category within the selected set. The location sub-categories consist of Commercial Zone, Industrial Zone, Development Zone, Residential Zone, Retail Zone, Built-Up Zone, Village, Out of Town, High Street and No Sub Category.
Inclusion of Servicing Vehicles Counts: Servicing vehicles Included 2 days- Selected Servicing vehicles Excluded 1 days- Selected
Secondary Filtering selection:
Use Class: Not Known
This data displays the number of surveys per Use Class classification within the selected set. The Use Classes Order (England) 2020 has been used for this purpose, which can be found within the Library module of TRICS®.
Filter by Site Operations Breakdown: All Surveys Included
Population within 500m Range: All Surveys Included
Management Services Ltd 2 London Square Guildford
Secondary Filtering selection (Cont.):
Population within 1 mile: 25,001 to 50,000 2 days
This data displays the number of selected surveys within stated 1-mile radii of population.
Population within 5 miles:
500,001 or More 2 days
This data displays the number of selected surveys within stated 5-mile radii of population.
Car ownership within 5 miles: 0.6 to 1.0 2 days
Licence No: 100321
This data displays the number of selected surveys within stated ranges of average cars owned per residential dwelling, within a radius of 5-miles of selected survey sites.
Travel Plan: No
2 days
This data displays the number of surveys within the selected set that were undertaken at sites with Travel Plans in place, and the number of surveys that were undertaken at sites without Travel Plans.
PTAL Rating:
2 Poor
1 days
6a Excellent 1 days
This data displays the number of selected surveys with PTAL Ratings.
LIST OF SITES relevant to selection parameters
Site(1): BT-02-B-01
Development Name:BUSINESS PARK
Location: PARK ROYAL
Postcode: NW10 7NS
Main Location Type: Suburban Area (PPS6 Out of Centre)
Sub-Location Type: Commercial Zone
Gross floor area: 15111 sqm
Parking spaces: 123
No of Employees: 0
Survey Date: 21/04/16
Survey Day: Thursday PTAL: 2 Poor
Site(2): IS-02-B-01
Development Name:BUSINESS PARK
Location: ANGEL
Gross floor area: 4363 sqm
Parking spaces: 87
Postcode: EC1V 2NZ No of Employees: 750
Main Location Type: Edge of Town Centre
Sub-Location Type: Built-Up Zone
Survey Date: 13/09/22
Survey Day: Tuesday PTAL: 6a Excellent
MANUALLY DESELECTED SITES
TRIP RATE for Land Use 02 - EMPLOYMENT/B - BUSINESS PARK
MULTI-MODAL TOTAL PEOPLE
Calculation factor: 100 sqm
BOLD print indicates peak (busiest) period
Total People to Total Vehicles ratio (all time periods and directions): 3.09
00:30-01:00
01:00-01:30
01:30-02:00
02:00-02:30
02:30-03:00
03:00-03:30
03:30-04:00
04:00-04:30
19:00-19:30
19:30-20:00
20:00-20:30
20:30-21:00
21:00-21:30
21:30-22:00
22:00-22:30
22:30-23:00
This section displays the trip rate results based on the selected set of surveys and the selected count type (shown just above the table). It is split by three main columns, representing arrivals trips, departures trips, and total trips (arrivals plus departures). Within each of these main columns are three sub-columns. These display the number of survey days where count data is included (per time period), the average value of the selected trip rate calculation parameter (per time period), and the trip rate result (per time period). Total trip rates (the sum of the column) are also displayed at the foot of the table.
To obtain a trip rate, the average (mean) trip rate parameter value (TRP) is first calculated for all selected survey days that have count data available for the stated time period. The average (mean) number of arrivals, departures or totals (whichever applies) is also calculated (COUNT) for all selected survey days that have count data available for the stated time period. Then, the average count is divided by the average trip rate parameter value, and multiplied by the stated calculation factor (shown just above the table and abbreviated here as FACT). So, the method is: COUNT/TRP*FACT. Trip rates are then rounded to 3 decimal places.
Actual Trip Rate Calculation Parameter Range 8125-14693 sqm GFA
Date Range
Selected regions and areas:
This section displays the number of survey days per TRICS® sub-region in the selected set
Management Services Ltd 2 London Square Guildford Licence No:
Primary Filtering selection:
This data displays the chosen trip rate parameter and its selected range. Only sites that fall within the parameter range are included in the trip rate calculation.
Parameter:
Gross floor area
Actual Range: 8125 to 14693 (units: sqm)
Range Selected by User: 8125 to 14693 (units: sqm)
Parking Spaces Range: All Surveys Included
Public Transport Provision: Selection by: Include all surveys
Date Range: 01/01/01 to 24/11/21
This data displays the range of survey dates selected. Only surveys that were conducted within this date range are included in the trip rate calculation.
Selected survey days: Thursday
This data displays the number of selected surveys by day of the week.
Selected survey types:
This data displays the number of manual classified surveys and the number of unclassified ATC surveys, the total adding up to the overall number of surveys in the selected set. Manual surveys are undertaken using staff, whilst ATC surveys are undertaking using machines. Selected Locations:
This data displays the number of surveys per main location category within the selected set. The main location categories consist of Free Standing, Edge of Town, Suburban Area, Neighbourhood Centre, Edge of Town Centre, Town Centre and Not Known.
Selected Location Sub Categories:
This data displays the number of surveys per location sub-category within the selected set. The location sub-categories consist of Commercial Zone, Industrial Zone, Development Zone, Residential Zone, Retail Zone, Built-Up Zone, Village, Out of Town, High Street and No Sub Category.
Inclusion of Servicing Vehicles Counts: Servicing vehicles Included X days- Selected Servicing vehicles Excluded 2 days- Selected
Secondary Filtering selection:
Use Class: n/a 2 days
This data displays the number of surveys per Use Class classification within the selected set. The Use Classes Order (England) 2020 has been used for this purpose, which can be found within the Library module of TRICS®.
Population within 500m Range: All Surveys Included
Secondary Filtering selection (Cont.):
Population within 1 mile:
10,001 to 15,000 1 days
25,001 to 50,000 1 days
This data displays the number of selected surveys within stated 1-mile radii of population.
Population within 5 miles:
100,001 to 125,000 1 days 125,001 to 250,000 1 days
This data displays the number of selected surveys within stated 5-mile radii of population.
Car ownership within 5 miles:
0.6 to 1.0 1 days 1.1 to 1.5 1 days
This data displays the number of selected surveys within stated ranges of average cars owned per residential dwelling, within a radius of 5-miles of selected survey sites.
Petrol filling station:
Included in the survey count 0 days
Excluded from count or no filling station 2 days
This data displays the number of surveys within the selected set that include petrol filling station activity, and the number of surveys that do not.
Travel
This data displays the number of surveys within the selected set that were undertaken at sites with Travel Plans in place, and the number of surveys that were undertaken at sites without Travel Plans.
PTAL Rating: No PTAL Present 2 days
This data displays the number of selected surveys with PTAL Ratings.
Site(1):
ES-01-M-02
Development Name:SHOPPING MALL
Location: EASTBOURNE
Postcode: BN23 7RT
Main Location Type: Edge of Town
Sub-Location Type: Residential Zone
Gross floor area: 14693 sqm
Retail floor area: 8865 sqm
No of Employees: 281
Survey Date: 01/03/01
Survey Day: Thursday PTAL: n/a
Site(2):
KC-01-M-01
Development Name:SHOPPING MALL
Location: MAIDSTONE
Postcode: ME14 1JL
Main Location Type: Town Centre
Sub-Location Type: High Street
Parking Spaces: 860
Gross floor area: 8125 sqm
Retail floor area: 5075 sqm
No of Employees: 132
Survey Date: 24/11/12
Survey Day: Saturday PTAL: n/a
Parking Spaces: 0
TRIP RATE for Land Use 01 - RETAIL/M - MIXED SHOPPING MALLS
MULTI-MODAL TOTAL PEOPLE
Calculation factor: 100 sqm
BOLD print indicates peak (busiest) period
Total People to Total Vehicles ratio (all time periods and directions): 1.98
00:00-01:00
01:00-02:00
02:00-03:00
03:00-04:00
04:00-05:00
05:00-06:00
06:00-07:00
This section displays the trip rate results based on the selected set of surveys and the selected count type (shown just above the table). It is split by three main columns, representing arrivals trips, departures trips, and total trips (arrivals plus departures). Within each of these main columns are three sub-columns. These display the number of survey days where count data is included (per time period), the average value of the selected trip rate calculation parameter (per time period), and the trip rate result (per time period). Total trip rates (the sum of the column) are also displayed at the foot of the table.
To obtain a trip rate, the average (mean) trip rate parameter value (TRP) is first calculated for all selected survey days that have count data available for the stated time period. The average (mean) number of arrivals, departures or totals (whichever applies) is also calculated (COUNT) for all selected survey days that have count data available for the stated time period. Then, the average count is divided by the average trip rate parameter value, and multiplied by the stated calculation factor (shown just above the table and abbreviated here as FACT). So, the method is: COUNT/TRP*FACT. Trip rates are then rounded to 3 decimal places.
Trip Rate Parameter: Gross floor area
TRIP RATE CALCULATION SELECTION PARAMETERS:
Land Use01 - RETAIL
CategoryG - OTHER INDIVIDUAL NON-FOOD SUPERSTORE
MULTI-MODAL TOTAL PEOPLE
Selected regions and areas: 01 GREATER LONDON WH WANDSWORTH 1 days
This section displays the number of survey days per TRICS® sub-region in the selected set
Primary Filtering selection:
This data displays the chosen trip rate parameter and its selected range. Only sites that fall within the parameter range are included in the trip rate calculation. Parameter:Gross floor area
Actual Range:600 to 600 (units: sqm)
Range Selected by User: 600 to 600 (units: sqm)
Public Transport Provision: Selection by:Include all surveys
Date Range:01/01/02 to 19/06/02
This data displays the range of survey dates selected. Only surveys that were conducted within this date range are included in the trip rate calculation.
Selected survey days: Wednesday1 days
This data displays the number of selected surveys by day of the week.
Selected survey types: Manual count 1 days
Directional ATC Count 0 days
This data displays the number of manual classified surveys and the number of unclassified ATC surveys the total adding up to the overall number of surveys in the selected set. Manual surveys are undertaken using staff whilst ATC surveys are undertaking using machines.
Selected Locations:
Town Centre 0
Edge of Town Centre1
Suburban Area (PPS6 Out of Centre) 0 Edge of Town 0
Neighbourhood Centre (PPS6 Local Centre) 0 Free Standing (PPS6 Out of Town) 0 Not Known 0
This data displays the number of surveys per main location category within the selected set. The main location categories consist of Free Standing Edge of TownSuburban AreaNeighbourhoodEdgeCentre of TownTownCentreCentre and Not Known.
Selected Location Sub Categories: Industrial Zone 0 Commercial Zone 0 Development Zone 0 Residential Zone 0 Retail Zone 0 Built-Up Zone 1 Village 0 Out of Town 0 High Street 0 No Sub Category 0
This data displays the number of surveys per location sub-category within the selected set. The location sub-categories consist of Commercial Zone Industrial ZoneDevelopment Zone Residential Zone Retail ZoneBuilt-Up ZoneVillage Out of TownHigh Street and No Sub Category.
Secondary Filtering selection:
Use Class: E(a) 1 days
This data displays the number of surveys per Use Class classification within the selected set. The Use Classes Order (England) 2020 has been used for this purpose which can be found within the Library module of TRICS®.
Population within 500m Range: All Surveys Included
Population within 1 mile:
25,001 to 50,000 1 days
This data displays the number of selected surveys within stated 1-mile radii of population.
Population within 5 miles:
250,001 to 500,000 1 days
This data displays the number of selected surveys within stated 5-mile radii of population.
Car ownership within 5 miles: 1.1 to 1.51 days
This data displays the number of selected surveys within stated ranges of average cars owned per residential dwelling within a radius of 5-miles of selected survey sites.
Petrol filling station:
Included in the survey count 0 days
Excluded from count or no filling station 1 days
This data displays the number of surveys within the selected set that include petrol filling station activity and the number of surveys that do not.
Travel Plan:
Not Known1 days
This data displays the number of surveys within the selected set that were undertaken at sites with Travel Plans in place and the number of surveys that were undertaken at sites without Travel Plans.
PTAL Rating:
No PTAL Present 1 days
This data displays the number of selected surveys with PTAL Ratings.
LIST OF SITES relevant to selection parameters
1 WH-01-G-01WINE WAREHOUSEWANDSWORTH UPPER RICHMOND ROAD EAST PUTNEY PUTNEY
Edge of Town Centre Built-Up Zone
Total Gross floor area: 600sqm
Survey date:WEDNESDAY######## Survey Type:MANUAL
This section provides a list of all survey sites and days in the selected set. For each individual survey site it displays a unique site reference code and site address the selected trip rate calculation parameter and its value the day of the week and date of each survey and whether the survey was a manual classified count or an ATC count.
TRIP RATE for Land Use 01 - RETAIL/G - OTHER INDIVIDUAL NON-FOOD SUPERSTORE
Calculation Factor: 100 sqm
Count Type: TOTAL VEHICLES
04:00-05:00
05:00-06:00
06:00-07:00
21:00-22:00
22:00-23:00
23:00-24:00
01:00-02:00
02:00-03:00
03:00-04:00
04:00-05:00
05:00-06:00
06:00-07:00
07:00-08:00
08:00-09:00 09:00-10:00
21:00-22:00
22:00-23:00
23:00-24:00
TRIP RATE for Land Use 01 - RETAIL/G - OTHER INDIVIDUAL NON-FOOD SUPERSTORE
Actual Trip Rate Calculation Parameter Range 58-200 sqm GFA
Date Range
This section displays the number of survey
Management Services Ltd 2 London Square Guildford Licence No:
Primary Filtering selection:
This data displays the chosen trip rate parameter and its selected range. Only sites that fall within the parameter range are included in the trip rate calculation.
Parameter: Gross floor area
Actual Range: 58 to 200 (units: sqm)
Range Selected by User: 58 to 200 (units: sqm)
Parking Spaces Range: All Surveys Included
Public Transport Provision: Selection by: Include all surveys
Date Range: 01/01/15 to 20/09/22
This data displays the range of survey dates selected. Only surveys that were conducted within this date range are included in the trip rate calculation.
Selected survey days: Tuesday 3 days Wednesday 1 days Friday 1 days
This data displays the number of selected surveys by day of the week.
Selected survey types:
This data displays the number of manual classified surveys and the number of unclassified ATC surveys, the total adding up to the overall number of surveys in the selected set. Manual surveys are undertaken using staff, whilst ATC surveys are undertaking using machines. Selected Locations:
Centre (PPS6 Local Centre)
This data displays the number of surveys per main location category within the selected set. The main location categories consist of Free Standing, Edge of Town, Suburban Area, Neighbourhood Centre, Edge of Town Centre, Town Centre and Not Known.
Selected Location Sub Categories:
This data displays the number of surveys per location sub-category within the selected set. The location sub-categories consist of Commercial Zone, Industrial Zone, Development Zone, Residential Zone, Retail Zone, Built-Up Zone, Village, Out of Town, High Street and No Sub Category.
Inclusion of Servicing Vehicles Counts:
Servicing vehicles Included 5 days- Selected Servicing vehicles Excluded X days- Selected
Secondary Filtering selection:
Use Class: E(b) 5 days
This data displays the number of surveys per Use Class classification within the selected set. The Use Classes Order (England) 2020 has been used for this purpose, which can be found within the Library module of TRICS®.
Population within 500m Range: All Surveys Included
Management Services Ltd 2 London Square Guildford
Secondary Filtering selection (Cont.):
Population within 1 mile:
15,001 to 20,000 1 days
20,001 to 25,000 2 days
25,001 to 50,000 1 days
50,001 to 100,000 1 days
This data displays the number of selected surveys within stated 1-mile radii of population.
Licence No: 100321
This data displays the number of selected surveys within stated 5-mile radii of population. Car ownership within 5 miles: 0.6 to 1.0 3 days 1.1 to 1.5
This data displays the number of selected surveys within stated ranges of average cars owned per residential dwelling, within a radius of 5-miles of selected survey sites.
Travel Plan: No 5 days
This data displays the number of surveys within the selected set that were undertaken at sites with Travel Plans in place, and the number of surveys that were undertaken at sites without Travel Plans. PTAL
This data displays the number of selected surveys with PTAL Ratings.
Site(1):
GM-06-K-01
Gross floor area: 200 sqm Development Name:CAFÉ
Location: MANCHESTER
Postcode: M3 2AY
Main Location Type: Town Centre
Sub-Location Type: Built-Up Zone
Number of Seats: 40
No of Employees: 5
Survey Date: 19/04/22
Survey Day: Tuesday PTAL: n/a
Site(2): HG-06-K-01
Development Name:CAFÉ
Location: MUSWELL HILL
Postcode: N10 3RT
Main Location Type: Town Centre
Parking Spaces:
Gross floor area: 58 sqm
Number of Seats: 20
No of Employees: 6
Survey Date: 10/06/22
Sub-Location Type: High Street Survey Day: Friday PTAL: 4 Good
Site(3): LN-06-K-01
Development Name:CAFÉ & TEA ROOM
Location: STAMFORD
Postcode: PE9 2AJ
Parking Spaces:
Gross floor area: 190 sqm
Number of Seats: 42
No of Employees: 10
Main Location Type: Town Centre Survey Date: 12/10/21
Sub-Location Type: Built-Up Zone
Survey Day: Tuesday PTAL: n/a
Parking Spaces:
Site(4): NF-06-K-01
Gross floor area: 82 sqm Development Name:CAFÉ
Location: NORWICH
Postcode: NR2 1LW
Number of Seats: 24
No of Employees: 4
Main Location Type: Town Centre Survey Date: 20/09/22
Sub-Location Type: Built-Up Zone
Survey Day: Tuesday PTAL: n/a
Parking Spaces:
Site(5): WS-06-K-01
Gross floor area: 87 sqm Development Name:CAFÉ Number of Seats: 32
Location: WORTHING
Postcode: BN12 4PE
Main Location Type: Neighbourhood Centre (PPS6 Local Centre)
Sub-Location Type: High Street
No of Employees: 6
Survey Date: 11/05/22
Survey Day: Wednesday PTAL: n/a
Parking Spaces:
TRIP RATE for Land Use 06 - HOTEL, FOOD & DRINK/K - CAFE
MULTI-MODAL TOTAL PEOPLE
Calculation factor: 100 sqm
BOLD print indicates peak (busiest) period
Total People to Total Vehicles ratio (all time periods and directions): 4.72
00:00-01:00
01:00-02:00
02:00-03:00
03:00-04:00
04:00-05:00
05:00-06:00
06:00-07:00
19:00-20:00
20:00-21:00
21:00-22:00
22:00-23:00
23:00-24:00
This section displays the trip rate results based on the selected set of surveys and the selected count type (shown just above the table). It is split by three main columns, representing arrivals trips, departures trips, and total trips (arrivals plus departures). Within each of these main columns are three sub-columns. These display the number of survey days where count data is included (per time period), the average value of the selected trip rate calculation parameter (per time period), and the trip rate result (per time period). Total trip rates (the sum of the column) are also displayed at the foot of the table.
To obtain a trip rate, the average (mean) trip rate parameter value (TRP) is first calculated for all selected survey days that have count data available for the stated time period. The average (mean) number of arrivals, departures or totals (whichever applies) is also calculated (COUNT) for all selected survey days that have count data available for the stated time period. Then, the average count is divided by the average trip rate parameter value, and multiplied by the stated calculation factor (shown just above the table and abbreviated here as FACT). So, the method is: COUNT/TRP*FACT. Trip rates are then rounded to 3 decimal places.
Actual Trip Rate Calculation Parameter Range 45-111 PUPILS Date
This section displays the number of survey days per TRICS® sub-region in the
Management Services Ltd 2 London Square Guildford Licence
Primary Filtering selection:
This data displays the chosen trip rate parameter and its selected range. Only sites that fall within the parameter range are included in the trip rate calculation.
Parameter:
Number of pupils
Actual Range: 45 to 111 (units: )
Range Selected by User: 37 to 124 (units: )
Parking Spaces Range: All Surveys Included
Public Transport Provision:
Selection by: Include all surveys
Date Range: 01/01/12 to 07/06/22
This data displays the range of survey dates selected. Only surveys that were conducted within this date range are included in the trip rate calculation.
Selected survey days:
days
This data displays the number of selected surveys by day of the week.
Selected survey types:
Manual count
Directional ATC Count
days
days
This data displays the number of manual classified surveys and the number of unclassified ATC surveys, the total adding up to the overall number of surveys in the selected set. Manual surveys are undertaken using staff, whilst ATC surveys are undertaking using machines.
Selected Locations:
This data displays the number of surveys per main location category within the selected set. The main location categories consist of Free Standing, Edge of Town, Suburban Area, Neighbourhood Centre, Edge of Town Centre, Town Centre and Not Known.
Selected Location Sub Categories:
This data displays the number of surveys per location sub-category within the selected set. The location sub-categories consist of Commercial Zone, Industrial Zone, Development Zone, Residential Zone, Retail Zone, Built-Up Zone, Village, Out of Town, High Street and No Sub Category.
This data displays the number of surveys per Use Class classification within the selected set. The Use Classes Order (England) 2020 has been used for this purpose, which can be found within the Library module of TRICS®.
Population within 500m Range: All Surveys Included
Secondary Filtering selection (Cont.):
Population within 1 mile:
10,001 to 15,000 1 days
15,001 to 20,000 2 days
25,001 to 50,000 4 days
50,001 to 100,000 1 days
This data displays the number of selected surveys within stated 1-mile radii of population.
Population within 5 miles: 25,001 to 50,000 1 days 75,001 to 100,000 3 days 125,001 to 250,000 2 days 250,001 to 500,000 2 days
This data displays the number of selected surveys within stated 5-mile radii of population.
Car ownership within 5 miles:
0.5 or Less 1 days
0.6 to 1.0 3 days
1.1 to 1.5 4 days
This data displays the number of selected surveys within stated ranges of average cars owned per residential dwelling, within a radius of 5-miles of selected survey sites.
Travel Plan:
No 8 days
This data displays the number of surveys within the selected set that were undertaken at sites with Travel Plans in place, and the number of surveys that were undertaken at sites without Travel Plans.
PTAL Rating:
No PTAL Present 8 days
This data displays the number of selected surveys with PTAL Ratings.
LIST OF SITES relevant to selection parameters
Site(1):
BH-04-D-01
Gross floor area: 185 sqm
Development Name:NURSERY Number of pupils: 45
Location: BRIGHTON
Postcode: BN3 3WB
Main Location Type: Neighbourhood Centre (PPS6 Local Centre)
Sub-Location Type: Residential Zone
No of Employees: 10
Survey Date: 22/09/17
Survey Day: Friday PTAL: n/a
Site(2):
DR-04-D-01
Parking Spaces:
Gross floor area: 1250 sqm
Development Name:NURSERY Number of pupils: 111
Location: DONCASTER
Postcode: DN4 7AD
Main Location Type: Suburban Area (PPS6 Out of Centre)
Sub-Location Type: Residential Zone
No of Employees: 36
Survey Date: 13/05/22
Survey Day: Friday PTAL: n/a
Site(3):
EC-04-D-01
Parking Spaces: 29
Gross floor area: 500 sqm
Development Name:NURSERY Number of pupils: 70
Location: MACCLESFIELD
Postcode: SK11 8PT
Main Location Type: Edge of Town Centre
Sub-Location Type: No Sub Category
No of Employees: 19
Survey Date: 24/11/14
Survey Day: Monday PTAL: n/a
Site(4): LN-04-D-01
Parking Spaces: 12
Gross floor area: 600 sqm
Development Name:NURSERY Number of pupils: 49
Location: LINCOLN
Postcode: LN6 8RY
Main Location Type: Suburban Area (PPS6 Out of Centre)
Sub-Location Type: Residential Zone
No of Employees: 12
Survey Date: 31/10/17
Survey Day: Tuesday PTAL: n/a
Site(5): NN-04-D-01
Parking Spaces: 9
Gross floor area: 850 sqm
Development Name:NURSERY Number of pupils: 90
Location: KETTERING
Postcode: NN16 9AG
Main Location Type: Suburban Area (PPS6 Out of Centre)
Sub-Location Type: Residential Zone
No of Employees: 23
Survey Date: 07/06/22
Survey Day: Tuesday PTAL: n/a
Site(6): SF-04-D-03
Parking Spaces: 12
Gross floor area: 750 sqm
Development Name:NURSERY Number of pupils: 110 Location: LOWESTOFT
Postcode: NR32 2LL
Main Location Type: Edge of Town Centre
Sub-Location Type: Residential Zone
No of Employees: 25
Survey Date: 10/12/14
Survey Day: Wednesday PTAL: n/a
Site(7): TW-04-D-02
Parking Spaces: 6
Gross floor area: 500 sqm
Development Name:NURSERY Number of pupils: 110 Location: SUNDERLAND
Postcode: SR3 4AW
Main Location Type: Suburban Area (PPS6 Out of Centre)
Sub-Location Type: Residential Zone
No of Employees: 18
Survey Date: 28/11/12
Survey Day: Wednesday PTAL: n/a
Site(8): WS-04-D-01
Parking Spaces:
Gross floor area: 300 sqm
Development Name:NURSERY Number of pupils: 75 Location: WORTHING
Postcode: BN11 2BE
Main Location Type: Edge of Town Centre
Sub-Location Type: Residential Zone
No of Employees: 25
Survey Date: 13/05/22
Survey Day: Friday PTAL: n/a
Parking Spaces:
TRIP RATE for Land Use 04 - EDUCATION/D - NURSERY
MULTI-MODAL TOTAL PEOPLE
Calculation factor: 1
BOLD print indicates peak (busiest) period
Total People to Total Vehicles ratio (all time periods and directions): 2.12
00:00-01:00
01:00-02:00
02:00-03:00
03:00-04:00
04:00-05:00
05:00-06:00
06:00-07:00
20:00-21:00
21:00-22:00
22:00-23:00 23:00-24:00
This section displays the trip rate results based on the selected set of surveys and the selected count type (shown just above the table). It is split by three main columns, representing arrivals trips, departures trips, and total trips (arrivals plus departures). Within each of these main columns are three sub-columns. These display the number of survey days where count data is included (per time period), the average value of the selected trip rate calculation parameter (per time period), and the trip rate result (per time period). Total trip rates (the sum of the column) are also displayed at the foot of the table.
To obtain a trip rate, the average (mean) trip rate parameter value (TRP) is first calculated for all selected survey days that have count data available for the stated time period. The average (mean) number of arrivals, departures or totals (whichever applies) is also calculated (COUNT) for all selected survey days that have count data available for the stated time period. Then, the average count is divided by the average trip rate parameter value, and multiplied by the stated calculation factor (shown just above the table and abbreviated here as FACT). So, the method is: COUNT/TRP*FACT. Trip rates are then rounded to 3 decimal places.
Selected Trip Rate Calculation Parameter
Actual Trip Rate Calculation Parameter Range
Land Use : 04 - EDUCATION Category : B - SECONDARY MULTI-MODAL TOTAL VEHICLES
Selected regions and areas:
This section displays the number of survey days per TRICS® sub-region in the selected set
Management Services Ltd 2 London Square Guildford
Primary Filtering selection:
Licence No: 100321
This data displays the chosen trip rate parameter and its selected range. Only sites that fall within the parameter range are included in the trip rate calculation.
Parameter:
Number of pupils
Actual Range: 610 to 610 (units: )
Range Selected by User: 610 to 1200 (units: )
Parking Spaces Range: Selected: 40 to 40 Actual: 40 to 40
Public Transport Provision: Selection by: Include all surveys
Date Range: 01/01/00 to 19/10/05
This data displays the range of survey dates selected. Only surveys that were conducted within this date range are included in the trip rate calculation.
Selected survey days: Wednesday 1 days
This data displays the number of selected surveys by day of the week.
Selected survey types:
Manual count 1 days
Directional ATC Count 0 days
This data displays the number of manual classified surveys and the number of unclassified ATC surveys, the total adding up to the overall number of surveys in the selected set. Manual surveys are undertaken using staff, whilst ATC surveys are undertaking using machines.
Selected Locations:
Suburban Area (PPS6 Out of Centre) 1
This data displays the number of surveys per main location category within the selected set. The main location categories consist of Free Standing, Edge of Town, Suburban Area, Neighbourhood Centre, Edge of Town Centre, Town Centre and Not Known.
Selected Location Sub Categories: Residential Zone 1
This data displays the number of surveys per location sub-category within the selected set. The location sub-categories consist of Commercial Zone, Industrial Zone, Development Zone, Residential Zone, Retail Zone, Built-Up Zone, Village, Out of Town, High Street and No Sub Category.
Inclusion of Servicing Vehicles Counts: Servicing vehicles Included X days- Selected Servicing vehicles Excluded 1 days- Selected
Secondary Filtering selection:
Use Class: F1(a) 1 days
This data displays the number of surveys per Use Class classification within the selected set. The Use Classes Order (England) 2020 has been used for this purpose, which can be found within the Library module of TRICS®.
Population within 500m Range: All Surveys Included Population within 1 mile: 50,001 to 100,000 1 days
This data displays the number of selected surveys within stated 1-mile radii of population.
Secondary Filtering selection (Cont.):
Population within 5 miles:
500,001 or More 1 days
This data displays the number of selected surveys within stated 5-mile radii of population.
Car ownership within 5 miles:
0.6 to 1.0 1 days
This data displays the number of selected surveys within stated ranges of average cars owned per residential dwelling, within a radius of 5-miles of selected survey sites.
Travel Plan: Not Known 1 days
This data displays the number of surveys within the selected set that were undertaken at sites with Travel Plans in place, and the number of surveys that were undertaken at sites without Travel Plans.
PTAL Rating: No PTAL Present 1 days
This data displays the number of selected surveys with PTAL Ratings.
LIST OF SITES relevant to selection parameters
Site(1): HM-04-B-01
Development Name:SECONDARY SCHOOL
Location: FULHAM
Postcode: SW6 6SN
Main Location Type: Suburban Area (PPS6 Out of Centre)
Sub-Location Type: Residential Zone
Gross floor area: 7350 sqm
Number of pupils: 610
No of Employees: 62
Survey Date: 04/12/02
Survey Day: Wednesday
n/a Parking Spaces: 40
TRIP RATE for Land Use 04 - EDUCATION/B - SECONDARY
MULTI-MODAL TOTAL PEOPLE
Calculation factor: 1 PUPILS
BOLD print indicates peak (busiest) period
Total People to Total Vehicles ratio (all time periods and directions): 8.26
00:00-01:00
01:00-02:00
02:00-03:00
03:00-04:00
04:00-05:00
05:00-06:00
06:00-07:00
21:00-22:00
22:00-23:00
23:00-24:00
This section displays the trip rate results based on the selected set of surveys and the selected count type (shown just above the table). It is split by three main columns, representing arrivals trips, departures trips, and total trips (arrivals plus departures). Within each of these main columns are three sub-columns. These display the number of survey days where count data is included (per time period), the average value of the selected trip rate calculation parameter (per time period), and the trip rate result (per time period). Total trip rates (the sum of the column) are also displayed at the foot of the table.
To obtain a trip rate, the average (mean) trip rate parameter value (TRP) is first calculated for all selected survey days that have count data available for the stated time period. The average (mean) number of arrivals, departures or totals (whichever applies) is also calculated (COUNT) for all selected survey days that have count data available for the stated time period. Then, the average count is divided by the average trip rate parameter value, and multiplied by the stated calculation factor (shown just above the table and abbreviated here as FACT). So, the method is: COUNT/TRP*FACT. Trip rates are then rounded to 3 decimal places.
ATZ METHODOLOGY
Earls Court Active Travel Zone Assessment Approach & Healthy Streets Review
TO ECDC FROM Will Forster / Alex Smith / Justin Sherlock
This Technical Note (TN) has been prepared to set out the Healthy Streets and Active Travel Zone (ATZ) assessment methodology for discussion and agreement with the Transport Stakeholders (Transport for London (TfL) as a strategic authority, LBHF and RBKC as local highway authorities).
The Earls Court Masterplan Transport Assessment Scoping Report (TASR) issued to the Transport Stakeholders on 11 April 2023 originally included some commentary on the suggested approach to be adopted as part of the ATZ review.
Alongside feedback from within the pre-application meetings, formal feedback from the stakeholders in relation to the original version of this TASR were provided on the following dates;
TfL – dated 26 May 2023
RBKC – dated 21 June 2023
LBHF – dated 11 December 2023
During the pre-application meeting and in subsequent responses, the approach and scope of ATZ assessment was highlighted by stakeholders. Requests for consideration of additional routes were made by TfL and RBKC and subsequently an expansion of the review was also suggested.
TfL also made comments about including further elements for review on each of the routes, to ensure that usability and characteristics not necessarily covered by the Healthy Streets indicators, such as night-time use, were also included.
This note therefore sets out an updated methodology for agreement with the Transport Stakeholders.
One of the key items raised in the feedback was about ensuring the ATZ review takes account of the phasing of the development.
Work to develop the phasing of the development is still in progress, and as such, further information will be presented detailing the routes for consideration as part of any phased approach to development in due course. This note therefore sets out the intended approach for all routes, regardless of phasing at the EC site.
Emails from WSP to stakeholders were sent detailed the routes and site visits for the ATZ assessments on 25 January 2024. This gave stakeholders an opportunity to provide any final comments before this is fixed for the ATZ that will be reported in the planning submission Transport Assessment.
The updated routes build on the original scope from the Transport Assessment Scope and ATZ healthy Streets Approach Technical Note that have been previously circulated. RBKC responded on 29 Jan with suggestions that were encapsulated into the final route plans.
ATZ AND HEALTHY STREETS METHODOLOGY
This section sets out the methodology that is to be used when undertaking the ATZ assessment as part of the Transport Assessment for the Proposed Development.
The methodology will align with the TfL ATZ Guidance1 and TfL’s Guide to the Healthy Streets Indicators2 Consideration will also be given to the Greater London Authorities (GLAs) Good Growth By Design LA (GGbD)3, GGbD Women, Girls and Gender Diverse People Guidance4 and GLAs Night Time Strategy Guidance5
As noted above, ultimately the methodology and assessment will be conducted via a phased approach. Once information on the phasing is fixed, a breakdown of routes by phase will be provided.
DestinationsandRoutes
As part of the TA Scoping process, a list of destinations and number of routes were identified to be included within the ATZ and Healthy Streets assessment. A provisional list of key destinations was illustrated in Table 4-6 in the TASR.
Feedback from the Transport Stakeholders requested that places of worship were considered when determining the routes. Table 1 sets out an updated list of destination types and their priority for inclusions within the ATZ. Specific locations will be reviewed as part of the ATZ.
Table 1: Key Destinations and Priority
It was also noted from the Key ATZ destinations provided in Table 4-6 in the TASR that Philbeach Gardens and Braham Gardens are inaccessible to the public and will therefore be removed from the list of key destinations. Other park / leisure facilities will be reviewed in due course as part of the full ATZ assessment.
Routes for Assessment
As noted above, initial routes have been identified for assessment in the context of the completed development. Phase specific routes can be identified in due course once the phasing has been fixed.
4 Safety In Public Space - Women, Girls and Gender Diverse People – Good Growth by Design – GLA, September 2022 available via https://www.london.gov.uk/media/99003/download?attachment%20
The routes proposed to be included in our initial assessment are listed below and shown in Figure 1 nb: larger version appended at rear of note:
Route 1: To Barons Court Underground Station
Route 2: To Lillie Road via North Ends Road
Route 3: To Tesco via Warwick Road (modified to allow for potential connection from Cluny Mews and Philbeach Gardens)
Route 4: To Brompton Park
Route 5: To Normand Park
Route 6: To A4 via Earls Court Road
Route 7: To Warwick Road Tesco via A4 West Cromwell Road
Route 8: To Kensington Olympia via North End Road
Route 9: To Kensington Olympia via Warwick Road and Kensington High Street
Route 10: To Earls Court Station via Trebovir Road
Route 11: To Kensington Olympia via Warwick Gardens
Route 12: To Earls Court Road via Nevern Place
Route 13: To Quietway 15 links via Lillie Road / Old Brompton Road (plus connections)
Route 14: To North End Road via Mund Street / Aisgill Avenue / Thaxton Road
Route 15: To North End Road via Edith Villas
Route 16: To North End Road via Mornington Avenue.
Route 17: Extended to Charing Cross Hospital and connection to Cycle Route C34
Route 18: Added through Old Brompton cemetery and connecting with Fulham Broadway. Note the route through the cemetery can only be reviewed during daylight hours.
Route 19: Added to extend along Quietway 15 to the east
Route 20: Added to allow for a potential pedestrian connection to Gibbs Green Close from plot WK01
Route 21: Route to Bousfield Primary School along Old Brompton Road
Route 22: Route to Kensington Gardens/Hyde Park following Quietway 15 (Along Ashburn Place, Grenville Place, Launceston Place, St Albans Grove and Kensington Court Place to Kensington High Street and Hyde Park
Route 23: Route to Cremorne Gardens via Hortensia Road, A320 and Edith Grove (note some one way streets)
Route 24 – Route to Chelsea and Westminster Hospital via A3220 Finborough Road and Ifield Road (some one way streets) – Also acts as an alternative route during nighttime to travel south to Cremorne Gardens and to get to Fulham Broadway
Figure 1: Provisional ATZ Routes (Expanded) for Assessment
It should be noted that the routes detailed above are not an exhaustive list and are subject to change following on from forthcoming scoping discussions.
As noted in the TASR, internal routes and links identified within the development are to be assessed during the associated phase of the development. Once phasing is confirmed we will confirm the routes to be assessed by phase.
ATZAssessmentMethodology
Building upon the TfL guidance documents, Table 2 sets out the various criteria and Healthy Streets Indicators that are to be assessed during the site visit and ATZ route audit along each of the routes that are identified. The table also sets out the actions, commentary, and discussion points per item, although it should be noted that these are not exhaustive – but instead set out the key areas of focus.
Table 2: ATZ and Healthy Street Assessment Methodology
Criteria/Indicators Description
Criteria: Overall Routing
Indicator: People choose to walk, cycle and use public transport
A review of the routing to the key destination will be conducted, alternative routes/spurs will be noted and identified.
Actions, Commentary and Discussion Points for Route
Action: Photography Additional Routes and spurs
Commentary: To note and highlight other key destinations along the route such as Places of Worship, Schools etc.
Commentary: Discuss and include alternative minor routes to the main route (50 – 100m from main route) e.g. if these link to other key destinations.
A review of the route’s quality, and infrastructure for all users will be undertaken.
Action: Images to be taken of areas that need improvement and those that are observed to encourage or promote active travel.
Action: Detail areas where route has been poorly maintained and areas of high quality.
Action: Detail areas where route provides cycle parking.
Commentary: Speed and Traffic Volumes.
Commentary: Commentary on areas that could benefit from new/improved walking and cycling infrastructure.
Commentary: Discuss opportunity areas/locations that can be improved to encourage walking and cycling.
Indicator: Pedestrians from all walks of life*
A review of each route’s accessibility to all users/community
Indicator: Easy to Cross*
A review of how easy the route and all roads are to cross.
Action: Photograph accessibility to bus stops on route
Action: Photograph areas where parking/obstructions could be removed and where surface is poor quality.
Commentary: Discuss the condition of pavements and cycle lanes, can it accommodate all users (disabled and vulnerable users)
Commentary: Consider any users/groups who are not using the route – through review of the historic 2019 STRG surveys.
Action: Photograph and map crossing points, showing acceptable crossings and crossings that present risks to safety
Action: Photograph key junctions and any conflicting movements between ped/cycles and vehicles.
Indicator: People Feel Safe*
A review of the safety of each route to all users
* “Safety can be understood through three lenses: freedom from violence, harassment and intimidation; usability; and sense of belonging”. –GGbD Designing spaces for Girls, Women and Gender Diverse People”.
Commentary: Discuss crossings that prevent users from crossing safely (wait times, rushing to get across) and those that are exemplary.
Commentary: Discuss if crossings can accommodate all users (disabled and vulnerable users)
Commentary: Discuss how well lit the crossings are, identify crossings that could be improved.
Commentary: Discuss how crossings interact with the public realm and where there are good examples of this or where improvements could occur.
Action: Photograph and map areas where there is a lack of street lighting and CCTV coverage (visual assessment on site) and areas where there is a perceived good level CCTV and lighting coverage.
Action: Photograph areas which are run down, not free of litter etc – Which is linked with the perceived feeling of being unsafe
Commentary: Discuss and identify areas where the speed limit can be lowered.
Commentary: Discuss and identify areas where cycling on pavements pose a risk to safety of pedestrians.
Commentary: Discuss and identify inaccessible and isolated spaces surrounding public transport.
Indicator: Things to see and do
A review of the local amenities along the route and active street frontage
Indicator: Places to stop and rest
A review of the street furniture along the route
Action: Photographs of active street frontage, street vendors, socialising on street.
Commentary: Discuss the opportunities that the route provides for social activities and how engaging the route is for users
Commentary: Discuss and identify areas which do not have any active frontage and may benefit from some changes in streetscape / usage etc.
Action: Photograph and map places for users to sit and rest, and areas where there are opportunities to install street furniture to accommodate seating areas / visual amenities / public realm opportunities etc.
Commentary: Discuss the location of seated areas, are seated areas away from traffic.
Commentary: Are there opportunities to provide temporary or seasonal seating?
Indicator: People feel relaxed*
A review of the overall feel and character of the route
Action: Photograph areas where litter is visible on pavement and cycle route.
Indicator: Not too noisy*
A review of the routes noise levels and impact on users
Action: Photograph areas where the pavement narrows and it feels crowded, show street clutter (phone boxes, railings etc). Also any examples of a welcoming street, with local identity and sense of place.
Commentary: Discuss if the route and street is laid out in a way that makes it easy to navigate on foot or by cycle.
Commentary: Discuss and identify areas where pavements and cycle lanes are not wide enough for the number of people using them now or in the future.
Commentary: Discuss and identify areas where vehicle sound horns/ engines and high levels of ambient noise occur.
Commentary: Discuss and identify areas where roads have been re-surfaced to reduce road noise, or where aggressive driving may occur and where further education could be of benefit to reduce speeds/noise.
Commentary: Is there noise and other disruption coming from deliveries and waste collection, and do these happen at particularly sensitive time.
Indicator: Clean Air
A review of the current impacts on air quality and where improvements can be made
Indicator: Shade and Shelter
A review of the current street furniture and buildings along route that provide shade and shelter.
Action: Photos of anycampaigns and promotional activities, e.g. discouraging drivers from leaving their engines running when they’re parked or in stationary traffic.
Action + Commentary: Locations/areas where it possible to reduce the amount of traffic using the street or restrict access to low polluting vehicles. E.g., Model filters.
Action: Locations where shelter is provided or lack ofshelter
Commentary: Discuss areas where buildings along the street provide opportunities for shelter, such as canopies or awnings and where bus stops have shelters.
Commentary: Discuss and identify areas where shade and shelter could be required or improved.
Night-TimeReviewandSafety
Following on from the TA scoping discussions it was noted that a night-time assessment should be included.
As part of the ATZ assessment therefore, it is proposed to undertake appropriate6 daytime and night-time reviews of the routes.
For a night-time assessment the assessment methodology remains broadly the same as that shown in Table 2. However, there will be further analysis of the following criteria/indicators* as marked in the table above and set out in further detail below.
These indicators also link with the GLA guidance listed above. As set out in the Safety in Public Space guidance, “a sense of safety is much more complex than avoidance of crime. Safety can be understood through three lenses: freedom from violence, harassment and intimidation; usability; and sense of belonging.” Figure 2 represents these points.
Figure 2: Three Lenses of Safety – from Safety in Public Space - Women, Girls and Gender Diverse People
Whilst the above is equally applicable to all user groups, particular focus will be made on those that could be marginalised even further through poor design or lack of consideration.
Focusing on the indicators, the following list sets out the additional night-time assessment and safety perceptions to be included. This is not an exhaustive list, but sets out a summary of the likely elements to be accounted for when auditing.
Pedestrians
from all walks of life
Discuss where areas do not cater for all users, especially public realm areas at night, Can improvements be identified that foster a sense of empowerment and belonging, via public art installations, place names, advertising campaigns and community events etc.
Easy to Cross
- To discusshow well lit are crossings at night and identify crossings that could be improved and those that are poorly lit.
6 In this regard, the auditors will undertake a post PM peak hour review which may or may not be in darkness depending on the time of year. Auditors will seek to cover the same areas as the daytime review – however some routes may not be as accessible, and this will be reported within the ATZ analysis.
- Commentary on whether there are appropriate waiting areas for all users whilst waiting.
People Feel Safe
- Discuss and identify areas that potentially lack CCTV or are not overlooked at night and those that are perceived to provide a safe environment with active frontage at night and well trafficked.
- Identify areas that are both well-lit and those that are poorly lit, do they pose safety concerns for users.
- Discuss whether routes are visible to users, can the end of links be seen at the start – e.g. clear sight lines – is there appropriate signage available
- Can additional safety measures be introduced, such as emergency phones to improve usage and perceptions of safety,
- Identify areas where neighbourhood policing is present.
Not too noisy
- Identify areas that are quiet and those that are too loud during night-time activity.
- Discuss opportunities to reduce noise levels at night.
People feel relaxed
- Is the street laid out so that it is easy to navigate at night.
- Is there step free access across the site? Do users have to take significantly longer journeys to reach the step free access?
- Discuss the level of street furniture and cleanliness of the route during night-time travel.
Safety Inclusion Assessment (SIA) and Women Safety Review
Following on from the initial TA scoping discussions it was noted that not only a night-time assessment should be included as part of the scheme, but that use of WSP’s Safety Inclusion Assessment (SIA) to inform active travel infrastructure improvements across key routes surrounding the Earls Court development, should also be completed.
The purpose of the Safety Inclusion Assessment is to:
Assess real and perceived personal safety risks early in the design process
Highlight specific areas of concern for those who are most vulnerable
Identify viable design solutions to address safety issues
The SIA seeks to encourage an uptake of public transport, active travel, and greater use of public space, by identifying viable design solutions which address issues of personal safety. The SIA improves the representation of user groups in the design process and draws on best practice research, UK design standards, and crime prevention through environmental design principles (CPTED). The approach considers both qualitative and quantitative data across five key criteria, listed below, as well as a series of sub-criteria.
Surveillance, Space Activation, Legibility, Women’s Safety, and Inclusiveness.
The focus areas for the assessment have been determined by the extensive research WSP have undertaken in understanding gender sensitive design and safety perceptions on public transport and in the built environment. It seeks to resolve inequalities and disadvantages in our urban environment, developed
from biased or gendered social structures, that limit the opportunities and rights of any person, regardless of gender.
Personal safety is subjective, therefore capturing both qualitative and quantitative data is critical to understanding local context and personal safety issues. As such, where possible, stakeholder engagement with local end users and expert groups will also be undertaken to validate and strengthen the SIA findings. This can help us to understand diverse user perspectives and how to enhance the use of public space and active travel infrastructure.
The findings of the SIA assessment will enable TfL, Hammersmith and Fulham and Kensington and Chelsea to prioritise interventions that are deliverable and provide the greatest benefit to users.
The SIA will likely adopt the following methodology stages;
Stage 1: Desktop Assessment
Undertake a virtual desktop SIA assessment within the scheme extents outlined above with the assistance of Google Maps / Google Street View. This will help to identify potential existing safety issues their locations which we will use to inform our in-person site visits.
Stage 2: SIA tool in-person assessment
The feeling of safety is challenging to capture via a desktop assessment, as such we would propose to undertake a secondary assessment to validate the SIA and its initial findings. This requires site visits to assess the sites in person. This will seek to use the same ATZ outputs being collected wherever possible, but focusing on a smaller number of key routes. Figure 3 below outlines the six ATZ routes to be assessed under SIA as per October 2023 discussions.
Figure 3: SIA Routes (Indicative)
In addition to the above, the night-time assessments include:
Space interaction - How interaction with the space changes after dark. This includes assessing the number of users in the site and the type of activity taking place. For example, if there is a heavy amount of alcohol consumption taking place, how is this managed and how does it impact the feeling of safety.
Lighting – Lighting is a key factor determining the level of visibility and surveillance after dark. This aspect of the assessment evaluates how the street lighting works: does the lighting create any shadows or blind spots, which areas are better lit than others, whether there is a correlation with lighting and nighttime activity, transport hubs etc.
Land use - This examines the type of sites that are open in the area and whether there are any sites, for example shops or restaurants, open late.
As part of the assessment, each criterion will be assigned a score from 0-3. A score of zero would indicative more comprehensive design issues, whereas a score of three would highlight that appropriate design and / or high levels of personal safety are observed.
Stage 3: Analysis and reporting
The findings will then be summarised into a report to include:
A Power-BI dashboard with personal safety issues spatially mapped, The safety issues identified within the desktop and in-person site visits (including site observations and photos), Our recommended solutions.
The solutions identified will be prioritised based on an assessment of their impact and deliverability, which will allow decision makers to identify priorities for changes and/or investment.
Where possible, the SIA team will also undertake community engagement, with the PRIP, to validate
SUMMARY
This note intends to set out the methodology and areas of focus for the ATZ assessment as part of the TA accompanying the Earls Court development.
The methodology outlined above intends to undertake ATZ route audits under key healthy streets indicators for the following time periods;
Daytime assessment, plus
Night-time assessment
The 10 healthy street indicators will be reviewed, but in addition a focus on night-time elements will also be considered. Review of guidance for marginalised or vulnerable user groups has identified where additional elements will need to be included within the audit.
In addition, the SIA team will be undertaking a review of 6 selected routes, informed by community engagement, to provide further insight into the potential improvements that could be implemented in the area.
Further details on the phasing of the site are shown within the TA and the ATZ routes will be reviewed with those phases in mind. This note has aimed to set out the routes that will be assessed for the completed development.
ATZ ROUTES (INDICATIVE)
ACCESS FIGURES AND HEALTHY STREETS MAPS
DAORKCIWRAW ECNARTNE
NOTPMORBECNARTNE
Earls Court TA Scoping (Feb 2024 issue) TfL comments log 5 April 2024
1.1 Chapter 1 Introductions
1.4. Development proposals and the format of the 'hybrid' application are as discussed throughout the pre-app process. Noting the proposed phasing and mix of detail and outline elements, with all matters reserved including access. We have discussed the plan to reserve access and although not TFL's favoured approach, we are now comfortable that it can work with the right set of planning conditions, likely to include requirements for phased / interim access works to ensure detailed plots are properly served from first occupation especially in terms of active travel and safety.
2.1 Chapter 2 Site and Surroundings
2.3.7 Figure 2.5 Cycle Docking Locations - From the list below, only Collingham Gardens has spare capacity and the remainder is well used and working at capacity, thus unable to absorb an increase in demand from the proposed Earl’s Court development.
3.1
Chapter 3 Development Proposals
3.2.4 car club not supported as many of the same negative impacts of private car ownership
3.4.2 The final TA should explain how walking mode share of 15% derived and how it links to the trip gen / mode share exercise. But overall ambition supported.
3.4.4 Given the uncertainty of the Cluny Mews and NAR access points - can TA show how site would operate without these?
3.4.7 Mentioned elsewhere - easement arrangements need to be produced.
3.4.12 no reference/commitment to connecting to any cycle routes on LBHF side of site. The new A4 crossing should be for cyclists as well as peds. How do cyclists get into the site from the north?
3.4.14 These paragraphs should be agreed by TfL Warwick Road Corridor team and caveated that all subject to the VISSIM modelling and multi-modal outcomes, internal governance at TfL sign off etc.
3.4.15 Lillie Road / Old Brompton Road improvements - TfL Warwick Road Corridor team to review, all needs to link together and be part of the overall package of measures, potentially including bus priority.
3.4.15 Figure 3-5 to 3-9 - TfL Warwick Road Corridor team to review - will send through feedback.
3.4.16 60% of trips to be by public transport, again need narrative and link to the strategic mode share targets, trip gen exercise and so on.
3.4.18
Facilitating step free or delivering step-free? Needs to be deliver. What's a mobility hub? TfL agree that no bus routes are provided through the masterplan development, this is in support of achieving the pedestrian first approach. However, access to bus stops should be in line with London Plan policy and improvements to bus stops should be made where necessary.
3.4.25 Lillie Rd bus layover serving a lot of functions - can the TA show cumulative numbers and types of vehicles for each phase then end state. Strategy for maintaining bus access throughout, dealing with breakdowns, security? Info sent of capacity (4 x stands) on 29.3.24. Please note lots of work to progress on design of stands and driver welfare facilities.
3.4.2730 Station improvements. Agree on-going work at the three stations as described.
3.4.31 Car club - not supported
3.4.34 Taxi drop-off, the design / location of this should be agreed by TfL and generally more work to do on taxi / PHV strategy for the different phases to ensure accessibility and safety for those who need it (mobility issues, night-time etc) but balanced with prioritising active travel in the site.
3.4.36 Lillie Road and Empress Place - to be reviewed by Warwick Rd corridor team, will feedback further
3.4.44 Tesco basement / NAR - please can we have evidence of this?
3.4.45 Controlled access - need public access 24/7 and ref to Public London Charter
3.4.48 Taxi and private hire - as above needs to ref to safety /surveillance and accessibility to front doors.
3.4.50 Emergency vehicle access - TA should include relevant approvals / dimensions.
3.4.6 Wording of Cluny Mews 'there may also be a connection', this should be a commitment, or demonstrate functions without.
3.4.8 suggest amending wording - car lite not car-free
3.4.9 cycle target 15% of trips, please evidence this in ref to MTS, LP + Local P's and wider trip gen exercise.
3.4.11 Figure 3.2 Cycling Strategy Overview Plan Dom to review further and feedback.
3.4.61 visitor parking, 'essential visitors' please clarify here that these spaces will not be used for general parking, as we've previously said, this item i.e. tradespeople - would be best picked up in delivery and servicing strategy.
3.4.61 Car club - not supported by LP policy.
3.8.5 Cluny Mews as above.
4.1 Chapter 4 Assessment approach
4.3 Trip generation and mode share as per comments supplied 28.2.24
4.4 Strategic modelling approach - as progressing through workstream between TfL/WSP/Jacobs.
4.5 Dev impact - agreed and on-going
4.5.7 PCL scope, this should be expanded to include all arms of the Tesco Junction, and Finborough Road.
4.5.29 reminder that RSA audit team and methodology need to be signed off by TfL, for TLRN and bus layover
4.6.1 methodology for parking surveys - need to extend scope, agree times and days with boroughs
4.7.1
Construction logistics plan - detailed CLP will be required to accompany detailed plots, with outline for the rest. This should be prepared in line with TfL guidance including for the detailed CLP: vehicle routing and indicative numbers (including peaks), duration / timescales, access arrangements and swept path analysis of largest vehicles
4.8. ATZ routes agreed with TfL, not boroughs?
4.8.4 and the ATZ assessment is to identify where interventions are needed to mitigate ped and cycle demand from the dev't.
5.1 Chapter 5 Supporting Documents
5.5
We have discussed a 'monitor and manage' to dealing with some elements of the scheme, esp in later phases. Is it envisaged that this would stem from the travel plan, or separate process? Something for us all to discuss.
Response to TfL Scoping Comments
Response to TfL comments dated 05/04/2024 – “Earls Court TAScoping (Feb 2024 issue) TfL comments log 5 April 2024”
General Item Comment Response
Introduction Development proposals and the format of the 'hybrid' application are as discussed throughout the pre-app process. Noting the proposed phasing and mix of detail and outline elements, with all matters reserved including access. We have discussed the plan to reserve access and although not TFL's favoured approach, we are now comfortable that it can work with the right set of planning conditions, likely to include requirements for phased / interim access works to ensure detailed plots are properly served from first occupation especially in terms of active travel and safety. .
Site and Surroundings Figure 2.5 Cycle Docking Locations - From the list below, only Collingham Gardens has spare capacity and the remainder is well used and working at capacity, thus unable to absorb an increase in demand from the proposed Earl’s Court development
Development Proposals
3.2.4
3.4.2
3.4.4
3.4.7
car club not supported as many of the same negative impacts of private car ownership
The final TA should explain how walking mode share of 15% derived and how it links to the trip gen / mode share exercise. But overall ambition supported
Given the uncertainty of the Cluny Mews and NAR access points - can TA show how site would operate without these?
See planning strategy section within TA, as well as supporting submission documents.
Noted. Proposals for on-site cycle hire docking stations included within the TA.
The car club forms part of the car-lite parking strategy proposed.
The TA sets out the transport strategy and supporting mitigation to achieve walking mode shares.
Access through the 100 West Cromwell Road basement is subject to a separate deed of grant. Information can be shared separately with TfL.
Mentioned elsewhere - easement arrangements need to be produced. Access through the 100 West Cromwell Road basement is subject to a separate deed of grant. Information can be shared separately with TfL.
Response to TfL Scoping Comments
General Item Comment Response
3.4.12
3.4.14
3.4.15
3.4.15
3.4.16
3.4.18
3.4.25
no reference/commitment to connecting to any cycle routes on LBHF side of site. The newA4 crossing should be for cyclists as well as peds. How do cyclists get into the site from the north?
These paragraphs should be agreed by TfL Warwick Road Corridor team and caveated that all subject to the VISSIM modelling and multi-modal outcomes, internal governance at TfL sign off etc.
Lillie Road / Old Brompton Road improvements - TfL Warwick Road Corridor team to review, all needs to link together and be part of the overall package of measures, potentially including bus priority.
Figure 3-5 to 3-9 - TfL Warwick Road Corridor team to review - will send through feedback.
60% of trips to be by public transport, again need narrative and link to the strategic mode share targets, trip gen exercise and so on.
Facilitating step free or delivering step-free? Needs to be deliver. What's a mobility hub? TfL agree that no bus routes are provided through the masterplan development, this is in support of achieving the pedestrian first approach.
However, access to bus stops should be in line with London Plan policy and improvements to bus stops should be made where necessary.
Lillie Rd bus layover serving a lot of functions - can the TA show cumulative numbers and types of vehicles for each phase then end state. Strategy for maintaining bus access throughout, dealing with breakdowns, security? Info sent of capacity (4 x stands) on 29.3.24. Please note lots of work to progress on design of stands and driver welfare facilities.
See mitigation strategy within the TA on the A4 crossing and connectivity to the north.
The TA presents the current status of the proposals noting that further discussions will be held post application.
Separate discussions have been held on the Lillie Road / Old Brompton Road corridor. The TA presents the currently proposed design but acknowledges that further discussions will be held post-application.
Noted.
TA sets out the PT strategy and the supporting mitigation needed to align with the PT strategy.
See TA strategy for PT provision across the stations and bus stops / routes. Agreed on the bus provision through the site.
The TA sets out the strategy for Lillie Road layover and supporting information discussed to date.
3.4.27- 30 Station improvements. Agree on-going work at the three stations as described. Agreed and noted.
3.4.31 Car club - not supported See response above.
3.4.34 Taxi drop-off, the design / location of this should be agreed by TfL and generally more work to do on taxi / PHV strategy for the different phases to ensure accessibility and safety for those who need it (mobility issues, night-time etc) but balanced with prioritising active travel in the site.
See access strategy in the TA on use or private / taxi areas. Noted about phasing.
Response to TfL Scoping Comments
General Item Comment Response
3.4.36
3.4.44
Lillie Road and Empress Place - to be reviewed by Warwick Rd corridor team, will feedback further
Tesco basement / NAR - please can we have evidence of this?
3.4.45
3.4.48
3.4.50
3.4.6
Controlled access - need public access 24/7 and ref to Public London Charter
Taxi and private hire - as above needs to ref to safety /surveillance and accessibility to front doors.
Emergency vehicle access - TA should include relevant approvals / dimensions.
Wording of Cluny Mews 'there may also be a connection', this should be a commitment, or demonstrate functions without.
3.4.8 suggest amending wording - car lite not car-free
3.4.9 cycle target 15% of trips, please evidence this in ref to MTS, LP + Local P's and wider trip gen exercise.
3.4.11
3.4.61
3.4.61
Figure 3.2 Cycling Strategy Overview Plan Dom to review further and feedback.
visitor parking, 'essential visitors' please clarify here that these spaces will not be used for general parking, as we've previously said, this item i.e. tradespeople - would be best picked up in delivery and servicing strategy.
Noted. Separate discussions have been held on this and updated strategies are presented within the TA.
Access through the 100 West Cromwell Road basement is subject to a separate deed of grant. Information can be shared separately with TfL.
See access strategy section within TA.
Noted. See Security Strategy supporting application as well as access strategy within TA.
See access strategy and access designs within TA. Final public realm design will be the subject of RMAs.
Noted. This is subject the third party land agreement.
Agreed, parking strategy has been revised to refer to being car-lite.
See development proposals and access strategy (including provision on docking stations etc)
Noted.
See PMDP supporting application.
Car club - not supported by LP policy. See comment above
3.8.5 Cluny Mews as above. See comment above Assessment Approach
4.3
Trip generation and mode share as per comments supplied 28.2.24
Noted. The trip generation and its comparison against MoTiON is set out in the TA.
Response to TfL Scoping Comments
General Item Comment Response
4.4 Strategic modelling approach - as progressing through workstream between TfL/WSP/Jacobs.
4.5 Dev impact - agreed and on-going
4.5.7 PCL scope, this should be expanded to include all arms of the Tesco Junction, and Finborough Road.
4.5.29 reminder that RSA audit team and methodology need to be signed off by TfL, for TLRN and bus layover
4.6.1 methodology for parking surveys - need to extend scope, agree times and days with boroughs
4.7.1 Construction logistics plan - detailed CLP will be required to accompany detailed plots, with outline for the rest. This should be prepared in line with TfL guidance including for the detailed CLP: vehicle routing and indicative numbers (including peaks), duration / timescales, access arrangements and swept path analysis of largest vehicles
4.8. ATZ routes agreed with TfL, not boroughs?
4.8.4 and the ATZ assessment is to identify where interventions are needed to mitigate ped and cycle demand from the dev't.
Supporting Documents
5.5 We have discussed a 'monitor and manage' to dealing with some elements of the scheme, esp in later phases. Is it envisaged that this would stem from the travel plan, or separate process? Something for us all to discuss.
Noted.
Agreed – ongoing as per TA commentary.
Noted. See PCL summary within TA which includes these.
Noted. Separate discussions on RSAs had at last pre-app meeting.
Noted. Parking surveys reflective of comments from Boroughs.
CLPs prepared by Turner and Townsend.
ATZ routes agreed with Boroughs prior to site visits.
ATZ indicates where suggested improvements could occur, not only related to the development impact. The TA then further provides suggested areas of focus related to the development.
It is anticipated that this would be separate to the Travel Plan. Further information is provided in the TA..
London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham
Transport and Technical Services
6th Floor Hammersmith Town Hall Extension, King Street, Hammersmith W6 9JU.
Application Reference: Updated Transport Assessment Scoping Response
Site
Earls Court Masterplan
Please key a capital X in the box against only one of the following appropriate replies:
No objection to the proposal.
No objection to the proposal subject to conditions (see observations below).
XThere are comments about the proposal. (see observations below).
Objections to the proposal. Please negotiate amendments and refuse application if unsuccessful (see observations below).
Proposal unsatisfactory. Application should be refused for the reasons stated (see observations below).
Proposal
The development of a mixed-use scheme, including residential, employment, retail and cultural uses. The proposed development is expected to comprise a detailed component Phase 1, and an outline component. The overall quantum of development proposed to be in the region of 4,500 residential dwellings, 215,500 sqm of employment space equating to around 15,000 new employments opportunities, 17,500 sqm of retail space and a new cultural centre of 3,000 sqm. The development will vary in height across the site, with the maximum block likely to be up to 38 storeys.
It is noted that this latest masterplan is a reduced version of an earlier masterplan approval referred to as Earls Court Masterplan (ECM), which was granted outline planning permission in 2013, H&F planning reference: 2011/02001/OUT.
Observations
The application site covers a wide area and is located within two London Boroughs, those of Hammersmith and Fulham (H&F) and Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC).
The development site covers an area of approximately 40 acres. The site has a PTAL rating that varies across the site, with the higher PTAL ratings of 6a and 6b on the outer edges of the site, where these provide access to public transport links and the more central parts of the site having a PTAL rating of 3.
The site has access to Earls Court Station, via Warwick Road entrance on the eastern boundary, West Brompton Station via Brompton Road on the southern boundary and West Kensington Station located on the northern boundary.
West Brompton Station, West Kensington and Lillie Road bus layover form the public transport connections within H&F.
It is acknowledged that discussions, workshops and meetings pertaining to the planning application are ongoing between all stakeholders. This response provides an updated consideration of the proposals, from LBHF, in relation to the revised information set out in the Transport Assessment Scoping Report dated February 2024. This follows on from the initial Transport Assessment Scoping Report dated April 2023 and subsequent comments received from WSP dated 9th January 2024 in relation to the LBHF comments.
LBHF have participated in various meetings held, and this amended response is made on the premise that a greater level of detail has been shared in respect of the development and to reflect discussions held in relation to the transport considerations.
1. Introduction
The comments contained within this scoping response primarily relate to aspects of the development site as they impact the borough. Comments set out in this updated response are a combination of earlier commentary and additional comments in refection of comments made by TfL.
It is noted that the planning application is proposed to be submitted as a single hybrid application, with reserved matters covering a number of key elements, including access. It is recognised that some elements of the application will form a ‘detailed’ submission as they relate to specific blocks within the two boroughs, as part of the phased development.
Although this is not directly connected to the latest TA Scoping Note dated Feb 24, Highways and Transport have previously aired concerns with the approach being adopted. LBHF, as the Highway Authority, have had experience of other similar large regeneration developments taking this approach and can advise that this approach is generally overcomplicated, confusing and inflexible, in relation to Transport aspects. LBHF experiences to date would indicate that this approach, incorporating reserved matters alongside a Design Code rarely delivers on the intended outcomes or aspirations.
This comment can be expanded in relation to the detailed explanation of the hybrid application, as this sets out that only detailed layout plans would be submitted for individual plots (a number of which are located within LBHF in Phase 1).
These detailed plots are not informed by detailed plans for key transport considerations such as access points, refuse collection routes, servicing routes or Blue Badge parking (if outside the individual plot).
These key transport elements are proposed to be covered under reserved matters or within Parameter Plans or the Design Code, to provide base for a more flexible consideration. If these ‘flexible’ elements are not included as detailed as they relate to the plots, what guarantees that what is being relied upon will be available or deliverable later? If the intention is to place reliance on the Parameter Plans and/or Design Code, then LBHF Highways have further concerns that these documents are not sufficient to fully address these concerns. Examples of similar development using this approach have resulted in no change and no flexibility, as subsequent reserved matters applications have placed complete reliance on the Design Code submitted at planning, and subsequently stating all such elements as being approved at the planning stage. This provides Highways and Transport with serious concerns that this places the development at odds with the flexible approach often referred too. It further provides no scope to improve or reflect more up to date policies or guidance that would be in circulation over the course of the site phased build out period of 15 plus years.
These concerns cover important considerations such as footway connections and widths, cycle connections and infrastructure, access routes, access controls, security, servicing locations and associated road widths to support the detailed plots, necessary to inform access and movement requirements. These key aspects will all be absent, and subject to either no change or a significant change at a later date, as it suites the individual contractor building out the plots and not necessarily the policies and best practise required of LBHF
These points are raised, as they come from experience, and although LBHF Planning are comfortable with the approach, the key transport aspects are open to significant change, alteration or can be easily removed following the submission, as future reserved matters applications are submitted by individual contractors for individual plots and phases
As such, LBHF Highway and Transport wish to flag that the planning approach being adopted does NOT provide comfort on transport matters. The approach being taken, involving the use of reserved matters, Parameter Plans, Design Code, planning conditions, obligations and other control measures make for an overly complicated and confusing approach in future years. This conclusion is based upon experience with similar largescale regeneration developments being undertaken in the Borough.
Having set out the above, in relation to preparing and submitting a single Transport Assessment, covering both boroughs this is generally supported, although it would need to be made clear within the TA how trips are distributed and quantum of trips between and across the site and borough boundary to be able to identify areas where impacts will occur to inform the appropriate mitigation measures within the boroughs and how these will be delivered across boundaries.
2. Site and Surroundings
The existing surroundings have been covered in a detail. however, limited consideration has been given to North End Road, the housing estate and A4. These routes are considered constrained and in relation to North End Road no reference is made to the
North End Market, the TA should include considerations to these roads within the constraints section.
The TA should also include reference to the housing estate directly to the west of the site (which previously formed part of the wider masterplan consideration).
The TA should ensure that the assessment covers existing facilities, connectivity and infrastructure with a detailed review of this area. It is also recommended that the existing assessment covers identification of greening and areas of open space, in line with Health Streets indicators.
LBHF provide specific comments in relation to section 2.3.8 where it refers to micromobility and use of e-scooters/e-bikes and other similar pick up and go forms of movement. Although it is noted that these are currently being trialled for use, these forms of mobility scooter are currently illegal to use on the public highway. In relation to similar cycle operators, such as Lime, the borough has considerable problems with this form of movement, with e-scooters/e-bikes etc being ‘dumped’ after use in often dangerous and inappropriate locations, causing obstructions and blocking public highways. There is considerable concern with this approach to micro-mobility function being introduced within the site, as this often results in more issues with conflict, anti-social behaviour and obstructions to other users, in particular disabled users. Should such an approach be introduced then significant management and monitoring measures will need to provided on-site and financial contributions secured to enable the borough to manage and deal with potential problems, which have been associated with these micro-mobility hubs.
3. Development Proposals
LBHF would request that reference is made back to the previous comments provided on the development proposals made in relation to the earlier Scoping Note. This recommendation is made as a number of comments made in response provide little comfort that the comments made have been taken into consideration as the Masterplan has been developed.
This is most notable in respect of vehicle access, in that the initial access strategy focused within the borough was based on Beaumont Avenue, Lillie Road and Empress Place.
LBHF were generally supportive of the initial approach, however despite concerns flagged to the contrary the masterplan has subsequently changed this accepted approach by introducing a significant increase in both general access and vehicle access points within the housing estate area, which is an area of noted constraint. With access points now being detailed from Mund Street and Aisgill Avenue. This revised access strategy from section 3.4.31 has not been agreed with LBHF or LBHF Housing.
Given that access beyond the original access strategy has not been agreed with LBHF, for any of the increased access points via the housing estate on Mund Street or Aisgill Avenue, the TA should set out how the site would operate without these access points, should agreement not be reached.
The TA should present two scenarios both in terms of how the site will operate with and without the additional access points and the modelling results should be detail trip distribution and impact with and without these access points.
Detailed points on the transport strategy are set out under the various subheadings below.
Should agreement be sought in respect of additional access points, then LBHF set out that these should focus on consolidation of access points, to minimise the impact and that all vehicles (if vehicle access is required) are able to enter and exit the site in forward gear. Should agreements be reached for additional access points, then the management and control considerations as to how these points interact with the public highway are clearly set out.
3.4.1 Pedestrian Access
The general approach to prioritise pedestrian access within the strategy is welcomed, as the application is seeking to ‘open’ the site up to be fully permeable for the first time in over one hundred years with a new east-west sustainable link and improvements from the south of the site towards the north.
The detailed comments already set out by TfL in relation to pedestrian access strategy are supported by LBHF. TfL comments made in relation to the existing provision and gaps analysis for pedestrian access are supported by LBHF, in particular access and connectivity to the north of the site, via across/over the A4 corridor and connections on the western boundary.
However, it continues to remain unclear as to why the different pedestrian access points are being graded and differentiated, which does not fully align with the people first strategy. The borough raise a serious concern that this strategy is being fundamentally undermined with the approach that all access points are being vehicle enabled, this is noted supported by LBHF This approach is detailed from a review of the masterplan, as there are no ‘pedestrian or cycle’ only access points into the site, All ‘access’ points into the site are being designed to enable vehicles to enter the site, by enabling vehicles to enter the site from all the access points is considered to undermine the pedestrian priority strategy and carbon neutral approach. The TA should set out clearly the how the pedestrian priority strategy is being taken, as all access points are vehicle enabled, reference to pedestrian and cycle priority is queried, as this is not what the masterplan demonstrates.
In all locations where the site is connected to the wider area, high quality and welcoming points of access for pedestrian (and cycle) movements should be provided as primary access points. Seeking to enable vehicle access via these ‘car-free’ points are not supported and should be discouraged (this includes seeking to enable emergency vehicle access via pedestrian points, as once vehicle access is provided this undermines the pedestrian priority and public realm approach). Further comments on this are set out in the vehicle access section.
The TA should clearly set out where the gaps currently exist and what measures are to be provided to enhance and prioritise pedestrian movements, footway / public realm widths, these routes should not be deferred to reserved matters. The strategy should include a wayfinding / signage strategy to pedestrian, cyclists and servicing to ensure defined routes through the site are clear.
As set out in general comments, where gaps are identified and mitigation measures proposed, these are required to supported by Pedestrian Comfort Level Assessments.
Comments picked up with TfL, the TA will need to provide detail around the proposals for Lillie Road and how they connect with the proposal for Empress Place and the future operation of Lillie Road from West Brompton Station into the site. Add to this around agreements ….
The TA should detail what a mobility hub and micro-mobility hub are, what are the differences between the two. The TA should detail where mobility hubs and micro-mobility hubs will be located and how these will be managed and maintained should be set out The borough has experienced significant issues with these and have concerns over these being introduced.
TfL make reference to step-free considerations, these comments are supported by LBHF but this comment on step-free is taken further in relation to accessing key transport hubs, modes and other supporting transport elements. Step-free is a key requirement and consideration in making the development fully accessible for all users.
As has been referenced in the TA, the site is car-lite (not car-free) with provision for essential vehicle access whether servicing, emergency or Blue Badge holders. As such pedestrian and walking must be seen to be a useable and easily accessible alternative for future occupiers. As currently presented in the detailed plot layouts, LBHF question as to whether this approach has been adopted, as the provision does not come across as exemplar with this shared approach to access.
3.4.8 Cycling Access
The masterplan vision to provide connectivity for cyclists and pedestrians with a range of access points to ‘filter’ movements around and through the site to avoid creating pinch points is welcomed and supported (subject to the concerns raised around enabling vehicles to enter the site from all access points)
It is recommended that consideration is given to assessing the internal future provision to ensure that the site provides a benchmark for delivering high quality networks, that ensures connections and access to high-quality cycle storage as the primary means of movement for future residents is made available from day one.
Comments picked up with TfL, the TA must detail connections for cyclists into the borough from the site and commitments in place to ensure that the connections are supportable and how they will be delivered. Reference to the A4 is noted, which is welcomed. Any new provision that introduces a crossing on the A4 must be fully assessed and modelled to understand the impacts.
TfL make reference to step-free considerations, these comments are supported by LBHF but this comment on step-free is taken further in relation to accessing key transport modes such as cycle parking. Detailed plot plans presented identify that a number of cycle storage areas are not step-free, requiring access via ‘steps’ which is not supported by LBHF or require some alternative access to traverse different levels within individual plots. LBHF highlight that the plots have not been built and are still at planning stages, as they development should be being designed for the future it is not clear as to why barriers are being designed in from the beginning, why are floor plates not step-free? Why are split levels of up to 2metres being designed into the building and then seeking justification that the number of cycle spaces are being provided? LBHF continue to question the terminology around step-free as this is applied to cycle parking.
This is considered a critical and essential point to recognise and address if there is an aspiration to achieve a 15% modal target for cycling. To meet this target it is not just numbers that are important, but the quality and accessibility of the cycle provision that is key. If cycle parking and cycle storage locations are not visible and are hidden to the rear of a building, on split levels and cannot be accessed in a step-free way (not via stairs) then meeting the 15% modal target may prove difficult to achieve.
From the more detailed plans presented in respect of cycle parking, there are some concerns that the storage locations are not in easily accessible, require access via multiple doors or are required to be accessed via stairs/lifts. The supporting detailed plot proposals are recommended to be developed in relation to the priority hierarchy and clearly set out in the TA.
Good quality and fully accessible cycle parking must be provided alongside improvements being proposed along Lillie Road and Beaumont Avenue to the cycle infrastructure. Both the wider site connectivity and routes across the site should ensure priority is given for direct cycle connectivity across the site, not just cycle connections to the site boundary.
Similar to pedestrian access, much is set out within the Scoping Report that refers to how the wider network connects to the development site, which is welcomed. However, given the overall size of the site and the levels differences across the site, cycle connectivity across and through the site must continue to be set out to ensure that routes are connected beyond the site boundary.
The TA does not currently identify how the cycle infrastructure would connect to the existing network within LBHF. The TA should clearly set out how the proposal will provide wider cycle connectivity to existing and planned routes within LBHF to deliver a connected cycle network beyond the site, that enables longer distance routes to be developed and are suitable to accommodate two-way cargo style cycles.
Where improvements to the cycling infrastructure are proposed, such as along Lillie Road the TA will be expected to undertake junction modelling to identify the network impacts.
The TA should clearly detail how the key principles of the LCDS (which considers cycle provision beyond that of just providing the physical numbers of spaces) have been adopted in the development of the detailed plots.
From a review of detailed plans presented to date, reference to accessing cycle storage via stairs, or channels in stairs or only by lift access is not encouraged or supported by LBHF for a new development. Access should be promoted at ground floor level or via ramps Any access strategy to cycle storage that involves a levels difference (either within the store or split across levels), LBHF will resist. Split level, use of stairs or lifts, is considered a retro-fit style of approach rather than an exemplar / high quality approach
The strategy should include measures to provide a range of high-quality cycle storage across the site, including provision of wash and maintenance hubs including fully accessible cycle storage made available at ground level and step-free, storage facilities for equipment and where required or considered necessary, provision of showers located in proximity to the cycle storage facilities.
The strategy should also include provision of varying sizes of Sheffield type stands to support people who have mobility constraints, children and cargo bikes.
Seeking to accommodate cycle storage within individual residential units is not recommended and will be resisted.
Provision should also be set out for inclusion of e-bikes in a safe location, with charging facilities, and will be resisted in provide within an enclosed ‘basement/under croft’ type area due to fire risks.
Cycle storage must be provided at ground floor level, or step-free (reliance on stair channels is not supported and will be resisted similar to reliance being placed on a single lift), to promote this as a primary means of travel, making it fully accessible.
Where a split-level approach is being adopted, then access would be required to be via dedicated cycle ramp of an acceptable gradient in addition to any lifts. Where lifts are proposed to supplement cycle ramps, these are required to be correctly sized to ensure that these can be accommodate a minimum of two cycles without either cycle having to be up-ended.
Given the mixed-use proposals, it is recommended that consideration is given to providing ‘cycle’ storage areas that are able to support other travel modes, such as mobility scooters and children’s buggies to ensure that the development has sufficient capacity to support all users.
In seeking to provide LCDS compliant cycle parking for all users, including the residential elements, the cycle strategy should be set out to identify barriers to cycling and how these barriers have been removed, including provision for ramp access rather than lifts and/or stairs.
It has been referenced in the TA, the site is car-lite (not car-free) with provision for essential vehicle access whether servicing, emergency or Blue Badge holders. As such cycling must be seen to be a useable and easily accessible alternative for future occupiers. As currently presented in the detailed plot layouts, LBHF question as to whether this approach has been adopted, as the provision does not come across as exemplar (mirrored by TfL comments).
3.4.12 Off-site Cycle Improvements
The TA sets out a number of off-site cycle improvements, including Lillie Road. The borough accepts and recognises the importance of cycle infrastructure and detailed comments on the designs will be provided. The proposals detailed in the TASR should not be taken as approved and should not be assumed as the only mitigation required.
However, the borough would expect improvements to be focused on ensuring that where gaps have been identified for longer connectivity, these are considered. This should include improvements within and across the housing estate and on-going connections both west beyond North End Road and to the north beyond the A4.
Subject to assessments and review of information submitted for the planning submission, further mitigation requirements may be identified.
3.4.16 Public Transport
Lillie Road bus layover, LBHF comment that simply continuing to re-provide what is already on-site is not seen to be improving or upgrading bus accessible, especially give then uplift of people numbers being generated by the site. This is highlighted in context of walk distance from bus stops, as part of the masterplan plots are in excess of the 400m walk distance to a bus stop. What considerations have been given to assessing the existing bus stops and whether these are good quality and are best placed to serve the future development.
LBHF would add that provision of improved bus access, functionality and frequency would further increase any increased PTAL rating, beyond calculations based on connectivity alone. LBHF would recommend and support that Lillie Road provides a new bus function to enable passengers to board and alight in this location. This would support and be better aligned in meeting the aspiration of the site to achieve a 60% mode share of trips for public transport use.
LBHF would recommend that the public transport provision is reviewed and request that a clear strategy is presented on mitigation measures and infrastructure improvements, including increasing frequencies and improved local facilities, such as bus shelter upgrades.
3.4.31 Vehicle Access and Connectivity
As detailed by TfL and RBKC, the access strategy should focus on all modes of travel, including walking, cycling and public transport to ensure that sustainable routes are promoted and provide convenient and clear connections to enable these modes to be prioritised. The updated TSAR seeks to address this point by setting out a hierarchy for movements, with pedestrians and cyclists at the top.
However, having advised the above it remains unclear as to how this hierarchy has been applied to the masterplan development. The updated TSAR is noted as continuing to prioritise vehicle access and has actively sought to increase the number of vehicle access points into the site in this latest evolution. LBHF note that each time a new masterplan layout is presented a new vehicle access has been introduced. Originally, the only vehicle access from the west was via Beaumont Avenue. This has been increased with new vehicle access points now being added on Mund Street and two more on Aisgill Avenue. Furthermore, it is also noted that even the non-vehicle access points are being designed to support vehicle access, in the form of emergency vehicles. This is noted as a concern as this implies that the site is being designed to facilitate a ‘traditional’ vehicle access approach, contrary to the advertised ‘car-free/car-lite’ and pedestrian hierarchy approach.
This is highlighted with the TA referring to the site as car-free, the borough highlight that with the quantum of on-site car parking being provided, along with vehicle access for servicing and emergency vehicles the site is not car-free, it should more accurately be referred to as car-lite (not car-free), providing for essential vehicles only.
Given that access via the housing estate has not been agreed on Mund Street or Aisgill Avenue, the TA should set out how the site would operate without these access points The TA should present two scenarios both in terms of how the site will operate with and without the access points and the modelling results with and without these access points.
LBHF note that all access points are proposed to be enabled for vehicles, whether emergency, general or servicing. LBHF raise this as a matter of concern, as in essence the masterplan is seeking to introduce further vehicle access points into the site. LBHF will resist new access points where these are not essential to meet a mixed use. Where any consideration is for emergency access, this MUST be supported with correspondence from the London based emergency services, such as the London Ambulance Service, Metropolitan Police and London Fire Brigade, to demonstrate that vehicle access is essential, from what are effectively pedestrian and cycle only access points.
As such LBHF remain concerned that a significant reliance continues to be placed on enabling vehicle access into the site along the lines of a traditional vehicle approach, rather than facilitating and embracing the hierarchy approach with a more forward-looking layout that is totally car-free.
The TA and Masterplan layout, should seek to minimise and consolidate vehicle access points, aligned with the original access strategy. The more recent strategy of increasing access points, especially for vehicles, will be resisted by LBHF. New access points, to enable vehicle access, should be minimised and reduced in number from the housing estate. Where vehicle access can be supported, vehicles must enter and exit in forward gear. Reversing vehicles off the public highway into the site or the creation of turning heads is not supported and will be resisted by LBHF.
Much has been made about the site being ‘car-free’ or car-lite providing only essential car parking on-site, which is generally supported by LBHF. However, general visitor car parking is contrary to this and does not fully align with the local policies. LBHF consider that there are other opportunities and mechanisms available to both mitigate for the impact of off-site car parking and provision of on-site essential car parking provision, without having to introduce general visitor car parking.
Reference to maintenance, care support and tradespeople would be considered as being covered under the essential operational requirements within the delivery and servicing considerations. Visitor car parking implies that general visitors to the site are being actively enabled and encouraged to travel to the site by private car, with on-site car parking provision. This is not supported by LBHF. Where essential car parking requirements are identified, then these should be picked up within the wider site strategy for supporting servicing and delivery access, the car parking strategy should include a level of monitoring of the proposed on-site Blue Badge car parking and how these spaces could be reassigned to essential operational uses if required.
In relation to the car-club provision, LBHF are generally comfortable with a provision for car clubs. The TA is requested to include a viability assessment from a car club provider to identify whether this is something that can be offered. Should a car club be provided on-site, then it must be open and accessible to members wherever they are located (whether on or off site). As such any provision of a car-club must be outside any control or gated entry feature to ensure that it is fully accessible for all users.
The car club could be incorporated into a mobility hub, where connections to sustainable travel modes can be made
The move towards a more traditional vehicle centric approach is being flagged as a concern, as the updated Feb 24 TASR does not provide or present any alternative strategy
that does not rely on providing an increased number of vehicle access points. Given that the majority of these new vehicle access points will remove large areas of on-street car parking for existing residents and will be across third-party land, it does not come across as though these issues have been considered in detail or an alternative strategy considered.
As raised in the previous response, as these access points are not directly connected to the public highway, they should not be assumed as being available and the loss of existing on-street parking provision to enable the new vehicle access points are likely to raise objections with local residents.
As requested in the previous scoping note response, a detailed strategy as to the pros and cons of introducing increasing numbers of new vehicle access points along the western boundary is requested to be provided and for this to be fully assessed and justified. Where vehicle access is proposed, this should be provided on the basis that vehicles enter and exit in forwards, vehicles reversing from the public highway would not be supported. At the time of preparing this amended scoping response, no such undertaking or justification has been provided, beyond that of the masterplan requires it!
Given the constraints around bringing access points forward within LBHF, consideration should be given to ensuring that an alternative and workable access strategy is in place, should these vehicle access points, other than Beaumont Avenue, not be agreed.
Although the wider car-lite (not car-free) approach to the generally welcomed and aligned with policy, there continues to be significant concerns that large proportions of the site are available to support vehicle movements, whether connected to servicing, waste, taxi, emergency, blue badge parking and/or visitor car parking.
What measures can be considered within the Design Code or the TA to include a Monitoring and Evaluation Plan (MEP) to identify travel behaviour changes overtime and introduce measures that would remove unused car parking spaces on-site, through measures such as increased cycle parking storage, parklets and seating.
Having these measures set out within the Design Code or the preparation of an MEP within the TA should be considered to further support the approach to being a car-free site, with the focus on high-quality public realm space, supporting the hierarchy approach. These measures should include relocating car parking space and ‘on-street’ parking areas away from the public realm space or if located within a basement area, measures should be set out that would also consider reallocating/removing car parking spaces for more sustainable modes of transport.
The approach to limit vehicle access to essential users should be prioritised to include restricting general private vehicle access into the site and promoting new vehicle access points. LBHF note that aspects to manage access would be through the creation of a gated development is a concern for LBHF as a number of gated entry points are noted. As set out above, consideration should be given to removing or relocating vehicle access to the outer boundary of the site, removing gated entry points and creation of completely car-free public realm focused development.
As set out above and connected to the concerns around the approach being taken for planning purposes (with many key planning transport aspects being left to reserved matters) has the potential to result in a ‘draft’ site layout that is open to change and
amendments where essential movement aspects, such as around footway widths, cycle parking/storage, cycle connectivity, mobility hubs should be confirmed and assessed.
In developing the Blue Badge strategy, consideration should be given to the distances that holders of Blue Badge will have to traverse between a Blue Badge bays and a final destination, this should be no more than 50m. It is noted that provision is being made for Blue Badge parking at 3% on-site, which is welcomed. Details should be set out in a Site Management Plan (or detailed within the advised MEP) that include measures to monitor occupation of Blue Badge spaces to ensure parking spaces are not abused and that provision can be reduced (or increased) as required over the lifetime of the development.
Impacts on the surrounding residential areas should be considered in detail, as the potential impacts of the masterplan proposals will be on the existing on-street car parking stress levels.
3.4.51 Waste, Delivery and Servicing
Consideration should be given to comments already made in respect of vehicle access, in what measures have been taken into consideration to locate vehicle access below ground to create a car-free public realm ground floor space.
Subject to the outcome of removing all non-essential vehicle movements from the public realm space, what consideration has been given to promoting alternative waste collection opportunities to limit and minimise waste generated by the site. What consideration has been given to a central waste collection location for all users of the site, to include Envac (envacgroup.com) type systems that remove waste from each unit and public realm space via vacuum to a central storage location, which provides a sustainable form of waste collection and reduces the total number of vehicles coming to site.
Alongside an alternative waste collection system, details should also be included on how low emissions will be promoted and supported in connection to waste and servicing vehicle movements and clearly set out in a Delivery and Servicing Plan (including Waste collection management measures). The TA references a low carbon site, measures to ensure that servicing and maintenance vehicles coming to this site meet this aspiration should be set out, how will external providers be made aware that low carbon vehicles would only be accepted on-site?
Consideration and details around how waste provision for bulky waste and non-standard waste items will be accommodated should be set out within the detailed application.
Assessments should be undertaken in relation to the existing demand for on-street servicing and deliveries beyond the site, such as on Empress Place and Beaumont Avenue who use facilities. The use of terminology should also be carefully considered, as reference it being made to on-street servicing and on-street parking, this implies that the site is seeking to place reliance on the public highway, which is not supported. Should this reference be made in context of ‘on-street’ within the development site, an alternative reference should be used to avoid confusion.
Assessments should be included for both with and without servicing consolidation taking place, to represent a worst-case scenario in terms of vehicle demands. Details will be required to be submitted that clearly sets out how each site consolidation centre will be delivered and how will this be ensured as being available from day one and evolved across
the different Phases of development to ensure vehicle movements are significantly reduced.
Detailed plans refer to the creation of a turning head, this is not supported by LBHF. See comments set out above on the vehicle access strategy, where vehicle access can be justified and supported, vehicles will be required to enter and exit in forward gear. Reversing from the public highway will not be supported.
Proposals include Empress Place, the borough identify that this area is designated as public highway. Should the function of the space remain to provide movement of people, then this area would be expected to remain as public highway.
As such, any considerations proposed for this area should ensure that the servicing and delivery functions currently undertaken from this area are maintained and that any provision for Blue Badge parking is also maintained. Consideration may need to be made to ensure that vehicles using this area are able to enter and exit in forward gear.
4.1.1 Assessment Approach (Modelling)
At the core of the transport strategy is the reliance being placed on TfL, both in accessing/assessing data, strategic traffic models and strategic infrastructure improvements, such as Bus and Railway (Overground and Underground).
This reliance on TfL isbeing used to underpin a number of key components, from extensive modelling assessments being used to inform the strategic multi-modal transport study and trip generation analysis. Through to consideration of infrastructure upgrades/improvements at a strategic level.
LBHF recognise this approach given the strategic nature of the development, and would request a non-technical summary of the outputs of the modelling.
However, comments are made that focus on the local priorities must not be lost in this approach and that a level of detailed assessment will be required to be undertaken to assess the impacts on and to ensure these strategic measures enhance facilities within the borough at the local level. Account should be included on measures to mitigate impacts where new connections are being made to the surrounding highway network, both for vehicle and pedestrian/cycle access points.
Where strategic mitigation is proposed, in relation to the increase in the demand generated by the development, such as public transport trips. Measures should be focused on enhancing capacity to and from key transport hubs, including provision for increased frequency of services (such as buses) to avoid focusing on a narrow window limited to infrastructure improvements, such as gate line entry points. If looking at Railway connections, is the public realm around the stations sufficient to accommodate the increased demand, it is recommended that Pedestrian Comfort Level assessments are undertaken for key routes to and from the Site connecting to both Railway and Bus stops, these should be agreed with LBHF
An example of this focus can be highlighted with the proposed new bus layover The proposals are noted as being focused on re-providing the layover and not on how this can be improved as per TfL query on why buses are not being allowed further into the site or
for the layover to be utilised as a passenger pick up/drop-off point This comment has not been addressed within the update TASR and Lillie Road remains as a bus layover only.
The above is noted in relation to preparing and submitting a single Transport Assessment, covering both boroughs as the assessment must be sufficiently clear as to how trips are distributed between and across the site and borough boundaries to be able to identify areas where impacts will occur to inform the appropriate mitigation measures and how these will be delivered across boundaries.
Section 4.8 of the TA sets out the extent of the ATZ assessment, this is a key assessment to help identify gaps and barriers to sustainable access to and from the site.
5 Supporting Documents
5.3 Modelling/Trip Generation
TfL have provided extensive comments on modelling and trip generation considerations. The borough support the majority of the comments made, with the additional comment that a non-technical summary should be provided.
Where the use of TRICS is being proposed, the borough will be required to agree which sites that are selected to ensure a representative approach is taken.
As detailed by TfL, all modes are required to be modelled, including pedestrian and cycle movements within all local traffic modelling settings.
Where any changes are identified in the modelling that result in changes to the public highway, an independent Stage One Road Safety Audit will be required.
Agreement on the audit scope, appointed independent audit team and CV’s, of all Stage One Road Safety Audits within the borough, will need to be agreed with LBHF prior to commissioning.
The requirement for a Stage One RSA may also be required within the development itself, where new elements include interaction and conflict between vehicles and pedestrians/cyclists.
5.5 Framework Travel Plan
Given the scale of the proposed development, an overarching site wide Framework Travel Plan welcomed, this should cover the key principles and measures that are to be adopted across the site to promote sustainable travel, to include measures on retiming and minimising journeys to be made.
Separate Travel Plans will also be required to be developed for each subsequent land use, as these will need to tailored to the final occupier. Travel Plans for residential, commercial and education elements as a minimum will be required. A focus of the Travel Plan must be on multi-modal and mode share facilities, such as mobility hubs.
The Framework Travel Plan should include details on who will be responsible for managing and monitoring all the cycle storage locations, including the cycle repair/cleaning hubs and
measures should be included on how increased cycle storage provision would be made available where monitoring surveys identify an increase.
Phases, which include more dense development a Travel Plan per block will be sought. Consideration will also be required that sets out how the Framework Travel Plan will be kept up to date and aligned with the delivery timeframes of up to 17 years. It is considered that the Framework Travel Plan will be required to be monitored for a minimum period of 22 years, equating to five years post site full-occupation
4.7 and 5.6 Construction Logistics Plan
Details on the construction impacts, as they relate to the Phases and across the entire development site should be set out in a CLP, in accordance with TfL guidance.
All measures should be taken to minimise the impacts of construction with the aim of a net carbon zero result. Consideration should be given to re-use of materials on-site, concrete batching on-site, no empty vehicle return trips, restricted construction vehicle hours of access (outside peak hours to be agreed with H&F), consolidation with other development sites in the area and use of a consolidation centre directly and construction methods that reduce the volume of materials required to be delivered to site by vehicles.
The TfL CLP guidance requires adherence to CLOCS best practise, details should be set out that supports the CLOCS approach to include all vehicles arriving on site are vision zero compliant, the site itself only permits contractors that are recognised at a FORS level silver or above and the principal contractor is a CLOCS champion.
From more recent presentation, plans submitted imply that construction access will sought via the housing estate from the earliest phases of the development. LBHF are generally not supportive of this approach as North End Road and Lillie Road are considered to be at capacity and have limited scope to support increased vehicle movements, especially the larger and heavier vehicles connected to construction. Mitigation measures will be required to set out, secured and deliverable prior to any works commencing on-site to reduce the impacts of construction, these will be discussed as part of the post planning obligation process, including agreement on construction vehicle routing, limitations on vehicle size and numbers and limitations on vehicle times of access. For clarity any information set out in the planning documents are considered as indictive only and should not be considered as agreed. All agreements relating to construction would be discussed in detail post-planning as part of the CLP / CMP obligation process.
Mitigation will include a financial monitoring fee secured per year of construction.
5.7 Delivery and Servicing Plan, 5.8 Operational Waste Management Plan and 5.9 Car Park Management Plan.
These management plans must be robust and strong to ensure that they are able to respond and adapt to any issue that may materialise. A key to this is having clear management and monitoring responsibilities, along with enforcement measures.
Development Impact and Mitigation Plans
Agreement will be required to be reached with LBHF on the impacts as part of the on-going assessments
Where impacts are identified within the borough, measures to address the impacts will be required to be submitted and agreed with LBHF.
Monitoring and Evaluation Plan (MEP)
LBHF request the inclusion of a Monitoring and Evaluation Plan (MEP) for the site, this will ensure that the targets, measures and aspirations of the site as they relate to future travel behaviour are monitored over the phased delivery of the site. The MEP should also set out mitigation measures that would be delivered by the site should the evidence demonstrate that targets are not being met, where mitigation is detailed, funding should be clearly set out to ensure that the mitigation measures are deliverable
In connection to comments made by TfL, the MEP would ensure that mitigation measures are future proofed and would avoid being focused on vehicle impacts. Upgrades to pedestrian and cycling infrastructure are considered as equally essential to minimise the impacts of the development and enhance the wider area. These must not just be focused on the strategic infrastructure measures, local mitigation measures are of equal importance.
Summary
The above comments are provided on a non-prejudice basis and should not be taken as final comments or agreement on mitigation measures presented. Additional comments and additional mitigation measures may be required and would be subject to the assessments presented during any future planning submission
Response to LBHF Scoping Comments
Response to LBHF comments dated 03/05/2024 – “Updated Transport Assessment Scoping Response”
Note: Only items / observations that have queries or requests have been included in the below. It is noted that the LBHF response also includes other officer observations. Also where comments have been repeated or cover similar items, then these are outlined just once in the table below.
General Item Comment
Planning Approach
…LBHF Highway and Transport wish to flag that the planning approach being adopted does NOT provide comfort on transport matters. The approach being taken, involving the use of reserved matters, Parameter Plans, Design Code, planning conditions, obligations and other control measures make for an overly complicated and confusing approach in future years. This conclusion is based upon experience with similar largescale regeneration developments being undertaken in the Borough.
Submission approach Having set out the above, in relation to preparing and submitting a single Transport Assessment, covering both boroughs this is generally supported, although it would need to be made clear within the TA how trips are distributed and quantum of trips between and across the site and borough boundary to be able to identify areas where impacts will occur to inform the appropriate mitigation measures within the boroughs and how these will be delivered across boundaries.
Site and surroundings
The existing surroundings have been covered in a detail. however, limited consideration has been given to North End Road, the housing estate and A4. These routes are considered constrained and in relation to North End Road no reference is made to the
North End Market, the TA should include considerations to these roads within the constraints section.
The TA should also include reference to the housing estate directly to the west of the site (which previously formed part of the wider masterplan consideration).
The TA should ensure that the assessment covers existing facilities, connectivity and infrastructure with a detailed review of this area. It is also recommended that the existing assessment covers identification of greening and areas of open space, in line with Health Streets indicators.
Response
See planning strategy section within TA, as well as supporting submission documents.
The TA and supporting modelling information set out the trips by access point assigned onto the network.
The TA also sets out what appropriate mitigation strategies are considered at this time
Noted. The TA and ATZ considers North End Road and the A4, as well as PCL assessments and corridor reviews / junction impact testing.
North End Market has not been included within the TA at this time.
Referenced within the extant consent section in the TA.
Detailed consideration of existing transport conditions is provided. An ATZ, including SIA analysis have also been completed.
Response to LBHF Scoping Comments
General Item Comment
LBHF provide specific comments in relation to section 2.3.8 where it refers to micro-mobility and use of e-scooters/e-bikes and other similar pick up and go forms of movement.
Although it is noted that these are currently being trialled for use, these forms of mobility scooter are currently illegal to use on the public highway. In relation to similar cycle operators, such as Lime, the borough has considerable problems with this form of movement, with e-scooters/e-bikes etc being ‘dumped’ after use in often dangerous and inappropriate locations, causing obstructions and blocking public highways. There is considerable concern with this approach to micro-mobility function being introduced within the site, as this often results in more issues with conflict, anti-social behaviour and obstructions to other users, in particular disabled users. Should such an approach be introduced then significant management and monitoring measures will need to provided on-site and financial contributions secured to enable the borough to manage and deal with potential problems, which have been associated with these micromobility hubs.
Response
Micro-mobility is considered to provide a role within the transport strategy of the Site.
The TA sets out the approach to Monitor and Manage of transport impacts..
Development Proposals
…the initial access strategy focused within the borough was based on Beaumont Avenue, Lillie Road and Empress Place.
LBHF were generally supportive of the initial approach, however despite concerns flagged to the contrary the masterplan has subsequently changed this accepted approach by introducing a significant increase in both general access and vehicle access points within the housing estate area, which is an area of noted constraint. With access points now being detailed from Mund Street and Aisgill Avenue. This revised access strategy from section 3.4.31 has not been agreed with LBHF or LBHF Housing.
Given that access beyond the original access strategy has not been agreed with LBHF, for any of the increased access points via the housing estate on Mund Street or Aisgill Avenue, the TA should set out how the site would operate without these access points, should agreement not be reached.
The masterplan access strategy has evolved over through the development of the proposals and seeks to integrate the Estate to the west with the Site.
The TA sets out the intended development proposals and access strategy being assessed. As such, the modelling is reflective of the scenarios and proposals being submitted.
No separate assessment without access to the west is considered necessary as this is not proposed.
Response to LBHF Scoping Comments
General Item Comment
The TA should present two scenarios both in terms of how the site will operate with and without the additional access points and the modelling results should be detail trip distribution and impact with and without these access points.
Response
3.4.1 Pedestrian Access
However, it continues to remain unclear as to why the different pedestrian access points are being graded and differentiated, which does not fully align with the people first strategy. The borough raise a serious concern that this strategy is being fundamentally undermined with the approach that all access points are being vehicle enabled, this is noted supported by LBHF. This approach is detailed from a review of the masterplan, as there are no ‘pedestrian or cycle’ only access points into the site, All ‘access’ points into the site are being designed to enable vehicles to enter the site, by enabling vehicles to enter the site from all the access points is considered to undermine the pedestrian priority strategy and carbon neutral approach. The TA should set out clearly the how the pedestrian priority strategy is being taken, as all access points are vehicle enabled, reference to pedestrian and cycle priority is queried, as this is not what the masterplan demonstrates.
In all locations where the site is connected to the wider area, high quality and welcoming points of access for pedestrian (and cycle) movements should be provided as primary access points. Seeking to enable vehicle access via these ‘car-free’ points are not supported and should be discouraged (this includes seeking to enable emergency vehicle access via pedestrian points, as once vehicle access is provided this undermines the pedestrian priority and public realm approach). Further comments on this are set out in the vehicle access section.
The TA should clearly set out where the gaps currently exist and what measures are to be provided to enhance and prioritise pedestrian movements, footway / public realm widths, these routes should not be deferred to reserved matters. The strategy should include a wayfinding / signage strategy to pedestrian, cyclists and servicing to ensure defined routes through the site are clear.
The access strategy does seek where feasible access for emergency service vehicles at pedestrian and/or cycle access points to the site. This is strictly for emergency service use and does not imply that general vehicle access is being sought. As the means of access to the Site are a reserved matter this can be discussed further and refined as the proposals are developed.
The approach to vehicular access is set out within the TA.
Set out within the TA and development proposals section.
Response to LBHF Scoping Comments
General Item Comment
As set out in general comments, where gaps are identified and mitigation measures proposed, these are required to supported by Pedestrian Comfort Level Assessments.
the TA will need to provide detail around the proposals for Lillie Road and how they connect with the proposal for Empress Place and the future operation of Lillie Road from West Brompton Station into the site.
The TA should detail what a mobility hub and micro-mobility hub are, what are the differences between the two. The TA should detail where mobility hubs and micro-mobility hubs will be located and how these will be managed and maintained should be set out. The borough has experienced significant issues with these and have concerns over these being introduced.
Response
PCL assessments included and set out within the TA
The TA outlines the access design and how the site integrates within the existing areas.
This is set out within the TAnoting that the public realm design will be a reserved matter so subject to further design as the development progresses.
3.4.8 Cycling Access
It is recommended that consideration is given to assessing the internal future provision to ensure that the site provides a benchmark for delivering high quality networks, that ensures connections and access to high-quality cycle storage as the primary means of movement for future residents is made available from day one.
The TA must detail connections for cyclists into the borough from the site and commitments in place to ensure that the connections are supportable and how they will be delivered. Reference to the A4 is noted, which is welcomed. Any new provision that introduces a crossing on the A4 must be fully assessed and modelled to understand the impacts.
Detailed plot plans presented identify that a number of cycle storage areas are not step-free, requiring access via ‘steps’ which is not supported by LBHF or require some alternative access to traverse different levels within individual plots.
This is considered a critical and essential point to recognise and address if there is an aspiration to achieve a 15% modal target for cycling. To meet this target it is not just numbers that are important, but the quality and accessibility of the cycle provision that is key. If cycle parking and cycle storage locations are not visible and are hidden to the rear of a building, on split levels and cannot be accessed in a step-free way (not via stairs) then meeting the 15% modal target may prove difficult to achieve.
An internal ATZ has been conducted within the TA.
The TA outlines the access strategy for cyclists.
The TA sets out specific points on the detailed plots and cycle design.
Response to LBHF Scoping Comments
General Item Comment
This is considered a critical and essential point to recognise and address if there is an aspiration to achieve a 15% modal target for cycling. To meet this target it is not just numbers that are important, but the quality and accessibility of the cycle provision that is key. If cycle parking and cycle storage locations are not visible and are hidden to the rear of a building, on split levels and cannot be accessed in a step-free way (not via stairs) then meeting the 15% modal target may prove difficult to achieve.
The TA does not currently identify how the cycle infrastructure would connect to the existing network within LBHF. The TA should clearly set out how the proposal will provide wider cycle connectivity to existing and planned routes within LBHF to deliver a connected cycle network beyond the site, that enables longer distance routes to be developed and are suitable to accommodate two-way cargo style cycles
Where improvements to the cycling infrastructure are proposed, such as along Lillie Road the TA will be expected to undertake junction modelling to identify the network impacts.
The TA should clearly detail how the key principles of the LCDS (which considers cycle provision beyond that of just providing the physical numbers of spaces) have been adopted in the development of the detailed plots.
From a review of detailed plans presented to date, reference to accessing cycle storage via stairs, or channels in stairs or only by lift access is not encouraged or supported by LBHF for a new development. Access should be promoted at ground floor level or via ramps. Any access strategy to cycle storage that involves a levels difference (either within the store or split across levels), LBHF will resist. Split level, use of stairs or lifts, is considered a retro-fit style of approach rather than an exemplar / high quality approach.
Where a split-level approach is being adopted, then access would be required to be via dedicated cycle ramp of an acceptable gradient in addition to any lifts. Where lifts are proposed to supplement cycle ramps, these are required to be correctly sized to ensure that these can be
Response
Noted, see above.
The TA sets out how the proposed cycle infrastructure aligns with existing provision.
This is undertaken in the TA, both standalone junction modelling and VISSIM journey route assessment.
The PDMP sets out the cycle design within the document
Noted, the PDMP for the LBDH Detailed Component sets out the strategy for cycle parking.
Noted.
Response to LBHF Scoping Comments
General Item Comment Response
accommodate a minimum of two cycles without either cycle having to be up-ended.
3.4.12 Off-site Cycle Improvements
However, the borough would expect improvements to be focused on ensuring that where gaps have been identified for longer connectivity, these are considered. This should include improvements within and across the housing estate and on-going connections both west beyond North End Road and to the north beyond the A4.
Subject to assessments and review of information submitted for the planning submission, further mitigation requirements may be identified.
3.4.16 Public Transport Lillie Road bus layover, LBHF comment that simply continuing to reprovide what is already on-site is not seen to be improving or upgrading bus accessible, especially give then uplift of people numbers being generated by the site. This is highlighted in context of walk distance from bus stops, as part of the masterplan plots are in excess of the 400m walk distance to a bus stop. What considerations have been given to assessing the existing bus stops and whether these are good quality and are best placed to serve the future development.
LBHF would add that provision of improved bus access, functionality and frequency would further increase any increased PTAL rating, beyond calculations based on connectivity alone. LBHF would recommend and support that Lillie Road provides a new bus function to enable passengers to board and alight in this location. This would support and be better aligned in meeting the aspiration of the site to achieve a 60% mode share of trips for public transport use.
LBHF would recommend that the public transport provision is reviewed and request that a clear strategy is presented on mitigation measures and infrastructure improvements, including increasing frequencies and improved local facilities, such as bus shelter upgrades.
The TA sets out a package of mitigation measures. However, it is acknowledged that these are likely to evolve post application through discussion with LBHF.
3.4.31 Vehicle Access and Connectivity
LBHF note that all access points are proposed to be enabled for vehicles, whether emergency, general or servicing. LBHF raise this as a matter of concern, as in essence the masterplan is seeking to introduce further vehicle access points into the site. LBHF will resist new access points
The proposals now include a commencing as well as a terminating stop for the Route 190 within the Lillie Road Bus Layover. Further information on access to buses is provided within the separately prepared Bus Strategy that has previously been circulated to LBHF.
The TA sets out the PT strategy. Discussions with TfL are ongoing as to uplift in frequencies / provision.
See comment above.
Response to LBHF Scoping Comments
General Item Comment
where these are not essential to meet a mixed use. Where any consideration is for emergency access, this MUST be supported with correspondence from the London based emergency services, such as the London Ambulance Service, Metropolitan Police and London Fire Brigade, to demonstrate that vehicle access is essential, from what are effectively pedestrian and cycle only access points.
As such LBHF remain concerned that a significant reliance continues to be placed on enabling vehicle access into the site along the lines of a traditional vehicle approach, rather than facilitating and embracing the hierarchy approach with a more forward-looking layout that is totally carfree.
The TA and Masterplan layout, should seek to minimise and consolidate vehicle access points, aligned with the original access strategy. The more recent strategy of increasing access points, especially for vehicles, will be resisted by LBHF. New access points, to enable vehicle access, should be minimised and reduced in number from the housing estate. Where vehicle access can be supported, vehicles must enter and exit in forward gear. Reversing vehicles off the public highway into the site or the creation of turning heads is not supported and will be resisted by LBHF.
Reference to maintenance, care support and tradespeople would be considered as being covered under the essential operational requirements within the delivery and servicing considerations. Visitor car parking implies that general visitors to the site are being actively enabled and encouraged to travel to the site by private car, with on-site car parking provision. This is not supported by LBHF. Where essential car parking requirements are identified, then these should be picked up within the wider site strategy for supporting servicing and delivery access, the car parking strategy should include a level of monitoring of the proposed on-site Blue Badge car parking and how these spaces could be re-assigned to essential operational uses if required.
In relation to the car-club provision, LBHF are generally comfortable with a provision for car clubs. The TA is requested to include a viability assessment from a car club provider to identify whether this is something
Response
Noted
See PDMP.
Noted. Car club to be explored, initial discussions with operators have been held.
Response to LBHF Scoping Comments
General Item Comment
that can be offered. Should a car club be provided on-site, then it must be open and accessible to members wherever they are located (whether on or off site). As such any provision of a car-club must be outside any control or gated entry feature to ensure that it is fully accessible for all users.
The car club could be incorporated into a mobility hub, where connections to sustainable travel modes can be made.
What measures can be considered within the Design Code or the TAto include a Monitoring and Evaluation Plan (MEP) to identify travel behaviour changes overtime and introduce measures that would remove unused car parking spaces on-site, through measures such as increased cycle parking storage, parklets and seating.
In developing the Blue Badge strategy, consideration should be given to the distances that holders of Blue Badge will have to traverse between a Blue Badge bays and a final destination, this should be no more than 50m. It is noted that provision is being made for Blue Badge parking at 3% onsite, which is welcomed. Details should be set out in a Site Management Plan (or detailed within the advised MEP) that include measures to monitor occupation of Blue Badge spaces to ensure parking spaces are not abused and that provision can be reduced (or increased) as required over the lifetime of the development.
Impacts on the surrounding residential areas should be considered in detail, as the potential impacts of the masterplan proposals will be on the existing on-street car parking stress levels.
3.4.51 Waste, Delivery and Servicing
Subject to the outcome of removing all non-essential vehicle movements from the public realm space, what consideration has been given to promoting alternative waste collection opportunities to limit and minimise waste generated by the site. What consideration has been given to a central waste collection location for all users of the site, to include Envac (envacgroup.com) type systems that remove waste from each unit and public realm space via vacuum to a central storage location, which provides a sustainable form of waste collection and reduces the total number of vehicles coming to site
Response
FTP includes a programme of monitoring.
See separately prepared PDMP.
2024 Car parking survey undertaken and summarised in the TA.
Optioneering exercise was undertaken on waste strategy as detailed in the OWMP.
Response to LBHF Scoping Comments
General Item Comment Response
Alongside an alternative waste collection system, details should also be included on how low emissions will be promoted and supported in connection to waste and servicing vehicle movements and clearly set out in a Delivery and Servicing Plan (including Waste collection management measures). The TAreferences a low carbon site, measures to ensure that servicing and maintenance vehicles coming to this site meet this aspiration should be set out, how will external providers be made aware that low carbon vehicles would only be accepted on-site?
Consideration and details around how waste provision for bulky waste and non-standard waste items will be accommodated should be set out within the detailed application.
Assessments should be undertaken in relation to the existing demand for on-street servicing and deliveries beyond the site, such as on Empress Place and Beaumont Avenue who use facilities. The use of terminology should also be carefully considered, as reference it being made to onstreet servicing and on-street parking, this implies that the site is seeking to place reliance on the public highway, which is not supported. Should this reference be made in context of ‘on-street’ within the development site, an alternative reference should be used to avoid confusion.
Assessments should be included for both with and without servicing consolidation taking place, to represent a worst-case scenario in terms of vehicle demands. Details will be required to be submitted that clearly sets out how each site consolidation centre will be delivered and how will this be ensured as being available from day one and evolved across the different Phases of development to ensure vehicle movements are significantly reduced.
Proposals include Empress Place, the borough identify that this area is designated as public highway. Should the function of the space remain to provide movement of people, then this area would be expected to remain as public highway.
As such, any considerations proposed for this area should ensure that the servicing and delivery functions currently undertaken from this area are maintained and that any provision for Blue Badge parking is also
See OWMP and DSP for further details.
Assessments undertaken of the proposals including changes to the mentioned streets as detailed within the TA.
Further information is provided in the Framework DSP.
It is suggested that discussions are held in due course to agree the best approach for managing access and parking on Empress Place.
Response to LBHF Scoping Comments
General Item Comment
maintained. Consideration may need to be made to ensure that vehicles using this area are able to enter and exit in forward gear.
Response
4.1.1 Assessment Approach (Modelling)
5.3 Modelling/Trip Generation
LBHF recognise this approach given the strategic nature of the development, and would request a non-technical summary of the outputs of the modelling.
Where strategic mitigation is proposed, in relation to the increase in the demand generated by the development, such as public transport trips. Measures should be focused on enhancing capacity to and from key transport hubs, including provision for increased frequency of services (such as buses) to avoid focusing on a narrow window limited to infrastructure improvements, such as gate line entry points. If looking at Railway connections, is the public realm around the stations sufficient to accommodate the increased demand, it is recommended that Pedestrian Comfort Level assessments are undertaken for key routes to and from the Site connecting to both Railway and Bus stops, these should be agreed with LBHF.
An example of this focus can be highlighted with the proposed new bus layover. The proposals are noted as being focused on re-providing the layover and not on how this can be improved as per TfL query on why buses are not being allowed further into the site or for the layover to be utilised as a passenger pick up/drop-off point. This comment has not been addressed within the update TASR and Lillie Road remains as a bus layover only.
Where the use of TRICS is being proposed, the borough will be required to agree which sites that are selected to ensure a representative approach is taken.
As detailed by TfL, all modes are required to be modelled, including pedestrian and cycle movements within all local traffic modelling settings.
Where any changes are identified in the modelling that result in changes to the public highway, an independent Stage One Road SafetyAudit will be required.
Noted, see TA.
A package of mitigation measures have been tested as set out in the TAand supporting modelling documents are provided to show how these perform.
See comment above.
All modes are modelled.
TRICS was used to benchmark against MoTiON outputs.
TRICS outputs appended to Trip Generation note.
Stage 1 RSAs completed as set out in preapplication, acknowledging that the accesses are not being determined at this stage of the planning process.
Response to LBHF Scoping Comments
General Item Comment Response
Agreement on the audit scope, appointed independent audit team and CV’s, of all Stage One Road Safety Audits within the borough, will need to be agreed with LBHF prior to commissioning.
The requirement for a Stage One RSA may also be required within the development itself, where new elements include interaction and conflict between vehicles and pedestrians/cyclists.
5.5 Framework Travel Plan
4.7 and 5.6 Construction Logistics Plan
5.7 Delivery and Servicing Plan, 5.8 Operational Waste Management Plan and 5.9 Car Park Management Plan.
Development Impact and Mitigation Plan
The Framework Travel Plan should include details on who will be responsible for managing and monitoring all the cycle storage locations, including the cycle repair/cleaning hubs and measures should be included on how increased cycle storage provision would be made available where monitoring surveys identify an increase.
Phases, which include more dense development a Travel Plan per block will be sought.
Consideration will also be required that sets out how the Framework Travel Plan will be kept up to date and aligned with the delivery timeframes of up to 17 years. It is considered that the Framework Travel Plan will be required to be monitored for a minimum period of 22 years, equating to five years post site full-occupation.
Details on the construction impacts, as they relate to the Phases and across the entire development site should be set out in a CLP, in accordance with TfL guidance.
These management plans must be robust and strong to ensure that they are able to respond and adapt to any issue that may materialise. A key to this is having clear management and monitoring responsibilities, along with enforcement measures.
See FTP and PDMP submitted for further details.
Agreement will be required to be reached with LBHF on the impacts as part of the on-going assessments.
Where impacts are identified within the borough, measures to address the impacts will be required to be submitted and agreed with LBHF.
See CLP submitted (completed by Turner and Townsend) for further details.
See DSP, OWMP and PDMP documents.
See mitigation section of TA. Expected that post submission, further discussion on the mitigation strategy will occur.
Response to LBHF Scoping Comments
General Item Comment
Monitoring and Evaluation Plan (MEP)
LBHF request the inclusion of a Monitoring and Evaluation Plan (MEP) for the site, this will ensure that the targets, measures and aspirations of the site as they relate to future travel behaviour are monitored over the phased delivery of the site. The MEP should also set out mitigation measures that would be delivered by the site should the evidence demonstrate that targets are not being met, where mitigation is detailed, funding should be clearly set out to ensure that the mitigation measures are deliverable.
In connection to comments made by TfL, the MEP would ensure that mitigation measures are future proofed and would avoid being focused on vehicle impacts. Upgrades to pedestrian and cycling infrastructure are considered as equally essential to minimise the impacts of the development and enhance the wider area. These must not just be focused on the strategic infrastructure measures, local mitigation measures are of equal importance.
Response
Both the FTP and TA include details about the proposed monitoring of the development as it is built out.
PP No: N/A
RBKC TRANSPORT COMMENTS
Address: Earls Court OA – Transport Scoping response
Date of obs: 20/05/24
Proposal: Comments on transport scoping report dated February 2024.
Initial Observations
Full Observations
Transport Officer: DM Officer:
Further Observations (no. ) Iain Steele Jane Taylor
Comments:
These comments relate to a follow up Transport Scoping note submitted by the applicant in relation to a planning future application covering the Earl’s Court Opportunity Area. The document has been prepared by WSP and is dated February 2024 and is an update of a previous document submitted in April 2023.
This document has also been submitted to both TFL and LBHF for comments and these should be read in conjunction with all other responses received.
Submission
It is proposed that the planning application will adopt a Hybrid Approach which has been discussed throughout the pre-application process. The application will include a phased approach with a number of plots submitted in details (EC05 and Ec06 withing RBKC) with all other matters reserved, including a number of transport matters including the detailed access arrangements.
For the detailed elements of the site, the extent of the detailed areas encompasses only that within the building line which would result in elements relevant to the site being brought forward as part of the reserved matters, such as on-street servicing bays and on-street blue badge bays.
Reserving such transport matters, including detailed access arrangement, is not the preferred approach however subject to a suitable suite of pre-commencement planning conditions requiring details of interim access plans to allow for each site to be appropriate access/services from occupation, it is not objectionable. This is particularly important in relation to Active travel and this strategy should be more clearly outlined within the application.
It is expected that a Strategic Transport Review Group (STRG) will be formed subject to any grant of planning permission to monitor the implementation of all
transport obligations and ongoing matters relating to the consented masterplan to consider such issues.
2.3 Existing conditions – Parking
2.7.3 – This section should make reference to existing on-street visitor parking opportunities within the locality of the site.
3.4 Access Strategy
3.4.1
Pedestrian access and connectivity
Northern boundary
As noted within previous advice notes the severe lack of permeability on the northern boundary requires significant enhancements to improve access onto and beyond the A4. The provision of a new access into the site from Cluny Mews is noted as being a ‘potential’ secondary route due to agreements being required with other third parties. A commitment to delivering this will be required and a suitable obligation will need to be secured within the planning application securing this.
The proposed access route through the Tesco basement from Fenelon Place would provide a functional access into and out of the site however this will be heavily dominated by servicing and other vehicular activity and the condition and maintenance of this area would not be in direct control of the applicant. This route would therefore likely have a very low amenity value for pedestrians and would not be an attractive or obvious route for people seeking to access the northern side of the site. In order to meet the requirements of Local Plan policy CT1 the delivery of an access form Cluny mews is essential.
Previous discussions during design development highlighted the potential to include an active frontage onto West Cromwell Road for the proposed Office building on this boundary which would be capable of delivering access into and potentially through this building into the site. Such a proposal would be entirely within the gift of the applicant to deliver and would not be reliant on third parties to be delivered and must be explored. We would welcome further focused discussions on this issue as ensuring connectivity at the northern end of the site is critical to the success of this scheme.
Principal Access points
The proposed improvements to crossing points at the main entrance points on Warwick Road and Old Brompton Road are considered essential although the suitability of the existing conditions outside the Earl’s Court station entrance for the expected level of demand needs to be carefully considered. Whilst this
is intrinsically linked to the outcome of the ongoing discussion regarding the cycle improvements on Warwick Road this requires addressing in its own right and the relevant interventions need to be considered in the context of the outcome of the Legion and Pedestrian comfort analysis to be undertaken.
3.4.8 Cycling Access/connectivity
Off site-Infrastructure improvements
The proposals to deliver targeted improvements to off-site cycling infrastructure is welcome and considered essential. Discussions are ongoing with regards to the extent of these interventions and further comments will be provided on this issue as part of regular transport discussions.
Alongside these targeted interventions it is expected that improvements to existing infrastructure will be secured to accommodate the increased levels of cycling activity and not just improving connections to and from the existing routes. Improvements to Quietway 15 would be expected given the majority of eastbound movements would use this route in order to navigate the Earl’s Court One-way system.
Cycle Strategy
The proposed arrangement internal to the site would ensure suitable permeability for cyclist. The Cycle Strategy Plan shown in Figure 3-2 indicates the proposed cycle network around the site which includes a shared vehicular/cycle access route within the servicing undercroft of the site. It is not clear if this is proposed for commercial cycle deliveries only or if the intention is for access to cycle parking facilities for the above ground buildings to be accommodated within this area. To date, no details of the layout and access arrangements to this area have been provided however for the avoidance of doubt, the expectation would be that all cycle parking be accessed at grade from the public realm to ensure it remains as attractive and accessible for future occupants as possible. The use of the servicing under croft as the sole point of access for cycle parking facilities would be unacceptable.
The Cycle strategy plan also identifies two lifts within the public realm to overcome level changes across the site however I understand several other lifts are also proposed which would be available for cyclists, specifically for buildings EC04 and EC05 and these should also be included on this plan.
Three ‘Mobility hubs’ are also identified in proximity to each of the three London Underground Stations serving the Masterplan area although no detailed information has been provided on these. Further details should be provided.
Off site-Infrastructure improvements
The proposals to deliver targeted improvements to off-site cycling infrastructure is welcome and considered essential. Discussions are ongoing with regards to the extent of these interventions and further comments will be provided on this issue as part of regular transport discussions.
Alongside these targeted interventions it is expected that improvements to existing infrastructure will be secured to accommodate the increased levels of cycling activity and not just improving connections to and from the existing routes. Improvements to Quietway 15 would be expected given the majority of eastbound movements would use this route in order to navigate the Earl’s Court One-way system.
3.4.31 Vehicular and servicing access
The proposed access routes are considered largely appropriate. The proposalsnow appear to have reduced the number of physical accesscontrols across the internal road network which is welcome. Further clarification on the exact location, form and management of these controls should however be provided.
3.4.51 Servicing Access/Strategy
The high level outline of the proposed servicing and consolidation strategy is considered appropriate. The use of an off-site consolidation centre for nonperishable commercial deliveries would be expected to be secured within the S106. Further details on the proposed off-site consolidation measures proposed for the commercial floorspace are required to understand how this would operate and to what extent.
3.4.61 Car Parking
No general off-street car parking is proposed, save for the provision of blue badge bays in accordance with London Plan Standards. The proposed allocation and distribution of these blue badge bays across the site is considered generally acceptable with 3% provision from the outset provided within the site and across the public realm.
In line with previous comments issued, the provision of a limited number of visitor parking spaces is not objectionable subject to appropriate measures to prevent their use for general parking. These should be allocated for essential need only and an appropriate booking system would need to be identified. At this stage it is not clear where this parking would be provided and this should be clarified to demonstrate that the location and level of parking would be suitable to cater for any demand.
For all parking facilities it is critical that the appropriate level of provision is brought forwards for each phase of the development and an appropriate phasing strategy
must be provided outlining how this would be achieved within the Parking Management and Operation Plan accompanying the planning application.
3.5 Commercial Logistics Hub
The proposals for a last mile logistics hub serving the wider West London area is not objectionable in principle. The facility must allow for a significant proportion of off-site deliveries originating at the logistics hub to be re-moded to sustainable modes on foot or by cargo bike with e-vans used only for those deliveries where use of cargo bike is not practicable.
The stated intention is for the logistics hub to be delivered during the earlier phases of the development and appropriate access into and out of the site for cargo bikes must therefore be available at each phase of development. Recent discussions have indicated the potential for a southern access from the logistics hub to facilitate access out onto Old Brompton Road and this needs to be fully explored. Given the nature of the consolidation facility which is expected to serve the wider community around the site, ensuring easy and direct access from the facility onto the local highway network in all directions is essential. Further discussions and details on the function and management of the logistics hub are required.
3.8 Phased Access Strategy
The proposed access routes that will be provided for the detailed plots (EC05 and EC06) within the RBKC side of the development are considered suitable in principle although as noted above there is concern that these are not being brough forwards in detail and further comfort is needed to explain how this will be managed.
The wider access strategy for the ‘early phases’of the development which covers all development within the RBKC boundary is also considered appropriate and accord with previous discussions on access.
Amore detailed breakdown should however be provided to understand the extent of the access changes for the site as the build out of the development progresses. Whilst it is understandable that the exact phasing of the site is not yet determined and may be subject to change it must be demonstrated that appropriate access for all of the plots would be available at all times. For example, it is not clear if the access routes identified for the detailed plots would all be continuously available throughout the remaining build phases of the site or to what extent these will be impacted by construction activity.
4. Assessment approach
4.3 Trip Generation – All land uses
A trip generation Technical Note has been provided within the appendix of the Scoping Note. The trip rates identified for the land uses appear broadly representative of what would be expected for the floorspace types proposed.
Amore detailed justification and explanation for the trips rates associated with the Commercial Office floorspace should however be provided. The use of a First Principles approach is not objectionable however the assumption of only 25% of arrivals and departures occurring during the peak AM and PM periods respectivelyis considered to be low and I would expect thisto be materially higher. I am concerned that at present this is a substantial underestimation of the level of activity that would occur during these peak times and this needs to be further explained or justified.
The assumptions on the percentages of trips that would take place internally to the site between land uses appear sensible however further information should be provided to understand how these have been determined and what data this is based upon.
4.3.1 Residential servicing
A reduction of 25% in the number of servicing trips has been applied for the residential floorspace based on expected consolidation opportunities. The proposed consolidation for residential floorspace involves the use of a single onsite drop off points for deliveries which can then be distributed across the site via cargo bike or on foot deliveries. Whilstthis would serve to reduce vehicularactivity in and around the site it is not clear how it would result in an overall reduction of vehicles attending the site. This requires further explanation in order for this assumption of 25% to be accepted.
4.3.2 Commercial servicing
For the commercial servicing it has been assumed that consolidation measures would reduce the expected number of deliveries by 50% which is considered reasonable subject to further details.
Within section 4.3.9 it states that ‘it is anticipated that all deliveries will be delivered directly to plot’. Given that the use of off-site consolidation is proposed and the aspiration is to limit vehicular activity around the site I would expect consolidated deliveries to be dropped off at a central point and then to then distributed around the site in a similar fashion to the proposed residentialservicing strategy.
4.5.3 Pedestrian modelling and PCLs
The proposed Pedestrian Comfort (PCL) Analysis to supplement the Legion modelling is supported and the proposed locations to be reviewed on Old Brompton Road and Warwick Road are considered appropriate. Should it be the case that there is an active frontage proposed onto West Cromwell Road (as above) then it would be arrogate for the adjoining footway to also be assessed.
4.6 Car Parking Surveys
Previous e-mail correspondence has confirmed the requested scope of parking surveys. An extension of this area to include a 400m walking distance from the site entrance on Warwick Road is considered to be suitable although this would not need to extend to areas beyond Earl’s Court Road. A survey of the overnight period when parking pressures tend to be highest in this area would also be appropriate as well as a Saturday and Sunday afternoon.
4.8 Active Travel Zone (ATZ)
The Proposed routes to be assessed within the ATZ have been updated and are now in line with previous comments issued on this topic. The proposal for all links through the site to be considered as part oftheATZ is also welcome and essential.
I note that Philbeach Gardens and Braham Gardens and still identified within the table 4.6 as publicly accessible spaces to be assesses however this appears to be an oversight and this reference should be removed.
4.9Construction
A Phased construction logistics plan will be required for the site and the applicant has already started to engage on this matter. The use of Northern Access Road during the early phases for the bulk of activity is essential however the key issue for RBKC will be the management of construction traffic in and around the construction access on Warwick Road and on Old Brompton Road during the latter phases of the development which cannot make use of the Northern Access Route. The CLP must be easily understood in relation to the wider phasing strategy.
Relevant policies: CT1, CR1, CR7, CE3, Transport and Streets SPD, London Plan
Signed: Iain Steele
Response to RBKC Scoping Comments
Response to RBKC comments dated 20/05/2024 – “Earls Court OA – Transport Scoping response”
Note: Only items / observations that have queries or requests have been included in the below.
General Item Comment Response
Submission approach For the detailed elements of the site, the extent of the detailed areas encompasses only that within the building line which would result in elements relevant to the site being brought forward as part of the reserved matters, such as on-street servicing bays and on-street blue badge bays. Reserving such transport matters, including detailed access arrangement, is not the preferred approach however subject to a suitable suite of precommencement planning conditions requiring details of interim access plans to allow for each site to be appropriate access/services from occupation, it is not objectionable. This is particularly important in relation to Active travel and this strategy should be more clearly outlined within the application.
It is expected that a Strategic Transport Review Group (STRG) will be formed subject to any grant of planning permission to monitor the implementation of all transport obligations and ongoing matters relating to the consented masterplan to consider such issues.
Existing conditions –Parking This section should make reference to existing on-street visitor parking opportunities within the locality of the site.
Access Strategy As noted within previous advice notes the severe lack of permeability on the northern boundary requires significant enhancements to improve access onto and beyond the A4. The provision of a new access into the site from Cluny Mews is noted as being a ‘potential’ secondary route due to agreements being required with other third parties. A commitment to delivering this will be required and a suitable obligation will need to be secured within the planning application securing this.
The proposed access route through the Tesco basement from Fenelon Place would provide a functional access into and out of the site however this will be heavily dominated by servicing and other vehicular activity and
The TA and supporting planning submission material set out the approach.
The monitor and manage approach is set out within the TA.
On street parking is set out in the TA. Including the 2024 survey information (discussed further below)
The TA sets out the access strategy including improved access to the north. The parameter plans and TAset out the access points in detail.
There is an obligation on the owners of the 100 West Cromwell Road Site to provide access through their basement. Measures to
Response to RBKC Scoping Comments
General Item Comment
the condition and maintenance of this area would not be in direct control of the applicant.
This route would therefore likely have a very low amenity value for pedestrians and would not be an attractive or obvious route for people seeking to access the northern side of the site. In order to meet the requirements of Local Plan policy CT1 the delivery of an access form Cluny mews is essential.
Previous discussions during design development highlighted the potential to include an active frontage onto West Cromwell Road for the proposed Office building on this boundary which would be capable of delivering access into and potentially through this building into the site. Such a proposal would be entirely within the gift of the applicant to deliver and would not be reliant on third parties to be delivered and must be explored. We would welcome further focused discussions on this issue as ensuring connectivity at the northern end of the site is critical to the success of this scheme.
Response
improve amenity can form part of discussions moving forwards
The TA sets out the access strategy including phased access through the development zones. However, matters such as frontage onto the A4 would form reserved matters for the plots that front the road.
Principal Access points
Off site-Infrastructure
The proposed improvements to crossing points at the main entrance points on Warwick Road and Old Brompton Road are considered essential although the suitability of the existing conditions outside the Earl’s Court station entrance for the expected level of demand needs to be carefully considered. Whilst this is intrinsically linked to the outcome of the ongoing discussion regarding the cycle improvements on Warwick Road this requires addressing in its own right and the relevant interventions need to be considered in the context of the outcome of the Legion and Pedestrian comfort analysis to be undertaken.
The proposals to deliver targeted improvements to off-site cycling infrastructure is welcome and considered essential. Discussions are ongoing with regards to the extent of these interventions and further comments will be provided on this issue as part of regular transport discussions.
Alongside these targeted interventions it is expected that improvements to existing infrastructure will be secured to accommodate the increased levels of cycling activity and not just improving connections to and from the existing routes. Improvements to Quietway 15 would be expected given
The TA sets out the accesses including necessary modelling (capacity wise) and accompanying PCL and ViSWalk outputs.
It is expected that the package of infrastructure works continues to be discussed post submission.
Response to RBKC Scoping Comments
General Item Comment
the majority of eastbound movements would use this route in order to navigate the Earl’s Court One-way system.
Response
Cycle Strategy
Vehicular and servicing access
The use of the servicing under croft as the sole point of access for cycle parking facilities would be unacceptable.
The Cycle strategy plan also identifies two lifts within the public realm to overcome level changes across the site however I understand several other lifts are also proposed which would be available for cyclists, specifically for buildings EC04 and EC05 and these should also be included on this plan
Three ‘Mobility hubs’ are also identified in proximity to each of the three London Underground Stations serving the Masterplan area although no detailed information has been provided on these. Further details should be provided.
The proposed access routes are considered largely appropriate. The proposals now appear to have reduced the number of physical access controls across the internal road network which is welcome. Further clarification on the exact location, form and management of these controls should however be provided.
Noted, although the cycle access strategy sets out multiple access points.
The Transport Statement within the appendix of the TA sets out in more detail how access to plots EC05 and EC06 will be achieved.
Further information is set out on the mobility hubs in the TA.
Servicing Access/Strategy
Car Parking
The high level outline of the proposed servicing and consolidation strategy is considered appropriate. The use of an off-site consolidation centre for non-perishable commercial deliveries would be expected to be secured within the S106. Further details on the proposed off-site consolidation measures proposed for the commercial floorspace are required to understand how this would operate and to what extent.
The proposed allocation and distribution of these blue badge bays across the site is considered generally acceptable with 3% provision from the outset provided within the site and across the public realm.
In line with previous comments issued, the provision of a limited number of visitor parking spaces is not objectionable subject to appropriate measures to prevent their use for general parking. These should be allocated for essential need only and an appropriate booking system would need to be identified. At this stage it is not clear where this parking would be provided and this should be clarified to demonstrate that the location and level of parking would be suitable to cater for any demand.
The TA sets out the access points and the potential mechanisms / strategies which could be adopted. It is likely that further detail would come forward during each respective RMA.
Noted. Further information is provided within the Framework DSP.
Noted.
Noted. The PDMP sets out the potential mechanisms and managements strategies which could be adopted for the car parking.
Response to RBKC Scoping Comments
General Item Comment Response
For all parking facilities it is critical that the appropriate level of provision is brought forwards for each phase of the development and an appropriate phasing strategy must be provided outlining how this would be achieved within the Parking Management and Operation Plan accompanying the planning application.
Noted.
Commercial Logistics Hub
Phased Access Strategy
The proposals for a last mile logistics hub serving the wider West London area is not objectionable in principle. The facility must allow for a significant proportion of off-site deliveries originating at the logistics hub to be re-moded to sustainable modes on foot or by cargo bike with e-vans used only for those deliveries where use of cargo bike is not practicable.
The stated intention is for the logistics hub to be delivered during the earlier phases of the development and appropriate access into and out of the site for cargo bikes must therefore be available at each phase of development. Recent discussions have indicated the potential for a southern access from the logistics hub to facilitate access out onto Old Brompton Road and this needs to be fully explored. Given the nature of the consolidation facility which is expected to serve the wider community around the site, ensuring easy and direct access from the facility onto the local highway network in all directions is essential. Further discussions and details on the function and management of the logistics hub are required.
The proposed access routes that will be provided for the detailed plots (EC05 and EC06) within the RBKC side of the development are considered suitable in principle although as noted above there is concern that these are not being brough forwards in detail and further comfort is needed to explain how this will be managed.
The wider access strategy for the ‘early phases’ of the development which covers all development within the RBKC boundary is also considered appropriate and accord with previous discussions on access.
A more detailed breakdown should however be provided to understand the extent of the access changes for the site as the build out of the development progresses. Whilst it is understandable that the exact phasing of the site is not yet determined and may be subject to change it must be demonstrated that appropriate access for all of the plots would be available at all times. For example, it is not clear if the access routes
The Applicant seeks a flexible B8 use and a commercial logistics element has been tested.
The TA sets out the flexible approach adopted for this land use.
Noted. Further information on the planning strategy is set out in the TA and the supporting planning statement.
Noted.
The TA sets out the access by scenario and the anticipated build out of the development. The CLP sets out the potential / construction phasing.
Response to RBKC Scoping Comments
General Item Comment Response
identified for the detailed plots would all be continuously available throughout the remaining build phases of the site or to what extent these will be impacted by construction activity.
Assessment approach
Trip Generation
A trip generation Technical Note has been provided within the appendix of the Scoping Note. The trip rates identified for the land uses appear broadly representative of what would be expected for the floorspace types proposed.
A more detailed justification and explanation for the trips rates associated with the Commercial Office floorspace should however be provided. The use of a First Principles approach is not objectionable however the assumption of only 25% of arrivals and departures occurring during the peak AM and PM periods respectively is considered to be low and I would expect this to be materially higher.
I am concerned that at present this is a substantial underestimation of the level of activity that would occur during these peak times and this needs to be further explained or justified.
The assumptions on the percentages of trips that would take place internally to the site between land uses appear sensible however further information should be provided to understand how these have been determined and what data this is based upon.
Residential servicing A reduction of 25% in the number of servicing trips has been applied for the residential floorspace based on expected consolidation opportunities.
The proposed consolidation for residential floorspace involves the use of a single on-site drop off points for deliveries which can then be distributed across the site via cargo bike or on foot deliveries. Whilst this would serve to reduce vehicular activity in and around the site it is not clear how it would result in an overall reduction of vehicles attending the site. This requires further explanation in order for this assumption of 25% to be accepted.
Commercial servicing For the commercial servicing it has been assumed that consolidation measures would reduce the expected number of deliveries by 50% which is considered reasonable subject to further details.
Within section 4.3.9 it states that ‘it is anticipated that all deliveries will be delivered directly to plot’. Given that the use of off-site consolidation is
The final trip generation was extracted from MoTiON with appropriate checks against the standalone TRICS based trip generation exercise.
Further information is provided in the modelling and trip generation supporting notes appended to the TA.
Noted. The DSP sets out the management and measures to be adopted for both residential and commercial servicing.
The DSP sets out further information on the intended servicing strategy for the site.
Response to RBKC Scoping Comments
General Item Comment
proposed and the aspiration is to limit vehicular activity around the site I would expect consolidated deliveries to be dropped off at a central point and then to then distributed around the site in a similar fashion to the proposed residential servicing strategy.
Response
Pedestrian modelling and PCLs
Car Parking Surveys
The proposed Pedestrian Comfort (PCL) Analysis to supplement the Legion modelling is supported and the proposed locations to be reviewed on Old Brompton Road and Warwick Road are considered appropriate. Should it be the case that there is an active frontage proposed onto West Cromwell Road (as above) then it would be arrogate for the adjoining footway to also be assessed.
Previous e-mail correspondence has confirmed the requested scope of parking surveys. An extension of this area to include a 400m walking distance from the site entrance on Warwick Road is considered to be suitable although this would not need to extend to areas beyond Earl’s Court Road. A survey of the overnight period when parking pressures tend to be highest in this area would also be appropriate as well as a Saturday and Sunday afternoon.
The TA sets out the PCL analysis and outcomes of the review.
The TA and associated appendices provide a summary of the 2024 car parking survey and results.
Active Travel Zone (ATZ)
The Proposed routes to be assessed within the ATZ have been updated and are now in line with previous comments issued on this topic. The proposal for all links through the site to be considered as part of the ATZ is also welcome and essential.
Construction A Phased construction logistics plan will be required for the site and the applicant has already started to engage on this matter. The use of Northern Access Road during the early phases for the bulk of activity is essential however the key issue for RBKC will be the management of construction traffic in and around the construction access on Warwick Road and on Old Brompton Road during the latter phases of the development which cannot make use of the Northern Access Route. The CLP must be easily understood in relation to the wider phasing strategy.
Noted.
A CLP has been completed by the Applicants construction advisor.
Appendix B – Policy Review
Policy Review
Policy Context
1.1 The proposed scheme has been developed with consideration of national, regional and local planning policies and guidance. Set out below is a review of relevant transport policy.
National Policy and Guidance
1.2 At a national level, the Transport Assessment (TA) has been prepared in full consideration of the following documents:
National Planning Policy Framework (2023); and
National Planning Practice Guidance (2023)
National Planning Policy Framework (2023)
1.3 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was adopted in March 2012, and most recently updated in December 2023. It provides the Framework within which locally prepared plans and policies can be produced. The NPPF sets out the governments government's planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied.
1.4 The document supports the promotion of sustainable transport which the proposals seek to adhere to. Section 9, paragraphs 108 to 117 deal specifically with transport planning and promoting sustainable transport.
1.5 Paragraph 108 states, “Transport issues should be considered from the earliest stages of plan-making and development proposals, so that:
a) The potential impacts of development on transport networks can be addressed;
b) Opportunities from existing or proposed transport infrastructure, and changing transport technology and usage, are realised – for example in relation to the scale, location or density of development that can be accommodated;
c) Opportunities to promote walking, cycling and public transport use are identified and pursued;
d) The environmental impacts of traffic and transport infrastructure can be identified, assessed and taken into account – including appropriate opportunities for avoiding and mitigating any adverse effects, and for net environmental gains; and
e) Patterns of movement, streets, parking and other transport considerations are integral to the design of schemes and contribute to making high-quality places.”
Paragraph 109 states, “The planning system should actively manage patterns of growth in support of these objectives. Significant development should be focused on locations which are or can be made sustainable, by limiting the need to travel and offering a genuine choice of transport modes. This can help to reduce congestion and emissions and improve air quality and public health. However, opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas, and this should be taken into account in both plan-making and decision-making.”
Paragraph 110 states, “Planning policies should:
a) Support an appropriate mix of uses across an area, and within larger scale sites, to minimise the number and length of journeys needed for employment, shopping, leisure, education and other activities;
b) Be prepared with the active involvement of local highways authorities, other transport infrastructure providers and operators and neighbouring councils, so that strategies and investments for supporting sustainable transport and development patterns are aligned;
c) Identify and protect, where there is robust evidence, site and routes which could be critical in developing infrastructure to widen transport choice and realise opportunities for large scale development; and
d) Provide for high quality walking and cycling networks and supporting facilities such as cycle parking (drawing on Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plans).”
Paragraph 114 states, “In assessing site that may be allocated for developments in plans, or specific applications for development, it should be ensured that:
a) Appropriate opportunities to promote sustainable transport modes can be – or have been – taken up, given the type of development and its location;
b) Safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all users;
c) The design of streets, parking areas, other transport elements and the content of associated standards reflect current national guidance, including the National Design Guide and the National Model Design Code; and
d) Any significant impacts from the development on the transport network (in terms of capacity and congestion), or on highway safety, can be cost-effectively mitigated to an acceptable degree.”
Paragraph 115 states, “Development should only be prevented or refused on highway grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe.”
Relating to paragraph 115, paragraph 116 states, “Within this context, applications for development should:
a) Give priority first to pedestrian and cycle movements, both within the scheme and with neighbouring areas; and second – so far as possible – to facilitating access to high-quality public transport, with layouts that maximise the catchment area for bus or other public transport services, and appropriate facilities that encourage public transport use;
b) Address the needs of people with disabilities and reduced mobility in relation to all modes of transport;
c) Create places that are safe, secure and attractive – which minimise the scope for conflicts between pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles, avoid unnecessary street clutter, and respond to local character and design standards;
d) Allow for the efficient delivery of goods, and access by service and emergency vehicles; and e) Be designed to enable charging of plug-in and other ultra-low emission vehicles in safe, accessible and convenient locations.”
Paragraph 117 states, “All developments that will generate significant amounts of movement should be required to provide a travel plan, and the application should be supported by a transport statement or transport assessment so that the likely impacts of the proposal can be assessed.”
The Proposed Development complies with the NPPF policies through the following:
The development is located in an area with high levels of access to public transport.
The proposals seek to promote active and sustainable travel by providing innovative and attractive cycle and pedestrian facilities and routing options.
The proposals seek to promote and establish an integrated internal network allowing for efficient delivery of goods and services.
The proposals seek to provide sufficient facilities for people with disabilities and reduced mobility across the masterplan.
National Planning Practice Guidance (2023)
The NPPG was published in 2016, and updated and revised most recently in November 2023.
The NPPG provides additional guidance to supplement the planning policies contained in the NPPF. The NPPG provides clarity on the role, function and structure of Transport Assessments and Travel Plans:
2024
“Transport Assessments and Statements are ways of assessing the potential transport impacts of developments (and they may propose mitigation measures to promote sustainable development. Where that mitigation relates to matters that can be addressed by management measures, the mitigation may inform the preparation of Travel Plans).”
In terms of why Travel Plans, Transport Assessments and Statements are important the NPPG states, “Travel Plans, Transport Assessments and Statements can positively contribute to:
Encouraging sustainable travel;
Lessening traffic generation and its detrimental impacts;
Reducing the need for new development to increase existing road capacity or provide new roads.”
In terms of the level of detail to be included in a TAthe following information is provided:
information about the proposed development, site layout, (particularly proposed transport access and layout across all modes of transport)
information about neighbouring uses, amenity and character, existing functional classification of the nearby road network;
data about existing public transport provision, including provision/ frequency of services and proposed public transport changes;
a qualitative and quantitative description of the travel characteristics of the proposed development, including movements across all modes of transport that would result from the development and in the vicinity of the site;
an assessment of trips from all directly relevant committed development in the area (ie development that there is a reasonable degree of certainty will proceed within the next 3 years);
data about current traffic flows on links and at junctions (including by different modes of transport and the volume and type of vehicles) within the study area and identification of critical links and junctions on the highways network;
an analysis of the injury accident records on the public highway in the vicinity of the site access for the most recent 3-year period, or 5-year period if the proposed site has been identified as within a high accident area;
an assessment of the likely associated environmental impacts of transport related to the development, particularly in relation to proximity to environmentally sensitive areas (such as air quality management areas or noise sensitive areas);
measures to improve the accessibility of the location (such as provision/enhancement of nearby footpath and cycle path linkages) where these are necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms;
a description of parking facilities in the area and the parking strategy of the development; ways of encouraging environmental sustainability by reducing the need to travel; and measures to mitigate the residual impacts of development (such as improvements to the public transport network, introducing walking and cycling facilities, physical improvements to existing roads.
July 2024
The TA has been prepared in accordance with the guidance set out in the NPPG.
Regional Policy and Guidance
At a regional level, the TA has been prepared in full consideration of the following documents:
The London Plan (GLA, 2021)
The Mayors Transport Strategy (2018) and Supplementary Proposal (2022); and
TfL’s Healthy Streets Transport Assessment Guidance
The LondonPlan (2021)
The most recent London Plan was published in March 2021. As the overall strategic plan for London, it sets out an integrated economic, environmental, transport and social framework for the development of London over the next 20-25 years. This London Plan (2021) supersedes all previous versions of the London Plan.
Chapter 10 of the London Plan sets out the policies relating to transport. The proposed development has been reviewed against the London Plan, as illustrated in Table 1.
Table 1: Development Context in relation to London Plan Policy Requirements
Policy Requirements Development Context
Policy T1 Strategic approach to transport
Development Plans should support, and development proposals should facilitate the delivery of the Mayor’s strategic target of 80 per cent of all trips in London to be made by foot, cycle or public transport by 2041
All development should make the most effective use of land, reflecting its connectivity and accessibility by existing and future public transport, walking and cycling routes, and ensure that any impacts on London’s transport networks and supporting infrastructure are mitigated.
The development proposals are for a car-lite development, with high-quality cycle parking and mobility facilities fully supporting sustainable patterns of travel.
Sections of the Site are located in areas with excellent access to public transport services (PTAL 6b). Other sections are located in areas with lower PTAL scores (PTAL 2 and 3). The development proposals will seek to open up the development and connect the centre of the site to the existing transport network improving the overall public transport accessibility levels of the Site.
Policy
T2 Healthy Streets
Development proposals should deliver patterns of land use that facilitate residents making shorter, regular trips by walking or cycling.
This includes demonstrating how they will deliver improvements that support the ten Healthy Streets Indicators in line with Transport for London guidance, reducing the dominance of vehicles on London’s streets whether stationary or moving, and creating a permeable network by foot and
The Proposed Development is located in an area with access to a range of local facilities and amenities within walking distance.
The nearest cycle route to the site (Quietway 15) can be access by using Old Brompton Road,
The public realm within the Site is proposed to tie in with the existing
Table 1: Development Context in relation to London Plan Policy Requirements
Policy Requirements
Development Context cycle, connecting to local walking and cycling networks as well as public transport network.
public realm creating a connected and integrated site.
Policy T3
Transport capacity, connectivity & safeguarding
Development proposals should provide adequate protection for transport schemes, not remove vital transport functions, or limit their necessary expansion without suitable alternative provisions. Proposals should also support capacity, connectivity and other improvements to the bus network, ensuring it can operate efficiently.
A - Development proposals should reflect and be integrated with current and planned transport access, capacity and connectivity.
B - Transport Assessments are required to assess impacts on the capacity of the transport network at the local, network-wide and strategic level. Transport Assessments and should focus on embedding the Healthy Streets Approach.
This TA sets out a full assessment of the impacts of the Proposed Development on the public transport network. Where appropriate mitigation measures have been developed for discussion with the Transport Stakeholders.
Policy T4
Assessing & mitigating transport impacts
C - Where adverse transport impacts that are identified appropriate, mitigation will be required, either through direct provision of public transport, walking and cycling facilities and highways improvements or through financial contributions.
D & E - In instances where there is limited ability to absorb increased travel demand through active travel modes and existing public transport capacity is insufficient with no plans for increased capacity, planning permission will be contingent on the provision of transport infrastructure.
The cumulative impacts of development on public transport and the road network capacity including walking and cycling, as well as associated effects on public health, should be taken into account and mitigated.
F - Development proposals should not increase road danger.
The transport strategy seeks to maximise travel by sustainable and active modes by proposing a car-lite approach to parking and proposing a pedestrian and cycle led public realm.
The public realm proposals include a north-south and east-west pedestrian and cycling route through the Site improving permeability and connections to the wider area.
The impacts of the Proposed Development on the transport network have been assessed using TfL’s strategic transport models which take account of growth and cumulative developments and a package of mitigation measures have been developed.
Policy T5 Cycling
Developments should encourage cycling and provide cycle parking facilities in
Cycle parking quantum is proposed to be provided in accordance with
Table 1: Development Context in relation to London Plan Policy Requirements
Policy Requirements Development Context
accordance with the quantum set out in the policy and designed in accordance with London Cycling Design Standards.
London Plan requirements. Dedicated spaces and facilities for disabled cyclists will also be provided. The development will also provide ‘Mobility Hubs’ and high-quality end-of-trip facilities for employees in the larger commercial plots including showers and lockers.
The Development Proposals will aim to achieve cycle parking design in accordance with London Cycling Design Standards.
Policy T6 Car Parking
Car-free development should be the starting point for all development proposals in places that are (or are planned to be) well-connected by public transport.
Policy T7 Deliveries, servicing &
construction
Development proposals should facilitate sustainable deliveries and servicing, including through the provision of adequate space for servicing, storage, and deliveries off-street.
Car and Cycle Parking
The Proposed Development will be car-lite, providing the minimum necessary level of parking as stipulated by the London Plan.
The proposed servicing strategy incorporates the majority of servicing activity within the boundary of the Site. There is a requirement to provide a servicing area on Aisgill Avenue to achieve refuse collection access to WB05 T2.
A Framework Delivery and Servicing Plan has been prepared which sets out the proposed strategy.
The starting point for development proposals in areas well-connected by public transport should be car-free. The Development Proposals seek to be car-lite by providing only the minimum necessary parking. The London Plan requires appropriate provision to be made for disabled persons who are Blue Badge holders. At residential developments with ten or more units, it is proposed that at least one designated disabled persons parking bay per dwelling is available for 3% of dwellings from the outset, with capacity for up to 10% if demand requires this. The additional 7% should be set out in a Parking Design and Management Plan. All non-residential elements of a development should provide at least one disabled parking bay.
Cycle parking standards for each land use are summarised in Table 2.
Table 2: London Plan Minimum Cycle Parking Standards
A2-A5
Food retail
Non-food retail
From a threshold of 100 sqm: 1 space per 175 sqm gross external area (GEA)
From a threshold of 100 sqm: areas with higher cycle parking standards (see Figure 10.2):
First 750 sqm: 1 space per 20 sqm; Thereafter: 1 space per 150 sqm (GEA)
Rest of London: first 750 sqm: 1 space per 40 sqm; Thereafter: 1 space per 300 sqm (GEA)
Cafes and restaurants
From a threshold of 100 sqm: first 1,000 sqm:
1 space per 250 sqm
Thereafter: 1 space per 1,000 sqm (GEA)
From a threshold of 100sqm: areas with higher cycle parking standards (see Figure 10.2): First 1,000 sqm: 1 space per 60 sqm; thereafter: 1 space per 500 sqm (GEA)
Rest of London: first 1,000 sqm: 1 space per 125 sqm; thereafter: 1 space per 1,000 sqm (GEA)
B1a Employment (Office)
From a threshold of 100 sqm: 1 space per 175 sqm (GEA)
From a threshold of 100 sqm: areas with higher cycle parking standards (see Figure 10.2): 1 space per 20 sqm (GEA)
Rest of London: 1 space per 40 sqm (GEA)
Central Activities Zone and Inner London Car free
Outer London Opportunity Areas
Outer London
Outer London locations identified through a Development Plan Document where more generous standards apply
Up to 1 space per 600 sqm GIA
Up to 1 space per 100 sqm GIA
Up to 1 space per 50 sqm GIA
C3-C4 Dwellings
1 space per studio 1.5 spaces per 1-bedroom unit 2 spaces per all other dwellings
1 space per 40 units
There is a requirement to provide 20% of the residential parking spaces with active electric vehicle charging points, with the remaining 80% being passive. However, London Plan electric vehicle parking policy has largely been superseded by the Building Regulations Part S which require a higher level of provision.
Mayors TransportStrategy (2018)
The Mayor’s Transport Strategy details how the transport mix across London will change, providing viable and attractive alternatives that will allow Londoners to reduce their dependence on the private car. The strategy uses all the powers of London’s transport networks to set out a vision for the future of the City.
The Mayor’s Transport Strategy was produced in 2018 and incorporates the Healthy Streets and Vision Zero approaches aimed to achieve:
Active, inclusive and safe travel;
A more efficient use of the street network; and Improvements to air quality and the environment.
The Mayor’s Transport Strategy provides seven transport guiding principles of ‘good growth’:
1. “Good access to public transport
2. High-density, mixed-use developments
3. People choose to walk and cycle
4. Car-free and car-lite places
5. Inclusive, accessible design
6. Carbon-free travel
7. Efficient freight.”
The policies of the Mayors Transport Strategy seek to tackle the challenges through:
Policy 2: Making London a city where people choose to walk and cycle more often by improving street environments and promoting the benefits of active travel;
Policy 3:Aiming for no one to be killed in or by a London bus by 2030, and for all deaths and serious injuries from road collisions to be eliminated from London’s streets by 2041;
Policy 5: Prioritising space for efficient modes of transport to tackle congestion and improve the efficiency of streets for the movement of people and goods, with the aim of reducing overall traffic levels by 10-15 per cent by 2041;
Policy 7: Seeking to make London’s transport network zero emission by 2050;
Policy 10: Using the Healthy Streets Approach to deliver coordinated improvements to public transport and streets to provide an attractive whole journey experience that will facilitate mode shift away from the car; and
Policy 23: Supporting mode shift away from car travel: new transport services should not encourage more car journeys, especially where there are good walking, cycling or public transport options.”
Aligning with Policy T1 of the London Plan, Policy 1 states “The Mayor through TfL and the boroughs, and working with stakeholders, will reduce Londoners’ dependency on cars in favour of active, efficient and
Table 2: London Plan Minimum Cycle Parking Standards
sustainable modes of travel, with the central aim for 80 per cent of all trips in London to be made on foot, by cycle or using public transport by 2041.”
Policy 1 will be assisted by Policy 2, which states “The Mayor, through TfL and the boroughs, and working with stakeholders, will seek to make London a city where people choose to walk and cycle more often by improving street environments, making it easier for everyone to get around on foot and by cycle, and promoting the benefits of active travel. The Mayor’s aim is that, by 2041, all Londoners do at least 20 minutes of active travel they need to stay healthy each day.”
Policy5 states, “The Mayor, through TfL and the boroughs, and working with stakeholders, will prioritise spaceefficient modes of transport to tackle congestion and improve the efficiency of streets for the movement of people and goods, with the aim of reducing overall traffic levels by 10-15 per cent by 2041.”
Policy 10 states, “The Mayor, through TfL and the boroughs, and working with stakeholders, will use the Healthy Streets Approach to deliver co-ordinated improvements to public transport and streets to provide an attractive whole journey experience that will facilitate mode shift away from the car.”
In supporting Policy 10, Proposal 50 states, “The Mayor, through TfL and the boroughs, will make improvements measured and prioritised against the Healthy Streets indicators to transform the design and layout of street space and transport facilities around bus, rail, Underground, London Overground, DLR and other stations, and around river piers, as far as practicable, to create safe, secure, accessible, inclusive, welcoming, well-designed gateways and routes to and from public transport, including provision of:
a) Sufficient space and desire-line connectivity for current and future volumes of people arriving and leaving on foot.
b) High-quality provision for cycling, consistent with London Cycling Design Standards, including secure and well-located cycle parking.”
Policy 13 states, “The Mayor, through TfL and the boroughs, and working with stakeholders, will seek to make the public transport network easier and more pleasant to use, enabling customers to enjoy comfortable, confident, safe and secure, informed and stress-free travel.”
Policy 14 states, “The Mayor, through TfL and the boroughs, and working with stakeholders, will seek to enhance London’s streets and public transport network to enable disabled and older people to more easily travel spontaneously and independently, making the transport system navigable and accessible to all and reducing the additional journey time that disabled and older users can experience.”
Good Growth is a key concept of the Mayor’s Transport Strategy and involves ensuring that people have travel options other than driving. Policy 21 states that: “The Mayor, through TfL and the boroughs, and working with stakeholders, will ensure that new homes and jobs in London are delivered in line with the transport principles of Good Growth for current and future Londoners by using transport to:
Create high density, mixed-use places; and
Unlock growth potential in underdeveloped parts of the city.”
There are seven key transport guiding principles of ‘Good Growth’. The Proposed Development will accord with these in the following ways:
Excellent access to public transport: The site is located in close proximity to several public transport nodes including West Kensington, West Brompton and Earls Court along with numerous bus stops on Lillie Road/Old Brompton Road, Warwick Road, Earls Court Road and North End Road.
High density, mixed-use developments; The development will provide a mix of uses to create a vibrant place for new residents, employees and visitors as well as the surrounding community.
People choose to walk and cycle: The Proposed Development will provide cycle parking in accordance with the quantum outlined in the London Plan. TfL cycle hire facilities will be provided on site where feasible.
Car free and car lite places: The Proposed Development will take a car-lite approach to parking providing only the parking that is considered necessary.
Inclusive accessible design: The development will be accessible for disabled users and will seek to enhance pedestrian and cyclist permeability.
Carbon free travel:Active travel modes will be promoted through the provision of public realm that prioritises active travel above that of the vehicle.ATravel Plan will be provided for the development to further promote sustainable modes.
Efficient freight: Space has been provided for delivery and servicing to take place on site. A supplementary note was adopted in 2022 which relates specifically to air quality, the climate emergency and traffic congestion.
TfL Transport Assessment Guidance
TfL first published their Healthy Streets approach to Transport Assessments in 2018. The guidance is centred around the London Plan and Mayor’s Transport Strategy Vision Zero and Healthy Streets Approach. The Healthy Streets Transport Assessment format suggests the following should be included:
Introduction – outlining the development proposals and how the transport planning of the development has responded to key transport policies set out in The London Plan and Mayor’s Transport Strategy
Transport planning for people – who will use the development and why with reference to Travel in London reports and the Transport Classification of Londoners demographic segments
Site and surroundings – the transport conditions in the vicinity of the site
Active Travel Zone – including the Active Travel Zone assessment
London-wide network – to include the trip generation and modelling
Additional borough analysis – any additional borough specific analysis that has been requested
Construction – reference should be made to the Construction Logistics Plan
Conclusion – to include a summary of the key transport impacts and how the development has responded
Local Policy and Guidance
At a local level, the TA has been prepared in full consideration of the following documents:
The LBHF Local Plan was adopted on the 28th February 2018 to replace the Core Strategy 2011 and Development Management Local Plan 2013 documents as the basis for planning decisions and future development in the borough.
Section 14 of the document sets out the policies related to transport and accessibility. Policy T1 – Transport aims, “To work with strategic partners to improve transportation provision, accessibility, and air quality in the borough, by improving and increasing the opportunities for cycling and walking, and by improving connections
July 2024
for bus services, underground, national and regional rail”. To achieve this, Policy T1 states that the borough will:
Promote and support the continued development of initiatives designed to encourage modal shift away from private vehicles, in order to improve congestion and air quality within the borough; and
ensure that traffic generated by new development is minimised so that it does not add to parking pressures on local streets or congestion or worsen air quality.
Policy T2 – Transport Assessments and Travel Plans states that:
“All development proposals will be assessed on their contribution to traffic generation and their impact on congestion, particularly on bus routes and on the primary route network. The existing and potential availability of public transport, and its capacity to meet increased demand will also be assessed for any development.
The Council will require a Transport Assessment (TA), together with a Travel Plan where a development is anticipated to generate a level of trips that impacts on the local network or have an impact on any strategic routes. Delivery and Servicing Plans should be secured in line with TfL’s London Freight Plan and should be co-ordinated with Travel Plans.”
Policy T3 – Increasing and promoting opportunities for cycling and walking states that, “the council will encourage and support the increasing use of bicycles by requiring:
New developments to include the provision of convenient accessible and safe secure cycle parking within the boundary of the site
the provision of suitable changing and showering facilities, following the guidance outlined in the Hammersmith and Fulham Cycling Strategy 2015 and
developer contributions for improvements to cycling infrastructure, including contributions to the extension of TfL or other Cycle Hire schemes to mitigate their impact on the existing network.
The Council will facilitate walking by requiring larger developments to provide:
accessible, inclusive and safe pedestrian routes within and through the larger developments;
accessible and inclusive pedestrian access to the river and canal, where appropriate; and
contributing to improvements in the local highway infrastructure and walking environment.”
In accordance with PolicyT4 – Vehicle Parking Standards, “the Council will require any proposed development (new build, conversion or change of use) to conform to its car parking standards (appendix 7). The Council will also require car parking permit free measures on all new development unless evidence is provided to show that there is a significant lack of public transport available.”
In terms of the provision of blue badge parking, policy T5 states, “New developments that include vehicular access must provide accessible, off street car parking bay for Blue Badge holders, even if no other general parking is provided as part of the development.”
Policy T6 – Borough Road Network – Hierarchy of Roads, states that, “Developments, construction and other operations that affect the borough’s road network will be regulated according to the council’s hierarchy of roads, as follows:
Tier 1: Strategic routes (Transport for London network): Development will not be permitted if it would prejudice the effectiveness of the strategic route network to provide safe and unobstructed road connections to national and international transport networks, to provide for long distance and commercial traffic to traverse the region, or to reduce traffic on lower tier roads. Direct frontage access from development sites to such routes will be resisted unless there is no prospect of alternative access to a lower tier road, and the particular section of frontage concerned already performs lower tier functions, and the safe flow of traffic will be maintained. Proposals likely to increase car commuting into central London along such routes will be resisted.
Tier 2: London distributor roads: Development will not be permitted if it would prejudice the effectiveness of these roads to provide links to the strategic route network, provide access to and between town centres, and distribute traffic to and around, but not within, local areas.
Tier 3: Borough distributor roads: Development will not be permitted if it would prejudice the effectiveness of these roads to distribute traffic to land and property within any local area bounded by the strategic route network and London distributor roads, or introduce additional through-traffic on them.
Tier 4: Local access roads: Development will not be permitted if it would prejudice the effectiveness of these roads to provide safe and convenient access to individual properties, or result in their use by throughtraffic.”
The site falls within the Fulham Regeneration Area. According to Policy FRA, “The council will work with the GLA, Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, other strategic partners and landowners to secure the regeneration and renewal of the area; and “actively engage with local residents and community groups to ensure that regeneration delivers benefits for the surrounding area.”
The Fulham Regeneration Area (FRA) covers a total of 47 hectares and comprises Fulham Town Centre and the Earl’s Court and West Kensington OpportunityArea.
The site also falls within the Earls Court and West Kensington Opportunity Area. The Earl’s Court and West Kensington Opportunity Area is also identified in the Mayor’s London Plan (2016). The Opportunity Area is partially within the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea and, in total, is identified in the Mayor’s London Plan (2016) as having the capacity for 7,500 homes and 9,500 jobs. The Opportunity Area is primarily split into three key land holdings, namely the Earl’s Court Exhibition Centre, the Lillie Bridge London Underground depot and the West Kensington and Gibbs Green housing estates.
Development proposals should:
contribute to the provision of 7,000 homes and 9,000 jobs;
enhance the vitality and viability of Fulham Town Centre, particularly on North End Road and explore opportunities to secure the long-term future of and enhance the North End Road street market;
provide for the improvement of the West Kensington, Gibbs Green, and Registered Provider estates, including the potential for renewal of and additions to all or parts of the estates;
secure economic benefits for the wider community around the Fulham Regeneration Area to enable local people to access new job opportunities through training, local apprenticeships, or targeted recruitment;
provide appropriate social, physical, environmentaland transport infrastructure to supportthe needsarising from the area as a whole;
demonstrate a high quality of urban design and public realm; and
preserve or enhance the character or appearance and the setting of heritage assets including the Grade II* listed Fulham Town Hall and the Grade I Historic Park and Garden at Brompton Cemetery.
The Local Plans Strategic Site Policy FRA1: Earl’s Court and West Kensington Opportunity Area provides the details of the council supported development for the mixed use residential led development of the Earl’s Court and West Kensington Opportunity Area. The development proposals as stated within the policy are as follows:
provide a mix of land uses, including housing, employment, hotels, leisure and associated facilities, retail and cultural facilities. Cultural facilities should include a major arts, leisure or entertainment activity;
provide adequate social, physical, environmental and transport infrastructure to support the needs of the area as a whole;
provide for improvement to the West Kensington, Gibbs Green and Registered Provider estates, including the potential for renewal of and additions to all or parts of the estates, as part of the comprehensive approach to the regeneration of the Opportunity Area;
July 2024
provide green corridors and public open spaces including the provision of a centrally located local park of at least 2 hectares; and
recognise the substantial scope offered by the scale and location of the Opportunity Area to create a new sense of place and range of densities. There may be scope for tall buildings, however any tall buildings would need to be justified by a full urban design analysis.
This Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) establishes more detailed guidance on the application of policies within the adopted Local Plan as well as any neighbourhood plans that may come into effect that are concerned with managing development proposals within the borough.
The council’s Strategic Objective for transport is included as part of the overall objective for, “Delivering an environmentally sustainable borough.”
Objective 14 states the intention, “to ensure the development of a safe, sustainable transport network that includes improvements to public transport, cycling and walking infrastructure which will improve transport accessibility and local air quality and reduce traffic congestion and the need to travel.”
The Planning Guidance Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) was adopted on 28th February 2018. The transport policies relevant to the proposed development are set out below.
Key principle – TR1 Transport Assessments: “When applying Local Plan Policy T2, the council expects Transport Assessments and Transport Statements to be produced in accordance with Transport for London’s Transport Assessment Guidance.”
Key principle – TR2 Travel Plans: “Travel Plans should be produced in accordance with Local Plan Policy T2 and TfL’s guidance on Travel plans 2013. In general, travel plans submitted along with an initial application will be in outline form. However, where the occupant is known or where the application is for the expansion of an existing use, a full travel plan will be required. The Travel Plan will be secured by a Section 106 Agreement in the first instance. A Construction Travel Plan is required for applications for major development and should be included as part of The Construction Management Statement for applications involving basement extensions.
Key principle - TR3 Vehicle parking standards including car parking permit free: “Development in areas will connected by public transport will be expected to be car-free, with no parking provided, other than for disabled people. Proposals for residential development in areas of PTAL 1-2 may be issued residential parking permits. In these circumstances, this will require an assessment to ensure that the level of on-street overnight parking resulting does not result in parking stress. This will be assessed on a case by case basis. Where a development is accepted as only partly car free the smaller residential units will generally be considered to be permit free. Holders of disabled persons Blue Badge parking would be excluded from car permit free arrangements. However developers are expected to address the needs of Blue Badge holders by provision of appropriate facilities as set out in Key Principle in TR6.”
Key principle - TR4 Dimensions of Car Parking Spaces: “The dimensions of all car parking spaces should enable easy access to and from the vehicle, taking account of needs of users and the constraints of the parking area.”
Key principle – TR5 Car Clubs for New Developments: “Where appropriate and in accordance with the aims of the London Plan the council will encourage the provision of car club bays, especially those with restricted parking.”
Key principle - TR6 Blue Badge Parking: “Blue badge parking should be provided in accordance with Local Plan Policy HO6 – accessible housing and Policy T5 – parking for blue badge holders. The detailed requirements are set out in Local Plan Appendix 7 – Car Parking Standards. Parking spaces for disabled people should preferably be provided on site. Any spaces required for disabled people should also conform to the London Plan standard of 2.4m wide by 4.8m long with a space 1.2m wide provided between the designated spaces and the rear outside traffic zone. This is to enable a disabled driver to get in or out of a vehicle and across the boot safely. “
2024
Key principle – TR7 Electric Vehicles: “The requirement for the number of electric vehicle parking spaces for both residential and commercial uses is contained in Local Plan Appendix 7.”
Key principle - TR8 Motorcycle Parking for residential and non-residential developments: “the council will require motorcycle parking facilities in developments which require a Transport Assessment or in nonresidential developments one space per 600sqm, whichever is greater.”
Key principle – TR9 Cycling Environment Review System: “A ‘Cycling Environment Review‘ should normally be included as part of the Transport Assessment. Developers are expected to provide funding in order to resolve any unacceptable issues that are identified as part of a CERS assessment. The funding to resolve these issues will be secured by condition of Section 106 agreement.”
Key principle – TR10 TfL or other Cycle Hire Schemes: “A contribution will be sought from developments for TfL or other cycle hire schemes. Where appropriate, land will also be sought and safeguarded to facilitate their delivery.”
Key principle – TR11 Cycling Improvements and The Cycle Superhighway Scheme: “A contribution will be sought from developments located near to the proposed Cycle Superhighway routes or any complimentary routes to the Cycle Superhighway.”
Key principle – TR12 Walking: “The council supports the principles set out within The Mayor’s Manual for Streets Guidance (2017) and Healthy Streets for London (2017) and expects the developer to apply these principles to any scheme.”
Key principle – TR13 Pedestrian Environment Review System: “A Pedestrian Environment Review System (PERS) assessment should normally be included as part of the Transport Assessment. If deemed necessary, a pedestrian comfort level assessment should be included as part of any PERS assessment. The PERS assessment should include an assessment of disabled people and people with mobility impairments. Developers are expected to provide funding in order to resolve any unacceptable issues that are identified as part of a PERS assessment. The funding to be resolve these issues will be secured by condition or Section 106 agreement.”
Key principle – TR14 Public transport: “The council will require, as a condition of granting planning permission, that where appropriate development proposals make full provision for appropriate access by coaches and taxis which should not impinge on existing bus servicing arrangements or road safety in the vicinity.”
Key principle – TR15 Access for all: “The needs of disabled people in getting to and from a building or development as pedestrians, public transport users, motorists, and car passengers must be taken into account in the design of individual developments.”
Key principle – TR16 Moving around a development: “Developers should ensure that disabled people do not need to walk long distances to access buildings and facilities and should provide plenty of appropriately placed and designed seating. The needs of particular disabled groups, for example those with learning difficulties need to be taken into account when considering arrangements for moving around a development. When considering potential barriers to inclusive access the council will expect developers to consider:
getting to and from a development
moving around a development
signage and information
surfacing materials.”
RBKC Local Plan (2019)
The currently adopted RBKC Local Plan was adopted in September 2019. The Local Plan sets out the vision, objectives and detailed spatial strategy for future development in RBKC up to 2028 along with specific strategic policies and targets, development management policies and site allocations.
Chapter 20 sets out policies relating to transport.
Policy CO3: Strategic Objective for Better Travel Choices states, “Our strategic objective for better travel choices is for walking, cycling and public transport to be safe, easy, attractive and inclusive for all and preferred by residents and visitors to private car ownership and use.”
Policy CT1: Improving alternatives to car use states, “The Council will ensure that there are better alternatives to car use by making it easier and more attractive to walk, cycle and use public transport and by managing traffic congestion and the supply of car parking. To deliver this, the Council will:
Require high trip generating development to be located in areas of the borough where public transport accessibility has a PTAL score of 4 or above and where there is sufficient public transport capacity, or that will achieve PTAL 4 and provide sufficient capacity as a result of committed improvements to public transport.
Require it to be demonstrated that development will not result in any material increase in traffic congestion or on-street parking pressure.
Require that all new additional residential development be permit-free.
Require car parking provided in new residential development to be at or below the adopted car parking standards.
Require that parking in non-residential development us for essential need only.
Require cycle parking, showering and changing facilities in new development.
Require improvements to the walking and cycling environment, including securing pedestrian and cycle links through new developments.
Require new development to incorporate measures to improve road safety, and in particular the safety of pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists, and resist development that compromises road safety.
Require Transport Assessments and Travel Plans for larger scale development.
Ensure that new developments provide or contribute toward improvements to public transport services, access to them and interchange between them, giving priority to north-south bus links and areas that currently have lower levels of accessibility.
Work with partners to ensure that step-free access is delivered at all Underground and rail stations by 2028, require new developments to contribute toward step-free access and ensure it is delivered at Underground and rail stations in the borough where there is a redevelopment opportunity,
Resist new public car parks and the loss of off-street coach parking.
Require that where a development creates new on-street parking it is managed so that parking demand is controlled and the need for off-street parking is minimised.
Require that new development adjacent to the River Thames or Grand Union Canal takes full advantage of, and improves the opportunities for, public transport and freight on the water, access to the water for recreation and walking and cycling alongside it,
Work with TfL to improve the streets within the Earl’s Court one-way system by:
Investigating the return of the streets to two-way operation, and by implementing the recommended improvements, should TfL and the Council deem them feasible.
By securing improvements to the pedestrian environment.
Requiring developments to contribute to the above objectives.
Ensure that development does not reduce access to, or the attractiveness of, existing footways and footpaths used by the public, or land over which the public have a right of way,”
The Local Plan, through Policy CV8, highlights that by 2018, the former Earls Court Exhibition will be transformed into:
“a vibrant new urban village, which reflects the crescents and squares nearby”.
Key elements of the policy relating to transport include:
July 2024
Ensure that the new centre within the Opportunity Area serves the day-to-day needs of the development and is of a scale that does not have an unacceptable impact on the vitality and viability of the existing centres in Kensington and Chelsea.
Ensure development within Opportunity Area is low carbon or carbon neutral.
Improve the pedestrian environment around Cromwell Road, West Cromwell Road, Warwick Road and Earl’s Court Road to make it safer and more usable.
Improve provision for cyclists travelling east-west and north-south.
Protect the Green Corridor designated along the West London railway line.
Improve local air quality.
Deliver a new cycling Quietway providing an east-west route across Earl’s Court.
Deliver a north-south pedestrian route running parallel to Warwick Road and potentially extending up to Kensington High Street.
Deck over the Transport for London depot and West London line to allow for good connections and increased public open space.
Improve the Warwick Road tube entrance to Earl’s Court Station and its setting to provide a suitable gateway to the new urban quarter.
Investigate returning the one-way road system to two-way working.
Improve the Earl’s Court Road junction with Pembroke Road.
Deliver landscape and streetscape improvements to West Cromwell Road, including a green corridor project to create a green “screen/barrier” to reduce pedestrian exposure to traffic emissions alongside West Cromwell Road between junctions with Earl’s Court Road and Warwick Road.
Provide new pedestrian crossings, improvements to cycle crossings and signalised junctions on Warwick Road.
Seek ways to minimise building and road traffic air pollution emissions from new development.
Policy CA4 of the RBKC Local Plan allocates development on the Earls Court Exhibition Centre to deliver the following elements that are of relevance to transport:
a design of the road network and connections with the surrounding area that significantly improves residential amenity, the pedestrian environment and public transport access in the area of the one-way system, and does not have an unacceptable impact on traffic congestion;
an open urban square, fronting onto Warwick Road, with land uses that provide positive active edges to the building frontages;
securing highway contributions including the investigation, in consultation with TfL and the boroughs, into returning the Earl’s Court one-way system two way working; implementation of those measures identified during the investigation commensurate to the development proposal; and significant improvements to quality of residential amenity, the pedestrian environment and public transport access in the area of the Earl’s Court one-way system;
improvements to Tube, bus and rail access, including interchange from the West London line to the Underground network and the extension of bus services into the site;
to contribute to step-free access at West Brompton Station, measures to increase the capacity of the West London line and improvements to its interchange with the Underground network, particularly at Earl’s Court, if feasible;
improved pedestrian links from and through the site and the surrounding area to public transport facilities and improved cycle links to enhance north/south cycle accessibility;
RBKC New Local Plan Review (NLPR) (2023)
July 2024
The emerging new RBKC Local Plan Review has been through a number of stages of consultation, and whilst not yet adopted weight should be applied to the policies.
The submission version was published and sent to the secretary of state on 8th February 2023. The key policies relevant to transport are summarised in Table 3.
Policy Policy Requirements
Policy CA4 –Earl’s Court
Exhibition Centre
Policy T1 – Street Network
Comprehensive development of the site in accordance with the objectives and strategies that will be set out in the Earls Court and West Kensington Opportunity Area SPD 2012. A high-density development with a high environmental standards and lows levels of car dependency and ownership.
Attractive, usable and flexible public realm providing an appropriate setting for a mixeduse development which features leisure, education and business uses as well as housing.
Guidance for new streets is provided as follows;
In areas of large-scale redevelopment, the Council will require new street networks to be inspired by the Borough’s historic street patterns to ensure optimal connectivity and accessibility.
New street networks must be established with a clear function, hierarchy and choice of routes, designed to optimise connectivity, accessibility and legibility, and to reflect the historic and finely grained block structure of the Borough.
New streets to be designed to give priority to pedestrian and cyclist movement, be attractive, safe, provide planting, minimise opportunities for crime, and be inclusive to all, in line with the Healthy Streets Approach.
New streets to be built to adoptable standards.
Development that provides new links and removes barriers that disconnect access for pedestrians, cyclists and people with limited mobility is encouraged. The development of new gated communities and development that restricts access for pedestrians, cyclists and people with limited mobility to existing streets will be resisted.
Guidance for existing Streets is set out as below:
Development that changes the existing street network including the addition or modification of accesses, street layouts and road crossings must serve to (i) improve street safety in line with the Vision Zero approach, (ii) provide for ease of movement for all pedestrian groups (iii) contribute positively to the Healthy Streets score.
Policy T2 – Three
Dimensional Street Form
Policy T5 – Land use and Transport
Saved from adopted Local Plan.
The council will ensure that there are better alternatives to car use by making it easier and more attractive to walk, cycle and use public transport and by managing traffic congestion and the supply of car parking.
Table 3: RBKC Local Plan Policies (Publication Version, February 2023)
Table 3: RBKC Local Plan Policies (Publication Version, February 2023)
Policy Policy Requirements
The council require:
Require development to be located in suitable areas where the transport requirements can be met in a sustainable manner, and which actively encourages travel by sustainable modes; High trip generating development to be located in areas of the Borough where public transport accessibility has a PTAL score of 4 or above and where there is sufficient public transport capacity, or that will achieve PTAL 4 and provide sufficient capacity as a result of committed improvements to public transport;
Large scale developments are required to submit Transport Assessments and Travel Plans; Resist the loss of buildings and land used for public transport, active travel or related support functions (unless satisfactory alternative facilities are provided.
The policy requires implementation of vibrant outdoor spaces. The policy states:
Require opportunities to be taken within the street environment to create places that support outdoor life, inclusive to all, adding to their attractiveness and vitality.
Policy T3 Living streets and outdoor life
Policy T4 –Streetscape
Support proposals for outdoor hospitality uses that contribute positively to the streetscape by improving the visual and functional qualities of our streets maintain the safe, secure passage of pedestrians including those with mobility needs and
are proportionate in scale to their context.
The council will require a well-connected, inclusive, and legible network of streets to be maintained and enhanced.
Require improvements to the visual, functional and inclusive quality of our streets, ensuring they are designed and maintained to a very high standard, that street clutter is removed and that street furniture, advertisements and signs are carefully controlled to avoid clutter to support the Council’s aim of driving up the quality of the Borough’s streetscape:
Remove redundant street furniture.
Retain, and seek the maintenance and repair of, historic street furniture such as post boxes and red Gilbert Scott telephone boxes, where this does not adversely impact on the safe functioning of the street.
Where there is an exceptional need for new street furniture, it must be of highquality design and construction, and placed with great care, so as to relate well to the character and function of the street.
Resist adverts, including on street furniture, that by reason of size, siting, design, materials or method of illumination harm amenity or public or road safety.
Resist freestanding structures such as telephone kiosks where the function for the display of adverts dominates the primary purpose for the structure, whether sited on streets, forecourts or roadsides.
Resist pavement crossovers and forecourt parking.
Policy Policy Requirements
Resist the construction of high garden walls and fences along street boundaries.
Active Travel is at the core of new policy in the Local Plan. The councils requires that:
All new development to maximise trips made by sustainable transport modes by making it easier and more attractive to walk and cycle within the Borough.
Policy T6 – Active Travel
Improvements to the walking and cycling environment are required, including pedestrian and cycle links through new developments and through improving walking and cycling routes to transport infrastructure, social infrastructure, green spaces and town centre uses. Necessary off-site improvements shall be secured by planning obligation.
New development must incorporate measures to improve road safety, and in particular the safety of walking and cycling and resist development that compromises road safety.
New development adjacent to the River Thames or GUC will be required to deliver improved access and connections to the water for walking, cycling and recreation alongside it.
This policy requires the following:
Development to promote sustainable travel through the delivery of enhancements to existing public transport infrastructure.
New developments must provide or contribute toward improvements to public transport services, access to them and interchange between them, giving priority to areas that currently have lower levels of accessibility.
Policy
T7 – Public Transport
Support improvements to West London Line services and enhancements to facilities that improve access to the services.
Step-free access
The Council will work with partners to ensure that step-free access is delivered at all underground and rail stations, requiring new developments to contribute toward step-free access and ensure it is delivered at Underground and rail stations in the Borough where there is a redevelopment opportunity, giving priority to those which deliver the greatest overall benefits.
Seek to minimise reliance on private car use arising from new development and promote sustainable travel patterns by managing congestion and the supply of car parking.
Policy – T8
– Car Parking
Require it to be demonstrated that development will not result in any material increase in traffic congestion or on street parking pressure.
All new additional residential development must be permit free. Car parking provided in new residential development must be at or below the adopted car parking standards.
Parking in non-residential development must be for essential need only.
All parking spaces within new development to be equipped with electric vehicle charging points.
Table 3: RBKC Local Plan Policies (Publication Version, February 2023)
Policy Policy Requirements
Where a development creates new on-street parking, this must be managed so that parking demand is controlled and the need for off-street parking is minimised.
Resist new public car parks and the loss of off-street coach parking.
Servicing facilities and coach parking must be well designed built to accommodate the demands of new development and minimise the number of servicing trips required. Facilities should also be sensitively integrated into the development and the surrounding townscape. In particular, servicing activities and coach pick-up and dropoff should not give rise to traffic congestion, conflict with pedestrians or be detrimental to residential amenity.
Developments must provide sufficient on-site servicing space where feasible, delivery consolidation floorspace, and coach parking to accommodate the number and type of vehicles likely to be generated and to ensure that this can take place without manoeuvring on the highway.
Require a Servicing Management Plan for all sites with on-site servicing space that will control the hours of servicing, including details on how vehicles will be managed, and controls on the types and sizes of vehicles to ensure they are appropriate to the local area and are environmentally acceptable.
Policy –T9 –
All new developments with on-site servicing facilities must provide sufficient electric vehicle charging points for the size and number of vehicles likely to be generated.
New hotel developments including significant extensions to existing hotels must provide coach drop-off and pick-up facilities and a Coach Management Plan.
Where developments cannot provide onsite servicing space or coach parking, applicants must demonstrate that proposal can function satisfactorily without giving rise to adverse effects on traffic congestion, pedestrian safety, residential amenity or impact on bus routes. A Servicing Management Plan and/or Coach Management Plan will be required in these instances.
Proposals for restaurants or take-aways, requiring planning permission, must be supported by a Delivery Management Plan to explain how any food delivery service would operate and to demonstrate that there would be no resultant impact upon the function of the highway.
Proposals for larger developments, must be supported by a Delivery Management Plan to explain how deliveries would be consolidated (through use of a concierge or mail office) to limit van traffic generation.
RBKC
Transport and Streets SPD (2016)
The Transport and Streets SPD was adopted in April 2016. The SPD sets out the Council’s parking standards. Car parking standards are summarised within Table 4
Table 3: RBKC Local Plan Policies (Publication Version, February 2023)
Table 4: RBKC Car Parking Standards
C3 – Flats of 2 bedrooms or less
per dwelling
Housing or flats of 3 beds or above 0.5 per dwelling
C1 – Hotels
D1 Refer to London Plan
D2 Refer to London Plan
Table 5 sets out minimum cycle parking standards that are of relevance to the Development Proposals.
Table 5: RBKC Cycle Parking Standards
D1
Nurseries: 1 space per 8 staff and 1 per 8 students Hospitals – refer to London Plan
D2 Sports halls – refer to London Plan
2024
Sui Generis
Most relevant standard
RBKC Earls Court Opportunity Area, Placemaking Framework SPD (2023)
This SPD aims to support an ambitious transformation for the Opportunity Area (ECOA) to become a lively new part of the wider neighbourhood, focusing on the part of the site which lies within Kensington and Chelsea.
The SPD states that the Earls Court Opportunity Area should have the following aspirations:
The Opportunity Area should become a lively, new urban quarter of cultural, employment and residential uses that is innovative, sustainable and integrated with the surrounding neighbourhood.
A significant cultural facility of world class renown that restores a distinctive identity to the area and attract a variety of uses to make Earl’s Court a vibrant destination, and would in turn enhance the wider neighbourhood, including the Earl’s Court Road District Centre should be included.
A high-quality public realm network made of streets and open spaces, including a public park, should serve the needs of the local community and be green and inclusive, offering continuity from the surrounding townscape and new connections and routes within the site and through to key destinations beyond.
The SPD provides the 4 key priorities of the ECOA which are as follows:
Public Realm First
Exemplar of environmental sustainability
Part of the city
Varie and rich urban life
The principles under all four priorities give specific objectives to help deliver a development that is sustainable in the fullest sense. Table 6 outlines these priorities.
1.1 Landscape before buildings
1.2 Working with natural systems and the inherited landscape
1.3 Open space for everyone
Priority 2: exemplar of environmental sustainability
2.1 Vision for sustainability
a) Let the landscape lead
b) Working with the site
c) The West London Line deck
a) Maximise biodiversity
b) Integrated water management
c) Trees that thrive
d) Air quality positive
a) Generous open space
b) Inclusive public realm
c) Open space for the community
a) Exemplar of sustainability
b) Energy strategy
c) Building design
d) Housing design
Table 6: Summary of Priorities
Priority 1: Public Realm First
2.2 Site-wide strategy for managing environmental impacts
Priority 3: Part of the city
3.1 Completing Earls Court
3.2 Convenient and appealing connections
3.3 Convenient and appealing connections
Priority 4: Varied and rich urban life
4.1 A place for people to settle
4.2 A value for active users
4.3 Putting Earl’s Court back on London’s cultural map
a) Contaminated land
b) Waste Management
a) Landscape character
b) Public realm
c) Familiar streets
d) Building heights
e) Rich architectural variety
f) Design codes
a) Routes to key destinations
b) East-west route through the site
c) Connections north
d) Vehicle movements and servicing
e) Healthy streets
a) Warwick Road threshold
b) Old Brompton Road threshold
c) Brompton Cemetery
d) St Cuthbert’s Church
e) Response to conservation areas
a) A choice of homes
b) Adaptable homes
c) Acoustic design
d) Community housing
e) Benefits of sustainability for residents
f) Personalising space
g) Social and community facilities
a) Active uses and phasing
b) Ground floor activity
c) Commercial strategy
d) Affordable workspace
e) Inclusive
f) Supporting Earl’s Court Road
a) Cultural flexibility
b) Flexibility for a principle cultural use
c) A creative eco-system
d) Night-time economy
e) Culture in the public realm
f) Artists shaping the place
g) Public art strategy
The proposed development will seek to adhere to transport specific policies stated above in order to comply with the placemaking framework. For example, the proposed development will seek to provide the following in line with Priority 3.2 Convenient and appealing connections:
1.1 A bus stop audit of the bus stops within close proximity to the site has been undertaken. The audit was undertaken with reference to TfL’s Accessible Bus Stop Design Guidance (TfL, 2017).
1.2 A total of 24 Public Transport Waiting Areas (PTWAs) were identified in the vicinity of the site for review based upon the PTAL analysis of the site. Figure 1 highlights the stops that were included in the analysis.
1.3 For ease of review, the 24 PTWAs which have been reviewed as part of this Bus Stop Audit, have been split by road link.
Figure 1: Bus Stops Included In Audit
1.4 The Accessible Bus Stop Design Guidance (TfL, 2017) provides the following criteria which have been used for the purposes of this assessment:
Security (Level of illumination, overlooked(safety) and clear line of sight)
Bus Stop Post and Flag
Surface marking for buses (bus cage dimensions/clearway)
Bus passenger Shelter and Seating
Bus Information (Real time passenger information/printed timetables)
Drainage
Pedestrian Footway
Height and Type of Kerb
Adequacy of Waiting Area
Space for Bus to straighten
Approach and exit paths
Connectivity with footway (crossing facilities/unobstructed space for ramp deployment)
Convenience for passengers / mobility (cycle parking/cycle lane/mobility hub potential)
Capacity
Other (Environmental Issues)
1.5 This audit addresses each of these criteria in turn, with a summary of the results set out in Tables 13 to 16.
1.6 It should be noted that the audit covers the existing provision in the local area and even if it identifies short falls, not all stops may need to be upgraded as a result of the Proposed Development.
1.7 The following criteria has been used to grade the bus stops audited in each of the categories identified above:
Green - Meets standards within guidance
Amber - Broadly meets standards within guidance, but with limited opportunity for improvement
Red - Below standards within the guidance and opportunity for improvement
Grey - Bus stops temporarily closed
N/A - not applicable
1.8 Table 1 provides a summary of the bus stop audits for the bus stops located on Lillie Road / Old Brompton Road within close proximity to the site. The following bus stops were reviewed:
PTWA1 Mulgrave Road Fulham (Stop BM)
PTWA2 Mulgrave Road Fulham (Stop BD)
PTWA3 North End Road West Kensington (Stop BC)
PTWA4 North End Road West Kensington (Stop BN)
PTWA5 Empress State Building (Stop BA)
PTWA6 Empress State Building (Stop BB)
PTWA7 Empress State Building (Stop T)
PTWA8 West Brompton Station (Stop P)
PTWA9 West Brompton Station (Stop O)
Security
Bus Stop Post and Flag
Surface marking for buses
Bus passenger Shelter / Seating
Information
Drainage
Pedestrian Footway
Height and Type of Kerb
Adequacy of Waiting Area
Space for Bus to straighten
Approach and exit paths
Connectivity with footway
Convenience for passengers / mobility
Capacity
Table 1: Lillie Road / Old Brompton Road Bus Stop Audit Summary
Bus Stops
Other (Environmental Issues)
1.9 The bus stop audit along Lillie Road / Old Brompton Road identified that the majority of locations met the standards expected.
1.10 Of note was Empress State Building (Stop BA) (PTWA 5) and Empress State Building (Stop T) (PTWA 7) where both were identified as have below standard provision for shelter and seating. Given the proximity of these stops to the Site, these are considered in more detail in Section 7 of this TA.
Link 2 - North End Road – Bus StopAudit Summary
1.11 Table 2 provides a summary of the bus stop audits for the bus stops located on North End Road within close proximity to the site. The following bus stops were reviewed:
PTWA 10 Lillie Road West Ken (Stop BK)
PTWA 11 Lillie Road West Ken (Stop BR)
PTWA 12 West Kensington Estate (Stop BT)
PTWA 13 West Kensington Estate (Stop BS)
PTWA 14 West Kensington (Stop T)
PTWA 15 West Kensington (Stop S)
Bus Stops
Pedestrian Footway
Table 1: Lillie Road / Old Brompton Road Bus Stop Audit Summary
Table 2: North End Road Bust Stop Audit Summary
Bus Stops
Height and Type of Kerb
Adequacy of Waiting Area
Space for Bus to straighten
Approach and exit paths
Connectivity with footway
Convenience for passengers / mobility
Capacity
Other (Environmental Issues)
1.12 The bus stop audit along North End Road identified that the majority of locations met the standards expected.
1.13 Two locations were identified as having elements below standards, but with the potential opportunity to implement improvements:
PTWA10 Lillie Road West Ken (Stop BK) whilst located in a bus layby currently has only a flag and pole provision.
PTWA 15 West Kensington (Stop S) is situated immediately outside West Kensington Station. Whilst it benefits from a bus shelter, the interaction of rail users with waiting bus patrons often results in over-crowding/congestion.
Link 3 Warwick Road – Bus Stop Audit Summary
1.14 Table 3 provides a summary of the bus stop audits for the bus stops located on Warwick Road within close proximity to the site. The following bus stops were reviewed:
PTWA 16 Old Brompton Road (Stop N)
PTWA 17 Earls Court Square (Stop B)
PTWA 18 Earls Court Station (Stop C)
PTWA 19 Warwick Road Tesco
PTWA 20 West Cromwell Road (Stop E)
PTWA 21 West Cromwell Road (Stop N)
Table 2: North End Road Bust Stop Audit Summary
Security
Bus Stop Post and Flag
Surface marking for buses
Bus passenger Shelter and Seating
Information
Drainage
Pedestrian Footway
Height and Type of Kerb
Adequacy of Waiting Area
Space for Bus to straighten
Approach and exit paths
Connectivity with footway
Convenience for passengers / mobility
Capacity
Other (Environmental Issues)
*Bus Stand
1.15 The bus stop audit along Warwick Road identified that the majority of locations met the standards expected.
1.16 One stop was identified for further review (Warwick Road Tesco – PTWA 19). However, as this is a stand and not a stop no further consideration is considered necessary.
Link 4 Earls Court Road – Bus StopAudit Summary
1.17 Table 4 provides a summary of the bus stop audits for the bus stops located on Earls Court Road within close proximity to the site. The following bus stops were reviewed:
PTWA 22 Nevern Place (Stop K)
PTWA 23 Earls Court Station (Stop A)
Table 3: Warwick Road Bus Stop Audit Summary
Criteria
Security
Bus Stop Post and Flag
Surface marking for buses
Bus passenger Shelter and Seating
Information
Drainage
Pedestrian Footway
Height and Type of Kerb
Adequacy of Waiting Area
Space for Bus to straighten
Approach and exit paths
Connectivity with footway
Convenience for passengers / mobility
Capacity
Other (Environmental Issues)
1.18 The bus stop audit along Earls Court Road identified that the majority of locations met the standards expected.
1.19 The Nevern Place stop (PTWA 22) does not have a shelter, and there appears to be some area for this to be located. The kerbs at this stop also appear to old style designs (or may be temporary).
1.20 Both Nevern Place and Earls Court Station (Stop A) outline that a review of lighting provision is required.
1.21 In summary the majority of the bus stops audited met the standards set out within the guidance. It was noted that at a small number of bus stops, the criteria was below standard and there was the opportunity to improve.
Table 4: Earls Court Road Bust Stop Audit Summary
Bus Stops
1.22 GIA and is therefore considered to broadly align with the planning application proposals (i.e. the difference is approximately 5.8%, so is within +/- 10% of the application proposal).
Appendix E – Parking Survey Results
38834 Earls Court, SW5 9EB Street Inventory
Wednesday 20th March 2024
Job Number & Name: 38834 Earls Court
Site Number/Name: Earls Court
Client: WSP
Date: 20th & 21st March 2024
Description of column headers
Total Length of Available Kerb Space Measured length (in metres) of kerb space excluding sides of the road which are too narrow for two cars to pass
Length of Junctions Measurement of 5m on either side of road at a junction
Length of Bus stops/other Measured length (in metres) of other restrictions which preclude parking
Length (m) Measured length (in metres) of total parking per restriction, rounded to the nearest 5m
Calculated Spaces Calculation of number of available spaces based on 5m length
Cars Parked Number of vehicles parked per time period
Stress Calculated stress per restriction per road based on number of parked vehicles and number of available spaces
Appendix F –Accident Data Review
1.0 Personal InjuryAccident Data Review
Introduction
1.1 This appendix sets out the detailed Personal Injury Collision (PIC) data review that has been undertaken to inform the Earls Court Development Transport Assessment.
1.2 This review has been undertaken using the most recent five years’ worth of accident data provided to WSP from TfL for the five year period ending September 2023. A full accident report detailing these accidents is made available upon request.
1.3 For the purposes of assessing the Development Proposals, WSP have considered accidents on key transport corridors that are likely to see increases in vehicular, cycle or pedestrian volumes as a result of the development proposals. WSP devised a detailed study area to assess the PIA along key transport corridors routes such as, but not limited to; the A315 Road, B317 Road, A4 West Cromwell Road, North End Road, Warwick Road, Earls Court Road, Collingham Gardens, Harrington Gardens, Collingham Road, Old Brompton Road, Eardley Crescent, Empress Place, Seagrave Road, Ongar Road, Lillie Road, Sedlescombe Road, Thaxton Road Junction, Chesson Road, Archel Road, and Star Road. These were deemed the critical roads for assessment as these are the likely roads used when accessing the project site. The final study area considered and assessed is detailed in Figure 1.
Figure 1 - Personal Injury Collisions Study Area
A315 Hammersmith Road / B317 North End Road Junction
1.4 Figure 2 illustrates the collision cluster that occurred at the junction over the 5-year study period.
1.5 The details of the collisions that occurred at or nearby the junction of A315 Hammersmith Road and B317 North End Road is presented in Table 1.
1.6 A cluster of PICs is seen at the junction of the A315 and B317 with eleven collisions at the junction. Out of these eleven collisions, one collision was serious in severity and ten of the collisions were slight in severity.
1.7 The serious collision (PIC 1220382936) occurred on Friday 17 June 2022 at 15:49 on Hammersmith Road, near the junction with North End Road involving one car and pedestrian(s). The pedestrian suffered severe head injury and became unconscious. The collision occurred as the pedestrian failed to look properly.
Figure 2 - A315 Hammersmith Road / B317 North End Road Junction PICs
Table 1 - Collisions at the Junction of A315 Hammersmith Road and B317 North End Road
1.8 Out of the ten slight collisions, three occurred on North End Road (PIC 1190212639, 1230449440, 1220394908) and seven occurred on Hammersmith Road (PIC 1230435892, 1220372969, 1210306898, 1210314218, 1220390504, 1200276639, 1210314574) nearby or at the junction of the A315 and B317. In these ten slight collisions, seven vulnerable users were involved (one pedestrian and six pedal cyclists)
1.9 There is a pattern of collisions at this junction involving pedal cyclists.
A4 West Cromwell Road / North End Road Junction
1.10 Figure 3 illustrates the collision cluster that occurred at the junction over the 5-year study period.
1.11 The details of the collisions at or nearby the junction of A4 West Cromwell Road and North End Road is presented in Table 2.
Figure 3 - A4 West Cromwell Road / North End Road Junction PICs
Table 2 - Collisions at the Junction of A4 West Cromwell Road and North End Road
1.12 A cluster of PICs is seen at the junction of A4 West Cromwell Road and North End Road with twenty-one collisions at the junction. Out of these twenty-one collisions, three collisions were serious in severity and eighteen collisions were slight in severity.
1.13 The first serious collision (PIC 1190189353) occurred on Monday 24 June 2019 at 19:33, a moped (Veh001) and an electric scooter (Veh002), were both stopped at the Red Automatic Traffic Signal (ATS) on North End Road J/W A4 and travelling from south to north along with a number 28 bus amongst other vehicles. While at the Red ATS, Veh002 moved forward contravening the Red ATS and stopped at the central reservation. When the ATS turned green, all vehicles moved off in a northerly direction along North End Road and cleared the junction with the A4. Veh001 was on the far right of the lane (offside) and Veh002 was closest to the kerb on the far left of the lane with the bus and Veh001 following behind. Veh002 then made a sudden swerving right turn in the lane placing him directly in front of Veh001 and was struck from behind by veh001 who appears to have been intending to overtake Veh002. This collision caused the rider of Veh002 to fall backwards and strike the back of his head on the road surface. The reason for this collision was poor turn or manoeuvre.
1.14 The second serious collision (PIC 1200280735) occurred on Monday 23 November 2020 at 10:10 on West Cromwell Road, near the junction with North End Road involving one other vehicle and one pedal cycle. The collision occurred because the driver failed to look properly.
1.15 The third serious collision (PIC 1220411596) occurred on Saturday 19 November 2022 at 21:15 on North End Road, near the junction with West Cromwell Road involving one car and pedestrian(s). The collision occurred because the driver disobeyed the ATS.
1.16 Out of the eighteen slight collisions, nine occurred on North End Road (PIC 1210309021, 1230458247, 1190217955, 1200252204, 1220373459, 1220368332, 1230440213, 1200274622, 1210292598), eight occurred on West Cromwell Road (PIC 1210313272, 1190224695, 1210340154, 1190190353, 1210314432, 1220361120, 1190227660, 1220397358) and one occurred on Talgarth Road (PIC 1210298755) nearby or at the junction of the A315 and B317. In these eighteen slight collisions, five vulnerable users were involved (one pedestrian and four pedal cyclists).
A4 West Cromwell Road / Warwick Road Junction
1.17 Figure 4 illustrates the collision cluster that occurred at the junction over the 5-year study period.
1.18 The details of the collisions that occurred at or nearby the junction of A4 West Cromwell Road and Warwick Road is presented in Table 3.
1.19 A cluster of PICs is seen at the junction of A4 West Cromwell Road and Warwick Road with twenty-seven collisions at the junction. Out of these twenty-seven collisions, one collision was
Table 3 - Collisions at the Junction of A4 West Cromwell Road and Warwick Road
fatal in severity, four collisions were serious in severity and twenty-two collisions were slight in severity.
1.20 A fatal collision (PIC 1220389949) occurred on Friday 22 July 2022 at 22:59 on West Cromwell Road, near the junction with Warwick Road involving one car and one motorcycle over 125cc and up to 500cc. The reason of this collision was due to the car being driven aggressively as the driver was careless, reckless or in a hurry and the motorcycle was exceeding speed limit, took a poor turn or manoeuvre possibly because of road layout (eg. bend, hill, narrow carriageway).
1.21 The first serious collision (PIC 1210321148) occurred on Tuesday 27 July 2021 at 12:00 on West Cromwell Road, near the junction with Warwick Road involving one bus or coach (17 or more passenger seats) and pedestrian(s). The reason of this collision was slippery road due to rainy weather.
1.22 The second serious collision (PIC 1220392352) occurred on Friday 5 August 2022 at 18:30 on Warwick Road, near the junction with West Cromwell Road involving one motorcycle over 500cc and pedestrian(s). The collision occurred because both failed to look properly and were careless, reckless or in a hurry.
1.23 The third serious collision (PIC 1190193187) occurred on Friday 12 July 2019 at 16:00 on West Cromwell Road, near the junction with Warwick Road involving one car and one motorcycle over 125cc and up to 500cc. The car was driving east on Cromwell Road and had just driven off at the traffic lights as the light went green. The motorcycle was looking at their GPS which was telling them to go right and turned right, the motorcycle didn't see and collided with the front of car. The reason of the collision was poor turn or manoeuvre and the motorcycle rider failed to look properly.
1.24 The fourth serious collision (PIC 1180137260) occurred on Saturday 06 October 2018 at 14:25 on Warwick Road, near the junction with West Cromwell Road involving car and pedal cycle. The car was in the nearside lane to continue straight ahead however began to turn right despite not being in the correct designated lane to turn right at the junction, the pedal cyclist was in the nearside lane continuing straight ahead which resulted in the cyclists cycling into the back offside of the car in the middle of the junction. The car stopped and the cyclist was on the road off their bike. The car driver failed to look properly and failed to judge other person’s path or speed.
1.25 Out of the twenty-two slight collisions, ten occurred on Warwick Road (PIC 1200249855, 1230431857, 1190157581, 1190217569, 1210344950, 1210318265, 1180136943, 1200259574, 1220397718, 1220386104) and twelve occurred on West Cromwell Road (PIC 1220368240, 1230422833, 1200259822, 1230448454, 1200273324, 1190227198, 1210293196, 1190164607, 1230432119, 1190226580, 1190196319, 1190202448) nearby or at the junction of the A4 West Cromwell Road and Warwick Road. In these twenty-two slight collisions, thirteen vulnerable users were involved (twelve pedestrians and one pedal cyclist).
1.26 There is a pattern of collisions involving pedestrians at this junction which should be considered in further detail.
A4 West Cromwell Road / Earls Court Road Junction
1.27 Figure 5 illustrates the collision cluster that occurred at the junction over the 5-year study period.
1.28 The detail of the collisions occurred at or nearby the junction of A4 West Cromwell Road and Earls Court Road is presented in Table 4.
Table 4 - Collisions at the Junction of A4 West Cromwell Road and Earls Court Road
1.29 A cluster of PICs is seen at the junction of A4 West Cromwell Road and Earls Court Road with twenty collisions at the junction. Out of these twenty collisions, seven collisions were serious in severity and thirteen collisions were slight in severity.
1.30 The first serious collision (PIC 1210332929) occurred on Sunday 5 September 2021 at 18:50 on Earls Court Road, near the junction with Cromwell Road involving one pedal cycle and one taxi / private hire car.
1.31 The second serious collision (PIC 1190207406) occurred on Tuesday 24 September at approximately 07:18 hours, a pedestrian was allegedly crossing the road on Cromwell Road at the junction with Earls Court Road going southbound and as she was crossing the road, the driver of the car was turning onto Cromwell Road and has hit the pedestrian who was allegedly standing in the middle of the road to cross over. The driver has hit the pedestrian and collided with the front driver side of her car causing her to roll on top of the bonnet and then roll and fall back onto the road. The collision occurred because the car driver failed to look properly, and the pedestrian was careless, reckless or in a hurry.
1.32 The third serious collision (PIC 1220355309) occurred on Tuesday 18 January 2022 at 08:55 on Earls Court Road, near the junction with West Cromwell Road involving one goods vehicle over 3.5 Tonnes and under 7.5 Tonnes maximum gross weight and one pedal cycle. The reason of the collision was blind spot for the vehicle.
1.33 The fourth serious collision (PIC 1220384049) occurred on Wednesday 22 June 2022 at 19:30 on Earls Court Road, near the junction with Cromwell Road involving one car and one pedal cycle. The collision occurred because both failed to look properly.
1.34 The fifth serious collision (PIC 1220412503) occurred on Thursday 24 November 2022 at 17:09 on West Cromwell Road, 20 metres west of the junction with Earls Court Road involving one motorcycle over 500cc and two cars. The collision occurred as the motorcycle was on a slippery road (due to weather) and the rider failed to look properly.
1.35 The sixth serious collision (PIC 1230467570) occurred on Friday 22 September 2023 at 09:16 on Cromwell Road, near the junction with Earls Court Road involving one motorcycle over 500cc and pedestrian(s). The reason of collision was that the pedestrian was careless, reckless or in a hurry.
1.36 The seventh serious collision (PIC 1190176123) occurred on Saturday 20 April 2019 at 11:04 on Cromwell Road, near the junction with Earls Court Road, a public hire vehicle was driving westbound on West Cromwell Road, as they were driving at approximately 30mph through the junction of Earls Court Road, as the PHV has gone across the junction, they have been hit suddenly by a car, this has caused substantial damage both to the front and rear offside of the vehicle. The collision occurred because the car driver was impaired by alcohol.
1.37 Out of the thirteen slight collisions, nine occurred on Earls Court Road (PIC 1230441716, 1190165287, 1230424233, 1190160149, 1210319105, 1190221535, 1220406051, 1230431675, 1230441446), one occurred on West Cromwell Road (PIC 1200233484) and three occurred on Cromwell Road (PIC 1220381066, 1190170582, 1220357228) nearby or at the junction of A4 West Cromwell Road and Earls Court Road. In these thirteen slight collisions, two vulnerable users were involved (one pedestrian and one pedal cyclist).
1.38 No immediate pattern of collisions is evident from the accident analysis.
1.39 Figure 6 illustrates the collision cluster that occurred at the junction over the 5-year study period.
1.40 The detail of the collisions occurred at or nearby the junction of A4 West Cromwell Road and Earls Court Road is presented in Table 5.
1.41 A cluster of PICs is seen at the junction of Collingham Gardens / Harrington Gardens / Collingham Road with eight collisions at the junction. Out of these eight collisions, two collisions were serious in severity and six collisions were slight in severity.
Table 5 - Collisions at the Junction of A4 West Cromwell Road and Earls Court Road
1.42 The first serious collision (PIC 1230428020) occurred on Sunday 19 February 2023 at 13:06 on Collingham Road, near the junction with Harrington Gardens involving one car and one pedal cycle. The collision occurred because the car driver failed to look properly, and the pedal cyclist failed to judge other person’s path or speed.
1.43 The second serious collision (PIC 1220422002) occurred on Thursday 8 December 2022 at 10:00 on Collingham Gardens, near the junction with Harrington Gardens in Kensington & Chelsea involving one goods vehicle - unknown weight and one pedal cycle.
1.44 Out of the six slight collisions, three occurred on Collingham Gardens (PIC 1190202787, 1210355969, 1190175839), two occurred on Harrington Gardens (PIC 1220365299, 1200269628) and one occurred on Collingham Road (PIC 1190169227) nearby or at the Collingham Gardens / Harrington Gardens / Collingham Road Junction. In these six slight collisions, four vulnerable users (pedal cyclists) were involved.
1.45 There is a pattern of collisions at this junction involving pedal cyclists. This junction forms part of Quietway 15 and may therefore need to be considered further.
Old Brompton Road / Earls Court Road Junction
1.46 Figure 7 illustrates the collision cluster that occurred at the junction over the 5-year study period.
1.47 The detail of the collisions that occurred at or nearby the junction of Old Brompton Road / Earls Court Road is presented in Table 6.
Table 6 - Collisions at the Junction of Old Brompton Road / Earls Court Road
1.48 A cluster of PICs is seen at the junction of Old Brompton Road / Earls Court Road with eleven collisions at the junction. Out of these eleven collisions, three collisions were serious in severity and eight collisions were slight in severity.
1.49 The first serious collision (PIC 1190172492) occurred on Sunday 31 March 2019 at 22:57 on Old Brompton Road, near the junction with Redcliffe Gardens, the driver of the car was in lane 1 travelling south on Earls Court Road waiting to turn right to travel west on Old Brompton Road and the motorcycle was traveling in lane 2 southbound on Earls Court Road when the car turned into the path of the motorcycle and crashed into the side of it. The collision occurred as the driver of the car was careless, reckless or in a hurry also he failed to look properly and failed to judge other person’s path or speed. The driver of the car took a poor turn or manoeuvre, and the motorcycle was exceeding speed limit.
1.50 The second serious collision (PIC 1200259228) occurred on Monday 27 July 2020 at 07:30 on Old Brompton Road, near the junction with Earls Court Road involving one car and a pedestrian.
1.51 The third serious collision (PIC 1180143426) occurred on Monday 5 November 2018 at 07:46 on Old Brompton Road, near the junction with Earls Court Road, a motorcycle was travelling south bound on Earls Court Road, as he had crossed Old Brompton Road towards Redcliffe Gardens. He crossed the ATS which he stated to be green, as he entered the yellow box, he was hit on the left side of his bike by a car. It is in the opinion of the officer reporting that the car had gone through a red light and hit the motorcycle. The reason of the collision was that the driver of the car failed to look properly and disobeyed the ATS.
1.52 Out of the eight slight collisions, one occurred on Earls Court Road (PIC 1230423123), three occurred on Redcliffe Gardens (PIC 1210318938, 1220363523, 1180151705) and four occurred on Old Brompton Road (PIC 1190214721, 1210334991, 1230457779, 1220353618) nearby or at the junction of Old Brompton Road / Earls Court Road. In these eight slight collisions, four vulnerable users were involved (three pedestrians and one pedal cyclist).
1.53 No clear pattern in the collisions is evident at this location.
Old Brompton Road / Warwick Road Junction
1.54 Figure 8 illustrates the collision cluster that occurred at the junction over the 5-year study period.
1.55 The detail of the collisions occurred at or nearby the junction of the Old Brompton Road / Warwick Road is presented in Table 7.
Table 7 - Collisions at the Junction of the Old Brompton Road / Warwick Road
1.56 A cluster of PICs is seen at the junction of Old Brompton Road / Warwick Road with sixteen collisions at the junction. Out of these sixteen collisions, two collisions were serious in severity and fourteen collisions were slight in severity.
1.57 The first serious collision (PIC 1210299067) occurred on Monday 29 March 2021 at 15:52 on Old Brompton Road, near the junction with Finborough Road involving one car and two pedestrians. The reason of the collision was the car driver’s illness or disability, mental or physical health.
1.58 The second serious collision (PIC 1230420200) occurred on Saturday 7 January 2023 at 22:30 on Old Brompton Road, near the junction with Old Brompton Road involving one car and one motorcycle over 50cc and up to 125cc. The collision occurred because both car driver and motorcycle rider failed to look properly and disobeyed the ATS. Also the motorcyclist was travelling too fast for the conditions and the road was too slippery due to the weather.
1.59 Out of the fourteen slight collisions, eleven occurred on Old Brompton Road (PIC 1190187625, 1230454217, 1220393047, 1210324983, 1230423454, 1210340456, 1210295128, 1200244251, 1230445364, 1190162431, 1210303847), one occurred on Warwick Road (PIC 1210340194) and two occurred on Finborough Road (PIC 1200280408, 1180149767) nearby or at the junction of Old Brompton Road / Warwick Road. In these fourteen slight collisions, eight vulnerable users were involved (six pedestrians and two pedal cyclists).
1.60 There is a pattern of collisions involving pedestrians at this junction. This should be reviewed in more detail.
Old Brompton Road / Eardley Crescent Junction
1.61 Figure 9 illustrates the collision cluster that occurred at the junction over the 5-year study period.
1.62 The detail of the collisions that occurred at or nearby the Old Brompton Road / Eardley Crescent Junction is presented in Table 8.
1.63 A cluster of PICs is seen at the Old Brompton Road / Eardley Crescent Junction with twelve collisions at the junction. Out of these twelve collisions, two collisions were serious in severity and ten collisions were slight in severity.
1.64 The first serious collision (PIC 1230469067) occurred on Friday 29 September 2023 at 21:25 on Old Brompton Road, near the junction with Eardley Crescent involving one car and one motorcycle over 50cc and up to 125cc. The collision occurred as the motorcycle rider was using their mobile phone, following too close and hence failed to look properly.
Table 8 - Collisions at the Junction of Old Brompton Road / Eardley
Junction
1.65 The second serious collision (PIC 1210311591) occurred on Friday 4 June 2021 at 18:35 on Old Brompton Road, near the junction with Eardley Crescent involving one car and one pedal cycle. The reason of the collision could be the wet road surface and rainy weather.
1.66 Ten slight collisions occurred on Old Brompton Road (PIC 1220359133, 1200250001, 1190160324, 1210301383, 1210342721, 1210296032, 1190199752, 1190210793, 1210297473, 1210299840) nearby or at the Old Brompton Road / Eardley Crescent Junction. In these ten slight collisions, seven vulnerable users were involved (one pedestrian and six pedal cyclists).
1.67 There is a pattern of collisions at this location involving pedal cyclists. This junction is immediately adjacent to the site and will therefore be considered in more detail.
Lillie Road / Empress Place / Seagrave Road Junction
1.68 Figure 10 illustrates the collision cluster that occurred at the junction over the 5-year study period.
1.69 The detail of the collisions occurred at or nearby the Lillie Road / Empress Place / Seagrave Road Junction is presented in Table 9.
1.70 A cluster of PICs is seen at the Lillie Road / Empress Place / Seagrave Road Junction with twelve collisions at the junction. Out of these twelve collisions, two collisions were serious in severity and ten collisions were slight in severity.
1.71 The first serious collision (PIC 1200276623) occurred on Monday 26 October 2020 at 20:30 on Lillie Road, near the junction with Seagrave Road involving one car and one pedal cycle.
1.72 The second serious collision (PIC 1230423767) occurred on Friday 27 January 2023 at 07:00 on Lillie Road, near the junction with Seagrave Road involving one other vehicle and pedestrian(s). The reason of the collision was that both pedestrian and the vehicle driver failed to look properly.
1.73 Out of the ten slight collisions, five occurred on Lillie Road (PIC 1180148867, 1220355775, 1220358064, 1190221520, 1220395997), two occurred on Empress Place (PIC 1190163898, 1190163898) and three occurred on Seagrave Road (PIC 1200277916, 1220393684, 1230431830) nearby or at the junction of the Lillie Road / Empress Place / Seagrave Road. In these ten slight collisions, seven vulnerable users were involved (two pedestrians and five pedal cyclists).
1.74 There is a pattern of cycle collisions at this location. This junction is immediately adjacent to the site and will therefore be considered in more detail.
Lillie Road / Ongar Road Junction
1.75 Figure 11 illustrates the collision cluster that occurred at the junction over the 5-year study period.
Table 9 - Collisions at the Junction of Lillie Road / Empress Place / Seagrave Road Junction
Table 9 - Collisions at the Junction of Lillie Road / Empress Place / Seagrave Road Junction
1.76 The detail of the collisions that occurred at or nearby the junction of Lillie Road / Ongar Road is presented in Table 10.
10 - Collisions at the Junction of Lillie Road / Ongar Road
1.77 A cluster of PICs is seen at the junction of Lillie Road / Ongar Road with eleven collisions at the junction. Out of these eleven collisions, one collision was serious in severity and ten collisions were slight in severity.
1.78 The first serious collision (PIC 1210296020) occurred on Wednesday 10 March 2021 at 07:40 on Lillie Road, involving one car and one pedal cycle. The collision occurred as both failed to look properly and took a poor turn or manoeuvre.
1.79 Out of the ten slight collisions, nine occurred on Lillie Road (PIC 1230435780, 1210345592, 1220371583, 1220352073, 1190189958, 1210297497, 1190157185, 1220376437, 1220375395) and one occurred on Ongar Road (PIC 1220388618) nearby or at the junction of the Lillie Road / Ongar Road. In these ten slight collisions, six vulnerable users (pedal cyclists) were involved.
1.80 There is a pattern of cycle collisions at this location. This junction is immediately adjacent to the site and will therefore be considered in more detail.
Lillie Road / North End Road Junction
1.81 Figure 12 illustrates the collision cluster that occurred at the junction over the 5-year study period.
1.82 The detail of the collisions that occurred at or nearby the junction of Lillie Road / North End Road is presented in Table 11.
Figure 12 - Lillie Road / North End Road Junction PICs
1.83 A cluster of PICs is seen at the junction of Lillie Road / North End Road with twenty-one collisions at the junction. Out of these twenty-one collisions, four collisions were serious in severity and seventeen collisions were slight in severity.
1.84 The first serious collision (PIC 1220390812) occurred on Wednesday 27 July 2022 at 17:07 on Lillie Road, 10 metres east of the junction with North End Road involving one car and a pedestrian. The collision occurred as the car driver failed to look properly.
1.85 The second serious collision (PIC 1200263081) occurred on Thursday 20 August 2020 at 14:35 on Lillie Road, near the junction with North End Road involving one van / goods vehicle 3.5 tonnes maximum gross weight (MGW) and under and a pedestrian. The collision occurred as the vehicle disobeyed the pedestrian crossing facility.
1.86 The third serious collision (PIC 1230432626) occurred on Thursday 16 March 2023 at 13:45 on North End Road, near the junction with Lillie Road involving one car and a pedestrian.
1.87 The fourth serious collision (PIC 1220398439) occurred on Friday 9 September 2022 at 10:50 on North End Road, near the junction with Lillie Road involving one vehicle and a pedestrian. The collision occurred because the vehicle driver failed to look properly, and the pedestrian failed to judge the vehicle’s path or speed.
1.88 Out of the seventeen slight collisions, thirteen occurred on North End Road (PIC 1190166918, 1220360405, 1230456895, 1200242570, 1200249188, 1210302599, 1210312870, 1200276237, 1190186790, 1200237950, 1220405517, 1230425244, 1230457934) and four occurred on Lillie Road (PIC 1180143458, 1210323278, 1210350253, 1210331505) nearby or at the junction of Lillie Road / North End Road. In these seventeen slight collisions, ten vulnerable users were involved (four pedestrians and six pedal cyclists).
1.89 There is a pattern of collisions at this junction involving pedestrians and cyclists.
Table 11 - Collisions at the Junction of Lillie Road / North End Road
North End Road / Sedlescombe Road Junction
1.90 Figure 13 illustrates the collision cluster that has occurred at the junction over the 5-year study period.
1.91 The detail of the collisions that occurred at or nearby the junction of North End Road / Sedlescombe Road is presented in Table 12.
1.92 A cluster of PICs is seen at the junction of North End Road / Sedlescombe Road with eight slight collisions at the junction.
Figure 13 - North End Road / Sedlescombe Junction PICs
Table 12 - Collisions at the Junction of North End Road / Sedlescombe Road
1.93 Eight slight collisions occurred on North End Road (PIC 1190208418, 1230460443, 1200251809, 1180153108, 1200274816, 1210348688, 1180144043, 1180141351) nearby or at the junction of North End Road / Sedlescombe Road. In these eight slight collisions, three vulnerable users were involved (two pedestrians and one pedal cyclist).
1.94 There is a pattern of turning collisions at this junction often involving vulnerable road users.
North End Road / Thaxton Road Junction, North End Road / Chesson Road Junction and North End Road / Archel Road Junction
1.95 Figure 14 illustrates the collision cluster that has occurred at the following junctions over the 5year study period:
North End Road / Thaxton Road Junction;
North End Road / Chesson Road Junction; and North End Road / Archel Road Junction.
Figure 14 - North End Road / Thaxton Road Junction, North End Road Chesson Road Junction and North End Road Archel Road Junction PICs
1.96 The detail of the collisions that occurred at or nearby North End Road / Thaxton Road Junction, North End Road / Chesson Road Junction and North End Road / Archel Road Junction is presented in Table 13.
Table 13 - Collisions at the North End Road / Thaxton Road Junction, North End Road / Chesson Road Junction and North End Road / Archel Road Junction
North End Road / Thaxton Road Junction
1.97 A cluster of PICs is seen at the junction of North End Road / Thaxton Road with seven collisions at the junction. Out of these seven collisions, two collisions were serious in severity and five collisions were slight in severity.
1.98 The first serious collision (PIC 1190175713) occurred on Wednesday 17 April 2019 at 20:12 on North End Road, near the junction with Thaxton Road involving one car, one motorcycle over 500cc and one taxi / private hire car. The car was travelling west on Thaxton Road towards the junction of North End Road. The motorcycle was travelling north on North End Road, having just cleared the Lillie Road Roundabout, and driving past the Thaxton Road Junction which was on his right-hand side. By all accounts there has been slow moving traffic southbound on North End Road. The car has seen a gap in the traffic and taken the opportunity to turn right onto North End Road northbound. The car and motorcycle have collided with impact between car’s front bumper and off side of motorcycle. The collision occurred as the car driver failed to look properly.
1.99 The second serious collision (PIC 1190218150) occurred on Wednesday 13 November 2019 at 19:30 on North End Road, near the junction with Thaxton Road involving one motorcycle over 50cc and up to 125cc (veh001) and another motorcycle over 125cc and up to 500cc (veh002). Vehicle 1 was following vehicle 2 in convoy down to the junction. A car in-front of vehicle 2 turned left down Thaxton Road which caused vehicle 2 to slow down and stop. Vehicle 1 has then slowed down to stop and has slipped due to the wet weather conditions and the rider has fallen off the vehicle, the vehicle has landed on the rider's ankle causing an injury. The reason of collision is slippery road due to weather.
1.100 Five slight collisions occurred on North End Road (PIC 1210341001, 1220366590, 1200252032, 1210304561, 1200269947) nearby or at the junction of North End Road / Thaxton Road. In these five slight collisions, one vulnerable user (pedal cyclist) was involved.
1.101 There appears to be a pattern of collisions involving motorcyclists at this junction.
North End Road / Chesson Road Junction
1.102 A cluster of PICs is seen at the junction of North End Road / Chesson Road with six slightly collisions at the junction. The collisions largely relate to turning movements.
North End Road / Archel Road Junction
1.103 A cluster of six PICs is seen at the junction of North End Road / Archel Road. Out of these six collisions, two collisions were serious in severity and four collisions were slight in severity.
1.104 The first serious collision (PIC 1220414573) occurred on Thursday 1 December 2022 at 10:00 on Archel Road, near the junction with North End Road involving one other vehicle and pedestrians.
1.105 The second serious collision (PIC 1180153910) occurred on Saturday 22 December 2018 at 20:14 on North End Road SW6 25 meters north of the junction with Archel Road involving one car, one private hire vehicle and pedestrian(s). It is apparent that the car was driving north on North End Road when approaching the pedestrian crossing prior to the seven stars old PH. It has collided with the male victim on the crossing, collected him onto the bonnet of the vehicle carried him for 2-3 car lengths, braked to a halt. The car was seen to drive to the A4 and head west out of London and was last seen on CCTV at around 20:19 hrs near to the Hogarth Roundabout. The collision occurred because the car’s driver was careless, reckless or in a hurry and failed to look properly.
1.106 Four slight collisions occurred on North End Road (PIC 1210321905, 1200283971, 1220415447, 1200247204) nearby or at the junction of North End Road / Archel Road. In these four slight collisions, two vulnerable users (pedestrians) were involved.
1.107 There is a pattern of collisions that have occurred involving pedestrians at this junction.
North End Road / Star Road Junction
1.108 Figure 15 illustrates the collision clusters that occurred at the junction over the 5-year study period.
1.109 The detail of the collisions that occurred at or nearby the junction of North End Road / Star Road is presented in Table 14.
1.110 A cluster of PICs is seen at the junction of North End Road / Star Road with thirteen collisions at the junction. Out of these thirteen collisions, three collisions were serious in severity and ten collisions were slight in severity.
1.111 The first serious collision (PIC 1210289111) occurred on Sunday 17 January 2021 at 22:00 on North End Road, near the junction with Star Road involving one motorcycle over 50cc and up to 125cc and one van / goods vehicle 3.5 tonnes maximum gross weight (MGW) and under. The collision occurred as the goods vehicle was being driven aggressively and the driver failed to look properly.
Figure 15 - North End Road / Star Road Junction PICs
Table 14 - Collisions at the North End Road / Star Road Junction
1.112 The second serious collision (PIC 1230425200) occurred on Friday 3 February 2023 at 18:26 on North End Road, near the junction with Star Road involving one motorcycle over 50cc and up to 125cc and pedestrian(s). The collision occurred as both pedestrian and motorcycle rider failed to look properly, and the pedestrian was impaired by alcohol.
1.113 The third serious collision (PIC 1190190472) occurred on Saturday 29 June 2019 at 21:42 on North End Road, near the junction with Star Road involving one motorcycle over 500cc (veh002) and two cars (veh001 and veh003). Vehicle 001 was travelling northbound along North End Road; it was following a vehicle that was preparing to turn left into Star Road. Vehicle 002 was travelling southbound along North End Road, on the offside of the traffic travelling southbound. Vehicle 003 was travelling southbound ahead of vehicle 002. Vehicle 001 performed a manoeuvre to overtake the vehicle turning into Star Road, as it did so, it moved out into the centre of the road and came into contact with vehicle 002 causing the vehicle to tip over and as it slide to a stop, it clipped the offside rear bumper of vehicle 003. The reason of collision was veh001’s learner or inexperienced driver taking a poor turn or manoeuvre, also veh002 took a poor turn or manoeuvre.
1.114 Ten slight collisions occurred on North End Road (PIC 1180140448, 1230460786, 1200265039, 1210290356, 1210351333, 1190166239, 1230468810, 1210297535, 1230460131, 1200276829) nearby or at the junction of North End Road / Star Road. In these ten slight collisions, one vulnerable user (pedestrian) was involved.
1.115 There is a pattern of turning collisions that have occurred at this junction.
Appendix G – Parameter Plans and Illustrative Proposed Development
Checked by: Claudia Di Loreto, Audit Team Member, WSP
Approved by: Jon Noble, Technical Director, WSP
Version Status Date
A Audit report issued to TFL RSA team 20/05/2024
B Final issue 28/05/2024
Court Masterplan
1 Road Safety Audit Report
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Commission
1.1.1 This report results from a Stage 1 Road Safety Audit carried out on the proposed site access arrangements and off-site highway works associated with the Earls Court Masterplan.
1.1.2 The Audit was undertaken by WSP in accordance with the Audit Brief issued by the Client Organisation in April 2024 It took place at the home offices of WSP employees and on site in April and May 2024 and comprised an examination of the documents provided as listed in Appendix A.
1.1.3 The site visit of the proposed works was carried out on 1 May 2024 between 11.30 and 14.00. During the site visit the weather was dry and the road surface was dry. The following were observed during the audit:
• High traffic flow on West Cromwell Road, North End Road, Lillie Road and Warwick Road, and low traffic flows elsewhere
• Medium to high pedestrian flows observed on North End Road and Lillie Road, and low flows elsewhere
• Medium cycle flows on West Cromwell Road, North End Road, Lillie Road and Warwick Road and low flows elsewhere.
1.2 Terms of Reference
1.2.1 The Terms of Reference of this Audit are as described in TfL Procedure SQA-0170 dated May 2014. The Audit Team has examined and reported only on the road safety implications of the scheme as presented and how it impacts on all road users and has not examined or verified the compliance of the designs to any other criteria. However, to clearly explain a safety problem or the recommendation to resolve a problem the Audit Team may, on occasion, have referred to a design standard without touching on technical audit. An absence of comment relating to specific road users / modes in Section 3 of this report does not imply that they have not been considered; instead the Audit Team feels they are not adversely affected by the proposed changes.
1.2.2 This Safety Audit is not intended to identify pre-existing hazards which remain unchanged due to the proposals; hence they will not be raised in Section 3 of this report as they fall outside the remit of Road Safety Audit in general as specified in the procedure SQA-0170 dated May 2014. Safety issues identified during the Audit and site visit that are considered to be outside the Terms of Reference, but which the Audit Team wishes to draw to the attention of the Client Organisation, are set out in Section 4 of this report.
1.2.3 Nothing in this Audit should be regarded as a direct instruction to include or remove a measure from within the scheme. Responsibility for designing the scheme lies with the Designer and as such the Audit Team accepts no design responsibility for any changes made to the scheme as a result of this Audit.
1.2.4 In accordance with TfL Procedure SQA-0170 dated May 2014, this Audit has a maximum shelf life of 2 years. If the scheme does not progress to the next stage in its development within this period, then the scheme should be re-audited.
Earls Court Masterplan
Stage 1 Road Safety Audit Report
1.2.5 Unless general to the scheme, all comments and recommendations are referenced to the detailed design drawings and the locations have been indicated on the plan located in Appendix B.
1.2.6 It is the responsibility of the Design Organisation to complete the Designer’s response section of this Audit report. Where applicable and necessary it is the responsibility of the Client Organisation to complete the Client comment section of this Audit report. Signatures from both the Design Organisation and Client Organisation must be added within Section 5 of this Audit report. A copy of which must be returned to the Audit Team.
1.3 Main Parties to the Audit
1.3.1 Client Organisation
TfL Client contact details: Chloe Flower, TfL Principal City Planner
LBHF Client contact details: Zoe Trower
RBKC Client contact details: Iain Steele
1.3.2 Design Organisation
Design contact details: Justin Sherlock- WSP
1.3.3 Audit Team Approval
The Audit Team specified in 1.3.4 below were given approval to undertake this Audit by Christopher Gooch of TfL Road Safety Audit on 26 April 2024 The Audit Team was also approved by Zoe Trower on behalf of LBHF on 8 May 2024 and by Iain Steele on behalf of RBKC on 30 April 2024
1.3.4 Audit Team
Audit Team Leader: Jon Noble – WSP
Audit Team Member: Claudia Di Loreto– WSP
1.3.5 Other Specialist Advisors Not applicable.
1.4 Purpose of the Scheme
1.4.1 New/revised site access points and off-site pedestrian and cycle improvements. This includes:
TfL: Warwick Road and A4 West Cromwell Road
• Warwick Road – Northern and Southern site access points and contra-flow cycle facility extending between Trebovir Road and Earls Court Square
• A4 West Cromwell Road – pedestrian and cycle crossing across the A4 and connection to the site utilising the existing bridge at the eastern end of West Kensington Station
LBHF: Lillie Road, Aisgill Avenue, Mund Street, Beaumont Avenue
• Lillie Road – site access junction with Empress Place and Lillie Road Bus Layover (Empress Approach) and on-carriageway cycle improvements
Earls Court Masterplan
Stage 1 Road Safety Audit Report
• Aisgill Avenue – turning head for refuse collection from WB05 Tower 2 and servicing of the community centre. Pedestrian and cycle access (including emergency service access point) to the south of the pedestrianised section of Aisgill Avenue. Pedestrian access (including emergency service access point) to the north of the pedestrianised section of Aisgill Avenue.
• Mund Street – all modes access to the development
• Beaumont Avenue – All modes access to the development
RBKC: Old Brompton Road
• Old Brompton Road – site access junction with West Brompton Lane (internal site access) and on-carriageway cycle improvements
1.5 Special Considerations
1.5.1 The Audit Team has no special considerations to raise.
Earls Court Masterplan
Stage 1 Road Safety Audit Report
2.0 ITEMS RAISED IN PREVIOUS ROAD SAFETY AUDITS
The RSA team have not been made aware of any previous Road Safety Audits relating to the proposals.
Earls Court Masterplan
Stage 1 Road Safety Audit Report
3.0 ITEMS RAISED AT THIS STAGE 1 ROAD SAFETY AUDIT
This section should be read in conjunction with Paragraphs 1.2 1, 1.2.2 and 1.2.3 of this report.
This section of the report has been split by the three Overseeing Organisations boundaries.
The problems have been categorised within these areas by Vulnerable road users, Junctions, Local alignment, & Road signs, markings and lighting
London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham
Vulnerable road users
3.1.1 PROBLEM A
Location: LBHF: Aisgill Avenue north of Stanier Close
Summary: Missing section of the footway network may result in pedestrians walking in the live carriageway and being struck
The scheme proposes two pedestrian and cyclist accesses from the Earls Court Masterplan area onto the surrounding network at Aisgill Avenue to aid permeability of the site. It is unclear what level of additional pedestrian demand on Aisgill Avenue will be created by the development
For a short section to the north of Stanier Close, there is only one footway on Aisgill Avenue (west side). Pedestrians travelling to and from the site towards/from the West Kensington High Street area may be travelling on the side of the road that does not have a footway (east side). Some pedestrians may choose to walk in the live carriageway where they may be at risk from being struck by general traffic.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that a footway on the eastern side of Aisgill Avenue is provided to create a complete connection.
[Leave blank for Design Organisation’s Response]
Client Organisation Comments
[Leave blank for Client Organisation’s Comments]
Earls Court Masterplan
Stage 1 Road Safety Audit Report
3.1.1
PROBLEM B
Location: LBHF: Lillie Road Bus Layover Site Access
Summary: Lack of safe cycle route through the bus layover area may result in cyclist injuries
A cycle lane is provided to enable cyclists to bypass the gated area at the entrance to the Masterplan area. Cyclists may need to cross the three lanes of traffic to enter one of the accesses, where they are at risk of being hit by (large) vehicles.
Furthermore there are no cycle facilities proposed to facilitate cyclists within the bus layover site, while this area encourages cycle access. Cyclists are at risk from turning buses, taxis, delivery and construction vehicles.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that a safe cycle route is provided through the bus layover site.
Design Organisation Response Accepted / Part Accepted / Rejected
[Leave blank for Design Organisation’s Response]
Client Organisation Comments
[Leave blank for Client Organisation’s Comments]
3.1.2
PROBLEM C
Location: LBHF: Lillie Road Bus Layover Site Access
Summary: Lane destination marking may encourage pedestrians to stand in the road and risk collision with buses
A lane destination road marking is proposed at the entrance to the bus layover to lead traffic past the Bus Stop. This marking starts at the join between Lillie Road and the access, and therefore continues through the pedestrian crossing area.
Earls Court Masterplan
Stage 1 Road Safety Audit Report
The junction is quite wide and pedestrians may be encouraged by the road markings to stand in the road (within the shadow of the bus stop) to reduce the crossing width. This may put them at risk from buses entering the bus stop.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the lane destination marking is altered so that it begins after the crossing area.
Design Organisation Response Accepted / Part Accepted / Rejected
[Leave blank for Design Organisation’s Response]
Client Organisation Comments
[Leave blank for Client Organisation’s Comments]
3.1.3 PROBLEM D
Location: LBHF: Lillie Road Bus Layover / Site Access
Summary: Wide crossing for two-way traffic may result in pedestrians being stranded and risk collisions with turning vehicles
The proposals include an updated access to the Lillie Road bus layover area. The remaining access is quite wide and it now caters for two-way traffic. There was a relatively high number of pedestrians observed in the area and the access is likely to serve larger vehicles (including buses, deliveries and construction vehicles).
Pedestrians may begin crossing and then see vehicles wishing to turn into the site. They may either speed up to get across, resulting in them tripping in the carriageway and being hit by turning vehicles, or wait unprotected in the middle of the access where they may be hit by other vehicles turning out of the site.
Additionally, the scheme changes this access from one-way to two-way. Pedestrians familiar with the area may not appreciate the change and are at risk of being struck by vehicles.
Earls Court Masterplan
Stage 1 Road Safety Audit Report
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the width of the crossing is reduced and that “look both ways” road text is provided.
Design Organisation Response Accepted / Part Accepted / Rejected
[Leave blank for Design Organisation’s Response]
Client Organisation Comments
[Leave blank for Client Organisation’s Comments]
3.1.4
PROBLEM E
Location: LBHF: Lillie Road Bus Layover Site
Summary: Lack of safe pedestrian route to the island near to the taxi area resulting in pedestrian collisions.
There is a small island of land proposed between the taxi area and the road to the gated access for the Earls Court Masterplan area. A zebra crossing has been provided on the eastern side of this island, but there is no other pedestrian route off the island.
It is not known what facilities are on the island and whether pedestrians will want to access this from the west. If so, there are no safe routes to access the island area from the west and pedestrians are unlikely to take a long route to use the designated route. Pedestrians may be hit by vehicles entering the taxi area or (large) vehicles entering or leaving the Earls Court Masterplan area.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that adequate crossings are provided to the island area.
Design Organisation Response Accepted / Part Accepted / Rejected
[Leave blank for Design Organisation’s Response]
Client Organisation Comments
[Leave blank for Client Organisation’s Comments]
3.1.5
PROBLEM F
Location: LBHF: Lillie Road Bus Layover Site
Summary: Pedestrians likely to cross through the Bus Layover area resulting in collisions with large vehicles
A relatively high pedestrian demand was noted between the Empress State Building area and Lillie Road east. Pedestrians were observed crossing throughout the bus layover area, not just along Lillie Road. Currently there is guard railing to prevent unrestricted crossing, but pedestrians were still observed crossing outside of the guided paths.
Earls Court Masterplan
Stage 1 Road Safety Audit Report
While the above pedestrian demand is likely to remain, the scheme removes any obvious physical constraints to crossing and pedestrians may cross at any point through the bus layover area. This may result in pedestrian collisions with buses, delivery or construction vehicles.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that safe and relatively direct routes for pedestrians are provided
Design Organisation Response Accepted / Part Accepted / Rejected
[Leave blank for Design Organisation’s Response]
Client Organisation Comments
[Leave blank for Client Organisation’s Comments]
3.1.6 PROBLEM G
Location: LBHF: Lillie Road junction with Seagrave Road
Summary: Visually impaired pedestrians may walk into the live carriageway and be struck
The junction of Lillie Road with Seagrave Road is proposed to be signalised, with pedestrian crossings provided across all arms. However, both the Seagrave Road and Empress Place nearside kerb line is being relaxed to make space for the widened mainline.
Visually impaired pedestrians are therefore provided with a wide area of tactile paving that may be mis-read by visually impaired users. This may result in pedestrians crossing into the carriageway when / where it is not safe to do so (as shown in the figure below)
This reduced kerb line also makes crossing longer and more difficult for all pedestrians.
Earls Court Masterplan
Stage 1 Road Safety Audit Report
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the kerb line radii are tightened, and tactile paving adjusted to avoid confusion
Design Organisation Response Accepted / Part Accepted / Rejected
[Leave blank for Design Organisation’s Response]
Client Organisation Comments
[Leave blank for Client Organisation’s Comments]
3.1.7 PROBLEM H
Location: LBHF: Lillie Road junction with Seagrave Road
Summary: Narrowing of cycle lane through the junction as vehicles move towards them resulting in cycle conflict
The scheme provides a segregated cycle facility on the eastern side of the Lillie Road junction with Seagrave Road. On the approach to the junction from the west, there is a cycle lane.
It is not entirely clear to what extent the nearside kerb line is being altered on the eastbound approach, but it appears that the cycle lane is significantly narrowed (to 0.9m) at the north west corner of the junction compared to the rest of the facility.
Cyclists may be hit by passing vehicles, especially given the issue reported in Problem J.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the cycle lane is not narrowed through the junction.
Design Organisation Response Accepted / Part Accepted / Rejected
[Leave blank for Design Organisation’s Response]
Earls Court Masterplan
Stage 1 Road Safety Audit Report
Client Organisation Comments
[Leave blank for Client Organisation’s Comments]
Junctions
3.1.8 PROBLEM I
Location: LBHF: Aisgill Avenue, Earls Court Masterplan area junctions
Summary: Two T junctions located close to each other causing driver confusion and poor visibility of turning movements
A new all modes access to the Earls Court Masterplan area is proposed on Aisgill Avenue. The access meets an internal road within the masterplan area at a T junction, right after a proposed T junction on Aisgill Avenue. There will therefore be two T junctions located very close to one-another, resulting in the following:
• Drivers wishing to turn right to continue on Aisgill Avenue will signal right at the same time and in the same way as drivers wishing to turn right into the Earls Court Masterplan area. This may result in rear end shuts as drivers behind misunderstand the manoeuvre.
• Drivers on Aisgill Avenue may not be able to see vehicles turning from the Earls Court Masterplan area into Aisgill Avenue and pull out in front of them.
• Pedestrians walking from/to the Earls Court Masterplan area may have no clear route through the collection of junctions (no pedestrian crossings are shown at this time, noting however this is a stage 1 RSA). This may result in them crossing in unsafe locations.
• Drivers on Aisgill Avenue entering the Earls Court Masterplan area may not anticipate the give way markings as they have just passed one junction. This may result in T-bone collisions.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the priority of the roads in this area is reconsidered, with the Earls Court Masterplan area roads forming part of the reconsidered design.
Design Organisation Response Accepted / Part Accepted / Rejected
[Leave blank for Design Organisation’s Response]
Client Organisation Comments
[Leave blank for Client Organisation’s Comments]
Earls Court Masterplan
Stage 1 Road Safety Audit Report
3.1.9 PROBLEM J
Location: LBHF: Lillie Road junction with Seagrave Road
Summary: Vehicles enter the junction using the same carriageway space and may conflict with opposing vehicles or shy away and hit a cyclist.
The scheme proposes to widen Lillie Road on the northern side just after its junction with Seagrave Road. The alignment of the approaching roads remains mostly unchanged. As a result, vehicles travelling straight over the junction will be competing for the same area of carriageway (shown below between the blue and purple straight lines).
This may result in head-on collisions between vehicles Alternatively, drivers may quickly shy away from possible conflict, resulting in conflict with cyclists in the adjacent cycle lanes.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the approach alignment is altered to remove this head-on conflict.
Design Organisation Response Accepted / Part Accepted / Rejected
[Leave blank for Design Organisation’s Response]
Client Organisation Comments
[Leave blank for Client Organisation’s Comments]
Earls Court Masterplan
Stage 1 Road Safety Audit Report
3.1.10 PROBLEM K
Location: LBHF: Lillie Road junction with Seagrave Road
Summary: Many Ambulances use the junction and delays may result in worse injuries elsewhere on the network
A large number of ambulances were seen travelling from Seagrave Road (S) on emergency calls, presumably from the nearby Fulham Ambulance Station. The scheme signalises the junction with Lillie Road which may make it more challenging for emergency service vehicles to access the network.
Slow egress may result in worse injuries elsewhere in the network.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that a hurry call is provided at the junction which can be called by ambulances on call as they leave the Ambulance Station.
Design Organisation Response Accepted / Part Accepted / Rejected
[Leave blank for Design Organisation’s Response]
Client Organisation Comments
[Leave blank for Client Organisation’s Comments]
Local alignment
3.1.11 PROBLEM L
Location: LBHF: Lillie Road Bus Layover Site
Summary: Reversing buses trying to access the Bus Stand may conflict with vehicles using the area
Buses wishing to stop in the most northerly Bus Stand proposed may need to reverse back (in red in the figure below) into the path of vehicles using the taxi area to align themselves correctly for parking
Earls Court Masterplan
Stage 1 Road Safety Audit Report
This may result in collisions with vehicles exiting the taxi area or vehicles parked in the parking bay.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that swept path analysis is carried out to confirm that buses can manoeuvre into the Bus Stand without needing to reverse, and the island adjusted to ensure this can be achieved.
Design Organisation Response Accepted / Part Accepted / Rejected
[Leave blank for Design Organisation’s Response]
Client Organisation Comments
[Leave blank for Client Organisation’s Comments]
3.1.12 PROBLEM M
Location: LBHF: Lillie Road Bus Layover Site
Summary: Construction vehicles taking over the carriageway space require management to avoid conflicts
Swept path analysis shows construction vehicles requiring much of carriageway space at the junction with Lillie Road and travelling out of the Earls Court Masterplan area in a lane dedicated to incoming traffic.
Earls Court Masterplan
Stage 1 Road Safety Audit Report
No details of construction management have been provided (noting that this is a stage 1 RSA)
Uncontrolled construction activity may result in head-on collisions with buses and over vehicles.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that access to and from the site is managed to ensure large vehicles can make this manoeuvre without risk to other road users
Design Organisation Response Accepted / Part Accepted / Rejected
[Leave blank for Design Organisation’s Response]
Client Organisation Comments
[Leave blank for Client Organisation’s Comments]
Earls Court Masterplan
Stage 1 Road Safety Audit Report
Road signs, markings and lighting
3.1.13 PROBLEM N
Location: LBHF: Lillie Road Bus Layover Site
Summary: Competing and unclear priority within the Bus Layover Area may result in collisions between vehicles
Buses entering the Bus Layover Area are shown entering the site, travelling through the proposed yellow box before turning into the Bus Stand area. There are two sets of movements that may conflict with them: vehicles exiting the Earls Court Masterplan area and vehicles using the taxi area.
Buses may dominate the area for much of the day, and may get used to making the manoeuvre into the Bus Stand area without any other vehicles to consider.
Vehicles from the taxi area are not provided with any give way markings, and therefore may assume priority. This may result in collisions with buses.
Vehicles from the Earls Court Masterplan area are provided with give way markings. However, it is not clear whether they should give way to the right turning buses, vehicles leaving the taxi area, or both. Conflict between buses or vehicles leaving the taxi/Masterplan area may results. This issue may be exacerbated as the give way markings do not stand out from the other road makings and so vehicles exiting here may continue on the straight road without realising they should give way.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that road markings are altered to make it clear who has priority and that this reflects the dominant movements.
Design Organisation Response Accepted / Part Accepted / Rejected
[Leave blank for Design Organisation’s Response]
Client Organisation Comments
[Leave blank for Client Organisation’s Comments]
Earls Court Masterplan
Stage 1 Road Safety Audit Report
Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
Vulnerable road users
3.1.14 PROBLEM AA
Location: RBKC: Pedestrianised area opposite West Brompton tube station
Summary: Lack of warning of shared pedestrian/cycle area from the east resulting in injuries to visually impaired pedestrians
The scheme is proposing an area of shared pedestrian/cycle facility opposite the West Brompton tube station. Corduroy paving is provided on the western side of the signalised pedestrian crossing to warn visually impaired pedestrians that they need to be aware of cyclists.
However, pedestrians coming from the east are not warned that they are entering a shared area and this may result in conflict between visually impaired pedestrians and cyclists, especially given the level of pedestrian flow in the area.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that additional corduroy warning is provided
Design Organisation Response Accepted / Part Accepted / Rejected
[Leave blank for Design Organisation’s Response]
Client Organisation Comments
[Leave blank for Client Organisation’s Comments]
3.1.15 PROBLEM AB
Location: RBKC: Access into Earls Court Masterplan area opposite West Brompton tube station
Summary: Light segregation feature may cause cyclists to lose control as they move around buses at the bus stop
The scheme proposes a segregated cycle track along West Brompton Road which continues past the Earls Court Masterplan area access. There is a bus stop located immediately after the junction.
Cyclists will need to manoeuvre around any waiting buses, but the segregation feature may either prevent cyclists from turning as early as they would like, resulting in sharper turns and riders falling from their bikes, or cycles clipping the segregation.
Earls Court Masterplan
Stage 1 Road Safety Audit Report
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that length of segregation is shortened.
Design Organisation Response Accepted / Part Accepted / Rejected
[Leave blank for Design Organisation’s Response]
Client Organisation Comments
[Leave blank for Client Organisation’s Comments]
3.1.16 PROBLEM AC
Location: RBKC: Access into Earls Court Masterplan area opposite West Brompton tube station
Summary: Light segregation used in for a short section of cycle route may be unexpected for road users and result in loss of control collisions
The scheme proposes a cycle track along West Brompton Road which has light segregation between the cycle facility and general traffic. This is proposed for a relatively short section of the cycle route. The rest of the nearby network does not appear to include segregation.
No details of the segregation have been provided (noting that this is a stage 1 RSA).
Cyclists and drivers travelling along the route may not anticipate a short section of light segregation. Depending on the type and visibility of the segregation, cyclists (and other road users) may not see/anticipate the physical constraint and hit it. This may lead to loss of control type collisions.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that any light segregation is clearly visible to all road users.
Design Organisation Response Accepted / Part Accepted / Rejected
[Leave blank for Design Organisation’s Response]
Client Organisation Comments
[Leave blank for Client Organisation’s Comments]
Earls Court Masterplan
Stage 1 Road Safety Audit Report
Junctions
3.1.17 PROBLEM AD
Location: RBKC: Access into Earls Court Masterplan area opposite West Brompton tube station
Summary: Vehicles giving way within the cycle lane putting cyclists at risk
A revised access is proposed into the Earls Court Masterplan area from Old Brompton Road. A segregated cycle lane is proposed across this access.
The scheme includes two sets of give way markings for vehicles leaving the site, the first to give way to cyclists and the second to give way to vehicles. This may result in vehicles waiting across the cycle lane to pull out into the main road.
This may put cyclists using the cycle lane at risk as they try to manoeuvre around the waiting vehicle (especially given the light segregation provided).
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that only give way markings are kept at the northern edge of the cycle lane
Additionally, it is recommended that cycle symbols are provided across the junction to increase the awareness of cyclists in the cycle lane.
Design Organisation Response Accepted / Part Accepted / Rejected
[Leave blank for Design Organisation’s Response]
Client Organisation Comments
[Leave blank for Client Organisation’s Comments]
Local alignment
Earls Court Masterplan
Stage 1 Road Safety Audit Report
No problems raised within for RBKC within this category
Road signs, markings and lighting
No problems raised within for RBKC within this category
Earls Court Masterplan
Stage 1 Road Safety Audit Report
Transport for London
Vulnerable road users
3.1.18 PROBLEM AAA
Location: TfL: Warwick Road, between West Bromton Road and Earls Court Square
Summary: Cyclists manoeuvring across multiple lanes of busy traffic to enter the dedicated off-side cycle facility may be struck by general traffic
Warwick Road immediately after its junction with West Brompton Road is a three lane one-way street.
The scheme proposes to reduce the number of lanes on Warwick Road to two, to create space for a two-way cycle track. This develops immediately before the junction with Earls Court Square.
Cyclists travelling along Warwick Road will likely be in the nearside lane and will need to cross two lanes of traffic, while general traffic merges and buses pull in and out.
The level of traffic is high on Warwick Road and this manoeuvre is likely to be challenging. This kind of manoeuvre is unusual and drivers may not anticipate cyclists crossing three lanes of traffic. This may result in cyclist collisions.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that an alternative approach is taken to getting cyclists into the cycle tack, making use of the signalised crossing at Earls Court Square. Alternatively, the cycle facility for northbound vehicles could be provided on the western side of the road as a standard one-way cycle lane.
Design Organisation Response Accepted / Part Accepted / Rejected
[Leave blank for Design Organisation’s Response]
Client Organisation Comments
[Leave blank for Client Organisation’s Comments]
Earls Court Masterplan
Stage 1 Road Safety Audit Report
3.1.19 PROBLEM AAB
Location: TfL: Warwick Road, southbound approach to Earls Court Square
Summary: Cycle facility ends without clear instruction for cyclists and may lead to cyclists coming into conflict with other road users
Cyclists travelling southbound along Warwick Road will be in a dedicated two-way cycle facility. Immediately after Earls Court Square the facility is one-way northbound only, with cyclists expected to turn right.
Currently, the design only suggests this with a right turn arrow (noting that this is a stage 1 RSA).
It is possible that cyclists will not see or ignore the right turn arrow, and turn left or continue straight on.
Left turning cyclists may conflict with pedestrians depending on the signal timings Cyclists travelling straight on will travel “contra-flow” along a very major road and risk head on collisions.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the left turn into Earls Court Square is allowed (to cater for significant movements to the east and south)
It is recommended that more infrastructure is provided at the junction to ensure cyclists do not accidently continue straight over the junction (this may include the alterations to the northbound cycle lane).
It is recommended that adequate signing and lining is provided to inform cyclists of their route options.
Design Organisation Response Accepted / Part Accepted / Rejected
[Leave blank for Design Organisation’s Response]
Client Organisation Comments
[Leave blank for Client Organisation’s Comments]
3.1.20
PROBLEM
AAC
Location: TfL: Warwick Road, northbound approach to Earls Court Square
Summary: Cycle lane approaches put cyclists in a head-on alignment through the junction and may result in cyclist conflicts
Cyclists travelling northbound on Warwick Road will be in a dedicated one-way cycle facility until Earls Court Square. Immediately after the junction this becomes a twoway facility. Cyclists are aligned to cross the junction and enter the cycle lane in the path of southbound cyclists. This may result in head-on cycle conflicts.
RECOMMENDATION
Earls Court Masterplan
Stage 1 Road Safety Audit Report
It is recommended that the northbound dedicated one-way cycle facility is altered to align with the northbound half of the two-way cycle track which it leads into. Alternatively, the cycle facility for northbound vehicles could be provided on the western side of the road as a standard one-way cycle lane.
Design Organisation Response Accepted / Part Accepted / Rejected
[Leave blank for Design Organisation’s Response]
Client Organisation Comments
[Leave blank for Client Organisation’s Comments]
3.1.21 PROBLEM AAD
Location: TfL: Warwick Road junction with Earls Court Square
Summary: Left turn from Kempsford Gardens into the cycle facility is very tight and may result in cyclists losing control or hitting other vehicles
A dedicated two-way cycle track is provided on Warwick Road. Cyclists may be travelling to this track from the contraflow cycle facility on Kempsford Gardens.
The left turn into the two-way track is very tight for cyclists and they may either clip the segregation and fall from their bikes, lose balance and fall as they turn sharply, or move into the path of right turning cyclists to make their turn more manageable.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the left turn is made more manageable for cyclists
Design Organisation Response Accepted / Part Accepted / Rejected
[Leave blank for Design Organisation’s Response]
Client Organisation Comments
[Leave blank for Client Organisation’s Comments]
3.1.22 PROBLEM AAE
Location: TfL: Warwick Road
Summary: Segregation between the dedicated cycle facility and general traffic may be hit by road users
Warwick Road is a busy and well used one-way traffic route. The scheme provides a two-way cycle track on the offside of the road with segregation from traffic. At this stage, limited information is provided on signs and bollards (noting this is a stage 1 RSA).
However, given the level of traffic on the route, failing to inform all drivers of the presence of the cycle facility may result in vehicles clipping the light segregation and losing control, or entering the cycle facility and conflicting with cyclists.
Earls Court Masterplan
Stage 1 Road Safety Audit Report
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that segregation is clearly visible to all road users, keep left bollards or similar are used on the ends of all sections and that an adequate signage strategy is implemented.
Design Organisation Response Accepted / Part Accepted / Rejected
[Leave blank for Design Organisation’s Response]
Client Organisation Comments
[Leave blank for Client Organisation’s Comments]
3.1.23 PROBLEM AAF
Location: TfL: Warwick Road adjacent to Earl’s Court tube station
Summary: Lack of clear route to tube station leading to cyclists and pedestrians being struck
A dedicated two-way cycle facility is provided along Warwick Road. Cyclists travelling northbound may wish to go to Earl’s Court station. The scheme provides no clear way for this to happen and so:
• cyclists may cross the cycle track in the path of southbound cyclists, conflicting with southbound cyclists
• stop in the cycle track until it is safe to cross, and conflict with cyclists behind
• or travel through the pedestrian crossing, conflicting with the high volume of pedestrians expected
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that a dedicated northbound route to Earl’s Court tube station is provided
Design Organisation Response Accepted / Part Accepted / Rejected
Location: TfL: Warwick Road junction with Earls Court Access
Summary: Cyclists turning into or out of the Earls Court Masterplan area may be struck by other vehicles
A dedicated two-way cycle facility is provided along Warwick Road. Cyclists wishing to enter or leave the Earls Court Masterplan area are controlled at a new signal controlled junction.
However the facility has a number of related issues:
• Cyclists turning into the junction from the south have a tight turn around the end of the segregation island. This will force them to slow a great deal to move into the reservoir and they may be hit by cyclists behind.
• Cyclists turning into the junction from the north must cross the opposing lane of cycle traffic to do so They may need to wait in the cycle lane to do this and they may be hit by cyclists behind They may also cross over the opposing cycle lane when it is not safe to do so and have a head-on cycle conflict.
• More than one cyclist may wish to turn into the access at the same time but the facility allows space for approximately one cyclist (given its alignment). This may result in bikes being stationary in the cycle lane and in the way of those travelling along the route, resulting in conflicts between cyclists.
• Cyclists turning right from the access may not have enough space to wait away from the path of general traffic on Warwick Road and be struck by them
Earls Court Masterplan
Stage 1 Road Safety Audit Report
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that all cycle movements are adequately catered for at this junction
Design Organisation Response Accepted / Part Accepted / Rejected
[Leave blank for Design Organisation’s Response]
Client Organisation Comments
[Leave blank for Client Organisation’s Comments]
3.1.25
PROBLEM AAH
Location: TfL: Warwick Road junction with Trebovir Road/ Philbeach Gardens
Summary: Dedicated cycle route begins just after Philbeach Gardens and cyclists at risk as they turn across the traffic to enter
The scheme provides a two-way cycle track along Warwick Road. At its northern extents, Philbeach Gardens lies immediately outside of this provision. Cyclists travelling from Philbeach Gardens wishing to travel right will be turning into this facility as vehicles move across into the third traffic lane which starts there. Cyclists may be hit by vehicles.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the start of the southbound traffic facility is extended to incorporate cycles from Philbeach Gardens
Design Organisation Response Accepted / Part Accepted / Rejected
Earls Court Masterplan
Stage 1 Road Safety Audit Report
[Leave blank for Design Organisation’s Response]
Client Organisation Comments
[Leave blank for Client Organisation’s Comments]
3.1.26 PROBLEM AAI
Location: TfL: Warwick Road access into the Matersplan area opposite Earl’s Court tube station
Summary: Visually impaired pedestrians may be unaware of cyclists in the shared footway/cycleway and may be struck by cyclists
The scheme includes an area of shared footway/cycleway connecting the Masterplan area to Earl’s Court tube station. Corduroy paving is provided on the northern side of Warwick Road, but not on the southern side.
Visually impaired pedestrians may not be away of the increased risks due to cyclists being in the area, and there is a risk of pedestrian/cycle conflict.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that additional corduroy paving is provided.
Design Organisation Response Accepted / Part Accepted / Rejected
[Leave blank for Design Organisation’s Response]
Client Organisation Comments
[Leave blank for Client Organisation’s Comments]
Junctions
No problems raised within for TFL within this category
Earls Court Masterplan
Stage 1 Road Safety Audit Report
Road signs, markings and lighting
3.1.27 PROBLEM AAJ
Location: TfL: Warwick Road, between West Brompton Road and Earls Court Square
Summary: Traffic merges from three lanes to two at the same place as buses leave a bus stop, this may result in vehicle conflicts
Warwick Road is a three lane one-way street immediately after its junction with West Brompton Road. However, it is served by two lanes coming from the south, and one each from the east and west.
The scheme proposes to reduce the number of lanes on Warwick Road to two, to create space for a two-way cycle track. This develops immediately before the junction with Earls Court Square. There is therefore only a short stretch of Warwick Road that is three lanes, which is partly taken up by a bus stop.
The location of the lane drop from three lanes to two is located in the same place as the bus stop and therefore vehicles will be changing lanes at the same time as buses are leaving the bus stop. This may result in:
• drivers speeding to get around waiting buses, resulting in loss of control type collisions
• vehicles late or sharp breaking to avoid entering the cycle lane, resulting in loss of control type collisions
• vehicles clipping the light segregation, resulting in loss of control type collisions
• vehicles entering the cycle lane, resulting in collisions with cyclists
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that:
• the bus stop is relocated to the south and away from the start of cycle track, and
• the outside lane continues without merging, but the middle lane gives way to the emerging buses (this may require the third lane being designated as a bus lane)
Design Organisation Response Accepted / Part Accepted / Rejected
[Leave blank for Design Organisation’s Response]
Client Organisation Comments
[Leave blank for Client Organisation’s Comments]
Earls Court Masterplan
Stage 1 Road Safety Audit Report
Local alignment
3.1.28 PROBLEM AAK
Location: TfL: West Cromwell Road (A4)
Summary: Traffic merges from three lanes to two within a short section on the A4 leading to side swipes
A reduction in traffic lanes from three to two is proposed eastbound at the proposed signalised crossing.
The A4 with very busy with vehicles and this reduction may be unexpected for drivers.
Vehicles may merge into the path of other vehicles and collide.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the merge is extended appropriately.
Design Organisation Response Accepted / Part Accepted / Rejected
[Leave blank for Design Organisation’s Response]
Client Organisation Comments
[Leave blank for Client Organisation’s Comments]
4.0 ISSUES IDENTIFIED DURING THE STAGE 1 ROAD SAFETY AUDIT THAT ARE OUTSIDE THE TERMS OF REFERENCE
Safety issues identified during the audit and site inspection that are considered to be outside the Terms of Reference, but which the Audit Team wishes to draw to the attention of the Client Organisation, are set out in this section. It is to be understood that, in raising these issues, the Audit Team in no way warrants that a full review of the highway environment has been undertaken beyond that necessary to undertake the Audit as commissioned.
During event days, there may be a very high footfall towards the Earls Court Masterplan area. This will require considerable management to ensure successful operation of the facilities and accesses within the scope of this audit.
We certify that we have examined the drawings and documents listed in Appendix A. to this Safety Audit report. The Road Safety Audit has been carried out in accordance with TfL Procedure SQA-0170 dated May 2014, with the sole purpose of identifying any feature that could be removed or modified in order to improve the safety of the measures. The problems identified have been noted in this report together with associated suggestions for safety improvements that we recommend should be studied for implementation.
No one on the Audit Team has been involved with the design of the measures.
In accordance with SQA-0170 dated May 2014, I certify that I have reviewed the items raised in this Stage 1 Safety Audit report. I have given due consideration to each issue raised and have stated my proposed course of action for each in this report. I seek the Client Organisations endorsement of my proposals.
Name:
Position:
Organisation:
Signed:
Dated:
5.3 CLIENT ORGANISATION STATEMENT
I accept these proposals by the Design Organisation
Checked by: Claudia Di Loreto, Audit Team Member, WSP
Approved by: Jon Noble, Technical Director, WSP
Version Status Date
A Audit report issued to TFL RSA team 20/05/2024
B Final issue 28/05/2024
C Design Organisation Response Added 28/05/2024
Court Masterplan
Stage 1 Road Safety Audit Report
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Commission
1.1.1 This report results from a Stage 1 Road Safety Audit carried out on the proposed site access arrangements and off-site highway works associated with the Earls Court Masterplan.
1.1.2 The Audit was undertaken by WSP in accordance with the Audit Brief issued by the Client Organisation in April 2024. It took place at the home offices of WSP employees and on site in April and May 2024 and comprised an examination of the documents provided as listed in Appendix A.
1.1.3 The site visit of the proposed works was carried out on 1 May 2024 between 11.30 and 14.00. During the site visit the weather was dry and the road surface was dry. The following were observed during the audit:
High traffic flow on West Cromwell Road, North End Road, Lillie Road and Warwick Road, and low traffic flows elsewhere
Medium to high pedestrian flows observed on North End Road and Lillie Road, and low flows elsewhere
Medium cycle flows on West Cromwell Road, North End Road, Lillie Road and Warwick Road and low flows elsewhere.
1.2 Terms of Reference
1.2.1 The Terms of Reference of this Audit are as described in TfL Procedure SQA-0170 dated May 2014. The Audit Team has examined and reported only on the road safety implications of the scheme as presented and how it impacts on all road users and has not examined or verified the compliance of the designs to any other criteria. However, to clearly explain a safety problem or the recommendation to resolve a problem the Audit Team may, on occasion, have referred to a design standard without touching on technical audit. An absence of comment relating to specific road users / modes in Section 3 of this report does not imply that they have not been considered; instead the Audit Team feels they are not adversely affected by the proposed changes.
1.2.2 This Safety Audit is not intended to identify pre-existing hazards which remain unchanged due to the proposals; hence they will not be raised in Section 3 of this report as they fall outside the remit of Road Safety Audit in general as specified in the procedure SQA-0170 dated May 2014. Safety issues identified during the Audit and site visit that are considered to be outside the Terms of Reference, but which the Audit Team wishes to draw to the attention of the Client Organisation, are set out in Section 4 of this report.
1.2.3 Nothing in this Audit should be regarded as a direct instruction to include or remove a measure from within the scheme. Responsibility for designing the scheme lies with the Designer and as such the Audit Team accepts no design responsibility for any changes made to the scheme as a result of this Audit.
1.2.4 In accordance with TfL Procedure SQA-0170 dated May 2014, this Audit has a maximum shelf life of 2 years. If the scheme does not progress to the next stage in its development within this period, then the scheme should be re-audited.
Earls Court Masterplan
Stage 1 Road Safety Audit Report
1.2.5 Unless general to the scheme, all comments and recommendations are referenced to the detailed design drawings and the locations have been indicated on the plan located in Appendix B.
1.2.6 It is the responsibility of the Design Organisation to complete the Designer’s response section of this Audit report. Where applicable and necessary it is the responsibility of the Client Organisation to complete the Client comment section of this Audit report. Signatures from both the Design Organisation and Client Organisation must be added within Section 5 of this Audit report. A copy of which must be returned to the Audit Team.
1.3 Main Parties to the Audit
1.3.1 Client Organisation
TfL Client contact details: Chloe Flower, TfL Principal City Planner
LBHF Client contact details: Zoe Trower
RBKC Client contact details: Iain Steele
1.3.2 Design Organisation
Design contact details: Justin Sherlock- WSP
1.3.3 Audit Team Approval
The Audit Team specified in 1.3.4 below were given approval to undertake this Audit by Christopher Gooch of TfL Road Safety Audit on 26 April 2024. The Audit Team was also approved by Zoe Trower on behalf of LBHF on 8 May 2024 and by Iain Steele on behalf of RBKC on 30 April 2024.
1.3.4 Audit Team
Audit Team Leader: Jon Noble – WSP
Audit Team Member: Claudia Di Loreto– WSP
1.3.5 Other Specialist Advisors Not applicable.
1.4 Purpose of the Scheme
1.4.1 New/revised site access points and off-site pedestrian and cycle improvements. This includes:
TfL: Warwick Road and A4 West Cromwell Road
Warwick Road – Northern and Southern site access points and contra-flow cycle facility extending between Trebovir Road and Earls Court Square
A4 West Cromwell Road – pedestrian and cycle crossing across the A4 and connection to the site utilising the existing bridge at the eastern end of West Kensington Station
LBHF: Lillie Road, Aisgill Avenue, Mund Street, Beaumont Avenue
Lillie Road – site access junction with Empress Place and Lillie Road Bus Layover (Empress Approach) and on-carriageway cycle improvements
Earls Court Masterplan
Stage 1 Road Safety Audit Report
Aisgill Avenue – turning head for refuse collection from WB05 Tower 2 and servicing of the community centre. Pedestrian and cycle access (including emergency service access point) to the south of the pedestrianised section of Aisgill Avenue. Pedestrian access (including emergency service access point) to the north of the pedestrianised section of Aisgill Avenue.
Mund Street – all modes access to the development
Beaumont Avenue – All modes access to the development
RBKC: Old Brompton Road
Old Brompton Road – site access junction with West Brompton Lane (internal site access) and on-carriageway cycle improvements
1.5 Special Considerations
1.5.1 The Audit Team has no special considerations to raise.
The RSA team have not been made aware of any previous Road Safety Audits relating to the proposals.
Earls Court Masterplan
Stage 1 Road Safety Audit Report
3.0 ITEMS RAISED AT THIS STAGE 1 ROAD SAFETY AUDIT
This section should be read in conjunction with Paragraphs 1.2.1, 1.2.2 and 1.2.3 of this report.
This section of the report has been split by the three Overseeing Organisations boundaries.
The problems have been categorised within these areas by Vulnerable road users, Junctions, Local alignment, & Road signs, markings and lighting
London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham
Vulnerable road users
3.1.1 PROBLEM A
Location: LBHF: Aisgill Avenue north of Stanier Close
Summary: Missing section of the footway network may result in pedestrians walking in the live carriageway and being struck
The scheme proposes two pedestrian and cyclist accesses from the Earls Court Masterplan area onto the surrounding network at Aisgill Avenue to aid permeability of the site. It is unclear what level of additional pedestrian demand on Aisgill Avenue will be created by the development.
For a short section to the north of Stanier Close, there is only one footway on Aisgill Avenue (west side). Pedestrians travelling to and from the site towards/from the West Kensington High Street area may be travelling on the side of the road that does not have a footway (east side). Some pedestrians may choose to walk in the live carriageway where they may be at risk from being struck by general traffic.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that a footway on the eastern side of Aisgill Avenue is provided to create a complete connection.
Design Organisation Response
Rejected
There will be an alternative pedestrian route provided within the site which the audit team would not necessarily be aware of because the internal layout has not been the subject of this RSA. It is therefore considered that a suitable alternative route is provided which reduces the need to provide a formal footway on the eastern side of Aisgill Avenue.
Client Organisation Comments
[Leave blank for Client Organisation’s Comments]
Earls Court Masterplan
3.1.1 PROBLEM B
3.1.2
Stage 1 Road Safety Audit Report Audit
Location: LBHF: Lillie Road Bus Layover Site Access
Summary: Lack of safe cycle route through the bus layover area may result in cyclist injuries
A cycle lane is provided to enable cyclists to bypass the gated area at the entrance to the Masterplan area. Cyclists may need to cross the three lanes of traffic to enter one of the accesses, where they are at risk of being hit by (large) vehicles.
Furthermore there are no cycle facilities proposed to facilitate cyclists within the bus layover site, while this area encourages cycle access. Cyclists are at risk from turning buses, taxis, delivery and construction vehicles.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that a safe cycle route is provided through the bus layover site.
Design Organisation Response
Part Accepted
The main cycle access to the plots serviced from the WB03/WB04/WB05 service road (and bus layover) is via Empress Place. The inclusion of a cycle bypass at the entrance to the WB03/WB04/WB05 service road is to enable cycle service trips (Deliveroo/Uber Eats riders etc) to bypass the security barriers, it has not been designed for all cycle trips. Given this route is for specific users only and the majority of those cyclists are not expected to use the bus layover but instead enter/exit via Empress Place it is not considered necessary to provide formal cycle provision within the bus layover. However, the design of the bus layover will continue to evolve as discussions with TfL Buses continue and the potential to provide any further provision for cyclists can be reviewed at that stage.
Client Organisation Comments
[Leave blank for Client Organisation’s Comments]
PROBLEM C
Location: LBHF: Lillie Road Bus Layover Site Access
Earls Court Masterplan
Stage 1 Road Safety Audit Report
Summary: Lane destination marking may encourage pedestrians to stand in the road and risk collision with buses
A lane destination road marking is proposed at the entrance to the bus layover to lead traffic past the Bus Stop. This marking starts at the join between Lillie Road and the access, and therefore continues through the pedestrian crossing area.
The junction is quite wide and pedestrians may be encouraged by the road markings to stand in the road (within the shadow of the bus stop) to reduce the crossing width. This may put them at risk from buses entering the bus stop.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the lane destination marking is altered so that it begins after the crossing area.
Design Organisation Response Accepted
The lane destination marking and pedestrian crossing shall be separated and reflected in the next stage of design.
Client Organisation Comments
[Leave blank for Client Organisation’s Comments]
3.1.3
PROBLEM D
Location: LBHF: Lillie Road Bus Layover / Site Access
Summary: Wide crossing for two-way traffic may result in pedestrians being stranded and risk collisions with turning vehicles
The proposals include an updated access to the Lillie Road bus layover area. The remaining access is quite wide and it now caters for two-way traffic. There was a relatively high number of pedestrians observed in the area and the access is likely to serve larger vehicles (including buses, deliveries and construction vehicles).
Pedestrians may begin crossing and then see vehicles wishing to turn into the site. They may either speed up to get across, resulting in them tripping in the carriageway and being hit by turning vehicles, or wait unprotected in the middle of the access where they may be hit by other vehicles turning out of the site.
Earls Court Masterplan
Stage 1 Road Safety Audit Report
Additionally, the scheme changes this access from one-way to two-way. Pedestrians familiar with the area may not appreciate the change and are at risk of being struck by vehicles.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the width of the crossing is reduced and that “look both ways” road text is provided.
Design Organisation Response
Part Accepted
The width of the junction mouth has been driven by the need to retain access through the layover for the TfL Long Vehicle (28m long vehicle) that requires access to the Points and Crossing Shop within the Lillie Bridge Depot. Opportunities to refine the design will be considered at the next stage of design. Road markings as recommended can be included in the next stage of design.
Client Organisation Comments
[Leave blank for Client Organisation’s Comments]
3.1.4 PROBLEM E
Location: LBHF: Lillie Road Bus Layover Site
Summary: Lack of safe pedestrian route to the island near to the taxi area resulting in pedestrian collisions.
There is a small island of land proposed between the taxi area and the road to the gated access for the Earls Court Masterplan area. A zebra crossing has been provided on the eastern side of this island, but there is no other pedestrian route off the island.
It is not known what facilities are on the island and whether pedestrians will want to access this from the west. If so, there are no safe routes to access the island area from the west and pedestrians are unlikely to take a long route to use the designated route. Pedestrians may be hit by vehicles entering the taxi area or (large) vehicles entering or leaving the Earls Court Masterplan area.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that adequate crossings are provided to the island area.
Design Organisation Response
Part Accepted
The main pedestrian desire line to access the island (where it is expected that taxis may pick-up/drop-off) is to/from Empress Place located to the east. As such it is considered that the crossing meets the needs of the main desire line. However, there is a potential desire line for employees who work within the adjacent MOPAC building to want to cross the layover. Opportunities to include a safe, direct and accessible pedestrian route to and from this island will be explored at the next stage of design (see also response to Problem F).
Client Organisation Comments
Earls Court Masterplan
Stage 1 Road Safety Audit Report
[Leave blank for Client Organisation’s Comments]
3.1.5 PROBLEM F
Location: LBHF: Lillie Road Bus Layover Site
Summary: Pedestrians likely to cross through the Bus Layover area resulting in collisions with large vehicles
A relatively high pedestrian demand was noted between the Empress State Building area and Lillie Road east. Pedestrians were observed crossing throughout the bus layover area, not just along Lillie Road. Currently there is guard railing to prevent unrestricted crossing, but pedestrians were still observed crossing outside of the guided paths.
While the above pedestrian demand is likely to remain, the scheme removes any obvious physical constraints to crossing and pedestrians may cross at any point through the bus layover area. This may result in pedestrian collisions with buses, delivery or construction vehicles.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that safe and relatively direct routes for pedestrians are provided.
Design Organisation Response Accepted
Opportunities to include a pedestrian route across the layover will be explored at the next stage of design. See also response to Problem E.
Client Organisation Comments
[Leave blank for Client Organisation’s Comments]
3.1.6 PROBLEM G
Location: LBHF: Lillie Road junction with Seagrave Road
Summary: Visually impaired pedestrians may walk into the live carriageway and be struck
The junction of Lillie Road with Seagrave Road is proposed to be signalised, with pedestrian crossings provided across all arms. However, both the Seagrave Road and Empress Place nearside kerb line is being relaxed to make space for the widened mainline.
Visually impaired pedestrians are therefore provided with a wide area of tactile paving that may be mis-read by visually impaired users. This may result in pedestrians crossing into the carriageway when / where it is not safe to do so (as shown in the figure below).
This reduced kerb line also makes crossing longer and more difficult for all pedestrians.
Earls Court Masterplan
Stage 1 Road Safety Audit Report
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the kerb line radii are tightened, and tactile paving adjusted to avoid confusion.
Design Organisation Response Accepted
The kerb radii design has been guided by the swept path analysis undertaken. Opportunities to tighten the kerb radii and adjust the tactile paving will be explored at the next stage of design.
Client Organisation Comments
[Leave blank for Client Organisation’s Comments]
3.1.7 PROBLEM H
Location: LBHF: Lillie Road junction with Seagrave Road
Summary: Narrowing of cycle lane through the junction as vehicles move towards them resulting in cycle conflict
The scheme provides a segregated cycle facility on the eastern side of the Lillie Road junction with Seagrave Road. On the approach to the junction from the west, there is a cycle lane.
It is not entirely clear to what extent the nearside kerb line is being altered on the eastbound approach, but it appears that the cycle lane is significantly narrowed (to 0.9m) at the north west corner of the junction compared to the rest of the facility.
Cyclists may be hit by passing vehicles, especially given the issue reported in Problem J.
Earls Court Masterplan
Stage 1 Road Safety Audit Report
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the cycle lane is not narrowed through the junction.
Design Organisation Response Accepted
The design of the cycle lane through the junction will be re-visited at the next stage of design as part of a holistic review of the layout (see also response to Problem G).
Client Organisation Comments
[Leave blank for Client Organisation’s Comments]
Junctions
3.1.8 PROBLEM I
Location: LBHF: Aisgill Avenue, Earls Court Masterplan area junctions
Summary: Two T junctions located close to each other causing driver confusion and poor visibility of turning movements
A new all modes access to the Earls Court Masterplan area is proposed on Aisgill Avenue. The access meets an internal road within the masterplan area at a T junction, right after a proposed T junction on Aisgill Avenue. There will therefore be two T junctions located very close to one-another, resulting in the following:
Drivers wishing to turn right to continue on Aisgill Avenue will signal right at the same time and in the same way as drivers wishing to turn right into the Earls Court Masterplan area. This may result in rear end shuts as drivers behind misunderstand the manoeuvre.
Drivers on Aisgill Avenue may not be able to see vehicles turning from the Earls Court Masterplan area into Aisgill Avenue and pull out in front of them.
Earls Court Masterplan
Stage 1 Road Safety Audit Report
Pedestrians walking from/to the Earls Court Masterplan area may have no clear route through the collection of junctions (no pedestrian crossings are shown at this time, noting however this is a stage 1 RSA). This may result in them crossing in unsafe locations.
Drivers on Aisgill Avenue entering the Earls Court Masterplan area may not anticipate the give way markings as they have just passed one junction. This may result in T-bone collisions.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the priority of the roads in this area is reconsidered, with the Earls Court Masterplan area roads forming part of the reconsidered design.
Design Organisation Response Accepted
The internal layout of the masterplan has not been provided to the audit team at this stage as it will be subject to design refinement in due course. It is proposed that this item will be considered at the next stage of design and amendments made to the priorities at the junction.
Client Organisation Comments
[Leave blank for Client Organisation’s Comments]
Earls Court Masterplan
Stage 1 Road Safety Audit Report
3.1.9 PROBLEM J
Location: LBHF: Lillie Road junction with Seagrave Road
Summary: Vehicles enter the junction using the same carriageway space and may conflict with opposing vehicles or shy away and hit a cyclist.
The scheme proposes to widen Lillie Road on the northern side just after its junction with Seagrave Road. The alignment of the approaching roads remains mostly unchanged. As a result, vehicles travelling straight over the junction will be competing for the same area of carriageway (shown below between the blue and purple straight lines).
This may result in head-on collisions between vehicles. Alternatively, drivers may quickly shy away from possible conflict, resulting in conflict with cyclists in the adjacent cycle lanes.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the approach alignment is altered to remove this head-on conflict.
Design Organisation Response Accepted
The alignment of Lillie Road is constrained by the retention of the existing buildings to the west of Empress Place on Lillie Road and need to provide sufficient space for pedestrians on the footway on the northern side of Lillie Road. However, the approach alignment and any kerb alterations will be revisited at the next stage of design.
Client Organisation Comments
[Leave blank for Client Organisation’s Comments]
Earls Court Masterplan
Stage 1 Road Safety Audit Report
3.1.10 PROBLEM K
Location: LBHF: Lillie Road junction with Seagrave Road
Summary: Many Ambulances use the junction and delays may result in worse injuries elsewhere on the network
A large number of ambulances were seen travelling from Seagrave Road (S) on emergency calls, presumably from the nearby Fulham Ambulance Station. The scheme signalises the junction with Lillie Road which may make it more challenging for emergency service vehicles to access the network.
Slow egress may result in worse injuries elsewhere in the network.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that a hurry call is provided at the junction which can be called by ambulances on call as they leave the Ambulance Station.
Design Organisation Response Accepted
It is acknowledged that signalising the junction of Lillie Road/Seagrave Road/Empress Place may result in some delay to road users. The inclusion of a hurry call for ambulances will be considered at the next stage of design.
Client Organisation Comments
[Leave blank for Client Organisation’s Comments]
Local alignment
3.1.11 PROBLEM L
Location: LBHF: Lillie Road Bus Layover Site
Summary: Reversing buses trying to access the Bus Stand may conflict with vehicles using the area
Buses wishing to stop in the most northerly Bus Stand proposed may need to reverse back (in red in the figure below) into the path of vehicles using the taxi area to align themselves correctly for parking.
Earls Court Masterplan
Stage 1 Road Safety Audit Report
This may result in collisions with vehicles exiting the taxi area or vehicles parked in the parking bay.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that swept path analysis is carried out to confirm that buses can manoeuvre into the Bus Stand without needing to reverse, and the island adjusted to ensure this can be achieved.
Design Organisation Response Rejected
Swept path analysis has been undertaken for the largest bus expected to use the facility (a 12m electric bus) and all bays comfortably operate without the need for reversing. However, the design of the bus layover will continue to evolve as the design develops and this will be revisited at the next stage of design.
Client Organisation Comments
[Leave blank for Client Organisation’s Comments]
3.1.12 PROBLEM M
Location: LBHF: Lillie Road Bus Layover Site
Summary: Construction vehicles taking over the carriageway space require management to avoid conflicts
Swept path analysis shows construction vehicles requiring much of carriageway space at the junction with Lillie Road and travelling out of the Earls Court Masterplan area in a lane dedicated to incoming traffic.
Earls Court Masterplan
Stage 1 Road Safety Audit Report
No details of construction management have been provided (noting that this is a stage 1 RSA).
Uncontrolled construction activity may result in head-on collisions with buses and over vehicles.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that access to and from the site is managed to ensure large vehicles can make this manoeuvre without risk to other road users.
Design Organisation Response
Rejected
The swept path shown is for the retained long vehicle access to Lillie Bridge Depot and does not relate to construction. When TfL wish to access the Lillie Bridge Depot using the long vehicle advance notice is provided so that arrangements can be put in place to ensure that the movement into and out of the site can be undertaken unimpeded. It is expected that this arrangement will continue in the proposed design.
Client Organisation Comments
[Leave blank for Client Organisation’s Comments]
Earls Court Masterplan
Stage 1 Road Safety Audit Report
Road signs, markings and lighting
3.1.13 PROBLEM N
Location: LBHF: Lillie Road Bus Layover Site
Summary: Competing and unclear priority within the Bus Layover Area may result in collisions between vehicles
Buses entering the Bus Layover Area are shown entering the site, travelling through the proposed yellow box before turning into the Bus Stand area. There are two sets of movements that may conflict with them: vehicles exiting the Earls Court Masterplan area and vehicles using the taxi area.
Buses may dominate the area for much of the day, and may get used to making the manoeuvre into the Bus Stand area without any other vehicles to consider.
Vehicles from the taxi area are not provided with any give way markings, and therefore may assume priority. This may result in collisions with buses.
Vehicles from the Earls Court Masterplan area are provided with give way markings. However, it is not clear whether they should give way to the right turning buses, vehicles leaving the taxi area, or both. Conflict between buses or vehicles leaving the taxi/Masterplan area may results. This issue may be exacerbated as the give way markings do not stand out from the other road makings and so vehicles exiting here may continue on the straight road without realising they should give way.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that road markings are altered to make it clear who has priority and that this reflects the dominant movements.
Design Organisation Response
Accepted
The road markings will be reviewed at the next stage of design to remove ambiguity with priority of movements given to buses.
Client Organisation Comments
[Leave blank for Client Organisation’s Comments]
Earls Court Masterplan
Stage 1 Road Safety Audit Report
Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
Vulnerable road users
3.1.14 PROBLEM AA
Location: RBKC: Pedestrianised area opposite West Brompton tube station
Summary: Lack of warning of shared pedestrian/cycle area from the east resulting in injuries to visually impaired pedestrians
The scheme is proposing an area of shared pedestrian/cycle facility opposite the West Brompton tube station. Corduroy paving is provided on the western side of the signalised pedestrian crossing to warn visually impaired pedestrians that they need to be aware of cyclists.
However, pedestrians coming from the east are not warned that they are entering a shared area and this may result in conflict between visually impaired pedestrians and cyclists, especially given the level of pedestrian flow in the area.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that additional corduroy warning is provided.
Design Organisation Response Accepted
The location of corduroy paving will be reviewed at the next stage of design to demarcate the extents of the shared pedestrian/cycle facility.
Client Organisation Comments
[Leave blank for Client Organisation’s Comments]
3.1.15 PROBLEM AB
Location: RBKC: Access into Earls Court Masterplan area opposite West Brompton tube station
Summary: Light segregation feature may cause cyclists to lose control as they move around buses at the bus stop
The scheme proposes a segregated cycle track along West Brompton Road which continues past the Earls Court Masterplan area access. There is a bus stop located immediately after the junction.
Cyclists will need to manoeuvre around any waiting buses, but the segregation feature may either prevent cyclists from turning as early as they would like, resulting in sharper turns and riders falling from their bikes, or cycles clipping the segregation.
Earls Court Masterplan
Stage 1 Road Safety Audit Report
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that length of segregation is shortened.
Design Organisation Response
Accepted
The section of light segregation to the east of the development site access can be removed at the next stage of design.
Client Organisation Comments
[Leave blank for Client Organisation’s Comments]
3.1.16 PROBLEM AC
Location: RBKC: Access into Earls Court Masterplan area opposite West Brompton tube station
Summary: Light segregation used in for a short section of cycle route may be unexpected for road users and result in loss of control collisions
The scheme proposes a cycle track along West Brompton Road which has light segregation between the cycle facility and general traffic. This is proposed for a relatively short section of the cycle route. The rest of the nearby network does not appear to include segregation.
No details of the segregation have been provided (noting that this is a stage 1 RSA).
Cyclists and drivers travelling along the route may not anticipate a short section of light segregation. Depending on the type and visibility of the segregation, cyclists (and other road users) may not see/anticipate the physical constraint and hit it. This may lead to loss of control type collisions.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that any light segregation is clearly visible to all road users.
Design Organisation Response Accepted
The form of light segregation has not as yet been agreed with the local highway authority. As such this item will be reviewed at the next stage of design.
Client Organisation Comments
[Leave blank for Client Organisation’s Comments]
Earls Court Masterplan
Stage 1 Road Safety Audit Report
Junctions
3.1.17 PROBLEM AD
Location: RBKC: Access into Earls Court Masterplan area opposite West Brompton tube station
Summary: Vehicles giving way within the cycle lane putting cyclists at risk
A revised access is proposed into the Earls Court Masterplan area from Old Brompton Road. A segregated cycle lane is proposed across this access.
The scheme includes two sets of give way markings for vehicles leaving the site, the first to give way to cyclists and the second to give way to vehicles. This may result in vehicles waiting across the cycle lane to pull out into the main road.
This may put cyclists using the cycle lane at risk as they try to manoeuvre around the waiting vehicle (especially given the light segregation provided).
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that only give way markings are kept at the northern edge of the cycle lane.
Additionally, it is recommended that cycle symbols are provided across the junction to increase the awareness of cyclists in the cycle lane.
Design Organisation Response Accepted
The road marking layout will be reviewed at the next stage of design with the design refined to include one set of give-way marking. Additional cycle symbols will be considered.
No problems raised within for RBKC within this category
Road signs, markings and lighting
No problems raised within for RBKC within this category
Earls Court Masterplan
Stage 1 Road Safety Audit Report
Transport for London
Vulnerable road users
3.1.18 PROBLEM AAA
Location: TfL: Warwick Road, between West Brompton Road and Earls Court Square
Summary: Cyclists manoeuvring across multiple lanes of busy traffic to enter the dedicated off-side cycle facility may be struck by general traffic
Warwick Road immediately after its junction with West Brompton Road is a three lane one-way street.
The scheme proposes to reduce the number of lanes on Warwick Road to two, to create space for a two-way cycle track. This develops immediately before the junction with Earls Court Square.
Cyclists travelling along Warwick Road will likely be in the nearside lane and will need to cross two lanes of traffic, while general traffic merges and buses pull in and out.
The level of traffic is high on Warwick Road and this manoeuvre is likely to be challenging. This kind of manoeuvre is unusual and drivers may not anticipate cyclists crossing three lanes of traffic. This may result in cyclist collisions.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that an alternative approach is taken to getting cyclists into the cycle tack, making use of the signalised crossing at Earls Court Square. Alternatively, the cycle facility for northbound vehicles could be provided on the western side of the road as a standard one-way cycle lane.
Design Organisation Response
Accepted
An alternative arrangement for the commencement of the cycle facility upstream of the Earls Court Square/Kempsford Gardens junction will be considered at the next stage of design in discussion with TfL and other stakeholders.
Client Organisation Comments
[Leave blank for Client Organisation’s Comments]
Earls Court Masterplan
Stage 1 Road Safety Audit Report
3.1.19 PROBLEM AAB
Location: TfL: Warwick Road, southbound approach to Earls Court Square
Summary: Cycle facility ends without clear instruction for cyclists and may lead to cyclists coming into conflict with other road users
Cyclists travelling southbound along Warwick Road will be in a dedicated two-way cycle facility. Immediately after Earls Court Square the facility is one-way northbound only, with cyclists expected to turn right.
Currently, the design only suggests this with a right turn arrow (noting that this is a stage 1 RSA).
It is possible that cyclists will not see or ignore the right turn arrow, and turn left or continue straight on.
Left turning cyclists may conflict with pedestrians depending on the signal timings. Cyclists travelling straight on will travel “contra-flow” along a very major road and risk head on collisions.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the left turn into Earls Court Square is allowed (to cater for significant movements to the east and south).
It is recommended that more infrastructure is provided at the junction to ensure cyclists do not accidently continue straight over the junction (this may include the alterations to the northbound cycle lane).
It is recommended that adequate signing and lining is provided to inform cyclists of their route options.
Design Organisation Response Accepted
It is expected that the majority of cyclists will continue their route along Earls Court Square/Kempsford Gardens, which forms part of Quietway 15. As such it is not expected that cyclists would attempt to continue along Warwick Road. However, signing will be considered at the next stage of design to avoid cyclists accidentally continuing south along Warwick Road.
Client Organisation Comments
[Leave blank for Client Organisation’s Comments]
3.1.20 PROBLEM AAC
Location: TfL: Warwick Road, northbound approach to Earls Court Square
Summary: Cycle lane approaches put cyclists in a head-on alignment through the junction and may result in cyclist conflicts
Cyclists travelling northbound on Warwick Road will be in a dedicated one-way cycle facility until Earls Court Square. Immediately after the junction this becomes a two-
Earls Court Masterplan
way facility. Cyclists are aligned to cross the junction and enter the cycle lane in the path of southbound cyclists. This may result in head-on cycle conflicts.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the northbound dedicated one-way cycle facility is altered to align with the northbound half of the two-way cycle track which it leads into. Alternatively, the cycle facility for northbound vehicles could be provided on the western side of the road as a standard one-way cycle lane.
Design Organisation Response
Accepted
The design of the entry into the two-way cycle facility from upstream on Warwick Road will be revisited at the next stage of design with the view of aligning the two sections of the northbound cycle facility.
Client Organisation Comments
[Leave blank for Client Organisation’s Comments]
3.1.21 PROBLEM AAD
Location: TfL: Warwick Road junction with Earls Court Square
Summary: Left turn from Kempsford Gardens into the cycle facility is very tight and may result in cyclists losing control or hitting other vehicles
A dedicated two-way cycle track is provided on Warwick Road. Cyclists may be travelling to this track from the contraflow cycle facility on Kempsford Gardens.
The left turn into the two-way track is very tight for cyclists and they may either clip the segregation and fall from their bikes, lose balance and fall as they turn sharply, or move into the path of right turning cyclists to make their turn more manageable.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the left turn is made more manageable for cyclists.
Design Organisation Response
Accepted
The design of the entry/exit to the two-way cycle track to/from Earls Court Square and Kempsford Gardens will be revisited at the next stage of design.
Summary: Segregation between the dedicated cycle facility and general traffic may be hit by road users
Earls Court Masterplan
Stage 1 Road Safety Audit Report
Warwick Road is a busy and well used one-way traffic route. The scheme provides a two-way cycle track on the offside of the road with segregation from traffic. At this stage, limited information is provided on signs and bollards (noting this is a stage 1 RSA).
However, given the level of traffic on the route, failing to inform all drivers of the presence of the cycle facility may result in vehicles clipping the light segregation and losing control, or entering the cycle facility and conflicting with cyclists.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that segregation is clearly visible to all road users, keep left bollards or similar are used on the ends of all sections and that an adequate signage strategy is implemented.
Design Organisation Response Accepted
Signing proposals will be developed at the next stage of design but will include keep left bollards at the ends of the segregation.
Client Organisation Comments
[Leave blank for Client Organisation’s Comments]
3.1.23 PROBLEM AAF
Location: TfL: Warwick Road adjacent to Earl’s Court tube station
Summary: Lack of clear route to tube station leading to cyclists and pedestrians being struck
A dedicated two-way cycle facility is provided along Warwick Road. Cyclists travelling northbound may wish to go to Earl’s Court station.
The scheme provides no clear way for this to happen and so:
cyclists may cross the cycle track in the path of southbound cyclists, conflicting with southbound cyclists
stop in the cycle track until it is safe to cross, and conflict with cyclists behind
or travel through the pedestrian crossing, conflicting with the high volume of pedestrians expected.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that a dedicated northbound route to Earl’s Court tube station is provided.
Design Organisation Response Part Accepted
The amount of space available to allow turning movements at the crossing outside of Earls Court Station is constrained by the land available to achieve the improvements. It is acknowledged that the design anticipates a number of turning movements will take place around the toucan crossing in front of the station. The design of the crossing, waiting areas and general layout will continue to evolve in discussions with
Earls Court Masterplan
Stage 1 Road Safety Audit Report
TfL and this point regarding conflict between cyclists, pedestrians and the visually impaired will be considered further and addressed.
Client Organisation Comments
[Leave blank for Client Organisation’s Comments]
3.1.24 PROBLEM AAG
Location: TfL: Warwick Road junction with Earls Court Access
Summary: Cyclists turning into or out of the Earls Court Masterplan area may be struck by other vehicles
A dedicated two-way cycle facility is provided along Warwick Road. Cyclists wishing to enter or leave the Earls Court Masterplan area are controlled at a new signal controlled junction.
However the facility has a number of related issues:
Cyclists turning into the junction from the south have a tight turn around the end of the segregation island. This will force them to slow a great deal to move into the reservoir and they may be hit by cyclists behind.
Cyclists turning into the junction from the north must cross the opposing lane of cycle traffic to do so. They may need to wait in the cycle lane to do this and they may be hit by cyclists behind. They may also cross over the opposing cycle lane when it is not safe to do so and have a head-on cycle conflict.
More than one cyclist may wish to turn into the access at the same time but the facility allows space for approximately one cyclist (given its alignment).
Earls Court Masterplan
Stage 1 Road Safety Audit Report
This may result in bikes being stationary in the cycle lane and in the way of those travelling along the route, resulting in conflicts between cyclists.
Cyclists turning right from the access may not have enough space to wait away from the path of general traffic on Warwick Road and be struck by them.
Earls Court Masterplan
Stage 1 Road Safety Audit Report
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that all cycle movements are adequately catered for at this junction.
Design Organisation Response
Accepted
The amount of space available to allow turning movements at the northern junction is constrained by the land available to achieve the improvements. It is acknowledged that the design anticipates a number of turning movements will take place and as such facilities have been provided to cater for these. The design will be reviewed as it is developed and space maximised to allow for waiting cyclists.
Client Organisation Comments
[Leave blank for Client Organisation’s Comments]
3.1.25 PROBLEM AAH
Location: TfL: Warwick Road junction with Trebovir Road/ Philbeach Gardens
Summary: Dedicated cycle route begins just after Philbeach Gardens and cyclists at risk as they turn across the traffic to enter
The scheme provides a two-way cycle track along Warwick Road. At its northern extents, Philbeach Gardens lies immediately outside of this provision. Cyclists travelling from Philbeach Gardens wishing to travel right will be turning into this facility as vehicles move across into the third traffic lane which starts there. Cyclists may be hit by vehicles.
RECOMMENDATION
Earls Court Masterplan
Stage 1 Road Safety Audit Report
It is recommended that the start of the southbound traffic facility is extended to incorporate cycles from Philbeach Gardens.
Design Organisation Response Accepted
Consideration will be given at the next stage of design to how to accommodate cyclist turning movements to/from Philbeach Gardens.
Client Organisation Comments
[Leave blank for Client Organisation’s Comments]
3.1.26 PROBLEM AAI
Location: TfL: Warwick Road access into the Masterplan area opposite Earl’s Court tube station
Summary: Visually impaired pedestrians may be unaware of cyclists in the shared footway/cycleway and may be struck by cyclists
The scheme includes an area of shared footway/cycleway connecting the Masterplan area to Earl’s Court tube station. Corduroy paving is provided on the northern side of Warwick Road, but not on the southern side.
Visually impaired pedestrians may not be away of the increased risks due to cyclists being in the area, and there is a risk of pedestrian/cycle conflict.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that additional corduroy paving is provided.
Design Organisation Response Accepted
The corduroy paving layout will be reviewed at the next stage of design to clearly demarcate the extents of the proposed shared footway/cycleway facilities.
Client Organisation Comments
[Leave blank for Client Organisation’s Comments]
Junctions
No problems raised within for TFL within this category
Earls Court Masterplan
Stage 1 Road Safety Audit Report
Road signs, markings and lighting
3.1.27 PROBLEM AAJ
Location: TfL: Warwick Road, between West Brompton Road and Earls Court Square
Summary: Traffic merges from three lanes to two at the same place as buses leave a bus stop, this may result in vehicle conflicts
Warwick Road is a three lane one-way street immediately after its junction with West Brompton Road. However, it is served by two lanes coming from the south, and one each from the east and west.
The scheme proposes to reduce the number of lanes on Warwick Road to two, to create space for a two-way cycle track. This develops immediately before the junction with Earls Court Square. There is therefore only a short stretch of Warwick Road that is three lanes, which is partly taken up by a bus stop.
The location of the lane drop from three lanes to two is located in the same place as the bus stop and therefore vehicles will be changing lanes at the same time as buses are leaving the bus stop. This may result in:
drivers speeding to get around waiting buses, resulting in loss of control type collisions
vehicles late or sharp breaking to avoid entering the cycle lane, resulting in loss of control type collisions
vehicles clipping the light segregation, resulting in loss of control type collisions
vehicles entering the cycle lane, resulting in collisions with cyclists
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that:
the bus stop is relocated to the south and away from the start of cycle track, and
the outside lane continues without merging, but the middle lane gives way to the emerging buses (this may require the third lane being designated as a bus lane)
Design Organisation Response Accepted
The layout of the commencement of the two-way cycle track will be revisited at the next stage of design. Opportunities to relocate the bus stop will be explored in liaison with TfL Buses.
Client Organisation Comments
[Leave blank for Client Organisation’s Comments]
Earls Court Masterplan
Stage 1 Road Safety Audit Report
Local alignment
3.1.28 PROBLEM AAK
Location: TfL: West Cromwell Road (A4)
Summary: Traffic merges from three lanes to two within a short section on the A4 leading to side swipes
A reduction in traffic lanes from three to two is proposed eastbound at the proposed signalised crossing.
The A4 with very busy with vehicles and this reduction may be unexpected for drivers.
Vehicles may merge into the path of other vehicles and collide.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the merge is extended appropriately.
Design Organisation Response Accepted
The length of the merge will be considered as part of ongoing design refinement incorporating the applicable design guidance with adequate deflection arrows to warn drivers of the lane reduction.
Client Organisation Comments
[Leave blank for Client Organisation’s Comments]
4.0 ISSUES IDENTIFIED DURING THE STAGE 1 ROAD SAFETY AUDIT THAT ARE OUTSIDE THE TERMS OF REFERENCE
Safety issues identified during the audit and site inspection that are considered to be outside the Terms of Reference, but which the Audit Team wishes to draw to the attention of the Client Organisation, are set out in this section. It is to be understood that, in raising these issues, the Audit Team in no way warrants that a full review of the highway environment has been undertaken beyond that necessary to undertake the Audit as commissioned.
During event days, there may be a very high footfall towards the Earls Court Masterplan area. This will require considerable management to ensure successful operation of the facilities and accesses within the scope of this audit.
We certify that we have examined the drawings and documents listed in Appendix A. to this Safety Audit report. The Road Safety Audit has been carried out in accordance with TfL Procedure SQA-0170 dated May 2014, with the sole purpose of identifying any feature that could be removed or modified in order to improve the safety of the measures. The problems identified have been noted in this report together with associated suggestions for safety improvements that we recommend should be studied for implementation.
No one on the Audit Team has been involved with the design of the measures.
AUDIT TEAM LEADER:
Name: Jon Noble
Signed: MEng CEng MCIHT MSoRSA
Position: Technical Director
Organisation: WSP
Address: WSP House
70 Chancery Lane
London
WC2A 1AF
Contact: Jon.Noble@wsp.com
AUDIT TEAM MEMBER:
Name: Claudia Di Loreto
Signed: BA MSc MCIHT MSoRSA
Position: Associate Director
Organisation: WSP
Address: WSP House
70 Chancery Lane
London
WC2A 1AF
Contact: claudia.diloreto@wsp.com
Date: 28 May 2024
Date: 28 May 2022
Earls Court Masterplan
Stage 1 Road Safety Audit Report
5.2
DESIGN TEAM STATEMENT
In accordance with SQA-0170 dated May 2014, I certify that I have reviewed the items raised in this Stage 1 Safety Audit report. I have given due consideration to each issue raised and have stated my proposed course of action for each in this report. I seek the Client Organisations endorsement of my proposals.
Name: Justin Sherlock
Position: Technical Director Organisation: WSP
Signed:
5.3 CLIENT ORGANISATION STATEMENT
Dated: 30/05/2024
I accept these proposals by the Design Organisation.
A4 WEST CROMWELL ROAD CYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN CROSSING
DETAILS (where appropriate)
APPENDIX B
Problem Locations
Appendix J –Active Travel Zone Assessment and Safety Inclusion Assessment
1.0 Active Travel ZoneAssessment
Introduction
1.1 An Active Travel Zone Assessment (ATZ) has been carried out on 26 routes as agreed with the Transport Stakeholders. The routes assessed are shown in Figure 1-1
1.2 Each of the routes have been reviewed against the Healthy Streets indicators: Overall routing; People choose to walk, cycle, and use public transport; Everyone feels welcome; Easy to cross; People feel safe;
Figure 1-1: ATZ Routes
Things to see and do;
Places to stop and rest;
People feel relaxed; Not too noisy; Clean air; and Shade and shelter.
1.3 In line with the TfL ATZ methodology the worst point of the journey has been identified in the review. ‘Worst’ is defined as the most unpleasant or potentially unsafe part of the route for pedestrians and/or cyclist.
1.4 Site visits were undertaken on the 30th January 2024 and 1st, 5th, 6th and 13th February 2024. The review therefore reflects conditions as witnessed at that time.
Route Assessments
Route1: BeaumontAvenue to Barons Court Underground Station
Table 1 – Daytime Analysis of Route 1
Healthy Streets Indicator Observations
Overall routing
People choose to walk, cycle, and use public transport
Route 1 largely follows Barons Court Road, a low traffic residential road with sufficient footway width on both sides of the road and overlooking residential buildings for the entirety of the route. The start and end of the route is surrounded by significant shop frontage, with sufficient space along footways and appropriate crossing facilities.
The route is most accommodating to active travel, with Barons Court Road featuring wide footways approximately 3m in width on both sides. The route operates nearly entirely at 20mph and is low traffic so is a more hospitable route for cyclists, along with the exit only feature onto North End Road towards West Kensington Station. Public transport connections are accessible between West Kensington and Barons Court via the District and Piccadilly Line.
Recommendations
No areas for improvement.
Everyone feels welcome
Assessment on site showed a number of vehicles parked in driveways overhang footways making potential constraints for mobility
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
Table 1 – Daytime Analysis of Route 1
Healthy Streets Indicator Observations
impaired pedestrians. Undulating surfaces to the southern face of Baron’s Court Road may also pose a problem in terms of accessibility.
Recommendations
Easy to cross
Shade and shelter
There are appropriate crossing facilities at both the start and end of the route from the stations to and from Barons Court Road with signalised crossing featuring dropped kerbs and tactile paving. The route features a 20mph speed limit with low traffic with appropriate crossing facilities where necessary.
Shade is largely provided along the route on Barons Court Road by trees. Shelter can be found at the junctions between Barons Court Road and both North End Road and Palliser Road respectively as well as at the centre of the route at the junction between Barons Court Road and Barton Road.
No areas for improvement.
Places to stop and rest
Not too noisy
There are no obvious areas to stop and rest along the route. Margravine Cemetery and Queens Tennis Club are located a short walk from the route.
On-site assessment showed pedestrians could have a conversation without raising their voices.
No areas for improvement.
People feel safe
Things to see and do
The start and end of the route, West Kensington Station and Barons Court both exist adjacent to/within a high street with a significant shop frontage that is well lit. Barons Court is a quieter residential road, that is well lit with residential buildings on both sides of the road overlooking the carriageway and footway.
There is significant shop frontage at both the start and end of the route outside the London Underground Stations with both areas featuring restaurants and supermarkets. There are also a handful of pubs and shops towards the centre of the route, along with the Black History Walk, Comeragh Mews and a plaque dedicated to Mahatma Ghandi from the Greater London
Potential implementation of public benches around green spaces at the junction between Baron’s Court Road and Barton Road.
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
Table 1 – Daytime Analysis of Route 1
Healthy Streets Indicator Observations
Council marking where he had lived as a student.
People feel relaxed
Recommendations
Clean air
The route provides wide footways along its entirety, with safe crossing points along these roads in largely very low traffic areas. On-site assessment showed parking within short driveways to the west of Barons Court Road led to overlapping with footway and may cause obstruction for some pedestrians. Uneven paving along the southern side of Baron’s Court Road may lead to people feeling less relaxed when using this route.
Levels of traffic for the most part along Route 1 are very low, with the route following the path of the largely residential Barons Court Road. Traffic is significantly higher along North End Road.
In places, general paving maintenance is needed, with loose paving slabs and undulating surfaces posing potential risks, particularly to mobility impaired users.
No areas for improvement.
Figure 1-2 - Baron's Court Road section towards North End Road (left) and parked cars within driveway encroaching onto footway space on Baron’s Court Road (right)
Table 2 Night-time analysis of Route 1
Consideration
Lighting
Secluded areas
Observations
Lighting is provided through the route and there are clear sight lines.
The route is overlooked, mostly by residential buildings as well as shop frontage in sections.
Surveillance CCTV in places, particularly at eastern and western ends by shop fronts. Main residential area does lack CCTV coverage.
Active frontage
The route has active shop frontage at either end, as well as some shop frontage as well as a pub in the middle sections that are relatively active into the evening with a number of pedestrians around.
Areas for Improvement
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
Figure 1-3 - Active frontage outside Baron's Court Underground Station (left) and section of Baron's Court Road at night (right)
Route 1b: Barton Roadand Palliser Road to Barons Court Underground
Table 3 – Daytime Analysis of Route 1B
Healthy
Streets
Indicator
Overall routing
Observations
The Barton Road and Palliser Road spur (Route 1b) is an alternative minor route and has been identified due to the western section of Barons Court Road changing to one-way for vehicular traffic. Barton Road is a 0.2km spur off Route 1 that features a twoway carriageway between Barons Court Road and Palliser Road, with egress only possible onto Palliser Road, which stretches approximately 0.2km to connect back to Route 1 towards Barons Court Station.
Recommendations
No areas for improvement.
People choose to walk, cycle, and use public transport
Footways along the route are relatively spacious at approximately 2m width, with adequate crossing facilities in the form of dropped kerbs to the east of Barton Road and raised carriageway to the north of Palliser Road. There is no designated cycling infrastructure along the route, however operates along a low traffic residential road. Users of this route are unlikely to be using any form of public transport.
No areas for improvement.
Everyone feels welcome
Easy to cross
Desktop analysis shows that particularly on the northern footway, bins bags are left outside properties which occasionally leads to significant footway narrowing when in the proximity of lamp posts that line the carriageway. Similar issues are at play with the main route, with undulating paving in some sections and cars obstructing footways potentially making it difficult for disabled pedestrians.
There are appropriate crossing facilities at both the start and end of the spur, with dropped kerbs and raised carriageway in place to facilitate easy crossing. The route operates at a 20mph speed limit with low traffic with appropriate crossing facilities where necessary.
No areas for improvement.
Shade and shelter
Shade is largely provided along the route by properties lining the road however there is some green frontage at the key junctions along the route that provide shade and shelter.
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
Table 3 – Daytime Analysis of Route 1B
Healthy Streets Indicator
Places to stop and rest
Observations
There are no obvious areas to stop and rest along the route. Margravine Cemetery and Queens Tennis Club are located a short walk from the route.
Not too noisy
People feel safe
Things to see and do
People feel relaxed
Clean air
The route is situated adjacent to the District and Piccadilly Line which in this section of their routes is above ground, which may be an issue within peak hours. Pedestrians could have a conversation without raising their voices.
The spur is entirely residential with properties on both sides overlooking the carriageway.
There is significant shop frontage at the western end of the spur outside Barons Court Station. Queens Tennis Club is also located a short walk south of Route 1b at the end of Palliser Road.
The route provides spacious footways along it’s entirety, with safe crossing points along these roads in largely very low traffic areas.
Traffic levels along the spur are very low and are unlikely to be a detriment to air quality.
Recommendations
Potential implementation of public benches around green spaces at the junction between Baron’s Court Road and Barton Road.
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
2024
Table 4 - Night-time analysis of Route 1b
Consideration Observations Areas for Improvement
Lighting
Secluded areas
The route is well lit across its length largely from street lighting, as well as residual light provided by neighbouring properties along the route and shop frontage.
The route is well overlooked, mostly by residential buildings as well as shop frontage in sections.
Surveillance CCTV is present in places but is infrequent due to the largely residential nature of the route.
No areas for improvement.
Active frontage
There is a particular lack of both pedestrian footfall and vehicle traffic along the majority of Route 1b, although the western end of the route features plenty of shop frontage which is still active in the evening along with relatively high pedestrian footfall from Barons Court Station.
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
It is noted that this route is a spur and pedestrians may be more likely to use Route 1 as it provides a more direct connection between West Kensington and Barons Court Stations, as well as to shop frontage.
Figure 1-4 - Conflict between parked vehicles in residential driveways overhanging pedestrian footway on Palliser Road (left) and uneven footway on Palliser Road (right)
Figure 1-5 - Night-time ATZ assessment of Barton Road (left) and Palliser Road (right)
Table 5 – Daytime Analysis of Route 2
Healthy Streets Indicator
Overall routing
Observations
Route 2 is 1.5km long and follows the North End Road for the majority of the journey. North End Road is a busy single carriageway road with traffic flowing in both directions. The route starts in a busy commercial area and is overlooked by shops and residences for the duration. There are frequent zebra crossings and spacious pedestrian footways on both side of the road throughout.
Active travel is a popular choice of transportation along this route, this is recommended by useful infrastructure such as wide well-maintained footways, frequent zebra crossings, frequent short stay Sheffield cycle parking and cycle/bus lanes. There are also regular bollards on the footways throughout the route. The speed limit is 20mph for the duration of the route.
Recommendations
No areas for improvement.
People choose to walk, cycle, and use public transport
There are no dedicated cycle lanes along the route, however from the junction with Star Road, the northbound lane has shared bus / cycle / Taxi Lanes increasing ease of cycling.
There are large Santander cycle docking stations at both Fulham Broadway and West Kensington Underground stations further promoting active travel.
The route starts at Fulham Broadway station and ends at West Kensington station providing access to the District line. There are also frequent bus stops along North End Road providing access to a range of bus services.
No areas for improvement.
Everyone feels welcome
Easy to cross
The route consists of wide, level, well-maintained footways throughout most of the journey. Crossings are suited for all users, featuring dropped kerbs and tactile paving. Due to market stalls and shop frontages, some sections of footway on the route are prone to becoming pinch points for pedestrians (see People Feel Relaxed & Figure 1-5).
There are appropriate crossing facilities at frequent and convenient intervals throughout the entire route. These range from zebra crossings to signalised crossings. The crossings all feature dropped kerbs and tactile footways.
What can be done about stalls infringing on the pedestrian footway.
Consider improved crossing points at the double mini-roundabout.
Route 2: Fulham Broadway Station toWest Kensington Station via Lillie Road and North End Road
Table 5 – Daytime Analysis of Route 2
Healthy Streets Indicator Observations
There is a busy double mini roundabout located near the middle of the route which posed the potential to cause issues to pedestrian and vehicle movements. There are four zebra crossings set back from each roundabout arm which provide poor desire lines for pedestrians, this is countered however with railings surrounding each corner of the roundabout pushing pedestrians to use the dedicated crossing infrastructure.
Recommendations
Shade and shelter
Places to stop and rest
There is a lack of trees lining the route however, the tight nature of buildings on both sides of the road provide shade depending on the time of day. The majority of bus stops along the route are covered with seating.
There are few dedicated areas along the route to stop and rest. Pedestrians have the option to utilise low walls as informal resting places along the journey and sheltered bus stops are also available.
Lillie Road and North End Road are busy with pedestrian and vehicle traffic thus creating a noisy environment. The commercial nature of the route also means there are active frontages throughout, further increasing the noise levels experienced.
No areas for improvement.
Not too noisy
People feel safe
Things to see and do
The route is busy, has active shop and residential frontages and is well lit throughout. The small section of the route on Vanstone Place is quieter without many shops, restaurants, or vehicle traffic however it is quite busy with cycling and pedestrian traffic.
Although there are no dedicated cycle lanes along the first half of the route on North End Road, cyclists still maintain safety through the single lane of traffic, low speed limit and convenient crossings.
The route has significant shop frontage for the duration, there is a large variety of restaurants and shops
Installing dedicated formal resting places, such as benches should be looked at along the route.
This level of noise is to be expected on a busy road in central London. However, noise reductions could be achieved by traffic reductions - this is likely to be achieved through initiatives in the Mayors Transport Strategy to reduce reliance on private vehicles.
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
Table
5 – Daytime Analysis of Route 2
Healthy Streets Indicator Observations
throughout. The route is also close to Stamford Bridge and some theatres and markets.
Recommendations
People feel relaxed
Clean
air
The route provides spacious footways along it’s majority, with safe crossing points along these roads. There is potential for conflict however in areas where market stall are set up. As seen in Figure 1-5 some of the stalls have the potential to create constraint points on the footway by narrowing the footways and combined with people stopping to interact with these stalls further restricts the footways (this is only an issue during the day time as the stalls are cleared by the evening).
The route operates within the Ultra Low Emissions Zone. There is vegetation present throughout the route, contributing to cleaner air, however the traffic levels encountered on the route mean the air will not be particularly clean.
Ensuring customers do not stop and obstruct footway
Clean air could be improved along this route via traffic reductions – this is likely to be achieved through initiatives in the Mayor’s transport strategy.
Figure 1-6 - Zebra crossing (left) and food market (right) along North End Road
Table 6 - Night-time analysis of Route 2
Consideration Observations
Lighting
Secluded areas
Surveillance
Active frontage
The entirety of the route is well lit mostly through street lighting as well as from traffic with the carriageway and shop frontage that lines sections of the route (Figure 1-6).
No secluded areas were identified along the route.
Plenty of surveillance was provided along the route, mostly from shop frontage along North End Road and private residential areas.
North End Road had very high traffic flows and pedestrian footfall even during the night-time assessment.
Areas for Improvement
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
Figure 1-7 - Star Road junction with North End Road (left) and active frontage outside Fulham Broadway Underground Station (right)
Table 7- Daytime Analysis of Route 3
Healthy Streets Indicator Observations
Overall routing
People choose to walk, cycle, and use public transport
Recommendations
Route 3 is approximately 450m in length and runs entirely on the A3220 (Warwick Road). It is a oneway road with three lanes of traffic running towards the Warwick Road Tesco. The route has a 20mph speed limit and functions as one of TfL’s Red Routes. There are no areas for improvement.
Route 3 has wide, well-maintained footway on both sides of the road creating a comfortable environment for pedestrians. There are few crossings until reaching the junction with the A4.
There are no dedicated cycle lanes on Warwick Road, and this contributes to a potential issue with cyclists crossing lanes of traffic to access side roads. Warwick Road experiences high levels of traffic, including frequent buses and HGVs from construction sites, this can create an intimidating environment for cyclists (see Figure 1-8). Cycling is recommended along this route, with a Santander docking station located on Trebovir Road, with space for 18 cycles. There are also Sheffield stands at intervals on Warwick Road.
There is one bus stop on the route providing access to the 74, 328, C1, C3, N31, N74 and N97. This is easily accessible for people leaving the Earl’s Court development (no crossings of Warwick Road required) and provide access to Baker Street, Golders Green, and White City, amongst others.
The route begins outside an entrance to Earls Court Underground station, which provides access to the District and Piccadilly lines.
The route has a spur on Philbeach Gardens which leads to St Cuthberts Church. This part of the route is approximately 100m in length and is a one-way road with contra-flow cycling (Figure 17). Philbeach Gardens experiences low levels of vehicle traffic and features wide pedestrian footways and a marked cycle lane for cyclists travelling towards motor vehicle traffic.
Create a cycle facility on Warwick Road
Route 3: Earls Court Road to Warwick Road Tesco via Warwick Road
Table 7- Daytime Analysis of Route 3
Healthy Streets Indicator Observations
The footway is approximately 3m wide on both sides of the route for the duration of the route. Where there are trees and signs on the footway, they don’t interfere problematically with the footway width and there are still high levels on comfort enjoyed by all types of users.
Recommendations
A clear step-free route into the Tesco Superstore should be sign posted to allow ease of access for mobility impaired users.
Everyone feels welcome
Easy to cross
The route ends at the Warwick Road Tesco Superstore, it is unclear the route that mobility impaired users may take to access the store, due to steep steps at the entrance.
Philbeach Gardens has no formal crossing points, bar at the junction with Warwick Road. There are high kerbs and parked cars line the entire footway restricting where informal crossings can take place. This is an issue for mobility impaired users and restricts where they can cross, potentially adding unnecessary length onto their journey.
The route has three signalised crossings, the first is a pelican crossing outside Earl’s Court Station, there is also a pelican crossing approximately 250m into the route on the A3220. Upon reaching the junction with the A4 that requires crossing, there is a system of pelican crossings providing safe passage to the Warwick Road Tesco. Until reaching the A4 junction, there are several crossings that go over side streets, these are uncontrolled dropped kerb crossings with refuge islands and tactile footway.
The infrequent crossing points along Warwick Road lead to an increase in informal crossings from the eastern pedestrian footway to the western pedestrian footway and vice versa (see Figure 1-8).
All crossings follow desire lines and are well maintained and practical for the level of traffic and road type experienced.
A dropped kerb and informal crossing by St Cuthberts Church to allow ease of crossing from one side of the road to the other for mobility impaired users.
Shade and shelter
The route has tall buildings on both sides of the route for the majority of the journey which can provide shade depending on the time of the day. There are also varying types of trees and vegetation that sporadically provide shelter along
Increase pedestrian and cyclist crossing points on Warwick Road to reduce the need for informal crossings for pedestrians.
No areas for improvement.
Table 7- Daytime Analysis of Route 3
Healthy Streets Indicator Observations
the route. The bus stop on Warwick Gardens is also sheltered and can provide respite from inclement weather.
Recommendations
Places to stop and rest
Not too noisy
There is a lack of areas to stop and rest along the route. At the end of the route there is a pedestrianised area outside of the Tesco superstore which has some benches with tree coverage. There is also a long wall right at the start of the route outside of Earls Court Underground station that members of the public frequently use for sitting on. Pedestrians can also utilise the sheltered bus stop on the route for rest.
Due to the high levels of traffic and nearby construction sites the route is party to high levels of noise, however this is expected for a road of this nature and for an area undergoing this much development.
No areas for improvement.
People feel safe
Things to see and do
The road is busy with pedestrian and vehicle traffic, the significant number of lorries and speeds they were perceived to be travelling at speed which can create an intimidating environment for pedestrians and cyclists.
There are streetlights at frequent intervals and CCTV in the area, creating a safe environment.
There are no shops or restaurants located at the start or middle section of the route however St Cuthberts Church is easily accessible. At the end of the route there is a large Tesco superstore, some cafes and a restaurant.
Noise could be reduced with traffic reductions –this is likely to be achieved through initiatives in the Mayors Transport Strategy to reduce reliance on private vehicles.
Consider measures to control vehicle speeds on Warwick Road
People feel relaxed
Most of the route is on Warwick Road, this witnesses high traffic volumes and a large number of HGVs. While walking along the route, it seemed that vehicles were moving at faster speeds than the permitted 20mph. When HGVs were in the lanes next to footways, they also felt very close to the footway, reducing pedestrian comfort levels.
No areas for improvement.
Consider measures to control vehicle speeds on Warwick Road .
Table 7- Daytime Analysis of Route 3
Healthy Streets Indicator Observations
The route carries very high traffic volumes and there is a lack of vegetation and tree coverage on Warwick Road.
Clean air
Philbeach Gardens is tree lined and combined with the lack of significant vehicle traffic, creates a clean environment.
Recommendations
Warwick Road comprises one of TfL’s ‘Red Routes’ and as such will experience high levels of traffic. There is potential to increase planting on each side of the highway.
Figure 1-8 - Warwick Road crossing with high traffic and HGVs (left) and informal crossing over Warwick Road (right)
Table 8 - Night-time analysis of Route 3
Consideration Observations
Lighting
Secluded areas
The entirety of the route is well lit mostly through street lighting as well as from traffic with the carriageway and shop frontage that lines sections of the route.
No secluded areas were identified along the route.
Areas for Improvement
No areas for improvement.
Surveillance
Active frontage
The route is always in view of residential or commercial properties, the high levels of pedestrian and vehicle traffic further contribute to an active and safe environment. CCTV is present and visible throughout all sections of the route.
There are high levels of pedestrian and vehicle traffic along the route and the route mainly passes through residential area with the start and end of the route comprising busy travel hubs and shopping hubs.
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
Figure 1-9 - Crossing over A4 towards Tesco (left) and well-lit footway within residential area on Philbeach Gardens (right)
Route 4: Lillie Road to Brompton Park via Seagrave Road
Table 9 - Daytime Analysis of Route 4
Healthy Streets Indicator Observations
Overall routing
People choose to walk, cycle, and use public transport
Route 4 is approximately 500m in length and runs from West Brompton Station on Lillie Road to Brompton Park via Seagrave Road. Bar a small section of 30mph speed limit on Lillie Road, the majority of the route on Seagrave Road has a 20mph speed limit.
The route has well maintained footways on both sides of the road for the entirety of the route. At the widest sections the footway stretches to 7.5m across and at its narrowest is approximately 2.5m. The road is quiet and combined with a low-speed limit provides an ideal environment for both pedestrians and cyclists. Cycling is further recommended along the route with frequent Sheffield type cycle stands located in the public realm, combined with a wide carriageway and low traffic, providing a safe and relaxing experience.
There are traffic calming measures present throughout the route, that help to reduce vehicle speed and provides additional safety to cyclists and pedestrians, these take the form of speed bumps and road narrowing bollards (See Figure 1-10). There are also frequent bollards along the route providing enhanced safety for footway users.
There are no bus stops along the route so it is unlikely that pedestrians using bus services will use this route. At the start of the route residents have access to West Brompton Station which provides London Overground and National Rail services.
Recommendations
No areas for improvement.
Everyone feels welcome
Easy to cross
The route is suited for users of all types thanks to the wide well-maintained footways, ensuring high levels of pedestrian comfort. When crossing side roads along Seagrave Road, all crossings have dropped kerbs with some also featuring tactile paving.
There is a section towards the end of the route where scaffolding infringes on the footway. This however looks temporary and should be removed when works are complete.
Designated crossings on this route are limited with there being an uncontrolled dropped kerb crossing with
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
Improving the crossing facilities at the Seagrave
Table 9 - Daytime Analysis of Route 4
Healthy Streets Indicator Observations
tactile paving and a 1.2m wide central refuge island at the start of the route on Lillie Road and no others for the rest of the route. The crossing at the start of the route on Lillie Road is set away from ideal desire lines entering Seagrave Road (Error! Reference source not found.) for pedestrians exiting the southern boundary of the development. To avoid this, informal crossing was observed by numerous pedestrians. Lillie Road is a busy road and informal crossing in this location is not safe.
When crossing side roads along Seagrave Road, all crossings have dropped kerbs with some also featuring tactile paving.
Footway widths are constrained on the northern side of Lillie Road at the crossing near West Brompton Station.
Shelter is provided by tall buildings at the start of the route and this transitions to increased tree coverage as you reach further towards Brompton Park.
Recommendations
Road / Lillie Road Junction, to provide a more practical and attractive crossing option.
Improve footway width on northern side of Lillie Road at crossing outside of West Brompton Station.
Shade and shelter
Places to stop and rest
The lack of bus stops reduces pedestrians’ ability to use them for shelter from inclement weather and providing more shelter is something that should be looked at.
There are two benches on the route approximately 120m from the start, however they are not covered and largely unshaded by buildings and trees.
Both benches are also close to the highway which may affect the comfort levels enjoyed by users.
There are sections by the benches where landscaping walls can be used as seating and these provide more shade from the buildings behind, however they have tall hedges running along them which may put some people off (Figure 1-9).
No areas for improvement.
Not too noisy
People feel safe
The route is set away from the busier Lillie Road and the further along the route you go, the quieter it gets.
The route has consistent street lighting from start to finish and combined with the pubs, offices, and shops
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
Table 9 - Daytime Analysis of Route 4
Healthy Streets Indicator Observations
at the start of the route and residences towards the end of the route create a well-lit active environment fostering a safer atmosphere.
Fulham Ambulance Station is located towards the end of the route on Seagrave Road, where there is less commercial active frontage. Ambulances and paramedics were observed always being present during the day and night-time studies (Figure 1-11) and further enhance perceived safety along this route.
There are traffic calming measures present throughout the route, that helps to reduce vehicle speed and provides additional safety to cyclists and pedestrians, these take the form of speed bumps and road narrowing bollards. There are also frequent bollards along the route providing enhanced safety for footway users. CCTV is in place at sections throughout the route, providing a deterrent to potential anti-social behaviour.
Recommendations
Things to see and do
People feel relaxed
Access to the BBC Earth Experience is easy from the start of the route on Lillie Road, and the end of the route finishes at Brompton Park. Stamford Bridge is near to the end of the route and Brompton Park. There are also two pubs towards the start of the route on Lillie Road and on Seagrave Road.
Due to the wide, well-maintained footways the route feels relaxed and pleasant to walk down. The lowspeed limit and little traffic also enhance this experience. There are frequent bins along the route and sections with lots of vegetation.
There was a small section on the western side of Seagrave Road where there was noticeable littering over the footway, reducing the positive experience for pedestrians.
No areas for improvement.
Clean air
Due to the low vehicle traffic, significant vegetation and tree coverage and location within the ULEZ, the route feels clean.
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
Consideration Observations
Lighting
Secluded areas
The entirety of the route is well lit mostly through street lighting as well as from traffic with the carriageway and shop frontage that lines sections of the route.
Langtry Place, at the start of the route, is a housing estate on the eastern side of Seagrave Road. From the route on Seagrave Road, it was noticeably darker and felt more intimidating to look at and walk past (Figure 1-11).
Areas for Improvement
No areas for improvement.
Surveillance
Active frontage
The route is always in view of residential or commercial properties. CCTV is present and visible throughout all sections of the route.
There are high levels of pedestrian and vehicle traffic along the route and the route mainly passes through residential area with the start of the route comprising busy travel hubs and shopping hubs.
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
Figure 1-10 - Crossing point away from desire line over Lillie Road to Seagrave Road (left) and Brompton Park (right)
Table 10 - Night-time analysis of Route 4
Figure 1-11 - Secluded dimly lit Langtry Place (left) and ambulances parked around midpoint of Route 4 (right)
Healthy Streets Indicator
Observations
Overall routing
People choose to walk, cycle, and use public transport
Route 5 is approximately 700m in length and runs entirely on the A3218 (Lillie Road) from West Brompton Station at the start and terminates at Normand Park. It passes various hotels, places of worship and schools. The road is a single carriageway with a 30mph speed limit throughout.
Route 5 has well maintained footways for pedestrians and features dedicated advisory cycle lanes that run in both directions in certain sections. At the widest points the footways stretch across
Recommendations
There are no areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
Route 5: Lillie Road to Normand Park via Lillie Road
Table 11 - Daytime Analysis of Route 5
Table 11 - Daytime Analysis of Route 5
Healthy Streets Indicator Observations
6m, and the narrowest sections are approximately 1.5m across.
There are frequent crossings along the route for pedestrians and cyclists. The route has access to Santander Docking stations, including a 24-space station at the junction with Mulgrave Road.
There is a Toucan crossing outside of Normand Croft School towards the end of the route which provides connections to signed cycle routes that access Fulham Broadway, Putney Bridge and Wandsworth through the Clem Attlee Estate. There are also signed routes to the Olympia and Hammersmith running in the opposite direction past the school.
There are sheltered bus stops at frequent intervals along the route which provide access to the 74, 190, 430, N74 and N97 services.
Access to the London Overground and Southern Rail services are also easily accessible from the start of the route via West Brompton station.
Recommendations
Everyone feels welcome
The largely wide, well-maintained footways allow pedestrians of all circumstances to use the infrastructure without trouble. All crossings have dropped kerbs and most feature tactile paving. Where crossings aren’t signalised they have central refuge islands.
There is a section of narrow footway on the northern side of Lillie Road approximately 200m from the start of the route where the footway ranges from 1.5m to 2m across and is poorly maintained. This is exacerbated by poor parking
There is a possibility to widen the footway in this section to accommodate both residential parking and safe usage of the pedestrian footway. Alternatively, stricter parking restrictions could be implemented to stop abuse of parking on the double yellow lines.
Table 11 - Daytime Analysis of Route 5
Healthy Streets Indicator Observations
which completely restricts the footway forcing users into the highway and poses significant risk for less mobile users. This has been assessed further in the People Feel Relaxed indicator.
The route has a range of frequent crossings for pedestrians and cyclists throughout the route. There are uncontrolled dropped kerb crossings with central refuge islands, zebra crossings, pelican and toucan crossings providing users with a range of safe options for crossing from one side to the other.
Easy to cross
Shade and shelter
Places to stop and rest
Some of the crossings are in poor condition, particularly the uncontrolled dropped kerb crossing with central refuge island opposite the SSK Superstore
The crossing points at the double mini-roundabout are away from the pedestrian desire line and the guard railing makes pedestrians feel squeezed.
The majority of the route has coverage from tall buildings on each side of Lillie Road, there are also trees that add to the shade coverage.
All bus stops on this route are covered and can provide shelter from inclement weather.
There is a lack of areas dedicated for stopping and resting, such as benches along the route. When reaching the end of the route at Normand Park, there are benches within the park that can be utilised for resting. There is also an area with benches towards the middle of
Recommendations
Restoring crossings in poor condition along route 5 should be investigated to provide a more comfortable crossing experience.
Improve crossing conditions at the double mini-roundabout.
No areas for improvement.
Installing resting places at frequent intervals along the route should be looked into along this route.
Table 11 - Daytime Analysis of Route 5
Healthy Streets Indicator Observations
the route with benches, forming part of the West Kensington Estate Tennent’s Association.
Not too noisy
People feel safe
The route is located in a busy part of London and runs along a wellused highway, it was not excessively noisy for the majority of the route. There is a section at the double roundabout junction with North End Road which is much busier and noisier than the rest of the route, however this is passed quickly and expected at such a junction.
The A1328 is a busy road with active shop, restaurant and residential frontages surrounding on both sides for the duration, until reaching Normand Park. It is well lit and there is a lot of pedestrian footfall creating a busy, safe environment for everyone. CCTV is also present in many sections of the route.
Things to see and do
Recommendations
People feel relaxed
The start of the route is very close to the BBC Earth Experience, there are also numerous pubs, shops and restaurants easily accessible on both sides of Lillie Road. The route finishes at Normand Park which has an outdoor gym, green space and a skatepark.
For the majority of the journey along Route 5, footways are wide and well maintained and there are crossings at convenient locations, fostering a relaxing environment for pedestrians and cyclists. However, as previously mentioned in Everyone feels welcome, there is an area of concern opposite the Ibis Hotel towards the start of the route
Traffic reductions are likely to be achieved through initiatives in the Mayors Transport Strategy to reduce reliance on private vehicles.
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
There is a possibility to widen the footway in this section to accommodate both residential parking and safe usage of the pedestrian footway. Alternatively, stricter parking restrictions could be implemented to stop abuse of parking on the double yellow lines.
Table 11 - Daytime Analysis of Route 5
Healthy Streets Indicator Observations
on Lillie Road. Residents with larger vehicles that park in their drives often completely infringe on the footway, forcing them into the highway to continue their journey (see Figure 1-12). While this was observed on both the daytime and nighttime assessment, this was exacerbated during the day by working LGVs parking parallel to the highway on double yellow lines and completely blocking the footway and cycle lane. Forcing pedestrians and cyclists into unsafe environments (Figure 1-12). This was observed frequently during the walk through of the route and will be worse for mobility impaired users to navigate.
Clean air
The route is within the ULEZ zone; however, it is a busy road and there is consistent vehicle traffic. There is vegetation present in most sections, especially at the end in Normand Park.
Recommendations
Traffic reductions are likely to be achieved through initiatives in the Mayors Transport Strategy to reduce reliance on private vehicles.
Figure 1-12 - Illegal and poor parking on Lillie Road obstruction footway (left) and cycle infrastructure adjacent to Mormand Croft Community School (right)
Table 12 - Night-time analysis of Route 5
Consideration Observations
The majority of the route is well lit mostly through street lighting as well as from traffic with the carriageway and shop frontage that lines sections of the route.
Areas for Improvement
Possibility to improve lighting at the entrance to Normand Park.
Lighting
Secluded areas
When reaching the end of the route at Normand Park, only one path through had lighting and consequently the remaining park areas felt very dark (Figure 1-13).
As above, the majority of the route contained no significant areas of seclusion, however when reaching the park, the lack of light away from the main pathway created dark secluded areas.
Surveillance
Active frontage
The route is always in view of residential or commercial properties, the high levels of pedestrian and vehicle traffic further contribute to an active and safe environment. CCTV is present and visible throughout all sections of the route.
There are high levels of pedestrian and vehicle traffic along the route and the route passes through commercial and residential areas.
Possibility to improve lighting at entrance to Normand Park.
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
Table 13 - Daytime Analysis of Route 6
Healthy Streets
Indicator
Overall routing
Observations
Route 6 spans around 1.2km (17-minute walk and 5-minute cycle) between the eastern site boundary opposite Earls Court Tube Station and Sainsbury’s on the A4 West Cromwell Road. The route largely follows the footways adjacent to busy main roads with up to three lanes of traffic in some instances along A4 West Cromwell Road, as well as some sections of high street and quieter residential roads along A3220 Earls Court Road and Penywern Road respectively.
Recommendations
No areas for improvement.
Figure 1-13 - Active travel during night-time ATZ assessment adjacent to Earls COurt Bus Depot (left) and frontage adjacent to Normand Park where sections are particularly dimly lit (right)
Route 6: Warwick Road to A4 Cromwell Road Sainsbury’s via Warwick Road / Penywern Road / Earls Court Road
Table 13 - Daytime Analysis of Route 6
Healthy Streets Indicator Observations
People choose to walk, cycle, and use public transport
The route features footways of a minimum 2m width and in some sections along the high-street frontage on A3220 Earls Court Road extending to up to 6m. There are plenty of crossing opportunities along the route, particularly along A3320 Earls Corut Road and A4 Cromwell Road where there are many signalised crossings with pedestrian refuge islands where necessary. This route is accessible one-way for cyclists and public transport users, with A3320 Earls Court Road only accessible for southbound traffic and the adjacent Warwick Road only accessible to northbound traffic. There is currently little to no cycle space within the carriageway, however speeds along Warwick Road and Earls Court Road are limited to 20mph. There are a number of parked bikes, and Santander bicycles and Lime scooters for hire on Penywern Road, indicating cycling is popular along the route. The frequency of bus stops along Route 6 provide public transport users to a sufficient number of services.
Recommendations
No areas for improvement.
Everyone feels welcome
Accessible features are implemented at most key junctions along the route, with signalised crossing featuring tactile paving and dropped kerbs upon entrance of the carriageway. Raised carriageway features are also implemented across the mouths of side roads, particularly onto A3220 Earls Court Road to facilitate ease of crossing for all pedestrians. The A4 Cromwell Road / Collingham Road signalised junctions features crossing away from key desire lines directly into Sainsbury’s which lead to informal crossing by many pedestrians and cyclists over the busy A4. This appears to be an issue for pedestrians crossing along the north-south desire line from Collingham Road which is not on the route.
Soft measure - It is advised pedestrians using Route 6 use the many available signalised crossings on A4 Western Cromwell Road to use the northern footway to avoid informally crossing towards Sainsbury’s.
Hard measure – provision of crossing (preferably including cycle provision) on western arm of Collingham Road and Sainsbury’s signalised junction. Make drop off area outside Sainsbury’s shared surface.
Easy to cross
Crossings are mostly frequent and are located on desire lines. The signalised junction at Sainsbury’s encourages informal crossing due to the existing pedestrian crossing being located away from the north to south desire line across the road.
Investigate potential for crossing on western arm of signalised junction outside of Sainsbury’s
Table 13 - Daytime Analysis of Route 6
Healthy Streets Indicator Observations
Shade and shelter
Places to stop and rest
Not too noisy
Shade and shelter are provided from buildings themselves and trees which line the route.
There are few places to stop and rest along this route, with no designated public spaces or benches to rest on. Shop frontage including cafés and pubs does provide an alternative option.
Earls Court Road and West Cromwell Road are loud due to the presence of high traffic levels. Warwick Road and Penywern Road sit adjacent to the above ground section of the District and Piccadilly Line.
Recommendations
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
People feel safe
Things to see and do
The route is generally well maintained and benefits from wide, well-maintained footways. The level of traffic and width of carriageway along A4 Cromwell Road may lead to some pedestrians to feel uneasy, however there are frequent signalised crossing facilities with appropriately placed refuge islands that are located along key desire lines if pedestrians find the need to cross.
This route benefits from significant shop frontage, particularly along Earls Court Road with a number of amenities, particularly restaurants and pubs located along the entirety of this section.
Traffic reductions are likely to be achieved through initiatives in the Mayors Transport Strategy to reduce reliance on private vehicles.
No areas for improvement.
People feel relaxed
Clean air
The route is generally well maintained and benefits from wide, well-maintained footways. The level of traffic and width of carriageway along A4 Cromwell Road may lead to some pedestrians to feel uneasy, however there are frequent signalised crossing facilities with appropriately placed refuge islands that are located along key desire lines if pedestrians find the need to cross.
Traffic levels along the majority of the route are high, with little tree frontage along sections of Warwick Road and Earls Court Road. There is a well-established tree line along A4 Cromwell Road, between the footway and carriageway on both sides of the road which will act as a green screen and improve air quality along this section.
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
Traffic reductions are likely to be achieved through initiatives in the Mayors Transport Strategy to reduce reliance on private vehicles.
1-14 - Issues of conflict between large HGVs and cyclists (left) and traffic bottleneck due to red route loading bays (right) on
Figure
Earls Court Road
Figure 1-15 - Cyclists crossing junction on Cromwell Road adjacent to Sainsbury's (left) and informal crossing opposite Cromwell Hospital (right)
Table 14 - Night-time analysis of Route 6
Consideration
Lighting
Secluded areas
Observations
The entirety of the route is well lit mostly through street lighting as well as from traffic with the carriageway and shop frontage that lines sections of the route.
Areas for Improvement
No areas for improvement.
No secluded areas were identified along the route. No areas for improvement.
Surveillance
Active frontage
Plenty of surveillance was provided along the route, mostly from shop frontage along Earls Court Road and private residential areas and hotel lining Cromwell Road and Penywern Road.
Cromwell Road and Earls Court Road were had very high traffic flows and pedestrian footfall even during the nighttime assessment, with Earls Court Road maintaining a particularly active frontage. Penywern Road is a mostly residential road so has no active frontage but still maintains some footfall as a cut through route.
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
Table
Healthy Streets Indicator Observations
Recommendations
Overall routing
People choose to walk, cycle, and use public transport
Route 7 is approximately 500m in length, running from West Kensington Station to the Warwick Road Tesco superstore. It runs along the A4 which is a TfL red route and part of the TLRN (Transport for London Road Network). It is a busy road with this section having three lanes going in both directions, the road also has a 30mph speed limit.
There are footways on both sides of the route for the whole journey, they are also largely protected from the highway by large railings or bollards increasing safety from the busy road.
There are no cycle lanes on the route however there is a large Santander docking station at the start of the route by West Kensington Station that has spaces for 22 bikes. There are also some short stay Sheffield stands in the same location.
Creating a shared pedestrian / cycle footway should be looked into being formalised on this route as cycling on the highway does not appear to be a comfortable or popular choice for cyclists.
Figure 1-16 - Bus stop on Cromwell Road (left) and active frontage on Earls Court Road (right) during night-time ATZ
Route 7: West Kensington Station toWarwick RoadTescovia A4
15 - Daytime Analysis of Route 7
Table 15 - Daytime Analysis of Route 7
Healthy Streets Indicator Observations
No cyclists were observed utilising the highway, instead they chose to use the pedestrian footways (see
Figure 1-17). It was unclear whether this is a formal arrangement, as no shared pedestrian / cycle signs were observed. However, due to the extremely high traffic experienced on the A4, it appeared to be the safe, sensible choice for cyclists.
There is access to bus stops at the start of the route at West Kensington Station with services encompassing the 28, 306, DIS and N28. At the end of the route it is also possible to access West Cromwell Bus Stop outside of the Tesco which has access to the 328, C1, C3 and N31.
Recommendations
Everyone feels welcome
The footway ranges in width between approximately 2.5m and 11m. This allows a good level of comfort for all footway users. The footway is well maintained and feels safe from the highway. All crossings featured dropped kerbs, signals, refuge islands and tactile paving.
There is one pelican crossing at the start of the route and one at the end of the route which are easily usable by all types of users (
Easy to cross
Shade and shelter
Figure 1-17). There are no opportunities to cross at any other point in the route, however there is no need to attempt a crossing at any point in between.
There is little shade and shelter along the route as there are few buildings or trees that provide coverage for most of the route.
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
Places to stop and rest
There are no areas for stopping and resting until the end of the route where there is a pedestrianised area with shaded benches outside the Tesco. There are also some Short Stay Sheffield stands in this area.
Not too noisy Due to the high traffic and six lanes of highway the route is very noisy. However, this route is part of a
As route is short there is no need to provide any additional shelter and shade for pedestrians.
The route is short in nature and as such No areas for improvement.
Traffic reductions are likely to be achieved through initiatives
Table 15 - Daytime Analysis of Route 7
Healthy Streets Indicator Observations
People feel safe
Things to see and do
People feel relaxed
Clean air
Recommendations
TfL ‘Red Route’ and as such is dedicated for high levels of fast-moving traffic throughout London. in the Mayors Transport Strategy to reduce reliance on private vehicles.
The road is busy and there is street lighting throughout at regular intervals. There is a lack of active frontage in the mid-section of the route with no shops or residences on either side of the road as it crosses over a railway line. People may feel less safe in dark conditions.
The nature of the traffic experienced on this road included frequent HGV movements which when in the inside lane can feel quite close for pedestrians, thankfully guardrails are in place that increase feelings of safety.
There is a pub at the start of the route at West Kensington Station and it is also easy to access the BBC Earth Experience from here.
The route is clean, and footways well maintained. The wide footways and segregation from the busy highway also enhance the comfort for footway users.
When cyclists are utilising the pedestrian footways, they can push pedestrians closer to the highway guardrail, reducing comfort (see
Figure 1-17).
Due to the high traffic and six lanes of highway the route is not especially clean. However, this route is part of a TfL ‘Red Route’ and as such is dedicated for high levels of fast moving traffic throughout London.
There is a lack of vegetation along the route which further contribute to poor air quality.
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
A formal pedestrian / cycling arrangement should be looked into to ensure all footway users are maintaining good levels of safety.
Traffic reductions are likely to be achieved through initiatives in the Mayors Transport Strategy to reduce reliance on private vehicles.
There is a further possibility to improve green screening of the highway.
July 2024
Consideration Observations
Lighting
Secluded areas
The majority of the route is well lit mostly through street lighting as well as from traffic with the carriageway and shop frontage that lines sections of the route (Figure 1-18).
The route contained no significant areas of seclusion although there was a slight feeling of isolation by the Santander Cycle Docking station. The constant traffic however, provides surveillance in this area and it is also overlooked by a residential building on the opposite side of the highway.
Areas for Improvement
No areas for improvement.
Surveillance
The route is always in view of residential or commercial properties, the high levels of pedestrian and vehicle traffic further contribute to an active and safe environment. CCTV is present and visible throughout all sections of the route.
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
Figure 1-17 - Cyclists along West Cromwell Road using footway instead of carriageway (left) and pedestrian crossing facility between West Cromwell Road and North End Road (right)
Table 16 - Night-time analysis of Route 7
Table
16 - Night-time analysis of Route 7
Consideration Observations
Active frontage
There are high levels of pedestrian and vehicle traffic along the route and the route passes through commercial and residential areas.
Areas for Improvement
No areas for improvement.
Figure 1-18 - Cyclist on footway over bridge (left) and cycle parking and docking stations (right) on A4 West Cromwell Road
Route 8: West Kensington Station to KensingtonOlympia via North End Road, A315and Olympia Way
Table 17 - Daytime Analysis of Route 8
Healthy Streets Indicator Observations
Overall routing
People choose to walk, cycle, and use public transport
Route 8 spans roughly 1.2km (translating to a 6minute cycle or 17-minute walk) across three main sections, North End Road, Hammersmith Road and Olympia Way. The route passes through a mix of residential and high-street areas across its length along highways ranging between one to two lanes in each direction, including bus lanes, on both sides.
Footway widths along Route 8 vary from around 2 –3m along North End Road to 10m outside Kensington Olympia Station, which are sufficiently wide for pedestrians. There are also appropriately stationed signalised crossings over wide junction that make walking and crossing roads safer and more accessible. Sections of Route 8 become accessible to cyclists where possible, with bus routes designated for use by cyclists and taxis along North End Road and designated cycle lanes on either side of Hammersmith Road. Olympia Way is a one-way road towards Kensington Olympia Station from Hammersmith Road that operates at a 10mph speed limit. There are a number of bus stops and services that operate between West Kensington Station and Kensington Olympia Station. It should be noted cyclists must dismount along the Olympia Way section due to ongoing works on Olympia London.
Recommendations
No areas for improvement.
Remove the ‘cyclist dismount’ restriction on Olympia Way (this may be addressed once construction works are complete).
Everyone feels welcome
Easy to cross
The route offers accessible features throughout, with dropped kerbs and tactile paving along at signalised crossings which feature at regular intervals, particularly along North End Road and Hammersmith Road which have slightly wider carriageways and higher traffic flows. Footway widths are sufficiently wide for all pedestrians. Kerbs are particularly high along North End Road however there are sufficient crossing opportunities with dropped kerbs entering the carriageway space frequently along this section of the route.
Carriageway widths along this route are wide, approximately 22m between the A4 and North End Road junction and 12m along Hammersmith Road, although there are pedestrian islands in the middle of
No areas for improvement.
Review pedestrian crossing facilities
Table 17 - Daytime Analysis of Route 8
Healthy Streets Indicator Observations
the carriageway to ease crossing. In these areas, there are frequent opportunities to cross through the implementation of signalised crossing along the entirety of the route. From Tfl accident data records, a number of collisions were noted, due to poor design features within crossing points, such as the lack of a pedestrian filter light to the south of A4 / North End Road junction and a steep kerb with no dropped section at the signalised crossing to the east of the North End Road / Hammersmith Road Tjunction. An incident was also recorded of a lighting column station in the middle of a pedestrian island that will significantly limit space for vulnerable pedestrians.
Recommendations
Shade and shelter
Places to stop and rest
Shelter can be sought after at Marcus Garvey Park on North End Road towards Hammersmith Road, with plenty of tree cover as well as places to rest. There is some tree cover along North End Road, with the rest of the route being largely open due to the nature of the buildings.
There are a number of pubs, restaurants, supermarkets and shops along the entirety of the route for pedestrians to stop and rest. Marcus Garvey Park is located to the east of North End Road towards Hammersmith Road and features open green space and benches accessible to the public.
No areas for improvement.
Not too noisy
Pedestrians could have a conversation without raising their voices, for most of the route. Construction traffic by Olympia London is quite loud and may lead to difficulty hearing and maintaining conversation.
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
People feel safe
Things to see and do
Footways are wide segregating pedestrians from the road, and wide carriageways as well as shared bus lanes give sufficient space for cyclists.
There are a number of pubs, restaurants, supermarkets and shops along the entirety of the route, mostly in the vicinity of West Kensington Station and along Hammersmith Road. Olympia London is an events venue that is bordered by
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
Table 17 - Daytime Analysis of Route 8
Healthy Streets Indicator Observations
Hammersmith Road and Olympia Way which is under renovation but according to desktop assessment still open.
Recommendations
People feel relaxed
Clean air
The route provides spacious footways along it’s entirety, with safe crossing points along these roads. HGV volumes are quite high with a number of HGVs manoeuvring in the area by Olympia London, which decreases pedestrian comfort levels.
Levels of traffic at certain points are quite high, particularly at the A4/ North End junction and around Olympia London with decreases the air quality.
Advise active travel users follow other routes identified within ATZ towards Kensington Olympia.
Green frontage should be established along sections of highway, similar to what is seen further west on Kensington High Street to improve air quality.
2024
Table 18 - Night-time analysis of Route 8
Consideration Observations
Lighting
Secluded areas
The route on the whole is well lit, mostly by lighting columns lining the highway as well as residual light from active shop frontage.
The route is open and in view of residential and shop areas on the whole. The seating area adjacent to Marcus Garvey Park and The Cumberland Arms is particularly secluded from pedestrians due to the vegetation surrounding it and the lighting column not working which would light the area.
Areas for Improvement
No areas for improvement.
Fix lighting column and ensure continued maintenance of vegetation in area to prevent formation of secluded areas.
Surveillance CCTV is present throughout the route. No areas for improvement.
Figure 1-19 - Cycle lanes provided adjacent to ongoing construction work at Olympia London (left) and pedestrian crossing (right) on Hammersmith Road
Table
18 - Night-time analysis of Route 8
Consideration Observations
Active frontage
A mix of shops and residential buildings line the route, with a number of store fronts staying open relatively late into the night.
Areas for Improvement
No areas for improvement.
Figure 1-20 - Secluded seating area opposite The Cumberland Arms (left) and active frontage along North End Road (right)
Route 9: Warwick RoadTesco to Kensington Olympia via Warwick Road / Russell Road and connection to A315
Table 19 - Daytime Analysis of Route 9
Healthy Streets Indicator Observations
Overall routing
People choose to walk, cycle, and use public transport
Route 9 is approximately 1km in length and runs from the Warwick Road Tesco to Kensington Olympia (with connection to the A315). The route has a 30mph speed limit in all sections apart from the concluding section on Russell Road where it goes down to 20mph.
There are footways for pedestrians on both sides of the carriageway for the duration of the route. The footways are well maintained and wide allowing a good comfort level to users.
There are no dedicated cycle lanes on the route, but there are two Santander Cycle stations. There is one at the junction of Kensington High Street and the A3220, with space for 36 bikes and one at the end of the route outside Kensington Olympia station with room for 22 bikes. Short stay Sheffield stands are also present throughout the route. Access to Cycleway 39 is also possible on Russell Road.
Some of the busier junctions, including the junction of Warwick Road and Kensington High Street feature advanced cycle stop boxes, improving the filtering and safety abilities of cyclists utilising this route (
Figure 1-21).
There are two sheltered bus stops accessible on the route with access to the 9, 27, 28, DIS, N9, N27 and N28 amongst others.
The end of the route is at Kensington Olympia station, which provides access to the London Overground network, the District Line and Southern Rail.
Recommendations
Therearenoareasfor improvement.
There is a possibility to install marked cycle lanes along Warwick Road, where the majority of route 9 runs along.
Table 19 - Daytime Analysis of Route 9
Healthy Streets Indicator
Everyone feels welcome
Observations
The route is suited for pedestrians of all mobility types, the narrowest sections of footway are approximately 2m in width providing ample room for navigating through. There are dropped kerbs at most crossings and the footways are level and in good condition.
There is a small area of concern by the Marriott Hotel, where the shared surface taxi and car drop off point completely obscures the pedestrian environment which may impair restricted mobility users (
Recommendations
Provision of clear signage outside of the Marriott Hotel to direct pedestrians to a safe route past the hotel drop off.
Easy to cross
Figure 1-21).
Due to the busy nature of the road, there are frequent signalised crossings at convenient intervals until reaching the final section on Russell Road. This is a quiet road with a 20mph speed limit and crossing shouldn’t be an issue, however this could be an area to improve. By the entrance to Kensington Olympia station, there were no dropped kerbs on the opposite side of the highway that would allow ease of crossing for mobility impaired users.
Installing an uncontrolled dropped kerb crossing by Kensington Olympia Station should be investigated further.
Shade and shelter
Places to stop and rest
The route is well sheltered due to lots of vegetation coverage and tall buildings on each side of the highway. This is especially pertinent on Russell Road where there is a tree canopy sheltering most of the pedestrian environment.
There is a lack of dedicated areas for stopping and resting along the route, barring small pedestrianised section with benches at the start of the route outside of the Tesco superstore.
There are some low walls that could be used informally for resting, such as at the Warwick Road / Kensington High Street junction.
No areas for improvement.
Installing formal stopping and resting areas along this route should be looked at, as this is a longer than usual route.
Table 19 - Daytime Analysis of Route 9
Healthy Streets Indicator Observations
Not too noisy
People feel safe
The section of the route on Warwick Road is quiet in nature. When reaching Kensington High Street, the environment becomes significantly noisier due to an increase in commercial activity and traffic.
Route 8 is busy with pedestrian and vehicle traffic, there is street lighting at frequent intervals for the duration and CCTV cameras in areas. There is a lack of active frontage along some sections however there are lots of residential properties that overlook these areas.
Recommendations
Traffic reductions are likely to be achieved through initiatives in the Mayors Transport Strategy to reduce reliance on private vehicles.
No areas for improvement.
Things to see and do
There are some shops and pubs along the route that are easily accessible for pedestrians. It is also easy to access the Olympia London and Marcus Garvey Park from the route.
Route 9 is largely within a relaxing environment; Warwick Road is quieter than usual in this area of London and pedestrians have enough room to navigate the footways without worry. The route is clean and pleasant to use.
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
People feel relaxed
Clean air
One area of concern was identified by a parking area for waste collection vehicles. There was a noticeable foul smelling odour whilst walking the length of the building, this however passed quickly and was not present on the opposite footway.
Trees line the route providing a clean and green environment. The new Riverstone development has also planted significant vegetation contributing to positive air quality in the area.
Any further improvement in air quality will be achieved through traffic reductions.
Traffic reductions are likely to be achieved through initiatives in the Mayors Transport Strategy to reduce reliance on private vehicles.
Table 20 - Night-time analysis of Route 9
Consideration
Observations
Lighting
Secluded areas
Surveillance
The route is well lit throughout, mostly through street lighting but also from traffic with the carriageway and shop frontage that lines sections of the route.
The route for the most part contained no significant areas of seclusion, there was however an alleyway on the western side of the route by the Riverstone development that felt dark and secluded (see Figure 1-22).
The route is always in view of residential or commercial properties, the high levels of pedestrian and vehicle traffic further contribute to an active and safe environment. CCTV is present and visible throughout all sections of the route.
Areas for Improvement
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
Figure 1-21 - Obstruction from vehicles on shared surface outside hotel on Warwick Road (left) and signalised crossing with advanced cycle stop lines at junction with Kensington High Street (right)
Active frontage
There are high levels of pedestrian and vehicle traffic along the route and the route passes through commercial and residential areas.
No areas for improvement.
Figure 1-22 - Dark and secluded area on Warwick Road north of Royal Warwick Square development (left) and eastern entrance to Kensington Olympia Overground Station on Russell Road (right)
Route10:Warwick Road to Earls Court Road via Trebovir Road
Table 21 - Daytime Analysis of Route 10
Healthy Streets Indicator
Overall routing
Observations
Route 10 spans approximately 0.5km between the site and Earls Court Road. The vast majority of the route follows the path of Trebovir Road, a residential road operating under a 20mph speed limit which is one way between the junction with Warwick Road to the west and Nevern Square.
Recommendations
No areas for improvement.
People choose to walk, cycle, and use public transport
Pedestrians are likely to cross Warwick Road via the signalised crossing between the eastern site boundary and Earls Court Underground Station. Footways along Trebovir Road section of the route are spacious, approximately 3m in width with the southern footway completely uninterrupted by any junctions or carriageway between Warwick Road and Earls Court Road. Cycling is recommended along the route given the location of the Santander bikes. Trebovir Road itself has generally low traffic levels and wide carriageways make it generally accessible to cycling, along with the cycle lane. There may be issues for cyclists leaving the development at it’s eastern boundary and crossing to Trebovir Road, as cyclist currently have to traverse three lanes of northbound traffic over a less than 50m long stretch of road on Warwick Road. It is unlikely public transport users will travel along this route.
Implementation of a cycles only crossing onto a cycle lane to the east of Warwick Road would be advantageous to cyclists in accessing the cycleway on Trebovir Road.
Everyone feels welcome
Easy to cross
Accessible features are provided along the Warwick Road section of Route 10, with wide dropped kerb sections with tactile paving at the signalised crossing and tactile paving and a raised carriageway section at the crossing to the west of Trebovir Road. Trebovir Road features dropped kerbs across junctions across the route however interface between the footpath and the kerb is very narrow and may make it difficult for pedestrians with mobility impairments difficult to cross.
Crossings are frequent and are located on desire lines. Crossings are appropriate to the nature of the road and are suitable for able bodied pedestrians however some dropped kerbs could direct pedestrians towards carriageway when crossing. Steep kerbs are also a feature along the route which
Install dropped kerbs and tactile paving along desire lines at junctions with Nevern Square and Templeton Place, improve vulnerable users crossing side roads.
Install dropped kerbs and tactile paving along desire lines at junctions with Nevern Square and Templeton Place.
Table 21 - Daytime Analysis of Route 10
Healthy Streets Indicator
Shade and shelter
Places to stop and rest
Observations
pay pose a problem to disabled pedestrians crossing the route.
Shade and shelter along the route is largely provided by tree cover and the shadows from residential buildings that line the route.
There are very few public places to stop and rest along the route, with the only opportunity being Earl’s Court Station (Stop C) bus stop located on Warwick Road. Pedestrians may instead opt to stop and rest within cafes and restaurants located at the end of the route along Earls Court Road.
Recommendations
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
Not too noisy
People feel safe
The majority of the route is low traffic as it is residential in nature, with sufficiently wide paving that has relatively low footfall.
The route benefits from lighting and high pedestrian footfall, which can increase feelings of safety. Much of the route is overlooked by either residential properties or shop frontage. Trebovir Road is stated as a neighbourhood watch area, which may increase feelings of security along this route.
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
Things to see and do
People feel relaxed
Clean air
The route itself is largely residential in nature, with the majority of shops located along Earls Court Road at the eastern end of the route.
The majority of the route is low traffic as it is residential in nature, with sufficiently wide paving that has relatively low footfall.
The majority of the route benefits from established trees, residential planting and low traffic levels.
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
cycle marking
Table 22 - Night-time analysis of Route 10
Consideration
Lighting
Observations
The route is well lit by streetlamps along its length.
Areas for Improvement
No areas for improvement.
Secluded areas No secluded areas were identified along the route. No areas for improvement.
Surveillance
Active frontage
CCTV mostly provided by residential buildings and hotels that line the route. Buildings lining the road overlook the route in it’s entirety.
Some hotels provide a small amount of active frontage, however is largely quiet due to the route being mostly residential in nature. Footfall is relatively high with the route acting as a cut through between Warwick Road and Earls Court Road.
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
Figure 1-23 - Cyclist alongside vehicle in section of carriageway with no
on Trebovir Road (left) and Trebovir Road entrance from Warwick Road (right)
1-24 - Pedestrians using footways (left) and cyclists using carriageway (right) on Trebovir Road during night-time ATZ
Figure
2024
Route 11:Warwick Road to Kensington Olympia via Nevern Square / Nevern Road / Cromwell Crescent / Warwick Gardens and Kensington High Street
Table 23 - Daytime Analysis of Route 11
Healthy Streets Indicator Observations
Overall routing
Route 11 has three starting points on Warwick Road, one at the junction with Trebovir Road and two at the junctions with Nevern Square. These three starting points converge on Nevern Road and proceed up Cromwell Crescent. The route then splits once more with Route 11 spur 11b using Pembroke Gardens and Route 11 continuing onto Warwick Gardens. Route 11 and 11b then converge once more at the junction of Kensington High Street and the A3220 Warwick Gardens where they proceed to the route finish at the junction of Kensington High Street and Warwick Road. Route 11 (minus 11b) is approximately 1.5km long and consists of roads with speed limits of largely 20mph.
Route 11 is well suited for pedestrians, the start of the route features quiet one-way residential roads on Nevern Square and Trebovir Road which continues where they converge on Nevern Road until reaching the crossing over West Cromwell Road. The route has well maintained footways throughout with adequate widths for all types of footway users. The widest sections are 15m and the narrowest 1.5m.
Recommendations
No areas for improvement.
People choose to walk, cycle, and use public transport
The route is attractive for cyclists with lots of dedicated cycle lanes and Santander Docking Stations easily accessible. The one-way road systems in Nevern Square and Trebovir Road all feature contra-flow cycling facilities. Upon reaching Warwick Gardens the route goes against the oneway system and is unsuitable for cyclists. Cyclists should use spur 11b to navigate past this road. Kensington High Street also does not have marked cycle lanes; however, it is a two-way road and cyclists should be able to navigate to the destination with the flow of traffic.
The only bus stops directly on the route are located at the start on the A3220 Warwick Road and at the end of the route on Kensington High Street. These
No areas for improvement.
Table 23 - Daytime Analysis of Route 11
Healthy Streets Indicator Observations
bus stops provide access to the 74, 328, C1, C3, N31, N74, N97, 90, 27, 28, N9, N27 and N28.
Earls Court Underground station is easily accessible from the start of the route on Trebovir Road and provides access to District Line and Piccadilly Line services.
Access to London Overground and Southern Rail is possible at Kensington Olympia, a 300m walk from the end of the route on Kensington High Street.
The footways on the route are wide and well maintained offering a high comfort level for pedestrians. There are dropped kerbs and tactile paving at all crossings offering accessibility to pedestrians of all types of mobility.
Recommendations
Pedestrians using wheelchairs or other aides should be directed to stay away from the footway that surrounds the green space on Nevern Square.
Everyone feels welcome
Easy to cross
There are however some sections that may need to be adjusted for wheelchair users or for parents with pushchairs. The narrowest section of footway on the route is in Nevern Square, with the footway only stretching 1.5m in width around the green space there. This is made worse by lampposts and parking restriction signs which significantly impact on comfort levels. The opposite section of footway from all these narrow sections are however, wide, and well maintained and should offer a good alternative to using the narrow sections.
The route features crossings at convenient and frequent points during the latter part of the journey, after the crossing from Nevern Road over West Cromwell Road to Cromwell Crescent. The only crossing before this point is right at the start on the A3220 Warwick Road between both Nevern Square junctions, it is also a pelican crossing.
At the pelican crossing system in place at the junction of Warwick Gardens and Pembroke Road, there were parts of the crossing where pedestrian controlled signals were not present. This has the potential to intimidate pedestrians and cause distress while attempting to cross as the visibility of some of the traffic flows is restricted.
Installing controlled crossings at the southern most part of the Warwick Gardens / Pembroke Road junction should be investigated.
Table 23 - Daytime Analysis of Route 11
Healthy Streets Indicator Observations
There is one uncontrolled crossing on Warwick Gardens that features dropped kerbs, bollards, and a central refuge island with tactile footways.
When reaching the final section of the route there are frequent pelican crossings over the busy Kensington High Street.
Another area of concern identified was on Holland Road and involved poor desire lines and subsequent uptake of informal crossings. There is a pelican crossing that is set back approximately 20m from Kensington High Street (Figure 1-25). There are three directions of traffic that can utilise Holland Road from Kensington High Street.
Recommendations
Shade and shelter
Places to stop and rest
The route is well shaded by tall buildings and vegetation for the duration. There are bus stops that can be utilised for shelter at the start and end of the route.
There is a lack of places to stop and rest along the whole of the route. There are no benches and only two bus stops that could be used. These, however, are at the start and end of the route.
There are some low walls present throughout the route that could be utilised as informal resting points.
No areas for improvement.
Not too noisy
People feel safe
Until reaching Kensington High Street, noise levels are ordinary for an area of central London. The busier Kensington High Street has increased levels of traffic noise.
Installing benches or resting areas along the route should be looked at.
Route 11 is well lit throughout and passes through busy residential areas, busy highways and busy high streets with active shops and office frontages. There is CCTV throughout creating a safe environment.
Users of the uncontrolled crossing on Warwick Gardens should be wary of HGV traffic that due to the narrow highway past the crossing, can feel very
Traffic reductions are likely to be achieved through initiatives in the Mayors Transport Strategy to reduce reliance on private vehicles.
Soft measures could be installed around the crossing on Warwick Gardens to warn both drivers and pedestrians to be wary / reduce speed.
Table 23 - Daytime Analysis of Route 11
Healthy Streets Indicator Observations
close. The road narrows to approximately 2.7m and lorries can move past at speed (Figure 1-25).
Recommendations
Things to see and do
People feel relaxed
Clean air
The popular St Cuthberts Church at Philbeach Gardens is easily accessible from the start of the route. The end of the route is also close to the popular Olympia London events venue and Marcus Garvey Park.
Wide footways and frequent crossings create a relaxed atmosphere throughout most of the route. There are some sections as mentioned in previous sections where safety could be improved. The traffic increases towards the end of the route on Kensington High Street, however this is mitigated by wider footways and increased signalised crossings.
There are trees and other vegetation present throughout the entirety of the route. The first few sections are relatively low traffic, so the air quality feels positive. Upon reaching the busier Warwick Gardens and Kensington High Street, traffic increases and has an effect on air quality.
There are no areas for improvement.
There are no areas for improvement.
Traffic reductions are likely to be achieved through initiatives in the Mayors Transport Strategy to reduce reliance on private vehicles.
Table 24 - Night-time analysis of Route 11
Consideration Observations
Lighting
Secluded areas
Surveillance
Active frontage
The route is well lit throughout, mostly through street lighting but also from traffic with the carriageway and shop frontage that lines sections of the route.
Route 11 contained no noticeable areas of seclusion.
The route is always in view of residential or commercial properties, the high levels of pedestrian and vehicle traffic further contribute to an active and safe environment. CCTV is present and visible throughout all sections of the route.
There are high levels of pedestrian and vehicle traffic along the route and the route passes through commercial and residential areas.
Areas for Improvement
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
Figure 1-25 - Holland Road pelican crossing away from desire lines (left) and high HGV traffic southbound on Warwick Gardens (right)
Figure 1-26 - Active frontage on Kensington High Street (left) and cyclist using footway on Cromwell Crescent (right)
Route11b: Pembroke Gardens and Kensington High Street
Table 25 - Daytime Analysis of Route 11b
Healthy Streets Indicator Observations
Overall routing
People choose to walk, cycle, and use public transport
Route 11b is a spur off of route 11 that offers a different route in the midsection of the route, which is especially pertinent for cyclists as it avoids the one-way Warwick Gardens. Route 11b is approximately 500m in length and runs along the 20mph Pembroke Gardens and 30mph Kensington High Street.
Pembroke Gardens operates a contra-flow cycling system with motorised traffic flowing in the same direction of the route, offering a safe and welcoming cycling experience. This is an attractive alternative from having to dismount and walk along Warwick Gardens. Kensington High Street does not have marked cycle lanes however it is a wide carriageway with multiple lanes in each direction.
Pembroke Gardens has well maintained wide footways for most of the road however there is a section towards the end where they are narrow and in poor condition in some areas. The main area of concern is surrounding Edwards Square. The narrowest parts are approximately 1m and this is made worse by parking signs and lampposts that further restrict ease of passage. This causes serious restrictions to wheelchair users and pram users. A mobility scooter was observed using the highway as an alternative to the footway.
There is one bus stop on Route 11b located on Kensington High Street. This provides access to bus services 9, 27, 28, 49, C1, N9, N27 and N28.
Recommendations
No areas for improvement.
Everyone feels welcome
For the most part the route is well suited to pedestrians of all types. However as mentioned above, there are sections where wheelchair users or pram users will have to make sure they stay on the correct side of the road to ensure comfort when passing through the narrow footway sections.
Lighting columns and signposts should be moved in order to create safe passage for all types of pedestrians.
Look into alternative lighting and signposting arrangements in order to create room for all pedestrians.
Table 25 - Daytime Analysis of Route 11b
Healthy Streets Indicator Observations
Easy to cross
Shade and shelter
There are no crossing facilities for most of the route, bar one pelican crossing at the end that reconnects this spur to Route 11. Pembroke Gardens is a quiet one-way road however and crossing should not be much of a difficulty for the majority of users.
Route 11b is well sheltered by residential buildings and tall vegetation, offering plenty of shade from the sun. There is a lack of bus stops or canopies which may provide difficulty gaining shelter from rain however the trees on route should help counter this.
Recommendations
No areas for improvement
Places to stop and rest
Not too noisy
There is a lack of formal places to stop and rest along Route 11b. There are some low walls that could be utilised as informal resting places.
Due to the quiet residential nature of Pembroke Gardens and low traffic levels, the route is quiet.
No areas for improvement.
Installing a bench on Pembroke Gardens should be looked at.
No areas for improvement.
People feel safe
Things to see and do
The route is fully visible by residential properties at all times and is well lit providing a safe environment. It is low traffic and parking on both sides of the highway creates an additional barrier to the highway along the route.
This is only a short spur from the main route 11 that runs along mainly residential roads, as such there are no explicit attractions or things to do. There is a small square with green space at Edwardes Square and some cafes and restaurants on Kensington High Street.
No areas for improvement.
People feel relaxed
This is only a short spur from the main route 11 that runs along mainly residential roads, as such there are no explicit attractions or things to do. There is a small square with green space at Edwardes Square and some cafes and restaurants on Kensington High Street.
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
Table 25 - Daytime Analysis of Route 11b
Healthy Streets Indicator Observations
Clean air
As noted above, the low traffic levels contribute positively to air quality in this area. There are also frequent trees and the private Edwardes Square gardens that all contribute positively to air quality (See Figure 1-29).
Recommendations
No areas for improvement.
Figure 1-27 - Narrow paving along Edwardes Square and Pembroke Gardens creating pinchpoints
Table 26 - Night-time analysis of Route 11b
Consideration Observations
Lighting
Secluded areas
Surveillance
Active frontage
The route is well lit throughout, mostly through street lighting but also from the residences that line the route.
The route contained no significant areas of seclusion.
The route is always in view of residential properties (Figure 1-30). CCTV is present and visible throughout all sections of the route.
There is low pedestrian and vehicle traffic along this route due to the residential nature. The residences do overlook all parts of the route, however.
Areas for Improvement
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
Figure 1-28 - Pembroke Gardens during night-time ATZ (left) and active frontage and cyclists on carriageway on Kensington High Street (right)
Table 27 - Daytime Analysis of Route 12
Healthy Streets Indicator Observations
Overall routing
People choose to walk, cycle, and use public transport
Route 12 operates approximately 0.5km (6minute walk and 3-minute cycle) between Warwick Road and Earls Court Road along Nevern Place and Nevern Square. The route operates entirely under a 20mph speed limit and is entry only to it’s western end from Warwick Road, and functions as an eastbound only route to the west of Templeton Place and vice versa to the east.
The route features wide pedestrian footways which are up to 3.0m in most instances. The route is low traffic and largely one-way and features dropped kerbs, tactile paving and raised carriageways at appropriate locations along the route, maintaining key desire lines. This route is conducive for cycling, with vehicular traffic flowing in one direction for the entirety of the route and regularly featured cycle marking within the carriageway. Cyclists are permitted to travel in both directions along the majority of the route, except for westbound along Nevern Place between Templeton Place and Nevern Square.
Recommendations
No areas for improvement.
Potential to allow cyclists to travel westbound into Nevern Place from Templeton Place to connect to westbound cycle infrastructure north of Nevern Square (currently no entry to all forms of traffic).
Everyone feels welcome
The route features wide footways across its length, with appropriate crossing facilities in most instances. All crossing points do feature dropped kerbs however most lack tactile paving and also aren’t aligned with the key desire lines of the route, with the flush sections of the dropped kerb covering a small section of the corner circumference which may make it difficult for pedestrians with mobility impairments to navigate sections of the route. The footway following the boundary of Nevern Square is also narrow and could be constrained in some sections for mobility impaired pedestrians.
Implement dropped kerbs with tactile paving across junctions along key desire lines and widen dropped kerb flush sections with the carriageway to facilitate easier transition between road and footway.
Route 12: Nevern Place to Earls Court Road via Nevern Square
Table 27 - Daytime Analysis of Route 12
Healthy Streets Indicator Observations
Easy to cross
Shade and shelter
Crossing points are frequent and located on desire lines. Crossing facilities are appropriate for most pedestrians however could be improved for pedestrians with mobility impairments.
Shade and shelter is largely provided through the planting at the extents of Nevern Square Gardens at the centre of the route and cover from the residential properties that line the route.
Recommendations
Implement tactile paving at dropped kerb sections and increase width of flush section between carriageway and footway.
No areas for improvement.
Places to stop and rest
Not too noisy
There are no obvious areas to stop and rest along the route. Pedestrians may opt to stop and rest within shops and restaurants along Earls Court Road.
Warwick Road and Earls Court Road have significantly higher traffic flow than that of Nevern Place and Nevern Square, which may generate some noise pollution at either end of Route 12.
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
People feel safe
Things to see and do
People feel relaxed
The route is largely residential and low traffic, with properties overlooking footways from both sides of the road for the majority of the route.
The route is largely residential so there is little to see or do, however there is significant shop frontage to the eastern end of the route at Earls Court Road.
The route is largely residential with low traffic levels and footfall on spacious footways and carriageways.
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
Clean air
Warwick Road and Earls Court Road have significantly higher traffic flow than that of Nevern Place and Nevern Square, which may generate some air pollution at either end of Route 12. Nevern Square benefits from its locality to Nevern Square Gardens and its associated planting.
Review planting.
Table 28 - Night-time analysis of Route 12
Consideration
Lighting
The route is well lit along its entirety from street lighting and partly residential frontage.
Secluded areas No secluded areas were identified along the route.
Surveillance CCTV is provided from private properties that line the route.
Active frontage
The route is residential so how minimal active frontage however relatively high footfall due to it’s proximity with Earls Court Road.
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
Figure 1-29 - Poor crossing facilities over Nevern Square with steep kerb on opposite side (left) and contraflow cycle lane into Nevern Place (right)
Table 29 - Daytime Analysis of Route 13
Healthy Streets
Indicator
Overall routing
People choose to walk, cycle, and use public transport
Observations
Route 13 spans approximately 0.8km (11minute walk and 7-minute cycle) between Old Brompton Road and Earls Court Road. The route mostly operates at 20mph and follows the path of Quietway 15 through Kempsford Gardens.
Pedestrian footfall is high along the route, particularly adjacent to West Brompton Station and along Earls Court Road, with the route featuring wide footways along its entirety. Cycle infrastructure is featured along the entirety of the route, with Quietway 15 facilitating for high cycle traffic along
Recommendations
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
Figure 1-30 - Well-lit area with high surveillance outside Kensington Court Hotel (left) and active frontage towards Earls Court Road (right)
Route 13: Lillie Road to Earls Court Road/Quietway 15 via Lillie Road / Old Brompton Road (Plus connection onWarwick Road)
Table 29 - Daytime Analysis of Route 13
Healthy Streets Indicator Observations
Kempsford Gardens and Earls Court Square along with an abundance of cycle parking. It is unlikely pedestrians would use public transport for this specific route, however there are a number of bus services that are available on Route 13 itself and adjacent spurs along Old Brompton Road and Earls Court Road.
Recommendations
Everyone feels welcome
Easy to cross
Footways along the entirety of the route are wide and adequate crossing facilities for disabled pedestrians are provided at appropriate locations.
The majority of the route features adequate crossing facilities at appropriate locations, however the signalised crossing at the bridge over West Brompton Station is located away from the desire line entering/leaving the station which does lead to informal crossing over Lillie Road.
No areas for improvement.
Review crossing location and look at further crossings associated with desire line to/from east
Shade and shelter
Places to stop and rest
Bus stops along the route and tress lining the carriageway provide sufficient shade and shelter.
Brompton Cemetery offers an opportunity to stop and rest, with plenty of benches and a café. Pedestrians may also opt to stop and rest in other pubs, restaurants and cafes along Old Brompton Road/Lillie Road.
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
Not too noisy
People feel safe
Old Brompton / Lillie Road and Earls Court Road have high traffic and pedestrian footfall making the route quite noisy.
The route has quite a high pedestrian footfall, with the route operating at a low-speed limit with wide footways in most sections as well as following a mostly residential route at it’s centre.
These roads make up short sections of the route and pedestrians are able to escape the noise along Kempsford Gardens and Earls Court Square.
No areas for improvement.
Table 29 - Daytime Analysis of Route 13
Healthy Streets Indicator Observations
Things to see and do
People feel relaxed
Clean air
There is significant shop frontage along Lillie Road/Old Brompton Road to the west and Earls Court to the east.
The route has quite a high pedestrian footfall, with the route operating at a low-speed limit with wide footways in most sections as well as following a mostly residential route at it’s centre.
Plenty of vegetation lines the route in it’s entirety, particularly by the adjacent Brompton Cemetery.
Recommendations
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
1-31 - West Brompton Overground Station with crossing away from desire lines (left) and Quietway 15 signalised junction with cycle infrastructure over Earls Court Road
Figure
(right)
Table 30 - Night-time analysis of Route 13
Consideration Observations
Lighting
Secluded areas
The route is well lit throughout its length with the exception of Kramer Mews to the north of Kempsford Gardens which is a significantly dark patch.
Kramer Mews is significantly darker than the surrounds road however is relatively open and is overlooked by a number of residential properties.
Surveillance CCTV is provided by private properties along the entirety of the route.
Active frontage
Active frontage is provided mostly along Earls Court Road and Lillie Road / Old Brompton Road. Kempsford Gardens is more residential in nature but has high pedestrian footfall and cycle traffic.
Areas for Improvement
Installation of a lighting column at the entrance to Kramer Mews.
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
Figure 1-32 - Kramer Mews dark and secluded spot during night-time ATZ (left) and cyclists using Quietway 15 (right)
Route13b: Warwick Road Connection
Table 31 - Daytime Analysis of Route 13b
Healthy Streets Indicator Observations
Overall routing
People choose to walk, cycle, and use public transport
Route 13b is a spur off of the main Route 13 that spans approximately 0.2km (3-minute walk and 1minute cycle) along Old Brompton Road and Warwick Road. The route operates at 20mph, with Old Brompton Road operating in both directions and Warwick Road operating one-way northbound.
The route features wide footways along its entirety and has high pedestrian footfall. Cycle traffic appears to be significantly low on this route, given Warwick Road is one-way along this section as well as its proximity to Quietway 15 on Kempsford Gardens. Plenty of bus stops line the route providing access to a number of services.
Recommendations
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvements – cyclists likely to use Quietway 15 route.
Everyone feels welcome
Easy to cross
Shade and shelter
Places to stop and rest
Not too noisy
Footways are well maintained and appeared to be well navigated by pedestrians with limited mobility during site assessment.
There are limited opportunities to cross Old Brompton Road from south to north to access Warwick Road, with pedestrians having to navigate away from key desire lines crossing at the Old Brompton Road / Finborough Road / Warwick Road junction, which does not feature controlled crossings on all arms.
Trees and bus stops lining the route provide plenty of shade and shelter for pedestrians.
Brompton Cemetery offers an opportunity to stop and rest, with plenty of benches and a café. Pedestrians may also opt to stop and rest in other restaurants and cafes along Old Brompton Road.
The route is noisy due to the high traffic and pedestrian footfall.
No areas for improvement.
Opportunities to improve the crossing facilities at the Old Brompton Road/Warwick Road junction should be explored
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
It is recommended that pedestrians who are troubled by the noisy nature of the route use the quieter and more residential Route 13.
Table 31 - Daytime Analysis of Route 13b
Healthy Streets Indicator
People feel safe
Things to see and do
Observations
Carriageway and footway widths are relatively wide along the route which aids segregating pedestrians from traffic, leading to feelings of safety.
There is shop frontage located along the Old Brompton Road section of this route, as well as Brompton Cemetery.
Recommendations
No areas for improvement.
People feel relaxed
The route is relatively high traffic and has high pedestrian fall which does not aid in making the route feel relaxing.
No areas for improvement.
Clean air
The route has significant tree frontage along the carriageway and from the adjacent Brompton Cemetery.
It is recommended that pedestrians who are troubled by the busier nature of the route use the more relaxed Route 13.
No areas for improvement.
2024
Consideration
Lighting
Secluded areas
Surveillance
Active frontage
Observations
The route is well lit along its entirety via street lighting, as well as traffic and shop frontage along the route.
No secluded areas were identified along the route.
CCTV is provided mostly by shop frontage lining the north of the route.
The route feature high pedestrian footfall and shop frontage along Old Brompton Road.
Areas for Improvement
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
Figure 1-33 - Signalised crossing (left) and informal crossing (right) over Warwick Road
Table 32 - Night-time analysis of Route 13b
Route13c: Old Brompton Road and Earls Court Road
Table 33 - Daytime Analysis of Route 13c
Healthy Streets Indicator Observations
Overall routing
People choose to walk, cycle, and use public transport
Route 13c is a spur of Route 13 spanning approximately 0.4km (5-minute walk and 2-minute cycle) along the A3218 and Earls Court Road. The route operates between 20-30mph with A3218 operating in both directions whilst Earls Court Road is one-way only southbound.
The route features wide footways along its entirety with high pedestrian footfall indicating it is a popular walking route. Junctions on A3218 feature advanced cycle stop lines with a number of Sheffield Stands also lining the route. There are a number of bus stops and services accessible along the route for public transport users.
Recommendations
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
Figure 1-34 - Active and well-lit shop frontage on Old Brompton Road (left) and signalised crossing over Warwick Road (right)
Table 33 - Daytime Analysis of Route 13c
Healthy Streets Indicator
Everyone feels welcome
Easy to cross
Shade and shelter
Places to stop and rest
Observations
Footways and crossings along the route are suitable for all pedestrians.
Route 13c features high vehicular traffic along its entirety but features appropriate signalised crossings that follow key desire lines of the route.
Trees and bus stops lining the route provide plenty of shade and shelter for pedestrians.
Pedestrians may opt to stop and rest on benches or bus stops that line the route, as well as stopping in pubs and cafes that line the route.
The route has high traffic and relatively high pedestrian footfall.
Recommendations
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
Not too noisy
People feel safe
Wide footways and appropriate signalised crossing help segregate pedestrians from vehicular traffic improving feelings of safety. Cyclists may feel unsafe using Earls Court Road heading southbound due to the amount of vehicular traffic and HGVs using the route. At the Old Brompton Road/Warwick Road junction the traffic signals do not feature controlled pedestrian crossing facilities on all arms.
Things to see and do Significant shops frontage provides pedestrians with access to restaurants, cafes and pubs.
The route has high traffic and relatively high pedestrian footfall.
It is recommended that pedestrians who are troubled by the noisy nature of the route use the quieter and more residential Route 13.
Cyclists who feel unsafe using sections of the route would be recommended to use Route 13 and Quietway 15.
Investigate the potential for including controlled pedestrian crossing facilities in the Old Brompton Road/Warwick Road traffic signals.
No areas for improvement.
People feel relaxed
It is recommended that pedestrians who are troubled by the busier nature of the route use the quieter Route 13.
Table 33 - Daytime Analysis of Route 13c
Healthy Streets Indicator
Clean air
Observations
The route has significant tree frontage along the carriageway in its entirety.
Recommendations
No areas for improvement.
Figure 1-35 - Signalised crossings following desire lines at Earls Court Road/Old Brompton Road (left) and Warwick Road/Old Brompton Road (right). Not lack of control for pedestrians within traffic signal junction.
Table
34 - Night-time analysis of Route 13c
Consideration
Lighting
Observations
The route is well lit along its entirety via street lighting, as well as traffic and shop frontage along the route.
Areas for Improvement
No areas for improvement.
Secluded areas No secluded areas were identified along the route. No areas for improvement.
Surveillance
Active frontage
CCTV is provided mostly by shop frontage lining the route.
The route feature high pedestrian footfall along its entirety.
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
Figure 1-36 - High pedestrian footfall during night-time ATZ (left) and active frontage (right) along Earls Court Road
Route 14:To North End Road via Mund Street / Aisgill Avenue /Thaxton Road
Table 35 - Daytime Analysis of Route 14
Healthy
Streets
Indicator
Overall routing
People choose to walk, cycle, and use public transport
Observations
Route 14 is approximately 600m in length and runs from Thaxton Road to North End Road via Aisgill Avenue and Mund Street. It runs entirely through residential areas and has a 20mph speed limit for the duration.
The route has pedestrian footways on both sides of the highways, barring a small section of approximately 300m on Aisgill Avenue. At the widest sections the footways stretch to 8m and the narrowest sections are 1.6m. The footways are well maintained in some areas however they are largely somewhat degraded. There were multiple areas where LGVs and cars blocked pedestrian footways when parked in their driveways (Figure 1-37).
There is no dedicated cycling infrastructure such as cycle lanes or docking stations for Santander cycles along the route, however the quiet residential nature of the route combined with the 20mph speed limits asserts a welcoming cycling environment.
There is a section by the Earls Court Community Hub where cyclists will have to dismount to navigate by guard railing (Figure 1-37).
There is no access to bus stops or rail networks from the route. The nearest bus stop is West Kensington Estate (70m south of the finish) on North End Road.
Recommendations
No areas for improvement.
Everyone feels welcome
Easy to cross
The route has wide footways that are level and in some places poor condition, however unofficial parking and large vehicles in small drives block the footway completely forcing users onto the highway to continue their journey (Figure 1-37).
There are no dedicated crossings along the route, however, the route passes through a quiet residential area with minimal traffic and there is a low-speed limit and good visibility throughout easing informal crossings.
Review footway provision and maintenance of footways
Consider measures to improve footway provision
No areas for improvement.
Table 35 - Daytime Analysis of Route 14
Healthy Streets Indicator
Shade and shelter
Places to stop and rest
Observations
There are no dedicated areas that provide shade and shelter along the route, tree canopies can provide informal shelter.
There are few dedicated places to stop and rest along the route. Towards the northern end of the route there is a park by Lillie Road where there are benches.
Recommendations
Installing a formal location for shade and shelter should be investigated along this route.
No areas for improvement.
Not too noisy
People feel safe
The route is largely quiet from the high traffic on North End Road, although there was some noticeable construction noise by the Watt Place flats. This is not noticeable for the rest of the route.
The route has street lighting at frequent intervals however due to the residential nature of the area and lack of any shops or restaurants there is no active frontage, and it is quiet. CCTV is sporadically placed throughout the route although not easily noticeable in some areas. This may foster an environment that feels unsafe for some people.
No areas for improvement.
Things to see and do
People feel relaxed
The route passes nearby to the Ivatt Place Playground, Aisgall Avenue basketball court and an outside gym. There is also the Earls Court community hub.
The route is low traffic and quiet creating a relaxing environment. There were some abandoned vehicles and litter scattered around although it was pleasant for the most part.
Removing abandoned cars and improving CCTV coverage in this area should be looked into.
Clean air
The route is low traffic and there are trees and other vegetation present throughout the journey.
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
Figure 1-37 - LGVs overhanging pedestrian footways (left) and gated footway at dead end in carriageway (right) on (Aisgill Road)
Table 36 - Night-time analysis of Route 14
Consideration
Lighting
Observations
The route is mostly well-lit throughout via street lighting.
Areas for Improvement
No areas for improvement.
Secluded areas
Surveillance
Active frontage
The forecourt by the Earl’s Court Community Hub was identified as feeling slightly secluded and dark in comparison to the rest of the route (Figure 1-38).
The route is always in view of residential properties and CCTV appears to be present on parts of the route.
Due to the residential environment the route passes through there is little active frontage and low pedestrian footfall.
Improving lighting in this area would discourage any potential anti-social behaviour and improve the ease of passage for all users.
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
Figure 1-38 - Dark areas outside the Community Hub (left) and basketball court (right) on Aisgill Avenue
2024
Table 37 - Daytime Analysis of Route 15
Healthy Streets Indicator Observations
Overall routing
People choose to walk, cycle, and use public transport
Route 15 is a relatively short route between A4 West Cromwell Road and North End Road, spanning just over 0.1km (translating to a 3minute walk or 1-minute cycle) along Edith Villas. The road allows access to vehicles only from North End Road and terminates towards the footway to the north of A4 West Cromwell Road, operating under a 20mph speed limit.
Edith Villas is a very quiet, low traffic residential road hospitable to walking particularly on the southern side with footways approximately 3.5m wide, with narrower footways of around 1.5m to the north. The very low traffic and low speed limit road is also accommodating to cyclists. It is unlikely pedestrians using public transport are to use the route, with no bus stops along the route’s entirety.
Recommendations
No areas for improvement.
Everyone feels welcome
Easy to cross
Dropped kerbs are featured to the north at the junction with North End Road, as well as at vehicle access points to the residential developments. There appears to be no tactile paving at these crossings from desktop assessment.
There are no designated crossings over the carriageway, other than where the dropped kerbs are located at the junction with North End Road and at the end where the footways from Edith Villas meet the footpaths lining the north of A4 West Cromwell Road.
No areas for improvement.
Shade and shelter
Places to stop and rest
There is significant shelter from vegetation to the north of the road along the footway as well as from the residential blocks to the south of the route.
No clear places to rest identified along route, however a coffee shop to the north does provide benches outside store front.
Implement tactile paving at dropped kerbs to improve accessibility.
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
Implementation of public benches, particularly at southern end of road where there is more public space available.
Route 15: A4 West Cromwell Road to North End Road via Edith Villas
Table 37 - Daytime Analysis of Route 15
Healthy Streets Indicator Observations
Not too noisy
People feel safe
Things to see and do
People feel relaxed
Pedestrians could have a conversation without raising their voices.
The route is very low traffic with vehicles operating at slow speeds when present.
There is some frontage with shops and cafes at the junction with North End Road.
The route provides spacious enough footways along its entirety as well as having very low traffic flow which is largely residents of the road.
Recommendations
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
Clean air
Levels of traffic along the entirety of the route are very low. The route terminates at A4 West Cromwell Road to the south which has high traffic flows which may impact having clean air along the route, however green features have been implemented at this end of the route to minimise the impact of the road.
No areas for improvement.
Table 38 - Night-time analysis of Route 15
Consideration Observations
Lighting
Secluded areas
Surveillance
Active frontage
Lighting is frequent and appropriately placed along the route.
The eastern footway section away from the block of flats that lines the route could become particularly secluded during summer months, due to a high amount of overhanging vegetation in some sections that may obscure light and views from the overlooking residential blocks.
The route features plenty of CCTV along the route, namely from the blocks of flats situated to the west of the route.
The route on the whole has low pedestrian footfall and vehicle traffic due to it being a short residential road with a dead end to
Areas for Improvement
No areas for improvement.
Manage vegetation along the eastern side.
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
Figure 1-39 - Pedestrians crossing near shop frontage (left) and footpath covered with vegetation (right) on Edith Villas
traffic. Active frontage is mostly found at either ends in the form of shops to the north and the A4 to the south.
Figure 1-40 - Slight secluded area due to overhanging vegetation (left) and wide footway outside West Kensington Court (right)
Route16: A4 West Cromwell Road to North EndRoad via Mornington Avenue
Table 39 - Daytime Analysis of Route 16
Healthy Streets Indicator
Overall routing
Observations
Route 16 spans the length of Mornington Avenue and a small section of North End Crescent before terminating at North End Road. This route is approximately 0.2km long (translating to a 3-minute walk or 1-minute cycle) and operates under a 20mph speed limit, with Mornington Avenue only allowing for vehicle traffic to enter and exit at the junction with North End Crescent.
Recommendations
No areas for improvement.
People choose to walk, cycle, and use public transport
The route is paved on both sides of the carriageway in its entirety, with footway widths approximately 2m for the length of the route. The very low traffic and low speed limit road is also accommodating to cyclists. Site assessment showed that there was little cycle infrastructure on the route, however many bikes locked up outside properties indicating it is a popular mode of transport amongst residents. It is unlikely pedestrians using public transport are to use the route, with no bus stops along the route’s entirety.
No areas for improvement.
Everyone feels welcome
Easy to cross
The route is accessed via a ramp from A4 West Cromwell Road to its southern end. Designated crossing opportunities are limited, with dropped kerbs only featured at the junction between North End Crescent and Mornington Avenue, with no tactile paving and a raised carriageway with tactile paving at the junction between North End Crescent and North End Road. Dropped kerbs are featured across vehicle access roads to properties.
There are few designated crossings along the entirety of the road, with the only clear crossing points found at the junction between North End Crescent and Mornington Avenue with dropped kerbs and the raised carriageway with tactile paving at the junction between North End Crescent and North End Road. On the whole, kerbs are relatively low throughout the route. This is a very low traffic residential route so is not a detriment to the accessibility of the route for active travel users.
Provide tactile paving at dropped kerbs to improve accessibility to all users
No areas for improvement.
Table 39 - Daytime Analysis of Route 16
Healthy Streets Indicator
Shade and shelter
Places to stop and rest
Observations
There is significant shelter from vegetation to the north of the road along the footway as well as from the residential blocks to the south of the route.
No clear places to rest identified along route. Low rise walls on North End Crescent act as an informal opportunity of pedestrians to rest.
Recommendations
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
Not too noisy
People feel safe
Things to see and do
People feel relaxed
Clean
air
Pedestrians could have a conversation without raising their voices. The A4 West Cromwell road has significantly higher traffic flows and operates to the south of this route however is segregated from Route 16 via a large retaining wall as well as operating at a higher elevation.
The route is very low traffic with vehicles operating at slow speeds when present.
There are cafes, supermarkets, food vendors and a library located in close proximity to the shop front along North End Crescent. The majority of the route is residential with little to see or do.
The route provides spacious enough footways along its entirety as well as having very low traffic flow which is largely residents of the road.
Levels of traffic along the entirety of the route are very low. The route terminates at A4 West Cromwell Road to the south which has high traffic flows which may impact having clean air along the route however it is segregated from Route 16 via a large retaining wall as well as operating at a higher elevation.
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
Table 40 - Night-time analysis of Route 16
Consideration
Lighting
Secluded areas
Observations
The route did feel slightly dim compared to neighbouring routes, however lighting was frequently provided by lamp columns throughout.
The southern tip of the route did appear to be secluded from desktop assessment, however review on-site showed that the area feature significant CCTV coverage from neighbouring land uses and was well lit by lamp columns and residual light from advertising boards on the A4.
Areas for Improvement
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
Surveillance
Active frontage
There is little surveillance for the majority of the route due to its residential nature, however areas such as the shop frontage to the north and pedestrian ramp to the south have significant CCTV coverage. Entire route is well overlooked by residential buildings.
Footfall is generally low along the route due to its residential nature.
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
Figure 1-41 - Parked bicycles in residential section (left) and footway on on-street parking (right) on Mornington Avenue
Figure 1-42 - Shop frontage on North End Crescent (left) and well-lit entrances to industrial units near pedestrian ramp with surveillance to the south of Mornington Avenue (right)
Route 17: North End Road to Charing Cross Hospital via Star Road / Greyhound Road / Aspenlea Road / A219 Fulham Palace Road
Table 41 - Daytime Analysis of Route 17
Healthy Streets Indicator Observations
Overall routing
People choose to walk, cycle, and use public transport
Route 17 is approximately 2.2km in length (including the spur along Margravine Road). It runs westbound from North End Road to the Frank Banfield Park. The route splits at the junction of Greyhound Road and Margravine Road and reconvenes at the junction of St Dunstan’s Road and Winslow Road.
The start of the route begins on Star Road, a quiet 20mph single carriageway road with traffic flowing in both directions. The footways on both sides of the carriageway are wide and well maintained. The widest sections are approximately 3m and the narrowest 1.5m, however the footways stay consistent throughout. Star Road has a Santander Docking Station with 23 spaces at the start of the route and the quiet nature of the street facilitates an ideal cycling environment. There are no marked cycle lanes.
The conditions remain similar after the transition to Greyhound Road. Upon reaching the route split at the junction with Margravine Road there is another Santander Docking Station on Greyhound Road with room for 37 bikes (
Figure 1-43). The route continues on Greyhound Road and Aspenlea Road, which is a one-way street and cyclists will have to dismount. The alternative for this is to utilise Margravine Road, a 20mph road with traffic flowing in two directions. Cycling is a popular choice along this route due to the low-speed limits and low amounts of vehicle traffic, there is another Santander Docking Station on Margravine Road with space for 20 bikes.
The penultimate section of the route after Aspenlea Road on Fulham Palace Road is a busier road with a 30mph speed limit. There is a bus lane for cyclists to utilise however, increasing comfort levels. The final section of the route on Winslow Road retains a 20mph speed limit and features wide well-maintained footway for pedestrians.
There are two bus stops on the route, located towards the end on Fulham Palace Road. These provide access
Recommendations
No areas for improvement.
Review opportunity for improved cycle infrastructure on this link
Table 41 - Daytime Analysis of Route 17
Healthy Streets Indicator Observations
to the 190, 211, 220, 295, N11, N33, N72 and N97 bus services.
Recommendations
Everyone feels welcome
The route is well suited for all types of pedestrians, footways are wide and well maintained throughout the route and crossings are for the majority suitable for restricted mobility users (dropped kerbs, tactile paving).
There is one crossing on the first section of the route before it splits at the junction of Margravine Road and Greyhound Road. This takes the form of an uncontrolled drop crossing with central refuge island and tactile paving. The quiet nature of the road and single carriageway mean that crossing the road into this section isn’t particularly worrisome however the option is there if needed.
Continuing on Greyhound Road after the route splits, there are no more crossings until reaching Fulham Palace Road where there are Pelican Crossings at frequent intervals along the road. The end section of the route on Winslow Road has one pelican crossing right at the start of the road but no until the route finishes.
Easy to cross
No areas for improvement.
Review dropped kerb and tactile paving provision on Star Road and Greyhound Road
Adding additional dropped kerbs on the northern footway at the St Dunstans Road / Margravine roundabout should be investigated.
Potential to improve crossing facilities at the Aspenlea Road / Fulham Palace Road junction..
Shade and shelter
If taking the alternative route on Margravine Road there are two uncontrolled dropped kerb crossings at frequent intervals with some also including central refuge islands. As this route progresses onto St Dunstans Road, there are no more crossings until reaching Fulham Palace Road. There is a mini roundabout at the junction of St Dunstans Road and Margravine Road where there is a lack of dropped kerbs or formal crossings for pedestrians on the northern side of the highway.
Another area of concern was identified on Fulham Palace Road, by the junction with Aspenlea Road. Pedestrians were frequently observed undertaking informal crossings in this location and waiting in bus lanes in order to do so (
Figure 1-43).
The route is well shaded by tall buildings and frequent vegetation such as tall trees. However as previously mentioned, the lack of shelter and bus stops along the
Review vegetation/opportunities for shelter along link.
Table 41 - Daytime Analysis of Route 17
Healthy Streets Indicator Observations
main part of the route on Star Road / Greyhound Road / Margravine Road means that shelter from rain is difficult.
Fulham Palace Road has bus stops and building canopies that can be utilised for shelter from inclement weather.
Recommendations
Places to stop and rest
Not too noisy
The route is through mainly residential areas and as such all parts of the route are always overlooked by property. It is also well lit and there is CCTV at different sections of the route. When reaching Fulham Palace Road this is a busier road with more vehicle and pedestrian traffic. There are also shops and restaurants creating active frontages.
There are also significant traffic calming measures on Margravine Road by the hospital entrances, which increase safety for both pedestrians and cyclists.
The route is largely situated along Greyhound Road / Star Road and Margravine Road, which are subject to low traffic flows.
No areas for improvement.
People feel safe
No areas for improvement.
Things to see and do
The route is through mainly residential areas and as such all parts of the route are always overlooked by property. It is also well lit and there is CCTV at different sections of the route. When reaching Fulham Palace Road this is a busier road with more vehicle and pedestrian traffic. There are also shops and restaurants creating active frontages.
There are also significant traffic calming measures on Margravine Road by the hospital entrances, which increase safety for both pedestrians and cyclists.
Due to the route running through residential areas, there is a lack of distinct things to see and do. However, there are pubs, cafes and restaurants throughout the route, the route also passes close to the famous Queens Club. The route also runs past Bayonne Park and ends at the Frank Banfield Park, providing easy access to green space.
No areas for improvement.
People feel relaxed
The route for the majority has low vehicle traffic and is quiet in nature. The largely wide, well-maintained
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
Table 41 - Daytime Analysis of Route 17
Healthy Streets Indicator Observations
environments also contribute to a relaxing pedestrian and cycling environments.
Clean air
Due to the lesser amounts of motor vehicle traffic experienced on this route, air quality benefits positively as a result. There are also trees and parks present along the route which all contribute positively to clean air.
Recommendations
No areas for improvement.
42 - Night-time analysis of Route 17
Consideration Observations
The route is for the most part well-lit throughout, mostly through street lighting but also from traffic within the carriageway.
Lighting
Secluded areas
There were some minor areas identified where it felt darker than normal. These were by St Andrew’s Fulham Fields Church, the entrance to the Hammersmith and Fulham Mental Health unit, Bayonne Park (Figure 1-44), Margravine Playground and Muscal Flats.
Route 17 contained some noticeable areas of seclusion, these were identified by Bayonne Park (Figure 1-44), Margravine Playground and the hospital entrance near the Reynolds buildings.
Areas for Improvement
Improving lighting in these areas should be looked into.
Surveillance
The route is always in view of residential properties, the high levels of pedestrian footfall further contribute to an active and safe environment. CCTV is present and visible throughout all sections of the route.
Improving lighting in these areas would significantly discourage any potential antisocial behaviour and improve the experience for all users.
No areas for improvement.
Figure 1-43 - Santander cycle docking stations on Margravine Road (left) and informal crossing on Fulham Palace Road (right)
Table
Active frontage
There are high levels of pedestrian footfall along the route and the route passes through commercial and residential areas. No areas for improvement.
Figure 1-44 - Dark area boarding Greyhound Road within Bayonne Park (left) and active section of route adjacent to The Colton Arms Pub (right)
Route18:Old Brompton Road to Fulham Broadway via
Table 43 - Daytime Analysis of Route 18
Healthy Streets Indicator Observations
Overall routing
People choose to walk, cycle, and use public transport
Route 18 is approximately 1.7km long, the first half of the route is entirely within Brompton Cemetery. The second half of the route runs along the A304 Fulham Road. Brompton Cemetery is accessible via foot or bike and is only open during the day.
For the initial half of the route through Brompton Cemetery it is only possible to use active travel on the shared walking and cycling passage through, and as such is a very attractive route for pedestrians and cyclists to use without fear of vehicular traffic (Figure 1-45). The road through is straight, flat, and wide with good visibility.
Upon exiting the cemetery and joining Fulham Road, users join a busy single carriageway road with traffic flowing in both directions. The speed limit is 30mph and there are footways on both sides of the highway. The footways are all wide and well maintained, approximately 2m at the narrowest sections. There are marked cycle lanes on Fulham Road (Figure 1-45) and a bus lane also opens towards the end of the route that cyclists can utilise. While there are no direct Santander Cycle Docking Stations on the route, there is one that is easily accessible on Cedarne Road (20m south from Fulham Road) that has space for 26 bikes.
There are six bus stops on the second part of the route on Fulham Road providing access to the 14, 211, 414 bus services.
The start of the route is 100m away from West Brompton station which has access to the Overground network and Southern Rail. The route ends at Fulham Broadway providing access to the District Line.
Recommendations
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
Brompton Cemetery and Fulham Road
July 2024
Everyone feels welcome
The route is suited for all types of pedestrians, footways are level, wide and well-maintained. Crossings all feature dropped kerbs and tactile paving.
The first section of the route in Old Brompton Cemetery leaves no need for crossing as there is no vehicular traffic. The second part of the route on Fulham Road has crossings at frequent locations with good desire lines. These crossings range include zebra crossings and pelican crossings.
Easy to cross
No areas for improvement.
Shade and shelter
Places to stop and rest
Not too noisy
Informal crossing was noticed when undertaking the daytime audit however there is plenty of opportunity for formal crossing.
There is no formal crossing on Fulham Road at the southern entrance to Brompton Cemetery
There is a lack of formal shelter in Old Brompton cemetery, although there are trees that can provide respite from poor weather. Fulham Road is lined by tall buildings and trees that provide shade, there are also sheltered bus stops that can be used for sheltering.
There are benches scattered through the cemetery and there are bus stops and low walls that can be used as informal resting places on Fulham Road.
The initial section of the route through the cemetery is exceptionally quiet due to the lack of active frontage and vehicle traffic.
Fulham Road is busier and as such noisier, however this is to be expected of a busy road in central London.
People feel safe
The section of the route through Old Brompton Cemetery is safe from vehicle traffic, however cyclists were observed not respecting the 5mph speed limit in place on the route. There was staff in view at most times in the cemetery and scattered CCTV.
Fulham Road has high levels of consistent traffic and also has high pedestrian footfall.
Potential for a crossing at the southern entrance of Brompton Cemetery across Fulham Road
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
Introducing clearer signage or traffic calming measures for cyclists should be investigated in Old Brompton Cemetery.
Things to see and do
There is constant property overlooking the route and CCTV throughout.
The cemetery has a café by the entrance that is well used by visitors. The cemetery itself is a potential attraction with the graves of some notable people located here, such as Emmeline Pankhurst. Old Brompton Cemetery is grade one listed and one of the Magnificent Seven cemeteries.
Along Fulham Road there are a plethora of shops, restaurants, and pubs. The route also takes users past Stamford Bridge.
No areas for improvement.
People feel relaxed
Clean air
The initial section through Old Brompton Road is free from vehicle noise and tranquil with a wide highway and high levels of vegetation.
Fulham Road experiences higher levels of traffic however, the infrastructure in place creates a relaxing journey for pedestrians and cyclists.
As noted previously, the first section of the route is motor vehicle free and as such the air quality is better than the second section on the busier Fulham Road. There are some trees lining the Fulham Road carriageway, however they aren’t frequent or abundant.
No areas for improvement.
Traffic reductions are likely to be achieved through initiatives in the Mayors Transport Strategy to reduce reliance on private vehicles.
1-45 - Designated cycle lane on Fulham Road
and active travel usage on shared pedestrian and cycle footpath through
Figure
(left)
Brompton Cemetery (right)
1.5 No night-time assessment has been undertaken as Brompton Cemetery is closed at dusk.
2024
Route 19:Extension to Quietway 15 from Earls Court Road to South Kensington via Braham Gardens / Collingham Gardens and Harrington Gardens
Table 44 - Daytime Analysis of Route 19
Healthy Streets Indicator Observations
Overall routing
People choose to walk, cycle, and use public transport
Route 19 spans approximately 1.3km between Braham Gardens and South Kensington Underground Station (19-minute walk and 6-minute cycle) following the path of Quietway 15. The route is low traffic in sections and operates under a 20mph speed limit in its entirety.
The route features wide footways and is mostly low traffic, particularly to the western section where roads are largely residential. Cycling is particularly popular with the route following Quietway 15 and a number of cycle parking facilities, including Santander cycles at both ends, adjacent to the carriageway. Most bus stops are located within a small cluster towards South Kensington Underground Station however some pedestrians may opt to divert from the ATZ route to use District and Piccadilly Line Services from Earls Court to travel to South Kensington.
Recommendations
No areas for improvement.
Everyone feels welcome
Easy to cross
Some junctions within more residential sections of the route provide dropped kerbs away from desire lines for mobility impaired pedestrians, which may lead to some pedestrians using the carriageway rather than footways to cross. This was a particular problem between Braham and Collingham Gardens where there was no clear crossing on a desire line for pedestrians to follow.
The route is mostly low traffic to the western end and easy to cross. The carriageway gets significantly wider towards South Kensington Station however signalised crossing facilities are stationed at appropriate intervals at key desire lines along the route.
No areas for improvement.
Shade and shelter
Places to stop and rest
Plenty of tress line the route, particularly towards the west in areas adjacent to parks.
Braham Gardens, Wetherby Gardens, Gloucester Park and Stanhope Gardens line the route. Bus stops along the route can act as an informal place to stop and rest as well as seating provided by shop frontage scattered along the route.
Implement dropped kerbs at key desire lines along sections for mobility impaired users.
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
Table 44 - Daytime Analysis of Route 19
Healthy Streets Indicator Observations
Not too noisy
People feel safe
The section of the route towards South Kensington is particularly loud and busy. Significant noise may also be generated due to ongoing construction work on individual properties that are scattered along the route.
Wide footways and carriageways provide plenty of space between pedestrians and vehicles, as well as allowing space within the carriageway for cyclists where designated cycle lanes aren’t marked on.
Recommendations
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
Things to see and do
People feel relaxed
Significant shop frontage is located towards the eastern end of the route, with cafes, pubs, restaurants and shops lining footways. The Natural History Museum and Science Museum are a short walk north of the route.
The road leading up to and public realm space outside South Kensington Station may lead to some pedestrians feeling uneasy due to the extremely high pedestrian footfall. A number of collision were also recorded of LGVs and HGVs blocking crossing points for pedestrians along desire lines and parking within the carriageway at both ends of the route.
No areas for improvement.
Clean air
Plenty of tress line the route, particularly towards the west in areas adjacent to parks.
South Kensington is significantly busier than other Underground stations due to its proximity to tourist attractions such as The Natural History Museum and Science Museum. Parking restrictions could also be better enforced along this route.
No areas for improvement.
Consideration Observations
Lighting
Secluded areas
Surveillance
Active frontage
The route is well lit in its entirety.
No secluded areas were identified along this route.
The route has good surveillance, with CCTV lining the route provided by both shop frontage and residential properties.
Shop frontage to the east of the route is very active even into the night. The residential section of the route maintained high cycle traffic and relatively high pedestrian footfall within the Night-time ATZ.
Areas for Improvement
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
Figure 1-46 - Illegal parking of HGVs associated with works on Laverton Place/Collingham Gardens (left) and Harrington Gardens (right)
Table 45 - Night-time analysis of Route 19
July 2024
1-47 - Bus services in operation on Harrington Gardens
and cycle infrastructure in use on Laverton Place
during night-time ATZ assessment
Figure
(left)
(right)
Route20:Site to North End Road via Gibbs Green Close and Beaumont Crescent
Table 46 - Daytime Analysis of Route 20
Healthy Streets Indicator Observations
Overall routing
People choose to walk, cycle, and use public transport
Route 20 follows a residential road through Gibbs Green Close and Beaumont Crescent towards North End Road. The route spans approximately 0.3km (3-minute walk or 1minute cycle) and is very low traffic.
The route is largely residential with wide pedestrian footways and low traffic. There is no cycle infrastructure within the highway boundary however vehicle traffic is low so the route is suitable for cycling. The route provides access towards North End Road where there is access to a number of bus routes both north and southbound.
Recommendations
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
Everyone feels welcome
Easy to cross
Shade and shelter
Places to stop and rest
Not too noisy
Adequate crossing facilities are provided at the extremities of Beaumont Crescent for mobility impaired pedestrians to cross, however kerbs are quite tall along the route which may make crossing difficult in some sections. Dropped kerbs at the mouth of Gibbs Green Close are deteriorating and force disabled pedestrians towards carriageway.
The route is very low traffic so easy for able bodied pedestrians to cross.
Shade and shelter are provided mostly by tress lining and Beamont Crescent and residential buildings along the route.
A basketball court and small park are located within Gibbs Green Close.
The route is residential with low traffic so is mostly quiet.
Improve crossing facilities as well as general paved surfaces along Gibbs Green Close.
People feel safe
Beaumont Crescent and Gibbs Green Close are very low traffic residential roads where pedestrians can access wide footways on both sides of the carriageway. Gibbs Green Close may feel unsafe for some users due to
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
Table 46 - Daytime Analysis of Route 20
Healthy Streets Indicator Observations
the nature of the area within the housing estate.
Recommendations
Things to see and do
People feel relaxed
Clean air
Significant shop frontage is located on the opposite side of North End Road.
Beaumont Crescent features well maintained carriageway and road, Gibbs Green Close does not which may lead to some pedestrians feeling uneasy.
The route is residential with low traffic and features significant planting in sections.
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
Figure 1-48 - Poor paving conditions within Gibbs Green Close (left) and police presence and carriageway conditions on Beaumont Crescent (right)
Table 47 - Night-time analysis of Route 20
Consideration Observations
Lighting
Secluded areas
Gibbs Green Close is well lit across it’s length by street lighting, Beaumont Close is in sections however there are some dimmer spots where streetlamps aren’t present. These sections however are overlooked on both sides by residential buildings.
The main route that follows the carriageway is clear with no secluded areas. Some may be located within the Gibbs Green Close estate however these are far away from the main carriageway and footway with the route also being well covered by CCTV and well lit.
Areas for Improvement
No areas for improvement.
Surveillance
Active frontage
CCTV is located along large sections of Gibbs Green Close and scattered along Beaumont Crescent, which has residential units overlooking the entirety of the street.
There is no active shop frontage along the route however there is relatively high pedestrian fall due to the roads proximity with North End Road.
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
Figure 1-49 - Well-lit Beaumont Close (left) and Gibbs Green Close (right) during night-time ATZ
Route21:Old Brompton Road to Bousfield Primary School
Table 48 - Daytime Analysis of Route 21
Healthy Streets Indicator
Overall routing
People choose to walk, cycle, and use public transport
Observations
Route 21 is approximately 300m in length and runs from the A3218 / A3220 junction by Old Brompton Gallery to Bousfield Primary School.
The route runs entirely on the A3218 Old Brompton Road, a busy single carriageway with two flows of traffic. The road has a speed limit of 20mph for the duration of the journey, and pedestrian footways are available on both sides of the highway. The footways are well-maintained and wide, with dropped kerbs and tactile footways provided where necessary. There are also frequent crossings along the route.
The low-speed limits and wide highway allow cyclists to use this route with high levels of comfort. There is no dedicated cycling infrastructure such as marked cycle lanes, however due to the existing highway layout and traffic amount, this isn’t considered an issue.
There are two bus stops present on the route, Boltons Gardens stops GH and GA, allowing access to the 430 and C1 bus services. Both bus stops are sheltered and do not infringe on the pedestrian environment.
Recommendations
No areas for improvement.
Everyone feels welcome
Easy to cross
Shade and shelter
Places to stop and rest
The route is suitable for pedestrians of all types, all crossings have dropped kerbs and tactile paving. Footways are approximately 3m throughout, narrowing to 2m where there are trees present. They are level and well maintained (Figure 1-50).
The route is easy to cross, with a variety in place throughout the route. There are signalised crossings at the start and end of the route and a zebra crossing at around the mid-point of the journey, creating a convenient and well used crossing system (Figure 1-50). There were no informal crossings observed while undertaking the daytime and nighttime audits.
Shade and shelter are provided by tall buildings lining the highways, trees and bus stops.
The route is short (300m) and as such does not require dedicated stopping and resting areas. There are
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
Table 48 - Daytime Analysis of Route 21
Healthy Streets Indicator
Not too noisy
Observations
however sheltered bus stops that can be utilised as informal resting areas in times of need.
The route is low traffic and residential in nature, fostering a quiet environment.
Recommendations
People feel safe
Things to see and do
The route was well used by pedestrians, cyclists and motor vehicles creating an active and busy environment. It is well lit and in constant view of residential properties. The footways feel well separated from the highway creating a comfortable environment.
The route is short, and the main destination is Bousfield Primary School, meaning there are no dedicated attractions directly on the route. Brompton Library is on the route and provides access to literature and computer access. The route start is also near to many pubs, shops, and restaurants, located on the more commercial A3220. There is also a Blue Plaque dedicated to Beatrix Potter on the route, marking where and when she lived in the area, which may attract some people.
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
People feel relaxed
Clean air
The route is largely residential with low traffic levels and footfall on spacious footways and carriageways.
The low traffic environment and presence of trees has a positive effect on air quality in the area.
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
Figure 1-50 - Well-maintained footways and advanced cycle stop line at signalised crossing (left) and dropped kerbs and tactile paving into zebra crossing (right) on Old Brompton Road
Consideration
Observations
Lighting
Secluded areas
Surveillance
Active frontage
The route is well lit throughout, mostly through street lighting but also from traffic within the carriageway (Figure 1-51).
Route 21 contained no noticeable areas of seclusion.
The route is always in view of residential properties, the high levels of pedestrian footfall further contribute to an active and safe environment. CCTV is present and visible throughout all sections of the route.
There are high levels of pedestrian footfall along the route and the route passes through commercial and residential areas.
Areas for Improvement
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
Table 49 - Night-time analysis of Route 21
Figure 1-51 - Old Brompton Road during night-time ATZ
Route 22: Harrington Gardens to Hyde Park
Table 50 - Daytime Analysis of Route 22
Healthy Streets Indicator
Overall routing
People choose to walk, cycle, and use public transport
Observations
Route 22 spans approximately 1.4km (20-minute walk or 7-minute cycle) between Harrington Gardens and Hyde Park. The route follows the path of a cycle Quietway with vehicle traffic operating at a 20mph speed limit.
The route features wide well-maintained footways and low traffic for the majority of the route, making it conducive for walking. The route is popular with cyclists and feature plenty of cycle infrastructure, such as a cycle only crossing over Cromwell Road, Bikehangers and a cycle only lane at Victoria Grove. It is unlikely pedestrians will use public transport to follow this route.
Recommendations
No areas for improvement.
Everyone feels welcome
The route features dropped kerbs and tactile paving at necessary locations.
No areas for improvement.
Easy to cross
Shade and shelter
Places to stop and rest
Informal crossing over Cromwell Road was seen at the signalised crossing due to the refuge island diverting pedestrians away from desire lines. Signalised crossings are also located well away from desire lines over A315 towards Hyde Park.
Shade and shelter is provided by trees lining the route and shop frontage along the route.
Bus stops act as a place to informally rest along the route. Hyde Park is located to the northern end of the route as a public place to stop and rest, whilst cafes and pubs also offer places to sit.
No areas for improvement.
Review pedestrian crossings.
Not too noisy
People feel safe
Pedestrians could have a conversation without raising their voices, for most of the route. Cromwell Road and A315 are particularly busy however these roads make up very small sections that dissect the route.
The route features mostly low traffic and lots of pedestrians walking in residential areas.
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
Things to see and do
People feel relaxed
Clean air
Shop frontage is scattered along the route, particularly across the centre and north with pubs and restaurants. Mews Houses are a feature of the route towards the central residential area and Hyde Park and a number of embassy’s are located to the north.
The route is mostly very low traffic, with wellmaintained footways and cycleways. During both day and night-time ATZ, pile-ups of rubbish and cars pulling into the cul-de-sac to the north of Route 22 next to Kensington High Street may make some pedestrians feel uneasy.
No areas for improvement.
Manage waste collection in said cul-de-sac better and potential to pedestrian side road off of Kensington Hogh Street connecting to Kensington Court
The route is very low traffic and lined with tress in some sections. No areas for improvement.
away from key desire lines
Figure 1-52 - Staggered crossing over Cromwell Road (left) and crossing
on Kensington High Street (right) leading to informal crossing
Table 51 - Night-time analysis of Route 22
Consideration Observations
Lighting
Secluded areas
Surveillance
Active frontage
Areas for Improvement
The route is well lit in its entirety. No areas for improvement.
No secluded areas were identified along the route. No areas for improvement.
CCTV covers the route throughout from private residential properties and shop frontage. Significant police presence is also noticeable to the north of the route near embassies.
The route features high pedestrian and cycle traffic even into the Night-time ATZ.
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
Figure 1-53 - Rubbish piled outside restaurant frontage towards Kensington High Street (left) and cyclists following cycle route on Kensington Court (right)
Route 23: Fulham Road to Cremorne Gardens
Table 52 - Daytime Analysis of Route 23
Healthy Streets Indicator Observations
Overall routing
Route 23 is approximately 1km in length, running from the bottom of Brompton Cemetery to the Chelsea Boat and Yacht Club. Due to one-way restrictions on the route, there are two options for reaching the destinations. The route splits on the A3217, it is more suitable for pedestrians to take the A3220 (Ashburnham Road) which is more direct, however it is one way and unsuitable for cyclists. Cyclists can continue the A3217 and take the turning down the A3220 which is also one way but flows in the direction of the route. Both the A3220 and Edith Grove form part of TfL’s ‘Red Routes’ and as such face higher levels of traffic with more frequent HGV traffic also present.
Recommendations
No areas for improvement.
People choose to walk, cycle, and use public transport
The route begins on Hortensia Road, which is a small single carriageway road with a 20mph speed limit and parking on both sides of the highway. Footways are wide and well maintained for the entirety of the road, approximately 2.5m. When crossing over connecting side streets and residential entrances, all kerbs are dropped providing a comfortable experience for all footway users. Pedestrians will then take the A308 King’s Road, which is a busier single carriageway road with traffic flowing in both directions. The road has a 30mph speed limit and frequent controlled crossings. The footways on this section of King’s Road are 3.7m wide. The final section of the route takes pedestrians down the A3220, which is a busy one-way road with two lanes of traffic. The speed limit is 30mph along this section of the road. The footways retain the comfortable widths and good maintenance seen throughout the rest of the route with the widest sections reaching 3m and the narrowest 2m.
Cyclists utilising this route will need to take a slight diversion to navigate around the one-way system in place on the A3220. Continuing along Kings Road past the A3220 until reaching Edith Grove, where another one-way system takes them to the destination. Cycling is a popular choice along this route, recommended by a 28
Installing marked cycle lanes on the busier roads (King’s Road, Edith Grove and A3220 for the return journey) should be investigated as the high levels of traffic and multiple lanes could pose intimidating to navigate.
Table 52 - Daytime Analysis of Route 23
Healthy Streets Indicator
Everyone feels welcome
Observations
space Santander Docking station on Hortensia Road and 25 space station on King’s Road. There is a lack of dedicated cycle lanes on the route, notably on the Kings Road and Edith Grove where traffic is much higher than on Hortensia Road. There are advanced cycle stop boxes present at the crossings on King’s Road, enhancing safety.
The only bus stops present on the route are on King’s Road, providing access to the 11, 22, C3, N11 and N22 services.
The nearest access to the rail network is at either Fulham Broadway (District Line) or Imperial Wharf (Overground, Southern Rail).
For the most part, pedestrian footways are wide and well maintained. Crossings are usable for all types of mobility (dropped kerbs, tactile paving). There is one small area of concern on Ashburnham Road (A3220) where a tree infringes on the footway and narrows the passage significantly causing potential issues for mobility impaired users or parents with pushchairs (Figure 1-54). There are crossings close by that can be used to navigate around, although this would add additional journey time and effort.
There are signalised and uncontrolled crossing present throughout most of the route. Hortensia Road does not have any crossing facilities, however the need to cross is low and it is low traffic with good visibility, encouraging informal crossing.
Recommendations
Consider measures to address pinchpoint created by tree
There is a possibility to look at installing an uncontrolled dropped kerb crossing on Hortensia Road.
Easy to cross
The King’s Road has pelican crossings and zebra crossing at frequent and convenient points that run with desire lines. There is also a pelican crossing at the northern end of Edith Grove.
There is one crossing where at the A3220 and Edith Grove junction, a three-armed zebra crossing (Figure 1-54) and one pelican crossing by the Chelsea Yacht and Boat Club.
Shade and shelter Shade and shelter is provided on the route through tall buildings and trees that line the
No areas for improvement.
Table 52 - Daytime Analysis of Route 23
Healthy Streets Indicator
Places to stop and rest
Observations
carriageways. Bus stops can also be utilised as shelters.
Formal places for stopping and resting are solely on the southern side of the King’s Road and by the Shell garage on Ashburnham Road which are near the midpoint of the route.
Recommendations
No areas for improvement.
Not too noisy
People feel safe
Hortensia Road is quiet from vehicle traffic, the subsequent sections on the King’s Road, A3220 and Edith Grove experience much higher levels of traffic and consequently noise. Not much can be done about this in such a busy area of central London.
The route is busy throughout with high levels of pedestrian footfall and vehicle traffic present at all times.
Cyclists may feel intimidated when using Edith Grove and the A3220 due to the multiple lanes of high traffic.
Traffic reductions are likely to be achieved through initiatives in the Mayors Transport Strategy to reduce reliance on private vehicles.
Look into improving cycle infrastructure on Edith Grove and the A3220.
Things to see and do
People feel relaxed
Clean air
There are a multitude of shops, restaurants, and cafes along the Kings Road. The route also ends next to the river Thames where opportunities for further walking and scenic views are possible.
The route enjoys wide footways that are in good condition creating a comfortable experience. The high traffic on Edith Grove and the A3220 can reduce this feeling. However, these are dedicated high traffic routes and not much can be done except wider traffic reductions.
The high traffic experienced at sections of the route (Edith Grove, Ashburnham Road, King’s Road) have a negative impact on the air quality in the area. The trees and vegetation present do mitigate against this.
No areas for improvement.
Traffic reductions are likely to be achieved through initiatives in the Mayors Transport Strategy to reduce reliance on private vehicles.
Traffic reductions are likely to be achieved through initiatives in the Mayors Transport Strategy to reduce reliance on private vehicles.
Table 53 - Night-time analysis of Route 23
Consideration Observations
Lighting
Secluded areas
The route is well lit throughout, mostly through street lighting but also from traffic within the carriageway.
Route 23 is largely free of secluded areas due to the amount of traffic and pedestrian footfall, combined with residential properties and shops on the carriageway.
Two areas of concern were identified however, the entrances to Winch House on Edith Grove and the entry to Comingham Court on Ashburnham Road (Figure 1-55). These entrances felt noticeably darker than the surrounding environment and more secluded, encouraging potential anti-social behaviour.
Surveillance The route is always in view of residential properties, the high levels of pedestrian footfall
Areas for Improvement
No areas for improvement.
Look into improving the lighting in Winch House and Comingham Court.
No areas for improvement.
Figure 1-54 - Zebra crossing following desire lines towards Cremorne Gardens (left) and pinch point on Cremorne Road (right)
Table 53 - Night-time analysis of Route 23
Consideration Observations
further contribute to an active and safe environment. CCTV is present and visible throughout all sections of the route.
Areas for Improvement
Active frontage
There are high levels of pedestrian footfall along the route and the route passes through commercial and residential areas.
No areas for improvement.
areas during night-time
Figure 1-55 - Comingham Court (left) and Winch House (right) with particularly dimly lit and secluded
ATZ
Route24:Old Brompton Road to Chelsea andWestminster Hospital
Table 54 - Daytime Analysis of Route 24
Healthy Streets Indicator Observations
Overall routing
Route 24 runs between Old Brompton Road and Chelsea and Westminster Hospital spans approximately 1.1km (15-minute walk or 6minute cycle) mostly along Finborough Road, with an alternative spur along Ifield Road, which meets Fulham Road towards the southern end of the route where the hospital is located. Finborough Road is entirely one-way to vehicular traffic northbound, whilst Fulham and Ifield Road operate in both directions under a 20mph speed limit.
Recommendations
No areas for improvement.
People choose to walk, cycle, and use public transport
Footways line the carriageway on both sides in all sections of the route, with mostly informal crossing points at T-junctions to the main road on Finborough Road and Ifield Road, whereas Fulham Road features signalised crossings with pedestrian islands at regular intervals. The one-way nature of Finborough Road helps cyclists avoid conflict with vehicles travelling in the opposite direction and Fulham Road features cycle filters at junctions to allow sufficient time for cyclists to cross. The number of cycles parked on Sheffield Stands and Bikehangars lining the route imply cycling is a popular mode of transport. A number of bus services line the route and provide trips mostly northbound along Finborough Road.
Everyone feels welcome Paving is wide throughout and T-junctions with main roads largely provide accessible features such as raised tables to facilitate crossing to mobility impaired pedestrians. Sections of tree planting along Finborough Road does restrict footway width and may make it difficult for some disabled users. Despite this, mobility impaired pedestrians appeared to be able to navigate the route
No areas for improvement.
Review footway widths on Finborough Road
Table 54 - Daytime Analysis of Route 24
Healthy Streets Indicator Observations
Easy to cross
Shade and shelter
Finborough Road and Fulham Road feature regular crossing points which maintain desire lines and are easy to cross despite higher traffic volumes. Ifield Road features no designated crossing points along is length however is a very low traffic residential road. The signalised pedestrian crossing at the bottom of Finborough Road is set back away from the desire line along the north of Fulham Road, which leads to a lot of informal crossing.
Shade and shelter is largely provided by trees along the more residential sections of the route, as well as cover from buildings lining the road.
Recommendations
Relocate signalised crossing closer to pedestrian desire line and review ability to widen footway.
Places to stop and rest
Not too noisy
Redcliffe Square Gardens and Brompton Cemetery are located a short walk away from the route and provide adequate space to stop and rest.
The route can be relatively noisy due to the high amounts of traffic, mostly along Finborough Road and Fulham Road. Ifield Road is significantly quieter due to it’s residential nature.
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
People feel safe
Things to see and do
The route is largely residential along Finborough Road and Ifield Road with properties overlooking the carriageway and footpaths, increasing feelings of safety in the area. The active frontage provided by the hospital and shops along Fulham Road also increase feelings of safety.
The majority of shop frontage is located at the northern and southern ends of the route at Old Brompton Road and Fulham Road, with a number of shops, pubs and restaurants. The centre of the route has little to do or see due to its residential nature.
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
People feel relaxed
The uneven paving along sections of Finborough Road due to tree routes could lead to feelings of discomfort for some pedestrians.
Ensure footways are well maintained along route and replace uneven paving where possible.
Table 54 - Daytime Analysis of Route 24
Healthy Streets Indicator Observations
Clean air
The route is well lined with trees, which acts as a green screen between the footway and carriageway and help improve air quality.
Recommendations
No areas for improvement.
1-56 - Undulating surface and restriction of footway by tree (left) and informal crossing due to signalised crossing located away from desire lines (right) on Finborough Road
Table 55 - Night-time analysis of Route 24
Consideration
Observations
Lighting
Fulham Road is well lit in its entirety, particularly outside the hospital and Finborough and Ifield Road are also well lit throughout. A small section opposite the Ifield Road / Finborough Road junction is dimly lit however this is due to a light column not working.
Areas for Improvement
Replace lamp post bulb.
Secluded areas No secluded areas were identified along the route. No areas for improvement.
Figure
Surveillance
Active frontage
CCTV was frequent along Fulham Road and more scattered along Finborough and Ifield Road across private residential properties.
Fulham Road had plenty of active frontage along it’s length. Finborough and Ifield Road are more residential routes but still has high to moderate footfall along them respectively.
No areas for improvement.
No areas for improvement.
1.6 It is to be noted that the recommendations made, based on the observations from the site visits, are subjective and professional opinion has been made on the opportunities and recommendations. These recommendations are to inform the Local Highway Authorities of TfL, RBKC and LBHF of measures that could improve the routes in relation to the Healthy Street’s indicators. These recommendations are non-exhaustive and if deemed appropriate by the highway authorities, further work and auditing should be undertaken in order to develop designs that can be implemented.
Figure 1-57 - Public transport being used during night-time ATZ assessment (left) and well-lit Ifield Road (right)
Earls Court Development
Safety Inclusion Assessment
Project number: 70077004
Quality assurance
Approved by 28/05/24
Date of issue
1 -Introduction
Background & Context Setting
Overview
Project context
During the preparation of the Transport Assessment for the Earls Court Development, the Active Travel Zone (ATZ) was defined as shown in Figure 1.1 overleaf. Within this ATZ, a destination prioritisation exercise identified key routes to and from the development site.
Engagement with transport stakeholders was then conducted to refine and agree upon the routes for assessment within the ATZ. As part of this process, TfL identified the need to consider vulnerable user safety, particularly focusing on the safety of women and girls.
WSP have developed a bespoke assessment process referred to as Safety Inclusion Assessment (SIA) to consider vulnerable user safety.
The methodology undertaken in this SIA was developed in collaboration with the Transport Stakeholders. A key element of the SIA has been engagement with the Earls Court Public Realm Inclusivity Panel (PRIP), a group formed to engage and input into the design of the masterplan.
Project context
It should be noted that the issues of safety are wide-ranging and complex, exceeding the bounds and remits of any single body or authority. All stakeholders share the responsibility to ensure and improve safety, particularly with women and girls in mind. As such, the purpose of this report is to identify the present issues and determine what interventions may be desirable.
Report
Structure
Following this introduction the remainder of the report is structured as follows:
Methodology
The Public Realm Inclusivity Panel (Workshop 1)
Participatory Site Walks
Safety Inclusion Assessment: issues and opportunities
The Public Realm Inclusivity Panel (Workshop 2)
Summary and conclusion
Background –Active Travel Zone Assessment
The ATZ assessment is a qualitative analysis of the cycle and walking network surrounding the Proposed Development. The methodology has been developed by TfL to support the Healthy Streets Approach and Vision Zero. The ATZ assessment is carried out to assist the understanding of the Proposed Development’s potential to contribute and promote active and sustainable travel.
The main aim of the ATZ Is to determine how people of all abilities can access the Site through car-free transport modes. The ATZ is defined as a 20-minute cycle around the Site.
A total of 24 routes were identified as part of the assessment, which encompass a range of uses and destinations to and from the development, these routes can be seen in Figure 1 adjacent . Active Travel Zone Assessment
Figure1.1-MapofATZroutes
Safety in public space
Context
Sadly, safety has long been a concern in transport environments and public spaces, especially for women, girls, and gender-diverse individuals. For example:
• Studies indicate that gender is the primary factor associated with anxiety and apprehension while traveling and within public spaces. Certain environmental elements contribute to heightened levels of fear among women (DfT, 2022).
• Women of colour, disabled women and LGBTQIA+ people are often exposed to greater threat of violence and harassment due to racial, ableist and homophobic discrimination. For these groups, experiences of sexism intersects with and is compounded by other forms of structural discrimination.
• Women often choose sustainable commuting methods (e.g., walking or using public transport) due to cost savings and the main household earner’s use of the car for work-related travel. Consequently, women may spend more time walking or waiting in isolated areas to access public transport, increasing their exposure to genderbased insecurity.
• Research has found that when gender is not explicitly considered within the planning process, outcomes are most likely to benefit males (Ramboll, 2021).
Therefore, the inclusion of a diverse range of voices in the planning process is imperative for comprehensively understanding the issues and identifying effective solutions for improvement.
Figure1.2-Thelensesofsafety(GLA,2022)
Do I feel free from the threat of violence?
Does this space meet my needs?
Do I feel welcome, empowered and a sense of ownership of this space?
The Good Growth by Design Guidance (2022) underscores that safety encompasses more than just avoiding crime; it encompasses three crucial elements: freedom from violence, harassment, and intimidation; usability; and a sense of belonging. These factors have distinct impacts on the experiences and behaviours of women, girls, and gender-diverse individuals in public spaces, thereby necessitating diverse considerations in public space planning efforts.
2 -Methodology
Our Approach
Our approach to safer and more inclusive design: Safety Inclusion Assessment
What is the Safety Inclusion Assessment?
WSP’s Safety Inclusion Assessment (SIA) has been designed to aid the assessment of real and perceived safety issues in urban spaces, with particular emphasis on safety issues experienced by women, girls and other marginalised groups. The tool provides context specific design solutions which help to reduce personal safety risks and improve users feeling of safety when occupying spaces.
What is the purpose of the SIA?
Undertaking an SIA allows us to identify physical elements of the built environment that may impact the feeling of safety and security; and provide design solutions and operational strategies to address and mitigate these risks where possible.
A core part of the SIA is embedding end users within the process and ensuring we capture both qualitative and quantitative data.
This will not only allow us to understand local context and further validate the SIA findings, but it will support and promote design solutions that end users really want and need to feel safer in their local community.
What are the benefits of undertaking an SIA?
The SIA draws on research, lived experience and best practice design principles to provide several benefits, including:
A standardised approach to embedding personal safety early in the design process
Enables and encourages co-design with local end users
Assesses real and perceived safety issues in an urban context –particularly those experienced by women
Offers design solutions to eliminate and reduce personal safety risks
Provides a context specific assessment –i.e., movement and place functionality alongside anticipated users
Provides a comparative assessment including daytime and darkness
What are the outputs of an SIA?
This report will therefore highlight:
• Safety concerns identified through engagement with people with local lived experience.
• Initial assessment against the SIA criteria for each route, conducted during daylight and darkness.
• Proposed design solutions for each route aimed at improving safety and enhancing the perception of safety.
Safety Inclusion Assessment
Application and criteria
The tool can be applied to various urban contexts (including train stations, public squares, residential streets) and generate design solutions that are specific to the safety issues and user needs of that location.
It can also be used at various stages of a project from concept design all the way through to detailed design. The outputs can vary from design / email summary, an SIA Technical Note and a full SIA Report.
Where possible, assessments should be conducted with intended or existing users to enable co-design and to ensure the designs consider and address the safety needs of women, girls and other intended users of that particular space.
By combining temporal context, the SIA delivers outputs that are reflective of the whole experience of that place, not just at a specific time.
The SIA tool assesses locations according to five core criteria summarised to the right.
Using these criteria, we identify issues during daylight and darkness, to capture personal safety risks and changes in activity throughout the day, applying insight from users and site visits.
Surveillance: How overlooked is the site; this could be through passive and active surveillance including other users of the location and camera surveillance including CCTV.
Space Activation: This assesses the primary functions of the space and whether it accommodates the needs of its intended users. How busy the space is at different times of day depends on its intended use, but somewhere which is busy during most times of day and has well maintained amenities that facilitate community activity will score highly.
Legibility: The ease with which people can navigate the space. A space is considered easy to navigate if there is clear wayfinding, no entrapment points and visible and alternative pathways through the space at all hours.
Women's Safety: This criteria has a specific focus on design aspects which exacerbate safety issues commonly experienced by women and girls. These include lighting, accessible and visible exit / escape points, access to a range of transport options, public realm enhancements and regular maintenance to prevent urban disorder.
Inclusiveness: Spaces which include infrastructure that is accessible by people of all abilities and genders, with dedicated rest areas and shelters to ensure the space is comfortable.
Application of the SIA
SIA Core Criteria
Safety Inclusion Assessment
Project Context
Route selection
Six routes were selected from the ATZ report for conducting a comprehensive SIA. These routes were chosen to encompass essential walking, wheeling, and cycling paths along the north, east, south, and west boundaries of the site. The routes selected were discussed and agreed with the Transport Stakeholders ahead of being assessed.
This comprised of the following routes:
Name
To Barons Court Underground Station R1
To Earls Court Station Bus Stop and Warwick Road Tesco R3
Lillie Road to Normand Park via Lillie Road R5
To Kensington Olympia via Warwick Road and Kensington High Street (–until junction with Radnor Terrace) R9
To Quietway 15 links via Lillie Road / Old Brompton Road (plus connections) R13
To North End Road via MundStreet / AisgillAvenue / Thaxton Road R14
Figure2.1-MapofSIAroutes
LS0 Update map key, Warwick Rd doesn't match legend
Leadbetter, Susan, 2024-04-02T16:27:31.784
Methodology
Project approach
The SIA methodology revolves around a comprehensive assessment and strategic approach, incorporating various stages to provide well-considered recommendations, which are outlined below:
PRIP Engagement
Engagement
Engagement was undertaken with the Public Realm Inclusivity Panel (PRIP), whereby WSP attended a series of co-design workshops throughout March and April. The initial session focussed on general safety issues when travelling in the local area.
Baseline Assessment
Following this, a baseline assessment of each route was conducted by Susan and Marie, utilising the SIA criteria. Both of which have undergone Gender Sensitive Design training to ensure that they are well equipped to understand and needs of women, girls and gender diverse individuals.
Participatory site walks with PRIP members
Following this, participatory walks were conducted with two members of the PRIP. The walks were tailored to amplify the perspectives of women, girls, and marginalised groups. Offering an opportunity for the design team members to engage with local people, gather their feedback, and integrate it into the design process. Three members of the WSP team were also present during the walk:
Recommendations
• It should be noted that some recommendations provided in this report will fall outside the remit of the Earls Court Development Corporation (ECDC) and will need to be taken forward by, or in collaboration with, other stakeholders.
Baseline route assessments (daylight & darkness)
Route specific recommendations
General recommendations
Susan Leadbetter: Gender and Safety expertise
Marie Gallagher: Accessibility expertise
Henry Harbron: Development Planner
A representative from Transport for London, a key stakeholder within the project was also a present:
Claire Seiler: Spatial Planning
Following this, a subsequent site walk was undertaken with the wider PRIP group.
• Some recommendations are locationspecific and cannot be feasibly implemented across the entire study area.
• Some recommendations are related to the temporary status of an area –for example, areas under construction –and others have been identified for future development or public realm improvement works that have not yet been implemented.
Public Realm Inclusivity Panel: Safety Principles
Safety and security workshop
To ensure alignment between the SIA methodology and the ongoing work within the PRIP, a review of the SIA audit criteria was conducted. Subsequently, adjustments were made to these criteria to harmonise with the Safety Principles outlined by the PRIP, which are incorporated within the Design and Access Statement for the development.
The four safety principles consist of:
• Mobility and Useability
• Freedom of Use
• A Sense of belonging
• Responsiveness
In instances where CCTV has been identified within the assessment, we cannot ascertain its current functionality. The assessment solely determines the presence of CCTV and whether additional installations are deemed necessary. Additionally, it is worth noting that the presence of CCTV can sometimes amplify perceptions of safety concerns, potentially creating an impression that an area is unsafe. Therefore, CCTV installations have been recommended only in locations where they are deemed essential.
Figure2.2–PRIPSafetyPrinciples
Methodology
Participatory site walks
The site visit was generally informal, where the team would walk along each route and pause to discuss particular points or specific infrastructure elements. Handouts were provided to facilitate conversation and enable participants to jot down notes.
Each handout contained 23 questions, incorporating both open-ended and closedended formats. The survey was divided into three sections:
Section 1: About you.
Section 2: Sharing your views.
Section 3: Thank you.
It's important to highlight that the questions were optional, and participants were encouraged to share their responses only if they felt comfortable doing so.
Participants were also provided with the choice between a digital or handwritten survey. In this instance, both attendees opted for the handwritten version.
The ‘About you’ section included demographic related questions such as age, gender, ethnicity or race and disability needs.
‘Sharing your views’ contained questions to capture feedback relating to the routes, generally relating to personal safety and accessibility. Core questions are as follows:
1)How would you rate your overall sense of safety along this route during the day? (1 indicatingnotsafeatalland5indicating verysafe)
2)How would you rate your overall sense of safety along this route during darkness? (1 indicatingnotsafeatalland5indicating verysafe)
3)Are there any specific features or elements along the route that you find concerning?
4)Are there any obstacles or barriers that hinder your mobility or accessibility along the route?
5)Are there any specific times of day or situations when you avoid using this route due to safety concerns?
6)What improvements or changes do you suggest to enhance the safety and accessibility of this route for all users?
Questions in section 3 comprised of an open question to obtain any additional feedback on the routes or suggestions for improving the site visit process in the future.
Following the site visit, notes were collated, and data entry undertaken to summarise within this report.
Participatory site walks
The site walks were planned to be undertaken on the following two routes:
To Earls Court Station Bus Stop and Warwick Road Tesco
To North End Road via MundStreet / AisgillAvenue / Thaxton Road.
3 -The Public Realm Inclusivity Panel
Engagement: Workshop 1
Public Realm Inclusivity Panel: Engagement
Initial workshop
WSP attended a PRIP workshop on 22nd February 2024 to discuss safety and the approach to the assessment. The key findings from the session included:
Earls Court Road Entrance to Earls Court Station: The crossfall of the footway is challenging to navigate for wheelchair users and those with pushchairs.
Earls Court Road: Perceived as dangerous due to its busy, vehicledominated environment. There are also concerns about the presence of homeless and intoxicated individuals.
Warwick Road: Noted for its heavy traffic and vehicle-dominated nature.
A4 West Cromwell Road: The route into the estate west of Tesco is very dark at night, raising safety concerns.
Lillie Road: The footway surface is uneven, and the footway is narrow in places with various obstructions.
Lillie Road: Bus shelters occupy more than half of the available footway space, forcing pedestrians to walk on the road.
Warwick Road and Normand Park: Lighting is inconsistent, with dark patches present.
General feedback
Some routes become slippery when wet.
Poor lighting during the hours of darkness impacts feelings of personal safety and perceptions of crime.
It was suggested that lighting should illuminate not just the road and footway but also the surrounding verges to enhance the sense of security at night.
One girl mentioned feeling less safe in school uniform compared to casual clothes.
Additionally, there were some general concerns about the assessment process, emphasising the need to consider lived experiences, particularly of those with mobility impairments. This was noted, and a site visit was subsequently arranged with members of the PRIP.
PRIP Homework
Following on from the workshop, PRIP members were assigned a homework task to walk, wheel or cycle one of the SIA routes and provide their thoughts and feedback. The feedback has been summarised within the relevant sections of this report, and is also provided in Appendix X.
Figure3.1ExampleofPRIPHomework
Safety Inclusion Assessment
FeedbackMapped
Route selection
PRIP members provided feedback on five out of the six routes. Route 14 (to North End Road via Mund Street / AisgillAvenue / Thaxton Road), shown in grey, was not selected for the homework task.
The feedback for each of the five routes has been mapped (right) and categorised into five key themes:
Where a safety risk for pedestrians was identified
Where a safety risk for cyclists was identified
Where safety risks for wheelchair users were identified / general accessibility issues
Areas with footway issues
Areas where navigation is difficult
Figure3.2issuesidentifiedthroughPRIPhomework
To Barons Court Underground Station
Homework Feedback
Overall impression -the area is generally perceived as safe and well-maintained, with some notable concerns:
Two reports highlighted a steep lateral slope from the pavement to the kerb edge, which hinders ease of travel.
Footways are cluttered in two instances, with informal cycle parking and bins further narrowing the pathway.
The footway materials are in poor condition, presenting a potential trip hazard.
In some areas, the pavement is notably narrow, exacerbated by the presence of trees, making it too cramped for two people to walk side by side.
The green central island area at the end of ComeraghRoad has become a gathering spot for local drug users, leading to a feeling of insecurity along that section of the route.
At the junction of Lillie Road and North End Road, PRIP members raised concerns about the vulnerability of pedestrians navigating the crossings west of the junction
Two uncontrolled crossings on Lillie Road (west of the junction, mapped) lack dropped kerbs, making wheelchair crossings impractical.
A bollard on one of the crossings shows clear damage from passing vehicles, posing a danger to pedestrians wishing to cross.
Lillie Road/ North End Road junction
The footways surrounding the junction are narrow, posing difficulties for wheelchair and pram users.
The presence of two mini roundabouts raises safety concerns for vehicle users, cyclists, and pedestrians, as there is ambiguity over who has priority. A few people noted they have observed various near misses here.
The zebra crossing on the north side has a steep decline down to the carriageway, making it challenging for individuals with mobility issues or wheelchair users to navigate.
Lillie Road to Normand Park via Lillie Road (Continued)
Homework Feedback
Lillie Road (East)
A significant portion of the 300-meter stretch on the northern side of Lillie Road is noted for being too narrow for pedestrians and wheelchair users.
The bus stop on the north side features a very narrow footpath, creating difficulties for all pedestrians passing by, waiting, and alighting.
A 60-meter stretch further east, near the West Kensington Estate –Conversation Corner, is affected by private driveway parking. Pedestrians are often forced onto the carriageway to walk, and the pavement is observed to be in poor condition in this area.
On the south side, a blind spot was observed near the Ibis Hotel for pedestrians traveling eastward.
Throughout the route, the cycle lane on Lillie Road feels narrow and poses a danger to cyclists. There is a suggestion for the implementation of a separated cycle path.
Figures 3.6a, 3.6b & 3.6c Highlighting narrow footway by bus stop, and 60m further East
To Kensington Olympia via Warwick Road and Kensington High Street (–until junction with Radnor Terrace)
Homework Feedback
Overall impression -A sense of insecurity was notably highlighted at the Warwick Road -Kensington High Street intersection.
Cracked pavement and narrow footways were observed towards the northern end of Warwick Road, near Kensington High Street.
Figure 3.7a Unsafe feeling
Figures 3.7c & 3.7d Narrow footway on Warwick Road
Figure 3.7b cracked pavement
To Quietway 15 links via Lillie Road / Old Brompton Road
Homework Feedback
There are concerns regarding the inadequate protection for cyclists on KempsfordGardens.
Two instances of uneven pavement were noted, along with narrow pathways for pedestrians.
At the intersection of Old Brompton Road and Warwick Road, crossing is labeledas confusing for pedestrians.
Just west of the crossing, tactile paving and dropped kerbs lead confusingly to an island not intended for pedestrian use.
Figure 3.8a Lack of protection for cyclists
Figure 3.8b Uneven pavement for pedestrians
Figure 3.8c Narrow pavement for pedestrians
Figures 3.8d, 3.8e & 3.8f Difficulty in crossing at this junction
Figures 3.8g, 3.8h & 3.8iTactile paving leading to island
To Quietway 15 links via Lillie Road / Old Brompton Road
Homework Feedback
Two instances of narrow footways caused by bus stops were recorded. One on Old Brompton Road and the other on Lower Earls Court Road, making it difficult for pedestrians and wheelchair users to pass.
At the Old Brompton Road -Redcliffe Gardens crossing on the south side, it is suggested to be signalised as it is currently unsafe to cross.
Slanted footway and Narrow footways observed on Earls Court Road
Between the Brompton Cemetery entrance and Finborough Junction lights, there is no cycleway, posing a danger to cyclists.
Figures 3.9a & 3.9b: Narrow footways by bus stops
Figure 3.9c Recommendations to signalise crossing
Figure 3.9d Slanted footway
Figures 3.9e & 3.9f Narrow footways
Figures 3.9g & 3.9h Lack of cycle lane
4 -Participatory site walks
Findings & Feedback
Participatory site walks
Section overview
Participatory site walks were conducted with two members of the PRIP, Natasha and Bridget who also sit on the Inclusive and Safety Design panel, a sub-group of the PRIP. This section summarises the feedback noted during the site walk.
Who?
Natasha is neurodiverse, while Bridget has mobility constraints and uses canes to assist her walking
-British Standards Institute, Design for the mind, Neurodiversity and the built environment
Where?
The following routes were assessed with the PRIP members:
R3: To Earls Court Station Bus Stop and Warwick Road Tesco
R14: To North End Road via MundStreet / AisgillAvenue / Thaxton Road
The team originally planned to walk three routes in total with the PRIP members, however it took a while due to the accessibility constraints and the need to take regular breaks. This underscores the importance of having seating at regular intervals so that individuals can rest when needed
When?
The site visits were undertaken on Wednesday 27th March 2024 during daylight hours from 11:00am –13:30pm. At the start of the site visit, the weather was sunny and the road surface dry. The latter half of the site visit it began to rain and the road surface became wet. .
While on-site, Natasha used a mobile application on her phone to measure sound decibels during her journeys. She shared that she is sensitive to loud noises and highlighted that such noises can heighten her stress levels in various environments. Additionally, she mentioned that loud noises sometimes disrupt her sense of navigation, which can consequently impact her sense of safety.
To North End Road via MundStreet / AisgillAvenue
/ Thaxton Road
Section overview
This route serves as a vital access point to the Earls Court Community Hub which is situated at 1a AisgillAvenue. The hub is a central destination for the community, providing an array of activities catering to individuals from various backgrounds. These activities include scout group gatherings, family bingo sessions, art classes, and Pilates sessions, among others. As such, this highlights the importance of ensuring safety and accessibility to guarantee that members of the community feel at ease when traveling to and from the community hub.
Participant feedback
During the site visit, participants noted safety concerns during daylight and darkness conditions. When asked, “How would you rate your overall sense of safety along this route during hours of darkness?”:
Both participants selected 1 out of 5 (not very safe at all).
Both participants also stated that they would avoid using this route late at night and after dark.
Reasons highlighted for this included:
Issue
Insufficient signage
Justification
Poor footway provision
Key themes highlighted:
• Safety at night
• Look and feel
• Accessibility concerns
• Road safety hazards
The shortage of signage and clear wayfinding made navigating the area challenging. Unless familiar with the locale or frequenting the area, visitors would likely struggle to locate the community hub. Lack of familiarity with an area, especially during darkness, can amplify safety concerns and perceptions.
Narrow footways and pinch points were evident. Consequently, Bridget resorted to walking in the carriageway due to discomfort. Despite the street having low levels of traffic and drivers presumably traveling at slower speeds in this location, this situation still presents road safety concerns, particularly in poorly lit conditions after dark.
As well as being narrow, the footways were in poor condition with different levels and surface materials. Uneven surfaces can make walking or wheeling uncomfortable, and increase the risk of trips and falls, especially for pedestrians who may not see or anticipate the irregularities in the path. Footway Maintenance
Poor crossing provision
Lack of rest stops
Bridget noted the lack of rest stops towards the community hub. Despite the presence of a park, it felt unwelcoming due to its neglected and uncared-for appearance noting that neither Bridget, nor Natasha would use this space particularly when dark.
Bridget observed a shortage of rest stops leading to the community hub. Even though a park was present, its neglected and poorly maintained appearance made it feel unwelcoming. Such neglect can foster a negative perception of the area.
To North End Road via Mund Street / Aisgill Avenue / Thaxton Road
To Earls Court Station Bus Stop and Warwick Road Tesco
Section overview
Route 3 spans about 450m along A3220 (Warwick Road), operating as a one-way thoroughfare with three lanes directing traffic towards Warwick Road Tesco. The route has a 30mph speed limit and functions as one of TfL’s Red Routes. Commencing outside an entrance to Earls Court Underground station, providing access to the District and Piccadilly lines, the route features a spur onto PhilbeachGardens leading to St Cuthberts Church.
Participant feedback
During the site visit, participants noted safety concerns during daylight and darkness conditions. When asked, “How would you rate your overall sense of safety along this route
Natasha selected 2 out of 5 (unsafe) during the day. On the contrast, she rated her sense of safety higher during darkness with a 4 out of 5 (fairly safe).
Bridget’s response was fairly consistent across daytime, rating her safety 3 out of five (neither safe, nor unsafe) and 2 out of 5 (unsafe) during darkness.
Justification Issue
Inconsistent surface materials
Surveillance & lighting
Lack of rest stops
Noisy
Cycle parking
Key themes highlighted:
• Places to sit and rest
• Noise
• Night-time travel
• Accessibility concerns
Crossing Provision
Side road treatments along this route frequently consisted of cobblestone at crossing points. This posed discomfort for individuals with mobility impairments. Bridget pointed out that cobblestones can be particularly uncomfortable to traverse. Moreover, there were instances where these materials had lifted, presenting a potential trip hazard.
Despite being a relatively busy route frequented by cars and surrounded by residential housing, discussions on-site emphasised that it could feel particularly isolated late at night. Additionally, there were areas of darkness along the route.
There are no areas for stopping and resting until the end of the route where there is a pedestrianised area with shaded benches outside the Tesco.. However, the seating here is neglected, and not very welcoming.
The route was very noisy. Although this is often expected on a high traffic route), Natasha found this route quite stressful. Natasha felt much more at ease on Philbeach Gardens as it was much quieter.
Cycle parking along this route was sparse, and the observed facilities were in a state of disrepair, appearing to have been vandalised. This gave the impression that it would not be safe to leave your bike parked there. The group observed inappropriate parking on railings too and on footways which were obstructing the path.
Both Bridget and Natasha disliked the Warwick Road junction with A4 crossings to access Tesco, expressing they felt very unsafe crossing here and it doesn’t prioritise pedestrians. Bridget described the crossing as a barrier that hinders her access to the Big Tesco, leading her to avoid it unless necessary due to the crossing and poor access provision outside Tesco.
To Earls Court Station Bus Stop and Warwick Road Tesco
Participant feedback
When asked, “Arethereanyobstaclesor barriersthathinderyourmobilityor accessibilityalongtheroute”
Natasha discussed how she often felt uneasy on this route due to the noise, with her decibel app recording levels up to 84 dB.This exceeds the typical busy street noise level of around 80 dB.However, she mentioned how her sense of safety improved at night when the roads were less busy and quieter, reducing distractions and disorientation from loud noise.
Figure 4.5 –potential trip hazards outside church
Figure 4.6 -use of cobble paving
Figure 4.7: unfriendly pedestrian crossing
Figure 4.8 –lack of cycle parking
To Earls Court Station Bus Stop and Warwick Road Tesco
Participant feedback
Although this section of the route is a temporary-use, the use of bright colours came up in conversation. Generally, by incorporating bright colours into design, public spaces can appear to be more welcoming and attract different people to a space. During the site visit, it was observed that the use of colour, while visually appealing to some, may pose challenges for neurodiverse individuals who may be sensitive to certain colours or find them overstimulating.
Natasha illustrated this concept with two distinct examples of hyper-sensitivity and hypo-sensitivity, terms commonly employed to describe variations in sensory processing among individuals, particularly those who may have autism spectrum disorder (ASD) or sensory processing disorder (SPD).
Hyper-sensitivity: refers to an increased sensitivity or heightened response to sensory stimuli. Individuals who are hyper-sensitive may experience sensory input more intensely than others. For example, they may find certain sounds, lights, textures, or smells overwhelming or painful. In the context of colour, someone who is hypersensitive may be particularly sensitive to bright or intense colours, finding them overly stimulating or distressing.
Natasha also mentioned this could be amplified with the addition of lighting during darkness.
Hypo-sensitivity: on the other hand, refers to a decreased sensitivity or diminished response to sensory stimuli. Individuals who are hypo-sensitive may require more intense sensory input to register or respond to stimuli. They may seek out sensory experiences or engage in sensory-seeking behaviours to fulfil their sensory needs. In terms of colour, someone who is hyposensitive may not respond strongly to bright colours and may prefer more intense or vivid hues to elicit a response.
This doesn’t mean that the use of colour should be avoided within public spaces, instead it could mean considering:
• Choosing colours that are vibrant but not overly intense or overwhelming i.e. using softer or muted versions of bright colours to reduce sensory overload.
• Designating areas with minimal or no colour for individuals who may find vibrant colours uncomfortable or overstimulating
This chapter provides an overview of the assessment in daylight and darkness undertaken for the six routes outlined. In some instances, assessors have highlighted what currently works well for safety and inclusion as well as providing commentary on the issues observed and recommendations.
The SIA design criteria have been colour-coded to indicate which PRIP Safety Principle they correspond to. For example, blue represents Mobility & Usability, red signifies Free of Use, yellow stands for a Sense of Belonging, and green indicates Responsiveness.
General
Help-points: these were present along some of the routes which provided access to emergency services, phone charging and wifias well as an additional layer of illumination during darkness.
Construction hoarding: Temporary hoardings typically worsen safety perceptions and are often poorly maintained and covered in graffiti. However, the hoarding surrounding the development has been thoughtfully planned and contributed positively to a sense of safety. Additionally, the use of images depicting people on the hoarding aligns with the "eyes on the street" concept, contributing to a feeling of security.
Gamification: Some routes in the H&F borough, included ‘beat the streets’ on lamp columns to incentivise and encourage active travel. People were observed using them during the site visit.
Figure5.1:Helppoints Figure5.2:Gamification
Figure5.3:Constructionhoarding
To North End Road via MundStreet / AisgillAvenue / Thaxton Road
Issues&recommendations
Observations
Despite being the key route to the Earls Court Community Hub, the space felt unused and uninviting, particularly during hours of darkness. This is likely owed to the fact that this is not a through route and the land use is predominantly residential, with small pockets of activity such as the community hub, playground on Aisgill Avenue and park on Mund Street.
Entrapment points along the route, including adjacent to the play space on Aisgill Avenue and as a result of footway parking and low tree canopies, further add to this space feeling unused.
Recommendations
The boundary wall opposite the residential properties on AisgillAvenue could benefit from local artwork and/or vegetation clearance to create a formal pocket park or community garden. This would not only improve the attractiveness of the space for those travelling to and from the community hub but also provides the space with a purpose and encourages residents to spend time here, further activating the space.
Opportunities to tie in the landscaping / planting within the community hub boundary could be explored for MundStreet, AisgillAvenue and Thaxton Road.
The park on MundStreet could benefit from similar measures such as artwork, community garden or a play space. This would encourage use of the park by residents of all ages, including young people.
Although the residential properties offer some active frontage, the lack of foot traffic and poor navigation to the community hub means that this route feels separated from the surrounding through routes and lacks passive surveillance.
CCTV cameras were noted outside the community centre.
Lighting is present along the route but due to vegetation cover, there are patches of darkness. This was a particular issue on AisgillRoad and the park on MundStreet. Some of the lights in the park on MundStreet did not appear to work during the darkness site visit.
Adding to this, the entrance to the Community Centre felt dark and unwelcoming during the hours of darkness, and footway parking creates shadows and entrapment points.
Explore ways to improve the approach to the community hub to activate the space and increase footfall. This should be considered for the defunct space at the Aisgill Avenue and Stainer Close junction.
Consider warm, multi-layered lighting (including overhead, wall and ground lighting) to guide pedestrians to the Community Hub and residential properties. Lighting should be considered adjacent to the boundary wall on AisgillAvenue.
To North End Road via MundStreet / AisgillAvenue / Thaxton Road
Issues&recommendations
Observations
This route is located just off North End Road which is a bus route served by two daytime services and a night service. There are no disabled parking bays outside the Community Hub, which could impact access for some visitors who may require doorstep access.
The active travel environment along the length of this route is substandard. Footways are inconsistent, in poor condition and there are instances of footway parking and lack of dropped kerbs. There is no existing cycle parking on AisgillAvenue outside the hub, which could deter active travel to the site. There are Sheffield stands on Mund Street, however it was in disrepair and cycles appeared vandalised.
The route lacks any formal signage and permeability to facilitate easy access to The Community Hub. This is likely to impact hub visitors, particularly those with disabilities, children, older people, those travelling with pushchairs, and those travelling during hours of darkness.
Footways along the route are narrow, inconsistent and indirect. This coupled with footway parking, forces pedestrians to walk in the carriageway, particularly mobility aid users.
Footways widths go below 2m in some places, creating pinch points for those travelling with mobility aids and pushchairs, and the provision is inconsistent and disjointed.
Mund Street Park feels neglected and underused, with broken railings and overgrown vegetation. Footways along the route are broken and in disrepair. Green verges are overgrown and unkempt.
Recommendations
Upgrade the pedestrian environment for the entire route to improve continuity, access and safety. Removal of the barriers outside AisgillAvenue to improve permeability should also be explored.
Weatherproof, short stay cycle parking, along with potential dockless bike parking bays and disabled parking bays, should be provided on AisgillAvenue to provide easy access to the hub.
This should be complemented with wayfinding at the North End Route junction and along the route.
Consider clear wayfinding signs to help with navigation to the Community Hub. A Legible London Totem on North End Road and by Normand Park could be explored.
Where feasible, footways should measure at least 1.5m in width, expanding to 2m where space allows. Footway resurfacing along the length of the route to provide a comfortable, direct route to the Hub and surrounding residential properties. At side roads, dropped kerbs or raised tables should be considered to improve pedestrian access and priority.
Footway parking restrictions should be considered to remove pinch points and obstacles.
Repair broken railings and consider vegetation maintenance and landscaping within the park. Footway resurfacing and green verge maintenance required along the length of the route.
To North End Road via MundStreet / AisgillAvenue / Thaxton Road Daylight
To North End Road via MundStreet / AisgillAvenue / Thaxton Road Darkness
Figure 5.12: Low tree canopies along AisgillAvenue
Figure 5.9: Broken lamp columns coupled with lack of activation creates an unwelcome space (Park on MundStreet)
Figure 5.7: Entrance to Community Hub feels dark and unwelcoming
Figure 5.8: Footway parking creates shadows and entrapment points
Figure 5.10: Dark entrapment points adjacent to play space on AisgillAvenue
Figure 5.11: Lack of active frontage and footfall along most of the route
To Barons Court Underground Station
Issuesandrecommendations
Observations
Barons Court Road links Barons Court and West Kensington Stations, and buses serve North End Road. Along the route, bikes were locked to railings and lamp columns, indicating a lack of long-stay cycle parking in the area, particularly for residents. This can negatively impact modal shift and can lead to bike theft. This can also create pinch points and create obstructions on the footway. Access to Transport Options 1
Wayfinding signs are worn and poorly placed for pedestrian use. Ease of Navigation 2
The northern footway on Baron's Court Road on approach to the junction of North End Road, lacks natural surveillance which is likely owed to the low tree canopy, on-street parking and railway boundary wall. A similar issue is noted on Beaumont Avenue where permitted footway parking combined with the railway boundary fencing and vegetation, reduces the footway width and creates concealed spaces between the parked cars. Both assessors avoided this section of footway and felt safer from a personal safety perspective walking in the carriageway.
This section of route felt very uneasy at night, due to concerns about potential hiding spots or ambush points. The constrained footway also poses accessibility challenges, especially for individuals using wheelchairs or pushing buggies.
There is also a lack of pedestrian priority at the Barons Court Road junction with Palliser Road, and outside Barons Court Station. This can impede safe crossing, particularly for disabled users.
Recommendations
Reallocate on-street parking bays to provide secure, weatherproof cycle hangars.
Despite surveillance from residential buildings and the nearby through route (North End Road), Beaumont Avenue lacks any formal activity or footfall.
Consider removal of on-street parking altogether. If not feasible, remove parking provision on the northern section, providing onstreet parking on the southern section only.
Create focal point with public realm improvements and placemaking features as this is a main entrance to the development site.
Formalise crossing points outside the station and at the Barons Court Road junction with Palliser Road to increase pedestrian priority and visibility. This could be complemented by reducing the junction radii.
Renew wayfinding signs and positioning to improve visibility.
Consider ways to improve the approach to the development so to activate the space and increase footfall. This can be achieved through public realm improvements such as pocket parks.
To Barons Court Underground Station
Issues&recommendations
The off-street parking provision for some of the properties on Barons Court Road, Barton Road and Palliser Road, means the footway is uneven in some places.
This is owed to a combination of dropped kerbs/slopes to accommodate vehicle access and damage by vehicles driving over the footway.
An uneven footway can pose an accessibility issue for those with limited mobility/who use mobility aids, and those travelling with pushchairs.
Some instances of rubbish dumped on the footways on Barons Court Road, impeding the footway.
Recommendations
Consider repaving the footway to improve overall quality and comfort, particularly for those with limited mobility, whilst maintaining access to the off-street parking.
The majority of the route is well lit, however despite some lighting along Beaumont Avenue, this section still felt very dark, with a number of dark patches.
Consider signs to dissuade rubbish dumping and provide bins for houses/flats which do not have space within the property boundary.
Consider warm, multi-layered lighting (including overhead, wall and ground lighting) to guide pedestrians to the new development entrance.
Given that this is a key focal point to the development sit, consider implementing new seating with lighting embedded.
Kensington Olympia via Warwick Road and Kensington High Street Issues&recommendations
Recommendations Observations
Warwick Road and Kensington High Street are busy through routes, with a mix of uses including retail, hotels, and eateries, however a short section of Warwick Road, south of the high street, lacked active frontages.
It is not clear from Kensington High Street that there is an access to Kensington Olympia station via Russell Road.
Consider installing multi-layered lighting on Warwick Road south of Kensington High Street, particularly along the sections of hoarding and garages.
Consider installing intuitive wayfinding signs to help with navigation to Kensington Olympia station, particularly during hours of darkness.
Some of the paving slabs along Kensington High Street and Warwick Road were loose, posing a trip hazard, particularly for disabled users and those traveling with young children/pushchairs. Some sections of footway on Russell Road and Kensington High Street were slippery. This is an issue in wet weather.
There was evidence of vehicles overrunning the footway at the Warwick Lane/Warwick Road junction, posing a road safety concern.
No formal pedestrian phase at crossing at the Warwick Road and Beckford Road junction.
Traffic volume and speeds on Warwick Road and Kensington High Street appeared to be high, with pedestrians unable to keep a reasonable distance from moderate traffic volumes. This was a particular issue on Warwick Road, which is one-way and two lanes, potentially increasing traffic speeds.
Street clutter and potential trip hazards adjacent to Warwick Road Tesco bus stop.
Address trip hazards through footway maintenance and repaving. Assess the materials used to minimise slip hazards.
Consider measures to prevent vehicles overrunning the footway and to protect pedestrians and consider formal pedestrian phase at the Warwick Road/Beckford Road junction.
Consider measures to protect/separate pedestrians from motor vehicles on Warwick Road. Focus areas should be adjacent to the hoarding, south of Kensington High Street. Where temporary footway widening isn’t possible, options to increase the footway widths with the development should be explored.
Rationalise street furniture so to allow for unobstructed pedestrian movement, access and clear sightlines.
0 Susan, I'm talking about here: https://maps.app.goo.gl/T1armns1JYCDgmYGA. There are garages on one side and hoarding on the other. Could we suggest multi-layered lighting? Anything else?
Closier Gallagher, Marie, 2024-04-12T15:16:36.423
Kensington Olympia via Warwick Road and Kensington High Street Daytime
Earls Court Station Bus Stop and Warwick Road Tesco
Issues&recommendations
Pedestrian crossings on a busy main road with multiple stages to traverse, leading to extended wait times. This delay can make pedestrians impatient, causing some to start crossing unsafely before it's clear.
There is a public space on the western side, but it's unlikely to attract much use due to the proximity to the A4, a heavily trafficked and noisy road with significant air pollution. The area does offer seating, but the benches are metal (cold in winter), without armrests or backrests, with minimal lighting. However, there are trees to provides some shade and shelter.
The pedestrian islands are relatively narrow, which raises concerns about fitting a mobility scooter or wheelchair alongside a pushchair or other pedestrians. This limited space may lead to overflow onto the roadway.
This route was generally quite loud, which can be particularly overwhelming for neurodiverse individuals due to high traffic flows other loud disturbances. This can enable neurodiverse individuals to lose sense of navigation.
A residential street with high traffic flows, likely to have good levels of passive surveillance throughout different times of the day to enhance the feeling of personal safety.
Recommendations
Various constraints due to this being through a TfL red route with high vehicle flows and various buses. However, this should be raised and considered fully by TfL.
Whilst it may not be used often, there are minimal places to sit and rest along this route. Enhancements could include replacing the current metal benches with more comfortable seating options that include armrests and backrests and consider embedding lighting into seating materials to provide illumination at night.
Widen the pedestrian refuse islands.
Provide clear and straightforward signs to help neurodiverse individuals navigate the area with ease.
Warwick Road junction with the A4
Earls Court Station Bus Stop and Warwick Road Tesco
Findings&Recommendations
Recommendations Observations
Cycle parking in disrepair with vandalised bikes, gave the impression that bike theft is an issue here.
Provide secure cycle parking such as bike hangars or Sheffield stands which are visible and well lit.
Lack of formal crossing points along the route, with short bollards outside the church resulting in potential trip hazards
Earls Court Station
Earl's Court is on the Piccadilly Line, which offers night tube service, indicating there will likely be activity during nighttime hours. Additionally, night buses stop at a bus stop located across from the station. However, if you needed help at night, you might be unsure where to go if staff aren’t present at the station.
Artwork / public space at the boundary of the development was observed. Although temporary, it feels like a redundant space.
Bus stop which is served by four buses and three night buses. Although, the footway isn’t wide enough to accommodate the footfall from the station and the bus stop so there is likely to be occasional give and take between users. No space for wheelchair / buggy users under the shelter either.
Install pedestrian crossing points, especially where there is a natural desire line, such as near the church.
Engage with TfL regarding staff presence, particularly during the night tube service.
This could benefit from more formal activation through the provision of seating and cycle parking.
Constrained in this location due to TfL red route, however this should be highlighted to TfL.
Earls Court Station Bus Stop and Warwick Road Tesco Daytime Assessment
Issues Earls Court Station Bus Stop and Warwick Road Tesco Darkness
Figure5.38:Seatingarea,lackoflighting
Figure5.39:Seatingarea,gatedoff
To Normand Park -East of the roundabout
Findingsandrecommendations
Observations
Various businesses were present, including cafés and restaurants. There are some pinch points due to al fresco dining, but generally ok. This also provides activation and natural surveillance throughout various times of the day.
A short spur which provides access to North Fulham Surgery to located on the northern side of Lillie Road. This section was very dark and lacked lighting, with low hanging canopies. This was also in close proximity to the bus stop which was relatively busy, pedestrians obstructed the footway due to limited waiting space as the footway is narrow.
A blind spot on the sharp corner (tattoo shop) for pedestrians travelling east on the Lillie Road / North End Road junction, with guard railing, this could be an entrapment point. Pedestrians may also bump into one another.
Footways were generally in disrepair, with inconsistent use of materials and poorly maintained. This can result in trip hazards for pedestrians and be uncomfortable for wheelchair users.
Ponding was also observed in some sections of the carriageway, the cycle lane and by the bus stop. This can result in passengers being splashed whilst waiting for the bus, as well as becoming a slip hazard where it could freeze in in cold conditions and become slippery.
Vehicles were observed over hanging the footway from their driveways which can create pinch points and obstruct the footway.
Use of setts at crossing point adjacent to Conversation Corner, with absence of tactile paving at the crossing. Setts can cause discomfort for pedestrians with mobility impairments and are likely to lift and become a trip hazard when frequently overran by vehicles.
Recommendations
Encourage businesses to sign up to the Night Safety Charter.
Undertake regular maintenance of the tree canopies and consider providing seating here. This will provide an additional point of rest for bus stop users, which is likely to be used by visitors of the surgery. Consider installing lighting for when it is dark.
Install convex mirror to increase visibility.
Consider upgrading footway materials so they are level and consistent.
Review drainage within the area and adjust levels if required.
Consider widening the footway in this location, in addition to additional parking restrictions to prohobit vehicles stopping and obstructing the pavement.
Consider removing setts at crossing points or restrict use of setts for future crossing points.
Normand Park –Lillie Road and North End Road junction
Guard railing and bell bollards present, which created pinch points at times. Bell bollards can become trip hazards too.
The zebra crossings on each arm of the roundabout have inconsistent tactile paving, which vary in shape, colour and size. This can be particularly confusing for visually impaired pedestrians.
Road layout is generally confusing for cyclists, and zebra crossings are obstructed by guard rail and do not follow pedestrian desire lines.
Recommendations
Some protection is needed, could consider removing the guard rails and replace with planters but maintenance would be required. Replace bell bollards with taller bollards.
Update tactile paving to ensure consistency.
Consider upgrading the junction and crossing facilities in this location.
Provide secure cycle parking with a short walking distance from shops/businesses.
To Normand Park –West of the roundabout Findingsandrecommendations
The whole section near Normand Park felt dark, despite street lighting. Informal crossing point provided approximately 13.5m to the east of bus stop. However, there is no lighting. It is unlikely that drivers would be able to see pedestrians during hours of darkness, particularly those who are small / children may run out in the road.
Shared use provision in this location is particularly confusing and inconsistent. Generally unclear where it starts or stops.
Outofscope–The park is likely to be underutilised in winter periods when it is dark at 4pm due to lack of lighting. The toilets were also in disrepair and both assessors felt intimidated using them, even in daylight conditions.
Recommendations
Provide consistent lighting, and ensure lamp columns are installed at the crossing point on both sides of the footway.
Consider removal of shared use and provide oncarriageway cycle facilities.
Although this is out of scope, the LA could consider implementing lighting into play features to facilitate play post 4pm in winter. Remove bars from the toilet windows and consider painting the toilet block to make it more appealing.
Figure 5.53: Unwelcoming toilets in Normand park
To Normand Park -West of the roundabout Daytime
Figure 5.57: Insufficient delineation between cycle path and footway
Figure 5.54: Shared use opposite Normand Park
Figure 5.55: Ponding issue on footways
Figure 5.56: Poor side road treatment and a-boards on footway
Figure 5.59: Unclear uncontrolled crossing
Figure 5.58: Confusing tactile arrangement and setts used on carriageway
To Normand Park -West of the roundabout Darkness
Figure 5.62 -Poor sense of place
Figure 5.60 -Entrapment points
Figure 5.61 -Lack of activation and footfall
To Quietway 15
Issues&recommendations
Observations and Issues
Narrow footways along some sections of the route, with pinch points created by tree pits and utility boxes. Uneven paving leading to trip hazards.
Lack of dropped kerbs at some side roads on Kempsford Gardens, and at the access point to the cemetery, posing an accessibility issue. Inadequate crossing at the development access point near West Brompton Station bus stop. This lacks appropriate dropped kerbs and does not align with pedestrian desire lines.
No formal pedestrian phase at crossing at Warwick Road junction with Old Brompton Road. This poses a road safety concern for pedestrians using this crossing point, particularly those who require more time to cross safely. Poor visibility during hours of darkness at this crossing.
Confusing road markings on Earls Court Square, which can be disconcerting for some users.
Potential entrapment point at West Brompton Station bus stop, due to proximity to cemetery boundary wall.
Some of the lighting columns were obscured by trees, creating patches of darkness.
Traffic signal was also obscured by signage / vegetation posing a road safety issue.
Some instances of rubbish dumped on the footways, impeding the footway and creating potential obstacles.
Recommendations
Address trip hazards through footway maintenance and repaving. Provide dropped kerbs at all crossing to provide a direct, accessible route for all users. Consider rationalising street furniture where possible to provide clear footways.
Consider formal pedestrian phase at the Warwick Road/Old Brompton Road junction to improve pedestrian safety and priority.
Consistent road markings along length of the route and ensure consistency with surrounding network.
Review location of bus stop to improve visibility and personal safety, particularly during hours or darkness.
Review lighting provision and positioning to avoid obstruction and ensure routes are appropriately lit.
Consider signs to dissuade rubbish dumping and provide bins for businesses/residential properties which do not have space within the property boundary.
To Quietway 15 Daytime
Issues
Figure5.63:Narrowandunevenfootways
Figure5.66:Inadequatecrossingatthedevelopmentaccess point
WSP attended another PRIP workshop on Thursday 25th April 2024. The purpose of the workshop was to provide an update on the site walk undertaken with Natasha and Bridget to highlight some of the key issues that were found. In addition to undertaking another site walk with all the PRIP members. Representatives from TfL and Kensington and Chelsea were also present.
Methodology
The group was split into two groups:
Group 1: led by Dinah (ZCD) and Marie (WSP) and travelled along Lillie Road from Empress Place, heading west up to Normand Park.
Group 2: led by Rallou(ZCD), Justin and Susan (WSP) and travelled along Lillie Road from Empress Place, heading west up to the Warwick Road junction.
The route alignment of each route walked can be seen overleaf.
ZCD produced handouts for PRIP members to rate various statements from 1 to 3, corresponding to different safety principles. After the walk, the groups returned for a debrief to discuss the issues that were identified.
Figure6.1:OnsitewiththePRIP
PRIP Workshop
Figure6.2:RouteswalkedbyPRIPmembers
Key Findings
Accessibility
• Footway quality was raised as an issue, particularly along the section of Lillie Road opposite the IBIS hotel. Some participants found this challenging due to risk of trip hazards and difficulty traversing in a wheelchair or when using mobility aids. Lizzie noted that she spends most her time looking at the ground to avoid hazards and pick the most appropriate route, compromising her safety in other respects.
• Narrow footways and pinch points pose a road safety concern with pedestrians having to walk in the carriageway. This poses a significant road safety concern where traffic volumes are high. Space for pedestrians at the North End Road bus stop is limited, forcing pedestrians to walk in the carriageway. Not enough space for wheelchair users, pushchairs and pedestrians to pass one another.
• Lack of public seating along the route was also noted as an issue, including at the Empress State bus stop which is flag only.
• Steep gradients outside of West Brompton Station make it difficult for some users to easily navigate the space.
Maintenance:
• Footways and carriageway are poorly maintained along much of the route, leading to trip hazards and ponding.
Assistance:
• Some participants were concerned that they would not be able to seek assistance without having to spend money.
• Lack of staff at West Brompton Station was a concern for some users.
Familiarity:
• Many participants noted that familiarity is critical to perceptions of personal safety.
Time of Day:
• Generally, participants agreed that they often feel unsafe during hours of darkness, even if they know an area.
• Lizzie mentioned that she often feels safer during the hours of darkness because there tends to be fewer people around and subsequently less to contend with when navigating a space.
Construction:
• Temporary items on the footway associated with construction, including Aboards, are often poorly placed and narrow the footway further, creating obstacles for many users. This was a prevalent issue on Lillie Road where road works were taking place, making it difficult for wheelchair users and those using mobility aids to navigate.
• The road works at the double roundabout on Lillie Road blocked off the dropped kerbs at the zebra crossings. Although signalised crossings were installed in place of the zebra crossings, blocking access to the dropped kerbs excludes users who need dropped kerbs to access and safely use the crossing. The crossing time provided by the temporary signals was also inadequate.
Anti-social behaviour:
• The green space next to North End Road bus stop is poorly maintained and the building is defunct and dilapidated. Subsequently, this often attracts anti-social behaviour such as drug use, impacting participants sense of place and feelings of personal safety.
Key Findings: Old Brompton Road / Warwick Road junction
A) The pedestrian crossing at this junction has a confusing layout, particularly for pedestrians heading east. At present, it is unclear where vehicles are coming from. There are no indicators of priority or guidance for pedestrians on where to look for approaching vehicles. There was also evidence of vehicles overrunning the edge of the footway, despite the bell bollard in place.
A) The following improvements should be considered:
• Extend the junction radius to encourage vehicles to slow down as they approach and install a raised table to give pedestrians greater priority.
• Add signage and road markings to alert pedestrians to look to their right before crossing. Replace the existing bell bollard with a taller bollard with reflective strips to improve visibility in the dark.
B) Pedestrian phasing were absent at the signalised crossing. The group missed the opportunity to cross three times as it was unclear when to cross.
B) It is recommended that pedestrian phasing is provided.
Key Findings: Lillie Road / Warwick Road junction
Gradient issues highlighted outside of West Brompton tube station
The bus stop on the southern side of Lillie Road was noted as an entrapment point / area of concealment where PRIP members noted they often walk in the carriageway.
Footway width is approximately 1.5m in this location. When busy, can result in users walking in the carriageway.
Key Findings: Lillie Road Lillie Road (towards Norman Park)
The double roundabout had been signalised due to temporary road works, with barriers placed across the tactile paving/dropped kerb, hindering safe crossing for individuals like Lizzie and Bridget. This rendered the crossing completely inaccessible for wheelchair and mobility aid users. Issues such as this, highlight importance of accessible routes which must be considered ahead of construction.
Footways are uneven and damaged by vehicle crossover, posing difficulties for wheelchair users, and those using mobility aids.
Lesson’s Learned
Following the session, the PRIP put together a series of recommendations to be considered along Lillie Road and the wider routes. The following table outlines the recommendations, along with WSP’s response to show how these have been considered within the SIA and widerTA.
There were no places to rest, so incorporate more benches.
Provide wider pavements so pedestrians and other users can easily use.
Pavement was rough and uneven. Pavements should be smoother for wheelchair, buggy, and trolley users.
There was a lack of good, informative signage. This could be adapted for clarity and usability.
Give elderly pedestrians and people with disabilities a card reader that could extend the green man signal on traffic lights.
The lack of suitable rest points has been identified as a key issue across all routes, highlighted in both the wider Transport Assessment and the SIA. Suggestions include the need for a variety of seating options, incorporating backrests and armrests to accommodate different users. This was a notable issue along route 3 and route 5.
Most, if not all, routes have identified issues concerning pinch points or risk of conflict. Where possible, footway widths should be increased to a minimum of 1.5m, ideally 2m. However, constraints in some locations make it unfeasible to widen footways on all assessed routes. The SIA has identified Route 14, Beaumont Avenue, and areas with bus stops as priority areas for improvement where possible.
Similar to the above, most routes have identified issues with footway surfacing. The SIA has prioritised Route 14 and sections of Route 5 for surface improvements.
Wayfinding should be enhanced across all routes, particularly at key access points to the development and the community centre, including the Normand Park area and North End Road. Signage should be intuitive and visible in darkness.
The Green Man+ initiative exists in Singapore but is not currently offered in the UK. However, it is recommended that TfL explore this initiative. The Warwick Road junction with the A4 would greatly benefit from such a program.
WSP Response
Lesson’s Learned
Accessibility information on platforms like Google Streets or local business websites can be very helpful. One suggestion was to create an ‘Earl’s Court Street View’ that presents information from a pedestrian or wheelchair user’s perspective rather than a car.
Incorporate more discrete places along Lillie Road so you don’t feel exposed.
Freedom of use
An app / website for the Earls Court development website is to be developed. This suggestion could form part of this initiative.
Others point out that it can feel different depending on whether you’re alone or with others. The level of safety can also depend on who you’re with. Lillie Road should be a place where people feel safe and free to use regardless of whether you’re alone or with others.
Opportunities to improve the public realm where the site fronts Lillie Road are included in the masterplan.
Lillie Road lacks shops or other safe havens where people can seek help or escape dangerous situations. Incorporate more public spaces, like shops or community spaces like Action on Disability to act as hubs for safety and comfort.
Lillie Road lacks a distinct character and doesn’t reflect the local culture, aside from the hoarding opposite West Brompton Station. It primarily serves as a passage from point A to point B. More art and character could be incorporated to help with this.
The opportunities presented within the Transport Assessment and SIA take into account a wide range of users. Suggested improvements include enhanced lighting, accessible pathways, and the installation of help points or safe havens to ensure that Lillie Road and the surrounding areas are safe for everyone at all times of the day.
A Sense of Belonging
Safe Havens were a focal point of discussion at the workshop. Therefore, the following recommendations have been proposed within the SIA:
• Encourage businesses along the routes and within the development to enrol and actively participate in the Mayor’s Night Safety Charter.
• Promote the Safe Haven scheme among businesses in the local area and the development.
Lillie Road is primarily a movement corridor, as opposed to a place. However, local artwork would be a nice addition as long as it does not impede pedestrian movement.
LS0 [@Sherlock, Justin] thoughts on this? Bit unsure as this contradicts the ‘hidden’ areas where there is drug use
Leadbetter, Susan, 2024-05-28T18:39:41.945
Lesson’s Learned
Station staff must be available to assist if needed at all times. At the time of a local tour, there was no staff at West Brompton Station
Emergency responders should receive training acknowledging that people’s perceptions to danger and emergencies can be different.
Some others said that parts of Lillie Road especially near the North Fulham Surgery and the cut through the WKGG Estate felt unsafe even in the morning due to activities that cause distress like drug use. There should be ‘safe points’ in these areas which help to address this.
Responsiveness
Safe Haven locations will provide help at all times of day. It is also recommended that TfL consider the presence of staff at stations, particularly late at night.
This falls outside of the scope of the SIA but is a wider point relating to the purpose and use of the emergency help points at stations.
The addition of Safe Havens would help address this issue. However, it is also essential for local authorities and police to work on discouraging drug use in public spaces.
While most issues have been noted with opportunities identified within the SIA and TA, it's important to acknowledge that some recommendations may exceed the scope of ECDC. For instance, footway widening and upgrading surface materials along all routesmay present challenges and may only be taken forward where deemed essential.
Summary
Identified Improvements
Overview of issues
The table below offers an overview of the primary issues identified within the SIA. Noteworthy positive aspects included 'Digital Connectivity and Information Access.' For instance, phone coverage, including signal and 4G, was consistently reliable across all sites, ensuring accessibility in case of emergency. Additionally, CCTV presence was generally satisfactory across all routes. In addition to the presence of help points, well considered hoarding, and elements of gamification.
Barons Court Underground Station
To Earls Court Station Bus Stop and Warwick Road Tesco
Lillie Road to Normand Park via Lillie Road
Access to transport options, Ease of Navigation, Surveillance, Accessible Movement Paths, Maintenance, Artificial Lighting
Risk of Conflict, Stret Furniture, Ease of Navigation, Passive Surveillance, Traffic Exposure, Maintenance, Movement Paths, Access to transport options
Space Activation, Surveillance, Artificial Lighting, Accessible Movement Paths, Ease of Navigation, Risk of Conflict, Concealment Area
Issues identified regarding insufficient lighting at night, inconsistent footway materials, lack of secure cycle parking which resulted in footway obstructions. Beaumont Avenue was very dark with areas of concealment.
Lack of seating, busy red route with lack of pedestrian priority and is very loud. Busy pedestrian crossings which take too long to cross.
To Kensington Olympia via Warwick Road and Kensington High Street
To Quietway 15 links via Lillie Road / Old Brompton Road (plus connections)
To North End Road via Mund Street / Aisgill Avenue / Thaxton Road
Activation, Ease of Navigation, Accessible Movement Paths, Traffic Expose, Street Furniture
Numerous issues relating to pavement widths and surface materials. Confusing road layouts and crossing points for pedestrians. Inconsistent lighting and areas of darkness, with a section of shared use by the park which is confusing. Areas of ponding also observed. Area of antisocial behaviour and drug taking noted.
Insufficient lighting and lack of surveillance i.e. dark spots where there is hoarding and garages with no activation. Lack of pedestrian phasing at the Warwick Road and Beckford Road junction.
Accessible Movement Paths, Ease of Navigation, Artificial Lighting, Maintenance
No formal pedestrian phase at crossing at Warwick Road junction with Old Brompton Road, issues with footway maintenance. Patches of inconsistent lighting.
Activation, Surveillance, Artificial Lighting, Access to transport Options, Ease of Navigation, Accessible Movement Paths, Maintenance
Area generally felt neglected and run down, various issues with footway maintenance, widths and lack of lighting. Access constraints identified for different users for the community centre.
Summary
Issues (SIA Criteria)
Route
To
Design principles and considerations
Design principles
This section outlines the essential design principles and considerations for the routes, acknowledging that they may not be fully applicable to all existing routes. However, these principles should also be taken into account within the red line boundary.
Noise:
• Where possible, consider implementing clearly identifiable quiet zones in busy areas within the masterplan boundary.
• Sound-absorbing materials and insulation.
Intuitive wayfinding:
• Simple and consistent symbols and pictures for signs and design features, which can be seen in darkness.
• Information delivered in more than one way and available to use for planning (ahead of a journey or experience).
Accessible:
• Install seating at regular intervals in various styles, such as benches with armrests and backrests, ensuring they do not obstruct pedestrian access or footpaths.
• Consistent use of dropped kerbs and tactile paving.
Lighting:
• Lighting should be carefully planned to achieve consistent coverage, avoiding areas with poor illumination, glare, or deep shadows.
• The choice of colour temperature and light intensity is crucial—brighter, cooler-toned lights can help deter anti-social behaviour. However, overly harsh lighting may discourage people from spending time in the area, reducing its vibrancy. It's essential to find the right balance, considering the intended use and atmosphere of the space.
Access to sustainable transport:
• Provide secure bicycle parking within a short walking distance of key destinations, ensuring that these facilities are visible during daylight and darkness.
Safety
initiatives
GLA Women’s Safety Night Charter
• Encourages businesses within the local area and within the development to sign up and participate to the Mayor’s Night Safety Charter.
Safe Havens
• Promote the Safe Haven scheme among businesses within the local area and the development. Safe Havens are businesses such as shops, cafes, pubs, and libraries that provide quick assistance to people in need. These locations are officially registered and easily recognisable as Safe Havens.
• Consider implementing Public Space Protection Orders (PSPOs) in areas where anti-social behaviour (ASB) is a concern. However, it's important to balance this approach to ensure that young people are not excluded from public spaces. To complement the PSPO, introduce positive measures that encourage young people to use public spaces in safe and constructive ways. This could include youth-oriented programs, sports facilities, or community centres.
LS0 [@Sherlock, Justin]
We've added in the summary page after this one, do you feel this addresses your previous comment "i feel this report needs to focus on matters outside the red line boundary. the PRIP work has picked up what is needed inside the red line boundary."
Do you think we need to make any changes to this slide?
Leadbetter, Susan, 2024-05-28T19:14:20.179
Summary
Conclusions
In conclusion, extensive engagement was conducted with members of the PRIP to gather local insights from individuals with diverse lived experiences. This collaborative process involved participation from TfL and RBKC. It comprised two PRIP workshops, as well as two participatory site walks.
One site walk was undertaken with selfidentifying women only, to discuss and capture safety concerns across two routes. A subsequent site walk was undertaken on two other routes with the wider PRIP members.
An assessment of each route was also undertaken in daylight and darkness to identify and mitigate potential safety issues on each route.
Based on the feedback from the PRIP and the assessment, it is recommended that:
Route 14 (MundStreet / AisgillAvenue / Thaxton Road) is identified as a priority route for improvement. Several personal safety concerns were observed along this route, the resolution of which is crucial to prevent social exclusion.
• Beaumont Avenue was noted as a key area of concern from a personal safety perspective; however, this is a focal point to the development which will be addressed.
• Enhancements around Normand Park, particularly regarding crossings and lighting, require thorough consideration, especially considering the frequent presence of young children in the area.
• Regular maintenance of trees and canopies near lighting fixtures is necessary to prevent obstruction and ensure optimal illumination.
• Seating shortage is a prominent constraint observed across all routes, as evidenced during the participatory site walks.
The following locations have notable road safety concerns that must be considered by the relevant stakeholders such as TfL:
• Warwick Road junction with A4
• Old Brompton Road / Warwick Road junction
• Lillie Road / North End Road junction (roundabouts)
• Provide lighting at informal crossing on Lillie Road outside Norman Croft School
Additional micromobility parking should be implemented along all routes, extending beyond transport and retail hub areas. It's crucial to also consider placement in residential streets to minimise first mile/last mile walking, particularly for individuals who may feel vulnerable when dark.
Where micromobility parking is installed, it must be visible at all times and well lit.
Safety Initiatives
Safety is a multifaceted issue that cannot be solely addressed through design interventions. Therefore, this report has presented a variety of opportunities aimed at enhancing safety and accessibility for all users. This includes endorsing existing safety initiatives to be implemented in the area, such as active involvement in the Mayor’s Night Safety Charter and encouraging businesses to join the Safe Haven Scheme. Additionally, the report suggests considering further PSPOs, with the caveat that these measures must be balanced with community initiatives to ensure that young people are not unfairly targeted or discriminated against.
1.0 Internal Site NetworkActive Travel ZoneAssessment
Introduction
1.1 Chapter 3 of the Transport Assessment (TA) presents a detailed qualitative assessment of the active travel network surrounding the Proposed Development, with an Active Travel Zone (ATZ) assessment undertaken in accordance with TfL’s Healthy Streets guidance presented in Section 6.
1.2 The ATZ covered 24 routes off-site to / from key areas and transport hubs which were agreed with the Transport Stakeholders prior to day time and night time site visits being undertaken.
1.3 During pre-application scoping discussions it was agreed with the Transport Stakeholders that a similar exercise was to be undertaken for the internal links and corridors within the Proposed Development.
1.4 Given that the public realm throughout the Earls Court Development Site is sought in Outline and as such will be subject to further design refinement and Reserved Matters Applications in due course the routes across the Site cannot be fully reviewed as part of a formal ATZ at this stage. However, in order to complete the assessment requested by the Transport Stakeholders key routes have been considered in the context of information contained within the may be subject to variations as detailed design / RMA’s come forward, the general principles of active travel across the Site have been considered with reference to the Design and Access Statement (DAS) and the Design Code.
Internal Active Travel Zone Assessment Methodology
1.5 Typically, an ATZ assessment, undertaken in accordance with TfL Guidance1 is a qualitative assessment of the existing cycle and walking network surrounding a Proposed Development. The methodology has been developed by TfL to support the Healthy Streets Approach and Vision Zero as outlined within the London Plan (2021) and Mayors Transport Strategy (2018). The ATZ assessment is carried out to assist the understanding of the Proposed Development’s potential to contribute and promote active and sustainable travel.
1.6 Given that this report covers the internal network, that does not currently exist, the aim of this ATZ assessment is to determine how people of all abilities can access and traverse through the Site. The ATZ review has sought to demonstrate where the proposals meet the 10 Healthy Streets Indicators, informed by TfL ‘Guide to Healthy Streets Indicators’. These indicators, shown in Table 1 and Figure 1, will be used to guide the design of the development.
Streets should be welcoming and places for everyone to walk, spend time in and engage in community life.
Streets without suitable crossing facilities make walking and cycling less appealing. It should be made easy for pedestrians of all ages to cross, with limited physical barriers to facilitate this.
Exposure to high winds, heavy rain and direct sun may affect some pedestrians’ ability to travel using no-car modes and spend time in the area.
Figure 1 – Healthy Streets Indicators
Table 1 – Healthy Streets Assessment Indicators
Table 1 – Healthy Streets Assessment Indicators
Indicators Commentary
HS4: Places to stop and rest
HS5: Not too noisy
HS6: People choose to walk, cycle, and use public transport
HS7: People feel safe
Ensuring there are places to stop and rest benefits everyone, therefore people will be more willing to visit, spend time in, or meet other people on the streets.
Reducing the noise impacts of motor traffic will directly benefit health, improve the ambience of street environments, and encourage active travel and human interaction.
A successful public transport system will encourage and enable more people to walk and cycle often, being the most attractive option.
The whole community should always feel comfortable and safe on our streets, as this will encourage people to use the streets. People should not feel worried about road danger or experience threats to their personal safety.
HS8: Things to see and do
HS9: People feel relaxed
HS10: Clean air
A lack of resting places can limit mobility for certain groups of people. Ensuring there are places to stop and rest benefits everyone, including local businesses, as people will be more willing to visit, spend time in or meet other people in our streets.
A wider range of people will choose to walk or cycle if our streets are not dominated by motorised traffic, and if pavements and cycle paths are not overcrowded, dirty, cluttered or in disrepair.
Improving air quality delivers benefits for everyone and reduces unfair health inequalities.
Internal Route Assessment Overview
1.7 Nine routes have been reviewed as part of the ATZ assessment, which are as follows and shown on Figure 2:
Route 1: West Brompton Lane
Route 2: West Brompton Crescent
Route 3: Warwick Lane
Route 4: Warwick Crescent
Route 5: Empress Place Boulevard
Route 6: West Kensington Boulevard
Route 7: Lillie Sidings Square
Route 8: Aisgill Lane
Route 9: St Cuthberts Lane
1.8 Each of the routes have been reviewed against the Healthy Streets indicators:
Overall routing; People choose to walk, cycle, and use public transport; Pedestrians from all walks of life; Easy to cross; People feel safe;
Things to see and do; Places to stop and rest; People feel relaxed; Not too noisy; Clean air; and Shade and shelter.
1.9 In line with the TfLATZ methodology the worst point of the journey has been identified. ‘Worst’ is defined as the most unpleasant or potentially unsafe part of the route for pedestrians and/or cyclist.
ATZ Assessment
West Brompton Lane
1.10 Figure 3 and Figure 4 below provides an extract of the indicative cross section of West Brompton Lane and an illustrative image respectively. Tables 2 and 3 underneath provide a
Figure 2 – Indicative ATZ Routes
review of the link under the relevant Healthy Streets indicators providing a daytime and nighttime review.
Figure 3 – Indicative West Brompton Lane Cross-section
Healthy Streets Indicator Observations
Overall routing
West Brompton Lane is a proposed mixed-use commercial and residential street with small workspaces and townhouses facing the street. West Brompton Lane will connect Warwick Road to Old Brompton Road via Warwick Square and West Brompton Square. West Brompton Lane will be narrower and more intimate than the neighbouring West Brompton Crescent, reflecting it’s intended usage as a residential and commercial access road. Vehicle access will be limited to one-way southbound, connecting Old Brompton Road to Warwick Road. A contra-flow cycle lane will feature
Recommendations
No area for improvement.
Figure 4 – Indicative West Brompton Lane
Table 2 - West Brompton Lane Daylight Assessment
Table 2 - West Brompton Lane Daylight Assessment
Healthy Streets Indicator Observations
to ensure two-way cycle permeability along its length. Loading and disabled parking bays will be located along its length as well as direct plot accesses.
West Brompton Lane will feature pedestrian footways on either side of the central movement route, a space for loading vehicles to stop within the public realm and a central movement route for cyclists and vehicles.
Recommendations
People choose to walk, cycle, and use public transport
Pedestrians from all walks of life
The pedestrian footways will range from 1-2m in width and at least one of them will be segregated from the central movement route, ensuring no conflict between pedestrian and vehicle movement. The wider 2m footpath will allow access into the adjacent buildings The central movement route will be 5m in width, creating a comfortable space for both cyclists and vehicles to enjoy. This 5m width includes the contra-flow cycle lane.
The route will consist of footways along its length but the width will vary due to site access and plot constraints. The central movement route will feature a smaller paving sett size that designate a shared surface for occasional vehicles, cyclists, and pedestrians. The segregated pedestrian footways will be of a textured surface material to designate a pedestrian only footpath. Tactile paving will be included where appropriate to provide warning, guidance or information to people who are blind or partially sighted.
The footpaths will be wide enough to accommodate a wide range of users and to allow two wheelchair users to cross each other at any point.
Easy to cross
There will be appropriate crossing facilities at frequent and convenient intervals throughout the entire route. These crossings will be designed so that priority will be given to the safety and comfort of pedestrians. It is envisaged that there will be a mix of level crossings as well as dropped kerbs.
Footway width is not continuous along its length with the footway to the rear of EC09 particularly narrow. Where possible opportunities for continuous pedestrian routes should be provided.
The contra flow cycle lane will reduce the overall width for vehicles southbound to 3m. This width is narrow and opportunities to maximise widths should be explored.
The provision of tactile paving should follow the guidance in ‘Guidance on the Use of Tactile Paving Surfaces’ by the DfT.
Opportunities to provide continuous wide footways on both sides of the movement corridor should be explored.
Ensure crossings are frequent, safe and visible. Tactile paving should be provided where necessary. Dropped kerbs to be utilised at key locations / desire lines.
Table 2 - West Brompton Lane Daylight Assessment
Healthy Streets Indicator Observations
Shade and shelter
Places to stop and rest
Planted zones will be provided in between parking and / or loading bays where possible. This will be in the form of a linear arrangement of larger specimen trees, providing shade and shelter. The narrower enclosed nature of the street and building heights will also provide shade from the sun.
Resting points with a variety of seating options will be provided where appropriate and at max intervals of 50m.
Recommendations
Planting along this route should not obstruct pedestrians and provide shade in hot/inclement conditions.
There are no areas for improvement.
Not too noisy
People feel safe
As opposed to its busier neighbouring street, West Brompton Crescent, West Brompton Lane will be a quieter mixed-use commercial/residential access road. The car-lite nature of the proposals means that traffic levels should be low.
While West Brompton Lane will be a quieter street, the commercial workspaces and residential uses will provide passive surveillance at all points throughout the day.
CCTV will be deployed throughout the Site as per the security strategy, providing further overlooking and surveillance.
The segregated footway on one side of the central movement route will further enhance safety for pedestrians utilising this route.
No area for improvement.
No area for improvement.
Things to see and do
People feel relaxed
While West Brompton Lane itself will not have much in the way of retail/restaurants it is situated adjacent to the retail focused West Brompton Crescent, providing access to a range of amenities.
The route is also close to facilities in the wider Earls Court area as well as Stamford Bridge.
The quiet nature of the route, with planting situated along at frequent intervals will create a relaxed atmosphere well suited to active travel uses.
Consistent paving and usage of tactile paving and frequent crossings will further enhance the experience for pedestrians of all types.
No area for improvement.
No areas for improvement have been identified.
Table 2 - West Brompton Lane Daylight Assessment
Healthy Streets Indicator Observations
Clean air
The car lite nature of the development will result in limited vehicular movements. The lane may experience some servicing and delivery vehicles, however this will result in a lane that is conducive to shared vehicle / cycle use as per LTN1/20 suggested thresholds.
3-
Consideration
Observations
Lighting Lighting will be provided throughout the route.
Secluded areas
Surveillance
Active frontage
The route will be well overlooked, mostly by residential buildings as well as commercial workspaces.
CCTV will be deployed throughout the Site as per the security strategy, providing further overlooking and surveillance.
Active ground level uses will be present along West Brompton Lane. This will be at a lower level compared to West Brompton Crescent adjacent, however will still provide an interesting street scape post work hours.
Recommendations
No area for improvement.
Areas for Improvement
No area for improvement.
No area for improvement.
No area for improvement.
No area for improvement.
1.11 Figure 5 and Figure 6 below provides an extract of the indicative cross section of West Brompton Crescent and an indicative image respectively. Tables 4 and 5 underneath provide a review of the link under the relevant Health Streets indicators providing a daytime and night-time review.
Table
West Brompton Lane Night-time Assessment
West Brompton Crescent
Figure 5 – Indicative West Brompton Lane Cross-section
Healthy Streets Indicator
Overall routing
Observations
West Brompton Crescent connects with West Brompton Lane in the north and south whilst also providing a key north-south link across the RBKC part of the site. Retail uses proposed on this street will intensify usage and the street is proposed to be lined with trees, full of shops, cafes, and restaurants, busy from morning to evening. Whilst there are no proposed direct plot accesses from this street there will be on-street disabled parking and loading bays to service the uses that front this street.
Recommendations
No areas for improvement have been identified.
Figure 6 – Indicative image of West Brompton Crescent junction with West Brompton Lane
Table 4 – West Brompton Crescent Daytime Assessment
Table 4 – West Brompton Crescent Daytime Assessment
Healthy Streets Indicator
People choose to walk, cycle, and use public transport
Observations
West Brompton Crescent will be a pedestrian-first Public Realm environment, designed with 2.5m wide spill out areas located adjacent to the active ground floor uses. These would include breaks on alternate sides of the street. Segregated footpaths will be provided on either side of the central movement route, these will be a minimum of 2m width and will be segregated from the central movement route by planting also with a minimum width of 2m. This will encourage pedestrian movement on both sides of the crescent.
The central movement route will allow for cycle and limited vehicle access, with a width of 5m. Vehicle access on West Brompton Crescent will be restricted and controlled via a security barrier (or similar). The road will be one-way southbound.
Pedestrians
from all walks of life
The route will consist of wide pavements throughout. The central movement route will feature a smaller paving set size that designate a shared surface for occasional vehicles, cyclists, and pedestrians. The segregated pedestrian footways will be of a textured surface material to designate a pedestrian only footpath. Tactile paving will be included where appropriate to provide warning, guidance or information to people who are blind or partially sighted.
The footpaths will be wide enough to accommodate a wide range of users and to allow two wheelchair users to cross each other at any point.
Easy to cross
Shade and shelter
There will be appropriate crossing facilities at frequent and convenient intervals throughout the entire route. These crossings will be designed so that priority will be given to the safety and comfort of pedestrians. It is envisaged that there will be a mix of level crossings as well as dropped kerbs.
Trees will be planted on either side of the central movement route for the duration of West Brompton Crescent providing enhanced shade and shelter.
Recommendations
No areas for improvement have been identified.
Tactile paving should follow the guidance in ‘Guidance on the Use of Tactile Paving Surfaces’ by the DfT.
Ensure crossings are frequent, safe and visible. Tactile paving to be provided where necessary. Dropped kerbs to be utilised at key locations / desire lines.
No areas for improvement have been identified.
Table 4 – West Brompton Crescent Daytime Assessment
Healthy Streets Indicator
Places to stop and rest
Not too noisy
Observations
Resting points with a variety of seating options will be provided where appropriate and at max intervals of 50m.
West Brompton Crescent is planned to be a busy retail route, with active frontages on both sides of the street. Due to the connection it provides between Earls Court Station and West Brompton Station, high footfall is also expected in this area. The restricted vehicle access will help to reduce noise however this is expected to be a noisier route than the neighbouring West Brompton Lane.
The route will be busy, have active shop and residential frontages and will be well lit throughout. Larger lighting columns that light the street and adjacent ground floor activity will be provided at frequent intervals.
Recommendations
There are no areas for improvement.
People feel safe
Things to see and do
Active frontage will provide surveillance along this route.
The segregated pedestrian footways with planting barriers to the central movement route and restricted vehicle access will create a safe and comfortable experience for all pedestrians. The restricted vehicle access will further ease passage for cyclists using the central movement route.
The route will feature retail frontage and therefore act as a destination in its own right.
No areas for improvement have been identified.
People feel relaxed
Clean air
The route provides spacious footways along its duration, with crossing points proposed at regular intervals. Planting separating the pedestrian footways and spill out zones will create a green barrier to any vehicles on the central movement route, creating a relaxing environment.
The car lite nature of the development will result in limited vehicular movements. The Crescent may experience some servicing and delivery vehicles, however this will still result in a corridor that is
No areas for improvement have been identified.
No areas for improvement have been identified.
No area for improvement.
Table 4 – West Brompton Crescent Daytime Assessment
Healthy Streets Indicator Observations
conducive to shared vehicle / cycle use as per LTN1/20 suggested thresholds.
Table 5 - Night-time assessment of West Brompton Crescent
Consideration Observations
Lighting
Recommendations
The route is anticipated to be well lit as a result of active frontage and street lighting.
Areas for Improvement
No area for improvement.
Secluded areas No specific secluded areas were identified along the route. No area for improvement.
Surveillance
Active frontage
Plenty of surveillance will be provided along the route, mostly from shop frontage. CCTV will also be present as per the security strategy.
The vehicle controlled link will also have a security presence. No area for improvement.
The retail focus of West Brompton Crescent will provide consistent active frontage along the route’s entirety. The active frontage will allow for diverse shopfronts, allowing local retail, boutique shopping, dining, and cultural uses to thrive. No area for improvement.
Warwick Lane
1.12 Figure 7 and Figure 8 below provides an extract of the indicative cross section of Warwick Lane and an indicative image respectively. Tables 6 and 7 underneath provide a review of the link under the relevant Healthy Streets indicators providing a daytime and night-time review.
Figure 7: Indicative Cross section of Warwick Lane
Healthy Streets Indicator Observations
Overall routing
Warwick Lane is situated on the northeastern site boundary and will provide access to the Proposed Development with connection onto St Cuthbert’s Lane and Warwick Crescent. As a street located on the boundary it will feature a hard boundary on one side reflecting the edge of the site but also the level difference to the neighbouring properties on Philbeach Gardens. It will feature on-street disabled parking and
Recommendations
No areas for improvement have been identified.
Figure 8: Indicative Image of Warwick Lane
Table 6 – Warwick Lane Daytime Assessment
Table 6 – Warwick Lane Daytime Assessment
Healthy Streets Indicator Observations
servicing bays to serve the Plots accessed directly from it.
Warwick Lane will be composed of a footpath on the southern side of the street, planting beds and a central movement route.
Warwick Lane will be a key access road within the RBKC side of the side, while accommodating disabled car parking and servicing bays. A footpath on the south of the street provides access to residential properties. Residential and commercial frontage on the southern side of the street will provide active frontage.
Recommendations
People choose to walk, cycle, and use public transport
Pedestrians from all walks of life
The pedestrian footway will be 2m in width and only present on the southern side of the lane, and the planting that segregates it from the central movement route is proposed to be 2.8m minimum in width, creating a safe pedestrian environment in all areas. The pedestrian footway will provide access to the residential properties. Pedestrians will have priority ensuring that they can move comfortably and have priority over cars.
The central movement route will be two-way and facilitate both cyclist and vehicle movements, it will be 5m wide. Vehicle access will be unrestricted along the entirety of the street.
The route will consist of wide footways throughout. The central movement route will feature a smaller paving set size that designate a shared surface for occasional vehicles, cyclists, and pedestrians. The segregated pedestrian footway will be of a textured surface material to designate a pedestrian only footpath.
Tactile paving will be included where appropriate to provide warning, guidance or information to people who are blind or partially sighted.
The footpath will be wide enough to accommodate a wide range of users and to allow two wheelchair users to cross each other at any point.
Easy to cross As there is only pedestrian infrastructure on the southern side of the street, crossings will not be
At 5m wide the route is quite narrow for a two-way road and the width should be reviewed at the next stage of design.
The provision of tactile paving should follow the guidance in ‘Guidance on the Use of Tactile Paving Surfaces’ by the DfT.
No areas for improvement have been identified.
Table 6 – Warwick Lane Daytime Assessment
Healthy Streets Indicator Observations
required across the carriageway. Side roads will feature crossing points.
Recommendations
Shade and shelter
Places to stop and rest
Not too noisy
Trees will be planted on either side of the central movement route for the duration of Warwick Lane providing enhanced shade and shelter.
Resting points with a variety of seating options will be provided where appropriate and at max intervals of 50m.
The car-lite development proposals mean that traffic volumes are anticipated to be low and therefore noise levels low.
No areas for improvement have been identified.
No areas for improvement have been identified.
No areas for improvement have been identified.
People feel safe
Things to see and do
The road will be quieter in nature and face lower levels of footfall than some of the surrounding retail focused streets. However, unrestricted vehicle access will add passive surveillance along the route.
Segregation between the carriageway and footway through use of the wide verge will assist in pedestrian safety.
The street will largely function as an access street and therefore there are limited areas of interest along this route.
No areas for improvement have been identified.
No areas for improvement have been identified.
People feel relaxed
Clean air
The quiet nature of Warwick Lane combined with a wide footway, planting lining both side of the central movement route, paving and frequent crossings will create a relaxed, green and friendly environment along this route.
The route is expected to experience some limited vehicle traffic; however, this will be offset by the abundance of planting present along the duration of Warwick Lane. The forecast traffic throughout the site is low, consisting primarily of servicing / delivery or private hire trips. As such, there will be low level of vehicular activity throughout.
No areas for improvement have been identified.
No areas for improvement have been identified.
Consideration Observations
Areas for Improvement
Lighting Street lighting will be provided along its length. No area for improvement.
Secluded areas No secluded areas were identified along the route. No area for improvement.
It is envisaged that CCTV will be employed along Warwick Lane as per the security strategy.
Surveillance
Active frontage
The lack of active frontage on this route could create some personal safety issues.
The frontage from adjacent links / areas is considered to provide appropriate provision.
Warwick Crescent
A review of the lane from a security / CCTV deadspot should be conducted at an appropriate time to ensure that there are suitable measures in place.
A review of this route should be undertaken at the next stage of design to maximise opportunities for active frontage.
1.13 Figure 9 and Figure 10-11 below provides an extract of the indicative cross section of Warwick Crescent and an indicative image respectively. Tables 8 and 9 underneath provide a review of the link under the relevant Health Streets indicators providing a daytime and night-time review.
Table 7 - Night-time assessment of Warwick Lane
Figure 9 – Indicative Warwick Crescent Street Section.
Figure 10 – Indicative Warwick Crescent Street Image
Healthy Streets Indicator Observations
Overall routing
Warwick Crescent is a residential street providing access to various plots. It is proposed that initially it will be twoway and form a no through road providing access to Phase 1 of the development. In the longer term it will be one-way and form a loop with two points of connection to Warwick Lane. Further design work will determine the form of this street in its two phases.
Recommendations
There are no areas for improvement.
Figure 11 – Indicative Warwick Crescent Street Image
Table 8 – Warwick Crescent Daytime Assessment
Table 8 – Warwick Crescent Daytime Assessment
Healthy Streets Indicator Observations
Warwick Crescent is proposed to feature footways on both side of the central movement corridor segregated by landscaped zones that will also feature, servicing, disabled parking, car club and taxi bays.
Recommendations
No areas for improvement have been identified.
People choose to walk, cycle, and use public transport
Pedestrians from all walks of life
The pedestrian footways will be 2m in width on each side of the street, and the planting that segregates them from the central movement route is proposed to be 3m in width, creating a safe pedestrian environment in all areas. Traffic volumes are anticipated to be low.
The central movement route will facilitate both cyclist and vehicle movements, it will be 5m wide. Vehicle access will be unrestricted along the entirety of the street.
The route will consist of wide footways throughout. The central movement route will feature a smaller paving set size that designate a shared surface for occasional vehicles, cyclists, and pedestrians. The segregated pedestrian footways will be of a textured surface material to designate a pedestrian only footpath.
Tactile paving will be included where appropriate to provide warning, guidance or information to people who are blind or partially sighted.
The footpaths will be wide enough to accommodate a wide range of users and to allow two wheelchair users to cross each other at any point.
The provision of tactile paving should follow the guidance in ‘Guidance on the Use of Tactile Paving Surfaces’ by the DfT.
Easy to cross
Shade and shelter
Places to stop and rest
Not too noisy
People feel safe
There will be appropriate crossing facilities at frequent and convenient intervals throughout the entire route.
Trees will be planted on either side of the central movement route for the duration of Warwick Crescent providing enhanced shade and shelter.
Resting points with a variety of seating options will be provided where appropriate and at max intervals of 50m.
Warwick Crescent is a proposed residential street, as such it is expected to face low levels of noise.
The road will be quieter in nature and face lower levels of footfall than some of the surrounding retail focused
No areas for improvement have been identified.
No areas for improvement have been identified.
No areas for improvement have been identified.
No areas for improvement have been identified.
No areas for improvement have been identified.
Table 8 – Warwick Crescent Daytime Assessment
Healthy Streets Indicator
Observations
streets. However, there will be various access points to different plots providing surveillance.
Pedestrians will feel enhanced safety when utilising the footways due to the wide 3m planting that segregates them from the central movement route.
Recommendations
Things to see and do
People feel relaxed
Clean air
Warwick Crescent will act primarily as a residential access road. No areas for improvement have been identified.
The quiet nature of Warwick Crescent combined with wide footways, planting lining both side of the central movement route and well maintained paving and frequent crossings will create a relaxed, green and friendly environment along this route. No areas for improvement have been identified.
The route is not anticipated to carry high volumes of traffic. No areas for improvement have been identified.
Table 9 - Night-time assessment of Warwick Crescent
Consideration
Lighting
The entirety of the route will be well lit mostly through street lighting as well as from adjacent residential properties. No area for improvement.
Secluded areas No secluded areas were identified along the route. No area for improvement.
It is envisaged that CCTV will be employed along Warwick Crescent as per the security strategy.
Surveillance
Active frontage
The lane is primarily residential and as such has a lower level of active frontage compared to nearby links.
A review of the lane from a security / CCTV deadspot should be conducted at an appropriate time to ensure that there are suitable measures in place.
The frontage from adjacent links / areas is considered to provide appropriate provision. No area for improvement.
Empress Place Boulevard
1.14 Figure 12 and Figure 13 below provide images of Empress Place Boulevard. Tables 10 and 11 underneath provide a review of the link under the relevant Health Streets indicators providing a daytime and night-time review.
Figure 12 – Indicative Empress Place Boulevard Image
Healthy Streets Indicator Observations
Overall routing
Empress Place Boulevard is a pedestrian and cycle priority route that serves as a key north-south access corridor within the masterplan connecting Lillie Road in the south to the Cascades in the centre of the Site. Ultimately this route forms part of a north-south route connecting Lillie Road with West Kensington Station.
The Boulevard is an extension of Empress Place, transitioning from workspaces and cultural entrances, to a residential and retail frontage before opening up at the gateway to the Table Park (public green space) and Cascades.
Recommendations
Empress Place is currently adopted highway and the final form that the adopted section of highway takes will need to be developed in conjunction and through approval with LBHF Highways. To achieve the pedestrian and cycle priority desired vehicle access will need to be restricted.
Figure 13 – Indicative Empress Place Boulevard Image
Table 10 – Empress Place Boulevard Daytime Assessment
Table 10 – Empress Place Boulevard Daytime Assessment
Healthy Streets Indicator
People choose to walk, cycle, and use public transport
Observations
As a largely vehicle free route (except for limited servicing and emergency vehicle access) Empress Place Boulevard will prioritise pedestrians and cyclists.
Pedestrians will have two segregated footpaths either side of the central movement route with widths of 4.5m and will be separated by 3m wide planting beds from the central movement route. The widths of the footways reflect the amount of footfall expected in this area and will provide a comfortable experience for all users.
The central movement route is proposed to be 5m wide and usable by pedestrians and cyclists (as well as for out of hours servicing and emergency access). It has the potential of a demarcated cycle route (details to be determined at a later stage of design), further enhancing safety for pedestrians and cyclists using this route. .
Recommendations
Pedestrians from all walks of life
The route will consist of wide footways throughout. The central movement route will feature a smaller paving set size that designate a shared surface for cyclists and pedestrians. The segregated pedestrian footways will be of a textured surface material to designate a pedestrian only footpath.
Tactile paving will be included where appropriate to provide warning, guidance or information to people who are blind or partially sighted.
The footpaths will be wide enough to accommodate a wide range of users and to allow two wheelchair users to cross each other at any point.
There are no areas for improvement.
Easy to cross
Shade and shelter
Being a largely vehicle free route formalised crossings are unlikely to be required but there will be a need to consider some crossing points to aid crossing across the movement corridor which is likely to be well used by cyclists.
Trees will be planted on either side of the central movement route for the duration of Empress Place Boulevard providing enhanced shade and shelter.
The provision of tactile paving should follow the guidance in ‘Guidance on the Use of Tactile Paving Surfaces’ by the DfT.
Ensure crossings are frequent, safe and visible.
No areas for improvement have been identified.
Table 10 – Empress Place Boulevard Daytime Assessment
Healthy Streets Indicator
Places to stop and rest
Not too noisy
Observations
Resting points with a variety of seating options will be provided where appropriate and at max intervals of 50m.
Empress Place is proposed to be a busy main access route through the Proposed Development with a variety of different use types present throughout the route. As such, it is expected be active and therefore generate some noise.
Recommendations
No areas for improvement have been identified.
No areas for improvement have been identified.
People feel safe
Things to see and do
The route will be busy, have active, commercial, retail and residential frontages and will be well lit throughout. Larger lighting columns that light the street and adjacent ground floor activity will be provided at frequent intervals.
The segregated pedestrian footways with planting barriers to the central movement route and car-free environment will create a safe and comfortable experience for all pedestrians.
The route will have a significant shop frontage for the duration, with a variety of restaurants and shops throughout.
There is further potential here for a multi-use auditorium, for 1,000 people standing and 600 seated people within the commercial plots in the south.
Empress Place Boulevard will also provide access to The Table Park. The Table is a proposed green space above the reused West London Line Deck at the heart of the Proposed Development.
No areas for improvement have been identified.
People feel relaxed
Clean air
The vehicle-free nature of Empress Place Boulevard, combined with planting and wide footways will create a relaxed environment for all types of pedestrians and cyclists.
The vehicle-free nature of Empress Place Boulevard combined with abundance of planting will create a green space. Empress Place Boulevard is a vehicle-free landscaped route serving as the main pedestrian and cycle connection from Lillie Road.
No areas for improvement have been identified.
No areas for improvement have been identified.
No areas for improvement have been identified.
Table 10 – Empress Place Boulevard Daytime Assessment
Healthy Streets Indicator Observations
This forms part of the north-south route connecting Lillie Road with West Kensington Station.
Recommendations
Table 11 - Night-time assessment of Empress Place Boulevard
Consideration
Lighting
Secluded areas
The entirety of the route will be well lit including external areas associated with retail land uses.
Whilst no specific secluded areas were noted, it was seen that there could be areas with lower levels of overlooking / visibility – such as the stairs adjacent to The Table (abutting plot WB08). These areas will be opposite active frontage / key walkways and as such are likely to be continuously overlooked.
No area for improvement.
Any stair cases should be adequately lit and with passive and active surveillance.
Surveillance
Active frontage
Plenty of surveillance will be provided along the route, mostly from shop frontage. CCTV will also be present as per the security strategy.
The retail focus of Empress Place Boulevard will provide consistent active frontage along the routes entirety. Shops and creative uses will inhabit the level changes along the link, creating a unique landscape. A diverse mixed use street framed by carefully defined building alignment create a clearly legible street that extends along the Table edge.
West Kensington Boulevard
A review of the security / CCTV visibility should be conducted at an appropriate time to ensure that there are suitable measures in place.
No area for improvement.
1.15 Figure 14-16 below provide images of West Kensington Boulevard. Tables 12 and 13 underneath provide a review of the link under the relevant Health Streets indicators providing a daytime and night-time review.
Figure 14 – Indicative West Kensington Boulevard Image
Figure 15 – Indicative West Kensington Boulevard Image
Healthy Streets Indicator Observations
Overall routing
People choose to walk, cycle, and use public transport
West Kensington Boulevard is a proposed connection from the existing Beaumont Avenue and West Kensington Station Underground Station to Lillie Sidings Square to the southeast.
West Kensington Boulevard will form part of the north-south route that connects Lillie Road with West Kensington Station.
There are three distinct street configurations that will feature along the route.
The first (adjacent to WK02 and WK03) is formed of a 7m wide central movement route for cyclists and vehicles, on one side this is segregated from a 2m footway by 2m wide planting. The other side is segregated from a 2m wide footpath by 3m of parking / planting. The other side of the footway here has 2m of planting / building entrances.
Recommendations
No areas for improvement.
Widths on the section of retained Beaumont Avenue should be maximised.
Figure 16 – Indicative West Kensington Boulevard Image
Table 12 – West Kensington Boulevard Daytime Assessment
Table 12 – West Kensington Boulevard Daytime Assessment
Healthy Streets Indicator
Pedestrians from all walks of life
Observations
The second section (adjacent to WK01 and WK02) also features a 7m wide central movement route for cyclists and vehicles, on one side this is segregated from a 2m wide footpath by 2m of planting. On the other side it is segregated from a 2m wide footpath by 3m of planting/ parking.
The final section (adjacent to WK02 and Kensington Hall Gardens) does not feature any planting. There is a 5m wide central movement route for cyclists and vehicles. This is segregated from 2.5m wide footways on each side, existing parking with widths of 2.1m forms one part of the segregation with planned parking of 2.5m width on the other side.
In each of the street layouts there is ample pedestrian provision, and the wide (5-7m) central movement route should allow room for both vehicles and cyclists to navigate the central movement route comfortably in each other’s presence.
Access to the London Underground Network is quick and direct via West Kensington Station to the west providing access to the District Line.
The route will consist of wide footways throughout. The central movement route will feature a smaller paving set size that designate a shared surface for cyclists and pedestrians. The segregated pedestrian footways will be of a textured surface material to designate a pedestrian only footpath.
Tactile paving will be included where appropriate to provide warning, guidance or information to people who are blind or partially sighted.
The footpaths will be wide enough to accommodate a wide range of users and to allow two wheelchair users to cross each other at any point.
Recommendations
Easy to cross
There will be appropriate crossing facilities at frequent and convenient intervals throughout the entire route. These crossings will be designed so that priority will be given to the safety and comfort of pedestrians.
The provision of tactile paving should follow the guidance in ‘Guidance on the Use of Tactile Paving Surfaces’ by the DfT.
Ensure crossings are frequent, safe, and visible. Ensure that tactile paving and dropped kerbs are utilised where appropriate / needed.
Seek to ensure that all users can cross safely, with potential for audible ques / distinct
Table 12 – West Kensington Boulevard Daytime Assessment
Healthy Streets Indicator
Observations
Shade and shelter
Places to stop and rest
Trees will be planted on either side of the central movement route for the majority of West Kensington Boulevard providing enhanced shade and shelter.
Resting points with a variety of seating options will be provided where appropriate and at max intervals of 50m.
Recommendations
crossing areas to help those with visual impairment.
Ensuring planting is provided in as many areas as possible will ensure good shade and shelter coverage.
No areas for improvement have been identified.
Not too noisy
People feel safe
West Kensington Boulevard is proposed to be a busy main access route through the proposed development with a variety of different use types present throughout the route. As such, it is expected be active and noisy throughout most of the day/night.
The route will be busy, have active shop and residential frontages and will be well lit throughout. Larger lighting columns that light the street and adjacent ground floor activity will be provided at frequent intervals.
The segregated pedestrian footways will increase feelings of safety from the central movement route and vehicles that use it.
No areas for improvement have been identified.
No areas for improvement have been identified.
Things to see and do
People feel relaxed
Clean air
TA range of land uses served from this route will provide a range of opportunities.
The wide pedestrian footways and planting present along West Kensington Boulevard will provide a relaxed environment for pedestrians.
This link is likely to witness higher levels of vehicle movement (when compared to other links across the Proposed Development)
The retention of car parking from Beaumont Avenue is necessary, however parking levels should be provided in line with the demand and need in the area.
No areas for improvement have been identified.
No areas for improvement have been identified.
Parking provision should be reviewed to see if needed and if space can be re-allocated for public realm / pedestrian use instead.
Table 13- Night-time assessment of West Kensington Boulevard
Consideration Observations
Lighting
Secluded areas
The entirety of the route will be well lit including external areas associated with retail land uses providing further lighting.
There will be potential for areas, namely those in between buildings and / or entrances to basements to be secluded and less overlooked. Whilst the majority of these areas will be opposite active frontage / key walkways these should still be reviewed.
Areas for Improvement
No area for improvement.
Any more secluded areas should be adequately lit and with passive and active surveillance.
Surveillance
Active frontage
Plenty of surveillance will be provided along the route, mostly from shop frontage. CCTV will also be present as per the security strategy.
West Kensington Boulevard incorporates a gradual transition from a linear hardscaped streetscape in the west to a softer landscaped bend in the east.
Street character allows for active ground floor spill out onto street and integrated street furniture along the tree lined crescent.
A range of land uses should provide some active frontage.
A review of the security / CCTV visibility should be conducted at an appropriate time to ensure that there are suitable measures in place.
No area for improvement.
Lillie Sidings Square
1.16 Figure 17 below provides image of Lillie Sidings Square. Tables 14 and 15 underneath provide a review of the link under the relevant Health Streets indicators providing a daytime and nighttime review.
Healthy Streets Indicator Observations
Overall routing
Lillie Sidings Square is a proposed new public square which celebrates the heritage of railway infrastructure on the site and provides opportunity for flexible, culture led uses in and around the open space.
It is designated as a destination square at the heart of the development for events and cultural programming in the landscape.
Lillie Sidings connects to West Kensington Boulevard to the northwest via West Kensington Boulevard Link and will allow passage through towards West Brompton in the south.
Recommendations
People choose to walk, cycle, and use public transport
Pedestrians from all walks of life
Lillie Sidings Square is proposed to be vehicle-free with a demarcated pedestrian and cycle street lined with trees through the square, providing legibility for the north-south movement corridor.
Alternative routes to the edges of the site will provide necessary vehicular access for servicing.
The route will consist of wide footways throughout. Tactile paving will be included where appropriate to provide warning, guidance or information to people who are blind or partially sighted.
The footpaths will be wide enough to accommodate a wide range of users and to allow two wheelchair users to cross each other at any point.
Ensuring that the demarcated pedestrian/cycle path is clearly visible and easy to follow will ease passage through the square and reduce conflict with pedestrians in the wider space.
Easy to cross
Shade and shelter
Places to stop and rest
Crossing points should be provided across the central movement corridor to assist pedestrians.
Trees will be planted adjacent to the demarcated pedestrian and cycle path providing shade and shelter. The square is designed to give a feeling of enclosure and buildings may also provide shade and shelter from inclement weather.
Resting points with a variety of seating options will be provided where appropriate and at max intervals of 50m.
The provision of tactile paving should follow the guidance in ‘Guidance on the Use of Tactile Paving Surfaces’ by the DfT.
Not too noisy
Lillie Sidings Square is proposed to be the main outdoor event space in the Proposed Development with a variety of different use types present throughout the square. As such noise levels will be expected to be higher in this area.
Ensure crossings are frequent, safe and visible.
Ensuring planting is provided in as many areas as possible will ensure good shade and shelter coverage.
The route will be busy, have active shop and residential frontages and will be well lit throughout. Larger lighting columns that light the street and adjacent ground floor activity will be provided at frequent intervals.
There will be a range of land uses served from this route.
Recommendations
No areas for improvement have been identified.
No areas for improvement have been identified.
People feel relaxed
Clean air
The vehicle-free environment and large public realm space in this area will create a relaxed, safe environment for pedestrians and cyclists of all types.
The vehicle-free nature of the square combined with planting will create a clean, green space throughout the squares entirety.
Table 15 - Night-time assessment of Lillie Sidings Square
Consideration Observations
Lighting
Secluded areas
Surveillance
No areas for improvement have been identified.
No areas for improvement have been identified.
The entirety of the route will be well lit including external areas associated with retail and F&B land uses.
There will be potential for areas, namely those in between buildings and / or entrances to basement accesses to be secluded and less overlooked. Whilst the majority of these areas will be opposite active frontage / key walkways these should still be reviewed.
Plenty of surveillance will be provided along the route, mostly from shop frontage. CCTV will also be present as per the security strategy.
No area for improvement.
Any more secluded areas should be adequately lit and with passive and active surveillance.
A review of the security / CCTV visibility should be conducted at an appropriate time to ensure that there are suitable measures in place.
Active frontage
Within the lively squares and tree-lined boulevards, retail, F&B uses with cultural anchors draw visitors into the site and activate the ground floor - the area will benefit from active frontage day and night.
No area for improvement.
Aisgill Lane
1.17 Figure 18 below provides an image of Aisgill Lane. Tables 16 and 17 underneath provide a review of the link under the relevant Health Streets indicators providing a daytime and night-time review.
Healthy Streets Indicator Observations
Overall routing
Aisgill Lane runs parallel to Lillie Sidings Square on the western site boundary, with connections to the square available via Lillie Sidings Walk North and Lillie Sidings Walk South. Aisgill Lane connects with West Kensington Boulevard in the north and Aisgill Gardens in the South.
Aisgill Lane is designed to support access to the perimeter blocks and provides a linear landscape
Recommendations
No area for improvement
Figure 18 – Indicative Aisgill Lane Image
Table 16 – Daytime Assessment of Aisgill Lane
Table 16 – Daytime Assessment of Aisgill Lane
Healthy Streets Indicator
Observations
buffer with adjoining properties outside of the site boundary on Aisgill Avenue.
It will be a mainly residential area, bounded by Mund Street / Aisgill Avenue and the former Fulham Boys School to the west and Lillie Sidings Square to the east.
Aisgill Lane will coexist with part of the existing Aisgill Avenue, a 20mph single carriageway road, that runs along the western boundary of the Proposed Development.
The proposed Aisgill Lane will create a buffer between the existing highway and the new residential blocks planned for the area.
People choose to walk, cycle, and use public transport
Pedestrians from all walks of life
Easy to cross
A pedestrian footway with extensive planting segregating it from Aisgill Avenue will be put in place create a safe environment away from the live highway. It will then continue north towards West Kensington Boulevard.
Given the low speeds and low forecast vehicular traffic it is considered that cyclists will comfortable mixing with traffic as per LTN1/20 thresholds.
The new access onto Aisgill Avenue will allow for pedestrians, cyclists and limited traffic to enter / exit the site. This will also open up a key east / west route for users to then traverse across the wide further promoting active travel for new and existing users in the area.
The route will consist of wide footways throughout. Tactile paving will be included where appropriate to provide warning, guidance or information to people who are blind or partially sighted.
The footpaths will be wide enough to accommodate a wide range of users.
There will be appropriate crossing facilities at frequent and convenient intervals throughout the entire route. These crossings will be designed so that priority will be given to the safety and comfort of pedestrians.
Recommendations
The new access should be visible for all proposed users with clear sight lines allowing for safe movement . Priority should be given to pedestrian and cycle modes over vehicular through the link wherever possible.
. The provision of tactile paving should follow the guidance in ‘Guidance on the Use of Tactile Paving Surfaces’ by the DfT.
Ensure crossings are frequent, safe and visible.
Table 16 – Daytime Assessment of Aisgill Lane
Healthy Streets Indicator
Shade and shelter
Places to stop and rest
Observations
Traffic control measures will be installed at the end of lane, these will be well integrated with the Public Realm and landscape features.
Trees will be retained and planted as a buffer between the site and Aisgill Avenue, creating shade and shelter. New residential blocks within the site will further enhance shade and shelter in this area.
Resting points with a variety of seating options will be provided where appropriate and at max intervals of 50m.
Aisgill Lane will be a quieter residential street, set back from the busier Lillie Sidings Square to the east.
Recommendations
Ensuring planting is provided in as many areas as possible will ensure good shade and shelter coverage.
No areas for improvement have been identified.
Not too noisy
People feel safe
Noise will be present from the highway however the car-lite nature of the Proposed Development means traffic volumes should be low.
The route will feature residential frontages and will be well lit throughout. Larger lighting columns that light the street and adjacent ground floor activity will be provided at frequent intervals.
The buffer between Aisgill Avenue and the pedestrian footway will further enhance safety from the live highway.
As Aisgill Lane is proposed to be a residential area, there will not be many things to see and do directly on the street.
No areas for improvement have been identified.
No areas for improvement have been identified.
Things to see and do
People feel relaxed
In a sensitive approach to the estate, the edge treatment along Aisgill Lane will seek to accommodate blue and green infrastructure, introducing rich, biodiverse planting and play. The border condition is designed to be permeable and accessible through lighting and planting strategies.
Lillie Sidings Square will be easily accessible to the east where further amenities will be located.
The quiet environment should make it attractive for pedestrians and cyclists.
No areas for improvement have been identified.
No areas for improvement have been identified.
Table 16 – Daytime Assessment of Aisgill Lane
Healthy Streets Indicator
Clean air
Observations
As vehicle traffic is expected along this street, the air will not be as clean as seen in some of the vehicle free areas of the development. However, forecast traffic volumes indicate that the numbers of movements will not be high.
17 - Night-time assessment of Aisgill Lane
Consideration Observations
Lighting
Recommendations
Ensure as much planting of vegetation as possible to offset car emissions.
The route will be lit for the majority, although will be sensitive to adjacent existing residential properties.
Areas for Improvement
Lighting strategy to be reviewed to ensure that adequate lighting is present along the Lane and within the planting section as appropriate. .
Secluded areas
Surveillance
There will be potential for areas with lower natural surveillance adjacent to trees and planted sections.
Active frontage
Lower levels of surveillance due to the residential nature of the street. Residential units will provide some passive surveillance and CCTV will also be present as per the security strategy.
Areas should have clear line of sight where appropriate and have lighting that is suitable. Adjacent properties will provide some overlooking and passive surveillance. CCTV coverage
A review of the security / CCTV visibility should be conducted at an appropriate time to ensure that there are suitable measures in place.
It is likely that there will be limited active frontage along this route.
Measures to improve surveillance on this boundary should be explored at the next stage of design.
Table
St Cuthbert’s Lane
1.18 Figure 19 and Figure 20 below provides an image and extract of the indicative cross section of St Cuthbert’s Lane respectively. Tables 18 and 19 underneath provide a review of the link under the relevant Health Streets indicators providing a daytime and night-time review.
Figure 19 – Indicative St Cuthberts Lane Image
Figure 20 – Indicative St Cuthberts Lane Sections
Table 18 – St Cuthberts Lane Daytime Assessment
Healthy Streets Indicator
Overall routing
Observations
St Cuthbert’s Lane forms an extension of Warwick Lane, in the north of the RBKC part of the Site. It will connect with the Tesco Site to the north for onward connection to the wider highway network.
There is also a safeguarded route here with the possibility to provide a pedestrian connection to Cluny Mews in the future (subject to third party agreement).
Vehicle control points will exist on St Cuthbert’s Lane which have been stipulated as part of the security strategy.
There will be two street layout configurations in place along St Cuthbert’s Lane.
Recommendations
People choose to walk, cycle, and use public transport
The first (adjacent to St Cuthbert’s Church) will feature a 7m wide central movement route for vehicles. This is bounded by a 2m wide footway and a demarcated cycle route that is 3m wide.
The second street section layout (adjacent to EC19) is narrower in overall width, it retains the 7m wide central movement route and additional 3m wide demarcated cycle lane. A 1m wide planting bed bounds the cycle lane and there is no planned planting on the opposite side of the street by the 2m wide footway.
No areas for improvement
Pedestrians from all walks of life
Easy to cross
The route will consist of wide footways throughout. The central movement route will feature a smaller paving sett size that designate a shared surface for cyclists and pedestrians. The segregated pedestrian footways will be of a textured surface material to designate a pedestrian only footpath.
Tactile paving will be included where appropriate to provide warning, guidance or information to people who are blind or partially sighted.
As the pedestrian footpath is only present on the western side of the Lane the need to cross will be limited throughout the route.
The type and form of pedestrian and cycle infrastructure will need to tie into proposals to the north through the Tesco Basement.
The provision of tactile paving should follow the guidance in ‘Guidance on the Use of Tactile Paving Surfaces’ by the DfT.
A safe pedestrian crossing should be installed to connect with the future connection to Cluny Mews (if provided).
Table 18 – St Cuthberts Lane Daytime Assessment
Healthy Streets Indicator
Observations
Shade and shelter
Places to stop and rest
Not too noisy
Trees will be retained and planted as a buffer between St Cuthbert’s Lane and the existing grade one listed St Cuthbert’s Church in order to complement the existing landscape. Combined with additional planting on the opposite side of the highway, the route should be well shaded and sheltered.
Resting points with a variety of seating options will be provided where appropriate and at max intervals of 50m.
Noise will be present from the highway however this should not be anything out of the ordinary from a typical London Street.
The route will feature residential frontages and will be well lit throughout. Larger lighting columns that light the street and adjacent ground floor activity will be provided at frequent intervals.
Recommendations
Ensuring planting is provided in as many areas as possible will ensure good shade and shelter coverage.
No areas for improvement have been identified.
No areas for improvement have been identified.
People feel safe
Things to see and do
People feel relaxed
As there is no level of segregation between the footway and main central movement route, it is important that traffic calming measures and raised kerbs are present to reduce conflict between vehicles and pedestrians.
St Cuthbert’s Lane will be mainly residential, however, there is a direct access route to the Warwick Road Tesco to the North, the Grade 1 listed St Cuthbert’s Church is in close proximity.
St Cuthbert’s Lane is the primary servicing corridor to the RBKC side of the Site and as such may carry a higher proportion of HGVs than other routes.
As vehicle traffic is expected along this street, the air will not be as clean as seen in some of the vehicle free areas of the development.
No areas for improvement have been identified.
Clean air
Extensive planting, however, could play a role in offsetting the impact of the live highway.
No areas for improvement have been identified.
No areas for improvement have been identified.
Ensure as much planting of vegetation as possible to offset vehicle emissions.
Table 19 - Night-time assessment of St Cuthberts Lane
Consideration
Lighting
Observations
The route will be lit along its length with a mix likely to include columns and low level bollards.
Secluded areas
Surveillance
The connection to Fenelon Place via the Tesco Basement will create an area that could be a more secluded through route. The Proposed Development does not extend into the Tesco basement and as such has limited opportunity to amend any design within it.
The Lane will be overlooked along its majority from the adjacent properties. However, as noted above, the connection through to the Basement may create areas with lower surveillance,
Areas for Improvement
A review of the lighting strategy may be needed to ensure that all areas are adequately covered
Further work will be required at the next stages of design to secure a route through the Tesco Basement and ensure it is suitable for all modes.
A review of the security / CCTV visibility should be conducted at an appropriate time to ensure that there are suitable measures in place.
Active frontage
The Lane will have limited frontage as it is primarily residential.
The lane could review whether some provision for active frontage / alternative lane uses is delivered at the lower / ground levels – such as a café. However, given the sensitivity of the location in relation to existing residential properties on Philbeach Gardens, this needs to be carefully managed.
Appendix K – Maximum Development Parameters Technical Note
TECHNICAL NOTE – 57A – Maximum Development Parameters Comparison
DATE: 23 February 2024
CONFIDENTIALITY: Restricted
SUBJECT: Earls Court Development – Maximum Development Parameters Comparison
PROJECT: 70077004
CHECKED: Justin Sherlock
INTRODUCTION
AUTHOR: Alex Smith
APPROVED: Justin Sherlock
This Technical Note (TN) has been prepared to provide a comparison and explanation of the differences between the land use quantum outlined within Technical Note 57 (Maximum Development Parameters) and those now proposed for the planning application that have recently been fixed to enable preparation of the Environmental Statement (ES) and Transport Assessment (TA).
BACKGROUND
In September 2023 a Maximum Development Parameters TN (attached in Appendix A) was issued to the Transport Stakeholders to introduce the planning application phases that would be assessed in the planning submission TA. That note also summarised the work that had been undertaken to define maximum development parameters for those planning application phases to enable commencement of the strategic transport modelling. Since then, further masterplan work has been undertaken and the development proposals refined to a point where the masterplan could be fixed for the purposes of the hybrid planning application.
A comparison of floorspaces comparing the maximum development parameters and fixed planning submission development quantum was presented to the Transport Stakeholders at the February 2024 preapplication meeting. This TN has been prepared to provide a more comprehensive comparison and commentary to enable review and feedback by the Transport Stakeholders.
MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT PARAMETERS COMPARISON
Set out below is the comparison of land use quantum for each of the planning application scenarios, alongside a commentary on the differences against the Maximum Development Parameters TN. The below also sets out whether this is considered to be significant in terms of the ongoing strategic transport modelling that is taking place.
For clarity the three planning application scenarios that will be included within the TA are as follows:
Detailed Application
Early Phases
All Phases
It should be noted that to be able to provide this comparison the development proposals have been presented as Gross Internal Area (GIA) figures as this is the metric used within TN57 and used to calculate population in the strategic modelling.
The planning application will seek a maximum set of floorspaces split by land use and expressed in Gross External Area (GEA). The percentage difference used to convert between GEA and GIA for the purposes of this analysis is 92%.
DetailedApplicationScenario
The detailed application consists of Plots WB03, WB04 and WB05 (referred to as EC2) and EC05 and EC06 (referred to as EC1). Table 1 provides a summary of the development quantum proposed across the plots (as of 16th February 2024) and compares it to the maximum development parameters outlined in TN57.
Table 1: Detailed Application Proposals Comparison with Maximum Development Parameters
Leisure (Indoor Sport & Recreation) Office and Research & Development
The key changes in development quantum relate to the Retail, Office and Research and Development and Leisure land uses. The biggest difference being the reduction in Office and Research and Development floorspace as a result of removing EC09 from the detailed element of the application. However, as we will not be running the strategic models with the detailed application quantum and will instead be factoring the early phases assessment to equate to the detailed application quantum these differences are not considered to materially impact the strategic modelling that is ongoing.
EarlyPhasesScenario
The early phases consists of the land occupied by the former Earls Court Exhibition Centres plus the land owned on Cluny Mews and includes the detailed application area. Table 2 provides a summary of the development quantum proposed across the early phases (as of 16th February 2024) and compares it to the maximum development parameters outlined in TN57.
Table 2: Early Phases Proposals Comparison with Maximum Development Parameters
Commentary on the key differences between the various land uses is as follows:
Hotel – the hotel land use equates to approximately 400 rooms/keys. This land use was removed from the maximum development parameters and assessed as Office and Research and Development instead (see Appendix A of TN57)
Residential – the planning application includes approximately 818 additional homes. The maximum development parameters were set by considering the maximum commercial land use (Office and Research and Development) swing and therefore have focused on ensuring the highest quantum of commercial is assessed.
Student (PBSA) – the difference here is created by the evolution of the student accommodation within the detailed application. The increase in rooms (136) is not considered to materially impact the modelling results.
Leisure – the leisure uses which would consist of a gym or equivalent in the early phases were removed and assessed instead as retail (see Appendix A of TN57)
Office and Research and Development – a greater quantum of this land use is assessed which partially accounts for the removal of the hotel land use and lower quantum of residential assessed
Community – this is considered to be an ancillary use and would not therefore generate a material difference in trips
Culture – this land use was removed and instead assessed as either Retail or Office and Research and Development (see Appendix A of TN57)
Ancillary – ancillary comprises floorspace for incidental purposes linked to the land uses in the table, whilst not included see comment below about overall cap on development quantum. In addition to considering the maximum floorspace proposed by land use a cap on development by
is proposed as a control mechanism within the planning application. The early phases proposes a cap on development quantum of 293,480m2 (319,000m2 GEA). This figure excludes the detailed application which equates to 122,696m2 GIA. Therefore, a total across the detailed and early phases of 416,176m2 GIA. The floorspace equivalent quantum assessed in the maximum development parameters is
approximately 393,300m2 GIA and is therefore considered to broadly align with the planning application proposals (i.e. the difference is approximately 5.8%, so is within +/- 10% of the application proposal).
AllPhasesScenario
The All Phases scenario consists of the whole masterplan including the early phases and detailed element of the application as well as the land on the Lillie Bridge Depot (LBD). Table 3 provides a summary of the development quantum proposed across the all phases (as of 16th February 2024) and compares it to the maximum development parameters outlined in TN57.
Table 3: All Phases Proposals Comparison with Maximum Development Parameters
Leisure (Indoor Sport & Recreation) Office and Research & Development
Commentary on the key differences between the various land uses is as follows:
Hotel – the hotel land use equates to approximately 400 rooms/keys. This land use was removed from the maximum development parameters and assessed as Office and Research and Development instead (see Appendix A of TN57)
Residential – the student accommodation within the strategic modelling is assessed as residential, albeit with secondary factors such as age demographic and employment status changed to tailor it towards students. As such it is considered that the residential and student are somewhat interchangeable within the modelling and reduces the overall difference to 1434 units. Whilst the overall quantum of residential and student is lower it is not considered to be a material difference in trip generation
Residential Institutions (Hospital) – it should be noted that this is not expected to be a large NHS facility, instead it is envisaged to be a private clinic or similar and would therefore not generate more peak period movements than the equivalent floorspace for Office and Research and Development.
Leisure – the leisure uses which would consist of a gym or equivalent in the early phases were removed and assessed instead as retail (see Appendix A of TN57)
Office and Research and Development – a greater quantum of this land use is assessed which partially accounts for the removal of the hotel land use
Education – an additional education establishment in LBHF has been included when compared to the maximum development parameters. The inclusion of this education establishment would be at the expense of either residential or commercial space and therefore it is not considered to present a material impact on the trip generation
Community – this is considered to be an ancillary use and would not therefore generate a material difference in trips
Culture – this land use was removed and instead assessed as either Retail or Office and Research and Development (see Appendix A of TN57)
Ancillary – ancillary comprises floorspace for incidental purposes linked to the land uses in the table, whilst not included see comment below about overall cap on development quantum.
Overall, the All Phases scenario proposes a cap on development quantum of 648,600m2 (705,000m2 GEA). This cap includes the detailed component of the application. The floorspace equivalent quantum assessed in the maximum development parameters is approximately 636,400m2 GIA and therefore considered to broadly align with the overall quantum of development proposed (i.e. the difference is 1.9% so within +/- 10% of the application proposal).
CONCLUSION
This TN has been prepared to provide a comparison and explanation of the differences between the land use quantum outlined within Technical Note 57 (Maximum Development Parameters) and those now proposed for the planning application.
The differences in the detailed application are not considered to pose an issue as no specific run of the strategic modelling will be undertaken for the detailed component of the application. Some differences in the quantum proposed for both the early phases and all phases have been identified. However, generally the commercial land uses (Office and Research and Development) which generate the greatest number of external trips are higher within the maximum development parameters than within the application quantum. In addition, the overall cap in development quantum proposed per phase as a control mechanism is broadly aligned (i.e. it is within +/- 10%) with the floorspace assessed within the maximum development parameters. Therefore, no adjustments to the strategic modelling are proposed.
Appendix A – Maximum Development Parameters Technical Note (TN57) September 2023
TECHNICAL NOTE 57 – Maximum Development Parameters for Assessment
DATE: 14 September 2023
SUBJECT: Earls Court Development – Maximum Development Parameters
PROJECT: 70077004
CHECKED: Justin Sherlock / Michael Johns
INTRODUCTION
CONFIDENTIALITY: Restricted
AUTHOR: Alex Smith / Kevin Dulin
APPROVED: Justin Sherlock
This Technical Note has been prepared to introduce the planning application phasing of the Proposed Development and outline the scenarios and maximum quantum of land uses proposed to be assessed within the Transport Assessment (TA) for the Earls Court masterplan.
The Transport Assessment Scoping Report (TASR) (April 2023) outlined that the development would be assessed in a series of scenarios. The planning strategy has now been confirmed and we have therefore been able to develop a series of transport scenarios for assessment which we would now like to seek comment and agreement on.
This note has been informed by our current understanding of the impacts of the development on the Stations, discussions held to date with the Transport Stakeholders and our interpretation of the development land uses proposed.
It also builds upon the TASR and provides further detailed information as requested by TfL, RBKC and LBHF.
BACKGROUND
The planning strategy proposes submission of a hybrid planning application with a number of plots in detail with the remaining site in outline. Whilst the majority of the site is vacant (the former Earls Court Exhibition Centre (ECEC) land) the Lille Bridge Depot (LBD) is an operational London Underground facility. Owing to the timescales for decant of this facility development is likely to come forwards on the former exhibition centre part of the site in advance of LBD.
The Transport Assessment (TA) and Environmental Statement (ES) propose to reflect the planning strategy by assessing two broad scenarios:
· Early Phases – land occupied by the former ECEC
· Later Phases – land occupied by the LBD
A number of plots will then be submitted for detailed planning approval with the remaining site in outline. These plots are located across both the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (LBHF) and Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC) and all within land occupied by the former ECEC.
The precise sequencing of the plots is currently being developed and we will report back on this in due course.
Figure 1 shows the broad planning application phasing of the Proposed Development.
Figure 1: Development Phasing
Masterplanning is ongoing and as such the final quantum of development that will be included within the planning application cannot be confirmed at this stage. Reflecting this the TASR proposed a staged process for the strategic transport modelling with initial identification of a series of maximum development parameters that could be used to commence the modelling ahead of a final scheme fix (scheduled for January 2024). At the point of scheme fix the maximum development parameters would be reviewed to ensure that they were still representative of the development proposals and therefore the planning application TA would provide a valid assessment.
The starting point for development of these maximum development parameters has been an accommodation schedule referred to within the design team as MP02.6. The planning strategy seeks to achieve a flexible planning consent that would allow a range of land uses to come forwards across the site.
This flexible approach has resulted in a series of plots (referred to as ‘swing plots’) where the final predominant land use of that plot could be a range of different uses. Figure 2 shows the location of the swing plots and the potential land uses being considered.
In addition to the swing plots a series of further land use options were also identified for various plots. Whilst this would not affect the predominant land use of that plot it would enable a range of different land uses to come forwards. This second stage of analysis is outlined in the table in Appendix A
To ensure that the TA considers a worst case scenario a review of the swing plots and other identified plots was undertaken to determine which land use was likely to have the greatest trip generating potential in the AM and PM network peak hours. This land use was then selected for use in the maximum development parameters. The one exception to this was student accommodation where the population density would be higher than for standard residential and therefore student accommodation was selected.
UPDATED TRANSPORT ASSESSMENT SCENARIOS
Within our TA we intend to assess three scenarios. The suggested quantum of development to be assessed in each scenario is set out in the following sections.
Figure 2: Swing Plots
The scenarios to be assessed are as follows:
1. Detailed element of the application (WB-03, WB-05, EC-05 and EC-09)
2. Early phases – all development on ECEC
3. All phases – all development on ECEC plus LBD
The note sets out what is to be included within the modelling runs as well as the key modelling assumptions.
It is intended that this note will form the agreement on the inputs and that the stakeholders will sign off on the information contained herewith.
ASSESSMENTS SCENARIOS
DETAILED ELEMENT
The planning strategy for the masterplan proposes that a series of plots will be submitted in detail with the remaining plots in outline. All public realm will be submitted in outline. However, acknowledging that the plots cannot be occupied until appropriate public realm that would facilitate access is delivered ECDC are proposing that occupation would be conditioned to ensure that the public realm is delivered appropriately as the plots are built out and occupied.
For the purposes of the TA assumptions have therefore been made about the minimum level of access that would be required to be delivered to ensure a realistic assessment.
Figure 3 sets out the plots, areas for vehicular and areas for pedestrian and cycle access for the detailed element of the scheme.
Figure 3: Detailed Element – Plots and Access
Linked with the above, Table 1 below sets out the various land uses and quanta’s that would be assessed as part of the detailed element.
Its noted that the assumptions applied pick up the worst case in terms of population, jobs or trip generation.
Table 1: Detailed Element Land Use and Quantum
This will ultimately be split between LBHF and RBKC with a maximum culture of 3000 m2 per venue, detailed element to contain a small aspect
Located in WB-03A
[this is ancillary to the development and is to serve the plots only i.e. not an external operation]
For the purpose of the modelling, this scenario would seek circa 874 residential homes with 550 student rooms (equivalent to 220 homes) – which would result in a residential offer akin to 1,094 units. A modest sqm of commercial and other uses, albeit some of which is considered to be ancillary to the site.
Access Assumptions
Linked with the above, and as shown indicatively on Figure 3, the following sets out in broad terms the access assumptions;
WB-03
§ Vehicular – Lillie Road through Lillie Road Bus Layover
§ Pedestrian and cycle:
o Lillie Road via Empress Place and The Boulevard
o Aisgill Avenue
o Warwick Road
WB-05
§ Vehicular – Lillie Road through Lillie Road Bus Layover
§ Pedestrian and cycle:
o Lillie Road via Empress Place and The Boulevard
o Aisgill Avenue
o Warwick Road via Warwick Apron Southern access
EC-05
§ Vehicular – Warwick Road via Warwick Apron northern access
§ Pedestrian and cycle
o Warwick Road via Warwick Apron southern access
o Lillie Road via Empress Place and The Boulevard
o Aisgill Avenue
EC-09
§ Vehicular – Warwick Road via Warwick Apron northern access
§ Pedestrian and cycle:
o Warwick Road via Warwick Apron southern access
o Lillie Road via Empress Place and The Boulevard
o Aisgill Avenue
As indicated on the figure, an east-west pedestrian and cycle connection will also be available from first occupation facilitating access across the site. The form of this is still being developed, and the figure shows an indicative alignment.
Infrastructure Delivery
To facilitate access to the Proposed Development some off-site improvements might be needed to provide suitable pedestrian and cycle connections. The sequencing of development is still being developed and therefore the details of infrastructure delivery associated with each planning phase will be outlined in due course.
EARLY PHASES
Figure 4 below sets out the plots, areas for vehicular and areas for pedestrian and cycle access for the early phases of the scheme.
Figure 4: Early Phases – Plots and Access
Table 2 below sets out the various land uses and quanta’s that would be assessed as part of the early phases.
It’s noted that the assumptions applied pick up the worst case in terms of population, jobs or trip generation.
Table 2: Early Phases Land Use and Quantum
with maximum culture of 3000 m2 per
in
EC-03 [these are considered to be largely ancillary to the development and is to serve the plots only i.e. not an external operation]
For the purpose of the modelling, the scenario would seek circa 1,670 residential homes with 550 student rooms (equivalent to 220 homes) as per the detailed phase. This would result in a residential offer akin to 1,890 units.
The early phases seek to deliver further commercial elements, split between 75% as commercial office and 25% as research and development (R&D). The other notable inclusions are the commercial logistic hub, the private school element on top of the nursery and the additional social infrastructure.
Access Assumptions
Linked with the above, Table 3 sets out in broad terms the access assumptions.
Table 3: Early Phases Access Assumptions
Access Pedestrian
Northern Access Road
Warwick Road
Old Brompton Road
West London Line Deck
Empress Place
Lillie Road Bus Layover
Aisgill Avenue
ALL PHASES
Figure 5 sets out the extents of the all phases scenario.
Figure 5: All Phases – Plots and Access
Table 4 sets out the various land uses and quanta’s that would be assessed as part of full scheme. It’s noted that the assumptions applied pick up the worst case in terms of population, jobs or trip generation.
Table 4: All Phases Land Use and Quantum
between LBHF and
with maximum culture of 3000 m2 per venue
in WB-03A, EC-03, and EM04
[these are considered to be largely ancillary to the development and is to serve the plots only i.e., not an external operation]
For the purpose of the modelling, the scenario would seek circa 2,325 residential homes with 1,641 student rooms (equivalent for 656 homes) as per the detailed phase. This would result in a residential offer akin to 2,981 homes.
The full site seeks to deliver further commercial elements, circa 268,000 sqm, split between 75% as commercial office and 25% as research and development (R&D).
Access Assumptions
Table 5 sets out the complete scheme access arrangements.
Table 5: All Phases Access Assumptions
Access
Northern Access Road ü
Warwick Road ü
Old Brompton Road
West London Line Deck ü
Empress Place
Lillie Road Bus Layover
Aisgill Avenue
Mund Street
Beaumont Avenue
A4 West Cromwell Road ü
MODELLING ASSUMPTIONS
The three assessment scenarios detailed earlier in this note will be represented within TfL’s strategic demand model – MoTiON. The scenarios will be applied to the pre-existing forecast years within MoTiON as follows:
§ 2031: Detailed Element and Early Phases
§ 2041: All Phases
It is not feasible to produce alternative forecast years within MoTiON, therefore the three assessments are required to be aligned with the most appropriate forecast year available.
Within MoTiON there are two key elements which need to be calculated with respect to inputting development assumptions related to the Earls Court development. These element are:
§ LoPopS (London Population Synthesizer) – Related to the resident population for the development
§ Attractions – Related to the employment land uses associated with the development MoTiON uses the population forecasts and land use assumptions provided to then predict and generate future travel demand.
LoPopS (Resident population)
LoPopS can be used to provide a population estimate and allows variation in terms of demographic assumptions. The population assumptions detailed within this note will be the target values which are input into LoPopS.
Distinction will be made between different types of residential land uses as follows:
§ Build To Sell (BTS) / Build To Rent (BTR): this will utilise demographic assumptions from the respective LBHF and RBKC zones within MoTiON. The household size for this residential land use will be consistent with the assumptions made around household size for the consented Earls Court development removed from MoTiON during the process of generating the Without EC Development (Base Minus) forecasts. This household size varies between the 2031 and 2041 forecast year due to general demographic changes captured within LoPopS.
§ Student Accommodation: Student bedrooms have been calculated on the basis of 2.5 student rooms per home. It is considered necessary to separate out student accommodation from general residential. It has previously been highlighted by the client that up to 2250 student rooms would be desired. However, only plots that would generate up to 1641 student rooms have been identified. This quantum is therefore included in the modelling. It is assumed a household size of 1.0 would be applied to student accommodation rooms.
§ Later Living: this land use is considered likely to have a lower household size than BTS / BTR. However, for the purposes of modelling (and to represent a worst case) the household size will be kept consistent with the BTS / BTR assumptions as a worst case.
While the detailed application scenario and the early phases scenario will both be modelled in the year 2031, the All Phases scenario will be modelled in 2041, which will result in some slight changes in the assumptions as demographics are predicted to change in the future. In particular the average household size is forecast to drop marginally from 2.09 to 2.04 people per dwelling. This will additionally impact some of the demographic splits used in the population calculation such a gender split, household income, and age.
Table 6 outlines the distinction in assumptions which will be made in LoPopS between the three types of residential land use.
Table 6: LoPopS assumptions by residential land use type
LoPopS variables
Number of workers
Blue Collar / White Collar worker split
As outlined in Table 6, further assumptions are made on the population demographics for the different types of proposed homes. For student rooms it is assumed that all residents are between the ages of 1865, do not work, do not have any cars, and have a household income below £35,000. Additionally, the number of cars per household is set to 3% for BTS/BTR and Later Living.
All other demographic information, including the gender split of residents and workers, white and blue collar workers, household income, and age, have been left unchanged for the specific LBHF and RBKC MoTiON zones being altered to accommodate the latest Earls Court development. A full list of demographic factors used, and how they vary from the default values are shown in Table 7 – 9
Table 7: Modelling factors used to determine demographics from forecast population 2031 Detailed Application
Demographic Factor
Table 8: Modelling factors used to determine demographics from forecast population 2031 Early Phases
Demographic Factor
Table 9: Modelling factors used to determine demographics from
Phases
Based on the above assumptions, the population totals for the three assessment scenarios are outlined in Tables 10 to 12
Table 10: Recommended Detailed Application Forecasted Population
Table 11: Recommended Early Phases Forecasted Population
Table 12: Recommended All Phases Forecasted Population
Attractions (Land use assumptions)
In terms of land use assumptions related to employment, density assumptions based on GIA sqm per job were defined as outlined in Table 13
Table 13: Employment density assumptions
Land use type
Commercial Office
R&D
(sqm per job)
13.8 GIA, sqm per job
62.5 GIA, sqm per job
21.9 GIA, sqm per job
Source and Methodology
Mid-point HCA B1a figure of 11sqm with 80% NIA to GIA assumption applied
Mid-point HCA B1b figure of 50sqm with 80% NIA to GIA assumption applied
Mid-point HCA A1 figure of 17.5sqm with 80% NIA to GIA assumption applied Retail 21.9 GIA, sqm per job
Community 0 GIA, sqm per job
&
Social Infrastructure
Education
Residential Management
82.5 GIA, sqm per job
GIA, sqm per job
13 Jobs per practice
8.7 Children per Adult
30 Resi units per job
Mid-point HCA A1 figure of 17.5sqm with 80% NIA to GIA assumption applied
N/A as will not externally generate demand
Mid-point HCA D2 GIA figure
HCA B8 Final Mile Distribution Centre with 8% GEA to GIA assumption applied
General Practice Workforce Series of Official Statistic from the NHS for North West London which shows 8306 patients per practice, and 153 jobs per 100,000 patients
For commercial office an employee density of 13.8 m2 GIA is used per employee whereas for research and development this is 62.5m2 GIA per employee.
For both retail and food & beverage an employee density of 21.9m2 GIA is used per employee, with culture having a density of 82.5m2 GIA per employee and logistics and consolidation hubs having a density of 64.4m2 GIA per employee.
Due to the complexity of social infrastructure as a land use type, it can be difficult to derive a representative employment density. Instead, the average number of workers per patient, and patients per practice was derived from the General Practice Workforce Series of Official Statistic from the NHS for North West London, the area covering the Earls Court Study Area.
From this it was determined that each practice has an average of 13 jobs. In the Detailed Application scenario 464m2 of social infrastructure is planned for plot WB-05A. It is assumed that this would be a single practice, and thus have 13 jobs.
In the Early Phases scenario, an additional 162 m2 of social infrastructure is planned for plot CW-02, and in the All Phases scenario a further 136 m2 of social infrastructure is planned for plot EG-02. Because the space for social infrastructure is significantly less in plots CW-02 and EG02 than plot WB-05A, the number of jobs has been calculated based on a proportion of land size compared to that of WB-05A, for a total of 5 jobs in plot CW-02 and 4 jobs in EG-02 attached to the social infrastructure land use type.
All of the school places planned have been assumed to be primary school, which has an average of 1 job per 8.7 children. In addition, an assumption of 1 residential manager per 30 residential units has been used.
Table 14 sets out the different employment land use types have been categorised into White Collar, Blue Collar and Retail.
Table 14: Modelling assumptions for use in calculation of jobs and populations
Land
Commercial
Logistics
Social
Education
Residential
Collar
Tables 15 to 17 set out the number of jobs which have been derived for each assessment scenario.
Table 15: Recommended Detailed Application Forecasted Jobs
Table 16: Recommended Early Phases Forecasted Jobs
Table 17: Recommended All Phases Forecasted Jobs
Net change in jobs and workers
It is understood that the change in the relative balance between the number of workers assumed in the resident population (LoPopS) and the number of jobs (Attractions) needs to be considered within MoTiON in order to determine whether any wider population balancing is required as part of the inputs into MoTiON.
Table 18 shows the number of workers assumed in LoPopS and the number of jobs forecasted for the development.
Table 18: Difference between the number of workers assumed in LoPops and number of jobs forecasted for the development
Appendix A – Second Stage Analysis
Appendix L– Cumulative Development Note
1.0 Cumulative Development Note
Summary
1.1 This Appendix provides a summary of cumulative development included within the MoTiON model runs used to inform the TA.
1.2 MoTiON 3.0.19 has been used as the basis for the Earls Court Transport Modelling. Earls Court is a development site with consent and therefore is represented within MoTiON 3.0.19.
1.3 As such, it was necessary to run specific MoTiON runs with the revised Earls Court Development Proposals. This is necessary because the proposals will generate an increase in population and jobs within the study area which will impact who travels to the area and how they travel.
1.4 WSP have received from TfL all land use inputs covering the Earls Court Study Area for both the current 2016 base year, 2031 and 2041 future year scenarios. These included population demographics, and employment assumed for the consented development and fed into MoTiON 3.0.19.
1.5 Figure 1 sets out the site location in the context of the MoTiON model zones within two kilometres of the site (the buffer used within the EIA to consider cumulative development).
Tables 1 and 2 provide a summary of the various modelled years and the total Employment (jobs) and Total Population (persons) for the MoTiON zones in the 2km area around the site.
Figure 1: MoTiON Zones (2km buffer around EC Site)
Table 1: MoTiON Total Population (2km buffer)
1.6 Reviewing the Total Populations (Table 1), it is evident that MoTiON has an allowance for an increase in persons (between 2016 and 2041) of circa 67,000 people. This applying a 2.57 person per household rate1, equals approximately 26,185 new homes.
1.7 Similarly, reviewing Total Employment, MoTiON is forecast to increase jobs by c. 64,000 from 2016 to 2041. This increase is approximately 21.6%, which is in line with the TfL MoTiON Forecasting report.
1 Applying a 2.57 people per h/h using 2021 London Census data
Table 2: MoTiON Total Employment Attractions (2km buffer)
Appendix M – Trip Generation Note
The Earls Court Development Company (ECDC)
EARLS COURT MASTERPLAN
Trip Generation Note
QUALITY CONTROL
Remarks
Date 05/12/22 12/12/22 16/12/22 04/04/2023 05/02/2024
Prepared by S Thomas S Thomas S Thomas W Forster W Forster
Signature
Checked by A Andrews A Andrews A Andrews A Smith A Smith
Signature
Authorised by J Sherlock J Sherlock J Sherlock J Sherlock J Sherlock
Signature
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
1.1.1. This Technical Note (TN) has been prepared by WSP on behalf of The Earls Court Development Company (ECDC) to set out the methodology and provisional forecast demand associated with the Earls Court Masterplan.
1.1.2. It should be noted that whilst the forecast demand has been based upon a provisional masterplan, as set out in the Maximum Development Parameters Note (issued 25th September 2023), a robust approach assessing the highest tripgenerating land uses hasbeen adopted. As such, this note utilises the maximum development uses throughout, acknowledging that the final scheme may result in a lower trip generation. This TN was originally issued with the Transport Assessment Scoping Report (TASR) in April 2023. This updated version of the TN has updated assumptions to reflect more recent data sources, In addition, it should still be noted that the development proposals used in this TN are different to those presented in the previously issued version of this note.
1.1.3. The purpose of this note is to provide a trip generation and forecast demand for the Earls Court development to allow comparison with the demand from the strategic modelling.
1.2 DEVELOPMENTPROPOSALS
1.2.1. In accordance with the planning strategy, the development proposals have been split into three assessment scenarios:
Detailed Application (five masterplan plots that we are seeking detailed planning permission for as part of the hybrid planning submission),
Early Phases (the area of the masterplan formerly occupied by the Earls Court Exhibition Centres) including the detailed application, and
All Phases (the full masterplan) including the detailed application and early phases.
1.2.2. The quantum of development assessed in the Transport Assessment is set out in the Maximum Development Parameters Note which was issued to the Transport Stakeholders on the 25th September 2023.
1.2.3. For the purposes of this Trip Generation note, the proposed development quantum used reflects the All Phases development (full masterplan) as set out in Table 1-1
Table 1-1
–Development Quantum Assumed – All Phases
1.2.4. For robustness, the following assumptions have also been used when considering the trip generation:
the student rooms have been assessed as traditional residential, albeit acknowledging that students do have differing trip generation profiles compared to C3 land uses.
The trip generation does not consider trips associated with the community, social infrastructure or the consolidation hubs land uses as it is considered that these will only generate trips internal to the development.
1.3 REPORTSTRUCTURE
1.3.1. Following this introduction, the remainder of this TN is set out as follows:
Chapter 2 sets out the methodology and anticipated person trip generation,
Chapter 3 sets out adjustments that have been made to account for the location of the site and proposed transport strategy, and
Chapter 4 sets out the trip generation associated with servicing and deliveries.
2 PERSON TRIP GENERATION
2.1 INTRODUCTION
2.1.1. The following paragraphs detail the total person trip rates and total person trip generation related to the proposal for the following uses:
Residential
Employment
Cultural
Retail
Leisure
Education
2.1.2. The trip generation presented utilises the traditional network peak hours of 08:00-09:00 and 17:0018:00. It is acknowledged that some land uses may have peaks that sit outside of these peak hours. This will be explored in more detail in the Transport Assessment.
2.1.3. It should be noted that at this stage, the trip generation calculations take no account of existing / consented trips, internal or linked trips. This is covered in Chapter 3.
2.2 RESIDENTIAL
2.2.1. The industry standard Trip Rate Information Computer System (TRICS) database has been interrogated to identify appropriate trip rates representing this land use. The residential TRICS report is contained in Appendix A.
PRIVATE FLATS
2.2.2. The trip rates associated with the proposed private residential units have been forecast using surveys from the TRICS database, the survey site selection was based on the following criteria:
Land use – Residential – Private Flats
Weekday surveys – All
Location – Sites within Greater London
Location – Town Centre, Edge of Town Centre, Suburban.
>100 units
PTAL 4 plus
2.2.3. No sites were deselected from the TRICS database following the initial search criteria. The resulting sites are summarised in Table 2-1.
2.2.4. The resulting total residential person trip rates derived from the sites above are outlined in Table 22
Table 2-2 – Total Person Trip Rates – Private Flats
AFFORDABLE FLATS
2.2.5. The trip rates associated with the proposed affordable residential units has been forecast using surveys from the TRICS database, the survey site selection was based on the following criteria:
Land use – Residential – Affordable/Local Authority Flats
Weekday surveys – All
Location – Sites within Greater London
Location – Town Centre, Edge of Town Centre, Suburban Area, Edge of Town, Neighbourhood Centre
> 50 units
PTAL 4 plus
2.2.6. No sites were deselected from the TRICS database following the initial search criteria.
2.2.7. The search criteria above have been widened in comparison to the private flats due to the limited availability of affordable flatted surveys within TRICS. The number of units has been dropped to 50+ and more location types have been selected, including Edge of Town and Neighbourhood Centre. The selected sites are summarised in Table 2-3
2.2.8. The resulting total residential person trip rates derived from the sites above are outlined in Table 2-4
Table 2-4 – Total Person Trip Rates – Affordable Flats
Trip Rates
2.2.9. At this stage it is anticipated that there is likely to be a mixture of private, affordable, build to rent and student accommodation. However, the quantum of these has not yet been fixed. As such, a 65% private unit and 35% affordable unit split has been used. The trip rates in Table 2-2 and Table 2-4 have been combined to provide a residential trip rate, set out in Table 2-5
Table 2-5 – Total Person Trip Rates – Combined Residential (Private and Affordable) Trip
2.2.10. Based on approximately 3,967 residential units, and the person trip rates set out in Table 2-5, the total person trip generation for the residential land use is provided in Table 2-6
Table 2-6 – Total Person Trip Generation – Combined Residential (Private and Affordable)
2.2.11. Based on 3,967 units, it is anticipated that the proposed residential development will generate approximately 2,130 two-way trips during the morning peak hour, and 1,680 two-way trips during the evening peak hour.
2.3 EMPLOYMENT
COMMERICAL OFFICE
2.3.1. For theemployment trip generation,a hybridapproach utilising firstprinciples and the TRICS database has been used. At this stage limited information is available as to the split of employment uses.
2.3.2. Therefore, it is sensible to apply a first principles approach to determine the level of jobs that could be generated from the site, before using generic TRICS arrival and departure profiles to inform the split of users approaching and departing the site in the peak hours.
FIRST PRINCIPLES APPROACH
2.3.3. The first principles approach determines the office trip generation based upon a forecast number of employees. The forecasted number of employees was developed by applying the following:
1 employee per 11sqm NIA
2.3.4. The proposed commercial workspace is 201,023sqm GIA, which is considered equivalent to a NIA of 160,819sqm. This has therefore resulted in the total anticipated number of employees totalling 14,620.
2.3.5. At any one time an office is not typically fully occupied, as such a robust assumption using an 85% occupancy rate at the development has been applied, equating to 12,427 employees.
2.3.6. This total employee number was then applied to the percentage proportion of AM and PM peak hour arrivals and departures, calculated from a generic daily Employee profile, as illustrated in Table 2-7. This daily profile has been based upon a TRICS search, with the relevant report contained in Appendix A
Table 2-7 – AM And PM peak hour proportions of Daily trips
2.3.7. This daily profile was then applied to the forecasted employee number of 12,427 to develop the peak hour employee trip generation as illustrated in Table 2-8.
Table 2-8 – First Principles Peak Hour Employee Trip Generation
COMMERICAL RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT
2.3.8. Given the varying nature of R&D facilities, it was considered that a TRICS search should be undertaken using the category ‘Business-Park’ as this category is generally used where there would be multiple commercial research and development buildings. The TRICS report is contained in Appendix A
2.3.9. The survey site selection was based on the following criteria:
Land Use – Employment – Business Park
Weekday Surveys – All weekdays
Location – All sites within Greater London
<10 years old (to derive a suitable survey selection)
>1000 sqm floorspace
2.3.10. The resulting sites are summarised in Table 2-9
Table 2-9 – Selected Commercial Business Park / R&D Sites
2.3.11. Based on the selected sites shown in Table 2-9, the resulting commercial business park employment trip rates per 100sqm are summarised in Table 2-10.
Table 2-10 - Total Person Trip Rates – Commercial Business / R&D – per 100sqm (GIA)
2.3.12. Based on the 67,008 sqm (GIA) of commercial office space, and the person trip rates set out in Table 2-10 the total person trip generation for the commercial employment land use is provided in Table 2-11
Table 2-11 – Total Person Trip Gen. – Commercial Business / R&D – Trip Gen Trip
(1700-1800)
2.3.13. The analysis indicates that based on the TRICS sites, the R&D employment land use would be anticipated to generate approximately 707 two-way trips in the AM peak hour, and 677 trips during the PM peak hour.
2.4 CULTURAL
2.4.1. The cultural land use on the site seeks a flexible consent enabling a range of different performance type venues to be delivered. The largest of these would be a 600 seated (1000 standing) venue. However, as the maximum development parameters scale down the amount of cultural land use and
replace it with either commercial office or retail a quantum of 3,634 sqm has been used in this assessment. For the purposes of the trip generation this is assumed to be a single venue, albeit in reality it would be made up of multiple venues split across the site.
2.4.2. The trip rates and trip profile used in the 2018/03100/FUL planning application for the Redevelopment of Olympia were interrogated due to the lack of sites available for the most recent five-year period within the TRICS database for such a venue. Upon detailed review, it was determined that the trip profile for the cultural element of the Olympia Redevelopment was not suitable due to the synthesised arrival and departure profile.
2.4.3. Initially, trip rates for a Cinema were utilised to capture the cultural land uses. Feedback from stakeholders suggested that a different land use should be applied in this instance.
2.4.4. Therefore an alternative leisure use was identified that was considered to still be relevant to culture based trips, whilst providing a robust trip generation that capture movements throughout the day. As such, it was considered that an Art Gallery/Museum/Exhibition would provide a suitable alternative, and in turn would likely see a higher peak hour trip rate than that of a theatre or cinema. The site selection criterion has been extended to the latest 15-year period, with the survey site selection based on the following criteria:
Land use – Leisure – Art Galleries/Museums /Exhibitions
Weekday surveys – All
Location – Sites within Greater London
Location – Town Centre, Edge of Town Centre, Suburban Area, Edge of Town, Neighbourhood Centre
2.4.5. Two site was identified and selected from the TRICS database following the initial search criteria. The TRICS report is contained in Appendix A. This resulted in the following site selection shown in Table 2-12.
Table 2-12 – Selected Cultural Sites
2.4.6. The resulting person trip rates per seat for the proposed cultural land use are summarised in Table 2-13.
Table 2-13 – Total Person Trip Rates – Cultural
- Cultural
2.4.7. Based on a potential 3,634 sqm culture land use venue, the person trip rates set out in Table 2-13, the total person trip generation for the cultural land use are provided in Table 2-14
Table 2-14 – Total Person Trip Generation – Culture – 3,634 sqm venue
2.4.8. The analysis indicates that based on the TRICS sites, the culture land use would be anticipated to generate approximately 73 two-way trips in the AM peak hour, and 153 trips during the PM peak hour.
2.5 RETAIL,FOODANDBEVERAGE
2.5.1. The retail land use will comprise of a mixture of uses including retail, financial and professional services and Restaurants and cafés. For the purposes of the trip generation exercise this has been split into two main categories, retail and F&B.
RETAIL
2.5.2. This proposed retail quantum used in the maximum development parameters is circa 11,301 sqm. For the retail trip generation, the TRICS database has again been used. The TRICS report is contained in Appendix A
2.5.3. The TRICS database was interrogated for Retail trip rates. Primarily, Retail – Shopping Mall sites in London and other large cities. In addition to this, due to the mixture of retail uses proposed, a TRICS search into Retail – Other Individual Non-Food Stores was undertaken. The survey site selection based on the following criteria:
Land use – Leisure – Retail / Mixed Shopping Malls
Weekday surveys – All
Location – Sites within Greater London and South East
Location – Town Centre, Edge of Town Centre, Suburban Area, Edge of Town, Neighbourhood Centre
2.5.4. Table 2-15 provides a summary of the selected Retail – Shopping Mall site and Retail – Other Individual Non-Food Stores site.
Table 2-15 - Selected Retail Sites
TRICS 7.10.4
2.5.5. Many of the retail trips would be local walk-in trips with many likely to be linked or pass-by trips associated with another journey of the masterplan site – particularly when the PM peak hour is being assessed. This is considered in Section 3
2.5.6. A combination of the two retail land uses has been used to develop a trip rate. The retail person trip rates per 100sqm are summarised in Table 2-16 below.
Table 2-16 – Total Person Trip Rates – Retail – per 100sqm
2.5.7. Based on a proposed quantum of 11,301sqm, and the person trip rates set out in Table 2-16 , the total person trip generation for the retail land use are provided in Table 2-17
Table 2-17 – Total Person Trip Generation – Retail – 13,301 sqm
2.5.8. As shown above, the analysis indicates that based on the TRICS sites, the retail land use would be anticipated to generate approximately 230 two-way trips in the AM peak hour, and 442 trips during the PM peak hour.
FOOD AND BEVERAGE
2.5.9. The proposed development will provide up to 8,614 sqm of food and beverage.
2.5.10. For the food and beverage trip generation, the TRICS database has again been used. The TRICS report is contained in Appendix A. The survey site selection based on the following criteria:
Land use – Hotel Food & Drink – K Cafe
Weekday surveys – All
Location – Sites within England
Location – Town Centre, Edge of Town Centre, Suburban Area, Edge of Town, Neighbourhood Centre
2.5.11. Whilst it is acknowledged that the site will seek to deliver a mix of café style premises as well as other restaurants / bars, Café was used in the trip generation as it’s considered to be the most robust in terms of peak hour trip generation impacts. Table 2-18 provides a summary of the selected Cafe sites.
Table 2-18 – Selected Food and Beverage Sites
TRICS 7.10.4
2.5.12. Many of the food and beverage would be local walk-in trips with many likely to be linked or pass-by trips associated with another journey of the masterplan site – particularly when the PM peak hour is
being assessed. This is considered in Section 3. The retail person trip rates per 100sqm are summarised in Table 2-19 below.
Table 2-19 – Total Person Trip Rates – F&B– per 100sqm
Trip
2.5.13. Based on a proposed quantum of 8,614 sqm, and the person trip rates set out above, the total person trip generation for the retail land use are provided in Table 2-20.
Table 2-20 – Total Person Trip Generation – F&B– 8,614 sqm
Trip
- Retail
2.5.14. The analysis indicates that based on the TRICS sites, the retail land use would be anticipated to generate approximately 810 two-way trips in the AM peak hour, and 701 trips during the PM peak hour.
2.6 EDUCATION
2.6.1. The proposed development will provide up to 70 Nursery places and 470 secondary education places. For the education trip generation, the TRICS database has again been used. The TRICS report is contained in Appendix A
NURSERY
2.6.2. It is to be noted that for Nursery education there was a lack of sites within London and therefore the search was widened to England. The survey site selection based on the following criteria:
Land use – Education / Nursery
Weekday surveys – All
Location – Sites within England (Nursery
Location – Town Centre, Edge of Town Centre, Suburban Area, Edge of Town, Neighbourhood Centre
Table 2-21 – Selected Educational Sites (Nursery(
2.6.3. A proportion of the educational trips would be local walk-in trips with many likely to be linked or pass-by trips associated with another journey of the masterplan site. This is considered in Section 3
2.6.4. The educational person trip rates per student are summarised in Table 2-22.
Table 2-22 – Total Person Trip Rates – Educational (Nursery) – Per student
2.6.5. Based on a proposed quantum of 70 nursery places, and the person trip rates set out above, the total person trip generation for the retail land use are provided in Table 2-23
Table 2-23 – Total Person Trip Generation – Educational (Nursery)
2.6.6. The table above indicates that based on the TRICS sites, the retail land use would be anticipated to generate approximately 56 two-way nursery trips in the AM peak hour, and 5 two-way nursery school trips during the PM peak hour.
SECONDARY
2.6.7. The survey site selection to cater for the secondary school element has been based on the following criteria:
Land use –Education / Secondary
Weekday surveys – All
Location – Greater London (Secondary)
Location – Town Centre, Edge of Town Centre, Suburban Area, Edge of Town, Neighbourhood Centre
Table
2-24 – Selected Educational Sites (Secondary)
2.6.8. A proportion of the educational trips would be local walk-in trips with many likely to be linked or pass-by trips associated with another journey of the masterplan site. This is considered in Section 3
2.6.9. The educational person trip rates per student are summarised in Table 2-25.
Table 2-25 – Total Person Trip Rates – Educational (Secondary) – Per student
Trip Rates - Retail
2.6.10. Based on a proposed quantum of approximately 470 secondary school places, and the person trip rates set out above, the total person trip generation is shown in Table 2-26.
Table 2-26 - Total Person Trip Generation – Educational (Secondary)
Trip Generation - Retail
2.6.11. The secondary education use would be anticipated to generate approximately 375 secondary school trips in the AM peak hour, and 28 secondary school trips during the PM peak hour.
2.7 ALLLANDUSES
2.7.1. The application of the above person trip rates to the maximum development parameters for all phases results in the person trip generation shown in Table 2-27. It should be noted that at this stage trip generation calculations take no account of existing / consented trips, internal, pass-by or linked trips. Specific adjustments are set out in Chapter 3. It is noted that all trips are presented as rounded numbers and therefore when adding column totals the results may not present the exact sum.
Table 2-27 – Total Person Trip Generation by Land Use
3 TRIP ADJUSTMENTS AND MODE SHARE
3.1 TRIPADJUSTMENTS
3.1.1. The weekday AM (0800-0900) and PM (1700-1800) peak hours have been used as the development peak periods, and the journey purposes relating to these time periods (as sourced from the London Travel Demand Survey (LTDS)) have been applied to the appropriate person trips. The following journey purposes have been referred to for the Trip Generation Model:
Residential to work
Residential to leisure / shopping / personal
Residential to education primary (incl. escort)
Residential to education secondary
Residential to employers’ business
Commercial Office from home
Employers Business from home
Education Nursery from home
Education Secondary from home
Culture from home
Retail from home
F&B from home
3.1.2. The proposals seek to deliver a comprehensive masterplan with significant potential to provide for a range of complimentary land uses within the application site, to negate the need for people to travel longer distances by modes other than by foot or cycle, with the regeneration of the site being based around attractive and accessible public realm.
3.1.3. It is estimated that a percentage of total journeys will be undertaken within the site boundaries, which will therefore have no impact upon the wider transport networks. The adjustments to each of the journey purposes to account for this potential is set out below. The standard definition used to qualify a trip as internal is as follows.
‘Internal trips begin and end within the development. These trips form part of the total development trip generation but do not use the external transport networks.’
RESIDENTIAL TO WORK
3.1.4. It is assumed that 10% of residents could live and work on-site. This seems a conservative estimate given that the masterplan offers approximately 3,900 residential units adjacent to some 201,000m² (GIA) of high-quality office space in a desirable area of London.
RESIDENTIAL TO LEISURE / SHOPPING / PERSONAL
3.1.5. It has been assumed that 20% of total person peak hour residential trips to leisure/ shopping/ personal would begin and end within the development. A 20% reduction has therefore been applied to account for the anticipated internalisation.
RESIDENTIAL TO PRIMARY EDUCATION (INCLUDING ESCORT)
3.1.6. No primary school is included within the development masterplan, and it therefore assumed that all primary education related trips would be made externally.
RESIDENTIAL TO SECONDARY EDUCATION (INCLUDING ESCORT)
3.1.7. It is assumed that 25% of trips for residents to secondary education will originate on, and it therefore assumed that 75% secondary education related trips would be made externally.
RESIDENTIAL TO EMPLOYERS’ BUSINESS
3.1.8. It is assumed that 90% of trips to employment will be off-site. A 10% reduction has therefore been applied to account for the anticipated internalisation as set out above.
COMMERICAL OFFICE FROM HOME
3.1.9. Whilst it is anticipated that up to 10% of residential to work trips will originate within the site, and the equivalent should then be applied to the commercial office from home trips. However, given that these are different journey purposes, which may inhibit different profiles, for robustness no internalisation factor has been applied to avoid double counting. The resulting trips are then assumed to be external to the development.
EMPLOYERS BUSINESS FROM HOME
3.1.10. As with the commercial office from home purpose, whilst it is considered appropriate that an adjustment could be made, for robustness no internalisation factor has been applied to avoid double counting. The resulting trips are then assumed to be external to the development.
EDUCATION NURSERY FROM HOME
3.1.11. It is anticipated that 100% of nursery trips will originate within the site. These have been taken off the Education Nursery land use corresponding arrivals/departures in each peak hour.
EDUCATION SECONDARY FROM HOME
3.1.12. It is anticipated that 25% of secondary school trips will originate within the site. These have been taken off the Education Secondary land use corresponding arrivals/departures in each peak hour.
CULTURE
3.1.13. It is anticipated that, in the main, all cultural uses will generate demand externally, and no internalisation factor has therefore been applied.
RETAIL
3.1.14. It is anticipated that 80% of retail trips will be internal. An 80% reduction has therefore been applied to account for the anticipated internalisation.
FOOD AND BEVERAGE
3.1.15. It is anticipated that 80% of F&B trips will be internal. An 80% reduction has therefore been applied to account for the anticipated internalisation.
SUMMARY
3.1.16. A summary of the internal trip adjustments made by each journey purpose is set out in Table 3-1.
Table 3-1
– Internal Trip Adjustment Summary
Journey Purpose Adjustment Rationale
Residential to Work 10% reduction Assumed that 90% of employment will be off site
Residential to Leisure / Shopping / Personal 20% reduction Adjusted to account for internal retail trips
Residential to Education Primary (incl. escort trips) No adjustment Assumed that all primary education trips will be off site
Residential to Education Secondary 25% reduction Assumed that all 75% education trips will be off site
Residential to Employers Business No Adjustment No adjustment
Commercial Office from Home No Adjustment No adjustment
Commercial R&D from Home No Adjustment No adjustment
Employers Business No Adjustment No adjustment
Education Nursery 100% reduction Assumed 100% of nursery education trips will be internal and 0% off site.
Education Secondary 25% reduction Assumed that all 75% education trips will be off site
Culture from Home No adjustment All cultural uses to generate demand externally
Retail from Home
F&B from home
80% reduction Adjusted to account for 20% internal retail trips
80% reduction Adjusted to account for 20% internal F&B trips
3.2 TRIPADJUSTMENTSUMMARY
3.2.1. The trip adjustment assumptions set out in Table 3-1 have been applied to the trip generation set out in Table 2-27. The trip adjustment changes undertaken account for internalisation, pass-by and linked trips, with the revised trip generation set out in Table 3-2
Table 3-2 – Trip Generation following Trip Adjustment
*A manual adjustment has been applied to remove the linked residential trips from the commercial office from home trips.
3.2.2. A comparison of the trip generation before and after the trip adjustment process is set out in Table 33.
Table 3-3 – Trip Adjustment Summary
3.2.3. Table 3-3 illustrates that the trip adjustment process results ina reduction of 1383 two-way trips during the AM peak hour, and a reduction of 1511 trips during the PM peak hour on the external transport network.
3.3 MODE SHARE
3.3.1. The adjusted person trips shown in Table 3-2 have been further disaggregated by main mode, as indicated in the following paragraphs. Table 3-4 shows the main mode share by journey purpose that has been applied to the proposed development.
3.3.2. It is acknowledged that as part of the first or final journey stage, public transport trips will essentially be walking trips, and this will need to be considered as part of the final Transport Assessment when assessing demand on the pedestrian network.
Table 3-4 –
Main Mode Share by Journey Purpose
SOURCE Sourced from travel to work 2021 census dataresidents for the MSOAs covering the proposed development site (Hammersmith and Fulham 015: E02000386 and Kensington and Chelsea 017: E02000593) with adjustments made to suppress car driver and passenger trips
Sourced from NTS0409
Sourced from RBKC School Travel Plan Data. Car passenger includes car, park & walk, and car share with adjustments made to suppress car driver and passenger trips and increase cycle mode share
Sourced from RBKC School Travel Plan Data. Car passenger includes car, park & walk, and car share. with adjustments made to suppress car driver and passenger trips and increase cycle mode share
Sourced from travel to work 2021 census dataresidents for the MSOAs covering the proposed development site (Hammersmith and Fulham 015: E02000386 and Kensington and Chelsea 017: E02000593)
Sourced from travel to work 2021 census data for or the MSOAs covering the proposed development site (Hammersmith and Fulham 015: E02000386 and Kensington and Chelsea 015: E02000591, Kensington and Chelsea 017: E02000593) with adjustments made to suppress car driver and passenger trips and increase cycle mode share
2021 census data for or the MSOAs covering the proposed development site (Hammersmith and Fulham 015: E02000386 and Kensington and Chelsea 015: E02000591, Kensington and Chelsea 017: E02000593) with adjustments made to suppress car driver and passenger trips and increase cycle mode share
SOURCE
Project No.: 70077004
Mode share taken from LBHF and RBKC Travel Plan Data. Car passenger includes car, park & walk, and car share
Mode share taken from LBHF and RBKC Travel Plan Data. Car passenger includes car, park & walk, and car share
Mode share taken from NTS0409 2021- car driver/passenger supressed on to public transport and taxi.
Mode share taken from NTS0409 2021- car driver/passenger supressed on to public transport and taxi.
3.4 RESIDENTIALTOWORK
3.4.1. The mode share for the residential to work journey purpose has been based on the travel to work 2021 census data, for the MSOAs covering the proposed development site (Hammersmith and Fulham 015: E02000386 and Kensington and Chelsea 017: E02000593) with adjustments made to suppress car driver and passenger trips.
3.4.2. The site location benefits from easy access to a wide range of local amenities (including those proposed on the site), cycle infrastructure is available and will be improved, in addition to public transport infrastructure which will also be enhanced.
3.4.3. The congestion charging zone is located some 3.7km to the east of the site which discourages car travel to and from central London from Monday to Friday between 0700-1800 and 1200 – 1800 on weekends and Bank Holidays. The site is located within the ULEZ and LEZ zones which are operational 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
3.4.4. The mode share for the residential to work journey purpose set out in Table 3-4 has been applied to the trip generation. Table 3-5 sets out the total person trip generation by mode for the residential to work journey purpose.
Table 3-5 – Residential to Work: Forecast Trips by Main Mode Mode
Peak (0800 – 0900)
3.5 RESIDENTIALTOLEISURE/SHOPPING/PERSONAL
3.5.1. The mode share for the residential to leisure / shopping / personal journey purpose has been based on the 2021 NTS0409 Mode Share Data.
3.5.2. Table 3-6 sets out the total adjusted person trip generation by mode for the residential to leisure / shopping / personal journey purpose.
Table 3-6 – Residential to Leisure / Shopping / Personal: Forecast Trips by Main Mode
3.6 RESIDENTIALTOEDUCATION–PRIMARY
3.6.1. The mode share data for the residential to primary education journey purpose has been sourced from RBKC School Travel Plan Data.
3.6.2. Table 3-7 sets out the total person trip generation by mode for the residential to leisure / shopping / personal journey purpose.
Table 3-7 – Residential to Education - Primary: Forecast Trips by Main Mode
3.7 RESIDENTIALTOEDUCATION–SECONDARY
3.7.1. The mode share data for the residential to secondary education journey purpose has been sourced from RBKC School Travel Plan Data.
3.7.2. Table 3-8 sets out the total person trip generation by mode for the residential to secondary education purpose.
Table 3-8 – Residential to Education - Secondary: Forecast Trips by Main
3.8 RESIDENTIALTOEMPLOYERS’BUSINESS
3.8.1. The mode share for the residential to employers’ business has been based on travel to work 2021 census data for the daytime population for the North End and Earls Court Wards.
3.8.2. Table 3-9 sets out the total person trip generation by mode for the residential to employers’ business journey purpose.
Table 3-9 – Residential to Employers Business: Forecast Trips by Main Mode
3.9 RESIDENTIALTOALL
3.9.1. Table 3-10 sets out the total person trip generation by mode for all journey purposes from the residential development, summing Table 3-5 to Table 3-9
Table 3-10 – Residential to All: Forecast Trips by Main Mode
3.10 COMMERICALOFFICEFROMHOME
3.10.1. The mode share for the commercial office from home journey purpose has been based on the travel to work 2021 census data, using data for the respective MSOAs.
3.10.2. Table 3-11 sets out the total person trip generation by mode for the business to home and employers business journey purposes combined.
Table 3-11 – Business from Home: Forecast Trips by Main Mode Mode
3.11 EMPLOYERSBUSINESSFROMHOME
3.11.1. The mode share for the employers business from home uses the same as the commercial office from home as set out above.
3.11.2. Table 3-12 sets out the total person trip generation by mode for the employers business journey purpose.
Table 3-12 – Employers Business from Home: Forecast Trips by Main
3.12 COMMERICALR&DFROMHOME
3.12.1. The mode share for the R&D element has been calculated from 2021 Census data, and is the same as the commercial office from home and employer business from home journey purposes.
3.12.2. Table 3-13 sets out the total person trip generation by mode for R&D from Home journey purpose.
Table 3-13 – Commercial R&D from Home: Forecast Trips by Main Mode Mode
3.13 EDUCATION(SECONDARY)FROMHOME
3.13.1. The mode share for the Education Secondary from home journey purpose has been based on the LBHF and RBKC School Travel Plan Data.
3.13.2. Table 3-14 sets out the total person trip generation by mode for the business to home and employers business journey purposes combined.
Table 3-14 – Education Secondary from Home: Forecast Trips by Main Mode
– 0900)
3.14 CULTUREFROMHOME
3.14.1. The mode share for the culture from home journey purpose has been based on the 2021 NTS0409 mode share data. Table 3-15 sets out the total person trip generation by mode for the culture from home journey purpose.
Table 3-15 – Culture from Home: Forecast Trips by Main Mode
3.15 RETAILFROMHOME
3.15.1. The mode share for the retail from home journey purpose has been based on the 2021 NTS0409 mode share data. The car driver / passenger mode share has been suppressed and re-distributed to the walking mode share. This is to reflect the nature of the proposals, which include no parking provision.
3.15.2. Table 3-16 sets out the total person trip generation by mode for the retail from home journey purpose.
Table 3-16 – Retail from Home: Forecast Trips by Main Mode
3.16 FOODANDBEVERAGEFROMHOME
3.16.1. The mode share for the food and beverage from home journey purpose has been based on the 2021 NTS0409 mode share data. The car driver / passenger mode share has been suppressed and redistributed to the walking mode share. This is to reflect the nature of the proposals, which include no parking provision.
3.16.2. Table 3-17 sets out the total person trip generation by mode for the F&B from home journey purpose.
Table 3-17 – F&B from Home: Forecast Trips by Main Mode
3.17
ALLTRIPS
Table 3-18 sets out the total person trip generation by mode for all journey purposes to and from the development, summing Table 3-10 to 3-17.
Table 3-18 – Trip Generation: All Trips to and from the Development
3.17.1. The resulting mode shares are shown as below in Table 3-19
Table 3-19 – Resulting Mode Shares
3.17.2. Table 3-19 indicates that during the peak hours, the majority of trips (46-49%) to and from the development will be by train or underground, 14-15% by bus and approximately 30-35% of trips on foot / by bicycle.
4 SERVICING AND DELIVERIES
4.1.1. Additional to the travel demand generated by new residents and workers within the development, account needs to be taken of the servicing trips that are likely to occur during the AM and PM peak hours. This note builds on the servicing note previously provided and provides further information and a breakdown of numbers.
4.1.2. The same development quantum’s have been applied in terms of residential units (retaining the assumption that the student numbers are treated as homes for robustness), commercial office (combining office and R&D) and Commercial Retail (combining retail and F&B). Whilst it is acknowledged that there are other land uses within the development parameters, these are considered to be more ad hoc servicing trip generators, and typically would benefit from consolidated servicing trips.
4.2 RESIDENTIALSERVICINGANDDELIVERIES
Servicing Rates
4.2.1. The trip rate applied to each residential unit is 0.3 delivery trips per unit per day. This has been determined using a first principles approach, then benchmarked against other sites.
4.2.2. Assuming 2 deliveries per week per household (2 deliveries / 7 days) results in a delivery trip rate of 0.29 per unit. Rounding up to 0.3 per unit is sensible to provide some resilience. For an application in Wembley (using surveyed data from nearby residential apartment block in 2019) – resulted in a trip rate of approx. 0.1 deliveries per day per unit for residential. Similarly, a review of survey data of Elephant and Castle One in 2018 returned a residential servicing trip rate of 0.2 per unit.
4.2.3. As such, applying a first principles based approach (2 deliveries per household per week) and ratifying this against other sites, outlines that 0.3 per unit is suitable.
Delivery Breakdown
4.2.4. Research undertaken by Westminster University pre-Covid indicated the following breakdown of household deliveries:
Groceries (8%)
Non-food small items (84%)
Non-food large items (0.5%)
Take-away (7.5%)
4.2.5. It is anticipated that servicing of waste will be undertaken on a weekly basis and outside of peak hours. However, for robustness, waste trips have been accounted for within the below analysis.
4.2.6. Residential delivery and servicing trips have been apportioned into the following delivery journey purposes and vehicles as set out in Table 4-1. These have been estimated at this stage based on the likely use of vehicles and accesses available at the development.
Table
4-1 – Forecast Delivery Types and Vehicles: Residential
4.2.7. Based on the number of residential units (3,967 units), it is anticipated that there will be approximately 1,190 delivery trips per day. As set out above, it is anticipated that there will be up to three waste trips per week per borough (total of 6). The resulting delivery and servicing daily trip generation based on the delivery journey purpose and vehicle type is set out in Table 4-2
Table 4-2 – Residential Delivery and Servicing Trip Generation: Daily
4.2.8. A peak hour conversion rate of 15% has been applied to calculate the number of residential delivery and servicing trips by peak hour. For waste, it has been assumed that as a worst case 50% of RCV’s would be on site at the same time during the peak hour.
4.2.9. Table 4-3 sets out the resulting delivery and servicing peak hour trip generation.
Table 4-3 –
Residential Delivery and Servicing Trip Generation: Peak Hour
4.2.10. It is anticipated that there will be a 25% level of consolidation to residential units (excluding Waste). The resulting delivery and servicing daily trip generation based on the delivery journey purpose and vehicle type with consolidation is set out in Table 4-4.
4.3.1. It is anticipated that servicing and collection of waste will be undertaken on a daily basis.
4.3.2. The trip rate applied to the commercial office is 0.22 delivery trips per 100sqm per day, and the trip rate applied to the commercial retail is 0.8 delivery trips per 100sqm per day.
4.3.3. In terms of the commercial office trip rate, a review of other applications / sites has been undertaken to provide ratification on the numbers used. The Elephant and Castle (2016) applied 0.11 per 100 sqm for Office in that consented TA. More recently, 55 Bishopsgate, applied City of London rates (ready reckoner rates as shown in Table 3.6 of the TA in reference 22/00981/FULEIA) - and then sought a 50% reduction for consolidation. As such, this is comparable and follows a similar methodology applied below.
4.3.4. For retail, a review of the consented Elephant and Castle site (submitted 2016) outlined that the site applied 0.73 per 100 sqm for retail uses. On that basis, using 0.8 per 100 sqm is considered defendable.
Delivery Breakdown
4.3.5. Commercial delivery and servicing trips (office, R&D, retail and F&B) have been apportioned into the following delivery journey purposes and vehicles as set out in Table 4-6
Table 4-6 – Delivery Types and Vehicles: Commercial
4.3.6. Based on the total commercial floorspace it is anticipated that there will be 616 delivery trips per day.. The resulting delivery and servicing daily trip generation based on the delivery journey purpose and vehicle type is set out in Table 4-7. In terms of waste, there are multiple commercial plots in the illustrative masterplan which will have varying waste strategies. To account for the RCV vehicles, its assumed that on average there would be approximately 3 private waste vehicles per day as worst case.
Table 4-7 – Commercial Delivery and Servicing Trip Generation: Daily
/ Servicing
4.3.7. A peak hour conversion rate of 15% has been applied to calculate the number of commercial delivery and servicing trips by peak hour.
4.3.8. Table 4-8 sets out the resulting delivery and servicing peak hour trip generation.
4.3.9. It is anticipated that all deliveries will be delivered directly to plot.
4.3.10. It is anticipated that there will be a 50% level of consolidation to commercial units. Waste trips have been excluded from the consolidation calculations.
4.3.11. The resulting delivery and servicing daily trip generation based on the delivery journey purpose and vehicle type with consolidation is set out in Table 4-9
Category : C - FLATS PRIVATELY OWNED MULTI-MODAL TOTAL PEOPLE
Selected regions and areas:
This section displays the number of survey days per TRICS® sub-region in the selected set
Primary Filtering selection:
This data displays the chosen trip rate parameter and its selected range. Only sites that fall within the parameter range are included in the trip rate calculation.
Parameter: No of Dwellings
Actual Range: 160 to 472 (units: )
Range Selected by User: 100 to 493 (units: )
Parking Spaces Range: All Surveys Included
Parking Spaces per Dwelling Range: All Surveys Included
Bedrooms per Dwelling Range: All Surveys Included
Percentage of dwellings privately owned: All Surveys Included
Public Transport Provision:
Selection by: Include all surveys
Date Range: 01/01/12 to 14/11/19
This data displays the range of survey dates selected. Only surveys that were conducted within this date range are included in the trip rate calculation.
Selected survey days:
1 days
days
days
days
This data displays the number of selected surveys by day of the week.
Selected survey types: Manual count 4 days Directional ATC Count 0 days
This data displays the number of manual classified surveys and the number of unclassified ATC surveys, the total adding up to the overall number of surveys in the selected set. Manual surveys are undertaken using staff, whilst ATC surveys are undertaking using machines.
This data displays the number of surveys per main location category within the selected set. The main location categories consist of Free Standing, Edge of Town, Suburban Area, Neighbourhood Centre, Edge of Town Centre, Town Centre and Not Known. Selected Location Sub Categories:
This data displays the number of surveys per location sub-category within the selected set. The location sub-categories consist of Commercial Zone, Industrial Zone, Development Zone, Residential Zone, Retail Zone, Built-Up Zone, Village, Out of Town, High Street and No Sub Category.
This data displays the number of surveys per Use Class classification within the selected set. The Use Classes Order 2005 has been used for this purpose, which can be found within the Library module of TRICS®.
Population within 500m Range: All Surveys Included
This data displays the number of selected surveys within stated 1-mile radii of population.
within 5 miles:
or More 4 days
This data displays the number of selected surveys within stated 5-mile radii of population. Car ownership within 5 miles: 0.5 or Less
This data displays the number of selected surveys within stated ranges of average cars owned per residential dwelling, within a radius of 5-miles of selected survey sites.
This data displays the number of surveys within the selected set that were undertaken at sites with Travel Plans in place, and the number of surveys that were undertaken at sites without Travel Plans.
PTAL Rating:
Very
This data displays the number of selected surveys with PTAL Ratings.
1 BM-03-C-01 BLOCKS OF FLATS
RINGER'S ROAD BROMLEY
Town Centre
Built-Up Zone
Total No of Dwellings: 160
Survey date: MONDAY 12/11/18
Survey Type: MANUAL
2
Suburban Area (PPS6 Out of Centre)
Development Zone
Total No of Dwellings: 472
Survey date: WEDNESDAY 30/11/16
Survey Type: MANUAL
3 HM-03-C-02 BLOCKS OF FLATS HAMMERSMITH AND FULHAM GLENTHORNE ROAD HAMMERSMITH
Town Centre Built-Up Zone
Total No of Dwellings: 194
Survey date: TUESDAY 30/04/19
4 IS-03-C-07 BLOCK OF FLATS
Edge of Town Centre
Development Zone
Total No of Dwellings: 185
Survey date: THURSDAY 06/06/19
Survey Type: MANUAL
Survey Type: MANUAL
This section provides a list of all survey sites and days in the selected set. For each individual survey site, it displays a unique site reference code and site address, the selected trip rate calculation parameter and its value, the day of the week and date of each survey, and whether the survey was a manual classified count or an ATC count.
TRIP RATE for Land Use 03 - RESIDENTIAL/C - FLATS PRIVATELY OWNED MULTI-MODAL TOTAL PEOPLE
Calculation factor: 1 DWELLS BOLD print indicates
00:00 - 01:00 01:00 - 02:00
02:00 - 03:00
03:00 - 04:00
04:00 - 05:00
This section displays the trip rate results based on the selected set of surveys and the selected count type (shown just above the table). It is split by three main columns, representing arrivals trips, departures trips, and total trips (arrivals plus departures). Within each of these main columns are three sub-columns. These display the number of survey days where count data is included (per time period), the average value of the selected trip rate calculation parameter (per time period), and the trip rate result (per time period). Total trip rates (the sum of the column) are also displayed at the foot of the table.
To obtain a trip rate, the average (mean) trip rate parameter value (TRP) is first calculated for all selected survey days that have count data available for the stated time period. The average (mean) number of arrivals, departures or totals (whichever applies) is also calculated (COUNT) for all selected survey days that have count data available for the stated time period. Then, the average count is divided by the average trip rate parameter value, and multiplied by the stated calculation factor (shown just above the table and abbreviated here as FACT). So, the method is: COUNT/TRP*FACT. Trip rates are then rounded to 3 decimal places.
Land Use : 03 - RESIDENTIAL
Category : D - AFFORDABLE/LOCAL AUTHORITY FLATS MULTI-MODAL TOTAL PEOPLE
Selected regions and areas:
Reference:
This section displays the number of survey days per TRICS® sub-region in the selected set
Primary Filtering selection:
This data displays the chosen trip rate parameter and its selected range. Only sites that fall within the parameter range are included in the trip rate calculation.
Parameter: No of Dwellings
Actual Range: 90 to 250 (units: )
Range Selected by User: 90 to 250 (units: )
Parking Spaces Range: All Surveys Included
Parking Spaces per Dwelling Range: All Surveys Included
Bedrooms per Dwelling Range: All Surveys Included
Percentage of dwellings privately owned: All Surveys Included
Public Transport Provision:
Selection by: Include all surveys
Date Range: 01/01/11 to 27/06/16
This data displays the range of survey dates selected. Only surveys that were conducted within this date range are included in the trip rate calculation.
Selected survey days:
1 days
1 days
1 days
This data displays the number of selected surveys by day of the week.
Selected survey types: Manual count 3 days
Directional ATC Count
days
This data displays the number of manual classified surveys and the number of unclassified ATC surveys, the total adding up to the overall number of surveys in the selected set. Manual surveys are undertaken using staff, whilst ATC surveys are undertaking using machines.
Selected Locations:
Area (PPS6 Out of Centre) 1
Centre (PPS6 Local Centre) 1
This data displays the number of surveys per main location category within the selected set. The main location categories consist of Free Standing, Edge of Town, Suburban Area, Neighbourhood Centre, Edge of Town Centre, Town Centre and Not Known.
Selected Location Sub Categories: Residential Zone 3
This data displays the number of surveys per location sub-category within the selected set. The location sub-categories consist of Commercial Zone, Industrial Zone, Development Zone, Residential Zone, Retail Zone, Built-Up Zone, Village, Out of Town, High Street and No Sub Category.
Inclusion of Servicing Vehicles Counts:
vehicles
2 days - Selected
days - Selected
Secondary Filtering selection:
Use Class: C3 3 days
This data displays the number of surveys per Use Class classification within the selected set. The Use Classes Order (England) 2020 has been used for this purpose, which can be found within the Library module of TRICS®.
Population within 500m Range: All Surveys Included
within 1 mile: 50,001 to 100,000
More
This data displays the number of selected surveys within stated 1-mile radii of population.
Population within 5 miles: 500,001 or More 3 days
This data displays the number of selected surveys within stated 5-mile radii of population.
Car ownership within 5 miles: 0.5 or Less 2 days 0.6 to 1.0 1 days
This data displays the number of selected surveys within stated ranges of average cars owned per residential dwelling, within a radius of 5-miles of selected survey sites.
Travel Plan: No 3 days
This data displays the number of surveys within the selected set that were undertaken at sites with Travel Plans in place, and the number of surveys that were undertaken at sites without Travel Plans.
PTAL Rating:
4 Good 1 days
5 Very Good 2 days
This data displays the number of selected surveys with PTAL Ratings.
1 HG-03-D-03 BLOCKS OF FLATS
COMMERCE ROAD
WOOD GREEN
WOODSIDE PARK
Suburban Area (PPS6 Out of Centre)
Residential Zone
Total No of Dwellings: 90
Survey date: FRIDAY 26/09/14
2 IS-03-D-02 BLOCKS OF FLATS
COPENHAGEN STREET
ISLINGTON BARNARD PARK
Neighbourhood Centre (PPS6 Local Centre)
Residential Zone
Total No of Dwellings: 250
Survey date: THURSDAY 28/11/13
HARINGEY
Survey Type: MANUAL
Survey Type: MANUAL
3 IS-03-D-04 BLOCKS OF FLATS ISLINGTON LIVERPOOL ROAD HIGHBURY
Edge of Town Centre
Residential Zone
Total No of Dwellings: 247
Survey date: MONDAY 27/06/16
Survey Type: MANUAL
This section provides a list of all survey sites and days in the selected set. For each individual survey site, it displays a unique site reference code and site address, the selected trip rate calculation parameter and its value, the day of the week and date of each survey, and whether the survey was a manual classified count or an ATC count.
TRIP RATE for Land Use 03 - RESIDENTIAL/D - AFFORDABLE/LOCAL AUTHORITY FLATS
MULTI-MODAL TOTAL PEOPLE
Calculation factor: 1 DWELLS
BOLD print indicates peak (busiest) period Total People to Total Vehicles ratio (all time periods and directions): 6.79
00:00 - 01:00
01:00 - 02:00
02:00 - 03:00
03:00 - 04:00
04:00 - 05:00
05:00 - 06:00
This section displays the trip rate results based on the selected set of surveys and the selected count type (shown just above the table). It is split by three main columns, representing arrivals trips, departures trips, and total trips (arrivals plus departures). Within each of these main columns are three sub-columns. These display the number of survey days where count data is included (per time period), the average value of the selected trip rate calculation parameter (per time period), and the trip rate result (per time period). Total trip rates (the sum of the column) are also displayed at the foot of the table.
To obtain a trip rate, the average (mean) trip rate parameter value (TRP) is first calculated for all selected survey days that have count data available for the stated time period. The average (mean) number of arrivals, departures or totals (whichever applies) is also calculated (COUNT) for all selected survey days that have count data available for the stated time period. Then, the average count is divided by the average trip rate parameter value, and multiplied by the stated calculation factor (shown just above the table and abbreviated here as FACT). So, the method is: COUNT/TRP*FACT. Trip rates are then rounded to 3 decimal places.
Land Use : 02 - EMPLOYMENT
Category : A - OFFICE MULTI-MODAL TOTAL PEOPLE
Selected
and areas:
This section displays the number of survey days per TRICS® sub-region in the selected set
Primary Filtering selection:
This data displays the chosen trip rate parameter and its selected range. Only sites that fall within the parameter range are included in the trip rate calculation.
Parameter:
Gross floor area
Actual Range: 1215 to 26639 (units: sqm)
Range Selected by User: 1215 to 26639 (units: sqm)
Parking Spaces Range: All Surveys Included
Public Transport Provision:
Selection by: Include all surveys
Date Range: 01/01/12 to 28/06/22
This data displays the range of survey dates selected. Only surveys that were conducted within this date range are included in the trip rate calculation.
Selected survey days:
days
This data displays the number of selected surveys by day of the week.
Selected survey types:
ATC Count
days
days
This data displays the number of manual classified surveys and the number of unclassified ATC surveys, the total adding up to the overall number of surveys in the selected set. Manual surveys are undertaken using staff, whilst ATC surveys are undertaking using machines.
Locations:
This data displays the number of surveys per main location category within the selected set. The main location categories consist of Free Standing, Edge of Town, Suburban Area, Neighbourhood Centre, Edge of Town Centre, Town Centre and Not Known.
This data displays the number of surveys per location sub-category within the selected set. The location sub-categories consist of Commercial Zone, Industrial Zone, Development Zone, Residential Zone, Retail Zone, Built-Up Zone, Village, Out of Town, High Street and No Sub Category.
Secondary Filtering selection:
Use Class: Not Known 10 days
This data displays the number of surveys per Use Class classification within the selected set. The Use Classes Order (England) 2020 has been used for this purpose, which can be found within the Library module of TRICS®.
Filter by Site Operations Breakdown: All Surveys Included
Population within 500m Range: All Surveys Included Population within 1 mile:
10,001 to 15,000 1 days 50,001 to 100,000 4 days 100,001 or More 5 days
This data displays the number of selected surveys within stated 1-mile radii of population.
Population within 5 miles:
250,001 to 500,000 1 days
500,001 or More 9 days
This data displays the number of selected surveys within stated 5-mile radii of population.
Car ownership within 5 miles:
0.5 or Less 4 days
0.6 to 1.0 6 days
This data displays the number of selected surveys within stated ranges of average cars owned per residential dwelling, within a radius of 5-miles of selected survey sites.
Travel Plan: Yes 3 days No 7 days
This data displays the number of surveys within the selected set that were undertaken at sites with Travel Plans in place, and the number of surveys that were undertaken at sites without Travel Plans.
PTAL Rating:
4 Good 1 days
5 Very Good
6a Excellent
6b (High) Excellent
This data displays the number of selected surveys with PTAL Ratings.
1
STREET
Town Centre
Commercial Zone
Total Gross floor area: 9803 sqm
Survey date: FRIDAY 29/11/13
Town Centre
Commercial Zone
Total Gross floor area: 1951 sqm
Survey date: FRIDAY 29/11/13
Survey Type: MANUAL
Survey Type: MANUAL
3 CN-02-A-03 PLANNING & ENGINEERING CAMDEN FITZROY STREET FITZROVIA
Town Centre
Built-Up Zone
Total Gross floor area: 26639 sqm
Survey date: WEDNESDAY 06/12/17
Town Centre Built-Up Zone
Total Gross floor area: 20129 sqm
Survey date: TUESDAY 28/06/22
Survey Type: MANUAL
Survey Type: MANUAL
5 HM-02-A-01 REGUS OFFICES HAMMERSMITH AND FULHAM QUEEN CAROLINE STREET HAMMERSMITH
Town Centre
Built-Up Zone
Total Gross floor area: 2036 sqm
Survey date: MONDAY 13/11/17
Survey Type: MANUAL
6 KN-02-A-01 FRUIT DRINKS COMPANY KENSINGTON AND CHELSEA LADBROKE GROVE KENSAL GREEN
Neighbourhood Centre (PPS6 Local Centre)
Built-Up Zone
Total Gross floor area: 2255 sqm
Survey date: MONDAY 17/06/19
Survey Type: MANUAL
7 LB-02-A-01 START UP OFFICES & STUDIOS LAMBETH DURHAM STREET VAUXHALL
Edge of Town Centre
Built-Up Zone
Total Gross floor area: 10200 sqm
Survey date: MONDAY 19/11/18
Survey Type: MANUAL
8 LB-02-A-02 MUSIC COMPANY LAMBETH
STREATHAM HIGH ROAD
STREATHAM
Town Centre
High Street
Total Gross floor area: 3054 sqm
Survey date: TUESDAY 05/11/19
Survey Type: MANUAL
9 TH-02-A-01 OFFICE SPACE FOR RENT TOWER HAMLETS
CAMBRIDGE HEATH ROAD
BETHNAL GREEN
Neighbourhood Centre (PPS6 Local Centre)
High Street
Total Gross floor area: 7049 sqm
Survey date: WEDNESDAY 06/03/19
Survey Type: MANUAL
10 WH-02-A-02 OFFICES WANDSWORTH
BATTERSEA PARK ROAD
BATTERSEA
Town Centre
Built-Up Zone
Total Gross floor area: 1215 sqm
Survey date: THURSDAY 10/05/12
Survey Type: MANUAL
This section provides a list of all survey sites and days in the selected set. For each individual survey site, it displays a unique site reference code and site address, the selected trip rate calculation parameter and its value, the day of the week and date of each survey, and whether the survey was a manual classified count or an ATC count.
TRIP RATE for Land Use 02 - EMPLOYMENT/A - OFFICE MULTI-MODAL TOTAL PEOPLE
Calculation factor: 100 sqm BOLD print indicates
00:00 - 01:00
01:00 - 02:00
02:00 - 03:00
03:00 - 04:00
04:00 - 05:00
05:00 - 06:00
This section displays the trip rate results based on the selected set of surveys and the selected count type (shown just above the table). It is split by three main columns, representing arrivals trips, departures trips, and total trips (arrivals plus departures). Within each of these main columns are three sub-columns. These display the number of survey days where count data is included (per time period), the average value of the selected trip rate calculation parameter (per time period), and the trip rate result (per time period). Total trip rates (the sum of the column) are also displayed at the foot of the table.
To obtain a trip rate, the average (mean) trip rate parameter value (TRP) is first calculated for all selected survey days that have count data available for the stated time period. The average (mean) number of arrivals, departures or totals (whichever applies) is also calculated (COUNT) for all selected survey days that have count data available for the stated time period. Then, the average count is divided by the average trip rate parameter value, and multiplied by the stated calculation factor (shown just above the table and abbreviated here as FACT). So, the method is: COUNT/TRP*FACT. Trip rates are then rounded to 3 decimal places.
Land Use : 02 - EMPLOYMENT
Category : B - BUSINESS PARK MULTI-MODAL TOTAL VEHICLES
Selected regions and areas:
This section displays the number of survey days per TRICS® sub-region in the selected set
WSP Management Services Ltd 2 London Square Guildford
Primary Filtering selection:
This data displays the chosen trip rate parameter and its selected range. Only sites that fall within the parameter range are included in the trip rate calculation.
Parameter: Gross floor area
Actual Range: 2614 to 15111 (units: sqm)
Range Selected by User: 1000 to 169960 (units: sqm)
Parking Spaces Range: All Surveys Included
Public Transport Provision:
Selection by: Include all surveys
Date Range: 01/01/15 to 13/09/22
This data displays the range of survey dates selected. Only surveys that were conducted within this date range are included in the trip rate calculation.
Selected survey days: Tuesday 1 days Thursday 1 days
This data displays the number of selected surveys by day of the week.
Selected survey types:
This data displays the number of manual classified surveys and the number of unclassified ATC surveys, the total adding up to the overall number of surveys in the selected set. Manual surveys are undertaken using staff, whilst ATC surveys are undertaking using machines.
Locations:
This data displays the number of surveys per main location category within the selected set. The main location categories consist of Free Standing, Edge of Town, Suburban Area, Neighbourhood Centre, Edge of Town Centre, Town Centre and Not Known.
Selected Location Sub Categories:
This data displays the number of surveys per location sub-category within the selected set. The location sub-categories consist of Commercial Zone, Industrial Zone, Development Zone, Residential Zone, Retail Zone, Built-Up Zone, Village, Out of Town, High Street and No Sub Category.
Inclusion of Servicing Vehicles Counts:
Servicing vehicles Included 2 days - Selected Servicing vehicles Excluded 1 days - Selected
Secondary Filtering selection:
Use Class: Not Known 2 days
This data displays the number of surveys per Use Class classification within the selected set. The Use Classes Order (England) 2020 has been used for this purpose, which can be found within the Library module of TRICS®.
Filter by Site Operations Breakdown: All Surveys Included
Population within 500m Range: All Surveys Included
Secondary Filtering selection (Cont.):
Population within 1 mile: 25,001 to 50,000 2 days
This data displays the number of selected surveys within stated 1-mile radii of population.
Population within 5 miles: 500,001 or More
2 days
This data displays the number of selected surveys within stated 5-mile radii of population.
Car ownership within 5 miles: 0.6 to 1.0 2 days
This data displays the number of selected surveys within stated ranges of average cars owned per residential dwelling, within a radius of 5-miles of selected survey sites.
Travel Plan: No
2 days
This data displays the number of surveys within the selected set that were undertaken at sites with Travel Plans in place, and the number of surveys that were undertaken at sites without Travel Plans.
PTAL Rating:
2 Poor
1 days
6a Excellent 1 days
This data displays the number of selected surveys with PTAL Ratings.
LIST OF SITES relevant to selection parameters
Site(1): BT-02-B-01
Development Name: BUSINESS PARK
Location: PARK ROYAL
Gross floor area: 15111 sqm
Parking spaces: 123
Postcode: NW10 7NS No of Employees: 0
Main Location Type: Suburban Area (PPS6 Out of Centre)
Survey Date: 21/04/16
Sub-Location Type: Commercial Zone Survey Day: Thursday PTAL: 2 Poor
Site(2): IS-02-B-01
Development Name: BUSINESS PARK
Location: ANGEL
Gross floor area: 4363 sqm
Parking spaces: 87
Postcode: EC1V 2NZ No of Employees: 750
Main Location Type: Edge of Town Centre Survey Date: 13/09/22
Sub-Location Type: Built-Up Zone Survey Day: Tuesday PTAL: 6a Excellent
MANUALLY DESELECTED SITES
TRIP RATE for Land Use 02 - EMPLOYMENT/B - BUSINESS PARK MULTI-MODAL TOTAL PEOPLE
Calculation factor: 100 sqm
BOLD print indicates peak (busiest) period Total People to Total Vehicles ratio (all time periods and directions): 3.09
- 00:30 00:30 - 01:00 01:00 - 01:30
01:30 - 02:00
02:00 - 02:30
02:30 - 03:00
03:00 - 03:30
03:30 - 04:00
04:00 - 04:30 04:30 - 05:00 05:00 - 05:30
21:30 - 22:00
22:00 - 22:30
22:30 - 23:00
- 24:00
This section displays the trip rate results based on the selected set of surveys and the selected count type (shown just above the table). It is split by three main columns, representing arrivals trips, departures trips, and total trips (arrivals plus departures). Within each of these main columns are three sub-columns. These display the number of survey days where count data is included (per time period), the average value of the selected trip rate calculation parameter (per time period), and the trip rate result (per time period). Total trip rates (the sum of the column) are also displayed at the foot of the table.
To obtain a trip rate, the average (mean) trip rate parameter value (TRP) is first calculated for all selected survey days that have count data available for the stated time period. The average (mean) number of arrivals, departures or totals (whichever applies) is also calculated (COUNT) for all selected survey days that have count data available for the stated time period. Then, the average count is divided by the average trip rate parameter value, and multiplied by the stated calculation factor (shown just above the table and abbreviated here as FACT). So, the method is: COUNT/TRP*FACT. Trip rates are then rounded to 3 decimal places.
Selected Trip Rate Calculation Parameter Range 8125-14693 sqm GFA
Actual Trip Rate Calculation Parameter Range 8125-14693 sqm GFA
Selected regions and areas:
This section displays the number of survey days per TRICS® sub-region in the selected set
Management Services Ltd 2 London Square Guildford Licence No:
Primary Filtering selection:
This data displays the chosen trip rate parameter and its selected range. Only sites that fall within the parameter range are included in the trip rate calculation.
Parameter: Gross floor area
Actual Range: 8125 to 14693 (units: sqm)
Range Selected by User: 8125 to 14693 (units: sqm)
Parking Spaces Range: All Surveys Included
Public Transport Provision:
Selection by: Include all surveys
Date Range: 01/01/01 to 24/11/21
This data displays the range of survey dates selected. Only surveys that were conducted within this date range are included in the trip rate calculation.
Selected survey days: Thursday 1 days Saturday 1 days
This data displays the number of selected surveys by day of the week.
Selected survey types: Manual
This data displays the number of manual classified surveys and the number of unclassified ATC surveys, the total adding up to the overall number of surveys in the selected set. Manual surveys are undertaken using staff, whilst ATC surveys are undertaking using machines.
Locations:
This data displays the number of surveys per main location category within the selected set. The main location categories consist of Free Standing, Edge of Town, Suburban Area, Neighbourhood Centre, Edge of Town Centre, Town Centre and Not Known.
Selected Location Sub Categories:
This data displays the number of surveys per location sub-category within the selected set. The location sub-categories consist of Commercial Zone, Industrial Zone, Development Zone, Residential Zone, Retail Zone, Built-Up Zone, Village, Out of Town, High Street and No Sub Category.
Inclusion of Servicing Vehicles Counts:
Servicing vehicles Included X days - Selected Servicing vehicles Excluded 2 days - Selected
Secondary Filtering selection:
Use Class: n/a 2 days
This data displays the number of surveys per Use Class classification within the selected set. The Use Classes Order (England) 2020 has been used for this purpose, which can be found within the Library module of TRICS®.
Population within 500m Range: All Surveys Included
Secondary Filtering selection (Cont.):
Population within 1 mile:
10,001 to 15,000 1 days 25,001 to 50,000 1 days
This data displays the number of selected surveys within stated 1-mile radii of population.
Population within 5 miles: 100,001 to 125,000 1 days 125,001 to 250,000 1 days
This data displays the number of selected surveys within stated 5-mile radii of population.
Car ownership within 5 miles: 0.6 to 1.0 1 days 1.1 to 1.5 1 days
This data displays the number of selected surveys within stated ranges of average cars owned per residential dwelling, within a radius of 5-miles of selected survey sites.
Petrol filling station:
Included in the survey count 0 days
Excluded from count or no filling station 2 days
This data displays the number of surveys within the selected set that include petrol filling station activity, and the number of surveys that do not.
Travel Plan: Not Known 1 days No 1 days
This data displays the number of surveys within the selected set that were undertaken at sites with Travel Plans in place, and the number of surveys that were undertaken at sites without Travel Plans.
PTAL Rating: No PTAL Present 2 days
This data displays the number of selected surveys with PTAL Ratings.
LIST OF SITES relevant to selection parameters
Site(1):
ES-01-M-02
Development Name: SHOPPING MALL
Location: EASTBOURNE
Postcode: BN23 7RT
Main Location Type: Edge of Town
Sub-Location Type: Residential Zone
Gross floor area: 14693 sqm
Retail floor area: 8865 sqm
No of Employees: 281
Survey Date: 01/03/01
Survey Day: Thursday PTAL: n/a
Site(2):
KC-01-M-01
Development Name: SHOPPING MALL
Location: MAIDSTONE
Postcode: ME14 1JL
Main Location Type: Town Centre
Sub-Location Type: High Street
Parking Spaces: 860
Gross floor area: 8125 sqm
Retail floor area: 5075 sqm
No of Employees: 132
Survey Date: 24/11/12
Survey Day: Saturday PTAL: n/a
Parking Spaces: 0
TRIP RATE for Land Use 01 - RETAIL/M - MIXED SHOPPING MALLS
MULTI-MODAL TOTAL PEOPLE
Calculation factor: 100 sqm
BOLD print indicates peak (busiest) period
Total People to Total Vehicles ratio (all time periods and directions): 1.98
00:00 - 01:00
01:00 - 02:00
02:00 - 03:00
03:00 - 04:00
04:00 - 05:00
05:00 - 06:00
06:00 - 07:00
This section displays the trip rate results based on the selected set of surveys and the selected count type (shown just above the table). It is split by three main columns, representing arrivals trips, departures trips, and total trips (arrivals plus departures). Within each of these main columns are three sub-columns. These display the number of survey days where count data is included (per time period), the average value of the selected trip rate calculation parameter (per time period), and the trip rate result (per time period). Total trip rates (the sum of the column) are also displayed at the foot of the table.
To obtain a trip rate, the average (mean) trip rate parameter value (TRP) is first calculated for all selected survey days that have count data available for the stated time period. The average (mean) number of arrivals, departures or totals (whichever applies) is also calculated (COUNT) for all selected survey days that have count data available for the stated time period. Then, the average count is divided by the average trip rate parameter value, and multiplied by the stated calculation factor (shown just above the table and abbreviated here as FACT). So, the method is: COUNT/TRP*FACT. Trip rates are then rounded to 3 decimal places.
Trip Rate Parameter: Gross floor area
TRIP RATE CALCULATION SELECTION PARAMETERS:
Land Use01 - RETAIL
CategoryG - OTHER INDIVIDUAL NON-FOOD SUPERSTORE
MULTI-MODAL TOTAL PEOPLE
Selected regions and areas: 01 GREATER LONDON WH WANDSWORTH 1 days
This section displays the number of survey days per TRICS® sub-region in the selected set
Primary Filtering selection:
This data displays the chosen trip rate parameter and its selected range. Only sites that fall within the parameter range are included in the trip rate calculation. Parameter:Gross floor area
Actual Range:600 to 600 (units: sqm)
Range Selected by User: 600 to 600 (units: sqm)
Public Transport Provision: Selection by:Include all surveys
Date Range:01/01/02 to 19/06/02
This data displays the range of survey dates selected. Only surveys that were conducted within this date range are included in the trip rate calculation.
Selected survey days: Wednesday1 days
This data displays the number of selected surveys by day of the week.
Selected survey types: Manual count 1 days
Directional ATC Count 0 days
This data displays the number of manual classified surveys and the number of unclassified ATC surveys the total adding up to the overall number of surveys in the selected set. Manual surveys are undertaken using staff whilst ATC surveys are undertaking using machines.
Selected Locations:
Town Centre 0
Edge of Town Centre1
Suburban Area (PPS6 Out of Centre) 0 Edge of Town 0
Neighbourhood Centre (PPS6 Local Centre) 0 Free Standing (PPS6 Out of Town) 0 Not Known 0
This data displays the number of surveys per main location category within the selected set. The main location categories consist of Free Standing Edge of TownSuburban AreaNeighbourhoodEdgeCentre of TownTownCentreCentre and Not Known.
Selected Location Sub Categories: Industrial Zone 0 Commercial Zone 0 Development Zone 0 Residential Zone 0 Retail Zone 0 Built-Up Zone 1 Village 0 Out of Town 0 High Street 0 No Sub Category 0
This data displays the number of surveys per location sub-category within the selected set. The location sub-categories consist of Commercial Zone Industrial ZoneDevelopment Zone Residential Zone Retail ZoneBuilt-Up ZoneVillage Out of TownHigh Street and No Sub Category.
Secondary Filtering selection:
Use Class: E(a) 1 days
This data displays the number of surveys per Use Class classification within the selected set. The Use Classes Order (England) 2020 has been used for this purpose which can be found within the Library module of TRICS®.
Population within 500m Range: All Surveys Included
Population within 1 mile:
25,001 to 50,000 1 days
This data displays the number of selected surveys within stated 1-mile radii of population.
Population within 5 miles:
250,001 to 500,000 1 days
This data displays the number of selected surveys within stated 5-mile radii of population.
Car ownership within 5 miles: 1.1 to 1.51 days
This data displays the number of selected surveys within stated ranges of average cars owned per residential dwelling within a radius of 5-miles of selected survey sites.
Petrol filling station:
Included in the survey count 0 days
Excluded from count or no filling station 1 days
This data displays the number of surveys within the selected set that include petrol filling station activity and the number of surveys that do not.
Travel Plan:
Not Known1 days
This data displays the number of surveys within the selected set that were undertaken at sites with Travel Plans in place and the number of surveys that were undertaken at sites without Travel Plans.
PTAL Rating:
No PTAL Present 1 days
This data displays the number of selected surveys with PTAL Ratings.
LIST OF SITES relevant to selection parameters
1 WH-01-G-01WINE WAREHOUSEWANDSWORTH UPPER RICHMOND ROAD EAST PUTNEY PUTNEY
Edge of Town Centre Built-Up Zone
Total Gross floor area: 600sqm
Survey date:WEDNESDAY######## Survey Type:MANUAL
This section provides a list of all survey sites and days in the selected set. For each individual survey site it displays a unique site reference code and site address the selected trip rate calculation parameter and its value the day of the week and date of each survey and whether the survey was a manual classified count or an ATC count.
TRIP RATE for Land Use 01 - RETAIL/G - OTHER INDIVIDUAL NON-FOOD SUPERSTORE
Calculation Factor: 100 sqm
Count Type: TOTAL VEHICLES
04:00-05:00
05:00-06:00
06:00-07:00
21:00-22:00
22:00-23:00
23:00-24:00
01:00-02:00
02:00-03:00
03:00-04:00
04:00-05:00
05:00-06:00
06:00-07:00
07:00-08:00
08:00-09:00 09:00-10:00
21:00-22:00
22:00-23:00
23:00-24:00
TRIP RATE for Land Use 01 - RETAIL/G - OTHER INDIVIDUAL NON-FOOD SUPERSTORE
TRIP RATE for Land Use 01 - RETAIL/G - OTHER INDIVIDUAL NON-FOOD SUPERSTORE
Calculation Factor: 100 sqm Count Type: TOTAL PEOPLE
00:00-01:00
01:00-02:00
02:00-03:00
03:00-04:00
04:00-05:00
05:00-06:00
06:00-07:00
07:00-08:00
08:00-09:00
09:00-10:00 10:00-11:00
23:00-24:00
Selected Trip Rate Calculation Parameter Range
This section displays the number of survey days per
Management Services Ltd 2 London Square Guildford Licence No:
Primary Filtering selection:
This data displays the chosen trip rate parameter and its selected range. Only sites that fall within the parameter range are included in the trip rate calculation.
Parameter: Gross floor area
Actual Range: 58 to 200 (units: sqm)
Range Selected by User: 58 to 200 (units: sqm)
Parking Spaces Range: All Surveys Included
Public Transport Provision:
Selection by: Include all surveys
Date Range: 01/01/15 to 20/09/22
This data displays the range of survey dates selected. Only surveys that were conducted within this date range are included in the trip rate calculation.
Selected survey days:
This data displays the number of selected surveys by day of the week.
Selected survey types:
This data displays the number of manual classified surveys and the number of unclassified ATC surveys, the total adding up to the overall number of surveys in the selected set. Manual surveys are undertaken using staff, whilst ATC surveys are undertaking using machines.
Locations:
This data displays the number of surveys per main location category within the selected set. The main location categories consist of Free Standing, Edge of Town, Suburban Area, Neighbourhood Centre, Edge of Town Centre, Town Centre and Not Known. Selected Location Sub
This data displays the number of surveys per location sub-category within the selected set. The location sub-categories consist of Commercial Zone, Industrial Zone, Development Zone, Residential Zone, Retail Zone, Built-Up Zone, Village, Out of Town, High Street and No Sub Category.
Inclusion of Servicing Vehicles Counts:
Servicing vehicles Included 5 days - Selected Servicing vehicles Excluded X days - Selected
Secondary Filtering selection:
Use Class: E(b) 5 days
This data displays the number of surveys per Use Class classification within the selected set. The Use Classes Order (England) 2020 has been used for this purpose, which can be found within the Library module of TRICS®.
Population within 500m Range: All Surveys Included
Secondary Filtering selection (Cont.):
Population within 1 mile:
15,001 to 20,000 1 days
20,001 to 25,000 2 days
25,001 to 50,000 1 days
50,001 to 100,000 1 days
This data displays the number of selected surveys within stated 1-mile radii of population.
Population within 5 miles:
50,001 to 75,000 1 days
125,001 to 250,000 2 days
500,001 or More 2 days
This data displays the number of selected surveys within stated 5-mile radii of population.
Car ownership within 5 miles:
0.6 to 1.0 3 days
1.1 to 1.5 2 days
This data displays the number of selected surveys within stated ranges of average cars owned per residential dwelling, within a radius of 5-miles of selected survey sites.
Travel Plan:
No 5 days
This data displays the number of surveys within the selected set that were undertaken at sites with Travel Plans in place, and the number of surveys that were undertaken at sites without Travel Plans.
PTAL Rating: No PTAL Present 4 days 4 Good 1 days
This data displays the number of selected surveys with PTAL Ratings.
LIST OF SITES relevant to selection parameters
Site(1):
GM-06-K-01
Development Name: CAFÉ
Location: MANCHESTER
Postcode: M3 2AY
Main Location Type: Town Centre
Sub-Location Type: Built-Up Zone
Gross floor area: 200 sqm
Number of Seats: 40
No of Employees: 5
Survey Date: 19/04/22
Survey Day: Tuesday PTAL: n/a
Site(2): HG-06-K-01
Parking Spaces:
Gross floor area: 58 sqm
Development Name: CAFÉ Number of Seats: 20
Location: MUSWELL HILL
Postcode: N10 3RT
No of Employees: 6
Main Location Type: Town Centre Survey Date: 10/06/22
Sub-Location Type: High Street Survey Day: Friday PTAL: 4 Good
Site(3): LN-06-K-01
Development Name: CAFÉ & TEA ROOM
Location: STAMFORD
Postcode: PE9 2AJ
Parking Spaces:
Gross floor area: 190 sqm
Number of Seats: 42
No of Employees: 10
Main Location Type: Town Centre Survey Date: 12/10/21
Sub-Location Type: Built-Up Zone Survey Day: Tuesday PTAL: n/a
Site(4): NF-06-K-01
Parking Spaces:
Gross floor area: 82 sqm
Development Name: CAFÉ Number of Seats: 24
Location: NORWICH
Postcode: NR2 1LW
No of Employees: 4
Main Location Type: Town Centre Survey Date: 20/09/22
Sub-Location Type: Built-Up Zone Survey Day: Tuesday PTAL: n/a
Site(5): WS-06-K-01
Parking Spaces:
Gross floor area: 87 sqm
Development Name: CAFÉ Number of Seats: 32
Location: WORTHING
Postcode: BN12 4PE
No of Employees: 6
Main Location Type: Neighbourhood Centre (PPS6 Local Centre) Survey Date: 11/05/22
Sub-Location Type: High Street
Survey Day: Wednesday PTAL: n/a
Parking Spaces:
TRIP RATE for Land Use 06 - HOTEL, FOOD & DRINK/K - CAFE
MULTI-MODAL TOTAL PEOPLE
Calculation factor: 100 sqm
BOLD print indicates peak (busiest) period
Total People to Total Vehicles ratio (all time periods and directions): 4.72
00:00 - 01:00
01:00 - 02:00
02:00 - 03:00
03:00 - 04:00
04:00 - 05:00
05:00 - 06:00
06:00 -
- 19:00 19:00 - 20:00 20:00 - 21:00
- 23:00
- 24:00
This section displays the trip rate results based on the selected set of surveys and the selected count type (shown just above the table). It is split by three main columns, representing arrivals trips, departures trips, and total trips (arrivals plus departures). Within each of these main columns are three sub-columns. These display the number of survey days where count data is included (per time period), the average value of the selected trip rate calculation parameter (per time period), and the trip rate result (per time period). Total trip rates (the sum of the column) are also displayed at the foot of the table.
To obtain a trip rate, the average (mean) trip rate parameter value (TRP) is first calculated for all selected survey days that have count data available for the stated time period. The average (mean) number of arrivals, departures or totals (whichever applies) is also calculated (COUNT) for all selected survey days that have count data available for the stated time period. Then, the average count is divided by the average trip rate parameter value, and multiplied by the stated calculation factor (shown just above the table and abbreviated here as FACT). So, the method is: COUNT/TRP*FACT. Trip rates are then rounded to 3 decimal places.
Selected Trip Rate Calculation Parameter Range 37-124 PUPILS
Actual Trip Rate Calculation Parameter Range 45-111 PUPILS
Management Services Ltd 2 London Square Guildford
Primary Filtering selection:
This data displays the chosen trip rate parameter and its selected range. Only sites that fall within the parameter range are included in the trip rate calculation.
Parameter: Number of pupils
Actual Range: 45 to 111 (units: )
Range Selected by User: 37 to 124 (units: )
Parking Spaces Range: All Surveys Included
Public Transport Provision:
Selection by: Include all surveys
Date Range: 01/01/12 to 07/06/22
This data displays the range of survey dates selected. Only surveys that were conducted within this date range are included in the trip rate calculation.
Selected survey days:
This data displays the number of selected surveys by day of the week.
Selected survey types:
This data displays the number of manual classified surveys and the number of unclassified ATC surveys, the total adding up to the overall number of surveys in the selected set. Manual surveys are undertaken using staff, whilst ATC surveys are undertaking using machines. Selected Locations:
Centre (PPS6 Local Centre)
This data displays the number of surveys per main location category within the selected set. The main location categories consist of Free Standing, Edge of Town, Suburban Area, Neighbourhood Centre, Edge of Town Centre, Town Centre and Not Known.
Selected Location Sub Categories:
This data displays the number of surveys per location sub-category within the selected set. The location sub-categories consist of Commercial Zone, Industrial Zone, Development Zone, Residential Zone, Retail Zone, Built-Up Zone, Village, Out of Town, High Street and No Sub Category.
Inclusion of Servicing Vehicles Counts:
Servicing vehicles Included 6 days - Selected Servicing vehicles Excluded 4 days - Selected
Secondary Filtering selection:
Use Class: E(f) 8 days
This data displays the number of surveys per Use Class classification within the selected set. The Use Classes Order (England) 2020 has been used for this purpose, which can be found within the Library module of TRICS®.
Population within 500m Range: All Surveys Included
Secondary Filtering selection (Cont.):
Population within 1 mile:
10,001 to 15,000 1 days
15,001 to 20,000 2 days
25,001 to 50,000 4 days
50,001 to 100,000 1 days
This data displays the number of selected surveys within stated 1-mile radii of population.
Population within 5 miles:
25,001 to 50,000 1 days 75,001 to 100,000 3 days 125,001 to 250,000 2 days 250,001 to 500,000 2 days
This data displays the number of selected surveys within stated 5-mile radii of population.
Car ownership within 5 miles:
0.5 or Less 1 days
0.6 to 1.0 3 days
1.1 to 1.5 4 days
This data displays the number of selected surveys within stated ranges of average cars owned per residential dwelling, within a radius of 5-miles of selected survey sites.
Travel Plan:
No 8 days
This data displays the number of surveys within the selected set that were undertaken at sites with Travel Plans in place, and the number of surveys that were undertaken at sites without Travel Plans.
PTAL Rating: No PTAL Present 8 days
This data displays the number of selected surveys with PTAL Ratings.
LIST OF SITES relevant to selection parameters
Site(1):
BH-04-D-01
Gross floor area: 185 sqm
Development Name: NURSERY Number of pupils: 45
Location: BRIGHTON
Postcode: BN3 3WB
Main Location Type: Neighbourhood Centre (PPS6 Local Centre)
Sub-Location Type: Residential Zone
No of Employees: 10
Survey Date: 22/09/17
Survey Day: Friday PTAL: n/a
Site(2):
DR-04-D-01
Parking Spaces:
Gross floor area: 1250 sqm
Development Name: NURSERY Number of pupils: 111
Location: DONCASTER
Postcode: DN4 7AD
Main Location Type: Suburban Area (PPS6 Out of Centre)
Sub-Location Type: Residential Zone
No of Employees: 36
Survey Date: 13/05/22
Survey Day: Friday PTAL: n/a
Site(3):
EC-04-D-01
Parking Spaces: 29
Gross floor area: 500 sqm
Development Name: NURSERY Number of pupils: 70
Location: MACCLESFIELD
Postcode: SK11 8PT
Main Location Type: Edge of Town Centre
Sub-Location Type: No Sub Category
No of Employees: 19
Survey Date: 24/11/14
Survey Day: Monday PTAL: n/a
Site(4): LN-04-D-01
Parking Spaces: 12
Gross floor area: 600 sqm
Development Name: NURSERY Number of pupils: 49 Location: LINCOLN
Postcode: LN6 8RY
Main Location Type: Suburban Area (PPS6 Out of Centre)
Sub-Location Type: Residential Zone
No of Employees: 12
Survey Date: 31/10/17
Survey Day: Tuesday PTAL: n/a
Site(5): NN-04-D-01
Parking Spaces: 9
Gross floor area: 850 sqm
Development Name: NURSERY Number of pupils: 90
Location: KETTERING
Postcode: NN16 9AG
Main Location Type: Suburban Area (PPS6 Out of Centre)
Sub-Location Type: Residential Zone
No of Employees: 23
Survey Date: 07/06/22
Survey Day: Tuesday PTAL: n/a
Site(6): SF-04-D-03
Parking Spaces: 12
Gross floor area: 750 sqm
Development Name: NURSERY Number of pupils: 110 Location: LOWESTOFT
Postcode: NR32 2LL
Main Location Type: Edge of Town Centre
Sub-Location Type: Residential Zone
No of Employees: 25
Survey Date: 10/12/14
Survey Day: Wednesday PTAL: n/a
Site(7): TW-04-D-02
Parking Spaces: 6
Gross floor area: 500 sqm
Development Name: NURSERY Number of pupils: 110 Location: SUNDERLAND
Postcode: SR3 4AW
Main Location Type: Suburban Area (PPS6 Out of Centre)
Sub-Location Type: Residential Zone
No of Employees: 18
Survey Date: 28/11/12
Survey Day: Wednesday PTAL: n/a
Site(8): WS-04-D-01
Parking Spaces:
Gross floor area: 300 sqm
Development Name: NURSERY Number of pupils: 75 Location: WORTHING
Postcode: BN11 2BE
Main Location Type: Edge of Town Centre
Sub-Location Type: Residential Zone
No of Employees: 25
Survey Date: 13/05/22
Survey Day: Friday PTAL: n/a
Parking Spaces:
TRIP RATE for Land Use 04 - EDUCATION/D - NURSERY MULTI-MODAL TOTAL PEOPLE
Calculation factor: 1
BOLD print indicates peak (busiest) period Total People to Total Vehicles ratio (all
00:00 - 01:00
01:00 - 02:00
02:00 - 03:00
03:00 - 04:00
04:00 - 05:00
05:00 - 06:00
- 20:00 20:00 - 21:00
This section displays the trip rate results based on the selected set of surveys and the selected count type (shown just above the table). It is split by three main columns, representing arrivals trips, departures trips, and total trips (arrivals plus departures). Within each of these main columns are three sub-columns. These display the number of survey days where count data is included (per time period), the average value of the selected trip rate calculation parameter (per time period), and the trip rate result (per time period). Total trip rates (the sum of the column) are also displayed at the foot of the table.
To obtain a trip rate, the average (mean) trip rate parameter value (TRP) is first calculated for all selected survey days that have count data available for the stated time period. The average (mean) number of arrivals, departures or totals (whichever applies) is also calculated (COUNT) for all selected survey days that have count data available for the stated time period. Then, the average count is divided by the average trip rate parameter value, and multiplied by the stated calculation factor (shown just above the table and abbreviated here as FACT). So, the method is: COUNT/TRP*FACT. Trip rates are then rounded to 3 decimal places.
Category : B - SECONDARY MULTI-MODAL TOTAL VEHICLES
Selected regions and areas: 01
This section displays the number of survey days per TRICS® sub-region in the selected set
Management Services Ltd 2 London Square Guildford Licence No:
Primary Filtering selection:
This data displays the chosen trip rate parameter and its selected range. Only sites that fall within the parameter range are included in the trip rate calculation.
Parameter: Number of pupils
Actual Range: 610 to 610 (units: )
Range Selected by User: 610 to 1200 (units: )
Parking Spaces Range: Selected: 40 to 40 Actual: 40 to 40
Public Transport Provision: Selection by: Include all surveys
Date Range: 01/01/00 to 19/10/05
This data displays the range of survey dates selected. Only surveys that were conducted within this date range are included in the trip rate calculation.
Selected survey days: Wednesday 1 days
This data displays the number of selected surveys by day of the week.
Selected survey types: Manual count 1 days
Directional ATC Count 0 days
This data displays the number of manual classified surveys and the number of unclassified ATC surveys, the total adding up to the overall number of surveys in the selected set. Manual surveys are undertaken using staff, whilst ATC surveys are undertaking using machines.
Selected Locations:
Suburban Area (PPS6 Out of Centre) 1
This data displays the number of surveys per main location category within the selected set. The main location categories consist of Free Standing, Edge of Town, Suburban Area, Neighbourhood Centre, Edge of Town Centre, Town Centre and Not Known.
Selected Location Sub Categories:
Residential Zone 1
This data displays the number of surveys per location sub-category within the selected set. The location sub-categories consist of Commercial Zone, Industrial Zone, Development Zone, Residential Zone, Retail Zone, Built-Up Zone, Village, Out of Town, High Street and No Sub Category.
Inclusion of Servicing Vehicles Counts:
Servicing vehicles Included X days - Selected Servicing vehicles Excluded 1 days - Selected
Secondary Filtering selection:
Use Class: F1(a) 1 days
This data displays the number of surveys per Use Class classification within the selected set. The Use Classes Order (England) 2020 has been used for this purpose, which can be found within the Library module of TRICS®.
Population within 500m Range: All Surveys Included Population within 1 mile: 50,001 to 100,000 1 days
This data displays the number of selected surveys within stated 1-mile radii of population.
Secondary Filtering selection (Cont.):
Population within 5 miles: 500,001 or More
1 days
This data displays the number of selected surveys within stated 5-mile radii of population.
Car ownership within 5 miles: 0.6 to 1.0 1 days
This data displays the number of selected surveys within stated ranges of average cars owned per residential dwelling, within a radius of 5-miles of selected survey sites.
Travel Plan: Not Known 1 days
This data displays the number of surveys within the selected set that were undertaken at sites with Travel Plans in place, and the number of surveys that were undertaken at sites without Travel Plans.
PTAL Rating: No PTAL Present
1 days
This data displays the number of selected surveys with PTAL Ratings.
LIST OF SITES relevant to selection parameters
Site(1): HM-04-B-01
Development Name: SECONDARY SCHOOL
Location: FULHAM
Postcode: SW6 6SN
Main Location Type: Suburban Area (PPS6 Out of Centre)
Sub-Location Type: Residential Zone
Gross floor area: 7350 sqm
Number of pupils: 610
No of Employees: 62
Survey Date: 04/12/02
Survey Day: Wednesday PTAL: n/a
Parking Spaces: 40
TRIP RATE for Land Use 04 - EDUCATION/B - SECONDARY MULTI-MODAL TOTAL PEOPLE
Calculation factor: 1 PUPILS
BOLD print indicates peak (busiest) period Total People to Total Vehicles ratio (all time periods and directions): 8.26
00:00 - 01:00
01:00 - 02:00
02:00 - 03:00
03:00 - 04:00
04:00 - 05:00
05:00 - 06:00
06:00 -
- 19:00
- 20:00 20:00 - 21:00 21:00 - 22:00
- 23:00
This section displays the trip rate results based on the selected set of surveys and the selected count type (shown just above the table). It is split by three main columns, representing arrivals trips, departures trips, and total trips (arrivals plus departures). Within each of these main columns are three sub-columns. These display the number of survey days where count data is included (per time period), the average value of the selected trip rate calculation parameter (per time period), and the trip rate result (per time period). Total trip rates (the sum of the column) are also displayed at the foot of the table.
To obtain a trip rate, the average (mean) trip rate parameter value (TRP) is first calculated for all selected survey days that have count data available for the stated time period. The average (mean) number of arrivals, departures or totals (whichever applies) is also calculated (COUNT) for all selected survey days that have count data available for the stated time period. Then, the average count is divided by the average trip rate parameter value, and multiplied by the stated calculation factor (shown just above the table and abbreviated here as FACT). So, the method is: COUNT/TRP*FACT. Trip rates are then rounded to 3 decimal places.
Appendix N – PCLAnalysis
1.0 PCLAnalysis
Introduction
1.1 Pedestrian Comfort Level (PCL) is a method for assessing footway and pedestrian crossing provision in London. The analysis has been completed using TfL’s PCL tool and guidance1. Results are presented as a PCL score ranging between A and F. Figure 1 provides an explanation of how to interpret the PCL results.
1.2 Guidance is then provided by TfL to interpret what PCL is appropriate in what situation. This guidance is reproduced in Figure 2.
Type
1.3 Figure 3 shows the locations that have been assessed as part of the TA. These locations have been identified through review undertaken by WSP as well as through liaison with the Transport Stakeholders.
Figure 2: PCL Score by Location
1.4 Each of the PCL assessment locations were assessed under the following scenarios:
2022 Baseline (where available) – if not, 2016 Railplan base used
2031 Base Minus
2031 Base Minus + Early Phases
2041 Base Minus
2041 Base Minus + All Phases
1.5 It is important to note that due to the phasing of the site, not all locations are likely to experience change in demand in every scenario. For example, in the 2031 Early Phases, sites 10, 11, 12 and 13 may not exhibit change as the Proposed Development does not take access via Beaumont Avenue.
1.6 Each location has used either OS, Topographical, on-site observations or aerial imagery to determine widths and any street furniture to be considered within the analysis. In most cases the worst case, in terms of the physical pinch point, i.e., narrowest width, has been selected and summarised below.
General Forecast Pedestrian DemandGrowth
1.7 Where possible to do so, pedestrian survey data from the 2022 traffic data collection exercise has been used to inform the assessment.
Figure 3: PCL Assessment Locations
1.8 The highest value out of either the AM and PM peak hours has then been used in the PCL analysis. The average value used is the average of the six hours recorded from the survey (AM 07:00 – 10:00 and PM 16:00 – 19:00).
1.9 If a site does not have 2022 survey data (either a direct link count or and adjacent count that could be used as a proxy), then the Railplan baseline walk link data (equivalent of a 2016 base year) has been used2. Whilst it is acknowledged that Railplan link flows predominantly capture public transport associated walking trips, this is considered appropriate for use in understanding the comfort levels, as commuters in the area (especially near to transport hubs) are considered to be the majority of travellers in the AM and PM hours.
1.10 The TfL modelling suite and associated future modelled years provide an understanding of likely behavioural and growth patterns in the area. This is based on population and job changes, and whilst they can indicate shifts in travel choice, such as preference towards public transport use etc, they do not specifically isolate pedestrians as a mode choice.
1.11 To determine the potential growth in pedestrian movements a review of the relative change in growth using the Railplan outputs has been completed. The percentage change has then been applied to the surveyed / baseline numbers. Given that the Railplan base year is 2016, the growth from that year to the future baselines of 2031 and 2041 was firstly factored to reflect the 2022 survey base year.
1.12 For example, the A4 West Cromwell Road link (relavant to PCL sites 15 and 16) witnesses in Railplan between 2016 and 2031 (15 years) a level of growth of 31% in the AM eastbound, and 54% in the westbound direction. This has calculated pro-rata down to 2022 to 2031 (9 years) – this becomes 19% eastbound and 33% westbound respectively. This equates to an average growth of 26% which has then been applied to the 2022 observed data on that link. This is considered an appropriate methodology to capture general growth in the area, whilst ensuring that other non-public transport / commuting pedestrian movements, e.g. those with different travel purposes, are also captured, as the baseline surveys recorded all movements on the link.
1.13 If Railplan has forecast a reduction in movements / flows for a particular direction on a link – then the average has disregarded any negative numbers, i.e., a 0% growth was applied.
Development Pedestrian Demand
1.14 The pedestrian demand for the development has been distributed by access utilising the same split applied to the cycle demand.
1.15 Tables 1 and 2 present the development forecast pedestrian demand by scenario.
1.16 The Early Phases and All Phases have completed PCL assessments of all locations identified.
2 If Railplan data is used, then a 3hr to 1hr factor has been applied (0.45 in the AM and 0.41 in the PM) as per TfL modelling guidance.
Table 1: Early Phases pedestrian demand by access
Table 2: All Phases pedestrian demand by access
Layout
1.17 It should be noted that the assessments have been largely undertaken on the base geometries and existing measurements to ascertain the forecast change with the additional development demand. On Lillie Road geometries have been updated to reflect the increased width proposed on the northern side of the footway.
1.18 Further assessment has been undertaken within the TA at key areas, including VisWalk analysis of the Warwick Road crossing and footway adjacent to the Earls Court station.
1.19 Sites 1 through to 5 focus on the northern and southern footways adjacent to Lillie Road, Lille Road Bridge, the area around West Brompton Station and Old Brompton Road.
1.20 2022 survey data indicated that the northern footway experienced lower volumes of flow compared to the southern footway. This is to be expected as West Brompton Station is located on the southern footway in this location.
1.21 The PCLs have been classified under the “Transport Interchange” area type and Figure 4 shows the links that have been considered.
Lillie Road (PCLlocations 1 to 5)
Figure 4: Lillie Road (PCL locations 1 to 5)
1.22 Table 3 provides a summary of the PCLs across the three PCL outputs (Average Flow, Peak Hour Flow, Average of Max Activity). Figures 12-17 in Appendix A provide a spatial summary of the results.
Table 3: PCL Analysis Lillie Road and Old Brompton Road
1a Northern Ftwy
5b
1.23 Focusing on the peak hour flows, as expected, the higher volumes of pedestrians on the southern footway indicates PCLs that would be considered as Very / Extremely Uncomfortable across most of the assessment points on the western side of West Brompton Station. East of the Station, the flows are considerably lower, in combination with less street furniture – resulting in more favourable values.
1.24 The northern footway is shown to experience PCLs that indicate the current footway widths can adequately cope with demand west of the station. Of particular note is at point 4 (pinch point at the bridge) – where the PCL analysis shows inadequate width to cope with demand, returning F values.
1.25 The introduction of the Early Phases development does show increased pressure on the northern footways specifically. However, it should be noted that the 2031 future year without development continue to show that there is inadequate provision in locations.
1.26 The All Phases development demand follows a similar pattern to the Early Phases, placing additional pressure on the northern footways.
Old Brompton Road / Eardley Crescent – (PCLLocation 6)
1.27 Sites 6a to 6f consider the footways adjacent to the Old Brompton Road / Eardley Crescent junction, with Figure 5 showing the areas considered in more detail.
1.28 Table 4 provides a summary of the PCLs across the three PCL outputs (Average Flow, Peak Hour Flow, Average of Max Activity). Figures 12-17 in Appendix A provide a spatial summary of the results.
1.29 Locations 6a and 6b are considered to operate sufficiently in all scenarios. Whilst the 2041 All Phases increases the demand on the southern footway in the average of maximum outputs, in general, the peak hour and average remains similar.
1.30 Notably, location 6c to 6f are shown to result in PCLs that would be considered as Very / Extremely Uncomfortable across all scenarios including the current baseline. This is in part, due to the placement of street furniture and the bus stops.
Table 4: PCL Analysis Old Brompton Road Junction With Eardley Crescent
Warwick Apron (PCL Locations 7-9)
1.31 Sites 7a to 9b consider the footways and crossing outside of Earls Court Station at Warwick Apron. The location of the links analysed is shown in Figure 6
1.32 Table 5 provides a summary of the PCLs across the three PCL outputs (Average Flow, Peak Hour Flow, Average of Max Activity). Noting, that point 8 is a crossing, and so is calculated differently than footways. Furthermore, only the avg and peak hour PCL for the crossing is reported. Figures 12-17 in Appendix A provide a spatial summary of the results.
1.33 A separate VisWalk exercise has been completed on this area due to the proposed interactions between pedestrians and cyclists in the development scenarios.
Figure 6: Warwick Apron (PCL Locations 7-9)
1.34 In isolation, the footways and crossings around the Warwick Road envelope are considered to operate sufficiently across all scenarios.
1.35 The Early Phases is shown to reduce the PCL levels to B / B+ (compared to A/A-) on the footways adjacent to the station in the peak hour, but are considered to be acceptable.
1.36 Similarly, the introduction of the All Phases demand in 2041 shows a similar pattern, with some reductions in levels, but considered to be within acceptable levels.
2024
1.37 It is however noted that the PCLs (both footway and crossing) are simplistic analysis tools that do not factor in relationships between waiting parties and / or other mode types – such as cycles. As such the ViSWalk modelling provides an updated and more detailed analysis of this particular location.
1.38 Sites 10 to 13 consider the footways outside of West Kensington Station on Beaumont Avenue and North End Road. The location of the links analysed is shown in Figure 7
1.39 Table 6 provides a summary of the PCLs across the three PCL outputs (Average Flow, Peak Hour Flow, Average of Max Activity). Figures 12-17 in Appendix A provide a spatial summary of the results.
1.40 Beaumont Avenue (location 10) has parking on its northern footway which limits the available space for pedestrians and as such returns low levels (F) throughout all scenarios. Closer towards Kensington Station, point 12a shows considerable discomfort (due to the location of the bus stop outside the station) throughout all scenarios.
1.41 The demand from the development is only relevant under the 2041 DS (All Phases) scenario, as this is where the access becomes available for use. The 2031 Early Phases is shown, but results in no change.
1.42 The All Phases indicates increased demand and pressure on Beaumont Avenue. However, it should be noted that this keeps the current layout as is and so the proposed access strategy and re-arrangement of this link is considered appropriate to mitigate the additional demand.
Figure 7: Beaumont Avenue and North End Road (PCL Locations 10-13)
10a
AisgillAvenue (PCL Locations 14)
1.43 Sites 14a to d consider the footways just outside of the site boundary on Aisgill Avenue. The location of the links analysed is shown in Figure 8
Figure 8: Aisgill Avenue (PCL Locations 14)
1.44 Table 7 provides a summary of the PCLs across the three PCL outputs (Average Flow, Peak Hour Flow, Average of Max Activity). Figures 12-17 in Appendix A provide a spatial summary of the results.
Table 7: PCL Analysis Aisgill Avenue
1.45 The analysis presented in Table 7 shows that the footways comfortably accommodate existing and future demand.
A4 West Cromwell Road (PCLLocations 15-16)
1.46 Sites 15 and 16 consider the footways on the northern boundary of the site on the A4 West Cromwell Road. The location of the links analysed is shown in Figure 9
Figure 9: West Cromwell Road (PCL Locations 15-16)
1.47 Table 8 provides a summary of the PCLs across the three PCL outputs (Average Flow, Peak Hour Flow, Average of Max Activity). Figures 12-17 in Appendix A provide a spatial summary of the results.
1.48 The analysis presented in Table 8 shows that the footways comfortably accommodate existing and future demand.
Table 8: PCL Analysis A4 West Cromwell Road
1.49 Sites 17 to 24 consider the footways and crossings at the A4 West Cromwell Road junction with Warwick Road. The location of the links analysed is shown in Figure 10
1.50 Table 9 provides a summary of the PCLs across the three PCL outputs (Average Flow, Peak Hour Flow, Average of Max Activity). Figures 12-17 in Appendix A provide a spatial summary of the results.
A4 West Cromwell Road Junction With Warwick Road (PCLLocations 17-24)
Figure 10: A4 West Cromwell Road Junction With Warwick Road (PCL Locations 17-24)
1.51 The PCL analysis indicates that the footways and crossing points are generally acceptable, apart from the northern elements, which indicate current poor comfort levels.
1.52 The introduction of the development, in either the Early Phases or All Phases is not shown to materially change the PCL levels compared to the relative future baseline years.
Table 9: PCL Analysis
West Cromwell Road Junction With Warwick Road
Warwick
1.53 Sites 25 to 28 consider the footways and crossings at the Warwick Road junction with Old Brompton Road. The location of the links analysed is shown in Figure 11
1.54 Table 10 provides a summary of the PCLs across the three PCL outputs (Average Flow, Peak Hour Flow, Average of Max Activity). Figures 12-17 in Appendix A provide a spatial summary of the results.
RoadJunction With Old Brompton Road (PCLLocations 25-28)
Figure 11: Warwick Road Junction With Old Brompton Road (PCL Locations 25-28)
1.55 Table 10 indicates that the junction suffers from some areas of poor PCL, notably the island on both its southern and eastern sections.
1.56 The introduction of the development, in either the Early Phases or All Phases is not shown to materially change the PCL levels compared to the relative future baseline years.
Warwick Road - Crossing Uncontrolled
AppendixA– PCLFigures
Figure 12: Early Phases - Average
13: Early Phases – Peak Hour
Figure
Figure 14: Early Phases – Average of Max.
Figure 15: All Phases – Average
16: All Phases – Peak Hour
Figure
Figure 17: All Phases – Average of Max.
Appendix O – CycleAnalysis
1.0 Cycle Demand and CLOS
Introduction
Forecast Cycle Demand from the Development
1.1 As part of the modelling undertaken using MoTiON, Cynemon (Cycle Assignment Model) model runs were produced. Analysis was undertaken of the distribution of trips to/from model zones within Cynemon which cover the development. This distribution was used to inform the most likely development access which the cycle trips would use within the development. In summary, the cycle demand was taken from the trip generation with the distribution of this demand informed by TfL’s Cynemon model.
1.2 Table 1 details the cycle demand by access for the Early Phases scenario.
1.3 Table 2 sets out the cycle demand by access for the All Phases scenario.
Table 1: Early Phases cycle demand by access
Table 2: All Phases cycle demand by access
1.4 Applying the forecast cycle demand from the development as outlined above, and including the future baseline values, a review of the changes in cycle demand has been undertaken. Figure 1 and Table 3 sets out the corridors considered for the review.
Figure 1: Cycle Demand Corridor Analysis
Table 3: CLOS Analysis
1.5 Whilst it is acknowledged that along the corridors shown there will be variability in cycle use, it is considered appropriate to combine links together to present an over-arching review of demand.
1.6 The anticipated cycle demand has been extracted from the turning flow diagrams used within the VISSIM modelling. Table 4 presents a summary of the values for the various corridors. Traffic flow diagrams showing the demand by scenario are presented in Appendix A
Table 4: Cycle Demand Summary
3. Lillie Road/Old Brompton
5. Seagrave Road
6. Warwick Road
7. Warwick Road B
1.7 Each corridor is shown to experience increase in cycle demand reflective of the build out, i.e. as the development increases in scale the number of cyclists increases overall.
Cycling Level of Service
1.8 As outlined in LTN1/20, a Cycling Level of Service (CLoS) tool (available in Appendix A of the LTN1/20 guidance) has been used to assess the local network. This tools includes a simple scoring assessment based on attributes of the five design criteria, which can be used to identify strengths and weaknesses, and therefore what the design needs to address. The following design criteria are reviewed;
Cohesion
Directness
Attractiveness
1.9 The tool includes some factors that are considered to be ‘Critical Fails’ – results that represent unsafe conditions for cycling which must be addressed (or an alternative route found). For the purposes of this assessment the CLoS has been applied to the existing network to score and identify where any improvements should be focused.
1.10 It should be noted that when using the CLoS tool, it is worth considering that a cycle route may consist of different types of infrastructure along its length. As shown in Figure 1, it was necessary to split the routes into consistent sections and then assess each section independently. It is considered appropriate to review these corridors and to assess the more problematic sections within them to analyse the type and severity of the issues, on the basis that the overall quality of the route is determined by its constraints.
1.11 Scores can be given for each section to indicate the quality of the design according to the criteria provided:
C for critical factors, which indicate that improvements are required for this section of work (black)
0 for poor provision (red)
1 for provision which is adequate but should be improved if possible (amber)
2 for good quality provision (green)
1.12 Where the route or section may fall under multiple scores, the lowest one is used, as this tool is to identify where improvements could be focused.
1.13 As the scoring is to an extent qualitative comments have been added to justify the scoring provided, allowing the audit to be better understood and reviewed by other stakeholders.
1.14
Table 5 below provides a summary of the CLoS review of the various corridors.
1.15 It should be noted that the review is qualitative and whilst sections may be scored higher under one criteria (e.g. Corridor 9 scoring 100% on safety), this is not just a reflection of the available infrastructure but also it is considered in relation to the number of cyclists using it and the corresponding traffic flows and speeds.
1.16 As set out in London Cycling Design Standard (LCDS) (which uses an earlier version of the CLoS), users are encouraged to set expectations that are ambitious while also being achievable.
1.17 Lower scores should generally be a prompt for examining whether the factor in question will have a negative impact on the propensity to cycle. Certain factors also have ‘critical’ scores, which describe circumstances that should be a cause for particular concern. At the route planning stage, it is not likely that all factors can be measured. In this case, factors that are of greatest importance and relevance at the network level should be prioritised.
1.18 When considering new and proposed cycle corridors, it is typical that only schemes with a minimum score of 70% and no ‘Critical Fails’ under the CLoS would be considered for funding or improvement.
1.19 As the tool has been applied to existing corridors, this indicates that anything under 70% would be areas for review or improvement.
1.20 The lowest scoring corridors were as follows:
3. Lillie Road A
6. Warwick Road A
7. Warwick Road B
1.21 Reviewing the demand summaries in Tables 1 and 2, the highest forecast levels of cycle traffic from the development are likely to fall upon these links. As such, the development proposals include designs to improve the available infrastructure.
Table 5: CLoS Summary
AppendixA– Cycle Traffic Flow Diagrams
Appendix P– Station Modelling Reports
Earl’s Court Masterplan
Earl’s Court Station Pedestrian Modelling Do Nothing (Existing Station) Scenarios
Shruti Rastogi, Dannie Lu
Shruti, Dannie Issue P03
P01 Dannie Lu Emma Jiang Renata Buschinelli 16/02/24 For Approval
P02 Dannie Lu Emma Jiang Renata Buschinelli 29/02/24 - Updated the entrance/exit splits based on the 2023 entry/exit counts provided by TfL. - Addressed the comments in ‘Audit Checklist 240219AZ.xls’ issued by TfL on 22/02/2024
P03 Shruti Rastogi, Dannie Lu Dannie Lu Renata Buschinelli 25/04/24 - Updated the 2031 and 2041 results based on the new demand. - Included the model results for 2031+dev, 2041+dev, 2041+dev with overall 35% uplift.
1 Introduction
2 Assumptions and Assessment Criteria
3 Pedestrian Dynamic Modelling
4 Summary
Chapter 00
Earl’s Court Station Pedestrian Modelling
25th April 2024
1 Introduction
1.1 Pedestrian Modelling Scenarios
Shruti, Dannie
1.1.1 The scenarios considered for the initial impact assessment of Earls Court Station's existing layout are mentioned below :
Scenarios without Development
‒ Scenario 1: 2019 Demand with existing layout (AM and PM peak hours)
‒ Scenario 2: 2031 Demand with existing layout (AM and PM peak hours)
‒ Scenario 3: 2041 Demand with existing layout (AM and PM peak hours)
Scenarios with Development
‒ Scenario 4: 2031+dev Demand with existing layout (AM and PM peak hours)
‒ Scenario 5: 2041+dev Demand with existing layout (AM and PM peak hours)
o Sensitivity Test: 2041+dev Demand with overall 35% uplift with existing layout (AM and PM peak hours)
1.1.2 Appendices A, B and C provide the Peak 3-hour demand Origin-Destination Matrix, the mean density maps and the high-density maps for the AM and PM peak hours.
1.1.3 The modelling assumptions, process and outputs have been reviewed by TfL during regular meetings since 2020. The Earl’s Court models are based on the Legion models provided by TfL in 2011/2012. Some adjustments have been provided, including CAD changes based on recent surveys and the addition of ticket machines.
1.1.4 The Model Files, Assumption Cover Sheets and Data Templates for all Existing Layout Scenarios with and without development trips have been provided to TfL separately.
1.2 Modelling Peak Period
1.2.1 Modelling Peak Periods are AM peak 3 hours (07:00 – 10:00) and PM peak 3 hours (16:00 – 19:00).
Chapter 01
Earl’s Court Station Pedestrian Modelling
25th April 2024
1 Introduction
1.3 Forecasted Demand
1.3.1 The peak 3-hour demand for 2019 NUMBAT data and the forecasted peak 3-hour demands for 2031 and 2041 with and without Development are described in the tables below.
1.3.2 All peak 3-hour Origin- Destination Matrices can be found in Appendix A.
1.3.3 The forecasted peak 3-hours for 2031 and 2041 without Development have been based on 2031 and 2041 Planning Forecast Railplan model (version 8.1.2). The underlying locally revalidated 2016 base-year model has been reviewed and signed off by TfL Railplan team. Jacobs, acting a third-party modelling auditor on behalf of TfL, have reviewed and approved the 2031 and 2041 Railplan Forecast Models.
1.3.4 The station interchange growth from 2016 to 2031 and 2041 Railplan models has been applied to the 2019 NUMBAT data using the Station Standard Modelling Methodology.
1.3.5 The 2031 & 2041 Forecast Base Minus (No EC development) will assume the same split of demand of entry / exit demand between Warwick Road and Earls Court as the 2023 TAPS data provided by TfL on 20/02/2024 via email.
Shruti, Dannie
Table 1: Forecasted Demand Scenarios
Chapter 01
Earl’s Court Station Pedestrian Modelling 25th April 2024
1 Introduction
1.4 Train Frequencies
Shruti, Dannie Issue P03
1.4.1 The Pedestrian Movement analysis for future years consider that there will be improved frequencies on Piccadilly and District Line in the future years, according to RailPlan data, and as agreed with TfL. The additional trains are required to improve the stations performance to cope with future demands.
1.4.2 The table below shows the train service frequencies for 2019 NUMBAT and forecasts for improved frequencies on Piccadilly Line and District Line in 2031 and 2041.
1.4.3 These train frequencies are applied in the model for both with and without development scenarios.
Table 2: Train Frequency – peak 3-hour period
1 Introduction
1.5 Current Station Layout
Chapter 02 Earl’s Court Station Pedestrian Modelling
25th April 2024
Shruti, Dannie Issue P03
2 Assumptions and Assessment Criteria
2.1 Modelling Assumptions
2.1.1. For modelling assumptions, please refer to the Assumption Cover Sheets (ACS) for Earl's Court Models, which have already been issued to TfL.
ACS for the scenarios without development:
• 20240315 ACS_EC 2019NUMB AM.xlsx and 20240315 ACS_EC 2019NUMB PM.xlsx
• 20240403 ACS_EC 2031 AM.xlsx and 20240403 ACS_EC 2031 PM.xlsx
• 20240403 ACS_EC 2041 AM.xlsx and 20240403 ACS_EC 2041 PM.xlsx
ACS for the scenarios with development:
• 20240404 ACS_EC 2031+dev AM.xlsx and 20240404 ACS_EC 2031+dev PM.xlsx
• 20240404 ACS_EC 2041+dev AM.xlsx and 20240404 ACS_EC 2041+dev PM.xlsx
Chapter 02
Earl’s Court Station Pedestrian Modelling
25th April 2024
Shruti, Dannie
2 Assumptions and Assessment Criteria
2.2 Assessment Criteria
2.2.1 The Dynamic Modelling inputs and outputs follow the TfL Legion Best Practice Guide V4.2.2.
2.2.2 Outputs of the models are based on Fruin Level of Service (LoS) passenger density maps, and target levels of service are based on TfL Station Planning Standards S1371-A8.
2.2.3 Pedestrians accept different densities depending on if they are circulating or waiting. There are different scales of Fruin LoS for walking, stairways or queuing. Within this report all Cumulative Density (CMD) Maps are recorded over the peak 15-minute AM or PM time periods and represent the Fruin LoS Walking scale in all areas, except stairs which are assessed using Fruin Stairs LoS.
2.2.4 Targets for LoS within the station vary according to the circulation element. In general, LoS C is considered a target across the station, while LoS D is considered acceptable in ticket gatelines, escalators and one-way stairs and corridors.
2.2.5 Cumulative High Density (CHD) maps are also recorded over the peak 15minute AM or PM time periods. They represent the time in minutes each area experiences LoS D or worse within the peak 15 minutes.
Shruti, Dannie
3 Pedestrian Dynamic Modelling (No Development)
3.1 2019 AM Peak Period Without Development
3.1.1 Baseline 2019 AM peak model shows no areas of concern during normal operations. The Warwick Road Ticket Hall and gate line shows acceptable levels of service according to requirements. The District Line Platform Level presents overall good LoS, except for LoS D/E at the top of the stairs which concentrates the flows towards Piccadilly Line. The top and bottom of the escalators show LoS D, which is expected in approach areas to escalators, while LoS E/F is presented at the lift waiting areas, where passengers are queuing to board the lifts.
3.1.2 All peak 15 min CMD maps within the peak hour can be found in Appendix B.
3 Pedestrian Dynamic Modelling (No Development)
3.2 2019 PM Peak Period Without Development
3.2.1 The base year model of the PM peak shows overall good levels of service during normal operation, considering the 2019 PM NUMBAT demand. The District Line platforms present overall LoS C with patches of LoS D, while Platform 1 shows LoS E at the top of the stairs which concentrates the flows towards the Piccadilly Line.
3.2.2 All peak 15 min CMD maps within the peak hour can be found in Appendix B.
3 Pedestrian Dynamic Modelling (No Development)
3.3 2031 AM Peak Period Without Development
3.3.1 Patches of LoS D are shown in District Line Platform 1 and Platform 4. The middle stairs at the District Line Platform 1 present LoS D/E at the top of the stairs.
3.3.2 All peak 15 min CMD maps within the peak hour can be found in Appendix B. (8:15-8:30)
3 Pedestrian Dynamic Modelling (No Development)
3.4 2031 PM Peak Period Without Development
3.4.1 Due to heavy passenger interchange from Piccadilly Line to District Line WB Platform 4 (towards Wimbledon direction), Platform 4 presents LoS D/E in the vicinity of and around the middle stairs. The high density (LoS D or worse) lasts for more than 6 minutes (refer to the next slide about Cumulative High-Density CHD Maps). The high densities only happen during the peak 15 minutes and are not sustained during the peak hour.
3.4.2 All peak 15 min CMD maps within the peak hour can be found in Appendix B.
Chapter 03
Earl’s Court Station Pedestrian Modelling 25th April 2024
Shruti, Dannie
3 Pedestrian Dynamic Modelling (No Development)
3.4 2031 PM Peak Period Without Development
3.4.3 Due to heavy passenger interchange from the Piccadilly Line to District Line WB Platform 4 (towards Wimbledon direction), Platform 4 presents high density (LoS D or worse) for more than 6 minutes. The high densities only happen during the peak 15 minutes, and are not sustained during the peak hour.
3.4.4 All peak 15 min CHD maps within the peak hour can be found in Appendix C.
This area experiences LoS D/E within the PM peak 15 minutes for more than 6 minutes.
Chapter 03
Earl’s Court Station Pedestrian Modelling 25th April 2024
3 Pedestrian Dynamic Modelling
3.5 District Line P1&P2 Lift Static Assessment
3.5.1 An initial static lift assessment for District Line Lift has been conducted based on a 90-second cycle time, an average of 2-3 people per lift per cycle and lift usage of only PRMs A, D & E. These graphs are the results of the busiest P1&P2 lift up direction for 2041 scenarios with and without development trips.
3.5.2 Based on the static results, even in the 2041 scenarios without development trips, additional lift capacity will be required, especially considering the potential decrease in average lift capacity due to the longer dwell time per cycle for types A, D & E passengers.
Shruti, Dannie Issue P03 Lift accommodating PRMs A, D & E
Chapter 03
Earl’s Court Station Pedestrian Modelling 25th April 2024
3 Pedestrian Dynamic Modelling
3.5 District Line P3&P4 Lift Static Assessment
3.5.4 An initial static lift assessment for District Line Lift has been conducted based on a 90second cycle time, an average of 2-3 people per lift per cycle and lift usage of only PRMs A, D & E. These graphs are the results of the P3&P4 lift up direction for 2041 scenarios with and without development trips.
3.5.5 Based on the static results, in the 2041 PM scenarios, additional lift capacity will be required, especially considering the potential decrease in average lift capacity due to the longer dwell time per cycle for types A, D & E passengers.
Shruti, Dannie Issue P03
Chapter 03
Earl’s Court Station Pedestrian Modelling 25th April 2024
3 Pedestrian Dynamic Modelling
3.6 Lift Directional Split Assumptions
3.6.1 Considering District Line lift capacity, we’ve limited the number of people sent to the lifts in the Legion dynamic model (kept the same lift assumptions with those in Halcrow models, shown in the right tables), which has been agreed with TfL in the meeting on 20/03/2024. Therefore, the step-free access District Line lifts look fine in the dynamic modelling. But it should be noted that in reality, PRM types A, D and E would theoretically wish to use the lifts.
Warwick TH to Platforms
Shruti, Dannie Issue P03
50% PRM types C and D use lifts
All PRM types A and E use lifts
All non-PRM passengers and PRM type B use the stairs
Earl's Court TH to Platforms
All non-PRM and PRM types A B C and D District EB/WB passengers use the stairs
50% of PRM type E District EB/WB passengers use the lifts
All non-PRM an PRMs Picc EB/WB passengers use the lifts
District Line EB to TH
All PRM type A passengers use the lifts
50% PRM types D and E use lifts
All non-PRM passengers and PRM types B and C use the stairs
District Line WB to TH
All PRM type A passengers use the lifts
15% PRM types B D and E use lifts
All non-PRM passengers and PRM type C use the stairs
Piccadilly Line EB/WB to TH
All non-PRM and PRMs Earl's Court TH passengers use the lifts
All PRMs types A and D Warwick TH passengers use lifts
All non-PRM and PRM types B C and E Warwick TH passengers use the Escalators
3 Pedestrian Dynamic Modelling
3.7 2041 Peak Period Without Development
3.7.1 The 2041 models -especially with a 35% uplift - present congestion issues at the District Line platform stairs due to the size of the PRM agents, which were stopping the models from running completely. This is believed to be a modelling issue, not what would be expected to happen on-site. As agreed by TfL, both 2041 models and 2041+35% uplift models will apply small luggage for all PRM types with medium or large luggage.
3.7.2 It should be noted that the entry and exit demands at Warwick Rad Ticket Hall in 2019 with dev. trip models (previous models in Feb. 2023) are much higher than those in 2041 without dev. trip models as development trips use Warwick Road Ticket Hall instead of Earls Court Road Ticket Hall. Therefore, the high density at Warwick Road Gateline in the previous model (2019 with dev. trips model) didn’t manifest in 2041 without dev. trips models.
Shruti, Dannie
3 Pedestrian Dynamic Modelling (No Development)
3.7 2041 AM Peak Period Without Development
3.7.1The queuing areas of ticket machines at both Warwick Road TH and Earls Court Road TH show LoS C. Patches of LoS D/E are shown on the District Line Platforms. The middle stairs at the District Line Platform 1 present LoS E at the top of the stairs. LoS E is presented at the lift waiting areas, where passengers are queuing to board the lifts.
3.7.2 The 2041 model shows Platforms 4 presenting better results than 2031, due to the decision to apply “small luggage” to all PRM agents, which has been agreed with TfL (please refer to next slide).
3 Pedestrian Dynamic Modelling (No Development)
3.8 2041 PM Peak Period Without Development
3.8.1 Due to heavy passenger interchange from Piccadilly Line to District Line WB Platform 4 (towards Wimbledon direction), Platform 4 presents LoS D/E in the vicinity of and around the middle stairs. The high density (LoS D or worse) lasts for more than 10 minutes (refer to the next slide about Cumulative High-Density CHD Maps).
3.8.2 The 2041 model shows Platforms 4 presenting better results than 2031, due to the decision to apply “small luggage” to all PRM agents, which has been agreed with TfL (please refer to slide 12).
Chapter 03
Earl’s Court Station Pedestrian Modelling 25th April 2024
Shruti, Dannie Issue P03
3 Pedestrian Dynamic Modelling (No Development)
3.8 2041 PM Peak Period Without Development
3.8.3 Due to heavy passenger interchange from The Piccadilly Line to District Line WB Platform 4 (towards Wimbledon direction), Platform 4 presents high density (LoS D or worse) for more than 6 minutes. The high densities only happen during the PM peak 15 minutes and are not sustained during the peak hour.
3.8.4 All peak 15 min CHD maps within the peak hour can be found in Appendix C. (18:00-18:15)
This area experiences LoS D/E within the PM peak 15 minutes for more than 10 minutes.
3 Pedestrian Dynamic Modelling (With Development)
3 Pedestrian Dynamic Modelling (With Development)
3.10 2031 PM Peak Period With Development
3.10.1 Due to heavy passenger interchange from Piccadilly Line to District Line WB Platform 4 (towards Wimbledon direction), Platform 4 presents LoS D/E in the vicinity of and around the middle stairs. The high density (LoS D or worse) lasts between 4-5 minutes (refer to the next slide about Cumulative High-Density CHD Maps). The high densities only happen during the peak 15 minutes and are not sustained during the peak hour.
Chapter 03
Earl’s Court Station Pedestrian Modelling 25th April 2024
Shruti, Dannie
3 Pedestrian Dynamic Modelling (With Development)
3.10 2031 PM Peak Period With Development
3.10.2 Due to heavy passenger interchange from the Piccadilly Line to District Line WB Platform 4 (towards Wimbledon direction), Platform 4 presents high density (LoS D or worse) between 4-5 minutes. The high densities only happen during the peak 15 minutes and are not sustained during the peak hour. (18:00-18:15)
This area experiences LoS D/E within the PM peak 15 minutes for around 6 minutes.
3 Pedestrian Dynamic Modelling (With Development)
3.11 2041 AM Peak Period With Development
3.11.1 The gatelines at both Warwick Road TH and Earls Court Road TH show LoS C/D. Patches of LoS D/E are shown on the District Line Platforms. The middle stairs at the District Line Platform 1 present LoS E at the top of the stairs. LoS D/E is presented at the Piccadilly Line lift waiting areas, where passengers are queuing to board the lifts.
3.11.2 The 2041 model shows Platforms 4 presenting better results than 2031, due to the decision to apply “small luggage” to all PRM agents, which has been agreed with TfL (please refer to slide 12).
3 Pedestrian Dynamic Modelling (With Development)
3.12 2041 PM Peak Period With Development
3.12.1 Due to heavy passenger interchange from Piccadilly Line to District Line WB Platform 4 (towards Wimbledon direction), Platform 4 presents LoS D/E in the vicinity of and around the middle stairs. The high density (LoS D or worse) lasts for more than 10 minutes (refer to the next slide about Cumulative High-Density CHD Maps).
3.12.2 The 2041 model shows Platforms 4 presenting better results than 2031, due to the decision to apply “small luggage” to all PRM agents, which has been agreed with TfL (please refer to slide 12).
3 Pedestrian Dynamic Modelling (With Development)
3.12 2041 PM Peak Period With Development
This area experiences LoS D/E within the PM peak 15 minutes for more than 10 minutes. Chapter 03
3.12.3 Due to heavy passenger interchange from The Piccadilly Line to District Line WB Platform 4 (towards Wimbledon direction), Platform 4 presents high density (LoS D or worse) for more than 6 minutes. The high densities only happen during the PM peak 15 minutes and are not sustained during the peak hour. (18:00-18:15)
3 Pedestrian Dynamic Modelling (With Development)
3.13 Sensitivity Analysis: 2041 AM Peak Period With Development – Overall Uplift of 35%
3.13.1 Considering the overall trip uplift of 35% for the 2041 AM peak period, the District Line platforms present overall LoS C/D with patches of LoS E/F at Platform 1 and 4 mainly at the top of middle stairs at Platform 1.
3.13.2 At the Piccadilly Line Platform level, the run-off of escalators shows LoS E and the lift waiting area shows LoS F, where a large number of passengers queue.
Chapter 03
Earl’s Court Station Pedestrian Modelling 25th April 2024 Shruti Rastogi Issue P03
3 Pedestrian Dynamic Modelling (With Development)
3.13 Sensitivity Analysis: 2041 AM Peak Period With Development – Overall Uplift of 35%
3.13.3 Due to heavy passenger interchange from Picaddly Line to District Line, EB Platform 1 and WB Platform 4 (towards Winbledon Direction) presents high density (LoS D or worse ). The LoS on top of the middle stairs, at these platforms are sustained for over 6 minutes; the high densities at stairs happen during whole peak hour period.
3.13.4 Queues to lifts at the Piccadilly Line Platform levels reaches LoS E/F during the whole peak period, however the congestion does not reach the platforms, showing that the lifts can accommodate the demand.
(8:15-8:30)
LoS D or worse within the peak hour minutes for more than 6 minutes.
for
3 Pedestrian Dynamic Modelling (With Development)
3.14 Sensitivity Analysis: 2041 PM Peak Period With Development – Overall Uplift of 35%
3.14.1 Considering the overall uplift of 35% for the 2041 PM peak period, the District Line EB Platform 1 is showing LoS E on top of and around the middle stairs. Even District Line Platform 4 is also much busier and shows LoS F that lasts for more than 15 minutes (refer to the next slide about Cumulative High Density CHD Maps).
3.14.2 At the Piccadilly Line Platform level, both the top and the bottom of the escalators present LoS E. The waiting area of the Piccadilly Line lifts shows LoS E/F during half of the peak hour.
Chapter 03
Earl’s Court Station Pedestrian Modelling 25th April 2024
Shruti Rastogi Issue P03
3 Pedestrian Dynamic Modelling (With Development)
3.14 Sensitivity Analysis: 2041 PM Peak Period With Development – Overall Uplift of 35%
3.14.3 Due to heavy passenger interchange from the Piccadilly Line to the District Line WB Platform 4 (towards Wimbledon direction), Platform 4 presents high density (LoS E/F) during more than half of the PM peak hour period.
3.14.4 Queues to lifts at the Piccadilly Line Platform levels reach LoS E during most of the peak hour, however the congestion does not reach the platforms, showing that the lifts can accommodate the demands.
3.14.5 All peak 15 min CHD maps within the peak hour can be found in Appendix C.
LoS F during more than half of the PM peak hour period (three 15-min periods)
(18:15-18:30) Peak 15 Min Fruin Cumulative High Density CHD Maps
Lift Lobby shows LoS E during Half the peak hour and the congestion is sustained for about 6 mins. However, congestions do not reach the platforms.
Note: All PRMs are with small luggage in the 2041 EC model which has been agreed with TfL. The lift capacity of Piccadilly Line lifts is increased to 26 pax per cycle time for 2031, 2041 and 2041_35% uplift scenarios which has been agreed with TfL.
Chapter 03
Earl’s Court Station Pedestrian Modelling
25th April 2024
3 Pedestrian Dynamic Modelling
3.15 Modelling Interventions Summary
Shruti, Dannie
3.15.1 The 2041+dev models -especially with a 35% uplift - present congestion issues at the District Line platform stairs due to the size of the PRM agents, which were stopping the models from running completely. This is believed to be a modeling issue, not what would be expected to happen on-site. As agreed by TfL, both 2041+dev models and 2041+dev with overall 35% uplift models will apply small luggage for all PRM types with medium or large luggage.
3.15.2 When the ticketing will be an issue, the transaction time of min 40s – med 40s – max 40s can be considered, which was agreed by TfL. The ticketing queue at the Warwick Road Ticket Hall was identified as an issue since the queue interfered with the entry and exit flows. Therefore 2031 and 2041 models considered the reduced transaction times (min 40s - med 40s – max 40s) for ticket machines at Warwick Road Ticket Hall.
3.15.3 Considering District Line lift capacity, we’ve limited the number of people sent to the lifts in the Legion dynamic model (kept the same lift assumptions with those in Halcrow models), which has been agreed with TfL in the meeting on 20/03/2024. Therefore, the step-free access District Line lifts look fine in the dynamic modelling. But it should be noted that in reality, PRM types A, D and E would theoretically wish to use the lifts.
3.15.4 The lift capacity of Piccadilly Line lifts is increased to 26 pax per cycle time for 2031, 2041 and 2041_35% uplift scenarios which has been agreed with TfL.
3.15.2 Please note that some of the models are often not able to run with the forecast demand, due to capacity constraints in various areas, which TfL agreed is a realistic representation of the expected issues at the station with this level of demand. The submitted RES files are those that run successfully without any block, which is helpful for outputs.
Earl’s Court Station Pedestrian Modelling 25th April 2024
4 Summary
Table 3: Earl’s Court Station Element Assessment (Part One)
Gatelines WR TH
Gatelines
District
Piccadilly Line EB Platform 5
Piccadilly
Dannie
Compliant with TfL Station Planning Standards and Legion Best Practice Guide
No immediate need to upgrade the areas. Some/all areas do not meet minimum width requirements but currently provide sufficient capacity to accommodate the peak flow. Note: Any changes to those areas will likely require to meet the minimum width requirements
Do not meet TfL Station Planning Standard requirements, significant queues/delays observed from dynamic models and minimum requirements identified from static assessments.
Chapter 04
Earl’s Court Station Pedestrian Modelling 25th April 2024
4 Summary
Table 3: Earl’s Court Station Element Assessment (Part Two)
Stairs P1/P2 - TH
Stairs P1/P2 - P5/P6
Stairs P3/P4 - TH
Stairs P3/P4 - P5/P6
Escalators at Piccadilly Line Level
District Line Lift waiting area
Piccadilly Line Lift waiting area
Compliant with TfL Station Planning Standards and Legion Best Practice Guide
No immediate need to upgrade the areas. Some/all areas do not meet minimum width requirements but currently provide sufficient capacity to accommodate the peak flow. Note: Any changes to those areas will likely require to meet the minimum width requirements
Do not meet TfL Station Planning Standard requirements, significant queues/delays observed from dynamic models and minimum requirements identified from static assessments.
Note: The District Line lifts look fine because the limited amount of people were sent to these lifts based on the limited capacity, which was agreed with TfL.
Shruti, Dannie
Earl’s Court Station Pedestrian Modelling 25th April 2024
Scenarios without Development
A Earl’s Court Station Pedestrian Modelling 25th April 2024 Shruti Rastogi
Scenarios without Development
2031 Peak 3-hour Demand Origin-Destination Matrix (No Dev)
Appendix A
Earl’s Court Station Pedestrian Modelling 25th April 2024 Shruti Rastogi
Scenarios without Development
2041 Peak 3-hour Demand Origin-Destination Matrix (No Dev)
Appendix A Earl’s Court Station Pedestrian Modelling 25th April 2024
Appendix B – Peak Hour Fruin Walkways CMD Heat Maps in 15-Minute Segments
Appendix B
Earl’s Court Station Pedestrian Modelling 25th April 2024
Scenarios without Development
Shruti Rastogi Issue P03
Do Nothing 2019 AM Peak Period (No Dev) – 15-Minuete Fruin Walkways CMD Heat Maps during the peak hour
07:45-08:00 08:00-08:15 08:30-08:45
08:15-08:30
Appendix B
Earl’s Court Station Pedestrian Modelling 25th April 2024
Scenarios without Development
Shruti Rastogi Issue P03
Do Nothing 2019 PM Peak Period (No Dev) – 15-Minuete Fruin Walkways CMD Heat Maps during the peak hour
17:30-17:45 17:45-18:00
18:00-18:15
18:15-18:30
Earl’s Court Station Pedestrian Modelling 25th April 2024
Scenarios without Development
Shruti Rastogi Issue P03
Do Nothing 2031 AM Peak Period (No Dev) – 15-Minuete Fruin Walkways CMD Heat Maps during the peak hour
07:45-08:00 08:00-08:15
08:15-08:30
08:30-08:45
Earl’s Court Station Pedestrian Modelling 25th April 2024
Scenarios without Development
Shruti Rastogi Issue P03
Do Nothing 2031 PM Peak Period (No Dev) – 15-Minuete Fruin Walkways CMD Heat Maps during the peak hour
17:30-17:45 17:45-18:00
18:15-18:30 Appendix B
18:00-18:15
Earl’s Court Station Pedestrian Modelling 25th April 2024
Scenarios without Development
Shruti Rastogi Issue P03
Do Nothing 2041 AM Peak Period (No Dev) – 15-Minuete Fruin Walkways CMD Heat Maps during the peak hour
07:45-08:00 08:00-08:15
08:15-08:30
08:30-08:45
Earl’s Court Station Pedestrian Modelling 25th April 2024
Scenarios without Development
Shruti Rastogi Issue P03
Do Nothing 2041 PM Peak Period (No Dev) – 15-Minuete Fruin Walkways CMD Heat Maps during the peak hour
17:30-17:45 17:45-18:00
18:00-18:15
18:15-18:30
Appendix B
Earl’s Court Station Pedestrian Modelling 25th April 2024
Scenarios with Development
Shruti Rastogi Issue P03
Do Nothing 2031 AM Peak Period (with Dev) – 15-Minuete Fruin Walkways CMD Heat Maps during the peak hour
07:45-08:00 08:00-08:15 08:30-08:45
08:15-08:30
Appendix B
Earl’s Court Station Pedestrian Modelling 25th April 2024
Scenarios with Development
Shruti Rastogi Issue P03
Do Nothing 2031 PM Peak Period (with Dev) – 15-Minuete Fruin Walkways CMD Heat Maps during the peak hour
17:30-17:45 17:45-18:00
18:00-18:15
18:15-18:30
Appendix B
Earl’s Court Station Pedestrian Modelling 25th April 2024
Scenarios with Development
Shruti Rastogi Issue P03
Do Nothing 2041 AM Peak Period (with Dev) – 15-Minuete Fruin Walkways CMD Heat Maps during the peak hour
07:45-08:00 08:00-08:15 08:30-08:45
08:15-08:30
Appendix B
Earl’s Court Station Pedestrian Modelling 25th April 2024
Scenarios with Development
Shruti Rastogi Issue P03
Do Nothing 2041 PM Peak Period (with Dev) – 15-Minuete Fruin Walkways CMD Heat Maps during the peak hour
17:30-17:45 17:45-18:00
18:00-18:15
18:15-18:30
Appendix B
Earl’s Court Station Pedestrian Modelling 25th April 2024
Scenarios with Development
Shruti Rastogi Issue P03
Sensitivity Test: 2041 AM Peak Period (with Dev) with Overall 35% uplift – 15-Minuete Fruin Walkways CMD Heat Maps
07:45-08:00 08:00-08:15 08:30-08:45
08:15-08:30
Appendix B
Earl’s Court Station Pedestrian Modelling 25th April 2024
Scenarios with Development
Shruti Rastogi Issue P03
Sensitivity Test: 2041 PM Peak Period (with Dev) with Overall 35% uplift – 15-Minuete Fruin Walkways CMD Heat Maps
17:30-17:45 17:45-18:00
18:00-18:15
18:15-18:30
Appendix C – Peak Hour Fruin Cumulative High
Density Maps in 15-Minute Segments
Appendix C
Earl’s Court Station Pedestrian Modelling 25th April 2024
Scenarios without Development
Shruti Rastogi Issue P03
Do Nothing 2019 AM Peak Period (No Dev) – 15-Minuete Fruin Cumulative High-Density CHD Maps during the peak hour
07:45-08:00 08:00-08:15
08:15-08:30
08:30-08:45
Appendix C
Earl’s Court Station Pedestrian Modelling 25th April 2024
Scenarios without Development
Shruti Rastogi Issue P03
Do Nothing 2019 PM Peak Period (No Dev) – 15-Minuete Fruin Cumulative High-Density CHD Maps during the peak hour
17:30-17:45 17:45-18:00
18:00-18:15
18:15-18:30
Appendix C
Earl’s Court Station Pedestrian Modelling 25th April 2024
Scenarios without Development
Shruti Rastogi Issue P03
Do Nothing 2031 AM Peak Period (No Dev) – 15-Minuete Fruin Cumulative High-Density CHD Maps during the peak hour
07:45-08:00 08:00-08:15 08:30-08:45
08:15-08:30
Appendix C
Earl’s Court Station Pedestrian Modelling 25th April 2024
Scenarios without Development
Shruti Rastogi Issue P03
Do Nothing 2031 PM Peak Period (No Dev) – 15-Minuete Fruin Cumulative High-Density CHD Maps during the peak hour
17:30-17:45 17:45-18:00
18:00-18:15
18:15-18:30
Appendix C
Earl’s Court Station Pedestrian Modelling 25th April 2024
Scenarios without Development
Shruti Rastogi Issue P03
Do Nothing 2041 AM Peak Period (No Dev) – 15-Minuete Fruin Cumulative High-Density CHD Maps during the peak hour
07:45-08:00 08:00-08:15 08:30-08:45
08:15-08:30
Appendix C
Earl’s Court Station Pedestrian Modelling 25th April 2024
Scenarios without Development
Shruti Rastogi Issue P03
Do Nothing 2041 PM Peak Period (No Dev) – 15-Minuete Fruin Cumulative High-Density CHD Maps during the peak hour
17:30-17:45 17:45-18:00
18:00-18:15
18:15-18:30
Appendix C
Earl’s Court Station Pedestrian Modelling 25th April 2024
Scenarios with Development
Shruti Rastogi Issue P03
Do Nothing 2031 AM Peak Period (With Dev) – 15-Minuete Fruin Cumulative High-Density CHD Maps during the peak hour
07:45-08:00 08:00-08:15 08:30-08:45
08:15-08:30
Appendix C
Earl’s Court Station Pedestrian Modelling 25th April 2024
Scenarios with Development
Shruti Rastogi Issue P03
Do Nothing 2031 PM Peak Period (With Dev) – 15-Minuete Fruin Cumulative High-Density CHD Maps during the peak hour
17:30-17:45 17:45-18:00
18:00-18:15
18:15-18:30
Appendix C
Earl’s Court Station Pedestrian Modelling 25th April 2024
Scenarios with Development
Shruti Rastogi Issue P03
Do Nothing 2041 AM Peak Period (With Dev) – 15-Minuete Fruin Cumulative High-Density CHD Maps during the peak hour
07:45-08:00 08:00-08:15 08:30-08:45
08:15-08:30
Appendix C
Earl’s Court Station Pedestrian Modelling 25th April 2024
Scenarios with Development
Shruti Rastogi Issue P03
Do Nothing 2041 PM Peak Period (With Dev) – 15-Minuete Fruin Cumulative High-Density CHD Maps during the peak hour
17:30-17:45 17:45-18:00
18:00-18:15
18:15-18:30
Appendix C
Earl’s Court Station Pedestrian Modelling 25th April 2024
Scenarios with Development
Shruti Rastogi Issue P03
Sensitivity Test: 2041 AM Peak Period (With Dev) with Overall 35% uplift – 15-Minuete Cumulative High Density CHD Maps
07:45-08:00 08:00-08:15 08:30-08:45
08:15-08:30
Appendix C
Earl’s Court Station Pedestrian Modelling 25th April 2024
Scenarios with Development
Shruti Rastogi Issue P03
Sensitivity Test: 2041 PM Peak Period (With Dev) with Overall 35% uplift – 15-Minuete Cumulative High Density CHD Maps
17:30-17:45 17:45-18:00
18:00-18:15
18:15-18:30
Dannie
Principal People Movement Consultant
Dannie.Lu@wsp.com
Shruti Rastogi
Senior People Movement Consultant
Shruti.Rastogi@wsp.com
you
Earls Court Masterplan West Brompton Station Pedestrian Modelling
2041 + Development Scenario
1 Introduction
2 Assumptions and Assessment Criteria
3 Pedestrian Dynamic Modelling
4 Summary
Chapter 01
West Brompton Station Pedestrian Modelling
12th April 2024
1 Introduction
1.1 Pedestrian Modelling Scenarios
1.1.1 The scenarios considered for the initial impact assessment of West Brompton Station's existing layout are mentioned below :
Scenarios without Development
‒ Scenario 1: 2019 Demand with existing layout (AM and PM peak hours)
‒ Scenario 2: 2031 Demand with existing layout (AM and PM peak hours)
‒ Scenario 3: 2041 Demand with existing layout (AM and PM peak hours)
Scenarios with Development
‒ Scenario 4: 2031+dev Demand with existing layout (AM and PM peak hours)
‒ Scenario 5: 2041+dev Demand with existing layout (AM and PM peak hours)
o Sensitivity Test: 2041AM+dev Demand with overall 20% uplift with existing layout, 2041PM+dev Demand with overall 10% uplift with existing layout
1.1.2 Appendices A, B and C provide the Peak 3-hour demand Origin-Destination Matrix, the mean density maps and the high-density maps for the AM and PM peak hours.
1.1.3 The 2019NUMBAT Base year models have been updated to incorporate the current Final Destination routing. The platforms now utilize Legion Platform-Train Interface (PTI) functionality. Various adjustments, including CAD changes based on recent surveys, have been implemented. Additionally, the modelling assumptions, process, and outputs have been reviewed by TfL during regular meetings.
1.1.4 The Model Files, Assumption Cover Sheets and Data Templates for all Existing Layout Scenarios with and without development trips have been provided to TfL separately.
1.2 Modelling Peak Period
1.2.1 Modelling Peak Periods are AM peak 3 hours (07:00 – 10:00) and PM peak 3 hours (16:00 – 19:00)
Chapter 01
West Brompton Station Pedestrian Modelling 12th April 2024
1 Introduction
1.3 Forecasted Demand
1.3.1 The peak 3-hour demand for 2019 NUMBAT data and the forecasted peak 3-hour demands for 2031 and 2041 with and without Development are described in the tables below.
1.3.2 All peak 3-hour Origin- Destination Matrices can be found in Appendix A.
1.3.3 The forecasted peak 3-hours for 2031 and 2041 without Development have been based on 2031 and 2041 Planning Forecast Railplan model (version 8.1.2). The underlying locally revalidated 2016 base-year model has been reviewed and signed off by TfL Railplan team. Jacobs, acting a thirdparty modelling auditor on behalf of TfL, have reviewed and approved the 2031 and 2041 Railplan Forecast Models.
1.3.4 The station interchange growth from 2016 to 2031 and 2041 Railplan models has been applied to the 2019 NUMBAT data using the Station Standard Modelling Methodology.
Table 1: Forecasted Demand
Chapter 01
West Brompton Station Pedestrian Modelling 12th April 2024 Emma Jiang Issue P01
1 Introduction
1.4 Train Frequencies
1.4.1 The Pedestrian Movement analysis for future years consider that there will be improved frequencies on District Line in the future years, according to RailPlan data, and as agreed with TfL. The additional trains are required to improve the stations performance to cope with future demands.
1.4.2 The table below shows the train service frequencies for 2019 NUMBAT and forecasts for increased frequencies on District Line in 2031 and 2041.
1.4.3 These frequencies are applied for both with and without development scenarios.
Table 2: Train Frequency – peak 3-hour period
1 Introduction
1.3 Current Station Layout
1.3.1 District line serves platforms 1 and 2, while the West London Line (WLL) serves platforms 3 and 4. Platform 1 receives westbound trains, platform 2 receives eastbound trains, platform 3 receives southbound trains and platform 4 receives northbound trains. WLL services are step-free accessible with lifts, while the District line platforms have stairs connecting to the station hall. The WLL platforms also has one set of stairs connecting to the existing Ticket Hall, which leads onto Old Brompton Road. Chapter 01 West Brompton Station Pedestrian Modelling 12th April 2024
LO&NR SB_PF3
LO&NR NB_PF4
2 Assumptions and Assessment Criteria
2.1 Modelling Assumptions
2.1.1 For modelling assumptions, please refer to the Assumption Cover Sheets (ACS) for West Brompton Models, which have already been issued to TfL.
2.2 Assessment Criteria
2.2.1 The Dynamic Modelling inputs and outputs follow the TfL Legion Best Practice Guide V4.2.2.
2.2.2 Outputs of the models are based on Fruin Level of Service (LoS) passenger density maps, and target levels of service are based on TfL Station Planning Standards S1371-A8.
2.2.3 Pedestrians accept different densities depending on if they are circulating or waiting. There are different scales of Fruin LoS for walking, stairways or queuing. Within this report all Cumulative Density (CMD) Maps are recorded over the peak 15-minute AM or PM time periods and represent the Fruin LoS Walking scale in all areas, except stairs which are assessed using Fruin Stairs LoS.
2.2.4 Targets for LoS within the station vary according to the circulation element. In general, LoS C is considered a target across the station, while LoS D is considered acceptable in ticket gatelines, escalators and one-way stairs and corridors.
2.2.5 Cumulative High Density (CHD) maps are also recorded over the peak 15minute AM or PM time periods. They represent the time in minutes each area experiences LoS D or worse within the peak 15 minutes.
April 2024
3 Pedestrian Dynamic Modelling (No Development)
3.1 2019 AM Peak Period Without Development
3.1.1 Baseline 2019 AM peak demand is based on 2019NUMBAT numbers. The model indicates a level of service E/F at the paid side of the ticket hall during peak 15 minutes, with queuing sustained in this area for around 3 minutes during the AM peak.
3.1.2 The high LoS E/F is observed at the base of the stairs connecting platforms 1 and 4. However, the congestion from platform 1 and 2 can be alleviated with the aid of the secondary stairs. These stairs can also help to distribute some passengers on platform 3. The lift waiting area shows LoS D/E at platform 4.
3.1.3 District Line Platforms 1 and 2 present an overall good level of service B/C. LO Platforms 3 and 4 show some patches of LoS E/F at the narrowest or busiest sections of the platform. Chapter 03 West
LoS D/E at the stair
LoS E/F at paid areas
LoS E/F at base of the stairs LoS E/F at P3
LoS E/F or worse within the peak 15 minutes for more than 3 minutes. (8:45-9:00)
3 Pedestrian Dynamic Modelling(No Development)
3.2 2019 PM Peak Period Without Development
3.3.1 The queuing areas in both the paid and unpaid areas of the ticket hall shows good LoS C/D. However, a high LoS E is observed on the stairs connecting to platforms 4 due to the stair capacity constraints.
3.3.2 The District Line Platforms 1 and 2 show LoS A with patches of LoS B/C. District Line Platform 1 presents LoS D at the bottom of the stairs. LO Platforms 3 and 4 show some patches of LoS E/F at the narrowest section of the platform. The LoS E/F shows at the base of stair at platform 4, where queuing is sustained for more than 2 minutes during the peak 15 minutes.
LoS C/D at the paid and unpaid area
for more than 2 minutes.
Peak 15 Min Fruin Walkways
Map
Jiang Issue P01
3 Pedestrian Dynamic Modelling(No Development)
3.3 2031 AM Peak Period Without Development
3.3.1 The model indicates a level of service E at the paid side of the ticket hall during normal operations. The demand through the gateline decreased by approximately 11% compared to the 2019 Numbat data, which accounts for the reduced queue occupancy area at the paid side of the ticket hall. The high LoS E is observed at the base of the stairs connecting 3. Platform 4 presents LoS E/F at the bottom of stairs. The lift waiting area shows LoS D/E at platform 4.
3.3.2 District Line Platforms 1 and 2 present an overall good level of service B/C. LO Platforms 3 and 4 show some patches of LoS E/F at the narrowest section of the platform. The seats at platform 3 are advised to be removed to alleviate the density. Chapter 03 West Brompton Station Pedestrian Modelling 12th April 2024
LoS E at paid areas
(08:00-08:15)
E at the stairs
LoS D/E at the waiting area for lifts
LoS E/F at base of the stairs
(08:45-09:00)
LoS B/C
LoS E/F at P3,seats are recommended to be removed
LoS
Chapter 03
West Brompton Station Pedestrian Modelling 12th April 2024
3 Pedestrian Dynamic Modelling(No Development)
3.4 2031 PM Peak Period Without Development
3.4.1 The queuing areas of the paid and unpaid areas at TH shows LoS C/D. The high LoS E is observed on the stairs connecting to platforms 4.
3.4.2 The District Line Platforms 1 and 2 show LoS A with patches of LoS B/C. District Line Platforms 1 and 2 present LoS D at the bottom of the stairs. LO Platforms
3 and 4 show some patches of LoS E/F at the narrowest or busiest sections of the platform and LoS E/F at the base of stair at platform 4.
and unpaid area
(17:45-18:00)
LoS C/D at the paid
03
Brompton Station Pedestrian Modelling 12th April 2024
3 Pedestrian Dynamic Modelling(No Development)
3.5 2041 AM Peak Period Without Development
3.5.1 The model shows a level of service E at the paid side of the ticket hall during normal operations, with queuing sustained in this area for around 2.5 minutes during the AM peak. The high LoS E/F is observed at the base of the stairs connecting 3, the congestions can be alleviated through the stairs from platform 2. Platform 4 presents LoS E/F at the bottom of stairs.
3.5.2 Platforms 1 and 2 on the District Line maintain a good overall level of service B/C. However, in 2041, Platforms 3 and 4 exhibit more patches of LoS E/F, particularly in the narrowest or busiest sections of the platform. Removal of seats near the busier sections of the platform 3 is recommended.
E at the stair
LoS E at paid areas LoS E/F at base of the stairs LoS E/F at P3,seats are recommended to be removed
LoS E or worse within the peak 15 minutes for around 2.5 minutes.
12th April 2024
3 Pedestrian Dynamic Modelling(No Development)
3.6 2041 PM Peak Period Without Development
3.6.1 The queuing areas in the paid section of the ticket hall show LoS D/E. Platform 4 shows high LoS E/F at the base of the stairs connecting to upper level, where queuing is sustained for more than 2 minutes during the peak 15 minutes.
3.6.2 The District Line Platforms 1 and 2 show good LoS B/C with patches of LoS D. District Line Platform 1 presents LoS D at the bottom of the stairs. LO Platforms 3 and 4 show some patches of LoS E/F at the narrowest or busiest sections of the platform and LoS E/F at the base of stair.
LoS D/E at the paid and unpaid area
This area experiences LoS E/F within the PM peak 15 minutes for more than 2 minutes.
3 Pedestrian Dynamic Modelling(With Development)
3.7 2031 AM Peak Period With Development
3.5.1 The model shows a level of service E/F at the paid side of the ticket hall during normal operations. And a high LoS E is observed at the base of the stairs connecting platform 1. Platform 4 presents LoS F at the bottom of stairs.
3.5.2 District Line Platforms 1 and 2 present an overall good level of service C/D. LO Platforms 3 and 4 show some patches of LoS E/F at the narrow section of the platform. Chapter 03 West Brompton Station Pedestrian Modelling 12th April 2024
E/F at paid areas
E at base of the stairs
Chapter 03
West Brompton Station Pedestrian Modelling
12th April 2024
3 Pedestrian Dynamic Modelling(With Development)
3.8 2031 PM Peak Period With Development
3.8.1 The queuing areas of the paid areas at ticket hall show LoS E/F. The high LoS E/F is observed at the base of the stairs connecting to platforms 4.
3.8.2 The District Line Platforms 1 and 2 show LoS A/B with patches of LoS C/D. District Line Platform 1 presents LoS D/E at the bottom of the stairs. LO Platforms 3 and 4 show some patches of LoS E at the narrowest section of the platform and LoS E/F at the base of stair of platform 4.
LoS
3 Pedestrian Dynamic Modelling(With Development)
3.9 2041 AM Peak Period With Development
3.5.1 The model shows a level of service E/F at the paid side of the ticket hall during normal operations, with queuing sustained in this area for around 6.5 minutes during the AM peak. A high LoS E is observed at the base of the stairs connecting at platforms 1, 3 and 4. Platform 4 presents the highest density level at the bottom of stairs. The lift waiting area shows LoS D/E at platform 4.
3.5.2 District Line Platforms 1 and 2 presents an overall good level of service B/C. Platforms 3 and 4 show some patches of LoS E/F at the narrowest or busiest sections of the platforms. The seats at platform 3 are advised to be removed to alleviate the density. Chapter 03 West Brompton Station Pedestrian Modelling 12th April 2024
LoS E/F at paid areas
LoS E at the stair
LoS E or worse within the peak 15 minutes for more than 6.5 minutes.
(08:00-08:15)
D/E at the waiting area for lifts
LoS E at base of the stairs
LoS E/F at P3, seats are recommended to be removed
(08:45-09:00)
Chapter 03
West Brompton Station Pedestrian Modelling 12th April 2024
3 Pedestrian Dynamic Modelling(With Development)
4.0 2041 PM Peak Period With Development
3.8.1 The queuing areas of the paid side of the gateline show LoS E/F. The high LoS E/F is observed at the base of the stairs connecting to platforms 4, where queuing is sustained for more than 2 minutes during the peak 15 minutes.
3.8.2 The District Line Platforms 1 and 2 show LoS B/C with patches of LoS D. District Line Platform 1 presents LoS D/E at the bottom of the stairs. LO Platforms 3 and 4 show some patches of LoS E at the narrowest or busiest sections of the platform.
This area experiences LoS E/F within the PM peak 15 minutes for more than 2 minutes.
West Brompton Station Pedestrian Modelling 12th April 2024
3 Pedestrian Dynamic Modelling(With Development)
4.1 Sensitivity Analysis: 2041 AM Peak Period With Development – Overall Uplift of 20%
3.5.1 The model shows increased density with a level of service E/F at the paid side of the ticket hall during normal operations. A high LoS E/F is observed at the base of the stairs connecting platforms 1, 2 and 4. Platform 4 presents the highest density level at the bottom of stairs.
3.5.2 District Line Platforms 1 and 2 presents an overall good level of service B/C. Platforms 3 and 4 show more patches of LoS E/F at the narrowest or busier section of the platforms. Chapter 03
LoS E/F at paid areas
LoS E/F at base of the stairs
LoS E/F at P3, seats are recommended to be removed LoS E at the stair
(08:00-08:15)
(08:45-09:00)
03 West Brompton Station Pedestrian Modelling 12th April 2024
3 Pedestrian Dynamic Modelling(With Development)
4.2 Sensitivity Analysis: 2041 PM Peak Period With Development – Overall Uplift of 10%
4.2.1 The queuing areas of the paid side of the gateline show LoS E/F. The high LoS F is observed at the base of the stairs connecting to platforms 4.
4.2.2 The District Line Platforms 1 and 2 show LoS B/C with patches of LoS D. District Line Platform 1 presents LoS D/E at the bottom of the stairs. LO Platforms 3 and 4 show some patches of LoS E/F at the narrowest or busiest sections of the platform, and LoS F at the base of stair at platform 4.
LoS
West Brompton Station Pedestrian Modelling 10th April 2024
3 Pedestrian Dynamic Modelling
3.15 Modelling Interventions Summary
3.15.1 Due to model issues caused by the size of PRMs on bi-directional stairs connecting to platforms 1, 2 and 4, PRMs are temporarily shrinking to 'none' while on the stairs in the do-nothing models, agreed by TfL.
3.15.2 The 2031 do-nothing models with development begin to present congestion issues across the station due to the size of the PRM agents, which were stopping the models from running completely. This is believed to be a modeling issue, not reflective of on-site expectations. As agreed by TfL, for both AM and PM peak periods, 2031+dev models, 2041+dev models and 2041+dev sensitivities models will apply small luggage for all PRM types with medium or large luggage.
3.15.3 During the AM peak period, the gateline configurations have 1 gate for entry and 2 gates for exit. However, due to increased station entry demand in the PM peak of 2041 without development, entities began queuing at the unpaid side of the gateline. As a result, the gateline configurations were switched to include 2 gates for entry and 1 gate for exit.
3.15.4 The capacity of the lifts achieves C2-3 PRMs per cycle or C3-4 PRMs mixed with Non-PRMs per cycle. The lifts are already artificially improved by not allocating a proportion of the demand to them. This modelling issue has been agreed upon with TfL.
3.15.5 It is important to note that some of the models are often not able to run with the forecast demand due to capacity constraints in various areas, which TfL has agreed is a realistic representation of the expected issues at the station with this level of demand. The submitted RES files are those that run successfully without any block, which is helpful for outputs.
3.15.6 The details of the modelling interventions for each scenarios are illustrated in the table below,
Send
Switched the orientation of one gate: 2 gates for entry, 1 gate for exit;
Send PRMs A, D, and E to use the lifts;
Switched the orientation of one gate: 2 gates for entry, 1 gate for exit;
Apply small luggage for all PRM types with medium or large luggage;
Apply small luggage for all PRM types with medium or large luggage;
Increase
Increase the NR/Overground dwell times to be 1 minute.
Chapter 04
West Brompton Station Pedestrian Modelling
12th April 2024
4 Summary
Compliant with TfL Station Planning Standards and Legion Best Practice Guide
No immediate need to upgrade the areas. Some/all areas do not meet minimum width requirements but currently provide sufficient capacity to accommodate the peak flow. Note: Any changes to those areas will likely require to meet the minimum width requirements
Do not meet TfL Station Planning Standard requirements, significant queues/delays observed from dynamic models and minimum requirements identified from static assessments.
Table 4: West Brompton Station Element Assessment
Chapter 04
West Brompton Station Pedestrian Modelling 26th March 2024
4 Mitigation Requirements
4.1.2 Based on the results presented below, the following mitigations are required in the station to accommodate with the forecasted demand.
• Increase the number of ticket gates in the station
• Increase the width of the Stairs at platforms 3 and 4
• Remove seats on Platform 3
Gateline Assessment
2019 Peak 3-hour Demand Origin-Destination Matrix (No Development)
Table 5: 2019 AM Peak 3-hour Demand Origin-Destination Matrix (No Development)
Table 6: 2019 PM Peak 3-hour
2031 Peak 3-hour Demand Origin-Destination Matrix (No Development)
Table 7: 2031 AM Peak 3-hour Demand Origin-Destination Matrix
Table 8: 2031
2041 Peak 3-hour Demand Origin-Destination Matrix (No Development)
Appendix B – Peak Hour Fruin Walkways CMD Heat Maps in 15-Minute Segments
West Brompton Station Pedestrian Modelling
26th March 2024
Scenarios without Development
Do Nothing 2019 AM Peak Period (No Dev) – 15-Minuete Fruin Walkways CMD Heat Maps during the peak hour
08:00-08:15
08:30-08:45
08:15-08:30 08:45-09:00
West Brompton Station Pedestrian Modelling 26th March 2024
Scenarios without Development
Do Nothing 2019 PM Peak Period (No Dev) – 15-Minuete Fruin Walkways CMD Heat Maps during the peak hour
17:00-17:15
17:30-17:45
17:15-17:30
17:45-18:00
Emma Jiang Issue P01
West Brompton Station Pedestrian Modelling
26th March 2024
Scenarios without Development
Do Nothing 2031 AM Peak Period (No Dev) – 15-Minuete Fruin Walkways CMD Heat Maps during the peak hour
08:00-08:15
08:30-08:45
08:15-08:30 08:45-09:00
West Brompton Station Pedestrian Modelling 26th March 2024
Scenarios without Development
Do Nothing 2031 PM Peak Period (No Dev) – 15-Minuete Fruin Walkways CMD Heat Maps during the peak hour
17:00-17:15
17:30-17:45
17:15-17:30 17:45-18:00
West Brompton Station Pedestrian Modelling
26th March 2024
Scenarios without Development
Do Nothing 2041 AM Peak Period (No Dev) – 15-Minuete Fruin Walkways CMD Heat Maps during the peak hour
08:00-08:15
08:30-08:45
08:15-08:30 08:45-09:00
West Brompton Station Pedestrian Modelling 26th March 2024
Scenarios without Development
Do Nothing 2041 PM Peak Period (No Dev) – 15-Minuete Fruin Walkways CMD Heat Maps during the peak hour
17:00-17:15
17:30-17:45
17:15-17:30 17:45-18:00
Emma Jiang Issue P01
West Brompton Station Pedestrian Modelling
26th March 2024
Scenarios without Development
Do Nothing 2031 AM Peak Period (With Dev) – 15-Minuete Fruin Walkways CMD Heat Maps during the peak hour
08:00-08:15
08:30-08:45
08:15-08:30 08:45-09:00
West Brompton Station Pedestrian Modelling
26th March 2024
Scenarios without Development
Do Nothing 2031 PM Peak Period (With Dev) – 15-Minuete Fruin Walkways CMD Heat Maps during the peak hour
17:00-17:15
17:30-17:45
17:15-17:30 17:45-18:00
West Brompton Station Pedestrian Modelling
26th March 2024
Scenarios without Development
Do Nothing 2041 AM Peak Period (With Dev) – 15-Minuete Fruin Walkways CMD Heat Maps during the peak hour
08:00-08:15
08:30-08:45
08:15-08:30 08:45-09:00
West Brompton Station Pedestrian Modelling
26th March 2024
Scenarios without Development
Do Nothing 2041 PM Peak Period (With Dev) – 15-Minuete Fruin Walkways CMD Heat Maps during the peak hour
17:00-17:15
17:30-17:45
17:15-17:30 17:45-18:00
B
West Brompton Station Pedestrian Modelling 26th March 2024
Scenarios without Development
Sensitivity Test: 2041 AM Peak Period (with Dev) with Overall 20% uplift – 15-Minuete Fruin Walkways CMD Heat Maps
08:00-08:15 08:15-08:30 08:45-09:00
08:30-08:45
B West Brompton Station Pedestrian Modelling 26th March 2024
Scenarios without Development
Sensitivity Test: 2041 PM Peak Period (with Dev) with Overall 10% uplift – 15-Minuete Fruin Walkways CMD Heat Maps
17:30-17:45
17:00-17:15 17:15-17:30 17:45 18:00
Appendix C – Peak Hour Fruin Cumulative High Density Maps in 15-Minute Segments
West Brompton Station Pedestrian Modelling 26th March 2024
Scenarios without Development
Do Nothing 2019 AM Peak Period (No Dev) – 15-Minuete Fruin Cumulative High-Density CHD Maps during the peak hour
08:00-08:15 08:15-08:30 08:45-09:00
08:30-08:45
West Brompton Station Pedestrian Modelling 26th March 2024
Scenarios without Development
Do Nothing 2019 PM Peak Period (No Dev) – 15-Minuete Fruin Cumulative High-Density CHD Maps during the peak hour
17:00-17:15
17:30-17:45
17:15-17:30 17:45-18:00
West Brompton Station Pedestrian Modelling 26th March 2024
Scenarios without Development
Do Nothing 2031 AM Peak Period (No Dev) – 15-Minuete Fruin Cumulative High-Density CHD Maps during the peak hour
08:00-08:15 08:15-08:30 08:45-09:00
08:30-08:45
West Brompton Station Pedestrian Modelling 26th March 2024
Scenarios without Development
Do Nothing 2031 PM Peak Period (No Dev) – 15-Minuete Fruin Cumulative High-Density CHD Maps during the peak hour
17:30-17:45
17:00-17:15 17:15-17:30 17:45-18:00
West Brompton Station Pedestrian Modelling 26th March 2024
Scenarios without Development
Do Nothing 2041 AM Peak Period (No Dev) – 15-Minuete Fruin Cumulative High-Density CHD Maps during the peak hour
08:00-08:15 08:15-08:30 08:45-09:00
08:30-08:45
West Brompton Station Pedestrian Modelling 26th March 2024
Scenarios without Development
Do Nothing 2041 PM Peak Period (No Dev) – 15-Minuete Fruin Cumulative High-Density CHD Maps during the peak hour
17:00-17:15 17:15-17:30 17:45-18:00
17:30-17:45
West Brompton Station Pedestrian Modelling 26th March 2024
Scenarios without Development
Do Nothing 2031 AM Peak Period (With Dev) – 15-Minuete Fruin Cumulative High-Density CHD Maps during the peak hour
08:00-08:15 08:15-08:30 08:45-09:00
08:30-08:45
West Brompton Station Pedestrian Modelling 26th March 2024
Scenarios without Development
Do Nothing 2031 PM Peak Period (With Dev) – 15-Minuete Fruin Cumulative High-Density CHD Maps during the peak hour
17:00-17:15 17:15-17:30 17:45-18:00
17:30-17:45
West Brompton Station Pedestrian Modelling 26th March 2024
Scenarios without Development
Do Nothing 2041 AM Peak Period (With Dev) – 15-Minuete Fruin Cumulative High-Density CHD Maps during the peak hour
08:00-08:15 08:15-08:30 08:45-09:00
08:30-08:45
West Brompton Station Pedestrian Modelling 26th March 2024
Scenarios without Development
Do Nothing 2041 PM Peak Period (With Dev) – 15-Minuete Fruin Cumulative High-Density CHD Maps during the peak hour
17:00-17:15 17:15-17:30 17:45-18:00
17:30-17:45
West Brompton Station Pedestrian Modelling 26th March 2024
Scenarios without Development
Sensitivity Test: 2041 AM Peak Period (With Dev) with Overall 20% uplift – 15-Minuete Cumulative High Density CHD Maps
08:00-08:15 08:15-08:30 08:45-09:00
08:30-08:45
West Brompton Station Pedestrian Modelling 26th March 2024
Scenarios without Development
Sensitivity Test: 2041 PM Peak Period (With Dev) with Overall 10% uplift – 15-Minuete Cumulative High Density CHD Maps
17:00-17:15 17:15-17:30 17:45-18:00
17:30-17:45
Earls Court Development
West Brompton Station Pedestrian Modelling
Mitigation Layout
Renata Buschinelli
1 Introduction
2 Assumptions and Assessment Criteria
3 Pedestrian Dynamic Modelling
4 Summary
1 Introduction
1.1 Pedestrian Modelling Scenarios
1.1.1 This assessment considers the possible mitigations to provide improvements in flow and performance within the West Brompton Station considering a future year of 2041 with development. As TfL requested in future years that the lateral entrance to the Overground/NR Platforms 3 and 4 should be closed, the analysis tested the AM peak worst case 2041 Existing layout without development with the lateral entrance closed to be able to compare the performances between mitigation and existing layout. Therefore the dynamic assessment of the mitigation layout considered the following scenarios:
Table 1: Scenarios modelled for this analysis
1.2 Modelling Peak Period
1.2.1 Modelling Peak Periods are AM peak 3 hours (07:00 –10:00)and PM peak 3 hours (16:00 –19:00)
West BromptonStation Pedestrian Modelling
3rd June 2024
1 Introduction
1.3 Forecast Demand & Train Frequencies
1.3.1 The forecast 2041 peak 3-hour passenger demands without and with development trips are described in table 2. Please refer to Previous “240426 -WB Station Pedestrian Modelling v3” regarding the forecast demands.
1.3.2 The 2041 models consider the following train frequencies, as described in table 3, as agreed with TfL on the Existing Layout analysis.
Table 3: Train Frequency –peak 3-hour period
1 Introduction
1.4 Current Station Layout
1.4.1 District line serves platforms 1 and 2, while the West London Line (WLL) serves platforms 3 and 4 at West Brompton station.Platform 1 receives Westbound trains, Platform 2 receives the Eastbound trains, Platform 3 receives the Southbound trains and Platform 4 receives the Northbound trains. WLL services have lifts for step-free access and presents one set of stairs connecting platform to the existing Ticket Hall, which opens onto Old Brompton Road. The District line does not have lifts and provides two sets of stairs linking to the station hall. Two ticket machines are available in the Ticket Hall for passenger convenience.
Existing Gateline 3 ATG+1 WAG
1 Introduction
1.5 Mitigation Station Layout
1.5.1 The mitigation layout is illustrated below.
Street Level Platform Level
1 Introduction
1.5 Mitigation Station Layout
1.5.2 The key alterations are summarised below:
• The West Brompton Station includes listed areas within the layout, including booking hall, train shed and District Line stairs and retaining wall, which makes mitigations on the station more challenging. The proposed mitigations on West Brompton Station are illustrated in section 1.5.1 above and focus on:
• Maximisation of Ticket Hall to include 11 ATG + 2 WAG, two additional openings to the street, and two additional opening to the internal corridor between District Line P1 and P2;
• More queuing spaces are provided for the two ticket machines with good protection from the wall, ensuring that the queuing won'tbe impeded by the entering and exiting flows to the station;
• Inclusion of an additional 1.9m-wide ramp connecting District line EB P2 to the Ticket Hall;
• Creation of new overbridge and stairs connecting platforms P1 and P2-P3, and widening of existing overbridges connecting to platform P4;
• Inclusion of a lift in District Line P1 to provide step-free access;
• Widening of the stairs connecting to Overground P4 and reduced sizing of the covered seating area at the bottom of the stairstoallow for additional run-off space;
• Removal/relocation of furniture in platforms P3 and P4 and widening of Platform 3 by relocation of walls, barriers and planters;
• Widening of Platform 4 by 1.0m.
RD0 Update niumber of ticket machines
De Tonissi E Buschinelli De Goe, 2024-03-28T08:52:59.804
JE0 0 done
Jiang, Emma, 2024-05-29T13:54:41.139
West BromptonStation Pedestrian Modelling 3rd June 2024
2 Assumptions and Assessment Criteria
2.1 Assessment Criteria
2.1.1 The Dynamic Modelling inputs and outputs follow the TfL Legion Best Practice Guide V4.2.2.
2.1.2 Outputs of the models are based on FruinLevel of Service (LoS) passenger density maps, and target levels of service are based on TfL Station Planning Standards S1371-A8.
2.1.3 Pedestrians accept different densities depending on if they are circulating or waiting. There are different scales of FruinLoS for walking, stairways or queuing. Within this report all Cumulative Density (CMD) Maps are recorded over the peak 15-minute AM or PM time periods and represent the FruinLoS Walking scale in all areas, except stairs which are assessed using FruinStairs LoS.
2.1.4 Targets for LoS within the station vary according to the circulation element. In general, LoS C is considered a target across the station, while LoS D is considered acceptable in ticket gatelines, escalators and one-way stairs and corridors.
2.1.5 Cumulative High Density (CHD) maps are also recorded over the peak 15minute AM or PM time periods. They represent the time in minutes each area experiences LoS D or worse within the peak 15 minutes.
West BromptonStation Pedestrian Modelling 3rd June 2024
3 Pedestrian Dynamic Modelling
3.1 2041 Existing Without development AM and PM Peak -TH and PF Level (Side Entrance open)
3.1.1The AM model shows higher density at both the concourse and platform compared to the PM model. A level of service E/F is observed on the paid side of the ticket hall, with the longest queuing lasting around 2.5 minutes during the AM peak.
3.1.2 The high LoSE/F is seen at the base of the stairs connecting platform 3, and congestion can be alleviated by using the stairs from platform2. Platform 4 also presents a LoSE/F at the bottom of its stairs.
IN: 1,831 Out: 947 IN: 919 Out:1,868
(8:00-8:15)
Peak 15 Min FruinWalkways CMD Heat Map
(17:00-17:15)
Peak 15 Min FruinWalkways CMD Heat Map
RD0 Insert number of people entering and leaving (no need to separate at the moment who's going throuigh each entrance
De Tonissi E Buschinelli De Goe, 2024-03-28T09:52:32.509
JE0 0 Done
Jiang, Emma, 2024-05-29T15:05:22.121
3rd June 2024
3 Pedestrian Dynamic Modelling
3.2 2041 Existing With development AM and PM Peak -TH and PF Level (Side Entrance open)
3.2.1The AM and PM models with development demand show similar but worse density compared to those without development demand.
3.2.2 The model shows a level of service E/F on the paid side of the ticket hall, with queuing extending to the base of the stairs at the platform level during the AM peak.
3.2.3 District Line platforms 1 and 4 present an overall good level of service B/C. Platforms 2 and 3 show some patches of LoSE/F at the narrowest or busiest sections of the platforms. It is advised to remove the seats at platform 3 to alleviate the density. The connections between platforms 2 and 3 show high density E/F due to the busy interchanging flow.
RD0 Insert number of people entering and leaving (no need to separate at the moment who's going throuigh each entrance
De Tonissi E Buschinelli De Goe, 2024-03-28T09:52:32.509
JE0 0 done
Jiang, Emma, 2024-05-29T15:05:30.948
West BromptonStation Pedestrian Modelling
3rd June 2024
3 Pedestrian Dynamic Modelling
3.3 2041 Existing With development AM Peak Period (Side Entrance closed)
3.3.1 The 2041 AM peak scenario, with Development as the worst case scenarios, has been tested with the side entrance closed to assessthe resilience of the gatelinecapacity. After running for an hour from 7am to 8am, the queue extends onto the platform and cannot be alleviated. Chapter03
3 Pedestrian Dynamic Modelling
3.4 2041 Existing Without and With Development AM Peak Period (Side Entrance closed)
3.4.1 With the lateral entrance closed, the 2041 model without development demand experiences blockages around 8:00 and stopsrunning earlier, around 7:45, when considering development demand. The main entrance is unable to cope with the high demand transferred from the London Overground flows due to the closure of the lateral entrance.
West BromptonStation Pedestrian Modelling
3rd June 2024
3 Pedestrian Dynamic Modelling
3.5 2041 Mitigation With Development AM Peak Period (Side Entrance closed)
3.5.1 Even with the lateral entrance closed, the mitigation design relieves the high density on the paid side of the ticket hall.
3.5.2 The stair density level to platform 4 has improved with the extended width. Patches of level of service E/F only occur during the peak 15 minutes, and are also created due to NR passengers waiting longer for the hourly train service. Chapter03
(08:00-08:15) IN: 1,125 Out: 3,208
3 Pedestrian Dynamic Modelling
3.6 2041 Mitigation With Development PM Peak Period (Side Entrance closed)
3.6.1 The PM mitigation with development demand model provides an overall good level of service across the station compared to the existing station model.
3.6.2 A good level of service B at the paid side of the ticket hall is an improvement compared to the LoSE/F in the existing station model with the side entrance close. A level of service E is shown at the base of one stair at platform 2, which can be alleviated by the other two stairs.
IN: 2,565 Out: 1,151 (17:00-17:15)
West BromptonStation Pedestrian Modelling
3rd June 2024
3 Pedestrian Dynamic Modelling
3.7 2041 Mitigation With Development AM Peak Period (Side Entrance open)
3.7.1 For comparison, an option considering the mitigation layout that keeps the lateral entrance open has been modelled to tests the AM peak hour. If the lateral entrance remains open, some of the pressure on the listed corridors would be reduced, and the congestion would be limited to thepeak 15 minutes.
1,125
3,208
(08:00-08:15)
West BromptonStation Pedestrian Modelling 3rd June 2024
3 Pedestrian Dynamic Modelling
3.8 2041 Existing and Mitigation comparison AM Peak (Ticket Hall) –Side Entrance closed
3.8.1 Legion modelling of the mitigation layout has been undertaken for 2041 With Development (All Phases), showing a considerable improvement compared to the existing Station maps with or without development demand and with the lateral entrance closed. The model can run throughout the entire peak time.
3.8.2 The mitigation model shows some areas are still busy during the peak 15 minutes, especially the corridor between P3 andP2, which concentrates most of the flows from P2, P3 and P4. However, it does not fully block the flows, and the congestion lasts for 30-45 minutes. The existing station model blocked around 8:00 and even earlier at 7:45 with development demand.
3.8.2 The mitigations proposed will be refined at a later stage.
(7:45-8:00) (7:30-7:45)
AM existing no dev (blocks at 8am)
AM existing with dev (blocks at 7.45am)
AM mitigation with dev (8:00-8:15)
3 Pedestrian Dynamic Modelling
3.9 2041 Existing and Mitigation comparison AM Peak (Ticket Hall) –Side Entrance open
3.9.1 If the lateral entrance remains open, the high density on the paid side of the gatelineis alleviated, resulting in a good level of service B/C. This would reduce some of the pressure on the listed corridors, and the congestion would be confined to the peak 15 minutes.
3.9.2 The mitigation model with side entrance open would show some congestion in front of the P3 lift, with some conflicts oflift users and people entering/leaving the station. The mitigations proposed are to be refined at a later stage.
(8:00-8:15)
(8:00-8:15)
West BromptonStation Pedestrian Modelling 3rd June 2024
3 Pedestrian Dynamic Modelling
3.10 2041 Existing and Mitigation
comparison AM Peak (Platform Level)
3.10.1 The District Line Platform 1 and LO Platform 4 show LoSA/B with patches of LoSC for all scenarios. The patches of LoSE at Platform 2 have been relieved by the new access stair from the overbridge to the centre of Platforms 2 and 3. This has helped alleviate the pressure by distributing the flow across the overbridge.
3.10.2 The high density LoSE/F seen at the base of the stairs of Platform 1 in the existing scenario considering development demand has been relieved by the creation of a new overbridge and stairs connecting to Platform 1.
3.10.3 District Line Platform 2 presents LoSE/F at the bottom of the stairs. The level of service at the base of the stairs at Platform 4 has been improved from E/F to E, and the queuing area has been reduced by widening the stairs connecting to Platform 4.
3 Pedestrian Dynamic Modelling
3.11 2041 Existing and Mitigation
comparison PM Peak (Platform Level)
3.11.1 Platform 1 shows LoSA/B with patches of LoSC, while Platforms 2 and 4 present LoSB/C with patches of LoS D for all scenarios.
3.11.2 The high-density LoSE/F seen at the base of the stairs of Platform 1 in the existing scenario considering development demand has been relieved by the creation of a new overbridge and stairs connecting to Platform 1.
3.11.3 District Line Platforms 2 and 3 present LoSD/E at the bottom of the stairs. The level of service at the base of the stairs at Platform 4 has been improved from E/F to D/E, with the queuing area significantly reduced by the stair widening connecting to Platform 4.
Emma Jiang Issue P01
3 Pedestrian Dynamic Modelling
3.12 2041 Existing and Mitigation comparison AM Peak with uplift +20% (entrance open)
3.12.1 An attempt to run the existing station and mitigation models with 35% uplift failed, with blockages happening across the station. For the existing station, TfL agreed with the uplift of 20% so the mitigation AM peak model was also performed with a 20% uplift. Legion modelling of the mitigation layout shows a considerable improvement in the gatelinequeuing area. The level of service has improved at platforms 2 and 3. The density has been reduced by widening the stairs at platform 4. However, Level of Service E occurs in the listed corridors to the ticket hall, due to the concentration of the flows in this area.
3 Pedestrian Dynamic Modelling
3.13 2041 Existing and Mitigation comparison PM Peak with uplift + 10% (entrance open)
3.13.1 An attempt to run the existing station and mitigation models with 35% uplift failed, with blockages happening across the station. For the existing station, TfL agreed with the uplift of 10% for the 2041 PM peak so the mitigation PM model was also performed with a 10% uplift. During the PM peak time, the high density of the stairs at platform 4 has been resolved. The level of service has been improved at platform 3. The queuing at the paid side of the ticket hall has been resolved. However, Level of Service (LoS) E/F occurs in the corridor leading to the ticket hall.
Chapter 04
West Brompton Station Pedestrian Modelling Mitigation Layout
3rd June 2024
4 Summary
Brompton Station Element Assessment
* 2041 Scenarios with entrance closed do not run completely, so it’s considered as failing
Compliant with TfL Station Planning Standards and Legion Best Practice Guide
No immediate need to upgrade the areas. Some/all areas do not meet minimum width requirements but currently provide sufficient capacity to accommodate the peak flow. Note: Any changes to those areas will likely require to meet the minimum width requirements
Do not meet TfL Station Planning Standard
from static assessments.
West BromptonStation Pedestrian Modelling
3rd June 2024
5 Mitigation Impact Summary
5.1 Mitigation layout with the side entrance closed
5.1.1 Gatelinesand Ticket Hall Capacity:
• Implementation of mitigation leads to notable enhancements in gatelinesand ticket hall capacity, ensuring smoother passenger flow and reduced congestion during peak hours.
5.1.2 Density Levels at Platform 2 and 3:
• The mitigation employed have mitigated density levels at Platform 2 and 3, resulting in improved passenger comfort and operational efficiency.
5.1.3 Capacity for Stair Users and Step-free access
• The measures implemented to improve capacity provision and comfort for stair users increasing stair capacity on platforms P1,P2and P3. Particularly on Platform 4, the stair widening addresses previous concerns resulting in a more comfortable experience for LO/NR passengers.
• The additional lift at P1 and overbridge connecting P1, P2 and P3, combined with the existing lifts at P4 and P3 allows step-free access to the station.
5.1.4 Listed corridors
• The creation of a new link between the listed corridors distributes the flows, however, the limited capacity of the listed corridors still shows congestions during three peak 15 minutes, concentrating movements from three of the four platforms.
5.2 Mitigation layout with the side entrance open
5.2.1 The mitigation layout was tested with the side entrance open for comparison with the 2041 Existing Layout without and withdevelopment, which have the entrance open. If the lateral entrance remains open, the high density on the paid side of the gatelineis alleviated, reducing some of the pressure on the listed corridors, and the congestion would be confined to the peak 15 minutes.
3.9.2 The mitigation model with side entrance open shows some congestion in front of the P3 lift, with conflicts of lift users and people entering/leaving the station. The mitigations proposed are to be refined at a later stage. Chapter04
2019 Peak 3-hour Demand Origin-Destination Matrix (No Development)
Table
Table 6:
2031 Peak 3-hour Demand Origin-Destination Matrix (No Development)
Table 8:
2041 Peak 3-hour Demand Origin-Destination Matrix (No Development)
West Brompton Station Pedestrian Modelling Mitigation Layout
3rd june2024
Scenarios without Development
Mitigation 2041 AM Peak Period (With Dev) –15-Minute FruinWalkways CMD Heat Maps during the peak hour
08:00-08:15 08:15-08:30 08:45-09:00
08:30-08:45
West Brompton Station Pedestrian Modelling Mitigation Layout
3rd june2024
Scenarios without Development
Mitigation 2041 PM Peak Period (With Dev) –15-Minute FruinWalkways CMD Heat Maps during the peak hour
17:00-17:15
17:30-17:45
17:15-17:30
17:45-18:00
Emma Jiang Issue P01
West Brompton Station Pedestrian Modelling
Mitigation Layout
3rd june2024
Scenarios without Development
Mitigation Sensitivity Test: 2041 AM Peak Period (with Dev) with Overall 20% uplift –15-Minute FruinWalkways CMD Heat
Maps
08:00-08:15
08:30-08:45
08:15-08:30
08:45-09:00
West Brompton Station Pedestrian Modelling Mitigation Layout
3rd june2024
Scenarios without Development
Mitigation Sensitivity Test: 2041 PM Peak Period (with Dev) with Overall 10% uplift –15-Minute FruinWalkways CMD Heat
Maps
West Brompton Station Pedestrian Modelling
Mitigation Layout
3rd june2024
Scenarios without Development
Mitigation 2041 AM Peak Period (With Dev)–15-Minuete FruinCumulative High-Density CHD Maps during the peak hour
08:00-08:15 08:15-08:30 08:45-09:00
08:30-08:45
West Brompton Station Pedestrian Modelling
Mitigation Layout
3rd june2024
Scenarios without Development
Mitigation 2041 PM Peak Period (With Dev)–15-Minuete FruinCumulative High-Density CHD Maps during the peak hour
17:30-17:45
17:15-17:30 17:45-18:00
Emma Jiang Issue P01
West Brompton Station Pedestrian Modelling Mitigation Layout
3rd june2024
Scenarios without Development
Mitigation Sensitivity Test: 2041 AM Peak Period (with Dev) with Overall 20% uplift–15-Minuete FruinCumulative HighDensity CHD Maps during the peak hour
08:00-08:15 08:15-08:30
08:30-08:45
08:45-09:00
West Brompton Station Pedestrian Modelling
Mitigation Layout
3rd june2024
Scenarios without Development
Mitigation Sensitivity Test: 2041 PM Peak Period (with Dev) with Overall 10% uplift –15-Minuete FruinCumulative High-
Density CHD Maps during the peak hour
17:30-17:45
17:15-17:30 17:45-18:00
Earls Court Masterplan
West Kensington Station Pedestrian Modelling
Review
19/02/24 - For Approval
- Updated with 2041 + Development results.
- Updated with Do Something 2041 + Development Results
Mouli S Issue P03
1 Introduction
2 Assumptions and Assessment Criteria
3 Pedestrian Dynamic Modelling - Existing
4 Pedestrian Dynamic Modelling - Mitigation
5 Summary of Findings
Appendix A – OD Matrices
Appendix B – CMD Peak 15-min Maps
Appendix C – CHD Peak 15-min Maps
West Kensington Station Pedestrian Modelling 23rd May 2024
1 Introduction
1.1 Pedestrian Modelling Scenarios
1.1.1 The initial impact assessment for the current station layout considered the following scenarios:
- Scenario 1: Existing Layout – 2019 without development (AM and PM peak hours)
- Scenario 2: Existing Layout – 2041 without development (AM and PM peak hours)
- Scenario 3: Existing Layout – 2041 with development (AM and PM peak hours)
- Scenario 4: Mitigation Layout – 2041 with development (AM and PM peak hours)
1.1.2 The modelling assumptions, process and outputs have been reviewed by TfL since 2020. West Kensington models are based on the Legion models provided by TfL in 2011/2012. More recently, assumptions of the model have been reviewed during regular meetings with TfL and some adjustments have been provided, including:
• CAD changes based on recent surveys,
• adjustment of ticket machine units,
• changes to stair modelling setup to bidirectional in all scenarios,
• assignment of “small luggage” for all PRM agents with large or medium size luggage on both stairs in 2041 scenarios,
• Waiting zones drawn with edge effect (500mm from Platform Edge),
• changes to proportions of platform distribution.
1.1.3 Appendices A, B and C provide the Peak 3-hour demand Origin-Destination Matrices, the mean density maps and the high-density maps for the AM and PM peak hours.
1.1.4 The Model Files, Assumption Cover Sheets and Data Templates for the models have been provided to TfL separately.
1.2 Modelling Peak Period
1.2.1 Modelling Peak Periods are AM peak 3 hours (07:00 – 10:00) and PM peak 3 hours (16:00 – 19:00)
West Kensington Station Pedestrian Modelling
23rd May 2024
1 Introduction
1.3 Forecasted Demand (No Development)
1.3.1 The peak 3-hour demand for 2019 NUMBAT data made available by TfL, agreed by TfL to be the baseline year.
1.3.2 The forecasted peak 3-hour for the 2041 with and without Development have been based on 2041 Planning Forecast Railplan model (version 8.1.2). The underlying locally revalidated 2016 base-year model has been reviewed and signed off by TfL Railplan team. Jacobs, acting a third-party modelling auditor on behalf of TfL, have reviewed and approved the 2041 Railplan Forecast Models.
1.3.3 The station interchange growth from 2016 and 2041 Railplan models has been applied to the 2019 NUMBAT data using the Station Standard Modelling Methodology.
1.3.4 It is noted that TfL Station Planning Team observes that the passenger growth being assigned by Railplan to West Kensington Station could be overestimated. However, the outputs from Railplan have been reviewed and signed off by both TfL and Jacobs, acting as a third-party auditor on behalf of TfL.
Table 1: Forecasted Demand (No Development) Year
West Kensington Station Pedestrian Modelling 23rd May 2024
1 Introduction
1.4 Current Station Layout
1.4.1 West Kensington Station is served by the District Line and presents 2 platforms: Platform 1 receives Eastbound trains and Platform 2 receives the Westbound trains. The station does not have lifts for step-free access and presents one set of stairs connecting each platform to the existing Ticket Hall, which opens to North End Road.
1.4.2 The actual number of ticket machines on site are 1 AFM + 1 MFM, however preliminary modelling showed that the station models would not run completely considering the queues to this amount of ticket machines, therefore it has been agreed with TfL to model the 2041 without development with the actual number of ticket machines and the 2041 + Development scenarios with 2 AFM + 1MFM.
Existing Gateline
3 ATG + 1 WAG
Ticketing Machines
2 AFM + 1 MFM
West Kensington Station Pedestrian Modelling 23rd May 2024
1 Introduction
1.5 Mitigation Station Layout
1.5.1 Figure below shows the proposal layout for West Kensington Station. This option involves the modification of the ticket hall, increasing the number of entrances and the reconfiguration of the gateline to maximise provision (8ATG + 2 WAG). Access to Eastbound Platform 1 has been also reconfigured to include wider walkway and stairs to comply with LU standards. The modelling also includes an overbridge and lifts to provide step-free access.
West Kensington Station Pedestrian Modelling 23rd May 2024
2 Assumptions and Assessment Criteria
2.1 Modelling Assumptions
2.1.1. For modelling assumptions, please refer to the Assumption Cover Sheets for Earls Court Models, which have been already issued to TfL on the 15/02/2024 and 25/03/2024, ACS for the mitigation schemes will be shared in the future:
• ACS_WK_2019 AM.xlsx and ACS_WK_2019 PM.xlsx
• ACS_WK_2041 AM.v02.xlsx and ACS_WK_2041 PM.v02.xlsx
• ACS_WK_2041+Dev AM.v01.xlsx and ACS_WK_2041+Dev PM.v01.xlsx
2.2 Assessment Criteria
2.2.1 The Dynamic Modelling inputs and outputs follow the TfL Legion Best Practice Guide V4.2.2.
2.2.2 Outputs of the models are based on Fruin Level of Service (LoS) passenger density maps, and target levels of service are based on TfL Station Planning Standards S1371-A8.
2.2.3 Pedestrians accept different densities depending on if they are circulating or waiting. There are different scales of Fruin LoS for walking, stairways or queuing. Within this report all Cumulative Density (CMD) Maps are recorded over the peak 15-minute AM or PM time periods and represent the Fruin LoS Walking scale in all areas, except stairs which are assessed using Fruin Stairs LoS.
2.2.4 Targets for LoS within the station vary according to the circulation element. In general, LoS C is considered a target across the station, while LoS D is considered acceptable in ticket gatelines, escalators and one-way stairs and corridors.
2.2.5 Cumulative High Density (CHD) maps are also recorded over the peak 15minute AM or PM time periods. They represent the time in minutes each area experiences LoS D or worse within the peak 15 minutes.
West Kensington Station Pedestrian Modelling 23rd May 2024
3 Pedestrian Dynamic Modelling - Existing
3.1 Existing Layout - 2019 AM Peak Period
3.1.1 Baseline 2019 AM peak demand is based on NUMBAT numbers. The model shows no areas of concern during normal operations. The North End Road Ticket Hall (TH) paid and unpaid areas show LoS C, which is considered acceptable. District Line Platform 1 presents overall good LoS A with LoS B/C at the busiest platform sections and LoS C at the bottom of stairs. District Line Platform 2 along with the stairs present overall LoS A, with some patches of LoS B/C at the narrowest section of the platform.
Chapter 03
West Kensington Station Pedestrian Modelling 23rd May 2024
3 Pedestrian Dynamic Modelling - Existing
3.2 Existing Layout - 2019 PM Peak Period
3.2.1 The base year model of the PM peak hour shows overall good levels of service during normal operations. The Cumulative Mean Density Map of the 15-min peak shows LoS C/D at the TH paid and unpaid areas. District Line Platform 1 present overall LoS A, with patches of LoS B at car doors and LoS C at the bottom of the stairs. District Line Platform 2 shows LoS B at the bottom of the stairs.
C/D at unpaid and paid areas
Chapter 03
West Kensington Station Pedestrian Modelling 23rd May 2024
3 Pedestrian Dynamic Modelling - Existing
3.3 Existing Layout - 2041 without development AM Peak Period
3.3.1 Considering that the existing stairs are substandard and that the station is not step-free, preliminary modelling shows blockages at the stairs due to the size of the PRM agents. It has been therefore instructed by TfL that the PRMs are resized when going through both stairs to “small luggage” on 2041 models. Please refer to details on the ACS document. A screenshoot of the blockage is presented in Appendix D.
3.3.2. The queuing area of the paid and unpaid areas at TH shows LoS D/E, and some LoS at the ticket machine queues. The District Line Platform 1 shows LoS A with patches of LoS B/C. The stairs at the District Line Platform 1 present LoS C at the bottom of the stairs. District Line Platform 2 shows LoS A and the stairs at the District Line Platform 2 present LoS B.
Chapter 03
West Kensington Station Pedestrian Modelling
23rd May 2024
3 Pedestrian Dynamic Modelling - Existing
3.4 Existing Layout - 2041 without development PM Peak Period
3.4.1 The queuing area of paid and unpaid areas at TH shows LoS D/E. The District Line Platform 1 shows LoS A with patches of LoS B/C during the worst peak 15 minutes. The stairs at the District Line Platform 1 present LoS C at the bottom of the stairs. The District Line Platform 2 shows LoS A and the stairs at the District Line Platform 2 present LoS B.
LoS D/E at unpaid and paid areas
(18:15-18:30)
LoS B/C at the bottom of stairs
Peak 15 Min Fruin Walkways CMD Heat Map
Chapter 03
West Kensington Station Pedestrian Modelling
23rd May 2024
3 Pedestrian Dynamic Modelling - Existing
3.5 Existing Layout - 2041 with development AM Peak Period
3.5.1 The queuing area of the paid and unpaid areas at TH shoes LoS E/F, this is due to the high number of people entering/exiting the station and the limited number of ticket gates. LoS D can be also found in the Ticket Machine areas even with the provision of 3 ticket machines. Existing set of stairs connecting TH with P1 shows LoS E, the model shows that the existing substandard set of stairs are not able to accommodate the predicted number of passengers using it. In terms of the set of stairs connecting TH and P2, the model shows LoS C for this section in the worst peak 15 minutes.
3.5.2. Regarding Platform 1 and Platform 2, the model shows good levels of service along both platforms.
Chapter 03
West Kensington Station Pedestrian Modelling 23rd May 2024
3 Pedestrian Dynamic Modelling - Existing
3.6 2041 with development PM Peak Period
3.6.1 The queuing area of paid and unpaid areas at TH shows LoS D/E. The District Line Platform 1 shows LoS A with patches of LoS B/C during the worst peak 15 minutes. The stairs at the District Line Platform 1 present LoS C at the bottom of the stairs. The District Line Platform 2 shows LoS A and the stairs at the District Line Platform 2 present LoS B.
LoS D/E at unpaid and paid areas
LoS B/C at the bottom of stairs
Peak 15 Min Fruin Walkways CMD Heat Map
West Kensington Station Pedestrian Modelling 23rd May 2024
3 Pedestrian Dynamic Modelling
3.7 2041 with development +35%
3.6.1 2041 with development +35% models were constructed to identify any future capacity constraints in the station. Both AM and PM models were blocked in the gateline due to the high volume of passengers using the station. Figures below present a screenshot of the blockage in the both periods. Both screenshots have been also included in the Appendix D
West Kensington Station Pedestrian Modelling 23rd May 2024
3 Pedestrian Dynamic Modelling
3.7 2041 with development +35%
3.7.1 2041 with development +35% models were constructed to identify any future capacity constraints in the station. Both AM and PM models were blocked in the unpaid side due to the high volume of passengers entering the station. Figures below present a screenshot of the blockage in the both periods. Both screenshots have been also included in the Appendix D
West Kensington Station Pedestrian Modelling 23rd May 2024
3 Pedestrian Dynamic Modelling - Existing
3.8 2041 with development +35% AM Period
3.8.1 To identify capacity constraints in the station during the 2041 with development + 35% scenario, a sensitivity test was conducted assuming the gateline open.
3.8.3 In terms of the morning peak, the dynamic model showed that the EB stairs can’t accommodate the predicted demand for the station. As can be seen in the figure on the right.
3.8.3 Platform Capacity for this scenario was also tested, assuming that there are no constraints in the Ticket Hall. The model showed that both platforms have enough capacity for the forecasted morning demand as can be seen in the heatmap below.
3.8.4 Regarding the Ticket Machine demand, a static assessment has been conducted to determine the number of Ticket Machines required. Based on an average of 40 seconds per transaction and 7% of the passengers using them, the number of ticket machines required is 4.
West Kensington Station Pedestrian Modelling 23rd May 2024
3 Pedestrian Dynamic Modelling - Existing
3.9 2041 with development +35% PM Period
3.9.1 To identify capacity constraints in the station during the 2041 with development + 35% scenario, a sensitivity test was conducted assuming the gateline was open. In terms of the evening peak, the dynamic model showed that the EB stairs can’t accommodate the predicted demand for the station with LoS E at the bottom of the stairs The model also shows that the entrance to the station appears with high levels of density due to the amount of people entering/exiting the station.
3.9.2 Regarding the platforms, the station shows that the platforms have enough capacity to cope with the forecasted demand.
LoS C at the bottom of stairs
Peak 15 Min Fruin Walkways CMD Heat Map
LoS D/E at the entrance
Chapter 03
West Kensington Station Pedestrian Modelling 23rd May 2024
4 Pedestrian Dynamic Modelling - Mitigation
4.1 Mitigation Layout - 2041 with development AM Peak Period
4.1.1 The proposed mitigation layout shows LoS B/C in the paid and unpaid areas at TH. This is due to the increased number of ticket gates in the gateline and the increased number of entrances. Regarding the EB connection. The proposed new EB corridor and stairs show good levels of service. Presenting LoS C in the corridor and LoS C/E along the stairs during the worst 15 minutes. In terms of the WB route, the WB stairs presents also good levels of Service (LoS C)
LoS C at unpaid area between 3 TVM and gates
LoS B/C at paid area
4.1.2. Regarding Platform 1 and Platform 2, the model shows good levels of service along both platforms. (8:45-9:00)
Chapter 03
West Kensington Station Pedestrian Modelling 23rd May 2024
4 Pedestrian Dynamic Modelling - Mitigation
4.2 Mitigation Layout - 2041 with development PM Peak Period
4.2.1 The proposed mitigation layout shows LoS B/C in the paid and unpaid areas at TH. This is due to the increased number of ticket gates in the gateline and the increased number of entrances. Regarding the EB connection. The proposed new EB corridor and stairs show good levels of service. Presenting LoS B in the corridor and LoS C/E along the stairs during the worst 15 minutes. In terms of the WB route, the WB stairs presents also good levels of Service (LoS C)
4.2.2. Regarding Platform 1 and Platform 2, the model shows good levels of service along both platforms.
LoS B/C at unpaid area between 3 TVM and gates
B/C at paid area
B/C at the bottom of the
(18:15-18:30)
LoS
stairs
LoS B at EB Corridor
LoS
Peak 15 Min Fruin Walkways CMD Heat Map
LoS A/B
LoS C at the bottom of the stairs
LoS A/B with pockets of C
LoS B at the top of the stairs
West Kensington Station Pedestrian Modelling 23rd May 2024
5 Summary of Findings
5.1.1 West Kensington Station assessment shows that
• Both platforms have capacity to accommodate current and future demands;
• Regarding the gateline the existing layout would not meet minimum standards for both 2041 and would present significant queues considering 2041 with development, mitigation layout shows no congestion in this area;
• The current configuration of ticket machines, considering current ticketing purchase assumptions, would not meet requirements in 2041 and would require additional units in the future; the modelling has considered updated ticket purchase assumtpions as provided by TfL.
• The Stairs connecting Ticket Hall with Platform 1 are substandard and would present high levels of density in the 2041 with and without development. The proposed EB stair in the mitigation layout shows good levels of service in the area.
5.1.2 The mitigationsproposed for West Kensington station improves levels of service in all areas of the station.
No immediate need to upgrade the areas. Some/all areas do not meet minimum width requirements but currently provide sufficient capacity to accommodate the peak flow. Note: Any changes to those areas will likely require to meet the minimum width requirements
Do not meet TfL Station Planning Standard requirements, significant queues/delays observed from dynamic models and minimum requirementsidentified from static assessments.
Table 2: West Kensington Station Element Assessment
Scenario 1: '2031 DS (No Mit) AM' (FG7: '2031 DS (No Mit) AM', Plan 1: 'Network Control Plan 1')
Desired Flow :
-
Scenario 2: '2031 DS (No Mit) PM' (FG8: '2031 DS (No Mit) PM', Plan 1: 'Network Control Plan 1') Desired Flow :
-
Scenario 3: '2041 DS (No Mit) AM' (FG9: '2041 DS (No Mit) AM', Plan 1: 'Network Control Plan 1')
Desired Flow :
Full Input Data And Results
Scenario 4: '2041 DS (No Mit) PM' (FG10: '2041 DS (No Mit) PM', Plan 1: 'Network Control Plan 1')
Desired Flow : Destination
Origin
-
Scenario 5: '2031 Detailed Application AM' (FG3: '2031 FB AM', Plan 1: 'Network Control Plan 1') Desired Flow :
Destination
Origin
Tot. -
Scenario 6: '2031 Detailed Application PM' (FG12: '2031 Detailed Application PM', Plan 1: 'Network Control Plan 1')
Desired Flow :
-
Scenario 1: '2031 DS (No Mit) AM' (FG7: '2031 DS (No Mit) AM', Plan 1: 'Network Control Plan 1')
Full Input Data And Results
Network Layout Diagram
J2: J12_073
J1: J12_224 Warwick
Full Input Data And Results
Full Input Data And Results
Network Layout Diagram
J1: J12_224 Warwick
J2:
J12_073 Warwick
J1: J12_224 Warwick
Input Data And Results
Full Input Data And Results
Network Layout Diagram
J1: J12_224 Warwick
J2:
J12_073 Warwick
J1: J12_224 Warwick
Full Input Data And Results
Full Input Data And Results
Network Layout Diagram
J1: J12_224 Warwick
J2:
J12_073 Warwick
J1: J12_224 Warwick
Full Input Data And Results
Network Layout Diagram
J1: J12_224 Warwick
J2:
J12_073 Warwick
J1: J12_224 Warwick
Full Input Data And Results
Network Layout Diagram
J1:
J12_224 Warwick
J2: J12_073 Warwick
J1: J12_224 Warwick
Appendix S – VISWALKAnalysis
Earls Court Masterplan
Warwick Entrance Pedestrian Modelling
P01 Mouli S Vicente Ponsoda Renata Buschinelli 24/05/24 For approval
Mouli S Issue P01
Warwick Road Apron Pedestrian Modelling 24th May 2024
1 Introduction
1.1 Purpose of the report
1.1.1 WSP were commissioned by Earls Court Development Company to undertake an evaluation of the passenger flows and Key Performance Indicators for the future operation of the new masterplan focussing on Warwick Apron and the connection with the Earls Court Station Entrance.
1.1.2 PTV VISSIM / VISWALK microsimulation software was used to evaluate the future operation of the area, including multimodal elements (cyclists, vehicles and buses). The analysis tested the area in terms of capacity for circulation and waiting passengers for the forecasted demand.
1.2 Report Structure
1.2.1 This report provides a record of the modelling steps and assumptions applied in the development of the VISSIM/VISWALK models for the study area as well as the results and initial conclusions drawn.
1.2.2 The report is broken into the following sections:
• Methodology – providing a high-level summary of the overarching approach to model development;
• Passenger demand – identifying the forecast passenger demand based on the available data sources;
• Modelling assumptions – underlying assumptions made in the model development;
• Results – outputs from the model simulation; and
• Conclusions
Warwick Road Apron Pedestrian Modelling 24th May 2024
2 Methodology
2.1 Model Specification
2.1.1. The Warwick Apron simulation model is built in the globally accepted simulation software PTV VISSIM version 2024, with VISWALK add-on to also simulate interactive pedestrian movement. The use of VISSIM and VISWALK together will enable the visualisation and measurement of the interaction between pedestrians, cyclists, traffic and public transport in the study area. Additionally,the software combination allows the modelling interaction between alighting/boarding passengers and the arriving/departing transit vehicles.
2.2 Model Extent
2.1.2. The VISSIM/VISWALK model extent for Warwick entrance is illustrated in the figure below, the model extent covers the area of the Warwick Masterplan, the entrance of the Earls Court station, and the surrounding roads. A topographical survey and drawings of the masterplan have been used to build the model.
Warwick Road North
Warwick Road South
Penywern Road
Eardley Crescent
Trebovir Road
Philbeach Gardens
Warwick Road Apron
Earls Court Station
Warwick Road Apron Pedestrian Modelling 24th May 2024
2 Methodology
2.3 Pedestrian and cycling datasets
2.3.1. A range of data sources have been used to identify the forecast pedestrian demand at the Warwick Masterplan, Earls Court Station, and the surrounding streets. The available data sources used include:
• 2019 and 2031 Railplan;
• 2022 pedestrian survey data;
• 2022 cycling counts;
• Earls Court Transport Assessment
2.4 Traffic demand and network
2.3.2. To build this VISWALK model, the 2024 Earls Court VISSIM model has been used as a skeleton. This VISSIM model has been used for obtaining the following items:
• Traffic and Cycling Highway network of the study area;
• Traffic and Cycling volumes of the study area;
• Signal timings of all the junctions covered in the study area.
2.3.3. Based on the detailed above, the pedestrian movement in the area and the traffic volumes have been forecasted for the following scenarios:
• Weekday AM scenario: 08:00 – 09:00
• Weekday PM scenario: 17:00 – 18:00
2 Methodology
2.5 Origin and Destination zones
2.5.1. Figure below shows the OD zones assumed for the study area.
3 Pedestrian Demand
3.1 Introduction.
3.1.1. A range of demand datasets has been used to calculate the 2031 demand for both AM and PM peak hours in the study area. The datasets used are detailed below.
2031 Pedestrian Demand
3.1.2. The methodology and assumptions applied on these datasets is detailed in the next sections
3.2 2031 Background Demand.
3.2.1. The 2031 Background demand for the study area has been calculated using the following approach.
• A 2022 Railplan demand has been calculated based on the 2031 and 2019 Railplan demand in Earl Court using interpolation techniques. This 2022 Railplan demand has been compared with the 2031 to derive a growth factor.
• The calculated growth factor has been applied to the existing 2022 pedestrian survey data in the area to forecast the predicted number of people using each of the footways.
• Finally, these datasets underwent a matrix estimation process, to derive an Origin-Destination (OD) matrix
Chapter 03
Warwick Road Apron Pedestrian Modelling 24th May 2024
3 Pedestrian Demand
3.2 2031 Background Demand
3.2.2. Figure below shows the LinSig model created to undertake the matrix estimation for the background flows .In addition on the right side the peak hour matrices are presented.
2031 AM Peak – Background Demand
2031 PM Peak – Background Demand
3 Pedestrian Demand
3.3 2031 Development Trips (Bus).
3.3.1. Pedestrian demand from the Warwick development to the bus stops on the area have been considered in the model. Bus stops A and C are the closest to the development area. It has been assumed that all the development demand wanting to use the bus will go to this two bus stops. Bus stop A is outside of the modelling area. However, it has been considered people going to that bus stop.
24th May 2024
3 Pedestrian Demand
3.4 2031 Development Trips (Rail).
3.4.1. Pedestrian demand from the Warwick development to the Earls Court Station has been included in the model. Railplan 2031 has been used to calculate the number of people going to/from the station to the development Chapter 02 Warwick Road Apron
Chapter 02
Warwick Road Apron Pedestrian Modelling 24th May 2024
3 Pedestrian Demand
3.5 2031 Development Background Demand.
3.5.1. In order to calculate the development background demand, the assumed development trips accessing the masterplan has been used. This is illustrated in the figure below.
3.5.2. For calculating the distribution of these trips, the same methodology of the one used for the background flows has been applied.
Chapter 03
Warwick Road Apron Pedestrian Modelling 24th May 2024
3 Pedestrian Demand
3.5 2031 Development Background Demand
3.5.3. Tables below present the 2031 Development Background Demand AM and PM peaks.
4 Modelling Assumptions
4.1 Traffic Signals Assumptions
4.1.1. The signal controllers for Earls Court Vissim model has been used to model the signals of the study area. This signal controllers have been based on the LinSig models created for the area. Figure below shows the Signal timings for the pedestrian crossing in front of the Earls Court Station.
4.2 Development pedestrian distribution
4.2.1. It has been assumed that 80% of the development demand will arrive from the central area, being the remaining 20% arriving from the sidewalks of the development.
Chapter 05
Warwick Road Apron Pedestrian Modelling 24th May 2024
5 Results
5.1 Pedestrian Densities
5.1.1. Pedestrian density outputs have been extracted from the model to show the level of use by pedestrian and identify any problem area. Fruin’s levels of service have been used and are detailed below.
5.1.2. Fruin’s Level of Service (LoS) for footways is a classification of pedestrian density. The six levels of density used to illustrate and analyse pedestrian density in this study are illustrated below.
5 Results
5.2 Density Plots – AM Peak
5.2.1. Figure below illustrates the densities experienced during the peak 15 minutes of the AM Peak hour. While most of the model shows LoS A, two main congested areas are highlighted.
A. The area between the Earls Court Station entrance and the signalised pedestrian crossing presents LoS D. This is due to the conflict of flows between the pedestrians waiting to cross Warwick Road towards the development and the pedestrians accessing Earls Court Station from the North. The conflicts flows are concentrated at a pinch point where space is limited for both waiting and circulating
B. The available pavement width where Bus Stop C is located is limited for the peak demands, presenting LoS D/E. This is due to the expected increase in future bus demands, including boarders and alighters. The model consider the current bus frequency and capacity, and increased bus frequency in this area is recommended.
A. Signalised ped crossing: higher volumes waiting on the station side
Chapter 05
Warwick Road Apron Pedestrian Modelling 24th May 2024
5 Results
5.3 Density Plots – PM Peak
5.3.1. Figure below illustrates the densities experienced during the peak 15 minutes of the PM Peak hour. Like in the AM Peak, the map presents two areas with higher densities.
• The other side of the signalised pedestrian crossing, adjacent to Warwick Apron, presents levels of service C. This is due to the high number of people trying to cross Warwick Road towards the station. Although the model shows LoS C in some areas of the crossing, this clears in each of the signal cycles.
• The available pavement width where Bus Stop C is located is limited for the peak demands, presenting LoS D/E. This is due to the expected increase in future bus demands, including boarders and alighters. The model consider the current bus frequency and capacity, and increased bus frequency in this area is recommended.
A. Signalised ped crossing: higher volumes waiting on the Apron side
Warwick Road Apron Pedestrian Modelling 24th May 2024
6 Conclusions
6.1 Summary of Findings and Recommendations
6.1.1. The VISSIM/VISWALK dynamic modelling of the Warwick Rd Apron included the movements of background and Early Phases development-generated flows of pedestrians, cyclists, cars and buses in 2031, during peak AM and PM hours. It tested the proposed configuration of the landscape and the widening of the signalised pedestrian crossing between the development and the Earl’s Court Station Warwick Rd Entrance.
6.1.2. The modelling shows that most of the pavements and public realm performs at comfortable LoS. However, there are two main areas concentrating high densities during both AM and PM peak hours:
A. The waiting areas of the Signalised Pedestrian Crossing connecting the Station to the development shows higher densities on each side, especially during the morning peak.
• during AM peak Fruin LoS D is reached when high flows leaving the station towards the development clash with flows of people entering the station from the north. The edge of the crossing waiting area in front of the station is located at a pinch point, with limited space for both waiting and circulating. A shift of the pedestrian crossing to the south, or the demolition of the steps at the eastern pavement could provide additional space for the pavement. During the evening, the Apron side of the crossing becomes busier
B. Bus Stop C located to the north of Warwick Road: the pavement shows high densities in both peak hours, especially during PM peak. Flows to buses are expected to increase considering future growth and development bus trips, and pavement space is limited for the forecast circulating and boarding/alighting pedestrian demand. Increase of the bus frequency and capacity is recommended or possibly a relocation or reconfiguration of the bus stop.
Appendix V – Detailed Components Transport Statement
Earls Court Development Transport Statement
Detailed Components
Appendix
Appendix
1.0 Introduction
Overview
1.1 This Transport Statement (TS) has been prepared by WSP and is submitted as part of two Hybrid Planning Applications, one submitted to the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (‘LBHF’) and one submitted to the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (‘RBKC’) in relation to the redevelopment of the land bounded by West Cromwell Road, Warwick Road, Philbeach Gardens, Eardley Crescent, Lillie Road, Old Brompton Road and the West London Railway Line (‘WLL’) in RBKC (the ‘RBKC Site’) and North End Road, Beaumont Avenue, West Cromwell Road, the WLL, Empress State Building (‘ESB’) and land comprising the West Kensington and Gibbs Green housing estates in LBHF (the ‘LBHF Site) which straddle the boundary between the two Boroughs (together forming ‘the Site’). The Proposed Development will form the new proposed Earls Court Development. The Hybrid Planning Applications have been submitted on behalf of Earls Court Partnership Limited (‘ECPL’), (“The Applicant”).
1.2 The RBKC Hybrid Planning Application is formed of detailed development proposals in respect of Plots EC05 and EC06 for which no matters are reserved ("RBKC Detailed Component"), and outline development proposals for the remainder of the RBKC Site, with all matters reserved ("RBKC Outline Component"). The RBKC Detailed Component and RBKC Outline Component together are referred to as the “RBKC Proposed Development”.
1.3 The LBHF Hybrid Planning Application is formed of detailed development proposals in respect of Plots WB03, WB04 and WB05 for which no matters are reserved ("LBHF Detailed Component"), and outline development proposals for the remainder of the Site, with all matters reserved ("LBHF Outline Component"). LBHF Detailed Component and LBHF Outline Component together are referred to as the “LBHF Proposed Development”.
1.4 This TS has been prepared in support of the LBHF and RBKC Detailed Components, consisting of Development Plots EC05, EC06, WB03, WB04 and WB05.
1.5 A Transport Assessment (TA)1 has been prepared separately for the LBHF and RBKC Proposed Development and is referred to in this document.
1.6 The TA considers the transport impacts of the Proposed Development in two phases: All Phases: comprising the entirety of the Proposed Development. This is currently anticipated for completion by 2043. Early Phases: Phases 1-4 (the ‘Early Phases’) are completed, but the Depot remains operational and is delivered to a different programme from that currently anticipated in the All Phases scenario.
1 Earls Court, Transport Assessment, July 2024
1.7 The purpose of this TS is to consider the impacts of the Detailed Components on the transport network and to detail the process that has been undertaken to develop the proposals from a transport perspective.
Site Context
1.8 The Earls Court Development Site occupies an area of approximately 18 hectares (179,956sqm) and is located in both the LBHF and the RBKC, in West London. The Site area associated with the RBKC Hybrid Planning Application is approximately 8 hectares (78,561sqm) and the Site area associated with the LBHF Hybrid Planning Application is approximately 10 hectares (101,395sqm).
1.9 The LBHF and RBKC administrative boundary bisects the Site along a northwestsoutheast axis from Lillie Road to West Cromwell Road.
1.10 The RBKC Site is bound to the north by West Cromwell Road, to the east by Warwick Road, Philbeach Gardens (including 1 Cluny Mews) and Eardley Crescent, to the south by Lillie Road and Old Brompton Road and to the east by the West London Railway Line (WLL), and 1 Cluny Mews.
1.11 The LBHF Site is bound to the west by North End Road, Beaumont Avenue, the former Gibbs Green School, properties fronting Gibbs Green Close, and properties fronting Dieppe Close, to the north by West Cromwell Road, to the east by the West London Railway Line (WLL), to the south by Lillie Road and to the south-east by land comprising the Empress State Building and Aisgill Avenue.
1.12 The Site is a large brownfield site with railway infrastructure and comprises the following:
Cluny Mews – The far northeastern part of the Site comprises an office building at approximately 4 storeys, an annex building which comprises 3 storeys of residential flats and associated paved roads with parking. This is currently activated as a temporary meanwhile use.
Land formerly home to the Earls Court Exhibition Centres – The eastern and southeastern parts of the Site (roughly triangular shaped and to the east of the WLL) and the southwestern part of the Site (to the west of the WLL) comprise extensive areas of open hardstanding. These areas of hardstanding were previously occupied by the Earls Court Exhibition Centres which were demolished between 2015 and 2017. The Table spans the WLL between the hardstanding areas. Beneath is an extensive network of railway infrastructure including the District Line and Piccadilly Line. Parts of this element of the Site are currently activated with temporary meanwhile uses.
Empress Place – The southern and southwestern parts of the Site comprise 3-4 storey terrace buildings fronting Empress Place and Lillie Road. These are currently activated with temporary meanwhile uses.
Bus Facility – To the west of Empress Place is a bus turning and waiting facility accessed from Lillie Road. This area comprises a bus layover area with capacity for up to four buses and a small standalone structure that includes welfare facilities for bus drivers.
Lillie Bridge Depot (LBD) – The western, northern and northwestern part of the Site comprise the LBD. The LBD is currently used as a maintenance facility by London Underground Ltd (LUL) and as a TfL training facility. The LBD uses, and on-Site structures comprise office buildings, rail tracks, road to rail vehicle (RRV) delivery and access point, articulated lorry access and delivery area, carpenter/rail workshops, storage buildings, train stabling box, associated infrastructure and parking.
9 Beaumont Avenue – A 2 storey building located in the far northwestern part of the Site. This is currently activated as a temporary meanwhile use.
1.13 The location of the wider Earls Court Development Site, relative to the stations is shown in Figure 1
1.14 The boundary of the Detailed Components consisting of Plots WB03, WB04 and WB05 in LBHF and EC05 and EC06 in RBKC in the context to the wider Earls Court Development Site is shown in Figure 2
Figure 1: Earls Court Development Site Location
2
WB03, WB04 and WB05 Site Location
Development Proposals
1.15 Development Plots WB03, WB04 and WB05 sit within the LBHF administrative boundary. Table 1 sets out the development quantum proposed.
1.16 Development Plots EC05 and EC06 sit within the RBKC administrative boundary. Table 2 sets out the development quantum proposed.
Related Transport Documents
1.17 This TS forms part of a suite of transport documents that accompany the planning applications including the TA, Full Travel Plans (TPs), Delivery and Servicing Plans (DSPs), and Parking Design and Management Plans (PDMPs). These documents are inter-related and should be read in conjunction with the TS.
1.18 TPs have been prepared for the RBKC Detailed Component (Plots EC05 and EC06) and LBHF Detailed Component (Plots WB03, WB04 and WB05). Each TP sets out the objectives, targets, measures and monitoring for travel planning for the various land uses within each Detailed Component. Each TP has been prepared in accordance with Transport for London’s (TfL’s) current Travel Planning Guidance (November 2013). A Site-
wide Framework Travel Plan (TP) has also been prepared, acting as an overarching strategy document for the Proposed Development.
1.19 DSPs have been prepared for the RBKC Detailed Component (Plots EC05 and EC06) and LBHF Detailed Component (Plots WB03, WB04 and WB05). Each DSP sets out the long-term objectives, targets, measures and monitoring for deliveries and servicing in relation to the various land uses within each Detailed Component. A Site-wide Framework DSP has also been prepared, acting as an overarching strategy document for the Proposed Development.
1.20 PDMPs have been prepared for the RBKC Detailed Component (Plots EC05 and EC06) and LBHF Detailed Component (Plots WB03, WB04 and WB05). Each PDMP establishes the measures that will be implemented to manage the parking that will be provided for the various land uses within each Detailed Component. A Site-wide Framework PDMP has also been prepared, setting out the framework to manage the parking that will be provided across the wider Earls Court Development Site.
1.21 A Construction Traffic Logistics Plan (CTLP) has been prepared for the wider Earls Court Development Site, setting out the construction strategy. This is summarised within Chapter 5: Demolition and Construction Description within the Environmental Statement (ES).
1.22 This TS has been prepared as a separate document to the TA to outline the transport impacts of the LBHF and RBKC Detailed Component. It is separate from the TA as it does not form a scenario requiring assessment in the planning applications. Instead it has been prepared following discussions with the Transport Stakeholders (TfL as strategic transport authority, RBKC and LBHF) and to fulfil the scope agreed as part of the TA Scoping process.
Planning Engagement and Scope ofAssessment
1.23 As part of development of the new proposal formal pre-application meetings have been held with the main Transport Stakeholders (consisting of TfL, LBHF and RBKC) since 2021. Table 2 of the TA provides further information on the meetings held
Transport Policy
1.24 The Proposed Development has been developed with consideration of the national, regional and local planning framework and legislative guidance and supplementary documents A summary of the relevant planning policy from a transport perspective is provided in Appendix B of the TA
Report Structure
1.25 Following this introduction, the remainder of this TS is structured as follows:
Chapter 2: Site and Surroundings;
Chapter 3: Development Proposals
Chapter 4: Trip Generation
Chapter 5: Transport Impacts
Chapter 6: Summary and Conclusions.
2.0 Site and Surroundings
Introduction
2.1 This chapter provides a summary of the Proposed Development in the context of the Site’s existing uses and the surrounding transport network. Existing conditions have been reviewed in the context of the wider Earls Court Development Site. Where appropriate specific analysis is provided at a Plot level. Reference to the Site in the Chapter therefore refers to the wider Earls Court Development Site with Plot specific references referred to as the Plot.
Existing and Meanwhile Uses
2.2 The Earls Court Development Site was previously home to a large-scale exhibition and conference centre comprising a private and closed off space with ticketed entrances. The Exhibition Centres closed in 2014 and were demolished in 2015 by the previous Site owners.
2.3 ECPL have already brought early uses to the Site with the Underbelly Festival, the Lost Estate immersive theatre and the BBC Earth Experience featuring Seven Worlds One Planet narrated by Sir David Attenborough. A new TfL Skills Centre opened in 2023 offering training opportunities to local people. In 2023, planning permission pursuant to a meanwhile use application was granted for 5 padel courts adjacent to the new Skills Centre (Ref. 2023/02631/FUL) which have now been built and are in use.
2.4 In addition to these meanwhile uses, a series of pre-enabling works are being undertaken, including Site clearance and ground strengthening. This is in preparation for the main phase of works once planning is granted.
2.5 The Earls Court development will continue to build on the existing and meanwhile uses, establishing Earls Court as a major cultural and employment destination, with venues, events and pop-up space throughout the development.
The Surrounding Area
2.6 The Proposed Development comprises an area of approximately 18 hectares located within a predominantly urban setting. A range of facilities and amenities are located in the local area. These include the Warwick Road entrance to Earls Court Station which is located directly opposite the Earls Court Development Site boundary in the east. West Brompton Station is located on the southern side of Old Brompton Road at the southern boundary to the Site. West Kensington Station is located adjacent to the northwest boundary of the Earls Court development Site on North End Road.
2.7 Kensington Tesco Superstore is located on the northern side of the A4 opposite the northeast boundary of the Site. A number of amenities are located along Earls Court Road approximately 300 metres to the east of the eastern boundary of the Site, including retail
uses, health, and leisure facilities. Figure 3 shows the Earls Court Development Site boundary in the context of the Stations.
2.8 To the south, the Site is bound by Lillie Road and Old Brompton Road which connects the Earls Court gyratory in the east with Hammersmith in the west. Brompton Cemetery is located immediately to the southeast of the Site on Old Brompton Road. Fulham Broadway, another local centre is located approximately one kilometre to the south of the Site.
2.9 North End Road to the west of the Site provides access to amenities including local shops and cafes, as well as health care facilities. Normand Park is located approximately 600metres to the southwest from the edge of the Site on Lillie Road. Hammersmith town centre is located approximately 1.8 kilometres to the west of the Site measured from its western boundary
2.10 While the Site currently has no accessibility across it, there is an established network of footways and pedestrian connections coming out of and surrounding the Site. Footways are provided along each of the adjacent roads, with additional connections around the area. The network allows pedestrians to travel directly to and from the Site and permeate through the boroughs to public transport nodes and other destinations.
2.11 Cycle infrastructure is provided on Lillie Road and Old Brompton Road to the south which connects with Kempsford Gardens where the TfL designated cycle route Quietway 15 commences providing connections to the east.
Figure 3: Earls Court Development Site Location
2.12 Pedestrians will be able to access Plots EC05 and EC06 via the Northern and Southern Warwick Road access points at Warwick Square. The public realm within the Site will then facilitate access via Warwick Lane, Warwick Crescent and the central public realm.
2.13 The primary pedestrian access to Plots WB03, WB04 and WB05 will be via Empress Place Boulevard, The Cascades and Aisgill Gardens. These internal routes will connect with Lillie Road in the south and Aisgill Avenue in the west.
2.14 An east-west pedestrian connection will be provided from Warwick Road through to Aisgill Avenue, connecting with a north-south connection to facilitate access to Lillie Road and along the West London Line to connect with the crossing on Lillie Road, adjacent to West Brompton Station.
Active Travel Zone
2.15 The Active Travel Zone (ATZ) is an area broadly corresponding to a 20-minute cycling distance and is used by TfL as the study area for considering active travel associated with a development proposal.
2.16 The extent of the ATZ neighbourhood varies however depending on the context (central, suburban, etc.), the proposed land uses and the density of amenities. The TfL guidance2 refers to this area as the ATZ ‘neighbourhood’ area. Within this neighbourhood area the key destinations should include all the above-mentioned transport hubs and facilities, town centres and amenities and access to a cycle network. Figure 4 illustrates the ATZ.
2 Active Travel Zone Guidance available at: http://planning.data.tfl.gov.uk/ATZ%20Assessment%20explanation%20and%20Case%20Study%20by%20Momentu m.pdf
2.17 A more localised ATZ has then been considered representing a 10-minute walk from the edge of the Site. This localised ATZ is shown in Figure 5
Figure 4: Active Travel Zone
Figure 5: Localised Active Travel Zone
LocalAmenities
2.18 The Site is well located to access a wide range of amenities within the local area. Key local centres in close proximity include North End Road, Earls Court Road and Old Brompton Road. Access to amenities is generally measured with reference to those facilities within a two kilometre walk or five-kilometre cycle. In this instance, given the number of amenities accessible, up to two kilometres (maximum walking distance) has been considered. A distance of two kilometres equates to a walking time of approximately 25 minutes (based on a walking speed of 4.8kph). Table 3 provides a summary of amenities measured from the centre of the Site.
from centre of EC05 and EC06
from centre of WB03, WB04 and WB05
(mins) from centre of EC05 and EC06 ( Walk time from centre of WB03, WB04 and WB05
Time (mins) from centre of EC05 and EC06
time (mins) from centre of WB03, WB04 and WB05
Table 3: Distance and Travel time to Local Amenities
Table 3: Distance and Travel time to Local Amenities
of EC05 and EC06
of WB03, WB04 and WB05
from centre of EC05 and EC06 ( Walk time from centre of WB03, WB04 and WB05
of EC05 and EC06
Table 3: Distance and Travel time to Local Amenities
of EC05 and EC06
of WB03, WB04 and WB05
from centre of EC05 and EC06 ( Walk time from centre of WB03, WB04 and WB05
of EC05 and EC06
Pedestrian Network
2.19 The Site is located in an urban area with a comprehensive network of footways which facilitate pedestrian routes to a wide range of amenities and facilities. The isochrones displayed in Figure 6 shows a two-kilometre catchment for access on foot, assuming a walking speed of 4.8km/hr and measured from the centre of the Site. Two kilometres is generally regarded as the maximum distance a person is willing to walk to access amenities and facilities3
2.20 From the centre of the Site it is possible to reach the key transport corridors on the edge of the Site within five minutes. From there, destinations such as Earls Court, West Kensington, Hammersmith and Fulham can be reached within a 20-minute walk, whilst parts of Central London and further locations in West London are within a 25-minute walking distance.
3 Preferred Maximum acceptable walking distance as shown in Providing for Journeys on Foot, CIHT (2000)
Figure 6: Walking Isochrones
Cycle Network
2.21 As set out in The London Plan, development should facilitate and encourage cycling, and reduce car dependency and the health problems it creates. Cycling is a space-efficient mode compared to cars so making streets attractive for cycling can bring benefits to all road users while also improving the experience of living, working and spending time in the city4 Figure 7 shows the cycle catchment isochrones, demonstrating that the majority of Central London and surrounding areas are reachable within a 20-minute cycle (equating to 5km). In particular, destinations such as Hammersmith, Putney, Battersea and Paddington are all within a reasonable cycling distance.
4 Paragraph 10.5.1, The London Plan - 2021
Figure 7: Cycling Isochrones
2.22 Figure 8 shows the existing Cycle infrastructure surrounding the Site. This infrastructure is generally on-road and in the form of either quieter streets considered suitable for cycling (Quietway 15 for instance) or on carriageway advisory cycle lanes (such as those found on Lillie Road and Old Brompton Road).
2.23 The isochrones and adjacent Cycleway connections illustrate the Site is well located with regards to cycle accessibility, in terms of time and distance, to Central London. When reviewing at a more detailed level, it is evident that in sections, the existing network is not well connected with the Site and the surrounding links are vehicular dominant deterring cycling as a favourable mode of travel.
Figure
TfL Cycle Hire
2.24 At present, the closest Cycle Hire Docking Station is located at Trebovir Road approximately 100m from the access to the Site on Warwick Road. There are also a number of other cycle docking stations within close proximity to the Proposed Development location, as seen in Figure 9
2.25 The highest concentration of cycle hire docking stations are located to the east of the Proposed Development, reflecting the Site’s location on the edge of the existing network.
2.26 The closest cycle hire docking stations to Plots EC05 and EC06 are located on Trebovir Road, approximately 200m from the centre of the Plots.
2.27 The closest cycle hire docking stations to Plots WB03, WB04 and WB05 are located on Star Road and Halford Road approximately 425m and 450m from the centre of the Plots.
Figure 9: TfL Cycle Hire Docking Station Locations
Micromobility
2.28 Micromobility is the term used to refer to lightweight and small-sized transport mostly designed for the individual5 . Generally, this includes e-scooters but can also equally be applied to e-bikes.
2.29 These new forms of transport work through geo-fencing. Whilst historically they have been able to be picked up and set down at any point within participating Boroughs, the Boroughs are now moving towards providing specific set down locations.
2.30 Since June 2021, electric scooters (e-scooters) have been available to rent in a number of London boroughs. London Boroughs participating include LBHF and RBKC.
2.31 In addition to e-scooters, e-bikes are also available across London. The location of ebikes will vary day to day dependent upon where users end their trips and park.
2.32 However, as part of the electric scooter rental scheme that LBHF and RBKC are participating in, parking spaces for e-scooters have been provided alongside a number of electric vehicle charging bays as well as purpose built corrals to house the e-scooters.
2.33 The location of the dedicated e-scooter parking in RBKC is illustrated in Figure 10
5 Buro Happold (2022) Micromobility Street Design Manual
2.34 The closest e-scooter parking to Plots EC05 and EC06 is located on Penywern Road off of Warwick Road, approximately 250m to the east of the Plots. LBHF have located an escooter parking location on Empress Place in the south of the Site.
2.35 The nearest docking station location to Plots WB03, WB04 and WB05 is on Empress Place within the Earls Court Development Site boundary.
Public TransportAccessibility
2.36 The Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) is a TfL methodology which measures how accessible a location within London is to local public transport services. PTALs are scored from ‘1’ or ‘very poor’ to ‘6’ or ‘excellent’. PTAL takes into account the time taken to access the public transport network, including:
The walk time to various public transport services;
The average waiting time for each service; and The reliability of each service.
2.37 The methodology is based on a walk speed of 4.8kph and considers railway stations within a 12-minute walk (960m) of a Site and bus stops within an 8-minute walk (640m). The PTAL assessment is undertaken using the AM peak hour operating patterns of existing services.
Figure 10: E-scooter and E-bike docking locations in RBKC
2.38 The existing PTAL of the Site is shown in Figure 11
Figure 11: Existing PTAL of Site
2.39 Figure 11 demonstrates the Site has a very good level of public transport accessibility throughout a large proportion of the Earls Court Development Site as a result of being located adjacent to three London Underground / Overground Stations and numerous bus routes. However, the Site does feature a PTAL of 2 and 3 adjacent to the Lillie Bridge Depot and 4 and 5 on North End Road and around West Kensington, where the distance from available bus routes and London Underground / Overground stations increases.
2.40 Plots EC05, EC06, WB03, WB04 and WB05 feature a PTAL of 6a.
2.41 The stations located adjacent to the Site provide a range of services that operate frequently, with the interchange opportunities reflected in the TfL online time mapping calculator as shown in Figure 12. The Travel Time Map (TTM) illustrates how far a person can travel in any given time, in this instance, it is used to illustrate journey times to the Site from other parts of London.
Figure 12: Existing TTM for Site
2.42 The TTM shows that the Site can be accessed from a wide part of London, including the immediate surrounding areas of Kensington and Chelsea, and Hammersmith and Fulham as well as central London within 30 minutes.
London Underground & Overground Services
2.43 The Site benefits from access to three London Underground Stations and one London Overground Station directly adjacent to the Site. These stations provide access to the District Line, with Earls Court also providing access to the Piccadilly Line.
Earls Court Underground Station
2.44 There are approximately six District Line services from Earls Court Underground Station towards Ealing Broadway Underground on the westbound service during the AM peak of 08:00 to 09:00 and six services that run in the PM peak 17:00 to 18:00 towards Ealing Broadway.
2.45 The eastbound service from Earls Court Station provides 15 services during the AM peak towards Upminster Underground Station and 13 services towards Upminster in the PM Peak.
2.46 Earls Court Station also provides access to the Piccadilly Line. There are approximately 18 services running eastbound towards Cockfoster in the AM peak and PM peak. There are approximately four services heading west to Uxbridge in the AM peak and seven in the PM peak.
West Brompton Underground Station
2.47 West Brompton station provides access to the District Line as well as National Rail services from London Overground and Southern. There are approximately eight District Line services running eastbound towards Upminster Station in the AM peak of 08:00 to 09:00 and four in the PM peak of 17:00-18:00 towards Upminster.
2.48 The westbound service from West Brompton on the District Line provides 16 services running westbound to Wimbledon Station in the AM peak 08:00 to 09:00 and 16 in the PM peak of 17:00-18:00.
2.49 West Brompton Station also provides direct access to the London Overground network. During the AM peak there are three services that run south towards East Croydon and seven services in the PM peak.
2.50 The northbound service to Willesden Junction provides five services in the AM peak and four in the PM peak. Willesden Junction provides onwards connections to Barking, Stratford, Euston, Watford Junction and Richmond.
2.51 Outside of the peak hours Southern also operate services from West Brompton servicing destinations such as Hemel Hempstead, Watford, Clapham Junction and Croydon. In addition, as part of the national rail network the line is known to carry freight and heritage services.
West Kensington UndergroundStation
2.52 West Kensington station provides access to the District Line on the Richmond and Ealing Broadway branch.
2.53 There are approximately seven services running eastbound to Upminster in the AM peak and 10 services running in the PM peak period. For services running westbound towards Ealing Broadway there are a total of six services in the AM peak and six in the PM peak.
2.54 For services running westbound to Richmond there are approximately five services in the AM peak and seven in the PM peak period.
2.55 Figure 13 shows the locations of the stations in proximity to the Site.
Figure
13: Station Locations Surrounding the Site
Bus Network
2.56 The Proposed Development will also benefit from the number of bus services operating near the Site with the Route 190 also featuring a terminating bus stop on the Site within the Lillie Road Bus Layover. Figure 14 shows the location of bus stops in the immediate vicinity of the Site whilst Table 4 shows details of the services available.
Figure 14: Bus Stops Surrounding the Site Table 4- Local Bus Services - Peak Hour Frequencies
North End Road (B317) - Stop BH 306
Lillie Road (A3218) – Stop BA
2.57 Figure 14 and Table 4 highlight that the Proposed Development is extremely well connected within the local area and further afield also, with frequent bus services operating across London.
Local Highway Network
2.58 The existing Site is accessed via multiple points of access located on Lillie Road, Old Brompton Road, Beaumont Avenue, Fenelon Place and Warwick Road. Figure 15 shows the highway network in the context of the Site.
2.59 The A4 West Cromwell Road, Warwick Road and Earls Court Road form part of the TLRN, where TfL is the Highway Authority. The local road network is managed by LBHF and RBKC. Warwick Road and Earls Court Road are one-way northbound and southbound Table 4- Local Bus Services - Peak Hour Frequencies
respectively, and form the Earls Court One Way System (ECOWS) which is part of the strategic north-south corridor between the A40 Westway and Chelsea Embankment. Warwick Road (A3220) and West Cromwell Road (A4), which forms the eastern and northern boundary of the Site respectively.
2.60 The A3128 Lillie Road is a single carriageway road running east to west from West Brompton Station in the east to the A219 Fulham Place Road in the west. The road is of an urban character and forms part of the Site’s southern boundary. Lillie Road is subject to a 20mph along its length.
2.61 Lillie Road is also subject to parking restrictions via double yellow lines and a CPZ between 09:00 and 20:00 Monday to Saturday.
2.62 On the southern boundary of the Site, Lillie Road forms a priority crossroad junction with Seagrave Road and Empress Place. Further west along Lillie Road there is a double miniroundabout which connects Lillie Road with the B317 North End Road providing access towards West Kensington to the north and Fulham Broadway to the south.
2.63 Lillie Road provides footways on either side of the carriageway. Informal crossings with islands are provided to the south and west of the Site along Lillie Road. A series of zebra crossings are located at the double mini-roundabout with North End Road. Lillie Road is street lit with advisory cycle lanes on both sides for much of its length.
Figure 15: Local Highway Network
Lillie Road (A3218)
2.64 To the west of the Site, Lillie Road provides a route to key destinations such as:
Retail shops on North End Road
Normand Croft Community School
Normand Park
Fulham Cross Girls School
Lillie Road Recreation Ground
Fulham Cemetery
Old Brompton Road
2.65 The A3128 Old Brompton Road is a single carriageway road running east to west from West Brompton Station in the west to South Kensington Underground Station in the east. The road is of an urban character and forms part of the Site’s southern boundary. Old Brompton Road is subject to a 20-mph speed limit
2.66 Old Brompton Road is also subject to parking restrictions via double yellow lines along the section adjacent to the Site and West Brompton Station. A CPZ is located to the east of West Brompton Station which operates between 08:30 and 18:30 Monday to Saturday.
2.67 To the south-east of the Site Old Brompton Road forms a signalised crossroad junction with the A3220 Warwick Road and Finborough Road. Further east along Old Brompton Road is another signalised crossroad junction with the A3220 Earls Court Road and Redcliffe Gardens.
2.68 Old Brompton Road provides pedestrian access via footways on either side of the carriageway. A pelican crossing is present outside of West Brompton Station. To the east at the signalised crossroad with the A3220 Warwick Road, there are a series of signalised pedestrian crossings providing pedestrian access across Old Brompton Road. The route is street lit and there are advisory cycle lanes on both sides for some of its length.
2.69 To the east of the Site, Old Brompton Road provides a route to key destinations such as West Brompton Cemetery
Retail shops on Old Brompton Road/Warwick Road Junction
Bousfield Primary School
South Kensington Underground Station and shops
A3220 Warwick Road
2.70 The A3220 Warwick Road is a three lane, one-way single carriageway road running south to north from Old Brompton Road in the south to Kensington High Street in the north. The road is of an urban character and forms part of the eastern boundary of the Site. Warwick Road is subject to a 30-mph speed limit along the section adjacent to the Site.
2.71 Warwick Road is also subject to parking restrictions being designated as a Red Route (No Stopping at any time). A car club space is provided by Zip Car on Nevern Square and Earls Court Square.
2.72 In proximity to the Site, Warwick Road forms a signalised crossroad junction at the following junctions:
Warwick Road/A3218 Old Brompton Road/Finborough Road
Warwick Road/Earls Court Square/Kempsford Gardens
Warwick Road/Eardley Crescent/Penywen Road
Warwick Road/A4 West Cromwell Road
2.73 Warwick Road provides pedestrian access via footways on either side of the carriageway. A number of pelican crossings are located in close proximity to the Site along Warwick Road, at the junction with Earls Court Square/Kempsford Gardens, Eardley Crescent/Penywen Road, adjacent to Earls Court Underground Station and south of Nevern Square.
2.74 The route is well lit with street lighting in place along its length. Warwick Road also provides a dedicated cycle lane on either side of the carriageway adjacent to the Site.
2.75 Warwick Road provides a route to key destinations such as
Earls Court Underground Station St Cuthbert with St Matthias Primary School
Tesco Superstore Kensington High Street
A3220 Earls Court Road
2.76 The A3220 Earls Court Road is a three lane, one-way single carriageway road running north to south from the junction with Stratford Road and the A3320 Pembroke Road in the north to Old Brompton Road in the south. The road is of an urban character and is subject to a 30-mph speed limit. Warwick Road is also subject to parking restrictions being designated as a Red Route (No Stopping at any time).
2.77 In proximity to the Site, Warwick Road forms a signalised crossroad junction at the following junctions:
2.78 The A3220 Earls Court Road provides pedestrian facilities via footways on either side of the carriageway. A number of pelican crossings are located along its length.
2.79 The route is well lit and provides a dedicated cycle lane on either side of the carriageway adjacent to the Site. The A3220 Earls Court Road provides a route to key destinations such as:
Chelsea and Westminster Hospital to the south
Earls Court High Street
North End Road
2.80 North End Road is a single carriageway road running north to south from A304 Fulham Road in the south to A315 Hammersmith Road in the north. The road is a of an urban character and forms part of the northwestern boundary. North End Road is subject to a 30-mph speed limit along the section adjacent to the Site.
2.81 North End Road is subject to parking restrictions via double yellow lines along the section adjacent to the Site and West Brompton Station. A CPZ is located to the south of West
Kensington Station between 09:00 and 15:00 Monday to Friday. North End Road forms multiple priority junctions with side roads along its length.
2.82 North End Road provides pedestrian facilities via footways on either side of the carriageway. A pelican crossing is located in close proximity to the Site adjacent to Beaumont Avenue with a further pelican crossing to the south near Beaumont Crescent. Zebra crossings are then located along North End Road near Thaxton Road and at the double mini-roundabout junction with Lillie Road.
2.83 The route is well lit with street lighting in place along its length. North End Road also provides a dedicated cycle lane on either side of the carriageway adjacent to the Site.
2.84 North End Road provides a route to key destinations such as:
Retail Shops including Sainsburys Local, Tesco Express and Little Waitrose; and West Kensington Underground Station
A4 West Cromwell Road
2.85 The A4 West Cromwell Road adjacent to the Site is a three-lane dual carriageway road running east to west from A3220 Earls Court Road in the east to North End Road in the west. The A4 West Cromwell Road forms part of the larger A4 corridor which connects central London with the M25 and destinations beyond. The road is a strategic highway corridor and as such is vehicular dominated. The A4 forms part of the northern boundary of the Site. The A4 West Cromwell Road is subject to a 30-mph speed limit along the section adjacent to the Site.
2.86 It is subject to parking restrictions by being designated as a Red Route (No Stopping at any time). The A4 West Cromwell Road forms three signalised junctions in the vicinity of the Site with Earls Court Road in the east, Warwick Road and North End Road in the West.
2.87 The A4 West Cromwell Road provides pedestrian facilities via footways on either side of the carriageway. Signalised pelican crossings are located in close proximity to the Site at the junctions with the A3220 Earls Court Road, Warwick Road and North End Road. A toucan crossing is located between Warwick Road and Earls Court Road.
2.88 The route is street lit and there is no dedicated cycle infrastructure located along the road in the vicinity of the Site.
2.89 The A4 West Cromwell Road provides a route to key destinations such as Tesco Kensington Superstore including Pharmacy; West Kensington Underground Station; Barons Court Underground Station; Hammersmith Town Centre; and Sainsburys (South Kensington)
Mund Street /AisgillAvenue
2.90 Mund Street and Aisgill Avenue are two-way single carriageway roads which are accessed from North End Road. The roads are of an urban character situated within a residential development and lie immediately to the west of the site. They are subject to a 30-mph
speed limit, with parking restrictions enforced with designated Permit Holder or Pay by Phone parking bays on each side of the carriageway.
2.91 Mund Street provides pedestrian facilities via footways on either side of the carriageway. The route is street lit.
Fenelon Place
2.92 Fenelon Place is a single carriageway road with one lane running in each direction that connects Warwick Road in the east with access to the Kensington Tesco Superstore. The Tesco Superstore features a multi-storey car park. A vehicular route is provided through the basement level of the car park to the Earls Court site.
Parking and Car Clubs
Off-street Parkingand Car Clubs
2.93 Figure 16 sets out a selection of the available car parks in the immediate vicinity of the site. This identifies that the number of car parks available in the local area is limited. Those car parks that do exist either have limited waiting (for example Tesco and Coomer Place) or are private car parks associated with hotels.
Figure 16: Existing Car Clubs and Local Car Parks
2.94 A review of the off-street parking areas in the local area identified that whilst some parking locations allow users to book in advance, not all guaranteed space availability on the day. This limits emergency or unplanned visits. In addition, especially for trades people, the offsite nature of the provision could require multiple trips carrying goods / tools etc.
2.95 The figure also identifies some of the local car club (Enterprise / Zip Car) permitted parking spots. Given the nature of car clubs, these may not always be available if already booked / being utilised etc.
2.96 The closest car club space to Plots EC05 and EC06 is located on Earls Court Square, approximately 300m walking distance from the centre of the Plots. The closest car park is located at Kensington Court, approximately 350m distance from the centre of the Plots.
2.97 The closest car club space to Plots WB03, WB04 and WB05 is located on Farm Lane approximately 500m walking distance from the centre of the Plots. The closest car park is located at Hotel Lily approximately 2000m distance from the centre of the Plots.
On-street parking availability
2.98 Figure 17 shows the parking restrictions on the roads surrounding the Site currently in place within a 250m walking distance from the Site. A distance of 250m was selected to ensure that all roads immediately surrounding the Site were selected.
Figure 17: On-street Parking Restrictions
2.99 All of the nearby residential areas are subject to some level of parking restriction. In most cases, parking is for permit holders and covers the core daily time periods (limiting use by call out / trades etc). A number of areas also adopt limits on the duration of stay.
Personal InjuryAccident Data Review
2.100 Personal Injury Accident (PIA) data recorded within the ATZ study area for the five-year period up to September 2023 has been obtained from TfL. Chapter 3 of the TA provides a summary of the collision data, with a full review provided at Appendix F of the TA.
3.0 Development Proposals
Introduction
3.1 This chapter set out the development proposals and Transport Strategy for the Detailed Components. Chapter 4 of the TA sets out the Transport Strategy for the wider Earls Court Development Site.
Site Location
3.2 The location of the Detailed Components in relation to the wider Earls Court Development Site is shown in Figure 18.
Figure 18: Detailed Components Site Location
Development Content
3.3 The Detailed Components of the planning applications seek full planning permission (no matters reserved) for initial phases of development across five plots split between RBKC and LBHF. The development quantum associated with the Detailed Components is shown in Tables 5 and 6.
Access Strategy
3.4 The planning strategy draws the Site boundary for the Detailed Components around the edge of the building line. As a result, elements outside of this detailed area, although
Table 5: RBKC Detailed Component Floorspace (GIA)
Table 6: LBHF Detailed Component Floorspace (GIA)
relevant to the detailed plots, such as adjacent servicing bays or parking not within plot and the means of access from the public highway to the plots are subject to the Outline elements of the planning applications and will therefore be subject to a Reserved Matters Application (RMA) pursuant to the outline applications.
3.5 Whilst it is acknowledged that the adoption of this strategy results in a situation where outline elements are linked to the detailed applications, the application of this approach is well established and utilised on other large-scale London based schemes. It allows for flexibility and best design to come forward at the appropriate time, and doesn’t limit the development to be tied to potentially inefficient design principles that were set years prior to construction.
3.6 From a transport perspective this specifically affects elements such as access which is a reserved matter pursuant to the outline applications. This means that elements such as the access points onto the highway network, access routes through the public realm and the location and form of parking and servicing that is outside of the boundary of the Detailed Components are not determined at this stage but will instead come forwards as RMAs pursuant to the outline applications in due course.
3.7 To provide comfort that matters relating to access, parking and servicing that affect the Detailed Components can be secured it is anticipated that conditions will be attached to the planning consent requiring these elements to be approved prior to occupation. No Plots will be occupied without suitable means of access having been implemented.
3.8 Consideration has been given to the minimal level of access that will expect to be secured prior to occupation of the Detailed Components and Figure 19 sets out the access points that will be available for the detailed plots in some form (temporary or permanent) and the routes that will be available across the Proposed Development by different modes. Figure 19 is reproduced at a larger scale in Appendix A.
Figure 19: Detailed Components Access Strategy
PedestrianAccess Strategy
3.9 The access strategy for pedestrians will be as follows:
EC05 and EC06:
o Pedestrians will be able to access the Plots via the Northern and Southern Warwick Road access points and through the centre of Warwick Square. The public realm within the Site will then facilitate access via Warwick Lane, Warwick Crescent, and the central public realm.
o An east-west pedestrian connection will be provided from Warwick Road through to Aisgill Avenue connecting with a north-south connection to facilitate access to Lillie Road and along the West London Line to connect with the crossing on Lillie Road adjacent to West Brompton Station.
WB03, WB04 and WB05:
o The primary pedestrian access to WB03, WB04 and WB05 is proposed to be via Empress Place Boulevard, The Cascades and Aisgill Gardens.
o An east-west pedestrian connection will be provided from Warwick Road through to Aisgill Avenue connecting with a north-south connection to facilitate access to Lillie Road and along the West London Line to connect with the crossing on Lillie Road adjacent to West Brompton Station.
Cyclistand MicromobilityAccess Strategy
3.10 The access strategy for cyclists will be as follows:
EC05 and EC06:
o Most of the routes available to pedestrians as described above will also be available to cyclists to access the EC05 and EC06 Plots as shown in Figure 19.
o Notably, there will be an East / West connection from Aisgill Avenue, across the Site via the Cascades and the Table Park, past EC05 and EC06 and through to Warwick Road, via the northern and southern Warwick Road access points (no cycle access is permitted within Warwick Square).
o Empress Place Boulevard will provide a key connection from Lillie Road to The Cascades for those wishing to access the EC05 and EC06 Plots from the south and southwest.
WB03, WB04 and WB05:
o The primary cycle access to WB03, WB04 and WB05 is proposed to be via Empress Place Boulevard, The Cascades and Aisgill Gardens. This is where cycle parking located on Plot will be accessed.
o An east-west connection will also be available from Aisgill Avenue through to Warwick Road via The Cascades and Table Park.
o It is anticipated that bicycles and cargo bikes undertaking servicing trips of WB03 and WB04 will use the vehicular service street at the rear of the Plots accessed from Lillie Road through the Lillie Road Bus Layover
Public TransportStrategy
3.11 The Detailed Component Sites benefit from excellent access to public transport with three stations on the doorstep of the Site and access to numerous bus routes.
3.12 The PTAL analysis identifies that Plots EC05, EC06, WB03, WB04 and WB05 feature a PTAL of 6a largely due to the high levels of public transport accessibility already afforded these areas of the Site. The PTAL will be further enhanced by the connections created through the Site as part of the Proposed Development. This is discussed in more detail in the TA
3.13 The closest bus stops to Plots EC05 and EC06 are located on Warwick Road (Bus Stops B, C and Warwick Road Tesco) which provide access to Routes 74,328,C1,C3,N31,N74,N97.
3.14 The closest bus stops to Plots WB03, WB04 and WB05 are located on Lillie Road and within the Lillie Road Bus Layover (Bus Stops BA, BB and T) which provide access to Routes 74,190, 430, N74 and N97
VehicularAccess Strategy
3.15 The Proposed Development seeks to prioritise active travel and proposes a pedestrian priority public realm. To facilitate this, vehicular routes have been limited to the periphery of the Site, a ‘car-lite’ approach to parking adopted, servicing movements segregated from the public realm where possible with opportunities for consolidation explored to minimise the number of trips to/from the development. As such, the street network has only been designed to accommodate low volumes of vehicular traffic.
Vehicular Access Strategy - Plots EC05 and EC06
3.16 The main vehicular access points to Plots EC05 and EC06 from the public highway will be via:
Warwick Square (Warwick Road junction with Warwick Lane)
3.17 Access to Plots EC05 & EC06 from the public highway will be the subject of a RMA pursuant to the outline application and will therefore be determined at a later date but will be delivered ahead of occupation of EC05 or EC06. However, the proposals anticipate residential access will be taken primarily from Warwick Road. A new access street will be provided along the boundary of the Site referred to as Warwick Lane. A junction will be formed with Warwick Lane from which a new loop street referred to as Warwick Crescent will be provided. Warwick Crescent will then provide access to the primary entrances to the residential plots.
3.18 It is envisaged that the access strategy will be phased. Figure 20 shows how access will be provided by all modes initially and Figure 21 how it will be accessed in the longer term under the final access arrangements.
3.19 The access and movement parameter plan proposes a connection from Warwick Lane to St Cuthbert’s Lane. It is intended that during the first phase of development, the Warwick Lane connection onto St Cuthbert’s Lane will not be available and therefore Warwick Crescent will be designed to allow two-way movement. In doing so, the first phase will likely require a restriction on parking provision along Warwick Crescent’s northern kerb line. The layout and operation associated with this phasing is part of the public realm element of the Proposed Development and will be addressed as part of an RMA.
3.20 As and when the Warwick Lane connection to St Cuthbert’s Lane is completed, it is intended that Warwick Crescent will revert to one-way working and the finalised parking arrangement can be installed with provision on both sides of the street.
3.21 From the outset, refuse and limited servicing movements (such as move in/out) will be available via St Cuthbert’s Lane. The remainder of servicing movements will take place from Warwick Crescent. This is discussed in more detail within the EC05 & EC06 DSP.
Fenelon Place for access via St Cuthbert’s Lane
Figure 20: EC05 & EC06 Access Diagram with Interim Access from Warwick Lane
3.22 Once the Proposed Development is fully built out, additional access points will be provided across the Site enabling access to the EC05 & EC06 plots. This is discussed in more detail in the TA.
Vehicular Access Strategy Plots WB03, WB04 and WB05
3.23 The main vehicular access points to Plots WB03, WB04 and WB05 will be via:
Lillie Road junction with the Lillie Road Bus Layover
Aisgill Avenue
3.24 Vehicle access and servicing of the LBHF Detailed Component will be provided via a Service Access Road (SAR), segregating the required vehicular movements away from pedestrians and cyclists using Empress Place Boulevard. The proposed SAR will connect to Lillie Road to the south at the Lillie Road Bus Layover. The Lillie Road Bus Layover junction with Lillie Road will be shared, providing access to the Empress State Building, the proposed Lillie Road Bus Layover, a taxi pick-up/drop-off and other access requirements of the Earls Court Development. The access strategy is shown in Figure 22
Figure 21: EC05 & EC06 Access Diagram with Permanent Access from Warwick Lane
Figure
3.25 The SAR will be a restricted access road, controlled via a security barrier. The security barrier is assumed to be manned but will be able to operate automatically with an Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) system. It is anticipated that the access protocol will be as follows:
There will be a web-based portal where people visiting the Site can pre-register their details
Registered vehicles gain access to the SAR with ANPR system (i.e. Deliveries, waste collection, Disabled persons parking, car club and taxis).
3.26 Unregistered visitors/ deliveries will be checked at the gate and may need to be searched before proceeding into the podium, using a proposed security clearance bay located within the taxi pick-up/drop-off area (Figure 23)
22: Access Strategy for WB03, WB04 and WB05
23: Illustrative Lillie Road Bus Layover Layout showing location of Security Clearance Bay
3.27 The SAR is located at Lower Ground Level and will accommodate all motor vehicle servicing and disabled persons parking for WB03 and WB04 and the majority of servicing and disabled persons parking for WB05 including:
Servicing Bays
Disabled persons Parking Bays
Car Club Bays
Loading bay/Taxi Drop off
Motorbike/Cargo Bike/Bicycle Delivery Bays
3.28 Large delivery/servicing vehicles will be required to U-turn within the SAR.
3.29 The layout of the SAR maintains the interim access required for Lillie Bridge Depot (LBD) accommodating Abnormal Load Vehicles (referred to as the TfL Long Vehicle) that need to pass through the SAR. The swept path for the ‘TfL long vehicle’ passing through the SAR is shown in Figure 24
Figure
Figure 24: TfL Long Vehicle Access through SAR
3.30 A pedestrian route is also provided through the SAR to maintain interim access to the LBD. This will not be a promoted pedestrian route within the Proposed Development wayfinding strategy.
3.31 Plots WB03 and WB04 will be accessed at two levels, with the primary pedestrian/ cycle access proposed from Empress Place Boulevard and the vehicular and servicing access, via the SAR will be at Lower Ground Level. It is proposed that servicing trips that take place on foot/bicycle take place from the Lower Ground Level.
3.32 An additional Disabled persons parking bay is proposed at Aisgill Avenue to serve the community facilities
3.33 Further detailed information relating to vehicle movements at the lower ground floor, such as swept path analysis is provided in the separately prepared DSP for WB03, WB04 and WB05.
Servicing Strategy – Plots EC05 and EC06
3.34 The servicing strategy for EC05 and EC06 has been developed with reference to the wider access strategy for the Proposed Development (outlined within Chapter 5 of the TA). Servicing is split between Warwick Crescent and St Cuthbert’s Lane with day-to-day servicing (such as amazon deliveries) via Warwick Crescent and larger deliveries and waste collection via St Cuthbert’s Lane
3.35 It is intended that St Cuthbert’s Lane will cater for the following types of servicing:
Waste / refuse collection (excluding waste/refuser collection of the two proposed town houses)
Bulky Waste collection
Move in / Move out deliveries
Commercial / retail deliveries and servicing
3.36 Two loading bays are proposed, one to service EC05 and one to service EC06. The location of the loading bays relative to the plots is shown in Figure 25. The final design of the loading bays will be subject to an RMA pursuant to the outline planning application
3.37 It is not however intended that the loading bays served from St Cuthbert’s Lane will be used for general day to day deliveries for residents within EC05 and EC06 which will be taken from Warwick Crescent.
3.38 For general day to day deliveries, loading bays will be provided within the public realm along Warwick Crescent. Again, this will be subject to the final design of the public realm. It is anticipated the loading bays will accommodate the following types of services.
Figure 25 – St Cuthbert’s Lane Servicing Bays for EC05 and EC06
3.39 The proposals also allow for cycle type deliveries (Deliveroo, Uber Eats etc) which will be accommodated on Warwick Crescent. The public realm of the Proposed Development is being developed to enable suitable on street short stay cycle provision to enable delivery bikes to be set down and access Plots EC05 and EC06 via the Warwick Crescent entrances.
3.40 The location of the loading bays on Warwick Crescent to serve EC05 and EC06 are shown indicatively in Figure 26. The final layout of Warwick Crescent including the loading bays will be subject to an RMA pursuant to the outline application.
Servicing Strategy - WB03, WB04 and WB05
3.41 All servicing will be undertaken for WB03, WB04 and WB05 (T1) at the Lower Ground level, accessed via the SAR, and will accommodate:
Refuse collection
Bulky waste collection
Furniture/ large goods deliveries
Parcels/courier deliveries
Move-in/move-out
Retail/F&B Plot servicing
3.42 Refuse collection for WB05 (T2) is proposed to be from Aisgill Avenue in order to maintain the prescribed maximum walking distances set out by LBHF.
3.43 Figure 27 sets out the location of servicing arrangements for WB03, WB04 and WB05 within the SAR whilst Figure 28 sets out the location of servicing arrangements for WB05 on Aisgill Avenue. Further information including swept paths is provided within the WB03, WB04 and WB05 DSP.
Figure 26 – Warwick Crescent Indicative Servicing Bays for EC05 and EC06
Figure 27: WB03, WB04, WB05 SAR Loading Bays and Servicing/Refuse Stores
3.44 The SAR has been designed to accommodate deliveries to WB03 and WB04 by bicycle/cargo bike/e-bike. Instruction will be provided by the plot management companies to residents for such deliveries to direct riders to the Lower Ground floor lobby areas
Student Enrolment Day (WB03)
3.45 The student accommodation Enrolment Day will be managed by the student management operator of WB03. Student enrolment will be controlled and likely occur over a weekend period. The SAR has been designed such that the Car Club bays (3no.) within the SAR could be utilised during the drop-off process. The students will have an allocated amount of time likely to be between 5-15 minutes to unload their vehicle. Following the end of the booking, drivers will be required to leave the SAR to park at a local public car park before returning to the student accommodation on foot.
3.46 Similarly for student departure, students will be asked to book out the Car Club bays to enable their departure. During the booking process students will be asked for the vehicle registration to allow the vehicle to enter the SAR during the allocated time slot.
Car Parking
3.47 The Earls Court development proposes to adopt a ‘car lite’ approach to car parking with parking provided for disabled persons alongside a car club, limited visitor parking, taxi
Figure 28: WB05 Aisgill Avenue Loading Bays and Servicing/Refuse Stores
drop-off and servicing. A car-lite approach is being followed across the Site. Full details of what this entails is provided in Chapter 4 of the TA and within the separately prepared PDMP
3.48 PDMPs have been prepared for the RBKC Detailed Component and the LBHF Detailed Component. The purpose of these documents is to establish the measures that will be implemented to manage the parking that will be provided for each of the Detailed Components. Each PDMP has been prepared with reference to the site-wide Framework PDMP which sets out the framework to manage the parking that will be provided across the wider Earls Court Development Site.
Car Parking – Plots
and EC06
3.49 Parking is limited to Disabled persons parking only. The total provision for each plot is summarised in Table 7.
3.50 Plot EC05 will include seven disabled persons parking spaces accessed directly from Warwick Crescent. As per London Plan policy T6.1, the proposals deliver the required minimum 3% provision for the 202 units These have been designed at 2.6m x 5m with associated 1.2m hatched areas as per current design guidance
3.51 The proposed vehicle access to EC05 (for disabled persons car parking) will be via an independent access street on the eastern boundary of EC05 as shown in Figure 29. In time, this will also provide access to plot EC04 which will be subject to a RMA. Full details including vehicle tracking is contained within the separately prepared PDMP for EC05 and EC06.
6 Design Recommendations for Multi-Storey and Underground Car Parks 2023
Table 7: EC05 and EC06 Car Parking Provision
Figure
3.52 Plot EC06 will not incorporate parking within the footprint of the plot, instead all parking will be provided within the public realm along Warwick Crescent. Four disabled persons parking spaces will be provided, and these will be delivered within close proximity to the Site entrance. A further space has been allowed for on Warwick Crescent to accommodate disabled persons parking demand associated with the non-residential uses within both EC05 and EC06 This approach accords with the wider parking strategy for the Site.
3.53 The final design and location of the parking on Warwick Crescent will be the subject of an RMA pursuant to the outline application. However, the illustrative layout of the Proposed Development sets out where this parking could be provided in the context of the final layout for Warwick Crescent. The location of the parking in the context of the illustrative layout of the Proposed Development is shown in Figure 30.
Figure 30: EC06 On-street Parking and Non-residential Parking for EC05 and EC06
Car Parking – Plots WB03, WB04 and WB05
3.54 Parking is limited to Disabled persons and car club parking only. Disabled persons parking provision has been determined for each plot and summarised in Table 8.
3.55 The disabled persons parking bays for Blue Badge Holders for residents and tenants of WB03, WB04 and WB05 are proposed to be accessed from the SAR with the only
Table 8: WB03, WB04 & WB05 Car Parking Provision
exception being the disabled parking space located on Aisgill Avenue which will be for the community uses within WB05
3.56 Figure 31 and Figure 32 show the location of the car parking proposed for WB03, WB04 and WB05. Vehicle tracking is contained within the plot specific PDMP.
Figure 31: WB03, WB04 Parking in SAR
Figure 32 –WB05 Parking Accessed from SAR and Indicative Location of Parking on Aisgill Avenue
1 Space – Aisgill Avenue
6 Spaces – WB05
Car Club
3.57 The car club strategy for Plots WB03, WB04 and WB05 requires the provision of three spaces within the SAR. The location of the car club bays is shown in Figure 33
Figure 33 – Taxi and Car Club Bay Location
3.58 It is anticipated that a car club space will be provided for Plots EC05 and EC06 on Warwick Crescent. The location of this space will be secured through an RMA pursuant to the outline application.
Cycle Parking
3.59 Cycle parking proposals have been carefully designed to ensure that they provide high quality facilities that will enable and encourage users of the Site to cycle as a primary mode of transport.
3.60 Cycle parking quantum will adhere to the standards set out in the London Plan and its design ensures that cycle parking is located in areas that are both convenient and secure. The development will consist of long stay cycle parking provision and short stay parking provision.
3.61 The entrance into the residential cycle store will require a fob to access. Within the bike stores there will be communal facilities which will include a bike pump and repair tools. LCDS states that cycle parking needs to take into account all user needs, so as not to exclude or disadvantage riders of certain types of cycle, which includes people who use accessible cycles.
3.62 There have been ongoing discussions with both TfL and RBKC over the design and type of cycle parking provision. Most notably there appears to be a differing approach to the composition of long stay provision between TfL and RBKC, notably on the level of two-tier provision. Table 9 sets out the proposed split of long-stay cycle parking provision across both Detailed Components.
Table 9: Split of long stay parking provision
3.63 There is no specific requirement for electric cycle charging set out in the LBHF, RBKC or London Plan policies. However, given the growth of sales for these bikes, and the opportunity to present an enhanced cycle strategy, the current European Cyclist Federation recommends equipping 10% of bays with e-bike charging infrastructure.
3.64 As set out above, this is based on a mix of fixed and removable batteries, with removable batteries likely to be charged in the cyclist's home. It is therefore proposed to allow for 10% of long-stay cycle parking spaces with charging provision that will take the form of plug-in points on the walls.
3.65 Short stay cycle parking provision will be located within the public realm and subject to an RMA pursuant to the outline application. Given the strategic nature of the Site and mix of land uses, it is expected that the potential for sharing short stay provision will be considered at that time.
Cycle Parking – Plots EC05 and EC06
3.66 The design of EC05 cycle spaces sees cycle parking split between the ground and basement levels. The basement level is accessible via a lift or steps with cycle channels. From the cycle store, residents will be able to access the storage lockers within the basement and the EC05 core including lifts into the main building.
3.67 The quantum of cycle parking proposed for Plots EC05 and EC06 is set out in Table 10.
3.68 The long stay provision for EC05 will be located across two levels, with spaces located at grade level accessed via the main vehicle access.
3.69 The remainder of the cycle parking provision for EC05 will be provided at basement level which will be accessed directly from Warwick Crescent.
3.70 The long stay provision for EC06 will be located at the Table Park level. This can be accessed from across the Proposed Development. However, it will be one level above Warwick Crescent. As such an external public lift that can accommodate bikes is proposed within the public realm.
3.71 EC06 includes two separate stores for cycle parking. One cycle store includes the accessible provision, and a separate store which allows for the majority of the two-tier provision.
3.72 Further information is available in the EC05 and EC06 PDMP.
Cycle Parking – Plots WB03, WB04 and WB05
3.73 The walking and cycle access strategy for the LBHF Detailed Component has been developed in accordance with the Earls Court site-wide Access Strategy, in that proposals assume that pedestrian and cycle access will be from the public realm on Empress Place Boulevard and Aisgill Gardens. Access to all buildings within the LBHF Detailed Component for pedestrians and cyclists is therefore provided at-grade, either via the Empress Place Boulevard or Aisgill Gardens via separate entrance lobbies for each building/ land use. Servicing access by bicycle for WB03 and WB04 is provided from the SAR. Cyc
3.74 The quantum of cycle parking proposed for WB03, WB04 and WB05 is set out in Table 11.
Table 10: EC05 & EC06 Cycle Parking Provision
Table 11: WB03, WB04 and WB05 Cycle Parking Provision
3.75 Cycle parking will be provided at ground level in Plots WB03 and WB04 and at ground and mezzanine level in Plot WB05.
3.76 Further information is available in the WB03, WB04 and WB05 PDMP.
4.0 Trip Generation
Introduction
4.1 This Section sets out the trip generation for the detailed component. The methodology used to calculate the trip generation is presented in the TA.
Trip Generation
Plots WB03, WB04 and WB05
4.2 Table 12 sets out the total person trip generation by mode for all land uses in WB03, WB04 and WB05.
Table 12 - Forecast Trips by Main Mode (WB03, WB04 and WB05)
*Values have been rounded to the nearest whole number
4.3 The resulting mode share for Plots WB03, WB04 and WB05 is set out in Table 13
Table 13 indicates that during the peak hours, the largest proportion of trips (47-51%) to and from WB03, WB04 and WB05 will be by train or underground, 10-11% by bus and approximately 33-39% of trips on foot / by bicycle. The mode shares align with the transport strategy in terms of seeking to achieve a 60% public transport mode share, 30% active travel and residential 10% by vehicle.
Plots EC05 and EC06
4.5 Table 14 sets out the total person trip generation by mode for all land uses in EC05 and EC06.
Table 14 – Forecast Trips by Main Mode (EC05 and EC06)
4.6 The resulting mode share for Plots EC05 and EC06 is set out in Table 15.
Table 15 - Resulting Mode Shares (EC05 and EC06)
4.7
Table 15 indicates that during the peak hours, the largest proportion of trips (46-49%) to and from EC05 and EC06 will be by train or underground, 10% by bus and approximately 37-41% of trips on foot / by bicycle. The mode shares align with the transport strategy in terms of seeking to achieve a 60% public transport mode share, 30% active travel and residential 10% by vehicle.
4.8 Table 16 provides a combined trip generation for the Detailed Components.
Table 16 - Forecast Trips by Main Mode (Detailed Components)
Servicing and Deliveries
4.9 In addition to the travel demand generated by new residents and workers within the Detailed Components, account needs to be taken of the servicing trips that are likely to occur throughout the day. It is anticipated that servicing and collection of waste will be undertaken on a daily basis. The methodology for how the servicing trips have been derived is explained in Appendix M of the TA
4.10 Table 17 sets out the daily servicing and delivery trip generation for WB03, WB04 and WB05. Table 18 sets out the daily servicing and delivery trip generation for EC05 and EC06. Table 19 sets out the total detailed component daily servicing and delivery trip generation
Table 17: WB03, WB04 and WB05 Daily Servicing and Deliveries Trip Generation
Table 18: EC05 and EC06 Daily Servicing and Deliveries Trip Generation
Table 18: EC05 and EC06 Daily Servicing and Deliveries Trip Generation
Table 19: Detailed Components
4.11 Peak hour delivery and servicing trips are assumed to represent 15% of the daily total for each of the scenarios and have been factored into the peak hour trip generation used in the transport modelling.
Development Trips Assessed
4.12 Following the undertaking of the MoTiON demand modelling it was noted that a significantly higher number of car driver trips were predicted as being generated by the development compared to the separately prepared trip generation (Appendix M of the TA), in particular Non-Home Based car trips.
4.13 Further analysis was undertaken of the 1 hour AM and PM peak hour demand passed to LoHAM (via MoTiON), the following adjustments were made to the demand in the LoHAM zones representing the development:
Car demand was reduced in LoHAM to reflect the trip generation
Taxi demand was uplifted to reflect the trip generation exercise, given no predictions of changes in Taxi demand are incorporated as part of the MoTiON demand model responses
Private Hire Vehicle (PHV) demand predicted in LoHAM (via MoTiON) was reduced to account for the aforementioned uplift in Taxis
4.14 Further adjustments were made to the LGV and HGV demand in LoHAM to align to the predicted peak hour servicing and delivery trips.
4.15 Analysis was also undertaken of the increase in public transport demand which was predicted in the 3-hour AM and PM peak periods in Railplan. The uplift in Railplan demand (via MoTiON) was compared to the trip generation exercise. Following this comparison it was concluded the Railplan demand exceeded the public transport trip generation demand, therefore the Railplan demand predicted via MoTiON was used as a starting point to analyse the impact on rail stations and services.
4.16 However, further adjustments were made to finalise the public transport demand used to assess the rail stations. As noted above, reductions were applied to the LoHAM car demand, with this demand then converted from vehicle to person trips and redistributed to other modes using the following distance thresholds:
0-2km trips switched to walking 0-5km trips switched to cycling 5km+ trips switched to public transport
4.17 Railplan predominantly considers the impact on rail services. Whilst it does include a representation of bus services this is not its primary purpose, with bus and walk included as a means of transit to access rail services. Analysis of the routeing of the increase in demand in Railplan demonstrates the majority of this travelled to and from rail stations. In light of this, additional bus demand related to the development was derived. Note this bus demand was calculated in addition to the Railplan demand affecting the rail stations, effectively meaning the bus demand assessed in this TA was calculated above and beyond the public transport demand demonstrated by Railplan which is therefore a worstcase stress test of the combined impact on rail stations and bus services. The steps taken to derive the additional bus demand related to the development is outlined below:
Calculating the AM and PM increases by development link predicted within Railplan Each development link was aligned to specific bus stops closest to the respective accesses to the Site, with the proportions by bus stop also partly aligned to a census derived distribution
Utilising MoTiON’s prediction of the relative proportion of bus demand compared to the scale of the rail demand, with this proportion then applied to the increase in Railplan demand to derive the bus demand.
The development bus demand boarding and alighting at specific bus stops and loading against bus services was then determined
4.18 The approach taken in terms of deriving and defining the development trips used for the assessment of the impact of the development is considered to represent a worst case. Table 20 summarises the 1-hour trip generation used to assess the impacts of the Detailed Components, with the demand categorised as follows:
Public Transport, comprising the following:
o Increase in entry and exit flows at Earls Court, West Kensington and West Brompton stations demonstrated in Railplan
o Additional Bus demand using a proportion of the Railplan demand
5.1 This Chapter considers the likely impacts of the Detailed Components on the transport network. The impacts have been presented split down by mode as follows:
Pedestrians Cyclists
Public Transport Highways
Pedestrian NetworkAssessment
5.2 Pedestrian Comfort Level (PCL) is a method for assessing footway and pedestrian crossing provision in London. The analysis has been completed using TfL’s PCL tool and guidance7. Results are presented as a PCL score ranging between A and F.
5.3 Nine locations were selected for analysis for the Detailed Components.
5.4 Each of the PCL assessment locations were assessed under the following scenarios:
2022 Baseline (where available) – if not, 2016 Railplan base used
2031 Base Minus
2031 Base Minus + Detailed Components
5.5 The PCL assessment for this scenario is provided at Appendix B
Development Pedestrian Demand
5.6 The pedestrian demand for the development has been distributed by access utilising the same split applied to the cycle demand.
5.7 Table 21 outlines the pedestrian demand by access for the Detailed Components.
Table 21: Detailed Components pedestrian demand by access Access
5.8 As part of the modelling undertaken using MoTiON, Cynemon (Cycle Assignment Model) model runs were produced. Analysis was undertaken of the distribution of trips to/from model zones within Cynemon which cover the development. This distribution was used to inform the most likely development access which the cycle trips will use within the development. In summary, the cycle demand was taken from the trip generation with the distribution of this demand informed by TfL’s Cynemon model.
5.9 Table 22 outlines the cycle demand by access for the Detailed Components
Table 21: Detailed Components pedestrian demand by access
Table 22: Detailed Components cycle demand by access
5.10 No quantitative analysis of the cycle demand has been undertaken for the detailed components beyond consideration within the wider Vissim modelling.
Public Transport
Bus Service Capacity Impacts
5.11 Bus service capacity has been calculated using outputs from Railplan. The methodology used to derive this assessment is explained in more detail in the TA
5.12 Table 23 shows the results of the bus route capacity assessment for the 2031 Base Minus and Detailed Components in the 3-hour AM peak period.
23: 2031
5.13 Table 24 shows the results of the bus route capacity assessment for the 2031 Base Minus and Detailed Components in the 3-hour PM peak period.
Table 24: 2031 Detailed
5.14 For the Detailed Components, the analysis demonstrates that the forecast bus network has the capacity to accommodate the additional bus demand which has been estimated for the development during the network peak periods of 07:00-10:00 and 16:00-19:00 on a weekday
Bus Stop Boarding and Alighting
5.15 Bus stop boarding and alighting has been determined by aligning the increases in the development access links to/from the development in Railplan to the nearest bus stops available to the development access point. A 2011 Census travel to work distribution was then utilised to assign boarders and alighters between bus stops at the Earls Court Station stops on Warwick Road and Earls Court Road given the one-way direction of the bus routes at these locations. Figure 34 sets out the bus stops which have been the focus of the boarding and alighting assessment undertaken Whilst this does not cover every bus stop where a passenger associated with the development may board or alight it does represent the bus stops in the local vicinity of the Site likely to witness the greatest level of change as a result of the Proposed Development.
5.16 The approach taken to determine the future number of boarders and alighters by bus stop is explained in the TA.
Figure 34: Bus Stops considered in Boarding and Alighting Analysis
5.17 Table 25 sets out the boarding and alighting for the 2031 Base Minus and Detailed Components in the AM peak hour.
Table 25: 2031 Detailed Components Bus Stop Boarding & Alighting – AM 0800 to 0900 (1 hour)
5.18 Table 26 sets out the boarding and alighting by bus stop for the 2031 Base Minus and Detailed Components in the PM peak hour.
5.19 The analysis for the Detailed Components shows that the bus stop which is likely to witness the biggest change in demand is outside of the Tesco Kensington Supermarket (West Cromwell Road Bus Stop E) In the Detailed Components scenario an additional 90 boarders could use the stop during the AM peak hour. This stop is currently served by the Routes 328, C1 and C3 offering a peak hour frequency of up to 16 buses an hour. Spread across the 16 buses this equates to 6 passengers per bus based on existing frequencies. The bus service capacity assessment presented above does not identify an issue with this increase in demand and therefore it is considered that this
level of demand can be accommodated on the bus network without further consideration
Station InfrastructureAssessment
5.20 This section sets out the impacts of the Proposed Development on the three stations surrounding the Site (Earl’s Court, West Brompton and West Kensington). For the Detailed Components static analysis only has been undertaken.
Station Demand
5.21 Tables 27 and 28 set out the anticipated passenger demand going through the station entrances for the 2019, 2031 future year and 2031 Detailed Components scenarios during the AM and PM peak hours. The passenger numbers at Earl’s Court relate to the Warwick Road entrance only, to isolate the impact of the development flows.
5.22 To derive passenger flows at the Stations, data from TfL’s NUMBAT dataset has been used to derive the baseline flow 2019 has been used as the base year representing the last full year of data collected before the Covid Pandemic. The future years are then calculated by growthing the NUMBAT8 data by the anticipated level of growth in the strategic transport models This approach has been agreed with TfL.
8 NUMBAT is a dataset maintained by TfL which identifies flows across the rail network in London
9 West Kensington is not assessed in the 2031 Base Minus or the 2031 Detailed Components because there would be limited access to this station in these scenarios.
Table 27 – AM (0800-0900) Station Flows
Table 28 – PM (1700 – 1800) Station Flows
Earl’s Court (Warwick Road)
Gateline Assessment
5.23 Static analysis has been performed to calculate the minimum gateline requirements according to LU standards, based on the 2031 demands without development trips and with development trips. Tables 29 and 30 show the Automatic Ticket Gates (ATG) and Wide Aisle Gates (WAG) that are theoretically required for each scenario to accommodate the level of peak period demand
10 West Kensington is not assessed in the 2031 Base Minus or the 2031 Detailed Components because there would be limited access to this station in these scenarios.
5.24 Table 29 shows that for Earl’s Court Warwick Road Entrance, that the 2031 scenario (without development) will require two additional gates to accommodate the increased demand associated with background growth. No additional gates are required to accommodate growth associated with the Detailed Components
5.25 Table 30 shows that the station will underprovide gates to cater for the 2031 Base Minus demands without development. No additional gates are required to accommodate growth associated with the Detailed Components
Highway Impacts
Junction capacity Assessments
5.26 Junction capacity assessments have been undertaken for the existing junctions surrounding the Proposed Development alongside the Site access points (where appropriate) For the purposes of the Detailed Components assessment the following junctions have been considered:
Existing Junctions
North End Road / Lillie Road Double Mini Roundabout
Lillie Road / Lillie Road Bus Layover Priority Junction
Lillie Road / Empress Place / Seagrave Road Priority Junction
Old Brompton Road / Warwick Road Signalised Junction
A4 West Cromwell Road /Warwick Road Signalised Junction
Warwick Road/Fenelon Place
Proposed Junctions
Lillie Road / Lillie Road Bus Layover Priority Junction
Lillie Road / Empress Place / Seagrave Road Signalised Junction Warwick Road and Warwick Square Corridor
5.27 The location of the existing junctions relative to the Proposed Development is shown in Figure 35 whilst the location of the proposed junctions is shown in Figure 36.
5.28 Both the Lillie Road/Lillie Road Bus Layover and Lillie Road/Seagrave Road junctions have been tested in their existing and proposed configurations as the timing of delivery of the proposed layouts has not yet been determined. This will be discussed with the Transport Stakeholders post application.
5.29 The traffic flow data used to develop the junction models for the above junctions has been derived from the VISSIM modelling which has been undertaken as part of the wider modelling approach for the Proposed Development Traffic flow diagrams are included within Appendix C and summary tables of the junction capacity assessments alongside junction capacity assessment outputs is contained in Appendix D
5.30 Further information on the approach to junction capacity assessments is included in the TA.
5.31 Table 31 presents a summary of the results for the various scenarios assessed. To provide this summary the results have been colour coded for the worst-case arm/movement at a junction with green representing a DoS or RFC of less than 90%/0.85 respectively, amber a DoS or RFC between 90-99%/0.86-0.99 respectively and red a Dos or RFC over 100%/1 respectively.
5.32 The modelling results indicate that all junctions operate within capacity in the scenarios above.
VISSIM Microsimulation
5.33 VISSIM Microsimulation assessments have been undertaken to assess the wider network impacts without and with the Detailed Components. The study area for the VISSIM is shown in Figure 37
Figure 36: VISSIM Micro-simulation Study Area
5.34 The following scenarios have been assessed within VISSIM:
2022 Base
2031 Base Minus
2031 Base Minus + Detailed Components
5.35 Figure 37 shows the sections for which the journey times have been assessed.
5.36 Table 32 and 33 demonstrate the changes in journey time occurring between the 2031 Base Minus and the 2031 Detailed Component scenarios.
32: Journey Time Results Comparison (2031 AM Peak)
Figure 37: VISSIM Micro-simulation Journey Time Routes
Table
5.37 Table 32 and 33 show that for the Detailed Components scenario journey times stay relatively static with the maximum change being a 74 second increase on Warwick Road in the AM peak. In the PM peak the maximum change witnessed is on Lillie Road westbound where a 45 second change in journey time is expected. On a congested network these changes in journey times are not unusual and therefore no specific mitigation is proposed. However, a wider package of improvements is proposed to mitigate the impacts of the Proposed Development and we will continue discussions post-application with the Transport Stakeholders to agree trigger points for implementation.
Table 32: Journey Time Results Comparison (2031 AM Peak)
Table 33: Journey Time Results Comparison (2031 PM Peak)
6.0 Summary and Conclusion
Summary and Conclusion
6.1 WSP has been commissioned by ECPL to prepare a Transport Statement (TS) for the Detailed Components of the Earls Court Development. The TS sits within the wider Transport Assessment (TA) as a specific assessment
6.2 Through the wider public realm (external to the Detailed Components site boundary) routes to the external network will be provided which will enable access from the surrounding transport network. As a minimum this will enable access from Lillie Road, Warwick Road and Aisgill Avenue. In the case of EC05 and EC06 access for servicing will also be available from Fenelon Place through the neighbouring 100 West Cromwell Road.
6.3 The Detailed Components are located in areas of high Public Transport Accessibility. Both Detailed Components feature a Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) score of 6A and will benefit from access to a range of bus stops as well as Earls Court and West Brompton Stations
6.4 A multi-modal trip generation has been created for the Detailed Components which shows that the resultant trip generation will feature a mode share commensurate with the overarching Transport Strategy which aims to achieve 60% of trips by public transport, 30% by active modes and the remaining 10% of trips by vehicular modes.
6.5 Separately Travel Plans, Delivery and Servicing Plans and Parking Design and Management Plans have been prepared for the Detailed Components which aim to manage and mitigate impacts on the Transport Network. These separately prepared reports should be referred to for more information.
6.6 The TA for the Earls Court Development considers the transport impacts of the Proposed Development in two phases:
All Phases: comprising the entirety of the Proposed Development. This is currently anticipated for completion by 2043.
Early Phases: Phases 1-4 (the ‘Early Phases’) are completed, but the Depot remains operational and is delivered to a different programme from that currently anticipated in the All Phases scenario.
6.7 This TS was prepared to ensure that the transport impacts of the Detailed Components could be fully considered within the planning applications. However, it should be noted that the Detailed Components are not anticipated to represent a distinct phase of development in the same way as the Early Phases and All Phases.
6.8 The TA outlines a package of mitigation measures that will be implemented across the Transport Network. The assessment that underpins the determination of these mitigation measures includes the Detailed Components. Discussions with the Transport Stakeholders will continue post application and appropriate trigger points for the implementation of mitigation will be identified and agreed.
6.9 Overall, it is considered that the Detailed Components can be accommodated on the transport network.
AppendixA–Access Plans
Appendix B – PCLAnalysis
1.0 PCLAnalysis
Lillie Road (PCLlocations 1 to 5)
1.1 Sites 1 through to 5 focus on the northern and southern footways adjacent to Lillie Road, Lille Road Bridge, the area around West Brompton Station and Old Brompton Road.
1.2 2022 survey data indicated that the northern footway experienced lower volumes of flow compared to the southern footway. This is to be expected as West Brompton Station is located on the southern footway in this location.
1.3 The PCLs have been classified under the “Transport Interchange” area type and Figure 1 shows the links that have been considered.
1.4 Table 1 provides a summary of the PCLs across the three PCL outputs (Average Flow, Peak Hour Flow, Average of Max Activity).
Figure 1: Lillie Road (PCL locations 1 to 5)
Table 1: PCL Analysis Lillie Road and Old Brompton Road
1a Northern Ftwy
2a
5a Northern Ftwy
1.5 The Detailed Component scenario is shown to not materially impact PCL levels across all locations. However, it is acknowledged that the PCL values in a number of locations are already showing as congested. Further discussions will be held with the Transport Stakeholders post planning submission to discuss the package of measures proposed within the TA and to agree suitable implementation triggers.
1.6 Sites 6a to 6f consider the footways adjacent to the Old Brompton Road / Eardley Crescent junction, with Figure 2 showing the areas considered in more detail.
1.7 Table 2 provides a summary of the PCLs across the three PCL outputs (Average Flow, Peak Hour Flow, Average of Max Activity).
Old Brompton Road / Eardley Crescent – (PCLLocation 6)
1.8 The Detailed Component scenario is shown to not materially impact PCL levels across all locations.
1.9 Locations 6a and 6b are considered to operate sufficiently in all scenarios.
1.10 Location 6c to 6f are shown to result in PCLs that would be considered as Very / Extremely Uncomfortable across all scenarios including the current baseline. Further discussions will be held with the Transport Stakeholders post planning submission to discuss the package of measures proposed within the TA and to agree suitable implementation triggers.
Table 2: PCL Analysis Old Brompton Road Junction With Eardley Crescent
Warwick Apron (PCL Locations 7-9)
1.11 Sites 7a to 9b consider the footways and crossing outside of Earls Court Station at Warwick Apron. The location of the links analysed is shown in Figure 3
1.12 Table 3 provides a summary of the PCLs across the three PCL outputs (Average Flow, Peak Hour Flow, Average of Max Activity). Noting, that point 8 is a crossing, and so is calculated differently than footways and therefore only the avg and peak hour PCL for the crossing is reported.
Figure 3: Warwick Apron (PCL Locations 7-9)
Table 3: PCL Analysis Warwick Apron
1.13 In isolation, the footways and crossings around the Warwick Road envelope are considered to operate sufficiently across all scenarios.
1.14 The introduction of the Detailed Component does not material change the PCL’s compared to the 2031 future base year.
Appendix C – Traffic Flow Diagrams
Appendix D – Junction Capacity Assessments
1.0 Junction CapacityAssessment Summary tables
Table 1: North End Road / Lillie Road Double Mini Roundabout Junction
Table 1: North End Road / Lillie Road Double Mini Roundabout Junction
2031 Detailed Component
Lillie Road/Lillie Road Bus Layover Junction
Existing Layout
Table 2: Lillie Road / Lillie Road Bus Layover Junction
2031 Base Minus
Proposed Layout
Lillie Road/Empress Place/Seagrave Road Junction
Existing Layout
Table 2: Lillie Road / Lillie Road Bus Layover Junction
Table 3: Lillie Road / Lillie Road Bus Layover Junction
Table 4: Lillie Road / Empress Place / Seagrave Road
