Issuu

Transport Assessment: Addendum WSP EC.PA.13-A August 2025

Transport Assessment Addendum WSP Document Ref: EC.PA.13-A August 2025

Earls Court Development Transport Assessment Addendum

Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

WSP Issue 1

Contents 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0

Introduction Site and Surroundings Proposed Development Changes Trip Generation, Distribution and Mode Share Updates London Wide Network Impact Assessment London Wide Network – 2041 Early Phases Sensitivity Test Mitigation Management Plans & Strategies Phasing – Demolition and Construction Summary and Conclusions

2 5 7 26 46 64 80 97 100 103

Appendix A – Post Application Responses Appendix B – Development Proposals Appendix C – Detailed Component Cycle Parking Layout Dimension Drawings Appendix D – Technical Note 76 – Trip Generation Comparison Appendix E – Traffic Flow Diagrams Appendix F – 2031 Early Phases and 2041 All Phases Bus Analysis Appendix G – Junction Capacity Assessment Results Appendix H – 2041 Early Phases Sensitivity Test Technical Note Appendix I – 2041 Early Phases Sensitivity Test Bus Analysis Appendix J – 2041 Early Phases Sensitivity Test Station Modelling Reports Appendix K – Mitigation Drawings Appendix L – Mitigation Junction Modelling Appendix M – Monitor and Manage Technical Note

Chapter 01 Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

1.0

WSP Issue 1

Introduction

Overview 1.1

This Transport Assessment Addendum (“TAA”) has been prepared by WSP to form part of the previously submitted Transport Assessment (“TA”) dated July 2024 (document reference EC.PA.13) to take account of amendments to the Proposed Development and respond to feedback in relation to transport received from the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (“RBKC”), London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (“LBHF”) and other external stakeholders including Transport for London (“TfL”).

1.2

Since the submission of the Hybrid Planning Applications, consultation has been undertaken with LBHF, RBKC and relevant statutory and non-statutory consultees. As a result of the consultation feedback, amendments have been made to the Proposed Development.

1.3

These amendments can be summarised as follows: — — — — —

1.4

Amendments to Parameter Plans to reduce height of EC03 by one storey, refine massing of WK02 and other incidental modifications. Minor design updates to Development Plots within the RBKC Detailed Component (Plots EC05 and EC06) and LBHF Detailed Component (Plots WB03, WB04 and WB05). Inclusion of additional and updated codes within the Design Code. Development Specification updates to reflect the above amendments. LBHF minimum residential unit number increased from 1,600 to 2,000 (proposed to be secured by an appropriately worded planning condition). To address feedback received from the Transport Stakeholders1 a series of postapplication meetings and workshops have been held. A summary of the meetings held is provided in Table 1.

Table 1: Transport Stakeholder Engagement Held Post-Application Date Commentary/Topic Covered th 9 October 2024 Overview of planning submission transport documentation Review of Greater London Authority (GLA) Stage 1 response in respect of 20th November 2024 transport comments 17th December 2024

Station Mitigation Workshop

18th December 2024

Review of comments received from TfL, LBHF and RBKC and Warwick Road twoway cycle track Trip Generation LBHF Highways Workshop LBHF Highways Workshop

15th January 2025 15th January 2025 29th January 2025

1 TfL, RBKC Highways and LBHF Highways

Chapter 01 Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

WSP Issue 1

Table 1: Transport Stakeholder Engagement Held Post-Application Date Commentary/Topic Covered Maximum Development Parameters comparison to updated Trip Generation, 26th February 2025 Warwick Road two-way cycle track, 2041 Early Phases and TAA Scope th 19 March 2025 S106 Agreement and TAA Scope th 19 March 2025 LBHF Highways Workshop nd 22 April 2025 LBHF Highways Workshop Warwick Road alternative cycle access strategy, Transport Stakeholder feedback 23rd April 2025 responses st 21 May 2025 Updated development proposals and TAA Scope 5th June 2025 Highway micro-simulation modelling scope workshop

Scope of TAA 1.5

The scope of this TAA has been discussed with the Transport Stakeholders at the postapplication meeting held on the 21st May 2025 and seeks to respond to the comments received by providing additional supporting information to the TA whilst updating calculations and assessments (where appropriate) to account for changes to the Proposed Development.

1.6

Responses to the written feedback received from the Transport Stakeholders has also been prepared and issued. The comments and responses are provided in Appendix A.

1.7

In summary the key elements of the TA that have been updated and are presented within this TAA are: — — — — — — — — —

Updated Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) to account for the release of TfL’s new WebCAT 3.0 database Updated trip generation to address comments received from the Transport Stakeholders Updated comparison of the first principles trip generation to the maximum development parameters used in the strategic modelling Refined bus analysis to present the uplift in demand as a result of the Proposed Development by bus stop and then by route accessing each bus stop Updated highway network assessment including junction capacity assessments and micro-simulation modelling Inclusion of an assessment of the Early Phases development within the 2041 future year Refined and updated package of mitigation Updated access strategy and trip generation relating to the demolition and construction stage; and Further information relating to the Monitor and Manage Approach proposed to be adopted.

Planning Policy Changes 1.8

Since submission of the TA a number of changes to planning policy have occurred. It is not considered that these changes materially affect the approach adopted in the TA. However, for completeness a summary of the changes in relation to transport policy are listed below:

Chapter 01 Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

—

WSP Issue 1

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), the government’s policy for planning of development has been updated with the latest version dated February 2025. In respect of transport the main change is the requirement to adopt a vision-led approach to the TA. The TA submitted is considered to comply with this policy as it sets out a clear transport strategy to prioritise active and public transport modes whilst limiting access to private vehicles, aligned with London Plan policy. In response to the flexible nature of the planning application a monitor and manage approach is proposed to be adopted for the build-out of the Proposed Development so that the final transport impacts can be monitored and the package of transport mitigation tailored to ensure it addresses the transport impacts that arise. RBKC adopted their new Local Plan on the 24th July 2024 which sets out the vision for future development over a 20 year period. The policy in relation to Earls Court Exhibition Centre (Policy SA2) remains as per the draft Local Plan (RBKC Local Plan Review (2023). Updates to transport policy are included in the adopted Local Plan. However, they don’t materially change the requirements of the TA.

Report Structure 1.9

Following this introduction the remainder of this TAA is structured as follows: — — — — — — — — —

Chapter 2 provides an updated PTAL for the Site; Chapter 3 provides a summary of the changes to the Proposed Development; Chapter 4 presents the updated Trip Generation that has been prepared in response to comments received from the Transport Stakeholders Chapter 5 sets out an updated London-wide Transport Network assessment considering the impacts of the Proposed Development across all modes of transport Chapter 6 presents the 2041 Early Phases sensitivity test Chapter 7 presents the updated package of mitigation that has been developed following feedback from the Transport Stakeholders and the additional assessment work undertaken Chapter 8 provides a summary of the changes to the transport management strategies that have been prepared and submitted separately alongside further information on the Monitor and Manage approach Chapter 9 considers changes to the construction and demolition phase of the Proposed Development; and Chapter 10 provides a summary and conclusion to this TAA.

Chapter 02 Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

2.0

WSP Issue 1

Site and Surroundings

Public Transport Accessibility 2.1

Following the planning submission in July 2024, TfL have updated their PTAL Tool (WebCAT).

2.2

The 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.

2.3

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.

2.4

The existing PTAL of the Site is shown in Figure 1. Figure 1 replaces Figure 18 in the TA.

Figure 1 – PTAL of Site

Chapter 02 Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

2.5

WSP Issue 1

Figure 1 demonstrates the majority of the Site has very good levels of public transport accessibility (PTAL 6a or excellent) 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 4 and 5 on North End Road and around the West Kensington and Gibbs Green Estate, where the distance from available bus routes and London Underground / Overground stations increases. The PTAL score remains the same as previously reported.

Chapter 03 Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

3.0

WSP Issue 1

Proposed Development Changes

Introduction 3.1

This section provides an overview of the changes that have been made to the Proposed Development where they impact matters relating to transport.

Changes to Development Quantum 3.2

Following stakeholder feedback, the detailed and outline component development proposals have been amended. Table 18 and Table 19 from the TA have been superseded by Table 2 and Table 3 below. These tables include maximum site-wide caps that have been applied to the floorspace.

Table 2 – Total Development Quantum – Early Phases (GEA) RBKC (Minimum) (sqm)*

RBKC (Maximum) (sqm)

LBHF (Minimum) (sqm)*

LBHF (Maximum) (sqm)

Total (Minimum)*

Total (Maximum)

124,911

169,911

79,152

100,152

204,063

270,063

35,000

25,000

50,000

Sui Generis

30,636

Co-living

Sui Generis

20,000

Logistics/Data Centre

6,000

Hotel

16,000

20,000

36,000

E(a)/(b)/(c)

5,451

11,451

4,196

9,196

9,647

20,647

E(d)

250

4,000

2,113

4,613

2,363

8,613

E(g)

35,000

95,000

20,000

70,000

55,000

165,000

Education

F1(a)

20,000

25,000

Community/Social Infrastructure

F/E(e)/(f)/(g)

461

1,861

623

1,123

1,084

2,984

Culture

F/Sui Generis

1,000

7,000

250

4,000

1,250

11,000

Ancillary

Sui Generis

2,335

20,335

4,640

14,140

6,975

34,475

169,408

386,558

141,610

318,860

311,018

680,418

246,058

209,610

455,668

Land Use

Category

Residential Residential Institutions (Hospital) Residential Institutions (Later Living) Purpose Built Student Accommodation

Retail/F&B/Flexible Commercial and Culture Leisure (Indoor Sport and Recreation) Office and Research & Development

Total Maximum Cap

*The Hybrid Planning Applications do not seek consent for minimum quantums, these have been provided for information purposes.

Chapter 03 Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

WSP Issue 1

Table 3 – Total Development Quantum – All Phases (GEA) RBKC (Minimum) (sqm)*

RBKC (Maximum) (sqm)

LBHF (Minimum) (sqm)*

LBHF (Maximum) (sqm)

Total (Minimum)*

Total (Maximum)

124,911

169,911

231,152

290,152

356,063

460,063

25,000

35,000

40,000

50,000

Sui Generis

2,000

30,636

68,636

30,636

70,636

Co-living

Sui Generis

2,000

48,000

50,000

Logistics/Data Centre

6,000

10,000

16,000

Hotel

16,000

20,000

36,000

E(a)/(b)/(c)

5,451

11,451

6,196

14,196

11,647

25,647

E(d)

250

4,000

2,113

8,113

2,363

12,113

E(g)

35,000

95,000

40,000

155,000

75,000

250,000

Education

F1(a)

20,000

25,000

45,000

Community/Social Infrastructure

F/E(e)/(f)/(g)

461

1,861

723

1,873

1,184

3,734

Culture

F/Sui Generis

1,000

7,000

500

7,000

1,500

14,000

Ancillary

Sui Generis

2,335

20,335

5,140

32,140

7,475

52,475

169,408

390,558

316,460

745,110

485,868

1,110,668

246,058

467,611

713,669

Land Use

Category

Residential Residential Institutions (Hospital) Residential Institutions (Later Living) Purpose Built Student Accommodation

Retail/F&B/Flexible Commercial and Culture Leisure (Indoor Sport and Recreation) Office and Research & Development

Total Maximum Cap

*The Hybrid Planning Applications do not seek consent for minimum quantums, these have been provided for information purposes.

3.3

Changes to the Detailed Components (the detailed planning applications in LBHF and RBKC) have also taken place. Table 4 and Table 5 set out the updated Detailed Components development proposals. These tables supersede Table 1 and Table 2 of Appendix V in the TA and have been reported as GEA for consistency with Table 2 and Table 3.

Table 4 – RBKC Detailed Component Floorspace Gross Internal Area (GEA) Land Use

Category

Plot EC05

Plot EC06

Total

Residential

202 units

108 units

310

Food and Beverage

E(a)/(b)/(c) E(f) Creche, Day Centre or Nursery

1,451sqm

1,451

361sqm

361

Social Infrastructure

Chapter 03 Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

WSP Issue 1

Table 5 – LBHF Detailed Component Floorspace – (GEA) Land Use

Category

Residential

Purpose Built Student Accommodation

Sui Generis

Retail/F&B/Flexible Commercial Leisure (Indoor Sport and Recreation) Community/Social Infrastructure

E(a)/(b)/(c)/ Sui Generis E(d)/Sui Generis F/E(e)/(f)/(g)

Plot WB03

Plot WB04

Plot WB05

Total

278 units

178 units

456 units

696 Student Rooms 673sqm

696 Student Rooms 1,138sqm

385sqm

2,113sqm

2,196sqm 2,113sqm

373sqm

Changes to Parameter Plans 3.4

Parameter Plan 008 – Proposed Access and Movement has been amended in response to stakeholder feedback. The parameter plan is shown in Figure 2 (reproduced in Appendix B) and the key changes made from a transport perspective are described below: General — —

Identification of where emergency service vehicle access is proposed in addition to other modes of transport Renaming ‘intended’ access points as ‘potential’

RBKC —

Inclusion of a potential access point on the southern side of the A4 West Cromwell Road adjacent to Development Zone S (Plot EC20)

LBHF — — — —

Removal of the all modes access to Development Zone H from Aisgill Avenue and provision of potential access (to include emergency service vehicle access). The rationale for this change is explained later in this section. Removal of the all modes access from Mund Street and provision of potential access (to include emergency service vehicle access) Inclusion of a service route through Lillie Sidings Square between Development Zone T and Development Zone U. This is to allow flexibility for out of hours servicing of retail units fronting Lillie Siding Square and any events taking place in Lillie Siding Square. Reduction in the number of access points proposed on Aisgill Avenue with one consolidated access point for pedestrians, cyclists and emergency service vehicles now shown.

Chapter 03 Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

WSP Issue 1

Figure 2 – Parameter Plan 008 – Proposed Access and Movement

3.5

Parameter Plan 004 – Development Zones, Maximum Building Lines and Public Realm has been amended. The key change from a transport perspective is to Development Zone A (Plot EC22) where the Development Zone has been revised to align with the back of the existing footway on both Old Brompton Road and Eardley Crescent. A limit of deviation has then been introduced to the maximum building line to ensure that sufficient footway width can be retained on both Old Brompton Road and Eardley Crescent. This change is explained in more detail later in this section.

Changes to Outline Component Development Zone A 3.6

The TA included proposals to improve pedestrian and cycle facilities on Old Brompton Road and Lillie Road between Kempsford Gardens in the east and the Lillie Road Bus Layover in the west. The carriageway on Old Brompton Road outside of West Brompton Station was proposed to be widened to provide 3.2m traffic lanes alongside the introduction of segregated cycle lanes. This reduced the space available on the northern footway of Old Brompton Road in front of Plot EC22. The footprint of Development Zone A was based on the consented scheme for Old Brompton Road (planning application reference PP/21/00272) to provide a two-metre footway as shown on drawing ECM-WSPXX-XX-DR-440-P02 (provided in Figure 3).

Chapter 03 Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

WSP Issue 1

Figure 3 – Development Zone A and footway on Old Brompton Road (extract of drawing ECM-WSP-XX-XX-420)

3.7

Feedback from RBKC requested that a three-metre footway is provided on Old Brompton Road. To achieve this, refinement of the cycle improvements on Old Brompton Road is proposed to remove the section of segregated cycle lane on the southern side of Old Brompton Road to be replaced with an advisory cycle lane. The alignment of the highway has also been amended to assist in widening the footway on the northern side. These refinements combined with the limit of deviation introduced to the parameter plan will ensure that a three metre wide footway can be provided (as requested by RBKC) noting that the Pedestrian Comfort Level (PCL) analysis contained in the TA notes that only a 2.5m footway is strictly required. Further details can be provided at the Reserved Matters Application (RMA) stage to accord with an appropriately worded planning condition to ensure that a three metre wide footway is provided. An extract of the updated proposals for the Old Brompton Road cycle improvements are shown in Figure 4.

Chapter 03 Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

WSP Issue 1

Figure 4 – Updated Old Brompton Road Cycle Improvement

3.8

Figure 4 (contained in Appendix B) shows the maximum building line in orange and shows that as currently designed a minimum of a two metre footway would be provided.

3.9

Figure 5 (contained in Appendix B) shows an extract of updated Parameter Plan 004 identifying that a two metre limit of deviation (green line) has been allowed for. This will ensure that a three metre footway can be provided.

Chapter 03 Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

WSP Issue 1

Figure 5 – Extract of Parameter Plan 004 – Development Zones, Maximum Building Lines and Public Realm

Pedestrian and Cycle Access Strategy A4 West Cromwell Road Connection 3.10

An additional pedestrian and cycle access point has been added to the Proposed Development on the southern side of the A4 West Cromwell Road. This access has been provided in addition to accesses proposed through the Tesco Basement (to access the highway network at Fenelon Place) and Cluny Mews and will improve permeability for active travel users in this part of the Site. The connection is proposed for both pedestrians (via stairs and lift) and cyclists (via a channel in the stairs and lift). The footway on the A4 West Cromwell Road at the point of connection is only approximately two metres wide and features a safety fence (presumably to protect the bridge structure from vehicle strike) albeit it widens out to three metres further east. As such there is a constraint that would prohibit a pedestrian and cycle connection being delivered between the access point and the Warwick Road junction to the east. However, it is only a short distance (approximately 125m) to the junction with Warwick Road where improvements are proposed to allow cyclists to connect to Tesco to the north and east to Nevern Place for wider connections.

3.11

To tie into the connections proposed to Cluny Mews and the A4 West Cromwell Road improvements to the southern side of the A4 West Cromwell Road between Warwick Road and Cromwell Crescent are proposed. These improvements will assist in connecting the Proposed Development to the wider cycle network in the area. Further detail on these improvements is discussed in Section 7.

Cluny Mews 3.12 A review has also been undertaken of the design of the Cluny Mews connection. Whilst this connection is only at concept design stage, Figure 6 shows an illustrative layout of

Chapter 03 Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

WSP Issue 1

the form the connection could take, subject to reaching agreement with neighbouring land owners. This enhanced connection could provide both pedestrian (via the stairs and lift) and cycle (via a channel in the stairs and lift) accessibility between Cluny Mews and St Cuthberts Lane. Cyclists would then be able to connect with Warwick Road where further cycle improvements are proposed. This connection is subject to agreement with third party landowners. Therefore should this connection not be delivered Parameter Plan 008 – Proposed Access and Movement includes a potential access point on the southern side of the A4 West Cromwell Road adjacent to Development Zone S (Plot EC20). This would ensure that this part of the Site is connected for both pedestrians and cyclists to the wider transport network.

Figure 6 – Illustrative Cluny Mews Connection

West Kensington Square 3.13

The station mitigation for West Kensington Station (outlined within Section 9 of the TA) included introducing a new entrance on the southern side of the existing ticket hall. This improvement would be delivered by removing the shops that are located to the south of the Station fronting North End Road. An illustrative design has been developed for the space that would be created through removal of the shops to demonstrate how this entrance could come forwards. Figure 7 shows a concept for the public realm area. This would be subject to further design at the RMA stage but shows the intended proposals and is used to address the Pedestrian Comfort Level (PCL) issue that was identified for the footway on North End Road as identified in Paragraph 9.48 of the TA.

Chapter 03 Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

WSP Issue 1

Figure 7 – Illustrative West Kensington Square

Mund Street 3.14

The Hybrid Planning Applications included an all modes access from Mund Street to the Proposed Development that would serve All Phases (Phases 5-8 located on Lillie Bridge Depot). Following stakeholder feedback this access point has been changed to a potential access on Parameter Plan 008 – Proposed Access and Movement.

3.15

In accordance with this change the highway network assessment set out within this TAA assumes that Phases 5-8 would be served from a single point of access on Beaumont Avenue. Pedestrian, cycle and emergency service vehicle access is assumed to be made available through the wider development and therefore would not be reliant on a single point of access on Beaumont Avenue. Therefore it is not anticipated that this change would fundamentally alter the assessments presented in the TA in respect to pedestrian, cycle and public transport trips. An updated assessment of the highway network, accounting for this change is presented in this TAA.

Changes to Parking 3.16

London Plan (2021) Policy T5 requires planning applications without fixed development proposals to identify the highest potential applicable cycle parking standard. Within the Framework Parking Design and Management Plan (FPDMP), submitted in July 2024 an assumed development quantum was considered to calculate the highest potential

Chapter 03 Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

WSP Issue 1

quantum of cycle parking. This same quantum assumption was used to help identify the maximum car parking proposed. In order to identify the worst-case car and cycle parking quantum within the FPDMP the maximum site wide development quantums are applied to each development scenario (i.e. Early Phases and All Phases). The maximum residential quantum permitted is then used alongside the residual amount of office land use. Any remaining quantum is then applied to retail and community uses. If a residual quantum remained, office parking standards were adopted to ensure a worst case scenario. The FPDMP Addendum provides updated development quantums and Tables 6-9 outline the maximum car and cycle parking to replace Tables 14-17 in the TA.

Table 6: Maximum Car Parking Provision Early Phases Type

Sub-category

RBKC

LBHF

Maximum

Residential (disabled persons blue badge holders)

Non-residential (disabled persons blue badge holders)

Visitor

Car Club

119

Other Total

Table 7: Maximum Car Parking Provision All Phases Type

Sub-category

RBKC

LBHF

Maximum

Residential (disabled persons blue badge holders)

120

Non-residential (disabled persons blue badge holders)

Visitor

Car Club

131

205

Other Total

Table 8: Early Phases Maximum Cycle Parking Provision Type Residential Non-residential

Total

Sub-category

RBKC

LBHF

Maximum

Long Stay

2548

1894

4442

Short Stay

Long Stay

950

2389

3339

Short Stay

316

323

639

Long Stay

3499

4283

7781

Short Stay

356

369

724

All

3854

4651

8506

Chapter 03 Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

WSP Issue 1

Table 9: All Phases Maximum Cycle Parking Provision Type Residential Non-residential

Total

Sub-category

RBKC

LBHF

Maximum

Long Stay

2548

4544

7092

Short Stay

103

Long Stay

950

3777

4727

Short Stay

316

513

830

Long Stay

3499

8321

11819

Short Stay

356

577

932

All

3854

8898

12752

Car Club Parking 3.17

A car club is proposed to provide a viable alternative to car ownership for residents and employees requiring access to a vehicle. Whilst it is acknowledged that the London Plan does not support provision of car clubs, and this was reflected in feedback received from both TfL and LBHF Highways, we do not propose to remove the facility from the Proposed Development.

3.18

The Site, whilst being located in an area of high PTAL is also on the edge of Central London and adjacent to the A4 which forms a strategic highway corridor connecting Central and West London with the M25 and the wider strategic road network.

3.19

The parking strategy proposes a ‘car-lite’ approach to residential and employee car parking with only disabled car parking provided. However, a range of different land uses and a mix of residential accommodation is proposed. It is therefore considered likely that some demand for private car use will occur even though the Proposed Development will not provide general parking, over and above a small quantum of visitor parking (35 spaces are proposed). The car club will therefore be able to cater for this demand, providing a more sustainable approach than allowing general residential and employee parking (in addition to disabled parking). To support the sustainable aspirations of the Proposed Development, a commitment has been made that the car club will feature a fleet of solely electric vehicles.

3.20

Should the car club not be provided to cater for private car use demand, an unintended consequence might be that residents attempt to own and park vehicles on neighbouring streets. Whilst this can to a certain extent be alleviated through refinement of the Controlled Parking Zones that surround the Site, the increased pressure of parking on surrounding roads was a key concern raised by local residents during public consultation. It is therefore considered appropriate to include the provision of a car club to reduce the likelihood that residents and employees attempt to park in neighbouring streets.

3.21

The application of a car club can also help alleviate parking demand and reduce car ownership levels. This is acknowledged by the Mayor’s Transport Strategy (March 2018), proposal 19 which states “The Mayor, through TfL and the boroughs, will support the provision of car clubs for residents when paired with a reduction in the availability of private parking, to enable more Londoners to give up their cars while allowing for infrequent car travel in inner and outer London”.

Chapter 03 Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

3.22

WSP Issue 1

The inclusion of up to 25 car club vehicles therefore continues to be proposed. Whilst the volume of car club spaces has also been raised as a concern. It is suggested that the car club proposals are secured through the section 106 agreement. Further market engagement can take place to identify potential demand and the car club proposals tailored accordingly through submission of a car club strategy secured through the s106 agreement. The use and demand of the car club spaces could also be reviewed as part of the monitor and manage strategy.

Visitor Parking 3.23

Limited visitor parking was included in the Proposed Development as a direct response to feedback from the local community and the ‘car-lite’ parking strategy adopted.

3.24

During community engagement events local residents repeatedly raised concerns that people visiting the Site, who needed to travel by private vehicle would have nowhere to park. The visitor parking proposal incorporated into the Proposed Development is for up to 35 spaces to be included which can act as bookable spaces for visitors to use. The parking will not be able to be used by residents of the Site (i.e. spaces will not be let to people who own a vehicle and live on the Site) and all the spaces will be sized as disabled parking spaces. This will enable spaces to be converted for use if demand above the 3% disabled parking provision arises and as required by Policy T6.1 of the London Plan. This is in direct response to the limited availability of land within the public realm to accommodate up to 7% residential parking demand.

3.25

Visitor parking is not contained within the Detailed Components and will therefore be included within future RMAs. It is suggested that a condition or section 106 obligation could be applied for the submission of a visitor parking plan which monitors the demand for and uptake of visitor parking as the Proposed Development is built out and which forms part of the wider monitor and manage approach set out in the TA.

Chapter 03 Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

WSP Issue 1

Changes to Detailed Components LBHF Detailed Component WB05 T2 Access Strategy 3.26

The Hybrid Planning Applications included proposals for an all modes point of access on Aisgill Avenue that would allow refuse collection from Plot WB05-T2. It was also proposed to provide emergency service vehicle access. Following discussions with LBHF this [vehicular] access point has been removed from the Proposed Development and instead a managed solution introduced. The managed solution incorporates the following elements: — —

—

Revision to the design of Plot WB05-T2 to place the bin stores on the eastern side of the building (instead of the western side as previously proposed) Revisions to the public realm located on plot between WB05-T1 and WB05-T2 to provide a refuse bin drag route from the bin store to the car park that serves both WB05T1 and WB05-T2 and creation of a presentation area within the car park. This route is shown in Figure 8. The LBHF refuse vehicle will reverse into the WB05 car park and collect the refuse having accessed the Site from Lillie Road utilising the Service Access Road (SAR) that serves WB03, WB04 and WB05. The access route to the refuse collection areas from the external highway network (a request made by LBHF Highways in feedback) is shown in Figure 9 and the swept path analysis is shown in Figure 10.

Figure 8 – Refuse Drag Route and Bin Presentation Area for WB05-T2

Chapter 03 Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

WSP Issue 1

Figure 9 – WB03, WB04, WB05 Refuse Collection Route from Public Highway

3.27

As indicated on Parameter Plan 8 (shown above in Figure 2), and as highlighted in Figure 9, access to the detailed plots will be available via the existing Lillie Road layover access initially. The junction will enable access from the public highway to the detailed plots in LBHF. As the Proposed Development progresses, the access will be revised and redesigned accordingly, and further non-vehicular routes will become available for users.

Chapter 03 Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

WSP Issue 1

Figure 10 –WB05-T2 Refuse Collection Swept Path

WB05-T2 Emergency Service Vehicle Access 3.28

The emergency service vehicles access strategy has been adjusted in response to the removal of the access on Aisgill Avenue. Figure 11 shows how the fire tender would reach the dry riser inset on the western side of Plot WB05-T2. This drawing is reproduced at a larger scale in Appendix B.

3.29

Figure 11 currently shows an indicative arrangement for emergency vehicle access. Discussions are ongoing with LBHF about this emergency access arrangement, and consideration of an alternative routing strategy, with vehicles coming via the north through Mund Street into the Proposed Development is being reviewed.

Chapter 03 Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

WSP Issue 1

Figure 11 –WB05-T2 Fire Tender Access

Cycle Parking 3.30

Detailed comments were provided by the Transport Stakeholders on the design of the cycle parking within the Detailed Components of the Proposed Development. The proposals for the parking areas have been updated to address the comments as far as possible and against the changes to the Proposed Development. The comments received have been responded to and these are shown in Appendix A. Drawings showing updated proposals for the cycle parking including dimensions have been prepared and are contained in Appendix C.

3.31

The main changes that are proposed are set out by Plot below. WB03 — Introduction of a lift to access one of the cycle stores in addition to the stairs — Review of entrance and corridor widths with increased widths provided — Inclusion of ‘stay open’ mechanisms on doors (where possible) to reduce the number of doors that have to be opened to access the cycle stores — Review of doorway widths and increases in width where possible — Introduction of lockers for storing personal items — Inclusion of bicycle maintenance point — Inclusion of long-stay cycle parking for non PBSA use

Chapter 03 Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

WSP Issue 1

WB04 — Review of entrance and corridor widths with increased widths provided — Inclusion of ‘stay open’ mechanisms on doors (where possible) to reduce the number of doors that have to be opened to access the cycle stores — Review of spacing for two-tier stands with spacing increased throughout through reconfiguration of the layout — Inclusion of lockers for storing personal items — Inclusion of changing facilities and lockers for non-residential uses — Inclusion of buggy and scooter store WB05 — Review of entrance door widths with widths increased — Inclusion of bicycle maintenance points — Review of spacing for two-tier stands with aisle widths increased where possible 3.32

Changes to cycle parking quantum are also proposed as a result of changes to the Proposed Development quantum. Table 10 sets out the proposed level of cycle parking provision and replaces Table 11 in Appendix V of the TA.

Table 10 – LBHF Detailed Component Cycle Parking (WB03, WB04 & WB05) Parking Requirements*

Dwelling Type

Quantum

PBSA

696 units

522

1 bed 1 person

1 bed 2 person

171 units

257

2+ bed

257 units

514

Retail / Food & Beverage / Flexible Commercial

2,196sqm GEA

110

Leisure

2,113 sqm GEA

Community/Social Infrastructure

373 sqm GEA

Total

1,341

175

Long-Stay

Short-Stay

*Cycle parking for non-residential and PBSA uses based on worst-case land use for which planning consent is sought. The final land use to be implemented will influence the final requirement for cycle parking. As such, it is anticipated that this will be conditioned.

RBKC Detailed Component Car Parking 3.33

Whilst no changes to car parking provision are proposed, RBKC requested in their feedback that clarification is provided on how an additional 7% disabled parking could be included for EC06. Car parking for Plot EC06 is provided in the public realm outside of the Detailed Component boundary. As such, it forms part of the outline element of the application and will be subject to an RMA in due course and in accordance with an appropriately worded condition as to the provision of disabled parking spaces to be provided as part of the Proposed Development.

Chapter 03 Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

3.34

WSP Issue 1

Figure 12 shows indicatively where an additional 7% disabled parking spaces could be located on Warwick Crescent to serve Plot EC06.

Figure 12 –EC06 7% Disabled Parking

Cycle Parking 3.35

Detailed comments were provided by the Transport Stakeholders on the design of the cycle parking within the Detailed Components of the Proposed Development. The proposals for the parking areas have been updated to address the comments as far as possible alongside reviewing the changes to the Proposed Development. Drawings showing updated proposals for the cycle parking including dimensions have been prepared and are contained in Appendix C.

3.36

The main changes that are proposed are set out by Plot below. EC05 — Review of spacing for two-tier stands with aisle widths increased where possible — Review of doorway widths with widths increased where possible EC06 — Parking is now split across two levels — Access to the core of the building is now available from the cycle stores — Review of spacing for two-tier stands — Review of doorway widths and widths increased where possible

Chapter 03 Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

3.37

WSP Issue 1

Changes to cycle parking quantum have also taken place as a result of changes to the Proposed Development quantum. Table 11 sets out the proposed level of cycle parking provision and replaces Table 10 in Appendix V of the TA.

Table 11: RBKC Detailed Component Cycle Parking Provision (EC05 & EC06) Cycle Parking Requirements*

Land use

Land use classification

Quantum

Metric

Long Stay (rounded)

Short Stay (rounded)

Residential

310

Homes

559

Food and Beverage

E(a)/(b)/(c)

1451

sqm GEA

Social Infrastructure

361

sqm GEA

574

Total

Chapter 04 Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

WSP Issue 1

4.0 Trip Generation, Distribution and Mode Share Updates Trip Generation Review 4.1

Technical Note 76 (TN76), attached at Appendix D has been prepared to provide a response to comments received from the Transport Stakeholders on the trip generation presented within the TA.

4.2

As set out in the TA and supporting material (Appendix M to the TA) the trip generation exercise was completed to provide a comparative trip generation and forecast demand for the Proposed Development. This was completed to allow comparison with the demand from the strategic transport modelling and to allow adjustments to be made where appropriate to ensure that the full range of modes could be considered within the Hybrid Planning Application TA.

4.3

It is therefore not the primary means by which transport demand for the Proposed Development is derived. Instead, this is the MoTiON strategic model with adjustments made as appropriate to the outputs derived.

4.4

Responses to the Hybrid Planning Application were collated both in the form of written comments provided to WSP and during post-application discussions with the Transport Stakeholders. The responses received from the Transport Stakeholders relating to trip generation broadly covered the following topics, which are discussed further in the TN in Appendix D: — — — — — — — — —

4.5

TRICS site selection and land use review Comparison of person trip generation following review of any changes to account for the TRICS site selection review Trip adjustments (internalisation) review Comparison of trip generation following sensitivity test for adjustments Mode share commentary Weekday and weekend profiles Events Commercial Uses Arrival Profile Servicing and delivery trip generation review and comparison An initial version of TN76 was issued in February 2025. Comments were received from the Transport Stakeholders. As a result, updates were then applied, where agreed and appropriate, and TN76 updated to reflect an agreed position. Set out below is a summary of the additional information contained in TN76.

Chapter 04 Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

WSP Issue 1

Weekday – Indicative Profile 4.6

An indicative daily profile split down by hour was requested by the Transport Stakeholders to understand demand across the day. MoTiON does not provide demand information for every hour of the day. Therefore, to create a daily profile the TRICS trip rates were utilised.

4.7

Within the AM and PM peak hour analysis, detailed consideration of journey purpose was given by hour assessed. Given that journey purpose and therefore internalisation assumptions will vary across the day, to provide an estimate of the daily profile an average internalisation figure (8%) was applied. As such, the peak hour figures in the daily profile differ to those presented for the peak hours.

4.8

Figure 13 presents the daily profile derived. The daily profile indicates that the AM and PM peak hours of 08:00 – 09:00 and 17:00 – 18:00 respectively return the highest values. Demand is higher in the AM peak when compared to the PM peak. This correlates with the trip generation derived from MoTiON.

Figure 13 – Daily Profile (weekday) – All Land Uses - Indicative

Person Trips (External)

Earls Court - Daily Profile (Weekday) - All Land Uses 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0

Total

Arr

Dep

Weekend – Indicative Profile 4.9

Similar to the weekday daily profile exercise, the Transport Stakeholders requested consideration of the trip generating potential of the Site at a weekend. MoTiON does not provide demand information for the weekend and the ability to calculate an accurate forecast of the weekend trip generation is limited by the number of survey sites available within the TRICS database. As such, alternative trip rates and / or selection criteria had to be utilised to synthesise a profile. This included the selection criteria within TRICS (widening date periods as well as expanding geographic scope).

4.10

Applying the same internalisation assumption (8% average rate per hour) an indicative daily profile for a weekend has been calculated, as shown in Figure 14.

4.11

The weekend profile suggests a peak hour of between 12:00 – 13:00. The weekend peak hour trips (3307 two-way) are significantly lower than that identified for a weekday (6245 two-way).

Chapter 04 Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

WSP Issue 1

Figure 14 – Daily Profile (Weekend) – All Land Uses - Indicative

Person Trips (External)

Earls Court - Daily Profile (Weekend) - All Land Uses 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0

Total

Arr

Dep

Destination Trip Generation 4.12

The Transport Stakeholders requested consideration of whether the Site would act as a destination and therefore generate trips over and above the individual land uses. This is considered particularly relevant at the weekend where there could be a higher level of leisure-based trips, coinciding with an increase in retail movements.

4.13

A review of other large mixed use sites in London was undertaken which did not find a consistent approach to deriving a ‘destination’ trip generation.

4.14

Instead, a sensitivity test assuming 50% internal trips (instead of 80%) for the retail and F&B trips was conducted. The results of this sensitivity test are shown in Figure 15.

Figure 15 – Daily Profile (weekend) – All Land Uses – Retail Sensitivity Test - Indicative

Person Trips (External)

Earls Court - Daily Profile (Weekend) - All Land Uses - Retail Sensitivity Test 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0

Total

4.15

Arr

Dep

The sensitivity test indicated an increase in movements, with a peak period of 13:00 – 14:00 (totalling 4,122 two-way person trips). Whilst approximately 800 two-way trips higher than that identified for the weekend this is still below the values tested in the AM

Chapter 04 Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

WSP Issue 1

and PM weekday peak hours and therefore it is not considered necessary to consider this matter further. Servicing and Delivery Trips 4.16

A number of specific queries were provided by the Transport Stakeholders relating to the servicing and delivery trip generation. A review of the servicing and delivery trip generation was completed and an updated assessment presented.

4.17

The most significant change when compared to the TA was the request for removal of all assumptions relating to consolidation. WSP does not agree with this approach. The review of trip rates from other comparable developments showed significant differences in the approaches adopted and subsequently accepted by the respective planning authorities showing that limited reliable information relating to servicing and delivery trips exists. In addition, it is considered that utilising historic trip rates (the traditional approach to deriving a trip generation) fails to acknowledge that the servicing and delivery environment has evolved considerably over the last ten years and that through technological advances and the growth in online deliveries that consolidation inherently occurs in the supply chain.

4.18

Notwithstanding this and in order to be able to progress the planning application all assumptions relating to internalisation were removed from the servicing and delivery trip generation. The mode share of delivery trips and the assumption that 15% would occur in the peak hours was not adjusted.

Trip Generation Comparison 4.19

Chapter 7 of the TA sets out the approach taken in terms of deriving and defining the trip generation used for the assessment of the impact of the Proposed Development on the transport network. This included making adjustments to redistribute the car trips generated within the MoTiON demand modelling to other modes to align with the limited parking provision proposed on the Site.

4.20

Further analysis was then undertaken of the one-hour AM and PM peak hour demand passed to LoHAM (via MoTiON). Adjustments were made to the car demand in LoHAM (reduced to reflect the trip generation), taxi demand was uplifted to reflect the trip generation exercise and Private Hire Vehicle (PHV) demand predicted in LoHAM (via MoTiON) was reduced to account for the aforementioned uplift in Taxis.

4.21

Further adjustments were also applied to the LGV and HGV demand in LoHAM to align to the predicted peak hour servicing and delivery trips.

4.22

Analysis was also undertaken of the increase in public transport demand which was predicted in the three-hour AM and PM peak periods in Railplan. The uplift in Railplan demand (via MoTiON) was compared to the initial 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 to analyse the impact on rail stations and services to ensure a worst case assessment was undertaken.

4.23

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 (walking, cycling and public transport).

Chapter 04 Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

4.24

WSP Issue 1

The result of these adjustments are shown in Table 32 of the TA, which provided a total trip generation for the 2041 All Phases scenario that was assessed. This has been compared against the updated TRICS and servicing trip generation set out in TN76 and is shown in Table 12.

Table 12: All Phases Trips Assessed in TA vs TAA AM Peak (08:00 – 09:00) Trips

PM Peak (17:00 – 18:00)

Arr

Dep

Total

Arr

Dep

Total

5,764

3,080

8,843

2,275

4,751

7,026

4,314

2,198

6,512

1,359

4,145

5,504

296

592

296

592

296

Total

4,610

2,494

7,104

1,655

4,441

6,096

Difference

-1,154

-586

-1739

-620

-310

-930

Total Trips Assessed - Table 32 TA Updated Trip Gen (External) - All Land Uses for TAA Updated - Servicing (All Modes)

4.25

Table 12 shows that even accounting for the updated TRICS exercise, amendments to internalisation and uplift in servicing and delivery trips – the total trip generation assessed in the TA was still significantly higher in both AM and PM peaks.

4.26

It was therefore concluded that no changes would be made to the strategic modelling demand where it relates to public transport, walking and cycling trips. However, amendments have been made in LoHAM and Vissim to update the demand relating to servicing and delivery trips.

TAA Trip Generation Early Phases 4.27

Based upon the changes set out above and in TN76 the trip generation has been updated. The revised trip generation is set out in Table 13 and replaces Table 26 in the TA.

4.28

For ease of comparison Table 14 shows the difference between the Early Phases trip generation used in the TA and the updated trip generation used in this TAA.

Chapter 04 Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

WSP Issue 1

Table 13: Early Phases Trip Generation - TAA AM Peak (0800 – 0900)

Mode

PM Peak (1700 – 1800)

Arrivals

Departures

Total

Arrivals

Departures

Total

Underground

929

202

1132

127

832

960

Train

600

660

552

595

Bus, minibus or coach

366

127

493

361

450

Taxi or minicab

Driving a car or van

Passenger in car or van

Motorcycle

Bicycle

366

241

606

226

296

On foot

455

392

847

287

477

764

Other

Total

2847

1089

3936

666

2557

3222

*Values have been rounded to the nearest whole number

Table 14: Early Phases Trip Generation - Difference AM Peak (0800 – 0900)

Mode

PM Peak (1700 – 1800)

Arrivals

Departures

Total

Arrivals

Departures

Total

Underground

Train

Bus, minibus or coach

Taxi or minicab

-5

-7

-23

-30

Driving a car or van

Passenger in car or van

Motorcycle

Bicycle

On foot

Other

Total

-14

-2

*Values have been rounded to the nearest whole number

4.29

As shown in Table 14, in absolute terms the values assessed in the TAA are very similar to those in the TA for the operational development trips in the Early Phases.

4.30

A similar exercise has been undertaken for the servicing and delivery trips for the Early Phases. Table 15 sets out the updated Early Phases servicing and deliveries trip generation and replaces Table 29 in the TA. Table 16 shows the difference between the Early Phases servicing and deliveries trip generation used in the TA and the updated servicing and deliveries trip generation used in this TAA.

Chapter 04 Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

WSP Issue 1

Table 15: Early Phases Daily Servicing and Deliveries Trip Generation - TAA Land use

Delivery / Servicing Journey Purpose

Delivery Vehicle 10m Rigid

3.5t Panel Van

MicroEv

Cargo Bike

M/C

Bicycle

RCV

Total

Groceries

163

Non-food small items

203

102

406

Non-food large items

Take-away

Waste

291

142

127

695

Deliveries

233

465

Waste

Sub-Total

233

483

Total

239

524

142

127

1179

Residential

Sub-Total Commercial

*Values have been rounded to the nearest whole number Table 16: Early Phases Daily Servicing and Deliveries Trip Generation – Difference Land use

Delivery / Servicing Journey Purpose

Delivery Vehicle 10m Rigid

3.5t Panel Van

MicroEv

Cargo Bike

M/C

Bicycle

RCV

Total

Groceries

Non-food small items

106

Non-food large items

Take-away

Waste

192

Deliveries

109

216

Waste

Sub-Total

109

232

Total

110

185

425

Residential

Sub-Total Commercial

*Values have been rounded to the nearest whole number

4.31

Table 16 shows that the updates to the servicing and delivery assumptions results in an additional 425 daily servicing and delivery trips. As per the previous modelling assumptions undertaken in the TA, the peak hour servicing and delivery trips are assumed to represent 15% of the daily trips. These have been captured within the LoHAM and VISSIM analysis discussed further below.

Chapter 04 Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

WSP Issue 1

4.32

The methodology for deriving the trips used to assess the impacts of the Proposed Development on the transport network remains consistent with that adopted in the TA (set out within paragraphs 7.42 to 7.48 of the TA).

4.33

Table 17 provides a summary of the peak hour trip generation used to assess the impacts of the Early Phases on the transport network in the TAA and replaces Table 31 of the TA. Table 18 shows the difference in trips between the TA and TAA. In each table, the demand is 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

—

Vehicular, made up of the following: o Car, Taxi and PHV o Servicing and Delivery trips

—

Active Mode, including the following: o Cyclists (including cycle based servicing and delivery trips) o Pedestrians

Table 17: 2031 Early Phases Trip Generation Assessed - TAA AM Peak (0800 – 0900)

Mode

PM Peak (1700 – 1800)

Arrivals

Departures

Total

Arrivals

Departures

Total

Public Transport

3070

1155

4225

844

2094

2938

Vehicular

228

210

438

218

233

450

Active Mode

1045

778

1823

510

950

1460

Total

4343

2143

6485

1572

3276

4848

Table 18: 2031 Early Phases Trip Generation Assessed - Difference AM Peak (0800 – 0900)

Mode

PM Peak (1700 – 1800)

Arrivals

Departures

Total

Arrivals

Departures

Total

Public Transport

Vehicular

+58

+116

+74

+56

+128

Active Mode

+10

+19

+10

+19

Total

+68

+134

+83

+65

+147

4.34

Table 18 indicates that the TAA assesses a high volume of trips compared to the TA. Notably, the changes are related to the servicing and delivery trips of which the majority are vehicular based, but also include cycle based delivery methods.

4.35

There is no difference to the Public Transport trips assessed and so the analysis and conclusions reached in the TA remain valid for the Early Phases.

Chapter 04 Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

WSP Issue 1

All Phases 4.36

Based upon the changes set out above and in TN76 the trip generation has been updated. The revised trip generation is set out in Table 19 and replaces Table 27 in the TA.

4.37

For ease of comparison Table 20 shows the difference between the All Phases trip generation used in the TA and the updated trip generation used in this TAA.

Table 19: All Phases Trip Generation - TAA Mode

AM Peak (0800 – 0900)

PM Peak (1700 – 1800)

Arrivals

Departures

Total

Arrivals

Departures

Total

Underground

1430

352

1781

212

1320

1532

Train

965

113

1078

900

980

Bus, minibus or coach

598

230

828

158

594

752

Taxi or minicab

101

Driving a car or van

Passenger in car or van

Motorcycle

Bicycle

516

426

942

123

362

485

On foot

580

635

1215

427

643

1070

Other

115

110

Total

4328

1866

6194

1097

4051

5148

*Values have been rounded to the nearest whole number

Table 20: All Phases Trip Generation – Difference Mode

AM Peak (0800 – 0900)

PM Peak (1700 – 1800)

Arrivals

Departures

Total

Arrivals

Departures

Total

Underground

Train

Bus, minibus or coach

Taxi or minicab

-1

Driving a car or van

Passenger in car or van

Motorcycle

Bicycle

On foot

Other

Total

*Values have been rounded to the nearest whole number

Chapter 04 Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

WSP Issue 1

4.38

As shown in Table 19, in absolute terms the values assessed in the TAA are very similar to those in the TA for the operational development trips in the All Phases.

4.39

A similar exercise has been undertaken for the servicing and delivery trips for the All Phases. Table 20 sets out the updated Early Phases servicing and deliveries trip generation and replaces Table 30 in the TA. Table 18 shows the difference between the All Phases servicing and deliveries trip generation used in the TA and the updated servicing and deliveries trip generation used in this TAA.

Table 19: All Phases Daily Servicing and Deliveries Trip Generation - TAA Land use

Delivery / Servicing Journey Purpose

Delivery Vehicle 10m Rigid

3.5t Panel Van

MicroEv

Cargo Bike

M/C

Bicycle

RCV

Total

Groceries

144

288

Non-food small items

360

180

721

Non-food large items

Take-away

101

168

Waste

517

252

226

115

1207

Deliveries

358

717

Waste

Sub-Total

358

723

Total

370

875

252

226

115

1930

Residential

Sub-Total Commercial

*Values have been rounded to the nearest whole number

Table 20: All Phases Daily Servicing and Deliveries Trip Generation – Difference Land use

Delivery / Servicing Journey Purpose

Delivery Vehicle 10m Rigid

3.5t Panel Van

MicroEv

Cargo Bike

M/C

Bicycle

RCV

Total

Groceries

Non-food small items

185

Non-food large items

Take-away

Waste

133

309

Deliveries

171

343

Waste

Sub-Total

171

346

Total

174

304

655

Residential

Sub-Total Commercial

*Values have been rounded to the nearest whole number

Chapter 04 Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

WSP Issue 1

4.40

Given the changes to the consolidation assumptions and trips rates as agreed in TN76, the revised servicing and delivery trip generation for the All Phases increases by 655 daily movements compared to the TA.

4.41

As with the Early Phases the peak hour assessments of servicing and delivery trips for the All Phases analysis are robustly assessed as 15% of the daily trip generation.

4.42

Table 21 presents the total trip generation used in the transport network assessment following the same methodology as that adopted in the TA (set out within paragraphs 7.42 to 7.48 of the TA). Table 22 then provides a comparison between the trips assessed in the TA against those assessed in the TAA.

Table 21: 2041 All Phases Trip Generation Assessed - TAA AM Peak (0800 – 0900)

Mode

PM Peak (1700 – 1800)

Arrivals

Departures

Total

Arrivals

Departures

Total

Public Transport

4069

1582

5651

1291

3126

4417

Vehicular

400

337

738

365

430

795

Active Mode

1406

1264

2670

759

1334

2093

Total

5875

3183

9058

2415

4890

7305

Table 22: 2041 All Phases Trip Generation Assessed – Difference AM Peak (0800 – 0900)

Mode

PM Peak (1700 – 1800)

Arrivals

Departures

Total

Arrivals

Departures

Total

Public Transport

Vehicular

189

127

126

253

Active Mode

Total

111

103

215

140

139

279

4.43

As demonstrated in Table 22 the resulting assessments within the TAA are higher than that within the TA for vehicular and active modes but the same for public transport based trips.

Detailed Component Plots WB03, WB04 and WB05 4.44

4.45

The changes to WB03, WB04 and WB05 are considered to be minor, however to give comfort that this remains the case an updated trip generation has been prepared and compared to that which was derived previously and presented within Appendix V of the TA. Table 23 provides a comparison of the forecast trips by main mode.

Chapter 04 Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

WSP Issue 1

Table 23 – Forecast Trips by Main Mode (WB03, WB04 and WB05) AM Peak (0800 – 0900) Mode

PM Peak (1700 – 1800)

Updated TAA

Difference

Updated TAA

Difference

Arr

Dep

Arr

Dep

Arr

Dep

Arr

Dep

Arr

Dep

Arr

Dep

Underground

341

312

-29

281

282

Train

-6

Bus, minibus or coach

-11

-56

-70

-13

Taxi or minicab

Driving a car or van

Passenger in car or van

Motorcycle

Bicycle

134

136

On foot

203

209

142

153

Other

Total

164

873

176

790

-83

645

230

606

251

-39

*Values have been rounded to the nearest whole number

4.46

Table 23 demonstrates that the updated trip generation results in only minor changes to the peak hour trip generation for Plots WB03, WB04 and WB05.

4.47

Table 24 sets out the updated daily servicing and delivery trip generation for Plots WB03, WB04 and WB05 reflecting the changes to the development proposals and assumptions regarding consolidation.

Table 24: WB03, WB04 and WB05 Daily Servicing and Deliveries Trip Generation Delivery Vehicle Delivery / Servicing Journey Purpose

10m Rigid

3.5t Panel Van

MicroEv

Cargo Bike

M/C

Bicycle

RCV

Total

Groceries

Non-food small items

104

207

Non-food large items

Take-away

Waste

149

352

Deliveries

Waste

Sub-Total

Total

164

389

Land use

Residential

Sub-Total Commercial & Retail

Chapter 04 Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

WSP Issue 1

Plots EC05 and EC06 4.48

The same exercise has been undertaken for plots EC05 and EC06 where again minor changes to the development proposals have taken place, with Table 25 providing an updated trip generation which has then been compared to the trip generation presented in the TA.

Table 25 - Forecast Trips by Main Mode (EC05 and EC06) AM Peak (0800 – 0900) Mode

PM Peak (1700 – 1800)

Updated TAA

Difference

Updated TAA

Difference

Arr

Dep

Arr

Dep

Arr

Dep

Arr

Dep

Arr

Dep

Arr

Dep

Underground

-4

-6

-3

Train

-3

-1

-2

Bus, minibus or coach

-3

-16

-18

-3

Taxi or minicab

Driving a car or van

Passenger in car or van

Motorcycle

Bicycle

On foot

Other

Total

241

237

-4

166

171

*Values have been rounded to the nearest whole number

4.49

Table 25 demonstrates that the updated trip generation results in only minor changes to the peak hour trip generation for Plots EC05 and EC06.

4.50

Table 26 sets out the updated daily servicing and delivery trip generation for Plots EC05 and EC06 reflecting the changes to the development proposals and assumptions regarding consolidation.

Chapter 04 Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

WSP Issue 1

Table 26: EC05 and EC06 Daily Servicing and Deliveries Trip Generation - TAA Delivery Vehicle Delivery / Servicing Journey Purpose

10m Rigid

3.5t Panel Van

MicroEv

Cargo Bike

M/C

Bicycle

RCV

Total

Groceries

Non-food small items

Non-food large items

Take-away

Waste

Deliveries

Waste

Sub-Total

Total

117

Land use

Residential

Sub-Total Commercial & Retail

Total Trip Generation 4.51

Table 27 provides the total trip generation for the Detailed Component as set out within Appendix V of the TA, the updated trip generation and a comparison.

Table 27 - Forecast Trips by Main Mode (Detailed Component) AM Peak (0800 – 0900) Mode

PM Peak (1700 – 1800)

Updated TAA

Difference

Updated TAA

Difference

Arr

Dep

Arr

Dep

Arr

Dep

Arr

Dep

Arr

Dep

Arr

Dep

Underground

-4

-6

-3

Train

-3

-1

-2

Bus, minibus or coach

-3

-16

-18

-3

Taxi or minicab

Driving a car or van

Passenger in car or van

Motorcycle

Bicycle

On foot

Other

Total

241

237

-4

166

171

4.52

Table 27 demonstrates that the changes to the Proposed Development in relation to the Detailed Component results in very little change to the overall trip generation.

Chapter 04 Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

4.53

WSP Issue 1

Table 28 provides the total servicing and deliveries trip generation for the Detailed Component. Table 29 then compares the servicing and deliveries trip generation in Appendix V of the TA with the TAA servicing and deliveries trip generation as set out in Table 28.

Table 28: Detailed Components Daily Servicing and Deliveries Trip Generation – Total Delivery Vehicle Delivery / Servicing Journey Purpose

10m Rigid

3.5t Panel Van

MicroEv

Cargo Bike

M/C

Bicycle

RCV

Total

Groceries

105

Non-food small items

132

263

Non-food large items

Take-away

Waste

189

451

Deliveries

Waste

Sub-Total

Total

210

506

Land use

Residential

Sub-Total Commercial & Retail

Table 29: Detailed Components Daily Servicing and Deliveries Trip Generation – Difference Delivery Vehicle Delivery / Servicing Journey Purpose

10m Rigid

3.5t Panel Van

MicroEv

Cargo Bike

M/C

Bicycle

RCV

Total

Groceries

Non-food small items

Non-food large items

Take-away

Waste

125

Deliveries

-5

-10

Waste

Sub-Total

-5

-4

Total

-4

120

Land use

Residential

Sub-Total Commercial & Retail

4.54

Table 30 provides the total trip generation for the Detailed Components. Table 31 then compares the total trip generation in Appendix V of the TA with the TAA total trip generation as set out in Table 30.

Chapter 04 Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

WSP Issue 1

Table 30: 2031 Detailed Components Trip Generation Assessed - TAA AM Peak (0800 – 0900)

Mode

PM Peak (1700 – 1800)

Arrivals

Departures

Total

Arrivals

Departures

Total

Public Transport

537

634

474

132

606

Vehicular

148

157

Active Mode

146

485

632

299

192

491

Total

311

1102

1413

852

401

1254

Table 31 2031 Detailed Components Trip Generation Assessed - Difference AM Peak (0800 – 0900)

Mode

PM Peak (1700 – 1800)

Arrivals

Departures

Total

Arrivals

Departures

Total

Public Transport

-3

-51

-54

-16

-12

Vehicular

Active Mode

Total

-6

102

4.55

Table 31 demonstrates that the changes to the Proposed Development of the Detailed Components and changes to the assumptions used in the servicing and deliveries trip generation results in an overall increase in trips in the AM peak of 41 and in the PM peak of 102. Splitting down by mode the changes result in a decrease in trips on the public transport network of 54 in the AM peak and 12 in the PM peak. A modest increase of between 32-35 trips are witnessed on vehicular modes with the largest increase in active mode travel of between 64 and 79 trips in the AM and PM peaks respectively. Overall, it is considered that these changes are small and would not warrant re-assessment of the impacts of the Detailed Component Proposed Development on the transport network. The assessment set out within Appendix V of the TA therefore remains valid.

Trip Generation Conclusions 4.56

The trip generation comparison exercise undertaken in response to the comments received from the Transport Stakeholders (as set out within TN76 in Appendix D) identified that there was no requirement to review the outputs from MoTiON.

4.57

For servicing and delivery trips, the updated trip generation (which responds to the feedback received from stakeholders) results in an increase in daily and peak hour movements. Given that these represent the majority of the highway trips resulting from the Proposed Development, it is considered appropriate that highway impacts are considered further within this TAA.

4.58

No change in public transport trips were identified and therefore the trip generation and subsequent assessment of the impacts of the Proposed Development on the public transport network set out within the TA remains valid. Further consideration is given to bus based trips and this is set out within the next section of this TAA.

4.59

Changes to the Proposed Development relating to the Detailed Components combined with the changes to the servicing and delivery trips has resulted in changes to the trip generation for the Detailed Components. Overall, it is considered that these changes are small and would not warrant re-assessment of the impacts of the Detailed Component Proposed Development on the transport network. The assessment set out within Appendix V of the TA therefore remains valid.

Chapter 04 Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

WSP Issue 1

Maximum Development Parameters 4.60

As set out in the TA (paragraphs 7.9-7.15) work on the strategic modelling to inform the TA commenced in advance of the Development Proposals being confirmed as part of the July 2024 Hybrid Planning Application submissions. As such, an exercise was undertaken to define a set of maximum development parameters that would be used within the strategic transport modelling. This exercise identified the worst-case land use quantum mix (from a weekday peak hour trip making perspective) that would be possible based upon the illustrative Proposed Development accommodation schedule available at that time and identification of potential plots that would have a flexible predominant land use. A series of TNs were produced for the Transport Stakeholders identifying the process that had been undertaken and to gain feedback. These TNS were contained in the TA (Appendix K).

4.61

The changes to the Proposed Development as a result of feedback from stakeholders has led to a need to review once again the maximum development parameters to ensure that a worst case assessment has been undertaken from a transport perspective.

4.62

Within the Transport and Accessibility Chapter of the ES summary tables were presented to show what a worst case construction of the Proposed Development would be based on the maximum floorspace quantums in the Development Specification and which reflects the maximum development parameters. An explanation was then provided for any differences. These tables, also reproduced in the ES Addendum have been included in the TA as Tables 32 (Early Phases) and Table 33 (All Phases) to provide an updated assessment of the maximum development parameters.

Chapter 04 Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

WSP Issue 1

Table 32 – Early Phases Maximum Development Parameters Comparison Use Class Land Use Type/Gro up

Specific Land Use(s) (areas to include back of house

Detailed Component

Outline Component

Total

Worst Case Floorspace Drawdown

Total (Both LPAs)

Category GEA (m2) 2

GEA (m )

GIA (m2)

GIA (m )

Min

Max

Min

Max

Detailed GIA (m2)**

Outline GIA (m2)**

Maximum Development Parameters Modelled Floorspace GIA (m2)

Storage and Distribution

6,000

5,520

5,108

Hotel

36,000

33,120

50,000

46,000

Residential Institutions (Hospital) Residential Institutions (Later Living) Residenti al

95,063

86,024

109,000

175,000

100,280

161,000

86,024 (766)

132,158 (1387)

158,625 (1670)

Purpose Built Student Accommodation (PBSA)

Sui Generis

30,636

28,050

28,050 (696)

22,353 (550)

Co-living

Sui Generis

20,000

18,400

Residential

Retail

Retail / F&B / Flex. Commercial

E(a)/(b)/(c)/SG

3,647

3,288

6,000

17,000

5,520

15,640

3,288

5,520

15,822

Leisure (Indoor Sport and Recreation)

E(d)/SG

2,113

1,933

250

6,500

230

5,980

1,933

230

Office and Research and Development

E(g)

55,000

165,000

50,600

151,800

168,615

Education

F1(a)

25,000

23,000

18,400

F/E(e)/(f)/(g)

734

660

350

2,250

322

2,070

660

322

1,560

Community / Social Infrastructure

COMMENTS

Whilst there is no minimum, the September 2023 modelling of the Early Phases assumed some B8 space which was identified at that time to be logistics but could be flexible under that category (i.e. any B8 use). The transport modelling considers this land use to have an employment density which is similar to the Research and Development use. As such its application can be considered commensurate to adding further Research and Development Use.

The worst-case parameters adopted for the September 2023 modelling were set by considering the maximum commercial land use (Office and Research and Development) as this use would generate the highest traffic movements and therefore have focused on ensuring the highest quantum of commercial is assessed. Whilst in terms of floorspace the modelling uses a higher value, when converted to units, this results in a lower quantum of residential being assessed. As the Office and Research and Development generates a significantly higher quantum of trips per m2 of floorspace, this approach is considered appropriate as it ensures a worst-case scenario has been considered. The difference is created by the evolution of the student accommodation within the Detailed Component. The increase in rooms (from 550 to 696 = 146) would not materially impact the modelling results. Retail land uses have the potential to generate a significant quantum of trips when compared to residential land uses. The use of a higher quantum of retail than the minimum is therefore considered appropriate to ensure a worst case assessment from a transport perspective. The 2,163 m2 leisure use which would consist of a gym or equivalent has been removed and modelled instead as higher trip generating retail floorspace A greater higher quantum of this land use has been modelled and assessed (168,615-151,800 = 16,815) Whilst there is no minimum, the September 2023 modelling assessed education as this land use has the potential to generate significantly more trips in the AM peak hour when compared to other uses such as residential. Whilst trips are likely to be lower in the PM peak when compared to other uses the AM peak is generally the more congested peak hour and therefore this approach was taken to ensure a worst case assessment from a transport perspective. A floor area lower than the proposed maximum has been assessed, off-set by the higher levels of Office / R&D

Chapter 04 Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

WSP Issue 1

Culture

Sui Generis

1,250

11,000

1,150

10,120

1,150

2,745

Ancillary*

Sui Generis

4,476

4,341

2,500

30,000

2,300

27,600

4,341

2,300

136,669

124,297

174,350

543,750

160,402

500,250

124,297

293,480

393,228

319,000

293,480

Total Total Outline Component Maximum GEA (m2)

The difference between the higher modelled area and the minimum area (2,745 - 1,150 = 1,595) is considered de minimus. 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. Ancillary spaces are not considered to be trip generators in their own rights, as they are attached to the main land use categories and provide back of house space / storage or servicing areas. The trip generation for the land uses already accounts for servicing vehicles and as such no additional movements are required for ancillary uses. The September 2023 modelling has modelled and the assessment in this chapter has generally assessed a higher quantum of higher trip generating floorspace uses.

*comprises floorspace for incidental purposes linked to the land uses in the table.

Table 33 – All Phases Maximum Development Parameters Comparison Land Use

Use Class

Type/ Group

Specific Land Use(s) (areas to include back of house

Detailed Component

Category

Outline Component

Total (Both LPAs) 2

GEA (m )

Worst Case Floorspace Drawdown

Total (Both LPAs)

GEA (m2)

GIA (m2)

GIA (m )

Min

Max

Min

Max

Detailed

Outline

GIA (m2)**

September 2023 Modelled Floorspace

GIA (m2)

Logistics / Data Centre

16,000

14,720

5,580

Hotel

36,000

33,120

25,000

23,000

50,000

46,000

Residential Institutions (Hospital) Residential Institutions (Later Living) Residential

Residential

Purpose Built Student Accommodation (PBSA) Co-living Retail

Retail / F&B / Flex. Commercial

95,063

86,024

261,000

365,000

240,120

335,800

Sui Generis

30,636

28,050

40,000

36,800

Sui Generis

50,000

46,000

E(a))/(b)/(c)/SG

3,647

3,288

8,000

22,000

7,360

20,240

86,024 (766)

28,050 (696) 0 3,288

288,696 (2694)

0 0 7,360

COMMENTS

252,292 (2325)

53,471 (1641) 0 19,915

Whilst there is no minimum, the September 2023 modelling of the All Phases assumed some B8 space which is marked as logistics but could be flexible under that category – this is considered to have an employment density applied which is like the Research & Development uses. As such, is applied as another commerical use.

Chapter 04 Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

WSP Issue 1

Leisure (Indoor Sport and Recreation)

E(d)/SG

2,113

1,933

250

10,000

230

9,200

1,933

230

Office and Research and Development

E(g)

75,000

250,000

69,000

230,000

268,031

Education

F1(a)

45,000

41,400

18,400

Community / Social Infrastructure

F/E(g)/(f)/(g)

734

660

450

3,000

414

2,760

660

414

1,780

Culture

F/Sui Generis

1,500

14,000

1,380

12,880

1,380

3,634

Ancillary*

Sui Generis

4,476

4,341

3,000

48,000

2,760

44,160

4,341

2,760

136,669

124,297

349,200

974,000

321,264

896,080

124,297

577,000

530,840

Total Total Outline Component Maximum GEA (m2)

*comprises floorspace for incidental purposes linked to the land uses in the table.

623,103

The 2,163 m2 leisure use which would consist of a gym or equivalent has been removed and modelled instead as higher trip generating retail floorspace A higher quantum of this land use has been modelled and assessed (268,013-230,000 = 38,031) Whilst there is no minimum, the September 2023 modelling assessed an element of education uses (as a consistent floor area as per the Early Phases) as a worst case. A floor area lower than the proposed maximum has been assessed, off-set by the higher levels of Office / R&D The difference between the higher modelled area and the minimum area (3,634 - 1,380 = 2,254) is considered de minimus. 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. Ancillary spaces are not considered to be trip generators in their own rights, as they are attached to the main land use categories and provide back of house space / storage or servicing areas. The trip generation for the land uses already accounts for servicing vehicles and as such no additional movements are required for ancillary uses. The September 2023 modelling has modelled and the assessment in this chapter has generally assessed a higher quantum of higher trip generating floorspace uses.

Chapter 05 Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

WSP Issue 1

5.0 London Wide Network Impact Assessment Introduction 5.1

This Section provides an updated assessment of the impacts of the Proposed Development on the transport network where changes to the trip generation have been identified that could change the assessment presented within the TA. As noted in the previous Section, no changes to public transport trips were identified as a result of the updated trip generation. However, comments were received from TfL Buses requesting assessment of the impacts of the Proposed Development on Buses at a more granular level.

5.2

The TA presented a range of assessments to consider the impacts of the Proposed Development. The assessments that have been updated as a result of the changes to the trip generation and Proposed Development are as follows: — — — —

5.3

Cycling – the distribution of development cycle trips has been amended to take account of proposed changes to the access strategy. This is discussed in further detail later in this Section. Public Transport – Buses – in response to feedback from TfL Buses an updated assessment has been undertaken that considers the bus impacts at a more granular level to that which was presented in the TA. Highways – Vissim Micro-simulation – the Vissim micro-simulation models have been updated and re-run with the updated development trip generation and cycle distribution to provide updated journey time information Highways – Junction Capacity Assessments – the junction capacity assessments have been re-run with the updated development trip generation and cycle distribution to provide updated junction capacity information. The TA presented the transport network assessment within a series of scenarios. Whilst these scenarios have not changed, for completeness the scenarios considered are as follows:

— — — —

Base – this varies by mode with Stations assessed in a 2019 Base Year and Highways in a 2016 Base Year for LoHAM and 2022 Base Year for VISSIM 2031 Base Minus – this is the first future year considered and represents a future baseline without the consented Earls Court Development. In this scenario the Lillie Bridge depot (LBD) is considered to be operational 2031 Base Minus + Early Phases – this considers the impacts of Phases 1-4 of the Proposed Development in the future year of 2031 2041 Base Minus - this is the second future year considered and represents a future baseline without the consented Earls Court Development. In this scenario the Lillie Bridge depot (LBD) is considered to have been relocated and therefore is a vacant site similar to that of the wider Earls Court Site

Chapter 05 Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

—

WSP Issue 1

2041 Base Minus + All Phases – this considers the impacts of Phases 1-8 of the Proposed Development in the future year of 2041

Cycle Demand 5.4

The distribution of cycle trips to/from the Proposed Development has been reviewed to reflect the cycle access and connections to the Site. In the TA the cycle distribution (by access point) and traffic flow diagrams for the various scenarios assessed were presented in Appendix O alongside a review of off-site cycle infrastructure. The cycle distribution has been updated and Tables 34 and 35 replace Tables 1 and 2 of Appendix O in the TA.

Table 34: Early Phases cycle demand by access AM Peak (0800 – 0900)

PM Peak (1700 – 1800)

Access Arrivals

Departures

Total

Arrivals

Departures

Total

Fenelon Place

185

Warwick Road

Old Brompton Rd

186

283

146

Lillie Road

111

Mund Street

Beaumont Ave

Aisgill Ave

Total

426

279

705

112

292

404

Table 35: All Phases cycle demand by access AM Peak (0800 – 0900)

PM Peak (1700 – 1800)

Access Arrivals

Departures

Total

Arrivals

Departures

Total

Fenelon Place

165

Warwick Road

Old Brompton Rd

188

147

334

154

Lillie Road

150

216

120

144

Mund Street

Beaumont Ave

113

199

102

134

Aisgill Ave

Total

590

475

1065

173

442

615

5.5

The cycle trips were then distributed off-site onto a series of corridors to better understand the change in flow anticipated along key links in the local area. The cycle demand was then applied to the Vissim modelling. Table 36 presents the updated cycle demand by corridor with updated traffic flow diagrams provided in Appendix E.

Chapter 05 Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

WSP Issue 1

Table 36: Cycle Demand Summary

Link

Base Year

2031 Base Minus

2031 (Early Phase)

2041 Base Minus

2041 (All Phase)

North Bound

109

110

138

139

South Bound

144

132

190

182

North Bound

125

104

South Bound

125

114

172

287

465

124

103

615

172

198

235

101

271

118

305

101

485

133

641

185

141

215

253

154

111

291

183

North Bound

South Bound

North Bound

South Bound

n/a

North Bound

107

South Bound East Bound West Bound East Bound West Bound

170

196

Dir

1. North End Road A

2. North End Road B

3. Lillie Road/Old Brompton Road A

4. Lillie Road/Old Brompton Road B

East Bound West Bound East Bound West Bound

5. Seagrave Road

6. Warwick Road

7. Warwick Road B

8. Trebovir Road

9. Q15-Kempsford Garden/Earls Court Sq

5.6

133

The cycle analysis shows that there would be an increase in trips on a number of links surrounding the Site. The assessment of existing conditions set out in the TA concludes that cycle infrastructure in the local area is limited and there are gaps in provision. As such additional cycle infrastructure measures have been proposed. The package of mitigation measures proposed to accommodate the development on the transport network has been reviewed and updated as part of this TAA and is discussed later in the report.

Chapter 05 Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

WSP Issue 1

Public Transport – Bus 5.7

Outputs from Railplan were used in the TA to forecast bus loading in the future years of 2031 and 2041. The assessment of bus impacts was then presented in paragraphs 8.20 to 8.40 of the TA.

5.8

Following stakeholder comments, a further analysis of the predicted number of people boarding and alighting from the identified bus stops has been undertaken that breaks down the number of people boarding and alighting on/off each bus service at each bus stop during the calculated AM and PM 1-hour peak hours. This differs from the analysis in the TA which only considered the number of people boarding and alighting services at each stop.

5.9

To aid understanding of the updated analysis Figure 16 has been re-produced from the TA and shows the location of the evaluated bus stops as part of the bus stop boarding and alighting analysis performed. These bus stops represents the stops identified in the TA as being the ones that would witness the greatest change in demand resulting from the Development Proposals.

Figure 16 – Bus Stops Considered in Boarding and Alighting Analysis

5.10

Furthermore, it is noted that Tables 42-45 within the TA were titled incorrectly as ‘1-hour peak’ when in fact these tables displayed the numbers for the 3-hour peak. This has been corrected as part of this TAA.

Chapter 05 Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

5.11

WSP Issue 1

To calculate the adjustment from a 3-hour peak to 1-hour peak, the below factors as recommended for use when considering station demand within TfL guidance have been applied: —

0.45 in the AM to convert from 3-hour peak data (07:00-10:00) to (08:00-09:00) 1-hour peak data.

—

0.41 in the PM to convert from 3-hour peak data (16:00-19:00) to (17:00-18:00) 1-hour peak data.

5.12

The full bus analysis results tables are provided in Appendix F. From this analysis, the following summary of results has been identified (please note, the figures in the following analysis have been rounded).

Early Phases 2031 5.13

In the Early Phases the bus stop that would witness the greatest increase in demand would be West Cromwell Road (bus stop ID: BP2068), closely followed by Earls Court Station (bus stop ID: 29941), and Empress State Building / West Brompton (bus stop ID: 2538). At these bus stops:

—

West Cromwell Road (bus stop ID: BP2068) In the AM peak this stop would see a total demand increase across services in demand of 163 (88 boarding, 75 alighting) and in the PM peak an increase of 154 (88 boarding, 66 alighting).

—

The bus service that would see the greatest increase of demand would be the 328 bus service with 101 (60 boarding, 41 alighting) in the AM peak and 87 (55 boarding, 32 alighting) in the PM peak.

—

With approximately five 328 bus services per hour, and assuming equal distribution across the hours this would result in approximately 20 additional passengers per bus (12 boarding, 8 alighting) in the AM peak hour, and approximately 17 people per bus (11 boarding, 6 alighting) in the PM peak hour.

—

Earls Court Station (bus stop ID: 29941) In the AM peak this bus stop would see a total demand increase across services in demand of 148 (80 boarding, 68 alighting) and in the PM peak an increase of 140 (80 boarding, 60 alighting).

—

The greatest service demand increase at this stop would also be upon the 328 bus service which would see a demand increase in the AM peak of 49 (35 boarding, 13 alighting) and in the PM peak, 51 (37 boarding, 13 alighting).

—

With approximately five 328 bus services per hour, and assuming equal distribution across the hours this would result in approximately 10 additional passengers per bus (7 boarding, 3 alighting) in the AM peak hour, and approximately 10 people per bus (7 boarding, 3 alighting) in the PM peak hour. Empress State Building / West Brompton (bus stop ID: 2538)

Chapter 05 Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

WSP Issue 1

—

In the AM peak this bus stop would see a total demand increase across services of 128 (28 boarding, 99 alighting) and in the PM peak an increase of 120 (89 boarding, 31 alighting).

—

In the AM peak hour, the bus service that would see the greatest increase of demand would be the 430 bus service with 93 (11 boarding, 82 alighting). In the PM peak the greatest demand increase would be upon the 74 bus service with 70 (64 boarding, 6 alighting).

—

Assuming equal distribution of services across each peak hour, with approximately four 430 bus services in the AM peak hour this would result in approximately 24 additional passengers per bus (3 boarding, 21 alighting).

—

Assuming equal distribution of services across each peak hour, with approximately four 74 bus services in the PM peak hour, this would result in approximately 18 additional passengers per bus (16 boarding, 2 alighting).

All Phases 2041 5.14

In All Phases, the AM peak results show that the bus stop that would see the greatest increase in demand would be West Kensington Station (bus stop ID: 11255) followed by West Kensington Estate (bus stop ID: 11254) and then West Cromwell Road (bus stop ID: BP2068). At these bus stops:

—

West Kensington Station (bus stop ID: 11255) In the AM peak the West Kensington Station bus stop would see a total demand increase across services of 173 (74 boarding, 98 alighting).

—

The greatest overall demand increase by service in the AM peak would be upon the 28 bus service, seeing an increase of 104 (48 boarding, 56 alighting).

—

With approximately four 28 bus services per hour, and assuming equal distribution across the hours this would result in approximately 26 additional passengers per bus (12 boarding, 14 alighting) in the AM peak hour.

—

West Kensington Estate (bus stop ID: 11254) In the AM peak the West Kensington Estate bus stop would see a total demand increase across services of 150 (64 boarding, 85 alighting).

—

The greatest overall demand increase by service in the AM peak would be upon the 306 bus service, seeing an increase of 86 (27 boarding, 59 alighting).

—

With approximately four 306 bus services per hour, and assuming equal distribution across the hours this would result in approximately 21 additional passengers per bus (7 boarding, 15 alighting) in the AM peak hour.

—

West Cromwell Road (bus stop ID: BP2068). In the AM peak the West Cromwell Road bus stop would see a total demand increase across services of 124 (67 boarding, 57 alighting). The greatest overall demand increase by service in the AM peak would be upon the 328 bus service, seeing an increase of 77 (46 boarding, 32 alighting).

Chapter 05 Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

—

5.15

WSP Issue 1

With approximately five 328 bus services per hour, and assuming equal distribution across the hours this would result in approximately 15 additional passengers per bus (9 boarding, 6 alighting) in the AM peak hour.

In the PM peak, the bus stop that would see the greatest increase of demand would be West Cromwell Road (bus stop ID: BP2068) followed by West Kensington Station (bus stop ID: 11255) and then West Kensington Estate (bus stop ID: 11254). At these bus stops:

—

West Cromwell Road (bus stop ID: BP2068). In the PM peak the West Cromwell Road bus stop would see a total demand increase across services of 138 (86 boarding, 52 alighting).

—

The greatest overall demand increase by service in the PM peak would be upon the 328 bus service, seeing an increase of 79 (54 boarding, 25 alighting).

—

With approximately five 328 bus services per hour, and assuming equal distribution across the hours this would result in approximately 16 additional passengers per bus (11 boarding, 5 alighting) in the PM peak hour.

—

West Kensington Station (bus stop ID: 11255) In the PM peak West Kensington Station bus stop would see a total demand increase across services of 115 (63 boarding, 52 alighting).

—

The greatest overall demand increase by service in the PM peak would be upon the 28 bus service, seeing an increase of 67 (37 boarding, 30 alighting).

—

With approximately four 28 bus services per hour, and assuming equal distribution across the hours this would result in approximately 17 additional passengers per bus (9 boarding, 8 alighting) in the PM peak hour.

—

West Kensington Estate (bus stop ID: 11254) In the PM peak the West Kensington Estate bus stop would see a total demand increase across services of 100 (55 boarding, 45 alighting).

—

The greatest overall demand increase by service in the PM peak would be upon the 306 bus service, seeing an increase of 67 (33 boarding, 34 alighting).

—

With approximately four 306 bus services per hour, and assuming equal distribution across the hours this would result in approximately 17 additional passengers per bus (8 boarding, 9 alighting) in the PM peak hour.

2031 Detailed Component

5.16

For the Detailed Component; in the AM and PM peaks the bus stops that would witness the greatest increase in demand would be West Cromwell Road (bus top ID: BP2068), closely followed by Earls Court Station (bus stop ID: 29941), and Empress State Building / West Brompton (bus stop ID: 2538). At these bus stops:

Chapter 05 Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

—

West Cromwell Road (bus stop ID: BP2068) In the AM peak this stop would see a total demand increase across services of 41 (38 boarding, 2 alighting) and in the PM peak an increase of 34 (5 boarding, 29 alighting).

—

The bus service that would see the greatest increase of demand would be the 328 bus service with 27 (26 boarding, 1 alighting) in the AM peak and 17 (3 boarding, 14 alighting) in the PM peak.

—

With approximately five 328 bus services per hour, and assuming equal distribution across the peak hour this would result in approximately 6 additional passengers per bus (5 boarding, 1 alighting) in the AM peak hour, and approximately 4 people per bus (1 boarding, 3 alighting) in the PM peak hour.

—

Earls Court Station (bus stop ID: 29941) In the AM peak this bus stop would see a total demand increase across services of 37 (35 boarding, 2 alighting) and in the PM peak an increase of 31 (4 boarding, 27 alighting).

—

The greatest service demand increase at this stop during the AM peak would also be upon the 328 bus service which would see a demand increase of 16 (15 boarding, 1 alighting). In the PM peak, the greatest service demand increase would occur upon the C3 service with 13 (0 boarding, 13 alighting).

—

With approximately five 328 bus services per hour, and assuming equal distribution across the peak hour this would result in approximately 4 additional passengers per bus (3 boarding, 1 alighting) in the AM peak hour.

—

With approximately four C3 bus services per hour, and assuming equal distribution across the hours this would result in approximately 4 additional passengers per bus (0 boarding, 4 alighting) in the PM peak hour.

—

5.17

WSP Issue 1

Empress State Building / West Brompton (bus stop ID: 2538) In the AM peak this bus stop would see a total demand increase across services of 16 (12 boarding, 3 alighting) and in the PM peak an increase of 19 (5 boarding, 14 alighting).

—

At this stop, the greatest increase in service demand would occur on the 430 bus service with 8 (5 boarding, 3 alighting) in the AM peak, and 12 (1 boarding, 11 alighting) in the PM peak.

—

Assuming equal distribution of services across each peak hour, with approximately four 430 bus services per hour - in the AM peak hour this would result in approximately 2 additional passengers per bus (1 boarding, 1 alighting). In the PM peak hour this would result in approximately 6 additional passengers per bus (0 boarding, 6 alighting).

Overall, the bus analysis would see increased patronage across a number of routes in the area. The outputs from Railplan (as reported in the TA (paragraphs 8.20 to 8.40) and represented at a more granular level in this TAA) indicated that the bus network could accommodate the demand associated with the Proposed Development in the future years assessed. This conclusion is reached based on the modelling tools provided to WSP by TfL for assessment of the Proposed Development.

Chapter 05 Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

WSP Issue 1

Highway Impacts – Junction Impact Assessments 5.18

Within the TA junction capacity assessments were presented for a number of junctions located around the Site where it was anticipated that the greatest impacts would occur on the highway network. These junction locations were agreed as part of the TA scoping process. To aid understanding of the updated analysis presented in the TAA Figure 92 and 93 from the TA have been reproduced in Figures 17 and 18.

Figure 17 – Existing Junction Capacity Assessment Locations

Chapter 05 Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

WSP Issue 1

Figure 18 – Proposed Junction Capacity Assessment Locations

5.19

The junction capacity assessments have been re-run and the output files along with a summary document of the results can be found in Appendix G.

5.20

Within the TA the results were summarised into a simple RAG table with green representing a Degree of Saturation (DoS) or Ratio of Flow to Capacity (RFC) of less than 90%/0.85 respectively, amber a DoS or RFC between 90% to 99%//0.86 to 0.99 respectively, and red a DoS or RFC over 100%/1 respectively.

5.21

Table 37 sets out the results of the junction modelling in the RAG format for those junctions that have been updated as part of the TAA. It should be noted that the 2022 Base, 2031 Base Minus and 2041 Base Minus scenarios have not changed and have therefore not been re-run. This has in turn meant that the following junctions in their existing arrangement have not been revisited: — —

Lillie Road/Empress Place/Seagrave Road Lillie Road/Lillie Road Bus Layover

5.22

Owing to the changes to the access strategy (removal of access to development site from Mund Street) the North End Road/Mund Street has not been re-run.

5.23

In the proposed junction capacity assessment locations scenario the following junctions have not been revisited:

Chapter 05 Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

—

WSP Issue 1

Mund Street/Site Access Priority Junction – access via Mund Street has now been removed Warwick Road/Cluny Mews – this is an entry only junction and therefore would be less sensitive to changes in traffic flow. As such this junction has not been re-run

—

Table 37 – Junction Capacity Assessment Results Scenarios Junction

2031 Early Phases

2041 All Phases

AM Peak

PM Peak

AM Peak

N/A

PM Peak

Existing Layout A4 West Cromwell Road / North End Road Old Brompton Road / Finborough Road / Warwick Road A4 West Cromwell Road / Warwick Road Warwick Road / Fenelon Place North End Road / Lillie Road North End Road/Beaumont Avenue Proposed Layout Lillie Road / Empress Place / Seagrave Road Lillie Road / Lillie Road Bus Layover Old Brompton Road / West Brompton Lane Warwick Road Access

5.24

The results of the junction modelling show that the majority of junctions would continue to operate within capacity, even with the addition of the Proposed Development. The following points are noted: Existing layout — A4 West Cromwell Road/North End Road – a maximum DoS of 90.4% is identified on the A4 western arm of the junction in the 2031 Early Phases scenario. The maximum DoS in the 2041 All Phases scenario is 94.4% also on the North End Road southern arm. A mitigation scheme for this junction was identified that was presented in the TA. This is discussed later in this TAA.

Chapter 05 Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

—

WSP Issue 1

North End Road/Lillie Road – a maximum RFC of 0.72 is evident on the North End Road northern arm in the 2041 All Phases AM peak hour. A mitigation scheme is proposed for this junction which focused on non-vehicular users has been discussed with the Transport Stakeholders. The details of this mitigation are outlined later in this TAA. Old Brompton Road / Finborough Road / Warwick Road – a maximum DoS of 95.3% is identified on the Old Brompton Road western arm in the 2041 All Phases AM peak. It is acknowledged that this junction is forecast to operate with reduced capacity, however improvements to crossing provision enhances the existing situation for non-vehicular users. This is considered in more detail later in this TAA.

Proposed Layout — Lillie Road/Empress Place/Seagrave Road – a maximum Dos of 89.4% is identified on the Lillie Road eastbound arm in the PM peak in the 2031 Early Phases scenario. Whilst it is acknowledged that this junction operates with reduced capacity and is approaching an amber classification, it is still under thresholds and includes future year flows that incorporate background growth. In addition, the pedestrian and cycle priority delivered by the design will significantly enhance the existing situation.

Highway Impacts - VISSIM – Microsimulation 5.25

VISSIM Microsimulation assessments have been undertaken to assess the wider network impacts with and without the Proposed Development. For completeness the study area for the VISSIM is shown in Figure 19 (repeated from Figure 94 of the TA).

Figure 19 – VISSIM Micro-simulation Study Area

Chapter 05 Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

5.26

WSP Issue 1

Journey time assessments have been extracted from the various VISSIM models to understand the impacts of the Proposed Development on key links around the Site. For completeness the Journey Time Routes considered in the TA (and this TAA) are shown in Figure 20 (repeated from Figure 95 in the TA).

Figure 20 – VISSIM Micro-simulation Journey Time Routes

Base scenarios 5.27

A series of amendments have been made to the future base scenarios (2031 Base Minus and 2041 Base Minus) post-application triggered by feedback and discussions with the Transport Stakeholders. This has been undertaken to as much as possible reflect committed schemes in the local area. The following changes have been coded into the 2031 Base Minus and 2041 Base Minus models: — — —

Kempsford Gardens / A3218 Old Brompton Road junction pedestrian improvements shown in Figure 21 A3218 Old Brompton Road/ A3220 Warwick Road Pedestrian and Cycle Crossing, as shown in Figure 22; and Banned left turn into Eardley Crescent from Old Brompton Road

Chapter 05 Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

WSP Issue 1

Figure 21 – Kempsford Gardens/A3218 Old Brompton Proposed Zebra Crossing

Figure 22 – A3218 Old Brompton Road/ A3220 Warwick Road Pedestrian Crossing

Chapter 05 Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

WSP Issue 1

Early Phases and All Phases 5.28

The VISSIM model incorporates updated development traffic and reflects TfL’s comments as part of the VISSIM Model Audit Process (VMAP).

5.29

Tables 38 to 41 show the changes in journey time expected along the routes assessed once the development trips are applied (either as Phases 1-4 (Early Phases) or Phases 18 (All Phases). These journey times are compared to the 2031 and 2041 Base Minus scenarios and replace Tables 66-71 in the TA.

Table 38 Journey Time Results Comparison (2031 AM Peak)

Journey time (Seconds) Route 1 EB – Along A4 Route 1 WB – Along A4 Route 2 NB - Along B317 North End Rd Route 2 SB - Along B317 North End Rd Route 3 NB – Along A3220 Warwick Rd Route 4 SB – Along A3220 Earls Ct Rd Route 5 EB – Along A3218 Lillie Rd Route 5 WB – Along A3218 Lillie Rd

5.30

2031 with Difference 2031 Base Minus Dev (Early (seconds) Phases) 330 356 26 310 327 17 298 318 20 377 374 -3 367 525 158 435 465 30 237 361 124 185 215 30

In the Early Phases AM peak the greatest change in journey time is witnessed on Route 3 Northbound (A3220 Warwick Road) and Route 5 Eastbound (Lillie Road) where an increase between 124-158 seconds is witnessed. This is significantly less than what was reported in the TA where increases of 205 seconds on Route 3 and 216 seconds on Lillie Road eastbound were reported. Other links show significantly less increase in delay indicating that other than Warwick Road and Lillie Road the inclusion of the Proposed Development has minimal impact on the highway network surrounding the Site.

Table 39 Journey Time Results Comparison (2031 PM Peak)

2031 Base Minus 286 301 316 374 359 482 193 282

2031 with Difference Dev (Early (seconds) Phases) 298 12 306 5 347 31 365 -9 455 96 499 17 263 70 342 60

Chapter 05 Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

5.31

WSP Issue 1

In the Early Phases PM peak the greatest change in journey time is witnessed on Route 3 Northbound (A3220 Warwick Road) and Route 5 Eastbound (Lillie Road) where an increase between 70-96 seconds is witnessed. This is significantly less than what was reported in the TA where increases of 197 seconds on Route 3 and 109 seconds on Lillie Road eastbound were reported. Other links show significantly less increase in delay indicating that the inclusion of the Proposed Development has minimal impact on the highway network surrounding the Site.

Table 40: Journey Time Results Comparison (2041 AM Peak)

Journey time (Seconds)

2041 Base Minus

Route 1 EB – Along A4 Route 1 WB – Along A4 Route 2 NB - Along B317 North End Rd Route 2 SB - Along B317 North End Rd Route 3 NB – Along A3220 Warwick Rd Route 4 SB – Along A3220 Earls Ct Rd Route 5 EB – Along A3218 Lillie Rd Route 5 WB – Along A3218 Lillie Rd

5.32

2041 All Phases 412 321 318 382 376 678 296 199

Difference (seconds) 455 334 400 495 507 665 440 223

43 13 82 113 131 -13 144 24

In the All Phases AM peak the greatest change in journey time is witnessed on Route 3 Northbound (A3220 Warwick Road) and Route 5 Eastbound (Lillie Road) where an increase between 133-144 seconds is witnessed. This is significantly less than what was reported in the TA where increases of 275 seconds on Route 3 and 238 seconds on Lillie Road eastbound were reported. North End Road (Route 2) shows an increase of 113 seconds southbound and 82 seconds northbound. This is more than what was reported in the TA (48 seconds northbound and 75 seconds southbound) and likely the result of removal of the Mund Street access from the Proposed Development in combination with the increase in trip generation.

Table 41: Journey Time Results Comparison (2041 PM Peak)

5.33

2041 Base Minus

2041 All Phases 286 303 334 365 362 505 201 347

Difference (seconds) 301 310 427 390 440 500 347 442

15 7 93 25 78 -5 146 95

In the All Phases PM peak the greatest change in journey time is witnessed on Route 3 Northbound (A3220 Warwick Road) and Route 5 Eastbound (Lillie Road) where an

Chapter 05 Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

WSP Issue 1

increase between 78-146 seconds is witnessed. This is more than what was reported in the TA where increases of 12 seconds on Route 3 and 104 seconds on Lillie Road eastbound were reported. North End Road (Route 2) shows an increase of 25 seconds southbound and 93 seconds northbound. This is less than what was reported in the TA (105 seconds northbound and 29 seconds southbound) and likely the result of removal of the Mund Street access from the Proposed Development in combination with the increase in trip generation. 5.34

Overall the journey time increases across the network are in some locations potentially significant. These significant locations are Warwick Road and Lillie Road in the Early Phases and Warwick Road, Lillie Road and North End Road in the All Phases. Mitigation measures have been considered to help address this and these are discussed later in this TAA.

Highway Impacts – Wider Impacts (LBHF) 5.35

Feedback from LBHF requested consideration of junctions further afield, and outside of the study area agreed as part of the TA Scoping process. The specific locations requested to be considered were: — — — — —

J1: Dawes Road / North End Road J2: Fulham Road / North End Road J3: Fulham Palace Road / Lillie Road J4: Lillie Road / Munster Road J5: A4 Talgarth Road / Gliddon Road

5.36

These five junctions have been focused on as they were specifically queried by LBHF following a review of the TA. The information for these locations has been derived from turning flows within TfL’s strategic highway assignment model (LoHAM). LoHAM utilises a 2016 base year, and has subsequent 2031 and 2041 forecast year models, which have been updated locally (in the vicinity of the Proposed Development) to assess the Earls Court Development.

5.37

Table 42 sets out a comparison of the total Demand Flow (PCUs/hr) of traffic passing through each of the junctions in the AM and PM peak hours, for the base and forecast year models.

Table 42: Total Junction Demand Flow (PCUs/hr) Scenario

AM Peak (0800-0900)

PM Peak (1700-1800)

2016 Base

1257

1970

2399

1472

6541

1255

1653

1613

1325

6163

2031 Base Minus

1152

1793

1835

1638

6498

1204

1663

1655

1372

6241

2041 Base Minus

1223

1852

1792

1707

6812

1222

1687

1680

1375

6354

2031 Early Phases

1154

1817

1811

1633

6496

1212

1659

1655

1385

6243

2041 All Phases

1239

1877

1783

1712

6830

1241

1709

1681

1400

6360

5.38

Table 43 shows the absolute difference and Table 44 shows the percentage difference in PCUs/hr, initially comparing the 2031 / 2041 Base Minus to the 2016 Base. This demonstrates that LoHAM predicts there will be decreases in junction demand in some instances, in particular at Fulham Palace Road / Lillie Road, which occurs due to

Chapter 05 Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

WSP Issue 1

significant increases in delay along Fulham Palace Road. These increases in delay are linked to higher congestion occurring at the A219 Hammersmith Gyratory. The increases in delay lead to LoHAM reassigning traffic away from Fulham Palace Road.

Table 43: Absolute Difference in Total Junction Demand Flow (PCUs/hr) Scenario

AM Peak (0800-0900)

PM Peak (1700-1800)

2031 Base Minus vs 2016 Base

-106

-177

-564

166

-43

-51

2041 Base Minus vs 2016 Base

-34

-118

-607

235

270

-33

192

2031 Early Phases vs 2031 Base Minus

-24

-5

-2

-3

2041 Early Phases vs 2041 Base Minus

-8

Table 44: Percentage Difference in Total Junction Demand Flow (PCUs/hr)d AM Peak (0800-0900) Scenario

PM Peak (1700-1800)

2031 Base Minus vs 2016 Base

-8.4%

-9.0%

-23.5%

11.3%

-0.7%

-4.1%

0.6%

2.6%

3.5%

1.3%

2041 Base Minus vs 2016 Base

-2.7%

-6.0%

-25.3%

16.0%

4.1%

-2.6%

2.1%

4.2%

3.8%

3.1%

2031 Early Phases vs 2031 Base Minus

0.2%

1.3%

-1.3%

-0.3%

0.0%

0.7%

-0.2%

0.0%

0.9%

0.0%

2041 Early Phases vs 2041 Base Minus

1.3%

-0.5%

0.3%

1.6%

1.2%

0.1%

1.8%

0.1%

5.39

Table 43 and Table 44 demonstrate the 2031 Early Phases and 2041 All Phases scenarios will lead to minor changes in junction demand at each of the five specified junctions. This shows the Proposed Development is predicted to have minimal impact on operational highway capacity at these locations. No further assessment of the impacts of the Proposed development in these locations is therefore considered necessary.

Chapter 06 Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

WSP Issue 1

6.0 London Wide Network – 2041 Early Phases Sensitivity Test Introduction 6.1

This section presents the findings of a sensitivity test undertaken to consider the impacts of the Early Phases (Phases 1-4) in the future year of 2041 instead of the future year of 2031 as set out within the TA and in the preceding Chapter.

6.2

A Technical Note (TN) was prepared and issued on 15 January 2025 to stakeholders to outline the background, rationale and scope for undertaking an assessment of the Early Phases development scenario within the future year of 2041. This TN is attached at Appendix H.

6.3

The TA and transport data used within the Environmental Statement (ES) for the Proposed Development assessed the development in two core scenarios: — —

Completion of the Early Phases – assessed in the future year of 2031 Completion of the entire development (referred to as the All Phases) assessed in the future year of 2041

6.4

Whilst the above still remain valid assumptions, and as such are also considered within this TAA, it was agreed that consideration of a 2041 Early Phases scenario would be undertaken to sense check the conclusions reached in the transport evidence base presented within the planning applications.

6.5

An initial review of whether assessment of the Early Phases in 2041 would result in materially different impacts to those set out for the All Phases in 2041 was undertaken by mode and presented in the TN, with a summary set out below; —

—

Highways - The assessment of highway impacts in 2041 including the All Phases is considered to represent a worst-case scenario from a highway trip generating perspective as this scenario includes the completed development trip generation which represents the highest volume of trips across the network. No further assessment of the highway network was therefore considered necessary to assess the 2041 Early Phases. Pedestrians o It was evident from the data reviewed that for the majority of locations assessed there is a reduction in flow between the 2031 and 2041 pedestrian demand around Earls Court Station and on Lillie Road/Old Brompton Road on the approach to West Brompton Station. The 2041 All Phases flows reduce primarily due to the opening of routes to West Kensington Station and therefore the Development facilitates the balancing out of demand more equally across the three Stations. o PCL analysis of key locations around West Brompton and Earls Court Stations has therefore been undertaken for the 2041 Early Phases assessment and is discussed later in this Section. Cyclists

Chapter 06 Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

WSP Issue 1

The cycle network assessment presented in the TA takes the form of an ATZ assessment and Cycle Level of Service (CLoS) assessment. The ATZ assessment is a qualitative appraisal of the existing pedestrian and cycle infrastructure surrounding the Site and therefore does not include quantified consideration of future forecast use of the spaces within the study area. o The CloS considers the suitability of the existing infrastructure surrounding the Site and as such is not impacted by changes in cycle demand between the two scenarios. It is considered that there is no need for further consideration of cyclist impacts resulting from the Early Phases in the future year of 2041. Public Transport – Rail – Public transport demand at Earls Court and West Brompton decrease between the Early Phases and All Phases. An assessment of the impacts of station demand at both Earl’s Court and West Brompton Stations is therefore included within the 2041 Early Phases assessment, the results of which are set out below. Public Transport – Bus - It was evident from an initial review that there could be several locations where demand decreases between the Early Phases and All Phases scenarios. These are primarily located on Warwick Road, Old Brompton Road, Lillie Road and North End Road. As such, a review of the network capacity in those locations is reviewed further below in the 2041 Early Phases assessment. o

—

Pedestrian Railplan Demand 6.6

As set out above, an initial review of the pedestrian demand changes between the 2041 All Phases and a sensitivity test of the 2041 Early Phases indicated potential changes in the distribution and demand at key locations (West Brompton and Warwick Road / Earls Court) concentrated around West Brompton and Earls Court Stations.

6.7

This would be expected given the access strategy for the Site and the lack of available routes to West Kensington in the Early Phases scenario.

6.8

Railplan models have been run that allow a comparison between the 2041 Early Phases and 2041 Base minus scenario.

6.9

Figures 23 and 24 provide extracts of the Railplan outputs, focusing on the West Brompton Station and Earls Court Station (Warwick Road entrance) locations. It should be noted that the images below compare the two scenarios and represent the 3 hour periods (07:00 – 10:00 and 16:00 – 19:00).

Chapter 06 Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

WSP Issue 1

Figure 23 – 2041 Early Phases vs Base Minus – AM (West Brompton and Earls Court Focus)

Figure 24 – 2041 Early Phases vs Base Minus – PM (West Brompton and Earls Court Focus)

6.10

As would be expected, the Railplan models show significant demand (both arrivals and departures) at the two station entrances in both time periods.

6.11

The Railplan demand forms the basis of the uplift applied to the baseline (2022) pedestrian flows that were then used within the Pedestrian Comfort Level (PCL) analysis. This methodology was set out in detail in Appendix N of the TA . Set out below is an assessment of PCL around the two Stations for the 2041 Early Phases assessment.

PCL Analysis 6.12

Figure 25 shows the locations that were assessed for PCL as part of the TA (reproduced from Figure 89). These locations were identified through review undertaken by WSP as well as through liaison with the Transport Stakeholders.

Chapter 06 Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

WSP Issue 1

Figure 25 – PCL Assessment Locations

6.13

The focus for this 2041 Early Phases PCL analysis is as follows: — — —

Lillie Road – Locations 1 to 5 Old Brompton Road / Eardley Crescent – Location 6, and Warwick Road / Earls Court Empress Place entrance – Locations 7 to 9.

6.14

To remain consistent with the assessments undertaken within the TA, where possible to do so, pedestrian survey data from the 2022 traffic data collection exercise has been used to inform the assessment. 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).

6.15

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 (as set out within paragraph 5.16 to 5.23 of the TA).

Lillie Road (PCL locations 1 to 5) 6.16

Figure 26 shows the location of the PCL analysis undertaken on Lillie Road/Old Brompton Road. This figure is reproduced from Figure 4 of Appendix N of the TA.

Chapter 06 Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

WSP Issue 1

Figure 26 – PCL Assessment Locations Lillie Road/Old Brompton Road

6.17

Sites 1 through to 5 focus on the northern and southern footways on Lillie Road, Lille Road Bridge, the area around West Brompton Station and Old Brompton Road.

6.18

2022 survey data indicated that in the existing situation the northern footway experienced lower volumes of pedestrian movements during the peak hours compared to the southern footway. This is to be expected as West Brompton Station is located on the southern footway in this location. Table 45 presents the assessment of the 2041 Base Minus and the 2041 Early Phases sensitivity test for Lillie Road and Old Brompton Road across the three PCL outputs (Average Flow, Peak Hour Flow, Average of Max Activity).

Table 45: PCL Analysis Lillie Road and Old Brompton Road 2041 Base Minus Peak Hour

Avg of Max

Avg

Peak Hour

Avg of Max

Name Avg

2041 Early Phases

1a Northern Ftwy

A-

B-

1b Southern Ftwy

2a Northern Ftwy

A-

B+

2b Southern Ftwy

3a Northern Ftwy

A-

B-

A-

Chapter 06 Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

WSP Issue 1

Table 45: PCL Analysis Lillie Road and Old Brompton Road 2041 Base Minus Peak Hour

Avg of Max

Avg

Peak Hour

Avg of Max

Name Avg

2041 Early Phases

3b Southern Ftwy

4a Northern Ftwy

A+

4b Southern Ftwy

5a Northern Ftwy

5b Southern Ftwy

A-

6.19

Focusing on the peak hour flows, in the 2041 Base Minus scenario 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 to the west of West Brompton Station. East of the Station, the flows are considerably lower, in combination with less street furniture – resulting in more favourable values.

6.20

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 for the 2041 Base minus scenarios.

6.21

The introduction of the 2041 Early Phases sensitivity test increases demand on the northern footways, however, with the improved public realm and footway widths, especially at the bridge sections, these are shown to provide significantly better results compared to the 2041 Base minus scenario. The other PCL locations show no discernible worsening with the 2041 Early Phases sensitivity test compared to the 2041 Base minus scenario.

6.22

The southern footway to the west of the crossing on Old Brompton Road is not expected to witness an increase in trips as a result of the Proposed Development and therefore the PCL level F reported at location 1b, 2b, 3b and 4b is considered to be an existing issue and not the responsibility of the Proposed Development to address.

6.23

Location 5a is located outside of Plot EC22 where it is acknowledged in Section 2 of this TAA that the Proposed Development creates a potential pinch-point on the footway. This however can be addressed at detailed design and is allowed for through the limit of deviation introduced into the Parameter Plan 004 – Development Zones, Maximum Building Lines and Public Realm.

Old Brompton Road / Eardley Crescent – (PCL Location 6) 6.24

Figure 27 shows the location of the PCL analysis undertaken on Old Brompton Road. This figure is reproduced from Figure 6 of Appendix N of the TA.

Chapter 06 Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

WSP Issue 1

Figure 27 – PCL Assessment Locations Old Brompton Road

6.25

Table 46 provides a summary of the PCLs across the three PCL outputs (Average Flow, Peak Hour Flow, Average of Max Activity) for the Old Brompton Road junction with Eardly Crescent.

Table 46: PCL Analysis Old Brompton Road Junction With Eardley Crescent

Peak Hour

Avg of Max

Avg

Peak Hour

Avg of Max

2041 Early Phases

Avg

2041 Base Minus

6a Northern Ftwy

A-

6b Southern Ftwy

A-

B-

Western Ftwy

6d Eastern Ftwy

6e Northern Ftwy

Name

Southern Ftwy

Chapter 06 Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

WSP Issue 1

6.26

Locations 6a and 6b are considered to operate sufficiently in all scenarios. Whilst the 2041 Earls Phases sensitivity test increases the demand on the southern footway in the average of maximum outputs, in general, the peak hour and average remains similar.

6.27

Notably, location 6c is shown to be Very / Extremely Uncomfortable across all scenarios including the current baseline. This location is outside of Plot EC22. This however can be addressed at detailed design and is allowed for through the limit of deviation introduced into the Parameter Plan 004 – Development Zones, Maximum Building Lines and Public Realm.

6.28

The remaining locations (6d 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 stop. This is an existing issue and not created by the Development Proposals. There appears to be limited scope to address the width constraints in these locations.

Warwick Apron (PCL Locations 7-9) 6.29

Figure 28 shows the location of the PCL analysis undertaken on Warwick Road. This figure is reproduced from Figure 6 of Appendix N of the TA.

Figure 28 – PCL Assessment Locations Warwick Road

6.30

Sites 7a to 9b consider the footways and crossing outside of Earls Court Station at Warwick Apron. Site 8 is the signalised crossing.

6.31

Table 47 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 therefore is

Chapter 06 Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

WSP Issue 1

calculated differently than footways with only the avg and peak hour PCL for the crossing is reported. Table 47: PCL Analysis Warwick Road Name

2041 Base Minus

Avg

Peak Hour

Avg of Max

Avg

Peak Hour

Avg of Max

2041 Early Phases

Western Ftwy

A+

A-

Eastern Ftwy

A-

B-

A-

B+

Crossing

A+

A-

Western Ftwy

B+

Eastern Ftwy

A-

B-

6.32

In isolation, the footways and crossings around the Warwick Road are considered to operate sufficiently across all scenarios.

6.33

The 2041 Early Phases is shown to reduce the PCL levels to B / B+ (compared to A/A-) on the footways adjacent to the development in the peak hour, but this is considered to be acceptable for a Transport Interchange.

6.34

It is noted that Point 7b shows a worsening to PCL level C in the Average of Max scenario under the 2041 Early Phases. Reviewing TfLs PCL guidance for ‘Transport Interchange’ this would fall onto the “At Risk” line. As such, this would be considered an area for potential mitigation.

6.35

Given the conclusions of the TA already identified this location for further review, ongoing discussions with stakeholders over improving the public realm and footway availability at this location is set out later in this TAA.

Public Transport – Bus 6.36

A sensitivity test has been performed to evaluate what the boarding and alighting numbers would look like with the demand associated with the Early Phases development scenario in the future year of 2041. To achieve this the Early Phases development data has been combined with the 2041 Base Minus boarding and alighting demand data. The full 2041 Early Phases sensitivity test results are shown in Appendix I.

6.37

The results of the sensitivity test show that there would be minimal difference (worst case increase of 29 passengers in the AM peak, and 24 passengers in the PM peak at Earls Court Station: bus stop ID: 29941) in the boarding and alighting demand over and above what is reported for the 2031 Early Phases Assessment. Given the high frequency nature of the services that run on the highway network surrounding the site this level of additional demand is not considered to be material and would not warrant consideration beyond the detailed analysis set out in Section 5 of this TAA.

Chapter 06 Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

WSP Issue 1

Public Transport - Rail London-Wide Impacts 6.38

Table 48 and Table 49 set out the AM and PM peak hour operational passenger crowding levels expected on the rail network across London in the various scenarios assessed, including the Early Phases development scenario in the future year of 2041.

Table 48 – AM Peak Rail Network Capacity Assessment Passenger Crowding

2016 Base

2031 Base Minus

2031 Early Phases

2041 Base Minus

2041 Early Phases

2041 All Phases

Some standing (0-1 / sqm)

60.8%

57.9%

57.8%

55.1%

54.9%

Busy (1-2 / sqm)

16.4%

13.6%

13.8%

12.4%

12.7%

12.6%

Crowded (2-3 / sqm)

12.9%

12.6%

13.5%

13.3%

13.5%

Very Crowded (3-4 / sqm)

4.7%

6.8%

7.1%

9.4%

Maximum (4-5 / sqm)

4.9%

5.9%

4.5%

4.7%

4.5%

Beyond capacity (+5 / sqm)

0.3%

2.9%

5.1%

5.0%

5.1%

Table 49 – PM Peak Rail Network Capacity Assessment Passenger Crowding

2016 Base

2031 Base Minus

2031 Early Phases

2041 Base Minus

2041 Early Phases

2041 All Phases

Some standing (0-1 / sqm)

65.1%

63.4%

63.1%

58.4%

58.2%

Busy (1-2 / sqm)

21.0%

19.2%

19.4%

Crowded (2-3 / sqm)

9.3%

10.3%

10.6%

13.2%

13.0%

12.9%

Very Crowded (3-4 / sqm)

4.1%

5.9%

7.1%

7.3%

Maximum (4-5 / sqm)

0.5%

1.1%

1.8%

2.0%

Beyond capacity (+5 / sqm)

0.0%

0.2%

0.3%

6.39

Table 48 and Table 49 show very similar results for the 2041 Early Phases when compared to the 2041 All Phases. It is therefore considered that at a network wide level the impacts of the 2041 Early Phases are no worse than what has already been assessed in the TA.

Chapter 06 Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

WSP Issue 1

Line Impacts 6.40

The peak hour passenger standing densities expected on the West London Line (London Overground) and the District Line in the various scenarios assessed, including the Early Phases development scenario in the future year of 2041, are summarised the Tables 5053.

Table 50 – AM West London Line Impact Passenger Crowding

2016 Rebase

2031 Base Minus

2031 Early Phases

2041 Base Minus

2041 Early Phases

2041 All Phases

Imperial Wharf to West Brompton

2.09

2.38

2.6

2.86

3.05

3.11

West Brompton to Kensington Olympia

2.33

2.35

2.27

2.82

2.73

2.74

Kensington Olympia to West Brompton

1.63

1.86

2.12

2.17

2.41

2.43

West Brompton to Imperial Wharf

1.14

1.4

1.38

1.67

1.64

1.65

Table 51 – PM West London Line Impact Passenger Crowding

2016 Rebase

2031 Base Minus

2031 Early Phases

2041 Base Minus

2041 Early Phases

2041 All Phases

Imperial Wharf to West Brompton

0.76

1.12

1.14

1.4

1.41

West Brompton to Kensington Olympia

1.59

1.76

1.86

2.07

2.21

2.23

Kensington Olympia to West Brompton

1.35

1.56

1.54

1.95

1.93

1.92

West Brompton to Imperial Wharf

1.65

1.84

1.96

2.22

2.29

2.32

Chapter 06 Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

WSP Issue 1

Table 52 – AM District Line Impact Passenger Crowding

2016 Rebase

2031 Base Minus

2031 Early Phases

2041 Base Minus

2041 Early Phases

2041 All Phases

Barons Court to West Kensington

1.44

1.73

1.77

1.83

1.86

1.87

West Kensington to Earls Court

1.78

2.25

2.24

2.33

2.32

2.39

High Street Kensington to Earls Court

0.49

-0.17

-0.12

-0.03

0.02

0.03

Gloucester Road to Earls Court

0.94

1.09

1.19

1.31

1.39

West Brompton to Earls Court

2.87

3.36

3.32

3.53

3.49

3.47

Fulham Broadway to West Brompton

2.65

3.32

3.40

3.55

3.62

3.66

West Kensington to Barons Court

0.73

0.70

0.69

0.92

0.89

0.88

Earls Court to West Kensington

0.84

0.94

0.91

1.21

1.17

1.38

Earls Court to High Street Kensington

1.51

1.64

1.66

1.78

1.80

1.81

Earls Court to Gloucester Road

2.29

2.97

3.01

3.02

3.07

3.08

Earls Court to West Brompton

1.42

0.72

0.82

0.95

1.03

0.99

West Brompton to Fulham Broadway

0.72

0.34

0.53

0.51

Passenger Crowding

2016 Rebase

2031 Base Minus

2031 Early Phases

2041 Base Minus

2041 Early Phases

2041 All Phases

Barons Court to West Kensington

0.70

0.62

0.61

0.78

0.76

0.77

West Kensington to Earls Court

0.88

0.86

1.08

1.05

1.15

High Street Kensington to Earls Court

1.56

1.57

1.60

1.69

1.72

Gloucester Road to Earls Court

1.46

1.97

2.01

2.08

2.12

2.13

West Brompton to Earls Court

1.23

0.99

1.06

1.21

1.26

Fulham Broadway to West Brompton

0.84

0.76

0.75

0.81

West Kensington to Barons Court

1.24

1.47

1.51

1.59

1.63

1.69

Earls Court to West Kensington

1.43

1.74

1.85

1.93

Earls Court to High Street Kensington

0.48

0.24

0.40

0.38

0.54

0.56

Earls Court to Gloucester Road

0.93

0.99

1.06

1.18

1.26

1.31

Earls Court to West Brompton

1.87

2.18

2.19

2.36

2.37

2.35

West Brompton to Fulham Broadway

1.44

2.07

2.09

2.20

2.23

2.25

Table 53 – PM District Line Impact

6.41

Table 50-53 show very similar results for the 2041 Early Phases when compared to the 2041 All Phases. It is therefore considered that at line level the impacts of the 2041 Early Phases are no worse than what has already been assessed in the TA.

Chapter 06 Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

WSP Issue 1

Station Impacts 6.42

To understand the potential impacts of the 2041 Early Phase scenario at a station level the Legion Micro-simulation models for Earls Court and West Brompton Stations have been run with the demand derived for the Early Phases development in combination with future growth anticipated to 2041.

6.43

At Earls Court Station (where no mitigation is proposed within the TA) the existing layout has been tested. At West Brompton, where mitigation is proposed the mitigation layout has been tested with aim of understanding whether the 2041 Early Phases scenario would change any of the conclusions reached in the TA.

6.44

Full Station modelling reports have been prepared which can be found in Appendix J. Presented below is a summary of the results.

Earls Court Station 6.45

At Earls Court Station the modelling of the 2041 Early Phases shows the following results: AM Peak — — — — — —

6.46

Level of service (LoS) C in the tickethall and at the gateline on Warwick Road LoS C at the top of the stairs from the Warwick Road gateline to the District Line platforms LoS D on Platform 4 (District Line westbound) and LoS C/D on Platform 1 (District Line eastbound) LoS D/E at the top of the stairs down to the mezzanine level for Picadilly Line LoS D at the top and bottom of the escalator for the Picadilly Line LoS B/C on the Picadilly Line Platforms

These results are shown graphically in Figure 29.

Figure 29 – Earls Court Station – AM Peak 2041 Early Phases

PM Peak

Chapter 06 Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

— — — — — — 6.47

WSP Issue 1

Level of service (LoS) B/C in the tickethall and at the gateline on Warwick Road LoS C at the top of the stairs from the Warwick Road gateline to the District Line platforms LoS E on Platform 4 (District Line westbound) and LoS C/D on Platform 1 (District Line eastbound) LoS D at the top of the stairs down to the mezzanine level for Picadilly Line LoS D/E at the top and bottom of the escalator for the Picadilly Line LoS B/C on the Picadilly Line Platforms These results are shown graphically in Figure 30.

Figure 30 – Earls Court Station – PM Peak 2041 Early Phases

6.48

These results are very similar to the results for the 2041 All Phases scenario and therefore it is considered that the impacts of the 2041 Early Phases are not materially worse than those reported in the TA and does not require further consideration.

West Brompton Station 6.49

At West Brompton Station the modelling of the 2041 Early Phases with mitigation layout (side entrance closed) shows the following results: AM Peak — — — —

Level of service (LoS) C/D at the gateline in the tickethall LoS D/E within the District Line trainshed on the walkways LoS E on the stairs to the District Line and Platform 4 (London Overground northbound) LoS D/E on the District Line Eastbound (Platform 2) and London Overground Southbound Platforms (Platform 3)

Chapter 06 Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

WSP Issue 1

PM Peak — — — — 6.50

Level of service (LoS) C/D at the gateline in the tickethall LoS C/D within the District Line trainshed on the walkways LoS E on the stairs to the District Line and Platform 4 (London Overground northbound) LoS D/E on the London Overground Northbound Platform (Platform 4) These results are shown graphically in Figure 31.

Figure 31 – West Brompton Station – AM Peak 2041 Early Phases Mitigation

6.51

Summary 6.52

This section has presented the findings of a sensitivity test undertaken to consider the impacts of the Early Phases (Phases 1-4) in the future year of 2041 instead of the future year of 2031 as set out within the TA and in the preceding Chapter. The results of the assessment identified: —

— — —

The pedestrian network shows a number of locations where footway constraints result in the PCL being either ‘At Risk’ or ‘Very / Extremely Uncomfortable’ when assessed as a Transport Interchange. These results are similar to those reported in the TA. A package of mitigation measures (discussed in the next section) have been developed to improve pedestrian conditions in a number of locations. However, it is acknowledged that in some locations (such as on Old Brompton Road to the east of the Development) there are existing constraints that are difficult to overcome. From a bus analysis perspective the results are very similar to those presented for the 2031 Early Phases and as such would not warrant analysis beyond what has been presented in Section 5 of this TAA. From a rail perspective, at a London and line level scale the impacts are very similar to those identified for the 2041 All Phases scenario. At a station level the results presented for Earls Court and West Brompton are similar to those set out within the TA

Chapter 06 Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

6.53

WSP Issue 1

Overall it is considered that the 2041 Early Phases assessment shows impacts similar to those presented in the TA and no specific assessment has identified a need to consider bespoke mitigation to address impacts associated with the 2041 Early Phases assessment.

Chapter 07 Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

7.0

WSP Issue 1

Mitigation

Introduction 7.1

This section provides an updated appraisal of the mitigation identified for the Proposed Development split down by mode and Phase (Early Phases and All Phases). This section has been informed by post-application discussions with the Transport Stakeholders as well as the results of the updated assessments presented in Sections 5 and 6 of this TAA.

Pedestrian and Cycle Infrastructure 7.2

The TA set out a package of mitigation measures for pedestrians and cyclists (Section 9 of the TA) that were developed based on the findings of the Active Travel Zone (ATZ) Assessment and measures to fill in the gaps in current active travel infrastructure surrounding the Site. Post-application this package of measures has been reviewed and refined to take account of Stakeholder feedback as well as responding to changes in the access strategy for the Proposed Development. To aid understanding and to align with the S106 Agreement the package of mitigation has been split into a series of Healthy Streets Corridors as shown in Figure 32. A description of the measures included in each corridor is then provided below.

Figure 32 – Healthy Streets Corridors

Chapter 07 Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

WSP Issue 1

Corridor 1 – Warwick Road 7.3

Following stakeholder feedback the proposals for Warwick Road set out within the TA (paragraphs 9.3-9.6) have been removed from the mitigation package. Instead an alternative cycle access strategy has been developed for those trips originating from/destinated to the east and north associated with the Proposed Development as follows: —

—

In the Early Phases cycle access will be provided via: o Lillie Road and Old Brompton Road to the south for access to Quietway 15 and trips to/from the east. o Cluny Mews (subject to third party agreement) with an improvement scheme (shown in Figure 6) providing onward connectivity to the north and east. o Connection to the A4 West Cromwell Road with an improvement scheme (shown in Figure 38) providing onward connectivity to the north and east. o Connection to Fenelon Place through the basement of 100 West Cromwell Road In the All Phases cycle access will be available from the same points as those set out in the Early Phases plus: o Connection across the A4 West Cromwell Road via a new pedestrian and cycle crossing connecting with Edith Villas (Figure 50) o Beaumont Avenue where an enhanced crossing facility connecting with Barons Court Road is proposed (shown in Figure 43).

Corridor 2 – Lillie Road/Old Brompton Road 7.4

The proposals for the cycle improvements on Lillie Road and Old Brompton Road have been updated to take account of feedback received from the Transport Stakeholders (most notably the revisions around Plot EC22). In addition, RBKC have now constructed the pedestrian and cycle crossing at the Old Brompton Road junction with Kempsford Gardens and therefore the improvements have been designed to tie into this scheme. The proposals for Corridor 2 are shown in Figures 33-36. The mitigation drawings are reproduced at a larger scale in Appendix K.

Chapter 07 Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

WSP Issue 1

Figure 33 – Old Brompton Road/Lillie Road Cycle Improvements (Sheet 1 of 4)

Figure 34 – Old Brompton Road/Lillie Road Cycle Improvements (Sheet 2 of 4)

Chapter 07 Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

WSP Issue 1

Figure 35 – Old Brompton Road/Lillie Road Cycle Improvements (Sheet 3 of 4)

Figure 36 – Old Brompton Road/Lillie Road Cycle Improvements (Sheet 4 of 4)

Chapter 07 Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

7.5

WSP Issue 1

It should be noted that as these improvements also facilitate access to the Proposed Development that they have been coded into the LoHAM and Vissim models within the ‘with development’ scenarios as well as in the ‘with mitigation’ scenarios.

Corridor 3 – Lillie Road/North End Road 7.6

Following stakeholder feedback a mitigation scheme for the Lillie Road/North End Road has been developed. This improvement scheme focuses on improvements to pedestrian and cycle priority. The layout involves placing the junction on a raised table with coloured surfacing and then widening the ‘Zebra’ crossings and is shown in Figure 37.

Figure 37 –Lillie Road/North End Road Pedestrian and Cycle Improvements

Corridor 4 – A4 West Cromwell Road 7.7

The proposals at the A4 West Cromwell Road have been refined to respond to the alternative cycle access strategy. At the A4 West Cromwell Road/Warwick Road junction monies are secured through the planning permission for 100 West Cromwell Road to introduce a Healthy Streets improvement. The proposals presented here are those proposed to mitigate the Proposed Development and are intended to be secured in the scenario that the alternative proposals (to be developed and delivered by TfL) and funded by 100 West Cromwell Road for the junction do not come forwards. This optionality will be addressed through the S106 Agreement. The improvements for the A4 West Cromwell Road corridor are shown in Figures 38-41.

Chapter 07 Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

WSP Issue 1

Figure 38 –A4 West Cromwell Road Improvements (Sheet 1 of 4)

Figure 39 –A4 West Cromwell Road Improvements (Sheet 2 of 4)

Chapter 07 Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

WSP Issue 1

Figure 40 –A4 West Cromwell Road Improvements (Sheet 3 of 4)

Figure 41 –A4 West Cromwell Road Improvements (Sheet 4 of 4)

Chapter 07 Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

WSP Issue 1

Corridor 5 – Beaumont Avenue 7.8

Figure 70 and Figure 71 of the TA set out the proposals for Beaumont Avenue. In addition, to assist in maximising highway capacity and enhancing pedestrian and cycle connectivity it is proposed that the pedestrian crossing located immediately north of the Beaumont Avenue junction with North End Road is relocated. This will require the closure of Baron’s Court Road to general traffic. It will also tie into the area of public realm proposed to facilitate the creation of an additional entrance to West Kensington Station. As development served from Beaumont Avenue will only come forwards once the Lillie Bridge Depot has been vacated and closure of the Baron’s Court Road junction with North End Road to general traffic would require a traffic regulation order and separate consultation by LBHF it is recommended that this measure falls within the monitor and manage strategy that is set out within the next Section. The proposals for Corridor 5 are shown in Figures 42-43.

Figure 42 –Beaumont Avenue (Sheet 1 of 2)

Chapter 07 Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

WSP Issue 1

Figure 43 –Beaumont Avenue (Sheet 2 of 2)

Corridor 6 – Earls Court Road 7.9

Following Stakeholder feedback a scheme for the Earls Court Road junction with Old Brompton Road has been developed. This proposal involves bringing the pedestrian crossings on the western and southern arms of the junction that are currently uncontrolled into the control of the traffic signal junction. The proposals for Corridor 6 are shown in Figure 44.

Chapter 07 Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

WSP Issue 1

Figure 44 – Earls Court Road junction with Old Brompton Road

Corridor 7 – Cluny Mews 7.10

An access point that links St Cuthbert’s Lane to Cluny Mews would require a stepped connection alongside a lift to overcome the level difference in this area. A concept for how this access could be achieved is shown in Figure 6. This would involve constructing a set of steps and lift on land outside of the control of ECPL. The link could deliver both a pedestrian and cycle connection. Delivery of this link would be subject to third party agreement. If this does not come forwards an alternative would be to deliver a connection to the A4 West Cromwell Road using EC22. Cyclists would also have access to Fenelon Place using the Tesco Basement, acknowledging this is through third party land.

Other Walking and Cycling Improvements 7.11

In addition to the measures identified above the illustrative landscape plan includes space within the public realm to accommodate up to three Santander cycle hire docking stations (or equivalent) to be secured through a S106 agreement.

7.12

Furthermore, the illustrative landscape plan includes spaces where micro-mobility modes such as e-bikes and e-scooters could be set down or picked up. Indicatively these have been included within the layout near to the three main public transport nodes.

Chapter 07 Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

WSP Issue 1

Buses Bus Service Capacity 7.13

The bus analysis set out within Sections 5 and 6 of this TAA demonstrates that bus services would see increased patronage across a number of routes in the area. The outputs from Railplan (as reported in the TA (paragraphs 8.20 to 8.40) and re-presented at a more granular level in this TAA) indicate that the bus network could accommodate the demand associated with the Proposed Development in the future years assessed. This conclusion is reached based on the modelling tools provided to WSP by TfL for assessment of the Proposed Development. No mitigation is therefore proposed to address bus service capacity.

Bus Stop Infrastructure 7.14

A bus stop audit was undertaken and presented within the TA (Appendix D) which identified a number of locations where the current bus stop provision did not accord with TfL’s Bus Stop Design Guidance2. A contribution towards delivery of bus stop improvements is included as part of a package of measures to be secured through the S106 agreement.

Lillie Road Bus Layover 7.15

Following Transport Stakeholder feedback a review of the design of the Lillie Road Bus Layover is being undertaken. This work is currently being prepared with the aim of developing an illustrative layout that can be agreed in principle with the Transport Stakeholders, noting that it falls within the outline element of the application. Further supplementary information will be submitted to stakeholders.

Rail 7.16

A package of station mitigation was set out within the TA to address capacity constraints at both West Brompton and West Kensington Stations (paragraphs 9.38 to 9.50). TfL have requested that Station Option Studies (commensurate with TfL’s Pathways Stage 2 Option Study) are prepared for the two stations. These studies are currently being prepared and appropriate contributions towards station improvements will be secured through the S106 agreement.

Highway Impacts – Junction Impact Assessments 7.17

Within the TA (Paragraphs 9.51-9.60) junction capacity assessments were presented for a number of junctions located around the Site where changes were proposed as part of the mitigation package. The junction modelling has been updated to take account of the changes made to the mitigation package.

7.18

Table 54 provides a summary of the junction modelling undertaken for the mitigation package. The results have been colour coded for 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% to 99%//0.86 to 0.99 respectively, and red a DoS or

2 TfL – Accessible Bus Stop Design Guidance (2017)

Chapter 07 Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

WSP Issue 1

RFC over 100%/1 respectively. Full junction modelling results and summary tables are included within Appendix L.

Table 54 – Junction Capacity Assessment Results - Mitigation 2031 Early Phases

2041 All Phases

AM Peak

Junction PM Peak

PM Peak

North End Road / Lillie Road North End Road/Beaumont Avenue A4 West Cromwell Road / North End Road N/A

N/A

A4 West Cromwell Road / Warwick Road Earls Court Road / Old Brompton Road

7.19

The results of the junction modelling show that the A4 West Cromwell Road / Warwick Road and North End Road/Beaumont Avenue would continue to operate within capacity, even with the addition of the Proposed Development and mitigation. The following points are noted about the remaining junctions: —

—

North End Road/Lillie Road – In the 2041 All Phases AM peak a maximum RFC of 0.72 is evident on the North End Road northern arm in the 2041 All Phases AM peak hour. The junction is shown to operate within capacity. Given the proximity and importance of the junction to the Proposed Development, it is recommended that the scope of mitigation at this junction is included within the scope of the monitor and manage approach set out within the TA and expanded upon later in the next section. A4 West Cromwell Road/North End Road – a maximum DoS of 101.1% is identified on the North End Road southern arm ni the 2041 All Phases AM peak scenario. The maximum DoS in the PM peak is 84.9% on the same arm. Whilst it is acknowledged that this junction operates at / or nearing capacity the delivery of a new pedestrian and cycle crossing across the A4 in combination with improvements at the North End Road junction and Beaumont Avenue are seen as a positive for active travel users and align with the objectives set out in the London Plan under Policy T1. Acknowledging that the mitigation proposals would only come forwards once TfL’s Lillie Bridge Depot (LBD) has been vacated and the proposals are assessed in a future year of 2041 it is recommended that the scope of mitigation at this junction is included within the scope of the monitor and manage approach set out within the TA and expanded upon later in the next section. Earls Court Road/Old Brompton Road – In the 2031 Early Phases a maximum DoS of 84.8% is evident on the Earls Court Road northern arm in the AM peak and 81.4% in the PM peak. In the 2041 All Phases a maximum DoS of 80.1% is evident on the Earls Court Road northern arm in the AM peak. The junction therefore operates within capacity in both the Early Phases and All Phases scenarios.

Chapter 07 Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

WSP Issue 1

Highway Impacts - VISSIM – Microsimulation Mitigation Modelling 7.20

VISSIM Microsimulation assessments have been undertaken to assess the wider network impacts with the Proposed Development and mitigation. The VISSIM modelling used for the mitigation covers the same study area as that used for the without mitigation models.

7.21

The mitigation modelling has been completed for the 2031 and 2041 Future Years. The mitigation proposals included in each model are set out in Table 55.

Table 55 – VISSIM Mitigation Modelling Infrastructure TAA Figure Measure Lillie Road/North End Road Miniroundabout Improvement A4 West Cromwell Road / Warwick Road A4 West Cromwell Road / Pedestrian and Cycle Crossing A4 West Cromwell Road/North End Road North End Road/Beaumont Avenue Earls Court Road/Old Brompton Road 7.22

2031 Early Phases

2041 All Phases















The main result extracted from the VISSIM is journey time along key routes. The routes reported are the same as those set out in Figure 19. A summary of the results is presented below.

Table 56: Journey Time Results Comparison (2031 AM Peak) Journey Time (Seconds)

2031 Base Minus

2031 Early Phases +Mitigation

2031 Early Phases

Difference (postmitigation to 2031 Base Minus)

Route 1 EB – Along A4

330

356

418

Route 1 WB – Along A4

310

327

319

Route 2 NB - Along B317 North End Rd

298

318

320

Route 2 SB - Along B317 North End Rd

377

374

382

Route 3 NB – Along A3220 Warwick Rd

367

525

492

125

Route 4 SB – Along A3220 Earls Ct Rd

435

465

714

279

Route 5 EB – Along A3218 Lillie Rd

237

361

430

193

Route 5 WB – Along A3218 Lillie Rd

185

215

214

7.23

In the Early Phases AM peak the greatest changes in journey time are witnessed on Route 4 Southbound (A3220 Earls Court Road), Route 5 Eastbound (Lillie Road) and Route 3 Northbound (A3220 Warwick Road). This is likely the result of the implementation of the changes to the Earls Court Road/Old Brompton Road junction.

Chapter 07 Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

WSP Issue 1

Whilst the modifications are relatively minor the level of congestion in the model means that a small change to the signal timings has a large impact on journey times in the area.

Table 57: Journey Time Results Comparison (2031 PM Peak) Journey Time (Seconds)

2031 Base Minus

2031 Early Phases +Mitigation

2031 Early Phases

Difference (postmitigation to 2031 Base Minus)

Route 1 EB – Along A4

286

298

307

Route 1 WB – Along A4

301

306

308

Route 2 NB - Along B317 North End Rd

316

347

380

Route 2 SB - Along B317 North End Rd

374

365

376

Route 3 NB – Along A3220 Warwick Rd

359

455

458

Route 4 SB – Along A3220 Earls Ct Rd

482

499

593

111

Route 5 EB – Along A3218 Lillie Rd

193

263

422

229

Route 5 WB – Along A3218 Lillie Rd

282

342

415

133

7.24

In the Early Phases PM peak the greatest changes in journey time are witnessed on Route 5 Westbound and Eastbound (Lillie Road) and Route 4 Southbound (A3220 Earls Court Road). This is likely the result of the implementation of the changes to the Earls Court Road/Old Brompton Road junction. Whilst the modifications are relatively minor the level of congestion in the model means that a small change to the signal timings has a large impact on journey times in the area.

Table 58: Journey Time Results Comparison (2041 AM Peak)

Journey Time (Seconds)

2041 Base Minus

2041 All Phases +Mitigation

2041 All Phases

Difference (postmitigation to 2041 Base Minus)

Route 1 EB – Along A4

412

455

425

Route 1 WB – Along A4

321

334

309

-12

Route 2 NB - Along B317 North End Rd

318

400

501

183

Route 2 SB - Along B317 North End Rd

382

495

576

194

Route 3 NB – Along A3220 Warwick Rd

376

507

494

118

Route 4 SB – Along A3220 Earls Ct Rd

678

665

1098

420

Route 5 EB – Along A3218 Lillie Rd

296

440

628

332

Route 5 WB – Along A3218 Lillie Rd

199

223

293

7.25

In the All Phases AM peak the greatest changes in journey time are witnessed on Route 4 Southbound (A3220 Earls Court Road), Route 5 Eastbound (Lillie Road) and both northbound and southbound on Route 2 (North End Road). This is the result of the cumulative effects of the changes proposed on the A4 West Cromwell Road (new pedestrian and cycle crossing) and implementation of the changes to the Earls Court Road/Old Brompton Road junction.

Chapter 07 Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

WSP Issue 1

Table 59: Journey Time Results Comparison (2041 PM Peak)

Route 1 EB – Along A4

286

301

286

Difference (postmitigation to 2041 Base Minus) 0

Route 1 WB – Along A4

303

310

304

Route 2 NB - Along B317 North End Rd

334

427

563

229

Route 2 SB - Along B317 North End Rd

365

390

399

Route 3 NB – Along A3220 Warwick Rd

362

440

420

Route 4 SB – Along A3220 Earls Ct Rd

505

500

728

223

Route 5 EB – Along A3218 Lillie Rd

201

347

615

414

Route 5 WB – Along A3218 Lillie Rd

347

442

441

Journey Time (Seconds)

2041 Base Minus

2041 All Phases +Mitigation

2041 All Phases

7.26

7.27

The mitigation proposed within this TAA focuses on improving conditions for pedestrians, cyclists and public transport users. Where improvements to the highway network have been proposed that seek to improve conditions for pedestrians and cyclists these may have an adverse effect on other road users such as vehicle drivers or bus passengers. However, the London Plan3 and Mayor’s Transport Strategy4 support travel by sustainable modes and seek to achieve a mode share of 80% of all trips undertaken by public transport, walking and cycling by 2041. To achieve these targets it is likely that reallocation of road space to encourage and facilitate trips by sustainable modes will be required. The mitigation approach taken in this TAA is therefore considered to fully align with these policies.

7.28

Notwithstanding the above, discussions will continue to be held the Transport Stakeholders to agree whether the increases in journey times are acceptable and therefore whether the measures should be implemented or refined. To assist in this process it is proposed that the mitigation forms part of the monitor and manage strategy set out in the TA and expanded upon in the next section.

Mitigation Summary 7.29

3 Policy T1 4 Policy 1

This section has presented an updated package of mitigation to accommodate the Proposed Development on the transport network split down by development scenario. This package of mitigation has changed following feedback from the Transport Stakeholders and in response to changes to the Proposed Development. To assist with understanding, Table 60 presents a summary of the mitigation split down by phase but also by borough. This table replaces Tables 81 in the TA.

Chapter 07 Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

Table 60: Mitigation Package Summary Mode Mitigation

Public Transport

Walking and Cycling

Highways

West Brompton Station Mitigation Scheme West Kensington Station Off-site bus stop infrastructure On-site bus stop infrastructure (reconfiguration of Lillie Road Bus Layover and Route 190 commencing stop) Cycle lane and footway improvements on Lillie Road and Old Brompton Road Earls Court Road/Old Brompton Road Pedestrian Crossing Improvements A4 West Cromwell Road / B317 North End Road Pedestrian Crossing Improvements Changes to parking layout and footways on Beaumont Avenue A4 West Cromwell Road Pedestrian and Cycle Crossing A4 West Cromwell Road / A3220 Warwick Road A4 West Cromwell Road Shared Cycle Footway North End Road/Lillie Road Improvements Santander cycle hire docking stations (or equivalent) Micro-mobility set down locations Car-club North End Road/Beaumont Avenue Crossing relocation

WSP Issue 1

Borough mitigation located within

Identified to mitigate Early Phases

Identified to mitigate All Phases

LBHF and RBKC LBHF LBHF and RBKC LBHF



Monitor and Manage Approach Applicable 

 

 





LBHF and RBKC





RBKC



LBHF





LBHF







LBHF





RBKC



RBKC



LBHF



LBHF and RBKC





LBHF and RBKC LBHF and RBKC LBHF













Chapter 07 Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

Table 60: Mitigation Package Summary Mode Mitigation

Management Strategies

Framework Travel Plan

WSP Issue 1

Borough mitigation located within

LBHF and RBKC Framework Parking LBHF and Design and Management RBKC Plan Framework Delivery and LBHF and Servicing Plan RBKC Construction Traffic LBHF and Logistics Plan RBKC

Identified to mitigate Early Phases

Identified to mitigate All Phases



Monitor and Manage Approach Applicable 



Chapter 08 Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

8.0

WSP Issue 1

Management Plans & Strategies

Introduction 8.1

This Section provides a summary of the transport management strategies that accompany the Hybrid Planning Application and identifies where changes have been adopted in response to Stakeholder feedback.

Framework Travel Plan (FTP) 8.2

The purpose of the FTP is to set out the long-term site wide objectives, targets, measures and monitoring for travel planning in relation to the various land uses at the Proposed Development. No changes to the FTP have been made post-application but an Addendum has been produced to reflect the Amended Development Proposals.

Framework Delivery and Servicing Plan (FDSP) 8.3

The purpose of the FDSP is to set out the long-term site wide objectives, targets, measures and monitoring for deliveries and servicing in relation to the various land uses at the Proposed Development. It outlines a package of management measures, that will be implemented in order to ensure that the activity associated with the deliveries and servicing of each land use proposed does not adversely impact upon the operation of the local highway network or vulnerable road users (people with reduced mobility or visual/hearing impairments).

8.4

The following changes have been made to the FDSP: — — — —

Updates to the commercial and retail land use servicing and delivery strategy Clarification on the land uses proposed within Plot EC07 Inclusion of consolidation for deliveries within the monitor and manage strategy Updates to the servicing and delivery trip generation

Framework Parking Design and Management Plan (FPDMP) 8.5

The purpose of the FPDMP is to set out a framework to manage the parking that will be provided for the development to ensure that it is compliant with the relevant policies and strategy that has been discussed with the Transport Stakeholders.

8.6

The following changes have been made to the FPDMP: — —

Further supporting information is provided on the proposed car club and visitor parking Updated car and cycle parking quantums are proposed to reflect changes to the Proposed Development

Chapter 08 Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

WSP Issue 1

Construction Traffic Logistics Plan (CTLP) 8.7

The CTLP provides a framework for the requirements for the management of transport effects associated with the demolition and 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.

8.8

The following changes have been made to the CTLP: — —

Completion of the RBKC CTLP proforma Removal of Mund Street and Aisgill Avenue for vehicular access within the demolition and construction phase.

Monitor and Manage Approach 8.9

The planning applications for the Proposed Development seek consent for a range of different land uses with the majority of the Site in Outline (all matters reserved) and five Plots in Detail (no matters reserved). The Development Specification sets out a series of maximum floorspaces for proposed land uses across the various Development Zones that are identified on the Parameter Plans.

8.10

Within the Development Specification and identified on the Parameter Plans are a series of Development Zones where more than one Predominant Use is identified. This is to allow flexibility for any one (or more) of those identified land uses to occupy the majority of the floorspace within the Development Zone.

8.11

This flexible approach to the outline elements of the planning applications means that the final development quantum and mix of land uses that comes forwards is unknown at this stage. However, to ensure that the TA and TAA have assessed a worst-case scenario from a peak hour trip generation perspective an exercise was undertaken prior to commencement of the strategic transport modelling to identify the maximum development parameters. The maximum development parameters have then been compared to the quantum of development included within the planning applications to ensure that a worst-case assessment has been made. The latest comparison is included within this TAA.

8.12

The transport network assessment and package of mitigation measures outlined within the TA and this TAA therefore represent the maximum package of measures that would be required to mitigate the impacts of the Proposed Development.

8.13

The final transport impacts will not be known at this stage as they will depend upon the land use mix that is brought forwards. This means that any triggers that are identified for the purposes of controlling the implementation of mitigation measures secured within the planning consent will be based upon the maximum development parameters land use mix. However, these maximum development parameters were chosen to represent the worst-case trip generating potential of the land uses proposed within the planning applications.

8.14

The last few years has seen a significant period of change in the transport environment and therefore whilst the Proposed Development is assessed in the future years of 2031

Chapter 08 Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

WSP Issue 1

and 2041 it can only be estimated what the level of background growth will be when the development comes forwards. 8.15

A Monitor & Manage (M&M) approach to the implementation of transport mitigation is therefore proposed. The final details of the M&M approach will be worked up and secured within the S106 agreement. However, a TN was prepared (attached in Appendix M) which sets out the proposed approach. This was previously issued to the Transport Stakeholders but has been included in this TAA for completeness.

8.16

Table 60 provides a summary of the measures that are envisaged to be included in the scope of the M&M approach.

8.17

The M&M approach envisages the following key elements: — — — — — —

Establishment of a Transport Steering Group made up of representatives of the Transport Stakeholders and the Developer (ECPL) Undertaking monitoring prior to occupation (to establish a baseline) and then upon completion of each Phase of development to review the actual impacts arising Preparation of a Transport Strategy and Implementation Plan (TSIP) to report the results of the monitoring and set out a series of recommendations Review of the provisional triggers for implementation of mitigation to identify if measures are required to be implemented. Where measures are identified through the TSIP to be required (and the conclusions of the TSIP agreed by the Steering Group) to review the scope of mitigation To oversee the implementation of mitigation measures in accordance with the TSIP findings and aligned with any applicable planning obligations and the S106 Agreement

Chapter 09 Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

WSP Issue 1

9.0 Phasing – Demolition and Construction Introduction 9.1

This section provides a summary of the changes to Demolition and Construction set out within the TA.

Demolition and Construction Access Routing 9.2

Mund Street and Aisgill Avenue are no longer proposed to be used as a demolition and construction access route. Figure 45 provides an updated construction access diagram and replaces Figure 114 of the TA.

Figure 45 – Construction Access Route Plan

Demolition and Construction Traffic Volumes 9.3

The estimate of demolition and construction traffic volumes has been refined and updated to reflect the revised proposals. The volume of demolition and construction

100

Chapter 09 Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

WSP Issue 1

101

traffic movements across the duration of the demolition and construction traffic period is set out in Figure 46. Figure 46 – Construction Traffic Throughout Construction of Project

Early Phases 9.4

From the information contained in Figure 45 the peak daily demolition and construction traffic estimate has been derived. The updated peak total construction vehicular movements (daily) for the Early Phases is still anticipated to be in 2028. The peak volume of daily traffic is set out in Table 61. This table replaces Table 82 in the TA.

Table 61: Early Phases Peak Demolition and Construction Trip Generation (Total Daily) Arrivals

9.5

Departures

LGVs

HDVs

Total

LGVs

HDVs

Total

115

190

115

190

The estimate of demolition and construction traffic volumes for the Early Phases identifies an increase in daily traffic volumes of 15 vehicles when compared to the TA. The volume of construction workers is anticipated to remain the same.

Chapter 09 Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

WSP Issue 1

102

All Phases 9.6

The updated peak total demolition and construction vehicular movements (daily) for the All Phases is set out in Table 62. This table replaces Table 83 in the TA.

Table 62: All Phases Peak Demolition and Construction Trip Generation (Total Daily) Arrivals

9.7

Departures

LGVs

HDVs

Total

LGVs

HDVs

Total

The estimate of demolition and construction traffic volumes for the All Phases identifies an increase in daily traffic volumes of 24 vehicles when compared to the TA. The volume of construction workers is anticipated to remain the same.

Chapter 10 Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

WSP Issue 1

10.0 Summary and Conclusions Summary and Conclusion 10.1

WSP has been commissioned by ECPL to prepare a Transport Assessment Addendum (TAA) for the Site. Significant engagement has taken place with the Transport Stakeholders (TfL, LBHF and RBKC) post-application to discuss the suite of transport documents submitted with the planning applications and progress discussions on a number of key topics. The feedback received from the Transport Stakeholders has been responded to and where appropriate picked up in this TAA.

10.2

The TAA 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.

10.3

A number of changes to the Proposed Development have been made in response to Stakeholder feedback which have impacted the quantum of development proposed and the access strategy. The Proposed Development has therefore been refined in response and updated proposal for access and parking are set out within this TAA alongside other changes where they impact the transport network.

10.4

Feedback on the trip generation has led to a review of trip rates and consideration of additional matters such as weekday and weekend trip generation profiles. Updates to the trip generation have been made. These largely affect the delivery and servicing trip generation and do not affect public transport, walking or cycling trips. The revised trip generation has been fed into the strategic highway model (LoHAM) and outputs from this model have then in turn been used in highway micro-simulation (VISSIM) and junction capacity assessment modelling.

10.5

An updated transport network assessment has been presented to reflect the changes to the trip generation but also to provide further, more granular detail on the bus assessment in response to a request from TfL Buses. Changes to the access strategy have also affected the distribution of cycle trips to/from the Proposed Development and this has been reflected in the transport network assessment.

10.6

The updated bus assessment utilises the same assessment as set out within the TA. The TA concluded that the impacts of the Proposed Development on the bus network could be accommodated, and this conclusion remains valid. However, the assessment now shows the estimated number of additional passengers per bus stop, bus route and per bus during the peak hours. Whilst an increase in bus patronage is predicted it is the view of WSP that there are no capacity issues identified. This conclusion is reached based on the modelling tools provided to WSP by TfL for assessment of the Proposed Development.

10.7

The highway network assessment presented has utilised demand flows obtained from LoHAM, the strategic highway model for London, alongside a VISSIM micro-simulation

103

Chapter 10 Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

WSP Issue 1

model and individual junction capacity assessments which have been informed by the VISSIM. This approach has identified that from a junction capacity perspective with or without the Proposed Development in place two junctions are nearing highway capacity (Old Brompton Road / Finborough Road / Warwick Road and A4 West Cromwell Road / North End Road). With the Proposed Development in place the North End Road / Lillie Road junction operates at/above capacity. 10.8

A sensitivity test has been undertaken that considers the impacts of the Early Phases of the Proposed Development on the transport network in the future year of 2041. This assessment scenario has been undertaken to sense check that a worst-case assessment has been carried out. Following initial analysis across all modes it was determined that the only impacts that would be likely to arise from this scenario, over and above those already assessed, would be on public transport. In addition, PCL analysis was undertaken around Earls Court Station and West Brompton Station to understand potential demand arising from the Proposed Development in combination with background growth on the pedestrian network around the Stations. The PCL analysis reached similar conclusions to those reached within the TA for the core scenarios. The bus assessment found only small differences in demand between the 2031 Early Phases and 2041 Early Phases. It was therefore concluded that there were no material impacts arising over and above what had been considered within the core scenarios assessed in the TA. At Earls Court Station the results of the Legion microsimulation modelling found very similar results to those for the core scenarios assessed in the TA. At West Brompton the mitigation layout showed very similar performance to that of the 2041 All Phases scenario. It was therefore concluded that the 2041 Early Phases assessment showed impacts similar to those presented in the TA and no specific assessment had identified a need to consider bespoke mitigation to address impacts associated with the 2041 Early Phases assessment.

10.9

The package of walking and cycling mitigation measures identified within the TA has been reviewed and refined following feedback from the Transport Stakeholders and to respond to changes to the Proposed Development. The measures have also been grouped into a series of Healthy Streets Corridors.

10.10

The walking and cycling mitigation measures have been tested within the VISSIM and junction capacity assessment work (where appropriate). Journey times extracted from the VISSIM model show that the introduction of the development coupled with the mitigation measures will increase journey times for vehicular traffic in the area (over and above simply introducing the Proposed Development). However, a balance will need to be struck between safeguarding vehicular journey times and pedestrian and cycle amenity. The focus on mitigation measures that improve conditions for pedestrians and cyclists is considered to align with the London Plan and Mayor’s Transport Strategy and is therefore considered acceptable. However, discussions will need to continue with the Transport Stakeholders to review and results and refine the proposals if required. To assist in this process it is proposed that the mitigation forms part of the monitor and manage strategy set out in the TA and expanded upon in this TAA.

10.11

The bus-based mitigation measures proposed in the TA (bus stop infrastructure improvements and changes to the Lillie Road Bus Layover to facilitate a Route 190 commencing stop) are considered to remain valid. Work is ongoing to review the layout of the bus layover following comments and a workshop with the Transport Stakeholders. However, as the layover is located within the outline element of the Proposed Development the principle of this can be agreed and secured in the S106 Agreement with further design to be undertaken at a later stage.

104

Chapter 10 Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

WSP Issue 1

10.12

The rail-based mitigation package proposed at West Brompton and West Kensington remains as set out within the TA. At the request of TfL, Station Option Studies are being prepared and appropriate contributions towards station improvements will be secured through the S106 agreement.

10.13

The TA proposes a monitor and manage approach to the implementation of transport mitigation associated with the Proposed Development. Further information on how the process will work and the scope of this has been set out within this TAA. This process will be secured through the S106 agreement.

10.14

A series of management strategies are proposed alongside the TA and TAA. These documents have been updated following Transport Stakeholder feedback and in response to the changes to the Proposed Development.

10.15

Demolition and construction impacts are considered in more detail in the separately prepared Construction Traffic Logistics Plan and Environmental Statement. Refinements to the demolition and construction stage access strategy and trip generation have been made which have been outlined in this TAA.

10.16

Overall, it is considered that the package of mitigation identified in the TA and updated and refined within this TAA is sufficient to accommodate the Proposed Development on the transport network. Further discussions will be held with the Transport Stakeholders on a number of areas and if required the proposals will be refined and a final set of mitigation measures would be secured with any planning consent.

105

Appendix A Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

WSP

Appendix A – Post Application Responses

106

Statutory Consultation Process - Schedule of Applicant's Responses to Comments Received Date: 4th July 2025 Comments contained within the GLA Stage 1 Responses (references GLA/2024/0499/S1 and GLA/2024/0500/S1) – dated 11th November 2024 TfL comments following on from GLA combined stage 1 response dated 11 November 2024 – dated 28th November 2024

Comments received from

TfL

Dates received

Earls Court Trip Generation Review – Updated comments from TfL – 4th December 2024 TfL comments on Detailed Components (Appendix V of TA) – 24th January 2025 TfL comments on Delivery and Servicing Plan – 6th March 2025 TfL comments on Detailed Component Cycle Parking – 13th June 2025 TfL comments on Detailed Component Cycle Parking – 25th June 2025

Format

PDF and Email

Subject

Highways and Transportation Comments

SUMMARY OF COMMENT

RESPONSE

1.0

GLA Stage 1 Response 11th November 2024 – Context: Initial comments were provided by Transport for London (TfL) – paragraphs 157-217 as part of the wider Greater London Authority (GLA) response to the planning applications.

1.1

The proposed development strategy includes the restriction of vehicles from the centre of the site, focussing on four access points: Warwick Road, Old Brompton Road, Lillie Road, and Beaumont Avenue, where consolidation of deliveries would take place, with

Whilst the principle access strategy has not changed, it should be noted that assumptions relating to

distribution by foot or bike within the site, this is supported and accords with strategic objectives to reduce car dominance and encourage active travel.

consolidation have been updated in the Transport Assessment Addendum (TAA) following feedback from the Transport Stakeholders. This has in turn impacted the assessment of the transport network presented in the TAA.

The proposed access strategy is acceptable in strategic transport terms subject to detailed design. Access is ‘reserved’ and as such any permission will need to include conditions securing the delivery of access routes, which should be designed and delivered in line with Healthy Streets principles, having regard to nighttime safety, prior to first occupation of the plots concerned. Mechanisms for interim and final access arrangements may also be required to cater for the construction movements and phased build out of the site. All new and altered accesses will need to be refined through the detailed design process and delivered via a s278 agreement with the relevant highway authority.

Agreed.

1.3

25 car-club spaces are proposed; these are not supported as they share many of the negative impacts as private vehicles and will be detrimental to the public realm, undermining the objectives to make the development a pedestrian first scheme.

Whilst it is acknowledged that the car club is not supported in policy terms it remains part of the Proposed Development. Further rationale for the provision of the car club is set out within the TAA and Parking Design and Management Plan (PDMP) Addendum.

1.4

Up to 35 visitor parking spaces are proposed across all phases of development; it is understood that these are for essential tradespeople or carers. The London Plan does allow for this to an extent, whereby parking for visitors to disabled residents can be provided (e.g., carers and family members) ideally through conversion of an on-street space or as part of the allocation of Blue Badge spaces. Any disabled visitors should be able to park in Blue Badge spaces. Commercial vehicles (tradespeople) should be

Whilst it is acknowledged that the visitor parking is not supported in policy terms it remains part of the Proposed Development. Further rationale for the provision of the visitor parking is set out within the TAA and PDMP Addendum.

1.2

addressed through the Delivery and Servicing Strategy. If any general visitor parking is provided it is likely to be misused and would be contrary to the London Plan.

1.5

Any permission will need to include a restriction on occupiers applying for resident or visitor parking permits on streets in the local area. The LPAs may also wish to consider the need for mitigation to review, extend, or more effectively enforce, on-street restrictions.

This is acknowledged and draft wording has been shared as part of the post-application transport meetings.

1.6

The TA sets out that cycle parking within each phase and building will seek to meet the minimum standards set out in the London Plan policy T5, noting that part F requires that where the use class of a development is not fixed at the point of application, the highest potential applicable cycle parking standard should be applied. The overall approach to the cycle parking for the outline elements of the application is broadly supported, although it would be beneficial for any permission to explicitly reference the London Cycle Design Standards (or the prevailing standards) in accordance with London Plan policy T5B.

Paragraph 4.15 of the PDMP sets out that cycle parking will be designed with due regard to London Cycle Design Standards.

1.7

The proposals to include space within the public realm for ‘micro-mobility modes’ such as dockless e-bikes and e-scooters seems sensible. Land should be safeguarded for this, with flexibility for the space to be used for this or other active travel measures, as RMAs come forward.

Noted, this could form a condition of the planning consent.

1.8

It is welcomed that space within the public realm has also been allocated to accommodate three TfL Cycle Hire docking stations. Further discussion is required to ensure the locations are practical from user and servicing perspective; with land and funding for the delivery secured as part of any permission in line with London Plan policies T1 and T4.

This matter has been discussed as part of the postapplication transport meetings and is proposed to be secured within the S106 agreement.

1.9

A range of interventions are proposed within the TA to mitigate the development impacts on the surrounding highway network; these are largely based around supporting the additional pedestrian and cycling flows and delivering safe and convenient access to and from the site, many have been developed as part of pre-application discussions. These measures are required as the site is not currently well connected to the surrounding walking and cycling network. All interventions will need to be subject to further

Discussions have continued post-application and the package of interventions proposed has been refined. These are being grouped into a series of Healthy Streets corridors to allow them to be secured and would form

discussions and refinement of designs, with delivery via s278 agreement at the relevant point in the development build out. VISSIM modelling has been undertaken for the various development scenarios (early and all phases), with development and mitigation. The future year with mitigation models needs to be submitted for audit and approval by TfL. The results of this modelling will show the impacts of interventions across modes and allow the three highway authorities 1.10 to fully consider the acceptability of the proposals. The initial assessment suggests potentially significant increases in vehicle journey times, including for buses. This will need to be addressed within final designs, alongside the resolution of issues raised by the Stage 1 Road Safety Audits. Overall, the cycling interventions, including a bidirectional cycle track on Warwick Road, various levels of segregation and new crossings are supported and align with TfL’s Strategic Cycling Analysis. Crucially the highway modelling discussed below needs to be completed to allow the three highway authorities to draw a fully informed conclusion around the benefits of the various highway interventions across all modes. Beyond that, 1.11 further detailed discussions are needed to: refine the designs and ascertain LTN 1/20 and TfL Cycle Quality Criteria standards are met where possible; clarify how cyclists interact with buses and servicing vehicles at the Lillie Road bus layover; understand how crossings will work and ensure that the outcomes of the ATZ assessment are reflected in the cycling proposals. Opportunities for a north-south connection for cyclists using the NAR once use for construction vehicles has completed, should also be secured. Alongside these outputs (Active Travel Zone Assessment and Safety Inclusion Assessment) are the outputs of the Personal Injury Collision (PIC) data and Pedestrian Comfort Level 1.12 (PCL) assessment on the surrounding highway. The combined results of these assessments will need to be discussed in detail with the applicant and two LPAs to identify where improvements to the pedestrian and cycling environment should be delivered either through works in kind or financial contributions; and at what stage of the development the

part of the Monitor and Manage Approach to be adopted.

The Vissim models are being submitted for audit by TfL and work continues to reach a position of agreement with all Transport Stakeholders. An updated assessment is presented in the TAA ahead of final model audit and sign-off.

Discussions continue with the Transport Stakeholders to agree the package of cycle interventions. The Proposed Development secures access for cyclists to the neighbouring site (100 West Cromwell Road). Access is then available through 100 West Cromwell Road to connect with Fenelon Place.

The package of pedestrian and cycle interventions has been updated and is now presented as a series of Healthy Streets Corridors to allow them to be secured within the S106 and would form part of the Monitor and Manage Approach to be adopted.

interventions are required to support safe, accessible and convenient active travel to and from the site in line with London plan policy T2. Section 9 of the TA provides an initial summary of what the developer intends to fund or deliver – these include some of the bigger interventions e.g., Warwick Road bi-directional cycle lane – which as discussed elsewhere in the report need further refinement and 1.13 feasibility work and modelling. Smaller interventions at various points around the site will need to be delivered / funded to ensure increased development flows can be accommodated and the development knits into the local community.

The package of mitigation proposed has been updated and is presented within the TAA. The pedestrian and cycle interventions are now presented as a series of Healthy Street Corridors to allow them to be secured within the S106 and would form part of the Monitor and Manage Approach to be adopted. .

The public realm and connections within the site are sought in Outline but nine key internal routes (in their indicative form) have been assessed against the HS indicators; generally, the routes perform well. As starting point for new development within an OA, all 1.14 Noted. routes within the site should perform well against the HS indicators – therefore it is recommended that any permission includes reference to meeting these within the individual RMAs. The principles of the Design Code are broadly supported, focusing on a pedestrian first environment, seeking to limit vehicles entering the site and highlighting personal safety, lighting, wayfinding as priorities. This supports the strategic policies and objectives in the 1.15 London Plan and MTS. It would be useful for the Design Code to cross reference the prevailing standards, such as the Heathy Streets indicators, TfL’s Streetscape Guidance and London Cycle Design Standards to ensure the internal movement strategy meets these as the development is built out.

Noted.

Local validation was undertaken to check that the base models reflected the local area. In the area of the Earl’s Court development site bespoke adjustments to the number and size 1.16 of model zones and their connections to the local transport networks were made. This enabled testing of variations in the scale and location of the growth assumed in different scenarios through the planning inputs used (2031 without Earl’s Court growth and then

The use of Maximum Development Parameters (MDP) was adopted to ensure that a worst-case assessment was undertaken. The MDP has been continually reviewed as changes to the Proposed Development

with Early Phases growth and 2041 without Earl’s Court growth and then with All Phases growth). It is noted that in the absence of a detailed growth scenario for the outline planning permission currently being sought, a Maximum Development Parameters approach to identifying the scale and composition of the growth scenarios to be modelled has been adopted. As key characteristics of the development such as number of homes and jobs are finalised, if these exceed what was modelled by discussed thresholds, further strategic modelling may be required.

have come forwards. The latest comparison will be set out in the TAA. It is therefore considered that a worstcase assessment has been undertaken and no further strategic modelling should be required based on the planning permission sought.

There are several technical queries, linked to those highlighted below, that will need to be 1.17 addressed by the applicant team in due course, but it is not anticipated that any analysis arising from these queries will materially change the results presented in the TA.

Technical matters relating to the strategic modelling have been discussed with the Transport Stakeholders separately and updated modelling reports are being produced for the revisions made to LoHAM. These will be shared in due course.

Detailed comments on the approach to trip generation and mode share will be supplied to the applicant and boroughs; some of the assumptions and data sources need justifying or amending to ensure trip generation and mode share for each land use is robust in line with London Plan policy T4. Based on the trip generation so far, the mode share meets strategic 1.18 polices with a sustainable mode share more than 95%. Notwithstanding the amendments required, this is unlikely to materially change the outcomes of the highway and public transport modelling outputs and the high-level principles of the mitigation outlined elsewhere in this report.

Comments on the detailed trip generation have been addressed through post-application transport meetings and in Technical Note 76 and at the post-application meeting in May 2025. TN76 has been appended to the TAA.

The methodology and outputs of the development impacts on LU and LO train capacity are largely agreed by TfL officers. Although some minor tweaks are required, it is likely that 1.19 these would in fact show lower levels of crowding in the future year with development scenarios. The main development impact that needs to be addressed is overcrowding on northbound District line services departing West Brompton in 2041; this is likely to be caused at least in part by station layout. Therefore, TfL recommends that mitigation

Station Option Studies have now been commissioned to review the station mitigation and prepare a concept scheme for agreement that can then form part of the S106 agreement.

options such as additional signage and canopies are explored to spread customers south along the entire length of platform.

Initially a static analysis of gate line capacity at the three stations was undertaken; although the methodology is correct, the interpretation of the results in the TA is incorrect as whilst the number of gates required by the formula is more than the number provided, 1.20 that does not necessarily mean that more are required in the base scenario to operate the stations. The standard for the calculations applies to new infrastructure, not to be retrospectively applied to existing infrastructure.

Whilst this point is noted any station mitigation proposals would need to be reviewed with due consideration to TfL’s design standards. Application of their design standards is therefore considered appropriate in determining the mitigation that is required and identification of the proportional impacts associated with the Development Proposals.

At West Brompton station, significant interventions are required to cater for 2031 and 2041 ‘with development’ scenarios. It is acknowledged that there is congestion evident in the ‘without development’ scenarios; although TfL disagrees with some of the analysis around this and the way the TA is presented. The development will make this situation significantly worse – leading to the station becoming inoperable (due to safety concerns) 1.21 and having adverse impacts on existing users of the station and new occupiers of the development. The development flows are what require an intervention and therefore it is expected that the developer will fully fund and deliver an LU standard compliant design, to accommodate demand from the development, not just to bring it back to baseline levels of congestion.

Whilst this point is noted it is WSPs view that the station becomes inoperable in the without development scenario. Therefore TfL and Network Rail would need to bring forwards mitigation in this location irrespective of the Proposed Development.

A design for enhancement works (including reconfiguration of the ticket hall, new overbridge and stairs and a lift to the District line Platform 1) has been proposed by the 1.22 developer. This can be used as the basis for further refinement of the design and testing of options to ensure an optimal LU and Network Rail compliant design is achieved, working within the station constraints including the need to obtain Listed Building Consent.

Station Option Studies have been commissioned to refine the design and document the process undertaken to reach the planning submission layout. This would then enable an appropriate contribution towards a scheme to be secured within the S106 agreement.

At West Kensington station, the 2041 development scenario requires gate line enhancements, noting that 2031 has not been assessed due to the phased build out of the site whereby in 2031 LBD will not have been relocated and as such the development impact on the station will be extremely limited. The development demand in 2041 takes the station to a point where it is not operable without station controls. Again, a design has been submitted (including re-configured ticket hall, new walkway and stairs, and step-free access (SFA) to both platforms) demonstrating that the development impacts can be 1.23 mitigated; albeit with significant further design work being needed to refine the scope of works to incorporate staff facilities, the future of the retail units, alongside delivery of the necessary gate line, staircase capacity and the SFA – ensuring an LU compliant design. To progress the necessary station mitigation works, discussions between all stakeholders will now need to take place to progress designs, establish costs, triggers and mechanisms for delivery of these works to ensure the development impacts are mitigated in line with London Plan policy T4. To progress this workstream there is an action on the developer to obtain pre-feasibility cost estimates for the works.

Station Option Studies have been commissioned to refine the design, produce construction cost estimates, document the process undertaken to reach the planning submission layout and refine the proposals in response to feedback. This would then enable an appropriate contribution towards a scheme to be secured within the S106 agreement.

The TA does not mention impacts on SFA, this should be included in summaries of the Legion modelling. It is expected that at West Brompton and West Kensington, SFA is fully 1.24 funded and delivered by the developer, in line with London Plan policy T1 which states that development proposals should facilitate SFA to LU stations.

Consideration of SFA will form part of the commissioned Station Option Studies. However, it should be noted that London Plan Policy does not require SFA to be fully funded by developers.

London Plan policy T3 requires development proposals to support capacity, connectivity and other improvements to the bus network and ensure it can operate efficiently to, from and within developments, giving priority to buses and supporting infrastructure as needed. An analysis of the future year bus capacity set against the development impacts has been 1.25 presented in the TA. This needs some refinement to provide a clearer understanding of how the forecast demand will impact various routes. Based on the information provided so far, the frequency on some bus routes serving the site may need to be increased to serve the development demand, which would require financial mitigation in the form of pump priming for a five-year period. These contributions could be significant; once the

The assessment of bus service capacity set out within the TA and updated within the TAA does not conclude that changes to service frequency are required to accommodate the trips associated with the Proposed Development. Impacts on bus journey times are considered as part of the Vissim micro-simulation modelling. An updated

assessment has been completed, TfL will advise if this is required and at what stage of the development build out and occupation. As noted above, the proposed highway mitigation may give rise to bus journey delays for which design led and or financial mitigation would be required.

assessment is presented within the TAA. Discussions will need to continue following review of the TAA to agree impacts and mitigation requirements.

The existing bus layover has capacity for four buses to stand independently; this needs to be re-provided to allow continued use for termination of services and early curtailments – essential to the safe and efficient operation of bus services in this part of London and 1.26 providing high quality bus provision for new occupiers of the development. The commencing stop should be accessible from each bus stand space to ensure efficient operations. Enhanced driver welfare facilities to support the smooth operation of the layover will also be required.

A workshop was held with the Transport Stakeholders to discuss the layout of the Lillie Road Bus Layover. An action arising from this was to review the Lillie Road Bus Layover Layout which is currently underway.

In addition, to the above permanent replacement facility, a temporary facility will so be required to enable the continued operation of buses during the construction period, when the existing layover is removed. Options for this have been discussed and a strategy will 1.27 need to be agreed to ensure continuity of bus standing is ensured throughout the construction period. Both the permanent and temporary bus layovers, and the associated access, licences, leases and maintenance regimes, will need to be secured as part of any permission in line with London Plan policies T1 and T3.

Options for temporary relocation of the layover have been discussed and the principle of relocation agreed with TfL. This will be secured through the S106 agreement.

The impacts of the phased construction of the masterplan will be extensive and will need to be manged and mitigated via a Construction Logistics Plan; further impact assessment 1.28 of the construction phases including highway modelling may be required to inform the migration measures. Detailed comments on all the above Framework management plans will be provided to the council in due course.

This comment is noted. No detailed comments on the Construction Logistics Plan have as yet been provided by TfL.

In addition to the above management plans which will help to mitigate the development 1.29 impacts, a ‘Transport Steering Group’ (comprised of TfL, the developer and the two boroughs) or similar, will need to be established, with funding, to manage and monitor the on-going impacts of the development and the necessary mitigation. As suggested within

Further information on the Transport Steering Group and monitor and manage approach are set out within

the TA, the Group would review the Transport Strategy as the development is built out, reviewing RMAs against the outline permission, monitoring travel patterns of occupied plots, consider changing transport policies and technologies and have the ability to adjust trigger points and details of mitigation measures. This will need to be secured as part of any permission. A full package of multi-modal transport mitigation, to be delivered at various phases in the development build-out, will need to be secured as part of any permission. The Healthy Streets measures and stations works especially need further discussion and refinement to 1.30 ensure the development impacts are fully mitigated. The flexible nature of the outline application and phased build out will require an ongoing monitoring and management approach via a Transport Steering Group to be fully funded by the developer. 2.0

2.1

the TAA. It is proposed that this will be secured through the S106 agreement.

Discussions have continued post-application and an updated assessment has been presented within the TAA. Further discussions will be required postsubmission of the TAA to agree the final package of measures required.

TfL comments following on from GLA combined stage 1 response dated 11 November 2024 – 28th November 2024 – Context: TfL provided detailed comments relating to the Transport Assessment with a focus on the public transport assessment The line loading details have been checked and reflect the Railplan scenarios correctly. The impacts noted in terms of the changes in line loading between West In 8.49 (table 50), District Line 2041 line load of West Brompton to Earls Court the “base Brompton and Earls Court stations are a product of the minus case” is having more loading then “base + development” case, which appears walk links that have been added into Railplan to incorrect, can this be checked. Meanwhile, with capacity density over 3.5, there is the potential for customers at West Brompton being unable to board as they will be clustered represent the Proposed Development. This increased connectivity associated with the development is at the northern end of the District line northbound platform due to the station layout. included in both the Early Phases and All Phases Mitigation measures, for example having staff to encourage customers to spread across scenarios. The increased permeability of the Site leads the whole length of platform, may need to be considered. to more passengers opting to use West Brompton Can it also be checked that line loading assessment has been done against the correct train station, rather than remain on the District Line between frequencies and this is translated to the output tables (see comment further down re page West Brompton and Earls Court stations in the 45)? development scenarios. As per Figure 91 - which was provided by TfL, a line loading of under 4, whilst considered as "crowded"

outlines that it is likely that no arrivals would have an "inability to board". In any case, the station mitigation design workstream will review and agree any mitigation proposals as necessary. Assessment has been undertaken against the frequencies in Railplan. The frequencies in the TA were summarised to highlight the connected nature of the site, but do not explain in detail the specific frequencies which have been modelled in Railplan. The train frequencies included in the 2016 base year, 2031 forecast year and 2041 forecast year Railplan models have been audited and reported in detail, with the assumptions agreed with the TfL Strategic Analysis team. This included a direct audit of the Railplan models by TfL's third party consultant (Jacobs) who confirmed on behalf of TfL that the modelled train frequencies within Railplan were appropriately specified.

2.2

Good to see inclusion of commitment to incorporate first bus stop provision for route 190 in the Lillie Road bus layover (something which isn’t provided today). If the layout of the layover is retained as outlined in Figure 109, buses located in the proposed stands would not be able to serve the ‘commencing bus stop’. Can it also be checked that the design of the layout ensures buses serving all 4 stands can access the commencing bus stop. [noted that WSP say not possible, we expect further explanation in writing]

2.3

1. How has the capacity on each corridor/link been calculated? Has the crush capacity or planning capacity of routes been used?

The commencing stop is accessible from the two southern most bays as shown in the Earls Court Masterplan Bus Strategy Technical Note issued in November 2023. This comment has subsequently been discussed and forms part of a review of the Lillie Road Bus Layover currently being undertaken. 1. This is based on variables specified within Railplan. It is derived by multiplying the total capacity specified for each individual vehicle on a service by the service

2. What is the baseline demand used in both the 2031 and 2041 baseline scenarios as this has not been provided in these table? Is the baseline demand from 2016 or 2026? 3. There isn’t a clear link between the figures supplied in the ‘2031 Early Phases (V)’ column in Table 38 and the ‘2041 Base Minus (V)’ column in Table 40. It’s not clear what the uplift has been between the figures in these columns and where this uplift has come from. There should be a clear breakdown of the step-by-step process and the projected increase in demand at each stage of modelling. 4. A three-hour time period is used for assessing the demand and capacity. The busiest one-hour peak time period would be more helpful to assess if the anticipated demand will cause capacity constraints on the bus network. 5. Potential significant mitigation for the provision of more bus services may need to be discussed (and for JT delays).

frequency, with this then aggregated by the links specified in Railplan to encompass the total capacity of all bus services utilising each respective link. 2. The variable "vcapt" has been utlised within Railplan which represents the total capacity for specific vehicle types i.e. different bus types and rail rolling stock which are differentiated in Railplan. The Railplan 8.2 User Guide (June 2023) states that total capacity specified for a vehicle type is equivalent to the crush capacity. The assessment uses Railplan outputs which have a base year of 2016. The future baseline used is 2031 or 2041 3. These are the figures directly out of the Railplan models for the respective future years 4. Railplan provides 3hr peak periods for the AM and PM as explained in paragraph 8.21 and doesn’t provide one hour time periods. Updated analysis has been prepared and set out in the TAA. 5. The analysis outlines that the forecast bus network has the capacity to accommodate the additional bus demand which has been estimated for the development. It is acknowledged that the bus stop boarding and alighting analysis outlines increases at certain stops. It is acknowledged that further discussions are required on mitigation strategy, including other measures which may then influence bus travel etc. It should be noted that the bus demand was calculated in addition to the Railplan demand affecting

the rail stations, effectively meaning the bus demand assessed in the TA was calculated above and beyond the public transport demand demonstrated by Railplan which is therefore a worst-case stress test of the combined impact on rail stations and bus services. 1. Tables 42 to 45 should disaggregate the number of boarders and alighters to the different bus routes that are due to be used by the forecasted demand so the origins and destinations of trips can be obtained. 2.4

2. What is the difference/uplift in demand between column ‘2031 Early Phases – Base Minus + Dev’ in Table 42 and ‘2041 Base Minus’ in Table 44? Is the figure in ‘2041 Base Minus’ the uplift only or the uplift and the baseline together? There should be a breakdown of the step-by-step process and the projected increase in demand at each stage.

1. This information has been provided within the TAA 2. ‘2031 Early Phases – Base Minus + Dev within Table 42 shows the future base plus the Early Phases of development. The 2041 Base Minus is just the future year (without any development). This is the forecast numbers out of Railplan, and represent totals, not just uplift. In line with TfL guidance, the peak hours have been calculated as follows:

2.5

Confirmation required that the peak hours are exactly as stated i.e. they’re not simply using the middle hour of the three.

− 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) These represent the peak hours in modelling terms for the public transport network. To ensure consistency with modelling outputs, the same hours are used.

2.6

Some of the stated data doesn’t seem correct or complete. There are indeed 6 tph to/from Ealing Broadway but there are a further 4 tph that go to/from Richmond that aren’t mentioned (although they are re West Kensington). There’s no reference to services to Edgware Road and Wimbledon at all. The Piccadilly line currently runs a 24 tph

This section is just a summary of the existing accessibility and provides an indication of services available. It does not feed through to the assessment

service in the central section between Acton Town and Arnos Grove, not 18 tph as stated. Unclear why they have only cited services to Uxbridge. Would be helpful to show all services through the station in a table.

work. Therefore it is not proposed to update this section.

2.7

The focus appears to be solely on gateline capacity. Has any static analysis re vertical capacity (notably the staircases) been undertaken too?

Yes, some further static analysis was undertaken to help guide the design of the mitigation. Legion modelling has also been undertaken - which is considered the primary tool for review of the station impacts.

2.8

S1371 is a TfL standard, not ‘guidance’. They are also working to the wrong version – the most recent is A8. This shouldn’t affect any of the calculations, however. Can we have the actual calculations that arrived at the gateline requirements described in the tables?

Noted. Gateline analysis calculations have been provided to TfL separately.

2.9

It should be made clear that the ‘lateral entrance’ does not contain gates, only validators, which is why TfL would want it closed and all customers obligated to pass through a gate.

Noted.

There is certainly the opportunity to implement some or all of these measures, although there would be some significant challenges in terms of getting listed building consent 2.10 (especially for the additional openings and ramp) and concessions for short run offs on both sides of the gateline. There may be engineering constraints re the ramp too.

This is being considered further within the Station Option Studies being prepared.

The CMD plots show a reduction in congestion around the T-junction between the overbridge and walkway but only in one of the two 15 minute periods selected. It would be interesting to see what the impact would be of extending the new footbridge across to 2.11 platform 4, thereby providing a second route for customers interchanging between platforms 2 and 4 and reducing the pressure on the existing staircases. To be investigated as part of continuing design work.

This is being considered further within the Station Option Studies being prepared.

It is unlikely that TfL would accept the layout shown, especially in the ticket hall. Even if 2.12 three TVMs are required, it should be assumed that they would need to provide for cash payment, which in turn necessitates the provision of a consolidation room nearby. For this reason, the position shown would be unacceptable. The complete loss of (the income

This is being considered further within the Station Option Studies being prepared.

from) the shop units to the south of the ticket hall building in order to create new public realm and an extra station entrance is unlikely to be acceptable but their redevelopment could certainly be investigated in conjunction with the proposed station works, especially if it means that space could be found for retaining certain staff facilities at street level. Pulling the building line back to enable the widening of the pavement and making the station entrance more visible would also be highly desirable. It would be useful to have clarity on when they expect each phase of the development to be completed and occupied, and what this implies for additional demand on the PT 2.13 network on a year by year basis so the impact can be understood to a greater degree of granularity; I note that the development is building over NR infrastructure and changing West Brompton station which is partially owned by NR. I presume the developer is consulting 2.14 separately with NR on these matters, including asset protection requirements. If they are not, then they need to be. [TfL meeting with NR in December].

The development does not seek consent for phasing. The mitigation would be considered within the remit of the monitor and manage approach proposed and therefore can be reviewed within the context of the build-out of the development in due course. Discussions and consultations with Network Rail (NR) have been held. This includes station infrastructure as well as access needs and separate representations (via a Letter of No Objection - LONO) have been had. Liaison will also take place once drafts of the Station Option Studies have been agreed.

Can we see the precise volumes for total trips under each scenario for the interstation link 2.15 loads alongside the crowding impacts. That data would help to validate the content of the TA;

This information has been shared separately with TfL.

Back working the value for additional rail demand quoted in Table 27 does suggest an increase of around 0.6 passengers per metre squared of standing space in 2041 due to the 2.16 development, so it would be useful to double check that the crowding impacts have been calculated correctly.

This information has been shared separately with TfL.

2.17 I assume that the rail impact covers both LO and Southern services but please confirm;

The trip generation includes both underground and traditional train services - so both LO and Southern are covered in this instance.

At West Brompton why can the new footbridge proposed not be extended to Platform 4 to 2.18 help reduce crowding on this platform and interchange times? Is this due to a lack of space on the platform? Could the platform be widened to support this objective?;

This is being considered as part of the Station Option Studies.

I note the comments on the lateral entrance at West Brompton. The problem with opening this is that it is not gated and therefore greatly increases the risk of fraudulent travel during peak periods which is something that we are trying to reduce. Has any 2.19 consideration been given to providing a new gateline in this area to help relieve congestion within the station as passengers attempt to pass through the existing extended gateline?

It is proposed that the Station Mitigation will fall under the scope of the Monitor and Manage Strategy. As such, if this became a requirement it could be considered in due course. It is not currently part of the scope of the Station Option Studies.

I note the comments on the inadequacy of the station for current demand which raises the question of how much the developer should pay to mitigate these impacts. I would observe the following: o The station may be inadequate now (noting above comments that the station functioned in 2019 with limited interventions) but the situation will become significantly worse once 2.20 the development is completed, to an extent that the station may become inoperable and have to be closed on a regular basis during peak periods. That will clearly damage the accessibility and reputation of the proposed development; alongside access for the existing community.

The developer can only be responsible for mitigating the impacts of the Proposed Development. Therefore this matter will require discussion with TfL moving forwards to reach an agreed position.

o Direct TfL funding for such enhancements is unlikely when the need is largely driven by the development. 2.21

Improved commentary required on the static gateline formula. The formula / standard is designed for provision of new infrastructure including a level of redundancy.

As discussed in post application meetings, the Legion modelling has been the primary focus when determining station impacts and assessment of

Retrospective application of the standard to the existing infrastructure is undertaken as a guide, but does not necessarily mean that more gates required in the base scenario to operate the entrance.

mitigation options. The static gateline analysis was provided as a starting point to understand potential impacts.

The summary that the addition of development demand increases the number of gates required by the standard is correct and should be the focus.

Does not mention SFA capacity – should be included in the summary. (Insufficient capacity for full SFA demand in base situation, made worse by development demand). During the modelling they did a spreadsheet analysis of the demand for lifts v capacity, and there was insufficient capacity for all SFA demand, in the Legion it was then capped to what could be 2.22 achieved and so doesn't flag the issue. This analysis should be noted as a minimum in any TAA. Underplays the platform issues, yes there will be platform issues without, but this will clearly be exacerbated by the development, both the additional on platform demand, but the higher loads coming through from the branches also affects this issue.

The capacity of SFA and the lifts is acknowledged within the station modelling reports contained in the TA. It is acknowledged that lift capacity is an issue in the future years assessed but this is based on assumptions about the number of People with Reduced Mobility (PRMs) using the stations. It is proposed that the Station Mitigation will fall under the scope of the Monitor and Manage Strategy. As such, if lift capacity became an issue it could be considered in due course. It is not currently part of the scope of the Station Option Studies.

‘Fails to cope’ is a description is disputed as although the model shows congestion, the 2.23 station operated in 2019 with this level of demand with only intermittent station control. ‘likely to require intermittent station control’ or similar would be better.

Fails to cope is primarily related to the modelling software, which with the 2019 baseline demand loaded, which has been calibrated to incorporate survey data from the OG entrance, showed instability when running multiple iterations of the models. The modelling has been signed off by TfL and therefore no further review is proposed.

RAG status is not appropriate for a mitigation option. They have scored areas showing LOS E as ‘no immediate need to upgrade area, some/all do not meet minimum width 2.24 requirements but currently provide sufficient capacity to accommodate the peak flow’ while this may be a reasonable statement for reviewing the existing station, this is not an appropriate comment for a proposed mitigation scenario, this design does not meet the

Noted, but disagree at this stage. Given the complexity of the assessments undertaken a RAG approach is considered appropriate to provide a summary of the mitigation performance. The specific detail of the

requirements for new and altered assets which is what needs to be applied to the mitigation design.

mitigation is to be worked through in the Station Option Studies.

It is not possible to only mitigate the development impacts, as once an intervention is required it needs to meet the LU standards for new and altered assets. A development which tips it over into needing an intervention would therefore need to cover the costs of a LU standard compliant design, not just to bring it back to the level of congestion it would 2.25 otherwise be at. Note the mitigation does not provide a LU standards compliant design; it is an indication there may be a credible scheme that could potentially work, though a full optioneering process Pathway 1&2 would be needed to be undertaken to confirm this further.

Whilst this point is noted this would be contrary to Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy regulations 2010. Station Option Studies, commensurate with Pathways Stage 2 Option Selection Studies are being prepared.

2.26

Need to be clearer that the additional demand takes it into not being operable without station controls.

As above, the development is what requires an intervention to be made. Once an intervention is required it needs to meet LU Standards for new and altered assets, there is 2.27 no reason TfL would contribute to this when the need arises as a result of the development only.

This point is noted. Background growth forms a key consideration within the mitigation proposed at the Stations. It is not the developer’s responsibility to mitigate for background growth and therefore the proposed approach to provide a proportionate contribution to the mitigation scheme is considered reasonable.

3.0

Earls Court Trip Generation Review – Updated comments from TfL – 4th December 2024 - Context: TfL provided feedback on the trip generation to aid review and refinement of the trip generation ahead of preparation of an updated Trip Generation which was set out in Technical Note 76. Technical Note 76 was issued to the Transport Stakeholders for comment in January 2025. It was subsequently reviewed and updated. The updated version forms an appendix to the TAA

3.1

The logistics hub is not shown in the Trip Generation note, but was included within the VISSIM development trip generation inputs via a manual uplift to account for servicing / E-Cargo trips

Logistics hub missing from this?

3.2

Some sort of sensitivity tests may be required as there is a lot of old data here

A Trip Generation Technical Note (TN76) has been prepared to provide an updated trip generation. This has been discussed and agreed with the Transport Stakeholders. The updated trip generation is then used in the TAA.

3.3

Variety of dates that the TRICS assessments have been done – all TRICS outputs should have a date of 2024 at the top so demonstrate that the latest version of TRICS has been used.

This was reviewed as part of TN76 which was issued to the Transport Stakeholders in January 2025. It was then subsequently refined based on feedback received and the updated trip generation used in the TAA. Where appropriate TRICS reports have been updated. The primary tool for assessing the impacts of the development on the Transport Network are TfL's suite of strategic transport models. The trip generation has been provided as a sense check against the MoTiON outputs. Whilst the suggestion of looking at other local sites is welcomed the use of the TRICS database is an industry standard approach and considered appropriate for the intended use of the trip generation.

3.4 Are there any similar land uses / sites around the development site that could be surveyed to derive a trip rate? Need to think about all of the individual land uses, or if the end user/s of the nursery/school are known, can they survey any existing sites? Difference in trends and travel patterns in recent years, is the use of old surveys (pre pandemic) appropriate?

3.5

Accept that student accommodation will use resi trip rates as these are higher and therefore present a worst-case scenario.

Noted.

3.6

What is the split for houses and flats or is it all houses, as this could impact trip rate?

Whilst the mix of houses to flats does not form a matter for approval the massing contained within the

parameter plans (which are for approval) would lend themselves mainly to the development of flats/apartments. The illustrative layout that has been used to inform the parameter plans includes a high percentage of flats (95%+) compared to houses. Furthermore the TRICS site selection includes an allowance of houses (even in the flatted only category) and so it is not considered that the impact of unit type would have any material impact.

3.7

And it’s assumed that 35% will be affordable and 65% private but is there any further information on this – when will it be confirmed as this could impact the trip rate too?

The affordable units percentage is policy driven, and the applicant seeks to target 35% in line with London Plan Policy requirements. The availability of sites within TRICS lends itself to splitting the trip rate by tenure.

3.8

3.9

However, the resi trip rates are too low, why has a private and then affordable rate been obtained from TRICS and not a mixed rate been obtained? (Category M in TRICS). This produces an AM peak trip rate of 0.846 and a PM peak trip rate of 0.545 so should be used as a worst case here.

Where has the assumption of 1 employee per 11sqm come from? Justification required here.

The 1 employee per 11 sqm is reflective of HCA Employment Density Guide - applying an average of office use. It is based on taking a 13.8sqm GIA per job, applying an 80% conversion factor to get to 11sqm NIA per job. This assumption was agreed as part of the strategic modelling process, presented within the MoTiON Scenario Development reporting. This assumption was also shared with TfL / RBKC / LBHF within Technical Note 57 (now Appendix K of the TA)

The methodology adopted is considered appropriate for the land use proposed. 3.10

How does it convert into trip rate per 100sqm? Need this to compare to other development trip rates.

TfL suggestion: 1 trip per job x 85% occupancy x 50% arrive in the peak hour. – so 0.43 3.11 trips in per job in the AM peak hour. Negligible trips out and no allowance for nonemployee visitor trips.

This was reviewed as part of TN76 which was issued to the Transport Stakeholders in January 2025. It was then subsequently refined based on feedback received and the updated trip generation used in the TAA. Acknowledged, however the arrival / departure profile has been based on TRICS outputs of London sites, the majority of which (other than one in June 2022) were pre-pandemic. As such, the arrival / departure % is considered appropriate Upon review there was an error in the underlying formula, where the departures were referencing the arrivals, not jobs.

3.12 Table 2-7 and 2-8 appear to have some errors ie 12,427*2% is not 65 (248) – therefore this table might need reviewing or justifying further.

Why was business park (02/B) chosen – is it demonstrating a worst case scenario in terms of trips? Probably not. B2 (02/D Industrial Estate) trip rates are generally higher than B8 3.13 (02/F Commercial – Warehouse) and business park (02/B) trip rate so this should be used as the worst case if actually relevant to what will be delivered on site.

This was reviewed as part of TN76 which was issued to the Transport Stakeholders in January 2025. It was then subsequently refined based on feedback received and the updated trip generation used in the TAA. Limited selection within TRICS and industrial estate is not considered to reflect R&D activities. This was reviewed as part of TN76 which was issued to the Transport Stakeholders in January 2025. It was then subsequently refined based on feedback received and the updated trip generation used in the TAA.

3.14

3.15

Alternatively, for other R&D laboratory type uses, we have tended to use B1 trip rates for robustness, this could potentially be used with a lower density to reflect the research use.

Noted, this can be reviewed - however the use of TRICS is still considered appropriate.

Two sites is not many sites to derive a robust trip rate so this needs to be completely reviewed (subject to above) and more sites should be considered. Park Royal Site has 0 employees, is this correct?

3.16 Do out of London sites make a difference to the trip rates? No “Shopping Malls” in London

As noted, no shopping malls in London within TRICS and therefore this is considered to be the best approach. TRICS is considered an appropriate tool for preparing a comparison to the MoTiON outputs.

3.17 Is there any data from comparable destinations such as KX or Battersea?

Is there a chance this could be a supermarket or discount food store/retail unit – if so, the 3.18 worst case scenario trip generation needs to be presented OR food retail is explicitly removed from any planning permission. Will retail units have max size?

No trolley based supermarket is being considered, the supermarket proposed would be a convenience store type size only.

Large amount proposed – is TRICS scaleable for this amount proposed on this site? Ie the Wandsworth site is 600 sqm compared to the proposed 11,000sqm

The site is likely to see multiple smaller units akin to the TRICS sizing. The total quantum proposed is site wide.

3.19

3.20 Trip rates seem very low from TRICS – and some old surveys

No sites in London.

3.21 TfL review found trip rates of approx. 0.8 in the AM and PM peak so this should be used

No information provided on the sites / selection criteria suggested by TfL, so not able to ascertain whether these are representative, the sites selected are considered to be a fair reflection of an average trip rate.

3.22 Not agreed that secondary school trips would be linked.

The school included within the assessment is not a public state school due to space constraints, so the trip profile of this type of land use would not be the same as a traditional school.

3.23 One site only not ideal, can travel plan data be used to cross check?

See above.

Seem reasonable however, no evidence to back up the percentages (not necessarily saying 3.24 they are unreasonable but more information needed as to how they have ben derived).

3.25

Would like to also see a worst case / sensitivity test where no adjustments are applied

3.26 It is acknowledged that some of the pedestrian trips will be going onto the PT network

This was considered in the PCL analysis too.

No justification or workings out showing how the trips have been redistributed to other modes – need tables to show the original data and then where the car trips have been 3.27 distributed to ie should go primarily to PT, so TfL can understand how the redistribution has been made

See the MoTION trip generation note

3.28

The trip generation has intentionally sought out alternative sources of information to that contained within MoTiON to provide a comparison.

Mode shares should be derived from Motion

Different quantums of B8 land use are quoted in different documents. The DSP, TA and TP all refer to a potential 16,000sqm of B8 (Logistics / Data Centre) across all phases (e.g. 3.29 Table 19 of the TA). This is different to 4.2 Illustrative Area Schedule (p18 of Illustrative Masterplan Drawings) which refers to a maximum of 2,520sqm across all phases / plots.

This is created by the difference in max development parameters versus the planning application. It should also be noted that the maximum land use quantum for each land use cannot be built as this would exceed the site-wide cap on land use quantum proposed.

Unclear what if any of above has been assessed in the trip generation analysis? There are significant differences in the potential trip generating characteristics between hub of 2,500sqm, and 16,000sqm of B8 land use. 3.30 o The 16,000sqm of B8 are described as ”logistics/data centre”. Is a data centre being considered within the development? It is only mentioned in the tables not in the text. Again, depending on the nature of the B8 use proposed, it will have significantly different trip generating characteristics – please clarify.

See comment above.

Paras 4.2.1 to 4.2.3 of the TA outline the approach to residential servicing and delivery trip generation (given as 0.3 delivery trips per unit per day, or two deliveries per week per household). This is considered an underestimate of recent levels of consumer demand for 3.31 parcel deliveries, and the other sites used as comparisons were surveyed in 2019 and 2018; pre-pandemic, and since when levels of demand have increased significantly. TfL normally recommend 0.43

Commercial and retail – need more justification about this as not sure if this is reasonable or not compared to other recent TfL planning apps. WSP say: “The trip rate applied to the 3.32 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”

Commercial and retail – need more justification about this as not sure if this is reasonable or not compared to other recent TfL planning apps. WSP say: “The trip rate applied to the 3.33 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”

Para 1.2.4 of Appendix M to the TA (Trip Gen Note) states that: “For robustness, the following assumptions have also been used when considering the trip generation: 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” o The above assumption appears to discount all external trips generated by the logistics hub; both arrivals by LGV, and departures by cargo bikes / electric vans to the wider area. 3.34 This is likely to significantly underestimate these trips, and contradicts para 3.5.2 of the TA which says that the commercial logistics hub would “focus on First Mile Last Mile (FMLM) deliveries serving a catchment of up to 5km including the site” o NB It’s noted that a trip generation analysis of the hub does appear to have been included in the FDSP (Table 6) – have these numbers been included in the TA site-wide trip generation analysis? o What is the relationship between Table 6 of the FDSP and Table 30 of the TA e.g. why are 53 daily cargo bike trips predicted in Table 6, but 168 in Table 30?

Note, the logistics hub has been included in the VISSIM analysis. However, the text initially reflected the use of three consolidation centres under each section of the site, these are no longer proposed.

Para 1.20 of the DSP states that “The TA has assessed a worst case scenario in terms of peak hour trip generation. As such, within this site-wide FDSP the trip generation presented for the Early Phases and All Phases is based on the worst case trip generation”. o The above assumption does not account for the fact that the worst case for all modes 3.35 across the site that was identified within the TA may not be the same as the worst case for servicing and delivery trip generation; i.e. most servicing trips may occur outside of the standard peak hours. The FDSP should assess the worst case for servicing and delivery trips, e.g. to identify whether there is sufficient loading capacity within the site to accommodate the predicted number of servicing and delivery arrivals / dwell times

4.0

TfL comments on Detailed Components (Appendix V of TA) – 24th January 2025 – Context – TfL provided comments on the Detailed Components of the planning applications.

4.1

The detailed applns should reflect the fact that bus services (e.g. terminating 190) might change during build out of the early and later phases. Noted that LBHF are seeking increase in routes serving the layover.

Warwick Road - Dedicated cycle route on Warwick Road? 4.2

4.3

RMAs for access, parking and servicing. Triggers to be discussed, alongside what ‘suitable means of access’ entails.

4.4

Concerns re quality of the access routes serving detailed plots – these will need to be carefully designed to include suitable lighting and surveillance for example during the construction periods. Access is ‘reserved’ and as such any permission will need to include conditions securing the delivery of access routes, which should be designed and delivered in line with Healthy Streets principles, having regard to nighttime safety, prior to first occupation of the plots concerned. Mechanisms for interim and final access arrangements may also be required to cater for the construction movements and phased build out of the site. All new and altered accesses will need to be refined through the detailed design process and delivered via a s278 agreement with the relevant highway authority.

TfL would need to provide further information on what changes are required. It is suggested that this is picked up as part of S106 discussions as the phasing and sequencing of the development is not fixed at this stage. Discussions are ongoing regarding the cycle access strategy and package of measures required. Cycle improvements would be included within the scope of the monitor and manage strategy to ensure that they are delivered at an appropriate point in the build out of the development noting that the phasing and sequencing of the development is not fixed at the planning stage. It is expected that conditions would be applied to the detailed components to require suitable access, parking and servicing arrangements to be provided prior to occupation. Phasing and sequencing of the development is not fixed at this stage and therefore it is not possible to confirm whether temporary or permanent access works will be required. It is expected that conditions would be applied to the detailed components to require suitable access, parking and servicing arrangements to be provided prior to occupation.

The principles of the Design Code are broadly supported, focusing on a pedestrian first environment, seeking to limit vehicles entering the site and highlighting personal safety, lighting, wayfinding as priorities. This supports the strategic policies and objectives in the London Plan and MTS. It would be useful for the Design Code to cross reference the prevailing standards, such as the Heathy Streets indicators, TfL’s Streetscape Guidance and London Cycle Design Standards to ensure the internal movement strategy meets these as the development is built out. Will the accesses for the detailed plots adhere to the Design Code and DAS (as eventually agreed), or will there be a temporary / interim arrangement and what will that be assessed against? Need to manage on-going construction of adjacent plots post occupation of the detailed plots.

4.5

Linked to the above – routes to be PT from front door(s) of each block/plot need to meet HS criteria and cater for people from all walks of life – is there an analysis of the distance from front door to PT and / blue badge parking, and taxi PUDO. Access to PT needs to consider those with physical, visual and auditory disabilities and neurodiverse people who find complex urban environments difficult to navigate. A proposal for the detailed plots (and all eventually) setting out how the design will support independent living (including car-free) and how this will be secured.

The public realm within the Site has been designed to be accessible and key routes have been reviewed with a range of specialists across the built environment profession alongside Earls Court Development Company’s Public Realm Inclusivity Panel. The details of the public realm are however subject to future RMAs. Distances to disabled parking and taxi pick-up/drop off have been considered. Distances to bus based public transport have been set out within previous analysis shared with TfL. The Design Code commits to provision of facilities within the site to ensure that the public realm is accessible to all such as seating areas located every 50m.

RBKC Draft PDMP - Visitor parking still not agreed and needs to be further refined and justified. - One car club space proposed – not supported. 4.6

- Welcome that all spaces will be equipped with EVCPs

The proposal for visitor parking remains within the application and further justification around this is provided within the TAA and PDMP.

- Additional disabled persons parking – doc identifies constraints and limited space figure 8 shows potential location of additional spaces, totalling 172 site wide, relatively well spread out. LBHF Draft PDMP - Visitor parking still not agreed and needs to be further refined and justified. 4.7

- Three car club spaces proposed – not supported. - Closer provision of taxi layby within the SAR supported subject to quality of SAR environment.

The proposal for visitor parking and a car club remains within the application and further justification around this is provided within the TAA and PDMP.

Cycle parking – RBKC detailed cycle parking was discussed at pre-app and the presented arrangement is improved – a few comments below:

4.8

EC05 – route to GF cycle parking involves two unaligned doors in quick succession and looks difficult to manoeuvre, can this be improved?

EC06 – access to cycle stores involves existing the building and accessing via an external door – not supported and should be revisited.

LBHF detailed cycle parking: o

WB03 - Stairs to access the store? - Two tier racks make up over 80% of stands – too high

Significant work has been undertaken post-application to review the cycle parking and make changes which enhance the cycle parking offer. Updated proposals were shared with TfL on the 21st May 2025.

- Sheffield stands 14.9% - Accessible stands 4.6% - below LCDS requirement - External door width appears narrow, some stores have numerous doors to go through and tight corridor corners o

WB04 - Two tier racks make up over 76% of stands - Sheffield stands 14.5% - Accessible stands 4.8% - below LCDS requirement - Access clarifications sought – external doors arent shown. - Store with accessible stands door withs too narrow

WB05 - Similar comments on all blocks - Random spaces on their own - Narrow door widths - No internal doors between development and stores.

Nb. Overall compliance with LCDS not checked as scaled drawings not submitted.

4.9

Previous comments on bus impact assessment to be addressed, after which the triggers for mitigation will be discussed – may be needed prior to occupation of detailed plots.

An updated bus impact assessment has been presented. This focuses on the early and all phases.

4.10 Trip generation – subject to the comments in the overall outline TA.

The trip generation has been updated and is presented within the TAA.

What HS measures will be delivered to support the detailed components? RBKC - Something at Warwick Rd / Warwick Sq to support active travel through use of this access for construction of other phases? - What is proposed at West Brompton Square? - Internally need more clarity on how the routes will look, feel and function. - When is widening of Lillie Bridge proposed? Is this needed for construction? 4.11 - And Lillie Rd / OBR cycle imps? - As a minimum a route to the station, bus stops and Tesco (100 WCR) need to be considered.

This point is acknowledged. It is anticipated that these works would form part of the monitor and manage strategy with appropriate measures delivered when required.

LBHF - Are LBHF satisfied with Lillie Rd / North End junction? - ATZ and SIA – both identify issues with Mund St / Aisgill Ave and Gibbs Green Close, should be address prior to first occ. - Key destinations to the west – are these ecnsidered? 4.12

Table 21 doesn’t match the trip gen in table 20 as all PT trips will start as ped trips – or how are the two linked?

4.13 Buses - See comments on outline TA

This is considered in the PCL analysis set out in the TA. Further bus analysis is presented in the TAA.

4.14 Stations to be addressed as part of wider station workstream

Station Option Studies have been commissioned to refine and agree the package of works at the Stations.

4.15 Highways - Agree that this needs to be considered within wider

The highway works are anticipated to fall within the monitor and manage strategy for the site and therefore appropriate measures can be delivered when required.

DSP – RBKC Servicing: Bulky, waste and move in move out via St Cuthberts Day to day deliveries etc via Warwick Crescent. LBHF servicing 4.16

Most from the SAR including bulky waste and move in - move out Some waste from Aisgill – TBA with LBHF Student move in move days – 3 x car clubs bays, booked in advance and accessed via SAR – will need management plan. What are 3 spaces based on, over how many days? How many slots per day? Unrealistic to expect ppl to arrive on 15 min slots. Space to wait? Nomination agreement? Data from other student accommodation re mode share etc to support the strategy?

In respect of the student accommodation student move in/move-out will be managed by the respective operator of the facility. Whilst the specific operator will have their own management arrangements it is normal practice for time slots to be allocated for the arrival of any vehicles to pick-up/drop-off students. This enables demand to be spread across the day. Not all students, particularly in London rely on vehicular access. However, for the residual vehicular demand that occurs these vehicles can set down on the Service Access Road (SAR) carriageway (the carriageway is over 7m wide) without impacting day to day operations. It is therefore considered that student move-in/move-out can be managed with minimal impact on demand.

5.0

TfL comments on Delivery and Servicing Plan – 6th March 2025 – Context – TfL provided comments on the Delivery and Servicing Plan submitted with the applications

5.1

Different quantums of B8 land use are quoted in different documents. The DSP, TA and TP all refer to a potential 16,000sqm of B8 (Logistics / Data Centre) across all phases (e.g. Table 19 of the TA). This is different to 4.2 Illustrative Area Schedule (p18 of Illustrative Masterplan Drawings) which refers to a maximum of 2,520sqm across all phases / plots.

The trip generation is based on the MDP. The MDP represent the worst case peak hour trip generation.

5.2

5.3

5.4

Which quantum has been used in the trip generation analysis? There are significant differences in the potential trip generating characteristics between hub of 2,500sqm, and 16,000sqm of B8 land use.

The 16,000sqm of B8 are described as ”logistics/data centre”. Is a data centre being considered within the development? It is only mentioned in the tables not in the text. Again, depending on the nature of the B8 use proposed, it will have significantly different trip generating characteristics.

Paras 4.2.1 to 4.2.3 of the TA outline the approach to residential servicing and delivery trip generation (given as 0.3 delivery trips per unit per day, or two deliveries per week per household). This is considered an underestimate of recent levels of consumer demand for parcel deliveries, and the other sites used as comparisons were surveyed in 2019 and 2018; pre-pandemic, and since when levels of demand have increased significantly. [again we need more up to date surveys but noted that updated trip gen note increased the numbers].

Para 4.3.10 of the TA states that a 50% level of consolidation is applied to commercial units. It’s not clear on what basis this has been applied and further justification that level of consolidation is realistic / achievable should be provided. Applying a 50% reduction to all trips may be too optimistic. [noted this has been reduced to 25%]

All assumptions regarding consolidation have now been removed from the trip generation. This is set out within TN76. The TAA includes an updated transport network assessment setting out impacts using the updated trip generation. The trip generation has been revised and updated and there are no consolidation facilities proposed on site. This is set out within TN76. The TAA includes an updated transport network assessment setting out impacts using the updated trip generation. The

the consolidation hubs land uses as it is considered that these will only generate trips internal to the development” o

The above assumption appears to discount all external trips generated by the logistics hub; both arrivals by LGV, and departures by cargo bikes / electric vans to the wider area. This is likely to significantly underestimate these trips, and contradicts para 3.5.2 of the TA which says that the commercial logistics hub would “focus on First Mile Last Mile (FMLM) deliveries serving a catchment of up to 5km including the site”

NB It’s noted that a trip generation analysis of the hub does appear to have been included in the FDSP (Table 6) – have these numbers been included in the TA site-wide trip generation analysis?

What is the relationship between Table 6 of the FDSP and Table 30 of the TA e.g. why are 53 daily cargo bike trips predicted in Table 6, but 168 in Table 30?

commercial logistics hub trip generation is considered within the Vissim modelling only.

[I think confusion here between consolidation hub and logistics hub but please cross check numbers]

The above assumption does not account for the fact that the worst case for all modes across the site that was identified within the TA may not be the same as the worst case for servicing and delivery trip generation; i.e. most servicing trips may occur outside of the standard peak hours. The FDSP should assess the worst case for servicing and delivery trips, e.g. to

The TA focuses on assessment of the transport network during the weekday peak hours. Servicing trip generation is provided as daily and then as a 15% proportion of the daily to represent the worst case hour. A worst case trip generation is therefore considered to have been presented.

identify whether there is sufficient loading capacity within the site to accommodate the predicted number of servicing and delivery arrivals / dwell times.

Figure 3 (and Tables 29 and 30 of the TA) suggests that only the proposed residential uses would benefit from last-mile deliveries by cargo-bike. 5.6

Why won’t commercial plots be able to benefit from on-site consolidation / cargo bike deliveries?

Para 3.3 suggests that commercial land uses will seek to use a booking system “so that a ‘just-in-time’ approach to deliveries can be adopted thereby reducing potential for congestion and enabling the ability to avoid busy periods on the surrounding highway network” 5.7

Adopting a ’just-in-time’ approach to deliveries implies that businesses will only order goods when they need them, with no storage of goods on site for example. This approach creates more demand for freight trips. Instead, new developments should seek to accommodate storage for waste & stock, to reduce the need for frequent ‘top up’ deliveries.

Para 4.32 states that “Any deliveries taking place late at night or in the early hours of the morning should be avoided (unless necessary) to prevent creating a noise disturbance”. 5.8

This goes against London Plan policies T7 E and H which seek to encourage 24hour deliveries outside of peak hours, in order to reduce congestion and road danger

This was not our intention. Commercial uses will be able to make use of sustainable last mile deliveries.

The vehicle booking facility is intended to manage demand to/from the Site so that deliveries do not cause congestion on-site which could then impact the surrounding transport network. It is not the intention to create a scenario where more deliveries occur because of this approach.

The intention here is to limit disturbance to residents both on-site and in neighbouring areas. It is not our intention to seek to be contrary to the London Plan.

Mitigation against any potential noise impacts on residents may be needed e.g. quiet delivery agreements

The DSP refers throughout to ‘encouraging’ and ‘discouraging’ certain practices, but does not set measurable targets. It’s understood that monitoring is proposed via the Travel Plan, but this document does not include any measurable targets on servicing and deliveries either. 5.9

Can a cap on delivery and servicing numbers be imposed (e.g. secured via S106), with the onus on the developer to provide evidence via an ongoing monitoring regime that the cap is met, with financial penalties payable to the Council if not (e.g. be used on sustainable transport measures)

The DSP is a framework and it is expected that a sitewide DSP would be prepared pre-occupation, secured by Condition. Given the flexible nature of the planning application it would not be appropriate to set caps on the number of servicing and delivery trips to/from the Site. A monitor and manage approach is however proposed.

I couldn’t find a detailed layout of the hub so it’s hard to make much comment on the proposals, however:

5.10

5.11

The diagram on p32 of the DSP shows 3 smallish truck unloading areas. How big is this area is there scope for the area to expand / adapt?

To what extent is the design futureproofed for future changes in the logistics market?

Detailed scale plans and swept paths should be provided to understand how this facility will operate

Para 3.5.2 of the TA states that the commercial logistics hub will serve a catchment of up to 5km including the site

The commercial logistics hub is located within the outline element of the planning application. As such, it is one of several uses that could come forwards within Plot EC07. If it is delivered it would be subject to a Reserved Matters Application (RMA) in due course. Therefore no further information on this facility is considered necessary to be provided.

This point is acknowledged. The 5km catchment was set based on consideration of other similar facilities

A wider catchment than 5m can be served by cargo bikes. E.g. According to research referenced in the Cargo Bike Guidance, a catchment of up to 9.7km is cost effective using e-cargo bikes.

across London but it is acknowledged that electric cargo bikes could potentially serve a larger catchment.

The commercial logistics hub is located within the outline element of the planning application. As such it would be subject to an RMA in due course. When developing the proposals liaison with existing operators did take place but no prospective tenant or operator is in place.

5.12

Have the developers of the site liaised with, or have any agreement with, any potential future operators of the hub to understand their requirements?

6.0

TfL comments on Detailed Component Cycle Parking – 13th June 2025 – Context – TfL reviewed updated cycle parking layouts for the Detailed Component in RBKC and LBHF issued on the 21st May 2025. This response relates to the LBHF Detailed Component WB03 – Pillar blocking 3 two-tier racks

6.1

Whilst the pillar locations cannot be changed at this stage the layout of the cycle store has been reviewed to try and maximise the number of spaces without being impacted by structural layout. In this instance the constraint cannot be removed. However, as the space between the rack and column is 1.1m this is sufficient to lower the rack (approximately 1m is required) with the user then required to lift the bicycle from the rack. The spaces are therefore still considered useable.

WB03 – Inaccessible stand between two pillars

6.2

WB03 – Narrow door widths 6.3

The cycle store design has been further reviewed. Whilst it is not possible to change the structural layout at this stage the proportion of two-tier stands has been increased to allow this stand to be removed. To compensate for this loss the proportion of two-tier racks has been increased so that the minimum quantum of 522 spaces is still achieved.

The door widths have been widened to be 1.1m wide.

WB03 – Need to size maintenance point to ensure sufficient width

The maintenance point has been sized to ensure there is sufficient room. Allowing for a corridor width of 1.5m there is at least 1m of clear room for maintenance activities to take place.

6.4

WB03 – Too narrow a space for cyclists to pass a parked cycle

6.5

The closest space to the door has been removed with at least 1.5m clear aisle width provided. To compensate for this loss the proportion of two-tier racks has been increased so that the minimum quantum of 522 spaces is still achieved.

The cycle space configuration has been changed to ensure that the lockers are accessible.

6.6

WB03 – No access to lockers 7.0

TfL comments on Detailed Component Cycle Parking – 25th June 2025 – Context – TfL reviewed updated cycle parking layouts for the Detailed Component in RBKC and LBHF issued on the 21st May 2025. This response relates to the RBKC Detailed Component

EC05 level B1 7.1 -

No obvious concerns. Door width to accessible store could be increased to accommodate the larger bikes and cycle maintenance being within one of the stores would benefit from being in cycle hub area so it is visible. Only one lift still, but seems like they’ve determined not feasible for another, if breakdown could another lift in resi core be used?

EC05 Ground 7.2

Noted architects working on aligning doors. As currently would require an odd manoeuvre whereby open external door, shuffle left to close external door before

The door width to the accessible store within the basement has been widened. Cycle maintenance has remained where proposed.

It is possible to access the cycle store using the lifts in the core of the building therefore should the dedicated cycle store lift become unavailable there is an alternative available. The doors have now been re-aligned as shown below. The door from the parking area has been included to provide additional permeability.

being in a position to open store door and get cycle through. Is there any requirement for door into car parking area from cycle store? -

Access to main store via one cycle lift, external door widths should be 2m, currently showing 1.3m and 1.2m.

The external door width to the main cycle store has now been widened to 2m. External door widths have been maximised. However, the facade design means that it would be challenging to widen the door external door widths further. EC06 – Ground 7.3

External access door width 1.7m should be 2m. Maintenance bay located in separate room with lots of space, shame not to add more Sheffield stands here is possible too?

EC06 Level 1 7.4 -

Maintenance bay, would they have to use ground floor?

The proposals meet the quantum requirement set out within the London Plan (2021). It is not intended to provide additional spaces over and above the minimum requirements of the London Plan at the outset of the development. However, occupancy will be monitored as part of the monitor and manage approach to the build-out of the development and consideration given to whether additional spaces provided if demand arises. There is a maintenance point shown in both levels of the EC06 cycle store.

External door width 1.8m should be 2m

Welcome access to resi lobbies.

External door widths have been maximised. However, the facade design means that it would be challenging to widen the door external door widths further.

Statutory Consultation Process - Schedule of Applicant's Responses to Comments Received Date: 11th June 2025 RBKC Officer “EC Brompton Road Crossing” – 26th November 2024 RBKC Officer “Feedback on February 2024 Transport Assessment Scoping Note” – 2nd December 2024

Comments received from

RBKC - Highways

Dates received

RBKC Consolidated Feedback including Transport Officer (Appendix 18)– 3rd February 2025 RBKC Officer “Revised Warwick Road Access Strategy” – 4th April 2025 RBKC Officer Feedback – 9th May 2025 RBKC Officer Feedback – 4th June 2025

Format

PDF

Subject

Highways and Transportation Comments

SUMMARY OF COMMENT

1.0

RBKC Officer “EC Brompton Road Crossing” – 26th November 2024 – Context: A request was made of the Transport Stakeholders to understand any committed highway schemes that should be included within the Vissim Micro-simulation modelling being updated and audited by TfL

1.1

The Old Brompton Road crossing at the southern end of Kempsford Gardens is a committed scheme and is currently on the work programme to be carried out in spring next year. RBKC Confirmed drawing as 1000009341-4-0100-OD-01

RESPONSE

Noted. The drawing and layout for Old Brompton Road crossing will be incorporated into the VISSIM modelling.

2.0

RBKC Officer “Feedback on February 2024 Transport Assessment Scoping Note” – 2nd December 2024 – Context: RBKC Highways provided initial comments on the Transport Assessment submitted with the planning application ahead of the formal response to the planning application to assist with reviewing the trip generation. Trip Generation:

2.1

2.2

For the office use a first principles approach has been applied which assigns one arrival and departure trip to each employee and then applied this to a generic employee trip profile which has been derived from the TRICS database. The percentage of overall trips in the AM and PM peaks are identified as 25% and 24% respectively and I consider these to be relatively low. I note the Motion modelling output technical note identifies only small variances between modelling outputs and Trip generation outputs over a 24 hour period but does this account for the peak hours?

The use of trip generation outputs to calibrate and sense check the Motion demand model outputs is not objectionable although it is not very clear where the trip generation data has been used to apply reduction or uplifts in journeys or plug any gaps and this should be clarified.

Please note that the Trip Generation exercise has been superseded and is set out within the WSP Technical Note 76 – “Trip Gen Sensitivity”. This TN represents the latest position following comments from the Transport Stakeholders and includes a section that reviews the Office use arrival and departure profiles. Also with TN76 is a review against the MoTiON demand data and trip generation used within the analysis for the Earls Court Development, and which shows – even when applying updated rates or arrival / departure profiles that the scheme has been appropriately modelled. The MoTiON model is a 24 hour demand model. Outputs are then fed into the peak hour strategic highway assignment model (LoHAM) and peak period public transport model (Railplan). Appendix D of the MoTiON Future Year Scenario Development Report: Proposed Development Scenarios (August 2024) contains an updated version of Technical Note 63 (contained in the TA) which compares the MoTiON results to the Trip Generation. This concluded: - Highway demand passed to LoHAM (via MoTiON) in relation to private cars should be reduced to match the Trip Generation - Public transport demand passed to Railplan (via MoTiON) was sufficiently high compared to the Trip Generation Appendix D of the MoTiON Future Year Scenario Development Report: Proposed Development Scenarios (August 2024) subsequently

explains the adjustments which were made to both LoHAM and Railplan in light of the Trip Generation comparison exercise. The LoHAM Traffic Forecasting Report (July 2024) also provides explanation of the approach taken, with Appendix A of this document providing a flow diagram explaining the approach taken. The Railplan Transport Forecasting Report (August 2024) summarises in Section 3.14 how the rail demand used in the assessment has been derived. All the aforementioned reports have been shared with the Transport Stakeholders.

2.3

The table park is identified in various parts as a ‘destination park’. Has this been accounted for in the trip generation as a destination in its own right?

Whilst labelled a destination park, this is more akin to a public realm area that is open to both residents and employees of the Proposed Development alongside external users. The trip generation for the land uses proposed on the Site is considered sufficient to account for trips associated with visiting the Proposed Development, particularly during the peak hours assessed.

Required mitigation

2.4

The junctions to be assessed and which have been included are noted and appropriate. A key junction which RBKC consider requires mitigation is the Old Brompton Road Earl’s Court Road junction which does not include any ‘green man’ pedestrian facilities or pedestrian phases on the southern and eastern arms and is one of the poorer performing junctions in the Borough in terms of collisions. I note that ATZ only assesses this junction in relation to movement across the northern arm which does have pedestrian facilities, and this does not therefore highlight this. Given its proximity and the level of additional activity arising from the development, it is RBKC’s position that we would expect appropriate mitigation to provide dedicated pedestrian

This is noted and agreed. This junction is within the VISSIM model extent and will be reviewed and a potential mitigation scheme developed. The proposed mitigation at this junction has been subsequently developed and is included within the Transport Assessment Addendum (TAA).

crossing phases on all four arms of this junction to ensure compliance with Planning policies. I recognise this forms part of the TLRN and TFL’s input will be also required.

3.0

RBKC Consolidated Feedback including Transport Officer (Appendix 18 – Senior Transport Planner Comments)– 3rd February 2025 - Context: RBKC Highways provided formal feedback on the transport documents submitted with the planning application within the formal response to the planning application.

3.1

pg 3 Appendix 18 The application includes an illustrative masterplan which indicates how the final development is expected to be brought forward.

It should be noted that the planning application seeks consent for a series of parameter plans with the illustrative masterplan showing one way in which the site could come forward.

3.2

pg 5 Appendix 18 Cycle access is not proposed through the central section of Warwick Square, however, for cyclists seeking to egress the site from either of the internal crescents, the clear desire line would be to pass directly through this space. It is not clear how this would be prevented, and it is likely cyclists would opt for this route in any event. This needs further development, and if physical restrictions are deemed necessary then I recommend the design codes are appropriately amended to reflect this (see below).

The design of the street network is intended to provide legibility to all users and would through design discourage cycling through Warwick Square. Cyclists are instead expected to use West Brompton Lane and Warwick Lane. The public realm including Warwick Square is within the outline element of the planning application and would therefore be the subject of a Reserved Matters Application (RMA) in due course where specific design elements can be addressed.

3.3

pg 5 Appendix 18 A requirement for the layout of EC20 to facilitate a future pedestrian and cycle access from West Cromwell Road. A commitment to deliver a site access and a built frontage to West Cromwell Road should be secured.

The access and movement parameter plan has been updated to include for an access onto the A4 West Cromwell Road. Further information on this is provided within the TAA.

3.4

pg 5 Appendix 18 I understand that the applicant does not intend to offer the internal street network for public adoption. No information is proffered on how public access across the site would be secured. Unfettered public access is essential and access rights would need to be

It is proposed that the street network across the Site remains a private space and is not adopted. It is expected that an appropriately worded condition/obligation is secured to allow public access through the Site. This matter has been discussed with the Transport Stakeholders as part of post-application discussions.

suitably covered within any planning agreement supporting a planning approval.

3.5

pg 5 Appendix 18 West Brompton Crescent - The design parameters set minimum footway widths for this street at 2m and minimum planting depths at 2m. These parameters are not consistent with the objective of a ‘pedestrian first public realm’ and ensuring an adequate footway width is integral to achieving this objective.

This point is noted. The Design Code is being reviewed noting that street widths can be revisited at the RMA stage.

A minimum footway width of 2.5m is required to ensure safe and convenient pedestrian movement along this primary route to allow for comfortable pedestrian movement.

3.6

pg 6 West Brompton Crescent - The integration of informal pedestrian crossing points should form an integral element of the design code for this street.

This point is noted. The Design Code is being reviewed noting that street widths can be revisited at the RMA stage.

3.7

3.8

pg 6 The design code parameters for West Brompton Crescent do not relate to the pedestrianised section at its eastern end adjoining Warwick Square and, to ensure continuity and clarity over the design of this space, I consider that this area would be better included within the design parameters of Warwick Square. pg 6 Warwick Crescent is shown to include a central roadway with footways on both sides separated by stretches of car parking with areas of planting in between. The only minimum parameters shown are for the kerbside planting which would have a minimum depth of 3m. The rationale for these being 3m deep is unclear. Such an arrangement would result in the planting projecting into footways beyond the depth of the parking bays and across pedestrian desire lines. This should be

This point is noted. The Design Code is being reviewed noting that street widths can be revisited at the RMA stage.

amended to ensure consistent footway widths along the full length of the street and the design code must commit to providing a minimum of 2m footway widths along both sides of the street. pg 6 West Brompton Lane - A commitment to a minimum footway width of 2m is needed to ensure safe pedestrian movement adjacent to a key vehicular route through the site. 3.9

To ensure that this street adequately provides for cycling activity in both directions a northbound contra flow cycle lane must be explicitly included within the design code with a minimum width of 2m in line with Government guidance LTN 1/20 (Cycle design infrastructure) and London Cycle Design Standards (LCDS).

pg 6 Warwick Lane - the parameters require a minimum depth of planting on the southern side of 3m and no minimum width for the footway. 3.10 This must be amended such that a consistent footway width of at least 2m be provided.

pg 6 St Cuthbert’s Lane - ...the cycle lane must, as a minimum, be 3.11 demarcated and this must be suitably aligned with any segregated cycle lane provided through the 100 West Cromwell Road site to the north.

pg 7 Trip Generation - The MoTiON modelling output technical note identifies only very small variances between modelling outputs and trip 3.12 generation outputs over a 24-hour period although it is not clear what if any variance these produce in the peak hour. This should be clarified, and an explanation should be given for any significant discrepancies.

This point is noted. The Design Code is being reviewed noting that street widths can be revisited at the RMA stage.

Further work has been undertaken on the design of St Cuthbert’s Lane post-application which has been submitted to RBKC for review. This includes a segregated cycle lane on St Cuthbert’s Lane. The connection through 100 West Cromwell Road would be the responsibility of the developer/owner of that Site.

A Trip Generation Technical Note (TN76) has been prepared and issued to the Transport Stakeholders to provide further information on this matter. TN76 forms an appendix of the TAA.

I note TfL has identified additional deficiencies in the trip generation methodology used and these should be adequately addressed prior to determination of the planning application. pg 8 Office Trip Gen - The percentage of overall trips in the AM and PM peak hours are identified as 25% and 24% respectively and I 3.13 consider these to be low. I would typically expect in the region of 40% of overall trips taking place during peak hours and this must be further explained and justified within the TA.

TN76 (appended to the TAA) provided further information in response to this comment.

pg 9 Healthy Streets - Earls Court One Way System Site Allocation SA2 part Y requires new and improved pedestrian links through the site and its 3.14 environs to local services, public transport facilities and open spaces. Part Z requires “a contribution to the enhancement of the Earl’s Court One Way System in line with the Healthy Streets Approach

This item will be picked up as part of S106 Agreement discussions moving forwards.

pg 10 Healthy Streets - Old Brompton Road/Earl’s Court Road junction Appropriate mitigation should be provided, in the form of dedicated pedestrian crossing phases on all four arms, which would be consistent with 3.15 the requirements of Local Plan Policies TR6 and SA2 (parts Y and Z). I recognise this forms part of the TLRN and further discussion with the applicant and TfL is required.

A mitigation scheme for this junction is included within the TAA.

pg 10 Healthy Streets - Given the scale of the development, a substantial financial contribution is expected to improve walking and cycling facilities in 3.16 the vicinity of the development. These could include a new parallel crossing of Fulham Road to the south of Old Brompton Cemetery to connect the application site with the amenities of the Thames.

This item will be picked up as part of S106 Agreement discussions moving forwards.

pg 11 West Brompton Station - RBKC Officers strongly support the need 3.17 for any future station design to provide significant enhancements to the station to address the underlying causes of congestion at the station rather

Station Option Studies are being prepared to refine the mitigation proposals presented within the planning submission. Discussions will

than bringing it back to problematic baseline conditions. In accordance with the requirements of the Local Plan, any station improvement scheme should enhance the interchange between West London Line and District line services.

then be held on how any mitigation is delivered. This will then be fed into the S106 Agreement.

The proposed mitigations include the redesign of the ticket hall with a new bridge and stairs to the western platform with new lifts providing step free access to all platforms. This is essential as part of any ongoing design work to ensure compliance with Local Plan Policy TR7 and London Plan Policy T1. pg 11 Earls Court Station - The submitted assessment is accepted, however the site allocation expects the Earls’ Court development to improve access to the Underground. No tangible benefits for existing and future passengers are proffered. Measures to improve the passenger 3.18 environment within the station and its environs should be identified. The applicant is required to further explore this requirement within the TA in order to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of Policy SA2. Identified measures would need to be secured within the S106 agreement of any grant of planning permission.

The modelling undertaken does not identify a need for interventions within the Station and this position is agreed with TfL. The application includes improvements to access to the Station focused on improvements to Warwick Road and the entrance to the Proposed Development at Warwick Square.

pg 12 Buses - General - TfL has highlighted the anticipated need for significant financial contributions to facilitate this, and this request is 3.19 supported. The ultimate level of these contributions has not been settled on and will need to be secured within the S106 agreement as part of any planning permission.

The Transport Assessment identifies that no contribution to service improvements is required. However, it is acknowledged that some infrastructure improvements could be made. The infrastructure improvements will form part of the discussions relating to the S106 Agreement.

pg 12 Buses - SB Earls Court Rd - No material improvements are proffered 3.20 in relation to access to southbound bus routes from the site. The development presents an opportunity and a need to improve walking routes between the site and Earl’s Court Road (both sides). Further discussion on

The TA does not show a significant uplift in use at this stop. The TAA reports increased bus demand at the stop on Earls Court Road of between 47-50 passengers in the Early Phases and 61-69 in the All

this point is expected from the applicant and it is expected that a suitable financial contribution be secured to deliver such pedestrian improvements.

Phases. This level of increased demand is not considered to be significant.

pg 12 Buses - Bus Stop Audit - It is expected that wider improvements are delivered to bus stops serving routes in multiple directions to and from the site. A number of shelters within the vicinity of the site do not exhibit real 3.21 time ‘countdown’ facilities and to ensure compliance with the planning policies, any gaps in this infrastructure within the bus stops assessed would be expected to be funded.

A review of bus stop infrastructure is set out within the TA and it is intended that any required improvements would be secured through the S106 process.

pg 13 Cycling - Old Brompton Road - Further work is required to agree a suitable design which would be worked up in detail as part of the wider 3.22 access arrangements. The access arrangement would need to be agreed within a package of S278 works which should be secured as part of the S106 as part of any planning approval.

This point is noted. An improvement scheme for Old Brompton Road and Lillie Road has been developed. It is intended that this would be secured through the S106.

pg 14 Cycling - Warwick Road - Further consideration is needed on how safe access to the site could be achieved whilst maintaining traffic capacity and minimising bus journey times on Warwick Road between Finborough Road and the A4. Ensuring that buses can continue to operate efficiently and without 3.23 significant delays will be a key factor in determining whether the broader scheme can function effectively for all road users and further consultation with TfL and specifically TfL bus operations is required. The provision of kerbside car parking on the east side of Warwick Road between Rich Lane and Earl’s Cout Square presents an opportunity to rank northbound traffic streams in an efficient manner (akin to arrangements on

A revied access strategy is set out within the TAA and the cycle distribution has been updated to reflect this. Discussions continue regarding the cycle improvements surrounding the Site. The revised cycle access strategy incorporates four elements:  

Finborough Road) and this would permit the footway adjacent to Earl’s Court station to be widened as part of a revised site access strategy. At present the assessment of future cycle movements at this access is based upon northbound access/egress from Warwick Road only and the applicant should provide further information on the expected origins and destinations of the cycle trips in order to better inform the scope and form of any revised access proposals.

pg 14 Cycling - Additional Measures - To cater for this increase in cycling arising from the development, appropriate developer contributions should be secured within the S106 to deliver improved cycling between the 3.24 Cemetery and the river on lightly trafficked routes, particularly focusing on providing safe onward connections across Fulham Road (A304) and King’s Road (A3217). pg 15 Walking - PCL - The proposed building line of plot EC22 to Old Brompton Road is unacceptable. The extent of the proposed plot would provide insufficient street width on Old Brompton Road to accommodate the demand for movement, contrary to Local Plan Policies TR1, TR2 and TR6. Specifically, the proposed footway width of 2m at the junction of West Brompton Lane and Old Brompton Road arising from the proposed kerb line 3.25 alterations, with a resultant pedestrian comfort level of F (the lowest rating available) is unacceptable. ...alterations are required to the parameters of the development site at 344350 Old Brompton Road (EC22) to account for the highway layout proposed. Considering the proximity of the pedestrian crossing leading directly to the West Brompton Station entrance, the footway adjacent to EC22 should have a minimum width of 3.5m to ensure that comfortable movement is afforded



Access via EC22 to connect with the A4 West Cromwell Road for onward connection to an improvements scheme at the Warwick Road junction and improved connection to the existing Toucan Crossing at Nevern Place. Access via the Tesco Basement (subject to third party agreement) connecting with Fenelon Place from where cyclists could connect to an improvements scheme at the Warwick Road junction and improved connection to the existing Toucan Crossing at Nevern Place.

A package of measures to improve walking and cycling conditions surrounding the Site are outlined within the TAA. Further routes would be subject to discussion as part of the S106 Agreement

Amendments have been made to the Parameter Plans to accommodate the required footway width. Further information is provided within the TAA.

to pedestrians with sufficient space available to provide street furniture, as may become necessary over time, in adherence to Local Plan Policies TR1, TR4 and TR6. pg 15 Walking - PCL - The footway directly outside of the Warwick Road entrance to Earl’s Court London Underground station is shown to fall from a B+ rating as existing to a C rating once the development is complete. Under TfL’s PCL guidance this represents a change from ‘Comfortable’ to ‘At risk’. In the event that it is proven that a reduction in road width on Warwick 3.26 Road is feasible in traffic terms, then opportunities to widen the footway outside the station entrance should be taken. The widening of the footway outside the station entrance would be consistent with the requirements of the site allocation in respect of access improvements to Earl’s Court station and would deliver valuable enhancements to this station interface.

A potential footway widening proposal has been considered to address the PCL issue. Further information is provided in the TAA.

pg 16 Cycling - The allocation of space within the public realm for three TfL Cycle Hire docking stations is welcomed, with one in each of Warwick Square and West Brompton Square. The specific locations and dimensions 3.27 of these will need to be included as part of the final public square designs and fully funded, in accordance with London Plan Policy T1 and Local Plan Policy TR6. The overall number of docking spaces should be identified and stipulated within the S106 agreement.

This can be detailed and secured through the S106 Agreement

This is not agreed. pg 16 Servicing - The Framework Delivery and Servicing Management Plan (DSMP) should require all servicing activity that takes place within the 3.28 undercroft to be accessed via Fenelon Place, once this route is available. The document must be amended to include a clear commitment to this. "

Whilst the use of Fenelon Place would be the primary access route, the sole use of it would not be advised. This would reduce the resilience of the site (if Fenelon Place were blocked for some reason). It could also route smaller vehicles, such as E-Cargo bikes around a much longer route.

pg 16 Servicing - Consolidation The framework DSMP does not include any commitments or tangible measures to achieve these consolidation rates. The use of an off-site consolidation centre for commercial deliveries would 3.29 be expected to be secured within the S106 and details of the overall mechanism for maximising the use of these facilities need to be detailed within the framework DSMP.

RBKC accept that the consolidation assumptions applied are not unreasonable, just that further commitment in the DSP is required. The trip generation has been revised at the request of LBHF to remove all reference to consolidation. As such no change to the commitments set out in the DSP are considered necessary.

pg 17 Car Parking - The presumption should therefore be for blue badge 3.30 parking to be provided within development plots unless it is demonstrated that this cannot be achieved.

This aligns with the site-wide parking strategy.

pg 17 Car Parking - Further details and clarity on the expected maximum 3.31 level of provision that could be provided within the public realm is required from the applicant

This information is contained within the PDMP.

pg 17 Car Parking - The TA includes parking occupancy data for the streets surrounding the site across two neutral days between 4am and 1pm, surveyed in March 2024. The geographical and temporal scope of the surveys are less than was recommended by officers during the preapplication process. 3.32 The surveys do not however assess the weekday afternoon/evening period, and the Council’s own parking occupancy survey data from 2022 shows this to be the time period with the highest occupancy levels in the survey area. It is likely that additional trips by car during this period would exacerbate existing on-street parking pressures on the streets within walking distance of the site. pg 18 Construction - The information on numbers of peak 3.33 construction vehicles has been aggregated for LBHF and RBKC which does not allow a proper understanding of the impacts upon each access point. As

The Transport Strategy seeks to prioritise travel by sustainable modes with a car-lite approach to car parking adopted. No residents would be eligible to apply for a parking permit on the roads surrounding the site and this would expect to be a condition of any planning consent. It is not considered that the development would increase demand on surrounding roads and therefore it is not agreed that on-street parking pressure will increase as a result of the development proposals.

The construction traffic estimate used within the Environmental Statement (ES) identifies that during peak construction in the Early Phases 190 vehicles would be expected to arrive and depart the Site

the primary access point for the early phase, an appropriate assessment of the suitability of the Fenelon Place junction for the proposed peak number of HGV movements should be provided. It will be expected that those vehicles accessing the site from RBKC would adhere to the Council’s established restrictions on construction traffic although the framework plan makes no reference to these.

pg 18 Construction - At each stage a detailed impact assessment of the construction phases would need to be undertaken to identify appropriate 3.34 migration measures. I note TfL’s request for modelling work to be undertaken to support this where required.

4.0

each day. Based on the distribution of construction traffic assumed in the assessments contained within the ES 89 vehicles would arrive via Fenelon Place and 18 vehicles would depart. These figures are daily and therefore once split down across the assumed site deliveries and collections time period of 09:30-16:30 this would equate to 13 arrivals and 3 departures per hour. This volume of traffic is not considered likely to result in a capacity issue and therefore no further assessment is considered necessary.

This is noted. The assessment requested would be expected to be conditioned.

RBKC Officer “Revised Warwick Road Access Strategy” – 4th April 2025 - Context: In February 2025 the findings of a design and modelling review of options for the cycle strategy were presented to the Transport Stakeholders. RBKC Highways provided feedback after the February 2025 postapplication meeting at the request of ECDC. These comments respond to the revised proposals for the Warwick Road access strategy, presented during the post-application transport stakeholder meeting on 25th February 2025. The revisions aim to address concerns raised by transport stakeholders, particularly around the need to ensure appropriate multimodal access to and from the Earl’s Court development site.

4.1 A key issue identified by the Council within previous comments was the lack of meaningful access improvements at Earl’s Court Underground station, as required under the Site Allocation. This included the failure to consider the impacts on the eastern footway of Warwick Road outside of the station access as a result of the expected intensification of activity generated by the development.

A mitigation scheme to address the PCL outside of Earl’s Court Station has been identified and is set out within the TAA.

The Viswalk modelling presented as part of the TA shows significantly increased levels of congestion and queuing adjacent to the pedestrian crossing, especially during the AM peak and due mitigation is considered necessary.

4.2

The latest material, from the applicant, acknowledges this issue and commits to undertake further assessment of the future Pedestrian Comfort Levels (PCLs) at this location in order to understand the scope of interventions required. It is acknowledged that due to existing spatial constraints, any substantial widening of the footway outside the station would require the scaling back of the scope of cycling infrastructure that is currently presented within the TA. Whilst recognising the opportunity cost of delivering such improvements, the Council support the principle of prioritising pedestrian enhancements at this key gateway access to the development.

No response required.

4.3

Any mitigation must include consideration of the potential to narrow the Warwick Road carriageway from three lanes to two lanes to facilitate localised footway widening with an appropriate assessment of the impacts upon journey times, (including bus journey times) along the Warwick Road corridor. As previously noted, an abrupt reduction in the number of traffic lanes would be expected to impact on traffic flow and opportunities to minimise this impact should be explored including the potential provision of kerbside car parking and alternative kerbside uses extending from Rich Lane towards the constriction such that northbound traffic streams are ranked in an efficient manner. This would align with existing traffic configurations on that part of Warwick Road north of Pembroke Road, and Finborough Road to the south and importantly would preserve the existing TFL bus stop and bus replacement arrangements on Warwick Road (in the vicinity of the Trebovir Road junction).

This matter is being considered further within a transport modelling sensitivity test that is being developed. The scope of which was issued to the Transport Stakeholders in June 2025.

4.4

The revision content identifies the need to provide a revised cycle strategy for Warwick Road to accommodate the necessary footway widening and, as presented, this includes the removal of all dedicated cycling infrastructure from the proposed Warwick Road junction arrangements. Alternative cycle access routes into and out of the development via Old Brompton Road to the south and 100 West Cromwell Road to the north are highlighted as potential alternatives by the applicant. The potential use of Cluny Mews for cycle access is also under consideration, though earlier design iterations seen by officer have deemed this impractical. I note that none of the proposed access points currently sit within phase 1 of the ‘early stages’ of the development and this risks large sections of the development being occupied prior to the delivery of these access points. Further discussion and consideration is required by the applicant on this matter to demonstrate the practicalities of the proposals.

Noted. Further information on the alternative access strategy is set out within the TAA. The revised cycle access strategy incorporates four elements:  



Access via Old Brompton Road and Lillie Road to the south. Access via Cluny Mews. As this would be subject to third party agreement if this cannot be delivered an alternative using EC22 would be provided. Cluny Mews would then allow connection to an improvements scheme at the Warwick Road junction and improved connection to the existing Toucan Crossing at Nevern Place. Access via EC22 to connect with the A4 West Cromwell Road for onward connection to an improvements scheme at the Warwick Road junction and improved connection to the existing Toucan Crossing at Nevern Place. Access via the Tesco Basement (subject to third party agreement) connecting with Fenelon Place from where cyclists could connect to an improvements scheme at the Warwick Road junction and improved connection to the existing Toucan Crossing at Nevern Place.

4.5

Furthermore, the TA indicates that 22% of cycle trips (253 AM peak, 150 PM peak) would be expected to use the Warwick Road access which under current conditions presents a hostile environment for cyclists with no safe options for southbound exit or onward route connections. While the lack of dedicated facilities may encourage some cyclists to use the alternative access points identified, the Warwick Road access will still likely be used by a large proportion of cyclists.

The cycle distribution has been updated to reflect the revised access strategy and this is presented in the TAA.

4.6

As a minimum, the applicant must demonstrate that a safe and suitable access arrangement for cyclists can be achieved based on the parameters

Noted, the majority of design proposals have already been the subject of a Stage 1 Road Safety Audit. Any further audits would only be

presented, prior to any grant of planning permission. To this end, a Stage 1 Road Safety Audit (RSA) must be undertaken to assess the suitability of any junction arrangement for the expected level and type of activity that would take place.

undertaken if a significantly new proposal was developed. Otherwise it would be expected that these would take place at a later design stage.

5.0

RBKC Officer Feedback – 9th May 2025- Context: In February 2025 the findings of a design and modelling review of options for the cycle strategy were presented to the Transport Stakeholders. RBKC Highways provided feedback after the February 2025 post-application meeting at the request of ECDC.

5.1

The amendments to the trip generation methodology are considered appropriate, and as discussed, no further changes are required to the approach presented.

Noted. The updated trip generation has been used in our TAA.

5.2

The proposals for the Earls Court Road / Old Brompton Road junction are considered reasonable at this stage. They meet the minimum requirement of introducing a pedestrian phase on each arm of the junction. The proposed all-green pedestrian stage is likely to represent a worst-case scenario in terms of traffic capacity. We would expect the final design to explore opportunities to redesign the layout of this junction to provide improved pedestrian priority, including removing the need for a three-stage crossing on the eastern arm. For information, it appears the design is based on an older OS basemap, with some minor discrepancies in the layout of the traffic islands.

Note that the mitigation design of this junction is evolving as initial testing within VISSIM shows disproportionate impacts on queues, journey times and delays as a result of an all red required for the pedestrian stages. These issues are reported in the TAA. Discussions will continue post submission of the TAA.

5.3

Separately, we previously discussed the design for the West Cromwell Road / Warwick Road junction that was produced for the Vissim model. My understanding was that this design differs from the version presented in the TA, which showed only limited interventions to the pedestrian crossing point on the eastbound filter lane. Would you be able to share this design please?

The design of the West Cromwell Road / Warwick Road that TfL shared was issued to the Transport Stakeholders. The VISSIM models do not include this layout on the basis that the planning consent for 100 West Cromwell Road does not specifically secure this improvement. Instead it secures £2.5m towards works at this junction. A sensitivity test is proposed to look at the cumulative effects of these improvements.

6.0

6.1

RBKC Officer Feedback – 4th June 2025- Context: Updated designs for the cycle parking within the LBHF Detailed Component were issued to RBKC and TfL for comment. EC05 - The cycle parking is split across two areas, one of which is identified as a ‘cycle hub’ and the other a ‘cycle store’. The purpose of this distinction is not evident and should be clarified.

The cycle store in EC05 is a smaller space accessible at ground level without the need to use the lift/stairs. The cycle hub is a larger cycle storage area only accessible via a lift/stairs.

6.2

The cycle hub would be accessed from a lift and staircase on the northern side of the building with a setback set of entrance doors. A secondary access through the building along several corridors to ground floor level would also The ability to relocate the doors or spaces is limited. However, be available. A number of segregated rooms are proposed which appear to consideration to alternative door types could be considered at be generously proportioned, although the inward-opening doors for some of detailed design. the rooms could potentially conflict with the stands or users of the stands closest to the doors when in use. Options to relocate these stands to remove this potential conflict should be explored.

6.3

The area identified as the cycle store would be accessed along a shared vehicle/cycle entrance on the eastern side of the building and through the central residents’ courtyard. Access into the store itself requires moving through two unaligned doors in close proximity, which would be challenging for users to navigate with a bike, and opportunities to avoid this must also be explored.

The doors have now been aligned to improve accessibility to the cycle store at ground level.

6.4

Arrangements for long-stay cycle parking for occupants of the commercial floorspaces are not identified and the proposed/expected arrangements should be identified.

This will form part of the fit-out of the commercial units.

Statutory Consultation Process - Schedule of Applicant's Responses to Comments Received Date: 4th July 2025 Planning Observations – Highways & Transportation Comments – 12th December 2024

Comments received from

LBHF – Earls Court Planning Application Initial Written Feedback – 18th February 2025

LBHF

Dates received

LBHF – March Post-app Transport Meeting and Trip Generation Response – 2nd May 2025 LBHF – May Post-app Transport Meeting – 21st May 2025

Format

PDF and Email

Subject

Highways and Transportation Comments

SUMMARY OF COMMENT

RESPONSE

1.0

Planning Observations – Highways & Transportation Comments – 12th December 2024 – Context: Initial comments were provided by LBHF on the planning application.

1.1

Highways continue to highlight their concerns approach being adopted to bring the development forward, namely the reliance on Design Codes and Parameter Plans with all matters reserved – including access – even for the detailed plots WB03, WB04 and WB05. With the Design Code and Parameter Plans informing the Outline elements, covering the remainder of the site build-out. This has resulted in the access and transport principles being predominantly absent from the detailed application, meaning the detailed elements within LBHF would not be secured with essential access points or other transport considerations in place.

This comment is noted. The planning strategy has been discussed with the Transport Stakeholders pre-application and is explained within the submitted Transport Assessment (TA). The planning strategy adopted has been developed to ensure flexibility. However, to provide comfort that the proposals are deliverable from a

transport perspective illustrative information is included within the TA. The planning application does not seek consent for phasing and therefore whilst it is noted that the access strategy (to the adopted highway outside of the plot) for the detailed plots is a reserved matter pursuant to the outline this is a function of their location on The Site and the detail desired by LBHF can be conditioned to ensure that a suitable design is brought forwards in due course.

1.2

These concerns continue to be raised as important considerations such as minimum 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 are all open for debate with none of these being secured as part of the detailed planning submission for plots WB03, WB04 and WB05.

These matters can all be considered at the Reserved Matters Application (RMA) stage and conditions used to ensure that access and movement requirements for the detailed plots are fully considered.

1.3

As such, LBHF Highway and Transport continue to flag that the planning approach being adopted does NOT provide comfort on these essential and key transport matters. The approach being taken, involving the use of Reserved Matters, S96a, S73, Parameter Plans, Design Code, planning conditions, obligations and other control measures makes for an overly complicated and confusing approach in future years. The approach adopted simply assists the developer in maintaining maximum control and flexibility of the development. This is highlighted as this approach has a serious impact on any positive influence that may be identified by any Transport Steering Group or Monitoring and Evaluation Plan set up, as the developer will simply refer back to the Design Code and say this was not agreed or this does not align, in effect undermining the effectiveness of any such group.

A series of workshops have been held with LBHF Highways post-application to discuss the planning strategy and agree a way forwards on a number of matters relating to transport.

1.4

Lack of commitment to ‘MUST’ minimums for footway widths and carriageways in Design Code and Parameter Plans for all plots, including the detailed plots of WB03, WB04 and WB05, which is not considered appropriate.

The Design Code has been reviewed and updated following stakeholder feedback. No footway widths are provided as this would be reviewed as part of the design process to ensure that the appropriate guidance at the time the design is progressed is implemented.

1.5

The wider approach to splitting the site into separate character zones/area (p17) from a movement perspective (not design) is questioned as to how this provides an easy-to-navigate public realm space or continuity of materials / signage etc to make it easy for people using the site to understand. By splitting the site into many parts has the potential to result in mixed materials and confusing public realm space that is not joined up. (This has been seen on Fulham Gas Works and White City Living, where plots are not seamlessly connected as different contractors put forwards different materials).

It is not intended that splitting the site into character areas would impact legibility. The design of the public realm will be the subject of RMAs and therefore there is opportunity to ensure that a consistent approach is adopted.

The development must tie into the existing public highway levels at all points along the boundary where interaction takes place. Recent examples of other developments have highlighted that developers are not aware they MUST meet existing levels, and it is not for the public highway levels to be changed 1.6

1.7

to match the development. It must be demonstrated that a level threshold between existing and proposed is being provided. A levels difference of +/- 1m between the site and public highway/realm would not be supported as that would require stepped access. All interaction along the site boundary where is connects to existing network, should be detailed as a MUST in the Design Code as level access. General comment throughout the Design Code – it is noted that dimensions have been removed from some of the cross sections of the different type of street characters, so it is not clear what is being proposed. Dimensions are hidden and not made clear from the outset. More importantly, there are no minimum or maximums dimensions set out when these are noted to measure against under the

It is not the intention of the Proposed Development to adjust existing levels of the public highway.

The dimensions and design of the public realm will be the subject of RMAs in due course.

requirement for MUST, dimensions relating to footways and carriageways are being indicated as illustrative.

1.8

All access routes, where accepted, MUST be provided with footways on BOTH sides of the carriageway. Provision of footways on one-side only will not be supported.

Whilst this is accepted in principle there are locations on the Site where this is unnecessary given the desire line of pedestrians. Therefore this is not agreed.

1.9

Reliance on third-party land that is not public highway to deliver new vehicle access points on Aisgill Avenue and Mund Street is not supported. This does not appear to have been taken into account and/or no evidence has been presented that demonstrate that landowner agreement has been secured for this land. Plans should be presented that compare the site boundary with the public highway extents should be prepared to highlight these areas. To avoid a ransom situation and to enable the site to be delivered, alternative access to the serve plots WB03, WB04 and WB05 from within the site should be identified and brought forward.

Discussions have continued post-application and the access strategy has been revised to accord with those discussions. In particular access arrangements on Aisgill Avenue have been amended.

There is a lack of an alternative access strategy that removes vehicle access from LBHF Housing Estate land on Aisgill Avenue and Mund Street. The housing estate is considered a quiet residential area, with low traffic movements, the introduction of multiple access points to facilitate large vehicles accessing 1.10 these narrow quiet roads will change the function and operation of these roads, potentially leading to a negative amenity impact on existing residents. The assessments presented do not cover a daily profile, instead only consider AM and PM peak periods, the impacts on new vehicle access points has not been assessed fully over a full daily operation.

Discussions have continued post-application and the access strategy has been revised to accord with those discussions. The TA concentrates on the weekday network peak hours (when the trip generation of the Proposed Development is considered to be greatest) and additional information has been provided within the TAA with respect to non-peak hour and weekend activities.

1.11 LBHF do not support the approach to introduce new road infrastructure at the loss of pedestrian infrastructure, which is contrary to the People First approach advised by the Masterplan. These vehicle

The access strategy has been revised following discussions post-application. The

access points are encouraged to be removed and the Design Code/Parameter Plan updated to remove these multiple vehicle access points from the housing estate land.

updated access strategy is presented in the TAA.

Further, the proposal for multiple vehicle access points on Aisgill Avenue and Mund Street is not 1.12 supported within the findings of the Road Safety Audit, which recommends these are removed or consolidated.

The access strategy has been revised following discussions post-application. The updated access strategy is presented in the TAA. In particular the number of access points on Aisgill Avenue have been rationalised.

LBHF do not support reversing of vehicles off the public highway. All supportable vehicle movements are 1.13 required to enter and exit in forward gear. Reversing vehicle movements that are introduced with new vehicle access points will be resisted on highway-safety grounds.

The access strategy has been revised following discussions post-application. The updated access strategy is presented in the TAA. In particular an alternative strategy for collection of waste from WB05-T2 has been proposed.

Access plans should include public highway extents to demonstrate third-party land requirements. If new access points are provided, these MUST be able to accommodate two-way working without 1.14 impacting on public highway operation. Vehicle tracking presented in the application, details vehicle would be encroaching onto the opposite carriageway on exit, on Mund Street, Aisgill Avenue and Lillie Road.

The extents of public highway are clearly shown on all indicative access drawings presented in the TA. Over-running for large vehicles in an urban area is not uncommon in order to strike a balance between all users of the highway and prevent a vehicular dominated environment.

1.15 Loss of on-street public car parking, to enable new vehicle access points, is not supported. Although car parking surveys have been undertaken they have not picked up where residents are parking, as such

The conclusion of the survey is that there is sufficient capacity to accommodate

residents would be impacted with the loss of on-street car parking as the areas of the loss have been noted as areas heavily used by local residents.

relocation of the small quantum of parking impacted by the Development Proposals.

Use of the Housing Estate to access the site from the earliest enabling phases in relation to uncontrolled construction access is not supported. No evidence has been submitted that agreements are in place to 1.16 obtain third-party land agreements to create new road infrastructure or that housing estate roads are able to support large construction vehicle movements and the volume of construction traffic (although this remains undefined).

Discussions on this matter have continued post application and the construction access strategy has been updated to remove access from Mund Street and Aisgill Avenue. Assessment of the impacts of construction traffic using Mund Street and Aisgill Avenue have been assessed in the planning application and therefore if agreement is reached at a later time for access to be provided via these roads appropriate assessment has been completed.

If the access on Lillie Road is being brought back into operation, then vehicles should be accommodated to enable vehicles to enter and exit the site without encroaching onto the opposite side of the 1.17 carriageway – this is a key route between LBHF and RBKC and having a new vehicle access that interrupts the free-flow and safety of movements along this corridor would not be supported.

It is not entirely clear what access point this refers to. Notwithstanding this the access proposals at the Lillie Road Bus Layover are being reviewed and the junction with Empress Place is proposed to be signalised, the staging of the which would remove any potential conflict.

The stopping up of public highway land is not supported by LBHF, whether Empress Place or Beaumont Avenue, as the public highway continues to serve a function. LBHF would accept working with the 1.18 applicant to develop public realm schemes that support the delivery of the Masterplan on public highway land and discuss adoption of new public highway extents through the relevant agreements, such as Section 278 and Section 38 to assist in the delivery of the masterplan aspirations.

Discussions on this matter have continued post-application. A stopping up order for Empress Place is no longer being proposed. However, changes to the area of public

highway adoption on Beaumont Avenue continue to be proposed. LBHF do not have any specific comments to make in respect of the strategic modelling approach, as it impacts Bus, Rail and Underground as these are managed and operated by TfL. LBHF key comments and 1.19 concerns are focused on localised impacts, principally the local roads including but not limited to Lillie Road, North End Road and the A4. Traffic modelling does not appear to include any local level modelling for the base year of assessment. The extent of modelling is relatively limited within the borough. Based on the microsimulation VISSIM journey time increases (circa additional 200seconds) and high Degree of Saturation above 80% (or Reserved Flow Capacity above 0.80) from the presented results, LBHF consider that the modelling should be extended to the west to cover these junctions: 1.20

1.21

      

Barons Court Road j/w Gliddon Road and West Cromwell Road (A4) and Lillie Road j/w \Fulham Palace Road. Dawes Road (A3219) j/w North End Road – signalised junction, North End Road j/w Fulham Road (A304) - priority junction, Fulham Palace Road (A219) j/w Lillie Road – signalised junction, Lillie Road j/w Munster Road – priority junction, and A4 Talgarth Road j/w Gliddon Road.

The above can be reconsidered if there are mitigation proposals in place to offset journey time and/or capacity increases generated by the development set out.

The Road Safety Audits undertaken highlight, North End Road and Lillie Road are both subject to a high 1.22 level of collisions often involving vulnerable road users. The approach to introduce new vehicle accesses points within the estates, that will intensify and increase turning movements (principally by HGVs) from North End Road is a concern as this is likely to increase collisions rather than a strategy that would

This is incorrect. Base Year (2022) modelling is set out within Appendix R of the TA.

The scope of modelling is based upon that which was set out within the Transport Assessment Scoping Report. Analysis of junctions further afield has been undertaken utilising outputs from LoHAM. This analysis was issued to LBHF for comment. Updated modelling has been set out which can be found in the TAA.

Updated modelling is set out within the TAA and the package of mitigation has been reviewed and refined accordingly. The access strategy has been revised. Updated mitigation has also been set out within the TAA.

reduce collisions along these critical links. Consideration should be given to how this would respond on the Vison Zero strategy. The modelling results for North End Road, also highlight that this north-south link is already operating close to capacity and will be pushed above capacity with minimal increases in traffic demand. The proposals will result in an increase of vehicles, being routed into the site via North End Road, including 1.23 construction vehicles. Significant improvements will be required, and these will need to be delivered as part of any early enabling works packages. For clarity, these works would not form any mitigation as these works would be required to facilitate the development. Mitigation and improvements would be secured in addition to any enabling works.

An updated package of mitigation has been set out within the TAA. The timing of delivery of this mitigation is subject to ongoing discussions.

In a review of the information submitted, there does appear to be a lack of justification that has supported why are ‘full’ impact assessment of the development has not been presented. There is reference to an overall maximum development quantum proposed against the flexible approach being adopted for the wider masterplan, but this does not seem to reflect that the site itself is a trip 1.24 generator, not just the building sqm. Examples around the confusing nature of the approach adopted include the trip distribution profiles are not clearly set out, they are difficult to read, do not appear to include the baseline network flows, do not clearly detail where trips are coming in and out of the development site in relation to the main access points for either vehicles or non-vehicle trips. In the absence of this basic information, the impacts cannot be relied upon.

The approach adopted for the strategic modelling was set out within pre-application discussions which LBHF were involved in. Information is provided within the TA that sets out how trips are distributed on the network and this has been split down by mode in the various assessments presented. Traffic flow diagrams are provided in Appendix Q. Further information was also provided to LBHF post-application to aid understanding of trips by access point.

In a review of the trip generation information, there is a reliance on TRiCS that has selected sites that are not reflective of the location, with some sites selected outside of London and are old data sets, pre Covid. The trip generation analysis is overly complicated and has sought to justify why only one scenario 1.25 has been indicated to be modelled, there is no sensitivity assessment that considers the impact of the development over a series of situations. This could include, when an event is taking place on-site, as this has the potential to generate a significant uplift in trips generated, akin to a football match being hosted. As such LBHF query whether the trips being assessed only in the AM and PM peak periods

The core assessment presented within the TA is based on the outputs from TfL’s strategic transport models. TRICS is used to provide a comparative analysis and to supplement the outputs from TfL’s models where appropriate. TfL’s models focus on

actually captures the greatest impact of the development on the network, if the development is seeking a flexible approach, impacts would not be confined to the AM and PM only!

1.26

1.27

Detailed comments have not as yet been provided on the EIA, but this should be based on the point that has the greatest impact on sensitive receptors, not simply confined to a peak period.

Undertaking a sensitivity test is in accordance with the latest TRiCS best practise guidance for Decide and Provide or at least provide daily profiles, covering weekday and weekends

the weekday network peak hours and the focus on the network peak hours was set out within the Transport Assessment Scoping Report. Notwithstanding, further information about trips throughout the day has been presented in Technical Note 76 (TN76) that was issued to the Transport Stakeholders in January 2025 and forms an appendix to the TAA. The scope of the EIA has been scoped with LBHF and follows industry standard guidance. From a transport perspective this is the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA) Guidelines: Environmental Assessment of Traffic and Movement (2023). The core assessment presented within the TA is based on the outputs from TfL’s strategic transport models. This approach was set out within the Transport Assessment Scoping Report. Notwithstanding, further information about trips throughout the day and at weekends has been presented in TN76 that was issued to the Transport

Stakeholders in January 2025 and forms an appendix to the TAA. The traffic modelling results should also be undertaken in the scenario that the access points on Mund 1.28 Street and Aisgill Avenue are not available for use (if the third-party land is not secured) as this would increase loadings onto other vehicle access points and external routes.

The access strategy has been updated to remove general vehicular access on Aisgill Avenue and Mund Street and this updated assessment is presented in the TAA.

The introduction of a car club on-site could be supported, but this would need to be provided as part of a detailed consideration to agree locations and a reduced quantum. The 25 spaces currently proposed is 1.29 not supported and a significant reduction in the number of spaces needs to be detailed and identification of these spaces in proximity to mobility-hubs.

Whilst it is acknowledged that the car club is not supported it remains part of the Proposed Development. Further rationale for the provision of the car club is set out within the TAA and Parking Design and Management Plan (PDMP) Addendum. No change to the number of spaces is proposed.

The inclusion of 35 general visitor car parking spaces is not supported and is considered contrary to policy and the car-lite approach to provide only essential and operational car parking. Provision of 1.30 private general car parking is not supported. Where car parking is provided for essential and operational needs, this should be set out in the servicing management plan to ensure that any car parking spaces are located to support the function for which they are intended.

Whilst it is acknowledged that the visitor parking is not supported it remains part of the Proposed Development. Further rationale for the provision of the visitor parking is set out within the TAA and PDMP Addendum. No change to the number of spaces is proposed.

1.31 Confirmation that emergency services accept access into the undercroft in particular for fire access.

The emergency service access strategy (see the separately prepared Fire Strategy) does not rely on access to the undercroft. For clarity the undercroft has been interpreted

as meaning the Service Access Road that serves WB03, WB04 and WB05. General agreement that servicing consolidation helps reduce vehicle trips, however no off-site consolidation has been proposed. Instead, on-site consolidation is proposed, which does not reduce vehicle movements to or from the site as vehicles would access the site as normal to access the site for 1.32 all servicing requirements. It is also noted that this consolidation is not proposed at the outset of the development, but would only be delivered. Conversations are actively encouraged to be held with Shepherd’s Bush Market developer, as they have included an off-site consolidation centre approach that could also serve this site

Further information on the servicing strategy is set out within the Delivery and Servicing Plan (DSP) Addendum. The trip generation has been revised to remove consolidation assumptions.

The lack of an off-site consolidation hub or arrangement that reduces the requirement for vehicles to come to site, intensifies and increases the demand for general vehicles to access the site via Empress 1.33 Approach, to access the undercroft servicing area. This is noted as potentially impacting the safe and efficient operation of the bus ‘layover’, in addition to the considered use of the Empress State building that also has a high general vehicle demand.

The flexible nature of the planning consent sought means that it is not possible to commit to use of an off-site consolidation centre at this stage. However, the DSP includes provision for exploring such a measure.

The approach to servicing and delivery is also being flagged as this appears to the principle reason for 1.34 providing an increased number of vehicle access points within the housing estate, rather than seeking to rely on the consolidation approach that should be focused on reducing vehicle demands.

The rationale for the access strategy has been set out within post-application discussions. With respect to access from Mund Street to provide access to the Site this is to provide increased permeability and reduce the reliance on a single point of access which could pose both highway safety and capacity issues.

Cycle parking approach is generally supported, but comments are made that these are not contained as MUST and refer to inclusion of access via stairs which is not supported. Access to cycle parking/storage 1.34 areas should be level access. Comments on the detailed application as it relates to plots within LBHF to follow.

The cycle parking layouts have been reviewed and refined post-application to respond to detailed comments received.

Location of proposed cycle hire docking stations, such as that on Lillie Road opposite West Brompton 1.35 Station would not reduce footway width. If proposed by development then should be located within development area and form part of the detailed application.

The location of the cycle hire docking stations are currently indicative and will be the subject of an RMA at an appropriate time.

Bus analysis has been based on loadings from individual bus stops, but no consideration appears to have been given as to what bus services serve those stops, if only one bus service then is this sufficient 1.36 capacity on that bus to accommodate the increase in loadings. Applicant should support increase in bus services and frequencies to accommodate demand, increase in weekend and night-time access.

The bus analysis has been updated following Stakeholder comments and this updated analysis is presented within the TAA. This updated analysis concludes that the trips arising from the Proposed Development can be accommodated on the bus network.

LBHF continue to push for the Lillie Road bus ‘layover’ to provide provision for increased bus accessibility to be provided. Bus passengers should be able to board and alight buses from this location as an improvement and not just return the same function as existing. There will be a significant uplift in 1.37 demand and provision of improved bus access should be enabled, this would also help to off-set reliance on car parking access for people considered under the Blue Badge remit, rather than seeking to uplift car parking on-site, it would be better and easier if access to bus services was the preferred approach.

A workshop has been held post-application to review and discuss the Lillie Road Bus Layover. A review of the layout is currently being carried out.

1.38 What is the new vehicle access link between Empress Approach and Empress Place designed to serve?

This is to provide emergency and servicing access to The Boulevard as well as having the potential to be used for managed access.

A Construction Traffic Logistics Plan (CTLP) has been submitted with the application. No construction logistics plan has been submitted. In the absence of this document, LBHF are unable to identify the impacts that will be generated by the development, no details have been provided on the This document is reflective of the outline 1.39 quantum of construction vehicles that are being expected to access the site from the west (as part of the nature of the application. It is expected that enabling works), no vehicle tracking has been submitted. This is connected to early points about access detailed CTLPs would form a condition of via North End Road and increased turning movements by HGVs on this already sensitive road. any planning consent. At this point matters such as vehicle tracking would be addressed. Based on the access constraints, the level of traffic and resident car parking, the use of the estate roads for construction access is not supported. The applicant would have to demonstrate that they have secured third-party land ownership agreements to create new access points into the site, vehicle 1.40 tracking to identify a maximum sized vehicle and a commitment to limiting construction movements through the estate (if access could be agreed) and agreement that carriageway resurfacing and other identified essential works being carried out in advance of any works commencing.

The construction access strategy has been revised and an updated position is set out within the TAA and CTLP Addendum.

1.41 Detailed comments on ATZ, Beaumont Avenue and more detail on Construction Approach to follow.

Discussions have continued post-application as part of a series of workshops.

Minimal mitigation proposed within LBHF to address the impacts of the proposed new development. The bulk of mitigation is focused on TfL operated train stations and cycle connectivity to the east. No 1.42 proposals have been detailed to mitigate the impacts of the development on Lillie Road, North End Road, public highway links within the housing estate areas and north beyond the A4.

The mitigation package is focused on areas expected to witness the greatest impacts resulting from the Proposed Development.

No details have been submitted to determine the impact of vehicles accessing the estate via Thaxton Road and Mund Street/Aisgill Avenue if being used for construction access, no determine of vehicle size, vehicle quantum or frequency have been included, given the sensitivity of vehicles accessing the site via 1.43 third party land, through an existing housing estate, a greater level of information is required. This would need to respond on whether agreements have been reached with landowners over any agreements to obtain/pay for the third-party land (not public highway land).

The access strategy has been the subject of post-application discussions and a revised access strategy is set out within the TAA.

Split of traffic using access points via Gibbs Green Housing Estate – no numbers given for different 1.44 development scenarios or construction period. Initial figures noted refer to 175 HGV movements per day.

This figure relates to construction traffic. A breakdown of construction vehicles by access is set out within Figure 6-3 of the CTLP. This figure has been updated in the CTLP Addendum.

What happens if the Lillie Road depot land does not become available? Would the development remain as the early phases only. Would the wider strategic mitigation packages still be delivered, such as public 1.45 realm improvements, bus improvements, railway station upgrades, ‘new’ junction upgrades, cycle infrastructure etc…

This is the purpose of the Early Phases assessment set out within the TA. The mitigation associated with the Early Phases is set out in Chapter 9 of the TA and specifically table 81 and updated within the TAA.

The TA remains limited in its assessment and consideration 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 1.46 the North End Market, the TA should include considerations to these roads within the constraints section and clearly set out what mitigation is proposed to come forward.

The TA sets out an assessment of the impacts of the Proposed Development on the Transport Network based on the scope set out within the Transport Assessment Scoping Report.

1.47

The TA provides minimal consideration to the function of the housing estate directly to the west of the site (which previously formed part of the wider masterplan consideration).

The TA provides limited analysis of the existing facilities, connectivity and infrastructure in place to the west of the site, within the housing estate area. As such the TA and supporting Parameter Plans and 1.48 Design Code do not appear to have factored in the third-partly land ownership (not public highway) issues that the access strategy relies upon.

Key routes through the Estate have been considered within the Transport Impact Assessment and ATZ set out in the TA. The applicant is aware of the land to the west of the Site that belongs to LBHF but is not adopted highway. Discussions continue with LBHF on how access will be delivered to

enable the agreed principle of east-west connectivity to be realised. Limited analysis has been submitted as to the level of impact that these generally low-trafficked and quiet routes would be subjected to should the strategy as submitted come forward. As such, there does 1.49 not appear to be any mitigation of improvements being set out to offset the impacts of the development, whether with enabling works or mitigation. 2.0

LBHF – Earls Court Planning Application Initial Written Feedback – 18th February 2025 – Context: LBHF provided written feedback on a variety of subjects including comments on transport. Proposed use of estate roads during construction/post construction

2.1

Aisgill Avenue and Mund Street are considered in both the TA and EIA.

3.25 The principle of the use of estate roads is not supported, and we would welcome further discussions about your alternative arrangements.

The access strategy has been the subject of post-application discussions and a revised access strategy is set out within the TAA and CTLP Addendum.

Parameter Plan 008 – Proposed Access and Movement Question about proposed access points identified off estate land (Aisgill Avenue). 2 pedestrian points/1 pedestrian & cycle point & 2 pedestrian/cycle/vehicular route – Have these been signed off? 2.2

Empress Place – identified as pedestrian/cycle only with bus/vehicular route off Lillie Road (as per existing) and pedestrian/cycle/vehicular route off Beaumont Ave. 2 further potential access points identified including off Development Site on Mund Street – tbc at detailed stage. Further discussion required.

It is unclear who this question is directed at. However, the access strategy has been the subject of post-application discussions and the parameter plan updated. More fundamentally the principle of east-west connectivity was agreed with LBHF at an early stage.

See comments on Part 7 of Detailed Component DAS regarding emergency vehicle access off Aisgill Avenue at WB05.

2.3

Parameter Plan 008 – Proposed Access and Movement - Proposed route between DZ W and T (shown in illustrative scheme) is missing from this parameter plan.

The parameter plan has been updated to address this comment.

Design and Access Statement – Outline Component – Illustrative Masterplan Accessible parking and taxi drop-off 2.4

SE corner of WK10, where it is almost certain there will be a residential access core, is remote from taxi drop-off points. As noted in DRP sessions, this will be inconvenient to elderly or disabled residents. Consider extending access closer to this corner. See also Access and Movement Parameter Plan which suggests even less accessibility for taxis than the diagram on this page. Design and Access Statement – Outline Component – Illustrative Masterplan

2.5

7.4 Deliveries and Servicing - The extent of access is limited and suggests deliveries (e.g. take-away food) to many residential cores will not be possible. Detailed Component – Design and Access Statement – Technical Strategies

2.6

7.1 Access & Movement - Diagram shows emergency vehicle access via Aisgill Avenue/Aisgill Gardens as well as south of WB05 but Parameter Plan 008 doesn’t show this additional point of access. If the intent is to have two points of access should both be marked on the Parameter Plan?

There are facilities available for drop-off at the southern end of Development Zone T as well as on Aisgill Avenue and between Plots WK10 and WK11.

The Transport Strategy encourages takeaway deliveries by non-vehicular modes such as by bicycle or on foot. The access strategy has been the subject of post-application discussions. The parameter plans and development proposals have been updated accordingly.

Detailed Component – Design and Access Statement – Technical Strategies 2.7

3.0

WB05 Refuse strategy: DAS is silent but Draft Waste Management Strategy requires all residents to take their waste to the waste storage rooms at ground floor level. How will disabled/wheelchair users manage this system? Noted most containers are 1100l Eurobins. How will disabled/wheelchair users operate these 1370mm high bins?

Refuse bins suitable for use by mobility impaired residents will be incorporated into the proposals.

LBHF – March Post-app Transport Meeting and Trip Generation Response – 2nd May 2025 - Context: The trip generation was the subject of postapplication discussions with the Transport Stakeholders. A Technical Note (TN76) setting out further information and a proposed updated trip generation was circulated to the Transport Stakeholders in January 2025 for agreement. These comments were provided in response to TN76. The comments were subsequently discussed at a post-application transport meeting in May 2025 and an updated trip generation utilised in the TAA.

In terms of the residential trip rates, it is noted that an earlier error has been corrected as such LBHF have no further comments to make on the trip rates presented for this land use

Noted.

3.2

In terms of Office, LBHF have no further comments on the trip rates presented. However, LBHF would request clarity on the occupancy rate of 85% and how this compares to office occupancy rates PostCOVID.

The 85% occupancy rate is an industry standard approach. The assessment on the transport network using TfL’s models uses data largely from a pre-covid baseline and therefore this is not considered relevant to the assessment presented.

3.3

In terms of the R&D, LBHF note that a revised analysis is being presented which has effectively halved the trips being predicted for this land use. LBHF request clarity over how the trip rates have been applied for this land use in terms of sqm and whether there is any discounting taking place in terms of the sqm. Noting that the planning submission has been based on a first principle’s approach (person per sqm figure), it is not clear whether the TRiCS analysis was interrogated on this basis to determine if the sqm metric derived was appropriate. In the absence of this clarity, LBHF support the use of the trips presented in the original planning submission and not the updated analysis.

An updated trip generation was set out at the May transport post-app meeting which reverted to use of the previous R&D trip rates as agreed with LBHF.

3.1

3.4

In terms of the Cultural trip rates, LBHF question the methodology applied to this land use and query why a first principles approach, as utilised for other proposed land uses has not been adopted. It is noted and broadly accepted that seeking to apply TRiCS to this type of land use has the potential to underestimate trips being made and may not be representative of the final use. As such LBHF would recommend that a first principle’s sensitivity approach should be adopted based on an ‘event’ taking place, i.e. 2,500 people arriving in the AM peak and leaving in the PM peak, to capture when an event (across all three venues) could be taking place as a robust position. Should Earls Court present an Events Management Plan and put forward proposals to limit the opening times of the venues or limit the times when all three venues can be operating, i.e. only outside peak times, or a maximum of two venues at any one time, then LBHF would be happy to re-consider this approach.

The effects of events are set out in TN76. It is expected that an event management plan would form a condition of any consent.

In terms of the Retail trip rates LBHF have no further comments to make in respect of this land use. However, clarity is requested as to whether any trip rate discounts have been applied for this land use for pass-by and linked trips? 3.5 In terms of the Food and Beverage trip rates LBHF have no further comments to make in respect of this land use. However, clarity is requested as to whether any trip rate discounts have been applied for this land use for pass-by and linked trips?

Noted. Only internalisation factors are applied which are set out within TN76.

3.6

In terms of the Nursery trip rates, LBHF query the figures presented in Table 24, as these imply that the same trips take place in the AM and PM peaks. This appears to be an error as the trip rates in Table 23 are different. This table should be updated to reflect the trip rates. Once this is done LBHF have no further comments to make on this land use.

Noted. These were corrected and are set out in the revised version of TN76.

3.7

In terms of Education trip rates LBHF have no further comments to make.

Noted.

In terms of the internalisation LBHF would support the comments made by TfL in respect of how the percentage has been applied and revising the percentage applied for the Nursery. However, LBHF would expect that these are applied to the table in this email, as these are the trips that LBHF would support.

Noted. Following review of the comments from TfL and LBHF, this has been reduced to 80%. This is reflected in the revised version of TN76.

In relation to the servicing and delivery, LBHF have raised comments in earlier meetings, with the primary concern being connected to any reductions applied to the servicing and delivery trips. What is presented is considered a significant underestimation of the potential trips generated. LBHF are not supportive of any reduction being applied to these trips, as reductions are not within the direct control of the applicant. Given any underestimating of these trips has the potential to lead to significant impacts – especially related with the interaction between the SAR from Lillie Road, Empress Place and the Bus ‘Layover’ (as highlighted on Tuesday).

All assumptions relating to consolidation have been removed from the trip generation.

3.8

3.9

No evidence has been submitted to support the reductions being presented; these have only been based on assumptions. As such, LBHF are not supportive of any % reduction being applied to the servicing and delivery trips at this stage for this type of mixed-use development site.

LBHF have experience with a number of similar large redevelopment sites in the borough comprising mixed use occupiers. Based on conversations held with operators and building managers, these identify that individual occupiers are not keen on being restricted in a way that prevents deliveries, occupiers 3.10 want to be in charge of their own deliveries and servicing needs, as such applying a reduction on a mixed-use site (with a large proportion of residential), is unlikely to result in a reduction, and certainly not in the range of 25% reduction as being indicated for commercial use.. It is recognised that ECDC have set out that they would seek to introduce a combination of an off-site consolidation centre and sustainable last mile delivery measures to assist in reducing these essential and operational based vehicles numbers over the lifetime of the development. As these would be secured 3.11 through appropriate agreements/obligations, these measures would be separate from the trip generation assessment at this stage.

All assumptions relating to consolidation have been removed from the trip generation.

Noted.

4.0

LBHF – May Post-app Transport Meeting– 21st May 2025 - Context: LBHF requested consideration of bus stop waiting areas in addition to the bus stop analysis already prepared.

4.1

A bus stop waiting area analysis has been undertaken for the bus stops in LBHF and is presented in Appendix A.

In addition to understanding bus demand a bus stop waiting area analysis should be undertaken.

Appendix A

Bus Stop ID

Bus Stop Name

Number of Services

Bus Services

EMPRESS STATE BUILDING / WEST BROMPTON

74, 190, 430

All Phases 2041

Demand

AM Boarding

2539

Early Phases 2031

Alighting

Bus Stop Capacity and Infrastructure Assumptions and Recommentations

Boarding Alighting Boarding Alighting Boarding Alighting

Street Use

Type of Bus Stand

Mix of Office, Back to Road Queues around this type of Bus Retail and Stand form predominantly Residential on either side of the stand leaving the footway clear for free movement. However, research suggest that queues might stretch between 600 and 29 1,300mm outside of the stand.

Mix of Office, Bus Flag Retail and Residential

2538

9414

8410

EMPRESS STATE BUILDING / WEST BROMPTON

WEST BROMPTON STATION

430, 74

129

145

172

WEST KENSINGTON ESTATE

28, 306

WEST KENSINGTON ESTATE

306

Mix of Office, Back to Road Queues around this type of Bus Retail and Stand form predominantly Residential on either side of the stand leaving the footway clear for free movement. However, research suggest that queues might 86 stretch between 600 and 1,300mm outside of the stand.

The footway is aprox. 3.6 metres wide, with no furniture clutters and no ATMs nearby. There is a big tree next to the Bus Stand, but this is not likely to disturb flows.

Mix of Office, Back to Road Queues around this type of Bus The footway is 2 metres wide, Retail and Stand form predominantly with no furniture clutters and Residential on either side of the stand no ATMs nearby leaving the footway clear for free movement. However, research suggest that queues might 46 stretch between 600 and 1,300mm outside of the stand.

Back to Building

Queues around this type of Bus The footway is aprox 2.7 Stand form between the stand metres wide, with no furniture and the kerb edge as well as on clutters and no ATMs nearby either side of the stand (see dark grey zone around stand). The impact depends on how busy the bus stop is but was seen to be in the range of 600 to 1,200 mm.

Back to Road Queues around this type of Bus Stand form predominantly on either side of the stand leaving the footway clear for free movement. However, research suggest that queues might stretch between 600 and 1,300mm outside of the stand.

Next to Station?

The footway is 2 metres wide, with no property access nor ATMs nearby. There is one Litter bin and posts to both sides of the Bus Stand.

The available footway space is aprox. 6 metres wide. Apart from using an individual Bus Flag, this bus stop is located on a corner area free of furniture clutters and there are no nearby ATMs. Although there is a property access on the same corner, the width of the footway helps to mitigate any potential spatial constraints.

Mostly Residential with some mix of Retail 11253

Spatial features

Queues around this type of Bus Stand form around the flag parallel to the road, and at busy sites parallel to the building line as well. The impact depends on how busy the bus stop is but it was seen to be in the range of 1,600 to 2,200 mm at the road edge and one person deep (460mm) at the building edge.

Mostly Residential with some mix of Retail 11254

Space for queuing and boarding*

The footway is aprox 3.5 metres wide, with no furniture clutters and no ATMs nearby. There is one Litter bin and posts to both sides of the Bus Stand. The retail access does not pose any spatila constraint.

Yes, West Brompton Underground and National Rail

The PCL for Mixed Office and Retail areas tolerate up to 59% of restricted movement. Assuming low flows (<600pph) the width of this footway is within the minimum limit to accommodate the flows. Although there is a significant increase in the demand compared to the baseline of this bus stop, under the given scenarios, the projected amount of passengers is still low and should not indicate immediate spatial requirements. However, monitoring of the 430 and 74 services, along with passenger flows during operation, could be recommended. A reassessment of the Bus Stand in use may also be appropriate; such as considering the installation of an individual Bus Flag and/or the removal of street furniture that may impact passenger flow and available space for queuing and boarding, should the need arise.

The PCL for Mixed Office and Retail areas tolerate up to 59% of restricted movement. Even Asssuming active flows (600pph 1,200pph) the width of this footway should be able to accommodate the flows plus a large piece of furniture. Although there is a significant increase in the demand compared to the baseline of this bus stop, under the given scenarios, the projected amount of passengers is still low and does not indicate immediate spatial requirements. As per TfL Guidance on pedestrian comfort, the existing footway could accomodate high flows >1,200pph.

The PCL for Mixed Office and Retail areas tolerate up to 59% of restricted movement (same as for Transport Interchange). Asssuming active flows (600pph - 1,200pph) the width of this footway should be able to accommodate the flows plus a large piece of furniture. The projected increase in demand for this bus stop under the given scenarios does not indicate immediate spatial requirements.

The PCL for Mixed Office and Retail areas tolerate up to 59% of restricted movement (same as for Transport Interchange). Assuming low flows (<600pph) the width of this footway is within the minimum limit to accommodate the flows.The projected increase in demand for this bus stop under the given scenarios is very low, therefore does not Yes, West indicate immediate spatial requirements. However, monitoring the 74 Brompton services, along with passenger flows during operation, could be Underground and recommended. A reassessment of the Bus Stand in use may also be National Rail appropriate; such as considering the installation of an individual Bus Flag, should the need for more space arise in the future.

The PCL for Residential areas tolerate up to 50% of restricted movement. Assuming low flows (<600pph) the width of this footway should be able to accommodate the flows plus a large piece of furniture. Although there is a significant increase in the demand compared to the baseline of this bus stop, under the given scenarios, the projected number of passengers is still low and should not indicate immediate spatial requirements.

The PCL for Residential areas tolerate up to 50% of restricted movement. Assuming low flows (<600pph) the width of this footway should be able to accommodate the flows plus a large piece of furniture. The projected increase in demand for this bus stop under the given scenarios is negligible, therefore does not indicate immediate spatial requirements. No

High Street

11256

WEST KENSINGTON STATION

28, 306

High Street

11255

WEST KENSINGTON STATION

28, 306

110

136

114

Back to Footway

Queues around this type of Bus Stand form predominantly on either side of the stand leaving the footway clear for free movement.

The footway varies in width but it is between 3.3m and 3.6m in the vicinity of the Bus Stand, with no furniture clutters and no ATMs nearby. This stop is located right at the Underground's exit.

The footway is aprox 3.5 metres wide, with no furniture clutters and no ATMs nearby. Given its location on a High Street, the Bus Stand is near some retail and acces to properties.

Yes, West Kensington Underground

The PCL for High Streets areas tolerate up to 41% of restricted movement. Transport Interchange up to 59% of restricted movement. Assuming High flows (>1,200pph) the width of this footway should be able to accommodate the flows without much furniture. The projected increase in demand for this bus stop under the given scenarios does not indicate immediate spatial requirements.

The PCL for High Streets areas tolerate up to 41% of restricted movement. Asssuming active flows (600pph - 1,200pph) the width of this footway should be able to accommodate the flows of a high street without much furniture. Although there is a significant increase in the demand compared to the baseline of this bus stop, under the given scenarios, the projected number of passengers is still low and does not indicate immediate spatial requirements.

Statutory Consultation Process - Schedule of Applicant's Responses to Comments Received Date: 20th May 2025 Comments received from

LBHF - Highways

Date received

21st March 2025

Format

PDF

Subject

Detailed Component Highways and Transportation Comments

SUMMARY OF COMMENT

1.0

Cycling – London Cycling Design Standards (LCDS) Compliance

1.1

There does not appear to be level access to the cycle storage areas. Level access MUST be provided to all cycle storage areas, stepped (and channel access) are not supported by LBHF.

RESPONSE

The approach adopted has been to provide cycle parking at the same level as the proposed cycle entrance to the Plot. Where this has not been possible London Cycle Design Standard (LCDS) guidance has been adopted which permits parking at other levels providing step free access is available. This can take the form of a ramp or lift. This approach has been applied to each plot as follows: 

WB03 – In the planning submission all accessible and standard Sheffield stand type spaces for the student land use are provided with entrance level access alongside 85 two-tier spaces. This equates to 36% of the overall provision being accessible from street level. The remaining spaces are accessible via a set of stairs. Acknowledging that not all cycle parking is accessible at level the design has been revisited and a lift introduced to ensure that all long-stay cycle parking is provided with level access. The

planning submission layout is shown in Appendix A with draft updated drawings shown in Appendix B. 

WB04 – A ramp is provided within the building to access all the cycle storage for the residential land use. Acknowledging that the ramp does not provide the most direct route, steps are also available to provide a more direct route should users wish to use it.



WB05 - All accessible and standard Sheffield stand type spaces for the residential land use are accessible at ground level. In WB05 T1 cycle parking is also accommodated at mezzanine level via a lift and stairs in order to accommodate the quantum of cycle parking proposed. This design approach complies with LCDS.

The number of doors required is a result of the location of cycle stores (provision at ground level but balanced with the need to provide activation on Empress Place Boulevard through delivery of retail units) and fire safety requirements. The access route for each plot has been highlighted in the drawings for each plot in Appendix A and is as follows: 

1.2

Access arrangements to the cycle stores is not clear and appears to require access through narrow and multiple doorways. Details should be set out as to how cycle stores are accessed with no more than 2 doors, and where doors are required, these are power assisted.



WB03 – Access to the cycle store is provided via three doors (one external and two internal). The cycle store is then compartmentalised. Where doors are proposed these will, where possible be power assisted. To reduce the number of doorways that require opening doors will feature hold-open mechanisms. This will ensure that access to the main cycle store is not through more than two doors. The drawings in Appendix B have been marked up with which doors can feature hold-open mechanisms. The external doorway has been widened to 2000mm in accordance with LCDS. Subsequent doorways are mostly 1200mm minimum. However, two doors on the route to the two-tier cycle storage are 800mm wide, restricted by the design of the core and plant. It is not possible in the current design for these doors to be widened. However, as the two-tier cycle parking is for standard size bicycles only this is considered appropriate. WB04 –The cycle stores are accessible through a minimum of three doors. Where doors are proposed these will, where possible be power assisted. To assist with access to the cycle store a hold-open mechanism has been proposed (shown on the drawing in



1.3

No dimensions have been provided on the detailed plans, so the layout such as aisle width, heights and spacing between stands cannot be checked for compliance with LCDS

Appendix B) to ensure access to the main cycle store lobby is not through more than two doors. Once inside the cycle store lobby the stores have been compartmentalised. The external doorway was 1100mm but has been widened to 2000mm in accordance with LCDS. Subsequent doorways vary in width between 900mm and 1500mm. A review of door widths has been undertaken and widened where possible. See mark-up in Appendix B showing where widening has been accommodated. WB05 – Ground floor cycle stores are accessed through one set of external doors each. Where doors are proposed these will, where possible be power assisted. The mezzanine level cycle stores are then accessed through a further door meaning that a maximum of two doors are proposed. The external doorways range in width between 1000mm and 2000mm. A review of door widths has been undertaken and widened where possible so that all external and internal doors are 2000mm. See mark-up in Appendix B showing where widening has been accommodated.

Drawings showing dimensions for the planning submission drawings are included in Appendix A of this document and for the updated proposals in Appendix B of this document to assist with review. Space is available within the cycle stores to provide maintenance points and these have been identified on the updated drawings in Appendix B.

1.4

There does not appear to be any supporting facilitates provided for within the cycle storage areas for cycling, such as storage lockers, bicycle maintenance points (stands and cleaning station) and no showers or changing facilities.

A small number of lockers will be provided in the cycle stores for WB03 and WB04 (adjacent to the pram and scooter room). No lockers are proposed in WB05. No shower or changing facilities are proposed for residential or student land uses as these facilities are available in their respective dwellings/rooms. For the retail land uses cycle parking will be provided. In WB04 lockers have also been accommodated with access to showers available for staff. No showers or changing facilities will be provided for WB03 retail or WB05 retail or community due to space constraints. However,

there is nothing to prevent the retailer or operator of the community use from adding these facilities as part of fit-out. Details for each plot are as follows: 



1.5

It is unclear how long-stay cycle parking for land uses other than the residential (WB04 and WB05) and student (WB03) land use will be provided. 

WB03 – long-stay cycle parking will be provided for the retail land use at lower ground level. This has been shown on the drawing in Appendix B. Based on a retail unit of 690m2 GEA four spaces are required. WB04 -cycle parking is provided at ground level for 18 cycles. There is 2003m2 GEA of retail proposed requiring 12 spaces. The 2038m2 Leisure use requires 1 space per 8 members of staff FTE. The remaining provision of six spaces is considered sufficient to cater for this land use. The route to the cycle store has been shown on the plans in Appendix A and lockers and showers have been accommodated which can be found on the drawings in Appendix B. WB05 – two cycle parking spaces are provided in WB05 T2 for the community use. These have been highlighted on the drawing in Appendix A. For the retail use the 385m2 GEA generates a requirement to provide three spaces. These will be provided either within the plot (as part of fit out) or within a secure covered stand within the public realm. It is anticipated that this detail can be conditioned.

The planning submission drawings allowed for all plots to feature 5% accessible ‘Sheffield’ stands which allow for access by larger/adapted bikes. This has been reviewed in the updated proposals however to address some of the other comments raised. Space has then been provided separately for scooters and mobility buggies as follows: 1.6

There appears to be limited flexibility in the cycle storage. Where is storage space proposed for buggies, disability scooters and larger bikes.



 

WB03 – no space is proposed. It is expected that limited additional storage is required given that this is a student development. Accessible Sheffield stands for 3% of the cycle parking is proposed, constrained by the space available. WB04 – space is provided at ground level for storage of buggies and disability scooters. This area has been highlighted on the drawing in Appendix B. WB05 – No space is available for storage of buggies at ground floor and residents will be expected to store buggies and disability scooters within their dwelling. As there is no

policy requirement for provision of buggy and scooter parking outside of dwellings this is considered acceptable. All plots feature accessible Sheffield stands for larger bikes. The table below sets out the comments raised by TfL and our response. Plot WB03

Summary of TfL Comment Stairs to access the store?

Two-tier racks make up over 80% of stands – this is too high Accessible stands 4.6% - below LCDS requirement

1.7

Comments provided by TfL should be referred to in respect of cycle parking mix and type of stands proposed.

External door width appears narrow, some stores have numerous doors to go through and tight corridor corners

WB04

Accessible stands make up 4.8% of provision below LCDS requirements

Response The proposals have been re-visited to incorporate a lift. The revised layout is shown in Appendix B. This is a student accommodation plot not a traditional residential plot and therefore the higher proportion of two-tier racks and lower proportion of accessible and standard Sheffield stands is considered appropriate for the intended end user. Whilst it is acknowledged that less than 5% accessible Sheffield stands is proposed a balance has had to be struck between meeting London Plan cycle parking quantum requirements and the type of provision. The planning submission external door width is 1100mm. The design has been reviewed to incorporate a wider set of external doors with a 2000mm width. Where possible hold-open door mechanisms will be utilised. Corridor widths are a minimum of 1.5m wide. The design has been reviewed and an additional stand incorporated to provide over 5% provision.

External doors aren’t shown. Store to accessible stands too narrow.

WB05

Narrow doors

No doors between the cycle stores and development

1.8

Concerns expressed with the approach to having a significant number of doors opening outwards onto the public realm

2.0

Short stay cycle parking provision

2.1

There does not appear to be any short-stay cycle provision proposed in relation to the detailed plots.

3.0

Car Parking

The external door in the planning submission was 1100mm wide. However, this has been reviewed and widened to provide a 2000mm external door. The door to the accessible store is currently 900mm. This has been reviewed and widened to 1200mm. The external doorways range in width between 1400mm and 2000mm. A review of door widths has been undertaken and widened to provide 2000mm wide doors to meet LCDS requirements. This cannot be accommodated and therefore residents will need to exit the cycle store and then enter the residential lobby.

The doorways proposed are fire exits and therefore need to open outwards onto the public realm.

Short-stay cycle parking would be provided within the public realm at the front of the plots. The public realm is in outline and will be subject to a Reserved Matters Application (RMA) in due course. It would be expected that a condition would be applied to any consent to secure appropriate levels of short-stay cycle parking. This is set out in paragraphs 1.43-1.44 of the Transport Assessment.

The Department for Transport’s Inclusive Mobility guidance recommends that parking for blue badge holders is provided within 50m of the entrance to the building that they serve not to the closest access core. The following is shown in the planning submission for each plot:  3.1

3.0

The location of the Blue Badge car parking spaces are located beyond the recommended 50m walking distance to the closest access core.

 

WB03 – The one space allocated to WB03 is 39m from the centre of the blue badge space to the centre of the lift core. WB04 – Blue badge spaces are provided between 45 and 80m walking distance from the lift core. Measuring to the residential lobby all parking spaces are within 50m. WB05 – Blue badge spaces are provided between 51m and 82m distance from the lift core. Measuring to the residential lobby entrances the maximum walking distance is 66m. Where distances exceed 50m BS8300 recommends that seating at intervals not greater than 50m along the accessible route should be provided. A suitable rest stop within the public realm will be provided.

Waste

3.1

The waste bin collection areas are beyond the 10m drag distance connected to residential waste, as per the Local Plan standards policy CC7.

4.0

Access Strategy

4.1

The plans DO NOT show how the plot is connected to the public highway, as such it unclear as to how servicing, waste and Blue

It was confirmed with Alan Halford (LBHF Waste Officer) during pre-application discussions that the location of the bin store relative to the vehicle parking location was acceptable. This correspondence is included within Appendix C of the Waste Management Strategy. For clarity it has been appended to this note in Appendix C. In respect of WB05 T2 discussions are still ongoing. The provision of an access on Aisgill Avenue is still considered desirable and therefore the Access and Movement Parameter Plan has been amended to identify this access point as being ‘intended’ rather than proposed should a suitable design for this access be agreed at a later date. The updated planning application material will outline a managed strategy for the collection of waste.

The access strategy for each plot as outlined within the Transport Assessment and is as follows: 

WB03 and WB04 - Access is provided through the Lillie Road Bus Layover as shown in drawing ECM-WSP-XX-XX-DR-440 in Appendix H of the Transport Assessment. The

Badge parking will be accessed and undertaken from.



4.2

The approach set out to access WB05 from Aisgill Avenue is not supported and this position has been advised since April 2024. How would any such turning head cul-de-sac be enforced.

access procedures are also set out in more detail in Appendix V of the Transport Assessment (Detailed Component Transport Statement). Details of access are reserved and as such will be subject to an RMA pursuant to the outline application in due course as per the planning strategy. This is set out in paragraphs 1.35-1.44 of the Transport Assessment. However, a Technical Note setting out further detail with respect to the Lillie Road Bus Layover highway arrangement was issued to the Transport Stakeholders on the 25th March 2025. In addition, the access and movement parameter plan (drawing for approval) shows how access is achieved to the Development Zone containing Plots WB03 and WB04. WB05 - Access is provided primarily through the Lillie Road Bus Layover (see drawing ECM-WSP-XX-XX-DR-440 in Appendix H of the Transport Assessment). The access procedures are also set out in more detail in Appendix V of the Transport Assessment (Detailed Component Transport Statement). In addition, an access is proposed on Aisgill Avenue. Details of access are reserved and as such will be subject to an RMA pursuant to the outline application in due course as per the planning strategy. This is set out in paragraphs 1.35-1.44 of the Transport Assessment. In addition, the access and movement parameter plan (drawing for approval) shows how access is achieved to the Development Zone containing Plot WB05.

Discussions are ongoing regarding access to WB05 T2. However, if agreed it is anticipated that this space would be private (not adopted highway). As such a parking enforcement company would be employed by the estate management company to ensure that only authorised vehicles use this area. The taxi access strategy for each plot is as follows:

4.3

Minimal details have been set out as to how taxi movements would be accommodated



WB03 - Prior to completion of the Lillie Road Bus Layover – taxi pick-up drop-off can take place within the Service Access Road (SAR). Sufficient space has been accommodated for this activity to take place. Post-completion of the Lillie Road Bus Layover – taxi pick-up drop-off can take place within the taxi facility in the Lillie Road Bus Layover.

 

WB04 - Taxi parking is provided in two locations. Within SAR and in the taxi facility in the Lillie Road Bus Layover. This is set out in 3.11-3.13 of the PDMP. WB05 – It is anticipated that taxi movements would take place on Aisgill Avenue or within the SAR.

There is a ramp being detailed at a grade of 1:12, but there is no reference to this link or its purpose. There should be safe pedestrian routes provided with any link, which must align with the Design Code to require a footway on both sides of any vehicle link.

This link provides a servicing route to WB06. Plot WB06 is within the outline element of the application and would therefore be subject to an RMA pursuant to the outline application in due course. It is not intended that this link would be used by pedestrians as pedestrian access is provided through the public realm. Provision of footways would encourage use of this route which is not considered desirable.

4.5

It is not clear how access will be provided to the ‘public lift’.

The public lift is provided as a complementary measure to transition the level difference between Aisgill Gardens and Empress Place Boulevard and is provided in addition to the ramp and steps within the Cascades. The public realm on the Earls Court site is a private space but will be publicly accessible as explained within the Transport Assessment (para 3.22). The public realm will be the subject of a series of RMAs pursuant to the outline permission as per the planning strategy.

Operational Waste Management Plan

4.4

5.1

Who is ultimately responsible for the waste management strategy across the site and for the individual plots and different occupiers?

The Applicant (ECPL) will appoint an over-arching estate management company to oversee the management of the Site. The estate management company will be responsible for management of the public realm and those spaces on-plot that benefit the wider Site. Areas on-plot will be the responsibility of the individual plot developers and their building management companies. Individual occupiers will report to the building management companies. These two bodies (estate management company and building management companies) will work together with the estate management company having overall control.

5.2

5.3

5.4

5.5

Waste is considered an essential element to be agreed in relation to the detailed plots, not at reserved matters stage.

The refuse collection strategy for WB05 T2 has been amended so that a managed solution will be used. This will entail FM moving the waste from the waste store within WB05 T2 to the car park where a presentation area has been identified. The LBHF waste collection vehicle can then collect the waste from this location.

For the detailed plots, the routes to and from the public highway network must be shown if the expectation is for LBHF vehicles to be contracted to collect waste.

The access strategy for each plot is outlined within the Transport Assessment and routes through the public realm to the external highway network are shown on the access and movement parameter plan. However, to assist, plans will be provided within the updated Operational Waste Management Plan to show how access is achieved from the public highway to the point of collection. Please note these routes will pass over the public realm which is only in outline at this stage and will be subject to an RMA pursuant to the outline application in due course. This however would not pose an issue as it is anticipated that a condition would be imposed to ensure that a suitable route was in place prior to occupation of the development as set out in the planning strategy in paragraphs 1.35-1.44 of the Transport Assessment.

How and who will move the bins to and from the storage areas to a defined collection plot within the 10m drag/pull distance of an LBHF RCV on collection day.

How will bulky waste be accommodated and managed.

It was agreed as part of pre-application discussions that the location of the refuse vehicle parking area relative to the bin store entrance was sufficient and that no supplementary collection point would be required. Correspondence confirming this is included in the Operational Waste Management Plan in Appendix C. We have repeated this in Appendix C of this note for completeness. For WB04 the on-site facilities management team (part of the building management team) will be able to assist with the management of bins. WB05 assumes that LBHF will collect the bins from the bin store as on-site facilities management will only be available part-time. For WB05 T2 discussions are ongoing. The management of bulky waste is set out within the Operational Waste Management Plan. For WB04 a bulky waste store is shown in Figure 17. The on-site facilities management team (part of the building management company) will be able to assist residents with the management of bulky waste. Paragraph 4.30 then sets out how bulky waste will be collected.

For WB05 the bulky waste stores are shown in Figures 26 and 29. LBHF will be responsible for collecting from the bulky waste stores.

5.6

How do waste bins in the public realm/open space areas around the plots get collected and where is this waste stored.

This will be the responsibility of the estate management company as set out within the site-wide waste management strategy. The estate management company will either store this waste onsite or remove it from site as appropriate.

5.7

What happens if fly-tipping takes place, or waste builds up in the public realm/open space or storage areas.

Waste build up in the public realm will be the responsibility of the estate management company. Waste build up on-plot will be the responsibility of the building management company.

5.8

How will occupiers be made aware of placing waste arisings into the most appropriate bin in the storage area? How will the waste storage areas be monitored to ensure that these are kept clean, and any issues are dealt with immediately.

The bins will be labelled and information contained in resident welcome packs (provided as part of the travel plan) setting this out. The building management company will be responsible for monitoring the waste storage areas and ensuring that any issues are dealt with.

5.9

What happens when an event is taking place, will waste collection be covered in this operational strategy document or will it be covered in a specific events management plan.

This will be detailed in the events management plan which it is anticipated will form a condition of any planning consent. Waste collection from the public realm will be the responsibility of the estate management company.

What happens if the designated parking areas being detailed for RCVs are not available at the 5.10 time the RCV arrives. As an example, the designated areas are occupied by other operational vehicles on-site.

A vehicle booking system will be in place to manage deliveries as set out in paragraph 4.15 of the Delivery and Servicing Plan.

How will the waste operational management 5.11 strategy be updated and changed if a different land use or occupier comes forward.

The strategy has assumed a worst case (in terms of land use) to ensure that the largest storage requirements are designed in from the outset. The strategy document is labelled draft and it is anticipated that the production of a final document will form a condition of any planning consent

granted. Once the site is operational it will be the responsibility of the building management company to ensure that appropriate facilities are available for any occupier.

How will the Waste Management Strategy be 5.12 aligned with the Servicing and Parking Management Plans

At a site-wide level an estate management company will be appointed to manage the Site. Plot level management will be the responsibility of individual building management companies. The majority of waste collection from plots WB03, WB04 and WB05 will take place within or through the Service Access Road. This is a controlled space that will be managed by the individual building management companies who will work together and access will be controlled by the onsite security team. As such a co-ordinated approach to the management of parking, waste collection and servicing will be inherent to the proposals. Notwithstanding this both a Transport Steering Group and Travel Plan Co-ordinator are proposed to be appointed to monitor the buildout of the development.

What monitoring and enforcement will be in place. Will there be individual plans for each plot or each occupier – who will they work together is 5.13 there a strategic overriding plan with more bespoke plans better catered for the individual needs

The building management companies will work together to take responsibility for monitoring and enforcement within the SAR. At a site wide level the appointed estate management company will be responsible.

6.0

Delivery and Servicing Management Plan

6.1

Who is ultimately responsible for the delivery and servicing management plan covering the whole site and for the individual plots and different occupiers.

The Applicant (ECPL) will appoint an over-arching estate management company to oversee the management of the Site. The estate management company will be responsible for management of deliveries and servicing within the public realm and loading bays on-plot that benefit the wider Site. They will also take on overall responsibility for the vehicle booking system. Designated on-plot loading bays will be the responsibility of the individual plot developers and their building management companies. These two bodies will work together with the estate management company having overall control.

6.2

What happens if a delivery and service vehicle arrives, that is not registered to enter? From the

This comment appears to relate to the proposed security barriers located adjacent to WB02. These barriers are within the outline element of the scheme and will be the subject of an RMA

indicative Figure 5 plan submitted, this would suggest that this vehicle would be required to reverse back into the path of entering vehicles and across the exit. ANPR is often used to eliminate the need for a barrier, not in addition to, on first review the managed approach being put forward does not seem to be the best approach for Earls Court with such a complex, variable and flexible access profile. Not all delivery drivers will know the registration number of the vehicle, how will residential occupiers know the registration number of a delivery vehicle coming to site when placing an order, it’s even unlikely that the registration number of waste vehicles will be known in advance. This approach needs to be fully evidenced and detailed as to how it would work in practice to convince LBHF this is workable.

pursuant to the outline planning application in due course. Notwithstanding this point significant work has been undertaken to design the Lillie Road Bus Layover space. The inclusion of barriers alongside an ANPR system has been driven by a combination of requirements set out by MOPAC (the immediate neighbour of this space) as well as the estate management strategy. The number of barriers has been calculated on a worst case scenario assuming the use of a rising step barrier. The final design of the entry system will be determined at a later date. The following entry/exit cycle is assumed: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

4 second drop step 10 second vehicle entry 4 second drop step 10 second vehicle approach to barrier 4 second recognition of vehicle

On this basis the total time taken for each vehicle to travel through a barrier is 36 seconds. This provides a theoretical capacity of 100 vehicles per hour. The Bus Layover Technical Note sets out that as a worst case the completed development could generate a demand for 209 vehicle movements in an hour. This is equivalent to 105 arrivals. The provision of two lanes is therefore more than sufficient to cater for the entry demand. Cyclists have their own bypass facility so will not affect capacity. It is correct that vehicles that have not registered might need to reverse to access the vehicle clearance bay located within the Service Access Road if they reach the barrier. However, delivery companies will be encouraged to register in advance and therefore the instances of this occurring are expected to be limited. In addition, signing would be used to highlight that only registered vehicles should approach the barriers with those not registered directed to the vehicle inspection bay.

6.3

6.4

7.0

Given that the SAR is shared with buses using the ‘lay-over’ and MOPAC what analysis has been undertaken to demonstrate that the intensification of delivery and servicing vehicles using this single gated access will not have a detrimental impact on the operation of these uses. What happens when multiple vehicles arrive and depart the site via the SAR. How will queuing back onto Lillie Road be prevented.

How will bulky deliveries and extended stay servicing demands be accommodated and managed. Where is the calculation to support the number of servicing bays provided on-site is sufficient for the demands. Given the student accommodation, what happens on change over days when there is an increase in demand beyond capacity.

Parking Design and Management Plan

A separate Technical Note was issued to the Transport Stakeholders on the 25th March setting out further detail regarding the Lillie Road Bus Layover which should be reviewed. This shows that no significant congestion is expected to build up within the layover area.

The SAR is a managed space and will therefore not feature public access. A vehicle booking system will be used to spread deliveries throughout the day. The number of servicing bays required to service plots WB03, WB04 and WB05 has been calculated on a first principles approach. Peak servicing demand (15% of daily) is anticipated to be 43 arrivals. Nearly half of these are anticipated to be bicycles, cargo bikes or micro-evs for which dedicated space is identified. The remaining 23 are anticipated to be vehicles. Six loading bays are proposed. On the basis of a 10 minute average dwell time a maximum of 36 vehicles could be accommodated. This is much higher than the anticipated demand. Notwithstanding this should short term demand outstrip the number of bays available there is space on the SAR for vehicles to wait. In respect of the student accommodation student move in/move-out will be managed by the respective operator of the facility. Whilst the specific operator will have their own management arrangements it is normal practice for time slots to be allocated for the arrival of any vehicles to pick-up/drop-off students. This enables demand to be spread across the day. Not all students, particularly in London rely on vehicular access. However, for the residual vehicular demand that occurs these vehicles can set down on the SAR carriageway (the carriageway is over 7m wide) without impacting day to day operations. It is therefore considered that student move-in/moveout can be managed with minimal impact on demand.

Who is ultimately responsible for the Parking Management Plan across the Site and for the individual plots and different occupiers

As stated in the Framework Parking Design and Management Plan that accompanies the planning application, the Applicant (ECPL) will appoint an over-arching estate management company to oversee the management of the Site. The estate management company will be responsible for management of car and cycle parking within the public realm and those spaces on-plot that benefit the wider Site. Designated on-plot parking will be the responsibility of the individual plot developers and their building management companies. These two bodies will work together with the estate management company having overall control.

Provision of general on-site car parking for visitors is not supported and is not policy compliant. Provision for Blue Badge and operational parking only are required to meet policy.

The detailed component in LBHF (WB03, WB04 and WB05) does not contain any visitor parking. Notwithstanding this point the provision of visitor parking in the outline component of the application has been included in response to local community feedback and concerns raised by the local community regarding increased parking pressure on surrounding roads. All visitor spaces proposed will be sized to accommodate disabled users and as such could assist in the provision of parking above the 3% minimum residential parking proposed to be provided from the outset of the development. It is not proposed to remove this proposal from the planning submission. Further information will be provided in the Framework Parking Design and Management Plan Addendum that is being prepared.

7.3

Provision of on-street Blue Badge car parking is not supported, as the demand generated by the site should be accommodated within the site, without displacing car parking.

The blue badge space proposed on Aisgill Avenue is to serve the community uses within WB05 and the adjacent community use proposed within the outline element of the application. In accordance with best practice guidance this has been located as close to the entrance to these uses as possible (Aisgill Avenue). If a space needs to be provided on-site, and with the request to remove access from Aisgill Avenue this would need to be provided within the SAR increasing the walking distance and legibility to these land uses. This option is therefore not preferred and not proposed.

7.4

Provision of cycle parking quantum that only meets the minimum level required in the London Plan and constrained layout of the cycle parking storage areas. What mechanisms will be used to

The design of the cycle parking areas has been carefully considered in the context of policy and best practice guidance to achieve the best possible layout noting the need to balance a deliverable development against policy and stakeholder aspirations. Following feedback received on the planning application further refinement of the cycle parking proposals has been proposed which is set out within this response. In this context it is not proposed to allow space

7.1

7.2

increase the quantum, of cycle parking, as demand increases.

for further long-stay cycle parking to be added in the future. However, cycle parking uptake will be reviewed as part of the Travel Plan monitoring process and additional parking in the form of the cycle parking hubs and shared mobility facilities can be reviewed and integrated into the design of the public realm as the development is built-out.

7.5

How will the parking design and management plan be updated, amended and changed if a different land use or occupiers come forward.

The parking design and management plan is in draft format and it is anticipated that it will be conditioned as part of any consent. In the longer term it is proposed to establish a Transport Steering Group and appoint a Travel Plan Co-ordinator to assist in monitoring the build-out of the development and addressing transport issues as they arise.

7.6

How will the Parking Management Plan be aligned with the Waste Management Strategy and Servicing Management Plans – how will the site be managed and how will the various plots and various operators be coordinated to avoid conflict and maintain security.

At a site-wide level an estate management company will be appointed to manage the Site. Plot level management will be the responsibility of individual building management companies. The majority of servicing of plots WB03, WB04 and WB05 will take place within or through the SAR. This is a controlled space that will be managed by the individual building management companies who will work together and access will be controlled by the on-site security team. As such a co-ordinated approach to the management of parking, waste collection and servicing will be inherent to the proposals.

7.7

What monitoring and enforcement will be in place.

This is set out within the Framework Parking Design and Management Plan and includes for how parking permits will be assigned and enforcement undertaken.

7.8

The plans do not detail any short-stay cycle parking.

7.9

Where is parking for non-residential (and student) parking located. It should be separated on security and access grounds

Please see marked up plans in Appendix B for where the cycle parking for the non-residential land uses are proposed.

It is noted that the proposed development is seeking to provide 3% Blue Badge parking from the outset. It is noted that an uplift of 7% to meet the full 10% requirement to align with the London Plan would not be possible within the site 7.10 boundary. LBHF would require that Blue Badge car parking demands are monitored and reviewed on a regular basis to ensure that the 3% remains sufficient to support the development demands without the requirement to displace car parking on-street onto the public highway

From first occupation of Plots WB04 and WB05 it is proposed to only provide 3% disabled parking provision. No space is currently identified for where additional disabled parking could be located, even if demand arose. Whilst monitoring would inherently take place as part of the allocation of parking permits, if more demand arose than existed other locations across the development would have to be considered (such as the visitor parking proposed on the wider site) to accommodate this demand.

8.0

Construction Management Plan and Construction Logistics Plan

8.1

What has been submitted is not really considered an Outline CLP or CMP as there is minimal analysis included, risk assessment of the construction route or engagement with stakeholders who would be impacted, included to understand why the routes have been chosen or the approach being taken, especially where this is reliant on housing estate land. The evidence of why the routes have been chosen should be included, covering a risk assessment of the construction routing, engagement meetings or workshops held with local residents that have been undertaken and fed into the development of the CLP. The documents come across as this is the best fit for the developer rather than seeking to minimise the impact of construction traffic.

The Outline Construction Logistics Plan (CLP) covers the development as a whole and at this stage, prior to a contractor being appointed a detailed CLP has not been prepared. It is anticipated that the preparation of a detailed CLP would be conditioned. Notwithstanding this the CLP is being updated and further information responding to this specific point will be provided. In respect to construction access routes these are limited by the highway network available to access the Site. The LBHF part of the Site is only accessible by road from Lillie Road, Aisgill Avenue and Beaumont Avenue. Therefore this is the scope and routes presented. The level of detail is considered appropriate for an Outline CLP.

8.2

As has been stated, the approach to use housing estate land to enable construction access is not supported. This position is also adopted in respect of placing reliance on North End Road to serve as a holding location for vehicles accessing the site, this is not supported as this approach would have a severe impact on the operation of North End Road.

This is noted and acknowledged. Discussions are ongoing to agree the construction access strategy.

More should be undertaken to reach agreement with TfL Lillie Road Bridge depot to facilitate construction access from this area, if required in the early 8.3

phases. Given that Lillie Bridge Depot will be accessing the detailed plots, and an access route is being provided, the use of the depot (under controlled conditions) must be investigated and utilised wherever possible in the first instance.

9.0

Travel Plan

9.1

The Travel Plan will need to be updated to reflect any changes made to the other strategies in response to the comments provided.

This is noted and acknowledged. Discussions are ongoing to agree the construction access strategy.

Noted.

10.0 Other 10.1 Has an Events Management Plan been submitted

No, it has been suggested in post-application discussions that this would form a condition of any planning consent.

Appendix A – Planning Submission Drawings showing Cycle Facilities

DO NOT SCALE Key:

File nameC:\DEV\WSP O365\UK ICRC DEVELOPMENT - 70077004 - EARLS COURT MASTERPLAN 2020\03 WIP\TP TRANSPORT PLANNING\05 REPORTS\PLANNING RESPONSES\ANALYSIS\WB03, 04 AND 05 CYCLE PARKING , printed onROUTES.DWG 11 April 2025 05:00:45 PM , by Patel, Shekhar

Route towards Cycle store

DRAFT

DRAWING STATUS:

S0 - WORK IN PROGRESS

WSP House, 70 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1AF, UK T+ 44 (0) 207 314 5000, F+ 44 (0) 207 314 5111 wsp.com CLIENT:

EARLS COURT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY ARCHITECT:

SITE/PROJECT:

EARLS COURT DEVELOPMENT TITLE:

WB03 PLANNING SUBMISSION CYCLE FACILITIES MARKUP SCALE @ A1:

CHECKED:

NTS PROJECT NO:

70077004

APPROVED:

DESIGNED:

DRAWN:

DATE:

DRAWING No:

April 25 REV:

ECM-WSP-XX-XX-SK-TP-290 c WSP UK Ltd

P01

DO NOT SCALE Key:

Route towards Cycle store

DRAFT

DRAWING STATUS:

S0 - WORK IN PROGRESS

WSP House, 70 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1AF, UK T+ 44 (0) 207 314 5000, F+ 44 (0) 207 314 5111 wsp.com CLIENT:

EARLS COURT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY ARCHITECT:

SITE/PROJECT:

EARLS COURT DEVELOPMENT TITLE:

WB04 GROUND FLOOR PLANNING SUBMISSION CYCLE FACILITIES MARKUP SCALE @ A1:

CHECKED:

NTS PROJECT NO:

70077004

APPROVED:

DESIGNED:

DRAWN:

DATE:

DRAWING No:

April 25 REV:

ECM-WSP-XX-XX-SK-TP-292 c WSP UK Ltd

P01

DO NOT SCALE Key:

Route towards Cycle store

DRAFT

DRAWING STATUS:

S0 - WORK IN PROGRESS

WSP House, 70 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1AF, UK T+ 44 (0) 207 314 5000, F+ 44 (0) 207 314 5111 wsp.com CLIENT:

EARLS COURT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY ARCHITECT:

SITE/PROJECT:

EARLS COURT DEVELOPMENT TITLE:

WB04 LOWER GROUND FLOOR PLANNING SUBMISSION CYCLE FACILITIES MARKUP SCALE @ A1:

CHECKED:

NTS PROJECT NO:

70077004

APPROVED:

DESIGNED:

DRAWN:

DATE:

DRAWING No:

April 25 REV:

ECM-WSP-XX-XX-SK-TP-303 c WSP UK Ltd

P01

DO NOT SCALE Key: Route towards Cycle store

long-stay cycle parking for the community use

DRAFT

DRAWING STATUS:

S0 - WORK IN PROGRESS

WSP House, 70 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1AF, UK T+ 44 (0) 207 314 5000, F+ 44 (0) 207 314 5111 wsp.com CLIENT:

EARLS COURT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY ARCHITECT:

SITE/PROJECT:

EARLS COURT DEVELOPMENT TITLE:

WB05 GROUND FLOOR PLANNING SUBMISSION CYCLE FACILITIES MARKUP SCALE @ A1:

CHECKED:

NTS PROJECT NO:

70077004

APPROVED:

DESIGNED:

DRAWN:

DATE:

DRAWING No:

April 25 REV:

ECM-WSP-XX-XX-SK-TP-293 c WSP UK Ltd

P01

DO NOT SCALE Key:

Route towards Cycle store

DRAFT

DRAWING STATUS:

S0 - WORK IN PROGRESS

WSP House, 70 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1AF, UK T+ 44 (0) 207 314 5000, F+ 44 (0) 207 314 5111 wsp.com CLIENT:

EARLS COURT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY ARCHITECT:

SITE/PROJECT:

EARLS COURT DEVELOPMENT TITLE:

WB05 MEZZANINE FLOOR PLANNING SUBMISSION CYCLE FACILITIES MARKUP SCALE @ A1:

CHECKED:

NTS PROJECT NO:

70077004

APPROVED:

DESIGNED:

DRAWN:

DATE:

DRAWING No:

April 25 REV:

ECM-WSP-XX-XX-SK-TP-294 c WSP UK Ltd

P01

Appendix B – Updated Draft Drawings showing Cycle Facilities

DO NOT SCALE Key: Route towards Cycle store

File nameC:\DEV\WSP O365\UK ICRC DEVELOPMENT - 70077004 - EARLS COURT MASTERPLAN 2020\03 WIP\TP TRANSPORT PLANNING\05 REPORTS\PLANNING RESPONSES\ANALYSIS\CYCLE PARKING UPDATED PROPOSALS\WB03, 04 AND 05 UPDATED CYCLE , printed PARKING on28 April ROUTES.DWG 2025 05:29:26 PM , by Patel, Shekhar

Hold-open mechanism proposed

DRAFT

Hold-open mechanism for door proposed

DRAWING STATUS:

S0 - WORK IN PROGRESS Hold-open mechanism proposed

WSP House, 70 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1AF, UK T+ 44 (0) 207 314 5000, F+ 44 (0) 207 314 5111 wsp.com

Hold-open mechanism proposed CLIENT:

EARLS COURT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY ARCHITECT:

SITE/PROJECT:

EARLS COURT DEVELOPMENT TITLE:

WB03 GROUND FLOOR UPDATED SUBMISSION CYCLE FACILITIES MARKUP SCALE @ A1:

CHECKED:

NTS PROJECT NO:

70077004

APPROVED:

DESIGNED:

DRAWN:

DATE:

DRAWING No:

April 25 REV:

ECM-WSP-XX-XX-SK-TP-304 c WSP UK Ltd

P01

DO NOT SCALE Key:

Route towards Cycle store

DRAFT

DRAWING STATUS:

S0 - WORK IN PROGRESS

WSP House, 70 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1AF, UK T+ 44 (0) 207 314 5000, F+ 44 (0) 207 314 5111 wsp.com CLIENT:

EARLS COURT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY ARCHITECT:

SITE/PROJECT:

EARLS COURT DEVELOPMENT TITLE:

WB03 LOWER GROUND FLOOR UPDATED SUBMISSION CYCLE FACILITIES MARKUP SCALE @ A1:

CHECKED:

NTS PROJECT NO:

70077004

APPROVED:

DESIGNED:

DRAWN:

DATE:

DRAWING No:

April 25 REV:

ECM-WSP-XX-XX-SK-TP-309 c WSP UK Ltd

P01

DO NOT SCALE Key:

File nameC:\DEV\WSP O365\UK ICRC DEVELOPMENT - 70077004 - EARLS COURT MASTERPLAN 2020\03 WIP\TP TRANSPORT PLANNING\05 REPORTS\PLANNING RESPONSES\ANALYSIS\CYCLE PARKING UPDATED PROPOSALS\WB03, 04 AND 05 UPDATED CYCLE , printed PARKING on19 May ROUTES.DWG 2025 05:29:02 PM , by Patel, Shekhar

Route towards Cycle store

DRAFT

DRAWING STATUS:

S0 - WORK IN PROGRESS

WSP House, 70 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1AF, UK T+ 44 (0) 207 314 5000, F+ 44 (0) 207 314 5111 wsp.com CLIENT:

EARLS COURT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY ARCHITECT:

SITE/PROJECT:

EARLS COURT DEVELOPMENT TITLE:

WB04 GROUND FLOOR UPDATED SUBMISSION CYCLE FACILITIES MARKUP SCALE @ A1:

CHECKED:

NTS PROJECT NO:

70077004

APPROVED:

DESIGNED:

DRAWN:

DATE:

DRAWING No:

May 25 REV:

ECM-WSP-XX-XX-SK-TP-306 c WSP UK Ltd

P02

DO NOT SCALE Key:

File nameC:\DEV\WSP O365\UK ICRC DEVELOPMENT - 70077004 - EARLS COURT MASTERPLAN 2020\03 WIP\TP TRANSPORT PLANNING\05 REPORTS\PLANNING RESPONSES\ANALYSIS\CYCLE PARKING UPDATED PROPOSALS\WB03, 04 AND 05 UPDATED CYCLE , printed PARKING on25 April ROUTES.DWG 2025 04:42:19 PM , by Patel, Shekhar

Route towards Cycle store

DRAFT

DRAWING STATUS:

S0 - WORK IN PROGRESS

WSP House, 70 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1AF, UK T+ 44 (0) 207 314 5000, F+ 44 (0) 207 314 5111 wsp.com CLIENT:

EARLS COURT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY ARCHITECT:

SITE/PROJECT:

EARLS COURT DEVELOPMENT TITLE:

WB04 LOWER GROUND FLOOR UPDATED SUBMISSION CYCLE FACILITIES MARKUP SCALE @ A1:

CHECKED:

NTS PROJECT NO:

70077004

APPROVED:

DESIGNED:

DRAWN:

DATE:

DRAWING No:

April 25 REV:

ECM-WSP-XX-XX-SK-TP-305 c WSP UK Ltd

P01

DO NOT SCALE Key:

File nameC:\DEV\WSP O365\UK ICRC DEVELOPMENT - 70077004 - EARLS COURT MASTERPLAN 2020\03 WIP\TP TRANSPORT PLANNING\05 REPORTS\PLANNING RESPONSES\ANALYSIS\CYCLE PARKING UPDATED PROPOSALS\WB03, 04 AND 05 UPDATED CYCLE , printed PARKING on25 April ROUTES.DWG 2025 08:56:38 PM , by Patel, Shekhar

Route towards Cycle store

DRAFT

DRAWING STATUS:

S0 - WORK IN PROGRESS

WSP House, 70 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1AF, UK T+ 44 (0) 207 314 5000, F+ 44 (0) 207 314 5111 wsp.com CLIENT:

EARLS COURT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY ARCHITECT:

SITE/PROJECT:

EARLS COURT DEVELOPMENT TITLE:

WB05 GROUND FLOOR UPDATED SUBMISSION CYCLE FACILITIES MARKUP SCALE @ A1:

CHECKED:

NTS PROJECT NO:

70077004

APPROVED:

DESIGNED:

DRAWN:

DATE:

DRAWING No:

April 25 REV:

ECM-WSP-XX-XX-SK-TP-307 c WSP UK Ltd

P01

DO NOT SCALE Key:

File nameC:\DEV\WSP O365\UK ICRC DEVELOPMENT - 70077004 - EARLS COURT MASTERPLAN 2020\03 WIP\TP TRANSPORT PLANNING\05 REPORTS\PLANNING RESPONSES\ANALYSIS\CYCLE PARKING UPDATED PROPOSALS\WB03, 04 AND 05 UPDATED CYCLE , printed PARKING on25 April ROUTES.DWG 2025 04:42:58 PM , by Patel, Shekhar

Route towards Cycle store

DRAFT

DRAWING STATUS:

S0 - WORK IN PROGRESS

WSP House, 70 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1AF, UK T+ 44 (0) 207 314 5000, F+ 44 (0) 207 314 5111 wsp.com CLIENT:

EARLS COURT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY ARCHITECT:

SITE/PROJECT:

EARLS COURT DEVELOPMENT TITLE:

WB05 MEZZANINE FLOOR UPDATED SUBMISSION CYCLE FACILITIES MARKUP SCALE @ A1:

CHECKED:

NTS PROJECT NO:

70077004

APPROVED:

DESIGNED:

DRAWN:

DATE:

DRAWING No:

April 25 REV:

ECM-WSP-XX-XX-SK-TP-308 c WSP UK Ltd

P01

Appendix C – Pre-application Waste Correspondence

Venn, Matthew From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:

Halford Alan: H&F <Alan.Halford@lbhf.gov.uk> 21 February 2024 12:14 Venn, Matthew; Gates Lesley: H&F; Roberts Aaliyah: H&F Sherlock, Justin; Thompson, Alex; Catherine.Paterson; Trower Zoe: H&F RE: Earls Court Development - Briefing on Proposed Scheme

Hi Matthew, Sorry for the delay in replying as I was in discussion with our contractors about the size of the store. I have looked at the distance from the back of the shed and following my talk with the contract refuse manager we can see that the vehicle is closer than we first look at so they will agree to this if nothing changes on the plans. Many thanks

Alan Halford Contract Monitoring Officer Environment Department Hammersmith & Fulham Council alan.halford@lbhf.gov.uk www.lbhf.gov.uk

From: Venn, Matthew <Matthew.Venn@wsp.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2024 11:27 AM To: Halford Alan: H&F <Alan.Halford@lbhf.gov.uk>; Gates Lesley: H&F <Lesley.Gates@lbhf.gov.uk>; Roberts Aaliyah: H&F <Aaliyah.Roberts@lbhf.gov.uk> Cc: Sherlock, Justin <Justin.Sherlock@wsp.com>; Thompson, Alex <Alexander.Thompson1@wsp.com>; Paterson Catherine: H&F <Catherine.Paterson@lbhf.gov.uk>; Trower Zoe: H&F <Zoe.Trower@lbhf.gov.uk> Subject: RE: Earls Court Development - Briefing on Proposed Scheme Hi Allan, sorry to keep chasing but it would be great if you could comment on my email below. Many thanks,

Matthew Matthew Venn Waste and Resource Management 1

Associate Director

WSP in the UK 6 Devonshire Square London EC2M 4YE wsp.com Confidential This message, including any document or file attached, is intended only for the addressee and may contain privileged and/or confidential information. Any other person is strictly prohibited from reading, using, disclosing or copying this message. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete the message. Thank you. WSP UK Limited, a limited company registered in England & Wales with registered number 01383511. Registered office: WSP House, 70 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1AF.

From: Venn, Matthew Sent: Friday, February 9, 2024 9:02 AM To: 'Halford Alan: H&F' <Alan.Halford@lbhf.gov.uk>; 'Gates Lesley: H&F' <lesley.gates@lbhf.gov.uk>; 'Aaliyah.Roberts@lbhf.gov.uk' <Aaliyah.Roberts@lbhf.gov.uk> Cc: Sherlock, Justin <Justin.Sherlock@wsp.com>; Thompson, Alex <Alexander.Thompson1@wsp.com>; 'Catherine.Paterson@lbhf.gov.uk' <Catherine.Paterson@lbhf.gov.uk>; 'Trower Zoe: H&F' <Zoe.Trower@lbhf.gov.uk> Subject: RE: Earls Court Development - Briefing on Proposed Scheme Hi Alan, further to my email below which outlined the walking distances to the waste storage areas within the Earls Court development site, it would be great to get a response from yourself. Many thanks,

Matthew Matthew Venn Waste and Resource Management Associate Director

From: Venn, Matthew Sent: Friday, January 26, 2024 8:30 AM To: Halford Alan: H&F <Alan.Halford@lbhf.gov.uk>; Gates Lesley: H&F <lesley.gates@lbhf.gov.uk>; 'Aaliyah.Roberts@lbhf.gov.uk' <Aaliyah.Roberts@lbhf.gov.uk> Cc: Sherlock, Justin <Justin.Sherlock@wsp.com>; Thompson, Alex <Alexander.Thompson1@wsp.com>; Catherine.Paterson@lbhf.gov.uk; Trower Zoe: H&F <Zoe.Trower@lbhf.gov.uk> Subject: FW: Earls Court Development - Briefing on Proposed Scheme 2

Good morning Alan, further to our meeting last week I agreed to provide additional details relating to the walking distances from the RCV to the various waste stores in WB04 and WB05. To try and show the walking distances in a clear manner, I have prepared the following plans. WB04 and WB05 (Tower 1)

With regards to WB04, as this is a private sale development it will have an on-site FM who may be able to assist the collection crew with the movement of the bins from the store. We have worked extensively with the design team to review the waste store location, but concluded that the location of the core, residential lobby and plant areas dictates that the waste store cannot be altered. With regards to WB05 (Tower 1), this is an affordable development which will have very limited (and probably part time) on-site FM support, meaning that it is unlikely that assistance could be provided to move the bins. However, looking at the plan the vast majority of the bins will be within 10m which I am hoping will be acceptable? WB05 (Tower 2) 3

With regards to WB05 (Tower 2), this is also an affordable development which will have very limited (and probably part time) on-site FM support, meaning that it is unlikely that assistance could be provided to move the bins. Looking at the plan the waste store and some of the bins will be within 10m of the RCV, and the remaining bins are no more than 18m from the truck, some of which are 240 litre bins. We have worked extensively with the design team to review the waste store location, but as you can see it is positioned to be close to the RCV and in close proximity to the residents lobby. The requirements of the adjacent cycle store and various plant rooms has resulted in the waste store as shown.

We also discussed the use of compactors for refuse and recycling and we stated during the meeting that we had considered their use but concluded that they are not viable for plots WB04 and WB05. The reasons that we have drawn this conclusion are as follows: 1. For WB04, there is insufficient headroom to allow the compactors to be collected. To raise the head height to an appropriate level would have implica ons for the ground floor of the building which has to interface with the boulevard area. 2. For WB04, the space required for the compactors doesn’t provide a significant space saving for the scheme as the loca on of the waste store means that the collec on vehicles will need to park within the building to avoid blocking the turning head, the access to WB06 and the taxi pick up area. 4

3. For WB04, the impact on the ac ve frontage of the building is more significant as space has to be provided to access each of the compactor (which can’t be moved). 4. The waste volumes in WB05 aren’t sufficient to require compactors. 5. WB05 is an affordable housing plot which will only have limited (and likely part- me) FM support which makes the use of compactors imprac cal as residents cannot be permi ed to load their wastes directly into the compactors. It is important to note that while we will not be using compactors for WB04 and WB05, we will continue to consider the use of compactors for other plots within the LBHF side of the development. Best regards,

Matthew Matthew Venn Waste and Resource Management Associate Director

From: Venn, Matthew Sent: Monday, January 22, 2024 10:26 AM To: Halford Alan: H&F <Alan.Halford@lbhf.gov.uk>; Gates Lesley: H&F <Lesley.Gates@lbhf.gov.uk>; Aaliyah.Roberts@lbhf.gov.uk Cc: Sherlock, Justin <Justin.Sherlock@wsp.com>; Thompson, Alex <Alexander.Thompson1@wsp.com>; Catherine.Paterson@lbhf.gov.uk; Trower Zoe: H&F <Zoe.Trower@lbhf.gov.uk> Subject: RE: Earls Court Development - Briefing on Proposed Scheme Good morning Alan, Catherine and Zoe, Please find attached a set of notes for our meeting on the 18th January. If you have any comments, please send them to me so that we can review and update. I have also attached a copy of the presentation that we used at our meeting. Many thanks,

Matthew -----Original Appointment----From: Venn, Matthew 5

Appendix B Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

WSP

Appendix B – Development Proposals

107

Cl un y

R Nevern Square

- 2m

ic k

Ro ad

-2

l Road mwel o r C t / Wes

W ar w

-2

Notes: 1. All Parameter Plans (EC.PA.B) to be read in conjunction with the Design Code (EC.PA.C) and Development Specification (EC.PA.A). 2. This plan does not present information for approval for areas within the Detailed Component Boundary. 3. Development Zone's with the suffix '1' lie within LBHF, those with suffix '2' lie within RBKC. 4. Dimensions of the street widths and offsets from the application boundary shown on this plan are minimum dimensions. 5. Maximum Building Line (Ground Floor) are included when required by key infrastructure in Development Zones C and X in response to Ground Floor constraints. 6. Structures associated with stairs, lifts and ventilation located within the public realm are not captured within the Development Specification area and are not specified within the Parameter Plans. Any structures within the public realm should be in line with the principles as set out in the Design Codes

No implied licence exists. This drawing should not be used to calculate areas for the purposes of valuation. Do not scale this drawing. All dimensions to be checked on the site by the contractor and such dimensions to be their responsibility. All work must comply with relevant British Standards and Building Regulations requirements. Drawing errors and omissions to be reported to the architect. To be read in conjunction with Architect's specification and other consultant information. Rev. P01 P02

Issued to ALL For Planning ALL For Planning

Description

Date 27.06.24 23.05.25

Planning Application Boundary Borough Boundary (outside Planning Application Boundaries) Development Zone (above Ground Floor)

Development Zone (above Ground Floor) name Development Zone (below Ground Floor) name (see 'Proposed Site Levels Below Ground Floor Plan' for Below Ground Floor Development Zone extent) Maximum Building Line (except balconies where indicated) Maximum Building Line (Ground Floor only)

- 2m

Maximum Balcony Envelope

27 m

19 m

+/- 2m

Ph ilb ea ch

-2

+/- 2

Detailed Component (above Ground Floor)

rR oa d

+ /-

Minimum extent of Public Realm

Tr eb ov i

-2

G ar de ns

Minimum dimension of Public Realm

Minimum distance between existing Empress Place buildings (excluding basement stairwells)

Minimum dimension between Maximum Building Line

Extent of potential Public Realm above existing West London Railway line

12 m

m -2 m -2

d Roa End

- 4m

Area where pavilions of corresponding Development Zones (G1/G2 or P) are permitted. Pavillions must be sited within adjacent dash-dotted line.

Pe ny w

11 m

- 2m

m -2

0 @ 1:1250

50m

- 4m

-2

m 40

ill sg Ai

-2

- 2m

+/- 2m

N et tre S nd Mu

Eardley Cr

12 m

ue en Av

G2 F

- 2m

escent

+/- 2m

15 m

m -2

+4m

-2

10 m

B2 +/

-2 m

Project

-2

-4

-2

d oa R on pt m ro dB

EMPRESS STATE BUILDING

WEST BROMPTON STATION

d oa eR rav ag Se

li Lil

d oa R e

ea ls he am C lh d Fu an d n an to it h ng si sm en er K m of am H of

gh ou or B

on nd Lo

al oy R

+/-

d Roa End

Earls Court Development ECPL and Lillie Bridge Depot Sites Earls Court London, UK Drawing

+ /-

th Nor

oad Star R

-4

Aisgill Avenue

12 m

th Nor

bs Gib

se Clo n e Gre

Existing condition at the edge of the site or on railway land. May be subject to works to integrate existing and newly proposed Public Realm.

er n

m 18

m -2

- 2m

Zone

nue Ave t n o um Bea

+/-Xm Maximum permitted Limit of Deviation of Development

Ro ad

+/- 2

- 2m

-2

- 2m

EARL'S COURT STATION

+/-

18 m

- 2m

16 m

WEST KENSINGTON STATION

004 - Development Zones, Maximum Building Lines and Public Realm Scale @ A1

Date

1 : 1250

27/06/24

Drawn By

Checked By

Job Number

Status

Purpose of Issue

200012 (HB) / 0394 (SEW)

For Planning

Drawing No.

Rev

EC.PA.B Parameter Plan-004

P02

Cl un y

Notes: 1. All Parameter Plans (EC.PA.B) to be read in conjunction with the Design Code (EC.PA.C) and Development Specification (EC.PA.A). 2. This plan does not present information for approval for areas within the Detailed Component Boundary. 3. Additional specific guidance on movement strategies can be found in Design Codes (EC.PA.C) and should be read in parallel with this Parameter Plan 4. Routes includes those on public realm, and within Development Zone Boundaries. 5. Development Zone flexibility and limits of deviation are described in the Parameter Plan 004 - Development Zones, Maximum Building Lines and Public Realm, and apply to this plan.

R PCV

PCV

Nevern Square

Rev. P01 P02

PCV

W ar w

l Road mwel o r C t / Wes

Issued to ALL For Planning ALL For Planning

Description

Date 27.06.24 01.08.25

Planning Application Boundary

ic k

Borough Boundary (outside Planning Application Boundaries)

Ro ad

Development Zone (above Ground Level) (limits of deviation apply, refer to Parameter Plan 004 - Development Zones, Maximum Building Lines and Public Realm)

Development Zone name Detailed Component (above Ground Level)

Indicative Locations of Access to Site

Ph ilb ea ch

Tr eb ov i

rR oa d

G ar de ns

WEST KENSINGTON STATION

EARL'S COURT STATION

PCV

Pedestrian and Cycle Access

PCV

Pedestrian, Cycle & Vehicle Access

PC BV

Bus & Vehicle Access

Potential Pedestrian and Cycle Access - location and type to be determined through detail design Potential Pedestrian Access - location to be determined through detail design Cycle Route undercroft or below Ground Floor

er n Pe ny w

Vehicular Route undercroft or below Ground Floor (includes service access) Service Route undercroft or below Ground Floor Vehicular Access to Detailed Components

d Roa End

M PC

Bus Route

0 @ 1:1250

N E

ill sg Ai

et tre S nd Mu

50m

escent

th Nor

bs Gib

Indicative Movement Routes

se Clo n e Gre

Pedestrian Access

PCV P

Eardley Cr

Emergency Vehicular Access

Ro ad

nue PCV Ave t n o um Bea

ue en Av

G2 F

H PC

Aisgill Avenue

Project

th Nor

Earls Court Development ECPL and Lillie Bridge Depot Sites Earls Court London, UK Drawing

PCV EMPRESS STATE BUILDING

WEST BROMPTON STATION

al oy R

li Lil

d oa eR rav ag Se

PC BV

d oa R e

ea ls he am C lh d Fu an d n an to it h ng si sm en er K m of am H of

gh ou or B

on nd Lo

d Roa End

oad Star R

d oa R on pt m ro dB

008 - Proposed Access & Movement

Scale @ A1

Date

1 : 1250

27/06/24

Drawn By

Checked By

Job Number

Status

Purpose of Issue

200012 (HB) / 0394 (SEW)

For Planning

Drawing No.

Rev

EC.PA.B Parameter Plan-008

P02

B EN RO M T R PT A N ON C E

File name\\UK.WSPGROUP.COM\CENTRAL DATA\PROJECTS\70077XXX\70077004 - EARLS COURT MASTERPLAN 2020\03 WIP\DEVELOPMENT\03 DRAWINGS\SITE ACCESS STRATEGY\ECM-WSP-XX-XX-DR-420B.DWG , printed on18 June 2025 14:36:07 , by Ma, Stella

DO NOT SCALE

EC-01

DRAWING STATUS:

S2 - FOR INFORMATION

WSP House, 70 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1AF, UK T+ 44 (0) 207 314 5000, F+ 44 (0) 207 314 5111 wsp.com

10 6.4 4 10 6.4 4

6.4

CLIENT:

EARLS COURT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY ARCHITECT:

HBSEW

Stn 28S 108.022

Stn EC04 103.018

PROJECT:

2. 99

Stn 23S 107.181

2. 99

EARLS COURT MASTERPLAN

2. 77

99 10 3

.0 0

77 10

2. 77

TITLE:

OLD BROMPTON ROAD / WEST BROMPTON LANE SITE ACCESS

3. 00

10 3. 00

75 10 2. 75

10 3. 00

10 2. 7

10 3. 00

SCALE @ A3:

PROJECT No:

70077004

APPROVED:

DESIGNED:

DRAWN:

DATE:

DRAWING No:

2. 75

2. 74

Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey map with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. Licence no. 100048755. Crown copyright reserved.

CHECKED:

1:500

10 2. 75

1. 8

3. 0

REV:

ECM-WSP-XX-XX-DR-420

0 10

2. 74

3. 01

c WSP UK Ltd

June 25

P05

8045

WB04 HV Substation

1500

40.6 m²

WB04 HV Substation

L L L L L L L 6500

WB04-03

WB04-04

40.6 m²

WB04 HV Substation

WB03 HV Substation

40.6 m²

WB04-09

WB04 HV Substation

WB04-06

6500

40.6 m²

WB04-01

6500

6250

4.000 m

67.0 m²

File name C:\DEV\WSP O365\UK ICRC DEVELOPMENT - 70077004 - EARLS COURT MASTERPLAN 2020\03 WIP\TP TRANSPORT PLANNING\ECD-WBZZ-PZ-SHR-20-LG-DR-A-020199.DWG, printed on 22 May 2025 10:14:32 AM, by Patel, Shekhar

F&B

WB04-05

F&B F&B L

Hold-open

Layby for 10m Rigid and Disabled Taxi drop off

L F

48.4 m²

11.8 m²

Resi Lobby

WB03 HV Substation

Retail Refuse

WB04-02

144.2 m²

7059

4.000 m

56.1 m²

BOH Hold-open Residential WB04 11.8 m² Deliveries

WB03

6250

F&B F&B F&B L

Ramp @1:12

44.1 m²

P-GL2

4900

WB04 Refuse Store

WB03 HV Substation

80.6 m²

6250

16.9 m²

WB04 Main Electrical Switchroom

DO NOT SCALE

WB04-08

Bulky Waste

P-PL2

6250

6500

WB04

41.7 m²

10750

Restricted Headroom

2814

WB04 Rainwater Harvesting Plantroom

8975

Vent 19.5 m²

6500

2000

F/C

Vent 14.1 m²

WB04-07

4.000 m

7500

F/C

6975

10400

F/C

5025

2450

39.4 m²

MOTOR CYCLE PARKING (DELIVERIES)

SERVICE ACCESS ROAD

DRAFT

MAINTENANCE ZONE

DEMISE

WB04

LINE

WB05

DRAWING STATUS:

Plant

S0 - WORK IN PROGRESS

WSP House, 70 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1AF, UK T+ 44 (0) 207 314 5000, F+ 44 (0) 207 314 5111

wsp.com CLIENT:

EARLS COURT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY

Plant

Bin Presentation Area

Plant

ARCHITECT:

SITE/PROJECT:

EARLS COURT DEVELOPMENT TITLE:

EMPRESS STATE BUILDING Switchroom

Plant

Wet Riser

Plant

Plant Below

Plant

Bike Store

Fire Tender

WB05 REFUSE VEHICLE TRACKING SCALE @ A1:

CHECKED:

NTS PROJECT NO:

70077004

APPROVED:

DESIGNED:

DRAWN:

DATE:

DRAWING No:

May 25 REV:

ECM-WSP-XX-XX-SK-TP-317 c WSP UK Ltd

P01

17 00

DRAWING STATUS:

S2 - FOR INFORMATION

WSP House, 70 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1AF, UK T+ 44 (0) 207 314 5000, F+ 44 (0) 207 314 5111 wsp.com CLIENT:

EARLS COURT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY ARCHITECT:

12.8

PROJECT:

EARLS COURT MASTERPLAN

14.0 6.9 0

TITLE: 17 0

AISGILL AVENUE ACCESS - FIRE TENDER SWEPT PATH ANALYSIS

4.0 17

File name\\UK.WSPGROUP.COM\CENTRAL DATA\PROJECTS\70077XXX\70077004 - EARLS COURT MASTERPLAN 2020\03 WIP\TP TRANSPORT PLANNING\03 DRAWINGS\ECM-WSP-XX-XX-SK-TP-327.DWG , printed on09 July 2025 15:22:14 , by Kingdom, Bradley

DO NOT SCALE

SCALE @ A3:

CHECKED:

1:500 PROJECT No:

70077004

APPROVED:

DESIGNED:

DRAWN:

DATE:

DRAWING No:

July 25 REV:

ECM-WSP-XX-XX-SK-TP-327 c WSP UK Ltd

P02

Appendix C Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

WSP

Appendix C – Detailed Component Cycle Parking Layout Dimension Drawings

108

DO NOT SCALE Key:

File nameC:\DEV\WSP O365\UK ICRC DEVELOPMENT - 70077004 - EARLS COURT MASTERPLAN 2020\03 WIP\TP TRANSPORT PLANNING\05 REPORTS\PLANNING RESPONSES\ANALYSIS\CYCLE PARKING UPDATED PROPOSALS\WB03, 04 AND 05 UPDATED CYCLE , printed PARKING on09 July ROUTES.DWG 2025 11:56:30 , by Patel, Shekhar

Route towards Cycle store

DRAFT

DRAWING STATUS:

S0 - WORK IN PROGRESS

WSP House, 70 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1AF, UK T+ 44 (0) 207 314 5000, F+ 44 (0) 207 314 5111 wsp.com CLIENT:

EARLS COURT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY ARCHITECT:

SITE/PROJECT:

EARLS COURT DEVELOPMENT TITLE:

WB03 GROUND FLOOR UPDATED SUBMISSION CYCLE FACILITIES MARKUP SCALE @ A1:

CHECKED:

NTS PROJECT NO:

70077004

APPROVED:

DESIGNED:

DRAWN:

DATE:

DRAWING No:

July 25 REV:

ECM-WSP-XX-XX-SK-TP-304 c WSP UK Ltd

P03

DO NOT SCALE Key:

File nameC:\DEV\WSP O365\UK ICRC DEVELOPMENT - 70077004 - EARLS COURT MASTERPLAN 2020\03 WIP\TP TRANSPORT PLANNING\05 REPORTS\PLANNING RESPONSES\ANALYSIS\CYCLE PARKING UPDATED PROPOSALS\WB03, 04 AND 05 UPDATED CYCLE , printed PARKING on08 July ROUTES.DWG 2025 17:05:50 , by Patel, Shekhar

Route towards Cycle store

DRAFT

DRAWING STATUS:

S0 - WORK IN PROGRESS

WSP House, 70 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1AF, UK T+ 44 (0) 207 314 5000, F+ 44 (0) 207 314 5111 wsp.com CLIENT:

EARLS COURT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY ARCHITECT:

SITE/PROJECT:

EARLS COURT DEVELOPMENT TITLE:

WB04 LOWER GROUND FLOOR UPDATED SUBMISSION CYCLE FACILITIES MARKUP SCALE @ A1:

CHECKED:

NTS PROJECT NO:

70077004

APPROVED:

DESIGNED:

DRAWN:

DATE:

DRAWING No:

July 25 REV:

ECM-WSP-XX-XX-SK-TP-305 c WSP UK Ltd

P02

DO NOT SCALE Key:

File nameC:\DEV\WSP O365\UK ICRC DEVELOPMENT - 70077004 - EARLS COURT MASTERPLAN 2020\03 WIP\TP TRANSPORT PLANNING\05 REPORTS\PLANNING RESPONSES\ANALYSIS\CYCLE PARKING UPDATED PROPOSALS\WB03, 04 AND 05 UPDATED CYCLE , printed PARKING on08 July ROUTES.DWG 2025 17:05:55 , by Patel, Shekhar

Route towards Cycle store

DRAFT

DRAWING STATUS:

S0 - WORK IN PROGRESS

WSP House, 70 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1AF, UK T+ 44 (0) 207 314 5000, F+ 44 (0) 207 314 5111 wsp.com CLIENT:

EARLS COURT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY ARCHITECT:

SITE/PROJECT:

EARLS COURT DEVELOPMENT TITLE:

WB04 GROUND FLOOR UPDATED SUBMISSION CYCLE FACILITIES MARKUP SCALE @ A1:

CHECKED:

NTS PROJECT NO:

70077004

APPROVED:

DESIGNED:

DRAWN:

DATE:

DRAWING No:

July 25 REV:

ECM-WSP-XX-XX-SK-TP-306 c WSP UK Ltd

P03

DO NOT SCALE Key:

File nameC:\DEV\WSP O365\UK ICRC DEVELOPMENT - 70077004 - EARLS COURT MASTERPLAN 2020\03 WIP\TP TRANSPORT PLANNING\05 REPORTS\PLANNING RESPONSES\ANALYSIS\CYCLE PARKING UPDATED PROPOSALS\WB03, 04 AND 05 UPDATED CYCLE , printed PARKING on08 July ROUTES.DWG 2025 17:06:00 , by Patel, Shekhar

Route towards Cycle store

DRAFT

DRAWING STATUS:

S0 - WORK IN PROGRESS

WSP House, 70 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1AF, UK T+ 44 (0) 207 314 5000, F+ 44 (0) 207 314 5111 wsp.com CLIENT:

EARLS COURT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY ARCHITECT:

SITE/PROJECT:

EARLS COURT DEVELOPMENT TITLE:

WB05 GROUND FLOOR UPDATED SUBMISSION CYCLE FACILITIES MARKUP SCALE @ A1:

CHECKED:

NTS PROJECT NO:

70077004

APPROVED:

DESIGNED:

DRAWN:

DATE:

DRAWING No:

July 25 REV:

ECM-WSP-XX-XX-SK-TP-307 c WSP UK Ltd

P03

DO NOT SCALE Key:

File nameC:\DEV\WSP O365\UK ICRC DEVELOPMENT - 70077004 - EARLS COURT MASTERPLAN 2020\03 WIP\TP TRANSPORT PLANNING\05 REPORTS\PLANNING RESPONSES\ANALYSIS\CYCLE PARKING UPDATED PROPOSALS\WB03, 04 AND 05 UPDATED CYCLE , printed PARKING on08 July ROUTES.DWG 2025 17:06:05 , by Patel, Shekhar

Route towards Cycle store

DRAFT

DRAWING STATUS:

S0 - WORK IN PROGRESS

WSP House, 70 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1AF, UK T+ 44 (0) 207 314 5000, F+ 44 (0) 207 314 5111 wsp.com CLIENT:

EARLS COURT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY ARCHITECT:

SITE/PROJECT:

EARLS COURT DEVELOPMENT TITLE:

WB05 MEZZANINE FLOOR UPDATED SUBMISSION CYCLE FACILITIES MARKUP SCALE @ A1:

CHECKED:

NTS PROJECT NO:

70077004

APPROVED:

DESIGNED:

DRAWN:

DATE:

DRAWING No:

July 25 REV:

ECM-WSP-XX-XX-SK-TP-308 c WSP UK Ltd

P03

File nameC:\DEV\WSP O365\UK ICRC DEVELOPMENT - 70077004 - EARLS COURT MASTERPLAN 2020\03 WIP\TP TRANSPORT PLANNING\05 REPORTS\PLANNING RESPONSES\ANALYSIS\CYCLE PARKING UPDATED PROPOSALS\WB03, 04 AND 05 UPDATED CYCLE , printed PARKING on08 July ROUTES.DWG 2025 17:05:39 , by Patel, Shekhar

DO NOT SCALE

DRAFT

DRAWING STATUS:

S0 - WORK IN PROGRESS

WSP House, 70 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1AF, UK T+ 44 (0) 207 314 5000, F+ 44 (0) 207 314 5111 wsp.com CLIENT:

EARLS COURT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY ARCHITECT:

SITE/PROJECT:

EARLS COURT DEVELOPMENT TITLE:

WB03 LOWER GROUND FLOOR UPDATED SUBMISSION CYCLE FACILITIES MARKUP SCALE @ A1:

CHECKED:

NTS PROJECT NO:

70077004

APPROVED:

DESIGNED:

DRAWN:

DATE:

DRAWING No:

July 25 REV:

ECM-WSP-XX-XX-SK-TP-309 c WSP UK Ltd

P02

File nameC:\DEV\WSP O365\UK ICRC DEVELOPMENT - 70077004 - EARLS COURT MASTERPLAN 2020\03 WIP\TP TRANSPORT PLANNING\05 REPORTS\PLANNING RESPONSES\ANALYSIS\EC05 AND 06\EC05 AND 06 UPDATED , printed SUBMISSION.DWG on14 July 2025 16:53:22 , by Patel, Shekhar

NOT TO SCALE

DRAFT

DRAWING STATUS:

S0 - WORK IN PROGRESS

WSP House, 70 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1AF, UK T+ 44 (0) 207 314 5000, F+ 44 (0) 207 314 5111 wsp.com CLIENT:

EARLS COURT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY ARCHITECT:

SITE/PROJECT:

EARLS COURT DEVELOPMENT TITLE:

EC05 LEVEL B1 UPDATED SUBMISSION CYCLE FACILITIES MARKUP SCALE @ A1:

CHECKED:

NTS PROJECT NO:

70077004

APPROVED:

DESIGNED:

DRAWN:

DATE:

DRAWING No:

July 25 REV:

ECM-WSP-XX-XX-SK-TP-310 c WSP UK Ltd

P04

NOT TO SCALE Key:

Route towards Cycle store

DRAFT

DRAWING STATUS:

S0 - WORK IN PROGRESS

WSP House, 70 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1AF, UK T+ 44 (0) 207 314 5000, F+ 44 (0) 207 314 5111 wsp.com CLIENT:

EARLS COURT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY ARCHITECT:

SITE/PROJECT:

EARLS COURT DEVELOPMENT TITLE:

EC05 GROUND FLOOR UPDATED SUBMISSION CYCLE FACILITIES MARKUP SCALE @ A1:

CHECKED:

NTS PROJECT NO:

70077004

APPROVED:

DESIGNED:

DRAWN:

DATE:

DRAWING No:

July 25 REV:

ECM-WSP-XX-XX-SK-TP-311 c WSP UK Ltd

P04

NOT TO SCALE

DRAFT

DRAWING STATUS:

S0 - WORK IN PROGRESS

WSP House, 70 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1AF, UK T+ 44 (0) 207 314 5000, F+ 44 (0) 207 314 5111 wsp.com CLIENT:

EARLS COURT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY ARCHITECT:

SITE/PROJECT:

EARLS COURT DEVELOPMENT TITLE:

EC06 GROUND FLOOR UPDATED SUBMISSION CYCLE FACILITIES MARKUP SCALE @ A1:

CHECKED:

NTS PROJECT NO:

70077004

APPROVED:

DESIGNED:

DRAWN:

DATE:

DRAWING No:

July 25 REV:

ECM-WSP-XX-XX-SK-TP-312 c WSP UK Ltd

P04

NOT TO SCALE

DRAFT

DRAWING STATUS:

S0 - WORK IN PROGRESS

WSP House, 70 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1AF, UK T+ 44 (0) 207 314 5000, F+ 44 (0) 207 314 5111 wsp.com CLIENT:

EARLS COURT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY ARCHITECT:

SITE/PROJECT:

EARLS COURT DEVELOPMENT TITLE:

EC06 LEVEL 1 UPDATED SUBMISSION CYCLE FACILITIES MARKUP SCALE @ A1:

CHECKED:

NTS PROJECT NO:

70077004

APPROVED:

DESIGNED:

DRAWN:

DATE:

DRAWING No:

July 25 REV:

ECM-WSP-XX-XX-SK-TP-313 c WSP UK Ltd

P04

Appendix D Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

WSP

Appendix D – Technical Note 76 – Trip Generation Comparison

109

TECHNICAL NOTE 76 – Trip Generation V1 DATE:

13 February 2025

CONFIDENTIALITY: Public

V2 DATE:

14 May 2025

SUBJECT:

Earls Court Development: Trip Generation Review and Sensitivity Note

PROJECT:

70077004

AUTHOR:

Alex Smith

CHECKED:

Justin Sherlock

APPROVED:

Justin Sherlock

INTRODUCTION This Technical Note (TN) has been prepared to provide a response to comments received to date (as of May 2025) from the Transport Stakeholders on the trip generation presented within the Earls Court development Transport Assessment (TA) (document reference EC.PA.13). As set out in the supporting TA and TN27 (appended as Appendix M to the TA) the trip generation exercise was completed to provide a complementary trip generation and forecast demand for the Earls Court development to allow comparison with the demand from the strategic modelling and to allow adjustments to be made where appropriate to ensure that the full range of modes could be considered within the planning application TA. It is therefore not the primary means by which transport demand for the development is derived. Instead, this is the MoTiON strategic model with adjustments made as appropriate to the outputs derived. This TN focuses on the All Phases development scenario to provide a comparison exercise. However, the same principles apply to the Early Phases development scenario.

RESPONSES & AREAS FOR REVIEW Responses to the planning application have been collated both in the form of written comments provided to WSP and during post-application discussions with the Transport Stakeholders. A separate comments response tracker has been prepared which responds to each comment raised. The responses received from the Transport Stakeholders broadly cover the following topics, which are discussed further throughout this TN;

 TRICS site selection and land use review  Comparison of person trip generation following review of any changes to account for the TRICS site       

selection review Trip adjustments (internalisation) review Comparison of trip generation following sensitivity test for adjustments Mode share commentary Weekday and weekend profiles Events Commercial Uses Arrival Profile Servicing and delivery trip generation review and comparison

Where appropriate, and as discussed with the Transport Stakeholders reference has been made throughout this document to the approach taken on other large-scale developments within London.

www.wsp.com 250716_EC_WSPT_TN76_Trip Gen Sensitivity

TECHNICAL NOTE 76 – Trip Generation UPDATED RESPONSES Version 1 of this TN was issued in February 2025. Comments have been received on the information contained within that version from all stakeholders. As a result, updates have been applied, where agreed and appropriate, to ensure that this review encapsulates the latest position. The main comments received are summarised as follows; Land Use / Area

Status

Residential Trip Rates

Agreed, final position set out below

Employment – Office

Agreed, final position set out below

Employment – R&D

Revert back to rates used in planning submission (as requested by LBHF)

Cultural / Events

Further information presented below – the comments from LBHF regarding sensitivity tests are not considered necessary.

Retail

Agreed, final position set out below

F&B

Agreed, final position set out below

Nursery

Corrected – Agreed, final position set out below

Education

Agreed, final position set out below

Internalisation

Nursery trips amended to reflect TfL suggested percentage.

Servicing and Delivery Trips

RBKC and TfL agreed with the rates set out in V1, LBHF did not, as such a robust updated position is presented in this V2 TN which addresses the feedback from LBHF.

Page 2

TECHNICAL NOTE 76 – Trip Generation TRICS SITE SELECTION & LAND USE REVIEW The following section considers the total person trip rates and total person trip generation for the following land uses:

 Residential  Employment  Culture  Retail  Leisure  Education General comments The trip generation presented in TN27 utilised the traditional weekday network peak hours of 08:00-09:00 and 17:00-18:00. This was to ensure alignment with and therefore comparison of the outputs from the strategic models which also focus on these hours. A response has been received to consider the trip generation at other times of the day and at the weekend. This is considered later in this TN. A response was also received querying why the TRICS search parameters had been widened beyond sites in London and the Southeast. The approach adopted when deriving trip rates for the trip generation exercise was to prioritise sites from within London. However, the availability of sites in London within the TRICS database is limited and therefore, where appropriate a widening of the search area due to the availability of sites within the TRICS database has been undertaken. The following land uses applied sites from outside of London:

 Retail  Food and Beverage  Education - Nursery Research undertaken by TRICS1 found no clear correlation between region and trip rate and therefore the TRICS User Guide2 does not recommend excluding sites on the sole basis of them being located within any specific region. In addition, these trips make up only approximately 6% of the peak hour trips in the trip generation and therefore the widening of the TRICS site search criteria for a small proportion of the overall trip generation is considered appropriate.

Residential Land Use A comment provided by one of the stakeholders queried why the residential land use had been split out into private and affordable categories instead of using a combined mixed private/affordable site from within the TRICS Database (Category M – Mixed Private / Affordable sites).

1 TRICS Consortium Limited - A Comparison of Vehicular Trip Rate Variation by TRICS Regions and Location Types –

Technical Note (2019) 2 TRICS Consortium Limited – TRICS Good Practice Guide 2025 (2024) Page 3

TECHNICAL NOTE 76 – Trip Generation The category Mixed Private/Affordable Housing provides rates for developments containing both houses and flats. The Proposed Development is predominantly a flatted development with only a small quantum of houses proposed. The split of trip rates is therefore considered appropriate for the type of development proposed. In addition, this approach allows tailoring of the trip rates to reflect the proportion of affordable and private tenures proposed. Notwithstanding this a review has been undertaken of the Mixed Private / Affordable category within TRICS applying a search criteria that looks at sites within London, with a minimum of 100 units, edge of town centre / town, suburban area and PTAL above 4. This search criteria returned two sites. One was surveyed on 17/10/23 and the other 22/11/18. This sample size is very small for what is a primary land use proposed at the development but reflects the availability of sites within the TRICS Database. Table 1 shows the breakdown and various information about the sites contained within TRICS. Table 1 – Site information – M – Mixed Private / Affordable sites Site Ref

GR-03-M-04 / 01

Unit Make Up Private

Affordable

Flats

Houses

464

220

644

Parking Spaces

Notes

198

A Car Parking Management Plan is in place at the site. 4 car club parking spaces included in the 99 allocated spaces. 37 of the remaining allocated spaces are disabled bays and the 99 on-street parking spaces include a further 31 disabled bays. Car parking spaces are allocated on demand to properties as they are purchased. There is no additional cost after the initial property purchase, but properties without permits are not able to park within the development.

HD-03-M-06

107

At the time of this survey construction was ongoing at this site. However, all construction activity has been identified and excluded from the survey counts, and all elements of this survey only represent the fully occupied parts of the development

 GR-03-M-04 / 01  This site has a 68% / 32% split of private and non-private provision, however has a parking provision that includes standard parking bays, i.e. not just blue badge provision.

 HD-03-M-06  This site is very small and has a 52% / 48% split of private and non-private provision and as such isn’t considered representative of the Earls Court development. Considering the above, neither site is considered reflective of the Earls Court proposals and as such a split of Private / Affordable trip rates is considered appropriate. Table 2 sets out a comparison of trip rates derived using the mixed category and then as used in the trip generation exercise.

Page 4

TECHNICAL NOTE 76 – Trip Generation Table 2 - Total Person Trip Rates – Mixed Category Comparison Trip Rates

AM Peak (0800-0900)

PM Peak (1700-1800)

Arr.

Dep.

Total

Arr.

Dep.

Total

Mixed Category

0.164

0.536

0.700

0.299

0.216

0.515

Planning Submission Residential Trip Rates

0.087

0.449

0.537

0.269

0.155

0.424

It is acknowledged that the mixed category returns higher trip rates than currently used, however as shown above the sites aren’t considered comparable and so the rates are not used in the analysis. A further comment provided by the stakeholders related to the age of the TRICS search selection undertaken. An update to the residential site selection has been undertaken and is set out by residential category below.

Category C – Flats Privately Owned The selection criteria in TN27 was used as a starting point to check whether there were significant updates available within the TRICS database. It was noted that the Islington site (IS-03-C-07) was re-surveyed in 20/10/22. However, given the version of MoTiON used in the TA is pre-pandemic, the previous 2019 survey was selected for use in the analysis. As a result, no change in trip rates is considered necessary, as shown in Table 3. Table 3 – Total Person Trip Rates – Private Flats Trip Rates

AM Peak (0800-0900)

PM Peak (1700-1800)

Arr.

Dep.

Total

Arr.

Dep.

Total

Residential – Private Flats – Update

0.071

0.405

0.476

0.231

0.126

0.357

Residential – Private Flats – Planning Submission

0.071

0.405

0.476

0.231

0.126

0.357

Category D – Affordable/Local Authority Flats Similar to the above, the TN27 search criteria was utilised, albeit widened in comparison to the private flats category due to the limited availability of affordable flatted surveys within TRICS. The minimum number of units was lowered to 50+ and more location types were included, including Edge of Town and Neighbourhood Centre. As a result of the review, no new surveys were found and no change in rates were calculated. Table 4 sets out the trip rate used for affordable flats.

Table 4 – Total Person Trip Rates – Affordable Flats Trip Rates

AM Peak (0800-0900)

PM Peak (1700-1800)

Arr.

Dep.

Total

Arr.

Dep.

Total

Residential – Affordable Flats

0.118

0.532

0.650

0.339

0.208

0.547

Residential – Affordable Flats –

0.118

0.532

0.650

0.339

0.208

0.547 Page 5

TECHNICAL NOTE 76 – Trip Generation Planning Submission

The planning application targets 35% affordable homes across the Site. As such this assumption has been retained in this trip generation comparison. The trip rates in Table 3 and Table 4 have been combined to provide a residential trip rate, set out in Table 5. Combined Residential Trip Rates and Trip Generation Table 5 – Total Person Trip Rates – Combined Residential (Private and Affordable) Trip Rates

Residential – Combined (65% Private Flats: 35% affordable flats) (Per Unit)

AM Peak (0800-0900)

PM Peak (1700-1800)

Arr.

Dep.

Total

Arr.

Dep.

Total

0.087

0.449

0.537

0.269

0.155

0.424

Based on the trip generation assumption of 3,967 residential units being delivered (as set out in the TA and Maximum Development Parameters TN), and the person trip rates set out in Table 5, the total person trip generation for the residential land use is provided in Table 6.

Table 6 – Total Person Trip Generation – Combined Residential (Private and Affordable) Trip Generation

Residential – Combined (65% Private Flats: 35% affordable flats) (3,967 Units) – Updated Residential – Combined (65% Private Flats: 35% affordable flats) (3,967 Units) – Planning Submission

AM Peak (0800-0900)

PM Peak (1700-1800)

Arr.

Dep.

Total

Arr.

Dep.

Total

347

1,783

2,130

1,066

614

1,680

347

1,783

2,130

1,066

614

1,680

Based on 3,967 units, it is anticipated that the proposed residential element of the 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. This has not changed from the TA / TN27 previous numbers. As per stakeholder feedback, the above Total Person trips (Table 6) and associated rates (Table 5) are agreed.

Employment - Office A first principles approach was adopted to calculate the potential Employment Office trip generation. This utilised a density metric of 1 employee per 11sqm NIA (equivalent to 13.8sqm GIA) taken from the HCA Density Guide 2015. It should be noted that the Canada Water (ref 18/AP/1604) application, also utilised the 13.8sqm GIA in its calculations. The equivalent total employee number was then applied to the percentage proportion of AM and PM peak hour arrivals and departures, calculated from a daily Employee profile sourced from TRICS, as illustrated in Page 6

TECHNICAL NOTE 76 – Trip Generation Table 7. An updated daily profile has been calculated from an updated TRICS search (Table 8), with the relevant report contained in Appendix A.

Page 7

TECHNICAL NOTE 76 – Trip Generation Table 7 – Arrival and Departure proportions of Daily trips (Generic Office Profile - Original) TOTAL PEOPLE

ARR

DEP

TOTAL

ARR

DEP

TOTAL

Time Range

Rate

00:00-01:00

0.000

01:00-02:00

0.000

02:00-03:00

0.000

03:00-04:00

0.000

04:00-05:00

0.000

05:00-06:00

0.000

06:00-07:00

0.000

07:00-08:00

0.748

0.089

0.837

08:00-09:00

2.580

0.215

2.795

25%

14%

09:00-10:00

2.098

0.300

2.398

20%

12%

10:00-11:00

0.879

0.503

1.382

11:00-12:00

0.549

0.562

1.111

12:00-13:00

0.831

1.132

1.963

11%

10%

13:00-14:00

1.113

1.077

2.190

11%

14:00-15:00

0.659

0.573

1.232

15:00-16:00

0.340

0.645

0.985

16:00-17:00

0.283

1.020

1.303

10%

17:00-18:00

0.174

2.417

2.591

24%

13%

18:00-19:00

0.076

1.557

1.633

15%

19:00-20:00

0.000

0.139

20:00-21:00

0.000

0.025

21:00-22:00

0.000

22:00-23:00

0.000

23:00-24:00

0.000

Daily Trip Rates:

10.330

10.254

20.584

100%

Page 8

TECHNICAL NOTE 76 – Trip Generation Table 8 – Arrival and Departure proportions of Daily trips (Generic Office Profile - Updated) TOTAL PEOPLE

ARR

DEP

TOTAL

ARR

DEP

TOTAL

Time Range

Rate

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

0.657

0.076

0.733

08:00-09:00

2.152

0.196

2.348

25%

13%

09:00-10:00

1.950

0.269

2.219

22%

13%

10:00-11:00

0.793

0.425

1.218

11:00-12:00

0.466

0.437

0.903

12:00-13:00

0.655

0.895

1.550

10%

13:00-14:00

0.895

1.790

10%

14:00-15:00

0.517

0.475

0.992

15:00-16:00

0.274

0.526

0.800

16:00-17:00

0.204

0.797

1.001

17:00-18:00

0.142

2.067

2.209

24%

13%

18:00-19:00

0.064

1.476

1.540

17%

19:00-20:00

0.139

20:00-21:00

0.025

21:00-22:00

22:00-23:00

23:00-24:00

8.769

8.698

17.467

100%

Daily Trip Rates:

As seen above, the updated profile closely matches the original used, but has some minor variance in the peak hours. This updated daily profile was then applied to the forecasted employee number of 12,427 (assuming a daily occupation rate of 85%) to develop the peak hour employee trip generation as illustrated in Table 9. It was noted that the departures were calculated incorrectly in the planning submission and that 2% was applied to the arrivals instead of the total number of employees. This has been rectified in Table 9. Following stakeholder comments, a review on the arrival profile has been undertaken further below after this section.

Page 9

TECHNICAL NOTE 76 – Trip Generation Table 9 – First Principles Peak Hour Employee Trip Generation Trip Generation

AM Peak (0800-0900)

PM Peak (1700-1800)

Arr.

Dep.

Total

Arr.

Dep.

Total

Office – Updated

3,050

280

3,330

201

2,953

3,154

Office - Planning Submission

3,104

3,169

2,929

2,979

Updated values are slightly higher than previously used. Table 10 provides an equivalent trip rate per 100sqm NIA using the first principles approach. Table 10 – First Principles equivalent rate per 100 sqm Employee Trip Rates AM Peak (0800-0900)

PM Peak (1700-1800)

Arr.

Dep.

Total

Arr.

Dep.

Total

Total Trips

3,050

280

3,330

201

2,953

3,154

Equivalent Trip Rate (per 100sqm NIA)

1.90

0.17

2.07

0.13

1.84

1.96

As per stakeholder feedback, the above Employment Office Total Person trips (Table 9) are agreed.

Employment – Research and Development Comments from Stakeholders queried the selection criteria used in the initial TRICS search, and why the category ‘Business Park’ was used to represent the commercial research and development land use instead of Industrial Estate. Reviewing the TRICS land use category ‘Employment D – Industrial Estate’ results in sites that are not comparable or contain suitable levels of Research and Development (R&D) within them. It should be acknowledged that the Industrial Estate category is not considered to align with a R&D offering as Industrial Estates tend to include more units that align with B2 / General Industry uses. It should also be noted that previous versions of the TRICS Land Use Categories and Use Classes3 definitions – identify that for a R&D use, Business Park should be used as the TRICS subcategory. The Earls Court development seeks to deliver an employment offer that complements traditional office with R&D facilities. The target market being high end, technology focused employers. R&D uses are expected to have a lower employee density compared to traditional office. Within the MoTiON modelling an employee density of 62.5sqm was used instead of the 13.8 applied to commercial office. This was sourced from the HCA Density Guide 2015. Table 11 shows the site references, the locations and % of R&D recorded from the TRICS search undertaken.

3 TRICS Land Use Categories and Use Classes March 2019

Page 10

TECHNICAL NOTE 76 – Trip Generation Table 11 – Industrial Estate sites within TRICS and % R&D Site Ref

Location

% of R&D

BE-02-D-01

ERITH

BN-02-D-01

NORTH FINCHLEY

BT-02-D-01

NEASDEN

10%

HD-02-D-03

RUISLIP

As shown in Table 11, four sites are returned, of which, 2 had 0% R&D, 1 had 5% R&D and 1 had 10% R&D. All of which therefore are not representative of the proposals. As discussed above, the uses at the Industrial Estate sites returned also don’t align with the R&D being sought. As such, this category is not considered appropriate. As with TN27, and following TRICS suggestion, Business Park has been chosen. Reviewing the Business Park category and applying suitable search criteria, a similar exercise has been undertaken, with the surveys / sites shown in Table 12. Table 12 – Business Park sites within TRICS and % R&D Site Ref

Location

% of R&D

BT-02-B-01

BRENT

55%

HO-02-B-02

HOUNSLOW

HO-02-B-04

HOUNSLOW

IS-02-B-01

ISLINGTON

NH-02-B-01

NEWHAM

Removing the sites that have 0% R&D, and using the single site that has a majority of R&D use (one site) returns the rate shown in Table 13. Table 13 - Total Person Trip Rates – Commercial Business / R&D – per 100sqm (GIA) Trip Rates

AM Peak (0800-0900)

PM Peak (1700 – 1800)

Arr.

Dep.

Total

Arr.

Dep.

Total

Per 100sqm – Updated

0.417

0.126

0.543

0.060

0.364

0.424

Per 100sqm – Planning Submission

0.914

0.141

1.055

0.147

0.864

1.011

It is acknowledged that the previous rates were higher. The lower rates have been used for the purposes of this comparison exercise. The updated rates have then been applied to the same R&D floor area, with the resulting updated trip generation shown in Table 14. Table 14 - Total Person Trips – Commercial Business / R&D Trip Rates

AM Peak (0800-0900)

PM Peak (1700 – 1800)

Arr.

Dep.

Total

Arr.

Dep.

Total

R&D - 67,008sqm – Updated

279

363

244

284

R&D - 67,008sqm – Planning Submission

612

707

579

677

Page 11

TECHNICAL NOTE 76 – Trip Generation Comments from stakeholders have indicated that the revised figures result in trips that are considered too low and that the higher figures originally submitted for planning should be used for robustness. The assessment therefore reverts to use of the original rates.

Culture Comments received focused on the definition of this land use. Cultural 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. The maximum development parameters assessment approach scales down the amount of cultural land use and replaces it with either commercial office or retail. As such a total quantum of 3,634 sqm is assessed in the planning submission. 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. Initially, trip rates for a Cinema were utilised to capture the cultural land uses. Feedback from stakeholders on the TA scope suggested that a different land use should be applied in this instance. 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. A review of TRICS has identified that there are no alternative or updated surveys to be used, and as a result no change to the trip rates have been applied. Table 15 and 16 apply the rates and resulting total person trip generation for the cultural land use. Table 15 – Total Person Trip Rates – Cultural Trip Rates – Cultural

AM Peak (0800-0900)

PM Peak (1700 – 1800)

Arr.

Dep.

Total

Arr.

Dep.

Total

Per 100sqm – Updated

1.787

0.214

2.001

1.492

2.719

4.211

Per 100sqm – Planning Submission

1.787

0.214

2.001

1.492

2.719

4.211

Table 16 – Total Person Trip Generation – Culture – 3,634 sqm venue Trip Generation – Culture

AM Peak (0800-0900)

PM Peak (1700-1800)

Arr.

Dep.

Total

Arr.

Dep.

Total

Culture - 3,634sqm – Updated

153

Culture - 3,634sqm – Planning Submission

153

Comments from stakeholders outlined concern on the cultural land use assumptions. This is set out in further detail below, and as such the above is considered appropriate, especially given the low trip generating potential in the peak hours.

Page 12

TECHNICAL NOTE 76 – Trip Generation Retail 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. A review of the retail trip rates has been undertaken first. The initial exercise outlined in TN27 used a mix of a shopping mall and independent units (50% applied to both) to reflect the multi retail unit mix envisaged for the Proposed Development. Upon review, it was found that the Shopping Mall originally included both weekday and weekend sites, and as such an updated rate was extracted, as shown in Table 17. Table 17 – Total Person Trip Rates – Retail (Shopping Mall) – per 100sqm Trip Rates – Retail

Retail - Per 100 sqm Shopping Mall (50%) – Updated Retail - Per 100 sqm Shopping Mall (50%) – Planning Submission

AM Peak (0800-0900)

PM Peak (1700 – 1800)

Arr.

Dep.

Total

Arr.

Dep.

Total

1.613

0.8645

2.478

1.494

2.1065

3.6005

1.963

0.074

2.037

0.720

1.8585

2.5785

Accounting for the removal of a weekend site, the updated trip rates are higher than previously utilised. The same exercise was completed for the other non shopping mall / independent retail element. The review indicated no updated surveys or changes in the trip rates, as shown in Table 18. Table 18 – Total Person Trip Rates – Retail (Other Independent Unit) – per 100sqm Trip Rates – Retail

AM Peak (0800-0900)

PM Peak (1700 – 1800)

Arr.

Dep.

Total

Arr.

Dep.

Total

Retail - Per 100 sqm Other Non (50%)

0.00

0.6665

1.333

Retail - Per 100 sqm Other Non (50%) – Planning Submission

0.00

0.6665

1.333

Applying a 50 / 50 between the two retail types a corresponding “Retail” trip rate for the weekday was calculated as shown in Table 19. Table 19 – Total Person Trip Rates – Retail – per 100sqm Trip Rates – Retail

AM Peak (0800-0900)

PM Peak (1700 – 1800)

Arr.

Dep.

Total

Arr.

Dep.

Total

Retail - Per 100 sqm – Updated

1.613

0.865

2.478

2.161

2.773

4.934

Retail - Per 100 sqm – Planning submission

1.963

0.074

2.037

1.387

2.525

3.192

As a result of the updated shopping mall component, the total person trip rates for the retail elements of the scheme are higher than previously utilised. Based on a proposed maximum development parameter quantum of 11,301sqm, and the updated person trip rates set out in Table 19, the total person trip generation for the retail land use are provided in Table 20. Page 13

TECHNICAL NOTE 76 – Trip Generation Table 20 – Total Person Trip Generation – Retail – 11,301 sqm Trip Generation – Retail

AM Peak (0800-0900)

PM Peak (1700-1800)

Arr.

Dep.

Total

Arr.

Dep.

Total

Retail – 11,301 sqm – Updated

182

280

244

313

558

Retail – 11,301 sqm – Planning submission

222

230

157

287

442

As per stakeholder feedback, the above updated Retail Total Person trips (Table 20) are agreed.

Food & beverage Commentary from stakeholders queried some of the site selection criteria used to represent the F&B proposals. As such the trip rates have been reviewed, but restricting the search criteria to London sites to provide an updated rate. Table 21 provides the revised F&B rates. Table 21 – Total Person Trip Rates – F&B – per 100sqm Trip Rates – Retail

AM Peak (0800-0900)

PM Peak (1700 – 1800)

Arr.

Dep.

Total

Arr.

Dep.

Total

F&B - Per 100 sqm – Updated

9.974

9.716

19.690

8.739

9.988

18.727

F&B - Per 100 sqm – Planning submission

6.159

3.241

9.400

2.713

5.426

8.139

The updated values are higher than previously utilised and have been fed through using the same proposed F&B quantum, as shown in Table 22. Table 22 – Total Person Trip Generation – F&B – 8,614 sqm Trip Generation – Retail

AM Peak (0800-0900)

PM Peak (1700-1800)

Arr.

Dep.

Total

Arr.

Dep.

Total

F&B – 8,614 sqm – Updated

859

837

1,696

753

860

1,613

F&B – 8,614 sqm – Planning submission

531

279

810

234

467

701

As per stakeholder feedback, the above updated F&B Total Person trips (Table 22) are agreed.

Education – Nursery As part of the TRICS trip rate review it was found that there were no applicable sites located in London, and as such an updated search has been completed that includes a wider geography. Table 23 provides the updated trip rates. Table 23 – Total Person Trip Rates – Education (Nursery) – Per student Trip Rates – Retail

AM Peak (0800-0900)

PM Peak (1700 – 1800)

Arr.

Dep.

Total

Arr.

Dep.

Total

Nursery - Per student – Updated

0.549

0.234

0.783

0.225

0.495

0.720

Nursery - Per student – Planning submission

0.770

0.028

0.798

0.008

0.051

0.059

Page 14

TECHNICAL NOTE 76 – Trip Generation The updated values are similar to those in the AM period as previously used but are considerably higher in the PM peak. Based on a proposed quantum of 70 nursery places, and the person trip rates set out above, the total person trip generation for the nursery land use is provided in Table 24. Note the V1 table had an error in the calculation, this is been rectified below. Table 24 – Total Person Trip Generation – Educational (Nursery) Trip Generation – Retail

AM Peak (0800-0900)

PM Peak (1700-1800)

Arr.

Dep.

Total

Arr.

Dep.

Total

Nursery – Updated

Nursery – Planning submission

As per stakeholder feedback, the above updated Nursery Total Person trips (Table 24) are agreed.

Education – Secondary The TRICS review of this land use outlined an additional London Site that could be utilised in the trip rate analysis for the secondary school element of the site. Table 25 provides the updated trip rates compared to the previous ones used in TN27 / TA. Table 25 – Total Person Trip Rates – Educational (Secondary) – Per student Trip Rates – Retail

AM Peak (0800-0900)

PM Peak (1700 – 1800)

Arr.

Dep.

Total

Arr.

Dep.

Total

Secondary - Per student - Updated

0.804

0.050

0.854

0.011

0.034

0.045

Secondary - Per student – Planning submission

0.770

0.028

0.798

0.008

0.051

0.059

The updated values are higher than previously utilised in the AM, but slightly lower in the PM. Based on a proposed quantum of 470 pupils places, and the person trip rates set out above, the total person trip generation is shown in Table 26. Table 26 – Total Person Trip Generation – Educational (Secondary) Trip Generation – Retail

AM Peak (0800-0900)

PM Peak (1700-1800)

Arr.

Dep.

Total

Arr.

Dep.

Total

Secondary – Updated

378

401

Secondary – Planning submission

362

375

As per stakeholder feedback, the above updated Secondary School Total Person trips (Table 26) are agreed.

Page 15

TECHNICAL NOTE 76 – Trip Generation All Land uses The original person trip generation, outlined in TN27 is shown in Table 27. An updated version, incorporating the above amendments is shown in Table 28 and a comparison in Table 29. The trip generation presented in these tables takes no account of internalisation, pass-by or linked trips. All trips are presented as rounded numbers and therefore when adding column totals the results may not present the exact sum. Table 27 – Total Person Trip Generation by Land Use [ original TN ] Land Use

AM Peak (0800-0900)

PM Peak (1700 – 1800)

Arr.

Dep.

Total

Arr.

Dep.

Total

Residential (3,967 units)

347

1,783

2,130

1,066

614

1,680

Commercial Office (201,023 sqm)

3104

3,169

2,929

2,979

Commercial R&D (67,008 sqm)

612

707

579

677

Educational Nursery (70 students)

Educational Secondary (470 students)

362

375

Cultural (3,634 sqm)

153

Retail (11,031 sqm)

222

230

157

285

442

F&B (8,614 sqm)

531

279

810

234

467

701

Total

5,296

2,253

7,549

1,663

5,001

6,664

Table 28 – Total Person Trip Generation by Land Use - Updated Land Use

AM Peak (0800-0900)

PM Peak (1700 – 1800)

Arr.

Dep.

Total

Arr.

Dep.

Total

Residential (3,967 units)

347

1783

2130

1066

614

1680

Commercial Office (201,023 sqm)

3050

280

3330

201

2953

3154

Commercial R&D (67,008 sqm)

612

707

579

677

Educational Nursery (70 students)

Educational Secondary (470 students)

378

401

Cultural (3,634 sqm)

153

Retail (11,031 sqm)

182

280

244

313

558

F&B (8,614 sqm)

859

837

1696

753

860

1613

Total

5,532

3,140

8,671

2,438

5,469

7,907

Table 29 – Update difference

Residential (3,967 units)

AM Peak (0800-0900) Arr. Dep. Total 0 0 0

PM Peak (1700 – 1800) Arr. Dep. Total 0 0 0

Commercial Office (201,023 sqm)

-54

215

161

152

176

Commercial R&D (67,008 sqm)

Educational Nursery (70 students)

-16

-1

Educational Secondary (470 students)

-8

-7

Land Use

Page 16

TECHNICAL NOTE 76 – Trip Generation Cultural (3,634 sqm)

Retail (11,031 sqm)

-40

116

F&B (8,614 sqm)

328

558

886

519

393

912

Total

236

887

1,122

775

468

1,243

The comparison exercise shows an increase in the number of trips to those presented in TN27. This is before the application of internalisation which is discussed further below. As per stakeholder feedback, it is considered that the Total Person trips (Table 28) are now agreed.

ADJUSTMENTS – INTERNALISATION 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 The proposals seek to deliver a large scale mixed use development with significant potential to provide for a range of complimentary land uses within the application site, to allow residents and users of the Site to complete their day to day activities on Site and therefore reduce external trip making. 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 network. The adjustments to each of the journey purposes to account for internalisation 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 network.’ The application of internalisation factors is normal for a large-scale mixed-use development. Within MoTiON the level of internalisation that is evident within the zones representing the development is equivalent to 19% across the day.

Page 17

TECHNICAL NOTE 76 – Trip Generation The level of internalisation applied to each land use within TN27 has been based on experience by WSP of developing trip generations for other large-scale developments. However, to aid comparison a review was undertaken of other large-scale developments within London. A review of other large mixed use developments in London has indicated that whilst there is no consistent application of internalisation factors, each has applied a varying amount within their trip generation:

 The site at Canada Water (ref 18/AP/1604) in the borough of Southwark applied internalisation factors ranging between 3 – 26% depending on mode. Therefore, depending on the land use type, this could equate to a significant level of internalised trips, for example, residents using the local retail and F&B.

 At Battersea, in the borough of Wandsworth surveys from Canary Wharf were utilised where it was noted that up to 50% of food and beverage trips were made by employees, and that 6.6% of destination retail could be from residents and employees suggesting that for those land uses in particular, internalisation would occur.

 At Silvertown, in the borough of Newham for the Indoor Sport, Recreation and Fitness (E(d)) use, although this land use was considered ancillary to the development proposals and a large majority of trips were to be internal trips, for robustness, it was assumed that 50% of trips would be external trips.

 At Kings Cross, in the Borough of Camden an adjustment of 10% of residential to commercial trips were made, and further amendments were applied for personal business and leisure journeys (30% and 25% respectively). Internal business-related journeys were also amended, with 85% of all employee business journeys assumed as linked trips. Similarly, internal leisure trips were linked to residential provision.

 At Meridian Water Phase 2, in the Borough of Enfield, A1/A2/A3/A4 Retail trips, D1 Library, D2 Gym All Trips were internalised as it was considered that this provision would primarily serve employees and residents of the proposed development and will therefore form part of internal / linked trips. It is therefore considered that the application of internalisation factors for the Proposed Development is appropriate and in line with other large-scale sites in London. However, further review by journey purpose has been undertaken and is presented below.

RESIDENTIAL TO WORK As set out in the original TN27, it was assumed that 10% of residents could live and work on-site. This was considered a conservative estimate given that the development proposes up to 4000 residential units adjacent to some 201,000m² (GIA) of high-quality office space. Reviewing 2021 census JTW OD Data (ODWP01EW_MSOA) for the three main MSOAs that make up the site, the internalisation per MSOA is considerably higher than the 10% proposed as shown in Table 30. Table 30 – Census 2021 JTW OD Data – MSOA Level Kensington and Chelsea 015

Kensington and Chelsea 017

Total

5440

6476

6441

Internal (MSOA Workplace)

2003

2647

2110

Workplace internalisation

37%

41%

33%

MSOA

Hammersmith and Fulham 015

As such, it is considered that the 10% internalisation factor applied is appropriate.

Page 18

TECHNICAL NOTE 76 – Trip Generation As per stakeholder feedback, it is considered that the internalisation factors for residential to work journeys are agreed.

RESIDENTIAL TO LEISURE / SHOPPING / PERSONAL It was assumed that 20% of total person peak hour residential trips to leisure/ shopping/ personal business would begin and end within the development. Given a review of other large-scale sites in London, especially Silvertown, and the mixed use development offer at Earls Court – this is considered a robust assumption and has been kept without change. As per stakeholder feedback, it is considered that the internalisation factors for residential to leisure shopping and personal trips are agreed.

RESIDENTIAL TO PRIMARY EDUCATION (INCLUDING ESCORT) No primary school is included within the development proposals, and it is therefore assumed that all primary education related trips would be made externally. This has not changed from the original analysis. As per stakeholder feedback, it is considered that the internalisation factors for residential to primary education trips are agreed.

RESIDENTIAL TO SECONDARY EDUCATION (INCLUDING ESCORT) It should be noted that the secondary education offer is not likely to be a state school offer given the space constraint of the Site and as such will be akin to a private facility. As such, the assumption that all secondary education trips are external is considered appropriate. As per stakeholder feedback, it is considered that the internalisation factors for residential to secondary eduacation trips are agreed.

RESIDENTIAL TO EMPLOYERS’ BUSINESS It is assumed that 90% of trips to employment will be external. A 10% reduction has been applied to account for the anticipated internalisation as set out above. This therefore remains the same as the original analysis. As per stakeholder feedback, it is considered that the internalisation factors for residential to employers business trips are agreed.

COMMERICAL OFFICE FROM HOME A 10% reduction was applied for residential to work trips. The equivalent number of trips were therefore removed from the commercial office from home trips. No adjustment to this assumption is considered necessary. Page 19

TECHNICAL NOTE 76 – Trip Generation As per stakeholder feedback, it is considered that the internalisation factors for commercial office trips are agreed.

EMPLOYERS BUSINESS FROM HOME As with the commercial office from home purpose, whilst it is considered appropriate that an adjustment could be made (as was applied at King’s Cross), for robustness no internalisation factor has been applied to avoid double counting. The resulting trips are then assumed to be external to the development. This therefore remains the same as the original analysis. As per stakeholder feedback, it is considered that the internalisation factors for employers business from home trips are agreed.

EDUCATION NURSERY FROM HOME In Version 1 of this TN, it was anticipated that 100% of nursery trips would originate within the Site. These were taken off the Education Nursery land use corresponding arrivals/departures in each peak hour. The stakeholder feedback suggested that this may be an overestimation and as such, this has been reduced to 80%. As per stakeholder feedback, it is considered that the revised internalisation factors for education nursery from home trips are now agreed.

EDUCATION SECONDARY FROM HOME 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. This therefore remains the same as the original analysis. As per stakeholder feedback, it is considered that the internalisation factors for education secondary from home trips are agreed.

CULTURE It is anticipated that, in the main, all cultural uses will generate demand externally, and no internalisation factor has therefore been applied. This therefore remains the same as the original analysis. As per stakeholder feedback, it is considered that the internalisation factors for culture trips are agreed.

RETAIL It is anticipated that 80% of retail trips will be internal. An 80% reduction has therefore been applied to account for the anticipated internalisation. This therefore remains the same as the original analysis.

Page 20

TECHNICAL NOTE 76 – Trip Generation Given the proposals will likely include multiple retail units across the site, and the review of other large London based sites include high percentages of retail internalisation, it is not considered reasonable to apply the above. As per stakeholder feedback, it is considered that the internalisation factors for retail trips are agreed.

FOOD AND BEVERAGE 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. This therefore remains the same as the original analysis. Similar to the retail provision, it is considered likely that multiple individual units will be available across the Site. Given the high percentages of internalisation and linked trips observed at other sites, it is considered appropriate that this remains for this land use. As per stakeholder feedback, it is considered that the internalisation factors for food and beverage trips are agreed.

SUMMARY Table 31 provides a summary of the adjustments for internalisation that have been applied. Table 31 – Internalisation Summary Journey Purpose

Adjustment

Residential to Work

10% reduction

Residential to Leisure / Shopping / Personal

20% reduction

Residential to Education Primary (incl. escort trips)

No adjustment

Residential to Education Secondary

No Adjustment

Residential to Employers Business

10% reduction

Commercial Office from Home

No Adjustment

Commercial R&D from Home

No Adjustment

Employers Business

No Adjustment

Education Nursery

80% reduction

Education Secondary

25% reduction

Culture from Home

No adjustment

Retail from Home

80% reduction

F&B from home

80% reduction

Applying the above internalisation assumptions to the updated trip generation Table 32 provides an updated external trip generation for the Site. The table also includes the original analysis and the difference.

Page 21

TECHNICAL NOTE 76 – Trip Generation Table 32 – Updated Trip Generation (External) comparison against TN27 Use

Original

Update

AM Peak

PM Peak

Arr

Dep

Arr

Residential

323

1662

918

Commercial Office

2983

Commercial R&D

515

Education Nursery

Difference

AM Peak

Dep

Arr

528

323

1662

918

528

-36

2780

2929

257

116

2804

-54

215

152

479

515

479

Education Secondary

271

283

-6

Culture

Retail

-8

F&B

106

172

167

151

172

111

104

Total

4308

1858

1098

4055

4331

2214

1375

4164

356

277

109

6166

5153

6545

Dep

Arr

PM Peak

Arr

Total (two-way)

Dep

PM Peak

5539

Dep

Arr

+379

Dep

+386

Table 32 demonstrates that the trip generation changes would result in an increase in trips of 379 movements in the AM peak and 386 in the PM peak. This equates to a difference of between 6% and 7% in the peak hours respectively. This difference is small and would not give rise to a need to change the MoTiON demand to account for this change.

MODE SHARE Commentary from stakeholders requested that mode shares from MoTiON should be used to inform the mode shares in the trip generation. This is not considered appropriate as the trip generation has been prepared for comparative purposes and therefore attempts not to rely on information from the MoTiON model. As such, the mode share information presented in TN27 has not been amended or altered. As set out in TN27 and the TA, it was acknowledged that as part of the first or final journey stage, public transport trips will essentially be walking trips. This was included within the PCL analysis within the TA when assessing demand on the pedestrian network.

WEEKDAY – INDICATIVE DAILY PROFILE As requested by stakeholders, an indicative daily profile split down by hour has been calculated for the Site to aid understanding of how development demand varies across the day. MoTiON does not provide demand information for every hour of the day. Therefore, to create a daily profile the same TRICS rates, Page 22

TECHNICAL NOTE 76 – Trip Generation profiles and approaches as set out for the above AM and PM peak hour comparative analysis has been used. It should be noted, however, that within the AM and PM peak hour analysis, detailed consideration of journey purpose is given by hour assessed. Given that journey purpose and therefore internalisation assumptions will vary across the day, to provide an estimate of the daily profile an average internalisation figure (8%)4 has been applied. As such, the peak hour figures differ to those presented in this TN and the daily figures presented are also not the same as those used in the Environmental Statement (ES). Table 33 presents the profile in tabular format, with Graph 1 underneath showing it diagrammatically. The daily profile indicates that the AM and PM peak hours of 08:00 – 09:00 and 17:00 – 18:00 respectively return the highest values. Demand is higher in the AM peak when compared to the PM peak.

4 Adjustments: Residential to Work - 10%, Residential to Leisure / shopping / Personal – 10%, Residential to Education Primary –

No Adjustment, Residential to Education Secondary – No Adjustment, Residential to Employers Business – 10% = average of 8%. Page 23

TECHNICAL NOTE 76 – Trip Generation Table 33 – Weekday Indicative Daily Profile – Earls Court (External) Person Trips (All Land Uses) Time Range

Arr

Dep

Total

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

136

07:00-08:00

1,804

1,263

3,067

08:00-09:00

4,204

2,217

6,421

09:00-10:00

3,810

1,566

5,376

10:00-11:00

2,172

1,722

3,895

11:00-12:00

1,874

1,739

3,613

12:00-13:00

2,231

2,639

4,870

13:00-14:00

2,604

2,708

5,312

14:00-15:00

1,816

1,881

3,697

15:00-16:00

1,820

2,422

4,242

16:00-17:00

1,588

2,414

4,001

17:00-18:00

1,480

4,107

5,587

18:00-19:00

1,504

3,127

4,631

19:00-20:00

1,209

1,064

2,273

20:00-21:00

609

405

1,014

21:00-22:00

22:00-23:00

23:00-24:00

Daily Trips

28,812

29,414

58,226

Graph 1 – Daily Profile (weekday) – All Land Uses

Person Trips (External)

Earls Court - Daily Profile (Weekday) - All Land Uses 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0

Total

Arr

Dep

Page 24

TECHNICAL NOTE 76 – Trip Generation WEEKEND – INDICATIVE DAILY PROFILE Similar to the weekday daily profile exercise, stakeholders have asked for consideration of the trip generating potential of the site at a weekend. The ability to calculate an accurate forecast of the weekend trip generation is limited by the number of survey sites available within the TRICS database for a weekend. As such, alternative trip rates and / or selection criteria had to be utilised to synthesise a profile. This included widening date periods as well as expanding geographic scope. The trip generation set out below should therefore be treated as indicative only. The TRICS outputs for the weekend are shown in Appendix B and the following assumptions were applied:

 Residential — Only 1 Private Flats site was available within TRICS and no affordable sites were available. — Only 1 Mixed Private / Affordable site was available within TRICS — As such the Mixed Private / Affordable site was selected to create the trip rate and daily profile

 Office

— An assumption that 5% of employees were on site on a Saturday / weekend was applied. This

mirrored the assumptions adopted on other London mixed sites. — A TRICS profile for a weekend was selected to provide a profile for arrivals and departures.

 Research & Development

— There were no business park sites available with weekend data. — An industrial estate site was found, but this was located in Wales. Furthermore, the site survey

outlined that trains were on strike, so a coach service was being used as a replacement to trains. In addition, the site had 150 car park spaces, and no R&D proportion in terms of breakdown of operations. — A number of units were also cited as contracting or storage in nature, and it was noted that a couple of MOT/service units were at the site. This also explained the slightly irregular patterns of trip behaviour at this site. — As such, whilst the Welsh site was used to provide a profile, an amendment to reduce the trip rate was applied. This adjustment (to 5%) mirrored the amendment applied for the Office trips.

 Education Nursery — No sites had weekend data and it is assumed that any movements, if they were to occur, would be

maintenance etc – as such, no trip information has been accounted for.

 Education Secondary — No sites had weekend data and it is assumed that any movements, if they were to occur, would be

maintenance etc – as such, not trip information has been accounted for.

 Leisure – Culture — A wider geographic scope had to be selected to gather weekend data for this category.

 Retail

— A similar approach was adopted utilising a 50 / 50 split of shopping malls and individual unit — The shopping mall utilised a single site in Kent, and the other individual site used two sites in Essex

and Kent

 F&B — There were no equivalent Café sites to calculate the weekend data in TRICS. — As such the category C – Pub / Restaurant was used with a single site in London applied

Applying the same internalisation assumption (8% average rate per hour) an indicative daily profile for a weekend has been calculated, as shown in Table 34, and in graphical format in Graph 2.

Page 25

TECHNICAL NOTE 76 – Trip Generation The weekend profile suggests a peak hour of between 12:00 – 13:00. The weekend peak hour trips (3307 two-way) are significantly lower than that identified for a weekday (6245 two-way). Table 34 – Weekend Daily Profile – Earls Court (External) Person Trips (All Land Uses) Time Range

Arr

Dep

Total

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

348

311

658

08:00-09:00

563

863

1,426

09:00-10:00

844

1468

2,313

10:00-11:00

975

1479

2,454

11:00-12:00

1,035

1530

2,565

12:00-13:00

1,552

1754

3,307

13:00-14:00

1,447

1632

3,078

14:00-15:00

1,015

1426

2,441

15:00-16:00

1,330

1399

2,729

16:00-17:00

1,462

1272

2,734

17:00-18:00

1,330

1435

2,765

18:00-19:00

1,329

968

2,298

19:00-20:00

1,271

909

2,180

20:00-21:00

1,248

799

2,046

21:00-22:00

22:00-23:00

23:00-24:00

167

212

Daily Trips

15,829

17,556

33,385

Graph 2 – Daily Profile (weekend) – All Land Uses

Person Trips (External)

Earls Court - Daily Profile (Weekend) - All Land Uses 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0

Total

Arr

Dep Page 26

TECHNICAL NOTE 76 – Trip Generation DESTINATION SENSITIVITY TEST Following comments from stakeholders during post submission meetings, a review of whether the site’s attractiveness as a destination in its own right has been considered further. This is considered particularly relevant at the weekend where there could be a higher level of leisure based trips, coinciding with an increase in retail movements. As noted above the Meridian Water Phase 2 site assumed that all retail trips would primarily serve employees and residents of the proposed development and would therefore form part of internal / linked trips. This included an assessment of an interpeak (which was used as a proxy for a weekend / Saturday profile). As such, there was no adjustment to take into account an increase in external movements to / from that site at the weekend or weekday. A study in Fitzrovia5, although focused on public realm use, indicated that use patterns vary greatly with space being most stressed on weekday lunchtimes in the summer. At weekends Fitzrovia’s public spaces were found to be quieter but still well used as office workers were replaced (to a lesser extent) by shoppers, tourists, students and residents. It is considered that whilst there could be increases in use of the public realm and retail from external sources (other than the development) it is likely to coincide with lower trips in general as a result of less commercial office and R&D workers at the weekend. To account for this, a sensitivity test assuming 50% internal trips (instead of 80%) of retail and F&B trips was conducted. This profile is shown in Graph 3 below. Graph 3 – Daily Profile (weekend) – All Land Uses – Retail Sensitivity Test

Earls Court - Daily Profile (Weekend) - All Land Uses - Retail Sensitivity Test 4500

Person Trips (External)

4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0

Total

Arr

Dep

5 https://www.urbanmovement.co.uk/fitzroviaprs.html

Page 27

TECHNICAL NOTE 76 – Trip Generation The sensitivity test indicated an increase in movements, with a peak period of 13:00 – 14:00 (totalling 4,122 two-way person trips). Whilst approximately 800 two-way trips higher than that considered above in Table 34 and Graph 2, this is still under the values tested in the AM and PM weekday peak hours. Therefore no further analysis of the Site as a destination is considered necessary.

COMMERCIAL LAND USE – ARRIVAL PROFILE SENSITIVITY TfL and RBKC have queried the use of the generic TRICS profile when determining the arrival and departure percentages applied to the commercial land use. Both stakeholders outlined that the arrival rates appear low and in the case of RBKC suggested that 40% in the peak hours would be anticipated. As shown above, the rates derived for the trip generation are based on a TRICS profile and are therefore based on existing site surveys, however, for completeness a review of this has been undertaken. A sensitivity test exercise has been undertaken applying a 40% / 2% - arrival / departure profile for the commercial uses in the AM (with the reverse in the PM). The alternative arrival / departure profile has been run through the trip generation spreadsheet, and then the internalisation and mode shares have been applied. It is important to note that what was assessed using MoTiON and then Railplan in the TA is not the same as the TRICS trip generation exercise and so a direct like for like comparison is not appropriate. This is an important distinction because adjustments were made, as set out in the TA, to uplift MoTiON outputs to cater for reductions in car based travel and associated uplifts to public transport trips. The uplift in Railplan demand (via MoTiON) was 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 (walking, cycling and public transport). As such, the final values assessed in the TA and associated station impacts are higher than just the core Railplan values. Railplan outputs are provided in three hour periods, and so to get to a peak hour value, the agreed TfL modelling factors of 0.45 and 0.41 in the AM and PM peaks respectively have been applied. When reviewing the initial Railplan outputs, it was evident that the majority of trips within the strategic models were being assigned to rail based movements. As such, and as set out in the TA, the bus based public transport trips were uplifted accordingly to ensure that the potential demand was captured because Railplan showed limited bus based demand. The following process was applied within the original analysis (as undertaken in the current TA) and has been replicated, but using a 40% commercial uses arrival / departure uplift:

Page 28

TECHNICAL NOTE 76 – Trip Generation Stage 1. Initial Railplan Outputs reviewed against Trip generation exercise

Stage 2. Review the rail trips comparing Railplan and forecast Rail trips from Trip Gen

Stage 3. Add the bus trips (from the trip gen) onto the initial Railplan outputs

Stage 2a. Calculate additional bus trips (using Trip gen)

Table 35 shows the AM calculations undertaken in the original (and corresponding TA analysis) and the same results for the version with the revised Commercial arrival profile.

Table 35: Railplan vs TA and revised Commercial Arrival Profile Comparison – AM Peak Original PT Stage 1

Updated - 40% Commercial Arr (Dest)

Dep (Ori)

Two Way

695

3688

Trip Gen

4441

938

5379

Railplan

3474

1213

4688

Railplan

3474

1213

4688

Updated - 40% Commercial Arr (Dest)

Dep (Ori)

Two Way

Rail Only

Arr (Dest)

Dep (Ori)

Two Way

Trip Gen

2395

464

2859

Trip Gen

3567

633

4200

Railplan

3474

1213

4688

Railplan

3474

1213

4688

Original Bus Only

Updated - 40% Commercial Arr (Dest)

Dep (Ori)

Two Way

Bus Only

Arr (Dest)

Dep (Ori)

Two Way

Trip Gen

598

230

828

Trip Gen

875

305

1180

594

369

963

594

369

963

Original Railplan + Bus Stage 3

Dep (Ori)

2993

Rail Only

Stage 2a

Arr (Dest)

Trip Gen

Original Stage 2

Arr (Dest)

Dep (Ori)

Two Way

Updated - 40% Commercial Railplan + Bus Arr (Dest) Dep (Ori)

Two Way

Trip Gen

2993

695

3688

Trip Gen

4442

938

5380

4069

1582

5651

4069

1582

5651

As shown above, at Stage 1, the Railplan values were higher than the original trip gen analysis. When reviewing the 40% commercial analysis, the two-way values show a very similar total value, albeit it is noted that the Railplan arrival and departure profile is different to that manually assigned. This would suggest that Railplan does not apply the same arrival / departure percentage split as being suggested by TfL or RBKC. Reviewing Stage 2, and breaking down the trips into just rail demand, it can be seen that the initial Railplan outputs were entirely rail trips, i.e. Railplan predicted no demand for bus based journeys. In both scenarios (original and 40% commercial) the trip generation calculations for just rail trips were lower than Railplan forecasts. Page 29

TECHNICAL NOTE 76 – Trip Generation Stage 2a shows the number of bus based trips that were derived in the trip generation and then the number of bus trips that were used in the TA for the purposes of the bus based assessment. When account is made for the 40% scenario the number of bus based trips increases to above the level assessed in the TA. Stage 3 sets out that when adding the bus based trip values in Stage 2a to the original Railplan values in Stage 1, the original analysis assessed a far higher volume of public transport trips compared to that forecast as part of the trip generation exercise. Under the 40% commercial scenario, this remains the case. The public transport demand assessed in the TA is higher. Whilst it’s noted that the bus demand is slightly different, this does not influence or affect the final assessed values. Focusing on the rail based travel, to further provide comfort that sufficient demand has been applied at the stations assessed Table 36 shows the breakdown by station. Table 36: Adjusted Railplan used in TA vs Commercial 40% Station Demand comparison - AM Rail Trips

Station Distribution Dev direction (Station dir) In (exit)

Out (entry)

Twoway

Trip Gen - Commercial 40% Arr (Dest)

Dep (Ori)

Two Way

Railplan

Arr (Dest)

Dep (Ori)

Difference

Two Way

Arr (Dest)

Dep (Ori)

Two Way

Earl's Court

28%

33%

29%

999

209

1208

977

406

1383

-22

+197

+175

West Brompton

39%

17%

33%

1391

108

1499

1340

207

1546

-51

+99

+47

West Kensington

33%

49%

38%

1177

310

1487

1158

600

1759

-19

+290

+272

Total

100%

3567

633

4200

3474

1213

4688

-93

+580

+488

As shown in Table 36 each station was assessed using a higher level of demand (using the Railplan values) compared to an alternative trip generation with a 40% commercial arrival profile. Therefore, whilst the comments on the commercial arrival / departure profiles are noted, applying them would not alter the PT trip generation values already assessed. The TA has already applied a robust position that is higher than the forecasts applying the alternative arrival / departure profile in the AM. The same exercise has been undertaken for the PM peak hour, as shown in Table 37. Table 37: Railplan vs TA and revised Commercial Arrival Profile Comparison – PM Peak Original PT Stage 1

Updated - 40% Commercial Dep (Ori)

Two Way

Trip Gen

Arr (Dest) 449

Dep (Ori) 2813

Two Way 3263

Trip Gen

637

4407

5044

Railplan

1002

2645

3647

Railplan

1002

2645

3647

Updated - 40% Commercial Arr (Dest) Dep (Ori) Rail Only

Two Way

Original Rail Only Stage 2

Arr (Dest)

Dep (Ori)

Two Way

Arr (Dest)

Trip Gen

292

2220

2511

Trip Gen

416

3499

3915

Railplan

1002

2645

3647

Railplan

1002

2645

3647

Page 30

TECHNICAL NOTE 76 – Trip Generation Original Arr (Dest)

Bus Only Stage 2a

Two Way

Updated - 40% Commercial Arr (Dest) Dep (Ori) Bus Only

Two Way

Trip Gen

158

594

752

Trip Gen

221

903

1124

289

481

770

289

481

770

Updated - 40% Commercial Railplan + Arr (Dest) Dep (Ori) Bus

Two Way

Original Railplan + Bus Stage 3

Dep (Ori)

Arr (Dest)

Dep (Ori)

Two Way

Trip Gen

449

2813

3263

Trip Gen

637

4402

5039

1291

3126

4417

1291

3126

4417

As with the AM, in Stage 1, the Railplan values were higher than the original trip gen analysis. When reviewing the 40% commercial analysis, although noting that the departures in the PM were altered to 40% not the arrivals, the two-way values under the revised trip generation show a higher value by 1,397 rips (i.e. the Railplan outputs are lower). Again, the Railplan arrival and departure profile is different. At Stage 2, and breaking down the trips into just rail demand, it was shown that the initial Railplan outputs were predominantly rail trips as discussed above. In the original analysis the two-way trips are lower than assumed in Railplan. In the 40% uplift scenario they are very similar although it is noted that the proportion of arrivals and departures differ. As set out in Stage 2a, the 40% commercial scenario forecasts a higher value for just bus demand compared to that assessed in the TA. Stage 3 sets out that when adding the bus based trip values in Stage 2a to the original Railplan values in Stage 1, the original analysis assessed a far higher volume of PT trips compared to that forecast as part of the trip generation exercise. Under the 40% commercial scenario, the values are relatively similar with a difference of 622 trips / 12%. However, the majority of this difference relates to the number of bus trips assessed. The two-way rail trips are shown to be very similar with the Railplan values 268 trips / 6.8% lower. The public transport demand assessed in the TA is higher in the arrivals but lower for the departures – but two way is relatively similar. Focusing on the rail based travel, to further provide comfort that the stations assessed have applied sufficient demand, Table 38 shows the breakdown by station. Table 38: Adjusted Railplan used in TA vs Commercial 40% Station Demand comparison - PM Rail Trips

Station Distribution Dev direction (Station dir) In (exit)

Out (entry)

Twoway

Trip Gen - Commercial 40% Arr (Dest)

Dep (Ori)

Two Way

Railplan

Arr (Dest)

Dep (Ori)

Difference

Two Way

Arr (Dest)

Dep (Ori)

Two Way

Earl's Court

39%

44%

42%

162

1540

1702

389

1152

1541

+227

-388

-161

West Brompton

20%

28%

26%

980

1063

204

733

937

+121

-247

-126

West Kensington

41%

29%

32%

171

1015

1185

410

759

1169

+239

-256

-16

Total

100%

416

3499

3915

1002

2645

3647

+586

-854

-268

Page 31

TECHNICAL NOTE 76 – Trip Generation Table 38 outlines that the Railplan demand, when proportioned across each of the stations is very similar to the revised trip generation with the commercial departures set at 40% (a difference of 268 trips overall). Whilst there is greater variances in terms of arrival and departures proportions at the stations, each station (two way) has been assessed using a robust total volume of additional development trips. It is also worth noting that the AM peak has considerable higher trips compared to the PM, and as such, the stations have been assessed in a worst case scenario. As with the AM, the TA has already applied a robust position that is higher than the forecasts applying the alternative arrival / departure profile in the PM. No changes to the trip generation and / or strategic modelling inputs are therefore considered necessary.

Page 32

TECHNICAL NOTE 76 – Trip Generation EVENTS Stakeholders have asked what the impacts of events would be and how this impacts the trip generation. The planning applications don’t seek specific consent for events. Whilst the public realm areas are noted within the Development Specification as having the capability of accommodating incidental Retail / F&B / Flexible Commercial, Culture and / or Leisure uses this would be small scale. Separate to this the cultural land use proposed on site includes for the provision of up to 10,000sqm across LBHF and RBKC. The spatial distribution of these venues is shown graphically in the Cultural Strategy submitted with the planning application (ECDC document reference EC PA 31). Figure 1 shows the various locations where culture has been allowed for. Figure 1: Distribution of Cultural Venues across the Site

The 10,000sqm culture use would be limited to a maximum of 4000sqm per venue (although this varies by location), equivalent to a venue capable of accommodating 1000 people standing or 600 seated. Combined across the Site this equates to an indicative capacity of 2500 standing or 1500 seated. Whilst it would not be anticipated that all three large venues would operate simultaneously, consideration has been given to this as a worst-case scenario. The planning application for Olympia (reference 2018/03100/FUL) provides profiles for arrivals and departures for both a theatre and music venue. Table 39 sets out the anticipated profile of audience arrivals and departures for a theatre and Table 40 sets out the anticipated profile for a music venue.

Page 33

TECHNICAL NOTE 76 – Trip Generation Table 39 – Theatre Arrival and Departure Profile Time Range

Arr

Dep

11:00-12:00

20%

12:00-13:00

20%

13:00-14:00

60%

16:00-17:00

100%

18:00-19:00

20%

80%

19:00-20:00

80%

22:00-23:00

100%

Table 40 – Music Venue Arrival and Departure Profile Time Range

Arr

Dep

16:00-17:00

17%

17:00-18:00

39%

18:00-19:00

26%

19:00-20:00

18%

22:00-23:00

24%

23:00-24:00

76%

Based on the trip generation for Olympia the theatre use would not generate trips in the weekday peak hours. However, the music venue potentially would. Taking a very robust approach assuming all venues holding music events on the same day, using an indicative maximum capacity of 2500 people across the Site and the mode share also assumed for music events at Olympia, Table 41 sets out an indicative PM peak trip generation. Table 41 – PM Peak Hour (17:00-18:00) Music Venue Arrival and Departure Profile Mode

Proportion

Arr

Dep

Underground and Train

56%

546

Bus

18%

176

Taxi

Motorcycle

Driving a car

Passenger in a car

Bicycle

Foot

15%

146

Total

100%

975

Table 41 shows that as a worst case 975 arrivals could be expected during the PM peak hour equating to up to 546 trips on the rail network. Given the distribution of cultural venues and availability of three stations to access the Site at a high level this would equate to 182 additional arrivals if split equally. This quantum of additional trips is likely to be able to be accommodated on the transport network. As requested by stakeholders, applying the split in station distribution used in the TA, Table 42 provides an indication of the level of trips per station in the PM, using the 2041 values.

Page 34

TECHNICAL NOTE 76 – Trip Generation Table 42 – PM Peak Hour (17:00-18:00) Music Venue Arrivals – Split by Station Station

AM Peak

PM Peak

Trips (using PM peak)

West Kensington

38%

32%

175

Earls Court

29%

42%

229

West Brompton

33%

26%

142

Total

100%

546

Table 42 indicates that Earls Court could see the highest additional trips of approximately 229 arrivals. Notwithstanding this and acknowledging the more concentrated departure profiles expected for theatre and music venue uses it is suggested that Event Travel Plans could be prepared at the Reserved Matters Application (RMA) stage to assist in the management of transport impacts associated with events at the Site. Stakeholders have also requested a review of the potential impacts if events were to occur during the day, given that the application seeks flexible use. Again limited information is available on this and therefore the planning application for Olympia has been used as a proxy. The Theatre arrivals and departures profile has been applied which identifies that up to 60% of arrival demand could occur between 13:00-14:00 and 100% of departure demand between 16:00-17:00. Applying the same assumptions as above, in terms of 2500 capacity and the same mode shares, this would equate to a total of 840 additional rail base trips between 13:00-14:00 and 1400 between 16:00-17:00. Using the split of stations from the TA, but averaging the AM and PM peak hours as a proxy for daytime arrival, Table 43 shows the resulting trips.

Table 43 – Daytime Event Arrivals and Departures – Split by Station Station

AM Peak

PM Peak

Average of AM and PM

Arrival Trips (13:00-14:00)

Departure Trips (16:00-17:00)

West Kensington

38%

32%

35%

294

490

Earls Court

29%

42%

36%

298

504

West Brompton

33%

26%

30%

248

406

Total

100%

840

1400

As noted above, it is suggested that Event Travel Plans are secured at the RMA stage to assist with management of any excess station demand generated by peak movements associated with the use of the cultural venues. At this stage greater clarity would be available on the final form that these venues are likely to take.

Page 35

TECHNICAL NOTE 76 – Trip Generation SERVICING & DELIVERIES A number of specific queries were provided relating to the servicing and delivery trip generation. A review of the servicing and deliveries trip generation has been completed and where necessary, updated values have been used in the analysis which are set out below. It should be noted that any changes in servicing and delivery numbers would be picked up in the LoHAM and VISSIM micro-simulation analysis, as the strategic model – MoTiON does not account for this trip type.

Review of other Sites Servicing Assumptions As a starting point a review of other large-scale London sites and their servicing rates was completed to see how these compare to those used in the Earls Court analysis. It is acknowledged that some of the sites are older, however still provide a benchmark for review. A comparison of servicing trip rates used at Canada Water, Battersea and Silvertown is set out in Table 44 alongside the rates used for Earls Court. Table 44 – Review of Servicing Trip Rates and other London developments Land Use

Site Canada Water

Battersea

Silvertown

Earls Court (TA and TN27 Original)

Retail

0.52 (per 100 sqm)

0.59 (per 100 sqm)

0.52 (per 100 sqm)

0.8 (per 100 sqm)

Office

0.18 (per 100 sqm)

0.21 (per 100 sqm)

0.20 (per 100 sqm)

0.22 (per 100 sqm)

Leisure / Theatre

0.10 (per 100 sqm)

n/a

0.10 (per 100 sqm)

Assessed as retail

Hotel

0.25 (per 100 sqm)

n/a

0.25 (per 100 sqm)

Assessed as retail

Restaurants / F&B

2.20 (per 100 sqm)

2.00 (per 100 sqm)

1.80 (per 100 sqm)

Assessed as retail

Residential

0.07 (per 100 sqm)

0.10 (per 100 sqm)

0.07 (per 100 sqm)

0.3 (per unit)

TfL’s comments outlined that for residential they expected rates akin to 0.43 per unit. On commercial and retail, comments asked for further justification, each is discussed further in detail below. Consolidation Whilst the majority of stakeholders agree that consolidation would occur, some have questioned whether this is applicable and could lead to under-estimation of trips. WSP does not agree with these comments raise and in WSP’s opinion, the adoption of this traditional approach often leads to over-estimation of servicing and delivery trips. Consolidation of deliveries is a well established practice and numerous large scale sites have adopted those principles across London as well as nationwide. However, given the need to conclude this exercise, revised servicing trip generation discussed further below removes any consolidation factor.

Earls Court - Residential servicing and deliveries The original trip rate applied to each residential unit was 0.3 delivery trips per unit per day. This was determined using a first principles approach, then benchmarked against other sites. Page 36

TECHNICAL NOTE 76 – Trip Generation The first principles approach assumed two 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 a 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 per day. As shown in Table 44 other large scale London sites have used a variety of servicing rates, and when applying the residential rates (albeit on a per 100sqm basis) this would result in significantly fewer trips. As outlined above, TfL have recommended that a higher residential trip rate of 0.43 per unit is utilised to reflect the modern change in delivery patterns. However, without an evidence base for this increase the 0.3 trip rate is considered appropriate for use and is considered to represent a robust approach given the historic rates used at other large scale London sites. Table 45 shows the resultant daily demand and Table 46 the peak hour based on a robust assumption of 15% of trips taking place in the peak hour.

Table 45 – Daily Residential Delivery and Servicing Trip Generation: Daily (with consolidation*) – All Phases Delivery / Servicing Journey Purpose

Delivery Vehicle 10m Rigid

3.5t Panel Van

Micro-Ev

Cargo Bike

M/C

Bicycle

RCV

Total

Groceries

144

288

Non-food small items

360

180

721

Non-food large items

Take-away

101

168

Waste

Total

517

252

226

115

1207

Table 46 – Peak Hour Residential Delivery and Servicing Trip Generation: Peak Hour (with consolidation*) – All Phases Delivery / Servicing Journey Purpose

Delivery Vehicle 10m Rigid

3.5t Panel Van

Micro-Ev

Cargo Bike

M/C

Bicycle

RCV

Total

Groceries

Non-food small items

108

Non-food large items

Take-away

Waste

Total

183

*Revised consolidation factor of 100% applied (i.e, no reduction)

Page 37

TECHNICAL NOTE 76 – Trip Generation Earls Court - Commercial The trip rate applied to the commercial office element of Earls Court was 0.22 delivery trips per 100sqm per day. In terms of the commercial office trip rate, a review of other applications / sites was undertaken in TN27 to provide justification for the numbers used. This determined that the rates applied were similar and considered robust. A further review of other large-scale sites in London (Table 40) indicates that the rate used is above that utilised on other large-scale London schemes. As such, the 0.22 per 100sqm is considered appropriate and no changes are considered necessary. In the original analysis, off-site consolidation for the Office element was included within the analysis. This is still considered to be a realistic approach, and consolidation is utilised for many existing sites across London. 55 Bishopsgate, (22/00981/FULEIA) for example, utilised a 50% consolidation assumption within their analysis, and as such it is considered appropriate that Earls Court could achieve a similar reduction using the same approach. To ensure a worst case scenario has been adopted the consolidation factor for Commercial has been reduced to 0%. This is on the basis that whilst 50% is considered realistic, the comments received and commitments made within the Framework Delivery and Servicing Plan (FDSP) is only to encourage consolidation and therefore a lower percentage reduction is considered appropriate. The FDSP sets out the measures for promoting consolidation in Section 3.3 of the document. The FDSP in section 4.25 onwards outlines that consolidation will be encouraged through tenancy agreements for the commercial uses. As stated in 4.37 of the FDSP “Opportunities for consolidation have been baked into the FDSP, and facilities will be provided to allow delivery of parcels within the estate. This is to allow flexibility for parcel lockers or other facilities to be provided in other locations such as retail units with further opportunities afforded by the potential on-site first mile last mile commercial logistics hub. Consolidation will be encouraged for the larger commercial land uses.” The FDSP outlines that specific targets will be developed, and delivery and servicing survey will be undertaken as part of the Travel Plan monitoring process. This will enable a review of movements and consolidation practices to / from the Site.

Earls Court - Retail The servicing trip rate applied to the retail at Earls Court was 0.8 delivery trips per 100sqm per day. This was applied across the retail and F&B rather than disaggregating between these two land uses. As set out in TN27 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 was considered appropriate. The Earls Court retail trip rate is applied to all retail land uses, and when reviewing the other large-scale London sites, there is a varying range depending on uses. Applying an average of the non-commercial and

Page 38

TECHNICAL NOTE 76 – Trip Generation non-residential elements set out in the Silvertown example, the resulting trip rate per 100 sqm is 0.556. Reviewing just the retail and F&B land uses from Silvertown, the average rate between the two uses is 1.167 per 100 sqm. It is considered that the Earls Court rate of 0.8 is appropriate, and this has been agreed with stakeholders. No off-site consolidation for Retail uses has been assumed as a worst case scenario.

Commercial & Retail Servicing Trip Generation The resulting delivery and servicing daily trip generation and peak hour generation based on the land use and vehicle type (assuming off-site consolidation for the office land use only) is set out in Table 47 and Table 48 respectively. Table 47 – Commercial & Retail Delivery and Servicing Trip Generation: Daily (with consolidation*) Delivery Vehicle Delivery / Servicing Journey Purpose

10m Rigid

3.5t Panel Van

Micro-Ev

Cargo Bike

M/C

Bicycle

RCV

Total

Deliveries

359

718

Waste

Total

359

724

The resulting daily trips increase from 377 to 724. The corresponding Peak hour trips are shown in Table 41 below. Table 48 – Commercial & Retail Delivery and Servicing Trip Generation: Peak Hour (with consolidation*) Delivery Vehicle Delivery / Servicing Journey Purpose

10m Rigid

3.5t Panel Van

Micro-Ev

Cargo Bike

M/C

Bicycle

RCV

Total

Deliveries

108

Waste

Total

110

*No consolidation factor applied

The peak hour movements increase from 59 in the original TN27 to 110. Table 49 sets out the total servicing trip generation from TN27, with Table 50 underneath presenting the updated values. Table 51 provides a comparison of the two.

6 Taken from Silvertown site - Average of 1.8 per 100sqm for F&B, 0.52 per 100sqm for Retail, 0.25 per 100sqm for

Hotel, 0.1 per 100sqm for Leisure and 0.1 per 100sqm for Theatre = 0.554 per 100 sqm. 7 Taken from Silvertown site - Average of 1.8 per 100sqm for F&B, 0.52 per 100sqm for Retail = 1.16 per 100 sqm Page 39

TECHNICAL NOTE 76 – Trip Generation Table 49: All Phases Daily Servicing and Deliveries Trip Generation – Original (TN27) Land use

Delivery / Servicing Journey Purpose

Delivery Vehicle 10m Rigid

3.5t Panel Van

Micro-Ev

Cargo Bike

M/C

Bicycle

RCV

Total

Groceries

107

214

Non-food small items

268

134

536

Non-food large items

Take-away

125

Waste

384

187

168

899

Deliveries

187

374

Waste

Sub-Total

187

377

Total

196

571

187

168

1276

Residential

Sub-Total Commercial + Retail

Table 50: All Phases Daily Servicing and Deliveries Trip Generation – Updated Land use

Delivery / Servicing Journey Purpose

Delivery Vehicle 10m Rigid

3.5t Panel Van

Micro-Ev

Cargo Bike

M/C

Bicycle

RCV

Total

Groceries

144

288

Non-food small items

360

180

721

Non-food large items

Take-away

101

168

Waste

517

252

226

115

1207

Deliveries

359

718

Waste

Sub-Total

359

724

Total

371

876

252

226

115

1932

Residential

Sub-Total Commercial + Retail

Page 40

TECHNICAL NOTE 76 – Trip Generation Table 51: All Phases Daily Servicing and Deliveries Trip Generation – Comparison Land use

Delivery / Servicing Journey Purpose

Delivery Vehicle 10m Rigid

3.5t Panel Van

Micro-Ev

Cargo Bike

M/C

Bicycle

RCV

Total

Groceries

Non-food small items

185

Non-food large items

Take-away

Waste

133

308

Deliveries

172

344

Waste

Sub-Total

172

347

Total

+175

+305

+65

+58

+20

+29

+656

Residential

Sub-Total Commercial

The updated servicing calculations result in a daily increase of 656 vehicles compared to the original analysis. In terms of peak hour trips Table 52 sets out the peak hour servicing trip generation used in the planning submission, Table 53 sets out the revised peak hour trip generation and Table 54 provides a comparison. Table 52: All Phases Peak Hour Servicing and Deliveries Trip Generation – Original (TN27) Land use

Delivery / Servicing Journey Purpose

Delivery Vehicle 10m Rigid

3.5t Panel Van

Micro-Ev

Cargo Bike

M/C

Bicycle

RCV

Total

Groceries

Non-food small items

Non-food large items

Take-away

Waste

140

Deliveries

Waste

Sub-Total

Total

199

Residential

Sub-Total Commercial

Page 41

TECHNICAL NOTE 76 – Trip Generation Table 53: All Phases Peak Hour Servicing and Deliveries Trip Generation – Updated Land use

Delivery / Servicing Journey Purpose

Delivery Vehicle 10m Rigid

3.5t Panel Van

Micro-Ev

Cargo Bike

M/C

Bicycle

RCV

Total

Groceries

Non-food small items

108

Non-food large items

Take-away

Waste

186

Deliveries

108

Waste

Sub-Total

110

Total

131

296

Residential

Sub-Total Commercial + Retail

Table 54: All Phases Peak Hour Servicing and Deliveries Trip Generation – Comparison Land use

Delivery / Servicing Journey Purpose

Delivery Vehicle 10m Rigid

3.5t Panel Van

Micro-Ev

Cargo Bike

M/C

Bicycle

RCV

Total

Groceries

Non-food small items

Non-food large items

Take-away

Waste

Deliveries

Waste

-1

Sub-Total

-1

Total

-1

Residential

Sub-Total Commercial +Retail

Page 42

TECHNICAL NOTE 76 – Trip Generation Table 54 shows an increase of 97 servicing trips in the peak hour when compared to the original assessment. This change will be taken forwards within the updated LoHAM and VISSIM modelling that will be undertaken in due course.

COMPARISON AGAINST ASSESSED TA VALUES Chapter 7 of the TA sets out the approach taken in terms of deriving and defining the trip generation used for the assessment of the impact of the development. This included making adjustments to redistribute the car driver trips generated within the MoTiON demand modelling to other modes to align with the limited parking provision proposed on site. Further analysis was then undertaken of the one-hour AM and PM peak hour demand passed to LoHAM (via MoTiON). Adjustments were made to the car demand in LoHAM (reduced to reflect the trip generation), taxi demand was uplifted to reflect the trip generation exercise and Private Hire Vehicle (PHV) demand predicted in LoHAM (via MoTiON) was reduced to account for the aforementioned uplift in Taxis. Further adjustments were also applied to the LGV and HGV demand in LoHAM to align to the predicted peak hour servicing and delivery trips. Analysis was also undertaken of the increase in public transport demand which was predicted in the threehour AM and PM peak periods in Railplan. The uplift in Railplan demand (via MoTiON) was compared to the initial 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 to analyse the impact on rail stations and services to ensure a worst case assessment was undertaken. 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 (walking, cycling and public transport). The result of these adjustments are shown in Table 32 of the TA, which provided a total trip generation for the 2041 All Phases scenario that was assessed. This has been compared against the updated TRICS and servicing trip generation set out above and is shown in Table 55. Table 55: All Phases Trips Assessed in TA vs Updated Assumptions Mode

AM Peak (0800 – 0900)

PM Peak (1700 – 1800)

Arr

Dep

Total

Dep

Total

Total Trips Assessed - Table 32 TA

5,764

3,080

8,843

2,275

4,751

7,026

Updated Trip Gen (External) - All Land Uses

4,314

2,198

6,512

1,359

4,145

5,504

296

592

296

592

Total

4,610

2,494

7,104

1,655

4,441

6,096

Difference

-1,154

-586

-1739

-20

-310

-930

Updated - Servicing (All Modes)

For robustness, the updated servicing trips have been assumed to be 15% of the daily demand in both peak hours whereas it is likely that the delivery profile would vary by hours of the day. Page 43

TECHNICAL NOTE 76 – Trip Generation As shown above, even accounting for the updated TRICS exercise, amendments to internalisation and uplift in servicing and delivery vehicles – the values assessed in the TA are still significantly higher in both AM and PM peaks. It is therefore proposed that no changes will be made to the strategic modelling demand where it relates to public transport, walking and cycling trips. However, amendments will be made in LoHAM and Vissim to update the demand relating to servicing and delivery trips.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION Responses to the planning applications have been collated both in the form of written comments provided to WSP and during post-application discussions with the Transport Stakeholders. The separately prepared comment tracker contains the comments received to date (as of December 2024) in tabular format, with responses provided against each item. The responses received from the Stakeholders broadly cover the following topics, which have been discussed further throughout this TN and are summarised below:

 TRICS site selection and land use review — An exercise has been completed reviewing the availability of sites within the TRICS database and

updates have been applied where possible. — In some instances, the limited site availability or no new surveys has resulted in minimal change to

the trip rates. In others, updates have been made to rectify previous assumptions and tailor the rates accordingly. — Comparison of person trip generation following review of any changes to account for the above — The updated trip rates have been applied to the same development quantum as set out in TN27. — Before internalisation, this results in an increase in total person trips of 1122 and 1243 two-way trips in the AM and PM peaks respectively compared to those used in TN27.

 Trip adjustments (internalisation) review — A review of internalisation factors applied has been completed, including what was used at other

large-scale mixed sites within London. — This results in a minor change to some of the internalisation factors.

 The trip generation, accounting for internalisation, would result in an increase in trips of 379 movements in the AM peak and 386 in the PM peak compared to those in TN27. This equates to a difference of between 6% and 7% in the peak hours respectively.

 Mode Share commentary — A review of the mode share applied was completed and found to still be valid. As such, no changes

were warranted and as the changes in trips were low, no further analysis applied.

 Weekday and Weekend profiles — A weekday daily profile for all land uses was created using the updated TRICS results and the

relevant internalisation factors. This demonstrated that the two peak hours were 08:00 - 09:00 and 17:00 – 18:00 respectively. — A weekend profile was also created, although it should be noted that due to limited site selection within TRICS, alternative categories or wider geographic scope had to be used. This demonstrated that the peak hour was 12:00 – 13:00 and was considerably less in total person trips compared to the weekday analysis.

 Events Page 44

TECHNICAL NOTE 76 – Trip Generation — A review of the event space offering as part of the development proposals has been completed and

suitable management strategies have been proposed to be developed at the RMA stage.

 Servicing and delivery trip generation review and comparison — A review of servicing rates applied, including those utilised at other large scale London sites was

completed. Amendments to consolidation factors have been applied following stakeholder feedback. — The updated servicing calculations result in a daily increase of 656 vehicles compared to the original analysis. In terms of peak hour trips, this corresponds to an increase of 97 vehicles. This will be tested within the LoHAM and VISSIM platforms moving forwards.

CONCLUSION The trip generation comparison exercise resulted in very similar trip generation numbers compared to those set out in TN27. This difference is not considered material and would not impact any of the analysis completed to date within the TA or supporting TNs. For the servicing and delivery trip generation, taking on board stakeholder comments alongside a review of other sites in London the updated servicing and deliveries trip generation results in an increase in daily and peak hour movements. Given that these represent the majority of the highway impacts resulting from the site, it is considered appropriate that the updated numbers are used in the assessment moving forwards. This will be undertaken within the LoHAM modelling (highway strategic model) and the VISSIM microsimulation modelling of the local network. This ensures that the impacts from the site are robustly assessed and appropriate mitigation is developed.

Page 45

TECHNICAL NOTE DATE:

13 February 2025

CONFIDENTIALITY: Public

SUBJECT:

Earls Court Development: Trip Generation Review and Sensitivity Note

PROJECT:

70077004

AUTHOR:

Alex Smith

CHECKED:

Justin Sherlock

APPROVED:

Justin Sherlock

APPENDIX A – UPDATED TRICS OUTPUTS – WEEKDAY

www.wsp.com 250213_EC_WSPT_TN76_Trip Gen Sensitivity

Basing View

Basingstoke

Monday 16/12/24 Page 1 Licence No: 100301

Calculation Reference: AUDIT-100301-241216-1235 TRIP RATE CALCULATION SELECTION PARAMETERS: Land Use Category

: 03 - RESIDENTIAL : D - AFFORDABLE/LOCAL AUTHORITY FLATS

MULTI-MODAL TOTAL VEHICLES Selected regions and areas: 01 GREATER LONDON HG HARINGEY IS ISLINGTON

1 days 2 days

This section displays the number of survey days per TRICS® sub-region in the selected set

Basing View

Basingstoke

Monday 16/12/24 Page 2 Licence No: 100301

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: Actual Range: Range Selected by User:

No of Dwellings 90 to 250 (units: ) 50 to 339 (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: Date Range:

Include all surveys

01/01/02 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 Thursday Friday

1 days 1 days 1 days

This data displays the number of selected surveys by day of the week. Selected survey types: Manual count Directional ATC Count

3 days 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 Suburban Area (PPS6 Out of Centre) Neighbourhood Centre (PPS6 Local Centre)

1 1 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

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 Servicing vehicles Excluded

3 days - Selected 6 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

Basing View

Basingstoke

Monday 16/12/24 Page 3 Licence No: 100301

Secondary Filtering selection (Cont.): Population within 1 mile: 50,001 to 100,000 100,001 or More

1 days 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 0.6 to 1.0

2 days 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 5 Very Good

1 days 2 days

This data displays the number of selected surveys with PTAL Ratings.

Basing View

Basingstoke

Monday 16/12/24 Page 4 Licence No: 100301

LIST OF SITES relevant to selection parameters 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: Survey date: FRIDAY IS-03-D-02 BLOCKS OF FLATS COPENHAGEN STREET ISLINGTON BARNARD PARK Neighbourhood Centre (PPS6 Local Centre) Residential Zone Total No of Dwellings: Survey date: THURSDAY IS-03-D-04 BLOCKS OF FLATS LIVERPOOL ROAD HIGHBURY Edge of Town Centre Residential Zone Total No of Dwellings: Survey date: MONDAY

HARINGEY

90 26/09/14

250 28/11/13

247 27/06/16

Survey Type: MANUAL ISLINGTON

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.

Basing View

Basingstoke

Monday 16/12/24 Page 16 Licence No: 100301

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

Time Range 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 11:00 - 12:00 12:00 - 13:00 13:00 - 14:00 14:00 - 15:00 15:00 - 16:00 16:00 - 17:00 17:00 - 18:00 18:00 - 19:00 19:00 - 20:00 20:00 - 21:00 21:00 - 22:00 22:00 - 23:00 23:00 - 24:00 Total Rates:

ARRIVALS Ave. DWELLS

No. Days

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1

196 196 196 196 196 196 196 196 196 196 196 196 247 247

Trip Rate

0.063 0.118 0.167 0.114 0.143 0.211 0.170 0.191 0.484 0.416 0.339 0.330 0.364 0.211

3.321

DEPARTURES Ave. DWELLS

No. Days

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1

196 196 196 196 196 196 196 196 196 196 196 196 247 247

Trip Rate

0.208 0.532 0.271 0.169 0.225 0.220 0.158 0.193 0.293 0.211 0.208 0.191 0.271 0.093

3.243

TOTALS Ave. DWELLS

No. Days

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1

196 196 196 196 196 196 196 196 196 196 196 196 247 247

Trip Rate

0.271 0.650 0.438 0.283 0.368 0.431 0.328 0.384 0.777 0.627 0.547 0.521 0.635 0.304

6.564

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.

Basing View

Basingstoke

Monday 16/12/24 Page 1 Licence No: 100301

Calculation Reference: AUDIT-100301-241216-1210 TRIP RATE CALCULATION SELECTION PARAMETERS: Land Use Category

: 03 - RESIDENTIAL : C - FLATS PRIVATELY OWNED

MULTI-MODAL TOTAL VEHICLES Selected regions and areas: 01 GREATER LONDON BM BROMLEY BT BRENT HM HAMMERSMITH AND FULHAM IS ISLINGTON

1 days 1 days 1 days 1 days

This section displays the number of survey days per TRICS® sub-region in the selected set

Basing View

Basingstoke

Monday 16/12/24 Page 2 Licence No: 100301

No of Dwellings 160 to 472 (units: ) 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: Date Range:

Include all surveys

01/01/16 to 16/11/23

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 Tuesday Wednesday Thursday

1 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 Directional ATC Count

4 days 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 Edge of Town Centre Suburban Area (PPS6 Out of Centre)

2 1 1

2 2

13 days - Selected 2 days - Selected

Secondary Filtering selection: Use Class: C3

4 days

Basing View

Basingstoke

Monday 16/12/24 Page 3 Licence No: 100301

Secondary Filtering selection (Cont.): Population within 1 mile: 25,001 to 50,000 50,001 to 100,000 100,001 or More

2 days 1 days 1 days

This data displays the number of selected surveys within stated 1-mile radii of population. Population within 5 miles: 500,001 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 0.6 to 1.0

2 days 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: Yes No

2 days 2 days

2 days 1 days 1 days

This data displays the number of selected surveys with PTAL Ratings.

Basing View

Basingstoke

Monday 16/12/24 Page 4 Licence No: 100301

LIST OF SITES relevant to selection parameters 1

BM-03-C-01 RINGER'S ROAD BROMLEY

BLOCKS OF FLATS

Town Centre Built-Up Zone Total No of Dwellings: Survey date: MONDAY BT-03-C-02 BLOCKS OF FLATS ENGINEERS WAY WEMBLEY Suburban Area (PPS6 Out of Centre) Development Zone Total No of Dwellings: Survey date: WEDNESDAY HM-03-C-02 BLOCKS OF FLATS GLENTHORNE ROAD HAMMERSMITH Town Centre Built-Up Zone Total No of Dwellings: Survey date: TUESDAY IS-03-C-07 BLOCK OF FLATS CITY ROAD ISLINGTON Edge of Town Centre Development Zone Total No of Dwellings: Survey date: THURSDAY

BROMLEY

160 12/11/18

472 30/11/16

194 30/04/19

185 06/06/19

Survey Type: MANUAL BRENT

Survey Type: MANUAL HAMMERSMITH AND FULHAM

Survey Type: MANUAL ISLINGTON

Survey Type: MANUAL

MANUALLY DESELECTED SITES Site Ref IS-03-C-08

Reason for Deselection COVID

Basing View

Basingstoke

Monday 16/12/24 Page 15 Licence No: 100301

TRIP RATE for Land Use 03 - RESIDENTIAL/C - FLATS PRIVATELY OWNED

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): 5.85

ARRIVALS Ave. DWELLS

No. Days

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

253 253 253 253 253 253 253 253 253 253 253 253 253 253

Trip Rate

0.052 0.071 0.076 0.100 0.124 0.116 0.127 0.136 0.147 0.198 0.231 0.324 0.227 0.132

2.061

DEPARTURES Ave. DWELLS

No. Days

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

253 253 253 253 253 253 253 253 253 253 253 253 253 253

Trip Rate

0.272 0.405 0.172 0.146 0.119 0.143 0.154 0.136 0.147 0.150 0.126 0.127 0.107 0.088

2.292

TOTALS Ave. DWELLS

No. Days

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

253 253 253 253 253 253 253 253 253 253 253 253 253 253

Trip Rate

0.324 0.476 0.248 0.246 0.243 0.259 0.281 0.272 0.294 0.348 0.357 0.451 0.334 0.220

4.353

Basing View

Basingstoke

Monday 16/12/24 Page 1 Licence No: 100301

Calculation Reference: AUDIT-100301-241216-1248 TRIP RATE CALCULATION SELECTION PARAMETERS: Land Use Category

: 03 - RESIDENTIAL : M - MIXED PRIVATE/AFFORDABLE HOUSING

MULTI-MODAL TOTAL VEHICLES Selected regions and areas: 01 GREATER LONDON GR GREENWICH SK SOUTHWARK

1 days 1 days

This section displays the number of survey days per TRICS® sub-region in the selected set

Basing View

Basingstoke

Monday 16/12/24 Page 2 Licence No: 100301

No of Dwellings 74 to 684 (units: ) 40 to 1751 (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: Date Range:

Include all surveys

01/01/16 to 22/11/23

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 Thursday

1 days 1 days

This data displays the number of selected surveys by day of the week. Selected survey types: Manual count Directional ATC Count

2 days 0 days

1 1

14 days - Selected 6 days - Selected

Secondary Filtering selection: Use Class: C3

2 days

Basing View

Basingstoke

Monday 16/12/24 Page 3 Licence No: 100301

Secondary Filtering selection (Cont.): Population within 1 mile: 50,001 to 100,000

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: 0.5 or Less 0.6 to 1.0

1 days 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: Yes

2 days

This data displays the number of selected surveys with PTAL Ratings.

Basing View

Basingstoke

Monday 16/12/24 Page 4 Licence No: 100301

LIST OF SITES relevant to selection parameters 1

GR-03-M-04 SANDY HILL ROAD WOOLWICH

BLOCKS OF FLATS

Edge of Town Centre Residential Zone Total No of Dwellings: Survey date: TUESDAY SK-03-M-02 BLOCKS OF FLATS WOOD'S ROAD PECKHAM Edge of Town Centre Built-Up Zone Total No of Dwellings: Survey date: THURSDAY

GREENWICH

684 17/10/23

122 22/11/18

Survey Type: MANUAL SOUTHWARK

Survey Type: MANUAL

MANUALLY DESELECTED SURVEYS Site Ref BT-03-M-03 HD-03-M-06

Survey Date 19/05/16 25/11/21

Reason for Deselection age covid potential

Basing View

Basingstoke

Monday 16/12/24 Page 14 Licence No: 100301

TRIP RATE for Land Use 03 - RESIDENTIAL/M - MIXED PRIVATE/AFFORDABLE HOUSING

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): 4.15

ARRIVALS Ave. DWELLS

No. Days

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

403 403 403 403 403 403 403 403 403 403 403 403 403 403

Trip Rate

0.074 0.164 0.164 0.130 0.129 0.138 0.156 0.177 0.308 0.230 0.299 0.458 0.371 0.231

3.029

DEPARTURES Ave. DWELLS

No. Days

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

403 403 403 403 403 403 403 403 403 403 403 403 403 403

Trip Rate

0.331 0.536 0.252 0.164 0.208 0.148 0.130 0.274 0.244 0.189 0.216 0.230 0.144 0.096

3.162

TOTALS Ave. DWELLS

No. Days

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

403 403 403 403 403 403 403 403 403 403 403 403 403 403

Trip Rate

0.405 0.700 0.416 0.294 0.337 0.286 0.286 0.451 0.552 0.419 0.515 0.688 0.515 0.327

6.191

Basing View

Basingstoke

Monday 16/12/24 Page 1 Licence No: 100301

Calculation Reference: AUDIT-100301-241216-1204 TRIP RATE CALCULATION SELECTION PARAMETERS: Land Use Category

: 02 - EMPLOYMENT : A - OFFICE

MULTI-MODAL TOTAL VEHICLES Selected regions and areas: 01 GREATER LONDON CN CAMDEN EN ENFIELD HD HILLINGDON HM HAMMERSMITH AND FULHAM KN KENSINGTON AND CHELSEA LB LAMBETH TH TOWER HAMLETS

2 days 1 days 1 days 1 days 1 days 2 days 1 days

This section displays the number of survey days per TRICS® sub-region in the selected set

Basing View

Basingstoke

Monday 16/12/24 Page 2 Licence No: 100301

Gross floor area 2036 to 26639 (units: sqm) 408 to 114000 (units: sqm)

Parking Spaces Range:

All Surveys Included

Public Transport Provision: Selection by: Date Range:

Include all surveys

01/01/16 to 28/06/22

3 days 3 days 3 days

This data displays the number of selected surveys by day of the week. Selected survey types: Manual count Directional ATC Count

9 days 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 Edge of Town Centre Neighbourhood Centre (PPS6 Local Centre)

5 2 2

1 6 2

12 days - Selected 1 days - Selected

Secondary Filtering selection: Use Class: Not Known

9 days

Filter by Site Operations Breakdown: All Surveys Included Population within 500m Range: All Surveys Included

Basing View

Basingstoke

Monday 16/12/24 Page 3 Licence No: 100301

Secondary Filtering selection (Cont.): Population within 1 mile: 25,001 to 50,000 50,001 to 100,000 100,001 or More

2 days 2 days 5 days

This data displays the number of selected surveys within stated 1-mile radii of population. Population within 5 miles: 250,001 to 500,000 500,001 or More

1 days 8 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 0.6 to 1.0 1.1 to 1.5

2 days 6 days 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: Yes No

4 days 5 days

2 days 1 days 1 days 5 days

This data displays the number of selected surveys with PTAL Ratings.

Basing View

Basingstoke

Monday 16/12/24 Page 4 Licence No: 100301

LIST OF SITES relevant to selection parameters 1

CN-02-A-03 FITZROY STREET FITZROVIA

PLANNING & ENGINEERING

Town Centre Built-Up Zone Total Gross floor area: Survey date: WEDNESDAY CN-02-A-04 OFFICE CHARTERHOUSE STREET FARRINGDON

26639 sqm 06/12/17

Town Centre Built-Up Zone Total Gross floor area: 20129 sqm Survey date: TUESDAY 28/06/22 EN-02-A-01 MICROSOFT OFFICES GENOTIN ROAD ENFIELD Town Centre Built-Up Zone Total Gross floor area: Survey date: TUESDAY HD-02-A-10 DATA CENTRE MILLINGTON ROAD HAYES Edge of Town Centre Commercial Zone Total Gross floor area: Survey date: WEDNESDAY HM-02-A-01 REGUS OFFICES QUEEN CAROLINE STREET HAMMERSMITH

6552 sqm 07/06/22

16350 sqm 02/03/22

Town Centre Built-Up Zone Total Gross floor area: 2036 sqm Survey date: MONDAY 13/11/17 KN-02-A-01 FRUIT DRINKS COMPANY LADBROKE GROVE KENSAL GREEN Neighbourhood Centre (PPS6 Local Centre) Built-Up Zone Total Gross floor area: 2255 sqm Survey date: MONDAY 17/06/19 LB-02-A-01 START UP OFFICES & STUDIOS DURHAM STREET VAUXHALL Edge of Town Centre Built-Up Zone Total Gross floor area: Survey date: MONDAY

10200 sqm 19/11/18

CAMDEN

Survey Type: MANUAL CAMDEN

Survey Type: MANUAL ENFIELD

Survey Type: MANUAL HILLINGDON

Survey Type: MANUAL HAMMERSMITH AND FULHAM

Survey Type: MANUAL KENSINGTON AND CHELSEA

Survey Type: MANUAL LAMBETH

Survey Type: MANUAL

Basing View

Basingstoke

Monday 16/12/24 Page 5 Licence No: 100301

LIST OF SITES relevant to selection parameters (Cont.) 8

LB-02-A-02 MUSIC COMPANY STREATHAM HIGH ROAD STREATHAM

LAMBETH

Town Centre High Street Total Gross floor area: 3054 sqm Survey date: TUESDAY 05/11/19 TH-02-A-01 OFFICE SPACE FOR RENT CAMBRIDGE HEATH ROAD BETHNAL GREEN Neighbourhood Centre (PPS6 Local Centre) High Street Total Gross floor area: Survey date: WEDNESDAY

7049 sqm 06/03/19

Survey Type: MANUAL TOWER HAMLETS

Survey Type: MANUAL

Basing View

Basingstoke

Monday 16/12/24 Page 17 Licence No: 100301

TRIP RATE for Land Use 02 - EMPLOYMENT/A - OFFICE

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): 13.84

ARRIVALS Ave. GFA

No. Days

9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 1 1

9078 9078 9078 9078 9078 9078 9078 9078 9078 9078 9078 9078 20129 20129

Trip Rate

0.657 2.152 1.950 0.793 0.466 0.655 0.895 0.517 0.274 0.204 0.142 0.064 0.000 0.000

8.769

DEPARTURES Ave. GFA

No. Days

9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 1 1

9078 9078 9078 9078 9078 9078 9078 9078 9078 9078 9078 9078 20129 20129

Trip Rate

0.076 0.196 0.269 0.425 0.437 0.895 0.895 0.475 0.526 0.797 2.067 1.476 0.139 0.025

8.698

TOTALS Ave. GFA

No. Days

9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 1 1

9078 9078 9078 9078 9078 9078 9078 9078 9078 9078 9078 9078 20129 20129

Trip Rate

0.733 2.348 2.219 1.218 0.903 1.550 1.790 0.992 0.800 1.001 2.209 1.540 0.139 0.025

17.467

2 London Square

Guildford

Thursday 04/01/24 Page 1 Licence No: 100321

Filtering Summary Land Use

02/B

EMPLOYMENT/BUSINESS PARK

Selected Trip Rate Calculation Parameter Range 1000-169960 sqm GFA Actual Trip Rate Calculation Parameter Range

2614-15111 sqm GFA

Date Range

Minimum: 01/01/15

Parking Spaces Range

All Surveys Included

Days of the week selected

Tuesday Thursday

1 1

Main Location Types selected

Edge of Town Centre Suburban Area (PPS6 Out of Centre)

1 1

Inclusion of Servicing Vehicles Counts

Servicing vehicles Included Servicing vehicles Excluded

2 - Selected 1 - Selected

Population within 500m

All Surveys Included

Population <1 Mile ranges selected

25,001 to 50,000

Population <5 Mile ranges selected

500,001 or More

Car Ownership <5 Mile ranges selected

0.6 to 1.0

PTAL Rating

2 Poor 6a Excellent

1 1

Filter by Site Operations Breakdown

All Surveys Included

Maximum: 13/09/22

2 London Square

Guildford

Thursday 04/01/24 Page 2 Licence No: 100321

Calculation Reference: AUDIT-100321-240104-0109 TRIP RATE CALCULATION SELECTION PARAMETERS: Land Use Category

: 02 - EMPLOYMENT : B - BUSINESS PARK

MULTI-MODAL TOTAL VEHICLES Selected regions and areas: 01 GREATER LONDON BT BRENT IS ISLINGTON

1 days 1 days

This section displays the number of survey days per TRICS® sub-region in the selected set

2 London Square

Guildford

Thursday 04/01/24 Page 3 Licence No: 100321

Gross floor area 2614 to 15111 (units: sqm) 1000 to 169960 (units: sqm)

Parking Spaces Range:

All Surveys Included

Public Transport Provision: Selection by: Date Range:

Include all surveys

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 Thursday

1 days 1 days

This data displays the number of selected surveys by day of the week. Selected survey types: Manual count Directional ATC Count

2 days 0 days

1 1

2 days - Selected 1 days - Selected

Secondary Filtering selection: Use Class: Not Known

2 days

Filter by Site Operations Breakdown: All Surveys Included Population within 500m Range: All Surveys Included

2 London Square

Guildford

Thursday 04/01/24 Page 4 Licence No: 100321

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

1 days 1 days

This data displays the number of selected surveys with PTAL Ratings.

2 London Square

Guildford

Thursday 04/01/24 Page 5 Licence No: 100321

LIST OF SITES relevant to selection parameters Site(1): Development Name: Location: Postcode: Main Location Type: Sub-Location Type: PTAL:

BT-02-B-01 BUSINESS PARK PARK ROYAL NW10 7NS Suburban Area (PPS6 Out of Centre) Commercial Zone 2 Poor

Gross floor area:

15111 sqm

Parking spaces: No of Employees: Survey Date: Survey Day:

123 0 21/04/16 Thursday

Site(2): Development Name: Location: Postcode: Main Location Type: Sub-Location Type: PTAL:

IS-02-B-01 BUSINESS PARK ANGEL EC1V 2NZ Edge of Town Centre Built-Up Zone 6a Excellent

Gross floor area:

4363 sqm

Parking spaces: No of Employees: Survey Date: Survey Day:

87 750 13/09/22 Tuesday

MANUALLY DESELECTED SITES Site Ref HO-02-B-04

Reason for Deselection Site too large

2 London Square

Guildford

Thursday 04/01/24 Page 18 Licence No: 100321

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

Time Range 00:00 - 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 05:30 - 06:00 06:00 - 06:30 06:30 - 07:00 07:00 - 07:30 07:30 - 08:00 08:00 - 08:30 08:30 - 09:00 09:00 - 09:30 09:30 - 10:00 10:00 - 10:30 10:30 - 11:00 11:00 - 11:30 11:30 - 12:00 12:00 - 12:30 12:30 - 13:00 13:00 - 13:30 13:30 - 14:00 14:00 - 14:30 14:30 - 15:00 15:00 - 15:30 15:30 - 16:00 16:00 - 16:30 16:30 - 17:00 17:00 - 17:30 17:30 - 18:00 18:00 - 18:30 18:30 - 19:00 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 23:00 - 23:30 23:30 - 24:00 Total Rates:

ARRIVALS Ave. GFA

No. Days

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

8863 8863 8863 8863 8863 8863 8863 8863 8863 8863 8863 8863 8863 8863 8863 8863 8863 8863 8863 8863 8863 8863 8863 8863

Trip Rate

0.203 0.355 0.395 0.519 0.649 0.350 0.260 0.175 0.164 0.090 0.186 0.220 0.378 0.276 0.260 0.113 0.102 0.107 0.068 0.130 0.102 0.045 0.051 0.006

5.204

DEPARTURES Ave. GFA

No. Days

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

8863 8863 8863 8863 8863 8863 8863 8863 8863 8863 8863 8863 8863 8863 8863 8863 8863 8863 8863 8863 8863 8863 8863 8863

Trip Rate

0.034 0.045 0.051 0.090 0.124 0.152 0.260 0.141 0.096 0.118 0.203 0.293 0.299 0.327 0.141 0.152 0.169 0.288 0.316 0.423 0.463 0.401 0.355 0.372

5.313

TOTALS Ave. GFA

No. Days

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

8863 8863 8863 8863 8863 8863 8863 8863 8863 8863 8863 8863 8863 8863 8863 8863 8863 8863 8863 8863 8863 8863 8863 8863

Trip Rate

0.237 0.400 0.446 0.609 0.773 0.502 0.520 0.316 0.260 0.208 0.389 0.513 0.677 0.603 0.401 0.265 0.271 0.395 0.384 0.553 0.565 0.446 0.406 0.378

10.517

Basing View

Basingstoke

Thursday 02/01/25 Page 1 Licence No: 100301

Calculation Reference: AUDIT-100301-250102-0121 TRIP RATE CALCULATION SELECTION PARAMETERS: Land Use Category

: 01 - RETAIL : G - OTHER INDIVIDUAL NON-FOOD SUPERSTORE

MULTI-MODAL TOTAL VEHICLES 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

Basing View

Basingstoke

Thursday 02/01/25 Page 2 Licence No: 100301

Gross floor area 600 to 600 (units: sqm) 600 to 600 (units: sqm)

Parking Spaces Range:

All Surveys Included

Public Transport Provision: Selection by: Date Range:

Include all surveys

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: Wednesday

1 days

This data displays the number of selected surveys by day of the week. Selected survey types: Manual count Directional ATC Count

1 days 0 days

X days - Selected 1 days - Selected

Secondary Filtering selection: Use Class: E(a)

1 days

This data displays the number of selected surveys within stated 1-mile radii of population.

Basing View

Basingstoke

Thursday 02/01/25 Page 3 Licence No: 100301

Secondary Filtering selection (Cont.): 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 1.5

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 Excluded from count or no filling station

0 days 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 Known

1 days

This data displays the number of selected surveys with PTAL Ratings.

Basing View

Basingstoke

Thursday 02/01/25 Page 4 Licence No: 100301

LIST OF SITES relevant to selection parameters 1

WH-01-G-01 WINE WAREHOUSE UPPER RICHMOND ROAD PUTNEY EAST PUTNEY Edge of Town Centre Built-Up Zone Total Gross floor area: Survey date: WEDNESDAY

WANDSWORTH

600 sqm 19/06/02

Survey Type: MANUAL

Basing View

Basingstoke

Thursday 02/01/25 Page 9 Licence No: 100301

TRIP RATE for Land Use 01 - RETAIL/G - OTHER INDIVIDUAL NON-FOOD SUPERSTORE

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): 1.96

ARRIVALS Ave. GFA

No. Days

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600

Trip Rate

1.000 1.167 1.000 1.333 0.833 0.833 0.333 1.333 0.500 0.500

8.832

DEPARTURES Ave. GFA

No. Days

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600

Trip Rate

1.000 0.667 1.333 1.167 0.833 0.833 0.333 1.333 0.667 0.333

8.499

TOTALS Ave. GFA

No. Days

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600

Trip Rate

2.000 1.834 2.333 2.500 1.666 1.666 0.666 2.666 1.167 0.833

17.331

Basing View

Basingstoke

Thursday 02/01/25 Page 1 Licence No: 100301

Calculation Reference: AUDIT-100301-250102-0120 TRIP RATE CALCULATION SELECTION PARAMETERS: Land Use Category

: 01 - RETAIL : M - MIXED SHOPPING MALLS

MULTI-MODAL TOTAL VEHICLES Selected regions and areas: 02 SOUTH EAST ES EAST SUSSEX

1 days

This section displays the number of survey days per TRICS® sub-region in the selected set

Basing View

Basingstoke

Thursday 02/01/25 Page 2 Licence No: 100301

Gross floor area 14693 to 14693 (units: sqm) 8125 to 14693 (units: sqm)

Parking Spaces Range:

All Surveys Included

Public Transport Provision: Selection by: Date Range:

Include all surveys

01/01/01 to 24/11/12

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

This data displays the number of selected surveys by day of the week. Selected survey types: Manual count Directional ATC Count

1 days 0 days

X days - Selected 1 days - Selected

Secondary Filtering selection: Use Class: n/a

1 days

This data displays the number of selected surveys within stated 1-mile radii of population.

Basing View

Basingstoke

Thursday 02/01/25 Page 3 Licence No: 100301

Secondary Filtering selection (Cont.): Population within 5 miles: 100,001 to 125,000

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

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 Excluded from count or no filling station

0 days 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 Known

1 days

This data displays the number of selected surveys with PTAL Ratings.

Basing View

Basingstoke

Thursday 02/01/25 Page 4 Licence No: 100301

LIST OF SITES relevant to selection parameters 1

ES-01-M-02 SHOPPING MALL KINGFISHER DRIVE EASTBOURNE LANGNEY Edge of Town Residential Zone Total Gross floor area: Survey date: THURSDAY

EAST SUSSEX

14693 sqm 01/03/01

Survey Type: MANUAL

Basing View

Basingstoke

Thursday 02/01/25 Page 12 Licence No: 100301

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): 1.69

ARRIVALS Ave. GFA

No. Days

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

14693 14693 14693 14693 14693 14693 14693 14693 14693 14693 14693 14693 14693 14693

Trip Rate

1.109 3.226 5.356 5.812 5.234 4.744 4.764 4.478 5.506 4.478 2.988 1.810 1.293 0.231

51.029

DEPARTURES Ave. GFA

No. Days

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

14693 14693 14693 14693 14693 14693 14693 14693 14693 14693 14693 14693 14693 14693

Trip Rate

0.837 1.729 3.491 4.356 5.581 4.819 4.730 4.805 5.452 5.356 4.213 2.613 1.327 0.313

49.622

TOTALS Ave. GFA

No. Days

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

14693 14693 14693 14693 14693 14693 14693 14693 14693 14693 14693 14693 14693 14693

Trip Rate

1.946 4.955 8.847 10.168 10.815 9.563 9.494 9.283 10.958 9.834 7.201 4.423 2.620 0.544

100.651

Basing View

Basingstoke

Tuesday 17/12/24 Page 1 Licence No: 100301

Calculation Reference: AUDIT-100301-241217-1222 TRIP RATE CALCULATION SELECTION PARAMETERS: Land Use Category

: 04 - EDUCATION : D - NURSERY

MULTI-MODAL TOTAL VEHICLES Selected regions and areas: 02 SOUTH EAST BH BRIGHTON & HOVE WS WEST SUSSEX 04 EAST ANGLIA CA CAMBRIDGESHIRE 05 EAST MIDLANDS LN LINCOLNSHIRE NN NORTH NORTHAMPTONSHIRE 07 YORKSHIRE & NORTH LINCOLNSHIRE DR DONCASTER NY NORTH YORKSHIRE 09 NORTH TW TYNE & WEAR

1 days 1 days 1 days 1 days 1 days 1 days 1 days 3 days

This section displays the number of survey days per TRICS® sub-region in the selected set

Basing View

Basingstoke

Tuesday 17/12/24 Page 2 Licence No: 100301

Number of pupils 45 to 111 (units: ) 37 to 124 (units: )

Parking Spaces Range:

All Surveys Included

Public Transport Provision: Selection by: Date Range:

Include all surveys

01/01/16 to 06/09/23

2 days 4 days 1 days 3 days

This data displays the number of selected surveys by day of the week. Selected survey types: Manual count Directional ATC Count

10 days 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 Edge of Town Centre Suburban Area (PPS6 Out of Centre) Neighbourhood Centre (PPS6 Local Centre)

1 2 5 2

1 9

10 days - Selected X days - Selected

Secondary Filtering selection: Use Class: E(f)

10 days

Basing View

Basingstoke

Tuesday 17/12/24 Page 3 Licence No: 100301

Secondary Filtering selection (Cont.): Population within 1 mile: 10,001 to 15,000 15,001 to 20,000 25,001 to 50,000 50,001 to 100,000

2 days 2 days 5 days 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 75,001 to 100,000 100,001 to 125,000 125,001 to 250,000 250,001 to 500,000 500,001 or More

1 days 1 days 1 days 3 days 2 days 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 0.6 to 1.0 1.1 to 1.5 2.1 to 2.5

1 days 4 days 4 days 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

10 days

This data displays the number of selected surveys with PTAL Ratings.

Basing View

Basingstoke

Tuesday 17/12/24 Page 4 Licence No: 100301

LIST OF SITES relevant to selection parameters 1

BH-04-D-01 NURSERY CONNAUGHT ROAD BRIGHTON HOVE Neighbourhood Centre (PPS6 Local Centre) Residential Zone Total Number of pupils: Survey date: FRIDAY CA-04-D-01 NURSERY MILTON ROAD CAMBRIDGE CHESTERTON Neighbourhood Centre (PPS6 Local Centre) Residential Zone Total Number of pupils: Survey date: MONDAY DR-04-D-01 NURSERY BAWTRY ROAD DONCASTER Suburban Area (PPS6 Out of Centre) Residential Zone Total Number of pupils: Survey date: FRIDAY LN-04-D-01 NURSERY NEWARK ROAD LINCOLN SWALLOW BECK Suburban Area (PPS6 Out of Centre) Residential Zone Total Number of pupils: Survey date: TUESDAY NN-04-D-01 NURSERY ROCKINGHAM ROAD KETTERING Suburban Area (PPS6 Out of Centre) Residential Zone Total Number of pupils: Survey date: TUESDAY NY-04-D-03 NURSERY WETHERBY ROAD KNARESBOROUGH Suburban Area (PPS6 Out of Centre) Residential Zone Total Number of pupils: Survey date: MONDAY TW-04-D-03 NURSERY JUBILEE ROAD NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE GOSFORTH Suburban Area (PPS6 Out of Centre) Residential Zone Total Number of pupils: Survey date: TUESDAY TW-04-D-04 NURSERY NEVILLE STREET NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE CENTRAL Town Centre Development Zone Total Number of pupils: Survey date: WEDNESDAY

BRIGHTON & HOVE

45 22/09/17

82 26/06/23

111 13/05/22

49 31/10/17

90 07/06/22

90 12/06/23

108 21/05/19

81 06/09/23

Survey Type: MANUAL CAMBRIDGESHIRE

Survey Type: MANUAL DONCASTER

Survey Type: MANUAL LINCOLNSHIRE

Survey Type: MANUAL NORTH NORTHAMPTONSHIRE

Survey Type: MANUAL NORTH YORKSHIRE

Survey Type: MANUAL TYNE & WEAR

Survey Type: MANUAL

Basing View

Basingstoke

Tuesday 17/12/24 Page 5 Licence No: 100301

LIST OF SITES relevant to selection parameters (Cont.) 9

TW-04-D-05 NURSERY COLBY COURT NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE ELSWICK Edge of Town Centre Residential Zone Total Number of pupils: Survey date: TUESDAY WS-04-D-01 NURSERY FARNCOMBE ROAD WORTHING Edge of Town Centre Residential Zone Total Number of pupils: Survey date: FRIDAY

TYNE & WEAR

51 05/09/23

75 13/05/22

Survey Type: MANUAL WEST SUSSEX

Survey Type: MANUAL

Basing View

Basingstoke

Tuesday 17/12/24 Page 15 Licence No: 100301

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): 2.81

ARRIVALS Ave. PUPILS

No. Days

10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78

Trip Rate

0.350 0.549 0.180 0.106 0.068 0.196 0.139 0.047 0.120 0.113 0.225 0.019

2.112

DEPARTURES Ave. PUPILS

No. Days

10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78

Trip Rate

0.106 0.234 0.124 0.064 0.072 0.212 0.157 0.056 0.214 0.240 0.495 0.142

2.116

TOTALS Ave. PUPILS

No. Days

10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 78

Trip Rate

0.456 0.783 0.304 0.170 0.140 0.408 0.296 0.103 0.334 0.353 0.720 0.161

4.228

Basing View

Basingstoke

Thursday 02/01/25 Page 1 Licence No: 100301

Calculation Reference: AUDIT-100301-250102-0150 TRIP RATE CALCULATION SELECTION PARAMETERS: Land Use Category

: 04 - EDUCATION : B - SECONDARY

MULTI-MODAL TOTAL VEHICLES Selected regions and areas: 01 GREATER LONDON BN BARNET HM HAMMERSMITH AND FULHAM

1 days 1 days

This section displays the number of survey days per TRICS® sub-region in the selected set

Basing View

Basingstoke

Thursday 02/01/25 Page 2 Licence No: 100301

Number of pupils 610 to 1200 (units: ) 610 to 1200 (units: )

Parking Spaces Range:

All Surveys Included

Public Transport Provision: Selection by: Date Range:

Include all surveys

01/01/02 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

2 days

This data displays the number of selected surveys by day of the week. Selected survey types: Manual count Directional ATC Count

2 days 0 days

X days - Selected 2 days - Selected

Secondary Filtering selection: Use Class: F1(a)

2 days

1 days 1 days

This data displays the number of selected surveys within stated 1-mile radii of population.

Basing View

Basingstoke

Thursday 02/01/25 Page 3 Licence No: 100301

Secondary Filtering selection (Cont.): 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: Not Known No

1 days 1 days

2 days

This data displays the number of selected surveys with PTAL Ratings.

Basing View

Basingstoke

Thursday 02/01/25 Page 4 Licence No: 100301

LIST OF SITES relevant to selection parameters 1

BN-04-B-01 CHESTNUT GROVE EAST BARNET

SECONDARY SCHOOL

BARNET

Suburban Area (PPS6 Out of Centre) Residential Zone Total Number of pupils: 1200 Survey date: WEDNESDAY 19/10/05 HM-04-B-01 SECONDARY SCHOOL KINGWOOD ROAD FULHAM Suburban Area (PPS6 Out of Centre) Residential Zone Total Number of pupils: Survey date: WEDNESDAY

610 04/12/02

Survey Type: MANUAL HAMMERSMITH AND FULHAM

Survey Type: MANUAL

Basing View

Basingstoke

Thursday 02/01/25 Page 12 Licence No: 100301

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): 4.38

ARRIVALS Ave. PUPILS

No. Days

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1

905 905 905 905 905 905 905 905 905 905 905 1200

Trip Rate

0.129 0.804 0.045 0.044 0.025 0.034 0.045 0.038 0.031 0.012 0.011 0.000

1.218

DEPARTURES Ave. PUPILS

No. Days

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1

905 905 905 905 905 905 905 905 905 905 905 1200

Trip Rate

0.012 0.050 0.033 0.056 0.023 0.028 0.030 0.069 0.740 0.091 0.034 0.012

1.178

TOTALS Ave. PUPILS

No. Days

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1

905 905 905 905 905 905 905 905 905 905 905 1200

Trip Rate

0.141 0.854 0.078 0.100 0.048 0.062 0.075 0.107 0.771 0.103 0.045 0.012

2.396

Basing View

Basingstoke

Thursday 02/01/25 Page 1 Licence No: 100301

Calculation Reference: AUDIT-100301-250102-0105 TRIP RATE CALCULATION SELECTION PARAMETERS: Land Use Category

: 07 - LEISURE : I - ART GALLERIES/MUSEUMS/EXHIBITIONS

MULTI-MODAL TOTAL VEHICLES Selected regions and areas: 01 GREATER LONDON TH TOWER HAMLETS WE WESTMINSTER

1 days 1 days

This section displays the number of survey days per TRICS® sub-region in the selected set

Basing View

Basingstoke

Thursday 02/01/25 Page 2 Licence No: 100301

Gross floor area 1399 to 8052 (units: sqm) 680 to 8052 (units: sqm)

Parking Spaces Range:

All Surveys Included

Public Transport Provision: Selection by: Date Range:

Include all surveys

01/01/09 to 10/10/18

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 Friday

1 days 1 days

This data displays the number of selected surveys by day of the week. Selected survey types: Manual count Directional ATC Count

2 days 0 days

1 1

1 days - Selected 3 days - Selected

Secondary Filtering selection: Use Class: F1(c)

2 days

1 days 1 days

This data displays the number of selected surveys within stated 1-mile radii of population.

Basing View

Basingstoke

Thursday 02/01/25 Page 3 Licence No: 100301

Secondary Filtering selection (Cont.): 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: 0.5 or Less

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

1 days 1 days

This data displays the number of selected surveys with PTAL Ratings.

Basing View

Basingstoke

Thursday 02/01/25 Page 4 Licence No: 100301

LIST OF SITES relevant to selection parameters 1

TH-07-I-01 MUSEUM HERTSMERE ROAD CANARY WHARF WEST INDIA QUAY Edge of Town Centre Built-Up Zone Total Gross floor area: Survey date: WEDNESDAY WE-07-I-01 MUSEUM WELLINGTON STREET COVENT GARDEN Town Centre Built-Up Zone Total Gross floor area: Survey date: FRIDAY

TOWER HAMLETS

1399 sqm 28/10/09

8052 sqm 23/10/09

Survey Type: MANUAL WESTMINSTER

Survey Type: MANUAL

MANUALLY DESELECTED SITES Site Ref DN-07-I-02

Reason for Deselection Ireland

Basing View

Basingstoke

Thursday 02/01/25 Page 14 Licence No: 100301

TRIP RATE for Land Use 07 - LEISURE/I - ART GALLERIES/MUSEUMS/EXHIBITIONS

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): 28.07

ARRIVALS Ave. GFA

No. Days

1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

1399 4726 4726 4726 4726 4726 4726 4726 4726 4726 4726

Trip Rate

1.787 0.931 1.682 3.841 3.248 3.799 2.867 2.592 1.450 1.492 1.005

24.694

DEPARTURES Ave. GFA

No. Days

1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

1399 4726 4726 4726 4726 4726 4726 4726 4726 4726 4726

Trip Rate

0.214 0.328 0.730 1.122 2.571 4.539 3.608 2.931 3.121 2.719 1.460

23.343

TOTALS Ave. GFA

No. Days

1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

1399 4726 4726 4726 4726 4726 4726 4726 4726 4726 4726

Trip Rate

2.001 1.259 2.412 4.963 5.819 8.338 6.475 5.523 4.571 4.211 2.465

48.037

Basing View

Basingstoke

Thursday 02/01/25 Page 1 Licence No: 100301

Calculation Reference: AUDIT-100301-250102-0125 TRIP RATE CALCULATION SELECTION PARAMETERS: Land Use Category

: 06 - HOTEL, FOOD & DRINK : K - CAFE

MULTI-MODAL TOTAL VEHICLES Selected regions and areas: 01 GREATER LONDON HG HARINGEY SU SUTTON 04 EAST ANGLIA NF NORFOLK 05 EAST MIDLANDS LN LINCOLNSHIRE 08 NORTH WEST GM GREATER MANCHESTER 09 NORTH TW TYNE & WEAR

1 days 1 days 1 days 1 days 2 days 2 days

This section displays the number of survey days per TRICS® sub-region in the selected set

Basing View

Basingstoke

Thursday 02/01/25 Page 2 Licence No: 100301

Gross floor area 38 to 325 (units: sqm) 38 to 325 (units: sqm)

Parking Spaces Range:

All Surveys Included

Public Transport Provision: Selection by: Date Range:

Include all surveys

01/01/16 to 06/06/24

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 Wednesday Thursday Friday

4 days 2 days 1 days 1 days

This data displays the number of selected surveys by day of the week. Selected survey types: Manual count Directional ATC Count

8 days 0 days

1 5 2

8 days - Selected 1 days - Selected

Secondary Filtering selection: Use Class: E(b)

8 days

Basing View

Basingstoke

Thursday 02/01/25 Page 3 Licence No: 100301

Secondary Filtering selection (Cont.): Population within 1 mile: 15,001 to 20,000 20,001 to 25,000 25,001 to 50,000 50,001 to 100,000

1 days 1 days 3 days 3 days

This data displays the number of selected surveys within stated 1-mile radii of population. Population within 5 miles: 50,001 to 75,000 125,001 to 250,000 500,001 or More

1 days 1 days 6 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 1.1 to 1.5

7 days 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

8 days

6 days 1 days 1 days

This data displays the number of selected surveys with PTAL Ratings.

Basing View

Basingstoke

LIST OF SITES relevant to selection parameters 1

GM-06-K-01 DEANSGATE MANCHESTER

CAFÉ

Town Centre Built-Up Zone Total Gross floor area: Survey date: TUESDAY GM-06-K-02 CAFÉ DEANSGATE MANCHESTER Town Centre Built-Up Zone Total Gross floor area: Survey date: WEDNESDAY HG-06-K-01 CAFÉ MUSWELL HILL BROADWAY MUSWELL HILL Town Centre High Street Total Gross floor area: Survey date: FRIDAY LN-06-K-01 CAFÉ & TEA ROOM RED LION SQUARE STAMFORD Town Centre Built-Up Zone Total Gross floor area: Survey date: TUESDAY NF-06-K-01 CAFÉ SAINT GILES STREET NORWICH Town Centre Built-Up Zone Total Gross floor area: Survey date: TUESDAY SU-06-K-01 COSTA COFFEE THE GAS WORKS SUTTON Town Centre High Street Total Gross floor area: Survey date: TUESDAY TW-06-K-01 COSTA COFFEE NORTHUMBERLAND STREET NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE Town Centre Retail Zone Total Gross floor area: Survey date: WEDNESDAY

GREATER MANCHESTER

200 sqm 19/04/22

38 sqm 20/09/23

58 sqm 10/06/22

190 sqm 12/10/21

82 sqm 20/09/22

180 sqm 04/06/24

325 sqm 06/09/23

Survey Type: MANUAL GREATER MANCHESTER

Survey Type: MANUAL HARINGEY

Survey Type: MANUAL LINCOLNSHIRE

Survey Type: MANUAL NORFOLK

Survey Type: MANUAL SUTTON

Survey Type: MANUAL TYNE & WEAR

Survey Type: MANUAL

Thursday 02/01/25 Page 4 Licence No: 100301

Basing View

Basingstoke

Thursday 02/01/25 Page 5 Licence No: 100301

LIST OF SITES relevant to selection parameters (Cont.) 8

TW-06-K-02 CAFÉ DEAN STREET NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE Town Centre Built-Up Zone Total Gross floor area: Survey date: THURSDAY

TYNE & WEAR

90 sqm 07/09/23

Survey Type: MANUAL

MANUALLY DESELECTED SITES Site Ref AN-06-K-01

Reason for Deselection Ireland

Basing View

Basingstoke

Thursday 02/01/25 Page 14 Licence No: 100301

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): 7.30

ARRIVALS Ave. GFA

No. Days

3 4 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 7 5 4 2 2 1

181 150 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 154 160 150 182 182 38

Trip Rate

4.972 12.812 9.974 17.369 19.175 20.722 23.388 19.862 12.468 11.092 8.233 8.739 7.488 10.744 1.377 0.000

188.415

DEPARTURES Ave. GFA

No. Days

3 4 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 7 5 4 2 2 1

181 150 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 154 160 150 182 182 38

Trip Rate

2.947 9.983 9.716 12.898 17.111 16.939 23.388 21.324 14.789 13.586 11.101 9.988 11.148 14.325 2.204 5.263

196.710

TOTALS Ave. GFA

No. Days

3 4 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 7 5 4 2 2 1

181 150 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 154 160 150 182 182 38

Trip Rate

7.919 22.795 19.690 30.267 36.286 37.661 46.776 41.186 27.257 24.678 19.334 18.727 18.636 25.069 3.581 5.263

385.125

TECHNICAL NOTE APPENDIX B – UPDATED TRICS OUTPUTS – WEEKEND

Page 42

Basing View

Basingstoke

Friday 03/01/25 Page 1 Licence No: 100301

Calculation Reference: AUDIT-100301-250103-0149 TRIP RATE CALCULATION SELECTION PARAMETERS: Land Use Category

: 03 - RESIDENTIAL : M - MIXED PRIVATE/AFFORDABLE HOUSING

MULTI-MODAL TOTAL VEHICLES Selected regions and areas: 01 GREATER LONDON BT BRENT

1 days

This section displays the number of survey days per TRICS® sub-region in the selected set

Basing View

Basingstoke

Friday 03/01/25 Page 2 Licence No: 100301

No of Dwellings 232 to 232 (units: ) 9 to 1751 (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: Date Range:

Include all surveys

01/01/00 to 07/10/24

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: Saturday

1 days

This data displays the number of selected surveys by day of the week. Selected survey types: Manual count Directional ATC Count

1 days 0 days

1 days - Selected X days - Selected

Secondary Filtering selection: Use Class: C3

1 days

Basing View

Basingstoke

Friday 03/01/25 Page 3 Licence No: 100301

Secondary Filtering selection (Cont.): 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: 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: Yes

1 days

This data displays the number of selected surveys with PTAL Ratings.

Basing View

Basingstoke

Friday 03/01/25 Page 4 Licence No: 100301

LIST OF SITES relevant to selection parameters 1

BT-03-M-02 EMPIRE WAY WEMBLEY

BLOCK OF FLATS

Suburban Area (PPS6 Out of Centre) Development Zone Total No of Dwellings: Survey date: SATURDAY

BRENT

232 16/05/15

Survey Type: MANUAL

Basing View

Basingstoke

Friday 03/01/25 Page 13 Licence No: 100301

TRIP RATE for Land Use 03 - RESIDENTIAL/M - MIXED PRIVATE/AFFORDABLE HOUSING

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): 3.16

ARRIVALS Ave. DWELLS

No. Days

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

232 232 232 232 232 232 232 232 232 232 232 232 232 232

Trip Rate

0.060 0.095 0.121 0.177 0.185 0.293 0.224 0.151 0.272 0.315 0.310 0.345 0.323 0.323

3.194

DEPARTURES Ave. DWELLS

No. Days

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

232 232 232 232 232 232 232 232 232 232 232 232 232 232

Trip Rate

0.078 0.216 0.353 0.349 0.328 0.366 0.276 0.254 0.241 0.246 0.306 0.216 0.246 0.211

3.686

TOTALS Ave. DWELLS

No. Days

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

232 232 232 232 232 232 232 232 232 232 232 232 232 232

Trip Rate

0.138 0.311 0.474 0.526 0.513 0.659 0.500 0.405 0.513 0.561 0.616 0.561 0.569 0.534

6.880

Basing View

Basingstoke

Friday 03/01/25 Page 1 Licence No: 100301

Calculation Reference: AUDIT-100301-250103-0106 TRIP RATE CALCULATION SELECTION PARAMETERS: Land Use Category

: 03 - RESIDENTIAL : C - FLATS PRIVATELY OWNED

MULTI-MODAL TOTAL VEHICLES Selected regions and areas: 01 GREATER LONDON HK HACKNEY HO HOUNSLOW

1 days 1 days

This section displays the number of survey days per TRICS® sub-region in the selected set

Basing View

Basingstoke

Friday 03/01/25 Page 2 Licence No: 100301

No of Dwellings 15 to 17 (units: ) 6 to 724 (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: Date Range:

Include all surveys

01/01/01 to 05/09/24

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: Saturday

2 days

This data displays the number of selected surveys by day of the week. Selected survey types: Manual count Directional ATC Count

2 days 0 days

1 1

X days - Selected 2 days - Selected

Secondary Filtering selection: Use Class: C3

2 days

Basing View

Basingstoke

Friday 03/01/25 Page 3 Licence No: 100301

Secondary Filtering selection (Cont.): Population within 1 mile: 25,001 to 50,000 50,001 to 100,000

1 days 1 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: 0.5 or Less 1.1 to 1.5

1 days 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

2 days

1 days 1 days

This data displays the number of selected surveys with PTAL Ratings.

Basing View

Basingstoke

Friday 03/01/25 Page 4 Licence No: 100301

LIST OF SITES relevant to selection parameters 1

HK-03-C-01 UNION WALK SHOREDITCH

BLOCK OF FLATS

Edge of Town Commercial Zone Total No of Dwellings: Survey date: SATURDAY HO-03-C-01 BLOCK OF FLATS VINE PLACE HOUNSLOW Edge of Town Centre No Sub Category Total No of Dwellings: Survey date: SATURDAY

HACKNEY

17 15/11/08

15 19/06/10

Survey Type: MANUAL HOUNSLOW

Survey Type: MANUAL

Basing View

Basingstoke

Friday 03/01/25 Page 13 Licence No: 100301

TRIP RATE for Land Use 03 - RESIDENTIAL/C - FLATS PRIVATELY OWNED

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): 5.81

ARRIVALS Ave. DWELLS

No. Days

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16

Trip Rate

0.063 0.063 0.094 0.406 0.344 0.156 0.250 0.125 0.063 0.219 0.313 0.344

2.436

DEPARTURES Ave. DWELLS

No. Days

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16

Trip Rate

0.063 0.250 0.281 0.438 0.500 0.469 0.375 0.094 0.438 0.219 0.188 0.063

3.376

TOTALS Ave. DWELLS

No. Days

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16

Trip Rate

0.124 0.312 0.375 0.844 0.844 0.625 0.625 0.219 0.500 0.438 0.500 0.406

5.812

Basing View

Basingstoke

Friday 03/01/25 Page 1 Licence No: 100301

Calculation Reference: AUDIT-100301-250103-0150 TRIP RATE CALCULATION SELECTION PARAMETERS: Land Use Category

: 01 - RETAIL : G - OTHER INDIVIDUAL NON-FOOD SUPERSTORE

MULTI-MODAL TOTAL VEHICLES Selected regions and areas: 02 SOUTH EAST EX ESSEX KC KENT

1 days 1 days

This section displays the number of survey days per TRICS® sub-region in the selected set

Basing View

Basingstoke

Friday 03/01/25 Page 2 Licence No: 100301

Gross floor area 1000 to 1500 (units: sqm) 600 to 1500 (units: sqm)

Parking Spaces Range:

All Surveys Included

Public Transport Provision: Selection by: Date Range:

Include all surveys

01/01/01 to 19/07/08

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: Saturday

2 days

This data displays the number of selected surveys by day of the week. Selected survey types: Manual count Directional ATC Count

2 days 0 days

1 1

X days - Selected 2 days - Selected

Secondary Filtering selection: Use Class: E(a)

2 days

1 days 1 days

This data displays the number of selected surveys within stated 1-mile radii of population.

Basing View

Basingstoke

Friday 03/01/25 Page 3 Licence No: 100301

Secondary Filtering selection (Cont.): Population within 5 miles: 50,001 to 75,000 100,001 to 125,000

1 days 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 1.5

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.

Petrol filling station: Included in the survey count Excluded from count or no filling station

0 days 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 No

1 days 1 days

2 days

This data displays the number of selected surveys with PTAL Ratings.

Basing View

Basingstoke

Friday 03/01/25 Page 4 Licence No: 100301

LIST OF SITES relevant to selection parameters 1

EX-01-G-01 MFI LONDON ROAD COLCHESTER LEXDEN Edge of Town No Sub Category Total Gross floor area: Survey date: SATURDAY KC-01-G-03 TOY SUPERSTORE BROADOAK ROAD CANTERBURY Edge of Town Commercial Zone Total Gross floor area: Survey date: SATURDAY

ESSEX

1000 sqm 19/07/08

1500 sqm 07/12/02

Survey Type: MANUAL KENT

Survey Type: MANUAL

Basing View

Basingstoke

Friday 03/01/25 Page 12 Licence No: 100301

TRIP RATE for Land Use 01 - RETAIL/G - OTHER INDIVIDUAL NON-FOOD SUPERSTORE

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): 2.20

ARRIVALS Ave. GFA

No. Days

1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1

1000 1000 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1000 1000 1000 1000

Trip Rate

0.000 0.700 4.560 7.640 10.240 11.920 12.240 12.360 7.280 6.280 3.080 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

76.300

DEPARTURES Ave. GFA

No. Days

1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1

1000 1000 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1000 1000 1000 1000

Trip Rate

0.000 0.000 1.920 5.400 9.000 11.520 12.960 12.760 10.720 6.640 4.600 0.200 0.000 0.000 0.000

75.720

TOTALS Ave. GFA

No. Days

1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1

1000 1000 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1250 1000 1000 1000 1000

Trip Rate

0.000 0.700 6.480 13.040 19.240 23.440 25.200 25.120 18.000 12.920 7.680 0.200 0.000 0.000 0.000

152.020

Basing View

Basingstoke

Friday 03/01/25 Page 1 Licence No: 100301

Calculation Reference: AUDIT-100301-250103-0126 TRIP RATE CALCULATION SELECTION PARAMETERS: Land Use Category

: 01 - RETAIL : M - MIXED SHOPPING MALLS

MULTI-MODAL TOTAL VEHICLES Selected regions and areas: 02 SOUTH EAST KC KENT

1 days

This section displays the number of survey days per TRICS® sub-region in the selected set

Basing View

Basingstoke

Friday 03/01/25 Page 2 Licence No: 100301

Gross floor area 8125 to 8125 (units: sqm) 8125 to 14693 (units: sqm)

Parking Spaces Range:

All Surveys Included

Public Transport Provision: Selection by: Date Range:

Include all surveys

01/01/00 to 24/11/12

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: Saturday

1 days

This data displays the number of selected surveys by day of the week. Selected survey types: Manual count Directional ATC Count

0 days 1 days

X days - Selected 1 days - Selected

Secondary Filtering selection: Use Class: n/a

1 days

This data displays the number of selected surveys within stated 1-mile radii of population.

Basing View

Basingstoke

Friday 03/01/25 Page 3 Licence No: 100301

Secondary Filtering selection (Cont.): Population within 5 miles: 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: 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 Excluded from count or no filling station

0 days 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: No

1 days

This data displays the number of selected surveys with PTAL Ratings.

Basing View

Basingstoke

Friday 03/01/25 Page 4 Licence No: 100301

LIST OF SITES relevant to selection parameters 1

KC-01-M-01 HIGH STREET MAIDSTONE

SHOPPING MALL

Town Centre High Street Total Gross floor area: Survey date: SATURDAY

KENT

8125 sqm 24/11/12

Survey Type: DIRECTIONAL ATC COUNT

Basing View

Basingstoke

Friday 03/01/25 Page 11 Licence No: 100301

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): 2.90

ARRIVALS Ave. GFA

No. Days

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

8125 8125 8125 8125 8125 8125 8125 8125 8125 8125 8125

Trip Rate

3.926 6.572 6.806 5.342 6.498 5.452 5.883 3.852 3.705 1.440 0.000

49.476

DEPARTURES Ave. GFA

No. Days

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

8125 8125 8125 8125 8125 8125 8125 8125 8125 8125 8125

Trip Rate

0.148 4.911 5.169 5.526 5.588 6.462 6.129 5.415 5.600 3.717 0.271

48.936

TOTALS Ave. GFA

No. Days

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

8125 8125 8125 8125 8125 8125 8125 8125 8125 8125 8125

Trip Rate

4.074 11.483 11.975 10.868 12.086 11.914 12.012 9.267 9.305 5.157 0.271

98.412

Basing View

Basingstoke

Friday 03/01/25 Page 1 Licence No: 100301

Calculation Reference: AUDIT-100301-250103-0123 TRIP RATE CALCULATION SELECTION PARAMETERS: Land Use Category

: 06 - HOTEL, FOOD & DRINK : C - PUB/RESTAURANT

MULTI-MODAL TOTAL VEHICLES Selected regions and areas: 01 GREATER LONDON HG HARINGEY

1 days

This section displays the number of survey days per TRICS® sub-region in the selected set

Basing View

Basingstoke

Friday 03/01/25 Page 2 Licence No: 100301

Gross floor area 300 to 300 (units: sqm) 220 to 1123 (units: sqm)

Parking Spaces Range:

All Surveys Included

Public Transport Provision: Selection by: Date Range:

Include all surveys

01/01/16 to 10/10/23

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: Saturday

1 days

This data displays the number of selected surveys by day of the week. Selected survey types: Manual count Directional ATC Count

1 days 0 days

X days - Selected 1 days - Selected

Secondary Filtering selection: Use Class: Sui Generis

1 days

This data displays the number of selected surveys within stated 1-mile radii of population.

Basing View

Basingstoke

Friday 03/01/25 Page 3 Licence No: 100301

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: No

1 days

This data displays the number of selected surveys with PTAL Ratings.

Basing View

Basingstoke

Friday 03/01/25 Page 4 Licence No: 100301

LIST OF SITES relevant to selection parameters 1

HG-06-C-02 HIGH ROAD TOTTENHAM

PUB/RESTAURANT

Neighbourhood Centre (PPS6 Local Centre) High Street Total Gross floor area: Survey date: SATURDAY

HARINGEY

300 sqm 13/11/21

Survey Type: MANUAL

Basing View

Basingstoke

Friday 03/01/25 Page 13 Licence No: 100301

TRIP RATE for Land Use 06 - HOTEL, FOOD & DRINK/C - PUB/RESTAURANT

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): 7.75

ARRIVALS Ave. GFA

No. Days

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300

Trip Rate

0.333 3.333 9.333 1.667 3.333 5.667 7.333 2.333 5.333 4.000 1.667 0.333 2.667 47.332

DEPARTURES Ave. GFA

No. Days

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300

Trip Rate

0.000 0.000 6.333 2.000 3.667 3.333 5.333 4.667 0.667 1.667 3.333 5.000 9.667 45.667

TOTALS Ave. GFA

No. Days

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300

Trip Rate

0.333 3.333 15.666 3.667 7.000 9.000 12.666 7.000 6.000 5.667 5.000 5.333 12.334 92.999

Basing View

Basingstoke

Friday 03/01/25 Page 1 Licence No: 100301

Calculation Reference: AUDIT-100301-250103-0101 TRIP RATE CALCULATION SELECTION PARAMETERS: Land Use Category

: 02 - EMPLOYMENT : A - OFFICE

MULTI-MODAL TOTAL VEHICLES Selected regions and areas: 01 GREATER LONDON BT BRENT

1 days

This section displays the number of survey days per TRICS® sub-region in the selected set

Basing View

Basingstoke

Friday 03/01/25 Page 2 Licence No: 100301

Gross floor area 10584 to 10584 (units: sqm) 170 to 114000 (units: sqm)

Parking Spaces Range:

All Surveys Included

Public Transport Provision: Selection by: Date Range:

Include all surveys

01/01/01 to 25/10/22

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: Saturday

1 days

This data displays the number of selected surveys by day of the week. Selected survey types: Manual count Directional ATC Count

1 days 0 days

X days - Selected 1 days - Selected

Secondary Filtering selection: Use Class: Not Known

1 days

Filter by Site Operations Breakdown: All Surveys Included Population within 500m Range: All Surveys Included

Basing View

Basingstoke

Friday 03/01/25 Page 3 Licence No: 100301

Secondary Filtering selection (Cont.): 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. 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: Yes

1 days

This data displays the number of selected surveys with PTAL Ratings.

Basing View

Basingstoke

Friday 03/01/25 Page 4 Licence No: 100301

LIST OF SITES relevant to selection parameters 1

BT-02-A-04 EMPIRE WAY WEMBLEY

OFFICES

Suburban Area (PPS6 Out of Centre) Development Zone Total Gross floor area: Survey date: SATURDAY

BRENT

10625 sqm 16/05/15

Survey Type: MANUAL

Basing View

Basingstoke

Friday 03/01/25 Page 14 Licence No: 100301

TRIP RATE for Land Use 02 - EMPLOYMENT/A - OFFICE

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): 0.70

ARRIVALS Ave. GFA

No. Days

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

10584 10584 10584 10584 10584 10584 10584 10584 10584 10584 10584 10584 10584 10584 10584 10584 10584 10584 10584 10584 10584 10584 10584 10584

Trip Rate

0.009 0.161 0.104 0.161 0.246 0.368 0.142 0.028 0.038 0.047 0.028 0.142 0.066 0.180 0.076 0.085 0.028 0.028 0.009 0.009 0.019 0.009 0.028 0.057

2.068

DEPARTURES Ave. GFA

No. Days

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

10584 10584 10584 10584 10584 10584 10584 10584 10584 10584 10584 10584 10584 10584 10584 10584 10584 10584 10584 10584 10584 10584 10584 10584

Trip Rate

0.019 0.019 0.038 0.028 0.009 0.132 0.028 0.028 0.028 0.076 0.170 0.094 0.217 0.151 0.104 0.094 0.123 0.132 0.047 0.000 0.047 0.113 0.094 0.142

1.933

TOTALS Ave. GFA

No. Days

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

10584 10584 10584 10584 10584 10584 10584 10584 10584 10584 10584 10584 10584 10584 10584 10584 10584 10584 10584 10584 10584 10584 10584 10584

Trip Rate

0.028 0.180 0.142 0.189 0.255 0.500 0.170 0.056 0.066 0.123 0.198 0.236 0.283 0.331 0.180 0.179 0.151 0.160 0.056 0.009 0.066 0.122 0.122 0.199

4.001

Basing View

Basingstoke

Friday 03/01/25 Page 1 Licence No: 100301

Calculation Reference: AUDIT-100301-250103-0145 TRIP RATE CALCULATION SELECTION PARAMETERS: Land Use Category

: 02 - EMPLOYMENT : D - INDUSTRIAL ESTATE

MULTI-MODAL TOTAL VEHICLES Selected regions and areas: 10 WALES CM CARMARTHENSHIRE

1 days

This section displays the number of survey days per TRICS® sub-region in the selected set

Basing View

Basingstoke

Friday 03/01/25 Page 2 Licence No: 100301

Gross floor area 2010 to 2010 (units: sqm) 552 to 135845 (units: sqm)

Parking Spaces Range:

All Surveys Included

Public Transport Provision: Selection by: Date Range:

Include all surveys

01/01/00 to 07/06/24

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: Sunday

1 days

This data displays the number of selected surveys by day of the week. Selected survey types: Manual count Directional ATC Count

1 days 0 days

X days - Selected 1 days - Selected

Secondary Filtering selection: Use Class: Not Known

1 days

Filter by Site Operations Breakdown: All Surveys Included Population within 500m Range: All Surveys Included

Basing View

Basingstoke

Friday 03/01/25 Page 3 Licence No: 100301

Secondary Filtering selection (Cont.): Population within 1 mile: 5,001 to 10,000

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

This data displays the number of selected surveys within stated 5-mile radii of population. Car ownership within 5 miles: 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.

Travel Plan: No

1 days

This data displays the number of selected surveys with PTAL Ratings.

Basing View

Basingstoke

Friday 03/01/25 Page 4 Licence No: 100301

LIST OF SITES relevant to selection parameters 1

CM-02-D-02 WORKSHOPS PARK STREET AMMANFORD BETWS Edge of Town Centre No Sub Category Total Gross floor area: Survey date: SUNDAY

CARMARTHENSHIRE

2900 sqm 07/09/08

Survey Type: MANUAL

Basing View

Basingstoke

Friday 03/01/25 Page 14 Licence No: 100301

TRIP RATE for Land Use 02 - EMPLOYMENT/D - INDUSTRIAL ESTATE

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): 1.26

ARRIVALS Ave. GFA

No. Days

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010

Trip Rate

0.945 0.846 0.945 0.896 1.045 0.547 0.597 0.597 0.597 0.697 0.249 0.945 0.498 0.398 0.348 0.498 0.697 0.498 1.294 0.498 0.348 0.000 0.000 0.000

13.983

DEPARTURES Ave. GFA

No. Days

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010

Trip Rate

0.000 0.348 0.796 0.647 0.796 0.647 0.746 0.547 0.547 0.896 0.746 0.647 0.448 0.398 0.498 0.348 0.498 0.697 1.144 0.498 1.194 0.498 0.149 0.000

13.733

TOTALS Ave. GFA

No. Days

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010

Trip Rate

0.945 1.194 1.741 1.543 1.841 1.194 1.343 1.144 1.144 1.593 0.995 1.592 0.946 0.796 0.846 0.846 1.195 1.195 2.438 0.996 1.542 0.498 0.149 0.000

27.716

Basing View

Basingstoke

Friday 03/01/25 Page 1 Licence No: 100301

Calculation Reference: AUDIT-100301-250103-0116 TRIP RATE CALCULATION SELECTION PARAMETERS: Land Use Category

: 07 - LEISURE : I - ART GALLERIES/MUSEUMS/EXHIBITIONS

MULTI-MODAL TOTAL VEHICLES Selected regions and areas: 05 EAST MIDLANDS DY DERBY 07 YORKSHIRE & NORTH LINCOLNSHIRE KH KINGSTON UPON HULL 08 NORTH WEST GM GREATER MANCHESTER

1 days 2 days 1 days

This section displays the number of survey days per TRICS® sub-region in the selected set

Basing View

Basingstoke

Friday 03/01/25 Page 2 Licence No: 100301

Gross floor area 866 to 3087 (units: sqm) 400 to 16337 (units: sqm)

Parking Spaces Range:

All Surveys Included

Public Transport Provision: Selection by: Date Range:

Include all surveys

01/01/01 to 07/03/19

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: Saturday

4 days

This data displays the number of selected surveys by day of the week. Selected survey types: Manual count Directional ATC Count

4 days 0 days

3 1

X days - Selected 4 days - Selected

Secondary Filtering selection: Use Class: n/a F1(b) F1(c)

1 days 2 days 1 days

Basing View

Basingstoke

Friday 03/01/25 Page 3 Licence No: 100301

Secondary Filtering selection (Cont.): Population within 1 mile: 10,001 to 15,000 25,001 to 50,000

2 days 2 days

This data displays the number of selected surveys within stated 1-mile radii of population. Population within 5 miles: 125,001 to 250,000 250,001 to 500,000 500,001 or More

1 days 2 days 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 1.1 to 1.5

2 days 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: Not Known No

3 days 1 days

4 days

This data displays the number of selected surveys with PTAL Ratings.

Basing View

Basingstoke

Friday 03/01/25 Page 4 Licence No: 100301

LIST OF SITES relevant to selection parameters 1

DY-07-I-01 THE STRAND DERBY

ART GALLERY/MUSEUM

Town Centre Built-Up Zone Total Gross floor area: Survey date: SATURDAY GM-07-I-02 ART GALLERY OXFORD ROAD MANCHESTER GREENHEYS Suburban Area (PPS6 Out of Centre) Built-Up Zone Total Gross floor area: Survey date: SATURDAY KH-07-I-01 ART GALLERY QUEEN VICTORIA SQUARE HULL

2090 sqm 27/06/09

3087 sqm 17/11/01

Town Centre Built-Up Zone Total Gross floor area: 2555 sqm Survey date: SATURDAY 20/10/01 KH-07-I-02 MARITIME MUSEUM QUEEN VICTORIA SQUARE HULL Town Centre Built-Up Zone Total Gross floor area: Survey date: SATURDAY

866 sqm 20/10/01

DERBY

Survey Type: MANUAL GREATER MANCHESTER

Survey Type: MANUAL KINGSTON UPON HULL

Survey Type: MANUAL

Basing View

Basingstoke

Friday 03/01/25 Page 10 Licence No: 100301

TRIP RATE for Land Use 07 - LEISURE/I - ART GALLERIES/MUSEUMS/EXHIBITIONS

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): 4.24

ARRIVALS Ave. GFA

No. Days

1 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

2090 1837 2150 2150 2150 2150 2150 2150 2150 2150 2150

Trip Rate

0.239 0.236 0.174 1.814 2.873 3.233 4.164 3.943 2.594 0.977 0.000

20.247

DEPARTURES Ave. GFA

No. Days

1 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

2090 1837 2150 2150 2150 2150 2150 2150 2150 2150 2150

Trip Rate

0.000 0.000 0.035 0.593 2.233 2.163 3.536 4.071 3.780 2.896 0.419

19.726

TOTALS Ave. GFA

No. Days

1 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

2090 1837 2150 2150 2150 2150 2150 2150 2150 2150 2150

Trip Rate

0.239 0.236 0.209 2.407 5.106 5.396 7.700 8.014 6.374 3.873 0.419

39.973

Appendix E Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

WSP

Appendix E – Traffic Flow Diagrams

110

USER INPUT Scenario Time Period Classification Start Time End Time Scenario

LGV_00:00 PM Pea k Hour (17:25 - 18:25) LGV 2 2 LGV_00:00 - 00:00

MCC Lookup

124

165

XX XX XX XX XX

Outgoing flow Incoming flow Junctions without MCC Data Flow difference Junctions with MCC Data

A3220/ Ea rls Court Rd

A3220 / Wa rwi ck Rd Pembroke Gardens

Pembroke Square

A A3220 / Wa rwi ck Ga rdens North End Rd

4 800

98 62

4 744

A 146 1263

22 17

Beckford Cl ose

12 10

189 7

1198

1293

97 62 B

53 9 0

0 0

Pembroke Rd

187

966 B

4 27

0 0

962

561

550

146 816 185

10 64

Stra tford Rd

Pembroke Rd

124

1431

136

1293

0 0

A D1 [32583] Fenelon Rd

C 100 133

Cromwell Crescent

66 34

A3220/ Ea rls Court Rd

191

North End Rd

133

1226

1359

Cromwell Crescent

Gl i ddon Rd(N)

Ta l garth Rd

311 424

251

251 D

A4 Ha mmersmith

2665 2163 D

Ta l garth Rd

2665

231 2137 331 77

335 4

2915 2545

0 0 B

A4 Ta l garth Rd

2915 2545

176 220

221

2325 18

2713 2343 B

0 0

2713 2343

A4 Ta l garth Rd

61 2273 379

A 169 128

136 1359 41

163 243

247

490

2314 2190 B

3 2100 86

0 0

Wes t Cromwell Rd

0 0

Wes t Cromwell Rd

2314 2190

144 2170

165 622

837

152

1611

2352 1940

377 1564

B C D

0 0

1432 A

329

136 2216

2352 1940

Wes t Cromwell Rd

B 2216 1940

224

0 0

2216 1940

Wes t Cromwell Rd

G F E

775

328

1548 667 167

1876 1676

1612 64

B C

Cromwell Rd

1507 442

29 C

366 366

203 2713

A3220 / Wa rwi ck Rd

385

593

Nevern Rd

77 A3220 / Wa rwi ck Rd

0 0

Wi l son's Rd

A3220/ Ea rls Court Rd

Gl i ddon Rd (S)

1507 1611

A 6

B317 / North End Rd 25 490

593 572

233

0 0

Phi l beach Gardens

D2 [32577]

0 0

Longri dge Rd

1486

0 25

D 47 194

0 0

0 B

A 20

46 178

20 20

Redfield Ln

Longri dge Rd

Ba ron's Court Road

3 218 3

475

478

576

21 19 B

15 0 4

Bea umont Avenue

31 C

1611

25 1667

C 16 19

Phi l beach

Nevern

1667

C 54

478

576

483

Nevern Square

Nevern Pl

1552

1612

Templeton Pl

Phi l beach Gardens

1612 393

235

120

Nevern Square

C 1732

417

0 451

1612

442 24 B

1553

1612

A3220 / Wa rwi ck Rd

85 33

449 198

118 117

1553 0

Cha rl eville Rd

1552

516 0

A 16

417

516

34 1732

507

C 0 0

D2 [32577]

371

381

18 86 A

46 33

Phi l beach Gardens

1316

203

A A

227

C 115 25

Trebovi r Rd

229 B

Mund Street

203

Trebovi r Rd

8 107 196

107 34 B

8 25

Trebovi r Rd

0 0

107 34

0 107

453

1421

Kenwa y Rd

0 0 B

Ai s gi l Ave 1672

540 C

381

540 69

C 21 93

Sta r Road

Wa rwi ck Roa d Entra nce B 4 D6 [32576] 22 South wa rwi ck roa d entra nce 4 D6 [32576] 60 C 117

A 471

9 12

0 0

Ea rdl ey Crescent

0 A3220/ Ea rls Court Rd 0

0 1

Ea rl scourt garden

24 22

1421

1396

115

180 69

Penywern Rd

455

202 1542 24

372

396

1542

47 1

128

138 B

14 48

Ba rkston Gardens

1444

483 0

397

483

423

A D

1444

1542

A 1441

92 92

Archel Rd

0 213

62 22

Kemps ford Gardens

216

64 28

1527

1538

15 11

213 26

Ea rl s Court Square

332

364

B317 / North End Rd

0 2

450

17 183

0 0

1587

1506

1538

A 0 0

0 0

238

Tha xton road

Ea rl s Court Square

Kemps ford Gardens

1538

458

80 B

Empress Pl 0

0 Li l l i e Roa d Wes t

37 19

D4 [32578] 1

2 1 364

71 175 3

D 249 312

174 14

183

286

230 495 277 B

111 121 45

452 0 43

D 495 277

0 0

559 321 A

254 67 1

A3218 / Li l lie Rd (E)

120

0 0

A 559 321

370

47 293

528 340 C

0 0

E 529 340

222

120

105 C

276

281

643 382

220

0 0

536 391

57 469 9 1

A A3218 / Ol d Brompton Rd

31 351

5 0

213

372 0 0

487 372

1 2 *As per SLA

146 341 240

370

341 370 B

0 0

D 341 370

340 172 89

6 1

1255

1386

383 456 B

174 282

0 1 *As per SLA

A3218 / Ol d Brompton Rd

383 454

Redcliffe Square(N)

Sea grave Rd

1386

A 56

Fri ends of Brompton

27 61

112

26 76

15 36 25

0 0

Redcliffe Square

13 12 2 0

27 61

1316

211 5

9 C

A3218 / Ol d Brompton Rd

A3220 / Redcliffe Gardens

0 21

0 34 54 3

81 35 96 B

0 0

D 35 96

1198

35 0 460

Redcliffe Square C

15 0

71 17

Redcliffe Square

1198

115

324

115

58 A 5

1326

D Wes tgate Terrace

A3220 / Redcliffe Gardens

0 1 1 23 1

D 26 76

0 0

Ifi eld Rd

209

Ha l ford Rd B

324

1 1 23 17

E 42 8

Ans elm Rd 15

447

428 309

265

A3220 / Fi nborough Rd

113

136

263 47

1316

Li l lie yrd

Sedlescombe Rd

169

North Lodge Ca fe

462

280

1178

292 91

Onga r Rd

192

1429 A

C 487 370

Ta mworth St B317 / North End Rd

1506 146

9 382

536 391

A3220/ Ea rls Court Rd

108 536

140 18 16 B

0 0

0 110

Pel l Pl

11 5

5.8 587

643 382

B 129

107

592 360

2 34

205

1 299 1 58

106

286

A3218 / Ol d Brompton Rd

A3218 / Li l lie Rd 0

Wa rwi ck Rd 57 117

17 487 25 0

117 442

114 B 28

200

A3220 / Wa rwi ck Rd

Ea rdl ey Crescent

9 164

1506

Li l l i e Roa d Ea s t

Bus La yover/Empire state Building access 1 480

177

Bol ton Gardens

37 1576

D4 [32579]

1 22

23 1

A3218 / Li l lie Rd (W)

C 2

Ches son

Bra mber

Bra mham Gardens

1587

A3220 / Wa rwi ck Rd

0 27 27

Ha l dane Rd

D 69

Ea rl s Court Square

444

5 2 32 28

58 66 B

Ha l ford Rd

C 1352

C 57

81 A3220 / Fi nborough Rd

B317 / North End Rd

Fa rm Ln

Shorrolds Rd

63 12

A 12

11 36

100

207

2 D

277

4 0 108 2

13 333

55 114

Wa l ham Grove

241 2 7 2 22

25 33 C

Va nston Pl

B317 / North End Rd

2031 AM - Base Minus + Early Phases Total PCUs

USER INPUT Scenario Time Period Classification Start Time End Time Scenario

LGV_00:00 PM Pea k Hour (17:25 - 18:25) LGV 2 2 LGV_00:00 - 00:00

MCC Lookup

124

XX XX XX XX XX

Outgoing flow Incoming flow Junctions without MCC Data Flow difference Junctions with MCC Data

A3220/ Ea rls Court Rd

A3220 / Wa rwi ck Rd Pembroke Gardens

Pembroke Square

A A3220 / Wa rwi ck Ga rdens North End Rd

8 629

84 66

8 578

A 117 1530

19 15

Beckford Cl ose

8 11

189 4

1467

1544

84 66 B

55 10 0

0 0

Pembroke Rd

187

764 B

10 34

0 0

754

474

464

117 637 185

10 75

Stra tford Rd

Pembroke Rd

102

1176

126

1544

0 0

A D1[32576] Fenelon Rd

C 157 121

Cromwell Crescent

100 56

A3220/ Ea rls Court Rd

191

North End Rd

121

1444

1566

Cromwell Crescent

Gl i ddon Rd(N)

Ta l garth Rd

271 256

241

241 D

A4 Ha mmersmith

2461 1964 D

Ta l garth Rd

2461

231 1922 167 84

172 5

2702 2172

0 0 B

A4 Ta l garth Rd

2702 2172

176 236

130

1937 6

2576 1943 B

0 0

2576 1943

A4 Ta l garth Rd

77 2155 345

A 207 166

126 1566 40

163 99

188

287

2196 1908 B

6 1844 58

0 0

Wes t Cromwell Rd

0 0

Wes t Cromwell Rd

2196 1908

269 1925

165 580

853

113

1547

2089 1762

443 1321

B C D

0 0

1177 A

255

126 1963

2089 1762

Wes t Cromwell Rd

B 1963 1762

224

0 0

1963 1762

Wes t Cromwell Rd

G F E

648

274

1266 691 167

1539 1568

1507 61

B C

Cromwell Rd

1401 369

48 C

311 311

126 2576

A3220 / Wa rwi ck Rd

317

568

Nevern Rd

84 A3220 / Wa rwi ck Rd

0 1

Wi l son's Rd

A3220/ Ea rls Court Rd

Gl i ddon Rd (S)

1401 1547

A 6

B317 / North End Rd 16 286

568 556

233

0 0

Phi l beach Gardens

D2 [32577]

-1 0

Longri dge Rd

1392

1 14

D 57 194

0 0

0 B

A 9

57 178

9 29

Redfield Ln

Longri dge Rd

Ba ron's Court Road

3 218 3

278

283

562

8 14 B

8 0 6

Bea umont Avenue

19 C

1547

16 1582

C 9 10

Phi l beach

Nevern

1582

C 69

283

562

462

Nevern Square

Nevern Pl

1478

1513

Templeton Pl

Phi l beach Gardens

1513 227

235

104

Nevern Square

C 1617

240

0 451

1513

442 13 B

1478

1513

A3220 / Wa rwi ck Rd

57 10

*Fl ow a s per SLA

449 198

67 112

1477 0

Cha rl eville Rd

1478

473 0

A 24

240

473

453

49 1617

217

227

29 54 A

23 30

Phi l beach Gardens

1251

178

A A

0 0

D2 [32580] 227

C 89 29

Trebovi r Rd

229 B

Mund Street

178

Trebovi r Rd

5 84 196

84 49 B

20 29

Trebovi r Rd

0 0

84 49

0 84

453

1340

Kenwa y Rd

0 0 B

Ai s gi l Ave 1571

483 C

-1

228

484 92

C 7 148

Sta r Road

Wa rwi ck Roa d Entra nce B 4 D6 [32583] 16 South wa rwi ck roa d entra nce 4 D6 [32583] 57 C 105

*Fl ow a s per SLA

A 392

3 4

0 0

Ea rdl ey Crescent

0 A3220/ Ea rls Court Rd 0

0 3

Ea rl scourt garden

20 16

1340

1328

104

180 39

Penywern Rd

455

202 1480 56

225

283

1480

0 8

100 B

7 8

Ba rkston Gardens

1336

397 0

282

397

352

A D

1335

1480

A 1335

5 82

Archel Rd

1 10

11 51

Kemps ford Gardens

216

2 3

1464

1480

15 36

10 51

Ea rl s Court Square

280

317

B317 / North End Rd

0 16

355

21 183

1423

1367

A 0 1

238

Tha xton road

Ea rl s Court Square

Kemps ford Gardens

1480

458

56 B

Empress Pl 0

0 Li l l i e Roa d Wes t

10 5

D4 [32578] 3

17 0 320

49 94 5

D 151 351

152

265

158 340 351 B

119 177 54

307 0 33

D 340 351

0 0

413 472 A

333 138 0

A3218 / Li l lie Rd (E)

125

0 0

A 413 472

35 425

428 460 C

0 0

E 428 460

222

125

63 C

250

268

10 474

547 484

220

0 0

450 492

8 439 3 0

A A3218 / Ol d Brompton Rd

213

439 1 0

454 441

-1 1

C 453 440 *Fl ow a s per SLA

240

440

294 443 B

0 0

D 294 443

293 172 88

1197

1308

316 516 B

160 355

-1 1

A3218 / Ol d Brompton Rd

315 515

5 1

Redcliffe Square(N)

Sea grave Rd

1308

A 74

Fri ends of Brompton

18 65

A3218 / Ol d Brompton Rd

0 0

Redcliffe Square

6 11 1 0

18 65

1180

A3220 / Redcliffe Gardens

211 0

11 C

1 15

0 56 63 19

80 29 137 B

0 0

D 29 137

1072

29 0 460

Redcliffe Square C

57 0

57 58

Redcliffe Square

1072

115

18 116

18 56 42

10 138

318

138

92 A 7

1243

D Wes tgate Terrace

A3220 / Redcliffe Gardens

0 0 5 13 0

D 18 116

0 0

Ifi eld Rd

209

Ha l ford Rd B

318

4 1 28 23

E 57 10

Ans elm Rd 8

447

317 343

A3220 / Fi nborough Rd

115

249

Li l lie yrd

Sedlescombe Rd

292 38

1180

North Lodge Ca fe

125

1050

169

462

268

223 223 92

*Fl ow a s per SLA

Onga r Rd

1367 1357

159 294

Ta mworth St B317 / North End Rd

A3220/ Ea rls Court Rd

159

9 484

450 492

97 450

82 33 23 B

0 0

0 171

Pel l Pl

15 7

0 478

546 484

B 123

108

478 481

10 18

205

0 427 0 54

106

265

A3218 / Ol d Brompton Rd

A3218 / Li l lie Rd 0

Wa rwi ck Rd 69 105

4 415 9 0

73 340 370

A3220 / Wa rwi ck Rd

135 B 47

200

1367

Li l l i e Roa d Ea s t Ea rdl ey Crescent

7 108

174 25

Bus La yover/Empire state Building access 0 374

150

Bol ton Gardens

36 1516

D4 [32579]

0 18

18 3

A3218 / Li l lie Rd (W)

C 17

Ches son

Bra mber

Bra mham Gardens

1423

A3220 / Wa rwi ck Rd

1480

0 1

0 0

0 41 41

Ha l dane Rd

D 29

Ea rl s Court Square

444

3 2 41 20

49 66 B

Ha l ford Rd

C 1260

C 73

88 A3220 / Fi nborough Rd

B317 / North End Rd

Fa rm Ln

Shorrolds Rd

29 25

A 6

8 12

107

207

4 D

291

11 8 108 4

20 395

95 131

Wa l ham Grove

245 5 5 4 25

49 38 C

Va nston Pl

B317 / North End Rd

2031 PM - Base Minus + Early Phases Total PCUs

USER INPUT Scenario Time Period Classification Start Time End Time Scenario

LGV_00:00 PM Pea k Hour (17:25 - 18:25) LGV 2 2 LGV_00:00 - 00:00

MCC Lookup

124

#REF!

XX XX XX XX XX

Outgoing flow Incoming flow Junctions without MCC Data Flow difference Junctions with MCC Data

A3220/ Ea rls Court Rd

A3220 / Wa rwi ck Rd Pembroke Gardens

Pembroke Square

A A3220 / Wa rwi ck Ga rdens

North End Rd

5 1073

E 5 988

A 198 1282

22 21

Beckford Cl ose

12 10

189 7

1203

1301

101 92 B

67 14 10

-1 0

Pembroke Rd

100 92

187

1218 B

5 32

0 0

1213

428

420

198 1015 185

8 57

Stra tford Rd

Pembroke Rd

132

1491

143

1301 C 101 127

D1 [32576] Fenelon Rd

10 10

Cromwell Crescent

67 34

-1

A3220/ Ea rls Court Rd

191

North End Rd

117

1233

1350

34 Cromwell Crescent

A 399 442

290

290 D

A4 Ha mmersmith

2799 2188 D

Ta l garth Rd

2799

231 2163 334 77

338 4

3089 2573

0 0 B

A4 Ta l garth Rd

3089 2573

176 215

227

2358 19

2875 2377 B

0 0

2875 2377

A4 Ta l garth Rd

64 2391 419

A 230 198

143

163 294

335

629

2423 2193 B

0 2083 110

0 0

Wes t Cromwell Rd

0 0

Wes t Cromwell Rd

2423 2193

146 2277

165 627

846

152

1625

2462 1922

358 1566

B C D

0 0

1493 A

333

143 2319

2462 1922

Wes t Cromwell Rd

B 2319 1922

224

0 0

2319 1922

Wes t Cromwell Rd

G F E

815

345

1620 697 167

1966 1651

1590 62

B C

Cromwell Rd

1574 442

29 C

358 358

215 2875

A3220 / Wa rwi ck Rd

1350

Gl i ddon Rd(N)

Ta l garth Rd A

377

728

Nevern Rd

77 A3220 / Wa rwi ck Rd

0 1

Wi l son's Rd

A3220/ Ea rls Court Rd

A 1574

Gl i ddon Rd (S) 1625

A 6

B317 / North End Rd 26 628

728

597

129

233 0 0

Phi l beach Gardens

D2 [32577]

1 0

Longri dge Rd

1553

0 27

D 47 194

0 0

0 B

A 21

47 178

21 20

Redfield Ln

Longri dge Rd

Ba ron's Court Road

11 218 3

526

584

639

184 152 B

102 8 42

Bea umont Avenue

31 C

1625

26 1682

C 0

19 C 16 19

Phi l beach

Nevern

1682

C 60

584

639

544

Nevern Square

1620

1622

Templeton Pl

Phi l beach Gardens 1622 501

235

120

Nevern Square

C 1742

530

1621

451

1622

442 29 B

Nevern Pl

1622

A3220 / Wa rwi ck Rd

82 36

449 198

118 124

1620 0

Cha rl eville Rd

1620

580 0

A 16

530

580

570

35 1742

482

22 92 A

48 36

Phi l beach Gardens

1373

212

A A

0 0

D5 [32580] 227

C 116 26

Trebovi r Rd

229 B

Mund Street

212

Trebovi r Rd

8 108 196

108 35 B

8 26

Trebovi r Rd

0 0

108 35

0 108

453

1477

Kenwa y Rd

0 0 B

Ai s gi l Ave 1681

494

606 C A3220/ Ea rls Court Rd

Wa rwi ck Roa d Entra nce B 24 D1 [32583] 20

495

606

532

0 0

Sta r Road

20 19

0 0

South Wa rwi ck Roa d Entra5 cne 59 D1 [32583] C 126

Ea rdl ey Crescent

Ea rl scourt garden

24 20

C 39 101

0 6

1477

1453

125

180 75

Penywern Rd

455

202 1541 28

475

503

1541

1 71

121

131 B

14 72

Ba rkston Gardens

1523

551 0

-1

503

551

485

A D

1523

1541

A 1520

122 103

Archel Rd

0 81

82 23

Kemps ford Gardens

216

87 35

1525

1536

16 12

81 28

Ea rl s Court Square

17 183

417

454 0 43

520

A3220 / Wa rwi ck Rd

1658

1575

A 1 1

238

Tha xton road

Ea rl s Court Square

B Kemps ford Gardens

1536

458

B 1573

D4 [32579]

Empress Pl 0

2 23

25 2

Li l l i e Roa d Wes t

38 33

D4 [32578] 2

41 1 454

93 212 4

D 309 328

249

366

267 577 286 B

112 121 53

527 0 50

D 577 286

0 0

200

635 329 A

262 65 2

A3218 / Li l lie Rd (E)

152

0 0

47 297

599 344 C

0 0

E 599 344

222

152

138

108 C

11 5 6

361

1 662

726 382

0 0

726 382

220

608 391

0 0

608 391

Wa rwi ck Rd

A A3218 / Ol d Brompton Rd

37 345

6 0

213

370 0 0

538 370

1 3

C 539 367 *Fl ow a s per SLA

240

367

390 367 B

0 0

D 390 367

389 172 88

6 1 D

1257

1388

433 447 B

168 279

0 5

A3218 / Ol d Brompton Rd

432 442

1388

Redcliffe Square(N)

A 52

Sea grave Rd

Fri ends of Brompton

27 56

A3218 / Ol d Brompton Rd

A3220 / Redcliffe Gardens

0 0

Redcliffe Square

13 12 2 0

27 56

37 0

211 5

9 C

0 21

1375

A 2

0 29 49 2

85 35 86 B

0 0

D 35 86

1253

35 0 460

Redcliffe Square C

1 0

73 2

Redcliffe Square

1253

143

120

29 77

15 37 25

13 145

414

145

58 A 5

1332

D Wes tgate Terrace

A3220 / Redcliffe Gardens

0 1 2 26 1

D 29 77

0 0

Ifi eld Rd

209

Ha l ford Rd B

414

1 1 23 17

E 42 8

Ans elm Rd 16

447

344

477 288

A3220 / Fi nborough Rd

144

Li l lie yrd

Sedlescombe Rd

144

246 42

1375

North Lodge Ca fe

Ta mworth St

360

1235

169

101

196 334 99

*Fl ow a s per SLA

462

1575 1424

149 390

Onga r Rd

B317 / North End Rd

A3220/ Ea rls Court Rd

149

23 A

9 382

75 520 12 1

0 115

155

663 355

117 608

B 131

20 16 B

107

Pel l Pl

205

1 296 0 58

D 0

366

A3218 / Ol d Brompton Rd

A3218 / Li l lie Rd 0

355

Ea rdl ey Crescent

65 126

18 553 28 0

118 517 370

A3220 / Wa rwi ck Rd

115 B 32

A 635 329

1575

Li l l i e Roa d Ea s t

10 166

174 18

Bus La yover/Empire state Building access 1 552

189

Bol ton Gardens

Ches son

A3218 / Li l lie Rd (W)

1658

1536

0 0

0 63 63

Bra mber

Bra mham Gardens

444

B317 / North End Rd

Ha l dane Rd

D 79

Ea rl s Court Square

5 2 32 28

61 67 B

Ha l ford Rd C 1359

C 58

81 A3220 / Fi nborough Rd

B317 / North End Rd

Fa rm Ln

Shorrolds Rd

65 13

A 12

11 37

130

207

3 D

365

4 0 108 2

15 435

66 114

Wa l ham Grove

272 2 8 2 22

27 35 C

Va nston Pl

B317 / North End Rd

2041 AM - Base Minus + All Phases Total PCUs

USER INPUT Scenario Time Period Classification Start Time End Time Scenario

LGV_00:00 PM Pea k Hour (17:25 - 18:25) LGV 2 2 LGV_00:00 - 00:00

MCC Lookup

124

#REF!

XX XX XX XX XX

Outgoing flow Incoming flow Junctions without MCC Data Flow difference Junctions with MCC Data

A3220/ Ea rls Court Rd

A3220 / Wa rwi ck Rd Pembroke Gardens

Pembroke Square

A A3220 / Wa rwi ck Ga rdens North End Rd

8 619

87 65

8 570

A 118 1538

23 14

Beckford Cl ose

8 15

189 4

1475

1552

88 65 B

55 10 0

0 0

Pembroke Rd

187

761 B

11 41

0 0

750

471

461

118 632 185

10 73

Stra tford Rd

Pembroke Rd

104

1166

128

1552

0 0

A D [32581] Fenelon Rd

C 158 120

Cromwell Crescent

109 49

A3220/ Ea rls Court Rd

191

North End Rd

120

1444

1564

Cromwell Crescent

Gl i ddon Rd(N)

Ta l garth Rd

351 260

230

230 D

A4 Ha mmersmith

2527 1975 D

Ta l garth Rd

2527

231 1933 168 83

174 5

2757 2185

0 0 B

A4 Ta l garth Rd

2757 2185

176 237

133

1948 6

2630 1954 B

0 0

2630 1954

A4 Ta l garth Rd

77 2173 380

A 223 190

128 1564 33

163 116

274

390

2206 1916 B

0 1839 77

0 0

Wes t Cromwell Rd

0 0

Wes t Cromwell Rd

2205 1916

264 1940

165 583

850

116

1549

2105 1779

449 1332

B C D

0 0

1168 A

257

128 1977

2105 1779

Wes t Cromwell Rd

B 1977 1779

224

0 0

1977 1779

Wes t Cromwell Rd

G F E

641

269

1272 699 167

1542 1584

1522 62

B C

Cromwell Rd

1402 375

48 C

329 329

127 2630

A3220 / Wa rwi ck Rd

335

647

Nevern Rd

83 A3220 / Wa rwi ck Rd

0 0

Wi l son's Rd

A3220/ Ea rls Court Rd

Gl i ddon Rd (S)

1402 1549

A 7

B317 / North End Rd 17 390

647 549

233 Phi l beach Gardens

Ba ron's Court Road

D2 [32577] 129 Bea umont Avenue 167 B

16 218 4

283

326

596

0 0

107 13 47

0 0

Longri dge Rd

1549

17 1585

326

C 9 10

A 499

1 B

178

8 29

Redfield Ln

1 1480

1479

A C B

Nevern Square

Nevern Pl

451

1514 1514 0

1479

1514

Templeton Pl

Phi l beach Gardens 235

104

1514

Nevern Square

442 266

C 1617

281

1479

Nevern

1584

A3220 / Wa rwi ck Rd

60 14

15 B

A 8

Longri dge Rd

449

0 1

Phi l beach

596

D 57 194

1393

1 16

C 19 C

198

73 112

Cha rl eville Rd

Longri dge Rd

1479

512 0

A 24

-1

280

511

492

49 1617

256

267

31 57 A

25 30

Phi l beach Gardens

1252

179

A A

0 0

D5 [32580] 227

C 90 29

Trebovi r Rd

229 B

Mund Street

179

Trebovi r Rd

5 85 196

85 49 B

20 29

Trebovi r Rd

0 0

85 49

2 83

453

1331

Kenwa y Rd

0 0 B

Ai s gi l Ave 1571

522 C

-1

268

523

0 A3220/ Ea rls Court Rd

Wa rwi ck Roa d Entra nce B 19 D1 [32576] 16

90 C 10 148

Sta r Road

433

4 6

0 0

Ea rdl ey Crescent

2 57 D1 [32576] Southern Wa rwi ck Roa d Entra nce C 107

0 1331

Ea rl scourt garden

19 16

1331

1323

106

180 41

Penywern Rd

4 5

Penywern Rd

D 455

202 1482 58

263

321

1482

1 15

105 B

4 16

Ba rkston Gardens

1338

439 0

321

439

393

A D

1338

1482

A 1337

7 86

Archel Rd

1 13

14 56

Kemps ford Gardens

216

3 4

1466

1482

16 41

13 56

Ea rl s Court Square

318

358

B317 / North End Rd

0 48

397

21 183

1425

1369

A 0 2

238

Tha xton road

Ea rl s Court Square

Kemps ford Gardens

1482

458

56 B

Empress Pl 0

0 Li l l i e Roa d Wes t

12 7

D4 [32578] 4

47 1 361

52 101 6

D 164 350

182

297

185 377 370 B

126 179 64

341 0 35

D 377 370

0 0

449 492 A

351 139 1

A3218 / Li l lie Rd (E)

159

0 0

A 449 492

32 446

461 478 C

0 0

E 461 478

222

159

63 C

282

301

578 491

220

0 0

480 500

10 466 4 0

A A3218 / Ol d Brompton Rd

12 480

4 0

213

442 1 0

481 444

-2 1 *As per SLA

161 318 240

443

318 445 B

0 0

D 318 445

317 172 91

5 1

1198

1313

340 513 B

158 354

-2 1 *As per SLA

A3218 / Ol d Brompton Rd

338 511

Redcliffe Square(N)

Sea grave Rd

1312

A 85

Fri ends of Brompton

17 77

149

129

18 119

19 57 43

0 0

Redcliffe Square

6 11 1 0

17 77

1192

211 0

11 C

A3218 / Ol d Brompton Rd

A3220 / Redcliffe Gardens

1 15

0 67 75 23

80 29 164 B

0 0

D 29 164

1084

29 0 460

Redcliffe Square C

84 0

57 84

Redcliffe Square

1084

172

355

172

93 A 7

1235

D Wes tgate Terrace

A3220 / Redcliffe Gardens

0 0 5 13 0

D 18 119

0 0

Ifi eld Rd

209

Ha l ford Rd B

355

4 1 28 23

E 57 10

Ans elm Rd 8

447

326 336

282

A3220 / Fi nborough Rd

150

285 38

1192

Li l lie yrd

Sedlescombe Rd

131

1049

169

North Lodge Ca fe

462

301

226 232 105

Onga r Rd

1369 1356 A C 479 443

Ta mworth St B317 / North End Rd

A3220/ Ea rls Court Rd

161

9 491

480 500

98 480

83 33 24 B

0 0

0 174

Pel l Pl

16 8

0.4 510

578 491

B 125

142

510 487

10 19

205

0 433 0 54

107

297

A3218 / Ol d Brompton Rd

A3218 / Li l lie Rd 0

Wa rwi ck Rd 70 107

5 445 10 0

76 373 370

A3220 / Wa rwi ck Rd

134 B 47

200

1369

Li l l i e Roa d Ea s t Ea rdl ey Crescent

8 108

174 25

Bus La yover/Empire state Building access 1 419

145

Bol ton Gardens

36 1517

D4 [32579]

1 22

22 4

A3218 / Li l lie Rd (W)

C 48

Ches son

Bra mber

Bra mham Gardens

1425

A3220 / Wa rwi ck Rd

1482

1 1

0 0

0 82 82

Ha l dane Rd

D 31

Ea rl s Court Square

444

3 2 42 21

50 69 B

Ha l ford Rd

C 1253

C 74

89 A3220 / Fi nborough Rd

B317 / North End Rd

Fa rm Ln

Shorrolds Rd

30 26

A 6

8 12

142

207

4 D

326

11 8 110 5

20 433

97 134

Wa l ham Grove

283 5 5 4 25

48 39 C

Va nston Pl

B317 / North End Rd

2041 PM - Base Minus + All Phases Total PCUs

Appendix F Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

WSP

Appendix F – 2031 Early Phases and 2041 All Phases Bus Analysis

111

Appendix Junction Capacity Assessment Summary Tables July 2025

WSP Issue 01

1.0 Early Phases 2031 – Bus Analysis Tables Early Phases 2031: AM Peak Hour Boarding & Alighting by Bus Service 2031 Early Phases Bus Stop Boarding & Alighting by Service – AM 0800 to 0900 (1 hour)

2031 Base Minus Bus Service

328 C1 C3 328 328 74 74 C1 C1 C3

2031 Early Phases – Development Trips

2031 Early Phases – Base Minus + Dev

% Diff

Bus Stop Bus Stop Name ID

BP2068 BP2068 BP2068 11164 29941 29941 11164 29941 11164 29941

WEST CROMWELL ROAD WEST CROMWELL ROAD WEST CROMWELL ROAD EARLS COURT STATION EARLS COURT STATION EARLS COURT STATION EARLS COURT STATION EARLS COURT STATION EARLS COURT STATION EARLS COURT STATION

Boarding

Alighting Boarding Alighting Boarding Alighting Boarding Alighting

22 10 0 107 31 18 22 17 33 6

6 5 0 27 25 30 11 4 20 66

60 28 1 8 35 20 2 19 3 6

41 33 0 10 13 16 4 2 7 36

82 38 1 115 67 37 24 36 36 12

47 38 0 37 38 46 15 7 27 102

272% 272% 272% 7% 112% 112% 7% 112% 7% 112%

692% 692% 0% 37% 54% 54% 37% 54% 37% 54%

Appendix Junction Capacity Assessment Summary Tables July 2025

11164

190

2539

430

2538

430 430

9414 8410

430

2539

2538

74 74

9414 8410

2539

28 306 306 28 28 306 306 Total

11254 11254 11253 11256 11255 11256 11255

WSP Issue 01

EARLS COURT STATION EMPRESS STATE BUILDING / WEST BROMPTON EMPRESS STATE BUILDING / WEST BROMPTON WEST BROMPTON STATION WEST BROMPTON STATION EMPRESS STATE BUILDING / WEST BROMPTON EMPRESS STATE BUILDING / WEST BROMPTON WEST BROMPTON STATION WEST BROMPTON STATION EMPRESS STATE BUILDING / WEST BROMPTON WEST KENSINGTON ESTATE WEST KENSINGTON ESTATE WEST KENSINGTON ESTATE WEST KENSINGTON STATION WEST KENSINGTON STATION WEST KENSINGTON STATION WEST KENSINGTON STATION

196

211

37%

69%

106

122%

339%

15 32

30 3

3 1

31 10

18 33

61 13

20% 3%

104% 360%

69%

1858%

122%

339%

10 41

41 7

2 1

43 25

12 42

84 32

20% 3%

104% 360%

69%

1858%

15 10 32 25 22 18 12 746

3 8 4 14 20 10 15 384

6 4 0 0 0 0 0 260

7 16 0 0 0 0 0 464

20 14 32 25 22 18 12 1007

10 24 4 14 20 10 15 848

38% 38% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

204% 204% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Appendix Junction Capacity Assessment Summary Tables July 2025

WSP Issue 01

Early Phases 2031: PM Peak Hour Boarding & Alighting by Bus Service 2031 Early Phases Bus Stop Boarding & Alighting by Service – PM 1700 to 1800 (1 hour)

2031 Base Minus Bus Service

Bus Stop ID

328 C1 C3 328 328 74 74 C1 C1 C3 C3

BP2068 BP2068 BP2068 11164 29941 29941 11164 29941 11164 29941 11164

190

2539

430

2538

2031 Early Phases – Development Trips

2031 Early Phases – Base Minus + Dev

% Diff

Bus Stop Name

Boarding

Alighting Boarding Alighting Boarding Alighting Boarding Alighting

25 12 0 66 21 12 14 11 21 4 121

13 11 0 57 27 32 24 5 41 71 6

55 32 1 6 37 12 4 24 1 6 15

32 34 0 6 13 11 8 7 6 29 1

80 43 2 72 59 24 18 36 22 10 136

46 45 0 63 40 43 31 12 47 100 7

219% 271% 365% 9% 176% 98% 31% 214% 7% 165% 12%

241% 316% 0% 11% 50% 34% 33% 163% 14% 40% 12%

255%

637%

129%

Appendix Junction Capacity Assessment Summary Tables July 2025

430 430

9414 8410

430

2539

2538

74 74

9414 8410

2539

28 306 306 28 28 306 306 Total

11254 11254 11253 11256 11255 11256 11255

WSP Issue 01

WEST BROMPTON STATION WEST BROMPTON STATION EMPRESS STATE BUILDING / WEST BROMPTON EMPRESS STATE BUILDING / WEST BROMPTON WEST BROMPTON STATION WEST BROMPTON STATION EMPRESS STATE BUILDING / WEST BROMPTON WEST KENSINGTON ESTATE WEST KENSINGTON ESTATE WEST KENSINGTON ESTATE WEST KENSINGTON STATION WEST KENSINGTON STATION WEST KENSINGTON STATION WEST KENSINGTON STATION

5 29

28 10

4 2

2 1

9 31

30 12

89% 6%

7% 12%

307%

431%

1067%

153%

3 37

39 26

6 3

4 1

9 40

43 28

187% 9%

9% 5%

331%

135%

5 4 16 25 18 18 10 505

9 20 11 38 33 27 25 588

8 12 0 0 0 0 0 378

1 4 0 0 0 0 0 213

13 15 16 25 18 18 10 883

10 24 11 38 33 27 25 801

154% 325% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

15% 20% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Appendix Junction Capacity Assessment Summary Tables July 2025

WSP Issue 01

Early Phases 2031: AM Peak Hour Boarding & Alighting by Bus Stop Early Phases 2031 Boarding & Alighting by Bus Stop – AM 0800 to 0900 (1 hour)

2031 Base Minus Bus Stop ID

2031 Early Phases – Development Trips

2031 Early Phases – Base Minus + Dev

% Diff

Bus Stop Name Boarding Alighting Boarding Alighting Boarding Alighting Boarding Alighting

BP2068 11164 29941 2539 2538 9414 8410 11254 11253 11256 11255 Total

WEST CROMWELL ROAD EARLS COURT STATION EARLS COURT STATION EMPRESS STATE BUILDING / WEST BROMPTON EMPRESS STATE BUILDING / WEST BROMPTON WEST BROMPTON STATION WEST BROMPTON STATION WEST KENSINGTON ESTATE WEST KENSINGTON ESTATE WEST KENSINGTON STATION WEST KENSINGTON STATION

33 359 72

11 61 126

88 27 80

75 23 68

121 386 152

85 84 193

272% 7% 112%

692% 37% 54%

69%

1858%

129

122%

339%

25 73 25 32 42 34 746

71 10 11 4 24 35 384

5 2 10 0 0 0 260

74 35 23 0 0 0 464

30 76 35 32 42 34 1007

145 45 34 4 24 35 848

20% 3% 38% 0% 0% 0% 0%

104% 360% 204% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Appendix Junction Capacity Assessment Summary Tables July 2025

WSP Issue 01

Early Phases 2031: PM Peak Hour Boarding & Alighting by Bus Stop Early Phases 2031 Boarding & Alighting by Bus Stop – PM 1700 to 1800 (1 hour)

2031 Base Minus Bus Stop ID

2031 Early Phases – Development Trips

2031 Early Phases – Base Minus + Dev

% Diff

Bus Stop Name Boarding Alighting Boarding Alighting Boarding Alighting Boarding Alighting

BP2068 11164 29941 2539 2538 9414 8410 11254 11253 11256 11255 Total

37 221 49

24 128 134

88 27 80

66 20 60

125 248 128

91 148 195

237% 12% 165%

274% 16% 45%

295%

188%

899%

133%

8 66 9 16 42 28 505

67 37 29 11 65 58 588

10 5 20 0 0 0 378

6 3 5 0 0 0 213

18 71 28 16 42 28 883

73 39 34 11 65 58 801

130% 7% 225% 0% 0% 0% 0%

8% 7% 18% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Appendix Junction Capacity Assessment Summary Tables July 2025

WSP Issue 01

2.0 All Phases 2041 – Bus Analysis Tables All Phases 2041: AM Peak Hour Boarding & Alighting by Bus Services 2041 All Phases Bus Stop Boarding & Alighting including by Service – AM 0800 to 0900 (1 hour)

Bus Service

328 C1 C3 328 328 74 74 C1 C1 C3 C3

Bus Stop ID

BP2068 BP2068 BP2068 11164 29941 29941 11164 29941 11164 29941 11164

2041 All Phases – Base Minus + Dev

2041 Base Minus

2041 All Phases – Development Trips

Boarding

Alighting

Boarding Alighting Boarding Alighting Boarding Alighting

24 11 0 114 34 19 24 18 36 6 210

6 5 0 29 27 32 12 5 21 71 3

46 21 1 10 21 12 2 11 3 4 18

% Diff

Bus Stop Name

32 25 0 13 8 10 5 1 9 22 1

69 32 1 124 55 31 26 29 39 10 228

38 31 0 42 35 42 17 6 30 92 4

194% 194% 194% 9% 63% 63% 9% 63% 9% 63% 9%

496% 496% 0% 44% 30% 30% 44% 30% 44% 30% 44%

Appendix Junction Capacity Assessment Summary Tables July 2025

190

2539

430

2538

430 430

9414 8410

430

2539

2538

74 74

9414 8410

2539

28 306 306 28 28 306 306 Total

11254 11254 11253 11256 11255 11256 11255

WSP Issue 01

EMPRESS STATE BUILDING / WEST BROMPTON EMPRESS STATE BUILDING / WEST BROMPTON WEST BROMPTON STATION WEST BROMPTON STATION EMPRESS STATE BUILDING / WEST BROMPTON EMPRESS STATE BUILDING / WEST BROMPTON WEST BROMPTON STATION WEST BROMPTON STATION EMPRESS STATE BUILDING / WEST BROMPTON WEST KENSINGTON ESTATE WEST KENSINGTON ESTATE WEST KENSINGTON ESTATE WEST KENSINGTON STATION WEST KENSINGTON STATION WEST KENSINGTON STATION WEST KENSINGTON STATION

54%

88%

196%

16 35

32 3

7 3

41 14

23 37

72 17

46% 8%

128% 460%

54%

1172%

88%

196%

11 44

44 7

5 3

56 34

16 47

100 42

46% 8%

128% 460%

54%

1172%

16 11 34 26 23 19 13 797

4 8 4 15 21 10 16 410

38 27 0 14 48 10 26 369

26 59 0 19 56 13 43 594

53 38 34 40 72 29 39 1166

30 67 4 34 77 24 59 1005

241% 241% 0% 54% 206% 54% 206% 0%

717% 717% 0% 128% 262% 128% 262% 0%

Appendix Junction Capacity Assessment Summary Tables July 2025

WSP Issue 01

All Phases 2041: PM Peak Hour Boarding & Alighting by Bus Services 2041 All Phases Bus Stop Boarding & Alighting including by Service – PM 1700 to 1800 (1 hour)

Bus Service

Bus Stop ID

328 C1 C3 328 328 74 74 C1 C1 C3 C3

BP2068 BP2068 BP2068 11164 29941 29941 11164 29941 11164 29941 11164

190

2539

430

2538

430 430

9414 8410

2041 All Phases – Base Minus + Dev

% Diff

2041 Base Minus

2041 All Phases – Development Trips

Boarding

Alighting

Boarding

Alighting

Boarding

Alighting

Boarding

Alighting

27 12 0 70 23 13 15 12 22 4 129

14 12 0 61 28 34 25 5 44 76 6

54 31 1 10 29 9 7 19 2 5 24

25 27 0 8 8 7 10 5 7 18 1

81 43 2 80 52 22 22 31 24 9 153

40 38 0 69 37 41 35 9 51 93 7

201% 249% 335% 14% 127% 71% 47% 155% 10% 119% 19%

175% 230% 0% 13% 29% 19% 39% 93% 16% 23% 14%

209%

479%

90%

5 31

30 11

7 3

5 3

12 34

35 14

151% 10%

15% 28%

Bus Stop Name

WEST CROMWELL ROAD WEST CROMWELL ROAD WEST CROMWELL ROAD EARLS COURT STATION EARLS COURT STATION EARLS COURT STATION EARLS COURT STATION EARLS COURT STATION EARLS COURT STATION EARLS COURT STATION EARLS COURT STATION EMPRESS STATE BUILDING / WEST BROMPTON EMPRESS STATE BUILDING / WEST BROMPTON WEST BROMPTON STATION WEST BROMPTON STATION

Appendix Junction Capacity Assessment Summary Tables July 2025

430

2539

2538

74 74

9414 8410

2539

28 306 306 28 28 306 306 Total

11254 11254 11253 11256 11255 11256 11255

WSP Issue 01

EMPRESS STATE BUILDING / WEST BROMPTON EMPRESS STATE BUILDING / WEST BROMPTON WEST BROMPTON STATION WEST BROMPTON STATION EMPRESS STATE BUILDING / WEST BROMPTON WEST KENSINGTON ESTATE WEST KENSINGTON ESTATE WEST KENSINGTON ESTATE WEST KENSINGTON STATION WEST KENSINGTON STATION WEST KENSINGTON STATION WEST KENSINGTON STATION

251%

327%

802%

107%

3 39

42 28

11 6

9 4

14 45

51 32

317% 15%

21% 13%

271%

102%

5 4 17 26 19 19 10 539

9 21 12 41 35 29 27 628

22 33 0 11 37 9 26 481

11 34 0 10 30 7 22 289

28 37 17 38 56 28 36 1020

20 55 12 51 65 36 48 917

404% 848% 0% 44% 194% 49% 253% 0%

117% 159% 0% 25% 86% 24% 80% 0%

Appendix Junction Capacity Assessment Summary Tables July 2025

WSP Issue 01

All Phases 2041: AM Peak Hour Boarding & Alighting by Bus Stop All Phases 2041 Boarding & Alighting by Bus Stop – AM 0800 to 0900 (1 hour)

Bus Stop ID

BP2068 11164 29941 2539 2538 9414 8410 11254 11253 11256 11255 Total

2041 All Phases – Base Minus + Dev

% Diff

2041 Base Minus

2041 All Phases – Development Trips

Boarding

Alighting

Boarding Alighting

35 384 77

12 65 134

67 34 48

57 28 41

102 418 125

69 94 175

194% 9% 63%

496% 44% 30%

54%

1172%

88%

196%

27 78 27 34 45 36 797

76 10 12 4 25 38 410

12 6 64 0 24 74 369

97 48 85 0 32 98 594

39 85 91 34 70 110 1166

172 59 97 4 58 136 1005

46% 8% 241% 0% 54% 206% 0%

128% 460% 717% 0% 128% 262% 0%

% Diff

Bus Stop Name

Appendix Junction Capacity Assessment Summary Tables July 2025

WSP Issue 01

All Phases 2041: PM Peak Hour Boarding & Alighting by Bus Stop All Phases 2041 Boarding & Alighting by Bus Stop – PM 1700 to 1800 (1 hour) 2041 Base Minus Bus Stop ID

2041 All Phases – Development Trips

2041 All Phases – Base Minus + Dev

% Diff

Bus Stop Name Boarding Alighting Boarding Alighting Boarding Alighting Boarding Alighting

BP2068 11164 29941 2539 2538 9414 8410 11254 11253 11256 11255 Total

40 236 52

26 137 144

86 43 62

52 26 37

126 279 113

78 163 181

217% 18% 119%

200% 19% 26%

241%

142%

675%

93%

8 70 9 17 45 29 539

72 39 31 12 69 62 628

18 9 55 0 21 63 481

14 7 45 0 17 52 289

26 79 64 17 66 93 1020

86 46 76 12 86 114 917

219% 13% 588% 0% 46% 215% 0%

19% 17% 146% 0% 25% 84% 0%

Appendix Junction Capacity Assessment Summary Tables July 2025

WSP Issue 01

1.0 2031 Detailed Component – Bus Analysis Tables The Detailed Component Bus Analysis has been updated following submission of the planning applications by factoring the original analysis by the proportional change in floorspace. This approach has been used to provide an estimate of the Detailed Component bus demand, noting that the Detailed Component does not form a phase of the development. 2031 Detailed Component: AM Peak Hour Boarding & Alighting by Bus Service 2031 Detailed Component Bus Stop Boarding & Alighting including by Service – AM 0800 to 0900 (1 hour) 2031 Early Phases – 2031 Detailed Bus Bus 2031 Base Minus Base Minus + Dev Development Trips Bus Stop Name Service Stop ID

328 C1 C3 328 328 74 74 C1 C1

BP2068 BP2068 BP2068 11164 29941 29941 11164 29941 11164

WEST CROMWELL ROAD WEST CROMWELL ROAD WEST CROMWELL ROAD EARLS COURT STATION EARLS COURT STATION EARLS COURT STATION EARLS COURT STATION EARLS COURT STATION EARLS COURT STATION

Boarding 22 10 0 107 31 18 22 17 33

Alighting 6 5 0 27 25 30 11 4 20

Boarding 26 12 0 3 15 9 1 8 1

Alighting 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

Boarding 48 22 1 111 47 26 23 25 35

Alighting 7 6 0 28 25 31 11 4 20

% Diff

Boarding 118% 118% 118% 3% 49% 49% 3% 49% 3%

Alighting 23% 23% 0% 1% 2% 2% 1% 2% 1%

Appendix Junction Capacity Assessment Summary Tables July 2025

C3 C3

29941 11164

190

2539

430

2538

430 430

9414 8410

430

2539

2538

74 74

9414 8410

2539

28 306 306 28 28 306 306 Total

11254 11254 11253 11256 11255 11256 11255

WSP Issue 01

EARLS COURT STATION EARLS COURT STATION EMPRESS STATE BUILDING / WEST BROMPTON EMPRESS STATE BUILDING / WEST BROMPTON WEST BROMPTON STATION WEST BROMPTON STATION EMPRESS STATE BUILDING / WEST BROMPTON EMPRESS STATE BUILDING / WEST BROMPTON WEST BROMPTON STATION WEST BROMPTON STATION EMPRESS STATE BUILDING / WEST BROMPTON WEST KENSINGTON ESTATE WEST KENSINGTON ESTATE WEST KENSINGTON ESTATE WEST KENSINGTON STATION WEST KENSINGTON STATION WEST KENSINGTON STATION WEST KENSINGTON STATION

6 196

66 3

3 6

1 0

8 203

68 3

49% 3%

2% 1%

30%

53%

11%

15 32

30 3

1 0

16 33

31 3

8% 1%

3% 12%

30%

61%

53%

11%

10 41

41 7

1 1

11 42

42 8

8% 1%

3% 12%

30%

61%

15 10 32 25 22 18 12 746

3 8 4 14 20 10 15 384

2 2 0 0 0 0 0 113

0 1 0 0 0 0 0 15

17 12 32 25 22 18 12 860

4 8 4 14 20 10 15 400

17% 17% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

7% 7% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Appendix Junction Capacity Assessment Summary Tables July 2025

WSP Issue 01

2031 Detailed Component: PM Peak Hour Boarding & Alighting by Bus Service 2031 Detailed Component Bus Stop Boarding & Alighting including by Service – PM 1700 to 1800 (1 hour) 2031 Early Phases – 2031 Detailed Bus Bus 2031 Base Minus Base Minus + Dev Development Trips Bus Stop Name Service Stop ID

328 C1 C3 328 328 74 74 C1 C1 C3 C3

BP2068 BP2068 BP2068 11164 29941 29941 11164 29941 11164 29941 11164

190

2539

430

2538

430 430

9414 8410

430

2539

2538

9414

% Diff

Boarding 25 12 0 66 21 12 14 11 21 4 121

Alighting 13 11 0 57 27 32 24 5 41 71 6

Boarding 3 2 0 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 1

Alighting 14 15 0 3 6 5 3 3 3 13 0

Boarding 28 13 0 66 23 13 14 13 21 4 121

Alighting 28 26 0 60 33 37 27 8 44 84 6

Boarding 12% 15% 20% 0% 9% 5% 2% 12% 0% 9% 1%

Alighting 107% 140% 0% 5% 22% 15% 15% 72% 6% 18% 5%

14%

34%

57%

5 29

28 10

0 0

1 1

5 29

29 11

5% 0%

3% 5%

17%

191%

58%

68%

10%

Appendix Junction Capacity Assessment Summary Tables July 2025

8410

2539

28 306 306 28 28 306 306 Total

11254 11254 11253 11256 11255 11256 11255

WSP Issue 01

WEST BROMPTON STATION EMPRESS STATE BUILDING / WEST BROMPTON WEST KENSINGTON ESTATE WEST KENSINGTON ESTATE WEST KENSINGTON ESTATE WEST KENSINGTON STATION WEST KENSINGTON STATION WEST KENSINGTON STATION WEST KENSINGTON STATION

18%

60%

5 4 16 25 18 18 10 505

9 20 11 38 33 27 25 588

0 1 0 0 0 0 0 20

1 2 0 0 0 0 0 94

6 4 16 25 18 18 10 525

9 22 11 38 33 27 25 682

8% 18% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

6% 9% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Appendix Junction Capacity Assessment Summary Tables July 2025

WSP Issue 01

2031 Detailed Component: AM Peak Hour Boarding & Alighting by Bus Stop 2031 Detailed Component Bus Stop Boarding & Alighting – AM 0800 to 0900 (1 hour)

Bus Stop ID

BP2068 11164 29941 2539 2538 9414 8410 11254 11253 11256 11255 Total

Bus Stop Name

2031 Base Minus

2031 Detailed Development Trips

2031 Early Phases – Base Minus + Dev

Boarding 33 359 72

Alighting 11 61 126

Boarding 38 12 35

Alighting 2 1 2

Boarding 71 371 107

Alighting 13 62 128

Boarding 118% 3% 49%

Alighting 23% 1% 2%

30%

61%

53%

11%

25 73 25 32 42 34 746

71 10 11 4 24 35 384

2 1 4 0 0 0 113

2 1 1 0 0 0 15

27 74 29 32 42 34 860

73 11 12 4 24 35 400

8% 1% 17% 0% 0% 0% 0%

3% 12% 7% 0% 0% 0% 0%

% Diff

Appendix Junction Capacity Assessment Summary Tables July 2025

WSP Issue 01

2031 Detailed Component: PM Peak Hour Boarding & Alighting by Bus Stop 2031 Detailed Component Bus Stop Boarding & Alighting – PM 1700 to 1800 (1 hour)

Bus Stop ID

BP2068 11164 29941 2539 2538 9414 8410 11254 11253 11256 11255 Total

Bus Stop Name

2031 Base Minus

2031 Detailed Development Trips

2031 Early Phases – Base Minus + Dev

Boarding 37 221 49

Alighting 24 128 134

Boarding 5 1 4

Alighting 29 9 27

Boarding 42 222 53

Alighting 54 137 161

Boarding 13% 1% 9%

Alighting 122% 7% 20%

16%

83%

49%

59%

8 66 9 16 42 28 505

67 37 29 11 65 58 588

1 0 1 0 0 0 20

2 1 2 0 0 0 94

8 66 10 16 42 28 525

70 38 31 11 65 58 682

7% 0% 12% 0% 0% 0% 0%

4% 3% 8% 0% 0% 0% 0%

% Diff

Appendix G Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

WSP

Appendix G – Junction Capacity Assessment Results

112

Appendix Junction Capacity Assessment Summary Tables August 2025

WSP Issue 01

1.0 Junction Capacity Assessment Summary Tables North End Road/Lillie Road Junction Table 1: North End Road / Lillie Road Double Mini Roundabout Junction

AM Arm Description

Queue (PCU)

Delay (min)

RFC

Queue (PCU)

Delay (min)

RFC

Junction 1 - Lillie Road (East)

0.5

0.12

0.29

0.5

0.09

0.33

Junction 1 - to mini roundabout

0.13

0.48

0.09

0.36

Junction 1 - North End Road (North)

1.1

0.15

0.51

0.6

0.11

0.38

Junction 2 - North End Road (South)

0.5

0.12

0.30

0.5

0.11

0.30

Junction 2 - Lillie Road (West)

0.6

0.14

0.34

0.3

0.10

0.21

Junction 2 - to mini roundabout

0.0

0.10

0.37

0.0

0.09

0.39

Junction 1 - Lillie Road (East)

0.5

0.12

0.29

0.5

0.09

0.33

Junction 1 - to mini roundabout

0.0

0.16

0.59

0.0

0.10

0.38

Junction 1 - North End Road (North)

1.4

0.17

0.57

0.6

0.11

0.38

Junction 2 - North End Road (South)

0.6

0.12

0.36

0.5

0.11

0.32

Junction 2 - Lillie Road (West)

0.9

0.17

0.44

0.3

0.10

0.21

Junction 2 - to mini roundabout

0.0

0.10

0.38

0.0

0.09

0.39

0.6

0.13

0.33

0.7

0.10

0.40

2031 Base Minus

2041 Base Minus

2031 Early Phases Junction 1 - Lillie Road (East)

Appendix Junction Capacity Assessment Summary Tables August 2025

WSP Issue 01

Table 1: North End Road / Lillie Road Double Mini Roundabout Junction

AM Arm Description

Queue (PCU)

Delay (min)

RFC

Queue (PCU)

Delay (min)

RFC

Junction 1 - to mini roundabout

0.0

0.15

0.55

0.0

0.10

0.41

Junction 1 - North End Road (North)

1.6

0.18

0.60

0.8

0.12

0.44

Junction 2 - North End Road (South)

0.8

0.12

0.36

0.5

0.11

0.34

Junction 2 - Lillie Road (West)

0.7

0.15

0.37

0.3

0.10

0.21

Junction 2 - to mini roundabout

0.0

0.10

0.40

0.0

0.09

0.43

Junction 1 - Lillie Road (East)

0.7

0.14

0.34

0.7

0.11

0.43

Junction 1 - to mini roundabout

0.0

0.21

0.70

0.0

0.11

0.46

Junction 1 - North End Road (North)

2.6

0.27

0.72

1.0

0.13

0.50

Junction 2 - North End Road (South)

1.0

0.14

0.46

0.6

0.12

0.38

Junction 2 - Lillie Road (West)

1.1

0.20

0.50

0.3

0.11

0.24

Junction 2 - to mini roundabout

0.0

0.11

0.44

0.0

0.10

0.46

2041 All Phases

Lillie Road/Lillie Road Bus Layover Junction Proposed Layout Table 2: Lillie Road / Lillie Road Bus Layover Junction

AM Arm Description

Queue (Veh)

Delay (s)

RFC

Queue (Veh)

Delay (s)

RFC

Lillie Road Bus Layover

0.4

10.40

0.25

0.4

9.97

0.29

Lillie Road (East)

0.3

6.35

0.13

0.2

4.86

0.10

2031 – Early Phases

Appendix Junction Capacity Assessment Summary Tables August 2025

WSP Issue 01

Table 2: Lillie Road / Lillie Road Bus Layover Junction

AM Arm Description

Queue (Veh)

Delay (s)

RFC

Queue (Veh)

Delay (s)

RFC

Lillie Road Bus Layover

0.4

11.56

0.27

0.4

10.32

0.30

Lillie Road (East)

0.3

6.51

0.13

0.2

4.81

0.09

2041 – All Phases

Lillie Road/Empress Place/Seagrave Road Junction Proposed Layout Table 3: Lillie Road/Seagrave Road/Empress Place Signal Junction Modelling Results

AM Arm Description

DoS (%)

MMQ (pcu)

Delay (s/pcu)

DoS (%)

MMQ (pcu)

Delay (s/pcu)

Lillie Road E

40.9%

4.6

17.6

40.5%

4.6

17.6

Seagrave Road

76.9%

5.2

81.8

84.4%

6.4

96.1

Lillie Road W

79.0%

14.5

38.1

89.4%

18.8

50.2

Empress Place

7.8%

0.2

61.6

14.6%

0.5

63.1

Lillie Road E Entry at Ped Crossing

23.6%

2.6

4.4

23.4%

2.6

4.4

Lillie Road E Exit at Ped Crossing

39.2%

0.4

2.0

43.8%

0.4

2.2

Lillie Road E

52.0%

6.9

17.9

52.6%

7.9

18.0

Seagrave Road

56.2%

2.7

70.0

56.9%

2.8

70.5

Lillie Road W

69.5%

11.0

33.7

74.7%

12.3

36.5

Empress Place

14.6%

0.5

63.2

25.4%

0.8

66.4

Lillie Road E Entry at Ped Crossing

31.7%

3.8

4.8

32.1%

4.0

4.8

2031 Early Phases

2041 All Phases

Appendix Junction Capacity Assessment Summary Tables August 2025

WSP Issue 01

Table 3: Lillie Road/Seagrave Road/Empress Place Signal Junction Modelling Results

AM Arm Description

Lillie Road E Exit at Ped Crossing

DoS (%)

MMQ (pcu)

Delay (s/pcu)

DoS (%)

MMQ (pcu)

Delay (s/pcu)

31.6%

0.2

1.8

33.6%

0.3

1.8

A4 West Cromwell Road/North End Road Junction Table 4: A4 West Cromwell Road / North End Road Signal Junction Modelling Results

AM Arm Description

DoS (%)

MMQ (pcu)

Delay (s/pcu)

DoS (%)

MMQ (pcu)

Delay (s/pcu)

North End Rd N - Ahead & Left

19.1%

1.7

50.5

45.9%

3.0

69.2

North End Rd N - Ahead

24.8%

2.6

50.5

51.6%

3.8

69.3

A4 EB Exit (Ped Crossing)- Ahead

48.2%

0.5

2.2

40.1%

0.3

1.9

A4 EB Exit (Ped Crossing)- Ahead

53.3%

22.1

2.4

46.7%

14.0

2.0

A4 EB Exit (Ped Crossing)- Ahead

37.0%

10.0

1.7

44.7%

11.8

2.0

A4 WB - Ahead & Left

79.5%

21.0

37.8

58.5%

13.8

22.1

A4 WB - Ahead

80.8%

23.6

37.8

59.8%

15.6

22.1

A4 WB - Ahead

79.7%

21.5

37.7

58.3%

14.0

22.0

North End Rd S - Ahead & Left

89.7%

11.4

100.7

70.2%

5.0

86.4

North End Rd S - Ahead

72.6%

9.0

66.2

75.0%

6.4

86.0

A4 WB Exit (Ped Crossing) - Ahead

44.4%

0.4

2.1

36.7%

0.3

1.8

A4 WB Exit (Ped Crossing) - Ahead

48.8%

18.6

2.1

41.0%

11.7

1.8

A4 WB Exit (Ped Crossing) - Ahead

47.9%

16.8

2.2

40.2%

10.3

1.9

A4 EB - Ahead & Left

79.1%

23.6

29.6

61.2%

15.2

18.1

A4 EB - Ahead

79.9%

26.0

29.5

62.1%

17.0

18.0

A4 EB - Ahead Right

89.8%

16.8

42.8

87.0%

15.8

28.2

2031 Base Minus

2041 Base Minus

Appendix Junction Capacity Assessment Summary Tables August 2025

WSP Issue 01

Table 4: A4 West Cromwell Road / North End Road Signal Junction Modelling Results

AM Arm Description

DoS (%)

MMQ (pcu)

Delay (s/pcu)

DoS (%)

MMQ (pcu)

Delay (s/pcu)

North End Rd N - Ahead & Left

18.7%

1.8

49.2

43.2%

2.8

68.2

North End Rd N - Ahead

23.6%

2.6

49.2

48.6%

3.6

68.2

A4 EB Exit (Ped Crossing)- Ahead

51.0%

0.5

2.3

40.5%

0.3

1.9

A4 EB Exit (Ped Crossing)- Ahead

56.1%

25.1

2.6

46.9%

14.1

2.1

A4 EB Exit (Ped Crossing)- Ahead

38.3%

11.2

1.8

44.9%

12.3

2.0

A4 WB - Ahead & Left

83.7%

22.2

43.5

58.4%

13.8

22.1

A4 WB - Ahead

85.1%

25.0

43.6

59.7%

15.6

22.1

A4 WB - Ahead

83.8%

22.7

43.3

58.2%

14.0

22.0

North End Rd S - Ahead & Left

92.5%

13.0

108.5

71.9%

5.2

88.4

North End Rd S - Ahead

78.2%

10.5

69.4

76.5%

6.6

87.9

A4 WB Exit (Ped Crossing) - Ahead

45.1%

0.4

2.1

36.6%

0.3

1.8

A4 WB Exit (Ped Crossing) - Ahead

49.0%

19.1

2.1

41.0%

11.7

1.8

A4 WB Exit (Ped Crossing) - Ahead

47.5%

17.3

2.2

40.2%

10.3

1.9

A4 EB - Ahead & Left

84.8%

27.1

34.5

61.7%

15.5

18.3

A4 EB - Ahead

85.3%

29.7

34.1

62.5%

17.1

18.1

A4 EB - Ahead Right

87.2 : 87.5%

17.0

39.4

69.4 : 87.8%

15.9

28.4

North End Rd N - Ahead & Left

24.0%

2.2

51.4

47.2%

3.3

67.6

North End Rd N - Ahead

28.9%

3.1

51.2

51.7%

4.1

67.3

A4 EB Exit (Ped Crossing)- Ahead

55.3%

0.6

2.5

49.6%

0.5

2.3

A4 EB Exit (Ped Crossing)- Ahead

60.4%

28.6

2.9

55.9%

20.6

2.5

A4 EB Exit (Ped Crossing)- Ahead

24.5%

4.2

1.4

27.3%

4.2

1.5

A4 WB - Ahead & Left

83.5%

22.7

41.7

67.4%

16.4

29.9

A4 WB - Ahead

85.0%

25.6

42.0

68.9%

18.4

29.9

2031 Early Phases

Appendix Junction Capacity Assessment Summary Tables August 2025

WSP Issue 01

Table 4: A4 West Cromwell Road / North End Road Signal Junction Modelling Results

AM Arm Description

DoS (%)

MMQ (pcu)

Delay (s/pcu)

DoS (%)

MMQ (pcu)

Delay (s/pcu)

A4 WB - Ahead

83.5%

23.2

41.4

67.4%

16.6

29.7

North End Rd S - Ahead & Left

89.7%

31.6

49.6

68.8%

5.1

82.2

North End Rd S - Ahead

72.6%

9.0

66.2

73.3%

6.5

81.0

A4 WB Exit (Ped Crossing) - Ahead

45.2%

0.4

2.1

37.5%

0.3

1.8

A4 WB Exit (Ped Crossing) - Ahead

50.2%

20.3

2.2

41.8%

14.5

1.8

A4 WB Exit (Ped Crossing) - Ahead

49.7%

17.9

2.3

41.0%

13.0

2.0

A4 EB - Ahead & Left

89.7%

31.6

39.6

75.0%

22.1

23.1

A4 EB - Ahead

90.4%

34.7

39.6

75.5%

24.1

22.8

A4 EB - Ahead Right

89.1 : 89.1%

15.9

47.4

73.5 : 73.5%

11.8

30.8

North End Rd N - Ahead & Left

29.1%

3.1

48.8

41.1%

3.4

60.2

North End Rd N - Ahead

32.8%

3.9

48.7

45.3%

4.2

60.0

A4 EB Exit (Ped Crossing)- Ahead

52.7%

0.6

2.4

49.3%

0.5

2.2

A4 EB Exit (Ped Crossing)- Ahead

57.8%

27.9

2.7

55.5%

22.2

2.5

A4 EB Exit (Ped Crossing)- Ahead

35.9%

10.0

1.7

28.6%

5.3

1.5

A4 WB - Ahead & Left

92.6%

27.3

61.1

73.1%

17.9

35.0

A4 WB - Ahead

93.7%

31.0

62.1

74.7%

20.3

35.0

A4 WB - Ahead

92.8%

28.1

60.9

73.1%

18.3

34.8

North End Rd S - Ahead & Left

94.4%

14.9

112.2

76.4%

7.1

81.9

North End Rd S - Ahead

85.7%

13.5

76.2

79.4%

8.8

80.6

A4 WB Exit (Ped Crossing) - Ahead

45.7%

0.4

2.1

37.0%

0.3

1.8

A4 WB Exit (Ped Crossing) - Ahead

51.2%

22.0

2.2

42.4%

15.6

1.9

A4 WB Exit (Ped Crossing) - Ahead

50.3%

20.0

2.3

41.6%

14.0

2.0

A4 EB - Ahead & Left

90.3%

31.2

42.8

77.7%

23.4

26.3

2041 All Phases

Appendix Junction Capacity Assessment Summary Tables August 2025

WSP Issue 01

Table 4: A4 West Cromwell Road / North End Road Signal Junction Modelling Results

Arm Description DoS (%)

MMQ (pcu)

Delay (s/pcu)

DoS (%)

MMQ (pcu)

Delay (s/pcu)

A4 WB - Ahead

90.8%

33.9

42.6

78.4%

25.8

26.1

A4 WB - Ahead Right

92.1 : 92.1%

18.7

47.9

78.5 : 78.5%

13.4

33.3

North End Road / Beaumont Avenue Junction Table 5: North End Road / Beaumont Avenue Junction Modelling Results

AM Arm Description

Queue (Veh)

Delay (s)

RFC

Queue (Veh)

Delay (s)

RFC

Beaumont Avenue

0.9

21.14

0.47

0.8

16.29

0.43

N End Rd S (right t)

0.2

8.97

0.13

0.1

8.20

0.09

2041 – All Phases

A4 West Cromwell Road/Warwick Road Junction Table 6: A4 West Cromwell Road / Warwick Road Junction Modelling Results

AM Arm Description

DoS (%)

MMQ (pcu)

Delay (s/pcu)

DoS (%)

MMQ (pcu)

Delay (s/pcu)

Warwick Road N - Left

10.4%

0.6

62.3

20.2%

1.4

58.8

W Cromwell Road E - Ahead

40.2%

8.7

14.7

33.4%

6.7

13.3

W Cromwell Road E - Ahead

41.4%

9.6

14.7

34.6%

7.6

13.3

W Cromwell Road E - Ahead

41.4%

9.6

14.7

34.6%

7.6

13.3

W Cromwell Road E - Right

67.4%

4.6

84.5

65.1%

5.3

74.3

W Cromwell Road E - Right

70.0%

5.2

85.0

67.2%

5.9

74.2

W Cromwell Road E - Right

67.6%

4.6

84.8

64.8%

5.3

74.2

2031 Base Minus

Appendix Junction Capacity Assessment Summary Tables August 2025

WSP Issue 01

Table 6: A4 West Cromwell Road / Warwick Road Junction Modelling Results

AM Arm Description

DoS (%)

MMQ (pcu)

Delay (s/pcu)

DoS (%)

MMQ (pcu)

Delay (s/pcu)

Warwick Road S - Left

33.7%

4.3

3.7

33.5%

4.3

3.7

Warwick Road S - Ahead

84.4%

17.5

60.4

82.3%

16.3

59.1

Warwick Road S - Ahead Right

82.7%

15.2

60.5

80.6%

14.4

59.1

W Cromwell Road W - Left Ahead

76.8%

22.0

31.4

76.9%

20.4

31.5

W Cromwell Road W - Ahead

75.2%

22.2

31.5

72.2%

20.3

31.6

W Cromwell Road W - Ahead

74.1%

20.3

31.5

71.0%

18.7

31.6

W Cromwell Road W (Exit) Ahead

56.8%

9.1

6.7

53.0%

6.9

4.7

Warwick Road N - Left

10.4%

0.6

62.3

20.2%

1.4

58.8

W Cromwell Road E - Ahead

39.4%

8.4

14.1

33.3%

6.7

13.3

W Cromwell Road E - Ahead

40.6%

9.4

14.1

34.6%

7.6

13.3

W Cromwell Road E - Ahead

40.6%

9.4

14.1

34.5%

7.6

13.3

W Cromwell Road E - Right

66.8%

4.6

83.9

65.1%

5.3

74.3

W Cromwell Road E - Right

68.9%

5.1

83.8

67.7%

6.0

74.5

W Cromwell Road E - Right

67.0%

4.6

84.2

64.8%

5.3

74.2

Warwick Road S - Left

33.7%

4.3

3.7

33.5%

4.3

3.7

Warwick Road S - Ahead

87.4%

18.3

66.0

82.5%

16.3

59.3

Warwick Road S - Ahead Right

85.6%

16.0

65.7

80.7%

14.4

59.3

W Cromwell Road W - Left Ahead

79.0%

23.7

32.0

77.3%

20.6

31.7

W Cromwell Road W - Ahead

77.6%

24.0

32.0

72.7%

20.7

31.8

W Cromwell Road W - Ahead

76.5%

21.9

32.0

71.6%

18.9

31.8

W Cromwell Road W (Exit) Ahead

56.6%

8.7

6.4

52.9%

6.9

4.7

18.4%

1.0

63.8

24.0%

1.7

59.5

2041 Base Minus

2031 Early Phases Warwick Road N - Left

Appendix Junction Capacity Assessment Summary Tables August 2025

WSP Issue 01

Table 6: A4 West Cromwell Road / Warwick Road Junction Modelling Results

AM Arm Description

DoS (%)

MMQ (pcu)

Delay (s/pcu)

DoS (%)

MMQ (pcu)

Delay (s/pcu)

W Cromwell Road E - Ahead

41.5%

9.0

15.9

34.9%

7.2

15.0

W Cromwell Road E - Ahead

42.7%

10.1

15.9

36.1%

8.1

15.0

W Cromwell Road E - Ahead

42.6%

10.1

15.9

36.1%

8.1

15.0

W Cromwell Road E - Right

72.7%

5.2

90.3

67.0%

5.5

75.6

W Cromwell Road E - Right

74.5%

5.7

90.1

69.0%

6.1

75.5

W Cromwell Road E - Right

72.4%

5.1

90.0

66.7%

5.5

75.5

Warwick Road S - Left

37.3%

5.0

3.9

34.8%

4.5

3.8

Warwick Road S - Ahead

87.9%

20.0

63.3

85.6%

18.9

59.7

Warwick Road S - Ahead Right

86.6%

17.5

63.4

84.0%

16.6

59.5

W Cromwell Road W - Left Ahead

80.0%

23.3

34.5

80.6%

21.8

35.6

W Cromwell Road W - Ahead

78.4%

23.6

34.6

76.7%

21.8

35.8

W Cromwell Road W - Ahead

77.4%

21.5

34.5

75.7%

20.1

35.8

W Cromwell Road W (Exit) Ahead

62.7%

12.4

8.6

54.9%

7.7

5.0

Warwick Road N - Left

20.8%

1.2

64.4

23.6%

1.6

59.4

W Cromwell Road E - Ahead

41.5%

9.0

15.9

35.2%

7.3

15.0

W Cromwell Road E - Ahead

42.7%

10.1

15.9

36.3%

8.2

15.0

W Cromwell Road E - Ahead

42.8%

10.1

15.9

36.4%

8.2

15.0

W Cromwell Road E - Right

68.6%

4.8

85.7

67.9%

5.7

76.4

W Cromwell Road E - Right

71.1%

5.3

86.1

69.9%

6.2

76.2

W Cromwell Road E - Right

68.8%

4.8

86.0

67.7%

5.6

76.2

Warwick Road S - Left

37.6%

5.0

3.9

35.0%

4.5

3.8

Warwick Road S - Ahead

88.9%

20.5

65.1

85.6%

18.9

59.7

Warwick Road S - Ahead Right

87.1%

17.7

64.4

84.0%

16.6

59.7

2041 All Phases

Appendix Junction Capacity Assessment Summary Tables August 2025

WSP Issue 01

Table 6: A4 West Cromwell Road / Warwick Road Junction Modelling Results

AM Arm Description

DoS (%)

MMQ (pcu)

Delay (s/pcu)

DoS (%)

MMQ (pcu)

Delay (s/pcu)

W Cromwell Road W - Left Ahead

83.3%

25.4

36.9

80.9%

21.9

35.9

W Cromwell Road W - Ahead

82.2%

25.8

37.0

77.2%

22.2

36.0

W Cromwell Road W - Ahead

81.4%

23.7

37.1

76.2%

20.3

36.1

W Cromwell Road W (Exit) Ahead

63.2%

12.7

8.8

55.3%

7.9

5.1

Warwick Road/Fenelon Place Junction Table 7: Warwick Road / Fenelon Place Junction Modelling Results

AM Arm Description

DoS (%)

MMQ (pcu)

Delay (s/pcu)

DoS (%)

MMQ (pcu)

Delay (s/pcu)

Warwick Road S - Left Ahead

49.1%

5.6

8.2

57.5%

7.2

9.3

Warwick Road S - Ahead

49.0%

5.6

8.2

57.7%

7.3

9.2

Fenelon Place - Left

10.2%

0.5

25.6

21.9%

1.2

27.0

Fenelon Place - Left Right

4.8%

0.3

24.9

11.8%

0.6

25.5

Warwick Road S - Left Ahead

49.3%

5.6

8.3

57.7%

7.3

9.3

Warwick Road S - Ahead

49.2%

5.7

8.2

57.8%

7.4

9.3

Fenelon Place - Left

10.2%

0.5

25.6

21.9%

1.2

27.0

Fenelon Place - Left Right

4.8%

0.3

24.9

11.8%

0.6

25.5

Warwick Road S - Left Ahead

54.6%

6.6

8.9

62.6%

8.4

10.1

Warwick Road S - Ahead

54.4%

6.7

8.8

62.6%

8.5

10.0

Fenelon Place - Left

19.8%

1.0

26.7

30.1%

1.6

28.2

Fenelon Place - Left Right

9.6%

0.5

25.2

15.8%

0.9

25.9

2031 Base Minus

2041 Base Minus

2031 Early Phases

Appendix Junction Capacity Assessment Summary Tables August 2025

WSP Issue 01

Table 7: Warwick Road / Fenelon Place Junction Modelling Results

AM Arm Description

DoS (%)

MMQ (pcu)

Delay (s/pcu)

DoS (%)

MMQ (pcu)

Delay (s/pcu)

Warwick Road S - Left Ahead

54.1%

6.5

8.8

62.5%

8.4

10.0

Warwick Road S - Ahead

54.0%

6.6

8.8

62.6%

8.5

10.0

Fenelon Place - Left

20.1%

1.1

26.8

32.8%

1.8

28.6

Fenelon Place - Left Right

9.6%

0.5

25.2

13.8%

0.7

25.7

2041 All Phases

Old Brompton Road/West Brompton Lane Junction Proposed Layout Table 8: Old Brompton Road / West Brompton Lane Junction Modelling Results

AM Arm Description

Queue (Veh)

Delay (s)

RFC

Queue (Veh)

Delay (s)

RFC

Site Access (Exit Only)

0.2

8.72

0.15

0.2

8.17

0.16

Old Brompton E (right t)

0.0

0.00

0.0

0.00

Site Access (Exit Only)

0.2

9.43

0.18

0.2

8.46

0.17

Old Brompton E (right t)

0.0

0.00

0.0

0.00

2031 – Early Phases

2041 – All Phases

Appendix Junction Capacity Assessment Summary Tables August 2025

WSP Issue 01

Old Brompton Road/Warwick Road Junction Table 9: Old Brompton Road / Warwick Road Junction Modelling Results

AM Arm Description

DoS (%)

MMQ (pcu)

Delay (s/pcu)

DoS (%)

MMQ (pcu)

Delay (s/pcu)

Old Brompton Road E - Ahead Right

42.7%

4.0

19.8

54.8%

6.1

22.6

Finborough Road - Ahead Left

82.4%

15.0

32.3

77.1%

13.4

28.0

Finborough Road - Ahead

76.0%

13.7

27.5

70.8%

12.4

24.7

Finborough Road - Right

9.2%

0.7

25.2

4.7%

0.4

23.8

Old Brompton Road W - Ahead

84.9%

8.7

64.1

72.6%

6.0

52.2

Warwick Road

7.7%

0.5

10.8

8.8%

0.6

10.6

Old Brompton Road W - Ahead Left

16.9%

0.1

1.1

14.4%

0.1

1.1

Old Brompton Road E - Ahead Right

40.1%

3.7

18.8

54.1%

6.1

22.5

Finborough Road - Ahead Left

84.5%

15.5

35.0

77.2%

13.4

28.1

Finborough Road - Ahead

77.9%

14.0

29.3

71.1%

12.4

24.7

Finborough Road - Right

9.6%

0.8

26.1

4.7%

0.4

23.8

Old Brompton Road W - Ahead

86.4%

9.5

64.5

74.5%

6.3

53.7

Warwick Road

8.2%

0.6

10.4

8.8%

0.6

10.6

Old Brompton Road W - Ahead Left

18.5%

0.1

1.1

14.7%

0.1

1.1

Old Brompton Road E - Ahead Right

49.6%

4.7

19.1

59.7%

7.2

21.9

Finborough Road - Ahead Left

89.9%

17.8

43.4

83.5%

15.1

34.2

Finborough Road - Ahead

82.7%

15.6

33.3

76.7%

13.7

28.7

Finborough Road - Right

10.1%

0.8

27.1

5.2%

0.4

25.6

Old Brompton Road W - Ahead

88.6%

10.7

66.6

81.5%

8.3

56.5

Warwick Road

23.4%

2.0

12.7

25.5%

2.1

12.9

2031 Base Minus

2041 Base Minus

2031 Early Phases

Appendix Junction Capacity Assessment Summary Tables August 2025

WSP Issue 01

Table 9: Old Brompton Road / Warwick Road Junction Modelling Results

AM Arm Description

DoS (%)

MMQ (pcu)

Delay (s/pcu)

DoS (%)

MMQ (pcu)

Delay (s/pcu)

25.4%

0.2

1.3

23.9%

0.2

1.2

Old Brompton Road E - Ahead Right

47.6%

4.5

18.2

54.9%

6.5

18.9

Finborough Road - Ahead Left

92.8%

19.6

51.5

92.0%

18.5

50.5

Finborough Road - Ahead

85.3%

16.2

36.7

84.4%

15.5

36.7

Finborough Road - Right

10.6%

0.8

28.1

6.0%

0.4

28.6

Old Brompton Road W - Ahead

95.3%

14.8

88.3

90.0%

12.2

65.6

Warwick Road

23.2%

2.0

12.3

24.0%

2.0

11.5

Old Brompton Road W - Ahead Left

28.0%

0.2

1.3

28.7%

0.2

1.3

Old Brompton Road W - Ahead Left 2041 All Phases

Warwick Road Northern Access Junction Proposed Layout Table 8: Warwick Road Northern Access Junction Modelling Results

AM Arm Description

Queue (Veh)

Delay (s)

RFC

Queue (Veh)

Delay (s)

RFC

0.1

7.06

0.05

0.0

6.87

0.04

0.1

7.06

0.05

0.0

6.86

0.04

2031 – Early Phases Northern Access 2041 – All Phases Northern Access

Appendix H Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

WSP

Appendix H – 2041 Early Phases Sensitivity Test Technical Note

113

TECHNICAL NOTE DATE:

15 January 2025

CONFIDENTIALITY: Restricted

SUBJECT:

Earls Court Development: 2041 Early Phases Assessment

PROJECT:

UK-70077004

AUTHOR:

Justin Sherlock

CHECKED:

Alex Smith

APPROVED:

Justin Sherlock

INTRODUCTION This Technical Note (TN) has been prepared to outline the background, rationale and scope for undertaking an assessment of the Early Phases development scenario within the future year of 2041 for discussion and agreement with the Transport Stakeholders. Consideration of a 2041 Early Phases scenario is being undertaken to sense check the conclusions reached in the transport evidence base presented within the planning applications1.

BACKGROUND The Transport Assessment (TA) and transport data used within the Environmental Statement (ES) for the Earls Court Development planning applications assessed the development in two scenarios:

 Completion of the Early Phases – assessed in the future year of 2031  Completion of the entire development (referred to as the All Phases) assessed in the future year of 2041 The spatial distribution of these phases as indicated in the Environmental Statement is shown in Figure 1.

Two Hybrid Planning Applications, one submitted to the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (‘LBHF’) 2024/01942/COMB and one submitted to the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (‘RBKC’) PP/24/05187

www.wsp.com 250115 - EC - WSP - 2041 Early Phases Scenario Scope of Assessment

TECHNICAL NOTE Figure 1: Early Phases and All Phases

2041 EARLY PHASES CONSIDERATION An initial review of whether assessment of the Early Phases in 2041 would result in materially different impacts to those set out for the All Phases in 2041, on a mode by mode basis is set out below.

Highways The highway network assessment presented within the TA has utilised outputs from LoHAM which have then been used within the VISSIM micro-simulation models. To consider whether the assessment of the Page 2

TECHNICAL NOTE Early Phases in 2041 would differ to the assessment undertaken in 2031 the level of background growth assumed to take place on the transport network has been considered with reference to outputs from the LoHAM models. Table 1 provides a summary of the 2031 and 2041 highway demand within LoHAM for zones within the local study area covering and surrounding the development. Table 1 – Traffic Flow Difference on Key Links Location

Cordon Matrix Totals (PCUs) 2031 Base Minus

2041 Base Minus

Diff

Diff %

AM Peak (0800-0900)

11,868

12,074

206

PM Peak (0800-0900)

10,985

10,981

-4

It is evident from the analysis of the Base Minus flows that there are only small differences between the 2031 and 2041 Future Years. As such, growth in background traffic alone would not trigger a need for assessment of the Early Phases in 2041 on the highway network. It should be noted that there is growth evident in the VISSIM micro-simulation models when comparing 2031 and 2041 (this can be seen in the traffic flow diagrams contained in Appendix Q of the TA). However, this is largely attributable to cycle demand which has been applied at a link-based level using TfL’s strategic cycle model Cynemon. The assessment of highway impacts in 2041 including the All Phases is considered to represent a worstcase scenario from a highway trip generating perspective as this scenario includes the completed development trip generation which represents the highest volume of trips across the network. No further assessment of the highway network is therefore considered necessary.

Pedestrians The pedestrian network assessment presented in the TA takes the form of an Active Travel Zone (ATZ) assessment and Pedestrian Comfort Level (PCL) assessment. The ATZ assessment is a qualitative appraisal of the existing pedestrian and cycle infrastructure surrounding the Site and therefore does not include quantified consideration of future forecast use of the spaces within the study area. The PCL utilises observed 2022 pedestrian counts (where possible) which were then growthed to the future years of 2031 and 2041 using the anticipated growth identified in Railplan. Development trips were then applied in addition to background growth. Table 2 provides a summary of the pedestrian flows used in the PCL analysis for the footway locations around Earls Court Station (Warwick Road) and West Brompton Station (Lillie Road / Old Brompton Road) Table 2 – Pedestrian Flows From PCL Analysis Location Warwick Road

PCL Site ID

2031 Do Something

2041 Do Something

Difference

Difference %

-21

-34%

194

127

-67

-35%

464

303

-161

-35% Page 3

TECHNICAL NOTE

Lillie Road / Old Brompton Road

107

-37

-35%

101

-35

-35%

548

532

-16

-3%

1260

1070

-190

-15%

548

532

-16

-3%

1260

1070

-190

-15%

527

528

585

610

It is evident from the data presented in Table 2 that for the majority of locations assessed there is a reduction in flow between the 2031 and 2041 pedestrian demand around Earls Court Station and on Lillie Road/Old Brompton Road on the approach to West Brompton Station. The 2041 Do Something flows reduce primarily due to the opening of routes to West Kensington Station and therefore the Development facilitates the balancing out of demand more equally across the three Stations. PCL analysis is, therefore proposed to be included within an additional 2041 Early Phases assessment. It is proposed that this will focus on the links around West Brompton Station and Earls Court Station only (as shown in Table 2).

Cyclists The cycle network assessment presented in the TA takes the form of an ATZ assessment and Cycle Level of Service (CLoS) assessment. The ATZ assessment is a qualitative appraisal of the existing pedestrian and cycle infrastructure surrounding the Site and therefore does not include quantified consideration of future forecast use of the spaces within the study area. The CloS considers the suitability of the existing infrastructure surrounding the Site and as such is not impacted by changes in cycle demand between the two scenarios. It is considered that there is no need for further consideration of cyclist impacts resulting from the Early Phases in the future year of 2041.

Public Transport The public transport network assessment presented in the TA varies by public transport mode. However, the starting point has been outputs from Railplan, the strategic public transport model for London.

RAIL TRIPS Figure 2 shows how the distribution of trips generated by the Proposed Development changes between the Early Phases and All Phases scenarios. It is evident from Figure 2 that the proportion of development trips travelling through Earls Court Station significantly reduces in the future year of 2041. The change in distribution to West Brompton Station is less marked but does decrease nonetheless. This change in distribution is due to the availability of access to West Kensington Station in the future year of 2041 as Lillie Bridge Depot (LBD) provides a connection to this Station.

Page 4

TECHNICAL NOTE Figure 2 – Station Distribution

Coupled with the change in distribution is the change in demand arising from the continued build-out of the development between the Early Phases and All Phases. Table 3 presents the absolute change in trips using the three stations in the two scenarios assessed taken from the Railplan assessment undertaken to support the TA. Table 3 – Change in Station Demand (3 hour Railplan demand) Station

AM Peak (0700-1000) 2031 Early Phases

Earl’s Court

West Brompt on West Kensing ton

2041 All Phases

PM Peak (1600-1900)

Difference

Difference %

2031 Early Phases

2041 All Phases

Difference

Difference %

Entries

1898

1413

-485

-26%

3160

3226

Exits

2791

2479

-312

-11%

1653

1341

-312

-19%

Two-way

4689

3892

-797

-17%

4813

4567

-246

-5%

Entries

496

502

1989

2110

121

Exits

3191

3208

622

620

-2

Two-way

3687

3710

2611

2730

119

Entries

230

1507

1277

555%

479

2097

1618

338%

Exits

437

2777

2340

535%

179

1093

914

511%

Two-way

667

4284

3617

542%

658

3190

2532

385%

Page 5

TECHNICAL NOTE It is evident from Table 3 that demand changes by between -797 and -246 in the AM and PM peaks respectively at Earls Court between the Early Phases and All Phases and then by between 23 and 119 in the AM and PM peaks respectively at West Brompton. An assessment of the impacts of station demand at both Earl’s Court and West Brompton Stations is therefore proposed to be included within the 2041 Early Phases assessment.

BUS TRIPS The bus assessment was split down into two separate forms of analysis, one focusing on bus capacity and the second on boarding and alighting. A comparison of the development demand identified on sections of bus route on the surrounding highway network is provided in Table 4. Table 4 – Change in Bus Demand Start

End

AM Peak 2031 Early Phases

PM Peak

2041 All Phases

Difference

2031 Early Phases

2041 All Phases

Difference

Nevern Place

Earl's Court

Earls Court Square

Earl's Court

151

-60

147

-57

Redcliffe Gardens

West Brompton Station

107

Empress State Building West Brompton

West Brompton Station

227

263

230

207

-23

North End Road West Kensington

Empress State Building West Brompton

221

137

-84

-20

West Brompton Station

Empress State Building West Brompton

156

115

-41

Earl's Court

West Cromwell Road Tesco

344

234

-110

357

276

-81

West Kensington

West Kensington Estate

244

193

161

148

Lillie Road West Kensington

West Kensington Estate

Lytton Estate

West Kensington

West Kensington Estate

West Kensington

218

126

Earl's Court

Earls Court Road Old Brompton Road

105

West Brompton Station

Redcliffe Gardens

Empress State Building West Brompton

North End Road West Kensington

-7

147

129

-18

Warwick Road Tesco

Pembroke Road

197

150

-47

214

210

-4

West Kensington Estate

Lillie Road West Kensington

143

122

134

West Kensington

Lytton Estate

165

154

1611

2141

1440

1877

Total

Page 6

TECHNICAL NOTE It is evident from result in Table 4 that there are several locations where demand decreases between the Early Phases and All Phases scenarios. These are located on Warwick Road, Old Brompton Road, Lillie Road and North End Road. It is considered beneficial that bus network capacity is scoped into any 2041 Early Phases assessment.

2041 EARLY PHASES SCOPE OF ASSESSMENT An assessment of the Early Phases development scenario within the 2041 future year is considered beneficial to sense check the conclusions reached in the TA. The evidence presented above indicates that there could be a change in impacts resulting on the public transport and walking network but that there would not be a need to undertake assessment on the highway or cycle networks. A 2041 Early Phases assessment would therefore focus on public transport trips only with a focus on public transport and walking modes in the immediate area to the public transport nodes at West Brompton and Earl’s Court Stations. In summary the scope of work would include:

 A new scenario will be created within Railplan to consider the Early Phases scenario within 2041. Assignments will be created for the AM and PM Peak hours  A 2041 Early Phases bus analysis will be undertaken following the same methodology as that  

presented in the TA for the other scenarios. This will compare bus capacity on select links surrounding the Site between the 2041 Base Minus and 2041 Early Phases scenarios. Assessment of bus boarding and alighting will also be undertaken PCL analysis will be undertaken for the 2041 Early Phases scenario at locations 3,4,5 and 7,8,9 as identified in the TA. These will be compared to the 2041 Base Minus scenario to show the impact of the development in these locations Station demand for the 2041 Early Phases scenario (AM and PM peak hours) will be fed into the following Legion models: — Earls Court Station (without mitigation) — West Brompton Station (without and with mitigation) The results of the modelling will be compared to the 2041 Base Minus scenario at these respective stations.

The view of the Transport Stakeholders is now sought on this proposed approach so that the necessary assessment work can be undertaken and presented for comment and agreement.

Page 7

Appendix I Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

WSP

Appendix I – 2041 Early Phases Sensitivity Test Bus Analysis

114

Appendix Junction Capacity Assessment Summary Tables July 2025

WSP Issue 01

1.0 Sensitivity Test Early Phases 2041 – Bus Analysis Tables Sensitivity Test Early Phases 2041: AM Peak Hour Boarding & Alighting by Bus Service 2041 Early Phases Sensitivity Test Bus Stop Boarding & Alighting by Service – AM 0800 to 0900 (1 hour) Early Phases 2041 Early Phases Sensitivity Test Sensitivity Test – Bus Bus 2041 Base Minus Base Minus + Dev Bus Stop Name Development Trips Service Stop ID

328 C1 C3 328 328 74 74 C1 C1 C3 C3

BP2068 BP2068 BP2068 11164 29941 29941 11164 29941 11164 29941 11164

190

2539

% Diff

Boarding 24 11 0 114 34 19 24 18 36 6 210

Alighting 6 5 0 29 27 32 12 5 21 71 3

Boarding 60 28 1 8 35 20 2 19 3 6 15

Alighting 41 33 0 10 13 16 4 2 7 36 1

Boarding 83 39 1 122 69 39 26 37 38 12 225

Alighting 48 38 0 39 40 48 16 7 28 107 4

Boarding 254% 254% 254% 7% 105% 105% 7% 105% 7% 105% 7%

Alighting 648% 648% 0% 35% 51% 51% 35% 51% 35% 51% 35%

65%

Appendix Junction Capacity Assessment Summary Tables July 2025

430

2538

430 430

9414 8410

430

2539

2538

74 74

9414 8410

2539

28 306 306 28 28 306 306 Total

11254 11254 11253 11256 11255 11256 11255

WSP Issue 01

EMPRESS STATE BUILDING / WEST BROMPTON WEST BROMPTON STATION WEST BROMPTON STATION EMPRESS STATE BUILDING / WEST BROMPTON EMPRESS STATE BUILDING / WEST BROMPTON WEST BROMPTON STATION WEST BROMPTON STATION EMPRESS STATE BUILDING / WEST BROMPTON WEST KENSINGTON ESTATE WEST KENSINGTON ESTATE WEST KENSINGTON ESTATE WEST KENSINGTON STATION WEST KENSINGTON STATION WEST KENSINGTON STATION WEST KENSINGTON STATION

108

115%

317%

16 35

32 3

3 1

31 10

19 36

63 13

18% 3%

98% 337%

65%

1740%

115%

317%

11 44

44 7

2 1

43 25

13 45

87 33

18% 3%

98% 337%

65%

1740%

16 11 34 26 23 19 13 797

4 8 4 15 21 10 16 410

6 4 0 0 0 0 0 260

7 16 0 0 0 0 0 464

21 15 34 26 23 19 13 1058

11 24 4 15 21 10 16 874

36% 36% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

191% 191% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Appendix Junction Capacity Assessment Summary Tables July 2025

WSP Issue 01

Sensitivity Test Early Phases 2041: PM Peak Hour Boarding & Alighting by Bus Service 2041 Early Phases Sensitivity Test Bus Stop Boarding & Alighting by Service – PM 1700 to 1800 (1 hour) 2041 Early Phases 2041 Early Phases Sensitivity Test Sensitivity Test – Bus Bus 2041 Base Minus Base Minus + Dev Bus Stop Name Development Trips Service Stop ID

328 C1 C3 328 328 74 74 C1 C1 C3 C3

BP2068 BP2068 BP2068 11164 29941 29941 11164 29941 11164 29941 11164

190

2539

430

2538

430 430

9414 8410

430

2539

% Diff

Boarding 27 12 0 70 23 13 15 12 22 4 129

Alighting 14 12 0 61 28 34 25 5 44 76 6

Boarding 55 32 1 6 37 12 4 24 1 6 15

Alighting 32 34 0 6 13 11 8 7 6 29 1

Boarding 82 44 2 76 60 24 19 37 23 10 144

Alighting 47 46 0 67 42 45 33 12 50 105 7

Boarding 205% 254% 341% 8% 164% 92% 29% 200% 7% 154% 12%

Alighting 225% 296% 0% 10% 47% 32% 31% 153% 13% 38% 11%

239%

597%

121%

5 31

30 11

4 2

2 1

9 33

32 12

83% 5%

6% 11%

287%

404%

Appendix Junction Capacity Assessment Summary Tables July 2025

2538

74 74

9414 8410

2539

28 306 306 28 28 306 306 Total

11254 11254 11253 11256 11255 11256 11255

WSP Issue 01

EMPRESS STATE BUILDING / WEST BROMPTON WEST BROMPTON STATION WEST BROMPTON STATION EMPRESS STATE BUILDING / WEST BROMPTON WEST KENSINGTON ESTATE WEST KENSINGTON ESTATE WEST KENSINGTON ESTATE WEST KENSINGTON STATION WEST KENSINGTON STATION WEST KENSINGTON STATION WEST KENSINGTON STATION

999%

143%

3 39

42 28

6 3

4 1

9 42

45 30

175% 8%

9% 5%

310%

126%

5 4 17 26 19 19 10 539

9 21 12 41 35 29 27 628

8 12 0 0 0 0 0 378

1 4 0 0 0 0 0 213

13 16 17 26 19 19 10 917

11 25 12 41 35 29 27 841

145% 304% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

14% 19% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Appendix Junction Capacity Assessment Summary Tables July 2025

WSP Issue 01

Sensitivity Test Early Phases 2041: AM Peak Hour Boarding & Alighting by Bus Stop 2041 Early Phases Sensitivity Test Boarding & Alighting by Stop – AM 0800 to 0900 (1 hour)

2041 Base Minus Bus Stop ID

BP2068 11164 29941 2539 2538 9414 8410 11254 11253 11256 11255 Total

2041 Early Phases Sensitivity Test – Development Trips

2041 Early Phases Sensitivity Test Base Minus + Dev

% Diff

Bus Stop Name

Boarding

Alighting Boarding Alighting Boarding Alighting Boarding Alighting

35 384 77

12 65 134

88 27 80

75 23 68

123 411 157

86 88 202

254% 7% 105%

648% 35% 51%

65%

1740%

131

115%

317%

27 78 27 34 45 36 797

76 10 12 4 25 38 410

5 2 10 0 0 0 260

74 35 23 0 0 0 464

32 81 36 34 45 36 1058

149 46 35 4 25 38 874

18% 3% 36% 0% 0% 0% 0%

98% 337% 191% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Appendix Junction Capacity Assessment Summary Tables July 2025

WSP Issue 01

Sensitivity Test Early Phases 2041: PM Peak Hour Boarding & Alighting by Bus Stop 2041 Early Phases Sensitivity Test Boarding & Alighting by Stop – PM 1700 to 1800 (1 hour)

2041 Base Minus Bus Stop ID

BP2068 11164 29941 2539 2538 9414 8410 11254 11253 11256 11255 Total

2041 Early Phases Sensitivity Test – Development Trips

2041 Early Phases Sensitivity Test Base Minus + Dev

% Diff

Bus Stop Name

Boarding

Alighting Boarding Alighting Boarding Alighting Boarding Alighting

40 236 52

26 137 144

88 27 80

66 20 60

127 263 132

92 157 204

222% 11% 154%

257% 15% 42%

276%

176%

842%

125%

8 70 9 17 45 29 539

72 39 31 12 69 62 628

10 5 20 0 0 0 378

6 3 5 0 0 0 213

18 75 29 17 45 29 917

78 42 36 12 69 62 841

121% 7% 210% 0% 0% 0% 0%

8% 7% 17% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Appendix Junction Capacity Assessment Summary Tables July 2025

WSP Issue 01

Sensitivity Test Early Phases 2041: AM Peak 2031 & 2041 Boarding & Alighting by Bus Stop Comparison Between 2031 Early Phases and 2041 Early Phases Boarding & Alighting by Stop AM 0800 to 0900 (1 hour)

Bus Stop ID

BP2068 11164 29941 2539 2538 9414 8410 11254 11253 11256 11255 Total

Bus Stop Name

Difference between 2031 & 2041 Base Minus

Difference between 2013 & 2041 Early Phases Sensitivity Test – Development Trips

Difference between 2031 & 2041 Early Phases Sensitivity Test Base Minus + Dev

Boarding Alighting

Boarding

Alighting

2 25 5

1 4 9

0 0 0

2 25 5

1 4 9

2 5 2 2 3 2 51

5 1 1 0 2 2 26

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2 5 2 2 3 2 51

5 1 1 0 2 2 26

Appendix Junction Capacity Assessment Summary Tables July 2025

WSP Issue 01

Sensitivity Test Early Phases 2041: PM Peak 2031 & 2041 Boarding & Alighting by Bus Stop Comparison Between 2031 Early Phases and 2041 Early Phases Boarding & Alighting by Stop PM 1700 to 1800 (1 hour)

Bus Stop ID

BP2068 11164 29941 2539 2538 9414 8410 11254 11253 11256 11255 Total

Bus Stop Name

Difference between 2031 & 2041 Base Minus

Difference between 2013 & 2041 Early Phases Sensitivity Test – Development Trips

Difference between 2031 & 2041 Early Phases Sensitivity Test Base Minus + Dev

Boarding 3 15 3

Alighting 2 9 9

Boarding 0 0 0

Alighting 0 0 0

Boarding 3 15 3

Alighting 2 9 9

1 4 1 1 3 2 34

5 3 2 1 4 4 40

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 4 1 1 3 2 34

5 3 2 1 4 4 40

Appendix J Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

WSP

Appendix J – 2041 Early Phases Sensitivity Test Station Modelling Reports

115

Dannie Lu June 2025

Earls Court Development Earl’s Court Station Pedestrian Modelling Early Phases Scenario Demand Do Nothing (Existing Station) Scenarios

Chapter 00 Earl’s Court Station Pedestrian Modelling June 2025

Dannie Lu Issue P01

Review Issue

Author

Checker

Approver

Date

Reason for Issue

P01

Dannie Lu

Renata Buschinelli

25/04/25

For Approval

P02

Dannie Lu

Renata Buschinelli

Justin Sherlock

16/06/2025

For Issue

Chapter 00 Earl’s Court Station Pedestrian Modelling June 2025

Dannie Lu Issue P01

Contents

1 Introduction 2 Assumptions and Assessment Criteria 3 Pedestrian Dynamic Modelling 4 Summary

4 7 8 22

Appendix A – OD Matrices Appendix B – CMD Peak 15-min Maps Appendix C – CHD Peak 15-min Maps

24 28 33

Chapter 00 Earl’s Court Station Pedestrian Modelling June 2025

Dannie Lu Issue P01

1 Introduction 1.1 Pedestrian Modelling Scenarios 1.1.1 This assessment considers the existing Earl’s Court Station layout and the performance within the Earl’s Court Station considering future year 2041 Early Phase demand. For brevity, the 'Early Phases' will be referred to as 'EP' throughout this report. 1.1.2 The dynamic assessment of the existing layout considered the following scenarios: Table 1: Scenarios modelled for this analysis Scenarios

AM Peak

PM Peak

2041 EP Existing

2041 EP Existing + uplift 35%

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.

1.2 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).

Dannie Lu Issue P01

Chapter 01 Earl’s Court Station Pedestrian Modelling June 2025

1 Introduction 1.2 Forecasted Demand 1.2.1 The forecast 2041 peak 3-hour passenger demand, excluding development trips and incorporating EP demand, is summarised in the table below. For further details on the forecast demand, please refer to Appendix A. Table 2: Forecast Demand AM Peak 3-hour Demand Scenarios

2041 + EP

Trips IN + OUT Earl's Court Rd

Warwick Rd

13,983

8,373

PM Peak 3-hour Demand

Interchange

Total

18,036

40,392

Trips IN + OUT Earl's Court Rd

Warwick Rd

15,005

7,583

Interchange

Total

20,671

43,260

Table 3: Train Frequency – peak 3-hour period Service

District Line

Piccadilly Line

From

Direction

Train Frequency (Peak 3-hour Period ) 2019NUMB 2041 AM PM AM

Earls Court

West Brompton

District (WB)

West Brompton

Earls Court

District (EB)

Earls Court

West Kensington

District (WB)

West Kensington

Earls Court

District (EB)

Earls Court

Barons Court

Piccadilly (WB)

Barons Court

Earls Court

Piccadilly (EB)

Dannie Lu Issue P01

Chapter 01 Earl’s Court Station Pedestrian Modelling June 2025

1 Introduction 1.3 Current Station Layout Existing Gateline 5 ATG + 2 WAG

Existing Gateline 2 ATG + 2 WAG

To DL PF1 & 2

To DL PF3 & 4

Closed Staircase Added Existing Ticketing Facilities 1 AFM + 1 MFM

Lift

Earls Court Rd

Warwick Rd

EC TH To DL PF1 & 2 To DL PF3 & 4

Existing Gateline 2 ATG + 1 WAG

Added Existing Ticketing Facilities 5 AFM + 2 MFM

DL EB _PF1 DL EB _PF2 DL WB_PF3 DL WB_PF4

PICC EB_PF5 PICC WB _PF6

Chapter 02 Earl’s Court Station Pedestrian Modelling June 2025

Dannie Lu Issue P01

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 15-minute AM or PM time periods. They represent the time in minutes each area experiences LoS D or worse within the peak 15 minutes.

Chapter 03 Earl’s Court Station Pedestrian Modelling June 2025

Dannie Lu Issue P01

3 Pedestrian Dynamic Modelling 3.1 Modelling Interventions 3.1.1 The 2041 EP 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+dev models and 2041+dev with overall 35% uplift models apply small luggage for all PRM types with medium or large luggage, therefore we have adopted the same approach for the 2041 EP models. 3.1.2 In the 2041 EP AM with uplift 35% scenario, it was observed that the queue formed in front of the ticket machines at the Warwick Road Entrance obstructing the flow of passengers heading towards the gateline. To enable a more accurate assessment of gateline performance, the queuing arrangement was revised. Passengers were redirected to queue along the passageway, thereby minimising interference with the main pedestrian flow. 3.1.3 Considering District Line lift capacity, we’ve limited the number of people sent to the lifts in the Legion dynamic model (keeping the same lift assumptions as those in the original Halcrow models), which has been agreed with TfL at a 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. 3.1.4 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. 3.1.5 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.

Dannie Lu Issue P01

Chapter 03 Earl’s Court Station Pedestrian Modelling June 2025

3 Pedestrian Dynamic Modelling Results 3.2 2041 EP AM Peak 3.2.1 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.

Gateline queue: LoS C/D

AM Peak Hour Passengers

Ticket and gateline queue: LoS C

AM Peak Hour Passengers 3,158

Top of Stairs: LoS C

2,665 2,020 Top of the stairs: LoS D/E

1,405 Platform 1: LoS C/D

Ticket queue: LoS C/D

Platform 2: LoS C

DL EB _PF1 DL EB _PF2 DL WB _PF3

Platform 3: LoS B/C

DL WB _PF4

Platform 4: LoS D Escalator Runoff: LoS D

Platform 5: LoS B/C

Lift waiting area: LoS D/E

PICC EB_PF5

(8:15-8:30) Peak 15 Min Fruin Walkways CMD Heat Maps

PICC WB _PF6

Platform 6: LoS B/C

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 2041 and 2041_35% uplift scenarios which has been agreed with TfL.

Dannie Lu Issue P01

Chapter 03 Earl’s Court Station Pedestrian Modelling June 2025

3 Pedestrian Dynamic Modelling Results 3.3 2041 EP PM Peak 3.3.1 Due to heavy passenger interchange from Piccadilly Line to District Line WB Platform 4 (towards Wimbledon direction), Platform 4 presents LoS E in the section between the stairs. The high density (LoS D or worse) lasts for more than 10 minutes (refer to the next slide showing Cumulative High-Density CHD Maps).

Gateline queue: LoS C PM Peak Hour Passengers PM Peak Hour Passengers

Ticket and gateline queue: LoS B/C

2,916

Top of Stairs: LoS C

2,479 1,821 Top of the stairs: LoS D

891 Platform 1: LoS C/D

Ticket queue: LoS C

Platform 2: LoS C

DL EB _PF1 DL EB _PF2 DL WB _PF3

Platform 3: LoS B/C

DL WB _PF4

Platform 4: LoS E Escalator Runoff: LoS D/E

Platform 5: LoS B/C

Lift waiting area: LoS D

PICC EB_PF5

(18:00-18:15) Peak 15 Min Fruin Walkways CMD Heat Maps

PICC WB _PF6

Platform 6: LoS B/C

Chapter 03 Earl’s Court Station Pedestrian Modelling June 2025

Dannie Lu Issue P01

3 Pedestrian Dynamic Modelling Results 3.3 Existing 2041 EP PM Peak 3.3.2 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) for more than 10 minutes. The high densities only happen during the PM peak 15 minutes and are not sustained throughout the peak hour.

DL EB _PF1 DL EB _PF2 DL WB _PF3 DL WB _PF4

This area experiences LoS D/E within the PM peak 15 minutes for more than 10 minutes.

PICC EB_PF5

(18:00-18:15) Peak 15 Min Fruin Cumulative High Density CHD Maps 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 2041 and 2041_35% uplift scenarios which has been agreed with TfL.

PICC WB _PF6

Dannie Lu Issue P01

Chapter 03 Earl’s Court Station Pedestrian Modelling June 2025

3 Pedestrian Dynamic Modelling Results 3.4 Sensitivity Analysis: 2041 EP AM Peak with uplift 35% 3.4.1 Considering the overall trip uplift of 35% for the 2041 EP AM peak, the District Line platforms present overall LoS C/D with patches of LoS E at Platforms 1 and 4 (especially at the top of middle stairs at Platforms 1&2). 3.4.2 At the Piccadilly Line Platform level, the run-off of escalators shows LoS E and the lift waiting area shows LoS E/F, where a large number of passengers queue. Gateline queue: LoS D Ticketing queue: LoS D/E

Gateline queue: LoS D

Top of Stairs: LoS D

Top of the stairs: LoS E/F Platform 1: LoS C/D

Ticket queue: LoS D

Platform 2: LoS C

DL EB _PF1 DL EB _PF2 DL WB _PF3

Platform 3: LoS C

DL WB _PF4

Platform 4: LoS D/E Escalator Runoff: LoS E

Platform 5: LoS C

Lift waiting area: LoS E/F

PICC EB_PF5

(8:15-8:30) Peak 15 Min Fruin Walkways CMD Heat Maps

PICC WB _PF6

Platform 6: LoS C/D

Dannie Lu Issue P01

Chapter 03 Earl’s Court Station Pedestrian Modelling June 2025

3 Pedestrian Dynamic Modelling Results 3.4 Sensitivity Analysis: 2041 EP AM Peak with uplift 35% 3.4.3 Due to heavy passenger interchange from Picaddily Line to District Line, EB Platform 1 and WB Platform 4 (towards Wimbledon Direction) presents high density (LoS D or worse ). The LoS on top of the stairs at Platforms 1&2 are sustained for over 6 minutes; the high densities at stairs happen during whole peak hour period. 3.4.4 Queues to lifts at the Piccadilly Line Platform levels reaches LoS E/F during 75% of whole peak hour period, however the congestion does not reach the platforms, showing that the lifts can accommodate the demand.

LoS D or worse within the peak hour minutes for more than 6 minutes.

DL EB _PF1 DL EB _PF2 DL WB _PF3 DL WB _PF4

LoS F for more than 15 minutes.

PICC EB_PF5

(8:15-8:30) Peak 15 Min Fruin Cumulative High Density CHD Maps 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 2041 and 2041_35% uplift scenarios which has been agreed with TfL.

PICC WB _PF6

Dannie Lu Issue P01

Chapter 03 Earl’s Court Station Pedestrian Modelling June 2025

3 Pedestrian Dynamic Modelling Results 3.4 Sensitivity Analysis: 2041 EP AM Peak with uplift 35% 3.4.5 The EP 2041 + 35% model shows congestion at the PiccLine lift waiting lobby near at the Earl’s Court Road entrance level. This happens as the interchange demands are slightly higher, and it tips over the lift capacity during the peak 15 minutes generating longer queues to lifts. 3.4.6 The lift capacity is 26 people per cycle time per unit, with a cycle time of 132 seconds (same lift assumptions as those in the original Halcrow models). This allows for 2.2 lift cycles within a 5-minute period. With two lifts operating for two cycles, the total capacity is 114 people (26*2*2.2=114). During peak hours, 5-minute lift demand at Earl’s Court Entrance level sometimes exceeds the lift capacity, leading to passengers waiting for a second lift. However, this only occurs in the 2041 EP with uplift 35% scenario.

Peak 15-minute CMD walkway Map (8:45-9:00)

Peak 15-minute CMD queuing Map (8:45-9:00)

Peak 15-minute CHD High Density Map (8:45-9:00)

Dannie Lu Issue P01

Chapter 03 Earl’s Court Station Pedestrian Modelling June 2025

3 Pedestrian Dynamic Modelling Results 3.4 Sensitivity Analysis: 2041 EP AM Peak with uplift 35% 3.4.6 During peak hours, 5-minute lift demand at Piccadilly Line platform level sometimes exceeds the lift capacity, leading to passengers waiting for a second lift. However, this only occurs in the 2041 EP with uplift 35% scenario , and queues do not reach the platforms.

Peak 15-minute CMD walkway Map (8:45-9:00)

Peak 15-minute CMD queuing Map (8:45-9:00)

Peak 15-minute CHD High Density Map (8:45-9:00)

Dannie Lu Issue P01

Chapter 03 Earl’s Court Station Pedestrian Modelling June 2025

3 Pedestrian Dynamic Modelling Results 3.4 Sensitivity Analysis: 2041 EP AM Peak with uplift 35% 3.4.7 As highlighted in TfL comments, the train loads had not been analysed in the previous models. The train load analysis has been performed for this analysis. 3.4.8 The analysis shows that the departing train load for all District Line platforms didn’t reach the train capacity (1368 people for an 8-car train), which is shown in the figures below.

1368

Dannie Lu Issue P01

Chapter 03 Earl’s Court Station Pedestrian Modelling June 2025

3 Pedestrian Dynamic Modelling Results 3.5 Sensitivity Analysis: 2041 EP PM Peak with uplift 35% 3.5.1 Considering the overall uplift of 35% for the 2041 EP PM peak period, the District Line EB Platform 1 is showing LoS D/E on top of and around the middle stairs. 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). 3.5.2 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 D/E. LoS C/D at gateline LoS C/D LoS B at ticket queue

LoS C/D at gateline

LoS C

LoS C/D at ticket queue LoS D/E at the top of the stairs

DL EB _PF1 DL EB _PF2 DL WB _PF3 DL WB _PF4

LoS F LoS D/E

LoS D/E at the waiting area for lifts PICC EB_PF5

(18:00-18:15) Peak 15 Min Fruin Walkways CMD Heat Maps 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 2041 and 2041_35% uplift scenarios which has been agreed with TfL.

PICC WB _PF6

Dannie Lu Issue P01

Chapter 03 Earl’s Court Station Pedestrian Modelling June 2025

3 Pedestrian Dynamic Modelling Results 3.5 Sensitivity Analysis: 2041 EP PM Peak with uplift 35% 3.5.3 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 75% of PM peak hour period. 3.5.4 All peak 15 min CHD maps within the peak hour can be found in Appendix C.

DL EB _PF1 DL EB _PF2 DL WB _PF3 DL WB _PF4

LoS F during more than half of the PM peak hour period (three 15-min periods) PICC EB_PF5 PICC WB _PF6

Dannie Lu Issue P01

Chapter 03 Earl’s Court Station Pedestrian Modelling June 2025

3 Pedestrian Dynamic Modelling Results 3.5 Sensitivity Analysis: 2041 EP PM Peak with uplift 35% 3.5.5 The lift capacity of the Piccadilly Line lifts is 26 people per cycle time per unit, with a cycle time of 132 seconds (kept the same lift assumptions as those in Halcrow models). This allows for 2.2 lift cycles within a 5-minute period. With two lifts operating for two cycles, the total capacity is 114 people (26*2*2.2=114). Overall, the lift capacity can cater for 5-minute lift demand at the Earl’s Court entrance level, shown in the figure below.

Peak 15-minute CMD walkway Map (8:45-9:00)

Peak 15-minute CMD queuing Map (18:00-18:15)

Peak 15-minute CHD High Density Map (18:00-18:15)

Dannie Lu Issue P01

Chapter 03 Earl’s Court Station Pedestrian Modelling June 2025

3 Pedestrian Dynamic Modelling Results 3.5 Sensitivity Analysis: 2041 EP PM Peak with uplift 35% 3.5.6 During 18:00-10:00, 5-minute lift demand at Piccadilly Line platform level sometimes exceeds the lift capacity, leading to passengers waiting for a second lift. However, this only occurs in the 2041 + EP dev with an overall 35% uplift scenario.

Peak 15-minute CMD walkway Map (18:00-18:15)

Peak 15-minute CMD queuing Map (18:00-18:15)

Peak 15-minute CHD High Density Map (18:00-18:15)

Dannie Lu Issue P01

Chapter 03 Earl’s Court Station Pedestrian Modelling June 2025

3 Pedestrian Dynamic Modelling Results 3.5 Sensitivity Analysis: 2041 EP PM Peak with uplift 35% 3.5.7 The line load capacity analysis shows that the departing train load for all District Line platforms didn’t reach the train capacity (1368 people for an 8-car train), which is shown in the figures below.

1368

Chapter 04 Earl’s Court Station Pedestrian Modelling June 2025

Dannie Lu Issue P01

4 Summary 4.1 Key Findings 4.1.1 Due to the high interchange demand between the District Line and the Piccadilly Line in the AM peak, the top of P1P2 Stairs (connecting Piccadilly Line Platform level) shows Level E/F, which only happens in the 2041 EP+35% AM scenario. The previously issued models showed similar results. 4.1.2. Due to heavy boarding demand at District Line WB Platform 4 (towards Wimbledon direction) in the PM peak, Platform 4 presents LoS E in the section between the stairs in both EC 2041 EP PM and EC 2041 EP +35% PM scenarios. The Final Configuration latest 2041 dev models (issued before) also presents similar results. 4.1.3 By conducting the train load control for District Line trains, we found that no DL trains reach the train capacity. All DL passengers can board the first train. 4.1.4 In 2041 EP dev+35% peak AM only, the Piccadilly Line lift waiting area at both entrance level and platform level shows Level E, Piccadilly Line passengers need to wait for a second lift during more than half of the peak hour.

Dannie Lu Issue P01

Chapter 04 Earl’s Court Station Pedestrian Modelling June 2025

4 Summary Table 4: Earl’s Court Station Element Assessment (Part One) Area of Station

2019NUMB without Development AM

2041 demand with Early-phase Development AM

Sensitivity Test: 2041+ EP dev Demand with overall 35% uplift AM

Gatelines WR TH Gatelines EC TH Ticket machine queue WR TH Ticket machine queue EC TH District Line EB Platform 1 District Line EB Platform 2 District Line WB Platform 3 District Line WB Platform 4 Piccadilly Line EB Platform 5 Piccadilly Line WB Platform 6

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.

Dannie Lu Issue P01

Chapter 04 Earl’s Court Station Pedestrian Modelling June 2025

4 Summary Table 4: Earl’s Court Station Element Assessment (Part Two) Area of Station

2019NUMB without Development AM

2041 demand with Early-phase Development AM

Sensitivity Test: 2041+ EP dev Demand with overall 35% uplift AM

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 (entrance level) District Line Lift waiting area (platform level) Piccadilly Line Lift waiting area (entrance level) Piccadilly Line Lift waiting area (platform level) 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: (1) 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. (2)The Piccadilly Line Lift waiting area (platform level) shows a higher density in the 2019 baseline scenario compared to the 2041 scenarios. This is because the 2019 model used a lift capacity of 19 passengers per unit, whereas the 2041 models incorporate an increased capacity of 26 people per unit, as agreed with TfL.

Emma Jiang June 2025

Earls Court Development West Brompton Station Pedestrian Modelling Mitigation Layout

Chapter 00 West Brompton Station Pedestrian Modelling June 2025

Emma Jiang Issue P01

Review Issue

Author

Checker

Approver

Date

Reason for Issue

P01

Emma Jiang

Renata Buschinelli

24/04/25

For Approval

P02

Emma Jiang

Renata Buschinelli

Justin Sherlock

16/06/25

For Issue

Chapter 00 West Brompton Station Pedestrian Modelling June 2025

Emma Jiang Issue P01

Contents

1 Introduction 2 Assumptions and Assessment Criteria 3 Pedestrian Dynamic Modelling Results 4 Summary 5 Mitigation Impact Summary

4 9 10 16 17

Appendix A – OD Matrices Appendix B – CMD Peak 15-min Maps Appendix C – CHD Peak 15-min Maps

18 20 31

Emma Jiang Issue P01

Chapter 01 West Brompton Station Pedestrian Modelling June 2025

1 Introduction 1.1 Pedestrian Modelling Scenarios 1.1.1 This assessment considers the planning submission mitigation layout for West Brompton Station considering future year 2041 Early Phase demand. For brevity, 'Early Phase' will be referred to as 'EP' throughout this report. 1.1.2 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 worst case 2041 EP Existing layout 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 Scenarios

OG Lateral Entrance open

OG Lateral Entrance closed

AM Peak

PM Peak

AM Peak

PM Peak

2041 EP Existing

2041 EP Mitigation

2041 EP Mitigation + uplift

X(+35%)

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)

Emma Jiang Issue P01

Chapter 01 West Brompton Station Pedestrian Modelling June 2025

1 Introduction 1.3 Forecast Demand & Train Frequencies 1.3.1 The forecast 2041 peak 3-hour passenger demand, excluding development trips and incorporating early-phase demand, is summarised in the table below. The OD matrix considered for this study is described in Appendix A. 1.3.2 For further details on the forecast demand, please refer to Appendix A the previous report titled “240426 - WB Station Pedestrian Modelling v3.” Table 2: Forecasted Demand AM Peak 3-hour Demand Year

PM Peak 3-hour Demand

Trips IN

Trips OUT

Interchange

Total

Trips IN

Trips OUT

Interchange

Total

2041

2,041

4,151

3,830

10,022

4,468

2,309

4,060

10,837

2041+EP

2,334

7,000

3,684

13,019(+2997)

5,845

2,690

3,933

12,467(+1,630)

Table 3: Train Frequency – peak 3-hour period Train Frequency (Peak 3-hour Period ) Service

From

Direction

2019NUMB

2041

Earls Court

West Brompton

District (WB)

West Brompton

Earls Court

District (EB)

West Brompton

Imperial Wharf

LO(SB)

Imperial Wharf

West Brompton

LO(NB)

West Brompton

Imperial Wharf

NR(SB)

Imperial Wharf

West Brompton

NR(NB)

District Line

Overground

Emma Jiang Issue P01

Chapter 01 West Brompton Station Pedestrian Modelling June 2025

1 Introduction 1.4 Current Station Layout 1.4.1 At West Brompton station, the District line operates from Platforms 1 and 2, while the West London Line (WLL) operates from Platforms 3 and 4. Platform 1 serves westbound District line trains, and Platform 2 serves eastbound trains. Platform 3 accommodates southbound WLL services, while Platform 4 serves northbound services. The WLL platforms are equipped with lifts, providing step-free access. A single staircase connects these platforms to the existing Ticket Hall, which opens onto Old Brompton Road. In contrast, the District line platforms are not served by lifts and are accessed via two staircases leading to the station hall. For passenger convenience, two ticket machines are available within the Ticket Hall. The existing gateline comprises three Automatic Ticket Gates (ATGs) and one Wide Aisle Gate (WAG). Old Brompton Rd

Existing Gateline 3 ATG+1 WAG

To DL WB_PF1

To DL EB_PF2 To LO&NR SB_ PF3 Lift SB

To LO&NR NB_ PF4 Lift NB DL WB_PF1 DL EB_PF2

LO&NR SB_PF3 LO&NR NB_PF4

Chapter 01 West Brompton Station Pedestrian Modelling June 2025

1 Introduction 1.5 Mitigation Station Layout 1.5.1 The mitigation layout is illustrated below.

Proposed Gateline 11x ATGs+2x WAGs 2x Ticket Machines

Emma Jiang Issue P01

Chapter 01 West Brompton Station Pedestrian Modelling June 2025

Emma Jiang Issue P01

1 Introduction 1.5 Mitigation Station Layout 1.5.2 The proposed alterations to West Brompton Station are summarised below: • West Brompton Station includes several listed elements within its layout, such as the booking hall, train shed, District Line stairs, and retaining wall. These heritage features present additional challenges for implementing mitigations. The proposed interventions, as illustrated in Section 1.5.1, focus on the following:  Expansion of the Ticket Hall to accommodate 11 ATGs and 2 WAGs, along with two new street-facing openings and two additional openings into the internal corridor between District Line Platforms 1 and 2;  Improved queuing space for the two ticket machines, with good protection from the wall, ensuring that the queuing do not interfere with passenger flows entering or exiting the station;  Inclusion of a new 1.9m-wide ramp providing improved access to the Ticket Hall;  Creation of new overbridge and staircases linking platform 1 and Platforms 2-3, along with the widening of the existing overbridges that connects to Platform 4;  Inclusion of a lift in District Line Platform 1 to provide step-free access;  Widening of the stair connecting to the Overground Platform 4, and reduction of the covered seating area at the stair base to create additional run-off space;  Removal/relocation of platform furniture on Platforms P3 and P4, and widening of Platform 3 through the relocation of walls, barriers and planters;  Widening of Platform 4 by 1.0m.

Chapter 02 West Brompton Station Pedestrian Modelling June 2025

Emma Jiang Issue P01

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 Fruin Level 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 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. 2.1.4 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 15-minute AM or PM time periods. They represent the time in minutes each area experiences LoS D or worse within the peak 15 minutes.

Emma Jiang Issue P01

Chapter 03 West Brompton Station Pedestrian Modelling June 2025

3 Pedestrian Dynamic Modelling Results Results 3.1 Existing 2041 EP AM and PM Peak - TH and PF Level (Side Entrance open) 3.1.1 The 2041 EP AM model indicates a level of service(LoS) E/F at the gateline on the paid side of the ticket hall, with a queue extending to the base of the west-end stair at Platform 1, and other reaching into the corridors at the concourse level during the AM peak. The longest queues persist for approximately 13 minutes during the peak 15-minute period. 3.1.2 The stairs connecting platform 4 present at LoS E. District Line Platforms 1 and 2 maintain an overall good LoS B/C. Platforms 3 and 4 show some patches of LoS E/F at the narrowest or busiest sections of the platforms. It is recommended that seating on Platform 3 be removed to reduce pedestrian density. Peak Hour Passengers

Peak Hour Passengers

1,050

2,396

3,150

1,103

(8:00-8:15)

(17:00-17:15) DL WB_PF1

DL WB_PF1

DL EB_PF2

LO&NR SB_PF3

LO&NR NB_PF4

(8:30-8:45)

(17:45-18:00)

AM Peak 15 Min Fruin Walkways CMD Heat Map

PM Peak 15 Min Fruin Walkways CMD Heat Map

Emma Jiang Issue P01

Chapter 03 West Brompton Station Pedestrian Modelling June 2025

3 Pedestrian Dynamic Modelling Results Results 3.2 Existing 2041 EP AM Peak Period (Side Entrance close) 3.2.1 The 2041 EP AM peak scenario, representing the worst-case scenario, was tested with the side entrance closed to assess the resilience of the gateline capacity. After running for approximately 45 minutes, from 7:00 AM to 7:45 AM, the queue extends onto the platform and cannot be alleviated.

(07:00-07:15)

(07:15-07:30)

(07:30-07:45)

RD1 Emma Jiang Issue P01

Chapter 03 West Brompton Station Pedestrian Modelling June 2025

3 Pedestrian Dynamic Modelling Results 3.3 Mitigation 2041 EP AM and PM Peak - TH and PF Level (Side Entrance open) 3.3.1 The mitigation design, which considers the side entrance open and introduces additional gates, improves the concourse density level from LoS E/F to LoS C/D compared to the existing layout. The new ramp maintains a good level of service C during the peak hour, with the exception of a brief period of busy occupancy showing LoS E for one 15-minute peak interval. 3.3.2 The density level on the stair to Platform 4 has improved due to the increased width. Patches of Level of Service D/E are observed on Platforms 3 and 4 during the peak period, primarily resulting from Network passengers waiting for the hourly train service. The observed LoS D/E is considered acceptable for platform waiting areas in accordance with Network Rail standards. Peak Hour Passengers

Peak Hour Passengers

1,050

2,396

3,150

1,103

(8:00-8:15)

(17:00-17:15) DL WB_PF1

DL WB_PF1

DL EB_PF2

LO&NR SB_PF3

LO&NR NB_PF4

(8:00-8:15) Peak 15 Min Fruin Walkways CMD Heat Map

LO&NR NB_PF4

(17:30-17:45) Peak 15 Min Fruin Walkways CMD Heat Map

Slide 12 RD1

Should we include any comments about platforms 3 and 4?

JE1 0

Done

De Tonissi E Buschinelli De Goe, 2025-04-21T16:36:37.259 Jiang, Emma, 2025-04-23T15:36:17.156

RD1 Emma Jiang Issue P01

Chapter 03 West Brompton Station Pedestrian Modelling June 2025

3 Pedestrian Dynamic Modelling Results 3.4 Mitigation 2041 EP AM and PM Peak - TH and PF Level (Side Entrance close) 3.4.1 The mitigation design, which considers the side entrance closed scenario, shows a good LoS C in the concourse-an improvement from the LoS E observed in the existing layout. The new ramp operates at LoS D/E during the AM peak hour, while maintaining a good LoS C during the PM peak period. The increased ramp usage is due to the passengers from Platforms 3 and 4 who would otherwise have used the side entrance. 3.4.2 Stair and platform densities align with the side entrance open scenario. The stair to Platform 4 improves due to increased width. LoS D/E is observed on Platforms 3 and 4 during peak periods, primarily due to Network Rail passengers waiting for hourly services, and is deemed acceptable per Network Rail standards. Peak Hour Passengers

Peak Hour Passengers

1,050

2,396

3,150

1,103

(8:00-8:15)

(17:00-17:15) DL WB_PF1

DL WB_PF1

DL EB_PF2

LO&NR SB_PF3

LO&NR NB_PF4

(8:00-8:15) Peak 15 Min Fruin Walkways CMD Heat Map

LO&NR NB_PF4

(17:30-17:45) Peak 15 Min Fruin Walkways CMD Heat Map

Slide 13 RD1

Should we include any comments about platforms 3 and 4?

JE1 0

Done

De Tonissi E Buschinelli De Goe, 2025-04-21T16:36:27.481 Jiang, Emma, 2025-04-23T16:44:09.022

Emma Jiang Issue P01

Chapter 03 West Brompton Station Pedestrian Modelling June 2025

3 Pedestrian Dynamic Modelling Results 3.5 Mitigation 2041 EP AM and PM Peak - TH and PF Level with uplift 35% (Side Entrance open) 3.5.1 The Mitigation Sensitivity Test, which considers the side entrance open scenario with a 35% uplift in demand, demonstrates that the concourse can still accommodate the increased flow, maintaining a good Level of Service (LoS) B/C. The new ramp and overbridge operate at LoS C/D during the peak hour, except for a brief period of higher occupancy showing LoS F during the 15-minute peak interval. 3.5.2 The density level in the corridor connecting Platform 4 to the side entrance maintains a good Level of Service C, with the exception of a surge in occupancy between 8:45 AM and 9:00 AM. Further details are provided in Appendix B. Peak Hour Passengers

Peak Hour Passengers

1,050

2,396

3,150

1,103

(8:00-8:15)

(17:00-17:15) DL WB_PF1

DL WB_PF1

DL EB_PF2

LO&NR SB_PF3

LO&NR NB_PF4

(8:00-8:15) Peak 15 Min Fruin Walkways CMD Heat Map

LO&NR NB_PF4

(17:30-17:45) Peak 15 Min Fruin Walkways CMD Heat Map

Emma Jiang Issue P01

Chapter 03 West Brompton Station Pedestrian Modelling June 2025

3 Pedestrian Dynamic Modelling Results 3.6 Mitigation 2041 EP AM and PM Peak - TH and PF Level with uplift 35% (Side Entrance close) 3.6.1 The Mitigation Sensitivity Test, which considers the side entrance close scenario with a 35% uplift in demand, shows Level of Service (LoS) E/F at the new ramp and overbridge. The AM peak period experiences higher density levels in these areas compared to the PM peak. However, both the AM and PM models can run through to completion successfully.

Peak Hour Passengers

1,050

2,396

3,150

1,103

(8:45-9:00)

(17:00-17:15) DL WB_PF1

DL WB_PF1

DL EB_PF2

LO&NR SB_PF3

LO&NR NB_PF4

(8:00-8:15) Peak 15 Min Fruin Walkways CMD Heat Map

LO&NR NB_PF4

(17:30-17:45) Peak 15 Min Fruin Walkways CMD Heat Map

Chapter 04 West Brompton Station Pedestrian Modelling June 2025

Emma Jiang Issue P01

4 Summary 4.1 West Brompton Station Early Phases results 5.1.1 The modelling of the West Brompton Station (existing and mitigation layouts) during the 2041 Early Phases demand scenario shows very similar or better results to the 2041 All Phases demand scenario.

RD1 5.1.2 Overall the EP demand scenario is lower than the final configuration scenario, therefore the models performed slightly better, however with the same congestion issues reported considering the final demand scenario 2041 with development trips, however for a shorter period of time. The congestion above LoS C on the proposed new overbridge near the TH happens only during the busiest peak 15 minutes, while higher congestion occurs throughout the entire peak hour during the 2041 All Phases Scenario. 5.1.3 The models considering an uplift of +35% have been able to run completely this time, even though reaching LoS F during most of the AM peak hour on the proposed overbridge if the side entrance is closed. 5.1.5 The table on the following page summarises the performance of the models reported in this assessment.

Slide 16 RD1

@Justin, please change to the official Scenario name, as per TA. De Tonissi E Buschinelli De Goe, 2025-04-24T17:08:54.806

Emma Jiang Issue P01

Chapter 04 West Brompton Station Pedestrian Modelling June 2025

4 Summary West Brompton Station Element Assessment Scenarios with Side Entrance Close Area of Station

Scenarios with Side Entrance Open

Existing

Mitigation

Existing

Mitigation

2041 EP*

2041 EP

AM Gatelines TH

Corridors to TH

District Line WB Platform 1

District Line EB Platform 2

LO/NR SB Platform 3

LO/NR NB Platform 4

Stairs P1

Stairs P2

Stairs P3

Stairs P4

LO/NR SB Lift waiting area

LO/NR NB Lift waiting area

Distric Line WB Lift waiting area

N/A

* 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 requirements, significant queues/delays observed from dynamic models and minimum requirements identified from static assessments.

Chapter 03 West Brompton Station Pedestrian Modelling June 2025

Emma Jiang Issue P01

Appendix A – Peak 3-hour Demand Origin-Destination Matrix

Appendix A West Brompton Station Pedestrian Modelling June 2025

Emma Jiang Issue P01

Methodology of calculating the forecast for future year The 2041 Peak 3-hour Demand Origin-Destination Matrix (EP) has been developed using the forecasting methodology outlined in TfL’s Station Demand Modelling guidance, version 1.1.

a = observed base year flow AM 2019 NUMBAT Matrix

PM 2019 NUMBAT Matrix

Emma Jiang Issue P01

Appendix A West Brompton Station Pedestrian Modelling June 2025

Methodology of calculating the forecast for future year b = modelled base year flow AM 2019 modelled base year matrix _ uplifted to 2019 Railplan

c = modelled future year flow

AM 2041 Early phase matrix

PM 2019 modelled base year matrix _ uplifted to 2019 Railplan

PM 2041 Early phase matrix

Early Phases demand is derived from the 2031 Early Phases model. The developments originally expected to be completed by 2031 are now anticipated to be delivered closer to 2038. As a result, the associated development-related demand has been incorporated into the 2041 models. This adjustment specifically applies to development-related trips only, ensuring that all such demand from the 2031 scenario is accounted for within the 2041 forecast.

Emma Jiang Issue P01

Appendix A West Brompton Station Pedestrian Modelling June 2025

2041 Peak 3-hour Demand Origin-Destination Matrix(EP) By applying this methodology to the matrices, a forecast demand matrix for the year 2041 has been developed, as presented in the tables below . Table 13: 2041 AM Peak 3-hour Demand Origin-Destination Matrix Origin / Destination

Old Brompton Rd Exit

NR (SB)

NR (NB)

London Overground (SB)

London Overground (NB)

District Line (WB)

District Line (EB)

Total

NR (SB)

210

314

535

NR (NB)

639

440

152

1231

London Overground (SB)

1416

182

139

1737

London Overground (NB)

909

218

401

1528

Old Brompton Rd Entrance

108

160

332

258

384

1091

2333

District Line (WB)

2159

148

206

391

257

3161

District Line (EB)

1667

267

410

2493

Total

7000

523

421

1133

609

1235

2097

13018

Table 14: 2041 PM Peak 3-hour Demand Origin-Destination Matrix Origin / Destination

Old Brompton Rd Exit

NR (SB)

NR (NB)

London Overground (SB)

London Overground (NB)

District Line (WB)

District Line (EB)

Total

NR (SB)

215

249

552

NR (NB)

143

203

428

London Overground (SB)

331

338

762

London Overground (NB)

311

435

271

1017

Old Brompton Rd Entrance

223

342

744

438

811

3286

5844

District Line (WB)

1347

160

362

207

438

2514

District Line (EB)

404

153

123

562

107

1349

Total

2690

536

827

1513

983

1570

4347

12466

Appendix B West Brompton Station Pedestrian Modelling June 2025

Emma Jiang Issue P01

Appendix B – Peak Hour Fruin Walkways CMD Heat Maps in 15-Minute Segments

Appendix B West Brompton Station Pedestrian Modelling June 2025

Emma Jiang Issue P01

Scenarios Existing 2041 EP AM Peak Period – 15-Minute Fruin Walkways CMD Heat Maps during the peak hour (Side Entrance Open)

08:00-08:15

08:15-08:30

08:30-08:45

08:45-09:00

Appendix B West Brompton Station Pedestrian Modelling June 2025

Emma Jiang Issue P01

Scenarios Existing 2041 EP PM Peak Period – 15-Minute Fruin Walkways CMD Heat Maps during the peak hour (Side Entrance Open)

17:00-17:15

17:15-17:30

17:30-17:45

17:45-18:00

Appendix B West Brompton Station Pedestrian Modelling June 2025

Emma Jiang Issue P01

Scenarios Mitigation 2041 EP AM Peak Period – 15-Minute Fruin Walkways CMD Heat Maps during the peak hour (Side Entrance Open)

08:00-08:15

08:15-08:30

08:30-08:45

08:45-09:00

Appendix B West Brompton Station Pedestrian Modelling June 2025

Emma Jiang Issue P01

Scenarios Mitigation 2041 EP PM Peak Period – 15-Minute Fruin Walkways CMD Heat Maps during the peak hour (Side Entrance Open)

17:00-17:15

17:15-17:30

17:30-17:45

17:45-18:00

Appendix B West Brompton Station Pedestrian Modelling June 2025

Emma Jiang Issue P01

Scenarios Mitigation 2041 EP AM Peak Period – 15-Minute Fruin Walkways CMD Heat Maps during the peak hour (Side Entrance Close)

08:00-08:15

08:15-08:30

08:30-08:45

08:45-09:00

Appendix B West Brompton Station Pedestrian Modelling June 2025

Emma Jiang Issue P01

Scenarios Mitigation 2041 EP PM Peak Period – 15-Minute Fruin Walkways CMD Heat Maps during the peak hour (Side Entrance Close)

` `

17:00-17:15

17:15-17:30

` `

17:30-17:45

17:45-18:00

Appendix B West Brompton Station Pedestrian Modelling June 2025

Emma Jiang Issue P01

Scenarios Mitigation Sensitivity Test: 2041 AM Peak Period EP with Overall 35% uplift – 15-Minute Fruin Walkways CMD Heat Maps (Side Entrance Open)

08:00-08:15

08:15-08:30

08:30-08:45

08:45-09:00

Appendix B West Brompton Station Pedestrian Modelling June 2025

Emma Jiang Issue P01

Scenarios Mitigation Sensitivity Test: 2041 PM Peak Period EP with Overall 35% uplift – 15-Minute Fruin Walkways CMD Heat Maps (Side Entrance Open)

17:00-17:15

17:15-17:30

17:30-17:45

17:45-18:00

Appendix B West Brompton Station Pedestrian Modelling June 2025

Emma Jiang Issue P01

Scenarios Mitigation Sensitivity Test: 2041 AM Peak Period EP with Overall 35% uplift – 15-Minute Fruin Walkways CMD Heat Maps (Side Entrance Close)

08:00-08:15

08:15-08:30

08:30-08:45

08:45-09:00

Appendix B West Brompton Station Pedestrian Modelling June 2025

Emma Jiang Issue P01

Scenarios Mitigation Sensitivity Test: 2041 PM Peak Period EP with Overall 35% uplift – 15-Minute Fruin Walkways CMD Heat Maps (Side Entrance Close)

17:00-17:15

17:15-17:30

17:30-17:45

17:45-18:00

Appendix C West Brompton Station Pedestrian Modelling June 2025

Emma Jiang Issue P01

Appendix C – Peak Hour Fruin Cumulative High Density Maps in 15-Minute Segments

Appendix B West Brompton Station Pedestrian Modelling June 2025

Emma Jiang Issue P01

Scenarios Existing 2041 EP AM Peak Period – 15-Minute Fruin Cumulative High-Density CHD Maps during the peak hour (Side Entrance Open)

08:00-08:15

08:15-08:30

08:30-08:45

08:45-09:00

Appendix B West Brompton Station Pedestrian Modelling June 2025

Emma Jiang Issue P01

Scenarios Existing 2041 EP PM Peak Period – 15-Minute Fruin Cumulative High-Density CHD Maps during the peak hour (Side Entrance Open)

17:00-17:15

17:15-17:30

17:30-17:45

17:45-18:00

Appendix B West Brompton Station Pedestrian Modelling June 2025

Emma Jiang Issue P01

Scenarios Mitigation 2041 EP AM Peak Period – 15-Minute Fruin Cumulative High-Density CHD Maps during the peak hour (Side Entrance Open)

08:00-08:15

08:15-08:30

08:30-08:45

08:45-09:00

Appendix B West Brompton Station Pedestrian Modelling June 2025

Emma Jiang Issue P01

Scenarios Mitigation 2041 EP PM Peak Period – 15-Minute Fruin Cumulative High-Density CHD Maps during the peak hour (Side Entrance Open)

17:00-17:15

17:15-17:30

17:30-17:45

17:45-18:00

Appendix B West Brompton Station Pedestrian Modelling June 2025

Emma Jiang Issue P01

Scenarios Mitigation 2041 EP AM Peak Period – 15-Minute Fruin Cumulative High-Density CHD Maps during the peak hour (Side Entrance Close)

08:00-08:15

08:15-08:30

08:30-08:45

08:45-09:00

Appendix B West Brompton Station Pedestrian Modelling June 2025

Emma Jiang Issue P01

Scenarios Mitigation 2041 EP PM Peak Period – 15-Minute Fruin Cumulative High-Density CHD Maps during the peak hour (Side Entrance Close)

17:00-17:15

17:15-17:30

17:30-17:45

17:45-18:00

Appendix B West Brompton Station Pedestrian Modelling June 2025

Emma Jiang Issue P01

Scenarios Mitigation Sensitivity Test: 2041 AM Peak Period EP with Overall 35% uplift – 15-Minute Fruin Cumulative HighDensity CHD Maps (Side Entrance Open)

08:00-08:15

08:15-08:30

08:30-08:45

08:45-09:00

Appendix B West Brompton Station Pedestrian Modelling June 2025

Emma Jiang Issue P01

Scenarios Mitigation Sensitivity Test: 2041 PM Peak Period EP with Overall 35% uplift – 15-Minute Fruin Cumulative HighDensity CHD Maps (Side Entrance Open)

17:00-17:15

17:15-17:30

17:30-17:45

17:45-18:00

Appendix B West Brompton Station Pedestrian Modelling June 2025

Emma Jiang Issue P01

Scenarios Mitigation Sensitivity Test: 2041 AM Peak Period EP with Overall 35% uplift – 15-Minute Fruin Cumulative HighDensity CHD Maps (Side Entrance Close)

08:00-08:15

08:15-08:30

08:30-08:45

08:45-09:00

Appendix B West Brompton Station Pedestrian Modelling June 2025

Emma Jiang Issue P01

Scenarios Mitigation Sensitivity Test: 2041 PM Peak Period EP with Overall 35% uplift – 15-Minute Fruin Cumulative HighDensity CHD Maps (Side Entrance Close)

17:00-17:15

17:15-17:30

17:30-17:45

17:45-18:00

Appendix A Earl’s Court Station Pedestrian Modelling June 2025

Dannie Lu Issue P01

Appendix A – Peak 3-hour Demand Origin-Destination Matrix

Appendix A Earl’s Court Station Pedestrian Modelling June 2025

Dannie Lu Issue P01

a = observed base year flow AM 2019 NUMBAT Matrix

PM 2019 NUMBAT Matrix

Dannie Lu Issue P01

Appendix A Earl’s Court Station Pedestrian Modelling June 2025

Methodology of calculating the forecast for future year b = modelled base year flow AM 2019 modelled base year matrix _ uplifted to 2019 Railplan

c = modelled future year flow

AM 2041 Early phase matrix

PM 2019 modelled base year matrix _ uplifted to 2019 Railplan

PM 2041 Early phase matrix

Dannie Lu Issue P01

Appendix A Earl’s Court Station Pedestrian Modelling June 2025

Scenarios2041 EP Peak 3-hour Demand Origin-Destination Matrix ― ― ―

The entry and exit demand at Earl’s Court Rd Entrance and Warwick Rd Entrance was adjusted based on ‘2023 Nov Average Entrance Splits’ (the survey data in November 2023). As the EP 2041 demand represents a change to the masterplan configurations and trips only, the Earls’s Court Rd entrance numbers have been maintained similar to the 2041 Final masterplan configuration demand numbers. By applying this methodology to the matrices, a forecast demand matrix for the year 2041 has been developed, as presented in the tables below .

Table 5: 2041 EP AM Peak 3-hour Demand Origin-Destination Matrix Origin / Destination

Earl’s Court Rd Exit

Warwick Rd Exit

District Line (EB)

District Line (WB)

Piccadilly Line (EB)

Piccadilly Line (WB)

Total

Earl’s Court Rd Entrance

3,432

999

1,788

415

6,636

Warwick Rd Entrance

2,789

690

1,278

279

5,039

District Line (EB)

2,110

293

1,816

2,263

3,525

2,863

12,869

District Line (WB)

2,593

1,587

1,030

443

5,750

Piccadilly Line (EB)

1,358

531

1,268

2,362

5,519

Piccadilly Line (WB)

1,282

925

2,370

4,578

Total

7,347

3,338

9,306

9,715

6,687

4,000

40,392

Table 6: 2041 EP PM Peak 3-hour Demand Origin-Destination Matrix Origin / Destination

Earl’s Court Rd Exit

Warwick Rd Exit

District Line (EB)

District Line (WB)

Piccadilly Line (EB)

Piccadilly Line (WB)

Total

Earl’s Court Rd Entrance

3,186

1,738

1,227

812

6,966

Warwick Rd Entrance

2,639

947

936

619

5,144

District Line (EB)

1,371

263

2,167

2,296

2,837

2,893

11,827

District Line (WB)

4,339

1,430

2,904

135

1,140

9,953

Piccadilly Line (EB)

642

190

658

2,076

3,565

Piccadilly Line (WB)

1,685

560

3,560

5,804

Total

8,039

2,444

8,655

13,522

5,136

5,464

43,260

Appendix B Earl’s Court Station Pedestrian Modelling June 2025

Dannie Lu Issue P01

Appendix B – Peak Hour Fruin Walkways CMD Heat Maps in 15-Minute Segments

Appendix B Earl’s Court Station Pedestrian Modelling June 2025

Dannie Lu Issue P01

Scenarios Existing 2041 EP AM Peak – 15-Minute CMD(walkway) Maps during the peak hour

08:00-08:15

08:15-08:30

08:30-08:45

08:45-09:00

Appendix B Earl’s Court Station Pedestrian Modelling June 2025

Dannie Lu Issue P01

Scenarios Existing 2041 EP PM Peak – 15-Minute CMD(walkway) 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 June 2025

Dannie Lu Issue P01

Scenarios Sensitivity Test: Existing 2041 EP AM Peak with uplift 35% uplift – 15-Minute CMD(walkway) Maps during the peak hour

08:00-08:15

08:15-08:30

08:30-08:45

08:45-09:00

Appendix B Earl’s Court Station Pedestrian Modelling June 2025

Dannie Lu Issue P01

Scenarios Sensitivity Test: Existing 2041 EP PM Peak with uplift 35% uplift – 15-Minute CMD(walkway) 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 June 2025

Dannie Lu Issue P01

Appendix C – Peak Hour Fruin Cumulative High Density Maps in 15-Minute Segments

Appendix C Earl’s Court Station Pedestrian Modelling June 2025

Dannie Lu Issue P01

Scenarios Existing 2041 EP AM Peak – 15-Minute Fruin Cumulative High-Density CHD Maps during the peak hour

08:00-08:15

08:15-08:30

08:30-08:45

08:45-09:00

Appendix C Earl’s Court Station Pedestrian Modelling June 2025

Dannie Lu Issue P01

Scenarios Existing 2041 EP PM Peak – 15-Minute 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 June 2025

Dannie Lu Issue P01

Scenarios Sensitivity Test: Existing 2041 EP AM Peak with uplift 35% uplift – 15-Minute Fruin Cumulative High-Density CHD Maps

08:00-08:15

08:15-08:30

08:30-08:45

08:45-09:00

Appendix C Earl’s Court Station Pedestrian Modelling June 2025

Dannie Lu Issue P01

Scenarios Sensitivity Test: Existing 2041 EP PM Peak with uplift 35% uplift – 15-Minute Fruin Cumulative High-Density CHD Maps

17:30-17:45

17:45-18:00

18:00-18:15

18:15-18:30

Dannie Associate People Movement Consultant Dannie.Lu@wsp.com Emma Jiang Principal People Movement Consultant Emma.Jiang@wsp.com

Thank you

Appendix K Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

WSP

Appendix K – Mitigation Drawings

116

File name\\UK.WSPGROUP.COM\CENTRAL DATA\PROJECTS\70077XXX\70077004 - EARLS COURT MASTERPLAN 2020\03 WIP\DEVELOPMENT\03 DRAWINGS\SITE ACCESS STRATEGY\ECM-WSP-XX-XX-DR-410.DWG , printed on08 May 2025 10:53:18 , by Millbery, Lucy

DO NOT SCALE

DRAWING STATUS:

S2 - FOR INFORMATION

WSP House, 70 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1AF, UK T+ 44 (0) 207 314 5000, F+ 44 (0) 207 314 5111 wsp.com CLIENT:

EARLS COURT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY ARCHITECT:

HBSEW PROJECT:

EARLS COURT MASTERPLAN TITLE:

KEMPSFORD GARDENS JUNCTION WITH OLD BROMPTON ROAD SCALE @ A3:

CHECKED:

1:250 PROJECT No:

70077004

APPROVED:

DESIGNED:

DRAWN:

DATE:

DRAWING No:

Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey map with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. Licence no. 100048755. Crown copyright reserved.

. .

April 24 REV:

ECM-WSP-XX-XX-DR-410 c WSP UK Ltd

P02

B EN RO M T R PT A N ON C E

DO NOT SCALE

EC-01

DRAWING STATUS:

S2 - FOR INFORMATION

WSP House, 70 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1AF, UK T+ 44 (0) 207 314 5000, F+ 44 (0) 207 314 5111 wsp.com

10 6.4 4 10 6.4 4

6.4

CLIENT:

EARLS COURT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY ARCHITECT:

HBSEW

Stn 28S 108.022

Stn EC04 103.018

PROJECT:

2. 99

Stn 23S 107.181

2. 99

EARLS COURT MASTERPLAN

2. 77

99 10 3

.0 0

77 10

2. 77

TITLE:

OLD BROMPTON ROAD / WEST BROMPTON LANE SITE ACCESS

3. 00

10 3. 00

75 10 2. 75

10 3. 00

10 2. 7

10 3. 00

SCALE @ A3:

PROJECT No:

70077004

APPROVED:

DESIGNED:

DRAWN:

DATE:

DRAWING No:

2. 75

2. 74

Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey map with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. Licence no. 100048755. Crown copyright reserved.

CHECKED:

1:500

10 2. 75

1. 8

3. 0

REV:

ECM-WSP-XX-XX-DR-420

0 10

2. 74

3. 01

c WSP UK Ltd

June 25

P05

10 1

.90

LL AS T 10 TO 2. TW P BA 177 2.1 TW LL 10 1 AS 10 74 2.1 2.0 T 0 BA 10 TO 7 LL 2.0 P 10 10 AS 2.0 8 2.1 T 10 8 10 1 1 1 3 B 02 02 0 2.1 OT 1. .09 2.1 .17 1 77 4 TO 2 1 M 10 10 10 2 1 2.1 1.7 T 10 10 .120 02.0 7 2.1 2.1 10 4 EM 3 10 1.7 1 48 10 P 2 FE 2.1 2.0 NC 1 9 10 10 E 2.0 2 .03 10 F 9 1.7 FW W BA 10 10 10 4 10 2.1 LL 1.6 10 CT 10 2.0 2.0 10 AS 0 2.0 3 9 1.6 7 T TW TE 7 6 10 10 2.09 MP 1.6 2.1 6 10 TOP 9 2 28 FE C 10 10 .104 NC T 2 2 10 .04 .12 10 E 10 2.0 10 10 1.6 1 2.0 102.26 5 2.0 2.0 10 0 2 6 1 1.9 10 4 1.6 10 10 2 2.0 10 2. TW TW 10 29 2 5 .03 1.6 10 TW 10 4 1.6 T 1 2 10 W 02 10 .03 10 2 2.0 10 1.6 .09 2.0 10 1 02 62 2.3 4 1 1.6 10 .08 2 2 8 1 .08 02 3 10 1 10 .02 CL 10 2.0 02.0 7 2.0 10 1.9 2 CT 86 8 2.0 F h 1 02 8 10 1.6 0 .08 BA 1. 1 66 02 TE LLAS .03 MP FW 10 T 10 10 10 2. 2.0 BA FE TOP 0 2 1.7 10 FW 4 LL NC 10 .030 10 1.9 7 9 A 2.0 10 E 2.0 ST 9 10 1 1.9 38 10 2.0 TO BA 6 1.6 10 1 10 P LL BA 2 8 2 AS .04 LL 10 .077 10 10 10 TB A 2 10 .06 ST 1.9 1.5 1.7 2.0 OT 10 10 BA 4 9 2 TO 6 4 TO 1.9 10 LLA BA 1.9 P 1.9 S 1 M 11 LL 1 01 AS BA 2 T TO 10 01.9 .93 2.0 6 T L P LA BO 2 10 10 S 1 T T 1. 1.5 0 TO 10 CT 10 5 1.9 101 991 101. BOT 1 1.99 M 2.0 .98 94 TO 01 1 1 .87 9 M 10 10 10 1 1.5 10 2.0 FW 2.0 01.9 10 1.5 5 1 6 1 FW 2.0 02.0 70 9 44 0 10 10 CT 101 1.8 10 1.4 10 .88 8 1.8 8 10 10 1.6 CO 9 1.9 0 10 2.0 N 5 2.0 0 10 DU 10 1.9 C 5 10 1 CL 9 TO 1.4 10 10 10 .968 1 Fh R 1 8 1 0 1 10 1.9 .87 .58 1.9 01 RA CO 1.6 1.5 46 .85 2 10 I N L 7 10 DU 10 2.02 2 TE CT 2.0 10 .06 MP OR 10 6 2 5 1 1.4 01 1 FE 10 .030 RA 9 .55 NC 01.8 1 IL 10 .9 8 E 10 1.87 9 CT 10 1.9 1.5 1 10 6 10 1 1. 10 1 10 10 01.8 99 1. 10 .94 1.9 7 1. 55 1.9 5 10 79 3 21 1.5 2

10 1. 1.7

DO NOT SCALE

n A

1.4

10 2.1 1

10 10 2 10 1.96 .01 2.0 10 0 2.0 CT 0 10 10 2.0 2.0 10 10 5 2.0 60 10 1.9 10 1.9 3 14 10 1 .94 10 1.85 TW 9 1 1.5 B 10 1 TW 10 02.0 2. AL 8 03 10 01.8 LA 10 1.9 2 1.8 5 ST 2. 7 9 02 TO 10 10 1 P 0 1.9 1.4 1 BA 10 10 4 0 10 10 .93 2 1.5 L 1 LA .02 01 1 1.5 10 1.9 8 4 .88 01. ST 6 1.8 08 77 1 10 TO BA 2.0 P 1 10 101 LL 1 10 .9 1 10 53 01 0 AS 1 .70 1 2 .9 1.3 10 1.7 4 T 01 BA BA .002 1. 7 2 10 TO .8 L 57 1.5 P 3 LLA LAS 10 0 ST 6.4 T 1 B CA 4 01 OT TOP BL .92 1 T 1 ER 06 OM 10 10 01 10 1.7 1 .89 2 .44 UN 1.4 5 .87 2 5 1 F 10 01. FW W 1.8 75 5 10 10 6.4 1.8 10 6 1.9 6 10 2 1 10.86 1. 98 W CT 101 AL L .83 10 A 1. 32 94 18 LI LL IE RD OV ER BR ID

E DRAWING STATUS:

S2 - FOR INFORMATION

Stn 23S 107.181

WSP House, 70 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1AF, UK T+ 44 (0) 207 314 5000, F+ 44 (0) 207 314 5111 wsp.com CLIENT: C

EARLS COURT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY 2 1

ARCHITECT: PE

HBSEW

C 14

PROJECT:

13 12

A B

EARLS COURT MASTERPLAN

File name \\UK.WSPGROUP.COM\CENTRAL DATA\PROJECTS\70077XXX\70077004 - EARLS COURT MASTERPLAN 2020\03 WIP\DEVELOPMENT\03 DRAWINGS\SITE ACCESS STRATEGY\ECM-WSP-XX-XX-DR-430.DWG, printed on 11 August 2025 11:09:01, by Sherlock, Justin

TITLE: 9

LILLIE ROAD/ EMPRESS PLACE SITE ACCESS

SCALE @ A3:

CHECKED:

1:500 PROJECT No:

DESIGNED:

70077004

APPROVED:

SM LM

DRAWN:

DRAWING No:

Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey map with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. Licence no. 100048755. Crown copyright reserved.

DATE:

July 25 REV:

ECM-WSP-XX-XX-DR-430 c WSP UK Ltd

P03

DO NOT SCALE

TAXI

DRAWING STATUS:

S2 - FOR INFORMATION

VEH

WSP House, 70 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1AF, UK T+ 44 (0) 207 314 5000, F+ 44 (0) 207 314 5111 wsp.com

BUS STAND

ON ECTI INSP ICLE

BUS STAND

BAY

BUS STAND BUS STAND

File name\\UK.WSPGROUP.COM\CENTRAL DATA\PROJECTS\70077XXX\70077004 - EARLS COURT MASTERPLAN 2020\03 WIP\DEVELOPMENT\03 DRAWINGS\SITE ACCESS STRATEGY\ECM-WSP-XX-XX-DR-440.DWG , printed on24 April 2024 11:41:05 , by Millbery, Lucy

CLIENT:

EARLS COURT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY ARCHITECT:

HBSEW PROJECT:

EARLS COURT MASTERPLAN TITLE:

LILLIE ROAD/ LILLIE ROAD BUS LAYOVER SITE ACCESS SCALE @ A3:

CHECKED:

1:500 PROJECT No:

70077004

APPROVED:

DESIGNED:

DRAWN:

DATE:

DRAWING No:

Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey map with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. Licence no. 100048755. Crown copyright reserved.

April 24 REV:

ECM-WSP-XX-XX-DR-440 c WSP UK Ltd

P01

File name\\UK.WSPGROUP.COM\CENTRAL DATA\PROJECTS\70077XXX\70077004 - EARLS COURT MASTERPLAN 2020\03 WIP\DEVELOPMENT\03 DRAWINGS\SITE ACCESS STRATEGY\ECM-WSP-XX-XX-DR-450.DWG , printed on25 April 2024 16:02:34 , by Russell, Matt

DO NOT SCALE

EM-02

DRAWING STATUS:

S2 - FOR INFORMATION

WSP House, 70 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1AF, UK T+ 44 (0) 207 314 5000, F+ 44 (0) 207 314 5111 wsp.com CLIENT:

EARLS COURT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY ARCHITECT:

HBSEW PROJECT:

EARLS COURT MASTERPLAN TITLE:

BEAUMONT AVENUE SITE ACCESS SCALE @ A3:

CHECKED:

1:500 PROJECT No:

70077004

APPROVED:

DESIGNED:

DRAWN:

DATE:

DRAWING No:

Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey map with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. Licence no. 100048755. Crown copyright reserved.

April 24 REV:

ECM-WSP-XX-XX-DR-450 c WSP UK Ltd

P01

File name\\UK.WSPGROUP.COM\CENTRAL DATA\PROJECTS\70077XXX\70077004 - EARLS COURT MASTERPLAN 2020\03 WIP\DEVELOPMENT\03 DRAWINGS\SITE ACCESS STRATEGY\ECM-WSP-XX-XX-DR-540.DWG , printed onWednesday, August 6, 2025 1:56:32, PM by Sharma, Binish

DO NOT SCALE

Proposed Staging

Note: Crossing forms part of North End Road traffic signals

DRAWING STATUS:

S2 - FOR INFORMATION

WSP House, 70 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1AF, UK T+ 44 (0) 207 314 5000, F+ 44 (0) 207 314 5111 wsp.com CLIENT:

EARLS COURT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY ARCHITECT:

HBSEW PROJECT:

EARLS COURT MASTERPLAN TITLE:

A4 WEST CROMWELL ROAD CYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN CROSSING SCALE @ A3:

CHECKED:

1:500 PROJECT No: EM-03

DESIGNED:

70077004

APPROVED:

SM LM

DRAWN:

DATE:

DRAWING No:

Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey map with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. Licence no. 100048755. Crown copyright reserved.

July 25 REV:

ECM-WSP-XX-XX-DR-540 c WSP UK Ltd

P03

File name\\UK.WSPGROUP.COM\CENTRAL DATA\PROJECTS\70077XXX\70077004 - EARLS COURT MASTERPLAN 2020\03 WIP\DEVELOPMENT\03 DRAWINGS\ECM-WSP-XX-XX-SK-327 CYCLE ROUTE , printed STRATEGY.DWG onWednesday, August 6, 2025 1:49:46, PM by Sharma, Binish

DO NOT SCALE

DRAWING STATUS:

S2 - FOR INFORMATION

WSP House, 70 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1AF, UK T+ 44 (0) 207 314 5000, F+ 44 (0) 207 314 5111 wsp.com CLIENT:

EARLS COURT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY ARCHITECT:

HBSEW PROJECT:

EARLS COURT MASTERPLAN TITLE:

WEST CROMWELL ROAD / WARWICK ROAD IMPROVEMENTS TO PEDESTRIAN AND CROSSING ARRANGEMENTS SCALE @ A3:

CHECKED:

1:500 PROJECT No:

70077004

APPROVED:

DESIGNED:

DRAWN:

DATE:

DRAWING No:

June 25 REV:

ECM-WSP-XX-XX-SK-327 c WSP UK Ltd

P02

File name\\UK.WSPGROUP.COM\CENTRAL DATA\PROJECTS\70077XXX\70077004 - EARLS COURT MASTERPLAN 2020\03 WIP\TP TRANSPORT PLANNING\03 DRAWINGS\ECM-WSP-XX-XX-SK-TP-236.DWG , by Patel, Shekhar , printed on11 August 2025 18:31:36

DO NOT SCALE

DRAWING STATUS:

S2 - FOR INFORMATION

WSP House, 70 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1AF, UK T+ 44 (0) 207 314 5000, F+ 44 (0) 207 314 5111 wsp.com CLIENT:

EARLS COURT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY ARCHITECT:

HBSEW PROJECT:

EARTS COURT MASTERPLAN TITLE:

A4 WEST CROMWELL ROAD / NORTH END ROAD IMPROVEMENT OPTIONS Signal Staging

CHECKED:

SCALE @ A3:

1:250 PROJECT No:

70077004

APPROVED:

DESIGNED:

DRAWN:

DATE:

DRAWING No:

August 25 REV:

ECM-WSP-XX-XX-SK-TP-236 c WSP UK Ltd

P03

File name\\UK.WSPGROUP.COM\CENTRAL DATA\PROJECTS\70077XXX\70077004 - EARLS COURT MASTERPLAN 2020\03 WIP\TP TRANSPORT PLANNING\03 DRAWINGS\ECM-WSP-XX-XX-SK-TP-241.DWG , printed onWednesday, August 6, 2025 12:08:43, PM by Sharma, Binish

DO NOT SCALE

DRAWING STATUS:

S2 - FOR INFORMATION

WSP House, 70 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1AF, UK T+ 44 (0) 207 314 5000, F+ 44 (0) 207 314 5111 wsp.com CLIENT:

EARLS COURT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY ARCHITECT:

HBSEW PROJECT:

EARLS COURT MASTERPLAN TITLE:

Proposed Staging

WEST CROMWELL ROAD / WARWICK ROAD IMPROVEMENTS TO PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLE CROSSING ARRANGEMENTS SCALE @ A3:

CHECKED:

1:250 PROJECT No:

70077004

APPROVED:

DESIGNED:

DRAWN:

DATE:

DRAWING No:

April 24 REV:

ECM-WSP-XX-XX-SK-TP-241 c WSP UK Ltd

P03

File name\\UK.WSPGROUP.COM\CENTRAL DATA\PROJECTS\70077XXX\70077004 - EARLS COURT MASTERPLAN 2020\03 WIP\TP TRANSPORT PLANNING\03 DRAWINGS\ECM-WSP-XX-XX-SK-TP-279.DWG , printed onWednesday, August 6, 2025 1:43:49, PM by Sharma, Binish

DO NOT SCALE

Existing Staging 1

Proposed Staging 4

DRAWING STATUS:

S2 - FOR INFORMATION

WSP House, 70 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1AF, UK T+ 44 (0) 207 314 5000, F+ 44 (0) 207 314 5111 wsp.com CLIENT:

EARLS COURT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY ARCHITECT:

HBSEW PROJECT:

EARLS COURT MASTERPLAN TITLE:

EARLS COURT ROAD - A3218 JUNCTION ARRANGEMENT SCALE @ A3:

CHECKED:

1:250 PROJECT No:

70077004

APPROVED:

DESIGNED:

DRAWN:

DATE:

DRAWING No:

January 25 REV:

ECM-WSP-XX-XX-SK-TP-279 c WSP UK Ltd

P03

DO NOT SCALE KEY:

File nameC:\DEV\WSP O365\UK ICRC DEVELOPMENT - 70077004 - EARLS COURT MASTERPLAN 2020\03 WIP\TP TRANSPORT PLANNING\03 DRAWINGS\ECM-WSP-XX-XX-SK-TP-287.DWG , printed on18 February 2025 12:13:19 PM , by Patel, Shekhar

Raised Table and High Friction Surfacing

DRAWING STATUS:

S2 - FOR INFORMATION

WSP House, 70 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1AF, UK T+ 44 (0) 207 314 5000, F+ 44 (0) 207 314 5111 wsp.com CLIENT:

EARLS COURT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY ARCHITECT:

HBSEW PROJECT:

EARLS COURT MASTERPLAN TITLE:

NORTH END ROAD / LILLIE ROAD JUNCTION IMPROVEMENT SCALE @ A3:

CHECKED:

NTS PROJECT No:

70077004

APPROVED:

DESIGNED:

DRAWN:

DATE:

DRAWING No:

February 25 REV:

ECM-WSP-XX-XX-SK-TP-287 c WSP UK Ltd

P01

DO NOT SCALE

File name\ UK.WSPGROUP.COM\CENTRAL DATA\PROJECTS\70077XXX\70077004 - EARLS COURT MASTERPLAN 2020\03 WIP\TP TRANSPORT PLANNING\03 DRAWINGS\ECM-WSP-XX-XX-SK-TP-319. , printed onWednesday, DWG August 6, 2025 12:06:52, PMbySharma, Binish

DRAWING STATUS:

S2 - FOR INFORMATION

WSP House, 70 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1AF, UK T+ 44 (0) 207 314 5000, F+ 44 (0) 207 314 5111 wsp.com CLIENT:

EARLS COURT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Proposed Staging

ARCHITECT:

HBSEW PROJECT:

EARLS COURT MASTERPLAN TITLE:

INDICATIVE NORTH END ROAD / BEAUMONT AVENUE MITIGATION WORKS SCALE @ A3:

CHECKED:

1:250 PROJECT No:

70077004

APPROVED:

DESIGNED:

DRAWN:

DATE:

DRAWING No:

REV:

ECM-WSP-XX-XX-SK-TP-319 Note: Crossing forms part of the North End Road traffic signals

May 25

c WSP UK Ltd

P02

Appendix L Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

WSP

Appendix L – Mitigation Junction Modelling

117

Appendix Junction Capacity Assessment Summary Tables August 2025

WSP Issue 01

1.0 Junction Capacity Assessment Summary Tables - Mitigation A4 West Cromwell Road/North End Road Table 1: A4 West Cromwell Road / North End Road Junction Modelling Results

AM Arm Description DoS (%)

PM MMQ (pcu)

Delay (s/pcu)

DoS (%)

MMQ (pcu)

Delay (s/pcu)

2041 All Phases J1: Talgarth Road / West Cromwell Road / North End Road North End Rd N - Ahead & Left

28.9%

3.4

45.7

39.0%

2.8

44.5

North End Rd N - Ahead

26.1%

3.3

44.6

35.4%

2.8

42.8

A4 WB - Ahead & Left

99.2%

36.2

92.4

86.2%

13.3

37.9

A4 WB - Ahead

89.8%

21.0

51.0

78.5%

10.9

30.8

A4 WB - Ahead

96.4%

31.7

73.6

84.3%

12.1

35.6

North End Rd S - Ahead & Left

101.1%

22.9

152.7

84.9%

8.0

72.7

North End Rd S - Ahead

59.3%

8.7

60.3

50.1%

3.4

42.2

A4 EB - Ahead & Left

64.2%

15.9

14.2

56.6%

9.4

9.0

A4 EB - Ahead

59.0%

14.8

12.8

51.8%

8.7

8.1

A4 EB - Ahead & Right

91.0 : 99.3%

20.5

40.1

61.1 : 84.6%

10.0

17.5

A4 EB Exit (Ped Crossing) - Ahead

48.2%

0.5

2.2

46.2%

0.6

2.4

A4 EB Exit (Ped Crossing) - Ahead

49.2%

0.6

2.1

48.4%

0.9

2.5

A4 EB Exit (Ped Crossing) - Ahead

48.7%

0.5

2.1

47.9%

0.7

2.4

A4 WB Exit (Ped Crossing) - Ahead

45.6%

0.4

2.1

40.8%

0.3

2.1

A4 WB Exit (Ped Crossing) - Ahead

48.9%

14.0

2.1

42.9%

6.0

2.0

Appendix Junction Capacity Assessment Summary Tables August 2025

WSP Issue 01

Table 1: A4 West Cromwell Road / North End Road Junction Modelling Results

AM Arm Description

DoS (%)

MMQ (pcu)

Delay (s/pcu)

DoS (%)

MMQ (pcu)

Delay (s/pcu)

A4 WB Exit (Ped Crossing) - Ahead

52.6%

21.1

2.4

46.1%

6.7

2.3

West Cromwell Road Exit Link Ahead

40.2%

0.3

1.6

35.9%

0.3

1.5

West Cromwell Road Exit Link Ahead

40.2%

13.3

2.0

35.9%

6.8

1.7

West Cromwell Road Exit Link Ahead

44.0%

13.3

2.0

40.4%

6.8

1.7

West Cromwell Road Ahead

43.6%

7.3

5.2

40.1%

5.9

West Cromwell Road Ahead

47.1%

6.9

4.8

44.3%

5.7

5.6

West Cromwell Road Ahead

43.8%

7.3

5.2

41.2%

5.9

West Cromwell Road Exit Link (Ped Crossing) Ahead

47.1%

29.4

7.5

44.3%

15.3

5.2

West Cromwell Road Exit Link (Ped Crossing) Ahead

72.6%

30.1

6.9

69.9%

16.3

5.1

North End Road NB Entry Right Ahead

39.1%

4.2

4.6

19.3%

1.0

2.5

North End Rd SB Entry Left Ahead

49.6%

5.7

3.1

47.0%

4.2

3.1

Beaumont Avenue Entry Left Right

26.1%

2.1

9.5

28.6%

1.2

7.4

North End Road Ped Crossing NB Ahead

23.2%

2.7

3.8

15.7%

1.6

4.3

North End Road Ped Crossing NB Ahead

16.6%

1.8

3.5

10.8%

1.0

4.1

J2: North End Road / Beaumont Avenue

Earls Court Road/Old Brompton Road Table 2: Earls Court Road / Old Brompton Road Junction Modelling Results

AM Arm Description

DoS (%)

MMQ (pcu)

Delay (s/pcu)

DoS (%)

MMQ (pcu)

Delay (s/pcu)

Earls Court Road Left Ahead

90.7%

21.8

44.9

85.2%

18.3

38.3

Earls Court Road Ahead Right

89.7%

20.5

44.4

84.0%

16.9

38.4

2031 Early Phases – 88s

Appendix Junction Capacity Assessment Summary Tables August 2025

WSP Issue 01

Table 2: Earls Court Road / Old Brompton Road Junction Modelling Results

AM Arm Description

DoS (%)

MMQ (pcu)

Delay (s/pcu)

DoS (%)

MMQ (pcu)

Delay (s/pcu)

Old Brompton Road – WB Left Ahead

87.5%

10.4

71.2

87.0%

10.8

67.5

Old Brompton Road – EB Ahead Right

75.9%

10.2

44.3

65.9%

7.4

39.7

Earls Court Road Left Ahead

92.1%

23.5

46.8

85.3%

18.3

38.5

Earls Court Road Ahead Right

91.3%

22.0

46.5

84.2%

17.2

38.6

Old Brompton Road – WB Left Ahead

87.0%

9.8

73.0

85.1%

10.2

64.0

Old Brompton Road – EB Ahead Right

87.2%

13.2

57.2

73.3%

8.9

43.9

Earls Court Road Left Ahead

84.8%

20.7

36.7

81.4%

18.5

35.7

Earls Court Road Ahead Right

83.5%

19.6

36.6

79.8%

17.2

35.6

Old Brompton Road – WB Left Ahead

84.2%

10.4

66.7

79.9%

10.2

57.4

Old Brompton Road – EB Ahead Right

77.9%

11.2

49.0

65.9%

8.5

42.0

Earls Court Road Left Ahead

80.1%

19.4

30.8

75.2%

16.6

30.6

Earls Court Road Ahead Right

78.7%

18.4

30.9

73.4%

15.5

30.7

Old Brompton Road – WB Left Ahead

78.1%

7.7

65.4

76.5%

8.7

57.6

Old Brompton Road – EB Ahead Right

75.1%

10.1

49.1

52.8%

6.2

38.8

2041 All Phases – 88s

2031 Early Phases – 96s

2041 All Phases – 96s

A4 West Cromwell Road/Warwick Road Table 3: A4 West Cromwell Road / Warwick Road Junction Modelling Results

AM Arm Description

DoS (%)

MMQ (pcu)

Delay (s/pcu)

DoS (%)

MMQ (pcu)

Delay (s/pcu)

18.4%

1.0

63.8

24.0%

1.7

59.5

2031 Early Phases Warwick Road N - Left

Appendix Junction Capacity Assessment Summary Tables August 2025

WSP Issue 01

Table 3: A4 West Cromwell Road / Warwick Road Junction Modelling Results

AM Arm Description

DoS (%)

MMQ (pcu)

Delay (s/pcu)

DoS (%)

MMQ (pcu)

Delay (s/pcu)

W Cromwell Road E - Ahead

41.9%

9.0

15.5

34.7%

7.0

14.0

W Cromwell Road E - Ahead

43.1%

9.9

15.5

36.0%

7.9

14.0

W Cromwell Road E - Ahead

43.1%

9.9

15.5

36.0%

7.9

14.0

W Cromwell Road E - Right

72.7%

5.2

90.3

67.0%

5.5

75.6

W Cromwell Road E - Right

74.5%

5.7

90.1

69.0%

6.1

75.5

W Cromwell Road E - Right

72.4%

5.1

90.0

66.7%

5.5

75.5

Warwick Road S - Left

37.0%

4.8

3.7

34.5%

4.3

3.5

Warwick Road S - Ahead

85.9%

19.0

60.2

86.4%

18.7

61.9

Warwick Road S - Ahead Right

84.9%

17.4

60.0

85.3%

17.3

61.8

W Cromwell Road W - Left Ahead

80.0%

23.3

34.5

79.3%

21.2

34.1

W Cromwell Road W - Ahead

78.4%

23.6

34.6

75.4%

21.5

34.4

W Cromwell Road W - Ahead

77.4%

21.5

34.5

74.3%

19.6

34.4

W Cromwell Rd W (Exit) Ahead

63.1%

12.1

8.5

55.2%

7.2

4.9

Warwick Road N - Left

20.8%

1.2

64.4

23.6%

1.6

59.4

W Cromwell Road E - Ahead

41.4%

8.8

14.9

35.1%

7.1

14.1

W Cromwell Road E - Ahead

42.6%

9.8

14.9

36.3%

7.9

14.0

W Cromwell Road E - Ahead

42.6%

9.8

14.9

36.3%

7.9

14.0

W Cromwell Road E - Right

68.6%

4.8

85.7

67.9%

5.7

76.4

W Cromwell Road E - Right

71.1%

5.3

86.1

69.9%

6.2

76.2

W Cromwell Road E - Right

68.8%

4.8

86.0

67.7%

5.6

76.2

Warwick Road S - Left

37.3%

4.8

3.7

34.6%

4.3

3.6

Warwick Road S - Ahead

89.1%

20.3

66.7

86.4%

18.7

61.9

Warwick Road S - Ahead Right

88.3%

18.6

66.7

85.3%

17.3

61.8

2041 All Phases

Appendix Junction Capacity Assessment Summary Tables August 2025

WSP Issue 01

Table 3: A4 West Cromwell Road / Warwick Road Junction Modelling Results

AM Arm Description

DoS (%)

MMQ (pcu)

Delay (s/pcu)

DoS (%)

MMQ (pcu)

Delay (s/pcu)

W Cromwell Road W - Left Ahead

82.0%

24.8

35.2

79.5%

21.3

34.3

W Cromwell Road W - Ahead

80.8%

25.1

35.3

75.8%

21.6

34.6

W Cromwell Road W - Ahead

79.9%

23.2

35.3

74.8%

19.8

34.6

W Cromwell Rd W (Exit) Ahead

63.7%

12.0

8.5

55.6%

7.4

5.0

North End Road/Lillie Road Junction Table 4: North End Road / Lillie Road Double Mini Roundabout Junction

AM Arm Description

Queue (PCU)

Delay (min)

RFC

Queue (PCU)

Delay (min)

RFC

Junction 1 - Lillie Road (East)

0.5

0.12

0.29

0.5

0.09

0.33

Junction 1 - to mini roundabout

0.13

0.48

0.09

0.36

Junction 1 - North End Road (North)

1.1

0.15

0.51

0.6

0.11

0.38

Junction 2 - North End Road (South)

0.5

0.12

0.30

0.5

0.11

0.30

Junction 2 - Lillie Road (West)

0.6

0.14

0.34

0.3

0.10

0.21

Junction 2 - to mini roundabout

0.0

0.10

0.37

0.0

0.09

0.39

Junction 1 - Lillie Road (East)

0.5

0.12

0.29

0.5

0.09

0.33

Junction 1 - to mini roundabout

0.0

0.16

0.59

0.0

0.10

0.38

Junction 1 - North End Road (North)

1.4

0.17

0.57

0.6

0.11

0.38

Junction 2 - North End Road (South)

0.6

0.12

0.36

0.5

0.11

0.32

Junction 2 - Lillie Road (West)

0.9

0.17

0.44

0.3

0.10

0.21

2031 Base Minus

2041 Base Minus

Appendix Junction Capacity Assessment Summary Tables August 2025

WSP Issue 01

Table 4: North End Road / Lillie Road Double Mini Roundabout Junction

AM Arm Description

Queue (PCU)

Delay (min)

RFC

Queue (PCU)

Delay (min)

RFC

0.0

0.10

0.38

0.0

0.09

0.39

Junction 1 - Lillie Road (East)

0.6

0.13

0.33

0.7

0.10

0.40

Junction 1 - to mini roundabout

0.0

0.15

0.55

0.0

0.10

0.41

Junction 1 - North End Road (North)

1.6

0.18

0.60

0.8

0.12

0.44

Junction 2 - North End Road (South)

0.6

0.12

0.36

0.5

0.11

0.34

Junction 2 - Lillie Road (West)

0.7

0.15

0.37

0.3

0.10

0.21

Junction 2 - to mini roundabout

0.0

0.10

0.40

0.0

0.09

0.43

Junction 1 - Lillie Road (East)

0.7

0.14

0.34

0.7

0.11

0.43

Junction 1 - to mini roundabout

0.0

0.21

0.70

0.0

0.11

0.46

Junction 1 - North End Road (North)

2.6

0.27

0.72

1.0

0.13

0.50

Junction 2 - North End Road (South)

1.0

0.14

0.46

0.6

0.12

0.38

Junction 2 - Lillie Road (West)

1.1

0.20

0.50

0.3

0.11

0.24

Junction 2 - to mini roundabout

0.0

0.11

0.44

0.0

0.10

0.46

Junction 2 - to mini roundabout 2031 Early Phases

2041 All Phases

Appendix M Transport Assessment Addendum August 2025

WSP

Appendix M – Monitor and Manage Technical Note

118

TECHNICAL NOTE DATE:

03 December 2024

CONFIDENTIALITY: Public

SUBJECT:

Earls Court Development: Transport Steering Group Terms of Reference

PROJECT:

UK-70077004

AUTHOR:

David Dixon

CHECKED:

Alex Smith

APPROVED:

Justin Sherlock

INTRODUCTION This Technical Note (TN) has been prepared to outline an initial Terms of Reference (ToR) for the Transport Steering Group (TSG) that is proposed to be formed as part of the implementation of the Earls Court Development. The ToR of the TSG will be to oversee the Monitor and Manage (M&M) approach to assessing the predicted vs actual background growth and impacts resulting from the final development land uses and associated mitigation required as detailed within the Transport Assessment (TA) that accompanies the planning applications for the Earls Court Development.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES The planning applications1 for the Earls Court Development seek consent for a range of different land uses with the majority of the Site in Outline (all matters reserved) and five Plots in Detail (no matters reserved). The Development Specification sets out a series of maximum land uses proposed across the various Development Zones that are identified on the Parameter Plans. Within the Development Specification and identified on the Parameter Plans are a series of Development Zones where more than one Predominant Use2 is identified. This is to allow flexibility for any one (or more) of those identified land uses to occupy the majority of the floorspace within the Development Zone. This flexible approach to the outline elements of the planning applications means that the final development quantum and mix of land uses that comes forwards is unknown at this stage. However, to ensure that the TA has assessed a worst-case scenario from a peak hour trip generation perspective an exercise was undertaken prior to commencement of the strategic transport modelling to identify the maximum development parameters. The transport network assessment and package of mitigation measures outlined within the TA therefore represent the maximum package of measures that would be required to mitigate the impacts of the Proposed Development. Indeed, at the Stations the package of improvement measures identified goes beyond just mitigating the impacts of the Proposed Development and it is assumed therefore that a proportionate contribution to the improvements is secured representing the cost of mitigating the impact of the Proposed Development only. This is to ensure that the Applicant is only responsible for mitigating the impacts of the Proposed Development as required by Regulation 1223.

Two Hybrid Planning Applications, one submitted to the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (‘LBHF’) (reference: 2024/01942/COMB) and one submitted to the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (‘RBKC’) (reference: PP/24/05187) 2 Land, or land uses, which occupy the largest amount of floor area within the Development Zone, either individually or cumulatively. 3 Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010

www.wsp.com 241203- EC - WSPT - TN68 - Monitor and Manage Approach

TECHNICAL NOTE The final transport impacts will not be known at this stage as they will depend upon the land use mix that is brought forwards. This means that any triggers that are identified for the purposes of controlling the implementation of mitigation measures secured within the planning consent will be based upon the maximum development parameters land use mix. However, these maximum development parameters were chosen to represent the worst-case trip generating potential of the land uses proposed within the planning applications and therefore a worst case scenario has been assessed. This point was most recently discussed at the post-application meeting held on the 20th November. A Technical Note detailing a comparison between the maximum development parameters and the planning application’s contents will be provided to the Transport Stakeholders in due course. A further consideration is the strategic transport modelling that has been used to inform the assessment of the transport network within the TA. The modelling that has been undertaken to inform the TA has considered the impact of the Proposed Development in the future years of 2031 (Early Phases scenario) and 2041 (All Phases scenario). These future forecast years have been developed and agreed with TfL. The modelling shows that a significant level of background growth is anticipated on the transport network prior to consideration of the Earls Court Development. It is unknown whether this level of growth will occur and therefore the results in the TA are considered to represent a worst-case assessment of the level of impact of the Proposed Development as it considers the impacts of the proposals in addition to background growth. The last few years has seen a significant period of uncertainty which only demonstrates why predicting with accuracy of how the transport network will operate in a series of future years, as required of the TA can be difficult. Reflecting on the flexible nature of the planning application, the worst-case assessment and identification of mitigation measures and the level of uncertainty inherently included by assessing the Proposed Development in a series of future forecast years it is proposed that a M&M approach to the implementation of transport mitigation is utilised. The objectives of this M&M approach would be: 

To monitor the transport impacts of the development and to understand what the transport impacts are that arise based upon the final land use mix implemented



To provide the ability to review the final trigger point/s at which contributions or obligations for mitigation secured through the planning consent are provided



To provide the ability for the final form of mitigation that is secured through the planning consent to be reviewed and where appropriate and in agreement with the local planning authorities and Transport for London (TfL) to vary the form of mitigation



To provide the ability for mitigation that is secured through the planning consent to not be implemented if it is identified through the monitoring programme outlined for the M&M approach that it is no longer needed; and



To enable cross-funding of mitigation across modes should transport impacts arising from the Proposed Development vary to those predicted within the TA.

Page 2

TECHNICAL NOTE TRANSPORT STEERING GROUP (TSG) To oversee the implementation of the M&M approach a TSG is proposed to be formed prior to commencement of the Development and is envisaged to be made up of as a minimum, one representative from the following: 

Applicant (ECPL)



TfL



London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (LBHF)



Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC)

The TSG may invite other specialists or organisations to attend the TSG meetings in order to assist with analysis of transport related topics or to assist with the TSG decision making process. The purpose of the TSG is to monitor the transport impacts of the Proposed Development and implementation of transport obligations outlined within the S106 agreement and ensure the objectives of the M&M approach are met. The Applicant will appoint a Transport Co-ordinator who will administer the TSG, commission all necessary monitoring, produce the necessary reports and act in the capacity of chair at meetings convened for the purpose of carrying out the TSG. The objectives of the TSG will be as follows: 

To agree the scope and method of monitoring of the transport impacts of background growth and the Proposed Development



To work collaboratively to ensure a co-ordinated approach to tackling transport issues arising from the Proposed Development and background growth



To review the outcomes of the monitoring process and recommendations made by the Applicant’s Transport Adviser; and



To agree the scope and trigger points for the implementation of the mitigation associated with the transport impacts of the Proposed Development with reference to any agreement reached within the S106.

The Transport Co-ordinator will be responsible for: 

Organising the date and venue of meetings of the TSG



Chairing and taking minutes at meetings of the TSG



Undertaking monitoring as set out in the monitoring process; and



Preparation of the Transport Strategy and Implementation Plan (TSIP) which forms the key deliverable as part of running the TSG.

The TSG should be formed at least three months prior to commencement of the main works associated with the Proposed Development (excluding infrastructure works - commencement is anticipated to be in Q1 2026) until full completion of the Earls Court Development. In any event the TSG would be formed post granting of planning consent and prior to commencement on-site to allow initial baseline monitoring to be Page 3

TECHNICAL NOTE undertaken. The current phasing assumes completion in 2043 at which point the final TSIP will be produced and submitted to the TSG for review and approval. The TSG will meet twice a year (unless less frequent meetings are agreed by the group) at a time and date reasonably convened by the Transport Co-ordinator with no less than 15 days’ notice. The first meeting will take place within three weeks of the establishment of the TSG. Participants in the TSG will be expected to attend all meetings and respond to all requests for feedback and comment (where reasonable). Failure to provide feedback within the timescales stipulated will be taken as having responded with no feedback. Therefore whilst decisions will be made by the TSG by consensus, if a party fails to attend a meeting (without giving prior notice) or provide feedback then their recommendation will not be considered. This is to ensure that the process of the TSG is not unduly frustrated or delayed. The Transport Co-ordinator will not take part in any decision making. In the event that agreement is not reached by all members, the Transport Co-ordinator will prepare a report setting out the views and recommendations of each member together with any recommended mitigation measures. This report can then be reviewed by an independent body and that body make a recommendation. The recommendation of that body will then be implemented.

MONITORING PROCESS The TSIP will be produced to set out the transport impacts of the Proposed Development at specific milestones during the delivery stage, which will be then used to inform the trigger points for implementation of mitigation moving forwards from that point. It is envisaged that the baseline position for triggers associated with specific mitigation measures will be outlined within the S106 agreement or in conditions. The TSIP will therefore provide flexibility in relation to the final trigger point agreed. The Proposed Development has been split down into eight broad phases and is outlined in the Indicative Phasing Strategy (Reference EC.PA.48) submitted with the planning applications. Figure 1 has been reproduced from the Indicative Phasing Strategy report.

Page 4

TECHNICAL NOTE

Figure 1: Indicative Phasing Strategy It is intended that monitoring surveys will be undertaken following completion of each phase of development. The exception to this would be if a monitoring survey has been undertaken and the results presented within a TSIP issued to the TSG within the previous 18 months. The currently assumed completion of each phase is as follows;        

Phase 1 – 2030 Phase 2 – 2031 Phase 3 – 2034 Phase 4 – 2037 Phase 5 – 2035 Phase 6 – 2038 Phase 7 – 2040 Phase 8 – 2043

The TSIP will monitor the transport conditions against the baseline survey and forecast impacts identified within the TA. Prior to commencement of the development a baseline data collection exercise would be undertaken to establish the baseline from which future monitoring can be reviewed against. The scope of the transport monitoring surveys will be agreed with the TSG prior to undertaking the initial baseline and subsequent surveys. However, it is envisaged that as a minimum the surveys would include: Page 5

TECHNICAL NOTE 

Weekday peak period (07:00-10:00 and 16:00-19:00) Manual Classified Turning Counts (MCCs) at key junctions surrounding the Site and access points to the Site including queue length surveys



Seven-day Automatic Traffic Counts (ATCs) on key links surrounding the Site



Peak hour station entry and exit counts at Earls Court, West Brompton and West Kensington Stations



Resident and Employee travel survey for occupied Plots on the Site (not applicable to baseline survey)



Parking occupancy survey of vehicle parking on the Site (not applicable to baseline survey) and offsite within a reasonable walking distance; and



Cycle parking occupancy survey of long and short-stay cycle parking on the Site (not applicable to baseline survey)

The outputs from the monitoring surveys will be analysed by the Transport Co-ordinator and reported within a TSIP. The TSIP will provide a summary of the progress of the build-out of the development and review of trigger points relevant to the transport mitigation package and a summary of transport conditions to include:        

Trip rates Trip generation Modal split Bus patronage (data provided by TfL) Accident data review (data provided by TfL) Car parking utilisation Cycle parking utilisation Vehicular demand

The TSIP will provide a summary of the transport obligations, whether they are relevant to that phase of development and make recommendations on whether the obligations should be implemented or revised. Some of the transport conditions, specifically relating to bus patronage and accident data will require information held by TfL. This information should be provided by TfL within one month of being requested. The final specification of the transport monitoring surveys and TSIP will be subject to review and agreement by the TSG prior to commission. Following completion of the transport monitoring a draft TSIP will be circulated to the TSG in advance of the next TSG meeting. Any TSG feedback should then be provided within four weeks of the meeting to allow revisions to be made and the document finalised. The findings and recommendations of the TSIP should then be implemented. To help understand the process a flow diagram has been prepared which is outlined in Figure 2.

Page 6

TECHNICAL NOTE Figure 2: TSIP Process

Trigger for preparation of TSG met

Scope of monitoring surveys prepared and issued to TSG for comment.

TSG review scope of monitoring surveys and provide feedback

Monitoring survey scope finalised by Transport Co-ordinator

Findings of TSIP implemented (if required)

Draft TSIP prepared by Transport Co-ordinator and issued to TSG

Transport surveys undertaken

TSIP discussed at TSG

TfL provide data required

TSIP finalised and issued

SECURING THE PROCESS It is envisaged that the TSIP and M&M approach will be secured by way of planning condition or through obligation within the S106 agreement, which will need to capture the flexible approach to transport mitigation measures - managed through the TSG The S106 will provide obligations on both the Applicant, LPAs and TfL in terms of their role and responsibilities with respect to the TSIP and M&M approach. The costs associated with running the TSG, attendance of the transport authorities at meetings, monitoring surveys and TSIP will be borne by the Applicant and secured by means of the S106 agreement. These costs will be discussed and agreed as part of post-application discussions.

Page 7

Justin Sherlock Technical Director Justin.sherlock@wsp.com

Thank you WSP EC.PA.13-A August 2025