THE ROYAL BOROUGH OF KENSINGTON AND CHELSEA

HIGHWAYS & TRAFFIC COMMITTEE - 13 JUNE 2000

REPORT BY THE DIRECTOR OF TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS

PRIORITY (RED) ROUTE - A3220 EARL’S COURT ONE-WAY SYSTEM REVIEW OF RED ROUTE CONTROLS

The A3220 Earl’s Court one-way system (ECOWS) forms part of the Priority (Red) Route Network. In August 1998 the Red Route no stopping and loading controls were introduced along this section by Experimental Traffic Management Orders. These Orders will expire on the 6 August 2000. As a result the Committee must now consider whether the provisions of the Experimental Orders should be made permanent. The Committee is to consider the objections received to making the Orders permanent. These are addressed in this report.

The Committee are not considering the principle of Red Routes. The question is whether in the light of their operation “on the ground” there is any reason, such as wholly unforeseen effects, why these particular Experimental Orders should not be made permanent.

This report also considers the decision that the Committee must make as to whether or not to hold a public inquiry in order to gain further information before making the Experimental Orders permanent. Some of the objectors have requested that a public inquiry be held.

This report also considers what amendments to the details of the controls should now be promoted in the light of monitoring that has taken place since their introduction.

Some of the objections raise issues which do not relate to the Experimental Orders including the principle of Red Routes and the procedures the Council has adopted to enable their introduction. Whilst these issues do not form part of the Committee’s decision on whether or not to make the Experimental Orders permanent, they are considered in this report so as to ensure that the Committee are aware of the issues raised.

(Holland, Abingdon, Earl’s Court, Redcliffe, North Stanley and South Stanley Wards)

FOR DECISION

1. BACKGROUND

1.1 The A3220 Earl’s Court one-way system forms part of the Priority (Red) Route network between Holland Park Roundabout and Battersea Bridge and was designated by the Secretary of State for Transport in 1992. In August 1998, red route no stopping and loading controls were introduced under Experimental Traffic Orders.

1.2 The Experimental Orders are part of several elements of the Red Route Local Plan which have been approved by the Traffic Director for London and relate specifically to the no stopping and loading restrictions along the Red Route. That is for instance the red lines and the marking out of parts of the road for residents’ parking or for loading bays. The Orders would normally remain in force for a maximum period of 18 months enabling the effectiveness of the restrictions to be reviewed and for any subsequent modifications to be made prior to making the Orders permanent.

1.3 In addition to the Experimental Orders, there are many other measures included in the Priority (Red) Route Local Plan yet to be implemented. These include new pedestrian facilities at signalised junctions, entry treatments and measures for cyclists and this report provides an update on the programme for implementing the remaining elements of the Local Plan.

2. THE EXPERIMENTAL TRAFFIC ORDERS

2.1 On 14 August 1998, Experimental Traffic Orders were made to enable the Red Route controls to be implemented. A notice confirming that the Orders had been made was published in the London Gazette and the Kensington and Chelsea Times and included a statement that the Council will be considering making the provisions of the Orders permanent after a review period of at least six months. Persons wishing to object to the proposal were instructed to send a statement of objection in writing to the Director of Transportation and Highways.

2.2 Copies of the Experimental Traffic Orders, the relevant plans, together with the statement of reasons for making the Orders and copies of existing Traffic Orders which were to be suspended as a result of the Experimental Orders were made available for public inspection at the Local Studies desk in the Central Library and the Planning Information Office in the Town Hall and in Chelsea Town Hall.

2.3 On 8 October 1998, just before the Red Route controls were to be implemented, the Council was forced to suspend the work by an interim injunction granted by the High Court against the Council and the Traffic Director for London following the commencement of proceedings by the Anti- Red Route Campaign (ARRC). The ARRC objected to the principle of making the Earl’s Court one-way system a Red Route and claimed that the Council had unlawfully made the Experimental Orders by failing to consider the principle of whether this section should be a Red Route.

2.4 At the full hearing of ARRC’s application on 31 March 1999, the application was rejected by the High Court with the key points being:

2 i. The Council would have acted illegally if it had not continued its involvement with the implementation of Red Routes.

ii. The Red Routes are not experimental, they were designated by the Secretary of State in 1992, but the use of Experimental Traffic Orders to introduce the controls is an appropriate mechanism to enable changes to be made if required.

2.5 The Red Route controls were subsequently implemented in Summer 1999 but as the Experimental Traffic Orders were suspended during the period of the High Court Injunction, the Orders are now due to expire on 6 August 2000.

3. CONSULTATION ON RED ROUTE CONTROLS

3.1 A consultation exercise was carried out with local residents and businesses in January 2000 as part of the review process for the Red Route controls put in place by these Orders. The consultation was not a statutory duty, but it was felt would be helpful to solicit comments and suggestions. The consultation document was designed to seek the views of the local community on the effectiveness of the controls and to identify any specific areas where there was a local consensus for changing a particular restriction. The consultation document was distributed to all frontagers along the A3220 Earl’s Court one- way system and invited local residents and businesses to suggest ways in which the Red Route controls could be modified to assist them.

3.2 The consultation document made clear that the Council was not empowered to remove the Earl’s Court one-way system from the Red Route network but could influence the types and details of the controls ultimately included. The document also explained that the consultation related only to the Red Route controls and not the other Red Route measures such as new crossings etc. which were yet to be implemented.

3.3 A total of 6793 consultation documents were delivered to the area of which 211 (3%) questionnaires were returned, containing a total of 322 separate comments. The majority of the comments received (179) related directly to the Red Route controls, however, there were also 143 comments on issues not related to the Red Route controls. A copy of the consultation documents and a breakdown of the responses are included in Appendix A.

3.4 In preparing the report, officers have sought to provide a fair analysis of the points raised in each response and set out the response to it. However a full copy of each representation and other correspondence together with, where appropriate, a full copy of the reply is in the Members’ room. Officers can also supply further full copies of these documents on request.

3.5 Comments have also been received from the police and the traffic wardens who enforce the restrictions. The majority of these relate to missing signs or incomplete road markings, which caused problems when enforcing specific restrictions.

3

4. REVIEW OF RED ROUTE CONTROLS

4.1 The Red Route controls have now been in place for 9 months and based on regular observation by both council officers and the consultant employed to manage the implementation of the scheme, the red line controls and the loading boxes are generally working well. Only minor changes will be required to address specific issues outside of individual frontagers, from those originally designed by the Council and approved by the Traffic Director for London. Officers have examined the effect of the controls by regularly visiting the route to observe traffic, operation of junctions, parking activities and loading and unloading. These visits were undertaken both during peak and off- peak periods on different days of the week. Traffic surveys have been carried out and a detailed analysis of personal injury accidents, which occurred since the loading and stopping restrictions became operational, is discussed later in the report.

4.2 Minor changes are to be expected as parking controls regularly need to be adapted to cope with changing circumstances. However, no fundamental or unforeseen problems have been identified with the operation of the controls and it is recommended the Experimental Orders should be made permanent. It must be noted that the Council will continue to monitor the new restrictions as it does throughout the remainder of the Borough and also to meet the requirements of the Road Traffic Act 1991.

Consideration of Objections relating to the working of the Controls introduced by the Experimental Orders.

4.3 The most popular comment relating to the actual Red Route controls were requests for relaxing the existing restrictions to provide more parking and loading facilities on the Red Route (40%). These requests were mainly raised by residents of Earl’s Court Road, Edith Grove, Holland Road and Redcliffe Gardens. Another request was for converting lengths of double red lines to single red which effectively enables residents to park in these areas at night when the single red no-stopping restrictions do not apply. This request mainly came from residents of Holland Road. The detailed issues are addressed in Appendix B.

4.4 The enforcement of the Red Route controls (which is carried out by the Police and their traffic warden service) was also repeatedly raised in the returned questionnaires. Many respondents felt that they were not being adequately enforced which is resulting in traffic congestion during peak periods. Whilst the Council has no direct control over the traffic warden service, Officers regularly report locations where motorists are persistently stopping illegally on the red route to the Metropolitan Police Traffic Wardens. The Wardens are then able to raise the level of enforcement in these areas if necessary. The locations highlighted by the consultation will be passed on to the Traffic Wardens for consideration.

4 4.5 During the Council’s review of this section of the Red Route, some comments have been made that the Red Route controls may increase or have increased the traffic flow on the A3220. However, the volume of traffic is controlled by the traffic signal timings, which have remained unchanged. Traffic flows at the junctions are also at capacity for peak periods and at many other times during the day. As a result there is little opportunity to allow more traffic to pass through the junctions.

4.6 Although the Red Route parking controls cannot lead to a significant increase in traffic volumes on the route, they could possibly give rise to more congestion. For example, if the controls permitted parking too near a major junction it could reduce the amount of traffic which is able to pass through the junction and thereby increase congestion and pollution. The monitoring of traffic flows along the A3220 before and after the controls were implemented does not indicate any significant change in traffic volumes has occurred, although there are the usual fluctuation in traffic flows. From the observations by officers and consultants, no additional congestion has been caused by the location of bays or the no stopping restrictions. In addition, no complaints have been received that specific restrictions have caused congestion. Appendix C shows comparable traffic counts at 6 sites on the A3220. As can be seen, there has been no significant variation in flows in any of the 3 years, with or without the red lane controls. Some respondents have suggested that the number of goods vehicles using the A3220 has increased significantly since the red line controls were introduced. Appendix C shows surveys at 6 sites, which again shows there has been little variation in the number of goods vehicles.

4.7 The surveys have been compared with other surveys carried out elsewhere in the Borough and they were found to be consistent.

4.8 The Council will continue to monitor traffic flows and supply the information to the Traffic Director to enable him to comply with his general duty to monitor the operation of the measures.

4.9 Personal injury accident information is supplied by the London Research Centre using information collected by the Police. The most recent personal accident data is available until 31 December 1999 which is 4 months after the implementation of the new restrictions.

4.10 As outlined earlier, the no stopping and loading restrictions are only one element of the Red Route Local Plan and are not primarily designed as an element which will reduce casualties. However, each of the 50 personal injury accidents, which have occurred from 1 September 1999 to December 31 1999 has been individually checked on site. There is no evidence that the new restrictions were a factor in any personal injury accident on the route since the new stopping and loading restrictions were introduced.

4.11 In addition, officers have received no complaints from motorists that the position of the new restrictions have resulted in any “damage only” accidents.

5

4.12 It must be noted that several residents contacted the Council informing officers that they had been told by the police that the number of accidents on the ECOWS had increased since the introduction of the red lines. This was found not to be the case as the police officer in question was new to the area and was not making a comparison but commented that the police may prosecute more drivers who had accidents in 1999/2000 than in previous years. The dates and basis for the prosecution have no relationship with the date the red route lines were introduced.

4.13 Under the provisions of the Road Traffic Act 1991, the Traffic Director for London also has a general duty to monitor the Priority (Red) Routes. However, the Traffic Director’s Red Route Traffic and Retail Monitoring considers conditions on the 512 mile Red Route Network as a whole rather than in localised areas on the network. In his fifth annual traffic monitoring survey the Traffic Director reports that journey times are shorter and the reliability of all journeys on Red Routes has improved by around 12% since the implementation of the network began in 1994. He also reports that there been no increase in traffic following the introduction of Red Routes. The retail monitoring survey shows that shoppers find shopping centres more attractive following introduction of the Red Route measures.

4.14 However, while the Traffic Director’s annual monitoring framework may be statistically sound at the Network level it is not designed to be robust at the individual Route level. As only one element of the A3220 Local Plan has been implemented, the Traffic Director’s monitoring regime will only become relevant when more of the major elements including modifications to the junction and traffic signal timing have been implemented. This report will be forwarded to the Traffic Director as evidence of the Council’s monitoring of the parking, loading and stopping traffic orders.

5. SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS TO BE MADE TO THE CONTROLS IN THE LIGHT OF THE OBJECTIONS

5.1 The responses to the questionnaire and other comments received fall into 2 categories:

(i) Suggested amendments to the positioning of loading boxes or that restrictions are too severe.

Appendix B details the comments received and locations where practical amendments are recommended. The appendix also responds to suggestions where it is not suggested changes are made or where further investigation is required. All approved amendments will be advertised separately from the Experimental Orders, with the outcome reported to the Committee later in the year. These matters are dealt with in more detail in section 7.

6 (ii) Points raised in the Objections which are not relevant to the Decision whether or not to make the Experimental Orders Permanent.

Many of the objections raised points which are not relevant to the decision to be taken as to whether to make the particular controls introduced by the Experimental Orders permanent. However many of the objections raised detailed points which have been considered by officers.

The objections, some of which have been received from ARRC, reiterate many of the objections to the principle of Red Routes, which were received, considered and rejected as part of the High Court judgement.

As discussed earlier, the Experimental Orders are only one element of the Red Route Local Plan and the majority of the works are yet to be implemented. Only then can the effects of the Local Plan be considered in its entirety and be monitored by the Traffic Director (soon to become part of Transport for London) for consistency with other parts of his Red Route Network.

The Earl’s Court one way system became part of the London wide Red Route Network in 1992 through primary and secondary legislation. There is no local power or opportunity to remove it from the network. The principles of the Government’s Traffic Management and Parking Guidance, which have been given to the Borough by the Traffic Director in the revision to his Network Plan, have been adhered to by the Council as appropriate. In addition, changes can be made to schemes to address new guidance or initiative from Central Government as they are published.

Many of the objections were detailed and Appendix D to this report seeks to set out the points raised with a response from officers in each case. As indicated in paragraph 3.4 above, a bundle of full copies of each of these objections and where appropriate replies are in the Members’ room and a further set can be made available. Although the points raised are not relevant to the decision to make the experimental controls permanent, it is considered appropriate to bring them to the attention of the Committee so that members are aware of the issues raised.

6. PUBLIC INQUIRY

6.1 Under the regulations the Council has a choice as to whether or not to hold a public inquiry before deciding to make the Experimental Orders permanent. However, the decision would remain with the Council and the purpose of holding an inquiry would be to allow the Council to gather information about

7 the workings of the controls. In this instance the Council is not having to predict what the effects of a traffic scheme will be since it has 9 months experience of the working of the controls “on the ground”.

6.2 The holding of a public inquiry for a traffic scheme is very unusual. One of the few exceptions to this was when the London wide overnight and weekend HGV ban was to be introduced and an inquiry was held as the outcome of such an unusual and large scheme could not be fully and accurately predicted.

6.3 The new Red Route waiting and loading restrictions which have been introduced along the A3220 were similar to those yellow line restrictions which have operated for many years. In fact the concept of the provision of loading boxes with severe parking and loading restrictions in between was pioneered on the Earl’s Court Road (A3220) in the early 90s by the Royal Borough. This concept was used by the Traffic Director for London when developing his Network Plan. As a result the effects of the change from yellow to red lines and the addition of more loading boxes are very much as predicted by officers. In addition the working of the controls which are to be made permanent have been monitored on the ground. Therefore it is considered that little further information would be gained from holding a public inquiry and that there is already sufficient information to allow the Committee to make the relevant decisions.

7. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE RED ROUTE CONTROLS

7.1 As set out in paragraph 5.1 above, the objections did raise suggestions as to how the current controls could be improved. In considering what changes are needed to the existing controls, officers have carefully assessed each of the requests made during the consultation period and have reviewed the correspondence received since 1998 when the Experimental Orders were originally made. Suggestions from the Metropolitan Police Traffic Wardens have also been incorporated.

7.2 It is important to note that the Red Route controls have not had a detrimental effect on traffic and road safety along the A3220 corridor, as explained in the previous section of this report. The changes to the controls suggested by residents and businesses are intended to assist individual frontagers who may be experiencing difficulties or unnecessary inconvenience in localised areas.

7.3 All suggestions to modify the Red Route controls received in response to the consultation, are listed in Appendix B in one of 3 categories; (i) suggestions which are feasible and are recommended to be implemented subject to there being no objections from the statutory consultees, (ii) suggestions which are not feasible and cannot be progressed and (iii) suggestions which will require further investigation to fully assess before reporting back to the Committee.

7.4 It is therefore recommended that the proposals listed in Appendix B (i) are now discussed with Transport for London, who will be the Highway and

8 Traffic Authority for the Earl’s Court one-way system after 3 July, and with the statutory consultees to seek their views on the requests being made.

7.5 If there are no objections to the requests listed in Appendix B (i), a variation to the Local Plan would need to be prepared to reflect the changes to the controls and subject to approval by the Traffic Director, the Traffic Orders will then be advertised and, if no objections are received, the proposals will be implemented.

8. OTHER PROPOSALS

8.1 The Eardley Crescent Residents’ Association have held discussions with Officers on an environmental improvement proposal for Eardley Crescent at the junction with Warwick Road. The proposal comprises widening the east footway near the junction with Warwick Road, and high quality footway paving. The proposals would serve to enhance the four existing ‘BT K6’ design telephone kiosks in the footway which the local residents campaigned to retain at this location. The Director of Planning and Conservation has been consulted on the proposals and has no objections. As the proposal is partly within the Red Route corridor on Warwick Road, it is subject to approval by the Traffic Director who has raised no objections to the scheme. The proposals for the environmental improvement of Eardley Crescent, which is supported by the Residents’ Association, is shown on drawing number PCL/245/0030/01 which will be on display in the Committee Room on the day of the meeting.

9. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TRAFFIC MEASURES

9.1 In addition to the red route controls, several improvements have been agreed by the Committee and the Traffic Director for London along the red route including pedestrian and cycle facilities, and changes to traffic signal junctions. The measures are listed in Appendix E of this report.

9.2 Following a recenmt review of the full Local Plan traffic measures by officers and the Traffic Director, two modifications are proposed to those schemes previously agreed by the Committee;

(a) Redcliffe Square against the flow cycle lane. The proposal to make Redcliffe Square one-way and to provide an against the flow cycle lane is to be deleted as this would lead to increased traffic movement in the area. The cycle route will be retained but without the cycle lane marking. The revised scheme is shown on drawing PCL/245C/002/201 which will be displayed at the Committee meeting.

(b) Toucan crossing on West Cromwell Road by Cromwell Crescent. The previously agreed proposal to provide a toucan crossing in close proximity to the existing pelican crossing on West Cromwell Road by Cromwell Crescent is to be deleted. It will be replaced with a simplified arrangement where, cyclists are able to use the existing pelican crossing facility, and an entry treatment is to be constructed in Cromwell Crescent (entry arm) to provide a convenient

9 crossing point for cyclists and pedestrians on route to the pelican crossing. The revised scheme is shown on plan number PCL/245C/002/401B which will be displayed at the Committee meeting.

9.3 Last year the Committee agreed to appoint Carrillion as the contractor to implement the traffic measures subject to funding being authorised by the Traffic Director. Officers have recently received confirmation that funding is available and work on those traffic schemes listed in Appendix E is now programmed to commence in July and continue for a period of 9 months.

10. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

10.1 The reasonable costs of making the Experimental Traffic Orders for the A3220 Priority (Red) Route Controls permanent will be recovered from the Traffic Director for London.

10.2 The costs of the preparation of the detailed design for the amendments to the Red Route controls would be recovered from the Traffic Director for London.

10.3 The costs for the improvements in Eardley Crescent is estimated at £15,000 and it is proposed that this be met from Traffic Management Capital Budget.

11. CONCLUSIONS

11.1 The Council has extensively consulted frontagers on this high profile project, however, the response to the consultation resulted in a very small response.

11.2 The Priority (Red) Route controls implemented along the A3220 are observed to be working well, though certain local changes to the controls are required to address local issues as listed in Appendix B(i). However, the parking and loading measures are only one element of the Red Route scheme and many of the new pedestrian facilities are yet to be completed.

11.3 The Council has the power to hold a public inquiry before proceeding with the proposal to make the Experimental Traffic Orders permanent. However, as there are no significant issues arising from the experimental period of operation or relating to the Orders which cannot be addressed by minor amendments to the controls, or any areas where large amounts of further information are needed, it is felt that a public inquiry would not serve any useful purpose.

11.4 The objections must be considered by the Committee, however they are not felt to raise any reasons why the Experimental Traffic Orders should not be made permanent.

11.5 It is proposed that the Council make Traffic Management Orders to make permanent the provisions of the existing Red Route Experimental Traffic Orders. The proposed minor amendments will be advertised separately following formal agreement with the TDfL and subject to public consultation.

10

12. RECOMMENDATION

12.1 The Highways & Traffic Committee is RECOMMENDED to :-

a) Not to hold a public inquiry prior to making the Traffic Orders permanent as the issues raised in the objections have been addressed by the Council.

b) Resolve that none of the objections raise matters which mean that the existing Experimental Traffic Orders should not be made permanent.

c) Make Traffic Orders under the provisions of Section 6 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to continue in force indefinitely the provisions of the Experimental Traffic Orders for the Red Route controls along the A3220 Earl’s Court one-way system between Holland Road roundabout and Battersea Bridge (after compliance with all statutory and other requirements).

d) Approve the amendments to the Red Route controls along the A3220 as listed in Appendix B(i) and to instruct officers to consult on these amendments prior to their implementation.

e) Approve the proposal and funding for the environmental improvements in Eardley Crescent as shown on drawing number PCL/245/0030/01 for implementation in the current financial year, subject to co- ordination with the other works on the Red Route.

f) Approve the proposed changes to the Local Plan, (as referred to in Section 9) for Redcliffe Square and West Cromwell Road/ Cromwell Crescent as shown in drawings PCL/245C/002/201 and PCL/245C/002/401B.

FOR DECISION

Craig Wilson Michael Stroud Director of Transportation Executive Director and Highways Environmental Services

Attachments: Appendix A - Summary of consultation results Appendix B - List of requests for modifications to the red route controls (3 parts) Appendix C - Traffic Flows in past 3 years Appendix D - Objections to the red route Appendix E - List of measures agreed by Committee to be implemented

11 Background Papers Use in the Preparation of this Report:

H&T Committee report 8 September 1998

Contact Officer: Any person wishing to inspect any of the above documents should contact Mahmood Siddiqi, Transportation & Highways Department, Kensington Town Hall, Hornton Street, W8 7NX on Tel: 020 7361 3589.

12 APPENDIX A

Priority (Red) Route :Section R26.1 A3220 Earl's Court one-way system

Summary of Consultation Results

Total consultation documents delivered 6793

Total questionnaires received 211

Total comments received 322

Breakdown of comments Comments on red route controls

Issues on loading bays 74 Requests for more loading bays (51) Relocate loading bays (6) Convert loading bays to residents parking bays (2) Remove/shorten loading bays (10) Issues relating to bay markings (5) Issues on red line restrictions 53 Convert double red lines to single red lines for night time parking (32) Reduce red line restrictions (14) More restrictive controls to remove obstructive parking (6) Issues relating to line marking (1) Improve enforcement on red lines 22 Relax operational times 12 Generally opposed to controls 12 Red route signing issues 5 In favour of the controls 1 Total 179

Comments on other non-red route control issues

Need more resident's parking bays 31 Request for traffic calming 24 Improved pedestrian crossing facilities 20 Congestion problems 11 Need more visitor parking bays 9 Request for ban on lorries in area 6 Request for traffic lights at junction 6 Improve bus services 4 Need facilities for cyclists 4 Concerns about traffic pollution and environment 5 Request for making roads one-way to ease traffic movement 2 Other 21 Total 143

Total comments received 322

13 Priority (Red) Route - Section R26.1: Earl’s Court one-way system List of requests for modifications to the red route controls

Part (i) : Proposed changes to red route controls (subject to statutory consultation)

Street Location Respondent’s request Officer’s recommendations / comments Addison Crescent Outside No. 14A Reduce double red lines. Replace 10m of double red line with single red line operating 8am to 7pm Monday to Friday, to increase overnight parking provision.

Cheyne Walk Outside Nos. 113-121 Extend length of loading bay and increase 20 Extend loading bay by 6m westwards to increase loading provision in the area without minutes maximum limit. any adverse effects. However the Traffic Director for London does not approve of extending the loading time.

Earl's Court Road Outside Nos. 160-164 Extend or relocate existing bay towards 160. Extend loading bay by 15m northwards to increase loading provision in the area without any adverse effects on traffic.

Edith Grove By Edith Terrace Shorten red route loading bay and reinstate hatch Shorten loading bay by 2m and reinstate white hatch markings to discourage vehicles markings to protect traffic leaving Edith Terrace and parking close to the junction in the interest of road safety. to improve visibility.

Outside Nos. 47- 53, next to Relocate loading bay on the opposite side to avoid Relocate loading bay from outside Nos.47-53 Edith Grove to outside Nos.30-36 to Bus Stop traffic congestion. improve traffic flow whilst retaining loading provision in the area.

Between Edith Terrace and Reduce double red lines. Above loading bay is proposed to replace this double red line King’s Road, west side

Outside Nos. 47- 53, next to Remove this bay as it is dangerous for cyclists Above proposal to relocate loading bay outside Nos. 47-53 Edith Grove will improve Bus Stop having to pull out. This is used as a parking bay traffic flow and road safety whilst retaining loading provision in the area rather than a loading area. Finborough Road South of Fulham Road Increase loading/disabled bay to 3 vehicle spaces Extend loading bay by 5m southwards to improve loading provision replacing double red lines.

14 Street Location Respondent’s request Officer’s recommendations / comments Fulham Road. St Mary's Priory Church Either remove red lines or provide parking bay for The proposal was previously reported to Highways and Traffic Committee, but not (Servite Church). funeral and wedding services etc. approved by TDfL because of proposed alterations to the junction of Fulham Road and Redcliffe Gardens. Replace 5m of double red lines with single red line operating 8am to 7pm Monday to Friday, to provide night time parking. Part (i) : Proposed changes to red route controls (cont.) Gunter Grove. Between King’s Road and Provide a short term loading bay. Provide 10m inter-peak loading bay ‘no stopping 8am to 7pm Monday to Friday, No. 36. except for loading between 10am-4pm, 20 minutes maximum stay’, outside Nos.36- 38 to increase loading provision in the area.

Holland Road. Outside Bristol cars Ltd. Extend loading bay towards car park entrance. Relocate loading bays on both sides 8m northwards to incorporate new pedestrian By Kensington High Street. crossing facility across Holland Road 10m from the junction.

Old Brompton Road. Near Nos. 221-223. Reduce double red lines and provide a short term Provide 10m loading bay 'no stopping at any time except for loading 20minutes loading bay. maximum stay' outside Nos. 219-221 to improve loading provision in the area.

Pembroke Road. Outside No. 44 Reduce double red lines. Replace 12m of double red lines with single red lines operating 8am to 7pm Monday to Friday, from boundary wall of Nos. 42/44 westwards to improve night time parking.

Redcliffe Gardens. Outside Colherne Court Remove single red line. Replace 5m of single red line with residents parking bay to improve parking provision (block A). in the area.

Junction with Cathcart Road. Shorten single red line. Relocate two loading bays outside Nos. 39 & 42, 5m & 3m respectively and extend resident parking bays up to the loading bays to improve parking provision.

Outside No. 86. Provide double red lines to avoid parking in front of Replace 10m of single red line with double red lines to maintain access at any time. access.

Junction with Redcliffe Street. Either remove or shorten bay to improve safety at The proposed entry treatment and associated junction alignment would improve this junction. motorist and pedestrian sight-lines at this location.

Outside No. 11. Provide short term loading bay. Provide 10m inter-peak loading bay ‘no stopping 8am to 7pm Monday to Friday, except for loading between 10am-4pm, 20 minutes maximum stay’, outside Nos. 9-11 to increase loading provision in the area.

15 Street Location Respondent’s request Officer’s recommendations / comments Tadema Road. Outside No. 493B King’s Move loading bay 6m towards King’s Road to create Relocate loading bay 5m to the north and extend residents bay to end of loading bay Road. one extra resident parking space. to increase residents parking provision.

Warwick Road. Outside Bromptons, by Old Provide short term loading bay by the triangle as Provide 10m loading bay 'no stopping at any time except loading 20minutes Brompton Road. existing bay is across four lanes of traffic. maximum stay' to improve loading provision in the area.

Part (i) : Proposed changes to red route controls (cont.) Warwick Road By Old Brompton Road, west Reduce double red lines which are unnecessary Replace 15m of double red lines with single red line operating 8am to 7pm Monday to continued . side. beyond the Brompton's Pub. Friday, from outside No. 1 to 5 Warwick road to improve night time parking.

Part (ii): Other proposals investigated but not recommended for implementation

Street Location Respondent’s request Reason for not recommending respondent’s request Addison Crescent. Junction with Addison Provide a short term loading bay. Would result in loss of capacity at the junction and increase congestion. Crescent south and Holland Road. Ashburnham Road. Outside Cornwall Mansions. Relocate loading bay outside Cornwall Mansions to Would reduce visibility at Court access. east of Coningham Court.

Outside Coningham Court. Move loading bay from right hand side of The existing location of the loading bay does not cause safety problems as Coningham Court to north end of Asburnham Ashburnham Road is one-way northbound. Mansions to allow safer access to Coningham Court.

Beaufort Street. Outside No. 91 Cheyne Walk. Provide a short term loading bay. Would result in loss of capacity at the junction and increase congestion and safety implications. Cheyne Walk Blantyre Road and Munro Make operational times of the red route controls Would result in long term parking on the red route on Saturdays as residents parking Terrace. from Monday to Friday. times extend to Saturdays. The red route controls south of Old Brompton Road will be extended to Saturdays subject to public and statutory consultation.

16 Street Location Respondent’s request Reason for not recommending respondent’s request Between Blantyre Street and Reduce double red lines for night time parking. Insufficient road width available. Would impede traffic flows. Riley Street.

Between Lots Road and Reduce double red lines for night time parking. Insufficient road width available. Would impede traffic flows. Blantyre Street.

Part (ii): Other proposals investigated but not recommended for implementation (cont.) Cremorne Road Outside No. 7. Provide new loading bay/reduce double red lines for Insufficient road width available. Would impede traffic flows. night time parking.

Entire road. Relax operational times to 6pm The operational times of the Red Route have been standardised across London and the Traffic Director for London will not change them.

Earl's Court Road Entire road. Allow parking only on one side of the road to Would reduce the amount of parking provision to local residents and businesses. improve traffic flow.

Between Cromwell Road and Provide short term loading bay Insufficient road width available. Would impede traffic flows. Lexham Gardens.

Between Longridge Road and Remove loading bay to improve traffic flow The existing loading bay operates satisfactorily. If removed, it would reduce loading Nevern Place. provisions to local residents and businesses.

Outside No.104. Provide short term loading bay Insufficient width available and road visibility would be reduced at junction.

Outside Nos. 132-136 to Provide short term loading bay Would result in loss of capacity at the junction. junction with Cromwell Road.

Entire road. Review operational times and allow stopping during Would increase traffic congestion. peak times for the businesses around this area. Edith Grove Junction with Fulham Road. Increase double red lines to restrict parking 15m The existing double red lines currently operate satisfactorily and the proposal would south of the junction as it is dangerous. reduce overnight parking provision.

Outside No. 415 Fulham Replace loading bay with residents parking bay Would reduce loading provision for the local businesses and visitors. Road.

17 Street Location Respondent’s request Reason for not recommending respondent’s request Between King’s Road and Provide all day loading bays Would result in reduction in residents parking provision. Cremorne Road.

Near Nos. 1-3. Extend loading bay Would impede traffic movement.

Finborough Road By Fulham Road. Provide additional short term loading bays. Existing loading bay operates satisfactorily.

Part (ii): Other proposals investigated but not recommended for implementation (cont.) Finborough Road Outside No. 58. Provide a short term loading bay. Insufficient road width available. Would impede traffic flows. continued. Outside Nos. 8-12. Reduce double red lines. Reduce existing double red line and extend resident bay up to bus stop cage outside No. 06 to improve resident parking provision in the area.

Opposite Princess Beatrice Allow night time parking in off-peak loading bay. The Red Route signing regulations do not have provision for night time parking in off- House. peak loading bays. ‘At any time’ restrictions necessary at the junction.

Junction with Ifield Road. Reduce double red lines. Proposed alterations to the junction particularly the toucan crossings preclude this proposal.

Fulham Road Outside No. 292. Provide a short term loading bay. Proposed alterations to the junction of Fulham Road and Finborough Road particularly the extension to the central refuge preclude this proposal Outside Nos. 421-435 & Reduce double red lines for night time parking. Insufficient width available particularly with proposed modifications to the junction Nos. 409-415. with Edith Grove. Would result in loss of capacity at the junction.

Gunter Grove By Fulham Road. Remove loading bay and introduce more resident Would reduce loading provisions for the local residents and businesses in the area. parking bays. By King’s Road. Reduce double red lines. Proposed alterations to the junction with King’s Road particularly the pedestrian crossing in Gunter Grove preclude this proposal.

Holland Road Entire road. Make red route bays different colour so that resident The signing and road marking must be in accordance with the Statutory Regulations bays can be clearly identified. to be enforceable.

Outside Nos. 140 and 154. Extend loading bay and reduce double red lines. The proposal to extend the bus stop cage outside No. 140 in accordance to the New London Transport Guidelines precludes the proposal.

18 Street Location Respondent’s request Reason for not recommending respondent’s request Outside St John's Church. Make existing loading bay to a all day loading bay. The proposal would increase traffic congestion during peak times.

Between Upper Addison Reduce double red lines. The proposal would result in loss of capacity at the junction with Lower Addison Gardens and Gardens. Addison Crescent.

Part (ii): Other proposals investigated but not recommended for implementation (cont.)

Pembroke Road. Between Warwick Gardens Remove loading bay to improve traffic flow. The loading bay outside Marlborough Court currently operate satisfactorily without and Earl's Court Road. any adverse effects to traffic flow.

Outside Nos. 33-33A Reduce double red lines. The proposal would result in loss of capacity at the junction.

Entire road. Reduce double red lines for night time parking. The proposal would result in loss of capacity at the junctions.

Redcliffe Gardens. Junction with Redcliffe Remove single red line. Road safety would be compromised by parking at the junction. Square. Junction with Tregunter Road. Remove single red line beyond zebra crossing. Road safety would be compromised by parking at the junction.

Outside Colherne Court Provide a short term loading bay. Difficult to The existing Disabled bays and Doctor's bay are in use. A new loading bay would be (block D). load/unload because of the disabled/doctor’s bays. at the expense of residents parking.

Between Cathcart Road and Remove loading bays. The proposal would reduce loading provision in the area. Tregunter Road. Warwick Gardens Entire road. Reduce double red lines for night time parking. The main stretch of double red line are at the junction with Pembroke Road and reducing this would result in loss of capacity at the junction. Outside No. 135. Replace double red lines on the existing bus lay-by New design standards for bus stops arising from the Disability Discrimination Act with single red line. 1995 preclude this proposal.

Outside Nos. 13-22 Nevern Change double red lines to loading bays 10mins Insufficient width available which would increase traffic congestion. Mansions, 42 and stay. Outside Nos. 23-32, 44 Outside Nos. 45-49. Provide a short term loading bay. Insufficient width available and poor sight line at the bend.

19 Street Location Respondent’s request Reason for not recommending respondent’s request Opposite Nevern Square Remove loading bay to restrict vehicles parking to The existing bay operates satisfactorily and the proposal would reduce parking (south-arm) avoid traffic congestion. provision in the area.

By Cromwell Road Remove double red lines. Road safety would be compromised by parking at the junction. Outside No. 16. Provide a short term loading bay (day/night) as Insufficient road width available which would increase traffic congestion on approach goods/donations are regularly delivered to property. to the nearby signal controlled junction.

Part (ii): Other proposals investigated but not recommended for implementation (cont.) Warwick Gardens Between No. 1 Philbeach Reduce double red lines for night time parking. Would result in traffic congestion during events at the Exhibition Centre. continued. Gardens to Exhibition Centre.

Part (iii): Suggestions to be investigated further

Street Location Respondent’s request Comments Earl's Court Road South east arm of Earl's Court Extend loading bay lay-by and strengthen Requested by Earl's Court Square residents' association. Square underground cellars if necessary.

Nevern Square, By Warwick Road Reinstate motorcycle bay. south arm

20 APPENDIX D

This appendix, which will be a very detailed document containing queries and objections raised and Officer’s responses, is currently being compiled for circulation with the final reports.

21 APPENDIX E

Priority (Red) Route :Section R26.1 A3220 Earl's Court one-way system Measures agreed by Committee to be implemented

Signal improvement schemes

Location Design Proposals

Old Brompton Road / Earl’s Court Road / • reconstruction of triangular island in Earl’s Court Road and kerb extensions to Redcliffe Gardens junction. north-east corner of the junction. • introduction of advance cycle stop lines in Old Brompton Road either side of the junction. • provide tactile paving. Old Brompton Road / Warwick Road / • kerb extensions to north-east corner of the junction. Finborough Road junction. • realign traffic lane markings. • provide tactile paving. Fulham Road / Redcliffe Gardens / Edith • kerb extensions to south-east corner of the junction. Grove junction. • reconstruction of traffic islands and introduction of advance cycle stop lines in Fulham Road either side of the junction. • provide tactile paving. Fulham Road / Finborough Road / Gunter • introduction of two stage staggered pedestrian crossing across Fulham Road on Grove junction. the east side of the junction. • introduction of advance cycle stop lines in Fulham Road either side of the junction. • provide tactile paving. King’s Road / Gunter Grove junction. • introduction of a pedestrian crossing across Gunter Grove 10m north of the junction and associated kerb extensions on the north-west corner. • introduction of advance cycle stop lines in King’s Road either side of the junction and in Gunter Grove. Penywern Road / Warwick Road junction. • kerb extensions to south-east corner of the junction. • provide tactile paving. • yellow box junction added following discussions with Traffic Director

Ifield Road / Finborough Road junction. • conversion of zebra crossing to toucan crossing and associated kerb extensions at south-west corner of Finborough Road junction with Redcliffe Square. Kensington High Street / Holland Road • introduction of pedestrian crossing across Holland Road 10m north of the junction junction and associated carriageway width restrictions. • relocation of central traffic islands in Warwick Road.

Addison Crescent / Holland Road junction. • conversion of zebra crossing across northbound section of road to a pelican crossing. • conversion of zebra crossing across southbound section of road to a toucan crossing and associated kerb extensions across Addison Crescent. • introduction of a zebra crossing on right turn slip road from Holland Road into Addison Crescent. Kensington High Street / Addison Road • introduction of traffic signals with pedestrian facilities on slip road from Kensington junction. High Street into Warwick Gardens.

Measures agreed by Committee to be implemented (cont.) Cycle facility schemes

Location Design Proposals

Redcliffe Square • conversion of zebra crossing to toucan crossing and associated kerb extensions between Redcliffe Gardens and and side entry treatments in Redcliffe Gardens junction with Redcliffe Square Finborough Road • conversion of zebra crossing to toucan crossing and associated kerb extensions at south-west corner of Finborough Road junction with Redcliffe Square. • introduction of one-way working with contra-flow cycle facilities in Redcliffe Square.

(Local Plan originally proposed the introduction of one-way working in Redcliffe Square, this would lead to an increase in traffic movement and the proposal has subsequently been omitted from design)

Holland Gardens • introduction of a contra-flow cycle lane between Russell Road and Holland Road between Russell Road and including a side road entry treatment at the junction with Holland Road. Holland Road. Longridge Road • introduction of a contra-flow cycle lane. between Nevern Road and Templeton Place. Ifield Road • introduction of a contra-flow cycle lane. between Finborough Road and Cathcart Road. Elsham Road • introduction of a contra-flow cycle lane. between Lower Addison Gardens and Russell Gardens. Trebovir Road • introduction of a contra-flow cycle lane with a side road entry treatment at its between Warwick Road and Nevern junction with Warwick Road. Square.

West Cromwell Road • conversion of pelican crossings to toucan crossings with improved cycle facilities. j/w Cromwell Crescent (Local Plan originally proposed new toucan crossings across West Cromwell Road in close proximity to the junction. This arrangement has now been simplified)

23 Measures agreed by Committee to be implemented (cont.) Side road entry treatments along the Earl's Court one-way system (41 locations)

Red Route Side road junction Red Route Side road location

Holland Road Napier Place Warwick Road Earl's Court Square (north) Napier Road Earl's Court Square (south) Russell Gardens Pembroke Gardens Upper Addison Gardens Philbeach Gardens (north) Philbeach Gardens (south)

Addison Road Holland Park Road Melbury Road Redcliffe Gardens Cathcart Road (both arms of junction) Fawcett Street (both arms of junction) Redcliffe Place Earl's Court Road Barkston Gardens (north) Redcliffe Square (south) (both arms of junction) Bolton Gardens Redcliffe Square (both arms of junction) Child's Place Redcliffe Street Child's Street Tregunter Road (both arms of junction) Earl's Court Gardens Hogarth Road Kenway Road Finborough Road Cathcart Road (both arms of junction) Lexham Gardens Fawcett Street (both arms of junction) Logan Place Redcliffe Place Nevern Place Redcliffe Street Penywern Road Redfield Lane West Cromwell Cromwell Crescent (entry arm off the A4) Road

24