A4 Cromwell Gardens Thurloe Place Consultation Report January 2015

Contents

1 Introduction...... 2 2 The Consultation...... 4 3 Responses from members of the public, local businesses and external 5 stakeholders...... 4 External Stakeholder Comments...... 6 5 Conclusion...... 7

Appendix A – List of Relevant External Stakeholders Consulted...... 8 Appendix B – Consultation Material...... 10 Appendix C – Responses to Issues Raised ...... 15

1

1. Introduction

We recently invited the public, local businesses and stakeholders to comment on our proposals to improve the pedestrian facilities at the junction of A4 Cromwell Gardens and Thurloe Place and outside numbers 12-16 Thurloe Place.

This report explains the background to our proposals, outlines the consultation undertaken and summarises the responses. The consultation was open for the public, local businesses and stakeholders to comment between Monday 8 September and Sunday 19 October 2014.

We wish to improve facilities for pedestrians on our streets and identified a number of problems currently affecting pedestrians and drivers at this location:

 On the west side of the junction (adjacent to the small park) the excessive width of the Thurloe Place carriageway, and the bend at the approach, make it difficult for pedestrians to cross. Also, the direct movement of pedestrians (“desire line”) along the southern footway of Cromwell Gardens and Thurloe Place (eastern section) is obstructed by the cycle stands and plinth, located outside the former embassy building (33 ). The “desire line” is also obstructed because the footway outside nos. 12-16 Thurloe Place is not well aligned with the footway outside the former embassy building.

 The boundary hedge in the small park to the west of the junction obstructs pedestrian and vehicle driver sightlines and the main sign for the ‘no left turn’ from Thurloe Place into Cromwell Gardens is not well located for visibility by vehicle drivers.

 Additionally, the crossing point across the driveway to Thurloe Lodge and Amberwood House lacks fully dropped kerbs to aid the mobility impaired.

We proposed four improvements to this junction and nearby footway:

 Building out the kerb and widening the footway on the west side of the junction to narrow the distance pedestrians have to cross and to improve sightlines. The ‘no left turn’ sign would be moved to the new built-out kerb to improve its visibility, and the ‘no entry’ signs would be removed as part of a de-cluttering exercise.

 Removing the cycle stands and plinth outside the former embassy building (33 Thurloe Square) to remove this obstruction to pedestrians. Ten new cycle stands would be installed along the edge of the adjacent footway.

 Building out the kerb and widening the footway outside nos. 12-16 Thurloe Place, to match the pedestrian desire line to and from Cromwell Gardens. One lamp column and one sign post would need to be relocated a short distance. The existing parking bays would be retained but slightly realigned.

 Providing dropped kerbs on both sides of the driveway to Thurloe Lodge and Amberwood House, to improve accessibility for the mobility impaired.

2

We proposed that the bench outside the former embassy building (33 Thurloe Square) and all trees would be retained, and that there would be no change to existing red route restrictions or banned turns. Double red lines would be extended to cover the new kerb build-outs as required.

3

2. The Consultation The consultation was designed to help inform and shape our final decision. We wanted to understand the community’s opinions about our proposals to improve the pedestrian facilities at this location.

The potential outcomes of the consultation are:  We decide the consultation raises no issues that should prevent us from proceeding with the scheme as proposed  We modify the scheme in response to issues raised in the consultation  We abandon the scheme as a result of issues raised in the consultation

2.1 Consultation objectives The objectives of the consultation were:  To give the public, local businesses and stakeholders information about our proposals and allow them to respond  To understand the level of support or opposition for our proposals  To understand any issues of which we were not previously aware that might affect our proposals  To understand concerns and objections  To allow respondents to make suggestions  To help inform our decision making process

2.2 Whom we consulted We sought the views of people living or working within approximately 130m-300m (depending on road layout) of the location. This extent is shown in Appendix B.

We also informed known stakeholders of our consultation. A list of relevant external stakeholders contacted is shown in Appendix A.

2.3 Consultation material, distribution and publicity The consultation was published online on our consultation website. We produced a letter with a map explaining our proposals and how to respond, and posted this to 251 properties in the immediate area and to three external stakeholders. An email with a link to our online consultation was sent to 136 internal and external stakeholders’ email addresses. We also posted a notice about the consultation on two lamp posts at the location. Copies of the letter, email and lamp post notice are shown in Appendix B.

2.4 Meetings and site visits A site visit took place involving TfL, TfL Buses, the works contractor CVU, Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea and Metropolitan Police on 23 October 2014. A site visit took place involving TfL and one of the external stakeholders, Thurloe Owners and Leaseholders Association on 2 December 2014. A further meeting with this organisation may take place to finalise arrangements. 2.5 General response In total, 19 responses were received from members of the public, local businesses and external stakeholders. 4

3. Responses from members of the public, local businesses and external stakeholders In our consultation we asked no specific questions on our proposals. Instead we asked respondents whether they support the proposed improvements and provided them with the opportunity to leave further comments.

The table below summarises the level of support.

Do you support these proposed improvements? Total Percent of All I support them 14 77.78% I am not sure 3 16.67% I am against them 0 0% I have no opinion on them 0 0% Not Answered 1 5.56% This table excludes one external stakeholder who replied by email rather than on the consultation web page and did not directly answer this question

Of the 19 responses, 12 included comments. The table below summarises the views and suggestions made.

Comment summary Number of times raised Comments this is a good idea / supports proposals 8 Has no objections 1 Notes difficulty crossing A4 Cromwell Gardens 1 Questions the need for cycle stands 2* Requests further improvements to pedestrian facilities including 2 elsewhere in area Favours prioritising pedestrians over other highway users 1 Urges against outdoor tables and chairs / commercial activity on 1 widened footway Suggests pedestrian crossing across eastern side of junction 1 Comments would be better for motorists as well as pedestrians 1 Disagrees with removal of plinth 1 Possibly suggests extending double red lines to relieve 1 congestion** Asks about conversion of one parking space into a disabled 1 parking space Observes that giving pedestrians more freedom and accessibility 1 will improve the area Asks about effect on bus and large vehicle diversion 1

* 1 of which was raised during a site visit ** respondent’s comment was unclear A list of responses to issues raised is attached as Appendix C.

5

4. External Stakeholder Comments

Comments were received from the following external stakeholders: Thurloe Owners and Leaseholders Association “With the exception of the plinth which you are proposing to remove, we are in agreement with your proposals. The plinth was originally constructed for a sculpture and we would like this retained for that purpose and strongly urge this should not be removed.” Further discussions took place with this organisation, the outcomes of which are summarised in the Conclusion and Appendix C. Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea “We have not heard any comments on this proposal from local residents. The changes that are proposed will be of benefit to pedestrians without appearing to cause any negative impacts, and we support them.” Metropolitan Police ”Police have no objections but...... ” {question about bus and large vehicle diversion arrangements}. Further discussions took place with this organisation and a satisfactory result was achieved.

6

5. Conclusion

The responses to the consultation show strong support for our proposals.

We have decided that we will carry out the improvements as proposed, with the exception of the cycle stands and plinth outside the former embassy building in Thurloe Place.

Following discussion with Thurloe Owners and Leaseholders Association we have decided to retain the plinth in its existing location for a sculpture to be added in the future. We will build the new cycle stands in two blocks – one to the east of the plinth, and one under the tree canopy outside the former embassy building, near the post box. The existing cycle stands on the plinth will be removed. There will be 8-10 new stands in total which provides space for 16-20 cycles.

Thurloe Owners and Leaseholders Association have agreed to investigate funding for a sculpture to be provided on the plinth. It is not within the scope of the project for us to fund street art at this location.

We plan to carry out the works during February and March 2015. We will contact all those affected before the works start.

7

Appendix A – List of Relevant External Stakeholders Consulted

Relevant Elected Members Caroline Pidgeon AM Stephen Knight AM Darren Johnson AM Joanne McCartney AM Gareth Bacon AM Fiona Twycross AM Jenny Jones AM Kit Malthouse AM Murad Qureshi AM Malcolm Rifkind MP Nicky Gavron AM Cllr. Coleridge (Brompton and Hans Town Ward) Andrew Boff AM Cllr. Paget-Brown (Brompton and Hans Town Ward) Victoria Borwick AM Cllr. Weale (Brompton and Hans Town Ward) Tom Copley AM Westminster Liberal Democrats

Relevant Local Authorities Relevant Police and Health Authorities Royal Borough of Kensington and Metropolitan Police Chelsea Greater Authority CCG NHS Central London

8

Other Relevant Stakeholders AA Motoring Trust Living Streets Royal Parks Action Disability Kensington London Ambulance Service Sense & Chelsea Action on Hearing Loss London City Airport Sixty Plus (formerly RNID) Age Concern London London Councils & Queensgate Residents Association Age UK London Cycling Campaign South Kensington Estates (Kensington and Chelsea) Asian Peoples Disabilities London Fire and Emergency St George's Court Company Alliance Planning Authority Ltd.

Association of British Drivers London Fire Brigade St Helen's Residents' Association Association of Car Fleet London Older People's Stroke Association Operators Strategy Group BT London Underground Sustrans

Campaign for Better London Travelwatch Thames Water Transport Chelsea Society Macmillan The British Dyslexia Association Confederation of British Mind The Brompton Association Industry CTC, the national cycling Motorcycle Industry The Kensington Society charity Association Disability Alliance National Children’s Bureau The Knightsbridge Association Disabled Persons Transport National Grid Thurloe Owners & Advisory Committee Leaseholders Association (TOLA) EDF Energy Port of London Authority Thurloe Residents' Association Greater London Forum for RMT Union Unions Together the Elderly Green Flag Group RNIB Unite (Taxi and Private Hire)

Guide Dogs for the Blind Road Haulage Association Victoria and Albert Museum Association Joint Committee on Mobility Royal Mail of Blind and Partially Sighted People (JCMBPS)

9

Appendix B – Consultation Material

10

11

Extent of letter delivery (the Victoria and Albert Museum was contacted by email)

12

13

Notice placed on two local lamp posts

14

Appendix C – Responses to Issues Raised

Observation that crossing the A4 Cromwell Gardens is not easy but is practical, thanks to the traffic lights east and west. Urge for further improvement to this crossing.

We do not plan to provide any further changes at this junction. The pedestrian flow is comparatively quite low compared with other locations and so a signalised crossing is unlikely to be justified at this location. We would need to show that the flow of pedestrians across the road warranted a new signalised crossing at the junction. Also, a new signalised crossing on this already congested stretch of road could result in a worsening of traffic journey times in the surrounding area.

Urge for further improvement to walking along the south side of the A4.

Suggestion for further pedestrian improvements to the east along the south side of the A4 and Knightsbridge, including the footway outside Harrods and crossing of Beauchamp Place.

We are not planning further improvements to pedestrian facilities along the south side of the A4 in the Cromwell Gardens and Thurloe Place area. We need to prioritise our investment according to the areas of most need and most pedestrian traffic in this area is on the north side of the road where there is plenty of footway space.

We are, however, already considering improvements to pedestrian facilities along the south side of the A4 Brompton Road towards Knightsbridge. This scheme is on our programme for a feasibility study and we will consult in due course.

Request for a pedestrian crossing across the east side of the junction due to insecurity felt with fast traffic turning left from A4 Thurloe Place (eastern section) into Thurloe Place (western section).

The pedestrian flow is comparatively quite low compared with other locations and so a signalised crossing is unlikely to be justified at this location. We would need to show that the flow of pedestrians across the road warranted a new signalised crossing at the junction. Also, a new signalised crossing on this already congested stretch of road could result in a worsening of traffic journey times in the surrounding area.

The width and layout of this part of the junction is needed for buses turning left here.

Possible suggestion to extend the double red lines to relieve congestion (respondent’s comment was unclear).

The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (which manages the parking at this location) is content with the parking restrictions as they are and does not intend to change them.

15

We are not planning to extend or shorten the red route restrictions at this location, although the double red lines will be ‘wrapped around’ the new built-out kerbs on the widened footway areas.

Question whether one of the parking spaces outside nos. 12-16 Thurloe Place is to be converted into a disabled parking space.

The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (which manages the parking at this location) has no proposals to introduce a ‘blue badge’ disabled parking bay at this location and is not aware of any applications for a ‘personalised’ disabled parking bay here, although an application for a ‘personalised’ disabled parking bay is always possible in the future (applicants need to meet strict criteria).

Our own improvements will not change the use of any of these parking spaces but we will slightly realign and re-mark the bays as we are widening the footway in this area.

Urge against negating the footway widening with outdoor tables and chairs or other commercial activity and comment that this should be clear as part of our proposals.

We have no plans to add street furniture (for example tables and chairs). We would not generally give permission for this.

Urge for retention of the plinth, with statement that it was originally constructed for a sculpture.

We have discussed this issue and have decided that the plinth will be retained in its existing location (with the existing cycle parking stands removed). We have asked Thurloe Owners and Leaseholders Association to start exploring funding channels for a sculpture as soon as possible.

Observation that cycle parking stands are not needed at this location and suggestion that the funds for them be used elsewhere. Reluctance for cycle stands to be placed adjacent to the plinth.

No cycle parking surveys have been done for this location but cycling is increasing and we have an objective to encourage more and safer cycling. We have an annual cycle parking programme and have received requests for additional cycle parking here.

We therefore won’t be removing any cycle parking provision and in fact wish to provide more cycle parking at this location.

We will build the new cycle stands in two blocks – one to the east of the plinth, and one under the tree canopy outside the former embassy building, near the post box. The existing cycle stands on the plinth will be removed. There will be 8-10 new cycle stands in total which provides space for 16-20 cycles.

Question about effect on bus and large vehicle diversion.

(see section 4 of the Consultation Report)

16