DOCSLIB.ORG

A316 London Roundabout Consultation Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A316 London Roundabout Consultation Report Proposed changes - A316 London Road Roundabout Consultation Report July 2021 Contents Content Page Executive Summary 3 1. Summary of consultation responses 4 1.1 Summary of responses to question 1 4 1.2 Summary of responses to question 2 5 1.3 Summary of responses to question 3 7 1.4 Summary of Stakeholder responses 8 2. About the consultation 14 2.1 Purpose 14 2.2 Potential Outcomes 14 2.3 Who we consulted 14 2.4 Dates and duration 14 2.5 What we asked 15 2.6 Methods of responding 15 2.7 Consultation Materials and Publicity 15 2.8 Equalities Assessment 16 2.9 Analysis of consultation responses 17 3. About the respondents 18 3.1 Numbers of respondents 18 3.2 How public respondents heard about the 18 conulstion 3.3 Methods of responding 18 3.4 Who responded 19 3.5 Comments on the consultation quality 19 4. Next Steps 22 Appendix A – Response to Issues Raised 23 Appendix B – Analysis of Comments 28 Appendix C – Consultation Materials 32 Appendix D – Stakeholders list 36 2 Executive Summary From 6 February 2020 to 19 March 2020 we held a public consultation on our proposals to make changes at the A316 London Road roundabout in St. Margaret’s, Twickenham. The proposals included measures to improve safety at the roundabout as follows: • Alterations to the shape of the roundabout as well as resurfacing, to improve safety and facilitate new crossing facilities • Taking space from the centre of the roundabout to increase the number of traffic lanes to improve safety and allow better lane discipline • Provision of new signal controlled pedestrian and cycle crossing facilities (Toucans) on the north, west and south arms of the roundabout • Provision of a new signal controlled Toucan crossing at Cole Park Road • Reshaping/relocating or removing existing uncontrolled crossings/pedestrian refuges • Kerb realignment on southern side of the roundabout to accommodate footpath widening and resurfacing • Appropriate drainage provision and a review of streetlighting We received 339 responses to the consultation, including six from stakeholders. Overall, almost two-thirds of respondents thought the changes would make cycling through the area safer, and 80% thought it would make walking safer. The main issues raised were concerns about an additional lane of traffic creating poor lane discipline, concerns about signalised crossings increasing congestion and concerns about shared space provision being unsafe for pedestrians due to cyclist behaviour. Our responses to issues raised during the consultation can be found in Appendix A of this report. Having considered all the feedback received we have decided to proceed with our proposals with the following modifications: • We propose to reduce the speed limit along the A316 between Whitton Roundabout and St Margaret’s roundabout from 40mph to 30pm. This will help reduce vehicle speeds on approach to the new crossings and allow those using the new bus stops to cross the road safely. • A bus stop west of Cole Park Road implemented since the close of the consultation as part of alterations to the 110 bus route will need to be moved further east to maintain safety and visibility. Although our work on these proposals has been delayed by the Covid-19 pandemic we will commence detailed design work in the autumn of 2021 and hope to begin construction on site during spring 2022. 3 1. Summary of consultation responses We received 339 responses to the consultation; 333 from members of the public and 6 from Stakeholders. To clearly show the numbers of people who had a view on the aspect of the proposal, the graphs and tables in the sections 1.1 and 1.2 do not include numbers for those who did not answer each question. 1.1 Summary of responses to Question 1 1.1.1 Overall summary The first question asked how often respondents travelled through the area by the following methods: walking, cycling, using public transport, and using motor vehicles for personal or business journeys, Walking Cycling Public transport Motor vehicle Total % Total % Total % Total % Daily 43 18% 19 8% 10 5% 41 14% 2-3 times a week 44 18% 44 18% 36 16% 117 41% 2-3 times a month 38 16% 34 14% 41 19% 62 22% Once a month 25 10% 24 10% 27 12% 19 7% Less 55 23% 30 12% 45 20% 22 8% Never 39 16% 95 39% 62 28% 25 9% Total 244 100% 246 100% 221 100% 286 100% 4 1.2 Summary of responses to Question 2 1.2.1 Overall summary This question asked respondents how safe they thought the proposals would make people feel when travelling through the area in the following ways: walking, cycling, using public transport, and using motor vehicles for personal or business journeys. Almost two-thirds of respondents thought the changes would make cycling through the area safer, and 80% thought it would make walking safer. Almost half of respondents felt the proposals would make journeys by motor vehicle safer with only 12% reporting a negative impact on safety. For public transport 56% thought that the proposals would make no difference to the safety of those using public transport to travel through the area. Walking Cycling Public transport Motor vehicle Total % Total % Total % Total % A lot safer 138 47% 121 41% 25 9% 51 17% Safer 96 33% 89 30% 61 22% 82 28% No Different 30 10% 34 12% 158 56% 109 37% Less safe 6 2% 13 4% 1 0% 20 7% Much less safe 9 3% 5 2% 5 2% 14 5% Unsure 13 4% 30 10% 31 11% 17 6% Total 292 100% 292 100% 281 100% 293 100% 5 Respondents were also able to leave comments in response to this question. The main comments, concerns and suggestions (i.e. those where 5 or more people responded) are listed in the table below. The full code frame of responses is shown in Appendix B Overall, how safe do you think our proposals will make people feel when Number of travelling through the area in the following ways? comments General comments A02 - Current layout is unsafe for pedestrians/cyclists/motorists 54 69 Concerns and Negative comments Concerned that crossings at every arm will negatively impact on driver behaviour Concerned that three lanes will create near misses with poor lane discipline and 4 right turners blocking lanes Concerned about the impact of signalisation on traffic flow and queuing 7 Concerned about shared use pavements are not safe for pedestrians (behaviour 12 and speed of cyclists) Concerned about increase in traffic from Cole Park Road Closure and whether 19 scheme addresses this Concerned that second crossing at Cole Park Road will risk aggressive drivers 12 jumping lights / lanes going East Concerned about increased traffic on London road 11 Proposal has no impact on safety improvement 3 6 Positive/ supportive comments Support new Toucan crossings will make pedestrian journeys safer Support new Toucan crossings will make cycling journeys safer 51 Support the improvements to managing lane disciple and traffic flow 34 7 Suggestions Suggest more needs to still be done to improve cycling facilities Suggest introducing lower speeds or 20mph zone instead 9 Suggest remove roundabout and just fully signalise 6 Suggest more signage to promote safer shared space 6 Ensure the phasing of the toucan lights does not involve long waits for 5 pedestrians Full signalling would be better than the toucans proposed 5 Create separate lanes or widen existing pedestrian & cyclist lane with clear 7 markings 6 1.3 Summary of responses to Question 3 1.3.1 Overall summary This question asked respondents to comment on whether the proposed changes would have a positive or negative impact on them or the journeys they made, and to explain how we could mitigate or reduce any negative impacts. 1.3.2 Issues commonly raised The main comments, concerns and suggestions (i.e. those where 5 or more people responded) are listed in the table below. The full code frame of responses is shown in Appendix B. Please let us know if the proposals would have a positive or negative impact on you or the journeys you make? Please explain how and how we could No of mitigate or reduce any negative impacts? comments Option Total General comments No effect/ impact 8 Current layout is unsafe for pedestrians/cyclists/motorists 6 Concerns/ Negative comments General opposition for the scheme 9 Concern about disruption during works (congestion/traffic flow) 13 Concerned that scheme will increase congestion (congestion/ traffic flow) 37 Concerned about potential backlog of traffic due to the extra traffic lights 6 Changes will increase pollution/reduce air quality (Environment) 14 Two controlled crossings in close proximity will frustrate drivers (rd user behaviour) 5 Positive/ supportive comments General support for the scheme 64 Positive: Will generally improve safety (safety issue) 12 Positive: Scheme will improve safety for pedestrians/cyclists(safety issue) 51 Positive: Improved access for cyclists 7 Positive: Will encourage more people to take up cycling 5 Positive: Will improve congestion/traffic flow (congestion/traffic flow) 20 Suggestions Two part crossings must be linked properly to avoid waits in the middle for pedestrians 5 More should be done to Improve crossing facilities for cyclists 7 Speed restrictions are also needed to increase safety 9 Suggest scheme should go further 10 Clearer lane markings needed 5 Only traffic lights would make the roundabout significantly safer 9 7 The shared cycling/walking space should be widened & surface improved 6 Sequenced static lights would be a better option 12 Drop the second rising at Cole Park Road which is not necessary 12 1.5 Stakeholder responses This section provides summaries of the feedback we received from stakeholders.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Sequential Assessment Department for Education
    SEQUENTIAL ASSESSMENT DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION/BOWMER AND KIRKLAND LAND OFF HOSPITAL BRIDGE ROAD, TWICKENHAM, RICHMOND -UPON- THAMES LALA ND SEQUENTIAL ASSESSMENT On behalf of: Department for Education/Bowmer & Kirkland In respect of: Land off Hospital Bridge Road, Twickenham, Richmond-upon-Thames Date: October 2018 Reference: 3157LO Author: PD DPP Planning 66 Porchester Road London W2 6ET Tel: 0207 706 6290 E-mail [email protected] www.dppukltd.com CARDIFF LEEDS LONDON MANCHESTER NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE ESFA/Bowmer & Kirkland Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................. 4 2.0 QUANTITATIVE NEEDS ANALYSIS ....................................................... 5 3.0 POLICY CONTEXT .............................................................................11 4.0 SEQUENTIAL TEST METHODOLOGY .................................................17 5.0 ASSESSMENT OF SITES .....................................................................22 6.0 LAND OFF HOSPITAL BRIDGE ROAD ................................................55 7.0 CONCLUSION ...................................................................................57 Land at Hospital Bridge Road, Twickenham, Richmond-upon-Thames 3 ESFA/Bowmer & Kirkland 1.0 Introduction 1.1 This Sequential Assessment has been prepared on behalf of the Department for Education (DfE) and Bowmer & Kirkland, in support of a full planning application for a combined 5FE secondary school and sixth form, three court MUGA and associated sports facilities, together with creation of an area of Public Open Space at Land off Hospital Bridge Road, Twickenham, Richmond-upon- Thames (the ‘Site’). Background 1.2 Turing House School is a 5FE 11-18 secondary school and sixth form, which opened in 2015 with a founding year group (Year 7) on a temporary site on Queens Road, Teddington. The school also expanded onto a further temporary site at Clarendon School in Hampton in September 2018, and plans to remain on both of these temporary sites until September 2020.
    [Show full text]
  • The Story of Nursing in British Mental Hospitals
    Downloaded by [New York University] at 12:59 29 November 2016 The Story of Nursing in British Mental Hospitals From their beginnings as the asylum attendants of the nineteenth century, mental health nurses have come a long way. This is the first comprehensive history of mental health nursing in Britain in over twenty years, and during this period the landscape has transformed as the large institutions have been replaced by services in the community. McCrae and Nolan examine how the role of mental health nursing has evolved in a social and professional context, brought to life by an abundance of anecdotal accounts. The nine chronologically ordered chapters follow the development from untrained attendants in the pauper lunatic asylums to the professionally qualified nurses of the twentieth century, and, finally, consider the rundown and closure of the mental hospitals from nurses’ perspectives. Throughout, the argument is made that while the training, organisation and environment of mental health nursing has changed, the aim has remained essentially the same: to nurture a therapeutic relationship with people in distress. McCrae and Nolan look forward as well as back, and highlight significant messages for the future of mental health care. For mental health nursing to be meaningfully directed, we must first understand the place from which this field has developed. This scholarly but accessible book is aimed at anyone with an interest in mental health or social history, and will also act as a useful resource for policy- makers, managers and mental health workers. Niall McCrae is a lecturer in mental health nursing at Florence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing & Midwifery, King’s College London.
    [Show full text]
  • Britain in Bloom Submisson
    HAM & PETERSHAM IN BLOOM 2018 HAM & PETERSHAM IN BLOOM 2018 CONTENTS Page 4-5 Map of Ham & Petersham 6 Ham and Petersham, recent achievements 7-8 The Bloom Campaign, Groups & Organisations within the Campaign 25 The schools 25 Leisure and recreational facilities 27 The Ham and Petersham Neighbourhood Plan 28 Ham and Petersham Calendar 28 Future Plans and strategy 29 Thanks and sponsors 2 3 Location key: 1. Ham Lands 2. Ham House 3. Ham Polo Ground 4. Walnut Tree Allotment 5. Ham Village Green 6. Library Garden 7. Grey Court School 8. South Avenue 9. Ham Common 10. Ham Gate House Garden 11. Parkleys 12. Ham Common Woods 13. Toad Ponds 14. Latchmere Brook 15. Petersham Meadows 16. Petersham Common Woods 17. The Cassel Hospital 18. Ham Parade 4 5 HAM & PETERSHAM Ham and Petersham is within the Borough of Richmond, bordered on the east by Richmond Park, to the west by the Thames, and to the south by the Royal Borough of Kingston. The village was recorded as Piterichesham in the 1086 Doomsday Book. Ham is not mentioned, but derives its name from the meaning of a meadowland in a river bend or Hamms. Large expanses of parkland and water meadows constrained the growth of Ham and Petersham, preserving their dis- tinctive rural character in the 19th century. The railways never reached these villages and therefore there was no rapid expansion during the Victorian period. The 20th Century brought a number of small housing estates, some houses built in the grounds of the larger properties, and development by Richmond Council of a few roads as part of the plan to reduce the housing list.
    [Show full text]
  • The Journal of Mental Science. (J
    THE COUNCIL AND OFFICERS, 1930-31. Officers. P r e s i d e n t .— T . SAXTY GOOD, O.B.E., M.A., M.R.C.S., L.R.C.P. I F. R. P. TAYLOR, M.D. | E. BARTON WHITE, M.R.C.S., L.R.C.P. V i c e -P r e s i d e n t s .^ J. R. GILMOUR, M.B., F.R.C.P.E. NEIL T. KERR, M.B. I R. R. LEEPER, F.R.C.S.I. P r e s i d e n t -E l e c t .— R. R. LEEPER, F.R.C.S.I. E x -P r e s i d e n t .— NATHAN RAW, C.M.G., M.D., F.R.C.S.E., F.R.S.E. T r e a s u r e r .— JAMES CHAMBERS, M.A., M.D. G e n e r a l S e c r e t a r y .— R. WORTH, O.B.E., M.B. R e g i s t r a r .— DANIEL F. RAMBAUT, M.A., M.D. L i b r a r i a n .— J. R. WHITWELL, M.B. /South-Eastern.— J. NOEL SERGEANT, M.B. n South-Western.— s. E. m a r t i n , m .b . d i v i s i o n a l I Northern and Midtend— J. IVISON RUSSELL, M.B., secretaries Scottish.— W. M. BUCHANAN, M.B. [F.R.F.P.S. U rlsh— ROBERT THOMPSON, M.B.
    [Show full text]
  • Listed Buildings Register Planning
    Listed Buildings Register Planning 14 October 2019 Official# REFERENCE GRADE ADDRESS DESCRIPTION 83/00179/II Grade II Boundary Walls To Richmond Park Boundary Walls TQ 17 SE 4/12 TQ 27 SW 5/12 TQ 1971 27/12 83/00207/II Grade II North Lodge 2 Admiralty Road - Part Of National Physics Laboratory Teddington Middlesex TW11 0NN North Lodge to the National Physical Laboratory 73/00003/II Grade II North Bridge In Pleasure Grounds Ailsa Road Twickenham Middlesex Two bridges in the pleasure grounds parallel to Ailsa Road, St Margarat's area 73/00007/II Grade II Alma Cottage 5 Albert Road Teddington Middlesex TW11 0BD No 5 (Alma Cottage) 83/00250/II Grade II Amyand House 60 Amyand Park Road Twickenham Amyand House, 60 Amyand Park Road 99/00001/II Grade II 52 Amyand Park Road Twickenham Middlesex TW1 3HE Grove Cottage 74/00010/II Grade II 70 Barnes High Street Barnes London SW13 9LD No 70 Barnes High Street 83/00166/II Grade II 2 Branstone Road Richmond Surrey TW9 3LB 2 Branstone Road Richmond 68/00006/II Grade II 12-14 Brewers Lane Richmond Surrey TW9 1HH 12-14 Brewers Lane (Victorian shopfront to No 12) 68/00033/II Grade II 11 And 13 Brewers Lane Richmond Surrey 11 and 13 Brewres Lane (Victorian shop front ) 83/00018/II Grade II 16 Brewers Lane Richmond Surrey TW9 1HH 16 Brewers Lane (Modernised Victorian shop window) 83/00019/II Grade II 8 Brewers Lane Richmond Surrey TW9 1HH 8 Brewers Lane 83/00093/II Grade II The Britannia 5 Brewers Lane Richmond Surrey TW9 1HH The Britannia (Modified Victorian pub front) 83/00106/II Grade II 2 - 6 Brewers
    [Show full text]
  • Download It As A
    Richmond History JOURNAL OF THE RICHMOND LOCAL HISTORY SOCIETY Numbers 1–39 (1981–2018): Contents, Author Index and Subject Index This listing combines, and makes available online, two publications previously available in print form – Journal Numbers 1 to X: Contents and Index, republished with corrections in October 2006, and Journal Numbers XI to XXV: Contents and Index, published in November 2004. This combined version has been extended to cover all issues of Richmond History up to No. 39 (2018) and it also now includes an author index. Journal numbers are in Arabic numerals and are shown in bold. Although we have taken care to check the accuracy of the index we are aware that there may be some inaccuracies, inconsistencies or omissions. We would welcome any corrections or additions – please email them to [email protected] List of Contents There were two issues in 1981, Richmond History's first year of publication. Since then it has been published annually. No. 1: 1981 The Richmond ‘Riverside Lands’ in the 17th Century James Green Vincent Van Gogh in Richmond and Petersham Stephen Pasmore The development of the top of Richmond Hill John Cloake Hesba Stretton (1832–1911), Novelist of Ham Common Silvia Greenwood Richmond Schools in the 18th and 19th centuries Bernard J. Bull No. 2: 1981 The Hoflands at Richmond Phyllis Bell The existing remains of Richmond Palace John Cloake The eccentric Vicar of Kew, the Revd Caleb Colton, 1780–1832 G. E. Cassidy Miscellania: (a) John Evelyn in 1678 (b) Wordsworth’s The Choir of Richmond Hill, 1820 Augustin Heckel and Richmond Hill Stephen Pasmore The topography of Heckel’s ‘View of Richmond Hill Highgate, 1744’ John Cloake Richmond in the 17th century – the Friars area James Green No.
    [Show full text]
  • The Natural Landscape
    THE NATURAL LANDSCAPE The River Thames is London’s best known natural feature. It twists and turns through London, changing from a large freshwater river at Hampton into a saline estuary in the east. The river forms a continuous wildlife corridor stretching through London, between the countryside and the sea. The nature conservation importance of the linear features of the river channel, mudflats and banks cannot be separated from the land in the river corridor. The stretch between Hampton and Kew has the largest expanse of land designated with Site of Special Scientific Interest status in London. For centuries, people have been fascinated by the River Thames, and it FromTeddington Weir downstream the Thames continues to attract and inspire local residents and visitors from central London is tidal and abroad. Part of the great attraction of the river is the accessible experience of tranquil nature among the concrete and asphalt of the city - the flash of a kingfisher, the bright colour of a wildflower or a sudden cloud of butterflies have a special resonance in the urban setting. One of the main aims of the Strategy is to ensure the continued balance between wildlife conservation and public enjoyment. Over the centuries, the land and the river have been influenced by man’s activities. No habitat in London is truly natural which means that we have a particular responsibility to continue to manage the area in ways which conserve a mosaic of attractive habitats and to take special care of rarities. This section gives an overview of the variety of riverside habitats, providing broad guidelines for their management.
    [Show full text]
  • Submission Consultation
    Version 3 26 June 2017 HAM AND PETERSHAM NEIGHBOURHOOD FORUM HAM AND PETERSHAM NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN RESPONSES TO THE PRE – SUBMISSION CONSULTATION Ref Name /Organisation Summary of response received Neighbourhood Forum Response No. Vision and Objectives 1. Richmond Clinical Neither agree or disagree with Vision Noted Commissioning Group (CCG). Responding on behalf of the RCCG, NHS England (NHSE), NHS London Healthy Urban Development Unit (HUDU) and NHS Property Services (NHS PS). 2. Richmond Housing Agree with the Vision Noted Partnership (RHP) 3. Richmond Housing Para 1.8.6 This makes no reference to housing new We have understood this comment to be about increasing Partnership (RHP) residents and families, only meeting the needs of existing the housing stock in the neighbourhood area rather than the residents. turnover of the existing stock. The Context section in the Housing chapter (3.2) sets out the constraints governing the scope for new development which are amplified in respect of individual sites in the Opportunities for Change chapter. Suggested revision; ‘The Neighbourhood Plan seeks to ensure that new housing meets the needs of current and future residents in the area 1 Version 3 26 June 2017 Ref Name /Organisation Summary of response received Neighbourhood Forum Response No. …’ 4. Ham Riverside Lands The Vision statement is bland and question the The Vision statement has been rephrased to give it a more Ltd (HRLL) description ‘semi-rural’ positive tone and explanatory paragraphs added. The phrase ‘semi-rural’ reflects the open space setting of the settlements which a distinctive feature of the character of the neighbourhood and figured prominently in views expressed in the consultation.
    [Show full text]
  • Character Appraisal & Management Plan Conservation Areas
    LONDON BOROUGH OF RICHMOND UPON THAMES Character Appraisal & Management Plan Conservation Areas – Petersham no.6, Ham Common no.7, Ham House no.23 & Parkleys Estate no.67 These character appraisals and management plans were adopted by the council on 30th March 2007 following public consultation. HAM & PETERSHAM CONSERVATION AREA, CHARACTER APPRAISAL & MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 Contents Introduction INTRODUCTION 2 Conservation areas were introduced in the Civic Amenities Act 1967 and are defined as areas of SPECIAL INTEREST 4 “special architectural or historic interest, the character History and Development 4 or appearance of which it is desirable to preserve or Location and Setting 6 enhance”. Designation introduces a general control over the demolition of unlisted buildings and the felling CHARACTER APPRAISALS 11 or lopping of trees above a certain size. Petersham Conservation Area No.6 11 Ham Common Conservation Area No.7 16 It is a formal requirement that the ‘special interest’, Ham House Conservation Area No.23 20 which justifies designation, is defined by the local Ham Street Sub Area 20 planning authority through a detailed character Ham House Estate Sub Area 22 appraisal of each conservation area. The objective Parkleys Estate Conservation Area No.67 23 of a conservation area appraisal is to provide a clear and comprehensive analysis of the character and PROBLEMS AND PRESSURES 25 appearance of the conservation area, and assess the vulnerability of this character to unsympathetic MANAGEMENT PLANS 28 change. This provides a sound basis for development control decisions within these areas. It is also a requirement that a management plan is produced for each conservation area, which sets out proposals for the preservation and enhancement of the character and appearance of a conservation area, as identified during the character appraisal process.
    [Show full text]
  • Listed Buildings Register
    Listed Buildings Register Planning 30 April 2019 REFERENCE GRADE ADDRESS DESCRIPTION 83/00179/II Grade II Boundary Walls To Richmond Park Boundary Walls TQ 17 SE 4/12 TQ 27 SW 5/12 TQ 1971 27/12 83/00207/II Grade II North Lodge 2 Admiralty Road - Part Of National Physics Laboratory Teddington North Lodge to the National Physical Laboratory Middlesex TW11 0NN 73/00003/II Grade II North Bridge In Pleasure Grounds Ailsa Road Twickenham Middlesex Two bridges in the pleasure grounds parallel to Ailsa Road, St Margarat's area 73/00007/II Grade II Alma Cottage 5 Albert Road Teddington Middlesex TW11 0BD No 5 (Alma Cottage) 83/00250/II Grade II Amyand House 60 Amyand Park Road Twickenham Amyand House, 60 Amyand Park Road 99/00001/II Grade II 52 Amyand Park Road Twickenham Middlesex TW1 3HE Grove Cottage 74/00010/II Grade II 70 Barnes High Street Barnes London SW13 9LD No 70 Barnes High Street 83/00166/II Grade II 2 Branstone Road Richmond Surrey TW9 3LB 2 Branstone Road Richmond 68/00006/II Grade II 12-14 Brewers Lane Richmond Surrey TW9 1HH 12-14 Brewers Lane (Victorian shopfront to No 12) 68/00033/II Grade II 11 And 13 Brewers Lane Richmond Surrey 11 and 13 Brewres Lane (Victorian shop front ) 83/00018/II Grade II 16 Brewers Lane Richmond Surrey TW9 1HH 16 Brewers Lane (Modernised Victorian shop window) 83/00019/II Grade II 8 Brewers Lane Richmond Surrey TW9 1HH 8 Brewers Lane 83/00093/II Grade II The Britannia 5 Brewers Lane Richmond Surrey TW9 1HH The Britannia (Modified Victorian pub front) 83/00106/II Grade II 2 - 6 Brewers Lane Richmond
    [Show full text]
  • PEAT) Results 2010
    Patient Environment Action Team (PEAT) results 2010 Privacy and Organisation name Site name Environment Food dignity SOUTH GLOUCESTERSHIRE PCT THORNBURY HOSPITAL 4 Good 5 Excellent 4 Good HAVERING PCT ST GEORGE'S HOSPITAL 3 Acceptable 4 Good 3 Acceptable KINGSTON PCT TOLWORTH HOSPITAL 5 Excellent 5 Excellent 5 Excellent BARNET PCT EDGWARE COMMUNITY HOSPITAL 5 Excellent 5 Excellent 4 Good BARNET PCT FINCHLEY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL 5 Excellent 5 Excellent 5 Excellent HILLINGDON PCT MOUNT VERNON HOSPITAL - NORTHWOOD & 4 Good 4 Good 4 Good PINNER COMMUNITY UNIT ENFIELD PCT ST MICHAEL'S HOSPITAL 4 Good 5 Excellent 4 Good BARKING AND DAGENHAM PCT GRAYS COURT 4 Good 3 Acceptable 4 Good TOWER HAMLETS PCT MILE END HOSPITAL 5 Excellent 5 Excellent 5 Excellent NEWHAM PCT EAST HAM CARE CENTRE 3 Acceptable 4 Good 5 Excellent HARINGEY TEACHING PCT ST. ANN'S HOSPITAL 4 Good 4 Good 5 Excellent HEREFORDSHIRE PCT LEOMINSTER COMMUNITY HOSPITAL 4 Good 4 Good 4 Good HEREFORDSHIRE PCT BROMYARD COMMUNITY HOSPITAL 4 Good 5 Excellent 4 Good HEREFORDSHIRE PCT ROSS COMMUNITY HOSPITAL 4 Good 4 Good 4 Good HEREFORDSHIRE PCT HILLSIDE CENTRE FOR INTERMEDIATE CARE 4 Good 5 Excellent 4 Good HEREFORDSHIRE PCT STONEBOW UNIT 4 Good 4 Good 4 Good MILTON KEYNES PCT CAMPBELL CENTRE 4 Good 4 Good 5 Excellent MILTON KEYNES PCT WARD 14 MKGH 4 Good 4 Good 4 Good MILTON KEYNES PCT WINDSOR INTERMEDIATE CARE 4 Good 4 Good 5 Excellent NEWCASTLE PCT NEWCASTLE GENERAL HOSPITAL 3 Acceptable 3 Acceptable 3 Acceptable PLYMOUTH TEACHING PCT MOUNT GOULD HOSPITAL 5 Excellent 5 Excellent 5 Excellent PLYMOUTH TEACHING PCT PLYMPTON HOSPITAL 5 Excellent 5 Excellent 5 Excellent PLYMOUTH TEACHING PCT LEE MILL 5 Excellent 4 Good 5 Excellent PLYMOUTH TEACHING PCT GLENBOURNE 5 Excellent 5 Excellent 5 Excellent PORTSMOUTH CITY TEACHING PCT ST.
    [Show full text]
  • 1994 Local Landscape Hampton Wick Reach
    98 Thames Landscape Strategy: The Local Landscape Landscape Character Reach No 5: HAMPTON WICK LANDSCAPE CHARACTER The Hampton Wick Reach curves from Kingston Railway Bridge to Teddington Lock. The reach is characterised by residential areas interspersed with recreation grounds and dominated by the Kingston Power Station and British Aerospace site. Yet despite these developments and recent apartment blocks, the reach remains remarkably green and well-tree’d. This leafy character should be enhanced by the recent demolition of the British Aerospace Works and the current removal of the redundant power station. Although the chimneys of the power station can be seen from miles around, huge plane trees and lombardy poplars reduce some of its impact on the river. Entering the reach from Kingston, the railway bridge and pumping station arches and the lines of trees beyond provide a distinct gateway, leading to the shaded waterside park. The smooth trunks of the plane trees and the high canopy above, create an arcade-like frame to the river. The cracked asphalt, stained concrete street lamps and broken khaki benches leave the place feeling a little uncared for, but the simple space is thronged with walkers and fishermen on the lower path and people just sitting and watching on the upper 5. HAMPTON benches. WICK The waterside park leads into the main part of Canbury Gardens, a much- valued and popular park. A riverside line of trees is backed by strips of shrubberies, a pub and a rowing club. Tennis courts, bowling greens and pavilions occupy the landward edge of the park, creating a dense complex of formal recreation facilities under the shadow of the power station.
    [Show full text]