ROAD USER SAFETY REPORT
MSG SPHERE
ROAD USER SAFETY REPORT
AUGUST 2020
MSG SPHERE – ROAD USER SAFETY REPORT
CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ...... 3 2. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ...... 4 3. RELEVANT PLANNING POLICY AND GUIDANCE...... 6 4. CASE STUDIES ...... 12 5. SITE ANALYSIS ...... 26 6. ROAD USER DISTRACTION ASSESSMENT ...... 33 7. PROPOSED MITIGATION ...... 51 8. CONCLUSION ...... 54
Appendix 1 - Representative views Appendix 2 - Kinetic video sequences
2
MSG SPHERE – ROAD USER SAFETY REPORT
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 A Public Safety Report: Road User Distraction Study was submitted to the London Legacy Development Corporation (LLDC) in November 2019 in support of the pending Full Application and Advertisement Consent Application (references: 19/00097/FUL and 19/00098/ADV) (the Applications) at land lying to the west of Angel Lane, Stratford, London, E15 1AA (the Site) for a state of the art live music and entertainment venue – MSG Sphere (the proposed development). The Study examines the potential for distraction of road users as a result of advertising and non-advertising content displayed on the LED sphere surface and the other digital screens that form part of the proposed development. 1.2 The LLDC subsequently wrote to the Applicant on 20 May 2020 requesting further information pursuant to Regulation 25 of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations. As part of the correspondence, the LLDC stated that “the road user assessment provided is not considered robust and needs to be enhanced to address concerns expressed by LLDC, its consultants and stakeholders.” Further discussions have since been undertaken with the LLDC regarding the scope of the additional work required in relation to the assessment of road user distraction. 1.3 This report has been prepared by DP9 Ltd and Momentum Transport Consultants and responds to the LLDC’s request for further information. The report undertakes a comprehensive assessment of the potential effects of the proposed development in relation to road user distraction. 1.4 The structure of the report is as follows: • Section 2 – provides an overview of the proposed development; • Section 3 – sets out an overview of relevant planning policy and guidance in relation to advertising/digital displays and road user distraction; • Section 4 – sets out an overview of existing large-scale digital displays and relevant appeal decisions for advertisement applications; • Section 5 – undertakes analysis of the highways network surrounding the Site, including traffic flows and accident data; • Section 6 – undertakes a visibility assessment of the proposed development from surrounding roads and junctions, and an assessment of the potential effects of the proposed development on road user distraction; • Section 7 – sets out suggested conditions to be attached to the Applications in order to mitigate potential distraction on road users; • Section 8 – conclusion. 1.5 A separate report has been prepared by Buro Happold, which considers the effects of the proposed development on rail driver distraction, which has been informed by extensive ongoing discussions with Network Rail and the relevant Train and Freight Operating Companies.
3
MSG SPHERE – ROAD USER SAFETY REPORT
2. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
2.1 The proposed development is for a world leading, technologically advanced entertainment and music venue, which will strengthen London’s position as a world class visitor destination and deliver a wide range of significant planning benefits. 2.2 A separate application will be submitted by the Applicant for the change of use of 406 existing car parking spaces on the ground floor and levels 4, 5 and 6 of the multi-storey car park at Stratford International Station from the existing use to use associated with MSG Sphere. Scale and layout 2.3 The proposed development comprises a distinctive spherical form and at its highest point is +96.50m Above Ordnance Datum (AOD) and is 120m wide. It sits on a multi- layered podium, comprising levels 0, 1, 2 and 3. The level 2 podium is the main arrival level. Operation of the Proposed Development 2.4 The proposed development is expected to operate up to 365 days per year, with approximately 300 ‘event days’ (i.e. days on which there are events within the main venue) per year. There is the potential for more than one event per day, and for smaller events to run simultaneously, i.e. in the main venue and ancillary spaces. 2.5 A range of events could be hosted in the main venue, including but not limited to concerts, immersive experiences, family shows, award shows, product launches, corporate events and sporting events. 2.6 The timing of the events in the main venue will vary but will typically be matinee and evening events. The CONOPS submitted in support of the Applications provides information on the timings of events in the main venue and for the operating hours of the ancillary commercial spaces. Design 2.7 The proposed development comprises an innovative design, of the highest architectural quality, and has been designed by some of the world’s leading venue and event designers to deliver a world class music and entertainment venue. The sphere forms a distinctive object on the skyline – its pure geometrical form is unique and instantly recognisable. 2.8 The external surface of the sphere will comprise stainless steel panels with embedded Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs). The LEDs are fully programmable and are an integral part of the high-quality, unique design. In ‘standby’ mode, when unlit, the triangular ordering of the sphere façade will appear crisp, with the triangles providing a level of human scale. In ‘active’ mode, the architectural resolution of the triangular offering will still be apparent, but the content shown on the sphere facade will become the prominent feature. 2.9 The sphere façade will be capable of displaying a wide range of advertising and non- advertising content, including:
4
MSG SPHERE – ROAD USER SAFETY REPORT
• Event imagery – this could include videos of an artist at a previous performance or a promotional piece in advance of a show; • Media/public art – the sphere façade will be a large-scale canvas for dynamic media and public art content; • Topical events – the sphere façade could be lit in colours specific to a topical event; • Advertising – the display of advertising content and naming rights. 2.10 The sphere façade will be subject to various controls secured by condition to mitigate impacts on surrounding sensitive receptors, including hours of operation and the brightness of the LEDs. 2.11 Full details of the design concept and design evolution of the proposed development are set out in the Design and Access Statement supporting the Applications. Other digital displays 2.12 The proposed development includes other digital displays across the Site (in addition to the LED surface of the sphere) that could display advertising and non-advertising content. These include: • Three digital billboards on the western elevation of the podium façade; • LED ribbon display incorporated within the architecture of the upper terraces; • Lighting incorporated into the gates of Bridges 1 and 2; and • LED lighting incorporated into the Bridge 3 glass gate. 2.13 All of the proposed digital displays would be subject to various controls secured by condition.
5
MSG SPHERE – ROAD USER SAFETY REPORT
3. RELEVANT PLANNING POLICY AND GUIDANCE
Introduction 3.1 The section provides an overview of relevant national (National Planning Policy Framework and Planning Practice Guidance), regional (the London Plan) and local (LLDC Local Plan) planning policy and guidance regarding the erection of conventional and digital advertisements. This policy and guidance is considered relevant to the Advertisement Consent Application and the Full Application, given that the proposed LED sphere surface and the other digital displays have the potential to show advertising and non-advertising content. 3.2 Given the limited statutory guidance relating to digital advertisements and highways safety, this section also reviews the following relevant non-statutory guidance: • Transport for London (TfL) – Guidance for Digital Roadside Advertising and Proposed Best Practice 2013; • Assessing Distraction of Vehicle drivers in Europe from Roadside Technology- based Signage (ADVERTS) by the European Platform for Co-operation between National Road Authorities. Statutory guidance LLDC Local Plan 3.3 Policy BN.15 of the adopted Local Plan (2015) and Policy BN.16 of the draft Local Plan set out several criteria which advertisements must meet to be considered acceptable. For the purposes of this report the relevant criterion states that advertisements will be considered acceptable where they ‘do not have an adverse impact on public or highway safety.’ National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 3.4 Paragraph 132 of the NPPF (2019) states that ‘advertisements should be subject to control only in the interests of amenity and public safety.’ Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) 3.5 Paragraph 68 of the PPG sets out the types of advertisement which may cause danger to road users: (a) those which obstruct or impair sight-lines at corners, bends or at a junction, or at any point of access to a highway; (b) those which, because of their size or siting, would obstruct or confuse a road-user’s view, or reduce the clarity or effectiveness of a traffic sign or signal, or would be likely to distract road-users because of their unusual nature; (c) those which effectively leave insufficient clearance above any part of a highway, or insufficient lateral clearance for vehicles on the carriageway (due allowance being made for the camber of the road surface); (d) those externally or internally illuminated signs (incorporating either flashing or static lights) including those utilising light emitting diode technology:
6
MSG SPHERE – ROAD USER SAFETY REPORT
i. where the means of illumination is directly visible from any part of the road; ii. which, because of their colour, could be mistaken for, or confused with, traffic lights or any other authorised signals; iii. which, because of their size or brightness, could result in glare and dazzle, or distract road-users, particularly in misty or wet weather; (e) those which incorporate moving or apparently moving elements in their display, or successive individual advertisements which do not display the whole message; (f) those requiring close study (such as Public Information Panels), which are situated so that people looking at them would be insufficiently protected from passing vehicles; or those advertisements sited on narrow footpaths where they may interfere with safe passage by causing pedestrians to step into the road; (g) those which resemble traffic signs, as defined in section 64 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, and may therefore be subject to removal by the traffic authority under section 69 of that Act, for example: i. those embodying red circles, crosses or triangles, or any traffic sign symbol; or those in combinations of colours which might otherwise be mistaken for traffic signs; or ii. those incorporating large arrows or chevrons with only the arrow or chevron made of retroflective material or illuminated, causing confusion with similar signs in use at, or approaching roundabouts. (h) those which embody directional or other traffic elements and which need special scrutiny because of possible resemblance to, or confusion with, traffic signs; for example, advertisements which: i. contain a large arrow or chevron (or have a pointed end and have only a few words of message); ii. invite drivers to turn right on a main road, or where there is fast moving traffic; iii. invite drivers to turn, but are sited so close to the turning that there is not enough time to signal and turn safely; or iv. are so close to similar advertisements, or official traffic signs, that road-users might be confused in the vicinity of a road junction or other traffic hazard. Non-statutory guidance TfL – Guidance for Digital Roadside Advertising and Proposed Best Practice (2013) 3.6 In 2013 TfL commissioned Waterman Transport and Development Limited to prepare a report developing best practice principles relating to the display of digital advertisements – Guidance for Digital Roadside Advertising and Proposed Best Practice. As explained above, the TfL Guidance is not a statutory guidance document. General Considerations 3.7 The TfL guidelines set out a number of general considerations: • Adverts should not resemble existing traffic signs or provide directional advice.
7
MSG SPHERE – ROAD USER SAFETY REPORT
• Adverts in proximity to traffic signs or signals require detailed analysis to ensure that no conflict occurs. • Adverts in proximity to schools, hospitals, low bridges and pedestrian crossings also require detailed analysis to ensure that no conflict occurs. • Advertising should not obstruct required sight lines at corners, bends or at a junction, or at any point of access to the highway. • All advertising structures must leave sufficient clearance for vehicles on the carriageway. • All structures must leave sufficient clearance for the maintenance of transport assets, such as bridges. Locational guidance 3.8 The TfL guidance states that: • Static digital advertising is likely to be acceptable in locations where static advertising exists or would be accepted. • Sites at locations with high collision rates require detailed analysis. • Locations with tight geometry or major junctions, merges, diverges or pedestrian crossings and located in the urban environment would require detailed analysis. • Proposals should be considered on a site by site basis to ensure that the individual circumstances and physical constraints are fully assessed. • The acceptability of individual sites should take account of appropriate measures to mitigate their impact by control of brightness, form of change and interval between advertisements. Longitudinal Spacing Between Digital Advertisements 3.9 The TfL guidance states that acceptable distances between the screens need to be assessed on a site by site basis to ensure that suitable spacing can be achieved, based on typical road speeds and highway layouts. Drivers should only see the details of a roadside digital advertisement one screen, or a pair of synchronized screens, at a time. This is to ensure that multiple images do not change at different times, which can add to driver distraction. Position 3.10 The TfL guidance states that a digital advertisement is likely to best be located alongside the nearside carriageway or overhead to reflect where official road signs would normally be located. 3.11 This approach will locate the advertisement in the driver's eyeline and reduce the risk of drivers turning attention away from the road. Other locations may be acceptable if they are within the eyeline of drivers and do not create unacceptable risks of diverting attention. Orientation 3.12 The TFL Guidance states that digital advertisements are best orientated to face the oncoming driver as would be the case with official road signs.
8
MSG SPHERE – ROAD USER SAFETY REPORT
Minimum Message Display Duration 3.13 The TfL guidance states that the minimum message display duration should ensure that the majority of approaching drivers do not see more than one or two messages. This reduces the risk of driver's attention being focused on the digital display for long periods in anticipation of the next image. 3.14 The guidance explains that at sites where the cognitive demands on a driver may be higher, restricting the rate of change further to reduce the risk of a driver seeing more than one message at a time on a digital advertisement should be considered. Display Screen Form and Message Sequencing 3.15 The TfL guidance states that digital advertising should not contain moving images or sequencing of images over more than one advert. The Rate of Change 3.16 Research has shown that the period of change is an area where there could be some additional distraction to drivers. The intervals between successive displays should be essentially zero, as a slow merge or bright-dark-bright sequence is more visually compelling than a bright-bright sequence and hence has more potential for distraction. Information Displayed on the Screen 3.17 The TfL Guidance explains that the nature of advertising content is outside the scope of the report, because the Advertising Standards Agency (ASA) is responsible for regulating content. However, the TfL Guidance explains that relevant research advises that: o phone numbers / web address details; and o advertising that requires excessive eye dwell time to assimilate information should be avoided. Lighting 3.18 The maximum brightness of digital advertisements should be controlled to ensure that digital displays do not dazzle road users. Assessing Distraction of Vehicle drivers in Europe from Roadside Technology-based Signage 3.19 Assessing Distraction of Vehicle drivers in Europe from Roadside Technology-based Signage (ADVERTS) is an international project commissioned by the European Platform for Co-operation between National Road Authorities (CEDR). CEDR is an international body set up in 2003 which acts as a platform for European National Roads Authorities (NRAs) including the United Kingdom to share knowledge and best practices and pool resources to collaborate on joint projects. 3.20 The ADVERTS study was undertaken by a consortium of three research institutes including the UK-based The Future of Transport Centre, as well as Dutch and Belgian institutes. The purpose of the project was to provide recommendations for road authorities on how to minimise the safety effects of roadside advertising.
9
MSG SPHERE – ROAD USER SAFETY REPORT
3.21 As explained above, this study is reviewed given that there is limited statutory guidance relating to digital advertising and road user distraction. 3.22 The study explains that the impact of roadside advertising on road safety has been the subject of a number of studies. The study analyses 50 academic studies relating to the effects of roadside advertisements on road user behaviour and sets out a series of recommendations for the implementation of roadside advertising. 3.23 The recommendations are as follows: 1. Digital displays which can be confused with road signs (e.g. size, shape, colour, content or a combination of these) should never be allowed. 2. Digital displays should never be located in such a way as to obstruct or hinder road users’ view of road signs, traffic signals, or any road infrastructure (including the road) critical to their understanding of the road system. 3. Digital displays should be avoided in complex driving situations, such as intersections and motorway exits or entrances. 4. Digital displays with moving images and animations should not be used. The study explains that there is no clear evidence to define an amount of movement that is ‘acceptably safe’. 5. Digital displays should never show content that encourages drivers to look for information or to perform some action which is not relevant to driving. Examples of this include content encouraging actions such as ‘call now’ telephone numbers. 6. Any advertisement on a digital display should be concise, legible and simple to understand - the more information there is on a display, the more difficult it is to read, the more complex it is to understand and the longer drivers will require to read it. 7. The duration of an advert should be maximised so that the number of transitions is minimised. The study explains that the moment one advert changes to another is more distracting than the adverts themselves, and therefore the display time of each advert should be as long as possible to minimise transitions. 8. Digital displays which dazzle road users, or which are excessively bright or reflective should not be allowed. 9. Digital displays with flashing, intermittent, modulating or moving lights or moving parts should not be allowed. 10. Very large digital displays, where the size itself will draw attention, should be avoided. The study does not define a size and explains this will ultimately be dependent on the visibility of the billboard to road users. Summary 3.24 This section has explained that there is limited statutory guidance regarding digital advertisements and highways safety/distraction. Accordingly, the section has also reviewed relevant non-statutory guidance.
10
MSG SPHERE – ROAD USER SAFETY REPORT
3.25 The recommendations within the statutory and non-statutory guidance regarding the location of digital displays and restrictions on content to minimise road user distraction are generally consistent. A summary of the recommendations is as follows: Locational guidance: • Digital displays should not be located in such a way as to obstruct or hinder road users’ view of road signs or traffic signals; • Digital displays in complex driving situations where road users need to pay particular care, such as junctions require detailed analysis; • Digital displays proposed in locations with high collision rates require detailed analysis; • Digital displays are likely to best be located alongside the nearside carriageway or overhead, so the content is in the driver's eyeline to reduce the risk of drivers turning their attention away from the road; • Digital displays should be orientated to face oncoming drivers, as would be the case with official road signs. Content guidance: • The content shown on digital displays should not resemble existing traffic signs or provide directional advice; • The duration of content shown digital displays should be maximised so that the number of transitions between different content is minimised; • The content shown on digital displays should be concise, legible and simple to understand, and should not encourage drivers to look for information (such as email addresses or websites); • Moving images should be avoided and content shown on digital displays should not include fast moving or flashing images; • The brightness of digital displays should be controlled to ensure the content does not dazzle road users. 3.26 The above guidance has helped to inform the approach to assess the potential effects of the proposed development in relation to road user distraction (Section 6) and the proposed mitigation measures (Section 7). 3.27 It is noted that the guidance states that moving images on digital displays should be avoided. However, there are no policies that form part of the Development Plan that restrict the display of moving images. Furthermore, Section 4 of this report demonstrates that there are several examples of large operational digital screens in the UK that display static and moving images in urban locations that are adjacent to roads and clearly visible to passing traffic.
11
MSG SPHERE – ROAD USER SAFETY REPORT
4. CASE STUDIES
4.1 There are many existing digital displays in urban locations across the UK that are visible from heavily trafficked surrounding roads, including in Stratford – for example the advertising on the Town Centre Link Bridge, which was allowed on appeal in March 2016 (ref: APP/M9584/Z/15/3135265). 4.2 This section examines a selection of full-motion existing digital displays and provides an overview of the surrounding road network, the controls imposed on the digital displays and consideration of whether they have led to an increase in accidents on the surrounding roads. The following existing digital displays have been reviewed: • Liverpool Media Wall, Liverpool • Birmingham Media Eyes, Birmingham • Piccadilly Lights, London 4.3 In addition, there are many appeal decisions relating to digital displays and their effects on road user distraction. This section examines several appeal decisions and the key considerations assessed by the Planning Inspectorate. Existing digital displays Liverpool Media Wall (Landsec) Overview 4.4 This digital display (approximately 31m long and 7m high) is located on the Lime Street façade of the St John's shopping centre at a key gateway into the City Centre. It is adjacent to the main entrance of Liverpool Lime Street Station. 4.5 The digital display was originally installed in 2008 and upgraded in 2013.
Figure 1: Liverpool Media Wall, Liverpool
12
MSG SPHERE – ROAD USER SAFETY REPORT
Surrounding road network 4.6 The display is adjacent to the main entrance of Liverpool Lime Street Station at the corner of the Lime Street and St John’s Lane junction. The location of the screen is shown on the plan below. 4.7 The display is located on Lime Street, a key two-way highway that runs north-south through central Liverpool. The highway consists of two southbound lanes and between one and three northbound lanes. 4.8 Traffic travelling in both directions on Lime Street would have a view of the Liverpool Media Wall as they approach it. The display is adjacent to a T-junction with St George’s Place to the west of Lime Street, which has three approach lanes and two departure lanes near the junction. Vehicles turning right from St George’s Place into Lime Street would have views of the display. Another T-junction with Skelhorne Street to the east of Lime Street is located just south of the display. Skelhorne Street is a one-way highway with two approach lanes. Vehicles turning right into Lime Street would have a clear view of the display. Planning history 4.9 Advertising consent was originally granted by Liverpool City Council in October 2007 (ref: 07A/2324). As part of the screen there is a section measuring approximately 31m by 7m which comprises LED screens. The planning officer committee report associated with the application explains that the LED screens will “display moving images in both colour and black and white… and predominantly used for commercial advertisements.” 4.10 The committee report states that although “there is no evidence that moving image displays directly increase the number of road traffic accidents”, conditions were attached to the advertising consent relating to highways safety and the operation of the digital display for moving images. The conditions required: • Submission of a risk assessment prior to the screen becoming operational in consultation with the Council’s highways department and Merseyside Police. • The requirement to establish a monitoring group prior to the screen being erected, with the remit of monitoring the screen’s operation on traffic movements and incidents and to take any remedial actions deemed necessary to ensure continued public safety. The condition explains that the approved group shall meet at least on a quarterly basis and should include representatives from the applicants, Merseyside Police and the Council’s highways department. • Submission of details relating to measures to familiarise road users with the screen prior to it coming into operation. 4.11 Subsequent advertising consents were granted in November 2012 (ref: 12A/2128) and February 2017 (ref: 16A/2691) to retain the existing media screen for a further 5-year period. 4.12 With regards to highways safety, the planning officer reports for these applications explained that “when assessing the original proposals for the media wall, Land Securities were required to undertake a risk assessment prior to it being erected and also monitor the impact of the screen after it became operational. This involved
13
MSG SPHERE – ROAD USER SAFETY REPORT
discussion with the Highways Manager and Merseyside Police and included monitoring any impact of the screen’s operations on traffic movements and incidents, utilising CCTV images where necessary; Police accident statistics; and complaints. This demonstrated that it had no adverse impact on highway safety.” 4.13 The conditions attached to the latest consent (ref: 16A/2691) are set out below. Condition 5 (brightness control) is the only condition in relation to the mitigation of road user distraction. • Condition 1 - This express advertisement consent is granted for a temporary period which will expire on 1 November 2022. • Condition 2 - Full details including samples or specifications of the material to be used in the construction of the wrap-around element of the media wall shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before 1 May 2018. • Condition 3 - Full details of the proposed static display images on the wrap around element of the media screen shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to 1 May 2018 and, for the avoidance of doubt, these static display areas should not be used to display commercial advertisements at any time. • Condition 4 - The approved screen wrap, including static display images, shall be erected to the satisfaction of the local planning authority within three months of the completion of highway improvement works within the vicinity of the site or before 1 May 2019, whichever is first. • Condition 5 - The media screen shall operate at all times within the illumination levels approved as part of 12A/2128. Road traffic accident analysis 4.14 An assessment of personal injury accidents in the immediate vicinity of the Media Wall using Department of Transport data indicates that no increase in accidents occurred after implementation, as shown in Table 1. Year Slight Severity Serious Severity Fatal Total Before implementation of high-definition screen
2005 3 0 0 3 2006 8 0 0 8 2007 5 0 0 5 After implementation of high-definition screen
2008 2 0 0 2 2009 3 1 0 4 2010 2 1 0 3 2011 1 0 0 1 2012 3 1 0 4
14
MSG SPHERE – ROAD USER SAFETY REPORT
2013 3 2 0 5 2014 5 0 0 5 2015 1 1 0 2 2016 2 0 0 2 2017 2 0 0 2 2018 2 0 0 2 Table 1: Personal injury accidents near Liverpool Media Wall, Liverpool (2005 - 2018)
Birmingham Media Eyes (Network Rail) Overview 4.15 Three separate digital displays have been installed above the entrances to Birmingham New Street Station (known as the Birmingham ‘Media Eyes’). The location and size of the three displays are as follows: • Eastern entrance - the display measures 27.3m wide by 4.3m deep and is 3.4m above ground. • Southern entrance – the display measures 29.5m wide by 6.285m deep and is 7.28m above ground. • North-west entrance – the display measures 25.4m wide by 5.26m deep 4.16 It is understood that the digital displays were installed in October 2015.
Figure 2: Birmingham Media Eyes Surrounding road network 4.17 A description of the road network surrounding each of the three digital displays is explained below: • Eastern entrance – the display is visible from Smallbrook Queensway, a two- way highway with one lane in each direction. The display would be visible for westbound traffic. Bus stops are located on both sides of the highway near the display.
15
MSG SPHERE – ROAD USER SAFETY REPORT
• Southern entrance – the display is located adjacent to the junction of Station Street and Hill Street. South of the junction, Hill Street is a one-way highway with two northbound lanes. North of the junction, Hill Street features one lane in each direction. Station Street is a one-way highway east of the junction with two departures lanes. West of the junction, Station Street features one lane in each direction. The display would be visible for northbound traffic on Hill Street and eastbound traffic on Station Street. • North-west entrance - the display is located adjacent to the junction of Stephenson Street and Navigation Street. Stephenson Street is a tramway, although vehicles can turn into Stephenson Street from Navigation Street. Navigation Street is a two-way highway with one lane in each direction. Northbound vehicles would have a direct view of the display. Vehicles cannot turn from Stephenson Street into Navigation Street. 4.18 The plan below illustrates the approximate location of the digital displays (marked red).
Figure 3: Location of Birmingham Media Eyes (marked red) Planning history 4.19 Advertising consent was granted by Birmingham City Council for the digital displays above the eastern and southern entrances in December 2015 (ref: 2015/05517/PA). A separate advertising consent was granted in December 2015 for the display above the northwest entrance (ref: 2015/08158/PA). 4.20 The description of development for the applications and the associated planning officer reports explained that the screens will show “full motion digital content.” 4.21 With regards to highways safety, the planning officer report associated with the applications stated that “the adverts would be full motion digital content but given their location in the City Centre this is deemed acceptable as other similar advert screens have been approved and are now operational.”
16
MSG SPHERE – ROAD USER SAFETY REPORT
4.22 The conditions attached to the consents 2015/05517/PA and 2015/08158/PA are set out below. Condition 2 (brightness control) is the only condition in relation to the mitigation of road user distraction. • Condition 1 (Limits the use of advert). The advertisement hereby approved shall: i. not include any message sequencing ii. not emit noise, sound, smoke, smell or odours iii. include a default mechanism that will freeze the sign in one position if a malfunction occurs iv. not include features/equipment which would allow interactive messages/advertisements to be displayed. • Condition 2 (Limits the control of the intensity of the illumination). The advertisements shall be equipped with a dimmer control and a photo cell, or similar mechanism, which shall constantly monitor ambient light conditions and adjust sign brightness accordingly. The brightness or the illumination shall be no greater than 300cd/m2. • Condition 3 - Requires the scheme to be in accordance with the listed approved plans. • Condition 4 - Limits the approval to 5 years (advert) The advertisement consent hereby granted shall expire at the end of 5 years from the date of this consent.
Road traffic accident analysis 4.23 An assessment of personal injury accidents in the immediate vicinity of the Media Eyes using Department of Transport data does not indicate any increase in accidents since the digital displays were installed, as shown in Table 2, 3 and 4. Year Slight Severity Serious Severity Fatal Total Before implementation of high-definition screen
2014 2 0 0 2 2015 1 0 0 1 After implementation of high-definition screen
2016 1 0 0 1 2017 0 0 0 0 2018 0 0 0 0 Table 2: Personal injury accidents near Birmingham Eyes – Eastern entrance (2014 - 2018)
17
MSG SPHERE – ROAD USER SAFETY REPORT
Year Slight Severity Serious Severity Fatal Total Before implementation of high-definition screen
2014 0 1 0 1 2015 0 1 0 1 After implementation of high-definition screen
2016 1 0 0 1 2017 0 1 0 0 2018 0 0 0 0 Table 3: Personal injury accidents near Birmingham Eyes – Southern entrance (2014 - 2018)
Year Slight Severity Serious Severity Fatal Total Before implementation of high-definition screen
2014 1 0 0 1 2015 0 0 0 0 After implementation of high-definition screen
2016 0 0 0 0 2017 2 0 0 2 2018 2 0 0 2 Table 4: Personal injury accidents near Birmingham Eyes – Northwestern entrance (2014 - 2018) Piccadilly Circus, London Overview 4.24 In 2017, Westminster City Council granted consent for the replacement of static digital advertising boards with a single animated digital advertising board measuring 17.79m x 44.96m at Piccadilly Lights, Piccadilly Circus.
Figure 4: Piccadilly Lights, Piccadilly Circus
18
MSG SPHERE – ROAD USER SAFETY REPORT
Surrounding road network 4.25 The digital displays are clearly visible from multiple heavily trafficked roads approaching the site where there is a high frequency of vehicles changing lanes and various traffic signals in a busy pedestrianised location. Planning history 4.26 The advertisement consent for the digital display (ref: 16/03720/ADV) was granted in 2017. The application was supported by a Transport Statement which considered highways safety and concluded: • Having regard to the highway circumstances and with regard to the relevant guidance the proposed display screen would not give rise to harm in highway safety terms; • The upgraded LED display screen will be the same size as the existing display; • The site has no material accident problem at present; • There have been no real locational or time accident clusters in the area; • The proposals will not have an unacceptable net effect on driver's or pedestrian's attention; • The local highway network is not unduly complex or complicated and has no existing road signs in the vicinity of the screen; • Confidence can be drawn from other full motion displays across the UK, for example the existing urban LED display screens in London, Birmingham, and Liverpool; • The proposals will comply with rigid standards set out by other local planning authorities for this type of digital media. 4.27 A condition was attached to the advertisement consent requiring the screens to be used for the display of advertisements and other content in strict accordance with a Code of Conduct (dated 25 July 2016). The Code of Conduct includes a number of key principles for displaying advertising and other content on the screen, including the following relating to mitigating distraction: • To not be illuminated by intermittent or flashing lighting; • The luminance level not to exceed 1000cd/m2 limit on calibrated white content during the hours of darkness (between sunset and sunrise) unless approved by WCC. There is no maximum limit for periods during the day; • Any changes to brightness will be made so as not to cause visual distraction through significant adjustments to screen brightness at any one time. Road traffic accident analysis 4.28 An assessment of personal injury accidents in the immediate vicinity of Piccadilly Lights using TfL collision data demonstrates that no clear trend of increases in collisions was recorded after the new screen became operational, as shown in Table 5.
19
MSG SPHERE – ROAD USER SAFETY REPORT
Year Slight Severity Serious Severity Fatal Total Before implementation of single high-definition screen
2014 8 3 0 11 2015 9 1 0 10 2016 6 0 0 6 Piccadilly lights switched off during implementation of single high-definition screen 2017 12 0 0 12 After implementation of single high-definition screen 2018 9 0 0 9 Table 5: Personal injury accidents near Piccadilly Circus (2014 - 2018)
Appeal Decisions 4.29 This section examines several appeal decisions relating to advertisement applications for LED digital displays where highways safety / road user distraction has been one of the main issues considered by the Planning Inspectorate. The appeal cases are in a range of urban environments. 4.30 The purpose of this section is to establish the key considerations assessed by the Planning Inspectorate as part of the appeals. Halo House, 14 Galleymead Road, Slough (APP/J0350/H/17/3190614) 4.31 An application for advertisement consent (P/12982/008) was submitted to Slough Borough Council in August 2017 for amendments to conditions attached to two LED advertising displays each measuring 18m wide x 4.6m high. The appeal site is positioned to the west of the M25 between junctions 14 and 15, at which point the carriageway is 6 lanes wide in both directions. 4.32 The Council refused the application due to impacts on highways safety. The applicant subsequently appealed the decision and the appeal was considered by the Planning Inspectorate in December 2018. The focus of the Inspector’s decision was in respect to the proposed change to a condition allowing advertisements to be displayed on each panel up to once every 10 seconds, rather than the previously consented once every 30 seconds. 4.33 The Inspector recognised that given the proximity of the advertisements to junctions 14 and 15 of the M25, it was likely to be an area where there is a high frequency of drivers changing lanes. The Inspector considered that a refresh rate of 10 seconds would still be a considerable period of time and wold be sufficient so that changes would not appear so frequent as to cause additional distraction. 4.34 The Inspector considered accident data and concluded that there was no evidence to indicate that a refresh rate of at least 10 seconds is so short that it would result in any substantial change to the existing situation in terms of harm to highways safety. 4.35 The appeal was allowed, subject to the five standard advertisement conditions in addition to the following conditions:
20
MSG SPHERE – ROAD USER SAFETY REPORT
• The development approved shall be implemented in accordance with the approved plans and drawings. • The level of illuminance shall not exceed 600 candelas per sq. m during the day and 300 candelas per sq. m from dusk to dawn. • The signs shall not have any moving or apparently moving images. • Any change to the advertisement display shall be instantaneous. • The advertisement displayed on each panel shall not change more frequently than once every 10 seconds. Land adjacent to Neachells Lane, Wolverhampton, WV13 3SF (APP/D4635/Z/18/3201966) 4.36 An advertisement application that included two 48-sheet digital LED displays (18/00035/ADV) was refused by Wolverhampton City Council in March 2018. The applicant appealed the decision and the appeal was considered by the Planning Inspectorate in August 2018. 4.37 The appeal site is located within proximity of the junction of Neachells Lane and Watery Lane, both of which are single carriageways and considered by the Inspector to be relatively simple in terms of their design. 4.38 The main issue considered by the Inspector was the effect of the proposed advertisement on public safety. The Inspector explained that the siting of the proposed advertisements and the significant stretch of straight road leading to the junction were such that they would be visible for some distance when approaching the junction. Accordingly, he considered that this would provide sufficient time for the advertisements to be seen and their contents noted by drivers without causing any confusion or sudden visual disturbance. 4.39 The Inspector also noted that there was no evidence suggesting any road traffic accidents had occurred in the vicinity of the junction. 4.40 The Inspector concluded that whilst he considered the nature of the proposed advertisements would cause a degree of distraction, it was not considered to amount to an unacceptable effect on the safety of motorists using the highways in the vicinity of the site, subject to the additional conditions proposed by the appellant. 4.41 The appeal was allowed, subject to the five standard advertisement conditions in addition to the following conditions: • The intensity of illumination of the advertising units shall be no greater than 600 candela/sq. m during the daytime and 300 candela/sq. m at night; • The minimum display time for each advertisement shall be 10 seconds and there shall be no special effects of any kind during or after the display of advertisements; • The sequencing of messages relating to the same product is prohibited; • The interval between the display of each advertisement shall be 0.1 seconds or less and the complete display screen shall change without visual effect;
21
MSG SPHERE – ROAD USER SAFETY REPORT
• The advertising display panel shall have a default mechanism to freeze an advertisement in the event of any malfunction. Claremont Street, Easton, Bristol (ref: APP/Z0116/Z/17/3184212) 4.42 An application for advertisement consent (ref 17/02764/A) was submitted to Bristol City Council in 2017 for the erection of a digital LED advertising display to replace an existing 48-sheet backlit advertising display. The appeal site is adjacent to and clearly visible from the A4320 on the approach to the junction with the A432. 4.43 The application was refused by Bristol Council on the grounds that “the proposed changing nature of the images (once every ten seconds) would lead to additional driver distraction over and above that caused by the existing advertisement. This would give rise to a potential severe impact on traffic safety.” 4.44 The applicant subsequently appealed the decision and the appeal was considered by the Planning Inspectorate in 2018. The Inspector recognised that the proposed advertisement would be large, highly visible and angled towards on-coming traffic along the A4320. The Inspector explained that it would not obscure traffic signals and would be fully visible to drivers travelling along the adjacent highway. 4.45 The Inspector stated that “it is generally accepted that the minimum message display duration...should ensure that the majority of approaching drivers do not see more than one or two messages in order to reduce the risk of a driver’s attention being focused on the digital display for long periods.” 4.46 The Inspector further noted that there was good visibility along the approach allowing drivers to glance at any advert far in advance and noted there were no unusual complexities associated with the nearby junction that required drivers to take extra care in manoeuvring along this stretch of highway. 4.47 The appeal was allowed, with the following conditions attached to the consent, including restrictions on brightness and minimum display time for each advertisement to minimise driver distraction: • The intensity of the illumination of the advertising unit permitted by this consent shall be no greater than 300 candela/sqm; • The minimum display time for each advertisement shall be 10 seconds and there shall be no special effects; • The sequencing of messages relating to the same product is prohibited; • The interval between successive displays shall be 0.1 seconds or less and should not include visual effects between each advertisement; • The advertising display panel shall have a default mechanism to freeze an advertisement in the event of any malfunction. Blackwall Tunnel A102, London (APP/E5900/Z/15/3135304) 4.48 An application for advertisement consent was submitted to the London Borough of Tower Hamlets in 2015 (ref: PA/15/01799) for the erection of a single sided digital display (14m by 3.5m) on the northern side of the Blackwall Tunnel to face south boundary traffic. The application was refused in August 2015 on the grounds of public
22
MSG SPHERE – ROAD USER SAFETY REPORT
safety and was subsequently considered at appeal by the Planning Inspectorate in February 2016. 4.49 The advertisement was proposed to be located at the entrance to the southbound vehicular underpass where the A13 East India Dock Road crosses over the A102 Blackwall Tunnel approach. 4.50 The Inspector explained that the site was located adjacent to where the A102 narrows to two lanes at the A13 slip road point, with the two remaining lanes narrowing to approximately 3m. Given that the road was heavily trafficked with many heavy goods vehicles in transit, the Inspector considered that the distraction associated with the advertisement could impact on highways safety. 4.51 Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed due to the potential hazard to public safety. Capital House, 25 Chapel Street, London (Ref: APP/X5990/A/12/2181868) 4.52 An application for advertisement consent (ref 12/04417/ADV) was submitted to Westminster City Council in 2012 for the erection of a digital LED advertising display (12m by 5m). 4.53 The site is situated adjacent to the A40 Flyover, the A5 Edgware Road and the A404 Harrow Road. 4.54 The applicant appealed against non-determination and the Planning Inspectorate considered the appeal in 2013. The appeal decision explained that the Council resolved that it would have refused the application had an appeal not been submitted, on the basis that the proposed advertisement would be a distraction to drivers on the carriageways adjacent to the site. 4.55 The Council cited ‘Investigating Driver Distraction: The Effects of Video and Static Advertising – A Driver Simulator Study,’ which concluded that the presence of any advertisement has the effect of significantly decreasing drivers’ mean speed. The Inspector dismissed this argument, as the study does not suggest that the variations in speed have a significant effect on highway safety. 4.56 The Inspector considered that drivers would be able to see and read the advertisement without the need to look sideways, and therefore would not impede drivers’ ability to react to slowing or stationary traffic. The Inspector concluded that the proposed advertisement would not be a significant distraction to drivers nor impair pedestrian safety. 4.57 The appeal was however dismissed due to harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area. Big Yellow Storage, 400 Wick Lane, E3 2JG (APP/U9582/H/08/1203337 & APP/U9582/H/09/2105038 & APP/U9582/H/10/2123868) 4.58 Three applications for advertisement consent were refused by the Olympic Delivery Authority in July 2008 (ref: 08/900132/ADVODA), April 2019 (09/90017/ADVODA), January 2010 (09/90385/ADVODA) for an illuminated digital display advertising panel.
23
MSG SPHERE – ROAD USER SAFETY REPORT
4.59 The applicant appealed against each of the three decisions. The advertisement was proposed in a location that is clearly visible from the A12 – accordingly, the impact on the safety of road users on the A12 was considered as part of each appeal decision by the Planning Inspectorate. It was noted that the relevant section of the A12 has multiple lanes and is heavily trafficked with vehicles (including Heavy Goods Vehicles) travelling at high speeds. 4.60 As part of the decisions, the Inspectors referred to comments from TfL, who indicated that there were a relatively high number of accidents on that section of the A12 within 200m either side of the appeal site. The Inspectors explained that the appeal site is in a location in which drivers would need to take special care to avoid potential hazards and respond to movements of other drivers, some of whom may be changing lanes or slowing to exit the A12. The Inspector also referred to this section of the A12 being heavily trafficked. 4.61 Accordingly, the Inspectors concluded for each of the appeals that the proposed advertisement could be a distraction at a critical time for drivers and thus be prejudicial to the safety of southbound traffic on the A12. The appeals were therefore dismissed. Land at the junction of Great West Road and Gunnersbury Avenue, London w4 (APP/F5540/H/06/1198991) 4.62 An application for seven advertising panels with LED screens was refused by the London Borough of Hounslow in May 2006. The applicant appealed the decision and the Planning Inspectorate considered the appeal in August 2006. 4.63 The appeal site is bounded by the A4 Great West Road to the south-west, with the A4 merging with the M4 in the general area of the site. The A406 Gunnersbury Avenue is to the east of the appeal site. Therefore, the appeal site is clearly visible from major / high-speed roads. The effects of the proposed advertisement on highways safety was a key issue considered by the Inspector. 4.64 The Inspector noted that the M4 is classified as a motorway subject to a 40mph speed limit, with heavy volumes of traffic in a location where drivers negotiate either the end or the beginning of the motorway and seek to read overheard gantry signs. In this context, the Inspector concluded that the introduction of advertisements in this location would introduce an additional public safety risk and dismissed the appeal. Summary 4.65 This section has examined several existing full-motion digital displays in urban locations across the UK. These displays are clearly visible from surrounding roads and signalised junctions that are heavily trafficked. The displays have some conditions in relation to mitigating driver distraction, including restrictions on brightness levels and the display of intermittent or flashing lighting. 4.66 The available accident data for the roads surrounding the digital displays does not demonstrate an increase in accidents since the displays were installed. 4.67 This section has also reviewed several appeal decisions that relate to the installation of digital advertising displays and the effects on highways safety / road user distraction. The review indicates that there is no standardised process for assessing distraction
24
MSG SPHERE – ROAD USER SAFETY REPORT
effects, and each decision is assessed on a site-by-site basis. The key considerations assessed by Planning Inspectors include: • The visibility of a digital display from surrounding roads; • The road configuration on the approach to a digital display and the position of the display in relation to the driver’s eyeline; • The complexity of the surrounding roads and likely level of concentration required on the approach to the digital displays; • The speed of traffic on the surrounding roads; • The level of traffic and types of vehicles on the roads approaching the displays; • The available traffic accident data for the roads surrounding the displays; and • Whether the digital displays would obscure road traffic signals / infrastructure. 4.68 These matters have been considered in relation to the proposed development in Sections 5 and 6 of this report.
25
MSG SPHERE – ROAD USER SAFETY REPORT
5. SITE ANALYSIS
Surrounding highways network 5.1 The Site is bounded by Montfichet Road to the west, the HS1/Southeastern line to the north, and Angel Lane to the east. 5.2 Angel Lane connects the Great Eastern Road (A118) to the HS1 access at Leyton Road. It bridges over the rail lines to the east of the site, reaching its peak at a signalised junction that was used during the Olympics, before descending down to Leyton Road. The signalised junction was introduced during the Olympics to link Angel Lane with a previously existing ramp that led to the coach park on the Site. The speed limit on Angel Lane is 30mph, although this reduces on approach to Great Eastern Road to 20mph. 5.3 Angel Lane links into the Stratford gyratory to the south east of the Site, which consists of a carriageway made up of Broadway, Stratford High Street, Great Eastern Road and The Grove. Improvement works were carried out to the Gyratory in 2017-18, which altered it to a two-way carriageway, reducing the speed to 20mph, relocating coach parking to Montfichet Road, providing wider footways for pedestrians and providing a segregated cycle lane. It is expected that these improvement works will reduce the occurrence of traffic accidents through the segregation of vulnerable users from vehicles, reduced road space for vehicles and reduced speed limits encouraging safer driving behaviour. 5.4 Montfichet Road to the west of the Site is a four lane, two-way carriageway road, connecting Warton Road with Penny Brookes Street. This highway runs between the site and Westfield, providing access to the west of Stratford via Westfield Avenue, which leads to Waterden Road and the A12. Additionally, Stratford City Bus Station, the Engie Energy Centre and Hitchcock Lane can be accessed from Montfichet Road. 5.5 The three lane, two-way A12 arterial road circulates to the north and west of Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park (QEOP) at a distance of approximately two kilometres from the site. The A12 provides links towards South London, the M25 and Essex. Improvement works to Montfichet Road 5.6 The proposed development includes highways improvements works to Montfichet Road, which will be secured through a Section 278 Agreement. The works will reduce the dominance of vehicular traffic, improve the public realm, cycling facilities and accommodate the required crowd movements and infrastructure associated with the proposed development. 5.7 The core design principles for the Montfichet Road design originate from ‘Reconfiguration of Westfield Avenue and Montfichet Road - Feasibility Design Report (May 2015)’ commissioned by the LLDC. 5.8 The proposed reduction from a dual to single carriageway reduces the capacity of this highway link. However, it is clear from the LLDC design brief that the key aims are to refocus the highway towards prioritising pedestrians and cyclists rather than vehicles. 5.9 The design features that are specifically proposed for Montfichet Road are as follows: • Improvement of eastern footway of Montfichet Road;
26
MSG SPHERE – ROAD USER SAFETY REPORT
• Creation of dedicated cycle facilities in both directions; and • Reduction of the dual carriageway down to a single vehicular lane in each direction. 5.10 The provision of higher quality pedestrian and cycle infrastructure and reduction in traffic lanes will make Montfichet Road a safer environment for all users. Highways improvement works to Angel Lane 5.11 Highway improvements are also proposed to Angel Lane, which will be secured through a Section 278 Agreement. The proposed highway design aims to rationalise the road alignment for the extent of the scheme to maintain a consistent carriageway of 6.5m where possible. 5.12 There is an existing pinch point on Angel Lane, resulting from the parapet wall to the west and private land to the east, which prevents Angel Lane from maintaining a consistent advisory cycle lane throughout this section of the highway. This extends for a distance of approximately 50m, between the current three arm signalised junction, up to the junction with Maryland Road further north. 5.13 The proposal is to terminate the advisory cycle lane to instead provide a consistent carriageway width, where possible, as well as integrating a raised table through the location at which the existing redundant junction is located, to provide a level of vertical deflection and help reduce vehicle speeds. This will ensure cyclists gain a primary position on the road and prevent vehicles from attempting to overtake cyclists. There is a further controlled pedestrian crossing, coupled with a raised table, immediately south of Windmill Lane that will also help in reducing vehicular speeds in the location where the cycle lane is terminated. These design measures are expected to ensure this stretch of highway is safe for vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians. 5.14 The signalised junction at the Angel Lane bridge head will be removed as it serves no purpose with the proposed through-route and will be replaced with a simple single lane carriageway. Traffic analysis 5.15 Traffic surveys have been conducted near the Site on Angel Lane and Montfichet Road. 5.16 Automated Traffic Count (ATC) surveys were conducted on Angel Lane near the bend in the highway between 21 March 2018 and 27 March 2018. The average traffic flows across the week by mode of transport are shown in Table 6:
Table 6: Traffic flows on Angel Lane
27
MSG SPHERE – ROAD USER SAFETY REPORT
5.17 Table 4 demonstrates that the traffic flows at the location surveyed on Angel Lane are almost entirely composed of motorised vehicles, with limited bicycle movements. 5.18 ATC surveys were conducted on Montfichet Road south of Hitchcock Lane on 1 August 2018. The traffic flows by mode of transport are shown in Table 7:
Table 7: Traffic flows on Angel Lane 5.19 Table 5 demonstrates that motorised vehicles comprise a majority of the vehicular movements along Montfichet Road, with heavy vehicles constituting a high proportion of traffic in the AM peak hour. The survey indicates that low numbers of cyclists use Montfichet Road. Highways accident analysis 5.20 In order to assist the assessment of potential risks relating to highways safety surrounding the Site, road traffic accident analysis has been undertaken. 5.21 A review of the personal injury accidents on the highway network surrounding the Site was undertaken for a three-year period between January 2016 and December 2018. 5.22 A total of 108 personal injury accidents were recorded on local roads within the vicinity of the Site, including 16 serious accidents and zero fatal accidents within the three-year period. 5.23 The analysis identifies the following ‘peak accident areas’ surrounding the Site: 1. At the junction between Montfichet Road and Westfield Avenue, to the south- west of the Site. 2. Along Great Eastern Street: a. Great Eastern Road (northbound): Junction with High Street and Broadway b. Great Eastern Road (northbound): Junction with Station Street c. Junction of Great Eastern Road and Angel Lane 3. At the junction of Forest Lane and Leytonstone Road 4. At the junction of Broadway and West Ham Lane 5.24 These locations are shown on Figure 5 below.
28
MSG SPHERE – ROAD USER SAFETY REPORT
Figure 5: Road traffic accident analysis surrounding the Site 5.25 It should be noted that the accident data was collected prior to the installation of the Stratford Gyratory in 2019, which is expected to have resolved the safety issues in these locations as a result of lower average vehicular speeds and improved facilities and safety for pedestrians and cyclists. 5.26 A summary of the ‘serious’ accidents recorded is provided in Table 8. Accident Date Location Summary Conditions Severity
High Street junction with Vehicle collided with 03/02/2016 Dark, dry Serious Great Eastern a motorcyclist. Road
Great Eastern Pedestrian walked Road junction into a road with a 04/04/2016 Daylight, dry Serious with Meridian vehicle passing Square through.
Westfield Avenue Vehicle collided with 06/05/2016 junction with Dark, dry Serious a parked vehicle. Montfichet Road
29
MSG SPHERE – ROAD USER SAFETY REPORT
Great Eastern Road junction Pedestrian collided 01/02/2017 Dark, wet Serious with Station with a vehicle. Street
International Way junction with Vehicle collided with 19/06/2017 Daylight, dry Serious Celebration another vehicle. Avenue
The Broadway Vehicle collided with 26/09/2017 junction with West Daylight, dry Serious a motorcyclist. Ham Lane
Great Eastern Vehicle collided with 13/10/2017 Road junction Dark, dry Serious a pedestrian. with Angel Lane
Great Eastern Vehicle collided with 19/10/2017 Dark, dry Serious Road a pedestrian.
Stratford Bus Station junction Bus / coach collided 22/10/2017 Dark, dry Serious with Great with a pedestrian. Eastern Road
Great Eastern Pedestrian collided 27/10/2017 Road junction Dark, dry Serious with a vehicle. with Stratford Mall
Broadway Pedestrian collided 22/12/2017 junction with West Dark, dry Serious with a vehicle. Ham Lane
Penny Brookes Street junction Pedestrian collided 06/05/2018 Dark, dry Serious with Montfichet with a vehicle. Road
30
MSG SPHERE – ROAD USER SAFETY REPORT
Broadway Cyclist collided with 31/05/2018 junction with Dark, dry Serious a vehicle. Tramway Avenue
Great Eastern Pedestrian collided 26/06/2018 Daylight, dry Serious Road with a vehicle.
Great Eastern Cyclist collided with 10/07/2018 Daylight, dry Serious Road a vehicle.
Champions Walk Junction with Vehicle collided with 23/09/2018 Dark, wet Serious Penny Brook another vehicle. Street
Table 8: summary of ‘serious’ accidents Benchmarking – Greater London 5.27 A study by University College London in 2018 (“A novel rare event approach to measure the randomness and concentration of road accidents”) found that approximately 50% of car accidents in London occur at just 5% of the city’s junctions. The study cited that road accidents were particularly prevalent in the areas near the underground stations at Camden Town and Elephant and Castle. 5.28 In this context, a high-level assessment of accidents occurring on the highway network surrounding Camden Town Tube Station has been undertaken (using TfL collision data) and compared to the road collisions near to the Site. The adoption of a study area similar in scale to that used in the assessment of the Site identified that approximately 260-270 personal injury accidents occurred between January 2016 and December 2018 on the highway network surrounding Camden Town Tube Station. This included 44 serious injuries and one fatality. The rate of personal injury accidents occurring on the highway network surrounding the Site is approximately 40% of the rate compared to the highway network surrounding Camden Town Tube Station. This is prior to the redesign of the Stratford Gyratory, which is where the majority of accidents surrounding the Site have occurred. The redesigned Gyratory is expected to reduce the frequency of accidents in this location. 5.29 The worst affected length of highway in both study areas have been identified to obtain comparative collision rates. Within the study area for the Site, the greatest number of collisions on any length of highway from 2016 to 2018 was 26 collisions on Great Eastern Road - between High Street and Angel Lane. 5.30 Traffic modelling for this area of the highway for 2017 indicates that the annual average daily traffic is approximately 23,500 vehicles. The collision rate on Great Eastern Road is therefore approximately 37 collisions per 100,000 vehicles. 31
MSG SPHERE – ROAD USER SAFETY REPORT
5.31 Within the Camden study area, the worst affected length between 2016 and 2018 was on Camden Road - between Camden High Street and Camden Street, with 25 collisions. Department for Transport data estimates that the average annual daily traffic on this length is approximately 11,250. The collision rate on Camden Road equates to approximately 74 collisions per 100,000 vehicles. 5.32 The collision rate on Great Eastern Road is therefore approximately half that of a representative length of highways surrounding Camden Town tube station. As explained above, this is prior to the redesign of the Stratford Gyratory, and therefore recent accident rates are expected to be lower. Benchmarking – Local Area 5.33 To determine whether the level of collisions observed within the study area for the Site is typical for the local area, a high-level assessment of accidents occurring on the highway network adjacent to the study area has been undertaken using TfL collision data. 5.34 The comparative study area utilised is to the east of Stratford Town Centre on High Street - between Great Eastern Road and the A12. The analysis identifies that between January 2016 and December 2018, approximately 80 personal injury accidents occurred in this study area, including 10 that were serious and 1 fatality. 5.35 These figures are broadly commensurate to the collisions observed on the highway network surrounding the Site during the same period, despite the comparative study area for the High Street being significantly smaller than the study area for the Site. This suggests that the amount of accidents currently observed on the highway network adjacent to the Site is not above what could be considered normal in the local area. Summary 5.36 This section has provided an overview of the existing highways network surrounding the Site, which comprises low-speed roads that do not feature overly complex road configurations or junctions. The highways accident data analysis indicates the amount of accidents currently observed on the highway network adjacent to the Site is not above what could be considered normal in the local area. 5.37 The proposed development includes highways improvement works to Angel Lane and Montfichet Road, which will be secured by a section 278 agreement. The works will enhance safety of the routes by providing high quality infrastructure for pedestrians and cyclists, while making design changes to reduce traffic speeds and volume.
32
MSG SPHERE – ROAD USER SAFETY REPORT
6. ROAD USER DISTRACTION ASSESSMENT
Introduction 6.1 As set out in Section 3, there is limited statutory and non-statutory guidance regarding the effect of digital displays on highways safety and road user distraction. There is no specific guidance setting out a standardised approach for assessing road user distraction, and this is a judgement exercised by the local planning authority and/or planning Inspector based on the circumstances in each case. 6.2 In this context, this section assesses the potential effects of the proposed development in relation to road user distraction and highways safety utilising the following approach: • In the first instance, an assessment is undertaken to determine the visibility of the proposed development from surrounding roads and junctions within a 2km radius of the Site. • The section subsequently undertakes detailed analysis from the identified roads and junctions where the proposed development is highly visible to consider the potential effects in relation to road user distraction and assist in guiding mitigation measures. Visibility assessment 6.3 This section assesses the visibility of the proposed development from roads and junctions within a 2km radius of the Site. The extent of the radius has primarily been arrived at to ensure the sections of the A12 that are closest to the Site are incorporated into the analysis, given that it is an arterial road route with high speed traffic that runs to the north, west and south of the Site. Furthermore, the visibility of the proposed development from roads and junctions beyond the 2km radius is limited, and it is considered that the effects of the proposed development in relation to road user distraction beyond the 2km radius would be consistent or less than the assessed effects within this radius. 6.4 The Zone of Visual Influence (ZVI) (incorporating the proposed 2023 cumulative scenario in accordance with the Environmental Statement) has been utilised to determine the visibility of the proposed development from two heights: • 1.06m above ground (shown red on the ZVI plan), which is the standard driver eye height for a normal passenger vehicle; • 2.6m above ground (shown blue on the ZVI plan), which is the standard driver eye height for a Heavy Goods Vehicle. 6.5 The ZVI analysis demonstrates that there is no material difference in the visibility of the proposed development from surrounding roads and junctions between the two heights. Accordingly, it is not considered that there are any additional viewpoints at a height of 2.6m which need to be tested that are not already identified by the 1.06m height. 6.6 The analysis has been reviewed to identify the roads and junctions within the 2km radius where the proposed development is visible to determine appropriate viewpoints for further assessment. The roads and junctions where the ZVI indicates that there is
33
MSG SPHERE – ROAD USER SAFETY REPORT
brief/intermittent visibility of the proposed development are not subject to further assessment. Furthermore, roads where the ZVI indicates visibility of the proposed development, but are one-way systems travelling away from the Site (i.e. Manbey Street), are not subject to further assessment. 6.7 A total of 75 viewpoints have been identified for further assessment. Model-based images (taken from 1.06m above ground) have been prepared for each viewpoint (see Appendix 1) to determine the extent of visibility of the proposed development. The images show the proposed development (coloured black) in the proposed 2023 scenario (images to the left) and the proposed 2031 scenario (images to the right) - in accordance with the Environmental Statement. 6.8 An assessment of the visibility of the proposed development from the viewpoints has been undertaken to determine: • The viewpoints where there is limited or no visibility of the proposed development (due to the distance from the Site and/or intervening structures/buildings) in the proposed 2023 scenario. These viewpoints are not subject to further assessment. • The viewpoints where there is a higher level of visibility of the proposed development. These viewpoints are subject to further assessment in terms of the potential effects of the proposed development on road user distraction, and split into the following categories: o An assessment of the viewpoints from ‘minor’ roads; o An assessment of the viewpoints from ‘A-roads’ and ‘B-roads’. 6.9 This analysis is undertaken below. Road user distraction assessment Viewpoints not subject to further assessment 6.10 The analysis demonstrates limited or no visibility of the proposed development from the following viewpoints in the proposed 2023 scenario, and are therefore not subject to further assessment: Viewpoint Commentary View 1: Carpenters Road: eastbound | east of London Only a small part of the upper section of the Way Bridge sphere façade is visible in the proposed 2023 scenario. There is no visibility of the proposed development in the proposed 2031 scenario. View 2: Waterden Road: eastbound | junction with Only a small part of the upper section of the Clarnico Lane and London Way sphere façade is visible in the proposed 2023 scenario. There is no visibility of the proposed development in the proposed 2031 scenario. View 3: Copper Street: eastbound | junction with There is limited visibility of the proposed Waterden Road development in the proposed 2023 and 2031 scenarios.
34
MSG SPHERE – ROAD USER SAFETY REPORT
View 4: A106 Eastway: eastbound | junction with There is no visibility of the proposed Waterden Road and A12 development in the proposed 2023 and 2031 scenarios. View 5: Ruckholt Road There is no visibility of the proposed development in the proposed 2023 and 2031 scenarios. View 6: Orient Way Only a small part of the upper section of the sphere façade is visible in the proposed 2023 and 2031 scenarios. The viewpoint is a significant distance from the Site. View 7: A12: westbound | west of Leyton Station There is no visibility of the proposed development in the proposed 2023 and 2031 scenarios. View 8: Grove Green Road Only a small part of the upper section of the sphere façade is visible in the proposed 2023 and 2031 scenarios. The viewpoint is a significant distance from the Site. View 9: A12: westbound | north of St Patrick’s The upper parts of the sphere façade are partially Roman Catholic Cemetery visible. However, the viewpoint is approx. 1.5km from the Site and therefore visibility of images shown on the sphere façade would be limited. View 10: A112 High Road Leyton: southbound | The upper parts of the sphere façade are partially Leyton Tube Station visible. However, the viewpoint is approx. 1.5km from the Site and therefore visibility of images shown on the sphere façade would be limited. Furthermore, the visibility of the sphere façade would be for a limited stretch of the road – it would not be visible from viewpoint 11. View 11: A112 High Road Leyton: southbound There is no visibility of the proposed development in the proposed 2023 and 2031 scenarios. View 12: A112 High Road Leyton: southbound There is limited visibility of the proposed development in the proposed 2023 and 2031 scenarios. View 13: A112 High Road Leyton: southbound There is partial visibility of the upper parts of the sphere façade in the proposed 2023 scenario. There is no visibility in the proposed 2031 scenario from this viewpoint. The visibility of the proposed development whilst travelling along High Road Leyton Road onto Angel Lane is assessed in detail below. View 14: Langthorne Road: southbound There is partial visibility of upper parts of the sphere façade from this viewpoint in the proposed 2023 and 2031 scenarios. However,
35
MSG SPHERE – ROAD USER SAFETY REPORT
the viewpoint is over 1km from the Site and therefore visibility of images shown on the sphere façade would be limited. View 15: High Road Leytonstone: southbound There is limited visibility of the proposed development in the proposed 2023 and 2031 scenarios. View 16: Birch Road: southbound There is no visibility of the proposed development in the proposed 2023 and 2031 scenarios. View 17: Cann Hall Road: westbound There is no visibility of the proposed development in the proposed 2023 and 2031 scenarios. View 18: Cemetery Road: westbound There is partial visibility of the upper parts of the sphere façade from this viewpoint in the proposed 2023 and 2031 scenarios. However, the viewpoint is approx. 1.5km from the Site and therefore visibility of images shown on the sphere façade would be limited. View 19: Gurney Road: westbound There is no visibility of the proposed development in the proposed 2023 and 2031 scenarios. View 20: Earlham Road: westbound There is partial visibility of the upper parts of the sphere façade from this viewpoint in the proposed 2023 and 2031 scenarios. However, the viewpoint is approx. 1.5km from the Site and therefore visibility of images shown on the sphere façade would be limited. View 21: Clova Road: westbound Only a small part of the upper section of the sphere façade is visible in the proposed 2023 and 2031 scenarios. The viewpoint is also a significant distance from the Site. View 22: Konx Road: westbound Only a small part of the upper section of the sphere façade is visible in the proposed 2023 and 2031 scenarios. The viewpoint is also a significant distance from the Site. View 23: Plasher Road: westbound Only a small part of the upper section of the sphere façade is visible in the proposed 2023 and 2031 scenarios. The viewpoint is also a significant distance from the Site. View 24: Portway: westbound There is no visibility of the proposed development in the proposed 2023 and 2031 scenarios. View 25: Leywick Street: northbound A small part of the upper section of the sphere façade is visible in the proposed 2023 and 2031
36
MSG SPHERE – ROAD USER SAFETY REPORT
scenarios. The viewpoint is also a significant distance from the Site. View 26: High Street: northbound There is no visibility of the proposed development in the proposed 2023 and 2031 scenarios. View 27: Marshgate Lane: northbound There is no visibility of the proposed development in the proposed 2023 and 2031 scenarios. View 28: Great Eastern Road: northbound | junction Only a small part of the upper section of the with High Street and Broadway sphere façade is visible in the view. View 29: Great Eastern Road: northbound | junction Only a small part of the upper section of the with Station Street sphere façade is visible in the view. View 30: Jupp Road: northbound Only a small part of the sphere façade is visible in the proposed 2023 and 2031 scenarios. View 31: Rowse Close | junction with Carpenters Only a small part of the upper section of the Road sphere façade is visible in the view. View 32: Edith Road: southbound There is no visibility of the proposed development in the proposed 2023 and 2031 scenarios. View 33: Leytonstone Road: southbound There is limited visibility of the proposed development in the proposed 2023 and 2031 scenarios. View 34: Manbey Street: westbound There is no visibility of the proposed development in the proposed 2023 and 2031 scenarios. View 35: Deanery Road: westbound There is no visibility of the proposed development in the proposed 2023 and 2031 scenarios. View 36: Romford Road: westbound There is no visibility of the proposed development in the proposed 2023 and 2031 scenarios. View 37: Arthingworth Street: northbound There is no visibility of the proposed development in the proposed 2023 and 2031 scenarios. View 38: Rokeby Street: northbound There is limited visibility of the proposed development in the proposed 2023 scenario. The visibility is further reduced in the 2031 scenario View 45: Gibbins Road: northbound There is limited visibility of the proposed development in the proposed 2023 and 2031 scenarios. View 46: Decapod Street: southbound There is limited visibility of the proposed development in the proposed 2023 and 2031 scenarios.
37
MSG SPHERE – ROAD USER SAFETY REPORT
Viewpoints subject to further assessment (Minor roads) 6.11 The analysis identifies a higher level of visibility from certain viewpoints along minor roads. The representative view images in Appendix 1 are used to consider the effects of the proposed development on road user distraction in these locations. 6.12 The following factors are considered as part of the assessment, which are informed by the locational guidance for adverts set out in Section 3 and the matters considered within the appeal decisions reviewed in Section 4: • The visibility of the proposed development from the roads and junctions; • The road configuration and position of the proposed development in relation to the driver’s eyeline; • The complexity of the road and junction configuration; • The likely traffic flows along the roads and junctions; • The potential for conflict between different road users; and • The available accident data. 6.13 An assessment of the relevant minor roads is undertaken below: Viewpoint Commentary View 39: Anthems Way: eastbound The sphere façade would be visible / positioned in the eyeline of road users when turning onto Anthems Way, which reduces the risk of drivers turning their attention away from the road. The sphere façade would be circa 600 metres away from Anthems Way and therefore road users would have limited visibility of the content displayed on the façade, which would be subject to controls to mitigate road user distraction as explained below. Furthermore, the road configuration is straightforward, and Anthems Way is a no through road, meaning traffic flows and speeds will be low. Therefore, the risk of conflict between different road users is considered to be low. View 40: Community Road: southbound The sphere façade would be partially visible to road users at the northern section of Community Road when travelling southbound. The sphere façade would be circa 475 metres away from View 40 and therefore road users would have limited visibility of the content displayed on the façade from this position, which would be subject to controls to mitigate road user distraction as explained below.
38
MSG SPHERE – ROAD USER SAFETY REPORT
The road configuration in this location is straightforward, with low traffic flows and speeds. Therefore, the risk of conflict between different road users is considered to be low. The ZVI analysis demonstrates that there would only be brief/intermittent visibility of the proposed development as road users travel further along Community Road and Waddington Road towards the junction with Windmill Lane. View 41: Grove Crescent: westbound The sphere façade would be partially visible / positioned in the eyeline of road users when turning onto Grove Crescent from The Grove, which reduces the risk of drivers turning their attention away from the road. The sphere façade would be visible to road users as they travel along Grove Crescent Road towards Oxford Road, which is a no through road. The sphere façade would be circa 300 metres from Grove Crescent Road, meaning road users would have some visibility of the images displayed on the sphere façade, which would be subject to controls to mitigate road user distraction as explained below. The road configuration in this location is straightforward, with low traffic flows and speeds. Therefore, the risk of conflict between different road users is considered to be low. Views 42 and 43: Windmill Lane: View 42 shows that the sphere façade would be westbound partially visible when turning onto Windmill Lane from Waddington Street. The sphere façade would become increasingly visible as road users progress towards the junction with Angel Lane. This would ensure road users have sufficient time to view and become familiar with the sphere façade on the approach to the junction with Angel Lane. View 43 demonstrates that road users would have clear visibility of the sphere façade at the junction with Angel Lane. The sphere façade would be subject to controls to mitigate road user distraction as explained below. In addition to having time to become familiar with the sphere façade prior to reaching the junction, the road configuration in this location is
39
MSG SPHERE – ROAD USER SAFETY REPORT
straightforward, with low traffic flows and speeds. Therefore, the risk of conflict between different road users is considered to be low. View 44: Gibbins Road: northbound Views 44 and 45 show that the sphere façade would be partially visible to road users when travelling northbound along Gibbins Road. The sphere façade would be circa 400 metres from the viewpoints and therefore road users would have limited visibility of the content displayed on the sphere façade, which would be subject to controls to mitigate road user distraction as explained below. The road configuration in this location is straightforward, with low traffic flows and speeds. Therefore, the risk of conflict between different road users is considered to be low.
6.14 The above analysis demonstrates that the proposed development has a varying level of visibility from the assessed roads. However, the road configuration of these minor roads is not overly complex and traffic speeds and flows are low. Therefore, the risk of collisions between different road users is considered to be low. 6.15 In addition, the content shown on the sphere façade and other digital displays would be subject to various controls to mitigate and minimise the potential for road user distraction, as explained in Section 7. Viewpoints subject to further assessment (A-roads and B-roads) 6.16 The analysis identifies a high level of visibility of the proposed development from several A-roads and B-roads. These routes are subject to more detailed analysis compared to the minor roads, as A-roads and B-roads accommodate higher traffic flows and more complex driving situations. 6.17 The routes are as follows: Route 1 - Northbound along Montfichet Road (incorporating viewpoints 47-51): o Warton Road towards the proposed development. o Westfield Avenue towards the proposed development. This route is assessed to specifically consider the ‘transition’ from Westfield Avenue (where the proposed development is not visible) to Montfichet Road (where the proposed development is highly visible). Route 2 - Southbound along Montfichet Road from Penny Brooks Street towards the proposed development (incorporating viewpoint 52). Route 3 - Southbound along Leyton Road turning onto Angel Lane and towards the proposed development (incorporating viewpoint 53-55). Route 4 - Eastbound along Great Eastern Road turning onto Angel Lane and towards the proposed development (incorporating viewpoints 56-57).
40
MSG SPHERE – ROAD USER SAFETY REPORT
Route 5 - Northbound along West Ham Lane and turning left onto Broadway (incorporating viewpoint 58-60). Route 6 - Southbound Leytonstone Road towards the junction with Forest Lane. This route is assessed to specifically consider the ‘transition’ from Leytonstone Road (where the proposed development is not visible) to Forest Lane (where the proposed development is highly visible) (incorporating viewpoint 61-63). Route 7 – Northbound along Pool Street towards the junction with Carpenters Road (incorporating views 64 and 65). Route 8 - Eastbound along International Way towards the junction with Montfichet Road (incorporating views 66 and 67). Route 9 – Westbound along Forest Lane towards the junction with Leytonstone Road (incorporating viewpoints 68-72). Route 10 - Westbound along Great Eastern Road and turning onto Angel Lane (incorporating viewpoints 73-75). 6.18 Kinetic video sequences have been prepared for the longer routes (routes 1-6) from the perspective of a car driver (see Appendix 2). The following parameters form part of the kinetic videos: • The videos are taken from the perspective of a standard car driver height (1.06m above ground); • The interior of an indicative vehicle is overlaid onto the videos; • The videos follow the established road network and speed limits; • The proposed highways improvement works to Montfichet Road and Angel Lane are assumed to have been carried out; • The video from the Leytonstone Road and Forest Lane junction includes the signalised junction upgrade works being implemented by the London Borough of Newham, which are due to be completed in August 2020; • The sphere façade is shown in ‘active’ mode with a series of moving images shown on the sphere facade. As explained above, the sphere façade has the potential to display an infinite range of images and therefore the videos show a variety of indicative advertising and non-advertising content; • The surrounding environment is virtual with existing buildings shown as massing models. The Proposed 2023 cumulative scenario is shown as yellow. • Key traffic signals, road signs and indicative vegetation are shown along each route. 6.19 The representative images in Appendix 1 are used to assess the shorter routes (routes 7-10). 6.20 The primary purpose of the analysis is to robustly assess the visibility of the proposed development and assist the consideration of the potential for road user distraction. 6.21 The following factors are considered as part of the assessment of road user distraction along the identified routes, which are informed by the locational guidance for adverts set out in Section 3 and the matters considered within the appeal decisions reviewed in Section 4: • The visibility of the proposed development from the roads and junctions;
41
MSG SPHERE – ROAD USER SAFETY REPORT
• The road configuration and position of the proposed development in relation to the driver’s eyeline; • The complexity of the road and junction configuration; • Whether the proposed development would be visible behind road traffic signals; • The traffic flows along the roads and junctions; • The potential for conflict between different road users; • The accident data available for the routes; 6.22 Analysis of the routes is set out below. Route 1 - Northbound along Montfichet Road 6.23 From Warton Street - the video demonstrates that the sphere façade and its content would be clearly visible in the background of the view and positioned in the driver's eyeline on the approach to the junction with Pool Street. It is considered that this will reduce the risk of road users turning their attention away from the road. The clear visibility also ensures road users would have sufficient time to view and become familiar with the unique sphere façade on the approach to the signalised junction with Pool Street. 6.24 Furthermore, the road configuration and junction does not present an overly complex driving situation with northbound traffic having priority over turning southbound traffic at the signalised junction, which mitigates the risk of potential conflict as a result of northbound drivers being distracted. Signalised pedestrian crossings are also in place, limiting the potential conflict between pedestrians and cars. Pedestrian flows in this location are also low on a normal day. 6.25 The video shows that the sphere façade would be partially visible behind the traffic lights on the approach to the signalised junction with Pool Street. This indicates that it could be necessary to alter the traffic signals (i.e. increase the size of the backboard) to ensure the proposed development does not adversely impact on the coherence of the signals to road users. A detailed assessment of the junction can be secured by condition, as explained in Section 7. 6.26 The sphere façade would remain partially visible to road users as they progress along Montfichet Road towards the junction with Westfield Avenue. The road configuration remains relatively straightforward and northbound traffic would have priority over turning southbound traffic at the junction with Westfield Avenue. Signalised pedestrian crossings are also in place on the northern and western arms of the junction, limiting the potential conflict between pedestrians and cars. Pedestrian flows in this location are also low on a normal day. 6.27 The video shows that the sphere façade may be partially visible behind the traffic signal in the centre of the road on the approach to the junction with Westfield Avenue. A detailed assessment of the junction and the requirement for alterations to the road traffic infrastructure can be secured by condition, as explained in Section 7. 6.28 As explained above, it is proposed to improve the section of Montfichet Road from Westfield Avenue to Penny Brookes Street as part of the proposed development. The improvement works are incorporated into the kinetic video and include the reduction of the dual carriage way down to a single vehicular lane where possible, in addition to the
42
MSG SPHERE – ROAD USER SAFETY REPORT
creation of a dedicated two-way cycle lane. The improvement works will assist in reducing vehicular traffic along this route and improve the segregation and safety for different road users. 6.29 The video demonstrates that a majority of the sphere façade becomes visible on the approach to the signalised junction prior to the Town Centre Link Bridge, in addition to the LED ribbon display and digital billboards on the western elevation of the proposed development. The sphere façade may be partially visible behind the traffic light in the centre of the road on the approach to this junction. A detailed assessment of the junctions and requirement for alterations to the road traffic infrastructure along Montfichet Road subject to the highways improvement works can be secured by condition, as explained in Section 7. 6.30 Notwithstanding that the road configuration and junctions northbound along Montfichet Road are not overly complex, because the proposed development is highly visible from parts of the route, the content shown on the sphere façade and other digital displays would be subject to various controls to mitigate and minimise the potential for road user distraction, as explained in Section 7. 6.31 Cyclists are protected by a dedicated two-way cycle lane on the eastern side of Montfichet Road, which is separated from the traffic lanes with a raised kerb. Consequently, most cyclists are unlikely to use the traffic lanes and the risk of collision with vehicles is therefore considered to be low. Furthermore, the traffic flow information set out in Section 5 indicates a low number of cycle movements along Montfichet Road, which further reduces risk of conflicts between cyclists and vehicles. 6.32 With regards to pedestrian movement along the route, the proposed improvements to Montfichet Road will reduce the dominance of vehicular traffic and improve the pedestrian environment to accommodate the required crowd movements and infrastructure associated with the proposed development. Therefore the enhanced pedestrian environment will reduce the potential conflict between pedestrians and other road users. 6.33 From Westfield Avenue – The video demonstrates that the proposed development is not visible when travelling eastbound along Westfield Avenue on the approach to the signalised junction with Montfichet Road but becomes clearly visible as road users turn left onto Montfichet Road. This junction has dedicated left and right turn lanes for road users entering Montfichet Road, which mitigates the risk of collisions and accidents occurring. 6.34 Furthermore, the configuration and angle of the left turn suggests that road users will enter Montfichet Road at low speeds. This will allow road users time to initially view the proposed development whilst travelling at lower speeds and subsequently progress northbound along Montfichet Road. 6.35 Accordingly, it is not considered that the proposed development would result in unacceptable levels of road user distraction from this route, subject to appropriate mitigation measures comprising potential alterations to traffic signals and/or controls on the content shown on the sphere façade and other digital displays, as explained in Section 7.
43
MSG SPHERE – ROAD USER SAFETY REPORT
Route 2 - Southbound along Montfichet Road 6.36 The video demonstrates that the proposed development is not visible when travelling westbound along Penny Brook Street on the approach to the junction with Montfichet Road. As road users turn left onto Montfichet Road the proposed development would become clearly visible - the junction has a green arrow signal, which mitigates the risk of road user collisions or accidents occurring. 6.37 Furthermore, the configuration and angle of the left turn suggests that road users will enter Montfichet Road at relatively low speeds. This will allow road users time to initially view the proposed development whilst travelling at lower speeds and subsequently progress southbound along Montfichet Road, which does not present an complex road configuration. 6.38 As explained above, this section of Montfichet Road will be subject to improvement works as part of the proposed development. The improvement works will assist in reducing vehicular traffic along this route and improve the segregation between different road users. 6.39 At the junction with International Way, road users turning right onto International Way can only do so with a green signal and must also give priority to northbound traffic. The road alignment provides space for right turning traffic to wait until there is sufficient time and space to turn. The video shows that the sphere façade may be partially visible behind the traffic lights on the pavement on the approach to the International Way junction. A detailed assessment of the junction and the requirement for alterations to the road traffic infrastructure can be secured by condition, as explained in Section 7. 6.40 As road users travel past the junction with International Way, the proposed development would move into the peripheral vision of road users, and subsequently its visibility would be blocked by the Engie Energy Centre building on the approach to the junction with Hitchcock Lane. 6.41 Accordingly, the route from Penny Brook Street to Hitchcock Lane does not feature any overly complex road configurations or junctions, which mitigates the risk of road user accidents or collisions. This correlates with the available accident data along this route set out in Section 5, which shows three ‘slight’ accidents nearby to the junction with Hitchcock Lane. 6.42 Notwithstanding that the road configuration and junctions southbound along Montfichet Road are not overly complex, as the proposed development is highly visible from parts of the route, the content shown on the sphere façade and other digital displays would be subject to various controls to mitigate and minimise the potential for road user distraction, as explained in Section 7. 6.43 The traffic flow information set out in Section 5 indicates a low number of cycle movements along Montfichet Road, which reduces the probability of conflict between cyclists and vehicles. In addition, a dedicated two-way cycle lane is provided on the eastern side of Montfichet Road, which is separated from the carriageway with a verge, and therefore the potential for conflict between vehicles and cyclists is further reduced.
44
MSG SPHERE – ROAD USER SAFETY REPORT
6.44 Furthermore, formalised pedestrian crossings exist at the junction with International Way and Penny Brookes Street, reducing the risks of conflicts between vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians. 6.45 Accordingly, it is not considered that the proposed development would result in unacceptable levels of road user distraction from this route, subject to appropriate mitigation measures comprising potential alterations to traffic signals and controls on the content shown on the sphere façade and other digital displays, as explained in Section 7.
Route 3 - Southbound along Leyton Road turning onto Angel Lane 6.46 The video demonstrates that the sphere façade would become partially visible in the drivers’ peripheral vision as road users travel past New Garden Quarter. This could result in road users briefly turning their attention away from the road to view the contents of the sphere facade. However, the road configuration at this point is straight and not overly complex, and road users would have sufficient time to become familiar with the unique sphere façade prior to approaching the proposed pedestrian crossing on Angel Lane. 6.47 In this context, the available data for Leyton Road to Angel Lane does not show any accidents along this route, as out in Section 5. 6.48 As road users progress past the pedestrian crossing and round the bend along Angel Lane, the sphere façade and LED ribbon display would become clearly visible. At this point, the proposed highways improvement works to Angel Lane, including the introduction of a raised table, would signal to road users that they are entering a different type of space, and would help to reduce traffic speeds. The proposed Hostile Vehicle Mitigation bollards, landscaping, and views of the rear entrance of the proposed development will reinforce this message. This is expected to heighten the awareness of road users and the risk of conflict will therefore decline. 6.49 Furthermore, Section 5 demonstrates that the traffic flows on Angel Lane are almost entirely composed of motorised vehicles, and therefore the risk of conflict between cyclists and vehicles on Angel Lane is considered to be low. 6.50 Notwithstanding that the road configuration along this route is not overly complex, because the proposed development is highly visible as road users round the bend along Angel Lane, the content shown on the sphere façade and other digital displays would be subject to various controls to mitigate and minimise the potential for road user distraction, as explained in Section 7. 6.51 It is therefore not considered that the proposed development would result in unacceptable levels of road user distraction from this route, subject to appropriate mitigation measures comprising controls on the content shown on the sphere façade and other digital displays, as explained in Section 7.
45
MSG SPHERE – ROAD USER SAFETY REPORT
Route 4 - Eastbound along Great Eastern Road turning onto Angel Lane 6.52 The video demonstrates that the proposed development is not visible on the approach to the junction with Angel Lane. The proposed development becomes visible as road users progress along Angel Lane. As explained above, the driving situation in this location is not overly complex and the characteristics of the proposed highways works will reduce vehicle speeds and increase driver awareness. 6.53 There is an existing pinch point on Angel Lane, resulting from the parapet wall to the west and private land to the east, which prevents Angel Lane from maintaining a consistent advisory cycle lane throughout this section of the highway. 6.54 The proposed design acknowledges that proposing an intermittent advisory cycle lane is deemed to be an inadequate solution, both from a road geometry and safety perspective. The proposal is to terminate the advisory cycle lane to provide a consistent carriageway width, where possible, as well as integrating a raised table through the location at which the existing redundant junction is located, which will provide a level of vertical deflection and help reduce vehicle speeds. This will ensure cyclists gain a primary position on the road and prevent vehicles from attempting to overtake cyclists. 6.55 Pedestrian crossings are provided to the north and south of this point on Angel Lane, meaning pedestrians visiting the proposed development are able to cross at these locations. 6.56 It is therefore not considered that the proposed development would result in unacceptable levels of road user distraction from this route, subject to appropriate mitigation measures comprising controls on the content shown on the sphere façade and other digital displays, as explained in Section 7.
Route 5 – Northbound along West Ham Lane and turning left onto Broadway 6.57 The video demonstrates that the sphere façade and its content would be clearly visible in the background of the view and positioned in the driver's eyeline whilst travelling northbound along West Ham Lane, which reduces the risk of drivers turning their attention away from the road. The clear visibility also ensures road users would have sufficient time to view and become familiar with the unique sphere façade as they progress towards the junction with Broadway. 6.58 The extent of visibility of the sphere façade would vary as road users travel along the route – visibility of the sphere façade would reduce as road users progress past the junction with Widdin Street before becoming more visible prior to the junction with Victoria Street. It would subsequently disappear behind buildings and then become partially visible on the approach to the left turn onto Broadway. As road users would have viewed and become familiar with the sphere façade prior to approaching the junction, the risk of distraction is reduced. 6.59 This junction is part of the recently redesigned Stratford Gyratory and therefore has high quality segregated cycle provision, pedestrianised public realm and vehicle speed reduction measures. This means that segregation between vehicles and other users is clear to all road users, and the risk of collisions is reduced.
46
MSG SPHERE – ROAD USER SAFETY REPORT
6.60 Therefore, the road configuration along West Ham Lane on the approach to Broadway is a relatively straightforward driving situation with no overly complex junctions to navigate. 6.61 The available traffic collision data indicates that a cluster of accidents occurred near the junction of West Ham Lane and Tramway Avenue with Broadway during the survey period. However, it is noted that the redesigned Stratford Gyratory and improved segregation between vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians is expected to improve the safety of this junction and section of road. 6.62 Notwithstanding that the road configuration and junctions along this route are not overly complex, because the proposed development is highly visible from along the route, the content shown on the sphere façade and other digital displays would be subject to various controls to mitigate and minimise the potential for road user distraction, as explained in Section 7. 6.63 Accordingly, it is not considered that the proposed development would result in unacceptable levels of road user distraction from this route, subject to appropriate mitigation measures comprising controls on the content shown on the sphere façade and other digital displays, as explained in Section 7.
Route 6 – Southbound Leytonstone Road towards the junction with Forest Lane 6.64 Southbound/westbound along Leytonstone Road - The video demonstrates that the proposed development is not visible when travelling southbound along Leytonstone Road towards the upgraded signalised junction with Forest Lane. 6.65 As road users continue southbound past the traffic signals and progress along Leytonstone Road, the upper parts of the sphere façade would become increasingly visible when progressing around the corner. The new junction arrangement results in road users travelling southbound along Leytonstone Road having priority over road users travelling in the opposite direction waiting to turn right onto Forest Lane. It is therefore not anticipated that conflict would occur due to road users travelling southbound along Leytonstone Road becoming distracted by the proposed development. 6.66 As southbound road users progress beyond the signalised junction, the sphere facade becomes visible from Windmill Lane. The road configuration in this location is not overly complex and allows road users to become familiar with the sphere façade prior to approaching the pedestrian crossing and round the bend into the Grove. 6.67 The video shows that the sphere façade may be partially visible behind the traffic lights on the approach to the signalised pedestrian crossing that is being implemented as part of the upgrade works to Leytonstone Road, adjacent to Francis Street. This indicates that it could be necessary to alter the traffic signals (i.e. increase the size of the backboard) to ensure the proposed development does not adversely impact on the coherence of the signals to road users. A detailed assessment of the junction can be secured by condition, as explained in Section 7
47
MSG SPHERE – ROAD USER SAFETY REPORT
6.68 Southbound road users on Leytonstone Road turning left into Forest Lane would have a green arrow signal, meaning no vehicle conflict would occur during this manoeuvre. 6.69 Formalised pedestrian crossings also form part of the upgraded junction works, reducing the risk of conflict with vehicles. Advanced stop lines for cyclists will also be installed as part of the new junction arrangement. 6.70 The available accident data for this junction indicates several accidents have occurred in recent years. It is expected that the upgraded junction works, due to be completed in August 2020, will significantly enhance the safety of the junction as signalisation will reduce the potential for conflicting vehicle manoeuvres. 6.71 Accordingly, it is not considered that the proposed development would result in unacceptable levels of road user distraction from this route, subject to appropriate mitigation measures comprising controls on the content shown on the sphere façade and other digital displays, as explained in Section 7.
Route 7 - Northbound along Pool Street towards the junction with Carpenters Road 6.72 View no.64 demonstrates that the sphere façade would be partially visible in the 2023 scenario as road users round the bend travelling eastbound along Pool Street. The image for the proposed 2031 scenario shows that there would be no visibility of the proposed development. 6.73 The road configuration in this location is not overly complex and allows road users to become familiar with the sphere façade on the approach to the junction with Carpenters Road. Furthermore, traffic flows are expected to be relatively low and the road includes a dedicated cycle lane. Therefore, the risk of collisions between different road users is considered to be low. In this context, the available data does not indicate any accidents along this route. 6.74 View no.65 demonstrates that the visibility of the sphere façade would be limited at the junction with Carpenters Road in the 2023 scenario. The image shows that the sphere façade may be partially visible behind the traffic lights on the approach to the signalised junction with Carpenters Road. This indicates that it could be necessary to alter the traffic signals (i.e. increase the size of the backboard) to ensure the proposed development does not adversely impact on the coherence of the signals to road users. A detailed assessment of the junction can be secured by condition, as explained in Section 7. 6.75 The image for the proposed 2031 scenario from view no. 64 shows that there would be no visibility of the proposed development.
Route 8 - Eastbound along International Way towards the junction with Montfichet Road 6.76 Views 66 and 7 demonstrate that the sphere façade would become visible as road users progress eastbound along International Way past the Stratford International Car Park. The road configuration is straightforward with no bends in the road. Road users would
48
MSG SPHERE – ROAD USER SAFETY REPORT
have sufficient time to become familiar with the sphere façade prior to the pedestrian crossing and on the approach to the signalised junction with Montfichet Road. 6.77 The road includes an advisory cycle lane, which reduces the risk of conflict between road users, although the quantum of cyclists along this route is expected to be low. 6.78 The available traffic accident data indicates no recent accidents along this section of road. 6.79 As explained above, the content shown on the sphere façade and other digital displays would be subject to various controls to mitigate and minimise the potential for road user distraction – as set out in Section 7. 6.80 Accordingly, it is not considered that the proposed development would result in unacceptable levels of road user distraction from this route, subject to appropriate mitigation measures comprising controls on the content shown on the sphere façade and other digital displays.
Route 9 – Westbound along Forest Lane towards the junction with Leytonstone Road 6.81 Views 68 to 71 demonstrates that road users would have limited visibility of the sphere façade upon entering Forest Lane from the A114, given the significant separation distance. The sphere façade would become increasingly visible as road users progress westbound along Forest Lane towards the junction with Leytonstone Road - the sphere façade would be positioned in the eyeline of road users, which reduces the risk of road users turning their attention away from the road. 6.82 Furthermore, the road configuration along Forest Lane is straightforward with no bends in the road. Road users would have sufficient time to become familiar with the sphere façade as it becomes increasingly visible on the approach to the signalised pedestrian crossing near to Globe Road, and subsequently towards the upgraded signalised junction with Leytonstone Road, which is due to be completed in August 2020. View 72 demonstrates that there is limited visibility of the proposed development when positioned at the signalised junction with Leytonstone Road. 6.83 The available traffic collision data indicates no recent accidents along this section of road east of the junction. 6.84 As explained above, the content shown on the sphere façade and other digital displays would be subject to various controls to mitigate and minimise the potential for road user distraction – as set out in Section 7.
Route 10 - Westbound along Great Eastern Road and turning onto Angel Lane 6.85 View 73 demonstrates that there would be partial visibility of the sphere façade when turning onto Great Eastern Road from The Grove. Views 74 and 75 shows that visibility of the sphere façade would reduce as road users progress westbound along Great Eastern Road. At the signalised junction with Angel Lane, only a small part of the sphere is visible.
49
MSG SPHERE – ROAD USER SAFETY REPORT
6.86 The accident data presented in Section 5 identifies that several accidents occurred at this junction between 2016-2018. The data was collected prior to the installation of the Stratford Gyratory in 2019, which is expected to reduce accident rates in this location. 6.87 Furthermore, the driving situation along Great Eastern Road is not overly complex. 6.88 It is therefore not considered that the proposed development would result in unacceptable levels of road user distraction from this route, subject to appropriate mitigation measures comprising controls on the content shown on the sphere façade and other digital displays. Summary 6.89 Detailed analysis has been undertaken to assess the visibility of the proposed development from roads and junctions within a 2km radius of the Site. This analysis has identified those roads and junctions where there is a higher level of visibility of the proposed development (predominantly the sphere façade) – comprising minor roads and A-roads and B-roads. 6.90 The visibility of the proposed development and its potential effects in relation to road user distraction has been assessed from the identified roads. The analysis has demonstrated that the identified roads do not feature any overly complex driving situations. 6.91 The analysis has demonstrated that the sphere façade may be partially visible behind traffic lights on the approach to the following signalised junctions: • Montfichet Road / Pool Street (northbound); • Montfichet Road / Westfield Avenue (northbound); • Montfichet Road / approach to TCLB (northbound); • Montfichet Road / International Way (southbound); • Leytonstone Road pedestrian crossing (westbound); • Pool Street / Carpenters Road (eastbound). 6.92 On this basis, it may be necessary to alter the traffic signals (i.e. increase the size of the backboard) at these junctions to ensure the proposed development does not adversely impact on the coherence of the signals to road users. A detailed assessment of the effects of the proposed development on these junctions can be secured by condition, as explained in Section 7. 6.93 Furthermore, as the proposed development is highly visible from sections of the identified roads and junctions, the content shown on the sphere façade and other digital displays would be subject to various controls to mitigate and minimise the potential for road user distraction, as explained in Section 7. 6.94 Accordingly, it is not considered that the proposed development would result in unacceptable levels of road user distraction, subject to appropriate mitigation measures comprising controls on the content shown on the sphere façade and other digital displays, as explained in Section 7.
50
MSG SPHERE – ROAD USER SAFETY REPORT
7. PROPOSED MITIGATION
Introduction 7.1 Section 6 demonstrates that there are several roads and junctions from where the proposed development (predominantly the LED sphere façade) would be highly visible. The LED sphere façade has the capability to show a range of moving and static images, including advertising and non-advertising content. 7.2 Given the high level of visibility from certain roads and the uniqueness of the proposed development, the Applicant has identified a range of mitigation measures that would be effective to mitigate and minimise the potential for road user distraction. These measures will be secured by condition and will require approval of: • A detailed junction analysis to determine whether it is necessary to alter road traffic signals or signage; • A detailed visual content strategy for the approved digital displays to mitigate and minimise road user distraction; • A strategy for the phased commissioning of the approved digital displays; • A strategy for monitoring the effects of the approved digital displays on road user distraction. Detailed junction analysis 7.3 Section 6 demonstrates that the sphere façade may be partially visible behind traffic lights on the approach to the following signalised junctions: • Montfichet Road / Pool Street (northbound); • Montfichet Road / Westfield Avenue (northbound); • Montfichet Road / approach to TCLB (northbound); • Montfichet Road / International Way (southbound); • Leytonstone Road pedestrian crossing (westbound); • Pool Street / Carpenters Road (eastbound). 7.4 A condition is proposed which requires a detailed assessment of the effects of the proposed development on relevant junctions prior to the sphere façade and other digital displays becoming operational. The assessment would analyse whether the proposed development would have an adverse impact on the coherence of road traffic infrastructure and determine whether it is necessary to alter traffic signals and/or signage. 7.5 The potential alterations could include: • Repositioning road traffic signals or signage at the relevant junction; • Extended backboards to traffic signals. 7.6 The requirement and choice of which specific measures to adopt will involve an iterative process, weighing up the suitability of one potential mitigation measure against another before determining the specific measures to be implemented. 7.7 The proposed wording of the condition is as follows:
51
MSG SPHERE – ROAD USER SAFETY REPORT
“Prior to the operation of the digital displays hereby approved, a detailed assessment of the following junctions will be undertaken: • Montfichet Road / Pool Street (northbound); • Montfichet Road / Westfield Avenue (northbound); • Montfichet Road / approach to TCLB (northbound); • Montfichet Road / International Way (southbound); • Leytonstone Road pedestrian crossing (westbound); • Pool Street / Carpenters Road (eastbound) to determine the requirement to alter traffic signals and/or signage in order to mitigate road user distraction shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Any such alterations identified in the assessment and approved by the Local Planning Authority shall be carried out and completed.” Visual content management strategy 7.8 A condition is proposed requiring the submission and approval of an overarching visual content management strategy prior to the approved digital displays coming into operation. The scope of the visual content management strategy will include several elements (refer to the Digital Display Content Controls document), including the following in relation to road user distraction: • a detailed strategy to set out the controls imposed on the approved digital displays to mitigate and minimise the potential for road user distraction. The strategy would be informed by a suitably designed study, such as driver simulation analysis to assess distraction and driver behaviour metrics associated with a wide range content and determine the necessary controls to minimise road user distraction. Based on the statutory and non-statutory guidance in Section 3, it is envisaged the controls placed on the digital displays as part of the visual content strategy will consist of the following: o Determining the maximum brightness of the digital displays to ensure road users are not dazzled; o Determining a minimum display time for each image/display to reduce the risk of driver's attention being focused on the digital display for long periods in anticipation of the next image; o Determining the intervals between each display; o Determining the maximum speed of moving images; o Restricting the display of flashing images; o Restricting the display of phone numbers, websites or e-mail addresses; o Restricting the display of symbols which resemble any road traffic signage or signals; o Measures to revert the digital displays to a default display if a malfunction occurs. • a strategy detailing the phased ‘switch on’ of the digital displays to familiarise road users with images being shown on the displays. The phased commissioning strategy will be informed by the controls set out in the detailed content strategy.
52
MSG SPHERE – ROAD USER SAFETY REPORT
Monitoring strategy 7.9 A condition is proposed requiring approval of a monitoring strategy to monitor the effects of the digital displays on road user distraction and highways safety during the phased commissioning stage and subsequently in perpetuity. 7.10 It is proposed that the strategy would require the establishment of a monitoring group with the remit of monitoring the effects of the digital displays on road user distraction and highways safety i.e. reviewing the causes of incidents and accidents along roads from where the proposed development is visible. 7.11 It is envisaged that the monitoring strategy would include: • Membership of and measures to establish a monitoring group; • Remit of the monitoring group; • Contact details for a designated employee from the Applicant who will be available 24 hours a day and can be contacted by the Police or Council officers to discuss relevant incidents and accidents. 7.12 The proposed wording of the condition is as follows: “Prior to the operation of the digital displays hereby approved, a strategy detailing measures to monitor the effects of the digital displays on road user distraction shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority, including: • Membership of and measures to establish a monitoring group; • Remit of the monitoring group; • Contact details for a designated employee from the Applicant who will be available 24 hours a day and can be contacted by the Police or Council officers to discuss relevant incidents and accidents. The strategy shall be implemented as approved.”
53
MSG SPHERE – ROAD USER SAFETY REPORT
8. CONCLUSION
8.1 Section 3 provides an overview of the limited published planning policy and guidance in relation to roadside advertisements and the factors that could influence driver distraction. 8.2 Section 4 of this report demonstrates that there are several examples of large operational digital screens in the UK that display static and moving images in urban locations that are adjacent to roads and clearly visible to passing traffic (and have limited restrictions to control content in relation to highways safety considerations). The accident analysis for the roads adjacent to the displays does not indicate there has been an increase in accident rates since the displays were installed. This suggests that moving images on digital displays adjacent to roads can be safe, subject to appropriate mitigation. 8.3 Section 4 also examines several appeal decisions relating to proposed advertisements where road safety / road user distraction has been one of the main issues considered by the Planning Inspectorate. The review highlights several pertinent issues considered by Inspectors as part of these appeals. These matters have been considered in relation to the proposed development in Sections 5 and 6 of this report. 8.4 Section 5 describes the existing highways network surrounding the Site, which comprises low-speed roads that do not feature overly complex road configurations or junctions. The highways accident data analysis indicates the amount of accidents currently observed on the highway network adjacent to the Site is not above what could be considered normal in the local area. 8.5 Section 6 comprises detailed analysis to assess the visibility of the proposed development from roads and junctions within a 2km radius of the Site. This analysis has identified the roads and junctions where there is a higher level of visibility of the proposed development (predominantly the sphere façade) – comprising minor roads and A-roads and B-roads. The visibility of the proposed development and its potential effects in relation to road user distraction has been considered from the identified roads. The analysis has demonstrated that the identified roads do not feature any overly complex driving situations. 8.6 Notwithstanding this, as the proposed development is highly visible from sections of the identified roads and junctions, the content shown on the sphere façade and other digital displays would be subject to various controls to mitigate and minimise the potential for road user distraction. 8.7 The analysis in Section 6 also demonstrates that the sphere façade may be partially visible behind traffic lights on the approach to the following signalised junctions: • Montfichet Road / Pool Street (northbound); • Montfichet Road / Westfield Avenue (northbound); • Montfichet Road / approach to TCLB (northbound); • Montfichet Road / International Way (southbound); • Leytonstone Road pedestrian crossing (westbound); • Pool Street / Carpenters Road (eastbound).
54
MSG SPHERE – ROAD USER SAFETY REPORT
8.8 On this basis, it may be necessary to alter the traffic signals at these junctions to ensure the proposed development does not adversely impact on the coherence of the signals to road users. 8.9 In the context of the above, the Applicant has identified a range of mitigation measures in Section 7 that would be effective to mitigate and minimise the potential for road user distraction. These measures would be secured by condition and comprise: • A detailed junction analysis to determine whether it is necessary to alter road traffic signals or signage; • A detailed visual content strategy for the approved digital displays to mitigate and minimise road user distraction; • A strategy for the phased commissioning of the approved digital displays; and • A strategy for monitoring the effects of the approved digital displays on road user distraction. 8.10 Accordingly, it is not considered that the proposed development would result in unacceptable levels of road user distraction, subject to appropriate mitigation measures comprising controls on the content shown on the sphere façade and other digital displays as proposed above.
55
MSG SPHERE – ROAD USER SAFETY REPORT
Appendix 1
56
MSG Sphere Public Safety Report Road User Distraction Study Appendix 1: Representative Views Client Stratford Garden Development Ltd
Architect Populous
Planning Consultant Miller Hare Limited DP9 Planning Consultants Mappin House 4 Winsley Street Townscape Consultant London W1W 8HF Tavernor Consultancy
+44 20 7691 1000 Visualisation [email protected] Millerhare MSG Sphere Public Safety Report Road User Distraction Study Appendix 1: Representative Views
Contents 28 | Great Eastern Road: northbound | junction with High Street and 58 | A112 West Ham Lane Kinetic Sequence | north-west corner of Broadway 37 Stratford Park 67 1 Zone of Visual Influence 2 29 | Great Eastern Road: northbound | junction with Station Street 38 59 | A112 West Ham Lane Kinetic Sequence | junction with Victoria Street 68 2 The Views 4 30 | Jupp Road: northbound 39 60 | A112 West Ham Lane Kinetic Sequence | junction with Broadway 69 1 | Carpenters Road: eastbound | east of London Way Bridge 10 31 | Rowse Close | junction with Carpenters Road 40 61 | Leytonstone Road Kinetic Sequence | Maryland junction 70 2 | Waterden Road: eastbound | junction with Clarnico Lane and 32 | Edith Road: southbound 41 62 | Leytonstone Road Kinetic Sequence | Maryland junction 71 London Way 11 33 | Leytonstone Road: southbound 42 63 | Leytonstone Road Kinetic Sequence | west of Maryland junction 72 3 | Copper Street: eastbound | junction with Waterden Road 12 34 | Manbey Street: westbound 43 64 | Pool Street: eastbound | south of The Aquatics Centre 73 4 | A106 Eastway: eastbound | junction with Waterden Road and A12 13 35 | Deanery Road:westbound 44 65 | Pool Street: eastbound | junction with Carpenters Road 74 5 | Ruckholt Road 14 36 | Romford Road: westbound 45 66 | International Way: eastbound | north of Stratford International Car Park 75 6 | Orient Way 15 37 | Arthingworth Street: northbound 46 67 | International Way: eastbound | approaching junction with 7 | A12: westbound | west of Leyton Station 16 Montfitchet Road 76 38 | Rokeby Street: northbound 47 8 | Grove Green Road 17 68 | Forest Lane: westbound | junction with Woodgrange Road 77 39 | Anthems Road: eastbound 48 9 | A12: westbound | north of St Patrick’s Roman Catholic Cemetery 18 69 | Forest Lane: westbound | opposite Magpie Close 78 40 | Community Road: southbound 49 10 | A112 High Road Leyton: southbound | Leyton Tube Station 19 70 | Forest Lane: westbound | junction with Albert Square 79 41 | Grove Crescent: westbound 50 11 | A112 High Road Leyton: southbound 20 71 | Forest Lane: westbound | approaching Maryland junction 80 42 | Windmill Lane: westbound 51 12 | A112 High Road Leyton: southbound 21 72 | Forest Lane: westbound | Maryland junction 81 43 | Windmill Lane: westbound | junction with Angel Lane 52 13 | A112 High Road Leyton: southbound 22 73 | Great Eastern Road: westbound | junction with The Grove 82 44 | Gibbins Road: northbound 53 14 | Langthorne Road: southbound 23 74 | Great Eastern Road: westbound | opposite Grove Crescent Road 83 45 | Gibbins Road: northbound 54 15 | High Road Leytonstone: southbound 24 75 | Great Eastern Road: westbound | junction with Angel Lane 84 46 | Decapod Street: southbound 55 16 | Birch Road: southbound 25 47 | Montfichet Road Kinetic Sequence | roundabout with Warton Road 56 Appendix 86 17 | Cann Hall Road: westbound 26 48 | Montfichet Road Kinetic Sequence |junction with Pool Street 57 A1 Model Overview 86 18 | Cemetery Road: westbound 27 49 | Montfichet Road Kinetic Sequence | junction with Westfield Avenue 58 A2 Model Overview 87 19 | Gurney Road: westbound 28 50 | Montfichet Road Kinetic Sequence | junction with Westfield Car Park B 59 20 | Earlham Grove: westbound 29 51 | Montfichet Road Kinetic Sequence |entrance to Stratford Place 21 | Clova Road: westbound 30 and westfield 60 22 | Knox Road: westbound 31 52 | Montfichet Road Kinetic Sequence | junction with Penny Brookes Street 61 23 | Plasher Road: westbound 32 53 | Leyton Road Kinetic Sequence | Penny Brookes Street junction 62 24 | Portway: westbound 33 54 | Leyton Road Kinetic Sequence | opposite Forrester Way 63 25 | Leywick Street: northbound 34 55 | Leyton Road Kinetic Sequence | Angel Lane 64 26 | High Street: northbound 35 56 | Great Eastern Road: junction with Angel Lane 65 27 | Marshgate Lane: northbound 36 57 | Angel Lane: northbound | Bridge over Great Eastern Main Line 66
4143_8170 | 19 August 2020 5:38 PM 1 Zone of Visual Influence
Driver Eye Heights
1.1 A purple tone on the plan opposite illustrates areas from which any part of the proposal is likely to be visible at the eye height of a car driver (1.06m) and above.
1.2 A blue tone on the plan illustrates areas from which any part of the proposal is likely to be visible at the indicative eye height of an HGV driver (2.60m) and above.
1.3 The analysis has been carried out in the 2023 Cumulative Developement scenario.
1.4 The impact of trees is not taken into account.
2 MSG Sphere | Public Safety Report | Road User Distraction Study | Appendix 1: Representative Views Study Locations
1.5 Blue arrows on the plan opposite illustrate model-based views that are included in this study. Each view is taken from 1.06m above ground level.
1.6 Red dotted lines indicate the routes illustrated by the kinetic sequences that have been provided in Appendix 2 of this study.
MSG Sphere | Public Safety Report | Road User Distraction Study | Appendix 1: Representative Views 3 2 The Views
1 | Carpenters Road: eastbound | east of London Way 2 | Waterden Road: eastbound | junction with Clarnico 3 | Copper Street: eastbound | junction with Waterden 4 | A106 Eastway: eastbound | junction with Waterden 5 | Ruckholt Road 6 | Orient Way Bridge Lane and London Way Road Road and A12
7 | A12: westbound | west of Leyton Station 8 | Grove Green Road 9 | A12: westbound | north of St Patrick’s Roman 10 | A112 High Road Leyton: southbound | Leyton 11 | A112 High Road Leyton: southbound 12 | A112 High Road Leyton: southbound Catholic Cemetery Tube Station
13 | A112 High Road Leyton: southbound 14 | Langthorne Road: southbound 15 | High Road Leytonstone: southbound 16 | Birch Road: southbound 17 | Cann Hall Road: westbound 18 | Cemetery Road: westbound
19 | Gurney Road: westbound 20 | Earlham Grove: westbound 21 | Clova Road: westbound 22 | Knox Road: westbound 23 | Plasher Road: westbound 24 | Portway: westbound
4 MSG Sphere | Public Safety Report | Road User Distraction Study | Appendix 1: Representative Views 25 | Leywick Street: northbound 26 | High Street: northbound 27 | Marshgate Lane: northbound 28 | Great Eastern Road: northbound | junction with 29 | Great Eastern Road: northbound | junction with 30 | Jupp Road: northbound High Street and Broadway Station Street
31 | Rowse Close | junction with Carpenters Road 32 | Edith Road: southbound 33 | Leytonstone Road: southbound 34 | Manbey Street: westbound 35 | Deanery Road:westbound 36 | Romford Road: westbound
37 | Arthingworth Street: northbound 38 | Rokeby Street: northbound 39 | Anthems Road: eastbound 40 | Community Road: southbound 41 | Grove Crescent: westbound 42 | Windmill Lane: westbound
43 | Windmill Lane: westbound | junction with Angel 44 | Gibbins Road: northbound 45 | Gibbins Road: northbound 46 | Decapod Street: southbound 47 | Montfichet Road Kinetic Sequence | roundabout 48 | Montfichet Road Kinetic Sequence |junction with Lane with Warton Road Pool Street
MSG Sphere | Public Safety Report | Road User Distraction Study | Appendix 1: Representative Views 5 49 | Montfichet Road Kinetic Sequence | junction with 50 | Montfichet Road Kinetic Sequence | junction with 51 | Montfichet Road Kinetic Sequence |entrance to 52 | Montfichet Road Kinetic Sequence | junction with 53 | Leyton Road Kinetic Sequence | Penny Brookes 54 | Leyton Road Kinetic Sequence | opposite Forrester Westfield Avenue Westfield Car Park B Stratford Place and westfield Penny Brookes Street Street junction Way
55 | Leyton Road Kinetic Sequence | Angel Lane 56 | Great Eastern Road: junction with Angel Lane 57 | Angel Lane: northbound | Bridge over Great 58 | A112 West Ham Lane Kinetic Sequence | north- 59 | A112 West Ham Lane Kinetic Sequence | junction 60 | A112 West Ham Lane Kinetic Sequence | junction Eastern Main Line west corner of Stratford Park with Victoria Street with Broadway
61 | Leytonstone Road Kinetic Sequence | Maryland 62 | Leytonstone Road Kinetic Sequence | Maryland 63 | Leytonstone Road Kinetic Sequence | west of 64 | Pool Street: eastbound | south of The Aquatics 65 | Pool Street: eastbound | junction with Carpenters 66 | International Way: eastbound | north of Stratford junction junction Maryland junction Centre Road International Car Park
67 | International Way: eastbound | approaching 68 | Forest Lane: westbound | junction with 69 | Forest Lane: westbound | opposite Magpie Close 70 | Forest Lane: westbound | junction with Albert 71 | Forest Lane: westbound | approaching Maryland 72 | Forest Lane: westbound | Maryland junction junction with Montfitchet Road Woodgrange Road Square junction
6 MSG Sphere | Public Safety Report | Road User Distraction Study | Appendix 1: Representative Views 73 | Great Eastern Road: westbound | junction with 74 | Great Eastern Road: westbound | opposite Grove 75 | Great Eastern Road: westbound | junction with The Grove Crescent Road Angel Lane
MSG Sphere | Public Safety Report | Road User Distraction Study | Appendix 1: Representative Views 7 8
9
15
6 10 16 11 14 5 17 7
18 32 12 19 4 33 68
40 69 13 20 46 61 70 62 21 53 63 71 72 52 54 39 42 66 67 43 3 41 55 34 22 2 74 57 73 75 35 1 51 56 36 50 60 49 29 59 65 44 28 64 45 58 48 30 31 47 24 23 37 38
27 25
26
8 MSG Sphere | Public Safety Report | Road User Distraction Study | Appendix 1: Representative Views Viewpoints not subject to further assessment
Viewpoints subject to further assessment (Minor roads) Viewpoints subject to further assessment (A-roads and B-roads)
Kinetic video sequences
MSG Sphere | Public Safety Report | Road User Distraction Study | Appendix 1: Representative Views 9 1 Carpenters Road: eastbound | east of London Way Bridge 4143_0315 4143_0316
Proposed Development 2023 Cumulative Effects Assessment 2031
Camera Location National Grid Reference 537598.4E 184541.0N [Estimated] Camera height 8.50m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 88.9°, distance 1.1km
10 MSG Sphere | Public Safety Report | Road User Distraction Study | Appendix 1: Representative Views Waterden Road: eastbound | junction with Clarnico Lane and London Way 2 4143_0295 4143_0296
Proposed Development 2023 Cumulative Effects Assessment 2031
Camera Location National Grid Reference 537558.1E 184681.7N [Estimated] Camera height 13.08m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 94.1°, distance 1.1km
MSG Sphere | Public Safety Report | Road User Distraction Study | Appendix 1: Representative Views 11 3 Copper Street: eastbound | junction with Waterden Road 4143_0305 4143_0306
Proposed Development 2023 Cumulative Effects Assessment 2031
Camera Location National Grid Reference 537445.4E 184778.9N [Estimated] Camera height 10.84m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 67.0°, distance 1.2km
12 MSG Sphere | Public Safety Report | Road User Distraction Study | Appendix 1: Representative Views A106 Eastway: eastbound | junction with Waterden Road and A12 4 4143_0285 4143_0286
Proposed Development 2023 Cumulative Effects Assessment 2031
Camera Location National Grid Reference 537219.4E 185371.5N [Estimated] Camera height 7.80m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 86.3°, distance 1.6km
MSG Sphere | Public Safety Report | Road User Distraction Study | Appendix 1: Representative Views 13 5 Ruckholt Road 4143_0495 4143_0496
Proposed Development 2023 Cumulative Effects Assessment 2031
Camera Location National Grid Reference 537568.5E 185858.0N [Estimated] Camera height 7.04m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 134.8°, distance 1.6km
14 MSG Sphere | Public Safety Report | Road User Distraction Study | Appendix 1: Representative Views Orient Way 6 4143_0425 4143_0426
Proposed Development 2023 Cumulative Effects Assessment 2031
Camera Location National Grid Reference 537739.4E 186103.9N [Estimated] Camera height 10.04m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 148.7°, distance 1.7km
MSG Sphere | Public Safety Report | Road User Distraction Study | Appendix 1: Representative Views 15 7 A12: westbound | west of Leyton Station 4143_1305 4143_1306
Proposed Development 2023 Cumulative Effects Assessment 2031
Camera Location National Grid Reference 538181.6E 185808.2N [Estimated] Camera height 12.10m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 194.5°, distance 1.2km
16 MSG Sphere | Public Safety Report | Road User Distraction Study | Appendix 1: Representative Views Grove Green Road 8 4143_0455 4143_0456
Proposed Development 2023 Cumulative Effects Assessment 2031
Camera Location National Grid Reference 538807.6E 186651.1N [Estimated] Camera height 18.85m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 211.4°, distance 2.0km
MSG Sphere | Public Safety Report | Road User Distraction Study | Appendix 1: Representative Views 17 9 A12: westbound | north of St Patrick’s Roman Catholic Cemetery 4143_0375 4143_0376
Proposed Development 2023 Cumulative Effects Assessment 2031
Camera Location National Grid Reference 538612.5E 186376.3N [Estimated] Camera height 14.59m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 213.1°, distance 1.7km
18 MSG Sphere | Public Safety Report | Road User Distraction Study | Appendix 1: Representative Views A112 High Road Leyton: southbound | Leyton Tube Station 10 4143_0115 4143_0116
Proposed Development 2023 Cumulative Effects Assessment 2031
Camera Location National Grid Reference 538352.4E 186057.8N [Estimated] Camera height 16.20m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 176.7°, distance 1.4km
MSG Sphere | Public Safety Report | Road User Distraction Study | Appendix 1: Representative Views 19 11 A112 High Road Leyton: southbound 4143_0465 4143_0466
Proposed Development 2023 Cumulative Effects Assessment 2031
Camera Location National Grid Reference 538378.7E 185965.9N [Estimated] Camera height 12.40m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 174.0°, distance 1.3km
20 MSG Sphere | Public Safety Report | Road User Distraction Study | Appendix 1: Representative Views A112 High Road Leyton: southbound 12 4143_0505 4143_0506
Proposed Development 2023 Cumulative Effects Assessment 2031
Camera Location National Grid Reference 538475.4E 185478.2N [Estimated] Camera height 10.76m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 180.2°, distance 0.8km
MSG Sphere | Public Safety Report | Road User Distraction Study | Appendix 1: Representative Views 21 13 A112 High Road Leyton: southbound 4143_0575 4143_0576
Proposed Development 2023 Cumulative Effects Assessment 2031
Camera Location National Grid Reference 538596.1E 185151.9N [Estimated] Camera height 9.96m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 153.8°, distance 0.5km
22 MSG Sphere | Public Safety Report | Road User Distraction Study | Appendix 1: Representative Views Langthorne Road: southbound 14 4143_0405 4143_0406
Proposed Development 2023 Cumulative Effects Assessment 2031
Camera Location National Grid Reference 538872.0E 185896.2N [Estimated] Camera height 12.17m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 171.0°, distance 1.3km
MSG Sphere | Public Safety Report | Road User Distraction Study | Appendix 1: Representative Views 23 15 High Road Leytonstone: southbound 4143_0415 4143_0416
Proposed Development 2023 Cumulative Effects Assessment 2031
Camera Location National Grid Reference 539195.2E 186193.9N [Estimated] Camera height 14.31m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 196.8°, distance 1.6km
24 MSG Sphere | Public Safety Report | Road User Distraction Study | Appendix 1: Representative Views Birch Road: southbound 16 4143_0515 4143_0516
Proposed Development 2023 Cumulative Effects Assessment 2031
Camera Location National Grid Reference 539080.3E 185997.1N [Estimated] Camera height 15.06m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 185.0°, distance 1.4km
MSG Sphere | Public Safety Report | Road User Distraction Study | Appendix 1: Representative Views 25 17 Cann Hall Road: westbound 4143_0525 4143_0526
Proposed Development 2023 Cumulative Effects Assessment 2031
Camera Location National Grid Reference 539370.8E 185841.2N [Estimated] Camera height 13.87m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 214.4°, distance 1.4km
26 MSG Sphere | Public Safety Report | Road User Distraction Study | Appendix 1: Representative Views Cemetery Road: westbound 18 4143_0795 4143_0796
Proposed Development 2023 Cumulative Effects Assessment 2031
Camera Location National Grid Reference 539842.4E 185562.5N [Estimated] Camera height 13.26m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 234.3°, distance 1.5km
MSG Sphere | Public Safety Report | Road User Distraction Study | Appendix 1: Representative Views 27 19 Gurney Road: westbound 4143_0535 4143_0536
Proposed Development 2023 Cumulative Effects Assessment 2031
Camera Location National Grid Reference 539384.3E 185419.5N [Estimated] Camera height 11.48m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 248.8°, distance 1.1km
28 MSG Sphere | Public Safety Report | Road User Distraction Study | Appendix 1: Representative Views Earlham Grove: westbound 20 4143_0705 4143_0706
Proposed Development 2023 Cumulative Effects Assessment 2031
Camera Location National Grid Reference 539979.2E 185102.4N [Estimated] Camera height 12.24m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 253.9°, distance 1.4km
MSG Sphere | Public Safety Report | Road User Distraction Study | Appendix 1: Representative Views 29 21 Clova Road: westbound 4143_0695 4143_0696
Proposed Development 2023 Cumulative Effects Assessment 2031
Camera Location National Grid Reference 540007.6E 184982.9N [Estimated] Camera height 12.41m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 246.3°, distance 1.4km
30 MSG Sphere | Public Safety Report | Road User Distraction Study | Appendix 1: Representative Views Knox Road: westbound 22 4143_0685 4143_0686
Proposed Development 2023 Cumulative Effects Assessment 2031
Camera Location National Grid Reference 540247.9E 184714.5N [Estimated] Camera height 13.01m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 264.2°, distance 1.6km
MSG Sphere | Public Safety Report | Road User Distraction Study | Appendix 1: Representative Views 31 23 Plasher Road: westbound 4143_0445 4143_0446
Proposed Development 2023 Cumulative Effects Assessment 2031
Camera Location National Grid Reference 540354.3E 183934.7N [Estimated] Camera height 11.28m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 266.9°, distance 1.8km
32 MSG Sphere | Public Safety Report | Road User Distraction Study | Appendix 1: Representative Views Portway: westbound 24 4143_0435 4143_0436
Proposed Development 2023 Cumulative Effects Assessment 2031
Camera Location National Grid Reference 539473.9E 183945.8N [Estimated] Camera height 7.55m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 282.6°, distance 1.1km
MSG Sphere | Public Safety Report | Road User Distraction Study | Appendix 1: Representative Views 33 25 Leywick Street: northbound 4143_0655 4143_0656
Proposed Development 2023 Cumulative Effects Assessment 2031
Camera Location National Grid Reference 539195.0E 183498.0N [Estimated] Camera height 3.96m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 330.5°, distance 1.3km
34 MSG Sphere | Public Safety Report | Road User Distraction Study | Appendix 1: Representative Views High Street: northbound 26 4143_0605 4143_0606
Proposed Development 2023 Cumulative Effects Assessment 2031
Camera Location National Grid Reference 538026.9E 183204.8N [Estimated] Camera height 7.78m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 43.8°, distance 1.6km
MSG Sphere | Public Safety Report | Road User Distraction Study | Appendix 1: Representative Views 35 27 Marshgate Lane: northbound 4143_0595 4143_0596
Proposed Development 2023 Cumulative Effects Assessment 2031
Camera Location National Grid Reference 537950.2E 183577.2N [Estimated] Camera height 5.72m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 50.0°, distance 1.3km
36 MSG Sphere | Public Safety Report | Road User Distraction Study | Appendix 1: Representative Views Great Eastern Road: northbound | junction with High Street and Broadway 28 4143_0185 4143_0186
Proposed Development 2023 Cumulative Effects Assessment 2031
Camera Location National Grid Reference 538751.8E 184186.3N [Estimated] Camera height 6.26m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 344.1°, distance 0.5km
MSG Sphere | Public Safety Report | Road User Distraction Study | Appendix 1: Representative Views 37 29 Great Eastern Road: northbound | junction with Station Street 4143_0195 4143_0196
Proposed Development 2023 Cumulative Effects Assessment 2031
Camera Location National Grid Reference 538698.7E 184285.7N [Estimated] Camera height 5.81m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 339.6°, distance 0.4km
38 MSG Sphere | Public Safety Report | Road User Distraction Study | Appendix 1: Representative Views Jupp Road: northbound 30 4143_0625 4143_0626
Proposed Development 2023 Cumulative Effects Assessment 2031
Camera Location National Grid Reference 538603.9E 184082.1N [Estimated] Camera height 4.98m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 6.7°, distance 0.6km
MSG Sphere | Public Safety Report | Road User Distraction Study | Appendix 1: Representative Views 39 31 Rowse Close | junction with Carpenters Road 4143_0205 4143_0206
Proposed Development 2023 Cumulative Effects Assessment 2031
Camera Location National Grid Reference 538319.5E 184026.1N [Estimated] Camera height 5.33m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 44.8°, distance 0.7km
40 MSG Sphere | Public Safety Report | Road User Distraction Study | Appendix 1: Representative Views Edith Road: southbound 32 4143_0555 4143_0556
Proposed Development 2023 Cumulative Effects Assessment 2031
Camera Location National Grid Reference 538751.2E 185535.9N [Estimated] Camera height 10.93m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 170.0°, distance 0.9km
MSG Sphere | Public Safety Report | Road User Distraction Study | Appendix 1: Representative Views 41 33 Leytonstone Road: southbound 4143_0545 4143_0546
Proposed Development 2023 Cumulative Effects Assessment 2031
Camera Location National Grid Reference 539132.8E 185379.2N [Estimated] Camera height 10.16m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 190.1°, distance 0.9km
42 MSG Sphere | Public Safety Report | Road User Distraction Study | Appendix 1: Representative Views Manbey Street: westbound 34 4143_0675 4143_0676
Proposed Development 2023 Cumulative Effects Assessment 2031
Camera Location National Grid Reference 539225.1E 184727.0N [Estimated] Camera height 9.31m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 259.9°, distance 0.6km
MSG Sphere | Public Safety Report | Road User Distraction Study | Appendix 1: Representative Views 43 35 Deanery Road:westbound 4143_0665 4143_0666
Proposed Development 2023 Cumulative Effects Assessment 2031
Camera Location National Grid Reference 539222.2E 184588.6N [Estimated] Camera height 10.28m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 272.8°, distance 0.6km
44 MSG Sphere | Public Safety Report | Road User Distraction Study | Appendix 1: Representative Views Romford Road: westbound 36 4143_0485 4143_0486
Proposed Development 2023 Cumulative Effects Assessment 2031
Camera Location National Grid Reference 539113.6E 184481.9N [Estimated] Camera height 8.31m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 261.2°, distance 0.5km
MSG Sphere | Public Safety Report | Road User Distraction Study | Appendix 1: Representative Views 45 37 Arthingworth Street: northbound 4143_0645 4143_0646
Proposed Development 2023 Cumulative Effects Assessment 2031
Camera Location National Grid Reference 539192.0E 183872.8N [Estimated] Camera height 4.64m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 333.7°, distance 0.9km
46 MSG Sphere | Public Safety Report | Road User Distraction Study | Appendix 1: Representative Views Rokeby Street: northbound 38 4143_0635 4143_0636
Proposed Development 2023 Cumulative Effects Assessment 2031
Camera Location National Grid Reference 539017.8E 183800.3N [Estimated] Camera height 4.05m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 337.6°, distance 0.9km
MSG Sphere | Public Safety Report | Road User Distraction Study | Appendix 1: Representative Views 47 39 Anthems Road: eastbound 4143_0585 4143_0586
Proposed Development 2023 Cumulative Effects Assessment 2031
Camera Location National Grid Reference 537943.7E 184835.1N [Estimated] Camera height 12.08m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 86.5°, distance 0.7km
48 MSG Sphere | Public Safety Report | Road User Distraction Study | Appendix 1: Representative Views Community Road: southbound 40 4143_0565 4143_0566
Proposed Development 2023 Cumulative Effects Assessment 2031
Camera Location National Grid Reference 538788.0E 185188.1N [Estimated] Camera height 9.20m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 178.2°, distance 0.5km
MSG Sphere | Public Safety Report | Road User Distraction Study | Appendix 1: Representative Views 49 41 Grove Crescent: westbound 4143_0135 4143_0136
Proposed Development 2023 Cumulative Effects Assessment 2031
Camera Location National Grid Reference 539085.0E 184772.7N [Estimated] Camera height 9.00m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 260.1°, distance 0.4km
50 MSG Sphere | Public Safety Report | Road User Distraction Study | Appendix 1: Representative Views Windmill Lane: westbound 42 4143_0815 4143_0816
Proposed Development 2023 Cumulative Effects Assessment 2031
Camera Location National Grid Reference 538895.2E 184850.4N [Estimated] Camera height 8.74m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 253.4°, distance 0.3km
MSG Sphere | Public Safety Report | Road User Distraction Study | Appendix 1: Representative Views 51 43 Windmill Lane: westbound | junction with Angel Lane 4143_0345 4143_0346
Proposed Development 2023 Cumulative Effects Assessment 2031
Camera Location National Grid Reference 538780.2E 184814.6N [Estimated] Camera height 8.54m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 245.0°, distance 0.2km
52 MSG Sphere | Public Safety Report | Road User Distraction Study | Appendix 1: Representative Views Gibbins Road: northbound 44 4143_0615 4143_0616
Proposed Development 2023 Cumulative Effects Assessment 2031
Camera Location National Grid Reference 538519.3E 184215.9N [Estimated] Camera height 4.73m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 7.3°, distance 0.5km
MSG Sphere | Public Safety Report | Road User Distraction Study | Appendix 1: Representative Views 53 45 Gibbins Road: northbound 4143_0845 4143_0846
Proposed Development 2023 Cumulative Effects Assessment 2031
Camera Location National Grid Reference 538384.9E 184086.1N [Estimated] Camera height 4.67m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 4.5°, distance 0.6km
54 MSG Sphere | Public Safety Report | Road User Distraction Study | Appendix 1: Representative Views Decapod Street: southbound 46 4143_0805 4143_0806
Proposed Development 2023 Cumulative Effects Assessment 2031
Camera Location National Grid Reference 538541.1E 185080.5N [Estimated] Camera height 7.51m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 155.3°, distance 0.4km
MSG Sphere | Public Safety Report | Road User Distraction Study | Appendix 1: Representative Views 55 47 Montfichet Road Kinetic Sequence | roundabout with Warton Road 4143_0215 4143_0216
Proposed Development 2023 Cumulative Effects Assessment 2031
Camera Location National Grid Reference 538156.6E 183981.3N [Estimated] Camera height 5.04m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 38.0°, distance 0.8km
56 MSG Sphere | Public Safety Report | Road User Distraction Study | Appendix 1: Representative Views Montfichet Road Kinetic Sequence |junction with Pool Street 48 4143_0225 4143_0226
Proposed Development 2023 Cumulative Effects Assessment 2031
Camera Location National Grid Reference 538215.6E 184059.3N [Estimated] Camera height 8.31m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 34.3°, distance 0.7km
MSG Sphere | Public Safety Report | Road User Distraction Study | Appendix 1: Representative Views 57 49 Montfichet Road Kinetic Sequence | junction with Westfield Avenue 4143_0235 4143_0236
Proposed Development 2023 Cumulative Effects Assessment 2031
Camera Location National Grid Reference 538309.7E 184303.0N [Estimated] Camera height 16.47m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 51.5°, distance 0.5km
58 MSG Sphere | Public Safety Report | Road User Distraction Study | Appendix 1: Representative Views Montfichet Road Kinetic Sequence | junction with Westfield Car Park B 50 4143_0245 4143_0246
Proposed Development 2023 Cumulative Effects Assessment 2031
Camera Location National Grid Reference 538430.6E 184407.5N [Estimated] Camera height 11.13m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 40.0°, distance 0.3km
MSG Sphere | Public Safety Report | Road User Distraction Study | Appendix 1: Representative Views 59 51 Montfichet Road Kinetic Sequence |entrance to Stratford Place and westfield 4143_0255 4143_0256
Proposed Development 2023 Cumulative Effects Assessment 2031
Camera Location National Grid Reference 538505.8E 184531.1N [Estimated] Camera height 9.60m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 24.1°, distance 0.2km
60 MSG Sphere | Public Safety Report | Road User Distraction Study | Appendix 1: Representative Views Montfichet Road Kinetic Sequence | junction with Penny Brookes Street 52 4143_0265 4143_0266
Proposed Development 2023 Cumulative Effects Assessment 2031
Camera Location National Grid Reference 538503.4E 184889.7N [Estimated] Camera height 13.26m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 158.4°, distance 0.3km
MSG Sphere | Public Safety Report | Road User Distraction Study | Appendix 1: Representative Views 61 53 Leyton Road Kinetic Sequence | Penny Brookes Street junction 4143_0475 4143_0476
Proposed Development 2023 Cumulative Effects Assessment 2031
Camera Location National Grid Reference 538715.2E 184962.1N [Estimated] Camera height 7.65m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 175.5°, distance 0.3km
62 MSG Sphere | Public Safety Report | Road User Distraction Study | Appendix 1: Representative Views Leyton Road Kinetic Sequence | opposite Forrester Way 54 4143_0895 4143_0896
Proposed Development 2023 Cumulative Effects Assessment 2031
Camera Location National Grid Reference 538736.4E 184888.7N [Estimated] Camera height 7.88m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 160.9°, distance 0.2km
MSG Sphere | Public Safety Report | Road User Distraction Study | Appendix 1: Representative Views 63 55 Leyton Road Kinetic Sequence | Angel Lane 4143_0355 4143_0356
Proposed Development 2023 Cumulative Effects Assessment 2031
Camera Location National Grid Reference 538785.0E 184732.2N [Estimated] Camera height 12.30m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 220.3°, distance 0.2km
64 MSG Sphere | Public Safety Report | Road User Distraction Study | Appendix 1: Representative Views Great Eastern Road: junction with Angel Lane 56 4143_0385 4143_0386
Proposed Development 2023 Cumulative Effects Assessment 2031
Camera Location National Grid Reference 538809.4E 184575.6N [Estimated] Camera height 8.17m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 24.5°, distance 0.2km
MSG Sphere | Public Safety Report | Road User Distraction Study | Appendix 1: Representative Views 65 57 Angel Lane: northbound | Bridge over Great Eastern Main Line 4143_0335 4143_0336
Proposed Development 2023 Cumulative Effects Assessment 2031
Camera Location National Grid Reference 538777.0E 184649.9N [Estimated] Camera height 13.16m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 322.2°, distance 0.1km
66 MSG Sphere | Public Safety Report | Road User Distraction Study | Appendix 1: Representative Views A112 West Ham Lane Kinetic Sequence | north-west corner of Stratford Park 58 4143_0145 4143_0146
Proposed Development 2023 Cumulative Effects Assessment 2031
Camera Location National Grid Reference 539138.8E 184097.0N [Estimated] Camera height 7.63m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 324.9°, distance 0.7km
MSG Sphere | Public Safety Report | Road User Distraction Study | Appendix 1: Representative Views 67 59 A112 West Ham Lane Kinetic Sequence | junction with Victoria Street 4143_0155 4143_0156
Proposed Development 2023 Cumulative Effects Assessment 2031
Camera Location National Grid Reference 538994.3E 184251.3N [Estimated] Camera height 7.52m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 325.0°, distance 0.5km
68 MSG Sphere | Public Safety Report | Road User Distraction Study | Appendix 1: Representative Views A112 West Ham Lane Kinetic Sequence | junction with Broadway 60 4143_0165 4143_0166
Proposed Development 2023 Cumulative Effects Assessment 2031
Camera Location National Grid Reference 538955.3E 184342.7N [Estimated] Camera height 7.11m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 318.0°, distance 0.4km
MSG Sphere | Public Safety Report | Road User Distraction Study | Appendix 1: Representative Views 69 61 Leytonstone Road Kinetic Sequence | Maryland junction 4143_0885 4143_0886
Proposed Development 2023 Cumulative Effects Assessment 2031
Camera Location National Grid Reference 539204.3E 184971.6N [Estimated] Camera height 11.07m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 209.0°, distance 0.6km
70 MSG Sphere | Public Safety Report | Road User Distraction Study | Appendix 1: Representative Views Leytonstone Road Kinetic Sequence | Maryland junction 62 4143_0765 4143_0766
Proposed Development 2023 Cumulative Effects Assessment 2031
Camera Location National Grid Reference 539206.9E 184963.8N [Estimated] Camera height 11.07m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 234.5°, distance 0.6km
MSG Sphere | Public Safety Report | Road User Distraction Study | Appendix 1: Representative Views 71 63 Leytonstone Road Kinetic Sequence | west of Maryland junction 4143_0775 4143_0776
Proposed Development 2023 Cumulative Effects Assessment 2031
Camera Location National Grid Reference 539165.4E 184937.9N [Estimated] Camera height 10.47m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 251.9°, distance 0.6km
72 MSG Sphere | Public Safety Report | Road User Distraction Study | Appendix 1: Representative Views Pool Street: eastbound | south of The Aquatics Centre 64 4143_0325 4143_0326
Proposed Development 2023 Cumulative Effects Assessment 2031
Camera Location National Grid Reference 538161.4E 184122.9N [Estimated] Camera height 7.98m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 29.5°, distance 0.7km
MSG Sphere | Public Safety Report | Road User Distraction Study | Appendix 1: Representative Views 73 65 Pool Street: eastbound | junction with Carpenters Road 4143_0855 4143_0856
Proposed Development 2023 Cumulative Effects Assessment 2031
Camera Location National Grid Reference 538202.4E 184217.3N [Estimated] Camera height 5.74m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 38.0°, distance 0.6km
74 MSG Sphere | Public Safety Report | Road User Distraction Study | Appendix 1: Representative Views International Way: eastbound | north of Stratford International Car Park 66 4143_0865 4143_0866
Proposed Development 2023 Cumulative Effects Assessment 2031
Camera Location National Grid Reference 538353.6E 184843.4N [Estimated] Camera height 7.82m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 91.9°, distance 0.4km
MSG Sphere | Public Safety Report | Road User Distraction Study | Appendix 1: Representative Views 75 67 International Way: eastbound | approaching junction with Montfitchet Road 4143_0875 4143_0876
Proposed Development 2023 Cumulative Effects Assessment 2031
Camera Location National Grid Reference 538459.5E 184844.6N [Estimated] Camera height 9.98m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 90.3°, distance 0.3km
76 MSG Sphere | Public Safety Report | Road User Distraction Study | Appendix 1: Representative Views Forest Lane: westbound | junction with Woodgrange Road 68 4143_0735 4143_0736
Proposed Development 2023 Cumulative Effects Assessment 2031
Camera Location National Grid Reference 540489.2E 185374.7N [Estimated] Camera height 14.70m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 246.4°, distance 2.0km
MSG Sphere | Public Safety Report | Road User Distraction Study | Appendix 1: Representative Views 77 69 Forest Lane: westbound | opposite Magpie Close 4143_0725 4143_0726
Proposed Development 2023 Cumulative Effects Assessment 2031
Camera Location National Grid Reference 539943.2E 185188.3N [Estimated] Camera height 11.97m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 250.5°, distance 1.4km
78 MSG Sphere | Public Safety Report | Road User Distraction Study | Appendix 1: Representative Views Forest Lane: westbound | junction with Albert Square 70 4143_0365 4143_0366
Proposed Development 2023 Cumulative Effects Assessment 2031
Camera Location National Grid Reference 539478.6E 185038.2N [Estimated] Camera height 10.69m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 252.4°, distance 0.9km
MSG Sphere | Public Safety Report | Road User Distraction Study | Appendix 1: Representative Views 79 71 Forest Lane: westbound | approaching Maryland junction 4143_0745 4143_0746
Proposed Development 2023 Cumulative Effects Assessment 2031
Camera Location National Grid Reference 539255.0E 184964.3N [Estimated] Camera height 11.24m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 263.9°, distance 0.7km
80 MSG Sphere | Public Safety Report | Road User Distraction Study | Appendix 1: Representative Views Forest Lane: westbound | Maryland junction 72 4143_0755 4143_0756
Proposed Development 2023 Cumulative Effects Assessment 2031
Camera Location National Grid Reference 539226.4E 184961.2N [Estimated] Camera height 10.95m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 281.3°, distance 0.6km
MSG Sphere | Public Safety Report | Road User Distraction Study | Appendix 1: Representative Views 81 73 Great Eastern Road: westbound | junction with The Grove 4143_0785 4143_0786
Proposed Development 2023 Cumulative Effects Assessment 2031
Camera Location National Grid Reference 539063.1E 184641.1N [Estimated] Camera height 9.51m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 279.3°, distance 0.4km
82 MSG Sphere | Public Safety Report | Road User Distraction Study | Appendix 1: Representative Views Great Eastern Road: westbound | opposite Grove Crescent Road 74 4143_0825 4143_0826
Proposed Development 2023 Cumulative Effects Assessment 2031
Camera Location National Grid Reference 538982.1E 184646.1N [Estimated] Camera height 8.78m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 249.8°, distance 0.3km
MSG Sphere | Public Safety Report | Road User Distraction Study | Appendix 1: Representative Views 83 75 Great Eastern Road: westbound | junction with Angel Lane 4143_0395 4143_0396
Proposed Development 2023 Cumulative Effects Assessment 2031
Camera Location National Grid Reference 538856.8E 184588.0N [Estimated] Camera height 8.32m AOD Looking at Centre of Site Bearing 270.6°, distance 0.2km
84 MSG Sphere | Public Safety Report | Road User Distraction Study | Appendix 1: Representative Views MSG Sphere | Public Safety Report | Road User Distraction Study | Appendix 1: Representative Views 85 Appendix
A1 Model Overview
Aerial view of Proposed Development 2023
86 MSG Sphere | Public Safety Report | Road User Distraction Study | Appendix 1: Representative Views A2 Model Overview
Aerial view of Cumulative Effects Assessment 2031
MSG Sphere | Public Safety Report | Road User Distraction Study | Appendix 1: Representative Views 87
MSG SPHERE – ROAD USER SAFETY REPORT
Appendix 2
MSG Sphere Public Safety Report Road User Distraction Study Appendix 2: Kinetic Video Sequences
1.1 As outlined in paragraph 6.18 of the main report, kinetic video sequences have been produced for the following 6 routes:
• Route 1 - Northbound along Montfichet Road
• Route 2 - Southbound along Montfichet Road from Penny Brooks Street towards the proposed development
• Route 3 - Southbound along Leyton Road turning onto Angel Lane and towards the proposed development
• Route 4 - Eastbound along Great Eastern Road turning onto Angel Lane and towards the proposed development
• Route 5 - Northbound along West Ham Lane and turning left onto Broadway
• Route 6 - Southbound Leytonstone Road towards the junction with Forest Lane.
• A 7th route has been added at the request of the LLDC travelling along Westfield Avenue and turning right onto Montfichet Road.
1.2 These can be viewed online using the following details:
https://vimeo.com/showcase/7310226
password: msgdriver
MSG Sphere | Public Safety Report | Road User Distraction Study | Appendix 2: Kinetic Video Sequences