The way the world moves. NOTES 1. Do not scale from this drawing, work to figured dimensions only.
N 2. Dimensions are in metres unless stated otherwise. ISO FULL BLEED A3 420 X 297 MM
3. For general arrangement see dwg number M000358-2-3-DR-001 & 002 By design.
KEY
7.9 Bollards lowered
OVERVIEW PLAN
1.5 4.4 Pumping Appliance Overall Length 7.900m Overall Width 2.500m Overall Body Height 3.300m Min Body Ground Clearance 0.140m Track Width 2.500m Lock to lock time 4.00s Kerb to Kerb Turning Radius 7.750m
Extent of vehicle chassis
Reverse gear LOCATION PLAN
Access Forward gear FIGURE 4.1
N
A 20/11/20 First issue IH JD DM DRN CHKD APRVD REV DATE REVISION DESCRIPTION / DETAILS BY BY BY
CLIENT:
BRITEL TRUSTEES FUND LIMITED
JOB TITLE:
26-28 HAMMERSMITH GROVE
DRAWING TITLE: GROUND FLOOR HOTEL DROP FIRE TENDER ACCESS TO FRONT RECEPTION SWEPT PATH ANALYSIS
STATUS: FOR APPROVAL
Egress DRAWING NO: REV: SCALE AT A3: M000358-2-3-TR-001 A 1:250 ISO FULL BLEED A3 420 X 297 MM
SEE SHEET 2
6.50 N 200mm thickgreenwall Low levelplanters/bollards Raised table See drawingM000358-2-3-DR-003 for allocationofbins
4.90 4.95 all timesforNetworkRailvehicleaccess Area tobekeptclearat STOP 8.00
CH 01 WS 01 Visibility viewlinefrombackofhousetojunction CH WS 01 01 parking baysareforofficeusersonly Back ofhouseloadingbayand .Donotscalefromthisdrawing,worktofigured 1. .Forsweptpathanalysisseedwgnumbers 3. .Dimensionsareinmetresunlessstated 2. KEY NOTES M000358-2-3-TR-001 to007 otherwise. dimensions only. Indicative siteboundary Back ofhouseloadingbay Relocated officeparkingbays Proposed bluebadgebay Proposed retractablebollards Proposed frontofhousepaving Proposed footway Proposed softscape Proposed serviceroad Proposed Kerb Pedestrian accessand Unloading routeforback Proposed sign exit route of house for officeuse for officeuse Zebra crossing Acoustic barrier Vehicle restraintbarrier LOCATION PLAN OVERVIEW PLAN REV M000358-2-3-DR-001 DRAWING NO: DRAWING TITLE: CLIENT: STATUS: FIGURE 4.2 JOB TITLE: 20/11/20 A DATE GENERAL ARRANGEMENT SHEET1OF2 GROUND FLOORHOTELDROP OFF 26-28 HAMMERSMITHGROVE REVISION DESCRIPTION/DETAILS BRITEL TRUSTEES AND FORECOURT FOR APPROVAL FUND LIMITED First issue REV: 1:250 A DRN BY HJ DM JD IH SCALE ATA3: CHKD BY
APRVD
BY
The way the world moves. moves. world the way The By design. By The way the world moves. NOTES 1. Do not scale from this drawing, work to figured dimensions only.
N 2. Dimensions are in metres unless stated otherwise. ISO FULL BLEED A3 420 X 297 MM
3. For swept path analysis see dwg numbers M000358-2-3-TR-001 to 007 By design.
KEY Indicative site boundary
Proposed Kerb
Back of house service Acoustic barrier OVERVIEW PLAN route from loading bay 2.20 Proposed service road
Proposed softscape
Proposed footway
Proposed front of house paving
Proposed blue badge bays for guest
LOCATION PLAN Back of house loading bay 3.00 10.00 for hotel use FIGURE 4.2 Double stack joster bike racks = 14 bikes
Vehicle restraint barrier
Unloading route for back of house 4.05 Pedestrian access and exit route
Access route for cycle parking SEE SHEET 1
A 20/11/20 First issue IH JD DM DRN CHKD APRVD REV DATE REVISION DESCRIPTION / DETAILS BY BY BY
CLIENT:
BRITEL TRUSTEES FUND LIMITED
JOB TITLE:
26-28 HAMMERSMITH GROVE
DRAWING TITLE: GROUND FLOOR HOTEL DROP OFF AND FORECOURT GENERAL ARRANGEMENT SHEET 2 OF 2
STATUS: FOR APPROVAL
DRAWING NO: REV: SCALE AT A3: M000358-2-3-DR-002 A 1:250 The way the world moves. NOTES Reverse manoeuvre into loading bay 1. Do not scale from this drawing, work to figured dimensions only. N 2. Dimensions are in metres unless stated otherwise. ISO FULL BLEED A3 420 X 297 MM
3. For general arrangement see dwg number Column protection required M000358-2-3-DR-001 & 002 By design.
KEY
10
See general arrangement
for unloading route OVERVIEW PLAN STOP
1.4 6.1 FTA Design 13/18 Tonne Rigid Vehicle (2016) Overall Length 10.000m Overall Width 2.500m Overall Body Height 3.645m Min Body Ground Clearance 0.440m Track Width 2.470m Lock to lock time 3.00s Kerb to Kerb Turning Radius 11.000m
Extent of vehicle chassis
Reverse gear LOCATION PLAN Access Forward gear FIGURE 4.3
N
A 20/11/20 First issue IH JD DM
DRN CHKD APRVD REV DATE REVISION DESCRIPTION / DETAILS BY BY BY STOP
CLIENT:
BRITEL TRUSTEES FUND LIMITED
JOB TITLE:
26-28 HAMMERSMITH GROVE
DRAWING TITLE: GROUND FLOOR HOTEL BACK OF HOUSE LOADING BAY SWEPT PATH ANALYSIS
STATUS: FOR APPROVAL
Egress DRAWING NO: REV: SCALE AT A3: M000358-2-3-TR-002 A 1:250 The way the world moves. NOTES 1. Do not scale from this drawing, work to figured dimensions only.
N 2. Dimensions are in metres unless stated otherwise. ISO FULL BLEED A3 420 X 297 MM
3. For general arrangment see dwg number M000358-2-3-DR-001 & 002 By design.
KEY
Vehicle restraint barrier 5.079
Vehicles can still access blue badge bays OVERVIEW PLAN while loading bay is being occupied 0.816 3.035
Large Car (2006) Overall Length 5.079m Overall Width 1.872m Overall Body Height 1.525m Min Body Ground Clearance 0.310m Max Track Width 1.831m Lock to lock time 4.00s Kerb to Kerb Turning Radius 5.900m
Extent of vehicle chassis STOP
Reverse gear LOCATION PLAN Access Forward gear FIGURE 4.4
N
Column protection required
Vehicles can still exit blue badge bays A 20/11/20 First issue IH JD DM DRN CHKD APRVD REV DATE REVISION DESCRIPTION / DETAILS while loading bay is being occupied BY BY BY
CLIENT:
BRITEL TRUSTEES FUND LIMITED
JOB TITLE:
26-28 HAMMERSMITH GROVE
DRAWING TITLE:
GROUND FLOOR HOTEL STOP BACK OF HOUSE BLUE BADGE BAYS SWEPT PATH ANALYSIS
STATUS: FOR APPROVAL
Egress DRAWING NO: REV: SCALE AT A3: M000358-2-3-TR-003 A 1:250 The way the world moves. NOTES 1. Do not scale from this drawing, work to figured dimensions only. Bins collected from bin stores N and loaded onto refuse truck. 2. Dimensions are in metres unless stated See drawing M000358-2-3-DR-003 otherwise. ISO FULL BLEED A3 420 X 297 MM for refuse bin numbers. 3. For general arrangment see dwg number M000358-2-3-DR-001 & 002 By design.
KEY
10.595
OVERVIEW PLAN
1.665 4.215 1.385 Phoenix 2-23W (with Elite 2 6x4 chassis) Overall Length 10.595m Overall Width 2.530m
Overall Body Height 3.205m
Min Body Ground Clearance 0.410m STOP Track Width 2.500m Lock to lock time 4.00s Kerb to Kerb Turning Radius 9.250m
Extent of vehicle chassis
Reverse gear LOCATION PLAN Access Forward gear FIGURE 4.5
Loading bay can be occupied
while refuse collection is taking place
N STOP A 20/11/20 First issue IH JD DM DRN CHKD APRVD REV DATE REVISION DESCRIPTION / DETAILS BY BY BY
CLIENT:
BRITEL TRUSTEES FUND LIMITED
JOB TITLE:
26-28 HAMMERSMITH GROVE
DRAWING TITLE: GROUND FLOOR HOTEL BACK OF HOUSE REFUSE PICK UP SWEPT PATH ANALYSIS
STATUS: FOR APPROVAL
Egress DRAWING NO: REV: SCALE AT A3: M000358-2-3-TR-005 A 1:250 The way the world moves. NOTES 11.14 1. Do not scale from this drawing, work to figured
11.16 10.11 dimensions only.
Tarmac
10.10 N Elevation B2. Dimensions are in metres unless stated otherwise. ISO FULL BLEED A3 420 X 297 MM
3. This drawing presents the existing waste storage conditions and additional waste storage options. By design.
4. All waste provision is based on a four day
3.97
DP compacted scenario.
DP
3.80 W 3.80
W Existing office - 6.60
IC 3.79 4xRecycling bins (uncompacted) 6.60 KEY
3.77 6.63
3.77 G 43 FD 140L Food waste bin 6.05 DP GL 4.29 G R 4.00 TFL
W FD 4.06 OVERVIEW PLAN Soffit GL OWNERSHIP 240L Glass recycling bin NO ACCESS R AT THE TIMEOF SURVEY
IC 3.74 G
DP G R G 1,100L General waste bin 4.28 5.73 Pipe
4.16 45 4.05 3.93 4.27 44 R DP W 3.73 4.30 Fence 5.78 Soffit Ht 1.90m Soffit G 3.96
6.27 Existing office - 4.27
Tiles 1,100L Recycling bin 7.17 8.62 Metal R Plate 1xGlass bin + Conc 6.77 Gate Soffit Ht 2.80m
6.33 D Elevation 5.99 6.77 3.97 34 3.85 Soffit 5.99 3.81 31 IC Conc G 3.70 1xFood bin 8.62 IC IC 3.74 3.81 3.81
4.43 4.51
Soffit Conc Soffit 3.75 (uncompacted) Soffit
3.73 Soffit Gate IC 3.73 Ht 1.60m Gate G 3.73 3.75 Ht 1.60m
4.25 5.34 4.10 16
3.96 30 3.79 3.84 Eurobin Compactor 3.76 IC 3.78 4.50 3.74 IC 3.76 3.74 IC 3.74
IC 3.95 8.97 and working area IC 8.98 IC 3.76 4.35
7.15 Tarmac
IC
3.77
3.78 84
83 Soffit IC Tarmac 3.83
82 5.89 Existing office - Tarmac 81 17 35 29 Soffit IC 3.81 5xGeneral waste 32 6.05
3.84 Soffit CCTV Tarmac G 3.83 bins (uncompacted) 3.84 3.82 W 3.92 3.85 3.84 3.84 3.86 Soffit
4.45 3.95 8.97 4.56 3.95 3.97 4.33 4.21
3.96 18 5.88 4.12 4.02 4.08 28 DP DP 4.07 Tiles 4.09
3.86
3.97 4.40 IC Earth Rod 8.64 4.12
8.62 4.09
Soffit 5.29 4.81 4.08 MH DP 4.42 6.75 3.83 5.43 Soffit 5.56 5.25 4.93 4.20 Tiles Soffit 4.14
Soffit 4.45 19
4.52 27
RS Soffit Barrier Ht 1.00m 33 8.96 IC 6.04 4.54 4.42 4.29 W 5.84
6.16 4.44 4.23 IC
4.45 5.89 STOP 4.26 W 4.24 LOCATION PLAN Soffit IC Soffit 4.34 Soffit Soffit Soffit 8.61
4.48 3.84 20
26 4.38 4.28 4.31 IC 4.35 4.43 4.45
3.87 3.97 5.53 3.81 W 3.81 5.20 112 113 114 115 4.32 5.27 Soffit 4.77 Drainage Channel 4.61 FIGURE 4.5 5.34 5.83
DP STN 01 4.529m
Tarmac
N
2xEurobin compactor and working area
G Existing - 5xGeneral waste bins (compacted) G R R A 20/11/20 First issue IH JD DM DRN CHKD APRVD REV DATE REVISION DESCRIPTION / DETAILS BY BY BY G R R FD R FD G FD G Proposed Hotel + FD R Existing - FD G 4xRecycling bins (compacted) CLIENT:
BRITEL TRUSTEES FUND LIMITED 5xFood waste bin (uncompacted) Proposed Hotel JOB TITLE: 1xGeneral bins (compacted) 26-28 HAMMERSMITH GROVE
DRAWING TITLE: GROUND FLOOR HOTEL EXISTING AND PROPOSED WASTE STORAGE
STATUS: FOR APPROVAL
DRAWING NO: REV: SCALE AT A3:
M000358-2-3-DR-003 A 1:250 STOP 5. TRIP GENERATION
5.1 Introduction
5.1.1 This section of the report presents the forecast mode share and trip generation for the proposed hotel development, together used to illustrate any anticipated impact on the transport and highway networks. 5.1.2 The trip generation database TRICS has been used to estimate the volume and profile of trips generated by the proposed development. 5.1.3 The different modes onto which these trips have been allocated have been determined using a comparison of hotel sites located in the local area, within LBHF.
5.2 Proposed Trip Rates
5.2.1 As per the Pre-Application meeting (described in detail within 1.6 of this report), one recent hotel TRICS survey has been chosen to calculate the trip rates for this trip generation exercise. This TRICS survey is detailed within Table 5.1.
Table 5.1: C1 (Hotel) TRICS Surveys
Main Location TRICS Ref No. Size Date of Survey Location
Lambeth LB-06-A-01 Town Centre 11,800sqm 23/11/2018 (Waterloo)
5.2.2 This TRICS survey was deemed appropriate due to its location within a town centre with excellent public transport accessibility, alongside the recent date when the survey took place and has been agreed as appropriate by LBHF. 5.2.3 Network hour trip rates for the hotel per 100sqm were derived from the TRICS survey database, and are shown in Table 5.2.
Table 5.2: C1 (Hotel) Network Peak Trip Rates per 100sqm AM Peak (08:00 – PM Peak (17:00 – Daily (07:00 – 22:00) Land 09:00) 18:00) Use Arrivals Departures Arrivals Departures Arrivals Departures
C1 0.169 0.593 0.517 0.653 6.822 8.502 (Hotel)
5.2.4 The development peak hours for the hotel TRICS survey are at different times to the network peaks, which are indicated in Table 5.3.
37 Table 5.3: C1 (Hotel) Development Peak Trip Rates per sqm
Morning (10:00 – 11:00) Evening (20:00 – 21:00) Land Use Arrivals Departures Arrivals Departures
C1 (Hotel) 0.246 1.186 0.958 0.288
5.2.5 In order to provide a robust assessment of the forecast developments’ impact, the trip generation and impact assessments exercises will take into account both the network and development peak periods. The network peaks will take into consideration the developments’ impact on the local transport network.
5.3 Mode Share
5.3.1 The mode share for the proposed development has been derived from other nearby recently- submitted hotel development applications. The name and location of these developments are indicated in 1.6. 5.3.2 Where the mode shares of the sourced developments did not detail some transport modes, professional judgement has been utilised to estimate individual mode shares. For example, some applications grouped together public transport modes, whilst others grouped vehicle modes (taxi, driving). 5.3.3 Within the approved applications, the mode shares for each development were compiled utilising a variety of sources, including TRICS / TRAVL surveys and visitor surveys from other hotels.
Table 5.4: Nearby Hotel Application Mode Shares Brook Landmark North End Chiswick Mode of Transport Olympia House House Road Rooms Underground, metro, 22.0% 27.3% 27.3% 24.1% 27.6% light rail, tram Train 5.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.6% 1.9% Bus, minibus or 12.0% 10.0% 13.1% 11.0% 12.7% coach Taxi 6.0% 6.8% 9.1% 8.0% 3.8% Motorcycle, scooter 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% or moped Driving a car or van 0.0% 0.0% 2.0% 0.0% 0.2% Passenger in a car 5.0% 0.0% 3.0% 0.0% 1.2% or van Bicycle 5.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.7% 0.0%
On foot 45.0% 55.8% 45.5% 54.7% 52.6%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
38
5.3.4 As illustrated in Table 5.4 there are minor variations between all of the proposed developments for the Underground, metro, light rail, tram and Bus, minibus or coach mode shares. These mode shares reflect the context of the local area, with high frequency London Underground and bus services. 5.3.5 The adopted and ITP London Plans stipulate that for hotel developments located in areas with a PTAL rating of between 4-6, vehicle parking should be kept to operational requirements and blue-badge parking. As such all of the other hotel developments have minimal vehicle parking and subsequently are expected to generate a minimal number of driving trips. This policy requirement has bene reflected in both the projects’ mode share, and design. 5.3.6 The taxi mode share saw a greater amount of variation compared to the other public transport modes, ranging between 3.8% and 9.1%. This variation can be attributed to variations between the TRICS / TRAVL / visitor surveys undertaken to calculate the subsequent mode shares. 5.3.7 Commentary within the LBHF officer report for the previous hotel application determined that the continued usage of app-based taxi hailing services such as Uber will increase taxi mode shares, and that the previous proposed mode share of 3% was seen as unsuitable. As such the use of the average taxi mode share across all the other hotel developments has been used for this trip generation exercise. 5.3.8 The majority of the hotel applications saw a minimal cycling mode share. 5.3.9 The on-foot mode share is very high across all of the developments and is used to reflect local trips from the hotel to the local area, e.g. to the local town centre for leisure or employment purposes. 5.3.10 The mode share for the proposed development has been averaged from the developments indicated within Table 5.4, and is indicated in Table 5.5.
Table 5.5: Proposed Hotel Development Mode Share
Mode of Transport Proposed Development Mode Share
Underground, metro, light rail, tram 25.6%
Train 1.7%
Bus, minibus or coach 11.8%
Taxi 6.7%
Motorcycle, scooter or moped 0.0%
Driving a car or van 0.5%
Passenger in a car or van 1.8%
Bicycle 1.2%
On foot 50.7%
Total 100.0%
39
5.4 Prepared Food Deliveries
5.4.1 To identify the potential impact of evening moped / motorcycle trips to the development, associated with app-based food delivery services, a trip generation exercise forecasting the number of these trips has been undertaken. 5.4.2 It should be noted that these types of trips would be captured within a TRICS survey and in turn will already be included within the trip generation forecasts. Notwithstanding this, the TA applies the identified food deliveries in addition to the TRICS trip rates which have been applied. 5.4.3 Anecdotal information was acquired from London Staycity Aparthotel/Hotels, which are equally applicable to other operators of this type and size, and have been subsequently utilised to generate this forecast and are seen to be accurate given the context of the hotels’ location and provision of on-site catering facilities, and cooking facilities within rooms. 5.4.4 The results of the survey were used to derive a food delivery trip rate per bedroom to be applied to the development proposal at Hammersmith Grove. 5.4.5 The full background to the survey undertaken, and its results, are indicated in Appendix D. 5.4.6 Figure 5.1 illustrates the forecast number of bicycle and moped / motorcycle app-based food deliveries for both Monday – Thursday, and Friday – Sunday evenings.
Figure 5.1: Bicycle and Moped / Motorcycle App-based Food Deliveries
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0 17:00 – 18:00 – 19:00 – 20:00 – 21:00 – 22:00 – 23:00 – 00:00 – 01:00 or 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00 00:00 01:00 later
Monday - Thursday Bicycle Monday - Thursday Moped / Scooter Friday - Sunday Bicycle Friday - Sunday Moped / Scooter
5.4.7 As demonstrated in Figure 5.1, the peak period for food deliveries is between 20:00 – 21:00, with two - three moped / motorcycle and one bicycle food deliveries forecast per evening Monday – Thursday, and three – four moped / motorcycle and two bicycle food deliveries forecast per evening Friday – Sunday. 5.4.8 Across the whole day, Friday – Sunday, a total of 14 mopeds / scooters are forecast to arrive and departure as resulting of food delivery activities. 5.4.9 The number of late evening food deliveries is minimal, with one moped / motorcycle and less than one bicycle forecast to arrive between 23:00 – 00:00.
40
5.4.10 These delivery trips can be accommodated onsite, and on the local highway and cycling networks. Mopeds / Motorcycles would be able to leave their vehicles in a safe location on- site without impeding its operation.
5.5 Proposed Trip Generation
5.5.1 In the context of the existing land uses, the Aparthotel is forecast to be a minor trip generator in the peak periods, with the Aparthotel development proposals not reducing the floorspace (and trip generation) of the existing office or gym land uses. As such, all of the forecast proposed trips resulting from the Aparthotel are expected to be in addition to the office / gym land uses. 5.5.2 The network peak hour trip rates indicated in Table 5.2 have been applied to the mode share in Table 5.5 to forecast the number of trips, by mode. These are illustrated in Table 5.6. The forecast food delivery moped / scooter trips indicated in Figure 5.1 have also been added.
Table 5.6: Proposed Development Network Peak and Daily Trips
AM Peak (08:00 – PM Peak (17:00 – Daily (07:00 – Mode of Transport 09:00) 18:00) 22:00) Arrivals Departures Arrivals Departures Arrivals Departures Underground, metro, 2 6 5 6 66 83 light rail, tram
Train 0 0 0 0 4 5
Bus, minibus or coach 1 3 2 3 30 38
Taxi 0 2 1 2 17 22
Motorcycle, scooter or 0 0 0 0 14 14 moped
Driving a car or van 0 0 0 0 1 1
Passenger in a car or 0 0 0 0 5 6 van
Bicycle 0 0 0 0 3 4
On foot 3 11 10 13 131 164
Total 6 23 20 25 273 337
5.5.3 Table 5.6 illustrates that the proposed hotel development is forecast to develop a minor number of trips during the AM and PM network peak hours. 5.5.4 The development peak hour trip rates indicated in Table 5.3 have been applied to the mode share in Table 5.5 to forecast the number of trips, by mode. The ‘worst-case’ trips generated by prepared food deliveries (Friday – Sunday), as illustrated in Figure 5.1, have been added onto the relevant modes. These are illustrated in Table 5.7.
41
Table 5.7: Proposed Development Peak Hour Trips
Morning (10:00 – 11:00) Evening (20:00 – 21:00) Mode of Transport Arrivals Departures Arrivals Departures Underground, metro, light rail, 2 12 9 3 tram
Train 0 1 1 0
Bus, minibus or coach 1 5 4 1
Taxi 1 3 2 1
Motorcycle, scooter or moped 0 0 3 3
Driving a car or van 0 0 0 0
Passenger in a car or van 0 1 1 0
Bicycle 0 1 0 0
On foot 5 23 18 6
Total 9 45 39 14
5.5.5 Table 5.7 illustrates that the development is forecast to develop the greatest number of trips in late mornings and early evenings, after the network peak periods. FORECAST TAXI TRIPS 5.5.6 TfL taxi licensing data has been utilised to calculate the split between black cabs and private hire vehicles, anticipated to arrive to the site when it is operational. 5.5.7 As such, this split will determine the type of vehicle arriving, with diesel taxis producing a greater level of localised noise and air pollution compared to their hybrid and electric counterparts. 5.5.8 Hybrid and fully-Electric vehicles emit a very low amount of noise at low speeds (of which they would be doing on-site), and as such would provide a minimal level of disturbance to local residents. 5.5.9 Additionally, the goals and objectives for replacing older vehicles differs between the two types of taxi. 5.5.10 For black cabs, the GLA’s London EV infrastructure Delivery Plan forecasts the following:
• "For taxis, stakeholder and industry information has indicated a reasonable assumption would be for 1,000 ZEC taxis per year from 2018 - 2025, with an additional 1,000 each year for 2019 and 2020" 5.5.11 Furthermore, TfL are providing grants for black cab drivers to either retrofit diesel cabs with LPG systems, or replace them with newer hybrid electric vehicles. 5.5.12 For private hire vehicles the same plan stipulates the following:
42
• "New requirement from January 2020 that all PHVs licensed for the first time in London will need to be zero emission capable" 5.5.13 These policy forecasts / requirements determine a shift towards the usage of hybrid electric black cabs 5.5.14 An indicative split between black cabs and private hire vehicles in 2022, forecasted utilising trends in the number of each vehicle licensed to operate in London, is shown here:
Table 5.8: Forecast Taxi Type Split
Forecast Mode of Transport Daily Arrivals Daily Departures Proportion (%) Black Cab 11.5% 2 3 Private Hire 88.5% 15 19 Vehicles Total 100.0% 17 22
5.5.15 These proportions have also been applied to the network and development peak hours, illustrated in Table 5.9.
Table 5.9: Forecast Taxi Type Split – Peak Hours
AM Peak (08:00 – PM Peak (17:00 – Evening Peak Mode of Transport 09:00) 18:00) (20:00 – 21:00) Arrivals Departures Arrivals Departures Arrivals Departures
Black Cab 0 0 0 0 0 0
Private Hire Vehicles 0 1 1 2 2 1
Total 0 2 1 2 3 1
43
6. IMPACT ON THE TRANSPORT NETWORK
6.1 Introduction
6.1.1 This section of the report considers the impact of the trips generated by the proposed hotel development on the local highway network, pedestrian network, public transport and cycling infrastructure. 6.1.2 To provide a robust worst-case assessment, the impact of the developments’ trips has been assessed against both the network AM Peak Hour (08:00 – 09:00), and development Peak hours (10:00 – 11:00, 20:00 – 21:00) for all transport modes.
6.2 Impact on the Highway Network
6.2.1 The following scenarios were utilised in relation to the traffic survey data:
• Baseline (2018) • Present Year (2020) • Opening Year (2022) • Opening Year (2022) + Development 6.2.2 The traffic survey was growthed using the relevant TEMPRO Middle layer Super Output Areas (MSOA) area factor for driving modes for each of the scenarios. 6.2.3 The Aparthotel/Hotel development is proposed to be car-free, with the exception of two Blue- Badge car parking bays. As such, vehicle trips associated with the Aparthotel/Hotel will primarily be from taxis and delivery & servicing activities (including moped / scooter food deliveries). 6.2.4 Table 6.1 indicates the total forecast vehicle trips associated with the development for both the network and development peak hours.
Table 6.1: Development Vehicle Trips – Development and Network Peak Hours Development PM Peak Development AM Peak Hour Vehicle Type Peak (10:00 – Hour (17:00 – Peak (20:00 (08:00 – 09:00) 11:00) 18:00) – 21:00) Cars 1 1 1 0 Taxis 2 4 3 3 D&S Vehicles 1 1 1 0 (Hotel Servicing) Moped / Scooter 0 0 0 3 Food Deliveries Total 4 6 5 6
6.2.5 Table 6.2 illustrates the forecast vehicle trips across the day.
44
Table 6.2: Forecast Daily Two-Way Vehicle Trips
Vehicle Type Daily Cars 4 Taxis 39 D&S Vehicles 8 Moped / Scooter Food 28 Deliveries Total 81
6.2.6 Table 6.3 illustrates the vehicle trips outlined in Table 6.1 added to the TEMPRO growthed two-way surveyed flows on Hammersmith Grove.
Table 6.3: Vehicle Trips onto Hammersmith Grove 2022 2022 Percentage of 2018 Surveyed Time Period Growthed (No Growthed + Growthed Two-Way Flow Dev) Development Flow AM Peak Hour 334 356 358 0.8% (08:00 – 09:00) PM Peak Hour 331 351 354 1.1% (17:00 – 1800) Development Peak (10:00 – 254 270 274 1.5% 11:00) Development Peak (20:00 – 275 291 298 1.4% 21:00)
6.2.7 Across the day the growthed 2022 traffic data determines the two-way traffic flow on Hammersmith Grove to be 3,652 vehicles. The addition of 67 daily two-way vehicle trips onto Hammersmith Grove constitutes a 1.5% increase being a minimal impact. 6.2.8 As demonstrated in Table 5.8 and Table 5.9, a large proportion of the forecast taxis to arrive to the hotel will be comprised of private hire vehicles. Indicated within GLA taxi and private hire policy a shift towards electric / hybrid vehicles is occurring presently, with grants available to enable drivers to replace older, ICE vehicles that produce greater levels of localised noise and air pollution. 6.2.9 Furthermore, the provision of a taxi drop-off / pick-up area within the delivery & servicing bay will mean the shutting of doors will be undertaken behind the acoustically shielding wall and is expected to have a minimal impact for residents. IMPACT ON ON-SITE CAR PARKING 6.2.10 As indicated in the development proposals, Section 4.2, the development proposals require the removal of 166 car parking spaces, currently leased to office tenants. These spaces will not be reallocated and office tenants will be required to utilise alternative means of transport. 6.2.11 As demonstrated by the on-site parking survey undertaken in February 2018, and detailed within Table 3.10, the peak parking accumulation comprised 30 cars and 11 mopeds /
45 motorcycles. Across the day 119 vehicle arrivals were recorded, constituting a total of 238 vehicle trips on Hammersmith Grove. 6.2.12 The development proposals require the removal of 166 car parking spaces across the site, out of a total of 193 spaces available. This results in 27 spaces remaining on-site allocated to the existing office use. 6.2.13 The remaining parking spaces are located on the upper parking deck, and due to the removal of the vehicle access ramp they will be accessible only via the southern entrance. As such, under the development proposals no car parking associated with the office will be accessed via the northern entrance. 6.2.14 Table 6.4 illustrates the net impact of the development on vehicle trips accessing the northern entrance. This also includes a comparison between the forecast existing office site car mode share trip generation (Table 3.5), which was calculated using a TRICS survey. This demonstrates the similarity between the surveyed parking accumulation and trip generation.
Table 6.4: Northern Access Daily Vehicle Trips – Net Impact of Development Hotel Vehicle Scenario Daily Vehicle Trips Net Difference Trips 2018 Parking -238 -180 Survey +54 Existing Site Trip -279 -225 Generation
6.2.15 As such, this demonstrates that the development proposals reducing the number of car parking spaces across the site will result in a net reduction in the number of vehicles using both Hammersmith Grove and the northern site entrance across the day, and during the AM and PM peak hours; thus, providing a positive impact on the local highway network. 6.2.16 Of further note is that all of the existing on-site car parking spaces could be utilised without further permissions required, with the facilities management company in charge of operating the office development at 26-28 Hammersmith Grove able to lease these out to tenants. As such this would result in much greater demand on the car parking and further increase the number of vehicle trips going through the northern entrance. 6.2.17 As a result, the proposed servicing bay design and one-way system is not forecast to be utilised by a high quantity of vehicles and the requirement for exiting vehicles to give way to those entering off of the public highway will not result in queuing within the servicing bay. This will be supported by scheduling of delivery and servicing activity. IMPACT ON OFF-SITE CAR PARKING 6.2.18 As illustrated in Table 5.5 the Aparthotel’s car driver mode share is forecast to be 0.5%. This is reflected in Table 5.6, where one vehicle is expected to arrive to the site per day. 6.2.19 This minimal driving mode share was utilised to reflect the arrival of a disabled driver to the site, of which the development proposals provide two blue-badge spaces. 6.2.20 As such parking demand off-site is expected to be minimal, and is reflected by the presence of on-street controlled parking zones surrounding the site which will restrict parking to visitors. 6.2.21 Figure 3.5 illustrates available car parking within off-street car parks in the local area, of which visitors would be able to prebook at their own expense.
46
6.2.22 As such, due to the presence of on-street controlled parking zones surrounding the development site, and indicative capacity of off-street car parking, the impact of the development on off-site car parking is forecast to be negligible.
6.3 Impact on the Pedestrian Network
6.3.1 In order to assess the impact of the development proposals on the pedestrian network, a Pedestrian Comfort Level (PCL) assessment has been undertaken in line with the TfL Pedestrian Comfort Guidance for London (2010). 6.3.2 The recommended level of comfort for all area types is a PCL score of B+. 6.3.3 Three scenarios have been considered to assess the impact of the development on the surrounding pedestrian network:
• Existing conditions in 2020 (TEMPRO-growthed 2018 survey data) • Future baseline in 2022 without proposed hotel development; and • Future baseline in 2022 with proposed hotel development 6.3.4 As Indicated in Table 5.6 the Aparthotel/Hotel development is forecast to generate a total of 26 pedestrian trips (including on foot and public transport modes) during the AM Peak Hour, and 40 during the PM Peak Hour. 6.3.5 Table 6.5 illustrates the total pedestrian flows on Hammersmith Grove during the PM Peak Hour, constituting the worst-case period for pedestrian trips.
Table 6.5: Pedestrian Flows on Hammersmith Grove
Hammersmith Grove AM Peak Hour Pedestrian Flow (eastern footway)
Existing 2020 770
Future 2022 without hotel development 786
Future 2022 with hotel development 805
6.3.6 Table 6.6 indicates the forecast PCL scores under the scenarios described previously.
Table 6.6: PCL Scores on Hammersmith Grove Hammersmith Grove Hammersmith Grove AM Peak Hour PCL Point A Point B
Existing 2019 A+ A+
Future 2023 without office A+ A+ extension Future 2021 with hotel A+ A+ development
47
6.4 Impact on London Underground
6.4.1 Table 5.6 indicates that an additional eight London Underground trips are forecast during the AM Peak Hour, and eleven during the PM Peak hour. 6.4.2 As detailed in Table 3.11 there are a total of 97 London Underground services in the AM and PM peak hour at the surrounding London Underground Stations. 6.4.3 The forecast London Underground trips as a result of the hotel development equate to less than one extra person per service in the AM peak hour and PM peak hour. Therefore, the impact of the development on the London Underground is deemed be negligible.
6.5 Impact on the London Bus Network
6.5.1 Table 5.6 indicates that an additional four London Bus trips are forecast during the AM Peak Hour, and five during the PM Peak Hour. 6.5.2 As detailed in Table 3.12 there are a total of 120 bus services operating across 17 routes during the AM Peak Hour. 6.5.3 The bus trips generated by the development would create less than one additional person per bus service during the AM Peak Hour. Therefore, the impact of the development on the bus network would be negligible.
6.6 Impact on the Rail Network
6.6.1 Table 5.6 indicates that one additional rail trip (rounded) is forecast across both network peak hours. 6.6.2 As indicated in point 3.3.4 there are four mainline rail services during the peak hour each with a minimum capacity of 223 passengers. The proposed Aparthotel/Hotel would generate less than one additional passenger per train Therefore, the impact of the development on the rail network would be negligible.
6.7 Impact on Cycle Infrastructure
6.7.1 Table 5.6 indicates that seven bicycle trips are forecast to be generated by the hotel development daily. 6.7.2 As shown in Table 4.2 a total of 13 cycle parking spaces will be provided as part of the proposed hotel development. The cycle facilities proposed would accommodate generated cycling activity without having an adverse impact on local cycle infrastructure, with a large amount of spare capacity for the future.
6.8 Mitigation
6.8.1 It is acknowledged that the development proposals will produce trips at different time periods compared to the existing context of an office. 6.8.2 As such, the development is expected to generate more trips during the evenings compared to the office.
48
6.8.3 The proposed visitor access strategy sets out the mitigatory measures to minimise the impact of these evening trips, particularly by arriving visitors (by walking, or taxi), and prepared-food deliveries by bicycle, and moped / motorcycle. 6.8.4 As indicated in the updated visitor access strategy diagram a set of measures are proposed aiming to reduce noise impacts of visitors arriving to the Aparthotel/Hotel during the evenings. This includes the provision of an acoustically shielding fence located to the rear of residential properties facing Hammersmith Grove, minimising the noise impacts of vehicles and pedestrians using the northern access road.
6.9 Impact Summary
6.9.1 The hotel development is forecast to exhibit a positive impact on the local highway networks, via two major elements:
• The necessary removal of 166 car parking spaces on the site, in order to facilitate the development proposals, and subsequent drop in vehicle demand, as drivers would be unable to park nearby at a reasonable cost; and • The hotel development proposals forecasting to generate a lower number of vehicle trips compared to the existing car parking (as evidenced by the existing trip generation and on- site car parking survey) 6.9.2 The hotel development is expected to exhibit a negligible impact on the pedestrian, cycle and public transport networks for the AM and PM peak hours.
49
7. CONCLUSION
7.1.1 This Transport Statement has been prepared by Momentum Transport Consultancy to support a planning proposal for the development of a hotel at 26-28 Hammersmith Grove within the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham. 7.1.2 The development proposals include the construction of an 85-bedroom hotel with a gross internal area of 3,796 m2. 7.1.3 This Transport Statement has summarised the existing conditions at the site, including its current permitted uses, road network, public transport accessibility, cycling facilities, servicing and waste management arrangement and uplift in trips as a result of the proposed changes. 7.1.4 26-28 Hammersmith Grove has a PTAL rating of 6b, which shows an excellent level of public transport accessibility. Therefore, no additional on-site car or motorcycle parking provision is proposed, bar two blue-badge spaces. 7.1.5 The development proposals include the provision of 13 long stay and two short-stay cycle parking spaces and associated facilities for the hotel use, in compliance with BREEAM and LBHF policy (2018) requirements. These would be delivered alongside locker and shower provision. 7.1.6 The trip generation, mode share forecast and trip assessment have been prepared to illustrate the impact of the proposed development on the transport network. The impact of the additional trips generated and attracted by the proposed development has been assessed for the network AM & PM peak hours for public transport networks, alongside the development peak hours (10:00 – 11:00 and 20:00 – 21:00) for impact on local residents. 7.1.7 The proposed reduction in car parking spaces results in a large net reduction in the number of car trips on the local highway networks. Overall, the additional number of trips from other modes on the local highway and public transport networks has been assessed as negligible. 7.1.8 There is a small uplift in the number of evening trips associated with the Aparthotel/Hotel forecast, compared to that forecast in relation to the existing office. Given the location of the Aparthotel/Hotel it is anticipated these will be restricted to taxi trips, and some prepared food deliveries (by cycle or moped / motorcycle), however this is not a significant number of trips. 7.1.9 To mitigate against the noise of vehicles and pedestrians using the northern access an acoustically shielding fence is proposed to the rear of properties facing Hammersmith Grove. 7.1.10 Delivery and servicing vehicles will be expected to utilise a delivery and servicing area within the confines of the building. 7.1.11 Waste storage from the hotel development would be combined with waste from the existing office development, and then compacted. This results in a requirement of three 1100L Eurobins for general waste, three 1100L Eurobins for recyclable waste and five 240L Eurobins for food waste, to serve both the existing office and proposed hotel developments. 7.1.12 The refuse storage area will be located within the ground floor car parking area of the existing building accessible to a waste collection vehicle. 7.1.13 Overall, the development will have a negligible effect on the public transport network and negligible impact upon the local pedestrian network.
50
APPENDIX A – PREVIOUS PLANNING APPLICATION DECISION NOTICE
51
DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT SERVICE PLANNING APPLICATION DETERMINED UNDER DELEGATED POWERS
Ward: Hammersmith Broadway Expiry Date: 9th August 2019
Site Address: 26 - 28 Hammersmith Grove London W6 7HA
© Crown Copyright. All Rights Reserved. London Borough Hammersmith and Fulham LA100019223 (2019). For identification purposes only - do not scale.
2019/01462/FUL Page 1 of 33 Reg. No: Case Officer; 2019/01462/FUL Grace Harrison Date valid: 10.05.2019 Conservation Area: Recommendation Date: Constraint Name: Hammersmith 07.08.2019 Grove Conservation Area - Number 20
Applicant: Britel Fund Trustees Ltd C/O Agent C/O Agent
Description: Partial demolition of existing car park, ramp and garage and construction of a 97 bed aparthotel (Use Class C1) with ancillary cafe (Use Class A3) at ground floor level; hard and soft landscaping works and new screening to existing loading bay. Drg. Nos: A 1371 PA 1010; A 1371 PA 1011; A 1371 PA 1012; A 1371 PA 1013; A 1371 PA 1014; A 1371 PA 2000; A 1371 PA 2001; A 1371 PA 2002; A 1371 PA 2004; A 1371 PA 2006; A 1371 PA 2100; A 1371 PA 2101; A 1371 PA 2102; A 1371 PA 2103; A 1371 PA 2200; A 1371 PA 2201; A 1371 PA 1200; A 1371 PA 1210.
Application type: Full Detailed Planning Application
Officer Recommendation: That the application be refused for the following reason(s):
1) The proposed development is considered to be unacceptable in terms of impact on residential amenity. More particularly, the development would severely dominate the outlook from the Hammersmith Grove properties that back on to the development site; and will be an overbearing and over-dominant presence for these residents when they are inside their homes and using their rear gardens. In this resepct the proposal would fail to respect the principles of good neighbourliness and erode the sense of openness between buildings, contrary to Policies DC2 and HO11 of the Local Plan (2018).
2) The proposed development is considered to be unacceptable in terms of neighbouring properties privacy. More particularly,owing to the location, scale and nature of the proposed development, neighbours' perception and feeling of being overlooked by the development, with anonymous hotel rooms bearing down upon
2019/01462/FUL Page 2 of 33 them, will be significant. In conjunction with the overbearing scale and form of the development, the increased perception of overlooking is considered to make a significant contribution to the unneighbourliness of the development contrary to Policies DC2 and HO11 of the Local Plan (2018).
3) The proposed development is considered to be unacceptable in terms of noise nuisance and disturbance. More particularly, noise and disturbance resulting from the increased activities on the site and the access road would be significantly detrimental to residential amenity for those properties who back onto the site. In this respect the development is judged to be harmful and fails to respect the principles of good neighbourliness, contrary to Policies DC2 and CC11 of the Local Plan (2018).
4) The proposed development is considered to be unacceptable in terms of its likely impact on existing residential amenity. More particularly, due to shortcomings in the submitted daylight and sunlight assessment report, Officers are not satisfied that the development will have an acceptable impact on daylight and sunlight to neighbouring properties and in this respect the proposals are considered to be contrary to Policies DC2 and HO11 of the Local Plan (2018).
5) The proposed development is considered to be unacceptable in terms of impact on traffic/highway activities. More particularly, officers consider that the approach/methodology used by the applicants to estimate the number of trips to be generated by the proposed development is not robust, reasonable or suitably evidenced. Therefore, the conclusions reached about the impact on the highways network, in terms of traffic flow on Hammersmith Grove, cannot be relied upon and it is not possible to determine the true extent of the impact of the development. For these reasons, the development is contrary to Policies T1 and T2 of the Local Plan (2018).
Particulars of Decision
Acting under powers delegated to officers of the Council on the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham I authorise the refusal of the application in accordance with the officer’s recommendation above.
Signed: Mr Neil Egerton
Authorising Officer, Planning Group
Dated: 9th August 2019
NOTE: Any alterations to the description, recommendation, conditions, observations or reasons for refusal must be initialled by the authorising officer.
2019/01462/FUL Page 3 of 33 Officer Report ------
LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 2000 LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS
All Background Papers held by case officer named above:
Application form received: 10th May 2019 Drawing Nos: see above
Policy Documents: National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2019 The London Plan 2016 LBHF - Local Plan 2018 LBHF - Planning Guidance Supplementary Planning Document 2018
Consultation Comments:
Comments from: Dated:
Neighbour Comments:
Letters from: Dated:
OFFICER'S REPORT
1.0 SITE DESCRIPTION AND RELEVANT HISTORY
1.1 The subject site includes Nos. 26-28 Hammersmith Grove but also includes land further to the north which adjoins the rear garden boundaries of the residential properties at Nos. 32-60 Hammersmith Grove.
1.2 The wider site contains a large office building (in Use Class B1a) (which has a basement gym, Use Class D2) which is an irregular shape. It has a linear west wing of six to eight storeys that fronts Hammersmith Grove. There is a longer rear wing that is eight storeys high fronting the Hammersmith and City railway line immediately east. The two aforementioned wings are linked by a twelve-storey wing which gives the whole building a H-shaped footprint. At the northern part of the building is a disused garage and decked parking which go up to three storeys.
1.3 The specific application site relates to an existing garage building and part of the on-ramp to the elevated car park.
1.4 The back gardens of the residential properties at Hammersmith Grove face the decked parking and part of the rear wing. Directly south of the site, fronting Hammersmith Grove, are two large modern 9 and 11-storey office buildings - these are
2019/01462/FUL Page 4 of 33 taller than the tallest part of the site building because of modern larger floor-to ceiling heights. North of the site is landscaped and there are no buildings above ground level.
1.5 Selected relevant planning history for the wider site:
1990/01047/FUL Approved Extension of a plant room on the roof of the eighth floor.
1996/00563/FUL Approved Redevelopment involving the demolition of the existing frontage office building (16,850sq.m.) and its replacement by the erection of a new office building (12,370sq.m.) together with the provision of 6 parking spaces at basement level.
1999/02223/FUL Approved Replacement of existing windows with aluminium-framed windows.
2000/00221/FUL Approved Formation of a new glazed covered walkway at ground floor level, erection of new lift core and lobby to replace existing lift core and associated alterations to the front elevation.
2000/01686/FUL Approved Alterations to the west elevation involving a new two storey main entrance canopy and new glazing to the ground and first floors with new planter; alterations to the north elevation involving an enlarged ground floor entrance
2001/02132/FUL Approved Change of use of part of the basement to a health and fitness centre (Class D2 Assembly and Leisure), providing 1,010 square metres of floorspace, together with the formation of an entrance lobby and installation of an entrance door on the Hammersmith Grove elevation at ground floor level.
2002/01452/FUL Approved Alterations to North and West elevations at podium level in connection with use of podium garage as office (B1) floorspace.
2002/02049/VAR Approved Variation of condition 5 of planning application (RN:2000/0221/P) approved 10th May 2000, which prevented the additional floorspace created being used as additional employment accommodation, in relation to the second and third floors.
2002/02630/VAR Deletion of Condition 05 of planning permission dated 10th May 2000, (RN.2000/0221/P) which prevented the additional floorspace created being used as employment accommodation, at first and fifth floors.
2003/02061/FUL Approved Use of the 6th floor as a training centre (Class D1).
2005/01246/FUL Approved
2019/01462/FUL Page 5 of 33 Erection of an infill extension to the west elevation comprising 680sq.m at second to sixth floor levels (inclusive), for use as Offices (Class B1). Replacement of existing curtain wall with cladding to the east and west elevations.
2005/01263/FUL Erection of an infill extension to the West elevation comprising 680sq.m. at second to sixth floor levels for use as offices (Class B1).
2006/02354/FUL Approved Replacement of existing curtain wall with cladding to the east building.
2006/02517/CLP Approved Use of link block connecting east and west buildings as office accommodation (Class B1).
2009/01323/FUL Approved Change of use of part 2nd and part 3rd floor from office floorspace (Class B1) to an operational train crew facility (Sui Generis).
2009/02240/ACTS Approved Application for prior approval of permitted development works under Part 11 of the Town and Country Planning Act (General Permitted Development) Order 1995) for the erection of a link walkway between Hammersmith (Hammersmith and City Line) Station bridge and 26-28 Hammersmith Grove.
2010/03389/FUL Approved
Change of use of 567.5 sq.m. of the existing basement, from Class B1 (Office) to Class D2 (Gymnasium) to be used in connection with the existing gym, and creation of a new swimming pool.
2015/00170/FUL Approved Installation of new glass door to replace the existing window at sixth floor level to the southern and northern elevation to give access to the terrace.
2015/00171/FUL Approved Installation of timber decking and the erection of glass balustrades at sixth floor level to the eastern elevation, in connection with its use as a terrace.
2016/04535/FUL Approved Erection of extensions at second floor level to the northern and western elevations of the building to provide 120sq.m. of additional (Class B1) office floorspace.
1.6 The current application is a major application for partial demolition of existing car park, ramp and garage and construction of a 97-bed aparthotel (Use Class C1) with ancillary cafe (Use Class A3) at ground floor level; hard and soft landscaping works and new screening to existing loading bay.
1.7 There is a concurrent application for the erection of a two-storey extension on top of part of the existing office building on the southern part of the site also pending consideration (planning ref. 2019/01462/FUL).
2019/01462/FUL Page 6 of 33 2.0 PUBLICITY AND CONSULTATIONS
2.1 A site notice and press advert were published by the council to advertise the application, and notification letters were sent to the occupants of 354 neighbouring properties. 35 objection comments have been received, including one Ward Councillor (Murphy), Brackenbury Residents Association, and the following properties/premises/businesses:
- 32; 34b; 36 (Top Flat); 40 (Flat 1); 42; 43; 44; 45; 49; 50a; 50b; 50c; 51; 52; 55; 61; 66; 68a; 153b; 213; 215; Hammersmith Grove;
- 49 Benbow Road;
- Brackenbury Residents Association;
- AccorInvest (a hotel owner, investor and operator, with interests in Novotel Hammersmith and Ibis Shepherd's Bush)
2.2 A summary of the concerns raised is provided below. This summary has been separated into material planning considerations and non-material matters, which are responded to below):
2.3 Material planning considerations:
- Loss of light/overshadowing of neighbouring residential properties;
- Overlooking from hotel rooms to houses resulting in a loss of privacy;
- Noise and disturbance from increased vehicle movements and pedestrian comings and goings;
- Noise disturbance from new plant, machinery or equipment to be located on the new building;
- Noise impact for student residence on Shepherd's Bush Road;
- Neighbouring flats will be colder, making them harder to heat, increased risk of getting cold/flu and depression;
- The land is likely to be contaminated, and there may be a release of toxins during construction phase. The building may also have asbestos in it;
- Pollution from increased vehicle movements;
- Increased potential for traffic accidents from increased vehicle movements;
- Safety and security concerns, due to the increased number of strangers in the area and concerns with people walking round the back of the houses all the time;
- Strain on local services and infrastructure; roads, refuse, sewage; increased flood risk due to concerns about existing sewer capacity;
2019/01462/FUL Page 7 of 33 - Impact on character and appearance of conservation area; the hotel may be visible from street level on hammersmith grove; and will be visible from residents' upper floor windows;
- No architectural harmony on the site;
- No report on air pollution has been provided with the application;
- Noise and disturbance from construction phase; concern about night and weekend working; no viable construction logistics plan/ routing has been submitted;
- Question the sustainability credentials of the development, will solar power be used;
- Proposal does not include an element of housing, which is the council's priority land use;
- Lack of information about how the hotel will be managed;
- Parking on the street is already under strain;
- Access to be narrowed to a single lane running back from the road to the retained car park which will be unmanageable in respect of vehicles entering or exiting the premises.
- Concern about construction methodology and viability of building over TfL adjacent property; not discussed with TfL, views of TfL have not been sought;
- Some of the view studies in the heritage/ townscape assessment are incomplete; other views; from Sulgrave Road; Adie Road; southern end of Hammersmith Grove would be useful;
- Concern about the robustness of the daylight and sunlight report/calculations;
- The submitted ecology report does not include specific species; for example, swifts and bats; these matters need to be addressed;
- The submitted Transport Statement significantly understates the use of Ubers and similar operators; what about coaches?
- There is no need for the development, there is already an oversupply of hotels in the area.
2.4 Case Officer response: These material planning considerations will be addressed in the relevant sections of the report below.
2.5 Matters raised that are not material planning considerations:
- Structural damage to neighbouring properties, either through vibration; or accidental damage from vehicles;
2019/01462/FUL Page 8 of 33 [These matters would be properly dealt with by way of a party wall agreement; any damage sustained to a neighbouring property that was not covered by a party wall or other legal agreement would be a private matter between the resident and the developer.]
- Loss of view;
[Loss of view is not a material planning consideration. However, loss of outlook and sense of enclosure is a related but separate matter which is material and will be considered in the report below.]
- Reduction of value of houses in the long term and rental value during construction; developer should compensate residents accordingly.
[This is not a material consideration for planning, and it would not be possible for the council to become involved in any discussions on this matter.]
2.6 External consultation responses:
Historic England - No comments.
London Underground Limited - No objection subject to a condition.
Thames Water - Surface water run off rates are too high and need to be reduced further. Standard informatives are requested.
3.0 PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
3.1 The matters to be addressed in this application are:
- Land use and principle of development; - Impact on neighbours; - Architecture, design and visual amenity; - Accessible and inclusive design; - Highways matters; - Energy use and sustainable construction; - Environmental matters including flood risk, sustainable drainage, tree protection, land contamination, and air quality; - Economic impact, jobs, training and skills.
3.2 These matters will be assessed in accordance with the policies and standards contained within the London Plan (2016), the Hammersmith and Fulham Local Plan (2018) and the council's Planning Guidance Supplementary Planning Document (PGSPD 2018).
4.0 LAND USE AND PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT
Relevant planning policy:
2019/01462/FUL Page 9 of 33 4.1 The site falls within the designated Hammersmith Town Centre. Local Plan (2018) Policy E3 (Provision for visitor accommodation and facilities) states that permission will be granted for new visitor accommodation facilities or the extension of existing facilities within the three town centres, subject to seven criteria.
Assessment:
4.2 The proposals are assessed against criteria (a)-(g) within Policy E3 as follows:
a. The development being well-located in relation to public transport.
4.3 The site is extremely well-located in terms of public transport, with a public transport accessibility level (PTAL) rating of 6a, according to Transport for London methodology.
b. The development and any associated uses not having a detrimental impact on the local area.
4.4 It is considered that the proposed use would have a detrimental impact on the residential amenity of neighbouring properties, for the reasons explained in section 5 of the report below. Therefore, the proposal does not comply with this criterion.
c. No loss of priority uses such as permanent housing.
4.5 The proposal would see demolition of an underused car parking garage which exists at podium level with further parking underneath. There would be no loss of priority uses, such as housing, or employment space. Officers consider that the viability of the existing office accommodation on the other parts of the site would not be compromised by the proposed development. It is noted that the policy only requires there to be no loss of priority uses, and the fact the development does include an element of permanent housing, is not a reason for objection.
d. Provision of adequate off-street servicing and pick up points for the type of facility proposed.
4.6 Concerns are raised with regards to the suitability of the proposed servicing arrangements on the site, for the reasons explained in section 15 of this report. Therefore, the proposal does not comply with this criterion.
e. At least 10% of hotel bedrooms designed as wheelchair accessible.
4.7 This standard has been met. 10 of the proposed hotel bedrooms (10.3% of the total) would be accessible. Accessible and inclusive design is discussed further in section 7 of this report.
f. The facility being of a high standard of design.
4.8 In terms of design (specifically architectural quality and appearance) the development is considered to be of a high standard, for the reasons explained in section 6 of this report.
2019/01462/FUL Page 10 of 33 g. The scheme adding to the variety and quality of visitor accommodation available locally.
4.9 The proposed operator is "Staycity", who operate a series of 3-star 'aparthotels' across London and the UK as well as France and Italy. Staycity appears to be an established brand of good quality, mid-range hotels suitable for tourists and business travellers, that is well-suited to add to the variety and quality of visitor accommodation available in the town centre.
4.10 Some local residents have questioned whether or not there is a need for this development, when there is already a large number of hotels in and around Hammersmith Town Centre. For London as a whole, the London Plan (2016) seeks creation of 40,000 additional hotel bedrooms by 2036, to be located primarily in London's town centres and opportunity areas; it also seeks a dispersal of accommodation outside of Central London. However, in recent years, a number of additional hotels have been built in the borough and there are some additional hotel rooms with planning permission that are yet to be completed. The existing and committed stock is therefore considered adequate to meet the borough's share of anticipated growth within London within the next few years.
4.11 Whilst the council has not identified a specific need for the development, there is nothing in the council's policies that requires a prospective hotel development to demonstrate need before it can go ahead. The council is required to assess each proposal on its own merits, in accordance with the criteria set out in Local Plan (2018) Policy E3 (above).
4.12 The proposals include an ancillary coffee shop within the main reception area of the hotel. Given its small size, this is clearly meant to be used by guests for light refreshments as there is no restaurant on site. Officers consider it highly unlikely that members of the public would visit the hotel specifically to use the café, given its lack of street presence and the fact there are plenty of speciality cafes and coffee shops in the area. For this reason, no objections are raised to its inclusion on land use grounds. The general issue of noise and disturbance arising from the development as a whole is considered in section 5 of this report.
4.13 Overall, with regards to land use, there are no objections to the general principle of additional hotel accommodation being provided in Hammersmith Town Centre. However, Officers hold significant concerns about the suitability of this particular location for a large hotel development in terms of its impact on neighbours and traffic generation. For these reasons, objections are raised in terms of criteria (b) and (d) of Local Plan (2018) Policy E3. The reasons for these objections are elaborated in the relevant sections of this report.
5.0 NEIGHBOURING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES
Relevant planning policy:
5.1 Local Plan (2018) Policy DC2 states that all new-build development should respect the principles of good neighbourliness. Policy HO11 requires developments to respect the following:
2019/01462/FUL Page 11 of 33 - Privacy enjoyed by neighbours in adjoining properties; - Daylight and sunlight to rooms in adjoining properties; - Outlook from windows in adjoining properties; and - The sense of openness between properties.
Local Plan policy is supported by the Key Principles within the PGSPD.
5.2 Key Principle HS6 of the PGSPD states that any proposed new development and/ or extensions to existing buildings should, as a general rule, not result in infringing an angle of more than 45 degrees. Therefore, depending on the circumstances of the site, the following rules will apply:
i) Proposals that adjoin residential properties with rear gardens less than 9 metres in length to the adjoining rear boundary, the line should be measured from a point at the rear residential boundary at ground level; or
ii) Proposals that have rear gardens (or distance to adjoining residential properties) of more than 9 metres in length to the rear boundary, should be measured at a height of 2 metres from ground level from a point of the adjoining boundary; or
iii) If any part of the proposed building extends beyond these lines then on-site judgement will be a determining factor in assessing the impact the extension will have on the existing amenities of neighbouring properties.
5.3 Key Principle HS7 of the PGSPD states that any new windows should be positioned at least 18 metres from existing habitable room windows. This will be measured by an arc of 60 degrees taken from the centre of the proposed new window, to ensure there is no loss of privacy. If this standard cannot be met, then windows should be designed to ensure that no loss of privacy will occur.
5.4 With regards to noise, Local Plan Policy CC11 states that noise-generating development will not be permitted, if it would be liable to materially increase the noise experienced by the occupants/users of existing or proposed noise sensitive uses in the vicinity. Where necessary, applicants will be expected to carry out noise assessments and provide details of the noise levels on the site. This is supported by Key Principle NN4 of the PGSPD which states that plant, machinery and equipment will be subject to requirements to minimise noise to relevant criteria; in order to protect residential amenity.
5.5 In terms of other sources of nuisance, Local Plan Policy CC13 requires all proposed developments to show that there will be no undue detriment to the general amenities enjoyed by existing surrounding occupiers of their properties, particularly where commercial and service activities will be close to residential properties. The council will, where appropriate, require mitigation measures if a nuisance, for example, from dust, light, vibration, smell, noise other polluting emissions, would otherwise be likely to occur.
5.6 For lighting in particular, all lighting (specifically floodlights, security lights, and other lighting installations) should be required to conform to the recommendations of the Institution of Lighting Professionals 'Guidance Notes for the Reduction of Light Pollution 2011'. Illumination should not be intermitted and there should be no changing light patterns.
2019/01462/FUL Page 12 of 33 Assessment:
+ Eastern side of Hammersmith Grove
Outlook and sense of enclosure:
5.7 The proposed aparthotel building would be just over four metres away from the rear boundary with Nos. 56-60 Hammersmith Grove at its closest point, where it would be two storeys high. The massing steps up away from the boundary, rising to 4 storeys and then 6 storeys with a six-metre set-back between each step. There would be a plant enclosure at main roof level, adding another half storey of height to the building (taking the total to 25.025 metres above ground level). The building is L-shaped, and the 6-storey part of the building extends by approximately 36 metres along the Eastern boundary of the site, creating a courtyard/turning circle in front.
5.8 The development appears to have been designed so that it would not infringe an angle of 45 degrees taken from a point 2 metres above ground level on the boundary with the adjoining properties to the rear. This is in accordance with the guidance set out in Criterion (ii) of Key Principle HS6 of the council's Planning Guidance Supplementary Planning Document (2018). This standard is intended to assist Officers in assessing the impact of a proposal in terms of its effect on outlook and general dominance; but compliance with the HS6(ii) does not automatically imply the development is acceptable. Indeed, Criterion (iii) of Key Principle HS6 states that depending on the circumstances of the site and the proposal, Officers' judgement will be decisive:
"iii) if any part of the proposed building extends beyond these lines then on-site judgement will be a determining factor in assessing the impact the extension will have on the existing amenities of neighbouring properties".
5.9 In this case, the development presents a particularly unusual circumstance, given the close juxtaposition of commercial and residential development; the scale of the existing buildings on the site; and the height and scale of the proposed building in relation to the scale of the residential properties that adjoin the site. These factors make it even more important that on-site judgement is the determining factor.
5.10 In Officers' judgement, having visited the site, that the proposal will come to severely dominate the outlook from the Hammersmith Grove properties that back on to the development site; and will be an overbearing and over-dominant presence for these residents when they are inside their homes and using their rear gardens.
5.11 The effect will be most pronounced for those houses that back immediately onto the development site (Nos. 56-60). Although the development technically complies with Key Principle HS7(ii), the sheer scale of the building would be so much larger than the adjoining properties as to be an over-dominant presence. The stepped massing would have only a minimal benefit in this regard, as it would still present a solid mass towards those properties that is very much more significant than what is there now.
5.12 The impact will also be significant for the houses that have oblique views of the development; particularly those to the South (Nos. 54-32). The existing buildings on the "middle" part of the wider subject site, running along the rear of Nos. 54-32, are already over 32 metres high and severely dominate the outlook for these properties. The
2019/01462/FUL Page 13 of 33 buildings on the southern part of the site are 12 storeys high and are even more domineering. The middle part of the existing building ends roughly in line with No. 48 Hammersmith Grove before stepping down to the level of the existing parking garage (17 metres) which is to be demolished. Beyond that, the site immediately to the north is level and there are no buildings above ground level.
5.13 The step down in height and the open aspect it provides in views to the north- east, is very important in providing relief from the height of the existing buildings for all of the Hammersmith Grove properties and helping to maintain a degree of outlook and sense of openness in certain views. The proposal, by essentially "filling in" this gap, would provide no such relief and the sense of enclosure for the affected residents is likely to dramatically increased. This is compounded by the fact the building is L-shaped, with the E-W block further blocking any views of openness to the north. The effect for all of the affected properties, encompassing Nos. 32-60, would be for the rear aspect to be entirely closed and dominated by buildings that are both very close and, relative to the scale of the residential properties, very high.
Privacy and overlooking:
5.14 The only windows on the west elevation of the building (on the 'stepped elevation' part closest to the residential properties) would be narrow floor-to-ceiling windows that would serve corridors at 1st-5th floor levels. At ground floor level, the window would serve the reception area. Normal use of the corridors by guests would be fleeting and there is nothing to suggest they would be inclined to linger near the windows looking out of them; therefore, the likelihood of overlooking from these corridor windows seems low. There would also be a distance of over 20 metres between the new windows and the windows on the rear elevations of the adjacent properties. Considering the distance and the use of these windows, no objections would be raised on the basis of overlooking specifically from the corridor windows on the stepped west elevation.
5.15 The windows on the main South and West elevations of the building are hotel bedroom windows and residents have also raised concerns about overlooking from these windows into their homes and gardens. Whilst the window-to-window separation distance between the windows means that the proposal would technically comply with Key Principle HS7(iii), Officers acknowledge that residents' perception and feeling of being overlooked by the development, with anonymous hotel rooms bearing down upon them, will be significant. In conjunction with the overbearing scale and form of the development, the increased perception of overlooking is considered to make a significant contribution to the unneighbourliness of the development.
Daylight and sunlight:
5.16 A Daylight and Sunlight Report was submitted with the application prepared by Waterslade light consultants. As per best practice, the report attempts to assess the proposals in accordance with the guidelines set out in the Building Research Establishment (BRE) report "Site layout planning for daylight and sunlight - A guide to good practice" (2011). Compliance with the BRE guidelines is not an explicit requirement in council policy, however, the results are routinely used by Officers to help assess the impact of major developments on daylight and sunlight to neighbouring residential properties. Exceedances/infringements of the BRE guidelines will only be acceptable where there is, in Officers judgement, a clear and convincing justification.
2019/01462/FUL Page 14 of 33 5.17 For daylight, the relevant BRE tests are Vertical Sky Component (VSC) and No-Sky Line (NSL, also known as Daylight Distribution or DD). The Average Daylight Factor (ADF) test is also referred to in the Waterslade report, but this is generally used to assess the levels of daylight within a proposed residential development and is therefore of limited value in this case. For sunlight, the relevant test is the Annual Probably Sunlight Hours (APSH) test.
5.18 Officers have reviewed the Waterslade report and have significant concerns about its' application of the BRE guidelines, its methodology, and conclusions. The report is considered to be insufficient to satisfactorily demonstrate that the proposed development will have an acceptable impact on daylight and sunlight to neighbouring properties. The reasons for this include:
- Paragraph 3.0 of the report refers to a 3D computer model, which has been used as the basis for the BRE analysis using specialist software. This approach is typical, but no details of the model have been provided for Officers to confirm that it forms an accurate representation of the proposed development and the surrounding properties. Officers would also usually expect to see an annotated window map of all the neighbouring properties that have been assessed.
- The report states that mature trees in the rear gardens meant that in some places, the data used to build the 3D model was incomplete. It says that "best assumptions were made using site and aerial photography". No further details are supplied as to which parts of the model are based on accurate survey and which are assumptions. Further, there is nothing to suggest the surveyor made reasonable endeavours to survey the surroundings on site or gain access to rear gardens to allow accurate window surveys to be made. From Officers' own experience of aerial photography, it is often not of sufficient quality to allow an accurate understanding of exact window locations.
- The No-Sky Line test relies upon room layouts being known or, where they are not known, can be reasonably assumed. Officers do not know on what basis room layouts have been ascertained or assumed; and would expect to see plans of both accurate and assumed layouts provided with the report, along with details of how they have been obtained or on what basis assumptions have been made.
- The actual results of the three tests are not provided; just summary paragraphs. Numerical results tables are essential, because it is only on this basis that Officers can verify the degree of compliance or infringement of the BRE criteria and make their own professional judgement about the acceptability of the proposal. Exceedances of the No-Sky Line test are identified in the report commentary, but the properties affected are not listed, and neither are the uses of the affected rooms. It is not sufficient for the surveyor to simply state their opinion that the impact is acceptable, or for Officers to be expected to take this as read.
- References to Average Daylight Factor (ADF) are also made throughout when this is accepted as not being a measure of impact to neighbouring properties. This is considered to be irrelevant to the assessment of the development on neighbouring properties.
5.19 The Annual Probable Sunlight Hours test is only to be applied to all windows with an orientation within 90 degrees of south and by this measure, windows in the rear
2019/01462/FUL Page 15 of 33 elevations of the Hammersmith Grove properties would not be relevant for assessment as they face more than 90 degrees of south.
5.20 With regards to overshadowing of gardens, the BRE criterion is as follows:
"It is recommended that for it to appear adequately sunlit throughout the year, at least half a garden or amenity space should receive two hours of sunlight on 21st March. If as a result of a new development an existing garden or amenity space does not meet the above, and the area which can receive two hours of sunlight on 21 March is less than 0.8 times its former value, then the loss of amenity is likely to be noticeable.
Paragraph 6.0 of the Waterslade Report refers to overshadowing of neighbouring gardens as being negligible, however the diagrams referred to are not attached and therefore it is not possible for Officers to verify this assessment.
5.21 The report also apparently fails to consider the impact of the proposed hotel development in conjunction with the proposed two storey office extension that is also proposed to the existing building on the southern part of the site (ref. 2019/01452/FUL). It stands to reason that the cumulative impact may be greater and therefore needs to be assessed.
5.22 Owing to the shortcomings in the Waterslade report, Officers are not satisfied that the development will have an acceptable impact on daylight and sunlight to neighbouring properties.
Noise from comings and goings:
5.23 Access to the site is currently private. The access road between Nos. 26-28 and No. 32 Hammersmith Grove (a residential property) is barriered; although the pedestrian walkway to the side is not. It is possible for members of the public to walk round and onto the podium parking level, but it may be assumed that to do so would be trespassing; there is also very little need for people to enter this part of the site as essentially forms underused car parking and a servicing yard. On each occasion Officers have visited, the site was exceptionally quiet, and no pedestrian or vehicle movements were observed. The parking garage to be demolished is disused, and the remainder of the car parking on top of and underneath the podium is little used. All in all, the site is very quiet with very few comings and goings. There is alternative vehicle and pedestrian access to the site, and it appears that the majority of the trips generated by the existing office use those other entrances.
5.24 The proposals would not only introduce publicly accessible space to the rear of the houses; it would be in near-continuous use by pedestrians and vehicles throughout the day from early morning to late evening and night (with guest arrivals/departures, general comings and goings of guests and staff, deliveries and servicing activities). It is also likely that people will linger outside the entrance to the building (whether smoking or waiting for taxis, for example). Although Officers have concerns about how the estimated proposed trip generation figures in the Transport Statement have been arrived at (see comments under section 15 of this report) it is self- evident that there would be a very substantial increase in comings and goings and vehicle movements compared to the existing situation. Officers consider that the likely noise and disturbance from the increased activity on the site and the access road would be significantly detrimental to residential amenity for those properties backing onto them.
2019/01462/FUL Page 16 of 33 No. 32 also has a bedroom window at ground floor level in the flank elevation of the house, which would be especially impacted.
5.25 It is sometimes the case that a Management Plan could be used to address potential amenity issues with a hotel or leisure development (Key Principle NN4 and paragraph 10.34 of the PDGSPD). None has been submitted with the application; however, in this instance, Officers are not satisfied that the issues inherent in the development could be easily resolved by good management (i.e. there is only one access to the site; and there are no rear sides of the development that could be used for smoking etc.).
5.26 Officers' concerns relate to noise and disturbance from external sources; it is considered that noise disturbance from within the building could be addressed by way of a condition requiring details of the sound insulation of the building envelope. In any event, there are no function rooms provided inside the hotel that would be likely to give rise to noise disturbance from events or parties. The largest common area inside the hotel is the reception/ coffee shop area.
5.27 The flat roofs of the new building would not be used as roof terraces. If the development was found to be acceptable in all other respects, a condition would be placed to this effect.
Noise from plant and machinery:
5.28 An acoustic report has been submitted with the application (by Sharps Redmore consultants). The precise nature of the plant and equipment is not known at this stage, which is not unusual, but it is likely to consist of condenser units and air handling units on the roof (as far as possible away from the nearest residential properties) with additional plant including hot water system heating plant room and generator plant room located at ground floor level.
5.30 Policy CC11 of the Local Plan requires that the rating level of plant should be at least 10dB below existing background noise levels; to ensure there is no creeping increase in background noise. The Sharps Redmore report states that based on measured background noise level, the recommended design criteria for plant should not exceed: Daytime - 33dB LAeq1hr Evening - 29dB LAeq1hr Night time - 25dB LAeq15min.
5.31 The background noise assessment is considered to be robust and accepted by council Noise and Nuisance Officers. Because the precise equipment is yet to be identified, conditions could be recommended requiring details to ensure that all future plant and machinery meets with the criteria set out in the Sharps Redmore Report and Policy CC11, should the scheme be acceptable in all other respects.
Light pollution:
5.32 Local residents have raised concerns about light pollution from the new hotel (both in relation to any external lighting, and from lights being left on in hotel bedrooms overnight). Presently, the nature of the buildings/structure on the site is such that it would cause very low levels of light pollution at night.
2019/01462/FUL Page 17 of 33 5.33 It is undoubted that the levels of artificial lighting on the site would increase as a result of the proposal, primarily from external sources (signage, safety/directional lighting along the access road, lighting to the main entrance/smoking areas; as well as any feature lighting that is proposed for the upper levels of the main building). Nevertheless, Officers consider that the possibility for light pollution could be satisfactorily addressed by way of a condition requiring details to be submitted demonstrating that the proposals comply with the Guidance Notes for the Reduction of Light Pollution from the ILP in accordance with Key Principle NN7. A condition could also specify that the illumination would not be intermittent and there should be no changing light patterns.
5.34 With regards to light from inside the building, it is entirely possible that bedroom lights would be left on in the evenings and at night time; corridor lights would almost certainly be left on all night. However, it also seems likely that there would also be curtains or voiles helping to prevent light spillage. The windows are very narrow and are considered to be sufficiently distant so as not to cause an undue nuisance. As such, no objections are raised on grounds of light pollution.
Safety and security:
5.35 Residents have also raised concerns that the proposal would make the space directly to the rear of their properties a lot more accessible and therefore more vulnerable to anti-social behaviour and crime. However it is not considered that refusal is justified solely on these grounds. There is nothing inherent in the hotel use that suggests it is likely to attract or give rise to such behaviour from visitors/ guests and if any such problems did occur, it would be a police matter. The relatively high level of natural surveillance of the access road (the main reception looks directly out onto it) and the fact it would be frequently in use, would help to prevent the new spaces from becoming used in undesirable ways. It is also clearly in the interests of the hotel to maintain adequate security. + Western side of Hammersmith Grove
5.36 Officers are satisfied that the physical built form of the development would not cause any harm to the residents on the western side of the street in terms of overbearing development, privacy, light pollution or noise from plant or machinery. The top of the hotel building, or the plant room on top, would probably be visible from windows on the upper floors on the opposite side of the street; however, visibility does not equate to harm, and Officers are satisfied that there would be none in this respect.
5.37 Noise from increased pedestrian comings and goings is also unlikely to be a significant issue for residents on the opposite side of Hammersmith Grove; especially as most guests would be liable to arrive from Hammersmith Town Centre and would have little reason to make progress further up Hammersmith Grove to where the terrace of residential properties begins on the western side. The question of increased vehicle movements along Hammersmith Grove, and the resultant impact on the amenity of residents on the whole street, will be assessed under section 15 of the report below.
+ Student accommodation on Shepherd's Bush Road
5.38 Some concerns have also been raised by residents (specifically, occupants of Hammersmith Grove) about the impact of the development on student accommodation
2019/01462/FUL Page 18 of 33 on the other side of the underground railway line, on the Eastern side of Shepherd's Bush Road. Officers are satisfied that the aparthotel site is sufficiently distant from this development so as not to have a significant impact, in terms of either the construction phase; or the finished development. It is noted that the site immediately opposite the application site on the other side of the railway line is in fact Hammersmith Fire Station, with the student residence some way to the south.
5.39 For the reasons explained above, it is considered that the proposed development would have a significant adverse impact on neighbouring residential amenities, most particularly in terms of loss of outlook and sense of enclosure; increased perception of overlooking and loss of privacy; and noise and disturbance. It is also considered that the impact on daylight and sunlight to neighbouring properties has not been adequately assessed. In these respects, the development is contrary to Policies DC2, HO11 and CC11 of the Local Plan (2018) and objections are also raised in terms of Key Principles HS6 and HS7 of the Planning Guidance Supplementary Planning Document (2018).
6.0 ARCHITECTURE, DESIGN AND VISUAL AMENITY
Relevant planning policy
6.1 Local Plan (2018) Policy DC1 states that all development within the borough should create a high-quality urban environment that respects and enhances its townscape context and heritage assets. There should be an approach to accessible and inclusive urban design, that demonstrates how good design, quality public realm, landscaping, heritage assets and land use can be integrated, to help regenerate places.
6.2 Local Plan (2018) Policy DC2 (Design of New Build) states that new build development will be permitted if it is of a high standard of design and compatible with the scale and character of existing development and its setting. All proposals must be designed to respect:
a. the historical context and townscape setting of the site, and its sense of place; b. the scale, mass, form and grain of surrounding development and connections to it; c. the relationship of the proposed development to the existing townscape, including the local street pattern, local landmarks and the skyline; d. the local design context, including the prevailing rhythm and articulation of frontages, local building materials and colour, and locally distinctive architectural detailing, and thereby promote and reinforce local distinctiveness; e. good neighbourliness and the principles of residential amenity; f. the local landscape context and where appropriate should provide high quality landscaping and public realm with good permeability; g. sustainability objectives; including adaptation to, and mitigation of, the effects of climate change; h. the principles of accessible and inclusive design; and i. principles of Secured by Design.
6.3 The site does not fall within a conservation area but lies just outside of the boundary of the Hammersmith Grove Conservation Area (which encompasses the houses and gardens on the eastern side of Hammersmith Grove) and is also visible in distant views from Brook Green Conservation Area. It would also be visible in background views of listed buildings and Buildings of Merit on Shepherd's Bush Road.
2019/01462/FUL Page 19 of 33 Therefore, Policy DC8 is also relevant with regards to the impact of the proposals on the character, appearance and setting of the conservation area, including views into and out of it; and the setting of listed buildings and Buildings of Merit.
Assessment:
6.4 The proposal is to demolish the disused garage block, part of the under croft, and part of the ramp. The current structure has very little architectural merit and does not make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area. Therefore, no objections would be raised to its demolition.
6.5 The proposed building is 6 storeys tall (with a plant room on top) and it steps back in height away from the conservation area so that the tallest parts are set along the tube line boundary. At this height, Officers are satisfied that it will not be visible from Hammersmith Grove above the terraced houses on its eastern side. Confirmed by verified view studies provided in the townscape and heritage analysis provided with the application, which has been reviewed by Design and Conservation Officers. As such the proposals will not affect the setting of the conservation area as viewed from within it along Hammersmith Grove.
6.6 The scale and massing are considered appropriate to this back-land type location, relating well in height and form to the taller and linear, adjacent office block and the houses on Hammersmith Grove which are effectively one storey lower. The building's L shaped plot form will help to define and enclose a new landscaped arrival space for the hotel.
6.7 All of the facades will be clad in light grey/beige brick to complement the brick houses in Hammersmith Grove and the Portland Stone of the office building.
6.8 Facades will have an ordered rhythm across all elevations with a repeating fenestration pattern of recessed windows and intervening metal panelled room dividers. Texture and pattern will be incorporated in the brickwork to provide further visual interest with rustic bands in recessed panels and stack-bond brickwork between the vertically stacked windows.
6.9 The rear of the building will be visible in the distance from Brook Green above and behind a railway shed in the background of views to Listed Building 184 Shepherds Bush Road and no. 186-188 which is a Building of Merit. Although distant, at the 6- storey scale proposed and with the high quality of design and materials identified, the building will improve the setting of both buildings. Officers agree with the applicant's heritage assessment that the significance of the heritage assets, i.e. The Listed Building and the conservation area would be conserved as set out within paragraph 193 of the NPPF. In accordance with para.197 of the NPPF the impact on the Building of Merit would not result in any harm or loss of significance.
6.10 At present the approach to the site from Hammersmith Grove is used mainly as a loading bay and is vehicle dominated, hostile and unattractive. An attractively paved shared surface will be created with a soft landscaped edge leading to the hotel forecourt with further soft landscaping. The retained part of the car park will also be screened with climbing plants on support wires. The visual appearance of the new area of public realm will be much improved as a result.
2019/01462/FUL Page 20 of 33 6.11 For these reasons, it is considered that the proposal is compliant with Policies DC1, DC2 and DC8 of the Local Plan (2018) in terms of architectural quality, design and visual amenity. There would be no harm caused to the character, appearance or setting of the adjacent Hammersmith Grove Conservation Area or the Brook Green Conservation Area.
7.0 ACCESSIBLE AND INCLUSIVE DESIGN
Relevant planning policy
7.1 As stated earlier Policy E3 requires 10% of rooms to be wheelchair accessible. Furthermore Local Plan Policy DC2 criterion (h) requires that all proposals are designed to respect the principles of accessible and inclusive design. This policy is supported by Key Principles DA1 (Inclusive design), DA4 (Public realm) DA5 (Level changes) DA6 (Entry into a building) and DA9 (Hotels). All aim to make sure that new buildings are designed to be accessible and inclusive to all who may use or visit the building. As discussed in section 4 above. Disabled access is also subject to Building Regulations requirements.
Assessment:
7.2 The submitted Design and Access Statement demonstrates that the principles of accessible and inclusive design have been comprehensively considered throughout the new development. Specifically, the following are mentioned:
- 10 of the hotel's 97 bedrooms are accessible (10.3%), all with level access and the rooms are located nearest to the lifts; - The approach from the street to the main entrance is level and unobstructed, with a gradient of less than 1 in 40; - Two accessible parking spaces for Blue Badge holders would be provided; - Modified cycle stands for disabled users would be installed; - There are staff shower and WC and locker facilities compliant with Part M will be provided in back of house area at ground floor level; - Main entrance automated sliding doors; glass will have manifestations; - The height of the reception desk will be designed to consider wheelchair users;
7.3 Despite the good level of consideration that has been given to accessibility issues, Officers still hold some concerns about the development, namely:
- The accessible rooms appear to be amongst the smallest available and do not have a table/chair(s) like the other rooms. It is considered that this somewhat defeats the purpose of an aparthotel-style room. Further, there no accessible rooms with a separate 'living room' with sofas like some of the standard rooms. Officers expect the accessible rooms to reflect the full range of facilities, and not just be the smallest rooms. Ideally, one or two of the accessibility rooms should also have an adjoining room for carers.
- Access from Hammersmith appears to be a "shared surface" and although a pedestrian route is marked on some of the plans, there are no actual details about how it would be delineated for safety. The surfacing/paving concept ideas (solid blocks with
2019/01462/FUL Page 21 of 33 green in between) also look attractive but may not be suitable for people in wheelchairs or with visual or mobility impairments.
7.4 Notwithstanding the lack of finer-grain detail and the issues identified above, it is considered that these could all be addressed by way of a condition requiring a detailed Accessibility Statement to be provided by condition; in conjunction with a landscaping plan that considers accessibility issues. Such a plan could be used to ensure the development complies with the council's own guidance and Building Regulations throughout and no objections would be raised in terms of Local Plan (2018) Policy DC2.
8.0 ENERGY USE AND CARBON REDUCTION
Relevant planning policy:
8.1 Local Plan (2018) Policy CC1 states that the council will require all major developments to implement energy conservation measures by:
a. implementing the London Plan (2016) sustainable energy policies and meeting the associated carbon dioxide (CO2) reduction targets;
b. ensuring developments are designed to make the most effective use of passive design measures, and where an assessment such as BREEAM (or equivalent) is used to determine a development's environmental performance, this must be supplemented with a more detailed Energy Assessment in order to show compliance with the London Plan's CO2 reduction targets;
c. requiring energy assessments for all major developments to demonstrate and quantify how the proposed energy efficiency measures and low/zero carbon technologies will reduce the expected energy demand and CO2 emissions;
d. requiring major developments to demonstrate that their heating and/or cooling systems have been selected to minimise CO2 emissions. This includes the need to assess the feasibility of connecting to any existing decentralised energy systems or integrating new systems such as Combined (Cooling) Heat and Power units or communal heating systems, including heat networks if this can be done without having an unacceptable impact on air quality; and
e. using on-site renewable energy generation to further reduce CO2 emissions from major developments, where feasible.
Assessment:
8.1 The submitted Energy and Sustainability Statement shows that the proposed development can achieve a reduction in CO2 emissions by 38.16% compared to the Building Regulations minimum.
8.2 This is to be achieved by integrating passive design measures, energy efficiency measures such as improved insulation performance, use of energy efficient lighting and occupancy sensors in some areas to minimise energy use. On-site renewable energy generation is also proposed in the form of Air Source Heat Pumps
2019/01462/FUL Page 22 of 33 (ASHPs) to contribute to providing the building's heating and cooling needs. A Combined Heat and Power (CHP) unit is also proposed to provide hot water demand.
8.3 Therefore, the proposed sustainable energy measures meet the London Plan (2016) Policy 5.2 requirement for non-residential major development schemes to reduce their CO2 emissions by at least 35% compared to the requirements of the Building Regulations and the development is considered to be acceptable in terms of Local Plan (2018) Policy CC1. This would be subject to consideration of the air quality impact of the proposed CHP unit, discussed below.
9.0 SUSTAINABLE CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES
Relevant planning policy:
9.1 Policy CC2 of the Local Plan (2018) states that the council will require the implementation of sustainable design and construction measures in all major developments by:
a. implementing the London Plan sustainable design and construction policies to ensure developments incorporate sustainability measures, including: minimising energy use; making the most effective use of resources such as water and aggregates; sourcing building materials sustainably; using prefabrication construction methods where appropriate; reducing pollution and waste; promoting recycling and conserving and promoting biodiversity and the natural environment; ensuring developments are comfortable and secure for users and avoiding impacts from natural hazards (including flooding); and
b. Requiring Sustainability Statements (or equivalent assessments such as BREEAM) for all major developments to ensure the full range of sustainability issues has been considered during the design stage.
Assessment:
9.2 A BREEAM pre-assessment report has been provided with the application; this shows that the proposed development is anticipated to score sufficient points to achieve an 'Excellent' BREEAM rating. This is adequate to achieve the required level of performance in terms of sustainable design and construction measures, as required by Local Plan Policy CC2. The measures outlined in the report are conditioned; and require a submission of a post-construction BREEAM Assessment to demonstrate that the required level of sustainability has been achieved by the completed development in compliance with Local Plan Policy CC2.
10.0 FLOOD RISK
Relevant planning policy:
10.1 Local Plan Policy CC3 requires developments to reduce the use of water and minimise current and future flood risk, by (amongst other things) the submission of a detailed Flood Risk Assessment (FRA). The FRA must assess the risk of flooding from all relevant sources, in particular tidal, surface and groundwater, as well as sewer flooding and where there is a risk of flooding, appropriate flood proofing measures must
2019/01462/FUL Page 23 of 33 be integrated, in accordance with the guidance in the Hammersmith and Fulham Strategic FRA.
10.2 Development proposals will be required to demonstrate that there is sufficient water and waste water infrastructure capacity both on and off site to serve the development or that any necessary upgrades will be delivered ahead of the occupation of development.
10.3 All developments must include water efficient fittings and appliances, where provided, in line with London Plan water consumption targets. In addition, major developments and high-water use developments must include other measures such as rainwater harvesting and greywater re-use.
Assessment:
10.4 The site is in the Environment Agency's Flood Zone 3. As required, an FRA has been provided with the application. The site is well protected by flood defences; in the event of a breach or over-topping of these defences, flooding from the Thames could reach close to the site; but would not encroach onto it. In Section 5.1 it is stated that the ground floor of the hotel is to be set at a level that is above the expected levels that flood water could reach, at 3.85 AOD. However, in section 6.4 it says that the FFLs are not yet confirmed and will correspond most likely with existing levels - FFLs should be confirmed. If the development was acceptable in all other respects, an updated FRA with this information could be required by way of a condition.
10.5 Thames Water responded to the council's consultation to say that they have identified an inability of the existing combined water infrastructure to accommodate the needs of this development proposal. Thames Water contacted the developer in an attempt to agree a position for surface water networks but have been unable to do so in the time available and as such request that a condition be added to any planning permission if granted; confirming that all combined water network upgrades required to accommodate the additional flows from the development have been completed. Thames Water would not have any objection on the basis of water network and water treatment infrastructure capacity.
11.0 SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE
Relevant planning policy:
11.1 Local Plan (2018) Policy CC4 requires all proposals for new development must manage surface water run-off as close to its source as possible and on the surface where practicable, in line with the London Plan drainage hierarchy. Other requirements include:
- All major developments must implement Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) to enable a reduction in peak run-off to greenfield run off rates for storms up to the 1 in 100-year event (plus climate change allowance); - All major developments will be required to provide a sustainable drainage strategy that demonstrates how SuDS will be integrated to reduce peak flow volumes and rates in line with the requirements of this policy - All flat roofs in new developments should be living roofs to help contribute to reducing surface water run-off.
2019/01462/FUL Page 24 of 33 Assessment:
11.2 A drainage strategy is outlined in the submitted Flood Risk Assessment. This is objected to, because it does not demonstrate compliance with the requirements of Local Plan (2018) Policy CC4. The approach is based on demonstrating a 50% betterment in surface water run-off. This is not in line with Policy CC4's requirement for greenfield run-off rates to be achieved. This proposed final discharge of 11.1 l/s needs to be reduced in line with Policy CC4's requirement. Thames Water also consider that surface water should be attenuated to Greenfield run-off rates following London Policy 5.13 and achieve 5l/s/ha.
11.3 The proposed use of rainwater harvesting (RWH) is welcomed, although it is unclear what volume of run-off will be collected for storage and what it will be used for; or whether it has been maximised. Further details would be required to demonstrate this. Inclusion of green roofs is also welcomed; but there are no details on areas of coverage, depth of substrate; or inclusion of any additional water storage layer. Further details required of proposals, including information on attenuation provided and information on why some roof areas are not provided with green roof coverage.
11.4 It is noted that no landscaping measures have been proposed to include surface water management measures. The plans show landscaped areas and areas of hard landscaping which need to be considered as part of the sustainable drainage design. This does not mean that large soakaways are required on site, but some infiltration may be possible. Lined permeable paving systems should also be considered. Car parking appears to be included at ground floor level. Policy CC4 requires these to be permeable where possible, so this needs reconsideration and additional details provided. Some run-off could be directed from hard paved areas to soft landscaped areas. Some new tree planting is also proposed, which could be achieved with SuDS tree pits to maximise their contribution to surface water management.
11.5 The use of a below-ground attenuation tank with controlled flow of run-off discharging to the public sewer may still be required, but the maximisation of above ground measures should allow the volume of tank storage required to be minimised to demonstrate compliance with the London Plan (2016) Drainage Hierarchy. A plan should be provided, which shows where all SuDS measures are to be provided, with information on the expected attenuation to be achieved. Maintenance information for all SuDS measures should also be provided.
11.5 It is considered that if the development were acceptable in all other respects, the outstanding information referred to above could be conditioned to demonstrate compliance with Local Plan (2018) Policy CC4.
12.0 AIR QUALITY
Relevant planning policy:
12.1 Policy CC10 of the Local Plan (2018) states that the council will seek to reduce the potential adverse air quality impacts of new developments by:
a. requiring all developments which may be impacted by local sources of poor air quality or may adversely contribute to local air quality to provide an air quality
2019/01462/FUL Page 25 of 33 assessment that considers the potential impacts of pollution from the development on the site and on neighbouring areas and also considers the potential for exposure to pollution levels above the Government's air quality objective concentration targets. The assessment should include separate consideration of the impacts of (i) the construction/demolition phase of development and (ii) the operational phase of development with appropriate mitigation measures highlighted for each phase;
b. requiring mitigation measures to be implemented to reduce emissions, particularly of nitrogen oxides and small particles, where assessments show that developments could cause a significant worsening of local air quality or contribute to the exceedances of the Government's air quality objectives;
c. requiring mitigation measures that reduce exposure to acceptable levels where developments are proposed that could result in the occupants being particularly affected by poor air quality;
d. requiring developments to be 'air quality neutral' and resist development proposals which would materially increase exceedances of local air pollutants and have an unacceptable impact on amenity or health unless the development mitigates this impact through physical measures and/or financial contributions to implement proposals in the Council's Local Air Quality Management Plan; and
e. requiring all decentralised energy schemes to demonstrate that they can be used without having an unacceptable impact on air quality. Where this is not possible, CHP systems will not be prioritised over other air quality neutral technologies.
Assessment: 12.2 Ventilation/exposure: Due to the emissions from transportation sources mitigation will be required in the form of additional ventilation for the proposed hotel, with elevations on Hammersmith Grove and Shepherds Bush Road (A219). A strategy for mechanical ventilation would be required by condition to ensure compliance with Policy CC10 with regards to the air quality that occupants are exposed to.
12.3 Building emissions: After road transport, buildings are the second largest source of air pollution in London, emitting 44% of the total Nitrogen Oxides in London, or about 2,950t/yr. Buildings are also the second largest anthropogenic source of Particulates after road transport, contributing 18% of London emissions through gas heating, large boilers, and Industrial plant. Building emissions arise primarily from combustion to provide space and water heating and some industrial processes. While commercial heating plant emissions can be intense, these are required to have tall chimneys and special abatement equipment, to minimise concentrations downwind and the chances of a plume reaching the ground. Thus, buildings do not tend to create pollution exceedance hotspots, but contribute substantially to the urban background pollution concentrations. If the development was otherwise found to be acceptable, a condition would be attached requiring details of all new combustion-based energy plant to be submitted prior to the occupation of the development.
12.4 Low Emissions Strategy: The environmental quality officer also recommends that, prior to occupation of the development, a Low Emissions Strategy for the operational phase of the development (particularly with regards to servicing and delivery vehicles) be submitted, detailing the remedial action and mitigation measures that will be implemented to reduce the exposure of poor air quality and to help mitigate the
2019/01462/FUL Page 26 of 33 development's air pollution impacts, in particular the emissions of NOx and particulates from on-road vehicle transport by the use of Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ)-compliant vehicles in accordance with the emissions hierarchy.
12.5 Demolition, construction phase impacts: The demolition and construction works would have the potential to create dust and air quality issues. Construction sites are responsible for 7.5% of nitrogen oxide emissions, 8% of PM10 emissions and 14.5% of PM2.5 of the most dangerous fine particles. The on-road and off-road vehicle emissions from the demolition, and construction phases of the development will have an impact on local air quality. These impacts should be assessed in accordance with the Mayor's SPG 'The Control of Dust and Emissions during Construction and Demolition' July 2014, and appropriate air quality mitigation measures implemented for nearby off- site residential receptors of the development. This would require a condition for an Air Quality Dust Management Plan.
12.6 Officers consider the development would be acceptable in terms of Policy CC10 in terms of air quality subject to suitable conditions.
13.0 CONTAMINATED LAND
Relevant planning policy:
13.1 Local Plan (2018) Policy CC9 states that when development is proposed on or near a site that is known to be, or there is good reason to believe may be, contaminated, or where a sensitive use is proposed, an applicant should carry out a site assessment and submit a report of the findings in order to establish the nature and extent of the contamination. Development will not be permitted unless practicable and effective measures are to be taken to treat, contain or control any contamination.
Assessment:
13.2 The council's environmental quality officers advise that potentially contaminative land uses are understood to occur at, or near to, this and the applicant is proposing a sensitive use. If the proposal was found to be otherwise acceptable, conditions would be attached requiring investigation, remediation and onward monitoring of contaminants on the site. The conditions would be required to ensure that no unacceptable risks are caused to humans, controlled waters or the wider environment during and following the development works, in accordance with Policy CC9.
14.0 TREES
Relevant planning policy:
14.1 Local Plan Policy OS5 requires that the council will seek to enhance biodiversity and green infrastructure in the borough by seeking to prevent removal or mutilation of protected trees; and seeking retention of existing trees and provision of new trees on development sites.
Assessment:
14.2 There is a line of very large, mature and attractive trees in the rear gardens of Hammersmith Grove adjoining the site None are protected by a Tree Preservation
2019/01462/FUL Page 27 of 33 Order, but all are protected by virtue of conservation area status. Officers are satisfied that these trees do not stand to be adversely affected by the development, given the entirety of the subject site is currently hard surfacing; no basement excavation is proposed. It is possible that some light pruning may be required to facilitate the parts of the development closest to the new building, but this is not considered to be problematic and no objections are raised in terms of Policy OS5.
15.0 HIGHWAYS
Relevant planning policy
15.1 Local Plan (2018) Policy T1 sets out the council's high-level borough wide targets for transport, including (amongst other things):
- Promoting and supporting the continued development of initiatives designed to encourage modal shift away from private vehicles, in order to improve congestion and air quality within the borough; - Developing and promoting safe environments for cyclists and pedestrians to encourage residents and businesses to consider these modes; and - Ensuring that traffic generated by new development is minimised so that it does not add to parking pressure on local streets or congestion or worsen local air quality.
15.2 Local Plan Policy T2 requires that all development proposals be assessed for their contribution to traffic generation and their impact on congestion, particularly on bus routes and on the primary route network. The council will require a Transport Assessment (TA), together with a Travel Plan where a development is anticipated to generate a level of trips that impacts on the local network or have an impact on any strategic routes. Delivery and servicing plans should also be secured and co-ordinated with travel plans.
15.3 Local Plan Policy T3 makes clear that opportunities for cycling and walking will be promoted; with developments required to provide convenient, safe and secure cycle parking within the boundary of the site as well as suitable changing and showering facilities; as well as contributions to improve cycle hire schemes where necessary. With regards to car parking, Policy T4 states that all new development will have to conform to the council's vehicle parking standards; including parking for blue badge holders and provision of electric parking bays.
Assessment
15.4 The wider site (encompassing the application site and the existing office buildings at 26-28 Hammersmith Grove) can be reached via Hammersmith Grove from the north and Glenthorne Road from the west. The southern end of Hammersmith Road only provides egress onto Beadon Road, so there is no vehicular access via Hammersmith Grove from the south. The site has two vehicle entrances; one just south of the junction with Glenthorne Road, and one just north of the junction. It is proposed that all vehicles entering and exiting the site would do so via the access to the north of Glenthorne Road. In June 2017, restrictions were placed along Hammersmith Grove allowing only vehicles weighing 7.5tn or less. The existing office building has a large quantity of surface parking, provided at ground level and podium level. Under the
2019/01462/FUL Page 28 of 33 proposals, the up/down ramp and part of the podium would be demolished; overall there would be a loss of 166 car parking spaces on the wider site.
CAR AND COACH PARKING
15.5 The site has a PTAL score of 6b, which indicates an excellent level of public transport accessibility. It is proposed to provide two Blue Badge parking bays and one loading bay. Therefore, the level of parking shown on the plans demonstrates compliance with the Parking Addendum to London Plan (2016) Chapter 6 states that although no maximum standards are set for hotels, in locations with a PTAL of 4-6, provision should be limited to operational needs, parking for disabled people and that required for taxis, coaches and deliveries/servicing. Developments should provide one coach parking space per 50 rooms for hotels.
15.6 Provision of charging points for electric cars has not been considered, but it is considered that if the application were found to be acceptable in all other respects then a condition could be applied requiring details of electric charging points, in accordance with Key Principle TR7 (Electric Vehicles) of the Planning Guidance SPD.
15.7 Although a significant number of car parking spaces would be removed from the site through the proposals, some would remain at podium level (on the part of the podium that would not be demolished, to be accessed via the vehicular entrance to the south of Glenthorne Road) and underneath the podium. The application has not addressed the means by which guests and visitors of the hotel would be prevented from using the other car parking spaces on the site, which would be essential to ensure that visitors were not attracted to drive to the hotel by the availability of parking on other parts of the site.
15.8 The likelihood of visitors arriving and Risk of people driving and parking on- street on Hammersmith Grove for the duration of their stay is considered to be relatively unlikely, due to the very high costs associated with the local Controlled Parking Zone.
15.9 There are no spaces for coach parking provided on the site and given the physical constraints of the site it is highly unlikely that any could be provided. Therefore, the hotel would be "coach-free" and, if approved, there would be a need to enter into a Section 106 agreement to ensure the hotel operators used reasonable endeavours to prevent coaches from bringing visitors to the site, to prevent congestion at bus stops and disruptions to local roads in the vicinity.
CYCLE PARKING
15.10 It is proposed to provide 13 long stay cycle parking spaces and 2 short stay cycle parking spaces in line with London Plan (2016) guidance. A proportion of the long and short stay cycle stands would be capable of accommodating modified cycles for disabled users. Short-stay cycle parking would be located within the public realm area in front of the hotel. Long-stay cycle parking would be located to the rear of the accessible parking bays on the eastern side of the site. The number of cycle parking spaces proposed are acceptable for the C1 use; further details could be secured by condition, if the development was acceptable in all other respects.
MOTOR CYCLE PARKING
2019/01462/FUL Page 29 of 33 15.11 Motor cycle parking has not been considered as part of the proposals as it is stated in the Transport Statement that the development would be "car free" - this is not relevant to the consideration of motorcycles, the use of which is increasing and there is increasing demand for parking facilities. If facilities are not made available, this could result in inappropriate parking of motorcycles on street, which is likely to create hazards to other road users.
REFUSE STORAGE
15.12 A bin storage area is indicated on the drawings near to the servicing loading bay. This would appear to be a reasonable location for the store, and if the development was approved a condition for a full refuse and recycling management plan would be placed, to ensure the operation of the development complied with Local Plan Policy CC7 with regards to capacity and collection arrangements.
TRIP GENERATION AND MODE SHARE
15.13 In order to properly assess the impact of the development on the highways network, there must be a comparison of the number and type of trips (by all modes) generated by the existing site versus the proposed development. The estimated number of daily trips for the existing office use was calculated using TRICS (Trip Rate Information Computer System). Three 'comparator' sites were selected from the results, and the surveyed trips at those sites used to estimate the existing number of trips at the subject site:
- Bank, PTAL 6b, GEA 1,386sqm, date of survey 2009 - City of London, PTAL 6b, GEA 9,803sqm, date of survey 2013 - City of London, PTAL 4, GEA 1,951sqm., date of survey 2013.
15.14 In the first instance, Officers consider these comparator sites to be weak indicators of the likely existing trips generated by the existing office building at 26-28 Hammersmith Grove. The surveys are between 6-10 years old and trip patterns could have changed significantly since then. The sites are also within Central London in contrast to Hammersmith, which is a "major" town centre location in Zone 2, surrounded by dense residential areas. The size of the comparator sites also makes them of questionable relevance to the existing development on the subject site, which is more than twice the size of the largest comparator site in the City of London.
15.15 Instead of relying on out-of-date comparator data from other parts of London, the council would expect the applicant to provide the current survey results of the subject site itself, or if comparator sites are used, then they are to be more directly relevant with survey data from within the last three years.
15.16 For the trip generation for the proposed development, a similar approach has been taken to how existing trips were estimated. Two comparator sites, both in Shoreditch, have been used. The number of hotel bedrooms at each site (224 and 205) are reasonably similar to the proposal, but both surveys date from 2008 and are therefore extremely out of date. It is likely that trip patterns could have undergone significant changes when compared to 11 years ago. Furthermore, there is no explanation as to why the Shoreditch of 2008 is considered to be a suitable comparator in terms of location characteristics for Hammersmith in 2019. Again, the council would expect up-to-date survey data for comparative hotels in Hammersmith and Fulham.
2019/01462/FUL Page 30 of 33 15.17 The applicant also estimates the likely mode share for trips. The mode share for LBHF was taken from the 2011 Census "Method of Travel to Work" data set and used in conjunction with the TRICS survey data for the Shoreditch sites to predict/estimate the mode shares for the proposed hotel development, which are given on page 35 of the Transport Statement. The way these have been calculated is considered to be unreliable at best. Notwithstanding the reservations about the TRICS data, "Method of travel to work" has no relevance to how guests would arrive at a hotel; for example, 40% of trips are given as "walking" but from where, or how far. Very few guests would make the entire journey from their original destination to a hotel on foot; they might arrive on foot having walked from the Underground Station; but how does this relate to the 34.5% that are said to arrive by Underground.
15.18 Crucially, the analysis completely overlooks one of the biggest changes in transport patterns over the last 8-10 years since the time of the 2011 census/ 2008 Shoreditch surveys; which is the now-ubiquitous use of Uber (launched in London in 2012) or other app-based taxi hailing services. App-based food delivery services such as Deliveroo and Uber Eats are also new within the last five years and have made food delivery either by cycle or motorcycle considerably more prevalent than previously. It is also noted that, given the lack of a restaurant or food service within the hotel itself, guests may be more included to order in food from a delivery service. Neither of these significant developments which stand to dramatically influence trip generation have been accounted for in the analysis of trip generation or mode share. Officers consider that the number of guests arriving by taxi is likely to be considerably higher than the 3% suggested. For these reasons it is considered that the suggested mode share is not considered to provide a clear or reliable indicator of the types of trip that would be generated by the development.
TRIP GENERATION - DELIVERIES AND SERVICING
15.19 The trip generation figures discussed above do not appear to include delivery and servicing, which is analysed separately within the Transport Statement; although concerns about how the existing and proposed figures have been arrived at remain the same. Deliveries and servicing trips for the existing site have been calculated based upon the total floor areas of the existing development; as the building is presently not fully occupied. It is not clear whether the existing trips is based on a survey of the subject site itself (and if so, when it was conducted, where etc) or comparators. For a development like this, the council would expect to see similar comparator sites and an explanation as to why it was felt they were similar. Applicant should consider surveying similar developments within the same category, location and other characteristics to obtain realistic values of delivery and servicing number. Again, it is not clear if food delivery services have been taken account of.
15.20 A draft Delivery and Servicing Plan is submitted as part of the Transport Assessment; but this would need to be updated with any latest data if a new survey is conducted. Access is one vehicle at a time, says it would be controlled "by a simple traffic light system", this is problematic at best, if it is on red, vehicle is either left idling outside the site causing congestion to the local road network, or circling the block until they can get in.
IMPACT ON HIGHWAYS NETWORK
2019/01462/FUL Page 31 of 33 15.21 The Transport Statement concludes that, even when the proposed hotel development is considered in conjunction with the concurrently proposed office development (planning ref. 2019/01452/FUL), the increase in the number of trips would be negligible (5% of the 2019 AM peak flow).
15.22 Due to the inadequacies with the trip generation data presented as explained above, Officers consider it is not possible to establish the true impact of the development on the highways network (or, the related matter of how increased vehicle movements will impact upon the amenities of neighbouring properties) and the conclusions of the Transport Statement are not accepted.
15.23 Crucially, the analysis also ignores which entrance pedestrians and vehicles are using when visiting the site; there are two vehicle entrances at present whereas the hotel development would see all of the related trips exclusively using the entrance just to the north of Glenthorne Road; so the overall increase in trips may or may not be significant, but the number of trips using the northern entrance is likely to be considerably more significant compared to the existing situation, where it appears to be little used.
15.24 For the reasons explained above, Officers consider that the approach/methodology used to estimate number of trips to be generated by the proposed development is not robust, reasonable or suitably evidenced. Therefore, the conclusions reached about the impact on the highways network, in terms of traffic flow on Hammersmith Grove, cannot be relied upon and it is not possible to determine the true extent of the impact of the development.
16.0 CONSTRUCTION PHASE
16.1 Local Plan Policy T7, all construction, demolition, utilities and major logistics activities within the borough will be required to work with the council in developing the scope and impact of their operations. A Demolition and Construction Logistics Plan would be subject to a condition if the development were to be approved. It has been noted by residents that some of the application documents refer to elements of construction logistics and include mention of night-time working, for example; however, these documents are still in draft form and cannot usually be finalised until a contractor has been appointed; therefore, no weight is to be attached to the draft details contained within them. Any proposal for night-time working would be of serious concern to the council due to the severe impact it would have on the amenities of local residents.
16.2 London Underground Limited (LUL) responded to the council's consultation on the application; they raise no objection but highlight that there are a number of potential constraints to the redevelopment of a site situated close to railway infrastructure. The site is adjacent to Hammersmith Station and the Hammersmith and City/Circle lines. Therefore, it would need to be demonstrated to the satisfaction of LUL engineers that:
- Their right of support is not compromised; - The development will not have any detrimental effect on their structures either in the short or long term; - The design must be such that the loading imposed on our structures is not increased or removed; and - They offer no right of support to the development or land,
2019/01462/FUL Page 32 of 33 16.3 If the application were to be approved, a condition would be required for a detailed design and method statement to be prepared in consultation with London Underground for each stage of the development.
17.0 ECONOMIC IMPACT
17.1 Local Plan Policy E4 states that the council will require the provision of appropriate employment and training initiatives for local people of all abilities in the construction of major developments and in larger employment generating developments, including visitor accommodation and facilities, when these are completed. Local businesses will also be encouraged to adopt the London Living Wage. If the development was found to be acceptable in all other respects, a contribution towards paid and unpaid work placements and apprenticeships and local procurement would be required for both the construction and operational phases of the development.
18.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
18.1 The development proposals are found to be unacceptable with regards to their impact on the existing amenities of neighbouring residential properties, most particularly for those dwellings on the Eastern side of Hammersmith Grove that adjoin the site. It has also not been demonstrated to the council's satisfaction that the impact on the local highways network, most particularly in terms of traffic congestion, would be acceptable.
18.2 In these respects the development fails to comply with Policies DC1, DC2, HO11, CC11, T1, T2 or T6 of the Local Plan (2018). Objections are also raised in respect of Key Principles HS6, HS7 and NN4 of the Planning Guidance Supplementary Planning Document (2018) and it is recommended that the application be refused.
2019/01462/FUL Page 33 of 33 APPENDIX B – LBHF CORRESPONDENCE
52 21/12/2020 Email - James Draper - Outlook
RE: Recent Hotel Applications in LBHF
Ninan Lynn: H&F
To add to the list of applica on you have already got, please check out 284-288 North End Road (2017/04216/FUL) and 399A And 407 To 411 Goldhawk Road (2019/01999/FUL).
Kind Regards, Lynn Ninan Senior Transport Planner Transportation & Highways Hammersmith & Fulham Council 07776672802 [email protected] www.lbhf.gov.uk/press
Please contact 111 online for advice regarding coronavirus (COVID-19)
From: James Draper
Good afternoon Lynn,
I hope that you had a great bank holiday weekend and managed to enjoy the weather we had.
Just following on from the pre-application meeting for 26-28 Hammersmith Grove from last week, where we had an effective discussion regarding the trip generation methodology. During this discussion I mentioned proposing to utilise a recent hotel TRICS survey (2019), alongside using an adapted mode share from other consented local hotel schemes. For the mode share I proposed to take into the account the following local schemes:
Brook House, 229-243 Shepherd’s Bush Road Olympia London Landmark House, Hammersmith Bridge Road
During our discussion you mentioned that you were aware of further recent hotel schemes in the borough which may be relevant to this planning application. Would you mind letting me know what these schemes are, along with the planning references if possible.
Hopefully that sounds okay.
Kind regards,
James Draper Consultant https://outlook.office.com/mail/search/id/AAQkAGZjOWFmMGVkLWUwMzMtNGUyNi04YmEzLWFiNDRjOTcyNWM3MAAQAOy0imERo0gGuOopcm6… 1/2 21/12/2020 Email - James Draper - Outlook
Second Floor 67-74 Saffron Hill London EC1N 8QX
t +44(0)20 7242 0228 w www.momentum-transport.com
Visit h&f CAN for more information
Do it online at www.lbhf.gov.uk
To sign up for regular news updates, please go to www.lbhf.gov.uk/newsupdates
If you have received this email in error, please delete it and tell the sender as soon as possible. You should not disclose the contents to any other person or take copies.
All emails you send over the internet are not secure unless they have been encrypted. For further details, please see www.getsafeonline.org/protecting- yourself
https://outlook.office.com/mail/search/id/AAQkAGZjOWFmMGVkLWUwMzMtNGUyNi04YmEzLWFiNDRjOTcyNWM3MAAQAOy0imERo0gGuOopcm6… 2/2 APPENDIX C – PTAL REPORT
53
TRANSPORT FOR LONDON
PTAL output for Base Year Map key - PTAL 6b 0 (W orst) 1a 30 Hammersmith Grove, Hammersmith, London W6 0NW, UK 1b 2 Easting: 523245, Northing: 178832 3 4 5 6a 6b (Best) Grid Cell: 72431 Map layers
Report generated: 07/08/2020 PTAL (cell size: 100m)
Calculation Parameters Day of Week M-F Time Period AM Peak Walk Speed 4.8 kph Bus Node Max. Walk Access Time (mins) 8 Bus Reliability Factor 2.0 LU Station Max. Walk Access Time (mins) 12 LU Reliability Factor 0.75 National Rail Station Max. Walk Access Time (mins) 12 National Rail Reliability Factor 0.75
Copyright TfL 2020 1 / 2 Calculation data Mode Stop Route Distance (metres) Frequency (vph) Walk Time (mins) SWT (mins) TAT (mins) EDF Weight AI Bus HAMMERSMITH BUS STATION 10 424.4 4.5 5.31 8.67 13.97 2.15 0.5 1.07 Bus HAMMERSMITH BUS STATION 295 424.4 7.5 5.31 6 11.31 2.65 0.5 1.33 Bus HAMMERSMITH BUS STATION 220 424.4 9 5.31 5.33 10.64 2.82 0.5 1.41 Bus HAMMERSMITH BUS STATION 209 424.4 13.33 5.31 4.25 9.56 3.14 0.5 1.57 Bus HAMMERSMITH BUS STATION 72 424.4 7.5 5.31 6 11.31 2.65 0.5 1.33 Bus HAMMERSMITH BUS STATION 9 424.4 12 5.31 4.5 9.81 3.06 0.5 1.53 Bus HAMMERSMITH BUS STATION 211 424.4 8 5.31 5.75 11.06 2.71 0.5 1.36 Bus HAMMERSMITH BUS STATION 33 424.4 7.5 5.31 6 11.31 2.65 0.5 1.33 Bus HAMMERSMITH BUS STATION 419 424.4 4 5.31 9.5 14.81 2.03 0.5 1.01 Bus HAMMERSMITH BUS STATION 485 424.4 2 5.31 17 22.31 1.34 0.5 0.67 Bus HAMMERSMITH BUS STATION 283 424.4 7.5 5.31 6 11.31 2.65 0.5 1.33 Bus HAMMERSMITH MET STATION 266 254.18 7.5 3.18 6 9.18 3.27 0.5 1.63 Bus HAMMERSMITH MET STATION 190 254.18 4 3.18 9.5 12.68 2.37 0.5 1.18 Bus HAMMERSMITH MET STATION 391 254.18 6 3.18 7 10.18 2.95 0.5 1.47 Bus HAMMERSMITH MET STATION 27 254.18 8 3.18 5.75 8.93 3.36 0.5 1.68 Bus HAMMERSMITH GROVE STAND 267 105.31 6 1.32 7 8.32 3.61 1 3.61 Bus HAMMERSMITH GROVE STAND H91 105.31 6 1.32 7 8.32 3.61 0.5 1.8 LUL Hammersmith 'Upminster-EalingBwy ' 334.93 5 4.19 6.75 10.94 2.74 0.5 1.37 LUL Hammersmith 'EalingBwy-TowerHill ' 334.93 0.33 4.19 91.66 95.85 0.31 0.5 0.16 LUL Hammersmith 'EalingBwy-Barking ' 334.93 1.33 4.19 23.31 27.49 1.09 0.5 0.55 LUL Hammersmith 'Upminster-Richmond ' 334.93 6 4.19 5.75 9.94 3.02 0.5 1.51 LUL Hammersmith 'Richmond-DagEast ' 334.93 0.67 4.19 45.53 49.71 0.6 0.5 0.3 LUL Hammersmith 'DagEast-EalingBwy ' 334.93 0.67 4.19 45.53 49.71 0.6 0.5 0.3 LUL Hammersmith 'EalingBwy-HighStrKen' 334.93 0.33 4.19 91.66 95.85 0.31 0.5 0.16 LUL Hammersmith 'Cockfosters-LHRT4LT ' 334.93 4.67 4.19 7.17 11.36 2.64 0.5 1.32 LUL Hammersmith 'RayLane-Cockfosters ' 334.93 3.67 4.19 8.92 13.11 2.29 0.5 1.14 LUL Hammersmith 'LHRT4LT-ArnosGrove ' 334.93 4.67 4.19 7.17 11.36 2.64 0.5 1.32 LUL Hammersmith 'ArnosGrove-RayLane ' 334.93 0.33 4.19 91.66 95.85 0.31 0.5 0.16 LUL Hammersmith 'ArnosGrove-Nthfields' 334.93 3 4.19 10.75 14.94 2.01 0.5 1 LUL Hammersmith 'Oakwood-RayLane ' 334.93 0.33 4.19 91.66 95.85 0.31 0.5 0.16 LUL Hammersmith 'Nthfields-Cockfoster' 334.93 1 4.19 30.75 34.94 0.86 0.5 0.43 LUL Hammersmith 'LHRT5-Cockfosters ' 334.93 6 4.19 5.75 9.94 3.02 0.5 1.51 LUL Hammersmith 'Uxbridge-Cockfosters' 334.93 3.67 4.19 8.92 13.11 2.29 0.5 1.14 LUL Hammersmith 'Ruislip-Cockfosters ' 334.93 2.33 4.19 13.63 17.81 1.68 0.5 0.84 LUL Hammersmith 'ArnosGrove-Uxbridge ' 334.93 1 4.19 30.75 34.94 0.86 0.5 0.43 LUL Hammersmith 'Oakwood-Uxbridge ' 334.93 0.33 4.19 91.66 95.85 0.31 0.5 0.16 LUL Hammersmith 'Oakwood-Ruislip ' 334.93 0.33 4.19 91.66 95.85 0.31 0.5 0.16 LUL Hammersmith 'Hammersmith-Edgware ' 247.25 6 3.09 5.75 8.84 3.39 0.5 1.7 LUL Hammersmith 'Barking-Hammersmith ' 247.25 6.34 3.09 5.48 8.57 3.5 1 3.5 LUL Hammersmith 'Hammersmith-Plaistow' 247.25 1 3.09 30.75 33.84 0.89 0.5 0.44 Total Grid Cell AI: 45.08
Copyright TfL 2020 2 / 2 APPENDIX D – STAYCITY FOOD DELIVERY SURVEY
54
APPENDIX C – FOOD DELIVERY SURVEY
Project 26-28 Hammersmith Grove
Report Title Appendix – Food Delivery Survey
Date 21/12/2020
1. Introduction
1.1 This note sets out the methodology used to identify the potential impact of food/takeaway deliveries to the hotel development proposal on the residential amenity of properties located immediately to the west of the site, on Hammersmith Grove. 1.2 The following comment (point 15.18) was included within the report for a previous planning application for the site and raises the Planning Officer’s concerns regarding the potential impact of taxis and app-based food delivery services: “Crucially, the analysis completely overlooks one of the biggest changes in transport patterns over the last 8-10 years since the time of the 2011 census / 2008 Shoreditch surveys; which is the now-ubiquitous use of Uber (launched in London in 2012) or other app-based taxi hailing services. App-based food delivery services such as Deliveroo and Uber Eats are also new within the last five years and have made food delivery either by cycle or motorcycle considerably more prevalent than previously. It is noted that, given the lack of a restaurant or food service within the hotel itself, guests may be more inclined to order in food from a delivery service. Neither of these significant developments which stand to dramatically influence trip generation have been accounted for in the analysis of trip generation or mode share. Officers consider that the number of guests arriving by taxi is likely to be considerably higher than the 3% suggested. For these reasons it is considered that the suggested mode share is not considered to provide a clear or reliable indicator of the types of trip that would be generated by the development”. 1.3 It is noted that this comment covers concerns regarding taxi trips and prepared food deliveries by bicycle / motorcycle. This note specifically looks to address concerns regarding prepared food deliveries by bicycle / motorcycle. 1.4 It should be noted that this exercise represents a robust sensitivity analysis and potentially overestimates trips to the development proposal. The core trip generation established using TRICS is based upon surveys of an existing operational hotel. Consequently, food delivery trips would already be taken account of as part of this method. Notwithstanding this, the following exercise provides a basis for adding specific food delivery trips to the trip generation and identifying this activity.
2. App-Based Food Delivery Services
2.1 Initial desk-based research into app-based food delivery services (primarily Uber Eats and Deliveroo) available to people staying / visiting the hotel was undertaken in January 2020. 2.2 As might be expected, this confirmed that at the time of the survey, both Deliveroo and Uber Eats serve 26-28 Hammersmith Grove
1
2.3 Both Deliveroo and Uber Eats indicate within their apps popular local restaurants available to serve the site. Upon going to the restaurants page, it also indicates their closing times. 2.4 Table 1 illustrates the top ten restaurants that serve Hammersmith Grove, alongside their closing times.
Table 1: Uber Eats / Deliveroo Restaurants Serving Hammersmith Grove
Restaurant Closing Time
Nandos 22:30
Pizza Express 23:00
Wagamama 22:55
The Grove 22:15
Itsu 22:00
Magnus Burger 22:00
Chicken Kitchen 23:00
Five Guys 23:00
Joe and Co. 23:15
Wing Wing 23:00
2.5 The survey indicates that the most popular restaurants close between 22:30 – 23:00 in the evenings. As such, the options available to those using the apps would be limited after this time, but it is acknowledge that some establishments may still be open.
3. Hotel Food Delivery Data
3.1 It was initially planned to undertake surveys of bicycle / motorcycle food deliveries at London StayCity Aparthotels, which operate in a similar manner to the proposed Aparthotel. The surveys were unable to be undertaken due to Covid-19 as they are unlikely to be representative of this activity during normal operations. 3.2 As an alternative source of data, anecdotal information / data pre-Covid-19 was requested from StayCity hotels. The pro-forma sent to obtain this information is presented at the rear of this document. 3.3 The use of anecdotal data in place of site surveys was agreed with the transport planner at LBHF in recognition of the COVID 19 implications. 3.4 As such, a survey was sent to hotel managers of four StayCity-operated Aparthotels within London, including:
• Wilde Covent Garden (11 Adam street, Charing Cross, WC2N 6AA) • Greenwich (65 Greenwich High Road, SE10 8JL) • Deptford (18-20 Deptford Bridge, SE8 4HH) • Heathrow (Highpoint Village, Station Approach, Hayes, UB3 4FL)
2
3.5 All of the Staycity Aparthotels used for survey information are located within a short walk of a local town centre with a large food-retail offering and are served by app-based food delivery services. As such they were all seen as relevant and comparable to the aparthotel proposals on Hammersmith Grove. 3.6 The survey sent to hotel managers asked for the following information:
• Number of bedrooms • ‘Normal’ occupancy rates (e.g. excluding Christmas, Easter etc.) • Food delivery estimates during the evening between Monday – Thursday and • Food delivery estimates during the evening between Friday – Sunday. Food-delivery arrivals • Hourly food delivery arrivals during the evening including a percentage of when these took place. • Mode of travel for deliveries taking place (on-foot, by bicycle, moped / motorcycle and car) • the location where these deliveries took place (frontage, side access etc) 3.7 This information is based on existing operational and comparable site uses and is obtained from persons with direct experience of the activities in question. As such the results provide a suitable data source to be applied to the proposals at 26-28 Hammersmith Grove.
SURVEY RESULTS
3.8 Table 2 indicates the number of occupiable bedrooms pre-Covid-19 for each Aparthotel, alongside an average occupation rate for a normal time period / season.
Table 2: Aparthotel Bedrooms and Typical Occupation %
Aparthotel Bedrooms Occupation %
Wilde Covent Garden 101 85% Greenwich 68 80% Deptford 98 80% Heathrow 267 88%
3.9 Greenwich and Deptford Staycity Aparthotels are managed together; thus, the food-delivery survey data received combines both Aparthotels. 3.10 No Aparthotels recorded receiving deliveries by on-foot, or by car which confirms that these deliveries are predominantly undertaken by moped / bicycle. 3.11 The Aparthotels recorded food-deliveries taking place via the following locations / areas:
• Covent Garden: Footway outside • Greenwich / Deptford: Drop-off bay located outside reception • Heathrow: Drop-off bay located outside reception
3
Delivery trips 3.12 Table 3 indicates the breakdown of food deliveries, by Aparthotel and vehicle type, for a typical evening during both the week and weekends.
Table 3: Typical Evening Food Deliveries by Bicycle / Moped / Motorcycle
Bicycle Moped / Motorcycle Day of Week Covent Greenwich Covent Greenwich Heathrow Heathrow Garden / Deptford Garden / Deptford Mon – Thu 2 2-3 12 1 4 35 Fri – Sun 4 4-5 18 1 9 45 Whole Week 3 3.5 15 1 6.5 40
3.13 Table 3 illustrates that generally a greater number of food deliveries took place on Friday, Saturday and Sunday evenings compared to Monday – Thursday evenings. 3.14 Greenwich / Deptford and Heathrow recorded receiving more food deliveries via moped / motorcycle than bicycle, whilst Covent Garden recorded less. 3.15 Heathrow recorded a much greater number of food-deliveries by both modes compared to the other Aparthotels. This can be partly attributed due to it having 2.5 – 3 times the number of bedrooms and a slightly higher average occupancy rate. Time periods 3.16 Figure 1 illustrates the hourly time periods when food-deliveries took place, as a percentage of one evening, for Monday – Thursday evenings.
Figure 1: Food Deliveries Monday – Thursday Evenings
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0% 17:00 – 18:00 – 19:00 – 20:00 – 21:00 – 22:00 – 23:00 – 00:00 – 01:00 or 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00 00:00 01:00 later
Covent Garden Green / Dept Heathrow
3.17 Figure 1 demonstrates that all Aparthotels recorded a peak arrival of food deliveries between 19:00 – 20:00 and dropping off later into the evening. A very low percentage of deliveries were recorded to take place after 23:00. 3.18 Figure 2 illustrates the hourly time periods when food-deliveries took place, as a percentage of one evening, for Friday – Sunday evenings.
4
Figure 2: Food Deliveries Friday – Sunday Evenings
45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 17:00 – 18:00 – 19:00 – 20:00 – 21:00 – 22:00 – 23:00 – 00:00 – 01:00 or 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00 00:00 01:00 later
Covent Garden Green / Dept Heathrow
3.19 Figure 2 demonstrates that the Covent Garden and Greenwich / Deptford Aparthotels recorded a slightly later peak of food deliveries of between 20:00 – 21:00 and Heathrow 21:00 – 22:00 when compared to weekday deliveries. A small number of deliveries were recorded to occur later in the evenings, between 23:00 – 01:00. 3.20 Figure 3 indicates the average arrival times for both Monday – Thursday and Friday – Sunday across all of the Aparthotel sites.
Figure 3: Average Food Delivery Arrivals
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0% 17:00 – 18:00 – 19:00 – 20:00 – 21:00 – 22:00 – 23:00 – 00:00 – 01:00 or 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00 00:00 01:00 later
Monday - Thursday Friday - Sunday
3.21 This demonstrates that across the week the majority of food-deliveries took place between 19:00 – 21:00 across all the surveyed Aparthotels, with a low number recorded during the late evenings.
5
4. Summary
4.1 This Staycity Aparthotel survey, undertaken by hotel managers at London Staycity hotels, provides indicative information for the arrival patterns of app-based food deliveries by bicycle and moped / motorcycle. 4.2 Generally, a slightly-higher number of mopeds / motorcycles than bicycles were recorded undertaking food deliveries. 4.3 A higher number of food-deliveries was recorded to take place on Friday – Sunday evenings compared to Monday – Thursdays 4.4 The peak arrivals for food-deliveries across the week occurred between 19:00 – 20:00. 4.5 The data analysed for this survey has been subsequently utilised to forecast the number of app- based food deliveries that could be expected to arrive to the proposed Aparthotel at 26-28 Hammersmith Grove. These forecasts will be detailed within the Development Proposals section of the Transport Assessment.
6
Project & Document Details
Project Name 26-28 Hammersmith Grove
Project Number 356
Document Title Prepared Food Delivery Survey
Document History
Issue Status Reason for Issue Issued to
Turleys, Adams 1.0 Draft For Comment Consulting
2.0 Final For Submission LBHF
Issue Control
Authorisation Issue Date Author Contributors Name Signature
0.1 21/08/20 JDr DM DM
2.0 13/11/20 JDr DM DM
7
APPENDIX E – CASUALTY DATA
55
Date: 04 DEC 2018 14:46 Interpreted Listing Page: 1 of 1 (summary)
Hammersmith Grove route sections: Collisions - 3 years to 31-March-2018 (provisional) Summary of Accidents Selected Site Reference and Description (zero accident counts shown in bold) Date Period Accidents B11HAMGROV.001 NODE 74 (HAMMERSMITH GROVE/GLENTHORNE RD) 36 MTS TO MAR-2018 1 B11HAMGROV.002 LINK 74-84 (HAMMERSMITH GROVE) 36 MTS TO MAR-2018 5 B11HAMGROV.003 NODE 84 (HAMMERSMITH GROVE/GOLDHAWK RD) 36 MTS TO MAR-2018 3 B11HAMGROV.004 LINK 83-84 (GOLDHAWK RD) EAST OF 522859 36 MTS TO MAR-2018 3 B11HAMGROV.005 LINK 84-88 (GOLDHAWK ROAD) WEST OF 522859 36 MTS TO MAR-2018 0 B11HAMGROV.006 LINK 74-80 (GLENTHORNE ROAD) 36 MTS TO MAR-2018 0 B11HAMGROV.007 NODE 80 (GLENTHORNE ROAD/BEADON ROAD) 36 MTS TO MAR-2018 3 B11HAMGROV.008 LINK 73-80 (GLENTHORNE RD) 36 MTS TO MAR-2018 5 B11HAMGROV.009 NODE 73 (GLENTHORNE RD/STUDLAND ST) 36 MTS TO MAR-2018 2 B11HAMGROV.010 LINK 61-73 (STUDLAND ST) 36 MTS TO MAR-2018 2 B11HAMGROV.011 NODE 61 (KING ST/STUDLAND ST) 36 MTS TO MAR-2018 9 B11HAMGROV.012 LINK 61-62 (KING ST) 36 MTS TO MAR-2018 22 B11HAMGROV.013 NODE 62 (KING STREET/HAMMERSMITH GROVE) 36 MTS TO MAR-2018 0 B11HAMGROV.014 LINK 74-75 (HAMMERSMITH GROVE) 36 MTS TO MAR-2018 0 B11HAMGROV.015 NODE 75 (BEADON RD/HAMMERSMITH GROVE) 36 MTS TO MAR-2018 0 B11HAMGROV.016 LINK 75-80 (BEADON RD) 36 MTS TO MAR-2018 0 B11HAMGROV.017 LINK 63-75 (BEADON ROAD) 36 MTS TO MAR-2018 1 B11HAMGROV.018 NODE 63 (KING ST/HAMMERSMITH BROADWAY) 36 MTS TO MAR-2018 12 B11HAMGROV.019 LINK 63-64 (HAMMERSMITH BROADWAY) 36 MTS TO MAR-2018 0 B11HAMGROV.020 NODE 64 (SHEPHERDS BUSH RD/HAMMERSMITH BROADWAY) 36 MTS TO MAR-2018 9 B11HAMGROV.021 LINK 64-66 (HAMMERSMITH ROAD) 36 MTS TO MAR-2018 0 B11HAMGROV.022 NODE 66 (BUTTERWICK/HAMMERSMITH RD) 36 MTS TO MAR-2018 6 B11HAMGROV.023 LINK 64-86 (SHEPHERDS BUSH ROAD) 36 MTS TO MAR-2018 21 B11HAMGROV.024 NODE 86 (SHEPHERDS BUSH ROAD/BROOK GREEN(N SIDE)) 36 MTS TO MAR-2018 1 B11HAMGROV.025 LINK 70-86 (SHEPHERDS BUSH ROAD) SOUTH OF 179185 36 MTS TO MAR-2018 2
The description of how the accident occurred and the contributory factors are the reporting officer's opinion at the time of reporting and may not be the result of extensive investigation
DHARMARAJM LAAU - Accident Analysis System RACCM28INTL Date: 04 DEC 2018 14:46 Interpreted Listing Page: 1 of 47
Hammersmith Grove route sections: Collisions - 3 years to 31-March-2018 (provisional)
B11HAMGROV.001 NODE 74 (HAMMERSMITH GROVE/GLENTHORNE RD) 36 MTS TO MAR-2018 SORTED BY DATE 1 01170014598 THU 12/01/17 18:00 DARK HAMMERSMITH GROVE J/W GLENTHORNE ROAD 11 NODE 74 523230/ / 178780 SELF COMPLETION ROAD-WET RAINING ONE-WAY ST T/STAG JUN GIVE WAY/UNCONT NO XING FACILITY IN 50M NOT KNOWN HOW COLLISION OCCURRED CASUALTY 001 (002) (60 Yrs - M W12 ) SLIGHT DRIVER/RIDER VEHICLE 001 (000) CAR (26 Yrs - M W6 ) TURNING RIGHT W TO S JCT MID x BT - NOT REQUESTED FRONT HIT FIRST
VEHICLE 002 (000) PEDAL CYCLE (60 Yrs - M W12 ) GOING AHEAD OTHER N TO S COMM TO/FROM WORK JCT MID BT - NOT APPLICABLE O/S HIT FIRST
End of Accidents for B11HAMGROV.001 NODE 74 (HAMMERSMITH GROVE/GLENTHORNE RD)
DHARMARAJM LAAU - Accident Analysis System RACCM28INTL Date: 04 DEC 2018 14:46 Interpreted Listing Page: 2 of 47
Hammersmith Grove route sections: Collisions - 3 years to 31-March-2018 (provisional)
B11HAMGROV.002 LINK 74-84 (HAMMERSMITH GROVE) 36 MTS TO MAR-2018 SORTED BY DATE 1 0115FH10155 FRI 03/04/15 23:00 DARK HAMMERSMITH GROVE 75M NORTH J/W GLENTHORNE ROAD 11 LINK 74-84 523210/ / 178850 POLICE - AT SCENE ROAD-WET RAINING SINGLE CWY PRIV DRIVE GIVE WAY/UNCONT NO XING FACILITY IN 50M V1 WAS PULLING OUT OF PRIV ENT & WAS STATIONARY @ GIVE WAY LINE V2 WAS BRAKING & LOST CONTROL ON WET ROAD & SLID INTO V1 CASUALTY 001 (002) (44 Yrs - F SW16) SLIGHT DRIVER/RIDER VEHICLE 001 (002) CAR (40 Yrs - M W12 ) WAITING TO TURN RIGHT E TO N JCT MID x BT - NOT REQUESTED N/S HIT FIRST
VEHICLE 002 (001) M/C 50-125CC (44 Yrs - F SW16) GOING AHEAD OTHER S TO N JCT MID BT - NOT PROVD (MEDCL REASONS) FRONT HIT FIRST
V002 A 103 (SLIPPERY ROAD (DUE TO WEATHER)) V002 A 410 (LOSS OF CONTROL) V002 A 408 (SUDDEN BRAKING) V002 A 405 (FAILED TO LOOK PROPERLY) V002 A 603 (NERVOUS/UNCERTAIN/ PANIC)
2 01170022631 FRI 03/03/17 08:20 LIGHT TRUSSLEY ROAD J/W HAMMERSMITH GROVE 11 LINK 74-84 523140/ / 179160 POLICE - AT SCENE ROAD-DRY WEATHER-FINE SINGLE CWY T/STAG JUN GIVE WAY/UNCONT NO XING FACILITY IN 50M NOT KNOWN HOW COLLISION OCCURRED CASUALTY 001 (001) (72 Yrs - F W14 ) SERIOUS DRIVER/RIDER VEHICLE 001 (000) PEDAL CYCLE (72 Yrs - F W14 ) GOING AHEAD OTHER E TO W JNY PART OF WORK JCT APP x BT - NOT APPLICABLE DID NOT IMPACT LEFT CWY NEARSIDE HIT KERB VEHICLE 002 (000) CAR (? Yrs - U ) SLOWING OR STOPPING E TO W JCT APP BT - DRV NOT CONTACTED DID NOT IMPACT
V001 A 308 (FOLLOWING TOO CLOSE) V002 A 403 (POOR TURN OR MANOEUVRE) V002 A 405 (FAILED TO LOOK PROPERLY)
DHARMARAJM LAAU - Accident Analysis System RACCM28INTL Date: 04 DEC 2018 14:46 Interpreted Listing Page: 3 of 47
Hammersmith Grove route sections: Collisions - 3 years to 31-March-2018 (provisional)
B11HAMGROV.002 LINK 74-84 (HAMMERSMITH GROVE) 36 MTS TO MAR-2018 SORTED BY DATE 3 01170064453 FRI 13/10/17 21:26 DARK HAMMERSMITH GROVE 50M N OF J/W RICHFORD STREET 11 LINK 74-84 523110/ / 179230 POLICE - AT SCENE ROAD-DRY WEATHER-FINE SINGLE CWY NO JUN IN 20M NO XING FACILITY IN 50M NOT KNOWN HOW COLLISION OCCURRED CASUALTY 001 (001) (59 Yrs - F W12 ) SLIGHT PASSENGER BACK SEAT VEHICLE 001 (000) CAR (35 Yrs - M W12 ) GOING AHEAD OTHER E TO W x BT - NOT REQUESTED BACK HIT FIRST LEFT CWY NEARSIDE VEHICLE 002 (000) CAR (20 Yrs - M NW10) OVERTAKE MOVE VEH O/S E TO W BT - NEGATIVE N/S HIT FIRST
VEHICLE 003 (000) CAR (38 Yrs - M SW16) GOING AHEAD OTHER S TO N BT - NOT REQUESTED FRONT HIT FIRST
V002 A 406 (FAILED TO JUDGE OTHER PERSON'S PATH OR SPEED) V002 A 601 (AGGRESSIVE DRIVING) V002 A 602 (CARELESS/RECKLESS/IN A HURRY)
4 01170066221 TUE 24/10/17 10:12 LIGHT HAMMERSMITH GROVE 50M S OF J/W TRUSSLEY ROAD 11 LINK 74-84 523149/ / 179119 POLICE - AT SCENE ROAD-DRY WEATHER-FINE SINGLE CWY NO JUN IN 20M NO XING FACILITY IN 50M NOT KNOWN HOW COLLISION OCCURRED CASUALTY 001 (002) (21 Yrs - M W12 ) SLIGHT DRIVER/RIDER VEHICLE 001 (000) CAR (? Yrs - U ) PARKED P TO P x BT - DRV NOT CONTACTED O/S HIT FIRST HIT PARKED VEH VEHICLE 002 (000) PEDAL CYCLE (21 Yrs - M W12 ) OVERTAKE STAT VEH O/S N TO S COMM TO/FROM WORK BT - NOT APPLICABLE FRONT HIT FIRST HIT PARKED VEH V002 A 710 (VISION AFFECTED - VEHICLE BLIND SPOT)
DHARMARAJM LAAU - Accident Analysis System RACCM28INTL Date: 04 DEC 2018 14:46 Interpreted Listing Page: 4 of 47
Hammersmith Grove route sections: Collisions - 3 years to 31-March-2018 (provisional)
B11HAMGROV.002 LINK 74-84 (HAMMERSMITH GROVE) 36 MTS TO MAR-2018 SORTED BY DATE 5 01170073843 WED 29/11/17 19:10 DARK HAMMERSMITH GROVE J/W ADIE ROAD W6 11 LINK 74-84 523160/ / 179080 POLICE - AT SCENE ROAD-DRY WEATHER-OTHER SINGLE CWY OTHER JUN GIVE WAY/UNCONT NO XING FACILITY IN 50M NOT KNOWN HOW COLLISION OCCURRED CASUALTY 001 (001) (29 Yrs - M W12 ) SLIGHT DRIVER/RIDER VEHICLE 001 (000) M/C 50-125CC (29 Yrs - M W12 ) OVERTAKE MOVE VEH O/S N TO S JCT APP x BT - NOT REQUESTED SKIDDED FRONT HIT FIRST
VEHICLE 002 (000) CAR (29 Yrs - M SW16) TURNING RIGHT N TO W JCT APP BT - NOT REQUESTED O/S HIT FIRST
V002 B 403 (POOR TURN OR MANOEUVRE)
End of Accidents for B11HAMGROV.002 LINK 74-84 (HAMMERSMITH GROVE)
DHARMARAJM LAAU - Accident Analysis System RACCM28INTL Date: 04 DEC 2018 14:46 Interpreted Listing Page: 5 of 47
Hammersmith Grove route sections: Collisions - 3 years to 31-March-2018 (provisional)
B11HAMGROV.003 NODE 84 (HAMMERSMITH GROVE/GOLDHAWK RD) 36 MTS TO MAR-2018 SORTED BY DATE 1 01160004227 WED 30/11/16 08:20 LIGHT GOLDHAWK ROAD J/W HAMMERSMITH GROVE 11 NODE 84 523030/ / 179590 POLICE - AT SCENE ROAD-WET WEATHER-FINE SINGLE CWY T/STAG JUN AUTO SIG PEDN PHASE AT ATS NOT KNOWN HOW COLLISION OCCURRED CASUALTY 001 (002) (16 Yrs - M W2 ) SLIGHT DRIVER/RIDER JOURNEY TO/FROM SCHOOL Sch Attended : KEW SCHOOL x VEHICLE 001 (000) CAR (22 Yrs - M W11 ) TURNING LEFT NE TO SE COMM TO/FROM WORK JCT MID BT - NOT REQUESTED DID NOT IMPACT
VEHICLE 002 (000) M/C <= 50CC (16 Yrs - M W2 ) GOING AHEAD OTHER NE TO SW PUPIL RIDING TO/FROM SCH JCT MID BT - NOT REQUESTED DID NOT IMPACT
V002 B 605 (INEXPERIENCED OR LEARNER DRIVER/RIDER) V001 B 404 (FAILED TO SIGNAL/ MISLEADING SIGNAL)
2 01170022994 SAT 04/03/17 17:10 DARK GOLDHAWK ROAD J/W HAMMERSMITH GROVE 11 NODE 84 523030/ / 179590 POLICE - AT SCENE ROAD-DRY WEATHER-FINE SINGLE CWY T/STAG JUN AUTO SIG PEDN PHASE AT ATS NOT KNOWN HOW COLLISION OCCURRED CASUALTY 001 (002) (47 Yrs - F RG12) SERIOUS PASSENGER FRONT SEAT VEHICLE 001 (000) CAR (40 Yrs - F W12 ) GOING AHEAD OTHER NE TO SW JCT MID x BT - NEGATIVE FRONT HIT FIRST
VEHICLE 002 (000) CAR (49 Yrs - M RG12) TURNING RIGHT SW TO S JCT MID BT - NOT REQUESTED O/S HIT FIRST
V002 B 403 (POOR TURN OR MANOEUVRE)
DHARMARAJM LAAU - Accident Analysis System RACCM28INTL Date: 04 DEC 2018 14:46 Interpreted Listing Page: 6 of 47
Hammersmith Grove route sections: Collisions - 3 years to 31-March-2018 (provisional)
B11HAMGROV.003 NODE 84 (HAMMERSMITH GROVE/GOLDHAWK RD) 36 MTS TO MAR-2018 SORTED BY DATE 3 01180086181 SAT 27/01/18 14:38 LIGHT GOLDHAWK ROAD 15M E OF J/W HAMMERSMITH GROVE 11 NODE 84 523060/ / 179600 POLICE - AT SCENE ROAD-WET RAINING SINGLE CWY T/STAG JUN AUTO SIG PEDN PHASE AT ATS OTH AUTH PER NOT KNOWN HOW COLLISION OCCURRED CASUALTY 001 (001) (29 Yrs - F SW11) SLIGHT DRIVER/RIDER VEHICLE 001 (000) M/C 50-125CC (29 Yrs - F SW11) OVERTAKING NEARSIDE E TO W JCT APP x BT - NOT REQUESTED O/S HIT FIRST
VEHICLE 002 (000) CAR (42 Yrs - M W6 ) SLOWING OR STOPPING E TO W JCT APP BT - NOT REQUESTED BACK HIT FIRST
V001 B 707 (VISION AFFECTED - RAIN, SLEET, SNOW, OR FOG)
End of Accidents for B11HAMGROV.003 NODE 84 (HAMMERSMITH GROVE/GOLDHAWK RD)
DHARMARAJM LAAU - Accident Analysis System RACCM28INTL Date: 04 DEC 2018 14:46 Interpreted Listing Page: 7 of 47
Hammersmith Grove route sections: Collisions - 3 years to 31-March-2018 (provisional)
B11HAMGROV.004 LINK 83-84 (GOLDHAWK RD) EAST OF 522859 36 MTS TO MAR-2018 SORTED BY DATE 1 0116FH10107 MON 15/02/16 21:29 DARK GOLDHAWK ROAD J/W SYCAMORE GARDENS 11 LINK 83-84 522930/ / 179560 POLICE - AT SCENE ROAD-DRY WEATHER-FINE SINGLE CWY T/STAG JUN GIVE WAY/UNCONT NO XING FACILITY IN 50M W/B V1 MOVED LEFT INTO N/S LANE TO UNDERTAKE TRAFFIC AHEAD, SHUNTED W/B V2 ALREADY IN N/S LANE CASUALTY 001 (002) (28 Yrs - M W3 ) SLIGHT DRIVER/RIDER VEHICLE 001 (002) CAR (38 Yrs - M TW7 ) CHANGE LANE TO LEFT NE TO SW JCT MID x BT - NOT REQUESTED N/S HIT FIRST
VEHICLE 002 (001) PEDAL CYCLE (28 Yrs - M W3 ) GOING AHEAD OTHER NE TO SW JCT MID BT - NOT APPLICABLE BACK HIT FIRST
V001 A 403 (POOR TURN OR MANOEUVRE) V001 A 405 (FAILED TO LOOK PROPERLY) V001 A 406 (FAILED TO JUDGE OTHER PERSON'S PATH OR SPEED)
2 0116FH10262 MON 16/05/16 11:52 LIGHT GOLDHAWK ROAD J/W SYCAMORE GARDENS 11 LINK 83-84 522920/ / 179560 POLICE - AT SCENE ROAD-DRY WEATHER-FINE SINGLE CWY T/STAG JUN GIVE WAY/UNCONT NO XING FACILITY IN 50M RIDER ON V2 RODE OUT OF SIDE ROAD & COLLIDED WITH PASSING V1 & THEN FELL OFF CASUALTY 001 (002) (34 Yrs - M W12 ) SLIGHT DRIVER/RIDER VEHICLE 001 (002) GDS =< 3.5T (51 Yrs - M W6 ) GOING AHEAD OTHER NE TO SW JNY PART OF WORK JCT MID x BT - NEGATIVE N/S HIT FIRST
VEHICLE 002 (001) PEDAL CYCLE (34 Yrs - M W12 ) TURNING LEFT SE TO SW JCT MID BT - NOT APPLICABLE FRONT HIT FIRST
V002 A 302 (DISOBEYED GIVE WAY OR STOP SIGN OR MARKINGS) V002 A 403 (POOR TURN OR MANOEUVRE) V002 A 405 (FAILED TO LOOK PROPERLY) V002 A 406 (FAILED TO JUDGE OTHER PERSON'S PATH OR SPEED) V002 A 602 (CARELESS/RECKLESS/IN A HURRY)
DHARMARAJM LAAU - Accident Analysis System RACCM28INTL Date: 04 DEC 2018 14:46 Interpreted Listing Page: 8 of 47
Hammersmith Grove route sections: Collisions - 3 years to 31-March-2018 (provisional)
B11HAMGROV.004 LINK 83-84 (GOLDHAWK RD) EAST OF 522859 36 MTS TO MAR-2018 SORTED BY DATE 3 0116FH10387 SAT 23/07/16 14:05 LIGHT GOLDHAWK ROAD J/W ST STEPHEN'S AVENUE 11 LINK 83-84 522880/ / 179550 POLICE - AT SCENE ROAD-DRY WEATHER-FINE DUAL CWY T/STAG JUN GIVE WAY/UNCONT NO XING FACILITY IN 50M TRAFFIC STOPPED TO LET V1 TURN RIGHT V2 WAS ON N/S OF TRAFFIC & COLLIDED WITH TURNING V1 & FELL OFF CASUALTY 001 (002) (19 Yrs - M W6 ) SLIGHT DRIVER/RIDER VEHICLE 001 (002) CAR (23 Yrs - F SE15) TURNING RIGHT NE TO NW JCT MID x BT - NOT REQUESTED FRONT HIT FIRST
VEHICLE 002 (001) M/C 50-125CC (19 Yrs - M W6 ) OVERTAKING NEARSIDE SW TO NE JNY PART OF WORK JCT MID BT - NOT REQUESTED FRONT HIT FIRST
V001 A 701 (VISION AFFECTED - STATIONARY OR PARKED VEHICLE(S)) V001 A 405 (FAILED TO LOOK PROPERLY) V001 A 406 (FAILED TO JUDGE OTHER PERSON'S PATH OR SPEED) V002 A 405 (FAILED TO LOOK PROPERLY) V002 A 406 (FAILED TO JUDGE OTHER PERSON'S PATH OR SPEED) V002 A 701 (VISION AFFECTED - STATIONARY OR PARKED VEHICLE(S))
End of Accidents for B11HAMGROV.004 LINK 83-84 (GOLDHAWK RD) EAST OF 522859
DHARMARAJM LAAU - Accident Analysis System RACCM28INTL Date: 04 DEC 2018 14:46 Interpreted Listing Page: 9 of 47
Hammersmith Grove route sections: Collisions - 3 years to 31-March-2018 (provisional)
B11HAMGROV.007 NODE 80 (GLENTHORNE ROAD/BEADON ROAD) 36 MTS TO MAR-2018 SORTED BY DATE 1 0115FH10211 WED 08/04/15 07:47 LIGHT BEADON ROAD 20M SOUTH EAST J/W GLENTHORNE ROAD 11 NODE 80 523160/ / 178740 POLICE - AT SCENE ROAD-DRY WEATHER-FINE SINGLE CWY CROSSROADS GIVE WAY/UNCONT NO XING FACILITY IN 50M V1 HAD JUST TURNED RIGHT WHEN PED RAN INTO ROAD & COLLIDED WITH N/S OF V1 CASUALTY 001 (001) (33 Yrs - M E16 ) SLIGHT PEDESTRIAN CROSSING ROAD (NOT ON XING) SW BOUND FROM DRIVERS N/SIDE VEHICLE 001 (000) BUS/COACH (62 Yrs - M TW8 ) TURNING RIGHT W TO SE JCT CLEARED x BT - NOT REQUESTED FRONT HIT FIRST
C001 A 802 (FAILED TO LOOK PROPERLY) C001 A 803 (FAILED TO JUDGE VEHICLE'S PATH OR SPEED) C001 A 808 (CARELESS/RECKLESS/IN A HURRY)
2 01160019933 THU 08/09/16 04:55 DARK ON GLENTHORNE ROAD, NEAR THE JUNCTION WITH OVERSTONE ROAD. 11 NODE 80 523140/ / 178760 POLICE - AT SCENE ROAD-DRY WEATHER-FINE ONE-WAY ST MULTI JUN GIVE WAY/UNCONT ZEBRA E/B V2 CHANGED LANE TO LEFT, CLIPPED V1 CLOSE AHEAD, HIT KERB AND LAMPOST, OVERTURNED CASUALTY 001 (001) (49 Yrs - M HA55) SLIGHT DRIVER/RIDER VEHICLE 001 (000) CAR (49 Yrs - M HA55) GOING AHEAD OTHER W TO E JNY PART OF WORK JCT MID x BT - NEGATIVE SKID/OVER O/S HIT FIRST LEFT CWY NEARSIDE HIT KERB HIT RD SIGN/ATS VEHICLE 002 (000) CAR (22 Yrs - M CR05) CHANGE LANE TO LEFT W TO E JNY PART OF WORK JCT MID BT - NEGATIVE N/S HIT FIRST
V001 A 403 (POOR TURN OR MANOEUVRE) V002 A 405 (FAILED TO LOOK PROPERLY)
3 01170040564 WED 31/05/17 10:35 LIGHT GLENTHORNE ROAD J/W OVERSTONE ROAD 11 NODE 80 523150/ / 178760 POLICE - AT SCENE ROAD-DRY WEATHER-FINE ONE-WAY ST CROSSROADS GIVE WAY/UNCONT ZEBRA NOT KNOWN HOW COLLISION OCCURRED CASUALTY 001 (002) (33 Yrs - M W14 ) SERIOUS DRIVER/RIDER VEHICLE 001 (000) GDS =< 3.5T (38 Yrs - M W3 ) GOING AHEAD OTHER W TO E JNY PART OF WORK JCT MID x BT - NOT REQUESTED N/S HIT FIRST
VEHICLE 002 (000) PEDAL CYCLE (33 Yrs - M W14 ) GOING AHEAD OTHER W TO E COMM TO/FROM WORK JCT MID BT - NOT REQUESTED O/S HIT FIRST
V002 A 405 (FAILED TO LOOK PROPERLY) V002 A 406 (FAILED TO JUDGE OTHER PERSON'S PATH OR SPEED)
End of Accidents for B11HAMGROV.007 NODE 80 (GLENTHORNE ROAD/BEADON ROAD)
DHARMARAJM LAAU - Accident Analysis System RACCM28INTL Date: 04 DEC 2018 14:46 Interpreted Listing Page: 10 of 47
Hammersmith Grove route sections: Collisions - 3 years to 31-March-2018 (provisional)
B11HAMGROV.008 LINK 73-80 (GLENTHORNE RD) 36 MTS TO MAR-2018 SORTED BY DATE 1 0115FH10489 WED 09/09/15 16:37 LIGHT GLENTHORNE ROAD J/W LEAMORE STREET 11 LINK 73-80 522980/ / 178760 POLICE - AT SCENE ROAD-DRY WEATHER-FINE SINGLE CWY T/STAG JUN GIVE WAY/UNCONT NO XING FACILITY IN 50M RIDER ON V1 TURNED RIGHT & WAS HIT BY V2 WHO FAILED TO GIVE DETS & D/A CASUALTY 001 (001) (49 Yrs - M CR0 ) SLIGHT DRIVER/RIDER VEHICLE 001 (002) PEDAL CYCLE (49 Yrs - M CR0 ) TURNING RIGHT W TO S JCT MID x BT - NOT APPLICABLE FRONT HIT FIRST
VEHICLE 002 (001) CAR (? Yrs - U UNKN) GOING AHEAD OTHER W TO E JCT MID BT - DRV NOT CONTACTED FRONT HIT FIRST
V001 A 403 (POOR TURN OR MANOEUVRE) V001 A 405 (FAILED TO LOOK PROPERLY) V001 A 406 (FAILED TO JUDGE OTHER PERSON'S PATH OR SPEED) V001 A 602 (CARELESS/RECKLESS/IN A HURRY) V002 A 407 (PASSING TOO CLOSE TO CYCLIST, HORSE RIDER OR PEDESTRIAN) V002 A 405 (FAILED TO LOOK PROPERLY)
2 01170012553 FRI 06/01/17 14:20 LIGHT GLENTHORNE ROAD J/W LAMINGTON STREET 11 LINK 73-80 522790/ / 178760 SELF COMPLETION ROAD-WET RAINING ONE-WAY ST T/STAG JUN GIVE WAY/UNCONT NO XING FACILITY IN 50M UNKNOWN (S/R) NOT KNOWN HOW COLLISION OCCURRED CASUALTY 001 (001) (29 Yrs - M W12 ) SLIGHT DRIVER/RIDER VEHICLE 001 (000) M/C 50-125CC (29 Yrs - M W12 ) GOING AHEAD OTHER W TO E JCT MID x BT - DRV NOT CONTACTED DID NOT IMPACT
VEHICLE 002 (000) CAR (26 Yrs - M W12 ) TURNING RIGHT N TO W JCT MID BT - DRV NOT CONTACTED DID NOT IMPACT UNKNOWN (S/R)
3 01170043409 FRI 16/06/17 19:10 LIGHT GLENTHORNE ROAD J/W CAMBRIDGE GROVE 11 LINK 73-80 522960/ / 178760 POLICE - AT SCENE ROAD-DRY WEATHER-FINE ONE-WAY ST T/STAG JUN GIVE WAY/UNCONT CENTRAL REFUGE NOT KNOWN HOW COLLISION OCCURRED CASUALTY 001 (001) (65 Yrs - F W3 ) SERIOUS PEDESTRIAN CROSSING ROAD WITHIN 50M XING S BOUND FROM DRIVERS N/SIDE VEHICLE 001 (000) TAXI (33 Yrs - M UB2 ) REVERSING E TO W JNY PART OF WORK JCT APP x BT - NOT REQUESTED BACK HIT FIRST
V001 B 405 (FAILED TO LOOK PROPERLY)
DHARMARAJM LAAU - Accident Analysis System RACCM28INTL Date: 04 DEC 2018 14:46 Interpreted Listing Page: 11 of 47
Hammersmith Grove route sections: Collisions - 3 years to 31-March-2018 (provisional)
B11HAMGROV.008 LINK 73-80 (GLENTHORNE RD) 36 MTS TO MAR-2018 SORTED BY DATE 4 01170067101 TUE 19/12/17 10:00 LIGHT GLENTHORNE ROAD 21M E OF J/W GLENTHORNE ROAD THE NEAREST CLASSIFIE 11 LINK 73-80 522920/ / 178760 SELF COMPLETION ROAD-DRY WEATHER-FINE ONE-WAY ST NO JUN IN 20M ZEBRA UNKNOWN (S/R) NOT KNOWN HOW COLLISION OCCURRED CASUALTY 001 (001) (31 Yrs - F W12 ) SLIGHT DRIVER/RIDER VEHICLE 001 (000) PEDAL CYCLE (31 Yrs - F W12 ) UNKNOWN (S/RGOING AHEAD OTHER E TO E x BT - NOT APPLICABLE FRONT HIT FIRST
VEHICLE 002 (000) GDS 3.5-7.5T (? Yrs - M UNKN) UNKNOWN (S/RCHANGE LANE TO LEFT E TO E BT - DRV NOT CONTACTED N/S HIT FIRST
5 01180088657 WED 07/02/18 15:40 LIGHT GLENTHORNE ROAD 5M W OF J/W IFFLEY ROAD 11 LINK 73-80 523020/ / 178760 POLICE - AT SCENE ROAD-DRY WEATHER-FINE SINGLE CWY T/STAG JUN GIVE WAY/UNCONT NO XING FACILITY IN 50M NOT KNOWN HOW COLLISION OCCURRED CASUALTY 001 (001) (84 Yrs - M W6 ) SLIGHT PASSENGER STANDING ON PSV VEHICLE 001 (000) BUS/COACH (28 Yrs - M UNKN) MOVING OFF W TO E JNY PART OF WORK JCT MID x BT - NOT REQUESTED DID NOT IMPACT
V001 B 408 (SUDDEN BRAKING)
End of Accidents for B11HAMGROV.008 LINK 73-80 (GLENTHORNE RD)
DHARMARAJM LAAU - Accident Analysis System RACCM28INTL Date: 04 DEC 2018 14:46 Interpreted Listing Page: 12 of 47
Hammersmith Grove route sections: Collisions - 3 years to 31-March-2018 (provisional)
B11HAMGROV.009 NODE 73 (GLENTHORNE RD/STUDLAND ST) 36 MTS TO MAR-2018 SORTED BY DATE 1 0115FH10635 SUN 06/12/15 18:10 DARK NFL- STUDLAND STREET 10M SOUTH J/W GLENTHORNE ROAD 11 NODE 73 522690/ / 178730 POLICE - AT SCENE ROAD-DRY WEATHER-FINE SINGLE CWY CROSSROADS GIVE WAY/UNCONT ZEBRA V2 DROVE INTO REAR OF V1 WHO WAS STATIONARY @ ZEBRA X CASUALTY 001 (001) (41 Yrs - M SE20) SLIGHT DRIVER/RIDER VEHICLE 001 (002) TAXI (41 Yrs - M SE20) GOING AHEAD HELD UP S TO N JNY PART OF WORK JCT APP x BT - NOT REQUESTED BACK HIT FIRST
VEHICLE 002 (001) CAR (? Yrs - M SW6 ) GOING AHEAD OTHER S TO N JCT APP BT - NOT REQUESTED FRONT HIT FIRST
V002 A 308 (FOLLOWING TOO CLOSE) V002 A 405 (FAILED TO LOOK PROPERLY) V002 A 406 (FAILED TO JUDGE OTHER PERSON'S PATH OR SPEED) V002 A 602 (CARELESS/RECKLESS/IN A HURRY)
2 01180086234 SAT 27/01/18 22:06 DARK GLENTHORNE ROAD J/W STUDLAND STREET W6 11 NODE 73 522700/ / 178750 POLICE - AT SCENE ROAD-WET WEATHER-FINE ONE-WAY ST T/STAG JUN GIVE WAY/UNCONT NO XING FACILITY IN 50M NOT KNOWN HOW COLLISION OCCURRED CASUALTY 001 (002) (26 Yrs - M UB1 ) SLIGHT DRIVER/RIDER VEHICLE 001 (000) CAR (36 Yrs - M W10 ) MOVING OFF S TO N COMM TO/FROM WORK JCT APP x BT - NOT REQUESTED FRONT HIT FIRST
VEHICLE 002 (000) M/C 50-125CC (26 Yrs - M UB1 ) GOING AHEAD OTHER W TO E JCT CLEARED BT - NOT REQUESTED SKID/OVER O/S HIT FIRST
V002 A 103 (SLIPPERY ROAD (DUE TO WEATHER)) V001 A 405 (FAILED TO LOOK PROPERLY)
End of Accidents for B11HAMGROV.009 NODE 73 (GLENTHORNE RD/STUDLAND ST)
DHARMARAJM LAAU - Accident Analysis System RACCM28INTL Date: 04 DEC 2018 14:46 Interpreted Listing Page: 13 of 47
Hammersmith Grove route sections: Collisions - 3 years to 31-March-2018 (provisional)
B11HAMGROV.010 LINK 61-73 (STUDLAND ST) 36 MTS TO MAR-2018 SORTED BY DATE 1 01160019436 WED 07/09/16 18:29 LIGHT ON STUDLAND STREET, NEAR THE JUNCTION WITH FIELDGATE MEWS. 11 LINK 61-73 522690/ / 178690 POLICE - AT SCENE ROAD-DRY WEATHER-FINE SINGLE CWY T/STAG JUN GIVE WAY/UNCONT ZEBRA V1 HIT REAR OF V2 AS IT SLOWED TO TURN RIGHT CASUALTY 001 (001) (61 Yrs - M SW60) SLIGHT DRIVER/RIDER VEHICLE 001 (000) PEDAL CYCLE (61 Yrs - M SW60) GOING AHEAD OTHER S TO N JCT APP x BT - NOT APPLICABLE FRONT HIT FIRST
VEHICLE 002 (000) CAR (31 Yrs - M SE18) TURNING RIGHT S TO E JCT APP BT - NOT REQUESTED BACK HIT FIRST
V001 A 308 (FOLLOWING TOO CLOSE)
2 01180085117 MON 22/01/18 17:13 DARK STUDLAND STREET 50M N OF J/W KING STREET 11 LINK 61-73 522680/ / 178640 POLICE - AT SCENE ROAD-WET WEATHER-FINE ONE-WAY ST NO JUN IN 20M NO XING FACILITY IN 50M NOT KNOWN HOW COLLISION OCCURRED CASUALTY 001 (001) (20 Yrs - M W5 ) SLIGHT DRIVER/RIDER VEHICLE 001 (000) M/C 50-125CC (20 Yrs - M W5 ) OVERTAKE STAT VEH O/S S TO N JNY PART OF WORK x BT - NOT REQUESTED FRONT HIT FIRST HIT PARKED VEH VEHICLE 002 (000) CAR (? Yrs - U ) PARKED P TO P BT - DRV NOT CONTACTED DID NOT IMPACT
V001 A 405 (FAILED TO LOOK PROPERLY)
End of Accidents for B11HAMGROV.010 LINK 61-73 (STUDLAND ST)
DHARMARAJM LAAU - Accident Analysis System RACCM28INTL Date: 04 DEC 2018 14:46 Interpreted Listing Page: 14 of 47
Hammersmith Grove route sections: Collisions - 3 years to 31-March-2018 (provisional)
B11HAMGROV.011 NODE 61 (KING ST/STUDLAND ST) 36 MTS TO MAR-2018 SORTED BY DATE 1 0115FH10485 MON 21/09/15 15:30 LIGHT KING STREET J/W STUDLAND STREET 11 NODE 61 522670/ / 178580 POLICE - AT SCENE ROAD-DRY WEATHER-FINE ONE-WAY ST T/STAG JUN GIVE WAY/UNCONT ZEBRA PED WAS CROSSING ROAD & WAS HIT BY PASSING V1 CASUALTY 001 (001) (33 Yrs - F W6 ) SLIGHT PEDESTRIAN CROSSING ROAD ON PED XING E BOUND FROM DRIVERS N/SIDE VEHICLE 001 (000) CAR (? Yrs - F UNKN) TURNING RIGHT E TO N JCT MID x BT - DRV NOT CONTACTED FRONT HIT FIRST
V001 A 407 (PASSING TOO CLOSE TO CYCLIST, HORSE RIDER OR PEDESTRIAN) V001 A 405 (FAILED TO LOOK PROPERLY) C001 A 804 (WRONG USE OF PEDESTRIAN CROSSING FACILITY) C001 A 802 (FAILED TO LOOK PROPERLY) C001 A 803 (FAILED TO JUDGE VEHICLE'S PATH OR SPEED)
2 0116FH10108 FRI 04/03/16 16:20 LIGHT KING STREET J/W STUDLAND STREET & NIGEL PLAYFAIR AVENUE 11 NODE 61 522680/ / 178570 POLICE - AT SCENE ROAD-DRY WEATHER-FINE SINGLE CWY CROSSROADS GIVE WAY/UNCONT ZEBRA PED CROSSED ROAD NOT ON A PED X & WAS HIT BY V1 @ VERY LOW SPEED IN HEAVY TRAFFIC CASUALTY 001 (001) (47 Yrs - F WD5 ) SLIGHT PEDESTRIAN CROSSING ROAD WITHIN 50M XING N BOUND FROM DRIVERS N/SIDE VEHICLE 001 (000) GDS =< 3.5T (59 Yrs - M SW19) GOING AHEAD OTHER E TO W JCT MID x BT - NOT REQUESTED FRONT HIT FIRST
C001 B 801 (CROSSED ROAD MASKED BY STATIONARY OR PARKED VEHICLE) C001 A 802 (FAILED TO LOOK PROPERLY) C001 A 803 (FAILED TO JUDGE VEHICLE'S PATH OR SPEED) C001 A 808 (CARELESS/RECKLESS/IN A HURRY)
3 0116FH10158 TUE 05/04/16 08:00 LIGHT STUDLAND STREET, J/W KING STREET 11 NODE 61 522670/ / 178580 POLICE - AT SCENE ROAD-DRY WEATHER-FINE ONE-WAY ST OTHER JUN GIVE WAY/UNCONT ZEBRA C1 HAD STARTED CROSSING ON ZEBRA CROSSING & WAS HIT BY V1 TURNING THE CORNER, C1 THEN PUNCHED DRIVER OF V1 CASUALTY 001 (001) (34 Yrs - M W6 ) SLIGHT PEDESTRIAN CROSSING ROAD ON PED XING E BOUND FROM DRIVERS N/SIDE VEHICLE 001 (000) CAR (30 Yrs - M W5 ) GOING AHEAD LEFT BEND W TO N JNY PART OF WORK JCT APP x BT - NEGATIVE FRONT HIT FIRST
V001 B 405 (FAILED TO LOOK PROPERLY) V001 B 406 (FAILED TO JUDGE OTHER PERSON'S PATH OR SPEED) V001 B 108 (ROAD LAYOUT (EG BEND, HILL, NARROW CARRIAGEWAY)) C001 B 802 (FAILED TO LOOK PROPERLY) C001 B 803 (FAILED TO JUDGE VEHICLE'S PATH OR SPEED) C001 B 804 (WRONG USE OF PEDESTRIAN CROSSING FACILITY)
DHARMARAJM LAAU - Accident Analysis System RACCM28INTL Date: 04 DEC 2018 14:46 Interpreted Listing Page: 15 of 47
Hammersmith Grove route sections: Collisions - 3 years to 31-March-2018 (provisional)
B11HAMGROV.011 NODE 61 (KING ST/STUDLAND ST) 36 MTS TO MAR-2018 SORTED BY DATE 4 01160019442 MON 26/09/16 08:40 LIGHT ON STUDLAND STREET, NEAR THE JUNCTION WITH KING STREET. 11 NODE 61 522670/ / 178580 POLICE - AT SCENE ROAD-DRY WEATHER-FINE ONE-WAY ST T/STAG JUN GIVE WAY/UNCONT ZEBRA DV1 WAS TURNING RIGHT AT JUNCTION AS PED WAS CROSSING ON PED CROSSING, DV1 THEN HIT PED. CASUALTY 001 (001) (46 Yrs - F CR83) SLIGHT PEDESTRIAN CROSSING ROAD ON PED XING E BOUND FROM DRIVERS N/SIDE VEHICLE 001 (000) CAR (70 Yrs - M HA04) TURNING RIGHT E TO N JCT CLEARED x BT - NEGATIVE FRONT HIT FIRST
V001 B 308 (FOLLOWING TOO CLOSE) V001 A 405 (FAILED TO LOOK PROPERLY)
5 01170023043 SUN 05/03/17 20:48 DARK KING STREET J/W STUDLAND STREET 11 NODE 61 522690/ / 178570 POLICE - AT SCENE ROAD-WET RAINING SINGLE CWY T/STAG JUN GIVE WAY/UNCONT PELICAN OR SIMILAR OTH AUTH PER NOT KNOWN HOW COLLISION OCCURRED CASUALTY 001 (001) (25 Yrs - F X-UK) SLIGHT PEDESTRIAN CROSSING ROAD ON PED XING S BOUND FROM DRIVERS O/SIDE VEHICLE 001 (000) TAXI (44 Yrs - M HA3 ) SLOWING OR STOPPING W TO E JCT CLEARED x BT - NOT REQUESTED O/S HIT FIRST FOREIGN REG LHD C001 A 802 (FAILED TO LOOK PROPERLY)
6 01170047782 TUE 11/07/17 17:30 LIGHT STUDLAND STREET J/W KING STREET W6 11 NODE 61 522680/ / 178590 POLICE - AT SCENE ROAD-WET RAINING ONE-WAY ST CROSSROADS GIVE WAY/UNCONT ZEBRA NOT KNOWN HOW COLLISION OCCURRED CASUALTY 001 (002) (41 Yrs - M UB6 ) SLIGHT DRIVER/RIDER VEHICLE 001 (000) CAR (31 Yrs - F M50 ) TURNING RIGHT E TO N JNY PART OF WORK LEAVING MAIN RD x BT - NOT REQUESTED FRONT HIT FIRST
VEHICLE 002 (000) M/C 50-125CC (41 Yrs - M UB6 ) MOVING OFF E TO N COMM TO/FROM WORK JCT APP BT - NOT REQUESTED BACK HIT FIRST
V001 A 401 (JUNCTION OVERSHOOT)
DHARMARAJM LAAU - Accident Analysis System RACCM28INTL Date: 04 DEC 2018 14:46 Interpreted Listing Page: 16 of 47
Hammersmith Grove route sections: Collisions - 3 years to 31-March-2018 (provisional)
B11HAMGROV.011 NODE 61 (KING ST/STUDLAND ST) 36 MTS TO MAR-2018 SORTED BY DATE 7 01170050094 MON 24/07/17 14:48 LIGHT KING STREET J/W STUDLAND STREET 11 NODE 61 522680/ / 178580 POLICE - AT SCENE ROAD-DRY WEATHER-FINE ONE-WAY ST T/STAG JUN GIVE WAY/UNCONT ZEBRA NOT KNOWN HOW COLLISION OCCURRED CASUALTY 001 (001) (85 Yrs - F UNKN) SLIGHT PEDESTRIAN CROSSING ROAD ON PED XING W BOUND FROM DRIVERS O/SIDE VEHICLE 001 (000) GDS =< 3.5T (51 Yrs - M W9 ) GOING AHEAD RIGHT BEND E TO N JNY PART OF WORK JCT APP x BT - NOT REQUESTED FRONT HIT FIRST
V001 A 405 (FAILED TO LOOK PROPERLY) V001 A 304 (DISOBEYED PEDESTRIAN CROSSING FACILITY) V001 A 403 (POOR TURN OR MANOEUVRE) V001 A 602 (CARELESS/RECKLESS/IN A HURRY)
8 01180086332 SUN 28/01/18 17:51 DARK KING STREET J/W STUDLAND STREET 11 NODE 61 522680/ / 178580 POLICE - AT SCENE ROAD-DRY WEATHER-FINE ONE-WAY ST T/STAG JUN GIVE WAY/UNCONT ZEBRA SCH XING PTRL ROAD SIGN DEF NOT KNOWN HOW COLLISION OCCURRED CASUALTY 001 (001) (64 Yrs - F W6 ) SLIGHT PEDESTRIAN CROSSING ROAD ON PED XING E BOUND FROM DRIVERS N/SIDE VEHICLE 001 (000) CAR (21 Yrs - F NW10) GOING AHEAD RIGHT BEND P TO NW COMM TO/FROM WORK ENTERING MAIN RD x BT - NOT REQUESTED FRONT HIT FIRST
V001 A 404 (FAILED TO SIGNAL/ MISLEADING SIGNAL) V001 A 105 (DEFECTIVE TRAFFIC SIGNALS) C001 A 803 (FAILED TO JUDGE VEHICLE'S PATH OR SPEED)
9 01180095510 SUN 11/03/18 13:40 LIGHT KING STREET J/W STUDLAND STREET 11 NODE 61 522670/ / 178580 POLICE - AT SCENE ROAD-WET WEATHER-FINE SINGLE CWY CROSSROADS GIVE WAY/UNCONT ZEBRA NOT KNOWN HOW COLLISION OCCURRED CASUALTY 001 (001) (34 Yrs - M W6 ) SLIGHT PEDESTRIAN CROSSING ROAD ON PED XING E BOUND VEHICLE 001 (000) CAR (38 Yrs - U UNKN) MOVING OFF W TO E JCT APP x BT - DRV NOT CONTACTED O/S HIT FIRST
V001 A 304 (DISOBEYED PEDESTRIAN CROSSING FACILITY) V001 A 405 (FAILED TO LOOK PROPERLY)
End of Accidents for B11HAMGROV.011 NODE 61 (KING ST/STUDLAND ST)
DHARMARAJM LAAU - Accident Analysis System RACCM28INTL Date: 04 DEC 2018 14:46 Interpreted Listing Page: 17 of 47
Hammersmith Grove route sections: Collisions - 3 years to 31-March-2018 (provisional)
B11HAMGROV.012 LINK 61-62 (KING ST) 36 MTS TO MAR-2018 SORTED BY DATE 1 0115FH10251 FRI 24/04/15 18:31 LIGHT KING STREET J/W CAMBRIDGE GROVE 11 LINK 61-62 522970/ / 178550 POLICE - AT SCENE ROAD-DRY WEATHER-FINE ONE-WAY ST T/STAG JUN GIVE WAY/UNCONT NO XING FACILITY IN 50M W/B V1 CRASHED O/S WHEN V2 DROVE ALONGSIDE SWEARING AT HIM CASUALTY 001 (002) (24 Yrs - M W6 ) SLIGHT DRIVER/RIDER VEHICLE 001 (000) CAR (? Yrs - M 1 ) SLOWING OR STOPPING E TO W JCT MID x BT - DRV NOT CONTACTED DID NOT IMPACT
VEHICLE 002 (000) PEDAL CYCLE (24 Yrs - M W6 ) CHANGE LANE TO RIGHT E TO W JCT MID BT - NOT APPLICABLE FRONT HIT FIRST LEFT CWY OFFSIDE HIT KERB HIT OTH OBJECT V001 A 601 (AGGRESSIVE DRIVING) V001 A 602 (CARELESS/RECKLESS/IN A HURRY)
2 0115FH10309 FRI 22/05/15 10:10 LIGHT KING STREET J/W CAMBRIDGE GROVE 11 LINK 61-62 522970/ / 178550 POLICE - AT SCENE ROAD-DRY WEATHER-FINE SINGLE CWY T/STAG JUN GIVE WAY/UNCONT NO XING FACILITY IN 50M DRIVER OF V1 OPENED CAR DOOR ACROSS PATH OF V2 CASUALTY 001 (002) (47 Yrs - F W14 ) SERIOUS DRIVER/RIDER VEHICLE 001 (002) CAR (? Yrs - F UNKN) PARKED P TO P JCT MID x BT - DRV NOT CONTACTED O/S HIT FIRST
VEHICLE 002 (001) PEDAL CYCLE (47 Yrs - F W14 ) GOING AHEAD OTHER E TO W JCT MID BT - NOT APPLICABLE FRONT HIT FIRST
V001 A 904 (VEHICLE DOOR OPENED OR CLOSED NEGLIGENTLY)
DHARMARAJM LAAU - Accident Analysis System RACCM28INTL Date: 04 DEC 2018 14:46 Interpreted Listing Page: 18 of 47
Hammersmith Grove route sections: Collisions - 3 years to 31-March-2018 (provisional)
B11HAMGROV.012 LINK 61-62 (KING ST) 36 MTS TO MAR-2018 SORTED BY DATE 3 0115FH10384 WED 29/07/15 17:09 LIGHT KING STREET J/W LEAMORE STREET 11 LINK 61-62 523010/ / 178550 POLICE - AT SCENE ROAD-DRY WEATHER-FINE ONE-WAY ST T/STAG JUN GIVE WAY/UNCONT NO XING FACILITY IN 50M V1 TURNED RIGHT INTO ONE WAY ROAD V2 WAS IN CYCLE LANE THAT RUNS OPP DIRECTION WITH GIVE WAY LINES V1 & V2 COLLIDED CASUALTY 001 (002) (27 Yrs - M W6 ) SLIGHT DRIVER/RIDER VEHICLE 001 (002) CAR (52 Yrs - M UB5 ) TURNING RIGHT N TO W JCT MID x BT - NOT REQUESTED FRONT HIT FIRST
VEHICLE 002 (001) PEDAL CYCLE (27 Yrs - M W6 ) GOING AHEAD OTHER W TO E JCT MID BT - NOT APPLICABLE FRONT HIT FIRST
V001 A 405 (FAILED TO LOOK PROPERLY) V001 A 406 (FAILED TO JUDGE OTHER PERSON'S PATH OR SPEED) V001 A 602 (CARELESS/RECKLESS/IN A HURRY) V002 A 405 (FAILED TO LOOK PROPERLY) V002 A 406 (FAILED TO JUDGE OTHER PERSON'S PATH OR SPEED) V002 A 602 (CARELESS/RECKLESS/IN A HURRY)
4 0115FH10455 MON 14/09/15 08:00 LIGHT KING STREET J/W CAMBRIDGE GROVE 11 LINK 61-62 522970/ / 178550 POLICE - AT SCENE ROAD-DRY WEATHER-FINE ONE-WAY ST T/STAG JUN GIVE WAY/UNCONT NO XING FACILITY IN 50M V1 WAS TURNING RIGHT & HAD RIGHT OF WAY V2 FAILED TO GIVE WAY @ GIVE WAY LINES & COLLIDED WITH TURNING V1 CASUALTY 001 (002) (59 Yrs - M TW14) SLIGHT DRIVER/RIDER VEHICLE 001 (002) GDS =< 3.5T (36 Yrs - M SW16) TURNING RIGHT E TO N JCT MID x BT - NOT REQUESTED N/S HIT FIRST
VEHICLE 002 (001) PEDAL CYCLE (59 Yrs - M TW14) GOING AHEAD OTHER W TO E JCT MID BT - NOT APPLICABLE FRONT HIT FIRST CYCLE LANE (ON CWY) V002 A 302 (DISOBEYED GIVE WAY OR STOP SIGN OR MARKINGS) V002 A 405 (FAILED TO LOOK PROPERLY) V002 A 406 (FAILED TO JUDGE OTHER PERSON'S PATH OR SPEED) V002 A 602 (CARELESS/RECKLESS/IN A HURRY)
DHARMARAJM LAAU - Accident Analysis System RACCM28INTL Date: 04 DEC 2018 14:46 Interpreted Listing Page: 19 of 47
Hammersmith Grove route sections: Collisions - 3 years to 31-March-2018 (provisional)
B11HAMGROV.012 LINK 61-62 (KING ST) 36 MTS TO MAR-2018 SORTED BY DATE 5 0116FH10250 SAT 14/05/16 16:00 LIGHT KING STREET J/W CAMBRIDGE GROVE 11 LINK 61-62 522970/ / 178550 POLICE - AT SCENE ROAD-DRY WEATHER-FINE ONE-WAY ST T/STAG JUN GIVE WAY/UNCONT NO XING FACILITY IN 50M V1 TURNED RIGHT WITHOUT LOOKING ACROSS PATH OF V2 CAUSING A COLLISION & RIDER TO FALL OFF CASUALTY 001 (002) (23 Yrs - F CR4 ) SLIGHT DRIVER/RIDER VEHICLE 001 (002) CAR (53 Yrs - M HA9 ) TURNING RIGHT E TO N JCT MID x BT - NOT REQUESTED O/S HIT FIRST
VEHICLE 002 (001) PEDAL CYCLE (23 Yrs - F CR4 ) TURNING RIGHT E TO N JCT MID BT - NOT APPLICABLE FRONT HIT FIRST
V001 A 407 (PASSING TOO CLOSE TO CYCLIST, HORSE RIDER OR PEDESTRIAN) V001 A 405 (FAILED TO LOOK PROPERLY) V001 A 602 (CARELESS/RECKLESS/IN A HURRY)
6 0116FH10267 FRI 20/05/16 02:45 DARK KING STREET J/W HOLCOMBE STREET 11 LINK 61-62 522800/ / 178560 POLICE - AT SCENE ROAD-DRY WEATHER-FINE ONE-WAY ST T/STAG JUN GIVE WAY/UNCONT NO XING FACILITY IN 50M V2 DROVE INTO REAR OF PARKED V1 CASUALTY 001 (002) (39 Yrs - M NW10) SLIGHT DRIVER/RIDER VEHICLE 001 (002) CAR (36 Yrs - M HA0 ) GOING AHEAD OTHER E TO W JCT MID x BT - NOT REQUESTED BACK HIT FIRST
VEHICLE 002 (001) TAXI (39 Yrs - M NW10) GOING AHEAD OTHER E TO W JNY PART OF WORK JCT MID BT - DRV NOT CONTACTED FRONT HIT FIRST
V002 A 308 (FOLLOWING TOO CLOSE) V002 A 405 (FAILED TO LOOK PROPERLY) V002 A 406 (FAILED TO JUDGE OTHER PERSON'S PATH OR SPEED) V002 A 602 (CARELESS/RECKLESS/IN A HURRY)
DHARMARAJM LAAU - Accident Analysis System RACCM28INTL Date: 04 DEC 2018 14:46 Interpreted Listing Page: 20 of 47
Hammersmith Grove route sections: Collisions - 3 years to 31-March-2018 (provisional)
B11HAMGROV.012 LINK 61-62 (KING ST) 36 MTS TO MAR-2018 SORTED BY DATE 7 0116FH10287 TUE 31/05/16 14:00 LIGHT CAMBRIDGE GROVE J/W KING STREET 11 LINK 61-62 522970/ / 178550 POLICE - AT SCENE ROAD-DRY WEATHER-FINE SINGLE CWY T/STAG JUN GIVE WAY/UNCONT NO XING FACILITY IN 50M PARENT & CHILD RAN ACROSS ROAD AS V1 TURNED RIGHT & THEY COLLIDED CASUALTY 001 (001) (4 Yrs - M UB3 ) SLIGHT PEDESTRIAN CROSSING ROAD (NOT ON XING) E BOUND FROM DRIVERS N/SIDE Sch Attended : NK xCASUALTY 002 (001) (35 Yrs - F UB3 ) SLIGHT PEDESTRIAN CROSSING ROAD (NOT ON XING) E BOUND FROM DRIVERS N/SIDE VEHICLE 001 (000) TAXI (43 Yrs - M LU1 ) TURNING RIGHT E TO N JNY PART OF WORK JCT MID BT - NEGATIVE FRONT HIT FIRST
C001 A 802 (FAILED TO LOOK PROPERLY) C001 A 803 (FAILED TO JUDGE VEHICLE'S PATH OR SPEED) C001 A 808 (CARELESS/RECKLESS/IN A HURRY) V001 A 407 (PASSING TOO CLOSE TO CYCLIST, HORSE RIDER OR PEDESTRIAN) V001 A 405 (FAILED TO LOOK PROPERLY) V001 A 602 (CARELESS/RECKLESS/IN A HURRY)
8 0116FH10291 WED 01/06/16 13:15 LIGHT KING STREET J/W HOLCOMBE STREET 11 LINK 61-62 522800/ / 178550 POLICE - AT SCENE ROAD-DRY WEATHER-FINE SINGLE CWY T/STAG JUN GIVE WAY/UNCONT NO XING FACILITY IN 50M V1 BRAKED TO AVOID AN ACCIDENT & CAUSED SEATED PASSENGER TO FALL TO FLOOR & BE INJURED CASUALTY 001 (001) (85 Yrs - F SW6 ) SLIGHT PASSENGER SEATED ON PSV VEHICLE 001 (000) BUS/COACH (48 Yrs - M W6 ) SLOWING OR STOPPING E TO W JCT MID x BT - NOT REQUESTED DID NOT IMPACT
V001 A 408 (SUDDEN BRAKING)
9 01160019450 THU 01/09/16 19:05 LIGHT ON KING STREET, NEAR THE JUNCTION WITH LEAMORE STREET. 11 LINK 61-62 523010/ / 178550 POLICE - AT SCENE ROAD-DRY WEATHER-FINE ONE-WAY ST T/STAG JUN GIVE WAY/UNCONT NO XING FACILITY IN 50M PASS OPENED DOOR OF V1 AS M/C UNDERTOOK CASUALTY 001 (002) (42 Yrs - F W129) SLIGHT DRIVER/RIDER VEHICLE 001 (000) TAXI (52 Yrs - M W38S) GOING AHEAD HELD UP E TO W JNY PART OF WORK JCT CLEARED x BT - NOT REQUESTED N/S HIT FIRST
VEHICLE 002 (000) M/C 50-125CC (42 Yrs - F W129) OVERTAKING NEARSIDE E TO W JCT CLEARED BT - NOT REQUESTED FRONT HIT FIRST
V001 A 904 (VEHICLE DOOR OPENED OR CLOSED NEGLIGENTLY)
DHARMARAJM LAAU - Accident Analysis System RACCM28INTL Date: 04 DEC 2018 14:46 Interpreted Listing Page: 21 of 47
Hammersmith Grove route sections: Collisions - 3 years to 31-March-2018 (provisional)
B11HAMGROV.012 LINK 61-62 (KING ST) 36 MTS TO MAR-2018 SORTED BY DATE 10 01160023696 WED 19/10/16 00:20 LIGHT KING STREET J/W LEAMORE STREET 11 LINK 61-62 523010/ / 178550 POLICE - AT SCENE ROAD-DRY WEATHER-FINE ONE-WAY ST T/STAG JUN GIVE WAY/UNCONT NO XING FACILITY IN 50M V1 TURNED RIGHT & COLLIDED WITH V2 WHO WAS IN THE CYCLE LANE THAT RUNS IN OPP DIRECTION TO TRAFFIC & KNOCKED RIDER OFF CASUALTY 001 (002) (44 Yrs - M W14 ) SLIGHT DRIVER/RIDER VEHICLE 001 (000) TAXI (31 Yrs - M W6 ) TURNING RIGHT N TO W JNY PART OF WORK JCT MID x BT - NOT REQUESTED O/S HIT FIRST
VEHICLE 002 (000) PEDAL CYCLE (44 Yrs - M W14 ) GOING AHEAD OTHER W TO E JCT MID BT - NOT APPLICABLE FRONT HIT FIRST CYCLE LANE (ON CWY) V001 A 405 (FAILED TO LOOK PROPERLY) V001 A 403 (POOR TURN OR MANOEUVRE) V001 A 406 (FAILED TO JUDGE OTHER PERSON'S PATH OR SPEED) V001 A 602 (CARELESS/RECKLESS/IN A HURRY)
11 01170015229 MON 30/01/17 18:23 DARK KING STREET J/W LEAMORE STREET 11 LINK 61-62 523010/ / 178550 POLICE - AT SCENE ROAD-DRY WEATHER-FINE ONE-WAY ST T/STAG JUN GIVE WAY/UNCONT NO XING FACILITY IN 50M NOT KNOWN HOW COLLISION OCCURRED CASUALTY 001 (002) (52 Yrs - M W14 ) SLIGHT DRIVER/RIDER VEHICLE 001 (000) CAR (45 Yrs - M SE17) GOING AHEAD OTHER E TO W JCT APP x BT - NOT REQUESTED O/S HIT FIRST
VEHICLE 002 (000) PEDAL CYCLE (52 Yrs - M W14 ) GOING AHEAD OTHER W TO E JCT APP BT - NOT APPLICABLE FRONT HIT FIRST
V001 A 405 (FAILED TO LOOK PROPERLY)
12 01170027815 FRI 24/03/17 19:55 DARK MACBETH STREET J/W KING STREET (A315) W6 11 LINK 61-62 522870/ / 178550 POLICE - AT SCENE ROAD-DRY WEATHER-FINE ONE-WAY ST T/STAG JUN GIVE WAY/UNCONT NO XING FACILITY IN 50M NOT KNOWN HOW COLLISION OCCURRED CASUALTY 001 (001) (26 Yrs - F W3 ) SLIGHT PEDESTRIAN W BOUND VEHICLE 001 (000) CAR (38 Yrs - M W14 ) TURNING LEFT W TO S LEAVING MAIN RD x BT - NEGATIVE N/S HIT FIRST
V001 B 605 (INEXPERIENCED OR LEARNER DRIVER/RIDER) V001 A 405 (FAILED TO LOOK PROPERLY)
DHARMARAJM LAAU - Accident Analysis System RACCM28INTL Date: 04 DEC 2018 14:46 Interpreted Listing Page: 22 of 47
Hammersmith Grove route sections: Collisions - 3 years to 31-March-2018 (provisional)
B11HAMGROV.012 LINK 61-62 (KING ST) 36 MTS TO MAR-2018 SORTED BY DATE 13 01170028825 WED 29/03/17 13:15 LIGHT KINGS STREET 40M W OF J/W HOLCOMBE STREET 11 LINK 61-62 522760/ / 178560 POLICE - AT SCENE ROAD-DRY WEATHER-FINE ONE-WAY ST NO JUN IN 20M NO XING FACILITY IN 50M NOT KNOWN HOW COLLISION OCCURRED CASUALTY 001 (001) (61 Yrs - F W4 ) SLIGHT PASSENGER SEATED ON PSV VEHICLE 001 (000) BUS/COACH (37 Yrs - M SW12) SLOWING OR STOPPING E TO W JNY PART OF WORK x BT - NOT REQUESTED DID NOT IMPACT
V001 B 308 (FOLLOWING TOO CLOSE)
14 01170035348 WED 03/05/17 18:29 LIGHT KING STREET J/W CAMBRIDGE GROVE 11 LINK 61-62 522970/ / 178550 POLICE - AT SCENE ROAD-WET RAINING SINGLE CWY T/STAG JUN GIVE WAY/UNCONT NO XING FACILITY IN 50M NOT KNOWN HOW COLLISION OCCURRED CASUALTY 001 (002) (14 Yrs - M W6 ) SLIGHT DRIVER/RIDER VEHICLE 001 (000) BUS/COACH (47 Yrs - M TW5 ) GOING AHEAD OTHER E TO W JNY PART OF WORK JCT MID x BT - NOT REQUESTED FRONT HIT FIRST
VEHICLE 002 (000) PEDAL CYCLE (14 Yrs - M W6 ) TURNING RIGHT E TO W LEAVING MAIN RD BT - NOT REQUESTED O/S HIT FIRST FOOTWAY V002 B 605 (INEXPERIENCED OR LEARNER DRIVER/RIDER) V002 B 103 (SLIPPERY ROAD (DUE TO WEATHER)) V002 B 403 (POOR TURN OR MANOEUVRE) V001 B 405 (FAILED TO LOOK PROPERLY) V002 B 405 (FAILED TO LOOK PROPERLY)
15 01170039249 TUE 23/05/17 18:00 LIGHT KING STREET J/W DIMES PLACE 11 LINK 61-62 522950/ / 178550 POLICE - AT SCENE ROAD-DRY WEATHER-FINE SINGLE CWY T/STAG JUN GIVE WAY/UNCONT NO XING FACILITY IN 50M NOT KNOWN HOW COLLISION OCCURRED CASUALTY 001 (001) (79 Yrs - M W6 ) SLIGHT PEDESTRIAN CROSSING ROAD (NOT ON XING) S BOUND FROM DRIVERS O/SIDE VEHICLE 001 (000) CAR (34 Yrs - M W4 ) REVERSING W TO E COMM TO/FROM WORK JCT APP x BT - NOT REQUESTED O/S HIT FIRST FOREIGN REG LHD V001 B 710 (VISION AFFECTED - VEHICLE BLIND SPOT) C001 A 806 (IMPAIRED BY ALCOHOL) C001 B 803 (FAILED TO JUDGE VEHICLE'S PATH OR SPEED) V001 B 405 (FAILED TO LOOK PROPERLY) C001 B 802 (FAILED TO LOOK PROPERLY)
DHARMARAJM LAAU - Accident Analysis System RACCM28INTL Date: 04 DEC 2018 14:46 Interpreted Listing Page: 23 of 47
Hammersmith Grove route sections: Collisions - 3 years to 31-March-2018 (provisional)
B11HAMGROV.012 LINK 61-62 (KING ST) 36 MTS TO MAR-2018 SORTED BY DATE 16 01170045026 SAT 24/06/17 18:32 LIGHT KING STREET J/W ARGYLE PLACE 11 LINK 61-62 522900/ / 178550 POLICE - AT SCENE ROAD-DRY WEATHER-FINE ONE-WAY ST T/STAG JUN GIVE WAY/UNCONT NO XING FACILITY IN 50M NOT KNOWN HOW COLLISION OCCURRED CASUALTY 001 (002) (30 Yrs - F W12 ) SLIGHT DRIVER/RIDER VEHICLE 001 (000) CAR (44 Yrs - M W3 ) GOING AHEAD OTHER E TO W COMM TO/FROM WORK JCT APP x BT - NOT REQUESTED O/S HIT FIRST FOREIGN REG LHD VEHICLE 002 (000) M/C 50-125CC (30 Yrs - F W12 ) GOING AHEAD OTHER E TO W JNY PART OF WORK JCT APP BT - NOT REQUESTED O/S HIT FIRST
V001 A 405 (FAILED TO LOOK PROPERLY) V001 B 406 (FAILED TO JUDGE OTHER PERSON'S PATH OR SPEED) V001 A 404 (FAILED TO SIGNAL/ MISLEADING SIGNAL)
17 01170059316 SAT 16/09/17 16:00 LIGHT LEAMORE STREET J/W KING STREET 11 LINK 61-62 523010/ / 178550 POLICE - AT SCENE ROAD-DRY WEATHER-FINE ONE-WAY ST T/STAG JUN GIVE WAY/UNCONT PELICAN OR SIMILAR NOT KNOWN HOW COLLISION OCCURRED CASUALTY 001 (002) (21 Yrs - M NW6 ) SERIOUS DRIVER/RIDER VEHICLE 001 (000) CAR (39 Yrs - F EN6 ) MOVING OFF N TO S JCT APP x BT - NOT REQUESTED FRONT HIT FIRST
VEHICLE 002 (000) PEDAL CYCLE (21 Yrs - M NW6 ) GOING AHEAD OTHER W TO E JCT APP BT - NOT REQUESTED OVERTURN N/S HIT FIRST CYCLEWAY/FOOTWAY (SEPA V002 A 602 (CARELESS/RECKLESS/IN A HURRY)
18 01170069109 THU 09/11/17 12:35 LIGHT KING STREET 50M E OF J/W STUDLAND STREET 11 LINK 61-62 522726/ / 178569 POLICE - AT SCENE ROAD-DRY WEATHER-FINE SINGLE CWY NO JUN IN 20M ZEBRA NOT KNOWN HOW COLLISION OCCURRED CASUALTY 001 (001) (61 Yrs - F W6 ) SLIGHT PEDESTRIAN CROSSING ROAD ON PED XING N BOUND FROM DRIVERS O/SIDE VEHICLE 001 (000) CAR (69 Yrs - F W4 ) MOVING OFF E TO W x BT - NOT REQUESTED FRONT HIT FIRST
V001 B 405 (FAILED TO LOOK PROPERLY)
DHARMARAJM LAAU - Accident Analysis System RACCM28INTL Date: 04 DEC 2018 14:46 Interpreted Listing Page: 24 of 47
Hammersmith Grove route sections: Collisions - 3 years to 31-March-2018 (provisional)
B11HAMGROV.012 LINK 61-62 (KING ST) 36 MTS TO MAR-2018 SORTED BY DATE 19 01170073118 MON 27/11/17 12:17 LIGHT KING STREET 100M S OF J/W ANGEL WALK 11 LINK 61-62 522990/ / 178550 POLICE - AT SCENE ROAD-DRY WEATHER-FINE ONE-WAY ST NO JUN IN 20M PELICAN OR SIMILAR NOT KNOWN HOW COLLISION OCCURRED CASUALTY 001 (001) (35 Yrs - M UB6 ) SLIGHT DRIVER/RIDER CASUALTY 002 (001) (47 Yrs - F EC1Y) SLIGHT PEDESTRIAN CROSSING ROAD (NOT ON XING) S BOUND FROM DRIVERS N/SIDE x VEHICLE 001 (000) M/C 125-500CC (35 Yrs - M UB6 ) GOING AHEAD OTHER W TO E COMM TO/FROM WORK BT - NOT REQUESTED SKID/OVER N/S HIT FIRST
V001 B 405 (FAILED TO LOOK PROPERLY) V001 B 605 (INEXPERIENCED OR LEARNER DRIVER/RIDER)
20 01180081899 WED 03/01/18 18:28 DARK KING STREET J/W CAMBRIDGE GROVE 11 LINK 61-62 522960/ / 178550 SELF COMPLETION ROAD-DRY WEATHER-FINE ONE-WAY ST OTHER JUN UNKNOWN (S/R) PEDN PHASE AT ATS UNKNOWN (S/R) NOT KNOWN HOW COLLISION OCCURRED CASUALTY 001 (001) (47 Yrs - M SW16) SLIGHT DRIVER/RIDER VEHICLE 001 (000) PEDAL CYCLE (47 Yrs - M SW16) UNKNOWN (S/RUNKNOWN (S/R) U( TO U( COMM TO/FROM WORK UNKNOWN (S/R) x BT - NOT APPLICABLE UNKNOWN (S/R) FRONT HIT FIRST UNKNOWN (S/R) UNKNOWN (S/R) UNKNOWN (S/R) UNKNOWN (S/R) VEHICLE 002 (000) CAR (? Yrs - M UNKN) UNKNOWN (S/R) U( TO U( UNKNOWN (S/R) BT - DRV NOT CONTACTED UNKNOWN (S/R) O/S HIT FIRST UNKNOWN (S/R) UNKNOWN (S/R) UNKNOWN (S/R) UNKNOWN (S/R)
21 01180089965 TUE 13/02/18 17:00 DARK KING STREET J/W ALBION PLACE 11 LINK 61-62 522815/ / 178555 POLICE - AT SCENE ROAD-WET RAINING ONE-WAY ST T/STAG JUN GIVE WAY/UNCONT ZEBRA PED IN CWY - NOT INJ NOT KNOWN HOW COLLISION OCCURRED CASUALTY 001 (001) (26 Yrs - M W5 ) SLIGHT DRIVER/RIDER VEHICLE 001 (000) M/C 50-125CC (26 Yrs - M W5 ) GOING AHEAD OTHER E TO W JNY PART OF WORK JCT MID x BT - NOT REQUESTED SKIDDED FRONT HIT FIRST
VEHICLE 002 (000) M/C 50-125CC (42 Yrs - M W4 ) SLOWING OR STOPPING E TO W COMM TO/FROM WORK JCT CLEARED BT - NOT REQUESTED BACK HIT FIRST
V001 B 103 (SLIPPERY ROAD (DUE TO WEATHER)) V001 B 408 (SUDDEN BRAKING)
DHARMARAJM LAAU - Accident Analysis System RACCM28INTL Date: 04 DEC 2018 14:46 Interpreted Listing Page: 25 of 47
Hammersmith Grove route sections: Collisions - 3 years to 31-March-2018 (provisional)
B11HAMGROV.012 LINK 61-62 (KING ST) 36 MTS TO MAR-2018 SORTED BY DATE 22 01180097132 MON 19/03/18 17:08 LIGHT KING STREET J/W BRIDGE AVENUE 11 LINK 61-62 523060/ / 178550 POLICE - AT SCENE ROAD-WET WEATHER-FINE ONE-WAY ST T/STAG JUN GIVE WAY/UNCONT NO XING FACILITY IN 50M NOT KNOWN HOW COLLISION OCCURRED CASUALTY 001 (001) (16 Yrs - M W4 ) SLIGHT DRIVER/RIDER JOURNEY TO/FROM SCHOOL Sch Attended : Moats School xCASUALTY 002 (001) (57 Yrs - F UB6 ) SERIOUS PEDESTRIAN CROSSING ROAD (NOT ON XING) S BOUND FROM DRIVERS O/SIDE MSK VEHICLE 001 (000) PEDAL CYCLE (16 Yrs - M W4 ) GOING AHEAD OTHER E TO W PUPIL RIDING TO/FROM SCH JCT APP BT - NOT APPLICABLE FRONT HIT FIRST
V001 B 405 (FAILED TO LOOK PROPERLY) C002 B 801 (CROSSED ROAD MASKED BY STATIONARY OR PARKED VEHICLE)
End of Accidents for B11HAMGROV.012 LINK 61-62 (KING ST)
DHARMARAJM LAAU - Accident Analysis System RACCM28INTL Date: 04 DEC 2018 14:46 Interpreted Listing Page: 26 of 47
Hammersmith Grove route sections: Collisions - 3 years to 31-March-2018 (provisional)
B11HAMGROV.017 LINK 63-75 (BEADON ROAD) 36 MTS TO MAR-2018 SORTED BY DATE 1 0115FH10227 THU 30/04/15 07:34 LIGHT NFL- BEADON ROAD 35M NORTH WEST J/W HAMMERSMITH BROADWAY 11 LINK 63-75 523320/ / 178630 POLICE - AT SCENE ROAD-DRY WEATHER-FINE SINGLE CWY NO JUN IN 20M PELICAN OR SIMILAR V1 WAS MOVING SLOWLY UP TO THE ATS IN HEAVY TRAFFIC WHEN DRV WAS ALERTED THAT A PED HAD FALLEN UNDER V1 CASUALTY 001 (001) (53 Yrs - F NW10) SERIOUS PEDESTRIAN UNKNOWN VEHICLE 001 (000) GDS 3.5-7.5T (59 Yrs - M SG1 ) GOING AHEAD OTHER NW TO SE JNY PART OF WORK x BT - NEGATIVE N/S HIT FIRST
C001 A 802 (FAILED TO LOOK PROPERLY) C001 A 803 (FAILED TO JUDGE VEHICLE'S PATH OR SPEED) C001 A 808 (CARELESS/RECKLESS/IN A HURRY) V001 A 710 (VISION AFFECTED - VEHICLE BLIND SPOT) V001 A 407 (PASSING TOO CLOSE TO CYCLIST, HORSE RIDER OR PEDESTRIAN)
End of Accidents for B11HAMGROV.017 LINK 63-75 (BEADON ROAD)
DHARMARAJM LAAU - Accident Analysis System RACCM28INTL Date: 04 DEC 2018 14:46 Interpreted Listing Page: 27 of 47
Hammersmith Grove route sections: Collisions - 3 years to 31-March-2018 (provisional)
B11HAMGROV.018 NODE 63 (KING ST/HAMMERSMITH BROADWAY) 36 MTS TO MAR-2018 SORTED BY DATE 1 0115FH10204 WED 22/04/15 07:02 LIGHT HAMMERSMITH BROADWAY J/W SHEPHERD'S BUSH ROAD 11 NODE 63 523360/ / 178620 POLICE - OVER COU ROAD-DRY WEATHER-FINE ROUNDABOUT ROUNDABOUT GIVE WAY/UNCONT PELICAN OR SIMILAR V1 & V2 WERE BOTH CHANGING LANES & COLLIDED & RIDER V1 FELL OFF CASUALTY 001 (001) (? Yrs - M W4 ) SLIGHT DRIVER/RIDER VEHICLE 001 (002) PEDAL CYCLE (? Yrs - M W4 ) GOING AHEAD RIGHT BEND S TO E JCT MID x BT - NOT APPLICABLE O/S HIT FIRST
VEHICLE 002 (001) GDS =< 3.5T (? Yrs - M UNKN) GOING AHEAD LEFT BEND SW TO N JCT MID BT - DRV NOT CONTACTED N/S HIT FIRST
V001 A 403 (POOR TURN OR MANOEUVRE) V001 A 405 (FAILED TO LOOK PROPERLY) V001 A 701 (VISION AFFECTED - STATIONARY OR PARKED VEHICLE(S)) V002 A 403 (POOR TURN OR MANOEUVRE) V002 A 405 (FAILED TO LOOK PROPERLY) V002 A 701 (VISION AFFECTED - STATIONARY OR PARKED VEHICLE(S))
2 0115FH10323 THU 18/06/15 11:56 LIGHT KING STREET J/W QUEEN CAROLINE STREET 11 NODE 63 523320/ / 178600 POLICE - AT SCENE ROAD-DRY WEATHER-FINE SINGLE CWY T/STAG JUN AUTO SIG PEDN PHASE AT ATS A PASS ONBOARD V1 FELL OVER DUE TO V1 BRAKING SUDDENLY CASUALTY 001 (001) (75 Yrs - F TW4 ) SLIGHT PASSENGER STANDING ON PSV VEHICLE 001 (000) BUS/COACH (43 Yrs - M TW13) GOING AHEAD LEFT BEND S TO W JNY PART OF WORK JCT CLEARED x BT - NOT REQUESTED DID NOT IMPACT
V001 A 408 (SUDDEN BRAKING)
3 0115FH10643 TUE 15/12/15 13:05 LIGHT QUEEN CAROLINE STREET J/W HAMMERSMITH BROADWAY & KING STREET 11 NODE 63 523330/ / 178580 POLICE - AT SCENE ROAD-DRY WEATHER-FINE ONE-WAY ST T/STAG JUN AUTO SIG PEDN PHASE AT ATS PED CROSSED ROAD AGAINST THE ATS & WAS HIT BY V1 CASUALTY 001 (001) (67 Yrs - F W14 ) SLIGHT PEDESTRIAN CROSSING ROAD ON PED XING E BOUND FROM DRIVERS N/SIDE VEHICLE 001 (000) PEDAL CYCLE (26 Yrs - M W4 ) GOING AHEAD OTHER S TO N JCT MID x BT - NOT APPLICABLE FRONT HIT FIRST
V001 A 407 (PASSING TOO CLOSE TO CYCLIST, HORSE RIDER OR PEDESTRIAN) V001 A 405 (FAILED TO LOOK PROPERLY) V001 A 602 (CARELESS/RECKLESS/IN A HURRY)
DHARMARAJM LAAU - Accident Analysis System RACCM28INTL Date: 04 DEC 2018 14:46 Interpreted Listing Page: 28 of 47
Hammersmith Grove route sections: Collisions - 3 years to 31-March-2018 (provisional)
B11HAMGROV.018 NODE 63 (KING ST/HAMMERSMITH BROADWAY) 36 MTS TO MAR-2018 SORTED BY DATE 4 0116FH10263 WED 18/05/16 13:20 LIGHT QUEEN CAROLINE STREET/HAMMERSMITH BROADWAY J/W BEADON ROAD 11 NODE 63 523350/ / 178610 POLICE - AT SCENE ROAD-DRY WEATHER-FINE ROUNDABOUT ROUNDABOUT GIVE WAY/UNCONT NO XING FACILITY IN 50M AS V1 & V2 WERE ON THE RIGHT HAND BEND THEY COLLIDED CASUALTY 001 (002) (28 Yrs - M N22 ) SLIGHT DRIVER/RIDER VEHICLE 001 (002) CAR (32 Yrs - F W14 ) GOING AHEAD RIGHT BEND S TO E JCT MID x BT - NOT REQUESTED O/S HIT FIRST
VEHICLE 002 (001) GDS => 7.5T (28 Yrs - M N22 ) GOING AHEAD RIGHT BEND S TO E JNY PART OF WORK JCT MID BT - NOT REQUESTED N/S HIT FIRST
V001 A 405 (FAILED TO LOOK PROPERLY) V001 A 406 (FAILED TO JUDGE OTHER PERSON'S PATH OR SPEED) V002 A 405 (FAILED TO LOOK PROPERLY) V002 A 406 (FAILED TO JUDGE OTHER PERSON'S PATH OR SPEED)
5 01160003354 FRI 25/11/16 11:01 LIGHT HAMMERSMITH BROADWAY J/W SHEPHERDS BUSH ROAD 11 NODE 63 523360/ / 178620 POLICE - AT SCENE ROAD-DRY WEATHER-FINE SINGLE CWY ROUNDABOUT AUTO SIG PEDN PHASE AT ATS NOT KNOWN HOW COLLISION OCCURRED CASUALTY 001 (002) (48 Yrs - F W12 ) SLIGHT DRIVER/RIDER VEHICLE 001 (000) CAR (71 Yrs - M SW13) MOVING OFF S TO N JCT CLEARED x BT - NOT REQUESTED N/S HIT FIRST
VEHICLE 002 (000) PEDAL CYCLE (48 Yrs - F W12 ) MOVING OFF S TO N COMM TO/FROM WORK LEAVING R'ABOUT BT - REFUSED TO PROVIDE O/S HIT FIRST
V002 B 402 (JUNCTION RESTART)
6 01170014254 THU 12/01/17 08:45 LIGHT HAMMERSMITH ROAD J/W HAMMERSMITH BROADWAY 11 NODE 63 523360/ / 178620 SELF COMPLETION UNKNOWN (S/R) WEATHER-UNKNOWN ROUNDABOUT ROUNDABOUT AUTO SIG PEDN PHASE AT ATS NOT KNOWN HOW COLLISION OCCURRED CASUALTY 001 (002) (34 Yrs - M W14 ) SLIGHT DRIVER/RIDER VEHICLE 001 (000) CAR (? Yrs - U ) UNKNOWN (S/RPARKED W TO E x BT - DRV NOT CONTACTED O/S HIT FIRST
VEHICLE 002 (000) PEDAL CYCLE (34 Yrs - M W14 ) UNKNOWN (S/RGOING AHEAD OTHER W TO E JCT APP BT - DRV NOT CONTACTED FRONT HIT FIRST
DHARMARAJM LAAU - Accident Analysis System RACCM28INTL Date: 04 DEC 2018 14:46 Interpreted Listing Page: 29 of 47
Hammersmith Grove route sections: Collisions - 3 years to 31-March-2018 (provisional)
B11HAMGROV.018 NODE 63 (KING ST/HAMMERSMITH BROADWAY) 36 MTS TO MAR-2018 SORTED BY DATE 7 01170014335 WED 25/01/17 16:55 DARK BEADON ROAD J/W QUEEN CAROLINE STREET 11 NODE 63 523330/ / 178620 POLICE - AT SCENE ROAD-DRY WEATHER-FINE SINGLE CWY ROUNDABOUT AUTO SIG NO XING FACILITY IN 50M NOT KNOWN HOW COLLISION OCCURRED CASUALTY 001 (001) (63 Yrs - F E7 ) SLIGHT PASSENGER STANDING ON PSV VEHICLE 001 (000) BUS/COACH (47 Yrs - M SL1 ) SLOWING OR STOPPING NW TO SE JNY PART OF WORK JCT APP x BT - NEGATIVE DID NOT IMPACT
V001 A 408 (SUDDEN BRAKING)
8 01170048065 WED 12/07/17 17:57 LIGHT QUEEN CAROLINE STREET J/W KING STREET 11 NODE 63 523330/ / 178590 POLICE - AT SCENE ROAD-DRY WEATHER-FINE ROUNDABOUT MULTI JUN AUTO SIG PEDN PHASE AT ATS NOT KNOWN HOW COLLISION OCCURRED CASUALTY 001 (001) (71 Yrs - M W6 ) SERIOUS PEDESTRIAN CROSSING ROAD ON PED XING E BOUND FROM DRIVERS N/SIDE VEHICLE 001 (000) GDS =< 3.5T (28 Yrs - M W4 ) GOING AHEAD OTHER S TO N JNY PART OF WORK JCT MID x BT - NEGATIVE SKIDDED FRONT HIT FIRST
V001 A 903 (EMERGENCY VEHICLE ON CALL)
9 01170065172 WED 27/09/17 21:30 DARK BEADON ROAD J/W HAMMERSMITH ROUNDABOUT 11 NODE 63 523320/ / 178630 SELF COMPLETION ROAD-WET RAINING ROUNDABOUT ROUNDABOUT AUTO SIG NO XING FACILITY IN 50M NOT KNOWN HOW COLLISION OCCURRED CASUALTY 001 (001) (31 Yrs - F W6 ) SLIGHT DRIVER/RIDER VEHICLE 001 (000) CAR (31 Yrs - F W6 ) GOING AHEAD OTHER U( TO U( x BT - DRV NOT CONTACTED UNKNOWN (S/R) UNKNOWN (S/R) UNKNOWN (S/R) VEHICLE 002 (000) CAR (? Yrs - U ) UNKNOWN (S/RGOING AHEAD OTHER U( TO U( BT - DRV NOT CONTACTED UNKNOWN (S/R) UNKNOWN (S/R)
DHARMARAJM LAAU - Accident Analysis System RACCM28INTL Date: 04 DEC 2018 14:46 Interpreted Listing Page: 30 of 47
Hammersmith Grove route sections: Collisions - 3 years to 31-March-2018 (provisional)
B11HAMGROV.018 NODE 63 (KING ST/HAMMERSMITH BROADWAY) 36 MTS TO MAR-2018 SORTED BY DATE 10 01170063214 SUN 08/10/17 17:00 LIGHT QUEEN CAROLINE STREET J/W KING STREET 11 NODE 63 523330/ / 178590 POLICE - AT SCENE ROAD-DRY WEATHER-FINE ONE-WAY ST MULTI JUN AUTO SIG PELICAN OR SIMILAR V1 BUS MOVES OFF AS PED CROSSES ROAD CASUALTY 001 (001) (80 Yrs - F W14 ) FATAL PEDESTRIAN CROSSING ROAD ON PED XING E BOUND FROM DRIVERS N/SIDE VEHICLE 001 (000) BUS/COACH (54 Yrs - M N9 ) GOING AHEAD OTHER S TO N JNY PART OF WORK JCT APP x BT - NEGATIVE FRONT HIT FIRST
C001 B 802 (FAILED TO LOOK PROPERLY) V001 B 406 (FAILED TO JUDGE OTHER PERSON'S PATH OR SPEED)
11 01170063531 TUE 10/10/17 08:05 LIGHT BEADON ROAD J/W HAMMERSMITH BROAD WAY 11 NODE 63 523320/ / 178630 POLICE - AT SCENE ROAD-DRY WEATHER-FINE ONE-WAY ST OTHER JUN GIVE WAY/UNCONT NO XING FACILITY IN 50M NOT KNOWN HOW COLLISION OCCURRED CASUALTY 001 (001) (50 Yrs - F TW7 ) SLIGHT PASSENGER STANDING ON PSV VEHICLE 001 (000) BUS/COACH (32 Yrs - M TW10) MOVING OFF W TO E ENTERING MAIN RD x BT - NOT REQUESTED DID NOT IMPACT
V001 B 999 (OTHER FACTOR)
12 01180091223 MON 19/02/18 15:46 LIGHT QUEEN CAROLINE STREET J/W KING STREET 11 NODE 63 523340/ / 178590 POLICE - AT SCENE ROAD-WET WEATHER-FINE ROUNDABOUT ROUNDABOUT AUTO SIG PEDN PHASE AT ATS NOT KNOWN HOW COLLISION OCCURRED CASUALTY 001 (001) (32 Yrs - M SW9 ) SLIGHT PEDESTRIAN CROSSING ROAD ON PED XING SE BOUND FROM DRIVERS O/SIDE VEHICLE 001 (000) GDS =< 3.5T (? Yrs - U ) MOVING OFF SW TO NE LEAVING R'ABOUT x BT - DRV NOT CONTACTED FRONT HIT FIRST
V001 A 602 (CARELESS/RECKLESS/IN A HURRY) V001 A 301 (DISOBEYED AUTOMATIC TRAFFIC SIGNAL)
End of Accidents for B11HAMGROV.018 NODE 63 (KING ST/HAMMERSMITH BROADWAY)
DHARMARAJM LAAU - Accident Analysis System RACCM28INTL Date: 04 DEC 2018 14:46 Interpreted Listing Page: 31 of 47
Hammersmith Grove route sections: Collisions - 3 years to 31-March-2018 (provisional)
B11HAMGROV.020 NODE 64 (SHEPHERDS BUSH RD/HAMMERSMITH BROADWAY) 36 MTS TO MAR-2018 SORTED BY DATE 1 0115FH10376 TUE 14/07/15 15:00 LIGHT HAMMERSMITH BROADWAY J/W SHEPHERD'S BUSH ROAD 11 NODE 64 523400/ / 178620 POLICE - OVER COU ROAD-DRY WEATHER-FINE ONE-WAY ST T/STAG JUN GIVE WAY/UNCONT NO XING FACILITY IN 50M V1 BRAKED TO AVOID AN ACCIDENT & PASSENGER FELL FORWARD & HIT HEAD CASUALTY 001 (001) (78 Yrs - M HA4 ) SLIGHT PASSENGER SEATED ON PSV VEHICLE 001 (000) BUS/COACH (33 Yrs - M UB2 ) SLOWING OR STOPPING W TO E JNY PART OF WORK JCT MID x BT - DRV NOT CONTACTED DID NOT IMPACT
V001 A 408 (SUDDEN BRAKING)
2 0116FH10047 FRI 22/01/16 18:00 DARK NFL- HAMMERSMITH BROADWAY J/W SHEPHERD'S BUSH ROAD 11 NODE 64 523400/ / 178620 POLICE - OVER COU ROAD-DRY WEATHER-FINE ONE-WAY ST T/STAG JUN AUTO SIG PEDN PHASE AT ATS UNK V2 WHO FTS DROVE INTO REAR OF V1 WHO WAS STATIONARY @ RED ATS CASUALTY 001 (001) (49 Yrs - M CR4 ) SLIGHT DRIVER/RIDER CASUALTY 002 (001) (30 Yrs - F CR4 ) SLIGHT PASSENGER FRONT SEAT xVEHICLE 001 (002) CAR (49 Yrs - M CR4 ) GOING AHEAD HELD UP W TO E JCT MID BT - DRV NOT CONTACTED BACK HIT FIRST
VEHICLE 002 (001) GDS =< 3.5T (? Yrs - U UNKN) GOING AHEAD OTHER W TO E JNY PART OF WORK JCT MID BT - DRV NOT CONTACTED FRONT HIT FIRST LEAVING LAY-BY/HARD SHLD V002 A 308 (FOLLOWING TOO CLOSE) V002 A 405 (FAILED TO LOOK PROPERLY) V002 A 406 (FAILED TO JUDGE OTHER PERSON'S PATH OR SPEED) V002 A 602 (CARELESS/RECKLESS/IN A HURRY)
DHARMARAJM LAAU - Accident Analysis System RACCM28INTL Date: 04 DEC 2018 14:46 Interpreted Listing Page: 32 of 47
Hammersmith Grove route sections: Collisions - 3 years to 31-March-2018 (provisional)
B11HAMGROV.020 NODE 64 (SHEPHERDS BUSH RD/HAMMERSMITH BROADWAY) 36 MTS TO MAR-2018 SORTED BY DATE 3 0116FH10379 MON 11/07/16 20:12 DARK HAMMERSMITH BROADWAY J/W SHEPHERD'S BUSH ROAD 11 NODE 64 523380/ / 178620 POLICE - AT SCENE ROAD-DRY WEATHER-FINE ROUNDABOUT ROUNDABOUT AUTO SIG PEDN PHASE AT ATS RIDER ON V2 WENT THROUGH GAP IN THE TRAFFIC HIT N/S OF V1 & FELL OFF RIDERLESS V2 SLID ACROSS ROAD & HIT A PED ON ISLAND CASUALTY 001 (002) (20 Yrs - M W3 ) SLIGHT DRIVER/RIDER CASUALTY 002 (002) (39 Yrs - M NW10) SLIGHT PEDESTRIAN ON REFUGE S BOUND xVEHICLE 001 (002) CAR (31 Yrs - M W12 ) GOING AHEAD HELD UP S TO N JNY PART OF WORK JCT MID BT - NOT REQUESTED N/S HIT FIRST
VEHICLE 002 (001) M/C 50-125CC (20 Yrs - M W3 ) GOING AHEAD RIGHT BEND S TO E JCT MID BT - NOT REQUESTED O/S HIT FIRST HIT KERB V002 A 403 (POOR TURN OR MANOEUVRE) V002 A 405 (FAILED TO LOOK PROPERLY) V002 A 410 (LOSS OF CONTROL) V002 A 602 (CARELESS/RECKLESS/IN A HURRY)
4 01160008227 WED 14/12/16 13:30 LIGHT HAMMERSMITH BROADWAY J/W HAMMERSMITH ROAD 11 NODE 64 523390/ / 178640 SELF COMPLETION ROAD-DRY WEATHER-FINE ROUNDABOUT ROUNDABOUT AUTO SIG PEDN PHASE AT ATS NOT KNOWN HOW COLLISION OCCURRED CASUALTY 001 (001) (89 Yrs - M W6 ) SLIGHT PEDESTRIAN CROSSING ROAD ON PED XING E BOUND FROM DRIVERS O/SIDE VEHICLE 001 (000) CAR (? Yrs - U ) REVERSING SE TO N JCT MID x BT - DRV NOT CONTACTED BACK HIT FIRST
5 01170020568 THU 23/02/17 23:17 DARK HAMMERSMITH BROADWAY J/W SHEPHERD'S BUSH ROAD 11 NODE 64 523390/ / 178620 POLICE - AT SCENE ROAD-DRY WEATHER-FINE ROUNDABOUT MULTI JUN AUTO SIG PEDN PHASE AT ATS NOT KNOWN HOW COLLISION OCCURRED CASUALTY 001 (001) (32 Yrs - M SW15) SERIOUS PEDESTRIAN CROSSING ROAD ON PED XING N BOUND FROM DRIVERS O/SIDE VEHICLE 001 (000) CAR (22 Yrs - M W6 ) GOING AHEAD OTHER NE TO E COMM TO/FROM WORK JCT APP x BT - NOT REQUESTED SKIDDED FRONT HIT FIRST
C001 A 808 (CARELESS/RECKLESS/IN A HURRY) C001 A 804 (WRONG USE OF PEDESTRIAN CROSSING FACILITY)
DHARMARAJM LAAU - Accident Analysis System RACCM28INTL Date: 04 DEC 2018 14:46 Interpreted Listing Page: 33 of 47
Hammersmith Grove route sections: Collisions - 3 years to 31-March-2018 (provisional)
B11HAMGROV.020 NODE 64 (SHEPHERDS BUSH RD/HAMMERSMITH BROADWAY) 36 MTS TO MAR-2018 SORTED BY DATE 6 01170047789 TUE 11/07/17 19:05 LIGHT HAMMERSMITH BROADWAY J/W SHEPHERD'S BUSH ROAD 11 NODE 64 523380/ / 178620 POLICE - AT SCENE ROAD-WET RAINING SINGLE CWY ROUNDABOUT AUTO SIG PELICAN OR SIMILAR NOT KNOWN HOW COLLISION OCCURRED CASUALTY 001 (001) (29 Yrs - F CR8 ) SLIGHT PASSENGER BACK SEAT VEHICLE 001 (000) CAR (31 Yrs - M CR8 ) CHANGE LANE TO LEFT S TO N LEAVING R'ABOUT x BT - NOT REQUESTED N/S HIT FIRST
VEHICLE 002 (000) CAR (46 Yrs - M W3 ) CHANGE LANE TO RIGHT S TO E LEAVING R'ABOUT BT - DRV NOT CONTACTED O/S HIT FIRST
V002 A 403 (POOR TURN OR MANOEUVRE) V002 A 406 (FAILED TO JUDGE OTHER PERSON'S PATH OR SPEED) V001 B 405 (FAILED TO LOOK PROPERLY)
7 01170069564 SUN 12/11/17 17:25 DARK HAMMERSMITH BROADWAY J/W SHEPHERDS BUSH ROAD 11 NODE 64 523400/ / 178620 POLICE - AT SCENE ROAD-DRY WEATHER-FINE ONE-WAY ST MULTI JUN AUTO SIG PEDN PHASE AT ATS NOT KNOWN HOW COLLISION OCCURRED CASUALTY 001 (001) (27 Yrs - M TW3 ) SLIGHT DRIVER/RIDER VEHICLE 001 (000) M/C 50-125CC (27 Yrs - M TW3 ) GOING AHEAD HELD UP W TO E COMM TO/FROM WORK JCT APP x BT - NOT REQUESTED BACK HIT FIRST
VEHICLE 002 (000) CAR (79 Yrs - M W9 ) SLOWING OR STOPPING W TO E JCT APP BT - DRV NOT CONTACTED FRONT HIT FIRST
V001 B 408 (SUDDEN BRAKING) V002 A 405 (FAILED TO LOOK PROPERLY) V002 A 308 (FOLLOWING TOO CLOSE)
DHARMARAJM LAAU - Accident Analysis System RACCM28INTL Date: 04 DEC 2018 14:46 Interpreted Listing Page: 34 of 47
Hammersmith Grove route sections: Collisions - 3 years to 31-March-2018 (provisional)
B11HAMGROV.020 NODE 64 (SHEPHERDS BUSH RD/HAMMERSMITH BROADWAY) 36 MTS TO MAR-2018 SORTED BY DATE 8 01170073732 WED 29/11/17 13:00 LIGHT HAMMERSMITH BROADWAY J/W HAMMERSMITH ROAD 11 NODE 64 523430/ / 178620 POLICE - AT SCENE ROAD-DRY WEATHER-FINE SINGLE CWY ROUNDABOUT GIVE WAY/UNCONT NO XING FACILITY IN 50M NOT KNOWN HOW COLLISION OCCURRED CASUALTY 001 (002) (84 Yrs - F W14 ) SLIGHT DRIVER/RIDER VEHICLE 001 (000) BUS/COACH (38 Yrs - M E7 ) WAITING TO TURN RIGHT S TO E JNY PART OF WORK x BT - NEGATIVE FRONT HIT FIRST
VEHICLE 002 (000) PEDAL CYCLE (84 Yrs - F W14 ) GOING AHEAD OTHER E TO W JCT MID BT - NOT REQUESTED FRONT HIT FIRST
V002 A 405 (FAILED TO LOOK PROPERLY)
9 01180090740 FRI 16/02/18 17:15 LIGHT HAMMERSMITH BROADWAY J/W SHEPHERDS BUSH ROAD 11 NODE 64 523390/ / 178620 POLICE - AT SCENE ROAD-DRY WEATHER-FINE ROUNDABOUT ROUNDABOUT AUTO SIG PELICAN OR SIMILAR NOT KNOWN HOW COLLISION OCCURRED CASUALTY 001 (001) (59 Yrs - F W12 ) SLIGHT PEDESTRIAN CROSSING ROAD ON PED XING S BOUND FROM DRIVERS O/SIDE VEHICLE 001 (000) GDS 3.5-7.5T (? Yrs - U ) MOVING OFF W TO E JCT MID x BT - DRV NOT CONTACTED FRONT HIT FIRST
V001 A 402 (JUNCTION RESTART) C001 B 804 (WRONG USE OF PEDESTRIAN CROSSING FACILITY)
End of Accidents for B11HAMGROV.020 NODE 64 (SHEPHERDS BUSH RD/HAMMERSMITH BROADWAY)
DHARMARAJM LAAU - Accident Analysis System RACCM28INTL Date: 04 DEC 2018 14:46 Interpreted Listing Page: 35 of 47
Hammersmith Grove route sections: Collisions - 3 years to 31-March-2018 (provisional)
B11HAMGROV.022 NODE 66 (BUTTERWICK/HAMMERSMITH RD) 36 MTS TO MAR-2018 SORTED BY DATE 1 0115FH10446 WED 02/09/15 18:27 LIGHT HAMMERSMITH ROAD J/W HAMMERSMITH BROADWAY & BUTTERWICK 11 NODE 66 523470/ / 178620 POLICE - AT SCENE ROAD-DRY WEATHER-FINE ONE-WAY ST T/STAG JUN GIVE WAY/UNCONT NO XING FACILITY IN 50M DRV V1 BECAME UN-WELL & PASSED OUT @ THE WHEEL & COLLIDED WITH PED CROSSING ROAD CASUALTY 001 (001) (30 Yrs - M CV34) SERIOUS PEDESTRIAN CROSSING ROAD (NOT ON XING) S BOUND FROM DRIVERS N/SIDE VEHICLE 001 (000) CAR (30 Yrs - F W6 ) GOING AHEAD OTHER W TO E JCT MID x BT - NEGATIVE FRONT HIT FIRST
V001 A 503 (FATIGUE) V001 A 505 (ILLNESS OR DISABILITY, MENTAL OR PHYSICAL) V001 A 407 (PASSING TOO CLOSE TO CYCLIST, HORSE RIDER OR PEDESTRIAN) V001 A 405 (FAILED TO LOOK PROPERLY) V001 A 602 (CARELESS/RECKLESS/IN A HURRY)
2 0115FH10542 MON 14/09/15 19:52 DARK HAMMERSMITH ROAD J/W BUTE GARDENS & BUTTERWICK 11 NODE 66 523490/ / 178620 POLICE - AT SCENE ROAD-DRY WEATHER-FINE ONE-WAY ST CROSSROADS GIVE WAY/UNCONT ZEBRA RIDER ON V1 RODE THROUGH RED ATS & COLLIDED WITH V2 (SEGWAY) BEING RIDEN ACROSS PED X KNOCKING RIDER OFF CASUALTY 001 (002) (26 Yrs - M W12 ) SLIGHT DRIVER/RIDER VEHICLE 001 (002) PEDAL CYCLE (50 Yrs - M TW9 ) GOING AHEAD OTHER W TO E JCT MID x BT - NOT APPLICABLE FRONT HIT FIRST
VEHICLE 002 (001) OTH MOT VEH (26 Yrs - M W12 ) GOING AHEAD OTHER N TO S JCT MID BT - NOT REQUESTED O/S HIT FIRST
V001 A 301 (DISOBEYED AUTOMATIC TRAFFIC SIGNAL) V001 A 405 (FAILED TO LOOK PROPERLY) V001 A 406 (FAILED TO JUDGE OTHER PERSON'S PATH OR SPEED) V001 A 602 (CARELESS/RECKLESS/IN A HURRY)
3 0116FH10389 THU 14/07/16 14:35 LIGHT HAMMERSMITH ROAD J/W BUTTERWICK 11 NODE 66 523510/ / 178620 POLICE - AT SCENE ROAD-DRY WEATHER-FINE SINGLE CWY T/STAG JUN AUTO SIG PEDN PHASE AT ATS V1 BRAKED FOR ATS & CAUSED PASSENGHER COMING DOWN STAIRS TO FALL & BE INJ - [CARRYING BAGS NOT HOLDING ON (C001)] CASUALTY 001 (001) (52 Yrs - F W6 ) SLIGHT PASSENGER STANDING ON PSV VEHICLE 001 (000) BUS/COACH (53 Yrs - M KT2 ) TURNING LEFT E TO S JNY PART OF WORK JCT MID x BT - NOT REQUESTED DID NOT IMPACT
V001 A 408 (SUDDEN BRAKING) C001 A 999 (OTHER FACTOR)
DHARMARAJM LAAU - Accident Analysis System RACCM28INTL Date: 04 DEC 2018 14:46 Interpreted Listing Page: 36 of 47
Hammersmith Grove route sections: Collisions - 3 years to 31-March-2018 (provisional)
B11HAMGROV.022 NODE 66 (BUTTERWICK/HAMMERSMITH RD) 36 MTS TO MAR-2018 SORTED BY DATE 4 01160022965 SAT 01/10/16 03:40 DARK HAMMERSMITH ROAD J/W BUTTERWICK 11 NODE 66 523510/ / 178620 POLICE - AT SCENE ROAD-DRY WEATHER-FINE SINGLE CWY T/STAG JUN AUTO SIG PEDN PHASE AT ATS DRV V1 TRIED TO GO UP N/S OF V2 & THEN SAW THERE WAS NO ROOM SO STOPPED & WAS HIT BY V2 CASUALTY 001 (001) (36 Yrs - M E3 ) SLIGHT DRIVER/RIDER VEHICLE 001 (000) TAXI (36 Yrs - M E3 ) OVERTAKING NEARSIDE E TO S JCT APP x BT - NEGATIVE O/S HIT FIRST
VEHICLE 002 (000) BUS/COACH (57 Yrs - M HA2 ) CHANGE LANE TO LEFT E TO S JNY PART OF WORK JCT APP BT - NEGATIVE N/S HIT FIRST
V001 A 602 (CARELESS/RECKLESS/IN A HURRY) V001 A 406 (FAILED TO JUDGE OTHER PERSON'S PATH OR SPEED) V001 A 405 (FAILED TO LOOK PROPERLY) V001 A 403 (POOR TURN OR MANOEUVRE) V001 A 308 (FOLLOWING TOO CLOSE)
5 01170017270 THU 09/02/17 17:15 LIGHT HAMMERSMITH ROAD J/W BUTTERWICK 11 NODE 66 523510/ / 178620 POLICE - AT SCENE ROAD-DRY WEATHER-FINE SINGLE CWY ROUNDABOUT AUTO SIG NO XING FACILITY IN 50M NOT KNOWN HOW COLLISION OCCURRED CASUALTY 001 (001) (39 Yrs - M W14 ) SLIGHT DRIVER/RIDER VEHICLE 001 (000) M/C 50-125CC (39 Yrs - M W14 ) TURNING LEFT E TO S COMM TO/FROM WORK JCT APP x BT - NOT REQUESTED BACK HIT FIRST
VEHICLE 002 (000) CAR (? Yrs - U ) TURNING LEFT E TO S JCT APP BT - DRV NOT CONTACTED FRONT HIT FIRST
V002 A 403 (POOR TURN OR MANOEUVRE)
6 01180084955 SUN 21/01/18 18:39 DARK BUTTERWICK J/W HAMMERSMITH BROADWAY 11 NODE 66 523470/ / 178610 POLICE - AT SCENE ROAD-WET RAINING ROUNDABOUT ROUNDABOUT AUTO SIG PEDN PHASE AT ATS OTH AUTH PER NOT KNOWN HOW COLLISION OCCURRED CASUALTY 001 (001) (41 Yrs - M W14 ) SERIOUS PEDESTRIAN CROSSING ROAD ON PED XING N BOUND FROM DRIVERS O/SIDE VEHICLE 001 (000) GDS =< 3.5T (31 Yrs - M W6 ) GOING AHEAD RIGHT BEND W TO S LEAVING R'ABOUT x BT - NEGATIVE FRONT HIT FIRST
C001 A 802 (FAILED TO LOOK PROPERLY)
End of Accidents for B11HAMGROV.022 NODE 66 (BUTTERWICK/HAMMERSMITH RD)
DHARMARAJM LAAU - Accident Analysis System RACCM28INTL Date: 04 DEC 2018 14:46 Interpreted Listing Page: 37 of 47
Hammersmith Grove route sections: Collisions - 3 years to 31-March-2018 (provisional)
B11HAMGROV.023 LINK 64-86 (SHEPHERDS BUSH ROAD) 36 MTS TO MAR-2018 SORTED BY DATE 1 0115FH10187 FRI 03/04/15 02:30 DARK SHEPHERD'S BUSH ROAD J/W BROOK GREEN 11 LINK 64-86 523430/ / 179030 POLICE - OVER COU ROAD-WET RAINING SINGLE CWY T/STAG JUN AUTO SIG PEDN PHASE AT ATS V2 DROVE INTO REAR OF V1 WHO WAS STATIONARY @ RED ATS CASUALTY 001 (001) (46 Yrs - M SK2 ) SLIGHT DRIVER/RIDER VEHICLE 001 (002) GDS =< 3.5T (46 Yrs - M SK2 ) GOING AHEAD HELD UP SW TO NE JCT MID x BT - DRV NOT CONTACTED BACK HIT FIRST
VEHICLE 002 (001) CAR (? Yrs - M UNKN) GOING AHEAD OTHER SW TO NE JCT MID BT - DRV NOT CONTACTED FRONT HIT FIRST
V002 A 308 (FOLLOWING TOO CLOSE) V002 A 405 (FAILED TO LOOK PROPERLY) V002 A 406 (FAILED TO JUDGE OTHER PERSON'S PATH OR SPEED) V002 A 602 (CARELESS/RECKLESS/IN A HURRY)
2 0115FH10261 SAT 23/05/15 07:08 LIGHT NFL: SHEPHERDS BUSH ROAD 75M N J/W HAMMERSMITH ROAD 11 LINK 64-86 523390/ / 178700 POLICE - AT SCENE ROAD-DRY WEATHER-FINE SINGLE CWY NO JUN IN 20M NO XING FACILITY IN 50M S/B V1 CHANGED LANE TO RIGHT WITHOUT PROPER SHOULDER CHECK; COLLIDED WITH S/B V2 ON HER O/S CASUALTY 001 (002) (49 Yrs - M NW6 ) SLIGHT DRIVER/RIDER VEHICLE 001 (002) CAR (29 Yrs - F W9 ) CHANGE LANE TO RIGHT N TO S PUPIL RIDING TO/FROM SCH x BT - NOT REQUESTED O/S HIT FIRST
VEHICLE 002 (001) PEDAL CYCLE (49 Yrs - M NW6 ) OVERTAKE MOVE VEH O/S N TO S BT - NOT APPLICABLE FRONT HIT FIRST
V001 A 403 (POOR TURN OR MANOEUVRE) V001 A 405 (FAILED TO LOOK PROPERLY)
DHARMARAJM LAAU - Accident Analysis System RACCM28INTL Date: 04 DEC 2018 14:46 Interpreted Listing Page: 38 of 47
Hammersmith Grove route sections: Collisions - 3 years to 31-March-2018 (provisional)
B11HAMGROV.023 LINK 64-86 (SHEPHERDS BUSH ROAD) 36 MTS TO MAR-2018 SORTED BY DATE 3 0115FH10476 FRI 07/08/15 19:11 LIGHT SHEPHERD'S BUSH ROAD 46M NORTH J/W HAMMERSMITH ROAD 11 LINK 64-86 523390/ / 178680 POLICE - AT SCENE ROAD-DRY WEATHER-FINE SINGLE CWY NO JUN IN 20M NO XING FACILITY IN 50M V2 WHO WAS POSSIBLY TO CLOSE DROVE INTO REAR OF V1 WHO BRAKED SHARPLY DUE TO TRAFFIC AHEAD STOPPING CASUALTY 001 (002) (16 Yrs - M W12 ) SERIOUS DRIVER/RIDER VEHICLE 001 (002) CAR (33 Yrs - F W4 ) SLOWING OR STOPPING S TO N x BT - NEGATIVE BACK HIT FIRST
VEHICLE 002 (001) M/C <= 50CC (16 Yrs - M W12 ) GOING AHEAD OTHER S TO N BT - NOT REQUESTED FRONT HIT FIRST
V002 A 308 (FOLLOWING TOO CLOSE) V002 A 405 (FAILED TO LOOK PROPERLY) V001 A 408 (SUDDEN BRAKING) V001 A 405 (FAILED TO LOOK PROPERLY)
4 0115FH10610 FRI 27/11/15 15:45 LIGHT SHEPHERD'S BUSH ROAD 65M NORTH J/W HAMMERSMITH BROADWAY 11 LINK 64-86 523390/ / 178690 POLICE - AT SCENE ROAD-WET RAINING SINGLE CWY NO JUN IN 20M NO XING FACILITY IN 50M PED CROSSED ROAD THROUGH STATIONARY TRAFFIC & COLLIDED WITH V1 WHO WAS FILTERING ON O/S & HAD NO TIME TO STOP CASUALTY 001 (001) (59 Yrs - M TW19) SLIGHT PEDESTRIAN CROSSING ROAD (NOT ON XING) W BOUND FROM DRIVERS N/SIDE VEHICLE 001 (000) M/C > 500CC (55 Yrs - M GU22) OVERTAKE MOVE VEH O/S N TO S x BT - NOT REQUESTED FRONT HIT FIRST
C001 A 801 (CROSSED ROAD MASKED BY STATIONARY OR PARKED VEHICLE) C001 A 802 (FAILED TO LOOK PROPERLY) C001 A 803 (FAILED TO JUDGE VEHICLE'S PATH OR SPEED) C001 A 808 (CARELESS/RECKLESS/IN A HURRY) V001 A 701 (VISION AFFECTED - STATIONARY OR PARKED VEHICLE(S))
DHARMARAJM LAAU - Accident Analysis System RACCM28INTL Date: 04 DEC 2018 14:46 Interpreted Listing Page: 39 of 47
Hammersmith Grove route sections: Collisions - 3 years to 31-March-2018 (provisional)
B11HAMGROV.023 LINK 64-86 (SHEPHERDS BUSH ROAD) 36 MTS TO MAR-2018 SORTED BY DATE 5 0116FH10031 MON 25/01/16 09:45 LIGHT SHEPHERD'S BUSH ROAD 175M NORTH J/W HAMMERSMITH BROADWAY 11 LINK 64-86 523390/ / 178800 POLICE - AT SCENE ROAD-DRY WEATHER-FINE SINGLE CWY NO JUN IN 20M NO XING FACILITY IN 50M RIDER ON V2 RIDER ON V2 RODE ACROSS ROAD FROM BETWEEN PARKED VEH'S INTO PATH OF V1 CASUALTY 001 (002) (14 Yrs - M W10 ) SLIGHT DRIVER/RIDER JOURNEY TO/FROM SCHOOL Sch Attended : WESTSIDE x VEHICLE 001 (002) CAR (57 Yrs - M CR4 ) GOING AHEAD OTHER S TO N BT - NOT REQUESTED FRONT HIT FIRST
VEHICLE 002 (001) PEDAL CYCLE (14 Yrs - M W10 ) GOING AHEAD OTHER W TO E BT - NOT APPLICABLE O/S HIT FIRST
V001 A 701 (VISION AFFECTED - STATIONARY OR PARKED VEHICLE(S)) V002 A 403 (POOR TURN OR MANOEUVRE) V002 A 405 (FAILED TO LOOK PROPERLY) V002 A 406 (FAILED TO JUDGE OTHER PERSON'S PATH OR SPEED) V002 A 602 (CARELESS/RECKLESS/IN A HURRY) V002 A 701 (VISION AFFECTED - STATIONARY OR PARKED VEHICLE(S))
6 0116FH10269 SUN 22/05/16 06:10 LIGHT NFL- SHEPHERD'S BUSH ROAD 20M SOUTH WEST J/W BROOK GREEN 11 LINK 64-86 523420/ / 179020 POLICE - AT SCENE ROAD-DRY WEATHER-FINE SINGLE CWY T/STAG JUN GIVE WAY/UNCONT ZEBRA RIDER ON V2 WAS UNDERTAKING IN THE BUS LANE THEN CHANGED LANES INTO PATH V1 LOST CONTROL & FELL OFF CASUALTY 001 (002) (25 Yrs - F TW3 ) SLIGHT DRIVER/RIDER VEHICLE 001 (002) CAR (59 Yrs - M NW6 ) GOING AHEAD OTHER NE TO SW JCT APP x BT - NOT REQUESTED N/S HIT FIRST
VEHICLE 002 (001) M/C 50-125CC (25 Yrs - F TW3 ) CHANGE LANE TO RIGHT NE TO SW JCT APP BT - NOT REQUESTED FRONT HIT FIRST
V002 A 403 (POOR TURN OR MANOEUVRE) V002 A 405 (FAILED TO LOOK PROPERLY) V002 A 406 (FAILED TO JUDGE OTHER PERSON'S PATH OR SPEED) V002 A 410 (LOSS OF CONTROL) V002 A 602 (CARELESS/RECKLESS/IN A HURRY)
DHARMARAJM LAAU - Accident Analysis System RACCM28INTL Date: 04 DEC 2018 14:46 Interpreted Listing Page: 40 of 47
Hammersmith Grove route sections: Collisions - 3 years to 31-March-2018 (provisional)
B11HAMGROV.023 LINK 64-86 (SHEPHERDS BUSH ROAD) 36 MTS TO MAR-2018 SORTED BY DATE 7 0116FH10355 FRI 15/07/16 11:45 LIGHT SHEPHARD'S BUSH ROAD J/W SHEPHERD'S BUSH ROAD 80M SOUTH J/W BROOKE 11 LINK 64-86 523390/ / 178960 POLICE - OVER COU ROAD-DRY WEATHER-FINE SINGLE CWY T/STAG JUN GIVE WAY/UNCONT NO XING FACILITY IN 50M V2 U-TURNED @ JUNC OF NO ENTRY ROAD & COLLIDED WITH V1 KNOCKING RIDER OFF CASUALTY 001 (001) (30 Yrs - F W12 ) SLIGHT DRIVER/RIDER VEHICLE 001 (002) PEDAL CYCLE (30 Yrs - F W12 ) GOING AHEAD RIGHT BEND S TO NE JCT MID x BT - NOT APPLICABLE FRONT HIT FIRST
VEHICLE 002 (001) CAR (? Yrs - U UNKN) U-TURNING NE TO NE JCT MID BT - DRV NOT CONTACTED FRONT HIT FIRST
V002 A 403 (POOR TURN OR MANOEUVRE) V002 A 405 (FAILED TO LOOK PROPERLY) V002 A 406 (FAILED TO JUDGE OTHER PERSON'S PATH OR SPEED) V002 A 602 (CARELESS/RECKLESS/IN A HURRY)
8 0116FH10385 TUE 19/07/16 13:15 LIGHT SHEPHERD'S BUSH ROAD 220M NORTH J/W HAMMERSMITH BROADWAY 11 LINK 64-86 523380/ / 178840 POLICE - AT SCENE ROAD-DRY WEATHER-FINE SINGLE CWY NO JUN IN 20M NO XING FACILITY IN 50M PASSENGER IN V2 OPENED DOOR WHILE IN TRAFFIC INTO PATH OF RIDER ON V1 WHO HAD NO TIME TO STOP & HIT THE DOOR CASUALTY 001 (001) (38 Yrs - M W6 ) SLIGHT DRIVER/RIDER VEHICLE 001 (002) PEDAL CYCLE (38 Yrs - M W6 ) GOING AHEAD OTHER S TO N x BT - NOT APPLICABLE O/S HIT FIRST HIT OPEN DOOR VEHICLE 002 (001) TAXI (33 Yrs - M W12 ) GOING AHEAD HELD UP S TO N BT - DRV NOT CONTACTED N/S HIT FIRST
V002 A 904 (VEHICLE DOOR OPENED OR CLOSED NEGLIGENTLY) V002 A 405 (FAILED TO LOOK PROPERLY) V002 A 406 (FAILED TO JUDGE OTHER PERSON'S PATH OR SPEED)
9 0116FH10438 MON 01/08/16 16:20 LIGHT SHEPHERD'S BUSH ROAD 40M NORTH J/W HAMMERSMITH BROADWAY 11 LINK 64-86 523390/ / 178670 POLICE - AT SCENE ROAD-DRY WEATHER-FINE SINGLE CWY NO JUN IN 20M PELICAN OR SIMILAR PED RAN ACROSS ROAD FROM BETWEEN PARKED VEHICLES & NOT ON THE PED X & WAS HIT BY V1 CASUALTY 001 (001) (35 Yrs - F W5 ) SLIGHT PEDESTRIAN CROSSING ROAD WITHIN 50M XING W BOUND FROM DRIVERS N/SIDE VEHICLE 001 (000) GDS =< 3.5T (18 Yrs - M KT5 ) GOING AHEAD OTHER N TO S JNY PART OF WORK x BT - NOT REQUESTED N/S HIT FIRST
C001 A 804 (WRONG USE OF PEDESTRIAN CROSSING FACILITY) C001 A 802 (FAILED TO LOOK PROPERLY) C001 A 803 (FAILED TO JUDGE VEHICLE'S PATH OR SPEED) C001 A 808 (CARELESS/RECKLESS/IN A HURRY)
DHARMARAJM LAAU - Accident Analysis System RACCM28INTL Date: 04 DEC 2018 14:46 Interpreted Listing Page: 41 of 47
Hammersmith Grove route sections: Collisions - 3 years to 31-March-2018 (provisional)
B11HAMGROV.023 LINK 64-86 (SHEPHERDS BUSH ROAD) 36 MTS TO MAR-2018 SORTED BY DATE 10 0116FH10433 THU 11/08/16 00:06 DARK SHEPHERD'S BUSH ROAD J/W BROOK GREEN 11 LINK 64-86 523430/ / 179030 POLICE - AT SCENE ROAD-DRY WEATHER-FINE SINGLE CWY T/STAG JUN GIVE WAY/UNCONT ZEBRA V2 TURNED RIGHT ON A RED ATS & CAUSED V1 TO BRAKE/SWERVE TO AVOID AN ACCIDENT & FALL OFF NO CONTACT CASUALTY 001 (001) (37 Yrs - M TW14) SLIGHT DRIVER/RIDER VEHICLE 001 (002) M/C 50-125CC (37 Yrs - M TW14) GOING AHEAD OTHER NE TO SW JCT MID x BT - NOT REQUESTED FRONT HIT FIRST
VEHICLE 002 (001) CAR (29 Yrs - M LE3 ) TURNING RIGHT SE TO NE JCT MID BT - NOT REQUESTED FRONT HIT FIRST
V001 A 301 (DISOBEYED AUTOMATIC TRAFFIC SIGNAL) V001 A 403 (POOR TURN OR MANOEUVRE) V001 A 406 (FAILED TO JUDGE OTHER PERSON'S PATH OR SPEED) V001 A 602 (CARELESS/RECKLESS/IN A HURRY) V002 A 408 (SUDDEN BRAKING) V002 A 401 (JUNCTION OVERSHOOT)
11 0116FH10441 SUN 21/08/16 14:15 LIGHT SHEPHERD'S BUSH ROAD 150M NORTH J/W HAMMERSMITH BROADWAY 11 LINK 64-86 523390/ / 178780 POLICE - AT SCENE ROAD-DRY WEATHER-FINE SINGLE CWY NO JUN IN 20M NO XING FACILITY IN 50M DRV V2 WAS DISTRACTED & DROVE INTO REAR OF V1 WHO HAD SLOWED & STOPPED DUE TO TRAFFIC AHEAD & CAUSED V1 TO HIT THE KERB CASUALTY 001 (001) (44 Yrs - M FY8 ) SLIGHT DRIVER/RIDER CASUALTY 002 (001) (? Yrs - F FY8 ) SLIGHT PASSENGER FRONT SEAT xVEHICLE 001 (002) CAR (44 Yrs - M FY8 ) GOING AHEAD OTHER S TO N BT - NEGATIVE BACK HIT FIRST HIT KERB VEHICLE 002 (001) CAR (37 Yrs - M W14 ) GOING AHEAD OTHER S TO N BT - NEGATIVE FRONT HIT FIRST
V002 A 509 (DISTRACTION IN VEHICLE) V002 A 405 (FAILED TO LOOK PROPERLY) V002 A 406 (FAILED TO JUDGE OTHER PERSON'S PATH OR SPEED) V002 A 602 (CARELESS/RECKLESS/IN A HURRY)
DHARMARAJM LAAU - Accident Analysis System RACCM28INTL Date: 04 DEC 2018 14:46 Interpreted Listing Page: 42 of 47
Hammersmith Grove route sections: Collisions - 3 years to 31-March-2018 (provisional)
B11HAMGROV.023 LINK 64-86 (SHEPHERDS BUSH ROAD) 36 MTS TO MAR-2018 SORTED BY DATE 12 01160014000 MON 05/12/16 18:30 DARK SHEPHERDS BUSH ROAD J/W BROOK GREEN 11 LINK 64-86 523430/ / 179040 SELF COMPLETION ROAD-DRY WEATHER-FINE DUAL CWY UNKNOWN (S/R) UNKNOWN (S/R) UNKNOWN (S/R) UNKNOWN (S/R) UNKNOWN (S/R) NOT KNOWN HOW COLLISION OCCURRED CASUALTY 001 (001) (78 Yrs - F W6 ) SERIOUS PASSENGER BACK SEAT VEHICLE 001 (000) TAXI (? Yrs - U ) GOING AHEAD OTHER S TO N JCT APP x BT - DRV NOT CONTACTED DID NOT IMPACT
13 01170012556 SUN 01/01/17 22:46 DARK SHEPHERDS BUSH ROAD J/W BROOK GREEN 11 LINK 64-86 523430/ / 179040 SELF COMPLETION UNKNOWN (S/R) WEATHER-UNKNOWN SINGLE CWY T/STAG JUN GIVE WAY/UNCONT UNKNOWN (S/R) NOT KNOWN HOW COLLISION OCCURRED CASUALTY 001 (001) (61 Yrs - F BN1 ) SLIGHT DRIVER/RIDER VEHICLE 001 (000) CAR (61 Yrs - F BN1 ) GOING AHEAD OTHER N TO S JCT APP x BT - DRV NOT CONTACTED BACK HIT FIRST
VEHICLE 002 (000) CAR (23 Yrs - F KT6 ) UNKNOWN (S/RGOING AHEAD OTHER N TO S JCT APP BT - DRV NOT CONTACTED FRONT HIT FIRST
14 01170025080 THU 02/03/17 15:50 LIGHT SHEPHERDS BUSH ROAD 150M S OF J/W BROOK GEEN 11 LINK 64-86 523380/ / 178860 SELF COMPLETION ROAD-DRY WEATHER-UNKNOWN ONE-WAY ST NO JUN IN 20M NO XING FACILITY IN 50M NOT KNOWN HOW COLLISION OCCURRED CASUALTY 001 (001) (45 Yrs - F W13 ) SLIGHT DRIVER/RIDER VEHICLE 001 (000) CAR (45 Yrs - F W13 ) UNKNOWN (S/RGOING AHEAD OTHER S TO N x BT - DRV NOT CONTACTED UNKNOWN (S/R) N/S HIT FIRST UNKNOWN (S/R) VEHICLE 002 (000) CAR (? Yrs - U ) UNKNOWN (S/R) S TO N BT - DRV NOT CONTACTED O/S HIT FIRST
DHARMARAJM LAAU - Accident Analysis System RACCM28INTL Date: 04 DEC 2018 14:46 Interpreted Listing Page: 43 of 47
Hammersmith Grove route sections: Collisions - 3 years to 31-March-2018 (provisional)
B11HAMGROV.023 LINK 64-86 (SHEPHERDS BUSH ROAD) 36 MTS TO MAR-2018 SORTED BY DATE 15 01170028315 MON 27/03/17 11:50 LIGHT SHEPHERDS BUSH ROAD 50M N OF J/W HAMMERSMITH BROADWAY 11 LINK 64-86 523390/ / 178700 POLICE - AT SCENE ROAD-DRY WEATHER-FINE SINGLE CWY NO JUN IN 20M NO XING FACILITY IN 50M NOT KNOWN HOW COLLISION OCCURRED CASUALTY 001 (001) (19 Yrs - F HP16) SLIGHT PEDESTRIAN CROSSING ROAD (NOT ON XING) E BOUND FROM DRIVERS O/SIDE MSK VEHICLE 001 (000) CAR (28 Yrs - M E1 ) GOING AHEAD OTHER N TO S x BT - NEGATIVE FRONT HIT FIRST
C001 A 801 (CROSSED ROAD MASKED BY STATIONARY OR PARKED VEHICLE)
16 01170037435 MON 15/05/17 12:11 LIGHT SHEPHERDS BUSH ROAD 100M N OF J/W HAMMERSMITH BROADWAY THE NEAREST 11 LINK 64-86 523390/ / 178690 POLICE - AT SCENE ROAD-WET RAINING DUAL CWY NO JUN IN 20M NO XING FACILITY IN 50M NOT KNOWN HOW COLLISION OCCURRED CASUALTY 001 (001) (40 Yrs - M EN2 ) SLIGHT DRIVER/RIDER VEHICLE 001 (000) M/C 50-125CC (40 Yrs - M EN2 ) SLOWING OR STOPPING N TO S x BT - NOT REQUESTED OVERTURN FRONT HIT FIRST
VEHICLE 002 (000) GDS =< 3.5T (27 Yrs - M EN9 ) SLOWING OR STOPPING N TO S JNY PART OF WORK BT - NOT REQUESTED BACK HIT FIRST
V001 B 103 (SLIPPERY ROAD (DUE TO WEATHER)) V002 B 403 (POOR TURN OR MANOEUVRE) V002 B 405 (FAILED TO LOOK PROPERLY)
17 01170042287 SUN 11/06/17 00:40 DARK SHEPHERDS BUSH ROAD 100M N OF J/W HAMMERSMITH BROADWAY THE NEAREST 11 LINK 64-86 523390/ / 178750 POLICE - AT SCENE ROAD-DRY WEATHER-FINE SINGLE CWY NO JUN IN 20M PEDN PHASE AT ATS NOT KNOWN HOW COLLISION OCCURRED CASUALTY 001 (001) (19 Yrs - F W3 ) SLIGHT PEDESTRIAN IN CENTRE OF CARRIAGEWAY N BOUND FROM DRIVERS O/SIDE VEHICLE 001 (000) CAR (17 Yrs - F W14 ) GOING AHEAD RIGHT BEND S TO N x BT - NOT REQUESTED N/S HIT FIRST
C001 A 802 (FAILED TO LOOK PROPERLY) C001 A 803 (FAILED TO JUDGE VEHICLE'S PATH OR SPEED)
DHARMARAJM LAAU - Accident Analysis System RACCM28INTL Date: 04 DEC 2018 14:46 Interpreted Listing Page: 44 of 47
Hammersmith Grove route sections: Collisions - 3 years to 31-March-2018 (provisional)
B11HAMGROV.023 LINK 64-86 (SHEPHERDS BUSH ROAD) 36 MTS TO MAR-2018 SORTED BY DATE 18 01170048486 SAT 15/07/17 02:00 DARK SHEPHERDS BUSH ROAD 150M N OF J/W HAMMERSMITH ROAD THE NEAREST CLA 11 LINK 64-86 523380/ / 178780 POLICE - AT SCENE ROAD-DRY WEATHER-FINE DUAL CWY NO JUN IN 20M NO XING FACILITY IN 50M NOT KNOWN HOW COLLISION OCCURRED CASUALTY 001 (001) (18 Yrs - M W8 ) SERIOUS PEDESTRIAN CROSSING ROAD (NOT ON XING) E BOUND FROM DRIVERS N/SIDE VEHICLE 001 (000) CAR (19 Yrs - M W10 ) GOING AHEAD OTHER S TO N x BT - NEGATIVE FRONT HIT FIRST
C001 A 806 (IMPAIRED BY ALCOHOL) C001 A 808 (CARELESS/RECKLESS/IN A HURRY) C001 A 802 (FAILED TO LOOK PROPERLY) V001 B 306 (EXCEEDING SPEED LIMIT)
19 01170053500 SUN 13/08/17 01:35 DARK SHEPHERDS BUSH ROAD 100M N OF J/W HAMMERSMITH ROAD 11 LINK 64-86 523395/ / 178735 POLICE - AT SCENE ROAD-DRY WEATHER-FINE SINGLE CWY NO JUN IN 20M NO XING FACILITY IN 50M NOT KNOWN HOW COLLISION OCCURRED CASUALTY 001 (001) (40 Yrs - F HA0 ) SLIGHT PEDESTRIAN CROSSING ROAD (NOT ON XING) E BOUND FROM DRIVERS O/SIDE VEHICLE 001 (000) CAR (34 Yrs - M SE15) GOING AHEAD OTHER N TO S JNY PART OF WORK x BT - NOT REQUESTED O/S HIT FIRST
C001 A 802 (FAILED TO LOOK PROPERLY) C001 A 806 (IMPAIRED BY ALCOHOL) V001 B 406 (FAILED TO JUDGE OTHER PERSON'S PATH OR SPEED)
20 01170054531 FRI 18/08/17 20:15 DARK SHEPHERDS BUSH ROAD 50M S OF J/W SLIP ROAD - SHEPHERDS BUSH ROAD 11 LINK 64-86 523385/ / 178915 POLICE - AT SCENE ROAD-DRY WEATHER-FINE ONE-WAY ST NO JUN IN 20M NO XING FACILITY IN 50M NOT KNOWN HOW COLLISION OCCURRED CASUALTY 001 (002) (24 Yrs - M HA9 ) SLIGHT DRIVER/RIDER VEHICLE 001 (000) M/C 50-125CC (49 Yrs - M NW10) MOVING OFF W TO S x BT - NEGATIVE O/S HIT FIRST
VEHICLE 002 (000) PEDAL CYCLE (24 Yrs - M HA9 ) GOING AHEAD OTHER S TO N COMM TO/FROM WORK BT - NOT APPLICABLE FRONT HIT FIRST
V001 A 405 (FAILED TO LOOK PROPERLY) V002 A 501 (IMPAIRED BY ALCOHOL)
DHARMARAJM LAAU - Accident Analysis System RACCM28INTL Date: 04 DEC 2018 14:46 Interpreted Listing Page: 45 of 47
Hammersmith Grove route sections: Collisions - 3 years to 31-March-2018 (provisional)
B11HAMGROV.023 LINK 64-86 (SHEPHERDS BUSH ROAD) 36 MTS TO MAR-2018 SORTED BY DATE 21 01170058110 SAT 09/09/17 17:10 LIGHT SHEPHERDS BUSH ROAD J/W SHEPHERD'S BUSH ROAD SERVICE ROAD 11 LINK 64-86 523450/ / 179060 POLICE - AT SCENE ROAD-DRY WEATHER-FINE SINGLE CWY T/STAG JUN AUTO SIG NO XING FACILITY IN 50M OTHER OBJECT IN CWY NOT KNOWN HOW COLLISION OCCURRED CASUALTY 001 (001) (48 Yrs - F W6 ) SLIGHT DRIVER/RIDER VEHICLE 001 (000) CAR (48 Yrs - F W6 ) TURNING RIGHT E TO SW JCT APP x BT - NOT REQUESTED FRONT HIT FIRST LEFT CWY OFFSIDE HIT OTH OBJECT HIT RD SIGN/ATS CYCLEWAY/FOOTWAY (SEPA V001 A 410 (LOSS OF CONTROL) V001 A 403 (POOR TURN OR MANOEUVRE) V001 B 607 (UNFAMILIAR WITH MODEL OF VEHICLE)
End of Accidents for B11HAMGROV.023 LINK 64-86 (SHEPHERDS BUSH ROAD)
DHARMARAJM LAAU - Accident Analysis System RACCM28INTL Date: 04 DEC 2018 14:46 Interpreted Listing Page: 46 of 47
Hammersmith Grove route sections: Collisions - 3 years to 31-March-2018 (provisional)
B11HAMGROV.024 NODE 86 (SHEPHERDS BUSH ROAD/BROOK GREEN(N SIDE)) 36 MTS TO MAR-2018 SORTED BY DATE 1 0115FH10258 THU 21/05/15 10:46 LIGHT SHEPHERDS BUSH ROAD J/W BROOK GREEN 11 NODE 86 523470/ / 179090 POLICE - AT SCENE ROAD-DRY WEATHER-FINE DUAL CWY T/STAG JUN AUTO SIG PEDN PHASE AT ATS N/B V1 TURNED RIGHT, DIRECTLY INTO PATH OF S/B V2, COLLIDED CASUALTY 001 (001) (34 Yrs - F W14 ) SLIGHT DRIVER/RIDER CASUALTY 002 (001) (6 Yrs - M W14 ) SLIGHT PASSENGER BACK SEAT xCASUALTY 003 (001) (12 Yrs - F W14 ) SLIGHT PASSENGER BACK SEAT Sch Attended : N/K CASUALTY 004 (001) (56 Yrs - F W14 ) SLIGHT PASSENGER FRONT SEAT VEHICLE 001 (002) CAR (34 Yrs - F W14 ) TURNING RIGHT S TO E JCT MID BT - NEGATIVE N/S HIT FIRST
VEHICLE 002 (001) GDS => 7.5T (31 Yrs - M UB7 ) GOING AHEAD OTHER N TO S JNY PART OF WORK JCT MID BT - NEGATIVE FRONT HIT FIRST
V001 A 406 (FAILED TO JUDGE OTHER PERSON'S PATH OR SPEED) V001 B 301 (DISOBEYED AUTOMATIC TRAFFIC SIGNAL) V001 A 405 (FAILED TO LOOK PROPERLY) V001 B 401 (JUNCTION OVERSHOOT) V001 B 409 (SWERVED)
End of Accidents for B11HAMGROV.024 NODE 86 (SHEPHERDS BUSH ROAD/BROOK GREEN(N SIDE))
DHARMARAJM LAAU - Accident Analysis System RACCM28INTL Date: 04 DEC 2018 14:46 Interpreted Listing Page: 47 of 47
Hammersmith Grove route sections: Collisions - 3 years to 31-March-2018 (provisional)
B11HAMGROV.025 LINK 70-86 (SHEPHERDS BUSH ROAD) SOUTH OF 179185 36 MTS TO MAR-2018 SORTED BY DATE 1 0116FH10183 WED 30/03/16 15:25 LIGHT SHEPHERD'S BUSH ROAD J/W BARB MEWS 11 LINK 70-86 523480/ / 179170 POLICE - AT SCENE ROAD-DRY WEATHER-FINE SINGLE CWY T/STAG JUN GIVE WAY/UNCONT NO XING FACILITY IN 50M V1 WAS STRADLING BOTH N & S LANES & TURNED RIGHT CAUSING V2 TO BRAKE V3 COULD NOT SEE V1 DUE TO V2 - V1 & V3 COLLIDED CASUALTY 001 (003) (51 Yrs - M KT3 ) SLIGHT DRIVER/RIDER VEHICLE 001 (003) CAR (24 Yrs - M TW9 ) TURNING RIGHT N TO W JCT MID x BT - NEGATIVE FRONT HIT FIRST
VEHICLE 002 (000) GDS =< 3.5T (65 Yrs - M UB6 ) SLOWING OR STOPPING S TO N JCT MID BT - NEGATIVE DID NOT IMPACT
VEHICLE 003 (001) M/C 50-125CC (51 Yrs - M KT3 ) GOING AHEAD OTHER S TO N JCT MID BT - NEGATIVE FRONT HIT FIRST BUS LANE V001 A 701 (VISION AFFECTED - STATIONARY OR PARKED VEHICLE(S)) V001 A 403 (POOR TURN OR MANOEUVRE) V001 A 405 (FAILED TO LOOK PROPERLY) V001 A 602 (CARELESS/RECKLESS/IN A HURRY) V003 A 406 (FAILED TO JUDGE OTHER PERSON'S PATH OR SPEED) V003 A 701 (VISION AFFECTED - STATIONARY OR PARKED VEHICLE(S))
2 01170044741 SAT 24/06/17 16:32 LIGHT SHEPHERDS BUSH ROAD J/W BARB MEWS 11 LINK 70-86 523470/ / 179160 POLICE - AT SCENE ROAD-DRY WEATHER-FINE ONE-WAY ST T/STAG JUN GIVE WAY/UNCONT PELICAN OR SIMILAR NOT KNOWN HOW COLLISION OCCURRED CASUALTY 001 (001) (3 Yrs - F W6 ) SLIGHT PEDESTRIAN IN ROAD - NOT CROSSING E BOUND VEHICLE 001 (000) CAR (77 Yrs - M W12 ) MOVING OFF S TO N JCT APP x BT - NOT REQUESTED FRONT HIT FIRST
C001 A 805 (DANGEROUS ACTION IN CARRIAGEWAY (EG PLAYING))
End of Accidents for B11HAMGROV.025 LINK 70-86 (SHEPHERDS BUSH ROAD) SOUTH OF 179185 End of Report
DHARMARAJM LAAU - Accident Analysis System RACCM28INTL APPENDIX F – CONSTRUCTION LOGISTICS PLAN
56
−
26-28 HAMMERSMITH GROVE, APARTHOTEL PROPOSALS
Outline Construction Logistics Plan
February 2021 DOCUMENT CONTROL ISSUE SHEET
Project & Document Details
Project Name 26-28 Hammersmith Grove
Project Number 356
Document Title Outline Construction Logistics Plan
Document History
Issue Status Reason for Issue Issued to Adams 1.0 Draft For Comment Consulting, Turleys Adams 2.0 Draft For Comment Consulting, Turleys Adams 3.0 Draft For Comment Consulting, Turleys 4.0 Final For Submission LBHF
Issue Control
Authorisation Issue Date Author Contributors Name Signature
1.0 21/08/20 JDr DM, MP DM
2.0 18/09/20 JDr DM, MP DM
3.0 18/12/20 JDr DM, MP DM
4.0 21/12/20 JDr DM, MP DM
5.0 08/02/21 JDr DM, MP DM TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction 1 1.1 Context 1 1.2 The Site and the Proposed Development 1 1.3 Objectives of the CLP 1 1.4 CLP Structure 2 2. Policy Context 3 2.2 National Policy 3 Traffic Management Act (2004) 3 National Planning Policy Framework (2019) 3 2.3 Regional Policy 3 The London Plan (2016) 3 The New London Plan (2020) 4 TFL Construction Logistic Plan Guidance (2017) 4 Ultra Low Emission Zone (2019) 4 The Mayor’s Transport Strategy (2018) 4 London Freight Plan (2007) 4 Freight and Servicing Action Plan (2019) 5 Construction Logisitcs and Cyclist Safety (CLOCS) (2013) 5 2.4 Local Policy 5 London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham Local Plan (2018) 5 London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham Planning Guidance Supplementary Planning Document (2018) 5 3. Existing Conditions 7 3.1 Site Location 7 3.2 Highway Network 7 3.3 Community Considerations 7 4. Construction Programme and Works 8 4.1 Programme and Methodology 8 4.2 Working Hours 8 5. Vehicle Routing 9 5.1 Introduction 9 5.2 Construction Traffic Routes 9 6. Site Access and Layout 10 7. Strategies to Reduce Impacts 11 7.1 Detailed CLP 11 7.2 Measure to Affect Construction Vehicles and Deliveries 11 Restricted Delivery times 11 Freight Safety and Environmental Standards 11 Construction Vehicle Designated Routes 12 Construction Delivery Scheduling 12 Consolidation and Logistics Centres 12 Cleaning 12 7.3 Mitigation for Road / Footway Closures 12 7.4 Mitigation for Pedestrians / Cyclists 13 7.5 Neighbours and Public Liaison 13 7.6 Material Measures 13 Reuse of material on site 13 Smart Procurement 14 7.7 Freight Safety 14 8. Vehicle Numbers 15 9. Implementing, Monitoring and Updating 16 Vehicle Movements 16 Safety 17 Compliances, breaches or complaints 17 10. Summary 18 1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Context
1.1.1 This Outline Construction Logistics Plan (CLP) has been prepared by Momentum Transport Consultancy (Momentum) to support the planning application for the redevelopment of 26-28 Hammersmith Grove (herein referred to as ‘the Proposed Development’ or ‘the Site’). 1.1.2 This document is an Outline CLP. It is anticipated that a Detailed CLP would be submitted to the London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham, as the local planning authority, in response to a condition of permission being granted, should the application be approved. 1.1.3 This Outline CLP provides a framework to manage all types of freight vehicle to and from the site during the construction period. The Outline CLP would improve the efficiency, reliability and safety of all demolition and construction-related deliveries. It would also identify unnecessary journeys and deliveries that could be made by more sustainable transport modes, contributing to a reduction in congestion and minimising environmental impacts due to freight activity.
1.1.4 The site manager for the Site is not known at this stage. When appointed, contact details will be provided. 1.2 The Site and the Proposed Development
1.2.1 The Site is located on Hammersmith Grove, within the LBHF in West London. The Site is bounded by the carriageway and residential properties on Hammersmith Grove to the west, the Hammersmith Service (London Underground) Control Centre to the north, London Underground servicing area / railway lines to the east and a commercial building to the south (12 Hammersmith Grove). 1.2.2 The 26-28 Hammersmith Grove development proposals are for the construction of an 85- room Aparthotel/Hotel and associated vehicle drop-off area, blue-badge car parking and short / long-stay cycle parking.
1.3 Objectives of the CLP
1.3.1 The Transport for London (TfL) Construction Logistics Plan Guidance (TfL, 2017) describes CLPs as an effective way to mitigate the effects of construction works such as congestion, pollution and noise that may affect local communities, residents, businesses and the environment. 1.3.2 The CLP seeks to achieve the following objectives to mitigate the effects of construction works:
• Establish how construction materials can be delivered, and waste removed, in a safe and efficient manner; • Identify deliveries that could be reduced or re-timed, particularly during peak hours; • Assisting in easing construction congestion on the local and wider highway network; and • Improve the safety and reliability of deliveries to the Site.
1 1.4 CLP Structure
1.4.1 Section 1 of this document forms the introduction. The remainder of the Outline CLP is divided as follows:
• Section 2 summarises the policy review • Section 3 outlines the existing conditions • Section 4 sets out the construction programme and works • Section 5 outlines the construction vehicle routing • Section 6 details the access and proposed site layout • Section 7 outlines strategies to reduce impacts • Section 8 outlines the anticipated vehicle numbers • Section 9 outlines how the CLP would be implemented, monitored and updated • Section 10 concludes this report
2 2. POLICY CONTEXT
2.1.1 This CLP has been prepared with the following policy and guidance set out in:
• Traffic Management Act (2004); • National Planning Policy Framework (2019); • The London Plan (2016); • The New London Plan (2020); • TfL Construction Logistics Plan Guidance (2017); • Ultra-Low Emission Zone (2019); • The Mayor’s Transport Strategy (2018); • London Freight Plan (TfL, 2007); • Freight and Servicing Action Plan (2019); • Construction Logistics and Cyclist Safety (CLOCS) (2013); • London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham Local Plan (2018); and • London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham Planning Guidance Supplementary Planning Document (2018)
2.2 National Policy
TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT ACT (2004)
2.2.1 The Traffic Management Act (2004) part 2, highlights the duty of local traffic authorities in managing road networks within their ownership; including the efficient use of the local network as well as their ability to adopt measures when necessary to avoid the occurrence of heavy traffic congestion. NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK (2019) 2.2.2 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), produced by the Department for Housing, Communities and Local Government states in Paragraph 103 ‘Significant development should be focused on locations which are or can be made sustainable through limiting the need to travel and offering a genuine choice of transport modes’.
2.2.3 The framework also highlights the benefits of safe road design in creating a high-quality built environment, and the efficient delivery of goods and services to aid economic growth. 2.3 Regional Policy
THE LONDON PLAN (2016)
2.3.1 The London Plan recommends the use of Construction Logistic Plans (CLPs) to support its objective to create and sustain a city that is safe to access, with a transport system that actively encourages the efficient use of the road network.
2.3.2 Policies 6.3 and 6.14 of the London Plan set out the efficiency gains for developers in submitting CLPs and considering freight when addressing the impact of the development on the local transport network. In addition, developers should address and clarify construction phasing arrangements when forming a wider submission for their development to ensure that works can be completed without adding strain to the local road network.
3 2.3.3 Chapter 6 within the London Plan also notes that CLPs should be supported by delivery and servicing plans to ensure that developments align with the main goals and objectives of the London Freight Plan. There is also additional information, within TfL’s Transport Assessment Best Practice Guidance. THE NEW LONDON PLAN (2020) 2.3.4 The New London Plan emphasises the need for development proposals to facilitate safe, clean and efficient deliveries and servicing. Construction Logistic Plans and Delivery and Servicing Plans would be required and should be developed in line wit h TfL guidance whilst reflecting the scale and complexity of the development.
2.3.5 The New London Plan highlights the need to facilitate sustainable freight movements in London through consolidation, modal shift and promoting deliveries at different times of day and night in order to reduce the impact on road congestion and air quality, and conflict with other users. TFL CONSTRUCTION LOGISTIC PLAN GUIDANCE (2017) 2.3.6 TfL’s CLP guidance seeks to ensure that CLPs of a high quality are produced to minimise the impact construction logistics on the road network. 2.3.7 Well planned construction logistics would reduce:
• Environmental impact: Lower vehicle emissions and noise levels. • Road risk: Improving the safety of road users. • Congestion: Reduced vehicle trips, particularly in peak periods. • Cost: Efficient working practices and reduced deliveries. ULTRA LOW EMISSION ZONE (2019) 2.3.8 The Ultra Low Emission (ULEZ) came into force on the 8th of April 2019 in the same area as the existing Congestion Charging Zone. The London Emission Zone still applies, covering most of Greater London. 2.3.9 The ULEZ is set to expand on the 25th of October 2021, encompassing the area bounded by the North and South Circular roads. THE MAYOR’S TRANSPORT STRATEGY (2018)
2.3.10 The Mayor’s Transport Strategy includes targets to reduce construction traffic by 5% within central London by 2020. 2.3.11 The strategy also requires all new proposal developments to demonstrate in their Construction Logistic Plans and Delivery and Servicing Plans that all reasonable endeavours have been taken toward the use of non-road vehicle modes.
2.3.12 The strategy states the CLPs are required ‘to improve the sustainability of construction freight movements by establishing site management and procurement processes to reduce the impact of construction traffic on the street network’. LONDON FREIGHT PLAN (2007) 2.3.13 The London Freight Plan aims at promoting the safe, reliable and efficient movements of freight and servicing trips, to from and within London. The plan also makes specific reference to CLPs to increase freight transport within London and makes close links with Delivery and Servicing Plans. The aim is for TfL and GLA to take a lead in implementing such plans for their construction projects.
4 2.3.14 Traffic authorities would also be encouraged to review delivery arrangements for construction sites, so they can help to reduce lane closures, carriageway restrictions and the duration of construction. More efficient coordination and management of a site’s delivery and servicing leads to a reduction in road f reight traffic. FREIGHT AND SERVICING ACTION PLAN (2019) 2.3.15 The Plan produced by the Mayor of London aims to ‘support safe, clean and efficient movement of freight in our city’ through collaborative work between boroughs, businesses and industry across London in line with the aims of the Mayor’s Transport Strategy. 2.3.16 This involves solving the challenges faced by the freight industry and promoting good practice while road space is reallocated to walking cycling and public transport and new regulations are introduced to make vehicles safer and cleaner. CONSTRUCTION LOGISITCS AND CYCLIST SAFETY (CLOCS) (2013)
2.3.17 The Transport Research Laboratory published the ‘Construction Logistics and Cyclist Safety’ (CLOCS) report in February 2013. CLOCS aims at achieving a visionary change in the way the construction industry manages work-related road risk. This is being achieved through the industry-led work streams:
• Improving vehicle safety through design and manufacture of safer new vehicles and appropriate safety equipment for existing vehicles; • Addressing the safety imbalance in the construction industry by ensuring road safety is considered as important as health and safety on-site; and • Encouraging wider adoption of best practice across the construction logistics industry by developing a common national standard and a new norm.
2.3.18 CLOCS has developed the ‘CLOCS Standard for Construction Logistics: Managing work - related road risk’ (December, 2015) which has become a common standard for the construction logistics industry. Implemented by construction clients through contracts, it provides a framework that enables ownership in managing road risk which can be adhered in a consistent way by fleet operators.
2.4 Local Policy
LONDON BOROUGH OF HAMMERSMITH & FULHAM LOCAL PLAN (2018) 2.4.1 The LBHF Local Plan (updated in February 2018) Policy T7 determines the need for the scope and impact of all construction-related activities to be communicated to the council in order to mitigate against the impact of additional traffic and / or disruption to the network. 2.4.2 Justification 14.29 determines the requirement for a developer to submit a construction and logistics plan to ensure that the construction works do not adversely affect users and local neighbours. This is particularly important to help mitigate against the impact of construction on local parking and footways. LONDON BOROUGH OF HAMMERSMITH & FULHAM PLANNING GUIDANCE SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENT (2018)
2.4.3 The LBHF Supplementary Planning Document (updated in February 2018) Key Principle TR21 determines that all developments with the potential to have a detrimental impact during the construction phase will require a Construction Logistics Plan (CLP). CLPs should include the following:
5 • Routing of vehicles; • Access arrangements to the site; • The estimated number of vehicles per day/week; • Details of the vehicle holding area; • Details of the vehicles call up procedure; and • Details of any diversion, disruption of other abnormal use of the public highway. 2.4.4 The CLP will be secured by a condition or Section 106 agreement depending on the developments’ scale.
2.4.5 Section 17 of the document relates to sustainable design and construction. Point 17.24 determines that the construction programme shall comply with working hours restrictions, e.g. no noisy works outside the hours of 08:00 – 18:00 on weekdays and 08:00 – 13:00 on Saturdays.
6 3. EXISTING CONDITIONS
3.1 Site Location
3.1.1 The Site is located at 26-28 Hammersmith Grove, within LBHF in West London. The Site is bounded by the carriageway and residential properties on Hammersmith Grove to the west, the Hammersmith Service (London Underground) Control Centre to the north, London Underground servicing area / railway lines to the east and a commercial building to the south (12 Hammersmith Grove).
3.2 Highway Network
3.2.1 Hammersmith Grove bounds the site to the west. This is a local road adopted and maintained by LBHF. 3.2.2 Vehicle access from the south is restricted to Glenthorne Road due to a one-way system in place at the southern end of Hammersmith Grove. 3.2.3 Hammersmith Gyratory is located to the south of the Site and facilitates access to the A4 Great West Road, A315 and A219. The A4 is a dual carriageway which routes east to west between Holborn Circus and Bristol to the west. 3.3 Community Considerations
3.3.1 Permitted hours for site work within LBHF would typically be 08:00 – 18:00 (Monday to Friday), 08:00 – 13:00 (Saturday) with no work permitted on Sundays or Bank Holidays. 3.3.2 An analysis of the surrounding area has identified the location of any land uses (schools, hospitals or care homes) that require consideration as users are more at risk of danger from construction vehicle movements.
3.3.3 Construction vehicle routes are planned to avoid using roads on which these buildings are situated. When this is not possible the construction vehicle contractors would be informed of the presence and location of such buildings allowing them to take extra caution when driving close to them and to be aware of any pedestrian risks.
7 4. CONSTRUCTION PROGRAMME AND WORKS
4.1 Programme and Methodology
4.1.1 The exact construction programme is to be confirmed with contractors. The estimated opening year for the hotel development is 2022.
4.1.2 Once the construction programme has been confirmed with the contractor, the full extent of the building works will be communicated to the relevant authorities. 4.1.3 It is expected that excavation works including piling, foundation activities and superstructures will be part of the first phase of the construction process. Construction deliveries would include muck away and ready-mixed concrete wagons, along with HGVs delivering steelwork and reinforcement. 4.2 Working Hours
4.2.1 It is anticipated that the typical working hours for the construction works would be in accordance with LBHF requirements set out below:
• 08:00 – 18:00 hours Monday to Friday • 08:00 – 13:00 hours Saturday • No work is permitted on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays.
8 5. VEHICLE ROUTING
5.1 Introduction
5.1.1 This chapter outlines the anticipated construction vehicle routes for deliveries to the Site. 5.1.2 This provides an overview of proposed construction routes to connect the site to the wider highway network. 5.2 Construction Traffic Routes
5.2.1 All construction traffic entering and leaving the Site would be closely controlled. Vehicles making deliveries or removing spoil would travel via designated routes which would be agreed with LBHF and other relevant bodies such as TfL.
5.2.2 Construction vehicles would approach from either the A4 and Hammersmith Gyratory to the south, or from the north via Hammersmith Grove, Goldhawk Road and Shepherds Bush roundabout (connecting to the A40 in the north). 5.2.3 When construction vehicles are booked to service the site, all vehicles under 7.5t will be required to access the site from the south in order to minimise the impact of vehicles on residential streets.
9
6. SITE ACCESS AND LAYOUT
6.1.1 Construction site access to 26-28 Hammersmith Grove would be available via Hammersmith Grove.
6.1.2 A single loading bay is proposed for the construction works and would be located on the eastern southbound carriageway of Hammersmith Grove, immediately outside of the site.
6.1.3 The location loading bay is indicative at this stage and is subject to change based on engagement with LBHF.
6.1.4 The primary access point to the north of the Site will be controlled in order to minimise disruption to the surrounding highway network. Wheel wash facilities will additionally be provided at exit points.
6.1.5 Pedestrian access to the Site would be located on Hammersmith Grove. 6.1.6 A Home Zone operates on Hammersmith Grove to prevent heavy goods vehicles rat running along Hammersmith Grove. Construction vehicles would be required to use Hammersmith Grove for access to the site.
7. STRATEGIES TO REDUCE IMPACTS
7.1 Detailed CLP
7.1.1 A Detailed CLP would be developed and agreed in accordance with the LBHF as part of an appropriately worded planning condition to take into account legislative requirements.
7.1.2 The CLP would be reviewed and updated in line with the development programme and would typically include the following details:
• Preferred hours of deliveries and removals (out of peak hours);
• Agreed construction traffic routing and site access points;
• Road cleaning facility provisioning;
• Temporary traffic control measures;
• Temporary and permanent access to the works - for personnel/vehicles;
• Off-loading and storage areas;
• Traffic management procedures for waste disposal vehicles;
• Personnel and vehicle segregation;
• Equipment e.g. temporary fencing, signage etc.;
• Temporary and permanent closures and diversions of footpaths, if required; • Street furniture removal, if required; and
• Site inductions 7.2 Measure to Affect Construction Vehicles and Deliveries
RESTRICTED DELIVERY TIMES 7.2.1 Core working times at the site would be restricted to 08:00 to 18:00 on weekdays and 08:00 to 13:00 on Saturdays as per LBHF construction guidance. There would be no working on Sundays or Bank Holidays. 7.2.2 There may occasionally be a need to work outside these hours in order to undertake essential works, and the Principal Contractor would make due application to LBHF should the need arise. FREIGHT SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS 7.2.3 Compliance with CLOCs and participation in the FORS scheme would be required of any contractors providing construction vehicles to the development site. Prior to the engagement of any construction delivery contractor they must provide certification that shows their compliance with CLOCs and the FORS scheme.
CONSTRUCTION VEHICLE DESIGNATED ROUTES 7.2.4 All construction vehicle drivers would be required to use the preferred routes as specified in Chapter 5 following agreement with LBHF. Strict monitoring and control of vehicles entering and egressing the construction site would be implemented.
7.2.5 The contractor would maintain an up-to-date log of all drivers that would include a written undertaking from them to adhere to approved routes for construction traffic. CONSTRUCTION DELIVERY SCHEDULING 7.2.6 Construction deliveries would be carefully planned with delivery times agreed with each contractor using a web-based booking system to minimise disruption to other road users on the local highway network. A Delivery Management System (DMS) would require each delivery to be pre-booked.
7.2.7 Wherever possible, vehicles would arrive to the site avoiding peak traffic periods, with construction vehicle movements restricted to the times previously outlined. CONSOLIDATION AND LOGISTICS CENTRES
7.2.8 It is proposed that the Principal Contractor would consider the potential use of an off -site consolidation centre to minimise the number of trips made on local access roads delivering directly to the site.
7.2.9 The use of an off-site location would be especially useful on days that a high number of deliveries are forecast. Trips could be split between those that come directly to the construction site, and those that go to the consolidation centre. When the road network is less busy the stockpiled deliveries could then be transferred from the consolidation centre to the construction site. 7.2.10 If empty vehicles returning to the consolidation centre were instead filled with waste material, there would be further opportunity to reduce separate waste collections to the site during construction. This would also allow for effective sorting of waste off-site for disposal to an appropriate waste facility. 7.2.11 On appointment of the Principal Contractor, various locations would be considered, and the preferred option would be identified in the Detailed Construction Management Plan (CMP), and any associated strategy would be described. CLEANING
7.2.12 Effective wheel washing facilities would be provided at the site gates before exiting onto local highway network. Recycled water would be used wherever possible. Supplementary cleaning would be provided as necessary using suitable means to keep the surrounding highway clean. Collected debris would be disposed of as controlled waste at a licensed waste disposal facility.
7.3 Mitigation for Road / Footway Closures
7.3.1 Notices regarding any planned closures or diversion of either roads or footpaths in relation to the construction works shall be given by the Principal Contractor to LBHF, the police, fire brigade and other emergency services sufficiently in advance of the required closure or diversion. 7.3.2 Any necessary lane closures on the local highway network would avoid peak periods if at all possible and would be agreed with LBHF prior to commencement.
7.3.3 Notices and details of traffic management proposals associated with works to the highway and footpaths would be given under the Highway Acts 1980 and Road Traffic Act 1988.
7.4 Mitigation for Pedestrians / Cyclists
7.4.1 Notices regarding any planned closures and diversions of footpaths or cycle routes would be given by the Principal Contractor to LBHF, the police, the fire brigade and other emergency services sufficiently in advance of the required closure or diversion.
7.4.2 Pedestrians, cyclists and the general public would be segregated from the construction works at all times. Pedestrian access points for the workforce into the active construction site would generally be located close to the main vehicular access gates with a separate pedestrian gate, security point and footpath provided. 7.4.3 Diverted footpaths would be fully accessible for wheelchairs and pushchairs. The pedestrian routes provided during construction would comply with specific LBHF requirements, as well as other stakeholders and relevant legislation. 7.4.4 Where diversions are not possible, alternative routes for pedestrians and cyclists would be negotiated with LBHF and any other relevant authorities.
7.5 Neighbours and Public Liaison
7.5.1 The Principal Contractor would be expected to nominate a suitably qualified individual who would act as the Site Manager. The Site Manager would be named at the site entrance, with a contact telephone number. The contact name and details would be provided to all the relevant stakeholders by the Principal Contractor prior to the start of the construction and refurbishment works.
7.5.2 The Site Manager would be a suitably qualified individual who would have primary responsibility for dealing with LBHF and any other stakeholders on environmental matters. All key stakeholders would be notified whenever a change of responsibility occurs for the Site Manager role. The Site Manager would keep neighbours, LBHF and other relevant parties informed of the nature of the on-going works, their duration and outline programme to establish and maintain good relationships with them.
7.5.3 It is anticipated that regular meetings would take place between the Site Manager and LBHF to review progress and to agree any necessary actions. The Site Manager would also deal with enquiries from the general public, including any complaints. Any complaints would be logged, responded to, and reported to the relevant individual within LBHF (and vice versa) as soon as practicable. 7.5.4 The Site Manager would coordinate responses to queries and address issues in a timely and satisfactory manner. 7.6 Material Measures
REUSE OF MATERIAL ON SITE
7.6.1 It is proposed that where possible any construction materials are reused, if possible, for different construction processes to minimise waste.
7.6.2 When materials cannot be used on site, they should be sorted into recycling categories appropriately before removal from the construction site.
7.6.3 The Principal Contractor would be required to monitor waste generated during the construction works to maximise reuse and recycling potential. This should allow for the levels of reuse and recycling to be increased throughout the construction period. SMART PROCUREMENT
7.6.4 Smart procurement would be implemented where possible, which would involve examining the sourcing of materials and logistics strategies of the supply chain to see if reductions in vehicle movements could be made in those aspects of supplying 26-28 Hammersmith Grove. 7.6.5 Collaboration between suppliers would be considered, particularly if geographically close in location, offering opportunities to further consolidate vehicle loads.
7.7 Freight Safety
7.7.1 The Principal Contractor would have a dedicated logistics team to co-ordinate all construction deliveries and collections to / from the site and ensure that as far as possible:
• All delivery and collection vehicles are aware of the proposed routing
• Prior to a delivery or collection, hauliers would notify the relevant authorities • Regular liaison meetings and reviews would be undertaken with neighbouring sites and LBHF to plan the works so that they do not cause unnecessary disruption to the wider area
• Liaison would be undertaken with occupants of adjacent buildings to avo id delays to service deliveries
• Larger vehicle movements would be scheduled to avoid peak hours on the local road network, if possible 7.7.2 Compliance with CLOCs and participation in the FORS scheme would be implemented for construction vehicles.
8. VEHICLE NUMBERS
8.1.1 As a contractor has not yet been appointed the forecast number of construction vehicles is not known. The confirmed number of construction vehicles would be provided within the Detailed CLP that is expected to be a condition of planning consent. 8.1.2 Vehicles would be expected to arrive and depart site within following times:
• Monday to Friday: 08:00 – 18:00 • Saturday: 08:00 – 13:00 8.1.3 Measures would be adopted to help avoid construction deliveries arriving in the 08:00 – 09:00 morning peak and 17:00 – 18:00 evening peak.
9. IMPLEMENTING, MONITORING AND UPDATING
9.1.1 It is anticipated that LBHF would require an appropriate planning condition for a Detailed CLP to be prepared by the Principal Contractor through consultation with LBHF prior to the commencement of the proposed development. 9.1.2 An appointed Site Manager would oversee implementing the Detailed CLP on behalf of the Principal Contractor. A Contractor and Driver Handbook would also be prepared and distributed to ensure that all contractors are aware of their obligations and required standards of working. 9.1.3 The contractor’s handbook would contain information regarding safety, environmental responsibility, vehicle routing, delivery scheduling, driver training and standards to be met.
9.1.4 The driver’s handbook would make the obligations of the individual driver clear. It would contain concise information on the authorised routes to and from the site, work hours at the construction site, how the booking and scheduling system would work, site access locations, anti-idling requirements, and guidance on vulnerable road users. 9.1.5 The Detailed CLP would be prepared in consultation with LBHF. Once submitted, the CLP would be an evolving document that accounts for any changes in the construction strategy. It would be reviewed on a monthly basis by the Principal Contractor and Site Manager to incorporate collected data and monitoring results. This would ensure that the document remains appropriate to the site conditions and conditions in the surrounding area and road network.
9.1.6 Data would be collected throughout the construction process to ensure that both the CMP and Detailed CLP are being followed. The data collected would be reported back by the Principal Contractor with full transparency to LBHF. It would be the responsibility of the Site Manager to collect data on the following issues. VEHICLE MOVEMENTS 9.1.7 Data would be collected through surveys on a monthly basis to monitor delivery vehicle activities. The surveys would capture the following:
• Total number of vehicles making deliveries and collections;
• Vehicle type, size and emissions;
• Total journey time for each trip and the average journey time for all trips;
• Time spent on site; and
• Trip punctuality compared to the schedule . 9.1.8 This information would inform the Principal Contractor and Site Manager on how best to modify the CLP and CMP going forwards to better match the reality of construction vehicle activity. This would allow more effective mitigation measures to be implemented throughout the construction process.
SAFETY 9.1.9 To ensure that construction activity is carried out responsibly and in line with policy, data would be collected and recorded on the following:
• Any logistics-related accidents;
• Fatalities and serious injuries as a result of the construction process ;
• Vehicles and operators not meeting safety requirements; and
• Transport modes used by staff travelling to the site. COMPLIANCES, BREACHES OR COMPLAINTS
9.1.10 To maintain records of the compliance and legitimacy of the construction operations, information would be recorded on the following:
• Community concerns about construction activities;
• Vehicle routing;
• Unacceptable queuing;
• Unacceptable parking; • Compliance with safety and environmental standards and programmes;
• Supplier FORS accreditation;
• ULEZ Compliance; and
• Anti-idling. 9.1.11 Should complaints or breaches of protocol reach an unacceptable level, the contracted freight suppliers would need to have their position reviewed and potentially terminated. All complaints and breaches would be communicated to the relevant local authority .
10. SUMMARY
10.1.1 This Outline CLP has been prepared by Momentum on behalf of Britel Fund Trustees pursuant to the planning application for the Proposed Development at 26-28 Hammersmith Grove to be submitted to the LBHF. 10.1.2 Access to the construction site for vehicles and pedestrians would be via Hammersmith Grove. 10.1.3 A contractor has not yet been appointed so the construction programme and forecast vehicle numbers are not yet confirmed. Once a contractor has been appointed the construction programme and forecast construction vehicle numbers would be confirmed. 10.1.4 The document sets out how construction of the development would take place with minimal disruption to the surrounding area. All relevant policy has been reviewed and the construction process would be compliant with all requirements. 10.1.5 A series of objectives have been put in place that would be measured and recorded throughout the construction process to ensure that any negative impacts are kept to a minimum. This would be done through the updating of the CLP as a live document incorporating necessary changes to the construction strategy.
10.1.6 This document is an Outline CLP. It is anticipated that a Detailed CLP would be provided to LBHF as the local planning authority as a condition of permission being granted, should the application be approved.