City of Westminster – Environment and City Management

Home , City of Westminster, Cycle Superhighway 3

CITY OF WESTMINSTER – ENVIRONMENT AND CITY MANAGEMENT

DELEGATED AUTHORITY CONSULTATION REPORT 7569

TRAFFIC ORDERS – SAVOY STREET AND STRAND CYCLE ROUTE

INTRODUCTION OF ONE-WAY WORKING, CONTRAFLOW CYCLING, AND AMENDMENTS TO WAITING AND LOADING RESTRICTIONS

(Drawing Nos. 70045067-WSP-P01-X-DR-HI-1202-01 Rev S3-P01 [Existing Layout], - 1203-01 Rev S3-P01 [Original Proposed Layout] and -0100-01 Rev S5-C02 [Revised Proposed Layout])

(St. James’s Ward)

BACKGROUND

The City Council is seeking to improve connectivity for cyclists between Cycle Superhighway 3 (CS3) which runs along Victoria Embankment and Quietway 1 (Q1) which starts in the Bloomsbury area of Westminster (in the vicinity of Russell Square) and crosses Strand to the south at its junction with Wellington Street before continuing into Lambeth via Lancaster Place and Waterloo Bridge.

At the present time, cyclists wishing to travel into the West End from CS3 can depart Victoria Embankment at its junction with Savoy Street and head north towards Strand. However, there is no convenient way for them to continue their northwards journey onto Q1 via Wellington Street due to the presence of the central reservation running the length of Strand.

It is therefore proposed to introduce a break in the Strand central reservation, opposite its junction with Savoy Street, to allow cyclists to enter the north-eastbound carriageway of Strand. The kerb-line at the junction of Strand and Wellington Street would be adjusted to make the left turn into Wellington Street easier for cyclists.

New automated traffic signals would be installed at the junction between Savoy Street and Strand to provide cyclists with a controlled window of opportunity in which to cross Strand from Savoy Street.

On 20th July 2020, the Head of Parking considered and approved a report under his delegated powers allowing consultation on traffic management measures to:

(a) introduce one-way working north-westbound in Savoy Street between Savoy Row and Strand;

(b) introduce a mandatory contra-flow cycle lane on the north-west side of Savoy Street, between its junctions with Strand and Savoy Row;

(c) introduce double yellow line “at any time” waiting and loading restrictions in Strand, between its junctions with Burleigh Street and Wellington Street, and in Savoy Street, between its junctions with Strand and Savoy Row; and

7569/PJ WSP, Room 603, 52 Grosvenor Gardens, London, SW1W 0AU; T 020 3057 2156 1 (d) permit cyclists to turn right from: (i) Savoy Street into Strand; and (ii) Strand into Lancaster Place.

RESULTS OF CONSULTATION

Following the publication / posting of press and street notices during July / August 2020 and consultation with frontagers and other key parties on the proposed measures, 42 responses were received, as detailed in the Appendix to this report. The extent of the letter consultation included three Ward Councillors, four local residents’ associations, 37 statutory bodies and 73 frontagers.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Following a subsequent review of the scheme and following consideration of the responses to the consultation, it is recommended that:

(a) cyclists are permitted to turn right from Wellington Street into Strand so as to facilitate access to Cycle Superhighway 3 on Victoria Embankment via Savoy Street;

(b) the advisory with-flow cycle lane in the centre of the north-westbound carriageway of Lancaster Place on the approach to its junction with Strand is re-marked as a mandatory with-flow cycle lane in order to provide greater protection to cyclists;

(c) the length of “at any time” loading restrictions proposed to be introduced on the north- east side of Savoy Street is reduced to 23.5 metres extending south-eastward from the south-eastern kerb-line of Strand so as to retain the existing servicing capacity at the rear of Brettenham House, Lancaster Place; and

(d) with the exception of the above changes, the Traffic Orders are made as proposed to facilitate the implementation of the scheme.

The measures are shown on Drawing No. 70045067-WSP-P01-X-DR-HI-0100-01 Rev S5- C02.

I agree / disagree with the recommendations.

Signed Date 7th October 2020

Programme and Contract Manager Highways and Public Realm City Highways, Environment and City Management

Signed Date 7/10/2020

Head of Parking City Highways, Environment and City Management

2 APPENDIX – CONSULTATION RESPONSES

NAME and ADDRESS OBJECTIONS / COMMENTS / SUPPORT OFFICERS’ COMMENTS 1. states that the proposals will have no Noted. Waste and Parks impact on either waste collections or street City Management and cleansing services. Communities Westminster City Council

Email dated 21st July 2020

2. asks:

(a) Will cycles be able to turn right from Strand (a) WSP responded to on 29th July travelling in an eastbound direction, into Savoy 2020 to advise that allowing cyclists to turn right Street? from Strand into Savoy Street was considered during the early design stages of the project but it was felt there would be too many risks to cyclists Email dated 22nd July 2020 held in the relatively narrow gap in the median strip between the flowing east and west traffic streams. Amending the traffic signals to protect cyclists throughout the full turning movement into Savoy Street would affect junction capacity and traffic flow for other streams and was, therefore, considered to be detrimental to traffic movement at this busy junction. However, the City Council is considering further cycle improvements in this area as part of a future scheme.

(b) Will cycles be able to turn right from (b) The City Council has reviewed the Wellington Street travelling in a southbound proposals in light of comments from , direction, into Strand? the Westminster Cycling Campaign (see Item 3

3 APPENDIX – CONSULTATION RESPONSES (CONTINUED)

NAME and ADDRESS OBJECTIONS / COMMENTS / SUPPORT OFFICERS’ COMMENTS Both of these movements would be beneficial and below) and the Covent Garden Community would complement the proposed changes, which Association (see Item 6 below) and has are supported by . determined that it would be possible to allow cyclists to turn right from Wellington Street into Strand so that they can access Savoy Street and Cycle Superhighway 3 (CS3) on Victoria Embankment. It should be noted that after leaving Wellington Street on a green signal, cyclists would be held temporarily at the traffic signals in front of the pedestrian crossing outside Pret a Manger on the corner of Lancaster Place and Strand (which would be on its “green man” phase at the time traffic was released from Wellington Street) before allowing them to proceed along Strand and left into Savoy Street (if desired).

3. (a) thanks the City Council for consulting (b) WSP responded to on 10th August the Westminster Cycling Campaign on the 2020 to confirm that following a review of the Westminster Cycling proposals. He asks whether the proposed Traffic signing, safety and traffic management Campaign Management Order would facilitate cycle implications, the City Council considers that the movements from Quietway 1 (Wellington Street) to proposals should be amended to allow cyclists to Cycle Superhighway 3 (Victoria Embankment)? turn right into Strand from Wellington Street so Currently, cycles from Wellington Street are that they can then head south down the proposed Email 22nd July 2020 required to go straight ahead onto Waterloo Bridge. contra-flow lane in Savoy Street.

was also advised that the City Council intended to change the advisory cycle lane in Lancaster Place, on the approach to the junction with Strand, to a mandatory cycle lane.

4 APPENDIX – CONSULTATION RESPONSES (CONTINUED)

NAME and ADDRESS OBJECTIONS / COMMENTS / SUPPORT OFFICERS’ COMMENTS Email dated 12th August (b) confirms the Westminster Cycling (b) The Westminster Cycling Campaign’s 2020 Campaign’s support for the Council’s “Cleaner and support for the proposals is welcomed. Greener” aim and his particular objective is for more direct routes to enable more inclusive cycling. He wants to see more mums riding with their kids to the shops or school on direct, quiet routes. doesn’t want the City’s cyclists to be the “fit and the brave”, using “the Knowledge” to pedal longer, less intuitive routes including heavily- trafficked roads.

thanks the City Council for confirming that the proposals have been amended so that people on bikes can ride between Quietway 1 (Wellington Street) and Cycle Superhighway 3 (Victoria Embankment) in both directions. These are popular cycle routes used by people avoiding heavily-trafficked roads. Allowing people on bikes to turn right from Strand into Lancaster Place (Waterloo Bridge) is also welcomed. They strongly support the proposals.

4. The United Cabbies Group (UCG) forward the Chairperson correspondence they submitted to Transport for United Cabbies Group London’s (TfL’s) Taxis and Private Hire Team:

(a) The UCG endorse TfL Taxis & Private Hire’s (a) While it is recognised that taxi drivers would suggestion that buses, taxis and cycles are benefit from being able to turn right from Strand Email dated 22nd July 2020 permitted to turn right from Strand into Lancaster into Lancaster Place, this is considered Place onto Waterloo Bridge. It has always been a impractical based on historical traffic flows through mystery why it has been acceptable for the turn Strand, around the Aldwych gyratory and onto Lancaster Place. The turning / queuing area is

5 APPENDIX – CONSULTATION RESPONSES (CONTINUED)

NAME and ADDRESS OBJECTIONS / COMMENTS / SUPPORT OFFICERS’ COMMENTS onto Tower Bridge to permit all three modes [of relatively small and is already proposed to be transport to make the turn] but not here. occupied by both buses and cyclists. It is considered that allowing taxis to also use this area The turn would be a game changer for their would pose a safety risk to cyclists and push the passengers going forward particularly as whilst the approach lane beyond its capacity. bus lane access is great for taxi passengers on Aldwych, the knock on from the buses due to the schemes Camden [is implementing] further up, and Chancery Lane [is] soon to close to through-traffic, [allowing taxis to make the turn] diverts taxis wanting to travel south to Waterloo Bridge away [from Aldwych] thus not adding to the traffic [on that road].

(b) In terms of the Savoy Street / Strand issue, if (b) The proposed introduction of traffic signals ever a road [Savoy Street] was designed to permit and a mandatory contra-flow cycle lane at the taxis and cycles co-existing it would be this one. north-western end of Savoy Street would preclude thinks the principle the City Council the practical operation of two-way motor traffic in appears to have applied in its Leicester Square this section of the road. Under the existing plans could apply here and cannot see why this arrangement, if a large vehicle is about to turn left street cannot be cycles, taxis and access at certain onto Strand from Savoy Street, a vehicle seeking times for deliveries to off-street premises like to turn left into Savoy Street from Strand can wait Orange Street. Whilst a small street, it is a key momentarily for that first vehicle to finish their one for taxis in light of the changes implemented manoeuvre. However, once traffic signals are over the past few years and the wider route installed, the northbound vehicle would be held in implications when this street has previously been Savoy Street requiring vehicles to wait for much closed are significantly more in passenger journey longer periods where they may cause time and cost. obstructions. In addition, the carriageway of Arundel Street is as narrow as 4.5 metres in When Changing of the Guard begins again, certain areas which is not considered suitable for especially in the spring / summer period, the impact general two-way operation. on Strand westbound traffic and Trafalgar Square

6 APPENDIX – CONSULTATION RESPONSES (CONTINUED)

NAME and ADDRESS OBJECTIONS / COMMENTS / SUPPORT OFFICERS’ COMMENTS designed in the way it is, of St. James Park being However, this street would remain open to all closed for two hours daily, is huge. Autumn / winter vehicles, including taxis, albeit in a north- months it closes on alternate days but with the westbound direction only between Savoy Way same consequences. Savoy Street southbound is and Strand. It is considered that one-way working an alternative to Temple Place to get west is essential in this northern section of the road especially if the passenger hails the taxi west of given the width limitations and the need to avoid Arundel Street, e.g. Somerset House. Often the conflict between queuing traffic on the approach traffic travelling south down Arundel Street into to Strand and cyclists turning into Savoy Street as Temple Place is predominantly going east and they seek to join Cycle Superhighway 3. blocks the west side of Temple Place making access to the right turn onto Victoria Embankment Traffic modelling indicates that the proposed very slow. changes to Savoy Street would be expected to displace no more than 20 vehicles per hour to the With Surrey Street going and no longer an Arundel Street / Temple Place route onto Victoria alternative to get onto Temple Place and the Embankment. historic right turn from Temple Avenue onto Victoria Embankment being ditched as part of the Cycle The City Council is investigating the possibility of Superhighway, it leaves just Temple Place to get marking advance left turn and right turn road onto Victoria Embankment to get west as the only markings in Temple Place to encourage vehicles alternative to Strand. Particularly as Westminster to filter to the appropriate side of the carriageway has restrictions on its part of Covent Garden to earlier. The City Council will also continue to accommodate outside dining and the UCG has monitor traffic flow through this area as a result of seen Camden’s plans for Seven Dials leave the new traffic management schemes that are westbound routes limited to Shelton Street or being implemented. Shaftesbury Avenue.

(c) The UCG can see pros and cons here of the (c) The City Council considers that permitting one-way traffic flow becoming northbound and can motor vehicles to turn right out of Savoy Street see where Westminster is coming from in seeking would endanger cyclists making this turn. In to minimise conflict to accommodate the with-flow addition, if a vehicle wished to turn right from cycle lane [sic]. That being said, if the proposal is Savoy Street onto Strand and there was not to facilitate cycle movements and there is a traffic space beyond the yellow box junction, then any

7 APPENDIX – CONSULTATION RESPONSES (CONTINUED)

NAME and ADDRESS OBJECTIONS / COMMENTS / SUPPORT OFFICERS’ COMMENTS light going in at the junction with Strand why can vehicles queued in Savoy Street wishing to simply taxis travelling northbound not also be permitted to turn left would be held at the traffic signals, unable use Savoy Street and turn, left or right as they to proceed themselves. Furthermore, if the break would presume an advanced cycle light is going in in the central refuge were made large enough to and the proposed additional yellow box junction accommodate a taxi, there is concern that would avoid taxis blocking this as they would not vehicles, especially cycles and motorcycles, would want to incur the cost of a penalty charge notice for attempt to turn right from Strand into Savoy Street being trapped in the box. or U-turn on Strand to head west. There is no provision within the signalling arrangements for these turns and they could increase the risk of vehicle conflicts and collisions between different traffic streams.

(d) If northbound flow is not something (d) As stated in Comment 4(c) above, allowing Westminster will reconsider, her strong view would motor vehicles to turn right from Savoy Street is be to ask for a trial to turns now accessible to not considered viable. It is not clear what cycle- cycles as they need to get into Covent Garden from only turns could be made accessible to motor Catherine Street to drop passengers at Russell vehicles given the size difference between cycles Street due to all other options now being limited. and taxis. In addition, the existing one-way workings in the roads to the north of Strand would not aid vehicle movement towards Russell Street. It is therefore recommended that taxis and other motor vehicles would need to approach Russell Street via Drury Lane using either Waterloo Bridge or the north-eastbound lane of Strand (travelling down to Trafalgar Square if necessary).

(e) Personally, believes that Savoy (e) While the City Council acknowledges the Street is more vital as a southbound route for their value of Savoy Street as a southbound route for trade to get onto Victoria Embankment and would taxis and other motor vehicles, if the proposed reduce conflict with cycles. one-way working were to operate in this direction, the stop line for northbound cyclists would need to

8 APPENDIX – CONSULTATION RESPONSES (CONTINUED)

NAME and ADDRESS OBJECTIONS / COMMENTS / SUPPORT OFFICERS’ COMMENTS Taxis co-exist with against flow cycle lanes on the be positioned significantly further back than section of Bessborough Gardens and can still exit currently proposed to allow for large vehicles to from Regency Street and John Islip Street. If turn into the road from Strand. This would require Savoy Street switches to northbound only the loss cyclists to stop on the steepest section of Savoy to us of a south-east / west route means the Strand Street, making it difficult for them to set off when will be only option or to get a destination near the traffic signal turns green. Parliament Square will involve going via two bridges. Vauxhall Bridge Road (and the section adjacent to Bessborough Gardens) forms part of Cycle Superhighway 5 (CS5). The cycle routes are separated from the main traffic flow so there is no sharing of carriageway between cyclists and motor vehicles.

Regency Street at its junction with Vauxhall Bridge Road is exit only. The cycle route leaves Vauxhall Bridge Road via a cycle track on the footway which also provides a waiting area for cyclists, thus avoiding conflict with traffic at this junction.

John Islip Street at its junction with Vauxhall Bridge Road is a two-way road with more than adequate width for both lanes and a with-flow cycle lane.

It is not clear how these locations are comparable to Savoy Street in terms of cyclist / motor vehicle interactions.

5. (a) write to strongly voice their (a) WSP responded to on 27th July objection to the proposals on the grounds that the 2020 to clarify that if the proposals were introduction of “double yellow lines and double blips implemented, there would remain a length of

9 APPENDIX – CONSULTATION RESPONSES (CONTINUED)

NAME and ADDRESS OBJECTIONS / COMMENTS / SUPPORT OFFICERS’ COMMENTS – no waiting and loading at any time” in Savoy approximately 8.8 metres of single yellow line Street will severely impact the day to day running of outside the deliveries entrance to Brettenham their business with regard to transportation drop- House on which vehicles could load / unload offs / collections for colleagues and visitors as well deliveries. as receiving daily deliveries from service providers. The existing length of single yellow line Email dated 22nd July 2020 Whilst they appreciate the intention of the City (approximately 7.9 metres) outside the main Council to implement a Cycle Superhighway, the entrance would not be affected by the proposals restrictions of “no waiting and loading at any time” and could still be used for guest drop off / in Savoy Street will have a detrimental effect on collection. Waiting and loading restrictions their business. (whether single or double yellow lines or single or double kerb markings) do not prohibit passengers from being dropped off or collected, provided that in the case of collections the passenger is already making their way to the vehicle.

WSP provided a sketch plan to showing the location of the proposed waiting and loading restrictions in relation to the Savoy Street aspect of Brettenham House and the existing parking places and waiting restrictions.

Subsequent investigations indicate that if the proposals were implemented there would remain a length of approximately 11 metres of single yellow line outside the deliveries entrance to Brettenham House and a length of approximately 8.5 metres of single yellow line outside the client / worker entrance on Savoy Street.

However, in light of the representations made by businesses and other stakeholders at Brettenham

10 APPENDIX – CONSULTATION RESPONSES (CONTINUED)

NAME and ADDRESS OBJECTIONS / COMMENTS / SUPPORT OFFICERS’ COMMENTS House, the City Council has determined that loading restrictions should not be introduced for a length of 21.5 metres on the north-east side of Savoy Street (outside The Savoy Tap, No. 2 Savoy Street and adjacent to the deliveries entrance for Brettenham House) until such time as the City Council is able conduct a full review of the parking and servicing provisions in Savoy Street. Any future changes to this road would be subject to a separate consultation process.

Email dated 27th July 2020 (b) asks for confirmation that drivers (b) WSP responded to on 28th July will be able to leave their vehicles unattended 2020 to confirm that: whilst making deliveries to enter their building? For commercial vehicles:

(i) Before 11.00am and after 6.30pm

The City Council’s civil enforcement officers (often called marshals) will observe a stationary vehicle on yellow lines (during the hours in which those yellow lines are operational) for 25 minutes (45 minutes for HGVs). If there are no indications of loading / unloading activity after this time they will then issue a penalty charge notice (PCN). This generally allows for drivers to be away from their vehicles while making the delivery and obtaining the relevant signatures.

There is no time limit on loading / unloading activities before 11.00am and after 6.30pm provided a marshal can observe some loading

11 APPENDIX – CONSULTATION RESPONSES (CONTINUED)

NAME and ADDRESS OBJECTIONS / COMMENTS / SUPPORT OFFICERS’ COMMENTS activity taking place within any given 25-minute period (45 minutes for HGVs).

(ii) Between 11.00am and 6.30pm

As above, but the marshal’s observation time before issuing a PCN is reduced to 20 minutes (40 minutes for HGVs).

In addition, the loading and unloading activity must be completed within 20 minutes (40 minutes for HGVs).

(iii) If there are loading restrictions also in operation

If there are loading restrictions in operation (indicated by signs and/or kerb markings) then loading is not permitted at all during the indicated times.

For private vehicles:

Same as (i), (ii) and (iii) above but it is expected that the goods must be too heavy or bulky to be carried from a nearby parking place.

Further information:

The Enforcement Code of Practice which details what marshals look for, as well as the various rules and exemptions can be found at

12 APPENDIX – CONSULTATION RESPONSES (CONTINUED)

NAME and ADDRESS OBJECTIONS / COMMENTS / SUPPORT OFFICERS’ COMMENTS https://www.westminster.gov.uk/parking-policies- and-reports (pages 9 and 10, and 13 and 14 are particularly relevant).

(c) Please also advise where service providers (c) Service providers must park within a nearby are expected to park their vehicles whilst visiting pay-by-phone bay. However, if the parking bay is premises to carry out maintenance work? These some distance from the building entrance and vendors usually carry with them quite a bit of they have tools and equipment that they need to equipment. unload first then they can stop on yellow lines (provided there are no marked loading restrictions in operation) under the same provisions as set out in Comments 5(b)(i) to (iii) above.

In addition, unoccupied pay-by-phone bays can also be used for loading / unloading for up to 20 minutes without paying the charge. Vehicles which exceed the length of a marked bay are still permitted to load / unload in a bay. If no payment has been made or the vehicle is significantly overhanging the bay markings, a marshal will observe the vehicle for 20 minutes before issuing a PCN.

Postal delivery vehicles:

Although not included in the response to , it should also be noted that Royal Mail vehicles are exempt from waiting and loading restrictions and the controls and charges that apply to pay-by-phone and residents’ parking places whilst unloading and delivering or

13 APPENDIX – CONSULTATION RESPONSES (CONTINUED)

NAME and ADDRESS OBJECTIONS / COMMENTS / SUPPORT OFFICERS’ COMMENTS collecting and loading postal packets to / from adjacent premises.

Pages 31 to 34 of the Enforcement Code of Practice provide more information.

No further submissions were received from .

6. The CGCA supports the proposed changes but See Comment 2(b) above. Covent Garden Community points out that there is NO change being proposed Association (CGCA) in the reverse direction to allow a right turn from Wellington Street onto the Strand westbound and then down Savoy Street. It does not make sense to improve the cycle route only in one direction.

Email dated 23rd July 2020 Wellington Street southbound only allows cycles onto Waterloo Bridge. If they anyway turn right during the green light phase on Wellington Street, they meet the pedestrian green period of the Strand crossing. This direction also needs to be modified to allow for a right turn onto the Strand and down Savoy Street.

7. ’s company ( ) WSP responded to on 28th July 2020 occupies in the Brettenham House providing the information set out in Comments property on Savoy Street. 5(a) to (c) above.

They have reviewed the proposals and wanted to replied on 28th July 2020 to state that, express their concerns to the double yellow line “at having reviewed this additional information, the any time” waiting and loading restrictions that are arrangements for deliveries and servicing would Email dated 27th July 2020 being proposed.

14 APPENDIX – CONSULTATION RESPONSES (CONTINUED)

NAME and ADDRESS OBJECTIONS / COMMENTS / SUPPORT OFFICERS’ COMMENTS be acceptable and not have a big impact on the Like others in the building, they have numerous building’s operations. deliveries and contractors that attend their office that are key to the operation of the business. With Subsequent to the correspondence with the new restrictions that are proposed this would and in light of the representations made have a serious negative impact of the daily by businesses and other stakeholders at operation. With no allowance to wait or park, Brettenham House, the City Council has deliveries and contractors would have no way of determined that loading restrictions should not be continuing to support their and their fellow tenants’ introduced for a length of 21.5 metres on the business needs. north-east side of Savoy Street (outside The Savoy Tap, No. 2 Savoy Street and adjacent to the deliveries entrance for Brettenham House) until such time as the City Council is able conduct a full review of the parking and servicing provisions in Savoy Street. Any future changes to this road would be subject to a separate consultation process.

8. (a) As tenants of the at Brettenham WSP responded to on 29th July 2020 House, wish to submit their to clarify the effect of the various on-street comments in response to the City Council’s controls on business servicing needs: consultation documentation provided by the landlord’s managing agent, .

Whilst welcoming plans to improve the cycle lanes and make the local junctions safer, they would note Email dated 28th July 2020 that the proposed plans for Savoy Street, and the parking and waiting restrictions envisioned, would detrimentally impact the day to day operations of Brettenham House and the many tenants.

Areas of impact include:

15 APPENDIX – CONSULTATION RESPONSES (CONTINUED)

NAME and ADDRESS OBJECTIONS / COMMENTS / SUPPORT OFFICERS’ COMMENTS (i) Visitor (passenger) drop off and collections. (i) Vehicles are permitted to stop on yellow lines (both single and double) to collect and drop- off passengers, provided the vehicle does not wait any longer than absolutely necessary for the passengers to embark / disembark. However, vehicles should not stop in mandatory cycle lanes, such as the one proposed on the upper east side of Savoy Street, unless the passenger is disabled or injured.

(ii) Deliveries and collections (packages and (ii) If the proposals were implemented [as registered post) – couriers and vendors. Packages originally designed], there would remain a length are delivered to the tenants on each floor, there is of approximately 8.8 metres of single yellow line no central holding or distribution point, therefore outside the deliveries entrance to Brettenham vans need to be parked up to deliver. House on which vehicles could load / unload deliveries. The existing length of single yellow line (approximately 7.9 metres) outside the main entrance (on Savoy Street) would not be affected by the proposals and could still be used for deliveries if the space outside the deliveries entrance (referred to above) was occupied. WSP provided a sketch plan to showing the location of the proposed waiting and loading restrictions in relation to the Savoy Street aspect of Brettenham House and the existing parking places and waiting restrictions.

(Subsequent investigations indicate that if the proposals were implemented there would remain a length of approximately 11 metres of single yellow line outside the deliveries entrance to Brettenham House and a length of approximately

16 APPENDIX – CONSULTATION RESPONSES (CONTINUED)

NAME and ADDRESS OBJECTIONS / COMMENTS / SUPPORT OFFICERS’ COMMENTS 8.5 metres of single yellow line outside the client / worker entrance on Savoy Street.) Subsequent to the correspondence with and in light of the representations made by businesses and other stakeholders at Brettenham House, the City Council has determined that loading restrictions should not be introduced for a length of 21.5 metres on the north-east side of Savoy Street (outside The Savoy Tap, No. 2 Savoy Street and adjacent to the deliveries entrance for Brettenham House) until such time as the City Council is able conduct a full review of the parking and servicing provisions in Savoy Street. Any future changes to this road would be subject to a separate consultation process. With regards to loading and unloading, the general rules are that between 11.00am and 6.30pm, loading / unloading activities are limited to 20 minutes (40 minutes for HGVs) on yellow lines, provided there are not any loading restrictions also in effect. A marshal will issue a PCN if the vehicle is still parked after this length of time. After 6.30pm and before 11.00am, there is no time limit on loading / unloading activities on yellow lines, provided there are not any loading restrictions also in effect. A marshal will observe a stationary vehicle for 25 minutes (45 minutes for HGVs) before issuing a PCN if there are no indications of loading / unloading activity.

17 APPENDIX – CONSULTATION RESPONSES (CONTINUED)

NAME and ADDRESS OBJECTIONS / COMMENTS / SUPPORT OFFICERS’ COMMENTS Unoccupied pay-by-phone bays can also be used for loading / unloading for up to 20 minutes. Vehicles which exceed the length of a marked bay are still permitted to load / unload in a bay.

(iii) Contractors – building and removals (iii) Furniture removal vehicles are permitted to contractors. Heavy lift and significant prolonged on wait on yellow lines without time limit if they are / off loading of heavy and sometimes dirty actively engaged in relocating items. However, if materials. there are loading restrictions marked on the kerb- side then the company must obtain dispensation from the City Council first (as the restrictions are intended to prevent obstruction to traffic).

Vehicles engaged in major building works are also permitted to wait on yellow lines provided that this is the only location and time that they could reasonably carry out their operation.

(iv) Vendor parking delivering goods and services (iv) Service providers carrying out work on the e.g. photocopier servicing, plant maintenance, pest premises must park within a nearby pay-by-phone control, office food and drink services. bay. However, if the parking bay is some distance from the building entrance and they have tools and equipment that they need to unload first then

18 APPENDIX – CONSULTATION RESPONSES (CONTINUED)

NAME and ADDRESS OBJECTIONS / COMMENTS / SUPPORT OFFICERS’ COMMENTS they can stop on yellow lines (provided there are no marked loading restrictions in operation) before relocating their vehicle to an available pay-by- phone bay.

(v) Access and egress for all tenants and (v) Building access should not be affected by building personnel is via entrances on Savoy the proposals. Street. The main entrance is the Security Entrance located opposite The Queen’s Chapel. This is the only access / egress point to the building currently due to Covid-19 restrictions.

(vi) Building services including refuse collection, (vi) The City Council’s refuse collections team on-site recycling. have confirmed they would not be affected by the proposals. WSP further advised that if there are private waste collections from Brettenham House that further details be provided or the relevant person be asked to write to WSP directly. No further submissions were received in this particular respect.

(vii) Covid-19 car drivers wishing to park in the (vii) The proposals do not include the loss of any area if visiting offices for shorter periods, the parking bays. removal of the car parking bays removes this capability. It should also be noted that the existing lengths of single yellow line in Savoy Street are operational between 8.30 a.m. and 6.30 p.m. on Mondays to Saturdays and it is therefore considered unlikely that a reduction in the available lengths of single yellow line would affect parking availability during normal office hours.

19 APPENDIX – CONSULTATION RESPONSES (CONTINUED)

NAME and ADDRESS OBJECTIONS / COMMENTS / SUPPORT OFFICERS’ COMMENTS Email dated 11th August thanks WSP for its response and for As set out in Comment 8(a)(ii) above, in light of 2020 providing additional and helpful information. the representations made by businesses and other stakeholders at Brettenham House, the City They would like to register that the plans remain a Council has determined that loading restrictions concern and would be impactful upon tenants and should not be introduced for a length of 21.5 occupiers. The overarching limitations and metres on the north-east side of Savoy Street proposed charges, the limited hours, limited (outside The Savoy Tap, No. 2 Savoy Street and duration of waiting times and the limited area for adjacent to the deliveries entrance for Brettenham vehicles to be parked up simultaneously, appear to House) until such time as the City Council is able be insufficient to serve effectively and efficiently, a conduct a full review of the parking and servicing multi-storey and multi-tenanted building. provisions in Savoy Street. Any future changes to this road would be subject to a separate consultation process.

It should also be noted that the charges are unchanged and that, with the exception of the proposed loading restrictions which would lie adjacent to the mandatory contra-flow cycle lane, the permitted waiting times for vehicles in this road are unchanged and are consistent with those applied across the City of Westminster.

9. (a) wishes to object to the proposals (a) WSP responded to on 11th as they will significantly restrict accessibility of August 2020 to clarify that if the proposals were couriers and delivery vehicles to Brettenham implemented, there would remain a length of House. approximately 8.8 metres of single yellow line outside the deliveries entrance to Brettenham House on which vehicles could load / unload deliveries.

The existing length of single yellow line (approximately 7.9 metres) outside the main

20 APPENDIX – CONSULTATION RESPONSES (CONTINUED)

NAME and ADDRESS OBJECTIONS / COMMENTS / SUPPORT OFFICERS’ COMMENTS entrance would not be affected by the proposals Email dated 7th August 2020 and could still be used for deliveries if the space outside the deliveries entrance (referred to above) was occupied.

However, see Comment 9(b)(i) below with regards to the City Council’s decision to retain the existing servicing availability outside Brettenham House in Savoy Street. Unoccupied pay-by-phone bays can also be used for loading / unloading for up to 20 minutes without charge. Vehicles which exceed the length of a marked bay are still permitted to load / unload in a bay. If no payment has been made or the vehicle is significantly overhanging the bay markings, a marshal will observe the vehicle for 20 minutes before issuing a Penalty Charge Notice.

Email dated 12th August (b) thanks WSP for its reply and 2020 further information regarding the proposals and commented as follows:

21 APPENDIX – CONSULTATION RESPONSES (CONTINUED)

NAME and ADDRESS OBJECTIONS / COMMENTS / SUPPORT OFFICERS’ COMMENTS (i) If the proposals were implemented, the (i) In light of the representations made by 8.8 metres of single yellow line outside the businesses and other stakeholders at Brettenham deliveries entrance to Brettenham House on which House, the City Council has determined that vehicles could load / unload deliveries only allows loading restrictions should not be introduced for a for one delivery vehicle at a time. This is not length of 21.5 metres on the north-east side of practical as there are approximately 20 separate Savoy Street (outside The Savoy Tap, No. 2 offices in the building. Savoy Street and adjacent to the deliveries entrance for Brettenham House) until such time as the City Council is able conduct a full review of the parking and servicing provisions in Savoy Street. Any future changes to this road would be subject to a separate consultation process.

(ii) The existing single yellow line outside the (ii) WSP responded to on 12th main entrance is also not practical as deliveries are August 2020 to clarify that the reference to not permitted at the Lancaster Place entrance due 7.9 metres of single yellow line outside the main to there being no access to the goods lift. This entrance was intended to refer to the entrance to would also affect bus travel. In addition, it is not Brettenham House that is on Savoy Street and easy to get from Savoy street entrance to lies a few metres south of the goods entrance. It Lancaster Place entrance by vehicle, it would take was acknowledged to that this was not 20 minutes in traffic as it involves crossing made clear in the original reply and that the Waterloo Bridge. entrance on Lancaster Place is understood to be the main customer / client entrance.

(iii) Unoccupied pay-by-phone bays cannot be (iii) Royal Mail vehicles are exempt from waiting used for loading / unloading for up to 20 minutes and loading restrictions and the controls and without charge as it is unlikely that delivery charges that apply to pay-by-phone and residents’ companies will want to risk this. Delivery parking places whilst unloading and delivering or companies often have several different deliveries to collecting and loading postal packets to / from make in the same building and this could easily adjacent premises. For other delivery companies, take more than 20 minutes. the 20-minute time limit in parking bays and on yellow lines between 11.00 a.m. and 6.30 p.m. is

22 APPENDIX – CONSULTATION RESPONSES (CONTINUED)

NAME and ADDRESS OBJECTIONS / COMMENTS / SUPPORT OFFICERS’ COMMENTS in any case unchanged from the existing controls in this road and also applies Westminster-wide.

(c) In light of the aforementioned, they consider (c) See Comment 9(b)(i) above. that the new restrictions would still be severely impactful on deliveries / couriers for our business and as such they uphold their objection to the proposals.

10. have concerns over the proposals and how the changes will affect their company deliveries and taxi travel.

submits a list of their regular deliveries and taxi travel which are set to be affected by the double yellow line “at any time” waiting and loading restrictions in Savoy Street:

Email dated 9th August 2020 (a) Employee pre-booked taxis waiting on Savoy (a) In general, vehicles are permitted to stop on Street: 5-10 per day. yellow lines (both single and double and with or without signed loading restrictions) to collect and drop-off passengers, provided the vehicle does not wait any longer than absolutely necessary for the passengers to embark / disembark. This exemption would continue to apply to both Strand and Savoy Street if the proposals were implemented. However, it should be noted that vehicles should not stop in locations likely to cause obstructions or dangers to other road users, such as at junctions. The northernmost section of Savoy Street would become a queuing area for northbound traffic to pass through the

23 APPENDIX – CONSULTATION RESPONSES (CONTINUED)

NAME and ADDRESS OBJECTIONS / COMMENTS / SUPPORT OFFICERS’ COMMENTS new traffic signals to reach Strand and, in the case of cyclists, also Wellington Street which is part of Quietway 1. Vehicles should also not stop in mandatory cycle lanes, such as the one proposed on the upper east side of Savoy Street, unless the passenger is disabled or injured.

(b) Twice weekly collection and ‘on-site’ (b) It is recognised that some loading / shredding of confidential paper waste – will be unloading activities that could have previously restricted to parking in limited parking bay in front taken place in Savoy Street would need to take of No. 111 Strand. place in the lay-by outside Nos. 105 to 111 Strand. However, City of Westminster and commercial refuse collection vehicles would continue to have dispensation to stop on waiting and loading restrictions in order to collect rubbish from the side of the road. This would not extend to processing of waste materials and other activities requiring the vehicle to remain parked for a period of time. Such activities would need to be relocated to the lay-by on Strand.

It should be noted that loading / unloading is currently prohibited on the upper west side of Savoy Street between 7.00 a.m. and midnight on Mondays to Saturdays and on the east side “at any time”, except for a short section at the junction with Strand where the restrictions apply 7.00 a.m. to 10.00 a.m. and 4.00 p.m. to midnight. Therefore, any existing loading / unloading activities in that length of road (aside from waste collection and postal delivery / collection) would have had to take place before 7.00 a.m.

24 APPENDIX – CONSULTATION RESPONSES (CONTINUED)

NAME and ADDRESS OBJECTIONS / COMMENTS / SUPPORT OFFICERS’ COMMENTS It is considered essential to impose “at any time” loading restrictions in Savoy Street, between Strand and Savoy Row, in order to ensure northbound traffic can queue in its designated lane and southbound cyclists are not endangered by parked vehicles. “At any time” loading restrictions would also be introduced at the junction between Savoy Street and Savoy Row in order to ensure clear access and egress from that private road.

(c) Courier collections and deliveries: 10-15 per (c) Royal Mail vehicles are permitted to wait on day. waiting and loading restrictions for up to 20 minutes in order to make postal deliveries and collections. All other post services would be required to use the lay-by on Strand for the reasons set out above in Comment 10(b).

(d) Catering kitchen food deliveries: 2-4 per day. (d) to (f) See Comment 10 (b) above.

(e) Plant and flower delivery and maintenance: As loading activities in the upper section of Savoy once per week, early mornings. Street are already heavily restricted, the City Council would not have reasonably expected that (f) Other ad hoc deliveries and collections: 1-5 there would be a significant number of deliveries per day. that would need to relocate to the loading bay on Strand outside No. 111 as part of its design All these vehicles would be restricted to use the considerations. Should the building management limited parking directly outside their building [on at No. 111 Strand and other affected businesses Strand], which is shared by the three retail units in determine increased loading provisions are the same building. essential, they should write to the City Council’s Highways department. Any such amendments would be subject to initial approval from the City

25 APPENDIX – CONSULTATION RESPONSES (CONTINUED)

NAME and ADDRESS OBJECTIONS / COMMENTS / SUPPORT OFFICERS’ COMMENTS Furthermore, once the refurbishment of Norman Council being given and to the outcome of a House, next door to 111 Strand, is completed and separate and future public consultation. occupied by tenants, this loading / waiting lay-by will become even more congested.

hopes that the consultation committee will take these concerns in to consideration and propose an alternative solution which will accommodate their loading and taxi waiting area needs.

11. is very happy to see the plans for the Noted. Savoy Street link. He feels this is a key piece of infrastructure which provides an excellent link between two existing networks. Email dated 10th August 2020 He commutes from Lewisham (Forest Hill) to Camden (Holborn) via bike, and has multiple colleagues who would do similar routes, however, presently use the tube / public transport.

In discussions with them, this link would allow them to cycle to work. As currently Waterloo Bridge traffic is the reason behind why they don’t. As they can link Cycleway 6 to Cycle Superhighway 3 and use the new link to access Q1 north.

The successful completion of this link completes a reasonable quality north-south route on the north side of the river. (Though further improvements on Bow Street / Wellington Street would be hugely beneficial).

26 APPENDIX – CONSULTATION RESPONSES (CONTINUED)

NAME and ADDRESS OBJECTIONS / COMMENTS / SUPPORT OFFICERS’ COMMENTS 12. From a buses perspective, the right turn from The design team has reviewed the layout and Service Delivery Manager Strand into Lancaster Place is being used by movements at this junction but considers that for Victoria Bus Station & cyclists already. Is there any scope within the there is insufficient space in the right turn “pocket” Westminster Borough design to have a dedicated cycle space with the to install a dedicated waiting area solely for Service Delivery – Central dedicated bus lane to separate buses from waiting cyclists. Furthermore, there is concern that Region cyclists? has experienced although a waiting area would, in theory, be Bus Operations personally cyclists within this area oblivious to advantageous for cyclists who reached that area Transport for London buses behind them sitting in the middle of the having been waiting at the Advanced Stop Line on carriageway and refusing to move forward to allow Strand (outside No. 354) for a green signal, the bus to move forward. cyclists travelling along the Strand while the signal is green may be encouraged to overtake buses He is all in favour of reducing conflict between already in the pocket in order to reach the waiting cyclist and buses and he thinks dedicating a space area rather than wait behind the buses for their for cyclists would be beneficial. turn. This could lead to cyclists getting stuck in a bus’s blind spot and potentially increasing the risk of collisions or other conflicts. Email dated 11th August 2020 13. is strongly opposed to the proposed See Comments 4(b) to (d) above. changing of Savoy Street from two-way to one-way northbound. This will hurt the licensed taxi trade If the proposed introduction of one-way working is who rely on moving customers around, particularly approved in Savoy Street, then access to Victoria Email dated 11th August if a customer wants to be set down in Savoy Street Embankment would take place by proceeding 2020 from Strand, particularly if they are a wheelchair clockwise around Aldwych and then travelling user. south via Arundel Street and Temple Place.

Additionally, there would be no access to Victoria Embankment from Strand.

14. (a) wishes to object to the proposed (a) Both the Westminster Cycling Campaign changes to the Savoy Street / Strand junction. He [see Comment 3 above] and a significant number does not believe these changes will be broadly of cyclists [as set out in this Appendix] have

27 APPENDIX – CONSULTATION RESPONSES (CONTINUED)

NAME and ADDRESS OBJECTIONS / COMMENTS / SUPPORT OFFICERS’ COMMENTS beneficial, as they may benefit some cyclists but responded to the City Council’s consultation to will have a detrimental effect on the vast majority of endorse the proposals as the changes will traffic on Strand. connect two important cycling routes across the Email dated 12th August City (the east-west Cycle Superhighway 3 which 2020 follows Victoria Embankment and the north-south Quietway 1 which passes along Wellington Street). It is considered that the proposals will not only greatly improve cycling routes across the City but also encourage less confident cyclists to take up this alternative mode of transport by removing the impediment to many cycling journeys formed by the median strip opposite the junction with Savoy Street.

(b) Adding another set of lights, presumably (b) The green light phase at the new traffic allowing a waiting area that will lose further road signals at the northern end of Savoy Street would space for traffic heading east on the Strand is not a coincide with the green light phase for cyclists in good use of money. Westminster needs to keep Wellington Street and would, therefore, not add moving, and changing a major road that barely any noticeable delays to movement through the moves for the worse is not a good idea. Savoy Strand / Lancaster Place junction. Street, although not a busy road, is a key pressure relief valve for the Strand allowing users to get In addition, traffic modelling has concluded that down to the Embankment and use other routes the prohibition of the left turn from Strand into from there before they caught on the Strand all the Savoy Street (for motor vehicles) is not likely to way to Trafalgar Square (particularly with the long result in a significant reassignment of traffic onto term closure of Lower Robert Street). the wider road network, and traffic impact is likely to be imperceptible.

If the proposed introduction of one-way working is approved in Savoy Street, then access to Victoria Embankment would only be possible by proceeding clockwise around Aldwych and then

28 APPENDIX – CONSULTATION RESPONSES (CONTINUED)

NAME and ADDRESS OBJECTIONS / COMMENTS / SUPPORT OFFICERS’ COMMENTS travelling south via Arundel Street and Temple Place or by following Strand south-westbound to Trafalgar Square.

(c) Fair enough, allow cyclists to turn right into (c) See Comments 4(a) and (e) above with Lancaster Place, that makes sense. Add taxis to it regards to the difficulties in allowing taxis to turn as well. But please do not make the changes to right from Strand onto Lancaster Place, and why it the Savoy Street junction. As a black cab driver, is considered that Savoy Street should operate in road access and keeping moving are their lifeblood a northbound direction between Savoy Row and and these changes have the potential to be Strand, rather than southbound. severely detrimental.

15. As a Bikeability Instructor with a lot of experience Noted. The proposed changes, if approved for teaching in Westminster Schools, including St. implementation, would be permanent rather than Clement Danes’ Primary on Drury Lane, and interim. leading rides for Westminster, would Email dated 12th August like to support the proposed Savoy Street and 2020 Strand Interim [sic] Cycle Crossing Scheme.

16. supports the Quietway 1 to Cycle Noted. See Comment 2(b) above. Superhighway 3 link, a necessary link which needs to be two-way.

Email dated 12th August He lives in Islington and often has needed to get 2020 from Covent Garden Q1 to CS3 and has often needed to carry his cycle down the steps off the Bridge.

17. has just been prompted by a Noted. Twitter post to [respond to this consultation] but it excited him enough to stop what he was doing and write in support because (a) he has needed to do

29 APPENDIX – CONSULTATION RESPONSES (CONTINUED)

NAME and ADDRESS OBJECTIONS / COMMENTS / SUPPORT OFFICERS’ COMMENTS Email dated 12th August exactly this route [Strand / Wellington Street to 2020 Victoria Embankment] (in either direction, actually) in very recent days; (b) he now avoids his old favoured route of Waterloo Bridge in and out of town because of its inflexibility; and (c) it is exactly these small and discrete tweaks to cycling infrastructure that make such significant improvements that they rival the large CS3/6 commitment in effects. He wishes there were more such changes everywhere! He hopes the proposals go through looks forward to using [the new cycle connections]! 18. would like to add his support to the Noted. proposed Q1 to CS3 link. This is a much-needed change to provide safer cycling in Westminster. (As believes the City Council will be well Email dated 12th August aware, Westminster has one of the worst records in 2020 London for KSIs [killed or seriously injured in a road traffic accident] among vulnerable roads users.)

19. supports the proposal to make cycling Noted. more direct between Wellington Street and Cycle Superhighway 3 via Savoy Street. Navigating that route has caught him out on a number of Email dated 12th August occasions. 2020

20. The proposal for a link between Quietway 1 and Noted. Cycle Superhighway 3 would make a big difference to . He has often found himself trying to get up Savoy Street and across gridlocked Strand, lifting his bike over the central reservation.

30 APPENDIX – CONSULTATION RESPONSES (CONTINUED)

NAME and ADDRESS OBJECTIONS / COMMENTS / SUPPORT OFFICERS’ COMMENTS Email dated 12th August Alternatively, he has walked along the pavement 2020 then got on his bike at the end of Waterloo Bridge in order to make the crossing.

Please do go ahead with this proposal. It would make journeys by bicycle safer, more efficient and more connected for many.

21. supports the proposed Cycle Noted. Superhighway 3 and Quietway 1 connection.

Email dated 12th August 2020 22. wishes to express his support for the Noted. Quietway 1 to Cycle Superhighway 3 link on Savoy Street and Strand. It would be a fantastic link to have and improve cycling routes in this area Email dated 12th August considerably. The design proposed by the City 2020 Council also looks great — nice work!

23. supports the proposed changes to Noted. Savoy Street and its junction with Strand. He has used that route quite a few times but faced difficulties when getting to Strand – this [proposal] Email dated 12th August is a great (and much needed) solution. 2020 24. supports the Quietway 1 to Cycle Noted. Superhighway 3 link. Before lockdown, this was frequently a frustrating “missing link” on his journey through the borough – and once things open up

31 APPENDIX – CONSULTATION RESPONSES (CONTINUED)

NAME and ADDRESS OBJECTIONS / COMMENTS / SUPPORT OFFICERS’ COMMENTS Email dated 12th August again, she looks forward to being able to use this 2020 new link.

In particular, she is supportive of the element of this link that permits a right turn from Savoy Street onto Strand – having to get off the bike and wheel through often busy pavements in order to navigate this junction legally was always a significant point of delay to her journey, and she was often glared at by pedestrians who were irritated that she (and her bike) took up so much space – she has a heavy (cheap!) bike and normally also has full panniers, and so she can’t pick it up to swivel easily out of people’s way.

thanks the City Council for its work improving active travel infrastructure in the borough.

25. supports the proposals for Savoy Street / The operation of the junction would be monitored Strand. following installation of the scheme as it is possible that the yellow box junction would not be He would suggest not delaying the yellow box on required if vehicles adhere to the proposed signal Email dated 12th August Strand though (otherwise the junction will always layout, and traffic volumes do not significantly 2020 be blocked). change. However, the City Council reserves the option to install a yellow box junction without delay should it be subsequently considered necessary for the operation of the junction.

26. supports the plans to link Quietway 1 to See Comment 25 above. Cycle Superhighway 3 (CS3). As someone who travels along Cycle Superhighway 3 and uses the

32 APPENDIX – CONSULTATION RESPONSES (CONTINUED)

NAME and ADDRESS OBJECTIONS / COMMENTS / SUPPORT OFFICERS’ COMMENTS gym and shops on Strand, he has found the current arrangement dangerous, difficult and annoying. The new proposal will make commuting easier and safer. Email dated 12th August 2020 He would also like to insist that the proposal for a yellow box junction on Strand (opposite Savoy Street) is added immediately and not at a later date.

27. supports the Quietway 1 to Cycle Noted. Superhighway 3 link.

Email dated 12th August 2020 28. expresses his support for the Noted. proposals. It is a much-needed step to enable more cycling. He would use it regularly when travelling in that area.

Email dated 12th August 2020 29. supports the proposed cycling Noted. improvement that will create a link between Quietway 1 and Cycle Superhighway 3.

33 APPENDIX – CONSULTATION RESPONSES (CONTINUED)

NAME and ADDRESS OBJECTIONS / COMMENTS / SUPPORT OFFICERS’ COMMENTS

Email dated 12th August 2020 30. supports the proposed link between Noted. Quietway 1 and Cycle Superhighway 3.

Email dated 12th August 2020 31. occasionally cycles in the Strand area Noted. and has often thought how helpful it would be if there were a direct connection for people cycling between Wellington Street (which forms part of Email dated 12th August Quietway 1), Strand, Savoy Street and the brilliant 2020 Cycle Superhighway 3 on Victoria Embankment. She is therefore delighted to see Westminster City Council plans to make this link. She expresses her strong support and thanks the City Council for this excellent and sensible proposal.

32. supports the proposed Quietway 1 to Noted. Cycle Superhighway 3 link.

Email dated 12th August 2020 33. As a regular user of the Strand, Covent Garden Noted. and Embankment, fully supports the proposed Quietway 1 to Cycle Superhighway 3 link.

34 APPENDIX – CONSULTATION RESPONSES (CONTINUED)

NAME and ADDRESS OBJECTIONS / COMMENTS / SUPPORT OFFICERS’ COMMENTS Email dated 12th August 2020 34. supports the plan to link Quietway 1 with Noted. Cycle Superhighway 3 in central London. She thinks this will go some way to providing more safe space for cyclists in London, which is so important Email dated 12th August at this time. 2020 35. supports the proposed changes which Noted. benefit cycling to Savoy Street and Wellington Street. She works primarily in St. James’s and frequently through the borough, and she has close family who live in Covent Garden. These improvements are a step in the right direction for safer cycling in Westminster. More of this please!

Email dated 12th August 2020 36. supports the new / improved cycling Noted. interventions at Savoy and Wellington Streets. This is a welcome improvement. He cycles regularly in Westminster for commuting and for leisure with his family – accessing parts of Westminster / Covent Garden / West End becomes Email dated 12th August incredibly difficult and daunting (particularly 2020 following the safe haven of the Embankment) when riding with his young daughter (either on her own bike, the back of his bike or on their tandem together). More improvements please!

37. regularly cycles down Wellington Street on Noted. Quietway 1. Sometimes he proceeds ahead onto

35 APPENDIX – CONSULTATION RESPONSES (CONTINUED)

NAME and ADDRESS OBJECTIONS / COMMENTS / SUPPORT OFFICERS’ COMMENTS Waterloo Bridge, but increasingly he wants to join the main east-west Cycle Superhighway 3. He is pleased to learn that the City Council’s plans to re- engineer the junctions in this area will make the link down Savoy Street more accessible and Email dated 12th August permissible on a bike without having to become a 2020 pedestrian.

38. frequently cycles with his children in the Noted. area in which the cycle improvements between Quietway 1 and Cycle Superhighway 3 are planned and would very much welcome the proposed Email dated 12th August change. 2020 39. fully supports the proposed Quietway 1 to Noted. Cycle Superhighway 3 link.

Email dated 12th August 2020 40. supports the proposed Quietway 1 to Noted. Cycle Superhighway 3 link.

Email dated 12th August 2020 41. supports the proposed Quietway 1 to Noted. Cycle Superhighway 3 link.

36 APPENDIX – CONSULTATION RESPONSES (CONTINUED)

NAME and ADDRESS OBJECTIONS / COMMENTS / SUPPORT OFFICERS’ COMMENTS

Email dated 12th August 2020 42. fully supports the proposed scheme. Noted.

Email dated 13th August 2020

37 EXISTING LAYOUT ORIGINAL PROPOSED LAYOUT REVISED PROPOSED LAYOUT PLEASE NOTE: THE UPRIGHT TRAFFIC SIGNS SHOWN ON THE ORIGINAL PROPOSED LAYOUT WILL BE RETAINED UNDER THIS REVISED PROPOSED LAYOUT