1. Art and Diseño

A4 Cromwell Gardens
Thurloe Place
Consultation Report
January 2015
Contents
1
2
3
4
5
Introduction..................................................................................................
The Consultation.........................................................................................
Responses from members of the public, local businesses and external
stakeholders................................................................................................
External Stakeholder Comments.................................................................
Conclusion...................................................................................................
2
4
5
6
7
Appendix A – List of Relevant External Stakeholders Consulted................
8
Appendix B – Consultation Material............................................................. 10
Appendix C – Responses to Issues Raised ................................................ 15
1
1. Introduction
We recently invited the public, local businesses and stakeholders to comment on our
proposals to improve the pedestrian facilities at the junction of A4 Cromwell Gardens and
Thurloe Place and outside numbers 12-16 Thurloe Place.
This report explains the background to our proposals, outlines the consultation
undertaken and summarises the responses. The consultation was open for the public,
local businesses and stakeholders to comment between Monday 8 September and
Sunday 19 October 2014.
We wish to improve facilities for pedestrians on our streets and identified a number of
problems currently affecting pedestrians and drivers at this location:

On the west side of the junction (adjacent to the small park) the excessive width of
the Thurloe Place carriageway, and the bend at the approach, make it difficult for
pedestrians to cross. Also, the direct movement of pedestrians (“desire line”)
along the southern footway of Cromwell Gardens and Thurloe Place (eastern
section) is obstructed by the cycle stands and plinth, located outside the former
embassy building (33 Thurloe Square). The “desire line” is also obstructed
because the footway outside nos. 12-16 Thurloe Place is not well aligned with the
footway outside the former embassy building.

The boundary hedge in the small park to the west of the junction obstructs
pedestrian and vehicle driver sightlines and the main sign for the ‘no left turn’ from
Thurloe Place into Cromwell Gardens is not well located for visibility by vehicle
drivers.

Additionally, the crossing point across the driveway to Thurloe Lodge and
Amberwood House lacks fully dropped kerbs to aid the mobility impaired.
We proposed four improvements to this junction and nearby footway:

Building out the kerb and widening the footway on the west side of the junction to
narrow the distance pedestrians have to cross and to improve sightlines. The ‘no
left turn’ sign would be moved to the new built-out kerb to improve its visibility, and
the ‘no entry’ signs would be removed as part of a de-cluttering exercise.

Removing the cycle stands and plinth outside the former embassy building (33
Thurloe Square) to remove this obstruction to pedestrians. Ten new cycle stands
would be installed along the edge of the adjacent footway.

Building out the kerb and widening the footway outside nos. 12-16 Thurloe Place,
to match the pedestrian desire line to and from Cromwell Gardens. One lamp
column and one sign post would need to be relocated a short distance. The
existing parking bays would be retained but slightly realigned.

Providing dropped kerbs on both sides of the driveway to Thurloe Lodge and
Amberwood House, to improve accessibility for the mobility impaired.
2
We proposed that the bench outside the former embassy building (33 Thurloe Square)
and all trees would be retained, and that there would be no change to existing red route
restrictions or banned turns. Double red lines would be extended to cover the new kerb
build-outs as required.
3
2. The Consultation
The consultation was designed to help inform and shape our final decision. We wanted
to understand the community’s opinions about our proposals to improve the pedestrian
facilities at this location.
The potential outcomes of the consultation are:
 We decide the consultation raises no issues that should prevent us from
proceeding with the scheme as proposed
 We modify the scheme in response to issues raised in the consultation
 We abandon the scheme as a result of issues raised in the consultation
2.1 Consultation objectives
The objectives of the consultation were:
 To give the public, local businesses and stakeholders information about our
proposals and allow them to respond
 To understand the level of support or opposition for our proposals
 To understand any issues of which we were not previously aware that might affect
our proposals
 To understand concerns and objections
 To allow respondents to make suggestions
 To help inform our decision making process
2.2 Whom we consulted
We sought the views of people living or working within approximately 130m-300m
(depending on road layout) of the location. This extent is shown in Appendix B.
We also informed known stakeholders of our consultation. A list of relevant external
stakeholders contacted is shown in Appendix A.
2.3 Consultation material, distribution and publicity
The consultation was published online on our consultation website. We produced a letter
with a map explaining our proposals and how to respond, and posted this to 251
properties in the immediate area and to three external stakeholders. An email with a link
to our online consultation was sent to 136 internal and external stakeholders’ email
addresses. We also posted a notice about the consultation on two lamp posts at the
location. Copies of the letter, email and lamp post notice are shown in Appendix B.
2.4 Meetings and site visits
A site visit took place involving TfL, TfL Buses, the works contractor CVU, Royal Borough
of Kensington and Chelsea and Metropolitan Police on 23 October 2014.
A site visit took place involving TfL and one of the external stakeholders, Thurloe Owners
and Leaseholders Association on 2 December 2014. A further meeting with this
organisation may take place to finalise arrangements.
2.5 General response
In total, 19 responses were received from members of the public, local businesses and
external stakeholders.
4
3. Responses from members of the public, local
businesses and external stakeholders
In our consultation we asked no specific questions on our proposals. Instead we asked
respondents whether they support the proposed improvements and provided them with
the opportunity to leave further comments.
The table below summarises the level of support.
Do you support these proposed improvements?
I support them
I am not sure
I am against them
I have no opinion on them
Not Answered
Total Percent
of All
14
77.78%
3
16.67%
0
0%
0
0%
1
5.56%
This table excludes one external stakeholder who replied by email rather than on the consultation web page and did
not directly answer this question
Of the 19 responses, 12 included comments. The table below summarises the views
and suggestions made.
Comment summary
Comments this is a good idea / supports proposals
Has no objections
Notes difficulty crossing A4 Cromwell Gardens
Questions the need for cycle stands
Requests further improvements to pedestrian facilities including
elsewhere in area
Favours prioritising pedestrians over other highway users
Urges against outdoor tables and chairs / commercial activity on
widened footway
Suggests pedestrian crossing across eastern side of junction
Comments would be better for motorists as well as pedestrians
Disagrees with removal of plinth
Possibly suggests extending double red lines to relieve
congestion**
Asks about conversion of one parking space into a disabled
parking space
Observes that giving pedestrians more freedom and accessibility
will improve the area
Asks about effect on bus and large vehicle diversion
* 1 of which was raised during a site visit
** respondent’s comment was unclear
A list of responses to issues raised is attached as Appendix C.
5
Number of
times raised
8
1
1
2*
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4. External Stakeholder Comments
Comments were received from the following external stakeholders:
Thurloe Owners and Leaseholders Association
“With the exception of the plinth which you are proposing to remove, we are in
agreement with your proposals. The plinth was originally constructed for a sculpture and
we would like this retained for that purpose and strongly urge this should not be
removed.”
Further discussions took place with this organisation, the outcomes of which are
summarised in the Conclusion and Appendix C.
Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
“We have not heard any comments on this proposal from local residents. The changes
that are proposed will be of benefit to pedestrians without appearing to cause any
negative impacts, and we support them.”
Metropolitan Police
”Police have no objections but.......” {question about bus and large vehicle diversion
arrangements}.
Further discussions took place with this organisation and a satisfactory result was
achieved.
6
5. Conclusion
The responses to the consultation show strong support for our proposals.
We have decided that we will carry out the improvements as proposed, with the
exception of the cycle stands and plinth outside the former embassy building in Thurloe
Place.
Following discussion with Thurloe Owners and Leaseholders Association we have
decided to retain the plinth in its existing location for a sculpture to be added in the
future. We will build the new cycle stands in two blocks – one to the east of the plinth,
and one under the tree canopy outside the former embassy building, near the post box.
The existing cycle stands on the plinth will be removed. There will be 8-10 new stands in
total which provides space for 16-20 cycles.
Thurloe Owners and Leaseholders Association have agreed to investigate funding for a
sculpture to be provided on the plinth. It is not within the scope of the project for us to
fund street art at this location.
We plan to carry out the works during February and March 2015. We will contact all
those affected before the works start.
7
Appendix A – List of Relevant External Stakeholders
Consulted
Relevant Elected Members
Caroline Pidgeon AM
Stephen Knight AM
Darren Johnson AM
Joanne McCartney AM
Gareth Bacon AM
Fiona Twycross AM
Jenny Jones AM
Kit Malthouse AM
Murad Qureshi AM
Malcolm Rifkind MP
Nicky Gavron AM
Cllr. Coleridge (Brompton and Hans Town Ward)
Andrew Boff AM
Cllr. Paget-Brown (Brompton and Hans Town Ward)
Victoria Borwick AM
Cllr. Weale (Brompton and Hans Town Ward)
Tom Copley AM
Westminster Liberal Democrats
Relevant Local Authorities
Relevant Police and Health Authorities
Royal Borough of Kensington and
Chelsea
Metropolitan Police
Greater London Authority
CCG NHS Central London
8
Other Relevant Stakeholders
AA Motoring Trust
Living Streets
Action Disability Kensington London Ambulance Service
& Chelsea
Action on Hearing Loss
London City Airport
(formerly RNID)
Age Concern London
London Councils
Age UK
Asian Peoples Disabilities
Alliance
London Cycling Campaign
(Kensington and Chelsea)
London Fire and Emergency
Planning Authority
Association of British Drivers London Fire Brigade
Royal Parks
Sense
Sixty Plus
South Kensington &
Queensgate Residents
Association
South Kensington Estates
St George's Court Company
Ltd.
St Helen's Residents'
Association
Stroke Association
Association of Car Fleet
Operators
BT
London Older People's
Strategy Group
London Underground
Sustrans
Campaign for Better
Transport
Chelsea Society
London Travelwatch
Thames Water
Macmillan
The British Dyslexia
Association
The Brompton Association
Confederation of British
Industry
CTC, the national cycling
charity
Disability Alliance
Mind
Motorcycle Industry
Association
National Children’s Bureau
The Kensington Society
Disabled Persons Transport
Advisory Committee
National Grid
EDF Energy
Port of London Authority
Greater London Forum for
the Elderly
Green Flag Group
RMT Union
The Knightsbridge
Association
Thurloe Owners &
Leaseholders Association
(TOLA)
Thurloe Residents'
Association
Unions Together
RNIB
Unite (Taxi and Private Hire)
Guide Dogs for the Blind
Association
Joint Committee on Mobility
of Blind and Partially
Sighted People (JCMBPS)
Road Haulage Association
Victoria and Albert Museum
Royal Mail
9
Appendix B – Consultation Material
10
11
Extent of letter delivery (the Victoria and Albert Museum was contacted by email)
12
13
Notice placed on two local lamp posts
14
Appendix C – Responses to Issues Raised
Observation that crossing the A4 Cromwell Gardens is not easy but is practical,
thanks to the traffic lights east and west. Urge for further improvement to this
crossing.
We do not plan to provide any further changes at this junction. The pedestrian flow is
comparatively quite low compared with other locations and so a signalised crossing is
unlikely to be justified at this location. We would need to show that the flow of pedestrians
across the road warranted a new signalised crossing at the junction. Also, a new signalised
crossing on this already congested stretch of road could result in a worsening of traffic
journey times in the surrounding area.
Urge for further improvement to walking along the south side of the A4.
Suggestion for further pedestrian improvements to the east along the south side of
the A4 Brompton Road and Knightsbridge, including the footway outside Harrods
and crossing of Beauchamp Place.
We are not planning further improvements to pedestrian facilities along the south side of the
A4 in the Cromwell Gardens and Thurloe Place area. We need to prioritise our investment
according to the areas of most need and most pedestrian traffic in this area is on the north
side of the road where there is plenty of footway space.
We are, however, already considering improvements to pedestrian facilities along the south
side of the A4 Brompton Road towards Knightsbridge. This scheme is on our programme
for a feasibility study and we will consult in due course.
Request for a pedestrian crossing across the east side of the junction due to
insecurity felt with fast traffic turning left from A4 Thurloe Place (eastern section)
into Thurloe Place (western section).
The pedestrian flow is comparatively quite low compared with other locations and so a
signalised crossing is unlikely to be justified at this location. We would need to show that
the flow of pedestrians across the road warranted a new signalised crossing at the junction.
Also, a new signalised crossing on this already congested stretch of road could result in a
worsening of traffic journey times in the surrounding area.
The width and layout of this part of the junction is needed for buses turning left here.
Possible suggestion to extend the double red lines to relieve congestion
(respondent’s comment was unclear).
The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (which manages the parking at this
location) is content with the parking restrictions as they are and does not intend to change
them.
15
We are not planning to extend or shorten the red route restrictions at this location, although
the double red lines will be ‘wrapped around’ the new built-out kerbs on the widened
footway areas.
Question whether one of the parking spaces outside nos. 12-16 Thurloe Place is to
be converted into a disabled parking space.
The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (which manages the parking at this
location) has no proposals to introduce a ‘blue badge’ disabled parking bay at this location
and is not aware of any applications for a ‘personalised’ disabled parking bay here,
although an application for a ‘personalised’ disabled parking bay is always possible in the
future (applicants need to meet strict criteria).
Our own improvements will not change the use of any of these parking spaces but we will
slightly realign and re-mark the bays as we are widening the footway in this area.
Urge against negating the footway widening with outdoor tables and chairs or other
commercial activity and comment that this should be clear as part of our proposals.
We have no plans to add street furniture (for example tables and chairs). We would not
generally give permission for this.
Urge for retention of the plinth, with statement that it was originally constructed for a
sculpture.
We have discussed this issue and have decided that the plinth will be retained in its existing
location (with the existing cycle parking stands removed). We have asked Thurloe Owners
and Leaseholders Association to start exploring funding channels for a sculpture as soon as
possible.
Observation that cycle parking stands are not needed at this location and suggestion
that the funds for them be used elsewhere. Reluctance for cycle stands to be placed
adjacent to the plinth.
No cycle parking surveys have been done for this location but cycling is increasing and we
have an objective to encourage more and safer cycling. We have an annual cycle parking
programme and have received requests for additional cycle parking here.
We therefore won’t be removing any cycle parking provision and in fact wish to provide
more cycle parking at this location.
We will build the new cycle stands in two blocks – one to the east of the plinth, and one
under the tree canopy outside the former embassy building, near the post box. The existing
cycle stands on the plinth will be removed. There will be 8-10 new cycle stands in total
which provides space for 16-20 cycles.
Question about effect on bus and large vehicle diversion.
(see section 4 of the Consultation Report)
16