T H E CITY OF E D I N B U R G H C O U N C I L

Item no 26 Report no PC/099/05-06/CD

Study visit to Kensington and Chelsea

Planning Committee 9 March 2006

1 Purpose of report

1. To report to Committee on a study visit to the London Borough of Kensington and Chelsea to see what can be learnt from their approach to public realm.

2 Summary

2.1 A very successful visit was made to the London Borough of Kensington and Chelsea where the delegation from Edinburgh were hosted by officers and politicians from the Borough. Site visits to Kensington High Street and Exhibition Road illustrated the approach of putting ‘placemaking’ at the forefront of their thinking on public realm. Useful lessons in support of the aspirations in the Edinburgh Standards for Streets were learned. A visit report sets out the range of issues considered during the visit and key lessons learned.

3 Main report

3.1 When the draft Edinburgh Standards for Streets was presented to Committee in 2005, it was noted that there were other associated actions that should be taken to support the work of the Standards. One of those was to arrange a visit to the London Borough of Kensington and Chelsea and, in particular, to visit Kensington High Street and see the work that has been carried out there.

3.2 The visit took place on 5 December 2005 and the delegation included officers from Planning and Strategy, Transport, Economic Development, the City Design Leader, Councillor Murray, and representatives from Edinburgh World Heritage, Historic Scotland and Edinburgh City Centre Management Company. The delegation was also accompanied by Colin Davis, the consultant working with CEC in developing the Edinburgh Standards for Streets.

3.3 A visit repo’rt sets out the programme for the day and concludes the key lessons learnt and actions that the Department may take forward as a result. This is included as Appendix 1.

1

3.4 The day commenced with an introduction to the approach of the Borough by Councillor Daniel Moylan, Deputy Leader of the Council.

3.5 The approach was based on seeing the streets as the setting for the conservation area and the listed buildings. The design of the streets was therefore of critical importance. He was supported by his Chief Traffic Engineer, Mahmood Siddiqi, who explained the approach in more detail. The ground rules were simplicity, consistency, quality and freedom from clutter. Every piece of street furniture was to be challenged and removed unless there was absolutely no alternative. Those that remained were designed and located in such a way as to minimise their impact. Equal weight was given to all road users.

3.6 In the interests of achieving the above, Kensington High Street was designed with:

No kerb build outs No bollards

0

No guard rail (two small sections were retained) No cycle lanes or bus lanes (the inside lane is I m wider than the outer lane to accommodate cyclists and allow cars to overtake cyclists without having to move into the outer lane)

Traffic signals and lighting columns to be co-ordinated so they shared the same pole

Minimum palate of materials 0

Large element Yorkstone paving.

3.7 Road safety audits were reviewed in order to allow such a scheme to procede as it would fail all standard tests. Careful monitoring with the use of cameras was an important element in developing this approach as it was necessary to record the behaviour of the road users. The results after nearly two years of use show significant reductions in all accidents, most notably pedestrianhehicle accidents. This showed that the apparently ‘unsafe’ environment that allowed greater mixing of cars, buses, cyclists and pedestrians was, in fact, considerably safer than the previous designs which reflected standard practice found in cities throughout the UK.

3.8 It was noteable that this was only achieved through the direct involvement of a very senior member of the Council and a single-minded approach to delivering the vision. The team of officers seemed fully supportive of this approach and were acting to roll out its themes and details across other parts of the borough. It was explained that the time spent co-ordinating the details and ensuring a top quality design was cost effective when linked to the considerable savings made on maintenance costs. This matter will need further consideration in a later report to Committee on the Standards for Streets, as the funding for public realm improvements is constrained by the budget allocation for such works.

2

3.9 Section 4 of the Appendix 1 identifies key learning points from the visit. The first of these relates to the political challenge to put a well-designed streetscape to the forefront of transport planning. This issue has been recognised by the \Council’s Executive when it approved the draft Edinburgh Standards for Streets. In doing so it sought a review of the Streetscape Working Group, suggesting that a Streetworks Group be set up with a larger remit that the current Streetscape Working Group.

3.10

3.1 1

4

4.1

4.2

4.2

5

5.1

5.2

Following discussions between officers and members Cllr Ian Murray will verbally report on a proposal to set up a Streetscape Board made up of officers and members and representatives from key external organisations. Beneath this will operate a Streetscape Surgery which will be chaired by an external professional and which will operate at a more detailed level.

This process reflects the strong leadership and direction that is a striking feature of the way in which Kensington and Chelsea operate and which has been considered one of the key reasons for their success. The Council’ s study visit to Copenhagen and Malmo further reinforced the benefits of having structures in place that focus specifically on streetsworks and public realm.

Conclusions

Seeing and hearing about an innovative approach to the design of streets first hand has proved to be an extremely informative experience. Preconceived safety concerns about the scheme proposals at Kensington and Chelsea were largely dispelled after observing how the space was used and the various transport modes interacted.

The overriding message from Kensington was the importance of leadership based on a clear vision and design based approach to the delivery of the project. Building a united approach to the project meant that the design team brought a positive spirit towards finding solutions.

A clear message that conveys the spirit of the proposals at Kensington should be used to inform the Edinburgh Standards for Streets document. This message should be reinforced by considering piloting some of the desired departures from national guidance and common practice.

Financial Implications

The costs for the visit were funded from the Departmental Budget. The Design Initiative and various partners who joined the visit were responsible for their own costs.

In relation to public realm improvements, the budget implications of quality design and materials in such works will need to be assessed in a later report to Committee, and then considered by the Council Executive.

3

6 Recommendations

6.1 It is recommended that the Committee notes;

(i) the findings and key messages set out in the visit report (Appendix 1 section 4);

(ii) the lessons inform the review of the draft Edinburgh Standards for Streets document;

(iii) a further report on taking actions forward will be presented at a further date.

. Andrew M Holmes

Director of City Development

Appendices Appendix 1 : Kensington and Chelsea study visit report.

Contact/tel Will Garrett 0131 469 3636 Will.qarrett@edinburqh.qov.uk

Wards affected All

Background None Papers

KSIFKIPLANCOMIKensington & Chelsea Study Visit 1 March 2006

4

APPENDIX 1

KENSINGTON AND CHELSEA STUDY VISIT

gTH DECEMBER 2005

EDINBURGH DESIGN INITIATIVE

€DIN BVRG H T H E C I T Y OF E D I N B U R G H C O U N C I L

1 .O DELEGATES

From the City of Edinburgh Council:

Councillor Ian Murray, Vice Chair of the Planning Committee Keith Rimmer, Head of Transport Jim Grieve, Transportation Services Manager Duncan Fraser, Strategic Services Manager, Transport Tom Clark, City Network Services Eddie McDowell, Transport Co-ordinator Riccardo Marini, Edinburgh City Design Leader Terry Farrell, Edinburgh City Design Champion Will Garrett, Planning and Strategy (Conservation and Urban Design) Karen Stevenson, Planning and Strategy, Streetscape Sam Verner, Neighbourhood Regeneration Gina Bellhouse, Departmental Assistant to the Convenor of the Planning Committee Stephen Hajducki, development Quality Group Leader, Planning and Strategy

And joining from other organisations:

Debbie Mackay, Edinburgh City Centre Management Company Jane Jackson, Edinburgh World Heritage Robin Evetts. Historic Scotland

2

2.0 ITINERARY

Met with Introduction from Cllr Moylan, Deputy . - Leader of the Council.

Introduction to Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea’s policies on integrate traffic and street scene Mahmood Siddiqi, Chief Traffic Engineer and colleagues

Site visit to Kensington High Street and area around Kensington Square

Site visit to Exhibition Road and Nottinghill Gate

Addressed Spoke about the background to the Kensington High Street project and the Council’s views on the details of Streetscape. How the officers worked with the politicians and how this changed working practice and ongoing work. Kensington High Street, crossings and signalled , complete scheme Wrights Lane shared surface junction, complete scheme Sloane Square, proposed signalled scheme Brompton Road guard free two stage crossing Exhibition Road, proposed large scale shared surface scheme Nottinghilll Pembridge Road, latest completed version of the guard rail free, two stage crossings Discussed the site arrangements and design decisions in groups accompanied by representatives of Engineering section

Consider further initiatives by the Borough that are taking the ‘placemaking’ objectives defined for Kensington High Street forward to other projects.

3

3.0 FACTS

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

3.6

Today the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea is a borough of extremes. It is home to Royalty and to some of the world’s wealthiest people and yet some of the Borough’s Wards are within the 10% most deprived wards in the Country. The borough has an extraordinary ethnic and cultural diversity with nearly half its residents born outside the UK, representing 90 countries and speaking over 100 different languages.

The Royal Borough’s greatest natural feature is the River Thames. This marks the southern boundary and creates a splendid setting for Chelsea’s historic riverside buildings.

The Royal Borough supports key transport routes that form part of the Greater London network, such as the A4 along Exhibition Road, A40 and the A3220, Kings Road through Chelsea. While the Council of the Royal Borough continues to be responsible for most highway matters, the Greater London Authority (GLA) established in 1999, provides strategic wide responsibility for the key transport routes (red routes) and public transport. The GLA is responsible for producing an integrated transport strategy for London through Transport for London (TfL). The mayor has wide powers of direction over TfL and sets its budget along with specific remit for the structure of public transport, commuter railways and new transport services. It is TfL that has the overall remit for the roads network and sets guidance for its design and maintenance.

Kensington High Street Project

Kensington High Street is the direct responsibility of the Royal Borough, while Exhibition Road is the responsibility of TfL along with the Borough.

The Kensington High Street project itself has won awards for its innovation as well as criticism for its apparent testing of accepted practice .

The following extract from the Kensington and Chelsea web site provides a summary and background to both the High Street and Exhibition Road projects.

Kensington High Street

Kensington High Street lies at the heart of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea and is a vital part of the fabric of the community. It runs through an area rich in history that enjoys a wealth of architectural styles, in particular the fine buildings of the 1930s such as Barkers and the old Derry and Toms building.

In recognition of the importance of Kensington High Street the Council has carried out a major programme of improvements. Its aim was to maintain and enhance the vitality, viability and attractiveness of the High street as a shopping centre as well as a place to live and work.

I The Council wanted to create not only an improved look and style, but also

4

The g u ~ d i ~ ~ design ~ s ~ n c ~ ~ ~ e for the enhance~en~ scheme has been based 3n the 'less is more' philoso 3rincipies.

The seduction of clutter and the use of a restricte et ~urni~ure and ~ i ~ h ~ ~ ~ ~ have created an elegant and

High quality, ~ r a d ~ ~ ~ o n ~ ~ sized Vokkstone paving slabs have been use all footways and ~ e d e s ~ r ~ a ~ islands. ~ k a d ~ ~ ~ o n ~ ~ ~ e ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ and craRsm was a priority throu~hou~ the project

to fit in with the overall scheme.

:rossi

strian crossings h

ked as an example of practice in the English ~~~~~~~~ London I an ic city for a modern wo

o awards in the L o n d ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ s ~ ~ ~ Awards 2 I be anno~nced in

e TO reflect the fact that south ~ e n s ~ n g ~ o n is iooking to the Future and setting new standards of urban design. it must be a modern classic

ace for a new century.

I

@ The scheme to enhance re

e s ~ ~ ~ ~ s ~ e r has for many years been car rovements. These incl

3arblic Spaces initiative. 18 aims to create or a r~~ra$e 100 public spaces in ,ohdon Q V ~ F the next five years.

rt for London has alrea

n

the value of London’s existin

of

in t

T If

s esi

the historic backdrop.

nsive - from wail to wall. n was one of an cohesive feel. The lack of

nt ni

I Staff training is an essential part of the process

The role of Monitoring

Monitoring was built into both the design review process and the assessment of how the scheme was functioning. The scheme design elements evolved in response to the lessons learned. At Nottinghill Gate the crossing arrangements were varied.

Ongoing contact should be maintained with Kensington and Chelsea in order to keep up to date with full results of their monitoring programme

Monitoring costs should be considered in the whole life costing for a new project.

5.0 CONCLUSION

5.1 Preconceived safety concerns about the scheme proposals at Kensington and Chelsea were largely dispelled after observing how the space was used and the various transport modes interacted.

5.2 An overwhelming message from the day was the importance of a clear and design led vision in the delivery of streetscape proposals, working on every level of design and detail towards a final solution.

5.3 It was agreed that a clearer message that conveys the spirit of the Kensington and Chelsea proposals should be included in the Edinburgh Standards for Streets document. This message should be reinforced by considering piloting some of the desired departures from national guidance, such as a proposal to consider the role of existing guard rail across the city (see appendix A, Draft proposal for the removal of some footway barriers across the city centre).

5.4 While it will be of benefit to challenge the use of common practice, it should be noted that the Kensington High Street environment has been achieved by carrying forward a comprehensive approach to the design of the street and not by addressing individual components. For Edinburgh to achieve the success of Kensington High Street, it will have to determine which streets should be treated in such a comprehensive manner.

5.5 All of these challenges to the way we consider street design are making a difference, but what is really needed is a change in legislation and guidance from the Department for Transport. Their current consideration of street design guidance is an important step, but there is a need for legislation to join up the thinking on street design and wider public realm.

Identify key streets that can be comprehensively treated in a similar way to Kensington High Street.

16

Appendix A:

Draft proposal for the removal of some footway barriers across the city centre

Modern wisdom suggests that the benefit of removing in appropriately located footway barrier at a number of city centre locations can provide a net benefit in terms of the environment, and potentially the economy, without a net loss to road safety.

The Council has recently visited Kensington and Chelsea in London to consider their experience in removing pedestrian barriers on Kensington High Street and other locations. Kensington have called this a “liveability scheme” and not traffic scheme. Kensington have achieved an enhanced on street environment. An initial finding after two years indicates that road safety has not been compromised. A formal report will be prepared after the full three-year period following construction. Initial observations by Kensington suggest that driver behaviour has changed and improved because of the psychological effect of not giving a “message” of absolute priority to the driver and consequently driver typically drives with greater care at crossings and at junctions. Indeed the traffic engineer for the project argues that “less is rnore”and the out come is that the ambiguity about priority causes all road users to take greater care. Such is the commitment to the new approach to urban design that they are currently planning a ‘naked streets’ scheme on Exhibition Road.

Consequently, it is proposed that the City of Edinburgh reviews its approach to pedestrian barriers. This initiative is aimed at enhancing the on-street environment without significantly compromising road safety.

This approach would be consistent with the approved draft Edinburgh Standards for Streets. This manual promotes the reduction of street clutter. To date the impact has been to rationalise statutory signing and now it is intended to widen its scope by including the removal of appropriate pedestrian barriers.

It will be necessary to follow a set procedure to determine which sites are appropriate.

It is proposed that sites will be selected through a visual assessment. Once implemented, visual surveys and a stage 3-road safety audit will be carried out within 3 months and reviewed after a further first 9 months. If this analysis proves satisfactory then a 3-year accident review will be carried out to determine the final part of the approval process. If appropriate at some sites, and for safety reasons it may be necessary to revert to re-introducing pedestrian barriers, however based on experience in Kensington it is anticipated that this would be the exception rather than the rule.

It is proposed to select a number of trial sites including three on Princes Street. The procedures described above will be carried out to assess the initial, medium and long-term impact. It is suggested that other sites will be proposed in the future.

17

A7

THE ROYAL BOROUGH OF KENSINGTON AND CHELSEA

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES COMMITTEE - 7 NOVEMBER 2000

REPORT BY THE DIRECTOR OF TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS

KENSINGTON HIGH STREET - PHASE 1 SAFETY AUDIT

In September 2000 the Highways and Traffic Committee approved the detailed design for Phase 1 of the improvements to Kensington High Street between Kensington Court East and Young Street/Old Court Place. The design features in Phase 1 have been developed using the principles in the ‘Streets for All’ document produced by English Heritage. Some of the detailed features do not conform to the standards and conventions that are normally adopted by the Royal Borough. Therefore, the Highways and Traffic Committee agreed that the Safety Audit report for Phase 1 should be reported to Committee.

This report informs the Committee of the recommendations in the Safety Audit carried out by JMP Consultants, and outlines officers’ recommendations. (Campden and Queen’s Gate Wards).

FOR DECISION

1. BACKGROUND

1.1 On 12 September 2000, the Highways and Traffic Committee approved the detailed design for Phase 1 works on Kensington High Street. The proposals include reviewing the need for all street furniture and the design of features such as central islands, dropped kerbs and tactile paving. Design solutions have been proposed which do not conform to the standards and conventions that are normally adopted on public highways. The Highways and Traffic Committee requested that the Safety Audit report on the proposals for Phase 1 should be reported to its next meeting. However, as there was limited time to consider the findings of the Safety Audit and prepare a report for the Highways and Traffic Committee on the 24 October 2000, the report has been prepared for this committee.

1.2 The fundamental requirement for Safety Auditing is that practical safety experience is applied to a highway scheme to reduce the possibility that any unsafe feature is introduced. The Safety Audit is regarded as one facet of quality assurance and should ensure that drivers, cyclists and pedestrians can expect a new scheme to meet normal expectations and not be hazardous. Consequently, JMP Consultants, who have extensive experience over many years of undertaking Safety Audits, were asked to carry out an independent Safety Audit on the proposals and prepare a report on their findings.

This report informs the Committee of the comments in the Safety Audit, and the response from officers which have been discussed with the designers at The Project Centre Ltd. The officers have then outlined their views about how, if required, the design should be amended to take account of these comments.

SAFETY AUDIT REPORT

The Safety Audit was carried out between 27 and 29 September 2000, following a visit to the site by the audit team on 25 September. The Safety Audit was undertaken in accordance with the latest Highways Agency Standards and with reference to the Institution of Highways and Transportation publication ‘ Safety Audit of Highways’ 1996. Comments and recommendations in the audit report were concerned only with the road safety implications of the scheme, and not the general basis for the proposals.

A summary of the main recommendations of the audit report along with officers’ comments is shown below, with the original audit report attached as Appendix A.

Recommendation:

Officer Comments:

Recommendation:

Officer Comments:

Recommendation:

Officer Comments:

Ensure that traffic will be able to satisfactorily negotiate the narrower width of carriageway at the pelican crossing near Old Court Place

The existing traffic island in the centre of Kensington High Street is being widened slightly to improve pedestrian safety. The road width either side of the island will be 5.5m. minimum. This is adequate to provide two sub- standard traffic lanes.

Consideration should be given to the retention of all the existing zig-zag markings at both pelican crossings.

The Pelican Crossing Regulations require two or more lines of zig-zag markings to be provided on the approach to the crossings. Therefore, on the two lane approaches to the pelican crossings it is proposed to provide only two lines of zig-zag markings. However, on the three lane approach to the staggered crossing a line of zig-zag markings will delineate each lane.

Consideration should be given to the retention of the hatching in the centre of the road.

The existing central hatched markings in the vicinity of the staggered pelican crossing are considered unnecessary and in line with the streetscape enhancement objectives surplus to requirement. Therefore, it is proposed to remove the hatch markings and continue to monitor the situation. The keep left signs on the island should be sufficient to prevent drivers thinking there is an additional lane where the existing hatching is located at present.

HTOO IO.PB2 2

4) Recommendation: Further consideration be given to the use of “Buried Up-lighters’’ because of the possible spillage of light towards on coming traffic.

Officer Comments: The purpose of using externally illuminated regulatory signs is to achieve an enhanced visual appearance over the traditional illuminated traffic bollard. The use of up- lighters should not cause a safety hazard for oncoming traffic. To ensure both night-time and daytime conspicuity, the ‘keep left’ sign will be made in high reflectivity material.

5) Recommendation: Ensure an adequate level of illumination at Kensington Court (east).

Officer Comments: The design proposals include the removal of only one existing lighting column. However, the lighting provision at this junction will be within the levels of illumination specified in the street lighting standards.

6) Recommendation: Consideration should be given to the provision of secondary signals, particularly on the three lane approach to the staggered pelican crossing, as vehicles may miss a red signal due to poor visibility of the primary heads.

Officer Comments: The proposed scheme does not include a secondary traffic signal head on all approaches to the pelican crossings. The secondary traffic signal heads are not mandatory and were removed from the design to reduce street clutter. The Safety Audit supported by Transport for London, Street Management, Traffic Technology Services (TTS) who design, implement and commission the traffic signals, recommends there should be a secondary traffic signal head on the three lane approach to the existing staggered pelican crossing.

Officers support the views expressed by the Safety Audit and TTS. This wide crossing does give the opportunity for vehicles in the inside and outside lanes to obscure the traffic signals from vehicles in the middle lane. The introduction of this additional traffic signal will reduce this risk and as a result is recommended.

HTOOlO.PB2 3

Recommendation:

Officer Comments:

Recommendation :

Officer Comments:

Recommendation:

Officer Comments:

10) Recommendation:

Officer Comments:

11) Recommendation:

HTOO 1 O.PB2

Consideration should be given to the retention of the guard railing on the central island of the staggered pelican crossing.

See paragraphs 3.4 to 3.9 below.

Consideration should be given to the layout of the central island for the staggered pelican crossing especially to the location of the traffic signal poles so they do not obstruct pedestrian movement.

It is proposed to increase the stagger between the two crossing points to 3.8m, which will increase the distance between traffic signal poles situated on the island and provide more space for pedestrians. Also, it is proposed to realign the push buttons on the poles which will help to improve pedestrian movement on the island.

Consideration should be given to modifying the layout of the staggered crossing to provide a left hand stagger so that pedestrians are guided to face the approaching traffic streams.

It is good practice for the pedestrian using this type of island to walk towards the oncoming traffic. This is not the case at this crossing. Therefore, it is suggested that the layout of the island be altered as shown on drawing no. PCL/216/37/PH1/002/10 Rev. A ( Sheet 3 of 3), to be displayed at the Committee meeting, to conform with current safety standards.

Consideration should be given to providing a drop crossing detail that has no incorporated trip hazard. (This relates to use of a dropped kerb on the pelican crossings and the side roads adjacent to Kensington High Street.)

The proposed design for the pedestrian crossing points involve a kerb return similar to that used for constructing a vehicle crossover. However, the level difference between the kerb return and surrounding footway will be kept to a minimum thereby reducing the risk of pedestrians tripping over them. At the side roads the kerb returns are set to run parallel to the main pedestrian desire lines/movements. However there is still an opportunity for a pedestrian walking in the side road to trip or slip where the levels change. Officers will monitor and review the situation.

Consideration should be given to the provision of the

4

(tactile) stems at the controlled crossing points as recommended by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) guidance.

Officer Comments: See paragraphs 3.2 and 3.3 below.

12) Recommendation: Adopt an alternative option in the final construction scheme to ensure that no trip hazards are introduced within the drainage channel in the proposed widened area of footway on the southern side of Kensington High Street.

Officer Comments: This option is not being adopted. An alternative solution is proposed which should not be a safety hazard for pedestrians.

13) Recommendation: Ensure that tactile paving is provided at all the locations where the footway and carriageway are at the same level and to the recommended layout.

Officer Comments: Where dropped kerbs, to the new design, are implemented at side road junctions, it is proposed to provide a different textured surface ie cropped setts, instead of tactile paving. This should indicate to the visually impaired that they are approaching a vehicular area. This will be monitored and reviewed with disabled groups.

14) Recommendation: Ensure that the layout at Palace Avenue is amended to direct pedestrians across the road in the recommended and safe manner.

Officer Comments: Guard railing has been provided in Palace Avenue, on the approach to Kensington Palace, on security grounds and therefore cannot be removed. Whilst it is proposed to retain the existing arrangements, officers have approached the police and requested they review the current layout.

15) Recommendation: Consideration should be given to the provision of high skid resistance surfacing on the approaches to both controlled pedestrians crossing facilities.

Officer Comments: High skid resistance surfacing on the approaches to the two crossings will be provided.

HTOO 1 O.PB2 5

16) Recommendation: The Design Organisation should seek reassurance from the manufacturers that the stainless steel studs do not cause problems for pedestrians.

Officer Comments: A letter has been sent to the manufacturers seeking these assurances. These studs have been used at a small number of sites elsewhere in the Country and officers will monitor and review the situation and if problems are identified an alternative surface will be introduced.

17) Recommendation: Consideration should be given to replacing the existing guard railing along the widened footway to discourage pedestrians crossing the road at this location.

Officer Comments: The reason for widening the footway along the southern side of Kensington High Street is to provide more room for pedestrians. The existing guard railing does not prevent pedestrians walking across the road. Therefore, the guard railing will be omitted and the situation monitored with regard to pedestrian safety.

18) Recommendation: Ensure that the traffic signals will be conspicuous to approaching traffic in all light conditions.

Officer Comments: The conspicuity of the existing traffic signals does not cause a problem and there is no change envisaged in the new layout.

19) Recommendation: Consideration is given to the need to provide restrictions on loading and unloading.

Officer Comments: When the existing bus lane is removed vehicles will not be able to loadhnload between 4pm and 6.3Opm, the hours of operation of the bus lane. Therefore, the existing restrictions will be retained.

20) Recommendation: Ensure that, during the construction of the scheme, any temporary traffic management arrangements accommodate safe traffic, pedestrian and cycle movements and that the transfer from one crossing facility to another is carried out in a safe and efficient manner.

Officer Comments: The contractor is aware that during the works, safe movements for traffic, pedestrians and cyclists must be maintained.

HT0010.PB2 6

3. MAIN ISSUES RAISED IN SAFETY AUDIT REPORTS

3.1 The Safety Audit Report has raised two major issues which are a departure from established good practice used by engineers when introducing this type of project.

Tactile Paving

3.2 The provision of tactile paving at controlled/uncontrolled crossing points is outlined in the ‘Guidance on the use of Tactile Paving Surfaces’ issued by the DETR. The main reason for providing tactile paving is to assist the visually impaired, especially at traffic signals, pelican crossings and zebra crossings. The aim is to provide consistent types of materials and layouts across the country. Having established these principles, they are used in training blind and partially sighted pedestrians to be independent.

3.3 Whilst the provision of stainless steel studs fixed to the York Stone, instead of using purpose made tactile paving, is new to the Royal Borough, it has been used in other parts of the Country. The proposed arrangement of the stainless steel studs does not conform to the DETR guidance. In addition, the proposed layout does not conform to the usual configuration which involves extending the tactile paving across the full width of footway to enable blind and partially sighted pedestrians to identify they are adjacent to a crossing. However, officers consider that this non standard arrangement should be installed at the pedestrian controlled crossing points on an experimental basis and that a review of its effects on pedestrian safety, especially for the visually impaired, should be undertaken. This would involve discussions/meetings with representatives of disabled groups, pedestrian groups and the Better Government for Older People representatives, with a report back on the review to a future Committee.

Removal of Guard Railing in the centre island of the staggered pelican crossing opposite Kensington Gardens.

3.4 This is the significant issue raised in both the Safety Audit and by Traffic Technology Services (TTS). There is no statutory requirement to install guard railing. As a result, when preparing the overall brief the design consultant was instructed to remove as much street furniture and other clutter as possible including guard rail. If they felt there was a particular location where guard rail removal caused them concern, they were requested to suggest alternative solutions.

3.5 The proposed scheme removes all guard railing at this location on the pedestrian island but the Safety Audit recommends it is retained. The concern is that when there are several pedestrians on the island, the existing guard railing ensures that they will not be pushed or knocked into the line of the adjacent traffic. The design consultants suggest the use of a kerb as a replacement, to separate the carriageway from the pedestrian island in the centre of the road. However, raised kerbs could allow pedestrians to step into the traffic and would not provide the reassurance of a physical barrier, in particular for the blind and partially sighted. In addition, the raised kerb could be a trip hazard, particularly at night or when there are large numbers of pedestrians using the crossing which does occur from time to time.

HTOOlO.PB2 7

3.6

3.7

3.8

3.9

4.

4.1

5.

5.1

Officers consider that the proposed 150 mm upstand kerb, which would replace the guard railing, is considered to be detectable by the visually impaired using a scanning or roller tip cane (and possibly by guide dogs) and will provide some reassurance. However, it is difficult to make a case for the removal of all guard railing in this location, as this typical layout has been used for many years. Since 1974, when the principle of introducing pelican crossings was agreed by the then Greater London Council, this type of crossing (with a centre island) has always been implemented with guard railing or other similar restraining features e.g. a wall. The nationally published design advice used by TTS when installing pedestrian facilities at this type of location, states that guard railing should always be fitted on the central island of a staggered crossing. As far as can be determined, there is no experience anywhere of the effect of removing guard rail from such a location.

When this type of signalled pedestrian crossing was implemented by the Greater London Council it was normal practice only to locate them at sites where there had been at least 5 personal injury accidents in the previous 12 months. Therefore, the presumption is that this site used to have a fairly poor accident record. However, although there have been no personal injury accidents at this location in the last 3 years there is also no evidence to suggest that the removal of the guard rail will automatically result in an increase to 5 or more accidents a year.

Whilst it is usual practice to provide such guard railing protecting pedestrians on all sides of an island, the major concern is pedestrians walking across the road tripping on the upstand kerb or being pushed or tripping into the passing traffic. To overcome this, it is recommended that guard rail only be installed parallel to the kerb and not at the ends of the island. This would provide the reassurance for pedestrians without introducing clutter at either end. This would also result in the guard rail only being visible when adjacent to the crossing and not when looking along the length of the road, reducing the visual impact, but continuing to provide reassurance for all pedestrians.

If the Committee decided to construct the island without guardrailing, in accordance with the overall brief to eliminate as much guardrailing as possible, then it will need to be monitored carefblly to observe the pedestrians ability to safely negotiate the crossing and to survey how safe pedestrians consider the crossing to be.

DIRECTOR OF LEGAL SERVICES COMMENTS

The power for a highway authority to provide, remove and alter railings is contained in the Highways Act 1980, section 66. That section provides that the power is exercisable when the highway authority thinks it necessary for the purpose of safeguarding persons using the highway. Therefore the alteration or removal of railings for purposes other than safety considerations could be subject to legal challenge.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of the items raised by the Safety Audit and by TTS are not contentious and officers feel the response set out in Sections 2 and 3 above responds to the points raised, providing a balance between the technical observations in the Safety Audit based on good practice and local knowledge. Whilst the innovative alternative to the

HTOOlO.PB2 8

use of tactile paving can be tested when implemented, the removal of all the guard railing and the installation of kerbs is of concern as it is likely to constitute a trip hazard. It is therefore recommended that the minimum guard rail described in paragraph 3.8 is introduced at the staggered pelican crossing.

6. RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 The Committee is RECOMMENDED to agree the response to the Safety Audit set out in Section 2 and 3 of the report and to agree to erect guardrailing on the central reservation of the pelican crossing.

FOR DECISION

Craig Wilson Director of Transportation and Highways

Michael Stroud Executive Director

Environmental Services

Background papers used in the preparation of this report: Kensington High Street - Phase 1 Safety Audit report Kensington High Street - Working File

Officer Contact: Any person wishing to inspect the above documents may do so by prior appointment with Mr Peter Blake (020-7361-2209)

Appendix A - Safety Audit Report

HTOOlO.PB2 9

1 Minutes Environmental Sewices Committee - 7 November 2000

At a meeting of the Environmental Services Committee held at the Town Hall, Hornton Street, Kensington, W8 7NX on Tuesday, 7 November 2000 at 6.30 p.m.

PRESENT :

Councillor Daniel Moylan (Chairman) Councillor Bryan P. Levitt, M.A., Ph.D., F.R.S.C. (Vice-chairman) Councillor J Robert Atkinson Councillor Simon Blanchflower Councillor David Campion, BA (Arch), Dip TP, FRIBA, MBCS Councillor Ian Donaldson Councillor Jeremy Edge Councillor Adrian J.A.D. FitzGerald Councillor the Hon. Joanna Gardner Councillor Rima Horton Councillor Pat Mason Councillor Paul Warrick Councillor Miss Doreen M. Weatherhead

The interleaved agenda and reports (A1 - A20 and B1 - B3) were before the Committee.

The press and public were excluded during the consideration of reports B1 - B3 and the reasons for such exclusion together with a summary of proceedings on those reports is included below.

AGENDA - PART A

PROCEEDINGS DURING WHICH THE PRESS AND PUBLIC WERE ABLE TO BE PRESENT

MEMBERS’ DECLARATIONS OF INTERESTS

None.

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

An apology for absence was submitted on behalf of Councillor David P.M. Hudson.

MINUTES

The minutes were confirmed by the Committee and signed by the Chairman.

2 Minutes Environmental Services Committee - 7 November 2000

A7 KENSINGTON HIGH STREET - PHASE 1 - SAFETY AUDIT

The Committee considered in turn the main recommendations of the safety audit as set out in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the report. After considerable and careful debate of the safety aspects and detailed consideration of the Audit recommendations and the officers’ views, the Committee decided to remove the guard railing on the central reservation of the pelican crossing opposite Kensington Gardens. It would be replaced with a raised kerb to separate the central reservation from the carriageway. The Committee recognised the safety issues which needed to be addressed. The crossing was relatively under-used and the Committee was of the opinion that pedestrian safety would not be compromised. Councillor Blanchflower dissented from this decision.

The Committee noted that there was no statutory requirement to install guard railing. As a result, when preparing the overall brief for the High Street streetscape, the design consultant had been instructed to remove as much street furniture and other clutter as possible including guard rail. The effect of this decision not to have guard railing would be monitored carefdly to observe pedestrians’ ability to negotiate the crossing safely and to survey how safe pedestrians considered the crossing to be. The scheme would be reviewed after six months but, if there were any problems before then, remedial action would be considered immediately. As part of the survey, the use of CCTV or video surveillance of the crossing would be considered. Consideration would also be given as to whether pedestrians should be warned that this was an experimental scheme, bearing in mind the need to minimise street clutter. As part of the normal procedure when a change was made to a crossing, a public notice of the proposal would be published and the Metropolitan Police Service would be asked for its views.

RESOLVED - (with Councillor Blanchflower dissenting in respect of the removal of the guard railing referred to in 2 below)

1. That the recommendation in paragraph 6.1 be not adopted. 2. That the response to the safety audit set out in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the

report be adopted, with the exception of the response to the removal of the guard railing in the centre island of the staggered pelican crossing opposite Kensington Gardens.

3. That the guard railing referred to in 2 above be removed, subject to the comments set out above.

Action by : DTH

The meeting finished at 9.05 p.m.

i rs

“h Stroud, like so ople are r ~ ~ o ~ n ~ s

rovements. I‘

Above: Safer more attractive streets, Delft, ~ ~ ~ o t o with ~ e r m i s s i Q ~ OF

oor dr~v~ng, speedi s to have more signs, tighter rules,

ut after a few weeks, o ~ i n i ~ n s s h ~ ~ e d as the h dramatica~iy changed traffic torisfs slowed right and more stre@f-wise~ kn that

#hey could not rejy on barriers.

e w h ~ ~ e Iines an raik.

Above Siena, W y . ~ t a ~ ~ ~ n ~ French and

m.p.h. zones ore congestio

vehicles while the

ove: ~orries, P a i n s ~ i c ~ ,

bowe: Pioneering scheme by hropshire County Council replaces

conwentiona~ pedestria~ crossings

criteria.

Above: new high-density h o ~ s ~ n ~ in RJsvJk, The etherl lands (Reprinted with permission of Ben ~amiiton-Bai~le~.

6. Notes (1) Excellent statistics have been kept about traffic flows and parking patterns, but little has been done in the past to consider the quality of place from a pedestrians view point, especially outside the main retail area of towns and cities. Even pedestrianisation of main shopping districts has not been entirely successful in many streets, as it has been done with little respect to the feel or historic reference of the street, or traffic flow. There has also often been a loss of pavements and the street replaced with substandard paving materials, along with difficulties for trades needing deliveries. It also means that when vehicles do enter such streets there are no safe areas for pedestrians. (2) The Netherlands has over 6,500 projects created since 1968, Denmark has over 450 streets with 15kmph with pedestrian priority (see The Observer 10/03/02). The success of the scheme in Freisland, northern Holland, has prompted an EU-funded study in Spain, Denmark, Austria, Sweden and Britain. Our government has been running 13 home-zone pilot projects which were encouraging enough to lead to a further 61 projects and f30 million. These incorporate some of the latest ideas, but by no means all. See Southville, Bristol scheme proposals and other schemes at: http://homezoneschallenge.com/southville.htm and http://homezonenews.org.uk/ (3) Key influences for this report include: - Gehl Architects' paper, "Towards a fine City for People, Public spaces and Public Life - London 2004" - English Heritage and the WI with their "Streets for All" campaign. - the work of the organisation "Living Streets." More at: www.Iivingstreets,org.uk - new priorities for the public environment emerging from government policy and other agencies like CABE. - the work of street designer Ben Hamilton-Baille. See more at: www.hamilton-baillie.co.uk - the work of Hans Monderman. Read more at: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/l2.l2/traffic. html http://www.newlifeformainroads.org.uk/index.asp?PagelD=27 (4) Copenhagen, for example, has during the last 40 years developed a city with many good quality spaces: the city is considerably livelier, people visit, not just to shop or work but to meet friends, sit in a square, sip a cappuccino or enjoy the city life from a public bench. (5 ) Focus on Personal Travel: 2005 Edition by the Department for Transport. Available at: http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/d~_transstats/documents/page/dft~transstats_O37492. hcsp (6) 43 people die, 2700 are injured and of those 330 are seriously injured. Information taken from; Gloucestershire Road Safety Plan (Consultation Document) 2004-2005 dated 311 1/04. In Oct. 2005 figures show deaths caused by road traffic accidents in Gloucestershire have rocketed by 68 percent: fatalities in road traffic accidents increased from 19 to 32 in just 12 months. (7) See reports on Seend: http://news.bbc.co.uk/l/hi/magazine/421322l .stm See also gallery of other schemes at Hamilton-Baille Associates: h tt p ://www . h a m i I to n - ba i I I i e. con u Wg a I I e ry . h tm Times Online article: http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/article/O,,12389-1225348,00.html (8) Download "Beyond the Home Zone" article at: http://www. hamilton-baillie.co.uk/papers/Tijstranslation5.doc (9) Speed Control and Transport Policy', Stephen Plowden & Mayer Hillman (1996) pp120-1 and 'An Illustrated Guide to Traffic Calming', Dr. Carmen Hass-Klau (1990) p3 (IO) An Illustrated Guide to Traffic Calming, Dr. Carmen Hass-Klau (1990) p3 (1 1) CPRE's Highway Authority "Clutter Challenge" at: http://66.1O2.9.104/search?q=cache:ayugBSHJ19kJ:www.cpre.org.uk/resources/pu blpdfsltra nsport/road-transport/cpres-clutter-challenge.pdf+clutter+challenge&hl=en (12) More on Drachen: read Sarah Lyall, "Road Design? He calls it a revolution" at: http://www.iht.com/articles/20O5/01/21 /news/profile.html Published by: Philip Booth, Lark Rise, 2 The Laurels, Bread Street, Ruscombe, Stroud, GL6 6EL

page thirteen