Reducing Pedestrian / Cyclist conflict Westminster Bridge Rd / Belvedere Rd

TfL is consulting until 22 December on a scheme to benefit cyclists and pedestrians on Westminster Bridge and the Lambeth side of it.

There is much that is promising, but the illustration and the plans show that the entrance and exit to National Cycle Network Route 4 remains across the pavement (where the people are standing above and below) behind the former County Hall.

There is a simple way to reduce pedestrian / cyclist conflict at this point, which is to replace the barrier you can see with a retractable bollard so that cyclists can easily and conveniently enter and exit Belvedere Road rather than Belvedere Road (Obstructed) Pavement.

The Toucan allowing access from the upstream side of Westminster Bridge Road should remain, but cyclists would move to the right to enter Belvedere Road, reducing interaction with pedestrians. Likewise cyclists emerging from Belvedere Road can cross on the Toucan parallel to pedestrians instead of co-mingled.

Given that this is a Sustrans National Cycle Network Route, that there is minimal motor traffic on that private section of Belvedere Road, and that an original condition of planning consent is to provide a cycle route here, why is a simple improvement not being shown?

The money is there - S106 funds were negotiated by Lambeth Council, consequent to responses from the public, to enable this as a requirement for Merlin Entertainment's receiving planning consent for Shrek's Adventure on the Shirayama owned former County Hall site.

It is well known that the owners of this land are difficult to deal with regarding cycling. But if TfL with their new cycling scheme and budget; Lambeth Council with their S106 money and aspiration to be London's Most Cycle Friendly Borough; local politicians eager to reduce pedestrian / cyclists conflict at the crossing and local cycling and equality campaigners are all in favour of this easy solution then it must surely be possible, finally, to force quality cycling and pedestrian provision to be provided.

When responding to the consultation, whether as a pedestrian or a cyclist, please demand that this cycle route junction be made first class off the pavement and along the lines I have proposed.

Oppose planning application for new Merlin Entertainments attraction at County Hall

Merlin Entertainments have a planning application for a new commercially-sensitive-so-undisclosed attraction to open at County Hall (already home to Merlin Entertainments existing London Eye and Aquarium, oh and the recently moved London Dungeon) which they expect to attract 600-700,000 visitor a year, whereas the Movieum it will replace attracts c50,000.

The proposed new visitor attraction is predicted to generate an additional 3-4% of the existing visitor numbers.

To the best of my knowledge no meaningful measures have been taken to make cycling better at County Hall (particularly the cycle route on Belvedere Road) with any of the previous developments. However, to the detriment of people on bikes, the large number of pedestrians on the river front has led to County Hall inhibiting cycling along the Thames Path.

I urge you to spend five minutes on Lambeth's website opposing the plans until a substantial improvement in the cycle route behind County Hall and cycle parking on site is undertaken. Please do it now if you can - there's only until February 18th. (I'll stick some photos in the blog when I have time, but don't delay acting until I do!)

The application is number 13/06055/FUL on planning.lambeth.gov.uk and once you have signed in to the site you can comment. Feel free to cut and paste bits from my objection (publicly viewable) or from this blog, or if you're a planning expert, make comments on my blog for people to include in their objection. Below I detail the policy areas that I consider are not being engaged with in this application.

The Transport Assessment, written by Atkins, for the new attraction confirms that the privately owned part of Belvedere Road behind County Hall is a cycle route - National Cycle Network route 4 as it happens. It is also a London Cycle Network route and a planned part of the Mayor's new central London cycle grid.

The owners of County Hall choose to make it a difficult area to enter and exit, and recently tried to make it even worse than it is.

They also provide no public cycle parking in their grounds. There is none on their section of Belvedere Road and none on Forum Magnum Square.

The Transport Assessment states (my emphasis):

4.15. Cycle parking stands are provided to the south of the concourse area of the London Eye located adjacent to Belvedere Road as well as numerous other locations around County Hall. In addition, cycle parking is also provided at Waterloo Tube Station a seven minute walk from the new visitor attraction and also adjacent to Royal Festival Hall on Belvedere Road a five minute walk from the site. 

8.10. No additional cycle parking is proposed as part of this planning application.

The absence of cycle parking within the grounds of County Hall is glossed over and nothing is said at all about the dreadful quality of the cycle route access / egress at County Hall, nor are any measures proposed to improve it.

So, let's see how this stacks up to policy that's cited within the Transport Assessment. Let's start with the big one, National Planning Policy Framework: Transport:

2.1. National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), published March 2012 sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied. There are 12 core principles that underpin planning and decision-taking and the key one for transport is the promoting of sustainable transport, namely:
 actively manage patterns of growth to make the fullest possible use of public transport, walking and cycling, and
 focus significant development in locations which are or can be made sustainable.

In my view, no improvements to a poor quality cycle route coupled with no more cycle parking seems to fly in the face of that.

2.2. A key planning objective is to ensure that jobs, shopping, leisure facilities and services are accessible by public transport, walking and cycling. When preparing development plans or considering planning applications, local authorities should:
 accommodate the efficient delivery of goods and supplies;
 give priority to pedestrian and cycle movements, and have access to high
 quality public transport facilities;
 create safe and secure layouts which minimise conflicts between traffic and cyclists or pedestrians, avoiding street clutter and where appropriate establishing home zones;
 incorporate facilities for charging plug-in and other ultra-low emission vehicles; and
 consider the needs of people with disabilities by all modes of transport.

I would suggest that the transition from the road to the cycle path here exemplifies pedestrian / cyclist conflict and street clutter.

Now, what about regional level? The Mayor's Transport Strategy 2010 includes:

2.5. The Mayor’s transport vision is: ‘London’s transport system should excel among those of world cities, providing access to opportunities for all its people and enterprises, achieving the highest environmental standards and leading the world in its approach to tackling urban transport challenges of the 21st century.’
and
2.8. In October 2013 Revised Early Minor Alterations were published. A revision which is applicable here
is:
 New developments should provide cycle parking and cycle changing facilities to encourage more cycling. Cycle parking provided for staff should be suitable for long stay parking. 

Quite clearly the cycle route access and egress at County Hall falls far short of world leading infrastructure, as does an absence of public cycle parking on the site.

At borough level, the Lambeth Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2011, section 4 includes

(g) Promoting walking and cycling, including through improvements to existing provision and
provision in and around new development for cycling, cycle parking, the public realm and
transport and highway infrastructure. 

Move along, no improvement planned here

At local level there's the Waterloo Area Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) which states,

New developments should connect to and improve the cycle network with direct, safe and
well-lit cycle routes.

and, finally, let's not forget Lambeth's Transport Plan 2011

2.13. Lambeth’s Transport Plan objectives are:
 Promote sustainable healthy travel behaviour
 Improve the condition of principal roads
 Improve Air Quality
 Reduce the perceived and actual danger on Lambeth’s roads
 Reduce CO2 emissions 

The Transport Consultancy fails to cite Lambeth's Cycling Strategy 2013, with its target of 20% of trips by cycle by 2020, and the demand for partnership working to achieve this. I would suggest that the application shows a distinct disinterest in helping achieve this.

County Hall reconsidering the options in Belvedere Road

 Shirayama, who own the former County Hall and the part of Belvedere Road behind it, started to install bollards recently as their plans showed. It was unclear from the plans where cyclists are intended to be, though it seems likely it's the narrow road section you see being used by the pedestrians above, and the workers unloading the van below.

A week ago I wrote to Phil Ardley, who I understand to be the responsible person for Shirayama, and, on chasing him yesterday, was told that "we are currently in consultation and will update you on any developments." I believe work has now stopped on site. Let's keep our fingers crossed that the bollards will be removed.

Here's the letter I wrote. I'll let you know the answers I get.
I have been sent the illustration attached by Lambeth Council. Can you please clarify for me:
a) the approach from / exit to Westminster Bridge Road seems unalterered, though this is considered poor by local cyclists, particularly for a National Cycle Network route. Are there plans to improve this to avoid potential pedestrian/cyclist conflict on the County Hall side, and are there plans to improve the gap between the planters on the side nearer Yo Sushi and determine a way to avoid the necessity of cycling on the pavement there? The illustrations suggest there are not - if not, why not?
b) Where are cyclists expected to go in relation to the bollards being installed? If cyclists are intended to go in the 2m wide space (which seems very narrow if two way cycling is envisaged there) how will they emerge/get in at the Westmnister Bridge Road end? Will any of the bollards have chains between them? What is the purpose of the bollards? Will cyclists be permitted to use either side?
c) The approach from / exit to Chichley Street seems fundamentally unaltered in the drawing, though the barrier is shown down and bollards are shown on the pavement. Will the barrier generally be up? When it is down what is the approach/exit? Will the gap to one side of a planter nearer the County Hall side be maintained?
d) Are there plans to install any publicly visible and accessible cycle parking on the Shirayama owned land?

Work starts on new cycling provision at County Hall

Cyclists have long been unimpressed by the cycle route (National Cycle Network route 4)along Belvedere Road, which is owned by Japanese company Shirayama, owner of County Hall.

Work has just started on some changes here. The photo above shows holes being dug for bollards by Forum Magnum Square. The end result will look like this, viewed from County Hall:

The approach from Chichley Street (i.e. the London Eye end) will look like this:

and the Westminster Bridge Road end will look like this:

As the land is privately owned Lambeth Council has limited powers to get the kind of quality they'd like (and I'm damn certain they won't reckon much to this), even though a condition of planning consent was S106 funding (see below), to mitigate the impact of the development locally.

I can't work out exactly where cyclists are intended to be from the plans I have and have asked to meet the County Hall management to find out more. I'll let you know how I get on. In the meantime if you know directors of tenants or other people of influence on the landowner please consider discussing this with them. If you use the County Hall restaurants and visitor attractions you may wish to consider whether to continue to do so.

------ S106 detail ------

There are two relevant S106 obligations, both of which specifically mention cycling. I understand there was and still is an obligation on the developer of County Hall (Shirayama Shokusan Co Ltd) to submit and implement a scheme for Belvedere Rd, under the S106 Agreement signed in 1993 (Legal ref 342/L/S106):

A traffic management scheme for the closed section of Belvedere Road incorporating a) taxi drop off points, b) coach parking bays, c) a cycle lane, d) car parking restrictions, e) alterations to the junction of Westminster Bridge Road and Belvedere Road. Plus tree planting scheme for Westminster Bridge Road and Belvedere Road.

There is also a similar obligation on the developers of the North and South Block Belvedere (Frogmore Developments Limited – now Galliard Homes) signed in 1996 (legal ref 23/L/S106)

To formulate in conjunction with the adjoining property a traffic management and landscaping scheme for the closed section of Belvedere Road and its junctions with Westminster Bridge Road and Chichely Street incorporating a cycle lane on or immediately adjacent thereto. Once Final Scheme has been approved by Council, to implement along with neighbour.

New Hire Bike Docking Stations in Lambeth

I'm very impressed by Dawn Rahman, Lambeth Council's Transport Policy Manager, and I see that the equally impressive 'Lurking About SE11' is too - reporting excellent feedback provided in response to that site's suggestions on locations for docking stations.

Here are the throrough and sensible responses I received earlier to some suggestions I made:



a) Brook Drive towards CS7 end - plus on-street cycle parking for residents  - unfortunately the end by CS7 is Southwark so I can't personally progress these but can mention them to TfL. I've also asked Richard Ambler about possible cycle stands on Brook Drive (again unfortunately it could only be the Lambeth side - such as we are tied to borough boundaries). In terms of removing car parking on the Lambeth end of Brook Drive, we did have a look at this previously but the parking stress seems quite high and we didn’t progress it. I think the fact that the one opposite the Imperial War museum is so close to the Lambeth portion of Brook Drive that we probably wont be able to take this one forward.

b) check out http://southeasteleven.blogspot.com/2010/10/new-london-cycle-hire-in-vauxhall.html which has useful suggestions, including in the comments
This was really interesting reading these. We did have a site planned on the public space between Oval and Kennington Park but we lost it at the implementation stage due to stat covers etc, which was a real shame. I keep re-looking at that area and I think the best option is to loose car parking on Kennington Oval (the end as near to the tube station as possible) - but not sure how popular this would be with residents- although according to our development control team the parking stats are very low in that area so I think this is a good suggestion and one I want to progress.

c) Right next door to secondary schools (as at Lilian Baylis on Kennington Lane) - encourage secondary school kids to cycle to school. London Nautical is in the area ((Stamford Street). Work with School Travel Plan Mgr to push into schools.
Had a look at London Nautical - but struggled to see sufficient space to fit a 20 bike docking point unfortunately. The only other option is much further down by the Coin Street building but then it is very close to the other docking station.

d) Belvedere Road - the private bit of road that the problem company Shirayama own, outside the restaurants. Get Yo Sushi and Locale on side,  Plus ordinary cycle parking of course
Hmmm- we did discuss the problems of this road at a meeting today with TfL, and they said they would try to see if they can get any pressure put on the owners to make this road more 'cycle friendly' but I can't realistically see this happening in line with the TfL deadlines I have been given to progress new sites!



e) Royal Street for St Thomas' (with change to allow two way entrance to Royal Street etc.)
We looked at this site originally a couple of years ago, it would seem the whole area was due to be developed into flats for nurses etc so we weren’t able to go ahead with a site at the current time. I've just spoken with our planning section and they say that the initial plans have been put on hold due to financial constraints but that there are still possible plans to re-develop. But this might not happen for a while, so it wouldn't fit in with the tight timescales TfL are asking to progress the site currently. On the upside there should be one on the other side of the road in the hospital grounds going live very soon. I'm going to keep Royal Street on the agenda though as agree it is an ideal location. Will also speak to Richard A about the two way issues.



f) Lambeth Walk outside the large doctors practice - plus big push with staff there to get patients to use them.
I really like the idea of this one in terms of links to health etc for patients and will look at having this as a contingency site, due to the close proximity of the Lollard Street docking point. For some reason according to the usage figures from TfL Lollard Street is one of the least used sites. I'm unsure as to why this is not used that much as thought this would be a good location. It might be worth delving into why this one is not being used. Although I have asked TfL for some recent usage figures as the ones they provided were up to mid Sept, so it may have improved since then.



g) Kennington Road where there's no cycle parking although it'd probably be better just to put a Sheffield Stand outside every shop.
Unfortunately as this is red route we're not allowed to put any cycle parking in (frustratingly for us). I'll speak to TfL about this area again. We did progress a site close by on Windmill Row but there were too many objections and planning approval was not allowed. I think I'll have another look here as I'm conscious there is such a big gap in the network between the post office and the next one up by Kennington Cross.



h) Cottington Street - with ancillary permission measures . Again like the idea of this as might encourage both residents and users of northern line to jump off at Kennington but I just can't see where we could put it without taking up too much footway space. We could potentially get a small station on the area that acts as a division but TfL wont progress smaller sites anymore so I just don’t think we can fit a 20 docking point station.



i) Cleaver Square on Kennington Park Road entrance.
I actually went out on site with TfL to look at this one a couple of months ago. And a site is being put forward for planning permission in the next week or so. Unfortunately we couldn't get agreement on the Kennington Park Road entrance due to potential problems with vehicular access/turning etc so have gone for a site directly opposite the court (closeish to the Kennington Road entrance). This is currently housing owned land and means that we can get TfL to improve the current area (which looks a bit tired) with new paving and the relocation of cycle parking and benches. I really hope that this will be popular with residents

The inscrutable Shirayama

Shirayama Shokusan Company Ltd are referred to as Shiriyama in the draft Southbank and Waterloo Cycling Strategy.

They own the former County Hall and the bit of Belvedere Road between Westminster Bridge Road and Chicheley Street - the bit which is almost impassable by bicycle at either end and has no cycle parking along it.
P36 of the report says:
"Fig 10 above shows the cycle provision in place at each end of the privately-owned section of Belvedere Road, broadly described as the County Hall section. As revealed, signage, routes and markings are inadequate and representations must be made to the landowner Shiriyama to improve these according to an agreed scheme.
Should Shiriyama decline to make the suggested improvements, an alternative route may be considered via currently underutilised Forum Magnum Square, which is owned Galliard Ltd, and through a cycle lane created alongside the bus lane at Addington Street."

I sense that the South Bank Employers Group and Lambeth Council are frustrated by the company - as no doubt are many people who happen to ride bikes. In fact, page 32 of the report says £4000 has been allocated with Lambeth Approved Cycle Route Complementary Measures 2009 to 'negotiate with landowners on removal of obstacles in Belvedere Road'. I bet that's Shirayama they're talking about.

A quick Google search throws up the following sort of comments since Shirayama bought County Hall:

Lambeth Council Overview and Scrutiny Cttee minutes of Thursday, 12 July 2007 7.00 pm
"£100,000 from the development in County Hall Riverside Building which is the final payment from developers Shirayama Shokusan Co Ltd in relation to the employment and training obligation in the agreement signed back in 1993. This brings to a close a long and arduous pursuit by the Council."

Lambeth Council Finance Scrutiny Cttee re S106 monies, 26 Sept 2001
"Other Outstanding Significant Planning Obligations

As can be seen from the S 106 Schedule the implementation of Section 106 Agreements, there are a range of direct obligations to be implemented by the developer that need to be monitored and pursued with developers. In terms of the County Hall Riverside Building S106 Agreement, there are a number of outstanding obligations to be undertaken by the developer, which I would bring to your attention to give a complete response to your queries.
• Under Clause 3.3 a Child Care Facility was to be provided, principally for the
use of children of persons employed on the site. Despite some initial discussions with Social Services on the requirements to run an operational nursery, this service has not to date been provided. I understand there have been issues in relation to the provision of necessary information to Social Services, and whether the County Hall riverside Building can provide a suitable nursery location in line with latest nursery provision guidance.
• Under Clause 3.10 a Children’s Library was to have provided within the County Hall, Riverside Building. Although a room has been designated for the Children’s Library to go into, no Library provision has been made. In discussions with the former Head of Library Services, David Jones, it was agreed that the Council would specify and cost out the implementation of a library facility, The specification costs identified would be used to either to pursue the owners Shirayama to implement as in the agreement or alter the agreement for some form of alternative provision. The location of proposed Children’s Library is not ideal in terms of access.
• Under Clause 3.15 and 3.16 of the agreement the owners Shirayama were
suppose to submit a proposal for a traffic management scheme for Belvedere Road (adjoining County Hall), and implement them subject to the Council approval. A scheme was submitted after the completion of the North and South Block residential schemes. However, the Council has not approved the details.
Planning is currently co-ordinating the actions of a number of departments on the
outstanding issues for the County Hall agreement. This will require further corporate response and action on how best to deliver the original objectives behind the Section 106 Agreement, and possibly some alterations to original agreement. It is proposed to establish a cross-directorate officer group to coordinate implementation in future for major Section 106 Planning Obligations."

I wonder what the original S106 and planning conditions were for County Hall when it was sold to this unattractive company.