We asked for views on the proposal to convert two RBKC Housing Permit Holder Parking Bays to two Housing Personalised Disabled Permit Parking Bays (Bay Numbers BOB03 and HDC17) within the Balfour of Burleigh and Henry Dickens Court estates. There were also proposals made within the Henry Dickens Court estate, where this corrected six discrepancies between the bays as they are currently marked out and signed and as they are shown in the traffic orders.
We had no objections or comments about this proposal.
We have made the traffic order for these changes.
We asked for views on 64 proposals in the June 2022 Miscellaneous Parking Changes
We had a total of 119 objections, 91 letters of support (12 of these were support in part only) and three comments on 20 of the proposals. These included Addison Road, Arundel Gardens, Clarendon Cross, Darfield Way, Eardley Crescent, Ifield Road, Kensington Square, Ladbroke Crescent, Launceston Place, Lennox Gardens, Lexham Mews, Onslow Square, Pottery Lane, Queen’s Gate Gardens, Redcliffe Square, St Mark’s Road, Shrewsbury Street, Uverdale Road, Vicarage Gate and Walmer Road.
We amended the proposals for Kensington Square, Launceston Place, Lexham Mews. For Kensington Square, the Council decided only to convert the southernmost Pay-by-phone visitor parking bay instead of the proposed two bays. For Lexham Mews, the Council decided to convert 5 metres of single yellow line, rather than the proposed 6 metres. For Launceston Place, the Council have dropped the proposals relating to visitor motorcycle bays and amended that only one space of residents’ parking will be converted to a Pay-by-phone visitor parking bay. We proceeded with all of the other proposals except that we did not proceed with Lennox Gardens, Pottery Lane and Shrewsbury Street and have deferred the decision on Arundel Gardens, Ifield Road, Redcliffe Square and Vicarage Gate. This web page will be updated with that decision when it has been made.
We asked for views on the proposal for making the pedestrianised section of Thurloe Street, situated west of the eastern boundary of No. 25 Thurloe Street to a pedestrian and cycle zone. With the exception of access for loading which would be permitted between 7am and 10am on Mondays to Sundays inclusive, all motor vehicles would be prohibited from entering or being in the pedestrian and cycle zone. This proposal to prohibit all traffic from the road, with the exception of cyclists, vehicles used by the emergency services and vehicles required for emergency work carried out by utility companies.
We received one letter of support for this proposal.
We introduced a Pedestrian and Cycle Zone in the pedestrianised section of Thurloe Street, with the exception for loading between 7am and 10am on all days.
We asked for views on the proposal for removing a ‘zebra’ pedestrian crossing in Lower Sloane Street, to the south of its junction with Sloane Gardens and establish a signal-controlled pedestrian crossing with its centreline 9.7 metres south of the southern kerb-line of Sloane Gardens; and; to establish a ‘zebra’ pedestrian crossing in Chelsea Bridge Road with its centreline located approximately 17 metres south of the southern kerb-line of the vehicle access to Chelsea Barracks.
We received one objection and two comments to this proposal.
We have removed the ‘zebra’ pedestrian crossing in Lower Sloane Street (south of its junction with Sloane Gardens) and established a new ‘zebra’ pedestrian crossing in Chelsea Bridge Road (south of the vehicular access to Chelsea Barracks), as originally proposed.
We asked for views on the construction of five “sinusoidal road humps” on Oakwood Court.
We had one objection, one letter of support and one comment to the proposal. The details of the objection and the Council’s response to the objection can be found in the decision report attached.
We have committed to the construction of five “sinusoidal road humps” on Oakwood Court, as originally advertised.
We asked for views on the construction of seven “sinusoidal road humps” on Latimer Road.
We had no objections or comments to the proposal.
We have committed to the construction of seven “sinusoidal road humps” on Latimer Road, as originally advertised.
We asked for views on the construction of four “sinusoidal road humps” on Hogarth Road
We had one objection to the proposal. The details of the objection and the Council’s response to the objection can be found in the decision report attached.
We have committed to the construction of four “sinusoidal road humps” on Hogarth Road, as originally advertised.
We asked for views on the draft Environmental Health Enforcement Policy, with an accessible version of the draft policy hosted on the Council’s Consultation and Engagement Hub. The policy is being updated as the Environmental Health department are currently working to a legacy version of the Enforcement Policy. The draft policy provided:
- General updates
- Simplifies the language used to ensure the contents are clear to those reading and using the Policy
- Updated to ensure that it remains relevant to the activities being regulated
We asked you:
We received 10 responses and 5 comments to the consultation.
It was highlighted that the drafting needed to be revisited on one clause within the policy as it was not aligned with the remainder of the section. We have therefore reworded the clause to ensure that the intention of the paragraph is clearly understood by readers.
We also received several comments which we felt could be dealt with outside the scope of the policy review. We have therefore referred the matters to the relevant teams for their consideration.
It is a key priority for Kensington and Chelsea's Children's Services to ensure that more local people are shaping the services we provide. We are developing our three-year Children and Young People's Plan and wanted to hear from Panel members about how they think we can better support the children and young people in the borough.
We wanted to hear from Panel members about what they think works well and what Children’s Services could improve on. We recognised that many of you have children and young people in your lives so have views on what is best for them and that those of you without children still have views on how the lives of children and young people in the borough can be improved.
Children and Young People’s Plan - Three quarters (75 per cent) of Panel members felt that a Children and Young People’s Plan was very important with a further 21 per cent thinking it was important. Panel members felt mental health, education and physical health were the top priorities for the Children and Young People’s Plan.
Views of those with parental responsibility – Thirty-six per cent of respondents stated that they had parental responsibility. Of these, 73 per cent agreed they are able to support their child/children’s learning and development whilst 51 per cent agreed their child/children feel safe and supported in Kensington and Chelsea. There was less agreement (22 per cent) that they feel listened to and taken seriously by the Council and that the Council encourages parental involvement in the design and delivery of services (21 per cent).
Kensington and Chelsea as a place to live Sixty-nine per cent of Panel members think that Kensington and Chelsea is a good place for children and young people to grow up and live. Panel members viewed things to do (77 per cent), a diverse population (66 per cent) and quality of schools as the top positives for children and young people growing up in the borough.
Concerns about children and young people - The top concerns for Panel members when thinking about the young people they know were poor mental health (63 per cent) and young people not getting opportunities to prepare them for work (61 per cent). Thirty per cent of Panel members felt that the Council could do more to promote understanding and conversation around gender identity, whilst 41 per cent disagreed. Fifty-nine per cent of Panel members felt that more could be done to enable young women and girls to live their lives and participate fully in the borough, whilst nine per cent disagreed.
Better engagement - Only six per cent of Panel members felt that young people have a voice in decisions made by the Council that affect them. Seventy-three per cent of Panel members felt better engagement in the Council’s delivery of children’s services could be delivered through offering creative apprenticeships, whilst 65 per cent felt it could be done by young people’s representation in the Council’s decision-making forums.
Results of the survey have been shared with the Lead Member for Family and Children’s Services and are set out in the accompanying Summary Report. Reassuringly, many of the areas where residents have reflected strong views are already a focus for Children’s Services or the wider Council. Their views will add weight to efforts to improve employment prospects and pathways for young people, improve mental health and wellbeing and tackle mental ill health, and develop further our approach to co-production and co-design of services and priorities including with parents.
These views will also inform the final set of high-level priorities in the Children and Young People’s Plan. Delivery of these will sit within service plans or more detailed thematic plans. We aim to improve accountability for delivery of the Plan post publication with periodic check ins with residents and young people through the three-year life cycle of the Plan using a variety of engagement mechanisms such as focus groups and drop ins. The Children and Young People’s Plan will be published in November 2022.
Panel newsletters scheduled throughout the year gives us scope for follow up later on when more consideration has been given to these results by the Lead Member and relevant officers.
We asked tenants and leaseholders who receive Housing Matters about their views on the magazine. We wanted to understand how many people read the magazine and find the content useful, as well as people’s views on its frequency and length.
We also asked residents their views on what topics are of interest to them and what methods of communication do they prefer when getting information and news from the Council.
The survey closed on 15 May 2022 and we received 360 responses.
Housing Matters magazine
• Nine out of every ten read Housing Matters; nearly three-fifths read it thoroughly.
• 85 per cent of people said the length was just right and 63 per cent said the frequency was just right.
• 73 per cent of people said the content of the magazine was useful and relevant to them.
• A fifth of people said they would prefer to receive Housing Matters digitally with two-thirds of those individuals indicating they would prefer this to be in a e-newsletter format delivered straight to their email inbox.
Sources of information and communication methods
• Aside from Housing Matters, the top channel (20 per cent) used by residents as another source of information for news and information relating to Council housing was the internet.
• Letter was the most popular option (64 per cent) that residents chose that they would prefer the Council’s Housing Management Team to use to communicate to them.
• Just under half (45 per cent) would prefer email.
Topics of interest
• Two-thirds of respondents agreed the Council is good at keeping them informed about things that may affect them.
• The most popular topics that residents said they wanted to hear more about included major works and repairs, fire safety, local community events and services, and public health.
We found the results of this survey encouraging and were glad to see that many of those who responded had positive comments about the magazine and its content. There were some recurring themes in the responses, so we will:
• Ensure each edition of the magazine has an overarching theme with articles included that focus specifically on topics of interest indicated by residents in the survey.
• Keep distributing the paper magazine to households but make it easier for residents to opt out of receiving it to show we are listening to people’s concerns about cost and the environment.
• Ensure there is a way for residents to obtain news and information about their homes, estates, and local area, online.
• Discuss any potential delivery issues with our distribution team to explore why some residents reported not receiving the newsletter.
• Take action to make the magazine more accessible for residents with specific needs such as partial sight and learning disabilities, and residents who don’t have English as their first language.
• Moving forward, ensure the magazine has updates relevant to leaseholders as well as tenants as leaseholders reported being less engaged with the magazine.
Kensington and Chelsea Council has launched a Customer Access Strategy aimed at improving the experience residents have when they contact us. We are committed to the strategy and to working together to achieve the ambitions in the strategy. We believe in co-design and want to form this user group to listen to the voices of those representative of the borough.
There were a total of 80 expressions of interest from across the borough. Thank you to everyone who expressed their interest in being part of the user group.
The Service Standards Project team selected members of the user group based on the demographic make-up of the borough to ensure the group is as broadly representative as possible.
We asked for views on proposed changes to the Council's traffic orders to formally amend them to allow for virtual perking permits. This change was required following the implementation of the Key Decision Report on Virtual Parking Permits and the earlier consultation on virtual parking permits
We had no objections or comments to this proposal
We have implemented the proposed changes
We asked for views on the proposal to ban goods vehicles having a maximum gross weight in excess of 7.5 tonnes from entering or being in Ovington Gardens or Ovington Square, except for the purpose of loading or unloading.
We had no objections or comments to the proposal.
We have implemented this proposal and made a permanent traffic order to ban goods vehicles having a maximum gross weight in excess of 7.5 tonnes from entering or being in Ovington Gardens or Ovington Square, except for the purpose of loading or unloading.
We asked for views on the construction of seven “sinusoidal road humps” on Ovington Gardens and Ovington Square.
We had no objections or comments to the proposal.
We have committed to the construction of seven “sinusoidal road humps” on Ovington Gardens and Ovington Square, as originally advertised.
We asked for views on the construction of a “speed table” outside Nos. 33 and 34 Holland Park and the construction of a further ten “sinusoidal road humps” in the road called Holland Park.
We had no objections or comments to the proposal.
We have committed to the construction of one “speed table” and ten “sinusoidal road humps” on the road called Holland Park, as originally advertised.
We asked for views on the proposal to make permanent an experimental School Street pedestrian and cycle zone in part of Burnaby Street and Tetcott Road on an experimental basis. All motor vehicles will be restricted from entering the closure during 8.05 – 8.45am and 3.25 – 3.50pm Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays and Fridays, and 8.05 – 8.45am and 2.25 – 2.45pm Wednesdays.
We received 17 objections to the proposal - four prior to the launch of the scheme, and three during the scheme. There were also 14 supportive comments - ten during the consultation and four in response to a snapshot survey.
We have made permanent the experimental traffic order to provide a School Street pedestrian and cycle zone in Burnaby Street and Tetcott Road. All motor vehicles will be restricted from entering the closure during 8.05 – 8.45am and 3.25 – 3.50pm Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays and Fridays, and 8.05 – 8.45am and 2.25 – 2.45pm Wednesdays.
We asked for views on the proposal to make permanent an experimental School Street pedestrian and cycle zone in Hans Street. All motor vehicles will be restricted from entering the closure during 8 – 9 am and 4 – 6 pm Mondays to Thursdays, and 8 -9 am and 12.15 – 1.15 pm Fridays.
We received 17 objections to the proposal - 11 received during the pre-implementation consultation, three objecting to the Experimental Traffic Order (ETO) and three comments in response to the post-implementation snapshot survey. There were also 30 supportive comments and one neutral response - 17 supporting the proposal during the pre-implementation consultation, two emails in support of the current ETO and 11 supportive comments in response to the post-implementation snapshot survey.
We have made permanent the experimental traffic order to provide a School Street pedestrian and cycle zone in Hans Street. All motor vehicles will be restricted from entering the closure during 8 – 9 am and 4 – 6 pm Mondays to Thursdays, and 8 -9 am and 12.15 – 1.15 pm Fridays.
We asked for views on the proposals to make a one-way system applying to all vehicles except for pedal cycles in Ifield Road in a south-easterly direction between its junction with Cathcart Road and its junction with Fulham Road and in connection with the one-way system, a no entry point in Ifield Road at its junction with Fulham Road to prevent all vehicles (except pedal cycles) from entering the one-way system against the flow of traffic.
We received no objections or comments regarding these proposals.
We have made the one-way system applying to all vehicles except for pedal cycles in Ifield Road in a south-easterly direction between its junction with Cathcart Road and its junction with Fulham Road and in connection with the one-way system, a no entry point in Ifield Road at its junction with Fulham Road to prevent all vehicles (except pedal cycles) from entering the one-way system against the flow of traffic.
We asked for views on 37 proposals in the February 2022 Miscellaneous Parking Changes
We had a total of 35 objections and 29 comments on 12 proposals which included Blenheim Crescent, Bramham Gardens, Cadogan Gardens, Dunworth Mews, Elgin Crescent, Elm Park Gardens, Hesper Mews, Lexham Gardens, Lower Addison Gardens, Princedale Road, Russell Gardens Mews and Stafford Terrace
We amended the proposal for Russell Gardens Mews, where only one metre of single yellow lines was converted to double yellow line, rather than the proposed two metres. We proceeded with all of the other proposals with the exception of the proposals for Dunworth Mews, Elm Park Gardens, Hesper Mews, Princedale Road and Stafford Terrace. We also made the traffic order for a proposal which introduced a cycle hangar bay in Aubrey Road that was consulted on in the January 2022 Miscellaneous Parking Changes and on which the decision was deferred until the February 2022 Miscellaneous Parking Changes..
You told us from previous Panel exercises and when you joined the Panel that community safety is a key issue for you. And we know it's important to go beyond the crime statistics and hear about residents' actual experiences of crime and safety in your local area.
We, therefore, asked you about how we can make the borough safer, working in partnership with different agencies and groups across Kensington and Chelsea. By seeking your views, the Council looked to gain a better understanding of what would make local people feel safe, and to gain insights on your experiences of crime and antisocial behaviour as a witness and/or victim.
We asked you about:
Overall feelings of safety – The majority of Panel members (84 per cent) feel safe when out and about in their neighbourhood during the day, this drops to 52 per cent after dark. Females feel less safe than males after dark (42 per cent compared to 65 per cent). Those living in the centre of the borough tend to feel more safe after dark (56 per cent) than those living in the north or south (48 and 51 per cent respectively).
Crime levels - Around half (48 per cent) of Panel members feel that the crime levels in their neighbourhood are ‘average’ with 27 per cent citing their perception of crime in their area as ‘low’. Sixty per cent feel that crime is about the same over the past 12 months, 27 per cent that there’s more crime and 11 per cent less crime. Forty-two per cent stated that there were places they would worry about visiting in their neighbourhood, when asked to specify further this included council estates, poorly lit areas, and side streets. Concern was more prevalent amongst females (48 per cent) than males (33 per cent). White respondents were also more likely to avoid places in their neighbourhood than BAME (45 per cent compared to 27 per cent). Forty-two per cent of Panel members have also changed their behaviour in the last 12 months to feel safer, including not going out after dark, increasing home security, and hiding valuables. Again, this was more prevalent amongst females compared to males (48 per cent compared to 33 per cent).
Community safety priorities - Of the current four community safety priorities in the borough, Panel members viewed drug related offences as the biggest problem (62 per cent) followed by antisocial behaviour (50 per cent). Fifty-nine per cent based these views on personal experience followed by 44 per cent on word of mouth.
Experience of crime/antisocial behaviour - Thirty per cent of Panel members had witnessed crime or antisocial behaviour in their neighbourhood whilst 16 per cent had been a victim and four per cent both. Of those who had been a victim or witness only 35 per cent had reported it to the authorities. The main reason given for not reporting it was that they did not think it would be acted on (68 per cent). Around half (48 per cent) of Panel members agreed that community members trust local services and organisations. Males were more likely to agree with this than females (52 per cent compared to 46 per cent). Less than half of Panel members stated that they would know how to report specific crimes/antisocial behaviour. The top three measures that Panel members thought would have the biggest impact on crime and antisocial behaviour in their neighbourhood were: high visibility by police/wardens (91 per cent); enforcement against antisocial behaviour (88 per cent) and environmental improvements (87 per cent).
Council run teams - Only 28 per cent of Panel members had heard of the Community Wardens, of those 22 per cent were satisfied with them and ten per cent dissatisfied. More had heard of the Parks Police Team (47 per cent). of which 36 per cent were satisfied and ten per cent dissatisfied.
Results of the Making the Borough Safer survey have been shared with the Community Safety Team and initial views on how the results from the survey will be used include: