We asked for your views on a wide range of improvements to Sunbeam Gardens. The potential improvements included:
Survey responses 25
General:
How often people visit the park: A total of 10 respondents said they visit Sunbeam Gardens everyday, 4 respondents visited two to three times per week, 7 respondents visited once a week and 4 respondents less frequently.
Satisfaction levels with the park: 10 respondents were either very satisfied or satisfied, 9 respondents were neither satisfied or dissatisfied, 5 respondents were either dissatisfied or very dissatisfied and 1 respondent did not answer.
Improvement proposals: Respondents were asked for the levels of support for each of the proposal and then asked to rank them in order of preference. The top two selected items in order of preference in joint 1st place were the installation of a new drinking water fountain and planting improvements both with a mean score of 1.28, 2nd place was additional items of outdoor gym equipment with a mean score of 0.96, 3rd place new benches with arm rests with a mean score of 0.64, 4th place repainting external railings with a mean score of 0.60, 5th sculpture with a mean score of 0.56 and 6th ground mural with a mean score of 0.08.
Top two preferred pieces of outdoor gym equipment: The top two favourite pieces of equipment selected were the resistance stepper and resistance shoulder press.
Preferred Planting theme: Eleven respondents said that they would like a mixed planting theme including plants beneficial to wildlife and pollinators, shrubs and grasses, seasonal bulbs, and sensory planting. 9 respondents just wanted plants beneficial to wildlife and pollinators.
Installation of picnic tables of grass area outside play area: 17 respondents were in favour of this, 7 respondents did not support this and 1 respondent did not answer.
Improvements
The installation of new sculpture and the ground mural were the least supported and options and received the lowest ranking votes and will therefore not be considered further.
The improvements will be carried out over the autumn/winter period, and we hope that all the works will be completed by March/ April 2024.
We asked for views on the proposals to make changes to the parking layout in the Elm Park Gardens, Henry Dickens Court, Knight’s House, Longlands Court, 375 Portobello Road and Tavistock Crescent housing estates.
We received a total of five objections, no letters of support and no comments across three of the off-street parking proposals.
We have made the traffic order for the proposed changes in Elm Park Gardens, Henry Dickens Court, Knight’s House, Longlands Court, 375 Portobello Road and Tavistock Crescent housing estates as originally advertised.
We asked for views on 66 proposals in the June 2023 Miscellaneous Parking Changes, and a proposed clerical change relating that the maximum permitted vehicle dimensions, in respect of applications for residents’ permits and disabled persons’ purple badges for vehicles adapted for use by disabled persons.
We received a total of 37 objections, nine letters of support and two comments across 18 of the parking proposals.
We have made the traffic order as originally advertised apart from the proposals relating to Campden Street, Holland Park, Holland Street and Pottery Lane which were dropped in their entirety. Two of the three proposals in Cremorne Estate were also dropped, the Campden Grove proposal was amended to one metre. The decision regarding the Kempsford Gardens and Old Brompton Road proposal was deferred to the October 2023 amendment.
Whether advisory cycle lanes should be introduced on Fulham Road and the eastern and western sections of Kensington High Street.
We had 1,775 responses to the consultation. Around 66 per cent of respondents to the consultation supported the measures in full or in part for Kensington High Street. On Fulham Road, around 71 per cent supported the measures in full or in part.
A decision has been confirmed to introduce the scheme in both roads but with an amendment to extend the width of the lanes to two metres wherever possible. This was a recommendation made in a road safety audit.
Work to introduce the Kensington High Street scheme is scheduled to begin on 14 August 2023. The work will take place across three nights, weather permitting, between 9pm and 6am. During the works, we will attempt to keep disruption to a minimum but some minor traffic disruption is likely for a short period. We may also need to temporarily suspend some parking bays in order to complete the works.
A timeline for Fulham Road will be confirmed at a later date.
To read the decision report in full visit https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/howwegovern/keydecisions/decision.aspx?DecisionID=6499
We asked for views on the proposed introduction of a pedestrian and cycle zone in Kendrick Place between the south-eastern kerb-line of Kendrick Mews and the north-western kerb-line of Old Brompton Road and to remove the one-way system from Kendrick Place along with the accompanying no entry into Kendrick Place at its junction with Old Brompton Road. All motor vehicles would be prohibited from entering or being in the pedestrian and cycle zone.
We had seven objections and 16 letters of support to this proposal
We introduced a Pedestrian and Cycle Zone in the pedestrianised southern arm of Kendrick Place between the south-eastern kerb-line of Kendrick Mews and the north-western kerb-line of Old Brompton Road and to remove the one-way system from Kendrick Place along with the accompanying no entry into Kendrick Place at its junction with Old Brompton Road.
We asked for views on the proposed introduction of the following:
(a) provide a route for the use of pedestrians and pedal cycles only in Basil Street, between the western kerb-line of Sloane Street and 14 metres south-west of that kerb-line, prohibiting all motor vehicles from entering that section;
(b) provide a pedestrian and cycle zone in Basil Street, between Pavilion Road and 14 metres south-west of the western kerb-line of Sloane Street (vehicles would be permitted to enter the pedestrian and cycle zone to access properties);
(c) remove the north-eastbound one-way system in Basil Street, between Pavilion Road and Sloane Street; and
(d) provide a southbound one-way system in Pavilion Road, between Basil Street and Hans Crescent (reversing the existing one-way system in this length), along with the associated prohibition of entry against the flow of traffic at the southern end of that length.
We had no objections and two letters of support to these proposals.
We have made the traffic order, as proposed, introducing the following:
(a) provide a route for the use of pedestrians and pedal cycles only in Basil Street, between the western kerb-line of Sloane Street and 14 metres south-west of that kerb-line, prohibiting all motor vehicles from entering that section;
(b) provide a pedestrian and cycle zone in Basil Street, between Pavilion Road and 14 metres south-west of the western kerb-line of Sloane Street (vehicles would be permitted to enter the pedestrian and cycle zone to access properties);
(c) remove the north-eastbound one-way system in Basil Street, between Pavilion Road and Sloane Street; and
(d) provide a southbound one-way system in Pavilion Road, between Basil Street and Hans Crescent (reversing the existing one-way system in this length), along with the associated prohibition of entry against the flow of traffic at the southern end of that length.
if we should install 164 new rental e-bike parking bay locations across the borough, to help reduce footway obstructions caused by rental e-bikes.
Please see individual consultation ward reports below.
The Council is implementing 124 of the proposed rental e-bike parking bays, as below:
Location | Proceeding? |
Abingdon ward | |
S447 - A. Lexham Gardens | Yes |
S447 - B. Logan Place | Yes |
S447 - C. Marloes Road | Yes |
S447 - D. Pembroke Gardens | Yes |
Brompton & Hans Town ward | |
S448 - A. Basil Street | Yes |
S448 - B. Cadogan Square | Yes |
S448 - C. Donne Place | No |
S448 - D. Egerton Gardens | Yes |
S448 - E. Egerton Terrace | Yes |
S448 - F. Exhibition Road | Yes |
S448 - G. Halsey Street | No |
S448 - H. Hans Road | Yes |
S448 - I. Lowndes Square | Yes |
Campden ward | |
S449 - A. Airlie Gardens | Yes |
S449 - B. Campden Hill | Yes |
S449 - C. Campden Hill Road | Yes |
S449 - D. Gloucester Walk | Yes |
S449 - E. Hornton Street | Yes |
S449 - F. Old Court Place | Yes |
S449 - G. Palace Gardens Terrace | Yes |
S449 - H. Phillimore Walk | Yes |
S449 - I. Strathmore Gardens | No |
Chelsea Riverside ward | |
S450 - A. Alpha Place | No |
S450 - B. Cheyne Walk | Yes |
S450 - C. Danvers Street | Yes |
S450 - D. Flood Street | Yes |
S450 - E. Lots Road | No |
S450 - F. Milman's Street | Yes |
S450 - G. Oakley Street | Yes |
S450 - H. Old Church Street | Yes |
S450 - I. Paultons Square | No |
S450 - J. Upcerne Road | No |
Colville ward | |
S451 - A. All Saints Road | No |
S451 - B. Colville Square | Yes |
S451 - C. Denbigh Road | Yes |
S451 - D. Elgin Crescent | Yes |
S451 - E. Lancaster Road | Yes |
S451 - F. Powis Gardens | Yes |
S451 - G. Powis Terrace | Yes |
S451 - H. Tavistock Crescent | Yes |
S451 - I. Westbourne Grove | Yes |
S451 - J. Westbourne Park Road | Yes |
Courtfield ward | |
S452 - A. Ashburn Place | Yes |
S452 - B. Bina Gardens | No |
S452 - C. Brechin Place | Yes |
S452 - D. Collingham Gardens | Yes |
S452 - E. Courtfield Gardens | Yes |
S452 - F. Courtfield Gardens | Yes |
S452 - G. Cranley Gardens | No |
S452 - H. Evelyn Gardens | Yes |
S452 - I. Onslow Gardens | No |
S452 - J. Onslow Square | Yes |
S452 - K. Queen's Gate | Yes |
S452 - L. Roland Gardens | Yes |
Dalgarno ward | |
S453 - A. Barlby Road | Yes |
S453 - B. Bracewell Road | Yes |
S453 - C. Dalgarno Gardens | Yes |
S453 - D. Pangbourne Avenue | Yes |
S453 - E. St Charles Square | Yes |
S453 - F. St Mark's Road | No |
S453 - G. Sutton Way | Yes |
S453 - H. Sutton Way | Yes |
Earl's Court ward | |
S454 - A. Barkston Gardens | No |
S454 - B. Earl's Court Gardens | Yes |
S454 - C. Earls Court Square | No |
S454 - D. Hogarth Road | Yes |
S454 - E. Kempsford Gardens | Yes |
S454 - F. Nevern Square | No |
S454 - G. Templeton Place | Yes |
S454 - H. Trebovir Road | No |
S454 - I. Penywern Road | No |
S454 - J. Philbeach Gardens | Yes |
Golborne ward | |
S455 - A. Blagrove Road | Yes |
S455 - B. Cambridge Gardens | Yes |
S455 - C. Faraday Road | Yes |
S455 - D. Golborne Road | Yes |
S455 - E. Kensal Road | Yes |
S455 - F. Morgan Road | Yes |
S455 - G. Southern Row | Yes |
S455 - H. St Michaels Gardens | Yes |
Holland ward | |
S456 - A. Abbotsbury Road | Yes |
S456 - B. Addison Road | Yes |
S456 - C. Addison Road | No |
S456 - D. Fairfax Place | Yes |
S456 - E. Holland Gardens | Yes |
S456 - F. Holland Park | Yes |
S456 - G. Holland Villas Road | No |
S456 - H. Ilchester Place | Yes |
S456 - I. Melbury Road | Yes |
S456 - J. Melbury Road | No |
Norland ward | |
S457 - A. Ladbroke Road | No |
S457 - B. Lansdowne Road | No |
S457 - C. Lansdowne Road | Yes |
S457 - D. Lansdowne Walk | Yes |
S457 - E. Norland Square | Yes |
S457 - F. Penzance Place | Yes |
S457 - G. Queensdale Road | No |
S457 - H. Rosmead Road | No |
S457 - I. St James's Gardens | No |
S457 - J. St Mark's Place | Yes |
Notting Dale ward | |
Clarendon Road (footway) | Yes |
S458 - A. Avondale Park Road | Yes |
S458 - B. Darfield Way | Yes |
S458 - C. Freston Road | Yes |
S458 - D. Lancaster Road | Yes |
S458 - E. Portland Road | Yes |
S458 - F. Stoneleigh Place | Yes |
S458 - G. Walmer Road | Yes |
S458 - H. Whitchurch Road | No |
Pembridge ward | |
S459 - A. Chepstow Crescent | Yes |
S459 - B. Kensington Park Gardens | Yes |
S459 - C. Kensington Park Road 1 | Yes |
S459 - D. Kensington Park Road 2 | Yes |
S459 - E. Ladbroke Terrace | Yes |
S459 - F. Pembridge Place | Yes |
S459 - G. Pembridge Square | Yes |
Queens Gate ward | |
S460 - A. Cornwall Gardens | Yes |
S460 - B. Elvaston Place | No |
S460 - C. Grenville Place | Yes |
S460 - D. Kelso Place | No |
S460 - E. Kensington Court | Yes |
S460 - F. Queens Gate | Yes |
S460 - G. Queen's Gate Place | Yes |
S460 - H. Victoria Road | Yes |
Redcliffe ward | |
S461 - A. Bramham Gardens | Yes |
S461 - B. Drayton Gardens | No |
S461 - C. Gilston Road | Yes |
S461 - D. Gledhow Gardens | No |
S461 - E. Hollywood Road | Yes |
S461 - F. Redcliffe Place | Yes |
S461 - G. Redcliffe Square | Yes |
S461 - H. Redcliffe Square | Yes |
S461 - I. The Boltons | Yes |
S461 - J. The Little Boltons | No |
S461 - K. Tregunter Road | Yes |
S461 - L. Wharfedale St | No |
Royal Hospital ward | |
S462 - A. Cadogan Gardens | Yes |
S462 - B. Cheltenham Terrace | Yes |
S462 - C. Flood Walk | Yes |
S462 - D. Franklin's Row | Yes |
S462 - E. Ormonde Gate | Yes |
S462 - F. Radnor Walk | Yes |
S462 - G. St Leonard's Terrace | No |
S462 - H. Sloane Gardens | Yes |
St Helen's ward | |
S463 - A. Cambridge Gardens | Yes |
S463 - B. Highlever Road | Yes |
S463 - C. Kelfield Gardens | No |
S463 - D. Ladbroke Grove | Yes |
S463 - E. Oxford Gardens | No |
S463 - F. Snarsgate Street | No |
S463 - G. St Charles Square | Yes |
S463 - H. St Helen's Gardens | No |
S463 - I. St Marks Road 1 | No |
S463 - J. St Marks Road | Yes |
Stanley ward | |
S464 - A. Astell Street | Yes |
S464 - B. Burnsall Street | Yes |
S464 - C. Camera Place | Yes |
S464 - D. Chelsea Square | Yes |
S464 - E. Elm Park Road | No |
S464 - F. Hobury Street | No |
S464 - G. Hortensia Road | Yes |
S464 - H. Ixworth Place | Yes |
S464 - I. Limerston Street | Yes |
S464 - J. Manresa Road | Yes |
We asked for your views on the way you use and interact with the service. In particular we wanted to know whether you found each of the avenues of communication (in-person, telephone, letters and assessments and online) accessible and user-friendly. Furthermore, we wanted to get an understanding of any issues around internet access and the digital skills of our temporary accommodation residents.
We received extensive feedback on the aspects of our service that were working well but also on the gaps and areas that could be improved. The following points represent key feedback that we have gathered from the survey:
We will be discussing the results with a resident focus group to get feedback on the issues raised in the survey and find solutions to adequately address them. In addition, there is ongoing service development work already in place to rectify issues in some of these areas. For example:
Whether the Council should convert the mini-roundabouts at the junctions of Ashburn Place and Harrington Gardens, and Ashburn Place and Courtfield Road to priority junctions. The proposals also proposed replacing the current pedestrian islands on the western side of the junction of Ashburn Place and Harrington Gardens with a zebra crossing.
In total, 48 responses were received. Twenty-five (52%) respondents supported the proposals in full, 17 supported in part (35%), and 5 respondents objected to the proposals (11%). One person had no opinion. The consultation report is available below.
Following consideration of all comments received, the Council is proceeding with detailed design and implementation of the proposed priority junction – with the design for Courtfield Road/Ashburn Place to include a new crossing facility. Proceeding with the proposals will be subject to the outcome of statutory traffic regulation orders.
Whether a new parallel crossing should be implemented across Old Brompton Road (from Kempsford Gardens to Brompton Cemetery).
In total, 79 responses were received to the consultation. Forty-Two (54%) respondents supported the proposals in full, 17 supported in part (22%), and 19 responses objected to the proposals (24%). However, three of the 19 objections appeared to be from the same individual as the same false email address was used across all three responses. The full consultation report can be found below.
The Council plans to proceed to detailed design and implementation of the proposed parallel crossing on Old Brompton Road, subject to statutory consultation.
The Panel survey on making the borough safer focussed on gaining a better understanding of what would make Panel members feel safe and gain an insight into Panel members’ experiences of crime and antisocial behaviour as a witness and/or victim. This survey is a repeat of a similar survey conducted in 2022 and benchmarks against the previous results to identify changes in opinions, attitudes, and experiences.
The Community Safety Team and the Safer K and C Partnership are continuing to carefully consider the full results from the Panel survey with the year-on-year results being used to identify any trends and to monitor progress against the action plans developed from the Community Safety Plan. This year the Safer K and C Partnership will be forming its response to Serious Violence as part of a new legal duty. These responses will help to inform the partnership’s response to violence in the borough alongside needs analysis and other ongoing community engagement work. The full report also identified any differences in opinion by key demographics (sex, age, and ethnicity) and by the area of the borough that Panel members live in. This feedback will be used to target resources, commissioning work, communication and awareness raising to ensure to maximise their effectiveness. The comparison to last year’s results helps to understand changes in local feelings of safety and the results will also enable the Community Safety Team to identify where within the borough to focus additional safety measures and environmental improvements, whilst also informing the Council’s antisocial behaviour response borough wide.
We asked for views on the proposals to make changes to the parking layout in the 69 St Quintin Avenue, Hortensia House Portobello Court and Tavistock Crescent housing estates.
We had one objection to the conversion of a RBKC Housing residents’ permit bay to RBKC-Housing disabled parking bay (HOH 02).
We have made the traffic order for the proposed changes in 69 St Quintin Avenue and Portobello Court housing estates, but dropped the proposals in Hortensia House (due to the objection received) and in Tavistock Crescent (after RBKC-Housing withdrew the proposal).
We asked for views on 106 proposals in the February 2023 Miscellaneous Parking Changes, and a proposed clerical change relating to the pay on street tariff areas applicable to Vicarage Gate, to reflect the current on-street charges.
We had a total of 76 objections, 35 letters of support and one comment across 64 of the parking proposals.
We have made the traffic order as per the proposals apart from the proposals relating to Darnley Terrace, Ladbroke Terrace, Munro Mews, St Mark’s Road (S441) which were dropped in their entirety. Some proposals in Fulham Road and King's Road were also dropped.
We asked for views on a proposal to provide a pedestrian and cycle zone in St Mark’s Road, between the north-western kerb-line of Cornwall Crescent and a point 10 metres south-east of the south-eastern kerb-line of Lancaster Road (outside Thomas Jones Primary School), between 8.45am and 9.10am and between 3.10pm and 3.40pm on Mondays to Fridays inclusive.
We received no objections or comments to this proposal
We have made the order for the pedestrian and cycle zone in St Mark’s Road (outside Thomas Jones Primary School), between 8.45am and 9.10am and between 3.10pm and 3.40pm on Mondays to Fridays inclusive.
We have been working with residents on a solution to the widespread misuse of parking facilities and increasing problems with unauthorised parking at Edenham Way.
In response, the Council asked all Edenham Way residents for their views on adopting its standard housing estate parking policy, which would enable parking enforcement by its on-street parking enforcement contractor, NSL.
We received 22 responses in total
Following the survey outcome, we will not be implementing a Traffic Management Order on the estate. Without a Traffic Management Order, we will not be able to enforce parking restrictions or issue penalty charge notices for unauthorised parking.
Next steps
Based on feedback from the consultation and residents’ meeting, key themes are highlighted below:
If the Council should introduce five new cycle hangars in four locations across the borough.
40 responses supported the proposals in full, 4 supported in part and 13 objected to the proposals.
The Director for Transport and Regulatory Services, in consultation with the Lead Member for Planning, Place and Environment, has decided to proceed with the four hangars proposed in Chesterton Road (two units), Norland Road and Redcliffe Square. Following public consultation and the objections received to the cycle hangar proposed for Allen Street, ward councillors have significant concerns regarding its installation. These concerns cannot currently be resolved and accordingly, the decision has been made not to proceed with this proposal at this time
We asked for views on the environmental issues that are most important to residents in Notting Dale, and what environmental projects and improvements residents would like to see in the area for Phase 2 of the Notting Dale Future Neighbourhoods 2030 programme.
We also asked residents which Future Neighbourhoods 2030 programme theme was most important to them and how they would like to be involved in helping to deliver and co-design the programme.
During a previous consultation on the refurbishment of a playground at Emslie Horniman Pleasance, residents wanted to see a mural within the playground to celebrate local artistry. Three local community artists put forward their designs and residents living in Golborne ward, local to the park were asked to vote for their favourite design (votes from outside this area were not counted).
Overall, we received 239 votes, however the majority of these were from people from outside of Golborne ward. Sixty one votes were received from those resident in Golborne and the result of their votes was as follows:
Design Proposal A - Bugs, Beatles and Butterflies of Kensington |
17 |
28% |
Design proposal B - Our children are Our Rising Stars |
36 |
59% |
Design proposal C - Unity Through Pattern |
8 |
13% |
The winning design was, therefore. Our Children are our rising stars by Junior Tomlin.
The parks service will be working with KACW and artist Junior Tomlin, to commence work on painting the winning mural Our children are our rising stars on the rear wall of Emslie Horniman’s Pleasance play area. The work is scheduled to take place in mid-April subject to weather.
We asked for your views on whether the summer opening and closing times at Powis Square should be amended during the summer months April to August, which could potentially help address noise disturbance being experienced by residents. With the aim of implementing any changes to the opening and closing times from April 2023.
We also asked for your views on dog access within Powis Square and how this should be managed, presenting six different options. Options 1 to 5 proposed ways dogs could be restricted from using the certain areas of Powis Square. Option 6 proposed keeping dog access to all areas of Powis Square. The aim of the feedback to implement the preferred option.
Survey responses 267
General
Who took part: Adults 71 per cent, Parent or Career 34 per cent and children and young people 9 per cent.
How people use the square: A total of 43 per cent of respondents said they socialise in Powis Square, 33 per cent play in Powis Square, 31 per cent walk their dog in Powis Square, 12 per cent other and 11 per cent of respondents did not use Powis Square.
Summer opening and closing times.
Support of the revised opening and closing times of 8am to 8pm all respondents: A total of 52 per cent of all the respondents supported that opening and closing times remaining the same, 34 per cent supported the revised opening and closing times and 15 per cent requested different opening and closing times.
Support of revised opening and closing times of 8am to 8pm post code mapped to reflect responses from resident bordering the square, most affected by the noise: A total of 43 per cent of respondents supported the opening and closing times remaining the same. However, a combined total of 57 per cent of residents living closest to the park supported the revised opening and closing times (24 per cent of respondents) or wanted different opening and closing times (33 per cent of respondents).
Dog Access in Powis Square
Six potential options on how dog access should be managed in Powis Square were presented: A total of 29 per cent of all respondents supported option 1 - A fenced and planted dog area along the west side of the square. When broken down by postcodes of residents bordering the park, option 1 was also the most selected option with 32 per cent.
The second most preferred option was option 6 – dog access to all areas of Powis Square with a total of 20 per cent of respondents supporting this option, when analysed by postcodes bordering the park option 6 was also 2nd place with 20 per cent of respondents supporting this option.
Option 3- The children’s play area and ball court fenced was supported by 17 per cent of all respondents.
Option 4- The children’s play area fenced to prevent dogs accessing was supported by 17 per cent of all respondents.
Option 2- A fenced dog area along the Talbot Road end of the ball court was supported by 8 per cent of all respondents.
Option 5- Dogs on Leads only – was supported by 7 per cent of all respondents.
Summer Opening and Closing Times
The results have been analysed and reviewed taking into consideration the postcodes of the residents bordering the park who are most affected by the noise. 57 per cent of residents living closest to the park either supported the revised opening and closing times of 8am to 8pm or requested something different.
Taking this into consideration and to help mitigate the noise experienced by residents.
The revised opening and closing times of 8am to 8pm will be implemented from April 2023 for a trial period of 2 years.
Dog Access
Almost 80 per cent of all respondents supported some kind dog access control measures with in Powis Square by selecting options 1 to 5. The preferred option by all respondents and those directly bordering the Square was Option 1 A fenced and dedicated dog area along the west side of the Square.
Therefore option 1 will be implemented, it is intended that the work will take place over the summer. This will be for a trial period of 2 years.
In 2021 the Council commissioned a report from the Centre for London (CfL) to investigate the changing way residents and visitors get around the borough as the Covid pandemic receded. The Council also sought suggestions about how our streets and places could be adapted to improve walking, cycling and the use of public transport which are part of the Council Plan commitment to a greener Kensington and Chelsea. The report had a particular focus on Kensington High Street as a primary east-west corridor linking Kensington and Chelsea to other boroughs. The Panel survey on ‘Improving our streets: travel options for Kensington High Street and beyond’ launched in January 2023 and sought the views of the Panel on the ideas from CfL, firstly in general terms and then specifically in relation to Kensington High Street. The survey received 321 responses, there was an over representation of the percentage of Panel members with access to a car compared to census data and just under half of respondents were aged 60 and over.
Getting around Kensington and Chelsea – The most popular modes of transport for getting around Kensington and Chelsea were walking and buses which were also the most popular modes of transport for getting around Kensington High Street itself. Post pandemic, there have been overall increases in Panel members walking, using buses, and cycling and decreases in car use, tube/National Rail, and taxis/minicabs.
Cycle lanes – Fifty-nine per cent of Panel members supported painted line only cycle lanes, with less support for them specifically on Kensington High Street (43 per cent support). Panel members were less supportive overall of cycle lanes physically separated from the traffic (42 per cent support, 41 per cent oppose) and again there was less support for these protected cycle lanes on Kensington High Street (31 per cent support, 53 per cent oppose). The cycle lane design that respondents felt would make them feel safest whilst cycling on Kensington High Street was the wand cycle track (17 per cent) and the design with the best visual appearance was the painted line only (37 per cent).
Other proposals - The majority of Panel members expressed support for timed bus lanes (68 per cent) with less support for such bus lanes on Kensington High Street (51 per cent support). There was a mixed response to the idea of widening pavements with 46 per cent of Panel members expressing support and 39 per cent expressing opposition. On Kensington High Street, 40 per cent supported the widening of pavements and 45 per cent opposed.
Specific proposals for Kensington High Street - Floating bus stops on Kensington High Street received more opposition than support from Panel members with 47 per cent opposed and 23 per cent supportive of the proposal. There was also more opposition than support for the removal of kerbs on the High Street (55 per cent opposed, 23 per and for the introduction of a timed eastbound sustainable travel lane (45 per cent opposed, 29 per cent supportive). There was more support for replacing staggered pedestrian crossings with straight across crossings with half of Panel members supporting this proposal and 19 per cent opposing it.
The service has carefully considered the results of the Panel survey and they have also been presented to the Environment Select Committee. The results are being used to inform the next stage of consultation with residents and other stakeholders more widely. A consultation on the proposed introduction of advisory cycle lanes (indicated by a broken/dashed painted white line) on Fulham Road and the eastern and western sections of Kensington High Street is due to launch from mid-May (closing 26 June).