Twickenham Riverside – Our Response

This is the text of our response to the Twickenham Riverside planning application. Please take a moment to pop down the sherry and add your opposition! You can make your comment on the planning website

We oppose the application on grounds of its failure to comply with LBRUT, Greater London Authority and Government policies:

Twickenham Area Action Plan 2013 (‘TAAP’) sets out LBRUT’s policy framework for the site. TAAP includes a principle to improve the pedestrian environment and reduce dominance of parked and moving traffic ( TAAP states that the whole area should be changed in a comprehensive way, and that each phase must take account of the overall future layout ( TAAP aims to improve the environment of the Embankment including reduction in car parking (

LBRUT’s Core Strategy 2009 includes spatial policy CP9 which aims to revitalise Twickenham Town Centre, creating a high-quality district centre serving residents, workers and visitors, founded on the principles of sustainability. Transport considerations include improving pedestrian and cycle links to and from the centre, and improving traffic management to manage flows and reduce dominance of vehicles on the town centre environment.

The Core Strategy is in the process of being revised and incorporated into LBRUT’s Local Plan. The Local Plan states (LP 44 B) that the council will ‘ensure that new development is designed to maximise permeability within and to the immediate vicinity of the development site through the provision of safe and convenient walking and cycling routes, and to provide opportunities for walking and cycling, including through the provision of links and enhancements to existing networks.’

The London Plan 2016, published by the Mayor’s Office, states that London should be ‘a city where it is easy, safe and convenient for everyone to access jobs, opportunities and facilities with an efficient and effective transport system which actively encourages more walking and cycling and makes better use of the Thames’. The Plan encourages patterns of development that (1) reduce the need to travel especially by car, (2) improve the capacity and accessibility of sustainable travel modes such as public transport, walking and cycling, and (3) encourage shifts to more sustainable forms of transport.

Healthy Streets For London 2017 (‘HSL’) published by the Mayor’s Office, a core element in the Mayor’s overall plan for London, states ‘Walking and cycling are the healthiest and most sustainable ways to travel, either for whole trips or as part of longer journeys on public transport… This will only happen if we reduce the volume and dominance of motor traffic and improve the experience of being on our streets.’

The National Planning Policy Framework 2012, (‘NPPF’) seeks to ensure that the transport system is balanced in favour of sustainable transport modes. Developments should be located and designed to give priority to pedestrian and cycle movements, and should create safe and secure layouts which minimise conflicts between traffic and cyclists or pedestrians.

Specific failings:

Failings in regard to TAAP
The application is not a comprehensive plan as required by TAAP. The site borders Water Lane and the Embankment, yet the plans do not consider any of the improvements of these thoroughfares anticipated by TAAP, for example reduced car parking along the water-front. The application’s car parking will increase traffic on the Embankment in contravention of TAAP.

Failings in regard to the Core Strategy and the Local Plan
The application encourages cars by excessive provision of car parking. Increased parking will increase the dominance of cars in the town centre environment in contravention of the Core Strategy. The application offers no improvement to cycling between the riverside and King Street, a requirement of the Core Strategy. The application fails the requirements of the Local Plan in not considering the riverside cycle route to Richmond or between the riverside and King Street which would have provided permeability to the site.

Failings in regard to the London Plan and HSL
The provision of cycle spaces at the rear of the basement does not encourage cycling as required by the London Plan as there is no improvement of cycling infrastructure in the immediate area; notably no northbound cycling on Water Lane to link with King Street. The application does nothing to reduce car travel, a requirement of the London Plan and HSL. The application does not improve the on-street experience or create a space where walkers and cyclists are free from manoeuvring cars.

Failings in regard to NPPF
The application gives no priority to cycle movements as required by NPPF. The car parking spaces within the development and the access via the Embankment will lead to increased conflict between pedestrians and cyclists on the one hand and traffic on the other, in contravention of NPPF.

What’s Going on in Richmond?

This is a copy of an ongoing document we’re working on, showing what we’re currently aware of in the borough. It’s not complete, and we need input from others, so if you have anything you want to add, please let us know! If you want to comment, you can also add your notes to our Google Document, here

There are four quietways in some form of plan. The current details we have are here: Quietway 3, Quietway 1, Quietway 4. Quietway 2

The Ham to Teddington route (quietway 1)  has been consulted on, and is now in detailed planning.
10/12/17: This will go to a final round of consultation some time soon.

Bushy Park to Kingston (QW2) is the second which is likely to go to consultation, but we haven’t yet got any dates.

Liveable neighbourhoods: Richmond town centre bid for some money, but wasn’t successful

10/12/17 TfL will feedback to the council.  Our suspicion is that the bid failed because it had insufficient plans to look at how traffic-dominated the area is, but this is only a suspicion at the moment.

As LCC we have requested the borough become a member of CLOCS.

10/12/17: Members have written to the council, and we are assembling a group request as part of the LCC work.

Corridors. These are routes where the council will look at walking, cycling and other modes at the same time, and try to fix an overall route, rather than do piecemeal changes.

The proposed corridors are:

C1) A305 Richmond Road (j/w Aragon Rd – Richmond Bridge)

C2) A305 Sheen Road (j/w Church Rd to TLRN URRW)

C3) A306 Castlenau & Rocks Lane (j/w URRW – Hammersmith Bridge)

C4) A313 Park Rd, Hampton Road & Teddington High Street (j/w Uxbridge Rd – Kingston Road)

C5) A311 Hampton Hill & Hampton Road (j/w Upper Sunbury Rd – Heath Rd)

C6) A310 Kingston Road, Strawberry Vale & Cross Deep (j/w Kingston Bridge rdbt – King St)

C7) A3004 St Margarets Road (j/w Richmond Road to boundary)

C8) A307 Kew Road (Richmond Circus – TLRN Mortlake Rd)

C9) A305 Staines Road / The Green (j/w A316 – Heath Rd/The Green)

C10) A308 Upper Sunbury Rd & Hampton Court Rd (borough boundary to j/w Kingston Bridge rdbt)

C11) B358 Nelson Rd, HBR & Sixth Cross Rd (j/w Hanworth Rd – Hampton Rd)

C12) A3003 Mortlake High Street & B350 Lonsdale Rd (j/w A316 – Castlenau)

C13) A312 Uxbridge Road (j/w Hampton Hill HS – boundary)

Schools. The council provides basic training for all children in year 6 of primary school, and has various things it does to support school cycling. This does not seem to include:

– audits of bike parking

– ensuring routes to schools are safe

– 20mph outside schools

– detailed planning support to help families get to school

Schools. We’re concerned at reports from places like Teddington School, where they have been talking about aggressive and inappropriate management of children cycling to school. We’ve asked the council to find out what’s going on.  

10/12/17: apparently council safety officials have visited the school to discuss this. We don’t have details of the meeting, but our expectation is that schools are being made fully aware of what they can and can’t do in relation to cycling.

Towpaths: these are being partially upgraded in some areas, but the council is unwilling to say ‘we’ll make these proper places to cycle’. A good example is the use of gates, poor surfacing, and absent or inconsistent lighting.

Cross Deep. This has been to the Cycling Liaison Group a number of times, with no proper proposals. We hope to have a proper engineer’s report at the next CLG

Road Safety Week, Bike Week, and other activities where national campaigns are run: currently the council doesn’t get involved in any of these. In 2017 Bikefest didn’t happen, because it had previously run through the effort of volunteers.

River Crane: we’re waiting for a route through here. Apparently soil contamination has to be dealt with before council will take over responsibility.

10/12/17: We perhaps need to check with planning enforcement, as this is a condition of the planning application that it’s fixed.

Mortlake Brewery and other developments: the council consistently fails to plan for large developments. Twickenham redevelopment, St Mary’s university, Brewery are all examples of where active travel (walking and cycling) don’t get a look in. There’s never anything to properly encourage cycling and walking somewhere, instead of driving.

Twickenham Riverside: We’d like to see it being possible to cycle to and from the site, as well as access to the Riverside being easier for walking and cycling than driving. In particular, we don’t want the riverside to remain a car park.

10/12/17: We need to respond to the planning application, which is still far from good enough.

Richmond Park: the park forms part of some quietway routes. In order for this to work, the routes need to be accessible for multiple types of bicycle, and for people with a range of mobility impairments. This isn’t currently the case.

Village centres: most of the village centres have had some kind of update, but virtually none of these updates include cycle lanes, or any meaningful calming of traffic

Copthall Road: recently consulted on. Again, no meaningful changes for cycling or walking. This area is used as a rat run, and the opportunity to stop this has been missed. (And local residents don’t like it, either … )

Star and Garter: recently consulted changes here again failed to do much for cycling, and just assume that narrowing a road makes it better for cycling. (Consultation link, our response, cyclescape)

Byfeld Gardens: this has been asked of as a opportunity for filtering. (Link or CLG minutes)

Kew Gardens station – just had a consultation on making the pedestrian environment better, but didn’t mention cycling at all! We asked the council to explain this.

10/12/17: told by the council that cycle parking will be improved as part of the scheme, but no actual details.

Radnor Gardens bridge: idea for a walking and cycling bridge across the river. Is a great idea, but council aren’t interested. See here

HPNF consulted on the proposal for a new walking and cycling bridge at the Neighbourhood Plan travel and streets workshop.  95% were in favour of a bridge. 90% favoured Ham Street to Orleans House connection, 10% favoured a new bridge at Teddington.  There was no support for a bridge at Radnor Gardens due to its limited use for utility cycling and concern that the unlit stretch across Ham Lands would not feel safe after dusk.

Cycle hoop installations: 6 have been consulted on, over 100 requests for other slots in the borough. Not sure what the next steps are.

Richmond Station upgrade to cycle parking – part of the Liveable Neighbourhoods bid, but it looks like this funding pot is separate. We are talking to the council about what we’d like to see here, and need to publish the initial list of requests.

Introduction of dockless bikes: council is looking at this at the moment. Apparently some kind of policy is being looked at, and they’re engaging with bike companies, but we think we’d like to see this happening in the borough. One key concern is that it will increase pressure on cycle parking, which is already busy in many key areas.

More cycle parking in & around Richmond Town Centre & on the waterfront. This is ongoing. Everyone can request parking, and the cycling officer is working to get this improved. However, it is ‘here and there’ rather than any substantial new parking initiatives anywhere, at the moment.

Policing / enforcing cycle lanes around the borough using parking enforcement officers to issue tickets to vehicles parked in them illegally. . This is probably not a ‘thing going on’. But it should be. (Observation: I think that parking is devolved to boroughs.)

Each park has a community group, but many of them have accessibility problems for cycling – like Palewell Park. SWLEN group looks like it talks about these things … In Palewell Park, there’s a kind of kissing gate towards one side which is impassable by wheelchair, pram or larger bike. Apparently these were installed to stop people riding motorbikes on the park.

Royal Parks walking and cycling group: Richmond Cycling Campaign wasn’t invited to this, which is something of a disappointment. Issues we’d want considered: accessibility of gates into the park, and use of rumble strips. There is also a wider discussion which needs to be had around how to deal with the volumes of traffic in the park.

Bridges list: this is online here. Anyone can comment, and we will use this to liaise with the council.

Cycle hangars: people should carry on requesting these. 6 more are to go to the cabinet member very soon, and others should follow in consultation.

Cycling strategy: this still hasn’t been adopted by the council. It’s not clear why, or what needs to happen here, but we understand that until it is adopted, it won’t be followed through.

Air Quality Action Plan – Just not good enough

This is the Richmond Cycling Campaign Response to the Council’s Air Quality Action Plan.

You can see the consultation here – you have until October 30th to respond. The actual plan is a PDF, here


(Pollution in Richmond. Image courtesy )

The council correctly identifies that the primary source of air pollution in the borough is motor transport but, unlike the Mayor’s Transport Strategy, or TfL’s Liveable Neighbourhoods plans, or Greenwich and Camden’s Air Quality Plans, our council doesn’t think that persuading people to use other modes of transport is a good way to deal with this.

Early in the document, we’re told that the most polluted place in the borough – George Street in Richmond – would need traffic reductions of up to 75% to bring its air into line with the required threshold. The problem is that virtually none of the actions identified in the document would help to achieve this.

We think the document has a number of problems.


Other councils haven’t allocated specific budgets for specific activities, but Richmond attempts to do this. Which means that there are an awful lot of actions which require people to do things, but include budgets of £0. Since there’s no commitment to increase staff numbers to support the plan, we must assume that the dozens of £0 actions will fall on the shoulders of either the Director of Public Health, or the Air Quality Manager.

We think that the proposal needs to include a proper allocation of either money or staff time for each proposal.


Not a single proposed action has any attempt to measure the effect that it may have on air quality in the borough. Whilst we understand that some things are going to be quite hard to quantify, such as ‘Consider further local restrictions on bonfires’, we must surely need to understand where the worst problems are, in order to actually address them.

As an example, there are actions on the fleet of vehicles used and own by the borough. We know how many vehicles there are, we know what their emission ratings are, and we know what the emission ratings are for newer/different vehicles.

We think many of these actions need meaningful measures. In order for people to be able to reply in a useful fashion to the consultation, we also believe that the actions could at least show relative value to Air Quality changes. (For example, if people knew that campaigning on Heathrow would make more of an impact than putting up electric charging stations, they would be able to choose the former over the latter with some evidential backing.)


Very few of these actions discuss the incentives that parties have in order to comply with them, and much of the monitoring involves items which fail to measure the actual changes involved. For example, the plan wants to ‘encourage’ local HGV, coach, van and taxi operators to sign up to FORS or other schemes, but the whole activity has £6,000 allocated, and has no proposal how this encouragement might happen.

Missing Ideas

Section 2 (p4) describes how boroughs have an important role to play in dealing with air quality, and mentions five key policy ‘levers’ available to the council:

  1. Emissions based parking charges
  2. Reducing pollution from new developments
  3. Improving the public realm for walking and cycling
  4. Targeted measures at pollution hotspots
  5. Supporting infrastructure for zero-emission vehicles

Of the five, (a) is completely ignored, and (c) and (d) appear to have no meaningful action associated to them.

Inspection of plans from Camden and Greenwich as examples, shows a slew of activities which they’re planning, that most people would be able to look at and say “I can see how that would improve air quality in my area.”

These include:

  • enforcing anti-idling. (i.e. requiring people to switch their engines off when stopped in traffic, at level crossings, etc.)
    Richmond’s proposal for this at least has some teeth, with an apparent plan to actually begin enforcement
  • Persuading people not to drive
    In both plans, there is a stated aim to persuade fewer people to use cars for some of their journeys in the borough. Richmond, although recognising the contribution of motor transport to air pollution, has no plans to do this, either directly or in-directly.
  • airtext service. Promotion at doctors’ surgeries
    Both boroughs suggest more active ways to warn people about pollution. This includes more substantial communications – like at doctors’ surgeries – that does not rely on poorly used websites or passive notification
  • encourage mode shift from diesel with parking charges
    Camden and Greenwich envisage using their car parking zones to encourage people not to have diesel cars through higher charges for owners of the most polluting vehicles. We recognise council claims that this may weigh unfairly on the owners of such vehicles, but it is at least a policy which has identifiable benefits which can be quickly realised. Perhaps, though, when we worry about the owners of these vehicles, we could also worry about the 25% of the borough who don’t even have a motor vehicle, or the majority of children and young people required to pay with their lungs for our lack of action.
  • explore emissions based parking charges
    Both boroughs propose using parking charging at council car parks, etc., to persuade people not to bring highly polluting vehicles into the borough. Richmond has no plans at all n this area
  • Car free / pedestrian priority days
    Greenwich and Camden are both planning to trial these as ways to improve air quality in key areas. No such ideas are present for Richmond.
  • 20mph
    Greenwich and Camden correctly identify that increasing the areas with 20mph limits will reduce pollution. Why isn’t Richmond doing the same?
  • LBCC “London Borough Consolidation Centre” … supporting this. Are we? Don’t know

Good Stuff

There is good stuff in the proposal, in our opinion.

The document highlights the objective ‘to enhance travel choice and reduce congestion’. We’d like to see this even more clearly as an aim in the AQAP, as providing this has benefits for wider public health, as well as air quality.

The document identifies (p4) that ‘road transport [contributes] more than 50% of the overall emissions of nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter within the borough.

We welcome the interest in the TfL STARS project (on school transport, p6), as anecdotal evidence suggests that travel to and from school has a significant effect on borough congestion and air quality. We would like to see more concrete council action on this: every school in the borough has a transport plan, and almost all have asked for specific measures which will make active travel safer and more attractive. The council needs to act on these. (Examples include 20mph zones outside schools, providing proper cycle routes outside schools, improving pedestrian facilities, etc.)

Not So Good …

Page 6 has nine ‘key priorities’ for the five years of the new Air Quality Action Plan. It is very disappointing that not a single one of these priorities is to actually improve air quality by a measurable amount. Unfortunately the priorities, like many of the proposed actions, involving talking, meetings, or measuring / documentation. Whilst all of these are key elements, the absence of concrete actions is worrying, because it implies that there is no ambition to actually improve air quality in the borough to at least the current standards.

There’s not much talk about ‘Active Travel’. We would like the AQAP to follow the draft guidance from the Mayor of London on promotion of active travel, and discouragement of motor vehicle use.

Electric vehicles: much store is set by encouraging greater use of electric vehicles. While this will make a significant difference to the level of exhaust pollution, there is a growing body of evidence that air and particulate pollution comes not merely from exhaust gases but from brake, tyre and other wear and activity.

Combined with the fact that an electric car takes up just the same space as a normal car – and therefore causes the same level of congestion – we would expect to see an Air Quality Action Plan providing more imaginative and useful proposals for the most congested roads, and the worst pollution areas.


This isn’t good enough. Richmond Cycling Campaign does not support this document as an acceptable response to the current public health crisis, for all the reasons detailed above. The council should be ashamed not merely of its failure to take action thus far, but also of its basic proposals to do virtually nothing of any substance for the next five years, unless someone else does it for them (TfL and buses, for example).



Cycling Liaison Group – a Shopping List

CLG Notes – July 2017

We’ve got quite a few things for the Cycling LIaison Group, and for the council.

(a) The “Walkway” seems to be the route by the Old Sorting Office site development from Twickenham station – to Craneford Way playing field. The question is will it be (when finally open) officially a cycle route – and if not why was that not demanded as part of planning permission.

(something similar seems to have happened in Hampton Wick when the riverside route was initially going to be a cycle route but then acquired a gate.)

The Wellesley Rd – Fifth Cross Rd link for connecting Strawberry Hill station to Crane Park shared use path requires more than just signing. (interestingly it appears on the Borough Cycling Strategy map.)

(b) The need for a working party to be set up to look at the case for establishing and publicising a Richmond Cycling Network. (There is a map in the council’s documents, but it shows too many routes which are clearly not appropriate for everyone to cycle on.)

(c) RUTC to give proper consideration to the impact on cyclist safety of the road restrictions and closures in place during RFU events

(d) The need for RUTC to arrange for traffic Wardens to stop motorists from parking on double yellow lines, particularly at corners, where the reduced visibility of passing traffic puts cyclists and pedestrians at risk. Additionally, double yellow lines often protect stepless pavement access, which is important for wheelchairs, prams, and a variety of other pavement users.

(e) Parking at Kew station. We’ve asked about this before – the station needs more bike parking on both sides, but especially on the North Road side.

(f) The council recently consulted on changes to the Star and Garter roundabout. According to email discussions with the council, this is being considered for possible 20mph zoning. We’d like to know why we only hear about these things via email, and what the process is for this.

(g) Also on the Star and Garter consultation, we are very disappointed by the entire consultation process, as well as the proposed designs. The consultation failed to clearly show the proposed changes, didn’t show what analysis had been undertaken, and didn’t offer any options. Most importantly from our point of view, it offers no improvements at all for cycling.

(h) We looked at the minutes from January 2016 (here). It’s hard to see what progress has been made on virtually any of the items listed:

  • Kingston to Hampton Court cycle links
  • Rocks Lane cycle route
  • Mini Holland funded cycle routes
  • Sheen Road cycle route
  • Fifth Cross Road / Wellesley Road cycle route
  • Contraflow cycle routes
  • Simultaneous green junction

(i) In a consultation on the Uxbridge / Hampton Road junction, pavement and park space is being taken away to increase road space for queuing cars. Why are we sacrificing park space for traffic? Why are there no options on the table beside having more cars in the area?

(j) Cycling information is buried on the council website – it’s virtually impossible to find the cycling liaison group and it is poorly publicised.

(k) The Mortlake Brewery and St Mary’s University developments seem to have no council plan for walking and cycling. Why? These are excellent opportunities to push for more active travel and to provide attractive active travel options, but the council has done nothing.

(l) Twickenham Riverside. Why is cycling not included? Why is there no cycle parking, no cycle routes? We have spoken to the council about this for more than 3 years, and yet still designs never include walking or cycling properly.

Star and Garter – stop making sense!

This is an email thread with the council about the council’s Star and Garter consultation. You’ll need to read it from the bottom. But the things that worry us:

  1. Someone actually thought about cycling, then realised they couldn’t even design in a painted on bike logo
  2. Someone else is apparently thinking about 20mph in the area. Which is news to everyone we know.
  3. The council doesn’t understand the point of consultations. This provides no options, no analysis, doesn’t accurately show what is changing, and assumes that interested parties are going to try to go to the planning portal to understand the context for these things. There’s surely no better way to make sure no-one responds.
  4. Honestly, the council has no idea what makes for acceptable cycling conditions.


Dear RCC,

As stated in my previous email, the changes being made directly outside the Star and Garter development were agreed as part of the planning application. Members of the public would have been given an opportunity to comment on these as part of this planning application.

The main alteration here is the addition of a new footway outside Ancaster House, which is highlighted on the consultation plan. The remaining changes consist of minor elements to bring the layout in line with the current standards. These type of changes usually addressed through our maintenance programme, but will be undertaken as part of this project while we are working in the area.

The ‘build out’ you refer to on the roundabout is a form of horizontal deflection. This is a requirement on mini-roundabouts to prevents vehicles speeding through the junction or failing to give-way. This is a safety feature that benefits all road users, including cyclists.

You refer to the road widening, but the overall carriageway width here has actually be reduced to accommodate the development works. Although this has been mitigated by removing the central hatching, to maintain the required lane widths.

As previously mentioned the 20mph proposal has not fully been investigated, and as such is not ready to be consulted on.




From: Borough Coordinator []
Sent: 05 July 2017 21:31
To: [Council]
Subject: Re: Star and Garter Consultation.


I apologise if I didn’t make it clear, but I think there are a number of questions to be answered here.

  1. Why does the consultation document and diagram fail to explain what changes are actually being made to the road layout?
  2. Why is there a build out on the roundabout? What is its purpose? Did anyone think how this might affect cycling?
  3. Why does this road need widening at this point?
  4. Why was there so much information offered subsequent to the consultation which wasn’t included *in* the consultation?
  5. If there’s a 20mph plan, why is this the first we’re heating about it?

You may be aware that the Cycling Liaison Group is on 25th July. I would hope the council can provide some of these answers in advance of the meeting.


Borough Coordinator, Richmond Cycling


On 6 Jun 2017, at 23:17, Borough Coordinator <> wrote:

Dear [Council],

Thank you for taking the time to write back. I’m afraid i still don’t understand a number of things about these plans.

Firstly, the consultation document doesn’t actually show what changes are being effected to the junction area, with most changes un-noted. I don’t think it is reasonable for people to expect a clear statement here of what is changing. As an example, the roadway is being widened by a significant amount, through the removal of central ‘hatching’ on the approach to the gate, but this isn’t shown.

Secondly, there is a small but important new build out on the roundabout opposite Star and Garter. What is this for? Why are we – at a clear pinch point – forcing cyclists further towards motor traffic?

Thirdly, can you explain to me why the road needs widening at this point anyway? If you’re not prepared to put in cycle lanes, then widening the road isn’t going to make cycling better, I would suggest.

Finally, you provided a lot of useful information in your email – and I think it’s fair to say that this should all have appeared on the consultation: you’re asking us to accept these changes in the context of potential larger plans, so why is none of this mentioned?

I should probably also add that I’m am in no way looking forward to hearing of another Richmond cycling scheme which involves painting big bike roundels on the road and fantasising that it will make the blindest difference to people on bikes, or people who might be considering getting on a bike: it’s really disappointing that in 2017, the borough’s ambition is so spectacularly limited.


Borough Coordinator, Richmond Cycling


[Council] wrote:

Dear RCC,

Thank you for your email.

The work being undertaken on Star and Garter Hill, Richmond is a relatively minor scheme, to implement the new bay outside the Star and Garter development. This will be a very limited stay drop off / collection bay for the residents here. The bay was previously agreed as part of the planning application for the development here.

The informal crossing facility is being removed was originally used by the support staff for the Royal Star and Garter home, that resided in Ancaster House. Due to the redevelopment of these sites, this is no longer a required movement. We have monitored this facility to ensure that it was longer used prior to proposing that it was removed.

The carriageway width in this location is too narrow to implement an on road cycle facility, however we are considering a 20mph speed limit/zone in this area. As this does not require any civil works we are not, restricted to the July construction window. Once this has been fully investigated and developed, this will be consulted on as a separate scheme. As part of this works we will be looking into the implementation of cycle symbols on the ground. Unfortunately we are unable to progress with element until the development of the 20mph works, as there will likely be some conflict around the locations of the 20mph roundels and the cycle symbols.

I hope this information useful


[Council] /

From: Borough Coordinator []
Sent: 15 May 2017 23:06
Subject: Star and Garter Consultation.


I’m writing on behalf of Richmond Cycling Campaign to complain about the poor proposals on Star and Garter Hill:

I find it very hard to believe that the best engineers could come up with was wider traffic lanes, a new pinch point, and a consultation document which didn’t even show clearly half of the proposed changes.

This is a large sweep of tarmac which already tacitly encourages high speeds from vehicles not using the park entrances – and the proposals only make this worse, but providing an even wider lane heading into and out of Richmond. You could have included a proper pedestrian crossing on every arm of this roundabout, or used traffic lights to better allocate the space, or really marked any kind of cycling provision whatsoever. But instead, there’s a nice new loading bay outside Star and Garter – which seems not to look much different from the old one – and you’ve actually **removed** a potential pedestrian crossing point (here).

Before anything goes ahead, the very least the council can do is to clearly indicate **all** the changes at this junction, explain why walking and cycling hasn’t been included, and explain the schedule for any safety plans which are supposedly being looked at.


Borough Coordinator, Richmond Cycling

RCC is a branch of London Cycling Campaign







Cycling Backwards on Twickenham Riverside

In November 2015 we warned that Twickenham’s Riverside development really needs to think seriously about walking and cycling.

But the latest consultation is indeed going backwards for active travel, and indeed for amking the riverside a nice place to be, choosing it for a car park, rather than for people.

One of our members has written this response.

Dear Richmond Council,

The June 2016 New Heart For Twickenham consultation material stated: ‘It became clear during the summer that cycling needs could be more fully integrated into the design. We will ensure that any future development supports and encourages cycling. We would like to hear more about how you think the current circulation for cycling could be improved. We will ensure there is provision for cycle parking and promote the opportunities for leisure cycle hire.’

We have been providing information and proposals on this topic since the Barefoot consultation in 2010. We note that, despite the above request, the actual 2016 consultation included no questions on cycling. We note too that, despite the input to this consultation from our members and other cyclists, the March 2017 Twickenham Rediscovered consultation survey made no mention of cycling.

In the material provided with the current, summer 2017, consultation, reference to including cycling in the scheme is limited to an undertaking to ‘consider cycling requirements including enhancing pedestrian and cycling access to the site, cycle parking and through routes using the riverside.’

Even at this advanced stage there are no concrete proposals regarding cycling and, again, there are no questions regarding cycling in the consultation itself. Since you appear keen to include cycling in the scheme, could you please explain the lack of questions regarding cycling in these consultations and why input from our members and other cyclists has been, and continues to be, ignored.

Kind regards

Richmond Cycling Campiagn

Road signs – getting the council to at least fix the basics

Prompted by this tweet, we’ve complained to the council about the poor approach they seem to be maintaining on dealing with roadworks and cycling …

Here’s the letter we wrote – let us know if you’ve been the victim of more rubbish signage in the borough!

Dear Councillors,
I am writing to officially complain about the ongoing issues with roadworks signage in the borough.
Richmond Cycling Campaign is unhappy not only about the fact that this is still a problem, but the fact that there appears to be no prompt, effective escalation route for it to be dealt with.
There is quite literally no scenario in which someone on a bicycle should ever be instructed to walk, or to wheel their bicycle. The most obvious recent example of this was outside the RFU (see this tweet). The council was told about this on May 31st, but on 6th June, one of our members observed the obstructions still to be in place.
We spoke about this at the last Cycling Liaison Group, and we were given to believe (a) that council rules are clear on this, and (b) that there is a process in place to deal with these problems.
We are therefore asking for a clear response from the council explaining:
1.    What rules and guidelines are issued to people doing roadworks in the borough? By whom?
2.    What is the escalation process for dealing with problems?
3.    Are there any Service Level Agreements (or deadlines)  in the escalation process?
4.    Who has responsibility for roadworks in the borough, and policing and approval thereof?
Richmond Cycling Campaign


Star and Garter – yet another missed opportunity

NB: You can see the discussion on Cyclescape, here.

The junction outside Star and Garter is about to change, but only in the most marginal way possible. This is another disappointment from the council. Faced with an opportunity to make a large junction more pleasant and attractive for cycling, the basic proposal is “Make the lanes wider, and make sure we have parking right beside a roundabout just like … virtually nowhere in London.

Star and Garter proposals

Worse, the plans submitted in the consultation don’t even include key changed. The black arrows in the diagram above show changes thst the diagram proposes, and which aren’t discussed in the consultation (here).

Putting aside the question of why there are three full lanes exiting Richmond Park, this junction is a wide sweep of tarmac from every direction. Although a number of people use it by bicycle, this is yet another place which isn’t going to encourage others to get on their bike. Instead of maintaining the existing configuration of a roundabout people can just drive over, there’s enough space here for clearly marked space for cycling, perhaps in combination with traffic lights or different traffic routing.

Further along (the left hand roundabout on the diafgram above) the design proposes that the pavement bends out into the road, effectively creating a pinch point for cyclists, where they must move further into the lane, and risk contact with cars which can drive straight across.

We’re told that there are safety issues at this junction, but they’re clerarly not that important, because otherwise it’s hard to understand why money is being spent on it in such an appalling fashion. Tell us what you think, but we’re very disappointed.

We need to talk about Chalkers’ Corner!

It’s a massive barrier for cycling in the borough, and indeed for almost everyone else. If only for the sake of the Mortlake Brewery devleopment, Chalkers’ Corner needs fixing.

Our proposal includes a number of significant changes:

  • Cycling continues directly across from the Richmond side towards Chiswick Bridge
  • All modes get long greens
  • Make the exit from the A3006 (Mortlake) much easier, with a single light sequence
  • Better pedestrian crossings on all arms

To achieve this, members have helped put together this model – it’s got a lot on …

Chalkers Corner proposal

The numbers show the light sequences, the red lines show cycling movements, and the dashed lines show pedestraisn movements.

Here’s how it works:

  1. Walking, cycling and driving heading east or west only (straight ahead)  on the A316. This includes crossing the A205 and A3006
  2. The A205 heading north goes ahead, left and right. The A316 from Chiswick Bridge turns left to the A205 and A3006
  3. The A316 from Richmond turns right into the A205 and A3006. Cycling and walking cross the eastern side of the A316.
  4. The A3006 (from Mortlake) goes ahead, left and right.
  5. The A205 from Kew goes ahead and left. Cycling and walking cross the western side of the A316.

This design needs us to reallocate space throughout the junction, but provides clear routes for everyone, and makes it safer: It eliminates left and right hook conflicts, but will rquire a proiperly enforced yellow box.

What do you think? Our borough coordinator has uploaded the slides here.