18th June, 2020

Dear Councillor Campbell, dear Elizabeth,

You will no doubt be aware that we have had no choice but to proceed with a Judicial Review of your decision not to re-instate the cycle lanes that you unlawfully removed just weeks into a trial scheduled to last up to 18 months.

Our claim papers were issued in the High Court and served this week.

We take no pleasure whatsoever in being forced into this course of action. Your continued inaction on this matter however leaves no option. The chronology of events is now well known – a safe cycle lane finally installed in the autumn of 2020 after at least a decade of consideration, removed at the beginning of December after just seven weeks. You refused to listen to our pleas to pause and reflect, but rather ripped it out using a “special urgency” procedure rushed through just hours before a full Council meeting.

Because your decision was manifestly unlawful, you responded early in January to our pre-action protocol letter saying that you would revisit this decision in March. We wrote to you on 16th March pointing out the obvious shortcomings of the report you had put together, and your clear intent to kick the issue into the longest grass you could find. As predicted this is what you tried to do at your meeting of 17th March, coming up with a ruse to look at transport patterns of some sort or other after COVID, and after international tourism had returned – which in turn might inform some sort of other study. Understandably this cover story has become the RBKC equivalent of the Barnard Castle eye test.

You didn’t take the trouble to reply to our letter of 16th March and didn’t get in touch with us at any point in the weeks and now months that followed. We wrote to you on 19th May, setting out our willingness to work with you to re-instate the scheme. You didn’t reply to our letter, but your lawyers did spend plenty of time replying to our lawyers.

All of this to say – you have created a legal problem through your action, and are the ones picking a legal battle. Throughout this time, you haven’t done the profoundly obvious things that a Council minded to look at this constructively would do, namely, engage with any or all of Transport for London, the Department for Transport, neighbouring boroughs of Hammersmith and Fulham and City of Westminster who each control parts of this same road, or indeed ourselves.

You will know that your position of attempting to continue to do nothing, with cover stories of varying quality, is untenable. This route is used by thousands of people by bike each day on a road you know to be dangerous and for which you acknowledge there is no practicable alternative. It is a stark gap in a continuous route that would otherwise span almost the entirety of London. The City of Westminster have designs ready for the short section that would continue the route through to Hyde Park, and Hammersmith and Fulham are planning for upgrades of the cycle lanes that are already in place on their section.

Support for safe cycling is growing, not falling. You will have seen recent election results which showed that those trying to politicise opposition to active travel have become less popular. You will be well aware of the vast range of support for safe cycle lanes on High Street Kensington from the NHS, local schools, universities, businesses, trade unions, youth groups and many more.

You will be aware also of the continued evolution of the Department for Transport’s policy in this area, which you are already at odds with.

Other protected cycle lanes you have promised – Queen’s Gate and Chelsea Bridge Road – you have chosen not to build, and of course you will know you have opposed those on Holland Park Avenue and Notting Hill Gate as well as Chelsea Embankment. There remain none on the borough’s over two hundred kilometres of road. No one seriously believes this is a result of some sort of exceptionalism of borough topography, and all can see this is just a bad policy choice which for reasons which are increasingly incomprehensible you are attempting to cling on to.

To quote from our unanswered message of 19th May:
“Although we are deeply disappointed not only at the Council’s actions but also regrettably conduct in the artifice played in this process, we remain as ever prepared to work with you to reinstate this much-needed safety scheme, as well as to develop a meaningful strategy for active travel across the borough, which does not currently exist.”

Yours,
Better Streets for Kensington and Chelsea
www.betterstreets4kc.org.uk

Cc
Sadiq Khan, Mayor of London
Transport for London
Rt Hon Grant Shapps, Secretary of State for Transport
Department for Transport

Better-Streets-4KC-letter-to-RBKC-18-June-2021

19th May, 2021

Dear Councillor Campbell, dear Elizabeth, dear Leadership Team,

Today the Environmental Law Foundation (ELF) have, on our behalf, sent a pre-action protocol letter concerning your decision of 17th March, 2021 not to re-instate the cycle lanes on High Street Kensington.

You will recall that last year you removed a safety scheme after approximately seven weeks of a trial designed to be for up to 18 months, and which had not even been fully built before its removal. This you purportedly decided under a “special urgency” procedure in December, 2020. As this was unlawful, we wrote to you on 23rd December, 2020, with our first pre-action protocol letter.

In response to this, you said you would reconsider the decision to interrupt the trial, and said you would do so on 17th March.

As you know we wrote to you the day before your meeting, setting out very serious and obvious problems with the report you were to consider, and flagging the closed-mind decision path you appeared to be taking.

Our concerns were confirmed at the meeting of 17th March, the conduct and content of which reinforced such issues. As predicted, you elected to try the “kick the can down the longest road we can find” option, presented in your report as Option 3.

Subsequent behaviour only serves to confirm our concerns. While the world outside our borough gets to work on making their streets safer and healthier, we have a gating item of a post-Covid post return of international tourism traffic study, which may enter some sort of urban dictionary as code for continuing to do nothing.

We last spoke in the first week of February – in fact, the only time we have spoken. Neither you nor any other of the leadership team have been in touch with us following your decision not to re-instate the cycle lanes. You are well aware of our central role in this discussion, having brought together support from over 80 highly relevant stakeholders. But so obviously empty is your wish to act that you have not been in contact.

You mentioned, as we predicted, that rather than re-instate a much-needed safety scheme you would look for an “academic partner” for a future study, and that you would ask Imperial College, again as we predicted. This was, and is, a transparent attempt to use a highly regarded organisation as cover for your continued inaction.

You will be aware of their statement of 12th May:

“We continue to support the campaign for a safe cycle route on Kensington High Street. We know that a safe and joined-up cycle route between South Kensington and our west London campuses is critically important to our student and staff community”

You will also be aware that you are doing nothing about this.

You may also have read their research published on 9th April, 2021, that showed (as indeed in the case of High Street Kensington itself) there was no evidence that cycle lanes had worsened traffic congestion in London. But equally, you may well not have read that, as it is not obvious that you have a genuine interest in this topic. For example, we invited you repeatedly to a panel discussion with Imperial College, Imperial Transition to Zero Pollution and ourselves earlier in the year, but never got a reply.

You will further be aware that High Street Kensington continues to be a dangerous gap in London’s infrastructure. Connecting to Hammersmith and Fulham at one end, where the temporary scheme is due to be upgraded, it will then stop abruptly. Thousands, daily, will then move from a safe environment to an unsafe environment. Then, at the Eastern end of the road, they will be able to continue in a safe environment once they exit our borough. This of course applies whether people are transiting through, or starting or ending their journey along this route.

As you also know, there is no safe practicable alternative route. You have not suggested one. Collisions continue to occur both here and on sites such as Holland Park Avenue where you have also blocked safe infrastructure. The promised protected lanes on Queens Gate and Chelsea Bridge Road remain unbuilt, the plans for a protected route on Chelsea Embankment remain pending, the plans for Sloane Street go ahead without consideration for those wishing to travel by bike, and we expect much of the “Quietways” that cover all of 9km of c. 207km of borough road to fail an evaluation under current LCDS and LTN 1/20 standards. It is clear that you have no serious intention regarding provision for those wishing to travel by bike.

In the face of obvious bias, unfair process and inaction on vital safety infrastructure we are left with no option other than to re-commence judicial review proceedings.

The pre-action protocol letter sets out seven grounds of the unlawfulness of your actions. We won’t rehearse them all here. However, it will be obvious that unlawfully interrupting a trial when you did not have the data or evidence to do so does not somehow become lawful with the passing of time, not least because as you had removed it, it was then not possible to collect the data and evidence needed.

Despite all of this, we would be happy to work with you to re-instate the scheme and work with other obvious partners in this such as Transport for London and other stakeholders we have listed before in parallel to evaluate the scheme and consider the appropriate form of a permanent scheme.

Some have said that perhaps only death will cause you to act. But let us look at Notting Hill Gate, a hostile environment for those on foot or bike, and where Eilidh Cairns was tragically killed in 2009. You have also blocked a safe cycle route here.

We can only hope that there will be no more such tragedies before you act.

Yours,

Better Streets for Kensington and Chelsea
www.betterstreets4kc.org.uk

Cc
Sadiq Khan, Mayor of London
Transport for London
Rt Hon Grant Shapps, Secretary of State for Transport
Department for Transport

Better-Streets-to-RBKC-PAP-19-May-2021

16 th March 2021 [LONDON] Following the removal in December of the protected cycle lane on High Street Kensington after only seven weeks, today volunteer group Better Streets for Kensington and Chelsea (Better Streets) has given the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC) a plan for the council to solve their self-inflicted legal problems, start delivering on national policy, show their commitment to being leaders in active travel, and stand by their declaration of climate emergency.

The volunteer group have been helped by the Environmental Law Foundation, whose pre-action protocol letter of 23 rd December set out seven grounds of unlawfulness of RBKC’s decision to rip out the safe protected cycle lane on High Street Kensington. Prior to the lane’s removal, and during its short life, it was the only safe protected cycle lane in the entirety of the borough’s 207km
of road.

At present, despite Government policy set out in its “Gear Change” document and elsewhere, the popularity of the scheme and its critical nature as a strategic route in the development of London’s active transport network, there is now a dangerous gap between RBKC and its neighbouring boroughs. RBKC has resisted the introduction of any safe protected cycle lanes in the borough for many years, always finding reasons why it theoretically supports active travel but why the particular proposal was not appropriate.

On 8 th January, RBKC wrote to Better Streets to say they would “revisit” the decision to remove the lane on 17 th March. With RBKC’s apparent acknowledgement of the unlawfulness of their decision, ELF have written to RBKC to explain the likelihood of judicial review of RBKC making the same decision again.

Better Streets are concerned that RBKC will simply repeat unlawful behaviour. The report published by RBKC in advance of the meeting contains a number of material errors and omissions. Nonetheless, Better Streets hope that RBKC have learned lessons and their proposal will not be ignored or dismissed as it was before, but this time taken seriously as a solution for RBKC to draw a line under their mistakes, and move on together to a greener, healthier, and happier future.

Highlights of the plan include:

• Make a fair – and lawful decision on 17 th March;
• Recognise the mistakes made in 2020, and re-build trust;
• Immediately re-instate the cycle lanes on High Street Kensington to provide a safe mode of transport, in line with government guidance;
• Start plans now with stakeholders for consultation on the permanent solution for safe cycling on this key route; and
• Embrace the vast range of support from organisations across society, and switchgear to start working with our community as a whole to put together what will be RBKC’s first real strategic plan for walking and cycling.

Speaking in advance of RBKC’s meeting, Justin Abbott of Better Streets said, “ Safe cycle lanes on this road are needed, now. High Street Kensington is used by thousands of people by bike every day, it’s dangerous, there isn’t a practical alternative and there is vast support. RBKC could, and should, re-instate them immediately, which they can do at minimal cost. We can then work with them, Transport for London, the Department for Transport and stakeholders across our community and society to analyse the best long-term design of safe cycle lanes and overall street design for pedestrians and all users of this road.”

Better Streets’ letter to RBKC is set out below:

You can download the full pdf here.

Dear Councillor Campbell, dear Elizabeth, dear Leadership Team,

We are writing in advance of your meeting on Wednesday, at which you are due to re-consider the decision taken late in 2020 to remove cycle lanes from High Street Kensington. The Environmental Law Foundation (ELF) was instructed by us to start a judicial review process against this decision, which we believe to be unlawful on seven grounds. You did not contest its unlawfulness, but rather complied with the agreed deadline of 8th January, 2021, and replied to ELF, accompanied by a public statement, saying you would “re-visit” the decision tomorrow.

We have repeatedly questioned why you considered it appropriate to remove a safety scheme under a “Special Urgency” procedure, with contractors in place allegedly within hours of a decision rushed in before a council meeting, and yet you felt you needed over two months to reconsider (throughout which the safety scheme was not in place on this dangerous road, and during a period in which the Government is explicitly asking people to travel by bike if possible).

In any event, we find ourselves the day before your meeting to re-visit. We are worried. We contacted you repeatedly in advance of the lanes’ removal, and asked you to pause and reflect. These calls were unanswered; as were letters from major local institutions. Our initial judicial review pre-action protocol was dismissed using terminology of “threats” and “bullies”. But we were simply right; your decision was unlawful.

Having been treated this way before, we are of course cautious as to what to expect. Our caution is heightened at reading the report you have prepared for this meeting. It has an extensive list of shortcomings we describe later, some of which are extremely worrying.

But we have consistently offered solutions, and we do so again, now with a five-step plan that will re-build trust in you, allow you to engage with stakeholders across our community and society, make the first step to implementing government policy for safe travel by bike, and show that your claims of aspiring to be leaders in active travel and declaration of climate emergency have substance.

We have copied:

• The Department for Transport, and Secretary of State for Transport , given the direct contradiction to their policy of the lane’s removal, use of public money allocated by them, concerns we expect them to have should you continue to fail to comply with your obligations such as your Network Management Duty, as well as the support of a wide range of the country’s experts in sustainable transport;
• The Department for Health, and Secretary of State for Health , given the support for safe cycling lanes on this route from the major NHS groups in the area, namely Imperial Healthcare NHS Trust, Chelsea and Westminster Hospital Foundation Trust, together responsible for seven hospitals used by local residents, and the NHS West London Clinical Commissioning Group, among others;
• The Department of Education, and the Secretary of the State for Education , given the support for safe cycle lanes on this route from Imperial College, a world leading university with in excess of 23,000 staff and students whose campuses straddle this road, The Royal College of Music, itself directly located on the route with a student and staff body of some 1,000, and some seventeen schools both primary and secondary, covering many thousands of staff and students;
• The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, and the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy , given on the one hand in respect of climate change the support from organisations such as Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, Client Earth and the Environmental Defense Fund, in addition to the global expertise in the environment of Imperial College, and in respect of business the support of the Waitrose and Peter Jones, respectively among the largest retailers on the high street and in the borough, and Kensington and Chelsea UNISON, the largest trade union covering public service employees in the area

We have additionally copied the Transport Select Committee, the All Party Parliamentary Group for Cycling & Walking, Transport for London, and the Mayor of London.

We hope our input will not again be ignored or dismissed.

Step 1: Make a fair – and lawful – decision on March 17th

Scarred by the well-documented unlawful behaviour late last year, and the approach taken at the time towards us, we are cautious. We worry you will simply attempt to re-make the same unlawful decision, but try different paperwork to justify it.

The report published adds to our concerns, for a number of reasons.

Framing of the question

Paragraph 1.6 of your report says, “the decision faced now is whether to introduce a temporary cycle lane in Kensington High Street as we begin to come out of the third lockdown, over the next few months”.

Of course, you should be considering introducing safe infrastructure for cycling frequently. On this occasion however, your decision is also specifically to re-visit the unlawful decision to remove the scheme that was in place before you took it out after just seven weeks. Can you decide, now, lawfully to remove the scheme, rather than to continue its trial period? If not, the trial period must be allowed to continue.

Framing of the options

Four options are presented. They are poorly constructed and misleading.

Option 1, re-instatement of the lane, has one paragraph to describe it, which it dedicates to the purpose of monitoring data. It does not mention that the purpose of the cycle lane is, of course, to have a cycle lane with the benefits that they bring. Data is a product of this, to inform possible amendments over time, not the goal in itself. Even regarding data, it cautions that data would not be conclusive given lockdowns, as though this would be a reason not to put the lanes in. It does not mention, for example, the initially intended period of up to 18 months, over 16 of which remain unexpired; it does not mention the continuation of guidance to cycle specifically during these periods.

Option 2 is of course not in line with any form of good practice, and so we can reasonably regard this as “filler”, even though each option is described as “feasible… sufficient evidence rationally to justify them”. We expect you to have consulted thoroughly with the Department for Transport and Transport for London in the months you have had to compile this report on any such design aspect, given as you are aware the accepted design standards held by each, and for the terms “feasible” and “justified rationally” to comply with such standards and their advice, which in the case of Options 2, 3 and 4 does not appear to be the case.

Option 3 is the “kick the can down the longest road we can find.” The first part of this option is to not re-instate the lanes now. Very obviously, there is no reason whatsoever that the temporary scheme cannot be re-instated while longer term considerations take place – indeed, that is the obvious thing to do, which we have consistently advocated. We are extremely concerned that the option has been misleadingly framed in this way.

Within the text, the phrasing is so deliberate as to giving a path to delay. “Develop plans to commission research” – presumably to allow some two-phase approach to have a plan to commission, and then a new phase actually to commission. This research apparently could not begin until the summer, and “lead to a feasibility study in the longer term”.

No reference is made to working with obvious partners Transport for London or the Department for Transport who have the expertise, funding and no doubt already most if not all of the research required. Let us not forget that plans for a protected cycle lane on High Street Kensington have been being drawn up for over a decade, that it is in the top 5% of strategic cycle routes for London, and a few months ago you had a scheme in place, happily used by thousands daily, and supported by a vast range of stakeholders from major high street retailers through to the NHS, schools, universities and more.

This alleged “option” is so transparent in its wish to do nothing and delay that it would almost be humorous if it did not put at risk vitally needed safety infrastructure on a road that will present unnecessary dangers to those travelling on it today, and put off many others from even trying.

Option 4 appears to be so simple (do nothing) that it could not be misleading. But it is. Traffic, as you know, under your Network Management Duty, specifically includes those on bikes. The term “general traffic” presumably is intended to refer to motorised vehicles only. In our contention, on a number of grounds, this would also not be “feasible… sufficient evidence rationally to justify them”, but rather, unlawful.

Material omissions

Having spent a great deal of time engaging with our community, and ensuring its voice is conveyed to you, we are amazed at some of the omissions from your report.

We wrote to you on 8 th February in respect of Imperial Health NHS Trust, and forwarded a message from them for your records. We understand they had also written to you directly, although unanswered. As you know this NHS trust is one of the largest in the country, and operates five hospitals used by RBKC residents. It is not mentioned in your report.

RBKC Youth Council is equally astonishing in its omission; their statement is publicly available, and has been for months, and we wrote to you on again 12 th February with that statement, confirming their support, and giving you information on the survey they conducted which showed 99% of young people were in support. We understand a promised meeting with them did not take place, and you have also simply ignored them in this report.

We are puzzled also by the exclusion of support from the Royal College of Music. As you know, this sits directly on the lane as it continues into Westminster, and with approximately 1,000 staff and students is clearly a very relevant stakeholder. We wrote to you also on 12 th February setting out their position, and specifically asking you to let us (or them, we provided contact details) know if you had any questions about this.

You have added an email we wrote to you on 19 th February as one of your appendices. In that email you will see the support note from Ellis Brigham, a retailer on High Street Kensington, together with contact details. They are however missing from your table on page 12.

Seventeen schools have confirmed their support for safe cycle lanes on this route, counting those that have confirmed to us and others featured in your report. Your report however totals 12. Among those missing is Snowflake School for Children with Autism. We forwarded to you on 5th February a letter from its founder. As one of the great assets to our borough we are astonished at its exclusion from your report – as well as the other missing schools.

In your paragraph 6.22 you refer to us sending support from 48 “organisations and businesses not represented elsewhere in this report”. We do not know the basis on which they have been considered not relevant for your consideration. Although we have sent you this information, both in a series of messages grouped under a number of headings, and then with a further message grouping all together, given that they have been excluded from the report for reasons unknown, the list is below.

Where marked with an asterisk, these are organisations whose support does not feature on our infographic on our website, but who have stated support either publicly or privately (but referred to in your report):

Schools and Universities

• Imperial College Imperial College Union
• Ashburnham Community Primary School
• Kensington Park School
• St Paul’s Girls’ School
• Avondale Park Primary School
• Avonmore Primary School
• Bevington Primary School
• Thomas Jones Primary School
• West London Free School
• The Harrodian School
• Fox Primary School
• St Barnabas and St Philip’s
• Kensington Primary Academy
• Collingham College
• Snowflake School
• Notting Hill Preparatory School*
• Colville and Marlborough Primary Schools*
• The Godolpin and Latymer School*

NHS and Health Providers

• Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust
  • Charing Cross Hospital
  • Queen Charlotte’s & Chelsea Hospital
  • Hammersmith Hospital
  • St Mary’s Hospital
  • Western Eye Hospital
• Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
• Prescription for Safe Cycling
• Specs of Kensington
• Pan-London NHS Bicycle User Group (representing in turn 17 NHS Bicycle UserGroups)
• Physio Motion
• West London Clinical Commissioning Group*
• Letter from 120 doctors*

Iconic Institutions

• The Design Museum*
• The Royal Albert Hall
• The Royal College of Music
• The Royal Geographical Society*

Sustainable Transport

• Lime
• Pedalme
• Brompton

Children, Young People and Community

• RBKC Youth Council
• Amplify Studios
• London Play
• Little House of Science
• Bay 20
• Playing Out
• RBKC Youth Council Survey (99% in support)

Businesses

• Waitrose
• Peter Jones
• Decathlon
• Ellis Brigham
• Arts Alliance
• Cycle Care Kensington
• Kensington and Chelsea UNISON

Road Danger

• The Road Safety Trust
• Road Danger Reduction Forum
• Road Peace
• Action Vision Zero

National Bodies

• Sustrans
• British Cycling
• Cycling UK

Clean Air and Environment

• Environmental Defense Fund
• Friends of the Earth
• Global Action Plan
• Greenpeace
• Client Earth
• CPRE London
• Clean Air UK
• Mums for Lungs

Healthy Streets and Transport Experts

• Transport for London*
• Healthy Streets Scorecard
• Wheels for Wellbeing
• Foundation for Integrated Transport
• Urban Movement
• Campaign for Better Transport
• The Bikeability Trust
• London Car Free Day
• Bike is Best
• Future Transport London
• We Are Possible
• London Cycling Campaign
• JoyRiders London

We find it astonishing that so many of these organisations should be considered not worthy of inclusion in the report. Merely as examples:

• RBKC has declared a climate emergency. The support of such globally recognised environmental experts as Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, Client Earth and the Environmental Defense Fund is considered not worthy even of a sentence. The views of Imperial College, which has world-leading centres of environmental expertise on your doorstep, are not mentioned
• RBKC aspires to be a leader in active travel, or at least this is the claim that currently looks vanishingly thin. The support of London Living Streets, the Campaign for Better Transport, the Bikeability Trust, Wheels for Wellbeing and the Healthy Streets Scorecard among many others is deemed not worthy of mention
• RBKC has a serious problem with road safety, as does this road in particular. Again, the report sees no apparent need to mention support of the Road Safety Trust or RoadPeace among others

There are many more cases – the impression is of a total indifference and disinterest to knowledge and expertise.

Biased approach to evidence and discussion

What has been omitted is even more astonishing when one considers the content. The report finds space to pass on the comment that there were complaints that people using bikes do not pay road tax. Of course, no-one pays road tax, it doesn’t exist. Roads are paid by general taxation (so you pay regardless of whether you have a car), and the emissions based vehicle tax is what is presumably being referred to. Repeating incorrect information without pointing out its error does not seem appropriate for such a report, and neither does finding space for this but making the omissions to which we have referred.

Contrast this approach to, for example, 6.54, in which the report purports to discuss air quality and climate, correctly, it states that air quality and climate change benefits come from switching from car to cycle. This assertion is however one that your report does see fit to question, stating that if congestion worsens, the reverse could happen. It leaves an implication that putting in a cycle lane is a 50:50 decision with regard to air quality and the environment.

As previously noted, no mention is made in the report of any of the environmental or transport experts who support the lanes. We are left with a sort of “man on the street” punditry. Clearly, as is well evidenced across the world, building a usable network for cycling is critical to enable modal shift.

Let us return to para 6.21, and Figure 2 which follows. In essence this appears to be constructed so as to engineer a way in which “local” opposition can be seen to be outweighing “local” support, in what one might imagine is being developed as a theme for you to attempt not to reinstate the lanes.

There are a number of very serious issues with this – the following is a non-exhaustive list:

• Omissions. We have mentioned above the extraordinary omissions the report makes
• Inclusions
  • You have included the Kensington Business Forum as ‘opposed’, but they don’t oppose it. Indeed, key members such as Peter Jones, Waitrose and the Design Museum support cycle lanes on this road
  • You have included a category of “MP’s” as being a business or organisation. This is simply odd. But in a similar vein you choose not to include for example the Mayor of London as in support, nor the Kensington and Chelsea Constituency Labour Party
• Incorrect introductory sentence
  • The introductory sentence says “It is important to note that organisations – particularly residents’ associations [our italics] – may represent many individual people”
  • Imperial College, and Imperial College Union, collectively represent over 23,000 staff and students, probably a larger number than the entirety represented in the “oppose” column. Perhaps you should do similar maths for the NHS, 17 schools, the Royal College of Music and so on.
  • You will be aware also of the support of Kensington and Chelsea UNISON. Again, are they less in number than any of the organisations listed on the opposed column?
• What is local, and what is regional
  • Your categorisation appears driven to allow some sort of metric to show opposition is greater than support. The Royal Albert Hall and Royal Geographical Society are categorised as “regional” and not “local”. They are literally on the cycle lane, merely 100 metres further along as it will continue through Westminster to Hyde Park and beyond. Their connection to this topic could not be more direct, as would be the case for the Royal College of Music, had you not chosen to omit them from the report. The Knightsbridge Association, listed as “oppose” is considered however to be “local”, despite it covering the same area (but mostly further from the road)
• Governance and representation. The position of opposition of the residents’ associations listed is not questioned. You are in receipt of messages from members of a number of those groups pointing to the lack of consultation they had had as members relating to such positions, and their disagreement with it. You do not appear concerned by this.

Discussion of comments received by the Council

Paragraphs 6.4 et seq contain commentary regarding emails and petitions. In para 6.4, it is stated that only 15% of the over 5,000 emails received through the London Cycling Campaign were from residents or people who visit the borough. We have explained to you the postcode breakdown of these emails, and offered, within the parameters allowable under GDPR to provide you further information. You have chosen not to report that of these over 5,000 emails, approximately 3,700 have London or immediate surroundings (eg Twickenham, noting that High Street Kensington is a key route used by many travelling to and from there) postcodes. These emails are not included in your table, apparently as you are not able to verify that they came from different email accounts. But you didn’t contact either us or LCC to see if such data could be obtained or verified.

There follows an analysis of other emails which we can imagine took up a great deal of officer time. As this was not at any point set up as an email contest, and no corresponding rules of engagement established, whether for qualification, timetable and so forth, the relevance of this should be cautioned accordingly. For example, it may well be that the entirety of “other” in your timetable are in fact residents.

But we should also reflect on the distinction you make between “resident” and “visitor”, as it appears you have decided to make this distinction for a reason, and you have previously made comments that you consider it appropriate to treat these categories differently.

We would like to understand what you consider to be the legal, moral or practical basis for making such a distinction.

The roads of RBKC are used regardless of home address. This applies to those on foot, bicycle, or motor vehicle. Do you know the proportion of motor vehicles that cause the congestion on High Street Kensington belong to residents, or those outside the borough?

You will be aware of the geography of our borough. It is neither hermetically sealed from the outside world, nor is it surrounded by uninhabited wilderness on every boundary. It is a long, and thin, slice of inner London. High Street Kensington covers approximately one mile, connecting to the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham to the West, and to the City of Westminster to the East.

At Queen’s Gate, a road on which you promised but reneged on the promise to install a cycle lane, those who are RBKC residents reside on one side of the road, and by crossing the road to the East they move to the City of Westminster. Westminster residents here would live within a few steps of the road – yet as with the Royal Albert Hall or Royal Geographical Society (or indeed the Royal College of Music, had you not omitted them for no apparent reason) would be classed as “regional” rather than “local”. Of course the practical examples are many, as it is entirely possible for a resident of a different borough to live closer to, and be more impacted by, High Street Kensington than many residents of RBKC. Even those living a further distance have no reason for disqualification. A nurse living in North or East London, travelling to work at Charing Cross hospital, none of which in RBKC, but quite possibly to care for RBKC residents, may well need this road for travel. You will have seen countless messages from users in a similar vein.

This is why it is not surprising that your Network Management Duty draws no distinction in the address of road users to whom you owe your duty – fortunately indeed for RBKC residents who will venture out of the boundaries of their own borough.

But back to the views of residents. The survey of residents conducted by ICM is included in a section entitled “TfL’s position”, as though this is merely the position of one stakeholder. It is in fact the only professionally conducted independent survey of residents which you have, and you have been supplied with both the full survey results and survey script. It shows a strong majority in support.

Views of the Department for Transport

We note the absence of the views of the Department for Transport. We know they are very familiar with this scheme, and it is not reasonable to think they do not have a view, and in the substantial amount of time that you have had to compile this report it would seem highly unlikely that you have not had the time to ask their view.

Views of neighbouring boroughs

We note also the absence of the views of neighbouring boroughs, with whom you have a duty to consult. To the West, Hammersmith and Fulham has in place a cycle lane on this route, to which this would connect, and is assessing plans for enhancements to it, rather than its removal. To the East, the City of Westminster has plans approved by Transport for London for the short section that would connect on to Hyde Park. We understand that you have not consulted with LBHF, and that the correspondence we have relating to your discussions with Westminster does not refer to removal of the scheme.

Impact on business

A section of report (paragraphs 7.55 to 7.59) purports to cover “impact on local businesses”. The section as a whole is unbalanced, unevidenced and misleading.

Of the four paragraphs, one is dedicated to the unevidenced views of the Chair of the KCC, who appears to manage an accounting firm based outside the borough.

No mention however is made of (as examples) (1) Waitrose, who wrote to you on 5 th March with their support and views (they have not published the letter, but we can confirm it states inter alia their support and that the lanes did not cause operational difficulties); (2) Boots, whose letter you do however have in an appendix, but do not refer to in the body of the report, which says thelanes caused “no discernible detrimental impact”; or (3) Peter Jones, who wrote to you on 3rd March, also in support. Peter Jones is perhaps the most recognised retailer in the entire borough. All three are members of the Kensington Business Forum which your report erroneously claims is opposed.

Conclusion

Our observations regarding the reports’ shortcomings should not be considered as an exhaustive statement of our views.

Despite the shortcomings, and the extremely alarming apparent tactical approach, the report even as it stands cannot be said to amount to reason not to continue with the trial scheme. It

confirms increased usage, it does not show air quality problems, it does not prove congestion problems, it confirms strategic need, it confirms the financially more attractive option of re-instatement, it provides no practicable alternative for what it accepts is a dangerous road, and even the edited list of support shows how extensive support is.

Therefore, we urge you to take Step 1, that is a fair and lawful decision which can only be to re-instate the lanes as set out below.

Step 2: Recognise the mistakes made in 2020, and re-build trust

Your decision to remove the lanes late in 2020 was unlawful. The approach used was not fitting for a local authority, whether at the time or in the aftermath, and has seriously eroded trust. Despite the obvious concerns we have given the issues relating to the report, it is time to recognise mistakes, and take the opportunity for a fresh start, showing the leadership required of you to deliver on your stated aims to be leaders in active travel.

If you show this leadership, we are sure you will have all the support you need to make the changes our borough needs.

Step 3: Immediately re-instate the cycle lanes on High Street Kensington to provide a safe mode of transport, in line with government guidance

As you know, the lanes were removed within hours of the alleged decision to remove them, the decision having been taken under “special urgency”, and contractors apparently available on exceptionally short notice.

We expect at a minimum a similar level of urgency to the re-instatement of the lanes. We expect therefore you to have briefed contractors to be ready in advance of your meeting.

We asked in the duty of candour information request, to which you still have not provided information some two and half months later, about details referring to the whereabouts of the wands that were removed and so forth.

We are glad to see that the removed wands can indeed be re-used, and that the report notes it is likely that TfL will fund the costs incurred to date, meaning re-instatement is the best option financially. In passing we note that you have over 500 unused wands in storage, and the report opens the question about selling these. Strangely, it does not seem to contemplate whether you may wish to have other cycle lanes in the borough, for example the other two promised but never done. This does not suggest an open mind as to cycle lanes.

Step 4: Start now plans with Transport for London, the Department for Transport and other stakeholders for consultation on the permanent solution for safe cycling on this key transport route

We mentioned earlier our surprise that neither Transport for London nor the Department for Transport are mentioned in your Option 3. Clearly, they, and neighbouring boroughs

Hammersmith and Fulham and Westminster to which the cycle route will connect, are a key part of discussions for the permanent scheme, both for common sense and legal reasons.

There is no reason whatsoever why a working group of those parties and other relevant stakeholders cannot be established now, with plans drawn up in the coming months for a permanent scheme, which of course would be subject to consultation.

Step 5: Embrace the vast range of support from organisations across society, and switch gear to start working with our community as a whole to put together what will be RBKC’s first real strategic plan for walking and cycling

This episode has brought to the surface the vast desire for change. Rather than continuing to fight this, it is time that you changed tack, and embraced the future that is being delivered across London and countless cities across the rest of the world.

The report contains a summary of your approach to date to cycling infrastructure in the borough, and in particular a goal of having “cycle ways” within 400m of people in the future.

As a strategy, this is so empty as to be meaningless. The “quietways” in RBKC cover approximately 9km of the 207km of road. Most are not suitable for many potential users, such as younger people or others more vulnerable or less confident, and some are simply unsuitable for anyone, and would fail much of the current quality criteria of the Department for Transport and Transport for London. Even if they were upgraded, they would cover a miniscule fraction of the likely journeys people want to make within, through, and in and out of the borough. Occasionally we hear claims they are “popular”. This has never been quantified through usage figures, evidence of modal shift and so on – unlike on High Street Kensington, where numbers were monitored, it was proved to be popular, and you took it out.

Rather than drawing meaningless bubbles on a map that translates into precious little practical use, it is time for you to get serious on this topic, and plan a network that enables walking and cycling across the borough, as a genuine alternative to cars. We know that support is there for you, from the Department for Transport and Transport for London, and many other expert sources.

There is enormous appetite for this across our community and society. It is time for you to embrace it.

We look forward to being able to travel by bike safely on High Street Kensington again in the coming days.

Yours,

Better Streets for Kensington and Chelsea

• Independent research finds majority of residents in Kensington and Chelsea support a protected cycle lane on Kensington High Street, with 56 per cent backing the idea and just 30 per cent against
• Collision data shows the street is one of the worst casualty hotspots for cycling in Kensington and Chelsea and changes are needed to reduce road danger  
• Route was used by 3,000 people a day and Santander Cycles hires significantly increased when the lanes were in place 
• Follows support for safe cycle lanes on this road from over seventy organisations including Imperial College London, Chelsea and Westminster NHS Trust, local schools and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Youth Council

The Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, is calling on the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC) to reinstate protected cycle lanes on Kensington High Street after independent research found a clear majority of local residents support them. RBKC removed the cycle lanes last year just seven weeks after building them. The council are set to revisit the decision at a meeting in two weeks’ time, on March 17.

The survey, by ICM Unlimited, asked a representative sample of 1,000 RBKC residents about their attitudes towards protected cycle lanes. 56 per cent of respondents supported the cycle lanes, with just 30 per cent against.

Collision data shows that the road is one of the borough’s worst casualty hotspots for cycling, with 15 people killed or seriously injured while walking or cycling over the past three years. This represents the highest casualty rate for people cycling of all main roads in the borough and is significantly above the Greater London average. The cycle lanes, now shown to be supported by the borough’s own residents, would dramatically reduce road danger on this street.

Walking and cycling have been hugely important for many Londoners during the pandemic. Over the summer, nearly half of all journeys in London were walked or cycled. TfL has been working closely with London boroughs to provide alternatives to using public transport whilst capacity is limited by social distancing, building 100km of new cycle lanes since the start of the pandemic. 

More than 3,000 people each day, of all ages, used the protected cycle lane on Kensington High Street while it was in place. Data from Santander Cycles shows a significant increase in hires at docking stations close to the route when it was in. Hires at the five closest docking stations were up by 14 per cent in October, compared to a decrease of 0.5 per cent across the wider network.

TfL data shows that the trial cycle lanes did not lead to an increase in bus journeys times. Pre-pandemic, average bus journey times on Kensington High Street were just over 5 minutes per km. In the two weeks prior to the removal of the cycle tracks, the journey times for buses were lower than the same period in 2019, at 4.75 minutes per km.

Imperial College London and Imperial College Union – whose 23,000 person campuses straddle the route – have voiced support for safe cycle lanes on this route, along with many local schools. Other local institutions supporting safe cycle lanes on this route include Imperial Health NHS Trust as well as Chelsea and Westminster NHS Trust, iconic venues bordering the route, as well as national groups representing road safety, sustainable transport and the environment.

TfL research shows people who walk, cycle or use public transport to visit their local high street do so more frequently, and spend up to 40 per cent more than those who travel by car.

Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, said: “The ripping out of the new cycle lanes last year was not just an unacceptable waste of money, but went against what everyone could see: that the safe space for cycling on Kensington High Street was working. Cycling numbers were up, bus journey times down, yet the Council were swayed by a few loud voices committed to the status quo.

“I admire RBKC’s commitment to putting their residents first. What this poll shows is that their residents want to be able to cycle along Kensington High Street and other main roads across the borough. I urge the Council to make the right decision and work with TfL to reinstate the cycle lanes.”

Justin Abbott, Chair of local volunteer group Better Streets for Kensington and Chelsea, said: “Some inaccurate claims were made when the safe cycle lanes were removed, and we would like to thank TfL for commissioning professional research. The results show that, despite having had only the briefest of glimpses of the benefits of enabling people to travel safely by bike, residents already support changes that will make our borough greener, safer, healthier and happier.

“The findings are in line with our own research which has shown an extraordinary level of support for safe cycling lanes on this vital route from thousands of individuals and over seventy organisations – including the two major NHS Trusts that serve our residents and over a dozen local schools.  They are concerned not only for the benefits to us all that active travel brings, but also for the wellbeing of their key worker staff, many of whom may not happen to live in the borough but must travel on our roads to educate and care for us.”

Professor Neil Alford, Associate Provost (Academic Planning) at Imperial College London, said: “At Imperial, we have a strong focus on active and sustainable travel and continue to encourage our community to cycle or walk to campus where possible. Many of our students and staff used the Kensington High Street cycle lane daily prior to its removal, valuing it as a safe and protected route between our South Kensington and White City campuses, in the absence of a joined-up safe cycle route from west to central London. It is fantastic to hear that a majority of local residents support a protected cycle route and Imperial would welcome the opportunity to work with RBKC to reinstate a trial cycle lane.”

Reinstating the trial Cycleway would also be a significant boost to west London’s growing cycle network, closing a key “missing link” that would connect Brentford to Barking via a continuous, largely protected Cycleway.  Cycleway 9, which TfL is building in partnership with Hounslow and Hammersmith & Fulham Councils, currently ends at the RBKC borough boundary at Olympia. TfL also recently approved City of Westminster plans for a protected cycle link between Cycleway 3 at Hyde Park to Kensington Gore, ending at the RBKC borough boundary at Queens Gate. No alternative alignments or corridors to Kensington High Street exist that would fill this gap in a direct and attractive manner.

The TfL survey also found:

• 70 per cent of residents support safer cycle routes in the borough, compared to only 14 per cent of residents who oppose them   
• A majority (59 per cent) support the council introducing protected cycle lanes on main roads. Less than a third (28 per cent) of people questioned in the survey opposed the idea   

18^th January 2021 [LONDON] Today the Environmental Law Foundation (ELF) has written to the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC) on behalf of its client, Better Streets for Kensington and Chelsea (Better Streets). The letter is a further pre-action protocol letter, following an earlier letter of 23^rd December, and is a response to RBKC’s letter to ELF of 8^th January. The correspondence is available on Better Streets’ website.

ELF’s pre-action letter of 23^rd December set out seven grounds of unlawfulness of RBKC’s decision to rip out the safe protected cycle lane on High Street Kensington. Prior to its removal, and during its short life of approximately seven weeks, it was the only safe protected cycle lane in the entirety of the borough’s 207km of road. At present, and despite Government policy set out in its “Gear Change” document and elsewhere, the popularity of the scheme during its short life, and its criticality as a strategic route in the development of London’s active transport network, there is now a dangerous gap occupied by RBKC between its neighbouring boroughs.

RBKC has resisted the introduction of any safe protected cycle lanes in the borough for many years, always finding one reason or another why it theoretically supports active travel but why the particular proposal was not appropriate.

The cycle lane on High Street Kensington was put in place in the first two weeks of October 2020 and removed in the first week of December 2020. Costs of its implementation are estimated at £320,000, and costs of removal at £30,000.  Despite the limited data available showing the scheme’s success, and the trial so incomplete that a crucial phase of its construction had not even begun, the lanes were ripped out, wasting some £350,000 of public money in the process.

Emma Montlake of ELF commented, “This is an example of what happens when a local authority goes about decision making incorrectly, to the detriment of the wider public interest. With the trial interrupted, and with the limited available data at the time in support of keeping the protected cycle lane, it would be impossible for them now not to conclude that the scheme must be put back in place and the trial completed.  We have set out very clearly the steps that need to be taken and the inevitability of a challenge to a decision not to reinstate the lanes.”

While Better Streets welcome RBKC’s apparent acknowledgement of the unlawfulness of their decision, they remain deeply concerned at RBKC’s approach to active travel. Justin Abbott of Better Streets said, “While we welcome RBKC’s apparent recognition of the unlawfulness of their decision, they fail to make the obvious and requested step of undoing that decision and reinstating the lane immediately, and say they need over two months to reconsider – two months during which this dangerous route will have no safe alternative, at a time the Government is telling us to avoid public transport and cycle if possible.  Meanwhile, they claim to have decided to remove it under a special urgency procedure rushed in two hours before a Council meeting. How on earth could it be more urgent to take out safety infrastructure than to put it back in?”.

Better-Streets-15.01.21

Better-Streets-PAP-23.12.20-

ABOUT ELF 

The Environmental Law Foundation (ELF) is a charity registered in England and Wales no. 1045918 and company no. 02485383. Our current President is HRH The Prince of Wales. The charity was founded in 1992 and recently celebrated its 25th Anniversary. We help the voice of ordinary people and communities to be heard on matters affecting the environment in which they live. 

It’s about grassroots participation and access to environmental justice. It’s about your views and feelings – not ours or any ‘green elite’ – on the quality of the air you breathe, on the open spaces, wildlife, land use and waterways near your home. It’s about promoting the collective, good decision-making which is at the very heart of civilised, democratic and stable societies.

We do this by providing free information and guidance in-house on environmental issues for individuals and communities,  also through our university based law clinics, and via our network of specialist environmental lawyers and technical experts.

Website: www.elflaw.org

Twitter: https://twitter.com/ELF_Law

ABOUT Better Streets for Kensington and Chelsea

We’re a group of local volunteers united by a common wish to make our streets safer, healthier and happier, now and for future generations. Across the borough, from North Kensington to Chelsea to Earl’s Court to South Kensington or Notting Hill we bring people together, whether parents with young families, wanting to be able to walk, scoot or cycle safely to school with their children, students getting to lectures, business people getting to meetings, people shopping locally rather than at superstores, enjoying some clean air and exercise, we have a broad group of all ages.

Website: www.betterstreets4kc.org.uk Twitter: https://twitter.com/betterstreetskc

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/betterstreets4kc

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/betterstreets4kc

MEDIA ENQUIRIES

For all enquiries, including interview requests and hi-res images, please contact:

Hannah Kapff Hannah@CuriousPR.com M: +44 (0)7747 794306 or T: +44 (0)20 3397 9111 – or 

Jess Purdie Jess@CuriousPR.com M: +44 (0)7435 968851 or T: +44 (0)20 3397 9111 

The Letter

2 December 2020

Dear Cllr Campbell,

I hope this finds you well.

I am writing to express Imperial College Union’s support for the segregated cycle scheme along Kensington High Street.

At Imperial College Union, we have a strong focus on sustainability and active travel and continue to encourage our community to cycle or walk to campus where possible. It follows that many of our students have used the Kensington High Street cycle scheme daily since its instalment, valuing it as a safe and protected route between our South Kensington and White City campuses. There are also a considerable number of students who commute from west London along High Street Kensington daily. Added on to this there are thousands of students who are resident in RBKC and are advocates for a safer and cleaner city.

In recent days I have spoken with Imperial College, alongside the College’s Active Travel Group and Bike Users Group, all of whom have expressed overwhelmingly positive feedback and support for the scheme. Discussions with College also led us to believe that there was a shared enthusiasm with RBKC for safer cycling routes and active travel interventions across the borough.

Given this, we are increasingly disturbed and troubled by the action of the council to remove the scheme, with works starting earlier this week.

There has been a complete lack of engagement from the Council with our students who commute through, live and study here and the wider Imperial Community, and whilst I fully appreciate the sensitivity and complexities of the issue, we are totally disappointed with the Council’s actions.

The students of Imperial and I feel strongly that this decision to remove the scheme is immediately stopped, subject to further review of the evidence, and after adequate time has passed to enable further consultation with College and our community.

In my view, the Government’s current lockdown restrictions, alongside the roadworks which began in October, have inevitably made it difficult to judge the true impact of the scheme.
I would very much welcome the opportunity to speak further on this matter, so please do let me know if there would be a convenient time to discuss.

With best wishes,

Ross Unwin
Deputy President (Clubs & Societies)
Imperial College Union

The RBKC Youth Council Statement:

The RBKC Youth Council, which has made cycling in the borough an item on its agenda, was extremely disappointed to hear that the KHS Cycle lane was being ripped shortly after its construction.

The Youth Council strongly condemns this decision as safe cycling brings many benefits to the young members living in our borough. From cycling to school, college, shops and fitness centres, having a cycling lane ensures that our lives are not in danger and that we can continue having the incentive to use healthy and environmentally friendly ways of transport.

The decision to remove such lanes, made by the RBKC Council, increases the cost of being unsafe in our risk/benefit analysis and therefore might result in many of our young friends choosing not to cycle which would have fundamental implications over their physical health and mental health.

This decision is not a one-off policy, but a choice that will have significant consequences over many aspects of the young people in our borough.

We call on the RBKC Council and councillors to oppose such a decision and continue working on ensuring not only that we follow our commitment for environmental protection, but by making sure that members of our community are safe and protect in their everyday life.

2nd December 2020 [LONDON] Local volunteer group, Better Streets for Kensington and Chelsea (Better Streets), has asked the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC) to pause and reflect before rushing to rip out the safety scheme in place on High Street Kensington. It writes as follows.

Dear Councillor Elizabeth Campbell, dear Councillor Johnny Thalassites,

We are writing to ask you to pause and reflect, and to stop your planned works to remove the borough’s only protected cycle lane this evening, precisely on the day across London we are instructed by the Government to travel by bike if possible.

As you know we have sought to work with you in collaboration over the last 18 months, following your blocking of the proposed safety scheme between Shepherds Bush and Notting Hill Gate. Over the summer, as we joined you in assessing designs for the cycle lane that is now in place on High Street Kensington, we truly believed that RBKC had begun a new chapter, ready to move up from the bottom of the Healthy Streets Scorecard inner London league table, and begin to address with seriousness the need for proper provision for those who wish to, or indeed must, cycle in the borough.

The events of the last seven days have made us and many others question whether this is the case. You will be aware of the real dangers of travelling as a pedestrian or by bike in RBKC. In 2018 there were 126 Killed or Seriously Injured (KSI), an increase from 116 in 2017. TfL data shows specifically on High Street Kensington 15 KSIs in the last three years; statistically it is a much more dangerous road than the London average. There is no alternative route for those needing and/or wanting to make this journey, and you have not proposed one.
In this context it seems unimaginable that a promised trial safety scheme would be ripped out before its construction had even been completed. And yet this appears to be what you propose to do.

It is even more staggering given that according to your own data the scheme is working very well. Cycling usage, a key objective, has increased tremendously to an estimated 4,000 daily users. The impact on traffic has been minimal, with your data showing no material change in average journey times (neither materially slower nor faster, but examples of small changes both slower and faster). This is confirmed by TfL bus journey times, which appear broadly stable now when compared to this time last year.
We have not been presented with any evidence to the contrary. The defence of its proposed removal put forward by RBKC, Tony Devenish and Felicity Buchan appears to be based on a number of elements whose credibility is coming under increased scrutiny.

We are told that businesses have asked you to remove it. Yet the Kensington Business Forum has had to issue a statement that that is not the case, and that it is not against cycle lanes. Michael Stone of the Kensington and Chelsea Chamber of Commerce you have quoted in objection it would appear however is indeed opposed, but we note is the owner of a firm of accountants that is not even located in the borough.

As for retailers, unfortunately for much of the very short trial period, many have been forced to close their doors, and so impact on footfall is impossible to calculate. But for those who are open it appears they may not even have been asked their opinion; certainly those we have visited in the past few days have been supportive of the cycle lane and staff were quite unaware of its possible removal.

As for residents, we note in the very recent Kensington Society newsletter their view that it would be quite wrong to condemn the scheme after only a few weeks and not unreasonably suggested that a review of its future should be based on evidence. We shall come back to resident views later in this letter.
Part of the alleged local groundswell against the scheme includes a petition where the location of some of its contributors has been revealed to feature those based in Cairo, Caracas, Florida and Lagos among others.

Against this increasingly questioned basis for its removal – and remembering that you do not pretend that the actual evidence supports its removal – we should contrast the support for the continuation of the scheme.

We will start with the thousands of daily users, whose views you elected not to solicit despite our request for you to do so, and the obviousness of their importance to any assessment. They after all are those primarily impacted by the safety of the scheme. They are voting with their feet, or wheels as the case may be. Numbers have trebled to an estimated 4,000 daily.
Imperial College has some 20,000 students, and campuses that straddle the scheme. Its students therefore have little alternative but to use it to travel by bike. The university, their Union, Active Travel Group and Bike Users Group all overwhelmingly support the scheme. This has been made clear to you by Professor Neil Alford, Associate Provost, on behalf of Imperial College.

Let us not forget local schools. We hope your spirits were lifted as were ours yesterday morning by the joyous ride of teachers, parents, students and friends of Fox Primary School, one of the borough’s and indeed nation’s most highly regarded schools. Fox has been joined in its support of the scheme which has been critical to the transport options for its key worker staff by Kensington Primary Academy, Ashburnham Community School, Avonmore Primary School and Colville Primary School, as a key part of their quite correct wish to enable healthy active lives for the next generation.

We should also not forget the NHS. As you know the Chelsea and Westminster NHS Trust wrote to you earlier in the year to urge you to provide for safe active travel in the borough, specifically including a segregated bike lane on High Street Kensington. You have been sent many letters by NHS staff working across the borough whose journeys depend on safe cycling infrastructure in support of a scheme they are using daily. Many do not live inside the borough, but it seems you refer only to residents when considering views, which we simply cannot understand.

But the support does not end there. Not only are globally recognised institutions such as the Royal Albert Hall in favour of the scheme’s continuation, but an ever-increasing number of perhaps less well-known local businesses that we know have written to you to express their strongest support for the scheme. We are also aware of a number of other local groups whose formal support will shortly be declared.

We were caught wrong-footed by your announcement to tear down the borough’s only protected cycle lane on its 207km of road. We had assumed the promised trial would be completed. But since the forewarning of this announcement one week ago by Felicity Buchan and Tony Devenish (using, we hope inadvertently, as backdrop another site of a blocked potential safe cycleway) we have seen a torrent of individuals writing to you to express their support for this scheme. The numbers are overwhelming, already yesterday far in excess of a thousand residents, users and Londoners demanding the scheme’s continuation. None of them would have been aware that there was a cut-off point for feedback, as the automated response now tells them the scheme is being removed, mid trial, and that you may not be able to respond to them. The words, “stop the count” come to mind.
Of course, we do not pretend that concerns about the scheme have not been voiced. During the latter part of October you will be aware of the hugely disruptive roadworks that seemed to envelope the area, culminating in emergency Thames Water works which reduced High Street Kensington to a single lane to cover both directions. Journeys were severely disrupted during this period, and we entirely understand the frustrations of those impacted by this. With that said, the data shows that this congestion has now gone, and much as we would all perhaps wish for a different past the reality is that High Street Kensington prior to October, 2020 was hardly free of occasional congestion.

Equally, the scheme was installed quickly as a temporary structure – or rather the parts of the scheme that have been installed, noting key junction improvements have not yet been done. The design of the future evolution of this scheme must of course take into account potential improvements and modifications that could be made to optimise its effectiveness.
We spoke to you on Friday, and have written to you on a number of occasions since news of a possible abandonment of the trial came to light to invite you to pause and reflect.

We repeat that invitation now. The trial should be continued as planned. You should work with TfL and relevant stakeholders including most obviously those whose journeys depend on it and acknowledging the need for safe active travel provision for this route. We are of course extremely frustrated by the conduct of the past few days, but we are willing to embark again on a collaboration with you should you be willing to pause, reflect and call-off the demolition of the safety scheme tonight.