“c): Transport

93. Transport concerns are focused on trip generation, proposed improvements
    and their effects on traffic and parking, and the safety of the Sheen Lane
    railway level crossing, together with other considerations, which are
    considered in turn below.
    Trip generation
94. ………………………
95. ………………………..Nonetheless, MBCG’s reading ………….has resulted in a
    higher number of potential trips generated by the school and raises concerns about …… [the] likelihood of AM peak arrivals within the model’s outcome.
96. In response, the appellant points out that MBCG’s …. analysis fails to
    provide appropriate supporting evidence for the alternative figures. Whilst I
    acknowledge that the appellant’s figures do have some shortcomings, the
    model’s outcome is generally well referenced, and I am able to trace its
    predictions from the large amount of underlying evidence. I cannot do the
    same with the MBCG’s evidence. In particular, the dearth of identification of
    ……… supporting evidence for the alternative peak hour generation leads me to give preference to the appellant’s modelling.
97. …………………….
    Road traffic and parking
98. The closure of Hammersmith Bridge has had an impact on traffic patterns and
    there is a low likelihood of it reopening to private motorised traffic in the short
    to medium term. Mortlake is relatively constrained by barriers including the
    railway and river, with their limited crossing points. Existing road traffic is, in
    effect, funnelled along routes such as Mortlake High Street and Lower
    Richmond Road. Given the constraints, there is limited scope for mitigation of
    existing congestion and any development of the site is likely to result in some
    degree of increased demand for road space.
99. The TA indicates that there will be some increases in traffic volumes in local
    roads resulting from the proposed development. The appellant considers that
    Hammersmith Bridge’s closure would dissuade drivers from using Mortlake as
    a diversionary route and that this may also lead to future occupiers of the site
    looking to modes other than private cars for their travel. Road speeds along
    Lower Richmond Road are slow for much of the day, and I observed periods
    where the lowering of the Sheen Lane level crossing barriers resulted in
    stationary traffic for periods of around ten to fifteen minutes, although
    congestion cleared quickly upon opening of the crossing. My observations are
    consistent with the findings of the TA, which takes account of the current
    conditions and proposes mitigation for future traffic increases.
100. Alterations are proposed for Chalker’s Corner, which would include a turning
     lane from Lower Richmond Road and result in a capacity increase for vehicles
     using this junction. Although this proposal is intended to mitigate potential
     changes to bus journey times, the Inquiry heard that the capacity increase
     could encourage additional traffic, and I agree that this could indeed occur.
     Nonetheless I accept that the early phasing of the improvements would allow
     TfL to alter the phasing of the traffic lights as changes in traffic volumes are
     monitored during the construction and subsequent operation of the
     developments. I am not convinced by the appellant’s view that any capacity
     changes could be imperceptible to drivers, although I agree that the proposed
     TfL action would be sufficient to avoid ‘gridlock’ occurring across a wide part
     of the network.
101. An additional road lane would also be provided on the eastbound Lower
     Richmond Road approach to Mortlake Roundabout. This is necessary to enable
     the passage of traffic to Mortlake High Street past traffic queueing to turn
     onto Sheen Lane.
102. Proposed on-site parking levels are consistent with development plan policies.
     Any future impact on on-street parking around the site could be mitigated by
     the proposed expansion of controlled parking zones.
     
103. Level crossing impact and accident risk

103. The Sheen Lane level crossing would have a significantly greater number of
     users than at present. MBCG’s arguments that volumes will be exacerbated by
     school users choosing alternatives to the Kingsway footbridge and those
     seeking to access bus routes south of the railway are logical and I consider
     them to be valid. Train timings, and therefore the amount of time that the
     barriers are down, are not affected by the proposals and will remain as at
     present.
104. The existing personal injury accident rate at the level crossing is low and
     there is no evidence that relatively recent changes within the area, such as
     the establishment of Thomson House School, have changed the rate. Network
     Rail’s recent Narrative Risk Assessment of the level crossing found no major
     risks from everyday use (discounting deliberate misuse) of the crossing, and
     took account of the potential development of the appeals site.
105. The proposed number of level crossing trips shown in the TA for the proposed
     development is less than proposed within the GLA scheme, which did not raise
     major objections from statutory consultees on impact on the level crossing or
     the safety of users. The appellant has discussed the current proposals in detail
     with Network Rail, which has no concerns that would prevent development.
     The evidence suggests that even if there were to be more users than
     predicted in the TA, that with mitigation there would be sufficient capacity at
     the level crossing and that this would not necessarily result in significantly
     greater risk.
106. The level crossing is adjacent to an overbridge that enables pedestrian
     crossing of the railway while the barriers are lowered. Given the existing
     pedestrian congestion levels and low accident rates, the layout appears to
     work well. Mitigation for additional trips through the crossing would include
     space for pedestrians and cyclists to wait while the barriers are down,
     together with other minor improvements, and these are appropriate to avoid a
     significant increase in future risk. I consider that these considerations address
     the concerns raised by the MBCG’s evidence.”

Comments

Traffic, transport, public safety and the use of the level crossing were always weak areas for the appellants and the Council. The Inspector has obviously recognised this too but probably considered that overall it was not a justification for dismissing the appeals. Thus he has downplayed their impact and his findings are unsatisfactory.

In spite of his findings at paras 96 and 103 above the Inspector has thrown a bone to the MBCG by accepting their argument that there will be more users but failed to give adequate weight to the consequences. There is no adequate evidence of the quantum of the problem.

Mitigation of the consequences : there is no adequate explanation of how that might happen.

He has accepted the highly superficial (and old) TfL Narrative Risk Assessment.

The amount of time the barriers are down : the same but no mention of the impact of increase in users.

Use of the overbridge – there is no recognition of the problems of disability users or those with buggies.