Rivercourt LTN council information

In the six months since the temporary Rivercourt Road LTN was put in place, we’ve received messages nearly every week – vanishingly few positive – and it’s still regularly our most read article on the website.  Messages fall into the following categories, with more than one correspondent questioning legality:

• Implementation problems:
  • I’ve received a fine, I don’t know why.
  • The signage / wording is poor – I had no idea I wasn’t supposed to go down there.
  • I paid for a visitor by RingGo who still got fined.
  • I witnessed someone reversing into the A4 – the ‘turning circle’ is dangerous – or – I witnessed an accident caused by someone slowing down/stopping to read the signs and being hit from behind, creating a multi-vehicle shunt – example images below.
• The LTN is damaging my business, I’m leaving the borough.

Rivercourt crash front

Rivercourt crash rear-end

The “local access only” wording and cacophony of messy signage is considered deceptive by many correspondents – this and many of the other are points were raised in our original article.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that when challenged on a PCN fine, the council may back down, rather than attend a tribunal, however there’s rather more to this story, when considered in the light of the recent High Court case.

JULY 2025 UPDATE Based on the council’s publicity, residents may have believed that they could allow visitors, quote: “Local residents can also easily get access for the visitors by using the RingGo app, which has proved widely successful in residential areas throughout the borough…” The words throughout the borough are misleading and only part of the story. In fact only residents in certain streets extremely close to Rivercourt Road can provide access for their visitors. LBHF now says (but doesn’t yet publicise the details): Cromwell Avenue, Weltje Road, Beavor Lane, Vencourt Place, Ravenscourt Park, (only some properties: from junction of King Street to the train bridge) and Ravenscourt Road (only part from junction of King Street to the train bridge).  A number of residents have written to us, detailing problems they’ve had with the Ringo system which was supposed to have been upgraded five years ago to properly support LTN access, but still has senior moments.  Caveat emptor.

The West Dulwich case

Last month, the legality of the way in which an LTN was implemented by Lambeth Council in West Dulwich was tested in the High Court, and found to be unlawful.  It wasn’t the legalities of the LTN itself, but the poor way in which consultation was carried out, and the way in which the council failed to take due consideration of well researched and detailed evidence provided by local people in a 53-page submission.

Images from Design & Access statement for 2025/00389/FUL

We’re pleased to note that yesterday, LBHF and RBKC simultaneously approved the proposed pedestrian and cycle underpass underneath the Overground (Mildmay Line), linking the Imperial White City North Campus to North Kensington’s Latimer Road.  Modelled on continental schemes by Dutch architects West 8 of Rotterdam, the D&A statement includes images from several similar schemes – reproduced here – including those seen in Amsterdam and Rotterdam.  This begs the question – could TfL replicate this at the opposite end of what was once “The world’s shortest motorway” – the West Cross Route – just 1km south ?

The approved scheme is part of a Section 106 commitment made by Imperial as part of their scheme at the White City North Campus in 2013. We advertised and attended an exhibition of the proposals last September in Wood Lane, and it was approved by the councils at simultaneous planning meetings on 10th June.

The images speak for themselves, the only significant issue appearing to be how to keep pedestrians safe from any ‘turbocharged’ e-bikes that are likely to appear: the RBKC committee agreed to a 6 month safety review. Mopeds and other officially recognised motorbikes won’t be allowed, and CCTV is in the design to ensure that the council’s LET team and Imperial will be able to monitor transgressors. Affiliate St. Quintin and Woodlands Neighbourhood Forum has a longer report with more of the history of the scheme.

Holland Park Roundabout

HPR TfL proposal

Last year TfL presented a proposal for Holland Park Roundabout (HPR). It provides an additional cycleway, but removes a lane of Holland Park Avenue (HPA), routing bikes around the Thames Water Tower on the inside of the roundabout, and across the 3 lanes lanes of traffic, making it a maximum of 8 lanes wide, as shown, requiring additional junctions, and additional signals.

The roundabout currently provides cycle and pedestrian routes north and south: the relevance to this story is that the existing northern underpass, under the pedestrian surface crossing at the southern end of the West Cross Route, bears more than a passing resemblance the scheme just approved 1km north. It could provide a lower cost, very much simpler, safe and ready-made solution.

HP underpass 2

HP underpass 1

HP underpass 3

HP underpass 4 (with sheep)

Those writing to us have expressed concerns over the likelihood of further delays to the many already congested buses at Shepherds Bush Green, and down HPA – seriously congested in rush hours – plus the scheme’s apparent unnecessary cost, complexity and added dangers. The proposal creates additional junctions where the 8 bus routes, numbered 31, 94, 148, 228, 49, C1, 295, and 316 cross to Shepherds Bush bus station / Westfield, through which it’s proposed to drive a bidirectional cycle lane.  The well-established statistic is that 80% of accidents happen at junctions. 

TfL also suggests there would be some local traffic displacement, which, with Shepherds Bush residents already significantly affected by Westfield, would present further problems.  Independent traffic analysis using industry standard models – incorporating the loss of one lane on HPA – shows that the scheme would greatly increase congestion, supporting our correspondents’ concerns.

Telegraph HPR – click for/video

A video report in last weekend’s Telegraph shows that a number are significantly adding to their own risks by running the poorly timed lights at the bottom of HPA.

TfL suggests that HPR is high on their list of London’s most dangerous junctions – the main reason for the scheme. Local campaign group SOS dispute the accident figures by a large factor – TfL claim 54 accidents in the 3 years to May 2023, but SOS’s detailed analysis from public records only shows one slight accident involving a cyclist, and no pedestrian incidents at all – despite the above activity. TfL cast a wide net over the area including much of Shepherds Bush Green and the junctions close by to create their ‘HPR danger’ narrative. The London Cycling Campaign has campaigned in support of the proposal, but does not include the roundabout in it’s list of top 20 dangerous junctions.

Save our streets leaflet (click to view)

SOS are highlighting the dangers of the proposed additional junctions, their analysis of TfL’s own consultation data obtained under FOI, suggesting that only 12% of residents and 30% of cyclists support the scheme.  Many currently eschew the existing infrastructure altogether (paths and crossings), and use the road – as is – as the video shows.

ECDC review meeting at ‘Conversation Corner’
November 2024

The size of the hybrid planning application for Earls Court – 826 weighty documents – means that to address it meaningfully needed substantial resource. We teamed up with local civic and amenity societies and London Forum representatives to review the proposals in detail. This was helped in no small part by the work that each group has put in over the last three years of consultation and discussion with the developers, Earls Court Development Company (ECDC), and the huge level of institutional knowledge they brought.

The Earls Court team suggest that the plans are easier to read on their website, as they’re organised by subject, though you may need both as the ‘flipbook’ format used in places won’t cover all needs. The application appears in the respective planning portals under refs 2024/01942/COMB (LBHF) and  PP/24/05187 (RBKC).

The word ‘hybrid’ means detailed for phase 1, outline for the rest; there’s a useful planning guide on their site including the helpful timing graphic showing phasing until 2038, included in the montage below. Note that some CGI imagery uses extremely wide-angles, and would not be what we, or the planners, would call ‘verified views’ – i.e. as your eye would perceive.

While we clearly support the redevelopment of Earls Court – a huge empty site for over a decade, known formally as the Mayor’s Earl’s Court/West Kensington Opportunity Area  – we’re yet to be convinced that this plan is so much better than the original CAPCO one, appearing higher and much more dense – four times the original gross density in the 2012 SPD – and about twice the gross density of the CAPCO scheme by our best estimates – much of the density being on the LBHF side of the tracks. This has resulted in much greater pressure on open space, reduced spacing between buildings, increased building heights, especially around the Empress State building, and greater impact on surrounding conservation areas, especially Brompton Cemetery and the conservation area of Philbeach Gardens and Eardley Crescent.

ECDC review societies

We recently submitted Joint comments to both LBHF and RBKC, which we fully endorse, objecting to the proposal on the following seven grounds:

1. Density – with buildings up to 42 storeys – exceeding the Empress State building next door by nearly ten storeys, and with a net density estimated at 600 dwellings/hectare in LBHF, approaching twice the level of the most dense inner city aspirations of the 2016 London Plan, unaligned with current London Plan Housing policy H1, and LBHF local plan policy HO4.
2. The density and heights would bring substantial light and overshadowing issues for Philbeach Gardens, Eardley Crescent, Lillie Road, West Kensington & Gibbs Green estates and the West Cromwell Road. 
3. The development is unsympathetic to the local neighbourhood in many respects (heights and  architecture), contrary to the Local Plan policy DC2. The choice of multiple architects has not so far created a harmonious mix of complementary buildings – an almost unique opportunity here – more a White City jumble, which has been the hallmark of many Mayoral Opportunity Areas.
4. A rather overdesigned park that is too small with inadequate actual recreational space and facilities, and that would arrive later than the tall buildings around it.
5. The cultural offerings are piecemeal and lack ‘The Wonder’ that Earls Court aims to restore. This proposal represents a missed opportunity, resulting in a generic mixed-use development that could be anywhere.
6. Inadequate vehicular access for much of the site for servicing and accessibility.
7. A lack of necessary improvements to public transport provision, given the car-free nature of the proposal. Despite the top-rated 6b PTAL, Earls Court is the only station that is ‘step-free’, but there are long walks and specific mini-ramp locations to achieve this. West Brompton is partly step-free, requiring temporary ramps on request, and West Kensington station is not at all accessible, unchanged in decades. Significant upgrades are needed using developer contributions to improve them.

Rivercourt LTN council information

Last year, we were contacted by residents of Rivercourt Road concerned about the increased traffic they said they were experiencing. Rivercourt is the road formerly running one-way towards King Street from the Great West Road as shown adjacent, with its twin – Weltje Road – running one-way towards the A4.

On Thursday, Rivercourt road became a trial two-way LTN with non-residents (those not registered with an LBHF parking permit), Blue Badge holders, and businesses required to get a permit or be fined by ANPR cameras at the A4 junction. On the same day, Rosamund Adoo-KD (Ella’s mother) described LTN’s as the worst thing ever  to happen in red route areas (the adjoining A4 is a red route). Regardless of the intent, we question whether this is the right solution.  JULY 2025 IMPORTANT UPDATE – see later article

A4 LTN signage. Note wording ‘LOCAL ACCESS’ not ‘£130 FINE FOR TURNING LEFT’

These roads are effective ways to get to and from the A4 and King Street without going all the way to Hogarth Roundabout or adding to Hammersmith Broadway’s congestion and emissions, and are therefore important for a significant number of residents, non-residents, schools, visitors and businesses alike – plus the wider environment – hence our interest.

The council have not published audited statistics, though claim ‘4000 motorists’ a day which in itself implies private cars, but is just as likely to be your plumber, a delivery van, cab or a coach serving the three adjacent schools. Some residents of the road have been campaigning to reduce traffic; and there are of course concerns about the increased number of cycle-related accidents at the junction with King Street since C9 was added, notably including a vocal Jeremy Vine.

Conway make Rivercourt Road 2-way

LTN signage Rivercourt Road

The LTN was created by an 18 month temporary traffic order in September, which you can see here . It was announced publicly on 20th November – the same evening that Conway were photographed burning off the road markings – and implemented with surprising haste the next day.  The fixed signage shown, matches the discreetness of the traffic order, especially amongst the visual cacophony of all the other signage, and one can imagine that many won’t have time to read it, and its potentially expensive consequences, having come off the busy and faster A4. 

It’s been suggested that speed bumps might be a rather simpler and better disincentive, but that would cost money rather than raise it.  The council will be rubbing their hands with glee as their coffers fill up.  Recall that the controversial South Fulham TCPR was created the same way, then made permanent, further dividing the residents, creating a 12,000 signature campaign, and pushing some businesses over the edge, while rapidly ballooning the council’s £34 million fines income which we reported as ‘only’ £18.9m the year before. There is at least a three-week grace period before fines start being issued.

“David Bowie” cycles in Copenhagen, 2024

Will Norman, London’s cycling Czar, has been promoting Danish cycling culture for a decade, usually without mentioning it by name. So, on a recent trip to Copenhagen, it seemed worth making an ad-hoc study of the cycling scene.

Cycling in Denmark, 2015

Will Norman at Kensington Town Hall

Back in 2017-18, when the whole CS9 debate got going in Hammersmith, in addition to a proposal for a cycle lane down Kensington High Street, the picture adjacent kept popping up – it’s clearly not London for several obvious reasons. Appearing first in Mayoral pronouncements on London cycling and on Twitter, it then appeared as a huge backdrop as Dr. Norman tried to convince hundreds of residents at Kensington Town Hall that he had a plan for them. A little sleuthing revealed unambiguously that this was Copenhagen in 2015, which, by and by, triggered this story. Copenhagen in 2024 looks unchanged – it’s a remarkably different culture, well worth a look.

Rush Hour, Copenhagen September 2024

Firstly there’s very little testosterone evident, historically the fuel of choice for London’s cycling campaigners – until e-bikes were found more effective. There’s still the occasional Lycra-clad hooligan running the lights in Copenhagen, but that’s perhaps 1 in 1000, and people shrug, assuming that a Darwinian intervention will deal with the problem in time. The lack of testosterone is perhaps due to the fact that there seemed to be as many – probably more – women and there’s a good cross section of the population of every age on two wheels, as the photos show. To reinforce this, all bikes seem to be of the “sit up and beg” style, so you meet and greet your fellow cyclists and pedestrians in a civil way. There are practically no “heads down” racing bikes.  Surely to Dr. Norman’s delight, leafier parts of London have started to look like this too, particularly at weekends, but our rush hours look rather different.

London cycling 2024

Secondly, the wearing of helmets, Lycra, and related body armour simply isn’t the big thing it is in London. Perhaps 10-20% wear helmets, often jauntily, but not in defiance of other road users. A pair of flip-flops and a soft cap are more common. Altogether it’s a relaxed culture, not that they’re ambling. The flat roads allow reasonable speeds to be achieved, and as a pedestrian, you need to watch your step. People both walking and cycling are noticeably more obedient in following of the rules of the road and traffic lights.

Bike fest near a Copenhagen Station

Chairman’s Annual Report 2024
Click on the image to open the pdf

Attached is this year’s Chairman’s Annual Report, reviewing the key activities of the Society, plus a look at emerging trends in Hammersmith.

Subjects include:

• Royal Masonic Hospital
• Earls Court
• Purpose-Built Student Accommodation (PBSA)
  • 181 Talgarth Road, M&S & 2 Queen Caroline St.
• Town Centre Masterplan / SPD
• Transport
  • Hammersmith Bridge
  • Roundabout consultations
• The Society
  • Prof. Hans Haenlein’s retirement
  • Committee changes & recruitment
  • Hammersmith Weekly

The agenda, accounts and other AGM information are on the dedicated 2024 AGM page.

The council has reworked several pieces of longstanding planning work, and is asking for feedback from you in a series of consultations – details in our diary. We’ve been keen to progress this matter for a while, and it’s good to see new activity. Firstly we should set the historical context, to better understand how we got here, what’s new, and not so new.

2015: Town Centre Working Party supports “West London Link” vision/Flyunder

Longstanding members will recall the 2008 Flyunder proposals that were developed originally by the West London Link group of architects and Hammersmith BID, including our former chairman Tom Ryland as a leading light, and then presented to the London Festival of Architecture that year. A significant part of that plan involved a reworking of Hammersmith to face more towards the river, by removing the awkward A4 spur road to the Broadway (seen above), and connecting King Street to St Paul’s Church, creating a much better and more identifiable ‘centre’. The flyunder would have been funded by building over what is now the A4, linking the roads cut in the 1950’s. This website maintains a series of articles under the flyunder tag, that details some of this work, along with the WLL website above which includes a detailed archive and feasibility study from the time.

Flyunder as proposed in 2008

The potential money ran out fairly spectacularly a year later when the finance industry melted down, but the whole issue had its first revival in 2011 when the flyover closed and was thought to be doomed. However the 2012 Olympics came to the rescue, because, as those imbued in the dark arts of Olympic transport will know, there are very strict maxima laid down for journey times between Olympic venues, no doubt causing the Parisians sleepless nights ahead of this year’s games. Without a flyover, the time to the western venues such as the rowing in Eton would be easily exceeded. That logic led to the special Olympic Travel Lanes, of which there is still the odd vestige if you know where to look. The flyover, as a piece of critical Olympic transport infrastructure, was patched up quicker than you can say ‘Hammersmith Bridge’, and then said to be good for about another fifty or sixty years.

The Hammersmith Residents Working Party was an early version of what came to be called resident-led commissions, which produced the Grimshaw report of 2019 addressing the central Hammersmith regeneration area. Sadly due to the range of topics covered and the divergent nature of the competing demands and constraints, the HRWP couldn’t agree the outcomes in the report and it was never adopted as a Town Centre Supplementary Planning Document as intended.

Riverbed geotechnical bore drilling

You’ll probably have noticed a drilling rig in the river adjacent to the bridge in recent weeks. We understand that in addition to geotechnical bores through the main piers, the rig is in the river to drill bores to investigate the riverbed strata to understand just how strong it is, if and when the Foster-COWI temporary bridge goes ahead.

While the relevant people and equipment are onsite, bores are also being drilled into the foundations alongside Digby Mansions, to ensure the chain anchorages and bridge abutments are in good shape. So far it appears that Bazalgette and his predecessor, Tierney Clark, did good enough jobs, and the foundations can take the extra loads.

The separate ‘stabilisation’ works are progressing, as we reported before, the concrete has been poured into the troublesome pedestals.  However, there have been delays in getting the steel support frames built and ready to lift the main bridge chains, allowing the bearings to be replaced.  That work is yet to start, which means that the delayed schedule for the bridge to open to cyclists this month looks like it’ll stretch out further. We don’t have a schedule yet for when the bearing replacements will be complete and the bridge reopened, restricted to pedal power.

As far as funding the Foster-COWI proposal and full refurbishments are concerned, the LBHF website says that the ‘business case’ was submitted to the DfT in Dec 2022, and our local and affiliate news page threw up this question from Hansard last week mentioning its ongoing review. It’s not clear how much progress this represents.

Meanwhile, MP’s North and South of the river have spotted an opportunity to ask the government to drop a crumb from the post-HS2 feast to progress the project, while also noting the inevitable cost increase, now to over £200m. More than a crumb then – and we’re hungry for a positive answer.

C9 safety record – collision rate involving pedal cycles King Street
(C9 route only)

The council’s short-notice decision to make C9 permanent was reported in HammersmithToday in March. That would be less significant if the January to June Key Decisions List had mentioned it, or if the cycle and walking commission had been in the loop.

This key decision was made on 6th March – on the cusp of a legal minimum five working days notice, but despite being ‘key’ was not sufficiently important to be discussed at the 17 minute Cabinet meeting that day.

We are in the business of being a ‘critical friend’, as a former chair once put it, and here we need to be critical. An apparent reluctance to encourage public – or even cabinet – scrutiny in such a significant decision making process is concerning. Let’s be clear: we expect a well-designed, safe and efficient public transport system for everyone, and the C9 bidirectional design unnecessarily precludes that simple and democratic vision, marginalising those unable to cycle – and that’s quite a few. We might also reflect on the fact that bicycles are ‘vehicles’ in law, and while cycling is classed as ‘active’, it remains a form of private transport being favoured over actual public transport, while at the same time being encouraged to use a less safe infrastructure.

Without independent design and vetting, the council created and reported on it’s own survey in October/November 2022, on which the decision appears to rest. The detailed report has been redacted which raises its own questions, but the summary is problematic too. Firstly it’s a small self-selecting sample of around 700 people, of whom only around half live in the borough. Secondly, 45% of the able-bodied, and 22% of the disabled respondents said their preferred mode of transport was cycling. But only 3-4% of the public actually cycle according to TfL’s cycling counts, casting respondents as ‘keyboard warriors’, unrepresentative, or both.

The survey data, redacted as it is, shows a design successful enough to split the public 92% against (drivers), 89% for (cyclists), with 68% of disabled respondents not regarding C9 as beneficial. Overall, only 52% of the respondents thought C9 to have a positive impact, and last time that percentage voted for something of significance, there was some notable buyer’s remorse.

Safety

It’s been widely reported by others that this two-way design is, rather then the moniker ‘safer’, actually the more dangerous cycle path, as the accident rate (above) confirms. We’ve disregarded the council’s collision data supporting its decision, as it erroneously compares three years of pre-C9 accidents with less than one year with, while failing to normalise the data as an accident rate, per the chart above. Nevertheless, it still shows a higher percentage of cycle-related accidents since C9.

The risks were evident before implementation as a result of advice from transport experts, including those that have studied Dutch and Danish implementations (the latter removing bidirectional paths in urban areas over a quarter of a century ago on safety grounds), through the council’s own unflattering public engagement exercise (painfully extracted by FOI), it’s own Walking/Cycling Commission – which was not consulted in detail – it’s own Disabled Residents Commission, and, last but not least, us!  80% of accidents continue to happen at junctions, and much vaunted segregation does little other than provide a false sense of security for unwary users, to which we might partly attribute the increased accident rate.

The Disabled Residents Commission didn’t support the existing ‘temporary’ scheme, or the bus bypass concept, their abandoned bus shelters, or staggered pedestrian controlled crossings, and were as surprised as we were to see the 22% claim above. For reference, TfL’s latest data says 83% of disabled and 82% of able-bodied Londoners have never used a bike.

We put these and further specific points to Cllr. Holder, responsible for this policy, who passed them on to officers for detailed response, yet to be received.  At the moment, we have no idea what a proposed ‘permanent’ C9 looks like, such is the lack of communication and consultation on this important transport artery.

Updated situation, post-pandemic

Creating Hammersmith Avenue by Alex Reid
Click on the image to open the pdf

Under the banner ‘Taking a View’,  from time to time, we’re pleased to publish articles by members on a subject of their choice, which they believe will be interesting to the wider membership.

In this article, our member Dr. Alex Reid revisits the work done on the original Flyunder proposal, and in recognition of the times we live in, looks at how the essence of it could be reworked into a vision for the 2020’s, recognising a much-prolonged lifespan for the flyover, and the longterm declining pollution levels on the A4.  

As cheerleaders for the original Flyunder proposal, we support the essence of these proposals, especially in respect of possible improvements to the environment, and the prospect of measurably safer cycling facilities along the A4, as long as A4 capacity can be substantially maintained, which earlier research suggests is possible. The creation of the Society was of course as a result the A4 ‘cutting a great divide through the townscape’ in the early 1960’s.

If you have an article you would like to be considered, please contact .
Articles are unedited personal viewpoints, and may not always represent the views of the Society