Decision-maker
CABINET MEMBER
FOR ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT AND
TRANSPORT
Date
22
September
2004
Item No.
CMfED&T\55\2004
Title of Report
Re-siting of C10 Bus Stops in
Sutherland Street and Lupus
Street
CLASSIFICATION
FOR GENERAL RELEASE
Wards Involved
Report of
Director of Environment and
Leisure
Churchill, Warwick and Tachbrook
Policy Context The Council has a policy to protect and enhance the residential and environmental amenity of local streets to ensure that traffic uses the most appropriate road network.
Financial Summary Transport for London (London Buses) has agreed to meet the cost of implementing the measures outlined in this report, including the associated traffic regulation orders to the waiting and loading restrictions and other parking controls.
1. Summary
This report considers the experimental bus stops introduced by Transport for
London (London Buses) in Sutherland Street and Lupus Street. It recommends alterations to the locations of bus stops along the part of the
C10 route between Buckingham Palace Road and Lupus Street by Pimlico
School.
2. Recommendations
2.1
That the changes set out in Section 11 of this report be introduced, with the use of permanent and experimental traffic orders as appropriate.
2.2
That the cost of the proposed changes be met from funds provided by
Transport for London and at an estimated cost of £30,000.

3. Background Information
3.1 The existing pattern of bus stops in Sutherland Street and Lupus Street for the
C10 route emerged as a result of London Buses, a subsidiary of Transport for
London (TfL), abandoning a ‘hail and ride’ system. This type of service had operated on those parts of the route, such as Sutherland Street, which were not shared with any other bus service. The system permitted passengers to request the bus to stop in order to allow them to get on or off the bus at any convenient point. A previous operator of this service had used this system with the smallest buses available, but eventually pulled out of the contract with
London Buses.
3.2 The current operator of the C10 is contracted to provide a conventional service, which needs fixed stops, and uses slightly larger buses. The route is now served by these short single deck buses with a low floor and only one passenger door at the front. The intrusiveness of these buses in a residential street is moderated by the absence both of any door closing buzzers for the single doors and of a night bus service on the route. However, it is not clear that this type of bus with a single door will always be available to London
Buses.
3.3 Until the start of the traffic experiment for the new stops last year the current operator of the route was running with an informal ‘hail and ride’ in the northwest direction only, and a diverted south-east bound route. These two arrangements were unsatisfactory for the operator and disliked by many passengers.
3.4 TfL and its subsidiary London Buses has the power to install new bus stops with the widely recognised post and flag sign after consultation with this
Council and the Metropolitan Police. While the Council does not have a direct veto on the positioning of these stops, at most locations on the City’s roads
TfL is still dependent in some way on the Council. This is because the
Council, as highway and traffic authority, has to give assistance in releasing kerb space that could not otherwise be reached. The blocking arises from the existence of parking places, permitted loading, guard railing and other street furniture. These facilities can effectively prevent the door(s) of the buses gaining sufficient proximity to a kerb and footway.
3.5 There is a forthcoming obligation on TfL, and its subsidiary London Buses, to make all its buses accessible to passengers in wheel chairs. This obligation can only be met by ensuring that the doors of the low floor buses can reach a standard height kerb, so that the extendable ramp beneath one of the doors can be deployed for wheel chairs. In meeting this requirement London Buses also provides a good service to all its passengers and particularly to those with any walking impairment. It was the imminence of this obligation as a result of legislative change that persuaded a former Cabinet Member to accept the loss of a ‘hail and ride’ service on the C10 and the need for fixed stops.

4. Loss of Parking
4.1 Any proposed net loss of on-street parking or loading space for a new bus stop is likely to result in objections from the users of the displaced facility. The loss of residents’ parking in particular from a road like Sutherland Street would be much resented by residents. For this reason Council officers always seek new bus stop locations in residential streets with no or minimal loss of parking. In Sutherland Street four new stops were installed with three of them on extended footways, known as boarders, and one on a single yellow line.
The three short boarders are only long enough to cater for single door buses, which need just 3 metres of pavement length; so the overall parking loss was minimal.
4.2 The two boarders at the mid point along Sutherland Street and on either side of the road were formed by extending kerbs from existing tree planters. These planters were in the carriageway and between parking places. The minor changes to the parking places and the introduction of double yellow lines in front of the boarders were introduced under the experimental powers available to the City Council under Section 9 of the Road Traffic Regulation
Act 1984. An experiment was judged necessary because of environmental concerns expressed by Ward Councillors, and the difficulty in assessing whether optimum locations for passenger convenience had been found. With a ‘hail and ride’ service it had been particularly difficult to make any survey of passenger usage and in addition the southbound service had been diverted for over a year.
5. Public Response to Mid-Point Stops in Sutherland Street
5.1 At the start of the experiment residents living adjacent to the two mid point stops in Sutherland Street raised many concerns about the specific locations.
These concerns were clearly related to the close proximity of the stops to residential doors and windows, as well as other environmental and safety issues. In particular residents on the south-west side sought either to prevent the experiment proceeding or to terminate it prematurely.
5.2 In this context the Council received a petition at its meeting on 23 July 2003, presented by Councillor Sarah Richardson. The main petition conveyed bitter opposition to the construction of bus stops at the mid-point of Sutherland
Street on thirteen grounds and called upon TfL and Westminster City Council to relocate the stops to the White Ferry public house. A small supplementary petition with nine signatures called for the two authorities to demonstrate that they are conducting the experiment in good faith by providing the criteria by which the experiment will be judged to local residents before 15 August 2003.
5.3 The Council responded through various channels and gave the assurances that the scheme was a genuine experiment. It also indicated the type of criteria that would be used to evaluate the experiment and gave a commitment to consult residents from a wide area about it. The scheme continued as an experiment to be reviewed after six months, by which time all

interested organisations and potential objectors could come to a mature view as to the value of the scheme.
6. Public Response to Other Stops
6.1 The experimental changes made for the other stops have not resulted in similar levels of concern. However, there has been adverse feedback on the changes at two of the bus stop locations.
6.2 At the north-west end of Sutherland Street, the tapered boarder for the south east bound stop is close to the ‘zebra’ crossing and the exit from the miniroundabout by Ebury Bridge. This close proximity has raised concerns about obstruction to the circulating traffic and reduced sight lines for pedestrians.
Any relocation of this stop would eliminate these concerns.
6.3 At the bus stop outside Robin Court in Lupus Street, there were two separate concerns. Firstly, the planned bus stop flag and shelter for the stop outside the residential property could not be economically installed in the required locations, because of shallow utilities’ services below the footway. This shelter had been intended to draw waiting passengers, and secondary age school children in particular, away from the communal entrance to Robin
Court with its inset door. Secondly, the bus stop cage marking on the carriageway, but as yet with no time plate to make a clearway operative drew attention to an anticipated problem. This was the expected difficulty in dropping off or picking up car and taxi passengers at Robin Court, and the
Doctor’s surgery on the ground floor within it.
6.4 The absence of a permanent bus stop flag until now has precluded the normal fixing for a clearway time plate. If the stop is retained London Buses will no doubt find an unusual and more costly way of erecting the flag sign. However, while it is Council policy to eventually install clearways at all bus stops, there is a strong case for downgrading that control on stopping at this particular location. This would be from a full clearway to all day restrictions on waiting and loading, but with the customary exemption for setting down and picking up passengers. Without this relaxation frail patients being delivered to, or collected from, the surgery would have no alternative facility that was reasonably convenient.
7. Passenger Survey and Questionnaire Response
7.1 The experiment had operated for six months by December 2003 and a technical review was undertaken by means of a survey of passenger usage from the two contentious stops and a widely distributed questionnaire in all the residential roads surrounding Sutherland Street. The results of this survey and the responses to the questionnaire were both sent to London Buses.
7.2 The survey conducted on 2 December 2003 showed that the majority of passengers for the two contentious stops came and went from the southeastern end of Sutherland Street. The questionnaire also showed that many more residents would prefer the two stops to be moved south-eastwards, if they were to be re-sited for any reason. In addition the questionnaire

respondents living close to Lupus Street wanted enhanced access to the C10 route.
7.3 These preferences were also to be seen in the content of further petitions received in November and December 2003 and reported below. These reinforced opposition to the contentious mid point bus stops in Sutherland
Street and sought their relocation to Lupus Street or the north-west end of
Sutherland Street.
8. New Petition(s)
8.1 The new petition was received by the Council at its meeting on 21 January
2004 and presented by Councillor Sarah Richardson. It came as a single entity, though there were three minor variants of the actual wording used by the signatories.
8.2 The first part of the petition is dated November 2003 and signed by 59 residents, of who only ten appear to live south of Lupus Street. It requests that
“ the C10 stops, located experimentally in the middle of Sutherland Street, be moved from this residential location to the junction of Lupus Street and
Sutherland Street, adjacent to the Doctor’s surgery and Estate Office.”
8.3 The second part of the petition is dated December 2003 with one variant of the wording having just four signatures from residents in Sutherland Street, and another having 99 signatures from residents all living south of Lupus
Street.
8.4 The four signatories request both stops to be moved, as in the November
2003 dated petition above, but with an amplification that the stops be moved
“where they are needed: (i) at the junction of Lupus Street and Sutherland
Street, adjacent to the Doctor’s surgery and Estate Office; and (ii) by the
White Ferry pub/Adult Education College/Peabody and Abbots Manor estates in Sutherland Street.”
The ninety nine signatories say that they “ would like the (Victoria bound) C10
Bus Stop located at the junction of Lupus Street and Sutherland Street, adjacent to the Doctor’s surgery and Estate Office, instead of in the middle of
Sutherland Street.”
9. Revision of Experiment
9.1 The need for some change to the pattern of stops is now clear, yet the opportunities for beneficial change are limited. This is because of the various physical features in the roads and the need to avoid replicating the unpopular stops immediately outside other residents’ homes.
9.2 There is an opportunity to move both of the stops at the north-west end of
Sutherland Street some way towards the mid point stops and locate them on the approaches to Sutherland Row. These two stops would then serve many passengers who might otherwise choose to use the mid point stops. Their

relocation would not appear to inconvenience any passengers living south of
Warwick Way.
9.3 The new stops can be much further away from residential windows and door ways than those at the mid point. These two relocations would clearly leave the south-east bias in the remaining passengers at the mid point stops yet more pronounced. Thus there would be a further justification for either deleting or moving south-eastwards these mid point stops in Sutherland
Street.
9.4 The next south-east bound stop for the C10 is in Lupus Street and just beyond the junction with Sutherland Street. It is clearly convenient enough for most residents from south of Lupus Street, and this is reflected in their variant of the petition where they only ask for the Victoria bound stop to be moved nearer. This Lupus Street stop for south-east bound buses is on an experimental short boarder and might be usefully extended at some stage, as it now has to serve conventional buses on the 360 route with two double doors.
9.5 For the north-west bound direction towards Victoria the preceding stop in
Lupus Street is currently some 200m from Sutherland Street, but it is a heavily used stop. It is also an optimum distance from the previous bus stop outside the secondary school. Thus the preferred solution is to add an additional stop in Lupus Street much closer to the Sutherland Street junction.
9.6 The petitioners all sought a location by the Doctor’s surgery on the south side of Lupus Street and immediately before the Sutherland Street junction.
However, this is so close to the junction that subsequent right turn movements by the C10 from the near side lane would be a conspicuous hazard. It could not be expected to pass a safety audit. There is an alternative location that could form an acceptable solution by extending an historic build out of the kerb immediately outside the Post Office. This extension could form a full length bus boarder, which would be suitable for all three west bound bus routes. The third bus service in this section of Lupus Street is westbound only and is the long established 24 route, on a one way loop to its termination at
Grosvenor Road.
9.7 The re-siting of the first south-east bound stop in Sutherland Street, away from the mini roundabout and near to Sutherland Row, would leave a long gap back to the previous stop in Buckingham Palace Road. There is an opportunity to fill this gap by adding an additional stop within the short bus lane on Ebury Bridge. There would be no parking loss from this location.
10. TfL Support for Further Experiment
10.1 When any alterations to stops are planned London Buses is concerned about convenience for both existing and potential new passengers. For this reason it is not yet willing to agree all the above changes on a permanent basis.
However, it is willing to accept an experiment with these revised locations.
The relocations will necessitate some changes to traffic orders and these could again be introduced by experimental orders.

10.2 The existing experimental orders will expire on 6 December 2004. It would therefore be desirable to make some of the provisions in the experimental traffic orders permanent now. This will clearly apply to the experimental variations in the parking places near the two east bound stops in Lupus Street where no changes are proposed to the enabling parking controls. It also apply to the experimental variations made to the parking places for the mid point bus stops in Sutherland Street. This is because it will probably not be possible for London Buses to assess the impact on bus passenger usage of the revised pattern of stops in sufficient time. At a later stage these changes could also be revoked. The double yellow line ”At Any Time” waiting restrictions will be removed at the two mid point bus stops.
10.3 The complementary kerb works for the two mid point boarders will be kept whilst TfL examines how well the new bus stops serve passengers. However, the actual bus stops will be removed. TfL will be funding all the works.
11. Details of Proposed Changes
11.1 The proposed changes to the bus stops for south-east bound and north-west bound buses are shown on Figure 1 and the details for bus stop locations 3,9 and 10 from the list below are shown on Mouchelparkman drawing number
765002/OF/08 and for locations 6 and 7 are shown on drawing numbers
765002/OF/06 and 765002/OF/05 respectively.
South-east bound stops (From Ebury Bridge to Lupus Street)
1. A new bus stop be agreed in the bus lane on Ebury Bridge prior to the width restriction and the mini roundabout with no loss of parking.
2. The existing bus stop on the exit from the mini roundabout be deleted, but the tapered boarder be retained with no change to the zig-zags or the waiting restrictions.
3. A new bus stop be agreed in Sutherland Street at its north-western end by the extended footway just before the junction with Sutherland Row. The highway works are to include the removal of the adjacent central traffic island and the extension of the tapered end of the footway. This extension will be the equivalent of a short boarder with a normal kerb height and with no significant loss of residents’ parking.
4. The existing bus stop and the double yellow line restrictions in front of the short boarder outside No 49/51 Sutherland Street be deleted. However, the experimental changes to the parking places be made permanent at least for the duration of the new experiment and the footway works for the short boarder be similarly retained.
5. The existing bus stop and short boarder in Lupus Street opposite the Post
Office be retained, but the need for a longer boarder be considered when the proposed experiment is reviewed, six months after its installation.
6. The existing bus stop in Lupus Street outside Robin Court, and the experimental changes made to the adjacent parking places be retained, but with the deletion of the marked bus stop clearway and the introduction of extended waiting and loading restrictions as a substitute. These restrictions to permit passengers to board and alight from any vehicle for Robin Court and the Doctors’ surgery within it.

North- west bound stops (From Lupus Street to Sutherland Street)
7. A new bus stop be agreed outside the Post Office in Lupus Street. The highway works to include an extension of the existing historic boarder in length over adjacent single yellow lines and in breadth to reach buses stopping clear of adjacent loading and parked vehicles.
8. The existing bus stop and the double yellow line restrictions in front of the short boarder outside Nos. 22/24 Sutherland Street be deleted. However, the experimental changes to the parking places be made permanent at least for the duration of the new experiment and the footway works for the short boarder be similarly retained.
9. A new bus stop be agreed at the south-east end of the extended footway after the junction with the carriageway of Westmoreland Terrace and before the junction with Sutherland Row/ Turpentine Lane. Two obstructive parking meters be relocated 55 metres north-west outside the Ebury Bridge Centre.
10. The existing bus stop by the college be deleted and the space used for a new parking place to cater for the two displaced meter spaces from the changes in
9 above.
12. Financial Implications
12.1 The estimated cost of the works is approximately £30,000.
12.2 TfL is funding all of these changes through the Borough Spending Plan a llocation 2004/05 for “Bus Stop Accessibility”. This funding includes the cost of making parts of the existing experiment permanent and undertaking new works by a further use of experimental powers where necessary.
13. Legal Implications
13.1 The report advocates making additional traffic regulation orders needed to alter parking controls in the vicinity of new bus stop locations in Lupus Street and Sutherland Street.
13.2 The new bus stop in Ebury Bridge does not need a traffic order.
13.3 The existing experimental traffic orders expire on 6 December 2004. If the
Council takes no action, the previous parking controls would need to be reinstated, necessitating kerb works. These kerb works are being delayed, so that TfL (London Buses) can judge the effectiveness of the new bus stops.
14. Ward Members’ Consultation
14.1 Councillor Sarah Richardson has been taking the lead for Ward Members on this experimental scheme. She has attended several site meetings and actively engaged local residents and represented them. She has expressed support for the measures in the report, which arose from a site meeting with
TfL and local residents held earlier this year, which she attended with
Councillor Colin Barrow and the Director of Transportation.

14.2 Councillor Alan Bradley has expressed surprise about the close proximity of new point 7 to the stop being kept as it is so close. Officers have advised
Councillor Bradley that point 7 is only being used by Route C10 as it will be unsuitable for Route 24, which will need a larger build-out. Point 7 will help residents living in the southern end of Sutherland Street and those visiting the
Post Office, which is directly by Point 7.
In connection with Point 6, Councillor Bradley is concerned that the promised bus shelter, so that waiting passengers are not tempted to shelter in the doorway of Robin Court, has not materialised to the detriment of residents of that block. Officers have been advised that TfL was awaiting completion of the experiment before providing that shelter.
15. Staffing Implications
15.1 There are no significant staffing implications as a result of this report.
16. Outstanding Issues
16.1 There will be outstanding issues arising from this report as it is proposing a further experiment.
1 7. Performance Plan Implications
17.1 This scheme has no direct benefit to the Performance Plan.
18. Consultation
18.1 The existing bus stops were considered experimental when introduced over a year ago. They were subject to public consultation through the use of experimental powers for the changes to the parking places and waiting restrictions. The changes now proposed to these stops will again be implemented as an experiment. The use of these powers, and the agreement of TfL to consider each package of changes as an experiment, has permitted and will permit the public to respond to the changes before any bus stops locations are made permanent. The Council then has an opportunity to review the responses and act appropriately.
18.2 For the first experiment a consultation leaflet was widely distributed door to door, in order to supplement early responses by telephone, E-mail, letter and petition from the immediate frontagers by the new bus stops. In addition there has been a recent three part petition from a wider area which was presented to Council by Councillor Sarah Richardson and sought extensive changes to the existing experimental stops. The six Ward Members for Churchill and
Warwick Wards were informed at all stages of the consultation and Councillor
Sarah Richardson has acted for them on the detailed issues relating to the bus stops, which are along the ward boundary roads. These representations in total have significantly shaped the changes now proposed and as set out in this report.
19.0 Reasons For Decision

19.1 T he first experiment was necessary as TfL required the change from “hail and ride” to fixed bus stops and this would be the only way of establishing both passenger usage and public acceptability of the additional stops. While TfL might be content to retain all the existing stops from the first experiment, it is prepared to support a revised pattern as an experiment, which could minimise environmental intrusion on residential properties and potentially attract additional passengers. The proposed changes directly address these two issues. There could be minor relocations for some of the resited stops, but they would only move the stops a short distance from the proposed sites.
These possible relocations do not appear to show any real gain in residential amenity. A further experiment carries the risk that TfL might end up preferring some or all of the current sites. However, it does reassure concerned residents at new bus stop sites that their views will also be taken into account, and that the proposed new stops can be further modified if unacceptable outcomes should arise.
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUERIES ABOUT THIS REPORT OR WISH TO
INSPECT ANY OF THE BACKGROUND PAPERS, PLEASE CONTACT
GRAHAM ATTWELL ON 020 7641 1919
EMAIL ADDRESS gattwell@westminster.gov.uk;
FAX NUMBER 020 7641 2658
Background Papers
The documents used or referred to in compiling the report were: -
Three part petition to Council presented by Councillor Sarah Richardson on
21 January 2004.
Questionnaires returned by residents after six months of experiment.
Survey of passenger usage at mid-point stops in Sutherland Street.

For completion by Cabinet Member
Declaration of Interest

I have no interest to declare in respect of this report
Signed ……………………………. Date ………………………………
NAME:

I have to declare an interest
State nature of interest ……..……………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………..
Signed ……………………………. Date …………………………………
NAME:
(N.B: If you have an interest you should seek advice as to whether it is appropriate to make a decision in relation to this matter.)
For the reasons set out above, I agree the recommendation(s) in the report entitled
RE-SITING IF C10 BUS STOPS IN SUTHERLAND STREET AND LUPUS STREET and reject any alternative options which are referred to but not recommended.
Signed ………………………………………………
Cabinet Member for Economic Development and Transport
Date …………………………………………………
If you have any additional comment which you would want actioned in connection with your decision you should discuss this with the report author and then set out your comment below before the report and this pro-forma is returned to the
Secretariat for processing.
Additional comment: …………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………….
………………………………………………………………………………………….

NOTE: If you do not wish to approve the recommendations, or wish to make an alternative decision, it is important that you consult the report author, the Director of
Legal and Administrative Services, the Chief Financial Officer and, if there are staffing implications, the Head of Personnel (or their representatives) so that (1) you can be made aware of any further relevant considerations that you should take into account before making the decision and (2) your reasons for the decision can be properly identified and recorded, as required by law.
Note to Cabinet Member: Your decision will now be published and copied to the Members of the relevant Overview & Scrutiny Committee. If the decision falls within the criteria for call-in, it will not be implemented until five working days have elapsed from publication to allow the Overview and Scrutiny
Committee to decide whether it wishes to call the matter in.

ATTACHMENTS:-
Item 1: Figure 1 : Sutherland Street Bus Stop Review
Item 2: Drawing No. 765002/OF/08
Item 3:
Item 4:
Drawing No. 765002/OF/05
Drawing No. 765002/OF/06