Concerns about “speeding” cyclists using an exclusive London street as a cut-through, allegedly leading to several complaints of “near misses” with residents and diplomats, have led to the road being temporarily closed to both people on bikes and pedestrians while a safety review is held.
Kensington Palace Gardens, a half-mile-long tree-lined avenue dubbed Britian’s most expensive street and ‘Billionaires Row’ thanks to its £35 million average house price, connects Notting Hill Gate and Kensington High Street in the west of the capital, and is home to several foreign embassies, such as Russia and Israel, France’s ambassadorial residence, and notable private residents such as former Chelsea FC owner Roman Abramovich and Princess Haya of Jordan.
The street has long been closed to motorists, with pedestrians and cyclists until this week able to enter at any time through gates guarded by sentry boxes at either end of the avenue.
However, the Evening Standard has reported that people walking or cycling along Kensington Palace Gardens have been temporarily banned, after complaints were raised about cyclists using the street as a cut-through endangering pedestrians.
On Wednesday the Crown Estate, which owns and manages the avenue, closed the road to pedestrians and cyclists “due to safety concerns”, with members of the public now unable to use it until a review is completed.
“We have taken the decision to temporarily close Kensington Palace Gardens to pedestrians and cyclists due to safety concerns,” a Crown Estate spokesperson said this week.
“This decision has been made to prioritise safety and wellbeing, whilst we review a long-term solution.”
Sources have told the Evening Standard that there have been numerous complaints about the behaviour of cyclists on the street, which have allegedly put residents, diplomats, and visitors “at risk” and led to several near misses. The sources say that officials are currently exploring ways to make the road safer.
The Standard has also reported that the ban on pedestrians as well as cyclists comes after fears were raised that security guards would be forced to deal with “disgruntled” cyclists who would instead wish to walk their bike down the street, or lead to those riding hire bikes to leave them outside the gate on the public path.
When asked why pedestrians were also subject to the temporary closure, the Crown Estate insisted that the road would be closed until the safety review is completed and a final decision is made on public access.
Rather notably, this isn’t the first time that residents of Britain’s most exclusive, well-heeled street have raised objections about cyclists encroaching on their turf.
> Locals block Quietway on exclusive London private road
Back in 2016, plans to make Kensington Palace Gardens one of London’s cycling Quietways – signposted routes on quiet back streets designed to offer a calmer and safer network for people on bikes – were scrapped after residents complained that the use of the road by “the masses” would compromise security and “cede its exclusivity”.
The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea council and Transport for London (TfL) received 15 responses to the consultation on the proposed Quietway, including “several” respondents who claimed that it would “pose security risks, unspecified”.
One resident told the consultation: “The residents on this private road should not be responsible for the use of the masses. Open use of this private roadway by the masses will cede its exclusivity and surrender its security.”
“Those who already use the cut-through… are oblivious to the dismount notices and feel the right to pedal through, causing pedestrians to move and young mums with buggies to move out of the way,” another added.
“This is annoying to all, residents and visitors alike, we pay for the upkeep of this private road… in our high council tax and expect to keep the standards of privacy this brings us.”
In a premonition of what was to come eight years later, one letter writer argued that cyclists should be prevented from using the road entirely, while another wrote that there were “far too many cyclists on the roadway as it is” while calling for “a blanket ban”.
























43 thoughts on “Britain’s “most expensive street” bans cyclists and pedestrians – after complaints about “dangerous” cyclists causing “near misses” and putting residents and diplomats “at risk””
It will be interesting to see
It will be interesting to see the outcome of the “safety review” – they will no doubt find no evidence of injuries from collisions between pedestrians and bikes. Residents complain of “high Council Tax” – who are they kidding, they live in one eof the most expensive streets in Europe and pay less than my local authority Council Tax here in Leeds (Band H, the highest, in Leeds is over £4,000 pa, Band H,the highest, in Kensington & Chelsea is little over £3,000 pa !)
headingley wrote:
But they will make the temporary ban permanent anyway
headingley wrote:
I bet you’ll find there are far more band H properties in RBKC than there are in Leeds, so the burden of council tax is split between more residents.
Because for reasons that are not clear to me the bands are set nationally, and not as a percentile of operty values in each LA.
Not that the houses in this street shouldn’t be band H, but there will be a lot of more modest homes which might be D or E elsewhere, pushed into band H in K&C. I doubt you could find a band H home in Hull.
The bands are set nationally
The bands are set nationally but what band you are in depends on local conditions, so a 3 bed house could be band A in one area and Band G say in another.
Council Tax is only one income source and govnernment grants seek to reflect differences in the council tax base by giving areas with a lower base more grants from Revenue support, Baseline and Settlement funding.
It used to be that if everyone spent at the average level, we’d all pay the same council tax per band.
Considering that the
Considering that the accommodation in Buckingham Palace pays less council tax than half the country, judging the exclusivity of a road by its council tax rates is not wise.
That’s down to the people
That’s down to the people elected to run your local authority then!
And of course it’s within the
And of course it’s within the RBKC… (edit: yes, I know it’s privately owned – Crown Estate – but still…).
I wonder if this will set a precedent for private roads to all start banning pedestrians and cyclists (who are all crooks, as we know from previous news items)?
If pedestrians are banned,
If pedestrians are banned, how are people to get to their on-street parked cars?
Oldfatgit wrote:
(Obviously the servants don’t count as people…)
Ironically enough it’s a road
Ironically enough it’s a road I tend to avoid because although it’s closed to through traffic it has access for residents and there’s a lot of crappy driving from people with diplomatic plates who know they can’t get in trouble – and plenty of them have armed protection with them so you don’t want to get into an altercation!
Just to be pedantic it’s only Kensington Palace Gardens at the top (northern) end, it becomes Palace Green halfway down and that’s the part with the Israeli embassy in it, near Kensington High Street.
So the Israeli embassy and
So the Israeli embassy and Russian embassy was mentioned. I can see why the residence are concerned. The house prices are likely to fall.
Imagine if a road (ANY ROAD)
Imagine if a road (ANY ROAD) was closed simply due to complaints about NEAR MISSES with motorists.
There would be uproar.
And by closing the road to cyclists and pedestrians, have the elites created their own version of an LTN?
I don’t know the road/area itself but I’m picturing it being literally just a road with no pavements and each property having it’s own gate to a large driveway.
Thus no one walks outside the boundary of the property and the only way in and out of the properties is by motor vehicle.
Almost like some sort of prison…
I may be wrong (it happens)
I may be wrong (it happens) and haven’t “Googled it” but I was under the impression that a public right of way is just that, as per byways and bridle paths which the public have a right to access unimpeded regardless of land ownership QED – “a public right of way?”
Surely the “near misses” involving vehicles could be due to the careless/reckless motor vehicle driver(s) and they should also be banned during the “review”?
They can still no doubt gain access/egress by helicopter or maybe just put some buses on for them?
Where are the Rambles Association when you need them!
Looks like a very wide road
Looks like a very wide road should be no issue with cyclists using it as a low traffic cut through, I supect the issues are
1) because it is effectively gated some oh so important people don’t check properly before exiting their drives.
2) because it is low traffic pedestrians are choosing to wander down the wide road and not use the pavements. They are they shocked when cyclists pass them (which may or may not be dangerous)
If they can safer by closing
If they can safer by closing the street to bikers why can’t we all be safer and close all roads to cyclists especially the 2 separate parents i‘ve seen this week riding down a busy road with small kids sitting on the crossbar , and the very clever man who decided it would be ok to ride down the wrong side of a main road alongside of his child on a small bike . I often wonder is it compulsory when you buy a bike to have all your commonsense removed
Ah, they got that from road
Ah, they got that from road.cc! There was a post here complaining about yoof riding carelessly but being invulnerable. Someone responded suggesting they would attach an urchin to their handlebars to protect themselves.
Didn’t happen.
Didn’t happen.
In the Netherlands I once saw
In the Netherlands I once saw three cyclists riding side by side carrying a sofa, which was balanced across their rear luggage racks. It’s also not uncommon there for people to carry two or three small children with them on a bike. It’s absolutely disgusting. They’re savages with no respect for human life. So glad we got our country back.
I need some help. Do you know
I need some help. Do you know which band recorded these songs?
A. Poison Arrow
B. The Look of Love
C. When Smokey Sings
It’s on the tip of my tongue – for the life of me I just can’t remember.
Being the RCC troll, is it a
Being the RCC troll, is it a requirement to never check your facts or just make it up as you go along? I’m asking because I saw nearly 1 million drivers last week driving without insurance/VED/MoT and KSI’ing hundreds of people, especially pedestrians while on the pavement. If only we could ban everyone who drives with such disregard for other people using the public highway, it would save many £millions a year.
I haven’t bothered to fact check this either. But cyclists….Lycra…tax….helmets…
Reeks of ‘scam’.
Reeks of ‘scam’.
If it’s a private road, why
If it’s a private road, why would council tax payers be paying anything towards its upkeep ?
This.
That ^^
If its also an unadopted road there’d be nothing to stop the local authority blocking off the junctions at both ends to motor vehicles within their highway boundary provided they gop through the correct TRO process. Right of access doesn’t mean by motorised vehicle.
If your taxes are going
If your taxes are going towards its upkeep then you have the right to use it no matter what these elites say and there is nothing they can do about it.
Dz1 wrote:
Not sure about that, my taxes go towards the upkeep of Buckingham Palace but I’m fairly sure if I tried to have a stroll through the state apartments there would be some objection.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Not sure about that, my taxes go towards the upkeep of Buckingham Palace but I’m fairly sure if I tried to have a stroll through the state apartments there would be some objection.— Dz1
Also, plenty of military sites wouldn’t be enthused about the public wandering around to see where their tax money is being spent.
Dz1 wrote:
I’m not aware of any legal basis for that.
Can you cite, please?
Hirsute wrote:
Here the 2 private roads pay for their own maintenance, You make a valid points!
Diplomats being renowned for
Diplomats being renowned for their exemplary motoring behaviour.
Whenever there’s nearly a
Whenever there’s nearly a crash don’t forget to call the nearly police.
One rule for me and another
One rule for me and another rule for thee.
lio wrote:
Sadly we have two private roads near us 1 has access and 1 doesn’t. They pay for all the road maintenance and if its private thats it im afraid.
Their are gated communities in this country no difference
Stephankernow wrote:
Lots of private land, including private roads, has public rights-of-way that can’t be removed arbitrarily, owners can’t just say “closed, that’s it” as they wish.
“the masses”…
“the masses”…
They don’t even bother to hide their contempt. The enduring human tendency to mistake wealth for worth is just staggering. I’d like to airdrop in a pubfull of Mansfield lads to instantly start screaming, “Are you looking at my pint?” and “D’you think you’re better than me?”
It’s a private road, hard to
It’s a private road, hard to argue against the request to band people, unless they are in cars and reside on that street.
Dhill wrote:
It may be a private road but as far as I understand it is a public right of way (if it wasn’t I’m sure they would have banned the proles long ago); I’m not sure whether the owner of a private road has a right to ban cycling but I’d think that in banning all members of the public, even pedestrians, from a public right of way Crown Estates are on pretty dubious legal ground. Far from being “hard to argue against the request” I’d say that if this were taken to court Crown Estates would find it hard to justify their actions.
.
.
Weird one.
Weird one.
I can’t find anything except half a dozen Slight injuries in 25 years.
Someone is a bullshit-artist.
mattw wrote:
The very nature of the road, only 800m long with cobbled sections and gates at both ends with the whole road in full view of armed police both at each end and outside the various embassies, would mean you’d have to be an absolute lemon to try any “dangerous and furious” riding down there, and I’ve never seen any. For some people the presence of a moving cyclist anywhere within fifty metres appears to go down in their book as a “near miss”.
Looks like one very exoensive
Looks like one very exoensive car park which detracts from the area. Surely, they should also ban parking on the street!!!
“………after complaints
“………after complaints were raised about
cyclistsplebs using the street as a cut-through endangeringpedestriansrich people.”FTFY.
As others have said if they
As others have said if they actually cared about pedestrian safety they’d not also ban pedestrians too. They just don’t want proles on their street.
It’s time to get these billionaires out of London.
Unsurprising shittake in the
Unsurprising shittake in the headline from the appalling Evening Standard, which is of course owned by a Russian oligarch who is doubtless chums with many of the billionaires who have their mansions on the street: “Speeding cyclists force closure of ‘Billionaires’ Row’ close to Kensington Palace to public”. Note that it is cyclists who have forced the closure, not our fault squire, we’d love to keep our exclusive security-patrolled rich man’s playground open to all but the cyclists have forced us to shut you all out.