What a CTMP Pro-forma Asks

Many do, and where one exists you are normally expected to use it rather than submit free-form text. The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, for example, publishes a pro-forma setting out 34 numbered questions and states that you should provide a response to every question in the box provided, marking anything genuinely inapplicable as not applicable. Submitting a narrative document where a pro-forma exists delays approval and may require resubmission in the proper format.

No, and this is the single most common cause of a rejected first submission. There is no national CTMP standard. Delivery hours, minimum clear footway and carriageway widths, how many vehicles may be on the highway at once, which operator accreditation is required and how long a road closure takes to arrange are all set locally and they genuinely differ. Some authorities publish a detailed pro-forma, some publish a short checklist, and some publish nothing and simply write the condition. Always work from your own authority's document. Figures quoted anywhere, including here, are illustrations of what councils ask for, not national rules.

The RBKC pro-forma has 34. They cover the site and contact details, neighbour engagement, the construction traffic route, traffic hours, site access, spoil removal, concrete supply, scaffolding, scheduling, the vehicle call-up procedure, pedestrian protection, operator accreditation, highway licences, parking suspensions, general site management, coordination with other developments, monitoring, responsibility and programme.

Yes. The guidance is explicit that you should respond to all questions, and that anything you consider does not apply to your development should be marked "not applicable" rather than left blank. A blank box reads as an omission and generates a request for information; an N/A reads as a considered answer.

It is the council's own document setting out how construction in the borough is expected to be carried out. The first question on the RBKC pro-forma asks you to confirm you have read and understood it. It is asked first because everything after it is written on the assumption that you have.

Because a CTMP is a live document that will be revised, and the council needs to know which version it is approving. The pro-forma asks for both. Submitting an undated document makes it impossible to tell later whether the site is operating to the approved version.

Yes. The pro-forma asks for the planning permission reference number for the development, because the CTMP is normally discharging a condition on that permission. Without it the submission cannot be matched to the condition it is meant to satisfy.

The pro-forma asks for contact details for the person responsible for completing the form, and separately, at question 32, asks you to identify who is responsible for the day to day implementation of the CTMP. Those are often different people, and the council wants both. Naming a company rather than a person is a common weakness.

The RBKC pro-forma asks you to detail how neighbours have been involved in the development of the plan. That is a question about what you did, not a box to tick, so a submission that says nothing about neighbour engagement is answering it badly. On constrained residential streets this is often the question that determines how much local objection the plan attracts.

The pro-forma asks you to describe the route to and from the site, showing details of links, and to consider schools on or near the route and other planned developments or developments under construction, and whether those can be avoided. It also states plainly that vehicles must not drive on footways other than at dedicated access points.

Yes, and you have to confirm that you will. The pro-forma asks you to confirm that all contractors, subcontractors, delivery companies and visitors will be advised of and required to strictly adhere to the specified route and all other terms of the plan. A route nobody has been told about is not a route.

Under the RBKC pro-forma, deliveries and collections are restricted to between 9.30am and 4.30pm Monday to Friday. Where there is a school on the route, deliveries are restricted to between 9.30am and 3pm Monday to Friday during term time. Deliveries and collections are not permitted on Saturdays, Sundays or public holidays. Other authorities set different hours, so check locally.

Not under the RBKC pro-forma, which states deliveries and collections are not permitted on Saturdays, Sundays or public holidays. Where an authority does allow weekend working it is usually a separate consent and engages residential amenity rather than highway considerations.

Sometimes, and it is specific. The RBKC pro-forma states the council will not agree to construction traffic using Portobello Road or Golborne Road on Fridays. That is a market-day restriction. The general lesson is that local restrictions exist which no national guidance will tell you about, which is why the local pro-forma matters.

The pro-forma asks you to identify schools, nurseries, markets, tourist attractions or other sensitive uses near the site which have informed your proposed construction traffic hours. It also notes that in particularly sensitive locations, for example near a street market, further restrictions will be necessary.

The pro-forma provides for it: it asks you to specify any exceptions, giving the delivery of abnormal loads such as tower cranes, heavy plant or site offices as examples. So the route is to identify the exception in the plan rather than seek forgiveness on the day.

The RBKC pro-forma requires an accurate, to scale, numbered and dated site plan annotated with dimensions showing: all points of site access, vehicular and pedestrian; where materials, skips and plant will be stored; the position of hoarding; the position of nearby trees and any tree protection structures; where construction vehicles would wait to load and unload; surrounding properties and their accesses; the layout of any approved construction sites on adjacent frontages; parking bay suspensions; a minimum of 1.2m clear footway width retained at all times; and a minimum of 3m clear carriageway width.

Because two sites servicing from the same street can block it between them even where each is individually compliant. The pro-forma requires the layout of any approved construction sites on adjacent frontages to be shown, and question 30 separately requires coordination with other nearby developments.

Because construction vehicles and plant damage them, and because the council treats that as a highway and amenity matter. The pro-forma requires the position of nearby trees and tree protection structures to be annotated, states that the chosen method of spoil removal must avoid damaging nearby trees, and notes that hoarding around trees requires a highways licence.

Generally no. The RBKC pro-forma states that welfare facilities, skips, plant and material should be on the site itself wherever possible, that placement on the highway in front of adjoining properties will be unacceptable, and that placement in a position hindering access to surrounding properties will be unacceptable. Use of the highway for storage or welfare is at the council's discretion and is generally not permitted, and if you propose it you must supply full justification setting out why on-site space cannot be allocated.

Under the RBKC pro-forma, 1.2m clear footway width at all times. The stated reason is to allow wheelchair users and pushchairs to pass. This is a requirement rather than a target, and it constrains hoarding lines on narrow pavements.

Under the RBKC pro-forma, 3m clear carriageway width, maintained at all times, to prevent the road becoming blocked. Question 12 asks you to confirm this explicitly. It is the single most consequential dimension in the document because it dictates vehicle choice, parking suspensions and whether you can work at all without blocking the street.

Expect to be pushed towards smaller vehicles rather than more parking suspensions. RBKC's pro-forma requires narrow body construction vehicles, defined as fitting fully within on-street parking bays, which it puts at a maximum of 2m wide without wing mirrors. Crucially it states that where the clear width could be achieved either by parking suspensions or by narrow body vehicles, it will require the narrow body vehicles. Other authorities take the same approach with different figures.

Under the RBKC definition, one that can be accommodated fully within an on-street parking bay, which it gives as a maximum of 2m wide without wing mirrors. That is a tighter constraint than most standard construction vehicles meet, and it is why the 3m clear width question drives the whole logistics design on narrow streets.

Yes, and it catches people out. RBKC's pro-forma states that account must be taken of the potential for third party servicing occurring on the opposite side of the street or on adjacent frontages. Your own vehicle may leave the required clear width until a delivery arrives for a neighbour opposite, at which point the street is blocked and it is still your problem.

Under the RBKC pro-forma, yes: it states that on mews streets routine manoeuvring by HGVs adjacent to the threshold of neighbouring houses will not be acceptable. It also notes elsewhere that spoil removal must avoid damaging historic mews arches.