No room for bikes: how Tharp Road could show borough-wide failure over cycling

Residents of Tharp Road in Wallington are requesting that something be done about traffic in their street. That is a view that many other Sutton residents would share.
Tharp Road is also part of a significant and long established east-west cycle route between Sutton and Croydon that allows bike users to avoid main roads and difficult junctions.
The immediate solution proposed by the residents to the issue of traffic in May 2016 was for Tharp Road to be made one-way, which would obviously impede cycle traffic. However, Sutton Council appears – on more than one occasion – not to have reminded residents that Tharp Road is a cycle route. Indeed, at a meeting in October 2016, it offered residents only a choice between ‘no change’ and a one-way scheme. That is to say, a scheme that ignores both the cycle route and the spirit of the borough’s Cycling Strategy.
In this post we look at an alternative idea that could resolve the problems that residents currently have to contend with on Tharp Road and, at the same time, reflect the wider, more strategic, aims of the borough’s current and emerging transport and health related policies. Then we go on to consider whether, crucially, Sutton Council has used the petition as an opportunity to work closely with residents through local committees to gain support for cycling schemes and promote the wider benefits of cycling, as outlined within the borough’s Cycling Strategy.
The conclusion drawn is that Sutton Council (like so many other local authorities) is failing on cycling. Tharp Road demonstrates that the opportunity to move the conversation in a different direction is not being taken, and that council policy is still being ignored or forgotten. A consequence of this is that issues around traffic, rat-runs, and parking are likely to continue to prevail well into the future. And, as will be seen, that has repercussions that go well beyond whether people simply chose to cycle or not.
tharproad_p1270323_lcn_50pc

1: Tharp Road, western end (near Demense Road) looking east. The view mid-morning on a weekday. Here there are attractive late-Victorian villas situated on a residential street lined with magnificent, mature trees. It’s also features London Cycle Network repeater signs (not all LCN routes do, so this is a bonus)! A few kerb-side parking spaces remain, but is is clear that spare spaces are not in abundance. (Also see Google Streetview).
28 November 2016


The title of this post No room for bikes: how Tharp Road could show borough-wide failure over cycling is a play on the title of an article written by Peter Walker and published on the bike-blog of The Guardian on 21 November 2016 No room for bikes: how one street shows the UK-wide failure over cycling. The title was too good not to use here, so thank you Peter.

The message really is this: If local authorities across the country all give poorly thought-out, reactive, responses to the concerns of residents on traffic issues, as demonstrated here, rather than take forward-thinking, proactive, stances, then a UK-wide failure on cycling is inevitable.

Clearly that is not a desirable outcome, so sometimes we have to tell it how it is! 


Part 1: When a residential street becomes a rat-run, or, what are our streets for?

Residents of Tharp Road in Wallington [Open Street Map] submitted a petition to Sutton Council on 4 May 2016 requesting that their road became a one-way street. The petition was presented to members of the Beddington and Wallington Local Committee at the committee’s meeting on 28 June 2016. The petition read as follows [1]:

‘We the undersigned, petition Sutton Council to change Tharp Road, Wallington to “One Way” traffic, with a No Entry from Demense Road. The residents have no off street parking or garages, our cars are parked on the road, cars are constantly being damaged, due to it being used as a “Rat Run”. The congestion causes Road Rage with verbal abusive language being use which can be intimidating. We need to reduce the amount of traffic.”

[1] ‘Petition – Tharp Road, Wallington’ (28 June 2016), Beddington and Wallington Local Committee, 28 June 2016 (06) https://moderngov.sutton.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=375&MId=3980&Ver=4

The residents concerns here are quite understandable, and one-way working would go some way towards solving the difficulty that motorists are experiencing for sure. However, Tharp Road, forms part of a signed, east-west, cycle route (part of the ‘former’ London Cycle Network), and provides cyclists with an alternative route avoiding the busy Croydon Road, A232, to the north, or the equally busy Stafford Road, B271, to the south, and the associated junctions. Consequently, the introduction of one-way traffic on Tharp Road would potentially have a very negative impact on cycle movements in this part of the borough.

tharproad_img_8183_cycleguide12_markedup_50pc

2: Extract from London Cycle Guide 12 (TfL, 2013). Tharp Road (embellished in red) can be seen in approximately the centre of the map, just south of, and running parallel to, the railway line linking Sutton with West Croydon. The district centre of Wallington (not to confused with Waalinden) is on the left, and Fiveways Corner (just in the London Borough of Croydon) is top right. Croydon Road (A232) runs along the top, and Stafford Road to the south of Tharp Road. A distance of about 2.5 km (or ten minutes cycling distance) separates east to west. Streets marked in blue indicate ‘routes signed or marked for use by cyclists on a mixture of quiet or busier roads’; yellow ‘quieter roads that have been recommended by other cyclists may connect other route sections’; green ‘off-road routes..may not be available at night..may be shared with pedestrians’. Note that several of the ‘yellow’ roads to the south-east of Tharp Road are one-way already (without contraflow for cyclists). One-way streets generally make cycling a less attractive option, unless they are planned with cycling in mind (which they have not been in this example). To be planned with cycling in mind, one-way streets need to permit cycling in both directions and need low speed limits (without resorting to ‘speed cushions’). If those conditions are met, one-way streets can be implemented in such a way as to make cycling more attractive than driving for short journeys. This can be achieved if the distance between two points becomes proportionally greater for driving compared to cycling. Pupils, staff and visitors who wish to cycle to Wilson’s School are currently disadvantaged by the lack of contraflow on Link Lane for example (an issue that was recently mentioned here). (Note, the borough’s latest cycling contraflow was provided on Manor Lane early in 2016).

Is one-way the only way?

So, is there something else that could be done, other than proceed with a conversion to one-way? Something that would resolve the problems being experienced by the residents of Tharp Road, and at the same time provide access for people on bicycles? A contra-flow for cycling could be considered. However, given the constrained space on the street, the length of the street, and a lack of passing spaces, a contraflow may not be appropriate in this case. Furthermore, one-way streets can have a tendency to encourage faster movement, and vulnerable users can feel intimidated. So, anything  else? Well, the answer is yes. Has it been considered so far? Unfortunately, as will be seen, the answer to that is no.

A key factor in this is the resident’s acknowledgement that there is a need to reduce the amount of traffic. If all the motorised traffic using Tharp Road, and the streets surrounding Tharp Road, consisted of only traffic generated by local residents and visitors, then there would be much less of a issue. Essentially, therefore, the problem really lies in the use of these streets by non-local traffic.

tharproad_p1270286_50pc

3: Tharp Road, looking west. Again, mid-morning on a weekday. The kerb is heavily parked-up on both sides, and the position of the oncoming vehicle gives an idea of the available carriageway width for passing (not a great deal). Traffic calming, in the form of a sinusoidal full-width hump, is evident where the permitted maximum speed limit is 30mph.
28 November 2016

Is there ever a magic intervention?

There is a way to traffic-calm Tharp Road, a way to ensure that both the speed and volume of traffic is kept to a minimum, and a way to return Tharp Road to the residents of Tharp Road. But it will take more than simply converting to one-way traffic. The magic intervention is known as a ‘point closure’ (also referred to as a ‘modal filter’). A point closure would maintain vehicular access to all parts of the road (so the road would remain two-way), but the only through traffic as such would consist of people on foot or on bicycle.

Some of these point closures already exist in the the borough, but a particularly good example is situated in Cleveland Gardens, Haringey in north London (see image 4).

tharproad_haringeycyclingcampaign_pointclosure_clevelandgardens_20170113

4: A ‘point closure’ in Cleveland Gardens. It’s not just about a bollard, it is also an opportunity to create an attractive street garden.
Photo courtesy of the Haringey Cycling Campaign

The location of a ‘point closure’ would need to be carefully considered. Practically, there may only be one or two locations on Tharp Road that could be considered for this, the most obvious being at the western end by Demense Road (where more space could be made available to accommodate turning vehicles). Alternatively, just beyond the eastern end of the road (by Beddington Grove) may be an option too. Either way, changes would probably be required to the existing one-way layouts in Sandy Lane South and Beddington Grove, and perhaps to the existing cycling contraflow on Beddington Grove as well.

tharproad_p1270269_sandylanenorth_beddingtongrove_50pc

5: Beddington Grove (by Sandy Lane North) looking west. A form of filtered permeability already exists here, located just 100 metres or so east of Tharp Road. In this case, motor vehicles are only permitted, over one short section, to travel west-bound. People cycling (and walking of course) can travel in both directions (in the case of cycling, facilitated by what is effectively a short contraflow). Nevertheless, most of this section of Beddington Grove is two-way.
28 November 2016

Taking the hit, but reducing the risk of damage to the cars

Of course, there is no denying that, by deciding on a ‘point closure’, the residents would be making a sacrifice when it comes to driving. For journeys starting or ending in a car, they would only be able to enter and leave their street from one direction. But, arguably, this is a relatively small sacrifice to make, compared to the continuing situation.

Furthermore, the alternative option, to introduce a one-way street, would mean that residents and visitors would have to get use to leaving in one direction and entering from one direction anyway. So by requesting one-way operation, residents have already indicated that this level of inconvenience is a price they are prepared to pay. A ‘point closure’ could offer much more than a ‘one-way’ ever could.

A quiet road, a healthy road, a civilised, liveable neighbourhood

It is really all about thinking what our residential streets are for. Is the primary purpose of the street to facilitate somewhere to park the car as close to the house as possible? Are streets there simply to provide an alternative route for people driving through the neighbourhood, enabling them to avoid the traffic lights on the main road? Are streets just conduits to other places? Or are streets a part of where we live, and somewhere we can get to know our neighbours? Somewhere that does not put a constraint on children’s freedom?

A ‘point closure’ would offer direct, tangible, benefits associated with a reduction in traffic, including a quieter neighbourhood and fresher air. By closing the road to through motor traffic, the street would feel safer and more inviting for walking and cycling. This could inspire people to consider leaving their car at home and, instead, walk or cycle for some of their local journeys [2].

Such an outcome would resonate with many of the objectives outlined in the borough’s Sustainable Transport Strategy, Cycling Strategy, the emerging Parking Strategy, and the Health and Wellbeing Strategy. In short, the wider policy context would have been embraced. Well done Tharp Road!

[2] Taking this further, there could be other, less obvious, benefits of reducing the dominance of motor traffic in the public realm, and so making the street feel safer. Parents may be more inclined to let their children have a little more independence. And that is important, because research has shown that there is a positive correlation between children’s degree of freedom and their well-being. See Children’s Independent Mobility: an international comparison; Policy Studies Institute, July 2015.

My thanks to Clare Rogers for highlighting this in her excellent talk, ‘The Battle for Enfield’s Mini Holland‘ (part of the Future Cities Catapult lunchtime lecture series) in January 2016. It is amazing how our streets could be transformed, even if only for a few hours a week, if we just considered them in a different light. Playing out, can play an important role. See more at London Play.

tharproad_sunny-scooting_enfield_philrogers_annotated

Meanwhile, Dutch children consistently rank among the happiest in the world, according to surveys by UN children’s fund Unicef, as highlighted in this BBC report (24 January 2017) What can we learn from the Dutch approach to bringing up kids. “..Dutch kids have some of the lowest obesity rates, which may be linked to the fact that so many cycle to school. But… bikes and cars have separate lanes, so parents don’t have the same worries about sending kids out on two wheels..”

So, what is the well-kept secret that contributes towards making Dutch children the happiest in the world? Read more at the US blog ModaCity.  

But one-way worked before?

Given that Tharp Road suffers from a higher level of traffic than would be appropriate for such a street, it looks as though the various traffic management interventions have already been introduced to streets in the vicinity of Tharp Road over the years, including one-way operation in sections of Beddington Grove and Sandy Lane North, have not proved to be as successful as hoped (see image 6).

In a sense, this just indicates that piecemeal, localised interventions are not the answer. Every intervention can have a consequence beyond the immediate area. This is one reason why people often reject ideas such as point closures, saying that this will induce more traffic in surrounding streets. So, rather than isolated schemes, larger, area-wide, reviews with a longer-term approach need to be considered.

tharproad_p1270277_beddingtongrove_tharproad_50pc

6: Beddington Grove (ahead and to the left), meets Tharp Road (to the right out of view). At some point, one-way working was introduced on a section of Beddington Grove to manage traffic movements. Given the 2016 petition in Tharp Road requesting conversion to one-way, how successful have these earlier interventions actually been? The introduction of a series of ‘point-closures’ over a wide area would deal once and for all these streets becoming rat-runs for people outside the immediate area. The result: much less traffic, less stress, less ‘road rage’, easier to park. The result: a quiet road, a ‘healthy’ road, a civilised, liveable neighbourhood. Better streets, better places, all round.
28 November 2016  

Looking to the future

According to projections from the Office for National Statistics, Sutton’s population will increase by around 14.3% between 2012 and 2022, which is a higher rate of increase than for either London as a whole (13%) or England (7.2%) [see 2012-based Population Projections – Neighbourhood Statistics].

All things being equal more people mean more journeys, more cars, more stress on our streets and more difficulty in finding a parking place. That is why now is the time to make the sort of decisions, however potentially (and politically) difficult they may appear, that will help solve the immediate issues of traffic on residential streets and help alleviate the problems that may just be around the corner. Let’s get the quick fix, but make sure that it is the fix that builds for the future.

Sutton’s Cycling Strategy (November 2015) is intended to complement Sutton’s Sustainable Transport Strategy (June 2015). The Sustainable Transport Strategy recognised that one of the main challenges facing the borough is the high level of both car ownership and use. Consequently, the focus of the strategy was (and hopefully still is) to help create the conditions that would encourage walking and cycling for shorter journeys including creating a less car dominated environment. ‘The council supports a ‘modal hierarchy’ which puts sustainable modes of transport above less sustainable modes and prioritises roads users accordingly’.

Unless council employees (especially Directors and Team Leaders), council officers, councillors and committee members collectively make sustainable transport, and health and wellbeing, high priority issues, then the chances of creating the conditions that would encourage walking and cycling for shorter journeys will be very much diminished.

Part 2: What impact has the borough’s Cycling Strategy had?

This is where things get interesting, because now we consider whether the Tharp Road petition has been seen as an opportunity by the local authority to communicate the aims of the Cycling Strategy (or the Sustainable Transport Strategy, Parking Strategy, Health and Wellbeing Strategy or any other strategy).

As previously noted, the petition was submitted to Sutton Council in May 2016 (which happened to be six months after Cycling Strategy had been adopted). A report, providing an initial response to the issues raised by the petition, was prepared for the Beddington and Wallington local committee meeting on 28 June 2016 [3].

[3] Petition – Tharp Road, Wallington: Beddington and Wallington Local Committee, 28 June 2016 https://moderngov.sutton.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=375&MId=3980&Ver=4 (item6)

The report included the recommendations that the committee gave its approval for traffic surveys to be carried out in order to quantify the levels of traffic currently using the road, and that area wide consultation was undertaken to access the impact of the proposed changes. That is all good….

Falling at the first hurdle

…. however, the section of the report outlining the issues to be considered, completely managed to ignore the fact that Tharp Road was a signed cycle route on the London Cycle Network (and the implications that conversion to one-way would have as a result, especially given the limited alternative route options). The report also suggested that Tharp Road was ‘reasonably wide’, and then notes that ‘initial desktop observations would suggest the lack of off-street parking, and therefore private driveways may make it difficult for vehicles to pass each other due to lack of passing spaces’ (with nothing about the suitability or otherwise of the inclusion of a cycling contraflow on the street if the one-way conversion went ahead).

tharproad_p1270304_garages_50pc

7: Behind the houses on the north-side of Tharp Road. An access road to a row of garages. So much for the initial desktop observations made by a council officer suggesting that there was a lack of off-street parking. But are the garages used? The petition hymn includes the statement that residents have no off-street parking on garages. Presumably, therefore, these don’t qualify.
28 November 2016  

This lack of recognition of the cycling aspect rather makes a mockery of the borough’s Cycling Strategy (November 2015). One of the many aims of the strategy is ‘to make cycling the mode of choice for short local journeys, by improving the quality and legibility of cycle routes’ [4]. Would it be unfair to say, therefore, that the author of the report, Ian Price, Team Leader, Strategic Director Environment, Housing and Neighbourhood, (reporting to Mary Morrissey, Strategic Director Environment, Housing and Neighbourhood) appears has fallen at the first hurdle?

[4] Cycling Strategy, London Borough of Sutton, November 2015 (Page 1: Foreword) https://www.sutton.gov.uk/downloads/download/688/sutton_cycling_strategy
The first lost opportunity

So what did the Beddington and Wallington committee members [i] make of the report when it was presented at the June 2016 meeting? The minutes of the meeting [5] put on record that members resolved to approve the traffic surveys and undertake an area wide consultation to assess the impact of the proposed changes. The Strategic Director Environment, Housing and Neighbourhood said that it would be useful to have a public meeting to discuss the issues, and that traffic surveys would be carried out. Four councillors are reported has having made some useful comments.

[5] Agenda and Minutes: Beddington and Wallington Local Committee, 28 June 2016 https://moderngov.sutton.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=375&MId=3980&Ver=4

Unfortunately, however, no one picked up that Tharp Road was on the London Cycle Network, no one made any alternative suggestions to the one-way proposal, and no one mentioned the Cycling Strategy. Hardly an endorsement of one of the strategy’s aim to ‘work closely with residents …. through local committees … to gain support for cycling schemes and promote the wider benefits of cycling’ [6]. Tharp Road was an opportunity to get cycling on the agenda, and it was not taken.

[6] Cycling Strategy, London Borough of Sutton, November 2015 (Page 27: Actively promote cycling within the Council’s Sustainable Transport Strategy) https://www.sutton.gov.uk/downloads/download/688/sutton_cycling_strategy
The second lost opportunity

Just over three months late, another report was produced for the Beddington and Wallington local committee on 11 October 2016, to provide an update on the proposed traffic management measures [7]. This time the author was Yinka Daniyan, Highways and Transport, (reporting to Warren Shadbolt, Executive Head Safer and Stronger Communities).

[7] Tharp Road – Update on Proposed Traffic Management Measures (11 October 2016), Beddington and Wallington Local Committee 11 October 2016 (26) https://moderngov.sutton.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=375&MId=4305&Ver=4

The report noted that the traffic surveys, and the consultation, had been delayed due to the busy schedule of survey personnel. The intention had been to survey before the summer holidays, but had in fact taken place in September. A time for the area-wide consultation had still to be confirmed, but there would be a report ready for the committee meeting scheduled for 10 January 2017.

The update report recommended that the committee approved the allocation of funds of £2,500 from the 2016/17 Local Transport Fund to allow the necessary traffic surveys to be completed for the development of preferred options. The report tends to imply that ‘a west-bound ‘one-way’ system’ is the preferred option for the residents. A reactive, rather proactive, response from the council.

tharproad_p1270265_signage_50pc

8: Beddington Grove. A (mis-orientated) sign on a lamp post, confirming that this is the London Cycle Network. Legibility of route is important, but signs and lines alone are unlikely to create the conditions that give parents sufficient confidence to allow their children the freedom to roam. It’s time make cycling to the park (and to school) as easy as cycling in the park.
28 November 2016

The Beddington and Wallington local committee meeting on 11 October [ii] was another opportunity for suggesting alternative ways of resolving the issues on Tharp Road. Alternative ways that would help resolve the concerns of residents and, at the same, time produce the short of conditions that would expand the appeal of walking and cycling.

So, was this opportunity taken? No. It was either do nothing, or convert to one-way. The minutes to the meeting [8] record that Kevin Williams, Senior Professional Engineer, advised that three options were being investigated. (1) introduce a west-bound one-way system; (2) introduce an east-bound one-way system; (3) do nothing. No mention that Tharp Road was a cycle route.

[8] Agenda and Minutes: Beddington and Wallington Local Committee, 11 October 2016 https://moderngov.sutton.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=375&MId=4305&Ver=4

By offering just these options, and not an option for residents to consider a point closure to through traffic (in other words a modal filter, as discussed above and detailed in the London Cycling Design Standards [9]), tends to suggest that ‘all officers involved with the commissioning and designing of highways, transport and public realm schemes’ may not be ‘fully aware of current cycling design standards and best practice’ [10] after all.

The minutes to the October meeting don’t mention cycling, so presumably cycling was not mentioned at the meeting. A second lost opportunity.

[9] London Cycling Design Standards (TfL, November 2014).

Part 3: Cycle-friendly streets and spaces (Civilised streets: Filtered permeability);

Part 4: Cycle lanes and tracks (Cycle lanes: Two-way cycling in one-way streets (page 47) “Unless there are over-riding reasons not to, there should be a presumption that contraflow cycling should be provided for in any one-way street”).

[10] Cycling Strategy, London Borough of Sutton, November 2015 (Page 26; paragraph 3.44) https://www.sutton.gov.uk/downloads/download/688/sutton_cycling_strategy
tharproad_p1270320_garages_50pc

10: Tharp Road, western end, north side. Seven garages at the entrance to the access road that leads to a row of garages at the rear of the properties (see image 10). If these are not being used on a regular basis, what other options for facilitating parking in this space are there? Could this be an opportunity for the land owners to come up with a design that works, provides the desired outcome, and significantly improved the public realm? Or shall we just take the easy route, and make Tharp Road one-way? The future is bright.
28 November 2016

A strategic approach is needed, but a strategic approach is not being taken

Interestingly, another petition came to the Beddington and Wallington committee in October 2016, and again was related to inappropriate amounts of traffic on a residential street. The petition, from High View Primary School, The Chase, Wallington, [Open Street Map | Google Maps] requested the London Borough of Sutton to install a pedestrian crossing outside the school. Apparently, ‘following the recent use of the nearby Amazon warehouse by vans, and the regular use of the road as a rat run, residents and school contacts were concerned about the safety of the road’.

The Chase is also situated on the London Cycle Network, and on the same route as Tharp Road. Whether, cycling, the Cycling Strategy, or an option to introduce a point closure at some point along The Chase as part of an area-wide consultation, are brought forward by Sutton Council remains to be seen. It would mean taking a different approach (excuse the pun), a strategic approach as set out in the borough’s array of ‘strategies’.

…now is not the time for Sutton to demonstrate any sort of failure over cycling

Unfortunately, the opportunity that Tharp Road presents to work closely with residents on cycling and better streets (as of January 2017) does not appear have been taken. That certainly has to be interpreted as a failure. With boroughs shortly to be invited to develop proposals to bid for funding Liveable Neighbourhoods, now is not the time for Sutton to demonstrate any sort of failure over cycling. Instead, it’s time to communicate, engage and work with the residents of Tharp Road, in a way that reflects the council’s policies.


Further notes:

Although, at the time of publishing this article (26 January 2017), the January 2017 Beddington and Wallington Committee has been and gone (10 January 2017), the report on Tharp Road to be presented to the committee is not available on the committees’ website. There is a link marked ‘Update on Tharp Road and Highways programme Update’, but this provides an update to the High View School petition on The Chase mentioned above. This report is worth reading anyway, because it gives the reasons some residents of The Chase have given in their objection to the idea of a crossing. One objector is quoted as saying ‘the crossing would be an imposition on the resident’s throughout the week, whilst the school only has a need for this crossing during the school opening/closing times, Monday to Friday’. ‘Point-closure’ anyone?

Interestingly, another petition was presented at the January Beddington and Wallington Committee meeting, this time from residents in Clyde Road, Wallington [Open Street Map | Google Maps] requesting speed reduction measures, and noting that ‘HGV’s are using Clyde Road as a cut through’.

Three traffic related issues then, Tharp Road, The Chase, Clyde Road, in a six-month period in just one of six local committees across the borough. It really is time for Sutton Council to take the lead and be proactive. The strategies are there to help.


[i] Beddington and Wallington committee members, June 2016 (‘*’ indicates the councillors who showed support for Space for Cycling in 2014. Our thanks to them. The full, borough-wide, list of councillors who gave their support is shown here).

Attendee Role Attendance
Councillor Joyce Melican Chair Present
Katharyn Jones Non-elected, non-voting Expected
Councillor Marion Radford Vice-Chair Present
Councillor Steve Cook Committee Member Present
Councillor Manuel Abellan* Community Member Present
Councillor Pathumal Ali Committee Member Present
Councillor Neil Garratt* Committee Member Present
Councillor Sunita Gordon Committee Member Present
Councillor Edward Joyce* Committee Member Present
Councillor Nick Mattey Committee Member Present
Councillor Jayne McCoy Committee Member Apologies
Councillor Nighat Piracha Committee Member Present
Councillor Muhammad Sadiq Committee Member Present
Ann Eade Community Representative Expected
Keith Knight Community Representative Expected
Mr Jim Simms Community Representative Expected
John Dodwell Community Representative Expected
Miss Thelma Cranford Community Representative Expected
Mr Kris Kumar Community Representative Expected
Colin Wadeson Community Representative Expected
Paul Lane Community Representative Expected
Robin Cain Community Representative Expected
Sandy Goodwin Community Representative Expected
Tracy Macheta Community Representative Expected
Charlotte Watson Community Representative Expected
Victoria Jeffrey Officer Expected
Glenise Coxon Community Representative Expected
William Solly Council Staff Expected
Duncan Fisher Community Representative Expected

[ii] Beddington and Wallington committee members, October 2016 (‘*’ indicates the councillors who showed support for Space for Cycling in 2014. Our thanks to them. The full, borough-wide, list of councillors who gave their support is shown here).

Attendee Role Attendance
Katharyn Jones Community Representative Expected
Councillor Joyce Melican Chair Present
Councillor Marion Radford Vice-Chair Present
Councillor Steve Cook Committee Member Present
Councillor Manuel Abellan* Community Member Present
Councillor Pathumal Ali Committee Member Apologies
Councillor Neil Garratt* Committee Member Present
Councillor Sunita Gordon Committee Member Apologies
Councillor Edward Joyce* Committee Member Present
Councillor Nick Mattey Committee Member Present
Councillor Jayne McCoy Committee Member Apologies
Councillor Nighat Piracha Committee Member Present
Councillor Muhammad Sadiq Committee Member Present
Ann Eade Community Representative Expected
Keith Knight Community Representative Expected
Mr Jim Simms Community Representative Expected
Miss Thelma Cranford Community Representative Expected
Mr Kris Kumar Community Representative Expected
Colin Wadeson Community Representative Expected
Paul Lane Community Representative Expected
Robin Cain Community Representative Expected
Sandy Goodwin Community Representative Expected
Charlotte Watson Community Representative Expected
Glenise Coxon Community Representative Expected
Victoria Jeffrey Officer Expected
William Solly Council Staff Expected
Duncan Fisher Community Representative Expected

v1.1: 27.01.2017

Advertisements
Posted in Advocacy

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow us on Twitter

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 825 other followers

Support Space for Cycling
%d bloggers like this: