On 23 December 2019 we received comments from Sutton Council officers in reply to our response to the ‘Cycleway between Sutton High Street and Colliers Wood – proposals in the St Helier area’ informal consultation (submitted 3 November 2019). The officers also provided an overview of comments received from the wider community.
In sections 1 to 5 of this post we review the comments of officers in relation to the recommendations we made. Sections 1 to 4 relate to the aspects associated with the project that we thought, in our response, could benefit from a review, and section 5 covers the specific schemes associated with the Cycleway. In section 6 we take a look at the summary of consultation responses to the Cycleway proposals from other respondents and stakeholders. Any updates received during the weeks subsequent to Sutton Council officers reply in late December 2019, will be included in section 7, “What happened next?”.
As will be seen, some of the suggestions that we made in response to the consultation have been received positively, others less so.
On the positive side:
- officers have agreed to our request to monitor traffic flows on Robertsbridge Road prior, and subsequent, to the implementation of 20 mph (to help quantify whether, as claimed, a speed limit change from 30mph to 20mph will reduce traffic volume)
- officers have indicated that the new shared use pedestrian/cycle path, linking Bishopsford Road with Newstead Walk, will be constructed to a high standard and that access and egress to the path will be fully facilitated (i.e. not blocked by parked vehicles)
- officers have indicated that the existing paths, linking Roberstbridge Road with Wrythe Lane and Wrythe Lane with Grennell Road, will retain partial segregation for walking and cycling (i.e. not shared) and will be upgraded to a high standard (in the case of the Wrythe Lane to Grennell Road path, machine laid)
- officers have indicated that the provision of a link between the Cycleway and St Helier Hospital is now being considered (although, disappointingly, it looks unlikely that this link will be facilitated through the construction of high-quality infrastructure along Wrythe Lane)
- officers are going to ask Transport for London whether they can share the Cycle Route Quality Criteria assessments for this Cycleway with us (and we will be following up our request that all future such assessments, when required for schemes and projects, will be publicly shared too)
The less good outcomes are:
- the provision of a link between the Cycleway and the David Weir Leisure Centre (Sutton Arena) is not to be included as part of this Cycleway project (but a two-way cycle track on the east side of Robertsbridge Road to, facilitate a link, will be included as part of a future scheme)
- a ‘low-traffic neighbourhood’ approach is not being taken at this time
- the proposed designs for crossings at Bishopsford Road and Wrythe Lane are likely to remain largely unchanged and without an element of future-proofing
In terms of the responses to the consultation from the wider community, although there was a disappointingly low response rate (forty-one respondents in total), there was strong support for all the proposals. Only one respondent indicated that they did not support the 20mph zone, claiming that 20mph was not legal. All other proposals scored at least 85 per cent approval rate.
An informal consultation on the other borough section of this proposed Sutton town centre to Colliers Wood Cycleway, namely the 2km section between Grennell Road (Sutton North ward) and Sutton High Street (Sutton Central ward), is expected imminently. This expectation is based on the update given at the December 2019 Cycle Forum meeting, at which attendees were told that the second phase of the Cycleway consultation would be launched towards the end of January or at the beginning of February 2020.
There is expectation that the 20mph speed limit in the Stavordale Road area will be funded from the LIP programme rather than from the Cycleway budget, as the 20mph scheme was part of the LIP 2019/2020 programme (see First sight of ‘Healthy Streets’ proposals for Sutton) and is also included in the LIP 2020/2021 list of schemes (see ‘Healthy Streets’ for Sutton year two (2020-2021) for the St Helier, The Wrythe and Wandle Valley Local Committee). Resurfacing of the streets along the proposed Cycleway alignment in the Stavordale Road area (an element of the Cycleway programme) was carried out in 2016.
1: Our recommendation: Linking the Cycleway to important amenities
In our submission we had said that it would be welcome to see the provision of high-quality links to connect the Cycleway with St Helier Hospital and the David Weir Leisure Centre, especially so given that the route alignment passes within a few hundred metres of both of these important amenities.
The response to this recommendation was: “The original scheme did not include links however we are now looking at a link to the hospital as TfL have agreed to split the route in to 2 phases with the Bishopsford Rd to St.Helier Hospital section funded to implementation in phase 1 in 2019/20″.
So it looks like a potential “yes” to a link to the hospital, but “no” to a link to the leisure centre. In relation to our specific recommendation, regarding the proposed upgrade to the Rosehill Park East/Greenshaw Woods path being an opportunity to consider the options for constructing a direct walking and cycling link (spur) to St Helier Hospital (but for this not to preclude the preferred option for segregated paths along Wrythe Lane at some future point), the response was “we are” (see (5.4.4) below).
2: Our recommendation: Providing better designs for the crossings
We said that it would be welcome to see a new, updated, design for the proposed the crossing at the Bishopsford Road (A217), that would reduce the likelihood of conflict between pedestrians, cyclists and motorists, and offer a facility that anticipated a significant increase in cycle flows on the Cycleway alignment. We suggested that the proposed design had several limitations, and that there would be the expectation for this signalised crossing to be a parallel cycle and pedestrian crossing (rather than the proposed shared crossing) on a full-width raised table.
We also said that an improvement on the proposed design for the Wrythe Lane crossing would be for the crossing to be on a full-width raised table, and for the central refuge island to be removed.
In relation to the Bishopsford Road crossing, the reply was: “The detailed design is currently underway and will have an independent safety audit and TfL signal audit”.
So a slightly ambiguous response to a request for an improved design for the crossing at Bishopsford Road, but not an outright “no”.
For Bishopsford Road, the reply also noted that, “the new design standards does not allow for parallel pedestrian/cycle on a signal crossing“, but that officers “will look at the possibility of a raised table as part of this scheme“
That’s interesting. Design standards not allowing a parallel/cycle on a signal controlled crossing. Really? So perhaps a “no” after all. It looks as though those on foot will still be expected to share the pavement with those on cycles, and the infrastructure will do nothing to suggest that cycling is being enabled. A raised table will help to a degree.
In regard to the Wrythe Lane crossing design, the response was: “Resisting installing vertical deflection on Wrythe Lane due to the high number of ambulances. The centre island gives protection to drivers turning in to the hospital and allows right turning cyclists to cycle in to the reservation. It is 2.2m wide”.
So that is a definite “no” to our suggested options for the Wrythe Lane crossing.
3: Our recommendation: Ensuring junctions are future-proofed
We said that it would be welcome to see the opportunity being taken to ‘future-proof’ the junctions at Bishopsford Road and Wrythe Lane by incorporating an element of high-quality cycle provision along sections of these busy roads in the vicinity of the Cycleway intersections.
The officer’s reply: “The Cycleway scheme does not cover introducing cycling facilities along Bishopsford Road and Wrythe Lane. However we are now working on cycle facilities on Wrythe Lane up to the Hospital entrance near Thornton Road”.
Well, the point we were making was that the Cycleway scheme (all Cycleway schemes) should consider the options for the inclusion on cycling facilities on the main roads across which the route alignment passes. To fail to do is a fundamental weakness, and is just evidence of lack of ambition of the Cycleway programme.
It is believed that the reference to “working on cycle facilities on Wrythe Lane up to the hospital entrance near Thornton Road” relates to the 2019/2020 LIP scheme ‘Wrythe Lane – between Welbeck Road & St Helier Hospital’, see First sight of ‘Healthy Streets’ proposals for Sutton. If this is the case, it is nothing to get too excited about. Details of a proposed Traffic Management Order for ‘Thornton Road, Tweeddale Road and Wrythe Lane – to facilitate a junction improvement’ scheme were released on 15 January 2020 (a year after initial details were released). Some comments to this schemes are provided at Cyclescape on the Wrythe Lane / Tweeddale Road / Thornton Road – proposed changes to junction thread.
4: Our suggestion: Sharing the Cycle Route Quality Criteria assessments
We also suggested that it would be very helpful for Cycle Route Quality Criteria assessments to be reported by the council as part of all future consultations.
In reply to this we learn that the quality criteria assessment has been completed for this section of route, and that this and been sent to Transport for London. Officers “will see if TfL is happy to release this document”.
So, in terms of this section of Cycleway, our request has been recognised and is being followed-up. We may receive a copy of the data (and we will remind officers of this). But a complete answer has not been given. We asked whether the assessments for all future schemes can be shared, and this has not been answered. Again, something for us to follow-up.
5: Responses from officers to our specific recommendations
5.1 Stavordale Road / Robertsbridge Road area – proposed 20 mph speed limit zone
5.1.1 In addition to introducing a 20 mph speed limit zone for the Stavordale Road / Robertsbridge area (which is presumed to be funded as a Local Implementation Plan scheme rather than the Cycleway budget), consider taking a ‘low traffic neighbourhood’ approach (and, as a minimum requirement, include full-width, sinusoidal profile, speed humps)
Response: “Going to incorporate an entry treatment on Robertsbridge Rd at the junction with Middleton Road but not considering humps or traffic restrictions [low-traffic neighbourhoods] at this time. Yes –funded from LIP”. ⇓
5.1.2 Monitor, and report on, traffic flows on Robertsbridge Road before and after the introduction of 20mph (to quantify whether there is any reduction in traffic volume)
Response: “Yes will be monitoring before and after”. ⇑
5.1.3 Consider methods of delivering a high-quality link between the Cycleway alignment, within the Stavordale Road / Robertsbridge Road area, and the David Weir Leisure Centre (to include a ‘walking and cycling link’) between Robertsbridge Road and the arena entrance.
Response: A two-way cycle track on the east side of Robertsbridge Road “will be considered as part of a future scheme”, but “not included in this scheme“. Install a bus-gate / road closure on Robertsbridge Road “not in this scheme“; consider rerouting buses from Robertsbridge Road to Bishopsford Road “not in this scheme“; upgrade the existing path between Robertsbridge Road and David Weir Arena entrance “not in this scheme” ⇓
5.2 Bishopsford Road – New signalised crossing to provide a safer crossing point, and a new path to link Newstead Walk to the new crossing point
5.2.1 As a minimum requirement, provide a parallel pedestrian / cycle crossing on Bishopsford Road on a full-width raised table
Response: No to parallel crossing, possible to raised table (also see ‘2 Better crossing designs’ above) ⇓
5.2.2 Consider the introduction of a signalised stand-alone crossing on Bishopsford Road to be directly aligned between Newstead Walk and Malmesbury Road, and for this to include a point closure, with cycle gap, at the point of entry with Malmesbury Road
Response: “This option was discussed with LB Merton but the volume and speed of traffic on Malmsbury Road meets the criteria without closing the road. A closure would be the higher quality option and could be considered at a later date”. No direct response to the path alignment recommendation. ⇓
5.2.3 Ensure the final design of the crossing at Bishopsford Road facilitates ease of manoeuvre in all directions by all types of cycle
Response: “Agree, but we also need to cater for the needs of all users and residents”. (Is this suggesting that facilitating ease of movement is mutually exclusive to catering for the needs of all users?) ⇔
5.2.4 Ensure the final design of the Bishopsford Road to Newstead Walk path facilitates full access and egress at its intersection with Newstead Walk at all times and for all types of cycle
Response: “Agree” ⇑
5.2.5 Ensure the Bishopsford Road to Newstead Walk path is constructed to a high standard (smooth, non-undulating surface, with good rolling resistance)
Response: “Agree”. (Also see (5.3.1) and (5.4.2) below) ⇑
5.2.6 Reconsider a re-alignment of the Bishopsford Road to Newstead Walk path, and the possibility for this to be delivered as a ‘walking and cycling link’
No response provided ⇓
5.3 Wrythe Lane – New zebra crossing with cycle facilities
5.3.1 Ensure the Robertsbridge Road to Wrythe Lane path is constructed to a high standard
No response in relation to this specific path, but could take as “Agree”. (Also see (5.2.5) and (5.4.2)) ⇔
5.3.2 As a minimum requirement, retain partial separation on the Robertsbridge to Wrythe Lane path
No response in relation to this specific path, but could take as “Agree”. (Also see (5.4.1) below) ⇔
5.3.3 Consider the option of converting the Robertsbridge to Wrythe Lane path to a ‘walking and cycling link’
No response to the recommendation for conversion to a ‘walking and cycling link’ ⇓ An acknowledgement on the issue of ambiguity in the consultation question on was provided: “It is already segregated, sorry if the consultation question was misleading. It will remain segregated”
5.3.4 Include a full-width raised table as part of the final design of the Wrythe Lane parallel pedestrian/cycle crossing
Response: No. “Resisting installing vertical deflection on Wrythe Lane due to the high number of ambulances. The centre island gives protection to drivers turning in to the hospital and allows right turning cyclists to cycle in to the reservation. It is 2.2m wide.” (also see ‘2: Better crossing designs’ above) ⇓
5.3.5 Ensure that the final design of the Wrythe Lane crossing facilitates ease of manoeuvre in all directions by all types of cycle
Response: Doubtful. “ok for cyclists on Wrythe Lane south east bound toward the hospital as they can cycle into the centre island that is 2.2m wide. North west bound there will be a dropped kerb before the crossing for them to get off the carriageway”. ⇔
5.3.6 Consider the scope for integrating with the Cycleway plans ideas for introducing segregated cycle lanes on Wrythe Lane at some future point
Response: No. “The Cycleway scheme does not cover introducing cycling facilities along […] Wrythe Lane. However we are now working on cycle facilities on Wrythe Lane up to the Hospital entrance near Thornton Road. (Also see ‘3: Future-proofing junctions’ above) ⇓
5.4 Rosehill Park East/Greenshaw Woods – Upgrade existing shared use pedestrian/cyclist path
5.4.1 As a minimum requirement, retain partial separation between the paths linking Wrythe Lane with Grennell Road
Response: Partial separation to be retained. “We are, sorry if the question was misleading”. ⇑
5.4.2 Ensure the Wrythe Lane to Grennell Road link is constructed to a high standard
Response: “Going to machine lay this path so will be good. Other paths [see (5.2.5) and (5.3.1) above] may not be as good if the tarmac is hand laid but we will ask for a good finish“. ⇔
5.4.3 Consider the scope for new techniques in lighting provision on the Wrythe Lane to Grennell Road link that is in harmony with the surroundings
No response provided to the question of lighting ⇓
5.4.4 Consider the options for constructing a direct walking and cycling link to St Helier Hospital (not to preclude the preferred option for segregated paths along Wrythe Lane at some future point)
Response: “We are”. ⇑
5.4.5 Ensure the interface at the point at which the Wrythe Lane to Grennell Road path joins Rose Hill Park West / Grennell Road is constructed to a high standard and provides safer geometry than is currently the case, with minimum variation in surface level between the path and the carriageway
Response: “Agree, we will”. ⇑
5.5 Cycle parking provision at St Helier Hospital
Although the status of cycle parking provision at the St Helier Hospital site is clearly not evident within the remit of the Sutton to Colliers Wood Cycleway project, it is worth giving some consideration to this given the proximity of the amenity to the proposed route/network alignment.
Currently, cycle parking is facilitated at St Helier Hospital at four locations within the site, comprising of twenty-one Sheffield-type stands in total. Two of the locations are close to the main public entrance, one is at some distance from the entrance to the far side of the main car park, and the other (more of a staff facility) is at one side of the main building.
6: Summary of other responses to the Cycleway consultation
A total of 41 households responded to the St Helier Cycleway consultation. 40 were individual online responses, and one respondent replied by letter.
Responses were received from 10 households in the Cycleway consultation area (nine online, one written). It is worth noting that the Cycleway consultation area, at a conservative estimate, is likely to have comprised of more than 600 households.
The estimate of 600 households is based on postcode finder revealing 500 households in the core area, but with some streets in the area excluded from the search (including sections of Bishopsford Road, Wrythe Lane, Grennell Road and Rose Park West).
Seventeen of the online responses were from residents elsewhere in the borough, and fourteen online submissions were from respondents residing outside of the borough. In addition to our written input to the consultation, Living Streets and the London Cycling Campaign also contributed. There was no responses from either of the other two stakeholders (the Police and Friends of Rosehill Parks) – see 6.8.1 to 6.8.5.
It is worth noting that, despite the consultation specifically referring to a Cycleway, and being pitched around residents enjoying a cleaner and healthier environment, the opportunity was not taken to ask respondents whether they currently cycled or whether they would be more likely to cycle (and less likely to drive) if the proposed interventions went ahead.
6.1 Do you support the introduction of a 20mph speed limit zone?
Of the forty online responses received, thirty-six were in favour of the 20 mph zone, three were ‘not sure’, and one was against. The respondent who sent in a written response did not indicate a preference for or against 20mph. In the consultation area, eight of ten respondents showed support for 20 mph, one was unsure, and one did not provide an answer. In the remainder of the borough, 14 out of 17 showed support, with two ‘not sure’ and one was against. All 14 of the respondents living outside the borough gave their support to 20mph.
Comments from respondents living in the consultation area, and who were in favour of 20 mph, were:
- “Support 20mph”
- “Traffic needs slowing on Robertsbridge Rd”
- “20mph good, zebra good, would not want to see more grass removed if scheme doesn’t attract more cyclists / walkers”
- “Also complete the 20mph on Green Lane in LBS section”
There was one comment from a resident in the consultation area who was ‘unsure’:
- “Not sure about the 20mph as not enforced elsewhere”
This was a theme picked up in a comment made by a respondent living elsewhere in the borough (but who gave support to 20mph):
- “20mph will need enforcing with traffic calming measures”
And also by a borough resident who had indicated ‘not sure’ for 20mph:
- “20mph with signs only not effective”
Another comment from a respondent living outside the immediate consultation area but within the borough, and who supported 20mph:
- “Speeds must be low on cycle routes”
Respondents based outside of the borough, and in support of 20mph, commented:
- “Speed limit will need to be enforced”
- “Need to change cushions to sinusoidal on Robertsbridge Rd”
The one respondent who was against the 20 mph, commented:
- “20mphs are not legal. Doesn’t want any scheme that is against the motorist”
Our letter to Council Leader Ruth Dombey in August 2018, ‘Evidence in support of 20mph‘, noted that “20mph reduces casualty rates, saves money, and receives the approval of residents once implemented”. The letter also noted that “20mph is not the silver bullet when it comes to enabling active travel for many people”, and that “20mph alone is unlikely to facilitate active travel when traffic volumes are high”.
6.2 Do you support the new crossing on Bishopsford Road to assist pedestrians and cyclists across the road?
Thirty-nine respondents showed support for the proposed new crossing on Bishopsford Road. The two remaining respondents neither answered or provided a comment.
There were two specific comments made in regard to this proposed signalised pedestrian and cyclist crossing. A borough resident said:
- “Need more cycle signs on A217 footway to warn peds it is shared use”
A respondent living outside the borough requested that the waiting time to cross be kept to a minimum with:
- “Toucan times to favour cyclists”
As noted in our response to the consultation, a crossing at Bishopsford Road is welcome as it will reduce the barrier effect currently created by this busy A217 and help join the two communities situated on either side of the road.
However, in addition to concerns around the robustness of the proposed ‘toucan’ crossing design, it could be argued that agreement to fund the crossing from the Cycleway budget (as opposed to the LIP programme) should not be given until, or unless, the remaining sections of the Cycleway (through to Sutton and Morden town centres) have been given the green light following further community engagement. Otherwise the crossing will just be seen as part of a legacy of failure to deliver the complete Cycleway. As former Cycling Commissioner said in conversation with LCC in 2013 “Quietway routes will be direct and they will be properly signposted, —and won’t give up at difficult places, and will be delivered end to end not piecemeal” (our emphasis). Consultation on the section of route from St Helier to Sutton town centre is expected in late January, early February, 2020.
6.3 Do you support a new path to link the new crossing on Bishopsford Road to Newstead Walk?
Although 35 of the 41 respondents supported the construction a shared-use pedestrian/cycle path, with landscaping features, between the Bishopsford Road crossing and Newstead Walk, this proposal resulted in the highest number of comments to the St Helier Cycleway consultation.
In the consultation area, 8 of the 10 respondents gave their support to the path, with one of the supporters commenting:
- “Must ensure the path at the end of Newstead Walk is kept clear of parking for access on to the path as St. Bennets Rd has that problem”. For ‘St Bennets Road’ read ‘St Benet’s Grove’.
The two respondents against the path both resided on Newstead Walk (and these were the only two households on the street, comprising of 71 individual addresses, that submitted a response), and they provided the following comments:
- “Path across green at Newstead not needed. Waste of money cyclists wont use it”
- “Do not want to lose parking spaces so does not want the route to come along Newstead Walk. Does not want the path across the green if it means removing trees. Suggests using St. Benets Grove as the route and then along Bishopsford Road”
Elsewhere in the borough, the path received support from 15 out of 17 respondents. Of the two who did not show support, one was fully against – but did not supply any supporting commentary, and the other was ‘not sure’ – although did offer the suggestion that:
- “Newstead Walk path could be better integrated with existing path network”
A supporter of the path in the borough noted:
- “Must ensure there is access to the path from Newstead Walk – not blocked by cars”
Outside the borough, the path received support from 12 out of 14 respondents. Three of those supporting commented specifically:
- “Need to ensure access not blocked by parked cars”
- “Newstead Walk path needs a sealed surface”
- “Newstead Walk path link needed”
One respondent was ‘not sure’, and another respondent did not answer. Neither provided any additional commentary.
Given the comments received, it is likely that the delivery of the new path between Bishopsford Road and Newstead Walk will be the most contentious aspect of the St Helier section of the Cycleway. The essential requirement to relocate parking, and design the path to ensure the path benefits from full access and egress (and is not blocked by parked vehicles at any time), will need to be fully addressed. This is something that the council has confirmed will happen (see 5.7 above), but which in similar situations has historically not been delivered (see our post on the nearby Peterborough Road cycle path from September 2014). Parking clearly continues to be a hot-topic in the borough, despite the council’s ongoing deliberations around its 2016 Parking Strategy.
6.4 Do you support widening the existing shared use pedestrian path between Robertsbridge Road and Wrythe Lane?
It is possible that respondents were confused, like us, by the ambiguity of the question which suggested the existing path at this location was shared use, rather than, as is the case, provided with partial separation. (Also see 5.3.3 and 5.4.1 above, where officers apologised if the question was misleading).
Thirty-five respondents showed support for the proposed widening of the path between Robertsbridge Road and Wrythe Lane. Of the remaining six respondents, three were ‘not sure’, two were ‘no’ and one did not provide an answer. Of the ten respondents living in the consultation area, eight supported the proposals for the path, one was against, and one was ‘not sure’. Comments relating to this path included:
- “Not sure path will be wide enough to share at Robertsbridge. Would not want to see more grass removed if scheme doesn’t attract more cyclists / walkers”
- “Would prefer full segregation on the paths” (also see 6.6 below)
- “Make sure no street furniture / bollards to restrict access in to the park. Could Robertsbridge path be shared?”
There was a general comment from a resident living outside the borough, and who supported all proposals, that could equally apply to 6.3 and 6.6:
- “Need to segregate cyclists from walkers”
6.5 Do you support a new zebra crossing with parallel crossing for cyclists across Wrythe Lane?
Thirty-five of the forty-one respondents showed support for the proposed new zebra crossing with parallel crossing for cyclists across Wrythe Lane, with five against and one no answer.
In the consultation area, seven of the ten respondents supported the crossing. Two were against, and one did not answer. There was just one comment from a supporter in this area:
- “Need something to stop cyclists coming out of the park on to the zebra at speed”
Outside of the consultation area, but across the borough, fifteen of the seventeen respondents supported the crossing, and two did not. A supporter added the caveat:
- “If zebra has the island it must be wide enough for a trailer bike”
The respondent against the crossing commented:
- “Drivers do not stop for cyclists at these type of crossings”
Outside of the borough, thirteen of the fourteen respondents supported the crossing (with one not answering). Two of those supporting the proposals provided suggestions:
- “Need cycle roundels on parallel crossing” (the drawing of the proposal includes these)
- “Need good signing on parallel crossing so drivers stop for cyclists”
6.6 Do you support the widening of the existing shared use pedestrian and cyclist path through Greenshaw Woods between Wrythe Lane and Grennell Road?
As noted in 6.4 above, it is possible that respondents were confused, like us, by the ambiguity of the question which suggested the existing path at this location was shared use, rather than, as is the case, provided with partial separation. (Also see 5.3.3 and 5.4.1 above, where officers apologised if the question was misleading).
Thirty-six respondents supported widening of the path linking Wrythe Lane with Grennell Road. Two of the ten supporters residing in the consultation area did not support the proposal, and another did not provide an answer. One of the seven supporters in the area commented:
- “Would like good separation between cyclists and walkers”
Elsewhere in the borough, sixteen respondents supported the widening of the path. The dissenter did not provide a reason as to why they did not support path widening, but three of the supporters did provide comments:
- “Would prefer full segregation on the paths” (this comment shared with 6.4 above)
- “Greenshaw wood path in poor condition. Might need to consider a night time route to avoid dark park path”
- “No loss of trees in Greenshaw Pk please”
Outside of the borough, and again thirteen respondents supported the proposals and one did not answer. No additional comments were given to the proposals for this path from these respondents, apart from the comment regarding paths noted in 6.4 above:
- “Need to segregate cyclists from walkers”
6.7 Do you support a raised table to slow drivers at the access point to/from the park on the bend of Grennell [Road]/Rose Hill Park West?
Regarding the proposal to construct a raised table at the intersection of Rose Hill Park West and Grennell Road by the entrance to Rose Hill Park East and Greenshaw Woods, there was, with the other proposals, strong support. Overall, 35 respondents said ‘yes’, two were ‘not sure’ and two said ‘no’.
In the consultation area, seven respondents supported the proposal, one was ‘not sure’, one said ‘no’, and there was no answer from another. There were no further comments on the proposals from the consultees here.
Across the borough, excluding the consultation area, fifteen respondents supported the proposal, one was ‘not sure’, and one said ‘no’. The respondent who was against the proposal did not provide a comment in support of their decision. The ‘not sure’ respondent commented:
- “Grennell Rd needs more than a table if going to be a proper route in to STC [Sutton town centre]”
Two other comments were received, this time from respondents who said ‘yes’ to the table:
- “Consider reducing volume of traffic on Grennell Rd rather than hump”
- “Need good sightlines at Grennell Rd”
6.8 Responses from stakeholders
Finally, the council officer provided a summary of the responses received from various stakeholders (including us)! These are detailed in sub-sections 6.8.1 to 6.8.5 below.
6.8.1 Response from Police
No response received.
6.8.2 Response from Living Streets
“Support the proposals, especially the segregated facilities to help the visually impaired”.
6.8.3 Response from LCC
“The route is not direct and has no links to amenities in the area. 20mph zone should have traffic calming or closures to tackle speed and volume. Robertsbridge Rd is a concern. Greenshaw Wood path not recommended as dark and remote. Toucan and zebra should be on a raised table. Malmesbury Rd needs to have banned turns and better facility to access the Toucan or at least the table raised and steeper and radii tightened for slower entry”.
6.8.4 Response from Get Sutton Cycling
“Would like a good link to Hospital and David Weir Centre. Need a low traffic neighbourhood and better measures on Robertsbridge Rd. Better cycle facilities around the Bishopsford Rd crossing including a closure of Malmesbury Rd and the crossing to be a separate cycle / ped crossing not shared. Include cycle facilities along Bishopsford Rd and Wrythe Lane. Must have good access from Newstead Walk road to the path. Path needs to be better aligned to be more direct. Open space path needs to be segregated (plan not clear) with a good surface – not undulating. Include a full width table at the Wrythe Lane zebra. Must retain segregation on Greenshaw path (not clear on plan?) and look at improving the lighting with sensors to brighten when movement detected. Could a link to the hospital. Ensure a good surface and levels between the path and Grennell Road. They want to see the Quality Check”.
6.8.5 Response from Friends of Rosehill Parks
No response received.
7: What happened next?
22 January 2020
Traffic Management Orders (the statutory consultation) for the Stavordale Road Area (20mph speed limit); Wrythe Lane (zebra crossing with cycle facility); Grennell Road (speed table) were published by LB of Sutton on 22 January 2020. Tate Road (Road Hump), a scheme not connected to the Cycleway, was also included in this grouping of Statutory Consultations.
The documentation included a schematic plan of the Grennell Road raised table, but did not include a schematic plan of the Wrythe Lane crossing. This was subsequently provided on 17 February 2020 following our request on 16 February (after the consultation period had closed). The plans for the Wrythe Lane crossing and Grennell Road speed table are detailed below.
19 February 2020
Traffic Management Orders pertaining to the relocation of an existing disabled persons parking place in Bishopsford Road, Morden, and the introduce of double yellow line waiting restrictions in a certain length of Newstead Walk, were published by LB of Sutton on 19 February 2020. (TMOs relating to the introduction and extension of a 20mph speed limit, along with a zebra crossing bu Meadow Primary School, in the Sparrow Farm Road Area, and a raised table in Kingsmead Avenue by Dalmeny Road, both in the west of the borough (Stonecot ward) were also included in this grouping of Statutory Consultations.
The documentation included a schematic plan of the proposed signalised crossing for the at Bishopsford Road (by Malmesbury Road) and cycle track link with Newstead walk. This latest drawing, reproduced below, does little to alleviate the previously discussed concerns around the potential for conflict in relation to cyclists on Bishopsford Road (so not on the Cycleway alignment), who wish to access the Newstead Walk path, and cyclists exiting from Malmesbury Road on ot the Bishopsford Road shared-use footway.
Also on 19 February 2020, we received the very welcome news from council officers that Transport for London had agreed to fund a link from the Cycleway to St Helier Hospital, and a plan of the proposed link was provided (see below). The link, as proposed, was not quite as hoped for (see 5.3.6 above), so in our reply to the news (blog post forthcoming) we asked for reassurance from TfL that bidirectional tracks on the east side of Wrythe Lane were the best infrastructure option in terms of enabling the expansion of the facility in the future.
v1: 02.02.2020; v1.2 03.02.2020 (typing error corrections and changes (including image ‘Summary of feedback to our consultation response (2)’, addition of reference to TMOs); v1.3 17.02.2020 (removal of previous reference to TMOs; addition of ‘What happened next?’ including jpgs of Wrythe Lane crossing and Rose Hill Park West / Grennell Road speed table); v1.4 22.02.2010 addition of 19 February 2020 updates.