The fourth Sutton Cycle Forum of 2019 (and the sixteenth since the borough’s Cycling Strategy was approved in November 2015, and subsequently published in February 2016) took place on 18 December 2019 at the offices of Sutton Council, Denmark Road.
Some notes on the previous forum meeting, held on 16 September 2019, are available at Sutton Cycle Forum September 2019.
Much of the text presented here is based on the ‘Scheme Update – December 2019’ document (which was provided in printed form at the meeting, and then subsequently sent to forum members as a pdf a few hours after the meeting had taken place on 18 December 2019), and the ‘Updates and action points‘ meeting notes (sent to forum members on 30 December 2019).
Supplementary updates have also been added when information has become available. Greater significance has been given to the inclusion of these supplementary updates, than would normally be the case with preceding Cycle Forum notes, due to the subsequent cancellation of the next Sutton Cycle Forum (scheduled for 25 March 2020) as a result of the coronavirus COVID-19 outbreak (see Riding out a national emergency together).
An outline agenda for the 18 December 2019 meeting was sent to forum members on 16 December. Following suggestions from some members, an updated and revised final version was distributed on 17 December. Here is the final version:
Action points from meeting on 16th September – Helen Millier
Liveable Neighbourhoods bid – Helen Millier
Highways projects – Senior Professional Engineers including specific requests by SCF members about:
- Tharp Road
- Bridge Road / Ross Parade / Ross Road crossing
- Corbet Close / Budge Lane
Role of Healthy Streets Officer – Celine Turner
TfL Cycle Parking Implementation Project – Paul Garside/Helen Millier
Sustainable transport review – current position – Helen Millier (as briefed by Dimitrios Dikmpasanis/Phil Crockford)
Propensity to Cycle tool – Helen Millier
Use of CCTV/ANPR to issue PCN’s to mopeds
Apologies: Tamsin Ward (Senior Professional Engineer^); Neil Webster (London Cycling Campaign member, Sutton school governor)
The meeting was chaired by Helen Millier (Sustainable Transport Officer^). Also present: Councillor Kevin Burke (Liberal Democrat, Sutton West, Chair Planning Committee); Ian Baker (Lead Officer – Sustainable Transport^); Kevin Williams (Senior Professional Engineer^, with responsibility for Local Committee areas Beddington and Wallington; Carshalton and Clockhouse); Lynn Robinson (Senior Professional Engineer^, with responsibility for Local Committee areas Cheam North and Worcester Park; Sutton South, Cheam and Belmont); Hitesh Wadher (Senior Professional Engineer^, with responsibility for Local Committee areas Sutton; St Helier, The Wrythe and Wandle Valley); Paul Garside (Senior Travel Planner^); Dominic Hewlett (London Cycling Campaign supporter); Marcus Howarth (London Cycling Campaign member, coordinator Get Sutton Cycling); John Kinnear (LCC member, secretary GSC); Charles Martin (LCC member, treasurer GSC); Shirley Quemby (Cycling UK; and LCC member); Colin Quemby (Cycling UK and LCC); Maeve Tomlinson (LCC supporter, cycling instructor).
Apologies for absence received from Councillor Manuel Abellan (Liberal Democrat, Beddington South, Chair Environment and Neighbourhood Committee, Cycling Champion); Tamsin Ward (Senior Professional Engineer^); Dimitrios Dikmpasanis (Transport Planner/Planning Officer, Strategic Planning^); Neil Webster (LCC member, Sutton school governor).
^ Kingston and Sutton Shared Environment Service/London Borough of Sutton
2: Headlines from the December 2019 Cycle Forum
2.1 The good news
2.1.1 Liveable Neighbourhoods funding bid submission confirmed
Confirmation was given that the borough’s first Liveable Neighbourhoods funding bid had been submitted to TfL. No additional information about the bid was provided. An announcement, as to whether Sutton’s bid has been successful or not, is expected in February .
Updates and action points (30 December 2019): “Bids were submitted to TfL and outcome will be known in February 2020. Action: Update at next forum meeting”.
On 25 September 2019 we published ‘Anticipating Sutton’s first Liveable Neighbourhoods funding bid‘. On 3 October 2019 forum members received an invitation to a Cycle Forum workshop to discuss ideas for the Sutton Liveable Neighbourhoods bid to inform project development scheduled to take place on 8 October 2019. The agenda for that workshop was received on 7 October 2019. ‘Our response to the ‘Sutton Liveable Neighbourhoods funding bid’ consultation 2019‘ was submitted on 31 October 2019.
Update 31 March 2020: The expected announcement in February was not forthcoming. Unfortunately, the announcement was not made in early March either, prior to the coronavirus crisis becoming to the fore from mid-March. Consequently, and understandably, an announcement is not now expected until after the crisis has abated.
2.1.2 Cycleway Morden to Sutton is progressing
Responses to the informal public consultation relating to the St Helier section (also known as phase 1) of the Morden to Sutton Cycleway (9 October to 4 November 2019) have been analysed. We asked whether an overview of these responses could be shared with us, and this was agreed. Officers also agreed to our request for a response to the Get Sutton Cycling feedback to the proposals and recommendations.
Apparently, there were few responses to the phase 1 consultation from residents. Councillors have agreed to proceed to the formal consultation stage (i.e. LB of Sutton will propose to make Traffic Management Orders (TMO)). Belisha beacons for the crossing on Wrythe Lane have already been ordered – with installation anticipated at Easter (mid-April).
A new officer (Cycleways) has been appointed to oversee the proposals (including the Grennell Road to Sutton town centre section).
Scheme update (18 December 2019): A 2018-2019 scheme. Status: “Feasibility”. Update: “Bishopsford Road to Grennell Road phase 1 consultation completed. Aiming for statutory consultation in Jan 20 and start implement by April 2020. Phase 2 Grennell Road to Sutton Town Centre more engagement sessions in Jan / Feb 20”.
Updates and action points (30 December 2019): “Morden to Sutton Cycleway (North / South route). Update: New member of LBS staff recruited to work on this project. Lynn Robinson sent consultation feedback to SCF on 23/12/19. Action: Lynn will plan engagement for phase 2 of this project”.
Update 22 January 2020: TMOs were proposed on 22 January 2020 for three individual schemes associated with the proposed #cycleway at St Helier (Stavordale Road area 20mph; Wrythe Lane crossing; Grennell Road raised table), see our tweet.
Update 19 February 2020: Officers wrote to Get Sutton Cycling, and other stakeholders, with the very welcome news that Transport for London had agreed to fund a link between the proposed Sutton to Morden/Colliers Wood Cycleway and St. Helier Hospital. See Link between Sutton’s first proposed Cycleway and St Helier hospital approved (Get Sutton Cycling, 26 February 2020).
Update 17 March 2020: The Chair of the Sutton Cycle Forum wrote to us to advise that the Cycle Forum meeting scheduled for the following week (25 March) was cancelled. (The coronavirus outbreak being one reason for this).
Update 18 March 2020: Following the notification on 17 March that the upcoming Cycle Forum was cancelled, Charles Martin wrote to the Chair to outline some of the topics that he would have brought to the meeting had it been going ahead.
In relation to the Cycleway between Sutton High Street and Colliers Wood, phase 1 (St Helier area), these included two items: (1) St Helier Hospital link – has some reassurance be sought from TfL that bidirectional tracks on the east side of Wrythe Lane were the best infrastructure option to form the basis of an extended facility here, and, if so, has that reassurance been given? (2) Traffic counts on Robertsbridge Road – is there any news on a timescale for the traffic counts on Robertsbridge/Stavordale Road area?
In relation to the Cycleway between Sutton High Street and Colliers Wood, phase 2 (Sutton area), Charles asked whether officers were table to share any preliminary results on the informal consultation. He also asked for some clarification on funding, questioning whether it was reasonable to use the Cycleway budget on partial interventions (e.g. crossings in the St Helier) prior to knowing the results of the consultation for the Sutton area (which may not give the green light to interventions to reduce traffic and thereby not qualify for Cycleway funding). Also see 2.2.1 below.
Update 31 March 2020: Officers wrote to Get Sutton Cycling, in response to the Charles’ email of 18 March.
In relation to the Cycleway between Sutton High Street and Colliers Wood, phase 1 (St Helier area) and the reassurance that bidirectional tracks on the east side of Wrythe Lane were the best infrastructure option to form the basis of an extended facility, the response from officers was essentially this:
TfL had been contacted but nothing had been heard back. Officers were considering extending the route, as there was merit in establishing a route to Carshalton, and this will be added to the list of future routes to be investigated. Some initial feasibility already undertaken indicated that the east side of Wrythe Lane would be the better side for a bidirectional track, although both sides of the road had their challenges given the current level of footway parking and the location of trees.
In relation to the Cycleway between Sutton High Street and Colliers Wood, phase 1 (St Helier area) and traffic counts on Robertsbridge Road, the response from officers was essentially this:
A traffic count had been requested for Robertsbridge Road, but officers were unable to find evidence on the file of this being done. The 20mph speed limit was introduced in the area on 16 March, and officers will be organising more traffic counts to monitor the speed of the traffic. It is not clear when these will be carried out given the current situation and the reduction in traffic levels this is resulting in.
In relation to the Cycleway between Sutton High Street and Colliers Wood, phase 2 (Sutton area), and the informal consultation and engagement sessions, the response from officers was essentially this:
Officers have just started analysing the results of the phase 2 informal consultation. Unfortunately, there was a low response rate, around 2%. The 20mph speed limit received overall support, but less so for the other measures. Once the information has been shared with the ward councillors, a more detailed update will be given.
In relation to the Cycleway between Sutton High Street and Colliers Wood, phase 2 (Sutton area), and the funding source, the response from officers was essentially this:
Phase 1 of the route (i.e. St Helier area) is being funded from the Cycleway allocation. (The Wrythe Lane parallel crossing was finished last week. TfL Signals team were due to arrive at the Bishopsford Road site on 14 April to install the signals, but that is now on hold for obvious reasons. Other measures in the phase 1 area comprise the upgrading of the path through Rosehill Park, and the new extension to the hospital. All of this was programmed to be finished by July  but this is now uncertain for obvious reasons). In relation to phase 2 of the route (i.e. the Sutton area), TfL will not release funding until satisfied that the measures will meet the criteria. Funding has been secured, however, to cover the officer fees undertaking the consultations and the design. If, as a result of the consultation responses, the decision is taken to proceed with the 20mph speed limit (but with no further interventions) the 20mph speed limit would have to be funded from the borough’s LIP allocation.
Read about the consultation feedback to phase 1 at St Helier section of Sutton’s first proposed Cycleway: feedback to consultation responses (2 February 2020).
Read about the engagement for phase 2 at ‘Cycleway between Sutton High Street and Colliers Wood – proposals in the Sutton area’ informal consultation launched (1 March 2020).
Also see Section 2.2.1,’Cycleway Morden to Sutton set to be funded before deliverability ascertained’, below (although also note some clarification on this outlined above).
For all articles relating to Cycleways, see #Cycleway.
2.1.3 Cycleway Worcester Park to Sutton is progressing
Some forum members had joined one of the arranged rides along the suggested alignment of the proposed Sutton and Worcester Park Cycleway (the majority of which comprises the existing LCN route 75 [Open Street Map]). These rides took place on 2 October 2019 (and on 5 October 2019). Overview plans of the route had been provided on 1 October, and from these some initial considerations had been drafted by Charles Martin (‘Considerations ahead of route ride 2 October’) which were subsequently sent with, slight additions, to officers on 7 October) – see forthcoming blog post. A follow-up meeting took place on 18 October 2019, when more detailed plans were shared – hopefully a blog post will be written about this too.
Scheme updates (18 December 2019): A 2018-2019 scheme Status: “Feasibility”. Update: “Cycling reps / cllrs did a route ride in October 19. Route established in principle in Nov 20. New member of staff has been recruited to work on this project”.
Updates and action points (30 December 2019): “Worcester Park to Sutton Cycleway (East / West route) – TfL are keen to progress this & will provide funding for design work and community engagement. Update: New member of LBS staff recruited to work on this project“.
Update 17 March 2020: The Chair of the Sutton Cycle Forum wrote to us to advise that the Cycle Forum meeting scheduled for the following week (25 March) was cancelled. (The coronavirus outbreak being one reason for this).
Update 18 March 2020: Following the notification on 17 March that the upcoming Cycle Forum was cancelled, Charles Martin wrote to the Chair to outline some of the topics that he would have brought to the meeting had it been going ahead.
In relation to the Cycleway between Worcester Park and Sutton, Charles asked whether there was any news on further design work or community engagement.
Update 31 March 2020: Officers wrote to Get Sutton Cycling, in response to the Charles’ email of 18 March.
In relation to whether there was any news on further design work or community engagement for the Worcester Park Cycleway, the response from officers was essentially this:
Officers reiterated that TfL has introduced a new process for delivering a Cycleway [which, as we said at the September 2019 Cycle Forum, is great news – the necessity to adhere to the cycle route quality criteria is a great improvement ]. Officers were preparing all the evidence that TfL require in order to sign off stage 2, which is a requirement for TfL to release funding for officers to undertake the community engagement. It was hoped to send the evidence to TfL today (31 March 2020) subject to the Healthy Streets check being completed. If not today, asap. Presuming this results in funding being made available, the first stage of the community engagement will be to hold workshop type events with residents associations and councillors. Officers are currently discussing whether any form of consultation should be started in the next few months, and they will be asking TfL for a view on this in the next few days.
For all articles relating to Cycleways, see #Cycleway.
2.1.4 The new Sustainable Transport Strategy will comply with MTS
Although production of the borough’s new Sustainable Transport Strategy is delayed (which, as reported at the September 2019 Cycle Forum, was due to prioritisation being given to other Supplementary Planning Documents), confirmation was given that the new document will comply with the Mayor’s Transport Strategy. Consequently, the inclusion of a traffic reduction strategy for the borough is expected. A draft version of the new STS is expected to go to the Environment and Neighbourhood Committee meeting around May/June/July 2020.
Updates and action points (30 December 2019) – “Environment and Neighbourhood Committee – Sustainable Transport Review”: “The new strategy will be replacing the existing STS plus incorporating strategies for cycling, walking, car clubs and it will be aligned to the Mayor’s Transport Strategy. It is expected to go to the E&N committee in the spring. Action: Link to the most recent report. against current STS targets.
This is direct link to the STS monitoring report”.
Also see section 2.2.5 ‘Annual review of Sustainable Transport Strategy (and Cycling Strategy) still awaited’ below.
2.1.5 A Cycleway officer has been appointed
A new LB of Sutton staff member has been recruited to oversee borough Cycleway projects. No other details known.
2.1.6 A Healthy Streets officer has been appointed
Celine Turner, who was present at the meeting, has been appointed by Sustrans as the Sutton and Kingston Healthy Streets officer. The main focus of this newly created role relates to behaviour change. At the June 2019 Sutton Cycle Forum it had been reported that the role of the Healthy Streets officer would “include convening regular multi-department meetings to discuss forthcoming projects”. It is hoped, therefore, that Celine will be able to ensure that the internal Cycling Advisory Group, which was reported at the September 2019 Sutton Cycle Forum to be in hiatus, is relaunched. There is more background on this in the notes to the September 2019 Sutton Cycle Forum.
Updates and action points (30 December 2019) – “Healthy Street Officer”: “Celine Turner is employed by SUSTRANS the Sutton & Kingston Healthy Streets Officer.
She has 4 main workstreams: 1) School travel plans, 2) Directing local communities to cycling resources, 3) Supporting Borough active travel initiatives, 4) Promoting national events e.g. car free day”. Update: “Dominic Hewlett requested support for the 2020 Beddington Bike Festival. Dominic will email information about tandem training (now circulated to this forum)”.
On the subject of car free days, earlier in the year we took a look at London local authorities and the promotion of Car Free Day 2019 (September 2019). Kingston did well, but Sutton was decidedly lack-lustre. In Sutton’s case, perhaps not surprising. See ‘Whatever you do, do not mention car-free days (or explain what they entail)’ in our review of Sutton’s Air Quality Action Plan 2019-2023.
2.1.7 TfL has awarded funding to the borough for cycle parking
Updates and action points (30 December 2019) – “TfL Cycle Parking Implementation Project”: “Sutton have been awarded £70,000 from this fund to install cycle hangers at Sutton Housing Partnership locations and secure storage at 4 NHS sites & Carshalton College. In addition, TfL have funded an application from St Raphael’s Hospice for secure cycle parking”. Update: “Currently out to tender”.
2.1.8 Propensity to cycle tool is recognised
Updates and action points (30 December 2019) – “TfL Cycle Parking Implementation Project”: “HM attended the training day for this GIS tool which could be useful when considering future cycle route development/funding bids”. Update: https://www.pct.bike/.
2.2 The not so good news
2.2.1 Cycleway Morden to Sutton set to be funded before deliverability ascertained
Note: section 2.1.2 above, provides an update on this.
Get Sutton Cycling has some concern that the “split into two phases” approach being taken for the development of the Sutton section of the Colliers Wood/Morden to Sutton Cycleway (as reported at the Cycle Forum in September 2019, and now reinforced with the news that work on the upgraded crossing at Wrythe Lane is anticipated to commence by Easter 2020) will potentially result in the Cycleway budget not being spent efficiently.
When it comes to deciding on funding our expectation would be for the Cycleway budget only to be used to fund interventions that deliver a Cycleway, and for interventions, such as 20mph and crossings (that will not, in isolation, deliver a Cycleway in the Sutton context), be funded through a redirected LIP allocation. Put simply, quid pro quo.
In recognising that the proposed new crossing at Bishopsford Road, and the upgraded crossing at Wrythe Lane (both part of phase one in the St Helier area) will be beneficial (even though the designs are not fully to a standard we would like), it is felt that funding for these crossings from the Cycleway budget would only be applicable if it is certain that phase two of the project (i.e. the Sutton area) is to be delivered to the latest cycle route Quality Criteria. Otherwise, the legacy of the programme will be crossings that remain isolated from a wider network.
It is clear that, in order for the proposed Cycleway to comply with this quality criteria throughout, there will need to be a reduction in cut-through traffic in the Sutton area. Therefore, it would make sense to ascertain whether a low traffic neighbourhood approach is to be taken in the Sutton area, and so qualify for Cycleway funding, prior to spending any of Cycleway budget on the route in St Helier area. Of course, a low traffic neighbourhood approach will only be taken if residents in the Grennell Road and Benhill Wood Road area agree to this. Therefore, the results of the next anticipated engagement and consultation process for these residents really need to be know prior to any decisions on funding being made.
Just a final thought on this for the moment. In agreeing to the “split into two phases” approach in July 2019 (as reported at the Cycle Forum in September 2019), TfL could just be waving the white flag, and giving up with Sutton and the ongoing delay and procrastination on this Quietway/Cycleway project. After all, it has been over two and a half years since the first informal consultation and engagement took place in the Grennell Road, Elgin Road and Benhill Wood Road area between June and September 2017. TfL’s message could just be “for goodness sake get on with it”! If that is the case, it could be reasonable to conclude that the chances of Sutton being awarded Liveable Neighbourhoods funding early in 2020 is severely diminished.
2.2.2 No report on the LBS Project Review (internal Cycling Advisory Group)
No further report was given on the status of this group, reported as “in hiatus” in September 2019. The recent appointment of a Healthy Streets officer may help with this (see 2.1, The good news, above). For more on the background to the group, see September 2019 Cycle Forum.
2.2.3 No report on the borough’s Air Quality Action Plan
At the Sutton Cycle Forum in June 2019, it had been agreed that the Air Quality Action Plan (AQAP) would be added to the agenda for each subsequent meeting. This was not the case this time.
The AQAP had appeared at the Sutton Cycle Forum in September 2019 (with the good news that funding was being sought for bike hangars for businesses to encourage employees to cycle to work; the purchase of some electric cargo bikes that could be leased by businesses for local deliveries / collections; and the delivery of a series of pocket parks with cycle parking at junctions on main roads).
2.2.4 Lime dockless electric-assist hire bike scheme has been reduced
The Lime e-bike electric assist bike hire scheme in Sutton, which had launched on 23 July 2019, was “paused” less then three months later, on around 11 October. Lack of use, and vandalism being cited as contributory factors. Talking of vandalism, see Figure 1.
Charles Martin had written to Wallington South councillors Muhammad Sadiq, Jayne McCoy and Steve Cook on 9 August 2019 (just two weeks after the launch):
‘Vandalised Lime e-bike in your ward’
“An electric bike rental scheme launched across the borough towards the end of July (see press release The future is green – new electric bikes hit Sutton’s Streets!).
I am writing to let you know that this week we have been made aware, via this tweet, that one of the new cycles has already been vandalised (image is also attached). As this appears to have happened in your ward (Clarendon Road, Wallington), I would very much appreciate receiving any comments or views you may have regarding this criminal activity. The future of the rental scheme in the borough could fail as a result of this type of mindless vandalism. Let’s hope Wallington South does not let the side down”.
A reply was received from Cllr. Steve Cook on 11 August 2019:
As a member of the Environment & Neighbourhood Committee, I’ve been following the inception of your scheme with interest. I’m a great supporter of this initiative and wish it to succeed across the whole borough.
As councillors, we were very sorry to hear of this vandalism incident but are trusting that you have reported this matter to the police, and sincerely hope they can help track down the culprit(s) and prevent any further damage”.
To which Charles replied on 15 August 2019:
Many thanks for your prompt response, and your interest in the electric bike rental scheme in the borough.
I can advise that I have not reported this vandalism incident to the police, and will not be doing so, as the cycles are the property of Lime UK. I anticipate, therefore, that Lime UK may report the incident. I have messaged the company, through their Facebook page (as no email address is provided), to seek further advice on this. It would be interesting to know how many incidents such as this would cause Lime Bike to terminate their service in the borough, although I doubt whether Lime UK will give very much away relating to their business model.
I agree, it will be great if the electric assist bike hire is a success across the whole borough. Ultimately, though, cycling will only become a serious form of transport for most people when our streets feel safe and inviting for cycling. Despite the borough’s numerous sustainable transport strategies, cycling strategies, and related policy documents, the proportion of trips that Sutton’s residents take by bicycle is currently around 2% (*). That is exactly the same proportion as twenty-eight years ago in 1991.
Thanks again for your time with this Steve. I am taking the opportunity to attach our latest newsletter [Sutton borough news and update | June 2019]. Also, I hope you find the background to our ‘Space for Cycling’ campaign from 2014 of interest. This campaign took place before you were elected as councillor for Wallington South of course. Details can be found here: https://getsuttoncycling.org.uk/2014/07/03/space-for- cycling-action-points-for-sutton/.”
(*) We did not know, at the time of writing to the Wallington South councillors, that the latest reported figure for the proportion of trips that Sutton’s residents take by bicycle was actually just 1.3%, as this figure had not been made available to us (see the next item, ‘Annual review of Sustainable Transport Strategy (and Cycling Strategy) still awaited’).
No more was heard from the Wallington South councillors on the subject.
For more on the demise of the Lime e-bike in Sutton, see the September 2019 Cycle Forum notes.
2.2.5 The annual review of the Sustainable Transport Strategy (and Cycling Strategy) is still awaited
Further to our on-going request, asking to receive the annual monitoring report to the borough’s Sustainable Transport Strategy (which had been due to be published in June 2019, through the Environment and Neighbourhood Committee), Helen Millier, Chair of the Cycle Forum, had provided a link to “Appendix C: Summary of STS targets” on 4 October (as part of the in the ‘Updates and action points’ document for the September 2019 Cycle Forum). However, the associated documents, namely the ‘STS Monitoring Report’, “Appendix A: Updated progress on the STS Action Plan’, and ‘Appendix B: Update on the Cycling Strategy Action Plan’ have still to be made available.
Page 1 of Appendix C is illustrated in Figure 2.
Five days after the meeting, on 23 December 2019, Councillor Abellan wrote to Get Sutton Cycling to advise that the ‘Update on Sustainable Transport Strategy (June 2015)’ full report had been uploaded to the council’s website at the end of October (here), and the STS monitoring report (May 2019) could be accessed directly here. Also see our December 2019 newsletter.
If these documents had been uploaded to the council’s website at the end of October, as Cllr. Abellan says, the questions then that have to be asked are:- (1) Why were we not advised of this sooner? (2) Why, at the very least, was this information not made known at the December 2019 Cycle Forum meeting? This tends to highlight, yet again, some short comings with the Cycle Forum – lack of urgency, and lack of communication.
Note: The borough’s Sustainable Transport Strategy (pdf) (June 2015) includes as action plan that sets out thirty-nine specific actions, arising from six transport objectives, and defines eleven specific targets. The borough’s Cycling Strategy (pdf) (November 2015) includes an action plan which contains thirty-two actions, under six objectives.
Updates and action points (30 December 2019) – “Environment and Neighbourhood Committee – Sustainable Transport Review”: “The new strategy will be replacing the existing STS plus incorporating strategies for cycling, walking, car clubs and it will be aligned to the Mayor’s Transport Strategy. It is expected to go to the E&N committee in the spring”. Action: Link to the most recent report against current STS targets.
This is direct link to the STS monitoring report”.
2.2.6 Sutton Cycle Network Plan – what Sutton Cycle Network Plan?
No mention of the proposed Sutton Cycle Network Plan (announced in April 2018). It looks as though this plan is not going to be progressed.
No news either on the idea of carrying out a Cycling Level of Service assessment across the borough’s existing “cycle network”.
“We will conduct a full audit of our current cycle network to investigate how specific infrastructure for cycling and the network as a whole performs against the LCDS and the Cycling Level of Service assessment (CLoS)”. Sutton Cycling Strategy (LB of Sutton, June 2015)
2.2.7 Little progress at Corbet Close, Wandle Trail
Updates and action points (30 December 2019) – Wandle Trail near Corbet Close development – Hitesh Wadher: “Shared use signage required, poor quality retaining wall constructed and there is a width issue here as previously both walking and cycle paths were 1.5m each”. Action: “Hitesh to raise with LBS Planning Consent. Is it possible to extend new cycle path to rest of the estate?”.
2.2.8 Budge Lane, Wandle Trail – newly installed barriers to stay
Newly installed barriers on NCN Wandle Trail, by Budge Lane, [Open Street Map] are to remain. Use of the path by people on mopeds was cited as one reason for this. Another was to encourage cyclists to slow on their approach to the road leading to the industrial estate.
Updates and action points (30 December 2019) – Budge Lane – cycle improvement – Hitesh Wadher: “Barriers which are intended to hinder moped users who should not be on cycle path / slow cyclists encourage checking road to industrial estate before crossing.” Action: “Action: Hitesh to review Cycle Forum comments regarding barriers and report back. Is it possible to quantify moped numbers?”.
Updates and action points (30 December 2019) – Use of CCTV/ANPR to issue PCNs to mopeds: ” ● To issue a PCN for prohibition of motorcycles there must be Traffic Management Order (TMO) in place which established this prohibition as warning signs and enforcement can not be undertaken without a TMO.
● A camera will require a column and power connection at a location
● LBS must have a camera available (they are a limited, costly resource and usually
employed)”. Action: “Action: Please advise Paul Garside of potential locations (bearing in mind the need for a nearby power supply) and we will investigate the possibility of TMO’s with Highways”.
Update: On 18 December 2019, Charles Martin wrote to Helen Millier, Chair of the Cycle Forum, subject ‘Sutton Cycle forum December 2019 – Budge Lane’ (copied to Hitesh Wadher, Paul Garside):
The confirmation, given at today’s Sutton Cycle Forum, advising that the newly installed barriers on the redesigned NCN path adjacent to Budge Lane are to remain in place, has caused a bit of a stir on social media.
One respondent has requested to see the minutes as to how this decision was arrived at. Another has referred to section 20 of the Equality Act 2010 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/20. Someone else has suggested we request evidence that mopeds are being used on the path (as we did at the meeting today).
Consequently, it would be really useful if officers/councillors could provide a written statement outlining the reasons for the decision to install/retain the barriers, and include a response to why an Equality Impact Assessment was not carried out in this instance. Such a statement could then be used in reply to peoples concerns about the barrier.
Sorry to burden you with this, but barriers raises a lot of interest”.
No response was forthcoming.
Update: On 20 January 2020, Marcus Howarth sent a follow-up email to the email sent by Charles on 18 January to HM, HW, PG, with the same subject heading. In his message he asked whether there had been any progress, (and took the opportunity to mention the discussion at the December 2019 Cycle Forum on use of ANPR cameras to catch moped riders at Budge Lane and Watermead Lane).
Update: On 26 January 2020, Marcus wrote to Mark Callaghan (Sustrans), Kelly Clark (Sustrans), copied to John Lauder (Sustrans) with subject ‘Re: NCN Review and ‘Paths for Everyone’ report NCN20 & NCN208′) to ask for an update to his previous email on the subject, sent on 8 October 2019). In his latest email, Marcus made reference to Traffic-free paths, bridges, signage – how, together, we’re transforming the National Cycle Network (Sustrans, 20 November 2019) noting this provided a link to an interactive map (“Work in progress on the National Cycle Network”) which appears to show only one project in London that is actually being progressed. As of 24 February 2020, no response to this latest email to Sustrans had been received. (and as of 25 March 2020, the “work in progress on the National Cycle Network” map has not changed either).
Update: On 31 January 2020, a reply to Marcus’ email of 20 January 2020 was received from council officer Hitesh Wadher:
“Following our last meeting [18 December 2019], I got in touch with Safer Neighbourhood Police team who patrol these areas. Please note the attached response from PC [name provided] regarding the staggered barriers on Budge Lane and K Frame on Watermead Lane”.
The attachment to which Hitesh refers (dated 27 January 2020), read as follows:
Budge Lane and Watermead Lane – Speeding moped riders
I am the local ward officer for the area. I spend around 80% of my me on a pedal cycle patrolling the area.
The A frame had helped massively with reducing the speeding mopeds along the path. We have had no further reports of this since it was installed. I don’t find this a hindrance to cycling it just means that you have to slow down and would fully oppose this being removed. I have concerns that a speeding moped will collide with a pedestrian or and animal and cause significant injury.
With regards to the staggered frames again these are not an issue and help.
If both are removed then we will be giving the mopes riders an opportunity to drive all the way from Bishopsford Rd all the way along to Watercress Park which is also an issue.
As I am sure you are aware that moped enabled crime is a huge problem for the Metropolitan Police Service and we are trying as an organisation to significantly reduce this.
Please can you keep me updated with this ?
I have copied in the local councillor [Hanna Zuchowska] for the area as she emailed me asking something similar a while ago.
The same day, 31 January 2020, we posted the following two tweets:
Update: On 3 February 2020, Charles Martin replied to Hitesh’s email of 31 January 2020, and included a new proposal (subject heading ‘Sutton Cycle forum December 2019 – Budge Lane | Watermead Lane’) (see Figure 3).
This email was shared publicly, through Twitter, on 5 February 2020:
Update: On 18 March 2020, Charles Martin took the opportunity to refer to the 3 February 2020 email (as nothing further had been heard) in response to the notification, received from Helen Millier, Chair of the Cycle Forum, on 17 March 2020, advising that the scheduled Cycle Forum for 25 March 2020 had been cancelled. Here are extracts from his email:
Thank you for the notification that the Sutton Cycle Forum meeting, proposed for Wednesday 25 March, has been cancelled. That decision is quite understandable, and indeed welcome, given the situation with the new COVID-19 coronavirus and the associated advice for social distancing. On behalf of all LCC members and supporters in the borough I would like to thank you, and everyone at Kingston and Sutton Transport, Highways and Regulatory Services, for all the work you are doing in the current difficult and unsettling circumstances.
Here are some of the items that I would have brought to the March Cycle Forum had it been going ahead..
Watermead Lane / Budge Lane barriers. On 3 February I wrote to Hitesh, on behalf of Get Sutton Cycling, to thank him for sharing a response from a member of the Wandle Valley Safer Neighbourhood Team, in regard to the K Frame (K Barrier) on Watermead Lane and the staggered barriers on Budge Lane (subject heading ‘Re: Sutton Cycle Forum December 2019 – Budge Lane | Watermead Lane’). In the email I suggested that officers, in collaboration with Sustrans, TfL, managing authorities and others, prepared a new layout for the path at Watermead Lane which would make any requirement for a barrier/barriers at that location obsolete. It was also suggested that the opportunity be taken to revisit the changes made last year at Budge Lane. An update, or response, to this would be welcome. Obviously, there is only so much we can do, and only so much we can say, to try and improve the situation on this section of the NCN. But it would be good to move forward, even if moving forward (or obtaining ‘closure’, excuse the pun) results in the de- designation of the route here (an option outlined in ‘Paths for Everyone – National Cycle Network physical review and action plan London’ (Sustrans, November 2018)).
As of 25 March 2020, the date on which the next Cycle Forum was to have taken place, nothing further has been heard.
Where do we go from here? Suggested options (24 February 2020):
1: Write to Sustrans with a formal request to de-designate the the Watermead Lane and Budge Lane section of the route, and so remove it from the NCN, even if only temporarily (as this could help focus the mind). Noting that the de-designation of some parts of the Network is a stated option in Sustrans’ ‘Paths for everyone – National Cycle Network Review and action plan London‘ report (pdf) (Sustrans, November 2018.
2: Ask for a timescale as to when improvements are likely to be made made, or as to when the decision would be taken to de-designated this section of the route.
Meanwhile, on 27 March 2020, the Chief Executive of Sustrans, Xavier Brice, posted this tweet (also see below), essentially reaffirming the commitment given in ‘Paths for everyone – National Cycle Network Review and action plan London‘ report (pdf) (Sustrans, November 2018) that Sustrans were “working with partners to get rid or redesign all 16,000 barriers”.
2.2.9 Little progress on London Road / Goat Road
Officers have yet to meet with LB of Merton (a meeting that was reported to be taking place at the September 2019 Cycle Forum). (Also see 188.8.131.52 timeline below — from which it appears that the meeting with LB of Merton subsequently took place in January 2020).
Updates and action points (30 December 2019): “Traffic, topographical surveys commissioned. Preliminary options have been drawn up. Update: Hitesh is meeting with Mitcham Common Councillors. Action: Sutton Cycle Campaign to ask Merton Cycle Campaign to press their Councillors for progress as this is a cross-borough initiative”.
Additional commentary on this scheme is provided in the scheme updates at Sutton Cycle Forum November 2018. The scheme is also reported on in the relevant update in 3.5 below.
Update: On 31 December 2019, Dominic Hewlett wrote to Kathryn Stewart, co-ordinator Merton Cycling Campaign (MCC), (with the subject heading ‘Cycle Route between Merton and Sutton – Mitcham Common / London Road & Goat Road’) to let her know about the action detailed in ‘Updates and action points (30 December 2019)’. [Not a route, of course, but a junction improvement].
Update: On 4 January 2020, Kathryn replied to Dominic to say that Hugh Morgan and David Vine (MCC) would be best placed with this, adding “although it’s not a scheme that’s familiar”. The same day, Hugh Morgan replied to ask whether Hitesh Wadher could explain in more detail what was being proposed.
Update: On 20 January 2020, Marcus Howarth wrote to Hitesh Wadher to let him know that Get Sutton Cycling had contacted Merton LCC (an action outlined at the December 2019 Cycle Forum), to ask whether he could share any news regarding meetings with LB of Merton, and (further to the question from Hugh (MCC)) whether he could provide more details on what is actually being proposed.
Update: On 31 January 2020, Hitesh wrote to say:
“I have now had a meeting with LBM and Mitcham Common Conservators who were very positive and generally supportive of our proposals, which is good news.
We have looked at several options which include, roundabouts, signalised junction and variations of simplified priority junctions.
Following my meeting with the conservators, we are making some amendments to the layout before I am ready to share with ward councillors and wider group”.
Update: On 31 January 2020, Hugh Morgan wrote to Hitesh Wadher to say he could “not figure out what the link [route] was”, and requested an explicit map. Hugh also asked Hitesh who it was that he had met at LB of Merton to discuss this with.
Update: On 4 February 2020, Hitesh replied:
“Please refer to Sutton Cycle Guide map extract, I have circled the proposed junction improvement scheme in red.
I met Mitra Dubet, James Geeson, Nick Draper and Martin Boyle at LBM”.
Update: On 5 February 2020, Charles Martin wrote to Hugh Morgan (MCC) and copied to Kathryn Stewart (MCC), (plus Dominic Hewlett (GSC), Marcus Howarth (GSC) and John Kinnear (GSC)):
“Hi Hugh, hi Kathryn,
I would just like to interject here. You may be under the impression, from the previous correspondence, that the proposed improvements at the junction of London Road and Goat Road (the details of which are still not known) are new. They are not.
The London Road / Goat Road junction was classified as a “top accident hotspot” by the LB of Sutton several years ago. In 2017, the local committee (St Helier, The Wrythe and Wandle Valley) agreed that this location was a high priority, and that funding should be allocated for this junction in the 2018/19 LIP – a fact that was brought to our notice at the Sutton Cycle Forum in July 2017. At that July 2017 meeting (two and a half years ago), Hitesh told us that plans would be shared with us when available and that, as the location was on the border with Merton, there would be a need to liaise and discuss the approach to take.
Our notes to the Sutton Cycle Forum meeting held in January 2018 (available here), include an overview of this long running saga:
“Looking ahead to 2018-2019, and proposals to finally look at making improvements at the London Road / Goat Road junction (Wandle Valley, and just into the London Borough of Merton) [Open Street Map]. Sutton (HW) is taking the lead on this, although clearly working with the London Borough of Merton too. Designs will be shared with us, but again it is worth reminding ourselves of the ‘ward ask’ for Wandle Valley: “There is space for the creation of a boulevard on London Road that would make cycling a safe and attractive option, but on-street parking would need to be addressed”. Distressingly, there was a fatality close to this location in April 2014 (as reported here by the Sutton Guardian) and a collision in which two people were hospitalised in April 2017 (again, Sutton Guardian reports here). It is quite disgraceful that this location has not been given the top priority for work before this”.
I hope that provides some additional context. Incidentally, this scheme, even when finished, will not deliver a cycle route between Merton and Sutton. Our ‘ward ask’ for a “cycle boulevard” (i.e. robust protected space for cycling, not shared pavements) from 2014 remains as elusive now as it did then.
Whether the slow progress in taking this scheme forward is due to issues around two neighbouring boroughs needing to get together to discuss highway improvements (hard to believe, or is it?), or whether no one wants to upset the Mitcham Common Conservators, or some other issue, is not known. I would, however, suggest that London Road / Goat Road scheme has either been filed into either the “all too difficult”, or the “it’s not our problem, it’s yours”, category (or both).
Hope this helps. Let’s keep in touch about any developments”.
Update: On 15 February 2020, Charles sent a follow-up email to his email of 5 February:
“Just a quick follow-up on this, as it all seems to have gone a little quiet. The updates and action points to the Sutton Cycle Forum, held on 18 December 2019, note the following action: “Sutton Cycle Campaign to ask Merton Cycle Campaign to press their councillors for progress as this is a cross-borough initiative”. Are you guys in Merton able to confirm you have been in touch with ward councillors? The next Sutton Cycle Forum is scheduled for 25 March 2020.
At least it is good to know from Hitesh Wadher’s email of 31 January that he has now had a meeting with LB of Merton and Mitcham Common Conservators and that all parties were generally supportive of the LB of Sutton proposals. But we don’t yet now what those proposals are (either pre or post amendment). All we do know is that when it comes to taking space from the Common, the conservators object. But without taking space from the common, it is likely that compromises will be made. And these compromises will almost certainly result in the final designs being lack-lustre when it comes to delivering the robust and high-quality infrastructure required for safe and comfortable cycling. Of course, I will be happy to be proved wrong on that. Time will tell”.
Update: On 4 March 2020, Marcus wrote to Hugh Morgan (MCC) to remind him of the question posed by Charles Martin in his email of 15 February: “Are you guys in Merton able to confirm you have been in touch with ward councillors? The next Sutton Cycle Forum is scheduled for 25 March 2020”.
This concludes the current situation (28 March 2020) as far as the author is aware.
2.2.10 Little progress on potential safety issues with the Carshalton Station approach road cycle contraflow
No specific news on the Carshalton Station approach road cycle contraflow, following our on-site meeting on 29 August .
Updates and action points (30 December 2019): “Foliage seems to have been trimmed but none of the other issued have been addressed. Dimi chased Network Rail (17/12/19). Update: HM has sent action points from August site meeting to Councillor Burke”.
We subsequently posted the following tweet on 5 February 2020:
On 5 March 2020 an update was received from Southern Railways via Twitter, prompted by our tweet. “The station management team has confirmed that the signs have been delivered and are due to be put up by maintenance shortly”.
Sure enough, during the latter part of March 2020, two new cycle contraflow signs on posts were installed. Good news but, unfortunately, the signs were not of the correct type, a point we made when we wrote to attendees of the August 2019 on-site meeting (see Carshalton Station approach road – March 2020 update 31 March 2020). Meanwhile, no cycle symbols on the carriageway, and the most misleading sign (the one way sign on the left at the North Street end) has not been removed. Also, at this point in time there were no changes at the West Street end of the approach road which, according to our respondent, “is as bad as ever’.
2.2.11 Beddington North TfL major scheme update not provided (and project delayed)
Under AOB, Charles Martin requested an update on Beddington Lane. Unfortunately, by this stage, not only had Kevin Williams (Senior Professional Engineer with responsibility for the Beddington area) had left the meeting, but no written report on progress had been provided. Given the significance of this major scheme, in terms of cost and what it could deliver, and considering the related ongoing discussion at the September 2019 Cycle Forum, it is surprising that Beddington Lane is not routinely reported on at every Cycle Forum meeting. Even if there is little progress to report on, this is not a reason for not reporting! Immediately after the meeting, Charles sent a reminder for an update on Beddington Lane to the Cycle Forum chair (18 December 2020).
Update: On 24 December 2020, Kevin Williams provided the following update:
Beddington Lane Major Scheme
“We remain committed in principle to introducing the HGV restriction but we are legally bound to properly consider objections received and to this end more data collection is intended to better evidence that the scheme can properly deliver its objectives. Therefore, the HGV restriction is still on hold until further evidence is gathered. Unfortunately, the evidence gathering is taking longer than we had anticipated. We need to gather a range of data sets that cover periods outside any major roadworks or holidays that could affect the count. One of the datasets includes monitoring where CCTV cameras will be used to monitor traffic. We will analyse the data taken from these CCTV cameras to help us understand the impact of the restrictions being proposed.
We expect this to be completed by the end of this year including our officer level engagement with London Borough of Croydon. We cannot pre-empt the outcome of this work. However, we will report back on the progress and our findings to the ward councillors in February 2020.
The Council will not introduce the HGV restrictions until the Major Scheme works are completed, in particular at Asda junction, and only once the formal process for considering objections has been completed – assuming that the outcome of this process is to proceed to implementation. Based on the current programme, the Major Scheme implementation is likely to run into the autumn next year due to various factors outside our control, for example, overrunning of the Tramlink works at Ampere Way, ongoing UKPN works for a new connection and the Compulsory Purchase Order process to acquire the third party land.
The Council continue to work on the new 5m cycle/footway running from Beddington Lane Tramlink stop to Beddington Village with construction due to recommence in January on the section just north of the Virridor entrance”.
Updates and action points (30 December 2019) – Any other business ‘Beddington Lane HGV consultation’: “Update: Kevin [Williams] has corresponded with Charles Martin subsequent to this meeting. Feedback to ward councillors expected to take place in February 2020”.
Update: On 3 March 2020 Marcus Howarth followed up the reply received from Kevin Williams on 24 December, by writing to ask whether officers had been able to update ward councillors in February with Beddington Lane CCTV data regarding HGV restrictions on Beddington Lane.
Update: On 5 March 2020, Kevin Williams provided the following update:
We are currently in the process of analysing the data gathered. Below is a response recently submitted to full council regarding the status of this work.
From the 31st October to the 4th November, traffic data, including volume, speed and vehicle classification was collected at 12 locations in and around Beddington Lane. CCTV footage at three locations was also collected on the 13th November.
In order to collect traffic data in normal conditions in Beddington Lane, a period with no roadworks in the area had to be selected. This period only became available from late October, when 5 weeks of data was collected. This has provided the London Borough of Sutton’s Highway and Transport department with a huge amount of data which is currently being analysed.
I would like to assure you that analysing the data obtained is a priority, but time more is needed to ensure the information is accurate and consistent with evidence previously used to justify the proposed Beddington Village HGV weight limit. We expect that the analysis period will now be completed by the end of March, local ward members and yourselves will then be updated as to the outcome.
I hope this clarifies the current situation and if you would like to discuss in more detail please do not hesitate to contact me.
2.2.12 Recent changes at the Ross Parade, Bridge Road, Clarendon Road intersection not delivered as expected
Some changes have been made at the Ross Parade, Bridge Road, Clarendon Road intersection in Wallington to reinforce cycling priorities (something that has been desired by campaigners for many years). These changes include provision of a raised table, additional road markings and additional signage. However, there is concern that the interventions do not go far enough, and our request for a give-way sign on Ross Parade appears to have gone unheeded.
The Scheme Update (December 2019) document for the 2017/2018 scheme ‘Bridge Road’ (see section 3 below), gave the status for this as ‘Complete’ (see 3.1.1 and 3.2 below), but includes “Post meeting note – Additional give-way sign to be installed on Ross Road”. (The September 2019 Scheme Update gave the status as ‘ongoing’, with updates and action points “Kevin advises that the signage is due to be installed shortly”).
Updates and action points (30 December 2019) – ‘Bridge Road – Kevin Williams’: “Request from SCF to install additional signage at Ross Parade to reinforce cycling priorities. Longer term, KW advises more significant works will be required under the N/S cycleway scheme. Action: Action: Kevin will circulate photos of signage.
Update March 2020: It is not known whether photos of the signage has been circulated. However, some photos of our own appear below.
2.2.13 Tharp Road contra-flow concerns continue
Despite the circulation of the independent road safety audit for Tharp Road, the commencement of the experimental one-way cycle contraflow here is still of concern. The key issue remains. This is that, given the limited carriageway width resulting from kerb-side parking on both sides of the road, there is the potential for conflict between west-bound motor vehicles and vulnerable cyclists travelling in the opposite direction.
Update: On 24 December 2020, Kevin Williams provided the following update:
Tharp Road Road Safety Audit
“I will provide an electronic copy to you as soon as I am back in the office which will be 3rd January”.
Updates and action points (30 December 2019) – ‘Tharp Road, experimental one-way with cycle contraflow – Kevin Williams’: “Experimental scheme has been implemented, there have been no reported instances of conflict between motorists and cyclists.
There have been reports of vehicles ignoring “no entry” and additional signage is planned. SCF asked whether a couple of parking spaces could be removed to provide a safe space for cyclists to wait if a large vehicle is heading towards them. Action: Kevin will resend safety audit on 3/1/20”.
Update: On 20 January 2020, Marcus H wrote to Kevin W with a reminder about sending a copy of the Safety Audit. Kevin
Update: On 24 January 2020, Road Safety Audits for Tharp Road (Stage 1 and 2 (dated 19 January 2019), and Stage 2 (dated August 2019) were received.
Update: On 28 January 2020, following a discussion in relation to the safety audits amongst Get Sutton Cycling committee members, Marcus H replied to Kevin H:
“Thank you very much for supplying the documents.
As stated in the Terms of Reference (paragraph 1.2.1 in both documents): “The Audit Team has examined and reported only on the road safety implications of the scheme as presented and how it impacts on all road users and has not examined or verified the compliance of the designs to any other criteria” (our emphasis).
As a result we would have to contend that even with the recommendations in place*, the issue of usability (subjective safety, or suitability of the scheme to facilitate safe and comfortable cycling for all uses and all types of cycles) is something that is not addressed by the audit. Our concerns regarding user experience, and the potential for conflict, largely around the constrained carriageway space, consequently remain. ….. the contraflow should enable the use of inclusive bikes, trikes, incumbents, or a cargo bike for example.
* The issues/problems identified in the safety audits relate to road markings and street furniture on the original plans, and the recommendations are, as would be expected, about making changes to reduce risks (see 3.1.1; 3.1.2; 3.1.3 in ‘Combined Stage 1 & 2 Road Safety Audit’, and 2.1 and 3.1.1 in ‘Stage 2 Road Safety Audit’).
What would you suggest as next steps? I’d be keen to re-visit the area, possibly on bikes again to see and discuss options first hand for the cycleway against the one way traffic”.
To further illustrate the situation a satellite image of Tharp Road (to determine the approximate street width, property boundary to property boundary) and StreetMix graphics were included with the email to show that the existing dimensions did not provide sufficient width to safely accommodate a car (or larger van) and the type of ‘non standard’ cycles as detailed in the London Cycling Design Standards (Chapter 3: Cycle-friendly streets and spaces).
Update: On 7 February 2020, Kevin replied to say that although he understand that as many types and forms of cyclists as possible needed to be considered when making alterations to the highway arrangement, the scheme on Tharp Road was to resolve a particular issue experienced by residents. He went on to say that it was not believed that conditions had been made worse the for cyclists as a result of this project, and reiterated that the two road safety audits had not flagged up any safety issues. Kevin appreciated that officers should be looking to improve important cycle routes to the best standard possible, and suggested that some traffic and volume data (including cycle counters) be collected in order to understand the existing conditions. This would give a better understanding of the broader issues for cyclists outside of this particular project, with a view to discuss possible solutions.
Update: On 9 February 2020, Marcus replied to Kevin to thank him for his comments, but reiterated a previously made point that the safety audits had not addressed our concerns. With respect to the comment that the contraflow had not been made the situation worse for cyclists, Marcus suggested we needed to discuss this further and that our campaigning was focussed on the delivery of infrastructure that complied with the design requirements set out in the London Cycling Design Standards (Chapter 1: Design Requirements). Although obtaining traffic data and volume was one way forward, our campaigning was all about creating a network of routes that allow anyone, young, old, disabled or with children/cargo bikes etc. to feel they can get to A to B safely (and Tharp Road is currently a signed cycle route). This was not about current cyclist usage/numbers, but about making a network of routes that people would see cycling as an option and start to use.
Later the same day, Charles Martin wrote to Kevin:
Just to add on from the comments from Marcus, particularly in relation to resolving issues experience by residents (which, of course, is very important)…
We do understand that the aim of this scheme was/is to resolve a particular issue experienced by residents. This was fully documented in in our blog three years ago – which, I believe, was prior to your involvement – so just to ensure you are aware of this, the link is provided….. [No room for bikes: how Tharp Road could show borough-wide failure over cycling].
In this regard, our view, at the outset, was that by offering residents of Tharp Road only a choice between ‘no change’ and a one-way scheme to resolve the issues they were experiencing, the council was not fully exploring all options (including the idea of modal filters, for example). We were disappointed that the residents’ May 2016 petition (which included the sentence “we need to reduce the amount of traffic”) was not taken as an opportunity to sit down and discuss the wider issues. Especially so, given the (albeit emerging) policies at the time, the fact that Tharp Road is a signed cycle route (offering an alternative to the nearby busy Stafford Road), and that there appears to be ample off-street parking at the rear of the properties on the north side of the road (see images 7 and 10 in the blog post). All of which appeared to be generally overlooked at the time. This all comes on top of the what Marcus has said in his email earlier today that this is about creating a network of routes that allow anyone, young, old, disabled or with children/cargo bikes etc. to feel they can get to A to B safely.
Thanks for suggesting the possibility of obtaining some traffic and volume data (including cycle counters), to understand the existing conditions. That could be useful (and can be compared with the data that the council has collected here in the past (as noted in the Beddington and Wallington Local Committee February 2018 referencing a meeting in December 2017) – see update on the aforementioned post [link…]. The nearby Demense Road appears, from my traffic counts of 2017* (see below), to carry an inappropriate level of traffic for a residential road. So, this all points to the need to look over the wider area when developing solutions to enable safe, inviting and comfortable cycling.
I do appreciate that we are where we are with this. As Marcus says, we look forward to ongoing discussions, but at the same time hope that lessons can be learned from this scenario to help projects going forward.
Thanks again for all your work and time with this. Charles
* Traffic counts Wednesday, 24 May 2017, in one hour, AM peak, 0755-0855, school term time. Weather, warm and sunny:
- Tharp Road (western end, by intersection with Demense Road): 200 vehicles, 10 cycles
- Demense Road (north of intersection with Tharp Road – under narrow railway bridge): 614 vehicles, 20 cycles
- Demense Road (south of intersection with Tharp Road): 575 vehicles, 10 cycles
- Ross Road (eastern end, by intersection with Demense Road): 206 vehicles, 2 cycles
- Tharp Road/Demense Road/Ross Road (complete traffic movement through this intersection of residential streets in one hour): 797 vehicles, 21 cycles
Update: Following on from this there was some discussion between campaigners as to where to go next with this (including site visit on 14 February 2020). What can be said that has not already been said before?
Update: On 3 March 2020, Marcus wrote to Kevin again to ask, in respect to the traffic counts mentioned, whether the information would be available prior to the 25 March (the scheduled date for the next Cycle Forum – subsequently cancelled) so that the discussion could continue.
Update: On 5 March 2020, Kevin replied to say that the plan was to gather the ‘after data’ in British Summer Time so as to gain a true reflexion of how many cyclists are using the road with more hours of daylight available. He said that he would liaise with local ward members with regard to timing of this data collection and confirm with us once a date has been set. Kevin included a graphic showing the locations where data would be gathered (about twelve locations – most streets within a 250 metre radius), and confirmed that there would be cycle counters on Tharp Road.
As of 8 April 2020, nothing further heard. Obviously the Covid-19 crisis will have an impact on this (and much more besides).
2.2.14 Cycling Champion absent
It was good to see Councillor Kevin Burke in attendance at the December 2019 Sutton Cycle Forum, along with all three highway officers. However, Councillor Manuel Abellan, Cycling Champion, who gave his apologies, has now missed nine consecutive Cycle Forum meetings (the last he attended being the Sutton Cycle Forum in July 2017). Blame Brexit? Who knows? It appears that Councillor Abellan has been very busy recently, and this probably explains his absence. It may also explain why he did not provide the Forum with the awaited update, that he subsequently made on 23 December, regarding the annual monitoring report on the Sustainable Transport Strategy (see 2.2.5 above).
It should be noted that Councillor Abellan had joined a Cycle Forum event, a ride along the suggested alignment of the proposed Sutton and Worcester Park Cycleway, on 2 October 2019.
2.3 Other news
2.3.1 Request for information on proposed 2020/2021 LIP Scheme for Stafford Road
In AOB, Charles Martin requested information relating to a proposed 2020/2021 LIP scheme for the Beddington and Wallington Local Committee area ‘Stafford Road (Beddington South)’ (see ‘Healthy Streets’ for Sutton year two (2020/2021) – “to investigate and develop measures to improve walking and cycling facilities around Mellows Park and measures to ensure the free flow of service vehicles and buses to support economic growth”). As Kevin Williams had already left, this information was not forthcoming at the meeting.
On 24 December 2020, Kevin Williams provided the following information:
“Many of the signalised junctions along Stafford Road are considered hostile to pedestrians and cyclists alike. The 2020/21 LIP project will investigate the current issues and identify potential solutions for construction in the 2021/2022 financial year. Once this project has been confirmed we will contact Get Sutton Cycling in order to obtain your initial thoughts and involve you through the development stage”.
Updates and action points (30 December 2019) – ‘Stafford Road 2020/2021 LIP project’: “Many of the signalised junctions along Stafford Road are considered hostile to pedestrians and cyclists alike. The 2020/21 LIP project will investigate the current issues and identify potential solutions for construction in the 2021/2022 financial year. Once this project has been confirmed we will contact Get Sutton Cycling for feedback”.
2.3.2 Stanley Park High School number plate scheme
During a discussion around the 2017-2018 scheme ‘Stanley Park High School’ (see 3.3 below), the subject of the decision by the headmaster of the school (now renamed Oaks Park High School) to introduce a cycle registration scheme in September 2018 was raised. (Also see Number plates for students who cycle to and from Stanley Park High (Get Sutton Cycling, October 2018). Is the scheme still in place?
Updates and action points (30 December 2019) – Any other business – Stanley Park School: “Stanley Park High School. Action: Paul Garside to get an update about proposed “number plate” scheme for bicycles ridden to school”. [Not “proposed”, it happened!]
Stanley Park High School was renamed/rebranded Oaks Park High School from September 2019.
2.3.3 20mph across the borough?
20mph has been discussed at the Cycle Forum since time immemorial. (Also see Evidence in support of 20mph (Get Sutton Cycling, August 2018)).
Updates and action points (30 December 2019) – Any other business – Can 20mph be considered a borough-wide?: “Can 20mph be considered a borough-wide ? Action: Officers to discuss with Cllr Burke”.
2.3.4 Kimpton Park Way (?)
Updates and action points (30 December 2019) – Any other business – Kimpton Park Way’: “Kimpton Park Way. Action: LBS Parks have agreed that “no cycling” roundels can be removed and foliage cut back to legitimise cyclists use of the Kimpton Linear Park path”.
3: Borough schemes updates by Local Committee area
This section begins with an overview of the schemes across the borough which, according to the Scheme Update (December 2019) document, are completed, not progressing, or new since the previous Schemes Update in September 2019. All the reported schemes are then considered area by area, based on the six Local Committee areas, with the specific financial years, to which the Local Implementation Plan (LIP) schemes relate (if appropriate), noted in the text. Note that, in some cases, there may be more detail on many of the schemes outlined here in the notes to previous Cycle Forum meetings. Text highlighted, as in this example, indicates a change from the previous Cycle Forum meeting.
Note that, in one or two cases, the information provided on the Scheme Update did not reflect the current situation (either as we see it, or as appears to actually be the case). One example of the former has already been mentioned (Bridge Road – see 2.2.12 above – shown as ‘complete’ but where we feel an additional give-way sign is required), and an example of the latter is Collingwood Road – see 3.6 below – which was shown at the feasibility stage when it is actually complete.
The LIP schemes for 2019-2020 feature in First sight of ‘Healthy Streets’ proposals for Sutton. LIP schemes for 2020-2021 feature in ‘Healthy Streets’ for Sutton year two (2020-2021).
3.1 Schemes completed, not progressing, or new
3.1.1 Schemes completed:
- Installation of additional signage at Bridge Road (intersection with Ross Parade/Clarendon Road) to reinforce cycling priorities (Wallington South) declared complete. [Open Street Map | Google Streetview]. However, it was noted at the meeting that a give-way sign on Ross Parade had not been installed, and was still required. (See 2.2.12 above, and 3.2 below).
- A new cycle ramp between Stafford Road and Clarendon Road (part of the proposed, ongoing, Wallington North/South Cycle Route (Wallington South) scheme) has been constructed (see 3.2 below).
- Collingwood Road between Oldfields Road (A217) and Bushey Road (Sutton North) speed reduction measures, safer route to Westbourne Primary School [essentially a car-stacking measure], and improved crossing facilities (see 3.6 below). Note that scheme this was not reported as being completed at the meeting (in fact, quite the opposite, being still reported as at the feasibility stage in the scheme update). Given that it does little, if anything, for cycling, it is quite likely that officers just wanted to forget it.
3.1.2 Schemes no longer progressing:
- Not applicable.
3.1.3 New schemes, appearing for the first time (also see First sight of ‘Healthy Streets’ proposals for Sutton (September 2018)):
- Not applicable.
3.2 Beddington and Wallington
The big project in Beddington and Wallington remains the Beddington North TfL Major Scheme for Beddington Lane. See section 2.2.11 above for more on this. (Note that this project falls outside the remit of the LIP).
In addition to Beddington Lane, there is one other scheme in the Beddington and Wallington committee area with a focus on cycling, and this is the Wallington North/South Cycle route.
Stafford Road / Woodcote Road intersection in Wallington (Wallington South) [Open Street Map and Google Streetview]. A 2017-2018 scheme. Scheme update (18 December 2019): Status: “Ongoing”. Update: “Safety scheme being investigated. WSP modelling the junction and lights near junction. Liaising with TfL. Will link with Wallington N/S route scheme. Consultation to follow modelling.
Quick wins have been identified and completed. Meeting in the new year with TfL to establish results of the modelling“.
Wallington North/South Cycle Route (Wallington North / Wallington South) [Open Street Map and Google Streetview]. A 2017-2018 scheme. Scheme update (18 December 2019): Status: “Ongoing”. Update: “New cycle ramp from Stafford Road to Clarendon Road now constructed which will eventually link up with the future Stafford Road improvements. Post meeting note – existing cycle symbols on the carriageway to be placed more centrally when remarked“. The reference to the cycle symbols relates to those on Clarendon Road near the intersections with Ross Road and Ross Parade.
The improved link is welcome but, as mentioned in the notes to the Sutton Cycle Forum September 2019, there is some concern with the stepped-track nature of the cycle path. This is is especially so, given that the track narrows to around to just one metre in width at its narrowest point.
Bridge Road (intersection with Ross Parade/Clarendon Road) (Wallington South). A 2017-2018 scheme. Scheme update (18 December 2019): Status: “Complete“. Update: “Additional Signage requested by the Cycle Forum has now been installed. Post meeting note – Additional give-way sign to be installed on Ross Road“. Updates and action points (30 December 2019): “Request from SCF to install additional signage at Ross Parade to reinforce cycling priorities. Longer term, KW advises more significant works will be required under the N/S cycleway scheme. Action: Kevin will circulate photos of signage“. Also see 2.2.12 above.
Foresters Drive (between Sandy Lane and Mollison Drive) (Beddington South) [Open Street Map and Google Streetview]. A 2017-2018 scheme. Scheme update (18 December 2019): Status: “Ongoing”. Update: “A programme of road safety schemes identified. Proposals to be shared with the Cycle Forum in the new year. A separate session regarding these proposals will be offered to the Cycle Forum“.
Our update: The first we saw of the proposals was when the informal consultation Foresters Drive Highway Improvement Programme opened on 17 February 2020. No separate session, regarding the proposals, were offered to the Cycle Forum. Although the idea of, or need for, improvements at Foresters Drive originates from 2017-2018, and so predates the role out of the Healthy Streets Approach, it was nevertheless disappointing to find that the identified schemes were for interventions that are unlikely to enable cycling or help achieve the boroughs ambitious targets for cycling. Beddington South was the only ward in the borough where all three councillors supported our Space for Cycling ‘ward ask‘ in 2014, an ‘ask’ which included the provision of protected space for cycling on Mollison Drive and Foresters Drive. Our response the Foresters Drive consultation was submitted on 9 March.
Tharp Road (Beddington North/Wallington South) [Open Street Map | Google Streetview]. A 2018-2019 scheme. Scheme update (18 December 2019): Status: “Feasibility”. Update: “Experimental one-way now in place. Some reports of vehicles not adhering to the ‘no entry’ so additional signage planned. Post meeting note: Road Safety Audit to be re-circulated and parking proposals to be established“. Updates and action points (30 December 2019): “Experimental scheme has been implemented, there have been no reported instances of conflict between motorists and cyclists. There have been reports of vehicles ignoring “no entry” and additional signage is planned. SCF asked whether a couple of parking spaces could be removed to provide a safe space for cyclists to wait if a large vehicle is heading towards them. Action: Kevin will resend safety audit on 3/1/20”.
Also see commentary in 2.2.13 above. Background: ‘No room for bikes: how Tharp Road could show borough-wide failure for cycling‘ (January 2017).
Collingwood School, Springfield Road (Wallington North) [Open Street Map | Google Streetview] A 2018-2019 scheme. Scheme update (18 December 2019): Status: “Feasibility”. Update: “Early project proposals not endorsed by the school. Alternative scheme now being developed”. No change from the June 2019 Cycle Forum, or the September 2019 Cycle Forum.
Foresters Primary School, Redford Avenue (Beddington South) [Open Street Map | Google Streetview] A 2018-2019 scheme. Scheme update (18 December 2019): Status: “Feasibility”. Update: “Safer route to school measures, Healthy Streets Approach. Prefered option identified. Preparing for public consultation”. No change from the June 2019 Cycle Forum, or the September 2019 Cycle Forum.
Plough Lane area (Beddington South) [Open Street Map | Google Streetview] A 2018-2019 scheme. Scheme update (18 December 2019): Status: “Feasibility”. Update: “Traffic and volume data along with CCTV carried out week beginning 9th December. The data gathered will help to inform options considered“.
Manor Road / London Road (Wallington North) [Google Maps | Open Street Map] A 2019-2020 scheme = ‘Healthy Streets’ year one. Scheme update (18 December 2019): Status: “Feasibility”. Update: “Improve walking and cycling in the area linking Butter Hill and Beddington Park”. No change from the June 2019 Cycle Forum, or the September 2019 Cycle Forum. [Future reference for this scheme: BW_2019-2020_01]
Clyde Road/Ross Road area (Wallington South) [Google Maps | Open Street Map] A 2019-2020 scheme = ‘Healthy Streets’ year one. Scheme update (18 December 2019): Status: “Feasibility”. Update: “Improve cycling and walking environment using TfL’s Healthy Streets approach”. No change from the June 2019 Cycle Forum, or the September 2019 Cycle Forum. [Future reference for this scheme: BW_2019-2020_02]
Onslow Gardens/Blenheim Gardens (Wallington South) [Google Maps | Open Street Map] A 2019-2020 scheme = ‘Healthy Streets’ year one. Scheme update (18 December 2019): Status: “Feasibility”. Update: “Improve cycling and walking environment using TfL’s Healthy Streets approach”. No change from the June 2019 Cycle Forum, or the September 2019 Cycle Forum. [Future reference for this scheme: BW_2019-2020_03]
3.3 Carshalton and Clockhouse
There are currently no cycle-specific proposals for this local committee area.
Stanley Park High Oaks Park High School (Carshalton South and Clockhouse) [Open Street Map and Google Streetview]. A 2017-2018 scheme. Scheme update (18 December 2019): Status: “Ongoing”. Update: “A 20mph area is proposed for the road network surrounding Stanley Park High School to encourage cycling and walking and create a safer environment for all road users. Consultation complete. Results equally split for & against. Under consideration by ward councillors”. No change from the June 2019 Cycle Forum, or the September 2019 Cycle Forum.
Stanley Park High School was renamed/rebranded Oaks Park High School from September 2019. It was the school which introduced number plates for students who cycled to school in September 2018. (Also see 2.3.2 above)
A reminder that our Space for Cycling ‘ward ask’ for Carshalton South and Clockhouse in 2014 noted that “There is a lot of potential for access improvements to Stanley Park High School by bicycle, and this requires a review and audit for suitability of many local streets”. This included the idea that Fountain Drive being redesigned as a linear park. Two of the three ward councillors supported the ask at the time. Does not appear to have made any difference.
Stanley Park Road / Beeches Avenue area (Carshalton South and Clockhouse) [Open Street Map | Google Streetview] A 2018-2019 scheme. Scheme update (18 December 2019): Status: “Implementation”. Update: “Implementation underway in August September 2019”. No change from the June 2019 Cycle Forum, or the September 2019 Cycle Forum.
Brookfield Ave/Wrythe Lane/West Street (Carshalton Central/The Wrythe) [Google Maps | Open Street Map] A 2019-2020 scheme = ‘Healthy Streets’ year one. Scheme update (18 December 2019): Status: “Feasibility”. Update: “Improve crossing facilities, pedestrian, cycle and public transport environment. Traffic/ped surveys to be commissioned”. No change from the September 2019 Cycle Forum. [Future reference for this scheme: CC_2019-2020_01]
Area between Kings Lane/Fairview Rd/Harrow Rd and Cambridge Road (Carshalton Central) [OpenStreetMap] A 2019-2020 scheme = ‘Healthy Streets’ year one. Scheme update (18 December 2019): Status: “Feasibility”. Update: “Improve pedestrian routes within area and address through traffic and speed related concerns”. No change from the June 2019 Cycle Forum, or the September 2019 Cycle Forum. [Future reference for this scheme: CC_2019-2020_02]
3.4 Cheam North and Worcester Park
A potentially big project for the Cheam North and Worcester Park Local Committee area is the Worcester Park to Sutton Cycleway. See Section 2.1.3, above.
Windsor Avenue / Henley Avenue area (Stonecot) [Open Street Map | Google Streetview]. A 2018-2019 scheme. Scheme update (18 December 2019): Status: “Implementation“. Update: “20mph area and zebra crossing formal consultation finished. 20mph zone going in at the end of Jan 2020. Zebra not programmed yet“.
For more on this scheme, and the how it has been watered down, see commentary in the notes to the Sutton Cycle Forum June 2019.
Priory Road/Church Hill Road (Nonsuch) [Open Street Map | Google Streetview] A 2018-2019 scheme. Scheme update (18 December 2019): Status: “Feasibility”. Update: “Bus priority scheme to improve the ongoing problems of no. 93 buses stacking at double mini roundabout. Additional bus stopping and diagonal parking is proposed. Consultation completed between 10/01/2019 to 31/012019. Implementation programmed during Oct/Nov 2019“. No change from the September 2019 Cycle Forum.
Sparrow Farm Road Area (Nonsuch) [OpenStreetMap] A 2019-2020 scheme = ‘Healthy Streets’ year one. Scheme update (18 December 2019): Status: “Consultation”. Update: “Informal consultation complete, progressing 20 mph speed limit, entry treatment in Kingsmead Avenue and zebra crossing outside Meadow Primary School“. [Future reference for this scheme: CW_2019-2020_01]
Woodstock Avenue / Elm Road West (Stonecot) [Google Maps | Open Street Map] A 2019-2020 scheme = ‘Healthy Streets’ year one. Measures to discourage cut-through traffic. Officers have received concerns from residents about the speed and volume of traffic using Woodstock Avenue as a cut through to the A24 London Road. **This scheme has not yet been brought to the Cycle Forum despite having having been discussed at the Cheam North and Worcester Park Local Committee meeting of 5 July 2018 (See First sight of ‘Healthy Streets’ proposals for Sutton) and the noted in the Appendix A – 2020/21 List of Proposed Schemes (E&N committee 17 October 2019) that “Phase 2 of measures to complete the scheme started in 2019/20 and review the traffic measures in Sutton Common Road”** .
3.5 St Helier, The Wrythe and Wandle Valley
A potentially big project for the St Helier, The Wrythe and Wandle Valley Local Committee area is the Morden to Sutton Cycleway. For more on this, see Section 2.1.2, above.
London Road / Goat Road junction (Wandle Valley, and just into the London Borough of Merton) [Open Street Map | Google Streetview]. A 2018-2019 scheme (discussed at the Cycle Forum since September 2017). Scheme update (18 December 2019): Status: “Feasibility”. Update: “Traffic, topographical surveys commissioned. Preliminary options have been drawn up. Meeting to be arranged with LB of Merton”. Updates and action points (30 December 2019): “Traffic, topographical surveys commissioned. Preliminary options have been drawn up
but require refining prior to stakeholder consultation. Meeting to be arranged with LB of Merton. Essentially no change from the June 2019 Cycle Forum, or the September 2019 Cycle Forum.
For additional commentary on this scheme see Sutton Cycle Forum November 2018, and sections 2.2.9 and 184.108.40.206 above.
Wrythe Lane / Tweeddale Road / Thornton Road (St Helier) [Open Street Map | Google Streetview] A 2018-2019 scheme. Scheme update (18 December 2019): Status: “Feasibility”. Update: “Junction improvement scheme. Design & consultation only. Implementation 2019/20. Consultation complete. Detail design in progress with implementation later during Autumn 2019”. No change from the June 2019 Cycle Forum, or the September 2019 Cycle Forum.
Our update: On 15 January 2020, notification was received from LB of Sutton that the borough was proposing to make ‘Traffic Management Orders in Thornton Road, Tweeddale Road and Wrythe Lane – to facilitate a junction improvement scheme’ (and provided a link to the statutory documents and advising that representations would need to be submitted by Thursday 6 February 2020.
Budge Lane – cycle lane improvements (Wandle Valley) [Open Street Map | Google Streetview] A 2018-2019 scheme. Scheme update (18 December 2019): Status: “Design/implementation”. Update: “EA approval granted (due to proximity to water course). Implementation expected to be during October 2019”. Updates and action points (30 December 2019): “Barriers which are intended to hinder moped users who should not be on cycle path / slow cyclists encourage checking road to industrial estate before crossing. Action: Hitesh to review Cycle Forum comments regarding barriers and report back. Is it possible to quantify moped numbers?“
For additional commentary, and background, on this scheme see the June 2019 Cycle Forum. Also see section
Stavordale Road (St Helier) [Google Maps | Open Street Map] A 2019-2020 scheme = ‘Healthy Streets’ year one. Scheme update (18 December 2019): Status: “Feasibility”. Update: “Speed reduction measures, possible 20mph limit. Consultation anticipated during October 19”. No change from the September 2019 Cycle Forum (which is particularly interesting given that the anticipated consultation in October had taken place – see Our response to the ‘Cycleway between Sutton High Street and Colliers Wood – proposals in the St Helier area’ informal consultation (November 2019)). Note that this 20mph zone LIP scheme for the Stavordale Road area subsequently morphed into part of the Colliers Wood to Sutton town centre Cycleway proposals. It is not clear whether the scheme is to be funded from the LIP budget or the Cycleway budge. [Future reference for this scheme: SWV_2019-2020_01]
Our update: On 22 January 2020, notification was received from LB of Sutton that the borough was proposing to make Traffic Management Orders to introduce a 20mph speed limit in the Stavordale Road area.
There are three big (potentially very big) projects for the Sutton Local Committee area. These comprise the Liveable Neighbourhoods bid (round 3), and the two Cycleways. See sections 2.1.1, 2.1.2 and 2.1.3 above for more on these.
[Sutton High Street] / All Saints Road / Angel Hill (by Vermont Road, Sutton Common Road, All Saints Road) (Sutton North) Open Street Map and Google Streetview. A 2016-2017 scheme to install a signalised, staggered, pedestrian crossing. Scheme update (18 December 2019): Status “Ongoing”. Update: “Scope of diversions of underground services and associated cost still under consideration. Revised implementation date to be decided”. No change from the September 2019 Cycle Forum.
Given the amount of time that this scheme has been on the books, it appears to have effectively stalled.
Collingwood Road between Oldfields Road (A217) and Bushey Road (Sutton North) [Open Street Map | Google Streetview] A 2018-2019 scheme. Scheme update (18 December 2019): Status: “Feasibility”. Update: “Speed reduction measures, safer route to Westbourne Primary School, improved crossing facilities. Preliminary proposals agreed with school, residents and Cllrs etc. Informal consultation in Nov/Dec 18. Implementation commenced during summer 2019”. No change from the September 2019 Cycle Forum.
It is believed that this scheme was completed in the autumn (of 2019). Work was certainly at at an advanced stage in late October 2019 (see images below). Another example of not fully reporting updates to the Cycle Forum.
Note: This section of Collingwood Road was subject to speed reduction measures in 2013, when a 20mph speed limit was introduced. Speed cushions were installed. Clearly didn’t work – they have now been taken out (essentially replaced by chicanes). The issue on Collingwood Road is the high volume of cut-through, non-local, traffic. It is not clear how the introduction of these latest speed reduction measures will address that.
[Sutton] High Street / Oakhill Road (Sutton North) [Open Street Map | Google Streetview] A 2018-2019 scheme. Scheme update (18 December 2019): Status: “Feasibility”. Update: “Junction improvement – Accident reduction scheme. Preliminary options circulated with ward councillors – some revisions are suggested before agreeing on the preferred option”. No change from the June 2019 Cycle Forum, or the September 2019 Cycle Forum.
Note: This is another scheme that, like Collingwood Road above, is effectively trying to address issues that have were not addressed properly the first time around. In this case, the first time around was over ten years ago with a Local Safety Scheme for Sutton High Street in 2009 (Sutton Living Streets, September 2009). With no attempt in the intervening years to address cut-through traffic on Oakhill Road (or on the nearby Bushey Road, Stayton Road, Sutton Common Road), is there any surprise this has come back to bite again? Unless traffic issues are addressed, it is unlikely anything will change any time soon. No change from the September 2019 Cycle Forum.
Gander Green Lane (south of A217) (Sutton West) [Open Street Map |Google Streetview] A 2019-2020 scheme = ‘Healthy Streets’ year one. Scheme update (18 December 2019): Status: “Feasibility”. Update: “Speed reduction and traffic calming measures, improved crossing facilities, pedestrian, cycle and public transport environment. Traffic surveys planned”. No change from the September 2019 Cycle Forum.
3.7 South Sutton, Cheam and Belmont
There are no specific cycling related schemes for the South Sutton, Cheam and Belmont area. A potentially significant project for the Sutton South, Cheam and Belmont Local Committee area relates to the anticipated Liveable Neighbourhoods bid. For more on this, see section 2.1.2, above.
Banstead Road South (Belmont) [Open Street Map | Google Streetview] A 2018-2019 scheme. Scheme update (18 December 2019): Status: “Ongoing”. Update: “Current options include a junction table at Banstead Road South / Downs Road and a junction improvement at Downs Rd / Cotswold Rd”. No change from the June 2019 Cycle Forum, or the September 2019 Cycle Forum.
Brighton Road / Langley Park Road area (Sutton South/Belmont) [Open Street Map| Google Streetview] A 2019-2020 scheme = ‘Healthy Streets’ year one. Scheme update (18 December 2019): Status: “Feasibility”. Update: “Investigating extending 20mph zone, improve pedestrian facilities”. No change from the June 2019 Cycle Forum, or the September 2019 Cycle Forum (apart from subtlety of change from “extend 20mph’ to “investigating extending 20mph”. Can’t rush these things – after all, people are in a rush on the roads and might not like the idea of 20mph.
Cheam Railway Station area (Cheam) [Open Street Map | Google Streetview] A 2019-2020 scheme = ‘Healthy Streets’ year one. Scheme update (18 December 2019): Status: “Feasibility”. Update: “Improve walking, cycling and public transport access to the station”. No change from the June 2019 Cycle Forum, or the September 2019 Cycle Forum.
v1: 01.04.2020; v1.1 03.04.2020 (corrections to some typographical errors); v1.2 04.04.2020 (further minor changes to layout of some text, addition of Goat Road graphic); v1.3a 08.04.2020 (further minor changes to text (220.127.116.11 merged with 2.2.8 and 18.104.22.168 merged with 2.2.9) and v1.3b (additional updates to 2.2.11 and 2.2.12).