County Council Cabinet Confirms Its Decision on London Road Scheme

Published on: 26 Nov, 2024
Updated on: 1 Dec, 2024

London Road Burpham (Google)

The Active Travel Scheme for London Road in Burpham, intended to improve facilities for pedestrians and cyclists, will not proceed.

Update see new comment from Cllr Fiona Davidson below.

Surrey County Council’s Cabinet confirmed their earlier decision today after the matter had been referred back to them by the Communities, Environment and Highways Select Committee.

At their earlier meeting on the subject, several Cabinet members had expressed concern that the scheme could increase the risk to pedestrians if they had to share more areas of the pavement with cyclists.

See: Only Cabinet Members Will Speak at SCC’s Meeting to Decide on London Road Scheme

Cllr George Potter

George Potter (Lib Dem, Guildford East), who had spoken at length at the previous Cabinet meeting in support of the proposals, expressed his frustration: “Shamefully the Conservatives have doubled down on their decision to throw out much needed walking and cycling improvements in Burpham, despite the clear recommendation of cross-party backbench councillors that their previous rejection was based on a failure to properly consider, or understand, the evidence in front of them.

“This scheme would have delivered seven new pedestrian crossings, widened pavements and proper cycle lanes, all of which would have been paid for by central government funding, but thanks to this ideologically-driven decision, my community are now going to be left with dangerous roads without safe crossings and without safe ways for children to cycle to school.

“I am utterly depressed at this decision to ignore evidence, to ignore the community, and to make life worse for local people all for the sake of ideological opposition to investing in pedestrian and cyclist safety.”

Terry Newman

Terry Newman, chair of the London Road Action Group, said: “The Leader of The Council, at today’s meeting, stressed that the Cabinet had indeed thoroughly considered the pros and cons, as well as all the submissions from every quarter, not necessarily just what was contained in the Recommendation Paper submitted to the Cabinet.

“The absence of any additional evidence meant there was no need to rehearse the debate yet again and that the original decision would stand.

“I am disappointed that it took two years and many man-hours to come to this conclusion. A feasibility study should have recognised the ramifications that the available highway space would necessarily incur.

“This leaves the re-design of the Boxgrove roundabout still to be made public, but it will now have to integrate with the existing layout of cycling lanes and tracks.”

Cllr Howard Smith

Howard Smith, the GBC councillor (Lab, Westborough), who has been an advocate for the scheme from the start, commented: “It’s a very disappointing decision and not just because £6 million of infrastructure funding will be lost to Guildford. More importantly, another generation of children will no longer be safe to cycle there, particularly, for example, to and from George Abbot school.

“There will be continuing congestion through Burpham at peak times, with consequences for air quality.

“Nothing was offered to solve these issues by the opponents of the active travel scheme. I hope they are now satisfied with the result.”

Cllr Fiona Davidson

County Cllr Fiona Davidson (R4GV, Guildford South East) said today (November 27): “I believe the Cabinet has made the right decision.

“There was a clear risk that the new road layout would make the road less safe (and it’s already one of the safer arterial roads in Surrey) for all road users. Even the supporters admitted that the scheme required a series of compromises given the circumstances of the road.

“This is a decision that will have the support of the majority of residents who would be most impacted by the scheme – as confirmed by the recent poll on the Burpham and Merrow Facebook pages, which attracted around 850 participants and resulted in 74 per cent voting against the scheme.”

Responses to County Council Cabinet Confirms Its Decision on London Road Scheme

Jim Allen Reply

November 26, 2024 at 7:00 pm

In response to Cllr Howard, alternative solutions have been proposed, such as the installation of anti-slip covers on manhole covers resurfacing and the leveling of drains etc.

I trust that he will support my proposal for increased road capacity, realignment of traffic movement routes, and the creation of a five-way intersection at Gosden Hill connecting to the A25. This will alleviate traffic congestion on London Road, Clay Lane, and New Inn Lane, which will be caused by heavy traffic from Wisley, Garlick Arch, Send Warehousing, and Weyside Village.

This solution will reduce pollution and heavy traffic in West Clandon, Merrow Park Lane, and Burpham. The proposed £6 million investment would be more effectively utilized in this solution.

GBC planners are or were under the impression the Local Plan strategic sites were jointly traffic assessed prior to adoption of the plan. But many of us knew they were not.

Road chaos is our future if my proposal is ignored, but at least after 15 plus years of asking by the Burpham Community Association, our crossing on London Road at the junction with Winterhill Way is nearly installed. So thank you for that Surrey Highways, the residents have what we requested.
John Oliver Reply

November 26, 2024 at 9:08 pm

The Cabinet rejected the proposal on the grounds of safety and they were quite right to do so.

Whilst road safety is not ideal in Burpham it is being improved (eg the new pedestrian crossing near Winterhill Way and the one on New Inn Lane).

If this scheme had been introduced, it would significantly and negatively impact the safety of pedestrians between High Clere and Ganghill and discourage use of the pavement for walking. Pedestrians would have to share the very narrow stretch of the pavement with cyclists.

If the number of cyclists significantly increased (as a dubious survey within George Abbot School suggested), the numbers would would exceed the safety parameters for a path of that width. As for Cllr Smith’s comment “There will be continuing congestion through Burpham at peak times, with consequences for air quality”, he really needs to do his homework.

SCC estimates only a very modest increase in cyclists. Many will possibly be amongst those schoolchildren who currently walk. Whatever, the effect on vehicle numbers would not be noticeable and, with the Gosden Hill Farm development on the horizon, Burpham is set to face even greater congestion.

He also needs to recognise that, the emissions caused by the disruption to traffic in the construction phase, the emissions from construction vehicles/equipment and the emissions caused by production of the construction materials would be significant. The likelihood of the small reduction of emissions, because of the scheme, exceeding the emissions during the construction phase in the next 10-20 years is small, particularly given the increase in electric vehicles.

This is a sensible decision by the SCC Cabinet which has prevented the spending of millions of pounds of public money for very little benefit. Cllr Potter disparagingly states that the Cabinet is “ideologically-driven” but doesn’t explain what he means by that. I suggest that he considers whether he falls into the same category.
Helen Skinner Reply

November 26, 2024 at 9:21 pm

Such a shame, I keep hearing there were complaints about floating bus stops and narrow lane widths, none of which tally with the final design proposed. I wonder how much the panel were swayed by complaints that related to previous designs and had not realised they were no longer valid.