Letter: SCC’s Final Decision is Unlikely to Put an End to the Issue of the London Road Layout

Published on: 24 Nov, 2024
Updated on: 24 Nov, 2024

London Road Google

From Terry Newman

chair of the London Road Action Group

In response to: The Dragon Says: The London Road Saga – How Not to Manage Change

As ever, The Dragon has made an insightful comment on the clumsy management of the divisive topic of providing suitable and encouraging facilities for “Active Travel”.

Some of the diverse opinions result from the antipathy amongst pedestrians, cyclists and motorists, each citing unreasonable behaviour on the part of the other users

Another element to the antipathy comes from feelings of entitlement. There are claims that available highway space should be allocated “each to their own needs”. However, where this space cannot accommodate all users’ wants in an equivocal manner, then claims of importance for unique access arise, not necessarily based on proportional rates of usage, and may not fully respect the Highway Code hierarchy of placing pedestrians at the highest priority.

This is not a local problem, as other county councils have experienced similar battles; some, like Surrey, have rejected proposals. Others have gone ahead, some with a modicum of success, but some with disastrous outcomes that reversion has been necessary.

It is no wonder that last November, the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee berated the Department for Transport for having insufficient evidence that £2.3 billion on Active Travel schemes has been money well spent.

This, then, is the conundrum that Surrey CC Cabinet will face when they come to reconsider their original decision not to proceed. Did they really come to their original conclusion without adequate contemplation of all the information, of the benefits or the disadvantages?

Did they recognise and give weight to the issue that solving one potential safety risk (to cyclists) may result in a potentially increased risk to other users of the highway space, particularly pedestrians of all abilities? Just because a change is considered “safer” in some aspect, it does not necessarily follow that it has become “safe enough”.

The inability due to lack of space to incorporate facilities designed with regards to best practice, the disregard of “absolute minima”, the excessive necessity for the “last resort” design of shared usage, the acceptance of mixing passengers and cyclists at bus stops, whatever name is given to the design – either the Cabinet did or did not base their conclusion on the total package.

How much were the Select Committee influenced by the statement that Active Travel England (ATE) also concurred with the adequate safety of the design, when told they had “signed off, effectively, the design”. The Committee would not have known that within minutes (24 to be exact) of being assured of that satisfaction, the Director of Finance and Corporate Services at ATE had sent an email to me stating:

“…a design review session did not take place. The cabinet paper from 29 October 2024, regarding the London Road scheme, refers to a conversation between officers and Active Travel England’s Director of Inspections. For a formal design review, officers in our Inspectors team use our design assistance and scheme review tools to assess design drawings provided by a local authority.”

Perhaps they were watching the webcast.

As a final point about the “independent” Arup review, perhaps the Cabinet were aware that Arup was also engaged in similar projects for other councils, also receiving funding from Active Travel England. A situation that members of a Cabinet would have to have declared as being “a conflict of interest”.

Whatever the conclusion at the next Cabinet meeting on Tuesday (November 26), it is hard to believe that it will put an end to the issue. If it is decided to change the decision, then eventually the Gosden Hill development may create a totally different volume of traffic, and may result in an unexpected and unwanted outcome.

If the decision stands, then perhaps it may be necessary to properly look at alternative solutions, which would not qualify for central government funding, but may be necessary to achieve the plans for sustainable movement corridors. Good luck!