Objectors Fear SCC Will Give Green Light to London Road Active Travel Redesign

Published on: 24 Oct, 2024
Updated on: 24 Oct, 2024

Image of London Road taken in August 2022. Google Street View.

By Martin Giles

Proposed changes to the layout of London Road in Burpham are expected to be approved by Surrey County Council, according to a local campaign group, the London Road Action Group (LRAG).

The stretch of road affected is New Inn Lane to Boxgrove Road and Boxgrove Roundabout (aka the AA Roundabout).

The packed public meeting in January 2023. Not all those wishing to attend could fit into the hall at George Abbot School. A large majority of those present appeared to be against the scheme, as proposed at that time.

The scheme has been controversial from the outset, provoking many articles and Dragon Reader letters and comments. Initial proposals which involved a five month partial closure of the A road provoked the largest public meeting held locally for years in January 2023.

SCC Leader addressing the public meeting

At the time, the leader of SCC, Tim Oliver, said it would be “madness” to go ahead with the original scheme in the face of the widespread opposition displayed at the meeting.

Subsequently the long period of partial closure element has been watered down to be less disruptive but concerns remain about proposal to mix cyclists and pedestrians and about the width constraints of the road after alterations.

SCC commissioned Arup to conduct an independent review of the proposals. The decision on the proposal is expected to be taken at the SCC Cabinet meting on October 29.

LRAG chairman Terry Newman, who is a member of the stakeholders’ group consulted on the proposals, said: “All concerns have been batted away, based on the assertion from the independent Arup report that the design is safe and adequate for the anticipated level of usage, although their brief was narrow and only addressed one single point of highway constraint.” He also questioned the independent status of Arup.

Mr Newman continued: “The assertion has received further support from Active Travel England (ATE), as it is reported that recent discussions with SCC concluded that it is better to proceed than not, despite acknowledging: ‘The width of the short section of reduced shared space is below the stated minimum … of 3 metres… the rest of the route is of high quality and should attract a lot of new users …’. But Active Travel England (ATE) is reported to have concluded that it is better to proceed than not.

Cllr George Potter

But local SCC and GBC councillor George Potter (Lib Dem, Guildford East and Burpham respectively) is quoted in the meeting papers saying: “While a minority remain opposed to the scheme, the majority of residents are happy that the main initial cause of concern (the roadworks) have been fully addressed, and the only concerns still being raised by opponents of the scheme are either simply a belief that money shouldn’t be spent on cyclists (which would mean a complete waste of the funding already secured and the money already invested in the scheme) or a refusal to believe that the multiple engineers and independent safety assessors involved have done their jobs properly.”

Cllr Fiona Davidson

Another local county councillor, Fiona Davidson (R4GV, Guildford South East), had a different view. She told the Dragon: “I support LRAG’s response to the Arup report. A desktop exercise is not adequate to address the serious safety concerns of residents.

“A large amount of highly technical and theoretic argument has been deployed to justify why minimum – or less than minimum – standards are acceptable on London Road. However, residents live in the real world, not a theoretical one.

“Can we be confident that in the real world HGV drivers will always sit exactly in the middle of their lane and won’t veer into the 9.8 inches separating them from an oncoming HGV? Is 45 per cent of the footway – sometimes narrower than the minimum standard – to be shared by cyclists and pedestrians an improvement?”

Howard Smith is a regular eBike user.

But borough councillor Howard Smith (Lab, Westborough), who has lifelong connections with Burpham and has regularly cycled on the route, said: “I am keen to see infrastructure improvements and hopeful that section one of the scheme does get the green light next week.

“Overwhelmingly popular with residents it would be a step change in active travel in Guildford and a complement to the recent ebike hire scheme. We do need to reduce traffic, congestion and pollution on our roads and this would, if it goes ahead, benefit both drivers and cyclists.”

Zoe Franklin MP in the House of Commons

Guildford MP Zoe Franklin also went on the record to support the scheme. She hoped the SCC cabinet would “decide to implement the Burpham section of the scheme in full, for the sake of the safety of residents and for the many residents in Burpham who would like to walk or cycle to their local schools or shops but currently feel it is too dangerous to do so.”

The headteacher of George Abbot school, located near London Road, wrote to SCC: “I wanted to write to reiterate the full support of George Abbot School for the full implementation of the A3100 active travel scheme…

The stretch of the London Road involved in the scheme. Image SCC

“This stretch of road serves one of the biggest schools in the country – we are in the top 10 per cent of school sizes. It must be a priority to facilitate safe cycle ways for 2,000 children in this area of our town. It is also a priority to facilitate greener travel approaches for a generation who are poised to make the seismic change necessary, to begin to reverse the environmental damage that we currently witness, worldwide.”

But the LRAG chair remains sceptical, saying: “The impression that remains is that this scheme is politically, rather than technically driven, and one wonders how bad a ‘critical issue’ has to be to rescind funding.”

He urged objectors to “email every Cabinet member to ask them to reflect your view when voting.”

Responses to Objectors Fear SCC Will Give Green Light to London Road Active Travel Redesign

Jim Allen Reply

October 24, 2024 at 2:49 pm

Regardless of the outcome, I sincerely hope that the schedule is feasible and rational, after the replacement of sewers and the installation of power cables for Gosden Hill in both London and New Inn Lane. Any additional costs incurred due to poor scheduling by SCC would likely result in legal action.
Katherine Clowser Reply

October 24, 2024 at 2:53 pm

I completely agree with the headteacher at George Abbot. I regularly cycle along London Road and I would definitely not be comfortable letting my children cycle on the existing bike lane.

With George Abbot being one of the biggest schools in the country and right in the middle of the proposed enhancement, it should be a priority to facilitate a safe passage for our children to cycle along and I fully support the scheme.
Liz Critchfield Reply

October 24, 2024 at 2:54 pm

Martin Grant are proposing to build some 1,800 homes on Gosden Hill Farm. This will require appropriate infrastructure, changes in road layout and a great deal more traffic going through Burpham. Has this been taken into account by SCC? Digging up London Road to implement a very contentious Active Travel scheme, only to find it needs to be dug up again to lay sewage pipes seems ludicrous. A display of joined up thinking might be useful.
Anthony Mallard Reply

October 24, 2024 at 5:14 pm

The implementation of the London Road Active Travel Scheme would be premature and potentially waste public money were it not considered in tandem with the identified need to develop and alter the local road network in Burpham to accommodate the forthcoming Gosden Hill Farm development of 1,800+ houses on this former farm site.

A development currently under active consultation. Both schemes require significant changes to the existing road layout and both will inevitably cause major disruption during their construction.

To undertake them in isolation of each other would be foolish. To plan and execute the needs of both, in harmony, may well result in an overall improvement for all local road users. I urge the SCC councillors and its Cabinet to consider this common sense approach.

I wonder if they will?
Bibhas Neogi Reply

October 24, 2024 at 11:18 pm

I have no idea what “redesign” of the scheme is going to be proposed.

If standards are not being observed and the scheme is implemented anyway, the council could face legal action if and when unfortunate accidents and, in the worst case scenario, any fatalities occur that are attributable to non-compliant design.

In my view, a complete compliant redesign is the only safe way to improve the route for motorised traffic, cyclists and pedestrians. It would delay the scheme but it is better to have a safer scheme than waste money just because funding has been wrongly made available for a sub-standard scheme.

I would like to draw attention to my letter https://guildford-dragon.com/letter-we-should-not-give-up-on-the-london-road-scheme/
wherein I suggested making London Road one-way northbound from Boxgrove Roundabout to the next one. It could even be extended up to the New Inn Lane roundabout provided southbound local traffic is re-routed via Burnet Avenue, Coltsfoot Drive and Woodruff Avenue.

With no through southbound motorised traffic beyond Woodruff Avenue at the roundabout (except for access to the pub and the tyre shop), of course, diversion through the A3 would be necessary for such traffic. This is a relatively minor inconvenience considering the advantages to be gained from a much safer scheme.

Bibhas Neogi is a former highways agency engineer
- Keith Reeves Reply
  
  October 26, 2024 at 7:44 pm
  
  I find it strange that Mr Neogi raises the spectre of legal action in the light of a non compliant design. As a former employee of an infrastructure owner and operator, he should know better than anyone that such organisations are at liberty to approve non compliances with their technical standards, based on the recommendations of their own subject matters experts.
Malcolm Stanier Reply

October 25, 2024 at 2:14 am

Just some questions for George Abbot’s headteacher following his views as expressed in his letter to Surrey County Council:

– Does he have secure storage for bicycles at the school?

– Are parents going to be able to afford to purchase a bicycle (or more than one)?

– Is he going to ensure that all bicycles that are to be ridden to the school have lights and pupils have high visibility clothing and cycle helmets?

– Are these bicycles going to be inspected for roadworthiness?

– What provision is he going to have for cycle maintenance or instruction in cycle maintenance especially with regard to mending punctures?

– Are these pupils going to be asked to pass something like what was the Cycling Proficiency Test?

It is all very well advocating cycling to school but he does not seem to have taken account of the practical issues.
- Keith Reeves Reply
  
  October 26, 2024 at 7:40 pm
  
  What a strange response. Mr Stanier might equally ask, and much more pertinently in my opinion, whether everyone driving a vehicle has a valid licence, MOT and insurance.
Claudio Svaluto Reply

October 25, 2024 at 11:12 am

I was disappointed when the scheme was delayed and I’m glad we’re making some progress. This will allow people of all ages to cycle safely. It’s a much needed improvement.
Maddie Evans Reply

October 25, 2024 at 12:43 pm

Rebuilding the London Road route so it is safer for all road users is long overdue. Children should be able to get to school independently and safely everywhere.

We can’t anticipate every advantage, but Burpham residents may also benefit from a reduction in heavy through traffic if it becomes faster to use the A3 rather than cutting through Burpham to other parts of Guildford.
- Jim Allen Reply
  
  October 25, 2024 at 9:17 pm
  
  Sadly there is going to be an increase of traffic through this section due to the proposed slip road onto the southbound A3 in Burpham, noting it is estimated by the current government that there will be 95,000 more people in the local area. As for it being faster, it will be gridlock in Burpham under current plans.
  
  The cycle path fiasco is not the only future event on the roads in Burpham. Installation of sewer pipes in London road and New Inn lane are due 2025/6.
  - Maddie Evans Reply
    
    October 29, 2024 at 8:11 am
    
    That’s interesting. I haven’t seen that population increase statistic. My understanding was that Guildford had a population of 144,000 in 2022 (Office of National statistics). What area and what timescale will see an increase of nearly 100,000?
John Treasure Reply

October 26, 2024 at 8:49 pm

I read with interest Bibhas Neogi’s comments regarding making London Road one way northbound. Thus diverting Southbound traffic up Coltsfoot Drive, Burnet Avenue and Woodruff Avenue. What a spectacularly ill-advised idea that is.

Could he tell us how he expects Surrey Police traffic department and armed response units, based in Coltsford Drive, respond to incidents north of Burpham when they are faced with a southbound one way system. Is he expecting them to go south to the Stoke interchange to then go north?

Is he expecting the residents of Burpham to put up with thousands of cars a day come through their side streets and the residents of Abbotswood, Ganghill, London Road and Highclere all travel northbound in order to travel to Guildford town centre?

I presume Mr Neogi doesn’t live in Coltsfoot Drive, Burnet Avenue and wouldn’t have anything to do with this chaos.
- Bibhas Neogi Reply
  
  October 27, 2024 at 1:05 pm
  
  I have not proposed any southbound one-way system. If the northbound one-way is extended up to New Inn Lane roundabout, local traffic could be take these roads to go southbound to access George Abbot School and to the roundabout close to it. Local traffic only as my proposal is to have no southbound through traffic from here except for access to the pub and the tyre shop. So, “thousands” of cars would not use these roads.
  
  Residents of Ganghill would turn right and then left into Abbotswood and exit to London Road through its southern junction. They would turn left and then right into Boxgrove Avenue and join Boxgrove Road to the town centre.
  
  In response to comments from Keith Reeves above, Department for Transport have or used to have a system of approval of non-compliance with the standards provided the designer could show what measures would be taken to ameliorate the consequences of non-compliance. If the risk of accidents were not going to be reduced, non-compliance was not granted.
  
  I couldn’t quite follow where Stoke Interchange features in these traffic movements.