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

Published on: 17 Nov, 2024
Updated on: 17 Nov, 2024

News that Surrey County Council Cabinet’s decision to scrap the Active Travel scheme for London Road has been “called in” is not surprising: it was very contentious.

Cynics might observe that councillors will be mindful of the impending SCC elections next May. It would be surprising if that were not the case.

But regardless of that, the way the project was approached was scarcely credible and seriously divisive.

Crucially, the initial announcement that a major route into Guildford was to be partially closed for seven months was made without any meaningful consultation. The quick concession, that the partial closure period would be reduced to five months, did little to cool the tempers of local residents who felt their concerns were being ignored.

The long periods of partial closure proposed gave the impression that planners of the project did not understand what they were doing, its impact and the disruption that would ensue.

Meanwhile many cyclists, tired with the slow pace of improvement to Guildford’s cycling infrastructure, were keen to see the changes made.

London Road, Burpham. (image Google)

Antipathy between motorists and cyclists and pedestrians hardly needs encouragement. But rather than achieving a wider consensus, or at least a sense that all views had been heard, the county council’s high-handed “we know best” approach had promoted division and confrontation.

Such was the strength of feeling that people queued out of the door to attend a public meeting in January 2023. Laudably, sensing the mood, the leader of Surrey County Council faced the community in person and said it would be crazy to proceed in the face of the obvious, clearly visible opposition to the proposals.

Further consultation was agreed but, unfortunately, some involved felt that SCC was not being impartial in their handling of that expensive many-months-long activity, carried out at our expense. Those opposed still felt the proposal, however much amended, was being railroaded while those in favour felt those against were being obstructive and against needed change. Both sides, quoting different surveys, claimed opponents were misrepresenting local opinion.

When the SCC Cabinet made a “final” decision not to proceed it came as a surprise, not least to some of those objecting to the scheme, who had thought the Cabinet would support the Transport Portfolio holder Matt Furniss (Con, Shalford). But a majority of the Cabinet members, including the council leader, did not.

That it seemed was that, but it left many feeling very angry, including local schools who felt let down. Students had spoken effectively about their desire for improved cycle routes to their school.

And now there is to be a second bite of the cherry. The Cabinet’s decision has been called in for further consideration by the Community, Environment and Highways Select Committee. Even insiders at SCC cannot predict how that meeting scheduled for Tuesday, November 19, will go nor how the Cabinet might react if the decision is returned to them, which is the most the select committee can do.

Sadly, whatever the outcome, community relations will remain fractured for the foreseeable future. Others could use the London Road Active Travel proposal as an example of how not to do it.