LONDON BOROUGH OF SUTTON
SUTTON SOUTH, CHEAM AND BELMONT LOCAL
COMMITTEE
WEDNESDAY, 28 NOVEMBER 2007
7.30 pm at the
St. Dunstan's CofE Primary School, Anne Boleyn's Walk, Cheam
THIRD DISPATCH
To all members of Sutton South, Cheam and Belmont Local Committee:-
The following papers, which were not available for dispatch with the agenda, are
attached. Please bring them with you to the meeting:-
10.
TRAFFIC CALMING - NORTH CHEAM AREA (STEP ZONE 3) (Pages 1 - 8)
Report of the Head of Transport and Traffic
11.
TRAFFIC CALMING - SOUTH CHEAM AREA (STEP ZONE 32) (Pages 9 -
12)
Report of the Head of Transport and Traffic
Paul Martin
Chief Executive
Civic Offices
St Nicholas Way
SUTTON
SM1 1EA
Enquiries to: Andrew Horrod, Area Co-ordinator Tel: 020 8770 5115
Fax: 020 8770 5404 E-mail: [email address]
Copies of reports are available in large print on request
This page is intentionally left blank
Page 1
Agenda Item 10
London Borough of Sutton
Sutton South, Cheam & Belmont Local Committee - 28 November 2007
Report of the Executive Head of Planning Transportation & Highways
TRAFFIC MEASURES - CONSULTATION PROGRESS - NORTH CHEAM AREA
(STEP ZONE 3)
Ward Location:
Nonsuch
Author(s) and Contact Phone Number(s):
Alan Carroll / Ray Puddy
Area Served:
Cheam, Nonsuch &
Lead Councillor:
Stonecot
Cllr Colin Hall
Report For Decision
Summary
This report advises Members of the results of the second round of informal consultation
undertaken in July this year on Step Zone 3, and seeks approval for the proposals for
Church Hill Road, subject to detailed discussion and agreement with Ward Councillors.
Recommendations
I recommend to Committee that :-
a)
they note the result of the second stage consultation as shown in the attached
Appendix
b)
undertake formal consultation, the replacement of the existing traffic calming
measures on Church Hill Road between Senhouse Road and Priory Avenue with 3-
abreast speed cushions
c)
undertake formal consultation to implement an uncontrolled Zebra Crossing on
Church Hill Road south east of Senhouse Road
d)
install a pedestrian island on Church Hill Road north west of Senhouse Road
e)
enlarge the existing pedestrian islands at Church Hill Road / Malden Road and
Senhouse Road / Church Hill Road
f)
agree that the Executive Head of Planning, Transport and Highways, in consultation
with Ward Members, be given delegated authority to proceed with those measures
that receive no material objection for implementation within the budget available
1.
Background
1.1 The London Borough of Sutton adopted the Strategic Traffic & Environmental
Problem Study (STEPS) programme in 1990 with the first zone being completed in
1991.
1
Agenda Item 10
Page 2
1.2 The approach is a 3-stage process. The first stage is to consult with residents to
seek information as to the traffic problems and environmental difficulties they
perceive occurring within the zone. The responses are collected, collated and
produced to Members in the form of a committee report, with suggested proposals
for addressing the issues highlighted.
1.3 If Members approve the proposals, the second stage is to consult residents again on
these, and the results from this are once again reported to Members at a subsequent
Committee.
1.4 If Members agree with the final analysis and give approval to go ahead, this often
involves the making of Traffic Orders, and the council are required to formally consult
directly affected residents as part of the statutory process. Any material objections at
this stage are required to be reported back to committee for resolution. It is only
once this stage is concluded that any construction can begin.
2.
Steps Zone 3
2.1 This covers parts of Cheam, Stonecot and Nonsuch Wards and is defined by Malden
Road in the south; A24 in the west; the A217 in the east and Hamilton Avenue in the
north.
2.2 Stage 1 consultation was undertaken in August 2006 and the results reported to the
Cheam & Worcester Park Committee on 21st February 2007. The Committee noted
the results of this first round consultation and resolved that :-
the scheme moved forward to the second round of consultation,
to proceed with those elements of the package that received a favourable
outcome and prioritise these for implementation in financial year 2007/2008 that
can be contained within the agreed budget of £73,000
vary the packages of traffic calming measures to take account of any further
issues arising from the ongoing consultation with residents
3
Results of Second Stage Consultation
3.1 The second stage consultation was undertaken in July this year. However, due to
staffing difficulties it has not been possible to bring the results back to Members
before this meeting.
3.2 Residents were offered two options for consideration viz,
OPTION 1 – Traffic calming features at the following locations
Church Hill Road at Malden Road – enlarge existing pedestrian island
Church Hill Road north west of Senhouse Road – new pedestrian island
Church Hill Road south east of Senhouse Road – new Zebra Crossing placed on
a speed table
Senhouse Road at Church Hill Road - enlarge existing pedestrian island
Gander Green Lane – replace Priority Give Ways with speed cushions
Gander Green Lane by Whittaker Road – new Zebra Crossing placed on a
speed table
Gander Green Lane / Brocks Drive junction – install speed tables on the four
entry/exit arms of the junction
2
Page 3
Agenda Item 10
Staines Avenue junction with Henley Avenue – install speed tables on the three
entry/exit arms of the junction
Molesey Drive – install speed tables in the vicinity of Cheam Park Farm Infants
School
Kingston Avenue – install two flat top tables and footpath extensions to help
children and parents to cross outside the school
Windsor Avenue in the vicinity of Kingston Avenue – introduce additional waiting
restrictions to reduce obstructive parking and provide a safe environment for
parents and children at school times.
OPTION 2 – Introduce a 20mph Zone. Residents were advised that in order to
introduce a 20mph Zone roads must have some form of traffic calming features.
Speed Cushions had been chosen because :-
•
they are reasonably inexpensive to install
•
cause minimum disruption to traffic during construction
•
cause no loss of on-street parking
•
are acceptable to bus operators, cycle groups and emergency services.
Speed Cushions were therefore proposed in the 30 local roads :-
We received 616 filled in questionnaires, which represents a 15.4% response rate.
The appendix attached to this report gives details of responses on a road-by-road
basis.
3.3
457 respondents wanted some form of traffic management – that is 74% of those
that returned the questionnaire.
Thus, considering these 457 responses :-
298 identified a support for Option 1 – the TM scheme (65%)
239 identified a support for Option 2 – the 20mph scheme (53%)
N.B. These percentages will add up to more than 100% due to those residents who
ticked both Option 1 and Option 2.
3.4 From this I suggest that there is a clear mandate to introduce the Option 1 TM
measures in the area. However, the 53% support for the 20mph proposal is
misleading because a significant number of respondents who supported a 20mph
scheme put a caveat that they do not want the traffic calming features that would go
with it. It has to be recognised that 20mph zones cannot be introduced without the
introduction of such measures, as without them the zones would be illegal. New
advice from the Metropolitan Police has also stated that such proposals would not
only be objected to by them, but in the event that the Local Authority insist on
continuing with the possible introduction, they would take legal action to prevent it.
Therefore when taking this into account the percentage of residents that support a
20mph scheme including road humps (as proposed in Option 2) falls to 38%.
Therefore because these traffic calming features, as proposed, do not command a
high level of public support they should not generally be pursued at the present time.
This recommendation sits comfortably when considered in conjunction with the
85%ile speed surveys undertaken in the area. Most locations tested have daily
3
Agenda Item 10
Page 4
average figures around 30mph. Those roads with significant values above 30mph,
namely Gander Green Lane and Windsor Avenue, are proposed for attention.
Church Hill Road
3.5 Currently the section of Church Hill Road between Senhouse Road and Priory Road
is traffic calmed by a combination of 3 Priority Give Ways with kerb build-outs and a
single cushion plus 5 sets of three-abreast speed cushions. The Priority Give Ways
only function as a speed reducing feature if there are balanced traffic flows (which is
not always the case on Church Hill Road). Observations show that some drivers,
rather than giving way, will often accelerate to get through the chicane before an
oncoming vehicle. This is clearly a potential hazard, and unnerving for the people in
the vehicle with right of way. Indeed, there have been accidents where drivers failed
to observe the Give Way, and anecdotal evidence suggests there are numerous
“near misses. Added to this the three-abreast speed cushions fall short as speed
reducing features because their height are not to dimensions currently employed.
3.6 As a consequence, although the 85%ile speed, as measured by the Police, is 30mph
these current measures do not command the confidence of the local residents. The
second consultation made no additional traffic calming recommendations for Church
Hill Road, however representation from the local Residents’ Association have
suggested that there is support for the replacement of the Priority Give Way’s with
improved speed cushions. Informal discussions have been held with the Police and
Fire Brigade on this concept. The Police have raised no objections however the Fire
Brigade raised concerns that as Church Hill Road is one of their major access roads
in the area, to ensure that their response times are achieved, there is the need that
the Fire Appliances be able to straddle the speed cushions, and the problems that
park cars can cause. They requested that three abreast cushions be installed,
otherwise there would be a need to provide 18m of double yellow line on the
approach to each set of cushions.
3.7 I believe that this is an appropriate concept, provided the centre section of the road
has a hatched area highlighted in red to restrain other general traffic from using it.
3.8 Proposed Zebra Crossing on Church Hill Road by Senhouse Road.
There appears to be a good case for a crossing on Church Hill Road by Senhouse
Road, although not on a speed table. Sight lines are adequate, but the Police have
insisted that the zig-zag marking be extended to encompass the Senhouse Road
junction (in accordance with the Df T specification).
3.9 Proposed new traffic island on Church Hill Road by Senhouse Road
This would complement proposed Zebra Crossing.
3.10 Proposed enlargements of pedestrian island at Malden Road and Senhouse Road
Important pedestrian safety features that should proceed.
3.11 Gander Green Lane
As noted with Church Hill Road noted above, the existing Priority Give Way features
do not work satisfactorily. As a result the proposal is to replace them with nine sets of
2-abreast speed cushions.
4
Page 5
Agenda Item 10
Gander Green Lane by Whittaker Road – proposed Zebra Crossing
3.11 The provision of this crossing appears to be response to a slight PI accident that
happened on 21 October 2004 when a 19 year old male stepped from the north
footpath in front of a car. There is no evidence of any other recent accidents at this
location.
3.12 Site observations have shown that a small number of parents with children do cross
Gander Green Lane at this junction on their way to and from school. At times during
the morning peak period queues form on the approach to the signals at St Dunstan’s
Hill, which the pedestrians have to pass through. While it might be thought that the
provision of the crossing would therefore be a safety aid, what must also be borne in
mind that it may also give the pedestrians, and un-accompanied children, a false
sense of security. Currently all pedestrians take great care when crossing Gander
Green Lane. Should a Zebra Crossing be provided and a queuing vehicle leave a
gap a pedestrian could assume its safe to cross without checking traffic movements
in the opposite direction with possible fatal consequences. From experience I am
aware that such incidents do happen under such circumstances. I have discussed
this in detail with Officers of the Metropolitan Police who share these serious doubts
about the safety of this proposal.
3.13 Unfortunately because of footway vehicle crossovers there is no suitable alternative
position for a Zebra Crossing in this vicinity. I am aware the provision of a crossing
at this location has the support of Cheam Park Farm Nursery & Infants School, and
this needs to be addressed.
Gander Green Lane / Brocks Drive and Staines Avenue / Henley Avenue junctions
3.14 In order to deal with non-compliance of the mini-roundabouts at these two junctions
the original proposals were to install junction speed tables on each approach. The
Police have raised objections to these on the grounds that that they will create a
potential hazard to two-wheeled vehicles (especially pedal cycles); have potential to
cause great problems for buses (both are on bus routes); is excessively restrictive
and creates a potential serious potential drainage problems.
3.14 Through discussions with the Police an alternative is suggested whereby a flat top
speed table is installed across the whole junction.
3.15 Mosley Drive speed tables adjacent to the school
This commands general support, but their positions do need minor alterations.
3.16 Kingston Avenue safety features outside Cheam Park Farm Junior School
There have been a number of issues relating to the need of residents for off-street
parking and the safety of schoolchildren cross the road outside the school. It has not
been possible to progress the original proposal, and it is proposed to undertake
further discussion with local residents in an endeavour to produce a scheme that will
satisfy all criteria. A further report on this will be made to a future Committee.
Windsor Avenue Waiting Restrictions
3.17 5 objected to the proposal on the following grounds :-
Would cause huge disruption and inconvenience
Removal of parked cars would increase the speed of the traffic
5
Agenda Item 10
Page 6
Residents should not be prevented from parking outside their own house
Problem does not exist
Has disabled wife and would not be able to park their car
Current restrictions are ignored due to lack of enforcement.
Cheam Park Farm Nursery & Infants School also questioned the extent of the
proposed waiting restrictions, pointing out that while they would clear the road this
would lead to an increase of speed of traffic – is this wise.
3.18 There is a need for some waiting restrictions on Windsor Avenue in the vicinity of
Kingston Avenue, to provide clear sight lines for children to safely cross the road.
However, I believe that those proposed are a little excessive. My alternative is as
follows:-
•
Retain the proposed restrictions on the south (odd numbered) side of Windsor
Avenue, with a minor curtailment at the western end. The vast majority of these
properties have vehicle crossover so it should have minimal impact of them,
•
Have a 10m “at any time” around the Matlock Crescent junction to prevent
parking on the corner, as parking here blocks sight line whenever it occurs,
•
Reduce the proposed restriction on the north (even numbered) side Windsor
Avenue to an extension of the existing “at any time” double yellow line either side
of the Kingston Avenue junction, as parking here blocks sight line whenever it
occurs.
4
Financial Implications
4.1 The proposals within Option1 have been estimated to cost £90,000.
£73,000 has been allocated by TfL via the LiP to implement the scheme during the
current financial year. This allocation is included within an overall grant of £729,000,
which TfL has awarded to Sutton for Local Safety Schemes. Financial provision has
previously been released as part of the LiP submitted to Transport for London, which
was approved by Strategy on 19 February 2007.
4.2 Additional funds have been sought from TfL and approval is sought to delegate the
prioritisation for the implementation of elements of the scheme to the Head of Traffic
and Transportation in consultation with Ward Members, to ensure scheme costs
remain within funding available.
5
Influence of the Council’s Core Values
5.1 The proposed measures will help to provide a safer environment for those living in
the area and will contribute to the achievement of the Council’s accident reduction
targets.
6
Contribution to the Achievement of the Council’s Priorities for Change
6.1 The scheme will cater for all sections of the community
Background Papers
Report to Cheam & Worcester Park Committee 21st February 2007
Results of the consultation exercise undertaken in July 2007
6
Page 7
Agenda Item 10
APPENDIX
Results of the second round of consultation on Options for Traffic Calming measures in
STEPS area 3 – North Cheam
Number of
Support TMS
Support
Support
Reject
Responses
& 20mph
TMS only
20mph only
both
Option 1 & 2
Option 1
Option 2
options
Abbots Road
5
1
2
2
Beechmore Gdns
4
2
2
Brocks Drive
40
7
16
12
5
Buxton Crescent
15
6
5
2
2
Carlton Crescent
6
3
1
2
Chartwell Place
6
1
2
1
2
Chatsworth Road
9
2
3
4
Caversham
12
1
5
2
4
Avenue
Chelsea Gardens
2
1
1
Chertesy Drive
9
1
1
7
Church Hill Road
9
1
4
2
2
Darcy Road
10
3
4
3
Egham Crescent
21
1
5
6
9
Esher Avenue
5
2
2
1
Fieldsend Road
8
3
4
1
Frogmore Close
5
2
3
Fromondus Road
12
3
4
2
3
Gander Green
33
4
11
13
5
Lane
Hamilton Avenue
15
4
5
2
4
Hanover Close
2
2
Hays Crescent
6
1
2
3
Henley Avenue
44
5
20
12
7
Hilbert Road
9
2
7
Kew Crescent
15
2
3
10
Kings Down Rd
13
1
4
3
5
7
Agenda Item 10
Page 8
Kingston Avenue
21
1
9
8
3
Lumley Road
10
3
2
4
1
Marlow Drive
29
1
9
14
5
Matlock Crescent
24
1
5
10
8
Matlock Gardens
2
1
1
Molesey Drive
10
1
2
1
6
Northfield
4
3
1
Crescent
Priory Avenue
8
1
4
1
2
Priory Crescent
14
2
2
6
4
Priory Road
8
2
2
2
2
St. Margret
27
4
10
5
8
Avenue
Staines Avenue
7
3
1
2
1
Stoughton Avenue
10
1
7
2
Sunbury Road
4
1
2
1
The Mead
2
1
1
Tilehurst Road
13
2
7
4
Walton Avenue
17
1
6
6
4
Warner Avenue
6
1
1
4
Watson Avenue
2
1
1
Westbourne
1
1
Avenue
Whittaker Road
3
2
1
Winsdor Avenue
39
4
12
9
14
Wrayfield Road
13
2
5
3
3
Anonymous
27
3
13
8
3
TOTAL
616
80
218
159
159
Response Rate = 15.4%
8
Page 9
Agenda Item 11
London Borough of Sutton
Sutton South, Cheam & Belmont Local Committee - 28 November 2007
Report of the Executive Head of Planning Transportation & Highways
PROPOSED TRAFFIC MEASURES - SOUTH CHEAM AREA (STEP ZONE 32)
Ward Location:
Cheam
Author(s) and Contact Phone Number(s):
Ray Puddy 8770 6010
Area Served:
Cheam
Lead Councillor:
Cllr Colin Hall
Report For decision
Summary
This report requests Members to note the current position with regard to the consultation
process on Step Zone 32
Recommendations
1) that Members note the current situation on stage 2 consultation
2) that Officers, Ward Members and a representative from the Belmont & South Cheam
Residents’ Association formulate the stage 2 consultation documents
3) that these documents are distributed to local residents as soon as practical in the New
Year
4) to agree that the Executive Head of Planning, Transport and Highways, in consultation
with Ward Members, be given delegated authority to make the relevant Traffic Orders
and proceed with those measures that receive no material objection for implementation
within the budget available.
1.
Background
1.1
The London Borough of Sutton adopted the Strategic Traffic & Environmental Problem
Study (STEPS) programme in 1990 with the first zone being completed in 1991.
1.2
The approach is a 3-stage process. The first stage is to consult with residents to seek
information as to the traffic problems and environmental difficulties they perceive
occurring within the zone. The responses are collected, collated and produced to
Members in the form of a committee report, with suggested proposals for addressing
the issues highlighted.
1.3
If Members approve the proposals, the second stage is to consult residents again on
these, and the results from this are once again reported to Members at a subsequent
Committee.
1
Agenda Item 11
Page 10
1.4
If Members agree with the final analysis and give approval to go ahead, this often
involves the making of Traffic Orders, and the council are required to formally consult
directly affected residents as part of the statutory process. Any material objections at
this stage are required to be reported back to committee for resolution. It is only once
this stage is concluded that any construction can begin.
2.
Issues - Zone 32
2.1
Zone 32, which is bounded by the Borough Boundary to the south and west, the A217
to the east and Cheam railway line to the north, was identified as an area to be
investigated during the current financial year.
2.2
During August / September 2006 a consultation exercise was undertaken which
involved the delivery of 1779 leaflets to all properties in the area. A total of 461
questionnaires were returned, which represents a 25.9% response rate.
2.3
Officers then undertook an analysis of the returns in association with current accident
data and traffic flow figures, and prepared a prelimary package of proposals which
involved :-
a series of speed cushions in Burdon Lane between Sandy Lane and Warren
Avenue
a series of speed cushions and road narrowing in Northey Road
a series of speed cushions in Sandy Lane between Burdon Lane and Northey
Road
a series of speed cushions in Avenue Road and Shirley Avenue
a series of speed cushions in Banstead Road with Priority Give Ways
junction improvement at the junction of Manor Road and Burdon Lane
STOP sign in Wray Road at it junction with Burdon Lane
2.4
These proposals were presented to the Cheam & Worcester Park Committee on 21st
February 2007 where Members :-
approved the proposed package of traffic calming measures, subject to some fine
tuning by Ward Members
agreed that the content and arrangements for public consultation be delegated to
the Executive Head of Planning, Transport & Highways in consultation with Ward
Members
agreed that the Executive Head of Planning, Transport & Highways in consultation
with Ward Members be given delegated authority to :-
• proceed with those elements of the package that receive a favourable
response
• to prioritise the measures for implementation in the financial year 2007/2008
that can be contained within the budget of £65,000
• vary the package to take account of any further issues arising from the ongoing
consultation
• to make the relevant Traffic Management Orders
2
Page 11
Agenda Item 11
2.5
Subsequent to this Committee decision to progess to consultation with officers’
proposals, the Council received a letter from the Belmont & South Cheam Residents’
Association (BSCRA). This made a number of observations regarding traffic conditions
in the area as follows :-
speeding traffic in Burdon Lane, Sandy Lane and Northey Avenue
Northey Avenue junctions with Sandy Lane and The Avenue
traffic “leaking” off the A217 and rat-running through the area
accident hot spots not identified in the Counci’ls accident records, for example
Northey Avenue and The Avenue (photograph was supplied)
intersection of Burdon Lane and Manor Road too large
exit from Wray Road to Burdon Lane
exit from Warren Avenue onto Burdon Lane
2.6
BSCRA advised that full width road humps were generally unpopular and the
perception was that speed cushions were only effective when there is significant two-
way traffic. There was also concern about the excessive use of signs / bollards and
buildouts etc.
2.7
As an alternative to the use of speed cushions BSCRA put forward the following
suggestions :-
o
flat top speed tables at junctions along Northey Avenue, Sandy Lane and Burdon
Road south of Northey Avenue
o
install a mini-roundabout at the Burdon Avenue / Manor Road junction
o
install a series of traffic islands on Manor Road.
o
Speeding problem in the section of Burdon Lane north of Manor Road is less of a
problem since the traffic islands have been installed
o
there is no need to install traffic calming features in Shirley Avenue, The Avenue
or Warren Avenue
2.8
The request was made that these suggestions should also be included within the
proposed consultation.
Engineers who examined the BSCRA proposals were concerned that they would not
meet requirements to reduce both accidents and vehicle speed over the area, and that
a caveat to that effect would be required.
3
Current Situation
3.1
The intention has always been that the consultation documents would have reached
local residents by the date of this Committee, and a commitment was made to
Members to that effect. This commitment was given in good faith, however due to a
severe shortage of experienced Engineers (a problem common to most London
Boroughs) we have been unable to hold good this promise, for which we do duly
apologise.
3.2
That said, we have very recently been able to employ a highly experienced Engineer
on a short-term basis whose primary task is to take forward this area study.
3
Agenda Item 11
Page 12
3.3
Fresh examination of BSCRA’s suggestions do indicate that there are a number of
points that are worthy of consideration. However, they alone would not prevent some
traffic from moving from one road with traffic calming measures to an adjacent road
that have less.
3.4
Furthermore, the concept of providing residents with two separate sets of proposals,
namely Officers and the Residents’ Association, and asking them to choose between
them would only cause a further delay in the process.
3.5
The is a need for urgent dialoge between Officers, Ward Members and
representatives of BSCRA to endeavour to produce a single set of proposals that
combine the best principles of the alternative options that would meet the targets set
for speed and accident reduction while also being generally acceptable to local
residents. This might not be easy, and time is of the essence as funds to implement
the scheme are earmarked for the current financial year.
3.6
If Members find this acceptable I would propose that such a meeting be called
immediately after this Committee meeting with a target of agreeing a scheme for
presentation to local residents. This will involve preparing the consultation documents
before the end of the calander year with dispatch to residents as soon as possible in
the New Year. Furthermore, that the results and final decision be delegated to Ward
Members and that this be undertaken by no later than mid-February.
4
Financial Implications
4.1
Funding for Step Zone 32 has been provided by Transport for London (TfL) and the
allocation for 2007/08 is £65,000. This allocation is included within an overall grant of
£729,000, which TfL has awarded to Sutton for Local Safety Schemes. Financial
provision has previously been released as part of the LiP submitted to TfL, which was
approved by Strategy on 19 February 2007.
4.2
Selected measures will need to be prioritised for implementation in 2007/08 and
contained within the £65,000 allocation.
5
Influence of the Council’s Core Values
5.1
The proposed measures will help to provide a safer environment for those living in the
area and will contribute to the achievement of the Council’s accident reduction targets.
6
Contribution to the Achievement of the Council’s Priorities for Change
6.1
The scheme will cater for all sections of the community
Background Papers
Report to Cheam & Worcester Park Committee 21st February 2007
4
Document Outline
