Please note this is a large file (2.5 MB).

A comprehensive draft Heritage Character Appraisal document, outlining the background and historical context, along with spatial and character analysis, was published at the same time. The character analysis included many points that Sutton Living Streets were happy to endorse, including “…the area around the Station should be upgraded to improve the arrival experience to the town centre”, “the pedestrian footways along this stretch are narrow and can become congested”, and “..a reduction in street clutter is desirable…”.

Consequently, Sutton Living Streets produced a short response to the consultation, endorsing the character analysis and supporting the recommendation to designate the southern part of the High Street as a Conservation Area. The response is available from this link: SuttonHighStreetConservationArea_SuttonLivingStreetsResponse_v1_Feb2011.

The objectives of the scheme, which is to be funded by Transport for London and through developer contributions, include boosting the town’s attractiveness and improving pedestrian, cycle and bus access in and around the centre whilst improving traffic flow. Ultimately, the scheme’s success will be judged on how effectively it manages to lock-in the benefits secured through the Smarter Travel Sutton travel and behaviour change programme which, between 2007 and 2010, tested whether it would be possible to encourage residents and people who work in Sutton to choose to walk, cycle and use public transport more often, and their cars a little less. A six percentage point reduction in the mode share of car trips, and an encouraging 75 per cent increase in levels of cycling (albeit from a relatively low base), were reported

Sutton Living Streets fully support the schemes objectives. The plans should certainly transform Wallington, and make it more attractive for residents, visitors and shoppers. However, for all the objectives to be met the improvements do not appear to go far enough. For example, upgrades to a pedestrian route which links the main shopping street (Woodcote Road) with a nearby residential street (Shotfield) focus on the section between the car park and Woodcote Road. Little thought appears to have been given to enhancements to the remaining section that would be used by people arriving on foot or by bus rather than by car.

The full report is available to download from here: Improving Travel in Wallington: a response from Sutton Living Streets.

There are, nevertheless, certain reservations with some of the proposals as presented in the consultation. These generally relate to a concern that there could be an element of lost opportunity in the overall scheme, and that an even greater enhancement to the public realm could be achieved if the proposals were a little more robust. Additionally, it has been noted that several of the ideas put forward at the Community Street Audit in June 2009, and detailed in the London Borough of Sutton Community Safety Audit Report of the event, have not been adopted for the consultation stage. These include consultation options for a zebra crossing in Oakfield Road, an extension of the paved pavement across access points to car-parks and service roads, and a 20 mph speed limit.

Read the full response here:

ResponseToLocalSafetySchemePublicConsultation_September2009.

In July 2009, Sutton Living Streets produced a note outlying many of the issues raised during the audit. This document can be downloaded from the following link (4MB PDF):

CommunityStreetAudit_SuttonLivingStreets_July2009.

Jeremy Leach (Photo: Charlotte Gilhooly)

A presentation was given by Jeremy Leach of Southwark Living Streets, about what their group did and how they do it. Tips included starting summer meetings with a walkabout in an area of interest, invite local councillors to present on issues that they are working on, and to work at borough level (e.g. 20 mph speed limits), area level (e.g. particular project Windsor Castle), and local level (e.g. planting, greening, and splayed junctions). Getting to know how the council works, by starting with local councillors and working across political parties. It helps if a member of the group is also a member of the local party. Now is a good time to present ideas with an election due next year.

Jeremy (along with Josh Hart and Alastair Hanton) answered questions. Alastair gave the tip that when people attend meetings they should be given something to do, however small, in order to ensure they return could be to represent a geographical area just to give them a sense of doing something useful.  A delegate asked for more information on funding bids. Jeremy said that funding (for London boroughs) was through Local Implementation Plans, and Alastair added that a great way to get funding was to get those responsible for making the bid to walk around with the group.

Daniel Moylan (Photo: Charlotte Gilhooly)

Daniel said there were three things he wanted to briefly talk about, (and apologised for them being London-centric): shared space, Boris and some suggestions for us (i.e. the Living Streets organisation)

Daniel made it known that he is in favour of shared space. He began by saying that whoever you, whatever mode you use, there is a problem with excessive demand for the use of a limited resource (i.e. space and time). This can be rationalised by charging, but charging would not work for pedestrians and cyclists. Daniel argued that non-segregated, de-cluttered, shared space made a location more civilised and safer, because users would use it with caution, remain alert and travel more slowly. Daniel accepted that shared space is not currently popular with people who are partially sighted. One reason for this is that guide dogs are, under present arrangements, trained to stop at the kerbside. The changes made in Exhibition Road (Kensington and Chelsea) were carried out through working closely with the Guide Dogs for the Blind, but on completion there were still things not quite right and this proves that it is impossible to get 100% of all the requirements incorporated. The TaxPayers’ Alliance is a lobby group that doesn’t like the government spending tax payers’ money on anything and in particular they think spending money on streets is a waste. Daniel said that he would encourage Living Streets to think positively on shared space and to seek to engage with such lobbying groups and to ensure them that many of their anxieties can be dealt with.

As deputy chair of the TfL Board, Daniel now sees a lot of Boris. Boris is a lovely man, hard-working and committed and he knows he has been entrusted with a huge honour as Mayor of London. He’s a crazed cyclist and not a timid one, opting to cycle straight down the middle of the road! Meanwhile, Ben Webster is Transport Correspondent with The Times and a very good journalist. However, he likes to be first with a story and can jump the gun. It was his article, published in The Times on 11 March 2009, which suggested that TfL had plans to re-phase traffic lights that would result in pedestrians losing up to six seconds of the “green man” phase at traffic lights. Daniel made the assurance that all that TfL is trying to do is look at the “dead time” of the light sequence, i.e. that part of the sequence time that is not needed. This assessment is supported by a letter subsequently published in The Times on 14 March.

Finally Daniel went on to suggest what Living Streets should do next. Firstly, Living Streets should not get too overtly concerned about the initial safety issues associated with a new scheme, and question the reasoning behind safety standards and practice. Daniel suggested that local authorities are made up of timid people, who are scared of being sued. All that the safety experts tell you is how a particular proposal differs from the standard. But the standard may not be completely safe, for example cages at crossings. They are only safe if used properly, but not safe if, for example, cages are by-passed or jumped over. Secondly, the payments made from TfL to the boroughs from April 2010 will be in larger packages, and this should mean that it should be easier to complete big schemes with more flexibility for a whole scheme approach. The bids for the money are needed in the next couple of months, so now is the time to consider requirements.

Questions for Daniel then followed:

1. A delegate from the Campaign for Better Transport (Hackney) suggested that there was a need to limit cars and that re-phasing the traffic lights to improve the flow of traffic was contradictory to improving the lot of the pedestrian. Daniel replied that in the last 10 years the number of cars in London had reduced but there was the impression of increased congestion. His personal take is that motorists are reasonable people up to a point, but whenever any government is seen as anti-motorist that government will collapse. As a result, Kensington and Chelsea have never taken an anti-motorist stance but talk about the best use of space for everyone.
2. A delegate from Active Streets suggested that anything that sped up traffic was as the detriment of pedestrians. Daniel didn’t agree, saying that it depended on the type of road.
3. Someone asked Daniel to expand on what he had said regarding safety. Daniel said it was the fear of being sued that produced a “risk averse” culture. There is duty of care. K&C put a sum aside each year for such an eventuality as a form of self-insurance.
4. According to a social attitude survey, 75% of motorists are in favour of 20 mph speed limits. Compliance is higher when whole area is 20 mph (as in Portsmouth) as drivers more readily accept slower speeds elsewhere when they know their own street is 20 mph. What role should TfL have in relation to 20 mph speed limit? Daniel replied that TfL’s role is determined by transport strategy. A draft transport strategy is expected late April/early May, followed by public consultation in the autumn. TfL will not be telling the boroughs what they should do (like the last 8 years), but offer support and encouragement.

Tony Armstrong (Photo: Charlotte Gilhooly)

Tony began by saying that Living Streets existed to make walking safe and attractive, and then went on to give some reminders of what could detract from these ideals, including: subways; complicated and bewildering junctions (poor desire lines, often prioritised against people on foot); railings (as many are not there for safety but were installed before parking restrictions); pavement parking; lack of capacity (narrow pavement width with capacity traditionally provided for the motorist); the breakdown of communities (as highlighted by Professor Donald Appleyard in Liveable Streets, San Francisco (1981), and in a study by Joshua Hart, Bristol (2008)); and the obsession with street signs that can give too much information to the motorist.

Tony was generally supportive of the current policy climate including Manual for Streets, and sustainable transport initiatives.

Tony then highlighted some projects that have worked.

• In Walworth Road the pavements had been widened and de-cluttered. Not only did this make the road a more attractive place, but it had also resulted in better traffic flow and quicker, more reliable, bus journey times even though bus lanes had been taken out. So everyone was a winner!
• At Dagenham Heathway the central railing down the centre of the High Street, which had severely restricting permeability and made the street a shopping area of two halves, had been removed. The result: Heathway was now a destination place.

Tony gave an overview of Living Streets five-year strategy that would make walking the natural choice, put people first, and result in quality spaces for all. The strategy would be challenging, but positive (giving solutions and sharing best practice) and enabling (work with communities).

Firstly, the strategy should create the right policy environment by influencing national government on what happens to public spaces. Campaign packs would be put together to assist local groups, again highlighting best practice. Further research will be carried out, noting that it has been shown that ideas can work that at first would appear to be counter-intuitive (e.g. it has been shown that “naked streets” can produce safer roads). The organisation will communicate and listen to feedback and to develop a clear framework, noting that feedback had led to recent re-branding. There will be a new commitment to support local groups through the provision of campaign packs and contacts. Joshua Hart is a dedicated manager, and Alastair Hanton is chair of the new Policy and Campaigns group.

The second area was to demonstrate key impacts: Walk to School had been successful despite not much funding from the DfT, and Living Streets wants to expand this to secondary schools. Walking to Work would target 17-30 year olds and women, and it has been demonstrated (through working in 12 local authority areas in four years) that people were fitter for walking. The success of London projects, school projects and through community engagement would be highlighted.

The third area was enabling choice. One example was given whereby a bridge had been provided over a narrow canal in a residential area to link a key desire line and where previously people had only been able to cross through improvising with whatever was at hand! Another was working with local authorities to get the pavements widened (e.g. Long Acre in central London had also taken the pressure off the tube system). Training programmes would continue including course demonstrating that walking works for business.

Tony concluded by saying there were exciting times ahead. Living Streets time had come. There is clear strategy and more solutions. The organisation is well placed having doubled the number of staff in the last two years and achieved security of funding. They were committed to provide local groups with direct advice, with the key message from Tony being that we are all in it together. Tony mentioned that in future he would like to see conferences such as this every year.

Questions for Tony then followed:

1. A delegate from Chesterfield asked whether the presentation Tony had just given would be made available, as he would like to use it locally. Tony said yes certainly. Also campaign packs and leaflets were being produced. A whole new web site would be available in a few weeks with easy access to the campaign packs.
2. A representative from Hackney Living Streets said that many people, especially those less able-bodied, were concerned about cyclists on pavements and that this was a problem that was increasing. He added that many people were unhappy with the naked streets idea for this reason and that although cyclists tend to be quite vocal, someone needs to speak up for people with disabilities. What are Living Streets going to do about it? Tony replied that cycling on pavements is a conflict that needs to be tackled. He believed that the general principles of shared space are good but there is an issue with segregated paths, and mentioned that Living Streets had been opposed to segregation of pedestrians and cyclists along a path in Regents Park. If more space is required for cycling it should be at the expense of (vehicular) traffic and not pedestrians. Living Streets speaks for pedestrians, but if we can help cyclists at the same time that’s a good thing.
3. A representative from Lewis Living Streets asked whether Living Streets talked with the Ramblers Association. They asked because rural walkers often had difficulties such as crossing dual carriageways. Tony said that LS have contacts in rural villages, and mentioned that Tom Franklin, who had been CE at Living Streets, was now CE at the Ramblers and they kept in touch.
4. A delegate from Loughborough said she was interested in what Tony been said in relation to bus improvements following the de-cluttering of Walworth Road in London because in Loughborough there were proposals to pedestrianise the town centre and send buses around a ring road. This would increase the distance to the town centre and the time it took to reach the town centre. The findings from Walworth Road would be useful to help with the campaign in Loughborough.

It is also worth noting that the presentations given by Mike Loveday and Tony Armstrong are to be made available on the Living Streets site in due course.

Mike Loveday (Photo: Charlotte Gilhooly)

Mike gave a history of the organisation, highlighting decade by decade advances. In 1928, when the Pedestrians Association was formed, there was no Highway Code, no driving test (a driving license could be purchased for 5 shillings), and no speed limits. There were around 100,000 vehicles on the road and 6,127 road deaths were recorded during the year. By 2008 the number of vehicles has risen to 21 million while the number of deaths had fallen to 2,947.

The Pedestrians Association had been instrumental in getting the Highway Code adopted in 1931 and a compulsory driving test in 1935. Safety continued to predominate through the 40s and 50s, with the first green shoots of what became the walkability type of scheme developing in the 60s. In the 1970s Leicester became the first traffic-free town centre, with the road safety agenda and the EEC being important in the 80s. The walking challenge developed in 1990s, and in 2001 the Pedestrians Association was renamed Living Streets. Mike summed up by saying that although the agenda had widened over the last 80 years, the core ideas have remained the same.

Last year we ran a ‘Green Man’ campaign at the junction of Windsor Road.

Full story and pictures can be seen here.

As a group we believe the crossings are extremely dangerous as there are no green men on any of the junctions’ arms. This is highlighted by the fact that there are two local schools nearby.

Together with the support of Cllr Colin Hall and the headmistress of St Philomena’s we successfully persuaded TfL to run a consultation process, which they did.

As a result of the consultation process 50% were in favour of the proposed improvements, whilst 45% were against.

Today having read the results of the consultation, I am shocked that the Carshalton and Clockhouse Local Committee opposed the proposals to have green man phases on some of the arms of the junctions.

The fact that there are no green men on any of the arms means that it is highly dangerous for pedestrians to cross. It seems to me that the Councillors first priority is to prevent traffic building up and to avoid upsetting residents who find their roads being used as a rat run.

As a resident of Sutton and a student who is studying urban planning, I am dismayed at the idea that the only way pedestrians can cross safely is either to run across the road or to cross in fear of their life. Cars have been prioritised, but why? It seems crazy. If there is too much traffic, maybe it’s because there are just too many cars on the road and this issue perhaps needs to be addressed.

Sutton Council are supposed to be encouraging sustainability, but yet the local Councillors seem to be singing a different tune and also jeopardising the safety of pedestrians.

The full text of TfL’s response:

From: Frank Gosling, Head of TLRN Planning Unit, Transport for London
10 November 2008

Re: A232 Windsor Castle junction improvement – public consultation

Thank you for completing and returning the questionnaire that was distributed earlier this year. Outlined below is a summary of the responses received and an explanation of the decisions made with regards to the future of the project. We had hoped to provide a response earlier but restrictions imposed by the Mayoral elections and the need for discussions with local elected members have resulted in it being delayed until
now.

Consultation Summary

* 1743 Consultation packages delivered
* 371 responses returned, a rate of just over 21%
* 187 (50%) supported the proposals, 167 (45%) were against and the remainder having either conflicting information or being incomplete.
* 241 responses were returned from properties inside the consultation area, 142 (59% of the 241) of which were against the proposal
* 64 of those returns against the proposal cited concerns of increased ‘rat running’, congestion and pollution in local roads as a result of the proposed banned turns

Common Suggestions

1. A number of the responses, particularly from residents of Salisbury Road and Carshalton Park Road, asked why an ‘all red’ phase that would permit pedestrians to cross all arms of the junction could not be introduced.

Answer:

The current method of control at the junction, known as ‘cross with traffic’, allows both pedestrians and traffic to be negotiating parts of the junction at the same time. An ‘all red’ requires all of the traffic to be stopped to allow pedestrians to cross all arms of the junction.

This method of control would impose greater delay to general traffic and would result in a significant increase in traffic queuing on the approaches. The level of congestion and queuing created would have a greater impact on the surrounding local roads as motorists may seek alternative routes.

2. It was also suggested that a crossing be installed on the Carshalton Road arm of the junction.

Answer:

This was considered during the optioneering prior to the installation of the existing pedestrian crossing 100 metres to the west. Due to the inability to provide safe junction signal control, without an ‘all red’ phase or banning any movements onto this arm, the only option would have been to provide a staggered crossing arrangement. Unfortunately this sort of facility requires, as a minimum, a 3 metre wide central island for pedestrians to use and there was insufficient carriageway width at this point without removing a traffic lane which would clearly have a major impact on capacity. This was, therefore, not considered to be a viable option.

Council and Councillor Response

The Carshalton and Clockhouse Local Committee considered TfL’s proposal for the Windsor Castle scheme at its meeting in March this year. Members of the Council and the public present were united in opposition to the proposals put forward in the consultation. The six members, including the elected Ward Councillors, voted unanimously to oppose the proposal and urged TfL to withdraw the scheme.

TfL is however committed to improving London’s busiest roads for pedestrians and the scheme meets with Sutton Council objectives with respect to reducing potential accidents and improving accessibility for sustainable modes of transport. In order to ensure that Council Members fully appreciated the potential benefits of the proposals TfL met Sutton Council officers and two of the local Ward Councillors.

The merits and potential impacts of the proposals were discussed, along with possible mitigation measures. TfL’s position was that this was the best and possibly only option that could deliver improved pedestrian crossing provisions at this junction. It was also pointed out that, as TfL’s budgets are going to reduce significantly over the next few years, it is unlikely that funding would be available in the future if the scheme was not installed this financial year. The Councillors agreed to consider the points made and advise whether they wished to continue with their objection.

Outcome

The two Ward Councillors have confirmed their opposition to the proposal.

Conclusion

Based on the findings of the consultation exercise and the fact that the Local Authority Members are in opposition, TfL has decided not to continue with this scheme. I trust that the above is of help and thank you for participation in the consultation exercise.