Agenda item

London Road, Guildford is an active travel scheme, funded by an Active Travel England grant. This report provides an update on the outcome of an independent technical review of section 1 on the proposed active travel corridor scheme from New Inn Lane to York Road along the A3100 London Road, Guildford.

(The decisions on this item can be called-in by the Communities, Environment and Highways Select Committee)

RESOLVED:

A vote was taken by the Cabinet on the following recommendations:

It is recommended that Cabinet:

1.      Notes the contents of the independent technical review of section 1 and its conclusions concerning whether the scheme complies with current design guidance.

2.      Proceeds with the construction of Section 1 –based on the strength of support from the local community, alongside the conclusions of the independent technical review.

There were THREE votes FOR and SIX votes AGAINST. The decision was therefore not carried.

(The decisions on this item can be called-in by the Communities, Environment and Highways Select Committee)

The Leader briefly introduced the item explaining that discussions around the scheme had been ongoing for nearly two years. The speakers would be given 3 minutes to speak on the item, followed by an introduction by the Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Economic Growth and then a discussion by the Cabinet.

Terry Newman from the London Road Action Group, made the following key points:

·         Spoke against the report. Concerns were raised around inaccuracies in the ARUP report.  It was commented that ARUPs accident data was inaccurate, official data reveals five slight car and pedal accidents in the five years to 2023, that was one a year and not two so the road was not worse than the rest of Surrey.

·         1.5 meter separation is unreliable and passing HGV mirrors were just centimetres away.

·         The Highway Code protects pedestrians by prohibiting cycling on pavements, yet still condones sharing. If mixing pedestrians and cyclists is a last resort for 45% of the length and is considered safe why not use foot ways to create 100% shared paths.

·         DfT has spent £2.3 billion knowing far too little about what this spending has achieved. No evidence has appeared to enable an opinion about net zero achievement, but a 5% reduction in traffic would need the removal of 750 vehicles daily only adding 300 hundred more cyclists.

·         Surrey Highways actually wrote the road will remain the same width as it is currently, and that is incorrect, at the pinch point reviewed existing distance between kerbs is 8 metres.

Yasmin Broome from the Surrey Coalition of Disable People, made the following key points:

·         Strongly opposing the scheme. Blind, visually impaired, disabled, older and vulnerable bus passengers should be able to get on and off the bus independently and directly from or to the pavement, as they have always done. They should not have to cross cycle lanes or step into a cycle lane to get on and off a bus.

·         These designs are not safe or accessible for blind, visually impaired, older and many vulnerable groups of bus passengers. They create a new barrier to accessing public transport independently.

·         Many people cite that shared bus stops are working well in other countries but this is not the case. In Denmark injuries to bus passengers caused by cyclists went up from 5 to 73 after the shared style bus stop design was introduced. In Islington, London in 2016 a shared bus stop was removed as it did not take account of the safety and accessibility needs of blind and visually impaired bus passengers.

·         Zebra crossing and flashing lights have been tried and tested and will not change the behaviour of cyclists. We believe an number of incidents at these shared bust stops are going unreported. There is political support for a moratorium on shared bus stops. Lord Holmes of Richmond made a recommendation in the House of Lords on the 25 of April 2024 around the dangers of floating bus stops.

William Clark and Charles Graham representing the George Abbott School, made the following key points:

·         Will was a current student at the school and cycles to school and uses the London Road on most of his journeys. The London Road was very dangerous and Will tried to avoid cycling on this road at peak times due to how dangerous it was. He had many close calls with other vehicles and had an incident where he was cut up on a roundabout next to London Road and went over the handle bars of his bike.

·         Charles was an alumni of the school and cycled to and from school for 7 years. He explained that when he was 13, he was knocked off his bike by a car trying to overtake him on the road because there was no cycle lane. He went into the hedge and injured myself.

·         The scheme was important as cyclists have to travel on roads that are not safe. This scheme would make cycling safer. The school had made a commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions in any way possible and students cycling into school was an easy way to achieve this.

·         Last year, George Abbott did a survey of 740 people and almost half of them said that they would cycle to school if there was improved cycle infrastructure in place.

·         Things needed to change if we want to save our planet.

James Masterman representing the Guildford Bike User Group (G-BUG), made the following key points:

·         Is a cyclist and lives 200 yards from London Road in Burpham. Burpham is part of an existing important bike lane network and no congestion is being added to the London Road by cycling.

·         Only 1% of journeys on the London Road were by bike. 30% of reported injuries on the road are to cyclists.

·         Segregating the cycle lane from traffic is something that Burpham residents want. In the public consultation, 5:3 were in support of this. The scheme would support the Council’s own policies and plans including the Local Transport Plan 4. It would also support net zero ambitions. The council’s own highway officers have redesigned the scheme following earlier concerns.

·         ARUP have signed off the scheme from a safety point of view and the Local Member, George Potter and Local MP, Zoe Franklin support the scheme.

·         Burpham Residents Association have no objection to the scheme. Cabinet were asked to support the scheme as it would be a travel improvement for the majority of Burpham residents who want to cycle but are scared to do so.

Cllr Fiona Davidson, Local Member for Guildford South-East, made the following key points:

·         Asked Cabinet to vote against the scheme. The Cabinet report states the scheme has the support of the majority of local residents and that all the safety issues raised by those residents have been satisfactorily resolved by the ARUP report but this is not the case.

·         The ARUP report was a limited desktop exercise and the author never visited the road.

·         Residents in the Member’s area which covers 3/8 of the road are heavily against the scheme and don’t believe the scheme is safe and don’t believe the outcomes justify the investment.

·         London road was a safer road and in the last 5 years there had been 18 slight accidents, one serious, not involving a cyclist. Of the 18 slight accidents five involved cyclists and cars.

·         Concerns were raised around the width of the new carriageway and its proximity to the footway. As some of the footway would be narrower this would cause issues for pedestrians and deter the disabled, the elderly and those with prams. As a partially sighted person the Councillor wouldn't use this footway as it's not an improvement on what exists now.

·         Would support changes that could accommodate pedestrians, cyclists, and vehicles separately and safely but the A3100N is narrow in places.

Cllr George Potter, Local Member for Guildford East, made the following key points:

·         Two thirds of the route is in his division as a County Councillor and as a district and borough Councillor the entirety of the route is in his area.

·         All the objections raised regarding the scheme had been addressed including the 8 month road closure, unsafe road lane widths, the floating bus stops and safety concerns about some aspects of design.

·         The scheme in question would bring about major improvements for  pedestrian safety as the current pavements are too narrow in some places and crossing over the road in some places is impossible.

·         The majority of residents support this scheme which has been identified as a major part of the sustainable movement corridor in Guildford. Objectors have not stated what they would like to see instead of this scheme.

·         The scheme has been independently assessed by ARUP and Active Travel England as being the best scheme possible given the physical constraints of the route. The scheme would be a major improvement in safety, not just for cyclists but for pedestrians along the current route.

·         Asked Cabinet to support the recommendations put forward by officers who have spent the last 2 years developing the scheme.

The Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Economic Growth briefly introduced the report explaining that London Rd, Guildford is an active travel scheme funded and fully supported by an Active Travel England grant.  It had progressed through the design and decision-making process as three separate identified sections.The scheme was previously considered for decision in February 2024.  At this meeting, the decision was taken to proceed to delivery on Section 2 and carry out an independent technical review on Section 1 to enable future decision making on its delivery. A review undertaken by an independent professional engineering organisation concluded that the design of Section 1 allows HGVs to safely pass and that the shared use paths comply with LTN 1/20 guidance. The delivery of this project would allow the council to contribute to the ambitions of the Local Transport Plan 4 (LTP4) and help achieve the county’s net zero carbon target by 2050. It was explained that officers had been engaging with residents on the scheme for the last two years and a consultation had been undertaken in 2023 to understand their views. In this consultation, 50% of respondents agreed that the design of Section 1 positively contributed to the safety of pedestrians, cyclists, and vulnerable road users.

The Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care spoke on the report stating that she had been contacted by the CEO for Sight for Surrey and the CEO for the Surrey Coalition of Disabled People who were not in support of the scheme. As an advocate for vulnerable people the Cabinet Member was concerned that the scheme would deter vulnerable people from using local facilities and being independent she could therefore not support the scheme.

The Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Customer and Communities recognised that a lot of time and deliberation had gone into consideration for the scheme. Although there are many benefits to the scheme one key area of concern was around safety. The technical review states that there may be an element of discomfort and giving way when users are passing one another on the shared pavement. This caused the Cabinet Member concern especially as there were ‘pinch points’ on the route and areas where the carriage way was more narrow. For this reason, the Cabinet Member could not support the recommendations.

The Cabinet Member for Health and Wellbeing, and Public Health stated his support for the scheme. The Cabinet Member declared that he was a Trustee of Active Surrey. The Cabinet Member explained that the UK was a nation of car drivers and if we are to change that and get fitter for the future we would need to see the introduction of schemes which would encourage walking and cycling. The Cabinet Member for Fire and Rescue, and Resilience thanked residents for their emails and thoughts regarding the scheme. The Cabinet Member stated that his main concern was with the width of the road and shared pathway and the impact this would have on vulnerable residents. Although the scheme would be grant funded it was important that the money was used wisely. The Cabinet Member stated that he would not be supporting the officer recommendations.

The Cabinet Member for Environment stated that safety was a serious issue but so was the need to make Surrey a better county with sustainable transport links and better air quality. The Cabinet Member stated that a shift in transport would never be easy and would cause disruption but would also bring about better health, less congestion and cleaner air. The Cabinet Member explained how decisive action from Dutch politicians around cycle lanes had led to the Netherlands becoming the cycling capital of the world. The Cabinet Member welcomed the £6m funding coming into the county as a result of the scheme and stated her support for the proposals.

The Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources declared that previously he had been a member and Chair of the Global Road Safety Partnership. He stated that the pros and cons for the scheme were evenly split. The two key issues he had were firstly around the width of the carriageway for two HGVs passing and the second was the width of the shared space/pavement. Although Cobham had shared spaces, the report states that in this scheme there would be areas where the shared space was narrow and could cause discomfort. The Cabinet Member had concern around the possible impacts on vulnerable residents after hearing from the Surrey Coalition of Disabled People and believed that the scheme needed to benefit everyone. The Cabinet Member therefore did not support the scheme.

The Leader started by saying that Surrey County Council was very supportive of people being more active which was one of the council’s priorities. The council was also very passionate about reducing traffic as part of its net zero ambitions and this was one of the reasons why this scheme was introduced. The scheme had been significantly altered from what had been proposed originally. There was a recognition that appropriate consultation with residents hadn’t been done. The Leader stated that issue around two HGVs passing safely on the road had caused compromise to the shared pathway, which in turn has caused concerns around safety. Concern was also felt for vulnerable residents. A full discussion had taken place over the last 2 years on the scheme. The Leader thanked everyone for their contributions saying that the quality of conversations and submissions from everyone on both sides of the argument had been outstanding. The Leader explained that the Cabinet would be taking a vote on the recommendations in the report. 

RESOLVED:

Following a discussion on the item, a vote was taken by the Cabinet on the following recommendations:

It is recommended that Cabinet:

1.      Notes the contents of the independent technical review of section 1 and its conclusions concerning whether the scheme complies with current design guidance.

2.      Proceeds with the construction of Section 1 –based on the strength of support from the local community, alongside the conclusions of the independent technical review.

There were THREE votes FOR and SIX votes AGAINST. The decision was therefore not carried.

(The decisions on this item can be called-in by the Communities, Environment and Highways Select Committee)