West Dulwich Area

Quietway 7 – Elephant & Castle to Crystal Palace Consultation

London Borough of Lambeth – West Dulwich area

Response to consultation 10 February to 20 March 2016

June 2017

Quietway Q7 | London Borough of Lambeth – West Dulwich area – Five schemes 1

Contents

1 BACKGROUND ...... 7 2 INTRODUCTION ...... 9 3 THE CONSULTATION ...... 12 4 OVERVIEW OF CONSULTATION RESPONSES ...... 15 APPENDIX A – TURNEY ROAD RESPONSES TO ISSUES RAISED ...... 52 APPENDIX B – LOVELACE ROAD, RESPONSES TO ISSUES RAISED ...... 58 APPENDIX C – ROSENDALE SHOPS, RESPONSES TO ISSUES RAISED ...... 61 APPENDIX D – PARK HALL ROAD, RESPONSES TO ISSUES RAISED ...... 65 APPENDIX E – TRITTON ROAD, RESPONSES TO ISSUES RAISED ...... 69 APPENDIX F – CONSULTATION LETTER AND DESIGN...... 72 APPENDIX G – LETTER DISTRIBUTION AREA 4,207 ADDRESSES ...... 79 APPENDIX H – LIST OF 298 STAKEHOLDER GROUPS CONSULTED ...... 80 APPENDIX I – EMAIL SENT TO STAKEHOLDERS ...... 84

Quietway Q7 | London Borough of Lambeth – West Dulwich area – Five schemes 2

Executive Summary

Between 10 February and 20 March 2016, Lambeth Council, together with Transport for London (TfL), consulted on proposals for five schemes (plus one TfL scheme) in the consultation area of West Dulwich on the Quietway 7 route – Elephant & Castle to Crystal Palace.

In this document you will find an overview of consultation responses, Lambeth Council’s response to issues raised, conclusion and anticipated construction dates for the schemes.

We have prepared a summary for each of the five schemes:

1. Turney Road 2. Lovelace Road/Rosendale Road 3. Rosendale shops 4. Park Hall Road/Rosendale Road 5. Tritton Road/Rosendale Road

1. Turney Road

There were 149 responses to the proposals for this scheme of which: 61 (41 per cent), supported or partially supported the proposals: 68 (45 per cent) said they did not support; four (three per cent) were unsure of the proposals, and 16 (11 per cent) had no opinion.

Of those 149 responses, 140 (94 per cent) were sent by members of the public and nine (six per cent) by designated stakeholder groups. 102 respondents provided comments.

Main issues raised in the Turney Road/Rosendale Road consultation

1) Car parking removal 2) High traffic volumes 3) Access to Rosendale allotments

How Lambeth Council plans to proceed on Turney Road

Lambeth Council has given careful consideration to all respondents’ comments ahead of finalising any design proposals. In light of residents and local stakeholders’ concerns regarding the proposed car parking removal on the northern side of Turney Road Lambeth Council has decided to exclude this design element from the scheme. However, approximately 12 car parking spaces will still need to be removed to

Quietway Q7 | London Borough of Lambeth – West Dulwich area – Five schemes 3

accommodate the implementation of two new zebra crossings to create a better environment for walkers and cyclists.

The new design excludes the proposed advisory cycle lanes as there is insufficient width to include such measures without taking away car parking capacity. As a result, cyclists will now adopt the primary position (in the middle of the road) when using the Lambeth section of Turney Road. The new layout creates a visual narrowing and traffic calming effect by introducing a buffer strip directly adjacent to the parking spaces on either side of the carriageway.

In addition, minor amendments have also been made to the Turney Road junction with Rosendale Road to ensure all traffic movements are catered for. This includes a parallel pedestrian and cycle zebra crossing to accommodate the cycle movement from Turney Road to Rosendale Road northbound. Access to Rosendale Allotments will be further considered as part of the detailed design stage.

In summary, the borough has decided to proceed with the amended design for Turney Road, subject to detailed design work and a further stage of statutory consultation that can potentially bring about design changes in light of further analysis. Lambeth Council considers the amended design brings significant benefits to all road users. A copy of the updated design has been included on page 58.

2. Lovelace Road/Rosendale Road

There were 127 responses to the proposals for this scheme; 50 (40 per cent), supported or partially supported the proposals: 58 (46 per cent) said they did not support; six (five per cent) were unsure of the proposals, and 13 (10 per cent) had no opinion.

Of those 127 responses, 117 (92 per cent) were sent by members of the public and 10 (eight per cent) by designated stakeholder groups. 72 respondents provided comments.

Main issues raised in the Lovelace Road/Rosendale Road consultation

1) Cars encroaching on advisory cycle lanes 2) Car parking reduction 3) ‘Dooring’ risk

How Lambeth Council plans to proceed on Lovelace Road

Lambeth Council has given careful consideration to all respondents’ comments ahead of finalising any design proposals. The three mains areas of concern raised in the Lovelace Road section of Quietway 7 (see above) have been acknowledged.

In light of the comments raised, the borough has decided to progress with the proposed designs as seen in the public consultation. This is subject to detailed design work and a

Quietway Q7 | London Borough of Lambeth – West Dulwich area – Five schemes 4

further stage of statutory consultation which, in some circumstances, can bring about design changes in light of further analysis.

3. Rosendale Road Shops

There were 131 responses to the proposals for this scheme; 63 (48 per cent), supported or partially supported the proposals; 57 (43 per cent) said they did not support; six (five per cent) were unsure of the proposals, and five (four per cent) had no opinion.

Of those 131 responses, 122 (93 per cent) were sent by members of the public and nine (seven per cent) by designated stakeholder groups. 86 respondents provided comments.

Main issues raised in the Rosendale shops consultation

1) Reduction in car parking 2) Cars encroaching into advisory cycle lanes 3) Addition of informal crossing

How Lambeth Council plans to proceed

Lambeth Council has given careful consideration to all respondent’s comments ahead of finalising any design proposals.

In light of the comments raised the borough has decided to progress with the proposed designs as seen in the public consultation. This is subject to detailed design work and a further stage of statutory consultation which, in some circumstances, can bring about design changes in light of further analysis.

4. Park Hall Road/Rosendale Road

There were 125 responses to the proposals for this scheme; 50 (40 per cent), supported or partially supported the proposals; 64 (51 per cent) said they did not support; three (two percent) were unsure, and eight (seven per cent) had no opinion.

Of those 125 responses, 116 (93 per cent) were sent by members of the public and nine (seven per cent) by designated stakeholder groups. 78 respondents provided comments. Main issues raised in the Park Hall Road consultation

1) Positioning of zebra crossing 2) Cars encroaching into advisory cycle lanes 3) Loss of pedestrian refuges

Quietway Q7 | London Borough of Lambeth – West Dulwich area – Five schemes 5

How Lambeth Council plans to proceed

Lambeth Council has given careful consideration to all respondents’ comments ahead of finalising any design proposals.

In light of the comments raised, the borough has decided to further review the proposed design proposals at the Park Hall Road / Rosendale Road junction. The review will be based on a further appraisal of the design considerations and an assessment of the impacts of the traffic modelling relating to the proposed changes.

The final design proposals will be subject to a further stage of statutory consultation which, in some circumstances, can also bring about design changes in light of further analysis.

5. Tritton Road/Rosendale Road

There were 115 responses to the proposals for this scheme; 37 (32 per cent), supported or partially supported the proposals: 44 (38 per cent) said they did not support; eight (seven per cent) were unsure of the proposals, and 26 (23 per cent) had no opinion.

Of those 115 responses, 107 (93 per cent) were sent by members of the public and eight (seven per cent) by designated stakeholder groups. 49 respondents provided comments.

Main issues raised in the Tritton Road consultation

1) Reduction in car parking 2) Removal of centre line 3) Alignment not giving motor traffic priority

How Lambeth Council plans to proceed

Lambeth Council has given careful consideration to all respondents’ comments ahead of finalising any design proposals.

In light of the comments raised, the borough has decided to progress with the proposed designs as seen in the public consultation. This is subject to detailed design work and a further stage of statutory consultation which, in some circumstances, can bring about design changes in light of further analysis.

Quietway Q7 | London Borough of Lambeth – West Dulwich area – Five schemes 6

1 Background

1.1 About Quietways

Quietways are a network of high quality, well signed cycle routes throughout London, mostly using the backstreets. The routes will link key destinations and are designed to appeal to new and existing cyclists who want to use quieter, low-traffic routes. Quietways will complement other cycling initiatives in London, such as the Cycle Superhighways.

Quietways are more than just cycle routes. They also provide the opportunity to make streets and neighbourhoods safer and more pleasant for everyone by reducing the speed and dominance of motor traffic, improving air quality and investing in the urban realm.

We are working in partnership with the London boroughs and managing authorities to deliver seven Quietways routes by the end of 2017. The first seven routes, boroughs and partners, are:

 Q1 – Waterloo to Greenwich (Lambeth, Southwark, Lewisham, Greenwich)  Q2 – Bloomsbury to Walthamstow (phase 1 – Islington to Mare Street) (Camden, Islington, Hackney, Waltham Forest, Lea Valley Regional Park)  Q3 – Regents Park to Gladstone Park (Dollis Hill) (City of Westminster, Camden, Brent)  Q4 – Clapham Common to Wimbledon (Lambeth, Wandsworth, Merton)  Q5 – Waterloo to Norbury (via Clapham Common) (Lambeth, Wandsworth, Croydon)  Q6 – Aldgate to Hainault (phase 1 – Victoria Park to Barkingside) (Tower Hamlets, Hackney, Newham, Redbridge, and the London Legacy Development Corporation)  Q7 – Elephant & Castle to Crystal Palace (Lambeth, Southwark)

The first route (Q1 Waterloo to Greenwich) was launched on 14 June, and the second route (Q2 Bloomsbury to Walthamstow –phase 1 Islington to Mare Street) is due to be complete in Spring / Summer 2017.

Quietway Q7 | London Borough of Lambeth – West Dulwich area – Five schemes 7

1.2 London Borough of Lambeth and Transport for London

The consultations for the five West Dulwich schemes were led by Lambeth Council and all decisions on the scope, scale and process of the consultation were determined by the borough.

Given Lambeth Council’s limited resources and the scale of the programme of consultations, TfL hosted and reported on the consultations on the Council’s behalf on sections of two Quietway routes Q5 (Waterloo to Croydon) and Q7 (Elephant & Castle to Crystal Palace) in order to keep the delivery and launch of the routes on schedule.

This consultation is part of a series of seven on Quietway 7 by Lambeth Council, with the other areas as stated below:

Quietway 7

• 10 Feb to 20 Mar – West Dulwich (five schemes) + TfL scheme

• 10 Feb to 20 Mar – Gipsy Hill (three schemes)

1.3 Schemes in this consultation series

In February 2016, Lambeth Council consulted on six schemes in the West Dulwich area:

1. Turney Road 2. Lovelace Road/Rosendale Road 3. Rosendale Road/Thurlow Park Road junction (TfL scheme) 4. Rosendale shops 5. Park Hall Road/Rosendale Road 6. Tritton Road/Rosendale Road

Quietway Q7 | London Borough of Lambeth – West Dulwich area – Five schemes 8

2 Introduction

2.1 Purpose of the schemes

As part of the Quietway 7 route (Q7), Lambeth Council is developing proposals to enhance facilities primarily for people that cycle, but also for other road users including pedestrians. Improvements are being proposed on Q7 through investment in traffic calming measures, and new pedestrian crossings providing the route with safety features for all road users.

The Lambeth Council section of the Q7 route starts on Turney Road through to Crystal Palace Parade via Gipsy Hill. London Borough of Southwark has consulted on proposals for its section of Q7.

2.2 Description of the proposals

Turney Road/Rosendale Road

 Replace existing mini-roundabout with new raised priority junction, with three new zebra crossings, extended footway and public space with new trees  Introduce 1.5m wide advisory cycle lanes from Croxted Road to Rosendale Road  Introduce level pavement across raised junction at Dalkeith Road/Rosendale Road  Introduce cycle friendly speed humps on Turney Road and Rosendale Road

Lovelace Road/Rosendale Road

 Introduce new zebra crossing outside All Saints Church  Introduce 1.5 metre advisory cycle lanes  Introduce improved crossing facilities across raised junctions on Lovelace Road

Rosendale Shops

 Introduce new zebra crossing outside the shops  Formalise parking outside the shops to ensure that vehicles park clear of the carriageway  Introduce 1.5 metre cycle lanes in either direction  Introduce an informal crossing facility to the south of the junction with Carson Road

Park Hall Road/Rosendale Road

 Replace existing mini-roundabout at the junction of Park Hall Road / Rosendale Road with new priority junction with new zebra crossing and three informal crossings

Quietway Q7 | London Borough of Lambeth – West Dulwich area – Five schemes 9

 Raised road surface at Myton Road junction  Advisory cycle lanes in either direction  Removal of centre line

Tritton Road/Rosendale Road

 Introduce traffic-calmed raised junctions in two locations  Widened footway outside entrance to Elm Wood Primary School  Relocate parking bays from footway to carriageway to increase pavement space

Quietway Q7 | London Borough of Lambeth – West Dulwich area – Five schemes 10

2.3 Q7 Route map (as at 10 February 2016)

Quietway Q7 | London Borough of Lambeth – West Dulwich area – Five schemes 11

3 The consultations

The five West Dulwich consultations ran from 10 February to 20 March 2016. They were intended to enable Lambeth Council to understand opinion about the proposed scheme changes.

The potential outcomes of the consultation are:

 Lambeth Council decide the consultation raises no issues that should prevent it from proceeding with the scheme as originally planned  Lambeth Council modifies the scheme in response to issues raised in consultation  Lambeth Council abandons the scheme as a result of issues raised in the consultation

The objectives of the consultation were:

 To give stakeholders and the public easily-understandable information about the proposals and allow them to respond  To understand the level of support or opposition for the change  To understand any issues that might affect the proposal of which the council was not previously aware  To understand concerns and objections  To allow respondents to make suggestions

3.1 Who Lambeth Council consulted

The public consultation intended to seek the views of people most likely to use the scheme location, such as those who live close or those who travel through the area regularly. We also consulted stakeholder groups including the neighbouring borough councils, traffic police, London TravelWatch, Members of Parliament, Assembly Members, road users, and local interest groups.

A list of the stakeholders consulted is shown in Appendix H.

Quietway Q7 | London Borough of Lambeth – West Dulwich area – Five schemes 12

3.2 Consultation material, distribution and publicity

The consultation material was available at http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/consultations/proposed-changes-to-quietway-7-cycle- route-elephant-castle-to-crystal-palace-west

The consultation was also publicised via letter drop to the public and email to the stakeholder groups and individuals. Materials included an overview letter, along with a detailed drawing of the schemes in the West Dulwich area showing the proposals, and a route map of Quietway 7 showing the consultations and schemes in context. The public were invited to respond via an online survey on the TfL website, by letter, and by email via [email protected]

The consultation was promoted through multiple channels:

Letter: Lambeth Council distributed a consultation letter to 4,207 residents and businesses within a catchment area for this consultation. A copy of the letter is shown in Appendix F and the letter drop area is shown in Appendix G.

Email: Lambeth Council sent emails to 298 stakeholder individuals and groups. A list of these stakeholders is shown in Appendix H of this report, and a copy of the email is available in Appendix I.

3.3 Meetings

Lambeth Council liaised with local Ward Councillors along the route via correspondence and also via a quarterly cycling councillor forum at Lambeth Council Town Hall on the following dates:

 Wednesday 8th July 2015  Thursday 3rd September 2015

At these meetings it was agreed that a FAQ (frequently asked questions) would be produced and shared with Councillors and that consultation material would be shared with Councillors before the launch of public consultation.

The forum members are in favour of the principle of Quietways as they are set to deliver many of the 10 Headings from Lambeth Council Council’s Cycling Strategy (2013).

Lambeth and Sustrans carried out a community engagement programme to gather resident’s views and opinions to inform the design process culminating in six workshops on the following dates during 2015:

 Saturday 10th October  Wednesday 14th October  Saturday 24th October  Wednesday 4th November  Sunday 6th December  Wednesday 9th December

Quietway Q7 | London Borough of Lambeth – West Dulwich area – Five schemes 13

3.4 Stakeholder engagement

From August 2015 until January 2016 Sustrans ran an extensive engagement process around Rosendale Road in relation to Quietway 7. The process was responsive to the community, changing as it progressed, according to feedback. The program was significantly widened in scope as a result, giving residents the opportunity to contribute to the design taken to consultation. Approximately 600 people were engaged.

To view the full report please visit:

https://www.lambeth.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Rosendale-Road-Quietway-7- Community-Engagement-Report_0.pdf

3.5 Consultation questions

The consultation asked two questions; Do you support the overall proposals for the Quietway 7 cycle route in Lambeth?

The options to choose to reply from were

 Yes  Partially  Not sure  No  No opinion

The second question asked respondents to leave comments on the proposals. The results for the above questions from the public and stakeholder groups for each scheme begin on the next page.

Quietway Q7 | London Borough of Lambeth – West Dulwich area – Five schemes 14

4 Overview of consultation responses

4.1 Turney Road – responses received by public and stakeholders

Of those 149 responses, 140 (94 per cent) were sent by members of the public and nine (six per cent) by designated stakeholder groups. 102 respondents provided comments.

Fig. 1 Response to- Do you support the proposed changes?

Fig.2 Consultation responses by respondent type:

Quietway Q7 | London Borough of Lambeth – West Dulwich area – Five schemes 15

4.2 Turney Road – analysis of consultation responses

Of the 149 respondents who answered the closed question (‘Do you support the proposed changes?’), 102 provided comments in the subsequent open question. The issues they raised are summarised below. This summary includes comments from nine stakeholder organisations, and those responses are summarised separately in this report. a. Support and opposition 43 comments offered support or opposition for the proposed scheme.  30 comments were opposed to the proposals at Turney Road/Rosendale Road. o Three comments stated that the scheme was a waste of resources.  11 comments were supportive of the scheme. o Five comments supported the removal of the mini-roundabout and improvements to the junction of Turney Road/Rosendale Road.  Two comments offered no strong support or opposition for the scheme, stating that they had no strong views and no further comments to add. b. Parking 39 comments raised various concerns regarding parking. A number of respondents made more than one remark. General concern  33 comments were concerned with the proposed reduction in parking.  Eight comments suggested that this would be detrimental to local residents.

Safety risks  Four comments suggested that vehicles would park in advisory cycle lanes.  Three comments stated that placing the cycle lane next to parked cars presented a dooring risk to cyclists.  One comment stated that the reduction in parking would encourage higher vehicle speeds due to a perception of a wider road.

Alternative suggestions  Two comments suggested implementing parking restrictions to reduce the inconvenience of a reduction in parking. c. Scheme design/road layout 26 comments made various concerns and suggestions regarding scheme design/road layout. A number of respondents made more than one remark.

Quietway Q7 | London Borough of Lambeth – West Dulwich area – Five schemes 16

Restriction of access  Four comments raised concerns that the changes to the junction of Turney Road/Rosendale Road would lead to restricted access for the nearby allotments.

Turney Road/Rosendale Road junction  Two comments suggested that the proposed removal of the roundabout would encourage higher vehicle speeds along Turney Road.  Two comments raised concern that the changes made to the junction would make access more difficult for larger vehicles.  One comment stated that the proposals still made access from Dalkeith Road to Rosendale Road difficult.  One comment raised concern that there would be a lack of priority at the junction due to the proposals.  One comment stated that the junction would not allow for free flowing traffic in comparison to a roundabout.  One comment stated that the changes would encourage more traffic to use the area.  One comment stated that the changes made to the junction introduced a left hook risk for cyclists.

Croxted Road/Turney Road junction  Three comments stated that the existing layout of the Croxted Road/Turney Road junction remained a barrier to some cyclists, due to the presence of hook risks.  Two comments suggested implementing early release signals for cyclists at the junction.  Two comments suggested segregating cycling at the junction  One comment suggested narrowing the junction, to reduce vehicle speeds.  One comment suggested implementing a raised table at the junction.

Shared space  Two comments stated that the implementation of shared space was dangerous. No further detail was provided.  One comment suggested there needed to be clear signage to encourage cyclists to use the shared space.  One comment suggested that there should be delineation of pedestrian and cyclist space.

Road width  Two comments stated that Turney Road was too narrow to accommodate a cycle route.

Quietway Q7 | London Borough of Lambeth – West Dulwich area – Five schemes 17

Alternative suggestions  Five comments suggested that there needed to be measures to reduce traffic as part of the proposals. Three comments in particular suggested modal filtering.  One comment suggested replacing the proposed pinch points with zebra crossings or raised tables.  One comment suggested there needed to be further traffic calming measures on Rosendale Road as part of the proposals.  One comment suggested widening the pavements outside all of the schools in the scheme area. d. Safety 17 comments made various remarks regarding safety. One respondent made more than one remark.

Segregation  Six comments suggested implementing segregated cycle lanes as part of the proposals.

Advisory cycle lanes  Three comments suggested that advisory cycle lanes would be encroached upon by motor vehicles.  One comment suggested that advisory cycle lanes would encourage higher vehicle speeds, due to a perception of greater road width. Improved safety  Three comments suggested that the scheme would improve safety for all users.

Removal of central white line  Three comments were concerned that the removal of the central white line as part of the scheme would lead to increased danger. No further detail was given.

General concerns  One comment raised concern that there was no cycle lane where the junction was being narrowed.  One comment raised concern that a removal of railings would lead to a pedestrian safety risk. e. Zebra crossing 14 comments made various concerns and suggestions regarding the proposed pedestrian crossing. Two respondents made more than one remark.

Quietway Q7 | London Borough of Lambeth – West Dulwich area – Five schemes 18

 10 comments were supportive of the addition of a pedestrian crossing to Turney Road.  Three comments stated that the proposed pedestrian crossing was unnecessary.  One comment stated that a pedestrian crossing would be better placed outside the entrance of Rosendale Primary School.  One comment suggested considering a pelican crossing instead of a zebra crossing. f. Traffic Seven comments made various remarks regarding traffic. Existing traffic concerns  Four comments raised concerns that there was a high volume of traffic on this section of Turney Road/Rosendale Road.  One comment was concerned with high vehicle speeds on Turney Road. No further detail was given.  One comment stated that the proposals offer no solution to high vehicle speeds. Traffic issues resulting from the proposals  One comment suggested that the proposals would increase vehicular journey times. g. Outside the scope of the scheme Four comments were made which were outside the scope of the scheme.  One comment stated that they had written a letter directly to Richard Lancaster, Programme Manager at Lambeth Council to express their views.  One comment raised concern that there was a lack of a safe right turn at the Thurlow Park Road/Rosendale Road junction and that the Quietway fails to acknowledge traffic issues in Dalmore Road and Eastmearn Road.  One comment stated that they would concur with the sentiments put forward in the local residents’ submission.  One comment misinterpreted the designs for the scheme, citing that the planting of trees would reduce visibility. h. Alternative route suggestions  Four comments made alternative route suggestions for the Quietway. This included three suggestions to route the Quietway on College Road, and one suggestion to route the Quietway along the northern section of Rosendale Road.

Quietway Q7 | London Borough of Lambeth – West Dulwich area – Five schemes 19

4.3 Turney Road – Summary of stakeholder responses

Stakeholder group Summary of response

Dalmore Road Safety The local group was partially supportive of the scheme. It Group stated that the mini-roundabout has always been dangerous to navigate, for all modal types.

Lambeth Cyclists The organisation was unsupportive of the proposed scheme. It stated that more needed to be done to mitigate the risks of turning vehicles at the junction of Turney Road/Croxted Road. It stated this could be facilitated by early release signals for cyclists or by separating ahead cycling completely from turning traffic. Concern was raised that Turney Road is too busy and fast to be safe for cycling without protected space. Further concern was raised with the advisory cycle lane, as it was stated that this would likely be encroached upon by vehicles in narrower sections. Further suggestion was made to filter out through traffic on Rosendale Road.

London Cycling The organisation was unsupportive of the proposed Campaign scheme. It stated that this road carries high traffic levels, and as such should have traffic reduced significantly or should have protected space for cycling. It also raised concern that the junction of Croxted Road/Turney Road could remain as a significant barrier to cyclists, suggesting that the junction should be redesigned to enable cycling through the junction in all directions safely. Further suggestions were raised to replace the existing pedestrian pinch points with cycle friendly infrastructure such as zebra crossings and raised tables. It lastly stated that if there is enough room for advisory cycle lanes, then there should be space for semi-segregated measures or stepped/hybrid tracks.

London Fire Brigade The organisation was supportive of the proposals at Turney Road. It stated that the proposals would not impact on attendance times, however crews will be advised on route planning when works are being undertaken.

Nelly’s Nurseries The organisation was unsupportive of the proposed scheme. It suggested that the road is not wide enough to accommodate the proposals. It also objected to the removal of parking, stating that this would put additional pressure on surrounding roads.

Quietway Q7 | London Borough of Lambeth – West Dulwich area – Five schemes 20

The organisation was unsupportive of the proposals. It was concerned that the current plans do not give an Rosendale Allotments accurate picture of whether allotment access would be Association protected sufficiently.

Scotch Meats The organisation was unsupportive of the proposed scheme; however no further comments were made.

Southwark Cyclists The organisation was partially supportive of the proposals. It suggested that the junction of Croxted Road and Turney Road would be a barrier for some cyclists due to left hook risks, particularly for those travelling southbound. It suggested that this could be alleviated by allowing cyclists to cross during the pedestrian green phase, with an extra give way marking at the pedestrian crossing. Further concern was raised that there would be a left hook risk for cyclists travelling northbound on Rosendale Road/Dalkeith Road, due to vehicles turning left to proceed on Rosendale Road.

Wheels for Wellbeing The organisation was unsupportive of the proposed scheme. It suggested that there was sufficient space to allow for a segregated cycle lane on this section. Concern was also raised that vehicles would park in advisory cycle lanes and that the current alignment of the lane puts cyclists into a dooring zone.

4.4 Lovelace Road – responses received by public and stakeholders

Quietway Q7 | London Borough of Lambeth – West Dulwich area – Five schemes 21

Of those 127 responses, 117 (92 per cent) were sent by members of the public and 10 (eight per cent) by designated stakeholder groups. 72 respondents provided comments.

Fig. 1 Response to- Do you support the proposed changes?

Fig. 2 Consultation responses by respondent type:

Quietway Q7 | London Borough of Lambeth – West Dulwich area – Five schemes 22

4.5 Lovelace Road – analysis of consultation responses

Of the 127 respondents that answered the closed question (‘Do you support the proposed changes?’), 72 provided comments in the subsequent open question. The issues they raised are summarised below. This summary includes comments from 10 stakeholder organisations. These responses are also summarised separately.

a. Support and opposition 39 comments offered support or opposition for the proposed scheme. The results are summarised below.  27 comments were opposed to the proposals at Rosendale Road/Lovelace Road. o Five comments suggested the scheme was a waste of money.  12 comments were supportive of the proposed scheme. o Seven comments stated that the scheme offered an improvement over the existing situation.

b. Zebra crossing 18 comments made various remarks regarding the proposed zebra crossing. One respondent made more than one remark.

Support and opposition  Nine comments supported the addition of a zebra crossing to Rosendale Road.  Four comments were opposed to the zebra crossing, including two comments stating that there was an insufficient number of pedestrians to justify the expense. Alignment  Four comments stated that the alignment of the crossing was wrong, and suggested it would be improved if it aligned with the existing side path around All Saints Church. Other comments  One comment was disappointed that there was no crossing aligning with the main entrance to the playing fields on Rosendale Road.  One comment suggested implementing a pelican crossing in front of the nursery on Rosendale Road.

c. Safety 17 comments expressed various concerns regarding safety. Two respondents made more than one remark.

Advisory cycle lanes  Seven comments raised concerns that advisory cycle lanes would be encroached upon by motor vehicles. Segregation

Quietway Q7 | London Borough of Lambeth – West Dulwich area – Five schemes 23

 Five comments suggested that segregated cycle lanes were needed as part of the proposals. Conflict  Three comments felt that the footway build out on the eastern side of Rosendale Road would increase conflict between cyclists travelling southbound and motor vehicles.  One comment felt that the removal of the central white line on Rosendale Road would lead to increased conflict between cyclists and motor vehicles. Improved safety  Two comments suggested that the proposed scheme would improve safety for all users. Cycle bypass  One comment suggested that the proposed cycle bypass presented a pedestrian safety risk. d. Scheme design/road layout 17 comments made various comments or suggestions regarding scheme design/road layout. One respondent made more than one remark.

Lovelace Road/Rosendale Road junctions  Three comments raised concerns that the narrowing of both of the Lovelace junctions would increase congestion.  One comment stated that the changes to both Lovelace Road junctions would make cycle access more difficult and dangerous.  One comment suggested simplifying the access to Lovelace Road to one junction instead of two. Informal crossings  One comment stated that the addition of informal crossing points was unnecessary.  One comment raised objection to the implementation of informal crossings.  One comment suggested that raised tables would restrict visibility.  One comment felt that the cycle bypass and informal crossing would make access to off-street parking more difficult. Road width  Two comments were concerned that Rosendale Road is not wide enough to accommodate both parking and a cycle lane. Speed humps/raised tables  Two comments felt that the proposed speed humps and raised tables were unsuitable for cycling.  One comment suggested that the proposed speed humps and raised tables need to be full road width and as severe as possible to reduce vehicle speeds. Quietway Q7 | London Borough of Lambeth – West Dulwich area – Five schemes 24

Alternative suggestions  Three comments suggested implementing measures to reduce traffic, including two comments suggesting modal filtering.  One comment suggested implementing additional traffic calming measures on Rosendale Road as part of the proposals. e. Parking 12 comments raised a number of concerns and suggestions regarding parking. Three respondents made more than one remark.

Dooring risk  Four comments stated that the proposals put cyclists at risk of being hit by the opening of a parked car door. Concern with reduction  Four comments raised concerns with the reduction of parking as part of the proposals, including two comments stating this would be detrimental to local residents. Other concerns  One comment stated that the scheme does little to address the current parking problems, and allows for the reduction of road space, leading to safety risks for cyclists.  One comment raised concerns that there are marked parking bays in line with zig zag markings at the proposed pedestrian zebra crossing.

Alternative suggestions  Three comments suggested removing or restricting parking from one side of Rosendale Road.  One comment suggested banning larger vehicles from parking on Rosendale Road.  One comment suggested removing parking opposite the two Lovelace Road junctions, to allow for greater visibility. f. Traffic Three comments raised concerns regarding traffic.

Existing traffic concerns  One comment raised concern with the existing high speeds of some traffic on Rosendale Road.  One comment raised concern with the high level of traffic on Rosendale Road. Traffic issues resulting from the scheme  One comment suggested that the proposals would increase congestion in the area.

Quietway Q7 | London Borough of Lambeth – West Dulwich area – Five schemes 25

g. Alternative route suggestions Five comments made alternative route suggestions in response to the proposed scheme, with two respondents making more than one suggestion.  Five comments suggested routing the Quietway along College Road.  One comment suggested routing the Quietway along Denmark Hill.  One comment suggesting routing along Alleyn Park.

4.6 Lovelace Road – Summary of stakeholder responses

Stakeholder group Summary of response Dalmore Road Safety The local group was partially supportive of the scheme. It Group suggested that all the speed humps need to be road width and as severe as possible to stop speeding traffic. It also stated that the proposed advisory cycle lanes were unnecessary due to the risks of dooring by parked cars. Further concern was raised that the loss of parking would negatively affect the area.

Guide Dogs The organisation was unsupportive of the proposed scheme. It stated that they were against informal crossing points, of which there are two in the scheme.

Lambeth Cyclists The organisation was unsupportive of the scheme. It was concerned that the volume and speed of some traffic was too high, suggesting that unless volume and speed can be reduced, then protected cycling space should be provided. Further concern was raised that due to parking narrowing the road width, vehicles would encroach upon advisory cycle lanes. Suggestion was made to either remove parking from the eastern side of the road to allow for a cycle track, or to filter out through traffic.

London Cycling The organisation was unsupportive of the proposals. It Campaign stated that it welcomed the cycle bypass northbound along the route, but was concerned that travelling southbound the proposed pinch points would encourage vehicles to encroach into the advisory cycle lanes. It suggested again that traffic volumes needed reducing or that protected space should be implemented.

Nelly’s Nurseries The organisation was unsupportive of the proposed scheme. No further comments were made.

Quietway Q7 | London Borough of Lambeth – West Dulwich area – Five schemes 26

Rosemead The organisation was unsupportive of the proposed Preparatory School scheme. Concern was raised over pupil’s safety crossing from the school to the playing fields and All Saints Church. It also suggested that pupils from the Elmcourt site would have to negotiate the proposed cycle bypass in order to access and exit via Lovelace Road. Further suggestion was raised that the proposed zebra crossing is in the wrong position, as it does not link directly with the side route around the southern side of the church.

Scotch Meats The organisation was unsupportive of the scheme, and did not provide any further comments.

Southwark Cyclists The organisation was supportive of the proposed scheme. It stated that the squaring up of the Lovelace junction is an improvement.

Wheels for Wellbeing The organisation was unsupportive of the proposed scheme. It felt that due to the volume and speed of traffic, the cycle lanes should be segregated in both directions. It also suggested that parking should be removed, particularly alongside the playing fields, in order to remove the risk of dooring. Further concern was raised that advisory cycle lanes would be encroached upon by overtaking vehicles. The organisation also raised a further two concerns: 1. It was concerned that the proposed build-outs and removal of the central white line creates conflict between cyclists and motor vehicles. 2. It felt that speed humps and raised junctions are not suitable for cycling.

Quietway Q7 | London Borough of Lambeth – West Dulwich area – Five schemes 27

4.7 Rosendale shops – responses received by public and stakeholders

Of those 131 responses, 122 (93 per cent) were sent by members of the public and nine (seven per cent) by designated stakeholder groups. 86 respondents provided comments.

Fig. 1 Response to- Do you support the proposed changes?

Fig. 2 Consultation responses by respondent type:

Quietway Q7 | London Borough of Lambeth – West Dulwich area – Five schemes 28

4.8 Rosendale shops – analysis of consultation responses

Of the 131 respondents who answered the closed question (‘Do you support the proposed changes?’), 86 provided comments in the subsequent open question. The issues they raised are summarised below. This summary includes comments from nine stakeholder organisations. These responses are also summarised separately.

a. Proposed zebra crossing 33 comments offered support or opposition for the proposed zebra crossing. One respondent made more than one remark.  27 comments were supportive of the addition of a zebra crossing outside Rosendale Road shops.  Six comments suggested that the zebra crossing was unnecessary, including one stating that there were insufficient numbers of pedestrians crossing to facilitate the change.  One comment suggested that the zebra crossing was not on pedestrian desire lines.

b. Parking 33 comments raised various concerns regarding parking. Two respondents made more than one remark.

Concern with reduction  19 comments were concerned with the reduction in parking that the proposed scheme would cause. o Seven comments stated that this would be detrimental to local residents. Formalised parking/loading bay  Seven comments suggested that the parking bays adjacent to Rosendale shops should be time restricted, including six of those comments suggesting a two-hour time limit  One comment was concerned that the proposed parking/loading bay would not be wide enough for larger vehicles (e.g. HGVs).  One comment offered support for the proposed parking/loading bay. Risk of cyclist being hit by car door  Five comments stated that cyclists would still be at risk from being hit by the opening of doors due to the cycle lane being in close proximity to parked cars. Requests to increase parking  Two comments suggested that the proposals should look to increase parking in the area, including one comment suggesting reduced pavement space to accommodate a greater number of parking spaces.

Quietway Q7 | London Borough of Lambeth – West Dulwich area – Five schemes 29

c. Support and opposition 32 comments offered support or opposition for the proposed scheme.  20 comments were opposed to the proposals, including three comments stated that the existing situation was satisfactory.  11 comments were supportive of the proposed scheme.  One comment from a stakeholder offered no strong support or opposition. d. Scheme design/road layout 26 comments raised various concerns regarding scheme design/road layout. A number of respondents made more than one remark.

Road width  Nine comments expressed concern that Rosendale Road, at this point, is too narrow to safely accommodate both vehicles and cyclists. Informal crossing  Eight comments objected to the addition of an informal crossing on Rosendale Road, including seven suggesting this was unnecessary. Reduction of junction width  Three comments expressed concern that the proposed reduction in junction width on a number of roads would lead to increased congestion.  One comment suggested that the reduction in junction width would lead to increased conflict between vehicles and cyclists. Traffic calming  Two comments suggested implementing additional traffic calming measures as part of the proposals.  One comment stated that the addition of speed humps to Rosendale Road would lead to increased noise.  One comment stated that they would prefer to have bollard pinch points implemented instead of speed humps. Landscaping  Three comments suggested implementing landscaping measures to improve the streetscape as part of the proposals. Traffic Reduction  Two comments stated that there needed to be measures to reduce vehicular traffic on Rosendale Road, including one comment suggesting this could be facilitated through modal filtering. Removal of Centre Line  One comment stated that the removal of the central white line would increase congestion. Advisory Cycle Lanes  One comment stated that the addition of advisory cycle lanes was unnecessary. Raised Surfaces  One comment stated that raised surfaces were inconvenient to cyclists. Quietway Q7 | London Borough of Lambeth – West Dulwich area – Five schemes 30

e. Safety 22 comments raised various safety concerns:

Advisory cycle lanes  11 comments raised concern that the proposed advisory cycle lanes would be encroached upon by motor vehicles. Segregation  Five comments called for the cycle lanes to be segregated. Improved pedestrian safety  Three comments stated that the scheme improved pedestrian safety. Zebra Crossing Concern  One comment stated that the crossing could be dangerous, as pedestrians would have to observe two streams of cycle and vehicular traffic. Removal of centre line  One comment stated that the removal of the central white line would lead to confusion and danger. Island to protect cyclists  One comment was concerned that drivers might hit this island if approaching at speed from the Thurlow Park Road junction. f. Traffic Eight comments raised various concerns regarding traffic. One respondent made more than one remark. Existing traffic concerns  Three comments were concerned that there was a high volume of vehicular traffic on Rosendale Road.  One comment was concerned that there are high vehicle speeds on this section of Rosendale Road. Traffic Issues resulting from the scheme  Five comments were concerned that the proposals would displace traffic onto neighbouring roads. g. Alternative route suggestions Three comments made alternative suggestions to take the Quietway route along College Road. h. Outside the scope of the scheme One comment was made which was outside the scope of the scheme. The respondent objected to the provision of marked parking bays adjacent to what was observed (on Google Streetview) to be an unofficial, unused dropped kerb, with an eye to the future for a prospective homeowner installing a driveway at a later date.

Quietway Q7 | London Borough of Lambeth – West Dulwich area – Five schemes 31

4.9 Rosendale Shops – summary of stakeholder responses

Stakeholder group Summary of response

Dalmore Road Safety The local group was partially supportive of the

Group proposed scheme. It stated that the cycle lanes would be dangerous due to being in the dooring zone of parked cars and that the current situation presents no issue to cyclists due to a large road width. It welcomed the addition of a zebra crossing as a safe measure to cross the road. Further concern was

raised that the loss of parking spaces would have a negative impact on the area.

Guide Dogs The organisation was partially supportive of the scheme. However, they were opposed to the provision of an informal crossing point, particularly due to it being a key point to travel between shops.

Lambeth Cyclists The organisation was unsupportive of the proposals. Concern was raised regarding the width of the road by allowing both an advisory cycle lane and parking

bays. It stated that this represents a critical problem. Further concern was raised that this might be a significant issue at the northern end of this stretch,

where southbound vehicles approach the narrow stretch too fast.

London Cycling The organisation was unsupportive of the proposed Campaign scheme. It welcomed the addition of “blended”

crossings and the replacement of pedestrian refuges that act as pinch points. However, it stated that without measures to reduce traffic flows or protected

space for cycling, the Quietway would be unlikely to encourage more cycling and will fail to deliver benefits.

London Fire Brigade The organisation was supportive of the proposals. It stated that the proposals would not impact on attendance times; however crews will be advised on route planning when works are being undertaken. Nelly’s Nurseries The local shop was supportive of the scheme, however did not provide any comments.

Quietway Q7 | London Borough of Lambeth – West Dulwich area – Five schemes 32

Scotch Meats The local shop was unsupportive of the proposals, however did not provide any comments.

Southwark Cyclists The organisation provided no opinion in terms of support for the proposed scheme. It stated that there were no changes relevant for cyclists.

Wheels for Wellbeing The organisation was unsupportive of the proposed scheme. It stated that due to the volume and speed of traffic, segregated cycle lanes were required. It also suggested that parking should be removed, particularly near to the playing fields as cyclists will be at risk of dooring. Concern was raised that advisory cycle lanes would be encroached upon by overtaking vehicles. The organisation also questioned whether additional cycle parking would be provided so cyclists can use the shops.

4.10 Park Hall Road – responses received by public and stakeholders

Of those 125 responses, 116 (93 per cent) were sent by members of the public and nine (seven per cent) by designated stakeholder groups. 78 respondents provided comments. Fig. 1 Response to- Do you support the proposed changes?

Fig. 2 Consultation responses by respondent type:

Quietway Q7 | London Borough of Lambeth – West Dulwich area – Five schemes 33

4.11 Park Hall Road – analysis of consultation responses

Of the 125 respondents who answered the closed question (‘Do you support the proposed changes?’), 78 provided comments in the subsequent open question. The issues they raised are summarised below. This summary includes comments from nine stakeholder organisations. These responses are also summarised separately.

a. Priority junction 28 comments raised various concerns regarding the proposals for a priority junction. A number of respondents made more than one remark.

Increased congestion  15 comments suggested that the change from a mini-roundabout to a priority junction would increase congestion on Park Hall Road.  Three comments suggested that the footway build outs remove the ability for left and right turning traffic to wait in separate queues. Road width  Four comments were concerned that the proposals reduce the amount of space for buses to manoeuvre.  Three comments stated that the junction introduces pinch points by narrowing the junction.  One comment stated that they would prefer to see the junction kept at a wider width. Traffic impacts on motorists  Two comments were concerned that the proposals would lead to traffic being displaced into other roads within the area (unspecified). Priority

Quietway Q7 | London Borough of Lambeth – West Dulwich area – Five schemes 34

 One comment stated that there would be unclear priority at the junction. Frustration  One comment stated that the change from a mini-roundabout to a priority junction would be a source of frustration for motor vehicle drivers. Alternative suggestions  Two comments suggested implementing traffic lights at the junction, to allow for better traffic flow.  Two comments suggested implementing safe left turns for cyclists on all arms of the junction. b. Support and opposition 28 comments offered support or opposition to the proposals at Park Hall Road/ Rosendale Road.  19 comments were opposed to the proposals, including six comments stating that the current road layout works well.  Eight comments were supportive of the proposed scheme.  One comment stated that that there were pros and cons of the scheme, but did not provide any further detail. c. Pedestrian crossings 23 comments raised various concerns regarding pedestrian crossings. Three respondents made more than one remark.

Zebra crossing  15 comments stated that the alignment of the crossing was incorrect.  12 comments suggested placing the crossing north of the junction.  One comment supported the addition of a zebra crossing to Rosendale Road. Informal crossings  Five comments were concerned that the loss of pedestrian refuges posed a safety risk. o Four comments stated that this was due to the fact pedestrians would have to cross two lanes of traffic instead of one.  Two comments stated that informal crossings were dangerous.  One comment was opposed to the addition of informal crossings. Alternative suggestions  Two comments suggested implementing additional zebra crossings as part of the scheme. o One comment suggested implementing a crossing on Park Hall Road. d. Scheme design/road layout Eight comments raised various concerns regarding scheme design/road layout. Traffic volumes

Quietway Q7 | London Borough of Lambeth – West Dulwich area – Five schemes 35

 Three comments stated that this stretch of Rosendale Road needed a reduction in through traffic. One comment suggested this could be facilitated through modal filtering. Parking  Two comments stated that the scheme still puts cyclists at risk of dooring.  One comment was concerned that the parking to the south of the scheme removes the cycle lane. Removal of centre line  One comment raised objection to the removal of the central white line. No further detail was provided. Alternative suggestions  One comment suggested implementing cycle parking outside of Rosendale Tavern. e. Safety Nine comments raised various safety concerns. Advisory cycle lanes  Three comments suggested that the advisory cycle lanes would be encroached upon by vehicles, including one comment expressing concerns that buses turning would encroach on both cycle lanes. Collision risk  Two comments stated that there would be a heightened collision risk as a result of the proposals. Existing safety concerns  Two comments stated that the existing roundabout was dangerous. No further detail was given regarding the scheme. Segregation  Two comments suggested implementing segregated cycle lanes as part of the proposals. Improved safety  One comment suggested that the proposals improved pedestrian safety. f. Alternative route suggestions Two comments made alternative route suggestions in their response to the scheme. Both suggested routing the Quietway along College Road. g. Borough-wide concern One comment made a borough wide concern in their response to the scheme. It stated that the southern section of Rosendale Road needed improving, both in terms of resurfacing the pavement and improving the streetscape. h. Outside of the scope of the scheme

Quietway Q7 | London Borough of Lambeth – West Dulwich area – Five schemes 36

One comment was made which was outside the scope of the scheme. The respondent stated that they did not cycle this section of the route, and therefore could not comment on the proposals.

5.3 Park Hall Road – summary of stakeholder responses

Stakeholder group Summary of response

Dalmore Road Safety The local group was partially supportive of the

Group proposed scheme. It stated that the roundabout has

always been dangerous. However, it was concerned that they rarely see cyclists using this road as a route to Crystal Palace and questioned why cyclists would choose this route.

Guide Dogs The organisation was partially supportive of the proposals. They stated that they object to informal crossing points.

Lambeth Cyclists The group was partially supportive of the proposals. They suggested that as a large majority of vehicle

traffic turns from Park Hall Road to the northern arm

of Rosendale Road, the design needs to control movements across the path of the cycle route. It also stated that the replacement of the mini-roundabout was broadly a good idea, however the width was a concern and the organisation stated that this may encourage vehicles to encroach on the cycle lane

when crossing the junction or turning.

London Cycling Campaign The organisation was unsupportive of the proposed

scheme. They stated that they welcomed the conversion of the mini-roundabout to a priority crossroads. However, concern and objection was raised that the scheme retains current parking arrangements which prevents the use of advisory cycle lanes. It suggested that this was unacceptable

due to a perception of a high volume of vehicular

traffic and the presence of a bus route on this section of Rosendale Road. It suggested that again, traffic flow needs to be curtailed, potentially with a “bus gate”, or a safe space for cycling needs to be designed in.

London Fire Brigade The organisation was supportive of the proposals. It stated that the proposals would not impact on

Quietway Q7 | London Borough of Lambeth – West Dulwich area – Five schemes 37

attendance times, however crews will be advised on route planning when works are being undertaken.

Nelly’s Nurseries The local shop was unsupportive of the scheme. It stated that the existing roundabout works well and questioned the justification for changing this to a priority junction. It also raised concern that this might cause a regular backlog of traffic, which the roundabout allows to flow freely.

Scotch Meats The local shop was unsupportive of the proposals, however did not provide any further comments.

Southwark Cyclists The organisation was partially supportive of the proposals. They stated that the conversion from a mini-roundabout to a priority crossroads was an improvement. It suggested that due to right angle parking, the advisory cycle lane disappears. It stated that this was not compatible with a Quietway. It suggested that this issue might be mitigated by filtering vehicular traffic to the north, thus allowing for the large parking area to be retained. Further suggestions were made to trial filtering as part of an area wide scheme.

Wheels for Wellbeing The organisation was unsupportive of the proposed scheme. They stated again that cyclists are at risk of dooring by parked cars.

4.12 Tritton Road – responses received by public and stakeholders

Of those 115 responses, 107 (93 per cent) were sent by members of the public and eight (seven per cent) by designated stakeholder groups. 49 respondents provided comments.

Fig. 1 Response to- Do you support the proposed changes?

Quietway Q7 | London Borough of Lambeth – West Dulwich area – Five schemes 38

Fig. 2 Consultation responses by respondent type:

4.13 Tritton Road – analysis of consultation responses

115 respondents answered the closed question (‘Do you support the proposed changes?’), however 49 provided comments in the subsequent open question. The issues they raised are summarised below. This summary includes comments from eight stakeholder organisations. These responses are also summarised separately.

a. Scheme design/road layout 18 comments raised various concerns regarding scheme design/road layout. A number of respondents made more than one remark.

Pavement widening

Quietway Q7 | London Borough of Lambeth – West Dulwich area – Five schemes 39

 Two comments stated that the proposed pavement widening would lead to increased congestion.  Two comments stated that the pavement widening would lead to increased conflict between cyclists and vehicles due to a reduction in road space.  Two comments stated that the road width towards the south of Rosendale Road could be a ‘Cycling Level of Service’ fail.  One comment was concerned that the pavement widening would restrict the ability of larger vehicles to manoeuvre.  One comment stated that the proposed pavement widening would make cycling more difficult.  One comment stated that the relocated pedestrian islands and pavement widening would restrict access to a number of residential properties.  One comment suggested implementing a safe right hand filter for cycling instead of widening the pavement. Junction priority  Three comments were concerned that the junction does not give priority to the Quietway.  One comment was concerned that the junction does not give priority to the main flow of traffic. Removal of centre line  One comment objected to the removal of the centre line, but did not provide any further detail.  One comment was concerned with the removal of the central white line, but again did not provide any further detail. Segregation  Two comments suggested implementing segregated cycle lanes as part of the proposals. Reduction in traffic  Two comments stated that there needed to be measures to reduce vehicular traffic as part of the proposals, including one comment suggested implementing a modal filter to the eastern arm of Tritton Road.

Impact of traffic for motorists  One comment stated that the proposed changes to the junction would displace traffic into neighbouring roads. Cycle parking  One comment was disappointed that no cycle parking had been provided as part of the proposals. Alternative suggestions  One comment suggested implementing a pelican crossing outside the Tritton Road entrance of Elm Wood Primary School.

Quietway Q7 | London Borough of Lambeth – West Dulwich area – Five schemes 40

b. Support and opposition 17 comments were made offering support or opposition to the proposals.  13 comments were opposed to the proposed scheme, including four comments suggesting that the proposals were a waste of money.  Four comments were supportive of the scheme. c. Parking Eight comments made various concerns regarding parking.

Reduction of parking  Six comments were concerned with the reduction in parking the scheme proposes, including one comment stating that this would be detrimental to local residents. Risk of cyclist being hit by car door  One comment stated that the proposals still put cyclists at risk from being hit by the opening of doors of parked cars.

Conflict  One comment was concerned that the right angle parking on Rosendale Road significantly reduces road space and therefore puts cyclists into conflict with vehicles. d. Speed humps Five comments raised various concerns regarding speed humps. One respondent made more than one remark.

Suitability  One comment expressed concern that the proposed speed humps would be unsuitable for buses and emergency vehicles.  One comment stated that the proposed speed humps were uncomfortable and inconvenient for cycling.  One comment was unconvinced that the proposed speed humps would be “cycle friendly”.

Support and Opposition  One comment stated that the proposed speed humps represented a waste of money due to the presence of existing speed humps.  One comment was supportive of the proposed speed humps. Alternative Suggestions  One comment suggested that the speed humps needed posts to prevent vehicles from veering towards the pavement, into the path of cyclists. e. Traffic Three comments raised concerns regarding traffic. Quietway Q7 | London Borough of Lambeth – West Dulwich area – Five schemes 41

 One comment expressed disappointment that the proposals had not looked to reduce vehicular traffic.  One comment stated that the proposals did not tackle the issue of vehicle speed effectively.  One comment expressed concern that there was a high volume of traffic on this section of Rosendale/Tritton Road which makes it dangerous for cycling.

f. Alternative route suggestions Four comments provided alternative route suggestions for the Quietway in their response to the scheme. Two respondents made more than one suggestion.  Four comments suggested routing the Quietway along College Road.  One comment suggested routing the Quietway along Denmark Hill.  One comment suggested routing the Quietway along Alleyn Park.

g. Borough-wide concerns Four comments made borough wide concerns in their response to the scheme.  Two comments raised concerns with existing traffic and road safety issues on Vale Street.  One comment suggested that the southern section of Rosendale Road needed resurfacing and improvements made to the streetscape.  One comment suggested making Hamilton Road one-way between Gipsy Road and Clive Road.

h. Outside the scope of the scheme Four comments were made which were outside the scope of the scheme.  One comment stated that they did not cycle this section of the route, therefore they could not comment on the proposals.  One comment stated that they “Don’t know what this is”. No further detail was provided.  One comment misinterpreted the plans, raising concerns about advisory cycle lanes, which are not incorporated into this scheme.  One comment stated that they had not used this part of the route, without providing any further useful detail.

4.14 Tritton Road – summary of stakeholder responses

Stakeholder group Summary of response

Dalmore Road Safety The local group was unsupportive of the proposed

Group scheme. Again, it questioned why the Quietway was taking this route and not College Road, as it stated that the majority of cyclists were using this route already.

Lambeth Cyclists The organisation was partially supportive of the proposals. It stated that on this stretch of Rosendale Road, the

Quietway Q7 | London Borough of Lambeth – West Dulwich area – Five schemes 42

general carriageway would split with a middle strip and hatchings which it suggested would narrow the road into a Cycling Level of Service critical range. It stated that this must be avoided. Further, they stated that at the southern end of Rosendale Road, the design would have the main carriageway going west, which goes against the main traffic movement and the Quietway. Further suggestion was made to consider filtering the eastern arm of Tritton Road, to cut out through traffic.

London Cycling The organisation was unsupportive of the scheme. It Campaign stated that the junction would be worse for cycling under these proposals, as the road width has been reduced and it stated that the design worsens turns for those cycling. It stated that this design was not appropriate for a Quietway. Further, it stated again that Rosendale Road should have measures to reduce vehicular traffic flow or there should be the introduction of a safe space for cycling.

London Fire Brigade The organisation was supportive of the proposals. It stated that the proposals would not impact on attendance times, however crews will be advised on route planning when works are being undertaken.

Nelly’s Nurseries The local shop was unsupportive of the proposed scheme; however no further comments were made.

Scotch Meats The local shop was unsupportive of the proposals; however no further comments were made.

Southwark Cyclists The organisation was unsupportive of the proposed scheme. It was concerned that the junction had been narrowed and that the opposite turn to Quietway 7 had been given priority, which it stated makes the junction worse than at present. It suggested that this junction change was unwanted for a cycle scheme.

Wheels for Wellbeing The organisation was unsupportive of the proposed scheme. It stated that the scheme creates more on street parking, however does not provide any additional cycle parking. It was also concerned again that cyclists would be at risk of dooring by parked cars.

Quietway Q7 | London Borough of Lambeth – West Dulwich area – Five schemes 43

4.15 Responses received about the Quietway 7 cycle route

In the West Dulwich consultation (six schemes), there were a total of 188 responses to the question ‘Do you support the overall proposals for the Quietway 7 cycle route in Lambeth?’ This includes public and stakeholder group responses.

Overall, out of the 188 responses received: 69 (37 per cent) supported or partially supported proposals for Q7 in this area; 109 (58 per cent) did not support the proposals; seven (four per cent) were not sure, and three (one per cent) had no opinion.

5.5 Responses received about the quality of the West Dulwich consultations

There were 143 comments in response to the question: “Please tell us what you think about the quality of this consultation.” a. Negative comments 101 Negative remarks were made about the quality of the consultation, with some respondents making more than one negative remark, which have been included.

 30 comments made general negative remarks regarding the consultation, including statements from which little information could be drawn. These include: o “The consideration for the area as a whole and the people who spend their daily lives here has been appalling”. o “The early consultation meetings were a farce and an insult to the intelligence of local residents”.

Quietway Q7 | London Borough of Lambeth – West Dulwich area – Five schemes 44

o “This consultation has been poorly carried out with a total blinkered view without taking the residents views on board”. o “It has been clear throughout the consultations that they are biased which undermines the efficacy of the exercise”. o “The consultation has been very poorly managed”.

 Nine comments stated that the consultation had provided a lack of justification for the proposals, including three comments raising concern that the consultation did not provide a cost/benefit analysis.  Eight comments stated that the consultation had been communicated too late to local residents, including one comment raising concern that the information provided had arrived at different times.  Seven comments stated that there was a lack of advertising regarding the consultation.  Five comments expressed disappointment that no traffic impact data had been provided as part of the consultation.  Five comments stated that the public meetings that had been organised were poor, including two comments were disappointed that there had been no follow up of emails after the meetings.  Five comments stated that the design plans issued were too small and difficult to interpret, including one stating that the dimensions of certain roads were unclear.  Four comments stated that there had been a lack of explanation regarding the purpose of certain features of the Quietway, such as two stage right turns.  Four comments stated that the online questionnaire was complicated and time consuming.  Three comments stated that it was difficult to find the relevant information online.  Three comments stated that there had been a lack of engagement with residents’ associations, schools and local businesses.  Two comments stated that there had been a lack of consultation regarding the route planning of the Quietway.  One comment stated that there had been a lack of material provided to local residents.  One comment stated that there had been a lack of explanation of relevant terms.  One comment expressed disappointment that there had been a lack of meetings with Lambeth Council and TfL.  One comment expressed frustration that the political boundary between Lambeth and Southwark meant that they did not receive information for nearby schemes not in their borough.  One comment raised concern that the plans omitted short stretches of road.

Quietway Q7 | London Borough of Lambeth – West Dulwich area – Five schemes 45

Sustrans’ involvement

 16 comments expressed concern with Sustrans’ involvement with the consultation for West Dulwich. o 12 comments in particular stated that Sustrans were biased in their approach to the consultation. A further eight comments stated that the Sustrans workshops as part of the consultation had been poorly run and organised. b. Supportive comments

47 Supportive remarks were made about the quality of the consultation.

 31 comments were generally supportive about the quality of the consultation, including statements from which no useful/further information could be drawn. These included: o “Very thorough and professional”. o “Very good”. o “Good”.  Eight comments stated that the printed material was good, including two comments stating that the design plans were clear and helpful.  Six comments stated that the quality of the information available was good, including two comments stating that the information was clear.  Two comments stated that the websites available for the consultation were useful and informative.

c. Other comments or suggestions

13 responses were made offering other comments or suggestions in response to the quality of the consultation. A number of respondents made more than one remark or suggestion.

 Three comments suggested that there needed to be more information regarding traffic flow and impacts on traffic flow.  Two comments suggested it would be helpful to detail the road dimensions within the design plans.  Two comments suggested having the design plans and the consultation questionnaire on the same webpage.  Two comments stated that the design plans should have also included an overview plan.  Two comments suggested that accident data should be provided as part of the consultation materials.

Quietway Q7 | London Borough of Lambeth – West Dulwich area – Five schemes 46

 Two comments stated that the public meetings as part of the consultation needed to be timed better to allow more people to attend.  One comment stated that there needed to be more information available in public places.  One comment state that there needed to be more information included within the letters sent to local residents.  One comment stated that it would be useful to have overlay sheets for the proposed changes on top of the existing road layout.  One comment stated that it would be useful to include visual mock ups or animations of how elements of the Quietway would function.  One comment stated that it would be useful to have a summary of the proposals within the consultation document.  One comment suggested that there should have been a singular consultation for both the Southwark and Lambeth consultations.  One comment suggested that the consultation should include a justification for the changes proposed.

d. General comments

Respondents used this section to make general remarks about the Quietway scheme itself or about issues outside the realm of this question, in the same terms that were used in responses to specific proposals from this consultation.

 Two comments questioned why the Quietway was not being routed along College Road.  One comment expressed opposition to all the proposals made as part of the West Dulwich consultation.  One comment stated that the Quietway proposals were a waste of resources, and funding should instead be reallocated for other areas of the public sector.  One comment stated that there was no need to change the existing situation.  One comment raised concern with a residential road outside of the consultation area.

e. Dalmore Road residents

Six comments were made about the quality of consultation by residents of Dalmore Road. All six respondents stated that the consultation had not taken into consideration the residual impacts of Quietway 7 on their road.

To read more about the Dalmore Road residents’ comments, please see consultation report ‘Thurlow Park Road/Rosendale Road’.

Quietway Q7 | London Borough of Lambeth – West Dulwich area – Five schemes 47

5.5 How did you hear about this consultation?

(Public and Stakeholder Groups)

188 respondents answered this question.

How did you hear about the consultation? 84

10 5 4

Letter from Other Email from Social media Read in the Saw on TfL TfL/Lambeth TfL press website

NOTE: Respondents above would have received a letter in a TfL branded envelope, and for the email respondents they would have been sent an email from TfL’s consultation team.

There were 54 responses to ‘other’ including:

Turney Road Residents Association 15 Neighbour/friend informed me 11 Sustrans pre-engagement meetings 9

Rosendale Allotment Association 4 Word of mouth 4 Norwood Action Group (NAG) 3 Lambeth Cyclists email/newsletter 3 From local shops 3

Came across by accident 1 Been following the cycle route proposals for years 1

Quietway Q7 | London Borough of Lambeth – West Dulwich area – Five schemes 48

6 Conclusion and next steps

Turney Road

There were 149 responses to the proposals for this scheme of which: 61 (41 per cent), supported or partially supported the proposals: 72 (48 per cent) said they did not support or were unsure of the proposals and 16 (11 per cent) had no opinion.

Turney Road – How Lambeth Council plans to proceed

Lambeth Council has given careful consideration to all respondents’ comments ahead of finalising any design proposals. In light of residents’ and local stakeholders’ concerns regarding the proposed car parking removal on the northern side of Turney Road Lambeth Council has decided to exclude this design element from the scheme. However, approximately 12 car parking spaces will still need to be removed to accommodate the implementation of 2 x new zebra crossings to create a better environment for walkers and cyclists.

The new design excludes the proposed advisory cycle lanes as there is sufficient width to include such measures without taking away car parking capacity. As a result, cyclists will now adopt the primary position (in the middle of the road) when using the Lambeth section of Turney Road. The new layout creates a visual narrowing and traffic calming effect by introducing a buffer strip directly adjacent to the parking spaces on either side of the carriageway.

In addition, minor amendments have been made to the Turney Road junction with Rosendale Road to ensure all traffic movements are catered for. This includes a parallel pedestrian and cycle zebra crossing to accommodate the cycle movement from Turney Road to Rosendale Road northbound. Access arrangements to the Rosendale Allotments will be further considered at the detailed design stage.

Lovelace Road/Rosendale Road

There were 127 responses to the proposals for this scheme of which: 50 (40 per cent), supported or partially supported the proposals: 64 (50 per cent) said they did not support or were unsure of the proposals, and 13 (10 per cent) had no opinion.

Quietway Q7 | London Borough of Lambeth – West Dulwich area – Five schemes 49

Of those 127 responses, 117 (92 per cent) were sent by members of the public and 10 (eight per cent) by designated stakeholder groups. 72 respondents provided comments.

Lovelace Road/Rosendale Road – How Lambeth Council plans to proceed

Lambeth Council has given careful consideration to all respondents’ comments ahead of finalising any design proposals. The three mains areas of have been acknowledged, but discounted as they were seen to be either factually incorrect or not significant enough to warrant any design change.

Rosendale Shops

There were 131 responses to the proposals for this scheme; 63 (48 per cent), supported or partially supported the proposals: 63 (48 per cent) said they did not support or were unsure of the proposals, and five (four per cent) had no opinion.

Of those 131 responses, 122 (93 per cent) were sent by members of the public and nine (seven per cent) by designated stakeholder groups. 86 respondents provided comments.

Rosendale Shops – How Lambeth Council plans to proceed

Lambeth Council has given careful consideration to all respondent’s comments ahead of finalising any design proposals.

Park Hall Road/Rosendale Road

There were 125 responses to the proposals for this scheme; 50 (40 per cent), supported or partially supported the proposals: 67 (53 per cent) said they did not support or were unsure, and eight (seven per cent) had no opinion.

Of those 125 responses, 116 (93 per cent) were sent by members of the public and nine (seven per cent) by designated stakeholder groups. 78 respondents provided comments. Quietway Q7 | London Borough of Lambeth – West Dulwich area – Five schemes 50

Park Hall Road/Rosendale Road – How Lambeth Council plans to proceed

Lambeth Council has given careful consideration to all respondent’s comments ahead of finalising any design proposals.

In light of the comments raised, the borough has decided to review the proposed design proposals at the Park Hall Road / Rosendale Road junction. The review will be based on a further appraisal of the design considerations and an assessment of the traffic modelling impacts associated with the proposed changes.

Tritton Road/Rosendale Road

There were 115 responses to the proposals for this scheme; 37 (32 per cent), supported or partially supported the proposals: 52 (45 per cent) said they did not support or were unsure of the proposals, and 26 (23 per cent) had no opinion.

Of those 115 responses, 107 (93 per cent) were sent by members of the public and eight (seven per cent) by designated stakeholder groups. 49 respondents provided comments.

Tritton Road/Rosendale Road – How Lambeth Council plans to proceed

Lambeth Council has given careful consideration to all respondents’ comments ahead of finalising any design proposals.

Quietway Q7 | London Borough of Lambeth – West Dulwich area – Five schemes 51

Appendix A – Turney Road Responses to issues raised a. Support and opposition

30 respondents were opposed to the proposals at Turney Road/Rosendale Road and 11 comments were supportive of the scheme. Two respondents offered no strong support or opposition for the scheme.

Lambeth Council welcomes the support for the development of these routes and strives to provide a better environment for all road users. In addition Lambeth Council has noted that the proposals may not be popular with all stakeholders, but will be considering all commonly raised issues to ensure finals designs consider all road users.

The Quietways programme, of which Turney Road forms a section of one Quietways route, is being developed in accordance with the Mayor’s Vision for Cycling. The Mayor’s vision is that cycling in London will become an integral part of the transport network. It should be a normal part of everyday life, something people hardly think about and feel comfortable doing in ordinary clothes.

Quietways are identified as an important part of this vision and this route has been prioritised as one of the first seven routes to be delivered in London. The Quietways programme is also part of Lambeth Council’s aspiration to become the friendliest cycling borough in London. b. Parking

Of the 39 respondents that left comments regarding the proposals to reduce parking on the northern side of Turney Road, 33 respondents expressed concerns for various reasons.

Lambeth Council has given careful consideration to all respondents’ comments ahead of finalising any design proposals. In light of residents and local stakeholders’ concerns regarding the proposed car parking removal on the northern side of Turney Road Lambeth Council has decided to exclude this design element from the scheme. However, a net loss of approximately 11 car parking spaces will need to take place to accommodate the implementation of two x new zebra crossings to create a better environment for walkers and cyclists.

Lambeth Council has also commissioned a parking survey for Turney Road and the surrounding roads to assess the potential impact of the proposals. The survey was carried out on Wednesday 24, Thursday 25 and Saturday 27 February 2016 between 06:00 to 08:00, 09:30 to14:00 and 15:15 to 21:00 in 15-minute beats. Data was collected on Turney Road, Rosendale Road (Peabody Estate to All Saints’ Church), Dalkeith Road and Lovelace Road (Rosendale Road to 11 Lovelace Road).

Quietway Q7 | London Borough of Lambeth – West Dulwich area – Five schemes 52

In summary:

 Parking on Turney Road is busiest between 07:45 and 18:30 (Average 88% occupancy) on weekdays suggesting that occupancy is predominately commuters and teachers working at Rosendale Primary School  There is spare parking capacity to accommodate the reduction in car parking within a five-minute walk of Turney Road, on the east side of Rosendale Road and Lovelace Road. c. Scheme design/road layout

26 respondents made various concerns and suggestions regarding scheme design/road layout.

Lambeth Council acknowledges the concerns of respondents regarding the allotment access and the detail and practicalities of this area will be further investigated at the detailed design stage. The cycle bypass is three metres wide and would provide an adequate space for the requirements that have been highlighted. Key to this would be the placement of access controls such as bollards/planters to enable a vehicle to pull up to the allotment access from the south, then either reverse out or alternatively demountable bollards would allow it to proceed forwards. Lambeth Council is confident that suitable access arrangements can be achieved at the detailed design stage.

Lambeth Council notes the concerns of respondents regarding the Turney Road/Rosendale Road junction and consider that the proposed designs reflect the needs of all road users. Extensive traffic calming is being proposed to reduce vehicle speeds through the implementation of traffic humps, road narrowing and raised zebra crossings. Swept path analysis has been carried out to make sure all vehicles can use the junction. In addition the proposed designs will allow cyclists to stay in the same position through the junction.

Lambeth Council notes the concerns of respondents around the implementation of shared pedestrian and cycle space between Turney Road and Rosendale Road. Shared space is commonly used to ensure a safe crossing for walkers and cyclists. Lambeth Council believes that at this location implementing a shared space area is appropriate. In addition Lambeth Council has noted the importance of providing clear way finding and delineation to encourage cyclists to use the shared space responsibly.

Lambeth Council notes the concerns of respondents about the existing layout of the Croxted Road/Turney Road junction. This will be looked at again in the detailed design phase to ensure unacceptable conflict points are alleviated. As this road is jointly managed by Lambeth and Southwark Council’s, both councils will look to work together with TfL to consider implementing early release signals to allow cyclists a

Quietway Q7 | London Borough of Lambeth – West Dulwich area – Five schemes 53

head start on the green phase of the signal cycle as well as other solutions to make the junction safer for all road users.

Lambeth Council recognises the alternative suggestions raised and advises respondents to view the community engagement report carried out by Sustrans which details what was discussed to make Rosendale Road safer for all users.

https://www.lambeth.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Rosendale-Road-Quietway-7- Community-Engagement-Report_0.pdf

d. Safety

17 respondents made various remarks regarding safety.

Lambeth Council welcome and notes all the safety concerns provided in the consultation. A number of comments were made regarding vehicles encroaching on the advisory cycle lanes. The borough’s preference would be for segregating cyclists on this section but there is insufficient road width to do so. However, removing car parking on the northern side of Turney Road allows enough space to implement advisory lanes on both sides of the carriageway.

The removal of the centre line is proposed as a result of research conducted by Transport for London in August 2014 which concluded that vehicle speeds decreased upon the removal of centre lines. The research document can be read below:

http://content.tfl.gov.uk/centre-line-removal-trial.pdf

In addition the centre line removal allows a cyclist to be in either primary or secondary position in the same space and without changing their position on the road as general traffic is required to adjust its position depending on traffic conditions. Where the road ahead is clear and there are no oncoming vehicles a position can be taken to the right of the outer advisory lane marking so that the car is in the middle of the road clear of the advisory cycle lanes on either side of the road, a cyclist would then be in secondary position. If there are oncoming vehicles general traffic may straddle the advisory lane on their nearside in order to pass an oncoming vehicle which would be in the same position on the other side of the road. This vehicle would be behind any cyclist who is in the advisory lane and unable to pass, therefore this cyclist would be in primary position.

The nature and consistency of the traffic calming measures on Rosendale and Turney Roads tend to re-enforce this change in behaviour and priority.

One comment highlighted a pedestrian risk related to the removal of guard railing. The Quietway route will be designed in accordance with the London Cycle Design Standards which includes decluttering where appropriate to provide a, ‘balanced’ street that has minimised visual clutter and obstacles uses good quality durable Quietway Q7 | London Borough of Lambeth – West Dulwich area – Five schemes 54

materials and, encourages a degree of negotiation between different road users as they make their way through it. Additionally, the removal of guard railing here is in locations where pedestrian crossings and build-outs are proposed e. Zebra crossings

A number of respondents were supportive of proposals for new zebra crossing which Lambeth Council welcomes. The exact location of the crossings will be determined at in the detailed design phase.

f. Traffic

Seven respondents made various remarks regarding traffic, four of which were regarding unsuitably high traffic flows.

Lambeth Council understands the comments made regarding existing high traffic flows and speeds. As stated previously extensive traffic calming measures are being proposed to reduce vehicle speeds as well as introducing extra space to implement advisory cycle lanes which will allow enough more space for all road users and may, in the long term, reduce traffic flows as cycling becomes a more attractive mode of transport. g. Alternative route suggestions

Four respondents made alternative route suggestions for the Quietway. This included three suggestions to route the Quietway on College Road, and one suggestion to route the Quietway along the northern section of Rosendale Road

TfL looked at using Dulwich Village/College Road, but it emerged that it may be difficult to implement the improvements in the time scale required for the delivery of the Quietway in this location, due to its conservation area. In addition, Turney Road and Rosendale Road are seen to connect more households with the Quietway than Dulwich Village and College Road would.

Quietway Q7 | London Borough of Lambeth – West Dulwich area – Five schemes 55

Turney Road Revised Design (1 of 2)

Quietway Q7 | London Borough of Lambeth – West Dulwich area – Five schemes 56

Turney Road Revised Design (2 of 2)

Quietway Q7 | London Borough of Lambeth – West Dulwich area – Five schemes 57

Appendix B – Lovelace Road, Responses to issues raised a. Support and opposition

27 respondents’ comments were opposed to the proposals at Rosendale Road/Lovelace Road and 12 comments were supportive of the proposed scheme.

Lambeth Council notes that the proposals will not be popular with all stakeholders but will be considering all commonly raised issues to ensure the finals designs satisfy all road users. In addition Lambeth council welcomes the support for the development of these routes and strives to provide a better environment for all road users.

The Quietways programme, of which Rosendale Road forms a section of one Quietways route, is being developed in accordance with the Mayor’s Vision for Cycling. The Mayor’s vision is that cycling in London will become an integral part of the transport network. It should be a normal part of everyday life, something people hardly think about and feel comfortable doing in ordinary clothes.

18 respondents made various remarks regarding the proposed zebra crossing.

Lambeth Council welcomes feedback on proposals for this Quietway and all comments will be considered during the detailed design phase.

Four respondents expressed concern that there were an insufficient number of pedestrians to implement a zebra crossing outside All Saints Church. Lambeth Council received substantial support for a zebra crossing at this location during the community engagement programme and the crossing also acts as a form of traffic calming. This is in response to traffic speed surveys carried out which indicates that vehicles regularly exceed the 20mph speed limit. c. Safety

17 respondents expressed various concerns regarding safety at this section.

Seven comments were made regarding concerns over cars encroaching on cyclists using the advisory lanes. Quietways are designed in accordance with the London Cycle Design Standards (LCDS) and advisory lanes are recommended where carriageway widths have insufficient widths to implement mandatory or separated

Quietway Q7 | London Borough of Lambeth – West Dulwich area – Five schemes 58

lanes. Please note that other traffic can legally enter the cycle lanes. In this case the advisory cycle lanes highlight the presence of cyclists on the carriageway.

Three comments expressed concern regarding the footway build outs on the western side of Rosendale Road. These proposals are designed to protect cyclists moving from kerbside into secondary position (floating to side of parked cars in advisory lane). The floating island will also act as a form of traffic calming as well as providing extra pedestrian provision. This proposal is supported by the LCDS as well as stakeholder aspirations to reduce traffic speeds along Rosendale Road. Lambeth Council will be looking at the proposals again in the detailed design phase to ensure the needs of all road users are met. d. Scheme design/road layout

17 respondents made various concerns or suggestions regarding scheme design/road layout.

Lambeth Council does not believe that narrowing Lovelace Road will increase congestion as no vehicle capacity is being taken away from either Rosendale Road or Lovelace Road. Narrowing junctions is a commonly used measure to reduce traffic speeds entering and exiting junctions to increase safety for all road users. This is also supported by the LCDS.

Lambeth Council notes that two comments were raised expressing concern that the proposed speed humps are unsuitable for cyclists. The borough wishes to clarify that the proposed humps are cycle friendly with an easier gradient and sinusoidal profile. The existing traffic cushions present an unsafe environment for cyclists.

https://www.lambeth.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Rosendale-Road-Quietway- 7-Community-Engagement-Report_0.pdf

Quietway Q7 | London Borough of Lambeth – West Dulwich area – Five schemes 59

e. Parking

12 respondents raised a number of concerns and suggestions regarding parking.

Four comments were made regarding a ‘dooring’ risk for cyclists from parked cars. The proposal includes a 0.5m buffer between the advisory cycle lane and adjacent parked cars to alleviate this issue.

Four comments were made regarding concerns over reduction in parking; however there is an overall net loss of approximately 3 car parking spaces at this location. Lambeth Council maintains aspirations to look at areas in the borough suitable for restricted parking zones and welcomes any feedback.

Three comments suggested removing or restricting parking from one side of Rosendale Road. Lambeth Council looked at all options to create more space for road users but removing parking on the east side was deemed as unviable considering the car parking reduction proposals on Turney Road. The layout of the junction and its impact on parking will be looked at again in the detailed design phase with the aforementioned comments in mind. f. Traffic

Three comments raised concerns regarding traffic.

Lambeth Council notes the concerns regarding high traffic speeds and flows. Overall, the proposals for West Dulwich are providing three extra raised crossings to reduce vehicle speeds and provide additional pedestrian facilities. Lambeth Council recognises that traffic flows are high and will continue to look at ways to make borough roads safer for all. Quietways are intended to attract new cyclists, some of which may be car drivers seeking quicker, cheaper and healthier way of travelling around the borough as well as London. The borough is confident that the proposals will not increase congestion in the area. g. Alternative route suggestions

Five respondents made alternative route suggestions for the Quietway.

TfL looked at using Dulwich Village/College Road/Alleyn Park, but it emerged that it may be difficult to implement the improvements in the time scale required for the delivery of the Quietway in this location, due to its conservation area. In addition, Turney Road and Rosendale Road are seen to connect more households with the Quietway than Dulwich Village and College Road would.

Quietway Q7 | London Borough of Lambeth – West Dulwich area – Five schemes 60

Appendix C – Rosendale Shops, Responses to issues raised

a. Proposed zebra crossing

27 respondents were supportive of the addition of a zebra crossing outside Rosendale Road Shops.

Lambeth Council welcomes support for the implementation of a raised zebra crossing outside Rosendale Road Shops. There was significant demand for extra pedestrian provision outside the shops from the workshops carried out in 2015. Lambeth Council will look at the positioning of the zebra crossing again in the detailed design phase to ensure consultation respondents’ comments are considered.

b. Parking

33 respondents raised various concerns regarding parking outside of the shops on Rosendale Road.

The loss of parking is required to facilitate the proposed raised zebra crossing as well as the footway extensions at Eastmearn Road, Idmiston Road and Carson Road. The net loss of parking is anticipated to be in the region of 14 spaces. As stated previously, extra pedestrian provision was a commonly raised issue during the community engagement workshops. Quietways are intended to benefit pedestrians as well as cyclists to encourage more people to travel by bike or foot.

A number of comments were made requesting time restrictions for the proposed formalised parking/loading bays. Lambeth Council notes these suggestions and will be considering them all in the detailed design phase. One comment raised concerns that the proposed parking/loading bay would not be wide enough for larger vehicles. Parking bays will be made wide enough for goods vehicles to load/ unload at Rosendale shops, this may require minor kerb re-alignment. It is proposed that parking in this location is on a pad at footway level so that when not occupied by vehicles it forms a continuous surface with the footway. It will be surfaced in a contrasting colour and material and delineated by street furniture.

Five comments were made regarding a ‘dooring’ risk for cyclists from parked cars. The proposals include a 0.5m buffer between the advisory cycle lane and adjacent parked cars to alleviate this issue.

c. Support and opposition

20 respondents were opposed to the proposals and 11 comments were supportive of the scheme.

Quietway Q7 | London Borough of Lambeth – West Dulwich area – Five schemes 61

Lambeth Council notes that the proposals will not be popular with all stakeholders but will be considering all commonly raised issues to ensure the finals designs reflect the needs of all road users. In addition, Lambeth Council welcomes the support for the development of these routes and strives to provide a better environment for all road users.

The Quietways programme, of which Rosendale shops forms a section of one Quietways route, is being developed in accordance with the Mayor’s Vision for Cycling. The Mayor’s vision is that cycling in London will become an integral part of the transport network. It should be a normal part of everyday life, something people hardly think about and feel comfortable doing in ordinary clothes.

26 respondents made various comments regarding scheme design/road layout

Nine comments were concerned that Rosendale Road is too narrow to safely accommodate both vehicles and cyclists. The positioning of advisory lanes on Rosendale Road is such that a cyclist may be in either primary (in front of vehicle/s) or secondary position (beside vehicle/s) in the same space and without changing their position on the road. General traffic is required to adjust its position depending on traffic conditions. Additionally it is worth noting that options for fully segregated, light segregated, two way tracks were investigated, however the layout of the road was not conducive to these due to uncontrolled parking, private driveways, and existing mature trees.

Where the road ahead is clear and there are no oncoming vehicles a position can be taken to the right of the outer advisory lane marking so that the car is in the middle of the road clear of the advisory cycle lanes on either side of the road, a cyclist would then be in secondary position. If there are oncoming vehicles general traffic may straddle the advisory lane on their nearside in order to pass an oncoming vehicle which would be in the same position on the other side of the road. This vehicle would be behind any cyclist who is in the advisory lane and unable to pass, therefore this cyclist would be in primary position.

Lambeth Council notes the objections to the implementation of an informal crossing in the proposals. However, the informal crossing also acts as a form of traffic calming and as such deems this intervention appropriate. It also provides an additional opportunity for pedestrians to cross Rosendale Road as the section between Thurlow Park Road and The Rosendale Shops is particularly long and no crossing points are provided in this section.

Quietway Q7 | London Borough of Lambeth – West Dulwich area – Five schemes 62

Three respondents expressed concern that the reduction in junction width on a number of roads would lead to increased congestion. Lambeth Council is confident that increased congestion will not occur as vehicular access is maintained. Road narrowing at junctions is a commonly used measure to reduce traffic speeds entering and exiting junctions to increase safety for all road users. This is supported by the London Cycle Design Standards (LCDS).

Three comments suggested more streetscape improvements. Lambeth Council support such measures and will be looking at ways to enhance the area outside the shops in the detailed design phase.

Lambeth Council recognises the comments requesting a reduction in traffic flows and would advise respondents to read the community engagement report carried out by Sustrans which details what was looked at and the conclusions drawn to reduce traffic flows to make the Quietway safer for cyclists.

http://content.tfl.gov.uk/centre-line-removal-trial.pdf e. Safety

22 comments raised various safety concerns.

11 comments were made regarding concerns over cars encroaching on cyclists using the advisory lanes. Quietways are designed in accordance with the London Cycle Design Standards (LCDS) and advisory lanes are recommended where carriageway widths have insufficient widths to implement mandatory or separated lanes. Please note that other traffic can legally enter the cycle lanes. In this case the advisory cycle lanes highlight the presence of cyclists on the carriage way.

http://content.tfl.gov.uk/centre-line-removal-trial.pdf

Quietway Q7 | London Borough of Lambeth – West Dulwich area – Five schemes 63

f. Traffic

Eight respondents raised various concerns regarding traffic.

Lambeth Council understands the comments raised regarding existing high traffic flows and speeds. As stated previously, extensive traffic calming measures are being proposed to reduce vehicle speeds. Five comments were made expressing concerns that the proposals would displace traffic onto neighbouring roads. The borough is confident that the proposals will not have a significant impact on traffic levels on adjoining roads, but will be undertaking traffic counts in January 2017 to further explore this issue. The junction treatments are also intended to make diversion onto side roads more difficult as they slow and control vehicle movements.

Lambeth Council advises respondents to view the community engagement report carried out by Sustrans which details what was discussed to make Rosendale Road safer for all users.

https://www.lambeth.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Rosendale-Road-Quietway- 7-Community-Engagement-Report_0.pdf

g. Alternative route suggestions

Three respondents made alternative route suggestions for the Quietway.

TfL looked at using College Road but it emerged that it may be difficult to implement the improvements in the time scale required for the delivery of the Quietway in this location, due to its conservation area status. In addition, Turney Road and Rosendale Road is seen to connect more households with the Quietway than Dulwich Village and College Road would.

Quietway Q7 | London Borough of Lambeth – West Dulwich area – Five schemes 64

Appendix D – Park Hall Road, Responses to issues raised

a. Priority junction

28 respondents raised various concerns regarding the proposals for a priority junction.

A number of comments were made regarding concerns over increased congestion on Park Hall Road as a result of removing the existing roundabout. Lambeth Council will be carrying out extra analysis including modelling and traffic surveys as part of the detailed design phase to ensure all road users are considered. Three comments suggested that the proposals would remove the ability for left and right turning traffic to wait in separate queues. However, the existing road layout does not provide enough width for traffic to wait in separate lanes so the proposals will not affect such concerns.

Four comments were raised regarding concerns over the proposals reducing the amount of space for buses to manoeuvre. Lambeth Council carried out swept path analysis during the preliminary design phase to ensure that buses can use the junction. Further swept path analysis will be carried out at detailed design to ensure bus manoeuvres are possible and safe. Three comments were made regarding potential pinch points created as a result of the proposals. However Lambeth Council is confident that the proposed layout will not create such a scenario. Existing pinch point conflicts have been eliminated by re-designing crossing points at this junction on Park Hall Road and Rosendale Road.

In addition, Lambeth Council will undertake traffic modelling at this junction to better determine any issues associated with traffic displacement The borough will also look at the alternative suggestions raised by respondents, including implementing traffic lights and providing a safe left hand turn for cyclists, in the detailed design phase.

b. Support and opposition

19 respondents were opposed to the proposals and six comments in particular stated that the current road layout works well. Eight comments were supportive of the proposed scheme.

Lambeth council welcomes the support for the development of these routes and strives to provide a better environment for all road users. In addition Lambeth Council notes that the proposals will not be popular with all stakeholders but will be considering all commonly raised issues to ensure the finals designs satisfy all road users.

Quietway Q7 | London Borough of Lambeth – West Dulwich area – Five schemes 65

The Quietways programme, of which Park Hall Road Junction forms a section of one Quietways route, is being developed in accordance with the Mayor’s Vision for Cycling. The Mayor’s vision is that cycling in London will become an integral part of the transport network. It should be a normal part of everyday life, something people hardly think about and feel comfortable doing in ordinary clothes.

23 respondents raised various concerns regarding pedestrian crossings

Lambeth Council notes the concerns raised regarding the positioning of the proposed zebra crossing on the southern side of the junction. A large number of vehicles in the am peak hour enter Rosendale Road northbound from Park Hall Road. Positioning the crossing to the south side of the junction opposed to the northern side will create gaps in the traffic when vehicles on Rosedale Road are waiting for pedestrians to cross. These gaps can be used as additional opportunities for vehicles to turn from Park Hall Road onto Rosendale Road and proceed north. However, Lambeth Council will further consider the operation of this junction at the detailed design stage.

Five comments were raised regarding concerns over the loss of pedestrian refuges posing a safety risk. While the pedestrian refuges have been removed the overall crossing distances have been reduced. The borough acknowledges these comments and will be considering this feedback in the detailed design phase.

a. Scheme design/road layout

Eight respondents made various concerns regarding scheme design/road layout.

Three comments were raised suggesting reducing traffic flows on Rosendale Road. Lambeth Council notes these comments and would advise respondents to read the community engagement report carried out by Sustrans which details the options that have been considered and the conclusions drawn to reduce traffic flows to make the Quietway safer for cyclists.

Quietway Q7 | London Borough of Lambeth – West Dulwich area – Five schemes 66

http://content.tfl.gov.uk/centre-line-removal-trial.pdf

Lambeth Council notes the comment suggesting implementing cycle parking outside the Rosendale Tavern. The borough supports the provision of bike parking space where appropriate and will be incorporating this suggestion into the detailed design process. d. Safety

Nine comments raised various safety concerns.

Lambeth Council notes that three comments were made regarding concerns over cars encroaching on cyclists using the advisory lanes. Quietways are designed in accordance with Transport for London’s London Cycle Design Standards (LCDS) and advisory lanes are recommended where carriageway widths have insufficient widths to implement mandatory or separated lanes. Please note that other traffic can legally enter the cycle lanes. In this case the advisory cycle lanes highlight the presence of cyclists on the carriage way.

The positioning of advisory lanes on Rosendale Road is such that a cyclist may be in either primary (in front of vehicle/s) or secondary position (beside vehicle/s) in the same space and without changing their position on the road. General traffic is required to adjust its position depending on traffic conditions. Where the road ahead is clear and there are no oncoming vehicles a position can be taken to the right of the outer advisory lane marking so that the car is in the middle of the road clear of the advisory cycle lanes on either side of the road, a cyclist would then be in secondary position. If there are oncoming vehicles general traffic may straddle the advisory lane on their nearside in order to pass an oncoming vehicle which would be in the same position on the other side of the road. This vehicle would be behind any cyclist who is in the advisory lane and unable to pass, therefore this cyclist would be in primary position.

Two comments were raised regarding an increased safety risk as a result of the proposals. Lambeth Council is confident that the proposals will make the junction safer for all road users by providing extra pedestrian space, a new zebra crossing and traffic calming measures.

Two comments suggested implementing segregated cycle lanes as part of the proposals. It is worth noting that options for fully segregated, light segregated, two way tracks were investigated, however the layout of the road was not conducive to these due to uncontrolled parking, private driveways, and existing mature trees.

Quietway Q7 | London Borough of Lambeth – West Dulwich area – Five schemes 67

f. Alternative route suggestions

Four respondents made alternative route suggestions for the Quietway. This included three suggestions to route the Quietway on College Road.

TfL looked at using College Road but it emerged that it may be difficult to implement the improvements in the time scale required for the delivery of the Quietway in this location, due to its conservation area. In addition, Turney Road and Rosendale Road is seen to connect more households with the Quietway than College Road would. g. Borough wide concern

One comment suggested that the southern end of Rosendale Road required improvements.

Lambeth Council is providing extra traffic calming along this section as well as advisory cycle lanes to mark the presence of cyclists on the carriageway. The borough notes the requests for streetscape improvements.

Quietway Q7 | London Borough of Lambeth – West Dulwich area – Five schemes 68

Appendix E – Tritton Road, Responses to issues raised

a. Scheme design/road layout

18 respondents raised various concerns regarding scheme design/road layout.

A number of respondents were concerned about the proposed pavement widening for this section of the Quietway highlighting fears over increased congestion, increased conflict between cyclists and vehicles, dangerous road widths and dissatisfaction with the relocated pedestrian island.

Lambeth Council welcomes feedback on the proposals and will be considering all comments during the detailed design phase. The borough, however, is confident that none of the proposals will lead to increased congestion as no vehicle capacity reduction is being proposed. In addition the pavement widening proposals act as a traffic calming measure by slowing down traffic turning in and out of Rosendale Road/Clive Road/Tritton Road making it safer for cyclists and providing extra space for pedestrians. The road widths on all proposals throughout the Quietways programme are in accordance with the London Cycle Design Standards.

Analysis was also carried out to ensure wider vehicles and buses can still pass through this section.

Three comments were made raising concerns that the junction does not give priority to the Quietway. Lambeth Council has proposed a priority change as the predominant vehicle movement is along the Quietway alignment. In facilitating this movement for the Quietway it would have meant also facilitating it for general traffic would potentially leads to a reduced level of service for people cycling and walking. Therefore, the priority has been to focus on calming traffic whilst providing space with good visibility for northbound cyclists.

http://content.tfl.gov.uk/centre-line-removal-trial.pdf

Two comments suggested implementing segregated cycle lanes as part of the proposals. Lambeth Council can confirm that this was looked at in the preliminary design stage and not carried forward due to insufficient width on Rosendale Road to accommodate cyclists travelling northbound and southbound.

https://www.lambeth.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Rosendale-Road- Quietway-7-Community-Engagement-Report_0.pdf

The borough also notes the request for additional cycle parking and a pelican crossing outside Elmwood Primary School and will explore the feasibility of such proposals in the detailed design process. b. Support and opposition

13 respondents were opposed to the proposed scheme and four comments were supportive of the scheme.

Lambeth Council welcomes the support for the development of these routes and strives to provide a better environment for all road users. In addition Lambeth Council notes that the proposals will not be popular with all stakeholders but will be considering all commonly raised issues to ensure the finals designs satisfy all road users.

Eight respondents made various concerns regarding parking.

Four comments were made regarding a ‘dooring’ risk for cyclists from parked cars. Cycle symbol logos will be placed on the carriageway to encourage cyclists to position themselves away from car doors in primary position. Additionally these symbols will increase awareness of people exiting parked vehicles to the potential presence of cyclists.

Six comments were made regarding concerns over a reduction in parking. This will be limited (in the region of 1 – 2 spaces) and is required to treat the entry/exit points to Rosendale/Clive/Tritton Road to reduce traffic speeds and make it a safer environment for all road users. d. Speed humps

Five respondents raised various concerns regarding speed humps.

Quietway Q7 | London Borough of Lambeth – West Dulwich area – Five schemes 70

Lambeth Council notes the comments made regarding speed humps, including unsuitability for all road users, comfort, and waste of resources. The borough wishes to clarify that the proposed humps are cycle friendly, as well as emergency vehicle friendly, as they have an easier gradient and sinusoidal profile. The existing traffic cushions present an unsafe environment for cyclists as it encourages cars to swerve to get around the cushions. e. Traffic

Three respondents raised concerns regarding traffic.

Lambeth Council notes the comments made regarding high traffic flows. Lambeth Council advises respondents to read the community engagement report carried out by Sustrans which details what was looked at and the conclusions drawn to reduce traffic flows to make the Quietway safer for cyclists f. Alternative route suggestions

Four comments provided alternative route suggestions for the Quietway in their response to the scheme.

TfL looked at using Dulwich Village/College Road/Alleyn Park and Denmark Hill but it emerged that it may be difficult to implement the improvements in the timescale required for the delivery of the Quietway in these locations, due to its conservation area (Dulwich). In addition Rosendale Road connects more households with the Quietway than the alternative suggestions. g. Borough-wide concerns

Four comments made borough wide concerns in their response to the scheme.

Lambeth Council notes the comments raised regarding borough wide concerns. Two comments were made regarding existing traffic and road safety issues on Vale Street. This is outside of the remit of this consultation but will be passed onto the relevant party for consideration.

One comment suggested that the southern end of Rosendale Road required improvements. Lambeth Council is providing extra traffic calming along this section as well as advisory cycle lanes to mark the presence of cyclists on the carriageway. The borough notes the requests for streetscape improvements but cannot be delivered within the remit of Quietways. Lambeth Council notes the suggestion of making Hamilton Road one-way between Gipsy Road and Clive Road.

Quietway Q7 | London Borough of Lambeth – West Dulwich area – Five schemes 71

Appendix F – Consultation letter and design

West Dulwich area letter

Quietway Q7 | London Borough of Lambeth – West Dulwich area – Five schemes 72

Quietway Q7 | London Borough of Lambeth – West Dulwich area – Five schemes 73

Turney Road location (original design as launched in the consultation)

Quietway Q7 | London Borough of Lambeth – West Dulwich area – Five schemes 74

Lovelace Road/Rosendale Road location design

Quietway Q7 | London Borough of Lambeth – West Dulwich area – Five schemes 75

Rosendale Shops location design

Quietway Q7 | London Borough of Lambeth – West Dulwich area – Five schemes 76

Park Hall Road/Rosendale Road location design

Quietway Q7 | London Borough of Lambeth – West Dulwich area – Five schemes 77

Tritton Road location design

Quietway Q7 | London Borough of Lambeth – West Dulwich area – Five schemes 78

Appendix G – Letter distribution area 4,207 addresses West Dulwich area

Quietway Q7 | London Borough of Lambeth – West Dulwich area – Five schemes 79

Appendix H – List of 298 stakeholder groups consulted AA Motoring Trust Campaign for Clean Air in London Abellio West London Ltd Canal River Trust Action for Blind People Carousel Buses Ltd Action on Hearing Loss (Formerly RNID) Carson Road Addison Lee CBI Age Concern London CBI-London Age UK CCG Wandsworth Age UK London Centaur Overland Travel Ltd, Alive in Space Landscape and Urban Central London Cab Trade Section Design Studio All Party Parliamentary Cycling Group Central London Connexions All Saints Church Central London CTC Alzheimer's Society Central London Forward Alzheimer’s UK Central London Forward (City of London) Central London Freight Quality Anderson Travel Ltd Partnership Angel AIM Central London NHS Trust Asian Peoples Disabilities Alliance Centre for Accessible Environments Association of Bikeability Schemes Centre for Cities Association of British Drivers Chalkwell Garage & Coach Hire Ltd, Chartered Institute of Logistics and Association of Car Fleet Operators Transport Chartered Institution of Highways & Association of Disabled Professionals Transportation (CIHT) Association of Town Centre Management Chauffeur and Executive Association Best Bike Training/Cycletastic City Hall Better Transport City of London bikeworks City of London Access Forum bikeXcite City Year London Civil Engineering Contractors Association Blue Triangle Buses Ltd, (CECA) Borough Cycling Officers Group (BCOG) Cobra Corporate Services Ltd, Brewery Logistics Group Community Transport Association British Cycling Computer Cab British Dyslexia Association Confederation of British Industry (CBI) British Land Confederation of Passenger Transport UK British Medical Association Cross River Partnership British Motorcyclists' Federation Crossrail Ltd British Retail Association CTC ‘Right to Ride’ Network British School of Cycling CTC, the National Cycling Charity BT Cycle Confidence Buzzlines Cycle Experience CABE - Design Council Cycle Training UK (CTUK)

Quietway Q7 | London Borough of Lambeth – West Dulwich area – Five schemes 80

Cycling Embassy of Great Britain Gordon Telling Cycling Instructor Ltd Greater London Authority (GLA) Cycling Tuition Greater London Forum for Older People cycling4all Greater London Forum for the Elderly Cyclists in the City Green Flag Group Department for Transport Green Urban Transport Ltd, Department for Transport (Director General, Roads and General) Guide Dogs Guide Dogs for the Blind - Inner London Department of Transport District team DHL Health Poverty Action Dial-a-Cab Herne Hill Forum Disability Alliance Herne Hill Society Disability Rights UK House of Commons Disabled Motoring UK HS2 Ltd Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee ICE Dulwich Society ICE -London Dulwich Young Cyclists Inclusion London E Clarke & Son (Coaches) Ltd, t/a Independent Disability Advisory Group Clarkes of London, (IDAG) East and South East London Thames Gateway Transport Partnership Institute for Sustainability Eastmearn Road Institute of Advanced Motorists Elmwood Primary School Institution of Civil Engineers J Brierley & E Barvela t/a Snowdrop Elmworth Estate Coaches Jeremy Reese t/a The Little Bus English Heritage - London Company, Joint Committee on Mobility of Blind and Ensign Bus Company Ltd, Partially Sighted People (JCMBPS) Eurostar Group Joint Mobility Unit King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Evolution Cycle Training Trust Evolution Quarter Residents' Association Lambeth Cycling Campaign Express Networks Forum Lambeth Cyclists Federation of Small Businesses Lambeth Metropolitan Police First Beeline Buses Ltd, Lambeth Safer Transport Team Lambeth Traffic and Transport Working Freight Transport Association (FTA) Group Friends of the Earth Leonard Cheshire Disability Future Inclusion Licenced Private Hire Car Association Gareth Bacon AM Licenced Taxi Drivers Association Licensed Private Hire Car Association Gerhard Weiss (LPHCA) Girlguiding UK Living Streets - Wandsworth GLA Strategy Access Panel members Living Streets Action Group

Quietway Q7 | London Borough of Lambeth – West Dulwich area – Five schemes 81

Living Streets London Metroline Ltd Living Streets Southwark Metropolitan Police Service Local Government Ombudsman MIND London Ambulance Service Mobile Cycle Training Service London Bike Hub Mode Transport London Borough of Lambeth Motorcycle Action Group (MAG) London Borough of Lewisham Motorcycle Industry Association London Borough of Southwark Mullany's Coaches London Borough of Wandsworth Multiple Sclerosis Society London Cab Drivers Club Muscular Dystrophy Campaign London Central Cab Section National Autistic Society London Chamber of Commerce National Children's Bureau London Chamber of Commerce and National Express Ltd Industry (LCCI) London City Airport National Grid London Climate Change Partnership National Motorcycle Council London Councils National Trust London Cycling Campaign (LCC) National Trust - London London Cycling Campaign (Lambeth) NHS London London Cycling Campaign (Southwark) Norwood Action Group London Cycling Campaign (Wandsworth) Ocean Youth Connexions London European Partnership for Olympus Bus & Coach Company t/a Transport Olympian Coaches, London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority On Your Bike Cycle Training London Fire Brigade Parcelforce Worldwide London First Parliamentary Advisory Council for London Mencap Transport Safety (PACTS) London Older People's Strategy Group Passenger Focus London Omnibus Traction Society Planning Design London Parks Friendly Group Port of London Authority London Private Hire Board Premium Coaches Ltd, London Strategic Health Authority Private Hire Board London Suburban Taxi Drivers' Coalition Puzzle Focus Ltd London Taxi Drivers' Club R Hearn t/a Hearn's Coaches, London Tourist Coach Operators Association (LTCOA) RAC Foundation for Motoring London TravelWatch Radio Taxis London Underground Rail Delivery Group (RDG) Rank and Highways Representative for London Visual Impairment Forum (LVIF) Unite London Youth Red Rose Travel Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership Redbridge Cycling Centre MENCAP Redwing Coaches (Pullmanor Ltd), Metrobus Ltd Reliance Travel,

Quietway Q7 | London Borough of Lambeth – West Dulwich area – Five schemes 82

Richard Tracey AM TNT RMT Tower Transit Operations Ltd, Trailblazers, Muscular Dystrophy UK Transport Focus RNIB (Royal National Institute for Blind Transport for All People) Transport for London (TfL) RNID (Royal National Institute for Deaf Transport for London (Contact Centre People) operations Road Danger Reduction Forum Turney Road Residents Association Turney School Road Haulage Association (RHA) Unions Together Roadpeace Rosendale Allotments Unite Rosendale Newsagents University College London Rosendale Pharmacy University Bus Ltd., Rosendale Primary School Uptown Dry Cleaners Rosendale Surgery Urban Movement Royal Institute of British Architects Virtual Norwood Forum Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors Vision Impairment Forum Royal London Society for the Blind Walk London (RLSB) Royal Mail Wandsworth – London Cycling Campaign Royal Mail Parcel Force Wandsworth Mobility Forum Royal Parks Wheels for Wellbeing Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI) Whizz-Kidz Safer Neighbourhood Whytefield SCOPE WigWam Scotch Meats YMCA England Sense Young Minds Sixty Plus South Bank Employers' Group Pre-consultation South Bermondsey Partnership engagement events for South East London PCT West Dulwich South London Business Forum In addition to the 298 South London Partnership stakeholder groups, Lambeth Southwark Cyclists Council emailed to 690 Southwark Safer Transport Team named individuals that had Space Syntax taken part, or who had Stroke Association expressed an interest in the previous five pre-consultation Sustrans engagement events. These Taxi Rank & Interchange Manager ran from September 2015 to Tea West January 2016. Thames Water

Thomas's London Day Schools (Transport) Ltd

Quietway Q7 | London Borough of Lambeth – West Dulwich area – Five schemes 83

Appendix I – Email sent to stakeholders

This email was sent to the stakeholder database on Thursday 11 February 2016.

Dear Stakeholder,

We are working with our partner the London Borough of Lambeth on Quietway 7 – a cycle route between Elephant & Castle and Crystal Palace. The Lambeth Council section of the route runs from Turney Road and finishes at Gipsy Hill, extending to the border with the London Borough of Southwark.

Lambeth Council is currently consulting on proposals to the route in the areas of West Dulwich and Gipsy Hill:

West Dulwich area

Along Rosendale Road from the intersections of Croxted Road to Myton Road, it is proposed to introduce a 1.5m wide advisory cycle lane in both directions. Along the same length of road it is proposed to remove the centre line markings, and replace existing speed cushions with cycle-friendly speed humps to help reduce traffic speeds. Other proposals include replacing existing mini-roundabouts with new raised priority junctions, introducing six new zebra crossings and making some changes to parking and loading.

The six schemes are:

o Turney Road o Rosendale Road/Lovelace Road o Rosendale Road/Thurlow Park Road junction o Rosendale Road shops o Park Hall Road/Rosendale Road junction o Tritton Road/Rosendale Road

Gipsy Hill area

Proposals on the eastern side of Gipsy Hill include a new 2m advisory cycle lane southbound between Oaks Avenue and Dulwich Woods Avenue, and relocating parking to the western side of Gipsy Hill. To calm traffic, wider footways are proposed, and at the junction of Paxton Place it is proposed to introduce a new and upgraded parallel pedestrian/cycle zebra crossings, which would be connected by a new shared-use area with an advisory cycle track.

The three schemes are:

o Clive Road/Hamilton Road o Paxton Place/Gipsy Road o Gipsy Hill

Quietway Q7 | London Borough of Lambeth – West Dulwich area – Five schemes 84

Find out more and have your say

To view both consultations with the proposed changes, and to have your say, please go to the London Borough of Lambeth’s website.

All consultations close on Thursday 17 March 2016.

For details of other borough-led consultations on Quietways and Mini Hollands schemes, please visit consultations.tfl.gov.uk.

Yours faithfully,

Julie Vindis Consultation Team Transport for London

End of consultation report

Quietway Q7 | London Borough of Lambeth – West Dulwich area – Five schemes 85