DOCSLIB.ORG

A23 Coulsdon Bypass Speed Limit Change Consultation Report October 2014

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A23 Coulsdon Bypass Speed Limit Change Consultation Report October 2014 A23 Coulsdon bypass speed limit change Consultation Report October 2014 Contents 1 Introduction.......................................................................................... 2 2 The Consultation................................................................................. 3 3 Responses from members of the public.............................................. 4 4 Responses from stakeholders............................................................. 4 Appendix A – List of stakeholders consulted....................................... 5 Appendix B – Consultation material.................................................... 6 1 1. Introduction We recently invited the public and key stakeholders to comment on our proposals to change the speed limit on Farthing Way, Coulsdon bypass from 30 to 40mph. This report explains the background to our proposal; outlines the consultation undertaken and summarises the responses. The consultation was open for people to comment between 14 March to 4 April 2014. We proposed a change in the maximum speed limit on Farthing Way, Coulsdon by-pass, from 30 to 40mph. The existing 40 mph speed limit will be extended about 600 metres north to a point close to the footbridge across the A23. Raising the speed limit from 30 to 40 mph on this section of the bypass would provide better continuity and consistency. Typical existing traffic speeds are closer to 40 mph than 30 mph throughout Farthing Way. However, the collision record on the by-pass does not indicate a speed related road safety problem. 2 2. The consultation The consultation has been designed to help inform and shape our final decision. We want to understand the communities’ opinions about our proposals for changes to the speed limit on Farthing Way. The potential outcomes of the consultation are: We decide the consultation raises no issues that should prevent us from proceeding with the speed limit changes We modify the scheme in response to issues raised in consultation We abandon the scheme as a result of issues raised in the consultation 2.1 Consultation objectives The objectives of the consultation were: To give stakeholders and the public easy to understand 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 we were not previously aware To understand concerns and objections To allow respondents to make suggestions To help inform our decision making process 2.2 Who we consulted The consultation intended to seek the views of people living or working in the vicinity of Coulsdon We also informed known stakeholders of our consultation. A list of stakeholders contacted is shown in appendix A 2.3 Consultation material, distribution and publicity The consultation was published online. We produced a letter with a map explaining our proposals and distributed this to 202 properties in the immediate area. A copy of the letter is shown in appendix B. 2.4 General response A total of 68 responses were received from members of the public and stakeholders. 3 3. Responses from members of the public We received 65 responses from members of the public. Of these two were against the proposals, with the remainder in favour. 4. Responses from Stakeholders Steve O'Connell, Assembly Member “Have lobbied for some time on behalf of residents who support an increase in the speed limit” Darren Johnson Assembly Member - “I oppose this proposed measure...I take issue with TfL’s rationale for the change as being that ‘typical existing traffic speeds are closer to 40 mph than 30 mph throughout Farthing Way’. If this is the case, the existing 30mph speed limit should have been properly enforced before TfL decided to propose adjusting the speed limit to accommodate speeding motorists. This sends a terrible message of tolerance for those who break the rules on our roads.” Met Police - “The Road should look like the speed limit that is in force and this would be achieved. The is not a history of collisions here and most motorists will be travelling at 40mph” CWRA committee member “This would help avoid the confusion that exists at the moment and so is a good proposal” Old Coulsdon Residents’ Association – “This is long overdue as is the removal of the Bus Lane on a road with no bus services.” East Coulsdon Residents’ Association – “For such a road is it foolish to have a variable speed limit. Is a wide road with no residential properties. 40 MPH is sensible. In addition. Cane Hill will be developing 650+ homes on the site which will disgorge many cars into Coulsdon. There is a need for an exit from the new development onto the by- pass or the area around Coulsdon will become clogged with traffic and will defeat the reason why the By-pass was built to unclog the area.” Riddlesdown Residents’ Association – “It is absolutely ridiculous that this 30mph speed limit was introduced on this section of road in the first place. It is not in a residential area and we understand many people have been fined for speeding here. We also believe it is also more dangerous at 30 mph, because bunching and tailgating of traffic also occurs at this speed. We fully support this proposal to raise it to 40 mph. And whilst you are at it, please remove the ridiculous bus and lorry lane for northbound traffic that is underused, especially as no buses use this road. Tfl also need to look at the traffic light phasing and junction layout for south bound traffic, waiting to turning right at the traffic lights into Brighton Rd (the main Coulsdon town centre) because when more than about 10 vehicles/buses are waiting to turn right (especially at peak times), it causes huge tailbacks into Purley because through traffic (especially lorries) cannot pass through the gap!” 4 Appendix A – List of stakeholders consulted London TravelWatch Elected Members Caroline Pidgeon AM Darren Johnson AM Gareth Bacon AM Jenny Jones AM Murad Qureshi AM Nicky Gavron AM Andrew Boff AM Victoria Borwick AM Tom Copley AM Stephen Knight AM Fiona Twycross AM Steve O’Connell AM Richard Ottaway MP David Osland Coulsdon West Ward Ian Parker Coulsdon West Ward Jeet Bains Coulsdon West Ward Chris Wright Coulsdon East Ward Justin Cromie Coulsdon East Ward Terry Lenton Coulsdon East Ward Local authorities Police and health authorities London Borough of Croydon Metropolitan Police Other Stakeholders East Coulsdon Residents’ Association Coulsdon West Residents’ Association London Cycling Campaign 5 Appendix B - Consultation material 6 7 .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Land at Purley Baptist Church, 1 Russell Hill Road, 1-4 Russell Hill
    Rob Pearson Our ref: APP/L5240/V/17/3174139 Director Your ref: Nexus Planning Ltd Riverside House 2a Southwark Bridge Road London SE1 9HA 9 July 2020 By email only: [email protected] Dear Sir TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 – SECTION 77 APPLICATION MADE BY THORNSETT GROUP AND PURLEY BAPTIST CHURCH LAND AT PURLEY BAPTIST CHURCH, 1 RUSSELL HILL ROAD, 1-4 RUSSELL HILL PARADE, 2-12 BRIGHTON ROAD, PURLEY HALL AND 1-9 BANSTEAD ROAD, PURLEY APPLICATION REF: 16/02994/P 1. I am directed by the Secretary of State to say that consideration has been given to the report of Paul Jackson BArch (Hons) RIBA, who held a public local inquiry between 3 and 6 December 2019 into your client’s full phased application for planning permission for the demolition of existing buildings on two sites; erection of a 3 to 17 storey development on the ‘Island Site’ (Purley Baptist Church, 1 Russell Hill Road, 1-4 Russell Hill Parade, 2-12 Brighton Road), comprising 114 residential units, community and church space and a retail unit; and a 3 to 8 storey development on the ‘South Site’ (1-9 Banstead Road) comprising 106 residential units and any associated landscaping and works, in accordance with application ref: 16/02994/P, dated 20 May 2016. 2. On 12 April 2017, the Secretary of State directed, in pursuance of Section 77 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, that your client’s application be referred to him instead of being dealt with by the local planning authority.
    [Show full text]
  • Polling District and Polling Places Review 2011 Final Report of the Returning Officer
    Appendix A Polling District and Polling Places Review 2011 Final Report of the Returning Officer This report sets out for consideration by the Council the Returning Officer’s arrangements for polling districts and polling places within the London Borough of Croydon. The review has been conducted according to the requirements of the Review of Polling Districts and Polling Places (Parliamentary Elections) Regulations 2006 that came into force on 1 January 2007. The consultation period lasted from 1 September until 23 September 2011. All submissions were considered and appear in this final report. The Polling District Review Task Group, consisting of four members of the Council, considered and reviewed the Returning Officer’s proposals. The methodology followed in producing the proposals was as follows: • That the Returning Officer’s median figure for the initial review of 1,750 projected polling station voters per polling district formed the basis of the recommendations within this report • That, in line with Electoral Commission guidelines, there will no more than 2,500 electors allocated to each polling station • That electors will be distributed equally amongst all polling districts in the Ward, where practicable • That accessibility requirements will be accounted for when allocating polling places • That local disability groups will be consulted as part of the review • Polling district boundaries could be changed but not the Ward boundaries Other considerations: • There are many new developments in the process of being built. Those
    [Show full text]
  • Croydon Council Minutes
    CROYDON COUNCIL MINUTES of the meeting held on Monday 24th March 2014 at 6.30 p.m. in the Council Chamber THE MAYOR, COUNCILLOR YVETTE HOPLEY - PRESIDING. Councillors Arram, Avis, Ayres, Bains, Bashford, Bass, Bonner, Butler, Buttinger, Chatterjee, Chowdhury, Clouder, Collins, Cummings, Fisher, Fitzsimons, Flemming, Gatland, George-Hilley, Godfrey, Gray, Hale, Hall, Harris, Hay-Justice, Hoar, Hollands, Jewitt, Kabir, Kellett, S Khan, B Khan, Kyeremeh, Lawlor, Lenton, Letts, Mansell, Marshall, D Mead, M Mead, Mohan, Neal, Newman, O’Connell, Osland, Parker, Pearson, Perry, H Pollard, T Pollard, Quadir, Rajendran, P Ryan, Selva, Scott, Shahul-Hameed, Slipper, Smith, Speakman, Thomas, Wentworth, Winborn, Woodley and Wright. ABSENT: Councillors Bee, Cromie, Fitze, G Ryan and Watson _____________________________ 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologises were received from Councillors Gerry Ryan and Mark Watson. The Mayor advised Council that Councillor Gerry Ryan was unable to attend the meeting as he was in hospital and he had sent a message of thanks to all Members and officers for the messages of support which were much appreciated. 2. MINUTES RESOLVED that the Minutes of the Council Meeting held on 24th February 2014 be signed as a correct record. RESOLVED that the Minutes of the two Extraordinary Council Meetings both held on 24th February 2014 be signed as a correct record. 3. DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST All Members of the Council confirmed that their interests as listed in their Declaration of Interests Forms were accurate and up-to-date. 4. URGENT BUSINESS None 1C20140324 Mins 5. EXEMPT ITEMS None 6. ANNOUNCEMENTS The Mayor announced that a number of charity events will be held before the election that details were posted on the noticeboard in the Members area and all were welcome to attend.
    [Show full text]
  • Written Evidence Submitted by the Caterham Flood Action Group (FLO0013)
    Written evidence submitted by The Caterham flood Action Group (FLO0013) Introduction We, the Caterham Flood Action Group (FLAG), represent flood victims of Caterham on the Hill, Chaldon and Old Coulsdon, where 121 homes (of the 350 at risk) suffered terribly in the devastating floods of June 2016. We are affiliated to the National Flood Forum (NFF) and hold regular Multi-agency Meetings (MAM) with the Risk Management Authorities (those being, Surrey County Council (SCC - as LLFA), Tandridge District Council (TDC - as LPA), the London Borough of Croydon (LBC - as LLFA & LPA), Thames Water, The Environment Agency and City of London Corporation). Our most recent virtual MAM took place on 24th April ‘20. Our goal to find a long-term solution to this man-made flood risk. Our Catchment falls within steep sided valleys, decades of cumulative overdevelopment, non-maintenance of the surface water drainage infrastructure, no investment/upgrade of the foul drainage infrastructure to suit development, population growth or climate change and failure to manage the flood risk, simply means that when it rains, we’re at risk of foul flooding… in the 21st century and it’s absolutely disgusting. We have participated in many consultations on all things flood related and to be perfectly honest, they are getting rather repetitive. “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results”. The Pitt review came up with the solutions many years ago, why then are we still debating this issue? https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/69489/2012- 01-31-pb13705-pitt-review-progress.pdf And if all but two of the recommendations (92 in total) were taken forward (in 2012), why are we no closer to managing the flood risk in this country? For the record, the Caterham FLAG are participating in the collaborative learning project, commissioned by the Environment Agency, undertaken by Icarus.
    [Show full text]
  • Croydon South Labour Party April 2017
    Introduction Croydon South Constituency Labour Party provides below suggested improvements to the draft recommendations on new local authority ward boundaries as they apply to the Croydon South parliamentary constituency. Proposed alterations are given letters A to L and the locations are also marked for the convenience of the Commission on the overview map of the newly proposed wards and on maps of the predecessor wards that are impacted by changes suggested below. Coulsdon Town/Purley & Woodcote All of that part of Stoats Nest Road (A) that is between the Brighton Road and the Railway Bridge better lies within the Coulsdon Town ward as addresses here are in the postal district of Coulsdon and have a CR5 post code. We feel that the residents here would believe that they live in Coulsdon and not in Kenley nor in Purley. This would mean that all of Stoats Nest Road would be in the same ward. This impacts upon 15 properties and 22 electors. Coulsdon Town/Old Coulsdon To strengthen the connection to the Coulsdon Woods and Hillers Heath Road consideration might be given to including both sides of Petersfield Crescent (B) in Coulsdon Town ward this having an impact on only three properties and six electors. Aldercroft (C) sits much better within Coulsdon Town ward as Aldercroft is a continuation of Deepfield Way with Rutherwick Rise a more clearly delineating boundary between Coulsdon Town and Old Coulsdon. This affects 29 properties and approximately 41 electors. It might well make good sense to include all of Ullswater Crescent (D) in one ward and thus to move the far end of this industrial estate into the Coulsdon Town ward.
    [Show full text]
  • Phil Thomas Page 1 of 5 02/06/2016
    Page 1 of 5 Phil Thomas From: "Chris Philp MP" <[email protected]> Date: 17 May 2016 12:47 To: <[email protected]> Subject: Update from Chris Philp MP on Southern Rail, Coulsdon parking, Purley Re-cycling Centre and other issues Dear All I am continuing to work hard on local and national issues as Croydon South’s MP and this email contains updates on some local issues you may find of interest. I have also held 15 street stalls on Saturday mornings on high streets around the constituency in the past 8 months and met with hundreds of local residents. The first item below is about the appalling service offered by Southern Rail. I am hosting a public meeting with them on 24 th May – please do come along if you can. Please also forward this email to any friends, family and neighbours who may be interested. Southern Rail Public Meeting Southern Rail has been one of the biggest issues facing our neighbourhood for some time. The constant delays have plighted commuters and leisure travellers alike. I have been complaining to Ministers, Southern and Network Rail and it is now time for residents to get a chance to hear from the train companies directly. To this end, I am hosting a public meeting on 24 th May at 7.30pm at Purley United Reform Church (in the hall). This is at 906 Brighton Road, Purley CR8 2LN, next to the hospital. There is no parking on site, so people driving are advised to use the multi-storey or the pay & display hospital car park.
    [Show full text]
  • Routes 404 and 434 Consultation Report
    Proposed changes to routes 404 and 434 Consultation Report November 2019 Contents Executive summary ..................................................................................................... 4 Summary of main issues raised during consultation ................................................ 4 Next steps ................................................................................................................ 4 1. About the proposals ............................................................................................ 6 1.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 6 1.2 Purpose .......................................................................................................... 6 1.3 Detailed description of proposals ................................................................... 7 2. About the consultation ...................................................................................... 11 2.1 Purpose ........................................................................................................ 11 2.2 Potential outcomes ....................................................................................... 11 2.3 Who we consulted ........................................................................................ 11 2.4 Dates and duration ....................................................................................... 12 2.6 What we asked ............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Local Resident Submissions to the London Borough of Croydon Electoral Review
    Local resident submissions to the London Borough of Croydon electoral review This PDF document contains submissions from residents in Croydon. The submissions from have been collated into one document. They have been sorted alphabetically, by surname. (L-Q) Maureen 2 Levy Colin Hart 1 Anthony 1 Harris Graham 1 Bass Simon Hoar 1 Anne Giles 1 Andy 1 Stranack Margaret 1 Bird Mario 2 Creatura Tim Pollard 2 Brian 1 Longman and Phil Thomas Scott Roche 1 Amy Pollard 1 Anthony 2 Pearson Gareth 1 Streeter Graeme 1 Fillmore Jonathan 1 Cope Lara Fish 1 Luke 1 Springthorpe Mark 1 Johnson Samir 1 Dwesar Sylvia 1 Macdonald Sarah Davis 1 Anthony 2 Pearson Alasdair 1 Stewart Badsha 1 Quadir Chris Philp 1 Chris Wright 1 Croydon 1 Conservativ e Group Dudley 1 Mead Fredeic 1 Demay Gavin 1 Barwell Helen 1 Pollard Jason 1 Cummings Lianne 1 Bruney Luke Clancy 1 Lynne Hale 1 Mario 2 Creatura Michael 1 Neal Mike Fisher 1 Richard 1 Chatterjee Robert 1 Sleeman Sara 1 Bashford Simon Brew 1 Sue Bennett 1 Tim Pollard 2 Yvette 1 Hopley Adam 1 O'Neill Adrian 1 Dennis Andrew 1 Frazer Ann Willard 1 Anthony 1 Sandford Catherine 1 Saunders Cheryl Purle 1 Christopher 1 King Croydon 1 South Labour Party David 1 Cantrell Deirdre Lea 1 Dennis King 1 Derek Lea 1 Diane 1 Hearne Elizabeth 1 Agyepong Fenella 1 Cardwell Gisela 1 James Janet 1 Stollery Jill Kilsby 1 Joseph 1 Rowe Kate Liffen 1 London 1 Borough of Croydon Maggie 2 Jackson Maggie 2 Jackson Martin 1 Wheatley Matthew 1 Taylor Michael 1 Bevington Paul Scott 1 Peter 1 Morgan Phil Reed 1 Philippa 1 Toogood Rita Barfoot 1 Sharon 1 Swaby Sheila 1 Childs Thornton 1 Heath Neighbourho od Association and BLP Toby 1 Keynes While consultation deadlines have prevented many of the organisations from making submissions, they have still taken steps to encourage their local members to respond, highlighting the way the draft recommendations run counter to local identities.
    [Show full text]
  • LONDON METROPOLITAN ARCHIVES LONDON LIBERAL PARTY LMA/4445 Page 1 Reference Description Dates MINUTES and PARTY ADMINISTRATION M
    LONDON METROPOLITAN ARCHIVES Page 1 LONDON LIBERAL PARTY LMA/4445 Reference Description Dates MINUTES AND PARTY ADMINISTRATION Minutes LMA/4445/01/01/001 Executive Committee minute book 1966-1978 1 volume LMA/4445/01/01/002 Local Government Committee minute book 1965-1970 1 volume LMA/4445/01/01/003 Local Government Policy Sub Committee 1965-1972 minute book 1 volume LMA/4445/01/01/004 Organisation and Election Committee minute 1965-1972 book 1 volume LMA/4445/01/01/005 Finance and General Purposes Committee 1966-1971 minute book 1 volume LMA/4445/01/01/006 Finance and General Purposes Committee 1971-1977 minute book 1 volume LMA/4445/01/01/007 Council minutes, reports, resolutions and 1978 executive notices 1 file LMA/4445/01/01/008 Boundary Sub Committee minutes and 1981 memoranda 1 file LMA/4445/01/01/009 Constituency Campaign meetings minutes 1975-1981 1 file LMA/4445/01/01/010 National Executive Committee correspondence 1979-1981 and minutes 1 file LMA/4445/01/01/011 Party Council meeting minutes 1980-1983 1 file LMA/4445/01/01/012 Treasury meeting minutes 1981 1 file LONDON METROPOLITAN ARCHIVES Page 2 LONDON LIBERAL PARTY LMA/4445 Reference Description Dates LMA/4445/01/01/013 Party Council minutes, agenda papers, 1982-1984 correspondence LMA/4445/01/01/014 Executive Commitee minutes, agenda papers, 1968-1981 correspondence LMA/4445/01/01/016 Liberal Agents' Association minutes, agenda 1977-1984 papers, correspondence LMA/4445/01/01/017 Various minutes, agenda papers, 1980 correspondence LMA/4445/01/01/018 Executive Committee minutes,
    [Show full text]
  • Submission to the LGBCE: London Borough of Croydon by Chris Philp MP Member of Parliament for Croydon South Friday 28Th April 2017
    Submission to the LGBCE: London Borough of Croydon By Chris Philp MP Member of Parliament for Croydon South Friday 28th April 2017 I am responding to the LGBCE draft proposals for Warding patterns for the London Borough of Croydon published in 14th March 2017. I am writing in my capacity as Member of Parliament for Croydon South. In summary, I think that the LGBCE draft proposals do an excellent job of reflecting the natural communities of Croydon. The draft proposal also adhere strongly to the “Places” of Croydon, as defined by the Council themselves in a previous exercise. I would like to congratulate the LGBCE for the proposals that they have generated. Besides respecting the natural communities and “places” of Croydon, the proposals also respect hard boundaries (such as railway lines) where possible and minimise the splits to natural communities in the Borough. I would also like to emphasise the importance of maintaining Waddon as a three member Ward. It has been in this form since 1977, and has a community coherence as well as historical precedent to it. The more disadvantaged areas of the Waddon estate also benefit from the extra voice being part of a three member ward provides. Waddon as a three member ward is contained within string natural boundaries: the industrial areas to the north-west and west, and the town centre to the north-east. There are some minor modifications which would improve the LGBCE proposals even further, which I have summarised below: 1. Move some roads from Sanderstead to South Croydon The triangle of roads between Carlton Road, Selsdon Road and Essenden Road belong in the new South Croydon Ward not Sanderstead (as proposed).
    [Show full text]
  • Croydon Borough Profile
    Croydon Borough Profile Draft Version August 2009 1 CROYDON BOROUGH PROFILE Contents Introduction ........................................................................ 3 Key Findings ........................................................................ 5 Our People .......................................................................... 7 Population ......................................................................... 7 Age .................................................................................. 9 Ethnicity ......................................................................... 13 Religion and Belief ............................................................ 18 Health ............................................................................ 20 Our Place .......................................................................... 29 LSOA level of deprivation ................................................... 30 LSOA Mosaic Social Classification ........................................ 31 Local Environment ............................................................ 33 Crime and Community Safety ............................................. 34 Our Prosperity ................................................................... 38 Income ........................................................................... 38 Economic Activity ............................................................. 41 Occupational Structure ...................................................... 44 Skills and education .........................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Local Election Results 2006
    Local Election Results 4th May 2006 Andrew Teale Version 0.10.1 August 22, 2010 2 LOCAL ELECTION RESULTS 2006 Typeset by LATEX Compilation and design © Andrew Teale, 2006–2010. The author grants permission to copy and distribute this work in any medium, provided this notice is preserved. This file is available for download from http://www.andrewteale.me.uk/ Please advise the author of any corrections which need to be made by email: [email protected] Contents Introduction and Abbreviations6 I London Boroughs8 1 North London9 1.1 Barking and Dagenham.......................9 1.2 Barnet................................... 11 1.3 Brent.................................. 14 1.4 Camden................................ 17 1.5 Ealing.................................. 20 1.6 Enfield................................. 23 1.7 Hackney................................ 25 1.8 Hammersmith and Fulham..................... 29 1.9 Haringey................................. 31 1.10 Harrow................................. 33 1.11 Havering................................ 36 1.12 Hillingdon............................... 39 1.13 Hounslow............................... 42 1.14 Islington................................ 44 1.15 Kensington and Chelsea....................... 47 1.16 Newham................................ 49 1.17 Redbridge............................... 53 1.18 Tower Hamlets............................ 56 1.19 Waltham Forest............................ 59 1.20 Westminster............................... 61 2 South London 65 2.1 Bexley.................................
    [Show full text]