A205 Stanstead Road Junction with Brockley Rise – Pedestrian crossing improvements Consultation report June 2016

Contents

1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1

2 The consultation ................................................................................................................. 2

3 About the respondents ....................................................................................................... 3

4 Overview of responses ....................................................................................................... 4

5 Summary and conclusion ................................................................................................... 6

Appendices

Appendix A – List of stakeholders consulted ......................................................................... 7

Appendix B - Consultation material ....................................................................................... 9

Appendix C – Responses to issues commonly raised ......................................................... 14

1

1 Introduction

We proposed changes on A205 Stanstead Road at two locations. One proposal was to introduce two new signalised ‘staggered’ pedestrian crossings at the junction of Brockley Rise / Cranston Road and the A205 Stanstead Road. The second proposal was to remove a loading bay from A205 Stanstead Road to Ravensbourne Road to help traffic flow better.

We consulted stakeholders and the public on the proposals between 22 January and 29 February 2016. This document explains the processes, responses and outcomes of the consultation.

1.1 About the proposals

We consulted on three proposals within the same area:

Brockley Rise:

We proposed to install a new signal-controlled ‘staggered’ crossing on Brockley Rise. To achieve this, we proposed to create a safer pedestrian waiting area by widening the central reservation, while maintaining the two lane approaches to the junction heading south along Brockley Rise. We proposed to improve the footway layout by providing a suitable gradient at the crossing for all users, particularly pushchairs and wheelchairs users. We also proposed to modify the loading and parking bays to allow for traffic to turn into Brockley Rise. The bay would be slightly shortened by 2.5m and moved north by 2.5m.

Cranston Road:

Similar to Brockley Rise, we proposed to install a new signal-controlled ‘staggered’ pedestrian crossing on Cranston Road. We would create a safer pedestrian waiting area by enlarging the central island. We would also improve the footway by providing a suitable gradient at the crossing for all users, particularly pushchairs and wheelchairs users.

Stanstead Road/Ravensbourne Road:

We proposed to remove the loading bay on the south side of Stanstead Road, opposite the junction with Ravensbourne Road. Surveys show that it is used very little. However, when a vehicle is stopped there, large vehicles cannot pass, especially as it is opposite the junction, resulting in traffic delays.

We also proposed to reduce the length of both the parking bay and loading bay in front of the shops to the east of Blythe Hill Lane. Again, large vehicles in the parking bay block passing traffic as the road narrows at this point, meaning queues tailing back in the direction of Forest Hill. The parking bay would be reduced from about 17 metres to 10 metres and the loading bay from about 18 metres to 12 metres.

We did not propose any changes to the parking and loading bays on Stanstead Road in front of the post office.

2

2 The consultation

We asked three questions relating to different geographical areas of the proposals:

A205 Stanstead Road junction with Brockley Rise – pedestrian crossing

Stanstead Road / Ravensbourne Road – loading bay removal

Cranston Road – pedestrian crossing. The consultation material was available at https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/roads/stanstead-road-brockley-rise.

The consultation was designed to enable us to understand opinion about the proposed changes.

The potential outcomes of the consultation are:

We decide the consultation raises no issues that should prevent us from proceeding with the scheme as originally planned

We modify the scheme in response to issues raised in consultation

We abandon 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 proposal 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 2.1 Who we consulted and how

We wanted to understand the views of those living and working near to where our proposals would be implemented. We sent a letter and map to approximately 4,306 properties and businesses in the area. The extent is shown in Appendix B. We also issued an email to stakeholders to inform them of our consultation. Those contacted included the London Borough of Lewisham, local politicians and emergency services. A list of external stakeholders contacted is shown in Appendix A. The consultation was published online on our consultation website between the 22 January 2016 and 29 February 2016. Copies of the letter and map we sent to residents and the email we sent to stakeholders are shown in Appendix B.

3

3 About the respondents

3.1 How respondents heard about the consultation

How respondents heard about consultation

Number of respondents

Received an email from TfL 3

Received a letter from TfL 22

Read about in the press 0

Saw it on the TfL website 17

Social media 21

Other (please specify) 14

Not Answered 8

3.2 How respondents identified themselves The majority of respondents identified themselves as local residents or employed locally.

How respondents identified themselves

Number of respondents

Local Resident 38

Business owner 5

Employed locally 8

Commuter to the area 15

Visitor to the area 10

Other (please specify) 7

Not Answered 2

Stakeholder 0

4

4 Overview of responses We received 85 responses. We asked three questions relating to the three different sections of the proposals. The following tables detail the responses to each question.

StronglyAgree

Agree Neutral DisagreeStronglydisagree

Notanswered

Number of responses 39 26 5 6 6 3

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Q.1 What do you think of the proposed changes to the pedestrian crossing improvements at A205 Stanstead Road

junction with Brockley Rise?

StronglyAgree

Agree Neutral DisagreeStronglydisagree

Notanswered

Number of responses 37 26 6 6 4 6

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Q.2 What do you think of our proposed changes to the pedestrian crossing for Cranston Road ?

5

4.1 Responses from Stakeholders

There were no responses from stakeholders.

StronglyAgree

Agree Neutral DisagreeStronglydisagree

Notanswered

Number of responses 30 24 20 3 2 6

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Q.3 What do you think of our proposal for moving the loading bay to Ravensbourne Road?

Main issues raised by respondents Number of comments

Generally support pedestrian crossing improvements 38

Generally support the proposed pedestrian crossing for Cranston Road 35

People asked if TfL could install a yellow box at Brockley Rise. 15

Agree with the reduction in length of the parking and loading bay on Stanstead Road 13

Welcome the proposed of safer crossings at the Brockley Rise / Stanstead Road junction. 8

’Straight across’ pedestrian crossings better than staggered 7

Concern that the footway by the existing crossing is also too narrow 5

6

5 Summary and conclusion

We received 85 responses to consultation. The majority were supportive of the proposed

new signalised crossings and the proposed changes to parking and loading bays.

Having considered the responses to the consultation, we have decided to go ahead with

scheme and plan to introduce the changes in August 2016.

Our response to issues commonly raised in consultation is shown in Appendix C.

7

Appendix A – List of stakeholders consulted London TravelWatch

Elected Members

Caroline Pidgeon AM Chair of the GLA Transport Committee

Valerie Shawcross AM Deputy Chair of the GLA Transport Committee

Richard Tracey AM Member of the GLA Transport Committee

Navin Shah AM Member of the GLA Transport Committee

Dr Onkar Sahota AM Member of the GLA Transport Committee

Tom Copley AM Member of the GLA Transport Committee

Steve O'Connell AM Member of the GLA Transport Committee

Darren Johnson AM Member of the GLA Transport Committee

Jennette Arnold AM Member of the GLA Transport Committee

Tony Arbour AM London Assembly Member

Len Duvall AM Greenwich and Lewisham

Jim Dowd MP Lewisham West and Penge

Vicky Foxcroft MP Lewisham, Deptford

Councillor John Paschoud Perry Vale ward

Councillor Alan Till Perry Vale ward

Councillor Susan Wise Perry Vale ward

Councillor Chris Barnham Crofton Park

Councillor Roy Kennedy Crofton Park

Councillor Pauline Morrison Crofton Park

Local Authorities

London Borough of Lewisham

Police & Health Authorities

Metropolitan Police

Hounslow Safer Transport Team

London Ambulance Service

London Fire Brigade Service

Transport Groups

AA

Association of British Drivers

Association of Car Fleet Operators

British Motorcyclists Federation

Freight Transport Association

Green Flag Group

Motorcycle Action Group

Motorcycle Industry Association

Road Haulage Association

London Cab Ranks Committee (Secretary)

London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority

London TravelWatch

8

Other Stakeholders

Action on Hearing Loss (formerly RNID)

Age Concern London

Age UK

Asian Peoples Disabilities Alliance

BT

Campaign for Better Transport

Confederation of British Industry (CBI)

CTC, The national cycling charity

Disability Alliance

Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee

EDF Energy

Greater London Forum for the Elderly

Guide Dogs for the Blind Association

Joint Committee on Mobility of Blind and Partially Sighted People (JCMBPS)

Joint Mobility Unit

Living Streets

London Cycling Campaign

London Older People's Strategy Group

MIND

National Children's Bureau

National Grid

RADAR London Access Forum

RNIB

Royal Mail

London TravelWatch

Sense

Sixty Plus

Stroke Association

Thames Water

The British Dyslexia Association

9

Appendix B - Consultation material

10

11

Plan 1

12

Plan 2

13

Stakeholder email

Dear Stakeholder

I am writing to let you know of our proposals to make changes on A205 Stanstead Road at two locations. One proposal includes improving the pedestrian crossing facilities at the junction of Brockley Rise and A205 Stanstead Road. The second proposal includes removing a loading bay from A205 Stanstead Road to Ravensbourne Road.

Please let us know your views and to view maps of the scheme please click here. The deadline for your comments is 29 February 2016.

Yours sincerely

Mario Constantinou

Consultation Officer

Transport of London

Letter distribution area

14

Appendix C – Responses to issues commonly raised

The need for a yellow box junction at Brockley Rise The yellow box is indeed needed at this junction in order to regulate traffic flows and prevent blocking of the junction from causing queues to build up on the A205. Straight over pedestrian crossings rather than staggered The decision of straight or staggered crossing is dependent on the width of the carriageway at Brockley Rise. The footway by the existing crossing is also too narrow Due to the road width at the crossing at Brockley Rise, widening the footway will result in delays to traffic on the A205 Stanstead Road. The new traffic island at the southern end of Brockley Rise may cause problems for traffic turning right on to Brockley Rise from Stanstead Road We have designed the island to allow for the movement of large motor vehicles. Request for additional pedestrian crossing on other side of lights to the west of Brockley Rise/Stanstead Road The design at this location helps to maintain an adequate level of traffic flow whilst providing safe pedestrian crossing facilities. Additional signalised crossings would affect traffic flows and may result in queues building up along Stanstead Road. I really think that this crossing should have an all round pedestrian phase rather than a staggered pedestrian phase. We need to balance the needs of all those using or passing through the junction. An ‘all

red’ phase ‘would cause excessive queuing on Stanstead Road/Brockley Rise and may

lead to longer wait times for pedestrians than currently.

How does scheme relate to the Brockley Corridor? We have worked with LB Lewisham to ensure that the two schemes do not contradict each other. If the loading bay is being removed, how do you expect us to load and unload? Only before 7am or after 7pm on red route restrictions? Stanstead Road, like other red routes, is a busy and strategically-important traffic route. Although the loading bay is not used often, when it is, queues build up as larger vehicles wait to pass the stopped vehicle. Parking and loading are available at most times in the first lengths of both Blythe Vale and Carholme Road, within about 60 metres of the properties fronting this section of Stanstead Road. If a large delivery is expected, a dispensation can be sought from TfL which would permit stopping on the red lines. Can the crossings be fitted a timed countdown to help people crossing? The proposed layout of the junction will not allow us to install timed “countdown” pedestrian signal at this time. We now have a policy to install countdown on any signal modernisation scheme in the future.

15

Concern the new traffic islands on Brockley Rise and Cranston Road will restrict traffic flows in the area The road layout will remain unchanged for southbound traffic. Although Cranston Road will be narrowed for northbound traffic, we do not expect this to affect traffic flows.