CROYDON ROAD USER FORUM
Minutes of the fourth meeting held on
Monday 26th July 2004 at 2.00pm
Councillor Adrian Dennis – Chair Don Talbot LDRSC
Ms Oriel Weekes THBM&WTNP
Norman Balding CE&WNP Phillip Wright LDRSC
Michael Buckley LDRSC
G.S. Chesswright LDRSC TfL
Ken Coates N&UNNP Jason Wilton
Peter Collier LDRSC Peter Hewitt
Tony Harris LDRSC
A. Holyoake NA&FNP Tramlink
Victor Huber LDRSC
Robin Hunter Mobility Forum Roger Harding
Jim Mansell SNSNP Stephen Duckering
Miss Dorothy Mellor IAM
Peter Morgan SLDRSC Officers
John Rapp LDRSC
Phil Reed P&KNP Dave Szostak
Mrs Rosemary Rigden SS&CHNP Junia Cleary
Hugh Roberts LDRSC Roy Clark
012/04 Apologies for absence
1.1 Received from Councillor Donald Speakman, Councillor Martin
Tiedemann, Patricia Bonham, Ron Rowland, PC Basil Jeffery, Leigh
Jackson, Leon Mannings, Brian Court, Leigh Paynter, Pauline Tree, Jim
Carden, and Christopher Lawton.
1.2 The Forum heard of the death of Tony Hollidge, a member of the Forum
and Chair of the old West LDRSC. A prominent member of the Broad
Green RA and owner of a shoe business in the borough. A moment’s
silence was taken in his memory.
013/04 Minutes of the meeting held on 11th March 2004.
1.1 Correction noted. There seemed to be some concern over the wording of
the penultimate sentence however, this is as quoted directly from the
014/04 Matters arising
1.1 (03/04 3.1) Pre-meeting – It was noted that the pre-meeting was an officer
and Chair meeting was to clarify items on the agenda and is not attended
by anyone else. This is normal practice for all Council meetings. PM
asked for an additional sheet showing those items raised but not on the
1.2 (03/04 3.1.1) Transport and General Workers Union Representative – No
reply had been received from the letter sent to the Union. Mr
Chesswright, a member of the TGWU indicated that it should be stated
that he is already attending the meeting when a reply is received.
1.3 (03/04 3.3) Express Bus Service – It was noted that the 726A bus might
be considered for an express service but consultation has yet to take place
with the Council. There was a view expressed that the 726 route should
stay as it is and not be changed to an express service. It was also pointed
out that the original request was for an express bus service from Norwood
to Croydon. It was asked if there is a TfL policy regarding express bus
routes. Action: TfL to respond
1.4 (03/04 3.4) Children Seat Belt Poster – This was now on order.
1.5 (03/04 3.2) Beulah Road/ Parchmore Road Traffic Lights – although there
was some doubt expressed, these lights are now working normally.
1.6 (005/04 5.1) A23 Fiveways – this would be covered in the TfL report.
1.7 (005/04 5.5) London Assembly Transport Committee leaflet – this was
attached to the minutes of the last meeting.
015/04 Motorcycle Working Group – Report on progress
1.1 As Leon Mannings was not able to be present a statement was read out as
“There was an extremely productive meeting between Leon Mannings
and two officers from TfL Street Management on 1st June 2004. TfL
welcomed the proposal from Croydon to discuss extending the current
trials of PTW bus lane use to include other bus lane routes in the
Borough. All agreed that the next stage of discussions would most
usefully occur after the results of the TfL trials are published in
September. Unofficial reports so far, have raised expectations that the
trial of PTW’s using bus lanes has proved successful on a selection of
radial routes, including the A23 in and on neighbouring sections of
Croydon. If the early positive signs prove to be correct, the current
experiment in London will have replicated the results of similar trials in
other cities. In all tests of this safety enhancing practice so far, the net
impact has been positive. A more comprehensive account of these
important developments should be available in time for the next Forum
1.2 The issue of left turning traffic using bus lanes and the safety issues
when left turning vehicles had to cross the path of buses and possibly
motorcyclists was raised for consideration by LM and TfL.
O16/04 Transport for London Matters
1.1 A report was attached to the agenda. Jason Wilton
(firstname.lastname@example.org) introduced himself and
confirmed that he will be the contact for the A23 from now on.
1.2 Peter Hewitt went through the items affecting the bus schemes.
1.3 Consultations - There was concern over the lack of consultation in respect
to new bus schemes and it was felt that this should take place prior to
proposals being decided. This is especially important when removal of
trees, narrowing of pavements, widening of roads and increased
congestion for other road users is to take place. TfL replied indicating that
all consultations are as per their standard formula and take place by
issuing leaflets with the returns being evaluated. In respect to the Norbury
Schemes it was decided to consult again, as there was a lot of
disagreement. It was asked why the CRUF had not been involved in these
consultations and whether they could be in the future. TfL stated that they
consulted LBC and it was for the Council to decide what local groups to
inform or consult.
1.4 Brighton Road northbound/ southbound bus lanes – It was questioned why
the northbound bus lane had been made 24 hrs, as this will cause
unnecessary delay to other traffic especially those turning left. Also
concern was expressed that the southbound bus lane was only a proposal
two months ago and now appears to be finalized. TfL indicated that there
had been a delay with the northbound consultation due to the Mayor
elections. TfL indicated that the consultation reports were available at the
meeting. TfL were asked to respond giving the reason why the lane was
made 24 hours. Action TfL
1.5 Fiveways junction - it was asked if there was a proposal for a left-hand
filter from Stafford Road towards Waddon? TfL could see the merit in
traffic terms of progressing the scheme to provide an extended left-turn
lane from Purley Way southbound into Stafford Road towards Croydon,
but the plan has been set back due to substantial costs owing to Croydon
Council selling off the land required. The facts relating to this matter were
requested. Action: LBC
1.6 It was requested that if TfL makes changes to any proposals that these are
informed to those involved in the specific consultation as soon as possible.
It was also asked if consultation documents could be circulated to this
Forum for the purpose of discussion. It was also suggested that a sign be
erected on the highway to alert drivers to any changes. TfL indicated that
updates would be something that would have to be considered and if
achievable would hope to do it. The signs that can be erected on highways
are controlled but this will be checked. There was also concern about how
much of the road was being carved up for bus lanes and whether tidal
flows were taken into account. TfL indicated that the schemes on the A23
at Norbury would not take space from any other road user and that parking
boxes would be put in, allowing loading from 7.00am to 1.00pm. It was
felt that overall the scheme would benefit buses and it was confirmed that
tidal flows were taken into account. Action: TfL
1.7 There was concern over the shared use of footways by cyclists in Brighton
Road as street furniture and junctions can cause problems for cyclists. TfL
indicated that there did not seem to be any alternatives but would look into
it and come back. Action TfL
1.8 Route 119 A232 Shirley Road – it was generally felt that this scheme
would do nothing to speed up the 119 route at this point. Why was this
route selected? It was felt that consultation had been poor. TfL responded
indicating that London Transport had identified this route as one with a
high level of usage and therefore improvements to its reliability were
given a priority. Leaflets had been distributed to residents along Shirley
Road and the surrounding area and many had been returned. There was a
perception, noted at the Tram & Rail Liaison meeting, that there would
only be one lane of through traffic but in fact there would continue to be
two plus a bus lane. Some footway would be taken as well as a small part
of the central reservation, which should only affect 3 trees, all of which
would be replaced. No tree is removed lightly.
1.9 Coulsdon new road – it was reported that there is an application to build a
bus workshop/ depot in Ullswater Crescent where some 70 buses will
leave the depot in the peak period. It was asked if this had come before the
planning Committee of the Council. In response the Chair indicated that
he had not seen it as yet.
1.10 TfL consultation on the westward extension to congestion charging – this
item was not discussed but Croydon’s response to the consultation was
016/04 Parking Matters
1.1 Review of parking in Croydon – a review has been promised. It is thought
that there will be a review shortly.
1.2 Consultation on parking charges – the Parking Plan outlines the policy of
the Council on this matter in more detail.
1.3 It was suggested that the Council were imposing parking zones in areas
where the residents do not want them. The Council replied that they are
required to consult on these issues and if the majority of residents are
against them, then they are not imposed.
1.4 It was asked that if car parking on pavements had been allowed but due to
recent pavement works the lines on the pavement are not put back, can
cars still be parked half on the pavement? Council responded by
confirming that the traffic order would still be in place and therefore the
regulation would still be applicable.
1.5 It was asked what the term ‘underused’ car park means. Council response
indicated that this will vary according to the car park and each is
considered on its merits. Why is the Council determined to reduce the car
parking capacity in Purley and Coulsdon? The Council response was that
the council is not out to reduce it but to ensure that it makes best use its
resources. There are no car parking proposals affecting Coulsdon or
Purley at the present. The Council has made it clear that they fully
understand that there is a requirement for parking and the need to at least
retain the present amount of parking.
1.6 Request for the plan showing where all the pavement parking is situated in
the Borough was requested. This will be provided. Action LBC
017/04 Council position of hierarchy of importance of different road user
1.1 The Croydon Plan entry was noted.
018/04 Borough Spending Plan
1.1 The Council has forwarded its Borough Spending Plan for 2005/6 to TfL
for a total of £9.9million of which £1.4million is for road safety purposes.
1.2 It was asked if it was possible for the Forum to have an opportunity to
express their views on where the money could be spent? Also does TfL
allow for money to be moved from one area to another if it is thought
necessary? The Council is dictated by the Mayor’s Transport Strategy and
Transport for London’s Business Plan in term of what transport projects
we can make bids for and money cannot be moved around to different
transport topics without prior approval of TfL. In respect to the input of
the Forum in this process, this is something that the Council would like to
explore on future bids. However, London is now moving towards the next
stage of setting down its transport strategies for the future and Croydon,
along with all the London Boroughs, will be expected to produce a Local
Implementation Plan for 2006/7. This is a statutory document and will
probably mean that we will have to consult our stakeholders on the
development of that document anyway.
19/04 Croydon Road Accident Statistics 2003
1.1 It was noted that the overall total of accidents and casualties for 2003 is
the lowest for many years however the number of fatal casualties has gone
up over the last couple of years.
1.2 It was asked what Croydon was doing to encourage people to be aware of
road safety. The Council responded by explaining that most of the
resources were spent in schools, ensuring that children are given priority
and have good road safety knowledge to help them in future life. Other
aspects also covered included pre-schools, the elderly, driving courses,
cycle training and support for government campaigns.
1.3 It was asked how many people were injured on public transport. In
response TfL indicated that they thought the details would be available. It
was thought however, that if someone were injured within the bus, which
is not due to a road accident, this would not be recorded as a road traffic
1.4 The view was expressed that in order to be able to compare and assess
properly, accident statistics should be accompanied by an indication of the
number vehicles in each mode and distance traveled. It was asked if these
figures were available. No data on travel appears to be available in the
form that would be useful. TfL indicated that there is bus data they use but
may not be up to date. There are traffic counts around London at specific
sites but this only gives data for that particular road.
020/04 Speed Humps Cost-Benefit Assessment Report
1.1 Recommendation 9 – 20mph zone on Waddon Estate are cameras going
in? Cameras are only needed where the speed limit is not enforced by road
humps and therefore no cameras will be put in.
1.2 It was pointed out that there seems to be no attempt to cost journeys which
may be delayed by humps or delays to emergency services. Ambulance
services in particular say they do not want humps. Could we also have
post evaluation? In response the Council indicated that they put the cost of
saving lives as the top priority but do balance that against any impact on
the emergency services. As a consequence we now use cushions instead of
full width road humps which have less impact on, in particular,
ambulances. We do take seriously the comments made by the emergency
services and try to accommodate their views. In respect to the hump in
Green Lane, two surveys were carried out to determine the alleged noise
problem and the judgement was that it should remain as its benefits
outweighed the disbenefits. The emergency services are always consulted
on every traffic-calming scheme that we propose to introduce and their
comments are taken into consideration. It was suggested that the Forum
should be involved in consultations on traffic management/ road safety
schemes in a similar way to the Cycle Forum. LBC agreed to consider this
and report back. Action LBC
021/04 Public Transport Matters
1.1 Tramlink Park & Ride – Council have introduced a number of parking
restrictions near tram stops and a request was made for parking places to
be made available to encourage park and ride. There is a recognition by
TfL that park & ride would be beneficial for the tram service and it is
believed that TfL has completed a report on this matter. Tramlink
indicated that they have been disappointed that there has not been more
formal park & ride schemes available. TfL and LBC were asked to
consider this point further. Action: LBC/TfL
1.2 Extensions – Tramlink were not able to talk much about the proposals for
extensions as TfL do not consult with Tramlink operations. However,
there is general awareness that there are discussions going on between the
Council and TfL, and Tramlink would welcome any developments as this
has potential for reducing congestion caused by buses and other vehicles.
It was confirmed that the Council has been looking at options but not in
any great detail. It was reported that the Full Council and Fairfield NP had
received presentations on the extension ideas. It was also pointed out that
the map showing the proposed changes to the Network by 2016, produced
by TfL, included the proposed extensions to the trams. It was requested
that when enough detail is available on the proposals that they are brought
to the Forum for discussion. This was agreed. Action TfL/LBC
1.3 Tamworth Road – in respect to the new shopping centre (Centrale) and as
part of the section 106 agreement, this did provide for a tramstop there.
However, if this extra stop was provided it would affect the existing
timetable which would make it difficult for trams to get back to
Wimbledon due to the delays along the line. TfL are also concerned about
the disruption of the timetable, which would upset the reliability of the
service. Tramlink is working with TfL to try and find a solution.
1.4 Bingham Road/ Lower Addiscombe Road tram crossing – It was reported
that there still seems to be a problem with the traffic lights which can
cause unnecessary delay. Tramlink would check this out to ensure they
are working properly. Action Tramlink
1.5 Bus Passes – Oyster cards need to be passed over the sensor at the tram
stop. 80% of travelers have a pass of some form and therefore only a
minority of passengers need to buy a ticket when travelling. Ticket
inspectors do catch fare dodgers although these figures are fairly low. It is
not felt that increasing the inspections would increase the rate of detection.
1.6 Bus Priority Measures and how cost benefits are assessed and justification
for 24/7 restriction on bus lane running from Purley Rise to Purley Knoll –
it was felt that this impedes traffic wishing to turn left and causes
congestion. TfL responded and explained how the cost benefits were
calculated. In respect to the left turn, every scheme goes through a safety
audit and these pick up any problems that may be evident from a safety
point of view and these are addressed. Action TfL to provide a
statement covering these points
022/04 Other Road Safety Matters
1.1 Concern was expressed about vehicles stopping and blocking the junction
of High Street/ Parchmore Road in Thornton Heath making it difficult for
vehicles exiting from Parchmore Road. It was felt that this was only likely
to happen occasionally and was not a significant problem. However, the
whole junction including the timing of the lights, is subject to review.
1.2 London Road User Forum – it was asked if the Forum supported this idea.
It was suggested that the Mayor of London should be approached and if he
asks Croydon for our view we will give it.
1.3 A23, London Road, Thornton Heath, inadequate provision for
pedestrians/wheelchair users near Lidi’s supermarket – it was pointed out
that there is a zebra crossing to the south of this area. However, crossing
provision would be investigated and answers provided. Action TfL
1.4 Gloucester Road/ Northcote Road junction – It was confirmed that there is
no pedestrian push button at these lights which makes it extremely
difficult for pedestrians and wheelchair users to cross especially now
Tesco Express has opened. It was pointed out that any pedestrian phase
here would cause severe disruption and delay to general traffic and buses.
However, pedestrian facilities would be investigated and answers
provided. TfL indicated that they were investigating a bus priority scheme
as part of a road safety scheme for the traffic signals at this junction and
would be consulting shortly. Action LBC/TfL
1.5 Consultation papers referred to in the TfL report were available after the
1.6 It was asked if an extension to the consultation time available for the
proposed traffic calming in Tollers Lane could be given so that local
consultation could be held.
1.7 Those items that require written answers will be included in the minutes.
023/04 Times and Dates for future Meetings
1.1 Request for paper 12.1 to be completed. It may be possible to put in some
evening meetings if there is a demand. It may turn out that there will be a
mixture of daytime and evening meetings in future. Actual dates will be
included in the minutes.
[After Note: The results of the questionnaire on times of meetings
were 6 for Morning, 12 for afternoon and 9 for evening (this included
those giving more than one alternative). It is therefore recommended
that there should be one evening meeting and three afternoon
meetings each year.]
1.2 It is hoped that the minutes will be circulated within a couple of weeks of
the meeting or as soon after that as possible. Answers to questions often
have to come from others, which can then delay a written response being
given in the minutes. Due to the lateness of the July meeting it was
suggested that the next meeting should be early in October. This was
agreed. It was suggested that an open-ended meeting would not be
convenient. Apologies were given for the lack of refreshments, which
although ordered, did not materialize.
Written answers to those items under ‘Any Other Business’ not discussed
at the meeting.
12.3 Web site – page for CRUF minutes: This is proving to be more
difficult than expected but it is still being worked on and will hopefully
be resolved shortly.
12.4 Priority restriction in Highfield Road: The traffic calming measures in
Highfield Road, including the traffic throttle, were introduced in July
1997 as part of the A23 Priority 'Red' Route scheme being developed by
the Traffic Director for London (TDfL). Consultant’s acting for the
TDfL identified Highfield Road as a route used by trunk road traffic
avoiding delays on the A23 in Coulsdon and Purley and recommended
that traffic calming measures should be introduced as a means to
discourage main road traffic from using residential roads. When
consulted the residents of Highfield Road and nearby Hillcrest Road, in
Sutton, voted overwhelmingly in favour of the proposed action.
In order for speed cushions to be lawfully introduced on Highfield Road
it was necessary, at the time, to construct a slowing feature at the eastern
end of Highfield Road in advance of the first set of cushions. This is
because the signal controlled junction of Purley Way / Edgehill Road
was not considered, in law, to provide the necessary reduction in vehicle
speeds, particluarly when the traffic lights were green for motorists
traversing Highfield Road from Edgehill Road. For this reason, a give-
way system had to be introduced on Highfield Road in order to provide
the necessary slowing feature and to ensure that the scheme complied
with “The Highways (Road Humps) Regulations 1996. The give-way
lines, built into the throttle, had to be in advance of the first set of speed
cushions for traffic approaching from the east so as to provide the
necessary reduction in traffic speed.
12.5 Why there is no pedestrian phase at the junction of Coombe Road/
High Street/ South End/ Lower Coombe Street: Response to this has
been given directly to John Osborne.
12.6 Street Lighting: A comprehensive answer has been provided by the
Street Lighting Engineer to Mr Buckley.
12.7 Coombe Road /Park Hill junction – proposals to experiment with
one-lane entry at mini-roundabout – can reasoning be explained:
Concerns have been raised in many quarters over the last 3 to 4 years
about the distinct lack of pedestrian crossing facilities in Coombe Road
between the junctions of Park Hill Road and South Park Hill Road.
Some time back the westbound carriageway was reduced from two lane
to single lane to aid pedestrian crossing movements by reducing the
crossing width to the traffic island. Despite this being done there is still
lobbying from local residents, the local MP and Ward Members for
Croham for further improvements to be made for pedestrians on this
stretch of road. In an effort to address the concerns the Cabinet Member
for Environmental Services, as was, agreed that the feasibility of
reducing the eastbound carriageway to single lane would be looked into.
This decision was taken after ruling out the possibility of siting a formal
pedestrian crossing at safe/reasonably close locations within / on either
side of these two junctions or providing a fully signalised junction with
an “all red” pedestrian stage built in. Officers will be looking to seek
approval from the Traffic Management Cabinet Committee shortly to
introduce the experiment thus allowing the impact of such a scheme to
be properly assessed and monitored by officers.
The dates and times of the next three meetings plus a provisional date for
July 2005 all in the Council Chamber are as below:
Monday 18th October 2004 2.00pm – 4.30pm.
Monday 17th January 2005 2.00pm – 4.30pm.
Monday 11th April 2005 2.00pm – 4.30pm.
Monday 11th July 2005 6.00pm – 8.30pm. (Provisional)