More than 260 people signed a petition opposing the Quietway 7 plans for Gipsy Hill and Paxton Place.

Signatories to the petition, organised by Paxton Pharmacy on Gipsy Hill, said they did NOT support the proposed cycle route Quietway along Gipsy Hill and “two way” cycling on Paxton Place; did  NOT support cycle tracks on the footway passing close to shop fronts at Gipsy Hill; did NOT support the proposed loss of parking in Gipsy Hill area; but DID  support the proposed pedestrian zebra crossing over Gipsy Hill.

Comments by signatories included: “huge impact on parking for residents and local businesses”, “severe effect on local community” and “we need the free parking in order to work.”

The consultation report gives details of comments received. These included:

Clive Road/Hamilton Road

51 responses to the proposals for this scheme. 18 (35 per cent), supported or partially supported the proposals; 29 (57 pc) said they did not support; 3 (6pc) were not sure, and one (2pc) had no opinion.

Main issues raised in the Clive Road/Hamilton Road consultation: 1) High traffic volumes 2) Narrow road widths 3) High vehicle speeds.

Comments from stakeholder groups included:

Lambeth Cyclists:  Partially supportive. Concern was raised that motor traffic volumes were still too high for a Quietway in this area, and that the proposals do little to address this issue. Suggestion was raised to rethink Hamilton Road, as it was stated that additional width would encourage two vehicles to pass one another and a cycle at the same time.

Southwark Cyclists: Supportive of the proposed scheme. In particular, it suggested that the changing of the priority to Quietway 7 alignment was a positive measure, meaning that carriageway narrowing is not needed. Suggested carriageway width should be kept at full width at this junction.

Wheels for Wellbeing (charity supporting disabled people of all ages and abilities to enjoy the benefits of cycling): Unsupportive. Said retaining car parking would put cyclists at risk of dooring and put cyclists into conflict with pedestrians. Also stated that retaining parking narrows the road and forces cyclists too close to parked cars.

Paxton Place/Gipsy Road

59 responses to the proposals for this scheme: 17 (29 pc), supported or partially supported the proposals; 38 (64 pc) said they did not support, and four (7pc) were not sure.

Main issues raised in the Paxton Place consultation: 1) Two-way cycling on Paxton Place 2) Confusing signage 3) Pedestrian/Cycle conflict

The objections to the scheme focussed on three concerns:  Reduction of parking available to visitors to businesses, residents and businesses  Safety to pedestrians regarding the speed in which cyclists would travel in· shared-use space.  The route is not practical, or wanted, in the area·

Comments from stakeholder groups included:

Guide Dogs: Unsupportive. Objected to the implementation of shared areas, as this causes confusion for the visually impaired and can be unsafe.
Lambeth Cyclists: Unsupportive. Said there needed to be measures to cut down through traffic on Paxton Place. Suggested that making the road a shared space, marked as a no-through route (except for cyclists) would reduce through traffic.

Southwark Cyclists: Unsupportive of the proposals at Paxton Place/Gipsy Road. In particular, they were concerned there were no details as to how the proposed contraflow cycle lane on Paxton Place would work.Said they could see no way as to how this would be made safe or attractive enough to encourage cycling.

Wheels for Wellbeing: Unsupportive. In particular concerned there was not enough room in the waiting area on Alleyn Park to accommodate longer or wider cycles. Further concern raised that the implementation of shared use paths puts cyclists and pedestrians into direct conflict. Suggested the cycle route would have been better placed alongside the road.

Gipsy Hill

60 responses to the proposals for this scheme: 15 (25 pc), supported or partially supported the proposals; 42 (70 pc) said they did not support; two (3p) were not sure, and one (2 pc) had no opinion.

Main issues raised in the Gipsy Hill consultation 1) Reduction in car parking 2) High traffic flows 3) High traffic speeds.

Comments from stakeholder groups included:

Lambeth Cyclists:  Unsupportive.  Stated northern portion of Gipsy Hill was not cycle friendly, due to narrow road width. Also suggested advisory cycle lane might be encroached upon by motor vehicles, especially due to a lack of a central white line. Also concerned that cyclists joining the route from Dulwich Wood Avenue would have to cross fast-moving traffic.

They made three suggestions to improve upon the proposals: 1. Implement a two-way cycle track on the eastern side of Gipsy Hill, relocating parking to the northern portion of the road. Suggested that up to 1m of pavement could be used to facilitate this. 2. Route the Quietway straight to Dulwich Wood Avenue from the Paxton roundabout. 3. Route the Quietway across a section of the neighbouring park.

Southwark Cyclists: Unsupportive. Said northern section of Gipsy Hill was narrow and not up to the standard of a Quietway. Suggested two alternatives: 1. Route the Quietway across the open space between Gipsy Hill and Dulwich Wood Avenue. This would encourage new cyclists as it is clearly safe and opens up the space for both cyclists and pedestrians. 2. Route the Quietway along the southern edge of the Paxton roundabout, and re-join the carriageway at the northern end of Dulwich Wood Avenue.Said both would eliminate a dangerous right turn from Dulwich Wood Avenue (South) to Gipsy Hill.

Wheels for Wellbeing:  Unsupportive. Concerned that vehicles would continue to park in advisory cycle lanes and on double yellow lines. Suggestion was made to segregate the cycle lane to stop this and to provide a safe space for cycling. Further concern was raised regarding the retention of car parking, as this would put cyclists at risk of dooring and that it narrows the road, leading to motor vehicle dominance.

VERDICT:  “Lambeth council have given careful consideration to all respondents’ comments ahead of finalising any design proposals. “In light of the comments raised, and a further review of the scheme proposals, the borough has taken the decision to progress with the proposed designs as presented 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.”

A petition on delivered to Southwark council and signed by 109 people opposing Quietway 7 stated: The proposed route will cause chaos and misery for everyone living, working and travelling on and around the route. There was no public consultation on the choice of route and the process was undemocratic.

The route was worked on by a cycling lobby group whilst pedestrians, bus and coach users, drivers and residents were not consulted.

It will cause congestion, parking chaos and danger for pedestrians including children. It will increase pollution as traffic slows down near many schools.

There are much better ways than this to improve travel for everyone and encourage healthy lifestyle choices.

It will not achieve what it sets out to ie. getting us all off the buses, out of cars and coaches and onto bikes. It will make it less safe, not more, for anyone thinking of cycling and especially walking.

(Note: Only stakeholders whose comments were not included in the above (taken from the council’s report on ‘consultation’) were London Fire Brigade. – Ed.)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.