Burntwood Lane consultation FAQs

Frequently asked questions about the recent Burntwood Lane walking and cycling corridor consultation.

Questions

Did the recent consultation meet legal requirements?

Yes. The recent proposed walking and cycling designs for Burntwood Lane consultation meet the necessary legal requirements.

We are therefore confident the consultation exercise complies with the law and is of value in helping the local authority in making a decision on how best to proceed in this matter.

Will the parking impact from the draft plans be reviewed further?

Yes. As part of the next stage of the project, comprehensive parking surveys will be undertaken to help provide further information on parking demand and impact of any potential reduction in parking spaces. Relocating bays and rezoning of controlled parking areas will also be explored.

Is there an increased hazard risk to pedestrians from the plans?

No. The options presented are focused on improving road safety and protecting pedestrians and cyclists who are most vulnerable. The proposed controlled crossing points, dedicated cycle infrastructure and traffic calming features are intended to support walking and cycling, as well as encouraging speed compliance. Shared use footway areas for pedestrians and cyclists may be perceived to be a safety concern, but conflict between pedestrians and cyclists is generally not a common occurrence.

A well designed shared footway will ensure there is sufficient space for both pedestrians and cyclists. The shared use footway has also been kept to a minimum in both options, which is intended to assist road crossings and for less experience cyclists to bypass a parked bus.

Will officers consider removing/changing the shared use footway for both pedestrians and cyclists within the plans?

The removal of the shared used areas would reduce the level of service for less experienced cyclists. For example, children riding their bicycles to school may not feel confident to turn into side roads without the use of a controlled crossing or bypass a parked bus on the road. However, as part of the consultation review, further consideration will be given to the current proposed shared footways near crossings and bus stops.

Why is the Council seeking to remove the roundabout just before Bridgford Street?

(Some see it as encouraging cars/lorries to slow down and that the removal of this will encourage speeding cars).

A mini-roundabout with good visibility would have little impact on speed of vehicles. The main reason for proposing to remove mini roundabouts is to improve safety for cyclists as they are perceived to be less safe when compared with a priority arrangement, and the recorded collisions support these concerns for cyclists.

Similarly for pinch points, why are these being removed when they are perceived to slow cars/lorries down?

Residents have periodically raised concerns on the effectiveness of the current chicanes, furthermore, both options require the additional road width to accommodate the proposed cycle infrastructure, hence alternative traffic calming measures in the form of road narrowing, controlled crossings, tables and humps have been proposed.

Why are speed humps being proposed and are there any other alternatives?

We are aware speed humps were previously installed and removed following concerns raised by local residents, hence the implementation of existing chicane arrangements. Notwithstanding the history, speed humps are one of the most effective measures to lower vehicular speeds along a route. Furthermore, current design standards for speed humps is now much more bus and cycle friendly due to longer lead-in and reduced height of the humps, therefore the gradient and transition is a lot smoother which impacts less.

The use of speed cameras is not a viable option at present, as Local Authorities in London do not have powers to install and run permanent speed cameras. Speed Indicating Devices (SIDs) are an effective tool to encourage speed compliance. They typically work best for a short period of time only, but this is something that will be considered.

Why not install more zebra crossings for pedestrians which encourages free flowing slow cars/lorries and speed cameras?

Pedestrians generally prefer a push button crossing as they feel drivers are more compliant to the traffic lights. The main differences between a zebra crossing and a push button crossing is pedestrians can cross on demand or wait for the lights to go green.

In terms of possible delay, they are generally comparable, but it is very much down to specific sites, i.e. pedestrian demand. Furthermore, a push button crossing tends to provide a higher degree of protection for those crossing the road.

Regarding speed cameras, please see response to the question above.

Will these plans increase traffic on Burntwood Lane?

The cycle options proposed are not envisaged to increase traffic volume on Burntwood Lane and the traffic calming proposals may in fact help reduce traffic volume.

Plans to start only from Bridgford street makes no sense at all. If you are to install a cycle lane why not start from Garratt Lane?

We recognise the section of Burntwood Lane between Garratt Lane and the Bridgford Street/Franche Court Road junction has limited opportunities for dedicated cycle provision at this time when balancing all highway needs, e.g. on-street parking.

Further investigation is being carried out as part of the Garratt Lane corridor works and opportunities on side roads are also being explored to provide more cycle continuity. Cycle symbol markings have been proposed over this section to encourage cyclists to take the primary position ahead of traffic.

How is the Council engaging with key local stakeholders such as Garratt Green and Fieldview who host multiple sports clubs and activities?

Various local stakeholders have already provided direct feedback or have shared thoughts via on the online consultation, of which the comments are currently under reviewed. We are open to further engagement with key stakeholders once the feedback has been fully evaluated and further investigation work has been concluded.

How critical is the percentage for and against numbers from the recent consultation?

The percentage for and against is one indicator to help inform decision making, and it is by no means absolute as consultations are not a referendum. The process is an important means of gathering people’s views and concerns so that we can take these into account before considering the next steps.

In the comments, most people highlight their concerns, and explain what changes could be made for them to support the proposals.

Why wasn’t the recent consultation a ‘closed’ one just for residents of Burntwood Lane?

Burntwood Lane is a classified ‘B’ road (B229) which links the Wandsworth Common area to the Earlsfield/Garratt Park area. It is an important east-west link road in Wandsworth that may impact many borough residents and businesses, and those travelling through.

It also incorporates bus routes 690 and G1 services and formed part of the old London Cycle Network which linked through to Wandsworth Common Station. This means any changes in this road will directly impact not only the residents on Burntwood Lane, but also a very large number of road users.

What are the next steps?

The next steps are producing a detailed analysis of the consultation feedback and undertaking further investigation on the concerns raised. A comprehensive parking survey in the Burntwood Lane area is high on the priority list. Further engagement will not be ruled out to help inform the design process and a report is planned for a future meeting of the Transport Committee to present the consultation outcome and next steps.

Is the Council going to move forward and start building a new scheme soon?

No. Over the next few months, we will analyse the consultation outcome, and undertake further investigation before reporting back to the Transport Committee.

Will there be further public meetings to discuss the project?

Yes, further engagement will be planned.

Up to Burntwood Lane walking and cycling corridor

Updated: 22/02/2023