Issue - meetings

ES 20082

Members were presented with a report concerning the Crofton Road Transport Corridor Improvement Scheme in Orpington.

The report had been presented because a Member had given notice to the Proper Officer that he wished to raise questions regarding the scheme at the meeting.

The Assistant Director for Traffic and Parking stated that this was a scheme to develop cycle routes along Crofton Road. The scheme had turned out to be a controversial one, with many questions being raised with respect to value for money and the scheme’s efficacy. In developing the scheme, the public, along with Ward Councillors had been consulted. He said that the answers to the questions raised by the Guest Member were outlined in the report.

The Chairman commented that he had attended on site and noted that this was a work in progress.

The Guest Member stated that his purpose in bringing the matter to the attention of the Committee was so that the work would stop, and that the Committee sanction or commission an immediate road safety audit of the scheme, particularly in the area between Newstead Ave and Orpington Station.

He referred to the previous use of three lane highways, and the fact that these had been scrapped because of dangers in relation to ‘head on conflict’. In his view, the cycle scheme being proposed for Crofton Road had  ‘head on conflict designed in to the scheme’. The Guest Member referred to an accident that had taken place on the 19th of February at 10:00am, which involved a head on collision. To support this, he read out a statement given by a bus driver that had witnessed the accident.

He stated that post lockdown there could be a danger with standstill traffic in Crofton Road which would have a major impact on bus routes. Again, the Guest Member reiterated his request to the Committee to undertake a proper and thorough road safety audit. The Chairman asked the Guest Member who he thought should undertake the safety audit--should it be the Committee or should it be the professionals. The Guest Member responded that he was asking the Committee to commission the safety audit.

The Guest Member stated that he was in contact with a constituent who was a chartered civil engineer and a road safety auditor who had pointed out what he considered to be flaws in the design of the scheme, again particularly in the area between Newstead Avenue and York Rise. He outlined several suggestions that had been made by the constituent who was a retired charted civil engineer and these were as follows:

1.  The relocation of the BT pole

2.  The relocation of the bus stop and cage

3.  The revision of the kerb-line of the north of the road between York Rise and the taxi rank, to increase the width of the carriageway by 2 metres

4.  Narrow the footway on the southern side of the road 

The Assistant Director for Traffic and Parking responded that the scheme  ...  view the full minutes text for item 102