Agenda item

ES20358

It was noted that generally speaking, the public consultation was in favour of the scheme, as were the Ward Councillors. It was also the case that an extensive objection had been received, and a Member asked how officers were responding to it. There were a number of matters raised in the objection including issues concerning ‘Copenhagen Crossings’ and the quality of the paved crossings. The Principal Transport Projects Manager said that he had responded to the objections. It was commented that the scheme had many different facets to add value. It had been independently audited and there was an audit trail.   

A Member stated that she was not in favour of parking spaces being on the same level as the kerb and that the kerb should be delineated. She felt that this could be a safety issue. The Principal Transport Projects Manager said that he would consider this, as everyone involved wanted the scheme to be safe.

A Member asked how many people had filled in the consultation. It was noted that the consultation results had been displayed on the Bromley Council Website. Members were informed that there had been 210 responses to the consultation and 117 of these were in favour of the bus lane. 154 people responded to say that they were in favour of the Copenhagen Crossings. The Assistant Director for Traffic and Parking confirmed that the majority of respondents were local residents and that TfL were investing in the scheme to improve traffic flow. A Member expressed some concern as to whether the scheme had been too rushed and was further concerned that Anerley Hill could be clogged up. He said that he had serious concerns and was sceptical of TfL schemes. He wanted to know ‘what good looked like’ as it was not mentioned in the report. He said that the scheme was a possible waste of public money and so would not be supporting it. 

A Member asked if this was just a scheme to improve TfL bus routes and was nothing to do with reducing KSI figures. The Assistant Director for Traffic and Parking stated that meetings had been held with previous ward councillors who wanted to investigate certain issues and to improve traffic flow and so the scheme had evolved from those discussions. The Principal Transport Projects Manager explained that as well as improving traffic flow, there were other improvements and safety issues incorporated into the scheme, particularly at junctions.  The scheme would also improve the reliability and predictability of buses and would be a platform for other improvements. The Assistant Director for Traffic and Parking said that this was not a TfL scheme. The Council had asked TfL to consider the proposals and provide funding for the scheme and it was more than just a bus route. The new electric buses would use the proposed new bus lanes.

The Portfolio Holder for Transport, Highways and Road Safety said that the scheme incorporated many improvements and was a worthy scheme. He also pointed out that the bus lane would not operate 24/7 but would commence at 7:00 am and finish at 7:00 pm. He said the scheme was sensible and would enhance the predictability and regularity of buses which was essential if the public were to use the buses. Members agreed the proposals as outlined in the report with the exception of Councillor Simon Fawthrop who asked that his opposition to the scheme be noted in the minutes.

RESOLVED that the Portfolio Holder for Transport, Highways and Road Safety be recommended:

1) To approve that the scheme progresses to detailed design and implementation and for the cost of the scheme to be met from the 2024/25 TfL budget for bus priority measures.

 2) To delegate to the Director of Environment and Public Protection, authority to  make minor changes to the schemes in response to operational requirements.