Questions from the Public for Oral Response:
1) Agenda Item 13b – BECKENHAM: SOUTHEND ROAD, PARK ROAD, FOXGROVE ROAD SAFETY SCHEME (Report No: ES20241)
The UK design manual for roundabouts states a 4-arm mini-roundabout should not be used where the peak traffic flows at the junction exceed 500 vehicles an hour. The Southend/Foxgrove/Park Road junction has more than three times this flow.
How can the Council bring forward a scheme that breaches this guidance?
The junction of Southend Road with Park Road, Foxgrove Road and Beckenham Place Park has been the location of a high number of injury collisions for many years. Not only did the high number of casualties trigger an investigation by Bromley, but a cost-effective solution has also been identified.
During the design of this proposed solution, all national guidance was taken into consideration. There are many locations across the UK where four-arm mini-roundabouts have been successfully used where traffic flow is not balanced. If we were to introduce a three-arm mini-roundabout there is more chance of displacing traffic to other routes and thereby inadvertently causing what is known as “collision migration”. A five-arm miniroundabout was considered, but was not a recommended approach due to the limited benefits and because the existing geometry and restricted space would not enable a safe layout to be achieved.
Residents and visitors will be able to enter and exit Beckenham Place Park in a similar fashion to now, but in a safer and controlled way than is currently possible. The introduction of the roundabout will reduce speeds and present more opportunities for side road traffic, including from Beckenham Place Park, to enter the main junction.
In regard to the previous consultation in early 2022, that was based on the premise that Park Road would be closed to allow the possibility of a three-arm mini-roundabout to be installed, which could have had a major impact on traffic flows in this area. That consultation led to a significant number of concerns being raised with the Council, which were difficult to disregard. Due process was therefore followed. Although the current proposal may have a small impact on the routes drivers choose to take, it would not have the same potential impact on residents as the closure of Park Road might have done.
The recommended design represents good value in terms of collisions prevented per pound spent and is thought to be far more effective as a casualty reduction scheme than would be a 20 mph speed limit. The siting of speed cameras is not a matter for the Council but for the Police and TfL. Fundamentally the Council cannot ignore the serious problem at this junction and the fact that a solution has been identified. If there was not a high probability of further, preventable casualties at the junction we would not be proposing these changes.
Over the years, Bromley Council has developed an effective policy of implementing junction safety improvements. This has resulted in serious and fatal road casualties falling by 54% from the 2005-2009 baseline. Our team of highly trained officers identify locations where a safety intervention is required based on data collected over a substantial period, in many cases collected over several years and this has subsequently led to Bromley’s road network being one of the safest in London.
Supplementary question: How do you substantiate the claim that the current proposal would have a small impact on the routes that drivers wish to take when there is no evidence to support this assertion? Should not the amenity value of Park Road be considered?
The closing of Park Road would result in the transfer of traffic onto Brackley Road and Copers Cope Road. So it would result in an increased pressure on other roads. We would not wish just to simply transfer the problem somewhere else.
2) Agenda Item 13b, BECKENHAM: SOUTHEND ROAD, PARK ROAD, FOXGROVE ROAD SAFETY SCHEME, RE: 3.2.
The ‘consultation’ figures which led to scrapping the trial closure of Park Road, are misleading. Park Road residents, many in favour of the scheme, were led to understand formal consultation would take place after 12 months, they did not see the need to submit comments beforehand. Since this promised consultation has been revoked, how can Cllr Bennett assure the committee due process was followed?
I refer to the answer I gave a few moments ago to the first and second question.
Supplementary: It is incredible arrogance on behalf of the Portfolio Holder that he should dismiss national guidelines. How can the committee sanction this?
The engineering officers of the Council have followed all national guidelines.
3) Agenda Item: 13b BECKENHAM: SOUTHEND ROAD, PARK ROAD, FOXGROVE ROAD SAFETY SCHEME
The proposed scheme is not fit for purpose. With very high traffic flows, pedestrians and cyclists, a three-arm mini-roundabout is the only safe option at this junction. This requires closure of Park Road, mistakenly scrapped for ideological reasons over residents safety. Should the committee not be presented with both schemes, with relevant data, in order to
make a properly informed decision?
I refer you to the answer I gave to the earlier questions.
Supplementary: I can’t see how this solves the problem.
From Beckenham Place Park Road, traffic can go into Foxgrove Road and then into the roundabout. The roundabout will be a four arm roundabout not five.
4) Agenda Item 13b – BECKENHAM: SOUTHEND ROAD, PARK ROAD, FOXGROVE ROAD
SAFETY SCHEME (Report No: ES20241), RE: 3.4.
The data is misleading – it lumps together statistics for all mini-roundabouts. The mean accident rate at four arm mini-roundabouts (22.8) is almost double that of three arms (12.5) (Transport Research Laboratory). These rates are for roundabouts operating at the correct capacity – not three times that. The projected reductions in collisions are therefore erroneous. Can you explain why the report glosses over the facts?
I refer you to the answer I gave you a few moments ago.
Supplementary: As Park Road is an important road for many commuters in Beckenham and Penge to get to Beckenham Park Place should not the view of Park Road residents and its amenity value be taken into account?
My job as Portfolio Holder is to look at the whole situation in terms of how all roads in the area many be affected. Transferring traffic issues to other people’s roads would be very unfair on them.
5) Agenda Item: 13b, BECKENHAM: SOUTHEND ROAD, PARK ROAD, FOXGROVE ROAD SAFETY SCHEME
Government highways experts state four-arm mini-roundabouts should not be used where traffic exceeds 500 vehicles/hour. At this junction, traffic exceeds 1500 vehicles/hour, plus pedestrians and cyclists. The council has a preferred option which they are pushing through ignoring expert advice and risking lives.
Is the committee happy to approve a flawed scheme that knowingly disregards national safety standards used by every council in the UK?
I refer you to the answer I gave to the earlier questions.
Supplementary: The residents of Park Road are still under the idea that there is going to be a road closure. They were not informed before the scheme was scrapped. Therefore no genuine consultation with the people in Park Road has been undertaken and due process has not been followed. Why is this scheme being scrapped on the quiet and my question is has due process been followed?
Yes, due process has been followed. The original proposal was dropped. The information regarding the new scheme will be public information if it is approved by the committee and myself.
Questions from the Public for Written Response:
1) BROMLEY’S ROLE AS THE LEAD LOCAL FLOOD AUTHORITY.
Bromley, as LLFA, is required to prepare and maintain a strategy for local flood risk management in their areas, coordinating views and activities with other local bodies and local communities through public consultation, scrutiny and delivery planning. Please detail documents and dates when Bromley has carried out these public consultation requirements.
Public consultation was undertaken when the Local Flood Risk Strategy was prepared in 2015. The Council cooperates with other bodies including Thames Water, Environment Agency and Thames 21.
2) The Council has stated that three significant flooding incidents on 10/06/19, 20/07/21 and 21/11/21, in which properties were affected, were reported to the Borough Resilience Forum and the Environment Agency.
Please give the details and dates when each of these reports were published, and where they can be found.
The Borough Resilience Forum was made aware of these incidents, along with the Environment Agency, no formal reports prepared or published.
3) What is the Council’s plan to tackle air pollution outside schools and for older people in the borough ? Why is it taking so long to publish the Council’s air pollution plan?
The plan is now live on the website after it was amended to meet new accessibility guidelines.
4) Has the Portfolio Holder read the report by the Environmental Research Group at Imperial College London “London Health Burden of Current Air Pollution and Future Health Benefits of Mayoral Air Quality Policies” ? What plans does the Council have to reduce deaths in Bromley due to toxic air?
Yes, I am aware of the report and in fact, we met the writers of the report with the Director of Public Health to understand their methodology. The report concludes that anyone in Bromley who has died of any respiratory or cardiovascular causes, died from air pollution. As there are a number of reasons/ causes for these types of deaths, the report cannot conclude these same people died of poor air quality. The authors failed to adjust their results to consider the age profile of each London borough. In LB Bromley the age profile has significantly greater representation from older age groups, this caused the results and the conclusions of the report to be exaggerated for Bromley, as the numbers of death per head of population is, quite naturally, generally higher than for other boroughs. In comparison LB Lambeth, who have greater representation from younger age groups saw their results significantly minimised. To have considered the boroughs to be homogenous in terms of age profile is unfortunate and has led to results that do not reflect reality with regards to the conclusions regarding number of early deaths due to poor air quality. It must be noted that air quality in the LB Bromley has met all UK air quality standards for the last 2 years, has arguably the best air quality of all London Boroughs and it continues to improve. The Council’s approved Air Quality Action Plan outlines the many commitments the Authority has made and is actioning to continue to improve air quality for all residents in the borough. A hard copy of the Plan is available by emailing ehts-customer@bromley.gov.com
5) I am shocked by the amount of unsightly litter and decaying leaf debris left along the streets and kerbsides of the residential roads in Beckenham, creating slippery pavements and blocked drains. Does the Council have a schedule for street and kerbside cleaning in residential areas, or do they totally rely on residents to report build-up of litter and blocked drains?
The Council does have a full, published schedule for street cleansing across the full 56 square miles and 3,000 plus roads in the borough as well as a client monitoring team that oversees the service provider’s outputs. Operating across such a large area has its challenges admittedly, but there is no reliance on residents or volunteers. That said however, the work those residents or volunteers do is highly valued and supported through our Street Friends scheme. Beckenham is a broad area and comes with challenges of its own including heavily parked-up sections and tree-lined streets. If there are specific locations that we can look at with a view to improving the amenity we would be very happy to receive those and would work hard to improve standards.
6) Park Road/Southend Road Junction:
Why has the decision been made to go ahead with a different road design without gathering any clear evidence as to its impact, in particular given the limited effectiveness of four arm roundabouts, as noted in paragraph 3.3 of the public report? This seems contrary to the original plan to have a 12 month trial period of the initial solution, which clearly has merit in understanding traffic flows and displacement.
During the design of this proposed solution to the ongoing collision problem at this location, all guidance was taken into consideration. There are many locations across the UK where four-arm mini-roundabouts have been successfully used and do result in a reduced number of casualties and their severity. If we were to introduce a three-arm mini roundabout there is more chance of displacing traffic to other routes and thereby inadvertently causing what is known as “collision migration”.
7) Park Road/Southend Road Junction:
Why has there been no consultation on the new solution? Given that 108 people responded to the last proposal it is clearly an issue of interest, surely this revised solution should be given the same opportunity to receive support or objection?
The previous consultation was based on the premise that Park Road would be closed, which would have had a possible major impact on traffic flows in this area. Although the current proposal may have a small impact on the routes drivers choose to take, it would not have the same potential impact on residents as the closure of Park Road might have done.
8) Proposal for roundabout at Foxgrove Road Junction:
How will BPP residents access the roundabout (via Foxgrove Road or Southend?) and how will sufficient priority be given to BPP residents at times of high traffic?
Residents and visitors will still be able to enter and exit Beckenham Place Park (BPP) but in a more safe and controlled way than is currently possible. The introduction of the roundabout will reduce speeds and present more opportunities for side road traffic, including BPP, to enter the main junction.
9) Proposal for roundabout at Foxgrove Road Junction:
Was a 5-arm roundabout, incorporating access from BPP, considered?
A five-arm mini-roundabout was considered but was not a recommended approach due to the limited benefits and because the existing geometry and restricted space would not enable a safe layout to be achieved.
10) Mini roundabout at junction of Southern Road, Park Road and Foxgrove:
Agenda Item Para 3.2 is misleading. Council Letter Feb 2022 stated: “…..invited to take part in a formal consultation after the experimental closure has been in place for a minimum of 12 months to provide their views……”
Residents misled to believe no comments needed immediately, hence comments which were received are distorted, giving people in favour less likely to comment. Why has the Council changed and embarked on £1.3m scheme based on incomplete and biased comments?
The cost of this scheme is estimated at £125k, not £1.3M. The previous consultation was based on the premise that Park Road would be closed, which would have had a possible major impact on traffic flows in this area. Although the current proposal may have a small impact on the routes drivers choose to take, it would not have the same potential impact on residents as the closure of Park Road might have done.*
11) Mini roundabout at junction of Southern Road, Parke Road and Foxgrove/
Southend Road daytime traffic exceeds +1100 vehicles/hour (Council survey 2021), over double National recommended volume for 4 arm mini-roundabout. If include Park, Foxgrove, Covid etc, likely volume is 3X National limit (recent resident survey +1500 vehicles/hour). Report makes superfluous safety claim as not based on the proposed junction. Why has the Council ignored National recommendations on maximum traffic volume and based safety gains on data not related to the 4 arm/high volume roundabout in question?
During the design of this proposed solution to the ongoing collision problem at this location, all guidance was taken into consideration. There are many locations across the UK where four-arm mini-roundabouts have been successfully used where traffic flow is not balanced. If there was not a serious problem at this junction we would not be proposing these changes.
12) Reference to agenda item 13b
When the junction of Southend Road and Park Road suffers from a very poor injury crash record (item 3.1), and 3-arm roundabouts are more effective than 4-arm roundabouts at reducing collisions (item 3.3). What evidence do the council members have that the installation of a 4-arm roundabout will reduce the risk to pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers
sufficiently, when a 3-arm roundabout is achievable?
During the design of this proposed solution to the ongoing collision problem at this location appropriate design guidance was taken into consideration. There are many locations across the UK where four-arm mini-roundabouts have been successfully used. If we were to introduce a three-arm mini roundabout there is more chance of displacing traffic to other routes and thereby inadvertently causing what is known as “collision migration”.
13) Reference to agenda item 13b
If the closure of Park Road, and the installation of a 3-arm roundabout offers the safest option (item 3.3) for all road users (item 8.1), and the council is rejecting this solution based on the feedback from 79 emails (item 3.2). Can the council explain why the revised 4-arm solution is not given the same opportunity for public consultation?
The previous consultation was based on the premise that Park Road would be closed, which would have had a possible major impact on traffic flows in this area. Although the current proposal may have a small impact on the routes drivers choose to take, it would not have the same potential impact on residents as the closure of Park Road might have done.
14) Proposed roundabout at Foxgrove Road/South End Road Junction.
What allowances are in place to prevent this congestion, for example will vehicles continue to be able to enter and exit BPP from or onto Southend Road via the cobbles as they do now?
Residents and visitors will still be able to enter and exit BPP but in a more safe and controlled way than is currently possible. Drivers will still be able to cross the cobbles where this will help. The introduction of the roundabout will reduce speeds and present more opportunities for side road traffic, including BPP, to enter the main junction.
15) Proposed roundabout at Foxgrove Road/South End Road Junction.
Given the very high cost of the roundabout and the fact it could increase rather than decrease congestion and safety concerns, could alternative measures be imposed such as a 20mph speed limit and potentially adding speed cameras for this section of Southend Road?
The recommended design represents good value in terms of collisions prevented per pound spent and is thought to be far more effective as a casualty reduction scheme than would be a 20mph speed limit. The siting of speed cameras is not a matter for the Council but for the Police and TfL.
16) Proposal for roundabout at Junction of Foxgrove Road, Park Road, Southend Road, Beckenham Place Park.
It is currently nearly an impossibility to access Southend Road from the Park, as we normally end up blocking the access into Foxgrove Road on trying to join Foxgrove Road to exit, with a roundabout there we would have to do a virtual U-turn to turn right into Southend Road, we may even have to turn left into Foxgrove Road, do a U-turn at some point, then join the traffic queue to access Southend Road. How will priority be given to vehicles exiting Beckenham Place Park?
Residents and visitors will still be able to enter and exit BPP but more safely and controlled than is currently possible. The introduction of the roundabout will reduce speeds and present more opportunities for side road traffic, including BPP, to enter the main junction.
17) Proposed roundabout at Foxgrove Road/South End Road Junction.
We believe that a 4-arm roundabout is untenable, a 5-arm roundabout would be a better option as this would include Beckenham Place Park; is this an option you are prepared to consider?
This was considered and not recommended because of the limited benefits and because the existing geometry and restricted space would not enable a safe layout to be achieved.
18) Re. Item 12. ECS Performance Overview and 13d. Draft Portfolio Plan. Notably absent is any reference to the epidemic of casual littering, and specifically the discarding of nitrous oxide cylinders and disposable vapes, both of which are misused by and injurious to young people. How do you plan to tackle these issues?
Any variety of fly-tipped, dumped or illegitimately discarded waste, including that which has been specifically mentioned, that is on the public highway, will be proactively removed via baseline cleansing frequencies or via targeted reactive resources such as upon receipt of a report from a member of the client team or public. We are teaming up with Veolia to launch a new anti-littering campaign and we hope residents will help us to encourage everyone to look after our environment.
19) Re. Item 13e. Tree Management Strategy 2023-2027 and Indicator 7, (a) how many Tree Friends are currently registered, (b) what are your targets/dates for recruiting more Tree Friends, (c) when will the Tree Database website go public, and (d) when will the updated Tree Friends Toolkit be published?
a) Only coordinators a currently registered. There are 90 coordinators.
b) Targets will be defined after the re-launch and existing tree friends have re-registered.
c) Seeking clarification
We are working toward a release date of the 30/04/23 in time for the tree watering season.
