Wheels of Surrey move slowly

3rd October 2024

On September 23rd 2024 Officers from SCC held a session with Councillors on the Mole Valley Local Cycling & Walking Infrastructue Plan  ( LCWIP).

Stage two of the process is now underway, this will involve developing feasibility designs and carrying out public consultation in the identified Phase 1 cycle corridors and walking corridors in the district.

The meeting was outlining the key stages in stage 2 of the process post publication and adoption over the coming months.

The Phase 1 cycle corridors are :

• Leatherhead to Great Bookham/Effingham via Lower road

• Leatherhead to Great Bookham/Effingham via Guidlford Rd

• Leatherhead to Epsom( Northern Corridor)

• Leatherhead to Kingston Boundary

Phase 1 walking corridors & zones are:

• Dorking

• Leatherhead

• North Leatherhead

The scheme must adhere to new guidelines which require pedestrians to be separated from cycle users where feasible. Councillors questioned how feasible this could be considering the narrowness of sections of the current roads ( i.e. Barnett Wood Lane) , we were informed this would form part of the stage 2 process now underway. The scheme will have to operate to new guidelines devised by Active Travel England (ATE) formed in 2022 .

ATE Manage the national active travel budget, awarding funding for projects which meet the new national guidance

• Inspect finished schemes and ask for funds to be returned for any which have not been completed as promised

• Inspect and publish reports on Highway Authorities for their performance on active travel and identify particularly dangerous failings in their highways for cyclists and pedestrians  

• A RAG( Red, Orange , Green) rating system will be used to evaluate scheme feasibility in the design process.

• Mitigation measures will be considered. Schemes with critical issues are very unlikely to be approved by ATE and receive funding without reasonable and compelling justification.

• Walking corridors appear to be focused on following current main road routes not anticipated to be prettier alternative routes.

 Here is the timetable .

Task1: Review of initial proposals - August 2024 Traffic surveys - November 2024

Task 2: Optioneering & initial design investigation - December 2024

Task 3: Design development - March 2025

​

• Develop ‘feasibility plus’ designs for each corridor / CWZ

•  Prepare draft sketches ▪ Supported by review of potential issues and mitigation measures related to (noted in annotations, technical notes):

• Drainage

• Structures

• Geotechnical

•  Lighting

• Junction modelling

• Environment (including ecology, heritage)

• Further liaison with relevant stakeholders (e.g., ATE)

Task 4: Final feasibility design outputs - May 2025

​

• Prepare final feasibility design drawings:

•  Annotated general arrangement

• Standard signage and road markings

• Indicative location of primary traffic signals and lighting

• Service location (utilities) based on C2 searches

• Swept path analysis (if required)

• Cycle swept path analysis (if required)

• Drawings accompanied by reporting, including:

• Design strategy technical note

• Designer’s risk assessment

• Compliance / non-compliance technical note

• ATE Route Check assessments

• High-level cost estimates

It appears that the main Public consultation timetable will occur in Spring 2025.

Your Ashtead Independent SCC Councillor Chris Townsend questioned the process with regard to the scheme delivery should sections of the route / communities not support the proposed changes necessary  in their area to deliver the route , the response received was we will have to wait and see how the design process evolves and this would form part of the consultation feedback – whether it could stop a scheme being delivered was unclear .

The link to the project :  https://www.molevalley.gov.uk/planning-building/the-local-cycling-and-walking-infrastructure-plan/

Ashtead Independents are committed to listening to local views and representing our area. 

We have already heard from a number of residents.  What do you think of these plans in principle?"