Harcourt Road - Wallington
Working for you. Working for Wallington North Learn more
by Barry on 30 January, 2021
Update 06 February with all survey results
Ward Councillors carried out a survey of Butter Hill residents regarding the Butter Hill Low Traffic Neighbourhood scheme and the closure of Mill Lane Bridge. Approximately 750 surveys were delivered to all houses in Butter Hill between 21 and 23 January. Responses were received from 158 households and three businesses in the area. The summary below includes all results received up to and including 05 February.
Residents were asked to put a tick against each statement they agreed with:
The LTN in Butter Hill is a six month trial which began on 21 September 2020. No decision has been made regarding resident access over the bridge. This LTN and other Sutton Streetspace schemes are due to be reviewed at meeting on 11 Feb. For more information click here:
A number of residents’ ticked they agreed with two statements which suggests what their preference would be if access was not possible.
Below is a breakdown of responses by street.
| Street Name | Responses | Closed | Access | Open |
| Arcadia | 5 | 0 | 5 | 2 |
| Burleigh Ave | 10 | 2 | 7 | 1 |
| Butter Hill | 22 | 7 | 18 | 4 |
| Caledon | 5 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| Curran | 10 | 2 | 8 | 0 |
| Devonshire | 3 | 0 | 3 | 1 |
| Elm Grove | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 |
| Leechcroft | 17 | 4 | 15 | 5 |
| Lyndon | 13 | 2 | 10 | 3 |
| Millpond Place | 13 | 13 | 1 | 0 |
| No Address | 3 | 1 | 2 | 1 |
| Parkfields | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
| St Mary | 6 | 3 | 5 | 2 |
| Vellum | 20 | 4 | 18 | 5 |
| Victoria | 29 | 2 | 23 | 10 |
| Total | 161 | 45 | 120 | 35 |
Below is a breakdown of responses by ‘what ticked’.
| Resident Access Only ticked | 80 |
| Bridge closed only ticked | 25 |
| Bridge reopen only ticked | 15 |
| Resident Access and Bridge closed ticked | 20 |
| Resident Access and Bridge reopen ticked | 20 |
| Resident ticked no boxes | 1 |
| 161 |
A number of residents added comments to the survey. I have not transcribed all the comments in full but below is a summary of all the comments that were made. 73 respondents added extra comments and most of them are shown below Of the 82 comments, I have categorised 27 as being mainly supportive of the closure, 28 are opposed to the closure and 18 are neutral.
Concerns over increased traffic along Carshalton High St and London Rd. Monitoring traffic in this current situation is a waste of time and we can only assume it will worsen as the pandemic eases
I have 3 children under 3 years of age and what would normally be a 10 minute drive is almost double the length when we need to go to the Doctors
There should be two exits. If main exit is blocked what happens? If remains closed then residents should be allowed free of charge.
I think if residents access is granted it should be those living directly off Butter Hill only, Mill Lane ,Denmark Road side of the bridge closure have already more than one way to access their homes unlike the residents of Butter hill and roads off Butter Hill, Mill Lane ,Denmark Road side of the bridge closure have already more than one way to access their homes
Massive benefit to the area without traffic. I would hate the bridge to reopen and be used as a cut through like before.
The area is a much nicer place to live following the closure
School run to Oaks Park is a nightmare. Husband works in Morden and has to leave an hour earlier
3rd survey I have filled in since the lock down
Have lived here 45 years and have always had access to the bridge
Has reduced rush hour traffic flow but residents should be able to use the bridge
With the closed bridge, Butter Hill becomes a normal suburban street where children could safely walk and cycle
closure causes inconvenience and causes traffic to use Carshalton High Street
Carbon dioxide must be reduced also noise and invective from drivers
Resident access would assist with traffic jams on main roads of Carshalton
The whole area is much quieter and enjoyable
Taking my grandchildren to school and now takes 45 minues
Beneficial when taking children to school and park – flipside is some car journeys are longer
Why are MPP residents included?
Lots more traffic on other roads. Journey time to hospital increased
Residents have right to access from both ends, I will not vote for you again
Ideally a peak hour ban too. Amateur approach to this LTN
3 special needs children and much safer and quieter
Small but vocal minority who want bridge open and resident access
We really enjoy the quieter/safer/cleaner neighbourhood created by the bridge closure and it took time to be affective. It also takes time for people to find the alternative routes.
As you can see I support anything that can help the environment so would like to see the bridge remain closed, but with residents access, and access for essential services, not just emergency services, ie. DNs, HVs, MoWs etc
no charge we already pay road tax and council tax
Delighted with the closure
Not overly fussed about resident access and made me walk more for shorter journeys so I’m not bothered about a longer car journey on the rare occasions I do use the car.
Keep bridge closed, safer for children to play. Journey times to St Helier not increased
Causing significant inconvenience but reduced road noise
Only wants RA if no cost otherwise Bridge to stay closed
Blue badge access too.
The bridge closure has completely transformed the foot of Butter Hill. Gone are the aggressive encounters.
Concerns about estate getting blocked off and longer journey times
If residents had access then too many people and would not ensure safety for walkers etc.
Closure is a small price to pay for cleaner and safer roads
Really happy with the closure
Resident access will lead to same problems as before
Would not pay for bridge access
Discrimatory – more wear and tear on the car
Extra long journeys and more traffic elsewhere
Closure was a terrible idea – increased pollution on High St. If residents can not access reopen bridge
Strongly in favour of the bridge closure
Bridge should reopen – resident access at a push
Extra mileage and pollution
Traffic noise zero and lot safer walking. When I do drive the Wallington Green exit is easier
Resident access not essential
Whatever the outcome ANPR would manage speeding drivers
Welcome it remaining closed
Journey times increased but recognise that road safety risks have improved
preferable would be option 2 – but we hate the bridge being closed – it’s ruining our everyday lives.
bad time to do the trial because of lockdown but of no RA then bridge should be kept open
children attend Victor Seymour and we go to work after dropping them off -adds so much time
Scheme is working and gone are the days of shouting and screaming
Our view is that option 1 – that the bridge should remain closed serves our community best
The bridge being closed has been an enormous inconvenience. We are a working family with very tight schedules – my sons’ nursery is in Sutton and the bridge closure has added hours of travel and additional stress to our week
Please note our objection to “chargeable”
Concerns about validity of survey, does not include Mill Lane
Disabled partner said find no access very difficult with doctors and hospital appointments
Journey a nightmare since bridge closure
I would like the bridge to remain closed
Dissapointed to find bridge had been closed when buying our property
Much longer journey times
Increased journey times
Expecting baby and worried about journey to hospital
Whilst we are enjoying less traffic through our streets, we are concerned about the added amount of time it takes to travel anywhere now
I want the bridge to remain closed. Residents access would be a bonus.
Since the bridge closure, life at …….- in terms of both MASSIVELY reduced noise and air pollution has been wonderful.
As a resident of Butterhill, the closure of the bridge has inconvenienced me greatly. I work for the NHS and have worked through the pandemic
I think the benefits of less noise and air pollution, as well as safer surrounding roads massively outweighs the cost of people around here having to leave the house a little earlier to get to work on time.
Timestamp the bridge closure around peak hours
20 Comments
I find it interesting that after all the online residents’ “noise,” less than 20% overall thought the survey important enough to reply.
Well we received 3 seperate surveys on this issue – so I expect other residents replied to those – given this, whilst the results are interesting, this is incomplete.
The main question I have for our locally elected representatives is this: Why were residents not engaged with these preferences is August?
With input, it would have community support, instead it’s generated animosity against the scheme and those responsible for it.
Hi Kelvin. I fully agree the initial engagement could have been much better and I apologise for that. Since September we have held two public meetings and four online meetings. I wish more had been done to explain the LTN and what it was trying to achieve. It would have been interesting if we had done a survey in August because we could see if opinion had shifted at all as a result of the trial. Barry
Why have the residents of mill lane, strawberry lane, Denmark rd etc not been consulted on this closure
Hi Paul, it was a survey carried out by Wallington North Councillors of residents in Wallington North.
The only survey that mattered & 80% didn’t reply or haven’t been affected. Very telling. From what I’ve seen, the most successful LTN / scheme in the borough.
Also, even given the limited response, to use the politicians favourite line – the right thing to do, is ensure the facts are presented in an honest fashion:
138 respondents want the bridge re-opened in some form.
41 Want it to remain closed.
I hope the elected representatives now listen and do the right thing.
Hi Kelvin -its not quite as simple as that. It is clear the majority of residents would like resident only access (ROA). What is not clear is if ROA is not possible then would people prefer the bridge to remain closed or be reopened.
Of the people who ticked for ROA, 17 of them selected bridge closed too. This probably means that if they can’t have access they would rather the bridge remains closed.
Interestingly, 17 people who ticked bridge opened also ticked ROA implying that if this is not possible then they would want the bridge reopened.
We don’t know what the other 73 who selected RAO would want if RAO not possible.
Who did the maths Diana Abbott ?
Hi Confused, some people ticked more than one statement which should explain the discrepancies. If there is something else in the numbers which does not make sense then please let me know. I have added futher breakdown of the figures on the main post.
I don’t understand why ROA would not be possible. If Lidl and Sainsbury’s can handle dealing with number plate recognition software why can’t our council? Also the votes from millpond place should be invalid, as they can access from both sides of the bridge through each of the gates anyway.
Hi Harrison
Technically I don’t think it is a problem.
The question is if Butter Hill residents only were granted ROA would that be unfair on residents of Mill Lane, Denmark Rd etc. If residents of Mill Lane etc were granted access then there would be 1500 households plus with access and this would start to negate any of the benefits of the LTN.
It can be argued that with the Bridge closed Butter Hill residents only have one entry and exit point onto their roads whereas Mill Lane etc still have multiple exit points.
Millpond Place does have an exit onto Mill Lane however being located right next to the Bridge it was significantly impacted by the road noise and traffic.
Thanks for the reply Barry. That’s the main issue here, being “trapped” say for example there is an accident at the junction at the bottom of leachcroft road. Or road raged drives in another stand off there. How does any one get out if it’s an emergency?
Yes that may be true with regards to millpond place however, I bet if you shut one of there gates off and they only had access through one way they would all change there votes!
Hi Harrison
In the event of their being an accident at as described then it would be permissable to use the Bridge exit. Exactly how permission would be ‘given’ I do not know and that would have to be worked out.
No doubt some of MPP would change their votes if they did not have separate access, however I suspect a significant number would still want the brdge closed. MPP is heavily impacted by the traffic noise.
So 179 replied & 571 didn’t ? Hasn’t affected as many as we’re meant to believe. I guess the council can read into the fact that 80% are not worried either way. That just shows what a massive success it’s been I think.
Hi Dan
146 household responses in total. Some respondents ticked two statements – ROA and Bridge Closed or ROA and Bridge to reopen, this suggests what they would want if ROA not possible.
I think some residents were also suffering from survey fatigue.
I don’t agree at all. It’s all happened in a year of pure chaos, so people have different things to worry about other than looking up information about what’s going on around the area. Which has been very little information given out to each house hold and very unclear! Older people aren’t as likely to get on the computer and email surveys in and I know a few people that only found out through third parties. The most information I got was a letter taped to a lamp post and I only saw it walking my dog. So I think that’s more the reason so few responded, not that they don’t care.
Hi Harrison.
This particular survey was hand delivered by the three Ward Councillors and you could reply by email or there was a Freepost address.
I will agree that the whole communication on the LTN could have been handled a lot better.
Perhaps the 73 who ticked ROA did not realise they had to select an alternative option, perhaps you should have made this clear on the survey.
The bridge closure causes no inconvenience whatsoever to Millpond Place residents so how can their results be taken into account, unless of course it’s because there responses support your actions
Hi Paul
I agree with you regarding the wording of the survey. We were trying to keep it simple but probably should have added an extra line to explain.
One of the aims of the LTN was to reduce traffic noise and pollution in the locality. Millpond Place is right next to the Bridge and was heavily affected by the rat running traffic. You can see from the survey that MPP is very supportive of the scheme because road noise has been cut significantly. No doubt if there was not an exit onto Mill Lane then some MPP residents would have responded differently. MPP is also part of Wallington North and so was included in the survey.