CROYDON COMMENTARY: In response to TfL proposals to build a flyover to the Croydon Flyover, DAVID WICKENS asks why the town centre’s £1bn shopping mall developers are not required to contribute more towards improving the borough’s transport network
I believe that many traffic schemes in Britain were justified on growth figures that have not materialised. In many cases there has in fact been decline of car usage. I would like to think that some of the decline along the A23 and the A232 may be due to the influence of Tramlink which opened in 2000.
Croydon has difficult decisions to make regarding the Hammerson and Westfield development. The developer will want to secure adequate access for all modes of transport and this will inevitably include cars, particularly for major shopping expeditions.
Wellesley Road is/was one of the Mayor’s 100 open spaces and there is an extensive history of designs/ideas to turn it into less of a motorway and more of a green open space. Access from the north is difficult and the road over rail bridges on these routes need extensive work or replacement. One will therefore need to consider very carefully where all the heavy construction traffic for the Westfield-led development is going to be routed.
Ideally, there would be a tram stop on the west side of Wellesley Road to serve the Whitgift new development. Consideration was given to this some years ago. This could be considered as part of a north-south route, but would be very expensive. A possible alternative might be to resurrect the idea of a route up North End.
If it not already in hand, there needs to be a comprehensive assessment of the various options for all modes of transport for Hammersfield. Time is short. There are no guarantees that Hammerson and Westfield will deliver (consider the economic viability of such major town centre shopping malls), yet the public sector appears to have the responsibility of providing for adequate access.
In many cases elsewhere, the developer had to make the necessary improvements at their own expense and risk and have them in place before they were allowed to “open”. One might ask why that is not the case here?
- David Wickens is a chartered civil engineer and chartered highway engineer. He spent 23 years working at Croydon Council until 2010, when he was made redundant as head of engineering and project management. He was in a senior council position during the development of the tram network
- Road schemes are out-dated and a threat to people’s health
- £85m TfL road schemes include a flyover to the Croydon Flyover
- No evidence that Boris’s flyover will improve traffic flow
Coming to Croydon
- Concert of Christmas music, St Luke’s, Woodside, Dec 13
- Opera Soiree at Whitgift School, Dec 14
- Friends of the Earth Green Beanfeast, Dec 15 (book by Dec 1)
- Croydon Philharmonic Christmas concert, St Matthew’s, Dec 16
- Spread Eagle’s Christmas Improv show, Dec 17
- David Lean Cinema, Northern Soul, Dec 18
- David Lean Cinema, Hitchcock’s To Catch A Thief, Dec 29
- David Lean Cinema, The Beat Beneath My Feet, Dec 30
- Norwood Society talk: Penge, the making of a suburb, Jan 15
- South Croydon business breakfast, Jan 24
- Norwood Society talk: Crystal Palace and Dulwich, Feb 19
- Norwood Society talk: Charlies Dickens in Norwood, Mar 19
- Norwood Society: Balloons and airships at Crystal Palace, Apr 16
-
Inside Croydon: Croydon’s only independent news source, based in the heart of the borough: 407,847 page views (Jan-Jun 2014) If you have a news story about life in or around Croydon, a residents’ or business association or local event, please email us with full details at inside.croydon@btinternet.com
Croydon Council and the GLA could have demanded a higher proportion of enabling costs from Hammersfield, but it chose not to do so. I imagine the negotiation was really hard ball in places and that the developer pointed to the lack of any other schemes in the offing and that Croydon was faced with redevelopment on its terms, or continuing decline, probably terminal.
Rightly or not, the council and its partners seem to have accepted such an argument. We are where we are.
And Gav says that since the public are going to benefit (not his Trust or Foundation, of course) it is only right, fit and proper that they (we) should pay for all the road improvements.
Hmmm… who gets the financial benefit? Us? Nope.
Do I get a reduction on my Council Tax if I undertake never to use Hammersfield? Nope.
As usual, them that has gets…