URL: https://moderngov.kingston.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?ID=5447

Decision Maker: Surbiton Neighbourhood Committee

Outcome:

Is Key Decision?: No

Is Callable In?: No

Purpose:

Content: The Committee received a report on objections received during the statutory Traffic Management Order reference Mapking0097 for Ewell Road Experimental Traffic Management Order (ETMO).   The Committee noted that the new section of northbound cycleway on Ewell Road between Langley Road and Oak Hill Crescent was approved by the Place Committee on 14 March 2024. An ETMO amending parking, loading and waiting restrictions on Ewell Road came into force on 24 November 2024 and would be in force for a maximum of 18 months. Under the ETMO, the loading bay was only for goods vehicles loading, Monday to Saturday 8.30am to 6.30pm; and parking was permitted in the bay, uncontrolled, outside of those hours.   The Committee noted that, during the statutory consultation, objections were received concerning the specific arrangement and operational hours of the loading bay outside 140-142 Ewell Road. In response, officers recommended that the objections be partially upheld and that the ETMO be made permanent with amendment to the operating hours and waiting restrictions. The revised use for the loading bay would be only for goods vehicles loading, Monday to Sunday, midnight to 7am, 10am to 4pm and 7pm to midnight, with a maximum stay of 30 minutes and no return within 2 hours. There would be no waiting or loading permitted in the loading bay by any other vehicle at any time.   Four members of the public commented on the agenda item. Two shop owners on Ewell Road spoke on the negative impact of the removal of parking spaces and restrictions on using the loading bay on their business. They considered that customers who used cars were being discouraged from visiting their shops, and the Council should consider providing some paid-for parking spaces in the roads nearby the high street. Two other members of the public, including a Kingston Cycling Campaign representative, were supportive to the officers’ recommendations. They considered that the proposal would facilitate cycling by reducing disruption to cyclists, and support active travel. They were mindful that apart from car-users, customers could also be cyclists and pedestrians.   Members of the Committee debated the recommendations by officers. They were aware of comments and objections received, and the ETMO arrangement in any case would be a compromise between different stakeholders. A Member was inclined to provide more flexibility for the use of the loading bay for the businesses.   The Chair proposed an amendment, which was seconded by Councillor Schaper, that (i) the words “, and partially upheld” in recommendation 1 be replaced by “and set aside”; and (ii) the words “with a revision such that the loading bay operating hours be restricted to those set out in paragraph 5 of the report” in recommendation 2 be deleted. The amendment was equivalent to set aside the objections received, and to make the ETMO permanent with no revisions.   Members debated the amendment. In response to Members’ questions, officers confirmed that the ETMO would expire by the end of the 18-month period i.e. by 24 May 2026 if not made permanent (with or without amendments). The Clerk advised the Committee that the last meeting before the ETMO expiry would be held on 17 March 2026. Most of the Members who spoke preferred to defer the decision on the ETMO until parking data in the area affected by the ETMO was available, which would require more time for officers to gather data. A Member had expressed concern on the loss of funding from TfL on the cycle lane project if that was not completed.   The amendment was subsequently withdrawn by the proposer.   Councillor Green moved a procedural motion, which was seconded by Councillor Schaper, to defer the consideration of the agenda item to a future meeting. The procedural motion was carried.   Voting: For:                     Councillors Goncalves, Green, Herlinger, Holt, Reeve, Schaper, Thayalan, White, Wooldridge and Yoganathan (10) Against:              Nil (0) Abstention:        Councillor Manders (1)

Date of Decision: December 9, 2025