Worcester Park Councillors tackle some myths

In light of recent comments and misinformation shared online about the Worcester Park roadworks conducted by Thames Water, we thought we should do some myth-busting.

Claim 1: “Sutton Council Turns Road and Lane Closures into a Cash Cow...!”

This was a surprise to read, particularly the suggestion that there is a financial interest for the Council to make roadworks and disruption for residents worse. The lane rental scheme means that utility firms will be incentivised to complete their works as quickly as possible to avoid disruption to residents - and isn’t even in effect yet.

The scheme has been in use by TfL for a few years now, and Sutton is one of the latest boroughs to implement the scheme. More details can be seen in the article here.

The full detail of the Sutton scheme was discussed and approved at the Environment and Sustainable Transport (E&ST) committee in October 2025. You can see all the published papers discussing this item at the link below, and also watch back the discussion at the meeting about the proposed scheme (from 1:33:35).

The scheme was voted for by all Liberal Democrat and Conservative members of the committee, demonstrating rare cross party support.

As we said, contrary to online misinformation, the scheme begins later this year, so the works that were conducted last week were not subject to the scheme. Had it been in operation, however, it may have been completed quicker!

Claim 2: “Surrounding closures Green Lane, Lynwood Drive, Kingsmead Avenue are designed to reduce impact…clearly impact has not been minimised, more likely maximised!”

The closure of Green Lane and Lynwood Drive, whilst understandably frustrating for residents, meant that the number of phases of traffic lights that were required were minimised, and hence the ‘dead time’ between different directions of traffic that are required to allow vehicles to clear the area of single lanes are minimised - so these choices were indeed to minimise the impact, contrary to suggestions. 

These closures also avoided adding the legally required pedestrian crossing phases if they were to remain open. These schemes are designed by traffic engineers at the utility provider and full time council highway professionals who are trained and experienced to minimise disruption and maximise safety.

As local Councillors we are not responsible for timing traffic lights, but we are able to highlight where things are not working correctly in practice as we did on this occasion.

Claim 3: “[Sutton Council] has a vested financial interest in approving as many [works] as possible!”

Councils are subject to the New Roads and Streets Act 1991 and therefore cannot routinely refuse any streetworks activity, but can set permit conditions on the work (like streetlights, diversions, road closures), schedule works to avoid clashes, and mitigate delay and disruption as best they can, and that’s what happened here.

Works like last week need to happen to stop damage to our sewers, and the work this week is required to provide new connections for new homes. There are other gas, electric and water supply works that need to happen to keep residents safe, and to avoid disruption for residents. No-one wants power cuts, gas explosions or water leaks. 

Suggestions that the Council will approve as many works as possible to earn extra income and not to keep our roads and residents safe really is not credible, and misleads residents.

We hope this was helpful, please do share this update with friends and neighbours, sign up to our email newsletter here: and make sure to follow our Facebook page for more updates on what is happening in our community.