Forum topic: Bowes low-traffic neighbourhood work starts amid protests
Bowes low-traffic neighbourhood work starts amid protests
Basil Clarke
19 Aug 2020 23:36 5483
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Bowes low-traffic neighbourhood work starts amid protests
Basil Clarke
21 Aug 2020 20:11 5484
Share
Share by email
I've made some amendments to the article above to correct the statement in the original version that the petition was against creating a low-traffic neighbourhood. Having seen the text of the petition, I now realise that it was asking the council to suspend work and then carry out a consultation with residents, TfL and Haringey Council. It did not express opposition to a scheme as such.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Bowes low-traffic neighbourhood work starts amid protests
PGC Webmaster
21 Aug 2020 20:18 5485
Share
Share by email
Yesterday Bambos Charalambous MP intervened in the controversy surrounding complaints that Enfield Council failed to consult properly before starting work on the Bowes Primary Area low-traffic neighbourhood.
In a letter to the secretary of state for transport, Grant Shapps, the Enfield Southgate MP complained that the conditions set by the Department for Transport (DfT) "leave insufficient time for the plans to be considered by the community prior to the trial implementation of the scheme".
The MP writes that he fully recognises and supports the role of low-traffic neighbourhoods in reducing traffic, pollution and carbon emissions and welcomes the funding for the first phase of the Bowes scheme, but says that the timeline imposed by the DfT has caused "unnecessary and avoidable local tensions".
When allocating the funding the DfT stipulated that the council must start work within four weeks of receiving the funding and complete it within eight, on pain of risking having the money clawed back at a future date and being less likely to secure funding from the next phase of the Streetspace programme. Eight weeks, according to the MP, is "clearly insufficient for any scheme to be designed and consulted on". The "usual democratic processes" of prior consultation have been denied.
Mr Charalambous concludes by asking the secretary of state to "provide the rationale for the eight-week condition and assess whether there would be an opportunity to extend the time for prior (as well as concurrent) consultation on the scheme" and requesting that in future the DfT ensures that "the timelines stipulated as funding conditions must allow expected democratic precedents".
The MP's letter was published in a tweet by Cllr Katherine Chibah, who represents Bowes Ward. It drew responses from two leading proponents of low-traffic neighbourhoods. Simon Munk argued that previous consultations on such schemes prior to their implementation had "bewildered" residents, led to a "war of words" and resulted in heavily delayed and watered down schemes. In Bowes the consultation will take place during the trial, when the scheme's effects will be evident. Matthew Kitching wrote that the DfT needed the work done within eight weeks to alleviate pressure on the transportation network [resulting from lower use of public transport as people restart work and school] sooner rather than later.
Source: Tweet by Cllr Katherine Chibah and replies
In a letter to the secretary of state for transport, Grant Shapps, the Enfield Southgate MP complained that the conditions set by the Department for Transport (DfT) "leave insufficient time for the plans to be considered by the community prior to the trial implementation of the scheme".
The MP writes that he fully recognises and supports the role of low-traffic neighbourhoods in reducing traffic, pollution and carbon emissions and welcomes the funding for the first phase of the Bowes scheme, but says that the timeline imposed by the DfT has caused "unnecessary and avoidable local tensions".
When allocating the funding the DfT stipulated that the council must start work within four weeks of receiving the funding and complete it within eight, on pain of risking having the money clawed back at a future date and being less likely to secure funding from the next phase of the Streetspace programme. Eight weeks, according to the MP, is "clearly insufficient for any scheme to be designed and consulted on". The "usual democratic processes" of prior consultation have been denied.
Mr Charalambous concludes by asking the secretary of state to "provide the rationale for the eight-week condition and assess whether there would be an opportunity to extend the time for prior (as well as concurrent) consultation on the scheme" and requesting that in future the DfT ensures that "the timelines stipulated as funding conditions must allow expected democratic precedents".
The MP's letter was published in a tweet by Cllr Katherine Chibah, who represents Bowes Ward. It drew responses from two leading proponents of low-traffic neighbourhoods. Simon Munk argued that previous consultations on such schemes prior to their implementation had "bewildered" residents, led to a "war of words" and resulted in heavily delayed and watered down schemes. In Bowes the consultation will take place during the trial, when the scheme's effects will be evident. Matthew Kitching wrote that the DfT needed the work done within eight weeks to alleviate pressure on the transportation network [resulting from lower use of public transport as people restart work and school] sooner rather than later.
Source: Tweet by Cllr Katherine Chibah and replies
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Bowes low-traffic neighbourhood work starts amid protests
Karl Brown
24 Aug 2020 12:58 5486
Share
Share by email
It seems no time at all since Bambos MP was speaking to Parliament in tabling a petition from Bowes residents seeking a live LTN trial to alleviate rat running traffic, pollution and associated quality of life issues in the area; pretty much what is now being implemented I had assumed.
What I have experienced with traffic issues over many years in Fox Lane, and some in Bowes, includes:
1. There is little if any incremental information a consultation will add to the considerable extant data;
2. There is no realistic chance of consensus;
3. (Probably due to 2) politicians will spend much time wringing hands, sitting on a fence and even building a fence to sit on;
4. (In general) Those streets adversely traffic-affected seek action; while
5. Those streets not affected seek the status quo, and hence continued unencumbered vehicle access;
6. Pretty much everything is viewed through the perspective a vehicle windscreen.
The strategic trends are ever clearer: London’s (finite) streets were not intended for the current volume and velocity of vehicles; air quality is a killer; physical activity is a pre cursor to good health; obesity is a national issue (disgrace); noise is now being revealed as a significant health hazard; while traffic levels is impacting the freedom and development of our kids.
Knowing that for a long time the status quo was never an option, personally I’d say good luck to HMG, TfL and Ian Barnes in their efforts to drive through three decades or so of this mush to finally give the majority who don’t own a car a shout.
What I have experienced with traffic issues over many years in Fox Lane, and some in Bowes, includes:
1. There is little if any incremental information a consultation will add to the considerable extant data;
2. There is no realistic chance of consensus;
3. (Probably due to 2) politicians will spend much time wringing hands, sitting on a fence and even building a fence to sit on;
4. (In general) Those streets adversely traffic-affected seek action; while
5. Those streets not affected seek the status quo, and hence continued unencumbered vehicle access;
6. Pretty much everything is viewed through the perspective a vehicle windscreen.
The strategic trends are ever clearer: London’s (finite) streets were not intended for the current volume and velocity of vehicles; air quality is a killer; physical activity is a pre cursor to good health; obesity is a national issue (disgrace); noise is now being revealed as a significant health hazard; while traffic levels is impacting the freedom and development of our kids.
Knowing that for a long time the status quo was never an option, personally I’d say good luck to HMG, TfL and Ian Barnes in their efforts to drive through three decades or so of this mush to finally give the majority who don’t own a car a shout.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Bowes low-traffic neighbourhood work starts amid protests
Carol Robson
27 Aug 2020 23:38 5494
Share
Share by email
Bambos Charalambous presented his petition to Parliament in November 2018. The petition consisted of 377 WARWICK ROAD signatures ONLY as there was no PUBLIC meeting of Bowes Ward residents.
Most residents became aware of this scheme (being implemented without due process) a couple of months ago when the “Quieter Neighbourhoods Street Changes“ leaflet (together with “A Bus Gate for Brownlow” flyer) landed on our doorsteps.
Aside from drivers using Warwick Road as a cut-through to and from the NCR, residents also live on this road and need access to their homes, as do surrounding roads. Displacing traffic from this neighbourhood onto an extremely busy stretch of the A406 will increase traffic and pollution in the area and very worryingly will impact on a local primary school which sits on that very road.
Disenfranchising residents of their right to consultation has caused untold anger and has split an otherwise peaceful community. Grant Shapps has a lot to answer for as does the deputy leader of this council.
In regard to point 2, on the contrary, we have a great chance of consensus as the majority opposed to this scheme are in favour of traffic calming measures. Bambos Charalambous’s letter of 20 August to the Transport Minister comes a little late in the day but states that he supports a LTN but one that follows our democratic processes.
There is a solution to every problem if people are allowed to voice their concerns and give feedback and, yes, changes are needed but not by robbing Peter to pay Paul.
I agree that London, as a city, has a problem with traffic and we all want to have cleaner air and safer streets for our children but implementing change needs careful consideration to find answers that work for all. Councils need to work together not rush through ill conceived half-plans with a “my way or the highway” attitude.
Obesity can involve mental health issues and those people need empathy not fat shaming. If exercise were the answer, we’d have got on top of it long before now.
What is a disgrace is Ian Barnes using 2011 census statistics relating to vehicle ownership, and dictating to a community about how they will travel. We will never take that lying down.
Most residents became aware of this scheme (being implemented without due process) a couple of months ago when the “Quieter Neighbourhoods Street Changes“ leaflet (together with “A Bus Gate for Brownlow” flyer) landed on our doorsteps.
Aside from drivers using Warwick Road as a cut-through to and from the NCR, residents also live on this road and need access to their homes, as do surrounding roads. Displacing traffic from this neighbourhood onto an extremely busy stretch of the A406 will increase traffic and pollution in the area and very worryingly will impact on a local primary school which sits on that very road.
Disenfranchising residents of their right to consultation has caused untold anger and has split an otherwise peaceful community. Grant Shapps has a lot to answer for as does the deputy leader of this council.
In regard to point 2, on the contrary, we have a great chance of consensus as the majority opposed to this scheme are in favour of traffic calming measures. Bambos Charalambous’s letter of 20 August to the Transport Minister comes a little late in the day but states that he supports a LTN but one that follows our democratic processes.
There is a solution to every problem if people are allowed to voice their concerns and give feedback and, yes, changes are needed but not by robbing Peter to pay Paul.
I agree that London, as a city, has a problem with traffic and we all want to have cleaner air and safer streets for our children but implementing change needs careful consideration to find answers that work for all. Councils need to work together not rush through ill conceived half-plans with a “my way or the highway” attitude.
Obesity can involve mental health issues and those people need empathy not fat shaming. If exercise were the answer, we’d have got on top of it long before now.
What is a disgrace is Ian Barnes using 2011 census statistics relating to vehicle ownership, and dictating to a community about how they will travel. We will never take that lying down.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Bowes low-traffic neighbourhood work starts amid protests
Adrian Day
28 Aug 2020 09:52 5497
Share
Share by email
There will be full consultation on the trial - every resident will be able to comment on the current scheme. People’s behaviour is hard to predict so this is a much better and fairer way of getting feedback than people second-guessing what might happen from from a flat plan.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Bowes low-traffic neighbourhood work starts amid protests
Karl Brown
28 Aug 2020 10:19 5498
Share
Share by email
Carol Robson covers much ground. Let me pick up a few strands.
With a reported 114 fast-track LTN’s going into London borough’s alone, there will be many Ian Barnes’; borough leads implementing HMG and GLA requirement’s, so there seems little benefit in fingering him for what is a national roll-out.
Part of the fast-track approach is for consultation on-the –fly. That is therefore due process in these cases. Such an approach happened previously here in the Fox Lane area with a trail scheme. The trial failed, the results being negative versus objectives, and so it ceased. The process worked.
A few years prior to that, area wide facilitated sessions to build a consensus did make some progress but no “solution”. Indeed not everyone could agree there was an issue to begin with, and that occurred within a tightly selected grouping rather than the full neighbourhood where the spectrum of opinion was inevitably going to be still wider.
Post the failed trial, and so I suspect with wider awareness, the knowledge of traffic issues appeared to grow and talk was of seeking a consensus. Quite a few then saw restrictions to stop rat-running as desirable (a key objective at London and LBE levels). But then block one end of the street, block at the middle, have CCTV cameras to police it, simply use 20mph restrictions and other means, each had their supporters and inevitably, based on past experience, if not employed then their input would risk having been, “not listened too”, “faux consultation” and so forth This is a very emotive topic.
It’s almost a decade since I presented at a BHORA AGM; switching my intended talk to traffic having listened to a well-attended meeting up until then wipe the structured agenda of everything but emotion over local traffic problems. Others have followed since then, including with Bambos MP in 2018 where I outlined London’s Spatial Framework and particularly its impact on traffic – less of it and cars being at the very bottom of the travel importance hierarchy being a very short summary.
Many Bowes ward and area forums over the last decade saw similar concerns and passions, those plus the odd resident meeting, those typically dominated by a Warwick / Brownlow trade off of north – south traffic. That debate has very much widened as they are both slated to benefit but now with impacts on the status-quo life of nearby streets.
So “now” being the first people knew of it and an absence of public discussion are difficult concepts to grasp. I don’t live in the area but have been very aware of its resident stated issues, conflicts and suggested solutions for many, many years.
And that absence of awareness of things local to you is where the risk of feeling a victim comes in when something finally does happen. The parent / child reaction of it’s all Ian Barnes’ fault kicks in.
One possible solution, other than - or as well as - letting the trial go ahead and see what actually happens, is to organise a public meeting; not one focused on anger versus this trial but instead identifying what are the issues at each individual street level, what are the macro trends, requirements in the plans of LBH, LBH, and GLA / TfL, and what solutions are available around which a consensus can be built? If the belief is that a consensus can indeed be found then go out and get it. Little point in being angry at Plan A if there’s a better Plan B within reach.
Do add consistent traffic noise as a cause of fattening - research reported only this month -with the same biological cause as consistent low level stress, something frequently brought on by inequalities. Obesity is a vastly complex subject, not for here and certainly not one for fat-shaming. Being more active is however consistently viewed as medically positive.
With a reported 114 fast-track LTN’s going into London borough’s alone, there will be many Ian Barnes’; borough leads implementing HMG and GLA requirement’s, so there seems little benefit in fingering him for what is a national roll-out.
Part of the fast-track approach is for consultation on-the –fly. That is therefore due process in these cases. Such an approach happened previously here in the Fox Lane area with a trail scheme. The trial failed, the results being negative versus objectives, and so it ceased. The process worked.
A few years prior to that, area wide facilitated sessions to build a consensus did make some progress but no “solution”. Indeed not everyone could agree there was an issue to begin with, and that occurred within a tightly selected grouping rather than the full neighbourhood where the spectrum of opinion was inevitably going to be still wider.
Post the failed trial, and so I suspect with wider awareness, the knowledge of traffic issues appeared to grow and talk was of seeking a consensus. Quite a few then saw restrictions to stop rat-running as desirable (a key objective at London and LBE levels). But then block one end of the street, block at the middle, have CCTV cameras to police it, simply use 20mph restrictions and other means, each had their supporters and inevitably, based on past experience, if not employed then their input would risk having been, “not listened too”, “faux consultation” and so forth This is a very emotive topic.
It’s almost a decade since I presented at a BHORA AGM; switching my intended talk to traffic having listened to a well-attended meeting up until then wipe the structured agenda of everything but emotion over local traffic problems. Others have followed since then, including with Bambos MP in 2018 where I outlined London’s Spatial Framework and particularly its impact on traffic – less of it and cars being at the very bottom of the travel importance hierarchy being a very short summary.
Many Bowes ward and area forums over the last decade saw similar concerns and passions, those plus the odd resident meeting, those typically dominated by a Warwick / Brownlow trade off of north – south traffic. That debate has very much widened as they are both slated to benefit but now with impacts on the status-quo life of nearby streets.
So “now” being the first people knew of it and an absence of public discussion are difficult concepts to grasp. I don’t live in the area but have been very aware of its resident stated issues, conflicts and suggested solutions for many, many years.
And that absence of awareness of things local to you is where the risk of feeling a victim comes in when something finally does happen. The parent / child reaction of it’s all Ian Barnes’ fault kicks in.
One possible solution, other than - or as well as - letting the trial go ahead and see what actually happens, is to organise a public meeting; not one focused on anger versus this trial but instead identifying what are the issues at each individual street level, what are the macro trends, requirements in the plans of LBH, LBH, and GLA / TfL, and what solutions are available around which a consensus can be built? If the belief is that a consensus can indeed be found then go out and get it. Little point in being angry at Plan A if there’s a better Plan B within reach.
Do add consistent traffic noise as a cause of fattening - research reported only this month -with the same biological cause as consistent low level stress, something frequently brought on by inequalities. Obesity is a vastly complex subject, not for here and certainly not one for fat-shaming. Being more active is however consistently viewed as medically positive.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Bowes low-traffic neighbourhood work starts amid protests
Chris Bland
29 Aug 2020 15:45 5503
Share
Share by email
Carol makes some excellent points. I've lived in the area, in a road adjacent to Warwick Road, for over 20 years, and I regularly move around in the area, at all times of the day, so I'm fairly well aware of the pedestrian and road traffic involved.
Traffic volumes went up on this road after the botched A406 works a few years back, and surrounding road closures. I think we were all aware that the situation on Warwick Road was not ideal, and that the residents there had too much traffic.
Last year, we had a "perception survey" where you could drop pins on a map. This survey clearly stated it would lead to "outline plans", and nothing more. Many residents I've spoken to didn't even notice this come through the door.
So for most people, the flyer dropping through, informing that our access was to be hugely curtailed, was an enormous shock. Many people had no idea that there was some parallel debate, with plans being drawn up, occurring elsewhere. It is not a question of perception - it is simply a fact that many people, including me, did not know that this was happening.
In terms of why many people are so cross, is that we have had no consultation on these specific plans.
Furthermore, these plans are not solely about reducing the load on Warwick - they actually restrict access for all residents. And finally, Covid powers are being used to rush them through. There are two issues being conflated - reducing through traffic on Warwick, and a clumsy attempt to prevent residents from using their cars.
Why has Barnes received so much ire?
He has made it very clear on public tweets that he believes that LTNs have a dual role - reducing through traffic, and also changing resident's own behaviour - preventing the oft-referred to "unnecessary journeys". In my experience, very few people round here make journeys unless they have to - the traffic is bad enough as it is. Very few people go out for casual drives around the north circular. He has also tweeted that he does not believe in ANPR to control access. The benefit of ANPR or camera controls is that they continue to allow residents to have easy, convenient access by car. Given his tweets on changing behaviour, it is reasonable to infer that he does not like ANPR, because he does not want residents to have easy, convenient access by car.
When our local councillor turned up to a protest to listen to questions by residents, she explained that this has been pushed through by a very small number of people - essentially Barnes and the council leader, and that she had not been consulted per se. Many people explained to her that these road blocks were going to make their essential travel extremely unpleasant. We know the roads well, so have a pretty good idea of what is going to happen. Many of these people are visiting relatives or providing care - one lady actually broke down whilst explaining how it was going to affect her.
So - local residents have woken up to a situation where Barnes has used Covid powers to unilaterally impose an LTN which doesn't just limit through traffic - it appears to have a separate goal of forcing residents to change their behaviour ("not do the journey at all" as he said), or spend much more time in traffic jams.
All of this without any consultation. And furthermore, whilst we can provide "feedback", it is not yet clear whether all affected residents within the LTN area will be consulted on whether they want to keep it, or at least modify it to an camera monitored access only scheme.
Several people who have voted Labour for decades (one of whom has previously been a councillor, and didn't pay their poll tax!) has said that nothing would induce them to vote for this council after this fiasco.
We shall see - but reducing through traffic is one thing. Preventing residents from doing journeys that they've done for decades is something else, and frankly, requires up front consultation. And yes, Grant Shapps has much to answer for as well.
Traffic volumes went up on this road after the botched A406 works a few years back, and surrounding road closures. I think we were all aware that the situation on Warwick Road was not ideal, and that the residents there had too much traffic.
Last year, we had a "perception survey" where you could drop pins on a map. This survey clearly stated it would lead to "outline plans", and nothing more. Many residents I've spoken to didn't even notice this come through the door.
So for most people, the flyer dropping through, informing that our access was to be hugely curtailed, was an enormous shock. Many people had no idea that there was some parallel debate, with plans being drawn up, occurring elsewhere. It is not a question of perception - it is simply a fact that many people, including me, did not know that this was happening.
In terms of why many people are so cross, is that we have had no consultation on these specific plans.
Furthermore, these plans are not solely about reducing the load on Warwick - they actually restrict access for all residents. And finally, Covid powers are being used to rush them through. There are two issues being conflated - reducing through traffic on Warwick, and a clumsy attempt to prevent residents from using their cars.
Why has Barnes received so much ire?
He has made it very clear on public tweets that he believes that LTNs have a dual role - reducing through traffic, and also changing resident's own behaviour - preventing the oft-referred to "unnecessary journeys". In my experience, very few people round here make journeys unless they have to - the traffic is bad enough as it is. Very few people go out for casual drives around the north circular. He has also tweeted that he does not believe in ANPR to control access. The benefit of ANPR or camera controls is that they continue to allow residents to have easy, convenient access by car. Given his tweets on changing behaviour, it is reasonable to infer that he does not like ANPR, because he does not want residents to have easy, convenient access by car.
When our local councillor turned up to a protest to listen to questions by residents, she explained that this has been pushed through by a very small number of people - essentially Barnes and the council leader, and that she had not been consulted per se. Many people explained to her that these road blocks were going to make their essential travel extremely unpleasant. We know the roads well, so have a pretty good idea of what is going to happen. Many of these people are visiting relatives or providing care - one lady actually broke down whilst explaining how it was going to affect her.
So - local residents have woken up to a situation where Barnes has used Covid powers to unilaterally impose an LTN which doesn't just limit through traffic - it appears to have a separate goal of forcing residents to change their behaviour ("not do the journey at all" as he said), or spend much more time in traffic jams.
All of this without any consultation. And furthermore, whilst we can provide "feedback", it is not yet clear whether all affected residents within the LTN area will be consulted on whether they want to keep it, or at least modify it to an camera monitored access only scheme.
Several people who have voted Labour for decades (one of whom has previously been a councillor, and didn't pay their poll tax!) has said that nothing would induce them to vote for this council after this fiasco.
We shall see - but reducing through traffic is one thing. Preventing residents from doing journeys that they've done for decades is something else, and frankly, requires up front consultation. And yes, Grant Shapps has much to answer for as well.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Moderators: PGC Webmaster, Basil Clarke
Time to create page: 0.684 seconds
