Quieter Neighbourhoods consultation to start soon

Share share on facebook share on twitter share on Bluesky

Palmers Green Community has obtained information about the extent of the "Quieter Neighbourhoods" that Enfield Council is planning to create in and around Palmers Green.  At next week's open meeting of Fox Lane and District Residents' Association the Council is expected to provide some more details of what exactly they have in mind and how they intend to consult.  Non-members of FLDRA who live within the Association's area - that  bounded by Green Lanes, Bourne Hill, The Bourne, High St.N14, Cannon Hill and Aldermans Hill - will be welcome at the meeting.

The Council's intention is to eventually create Quieter Neighbourhoods throughout the borough, covering as many as 37 residential areas.  The maps that we have obtained show the boundaries of six Quieter Neighbourhoods oovering parts of Palmers Green, Southgate, Winchmore Hill, Edmonton and Bush Hill Park:

The maps below show the locations of these neighbourhoods - click on a map for a larger version.

fox lane quieter neighbourhood-smallconnaught gardens and wolves lane quieter neighbourhoods-small fernleigh road quieter neighbourhood-small haselbury road quieter neigbourhood-small main avenue quieter neighbourhood-small

What exactly is a Quieter Neighbourhood?

The Quieter Neighbourhoods concept was first mentioned by the Council in its bid document for the Mayor of  London's "Mini-Holland" money, though in that document they are referred to as "Residential Cells".  The Cells as described in the bid document are closely modelled on current practice in Holland.  While for obvious reasons the Mini-Holland bid document emphasizes the advantages of the cells/neighbourhoods for cyclists, it is clear that there is a broader objective - to make life more peaceful, pleasanter and safer for people living in the hundreds of residential streets that are located within the cells created by the network of primary and secondary through roads - primarily through reducing "rat-running" and slowing down cars.

I've extracted relevant text from the main Mini-Holland bid document to show what the Council had in mind at the time (late 2013):

Our long term goal is to create this Dutch-style network of residential cells across Enfield [...]

We will [...] work with five to six residential cells per year, throughout the duration of the mini-Holland project to treat residential areas, particularly those where speeding traffic and rat running is a problem.

In the Netherlands, main cycle routes through residential areas are designated as ‘fietsstraat’, or bicycle streets. On these streets automobiles are ‘guests’ and motorists must yield to cyclists. Again, consistent signage and road markings signal the type of road and appropriate behaviour to motorists (as shown in the photos below).

The effect of the approach outlined above is to create a grid network of primary and secondary roads for through traffic with appropriate facilities for cyclists, and within the 'grid' residential cells comprised of tertiary roads are created (as shown on our network map, we have identified 37 residential cells).

The Dutch approach to these cells is as shared spaces where speeds and through traffic are reduced to ensure cycle safety. The outer edges of these cells have consistent signage and design features, such as entry treatments that signal to motorists to lower their speeds (as shown in the photo). In the Netherlands, these cells provide a safe network for cyclists, including children cycling to school or to visit friends.

[...]

Enfield Council is working with Sustrans on a DIY Streets project in Edmonton Green. This project is using a community-led design approach to improve the streetscape for children, pedestrians and cyclists. Through a series of on street ‘pop-up’ events the local community are invited to discuss the problems they face in their area. Residents are also contacted through schools, residents associations, community events and leaflets. Once this background data has been collected on an area, residents are invited to attend workshops and to discuss potential solutions for the problems. Typical problems include rat running, speeding traffic, poor pedestrian and cycling environments and busy roads.
 
An urban designer then uses the information gathered at these workshops to draw up options to improve the area. These options are then consulted on and the chosen scheme is piloted on street using, for example, sandbags and straw bales. If the pilot is successful, the scheme progresses to the engineering stage. If not, tweaks are made until a solution is agreed upon.

As detailed in section 3, we have identified approximately 37 residential ‘cells’ in Enfield. Our goal is to remove through traffic from these residential streets, so that only residents access these areas. This will provide a whole network of calm and inviting streets for pedestrians and cyclists, where traffic volumes and speeds are low and segregated facilities are not required. We will treat each ‘cell’ individually, using the community-led design approach detailed above ensuring that residents, schools, local traders and community groups are encouraged to participate in the designs of the schemes. This strand of the strategy will be delivered by the Mini-Holland Community Engagement officer and Urban Designer, with training support from Sustrans. The results of each scheme will be monitored using both qualitative and quantitative data, as set out in our monitoring proposal.
 
The results of the evaluations will be communicated with residents in new treatment areas, so that they can see the impact these measures have had on quality of life and other indicators. It is hoped that this approach will help foster support from the local community for proposed changes to the streetscape.

It would appear that the Council does not wish to impose a one-size-fits-all model for the Quieter Neighbourhoods, but instead will work with residents to develop schemes that suit each individual area.  Consultation has already begun for the Wolves Lane scheme and the Fox Lane meeting next week will mark the start of work on the largest of the areas - extending all the way from Palmers Green Triangle to Southgate Circus.

Log in to comment
Posts in discussion: "Quieter Neighbourhoods" consultation to start soon
Karl Brown posted a reply
#497
07 Nov 2014 16:53
What a marvellous idea. The benefits this concept would seem to be capable of bringing to street life, such as health, happiness and house price enhancements would be supported by the encouragement the same should bring to help facilitate car use becoming but one part of a transport mix to include bus, cycling and walking, rather than its current assumed position as king over all. Our unhealthy, inactive society (see eg Public Health England, PHE publications gateway number: 2014319) may have the opportunity to revert for the better. I think I’ll become a supporter.
Paul Mandel posted a reply
#502
09 Nov 2014 00:29
It seems that the council wants to make already quiet neighbourhoods such as the FLDRA area even quieter.
We’ll know more what this will entail in the coming weeks. But, the following is likely to be on the cards.

1. 20 mph speed limits. 20 mph is too fast in many places and 30 mph is safe in others. Unnecessary and unreasonable 20 mph limits are frustrating, leading to them being almost universally disregarded by road users, and resulting reduced respect of the law generally.

Better to enforce a 30 mph speed limit and ensure all adult road users accept individual responsibility for their own actions and that children are given good road safety education at school.

2. Traffic calming measures.
Speed humps cause discomfort for drivers and riders including cyclists, encourage harsh braking and acceleration and they are largely unnecessary away from junctions, where mini roundabouts and speed tables are better solutions.
Chicanes and other narrowing also result in more braking and acceleration leading to increase pollution. They can be dangerous for cyclists when other vehicles overtake at the constrictions. They also reduce the space available for parking.

3. Closing of entrances on to main roads to eliminate so called “rat running”. This could actually increase vehicle movement within the “quieter neighbourhood” as drivers have to travel further to the remaining entrances and exits. At times where one of the surrounding main roads are blocked, local residential through roads enabling traffic to bypass an obstruction, preventing gridlock, that would occur if the council creates closed cells.

So to conclude: Without care in their design and implementation, so called “quieter neighbourhoods” will become frustrating neighbourhoods to get in, out and around.
Karl Brown posted a reply
#503
09 Nov 2014 12:37
“Already quiet neighbourhoods..”. Not according to the Met’s specialist transport group it’s not, nor the local Police, nor the Council, nor the GLA and neither the unanimous FLDRA voters considering such a matter a few years back. That’s going to be the joy of local democracy when we can hear all views coming through the consultation rather than assuming the one being the loudest is right. A bit like the failed independent candidates, who I guess barely secured their deposit such was their share of the vote, when standing against Cycle Enfield initiatives in the recent local Council elections. And then there’s the hard data, always tricky to throw agenda’s against that particular wall.
But if there is a call for change we will also have the opportunity to assess subsequently developed mitigating proposals. And that seems entirely reasonable as an approach with no need to second guess or act as an anticipatory pseudo-traffic engineer.
Paul Mandel posted a reply
#504
09 Nov 2014 14:57
Karl,

Ah yes, the area WITHIN, The Bourne, Bourne Hill Green Lanes, Aldermans Hill, Cannons Hill, and High Street Southgate, is a steamy cocktail of traffic congestion, pollution, antisocial behaviour and violent and drug crime, compared with most ather parts of London. All the local estate agents know that, don’t they.

In fact the only significant problem that may put off some people moving into the area is the problem of school catchments.

And no, I’m not second guessing a thing. Furthermore, I’m better qualified to give an opinion than you may think. Don’t be so patronising in your tone towards this "pseudo traffic engineer."

Best wishes.

Paul
David Hughes posted a reply
#507
09 Nov 2014 21:57
Never have I heard such breathtaking contempt for the effect of traffic on residents', children and community as in Paul Mandel's contribution to this thread on 7 November; his whole piece was devoted to the effect of calming measures on the poor, poor motorists, and never a mention of the fact that the calming was introduced in the first place to deal with the thoughtlessness, or selfishness, or both, of drivers. Drivers brought calming measure upon themselves, and inflicted the disadvantages of the measures upon fellow drivers who were driving considerately.

Streets used to be alive with neighbourly activity - called community I'm led to believe- which old as I am I remember well; people chatting, kids playing, learning to ride their bikes. The arrival of cars need not have destroyed these strong communities, but it did. At first because the experience of speed is so different inside a vehicle than outside, but now also because the car has become the default way of travel whatever the circumstance or distance. We have a new mindset. Paul M.shows every sign of being at the extreme end of that change.

There is huge concern in Britain's medical fraternity about the effect of lack of exercise and poor air quality on health and longevity, and plenty of evidence of the fact that society at large no longer gets enough exercise from the daily requirements of living such as walking. And who suffers most? Kids of course, who have been deprived of their independence to a scandalous extent. Mind you biking - if you can't both walk and bike - is an excellent way of exercising. One up to the council.
Karl Brown posted a reply
#509
10 Nov 2014 10:26
Just to clarify, issues and the known position over time of the various groups I mention relate solely to the issue of speeding in the FLDRA space, both within and on its boundary A-roads. The other Cycle Enfield Quiet Neighbourhood target issue of rat-running, be it absolute traffic volume or the use of residential streets by large commercial vehicles, may be an issue which comes forward in responses to the forthcoming consultation, but that aspect wasn’t an issue I was addressing in the post. If so, then I’m sure the Council will include such data in generating mitigating options to address the issue.
Other aspects such a drug crime, outside the clear remit of Cycle Enfield, would seem best raised via specific threads on those topics.
Karl Brown posted a reply
#510
10 Nov 2014 10:26
Just to clarify, issues and the known position over time of the various groups I mention relate solely to the issue of speeding in the FLDRA space, both within and on its boundary A-roads. The other Cycle Enfield Quiet Neighbourhood target issue of rat-running, be it absolute traffic volume or the use of residential streets by large commercial vehicles, may be an issue which comes forward in responses to the forthcoming consultation, but that aspect wasn’t an issue I was addressing in the post. If so, then I’m sure the Council will include such data in generating mitigating options to address the issue.
Other aspects such a drug crime, outside the clear remit of Cycle Enfield, would seem best raised via specific threads on those topics.
Paul Mandel posted a reply
#511
10 Nov 2014 14:15
David Hughes,

Let me make it absolutely plain to you that I am not extreme about anything. Nor am I in principle against what the Council is trying to do. I’m simply concerned that their plans if not properly thought through will create more problems than they solve

If anyone is extreme, it is you, with your unceasing diabtribes against motorists collectively. A group that makes up around 75% of the adult population, despite apparently being a driver and car owner yourself. By all means, blame individual bad drivers for their actions, but not all of us collectively.

I could criticise certain bike riders who do not wear a helmet or make themselves sufficiently visible on the road. Shall I? Or is a matter of personal choice.

With regard to children, I am a family man. I know my child’s safety needs. I’ll also have you know that I am one of the few parents in the FLDRA area, to ever do the school run by bike. But on most days we take the W9 bus. I do not need a lecture from you.

My street IS STILL alive with neighbourly activity - called community, people do chat, my son learned to ride his bike on the pavement outside our house and in Broomfield Park when he was two. That was only three years ago.

Since the arrival of cars, more than a CENTURY AGO our wealth and wellbeing (including air quality) has improved exponentially.

David, you seem to live in an arcadian fantasy world and just don’t like progress. I’m sure you know that in the 19th Century, perhaps the era that you hark back to, most children didn’t receive much education, they worked in mills and down mines, in conditions that would horrify all of us today. Few adults were concerned about child abuse. In fact, you could say that with a beating being the norm for misbehaving, most children were in constant fear of it. Not only that, but the horse and cart was far more dangerous to a child then , than a car is today.

For the record, I am actively involved in a road safety charity and have been in a practical way for the past 12 years. I do things, rather than just talk about them. When I drive, I try to up hold the highest standards. I wish others to do likewise and most drivers’ behaviour is generally reasonable and the wilfully bad ones are a smallish minority. However, I do not wish to be part of a collective punishment for the poor behaviour of others.

But I suspect that what really differentiates you from me, is that you think the State or other collective bodies should be all controlling. I believe in the supremacy of the individual and with it, liberty and responsibility.

Best wishes,

Paul
Andrew Nix posted a reply
#512
10 Nov 2014 16:07
Won't this just make the property of people who live on the Lake Roads even more desirable than they already are. While people who live on Green Lanes, Bourne Hill, etc. can expect even more high speed driving, noise, pollution than there already is?

Andrew Nix
David Hughes posted a reply
#513
11 Nov 2014 08:41
Andrew Nix is spot on when he speculates that house prices will tend to rise should Quieter Neighbourhood status come to the the Lakes and Meadway Estates. Which in its way is a ringing endorsement of the council's plans; people like living on streets which are more people friendly.

And this issue gives us important guidance about how residents in the area should respond to the plans because within the estates there are wide differences between the various streets. Live on Harlech Road and you might worry about the safety of your kids but little else, live on Norman Road and you can probably discount traffic altogether (though I don't know it well), live on Conway Road and speed can be dangerous and intrusive, but traffic is light most of the time. Live on Old Park Road and you are faced with high speeds, even very high speeds and serious rat-running.

And my point, a point emphasized in the Residents' Association's flyer about the meeting, is that if you do live in a quiet place like Norman Road you are also responding to the plans on behalf of the people who live on Old Park Road - we really must decide as a community, not just in terms of our own situation.

And of course if you drive its very important to remember that the experience of being in a car at 30mph is very different to the experience of being in the street as a car at 30 passes. Calm streets are very important to community life, to cyclists, to parents.
Karl Brown posted a reply
#514
11 Nov 2014 13:01
It’s worth picking up Paul Mandel’s statement that the majority of drivers’ behaviour is generally reasonable and the wilfully bad a smallish minority. Perhaps, or perhaps not, if based on one’s personal subjective assessment, but as I outlined in a recent presentation to Fox Lane Residents Association, using covert Council data typically between one quarter and one third of vehicles on Residents’ Associations (non-boundary) streets typically break the 30mph speed limit.

If the Highway Code is strictly applied in its areas of SHOULD, rather than the legal (30mph) MUST , ie parts which essentially say drive slower where there are likely risk factors such as pedestrians, parked cars, children, bends in the road, cyclists.. (eg sections 104, 120, 124, 130, 181, 182, 183) and assume a representative indicative limit of 25mph follows to reflect such guidelines – incidentally being in line with the recently agreed pan-New York City speed limit – then the same covert data shows the MAJORITY of drivers on the Lakes and Meadway Estates are acting inappropriately for our local conditions. Indeed in the case of Meadway (east), 70% of all passing traffic exceed this lower speed. It transpires it’s only a minority acting reasonably, exactly the opposite to the claim.

Andrew Nix points out that the boundary A-Roads have their own existing issues of high speed driving, with associated noise and pollution. They should not be forgotten in any solution, emphasising the appropriateness of a whole area view, a point which was previously made in the Newsletter from the Chairman of the Association.
Basil Clarke posted a reply
#517
11 Nov 2014 22:30
Paul Mandel wrote:

It seems that the council wants to make already quiet neighbourhoods such as the FLDRA area even quieter


Some streets in the Fox Lane area are pretty quiet, others not. Fox Lane itself, for instance. Cars go much too fast, the road is hilly and bendy, so sightlines are poor. I walk up here a lot en route from PG to Southgate and it's a very pleasant, nice vigorous uphill walk - apart from the noise from cars speeding past and the difficulty of crossing the road without the fear that a car will come speeding round the corner. There are some lovely houses along here, but I don't think i'd like to live in one of them.

Another road with a traffic problem is Old Park Road. Too many big cars going too fast.
Paul Mandel wrote:

20 mph is too fast in many places and 30 mph is safe in others. Unnecessary and unreasonable 20 mph limits are frustrating, leading to them being almost universally disregarded by road users, and resulting reduced respect of the law generally.

Better to enforce a 30 mph speed limit and ensure all adult road users accept individual responsibility for their own actions and that children are given good road safety education at school.


Better not to risk people being injured or killed just so that drivers don't get "frustrated". Well, I'm frustrated at having to wait ages before i can cross the road because of all the cars. We all have to make compromises in order to get along with others. In this case it's the drivers who are in charge of several tons of metal.

The whole of the FLDRA area is residential, it's full of vulnerable human beings. Cars should definitely not be driving through it at 30mph. Just look at this diagram and ponder:

File Attachment:

Paul Mandel wrote:

So to conclude: Without care in their design and implementation, so called “quieter neighbourhoods” will become frustrating neighbourhoods to get in, out and around.


Couldn't agree more - careful and thoughtful design is essential.
George Filipps posted a reply
#519
12 Nov 2014 10:59
Amberley Road is small residential road turning off Bourne Hill. Amberley is used as a popular cut through and gets incredibly busy during peek times ; it's not unusual for the entire length of the road to become a traffic jam of noisy spluttering cars.

This morning I watched 3 large coaches wiz pass my windows on Amberley Road. Why should commercial vehicles be allowed to cut through quiet residential roads?

There are two retirement homes located on Amberley Road and the use of the road as a cut through has made the road dangerous, especially for elderly residents.
Paul Mandel posted a reply
#520
12 Nov 2014 13:11
Basil Clarke said:

“The whole of the FLDRA area is residential, it's full of vulnerable human beings. Cars should definitely not be driving through it at 30mph.”

It is quiet residential and for most of the time the human beings are in their homes. There is not little pedestrian activity compared to a high street.

But, as I have preciously said, 20 mph can be far too fast in many some places. Drivers should drive to the conditions. There is no need to reduce the existing 30 mph limit. Yesterday, after taking my son to school, I WALKED down Hoppers Road, 20 mph speed limit, humps every so many yards – and it was NO pleasure. Commercial vehicles. bang bang bang over the humps. Three young drivers raced one another, screeching tyres, accelerating to well in excess of 60 mph. Out of control, hard braking too late when turning off. Only their cars’ safety systems preventing major skidding.

You will not stop that kind of idiocy, with so called traffic calming and reduced speed limits. Only the police can stop that.

What you will do, is take otherwise law abiding people out of the law, by being over zealous. A bit like prohibition in the USA.

Back to my walks, and experience tells me Woodland Way and Broad Walk, (both 30 mph limits) are far more pleasant. The idiots still cruise there, but their antics are marginally less troublesome.
Paul Mandel posted a reply
#521
12 Nov 2014 13:23
Amberley Road, has always carried more traffic, as does it's continuation, The Mall. It's the shortest route from New Southgate/ Southgate Green to Winchmore Hill and avoids congestion around Southgate Circus.

I don't know what the solution is without creating more problems elsewhere. May be the Council has a good one. We'll find out tonight

Most of the time, parked cars and the bend, prevent traffic travelling that fast , but I know it can be troublesome.

There is no history (2005 -2013) of any serious crashes in Amberley Road. Only 2 minor ones on the junctions at either end.

George Filipps wrote:

Amberley Road is small residential road turning off Bourne Hill. Amberley is used as a popular cut through and gets incredibly busy during peek times ; it's not unusual for the entire length of the road to become a traffic jam of noisy spluttering cars.

This morning I watched 3 large coaches wiz pass my windows on Amberley Road. Why should commercial vehicles be allowed to cut through quiet residential roads?

There are two retirement homes located on Amberley Road and the use of the road as a cut through has made the road dangerous, especially for elderly residents.

Holly Bothwell posted a reply
#523
13 Nov 2014 10:14
Andrew Nix said:

"Won't this just make the property of people who live on the Lake Roads even more desirable than they already are. While people who live on Green Lanes, Bourne Hill, etc. can expect even more high speed driving, noise, pollution than there already is?"

The former, as David Hughes says, is indeed likely - and would be a cause for celebration rather than concern. People usually get upset about areas becoming less desirable to live in!

As to your second concern, it's one that I see a lot and I do understand it. I've lived facing a high-speed road and it was pretty miserable, and I wouldn't be happy if I lived on a quiet-ish road to be given plans that say "we're going to funnel high-speed traffic through here for the benefit of your neighbours and not you". Realistically, though, that's not what's happening here - Bourne Hill, Alderman's Hill, and Green Lanes are already roads that carry higher speed traffic, and drivers there travel too fast simply because they feel able to, just like they feel able to slalom down Old Park Road and so on at 35mph. They shouldn't feel able to do this, but that's not a reason for abandoning restrictions entirely - rather it would be great if the restrictions could be extended to the surrounding roads, too, and in fact consistently applied to the entire borough.

Islington council suggests that there has been a 65% fall in road traffic incidents since introducing their 20mph borough-wide limit, in spite of complaints from inconvenienced motorists about the nanny state and driver frustrations and creeping legislation and "why can't we just have common sense".

My long term view is that we should support speed restrictions in residential areas, even where they don't apply to all residential roads. From looking at the behaviour of councils across the city, if a 20mph zone is successful, it tends to be replicated elsewhere - Camden is a good example of an borough with a large network of 20mph zones that the council is looking to turn into a consistent restriction.
Karl Brown posted a reply
#524
13 Nov 2014 14:56
Last evenings presentation by Enfield Council seemed to offer a near perfect “bottom up” means of identifying and then addressing any transport related issues within our proposed Quieter Neighbourhood area. Hopefully residents will now respond in good numbers to the documentation due imminently through letter boxes, or via the form on the Council’s web site, with their personal issues (or not) and any ideas.
That said, my main memory of last evening will be four conversations relating to transport issues occurring over the previous week:
1. A nose to nose frontal on Fox Lane requiring low loaders to remove both vehicles with the Fire Service also in attendance
2. An early morning driver on the Mall seemingly launching himself via a speed bump to hit a skip and then turning the car onto its roof in a spectacular landing. 7am seems a little early for stunt-driving.
3. A driver speeding up Aldermans Hill using the opposite carriageway several times to overtake traffic
4. A local youth ending up on the bonnet of a car directly from his bike seat after a car right-turned directly into his path. A life in slow motion scenario applied with the impact obviously going to happen but with no way for the young cyclist to avoid it.
Fortunately not a serious injury amongst this lot it was said but what a portfolio for only one week - and of course there may be more, these being merely random conversations after the public meeting
Adrian Day posted a reply
#525
14 Nov 2014 09:10
In addition to Karl's list of significant recent incidents, there's the constant low-level issues that affect quality of life. In Old Park Road its the street arguments, shouting, abuse and aggressive horn use when speeding vehicles meet each other in the middle of the road; a daily, often hourly, occurrence at the south end where there is a modest bend in the road. Or the safety issues as you try and get into your car as a speeding skip truck rattles by. Or the noise in winter as the road becomes a noise tunnel once the leaves drop. Or the challenges for the elderly, infirm or those with children face crossing the road at either end as traffic sweeps in at speed. Or the cars that speed down at up to 60mph (and I've captured them using a Met Police speed gun, accompanied by a PCO). Old Park Road isn't a trunk road, an A road or even a B road. It's a residential street - a street for living in. Something has to change - and hopefully quieter neighbourhoods will deliver...
Karl Brown posted a reply
#3590
31 Jan 2018 20:12
Another fake “consultation”, this time on our local quieter neighbourhoods, so writes outgoing Winchmore Hill Conservative Cllr Ertan Hurer, in Anthony Webb’s latest Palmers Green & Southgate Life magazine, delivered to households this week.

Which Palmers Green / Southgate Quieter Neighbourhood I wondered? He can’t mean the Connaught Gardens one (that’s the residential area to the east of Green Lanes), since what was proposed is reportedly pretty much bang in line with residents requirements, ultimately developed and agreed over a series of workshops.

So perhaps he means the Fox Lane one? Well consultation input on that one, ignoring a couple of decades worth of available data for a fully acknowledged traffic problem area, included:

- a well-attended residents association meeting, called specifically to discuss traffic related issues (he may recall attending and trying hard to steer attending residents away from any traffic management concept, along with many other party councillors , prospective councillors, failed councillors and a parliamentary candidate, this occurring not long after their full reversal from fully supporting Mini Holland to fully opposing it);

- a hugely attended open public meeting for all residents in the area where council officers and even our last MP spoke (that’s the one where one anti campaigner sought to hog the floor and took to shouting foul language in the host church when finally called to be quiet and sit down by a sizeable proportion of the audience);

- at least one all-household survey;

- an all-household perception survey;

- two workshops with attendees drawn from 250 keen local resident volunteers (being there, and admitting how wrong he had been to help scupper a previous residents-led traffic management attempt, he may recall them);

- a full statutory consultation;

- various ward forums where such items were invariably an agenda item (although he missed the last, very well attended one, where it was not only an agenda item but the relevant lead council officer attended, spoke and answered all questions. That being the one where his potential replacement at the forthcoming council elections was spoken to twice by the attending police to ensure the maintenance of good order);

- and of course the opportunity over this three-year exercise for residents to input issues and concerns to their councillors to pass on to the council, or indeed to simply convey aspects direct to the council via various available channels.

So “fake”, it seems, that the term “fake” has been stretched so far that it came all the way back round to hard reality. Nothing is perfect but for consultation it strikes me as a pretty all-embracing exercise to capture local issues and views. Of course, some individuals won’t like the developed answers – most likely whatever they might have been.
Read 10 more comments