Forum Topics

Low Traffic Neighbourhood road closures ignored older residents’ needs

Town hall bosses ignored the needs of older people when they closed roads to try to promote cycling to younger people, a watchdog has found.A damning ruling on how two Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTN) were introduced found Hounslow Council failed to properly consider how those who struggle to cycle or walk rely on cars to get essential supplies home.Last July, a busy main road and a residential street in west London were shut to through traffic as part of Grant Shapps' "green transport revolution" to promote active travel.Turnham Green Terrace and Devonshire Road in Chiswick were closed during the pandemic using emergency powers introduced by Mr Shapps, the Transport Secretary.A Chiswick resident lodged a formal complaint with the Local Government Ombudsman, claiming that although he was a keen cyclist the council had failed to consider how, because he was in his 70s, he relied on his car to get shopping home. The resident pointed out that traffic congestion was being forced onto neighbouring roads.In his 13-page report, Michael King, the ombudsman, noted how the council "received thousands of comments on the [LTN] schemes, including multiple expressions of dissatisfaction".While the ombudsman found the council produced "clear reasoning" of why it needed to provide more space for pedestrians, he upheld the complaint "finding fault" on the decision to close the two roads."I expected to see some evidence to show that officers considered the potential impact of these [closure] proposals," Mr King wrote, adding that the council had no record of assessing "why cyclists would benefit from these short stretches of road closed to most other traffic".While he said the council had created a "sensible [LTN] framework at short notice", he concluded: "There is no record to suggest that it considered the potential impact of the closures on groups other than those with disability but who might have other protected characteristics, particularly that of age."This is a section of the population less likely to cycle or walk significant distances. It is also a section of the population more likely to be reliant on public transport yet also reluctant to use public transport during the pandemic. Again, I would expect to find some record that officers considered this section of the population in its decision-making. But none has been provided. This, too, justifies a finding of fault."The ombudsman, who identified a "lack of record-keeping" to explain the logic for closing the roads, added that it was "contradictory" to shut Turnham Green Terrace – a "major road" – because it diverted traffic to residential streets. He also did not find fault with the "limited consultation", despite an online system having "an inbuilt bias" in favour of LTNs and added it was "notable" that the Government expected councils to "act quickly" and its "initial guidance gave minimal advice" on engagement with communities.The resident, who does not want to be named, said: "This report demonstrates the power council officials must feel they have to do whatever they wish without scrutiny or reference residents and traders in the affected areas. Fines incurred should now be paid back by the council."Cllr Steve Curran, the council leader, said: "The LGO made clear that any concerns were with record keeping, not the decision to close roads to through traffic."The report finds 'the council's Streetscape policy provided a sensible framework at short notice for how it would identify and implement schemes designed to achieve the Government's objectives' and that as 'Government expected councils to actively look for opportunities to make changes to roads that might influence a change in road use habits' there was, 'no fault therefore in the use of a tool... actively seeking out such schemes'."Finally, the LGO makes clear that injustice to the complainant was limited to any distress arising from uncertainty. The council has accepted that and will issue an apology to the complainant which we are happy to repeat in public."Last October, the council abandoned the road closure on Turnham Green Terrace.https://www.msn.com/en-gb/cars/news/low-traffic-neighbourhood-road-closures-ignored-older-residents-needs/ar-AAPjH7N?ocid=msedgntp

Mark Perry ● 1842d77 Comments ● 1836d

Gunnersbury Park Car Park

While I know this topic has already been done to death two furtherpoints arise from the fact that the operators only incomewill derive from *fines*.If it's assumed *fines* will be in the plus £50 range then many visitors might wish to pay £6 for six hours parking so as"to be on the safe side" and to make for a stress free afternoon.After all the extra £2 will be less than they'll be paying for a cup of coffee.However there's *a maximum stay of 4 hours.". Which includes walking to and from the car park. Now quite how this will affect cricketers where presumably matches including changingand intervals last more than four hours isn't clear. Never mind ordinary families. Who if they turn up before lunch will have to leave around two or three. This is supposedly a facility which is hoping to attract people for a "day out" when they can relax and spend freely inthe overpriced catering facilities provided. Just providingthey keep an eye on the time and stay within running distanceof the car park. How many visitors who end up paying these £50+ fines which theoperators rely on for their income, are ever going to come again ?Most sites who operate these schemes are distress locationswhere people have no choice. Hospitals or retail parks.This simply isn't the way to encourage repeat business.Its almost as though the objective is to discourage peoplefrom visiting in the first place.  michael adams*Apparently *fines* can only be imposed by statutory authoritiesnot parking companies; but this distinguishes them from standard "charges"   

Michael Adams ● 1849d53 Comments ● 1837d