tCI Comment
Low-traffic neighbourhoods and the expansion of pedestrian areas during Covid have proved to be two of the most contentious issues in recent times. Here we have another argument being made of bad-faith consultation on making the changes permanent. The consultation was fairly thorough, with 30 questions being asked. The output report runs to 97 pages in total, a significant amount for a change of this nature- although it’s possible that this is merely reflective of the strength of feeling about the changes. We always say that consultation is not a numbers game, and it certainly isn’t, however in this case there may be questions to be asked. Many objectors gave detailed responses as to why they disagreed with the changes, and the level of support was low. Looking at the Officer’s Report to the Cabinet, it does a respectable job of balancing the competing interests, and addressing many of the issues raised in the consultation. It should be noted however that it may not be difficult to see why there might be allegations of pre-determination, as the consultation included five questions on “if the high street was pedestrianised”. The issue here might be one not so much of poor consultation, as poor communication of the results of that consultation.
Article
A group of Thornbury residents have said they feel “let down” by local councillors over their response to unpopular changes to the town’s high street.
The campaigners say their three ward councillors did not “champion” the needs of Thornbury residents before the decision by South Gloucestershire Council this month to lock in an experimental pedestrianisation scheme on Thornbury High Street.
They expressed their feelings in a letter asking members to force a review of the decision to make the scheme permanent. No councillors requested a call-in within the deadline.
The controversial pedestrianisation scheme, brought in last year to help people comply with social distancing during the pandemic, bans through-traffic from the High Street and allows access for delivery drivers and residents via a one-way system.
The council’s Conservative administration voted to make it permanent on June 7, with drop-off and pick-up points added for shoppers, and more on-street parking for Blue Badge holders.
But the decision flew in the face of strong public opposition, made plain by a public consultation showing that 65 per cent of respondents disagreed with making the pedestrian and cycle zone permanent, and 49 per cent disagreed with the one-way system completely.
Within days of the cabinet decision, where members received dozens of submissions begging them to “listen to the community”, more than 60 residents sent a letter to councillors asking them to force a review of the decision, according to a member of the campaign group.
At least five councillors must request a “call in” for a decision to be considered by the council’s scrutiny commission, according to the local authority’s constitution.
A council spokesperson confirmed that no councillors had requested a call-in of the Thornbury High Street decision by the deadline – five days after a decision is made.
The campaigners’ letter said the public consultation was “inadequate”, the public’s responses were “blatantly disregarded”, the vision for the High Street was “pre-determined” and the cabinet decision was “fundamentally flawed”.
“As Thornbury residents we feel let down by our local councillors,” the letter states.
“The code of conduct states that a councillor shall ‘Champion the needs of local residents’. Overwhelmingly local residents have rejected this proposal and long-term plan and our needs are far from being championed.
“We elect people to represent us and we have not been represented. Our views have been ignored.”
Responding to the letter, Thornbury’s three councillors, all Liberal Democrats, explained why neither they nor any other members of the opposition group requested a call-in of the decision.
In an email sent to at least one Thornbury resident, councillors Maggie Tyrrell, Jayne Stansfield and Shirley Holloway, said: “As a group, the Liberal Democrats did not decide that a call in was the best way to address the shortcomings in South Gloucestershire Council’s changes or the deficiencies in how the initial consultation was carried out.
“Going forward, the Thornbury councillors and the Liberal Democrat Group on South Gloucestershire Council will continue to press for further improvements to Thornbury High Street.
“Perhaps most importantly, we will push to ensure a proper assessment of the impact of these changes to the flow of traffic around Thornbury.
“We also believe that South Gloucestershire Council has serious questions to answer over the poor-quality of the consultation and we will be pushing for answers on this.”
The Labour group also explained why none of its members requested a call-in in an email to a campaigner.
Their email said: “The accepted practice is not to deal with case work for residents who do not live in our own wards. However we will read the response to your email with interest and if there is an opportunity to help resolve this situation we will do what we can to help.”
Deputy Labour group leader Ian Boulton said none of their constituents raised the issue before the deadline for calling-in the decision expired.
Article originally appeared on the Gazette
The Institute cannot confirm the accuracy of this story or confirm that it presents a balanced view. If you feel this is inaccurate we would welcome your perspective and evidence that this is the case
