Looking at the excellently produced report on the survey carried out by CAMTAG it occurs to me that all it has really done is quantified the level of opposition that was already clear from the council's own Commonplace survey. There consequently is little scope for proponents of the scheme to argue that the results are in someway distorted or there is a silent majority in favour of the scheme.
If anything you could accuse CAMTAG of being biased in favour of LTNs because they confined their leaflet distribution to households within the scheme boundaries. These are supposed to be the main beneficiaries of the scheme. They have not consulted people living in homes just outside among whom I would assume opposition is universal.
The council are going to be well aware of this and cannot pretend they are carrying out the wishes of residents. The only explanation for their persistence is that the financial position is so bad the associated PCN revenue is vital to stave off a budget crisis.
Gordon Southwell ● 179d21 Comments
Somehow I get a feeling that Southall will magically not suffer greatly from LTNs.I DO hope I'm wrong. 😉
Rosco White ● 160d
I can't wait until the Labour heartland in Southall has it's LTNs all over the place. The first one in Mandeville ward in Northolt is raised more than a few hackles, and will cost Labour votes.
N V Brooks ● 160d
Back at the office in the lowlands of Southwark. If you haven't had a LTN imposed on you yet, I know why. There is a shortage of planters because virtually every street here now has one whereas in December they were clear. Downside to the attention the council is paying to this pressing problem is that there is rubbish everywhere, blowing about in the wind.Priorities?
peter king ● 160d
Right on cue Ms Bond. 😂 "It's the Tory cuts!" Not?:-"A big obstacle [for councils to build homes] is always assumed to be money. But in our [earlier] surveys, that was never the issue. The issue has always been land."– Dr Janice Morphet, visiting professor, Bartlett School of Planning at University College LondonLast week's webinars – Use it or lose it: responses to the proposed Right to Regenerate and At pace and scale: new research highlights the rise and rise of council housebuilding – are now available to watch on our website.Do also make sure to join us for our next webinar, the final in our special series on healthcare estates with Morgan Sindall Construction: 'How will proposals in the Health and Social Care White Paper impact healthcare estate transformation?'. More info and registration here.https://www.thevoiceofauthority.co.uk/webinar/?utm_campaign=TVOA%20-%20Video%20Ready%205%2F05%20%28Members%29&utm_source=emailCampaign&utm_content=&utm_medium=email
Rosco White ● 165d
and see if you get anything different since most of those 'taxes' are all part of the way that consultants will have suggested that Councils raise money to offset the losses caused by their reduced grants from Central Govt.
Philippa Bond ● 165d
>>>NVB wrote>> one of the 76% on the CAMTAG survey who finds the scheme nothing more than a cynical attempt to extract money.>>TH replies>> Ealing Council? Cynical attempt to extract money? Surely not! Next you'll be saying scummy Ealing Council have introduced residential street 'parking taxes', garden refuse collection taxes, sly and intentionally confusing road junction prohibitions with 'tax farming' cameras, and have blindly been rejecting the appeal of dubiously issued parking tickets.Vote the scummy bunch out from the Town Hall at the elections.
Tony Heath ● 167d
Yes, you are right.The difference is that I have baseline data, unlike the council, I have published the data which shows that the scheme in LTN 21 has increased, rather than decreased, traffic volumes and pollution. The council took no baseline measurements and actually removed diffusion (pollution measurement) tubes in two locations making any data they now publish with regard to pollution meaningless.PS I am only one of the 76% on the CAMTAG survey who finds the scheme nothing more than a cynical attempt to extract money.
N V Brooks ● 168d
It is only LTN21 because that is where the Coldershaw and Midhurst group are based. Why more than one in each home? This has been debated to death and I, for one, am getting fed up with people clutching at straws to find support for these schemes. The council's own consultation at Commonplace which allows multiple responses from each household, actually has a higher rejection rate.The pro-LTN lobby claim that the council's survey is being 'gamed'. Shame then that £21,000 of public money was spent setting it up!
N V Brooks ● 168d
Strange that it is only LT21. It must affect a much larger group of people - and definitely more than one in each home.
Philippa Bond ● 168d
It was distributed to ALL homes within LTN21 how is that self selecting. You made yourself look foolish with the "all my friends, my neighbours and all my family" support the LTNs comment in the Zoom meeting with Virendra Sharma yesterday. Why can you not accept that a blanket approach is NOT the answer Paul?
N V Brooks ● 179d
Not merely spin & bias Mr H, but manipulated figures, mistruths & blatant lies - my feelings & words, not yours!
Peter Yale ● 179d
In what way is it being ‘promoted as a petition’?Stop making things up to suit your narrow agenda.
Simon Hayes ● 179d
Didn’t take long for the whingeing about it to start in certain quarters.There’s already a petition with 12,000 signatures on it. There’s also one from the pro side which has about 800.Of course, the council could have a simple yes or no survey of its own. No spin. No bias. No disputes. But it won’t because its entire scheme has been founded on spin and bias.
Simon Hayes ● 179d
I don't really understand your line of argument. There are already petitions with a larger number of signatures that have been collected on this issue.
This is clearly a survey. I have filled in enough, including those from Ealing Council, which are overtly trying to guide me to particular answers but this one doesn't seem to have employed any the usual tricks to manipulate a result. The questions are unambiguous and the answers aren't subject to a range of interpretations.
Gordon Southwell ● 179d
You’ll have to ask the people complaining about the survey that. They are upset that something else has shown a majority against these schemes.Since there’s no data against which to measure any success or failure of the policy, it comes down to anecdotal evidence and, ultimately, what residents actually want. The former will be ignored. The latter will see a big loss of Labour councillors next year.£16,000 might not seem much to you, but for not a lot of work it’s a decent return. Bell, like Johnson, only believes in himself. His green credentials only go as far as the next available pound.Heathrow expansion? Only council to support it is Ealing, in return for financial ‘mitigation’ from the airport. Or a bribe as most would call it.And those tower blocks he’s so fond of have enormous carbon footprints.
Simon Hayes ● 179d
The annual allowance for a TfL board member is £16,000. It's not a negligible amount of money but not enough for Julian Bell to frame council policy in a way that he can retain it. If money was his main motivation he wouldn't be pressing ahead with policies that nearly cost him his highest paying job in a no confidence vote. The more likely explanation is that he is a true believer.I haven't seen any criticism of the survey which looks to me as if it was conducted professionally and fairly. As Gordon says, the results chime with the feedback on Commonplace. What is the argument that it isn't representative?
Tricia Arbuthnot ● 179d
The council will pretend its doing what we want as long as Bell is in charge. This is more about him justifying his lucrative post on the TfL board rather than any policy to benefit residents.I note the survey is being condemned by the small minority who support these schemes. No doubt the usual suspects will get their Lycra in a twist here too. Yet, as you say, there has been no majority in favour of the LTNs on any of the methodologies used thus far by the council.
Simon Hayes ● 179d