Category Archives: Governance

Faversham’s “Pedestrian Zone” is in fact a car parking free-for-all

This is Faversham’s Pedestrian Zone. Filled with cars. Since Faversham Town Council painted #YellowLines around the historic Guildhall, parking officers – by their own admission – no longer consider the PZ valid & won’t ticket anyone parking there.

This is a scandal & the Council should apologise. Until @favershamtc takes a comprehensive look at town centre parking it is doing more damage than good. I predict someone will suggest yellow lines are the answer. No: planters, bollards, benches, gates & a #TransportPlan are!

Advertisement

From “No you can’t” to “Yes we can”: time for a positive approach to cycling in Faversham

Faversham Town Council needs to be careful not to be sending mixed messages about cycling. It’s clear from Faversham Future Forum comments that new development in the town needs to support cycling. If this is the case then, to be effective, cycling needs to be supported throughout the whole town. And this includes, in my opinion, the town centre itself.

So I think it’s counter-productive to promote a ban on town-centre cycling.

Cycling in pedestrianised areas
There’s no reason a pedestrian area has to ban cycling. This blogpost is worth a read:
https://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2014/03/03/cycling-in-pedestrianised-areas/

It describes the range of measures to be found in pedestrianised areas throughout the UK and offers guidance on how to promote safe cycling in them.

Here are four short extracts:

“The standout message, therefore, is that cycling behaviour naturally adapts itself to pedestrian environments…The evidence shows that we can trust people to make the right decisions.”

“The rationale for these bans – or the refusal to lift them – is usually a single incident (or even just an anecdote) about a near miss, or a collision, involving a pedestrian and a someone cycling. This is a poor basis for making policy, and, if applied to the road network as a whole, would lead to the wholesale closure of roads to motor vehicles.”

“East Street, in Horsham, is now closed to motor vehicles between 10:30am and 4:30pm each day, but with cycling still permitted. For these six hours, it’s a pedestrianised area, with cycling in it. After two years, there hasn’t been a single incident involving cycling, or complaint (as far as I am aware). There have been only two (slight) pedestrian injuries, both involving motor vehicles, outside of the ‘pedestrianised’ hours. It works well.”

“However the background assumption in the UK seems to be that cycling is ‘a problem’, that needs to be clamped down on, and eradicated in pedestrian areas, even where there is scope for its introduction.”

Cycling in Faversham
I took a look again at the reporting of the Local Engagement Forum in 2015 when cycling in the town centre was discussed. There is a large number of comments beneath the article that are worth a browse because they speak about a wide range of relevant experiences. A warning, though, some are rude about councillors, sorry:
http://road.cc/content/news/164361-faversham-councillors-keen-rid-town-centre-arrogant-and-fast-cyclists

Of course anti-social cycling should be tackled. But that is no reason to put a blanket ban around all cyclists. In the same way the odd misbehaved person on a bench is no reason to ban sitting in the town centre.

A thought: by banning cyclists from riding or pushing their bikes across the town centre the Town Council, Swale Borough Council and Kent County Council are forcing cyclists to ride on the B2040 inner ring road, with its hostile traffic and substandard cycle infrastructure. It’s hardly surprising there are so few cyclists in Faversham when these are the conditions that cyclists face.

A vision for the future of Faversham town centre
If we follow what the research shows, rather than what anecdotes assume, then a vision for the town centre should promote both cycling and sitting – as well as a new, time-limited parking regime that encourages vehicle use whenever the town centre gates are open.

We have to stop saying no and start saying yes.

A new Traffic Order for the town centre
This vision can be achieved through a rewriting of the Traffic Order for the town centre. Since a new Traffic Order would need to be written to paint double yellow lines around the Guildhall (the previous one expired last year, two years after it came into force) the opportunity could be taken to follow a different and far-sighted approach.

Does Faversham’s Town Council have the vision to seize this opportunity? Or will it continue to say “No (parking), no (cycling), no (sitting)”?

Faversham Town Council votes for Yellow Lines around the Guildhall

It isn’t always that expert advice aligns with public opinion. So, when it does, how should a town council respond? 

With former presidents of the Royal Institute of British Architects and the Royal Town Planning Institute against the painting of yellow lines around Faversham’s historic Guildhall, as well as knighted architects and the chairman of the Academy of Urbanism, you might take notice of the issue. 

When 85% of people voting in a public poll also oppose the idea you would do well to sit up and pay attention. 

But what did Faversham Town Council do this evening?
Quite the opposite. It voted to ignore both the experts and the public. It voted to deface a cherished building by painting yellow lines around it; yellow lines that will continue to allow people to park in front of the building; that will leave us all staggered at the gall of our elected representatives.

For yellow lines 6
Abstain 4
Against 2 (Belsom, Hook)

Now is the time for a 20mph speed limit in Faversham

http://www.courier.co.uk/faversham-campaign-for-20mph-speed-limit-seeks-60k-council-funding/story-29573216-detail/story.html#GIISZ2M52UgmGS1A.01

Kent County Council typically over-designs and over-costs transport projects. In contrast, a 20mph speed limit can be implemented at a fraction of the price of conventional, car-centric solutions such as the hugely costly and unnecessary A2/Ashford Road roundabout.

Faversham has a clear “urban footprint” with a small number of ways in and out – and therefore a small number of places that need gateway signage. The Town Council has already identified the need to upgrade the gateway signage to update and improve the existing signs. It has already identified funding to do so. Adding a 20mph roundel to the gateway signage should now be part of the sign designer’s brief. By combining budgets in this way, more can be done with available resources.

Faversham needs more joined up thinking as well as a more joined up network of routes that are safe and convenient for walking and cycling. Now is the time for action.

Future generations will judge us on what we do next.

The way forward for the A2: consult the real experts

Tackling congestion with measures focused only on permitting more traffic is not going to address long term traffic growth in Faversham. What is needed instead is a radical change in movement with a focus on walking and cycling.

I understand I wasn’t the only one at KCC’s consultation event on Friday objecting to the roundabout.

Would members of the Town Council agree with many of us that the way forward is not a roundabout but a design that encourages more walking and cycling?

And rather than spend half a million scarce pounds on the roundabout, wouldn’t members also agree that it is better to invest a small faction of that in holding a series of events with local experts? Not only the professionals and academics like myself who work in this area and are appalled at the crude proposals put forward by KCC but the real professionals:

the residents of The Mall and the schoolchildren of the Abbey School, Ethelbert Road School and elsewhere, who have to run between fast moving traffic every day – the very people who are not served by the roundabout but who are deeply concerned to see Faversham change for the better?

Off your backsides, everyone! There’s work to be done. 

Yesterday evening Faversham Town Council threw down the gauntlet/avoided its responsibilities (take your pick) to the people of Faversham: “Tell us where you want us to put benches.”

Cllr Wilcox claimed the “problem” (there’s always a “problem”) is that whenever a bench is proposed, the shop it’s outside of complains about the anti-social impact it will have.

Cllr Simmons cleverly suggested the solution might be to propose 6 benches, thereby spreading the pain. Not a bad idea – but how about 60? Or 160?

Cllr Martin offered an imaginative proposal to avoid painting Yellow Lines around the Guildhall: encircle it with benches instead! I think this is an idea worthy of further investigation.

Perhaps only one or two judiciously placed benches could solve the “problem” of people parking on the west side of the Guildhall. These might be heavy, moveable benches that can be wheeled away on market days and in an emergency. Other towns do this so why can’t Faversham?

Why wait to listen to the public voice?

A protracted discussion took place at this evening’s Town Council Meeting about whether, as proposed by Cllr Ogden-Starkel, the Council should create an online questionnaire to engage with the public.

Cllr Cosgrove suggested returning to the subject next year and spending the time between now and then in setting up “processes”.

What many Councillors don’t seem to appreciate is that discussion forums – like this one – are already in place.

The Town Council is behind the curve.

In the end it was agreed to create a Steering Group. I hope, as does Cllr Campbell, who has made a number of excellent interventions this evening, that they get on and do something soon.

Council votes against the future

Sadly, but perhaps unsurprisingly, Faversham Town Council has voted this evening against the creation of a Strategic Planning Committee. Such a group would have helped the town plan for its future.

The idea of the Strategic Planning Committee was not to replace any existing function of the Town Council’s Planning Committee – a fact lost on Cllr Mulhern, who gave a bizarre speech claiming just the opposite. He must not have read or perhaps understood Cllr Martin’s briefing note, which could not have been clearer.

This vote marks another sad day in the life of a council that is looking increasingly out of its depth.

Faversham – a town under attack from within

The great appeal of Faversham – to those of us born here as well as those of us who have chosen to make this our home – is both its immense historic beauty and its wonderful people.

Yet both Faversham’s good looks and culture are under attack – and, however unwittingly, this town council is leading the charge:

– defacing Faversham’s historic landscape with yellow lines

– removing benches so we have nowhere to rest and to talk to each other

– proposing to replace a pedestrian friendly zebra crossing with a car friendly pelican crossing

talking about banning cyclists.

What evidence is there that any of this is needed? What real evidence exists? And what kind of a town will be created if all of this happens?

I was, as you might imagine, most disappointed to read in the minutes of its last meeting that the Public Realm Group wishes to paint yellow lines around the Guildhall. As one of Faversham’s most important buildings, the consequence of this action will be highly damaging. The proximity of the yellow lines to the plaque that honours the valour of Sir Philip Neame will create additional visual harm. 

This matters. People love Faversham for its historic beauty. They spend their money here when they have a choice to go elsewhere because they like the look of the place and they enjoy the social experience. They encourage other visitors to do the same. Our economy relies on our good looks.

When, as a result of my intervention, it was agreed in 2014 not to paint the lines around the Guildhall, I was given the reassurance by Brian Planner at Swale BC that the impact of the lines would be carefully monitored. Can you therefore tell me:

1. What studies have been undertaken and what evidence have these generated to describe the effects that the lines have had on parking behaviour in central Faversham?

2. Where is this evidence documented?

3. How has this evidence been used to reach the conclusion that more yellow lines should be painted?

I see many unfortunate things in my job and I try not to be shocked but this situation troubles me greatly. To encircle the Guildhall with municipal yellow lines is to twist the knife in a wound that was created when yellow lines were first painted last year and repainted earlier this year.

These lines are a scar on Faversham’s historic beauty. This episode casts the actions of Faversham Town Council in a poor light. 

The lines are not needed. People don’t observe them. The police say they would prefer not to have them. The suggestion that emergency services can’t access all sides of the building simply does not stand up to the briefest of conversations with a firefighter. 

In town and in the outside world I am sorry to report that Faversham’s actions have drawn enormous criticism. Painting yellow lines has been opposed by people both locally and internationally. It has been described variously as “crude and destructive”, “degrading”, “defacing” – and as “bureaucratic vandalism” – not only by people in the streets of this town but by former presidents of the Royal Town Planning Institute, the Royal Institute of British Architects and The Academy of Urbanism. These people know what they are talking about.

Imagine a doctor telling you that you have serious health issues. High cholesterol. Poor circulation. That these are treatable if you change your lifestyle. But fatal if you don’t. What would you do?

So it is with the design of Faversham’s town centre. The social and economic health of the town is threatened. So why does the Town Council continue to pursue this brutal course of action? Why won’t it listen? Why won’t it engage with people who are experts in their field and who are telling it that it need to change its tack? Why won’t it listen to the thousands of local voices who don’t want yellow lines? Why did it only listen to a few who said they did?

And, at last, the Faversham Society has shown its colours in opposition to yellow lines.

If councillors believe what they are doing is in the public good then they are deceiving not only themselves but the people of this town that they represent. 

I urge town councillors and members of the Public Realm Group to look to their consciences and ask whether the paltry consultation exercise that was undertaken when the yellow lines were first proposed stands any test of rigour, especially in the light of the overwhelming opposition to the yellow lines that was revealed during the campaign that I have led during the last two years.

On that basis alone can the council or anyone it represents have confidence that these other measure coming forward are in the town’s best interests?

I ask the Town Council not to approve the recommendations of the Public Realm Group and, instead, to direct that group back to the drawing board in pursuit of common sense and the general good of this great town.