I am writing to you on behalf of a group made up of over 6000 members to formally request that you respond to the meeting that members of LRC attended on September 4th 2020.
Those attending represented the voices of residents, local tradespeople, and commercial interests who have expressed opposition to the widespread road restrictions in the area. There remains significant local interest in removing these obstacles, many of which resent that their voices are not being heard and feel trapped and controlled by public agencies.
It is reasonable to say that the expedited Low Traffic Neighbourhood Scheme has been hugely controversial and has led to several high profile protests. Notable too, is that over 5500 residents have signed a petition against LTNs, including – but not limited to - nurses, care-workers, the elderly those with mobility/sensory impairments, regular cyclists, walkers, and young adults. We understand also that a pre-action letter with a view to applying for a judicial review of certain schemes has been submitted.
Representatives of LRC highlighted the poor planning, lack of consultation, and the refusal to alter plans in the face growing opposition. We firmly believe that the schemes have not achieved their stated objectives and have exacerbated many of the problems that they were meant to solve.
The closure of ‘cell’ neighbourhoods have diverted traffic onto the main distributor roads which were already operating at capacity and now prolong access from quieter residential roads. It is also clear that a more affluent, higher car owning area is being rewarded with LTN’s at the cost of an area with lower affluence, lower car ownership and, in places, a serious spike in pollution. The link between air pollution and increased Covid-19 mortality is established with an ever increasing body of scientific evidence. We are of the opinion that LTNs discriminate against those who are already predisposed to greater health inequalities, and where Covid-19 is yet another factor that compounds on poor health outcomes. Whilst this was not the intention of the schemes, it is, nevertheless, the impact.
We remain highly concerned that vulnerable residents are being overlooked, particularly those the Equality Act 2010 is designed to protect. Unquestionably, people with protected characteristics are being detrimentally impacted on, many of whom feel their independence has become increasingly limited. We still propose that the council adopts a more holistic approach to the wide range of measures that can support people with visible and less visible impairments. Ultimately, it is incumbent on the council to remove or minimise disadvantages suffered by persons who share a protected characteristic.
LRC considers the restriction of access to breach of the Equalities Act 2010, (Pt2. Chapter 1 protected characteristics/ Chapter 2 prohibited conduct).
The Governments Ministerial Forward states;
- While many take for granted the ability to travel easily from A to B, this is not the reality for everyone. For our ageing population, and the fifth of people who identify as having some sort of disability, access to transport can be far from straightforward. That is why this Government is determined to make sure that disabled people have the same access to transport as everyone else, and that they are able to travel easily, confidently and without extra cost. We have a manifesto commitment to get a million more disabled people into work by 2027, and this Strategy will help to deliver that.
- I have been encouraged by the increasing awareness among transport operators of the need to design and deliver their services in a genuinely inclusive way, in particular the greater recognition that less visible disabilities such as autism, dementia or anxiety can be just as much of a barrier to travel as a visible disability.
Those involved in the design of these schemes need to be cognisant of the need to comply with the Public Sector Equality Duty and the requirement to implement reasonable adjustments. Currently, those with a wide range of conditions, including mental health/neuro-diverse conditions, and learning disabilities have not been considered in the wider context of LTN modelling.
Islington Council has failed to consult with vulnerable groups and have not taken reasonable steps for purposes of the duty to make adjustments, in order to make it easier for disabled people contrary to section 21 of the Equality Act 2010.
The Traffic Management Act: network management in response to COVID-19 states;
- Public sector equality duty still applies, and in making any changes to their road networks, authorities must consider the needs of disabled people and those with other protected characteristics. Accessibility requirements apply to temporary measures as they do to permanent ones
Sec 5 of the 2004 Traffic Management Act requires communities and residents to be consulted before major decisions are taken. Due to this oversight, Islington council should ensure that advice is readily available on how to challenge existing or new schemes which exclude, or have the potential to exclude, disabled people.
Despite government funding, these policies do not support the Department for Transport’s aspiration for the UK to become a world leader for accessible and inclusive travel. We are of the opinion that the council has not exercised its functions or paid due regard to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 Sec (1) & Subsection (2)
- to secure the expeditious, convenient and safe movement of vehicular and other traffic (including pedestrians) and the provisioning of suitable and adequate parking facilities on and off the highway.
Subsection (2) The matters referred to in subsection (1) above as being specified in this subsection are:
- the desirability of securing and maintaining reasonable access to premises.
- the strategy prepared under section 80 of the Environment Act 1995 (national air quality strategy)
- the importance of facilitating the passage of public service vehicles and of securing the safety and convenience of persons using or desiring to use such vehicles.
Furthermore, Islington’s Streetspace Plan has not sought to create a collective response in order to deliver overarching aims that would benefit all residents. As we have not heard back from you, it is vital for us to point out that the council has failed in its responsibility to care for its residents both on a micro level and with regard to wider determinants and risk factors for health and wellbeing. Can you therefore address the concerns that were brought to the council on September 4th
TAXI LEAKS EXTRA BIT:
Paramedics wait 20 mins to get to patient as ambulance blocked by council traffic scheme
No comments:
Post a Comment