‘We feel let down by decision’
AGROUP 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 dropoff 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.
A copy of the campaigners’ letter, seen by the Local Democracy Reporting Service, 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 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.
In an email sent to at least one Thornbury resident, councillors Maggie Tyrrell, Jayne Stansfield and Shirley Holloway, said: “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 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.
The email, shared by the Labour group with the Local Democracy Reporting Service, 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.