‘Utterly inappropriate’ city road closures ‘will see more congestion and air pollution’
EXPERIMENTAL road closures aimed at cutting congestion and “rat-running” have been met with a backlash and, in one case, a spontaneous protest among residents.
A number of people who live in the streets, all in Evington in Leicester, believe the closures will cause them inconvenience and cause congestion elsewhere.
The scheme was implemented on Sunday and is running on a trial basis. It includes the closure of four streets – Gamel Road, Greystone Avenue, Davenport Road and Newhaven Road – each of which were to be blocked with planters.
Leicester City Council consulted locals last year before it went ahead with the measures.
However, some residents are not convinced and blocked the instalment of planters in Davenport Road on Sunday, forcing council officers to leave them at the side of the road.
Shah Ali, who has lived in Davenport Road for 14 years, started a petition against the plans when residents first learned of them last year.
Although he supported some measures, he said the reduced access to residential streets would “ultimately cause more congestion on busier roads”.
The petition – on the Change.org site - has gained more than 400 signatures and Mr Ali said he presented it to the council during the consultation period. He also passed it to a local councillor who, he said, told him it would be shared with the “right people”.
However, he heard nothing back until residents were informed several weeks ago the scheme would go ahead – on a trial basis – with some adjustments to the initial plans.
Mr Ali told the Mercury: “We realise this is a trial phase, but we feel that once it’s in, the council won’t listen to us.”
He added that it seemed as though his petition “had been dismissed” altogether, claiming that when it was raised with a council officer on Sunday, she said she was not aware of it. The council has now said it will be “reflecting on” the petition.
“What we’d prefer to see is things like more speed humps to address the speeding and the installation of a camera. Yes, there are changes needed but I don’t think road blocks are the answer,” said the 50-year-old.
The daughter of two elderly residents of Oakside Crescent, which links to Davenport Road, felt the scheme had not considered the elderly.
Kate Clement’s parents, who are both in their 70s, rely on car journeys to and from regular doctor and hospital appointments which, she said, would go from being five minutes to 45 minutes with the road closures in place.
She said: “My dad has got cancer and my mum is classed as disabled – although it’s a five-minute drive to the shops and doctors, it’s too far for them to walk. The council is proposing that they make the drive around four local schools to then join the school traffic.”
During a conversation with a council officer, Ms Clements said her dad was told that residents should “learn to walk a bit further”.
She added: “[The scheme] is all about encouraging people to walk and cycle, but what about the people who can’t?”
Stephen Cooper, another Davenport Road resident and former engineer for planned highways maintenance at the council, said the closure of his road was “utterly inappropriate”.
He said: “Davenport Road is well constructed and designed to handle a high level of traffic, and generally it does.
“It does get busy during school times but I don’t think it merits blocking the road – it’s transient, it’s not a persistent problem.”
The 67-year-old added that the measures would negatively impact schoolchildren whose parents have to travel further afield, worshippers who regularly attend a mosque in Gamel Road, elderly residents and their carers. Although Mr Cooper believed some changes were needed to address the speeding problem in Davenport Road. he felt “[the council] has not considered the consequences of the measures for the residents”.
Speaking about the council’s clean air ambitions, he added: “They are admirable sentiments or objectives but the residents have to make their own decisions [on how they travel] based on their own abilities.”
Asif Mitha, a father of four, said the scheme had been poorly thought out and would create longer journey times for him and many parents. Each morning he takes one of his sons and his daughter, both under the age of 10, to school, and drops his youngest son at his nursery before going to work.
He is one of a number of residents who protested against the planters as the road closures were implemented. He said: “This will cause more harm than it will do good to our local community.
“The council wants to encourage more people to walk and low emissions from vehicles. But the thing is people who need to take a car will just a longer journey now – which will just create more pollution.”
He added that when raising his concerns with a council officer, it was suggested his seven-year-old daughter walks to school with friends. Mr Mitha said he did not feel that was a safe option for her due to her young age.
Another resident, who did not want to be named, said the road closures will “make life harder”.
His family had moved to Leicester from near London last year, with the hopes of a better quality of life for his 19-year-old son, who has a severe heart condition, as well as a lung and spine condition which restricts how far and for how long he can walk.
“We moved here for my son, so he could get out and about more in an area that was outside of the bigger city,” the 52-year-old said.
He said his son’s conditions have a knock-on effect on his confidence which often discourages him from going out.
“Sometimes, if getting to the mosque or somewhere is too much of a hassle, it will put him off. But we’re trying to encourage him to go out,” he said.
The family fears the new measures will only discourage him further.
The council has proposed that the measures, which are part of the council’s Safer Streets Healthier Neighbourhoods scheme, will be in place for a maximum of 18 months, according to a letter shared with residents, who will be able to formally object to the measures within the first six months.
RESIDENTS’ PROTEST BLOCKS THE INSTALLATION OF PLANTERS