8 December - The Methuen Road mystery
After
three readers alerted me to newspaper reports on the situation
covered
here on 18th November with the implied question, why have you ignored it? I
thought I had better explain why.
The
initial plan was to wait for Bexley Council to answer the Freedom of Information request first submitted in July and resubmitted in October after Bexley Council lost the original
and tear it apart if I could. For that everyone is still waiting.
The other reason is that the News Shopper report was in my opinion a dreadful
piece of one sided journalism of the type one might expect from an organisation
with a contract to publish Bexley Council’s Public Notices. If you
search this website thoroughly you can read how investigative journalists were moved to
non-jobs for going into too much detail about a
dishonest Bexley Council.
The Methuen Road story went on to be repeated in the Daily Mail and more recently in The Sun
from which the photo above is ‘stolen’. Despite the credit to SWNS, the photo is mine, taken last Sunday.
Before delving further into this story I think it is important that readers should know that
Poplar Mount is a cul-de-sac and as such does not suffer through traffic. A
Google Earth roof count suggests that there are 25 houses on the left hand (East)
side and 18 on the right. Also on the right is Methuen Road, another
cul-de-sac with another
18 houses approximately. So a close community of about 60 households who manage their parking
requirements amicably together.
My real interest is not in their parking issues but whether Bexley Council has been engaging its dirty tricks department as they did back in 2009
when my interest in their activities was first aroused.
Long term readers may safely skip this four paragraph reminder.
The Council narrowed Abbey Road, Belvedere and slightly reduced clear sight lines for
drivers on a road which on their own admission did not have a record of
accidents. The object was to put a cycle lane on a widened footpath but not
at bus stops where cyclists were redirected on to the road.
There are about 20 roads and cul-de-sacs to the North of Abbey Road, the
residents of which can only access the outside world via the narrowed section of
Abbey Road. Only four of them were consulted along with a fifth road to the South which
has alternative exits. The process was handled by Mr. Andrew Bashford (Team
Leader Traffic Projects). I argued with him at length and along the way discovered that (then)
Cabinet Member Craske had dismissed every single objection to Bashford’s scheme.
Eventually Mr. Bashford got fed up with me and pulled his master stroke. He
said that his scheme was fully compliant with Transport Research Laboratory reports
numbered 641 and 661 which specified how roads might be safely narrowed. At £175
a copy he had my arguments well and truly scuppered didn’t he?
Except that he didn’t. My son was the senior
consultant in the department that published those reports and he came to look at
Abbey Road. A recipe for head on collisions was his verdict
and so it has proved. Fatalities too. Mr. Bashford had
proved that he was prepared to seriously stretch the truth in support of Bexley
Council and exactly the sort of chap they are looking for. Mr. Bashford is now
Head of Highways in Bexley and the man behind most of Bexley’s traffic problems - and Methuen Road.
Why did he pick the piffling little junction between Poplar Mount and Methuen
Road for the double yellow treatment? He has of course got the Highway Code
going for him because it deprecates parking within ten metres of a junction but
it took me and my neighbours a very long time to get double yellows installed in
our roads and within half a mile of Methuen Road there are literally dozens of
piffling little junctions and some not so piffling that are devoid of any yellow paint.
What is special about Methuen Road?
The 90 residents who signed the Methuen Road petition think that they have one
resident who hates cars and has admitted as much. It is alleged that that single
resident asked for yellow lines to be installed and Bexley Council for reasons
as yet unknown decided to make lining their junction a top priority. The
result is a reduction in parking spaces in a road where the situation is already
difficult. Only the nearest three residents admit to being notified of the
Council’s intention and just one notice was affixed to a lamp post - positioned
such that in a cul-de-sac fewer that 20 households would ever pass it by.
By the time the residents got organised it was too late to stop it.
The announcement went up on 31st October but Cabinet
Member Diment had been asked to sign the order on 10th October. Why the haste?
Why the lack of warning? How is it that only three residents admit to knowing what was coming?
It is almost as if Bexley Council is pulling stunts to do someone a
favour. It sounds far fetched but 15 years of dealing with Bexley Council
doesn’t let me rule it out. Why has not one local Councillor replied to enquiries?
The petition could not be submitted until 11th November. Nevertheless it was answered.
Mr. Bashford falls back on the Highway Code argument but does not explain why
Methuen Road needs special treatment while dozens of others do not and
correctly claims that improved sight lines improve safety. Presumably not by
much where vehicles are unlikely to be exceeding 5 m.p.h.
It is however pleasing to see how he has changed his mind since Abbey Road in
2009 when he was keen to facilitate head on collisions.
He also favours the extra manouevering space provided by a reduction in parking
space which is a complete reversal on Bexley Council’s policy of narrowing roads wherever possible.
He claims to have been pressurised by road users in the plural which some may
doubt and says that several site visits were made to assess the situation. This from a
Council which only a couple of weeks ago said it
did not have the resources to
progress its proposed CPZ schemes.
It is stated that the Cabinet Member was made aware of views both for and against the scheme but
the document put before him (PDF) includes nothing other than resident’s objections and his department’s rejections.
Is Richard Diment not part of the Listening Council?
In 2009 I concluded that ‘Ae n – d r oo b AE sh f or d’ (for that is how he
asks us to address him) could be a stranger to the truth and he has not yet convinced me that I am wrong.
Maybe when he answers the Freedom of Information request I will change my mind.
Methuen Road residents turn out for their photoshoot in the rain.