>
> Actually, David, I'd much rather the money from planning is spent tackling
> traffic through Headington - particularly to remove the incentives for
> commuters to 'nip' through the residential side roads.
>
>
The biggest way to achieve that goal is to keep the traffic flowing on
London Road.
I think there has been some effort in that direction (e.g: better Bus bays,
side-road turning restrictions). But I rather suspect that's just to try and
mitigate against the things that have happened that act against improved
flow (e.g: the 20mph limit obeyed by nobody and the fantasy that the
Headington Shops are placed in some rural idyll, not on the A420 main road).
Me - I'd place red-light countdown timers on the lights. All too often
drivers are asleep when the lights go green, wasting precious time in the
cycle.
> Why spend that money, generally from public sector organisations, to
> enhance the properties of private landlords in Headington? Especially as
> they were given the chance to opt in. The levels had to remain - that was
> obvious, but the owners of the properties were, we we told, given every
> opportunity to have their forecourts done at the same time.
>
>
Ah, but the important question is 'opt in at what cost' ?
If the answer is 'at no cost', then I'd be really amazed if anyone rejected
the offer.
If the answer is 'at your cost', then it ought to have been obvious to
anyone with a functioning brain that the answer was always going to be no.
*Particularly* at a time of economic contraction.
And even if it were the former, I'll bet it was pursued by the council with
all the enthusiasm of a 4-year-old being asked to eat broccoli.
And I'm afraid "to enhance the properties of private landlords in
Headington" is totally disingenuous. Firstly, because the council believes
these projects are to "improve the quality of the built environment" - in
the same way as renovating other public spaces. Secondly, because in doing
so they hope to attract more shoppers and better shops (which is a theme
repeated ad-nauseam on this forum). And thirdly because it isn't even for
free. Shops contribute thousands of pounds every year in business rates
(except, of course, charity shops which get an automatic 90% discount).
The key point David is making (and I agree with), is that given the
(presumed) negative outcome of the fantasy that shops were going to pay to
have their bit of the street upgraded; and the unwillingness to either pay
for it out of the budget (which must be a seriously minor marginal cost) or
go through the steps of compulsory purchase - that the end result is
something of a dog's dinner. So why was the council hell-bent on pushing it
through now - as the aims are so totally compromised - especially
considering the financial pressures it must be under?