Sefton Council are meeting this evening to discuss the 'Southport Walking and Cycling Consultation and Active Travel Tranche 2' report that was released on November 1st.

From the feedback from residents in the report there was a strong support against the scheme.

Full 111 page report here

Qlocal news when report issued here

Reaction to the report included:

Southport Conservatives demand cycle lane plans are abandoned

John Pugh: Consultation Results Show that Cycle Route Plans are "Dead in the Water"

Damien Moore MP calls on Cllr Fairclough to accept the results on cycle lane plans

The 'Southport Walking and Cycling Consultation and Active Travel Tranche 2' is item 4 of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee (Regeneration and Skills)
Tuesday 9th November, 2021 6.30 pm at The Ballroom, Town Hall, Bootle



Attendees due at the meeting (red-labour, blue-conservative, orange-lib dem)

Cllr. John Sayers LLB. Cert PA. - Chair
Cllr. Janis Blackburne - Vice-Chair
Cllr. Sinclair D'Albuquerque - Member
Cllr. Linda Cluskey - Member
Cllr. James Hansen - Member
Cllr. Christine Maher - Member
Cllr. Greg Myers - Member
Cllr. Catie Page - Member
Cllr. Dave Robinson - Member
Cllr. Yaso Sathiy - Member
Cllr. Marion Atkinson - Cabinet Member
Cllr. John Fairclough - Cabinet Member
Cllr. Trish Hardy - Cabinet Member
Cllr. Ian Maher - Member
Cllr. Ian Moncur - Cabinet Member
Cllr. Daren Veidman - Cabinet Member

Cllr John Fairclough will sit in on the meeting, to hear the views of the committee. Of the 11 committee members, 4 are councillors in Southport. They are:

Cllr Sinclair d'Albuquerque - Cambridge Ward.
Cllr Greg Myers - Norwood Ward.
Cllr Janis Blackburne - Kew Ward.
Cllr Yaso Saithy - Meols Ward.

Southport Conservatives put this out this morning on Facebook

The Overview & Scrutiny Committee of Sefton Council will be considering the Cycle Lane Consultation results today.

Where do the parties in Southport stand on the cycle lane proposals?

* Conservatives - oppose
* Labour - support
* Lib Dems - sit on the fence or don't show up!

Excellent. Let’s hope they see sense, and press ahead with all the plans, and organise for a further roll out of more active travel options in the near future.

Originally Posted by lawed143

Excellent. Let’s hope they see sense, and press ahead with all the plans, and organise for a further roll out of more active travel options in the near future.

And totally ignore the consultation they ran, going against the wishes of those that replied.

I though we lived in a democracy not a dictatorship - then again we are dealing with Bootle here.

Originally Posted by lawed143

Excellent. Let’s hope they see sense, and press ahead with all the plans, and organise for a further roll out of more active travel options in the near future.

So you think the views and wishes of the residents should simply be ignored do you?

Originally Posted by justbecause

So you think the views and wishes of the residents should simply be ignored do you?

Yes, change will need to be imposed.
You can't have every decision made by a largely selfish and ignorant public, as brexit has proved.

Two points
We live at the Aughton Road end of Talbot Street. The One Stop shop has deliveries from a full-size artic about three times a week. If I understand these proposals it will really struggle to get in and out.
The other...I would be more impressed of they enforced the existing arrangements. Cars and vans regularly ignore the No Entry sign.

Originally Posted by bensherman

...I would be more impressed of they enforced the existing arrangements. Cars and vans regularly ignore the No Entry sign.

Couldn't agree more.....All these improvements to our roads like 20mph zones etc, are supposed to make the place safe for vulnerable road-users. But without regular enforcement, we're scarcely any better off than before!

Originally Posted by salus.populi

Yes, change will need to be imposed.
You can't have every decision made by a largely selfish and ignorant public, as brexit has proved.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

Originally Posted by The PNP

Couldn't agree more.....All these improvements to our roads like 20mph zones etc, are supposed to make the place safe for vulnerable road-users. But without regular enforcement, we're scarcely any better off than before!

Well you pay the wages to have an enforcement officer on EVERY single street then maybe all the speed limits will be enforced.

(B)anker

(letter in brackets is optional and can be changed to something more oppropriate)

Originally Posted by libraryguy

Well you pay the wages to have an enforcement officer on EVERY single street then maybe all the speed limits will be enforced.

(B)anker

(letter in brackets is optional and can be changed to something more oppropriate)

The police precept forms part of our Council Tax bill, and I expect the law to be upheld - for everyone.....If they the police are underfunded/undermanned, then it's time to raise the precept!

Originally Posted by libraryguy

And totally ignore the consultation they ran, going against the wishes of those that replied.

I though we lived in a democracy not a dictatorship - then again we are dealing with Bootle here.

It’s a consultation, not a binding democratic vote. Learn the difference. That aside, the results of the consultation were flawed - as already raised elsewhere, so who knows what the real result is. We voted these people in to make decisions. Voice your concerns, and let them do their job. Don’t like it, the ballot box is the place to make yourself heard.

This isn’t just about cycling, it’s about active travel in all forms, but this site keeps on aggravating our differences by misrepresenting the truth. This site is not an independent news site, it has an agenda……to attract viewers to its advertisers, and it does this by making up dodgy news ….. this article is a perfect example.

“Cyclegate”
“Strong Support against the scheme”
“Sit n the fence or just don’t turn up”

All terms used by this “news” site to drum up contention.

Also, with reference to your other post about paying for enforcement officers everywhere - we already pay our taxes to fund the services of enforcement authorities. The fact that drivers regularly ignore speed limits and no-entry signs only serves to support our need to further encourage other methods of travel, and to allow them to be done safely. If drivers drove in accordance with their revocable licence, there wouldn’t be any need for any of this. But they don’t, so there is. I think you’ve just shot your own argument down….. well done you.

Originally Posted by The PNP

The police precept forms part of our Council Tax bill, and I expect the law to be upheld - for everyone.....If they the police are underfunded/undermanned, then it's time to raise the precept!

And when they were being properly funded there was still never an enforcement officer on every street.

Originally Posted by lawed143

It’s a consultation, not a binding democratic vote. Learn the difference. That aside, the results of the consultation were flawed - as already raised elsewhere, so who knows what the real result is. We voted these people in to make decisions. Voice your concerns, and let them do their job. Don’t like it, the ballot box is the place to make yourself heard.

This isn’t just about cycling, it’s about active travel in all forms, but this site keeps on aggravating our differences by misrepresenting the truth. This site is not an independent news site, it has an agenda……to attract viewers to its advertisers, and it does this by making up dodgy news ….. this article is a perfect example.

“Cyclegate”
“Strong Support against the scheme”
“Sit n the fence or just don’t turn up”

All terms used by this “news” site to drum up contention.

Also, with reference to your other post about paying for enforcement officers everywhere - we already pay our taxes to fund the services of enforcement authorities. The fact that drivers regularly ignore speed limits and no-entry signs only serves to support our need to further encourage other methods of travel, and to allow them to be done safely. If drivers drove in accordance with their revocable licence, there wouldn’t be any need for any of this. But they don’t, so there is. I think you’ve just shot your own argument down….. well done you.

No-one suggetsed it was a binding vote, a consultation isn't. However, what is the point in using funds to pay for a consultation if you don't pay serious consideration to the views expressed? They wanted the views, and now that it's gone against what they wanted to hear they don't like it.

You tell me how it's flawed? Not just by hearsay of 19 responses with the same IP address - produce the evidence! Produce actual evidence of flawed results then lets remove them and see what the options are like then? It's not going to suddenly change in favour of the scheme, and neither is it going to greatly increase the opposition to it.

Newspapers and news websites are there to make money for their operators and will publish opinions of their contributors. This site is no different. The Mirror is a Labour/left leaning paper and will find fault with Boris, similarily the Telegraph will generally find Boris can do no wrong.

This website gives all of us with differing views the free reign to express our opinions. We both greatly disagree on the way the Southport road structure should be, however we both have the right to express our views in a courtious manner.

You always single out the motorist when they do wrong, and I will agree with you motorists will break rules from time to time, yes I have done so myself, however, I give you the oppotunity to accept that ALL road users break the rules form time to time INCLUDING CYCLISTS!

I do not believe I've shot down my own argument!

Originally Posted by lawed143

It’s a consultation, not a binding democratic vote. Learn the difference. That aside, the results of the consultation were flawed - as already raised elsewhere, so who knows what the real result is. We voted these people in to make decisions. Voice your concerns, and let them do their job. Don’t like it, the ballot box is the place to make yourself heard.

This isn’t just about cycling, it’s about active travel in all forms, but this site keeps on aggravating our differences by misrepresenting the truth. This site is not an independent news site, it has an agenda……to attract viewers to its advertisers, and it does this by making up dodgy news ….. this article is a perfect example.

“Cyclegate”
“Strong Support against the scheme”
“Sit n the fence or just don’t turn up”

All terms used by this “news” site to drum up contention.

Also, with reference to your other post about paying for enforcement officers everywhere - we already pay our taxes to fund the services of enforcement authorities. The fact that drivers regularly ignore speed limits and no-entry signs only serves to support our need to further encourage other methods of travel, and to allow them to be done safely. If drivers drove in accordance with their revocable licence, there wouldn’t be any need for any of this. But they don’t, so there is. I think you’ve just shot your own argument down….. well done you.

That is totally INCORRECT as you well know. Southport residents vote in, Southport Councillors, the majority of whom disagree with these proposals. These proposals are being foisted on Southport and its residents, by Labour Councillors based 20 miles away in Bootle, NONE of whom were voted in by Southport residents.
As for your suggestion that anyone not happy with the decision should make themselves “heard at the Ballot Box”, I would suggest that as Labour holds only seven of the twenty one seats in Southport,……we did.

As for your claim that the results of the consultation were flawed, Left wing Labour Councillor John Fairclough has made these absurd accusations, but has failed to produce a single shred of evidence to back them up.

Originally Posted by libraryguy

And when they were being properly funded there was still never an enforcement officer on every street.

Were they ever 'properly funded'? There has never been adequate deployment of speed-traps on the districts roads. I should know, as I'm using those roads most days of the week, year-in year-out and rarely see one.

There's no need for a 'cop on every corner', that's just being silly and impractical. A couple of speed-traps in daily use would be enough, provided they were constantly moved to new locations, inc randomly on 20mph streets.....Motorists would soon come to realise they could no longer 'boot-it' with impunity wherever they liked.