Portswood bus gate will not be scrapped despite concerns
A controversial bus gate trial which has been described as causing "widespread chaos and misery" will not be scrapped, a local authority has confirmed.The six-month trial in Portswood, Southampton - which began in January - means only buses, taxis and cyclists are permitted to travel at certain hours on stretches of Portswood Road.At a full meeting of Southampton City Council on Wednesday, transport chief Eamonn Keogh refused to scrap the plan until the impact was assessed, despite growing pressure to do so.Mr Keogh also survived a motion of no confidence, tabled by the opposition Conservative group and supported by the Liberal Democrats.
A petition calling for the project to be scrapped is also edging towards 5,000 signatures, whilst protesters marched through Portswood on Saturday with the same message.
Addressing the meeting, Mr Keogh said: "At this stage we will not be ceasing the bus gate."He said the project would continue because "it is the trial", adding: "We need to recognise that that is the purpose - that we have got to assess what the impact is."Mr Keogh added the bus gate issue had "taxed" him "beyond anything I have ever known before".Also talking at the meeting, Portswood resident Katherine Holmes told councillors the first two months of the trial had a "devastating impact on the local community".She said high street businesses were reporting reduced footfall and a loss of earnings while thousands of cars were displaced into residential areas, which was causing "widespread chaos and misery"."The bus gate trial cannot be considered a success when there are such obvious and serious impacts on the local community," she continued.
Mr Keogh said he understood the passion being expressed by residents but added that a recent independent audit into the project found there were "no further issues" with the trial.But Conservative group leader Peter Baillie, who tabled the motion of no confidence in Mr Keogh, accused him of "ploughing on no matter what"."At what point do you not plough on and say actually we need to halt and we need to rethink and we need to start again," he said."It is no exaggeration to say that Portswood will never be the same again if this bus gate continues."Lib Dem group leader Richard Blackman said the project did not look tenable or sustainable and he would scrap it immediately.Addressing the authority's Labour leadership, Mr Blackman said: "You need to demonstrate that you are listening, and really listening."
You can follow BBC Hampshire & Isle of Wight on Facebook, X (Twitter), or Instagram.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
22 minutes ago
- The National
Tell voters we will hold new indyref no matter what Westminster says
For Labour to win with a candidate they were so embarrassed by that they wouldn't let him speak in public is a low point in recent Scottish politics. But, more importantly, from an SNP perspective, it was another signal that we are not doing enough to enthuse our potential voters. The SNP have a record to be proud of in government. From free tuition to the Scottish Child Payment, we continually show that even with one hand tied behind our back we are the most progressive and efficient government in the UK. However, we have now been in power for 18 years and the public see things such as free prescriptions and the Winter Fuel Allowance as the norm and expect them to be there in perpetuity, not really understanding that if any of the Unionist parties take control of Holyrood these benefits will disappear like snow aff a dyke. READ MORE: Glasgow's new skyscraper guidelines sparks split over city's skyline future Where I believe we have failed as a government is in not making clear to the people of Scotland the real risk they run every time they vote for a Starmer/Sarwar Labour Party of seeing these things go. Have a look at the mess they've made of Wales's NHS or their continual attacks on the poorest, the elderly and the infirm in the UK. We have to get the message out loud and clear about how much money we spend mitigating the right-wing social policies of the previous Conservative government and, shamefully, of this Labour Government. There is no doubt that we are the best party to run Scotland. The alternatives simply do not bear thinking about. But, as I say, familiarity breeds contempt, and I think that's where we are in the minds of the Scottish people. The beauty is, though, that unlike the other political parties, we hold a trump card and that is, of course, the cause of independence. I have written this before and said it a million times: if we don't have independence front and centre then we simply become another party seeking power to do what it can for the people it represents under the constitutional settlement available to us. That in itself is a good thing but after 18 years in government we end up where we are. However, we know – the proof is there in our record in government – only with independence can we ensure we will be able to continue to take a different path from the rest of the UK and start to make things even better. So what now? Well for a start we have to make independence the centrepiece of every leaflet, every piece of campaign material and manifesto we deliver. We have to show the people of Scotland that independence is not just something we want for its own sake but because it's the route to a healthier, wealthier, happier Scotland – and we have to find a way to do this that bypasses the mainstream media. If last week showed us anything its that our two primary TV channels either don't understand the Scottish political make-up or they understand it only too well. How else can we explain why a Debate Night programme the night before the by-election can have three Labour representatives on it, along with a token Tory and one SNP politician? This is either rank idiocy/ignorance or a blatant attempt to assist one party out of what looked at the time like a political quagmire. You can make up your own minds which you think it is, but either way for us to expect to get a fair hearing on either of these two channels is naïve beyond belief. We must make this forthcoming Holyrood election the Independence Election. We must tell the people of Scotland that if there is an independence-supporting majority government, we will immediately inform the Westminster government that we are taking steps to hold an independence referendum. We should suggest that the best way to do this is with a Section 30 order but either way we will go ahead with one as that is what the people of Scotland have demanded. We should then go back to the Scottish Parliament, ask it to reconfirm the desire to hold the referendum and then set a date. As for the Unionist parties? Democracy is about making available the means for people to participate in the process. If they choose not to do so then they have still used their democratic right. WE then move forward based on the results of the referendum. We cannot continue with the same old, 'give us a mandate, then we'll ask for a Section 30, then we'll voice our disappointment when refused' and then wait for the next election to repeat the process. The last referendum was more than 10 years ago; even in the Unionist calendar that is a political generation. Disagree? Well, they don't. They wrote it into the Good Friday Agreement that seven years was the period between any potential referendums taking place regarding the unification of Ireland. The difference here? Fear of losing Scotland, colonial arrogance and rank hypocrisy. Regarding the indy movement, I think a couple of things have to happen. First of all,please stop pretending that the SNP don't care about independence – you have no idea how ridiculous and insulting that is. Secondly, we all need to put our differences aside and agree that the one thing that matters between now and 2026 is that we get an independence-supporting majority in the Scottish Parliament. The rest can be dealt with after that. Without independence we are not in a position to seriously change the things we want to change. And for SNP members, can we stop begging for a change of leader every time we don't get the result we want. John Swinney has been a member of the SNP and a fighter for independence for well over 30 years. He has constantly shown he knows how to win elections and is someone people tend to trust. Yet every time we lose a by-election or an opinion poll goes against us, we get a clamour for some other politician, usually an MP, who will never have run a department or chaired a parliamentary committee, to become the party leader because they are good in the media or with a witty quip at Prime Minister's Questions. It takes more than that to win a battle of this size. This is not an attack on any of my colleagues at Westminster. There are a number of very talented and able people there, Some of them have put themselves forward to stand in the Holyrood election and that is extremely welcome, but between now and the forthcoming Scottish Parliament election, every member of the SNP should be right behind John. All I ask is that you continue to pressure the leadership to ensure that independence is front and centre of all that we do. It's where it belongs. It's what we are all about.
Rhyl Journal
6 hours ago
- Rhyl Journal
MP urges Government to protect live music venues from new neighbours' complaints
Dame Caroline Dinenage has proposed letting decision-makers take into account existing properties, when they grant or refuse permission for new projects. The Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee chairwoman warned that 'live music's in crisis, the Government needs to be listening' as she proposed a new clause to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. Dame Caroline, the Conservative MP for Gosport, told the Commons: 'It isn't about venues versus developers. 'It's about making sure we have a balance right between building enough good homes and making sure the places we're building keep the things that make life worth living. 'In Westminster and our constituencies, everyone agrees that our high streets have been in decline, so it's vitally important that we protect the places that are special to us, our constituents and our communities, the places that provide a platform for our creators and our world-beating creative industries where we can make memories, celebrate and have fun.' Dame Caroline called on the Government to let town halls and ministers rule on plans 'subject to such conditions that would promote the integration of the proposed development of land with any existing use of land, including such conditions as may be necessary to mitigate the impact of noise on the proposed development'. A similar principle already exists in national planning rules, known as the National Planning Policy Framework, to ease pressure on existing businesses which 'should not have unreasonable restrictions placed on them as a result' of newer builds. But the Music Venue Trust's annual report last year warned that, in 2023, 22.4% of venues closed as a result of 'operational issues', compared with 42.1% of its members reporting 'financial issues'. The Trust identified noise abatement orders or other neighbour disputes as being among the issues which have resulted in permanent closures. 'Consistent application of the 'agent of change' principles will de-risk and speed up planning and development,' Dame Caroline told MPs, and added that her proposal was 'good for venues' and 'good for developers and new neighbours'. She said the law change could help authorities stop 'expensive and often pointless bun fights' when neighbours complain about noise. She continued: 'It'll make sure the needs of an existing cultural venue are considered from the start and it will save developers from late-stage objections and lengthy expensive legal disputes down the line.' Dame Caroline said music venues 'are the foundation of our world-beating creative industries and also very important for our local communities', and that they had been placed 'under threat, including from our disruptive planning system and our onerous licensing regime'. The Commons select committee recommended last year that the 'agent of change' principle should be put on a statutory footing, to protect grassroots music venues.
Leader Live
7 hours ago
- Leader Live
MP urges Government to protect live music venues from new neighbours' complaints
Dame Caroline Dinenage has proposed letting decision-makers take into account existing properties, when they grant or refuse permission for new projects. The Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee chairwoman warned that 'live music's in crisis, the Government needs to be listening' as she proposed a new clause to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. Dame Caroline, the Conservative MP for Gosport, told the Commons: 'It isn't about venues versus developers. 'It's about making sure we have a balance right between building enough good homes and making sure the places we're building keep the things that make life worth living. 'In Westminster and our constituencies, everyone agrees that our high streets have been in decline, so it's vitally important that we protect the places that are special to us, our constituents and our communities, the places that provide a platform for our creators and our world-beating creative industries where we can make memories, celebrate and have fun.' Dame Caroline called on the Government to let town halls and ministers rule on plans 'subject to such conditions that would promote the integration of the proposed development of land with any existing use of land, including such conditions as may be necessary to mitigate the impact of noise on the proposed development'. A similar principle already exists in national planning rules, known as the National Planning Policy Framework, to ease pressure on existing businesses which 'should not have unreasonable restrictions placed on them as a result' of newer builds. But the Music Venue Trust's annual report last year warned that, in 2023, 22.4% of venues closed as a result of 'operational issues', compared with 42.1% of its members reporting 'financial issues'. The Trust identified noise abatement orders or other neighbour disputes as being among the issues which have resulted in permanent closures. 'Consistent application of the 'agent of change' principles will de-risk and speed up planning and development,' Dame Caroline told MPs, and added that her proposal was 'good for venues' and 'good for developers and new neighbours'. She said the law change could help authorities stop 'expensive and often pointless bun fights' when neighbours complain about noise. She continued: 'It'll make sure the needs of an existing cultural venue are considered from the start and it will save developers from late-stage objections and lengthy expensive legal disputes down the line.' Dame Caroline said music venues 'are the foundation of our world-beating creative industries and also very important for our local communities', and that they had been placed 'under threat, including from our disruptive planning system and our onerous licensing regime'. The Commons select committee recommended last year that the 'agent of change' principle should be put on a statutory footing, to protect grassroots music venues.
