Investing in playgrounds is politically much more acceptable than investing in playable neighbourhoods, but research and past experience suggest that playable neighbourhoods (car-lite, safe, accessible, with diverse play affordances, etc.) are better for play, children, community, families, etc.

As some have noted, this popular people-space - including raised crossings, a paved pedestrian area & lovely rain gardens- was funded by a government grant, as was the LTN itself. Was such funding meant to be squandered in favour of a ‘privileged driver enclave’? @willnorman.co.uk

So much for the Quieter Neighbourhood Scheme’s original objectives of addressing climate change by enabling active travel and reducing unnecessary short car journeys… 🫤

Enfield Council is going to ‘trial’ (for a year!) ANPR exemptions for residents after receiving a petition from disgruntled drivers that ‘demands access’ via their preferred route, i.e. the short-cut to Muswell Hill that avoids the A406.

Unfortunately, for those of us trying to get engagement from a council that’s only on ‘X’, it can mean getting drowned out by the noisy, fact-free minority. Most of the sensible voices have come to this platform, so getting support is harder.

One of my all time favourite reports includes this attempt at summarising the benefits from investment in active travel.

It’s one of the best investments a government can make - something acknowledged within many of DfTs own reports.

Link: www.who.int/europe/publi...

It's a curious position the objectors seem to be taking over this. They can't complain about LTN residents living in "privileged enclaves" whilst arguing that those same residents should have special privileges in the form of unrestricted vehicular movement, surely? Am I missing something 🤔