Bus station art approved despite cyclists' concerns

A sculpture is to be put up outside a bus station despite concerns raised by a cycling group.
Stevenage Borough Council's planning committee have approved plans for the 2.5m (about 8ft) artwork, showing three stacked rocks, to be installed outside the entrance to Stevenage Interchange.
Jill Borcherds, of Cycling UK Stevenage, said she was not against the work but the location was not suitable.
But council officers said they had consulted both the highways authority and their engineers, and the location "would meet guidance for the space left between the sculpture and the edges of footpaths".
Ms Borcherds said: "The concerns we are raising are entirely related to the location and certainly not the artwork itself.
"People approaching the junction from all directions need to be able to see each other to share the space safely."
The work was commissioned by the council from community group Junction 7 Creatives.
At the planning committee meeting, Labour councillor Lynda Guy suggested the "great" sculpture could be placed on the other side of the bus station rather than being "plonked" down in the intended location, the Local Democracy Reporting Service said.
Liberal Democrat Stephen Booth, the leader of the opposition, suggested it could be moved "to front the actual bus station so that passers-by, motorists will see it and it would be a more suitable location".
The artwork is part of a wider scheme featuring mosaics "which will all tell a story with regards to Stevenage history and also personal journeys of the residents living in Stevenage", said planning officer Ailsa Davis.
Follow Beds, Herts and Bucks news on BBC Sounds, Facebook, Instagram and X.
Firm pulls out of £6.1m electric bus scheme
Plan for leisure centre to replace swimming pool
£350m town centre revamp plans signed off
Stevenage Borough Council
Junction 7 Creatives
Local Democracy Reporting Service

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Boston Globe

12 hours ago

• Boston Globe

UK lawmakers approve assisted-dying law

Advertisement 'I do not underestimate the significance of this day,' Kim Leadbeater, a Labour Party lawmaker and main champion of the bill, said Friday as she opened the debate. 'This is not a choice for living and dying. It is a choice for terminally ill people about how they die.' While assisted dying is illegal in most countries, a growing number of nations and jurisdictions have adopted legislation or are considering it. In England and Wales, assisting a death remains illegal and punishable by up to 14 years in prison. A poll published this week found that 73 percent of Britons backed the assisted-dying bill. While lawmakers voted in favor of the bill in November, at an earlier stage in the legislative process, uncertainty lingered ahead of Friday's vote. Hundreds of demonstrators on both sides gathered outside Parliament. Some carried placards that read, 'Let Us Choose.' Others held signs saying, 'Don't make doctors killers.' Advertisement Many of those who spoke during the debate shared personal stories. Mark Garnier, a Conservative Party politician, spoke about witnessing the dying days of his mother, who had pancreatic cancer and endured a 'huge amount of pain.' Garnier compared her ordeal to that of a constituent who also had pancreatic cancer but went through a state-provided assisted-dying program in Spain that made her 'suffering much less.' Josh Babarinde, a Liberal Democrat, read out a letter from a constituent traumatized by the death of her partner, who struggled to breathe, was incontinent, and repeatedly asked for her help to end his life. He then 'stuffed yards of his top sheet into his mouth' in an attempt to die,' Babarinde said, adding: 'This could have been avoided with an assisted-dying' law. Support for the measure ebbed in recent months, with a handful of politicians saying that they were going to switch their vote due to concerns about inadequate safeguards or insufficient end-of-life care. Steve Darling, a Liberal Democrat, told The Washington Post that while he was 'sympathetic' to the bill, he had changed his view because of 'inadequate' palliative care funding, which in Britain depends heavily on charitable donations. 'People might think, 'I could bite the bullet and get out of this situation because I'm not receiving a service that gives me a decent quality of life toward the end,'' Darling said. Others who said they agreed with the principle of letting people choose to die but could not back the bill included Labour member Vicky Foxcroft, who cited her work with disabled people. 'They want us as parliamentarians to assist them to live, not to die,' Foxcroft told Parliament. Advertisement The issue remains divisive even within parties. Health Secretary Wes Streeting and Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood, whose departments will each be impacted if the change becomes law, both opposed the bill. Prime Minister Keir Starmer made it clear that he supports the measure, citing his experience as the country's former chief prosecutor. Over the past two decades, more than 3,900 Britons have ended their lives with the Switzerland-based organization Dignitas. A few people who helped them were investigated or arrested. The vote Friday was a free vote, meaning that lawmakers could decide based on their own conscience rather than along party lines. It was the second time this week that Parliament held a free vote, which is often allowed on issues of ethics or conscience. Earlier this week, lawmakers voted in favor of decriminalizing abortion in England and Wales. One major revision to the bill in recent months was to eliminate the need for approval from a high court judge. No other country or jurisdiction with legalized assisted dying has that kind of stringent judicial oversight, and it was initially sold to some wavering lawmakers as a reason to back the bill. That requirement was dropped in favor of a three-person expert panel — a lawyer, social worker, and psychiatrist — that will oversee applications. Leadbeater said this would make the bill stronger, as members of the panel would have more relevant expertise and would be better able to spot red flags. Spain uses a similar kind of expert panel. Some professional bodies, such as the Royal College of Psychiatrists, remain neutral on the principle of assisted dying but opposed the legislation as written. Their concerns included the shortage of qualified staff for the expert panels. Advertisement The government's own 'impact assessment' found that the law could lead to 7,500 requests a year within a decade. Some campaigners had hoped for greater eligibility, to include patients experiencing unbearable suffering with no prospect of improvement, or allowing a doctor to administer a lethal cocktail of drugs. This bill allows assisted dying only for terminally ill patients who can administer the medication themselves. Speaking in Parliament, Peter Prinsley, a Labour lawmaker, said that 'as a young doctor, I found the measures that we're debating today completely unconscionable.' However, he added, 'now that I'm an old doctor, I feel sure this is an essential change.' 'We are not dealing with life or death, rather death or death,' Prinsley said. 'And fundamental to that is surely choice. Who are we to deny that to the dying?'

Yahoo

3 days ago

• Yahoo

Tracking low-level cannabis use wastes police time, former London chief says

Police hunting for people who use small amounts of cannabis is a waste of scarce resources, and diverts officers from tackling much more serious criminals, a former police chief has said. Brian Paddick was a senior Metropolitan police officer who in 2001 pioneered the limited decriminalisation of cannabis in a pilot scheme in Lambeth, south London. His comments come after the mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, backed calls for the partial decriminalisation of cannabis possession. Critics of Paddick's scheme said it was dangerous, while Paddick and his supporters said it was a success. A former Liberal Democrat candidate to be mayor of London, Paddick was speaking in a personal capacity about his time as a Met officer trying a new approach on dealing with drugs. Now a member of the House of Lords, he told the Guardian the scheme had helped ease community tensions in the borough, which included areas such as Brixton: 'When I was the police commander in Brixton I was very concerned about the impact of the policing of possession of small amounts of cannabis was having on police and community relations. 'It was diverting scarce resources away from issues that were a priority for the community. In particular, street robberies, burglary and hard drugs such as crack cocaine and heroin.' Under the scheme, those caught with small amounts of cannabis for personal use were given a warning and their drugs were confiscated. Paddick said officers would spend hours processing cannabis arrests that would result in minor punishment, such as a caution or conditional discharge: 'We were wasting a lot of money for something that was not a priority at the time. He added: '80% of local people were in favour of the effective decriminalisation of cannabis for personal use.' Paddick is now a non-executive director of the Metropolitan police, and in such a role is an adviser to the commissioner, Sir Mark Rowley, and his senior management team. Paddick said: 'Any change is clearly going to be led by the government and not the police.' He denied that limited decriminalisation amounted to going soft on drugs: 'When I was in Lambeth there were a lot more important things police needed to spend their time on and it was doing a lot of damage to police community relations. 'The policing of small amounts of cannabis is disproportionately focused on young Black men. I think the argument that cannabis is a gateway drug is no longer considered to be a credible theory.' Paddick said he didn't understand the distinction drawn by the report released on Wednesday for Khan, between natural cannabis and other forms: 'If they are trying to differentiate between herbal cannabis and skunk, it is going to place the police in an impossible position. How do they tell the difference?' A report on the Paddick pilot scheme, which ran from 2001 to 2002, found support among police officers, which surfaced during a consultation: 'During this consultation officers complained that they spent a considerable amount of time dealing with arrests for possession of cannabis and this detracted from their ability to deal with high priority crime such as street crime, tackle class A drugs and respond to emergency calls.' The report on the scheme by the then Metropolitan Police Authority, which oversaw the Met, said: 'The main practical difficulty in enforcing the scheme was that there is no legal definition of what constitutes a 'small amount' of cannabis. This created practical difficulties for officers … In practice, officers regularly consulted their supervisors when difficult cases arose. Even if a legal definition had been provided, there was a widespread belief among many officers that drug dealers would exploit the situation by possessing small quantities and hiding larger quantities nearby.' The report concluded: 'The Lambeth Cannabis Warning Scheme was an innovative project which achieved its primary objective of saving officers' time.'

Yahoo

5 days ago

• Yahoo

Child sexual abuse victim criticises ‘smug' Badenoch over grooming inquiry

A victim of child sexual abuse has hit out at 'smug' Kemi Badenoch as he accused the Conservative leader of politicising the grooming gangs scandal. Liberal Democrat MP Josh Babarinde said he was 'really let down and disgusted' by Mrs Badenoch's party political response to the national inquiry. Labour's Dan Aldridge also spoke of his experience of 'sexual and psychological abuse' as a result of grooming, during the Home Secretary's statement in the Commons. The MP for Weston-super-Mare said he 'found it galling' to listen to Tory and Reform MPs 'who never once lifted a finger'. Mrs Badenoch earlier said it was left to the Conservatives to 'force' action on grooming gangs 'time and time again'. The Opposition leader said: 'They accused those of us demanding justice for the victims of this scandal as and I quote 'jumping on a far right bandwagon', a claim the Prime Minister's official spokesman restated this weekend, shameful. It has been left to Conservatives time and time again to force this issue.' She added: 'We went further than those recommendations. It was the Conservatives who established the grooming gangs taskforce, which supported police forces to make 807 arrests for group-based child sexual exploitation last year. So don't tell me we did nothing. 'There are legitimate concerns about institutions investigating themselves, especially as some of the most egregious cases of institutional failure occurred in Labour-controlled authorities. They can moan as much as they like but the people out there believe that is why nothing has happened yet.' Home Secretary Yvette Cooper said Baroness Casey's report 'sets out a timeline of failure from 2009 to 2025'. She added: 'Repeated reports and recommendations that were not acted on, on child protection, on police investigations, on ethnicity data, on data sharing, on support for victims. 'For 14 of those 16 years, her party was in government, including years when she was the minister for children and families, then the minister for equalities, covering race and ethnicity issues and violence against women and girls, and I did not hear her raise any of these issues until January of this year.' Speaking of his own experiences of abuse, Mr Babarinde said 'the horror, the trauma, the guilt never leaves you'. The MP for Eastbourne said: 'As a survivor of child sexual abuse myself, I stand in solidarity with the many victims and survivors that the system has failed over many, many years. 'And I can say that the horror, the trauma, the guilt never leaves you, and I so hope that every survivor who is identified here receives the mental health support and otherwise they deserve to rebuild their lives. 'Survivors have witnessed very many promises, 20 recommendations, and the call of 'never again', time and again. What will the Home Secretary do and how will she reassure them that this won't be another one of those examples?' He continued: 'I am really let down and disgusted that the leader of the Opposition began her remarks with a party political assault on her opponents like this. Victims and survivors deserve more than a smug 'I told you so', diatribe. Victims and survivors deserve action.' In her reply, Ms Cooper said his speaking out would help other victims and confirmed the Government wants to extend therapy available for victims. Later in the session, Mr Aldridge said: 'I want to pay tribute to victims, survivors and campaigners. I am 40 years old, and it has taken me to be 40 to be able to talk about some of the abuse that happened when I was a child. 'As one of the countless victims living with the impacts of grooming, sexual and psychological abuse, I found it galling to watch Tory and Reform members who never once lifted a finger.' In response to groans from the Opposition benches, he added: 'No, you didn't. You didn't.' Mr Aldridge accused opposition parties of 'appointing themselves as defenders of abuse for political gain', adding: 'Does the minister agree with me that neither history nor the British people will be kind to the sickening political opportunism we have seen from the parties opposite?' Ms Cooper thanked Mr Aldridge for 'speaking out about his experiences, because to speak out as a victim of child abuse in this way is immensely difficult, and I think everyone should listen to what victims and survivors have to say'. She added: 'He is right that this should be something that everyone can agree on, because it's about the protection of children, it's about the tackling of serious crime, and I would hope that is something that all of us can do with respect and together.' Elsewhere in the session, Naz Shah, Labour MP for Bradford West, said blaming 'entire communities' does 'nothing to protect innocent victims'. She said: 'British Muslims stand on the side of victims and support the full force of the law against all perpetrators of abuse. 'But would the Home Secretary agree with me that those that display selected outrage or fan the flames to blame entire communities do nothing to protect innocent victims or further the cause of victims?' In her reply, Ms Cooper said 'the horror at crimes committed against children and particularly against young girls' is 'shared right across communities'. 'It is in the interests of those children and of those victim survivors that we have reforms now,' she added.