go back to home page

Clearly, Dr Wozniak has an image problem. He is an irascible northerner with a sense of humour that includes keeping ferrets in his trousers (This is also one reason why he is still single). Consequently, people misunderstand him, and his many and varied talents (including wit, brains and modesty) are at risk of being lost to Sidmouth.

Dr Wozniak might appear to be untidy and awkward but in fact he is merely disorganised and hopelessly shy. To become electable in conventional terms (a loving wife, two children and a neat front lawn) would take years. If Sidmouth is to have the best chance of being saved from idiotic ideas like a multi-storey car park and fast traffic along the Esplanade, you need to elect him for other reasons.

Joking aside, Dr Wozniak wishes to make Sidmouth people-friendly in summer. His vision is to remove through traffic from the Esplanade and Fore St so the main tourist areas become a joy to stroll around in peace and safety. To do this, he has to persuade councils not to build car parks on the Ham or thereabouts.

Dr Wozniak has mastered the science (if not the art) of both gardening and bricklaying and now wishes to expand his interests. Unfortunately, getting elected would mean he would become so busy working for Sidmouth that he would have little time for anything else.

I entered Sidmouth politics by accident, a chance result of having written a critical letter about the proposed multistorey car park on the Ham. I said then and I say now: it represents the most stupid of all solutions to parking and traffic management in Sidmouth. Unlike some other candidates my opinions are based on logic, analysis, experience and what I genuinely believe. Therefore they do not often change and only then in response to careful thought. The disadvantage here is that I am too unaccommodating to be a successful politician - the qualification for which seems to be to promise everything to everyone all the time, even when they don't want it.

MAKING 'SIDMOUTH IN SUMMER' SAFE AND PEOPLE-FRIENDLY - NOT CHOKED WITH CARS - AND WITH FORE ST AND THE ESPLANADE LARGELY TRAFFIC-FREE

ENCOURAGING QUALITY TOURISM - TO INCLUDE PROPER ENFORCEMENT OF LAWS PROHIBITING ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR

ANALYSING SIDMOUTH'S ECONOMY SO THE ROLE OF INVESTMENT AND PENSION INCOME IS RECOGNISED ALONGSIDE TOURISM

He assists environmental groups including Global Action Plan in East Devon, which is run with help from WWF. He spent years working on energy efficiency and has an international conservation perspective. Some universities use his work on environmental assessment and his books have sold around the world. In 1998 he gave several environmental lectures locally.

Dr Wozniak has established a reputation as an effective author and speaker on issues of concern to residents. He has denounced ineffective policing of a minority of youngsters and believes that Sidmouth must work to safeguard it's reputation for quality tourism. He would bring experience, knowledge and ability to discussions of how Sidmouth should develop.

In such times of strife, we should remember with gratitude the gifts we have already received. I refer of course to Sidford's famous lights. Looking through my fading copies of the Herald I am struck by how little changes.

Support for Councillor Brokenshire is not unexpected and I will leave it to others, perhaps in May, to confirm their views.

A few facts about speed humps. Humps have been used for years to control some of the worst speeding on estates where there are a large number of 'boy racers'. Even there, the benefits are two sided because humps can (apparently) be 'skimmed' at high speed with less discomfort than at low speed. The incentive to try this in a stolen car is obvious, but it is unlikely to be a problem in Sidford. Pollution is of course increased (several studies have shown this) but would not easily be measurable in Drakes Ave because of the very low traffic density. If DCC or EDDC ever try to confirm it they will choose a winter period (as they did when measuring levels around the traffic lights) and conclude that there is no measurable pollution at all, and therefore no traffic.

Humps have become associated with schools and problem areas. Some web sites even say that people avoid buying houses in humped roads because of the 'stigma' and cost of car repairs. Any fall in property values in Drakes Avenue will be neatly disguised by the next property crash, so this need not worry residents. More seriously, humps are blamed for part of the steep rise in numbers of 4x4 vehicles on the school run, these being able to ride over humps around schools in comfort. Blunt nosed 4x4s are far more likely to kill or seriously injure a child in any accident, thus neatly defeating much of the reason for the humps in the first place.

In the Herald on 16 March 2001 I implored Mr Wale to give us more of his views, so that we could see more clearly the need for a replacement councillor. He seemed to go quiet, but I see he has now once again sprung valiantly to the defence of Councillor Hughes. There is a problem. Mr Wale is an expert on traffic - we know this because he explained to us in the Herald in 1999 that "at least the signals have slowed the traffic down". As Sidford choked to death, we were comforted by his eloquence. He had earlier pronounced in Council in February 1999 (report 20 Feb) and again in support of Stuart Hughes, that "traffic light control at Sidford Cross would be welcomed by Drakes Avenue residents who were sick of their road being used as a rat run to avoid queues at the junction". This was of course BEFORE the lights were installed.

When the lights were shown to have increased traffic queues all round (as was easily predictable) Mr Wale kept strangely quiet. Yet with impeccable timing he has given us his latest shaft of insight. He says that residents of Drakes Ave must now surely be in favour of road humps to prevent (once again) their road being used as a rat run. Could we run a competition for five year olds to explain to Mr Wale why a large amount of money should not be spent on a road that simply has little if any problem and virtually no traffic?

People will still vote for anything with a blue pom-pom and nothing will change. Voters get the councillors they deserve, and they must live with the consequences.

Many years ago, the centre of Derby was a joy to walk around. The traffic was modest, electric trolley buses trundled silently around the major routes, there was an open market selling local produce and a sense of community. Only one thing was lacking - progress.

Dedicated councillors set to work. Within a decade or two, the town had been clogged by traffic, huge central car parks had been built and the new inner and outer ring roads had made nervous wrecks of even taxi drivers. Obviously, the congestion that had become endemic could only be tackled by constructing a large and architecturally inspired multi-storey car park - and right in the epicentre of the many flyovers and slip roads. The people rose almost in revolt but to no avail.

When the edifice had been completed it was surrounded by multiple sets of traffic lights and all was set for the new millennium. Unfortunately, fine tuning of the lights left a little to be desired and on the first day of heavy use it took some patrons five hours to escape. One year on, the last report I saw was that the red brick elephant had been put on short rations - locked up and empty for most of the time because so few people were using it. I hope this helps to illuminate the debate at the Town Council at 6.30 pm on Monday. See you there?

Since 1995/6 therefore, notices that threaten wheel clamping have had to display an up to date telephone number for release of a vehicle as well as the fee payable. It seems therefore that the new notice at the entrance to the library car park and as well as all those used by EDDC at the Knowle last week have no legal force. How much public money was spent by DCC on the outdated new notice?

It was nevertheless useful last week that I was able to leave my car all day at the entrance to the library car park because so many visitors were able to read posters denouncing Britain in Bloom. Several folkies recognised me from the TV coverage and offered their support, and residents took time to chat about the problems of privacy with library computers. If the annoyance caused by my car and its posters results in resolution of the problem for people needing to visit their GP it will be a job well done. Apologies that (obviously) I inconvenience a few other people but collateral damage is often unavoidable.

It was unfair by the way that the Herald gave prominent coverage to festival litter. I was lectured on two counts by a folkie who recognised me and thought I was still a councillor. First, she had seen young folkies collecting litter and trying to stuff it into bins that were full to overflowing. She was concerned they should not be blamed for the mess. Secondly, no facilities were made available either along the sea front or at the camp site to recycle drinks cans or bottles. Apparently this is because of the costs involved but in view of the fact that the whole recycling scheme operated by EDDC runs at a large loss some thought might be given next year to setting a good environmental example as part of such a well publicised event. It is as usual a pleasure to record the friendliness and general good behaviour of the folkies and we must now await the ritual letters of denunciation from sad Sidmouth people.

Finally, the Outsider has made so many sensible comments recently about recycling, the waste inherent in the consumer society and neatly trimmed sterile gardens belonging to beige residents that I suspect she is a man.

It would be empty for most of the year and a magnet for antisocial behaviour.

It would lead to increased summertime traffic in an already heavily congested part of town that has no suitable roads.

It is inimical to the appropriate long term development of this part of Sidmouth.

In February I wrote to the Sidmouth Herald suggesting that the idea was fundamentally flawed. Since then the letters page has been dominated by this issue. The town seems almost wholly united against it.

I was recently elected to Sidmouth Town Council by campaigning primarily for a more sensible solution to Sidmouth's traffic problems. Copies of my main election leaflet are enclosed for your information. My latest contribution to the debate is also enclosed.

I will hope to speak to you by phone before 19 May to impress on you the depth of feeling in Sidmouth against this proposal. Please take time to read the enclosed. We need a proper in depth study of Sidmouth's special and seasonal problems, not a financial and environmental disaster in the heart of town.

Please vote to REFUSE outline planning permission.

Please do not vote to waste tens of thousands of pounds on a feasibility study of a project Sidmouth simply does not want. I do not know in detail the problems of Exmouth but if they want a multi-storey car park, they are welcome to it. It is not the solution for Sidmouth, and certainly not in the Ham area.

I will try to speak to you soon - by all means contact me if you wish.

Thank you for your time.

Stephen J Wozniak

It would be empty for most of the year and a magnet for antisocial behaviour.

It would lead to increased summertime traffic in an already heavily congested part of town that has no suitable roads.

It is inimical to the appropriate long term development of this part of Sidmouth.

In February I wrote to the Sidmouth Herald suggesting that the idea was fundamentally flawed. Since then the letters page has been dominated by this issue. The town seems almost wholly united against it. A recent campaign organised by a couple of traders resulted in many copies of a short letter being sent to EDDC as 'letters in support'. These cannot be compared to the large number of individual letters objecting to the proposal, for the reasons outlined in my letter in the Express and Echo (copy attached).

I was recently elected to Sidmouth Town Council by campaigning primarily for a more sensible solution to Sidmouth's traffic problems. This is sufficient to show the depth of feeling against the proposed project. The main reason why a multi-storey car park should not be built on the Ham is however that there are far better uses for this prime site.

I will hope to speak to you by phone before the meeting to impress on you the depth of feeling in Sidmouth against this proposal. We need a proper in depth study of Sidmouth's special and seasonal problems of traffic management, not a financial and environmental disaster in the heart of town.

I do not know in detail the problems of Exmouth but if they want a multi-storey car park, they are welcome to it. It is not the solution for Sidmouth, and certainly not in the Ham area.

I will try to speak to you soon - by all means contact me if you wish.

Thank you for your time.

Stephen J Wozniak

Why question candidates on their intentions? Will any keep their promises? I asked EDDC about promising donations to charities, to enliven what could have been another boring predictable poll. This would have been illegal!

Most people live on less than £30,000. Politicians, hangers on and quango personages are paid huge salaries, plus perks. Many MPs are part-time. Is £120,000 a year (inclusive of allowances) adequate for them? Local government with its 'cabinet structure' and pay awards is also ceding power to the centre. Principal councillors now have increased power and allowances. Most of the rest do as they are told. Politics has become the preserve of well paid mediocrity and lap-dog obedience.

Taxes are rising amidst a plethora of glossy leaflets promising 'best value' policies. Who believes the spin? Could litter louts not be fined so severely that the practice ceased to exist? More 'polluter pays' analysis of this type is needed. It works elsewhere. I am keen to see East Devon made a centre of 'sustainable' small scale agriculture for the benefit of wildlife and long term community well-being.

Officialdom is held in low esteem. There is little real accountability except on trivia. E-government is often cited as facilitating 'openness'. All I have seen are glossy reports containing vague promises. Big decisions are increasingly taken behind closed doors within a 'one party state'. We need more independent councillors. Use your vote to help elect them!

As an experiment, my full election leaflet is on the Internet (www.seered.co.uk/woz.htm). If you do not have the Internet then book your FREE session in the library (phone 512192 before the rush!). Staff will be waiting to help you! Is this the future of electioneering?. We need openness in what candidates say and how officials behave. If important questions are asked in the public interest, full answers must be given. Both should be on the Internet. Neither councillors nor officials must any longer be able to hide incompetence or waste of money.

Our Town Council costs £120,000 annually. What do we get apart from hot air? The most important decisions are on planning. These are taken at District level often ignoring advice from Town Councillors.

Enclosed with this letter you will find some draft (and now outdated) material relating to setting up a campaign against the car park. It is out of date because I am now standing for election to Sidmouth Town Council. This has been made possible by the resignation a few weeks ago of Mr R Denver who was a town councillor. He was, so I understand, also against the car park on Ham West. Most councillors are in favour.

One lady in Sidmouth has already offered the use of her home for a meeting. More offers would be welcome. My home is small and full of upturned tables and paint cans.

I envisage a campaign as follows:

By EARLY APRIL I need a list of all persons willing to help. Do not say you will help unless you are prepared to go 'door to door' and talk to a few people (although just delivering leaflets would be fine too).

By 10 APRIL I will have printed sufficient leaflets for one or two drops to each house in the North Ward. I will also copy lists of streets and names of householders and divide these amongst confirmed volunteers. You may be split into small teams.

There are 1211 houses in the area. If five people say they will help (and mean it) then that is only 240 each and I can do at least 200 myself including the 'isolated' houses around the Bowd, etc., leaving 5 volunteers to do only about 200 each in the more densely populated parts. Just delivering leaflets should take you no more than 4 hours. Chatting to people for a minute or so at (say) half the houses might extend this to a day, but you do not have to do it all in a day! Two half days would be fine. I will do all the co-ordination and you would attend a brief 'teach in' to make everything clear. The only difficult part is the walking door to door and the odd householder who may tell you to go away. Just do as he says!!

Anything that can be done now to show the strength of opposition should be done. Then perhaps the idea will be buried once and for all. PLEASE PHONE ME FOR FURTHER DETAILS IF YOU WISH.

GREATER SAFETY FOR PEDESTRIANS AND CYCLISTS

Dr Wozniak has wide experience of central and local government. He has lectured on the need for reform, especially when related to decision making processes needing scientific analysis.

He is involved in several environmental groups including as Press Officer for Global Action Plan in East Devon, which is run with help from the World Wildlife Fund. He spent years working on energy use in homes. Some of his work on environmental assessment is used in universities and his books have sold around the world.

Of the existing councillors, only one has come out against the car park. The others are either for it or are 'sitting on the fence' with many of them agreeing that increased traffic in the town centre would be a major problem. Yet they refuse to think further ahead than the next Council meeting and seem to have no ideas of their own.

The proposed scheme will RUIN a part of the town and we will NEVER (in 35 years anyway) be able to choose any alternative ideas. Once built, the 'thing' will need to be financed through parking charges from as many cars as possible. That will be Sidmouth's future.

The ward comprises Bowd, Higher and Middle Woolbrook, Manstone, and the East side of Temple Street down to Lawn Vista. Manstone (a large Council estate) is by no means a lost cause - many people have bought homes there. Every vote collected in Manstone will be a vote perhaps denied to the local 'youth' candidate and thereby be doubly valuable.

EASTER Friday 10 April until Monday 13 April

Distribution of main leaflet Thursday 16 April to Monday 20 April

Distribution of last day 'reminder' leaflet Wednesday 22 April

Polling day Thursday 23 April

YOU MAY BE ASKED EITHER TO DISTRIBUTE THE MAIN LEAFLET (which can include some chatting to people if you wish) OR (or as well!!) THE REMINDER LEAFLET ON 22 APRIL. So many people forget to vote, it might be worth reminding those living in at least the 'key' areas.

The day(s) on which you distribute the main leaflet will not matter, so long as it is done by 20 April to give people chance to read it.

You will probably be asked to distribute about 150 to 200 leaflets each the size of this page. Carrying them all around with you would be tedious, so a car to store them in would be useful (as would a friend to help you!!). Or you could spread the work over two days - whatever suits you best.

Simply walking to 200 houses would take about half a day, to include some chatting to people (not that bad after the first few!!) Simply pushing leaflets through 200 doors on the Manstone Estate would take no more than an hour or so because the doors are so close together.

M will probably contact you to see if you could offer to give people lifts to the polling station on 23 April. No obligations here!! I may do some myself or spend time chasing voters and showing myself at the polling station - which is the 'done thing' so I am told.

It will be essential to mark the names/addresses of voters who are sympathetic (as far as you can tell) and whowill need a lift. The address lists you will be provided with have space for these details.

Sidford was failed both by our county councillor and his party clones (who were conspicuous by their absence during the months of protest) and by the officials of DCC who knew what they were doing would cause problems but who were told to keep quiet. DCC engineers were ordered to install lights before the usual appraisal of suitability had been undertaken. Which councillor from which party pushed all this through???

In an election address in the Herald, a party candidate has admitted that "the traffic lights have created rat runs in nearby roads". These rat runs are a direct result of the reduction in junction capacity.

So what next? A sticking plaster solution involving garish 20 mph signs all over the village, more sudden braking and acceleration (more pollution too) and a speed limit so low that most people may ignore it for most of the day and all night. Remember the 30 mph limit on the outskirts of Newton Poppleford? It merely brought sensible limits into disrepute. And so may the proposed Sidford scheme. What is needed is not a sudden drop in speed to 20 mph near the village centre but an enforced 30 mph limit throughout the village, perhaps half a mile or more in each direction. The technology exists and is proven. Why did not the 'experts' from DCC know about and suggest it? "Not invented here" I suppose. At the public viewing of possible design solutions I quizzed DCC engineers about techniques to reduce speed within villages that straddle busy main roads. Mr Helliwell admitted to me that it was "a problem every traffic engineer in the UK would like to solve". A bit of research revealed that a solution was already in widespread use in Spain! Is Sidford to be saddled with yesterday's ideas supported by yesterday's party councillors?

"We are particularly appreciative of the several seed bearing plants, and consider Dr Wozniak's dandelions to be amongst the best in the neighbourhood" Mr & Mrs Goldfinch and family

"All the nooks and crannies beneath piles of bricks and paving slabs are ideally suited as homes for my extended family. The rotting tree trunks are a delight." Mrs A Slowworm.

"My wife and I raised a large family last year in Dr Wozniak's hedge. We much appreciated not only his words of encouragement but the plentiful supply of juicy snails he so kindly provided. We hope to be returning this year." Mr Song thrush.

"My husband and I nested last year in a bush in Dr Wozniak's garden. We found it ideal because the brambles kept the cats away" Mrs Blackbird.

"It is a pleasure to record our endorsement of Dr Wozniak's garden. So many areas of grass these days are cut short they simply do not harbour what we like best - a plentiful supply of juicy totally organic voles and field mice. Our one criticism is that Dr Wozniak seems never to be around when we call to see him. Surely it is normal to be wide awake at 3 am? Mr & Mrs T Owl.

"Much as we appreciate the supply of insects provided in Dr Wozniak's garden (all of them free of chemical residues that could kill our youngsters), we do feel it is time he finished his own nest box and made some for us. Notwithstanding his faults we shall still vote for him." Mr & Mrs Robin and Mr & Mrs Tit.

"Much as I delight in the dark, damp and secret places in Dr Wozniak's garden, I do wish he would stop moving all his bricks and piles of wood around. On several occasions he has forcibly re-housed me and I really would like a more permanent home." Mr A Toad.

Ref GML/A15182 Traffic calming measures SIDFORD

PUBLIC OBJECTION PERIOD

Comments by 13 January 2003

The 20 mph limit.

20 mph zones should be applied where they are genuinely needed and can be respected by a majority of drivers. If they are applied otherwise, the whole idea may become discredited and ridiculed.

Prior to final approval of this measure I would invite officials to drive at 20 mph through the entire length of the zone along the A3052. The road is quite safe at 30 mph under many conditions of traffic loading and visibility. At other times, 15 or 20 mph is indeed appropriate. People naturally drive 'according to the conditions' and indeed this is good driving, rather than adhering slavishly to inappropriate limits. The were similar problems at Newton Poppleford - but at least DCC owned up to having made an error there.

The extra road signs will be a further unwelcome visual intrusion especially at the 'scenic' Packhorse bridge. The chosen location for the limit and any accompanying 'rumble strips' is calculated to cause maximum noise for nearby properties. The zone limit and any rumble strips that may be installed later should be moved to near the Post Office box (ie, further to the East), away from housing.

The sane solution to Sidford would be to install Spanish style 'stop if speeding' lights along the A3052. These have the singular advantage of having been proven to work. That DCC are unable to match other countries in the EU in respect of traffic calming can usefully be brought to a wider audience. Indeed, Sidford could yet become a showcase.

Traffic "calming".

It must be remembered that the proposed measures result from installation of the traffic signals at Sidford. These have caused greater delays at the cross roads and other problems, owing to reduction in junction capacity and longer than necessary waiting times. Publicity from the 'calming' will be useful to air these matters again.

The proposed measures along Drakes Ave and Warrens Mead are SIMPLY NOT NECESSARY and are A WASTE AND DIVERSION OF RESOURCES. Traffic loading is very low, far lower than on many roads where speed is more of a problem. This point was put well by Mrs Luxton in her letter in the Sidmouth Herald on 10 January. If ever there was a road that might benefit from rumble strips in the genuine interests of road safety it is the Esplanade which is used by many 'boy racers'.

However, as is now well known and documented on several websites, in many types of car one can 'ride' these speed cushions at a higher speed in greater comfort. Some police vehicles have apparently been shown to ride 20 mph cushions at 70 mph - owing to different dynamic responses not all vehicles behave the same and of course (at public expense) the police can experiment.

Speed humps do increase pollution (TRL ands other reports from Austria) but this will not be a problem in Drakes Ave because of the very low traffic loading. I look forward to 'pollution tests' being undertaken by DCC and EDDC in the same incompetent manner as for the traffic signals - condemnation can be added to other material.

Bus passengers will no doubt be severely and unnecessarily inconvenienced. Again, the publicity may be helpful.

The main objections to the measures are therefore:

the 20 mph zone throughout Sidford is of questionable relevance and better techniques for ENSURING a 25 or 30 preset limit are not exceeded are available and proven. These should be used instead.

the traffic calming is wholly unnecessary and a waste of money that could and should be spent URGENTLY to deal with problems at Porch Cottages on the A3052.

The chosen location for the 20 mph limit at the Packhorse Bridge seems designed both to further detract from the visual amenity of the area (overhead wires are the main problem) and to cause maximum disruption to houses immediately adjacent when rumble strips are installed at some future date.

In all, the proposed exercise will address 'non-problems' and (perhaps) utilise finds that could and should have been earmarked for urgent work elsewhere. The major problem remains the influence on traffic flow and village amenity of the traffic signals, and this too should be addressed.

Dr Stephen J Wozniak

To obtain a sound result requires what can be termed system boundary analysis - more of which later, perhaps. Defining system boundaries too closely and applying marginal cost effectiveness analysis in an inept manner were factors that led to the closure of many of our railway lines. The same fundamental mistakes have been repeated in other areas and by successive governments.

Mr Wale seems destined to become a leading councillor, and a wider resume of his recent pronouncements would have been helpful. At the height of the multi-storey car park debate Mr Wale leapt to the defence of Stuart Hughes who at that time was also a keen advocate of the elephant. He explained to us that the Town Council were advocating not a multi-storey car park but a tastefully designed tiered parking facility! The whole of Sidmouth was grateful for this insight.

Later, when Sidford began to choke to death on traffic fumes and congestion, Mr Wale showed a keen grasp of underlying realities. He wrote a letter to the Herald outlining how the signals had at least slowed the traffic down. Local admiration for Mr Wale reached its zenith when he suggested in Council that many of the almost 2000 signatories to the protest petition might have been intimidated into adding their names.

In all, Ian Davis was rather unkind. His letter may have served only to dissuade Mr Wale from giving us more of his views. Rather than criticise, we should encourage him to continue to highlight the need for a replacement councillor.

In essence, both Mrs Stephens (30 Sept) and Mr Hargrave (7 Oct) questioned when some common sense is to be applied to traffic problems. The latest proposals for Sidford from DCC could only have been devised under the influence of a raving lunatic. Villagers need to appreciate what may be in store because the time remaining for protest is short. I have said before that any 'consultation' exercise that failed to include options for replacing the traffic signals would be a sham. Guess what we have from DCC in documents dating from May and July and yet hardly publicised!.

The key problem with the three stage signals is that they reduce junction capacity on a road that often runs near its maximum capacity. Hence all the extra queues and the compromised environment in the village. Incidentally, the cost was about £30,000 - SWW got a cheap deal on the labour from Gleesons.

Given recent experience, a sane person would have thought twice before proposing any measure that would introduce yet more stop-start traffic flow. The proposal now is for 20 mph zones involving (coincidentally) twenty pretty 20 and 30 mph signs. How very nice in rural Devon! These zones are fair enough in theory but no one has explained how they will be enforced (or even be enforceable) given that most 30 mph limits are routinely exceeded.

In her letters, Margaret Barrett has often alluded to lack of footways. To provide these. DCC are proposing 'one way gateways' at Porch Cottages and the Farmhouse Cottage, as on Station Road. The consequences for queues and pollution on the much more heavily used A3052 would be truly horrible - and easily proved by a short trial.

History would repeat itself - just as the traffic signals solved one minor access problem (turning right to travel east) the gateways would enable footways to be built at the expense of making traffic in Sidford vastly more bad tempered. DCC's other option is to acquire land from Porch Cottages and the Farmhouse Cottage to widen the road to provide two way traffic and regulation width footways.

The sane option is properly to investigate double roundabouts combined with enforced 30 mph speeds along the whole stretch of the village. The advantages would be an increase in junction capacity, smoother traffic flow, less queuing, enhanced pedestrian safety without the need for land acquisition and an accolade for DCC in having the courage finally to admit that the traffic signals were just a bad mistake. I will wager £100 (payable to a charity) they don't have the requisite integrity.

Dr Stephen J Wozniak