Mayor Sadiq Khan has previously indicated he would like to see the pedestrianisation of Oxford Street West as early as this summer and Transport for London (TfL) have lost no time in helping him realise this ambition. The latest consultation closed on the 16th January and TfL h rushed out their consultation report in record time. It was released on the 27th February, and the Mayor immediately formally instructed Transport for London (TfL) to implement his proposals to remove traffic from Oxford Street between Great Portland Street and Orchard Street:  in order to “make Oxford Street safer and more enjoyable for visitors.”

No doubt the Mayor gave careful consideration to all the consultation responses received before making his decision, however, what they show is that support for the detailed Oxford Street pedestrianisation plans is significantly weaker than earlier headline figures implied.

The first mayoral consultation cited 66% support for the principle of pedestrianising Oxford Street. This time round, we had the detailed proposals, and now, excluding organised campaign responses, only 34.7% of respondents expressed general support, from an already low base of 1,961 non-campaign responses. Due to the way the responses were coded it was not possible, on what is provided, to put a figure on the overall opposition, but it was quite clearly very significant. Support for the proposed bus route changes was lower still, TfL showed it at just 18.2%,  but even that vastly exaggerated the true levels of support, which on closer examination of the figures turn out to be below 10 per cent.

Clearly there is a great deal of difference between supporting an idea in principle and supporting the real-world consequences.

The consultation once again failed to break down responses geographically, so the true level of local opposition was obscured and deliberately diluted among the greater London and national figures. Many concerns were nevertheless expressed, most frequently raised included: traffic displacement onto surrounding streets (23.6%), disability access (16.5%), impacts on older and less mobile users (16.3%), and the removal of east–west buses and taxis. It was notable that time after time TfL merely noted these concerns, they were unable to deny what is an inevitable consequence of a scheme that closes a major thoroughfare, without doing anything to reduce the traffic around it first.

Whereas major resident dissatisfaction was always going to be a given, what was more striking was just how few organisations offered their unqualified support. While a number of major landowners, retailers and Business Improvement Districts backed the ambition to improve Oxford Street in principle (and politically they had little choice), almost all of them then proceeded to garnish that with long lists of caveats and concerns. Servicing access, delivery windows, bus re-routing, taxi provision, traffic displacement, modelling transparency, governance arrangements and long-term management were repeatedly raised as unresolved issues.

Among freight and logistics operators, the dominant concern was the practicality of restricting servicing from midnight to 7am, which many regarded as highly impracticable. Questions were raised as to whether the proposals were compatible with the London Lorry Control Scheme or with the operational realities of large retailers, theatres and healthcare providers.

Taxi and private hire representatives were uniformly opposed, arguing that restricting access would disproportionately affect disabled and vulnerable passengers and undermine network resilience.

Amenity societies were also uniformly opposed. Their objections centred on traffic displacement into surrounding streets, bus diversions onto narrower residential corridors, safety at new crossings, and the absence of full network-wide modelling. Concerns about air quality, noise and governance of the proposed Mayoral Development Corporation featured prominently.

Accessibility groups were divided. Some welcomed the reduction in pedestrian–vehicle conflict; others warned that removing buses and taxis would reduce independent access for blind and mobility-impaired users.

Emergency services did not object in principle but emphasised that emergency access, crowd management and hostile vehicle mitigation must be fully resolved before implementation.

In summary, the consultation report reveals a complex mix of concerns and lack of support by many alongside a wide ranging spectrum of misgivings. Of the 82 stakeholder responses identified in the consultation report, only 9 (11%) expressed clear support, while 40 (49%) expressed conditional support subject to significant concerns, and 32 (39%) raised serious objections or outright opposition.

Further, the level of independent engagement was extremely low relative to the scale and constitutional significance of the scheme, yet the results, which lacked any geographic or affected-group analysis, are presented as a strong democratic mandate to inflict harmful and significant change to the local areas around Oxford Street.

The whole issue now appears to be less a settled mandate than a contested and complex proposal with multiple possible pitfalls requiring careful scrutiny before irreversible steps are taken. The only problem is, of course,  that we already know that all these multiple concerns and caveats will be ignored in the rush to implement the Mayor’s wishes.

Speaking at last week's Oxford Street Development Corporation (OSDC) meeting, Westminster’s Cabinet Member for Planning, Cllr Geoff Barraclough, has publicly questioned the basis on which the board the Mayor has appointed to run Oxford Street is assuming planning powers.

Cllr Barraclough drew a sharp distinction between traditional development corporations and the situation on Oxford Street. Such bodies, he noted, are normally established to regenerate brownfield or derelict land — “you take a field and turn it into a new town; you take an old gasworks and turn it into a business park.” Oxford Street, by contrast, is already intensively developed, with a live pipeline of schemes progressing under Westminster’s adopted City Plan and planning committee, including major retail redevelopments and mixed-use projects.

Cllr Barraclough warned that it is “dangerous for democracy” for an unelected body to take sweeping planning powers “without a clear political direction about what it’s going to do with those powers.” He described the OSDC as stepping into a “vacuum”, arguing that until a detailed and coherent planning framework is set out, he would not be comfortable supporting the establishment of its planning committee.

Council Leader Adam Hug also acknowledged “a lot of uncertainty” around the knock-on impacts of pedestrianisation and stressed that residents must have the opportunity to make representations and speak at committee meetings.

The OSDC Chair who was clearly uncomfortable with any form of open dissent failed to confront these criticisms and responded only to say these  “concerns were noted.” The planning committee was then approved following a majority vote.

Prior to this, Councillor Geoff Barraclough had set out significant reservations in Westminster Council's formal response to Transport for London. This made clear that the Council’s preference remained that pedestrianisation should not proceed. However, acknowledging that “the decision has been taken”, Westminster listed 15 issues it says must be addressed if the scheme goes ahead.

These focus heavily on traffic displacement into surrounding residential streets, air quality and noise impacts, bus diversions (including routes 7 and 94), and the need for junction upgrades to maintain pedestrian safety. The Council also raised  concerns about servicing and waste collection, public toilets, policing and enforcement, hostile vehicle mitigation, and full accessibility provision including tactile paving, dropped kerbs and step-free access at Oxford Circus and Marble Arch.

In short, Westminster Council has made clear that significant safeguards and mitigation measures would be required to protect residents and local communities.

Meanwhile Council Leader Adam Hug as part of his discussions with the GLA has obtained an important concession–agreement to a resident representative on the board of the OSDC. It was confirmed just a few days ago that this will be permitted, in the person of the current Chair of the Westminster Amenity Societies Forum (WASF)– Penny Bagnall-Smith. Whilst a representative of a West End amenity society in the immediate area of the disruption  would have been the obvious choice, as WASF Chair Penny does have the remit to be able to raise concerns on behalf of all Westminster’s residents–which is a significant improvement on the current state of affairs.