UPDATE: Funding Switch Halts Hanover Road Safety Plans

Residents who want safety improvements to roads surrounding Hanover were shocked when a senior councillor said that the project had been “killed off”.

People campaigning for changes to Elm Grove, Queen’s Park Road and Egremont Place, in Brighton, were expecting a report to the council’s Environment, Transport and Sustainability Committee yesterday (Tuesday 14 March).

The changes were linked to Brighton and Hove City Council’s Hanover and Tarner Low Traffic Neighbourhood (LTN) project.

But when residents asked questions about the future of proposed crossings and “greening” along the busy boundary roads, they were told that £1.1 million had been cut from the project to refurbish public toilets, ending the scheme.

A Labour amendment to the council’s budget last month, supported by the Conservatives, shifted the £1.1 million from the Carbon Neutral Fund to toilets.

One of the council’s most senior officials, Donna Chisholm, said that she hoped that the project was just paused.

She told councillors that the report, including new designs for the pilot project, had been pulled before the meeting because there was not enough money to start the next stage.

Two residents, Simon Maxwell and Lucy Dunkeyson, asked the Environment, Transport and Sustainability Committee about the Carbon Neutral Fund and money could be allocated to improve the boundary roads.

Mr Maxwell criticised flaws in the public consultation while voicing support for “climate action”.

Katy Rodda, a cycling campaigner and planner, asked councillors to reinstate the £1.1 million Carbon Neutral Fund money but she was told that the “budget council” decision could not be changed.

Green councillor Steve Davis, who chaired the committee meeting at Hove Town Hall yesterday, said that the “liveable neighbourhood” pilot project had had the “most extensive engagement and consultation” for any local transport scheme.

He said that the new scheme reflected feedback from residents and would reduce “through traffic”, encourage active travel and provide safer greener streets.

Councillor Davis said:

“The ring-fenced Carbon Neutral Fund that was allocated to deliver a comprehensive liveable neighbourhood scheme has now been allocated to refurbishing our public toilets. Therefore, that movement of funding has killed this project.

“In the meantime, I hope the pavement parking ban and the prioritisation of two crossings in Elm Grove demonstrate that we are responding to local concerns in this area within the limitations that our minority administration has.”

Labour councillor Nancy Platts said that she had expected to see the report as it was discussed in “pre-meetings” held before the committee met in public yesterday.

She said:

“We didn’t take it off the table. You guys took it off the table. We were happy to see it come and have further debates on this. We were surprised not to see it on the agenda.”

But Ms Chisholm said that the amendment to redirect the funding at the budget council meeting meant that the project could not proceed at this stage.

She said:

“We, therefore, withdrew the report on the basis that we couldn’t proceed and seek approval for implementing the next stage of the LTN when we didn’t have any funding for it.

“There still is an opportunity to clarify that in due course. That is the position at this point in time.”

The next meeting of the Environment, Transport and Sustainability Committee is due to be held in June – after the council elections which are scheduled to take place in May.

-------

UPDATE Thursday, March 16

Councillors agree deal on Hanover traffic changes

The Hanover and Tarner low-traffic neighbourhood scheme was handed a lifeline at a town hall meeting tonight (Thursday 16 March).

Green and Labour councillors reached a compromise, backed by the Tories, to spend £1 million that had been set aside for future schemes on the Hanover and Tarner LTN instead.

The scheme looked doomed when Labour drove through budget changes last month that switched £1.1 million to public toilets from the pilot project in Hanover and Tarner.

Then it emerged that proposed crossings, new trees and other changes in Elm Grove, Queen’s Park Road and Egremont Place might be at risk.

As a result, senior councillors thrashed out a compromise at Brighton and Hove City Council’s final Policy and Resources Committee meeting before the local elections in May.

But the prospect of any work starting in the area is some months away after the recent uncertainty.

The deal agreed tonight called for “buy-in from residents, with a clear emphasis on planned road safety improvement measures in Elm Grove, Queen’s Park Road and Egremont Place”.

A detailed report is expected to be prepared for the Policy and Resources Committee meeting scheduled for June – after the elections – so that councillors can sign off the spending.

And the final designs, which were due to have been debated on Tuesday (14 March), will be decided at a future meeting of the council’s Environment, Transport and Sustainability Committee.

If approved, the council will have to advertise a number of “traffic regulation orders” (TROs) as part of a statutory consultation before work can start.

Green councillor David Gibson, who represents Hanover and Elm Grove ward, said that his party and Labour were trying to fund residents’ ambitions for the scheme’s boundary roads.

Councillor Gibson said:

“This pilot is the trial – and if we are serious about our carbon-neutral ambitions, we need to be serious and do these trials.

“Some people are very sceptical. Some people are very positive. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.”

Labour councillor Carmen Appich said that her party’s proposals to tackled problems with public toilets were not meant to be at the expense of the long-promised boundary road improvements.

Fellow Labour councillor Amanda Evans, who represents Queen’s Park ward, spoke about the scheme outside the meeting.

Councillor Evans said that the LTN was the hottest topic in her inbox – and more than 90 per cent negative.

She said:

“The gist was – and remains – that the whole scheme is in the wrong area, that is too steep and doesn’t need it, that it is likely to cause more pollution and congestion, not less, that it will seriously disadvantage disabled, elderly and low-income residents as well as local independent businesses, etc.

“The only positive mail has generally been more recent and focused on the hard-fought battle to get urgent safety improvements (and) mitigations around the edges of the scheme.

“And the gist on this has been that these measures are long overdue and necessary with or without the ‘awful’ LTN itself.”

By Sarah Booker-Lewis