Residents concerned about the effects of a low-traffic neighbourhood pilot project in Hanover were given assurances that the designs are far from a done deal.
Brighton and Hove City Council is consulting on plans for a Liveable Hanover and Tarner low-traffic neighbourhood until Easter (Sunday 17 April), prompting in a petition from people living in Elm Grove.
After seeing two options at design workshops, some people living in streets north of Elm Grove, Brighton, raised concerns about the effect on their area.
They shared their concerns with councillors at a North East Hanover Residents’ Association meeting at St Joseph’s Church Hall, in Milner Road, on Tuesday (5 April).
Worries included the prospect of more drivers heading down their streets. They said that some drivers already used their roads as rat-runs to try to avoid the Lewes Road traffic lights at the bottom of Elm Grove.
The council’s principal transport planner Oliver Spratley said that the two options presented at community workshops were early designs.
He said that during the workshops people living in the area had shared their experiences. These, he said, would help turn the “rough conceptual ideas” presented to the community into something more like a liveable neighbourhood seen in other parts of the country.
Mr Spratley said: “We’re progressing with these designs and we’ll come back again with something once we have the feedback from everybody.
“We’ve seen already there are big flaws in the concepts that have been presented – and they will change. They will be different and will alleviate concerns and anxiety.”
Elm Grove residents have already shared their worries about more traffic heading up and down the road. But it is unlikely to become a formal part of any low-traffic neighbourhood scheme because it is a key classified road, linking main roads in and out of Brighton.
Residents in De Montfort Road and Franklin Road were particularly concerned about more traffic. They spoke of exhaust pipes scraping along the road surface as speeding drivers exceeded the 20mph limit over the road humps.
In January, residents’ association chair Matt Black addressed the council’s Environment, Transport and Sustainability Committee.
He called for a low-traffic neighbourhood to include the roads north of Elm Grove to Hartington Road and around William Clarke Park, also known as the Patch.
He asked how Elm Grove could be improved in the future if there were low-traffic neighbourhoods on both sides.
Green councillor Elaine Hills, who represents Hanover and Elm Grove ward, said: “Ultimately, we need to make Elm Grove a better street. Currently, the way the parking is is terrible. There are lots of things wrong with it.
“I envisage the low-traffic neighbourhood accommodating the boundary roads too. We can do nice things like crossings which could be incorporated – that’s what we need to consider … more greening on Elm Grove and that sort of thing.”
She said that the traffic should decrease across the whole area, reducing pollution once low-traffic neighbourhoods settle in.
The online Liveable Hanover and Tarner design workshop is open until Easter (Sunday 17 April) at climateconversationsbrighton.uk.engagementhq.com/liveable-hanover-tarner.
the Transport department at BHCC have a rather dire record when it comes to new ‘schemes’ they force upon the public in the name of dogma. This has all the hallmarks of another badly-planned and untested idea done without diligence or any proper metrics. But , hey – just love the ‘liveable city’ trope ! Meanwhile , I can wait for the inevitable sparkling success that will be VG3 (no independent consultation required!)
Whilst LTNs will work in some areas I feel this one is far too large for a trial. Just Google Islington LTNs to see how bad the displacement of traffic was there, (and the councils attempted cover up). Elm Grove cannot be part of an LTN as it is a major strategic route so will only get worse.
How would residents in low traffic schemes receive deliveries or book tradesmen? Would a plumber be expected to park streets away, assuming they can find a space?
Everyone will still be able to enter and leave the area, just not use it as a rat run on the way to somewhere else.
Hanover is NOT a rat run. Do you actually live in Hanover? I do. And there really is no problem at all with traffic congestion. Nobody actually uses the area as a rat run. Why would you use such narrow roads as a rat run?
I don’t live there but Google maps has repeatedly tried to route me through Hanover instead of following the main road to the seafront. Since I live here, I know that it is dumb but visitors who don’t know Brighton will follow whatever Google says and add to the traffic.
I can tell you that we really are not suffering with huge numbers of drivers following google maps. I suggest you change your settings.
Gate the muesli mound and throw the key away
There are shops on Islingword Road like Archers which many visit. Currently it is simple to nip in and out from Elm Grove. The proposals would cause us to have to drive right through the whole of Hannover to come out at the top of Southover.
They really have not thought about proper access to the businesses. Deliveries to the pubs like Village will be even worse forcing those lorries down the small roads instead of giving them an in\out route between Islingword and Elm Grove.
Why is it every time the Greens mess with traffic they end up causing more pollution and chaos?
We have to give schemes like this a chance before we give up at the slightest resistance.
How much do you think it will cost to implement? It’s not free money. Most LTN schemes are being removed because they have proven to be useless at best, and increasing pollution at worst. Hanover is not a an experiment, it is an area with many residents and businesses who will suffer from these ill thought out plans. As for Elaine Hill. She simply refuses to engage with anyone who has a decent argument against these schemes.
The cost of not trying to reduce car use is a climate catastrophe.
My understanding is they will implement this, see how it goes, and if it doesn’t work out then you’ll get to undo everything.
Also, I saw Cllr Hills at one of the recent engagement meetings. The next one is on Thursday 14th at Phoenix Community Centre.
No we don’t need to give it a chance.
It will be a waste of money to implemement and a further waste of money to remove – as they have done in the marjotiy of these poorly implemented LTNs in other areas.
Not true. Some LTNs work, some don’t. This is something that can be undone if it doesn’t work out.
If you’re advocating for no change do you like how the roads work now in Brighton?
A lot of LTNs have been proved to be completely useless, as this one will be.
Are you advocating wasting taxpayers money implementing a useless scheme and then spending more removing it? Please tell me you don’t ‘work’ for the council.
We should only do what we think will help. Not just experiment wildly! Imagine here if through traffic makes up half of the traffic (the council doesn’t seem to know this as they haven’t measured it!). Let’s say that all of this is stopped. So traffic in the area is halved. Great you say. Well, what about those who live in the area and deliveries etc to them. Looking at the maps, access is always possible but many routes are two, three or even four times further within the area. So actually the distances travelled in the zone actually increase, not decrease
Also, surrounding streets get more of the through traffic, this doesn’t disappear.
The scheme also does nothing to promote public transport (where are increased buses?) Or cycling (still the same amount of traffic just locals driving further. No provision of cycle parking etc). And no help for residents with cars to be less polluting (where is the help to switch to electric? The extra charging points?)
So I can’t see the advantage for local residents in the zone and I can see lots of harm for those outside the zone and in the city overall. With increased miles driven, extra pollution and no help to switch away from cars. So, no, I don’t think it’s a good idea to try this and follow the failure of other areas unless the council can prove the problem (with some actual local facts/traffic modelling) and that this will help
I don’t think it’s fair to say LTNs are a wild experiment. It’s not like they are a new invention. Brighton Marina, the resident’s part, is essentially an LTN.
The way that Brighton council are proposing doing it looks like a wild experiment – not that all LTNs are just the way B&HC are going about it. Where is the detail about what traffic use now (what is through traffic and so what can be removed?). Where is the modelling of journeys under these changes? Where is the proof that the overall distances travelled will be lower?
And crucially for a real experiment, what are the aims? What’s it trying to prove/disprove? What does success look like?
Yes, we need less ICE car use for local journeys. But I don’t see any evidence that this will help. Indeed the plans imply will make worse. So let’s see some evidence before we spend. Otherwise, it’s just another waste like the OSR cycle lane where the money could have been better spent elsewhere on a route that could have stayed.
The Marina is not on a through route, so no real comparison.
I’ve previously in other posts highlighted that our council create problems that were not in place before their stupid, ill thought-out schemes were introduced.
Green councillor Elaine Hills quotes : ‘Currently, the way the parking is is terrible. There are lots of things wrong with it.’
Well there wasn’t a problem until you stopped people legally parking on the side strip that was designed for vehicles to be parked off the road. !!!!
If Elaine Hills forces any varient of LTN on Hanover it will make #tilegate look like a kids tea party.
Hanover is prime Amazon and supermarket delivery territory. This will make them trickier and will also clog up Elm Grove, making the air more polluted, mostly in Elm Grove and the streets to the immediate north.
The council clearly haven’t a clue.. I mean a bus gate for a service that’s not even frequent just shows how little they’ve researched this. I’d rather they spent money on public toilets.. more and more are being closed down across the city!
That bus provides a vital service taking people up Southover Street. A bus gate will be essential to allow it through if the road is closed to other traffic
It’s what, every hour during the week and doesn’t even run on a Sunday and is also council funded therefore not exactly a well profitable or busy route. A road closure of one of the main and wide roads within the scheme is just ridiculous.
Wonder how many residents would be prepared to give up there cars after all they drive through others areas and could be accused of causing rat runs
Southover street is a main road lol so closing that is a dumb idea. that’s a lot of traffic going up elm grove to come back on itself. Nothing eco-friendly about forcing cars to drive needlessly long journeys in worse traffic. I live in the area, the only traffic problems we have is the awful parking scheme. This will make me drive about a mile extra every day, which ever genius came up with this should be kicked off the planning team and move onto graffiti removal
If Elaine Hills really wants to do something useful for the residents of Hanover and surrounding areas, she should start with Elm Grove.
Implement chevron parking which would make the road wider and probably allow a cycle lane. It would also stop the people who don’t have permits parking on the ‘pavement’ i.e. not the pavement as people don’t actually walk on it but the bit between the trees. Then with the new found increase in permit revenue she could maintain the trees and planters in the area.
Or you could force an unwanted, unnecessary scheme on residents – which will it be Elaine?
By increasing congestion on the main roads, the council forces traffic through unsuitable roads, then says “let’s block the through traffic” and the displaced traffic causes more congestion and carbon footprint.
A well thought out LTN can be positive, a bad one dreadful. The A259 bus lane, North Street 2014, the Lewes Road 2016 and Valley Gardens (coming soon) did not have be dreadful … but history tells us LTNs and the Car Free City will be disasters designed on dogmas and claimed to be successes.
If you want to experiment, put out cuboid bales of hay to let people see what happens … cheap to reposition or remove … and won’t block emergency services