Budget for Brighton’s first low traffic neighbourhood more than quadruples to £1.4m

Posted On 15 Jun 2022 at 12:57 pm

The scheme officers are asking councillors to approve for a two-month consultation. Right click and open in a new tab or window to enlarge.

The estimated cost of implementing Brighton’s first low traffic neighbourhood has risen by 466% to £1.4m.

Plans to close roads and install traffic calming in Hanover for a trial period to stop rat-running were initially budgeted at £300,000.

But the extension of the scheme – including permanent “greening” of two main roads around it, the installation of air pollution monitors and a full consultation – means it’s now slated to cost far more.

The measures on Elm Grove and Queen’s Park Road have been suggested in order to mitigate any potential increase in traffic on those roads during the scheme.

Transport officers say that although similar schemes elsewhere in the country have resulted in an increase in the months after they are implemented, this usually reverts to previous levels. In some cases, it has continued to be higher, and in others it has fallen further than before.

However, 329 people have signed a petition demanding the scheme is stopped and “liveable” benefits brought to the whole ward.

The revised plans, which are detailed in papers going before next Tuesday’s environment, transport and sustainability committee, also include details of changes to the scheme within Hanover itself.

These include measures around Carlton Hill School, traffic flow changes on Quebec Street, Montreal Road and Toronto Terrace, and revisions to plans for Cobden Road and Bentham Road.

Councillor Elaine Hills, committee member ward councillor for Hanover and Elm Grove said: “I’m very excited to see the latest design as it brings us a step closer to creating the city’s first Liveable Neighbourhood, which I believe will transform our area.

“We’re working very hard to make sure this project is shaped by the local community, so residents’ feedback has been invaluable. We want the changes to work for everyone and have taken the community’s input on board to come up with the current design. We’ll continue to listen to local people throughout.

“Rat-running is becoming an increasing problem for people living in the Hanover and Tarner area. Reducing traffic will encourage more people to walk, wheel and cycle and open up space for community use.

“The creation of healthier, low traffic/pedestrianised communities was the third most popular measure suggested by members of the Brighton & Hove climate assembly in 2020, when tasked with identifying ways to decarbonise our city.

“I’m hoping our scheme will be a model for future liveable neighbourhoods throughout Brighton and Hove.”

The original proposals for the low traffic neighbourhood (LTN) scheme featured two options, both of which included a road closure between Albion Rise and Grove Hill and a bus gate at the bottom of Southover Street.

Some roads were turned from two-way to one-way or vice versa, and some closed at the junction with Elm Grove or Queen’s Park Road, including Albion Hill.

Under the new scheme, Albion Hill would be open to traffic at Queens Park Road but Islingword Road would be closed, with a pocket park replacing parking outside the pharmacy and doctors surgery at its top.

All the other pocket parks have been removed, except one in Richmond Parade.

Roads coming off the bottom section of Elm Grove would either be one way going north, or no entry from Islingword Road.

Air quality monitors would be installed outside Elm Grove Primary School, Carlton Hill Primary School and Orchard Day Nursery on Queens Park Road.

The papers do not make it clear whether the greening measures along Queens Park Road and Elm Grove would be on the road or the pavement, or both.

New crossing points on the main roads would also be explored.

There would also be secure on-street cycle hangars throughout the LTN area in locations to be confirmed.

If approved, the design will go out to full public consultation in the next few weeks, which will last two months.

The budget for the scheme was previously set to come out of the council’s local transport plan fund.

The extra funding required would potentially come from the council’s carbon neutral fund, or possibly borrowing, extra money from the transport fund, or elsewhere.

 

The previous option 1. Right click and open image in a new tab to see a larger version

The previous option 2. Right click and open image in a new tab to see a larger version

 

 

  1. Colin Bell Reply

    Money well spent! Well done to the Greens for such a great use of taxpayer money in these times of austerity. Another Green Win!

    • Ben Doyle Reply

      Yet since when is it a councils right to decide how we travel around this city as some people might depend on the car

      • SlowFiets Reply

        No part of this proposal will stop people from using cars. This is just about managing vehicle flow in a way that reduces the use of roads in a residential neighbourhood as routes for through traffic.

    • AO Reply

      You actually think £1.4 million pounds is a good spend on shutting a few roads and create congestion in the surrounding streets? Really?????

  2. Tolley More Reply

    Profligacy ? What profligacy ?

  3. David Reply

    Just stop this nonsense and stop wasting the money. This is only possible because of excess charging on car parking. This city needs to be traffic friendly. It is difficult enough to drive in as it is.

    • Andrew Reply

      I was cycling on windmill terrace last week. A electrician van, I think it was bukb energy, drove down the centre of the road that I was already on, and stopped. As if I should dismount and get out his way. I didn’t as I was already as close to my side as possible, I just stopped ..he then drives around me huffing and puffing.

      This is basic. If cars cannot share roads or apply the highway code, to roads they are using as a rat run (should have come off Queens park Road rather than driving down narrow roads?!) how will it ever be safe for cyclists to use these streets. I’ll give the local drivers the benefit of the doubt, but a scheme like this is to stop irregular visitors dangerously driving on OUR neighbourhoods.

      As per usual idiots blaming the gteens for a tory policy, therfore I completely disregard their bs comments.

      The vision is anyone in this neighbourhood can walk and cycle (and skateboard, scooter, roller blade, unicycle) safely without the risk of random drivers unfamiliar with the area causing thwm danger. You cannot on the one hand claim concern for the environment and on the other steadfastly refuse to give an inch in a basic idea about making areas safer to use alternative method of transport. You of course can feign concern and still drive your car every single trip, but be honest.

      • mart Burt Reply

        Andrew
        So a van approaches down the middle of the road and stops.
        Wow, so you stop too. Perhaps the van driver stopped to give way too you !!!
        You mention the Highway Code check out rules 212 and 213 about vehicles giving you more space.
        You assume they’re using the road as a rat run, that may not have been the case but looking for attending any number of addresses in the area.
        In my experience, dangerous driving can be found by both locals and visitors on any given road at any given time.

        As per usual, you call people ‘idiots’ in blaming the greens for a tory policy. What you need to compute is the simple facts that rules apply to those policies where consultation should take place with various groups. As proven time and time again there’s a failure in that process.

        As pointed out earlier there’s always a risk on our roads if visitors or local. You again highlight the dangers of random drivers, but what about the risks presented by those on two wheels, who endanger themselves and pedestrians alike.

        You mention share the roads and that’s a bang on statement, we all need to apply that but sadly some road users on whatever mode of transport they use consider only themselves.

        I’m all up for safer roads but some schemes go to the extreme and cause more problems elsewhere. This scheme shows a Bus Gate at Southover Street, there’s one bus that serves this road and it doesn’t run that often so I would question if a bus gate is needed here.
        Local Traffic that would access Southover St for the many side roads they live in, will now need to go via Elm Grove and Queens park Road increasing congestion but hey, how cares about that.

        We need to reduce private vehicle use but you need to provide alternatives, cycling and walking are two options and I’m pleased these are considered, but these are not the complete answer.
        Where’s the alternatives for those who are unable to use cycling or walking, where’s the cheap frequent and reliable bus services. None existent.
        Over the last few years, bus service changes and price increases has caused them to become unsatisfactory and very unreliable. Even with the household bills increasing, it’s cheaper to use my car two or three times a week though the journey taken could easily be done by bus. I use buses when I can but seriously, more needs to be focused on public transport needs for those who can’t use walking or cycling schemes.

  4. Nathan Adler Reply

    In principal I have no issues with an LTN BUT 1.4 million on a scheme that may or may not work, (looking at other schemes around the country which have been hit and miss). That’s a lot of money potentially wasted. Good luck if you live in Elm Grove as well because everything will be shunted your way! Of course one would also question why you would have a pocket park outside a doctors/ pharmacy which requires Blue Badge access when you have Queens Park about 50 meters away? That is a total over design.

    • Jack Williams Reply

      You can’t argue with Green dogma! No point bothering with a sensible pragmatic approach, when you have an agenda to roll out. I’m sorry, but those disabled are going to have to lump it. And, after all, it’s only taxpayer money!

      • Flea Reply

        The disabled? Where is access prevented? It’s just a rearrangement of road priority.

        As for green dogma, this is coming from the locals. Remember half of the households in Hanover don’t even have a car.

        • Chris Reply

          Actually, this isn’t coming from the locals. This is coming from a small group of idealist locals who have driven this from the start. Compared to the number of residents in the area they are a tiny percentage.

  5. Confused Local Reply

    Totally confused as to how I visit shops half way down Islingword Road now. Can I get out of the bottom of Islingword onto Elm Grove? Or will I have to drive right through the whole of Hanover to find an exit?

    This seems to put all the fumes onto the extra steep Southover Street as that seems to be the main exit.

    • AO Reply

      You’ll have to drive down Bentham road to get into Hanover. That poor narrow road is going to be a nightmare for the residents there.

      • Confused Local Reply

        But how do I get out? There are many ways onto Islingword Road, but how do you exit Hanover once in on this map? I am trying to visit the shops just below Howard Road. I can get in at Howard Road, or Bentham Road, but how do I exit? I see no way out to Elm Grove? Is it out through narrow Coleman Street and the up the steep hill?

        Currently I do Modena, Islingword, Howard. Hardly step inside Hanover at all. Instead I will now be forced to take a long winding route through the residential area.

        And why close off the top of Islingword anyway? It is a wide area perfect for those shops. Instead the exit will be narrow Southover Street. Surely Islingword is the more natural, safe exit road? This is designed by people who don’t live there.

        • AO Reply

          Cause the council is run by utter tits. This should be stopped but green dogma rules no matter how stupid.

  6. F Lee Reply

    I would argue that on most streets Hanover is already an LTN. Southover is the main rat run, but this remains so in the proposal. The closure of Islingword Rd as through route means more complicated access to an area already difficult to park in. Some streets being big losers.

    What to do? This is a community inspired project, there is clear demand for action to make the place more pedestrian and cycle friendly. IMHO let’s keep the planters, look at pavement build outs to reduce pedestrian crossing distance, introduce dipped curbs at all junctions, introduce loads of bike hangers and look to have priority passing points on Islingword and southover. I also like the lay-bys for buses.

    Don’t spend a lot of money on road alterations that don’t seem to have much benefit.

  7. Billy Short Reply

    Complete waste of money for a scheme that simply displaces through traffic to adjacent areas, increases journey times for locals, and therefore adds to pollution.
    There are also many trades people who simply won’t work in that area any more.
    Let’s hope the residents can still get their deliveries.

  8. JW Reply

    A very bad idea. My wife uses her car for her NHS job and will now be driving way longer each day. My daughter goes to Elm Grove school, which will now be choking with even more toxic fumes. There was nothing wrong with the traffic in Hanover to start with.

  9. JW Reply

    My daughter goes to Elm Grove school. No amount of tree planting will protect her and her friends from the increase in toxic fumes in the front playground.

  10. MegA Reply

    So often with these initiatives the council forgets about the disabled and infirm who depend on cars and depend on cars being able to access all sorts of places. Provision should be made for this. We are not all sprightly youth.

  11. AO Reply

    If Elaine Hills actually bothered engaging with the local community, and listened, then she would know that we are almost 100% against this. This is the most ridiculous scheme and will only result in more pollution. The council are also foisting this on us, no matter what how we feel. This is not democracy. The Green party have become a dictatorship. The anger in Hanover about this is huge.

  12. Sack Elaine Hills NOW Reply

    There is no evidence that Hanover is currently a ‘rat run’. No-one has provided current pollution figures. Implementing any variation of these schemes will cause pollution to greatly increase in Elm Grove and Queens Park Road, two of the busiest roads in the area already.
    Elaine Hills does not engage on the Hanover forums and seems intent on forcing this on the residents of Hanover without letting them have the final say.
    The majority of these schemes that have been implemented have been removed at further expense and this scheme is already woefully overbudget when it isn’t even needed or wanted.
    Elaine Hills, it’s time you were removed as our councilor as you are grossly incompetent.

  13. Van Diesel Reply

    It’ll all be electric cars in 10 years. Stop wasting money and leave it alone ffs.

  14. Rob Heale Reply

    This seems to be the creation of some sort of “maze” for vehicles with some “bus gates” thrown in to boot! Is this really value for money? Are residents being properly consulted about the changes? Is there proper access for delivery vehicles and people with disabilities?

    This seems a similar approach to the “Green” scheme at Seven Dials where more than £1M was put into removing safety railings, taking away lighted crossings, installing street drains that don’t drain, over-widening the roundabout and even removing a bus stop! Bizarre!!

    • Designed on iPad Reply

      I am trying to work out how a delivery lorry accesses the shops on Islingword Road, or the brewery lorries get to and from the pubs. As there seems to be no exit out on to Elm Grove this will force all the lorries into the heart of Hannover before they can escape. It is going to cause more pollution, not less.

      And the Green’s lack of understanding for the disabled is already well documented by taking away their parking on the sea front.

  15. Hove Guy Reply

    £1.4m for a trial period. And what will happen if this, as with other ridiculous schemes by the Greens, such as Old Shoreham Road, is a failure? How much will it cost to put it right again? How these clowns love to play around with taxpayers’s money is incredible.

    And I hope the residents in this particular area are not likely to be in need of a plumber.

    • Chris Reply

      Interesting point. My brother’s business provides safety services to dentists all over the country except Brighton. He actually let clients go because he got so fed up with lack of parking/access to dental surgeries as well as taking an hour to get into Brighton. He has to get close to a surgery due to needing bulky equipment to do the job. I cannot see “plumbers on bikes” being able to work efficiently…

  16. Mike Hamilton Reply

    Congratulations to all the idiots who voted in a rich white able bodied woman as your green hannover councilor. Now you can’t park outside the GP office, can’t access the shops and have to drive further just to get around it.

    No prizes for guessing her motive or the road she lives on.

    • Quebec St Anne Reply

      May 2023 we have the opportunity to vote her, and the other Green fruitcakes out. We all must use it.

  17. Peter Challis Reply

    So a use for £1m of the £10m per year allocated from the “carbon neutral fund” that we pay for as part of our council tax. How did the Greens work out that they needed £10m per year? 😏

    There’s no definition of what carbon savings will be made; no pre-defined success criteria; no monitoring until after the scheme goes in (clever trick by the Greens – nothing new there!); and no check to ensure this offers the best ROI on carbon reductions.

    How will the council know if this works or not – or will it be Green councillors claiming it a success independent of the data again?

    • mart Burt Reply

      Peter Challis
      Well as usual they will pull numbers out of thin air.
      Just like Valley Gardens, what a great success that is they told us during the lockdown periods. Yes it was great, but now, nothing more than a shambles.

  18. Adam Reply

    Let them eat cake said Phelim and Caroline. Has the i369 started paying its way yet? Asking for a friend.

  19. mart Burt Reply

    The original proposals for the low traffic neighbourhood (LTN) scheme featured two options, neither asked if the residents wanted this scheme in the first place. Typical ‘Green’ consultation process, you want option A or B.

    Of bigger concern is the statements :

    The budget for the scheme was previously set to come out of the council’s local transport plan fund.

    So money is coming from the transport pot but now we’re told the extra funding required would potentially come from the council’s carbon neutral fund, or possibly borrowing, extra money from the transport fund, or elsewhere.

    So £1.4m is being used from other pots to do this work that isn’t in my opinion a priority.
    Reducing traffic is more important. Brighton and Hove Buses, were prepared to run a park and ride scheme at the cost of £100K, yet BHCC kicked it into touch.
    I have a feeling there would have been more benefit from a P&R than changing road layouts, closing roads and making congestion worse up Elm Grove.
    What I ask, is the council doing with the £27m it was allocated 2020/1 to improve bus services? Nothing.

Leave a Reply

*

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.