The council has been accused of giving a misleading version of events after residents who objected to a bike hangar in their street were threatened with the police.
Contractors were “surrounded by a lot of unhappy residents”, according to Brighton and Hove City Council, and they were owed a duty of care.
But the resident who initially approached the contractors said that he was alone at first and that four neighbours subsequently joined him. One of the four just happened to be passing.
Cissbury Road resident Graeme Lyons said: “‘Surrounded’ and ‘unhappy’ are quite misleading. No one was threatening, aggressive or abusive.”
He was threatened with the police “within the first 30 seconds of contact when it was just me on the street”, Mr Lyons said, adding: “I had barely gotten a word out before I was threatened with the police.”
Labour councillor John Allcock, who represents Goldsmid ward, spoke out about the incident at a meeting of the full council last month.
Councillor Allcock said: “It’s certainly highly inappropriate and unhelpful to threaten well-meaning and responsible citizens with a call to the police when they question how council services are being implemented in their neighbourhood.
“I’m very afraid that this zealot-like behaviour will only alienate citizens from engaging in the process of active travel, rather than govern by consensus and win support.”
Neighbours welcomed the first hangar at the bottom of Cissbury Road but opposed plans for a second hangar at the top.
They said that road has parking problems because parents and carers wait for students leaving nearby BHASVIC (Brighton, Hove And Sussex VI Form College).
Seven residents objected to a second hangar – as did Councillor Allcock and Labour councillor Jackie O’Quinn who also represents Goldsmid – while just two people supported the extra hangar.
Despite this, it was approved by the council’s Environment, Transport and Sustainability Committee in November.
After Councillor Allcock criticised the heavy-handed approach to residents, the council said: “We had a report from our parking suspension contractors NSL recently that their staff were surrounded by a lot of unhappy residents in Cissbury Road when they were trying to put a parking suspension in place ready for our bike hangar installers to instal a hangar.
“We have a duty of care to our staff and contractors. We would always advise them to call the police if they are facing situations where they are concerned for their safety.”
Mr Lyons said: “No one was threatening, aggressive or abusive. The Falco staff were pleasant enough, apart from threatening the police within the first 30 seconds of contact when it was just me on the street.
“What is most crucial here, though, is the Falco guys read out that email and made that statement about the police when it was just me before the other three people came out.
“I had barely gotten a word out before I was threatened with the police. The other three people will verify that, as soon as they joined me, I told them how shocked I was at what I had just been told and the email I had been shown.”
Mr Lyons said that parking problems had worsened since the new hangar was put in a relatively quiet residential road.
He said that parents picking up students from BHASVIC had since started parking on double yellow lines and leaving their engines running rather than stopping in the space now occupied by the hangar.
Councillor O’Quinn said that she had been dealing with student-related parking issues in the area since she was first elected in 2015.
She said that she was writing to BHASVIC to ask the sixth form college to ask parents and carers to turn off their engines when waiting for students.
Councillor O’Quinn said: “All the roads along there should be closed off at the Old Shoreham Road end. It would end so many issues that are experienced as it did in Chanctonbury Road when that was closed off. But then Highdown Road would definitely be used more so I don’t know what the answer is.
“I will ask if the principal can send out a note to parents about not having engines on for long periods while they wait for their offspring and also to ask if students could spread their parking out a bit on the roads near the school.
“The issue has also been exacerbated by the new media building as it is used in the evenings and causes issues for residents.”
BHASVIC was approached for comment.
Go on Labour, have a race to the bottom with the Tories for that non-existent anti-cyclist vote.
Meanwhile ordinary people are left wondering why you get so angry with a metal box where a metal box with wheels ‘should’ be.
Cllr O’Quinn “But then Highdown Road would definitely be used more so I don’t know what the answer is.”
The answer is to end car dependency with public and active travel improvements, such as cycle hangers.
But the article is not about whether or not there should be cycle hangers there, but how the police are immediately called when anyone (and in this case just one person) is asking for information from either a council member or an employee of the council.
This is not an unusual situation with regard to the council. A few years ago the police were called to the home of a resident who had made a phone call, with a complaint, to a Labour councillor, who then accused the caller of harassment. Some of our council members would be better off working in Russia.
“He was threatened with the police “within the first 30 seconds of contact when it was just me on the street”, Mr Lyons said, adding: “I had barely gotten a word out before I was threatened with the police.” And that says it all.
The last part of the article, where the quote comes from, is about the dangers caused by motorists parking on the double yellows outside a school: which Cllr O’Quinn is somehow blaming on a cycle hanger.
That isn’t the answer here – cycle hangers are for local residents, the problem is people collecting students using their cars and leaving their engines running. That needs another solution. Something that would require understanding why the students don’t walk or cycle – and how to fix that. Reasons for that may be complex (disabilities, security etc) or more to do with travel (eg. cycle parking isn’t secure or enough available on site), students are too far away (issues with place allocation) etc.
As with everything, if you want to fix something you need to spend some time looking at what the issue is, then look for a range of solutions and any unintended consequences from this and implement them. All the time consulting and understanding that local people understand the issues most and will have valuable insights and ideas. The current council just bulldozed poorly designed ideas through which haven’t had enough input
That people only complain and ask is a testament to residents. That the council tries to squash this democratic discussion is dangerous – for if this isn’t tolerated (and indeed encouraged) people will just ignore council requests/ideas and do their own thing
The hangars have been installed with democratic process being involved – typical of the Green driven council.
Those responsible – cllrs Davis and Lloyd
It not like the Council/Greens to lie , cheat and deceive…is it?
Re the cycle hangers it quite clearly states in the LCWIP that any cycle hanger placement will have proper consultation with local residents. So here residents said the second hanger wasn’t needed and yet the council just ignored them – and you wonder why the community does not trust BHCC. Cycle hangers should be placed where demand exists and generally that should be where there are high concentrations of HMO’s or flats and the potential for internal or external storage is harder.
interesting that the LCWIP isn’t being followed. I wonder if that was clearly presented to the committee and they made a decision in contradiction to council policy and resident wishes?
I suspect that the local residents can take action on this basis. Probably a formal complaint to the council, then follow up with the ombudsman. Worth doing as may get this one reversed, but more importantly future ones sighted properly. I can see there is a need – but they do need to go in the right places where this is a need (so often areas without private gardens/rear lane access for private secure storage)
Bit of an eyesore, aren’t they?
If you think they are an eyesore in their native green, you should see what they are like when the taggers get at them. One near me already looking a right mess of spray paint.
So who is going to pay to clean that up? Hope that bill is 100% covered by the bike rack people. There is something that just feels dodgy about the payments for all of this.
Gra Fetti
Lets send along the Graffiti police and ‘fine’ the owners if it’s not cleaned off in 28 days.
Go nicely with a huge planter and a couple of unemptied communal bins, don’t you think?
I think you are on to something there. Combine all three. Stick one in the middle of the road at the Palace Pier, add some plants, and pile up a few mattresses against the side. Then can be topped off with a big of tagging. A perfect “Welcome to Brighton” art piece.
If you knock up some designs on the back of an envelope we can probably flog it to the council.
Yet more cunning stunts from the Green party.
🙂
I’m assuming that the contractors were the ones who mentioned the police? I’m also guessing that they did feel threatened by being confronted by four members of the public.
Personally I can’t wait for one to be installed in my road. As for being an eyesore, you don’t think a polluting van or SUV is an eyesore?
Yet again blaming the council for the actions of a contractor.
They felt threatened by just being questioned how council services are being threatened in their neighbourhood. So the police have to be called when anyone dares to ask questions? That is almost laughable, if it was not such a pathetic and cowardly policy by council staff and/or their contractors. And what a waste of police time. Welcome back Karl Marx.
Gareth – part of an article published in “The Argus” on 19th December:
“The council told workers who have been installing dozens of bike hangars around Brighton and Hove to call the police if challenged by the public.
The revelation came at a town hall meeting as a Conservative councillor complained that the policy had been brought in “by the back door”.
No doubt the Greens realised that a policy brought in to pander to just 0.75% of the city’s population could prove a touch Contentious.
Interesting that the’re all for other forms of protest (BLM, XR, Tyre Extinguishers et al) but are oppposed to anyone objecting to their own undemocratic policies.
Well, they certainly give a new meaning to the word “challenged” if that includes making an enquiry. Clearly they don’t want any questions to be asked. Everything must be hush hush until the job is done. Oh well, only a few months to go before election time comes around, and we know who not to vote for.
Gareth
Interesting comments that clearly show yet again that you’ve failed to read the article.
The resident was alone at first then JOINED by others.
During December, observant readers like myself read that BHCC told workers to call the police if challenged by the public while installing bike hangars by .
In most cases, SUV’s and VAN’s (even those that are electric) are often moved when in use. Bike hubs/sheds what ever you want to call them are permanent fixtures 24/7 that are hazards to pedestrians, motorists, cyclists and especially the elderly and disabled.
Some are placed dangerously close to Junctions (causing observations difficulties for all road users) and are unlit at night. Those on pavements are also unlit and are a hazard to disabled, visually impaired and anybody else.
They look nice, but how long before, oops seen one sprayed already…
There’s nothing wrong with Bike sheds in principle, it’s the underhanded way they were signed off, where they were installed and the council taxes used to get them.
They are an eyesore one blinking person uses the one outside mine, they are for students not residents god forbid ur disabled in Brighton and over 30, self serving greens for ya