An Elm Grove resident has asked councillors to explain why they voted to use money earmarked for road improvements towards refurbishing public toilets.
Alison Guile, one of several residents who wrote to Brighton and Hove councillors before the annual “budget council” meeting, is concerned that the busy road will lose out on plans to introduce more crossings and trees.
She has written to councillors asking them to “help her understand” the consequences of their budget decision.
Ms Guile presented a petition to Brighton and Hove City Council’s Environment, Transport and Sustainability Committee last year asking for “liveable” benefits to the whole Hanover and Elm Grove ward equally.
After her appeal and a deputation by Elm Grove residents, councillors agreed to look at what could be done for the wider area.
Their decision resulted in £1.1 million from the council’s “carbon-neutral fund” being allocated to improve safety and greenery along the boundary roads for the Hanover and Tarner Liveable Neighbourhood Project.
When the Labour proposal to use the £1.1 million to refurbish public toilets became public, Ms Guile wrote to councillors before the budget council meeting last Thursday (23 February) to remind them why residents had campaigned for work in Elm Grove.
In her letter, she said: “From the start, we have been clear that this is not a pay-off for the LTN (low-traffic neighbourhood) but to undertake vital work to improve the safety and health of residents and those who attend the school and nursery.
“Elm Grove is in a bad state – terrible pavements and very dangerous driving. I’ve personally witnessed six bad crashes and collisions just this last year.
“Daily, I see speeding and there are not enough safe crossing points. Also, the air pollution is breaching the safe, legal limit at the bottom of the hill.
“Yet, we are the hub of the community with children walking up and down to school (I think 90 per cent already walk to school, which is one reason an LTN seemed the wrong fit) and we have a lovely mix of independent shops and cafes.
“I’ve heard talk of ’20 minute cities’ and Elm Grove provides this – bringing local community assets to so many!
“The street is a lifeline running up the hill – uniquely from the centre of town to the edge of Brighton and the Downs.
“There is potential for this street to be beautiful, lined with trees and the pride of residents – please help us achieve this dream.
“After a year of hard work from the residents, we have just started to get there.
“With the ban on pavement parking being passed and the money from the carbon-neutral fund being proposed to reduce speed, create safe crossings for our children and introduce greening – including bushes to help absorb dangerous air pollution – it would be a travesty to redirect the money away from a community that needs it.”
After Labour and Conservative councillors voted to amend the budget, she wrote again: “There are numerous real safety issues we deal with. Cars driving full speed up pavements to get in and out of parking spaces is major. It’s only a matter of time until someone is hurt.
“More safe crossings, namely at the junction of Hampden / De Montford, where daily hundreds of school children cross and end up stranded on the small island, which can be overflowing with kids, parents and babies in buggies – while no one stops for them!
“Extra speed controls to curb dangerous speeding and the accidents it causes.
“Repairing the surfaces on the street would make it safer for those less steady on their feet (and) easier for wheelchairs and buggies.
“‘Greening’ which aids air pollution reduction – especially at the bottom of the hill where their pollution breaches legal limits is far more than an aesthetic addition.
“What budget is going to be left to address these serious safety concerns?”
Both the Greens and Labour released statements about the budget move.
Brighton and Hove Labour Party said that £1 million remains in the budget to make road safety improvements on boundary roads, including Elm Grove, Queen’s Park Road and Egremont Place.
The Labour statement said: “There was still not enough funding allocated to the refurbishment of public toilets in the Greens’ budget plans and, frankly, the administration has lost credibility in this area, making the Green leader’s claims that they will ‘try to open as many public toilets as possible from March 2023’ difficult to believe.
“By allocating more funding to the restoration of these basic services, we are confident we can ensure more public toilets are actually re-opened for the good of equalities, public health, our local businesses and our visitor economy.”
Green councillor Elaine Hills, who co-chairs the council’s Environment, Transport and Sustainability Committee, said: “Labour’s amendment is an attempt to trash plans to make these roads safer by removing the funding added to the project for this important work.
“Labour say that they are doing this to save public toilets. But where have they been? We have already reversed toilet savings and put in additional money for that service.
“So this cannot be a genuine attempt to save public toilets. This is cheap electioneering at the expense of safer, greener streets, cleaner air and tackling the climate crisis.”
The next update on the Liveable Hanover and Tarner Project is due to go before the Environment, Transport and Sustainability Committee meeting on Tuesday 14 March.
I thought Labour had stated that the remaining £1 million that had been set aside for the LTN would be used in it’s entirety to improve the boundary roads subject to a vote at ETS. That way much needed improvements to Elm Grove can happen.
the biggest question is how the Greens have managed to make such an utter and complete pig’s ear out of this. Should have listened to the residents and businesses!
Mike, you answer your own question. A council that is supposed to be “representative of the people” never listen to the people. See also any other project from this same council…
Alison Guile wants an explanation as why they voted to divert money away from a vanity project towards toilets.
Easy answer Alison, because at this current time, toilets are more of benefit to the whole city than more road changes that will create even more congestion and pollution.
It’s quite ironic that she states this work is needed to improve the safety and health of residents, yet fails to grasp the proposed road closures and alterations for local residents and others needing access will do nothing to improve but create more traffic on other roads.
She quotes Elm Grove and highlights schools and nursery, yet fails to grasp the additional traffic that will need to use that road for access to Queens Park.
I use Elm Grove most days and have witnessed speed being very low and your lucky if you can reach even 20 going up the hill at any time of day.
“I’ve heard talk of ’20 minute cities’ and Elm Grove provides this – bringing local community assets to so many! Wouldn’t agree, that Elm Grove provides everyone’s wants and needs, where’s the Secondary School for a start?
It is acceptable that more crossings are needed, but if I recall, there’s a dedicated lolly pop person outside the school so I doubt if school children are stranded on a small island and I think this more of an made up comment than actual fact.
The majority of crashes are caused by lack of observations followed by judgement with speeding well down the list of causes for incidents.
While I have no doubt that some motorists do speed and drive dangerously, I would be interested to know what system she uses to check the speed of motorists and also the results and the system of the air quality she uses.
So far, from the facts provided on official sources, with the amount of traffic that uses Elm Grove there’s no indication there is any serious safety concerns.
Ms Guile…. Where to start with elm grove.
1 – It’s an A road linking woodingdean with Brighton so it will always be busy.
2 – due to the nonsense parking scheme you cannot speed, tbh most places there is traffic jams due to busses being unable to negotiate said parked cars
3 – no one parks on the pavement, these are verges that were tarmaced to park on
4 – public toilets across the city are much more important than a vanity project that will affect few people.
5 – as a tarner resident I do not and neither does anyone we know in the area want this nonsense imposed on us where the LTN will create pollution and add 2 miles of hills to a normal daily commute.
6 – £1.1 million would be better spent on proper public transport around queen’s park road and re surfacing of said road and elm grove. Southover street is in desperate need of road works as it’s like a road in Kabul currently.
The whole city needs public toilets. Elm Grove is just one road.
If the council use the extra wide pavement spaces to create safer allocated parking spaces, that will be great. Pedestrians can then walk safely, drivers can park near to their homes/places of work.
The main problems I find when walking up and down Elm Grove are the uneven surfaces, slippy surfaces from litter (as well as some greasy pavement areas outside some homes) and the roots from the trees making the paved areas really bumpy. They have fixed the roots issue on the pavement on Western Road (by H&M) with new tarmac which is great.
I’m sure with the amount of people who pay for parking permits on Elm Grove the necessary work would pay for itself in no time.
Sd
I don’t think a lot of people have grasp the fact that Elm Grove was allocated parking space between the pavement and road and this been the case for decades.
I fully understand some idiot drivers drive stupidly on these areas, but most who park their are residents, therefore, where are all these vehicles going to park.
One would imagine in the side roads, increasing vehicular traffic in those areas.
People like Ms Guile give no thought to the consequences of their actions and selfishly shout loud and offer no solution’s.
Here is a prime example of someone who considers ‘their’ needs over everyone else.
If she wants to use health and safety, fine, that works both ways.
The H&S of every resident needs to be considered and we need toilets, for residents and visitors alike, perhaps she has forgotten those very people she quotes, ie parents with buggies, children and I will add valurnerable and disabled along with visitors, will need toilets when in and around the city.
Therefore her comments portrays imo, discrimination.