A “school streets” project may have to end if volunteers do not come forward to keep it going.
Green councillor Steve Davis asked about the Balfour Road school streets scheme at a Brighton and Hove City Council meeting just before Christmas.
The opposition leader also asked if the “experimental traffic regulation order” would stay in place, closing the road to traffic using barriers operated by volunteers from 8.15am to 9.15am and 2.45pm to 3.45pm in term time.
Balfour Primary School is one of at least 15 schools where the council has used experimental orders to bring in restrictions at the start and end of the school day.
Parents have raised concerns that the project, which started in July 2023 for 18 months, has collapsed as drivers park on zig-zags and ignore the restrictions.
At the council meeting, the Labour cabinet member for transport, parking and the public realm, Trevor Muten said that when the Balfour scheme started there was “strong compliance”.
In October, Councillor Muten met Councillor Davis and his fellow Preston Park ward councillors to find a way to keep the “school street” operational.
But he noted that many drivers had ignored the restrictions, taking their cars to the school gate.
In response to Councillor Davis’s question about keeping the traffic order, Councillor Muten said that the scheme in its present form might have to end or be put on hold until the council had more enforcement powers.
Councillor Muten said: “The schools have supported this as best they can. However, as the success of this scheme is subject to volunteers being present to support the restrictions and volunteer numbers have dropped over time, despite recent attempts by ward councillors to help the council find more volunteers, we have seen a growing number of people not adhering to the restrictions.
“It is disappointing to see people not following the restrictions.
“The Department for Transport recently issued guidance saying that relying on volunteers to help with school streets is not effective in the long-term.
“It is a great shame to see people not doing their bit to make roads around our schools safer for children by consistently following the rules, regardless of whether or not volunteers are in place to remind them.
“In light of the new guidance, where volunteers are prepared to help make streets safer outside schools, we will continue to support them.
“Where we do not have sufficient volunteers, as has proven to be the case at the Balfour school streets scheme, we will now revert to alternative arrangements which do not rely on volunteers.
“As far as the scheme for Balfour Primary School is concerned, this means removing the time restrictions from the traffic regulation order while making other restrictions in place within this order permanent.”
Unfortunately, I find when it comes to driving standards, unless there is a risk of being fined or punished for it, people will end up doing what is easiest, rather than what is right. It is the classic shopping cart problem.
Agree – it’s a basic road safety issue. The council does have statutory responsibilities to act, and they do have existing powers to enforce restrictions in place.
It just sounds like a lack of will on the council’s part to commit the resources needed to make it work. If the council is reluctant to make enforcement work on a scheme that’s there for children’s safety then it suggests Councillor Trevor Muten’s priorities are off.
He priority is to completely screw up traffic with VG3
God forbid we make it safer for people who walk or cycle in the city centre.
So creating more pollution that people can breathe in is ‘safer’ because ?
So creating a cycle lane that is in a path of a tree is ‘safer’ because ?
So removing two lanes of traffic and putting in four lanes of contra following lanes including bus lanes all squeezed in by the war memorial is ‘safer’ because.
Having around 200 buses an hour all squeezing in around the said war memorial is ‘safer’ because ?
@ Mart Burt We’re not knocking down the war memorial, no matter how much you keep petitioning for it.
But do school streets really make it safer or ‘cleaner’? The schools street near me is ignored. So not only was there limited evidence these schemes
make any difference in the first place there was also a failure to design and implement effectively to get best outcome. I’d rather our cash strapped council invested where it is can really make a difference to people’s lives and the environment we live in, rather than wasting valuable money and resources on pet projects that are unpopular, unsustainable and ultimately destined to fail.
I no longer drive but have lived near a school for nearly fifty years, and have seen the transition from parents mainly walking their children to school to the current situation where SUVs seem to be the main method of transport. The area isn’t covered by the “school streets” project, but there are 20mph signs in the roads adjoining the school. These signs are relatively recent and, in my opinion, haven’t changed the driving of many people. Those of us who live in the area have mainly kept our speed down anyway, the roads are not that wide and cars are parked at intervals so a slower speed is more sensible. However, some parents seem to lose all sense when it comes to the school run, talking on the phone while driving, speeding, parking on the pavement, parking across driveways and across the access to properties. One might hope the parents are the people who would be most in favour of traffic calming/control but it doesn’t seem like it.
People driving whilst on their phone really annoys me, more than anything else. Every single one of them I see gets recorded and reported.
I think that students should have the right to study from home three days a week. This would reduce the traffic near schools.
There was a study about that I believe. I don’t remember it well, might have to have another look at it.
The solution to this issue seems straightforward. Given that the School Streets scheme is primarily about health and safety for children, action must be taken to enforce restrictions effectively. Implementing cameras with number plate recognition could be a practical way to ensure compliance, issuing fines to those who disregard the rules during restricted hours. These fines could help fund the scheme, including covering the cost of personnel such as parking advisors, lollipop officers, or traffic wardens stationed during these critical times.
If technology or personnel aren’t sufficient, more direct measures could be considered. For instance, issuing formal warnings or even ASBOs to guardians who consistently create unsafe conditions through irresponsible parking or driving. It’s vital to address the selfish behaviour of a minority who endanger not only their children but also the wider community.
Ultimately, the council must prioritise proactive measures to avoid a preventable crisis. In today’s world, where governance often needs to step in to counteract selfishness and disregard for community well-being, this shouldn’t come as a surprise. Acting now is essential to safeguard the safety of children and maintain trust in the council’s commitment to public safety.
That is all well and good – but it is difficult to justify criminalizing parents/guardians if there is no record of injury or near misses. It has to avoid being seen as an ideological anti-car measure.
When it comes to enforcement – who will do that ? You can be burgled and no police come. The police no longer turn up to shoplifting events. The CPS does not prosecute I suspect because the court system is clogged up. Even then there are no prison spaces, and many people cannot afford fines – unless it comes out of their benefits – which then adversely affects the children. Unless you want to lock up parents/guardians – and that costs (the council) a fortune in social care.
I think in this instance the carrot may be better than the stick. Better to spend some money appealing to the better nature of parents/guardians.
OR – and hear me out – OR we just fine people who are behaving badly in public. IF they can run a car, they can afford a fine. If they insist they can’t afford the fine, impound the car. Easy.
Means tested fines based on income, so that people can’t just pay to be antisocial.