New parking bays and road construction work have left a language school director concerned for his pupils’ safety.
Brighton Language College director Gary Farmer has been raising concerns about new parking bays outside the international school in Old Steine for two months because drivers park up on the pavement and disabled bays are in use all day.
In an email to Brighton and Hove City Council highways officers and Kemptown ward councillors, Mr Farmer shared his concerns for the safety of more than 500 students, some as young as seven.
Drivers often tried to drive down one-way Princes Street, he said, which resulted in vehicles having to turn in the road daily.
He also said that he regularly saw disabled patients struggle to cross the road because blue badge bays were on the south side of the new parking area – on the opposite side to the doctors’ surgery.
There were regularly four cars parked in the three bays, he said, which was another safety concern.
His most recent frustration came last Wednesday (11 June) when a green plastic barrier was installed along the pavement directly in front of the school.
Mr Farmer, who has stood three times in local elections, most recently for Reform UK, has campaigned for changes to the Valley Gardens project for the past six to seven years.
Labour councillor Trevor Muten, the council’s cabinet member for transport and city infrastructure, said: “I am aware of this concern while construction works are ongoing. As with all ongoing roadworks, construction has caused some disruption locally and we apologise for any inconvenience.
“We have already made improvements to parking including dedicated bays for blue badge holders and medical staff. We are currently working with the contractor to help improve access for pedestrians and parking bay users while work is carried out.
“We understand residents’ concerns and have responded both by letter and in person. Once the work is complete, Pavilion Street re-opens and the loading bay is up and running, we will be happy to review feedback and consider making amendments to loading and parking restrictions.
“Sadly, inconsiderate parking can add to any disruption and damage newly laid pavements and we would ask drivers to think carefully before they park their vehicles.
“We are confident that, when the work is finished transforming this part of the city centre, pedestrians and people accessing the language school will enjoy the benefits of a much larger and safer area.”
But Mr Farmer said that Councillor Muten had missed his point, adding: “The issues stem from the council’s dismissive approach to genuine concerns and feedback from residents, businesses and stakeholders made at the outset of the project.
“Common sense constructive advice on the basic planning has been ignored or belittled by the council who have taken a ‘we know best’ approach since day one.
“The zone in question is not ‘much larger’ with the pinch-point for footfall immediately outside the front door of the school which was pointed out at length to the council but ignored.
“It could have been so much better and truly benefited the community but it is a missed opportunity and an own goal for this Labour council.
“This is the first stage of VG3 (phase three of the Valley Gardens project) and immediately problems have arisen which were foretold.
“It doesn’t bode well for the next 12 months as the council pushes forward with a scheme that does not deliver and has all the signs of another white elephant project for this council.”
VG3 is all about kowtowing to the cycling lobby, for some unknown reason. No-one else matters. It’s going to be a diabolical mess with massive congestion and pollution
You motorists only care about the pollution you create when you’re inconvenienced for the safety of others.
Completely agree. You can concrete over the South Downs for all they care, but take a bit of “their” roadspace in the city centre and suddenly they’re Greta Thunberg.
Hollingdean Resident
Safety of others, yes of course that’s vitally important and a big massive tick in the box.
Unfortunately, with this new design it won’t be any safer on the Eastern side. You’re aware I hope, that there will be contra flowing bus and car lanes. There will be roughly, with the current bus timetable, 200 buses an hour coming through there, then add the Taxi’s, delivery vehicles and general motorists all on the same side of the road. It will be gridlocked most of the time.
The congestion and pollution in that area between the seafront and Edward street will be massive and hardly ideal for peoples health, but yes much safer I guess.
This is a very poor project and already quoted as being of low value for money and offers little benefit to anyone, but you carry on thinking it’s drivers inconvenience
I do think we need to explain that Value for money” in government-funded schemes is typically assessed using a Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR). A BCR around 1.2 means that for every £1 spent, the project yields about £1.20 in quantified benefits. Between 1.5-1.0 is considered low value; however, it is still a benefit, and also based on very specific, modelled metrics.
Even so, even describing it as a “20% additional benefit” is accurate in narrow economic terms, it’s not necessarily the full picture; it often misses big benefits like improved public space, health, inclusion, and long-term climate impact.
Hi Benjamin, thanks for your reply.
Value for money.
I have no doubt your figures are accurate for (BCR), however the whole scheme is deemed as of little benefit.
The original selling points being:
1 Improved access for public transport, supporting more reliable journey times.
Disputed at great length on both counts. More services serving the same few bus stops and road space. As proven with various transport ‘improvements’, journey times always increase, VG1/2 a prime example, with a bus lane and priority lights, St Peters to Old Steine 4 minutes, with the current layout 7 on a good day.
BHCC have already indicated delays at the aquarium and we already suffer delays and diversions in that area on a daily bases so in real terms, no benefit to P T.
2 An additional taxi rank near the Palace Pier junction as well as retaining two existing ranks.
Great a benefit.
3 New obstruction-free (where possible) pavement design New trees and landscaping
Great a benefit.
4 Sustainable outdoor event infrastructure.
Disputed on the grounds of access for the vehicles undertaking these major events.
5 New separated cycle lanes, linking phases 1 & 2 of Valley Gardens to the seafront.
A benefit.
6 Improved lighting around Old Steine Gardens (supported by a successful Safer Streets Funding bid).
Lighting will always be welcomed who ever funds it.
7 Increase in parking bays for Blue Badge holders
A benefit.
8 (a) A new junction to replace the existing Palace Pier roundabout.
Questioned by transport operators of all groups and other interested groups. There were many points raised on both T Junctions and Roundabouts, advantages and disadvantages of both systems. The general feeling, the roundabout would be better kept in place with some improvements needed for cyclists.
8 (b) direct crossing points for pedestrians and cyclists.
These are already in place and working very well, so can’t be benefit as we already use them.
8 (c) enhanced signaling to ensure the flow of traffic including buses.
Traffic flows already, the junction will prevent ‘Free’ flowing vehicles so a disadvantage here and no benefit.
9 Enhanced bus stop design for safety of waiting passengers and effective passenger pick up.
Disagreed, more passengers and buses squeezed in a smaller area with less stops increases risks and longer pick up times.
10 Improved setting around the War Memorial
A benefit, disputed, the increased vehicular traffic that will be using the contra flowing road next to it, increased pollution will do nothing for peoples health.
The funders, sited this scheme as being very low value for money with in real terms little or no benefit.
The pollution is only created when vehicles are at a snails pace or stopped. The planning of VG3 has never taken into account the volume of traffic it wants to stall. In the long run the less traffic coming into the town/city always means less business. London road and Western n Road have already started to fail. There are many shop closures and businesses leaving. Charity and coffee shops are all you will end up with.
So, you’re endorsing a scheme that the Council’s own consultants said would lead to more congestion and pollution? Even the bus company and emergency services are worried about the impact of this.
So, while it’s valid to say emergency services were involved and some participants voiced concerns about them, the consultation doesn’t show any explicit alarm from emergency services themselves asserting that the Valley Gardens scheme would result in increased response times or pollution.
We’ve spoken about this particular aspect before. Stick to reality, Tom.
So there you have it!
Benjy- the master of the glib platitude – along with cllr Muten, the Greens and Bricycles say that VG3 isn’t going to cause havoc, congestion and pollution.
How reassuring!
Whereas you say it will. Have you any forensic evidence other than peddling fear.
This apparently went through several committees and a working group of officers.
Forgive me if I take their opinion over yours.
The council have already stated the scheme will cause more congestion and in turn more pollution.
Transport Experts, that would be the Department for Transport, Transport Operators and other organizations along with the FUNDERS have quoted this scheme as very low value for money with little benefit. I tend to believe their opinions over members of a committee or a group of officers that have been appointed to ‘deliver’ the scheme.
Hi Ben,
We’ve debated before on VG3 and the impact it will have.
I work in Transport as we discussed previously and I attended a few meetings where lots of concerns were put forward. I can assure you, concerns were raised by the Emergency service’s as you have confirmed so to say the consultation doesn’t show any explicit alarm isn’t correct.
BHCC have confirmed there will be increased congestion and this would mean pollution too so you’re definitely wrong there.
Response times could be increased, depending on the situation and time of day, but to ‘claim’ no increase in response times is incorrect imo.
The road space being a real factor in this scheme.
Hey Martin, we have indeed, and I always enjoy our debates.
I genuinely appreciate your background in transport, and you’re right to say concerns were raised during consultation. Still, I think there’s an important distinction between raising concerns and issuing a formal objection or operational warning. Tom’s phrasing tends to leap over that line, turning reasonable debate into alarmist shorthand that sidesteps the detail, it’s a common flaw of his, fueled by a particular hatred of Muten, and apparently, I’m catching up!
The VG3 consultation appendices confirm that emergency services were consulted, and concerns about access were noted. But there’s no formal objection or documented statement from ambulance, fire, or police services saying the scheme would cause unmanageable delays or breach service thresholds. If you were present at those meetings, I’d be really interested to hear more about what was said, especially if it went further than what’s recorded publicly.
On response times, I agree that any road scheme has the potential to affect them, depending on the situation. I don’t think I ever claimed there would be no effect, only that there’s no clear evidence that emergency services expect a systemic decline in performance. I do try to stick to the line between possible and proven.
And just to clarify: when I mentioned pollution, I was specifically referring to emergency vehicle delays, which I realise now wasn’t especially clear. We’ve had a good back-and-forth about congestion more broadly before, and I’m sure we’ll return to it again.
Hi Benjamin, thanks for your reply.
Value for money.
I have no doubt your figures are accurate for (BCR), however the whole scheme is deemed as of little benefit.
The original selling points being:
1 Improved access for public transport, supporting more reliable journey times.
Disputed at great length on both counts. More services serving the same few bus stops and road space. As proven with various transport ‘improvements’, journey times always increase, VG1/2 a prime example, with a bus lane and priority lights, St Peters to Old Steine 4 minutes, with the current layout 7 on a good day.
BHCC have already indicated delays at the aquarium and we already suffer delays and diversions in that area on a daily bases so in real terms, no benefit to P T.
2 An additional taxi rank near the Palace Pier junction as well as retaining two existing ranks.
Great a benefit.
3 New obstruction-free (where possible) pavement design New trees and landscaping
Great a benefit.
4 Sustainable outdoor event infrastructure.
Disp
Hi again Benjamin 11 hours ago
I always enjoy our debates as well.
You’re right there’s an important distinction between raising concerns and issuing a formal objection or operational warning. Tom raised a valid point and having re-read the post agree it did come across as OTT>
I did attend a few meetings and can’t recall everything word by word but I can confirm no mention this would cause unmanageable delays or a breach of service thresholds but very close to it and may require a review of routes to be taken.
On response times, I agree that any road scheme has the potential to affect them, depending on the situation.
No, I don’t think you claimed there would be no effect, perhaps I misread your post and made an assumption you implied it and I do stand corrected on that and I apologize.
There’s no clear evidence that emergency services expect a systemic decline in performance but it is a concern to be monitored.
Pollution, thank you for clarifying the comment.
Yes we’ve had a good back-and-forth about congestion more broadly before, and I’m sure we’ll return to it again.
I always look forward to your comments, I know I am going to have a good debate.
Thank Ben, chat soon.
Can’t wait, it’s been a death trap for far to long.
Catching a bus from the old stein in the rain and you get splashed by cars, awful abomination being removed. Boohoo it may take roughly a min or 2 longer at peak times in a car, don’t drive through the city centre then…
Ha ha, the crash data dictates otherwise.
Unfortunately, the shallow minded people who told us the Roundabout was the most dangerous failed to provide the numbers and don’t have the intelligence to work out people have the ability to do research and flounder when questioned.
Check for yourself the numbers and you will see for yourself how many deaths there have been on this roundabout.
What has getting splashed by cars got to do with removing a roundabout?
I think you will find the minimum delay will be around 2-3 minutes but that’s not including the normal delays we have now at peak times, so we can guess double that time.
It’s got nothing to do with removing a roundabout, clearly I’m looking at the who scheme and not a tiny part of it like yourself. Look at where the bus stops are, in the middle of the road… Crash data does not take account of the nearly constant near misses that happen at st James street or the bottom of north Street. It’s a total shambles how it currently is so it’s about time it’s getting ripped up.
As for the roundabout, it’s not going to make a massive difference, it’s gridlocked as it is
‘transforming the city centre’?
Yep – into gridlock !
It is already gridlocked and it will continue to be while people that claim to be concerned about pollution insist on driving everywhere. Car numbers have doubled in the last few decades and monster trucks are everywhere. Couple that with the vast majority of journeys are by people going less than a couple of miles and that is the cause of gridlock, it is laughable to try and blame traffic on bus or bike lanes. And before all the whataboutary starts, the people that genuinely need to be on the road; disabled, emergency services and some of trades represents about 30 % at most, of all the traffic. VG1 and VG2 have worked well, walk or cycle by the wonderful flower beds and appreciate what can be done in towns if we make space for community instead of traffic. The final stage will continue this good work and will show that a historic town looks much nicer and is safer and cleaner without traffic everywhere.
100% agree!
Bus drivers disagree about Valley Gardens.
And the ‘wonderful flower beds’…you mean weeds, tree stumps, litter and tents?
And bikes lanes do cause congestion – try heading west from the Pier in the evening rush hour : traffic was fine before the little used and totally unnecessary westbound bike lane was installed. Replacing a roundabout with traffic lights ….yeah, that’s gonna work fine!
You’re having a laugh, V1/2 have not worked, gridlocked around St Peters Place, no dedicated bus lanes and bus journey times have increased and still some services need to be terminated short of their intended destination, bus services diverted, cancelled or delayed is order of the day.
No Mi, V1/2 have not worked for Bus users.
Although interestingly, Brighton doesn’t follow car ownership trends, the city has generally remained at the same percentage over the last few decades, whereas other places have generally increased, according to reports.
Yes. The full array of wonderful colours that adorn VG2 every summer. Great for dogs or the colourblind amongst us.
Mr Farmer has had repeated opportunities to make a difference to the city by standing for election as councillor. Each time he has been unsuccessful. It would seem that the issues that he repeatedly raises are not as popular with his fellow residents as he seems to think, given that they repeatedly do not vote for him.
Personally, I don’t think he won many friends with those tweets that were flagged by Stand Up to Racism, then attempted to justify his comments by saying he was “married to a legal migrant”, insinuating that you get a free pass if that happens. https://www.brightonandhovenews.org/2025/04/22/election-candidate-deletes-twitter-account/