Fourteen councillors have put their name to a request for a second look at the decision to turn the western end of Western Road into a red route.
The request follows the decision to push ahead with the scheme by Brighton and Hove City Council’s cabinet on Thursday 17 September.
If officials accept the request for a call in, the decision will be questioned at a meeting of the council’s Place Overview and Scrutiny Committee.
Conservative councillor Alistair McNair and Green councillor Ollie Sykes were among the five Tory, seven Green and two Independent councillors who put their name to the request.
At a public meeting, Councillors McNair and Sykes heard first-hand some of the opposition to the red route from traders and residents in the area affected – between Holland Road and Montpelier Road.
Those at the meeting said that the council’s stated reason for turning the road into a red route kept changing. At various times, the council had said that a red route would make it easier to tackle problem parking, improve safety, speed up bus journeys and reduce congestion.
Those objecting to the scheme said that it would reduce access for people with disabilities, make it harder for loading and unloading to take place safely and legally and would ultimately lead to businesses closing.
They said that the character of the road was different to Lewes Road and London Road – main A roads into and out of Brighton – where previous red routes were created.
And they said that the council made the decision without carrying out an economic impact assessment because the real aim was to make money from camera-generated fines.
At the public meeting earlier this month, traders also called for better enforcement of problem parking and said that the few proposed disabled parking and loading bays were inadequate.
They said that the current yellow lines allowed loading and unloading and for people to be picked up and dropped off other than in a few short stretches of the road.
The call-in process is required by the Local Government Act and the way that it operates in Brighton and Hove is set out in the council’s constitution.
The constitution says: “Call-in is the process whereby a key decision taken but not implemented may be examined by an Overview and Scrutiny Committee prior to implementation.
“The Overview and Scrutiny Committee may recommend that the executive reconsider the decision. “The process for call-in (is) six members of the council, including members from at least two political groups or at least one political group plus an independent member or members can call in a key decision of the executive which has been taken but not implemented.
“Key decisions of the executive shall not be implemented for five clear working days following the publication of the decision and a decision can only be called in during this period.
“This rule does not apply to urgent decisions. The notice of the decision will state the date on which the decisions may be implemented if not called in.
“Call-in must be by notification to the chief executive in writing signed by at least six members.”
A call-in request cannot be used just to delay the implementation of a decision. The request must include a valid reason.
The constitution says: “The chief executive, following consultation with the monitoring officer, will consider all call-in requests and may reject requests that do not meet the requirements.”
If a request is accepted, the Overview and Scrutiny Committee should meet within seven working days of the request being received by the chief executive.
The email sent to the chief executive about the red route decision said that the red route decision should be called in because of the absence of sufficient evidence on which to base a decision.
The reasons given were
- No Western Road-specific evidence supports the scheme’s stated primary objective.
- The report’s summary of the consultation was partial and no written comments including those from businesses were provided
- The loading provision is not tested against the council’s own evidence of demand
- The economic effect of the scheme is to be assessed only after it is in place
The signatories were all five Conservative councillors – Alistair McNair, Anne Meadows, Carol Theobald, Emma Hogan and Ivan Lyons.
Seven Green councillors supported the call-in request. They were Ollie Sykes, Marina Lademacher, Pete West, Steve Davis, Ellen McLeay, Bruno de Oliveira and Chloe Goldsmith.
Brighton and Hove Independent councillor Mark Earthey and Independent councillor Samer Bagaeen also backed the request.
BHCC transport dept doesn’t care about the disabled.
They only care about cyclists. Appalling decision .
Muten has to resign
Trevor Muten was not allowed to vote on this decision for legal reasons. These councillors made the decision:
Councillor Bella Sankey (Chair)
Councillor Jacob Taylor (Deputy Chair)
Councillor Mitchie Alexander
Councillor Jacob Allen
Councillor Emma Daniel
Councillor David McGregor
Councillor Alan Robins
Councillor Tim Rowkins
Councillor Gill Williams
Why do you use several very different names, by the way?
How can you know that? Unless you work at the site?
Good question. Let me pose it to you this way, if I changed my name right now, how would you know it was still me?
I wouldn’t….
Do I detect a hint of paranoia, Benjy Boy?
Just wondering why you feel the need to deceive people, Charlie?
Benjamin I absolutely no idea who you are – and absolutely no wish to know – but I have seen your previous comments on another article where got very upset with Cllr Lyons the other day when he suggested he knew and that you should be open about it. He did not actually name you, but nevertheless you said he was bullying and doxxing you. And yet here and in other comments you seem to being going far further that he did with others who comment – apparently just because they disagree with you or have more than one account.
I’m sure you will think you have some very good reason for doing so – but perhaps some self-reflection might be in order?
A Ward Councillor, who is to be held to Nolan principles and the Code of Conduct, threatening to doxx someone when he is factchecked, and a commenter calling out someone who frequently changes between three distinct names, are two very different things, I’m sure you will agree.
You know me well, I certainly do have a reason why it’s important. Take a look at the sheer number of sockpuppet aliases that was used in the previous discussions about the RR as an example of why it’s a problem. What about if I used multiple alias’ to make it look like more people supported my views and hid the fact I was doing that, you’d quite rightly call me out for being deceptive and manipulating people, right?
Anyway, it was a genuine question, maybe he has three people at home, and they share email addresses?
I do not know you at all Benjamin – apart from through your comments on this forum. Although if you do think that is how people ‘know you well’ I would suggest that is concerning in itself.
I’m sure you think that is a good justification, but just because you know how to use a gravatar hash works it does not mean you should use it in your comments on here. For instance, I did notice that you used my name on a discussion the other day that I did not participate in. Can I gently suggest getting off this forum and getting out in nature? You might find that the world is a much nicer place.
Question for Toto: why do you think its ok for commentators on here to constantly change aliases often multiple times within the same thread? Can you not see that becomes a problem in regards to the quality, trust and honesty of discussions?
JakD, I’d suggest that you reread my comments. I didn’t say anything about whether people should use multiple names on the same thread. It is not something I’ve ever done myself and the site’s moderators are best placed to deal with that. Concerns should be raised with them.
My point was about doxxing. Benjamin was upset when Cllr Lyons suggested he knew who he was, and called it bullying. Yet he has hinted he can identify other commenters, attributed names to people, and used my name on a thread I hadn’t taken part in. I’m only asking for the same standard he wanted applied to himself. Question for you JakD (which I assume is not your real name): are you are defending Benjamin naming people?
I can’t comment on the other post as I don’t know what that pertains to, but I will answer to your specific point regarding doxxing. In short, I don’t see that as what is happening. My understanding is Benjamin is referring to those commentators who use multiple aliases by one of their other aliases, the names of which they have willingly assigned to themselves. There is therefore no new personally identifiable information being given, purely highlighting that they can’t hide behind multiple aliases as well as they might think they can.
I know that B&H News are aware of this issue because I remember one post recently where they posted in the comments to be aware that there a number of sockpuppet aliases identifed. The fact that they highlighted it shows that it is indeed a problem.
However, if Benjamin has indeed released personally identifiable information about people that wasn’t already available as part of their alias then that is a different scenario and, no I wouldn’t defend that. I don’t see evidence of that but perhaps you are privy to information that I am unaware of?
Get it done, they ve only themselves to blame
There have been very few vehicles parked along this stretch of Western Road on the two occasions I have walked along in the past two days, morning or evening and certainly no pavement parking by any but delivery scooters/e-bikes, which the Red Route won’t stop. This appears to be a manufactured problem in order to impose a disproportionate solution which will harm residents and businesses. In order for the council to print money.
There were six outside the florist when I went past last night. What’s your point Trace?
And what if there are a few vehicles parked outside the shops occasionally? It’s a WIDE road and businesses need to be supported.
The council’s previous “improvements” to Western Road from Churchill Square to Taj, NARROWING THE ROAD to the point that buses can NO LONGER OVERTAKE one another served to OBSTRUCT AND DELAY bus services.
This action DOES NOT MATCH what the council claim to be trying to achieve with the new RED ROUTE proposal, further along Western Road, aka speeding bus services up!
Could the council therefore clarify WHY they have spent undisclosed £millions on a scheme to slow buses down on the previous Western Road improvements, but now claim they want to speed buses up?
There have been quite a few vehicles parked along this stretch of Western Road on the multiple occasions I have in the past month, at various times of the day, and pavement parking by any but delivery scooters/e-bikes, which the Red Route can fine for, so will stop.
This appears to be a clean solution to a problem which will harm those who choose to break the law, ultimately benefiting residents of Brighton and Hove with the much requested better roads, as the ringfencing rules allow.
Rubbish! It is of no benefit to residents, shop owners or visitors. Buses can’t go speeding along this stretch of road anyway and as a bus user with no car I have never seen a bus held up by a parked car on this stretch.
This is solely a money making scheme by the Council.
Fines are allowed to be used on road maintenance, so there is a clear benefit to residents, who, especially on here, have been clear potholes are a concern. The council legally can’t use it to “make-money.”
Tracy, incorrect again. As per usual
There is no justification for any call-in. Just because a vocal minority didn’t get their own way is not a valid reason. The illegal, antisocial parking is a bigger barrier to disabled access than any red route. Get on and implement it as soon as possible please.
Vocal majority actually. Unless you count all the individuals who still have no idea what’s going on and how it’s going to affect them personally in accessing and supporting local businesses until it’s potentially too late because they’ve never been properly consulted. Without being informed, informed consent cannot take place.
Bold take for you of all people to talk about being informed, Tracy, considering how wilfully ignorant the vocal majority of your comments end up being. There’s no evidence that consultation has been in question.
If it gets rejected or accepted, at least it won’t be a political decision…hmm, it could go either way, but realistically, this is only going to delay the process, not stop it, and a lot of what’s been asked for can be explained by the fact it is an experimental traffic order; so the claims for evidence are strengthened through that process, even if they are generic now.
Our lives are not the council’s to “experiment” on Benjamin. A six month experimental traffic order (ETRO) is enough to close multiple Western Road businesses and do a LOT of damage, and with NO compensation offered. To pretend an ETRO is harmless or any kind of alternative to a full city consultation/referendum is frankly an insult. Plus if resident and business objections are being ignored now, how is that situation going to change post-ETRO?
Nope, because the global peer-reviewed research that already exists shows that RR have minimal effect on businesses. And to repeat this point towards you – yet again – that’s not an argument against RR.
What global peer-reviewed research? Plus no two countries/areas are the same so there is no one-size-fits-all to copy and paste all over the world. Decisions need to be made on a case-by-case basis with the full knowledge, involvement and support of the residents.
I’d recommend you go back and read every time you’ve made that comment in which I’ve provided you the link to several pieces and a metanalysis. It’s perfectly reasonable to establish trends on similar situations. Personal incredulity remains a substantial weakness for you – you can’t just argue nuance when it suits you, then ignore it when it doesn’t. Makes your arguments hypocritical.
References and citations please
Of course, these all point to the same conclusion:
“There is little evidence for the assumption that restricting kerbside parking necessarily harms local businesses. UK research and wider systematic evidence generally finds either neutral or positive commercial effects from reallocating road space and improving pedestrian environments, while retailers tend to overestimate both the proportion of customers arriving by car and the importance of adjacent parking. The important consideration for a red route is therefore not simply whether stopping is restricted, but whether appropriate loading, disabled access and short-stay provision are designed into the scheme.”
Carmona et al. (2018), “Street appeal: The value of street improvements”, Progress in Planning.
Lawlor (2013), The Pedestrian Pound, Living Streets.
Whitehead, Simmonds & Preston (2006), “The effect of urban quality improvements on economic activity”, Journal of Environmental Management.
Volker & Handy (2021), “Economic impacts on local businesses of investments in bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure: a review of the evidence”, Transport Reviews.
There’s older stuff from TfL too that suggests the same, but 20 years is likely a bit out of date to be relevant.
Well, this is interesting.
Five Conservatives, seven Greens and two Independents joining forces to call in the Western Road decision. One might almost think that opposition parties occasionally putting aside their differences to scrutinise those in power is precisely how local democracy is supposed to work.
And so the matter may now proceed to the Place Overview and Scrutiny Committee.
One does, of course, need reminding who chairs that august body.
Ah yes. Labour Councillor Amanda Evans, with another Labour councillor as her deputy and a Labour majority on the committee.
Nothing says robust, independent scrutiny of a Labour Cabinet quite like that particular arrangement.
I am sure everyone will approach proceedings with impeccable independence. One merely wonders why the architecture of scrutiny requires quite so much faith from the audience.
Lady Bracknell, from the stalls.
You do make good points about scrutiny but on this occasion, the overall majority of people are for this scheme. Prevarication is not conducive to getting on and running a local authority. The ultimate accountability is the ballot box. We await the results and consequences. My opinion is that, aside from the road closure being phased, footfall will improve. Despite Tracy’s assertions, as a blue badge holder with mobility issues, I welcome the implementation of the measures. Read the legislation for yourself and don’t believe the untruths disseminated by the very people who caused the problems in the first place. If you don’t park illegally, there will be no consequences.
Ann, why thank you – and I certainly wouldn’t presume to argue with your own experience as a blue badge holder.
Where we may differ is on “prevarication”. Good scrutiny is not the enemy of getting things done. If a decision is sound, properly evidenced and commands the support suggested, surely it should survive a little “independent” scrutiny perfectly comfortably.
And on your final point we are entirely agreed: the ultimate accountability is indeed the ballot box. After yesterday’s events in Queen’s Park, one suspects councillors of every persuasion may be paying rather closer attention to that particular mechanism.
Yours,
Augusta
My dear Augusta,
I am beginning to wonder whether we should stop pretending that your interest in Jacobs is entirely coincidental.
First the not-so-young Jacob, and now your favourite Woodingdean whippersnapper, young Jacob Allen. Two councillors, both Jacobs, and both apparently attracting rather more of your attention than the average member of the council.
The not-so-young Jacob has certainly provided us with material for scrutiny: parking figures that turned out to be wrong, the brisk U-turn over toilet charges, and the memorable assurance that 1,156 parents had been emailed when, as it subsequently emerged, the email had reached not a single one of them.
And now Western Road gives us blue-badge access, buses, parking and loading to scrutinise as well. One rather hopes the lessons of the not-so-young Jacob will encourage a little more scrutiny before decisions are made, rather than explanations afterwards.
Which brings me neatly back to your observation from Queen’s Park today that the ballot box is the ultimate accountability.
Quite so.
Although I suspect young Jacob Allen, being only 27 and apparently your current Jacob of choice, has rather more time than his namesake to demonstrate that he has understood the distinction between scrutiny and accountability.
I shall say no more.
Two Jacobs in one political drama is quite enough.
I mustn’t give you the impression that I am jealous.
Although I fear the evidence is becoming rather overwhelming.
Yours, with fondness and an entirely reasonable suspicion about your taste in Jacobs,
Viscount Biscuit
Dearest Augusta
I concur with scrutiny and the need for objectivity and independence. However, this initiative has passed all regulatory examination through the correct procedures. Surely the time for calling it in is when all the evidence is garnered which is part of the reason that the red route is a temporary, experimental order? My comment regarding prevarication is exactly that. A vocal minority are trying to hold the wider community to ransom. Dare I venture to say that some opportunistic politicians have jumped on the bandwagon to further their own interests.
Those that protest have disseminated false information to create alarmscaremonger and promote their agenda. In time, the truth will out along.
Respectfully yours
Ann
Dearest Ann,
A thoughtful response which comes as no surprise. Thank you. And one certainly agrees that an experiment is, by definition, intended to gather evidence rather than prove a predetermined conclusion.
But therein lies my little unease.
If the evidence is to be gathered during the experiment, it seems perfectly reasonable for scrutiny to ask whether the evidence available before embarking upon it was sufficient to justify doing so, whether the alternatives were properly considered, and precisely what success or failure will look like.
Sometimes the irritating people asking awkward questions turn out to be wrong. Occasionally, inconveniently, they turn out to have a point.
That is rather what scrutiny is for.
As for political opportunism, misinformation and the various motives of those involved, I shall leave others to wrestle with those particular handbags. One has quite enough luggage already.
Yours truly,
Augusta
This is a road of sections: the Montpelier to Waterloo Street is awash with parking on the south side, at its narrowest point. After that the cars come and go, as one might expect of a road with shops.
The Council refuse in enforce the current parking restrictions but are willing to enforce draconian ones… it makes no sense whatsoever. They say that they cannot use cameras now, but they can later, if it’s a red route.
Jane, there are restrictions in place but they are limited and ignored. As it stands , enforcement is being circumvented. A red route is not Draconian but necessary because of irresponsible behaviour. It will increase access to businesses.
RR doesn’t change the enforcement rules for parking on the road, Jane. It simply enforces them immediately. You never were allowed to park on double yellows.
This is untrue. Blue badge holders can park on double yellows for 3 hours and you can load and unload on them as well legally. Traffic wardens also can use their discretion. If someone is unloading kitchen units or flower deliveries this can take some time. So absolutely red lines do change the parking rules.
Certainly, drivers with exceptions, like BBs will have changes, but I believe I’ve asked you this before: is that not just a – very reasonable – argument to ensure the design includes a good number of loading, short-stay bays, and disabled bays?
The section from.Montpellier to Waterloo is full.with business owners cars. Especially the ones near Bedford place.
As someone who gave up on western road for shopping many years ago I feel ill placed to comment. But as someone who might be counted as neutral I will observe that there seems to be genuine concerns from many people and little being done to assuage those concerns. It seems more like an excuse for revenue raising and maybe more anti-car practices. I am sure that having sufficient numbers of traffic wardens handing out tickets would be more effective and less emotional?
Chris, the current restrictions are being ignored on a daily basis. The enforcement officers must wait 5 minutes before issuing any ticket. Then they are subjected to intimidation. The red route is not a revenue generator as the simple solution is don’t park illegally. It improves disability access to shops by clearing the pavements for pedestrians. Also it increases visibility and safety for crossing the road. Given the excellent bus services in the city, I question the obsessive cries of necessity for owning a car. Certainly the ones permanently parked on this section of Western Road do not appear to fit that criteria.
The issue is from the stats is that traffic wardens are rarely on the street and as for suffering intimidation we have never seen this. They are very well protected with cameras and direct emergency button and there are very stiff penalties if you abuse them. Secondly, it is simply not true they can instant ticket. They can on the sections with pavement markings which is most of the north side apart from the single yellow line section. If there is a specific area of concern using pavement parking more extensively would be an option the council could explore instead of a red route as cars know they must avoid them.
A small army of traffic wardens wouldn’t help, because of the loophole, and it would be a prohibitively expensive way of enforcement in comparison. Did they not address the reason why they felt pavement markings would not work at the meeting? Pretty sure it came up in answer to a public question?
Just because you haven’t seen intimidation does mean it doesnt happen..I’m guessing youre not near to the wardens, so dont hear whats said. Also i’m sure you dont see everytime they are down that way. Stupid comment really.
Brighton’s dead. All those empty, dilapidated shop fronts on western Rd and the council’s response is to make operating there harder? Probably got a long term goal of rewilding the area. It’s depressing to see the place turn into a repository for the wet dreams of dull, “liberal” elites. Mind you, if they can stop parking down there, it’ll help justify a 6ft cycle lane. Still cracks me up how few cyclists you see down madeira drive. These days, Bristol beats brighton as a destination, hands down. Sad, really; was always neck n neck.
JakD I’m not privy to any information apart from what has been posted on here. But from that I do know that Cllr Lyons said nothing more than ‘we all know who you really are’. He revealed no alias and no identifying information at all, yet Benjamin called that doxxing and bullying.
Meanwhile Benjamin told one commenter, who had just criticised him and wasn’t using multiple names, ‘Are you aware that your profile picture is like a fingerprint? Even without one set, it’s unique to you!’ He told another, ‘I know more about you [individual’s name] than you do about me; the benefit of the internet.’ And, as previously mentioned, he named me under a post I hadn’t even commented on. None of these is about posters using more than one identity to post on the same thread.
All I’m asking is that he meets the standard he expects others to apply to him. I do hope he is reflecting on that. I also hope that those who run this site are acting on those using multiple identities to make it sound like more people agree with them. But I don’t think that requires the approach Benjamin has been taking.
To be fair to Benjamin, his comments on here are usually informative, reasoned & well-articulated. Sometimes they can come across as a bit haughty & a tad condescending but I put that down to irritation and frustration rather than arrogance. He often posts links as evidence to support his opinions.
That said, I would be not being supportive of any incidences that would be tantamount to bullying or harassment and I would expect the moderator to intervene. Although I would not venture to speak in their place m,I am of the opinion that Benjamin will be disappointed if he has erred in this area and failed to maintain his usually impeccable standards.
I would hope, moving forward, that we can all express our views & opinions without fear or concern. However, empirical research, experience and fact have to be available to underpin what is not always strictly true. Cllr Lyons should be aware of this, given his training and the strictures of his office.