With almost no chance of amending Labour’s council budget proposals, the Brighton and Hove Independents called for spending to be reined in on a project known as Valley Gardens Phase 3.
Councillor Bridget Fishleigh said that Brighton and Hove City Council should “stop the implementation of the current design of Valley Gardens Phase 3” – also known as VG3.
She urged the council to work with the Coast to Capital Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) come up with a better scheme design that could be delivered using just the £6 million LEP grant.
Here is an edited version of what Councillor Fishleigh told the council’s annual budget meeting today (Thursday 22 February) …
I am here to propose this amendment and to ask for a last-minute change of mind about proceeding with the current Valley Gardens 3 scheme.
Just a few weeks ago in this room, we were told that Valley Gardens 3 would be a success because stages 1 and 2 had been.
But what is the evidence for this success? Is it the flooded pavements? Is it the seasonal planting that we have no resources to maintain?
Is it forcing vehicles to make convoluted journeys along Church Street to reach the North Laine, creating more congestion and pollution?
The biggest “benefit” has in fact been to create a bus gate that does nothing to improve bus journey times but continues to confuse drivers and has generated £5 million in fines and rising.
However, we’re not here to talk about stages 1 and 2. The reason I mention them is because to compare the first two stages to VG3 is like comparing a marathon to a leisurely stroll.
I am incredulous that having been given a gilt-edged opportunity to draw a line under the colossal policy making blunders of the previous Green administration, our new Labour council is instead blithely going with the flow re Valley Gardens 3 – except there will be precious little “flow” from a traffic standpoint.
Despite Labour’s rhetoric about “listening to residents”, Councillor Muten took this decision to move forward with VG3 before meeting in person with the Valley Gardens Forum which represents thousands of local residents and businesses.
He found time to meet in person with the various cycling lobby groups but had no time to engage with for example the Palace Pier, the Pavilion Surgery, St James’s Street Traders, Old Steine Residents Association, Brighton and Hove Taxis or indeed any members of the Valley Gardens Forum.
Moreover, he didn’t bother – or instruct officers – to consult with the LEP, to establish that the LEP has always been open to a conversation about the council keeping its £6 million grant for a scaled-down scheme. Where have we seen this kind of commercial naivety before?
I understand why provision for cyclists like myself should be integral to improving the city centre. The area can be difficult to navigate by bike and, yes, it needs a spruce up.
But not at the cost of destroying livelihoods, baking in increased congestion and increasing risks for pedestrians.
My house also needs redecorating – but I’m not going to knock it down and rebuild it to a rubbish plan just because someone offers to pay half of the cost.
Here are some facts about this scheme that need to be on the record – for the public to understand and remember for the future.
The council’s own external transport consultants have said that VG3 will increase congestion and pollution.
The bus company and BusWatch user group have said that it will delay and lengthen bus journeys.
If you’re not interested in what I’ve got to say then surely you are interested in what BusWatch wrote only last month. Its view, and I quote, is that VG3 is “the worst possible scheme for buses and passengers in Brighton for half a century”.
We cannot see how the current plans can be reconciled with council policy to promote more use of the bus services.
My next point is that this “sustainable” initiative has never had an environmental impact assessment. Is this because the people pushing it through know that the results would be damming?
A (motion) to appoint a genuinely independent traffic consultant to assess the scheme was also refused. Again, because the powers that be know that they wouldn’t like the outcome.
I am very aware that, as independents, Mark (Earthey) and I have the luxury of not being whipped by our party. However, this really is the last chance that we as a chamber will have to avert what all the evidence points to as being another avertable disaster for our city.
There are two other reasons why I’m pleading with you to put the city before your party.
Our visitor economy cannot afford the decimation of two years of major roadworks. Many of the businesses that rely on tourists are already on their knees financially due to the lockdowns, train strikes and “cost of living crisis”.
This council can’t afford it. Almost £1 million has already been spent on planning VG3 without a hole being dug. The cost of £12.8 million was estimated way before building costs escalated.
Many of you probably don’t know that the Black Rock regeneration project has gone £3 million over its initial £12 million budget. Why won’t the council learn from its past financial errors?
Councillor Muten told me that the scheme would be “value engineered” to save money. Please note that “value engineering” has been described as the very thing that caused the Grenfell Tower tragedy, with corporate bodies putting profit before safety.
For me personally, Valley Gardens 3 won’t affect my life. I have a 16-year-old Mini that does about 20 miles a week. I ride my bike and use the bus.
My economic prosperity is not reliant on the city’s success. I won’t be breathing in the pollution VG3 creates.
The reason I have spoken out against the current VG3 scheme for four years now is because it will be
- bad for the city
- bad for residents
- bad for businesses
- bad for visitors
- bad for buses
- bad for people who have to drive in the area such as trades people, delivery drivers and the less able
- bad for the environment
- bad for council coffers
This Labour administration has stated that it “owns” Valley Gardens 3. I respect the fact that it is standing up and taking ownership. But does it really have to own this version of the development?
Our amendment isn’t about ditching VG3 entirely.
The LEP has said that it is open to a conversation about a scaled-down scheme. Let’s keep the grant to bring improvements, cancel the loan and use the interest and £1.8 million from the council’s “local transport plan” pot to improve our existing roads and frontline services.
The money has left the LEP’s books and is in the council’s accounts.
Talk of having to repay the £6 million grant and the money going away is inaccurate and misplaced. The LEP don’t want it back. Too much paperwork. And, as I said earlier, it’s a shame that Councillor Muten never had that discussion with the LEP.
So please, when you vote on our amendment, consider what I have said. And also what Councillor Muten said this week: that the council’s aim is to keep traffic moving and limit congestion. I repeat your own consultants have said that VG3 won’t achieve this.
If you care about our city’s economic prosperity, then please support our amendment or you will end up leaving your own disastrous legacy to our city that will be on a par with the ongoing trauma of the i360 debacle.
Labour and Green councillors might not clap me when I sit down but I know that Mark and I are being cheered on by the people of Ovingdean, Rottingdean and West Saltdean as well as thousands of residents across the city.
That image is not current as it shows the cycle lane on East side of Old Steine.
I watched the live stream for the council budget meeting last night and I’d say that Councillor Fishleigh gave one of the more eloquent speeches of the evening, rationally pointing to all the drawbacks of the VG3 plan.
Her amendment fell, just like her words fell on deaf ears, and that’s because the current way of funding things means the Valley Gardens plans have long been a juggernaut which cannot be stopped.
The amendment proposed to redirect some of the VG3 funding elsewhere, but that was never going to pass given the difficulty Labour already have had in getting this budget on the table, and with the need for so many cuts across the board. With VG3 they couldn’t risk losing what funding they had already been promised.
Last night’s council meeting was really one to rubber stamp a financial package which had already been decided, and so a lot of the other speeches just came across as hot air. In fairness, the chair did a wonderful job in keeping the meeting civil, and in ensuring that speakers kept within their allotted speaking time.
But what we are left with is this VG3 package and a new road scheme which will end up looking like the fantasy drawings included in this article – which on first glance might look quite nice, but note that few cars or buses are shown.
On the face of it, the new Palace Pier junction will have lots of pedestrianised areas, and direct cycle lanes, but with a more restricted space for commuter and visitor traffic and for the bus routes using this space. There seems to be no concern that this junction is where two major roads meet, or that the A259 seafront road is already the last remaining cross city route for essential traffic.
There also seems to be no allowance at this junction that many visitors currently arriving in the city choose Madeira Drive as their first parking option, as do the visitor coaches. As the drawings stand, Madeira drive becomes almost inaccessible for coaches, cars, and delivery vehicles.
All walkers and cycles are now directed unnecessarily straight at this busy junction. The new traffic lights mean that just one pedestrian can now stop all the traffic. This will in turn mean non moving traffic all along the seafront with rush hour tailbacks set up all the way to Hove and to Rottingdean.
There is no separate provision for getting the buses and taxis across this junction.
No alternative routes have been identified to avoid these problems. No park and ride schemes.
All parties seem to have knowingly voted for this madness, purely on the basis of the funding pot that was promised. It seems inevitable now that the road scheme will start, with all the traffic disruption that goes with that work. And then later, with the city transport in complete gridlock, they will have to rip up whole sections and start again. Watch the costs then double or triple.
We certainly don’t mind when the city centre gets refurbished. The problem is with this seafront road layout which is an obvious act of self harm.
@Billy+Short – please stop talking sense. You are not allowed to talk sense with this junction.
I love the little right turn arrow in the middle of that picture. And the total lack of cars. This will be a constant thick line of traffic with people failing to be able to turn from sea front right across that junction. I assume there is some kind of magic futuristic transporter beam that makes all the traffic dissapear.
We need to start taking bets as to which of these three directions will have the longest line of traffic.
Kamikaze Brighton…
Something dodgy happening here. The council’s own study shows:
Congestion gets a little worse (about 50s over the course of the day)
Buses are a little better (about 2mins over the course of the day)
Pedestrian safety is apparently a bit better (but they won’t say why or how much by)
Collision risk is apparently a bit worse (but they won’t say why or how much by)
The council did not bother with air pollution or noise studies.
So for your £7m quid of Brighton money (ignore the government grant), you get basically no change…
I wonder who is really benefitting from this? There must be a reason why this administration needs this to happen so much? Is it the same chumocracy as other contracts in the city? Mates helping mates with a dash of corporate welfare? Are ‘gifts’ exchanging hands?
At the end of the day it is either corruption or incompetance or both. Take your pick…