A group of Hanover residents said that a proposed “low-traffic neighbourhood” for their area is not as green as they were initially told.
And the firm behind the designs also runs the council’s parking enforcement service and “will profit enormously from the fines that will be generated from the surveillance cameras in our neighbourhood”.
The residents are calling for a pause and a rethink of the proposed low-traffic neighbourhood – or LTN – because the scheme which is currently the subject of a consultation is more traffic-led than greening.
From what was said at public meetings, residents said that they understood the project would bring pocket parks and more trees to their streets.
But now a public consultation is under way, the neighbours said that they were disappointed that just two pocket parks had been included in the proposed layout.
There are also concerns that proposed road closures and changes to one-way streets would mean more pollution in the area.
Those residents who use cars and vans for work would have to make longer journeys to leave Hanover – and when they return.
People at a residents’ meeting on Tuesday (26 July) said that they were not pro-car because they did not use cars to travel within Brighton and Hove but for work or long journeys only.
Their concerns were about how the low-traffic neighbourhood is implemented, the effect on air quality, with people spending longer driving in and out of the area, and increased traffic on the boundaries.
Lucy Dunkeyson, who created the Improve or Stop the Hanover LTN Facebook group, has designed an alternative “light touch” scheme, with 18 pocket parks instead of two.
Her proposals would remove road closures but add an electronic speed indicator and signs saying: “Welcome to Hanover. Please drive carefully.” It would also include speed bumps and other traffic-calming measures.
She said: “There are some streets that have a problem but the council implies the whole of Hanover has a terrible problem. There are issues at Carlton Hill. The council plans will increase those problems.”
Fiona MacDougall, who has a child at Elm Grove Primary School and another at the Pepperpot Nursery, is concerned that people are not getting the project they were sold.
She said: “They went to Elm Grove Primary school and got the children to draw their dream streets. Now they’re being excluded. We’ve been mis-sold. This is going to have us driving around in circles.”
Her comments were backed by Queen’s Park Road resident Chris Beaumont who said: “It has morphed from planting trees, including benches, maybe some build-outs.
“‘What would you like to see?’ That’s how it started. Now it’s become something completely different.”
Alex Sutton-Vane, from Workshops for the Imagination, in Islingword Road, said that he was frustrated that he and other businesses in the area were not approached directly as part of the consultation.
He said: “I’m just staggered no one has consulted any of the shops or businesses up there about any of these proposals.
“It would be absolutely devastating for them in terms of deliveries and collections. To close off the top of Islingword Road and the bottom end is just completely bonkers. There are about 85 commercial deliveries a day along there alone.”
The current proposals in the public consultation have a pocket park outside the parade at the top of Islingword Road, which includes a busy post office, pharmacy and doctors’ surgery.
Mr Sutton-Vane said that the proposed pocket park would result in the loss of a disabled bay and doctor’s parking space and would cause issues with security vans reaching the post office.
Philip Hartstein, an architectural administrator who lives in a street off Elm Grove, was concerned about proposals to introduce two-way traffic while closing one end of his road, resulting in more pollution.
He was concerned about the design by the Project Centre which he said, had a framework agreement as a regular council contractor, but was not accredited by the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA).
He said: “They are part of the Marston Holdings Group, the parent company for NSL who run our penalty parking charges.
“They will profit enormously from the fines that will be generated from the surveillance cameras in our neighbourhood.
“Project Centre has no design credentials and no architects I can find through my friends at RIBA.”
The Improve or Stop the Hanover LTN campaigners are considering sending a deputation to the council and starting a petition to share their concerns.
They are mounting a campaign to ensure more people attend the public events to see the proposals.
Public drop-in sessions are due to take place at the Phoenix Art Space, in Waterloo Place, on Monday 16 August from noon to 3pm and on Tuesday 30 August from 2pm to 5pm.
Other drop-in sessions are scheduled to take place at the Hanover Community Centre, in Southover Street, on Thursday 18 August and Wednesday 24 August from 4pm to 7pm and on Saturday 27 August from 11am to 2pm.
The online public consultation is open until Sunday 11 September on the council website.
The scorpion and the frog….
Islingword Road is one of the weirdest parts of this plan. So many deliveries will now be sent around all the narrow steep roads instead of simple in \ out routes they have now.
Why does everything Greens are involved with planning cause so much more pollution?
Glad to see the residents of Hanover are finally waking up to the ‘white elephant’ that the council and Green activists are trying to foist upon them. Hanover is ideal for an LTN but the initial scope is far too large an area and certainly does not deliver what was promised. Elm Grove, which is already dangerous for cyclists and school children will become far worse.
Finally waking up? We’ve been fighting this for months.
We live in a City.
There will always be traffic.
Lots.
Proposed? That makes it sound as though we have a choice about whether it is implemented. We don’t. This is being foisted upon us. It is the worst scheme and will cut Hanover off from the rest of Brighton and will increase pollution. It’s idiotic and we have no way of rejecting it. This is not a democracy.
We can’t ban the bomb- we have to live with it – likewise cars – and no – we can’t all get on our bikes (by the way the Tardis has landed in Whichelo Place – i.e. the first bike hangar). I may vote Green but don’t always think this party is realistic. Perhaps the Green Party (our Council) could concentrate on the biggest problem in Brighton – refuse collection and litter in the streets. Please concern yourselves with a major litter and refuse problem. Thanks.
Kris Wardle
Interesting that you vote ‘Green’, I don’t want to be rude, but if you don’t think they are realistic and want basic services like rubbish dealt with why vote for them?
ACCESSIBILITY!!!? The plans are totally crazy and completely forget about people that struggle either physically or with their mental health. To go ahead with these plans, to be “green” will create a whole inaccessible area. Exclusive and not inclusive. As a therapist that drives to homes in the area to pick up young people who would otherwise not leave their homes the entire plan is madness.
Please stop wasting valuable time and money on this and plough it into a workable mental health system for Brighton residents.
Ask why the study for a scheme that increases carbon GreenHouse Gases, is funded from the Climate Emergency Fund ?
Where does its climate impact figure in the Terms of Reference?
I’m so glad I left Brighton.
What a dump.
Suck it up boys and girls, you voted this crowd in. Now what has been damaging the rest of the city for years starts to affect you and you squeal like a stuck pig. The irony is delicious.
Er no we didn’t vote them in, they got in by default.
Thus plan will make dude Road residents cut off from local shop amenities by car as 60%residents over 60 need car and direct access to marina queens Park drs etc will have to drive or cycle 1mile more and the area will be more polluted.the side streets are quite but will become rat runs.Elm grove school will need to plant lots trees to a
absorb carbon fumes.no extra buses have been proposed which I think would be essential.we dont need more play Areas as have queens Park racehill Saunders Park the level and william clarke park and back gardens I totally am against this plan as waste of taxpayers mo ney a d not green at all.. get bins and refuse collection sorted first