More than 400 objections to proposals to allow traffic in a newly pedestrianised street are being discounted because they weren’t made through official channels.
Traders in Gardner Street put up posters with a QR code which, when scanned by a smartphone, created a draft email to Brighton and Hove City Council objecting to allowing traffic in the road again.
The shopping street was pedestrianised everyday from 11am to 5pm in November last year, with Green councillors voting in favour, Tories against and Labour abstaining.
However, Labour pledged to partially reopen the street to cars after lobbying by disability groups on behalf of resident Ann Ingle, who said the move meant she could not leave her house during these hours.
Ms Ingle, who has lived in Gardner Street for 15 years, told Brighton and Hove News she needs cars to be able to pull up outside her flat in the middle of the street as her condition means she can’t use a wheelchair.
The latest proposal, which will reduce the hours of pedestrianisation to Fridays to Sundays, is set to be approved on Tuesday by the transport and sustainability committee, which now has a Labour majority.
The report says 61.9% of people who responded to a consultation on these changes were in favour – but says of the 549 comments, 402 were being discounted.
All these said they objected to the reintroduction of motor vehicles from Monday to Sunday, giving the same reasons including reduced safety, reduced wheelchair access, increased pollution and impact on trading.
The report said: “These comments have been noted and are highlighted to the committee, but the information provided to the public is considered to be incorrect.
“The advertised QR code did not provide a link to the council’s consultation … Those responding to the comments were therefore not given all the information required to make an informed decision.”
Green councillor Ellen McLeay, who represents West Hill and North Laine, said: “From speaking to residents and traders in the North Laine it’s clear people want to see a solution that both supports independent businesses, the safety of pedestrians and that puts accessibility at its heart.
“It’s clear that finding a solution that meets everyone’s needs is by no means straightforward. But dismissing more than 400 objections on the grounds of a vague technicality is not the way to do it.
“We recognise this is a complex local issue so it is important that everyone is given the chance to express their opinions and feel they have been taken on board before any decision is made.
“For more than 400 comments to be discounted on what is a questionable technicality and with no flexibility gives the impression Labour does not want to hear alternative views.”
One of the traders whose comments are included in the report, who said he has been trading in Gardner Street since 2005, said: “One of the great things this year has been seeing the ease with which wheelchairs and buggies have been able to get through the North Laine, and how many more we have seen.
“There is something very Orwellian about the equalities officer telling us that the needs of one disabled resident is so much more important than everyone else’s disabilities, not to mention the 60 businesses, hundreds of staff and the rest of the city
“I would like to reach out to our neighbour opposite. We have always been very close to her, we still feel close to her, although recently she has distanced herself from us.
“She is still a friend, and I will never let anyone say anything bad about her, I care so much about her, but this situation clearly needs compromise. That compromise needs to be two way.”
Another says: “I feel it is abhorrent for business to be prioritised over the welfare and access of disabled individuals. I am also aware that there is a disabled resident trapped in their own home – this needs to end. There is no moral justification for this.”
Councillor Trevor Muten said: Councillor Trevor Muten said: “I remain shocked at the Green administration’s decision to entirely close Gardner Street to traffic, which wholly undermined the freedom of a disabled resident, who has been left stuck in their home for months.
“I’m disturbed that instead of apologising to the resident concerned and working with us, traders and residents to find a rational solution to this issue, the Greens are whipping up opposition to a reasonable compromise. Why does the Green Party show such disdain for disabled residents?
“The Labour administration are pleased to be proposing a workable compromise to ensure the vibrancy of this busy street in the heart of the North Laine is maintained, while also ensuring fair access for residents.
“The proposal will ensure that the street continues to be pedestrianised between 11am and 7pm on Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays and Bank Holidays.”
Can’t we just get Bricycles to fiddle the vote…..again?
The Greens loved it when they deliberately suppressed democracy, but now are crying about this.
Isn’t Karma wonderful.
Can’t wait for cllr Davis’s next column of mindless dribble saying how unfair everything is.
Just look at the photo and imagine you collapse in one of these premises with a heart attack or stroke or fall down the stairs at Komedia. The ambulance won’t reach you. The delay in starting treatment could mean the difference between life or death. Some of these businesses leave me with the impression that they don’t care about that. They just want your money. They genuinely don’t care about the disabled residents in their street, but the lady you mention is not the only one in Gardner Street who has severely limited mobility. The traders’ apparent heartlessness has put me and my family off shopping there.
We are not alone. One of my neighbours relies on a wheelchair when shopping. Since the chairs and tables have been allowed in the road, her family have been unable to take her along Gardner Street. Like us, they now shop and go to cafes elsewhere. If my family and my neighbours perceive the traders as so unwelcoming, I imagine others may also do so. When the traders become more inclusive and the street is more accessible, we might return.
Bollox Emma, that’s easy access. Don’t try to weaponise the ambulance service when you absolutely no idea.
Try in the middle of a field when the ground is damp and you’ve got an patient going into respiratory arrest from whatever cocktail of drugs they’ve taken, and the light is fading. That’s tricky access.
This is nothing.
“Ms Ingle, who has lived in Gardner Street…”. Has lived? Or does live?
It’s a difficult decision for the council to make. Keep the street open for traders, pedestrians, other people that require or prefer more accessible streets without vehicles, or close it off so that one resident (maybe – it’s not clear if they are still resident) has access.
Surely a compromise can be reached, where the majority of the street is pedestrianised except for an accessibility stretch for that resident, and where only a car for that resident (or emergency vehicles for other residents) is allowed access?
She does live there and has done so for 15 years.
Ah, that makes sense. The internet archive way back machine shows that the “for 15 years” bit was added in later update.
It’s not a valid technical issue though. Anyone can make 1 sided claims on any issue and put up posters telling people they vote a certain way. A coffee shop isn’t going to give a hoot about a disabled person who is trapped in their house if it means they sell 10 less coffees a day. This all comes back to the joke adminstration that put this street to pedestrian only without consulting properly on the first place
Signed off by Green leader, cllr Davis, who clearly has a contempt for the disabled.
The Greens don’t do consultation (unless it’s fixed ) or democracy.
Pathetic from the council
“Ann Ingle” can get down the stairs from her flat but can’t make it another 50 metres?
Stairs have handrails. Stairs can be fitted with stair lifts. Neither of these things applies to a public pavement.
Also, being able to travel a short distance does not mean you can also travel a longer distance. Even for non-disabled people. Somebody who can run for a bus might struggle with an ultramarathon.
These are basic obvious facts that even somebody with a great deal of ignorance should be able to comprehend.
But I suppose it’s easier to publicly vilify a disabled person than figure these things out for yourself.
Thehumn rights of the disabled Gardner St resident – and she is a resident – must come before greedy traders who litter the street with tables, chairs and other detritus, hampering pedestrian access especially for those in wheelchairs, people with pushchairs and small children and those with limited mobility.
Much better for those in wheelchairs, with pushchairs or small children to be run over by cars instead
Wheelchair users, people with small children and pushchairs use the pavement not the road so they’ll hardly be run over!
Do the traders pay business rates for the use of the road? It doesn’t look like pedestrianisation, more like a narrow pavement each side of seating for cafe customers.
The pavement is too narrow anyway, especially when partly blocked by racks of clothes, A-Boards, etc.
All of which is easily remedied by the council if they choose. Allow the pedestrianisation with conditions, like they do on the continent: traders that want to use the outdoor space pay additional rates for the use; traders are restricted to certain areas to allow the free flow of pedestrians and wheelchair users; cyclists must dismount through the street; access is allowed for permitted vehicles only, including emergency vehicles and other approved vehicles only.
Nothing stops the Motor Mafia..
Not a fan of quashing voices, even if they were made in ignorance. Debate against it, sure. Challenge it, definitely. Shut them out completely? Absolutely not.
Even discounting the 400, that’s still over 150 comments made, and it would be disingenuous to state that they are all fully apprised of all the documentation, you’d be overestimating the average person to say otherwise.
If you think people aren’t fully aware of the issue as a whole, then maybe the challenge there is to be better at explaining what the council are trying to do. A sentiment recently said at the Citywide Conference by a Council Officer.
How dare the trader quoted claim to speak on behalf of disabled people, while arguing for a clearly discriminatory measure that is strongly opposed by local disability organisations. Would not be surprising if that trader was also involved with the deliberately misleading posters. At least Labour are able to see through some of these dirty tricks, unlike the Greens who seemed to be just as dirty themselves. Hopefully all of the traders behind the nasty campaign to exclude disabled people will continue to see their businesses struggle as a result.
The QR code posted by traders in the windows of certain shops canvassing for votes against was peddling utterly false information and claiming the road would become open to traffic again every day of the week which is untrue. So no wonder such comments were discounted. Let’s hope none of the people become disabled one of these days.