Date of meeting: 14 March 2023

A period of not more than fifteen minutes shall be allowed at each ordinary meeting of the Council for the hearing of deputations from members of the public.

Notification of two Deputations has been received. The spokesperson is entitled to speak for 5 minutes.

2) Deputation: Principles for the introduction of Liveable and Low Traffic Neighbourhoods

The Hanover and Tarner Liveable Neighbourhood scheme will need a rethink, following the Council budget meeting on 23 February.
The main lesson to be drawn from the experience so far is that the process had many holes, and undermined trust (Appendix 1). Can there be an evaluation or after-action review?
Theory and practice suggest that a better process can be followed in preparing schemes of this kind. There are six principles:

First, win the argument with the public about what the problem is that the scheme is going to solve . . .Do this in part by making data available at an early stage.
Second, consider both winners and losers in preparing proposals.
Third, include measures which address the concerns of those adversely affected.
Fourth, work incrementally, using the principles of process planning rather than blueprint planning - which means introducing simple initial measures, seeing whether they work, and then building to the next step;
Fifth, create formal and informal means of public participation from the beginning, and make sure the public is involved in each step of the process;
Sixth, ensure the highest level of transparency throughout the process.

Will the Committee and Council adopt these ‘Hanover principles’ – and be accountable for implementing them?
There are many specific issues affecting Hanover and Tarner which could be discussed within this framework.

i. Be transparent about sources and amounts of funding, including conditionalities.

ii. Prioritise safety and air quality improvements on Elm Grove, Queen’s Park Road and Egremont Place;

iii. Get the traffic and air quality data into the public domain and provide opportunities for it to be discussed before making any new proposals for specific LN/LTN interventions.

iv. Put out a range of ‘technologies’ and intervention options for people to explore.

Identify measures for those adversely affected, including the elderly and disabled, as well as local businesses.

vi. Produce a phased plan, with relatively modest initial steps, which can be built on once public trust has been gained;

vii. Arrange formal as well as informal consultation on the phased plan, reporting to Council;

viii. Provide as much information as is available on a dedicated website.

Residents are keen to work with any proposal that will make for a safer, greener environment that does not impose unreasonable costs or other burdens on members of our community

Supported by:

Simon Maxwell- Lead Spokesperson

Annie Heath

Deborah Birnie

George Mirabelli-Montan

Lucy Dunkeyson

Ollie Barron

Robert Ashby

Fred Corneby

Lois Shaul

Jane Griffin

Supporting Information

What has been wrong with the LTN/LN process so far?

i. The Council decided to act on the basis of representations by a small number of people in the district;

ii. A radical plan was produced ab initio;

iii. The plan raised immediate and serious concerns, both within Hanover and on Elm Grove, Queen’s Park Rd and Egremont Place (the last not even considered in the initial plans);

iv. The plan did not fit with the Council’s own criteria for low traffic and liveable neighbourhoods;

v. The idea that the scheme would be ‘experimental’ was not credible;

vi. Face-to-face consultations were informal and unminuted;

vii. Traffic data were not shared publicly;

viii. The results of the online consultation were not published;

ix. Conflicting information was given by different people (Councillors and officials) with respect to sources of funding, and linkage between the LN plan and improvements to boundary roads;

x. Publication deadlines, including of revised proposals, were repeatedly missed;

xi. Information trickled out informally about the final timetable.

3) Deputation: Request that funding is reinstated for the Hanover & Tarner LTN:

This deputation will request that funding is reinstated for the Hanover & Tarner LTN:

It will request that the £1.1m Carbon Neutral Fund money is reinstated following its removal at full council for the liveable neighbourhood scheme, as it needs to be spent on a carbon reduction project. This is badly needed to cover the pilot and the boundary road work.

It will revisit the background for this specific LTN and touch on other traffic management areas across the city, to clarify this for the committee.

It will suggest that the rationale still very much remains for the LTN and that much-needed improvements are still within reach.

It will demonstrate that boundary road improvements cannot be achieved without the LTN measures as well.

It will point out that there has already been extensive engagement and progress.

It will respectfully suggest in some detail that the issues have not gone away and improvements are still very much needed.

It will refer to the climate emergency declaration and outcomes of the Climate Assembly.

Images will be provided (possibly more images than this, but including these images):

Car/van ownership by Output Area (OA) for Hanover and Tarner
Photos of bollards knocked over
Street scene

Supported by:

Katy Rodda – Lead Spokesperson

Laura Marshall

Simon Russell

Jerome Cox-Strong

Paul Bonett

Dick Page

Elizabeth Cook

Ottilie Hainsworth

Georgia Wrighton

Victoria Green

4) The decarbonisation of Brighton and Hove’s swimming pools and leisure centres

Brighton and Hove’s swimming pools and leisure centres, owned by the council, may be responsible for around 20% of the council’s carbon emissions. But they are not accounted for in the council’s Carbon Neutral 2030 programme. Despite alternatives being readily available, the unsustainable use of old gas boilers in our local facilities harms the environment, has caused extensive closures and risks costing the city a small fortune in carbon credits.

Accounting for the council’s carbon

As the Greenhouse Gas Protocol rightly points out with regard to cities, “you can’t cut what you don’t count”. The Local Government Association carbon reporting guidance for local authorities specifically references the inclusion of leisure centres. Because as Swim England points out, swimming pools can account for up to 40% of a local authority’s emissions.

In 2014, however, Brighton and Hove council removed the swimming pools and leisure centres operated by Freedom Leisure centre from the council’s carbon accounting. The Surrenden pool was likely left in unawares, under school heating. It forms part of the Dorothy Stringer campus. At the time, these facilities were understood to constitute 7-8% of the city’s total emissions. The decarbonisation of electricity in the UK, of vehicle fleets and so on in recent years, together with proper accounting for Surrenden, makes 20% a more likely figure today.

Decarbonising swimming pools and leisure centres

As projects across the UK and elsewhere have amply demonstrated, decarbonising these facilities is relatively straightforward. Gas boilers are replaced with electric heat pumps, which can often be powered directly by solar farms on the large flat rooftops of the buildings. Heat pumps are more energy efficient than gas boilers. Any use of grid electricity results in only a tiny fraction of the carbon being emitted, by comparison.

There is extensive grant and loan finance available for this relatively simply and relatively high impact form of municipal energy transition, with the Public Sector Decarbonisation Scheme as an example. Even the Community Interest Company at Saltdean Lido, which is responsible for the facilities as well as the operations there, is installing a heat pump. It’s the right thing to do.

What next?

We would be grateful if the committee would instruct officers that leisure emissions be re-included in the city’s carbon neutral plan. A stream of fundable projects should be prepared for funding applications to begin as of the end of 2023.

Extended gaps in provision would further endanger our children’s chances of a learning to swim, harm our swimming clubs and deprive many of relatively accessible health benefits. Therefore transition plans for all the facilities not subject to redevelopment (i.e. not the King Alfred) should be be included in a rolling timetable of transition, to be completed no later than 2030.

Given their carbon emissions profile, the owners of all widely-used private pools within the city boundaries should be engaged, in order to help encourage a timely cleaner energy transition for these carbon-intensive facilities that also have an extremely high amenity value.

Supported by:

Lynette Slight

Michael Tees

Ruth Parfitt

Howard Edmunds

Muriel Jacquinet

Mark Cooper– Lead Spokesperson