APPENDIX 1

Hanover and Tarner Liveable Neighbourhood

Public Consultation July to September 2022

Introduction

This report outlines the results from a third stage of consultation and engagement for a proposed Liveable Neighbourhood scheme in the Hanover and Tarner area of the city. The first stage took place in October / November 2021, in the form of a mapping exercise using the council’s ‘Climate Conversations’ engagement platform hosted on ‘Bang the Table’ software. ‘Pins’ were placed on an online map to show where respondents would like to see certain features in the area eg a pocket park or where there are problems with rat running. Feedback from the ‘Bang the Table’ exercise was used to develop proposals.

The second stage of engagement took place in March / April 2022, which consisted of five in-person workshops where attendees were able to review two draft concept designs and ask questions of officers in attendance. There was also the option to access the information online and complete the workshop questionnaire, whilst viewing the draft Liveable Neighbourhood concepts, through the council’s 'Climate Conversations' engagement website.

The proposals were then refined based on feedback from the workshops to produce the plans for this third stage, which involved a public consultation exercise. The methodology and results from this are detailed in this report.

Headline Results

· 94.9% of respondents walk more than once a week compared to 68.3% who drive and 32.1% who cycle.

· The highest numbers of respondents live towards the west of the proposed scheme area (16-45%). Lowest response rates were mainly on the boundary roads of Queen’s Park Road and Elm Grove and also in the south-west of the scheme area  (Tarner Area) (0-25%).

· Respondents who state that they have a disability[1] perceive it to be more difficult[2] to get around the area (52%) than those who state that they don’t have a disability (21.8%).

· During the day, only 6.3% of respondents feel unsafe or very unsafe when walking or wheeling but this rises to 15.6% at night. The most common reason stated for this is anti-social behaviour and drug dealing. 

· There is not a wide variation between cyclists in terms of feeling unsafe or very unsafe during the day or at night (11.8% v 13%). Reasons given are related to driver behaviour and volume of traffic.

· 408 respondents independently[3] said that a bus gate is not wanted or needed in the area

· 1092 respondents (89.6%) made comments on the proposed designs.

· Most comments were related to concerns about displacement of traffic (590). Highest locations stated were Elm Grove, Queen’s Park Road and Bentham Road

· Comments about access restrictions were second highest (405)

· 186 respondents said that the area could become more dangerous, mostly relating to areas around, and journeys to and from, schools and nurseries

· 62.2% of respondents said that this is the first time they had heard about the scheme

Methodology

The public consultation ran from 4 July to 11 September 2022.

Information packs were posted to 6,577 addresses in roads within the proposed Liveable Neighbourhood area, including boundary roads. In addition, 10,846 postcards were sent to a wider area around the proposed scheme:

In both cases, respondents were invited to complete a survey online. An email address and an answerphone message were available to request paper copies of the questionnaire (also in large print) and to enquire about a translation service. The consultation was also promoted by the council’s Communications team using the council website and social media campaigns.

During the consultation period 6 drop-in sessions were also held where residents could view the proposals and speak to officers. These took place at the Phoenix Art Space and the Hanover Community Centre.

Households receiving information packs		Households receiving postcards		All households who received information by post
Responses	Response rate %	Responses	Response rate %	Response	Response rate %
906	13.8	253	2.3	1159	6.7

Overall, the response rate from households who received promotional materials by post was 6.7%.

In total, 1218 responses came from 1055 individual households, with multiple members of many households making individual submissions. 59 of these responses were received from outside the areas who were sent  information in the mail out.

As context in relation to other consultations, for the Valley Gardens phase 3 project the number of public consultation responses received was 463.

The map below shows the response rates from streets within the leaflet mailout area.

Of the 1159 respondents within the mailout areas, 759 (65.5%) said that they heard about the consultation via the information leaflet or postcard that they had received.

51 invalid responses were removed from the final results: 40 were duplicate responses from the same person and 11 were removed as they provided an incomplete or incorrect name and/or address which was stated as a requirement within the survey.

The first set of questions are designed to be used for monitoring mode of travel changes and perceptions of safety in the area if a scheme is implemented.[4] The second set of questions ask respondents for their opinion on a Bus Gate on Southover Street and also for comments on the proposals[5] and the final set of questions asks details about respondents eg how they heard about the survey and Equalities Monitoring questions[6].  

Page 27 onwards gives a summary of comments from businesses and organisations.

Results

Q How often do you use these forms of transport in the area?

	Every day, or nearly every day		2-3 days a week		Once a week		Less often but at least once a month		Less than once a month		Never
	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%
Walk	946	79.9	137	11.6	40	3.4	18	1.5	24	2.0	19	1.6
Cycle[7]	95	8.6	164	14.9	95	8.6	100	9.1	150	13.6	498	45.2
Bus	31	2.7	156	13.6	141	12.3	218	19.0	291	25.4	310	27.0
Car/ van as driver [8]	208	18.0	402	34.8	179	15.5	81	7.0	58	5.0	227	19.7
Car/ van as passenger	47	4.4	162	15.1	191	17.8	195	18.2	206	19.2	273	25.4
Motorcycle/ moped	13	1.2	8	0.7	7	0.7	6	0.6	5	0.5	1029	96.3
Wheelchair/ mobility scooter	9	0.8	3	0.3	1	0.1	5	0.5	6	0.6	1035	97.7
Taxi/ Private Hire	2	0.2	23	2.1	84	7.6	238	21.4	489	44.0	275	24.8
Community Transport[9]	0	0.0	0	0.0	2	0.2	2	0.2	6	0.6	1055	99.1
Other	13	1.6	4	0.5	2	0.3	4	0.5	6	0.8	765	96.3

Table 1: Current types of travel in the Hanover and Tarner area

Other includes Run (x3), Scooter (x2), Train (x2), e-scooter (x1), Skateboard (x1). The graphs below show differences between those who eg cycle regularly and not so regularly.[10]

Figure 1: Types of travel modes used in the Hanover and Tarner area

1123 respondents (94.9%) walk in the area on a regular basis, compared to 789 (68.3%) regular car drivers and 354 (32.1%) cyclists.

Q Thinking about the Hanover and Tarner Area, please rate each of the following:

	Very Good		Good		Neither good or poor		Poor		Very poor		Don’t know
	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%
The condition of the pavements	26	2.2	273	22.6	373	30.9	389	32.2	136	11.3	11	0.9
The provision of crossing points	48	4.0	320	26.6	415	34.5	311	25.9	89	7.4	19	1.6
The provision of cycle lanes / tracks	40	3.3	170	14.2	313	26.1	298	24.9	210	17.5	168	14.0
The amount of cycle parking	94	7.8	236	19.6	230	19.1	288	24.0	148	12.3	206	17.1
Traffic noise	180	15.0	391	32.5	338	28.1	186	15.4	77	6.4	32	2.7
Air Quality	109	9.0	366	30.3	351	29.1	184	15.3	77	6.4	119	9.9
The quality of public spaces (eg places to sit or meet)	106	8.8	303	25.1	313	25.9	313	25.9	144	11.9	29	2.4

Table 2: Opinions on provision of walking and cycling infrastructure, quality of public spaces and traffic noise or air quality

Figure 2: Opinions on provision of walking and cycling infrastructure, quality of public spaces and traffic noise or air quality

Q How easy are the following in the Hanover and Tarner area?

	Very easy		Easy		Neither easy or difficult		Difficult		Very difficult		Don’t know
	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%
Getting around the area on foot	617	51.1	380	31.5	109	9.0	79	6.5	14	1.2	9	0.7
Getting around the area as a disabled person or a person with mobility issues	27	2.3	46	3.8	67	5.6	181	15.1	136	11.4	739	61.8
Crossing the road	329	27.3	412	34.2	283	23.5	154	12.8	18	1.5	7	0.6
Getting around the area by car or van	172	14.3	393	32.6	338	28.0	160	13.3	24	2.0	119	9.9
Getting around the area by motorcycle / moped	87	7.3	126	10.6	59	5.0	7	0.6	4	0.3	904	76.2
Getting around the area by cycling	208	17.4	242	20.2	174	14.5	158	13.2	45	3.8	369	30.9
Getting around the area by bus	101	8.4	296	24.6	262	21.8	157	13.1	40	3.3	345	28.7

Table 3: Ease of getting around the Hanover and Tarner area

Respondents who state that they have a disability[11] perceive it to be more difficult[12] to get around the area (52%) than those who state that they don’t have a disability (21.8%).

Figure 3: Ease of getting around the Hanover and Tarner area

Q How would you score the overall quality of walking or wheeling conditions in the area?

Respondents were asked to score walking or wheeling conditions from 1 to 10 (where 1 is poor and 10 is excellent).

	No.	%
1	24	2.1
2	24	2.1
3	65	5.6
4	99	8.6
5	146	12.7
6	132	11.5
7	148	12.9
8	206	17.9
9	126	10.9
10	160	13.9
Don’t know	21	1.8
Total	1151	100

Table 4: Levels of satisfaction with walking and wheeling conditions in the area

The average satisfaction score for walking or wheeling was 6.1

Figure 4: Walking and wheeling satisfaction score

Q If you walk or wheel in the area, how safe do you feel?

	Very safe		Safe		Neither safe or unsafe		Unsafe		Very unsafe		Don’t know
	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%
During the day	557	46.3	448	37.2	110	9.1	61	5.1	14	1.2	13	1.1
At night	236	19.7	511	42.7	229	19.1	153	12.8	33	2.8	34	2.8

Table 5: Perceptions of safety for walking and wheeling in the area

If respondents answered safe or unsafe, they were asked to say more about this. Comments have been themed as follows:

Comment	No. of times mentioned[13]	Specific areas[14]
Anti - social behaviour / drug dealing	64	Elm Grove (x4), Queen’s Park (x3), Queen’s Park Road (x3), Tarner Area (x3), Bentham Road (x2), The Level (x2)
Not enough lighting / LED lights not good / hard to see trip hazards at night	46	Queen’s Park (x7), Franklin Road (x3), Queen’s Park Road (x2)
Speeding traffic / fast turning into roads/ rat running / volume of traffic	46	Elm Grove (x8)
Street Clutter	22
Doesn't feel safe for women	21
Pavement parking / double parking	19	Elm Grove (x3)
Pavement condition	17
Not enough crossings / crossings poor / dropped curbs	13	Queen’s Park Road (x2)
Lack of priority / poor visibility /  at junctions	7
Don't feel safe anywhere at night	6

Table 6: Comments on perception of walking and wheeling in the area (where respondents have said they feel unsafe or very unsafe)

During the day, only 6.3% of respondents feel unsafe or very unsafe but this rises to 15.6% at night. The most common reason stated is anti-social behaviour and drug dealing.

Q How would you score the overall quality of cycling conditions in the area?

Respondents were asked to score cycling conditions from 1 to 10 (where 1 is poor and 10 is excellent).

	No.	%
1	37	3.3
2	40	3.5
3	73	6.4
4	87	7.7
5	170	15.0
6	89	7.9
7	98	8.7
8	112	9.9
9	69	6.1
10	101	8.9
Don’t know	256	22.6
Total	1132	100

Table 7: Levels of satisfaction with cycling in the area

The average satisfaction score for cycling was 6

Figure 5: Cycling satisfaction score

Q If you cycle in the area, how safe do you feel?

	Very safe		Safe		Neither safe or unsafe		Unsafe		Very unsafe		Don’t know
	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%
During the day	192	17.7	262	24.2	131	12.1	102	9.4	26	2.4	371	34.2
At night	137	12.7	239	22.2	148	13.7	103	9.5	38	3.5	414	38.4

Table 8: Perceptions of safety for cycling in the area

If respondents answered safe or unsafe, they were asked to say more about this. Comments have been themed as follows:

Comment	No. of times mentioned[15]
Dangerous drivers / speeding traffic / volume of traffic	56
Steep Hills - cycling downhill / vehicles overtaking on hills	48
Too many parked cars / blocking routes / restricting views / poor visibility at junctions / pavement parking	42
There are no cycle lanes / no cycle priority	36
Poor driver behaviour towards cyclist / passing too close	26
Narrow roads	20
Poor road condition / surface	11
More cycle hangars needed / cycle parking	7
Poor lighting	6

Table 9: Comments on perception of cycling in the area (where respondents have said they feel unsafe or very unsafe)

There is not a wide variation between cyclists who say they feel unsafe or very unsafe during the day or at night (11.8% v 13%). Reasons given are related to driver behaviour and volume of traffic.

COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED DESIGN

Q Considering the ‘bus gate’ shown on the plan, how would you prefer it to operate?

Timings:

	No.	%
24 hours a day	184	22.4
During peak times only (eg 7am to 10am and 3pm to 7pm)	382	46.5
Don’t know	256	31.1
Total	822	100

Table 10: Number of respondents who stated a preference for times of operation for a Bus Gate

Location:

	No.	%
In the location currently shown	200	22.6
In a different location in the area	383	43.3
Don’t know	302	34.1
Total	885	100

Table 11: Number of respondents who stated a preference for location of a Bus Gate

Q If you answered, ‘In a different location in the area’ Please give us your suggestion for this.

Suggestions for other locations	No. of times mentioned
Further up / Part way up / half-way up Southover Street	29
At top of Southover Street	8
Other comments on the Bus Gate:
Don’t need at all / no location / remove / waste of money / bad idea / not enough buses / won't work	408
Will cause/ concerned about displacement driving / extra traffic /rat running / to boundary roads / congestion elsewhere	32
Not enough buses to justify this	23
It's / it will be confusing / is it legal not in Highway Code / call it a bus lane/ what is a bus gate?	12
Money making exercise	11
Will increase travel distances / journey times	7
This is a main access point	5

Table 12: Suggested locations for a Bus Gate

Although 383 respondents stated that they would like the bus gate in another location, only 37 gave locations. 408 respondents said that they don’t want a bus gate at all in the area.

Q Do you have any comments on the proposals?

In total 1092 (89.6%) respondents made comments on the proposals, these comments and have been themed and split into two tables as follows: comments on the proposals and comments on processes:[16]

Comments on proposals	No. of times mentioned[17]
Traffic will be displaced / will increase traffic and congestion on other roads or boundary roads /will create new rat runs / increase pollution on streets / traffic all filtered into one area	590
Restricts access in, out and within the area / not enough entry or exit points / closures and one-ways complicate routes and frustrate drivers / cuts off disabled and elderly residents / increases journey time, fuel cost and emissions / Issues reaching streets or properties easily or at all	405
No problems in this area / scheme not needed / waste of money / this is a money-making exercise	277
I / We don't support this scheme/ want option to reject the scheme / remove plans completely	233
Will make it more dangerous / more dangerous for children / will increase pollution around schools / dangerous crossings and junctions / blind corners	186
Will increase time spent looking for a parking space / will displace parking to other streets	98
Remove proposed road closures / remove "no left" or "no right" turn /too many blocked roads	96
Restricts access to businesses or facilities / how will businesses get deliveries / forces inappropriate delivery routes / cuts off elderly or disabled residents from essential services / damages local businesses	93
Agree with proposed plan / agree the scheme is needed / implement ASAP	91
Introduce more traffic calming / camera enforcement / speed enforcement	84
Discriminates against drivers /  need car for work / disagree with council policy	77
Concerned about reduction of parking / disabled parking / do not replace parking spaces with parklets or greening / how many spaces will be lost?	74
Proposals will lead to blocked roads / food deliveries and refuse vehicles will have longer and more difficult routes / how will vehicles turn / visits by tradesmen and deliveries to residents will be made more difficult / can't pass large vehicles in narrow roads	69
Want even more greening / parklets / supportive of proposed parklets	67
No bus gate / not needed / will cause fines / confusion / congestion / displacement traffic / remove all city bus gates - replace with bus lanes / money-making / too restrictive / clear signage needed	65
Plans focus on the wrong areas / favour wealthier areas / benefits some at the expense of others	53
Scheme is too ambitious / won't realise ambitions / aims /goes too far / lighter touch measures needed / some things will be expensive to undo	52
Need more buses / increase frequency / make Public Transport a viable alternative to cars / reduce fares / Park and ride	52
Keep current two-way system or make roads two-way	49
More holistic / joined up approach needed / link to other areas / area is treated as an experiment / area outside boundary not considered / want to be included / Tarner area added as an afterthought	43
Need more cycle parking / hangars / secure cycle parking / e-bike parking / cargo bike parking / support hangars	38
Scheme is not what was initially proposed / preferred earlier versions	36
Need more crossings / dropped kerbs	36
Concerned about impact on emergency vehicles / routes to hospital	32
Reduce street clutter	32
Pavement / illegal parking is the main issue / solve pavement parking	28
Improve / Widen pavements	26
Reverse the proposed one-way direction / change current one-way direction	25
A focus on walking and cycling in this hilly area discriminates against some people/ problematic during icy-weather / too hilly to cycle	24
Don't need parklets near to existing parks eg Queen’s Park/ The Level / Valley Gardens	23
Need further measures to restrict cars / pedestrianisation / cars should not be priority / scheme doesn't go far enough / prioritise walking and cycling at crossings / introduce wider ranging initiatives eg ULEZ instead	22
Concerned parklet will cause anti-social behaviour	21
Improve EV charging infrastructure	21
Allow residents /businesses / disabled / car club vehicles / refuse vehicles/ emergency services into the area or through the bus gate	20
Blocks of adjacent roads should not be one-way in the same direction / alternate flow on at least one	19
More seating / benches	18
Bus services are too infrequent to need a bus gate/ operate less hours	18
Worried about upkeep and maintenance of any new green spaces / infrastructure	18
Want more cycle lanes / paths	17
Introduce more road closures / move proposed road closure	17
Concerned one-way streets will encourage speeding	17
Won't stop rat runs or solve other problems	17
Keep or allow pavement parking / create bays / more or improved parking / create verge parking / narrower pavements in favour or parking off road / chevron parking	14
Remove two-way proposal / want streets to be or remain one-way / make more or all roads one-way	14
I support the bus gate / peak hours	12
Parking zones S and V need boundaries changing / Top Triangle / want to park in Zone C	11
Remove parking in favour of greening / short term parking / Move parking to other side of the road / get rid of one side of parking	11
More BTN Bikeshare hubs / e-bike share / cargo bike hire	11
Unclear how a bus gate works / what is a bus gate?	11
Introduce community food growing projects / composting / pop up events or services	10

Table 13: Comments on scheme proposals

Comments on processes	No. of times mentioned[18]
Majority of residents do not want this scheme/ not resident led/ undemocratic / proposed by a minority of people,	98
Lack of published /   data used to develop the scheme / share impact assessment, EQIA data / drawn up by people without local knowledge/ monitor who is driving into area/ has a CBA been done?	96
Money should be spent in other areas eg community centres / waste and recycling / parks / clean air zone / less car use / more public transport use / anti-social behaviour/ tidy up existing areas	86
Issues with consultation: areas, groups or stakeholders not consulted / workshops held at inappropriate times / not knowledge of it / workshops unhelpful / plans incorrect, unclear or not detailed enough	66
How will scheme be monitored? / what are the tolerance levels? /18 months is too long / what is duration of pilot scheme?	17

Table 14: Comments on processes

Within a comment on proposals, respondents often made reference to specific areas / streets / issues. Areas mentioned by more than five respondents for each of the comment themes above are shown in the table below:

Comment Theme	Locations	Number of respondents who mentioned[19]
Traffic will be displaced / will increase traffic and congestion on other roads or boundary roads /will create new rat runs / increase pollution on streets / traffic all filtered into one area	Elm Grove	205
	Queen’s Park Road	124
	Bentham Road	110
	Whichelo Place	70
	Islingword Place	51
	Carlyle Street	30
	Hartington Road	19
	Sussex Street	15
	Bonchurch Road	14
	Edward Street	13
	Lewes Road	12
	Carlton Hill	8
	John Street	6
	Elmore Road	6
	Hanover Street	6
	Egremont Place	5
	St Johns Place	5
	Grand Parade	5
	Arnold Street	5
	Lincoln Street	5
Restricts access in, out and within the area / not enough entry or exit points / closures and one-ways complicate routes and frustrate drivers / cuts off disabled and elderly residents / increases journey time, fuel cost and emissions / Issues reaching streets or properties easily or at all	Lincoln Street	8
	Islingword Road (Western end)	8
	Split area into smaller cells	6
	Windmill Street	6
	Hanover Mews	6
	Ewart Street	5
	Washington Street	5
	Coleman Street	5
	Hanover Terrace	5
	Richmond Street	5
Will make it more dangerous / more dangerous for children / will increase pollution around schools / dangerous crossings and junctions / blind corners	Routes to school and nurseries on Elm Grove / Bentham Road Elm Grove junction	90
	Routes to school on Queen’s Park Road / Orchard Nursery / St Luke’s Primary School	21
	Routes to Carlton Hill Primary	18
	Routes to Tarnerland Nursery	12
Remove proposed road closures / remove "no left" or "no right" turn /too many blocked roads	Franklin Road (closure)	19
	Islingword Road / Queen’s Park Road (closure)	16
	Richmond Parade / Grove Hill / Ashton Rise (closure)	15
	Islingword Road / Elm Grove (closure)	12
	Sussex Street / John Street (closure)	12
	Kingswood Street / John Street (closure)	6
Restricts access to businesses or facilities / how will businesses get deliveries / forces inappropriate delivery routes / cuts of elderly or disabled residents from essential services / damages local businesses	Will affect customer access and damage trading to the GP / Pharmacy / pillar box etc at the top of Islingword Road	29
	Affects deliveries / delivery routes to Pharmacy / pub / shops / takeaway at the top of Islingword Road	27
Introduce more traffic calming / camera enforcement / speed enforcement	Queen’s Park Road	12
	Elm Grove	9
Concerned about reduction of parking / disabled parking / do not replace parking spaces with parklets or greening / how many spaces will be lost?	Islingword Road (parklet)	9
	Elm Grove	7
Proposals will lead to blocked roads / food deliveries and refuse vehicles will have longer and more difficult routes / how will vehicles turn / visits by tradesmen and deliveries to residents will be made more difficult / can't pass large vehicles in narrow roads	Bentham Road	13
Keep current two-way system or make roads two-way	Islingword Road	14
	Richmond Street	14
	Whichelo Place	7
	Albion Hill	7
	Blaker Street	5
	Grove Street	5
Reverse the proposed one-way direction / change current one-way direction	Bentham Road	7
	Carlyle Street	5
Blocks of adjacent roads should not be one-way in the same direction / alternate flow on at least one	White Street / Blaker Street	5
Introduce more road closures / move proposed road closure	Islingword Road / Queen’s Park Road closure moved further west	5
Keep or allow pavement parking / create bays / more or improved parking / create verge parking / narrower pavements in favour or parking off road / chevron parking	Elm Grove	9
Remove two-way proposal / want streets to be or remain one-way / make more or all roads one-way	Southover Street	8
Remove parking in favour of greening / short term parking / Move parking to other side of the road / get rid of one side of parking	Southover Street	7

Table 15: Specific locations mentioned in scheme proposals (Table 14 above)

Most comments were related to concerns about displacement traffic (590). Highest locations stated were Elm Grove, Queen’s Park Road and Bentham Road

Comments about access restrictions were second highest (405)

186 respondents said that the area could become more dangerous, mostly relating to areas around, and journeys to and from, schools and nurseries

About You

Q Are you:

	No.
A resident	1128
A worker in the area	115
A visitor to the area	42
A person who travels through the area to get from ‘A’ to ‘B’	120
A business owner or manager in the area	41
A representative of a local interest group or organisation	5

Table 16: Respondents relationship to the area

Businesses  who responded to the consultation[20]

Workshops for the Imagination

Archers

Lush Tums

Cox and Taylor

Berkson Bakes

Brighton Staging Co.

Laconic Films

Table 17: Named businesses who made comments[21]

Local interest group or organisation who responded to the consultation

Elm Grove Primary School - Inclusion

Elm Grove Primary School – Full Governing Body

Orchard Day Nursery

Hanover Community Association

Brighton Access for Disabled Groups Everywhere (BADGE)

Bricycles

Shoreham-By-Cycle

Table 18: Named organisations who made comments

Q How did you hear about the survey?

	No.	%^[22]
I received an information booklet in the post	599	49.2
I received a postcard	170	14.0
I read about it on the council’s website	122	10.0
I read about it on social media	330	27.1
I saw a poster	113	9.3
I heard about it by word of mouth	344	28.2
I read about it in the local press	84	6.9
Other: Includes:[23] Flyer from residents / groups opposing the scheme (x14) Street rep / street WhatsApp group (x6), Work emails / email (x3), Through the Green Party (x3), Local councillor / Council meetings (x2), I found it / found it by chance (x2)	63	5.2

Table 19: How did you hear about the survey?

Q Have you taken part in any of the previous engagement activities relating to the Hanover and Tarner liveable neighbourhood project?

Type of previous engagement	No.	%^[24]
Yes – I took part in the online interactive mapping exercise	145	11.9
Yes – I completed a survey on the design options	224	18.4
Yes – I have attended workshops / events at local centres	202	16.6
No – This is my first engagement with the project	758	62.2
Other: Includes: Wasn't aware of previous activities / wasn't contacted (x24), Contact with local councillor (x9), Couldn't attend workshops - was working / looking after children / school holidays (x9), Attended street / community meetings / school meetings (x8), Engaged through local social media groups (x5), Have signed a petition against the scheme (x4), Initial exercises were not fit for purpose (x2), Drop-in session at Phoenix     (x2), Exhibition - can't remember when (x2), I live outside LTN area (x2)	62	5.1

Table 20: Respondents who took part in previous engagement activities

Equalities Monitoring information

Gender	No.	%	Citywide %^[25]
Female	577	51.8	50.2
Male	527	47.3	49.8
Non-binary	6	0.5	-
Other	3	0.3	-
Total	1113	100	100

Table 21: Gender of respondents

Age	No.	%	Citywide %
16 and under	2	0.2	17.2
17-24	17	1.5	15.0
25-34	124	11.1	16.4
35-44	273	24.1	16.0
45-54	331	29.5	13.1
55-64	218	19.4	9.3
65-74	129	11.5	6.4
75 and over	27	2.4	6.7
Total	1121	100	100

Table 21: Age of respondents

Disability	No.	%	Citywide %
Yes, a little	110	9.8	7.5
Yes, a lot	62	5.5	8.8
No	946	84.6	83.7
Total	1118	100	100

Table 22: Disability status of respondents

Disability type^[26]	No.
Physical impairment	111
Sensory impairment	16
Learning disability/ difficulty	7
Long standing illness	47
Mental health condition	33
Developmental condition	1
Autistic spectrum	14
Other	9

Table 23: Disability type

Ethnicity		No.	%	Citywide %
Arab	Arab	4	0.4	0.8
Asian/ Asian British	Bangladeshi	1	0.1	0.5
	Chinese	4	0.4	1.1
	Indian	6	0.6	1.1
	Pakistani	0	0.0	0.2
	Any other Asian background	2	0.2	1.2
Black/ Black British	African	0	0.0	1.1
	Caribbean	1	0.2	0.3
	Any other black background	0	0.0	0.2
Mixed	Asian and white	15	1.4	1.2
	Black African and white	3	0.3	0.7
	Black Caribbean and white	3	0.3	0.8
	Any other mixed background	17	1.6	1.0
White/ White British	English / Welsh / Scottish / Northern Irish	866	80.4	80.5
	Irish	29	2.7	1.4
	Gypsy or Irish Traveller	0	0.0	0.1
	Any other white background	117	10.9	7.1
Other	Any other ethnic group	9	0.8	0.7
Total		1077	100	100

Hanover Liveable Neighbourhood Consultation Summer 2022

Summary of feedback from businesses and other organisations

This feedback is either from respondents who have identified as representing a businesses or organisation in the council’s consultation portal survey or from  businesses and organisations who have emailed directly.

Businesses

Workshops for the Imagination (Islingword Road)

There has been no consultation with shops and businesses at the top of Islingword Road. The scheme will be detrimental to the 40+ local businesses if access is restricted, especially with the proposed road closure. It will also affect deliveries from suppliers as the only way to deliver to the shops at the top of Islingword Road would be via Bentham Road and along Whichelo or Islingword Place. These are currently very quiet roads.

Some businesses are using e-cargo bikes or electric vans but these are not practical solutions for everyone, especially where heavy loads are being moved, where there is a need for a larger vehicle or, in the cases of the Post Office, where security vans are used.

Tradespeople will face having longer journeys within the scheme area.

Archers Butchers (Islingword Road)

There has been little communication with businesses with only one meeting at the Hanover Centre in August.

The scheme is unnecessary as Hanover is not a rat-run. Traffic restrictions will be detrimental for our business. Deliveries and collections and for customers to reach us, from both within and outside the scheme area, will be affected. The scheme will cause inconvenience to our customers and suppliers.

Deliveries of products can weight up to 100kg. There are strict hygiene standards for collection of our business waste. This private waste collection vehicle is larger than an average refuse truck and has to be able to continue without compromise.

There is no excess traffic on Islingword Road.

Lush Tums (Windmill Street)

The proposal could create problems for the Tarner area as all traffic will be forced along Queen’s Park Road.

Stanley Street, Windmill Street and those in the Tarner area are currently quiet.

People who live on this side of the hill will have to drive further along Grand Parade and up Edward Street and Queen’s Park Road which will be a long detour. This will add more traffic to the already congested Grand Parade. If travelling in the other direction eg from The Level to Windmill Street, travel will need to be via Elm Grove up to Queen’s Park Road. This will be a long detour: four times as long, using more fuel and adding more pollution.

Cox & Taylor Ltd (Southover Street)

The proposals are appalling. They will not improve access in the area and will make it far worse. Elm Grove will be gridlocked at peak hours and probably for most of the day.

Berkson Bakes (Bentham Road)

The scheme has not been thought out holistically for the area as a whole. Blocking access to some roads will shift traffic to different roads, which seems unfair on those who live on roads which most affected.

Bentham Road does not have a problem with excess traffic and doesn’t need to be changed to make it more 'liveable'. If the area is going to change, put a block between Islingword Place and Whichelo Place, whilst keeping those streets two-way. An alternative would be to use one-ways streets: one going Bentham Road to Islingword Road and the other going from Islingword Road to Bentham Road. This would enable residents / deliveries and tradespeople access to these streets, while slightly reducing vehicles using Bentham Road as a cut-through. Rising bollards could be also used rather than a permanent block (allowing through traffic during peak times eg for school drop off and collection and restricting traffic during non-peak times.

Blocking access to the top of Islingword Road would affect businesses in that area, in particular the Post Office, doctor's surgery and pharmacy who need good vehicle access.

Keep the existing directional flow of traffic in the top-triangle area. If traffic flow is reversed on Bentham Road, while also making all the roads in the 'top triangle' one way down to Elm Grove, traffic will be pushed onto Carlyle Street, which is steeper and narrower than Bentham Road.

Traffic on boundary roads will increase.

The area could be better improved and car use reduced if there were more investment in better and cheaper public transport and also by increasing numbers of Bike Share hubs in the area.

Brighton Staging Co (Islingword Road)

Cars should not be the priority in this area. I approve of these measures. If it does not work it can be changed.

Laconic Films (Islingword Street)

I do not support this scheme. Hanover does not have a problem with traffic. It is nearly always possible to walk down the centre of the road. Proposals to restricting traffic will increase congestion on boundary roads and on streets designated as entrance and exits. It will make it more difficult for pedestrians walking up Islingword Road, especially for children walking to St Luke’s Primary School.

Organisations

Elm Grove Primary school – Inclusion (Elm Grove)

The scheme will not benefit the community only those within a small area. The scheme will cause traffic displacement into other areas outside of the boundary. We have concerns about extra traffic on Elm Grove in front of Elm Grove Primary School and also on Hartington Road in front of the playground at St Martin’s Primary School. Please spend money on things which will benefit the whole community.

Elm Grove Primary School - Full Governing Body (Elm Grove)

We have attended sessions, together with the Head Teacher and have reviewed the proposed plans. We have concerns that the proposals, and their impact on the safety of our school children, have not been taken into consideration.

The current proposal would increase the traffic along Bentham Road, one of the main access points into Hanover, and pass in front of the school. This may cause an increase in traffic along Baxter Road attempting to avoid queuing at the Queen’s Park Road / Elm Grove junction. This may be temporary as people adjust their routes, however the safety of the children arriving and leaving school cannot be taken lightly. There is no guarantee that traffic may reduce and we feel that this has been overlooked in the plans.

We cannot see additional measures being added to reduce the speed of cars along Elm Grove and given that the school has not had a School Crossing Patrol Officer since October 2021, any increase in traffic will significantly increase the risk to children. In the last two months we have had a number of serious road traffic accidents along Elm Grove. An increase in traffic risks an increase in further incidents. Children may be arriving / leaving the school during peak traffic hours if they attend breakfast and after-school clubs.

A precautionary approach is essential relating to the safety of children. We would like confirmed by the local councillors that:

1) A School Crossing Patrol Officer will be recruited and in place before changes to the roads are made

2) Extended hours for the School Crossing Patrol Officer will be funded to cover the before and after school clubs

3) A full impact assessment on the risk to the children based on the worst-case scenario of traffic levels will be carried out and the report will be made available to us as a Governing Body so the council can be held to account if the measures identified in this report are not implemented.

If these three requests cannot be met, can you confirm that you agree with our concerns and will vote to place a hold on any changes until the correct modelling, risk assessments and planning can be implemented properly.

Funding for this LTN is coming from the Sustainability & Carbon Reduction Investment Fund. We would like to understand why priority has not been given to fund sustainable improvements to the school that would make the building more energy efficient. Whilst some improvements have been made to replace the lighting with more efficient LED’s we are still operating in an old Victorian building with single glazed windows and poor insulation that is heated by gas. With the climate emergency we are experiencing, and declared by the council, it is surprising that funding has not been provided to implement urgent and simple updates to the building to reduce the carbon impact of the school and reduce the energy costs, allowing more money to be made available to support the education of our children.

Orchard Day Nursery (De Montford Road)

These proposals will increase traffic levels on Queen’s Park Road which will affect the air quality for children at Orchard day nursery.

Hanover Community Association (Southover Street)

Many hirers of the Community Centre do not live in Hanover, their business (often sole  traders) use multiple sites and they need to use our car park. A number of hirers provide classes or events for local, sometimes disadvantaged Hanover and Tarner residents.  In particular, Ambito, a charity who use the Centre on Fridays for disabled adults use a minibus to transport attendees from Albion Street to the Centre.

Access to our car park without access from Jersey Street, particularly for Ambito with their minibuses, will be very difficult, dangerous or even impossible.

Brighton Access for Disabled Groups Everywhere (BADGE)

It's important that blue badge bays are not reduced and should be in fact increased at key areas. We feel the pocket park at the top of Islingword Road will lead to a removal of a blue badge bays: this proposal should be reversed.

Bays should be placed in places that do not cause difficulty ie up against bollards or by bins or cycle storage (we would happily help with any specific consultation on bays).

The scheme must not make it harder for those with mobility issues to come in and out of the area as well as the support network that these people may rely upon that includes careers and family members. Real thought must be given to this as well as improving the public realm in Hanover, many pavements are of very poor quality.

Some members also raised concern about the additional traffic on Elm Grove, which is used to access Brighton General Hospital, where wheelchair services are located.

Bricycles (City-wide)

Bricycles welcomes Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs) and recognises that they reduce traffic. This enables more space to be freed up for people to play and gather, as well as giving more options to walk, wheel, scoot or cycle an a safe, accessible and welcoming environment. LTNs prioritise the quality of the environment (including air quality) above traffic flow, enabling streets to become public spaces whilst contributing towards a community's sense of wellbeing and connection.

Bricycles strongly supports proposals for the Hanover and Tarner area. To improve the proposals we recommend:

•          A protected cycle lane in the uphill direction on Elm Grove:  The feasibility of this has already been established and could be implemented without affecting the 'greening' scheme and without losing legal parking. It would use space that is currently appropriated by illegal car parking, which is unpopular with Elm Grove residents, so would help to gain public support. The uphill cycle lane would be our priority, due to the increased speed differential between cyclists and drivers, but a downhill lane should also be fully investigated. A protected cycle lane for Elm Grove is not currently included in the LTN proposals but we urge the Council to bring this forward. A cycle lane that is protected from motor traffic encourages more people to cycle, especially young people (including children), older people, disabled people, women, and others  who are less willing to cycle. A cycle lane along Elm Grove would complement the LTN, allowing safe cycling access. In addition, Elm Grove is named as a strategic route in the LCWIP. A cycle lane here would contribute to the sustainable travel plans of both the school and hospital. If a cycle lane is not included now, it could be more complicated and costly to include it at a later date.

•          Bringing forward electric bike hire (near the Level) to facilitate uphill journeys to Hanover and Tarner would provide a further option for people to reach their neighbourhood and would strengthen the proposals.

Bricycles is willing to meet Council officers to discuss its feedback.

Shoreham-By-Cycle

People want our streets to be made better, safer and quieter. These schemes can cause friction at the beginning and attract a vocal minority on social media. It has been proven, in places like Oxford, Walthamstow, Islington and other areas, that support grows once they are implemented.

Hanover is an ancient fishing village, built centuries before the invention of the motor vehicle. Over the last 50 years the car has taken over and ruined this jewel in Brighton's crown. It's time to take the streets back for people.

---

[1] Respondents who answered ‘Yes, a little’ or ‘Yes, a lot’ in answer to the question ‘Are your day-to-day activities limited because of a health issue or disability which has lasted, or is expected to last, at least 12 months?

[2] Difficult or very difficult

[3] A question ‘Do you want a bus gate in the area?’ was not asked

[4] Pages 5 to 14

[5] Pages 15 to 22

[6] Pages 16 to 26

[7] Includes BTN Bikeshare, e-bike, cargo bike, e-cargo bike, adapted bike, tricycle

[8] Includes car club

[9] Eg Dial-a-ride, volunteer car scheme

[10] Throughout this report regular = once a week or more, not so regular/ irregular = less than once a week, unless stated otherwise

[11] Respondents who answered ‘Yes, a little’ or ‘Yes, a lot’ in answer to the question ‘Are your day-to-day activities limited because of a health issue or disability which has lasted, or is expected to last, at least 12 months?

[12] Difficult or very difficult

[13] Mentioned more than 5 times

[14] Mentioned more than once

[15] Mentioned more than 5 times

[16] 3833 comments were made by 1092 respondents. Some respondents made several points about the proposals, 126 respondents made no comments.

[17] The number of comments relate to the number of respondents who have mentioned this subject. Only themes mentioned by ten or more respondents are shown

[18] The number of comments relate to the number of respondents who have mentioned this subject. Only themes mentioned by ten or more respondents are shown

[19] Respondents could and did mention multiple locations. Only locations mentioned by name 5 or more times under that theme are included

[20] Despite 41 respondents saying they own or manage a business in the area. Only 7 made comments on proposals. A summary of comments made by business and organisations is included on page 28

[21] 41 responses are from business owners or managers in the area, but only 7 gave their business name

[22] Does not equal 100% as respondents could choose more than one option

[23] Mentioned more than once

[24] Does not equal 100% as respondents could choose more than one option

[25] 2011 Census

[26] Respondents could choose more than one disability type