Whitehawk Mini-Roundabout Improvements
Consultation Report
Background
The council is planning to implement improvements at the Whitehawk mini-roundabout (junction of Whitehawk Road, Arundel Road, Bristol Gardens and Roedean Road) as part of the Council’s Pedestrian Crossing Priority Programme. These improvements are designed to improve safety at this junction by upgrading infrastructure which will allow for easier and safer journeys for pedestrians, cyclists and other road users.
A public consultation took place to both inform local residents and businesses and to also make comments or raise issues or concerns which will be used to inform a final design. The consultation ran from 21 August to 9 September 2023.
Methodology
Brighton & Hove City Council’s Land and Property Gazeteer was used to provide 204 addresses in an area surrounding the Whitehawk mini-roundabout. A letter was sent to each address. People were invited to go online to give their views, using a QR code or website link to a survey hosted on the council’s consultation portal – Citizen Space. Paper copies were also available on request.
Results
The consultation received 190 responses. 14.5% of the responses came from addresses within the area mailed and the rest from a surrounding area and from further afield.
|
Type of response |
Number of individual responses |
Number of household responses |
|
Responses from residents within the mailout area |
27 |
14.5 |
|
Respondents from the surrounding area (postcodes beginning BN2 5) |
137 |
73.7 |
|
Respondents from across the city |
22 |
11.8 |
|
Respondents from outside the city |
0 |
0 |
|
Total |
186[1] |
100 |
Q1 How do you most frequently travel through this area?
|
|
Number |
% |
|
By car or van (as driver) |
57 |
30.6 |
|
By car or van (as passenger) |
5 |
2.7 |
|
By taxi |
0 |
0 |
|
By bus |
2 |
1.1 |
|
On foot |
89 |
47.8 |
|
Using a wheelchair or mobility scooter |
0 |
0 |
|
By cycling |
19 |
10.2 |
|
Other (includes 14 respondents who say they use a combination of modes) |
14 |
7.5 |
Q2 How safe do you currently feel the junction is for the following users:
|
|
Very Safe |
Safe |
Neither safe or unsafe |
Unsafe |
Very unsafe |
|||||
|
|
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
|
For pedestrians |
15 |
8.1 |
22 |
11.9 |
21 |
11.4 |
69 |
37.3 |
58 |
31.4 |
|
For cyclists |
9 |
5.1 |
19 |
10.8 |
22 |
12.5 |
77 |
43.8 |
49 |
27.8 |
|
For car drivers |
18 |
10.5 |
39 |
22.8 |
40 |
23.4 |
61 |
35.7 |
13 |
7.6 |
|
For Bus passengers |
29 |
18.2 |
41 |
25.8 |
49 |
30.8 |
28 |
17.6 |
12 |
7.5 |
The chart below shows that respondents consider the junction to be unsafe/ very unsafe for all modes except for bus passengers.
Q3 Do you have any comments
|
Comments in support |
No. of times mentioned |
|
Looks good / Will be an improvement / Good idea / Happy with proposals / support the scheme |
68 |
|
Will slow down and reduce cars / Bristol Gardens has become a rat run / will improve air quality / |
39 |
|
Will improve pedestrian safety / current arrangement dangerous for cyclists and pedestrians |
30 |
|
Will improve safety for driving / currently find it hazardous |
4 |
|
Want road closure to include motorbikes |
1 |
|
Total |
142 |
|
Comments objecting to some or all of the proposals |
No. of times mentioned |
|
Is going to cause more congestion / create new rat runs / force residents a long way round |
38 |
|
Not sure scheme is necessary / not needed / can't see the benefits / works fine currently /waste of money / improve other aspects |
22 |
|
Oppose road closure aspect / other options instead of closure / traffic calming / speed humps |
20 |
|
Worried about emergency service access |
5 |
|
Will Increase pollution |
2 |
|
Disagree with raised junction |
1 |
|
Total |
88 |
|
Suggested changes to proposals |
No. of times mentioned |
|
Should be more zebra crossings / zebras at the other improved crossings |
13 |
|
Need traffic lights / full traffic control at crossings / prefer light system |
8 |
|
Address other dangerous junctions / will other junctions be changed to support? |
6 |
|
Crossing points in wrong location or unsure where |
6 |
|
Suggest supporting measures eg greening / planting improved pedestrian access routes |
6 |
|
Specific issues |
5 |
|
Not clear on access restrictions for residents / not clear on routing |
3 |
|
Cycle paths should be included |
2 |
|
Ensure road closure allows adapted cycles |
1 |
|
Introduce EV charging bays |
1 |
|
Illegal parking needs enforcement |
1 |
|
Total |
52 |
Q4 How are you responding to this survey?
|
|
|
|
As a local resident |
179 |
|
As a local business owner or manager |
3 |
|
As someone who works in the area |
9 |
|
On behalf of a business, organisation or group name: 20 King’s Avenue Management Group Absolute Hygiene Adam Bronkhorst Photography BELTA BGHS Brighton & Hove Community Works Brighton & Hove Clarion Cycling Club Glen Crosier Local Doctor’s Surgery Sackville Construction Tellen Wood Ltd The Martlets Hospice The Roaming Pen Wildhut Ltd
|
|
|
Other includes: I cycle in the area once a week I visit friends in the area I occasionally drive through the area I am a paramedic I used to work in the area
|
|
Demographic Information
|
Age |
Number |
% |
|
18-24 |
2 |
1.3 |
|
25-34 |
8 |
5.3 |
|
35-44 |
25 |
16.4 |
|
45-54 |
35 |
23.0 |
|
55-64 |
41 |
27.0 |
|
65-74 |
29 |
19.1 |
|
75+ |
12 |
7.9 |
|
Total |
152 |
100 |
|
Gender |
Number |
% |
|
Male |
67 |
39.2 |
|
Female |
103 |
60.2 |
|
Non-Binary |
0 |
0 |
|
Other |
1 |
0.6 |
|
Total |
171 |
100 |
|
Ethnicity |
Number |
% |
|
White English/ Welsh/ Scottish/ Northern Irish/ British |
128 |
80.5 |
|
Irish |
5 |
3.1 |
|
Gypsy or Irish Traveller |
1 |
0.6 |
|
Any other white background |
18 |
11.3 |
|
Bangladeshi |
0 |
0 |
|
Indian |
2 |
1.3 |
|
Pakistani |
1 |
0.6 |
|
Chinese |
0 |
0 |
|
Any other Asian background |
1 |
0.6 |
|
African |
0 |
0 |
|
Caribbean |
0 |
0 |
|
Any other Black background |
0 |
0 |
|
Asian & White |
2 |
1.3 |
|
Black African & White |
0 |
0 |
|
Black Caribbean & White |
0 |
0 |
|
Any other mixed background |
0 |
0 |
|
Arab |
0 |
0 |
|
Any other ethnic group |
1 |
0.5 |
|
Total |
159 |
100 |
|
Disability |
Number |
% |
|
Yes, a little |
23 |
13.9 |
|
Yes, a lot |
11 |
6.6 |
|
No |
132 |
79.5 |
|
Total |
166 |
100 |
Of those who answered “yes”, disabilities were as follows:
|
Please state the type of impairment which applies to you. |
Number |
|
Physical impairment |
24 |
|
Sensory impairment |
4 |
|
Learning disability/ difficulty |
2 |
|
Long-standing illness |
13 |
|
Mental health condition |
11 |
|
Development condition |
6 |
|
Autistic Spectrum |
1 |
|
Other |
12 |