Updates and News

Minutes – April Meeting now available

Parking – Resident’s Proposal emerging

Street Surveys – work continuing to collect data from streets north of Elm Grove.

Volunteers being sought to help with distribution and collection of surveys so we have a good source of views to inform discussion.

Brighton Genearal Hospital Parking Scheme – live operation from April 6. How is this affecting parking in neighbouring streets? Let us know.

 

 

 

 

 

Community Parking Meeting – Thursday 22nd Jan 7.30pm Elm Grove School

Flyers are being distributed across Hanover and Elm Grove to publicise this meeting – here is some more information:

Who has arranged this meeting? HEGLAT
When was it agreed? The HEGLAT Parking Meeting in November
What is the aim of the meeting? Inform and engage residents and businesses of current situation regarding parking in the area, particularly on Elm Grove side. Update on community surveys and Parking plan and how residents can get involved

Is this about CPZ? Yes
Is this about Elm Grove parking situation? Yes, part of a Community Scheme could include proposals for developing Elm Grove if residents want it. Do Elm Grove residents want to join in the community led parking proposal that is being developed south of elm grove, or would they like to have an option of joining later? or neither.
What do residents think about the plan for redesigning Elm Grove, do they support it and if yes do they want to put it in with the community parking package?

I can’t make it where can I email my opinion? Heglatters@gmail.com or comment under this post

Where can I find out what happened at the meeting? The HEGLAT website

What will the outcome of the meeting be?
The Transport Committee meeting in June/July will be for the new administration to set its timetable for parking schemes. They will be given a report outlining the current requests for CPZ’s across the city and will need to decide when/if each one should be taken forward, and part of the process will be making a judgement on order of priority and likelihood that a successful scheme supported by the community can be developed at each location.

The HEGLAT survey may usefully inform this decision process: if the community comes out strongly for a CPZ in the HEGLAT survey, this may be taken into account regarding the likelihood of developing a scheme supported by residents and a high level of support for parking controls may lead to Hanover & Elm Grove being considered as a higher priority in the future planning schedule. It is important to remember however that this decision is about the whole city and not just the Hanover & Elm grove area, and considers a wide range of factors before reaching a conclusion. It may also be that there is not strong support for controlled parking from the surveys and community meeting.

Has HEGLAT been endorsed by the Council to create a community parking scheme?
We believe the ward councillors are supportive of this process, and the officer who leads on developing parking schemes is aware of it and will consider any outcomes in the light of any future decisions, but other than that, the process does not have any especial weight or status.

Belgrave St

Community Survey results for Belgrave St

We are writing to thank the many people who completed the recent community street survey for Belgrave St. There was a tremendously high return rate 50 surveys were returned covering at least 85% of all households in your street. So we can feel confident that the views are very representative of many living in the road

Some key results are:-

Getting about most popular means:-86% (43) Walking
-50% (25) Car or van
-32% (16) bus
-30% (15) bike
-18% (9) train

Number of Vehicles in respondent households
(33) cars/vans = 64%
(41) bikes = 82%
(0) motorbike

Obstructions on the pavement
65% (33) experienced the pavement as “always” or “often” clear enough whereas 36% (18) found the pavement “never” or “occasionally” clear enough

Visitors
70% (36 out of 50) have visitors by car or van once or less than once a week

Difficulty parking
19 people said it was always difficult to park, 0 said never. All times have problems. Weekday afternoons and evenings being the worst.

Controlled parking
74% (37) people are interested in some variation of controlled parking and 30% (15) do not want any kind of controlled parking (anomaly in figures)

Space in Belgrave St and eligible vehicles
30 people who completed the survey have vehicles registered to their address,
4 are not (these 4 would not be eligible for a parking permit) and
3 did not know

10 wanted more parking spaces, 12 less spaces, 15 wanted no change under controlled parking.

It is hard to predict which of these outcomes controlled parking (eg on one side of the street only) would bring for eligible residents

Cost of controlled parking
32% (16) would like controlled parking at cost only;
34% (17) at full cost;
6% (3) on a sliding scale and
32% (16) don’t know.
(Note: all profits from parking schemes go to pay for other transport related issues such as pensioners bus passes, subsidised school buses etc)

Usage of bike racks if provided
11 people would use bike racks if they were provided, 21 would not use them and 5 did not know.

What next?
From the sample surveys, it appears that roads south of Islingword Rd and west of Queens park road are interested in looking at forms of controlled parking. Roads north of Elm Grove and east of Queens Park Road want no change. This is based on a small sample and so the HEG LAT are keen to find out more views, especially, in between Islingword Rd and Elm Grove. Once we have more feedback from more surveys about residents wishes, we shall set up a working group to look in detail at a community plan for parking to propose to residents and if residents support it to put to the council.

If you would like to be a street representative for your road or meet with neighbours to discus your street survey result please e-mail David Gibson on davidsg@ntlworld.com or Chris Taylor on greysland@sky.com

Yours faithfully,

David Gibson, Chris Taylor, Ian MacIntyre and the HEGLAT team

New 18 and 21 bus timetable

Here we are, the latest incarnation of the 81 – 18 and 21 timetables, any thoughts?

18 page:

http://www.buses.co.uk/travel/service.aspx?serviceid=1971

18 timetable .pdf:

http://bh.buscms.com/brightonbuses/uploadedfiles/tt18-140914.pdf

21 page:

http://www.buses.co.uk/travel/service.aspx?serviceid=1976

21 timetable:

http://bh.buscms.com/brightonbuses/uploadedfiles/tt21-140914.pdf

(apologies to anyone using screen readers, for some reason I cannot get the links to show text that would mean something today! the same thing that always works has decided not to for some reason!)

 

A month in the life of a Hanover bin

At the last LAT meeting the communal bins on Washington Street were discussed – although residents on the street felt that the introduction of the communal bins was overall welcome, there were some issues raised around overfilling and fly tipping, and the perception that people from other streets which don’t have a communal bin were making use of those on the two streets which have this service.

To get a more specific idea of the problems and issues, the photo diary below has been taken covering the set of bins highest up the hill on Washington Street. Photos were taken at random times of day – just when the photographer happened to be passing.

Week 1Week 2Week 3Week 4Week 5Some conclusions:

  • The service provided by City Clean is good, with the bins in good order on the majority of days.
  • During the study period, overfilled bins were emptied within one day and flytipped waste left around the bins removed mostly after one day and on one occasion removed after two days.
  • Although some bins were filled and rubbish left around them, this was not due to lack of capacity as space was generally available in other bins – on just one occasion were all bins full to overflowing
  • The bin most often overflowing was the one closest to the Southover Street junction. That this bin was often overfilled whilst others remained empty might indicate that residents from further up the hill just stuff refuse in or around the closest bin before making a getaway. This also might be caused by residents of Washington Street dropping off rubbish by car on their way out, and using this bin as it is easier to park next to.

Some suggestions:

  • If signage were to be deployed it may work best if it was placed ‘on behalf of the Local Action Team’ or ‘on behalf of the Washington Street Residents’ – rather than a standard council notice
  • Signage might include these messages?:
    • “This bins are for domestic waste disposal for residents of Washington Street only”
    • “Please respect the comfort of your neighbours who live closest to the bins and do not overfill these bins or leave waste on the pavement”
    • “If the bin you wish to use is full, check to see if there is room in any of the others, and – if not – please take your waste home and bring it out again when they have been emptied.”
    • “If this bin needs attention, contact BHCC – phone number/email/twitter”
  • Turning the end bin 180% so that it is slightly less easy to reach may encourage residents to use other bins and spread the load a bit more.

Thought or comments welcome.