Biking back from school with my five year old today I saw this. I rubbed my eyes in disbelief – it can’t be true! But it is readers, it is. The Council is putting up signs around the school alerting moterists that there may be children ahead. If you want to see what was up before you can click here.
There has been a lot in the local media about the insane parking costs – particularly on the seafront. It now costs up to £20 a day to leave a car on the seafront in Brighton. When I spoke with David Parker, Head of Transport Planning David.Parker@brighton-hove.gov.uk he said that parking schemes weren’t introduced to make money, in fact some made a loss (where I wonder – perhaps a future FoI request). Anyway given the current whooo-hahhhh, I thought I’l get this video out.
When we said that we wanted a 20mph zone around the school – like what they have up the road in Poet’s Corner, see here. We were told that a 20 zone was coming to the whole City, and interestingly enough the Argus is following that today. But they seem to have missed the story: the fact is that it’s not unusual to drive through the city at 20 mph – so that’s not the revelation, it’s that they say it will cost 1.5 million to implement – and hey, let’s face it you can double that figure for the final bill.
1.5 million. To do what?
Hey-ho, here’s the Argus story…
Brighton and Hove is set to become a 20mph city within four years.
Every residential road in the city, apart from the main routes, will have the restrictions introduced by Brighton and Hove City Council.
This means outlying areas including Woodingdean, Saltdean, Patcham and Portslade will all be included in the plans.
The Green administration said the scheme, which police have warned will have to be self-enforcing, will help improve road safety, reduce air pollution and encourage more people to use sustainable transport.
But opposition councillors claim a blanket ban is “over the top”, adding the restrictions will be unenforceable.
Police have warned the scheme will have to be self-enforcing – and that if drivers do not stick to the limit the council will have to invest in traffic calming measures to force them to.
Ian Davey, the council’s cabinet member for transport, said it was consulting on the scheme in response to residents’ requests.
Coun Davey said: “The benefits of a citywide scheme include potentially fewer collisions and less severe collisions while a consistent limit is likely to lead to better compliance, reduced street clutter and safer streets.
If backed in a consultation of thousands of homes, the scheme would take place in stages. The local authority believes it scheme will cost £1.5 million and it is hoped all the work should be complete in the next three to four years.
The widespread zones will be marked with signs and road markings but will not initially include speed bumps or other traffic calming measures.
It was recently revealed a similar city-wide zone in Manchester could cost up to £41 million.
Conservative councillor Geoffrey Theobald said: “We support 20mph zones in certain locations, especially around schools and in residential streets, and indeed, we introduced many of these when we were in administration.
“However, we have consistently argued that the Greens’ blanket citywide approach is over the top.
“It will be difficult, if not impossible, to enforce and my concern is that by slowing everything down it will just end up causing more congestion.”
Labour group leader Gill Mitchell said: “Whilst we fully support 20mph zones we have serious questions as to how the Greens propose to implement the plan.
“They are planning to spend £1.5 million on a blanket city-wide speed reduction scheme based on ‘lines and signs’ only, a scheme that cannot be enforced.”
If approved on Friday, consultation is expected to begin in the second week of June and run for about six weeks.
Story taken from here.
Dear Mr Morgan
I would like to start by clarifying that I am not taking a view on the merits or otherwise of the Council’s decision regarding the road safety issue you raised and no one is questioning your right to question or challenge any action or omission on the part of the Council or its employees.
I take the view that the email you sent yesterday (which can be seen here with my reply) was a very clear attempt to intimidate me and stop me distributing information which is embarrassing for the Council. It was, in short, an attempt to gag me, and to stop me bringing to the attention of other parents an extremely dangerous situation.
What is at issue is the particular manner in which you have chosen to do so.
The leaflets (which I now understand you distributed yesterday)..
Yes, that’s correct.
…had a picture of the Council’s Head of Traffic Planning..
Dave, yes.
…with comments suggesting or implying that he is incapable of understanding the risk to children.
I made sure that the flyer was factually correct, to the best of my knowledge, and after a great deal of research. Rather than argue about what the flyer said or didn’t say, it’s probably better just to look at it, it’s here.
This, in my view, amounts to a statement that, in legal terms, “is likely to lower a person’s estimate in the minds of right thinking members of society.” It is therefore potentially defamatory. In addition, the statement could amount to questioning his professional competence or professional integrity which again could amount to defamation.
I think you’ve just said the same thing twice here. Listen Abraham, do you know who I am? Have you taken the time to Google my name? Have you looked at www.safetyoutsideschool.co.uk? For the benefit of others reading this I’ll go though the basics of media law.
There are two legal defences that apply in defamation cases of this nature, the first is justification (also known as, “well it’s true”) and I’ve got the whole thing on video so frankly proving truth isn’t gong to be problem for me. The second is fair comment (also known as, “it’sn the public interest init”) in legalise this is, expressions of opinion, based upon true facts, made in good faith and without malice on a matter of public interest may be protected. And clearly this is in the public interest as we are trying to keep children out of hospitals and morgues. More on this media law can be found here.
So now we both know that you don’t have a case and I think it’s mischievous of you to suggest there might be one.
The Council recognises and respects your right to express views and criticise or question its policies and decisions.
I think there has been a very clear attempt to gag and intimidate me for which you should be extremely embarrassed.
However, there was no justification for the unpleasant, ad hominem nature of the comments in the leaflet.
Well Abraham, you have me rushing for my dictionary. Let’s see “ad hominem”. Well here’s the definition from Collins: “1. directed against a person rather than against his arguments and 2. based on or appealing to emotion rather than reason”
One point 1 I am clearly criticising the Head of Transport and Planning about his inability to see and / or acknowledge a dangerous situation, which – frankly – is obvious to the hundreds of parents who have to use that road every day. Well that’s not a personal attack on an individual. On point 2, the flyer is not emotional at all. An emotional flyer would say something like: “Has a kid got to die here before something is done?” And I have not said anything like that.
I confirm that the Council is monitoring the situation and reserves the right to take appropriate action, including instituting legal proceedings, if it considers it necessary. In the meanwhile, I would ask you to desist from disseminating further defamatory material.
Well, firstly I think we’ve now established that it’s not defamatory. And secondly you can – indeed – ask for anything you want, but I’m pretty certain that you are not going to get it.
Let me point out to you this: I’ve spent two years having meetings, oh, meeting after meeting after meeting, you know all the regular stuff, you can see it in the timeline here. And it was only after exhausting all conventional methods that I set out on this rather unconventional course of action.
The Council is wasting time and resources here, and more seriously we are in danger of losing sight of what this is all about: it’s about the safety of children leaving West Hove Infants and Junior School and having to cross an extremely busy and dangerous road. It’s about the Council removing zigzags and putting in parking bays which make a dangerous situation much worse.
The Council reserves the right to draw the contents of this e-mail and that of yesterday to the Court in support of an application for injunction or other appropriate remedy as it sees fit.
You have no case Abraham, we both know it, it’s both beneath you and shameful to try and intimidate me in this way.
If you and the Council want this sorted you should be improving the road safety, not trying to threaten me.
Cheers Nick
Yours sincerely
Abraham Ghebre-Ghiorghis
Head of Legal & Democratic Services
Brighton & Hove City Council
2nd Floor, King’s House
Grand Avenue, Hove, BN3 2LS
Email: abraham.ghebre-ghiorghis@brighton-hove.gov.uk
Tel: 01273 291500
www.brighton-hove.gov.uk
Road Safety Manager Phil Clarke: will this man listen to common sense?
Phil,
You and I have corresponded about safety outside West Hove Primary schools so I am very pleased to hear that new road signs are going to be installed. Have you also considered any other measures such as a “lollipop” person helping on school road?
Regards
Anne Pissaridou
Labour & Co-operative Group Councillor for Wish
Brighton & Hove City Council
Room 121, King’s House, Grand Avenue, Hove BN3 2LS
T: 01273 291153 M: 07557197593
E: anne.pissaridou@brighton-hove.gov.uk
W: www.brighton-hove.gov.uk
From: Abraham Ghebre-Ghiorghis <Abraham.Ghebre-Ghiorghis@brighton-hove.gov.uk>
Subject: RE: Flyer for West Hove School – this will be handed out to the parents as they leave school today
URGENT
Dear Mr Morgan,
My attention has been drawn to what appears like an extremely inappropriate communication which you are planning to distribute to parents as they leave West Hove School. I would point out that:
1. We do not consider this highly personalised and offensive approach is a proper and legitimate way of raising concerns about Council services or Officer decisions;
2. We believe that it is potentially defamatory as it is questioning the professional integrity of an officer by portraying him as someone unable or unwilling to understand issues that affect ordinary people;
3. As am employer, the Council has a duty of care under the Health & Safety legislation to ensure that the health, safety and wellbeing of its staff is protected while undertaking Council duties. This includes, where appropriate, taking all steps necessary to protect our employees, including legal action.
4. I would Ask you not to distribute these leaflets, failing which you are on notice that the you may be leaving himself open to legal action from the individual employee and/or the Council, which I hope will not be necessary.
Yours sincerely
Abraham Ghebre-Ghiorghis
Head of Legal & Democratic Services
Brighton & Hove City Council
2nd Floor, King’s House
Grand Avenue, Hove, BN3 2LS
Email: abraham.ghebre-ghiorghis@brighton-hove.gov.uk
Tel: 01273 291500
www.brighton-hove.gov.uk
Hi Abraham
Please let me know if you think I’ve broken any laws.
Best wishes
Nick
–
Nick Morgan
www.safetyoutsideschool.co.uk
nick.morgan@mac.com
Dear Mr Morgan,
Thank you for meeting with me, Dave Parker and Councillor Peltzer-Dunn yesterday outside West Hove Infant School.
As we explained yesterday, the School Keep Clear (SKC) markings were removed several years ago and replaced by the build-outs and pay and display parking bays for road safety reasons. The build-outs provide enhanced visibility for and of pedestrians, encourage people to cross where the road width is at it narrowest and have a calming effect on vehicle speeds. The parked vehicles discourage crossing where the road is wider and prevent the dropping off and picking up of children which was considered hazardous when the SKCs were in place and ignored by some drivers. Since the SKCs were removed and replaced with the current layout there have been no recorded collisions and we consider that to revert to the previous SKC arrangement would adversely affect road safety. The limited revenue generated by the parking bays has played no part in this decision, which as stated has been taken solely on the grounds of safety.
However, we do acknowledge that the existing road markings have become worn and there is scope to increase the number of signs warning of the presence of the schools. I have asked the relevant staff to carry out the following work as soon as possible:
Refresh the existing road markings, including the ‘Slow’ signs on the road, the ‘Look Both Way’ markings in front of the build-outs and the double yellow lines on northernmost build-out.
Paint an additional ‘Slow’ marking on the road between the two build-outs for northbound traffic
Erect an additional ‘School’ warning sign on a high visibility backboard in Marmion Road on the approach to the junction with School Road
Additionally, the Council is currently drawing up proposals for wider use of 20mph speed limits in the City’s residential streets and especially in the vicinity of schools. It is highly likely that School Road will be included in any such scheme, although at this stage I cannot provide a timescale for when this work will be completed.
Please note that I have copied this e-mail in to Ms Wendy Harkness (Headteacher), Councillors Peltzer-Dunn and Pissaridou as well as Mike Weatherly MP and others, so that they are aware of the Council’s position on this matter and the work listed above.
Regards
Phil Clarke
Road Safety Manager
Transport Planning Section, Environment Directorate
Room 404 Hove Town Hall, Norton Rd, Hove BN3 3BQ
Please note I work Monday to Thursday
In his letter of 3 Aug 2011 to Cllr Pissaridou, Phil is much more forth coming about the real motives for not wanting greater road safety measures, it’s the parking bays, he says: “I am… aware that parking in these roads is quite an issue and to put a controlled crossing in would take away at least 16 spaces in each road.” This is the heart of the matter. Full letter here.
Hi David, Garry and Phil
Great to meet you all yesterday, a very interesting experience.
David, at that point when 100s of children were walking out blind into the road (because of the parked high-sided vehicles) and you were saying how safe it was, well some of the audio is a little faint. Would you mind reshooting that and talking a little louder? We could also get some wide (establishing) shots in to place it a little better.
Garry, when you were blaming the parents, and saying the problem is that parents are lazy. Well frankly that looks a bit damming on film. Would you like to shoot that again, perhaps being a little more targeted?
I’ll be approaching other parents at the school at 3.15pm today outside West Hove Junior School and asking them if they think the blind spots you’ve deliberately created make crossing the road safer.
Let me know when you are free to re-shoot.
Cheers
Nick
Thank you for your letter.
I attended the meeting in good faith and made what thought were constructive suggestions in respect of your concerns.
I find the tone of your comments and suggestions to be totally unacceptable. At no time did you advise me that you were conducting a filmed interview. To quote out of context is not the proper way to do things.
Before I comment further perhaps you would be good enough to release the whole so called interview.
In the meantime ( notwithstanding your actions and attitude ) I will fully support the actions listed by Phil Clarke which mirror the suggestions I made to the officers yesterday.
Thank you.
Garry Peltzer Dunn
Road Safety Manager Phil Clarke left and David Parker Head of Transport Planning
The meeting was attended by David Parker, Head of Transport Planning Phil Clarke, Road Safety Manager, Garry Peltzer Dunn, Councillor and myself (Nick Morgan) outside West Hove Junior School. Monday 26 March at 3.15pm
The meeting itself was filmed so there’s no dispute about what was said and when. But here is the background as to how it all came about…
So I’d been after the reinstatement for the zigzags for years (see the timeline here) the Council had come to a point where they just wanted to ignore me (letter here) but we were going to go for one last meeting. I had no truck with these meetings which had consistently failed to move things forwards. So here was my plan, I’d take a video camera and a tripod, turn the camera on, they’d see the camera say they didn’t want to be filmed and I’d nip back home after attending the shortest Council meeting known to man.
But that didn’t happen, none of the three even mentioned the camera, it was like they looked at it but they didn’t see it, like it had somehow become invisible. There was a red light on the front and a screen on the back and all through the meeting I was just waiting for one of the three to ask, “Are you filming this?” or at the very least, “Why have you got a camera with you?” But nobody did.
You can get an idea of how the meeting was with the above screen grab. I’ll get the film up on YouTube soon.
