Six Principles for local climate action
The controversy about the extension of London’s Ultra Low Emission Zone has catapulted local climate interventions onto the front pages.
But the tensions and polarised views surrounding liveable neighbourhood (LN) and Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs) will not be news to residents of Brighton and Hove. In particular, the proposed LN/LTN in Hanover was extremely controversial, became politically toxic, and was eventually put on the back burner.
The opponents of the LN/LTN were frequently accused of being climate deniers, anti-environmental or NIMBY-ists, but this just was not true. Many of those worried about the LN/LTN had strong environmental beliefs, but had concerns about the way proposed measures were being introduced.
In March 2023, a group of us set out to understand what was going wrong and how things could be managed better. We presented a Deputation to the then Environment, Transport and Sustainability Committee (see here): you can see me presenting at 1:01:07. The Deputation text is here (Pg 5).
What went wrong?
The main lesson we drew was that the process had many holes, and undermined trust. We made 11 points, pasted in below.
So what would be better?
We argued that theory and practice suggested 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.
We made this final argument in our Deputation: that 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.
Annex
What went wrong with the Hanover LN/LTN proposal?
The Council decided to act on the basis of representations by a small number of people in the district;
A radical plan was produced ab initio;
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);
The plan did not fit with the Council’s own criteria for low traffic and liveable neighbourhoods;
The idea that the scheme would be ‘experimental’ was not credible;
Face-to-face consultations were informal and unminuted;
Traffic data were not shared publicly;
The results of the online consultation were not published;
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;
Publication deadlines, including of revised proposals, were repeatedly missed;
Information trickled out informally about the final timetable.
Source: Deputation to the Council, March 2023.
Simon Maxwell
6 September 2023
Perspective pieces are the responsibility of the authors, and do not commit Climate:Change in any way.