We would like to comment on some of the points raised in the article about pedestrianisation and the removal of road markings (The Argus, March 17).

Brighton and Hove City Council did not routinely consult Guide Dogs for the Blind when drawing up their proposal for pedestrianising streets in the city. By the time we learned of the plans for New Road, they were mostly fixed. The council then invited us to carry out a "before and after" survey and we submitted that report in June 2007.

It clearly demonstrated that New Road was no longer useable independently by blind and partially sighted people. Indeed, the council's own consultants, in their safety audit, reported they saw no visually impaired people using the area.

In his comments in the article Councillor Geoffrey Theobald implied that improving "the appearance of other roads" was a factor.

Aesthetics should not come at the price of the independent mobility of blind and partially sighted people in the locality.

We will be interested in the outcome of the environment committee's discussions on March 20 when it will be considering a report from us.

We had hoped the council would have completed those discussions before making any decisions on rolling out this programme to other parts of the authority.

Indeed, if the design works as well as is reported, why do the council feel it necessary to seek approval for an enforceable speed limit? And where do they envisage the displaced traffic will relocate when their programme is fully implemented?

  • Susan Sharp, Head of Public Policy and Campaigns Guide Dogs for the Blind, Reading