Issue - items at meetings - Deputations

(The closing date for receipt of deputations is 12 noon on 19 July 2010)

(a)       Deputation concerning parking management for Brighton & Hove (copy attached).

(b)      Deputation concerning byelaws relating to pleasure grounds, public walks and open spaces(copy attached).

(c)       Deputation concerning an application to have Tivoli Crescent North (Withdean Road to Tivoli Crescent section) included within Brighton & Hove Council controlled parking Zone A (copy attached).

20(a)      Deputation – parking management for Brighton & Hove

20.1               The Cabinet Member considered a deputation from Mr Robert Rosenthal concerning parking management in Brighton & Hove. Mr Rosenthal outlined problems he had identified with parking management in the city and a number of solutions to tackle the issues. He stated that any strategic review of parking should be driven by principles determined by elected Members, not technical matters. He urged the Cabinet member to delay any further decisions on parking management until after a strategic review had taken place.

20.2               The Cabinet Member thanked Mr Rosenthal for his deputation and the interesting ideas he had put forward. He explained that the council had to comply with government legislation and take into account the legal and financial implications of any parking schemes proposed. Any report on the future of parking schemes that may come forward would be presented at a future Environment Cabinet Member Meeting and officers would note Mr Rosenthal’s comments when compiling the report, but this was unlikely to be in September.

20.3               RESOLVED – That the deputation be noted.

20(b)      Deputation - byelaws relating to pleasure grounds, public walks and open spaces

20.4               The Cabinet Member considered a deputation from Mr M Murray calling for the review of byelaws relating to pleasure grounds, public walks and open spaces. Mr Murray requested that the byelaws drawn up by his colleague Vanessa Bishop be passed to the councils legal team for refinement and be brought into force as soon as possible and published on the council’s website.

20.5               The Cabinet Member acknowledged the amount of work put into preparing the petition and suggested that officers meet with Mr Murray and Ms Bishop to talk through the proposals. He advised that experience had shown that byelaws in themselves did not change or eradicate anti-social behaviours.

20.6               The Cabinet Member thanked Mr Murray for his contributions to the council’s work during his time living in the city and wished him well in his relocation plans and future endeavours.

20.7               RESOLVED – That the deputation be noted.

20(c)      Deputation – application to have Tivoli Crescent North (Withdean Road to Tivoli Crescent section) included within Brighton & Hove Council controlled parking Zone A

20.8               The Cabinet Member considered a deputation from Mr Peter Meekings, and accompanying petition, calling for Tivoli Crescent North to be included in controlled parking Zone A. Mr Meekings advised that the problems experienced by residents in Tivoli Crescent North were similar to those encountered by residents of Tivoli Crescent, for whom re-consultation on inclusion in Zone A was being proposed, and that they should also be re-consulted because residents now wanted to be included in the parking scheme.

20.9               The Cabinet Member explained that there was a recommendation later on the agenda to consider Tivoli Crescent for a consultation as it was considered to be the missing link to the current Area A resident parking scheme, which created a natural boundary and officers had always felt that Tivoli Crescent should have be included in the existing scheme. Tivoli Crescent North was further north and there was concern that it should only be considered in the future if other roads in the vicinity requested to be re-consulted on a resident parking scheme. 

There were good facilities for off-street parking on Tivoli Crescent North which had virtually all detached houses with garages; this was not the case in Tivoli Crescent where houses were largely terraced with no off street parking. There were also double yellow lines currently marked up on Tivoli Crescent North to prevent obstruction on one side of the road.

20.10          MrMeekings queried whether residents could submit suggestions for changes to parking arrangements in the Preston Park Station area.

20.11          The Cabinet Member advised that schemes were usually reviewed after six to nine months of operation and that representations from residents were always welcome.

20.12          RESOLVED – That the deputation be noted.

20(d)      Deputation – dog control order, Queens Park

20.13          The Cabinet Member considered a deputation from Mrs Sandra Magson calling for the council to review the operation of the Dog Control Order in Queens Park, and return all areas to the dog-free status enjoyed prior to January 2009.

20.14          The Cabinet Member also considered the supporting petition submitted by Councillor Fryer and the opposing petition from Mr Mendlesohn.

20.15          On behalf of Councillor Fryer, Councillor Steedman reported that the petition had also been signed by dog walkers and that, although local opinion was not unanimous, the number of signatures collected showed that the majority were in favour of returning Queens Park to the previous arrangements.

20.16          Mr Mendlesohn stated that the area left for dog owners would not be sufficient, particularly for those with families. He advised that dog owners were concerned that if the Dog Control Order was altered for Queens Park, this would set a precedent for the rest of the city.

20.17          MrsMagson had also submitted the following question:

“Regarding Councillor Theobald’s response to our deputation at full Council on 15^th July 2010 requesting strong evidence of a clear community view for change prior to embarking on the process of another consultation, would Councillor Theobald agree that:

(a)         a petition signed by 1,900 park users and

(b)         the support of:

1.      the constituency M.P.

2.      the Councillors for Queens Park ward

3.      local schools

4.      the two most influential local residents groups for Queens  Park ( Friends of Queens Park and Local Action Team) constitute significant and substantial evidence of such community support.

If not, what further evidence is required to persuade Councillor Theobald to set in motion the process for reinstatement of the dog free zone in the park?”

20.18          In response to all of the representations made the Cabinet Member explained that the original Dog Control Order was made following the Environment Committee meeting on 7 June 2007, Cabinet meeting on 12 June 2008, and a Notice of Motion at Full Council on 17 July 2008 and that all councillors had been fully aware of the changes to dog control. The purpose of the new Dog Control Order had been to provide a consistent, clear, fair, enforceable, framework of rules for dog control.

There had been two petitions and a deputation at Council on 15 July.  The Friends of Queens Park had requested a return to Southern Lawns being dog free, while a second petition supported the current set of rules.  The deputation had explained that the 1900 signature petition had the support of the local MP, councillors, schools and community groups.

The Cabinet Member advised that he had asked for clear consensus before determining the best course of action, but that he appreciated that the subject attracted strong and opposing views.  On balance, in view of the number and range of people supporting a change, the Cabinet Member stated that it was in the best interests of the public to call for officers to begin the statutory consultation process proposing that the Southern Lawns return to their dog free status.

20.19          MrsMagson asked the following supplementary question:

“Would Councillor Theobald accept an invitation to meet the Friends of Queens Park on site to discuss the matter further?”

20.20          The Cabinet Member reiterated that he had made the decision to consult on proposals  to return the Southern Lawns to their dog free status and that a statutory consultation would follow.

20.21          The Lawyer to the meeting confirmed that a specific statutory process would be followed and that it provided for a minimum period of consultation. A report based on the consultation results would be put before the Cabinet Member at a future meeting.

20.22          RESOLVED – That the deputation be noted and the statutory consultation process be started.