Agenda item - Deputations from members of the public.

A list of deputations received by the due date of 12noon on the 17^th March 2016 will be circulated separately as part of an addendum at the meeting.

97.1.        The Mayor reported that two deputations had been received from members of the public and invited Ms. Furno as the spokesperson for the first deputation to come forward and address the council.

97.2.        Ms. Furno thanked the Mayor and stated that:

“We have come here today on behalf of our fellow residents of Trafalgar Road and Church Road and Portslade. We’re truly outraged by the ludicrous proposal that traffic bringing an expected 750,000 visitors per year to the i360 in Brighton be directed by brown signs or any other method via our roads. The suggested route that traffic be directed to come along the bypass from all points north and east turn off at the Hangleton link junction come down to Old Shorham Road then reach the coast road via Trafalgar Road and Church Road is ridiculous on a number of levels. This route sends traffic away from the natural flow and direction of its destination. It is 8 miles long which means excessive additional mileage for each of the vehicles using that route and has 14 sets of traffic lights all of which will result in unnecessary air pollution in the area. The roads already suffer high levels of traffic as they are the main route for the HGV travelling to and from Shoreham harbour. An average of 8 busses an hour and numerous cars also take this route which only adds to the issue.

Both Trafalgar Road and Church Road are high residential and there are 4 schools in the area; St. Mary’s Primary School, St. Peter’s Infant School, St. Nicholas’s Primary School and Brakenbury Primary School there is also a health centre and a community centre on these roads. All of these homes and local service generate a large number of pedestrians –both children and adults- who need to cross these already busy roads. Even with current levels of road traffic it can at time take several minutes to be able to cross the road safely. To add to the traffic levels would only exacerbate this issue. Both roads are narrow being single lanes each way for the majority of their lengths. Both of the properties have either small front gardens or none at all with front doors that open directly on to the pavement and therefore more susceptible to road side pollution. According to the diagram provided in page 9 of the Brighton and Hove City Council ‘Air Quality Action Plan technical appendix’ the levels of NO₂ on the northern half of Trafalgar Road and southern half of Church Road are far in excess of the legal limit. Further statistics in the appendix outline reveal the impact that the HGVs have on NO₂ levels in Trafalgar Road.

The ‘Air Quality Action Plan 2015’ ranks Trafalgar Road -the B2193- 8^th in the table showing highest NO₂ levels in Brighton and Hove by transport corridor. That is three places above that of the much discussed Rottingdean High-street. The road has 148 residential dwellings at risk of exceeding the legal NO₂ level which is 30µg/m³ and its roadside NO2 level is 53 µg/m³.

Given that Brighton and Hove City Council has Air Quality Management Areas, which include Trafalgar Road and Church Road, where is the sense in directing traffic via those roads, which will further compound an already extreme situation?

In summary, we ask that you reject the proposal to put up brown road signs directing the traffic from the i360 down Trafalgar road and Church Road  and Portslade on the following grounds; the route itself is excessively long and detours the said traffic out of its natural flow and direction there-by causing unnecessary air pollution, that the two roads already have high levels of traffic especially HGVs in the main route to and from Shoreham harbour, that the current traffic levels mean that the roads are already difficult to cross and any additional traffic would only add to the problem making it increasingly unsafe, that the air pollution level cause by the current traffic on the two roads is already in excess of the legal limit for NO₂, the nearness of the roads and small or non-existent front gardens mean that the residents along the route are highly susceptible to roadside pollution, both roads are within the council’s air quality management areas and as such no scheme should be agreed to which will add to those traffic levels and exacerbate the problem.

In short, we, the residents of Trafalgar Road and Church Road, as well as those from surrounding streets, strongly request that you consider our already difficult situation and reject this proposal.”

97.3.        Councillor Morgan replied,

“The opening of the BA i360 and other major developments along the seafront will, whilst being significant benefits in terms of business rates, employment and tourist income, pose significant traffic and transport challenges. The signage referred to in the media coverage is provided by the Highways Agency and not the city council. As far as I’m aware no final decisions have been made have been made yet by them on where or how much signing will be installed to direct drivers toward the attraction. Signage will be just one of the factors affecting the routes chosen by visitors likely to be less significant than satnav and others. Council officers have been working directly with the i360 since January 2015 on website travel information, coach passenger and vehicle provision, pedestrian signing and local highway signing highway signing for drivers. The Environment, Transport and Sustainability Committee approved the development of a city-wide traffic network management strategy in October of last year which will aim to disperse car journeys across a number of routes in order to achieve a more appropriate distribution of traffic and reduce the effects of congestion and air pollution. Council officers have and will continue to work with the BA i360 team to develop an approach to transport and travel which seeks to bring the greatest benefit to the city whilst minimising the impacts or effects on local neighbourhoods and residents. Once the tower is open and visitor numbers and traffic are known officers and the i360 team will reviewing the traffic and transport strategy for the attraction and suggesting or making changes accordingly. So I would stress that these are not our proposals and this is not our decision. This began with a press release from the BA i360 and the Highways Agency and we will support you in making representations to them.”

97.4.        The Mayor thanked Ms. Furno for attending the meeting and speaking on behalf of the deputation. She explained that the points had been noted and the deputation would be referred to the Economic Development & Culture Committee for consideration. The persons forming the deputation would be invited to attend the meeting and would be informed subsequently of any action to be taken or proposed in relation to the matter set out in the deputation.

97.5.        The Mayor then noted that Mr. Berry was not present to give his deputation, but invited Councillor Daniel to respond.

97.6.        Councillor Daniel stated:

“The deputation asks for Coldean to be described as ‘Coldean village’. I am very pleased to see local people taking an interest and pride in their area and initiating this proposal.

Coldean has a strong sense of identity and of community values. I know that this request is reflected in the values of community more strongly as well as reflecting the fact that it is a beautiful area which is surrounded by trees and green spaces.

There is a formal mechanism under the local government and public involvement act 2007 involving the change of name. That it only occurs when it is part of a governance review undertaken by local authorities and my understanding is that this is not something that the area is looking for. Based on our current understanding of the law there is no mechanism for council to formally approve the proposed use of the term ‘village’ to refer to Coldean when it is not a result of governance review. Notwithstanding this the council in principle supports Coldean being referred to as Coldean Village if that is the preference of residence. This deputation will be referred to the Neighbourhoods, Communities & Equalities Committee and the committee will consider it in the light of legal advice and whether other agencies such as the post office need to be consulted.”

97.7.        The Mayor explained that the deputation would be referred to the Neighbourhoods, Communities & Equalities Committee for consideration. The persons forming the deputation would be invited to attend the meeting and would be informed subsequently of any action to be taken or proposed in relation to the matter set out in the deputation.

97.8.        The Mayor noted that this concluded the item.