Agenda item - Public Involvement

To consider the following matters raised by members of the public:

 

(a)          Petitions: To receive any petitions presented by members of the public;

 

(i)            Speed Bumps on Ovingdean Road

 

(ii)          Public Review of Elm Grove/Lewes Road Junction

 

(iii)         Parking Zone U

 

(iv)         Event Parking in East and North Moulsecoomb

 

(v)          Zone G Parking

 

(b)          Written Questions: To receive any questions submitted by the due date of 12 noon on the 4 October 2016;

 

(i)            Powered Two Wheelers in Bus Lanes

 

(c)          Deputations: To receive any deputations submitted by the due date of 12 noon on the 4 October 2016.

 

(i)            St Margaret’s Place, Loading Only zone removal

(a)          Petitions

 

(i)            Speed Bumps on Ovingdean Road- Anna Taylor

 

24.1      The Committee considered a petition signed by 220 people requesting the installation of speed bumps to enforce the 20mph limit on Ovingdean Road.

 

24.2      The Chair provided the following response:

 

“I attended a Residents Association meeting on 22^nd September along with your ward councillors and listened with interest to concerns and suggestions to deal with issues in Ovingdean Road

Brighton & Hove City Council receive many requests for traffic calming or other measures to mitigate against the effects of traffic in the streets or neighbourhoods where they live and so we have had to adopt a policy where we address those areas where we know people are suffering injuries as a priority.

The collision record for Ovingdean has been checked and I am pleased to say that there have been no injury causing collisions in the past three years. We are also aware from previous checks that the average speed through the village is around 24mph so with no injuries and low speeds I am afraid that we are not in a position to directly prioritise this request just now.

However, should there be any possible developments around the village that may give us potential income in the form of development agreements then we will revisit this decision. And in addition, as promised at the meeting, we will look at low-cost measures such as improved signage to highlight the fact that sections of Ovingdean Road are a shared space may be possible”

 

24.3      RESOVLED- That the petition be noted.

 

(ii)          Public review of Elm Grove/Lewes Road junction- Dani Ahrens

 

24.4      The Committee considered a petition signed by 781 people requesting an urgent review of the junction of Elm Grove and Lewes Road involving public engagement on a wide range of options for making the junction safer for people on bikes and on foot.

 

24.5      The Chair provided the following response:

 

“An upgrade of the Elm Grove/Lewes Road junction is currently on the Local Transport Plan Programme that was agreed last Autumn and is due for completion in 2016/17.

The project is in its early stages but it is anticipated that the project will include an upgrade of the traffic signals to improve the efficiency of the junction as well as the introduction of cycle advance signals. As part of the process we will also conduct a safety review to ensure that safety is maximised for all users.

Due to timescale and budget constraints it will not be possible to conduct a full, wide-ranging public engagement on multiple options however we will liaise with all of the important stakeholders and immediate frontagers such as the ones you have suggested as appropriate. And if anyone would like to put forward suggestions then they are very welcome to do so by emailing Travel.Planning@brighton-hove.gov.uk.

 

24.6      RESOLVED- That the petition be noted.

 

(iii)         Parking Zone U- Charles Baines

 

24.7      The Committee considered a petition signed by 51 people requesting the council to change parking in Zone U to a 9am-8pm pay and display zone.

 

24.8      The Chair provided the following response:

 

“Residents in Area U were consulted on changing the hours of restriction a few years ago and a large majority wanted to keep things as they are.

However, the parking situation has changed since then with an extension of the scheme so in response to this petition the Council will consult residents in Area U on whether they would like to be considered for a 9am-8pm parking scheme.

It is proposed that this leaflet drop will happen in December alongside the parking scheme consultation in the Hanover, Elm Grove and Craven Vale areas with the results presented back to this Committee next spring”.

 

24.9      RESOLVED- That the petition be noted.

 

(iv)        Event Parking in East & North Moulsecoomb- Spencer Carvill

 

24.10   The Committee considered a petition signed by 230 people requesting changes to parking Zone D to prevent unauthorised parking on event days in East and North Moulsecoomb.

 

24.11   The Chair provided the following response:

 

“I am aware that officers have met up with residents and representatives of the football club recently and are looking into a few short term measures that can be introduced.

This will include a Traffic Order funded by the Football Club to propose parking restrictions such as yellow lines to reduce vehicle obstruction in the Match-day parking areas.

Officers will also review the operation of the schemes including how the permits are issued and how they are enforced.

Fundamental changes to the scheme operation including boundaries would require much more detailed discussion and funding from the football club as it is distinctly different from the way other parking schemes are managed and introduced. There is currently no plan or resources to include or undertake a further consultation within the existing parking scheme programme but I hope that officers will be able to progress the other measures that I’ve just outlined as quickly as possible”

 

24.12   RESOLVED- That the petition be noted.

 

(v)          Zone G parking- Laura Gunns

 

24.13   The Committee considered a petition signed by 98 people requesting Ditchling Gardens to be reinstated as Zone J due to a negative impact on local residents being able to park in Ditchling Road and the surrounding streets subsequent to the areas recent transfer to Zone G.

 

24.14   The Chair provided the following response:

 

“As reported in a response to a question from Councillor Hill to the Environment, Transport & Sustainability Committee in June 2016, the Council has undertaken an extensive and detailed two stage consultation process for this parking scheme which received full support.

We also need to consider the previous issues within Ditchling Gardens when a number of residents outlined difficulties for their visitors finding a parking space.

Therefore, as part of the overall process we intend to undertake a period of monitoring and these comments that have come today will be included in the monitoring period. If there are continued difficulties for residents in Ditchling Road and the surrounding areas with their Area J permit and a number of spaces remain in Ditchling Gardens then proposals could be considered to a future Committee meeting as part of the six monthly traffic orders advertised”.

 

24.15   RESOLVED- That the petition be noted.

 

(b)          Written Questions

 

(i)           Powered Two Wheelers in bus lanes- Mark Greening

 

24.16   Mark Greening put the following question:

 

“In 2014 there was unanimous agreement at Committee regarding use of Powered Two Wheelers in three bus lanes. Access in two lanes continues but three years on, Lewes Road still sees PTWs excluded. Motorcyclists have been patient but now want to hold the Council to account.

Without access to bus lanes the available width of space for riders, adversely affects our safety. In addition to better protecting bikers as a vulnerable road user group other benefits include: road space in a crowded city and environmental benefits

Could an explanation for the delay be given and a clear timescale provided?”

 

24.17   The Chair provided the following response:

 

“The Lewes Road has gone through some fundamental design changes and the Council is still currently in a monitoring period following the extended work which incorporated changes to the Vogue Gyratory.

In order to understand the impacts of the changes and monitor behaviors, it has been decided not to introduce any major changes which may impact on the data and observations that have already been taken. The three year monitoring period finishes in December 2016.

In the meantime, work on additional coloured surfacing designs at five key junctions to support the trial and the safety of other vehicles using the bus lanes has begun. This work is a minor modification for the purposes of the Lewes Road scheme but will benefit existing bus lane users. It will also support a trial to allow Motorcycles to use the bus lanes if the decision is made to proceed with this in due course.

These works have been delayed due to staff capacity within the Transport department, but were scheduled to take place at the start of October.

A precise timetable for these works cannot be given because they are weather dependent, requiring dry weather in order to ensure a longer life for the surfacing. All works are scheduled to take place at night in order to minimise disruption”.

 

24.18   Mark Greening put the following supplementary question:

 

“Some councils have motorcycle liaison officers- is that something that could be considered by the council in the future?”

 

24.19   The Chair provided the following response:

 

“At a time of dwindling council resources, it is not possible to provide a dedicated post. If you want to know more details about the works to the junctions then Matthew Thompson is the key contact”

 

(ii)          Traffic in Woodingdean- John Paul Amos

 

24.20   John Paul Amos put the following question:

 

"Can the administration please bring a report to a future meeting of this committee outlining positive and practical measures that can be implemented to better manage the increasing traffic flows coming through Woodingdean as a result of the 3Ts hospital redevelopment and the Lewes road scheme?  The congestion that this extra traffic is causing is making life intolerable for residents of the village."

 

24.21   The Chair provided the following response:

 

“Thank you for your question, Mr Amos.  It echoes the concerns that were also outlined by Mr Roke when he presented a Deputation on behalf of Woodingdean residents to a meeting of the Full Council in July, and is now on the agenda for this meeting.  The Deputation was raised after the public meeting that was arranged and held at the end of June, which I hope you were able to attend.  I provided a full response to the Deputation in July and we can provide you with a copy of that response, as I believe that it answers your question.

One of the points I made within my response, and would repeat today, is that I would encourage yourself and any other residents that are interested and concerned about the situation to attend and participate in regular liaison meetings that are held with Hospital representatives and their contractors about day-to-day issues in relation to the redevelopment of the Hospital.  

This could include any concerns you or others have about Hospital-related traffic in Woodingdean.   You would be most welcome to attend the next meeting which will be in the evening on Wednesday 23 November in the Audrey Emerton Building beginning at 7pm.

I can inform you that since the public meeting in Woodingdean took place with Officers and representatives from the Hospital development, Road Safety Officers have examined the road safety data which indicates that the junction is operating safely. Officers have agreed to monitor the junction on a regular basis and take necessary action should safety problems become evident as the construction traffic begin to use the route.  

In addition as agreed at the public meeting, Officers are currently analysing recent speed survey data for the village and will be feeding back the results to myself and local ward members within the next month”.

 

24.22   John Paul Amos asked the following supplementary question:

 

“Please can Councillor Mitchell outline who made the decision, and when it was made, to change the route site traffic would use for the 3T’s development previously agreed within the original planning application and what consideration was given to the additional impact it would have on Woodingdean roads?”

 

24.23   The Chair provided the following response:

 

“There was no previously agreed route that was decided at the same time as the planning permission. It was always the case that the developers, in conjunction with the Hospital Trust would come forward with a proposal for their consolidation and construction centre. At the time that the planning application was decided, that site was not known. In April this year, the council was informed that site would be at the Kemptown Gas Works at the bottom of Wilson Avenue, very near to the Hospital site. And therefore it was not possible before that time to consider the route once we had that necessary information.”

 

(c)          Deputations

 

(i)            St Margaret’s Place, Loading Only zone removal- John Clinton

 

24.24   The Committee considered a Deputation requesting the removal of a loading bay located on St Margaret’s Place.

 

24.25   The Chair provided the following response:

 

“At the start of the meeting, we undertook what is known as a callover at which we decide which items to discuss. Any items we choose not to discuss, which includes the Traffic Regulation Order position for St Margaret’s Place, are automatically agreed and so the decision has already been taken as part of that process.

This, therefore, has what has been agreed:

 

There have been 2 objections, 2 items of support and a petition of support with 4 signatures to the proposed removal of the loading bay. This was requested by a resident outlining that the loading bay was being misused by a nearby business and vehicles were parking in the bay overnight. This is a difficult issue and we have also recently received a letter from the caretaker of Sussex Heights on behalf of residents requesting that the loading bay remain. It is proposed, therefore, that we put a hold on this proposal and consult residents in the area through a leaflet drop including Sussex Heights to get their views on this proposal”.

 

24.26   RESOLVED- That the Deputation be noted.

 

(ii)          Old Town Transport Scheme (permanent East Street weekend closure to traffic- Olivia Reid

 

24.27   The Committee considered a Deputation in favour of the proposal to permanently close East Street to traffic between the hours of 11am and 7pm Saturday and Sunday.

 

24.28   The Chair provided the following response:

 

“Thank you for taking the time to come along and present your Deputation. Proposals for the future of the weekend pedestrianisation of East Street will be considered at this meeting at Agenda Item 31”

 

24.29   RESOLVED- That the Deputation be noted.

 

(iii)         Deputation to support the offer of funding for a children’s playground in Stanmer Park- Jamie Hooper

 

24.30   The Committee considered a Deputation requesting a report be brought to the next committee meeting formally asking permission to proceed on the proposed site for a play area in Stanmer Park to enable to completion of the Deed of Dedication for the area with Fields in Trust.

 

24.31   The Chair provided the following response:

 

“Thank you Mr Hooper for your deputation that you have submitted along with other interested individuals with regard to the proposed play area for Stanmer Park. Your personal generosity in relation to this project is much appreciated.

However, as indicated previously the provision of the new play area needs to be considered within the wider context of the Stanmer Estate, Parks for People grant application and the forthcoming Open Spaces Strategy. We are also working on that in conjunction with Heritage England, the National Park, the Heritage Lottery Fund and with other residents so there are a wide range of stakeholders that need to be carried with us and also consulted.

The future provision of parks and open spaces set within the context of severe budget reductions for the council will be considered at a later date by this Committee. While we await the outcome of the Stage 2 bid to the former, and work is progressing on the latter it would not be appropriate for Members to consider a request at this stage regarding a new play area. In particular, we would need to know if the grant application is successful and the outcome of the assessment of play equipment across the city. 

In order that Members can make an informed decision it is really important that any new playground equipment that is decided to be implemented can be maintained because the council would have to take on the revenue resource for maintaining the equipment and that decision would have be taken in conjunction with a decision regarding he equipment at the other 54 playgrounds across Brighton & Hove so that we make the best use of our maintenance resources.

I appreciate your desire to move forward on a play area, however, due to the scale of the responses to the Open Spaces Strategy, well over 2,000 now it is unlikely the strategy will be considered by Members until the New Year, therefore, consideration of the request on the play area is therefore likely to undertake a similar timescale.

I know you have previously linked with the Parks Projects Team who will keep you updated”.

 

24.32   RESOLVED- That the Deputation be noted.