Issue - items at meetings - Petitions

Report of the Strategic Director, Resources (copy attached).

53(i)       Petition – Area J parking scheme extension

 

53.1               Mr Stephen Hodgkinson presented an e-petition and accompanying paper petition, signed by a total of 70 people, calling for the council to survey all streets included in the Area J parking scheme extension on the level of utilisation of parking spaces.

 

53.2               The Cabinet Member advised that there were currently no proposals to carry out a parking survey in the streets in the Area J extension as the scheme had only been operating for just over a full year. There would need to be a clear consensus from residents and Ward Councillors for a survey to be carried out in the future.

 

53.3               RESOLVED – That the petition be noted.

 

53(ii)      Petition – public seating

 

53.4               Mr Chris Kift had submitted an e-petition and accompanying paper petition both presented at Council on 21 October 2010 and signed by a total of 143 people requesting that the council consults with residents and the City Wide tenant Disability Network on the removal and placing of public seating in the city.

 

53.5Mr Kift was unable to attend the meeting.

 

53.6RESOLVED – That the petition be noted and a written response be provided.

 

Note:      At the end of the meeting Councillor Fryer submitted an additional 227 signatures bringing the total to 370.

 

53(iii)     Petition – resident vehicular access to Clarence Square, Russell Square and Cannon Place

 

53.7               Mr Kaeran MacDonald had submitted an e-petition and accompanying paper petition, signed by a total of 25 people, calling for local residents to be permitted access to Clarence Square, Russell Square and Cannon Place from the north of Clarence Square.

 

53.8Mr MacDonald was unable to attend the meeting.

 

53.9RESOLVED – That the petition be noted and a written response be provided.

 

53(iv)     Petition – bus stop, Black Lion, Patcham

 

53.10          Mr Chris Petken had submitted a petition signed by 226 people opposing the erection and location of a glass and stainless steel bus stop at the Black Lion, Patcham on the grounds that it was out of keeping with its surrounding in a Conservation Area.

 

53.11          The Democratic Services Officer circulated a statement from Mr Petken who was unable to attend the meeting.

 

53.12          The Cabinet Member stated that, while he sympathised with Mr Petken’s view, the bus stop had been provided as part of the A23 Sustainable Transport Corridor scheme and was served by several bus services, including the 273, 40, 17 and National Express coaches. Before the recent footway improvements, people had been forced to wait for a bus in the middle of a busy junction with no shelter and the improvements meant that the shelter was located safely and conveniently in the best location. Alternative shelter designs were considered, and the one chosen was the least visually intrusive because it was almost completely transparent. The Patcham and Old Preston Society had been consulted and accepted the design of the shelter and there had been an exhibition of the entire scheme in Patcham Library in November 2009.

 

53.13          RESOLVED – That the petition be noted.

 

53(v)      Petition – play park next to St Cuthman’s Church, Whitehawk

 

53.14          Councillor Morgan had submitted a petition presented at Council on 21 October 2010 and signed by 125 people in support of the proposed new play park next to St Cuthman’s Church in Whitehawk.

 

53.15          Councillor Mitchell presented the petition on behalf of Councillor Morgan who was unable to attend the meeting.

 

53.16          The Cabinet Member was pleased to report that that the government had released some funds in order to continue with the work previously planned, but not all, and the council was currently considering how it could proceed.  He advised that the exact position would be known in coming weeks, but gave assurances that the council was doing all it could to try and deliver as much of the Playbuilder programme as possible, including the proposals detailed in the petition.

 

53.17          RESOLVED – That the petition be noted.

 

53(vi)     Petition – parking, Connaught Road

 

53.18          Councillor Older had submitted a petition presented at Council on 21 October 2010 and signed by 16 people calling for permit parking in Connaught Road to reduce the problems experienced by residents.

 

53.19          Mr Chris Lilley presented the petition and highlighted the effect on residents of people parking in Connaught Road to visit the beach and the shops and restaurants in the area. He added that the problem would be exacerbated by the opening of the new school at the Connaught Centre in September 2011 and that the council needed to act now to make it fairer for residents and safer for the school children.

 

53.20          The Cabinet Member advised that he would ask officers to investigate changing shared resident permit and pay & display bays into resident permit bays only, and that site visits would take place to establish current parking demands in the road, whilst also taking into account the issue of safety of school children from September 2011.

 

53.21          RESOLVED – That the petition be noted.

 

53(vii)    Petition – parking, Area H, East Brighton

 

53.22          Councillor Turton presented a petition presented at Council on 21 October 2010 and signed by 562 people concerning parking problems in Area H East Brighton, and in particular Whitehawk Road, Roedean Road, Bristol Gardens and Arundel Road, and calling for the creation of free parking bays for shoppers.

 

53.23          The Cabinet Member explained that the council policy within full resident parking schemes was to provide paid parking as it made parking as flexible as possible within retail areas; because free limited waiting parking was difficult to enforce if a vehicle stayed longer than the designated time, and the council was trying to encourage short term parking in the area to support local businesses. The Cabinet Member noted that the majority of residents had voted for the area to have controlled parking and that schemes were usually reviewed after approximately 12 months of operation.

 

53.24          RESOLVED – That the petition be noted.

 

53(viii)   Petition – CCTV and anti-social behaviour, Hangleton Way

 

53.25          Councillor Janio had submitted a petition presented at Council on 21 October 2010 and signed by 105 people calling for a CCTV camera to be installed in Hangelton Way, Hove due to continued anti-social behaviour in the area.

 

53.26          Councillor Janio was unable to attend the meeting.

 

53.27          RESOLVED – That the petition be noted and a written response be provided.

 

53(ix)     Petition – parking, Matlock Road

 

53.28          Ms Martine Danby had submitted a petition signed by 51 people calling for Matlock Road to be included in a residents’ parking scheme in order to ease the problems caused by displacement, particularly in light on the forthcoming inclusion of Tivoli Crescent in the Preston Park scheme.

 

53.29          The Cabinet Member stated that roads in the area had previously voted against parking controls. He explained that since the introduction of the Preston Park scheme representations had been received from both Tivoli Crescent and Tivoli Crescent North to extend parking schemes to these roads. The Cabinet Member had agreed to the Tivoli Crescent request, which was also supported by ward councillors because, on balance, it was felt to be a missing link and would not materially affect the adjacent roads. The request from Tivoli Crescent North residents was not agreed as it was felt that its inclusion would have an adverse impact.

 

The Cabinet Member advised that he had considered the request carefully, but that it was felt to be similar to Tivoli Crescent North. Therefore, a petition from a wider area of streets, fully supported by Ward Councillors, would be required.

 

53.30          In response to a request from Ms Danby to fast track the inclusion of Matlock Road if a petition from neighbouring roads was also received, the Lead Commissioner for City Regulation and Infrastructure explained that scheme reviews had already been programmed for the next 6-12 months, so it would not be possible to fast track any schemes, but once evidence of a wider consensus had been received it could be included in the work programme.

 

53.31          RESOLVED – That the petition be noted.