Agenda for Transport Committee on Tuesday, 27th November, 2012, 4.00pm
navigation and tools
Find it
You are here - Home : Council and Democracy : Councillors and Committees : Agenda, decisions and minutes
Agenda, decisions and minutes
PDF 234 KBVenue: Council Chamber, Hove Town Hall. View directions
Contact: John Peel Democratic Services Officer
| No. | Item |
|---|---|
|
Procedural Business (a) Declarations of Substitutes: Where councillors are unable to attend a meeting, a substitute Member from the same political group may attend, speak and vote in their place for that meeting.
(b) Declarations of Interest:
(a) Disclosable pecuniary interests not registered on the register of interests; (b) Any other interests required to be registered under the local code; (c) Any other general interest as a result of which a decision on the matter might reasonably be regarded as affecting you or a partner more than a majority of other people or businesses in the ward/s affected by the decision.
In each case, you need to declare (i) the item on the agenda the interest relates to; (ii) the nature of the interest; and (iii) whether it is a disclosable pecuniary interest or some other interest.
If unsure, Members should seek advice from the committee lawyer or administrator preferably before the meeting.
(c) Exclusion of Press and Public: To consider whether, in view of the nature of the business to be transacted or the nature of the proceedings, the press and public should be excluded from the meeting when any of the following items are under consideration.
Note: Any item appearing in Part Two of the agenda states in its heading the category under which the information disclosed in the report is exempt from disclosure and therefore not available to the press and public.
A list and description of the exempt categories is available for public inspection at Brighton and Hove Town Halls and on-line in the Constitution at part 7.1. Minutes: 26(a) Declarations of Substitutes
26.1 Councillor Hawtree declared that he was in attendance as substitute for Councillor Phillips.
26(b) Declarations of Interest
26.2 There were none.
26(c) Exclusion of press and public
26.3 In accordance with section 100A of the Local Government Act 1972 (“the Act”), the Committee considered whether the press and public should be excluded from the meeting during an item of business on the grounds that it was likely, in view of the business to be transacted or the nature of proceedings, that if members of the press and public were present during that item, there would be disclosure to them of confidential information (as defined in section 100A(3) of the Act) or exempt information (as defined in section 100(I) of the Act).
26.4 RESOLVED- That the press and public not be excluded.
26.5 In addition the Chair stated that he had received a request to allow the meeting to be recorded by Members of the Public. The Chair stated that as per Rule 31 of the Constitution, he would grant permission for this to happen.
|
|
|
To consider the minutes of the meeting held on 2 October 2012 (copy attached). Minutes: 27.1 RESOLVED- That the minutes of the previous meeting held on 2 October 2012 be approved and signed as the correct record.
|
|
|
Chair's Communications Minutes: 28.1 Councillor Davey stated he had no specific Chair’s Communications to record.
|
|
|
Call Over (a) Items (32 – 38) will be read out at the meeting and Members invited to reserve the items for consideration.
(b) Those items not reserved will be taken as having been received and the reports’ recommendations agreed. Minutes: 29.1 RESOLVED- That all items on the agenda be reserved for discussion.
|
|
|
To consider the following matters raised by members of the public:
(a) Petitions: To receive any petitions presented by members of the public to the full Council or at the meeting itself.
(i) Speed limit on Hollingbury Park Avenue (ii) Resident Parking Scheme Rochester Street (iii) Inadequate coach parking facilities (iv) Free parking at Norton Road Car Park (v) Yellow lines on Crossbush Road (vi) Safety on Davey Drive
(b) Written Questions: To receive any questions submitted by the due date of 12 noon on the 20 November 2012.
(c) Deputations: To receive any deputations submitted by the due date of 12 noon on the 20 November 2012.
(i) Inadequate coach parking- Mr Cummings (ii) Parking charges on London Road- Ms Townsend Additional documents: Minutes: 30 (a) Petitions
30.1. Councillor Davey stated that both a petition and Letter had been received regarding a 20mph speed limit in Hollingbury Park Avenue and, for simplicity, he would receive these together.
(i) Speed Limit on Hollingbury Park Avenue- Ann Healey and Councillor Lepper
30.2. Ann Healey presented a combined e-petiton and paper petition signed by 146 people requesting the Council to reduce the speed limit on Hollingbury Park Avenue to 20mph. Councillor Lepper presented a Letter requesting that Hollingbury Park Avenue be brought forward from Phase 3 in the proposals for the city-wide introduction of 20mph speed limits.
30.3. Councillor Davey presented the following response:
‘Thank you for your Petition and Letter. Hollingbury Park Avenue is currently part of the proposals for Phase 3 (financial year 2014/15) for the city-wide introduction of 20mph limits, the first Phase of which is to be considered by the Transport Committee this evening. Officers will then review how we take forward subsequent phases based on experience from implementing the first phase and subject to support from residents so we can provide the right solution. I anticipate the next set of proposals to come to Transport Committee early next year’.
30.4. RESOLVED- That the Petition and Letter be noted.
(ii) Rochester Street Resident Parking Scheme- Mr Rhodes
30.5. Mr Rhodes presented a petition signed by a total of 43 people (37 for 6 against) asking for a resident parking scheme to be introduced on Rochester Street as a matter of urgency.
30.6. Councillor Davey provided the following response:
‘Thank you for the petition. Officers are conducting a review of parking schemes in the city to ensure a fair balance between the needs of residents, businesses and visitors. The purpose of the review is to improve the way we manage parking and to look at the future of residents parking schemes and whether to consult on new parking schemes or to extend existing schemes. Officers are aware of requests from residents from the three streets that make up the “Bakers Bottom” area (which includes Rochester Street) and have taken this into account as part of the consultation. A report will be presented to Transport Committee on 15 January 2013 which is expected to contain a proposed short/medium term timetable of parking review consultations. This report will be published on the council’s website about a week prior to the meeting’.
30.7. RESOLVED- That the petition be noted.
30.8. Councillor Davey noted that both a petition and a Deputation had been received regarding coach parking on Roedean Road. In addition, he had granted a request for Councillor Mears to speak to the item.
(iii) Inadequate coach parking facilities- Rosemary Shepherd
30.9. The Committee considered a petition and Deputation on coach parking facilities on Roedean Road. Councillor Mears stated that this had become a serious issue. She noted her concerns regarding previous funding put towards the project that hadn’t been used and why this had come about. She added her concerns regarding safety in the area and that there had not been a review into coach parking in the long-term.
30.10. Councillor Davey provided the following response:
‘There is nothing further that I wish to add to my previous responses at the full Council meeting last month. However, Mrs Shepherd did raise an additional question at that meeting regarding what the mechanisms are for assessing coach parking demand and usage. In response to that question, I can confirm that when the planning application was submitted for the temporary coach park at Black Rock, supporting transport information was also provided in a Transport Statement. It included commentary and analysis about coach parking usage in 2010 which identified that Madeira Drive has a capacity of 42 to 50 coaches and that peak demand for use is on a summer Sunday, with around 30 of the spaces occupied. The majority of coaches arrive between 11am and 1pm and stay on average for 8hrs; 20 to 30 coaches could also be parked in Roedean Road, and the highest number of coaches that were parked on a summer Sunday was 23; in addition, the document suggested that up to a further 10 spaces around the city may be used on an ad hoc basis by coach drivers. Therefore, based on these figures, capacity was calculated to be between 70 and 90 spaces and the peak usage amounted to about 60 coaches. In conclusion, the Transport Statement concluded that there was a current/future peak demand on Sundays of just over 80 spaces. I would add that demand for coach parking in the city could vary considerably given that tour or coach operators and visitors, groups, organizations and companies and even families from across the country and the continent, will make independent decisions to come to our city throughout the year and for many different reasons. I am very aware that this issue which has a long history is proving challenging to resolve due to its complex nature and shortage of available sites. I have asked officers to undertake a further study into overall demand and capacity issues to seek possible solutions as I think it is important that we attract coaches and tourists into the city. We still need to allocate resources to this work and hope to do so in the next financial year we can then make a decision as to when we will be in a position to report back with possible solutions.’ Councillor Davey added that he had been informed that the funding set aside was not sufficient and proposals for Black Rock had not been thought through sufficiently.
30.11. Councillor Theobald noted his disappointment with the response provided. He moved a motion requesting the issue be dealt with straight away and Committee receive an officer report.
30.12. Councillor Cox formally seconded the motion.
30.13. Councillor Davey then put the recommendation to request an officer report to a vote, with the following result:
For: 5 Against 5
30.14. The motion was not carried.
30.15. RESOLVED- That the petition is noted.
(iv) Free parking at Norton Road Car Park- Mr Love
30.16. The Committee considered a petition signed by 423 people requesting the introduction of free parking at Norton Road car park for everyone at weekends and Zone N parking permit holders at all times. The petition had been referred from Full Council held on 25 October.
30.17. Councillor Davey provided the following response: ‘We have no plans to introduce free parking at Norton Road car park because this would be inconsistent with our efforts to encourage sustainable transport, reduce congestion across the city and meet EU targets for reducing air pollution. Free parking will serve to generate traffic and cause further congestion. If the car park is free, it is likely to be full at times when visitors and residents would like to access local shops and businesses. The cost of maintaining and operating Norton Road car park is significant. So we do need to cover those costs by charging a fee’. 30.18 Councillor Cox stated that he did not agree with the response provided.
30.19 Councillor Davey stated that this issue would be specifically covered in the Fees & Charges report to be submitted to the January Committee.
30.20 Councillor Cox requested that the costs of running and maintaining the car park also be included in the report as the introduction of free parking could potentially save money.
30.21 RESOLVED- That the petition be noted.
(v) Yellow Lines on Crossbush Road- Councillor Wilson
30.22 The Committee considered a petition signed by 18 people requesting that the junction of Crossbush Road and Whitehawk Way be made safer by extension of the double yellow lines on Whitehawk Way. The petition had been referred from Full Council held on 25 October.
30.23 Councillor Davey provided the following response:
‘As you can appreciate in order for any changes to be made, the proposals need to be put to the public, in the form of a draft Traffic Order, followed by the correct signing and lining on site (or removal of them) if the proposals are approved. This requires substantial time and cost; also we receive many such requests from over the city. Previously we have batched up these requests for advertising twice a year. We have re-prioritised council resources and how we respond to ad-hoc requests for waiting restrictions and are focusing on only implementing new restrictions as part of controlled parking schemes or as part of specific transport projects. As this location hasn’t been identified by officers as a priority we will not be taking this request any further at this time’.
30.24 Councillor Mitchell stated her disappointment with the response. She was worried about safety in this area and asked for a visit to the site from officers.
30.25 Councillor Davey requested that Councillor Mitchell submit her concerns to the Road Safety team who could assess the situation.
30.26 RESOLVED- That the petition be noted.
(vi) Safety on Davey Drive- Samantha Simson
30.27 The Committee considered a petition signed by 130 requesting increased safety measures on Davey Drive for access to St Joseph’s Primary School.
30.28 Councillor Davey provided the following response:
‘Thank you for your petition. Since the petition was received at Full Council, officers have carried out site visits and undertaken speed surveys and the results indicate an average speed of 20.4 mph. Due to the low speed and good safety record the locations does not warrant a full signalised crossing. However, the council does recognise that it is important that parents, carers and children feel safe and are encouraged to walk to school. It is clear from officers observations that a number of measures will help make the area feel safer and tackle some of the poor parking behaviour which is contributing to the area feeling unsafe. Therefore, it is proposed to install double yellow lines with a no loading ban on the corners of The Crossway at the junction with Davey Drive. These parking restrictions will extend around to the bus stop. As you may know, Civil Enforcement Officers (CEOs) can now issue instant parking tickets (PCN) on the School Keep Clears and double yellow lines with no parking bans. This means that the CEO will take a photo of the illegally parked vehicle and log the registration details. Officers are also currently assessing the possibility of a school crossing patrol and should have a decision by the end of term. The councils’ school travel advisors will also be engaging with the school and parent drivers to raise awareness of the changes to enforcement and their responsibility to park legally, safely and considerately outside the school’
30.29 RESOLVED- That the petition be noted.
30 (b) Written Questions
30.29 Mr Hildreth submitted the following question on behalf of the GMB Professional Drivers National Union:
“Brighton & Hove a 20mph City?Why have Brighton & Hove City Council not consulted the GMB Brighton & Hove Taxi Section or the local Taxi Trade Forum representatives. The Taxi trade forum is a conduit for our industry to consult with our regulators and for the council to consult with us the regulated. With over 1800 licensed drivers and approximately 950 licensed vehicles the stakeholders in our industry have a vital role to play with respect to consultations of this kind. I would request that this issue is suspended until consultation with the Taxi Trade is completed”.
30.30 Councillor Davey provided the following response:
‘Thank you for your letter. As well as the high-profile citywide public consultation that everyone has been able to contribute to and nearly 3700 people did, proposals for 20 mph Speed Limits were discussed in depth at the Transport Partnership on 22 November 2011at which the taxi trade is represented. However, I have asked officers to carry out further consultation with the Taxi Trade Forum which the GMB are a member (in fact I understand that a meeting took place yesterday); there will also be a further opportunity to make opinions known as part of the formal Traffic Regulation Order’.
30.31 Ms Binder asked the following question:
“Do Councillors agree that an accessible public transport system, including buses, taxi cabs and mini-cabs, is fundamental to the ability of residents and visitors to engage in public life and is therefore fundamental to the concept of independent living? That being the case does the council monitor: the provision of accessible public transport; the experience of accessible public transport users and the process of addressing problems and complaints specific to the mobility impaired or other disadvantaged, physically or mentally, users of public transport”
30.32 Councillor Davey provided the following response:
‘The council has an award-winning Quality Partnership with the local public transport providers. Amongst other things, Brighton & Hove Buses has pledged investment in new buses. 100% of the buses used on local routes are now low-floor and step-free - and 98% are wheelchair-accessible, including platforms which lower and ramps which extend out to the kerb. As part of its contribution to the partnership the council has an ongoing programme to improve bus stop accessibility. ‘Talking bus stops’ at key locations and audible signs on all new buses to assist blind and partially-sighted passengers will become much more widespread during the next 2 years. The tender documents for council-supported bus service state that vehicles used to provide these services must meet the minimum requirements of the Public Service Vehicles Accessibility Regulations 2000. This regulation states that regulated public service buses shall be fitted with not less than one wheelchair space. All new buses introduced into service since 2001 have to be fully accessible. We also have a regular dialogue with the Fed, Centre for Independent Living including representation on the Transport Partnership and I have commenced a more informal dialogue with Dr Jon Hastie to look at a wide range of transport-related accessibility issues. To ensure we are meeting people’s needs the council and bus operators encourage, welcome and act on all feedback. A number of the bus stop locations selected for accessibility improvements have been as the direct result of specific requests from individual local residents facing mobility challenges. Brighton & Hove Buses carry out disability awareness training with their drivers as part of driver induction and continuous training. They are also discussing updating their training programmes with the Fed’s active involvement and have recently updated their guidelines to assist passengers in wheelchairs, following consultation with the Fed’.
30.33 Ms Binder stated that the experience of bus users with both mental and physical disabilities directly related to the attitudes of staff and members of the public.
30.34 Councillor Davey responded that Brighton & Hove Bus Company had been made aware of the perceived short comings in their service and were striving to improve.
30.35 Mr Curtis presented the following question
“At a recent meeting of the local action team for the London Road area Dr Caroline Lucas stated that she believed the parking charges for the area had gone up too far, too fast for the area and that this area should not have been included in the central zone tariff. Can the committee confirm that they are not prepared to listen to their MP on this issue or are they prepared to listen to her and reconsider the parking zone designation of the London Road area?”
30.36 Councillor Davey provided the following response
‘We of course grateful for feedback on transport matters from residents, traders and all elected representatives. London Road is a complex area that has a small amount on street pay and display bays, a larger number of residents and shared residents pay and display bays and a car park with 500 spaces where prices are much cheaper than on street. We have made every effort to promote the use of that car park through extra signage and have even put stickers on pay and display bays detailing the much cheaper rates available in the car park. This has been successful with usage of the car park increasing. However we are aware of the concerns of yourself and other traders and have arranged a meeting to discuss those and possible ways forward later this week’.
30.37 Mr Curtis stated that the London Road car park should be advertised more widely and that parking charges should be reduced.
30.38 Councillor Davey thanked Mr Curtis for his comments and that he looked forward to meeting Mr Curtis and his colleagues later that week.
30.39 Mr Paterson presented the following question:
“My own business has seen a 50% reduction in turnover this year (parking increases and two major developments). Over the last few years the Government has recognized the difficulties faced by small businesses and helped by reducing business rates; why doesn't Brighton and Hove council, in an attempt to show willing to small businesses, reduce the parking charges in the London Road area, using the opportunity as a positive marketing tool for their failing image when it comes to business? Together we could publicise the decision as an amicable arrangement, recognizing the immediate needs of this high street”.
30.40 Councillor Davey provided the following response:
‘We are aware of difficulties that traders in the London road area are facing. There is no single cause but clearly the closure of the co-op and the temporary relocation and size reduction of the Open market have not helped. However it remains an area that many thousands of people pass through each day either on foot, by bike or on public transport. However we are aware of traders concerns over on street prices and look forward to meeting with you directly to discuss the matter and identify the best way forward’.
30.41 Mr Paterson asked the following supplementary question:
“Could the current administration confirm that they will be making a go of the Open Market development and not turning it into a residential block as the rise in parking charges suggests?”
30.42 Councillor Davey clarified administrations intention to implement the Open Market development.
30.43 Councillor Davey noted that there was both a question and a Deputation referred from Full Council on this matter. For clarity, he intended to receive these together.
30.44
Mrs Townsend presented the following question: ‘’On October 25th Councillor Davey noted that the levels of pollution are too high on and around the London Road, yet the bulk of all car journeys here are surely caused by cars exiting Brighton city centre, as well as the hundreds of buses using the junction daily as he mentioned, a junction highly restricted for cars. Why should the London Road area be penalised by central Brighton parking tariffs for pollution that is not actually being caused by shoppers to the area, whereas the council’s immediate objective should be to prevent stationary traffic to reduce pollution?”
30.45 Councillor Davey provided the following response:
‘Traffic in this area which is the main route into and out of the city has been a challenge for as long as I can remember. There is no single cause for congestion and pollution other than traffic volumes and the complexity of movements that are having to be made. Part of the rational for encouraging use of the car park is to encourage drivers coming down the A23 to go straight to the car park and to reduce the number of vehicles using viaduct Road and possibly circling for what are a relatively low number of on street pay and display bays. London Road also benefits from many people visiting or walking through the area on foot with many thousands travelling through by bus. Some of whom we know are discouraged by the impact of traffic. There is no easy solution to this problem. I am sure that we all share the aspiration for London road to be a thriving area once again and look forward to working with you to help make that happen. We can discuss these matters when we meet later this week’.
30.46 Mrs Townsend asked the following supplementary question:
“The Trafalgar Street car park is cheaper than the London Road car park. Is the Council acting in contravention of Article 14 of the Human Rights Act in discriminating against London Road traders?”
30.47 Councillor Davey explained that the Trafalgar Street was cheaper because of the current refurbishment work. Councillor Davey clarified that he looked forward to discussing these issues with Mrs Townsend and her colleagues later that week.
30.48 RESOLVED- That the Deputation be noted.
30.49 Mr Brown presented the following question:
“If the present transport design on and around the London Road is not conducive to a pleasant shopping experience and traders have suffered unduly since its implementation, and then again since the parking charges increase, what measures will the council introduce to help businesses in this area other than the Mary Portas Bid and a Public Realm officer who thinks business looks fine on the London Road?”
30.50 Councillor Davey provided the following response:
‘London Road has some of the best public transport links in the city with hundreds of buses carrying thousands of people going to and through the area each day. It is also of course close to Brighton station and to London Road station. Many people also walk through the area on their way into the city centre. There are a number of developments which will have a positive impact upon the area including The Open market year and The level both of which will be complete next year and help to encourage more people into the area. There is also the possible redevelopment of the old co-op building with a decision due in December. There has also been the redevelopment of the New England Quarter which has delivered around 500 new homes into the area along with a language school, a hotel and office developments. Further development should start in the New Year. So whilst I know that with the closure of the co-op and the redevelopment of the market along with the global recession which is impacting upon all business the trading environment has been challenging for everybody. However with such a wide catchment area and some of the best bus links in the city the potential for London Road to turn in a positive direction is very significant and we look forward to working with businesses in the area to help make that happen’.
30. (c) Deputations
(i) Inadequate coach parking- Mr Cummings
30.51 See item 16.8
(ii) Parking Charges on London Road- Mrs Townsend
30.52 See item 16.40
‘
|
|
To consider the following matters raised by Members:
(a) Petitions: To receive any petitions submitted to the full Council or at the meeting itself;
(b) Written Questions: To consider any written questions;
(i) Compass Travel Bus route- Councillor Robins
(c) Letters: To consider any letters;
(i) Traders and Parking Waivers- Councillor Robins (ii) Daily Parking Waivers- Councillor Wealls (iii) Lewes Road Transport Scheme- Councillor Meadows (iv) Loading Restrictions- Councillor Janio (v) Allowing motorcycles in bus lanes- Councillor Janio (vi) Hollingbury Park Avenue Speed Limit- Councillor Lepper
(d) Notices of Motion: to consider any Notices of Motion referred from Council or submitted directly to the Committee. Additional documents: Minutes: 31 (b) Written Questions
31.1 Councillor Robins presented a letter regarding the curtailment of some routes by Compass Travel Bus Company.
31.2 Councillor Davey presented the following response:
‘Thank you for your letter. As I previously replied to you, we are sorry that residents have had their travel options into West Sussex reduced due to the ending of a commercial route by the previous transport operator but as I previously stated the supported part of service 56 has always been from Knoll Estate to Patcham. Brighton & Hove Buses operated this supported bus service for the city council until 15 September and, while they operated it, they chose to extend the service commercially out to Portslade, Southwick and Southlands Hospital, much of which is in West Sussex. When the city council recently went out to tender for service 56, only the supported section from Knoll Estate to Patcham was tendered and not the extension in to West Sussex. Financially, it has been challenging enough for the city council to maintain the majority of the supported network without adding extra sections or routes. I am afraid that Compass Travel has chosen not to continue the commercial extension, which they are quite at liberty to do as the city council did not specify that section in the tender. If Compass Travel do not feel that it will be commercially viable then they will chose not to extend the service to Southlands Hospital. I understand you have already asked West Sussex about operating this service again but I am aware they also have faced severe budget challenges and have reduced their support to non-commercial bus services’.
31.3 Councillor Robins asked if the Chair of the Committee or Transport officers could contact Compass Travel Bus Company as he believed such a request could mean the service routes being re-instated.
31 (c) Letters
31.4 Councillor Robins presented a letter requesting changes to the daily parking waivers for traders.
31.5 Councillor Davey provided the following response:
‘Allowing Waivers to be used in resident parking bays could be a problem in some areas. Residents might object to traders using Parking Waivers to park in some residential areas. In central areas, it is more likely to cause issues where there is significantly more pressure on space. For this reason it will not be possible to allow Waivers to be used in resident bays in central areas. An alternative option is for people working in the central area to purchase a Traders Permit. The limit on Trader Permits was lifted in April this year so they are now available to any traders who wish to use one and they can be bought for a as little as 3 months. Officers will look at this proposal in more detail and come back with a direct response. This issue will also be covered in the Fees and Charges report that this Committee will consider in January’.
31.6 RESOLVED- That the Letter is noted.
31.7 Councillor Wealls presented a letter requesting the Transport Committee changes the rules applying to Daily Parking Waivers.
31.8 Councillor Davey presented the following response:
‘Allowing Waivers to be used in resident parking bays could be a problem in some areas. Residents might object to traders using Parking Waivers to park in some residential areas. In central areas, it is more likely to cause issues where there is significantly more pressure on space. For this reason it will not be possible to allow Waivers to be used in resident bays in central areas. An alternative option is for people working in the central area to purchase a Traders Permit. The limit on Trader Permits was lifted in April this year so they are now available to any traders who wish to use one and they can be bought for a as little as 3 months. Officers will look at this proposal in more detail and come back with a direct response. This issue will also be covered in the Fees and Charges report that this Committee will consider in January’.
31.9 RESOLVED- That the Letter is noted.
31.10 Councillor Meadows and Councillor Farrow presented a letter regarding residents concerns about the proposals for Lewes Road Transport Scheme. Councillor Meadows stated that there was real concern from residents that the scheme would not work; that access for the emergency services would be hampered and that there would be severe problems for residents entering and leaving their estates by car. Councillor Farrow relayed residents concerns regarding the thoroughness of the scheme that there would not be enough money for correctional measures if there were problems. Councillors Meadows and Farrow requested the establishment of a resident advisory group for the scheme and that the proposals be delayed for further design work to be undertaken.
31.11 Councillor Davey noted that there was an item on the agenda directly relating to this issue. With Committee’s agreement, he would provide a direct response to the letter and would then bring item 37 forward in the agenda to allow Councillors Meadows and Farrow to take part in the discussion.
31.12 Councillor Davey presented the following response:
‘I welcome the suggestions you have made and I can assure you that officers have taken every opportunity through the design process to ensure the issues you raise have been incorporated where possible. There will of course be some disruption during the construction of the works but they will be completed on a section by section basis to ensure that this is kept to a minimum. Officers have built up an extensive contact list throughout the various consultation events and will be sending regular updates as the work progresses. Regarding your suggestion of creating a specific liaison group, given that there are already a wide range of community meetings taking place on a regular basis within the area, I suggest it would be more appropriate for officers to occasionally attend these meetings rather than creating a specific meeting for this purpose’.
31.13 RESOLVED- That the letter be noted.
31.14 The Committee considered a report of the Strategic Director, Place that addressed comments and objections to the draft Traffic Regulation Orders (TRO) for the Lewes Road Transport Improvements. The Principal Transport Officer supplemented that the comments from Councillors Meadows and Farrow had been taken on board. He supplemented that contrary to negative reports in the press, officers were very confident that the scheme would be safe and have a positive effect on the transport network in the area. He added that a progress update on where this would be realised would be brought back to the Transport Committee in the future.
31.15 Councillor Mitchell thanked officers for their update and their response to the issues raised. Councillor Mitchell stated that there needed to be close monitoring of the work and ward councillors should be advised of programmes or updates in advance where possible. She added that she hoped work at the Gyratory would not be too far behind the main scheme and that a note on the measures taken to prevent rat running through estates would be circulated to Committee Members and ward councillor for the area.
31.16 Councillor Follett thanked officers for their work on the scheme and re-iterated Councillor Mitchell’s emphasis on the importance of communication whilst work was ongoing.
31.17 Councillor West thanked officers for their work and addressing the matters raised. HE stated his belief that the scheme would improve residents well-being and the transport network Councillor West also noted that the majority of residents had support the scheme in the consultation.
31.18 Councillor Cox praised officers for amendments to the proposals for Coombe Terrace. He asked if parking in the area would be free of charge.
31.19 The Principal Transport Officer confirmed that it would be.
31.20 Councillor Theobald stated that he still had doubts on the scheme particularly regarding the Vogue Gyratory and the potential for displacement traffic flow into Woodingdean.
31.21 Councillor Janio asked if there was a contingency plan if air quality in the area was negatively affected as referenced at 4.18 of the report.
31.22 Councillor Davey replied that, whilst this was not expected, action would certainly be taken if this was found to be the case.
31.23 The Principal Transport Planner responded to several issues raised in discussion. He explained that rat running through estates was not expected as there were not genuine parallel routes that would save time for drivers. Design work was ongoing for the Vogue Gyratory which had reaped positive results and it was hoped to bring proposals for this area back to a spring 2013 meeting of the Committee. A decline in air quality was not expected as the Lewes Road area had an open landscape and would not experience the same problems caused in central areas from tight building lines.
31.24 RESOLVED-
1) That, having taken account of all duly made representations and objections, the Transport Committee approves as advertised the following orders;
- Brighton & Hove (Lewes Road) (Bus Lane) Order 20** - Brighton & Hove (Waiting & Loading/Unloading Restrictions and Parking Places) Consolidation Order 2008 Amendment Order No.* 20** (Lewes Road) - Brighton & Hove (Old Shoreham Road, Hove, Falmer Road, Rottingdean & Lewes Road, Brighton) (30 mph Speed Limit) Order 2011 Amendment Order No.* 20**
With the following amendment:
- The proposed Loading Ban in Lewes Road (Coombe Terrace) is to be amended and a Loading Bay provided for the reasons set out in paragraph 4.45.
2) That any subsequent requests deemed appropriate by officers are added to the proposed scheme during implementation and advertised as an amendment Traffic Regulation Order once construction of the scheme is complete.
31.25 Councillor Janio presented a letter regarding changes to loading restrictions on Western Road queries regarding loading restriction policy.
31.26 Councillor Davey presented the following response:
‘In reference to the FOI issue the Public Inquiry issues referred to were relevant to the timing of restrictions and not to the location of any restrictions. An all day loading ban would have been a matter that could have been raised at a Public Inquiry whereas the shorter timing restrictions on loading could not. Whether restrictions were on one or both sides of the road would not have been a matter that could be considered by a Public Inquiry. It was perfectly appropriate for officers to raise the procedural implications of proposals and for these to be considered. The proper legal process has been followed in introducing the new arrangements, including opportunities to have objections made and reviewed. To introduce waiting restrictions or loading restrictions a Traffic Regulation Order needs to be advertised. This is done under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. The process to bring this about requires consultation with all interested parties (i.e. – emergency services as a minimum) followed by a public advertisement, with public notices posted on site and in the local newspaper. There is no current requirement for a safety audit to be undertaken on waiting and loading restrictions. Your enquiry is the first time a risk assessment or safety audit has been requested for parking restrictions which indicates this process is currently working well. Similar loading restrictions exist in other areas of the city and have done for some years. In 2009 under the Conservative administration loading bans were consulted upon and implemented in the Middle Street / Ship Street / Black Lion Street area. In early 2006/ 2007 under the Labour administration a significant amount of loading ban proposals were consulted and implemented throughout Central Brighton as part of the Central Brighton Review’.
31.27 RESOLVED- That the Letter is noted.
31.28 Councillor Janio presented a letter requesting a more extensive trial of the proposals for motorcycle access to bus lanes and an extension to the area proposed.
31.29 Councillor Davey provided the following response:
‘Thank you for your letter. As you will be aware the council has been working very closely with MAG to develop the proposed trial for motorcycles in bus lanes covered in more detail under Agenda Item 34. It is important to note that Department for Transport Guidance on schemes to allow motorcycles in bus lanes provides detailed guidance for the highway authority and recommends that monitored trials are preferable while the impact on traffic flow, speeds and casualties amongst motorcyclists and vulnerable road users such as pedestrians and cyclists is assessed. Sussex Police Road Policing unit have endorsed this view as has the Neighbourhood policing team. Therefore, in order that the implications and potential benefits of allowing motorcycles in lanes are fully understood it is important that a trial is undertaken first, the results of which will be presented to a future Transport Committee. Given the importance of Road Safety in this City, particularly that of more vulnerable road users such as pedestrians, cyclists and powered two wheelers, we need to proceed cautiously and in the best interests of all road users. MAG expressed approval for the trial to be conducted on these two roads at an informal meeting in August’.
31.30 RESOLVED- That the letter is noted.
|
|
|
Brighton & Hove a 20mph city?
Report of the Strategic Director, Place (copy attached). Additional documents: Decision: 1. That the Committee notes the results of the public consultation on proposals to implement a citywide 20mph scheme.
2. That, having taken into account the responses received, the Committee authorises officers to proceed with advertising the formal Speed Limit Order for the changes in speed limit in the Phase 1 Area
Minutes: 32.1 The Committee considered a report of the Strategic Director, Place that outlined the results of the public consultation on a phased introduction of 20mph speed restrictions and sought approval to commence with the implementation of Phase 1 of the scheme. The report was accompanied by a presentation from Transport and Public Health Officers.
32.2 Councillor Hawtree asked if the speed reduction would conversely result in quicker journey times.
32.3 The Principal Transport Planner clarified that their research suggested it would as; in particular, there would be smoother transitions between junctions.
32.4 Councillor Hawtree asked how 20mph speed restrictions would be promoted.
32.5 The Principal Transport Planner replied that there would be a widespread driver education program.
32.6 Councillor Mitchell stated that a 20mph scheme had many advantages and she had always supported its implementation however, she had several concerns with the proposals. The recommendation for a blanket approach did not correlate with the Scrutiny Panel recommendations of 2010. She had concerns that the bus company would limit their night service which could affect people’s safety; concerns that Sussex Police would not enforce the measures and she was worried that the taxi trade had not been consulted on the measures until the day before this meeting. Councillor Mitchell also relayed her concerns regarding long-term funding for areas outside phase 1 and enquired as to the possibility that some areas may be introduced more quickly should the urgency to do so be established.
32.7 Councillor Davey stated there was a Local Transport Plan allocation for funding the scheme.
32.8 In response to the issues raised by Councillor Mitchell, the Principal Transport Planner explained that the Bus Company did have concerns. Discussions would continue and the issue would be monitored. Research into a similar scheme in Bristol had found that bus timetabling was not negatively affected. Sussex Police had not objected to the scheme proposals and expected that they would be implemented within DfT guidelines and therefore self enforcing. The option of additional traffic calming measures remained an enforcement possibility. Officers would monitor the phase 1 programme both in terms of compliance and journey times and review the proposed areas of later phases of scheme in consultation with local communities.
32.9 Councillor Robins stated that he did not agree that introduction of a 20mph scheme would reduce the number of accidents or that it would reduce deaths on the road as both the former and latter were caused by dangerous and reckless driving usually in excess of the speed limit. He asked whether or not Sussex Police would enforce the measures and if the 20mph limit would also apply to cyclists.
32.10 The Principal Transport Planner replied that their research anticipated a decline in accidents and their severity. She added that whilst the Council did not have jurisdiction over Sussex Police, they had a duty to enforce legal speed limits. Legal enforcement would be the same as other speeding offences. The Principal Transport Planner clarified that cyclists would have to abide to the speed limit as any other road user would.
32.11 Councillor West stated that he had been the Chair of the 20mph Scrutiny Panel in 2010 which had heard and produced a great deal of evidence. He was delighted these proposals were recommended to this Committee. Safety was a significant part of the measures and the result of the public consultation had demonstrated to the Committee members that there was a desire for a 20mph scheme.
32.12 Councillor Cox stated that he had been a long supporter of 20mph schemes, that they cuts deaths through driving and made residential roads safer and nicer. However, due to a poor presentation which had not highlighted the specific roads of the scheme and concerns raised regarding the continuation of a late night bus service he was now unsure whether to support the proposals. Councillor Cox re-iterated that he was uneasy about the effect upon vulnerable groups and the bus service, particularly the N7 bus. He noted his suspicion that the research had been impaired by buses in Bristol who may have run the risk of continuing their service at 30mph.
32.13 Councillor Follett stated that consideration had to be given to the public health advantages of a 20mph scheme. He requested officers take account of Councillor Cox’s comments and for the Committee to closely monitor the scheme.
32.14 Councillor Theobald stated he did not support the measures put forward and was more inclined toward the Scrutiny recommendation of implementation over smaller areas. His concerns for bus and taxi services remained and he also believed people would become frustrated. In addition, he believed the cost of the scheme to be very high.
32.15 Councillor Mitchell stated that she would support the scheme, however, she wished for the Committee’s concerns to be noted and addressed where applicable. If it transpired that, when the scheme was implemented, it had a negative effect on the bus service, it should be corrected. Councillor Mitchell noted that a temporary Speed Limit Order could be used on those routes used by buses to avoid long-term commitment. Councillor Mitchell supplemented that she would like the Committee to receive a six month update.
32.16 Councillor Davey clarified that a report on the scheme would return in January and April 2013 and again for the subsequent phases. Councillor Davey stated that he was looking forward to the introduction of the scheme that he believed would ensure a better environment, safer streets and numerous health benefits.
32.17 RESOLVED-
1. That the Committee notes the results of the public consultation on proposals to implement a citywide 20mph scheme.
2. That, having taken into account the responses received, the Committee authorises officers to proceed with advertising the formal Speed Limit Order for the changes in speed limit in the Phase 1 Area
|
|
|
Pedestrian Crossing Priority Locations.
Report of the Strategic Director, Place (copy attached). Additional documents: Decision: 1. That the Transport Committee approves the priority crossing list and grants permission for officers to begin implementing the prioritised pedestrian crossing locations where funding has been identified. Where crossing points require higher funding levels these should be acknowledged and identified as part of future work plans.
2. That the Transport Committee authorises officersto carry out the necessary statutory consultation and subject to the outcome of that consultation construct the prioritised pedestrian crossings for which funding has been identified within the financial year 2012/13.
Minutes: 33.1 The Committee considered a report of the Strategic Director, Place that presented the findings of the 2012/13 priority list for crossing locations and requested permission to install those identified within the 2012/13 financial year.
33.2 Councillor West stated that he was pleased the Transport Committee was seeing the benefit of the new priority listing scheme recommended by the Environment Scrutiny Panel. He was particularly pleased at the inclusion of Coldean Lane as a priority action.
33.3 Councillor Theobald stated that he was awaiting information on a crossing on Carden Avenue. He asked when this would be installed.
33.4 The Transport Planner replied that this would be installed by April 2013.
33.5 RESOLVED-
1) That the Transport Committee approves the priority crossing list and grants permission for officers to begin implementing the prioritised pedestrian crossing locations where funding has been identified. Where crossing points require higher funding levels these should be acknowledged and identified as part of future work plans.
2) That the Transport Committee authorises officersto carry out the necessary statutory consultation and subject to the outcome of that consultation construct the prioritised pedestrian crossings for which funding has been identified within the financial year 2012/13.
|
|
|
Trial scheme to allow Powered two wheelers to use bus lanes Report of the Strategic Director, Place (copy attached). Additional documents: Decision: That the Transport Committee agrees to the proposal to allow a 12 month trial scheme to allow powered two wheelers (PTW) to access bus lanes on the A23 from Carden Avenue to Preston Drove and the A259 from the authority boundary at Saltdean to the Ovingdean roundabout together with monitoring sites and a public information campaign.
Minutes: 34.1 The Committee considered a report of the Strategic Director, Place that proposed a twelve month trial scheme to allow powered two wheelers to access bus lanes on sections of the A23 and A259.
34.2 RESOLVED- That the Transport Committee agrees to the proposal to allow a 12 month trial scheme to allow powered two wheelers (PTW) to access bus lanes on the A23 from Carden Avenue to Preston Drove and the A259 from the authority boundary at Saltdean to the Ovingdean roundabout together with monitoring sites and a public information campaign.
|
|
|
TRO objections to Pedal Cycle Parking Places- Loss of Parking and Antisocial Behaviour
Report of the Strategic Director, Place (copy attached). Additional documents: Decision: That, having taken account of all duly made representations and objections, the Transport Committee approves as advertised the following orders;
(a) Brighton & Hove Various Controlled Parking Zones Consolidation Order 2008 Amendment Order No.* 20** (Pedal Cycle Parking Places) TRO-5b-2011
(b) Brighton & Hove Various Controlled Parking Zones Consolidation Order 2008 Amendment Order No.* 20** (Pedal Cycle Parking Places) TRO-5c-2011
Minutes: 35.1 The Committee considered a report of the Strategic Director, Place that presented the comments and objections received in relation to the proposed Traffic Regulation Orders (TRO) for the installation of pedal cycle parking places on Lansdowne Place and Whitecross Street.
35.2 Councillor Theobald noted that City College would shortly be redeveloped. He asked why increased cycle parking places could not be requested as part of that development.
35.3 Councillor Davey explained that there was huge demand from local residents and an immediate need for cycle parking.
35.4 RESOLVED- That, having taken account of all duly made representations and objections, the Transport Committee approves as advertised the following orders;
(a) Brighton & Hove Various Controlled Parking Zones Consolidation Order 2008 Amendment Order No.* 20** (Pedal Cycle Parking Places) TRO-5b-2011
(b) Brighton & Hove Various Controlled Parking Zones Consolidation Order 2008 Amendment Order No.* 20** (Pedal Cycle Parking Places) TRO-5c-2011
|
|
|
Fiveways Safer Routes to school scheme
Report of the Strategic Director, Place (copy attached). Additional documents: Decision: That the Transport Committee approves the preferred scheme outlined in Appendix 2 and authorises officers to begin implementation including the advertising of any necessary Traffic Regulation Orders Minutes: 36.1 The Committee considered a report of the Strategic Director, Place that proposed Safer Routes for School measures for Balfour Primary, Dorothy Stringer and Varndean schools.
36.2 RESOLVED- That the Transport Committee approves the preferred scheme outlined in Appendix 2 and authorises officers to begin implementation including the advertising of any necessary Traffic Regulation Orders |
|
|
Lewes Road Scheme - TRO Objections
Report of the Strategic Director, Place (copy attached). Additional documents: Decision: 1. That, having taken account of all duly made representations and objections, the Transport Committee approves as advertised the following orders;
- Brighton & Hove (Lewes Road) (Bus Lane) Order 20**
- Brighton & Hove (Waiting & Loading/Unloading Restrictions and Parking Places) Consolidation Order 2008 Amendment Order No.* 20** (Lewes Road)
- Brighton & Hove (Old Shoreham Road, Hove, Falmer Road, Rottingdean & Lewes Road, Brighton) (30 mph Speed Limit) Order 2011 Amendment Order No.* 20**
with the following amendment:
- the proposed Loading Ban in Lewes Road (Coombe Terrace) is to be amended and a Loading Bay provided for the reasons set out in paragraph 4.45.
2. That any subsequent requests deemed appropriate by officers are added to the proposed scheme during implementation and advertised as an amendment Traffic Regulation Order once construction of the scheme is complete.
Minutes: Note: for discussion and resolution see item 31.14 to 31.24.
|
|
|
Permit scheme business case for Brighton and Hove Report of the Strategic Director, Place (copy attached).
Additional documents: Decision: That the Transport Committee:
1. Recommends the principle of introducing a Permit Scheme in Brighton & Hove to Policy and Resources Committee and asks Policy and Resources Committee to approve the funding for the creation of a Permit Scheme;
2. Subject to receiving funding approval as identified at 2.1 above, instructs officers to commission consultants and to engage in consultation with the relevant parties to draw up options for a Permit Scheme for Brighton & Hove and to update the traffic sensitive road network with the intention of going live in 2014/2015;
3. Notes that the Transport Committee will be asked to approve the final permit scheme before it is submitted to the Department for Transport and that this is expected to be in December 2013
Minutes: 38.1 The Committee considered a report of the Strategic Director, Place that outlined a business case for introducing a Permit Scheme in Brighton and Hove.
38.2 Councillor Davey stated his delight at the proposals which could make a huge difference.
38.3 Councillor Mitchell welcomed the proposals and hoped they could be implemented swiftly.
38.4 Councillor Theobald stated his was pleased that the Committee could consider these proposals which his group had raised in a Notice of Motion some time ago.
38.5 RESOLVED- That the Transport Committee:
1) Recommends the principle of introducing a Permit Scheme in Brighton & Hove to Policy and Resources Committee and asks Policy and Resources Committee to approve the funding for the creation of a Permit Scheme;
2) Subject to receiving funding approval as identified at 2.1 above, instructs officers to commission consultants and to engage in consultation with the relevant parties to draw up options for a Permit Scheme for Brighton & Hove and to update the traffic sensitive road network with the intention of going live in 2014/2015;
3) Notes that the Transport Committee will be asked to approve the final permit scheme before it is submitted to the Department for Transport and that this is expected to be in December 2013
|
|
|
Items Referred For Council To consider items to be submitted to the 13 December 2012 Council meeting for information.
In accordance with Procedure Rule 24.3a, the Committee may determine that any item is to be included in its report to Council. In addition, any Group may specify one further item to be included by notifying the Chief Executive no later than 10am on the eighth working day before the Council meeting at which the report is to be made, or if the Committee meeting takes place after this deadline, immediately at the conclusion of the Committee meeting
Minutes: 39.1 No items were referred to Full Council for information. |