Agenda item - Valley Gardens Phase 3 (Royal Pavilion to Seafront) Results of public consultation and approval of Final Preliminary Design

skip navigation and tools

Agenda item

Valley Gardens Phase 3 (Royal Pavilion to Seafront) Results of public consultation and approval of Final Preliminary Design

Report of the Executive Director, Economy, Environment & Culture

Decision:

1)           That the Committee notes the results of the public consultation and stakeholder engagement on the preferred design option for the Valley Gardens Phase 3 project, as set out in Appendix 1 and Appendix 2 of this report.

 

2)           That the Committee approves the Final Preliminary Design for the Valley Gardens Phase 3 project, as attached in Appendix 3 of this report, and agrees that it should be progressed to the detailed design stage which will include further public consultation and stakeholder engagement.

 

3)           That the Committee agrees that officers progress design work for the proposed improvements to the A259/Duke’s Mound/Madeira Drive junctions, in liaison with the council’s Waterfront project team.

 

4)           That the Committee authorises officers to procure professional services/contract(s) for the detailed design and construction stages of the Valley Gardens Phase 3 project, and notes that this authorisation will enable officers to procure and award either a design and build contract or separate contracts for the design stage and the construction stage, and notes that an update on these procurements will be provided to a future committee meeting.

 

5)           That the Committee approves the revised design of the Marlborough Place - Edward Street junction, as shown in Appendix 3 of this report, which will   supersede the design of the southernmost section of the Valley Gardens Phases 1&2 project agreed by this Committee in December 2017, and agrees that the design can be progressed to the detailed design stage and delivered as part of the current construction programme for Valley Gardens Phases 1&2.

 

6)           That the above recommendations are agreed subject to obtaining independent legal advice to the satisfaction of officers, after consultation with the Chair and Opposition Spokespersons.

Minutes:

66.1      The Chair provided the following statement:

 

“I now propose that we resolve to exclude the press and public under Section 100(A) Section 4 of the Local Government Act 1972 because as I previously mentioned we need to consider the letter from the solicitors that we all received earlier today”

 

66.2      RESOLVED- That the Committee move into close session thereby excluding the press and public from the session.

 

66.3      The Chair reconvened the meeting into public session at 6.10pm.

 

66.4      On behalf of the Conservative Group, Councillor Wares moved the following motion as shown below in bold italics. The motion was read out by the Head of Legal Services:

 

2.1   That the Committee agrees to defer the decision to a future meeting of the committee pending receipt of further independent legal advice

 

66.5      Councillor Miller formally seconded the motion.

 

66.6      The Chair put the motion to the vote which failed.

 

66.7      The Committee considered a report of the Executive Director, Economy, Environment & Culture that set out the results of the public consultation and stakeholder engagement on the preferred design option for Valley Gardens Phase 3 and requested approval of the Final Preliminary Design, approval to progress design works for the proposed improvements to the A259/Duke’s Mound/Madeira Drive junctions, authorisation to procure professional services/contract(s) for the detailed design and construction phases of the Valley Gardens Phase 3 project and approval of the revised design of the Marlborough Place/Edward Street junction.

 

66.8      In reference to the funding from the Waterfront project, Councillor Littman asked how much that was likely to be, what date it might become available and if there would be any conditions of use. Furthermore, Councillor Littman asked for assurance that should there be a shortfall in funding, that there would not be any cheapening of the public realm elements of the project.

 

66.9      The Head of Transport Policy & Strategy explained that a total of £12m in Local Growth Fund (LGF) money had been allocated of to the Waterfront project and the timescales from drawing down that money from government was the same period as for the Valley Gardens project. The cost and budget setting for the Valley Gardens project would be taken into account during the budget setting and TBM process. 

 

66.10   Councillor Littman asked for clarification on the specific sum allocated for the work on Duke’s Mound.

 

66.11   The Head of Transport Policy & Strategy explained that the precise figure required was not yet known as the works required had not yet been developed fully however, signal junctions of what might be required cost in the region of £500,000 and there would also be work required the bottom of Dukes Mound to ensure large articulated vehicles could make manoeuvres safely.

 

66.12   Councillor Wares stated his disappointment that the report, that should be neutral and fact-based, used subjective language. Councillor Wares noted that the Chair and Executive Director would be walking round the location on the following Monday and asked if they would be meeting members of the Valley Gardens Forum as well as local businesses and stakeholders. Councillor Wares asked for confirmation that the Final Preliminary Design was fully supported by bus operators as the optimum scheme available and that they did not feel they were making the best of a bad design.

 

66.13   The Head of Transport Policy & Strategy apologised for any inappropriate tone of language and assured Councillor Wares that would be reviewed. The Head of Transport Policy & Strategy stated that that a number of discussions had been held with bus companies and operators and meeting held also been held with the Bus Passenger Group. Those discussions were ongoing and were helpful in terms of refinement and development of the scheme and there had been no formal correspondence on the current position.

 

66.14   The Chair stated that she would be meeting with members of the Valley Gardens Forum and anybody else who wished to come along.

 

66.15   Councillor Wares asked if it could be confirmed that the success of the project design now hinged on the alterations at Dukes Mound. Councillor Wares also asked for advice on what circumstances had changed that now enabled a safe right turn from Pool Valley.

 

66.16   The Head of Transport Policy & Strategy stated that the changes in Dukes Mound were proposed to support the alterations on Madeira Drive. Regarding the right-turn from Pool Valley, this was something that arose in the feedback from the consultation and an issue that would be explored with any changes subject to a road safety audit.

 

66.17   Councillor Wares stated that the taxi trade had requested a right-turn however, this did not relate to Pool Valley rather the right-turn exiting Little East Street on to the A259. Referring to page 33 of the agenda, Councillor Wares asked why the list of business and interest groups not include all of those who had made representations to the council only those that had completed the consultation form. Councillor Wares noted that the following had made representations objecting to the design of the project: North Laine, Brighton Seafront & Kemptown Traders Associations, Brighton Fringe, Brighton Events groups, Brighton & Hove Taxi Forum, Tourist Alliance, Brighton Pavilion Language College, Brighton & Hove Restaurant Association, Brighton Grassroots Music Venues, Sainsbury’s Local, Marlborough Pub & Theatre, Palace Pier, Royal Albion Hotel, Brighton Hotel Action Team, Kingscliffe Society and other business, residents, stakeholders and transport groups.

 

66.18   The Principal Transport Planner explained that those included on page 33 of the agenda were all the representations made via the online consultation. Letters had also been received with some making a direct reference to the consultation and others an indirect reference. The Principal Transport Planner added that officers were in the process of responding to all the letters and provided assurance that all representations had been considered in the revision of the design.

 

66.19   Councillor Wares asked if any consideration had been given to the assertion that taxi fares from the Volks Tavern would increase by £7 per journey due to the diversions the project would create. In addition, Councillor Wares asked what route eastbound traffic approaching the proposed T junction would take in order to travel westbound and what route would be taken by HGV’s with many roads in the city centre weight restricted. Furthermore, Councillor Wares asked for explanation as to how the project had moved from a regeneration project into a social engineering project effectively forcing cars off the road.

 

66.20   The Head of Transport Policy & Strategy explained that there had been no consideration in the modelling of very specific taxi journeys. In relation to a change in route from eastbound to westbound, the Head of Transport Policy & Strategy stated that the alternative route would be to continue through the junction and turn into Lower Rock or Upper Rock Gardens, but other routes were available too. The Head of Transport Policy & Strategy added the project would have some effect on journey times however, the revisions to the scheme had reduced those anticipated increases and the project would bring a number of positive impacts to enable people to use sustainable and public transport.

 

66.21   Councillor Wares noted that there was a new southbound bus lane and a new junction at Dukes Mound and highlighted that these had not been subject to traffic modelling as designs until this point. Councillor Wares stated that there was no data to support the introduction of an additional junction and the committee were asked to take a leap of faith. Councillor Wares asked if any additional information would be provided to support the revisions before the committee decided to proceed with the scheme.

 

66.22   The Chair stated that absolute commitment could be provided that Members would continue to have oversight of the project and the ability to question throughout the detailed design phase.

 

66.23   A consultant from Mott MacDonald clarified that modelling across the Valley Gardens Phase 3 study area had very recently been undertaken and that had seen an improvement to bus journey times. It was also forecast that there would be an improvement to overall journey times due to the introduction of an additional bus lane.

 

66.24   Councillor Wares asked if that modelling included the Dukes Mound junction as that was now part of the scheme area.

 

66.25   A consultant from Mott MacDonald explained that the model did not extend to Dukes Mound but did include displaced traffic that would have otherwise exited from Madeira Drive on to the roundabout.

 

66.26   Councillor Wares stated that he had proposed a cycle lane through Pool Valley to divert cyclists away from the main junction however, he had been told the cycle path would be too narrow at 3.5m. Councillor Wares asked if it was true that in other areas of the overall project, there were cycle lanes that were 3.5m wide or less. Councillor Wares asked if any studies on noise or air pollution had been undertaken to predict what may happen in those areas due to the project.

 

66.27   A consultant from Mott MacDonald explained that there were cycle paths in other areas of the scheme that would be 3.5m however, these were not in a confined space such as Pool Valley. It was explained that the issue with a cycle lane through Pool Valley was that the blind corners made it potentially unsafe for cyclists and pedestrians. Furthermore, a cycle lane through Pool Valley would join the A259 that would necessitate a further crossing point that would increase journey times. The Head of Transport Policy & Strategy explained that the issue of noise and air pollution would form part of the detailed design via monitoring and computer software programme and mitigation measures would be made if that showed the threshold for both would be exceeded.

 

66.28   Councillor West noted that Brighton Fringe has expressed their frustration regarding the perceived loss of event space and the lack of provision of facilities such as electrical points and water. Councillor West asked if those points would be addressed in the revised scheme. Councillor West noted that local elections were forthcoming and asked what formal mechanism would be put in place post-May. Councillor West explained that previously a Member working group had been in place and it may be useful for that to be re-established.

 

66.29   The Chair stated that the Administration intended to operate a slightly different process until May for Member involvement in the project where leading councillors were involved at every stage and workshops were held with Members and interest groups with other very detailed engagement.

 

66.30   The Principal Transport Planner explained that meetings had been held with events organisers and the design showed were there would be hard surfacing for accessing event space and there would be additional supplementary space for events. Issues such as power supply, drainage and water would be considered as part of the detail design phase and if there was appropriate electrical load in relation to the areas already identified in Phases 1 and 2, these would be implemented. The Assistant Director, City Transport provided assurance that there would be close working with the power network providers regarding provision of electrical supply, but this would be subject to a high voltage supply in the Old Steine area. The same process would be undertaken with the water company and it was explained that the council’s Head of Sport & Leisure who manages the Events Manager had recently joined the project Programme Board to provide expertise.

 

66.31   Councillor West replied that the response did not provide the assurance he was seeking and asked if the Fringe Festival would be engaged on their specific needs.

 

66.32   The Executive Director, Economy, Environment & Culture stated that events organisers had been in dialogue with the council throughout the process and that engagement would continue. The Executive Director explained that he had undertaken lengthy correspondence with the CEO of Brighton Fringe to discuss their specific needs and that had also happened through Phases 1 and 2 of the scheme. The Executive Director added that there was regular attendance by the council at Fringe Board meetings and he personally would be attending their meeting next week. The Executive Director stated that he understood that event organisers were awaiting assurance, but this was because feasibility work was still being undertaken.

 

66.33   Councillor Peltzer Dunn noted that the junction at Dukes Mound had not been part of the consultation and he was very concerned about the effects it would have upon traffic. Councillor Peltzer Dunn asked what the treatment of traffic movement from East Street on to the A259 would be as it was currently outside the study area.

 

66.34   The Executive Director, Economy, Environment & Culture stated that this was a matter that had recently arisen through the consultation and issue that would be looked at as part of the detailed design.

 

66.35   Councillor Peltzer Dunn noted that it the no right turn from East Street onto the A259 was retained, traffic would turn eastbound with no option to go westbound for a significant period. Councillor Peltzer Dunn stated that because this area was outside the study area, these extra vehicle movements would not be considered and there was potential for tailbacks on the A259 and increased traffic through Lower and Upper Rock Gardens.

 

66.36   A consultant from Mott MacDonald explained that whilst figures were not available for traffic exit from East Street, figures on the number of vehicles using the current roundabout to perform a U-turn was available and that figure was less than half a percent of all traffic which was an extremely small number of vehicles.

 

66.37   Councillor Peltzer Dunn asked if traffic movement figures for the proposed junction at Dukes Mound, including the number of coaches, was now available.

 

66.38   A consultant from Mott MacDonald stated that figures were available for vehicles currently exiting Madeira Drive on to the Aquarium Roundabout and therefore, the number of vehicles that would be displaced in closing the westbound exit. The forecast figure for vehicles that would now exit Dukes Mound on to the A259 was 270 during the AM peak and 160 during the PM peak.

 

66.39   Councillor Peltzer Dunn stated that many of those vehicles would be long vehicles such as HGV’s or coaches and noted that it was likely that the junction would have to be a four-phase traffic signal, similar to that at Wharf Road North. Councillor Peltzer Dunn stated that this would likely cause delay and asked what impact that would have on the study area.

 

66.40   A consultant from Mott MacDonald answered that given the distance away the junction would be from the study area, it was not expected that there would be any impact on journey times in the study area.

 

66.41   Councillor Peltzer Dunn disagreed with this view point adding that he would not want to commute through this area of Brighton at peak times as delays were certain.

 

66.42   Councillor Atkinson stated that the proposals were not specifically aimed at motorists and were modelled on existing traffic volume to enhance co-existence between all users and to improve air quality in the local environment. Councillor Atkinson stated that in June 2018, the committee had tasked officers to design the final phase of the Valley Gardens scheme, a design that would be governed by a set of objectives, based on the consultation results and in October 2018, the committee approved the preferred design to be consulted upon. Councillor Atkinson stated that the design process itself had been reviewed by a panel of transport and urban design experts and this unanimously supported the preferred design including removal of the Aquarium Roundabout. Councillor Atkinson stated that the preferred design had been consulted upon with a wide-range of businesses, stakeholders and interest groups as well as residents which had led to a number of revisions to the final preliminary design. Councillor Atkinson highlighted that the LEP timetable stipulated that the funding for the project would need to be spent by 2021. Councillor Atkinson continued that all design options had been painstakingly appraised and the preferred option and been demonstrated to meet the project objectives and be the safest and most efficient option for pedestrians, motorists and pedestrians. Councillor Atkinson stated that he was aware of the genuine concerns expressed however, the feedback received was not unanimous with 60% of respondents to the consultation in favour of the preferred option. Councillor Atkinson stated that the proposals were an opportunity to transform the city for the better and urged the committee to move ahead whilst continuing consultation on the finer detailed design.

 

66.43   Councillor Littman echoed the comments made by Councillor Atkinson adding that the idea that the project was social engineering was wrong. Councillor Littman referred to the policy context, sustainability and public health sections of the report that clearly stated that the project was planned to improve a sustainable transport corridor and that was what the project had been from the outset. Councillor Littman stated that a sustainable transport project that encouraged people to use buses, cycle and to walk should come as no surprise. Councillor Littman explained that officers and Members had been required to progress the scheme far more swiftly than was desirable due to the Administrations two-year delay. Councillor Littman expressed his support for a Member Project Board and was encouraged to hear the Chair’s support for involvement of lead Members and asked as to the finer detail of that. Councillor Littman stated that any delay at this stage would be endangering the project and he would be supporting the recommendations.

 

66.44   Councillor Wares stated that he had asked a number of questions and the answers to those questions had given the impression that there was no clear idea about what would happen in relation to traffic outside the boundaries of the scheme. Councillor Wares stated that he expected the scheme proposals to lead to chaos and there had been a consistent ignorance of the situation and the council had refused to listen to the suggestions of industry leaders as to what was wrong with the proposals. Councillor Wares stated that the scheme did appear to be a social engineering project and he believed it would lead residents and tourists to go elsewhere. Councillor Wares added that the Administration had delayed the project for two years to the point it was now rushed and there could be no pause to review because time was running out to draw down the funding. Councillor Wares stated that his Group had now requested on three separate occasions for a pause and that had been rejected by the two other political groups three times. Councillor Wares stated he was now exasperated in asking the committee to listen to what it was being told by said industry leaders, businesses, traders, interest groups and residents. Councillor Wares explained that the project was still at the stage where it could be re-thought and re-considered and to agree the recommendations would be a demonstration that the council did not listen or care. Councillor Wares stated that to pause and review the scheme was the right thing to be by the city.

 

66.45   On behalf of the Conservative Group, Councillor Wares moved a motion to amend recommendations 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4 as shown below in bold italics and where struck though:

 

2.2      That the Committee approves the Final Preliminary Design for the Valley Gardens Phase 3 project, as attached in Appendix 3 of this report, and agrees that it should be progressed to the detailed design stage which will include further public consultation and stakeholder engagement subject to the 2019/20 Local Transport Plan Capital Budget being agreed in March 2019 by Policy, Resource & Growth Committee.

 

2.3       That the Committee agrees that officers progress design work for the proposed improvements to the A259/Duke’s Mound/Madeira Drive junctions, in liaison with the council’s Waterfront project team subject to a report being brought to this Committee detailing the proposal including the costs associated with the design and recommendations from the Waterfront project team. 

 

2.4      That the Committee authorises officers to procure professional services/contract(s) for the detailed design and construction stages of the Valley Gardens Phase 3 project, subject to recommendation 2.2 and notes that this authorisation will enable officers to procure and award either a design and build contract or separate contracts for the design stage and the construction stage, and notes that an update on these procurements will be provided to a future committee meeting. and that the Committee agrees that prior to considering authorisation for the procurement of contract(s) for construction services of the Valley Gardens Phase 3 project, a report will be brought to a future meeting of this Committee detailing the outcome of the consultation and stakeholder engagement detailed in recommendation 2.2.

 

66.46   Introducing the motion, Councillor Wares stated that contributions were sought from the 2019/20 Local Transport Plan capital programme however, that was yet to be agreed therefore, the amendment to recommendation 2.2 made that clear. In relation to the amendment proposed to recommendation 2.3, Councillor Wares explained that he was concerned that resources from the Waterfront team would be misspent to correct mistakes in the Valley Gardens project and therefore, clear reporting was required from the Waterfront project team. In relation to the amendment proposed for 2.4, Councillor Wares stated that if the report was agreed as per the report, that would allow officers delegate powers to progress the scheme to its conclusion apart from the necessary TRO’s. Councillor Wares stated that instead, the project needed to progress stage by stage including the feedback from the detailed design stated and it was far too in advance to be considering appointing contractors.

 

66.47   Councillor Brown formally seconded the motion stating that it would ensure the committee was kept up to date on the project in a transparent manner.

 

66.48   Councillor West stated that he would not be supporting the amendment. Councillor West explained that 40% of households in the city did not own a car and it was important to them that public transport worked well, and the proposals would give opportunity for people who travel actively to do so safely. Councillor West contended that the project gave opportunity to enhance a key area of the city centre. Councillor West stated that Phase 3 was the most complex of the overall project and that level of complexity deserved a longer and more detailed period of engagement with all stakeholders however, that had not been possible due to the delay to Phases 1 and 2 instigated by the Administration. Councillor West elaborated that the report itself stated that there were lessons to be learned. Councillor West explained that whilst the delay was regrettable, the scheme was the right one even in the time pressured situation. Councillor West explained that there had been many good revisions to the project through the most recent consultation in particular, the north to south cycle lane and better cycle segregation in a number of areas. Councillor West noted that the consultation had received a good number of responses and those responses had been broadly supportive of the scheme design and had agreed with the removal of the Aquarium Roundabout in favour of a controlled junction. Councillor West stated that he did not support the desire to delay the scheme as it would present a very real risk of losing the project funding unnecessarily. In addition, Councillor West stated that he had some concerns about event space and the impact of any funding gap and he hoped if revisions had to be made, that would not come at the expense of improvements to the environment and public realm. Councillor West concluded that he supported the report recommendations as it would be to the benefit of everyone and he hoped the scheme could be moved on swiftly.

 

66.49   The Chair thanked Councillor West for his contribution that made a number of pertinent points and expressed her commitment to working together as the scheme progressed.

 

66.50   Councillor Robins agreed with the comments made by Councillor Littman that the proposals were not an attempt to shut down traffic but an attempt to open up the public realm in the area and that was why he had come to support the scheme after an initial apprehension. Councillor Robins explained that he was familiar with the events programme in his role as Chair of the Tourism, Development & Culture Committee. Councillor Robins stated that there were difficulties in where events could be staged and the redevelopment of the area outside the Royal Pavilion would provide greater opportunity for a variety of different and new events such as a Christmas Market.

 

66.51   Councillor Wares clarified that he was not against public realm improvements but did believe that the proposals were not a workable scheme. Furthermore, those that were suggesting ideas and alternatives and telling the council the scheme would not be a success were not being listened to. Councillor Wares stated his certainty that there was a better way of achieving the objectives of the scheme than the current proposal and many people believed that proposal was not the right one. In relation to the Aquarium Roundabout, Councillor Wares explained that the transport system in that area was not broken and further changes were compounding the issue. Councillor Wares supplemented that on occasion it was right to stop and re-think decisions and this was one of those times. Councillor Wares expressed his belief that the LEP were unlikely to withdraw funding for the scheme if they understood a delay was to ensure a better proposal came forward.

 

66.52   Councillor Peltzer Dunn stated that he supported the motion as the amended recommendation 2.2 as it made explicit that the project would be subject to agreement of the 2019/20 LTP capital budget as it would anyway and there would be no further delay. The amended recommendation 2.3 would likewise not cause delay as it was not in the original Phase 3 scheme. Councillor Peltzer Dunn explained that the amended recommendation 2.4 was of most importance as it ensured democratic oversight and residents had elected councillors to take that responsibility, not officers. To do otherwise and as the report proposed would be an abdication of responsibility.

 

66.53   Councillor Littman stated that whilst he believed the Valley Gardens Forum had made outstanding progress from a standing start, members of the committee were also being lobbied by other groups such as the local Friends of the Earth and Bricycles to agree the project and begin work. Councillor Littman stated that every decision made by the council and Members was a balance and there would never be a scheme that benefited every group. It was down to Members to make a choice on the decision that would be for the good of the city and he had no doubt that the scheme as proposed was very good and there were no grounds whatsoever to pause the process.

 

66.54   The Chair then put the Conservative Group motion to the vote. At the request of Councillor Wares, the Chair agreed to a recorded vote with the following outcome:

 

Councillor Atkinson: Against

Councillor Brown: For

Councillor Horan: Against

Councillor Littman: Against

Councillor Miller: Not Present

Councillor Mitchell: Against

Councillor Peltzer Dunn: For

Councillor Robins: Against

Councillor Wares: For

Councillor West: Against

 

66.55   Therefore, the motion failed.

 

66.56   On behalf of the Green Group, Councillor West moved a motion to add a recommendation 2.6 as shown in bold italics below:

 

2.6      That the above recommendations are agreed subject to obtaining independent legal advice to the satisfaction of officers, after consultation with the Chair and Opposition Spokespersons.

 

66.57   Introducing the amendment, Councillor West noted that the committee had received legal advice in response to the solicitors Letter received and whilst he did not wish to delay the project, it would be prudent and responsible to seek independent legal advice to reinforce soundness of the decision.

 

66.58    Councillor Littman formally seconded the motion.

 

66.59   The Chair put the motion to the vote which passed.

 

66.60   The Chair then put the recommendations, as amended to the vote. At the request of Councillor Wares, the Chair agreed to a recorded vote with the following outcome:

 

Councillor Atkinson: For

Councillor Brown: Against

Councillor Horan: For

Councillor Littman: For

Councillor Miller: Not Present

Councillor Mitchell: For

Councillor Peltzer Dunn: Against

Councillor Robins: For

Councillor Wares: Against

Councillor West: For

 

66.61   Therefore, the recommendations, as amended were agreed.

 

66.62   RESOLVED-

 

1)           That the Committee notes the results of the public consultation and stakeholder engagement on the preferred design option for the Valley Gardens Phase 3 project, as set out in Appendix 1 and Appendix 2 of this report.

 

2)           That the Committee approves the Final Preliminary Design for the Valley Gardens Phase 3 project, as attached in Appendix 3 of this report, and agrees that it should be progressed to the detailed design stage which will include further public consultation and stakeholder engagement.

 

3)           That the Committee agrees that officers progress design work for the proposed improvements to the A259/Duke’s Mound/Madeira Drive junctions, in liaison with the council’s Waterfront project team.

 

4)           That the Committee authorises officers to procure professional services/contract(s) for the detailed design and construction stages of the Valley Gardens Phase 3 project and notes that this authorisation will enable officers to procure and award either a design and build contract or separate contracts for the design stage and the construction stage, and notes that an update on these procurements will be provided to a future committee meeting.

 

5)           That the Committee approves the revised design of the Marlborough Place - Edward Street junction, as shown in Appendix 3 of this report, which will   supersede the design of the southernmost section of the Valley Gardens Phases 1&2 project agreed by this Committee in December 2017, and agrees that the design can be progressed to the detailed design stage and delivered as part of the current construction programme for Valley Gardens Phases 1&2.

 

6)           That the above recommendations are agreed subject to obtaining independent legal advice to the satisfaction of officers, after consultation with the Chair and Opposition Spokespersons.

Supporting documents:

 


Bookmark this page using:

Find out more about social bookmarking

These sites allow you to store, tag and share links across the internet. You can share these links both with friends and people with similar interests. You can also access your links from any computer you happen to be using.

If you come across a page on our site that you find interesting and want to save for future reference or share it with other people, simply click on one of these links to add to your list.

All of these sites are free to use but do require you to register. Once you have registered you can begin bookmarking.

Brighton & Hove City Council | Hove Town Hall | Hove | BN3 3BQ | Tel: (01273) 290000 | Mail: info@brighton-hove.gov.uk | how to find us | comments & complaints