Brighton & Hove City Council

Environment, Transport & Sustainability Committee

4.00pm21 June 2022

Council Chamber, Hove Town Hall

Minutes

Present: Councillor Davis (Joint Chair), Lloyd (Deputy Chair), Wilkinson (Opposition Spokesperson), Nemeth (Group Spokesperson), Bagaeen, Clare, Fowler, Littman, Platts and Robins

Part One

<AI1>

1 Procedural Business

1(a) Declarations of substitutes

1.1 Councillor Littman was present as substitute for Councillor Heley.

1.2 Councillor Clare was present as substitute for Councillor Hills.

1.3 Councillor Robins was present as substitute for Councillor McIntosh.

1(b) Declarations of interest

1.4 Councillor Lloyd declared a pecuniary interest in Item 9 as his spouse shared an allotment. Councillor Lloyd stated that he had been granted dispensation by the Monitoring Officer to speak and vote on the item.

1.5 Councillor Robins declared a pecuniary interest in Item 9 as an allotment holder. Councillor Robins stated that he had been granted dispensation by the Monitoring Officer to speak and vote on the item.

1.6 Councillor Wilkinson declared a pecuniary interest in Item 9 as an allotment holder. Councillor Wilkinson stated that he had been granted dispensation by the Monitoring Officer to speak and vote on the item.

1.7 Councillor Platts declared a pecuniary interest in Item 13 she lived on a street adjoining the proposed scheme area. Councillor Platts stated that she would leave the Chamber during discussion of the item and public representations on the subject.

1(c) Exclusion of press and public

1.8 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).

1.9 Resolved- That the press and public not be excluded from the meeting.

</AI1>

<AI2>

2 Minutes

2.1 Resolved- That the minutes of the previous meeting be approved as the correct record.

</AI2>

<AI3>

3 Chairs Communications

3.1 The Chair provided the following communications:

“There have been a number of exciting developments since the last meeting of this committee in March, including some excellent funding awards which will improve our public transport system, encourage active travel and reduce our carbon emissions.

We are going to make our buses more reliable, cheaper and faster through our bus service improvement plan which has been provisionally awarded £27.9m. Working with operators, we’ll create a more sustainable transport network for the city.

We are improving active transport infrastructure through a successfully bid for £1.2m for a new active travel scheme on Marine Parade, a key route linking eastern parts of Brighton & Hove to the city centre. We were also awarded nearly £80,000 for a ‘Mini Holland’ feasibility study to assess how part of the city could be made as pedestrian and cycle friendly as a Dutch city equivalent.

Continuing the theme of successful funding bids, in March we also received more than £300,000 in funding to help increase the number of Changing Places Toilets. These will help meet the needs of disabled people, in particular, those with profound and multiple learning or physical disabilities.

I’d like to thank and congratulate all the officers involved in these bids for their hard work in securing these vital funds which will ensure that our City continues to thrive for residents and visitors alike.

I’m also pleased to report to this committee that work to improve the condition of city’s council run football pitches is also underway. Following a successful trial of a special equipment designed to combat wear and tear, this will be rolled out city wide.

Offices are continuing to work hard to keep our city clean and tidy. We want to hear from Residents about concerns that they raise which is why a citywide consultation is underway on efforts to tackle illegal flyposting and stickering. This would extend the work we are already doing to combat graffiti while the use of single use barbecues and the release of balloons and lanterns will be banned from the 1st of July.

In the last few weeks, we’ve also seen St Mary’s Catholic Primary become the latest school to join our School Streets scheme. Another 5 will be joining this year with a further six scheduled for the next academic year. School streets create safer, sustainable and healthier streets which enable Children to walk, run or cycle to school. Work has begun on a new play area, multi-use games area, mini-exercise track and an outdoor fitness space in Carden Park in Brighton, one part of the £3million refurbishment of our parks and green spaces.

With our draft Air Quality Action Plan out for consultation, I was pleased to see this month figures which showed that our programme to upgrade the city’s streetlights has seen us save almost 10,000 tonnes of Co2 since 2017 – reducing our emissions by more than two thirds. An achievement which really does demonstrate how long term investment can have a real impact on tackling the climate crisis.

Finally, tonight we are discussing the Hanover and Tarner Liveable Neighbourhood project and I want to assure residents of Elm Grove that we are going to end the scourge of pavement parking on their street via either new Govt legislation or our own traffic regulation order”.

</AI3>

<AI4>

4 Call Over

4.1 The following items on the agenda were reserved for discussion:

- Item 8: City Environment Modernisation Update

- Item 9: Allotments

- Item 10: Tree Planting Plan

- Item 13: Hanover & Tarner Liveable Neighbourhood

- Item 14: Bus Service Improvement Plan Draft Enhanced Partnership Agreement

4.2 The Democratic Services Officer confirmed that the items listed above had been reserved for discussion and that the following reports on the agenda with the recommendations therein had been approved and adopted:

- Item 11: UNESCO Periodic Review of the Living Coast Biosphere

- Item 12: Local Approval of the Final Version of the Environment Agency Flood Risk Management Plan Cycle 2 (2021-27)

- Item 15: Phone Parking Contract Re-Let

</AI4>

<AI5>

5 Public Involvement

(A) Petitions

1) Prohibit pavement parking in Crescent Place Kemp Town

5.1 The Committee considered a petition signed by 24 people requesting the prohibition of pavement parking on Crescent Place.

5.2 The Chair provided the following response:

“Thank you for your petition. I sympathise with residents who have to deal with cars parked on the pavement. We have been actively lobbying the government to provide Councils with more powers to ban pavement parking. The government consulted in 2020 on this issue and we continue to wait to hear back about their next steps. Officers are reluctant to increase sign clutter by placing non-enforceable No pavement signs on these roads which may also cause confusion to visitors to the area. The pavements behind the double yellow lines are currently enforceable and since January, we have issued 3 PCNs to vehicles parked partially on the pavement on Crescent’s Place. While this is not in itself a large number, it is 30% of all PCNs issued in this time at this location, with evidence that in most instances drivers are moving their vehicles before a PCN can be issued. While we wait for the necessary power, we will continue to explore options to tackle prohibit pavement parking”.

5.3 Resolved- That the committee note the petition.

2) Stop the current plan for a Low Traffic Neighbourhood (LTN), known as ‘Hanover & Tarner Liveable Neighbourhood Project

5.4 The Committee considered a petition signed by 379 people requesting the council stop the current plan for a Low Traffic Neighbourhood (LTN), in Hanover and Tarner and devise a plan that benefitted the whole of the Hanover & Elm Grove ward equally.

5.5 The Chair provided the following response:

“Thank you for presenting your petition today Alison, which has been supported by a number of people. We also welcome the views and participation of local people and stakeholders in the engagement that there has been on this project so far with officers and your ward councillors in recent meetings and co-production workshops.

The Liveable Neighbourhood pilot project is an item on today’s agenda and the officer report which includes the proposed plan, engagement reports, and draft Project Monitoring Framework, will be discussed later. The report outlines how the plan has been developed through a combination of technical design and responses to stakeholder feedback. Through this process, the plan ensures that the residential roads which are part of the boundary to the area will be an integral part of the project and they will be treated in a way that improves them by making them safer, healthier, greener and more attractive for their residents and businesses, and all those who use them.

You have rightly pointed out that there is research on other Low Traffic Neighbourhoods, including some in London, and that these have shown varying results on changes in traffic flows.

That is why we have made this a pilot project and undertaken a range of engagement to gather views. We will also monitor the results of the various local changes while taking account of other changes across the city to make sure that the pilot scheme will fulfil its objectives and make it a success.

Measures will include new crossing points and traffic calming measures to make streets safer. Raised areas for flowers and shrubs and better landscaping will also be introduced. Other wider city initiatives will also help improve local environments where traffic flows are higher. The boundary roads provide regular bus services for local people and are part of the network that carries general traffic across the city. Further upgrades in bus fleet and the council’s fleet are currently in the process of transitioning over to greener and in some cases to fully electric engine technology, and more electric vehicles are being used as we increase the availability of charging points. The project will also include twelve new air quality monitors across the scheme. Most of these will be on the boundary roads, and there will be real-time monitors in two schools including Elm Grove Primary and a third in Orchard Day Nursery on Queens Park Road as part of a new scheme that has been started.

We know that pavement parking and driving on pavements creates real dangers that residents should simply not have to tolerate. It is not acceptable that we do not have the powers to address this in an efficient way, as we should not have to reclaim pavement space for pedestrians from vehicles because of the current law. We have been actively leading work for nearly 10 years to tackle this across the city and continuously lobbying the Government for the powers that we need to fully address it. We are still waiting for the outcome of the national consultation that finally took place in 2020, but if there is no positive decision soon, then we will have to consider taking more local action to address this, especially in Elm Grove.

The next step for the wider project involves wider public consultation and we look forward to continuing to work with the local community and receiving and responding to people’s views. This will help us further review and revise the scheme over the coming months, before it is reported back to this committee later this year for a final decision on the design. Works to the boundary roads are proposed to be permanent, but there will also be a further 6-month consultation period during which we can decide if we need to amend parts of the scheme that are introduced within an experimental traffic regulation order. There will then be a further twelve months within which a decision will need to be made about whether those measures are made permanent or should be removed. The approach to monitoring and continued engagement will enable us to record and be notified of any significant issues, which can then be reviewed. If further action is necessary, it will be taken.

The initial discussions and decisions that were the catalyst for bring forward this project have now, quite rightly, been broadened out into the wider community and generated further discussion and debate. Thank you for therefore presenting your petition, which further assists us as a committee in hearing and understanding people’s views about the proposals. These will continue to be taken into account as the design work progresses. This will help us get the right balance of measures across a wide area. Monitoring will then help us understand how to achieve the best outcomes possible to make your local area a more liveable neighbourhood for everyone”.

5.6 Resolved- That the committee note the petition.

3) Controlled parking for Withdean Court Avenue

5.7 The petition was deferred to the next meeting.

4) Rename a street in the memory of Ukrainian war victims

5.8 The committee considered a petition signed by 4 people requesting Francis Street by renamed in memory of Ukrainian war victims.

5.9 The petitioner was unable to attend so a written response was provided.

5.10 Resolved- That the committee note the petition.

5) Allow dogs off-lead at Waterhall alongside rewilding

5.11 The committee considered a petition signed by 1264 people requesting the council to abandon the decision to ban off-lead dogs across all of Waterhall.

5.12 The Chair provided the following response:

Thank you for your petition.

Dog walking at the former Waterhall Golf course was not permitted other than on public rights of way. We appreciate that in the time that the golf course was operational some residents and dog walking businesses became used to exercising dogs over the whole site. Dogs can still be exercised off lead in the lower section of Waterhall and many other parks and open spaces in the city. However, the site cannot cope with the volume of dogs being exercised whilst trying to achieve our objectives of rewilding and restoring the biodiversity of the site.

In rewilding Waterhall, the council has sought to encourage public access and is in the process of designating the site as statutory open access. This does however require dogs to be kept on leads during the bird nesting season and around livestock in recognition of the impact they can have on them.

Dogs also impact other wildlife, in particular cold-blooded animals which need to bask to regulate their body temperature. Frequent disturbance impacts on their ability to hunt and reproduce and leads to a decline in numbers.

Disturbance by off lead dogs also affects other users of the site with reports of stolen volunteers’ lunches and dogs entering the building and urinating on the furniture.

The council has funding from the National Heritage Lottery Fund for an Education Ranger and from Countryside Stewardship to provide school visits to the site. These are not feasible with large numbers of off lead dogs, as have been experienced at Waterhall

Dog excrement is also an issue in low fertility habitats, such as the species rich chalk grassland we are trying to manage for at Waterhall. Dog faeces and urine increase the fertility of the ground favouring the more common coarser species over the rarer wildflowers.

The wildflowers are important for the insects and other species that they support. By requiring dogs to be kept on leads and encouraging people to use waymarked paths, this impact can be limited and kept away from the more sensitive areas.

Flea treatments used on dogs can have a serious impact on aquatic species.

Constant disturbance of ponds also releases nutrients from the sediments which can lead to algal blooms which limit oxygen and can make the water toxic. The sediment in the water also limits the penetration of sunlight into the pond limiting its ability to support wildlife.

With respect to displacement, Waterhall is already suffering displacement from Stanmer Park as many dog walkers have started using Waterhall to avoid paying parking charges at Stanmer. These dog walkers are already potentially increasing their travel if they live closer to Stanmer and are now travelling to Waterhall.

Due to its location, most dog walkers who access Waterhall arrive by vehicle. If these dog walkers used sites closer to where they live, they could reduce their C02 emissions.

The council is not alone in seeking to limit the impact of dogs on biodiversity. Other Nature Reserve have limited access to some or all areas such as Sussex Wildlife Trust’s reserve at Woods Mill where dogs are not allowed and at Knepp where they limit all public access to some areas.

This petition should be considered in light of a petition to the January 2020 Tourism, Equalities, Communities & Culture Committee which received 5216 signatories asking it to ‘Create a Haven for Wildlife and Wellbeing by Restoring Biodiversity of Hollingbury and Waterhall golf courses’.

The council allows dog walking on almost all of its untenanted land and has not prioritised wildlife over dog walking on any other site despite declaring a biodiversity emergency”.

5.13 On behalf of the Conservative Group, Councillor Nemeth moved a motion to request an officer report on the matter.

5.14 Councillor Bagaeen formally seconded the motion.

5.15 The Chair put the motion to the vote that failed.

5.16 Resolved- That the committee note the petition.

(B) Written Questions

1) Valley Gardens

5.17 Derek Wright put the following question:

“Lots of desire paths have been made through the flower and meadow beds in Victoria Gardens trampling the plants. Low fencing to protect the flowers and plants has been promised by City Parks and Transport officers for years, when will they be installed?”

5.18 The Chair provided the following reply:

“Thank you for your question. It is disappointing to see that some people are trampling on the plants in Victoria Gardens. We are considering the options to prevent this in the future and as you suggest fencing does appear to be the required to enable this.

We are developing a costed business case to introduce fencing in some areas. We are currently recruiting to a Parks Team Leader who will focus on managing Valley Gardens, The Level and planted areas along the seafront. Once this person is in post, we would be able to move forward with some of the improvements we wish to make and will be aiming to install fencing before the next growing season. However please be aware that this will be budget dependent and may need to be done in phases focussing on the most problematic areas first”.

2) Elm Grove LTN

5.19 Ben Kelly put the following question:

“Whilst Elm Grove is included in the liveable neighbourhood scheme, it also features as a ‘Strategic Route’ in the LCWIP. Due to the gradient, there is a large differential in speed between cyclists and motor vehicles, when heading uphill. This makes it particularly hostile and dangerous for cyclists. Initial investigations indicate that an uphill cycle route could be included without the loss of legal parking, and without any impact on the proposed greening of Elm Grove. A downhill cycle route should also be fully investigated. Can the Chair confirm that the plans also include safe cycling provision along this route?”

5.20 The Chair provided the following reply:

“Thank you for your question. You have made a very valid point by referring to our Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan. This is also reflected in paragraph 3.8 of the report on the Hanover & Tarner Liveable Neighbourhood which we will be discussing later.

In summary, although the current proposals do not include specific cycling measures in Elm Grove, the potential opportunities for developing cycling infrastructure as part of the Elm Grove/Warren Road LCWIP route will be taken into account in the further development of scheme design to ensure that they can be considered in the future. We would, of course, welcome suggestions about cycling provision within the Hanover & Tarner scheme in response to the consultation that will be starting later this year, and I hope you will consider doing so.

We have also been made aware that there was a recent collision in Elm Grove involving a cyclist and we clearly need to find out more from the Police about the circumstances associated with that unfortunate incident. Our thoughts are certainly with those who sustained injuries”.

3) Hollingdean Parking

5.21 Nick Maylon put the following question:

“The Hollingdean parking scheme seems to be delayed once again. Consultations promised before Christmas eventually were delivered in April. The results of these consultations were due to be presented to this committee today, but this hasn't happened. It now looks like we will have a further 3-month delay despite apparent overwhelming support for a scheme.

Will the Chair agree to compensate residents for the 7-month (and counting) delays so far (perhaps by half-price resident parking in year 1) or find a way to get the scheme back on track?”

5.22 The Chair provided the following reply:

“Myself and Officers apologise for the delay with the start of this consultation which is due to a number of factors but mainly because of the delay of the implementation of the Surrenden parking scheme and previous staff shortages.

Despite these challenges officers have been working extremely hard to consult this area as soon as we can. Due to the size of the Hollingdean consultation area this has taken slightly longer than anticipated and Officers are still analysing the results of the preliminary consultation which will be presented to this Committee in September.

Our parking scheme timetable is subject to change but Officers are hoping any previous delays may be reduced towards the end of the consultation period, however compensating residents for delays to any programmed parking scheme is not deemed appropriate”.

5.23 Nick Maylon asked the following supplementary question:

“Would it be possible for the council to publish a timeline to see what resources can be put in (to CPZ consultations) please? Because I’m sure that with the revenues that come in, resources could be put in that would both help the council and reduce unnecessary pollution”.

5.24 The Chair provided the following reply:

“I’ll bring you that timeline via email”.

(C) Deputations

1) Wilson Avenue

5.25 The Committee considered a deputation on excessive speeding and dangerous driving on Wilson Avenue.

5.26 The Chair provided the following response:

“I am fully receptive to the concerns you’ve raised and would like to see what can be done to address the issues raised.

Wilson Avenue was included in the Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan agreed at the last committee as a longer-term priority. However, I have instructed officers to consider the need for shorter-term measures and the feasibility of introducing these. Any change to a speed limit has to be agreed by the Police as enforcement authority. The Police have limited resources and if a limit is imposed that drivers do not respect and consequently ignore then they have an unrealistic burden placed upon them. We will place speed recording devices in Wilson Avenue in the near future and if speeds are close to 30mph then we will approach the Police and see if they would agree to a lowered speed limit.

I am hoping what the committee will do is agree to note this deputation but what I’ve instructed Transport officers to do is look into an Experimental Traffic Regulation Order on your road to bring down the speed limit to 30mph”.

5.27 Resolved- That the committee note the deputation.

2) Request the Council to support the creation of a Pocket Park on the footpath at the southern end of St Aubyns, Hove

5.28 The Committee considered a deputation requesting the creation of a Pocket Park on the southern end of St Aubyns, Hove to improve the area.

5.29 The Chair provided the following response:

“Thank you for presenting your deputation today Heather. Greening the city is an important part of improving our public spaces and can contribute to helping tackle climate change and improving drainage, as well building community cohesion and providing soft landscaping to create more attractive places for people to enjoy their local area. Pocket parks or parklets can play an important role in achieving this, and we can see that there has been some interesting and ambitious concept design work done to show what this area could look like if planting and seating were combined to use this particular space in a different way.

We are developing an assessment framework to enable us to consider and respond to various requests which can help make neighbourhoods and local areas more liveable. The framework will be presented to this committee later this year, and if approved, we will then be able to use that process to assess the principles of what is being proposed here.

I understand that you are also aware that the committee recently approved the design of a walking, cycling and accessibility scheme for this section of the A259. The principles of a pocket park would be consistent with that scheme, but it would be a significant change to the design that has been agreed. Therefore, if the location was considered to be appropriate and a priority for a pocket park when assessed against other sites, your discussions with CityClean and City Transport officers could continue. This would enable them to look more closely at your proposal to determine the options and implications of introducing any changes like this, in this particular location. These would include engineering matters, such as checking what infrastructure is under the pavement. This would also help inform what the potential costs of introducing greening and seating may be, as this would be a key consideration when exploring funding availability as part of the grant-funding process that you have referred to. This would include checking the Section 106 funding that may be available from planning permissions for local development. Ordinarily, it would need to be directly related to a proposal in this location in order to be considered as an appropriate source in this instance.

Your work with the local community in this part of Hove on this concept is really welcomed, and I look forward to hearing more about the progress that could be made with your proposal in due course”.

5.30 Councillor Wilkinson moved a motion to request an officer report on the matter.

5.31 Councillor Nemeth formally seconded the motion.

5.32 The Chair put the motion to the vote that passed.

5.33 Resolved- That the Committee receive a report to a future meeting responding to the deputation request.

3) Proposals for a Hanover and Tarner LTN

5.34 The committee considered a deputation requesting a more ambitious LTN programme for the Elm Grove area and other road safety measures.

5.35 The Chair provided the following response:

“Thank you for presenting your deputation today, which accompanies the petition that has also been submitted and is on our agenda today.

A lot of what I have said in my response to that petition is relevant to the points that you have raised today. We have welcomed the discussion and engagement that has taken place with the local community, following the representations and reports that have been considered by this committee regarding taking forward this pilot project for the Hanover & Tarner area. This has really helped shape the extent of the area and informed the types of measures that can be introduced to manage traffic movements and make it easier for people to move around the area safely and sustainably. Ward councillors and officers have listened and responded to points that have been raised so far, and the discussions that have taken place have helped confirm that the residential roads that form the boundaries to the area, especially Elm Grove, need to be integrated and planned as part of the overall measures that come forward. And they will be.

This is a pilot project, that the committee wanted to progress as ‘a first’ in the city. We do want it to be ambitious and demonstrate what can be achieved by these types of measures. We will also learn from it, and other locations that follow will benefit from that. Continued community participation and dialogue will be critical, so that we can hear and respond to points of support or concern, such as those you have raised today. It has been really helpful for the committee to hear those views, and I would recommend that they are also made in your responses during the forthcoming consultation period, alongside other residents and stakeholders views. Achieving success will also depend on adequate funding to deliver agreed measures, and the report highlights decisions on additional funding will be made by another committee. Changes to buildings, such as the school, would require the involvement of other officers and people. Enforcing speed limits is a Police responsibility, but is something that the council works in close partnership with them on. These points all emphasise the multiple issues that we need to address within the project before any final decision is taken.

Creating a greener, safer, cleaner and healthier environment along a busy, residential road like Elm Grove is not without its challenges, but there are opportunities to achieve this within this scheme and a number of your suggestions will contribute towards it. The report recognises that the proposed measures on the residential boundary roads should be prioritised and be made permanent.

The project will be monitored and reviewed – including traffic flows and air quality levels. New schemes, especially over a wider area, can take time to show any differences and much of this is expected to be due to changes in travel behaviour and travel decisions that the scheme aims to deliver, especially locally. The monitoring that will be undertaken will enable us to see what is changing and then consider if any additional action is required as a result.

I will finish on a point that you have made strongly and succinctly. Tackling pavement parking is one of our number one priorities and despite continued lobbying of the government, we still await a clear announcement about if or how it will give local authorities the necessary powers to effectively deal with it. Its consultation asking whether a change of existing pavement parking legislation should occur finished in November 2020, so if we don’t hear anything soon, then we will need to seriously consider a separate Traffic Regulation Order to deal with the unnecessary obstruction and danger that this anti-social behaviour can cause in local streets.

5.36 Resolved- That the committee note the deputation.

4) Proposals for a Hanover and Tarner LTN

5.37 The committee considered a deputation that detailed the perceived benefit of an LTN in Hanover & Elm Grove and requested the committee proceed with the scheme.

5.38 The Chair provided the following response:

“Our agenda today has included another deputation, a petition and a written question – all about this project for Hanover & Tarner. This demonstrates the level of interest and engagement that there is in highlighting the issues that are being experienced in this part of the city.

The work that has been done so far to develop proposals to tackle those issues is clearly generating healthy debate and discussion. This is taking place in various meetings as well as in this chamber, and we are listening to it and will take it into account in our decision-making. We will have the opportunity to discuss the proposed scheme for Hanover & Tarner further when we reach item 13 on the agenda later. The next stage will then be public consultation, when there will be further opportunities for people to express their views on the proposal and to help shape it further.

We know that there are other similar schemes in the country, but this will be a first for Brighton & Hove and that is why it is a pilot project. We will therefore learn lessons from the process and increase our understanding of how a scheme like this can make a real difference to how our city works. That difference will only be achieved through the decisions that people make when travelling to, from or within the area; so we want to make it easier for people to choose active and sustainable transport by creating a better local environment for everyone, and help reduce the number and impacts of vehicles. For essential journeys, we can reduce harmful emissions by using cleaner fuels or adopting a different driving style. We can increase safety by reducing driver speeds. There is no one solution or choice, but the main way of achieving all of this is through informed decisions that change our individual behaviours, and therefore contribute to wider local and global benefits and safer and healthier lives.

How we are engaging with people to help co-produce and develop ideas that will help meet the objectives of the project is also being tested. We will create more liveable neighbourhoods by working in partnership with local communities. Measures need to be safe and sustainable and technically sound, so when we are designing them across a wide area, we need to ensure that everybody is aware of what we are trying to achieve. This will help us take into account the balance of opinion that there is about what is needed and where, whether that is on a residential boundary road or side street. We also fully understand and respect that people will want to focus on their personal situations and explain what may affect them most. We need to hear those voices too, and we are.

As you have highlighted, a key part of addressing climate change and how we can all respond to it, whether as a council or as individuals or groups of people, is to ensure that key messages are communicated. We need to explain why action is necessary now to ensure that we and future generations can all benefit from the decisions that we need to make. We need to have the right messages and we need to have the right measures, and if we do need to change how and what we communicate, then we will work harder on that.

In bringing forward a scheme like this, we also know that it is one of a number changes and actions that will help tackle the climate emergency. A report is currently being prepared to outline the progress that is being made across a wide range of projects in the Carbon Neutral Programme, all of which will contribute towards reducing carbon emissions by 2030. It will no doubt generate further debate and raise awareness of this important topic, as we are doing today”.

5.39 Resolved- That the committee note the deputation.

</AI5>

<AI6>

6 Items referred from Council

(A) Petitions

1) Keep the permanent street closure on Queens Park Rise

6.1 The Committee considered a petition referred from Full Council that requested the retention of the current permanent street closure on Queens Park Rise at its junction with Queens Park Terrace, as part of the School Streets Scheme.

6.2 The Chair provided the following response:

“School Streets offers a solution to many of the issues that schools and residents have experienced over many years including idling, double parking and dangerous driving at drop off and pick up times. The reduced traffic and reallocation of road space made available by School Streets closures also encourages people to make the school journey using sustainable modes such as cycling, walking and scooting.

The permanent closure at the bottom of Queen’s Park Rise was implemented in the Covid-19 pandemic as part of the Emergency School Streets programme. It was done so on an Experimental Traffic Regulation Order on a trial basis and as a way to alleviate some of the pressure on volunteers and school staff who had been operating the closure at both ends of the road, using temporary barriers.

Following the trial period, officers recommended that the School Street closure be reverted to a timed closure which is operational during school drop off and pick up times. This was based on concerns about road safety due to the lack of adequate turning space for Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) and other vehicles turning on Queen’s Park Rise.

As the recommendation to revert the measures was approved by the council’s Environment, Transport and Sustainability Committee on 21 September 2021, the Traffic Regulation Order to revert the permanent measures and reinstate temporary, timed restrictions was sealed.

This has enabled the primary benefits of School Streets to be realised, as traffic is reduced at peak times while allowing the road to be open to through traffic the remainder of the time. The permanent filter has since been replaced with retractable bollards at one end and a gate at the other, providing physical barriers during drop off and pick up times to restricted vehicles while ensuring access at all times to those that are exempt.

We are committed to delivering School Streets closures to all eligible schools in the city and as the first School Street in the city, St Luke’s has been an excellent example of the difference School Streets can make to the school journey.

Officers will continue to monitor the closure and we are grateful for the continued support of volunteers, school staff and the local community”.

6.3 Resolved- That the Committee note the petition.

2) Bankside Imposition

6.4 The Committee considered a petition referred from Full Council requesting the council to revise the "School Streets" initiative proposed for Westdene.

6.5 The Chair provided the following response:

“As a ward Councillor, I have been closely engaged in the development and design for a School Street at Westdene Primary School.

Like many schools in the city, Westdene School has faced ongoing problems with road safety issues stemming from increased traffic, dangerous driving and illegal parking at school drop off and pick up times. An informal queuing system has been in place on Bankside for many years and concerns about road safety around Westdene School have been longstanding and raised by local residents, parents and the school as well as by Councillors.

The proposed design for the School Street at Westdene, which focuses on measures to be introduced on Bankside and the section of Barn Rise where there are school entrances, was consulted on at the end of last year. 260 people responded to the Westdene consultation, with over 75% respondents in support of the principle of school streets and over 70% in support of the proposed design. In addition to the consultation, we have also welcomed and accepted stakeholder feedback from other (means) –and are grateful to submissions by resident and local forums.

Since the consultation, officers have been working to incorporate improvements to the design based on the feedback provided. Ahead of implementation, traffic monitoring has also been carried out, which will provide baseline of data to help measure impacts when the scheme is in place. As a result of the concerns raised about the proposed scheme at Westdene, we will also be implementing the scheme on an Experimental Traffic Regulation Order which will allow us to monitor the impact of the scheme in situ. It will also provide a further opportunity for residents and members of the school community to have their say on the scheme, and any adjustments can then be made if necessary.

We are committed to supporting schools in the city to address longstanding issues and create safer journeys to school, that also encourage sustainable, active travel modes which contribute to children’s health and wellbeing and reduce emissions from vehicles”.

6.6 Resolved- That the Committee note the petition.

3) Keep the permanent closure by Brunswick school, on Somerhill road

6.7 The Committee considered a petition referred from Full Council requesting that the permanent closure by Brunswick school, on Somerhill Road be kept in place.

6.8 The Chair provided the following response:

As you will be aware, the School Streets closure at Brunswick Primary School on Somerhill Road was introduced as part of the council’s urgency response in the Covid-19 pandemic, which had the additional aim of supporting social distancing at drop off and pick up times. Infrastructure was implemented on Somerhill Road in March 2021 to support the sustainability of the closure and reduce the pressure on volunteers and schools to operate the closure at both ends of the road.

In September 2021, a report was presented to the council’s Environment, Transport and Sustainability Committee on the School Streets closures trialled through the emergency programme, including the one at Brunswick Primary School. It was recommended by officers that the permanent closure at one end of Somerhill Road was reverted to timed, temporary restrictions. The decision to remove the permanent filter, while maintaining the timed School Streets closure, was informed by the trial of the closure and concerns about road safety due to the lack of adequate turning space for Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) and other vehicles on Somerhill Road. As the recommendation to revert the measures was approved by the council’s Environment, Transport and Sustainability Committee on 21 September 2021, the Traffic Regulation Order to revert the permanent measures and reinstate temporary, timed restrictions was sealed.

This has enabled the primary benefits of School Streets to be realised, as traffic is reduced at peak times while allowing the road to be open to through traffic the remainder of the time. The permanent filter has since been replaced with retractable bollards at one end and a gate at the other, which are operated by volunteers. These measures provide physical barriers to the road that prevent motor vehicles from entering during drop off and pick up times, while ensuring access at all times to those that are exempt.

We understand that the decision will be disappointing for some residents, as the permanent closure offered wider benefits including a reduction in overall traffic levels on Somerhill Road beyond school drop off and pick up times.

Officers will continue to monitor the closure and we are grateful for the continued support of volunteers, school staff and the local community”.

6.9 Resolved- That the Committee note the petition.

4) Traffic Gridlock Hove Park

6.10 The Committee considered a petition referred from Full Council requesting it review the road network in Hove Park Ward and bring forward proposals to reduce congestion.

6.11 The Chair provided the following response:

“Thank you for your petition. Our city is an attractive place to live and work and that generates a lot of regular, local, and longer distance commuter and visitor trips on a daily basis. The congestion that can occur as a result of this in some areas or on strategic routes can be caused by many factors, but it is primarily a problem that is caused by too many vehicles using the city’s limited road space and in some cases, certain roads are not suitable for the levels or type of traffic using them.

The proximity of Hove Park ward to the bypass means there is a combination of local and longer distance journeys using certain routes. Tackling the congestion that arises from these journeys can be done in a number of ways but the main one is to reduce people’s overall need to travel and encourage and enable people to switch to other forms of transport for certain journeys. This will create space for essential vehicle trips and reduce delays, which in turn will help create cleaner, healthier, and attractive neighbourhoods.

You have mentioned development and main roads. We know that this can cause concerns, but we need to ensure that the city can grow sustainably. The recent planning application for the allocated Toad’s Hole Valley site in the City Plan was thoroughly discussed and considered before it was agreed by the Planning Committee last month. The development will provide homes for local people which we desperately need, as well as providing local employment and other community uses.

The associated sustainable transport and highway strategy for the site had been comprehensively assessed and included independent checks on traffic modelling for a number of routes, and the safety of proposed junction designs. The overall package will mitigate identified impacts, with active travel improvements for people walking and cycling (including BikeShare provision), funding for a new/enhanced bus service, new junctions, access to car club vehicles, and a Travel Plan which will increase the use of sustainable transport for local journeys.

We also have a report today about a Low Traffic Neighbourhood for the Hanover & Tarner area that is being developed with residents and stakeholders in response to an initial request from within the local community to create a more liveable neighbourhood. If you think this is something that may help to address local issues then it would be helpful to hear from you, as this is something that could be considered as part of a new process that is being developed to assess requests for such measures. The assessment framework itself will be reported to this committee later in the year”.

6.12 Resolved- That the Committee note the petition.

5) Ditchling Road/Coldean Lane Traffic Control

6.13 The Committee considered a petition referred from Full Council requesting the council to install traffic lights on the junction between Ditchling Road and Coldean Lane to reduce congestion and improve safety.

6.14 The Chair provided the following response:

“Thank you for your petition. I do appreciate your concerns as this junction is busy during peak times and has some challenges in the layout with conflicting movements and gradients. The safety record has been checked and it currently does not suffer from crashes occuring. Traffic signal controlled junctions, where used, require significant design and operation to ensure they will be safer and more efficient than the existing arrangements. Given the layout of the T-junction, topography, gradient and lack of available roadspace or adjacent land to widen the junction to create the requisite sight lines it would be technically challenging and costly to create the necessary infrastructure to install traffic signals here. However, the site will be reviewed to see if any other measures might help with the difficulties in negotiating the junction and the safety record monitored.

Further to this National Highways have just informed us that we have been successful in our bid for a feasibility study on the Access for All project. This will involve scoping improvements for pedestrians and cyclists crossing the Ditchling Rd / Coldean Lane junction over the A27 (as well as multi—user paths from the city out to Ditchling Beacon and Devil’s Dyke). Cityparks will be working closely with the Transport Team on possible solutions”.

6.15 Resolved- That the Committee note the petition.

6) Save our Starlings

6.16 The Committee considered a petition referred from Full Council requesting the council to implement an outright ban on chemical fertilisers, herbicides, pesticides, fungicides and worming treatments across our entire City Downland Estate to improve the local starling population.

6.17 The Chair provided the following response:

“Thank you for your petition on such an important matter.

We have already phased out pesticide use on all public land looked after by our environment and housing teams, except for high-risk invasive species with no effective alternative. We have also worked with the you to find locations for 100 starling boxes.

However, we are keen to increase the biodiversity of plants and wildlife in our city, as we know we need to support our declining insect population.

Lots of this work is underway:

We’ve introduced a new wildflower meadow and 37,000 new plants in the city centre.

Near the marina we have created a new wildlife site that will become home to butterflies, bees, birds and other small insects to help to enrich biodiversity.

We have installed a number of bee banks, and our flower seeding work along the Lewes Road and elsewhere in the city is both popular with residents and great for biodiversity.

Through our City Downland Estate Plan we will be promoting biodiversity, restored rich chalk grassland landscapes and natural farming.

We are continuing to look at what other measures we may be able to take”.

6.18 Resolved- That the Committee note the petition.

7) Remove the Old Shoreham Road from the local cycling plan and do not build any cycling infrastructure along this route

6.19 The Committee considered a petition referred from Full Council requesting the council to remove the Old Shoreham Road from the local cycling plan and do not build any cycling infrastructure along this route.

6.20 The Chair provided the following response:

“At March 2022 ETS Committee it was agreed the Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan (LCWIP) was used as a basis for the strategic planning of active travel network improvements in the city over the next ten years.

Work on Brighton & Hove’s LCWIP has been progressed over the last three years, involving stakeholder and public engagement and consultation.

The LCWIP will be used as a basis for planning for improvements over the next ten years, and projects will be subject to full design and consultation when taken forward from the plan in future. Old Shoreham Road scheme was included in this approved plan alongside other priorities for the City. Should any proposal for a cycle lane on Old Shoreham Road come forward and funding become available it will be subject to full public consultation and agreement by the ETS Committee”.

6.21 Resolved- That the Committee note the petition.

8) Permanent Well-Planned and High-Quality Cycle Lanes for the Old Shoreham Road

6.22 The Committee considered a petition referred from Full Council requesting the council to install well-planned and high-quality permanent cycle lanes on the Old Shoreham Road.

6.23 The Chair provided the following response:

Work on Brighton & Hove’s LCWIP has been progressed over the last three years, involving stakeholder and public engagement and consultation.

The LCWIP will be used as a basis for planning for improvements over the next ten years, and projects will be subject to full design and consultation when taken forward from the plan in future. Old Shoreham Road scheme was included in this approved plan alongside other priorities for the city. Once funding is available schemes will be consulted upon”.

6.24 Resolved- That the Committee note the petition.

9) Petition for a proper pedestrian crossing, signage and improved road layout at Hangleton Way Schools Zone

6.25 The Committee considered a petition referred from Full Council requesting road safety improvements on Hangleton Way.

6.26 The Chair provided the following response:

“Consultation for the Safer Routes to School scheme was undertaken between September and October 2018 with proposals available online and in physical format. Summary results of this consultation were presented to the Environment, Transport, and Sustainability (ETS) Committee in November 2018 as part of the report “Hangleton Safer Routes to School Scheme”.

This scheme was then further subjected to extensive public consultation during the construction of Kings School with the schools, residents and ward councillors.

Officers have recently undertaken a site inspection of the signage arrangements. There are currently two advance warning signs situated either side of the school entrance with bright flashing LED lights that are illuminated during school pick up and drop off times that officers consider are effective and safe. By limiting the times these signs are illuminated ensures that drivers do not become too accustomed to seeing them, particularly outside these hours, so will pay more attention when they are needed. This is a common safety feature at approaches to schools.

The lining has also been assessed and it is considered by officers that the zig zag markings are set out in prescribed lengths that comply with legal requirements under the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016. This legislation allows Highway Authorities to place signs and markings on roads but they must conform to the specifications laid out in this publication.

Finally, the crossing provided has been specifically designed for this location, on a raised table so acts as a traffic calming measure and is coloured red as a clear sign to drivers to expect something different in this area. The red surfacing is commonly management schemes.

We must assess any location before a light signalled controlled crossing can even be considered. A controlled crossing of this nature that is used infrequently can actually make the crossing dangerous during the times that it is generally not used as drivers become accustomed to not having to stop at these times and on the rare occasion it is used drivers are not expecting this and the result is potentially disastrous.

To determine the frequency of potential crossing usage throughout the day in school-term time, officers will be undertaking a survey in the coming weeks, the results of this survey will be reported to the ETS Committee along with other pedestrian crossing requests later this year. Additionally, the site is also being assessed to see whether a School Crossing Patrol Officer may be required”.

6.27 Resolved- That the Committee note the petition.

(B) Deputations

1) Request for design improvements to Church Road - for inclusion in LPT 5 as an exemplar of sustainable transport solutions in an urban area

6.28 The Committee considered a deputation referred from Full Council requesting public realm design improvements for Church Road between Western Road and Sackville Road.

6.29 The Chair provided the following response:

“The Church Road / New Church Road / Western Road corridor is identified as a high priority strategic route in the Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan (LCWIP), which was approved by this committee in March 2021.

While there are current improvements planned for Western Road, the rest of the route is currently unfunded and officers are working to identify funding for this and other priority routes in the LCWIP”.

6.30 Councillor Nemeth moved a motion to request an officer report on the matter.

6.31 Councillor Clare formally seconded the motion.

6.32 The Chair put the motion to the vote that passed.

6.33 Resolved- That the Committee receive a report to a future meeting responding to the deputation request.

2) Hangleton Way Pedestrian Crossing

6.34 The Committee considered a deputation referred from Full Council requesting a pedestrian crossing on Hangleton Way.

6.35 The Chair provided the following response:

This scheme was then further subjected to extensive public consultation during the construction of Kings School with the schools, residents and ward councillors.

6.36 Resolved- That the Committee note the deputation.

</AI6>

<AI7>

7 Member Involvement

(B) Written Questions

1) Bins around Lewes Crescent

7.1 Councillor Fishleigh put the following question:

“When the new junction was put in on the A259 and Dukes Mounds, a communal recycling and general waste point was taken away. Despite repeated requests and a drive-around the entire area with a member of CityClean to assess whether there are enough communal bins in place, no new bins have arrived yet.

Please can I have an update which I will share with residents, some of whom have mobility issues, who currently have to walk 200m to their nearest communal bin. This is also affecting residents in the East Brighton ward”.

7.2 The Chair provided the following reply:

“Thank you for your question. Following the site visit you have mentioned, Cityclean has been considering the options available.

The safe and suitable options have been shared with ward councillors and their feedback sought.

Following feedback from yourself and the and Kemptown Society, it appears only one option remains and Cityclean has concerns about this:

Cityclean’s preference is to:

- Place a communal refuse bin in the south west corner of Lewes Crescent. Refuse bins need to be on a road (or a pavement immediately next to the road) in order for the truck to lift it as they cannot be moved from their location to the truck as they are too big and no wheels.

- Place a communal recycling bin at the junction of Lewes Crescent and Chichester Terrace. These bins are on wheels so can be moved from their location to the back of the truck.

This option was not supported by the Kemptown Society.

An alternative offered by yourself was the north side of the A259 between Lewes Crescent and Arundel Terrace, to the east of the bus stop. There is already a set of communal bins here. Locating a set of bins here will mean those on the western side of Sussex Square will still need to walk a while. And it will mean there are two sets of bins in one location, which is not an approach Cityclean seeks to adopt.

The final option, not preferred by Cityclean, but acceptable to yourself and the Kemptown Society, is to place a set of bins on the southern side of the A259 near the benches. This will involve residents having to cross the A259 to dispose of their waste, which is why Cityclean still has concerns. Cityclean can take this forward this location, if the preferred option i.e. in the Square, is really not feasible”.

7.3 Councillor Fishleigh asked the following supplementary question:

“Please would you move forward on instructing Cityclean to putting bins on the south side of the A259 and what is the timescale for that?”

7.4 On behalf of the Chair, officers stated that they would make the necessary checks and make contact with Councillor Fishleigh.

2) West-Bound Bus Lane Between Saltdean and Rottingdean

7.5 Councillor Fishleigh put the following question:

“As the recommendations of the A259 South Coast Corridor Improvement Study have been delayed, would BHCC officers now proceed with the report - already commissioned by the ETS committee - about the options for sharing the bus lane on the west-bound A259 between Saltdean and Rottingdean? A trial will ascertain whether the sharing of the bus lane improves bus journey times caused by this bottleneck - and reduces the general congestion and carbon emissions”.

7.6 The Chair provided the following reply:

“Officers have commissioned a consultant’s report on High Occupancy Vehicle lanes, which is still being finalised.

One of the draft conclusions is that unlike conventional bus lanes, HOVs are not yet suitable for camera enforcement. Using current technology, it is difficult to establish how many occupants there are in a vehicle. This would be a major concern for officers in relation to the effectiveness of bus lanes but we will consider options as part of further development work associated with the Bus Service Improvement Plan”.

7.7 Councillor Fishleigh asked the following supplementary question:

“Why has the council brought in consultants without consulting with the A259 campaign group?”

7.8 The Chair provided the following reply:

“Myself and Councillor Heley are visiting Conway Street in a couple of weeks so I will ensure to speak to the bus company about that”

3) The roundabout by the aquarium

7.9 Councillor Fishleigh put the following question:

“The Department for Transport confirmed in writing to Lloyd Russell-Moyle MP that it does not produce a list of the most dangerous roundabouts in the country.

When I asked Mark Prior, Cllrs MacCafferty and Davis for the data to support this repeated claim made by themselves and other councillors in this committee and others, I was directed to an article in the local media which referenced a report by the Department of Transport.

Will you now confirm that the council has no evidence to support the claim that the roundabout by the aquarium is one of the most dangerous in the country, will you agree that you will not repeat this claim again and how does this new information affect the business plan for Valley Garden stage 3?

Please don’t reference dangerous roundabouts in the city in this response”.

7.10 The Chair provided the following reply:

“Thank you for your question. I can confirm that the statement made does not have any bearing on the business case for Valley Garden’s phase 3 which has been independently assessed and approved through the Local Growth Fund. This junction remains the most dangerous in the city and reductions in accidents remains a central component to the business case. I recall in the response to you it was explained that Department for Transport data was used by the National Media Journalist to compile a league table of roundabouts with the highest number of accidents. With regard to the numbers of collisions, the data clearly also shows that vulnerable road users, such as pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists are disproportionately affected by the current road layout, with over 75% of serious injuries caused to these user groups, compared to just over 15% of collisions resulting in serious injury to car or van occupants. The junction is a key link on the National Seafront Cycle Route (NCN2), the most well used cycling route in our city. And I’m sure you will agree that a junction that presents significant danger to vulnerable users such as cyclists must be addressed to ensure the route is as safe as possible to encourage more people to use the route. The junction also links one of our star attractions – the pier, which attracts millions of pedestrian movements through the junction, and the proposed scheme will go along way to improving the pedestrian links, making it a safer more attractive place for all”.

7.11 Councillor Fishleigh asked the following supplementary question:

“Will you confirm that the council has no evidence to support the claim that the roundabout by the aquarium is one of the most dangerous in the country?”

7.12 The Chair provided the following reply:

“I spoke to the journalist and you say that it came in a local paper, it was originally in the Daily Mirror and I spoke to the journalist who incidentally was a Brighton resident, it was very easy to contact. His article was compiled upon Department for Transport data. I don’t see where this is going, it is without a doubt, the most dangerous roundabout in the city. I can say that as a resident, I can say that as a member of this committee, I can say that as a cyclist, I can say that as a driving instructor”.

4) Park & Ride feasibility study

7.13 Councillor Wilkinson put the following question:

“The Council identified funds in last year’s council budget underspend to direct towards Park & Ride schemes, which residents asked for in the city’s first ever Climate Assembly. Money was set aside to re-evaluate and reassess permeant P&R sites. Why has this feasibility work not begun yet and when will it?”

7.14 The Chair provided the following reply:

“Thank you for your question, Councillor Wilkinson. The funding available for this work remains allocated to it, but the study has not yet begun owing to officer commitments on other projects and the need to locate and retrieve information on the previous work on possible Park + Ride sites that was undertaken before 2010.

A consultant has now been approached to carry out the study, which is expected to involve a review of potential sites and their suitability that have previously been explored, based on an assessment against current land-use policies and various plans and strategies. The study should be completed before the end of 2022”.

7.15 Councillor Wilkinson asked the following supplementary question:

“Does the Chair agree that the council should look further than a re-evaluation of previous sites when looking at the feasibility of Park & Ride sites across the city as well as exploring initiatives such as mini Park & Ride schemes?”

7.16 The Chair provided the following reply:

“You know that a consultant has now been approached to carry out this study and I’m happy for this to happen and we are doing mini Park & Ride’s. We’ve got one pocket Park & Ride right opposite this Chamber, we’ve got another mini Park & Ride down by King Alfred Centre. We’re happy to do this but I do feel this city really understood that I don’t feel Park & Ride is going to happen. We don’t support it and I don’t think the opposition parties support it because deep down they know there’s nowhere for it to go”.

5) Road Safety Strategy

7.17 Councillor Wilkinson put the following question:

“It is over a year since the council passed a motion calling for an updated city road safety strategy to be brought to the ETS Committee. One that includes road danger reduction measures.

Will the co-chairs of the ETS committee please update members on the progress of this report and when the ETS committee can expect to see it?”

7.18 The Chair provided the following reply:

“Thank you for your question and I’m aware this committee is subject to lots of requests from concerned members of the public calling for road safety improvements, particularly in relation to speeding.

In terms of progress, I can tell you that officers have begun work on a new criteria for assessing and prioritising these types of requests which will be coming to this committee in the Autumn. We also continue to address key accidents spots around the city, as you are aware we will begin implementation to improve the Aquarium roundabout, our most dangerous junction in the city, as part of Valley Garden’s Phase 3 scheme later this year.

This will build on the good work that was done in Phase 1 & 2 of Valley Gardens which also suffered from a poor accident record at locations within the scheme such as the North Road junction.

There is also work underway implementing the new tranche of pedestrian crossing improvements across the city as well as the planned work to introduce improvements to the A259 phase two and the A23 all of which aim to improve safety for all users.

In terms of reviewing the current wider strategy, this is in the pipeline and expected to come to committee in the new year, as you might be aware officers are currently focused on delivering the LCWIP, LTP and ULEZ strategies. However, as I have highlighted, we are continuing to put schemes on the ground that will improve road safety and reduce accidents where there are known issues”.

7.19 Councillor Wilkinson asked the following supplementary question:

“Does the Chair agree that we have waited long enough and that measuring danger on our roads through metrics other than just the number of casualties is crucial to reducing danger?”

7.20 The Chair provided the following response:

“I completely and utterly agree with you Councillor Wilkinson. I think the way we assess for example, our pedestrian crossing process that basically is a nobody died here is an archaic and outdated process and I’m happy to work with you on this. Councillor Hills isn’t here today unfortunately but she has been working on that so I’ll get here to contact you and I’m happy to work with both Groups to reduce this ridiculousness”.

6) Netting

7.21 Councillor Fowler put the following question:

“Does the Council own any buildings that using netting to protect against animals/birds and if so, what measures are taken to prevent the entrapment of animals in such netting?”

7.22 The Chair provided the following reply:

“The Council does own some buildings where measures are put into place to protect the fabric of the building from bird excrement which can damage the external fabric or for Health & Safety reasons such as high-level glazing in Arcades.

The council does a risk assessment and looks at the possible hazards on an asset/site case by case basis. We are looking into alternatives to netting with the possible associated risks of entrapment and where we carry out regular maintenance to our many assets, we are replacing it – for example currently the Clock Tower.

It is being replaced with a more robust metal mesh which will alleviate birds becoming trapped as was the case with the original plastic style mesh, following advice from the RSPB. I appreciate that some of the bridges you mentioned are Network Rail sites so if you’d like to write to me, I’m happy to see what help I can get from Transport officers to get you in contact with the relevant people”.

7.23 Councillor Fowler asked the following supplementary question:

“How can the council manage this (avian flu) and launch a wider publicity campaign with the RSPCA, RSPB and DEFRA and is it the council’s responsibility to collect dead birds?”

7.24 The following response was provided on behalf of the Chair:

“Council officers are actually dealing with dead birds at the moment, and we are following the requirements in relation to public health around this. There is a lot more to come on this and the situation is currently just revealing itself so we will put out more on this in the coming few days and that will be linked to public health requirements probably around not approaching dead birds and managing the situation more widely to prevent any further transmission where possible. As you know it is an emerging situation and we are just getting on top of it now in terms of government guidance and also more localised action that’s required”.

7) Weeds on the pavement

7.25 Councillor Nemeth put the following question:

“In an answer to a written question in October 2021, the Chair stated that weed spraying across the city’s 975.67km of footway had been replaced by 6 additional seasonal staff. At that time, at the beginning of Autumn, only 20-30% of the city had been cleared of weeds.

Given the recent weather conditions, which have been near-perfect for weed growth, will the Chair state:

a) What discussions have taken place between the Green and Labour Groups to find a way forward;

b) How many members of staff (broken down by permanent/temporary/seasonal) are going to be employed this year to replace weed spraying this summer;

c) If private contractors are being employed; and

d) If so, which companies are being contracted, and how much has been budgeted for this?

7.26 The Chair provided the following reply:

“All Street Cleansing staff across the service incorporate weed removal into their daily tasks. This is alongside other duties such as sweeping litter and removing stickers and fly-posting.

Cityclean aims to recruit 32 seasonal staff (20 for the beach and 12 for weeding). However, as mentioned in response to a previous question, due to the number of staff required and the temporary nature of the role, Cityclean struggles to recruit.

Three weeding operatives have been recruited for this season, out of the 12 for which there is a budget. The advert for the vacancies remains open and Cityclean continues to work with the recruitment agency to appoint agency staff.

In response to question c, private contractors have been secured and started weed removal on Monday 13 June.

In response to your final question, the company being used is AGS and the cost is £10,600 for two weeks. This will be funded from the underspend on seasonal staff”.

7.27 Councillor Nemeth asked the following supplementary question:

“Why didn’t we plan for this and why didn’t we employ this company for a lot more extra work?”

7.28 The Chair provided the following reply:

“We’re trying our best to do this and a situation we really want to cure. One of our situations is that normally, as you know, if we’re understaffed we bring in agencies but the agencies are suffering from exactly the same problem. As I noted recently, we’ve got the budget but trying to find these people is incredibly difficult. It’s a national labour crisis and add to that, we are short on the machinery. We need very specialised equipment and we don’t manufacture it. It comes from a place called Europe and unfortunately there is a huge problem with imports from the EU. We are trying our best with it and we’ve got a new machine coming and we’re hopeful. So, I do disagree, it’s like we’re not allowed to mention Brexit. Of course, we are, it’s having massive ramifications on our daily life. I’m not going to blame it all on that, there was a pandemic as well but it’s two situations as an authority that are completely out of our control”.

8) Tyre Extinguishers

7.29 Councillor Nemeth put the following question:

“Why has the Council been so silent in condemning the actions of ‘Tyre Extinguishers’ whose actions are both dangerous and illegal?”

7.30 The Chair provided the following reply:

““Acts of criminal behaviour such as this are a matter for Sussex Police. I am aware that there is a current and active investigation by Sussex Police into the matter and it would be prejudicial to that investigation to comment further at this time. I’m happy to direct you to the Divisional Commander for Brighton & Hove should you need an update”.

7.31 Councillor Nemeth asked the following supplementary question:

“It sounds like you wouldn’t condemn it because you agree with it?”

7.32 The Chair provided the following reply:

“Condemning reminds me of judges that are condemning people to death and Councillor, I am an incredibly forgiving person. Condemning is too strong a word, if you had asked me do I condone, the answer would be no, of course I don’t condone, it’s a criminal act. I’m not going to condone it, I genuinely don’t condone it, I don’t think it’s the right way to do things”.

9) Fuel Saving Measures

7.33 Councillor Bagaeen put the following question:

“Residents have made contact with concerns that a City Parks vehicle was recently left idle with the engine running for an hour at Hove Park.

With diesel now costing £9 a gallon, what measures are in place to save fuel across the Council’s fleet?”

7.34 The Chair provided the following reply:

“The rising fuel costs are concerning, not just for the council but also for those who need to use their cars for essential journeys.

A communication is shortly to be circulated to staff requesting that all diesel drivers use Hollingdean Depot to fill up their vehicles. This is because the cost is 25% less than on forecourts.

In addition, all staff that drive for work will be reminded that other methods of travel, should be considered before a vehicle is used, and importantly, that only essential journeys are made.

Staff will also be reminded that no vehicles should be left idling unnecessarily.

I am really encouraged by our progress in delivering our Fleet Strategy to move more of the council fleet to electric. Around 5% has already been switched to electric vehicles. This year, four electric refuse vehicles will be added to the two already in use at Cityclean and 22 electric vans will be introduced. Through the transition to lower emission vehicles, the council is reducing its reliance on diesel and ensuring such high prices do not impact on the taxpayer”.

7.35 The following questions were received and responded to in writing:

Councillor Childs- Queens Park Safety

Given the risk to women and other users of Queens Park in the evening, will the Chair agree to install additional lighting to the central path with timers to provide illumination between 4.30-10.30pm?

Response:

“Firstly we are of course very concerned to hear of the unexplained death of a woman in Queens Park over the weekend which is still under investigation. Our thoughts are with the family and friends of the woman who lost her life.

The council recently applied for Safer Streets tranche 3 and tranche 4 funding from the government and the data analysed to inform these applications did not identify Queens Park as a high-risk area at that time. Both funding applications were made in conjunction with colleagues from the Police and Crime Commissioner’s Office and East and West Sussex County Councils.

Given what occurred at the weekend, when we know more from the investigation we will need to review this again, if applications are made for any further funding streams

However please be aware that there are routes around Queens Park that are lit and should be used at night rather than unlit paths through the park. Where additional street lighting near parks is required, the council will seek to install this on routes around parks on the public highway. This is always subject to funding being available to install and maintain such infrastructure.

Additional lighting in parks impacts on the wildlife that live there. Dark spots are needed for the wildlife to thrive and any further lighting will impact on this. This is why it is important to ensure that there are well lit routes that people can use around parks rather than walking through them at night”.

Councillor Childs- Street Lighting

Can the Council please install an additional street light at the southern end of Tower Rd given the area is currently poorly lit leading to hazards for residents and residents feeling unsafe walking in this area at night.

Response:

“Thank you for raising this issue.The spacing between lighting columns is insufficient to provide a safe level of lighting for that area. The location is to be added to the programme for the installation of a new lighting column to provide additional lighting for the street”.

Councillor Childs- Steine Street

Given the parlous state of Steine St and the dire need to regenerate this historic street, will the Chair agree to include this road in the VG regeneration project?

Response:

Thank you for your question. Your previous involvement either prior to or since the establishment of the Valley Gardens Member Working Group is also appreciated.

The main issues on Steine Street appears to be that it is a very narrow, historic street, and that issues with anti-social behaviour, loitering, littering, or criminal damage are perhaps more likely to occur where there is reduced natural surveillance.

Your question was initially referred to the Valley Gardens Member Working Group and officers assisted in the discussion of it at a meeting earlier this month. You may recall that the final design for Valley Gardens Phase 3 was considered and agreed by this committee in January this year. The detail will be completed by officers and consultants within the next month, and we will then need to progress immediately into the procurement of a construction contract. Therefore, there is no opportunity to extend the scope of the project beyond what has already been agreed, but I can confirm that the entry and exit points and crossing points at either end of Steine Street will be resurfaced.

As we do with many schemes, once Phase 3 is completed, we will also be monitoring traffic flows and other movements and collecting other data in the area and if we record or are notified of any significant issues, then these will be reviewed, and further action may be taken if considered necessary”.

Councillor Childs- ULEZ

Given the dangerous levels of pollution across our city which exceeds WHO levels will the Committee agree to consider the introduction of a Ultra Low Emission Zone similar to that in London and a phased ban on solid fuel stoves in densely populated areas.

Response:

“Thank you for your question, Councillor Childs. As you have raised the important topic of air quality, I want to take the opportunity to encourage people to respond to the current consultation on the council’s draft Air Quality Action Plan. It includes both of the issues that you have raised. The document and information about how people can participate can be found on the council’s website and responses need to be made by the 10th of July.

We are aware of World Health Organisation air quality guidelines, which became more stringent in 2021. However, these WHO figures have not been adopted nationally by the government.

Therefore, as a clear statement of our commitment to further improve local air quality and provide better health protection for people across the city, the Air Quality Action Plan now proposes to work towards surpassing the current government standards for two main pollutants (Nitrogen Dioxide and Particles) and move closer to 2021 WHO guidelines. An example of this is that the proposed Nitrogen Dioxide target for Brighton & Hove for 2027 is to reach an annual level which is 25% lower than the current minimum UK legal requirement.

We already have an Ultra-Low Emission Zone (known as a ULEZ) for buses in the city centre and are working with bus companies and rail operators to further reduce emissions from public transport. There are plans to develop a more comprehensive ULEZ to cover a larger area and different types of vehicles, and last year this committee was presented with the initial findings of a feasibility study into potential options. A further review has been undertaken, including advice from the government’s Joint Air Quality Unit, and this has confirmed that computer-based modelling is required. With funding now available to develop a citywide transport model, further work is being undertaken to commission expert consultants to determine the next stages of this work and the likely timescales. Future updates will be brought back to this committee.

We know that there are areas of the city where residents are concerned about the effects of domestic burning causing smoke and affecting people’s health. Despite most homes being centrally heated, the main sources are open fireplaces and stoves (especially in winter), as well as bonfires, and we do raise people’s awareness about this across the city with information on our website. These messages need to be a strong as possible to highlight the harmful impacts that this can have on neighbours and local areas.

We cannot ban the use of solid fuel stoves, but we can do something to reduce the effects of their use. The air quality plan includes an action to explore the options for a citywide smoke control area. We know that this needs increased officer capacity and funding to manage the enforcement of an area, but if one was implemented, it would be against the law to emit persistent visible smoke from a building chimney. This work would be undertaken following the consultation on the plan and its subsequent approval”.

Councillor Childs- Queens Park bins

Please can we have several additional dog mess bins in the dog walking area of Queens Park and some additional signs designating the boundaries of the area?

Response:

“This is a very high number of bins for the size of the park.

Dog mess can be placed in any litter bin; it does not have to be a dog waste bin.

As part of the council’s Bin Infrastructure Strategy, an audit of dog waste bins has been completed. This information is being used to identify which dog waste bins can be replaced with large capacity “normal” litter bins. As part of this programme of work, the dog waste bins in Queens Park will be replaced with regular litter bins, increasing the capacity available. It is not possible at this stage to give you a timescale of when this swap-over will take place as there are hundreds of sites under review.

In terms of boundaries within the park, there is no official dog walking area. Dog owners are encouraged to walk their dogs in any area of the park that isn’t signed “No Dogs”. All the “No Dog” areas are gated, with clear signs on the gates. It is considered that there is sufficient signage in place”.

Councillor Childs- Cycling Signage on Marine Parade

Please can a number of physical signs be emplaced along Marine Parade

prohibiting cycling on the pavement as well as other physical deterrent to prevent pavement cycling on this stretch of pavement

Response:

“The council have recently been awarded £1.208m from Tranche 3 of the Department for Transport’s Active Travel Fund to pay for improvements to Marine Parade.

This funding has been granted to provide a continuous two – way cycle facility on the southern side of the A259 as well as improvements to pedestrian crossings along the route. The scheme is planned to cover 1.3 miles along Marine Parade between the Sea life centre roundabout and Brighton Marina.

There is currently no dedicated provision for cycling along Marine Parade. We are also aware of reports of cycling on the pavement in this location.

The scheme will include improvements to pedestrian crossings and tie in with the new junction planned as part of the Valley Gardens phase 3 project (Old Steine/Palace Pier roundabout).

The proposals will benefit residents in the Kemptown and Whitehawk areas where there is known demand for commuting journeys, including to the hospital.

The A259 Marine Parade/Marine Drive is one of the priority routes identified in our Local Cycling Walking and Infrastructure Plan (LCWIP), which was approved by members of the Environment, Transport and Sustainability committee in March”.

Councillor Childs- Visitor permits

Given the particular unjust situation of expiration dates on visitor permits will the administration agree to review current policy with a view to extending usage duration for visitor permits to 6 years’

Response:

“In line with Council Policy and best practice, our Visitor Permits have a guaranteed duration of 18 months before expiry. A problem we have experienced in the past, if we extended this period, would be that many residents could stockpile these permits leading to situations where they are all used at once at certain times within high demand parking zones. In some cases they may also be sold on, including where residents move away from the area or to a different zone. The current expiry period reduces potential fraud.

It is also important to note that Visitor Permits provide a cheaper way of parking for visitors in a certain area for one day so it’s important these type of permits are not stockpiled and then residents use them for their own parking within the zone. Residents may also choose to use stockpiled Visitor Permits as a cheaper option rather than buying a resident permit which is not what they are intended for.

It is felt a guaranteed 18 months is sufficient to allow residents enough time to use their visitor permits”.

Councillor Fishleigh- Saltdean Skate Park

Is there any money in any pots for the refurbishment of the skate park at Saltdean Oval Park?

Response:

“There is no agreed budget for this facility at present.

A meeting is taking place in July with the City Parks Project Team, the Skate Park Development Officer and a representative from the PARC charity shop to identify what funding opportunities may be available for the skate park”.

Councillor Fishleigh- Pavement in Ovingdean

People living in Ovingdean and myself have repeatedly been to various committees to ask the council to adopt a stretch of paving on Greenways which is one of the three access roads through the village.

The most recent advice from officers is that the “adoption of existing pavements and highways requires a formal legal process and assurance that the infrastructure has been installed to adoptable Highway Standards”.

How much would these tasks - and any work needed to bring the pavement up to standard - cost and can these costs be put in next year’s budget for pavement maintenance please?

Response:

“There is indeed a process for formal adoption of roads when they go through the planning process to ensure that they meet the required standards for any future maintenance. Currently there is no specific funding available for changing the status of unadopted roads particularly when there is a backlog of maintenance on the existing highway. However, it is sometimes possible to obtain funding from other sources by bidding so it is important to identify what the likely costs will be so an officer will be contacting you to establish exactly the area that needs to be considered and what the cost would be to do this”

Councillor Appich- Toilet facilities

Would the Chair please confirm which works and services are being undertaken to improve toilet facilities on the Hove seafront?

Response:

“Following the approval of the £2.7 million toilet refurbishment programme, the Kings Esplanade site, near Hove Lawns, will be refurbished as part of phase 1 of the programme. Phase 1 will start once the summer season is over to allow us to keep public toilets open throughout the city’s busiest time of year.

At Budget Council in February 2022, councillors agreed £0.015m additional recurrent resources for repairs to, and more frequent cleaning of, the toilets on the Western Esplanade for the next 2 years, before new facilities can be put in place. The funding can then be allocated for cleaning and maintenance of toilets on the seafront generally in subsequent years.

The Public Toilet Team has received a list of required improvements from the West Hove Seafront Action Group which is currently being assessed following a site visit to review the issues raised.

The public toilets sites at Western Esplanade and Hove Lagoon were frequently cited in the Kingsway to the Sea consultations as requiring refurbishment. These two sites have been earmarked as part of the £2.7 million refurbishment programme. The funds allocated to these sites will be used as match funding with the £9.5 million from the Government’s Levelling Up Fund and the works completed as part of this major regeneration project. A new purpose-built public toilet site, with accessible toilets, a Changing Places Toilet and changing facilities will be created to replace the Western Esplanade facilities. The toilets at Hove Lagoon will be refurbished”.

Councillor Wilkinson- Playground Refurbishment Programme

The Playground Refurbishment Programme Officer report was deferred from the March 2022 ETS committee. Will the co-chairs of the committee confirm when it will be coming before this committee?

Response:
“As you are aware, the Administration determine the agenda and what reports come before committee.

The Playground Refurbishment Programme report was published as part of the meeting papers for the March meeting of this committee. Therefore, the report is in the public domain for everyone to read how the programme is progressing.

It was a report for noting, with no other recommendations and nothing for Committee to decide. Therefore, there is no urgency for the report to return to committee.

In terms of process, the report does need to return to committee, but there is no procedural set time for this.

When it does return to committee, the published report will be out of date as the programme continues to be delivered.

A further update on the delivery of the Playground Refurbishment Programme will be brought to a future committee, explaining the progress made. It is likely to be sometime in the new calendar year to take account of being able to provide a meaningful update since the March report and officer capacity”.

Councillor Wilkinson- Tyre Extinguisher Vandalism

Following press reports of so called ‘tyre extinguisher’ activists letting down tyres across the city, will the co-chairs of the ETS committee join me in condemning these dangerous acts of vandalism and explore ways for the council to highlight the dangers of such actions?

Councillor Fowler- Weed removal

What measures are the Council taking to tackle the growth of weeds across the city over the coming months and how will this differ from the previous summer?

Response:

“As reported to this committee in March, Cityclean adopted a new approach for seasonal recruitment this year to attract people where using computers to apply can be a barrier, such as people with dyslexia or where English is a second language, with two recruitment days held at Hove Town Hall. Unfortunately, despite these efforts and continual recruitment since the February recruitment days, only three staff have been appointed to work on weed removal. Despite attempts, it has not been possible to supplement these staff with agency workers.

Weed removal equipment ordered for this season has been delayed. It is believed this is the result of the post-pandemic and post-Brexit economy. The 10 strimmers ordered should be delivered on 24 June. A new sweeper, with weed removal arms and brushes, is on order. Due to the value of this piece of equipment, Cityclean had to go out to tender and there is a lead-in time for manufacture. The new sweeper is scheduled for delivery in August.

To mitigate the impact of these difficulties, Cityclean has made some alternative arrangements.

Two teams of contractors have been appointed and started weed removal on Monday 13 June.

Cityclean is arranging for contractors to remove excess growth and weed around tree bases, as a separate strand of work.

Four specialist strimmers have been spot purchased.

Cityclean has found a way to adapt one of its small sweepers to complete weed removal and has ordered some brushes to enable this which should be arriving in the next couple of weeks. The sweeper should be able to cover large, paved areas.

Based on the challenges of recruiting the seasonal staff, Cityclean is now trying a different approach. The original budget covered six staff for six months and additional budget has been allocated for a further six staff. Cityclean is now seeking to appoint six permanent staff as it is believed that the temporary nature of the job is not appealing, particularly as the service does not experience issues with attracting permanent staff. The staff will complete leafing activities in the autumn and then prepare the city for reopening during the winter, such as deep cleaning in the winter, which will make the city more weed resistant in the spring.

Cityclean also continues to look at new technologies and products on the market, as well as what other local authorities are doing”.

Councillor Fowler- LTN Strategy

Can the chairs give an update on the progress to develop a Low Traffic Neighbourhood Strategy Plan for the city?

Response:

“The policy work you refer is the Liveable Neighbourhood Prioritisation Framework which is now scheduled to be reported to this Committee in September.

The scope of this policy work has been recalibrated with officers and consultants carrying out further development work so that the Framework will have the capacity to screen requests for everything from traffic calming on a single road to a full scale LTN. It is evident in the UK that LTNs can be up to 1.5 km2 in size. The Framework which is being developed by the council will consist of a range of eligibility criteria that each request will be assessed against – such as transport data and Joint Strategic Needs Assessment metrics. in the event that a request passes the eligibility stage then it will be evaluated in terms feasibility criteria such as base cost and the cost of enabling works required on any boundary roads that may require additional interventions to increase the sustainable transport qualities on these roads. This screening process will enable officers to periodically provide a transparent order of recommended Prioritisation projects so that the limited LTP Liveable Neighbourhood budget can be best targeted across the city. It is anticipated that the screening process will be hosted on our available Geographical Information Systems and Business Intelligence software to enable rapid screening assessments of requests with minimal data gaps needing to be filled. We look forward to bringing the report to Committee later this year and adopt the Framework ASAP which once in use will save officer time and will reduce the need to produce individual committee reports whilst expediting much needed transport improvements across the city”

Councillor Fowler- Madeira Drive cycle path

The Council recently indicated that it had received funding to develop a cycle path on Madeira Drive, Brighton. What form of consultation will the Council undertake with residents prior to the commencement of any scheme?

Response:

“The Council have recently communicated wining an Active Travel Tranche 3 bid for funding for Marine Parade cycle facility which runs parallel with Madeira Drive. The Council will carry out a public consultation on the developing designs in line with the requirements of the funding allocation”.

Councillor Fowler- 1 Hour Parking

Please can I have an update on the impact statement for the removal of free 1 hr parking across the city?

Response:

“It is not possible to work out the impact as the Council doesn’t have any data on the use of free parking before the changes were made to charge for parking. Businesses may be able to provide before and after figures on customer activity but there may be many factors to any changes. However, Officers will be providing an update within the next Fees & Charges Report coming to September ETS Committee”.

Councillor Nemeth- Failed Park and Ride Scheme Costs

Please provide a breakdown of estimated funds that have been expended to date by the Administration in the pursuit of the Westdene park and ride scheme.

Response:

“The only cost to date that the council has expended in the support of the Bus Operators proposal relates to officer time in meetings with them and on site and creating a proposed signing drawing. An estimate of approximately 2 days of officer time was expended”.

Councillor Nemeth- Parking Permits

Given that residents are still struggling to renew their parking permits after well over a year of problems, will the Chair state what lessons can be learnt from the whole episode and whether or not any contracted parties can be held legally responsible for any of the many issues that residents have endured?

Response:

“A more detailed report on the resident permit renewal situation is being presented to the P&R Committee in July as requested by a notice of motion.

In summary the renewal difficulties relate to the Council’s switch to the MYAccount System that is moving away from reliance on paper based records and systems to a more streamlined process that will eventually enable all residents to access a wide range of Council Services remotely at any time of day and more easily link to existing data records of its residents. The delays in issuing permits over the last year have been associated with the necessary migration of personal data from the old system to the new one in batches, month by month. To some extent this needed to work through the system based on renewals, so that now, a year later, only 610 current resident permit holders remain to be migrated out of over 36,000. In the meantime we have made improvements to the system where we can, and have focussed on a new ‘version 2’ that will carry fewer bugs to the system.

We are now seeing a big improvement in outcomes for customers that we are confident will soon feed through into reduced complaints.

There is always a time-lag between making the improvements and the figures actually proving the impact they’ve had, however, in May we have already seen a huge reduction in average times for officers to take phone calls and less abandoned calls by the customer.

Many lessons have been learned. A briefing note sent to all councillors in October 2021 outlined these in detail, together with details about our plan to recover performance and a statement about what we would do differently in the future. We will be updating further on this through another Councillor briefing in the coming weeks. It is important to note that there are no contracted parties to be held accountable because we built the resident permit system in-house in partnership with support from our colleagues in IT&D which allowed us to integrate to the corporate MyAccount system”.

Councillor Nemeth- Groyne Repairs

Medina Groyne and other seafront structures including other groynes and several groyne marker posts are in a precarious state presently. What assurances can the Chair make that the Council is aware of these issues and what urgent actions are being taken?

Response:

“Thank you for your question and I have spoken with Officers and an inspection to the area is planned in the coming weeks as part of the Councils ongoing groyne maintenance programme. I have asked Officer’s to update you with a schedule for any repairs once the inspections have been completed”.

Councillor Bagaeen- Draft Air Quality Action Plan

The 8-week consultation on the draft Air Quality Action Plan (AQAP) began on Monday 16 May and runs until Monday 11 July.

a) What has been the level of engagement from residents so far?

b) What level of response has been received from BAME residents and those suffering from respiratory conditions?

c) What efforts have been made to reach BAME residents in Brighton & Hove?

Response:

“We have used a number of routes to promote this important air quality consultation and encourage residents and stakeholder groups from across the city to participate in it. As well as using the council’s website, social media, and posters in community locations such as GP surgeries, we have contacted other council officers and organisations and requested that they share the information with people who are part of, or involved in, many groups and sectors across the city. These have included the council’s Equalities Diversity & Inclusion Officer in the Communities Equality & Third Sector Division, and the Trust for Developing Communities, which works with local communities in the city to address equality, diversity and inclusion.

In particular, the consultation information has been included in a Community Bulletin that has recently been sent out by the council to many organisations and stakeholders, including Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic groups. The Trust for Developing Communities was commissioned by Brighton and Hove Clinical Commissioning Group and the NHS to engage with diverse communities of identity on topics relating to their experience of health, as well as wellbeing services. Through its work with Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic communities, the Trust is well-placed to help circulate information about consultations and other council projects, such as this one.

An initial check on the number of responses shows that there has been nearly 200 so far. The data that has been received has not been cleaned or analysed at this point and therefore it is not possible to provide any detailed information on individual groups of people or the information that they may have provided when responding. This information will be analysed once the consultation is complete and then published when the results are brought back to this committee”.

Councillor Bagaeen- Motorcycles in the city

Beyond working with one food delivery provider, how is the council working with Sussex Police to make the roads in the city safer for residents given the large number of motorcycle delivery drivers across the city?

Response:

“We have engaged previously with other delivery companies but their business model doesn’t seem to lend to much real engagement. We are aiming to take the engagement activity with Sussex Safer Roads and offer it to other companies. We also work with local police and traffic police to identify areas which are complained about for anti-social riding by courier companies. Just Eat national management have engaged with the National Young Riders Forum (comprising DVSA, MCIA, MAG, Police and other bodies) to develop effective engagement materials with the gig economy as our next project – thanks to their engagement with us”.

Councillor Bagaeen- Electric Cargo bike take-up

How many businesses in the city have taken up the council’s subsidy to switch to electric cargo bikes under the eCargo Bike Accelerator project?

Response:

“Since the council’s eCargo Accelerator Project launched in 2020, 25 local businesses have taken up the council’s offer of financial subsidy and free advice to support their switch to eCargo bike. Through the project, we have also leased eCargo bikes to a further 5 SMEs, 2 council teams and an urban logistics courier. The businesses the council are supporting through the project are detailed on the council’s website and we can provide you with the link”.

Councillor Bagaeen- Verge and Weed Management

Why is the council relying on out-of-date data from 2017 for verge management when it comes to prioritizing verges for weed cutting when such data was collected well before the Council brought in a weed-killer ban in 2019?

Response:

“When 2017 was referred to in the March Verge and Weed Management report it was with regards the consultation feedback from the Open Spaces Strategy and people’s views on what is important to them. Whilst this is pre the decision to restrict the use of pesticides, the council has adopted the Open Spaces Strategy as the policy framework for the management of parks and open spaces. When the Strategy was adopted, this committee also agreed to explore alternative delivery options in relation this infrastructure at a time of reducing resources.

The pilot approach to verge management over the next three years, as agreed by this committee in March, is one of these alternative delivery options.

The small selection of verges identified for the pilot were identified by the Living Coast Officer in 2021 so is recent information on which areas would benefit most from this approach”.

Councillor Bagaeen- Hanover and Tarner Liveable Neighbourhood

Can the Chair assure Members and residents that funds are being spent wisely in relation to employing consultants in a fair and transparent manner?

Response:

“I can certainly reassure yourself, members of the committee and residents that the appointment of the consultant for this work, Project Centre Limited, has taken place in accordance with the council’s established procurement processes.

Project Centre is one of three approved consultancies who have been successfully appointed to a council framework agreement for transport and highway work, which is a standard way to provide a number of suppliers to deliver various projects and achieve value for money. On this occasion, after the project brief was issued, the company was successful in being awarded this work following a competitive tendering process with the other two companies”.

1) Refuse

7.36 The Committee considered a Letter from Councillor Robins and Councillor Hamilton relating to problems with refuse collection in Southdown Avenue.

7.37 The Chair provided the following response:

“Thank you and to Councillor Hamilton, for your letter.

Under Section 72 of the Highways Act 1835, it is an offence to drive along the footway. This piece of legislation is still current and in force.

Footways, generally known as pavements, are for pedestrian use, not vehicles. It is not an offence to drive onto the footway for the purpose of parking, but it is an offence to drive along it.

It is not an offence to drive onto the footway in the case of an emergency and the collection of refuse and recycling is not classed as an emergency.

The Council cannot allow its drivers to break the law and by driving on the pavement. The Council would be acting illegally if it were to do so. If the council is notified of any instances of its staff driving along pavements, action will be taken to stop this practice.

Other options for Southdown Avenue have been explored.

The introduction of double yellow lines to restrict parking and enable vehicles to access the road was considered. However, residents did not want to give up parking spaces, which is understandable.

Lifting and carrying bin bags along this long road is not an option due to health and safety risks relating to needle stick injuries, glass, and manual handling injuries.

The Council has a duty to reduce manual handling injuries via the introduction of wheelie bins and this is in line with common practice across the waste industry.

The containment at Southdown Avenue has increased to provide greater capacity, and the frequency of collections has also increased. Unfortunately fly tipping happens across the City. It is limited at this location and the council’s Street Cleansing teams address reports of fly tip when notified.

Unfortunately, this Committee is not able to resolve the issue because of the law preventing driving along pavements, and also the risk of manual handling if operatives remove bags from bins. Communal bins are common across Brighton & Hove and the current communal bin system for Southdown Avenue will have to remain”.

7.38 Resolved- That the Committee note the Letter.

(d) Notices of Motion

1) Undercliff Walk Infrastructure Improvements

7.39 Councillor Nemeth moved the following motion:

This Committee:

1. Notes the significance of the Undercliff Walk to residents in the east of the city;

2. Notes that Councillors, residents and community groups have called for public realm and infrastructure improvements along Undercliff Walk, including new bins, signage, beach huts and chalets; upgraded and accessible toilet and changing facilities; disability beach access ramps and beach showers; cycling safety measures; seafront railing restoration; defibrillators; and future-proofing against potential rises in sea levels;

3. Recognises works at Madeira Drive, Black Rock and Saltdean Lido;

4. Seeks to address a lack of strategic focus on the Undercliff Walk by consulting residents’ groups with a view to bringing forward a plan for public realm and local infrastructure improvements; and

5. Calls for this report, outlining the budget cost of the requested improvements, to be presented to this Committee.

7.40 Councillor Bagaeen formally seconded the motion.

7.41 Councillor Wilkinson moved the following amendment to the motion as shown in bold italics as follows:

4. Seeks to address a lack of strategic focus on the Undercliff Walk by consulting residents, residents’ groups and key stakeholders including disabled groups and visually impaired groups, with a view to bringing forward a plan for public realm and local infrastructure improvements; and

7.42 Councillor Fowler formally seconded the motion.

7.43 The Chair put the motion as amended to the vote that was approved.

7.44 Resolved-

This Committee:

1. Notes the significance of the Undercliff Walk to residents in the east of the city;

3. Recognises works at Madeira Drive, Black Rock and Saltdean Lido;

4. Seeks to address a lack of strategic focus on the Undercliff Walk by consulting residents, residents’ groups and key stakeholders including disabled groups and visually impaired groups, with a view to bringing forward a plan for public realm and local infrastructure improvements; and

5. Calls for a report, outlining the budget cost of the requested improvements, to be presented to this Committee.

2) Farming in Brighton & Hove

7.45 The Committee considered the following Notice of Motion referred from Full Council:

This Council:

1. Notes that the Council’s rural estate consists of approximately 12,800 acres within the South Downs National Park; much of which is worked by long-standing tenant farmers;

2. Recognises the tireless efforts of local farmers and local community organisations who produce food for the city:

3. Recognises the shared aims of Councillors on a cross-party basis that food be produced locally and sustainably; and agreed to participate fully in the work being done through the Asset Management Board on the City Downland Estate Plan (CDEP);

4. Notes the broad and inclusive public consultation process facilitated by Planning for Real which preceded the creation of the draft CDEP and the positive response to date from the South Downs National Park Authority which described the consultation process as “exemplary”

5. Recognises the opportunity afforded by the CDEP to work with farmers and other stakeholders to promote sustainable farming practices, enhance biodiversity, improve public access and sequester carbon, and the the need for BHCC to work with farmers to help them identify potential revenue streams compatible with the CDEP;

6. Notes the proposal that in terms of the practical implementation of the CDEP, the views of farmers, key organisations stakeholders and community groups should be sought on an ongoing basis, the formal channel for which will be the Downland Advisory Panel.

7.46 The Chair put the motion to the vote that was approved.

3) Litter on A27

7.47 The Committee consider the following Notice of Motion referred from Full Council:

This Council:

1. Recognises the efforts of community campaigners and Councillors who have drawn attention to the continued presence of copious amounts of litter along the sides of the A27 within the boundaries of the city;

2. Notes:

· the difficulties that the Council has experienced in paying for and planning short-term road-closures to facilitate clear-ups on the A27;

· the responsibility for clearing litter from some all-purpose trunk roads has been transferred to Highways England in some areas of England; and

· that the burden and cost of keeping the highway and adjacent verges clear of litter on the strategic road network falls unfairly on some local authorities including Brighton and Hove City Council.

3. Requests Officers to:

· liaise with Highways England to identify ways to mitigate and manage the clear up problem;

· bring a report to the Environment, Transport & Sustainability Committee setting out proposals for a long-term strategy to fund and execute clean-up operations: and

· create a timetable for clearing litter that both Highways and the council agree to.

7.48 The Chair put the motion to the vote that was approved.

</AI7>

<AI8>

8 City Environment Modernisation Update

8.1 The Committee considered a report of the Interim Executive Director Economy, Environment & Culture that provided a progress update on the City Modernisation programme.

8.2 In response to questions from Councillor Bagaeen, it was explained that the digital software was looking to introduce in-cab technology between trucks, street cleansing service and the depot office that was almost real-time. The digital skills requirement in the updated job descriptions did cover this new technology but also accessing and signposting some of the council’s internal digital programmes and software. There was currently no interaction between the new digital systems and Veolia sites but that could be looked into.

8.3 In response to a question from Councillor Fowler it was clarified that options for staff transport during the current fuel crisis were complex, but options were being worked upon with a number of stakeholders and there had been a significant increase in staff using active travel to get to work. Dog waste bins were being phased out and use of general bins encouraged instead. Progress on the new bin infrastructure had been hampered by capacity issues but the programme would speed up very soon.

8.4 In response to a question from Councillor Wilkinson it was explained that there had been issues with recruitment over the past two to three years owing to the pandemic. Many temporary staff were recruited from abroad and that was now much more difficult due to the UK’s exit from the EU, no such difficulties had been encountered recruiting permanent staff. Six seasonal posts would be converted to permanent posts that in turn, could assist in improving the city environment all year round.

8.5 Resolved-

1) That Committee note the progress of the Modernisation Programme, including the updates in Appendix 1.

2) That Committee agrees to add the roads listed in Appendix 2 to the current T-Zone area.

3) That Committee agrees the establishment of a trade recycling and glass sack service which uses existing communal bin infrastructure.

4) That Committee delegates authority to the Executive Director Economy, Environment & Culture (following consultation with the Chief Finance Officer) to revise the trade recycling sack service prices in response to the prevailing market prices for the services provided at least annually.

5) That Committee approves the response to the government’s HWRC consultation which is contained in Appendix 4.

6) That Committee approves for a consultation to take place with the residents of Coleman Street to determine whether to remain with communal refuse bins, or move to refuse wheelie bins, pending a wider piece of work as part of the Modernisation Programme.

</AI8>

<AI9>

9 Allotments

9.1 The Committee considered a report of the Interim Executive Director, Economy, Environment & Culture that provided an update on the work of the Allotment Service within City Parks.

9.2 In response to questions from Councillor Platts, it was clarified that a new process had been agreed with Brighton & Hove Allotment Federation (BHAF) to give more power to site reps that would quicken the allocation of unused plots. On the two sites identified by Councillor Platts, it was clarified that they would be monitored but the priority would be optimising the service and investigating and identifying leak repairs.

9.3 In response to a question from Councillor Nemeth, it was clarified that approximately half of sites were using the new process for the allocation of unused plots.

9.4 In response to a question from Councillor Robins, additional resources meant that plots were being cleared more quickly in preparation to let and that was expected to improve.

9.5 In response to a question from Councillor Bagaeen, it was confirmed that no demographic data was kept on current and prospective allotment holders however, work was underway about how to obtain and collate that data in line with regulations.

9.6 Resolved-

1) That the Committee notes the updates contained in this report.

2) That the Committee notes the 2021 Outline Business Case for Allotments in Brighton & Hove report commissioned by the BHAF which is contained in Appendix 1.

</AI9>

<AI10>

10 Tree Planting Plan

10.1 The Committee considered a report of the Interim Executive Director, Economy, Environment & Culture that presented the Tree Planting Plan and Ash Dieback Action Plan (“ADAP”) for approval.

10.2 In response to a query from Councillor Lloyd, it was clarified that some ash suffering dieback was left in woodland areas however, much of Brighton & Hove’s ash trees were located in areas of footfall.

10.3 In response to questions from Councillor Nemeth, it was explained that there was a risk on the cost of individual tree removal so a set price would accommodate for that potential risk and higher costs. Further, it was confirmed that Hove Civic Society had been extended an invite in addition to the groups listed on page 162 of the agenda.

10.4 In response to a query from Councillor Bagaeen, it was explained that tree locations were mapped however it would be very difficult to present that information using the software package that was used. On enforcement, any person cutting down a tree could be prosecuted. The council had recently employed a new post in this area that mainly focussed on planning breaches but could look at other areas if they were reported.

10.5 Resolved-

That Environment, Transport & Sustainability Committee:

1) notes the draft Tree Planting Plan, that it will be subject to consultation and that a further report will be brought to the Environment, Transport & Sustainability Committee and to Housing Committee with the results of the consultation.

2) adopts the Ash Dieback Action Plan and grants delegated authority to the Executive Director of Economy, Environment & Culture to make minor amendments to the Plan.

</AI10>

<AI11>

11 UNESCO Periodic Review of The Living Coast Biosphere

Resolved-

1) That the Committee agrees to support the UNESCO periodic review process to confirm the World Biosphere Region designation for The Living Coast and the development of the next 10-year management strategy.

2) That the Committee notes that Brighton & Hove City Council as the lead partner for The Living Coast will make available from existing Sustainability Team core budgets necessary resources as detailed in paragraph 3.17 of the report to support the UNESCO review and strategy development process.

</AI11>

<AI12>

12 Local Approval of Final Version of Environment Agency Flood Risk Management Plan Cycle 2 (2021-2027)

Resolved-

1) That Committee approve the local content to the Flood Risk Management Plan as detailed in Appendices 1 and 2 of this report for issue of the final version by the Environment Agency.

</AI12>

<AI13>

13 Hanover & Tarner Liveable Neigbourhood

13.1 The Committee considered a report of the Interim Executive Director, Economy, Environment & Culture that requested approval for the Liveable Traffic Neighborhood (LTN) preferred option (Appendix 1) to be put to public consultation and the adoption of a draft Project Monitoring Framework (Appendix 4), that would track the outcomes of the experimental project, once delivered.

13.2 In response to questions from Councillor Bagaeen, it was explained that £300,000 had been allocated to the pilot LTN from the LTP Capital Programme. Approximately half of that had been spent on procuring services for design and a significant amount of traffic surveys and the remaining amount would be used for project delivery. It was added that a competitive tender process had been run in accordance with the council’s procurement framework.

13.3 In response to a query from Councillor Lloyd, it was confirmed that there would be a six-month period of initial consultation and the Experimental Traffic Order (ETRO) could be amended to refine that project. There would then be a further year of collating data so the committee could come to a decision.

13.4 In response to a question and statement from Councillor Bagaeen, the Interim Executive Director, Economy, Environment & Culture stated that all procurements were undertaken using an approved framework and regulation using a legitimate and transparent process that was also audited. The additional funding would be requested of Policy & Resources Committee later in the year. The Legal Officer added that the council has contract standing orders use a framework and suppliers and contractors could not get on to framework unless they had already undertaken a competitive process. Contractors remained on that framework for a period of four years in line with legislation.

13.5 Resolved-

That Committee

1) Welcomes the progress made through local community engagement and co-production, which has helped develop the preferred option for the Hanover & Tarner Liveable Neighbourhood.

2) Agrees that the preferred option, as shown in Appendix 1 of this report is progressed through a public consultation exercise, and that the proposed final scheme be reported back to a future meeting of this committee.

3) Agrees that, based on current cost estimates, consideration will be given to seeking additional funding from the 2022-23 Carbon Neutral Fund, as outlined in 7.1, subject to approval by the Policy & Resources committee in the second half of 2022.

4) Agrees the proposed Project Monitoring Framework set out in Appendix 4 of this report.

5) Agrees that officers will engage with members of the local community to explore potential mitigation and improvement measures on roads that border the pilot LTN project. This will include the prioritization of those measures, should there be insufficient funds, to carry out all the potential measures explored.

</AI13>

<AI14>

14 Bus Service Improvement Plan Draft Enhanced Partnership Agreement

14.1 The Committee considered a report of the Interim Executive Director, Economy, Environment & Culture that provided an update on the indicative funding awarded by the Department for Transport (DfT) for the Bus Service Improvement Plan (BSIP) and set out the process required to secure this funding and the priorities officers recommend in response to the DfT’s requirements. The report also provided a draft of the Enhanced Partnership Agreement. This will be an agreement between the Council and bus operators setting out the measures each will deliver, including those enabled by this funding.

14.2 In response to a question from Councillor Platts, it was confirmed that soft market testing was undertaken for a bus route around East Brighton that identified that more funding was required than allocated. The BSIP funding meant that it was possible to deliver the service, and it was an ambition but was also contingent on other factors.

14.3 In reply to a query from the Chair, it was explained that fare simplification was a priority and there would be a particular focus on young people in order to foster sustainable travel behaviours.

14.4 In response to a question from Councillor Bagaeen, it was noted that the staff resource was not currently in place to deliver the programme and hires and a restructure would be required to be able provide a formal timeline of implementation on what was a complex area. Some initiatives could be delivered in the short-term.

14.5 Resolved-

That the Environment, Transport & Sustainability Committee:

1) Notes the indicative allocation of £27.9m funding to deliver the BSIP and the steps needed to secure this funding.

2) Approves the draft Enhanced Partnership Agreement and Scheme.

3) Grants delegated authority to the Executive Director for Economy, Environment & Culture to approve any amendments to the Enhanced Partnership Agreement and Scheme that the Executive Director, in consultation with the Chair(s) of ETS and ETS Lead Spokespersons, considers appropriate or expedient or following any feedback that may be received from the DfT and responses from members of the Quality Bus Partnership.

</AI14>

<AI15>

15 Phone parking contract re-let

Resolved-

1) That Committee delegates authority to the Interim Executive Director for Economy Environment and Culture to take all steps necessary to procure and award a new phone parking contract for a term of two years

2) That Committee delegates authority to the Interim Executive Director for Economy Environment and Culture to approve an extension to the contract referred to in 2.1 above for a period of up to two years following the initial two-year term, subject to satisfactory performance by the Service Provider.

</AI15>

<AI16>

16 Items referred for Full Council

16.1 No items were referred to Full Council for information.

</AI16>

<Trailer_Section>

The meeting concluded at 9.27pm

</TRAILER_SECTION>

<LAYOUT_SECTION>

FIELD_SUMMARY

</LAYOUT_SECTION>

<TITLE_ONLY_LAYOUT_SECTION>

</TITLE_ONLY_LAYOUT_SECTION>

<COMMENT_LAYOUT_SECTION>

FIELD_SUMMARY

</COMMENT_LAYOUT_SECTION>

<HEADING_LAYOUT_SECTION>

FIELD_TITLE

</HEADING_LAYOUT_SECTION>

<TITLED_COMMENT_LAYOUT_SECTION>

FIELD_TITLE

FIELD_SUMMARY

</TITLED_COMMENT_LAYOUT_SECTION>

<SUBNUMBER_LAYOUT_SECTION>

FIELD_SUMMARY

</SUBNUMBER_LAYOUT_SECTION>

<TITLE_ONLY_SUBNUMBER_LAYOUT_SECTION>

</TITLE_ONLY_SUBNUMBER_LAYOUT_SECTION>