Brighton & Hove City Council
Transport & Sustainability Committee
4.00pm5 December 2023
Council Chamber, Hove Town Hall
Minutes
Present: Councillor Muten (Chair) Nann (Deputy Chair), Davis (Opposition Spokesperson), Asaduzzaman, Galvin, Miller, Pumm and Robinson
Part One
38 Procedural Business
38(a) Declarations of substitutes
38.1 Councillor Theobald was present as substitute for Councillor Bagaeen.
38.2 Councillor Cattell was present as substitute for Councillor Loughran.
38(b) Declarations of interest
38.3 There were none.
38(c) Exclusion of press and public
38.4 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).
38.5 Resolved- That the press and public be excluded during discussion of the confidential reports.
39 Minutes
39.1 Resolved- That the minutes of the previous meeting be approved as the correct record.
40 Chairs Communications
40.1 The Chair provided the following communications:
“Thank you for attending this our administration's fourth meeting of the newly formed Transport and Sustainability Committee. It is an honour to Chair. There is much to do.
As the COP28 meets in Dubai pressing home the urgency for global climate action, a letter to COP28, signed by the C40 Cities Co-chairs reads: “We must phase out fossil fuels to protect our climate but also to protect people from the unjust impacts on their health and standard of living”.
We are acutely aware that as we came into administration, we were left with a huge amount undone. No administration before us was prepared to sufficiently drive policies that could bring about the scale of change that is needed. As set out at the October Transport and Sustainability Committee, we are genuinely shocked the city had no decarbonisation pathways mapped out, no assessment of risk, no partners with funds committed to enable; and no clear strategy to reach net zero as a city beyond an aspiration and an annual carbon reduction target for the council – an aim without substance.
I asked that we have two committee meetings this Autumn reflecting the importance, breadth and ambition of our administration to transform our city, establishing a sustainable, connected, low carbon, cleaner, citywide transport for the 2030s. We have great ambition to better how each resident and visitor moves around our wonderful city.
We recognise that we cannot bring about the scale of change needed without invested partnerships.
A week ago, Cllr Rowkins as Chair of City Environment, South Downs and the Sea Committee, and I as Chair of this committee had the great pleasure of being shown around the Decarbonisation Academy at Brighton MET College by the Head of the College, Paul Riley. They are delivering remarkable training and growing the skills needed within our city as we shift to a more equitable, fairer low carbon future.
To move towards a low carbon transport system for the 2030s we are taking action on all fronts. With the next phase of the Bus Service Improvement Plan (or BSIP), we are helping to make our bus service one to be proud of with many more people taking the bus this autumn than we have seen for many years.
Govia Thameslink Railway and Network Rail’s presentation at last week’s Transport Partnership meeting which I Chair, with council, bus operators, cyclists and pedestrian groups present helped underline the importance of effective and affordable public transport contributing to improved air quality by reducing road congestion.
Our proposed citywide parking review and policy improvements along with our announcement to better utilise two council run city centre car parks during December and January show our commitment to improve parking and access across our city. We need to establish a fairer, simpler, more equitable, cleaner, accessible and digitally inclusive parking that benefits the whole city, improves the environment and adds up. There is more work to do, and we are ambitious to facilitate better parking for the prosperity, health and future of our city.
Sadiq Khan, Mayor of London and Co-Chair of C40 Cities said at COP28 that “Toxic air pollution is a dual threat, impacting both the public health of our cities as well as furthering the climate crisis,”.
With more air quality monitors installed from early 2020, we can see from the data that parts of our city have declining and unacceptable air quality. We cannot and must not sit back and watch this data and not act. We are taking the air quality challenge seriously. This is why we have brought the initiative as part of the next phase of parking improvements for visitors, along with residents, to pay for on-street parking based on their vehicle emissions with low and medium emission vehicles paying less than high emissions vehicles to park.
Previously, there was an acceptance of second rate, disconnected active travel schemes in places contributing to worsening air quality through congested traffic, that soon after installation required costly retro-fitting to bring to grade, when we knew better was achievable. This has not served our city well. Unsurprisingly, the outcome is that "most of the city is a hot mess for cycling and walking" to quote a summer city visitor.
Once again, we can and must do better. I am looking forward to presenting the outcome from our strategic review of active travel on the A259 seafront all the way from the Marina to our western city boundary in the new year; and I am excited that we have affordable options to deliver a segregated and straight bidirectional cycle path along Hove seafront that does not put pedestrians at peril amongst commuting cyclists, all segregated from the road with safer crossing. Similarly, the outcome of our forensic review of the Valley Gardens 3 plans will be communicated soon. All this as we commence work on the Phase 1A A23 Preston Circus to Argyll Street will demonstrate our commitment to active travel in across our city.
We have a plan and this Transport and Sustainability Committee today helps brings our ambition closer.
Creating a safer lower carbon city needs to integrate more junction improvements under the Safer Better Streets programme. The implementation of Red Routes to facilitate better flow of traffic making cycling, walking, bus routes and driving safer and cleaner. New cycle hanger installations in response to strong public demand underlines our commitment to active travel; the Hove station footbridge maintenance is essential for the local community and train passengers alike; and our joint bid with Brighton and Hove Buses to fund the introduction of zero-emissions fully electric buses are each important strides towards a sustainable, decarbonised, cleaner, equitable and accessible city transport system for the 2030s”.
41 Call Over
41.1 The following items on the agenda were reserved for discussion:
- Item 45: Safer, Better Streets 2024/25 Programme
- Item 46: Red Route Implementation
- Item 48: Parking Review Update
- Item 49: Hove Station Footbridge
- Item 50: Cycle Hangars TRO-38A-2023 and TRO-38B-2023
- Item 51: Whitehawk Mini-roundabout improvements TRO-45-2023
- Item 52: TRO-43-2023 Objections to Bikeshare Hub Carriageway Sites
- Item 53: Zero Emission Buses (ZEBRA2) Grant Application
41.2 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 47: Parking Policies Update
42 Public Involvement
(A) Petitions
(1) Resident’s parking in South Hollingdean
42.1 The Committee considered a petition signed by 304 people requesting residents parking in South Hollingdean.
42.2 The Chair provided the following response:
“I recognise the outcome form the public consultation for Hollingdean earlier this year was not so favourable for residents in South Hollingdean. This was debated at some length at the October Transport and Sustainability Committee. I recommend that an effective residents parking scheme in South Hollingdean is considered as a priority when the parking scheme priority timetable update report is presented to this Committee next year. In response to my recommendation, I am given to understand that officers will ensure this petition is considered when outlining the way forward in the report for Members to discuss”.
42.3 Resolved- That the Committee note the petition.
(B) Public Questions
(1) Valley Gardens 3
42.4 The questioner was not present at the meeting.
(2) Clean Air Zone
42.5 Adrian Hill read the following question:
“We need a Clean Air Zone to clean up our toxic air. At the full council meeting on 19th of October the Chair said that we have a functioning zone and that buses and taxis will be charged if they drive through the small zone right now. I understand the zone is a voluntary zone (i.e. it doesn't charge nor does it ban), that it doesn't include taxis and that the voluntary part doesn't begin until 2024. Can you confirm the nature of the zone and tell me how many drivers have been charged so far?”
42.6 The Chair provided the following reply:
“Adrian, thank you for your continued interest in how the bus Ultra Low Emission Zone in the city centre works.
Building on my response to you in October, I can confirm that the bus Ultra Low Emission Zone that stretches from the Old Steine to Palmeira Square, has been in place since 2015 and does apply to buses. The zone has required bus operators to invest in progressively cleaner vehicles which includes new low emission buses, and the retrofitting of existing vehicles, by the city’s bus operators. This means that good progress has been made.
Key dates for the operation and enforcement of the zone are that vehicles initially needed to be Euro5 standard as a minimum, with this increasing to all buses entering the zone to be Euro6 by October 2024.
Euro 5 and 6 are European emission standards for pollution from vehicles which reflect the progressive introduction of increasingly stringent standards. The higher the number, the less the harmful emissions.
No fines have been issued for entering the zone reflecting the commitment of bus operators to improvements. Air quality monitoring data since the bus ULEZ introduction along the route has improve appreciably and as such our city’s ULEZ can be considered a success. We retain a watching brief to ensure that it continues to be so”.
42.7 Adrian Hill asked the following supplementary question:
“Do we expect the most effective air quality improvements to be implemented as a matter of urgency?”
42.8 The Chair provided the following reply:
“There are some initiatives that I outlined in my Chairs Communications such as looking at emissions-based parking which is designed to encourage cleaner vehicles in our city. We do consider improvement to air quality as a priority and there’s further work for us to do for example in the parking review and other improvement in air quality.
(C) Deputations
1) Concerning tackling congestion on the A259 which is delaying buses so that the peak commute journeys now take up to 65% longer than in 2010.
42.9 The Committee considered a deputation regarding congestion on the A259.
42.10 The Chair provided the following response:
“The council’s Bus Service Improvement Plan (or BSIP) is focused on exactly what your deputation is seeking to highlight – working in partnership with operators to make bus services faster and more reliable. This will make them an even more attractive option for people, with the aim of increasing bus passenger numbers by 7 million by 2030.
I understand that your previous deputation to ETS committee in November 2021 requested a High Occupancy Vehicle trial to allow some vehicles to use the A259 bus lane, east of Rottingdean High Street. In 2021, the Chair’s response acknowledged the cross-boundary A259 South Coast Corridor Major Route Network Study being led by East Sussex County Council, and the potential difficulties associated with the enforcement of High Occupancy Vehicle Lanes (HOVL). The committee agreed that it would receive a report at a future meeting. The idea of a HOVL was put forward as a stakeholder suggestion during the during the stakeholder events. This deputation now appears to be suggesting that all traffic could use the bus lane, so it would be helpful to be clear about what is actually being proposed. Local bus operators have been asked for their views and have said that the bus lanes in question are an example of best practice and have been key to patronage and service level growth over the years.
A number of infrastructure and revenue measures were approved by committee in 2022 as part of the Council’s Bus Service Improvement Plan, funded by the Department of Transport. Included in that package were proposals for the introduction of additional bus priority measures on the A259. Rather than undertaking any assessment and making any recommendations on the existing bus lane in isolation in an officer report, it is important to consider the potential combined impacts of your idea with other potential proposals in the city. We expect to be able to provide an update on Bus Service Improvement Plan proposals for the A259 in Brighton and Hove next year, and would address your proposal at that time.
It remains important to recognise the East Sussex study which includes consideration of the County Council’s separate bus lane proposals. The study has been developed through valuable input from a wide range of stakeholders and a Strategic Outline Business Case has now been submitted to the government’s Department for Transport for review. There will be opportunities for further review and evaluation of the packages of measures in the next stages of the Business Case process, which the council will feed into”.
42.11 Resolved- That the Committee note the deputation.
43 Items referred from Council
(A) Petitions
(1) Reduce the cost of resident's parking permits
43.1 The Committee considered a petition, referred from Full Council requesting the council reduce the costs of resident’s parking permits.
43.2 The Chair provided the following response:
“The cost of resident’s permit prices is determined by the annual fees and charges process and the fees & charges for 24/25 will be discussed at this Committee in February.
In the context of our ongoing parking review, included in papers presented to this committee, our administration sets out to establish a simpler, fairer, more equitable, cleaner, accessible and digitally inclusive parking that benefits the whole city, improves the environment and adds up”.
43.3 Resolved- That the Committee note the petition.
(2) Clarendon Place Parking
43.4 The Committee considered a petition, refereed from Full Council requesting Clarendon Place be considered for residents parking.
43.5 The Chair provided the following response:
“The current Parking Review is a wider scope than dealing with individual roads wishing to change parking arrangements. Consideration for Clarendon Place would require inclusion into a future Parking Priority Timetable as part of a wider consultation area where there is clear support from residents, services and businesses. The best way forward is coming forward with a petition or deputation to this Committee to request a consultation in a wider area rather than just one road on its own which will allow the Council to gauge the support in the area”.
43.6 Resolved- That the Committee note the petition.
(B) Deputations
(1) Concerning Protection of Pedestrians and homes at the junction of Upper Abbey Road, Whitehawk Hill and the hospital South Service Road
43.7 The Committee considered a deputation requesting the reinstatement of a barrier previously located on Upper Abbey Road.
43.8 The Chair provided the following response:
“Following the deputation from Upper Abbey Road residents to Full Council in October, early last month I took the opportunity to meet with residents along with ward Cllr Burden to better understand the site context. My recommendation from that site visit to Officers was to progress promptly with a reassessment of what can be done to improve and reduce the hazard. It was agreed with residents that a barrier of some sort is better than none.
I am pleased to report that officers have instructed independent road safety auditors to carry out a full site survey and report their findings. I have asked for this to commence at the earliest opportunity.
I am advised by officers that any recommendations arising from this Road Safety Audit report will be considered in line with existing budgets and programmes. In response to your deputation and appreciation of the risk to your property and impact on your peace of mind, I will support prompt implementation of the recommendations from this assessment”.
43.9 Resolved- That the Committee note the deputation.
44 Member Involvement
(B) Written questions
(1) St Peters Church Parking
44.1 Councillor Shanks read the following question:
“I have had many residents contact me about unauthorised parking at the front of St Peters church. Apparently, some permits were given to NHS staff to park there while the lung screening lorry was there, can you tell me why we would give permits for a piece of land that is not a car park? Why we didn’t give permits for our London Road car park instead and why we have not stopped continual parking on the piece of land since the NHS left. There is not even a no parking notice?”
44.2 The Chair provided the following reply:
“Thank you, Cllr Shanks, for your question. When events and activities take place in public spaces, there are always some essential vehicles that come with them. For the lung screening service, it was agreed that up to three nurses could park in the area.
It was not appropriate to provide the nurses with permits for the London Road car park as they needed to be close to the facility. Council officers have put No Parking signs up in the area near St Peter’s Church to discourage drivers from parking their vehicles there.
Our parks and legal teams are currently assessing the best long-term solutions for stopping drivers parking there. Implementing a long-term solution is a matter of priority to the Council. Options considered include a combination of enforcement action and blocking access.
No parking signs are now up, and parking enforcement will be starting shortly”.
44.3 Councillor Shanks asked the following supplementary question:
“When will parking here be stopped?”
44.4 The Chair provided the following reply:
“I’m aware of a possible proposal to sell Christmas trees in this location that would solve the issue in the short-term”.
(2) Francis Street
44.5 Councillor Shanks read the following question:
“Following a visit I made with the Chair to Francis Street off London Road in my ward can he tell me what plans are in place to stop traffic driving through this access only street. Residents have complained about this situation and the noise and traffic they endure for more than 8 years. Various ideas have been suggested but nothing has happened
44.6 The Chair provided the following reply:
It was helpful to meet with you and take the time to observe how through traffic using what is a restricted street is causing issues for residents. It is not a through street, yet clearly many drivers opt to drive through as a short cut despite the restrictions.
As we observed, several measures have been tried to tackle this including improved signing, working with the Police to tackle the abuse of the traffic restriction and installing a line of bollards to prevent pavement parking. It is clear from our visit that this has been unsuccessful and there are limited options that are available.
The recent ability for authorities to take on the powers for enforcing restrictions is a positive approach that could be taken, but unfortunately this street would be very difficult to enforce due to the range of vehicles that have legitimate access. However, there is a project that is being developed for the area to the west of London Road that will explore options for managing traffic and this may offer opportunities that may help with this issue. I will ensure that officers explore finding a solution for Francis Street as part of the scheme.
From our conversations in Francis Street, I am unhappy to hear that you have been raising this concern for over a decade as ward councillor without resolution. I am very keen that under our administration, we find an effective solution that substantially improves the enforcement of the restrictions for the benefit of residents and traders of Francis Street”.
44.7 Councillor Shanks asked the following supplementary question:
“How quickly will it happen?”
44.8 The Chair provided the following reply:
“It’s a complex situation as it needs enforcement from Sussex Police, but we will keep working to find a solution”.
(3) 20 Minute Neighbourhoods
44.9 Councillor Davis read the following question:
“At full council in October 2020 it was agreed to move forward with a 20-minute neighbourhood trial in Hove. Can the chair please update me on its progress?”
44.10 The Chair provided the following reply:
“As you are no doubt aware, a notice of motion at full council in October 2020 called for officers to produce a report for committee(s) that seeks to identify feasible locations to implement both micro “20-minute neighbourhood” projects and a full-scale pilot scheme for the model. The Notice of Motion (or NoM) also required some consultation with members and local community groups.
Consultants were commissioned to take this work forward. The previous administration subsequently revised the scope of the project by not progressing with the identification of a shortlist of locations for a Feasibility Project nor the associated public consultation. The consultant’s report has recently been completed. It is a baseline assessment that presents an analysis of how well different neighbourhoods in the city are functioning as 20 minute neighbourhoods and sets out a toolbox of interventions at different scales which could be considered to improve how well areas function as 20 Minute Neighbourhoods. Officers are currently reviewing that report”.
44.11 Councillor Davis asked the following supplementary question:
“I’m really looking for assurance that the project will progress”.
44.12 The Chair provided the following reply:
“I can give some level of assurance as this was in the Labour Group manifesto. In principle, we would like to see a pilot develop”.
(4) A259
44.13 Councillor Davis read the following question:
“Can I please have an approximate figure to date for monies lost on the suspension of the A259 active travel corridor”.
44.14 The Chair provided the following reply:
“The A259 Active Travel Scheme is currently being redesigned by officers to improve its design. This review was agreed by this committee when it met in June this year.
The contract to construct a previously designed scheme was terminated at a cost to the Council but officers reduced this cost as much as possible. We are not able to release this figure as it is commercially sensitive.
May I refer you to my Chair’s communications at the start of this Committee meeting? There was an acceptance of second rate, disconnected active travel schemes that soon after installation required costly retro-fitting to bring to grade, when we knew better was achievable. This was the case with the scheme due to commence in Summer 2023. This approach has not served our city well.
We can and must do better. In the new year, I am looking forward to presenting the outcome from our strategic review of active travel for the A259 all the way from the Marina to the east to our western city boundary; and I am excited that we have affordable options to deliver a segregated and straight bidirectional cycle path along Hove seafront that does not put pedestrians at peril amongst commuting cyclists, all segregated from the road with safer crossing. A significant improvement from that presented by the previous administration. We can and will deliver better. We will deliver an active travel route accessible for all that will be a credit to our city and appreciated by cyclists, pedestrians and others travelling along our seafront route”.
44.15 Councillor Davis asked the following supplementary question:
“Construction costs are going up by the minute, would it not just be easier to get on with it?”
44.16 The Chair provided the following reply:
“There was a route, but this was deemed to be dangerous. We are looking at the method to improve the route within budget. We want to do better and are confident what will be delivered will be good”.
(5) Valley Gardens 3
44.17 Councillor Davis read the following question:
“Can I have an approximate figure to date for monies lost on the suspension of the Valley Gardens part 3 project”.
44.18 The Chair provided the following reply:
“I can confirm that the Valley Gardens Phase 3 has not been suspended but is being reviewed by officers at my request. None of the funding associated with the scheme has therefore been lost, and once the review has been completed, I will be able to update the committee on the next steps. I am very much looking forward to doing so”.
44.19 Councillor Davis asked the following supplementary question:
“Are you going to be re-consulting with all the stakeholder groups?”
44.20 The Chair provided the following reply:
“We are not seeking to unpick the project, we just want to be sure it is right for the city. We have received feedback from residents and the bus organisations and we are thinking that through”.
(6) Elm Grove Parking
44.21 Councillor Davis read the following question:
“The previous administration authorised a trial on an Elm Grove pavement parking ban which we later made permanent. Can I have an update on its progress?”
44.22 The Chair provided the following reply:
“As you are aware, our administration implemented the Elm Grove pavement parking ban 6 months ago. Since the introduction of the pavement parking ban there has been a significant reduction in cars parked on the pavement in Elm Grove. Enforcement patrols now issue an average of just one Penalty Charge Notice per day for pavement parking in Elm Grove.
We consider this a success and will be keen to see this continue”.
44.23 Councillor Davis asked the following supplementary question:
“Edinburgh have recently introduced a city wide pavement parking ban. Will the Administration consider the same?”
44.24 The Chair provided the following reply:
“It is over 1,000 days since the Secretary of State said they would change the legislation to allow local authorities to introduce such measures. Edinburgh is part of Scotland so therefore, has different legislation. The scale of a ban is too big to take on across the city without changes to legislation”.
(7) Highways
44.25 Councillor Davis read the following question:
“The highway asset management report recently brought to this committee described a £75 million funding gap in road repairs. What is the administration’s plan to mitigate this?”
44.26 The Chair provided the following reply:
“The Highway Asset Management Team is looking at options to improve the current backlog in highway maintenance. The challenge is not unique to Brighton and Hove, across the country there is an estimated backlog of £14 billion in highway maintenance to local roads. Additional data is being gathered, including AI surveys of all public highway, and existing condition modelling is being updated. This will enable the team to follow a lifecycle planning approach which will target the limited budget on the treatment types and locations that will benefit the network best in terms of cost and carbon reduction in the long-term.
On 17th November 2023, the Department for Transport announced a funding stream that will provide BHCC with additional funding over the next 10 years for Highway Maintenance. In addition to this, officers are exploring other funding options to boost capital spending on maintenance to help reduce the backlog. This will substantially mitigate the funding gap.
As an administration, we have ambition to improve and repair highways in our city and unlike the previous administration, we have the political will do so and effective prudence to manage the limited public funds available to deliver a better programme than before”.
44.27 Councillor Davis asked the following supplementary question:
“Will you publish an early version of the budget so we can collectively address the issue?”
44.28 The Chair provided the following reply:
“Budget matters are not for this committee but for Strategy, Finance & City Regeneration Committee”.
45 Safer, Better Streets: 2024/2025 Programme
45.1 The Committee considered a report of the Executive Director, Economy, Environment & Culture that presented the results of the Safer, Better Streets (SBS) – Highway Improvement Prioritisation Framework assessments undertaken for 2023/24 and identifies the priorities for delivery over the next financial year, subject to available funding. The report also provided an update on the delivery of associated road safety improvement projects and recommends amendments to the SBS assessment process to better suit the objectives of the programme.
45.2 Councillors Davis, Robinson, Miller, Nann and Theobald asked questions and contributed to the debate of the report.
45.3 Resolved-
1) That Committee notes the new SBS Priority List, included in Appendix 1, produced in line with the approved SBS assessment methodology.
2) That Committee grants approval for officers to progress design and construction work on the identified locations in the SBS Priority List ‘Top Twelve Priority list’ identified at Table 2 in this report, subject to funding, consultation and any required Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs) processes.
3) That Committee notes the changes to the SBS assessment process and agrees the amended process in Appendix 2, to be used for future assessments.
46 Red Route Implementation
46.1. The Committee considered a report of the Executive Director, Economy, Environment & Culture that updated committee on the progress of the implementation of red routes in the city and outlined the findings of the recent public engagement with residents and businesses in the proposed Red Route corridors on Lewes Road and London Road / Preston Road.
46.2. Councillors Asaduzzaman, Davis, Theobald, Nann and Miller asked questions and contributed to the debate of the report.
46.3. Resolved-
1) That Committee, having taken account of all duly made representations and comments, agrees that the Red Route corridors progress to the Experimental Traffic Regulation Orders implementation stage.
47 Parking Policies update
Resolved-
1) That Committee approves the updated Customer Service Policy (Appendix A). This policy will establish a formalisation of the procedures linked to the new IT system which will be used to promote consistency and support officers with their decision making.
2) That committee approves the new policy for barrier-controlled car parks (Appendix B). This policy will establish a formalisation of the procedures that have been historically used to promote consistency and support officers with their decision making.
3) That Committee approves the new policy for parking bay suspensions (Appendix C). This policy will establish a formalisation of the procedures that have been historically used to promote consistency and support officers with their decision making.
4) That Committee approves the Parking Services Penalty Charge Notice Policy (Appendix D). This policy will establish a formalisation of the procedures that have been historically used to promote consistency and support officers with their decision making.
5) That Committee approves the updated policy for Parking Design & Implementation (Appendix E). This policy will establish a formalisation of the procedures that have been historically used to promote consistency and support officers with their decision making.
48 Parking Review Update
48.1 The Committee considered a report of the Executive Director, Economy, Environment & Culture that updated on the work undertaken in-house to review parking services across the city, including on a revenue action plan for 23/24 and proposals for 24/25. The report also provided updates on the external parking review underway including the scope for consideration of options and timescales for implementation.
48.2 Councillor Davis, Theobald and Robinson asked questions and contributed to the debate of the report.
48.3 Resolved-
1) That Committee notes the initial work that has taken place as part of the parking review.
2) That Committee approves actions set out in paragraphs 3.7 to 3.9.
3) That Committee notes and agrees the way forward for the external wider parking review as set out in paragraph 3.4 and Appendix A and notes the appointment of the expert consultants to support the Council with the next stage of consultation as set out in paragraph 3.3.
49 Hove Station Footbridge
48.1 The Committee considered a report of the Executive Director, Economy, Environment & Culture that informed Members of the ongoing maintenance issues and potential liabilities for the council related to the footbridge that links Hove Station to Hove Park Villas.
48.2 Councillor Theobald, Robinson, Miller and Nann asked questions and contributed to the debate of the report.
48.3 Resolved-
1) That Committee notes the response to the original Deputation and further information within paragraphs 3.7 to 3.19.
2) That Committee notes the status of the existing Hove Station Footbridge, in particular the possibility the structure will require extensive repairs or replacement in the near future.
3) That Committee notes the early emerging nature of discussions relating to future development in the Hove Station Area and defers consideration to a future Committee regarding any potential funding options for maintaining or improving connectivity across the railway in the vicinity of Hove Station.
50 Cycle Hangars TRO-38a-2023 and TRO-38b-2023
50.1 The Committee considered a report of the Executive Director, Economy, Environment & Culture that provided an update on the installation of cycle hangars within Brighton, following the TRO consultation TRO-38- 2023.
50.2 Councillors Theobald, Galvin, Miller and Davis asked questions and contributed to the debate of the report.
50.3 Resolved-
1) That Committee notes that 40 cycle hangershave been installedfollowing the positive TRO-38-2023 consultation. A further 8 hangars from TRO-38-2023 are also ready to be installed, with planned installation in March 2024.
2) That the Committee agrees, that having taken account of comments and representations received through the TRO consultation, 8 locations will not have cycle hangers installed. Please refer to paragraph and table in 3.8.
3) That Committee, notes that officers are planning to advertise a further TRO (TRO-52-2023) for an additional 51 cycle hangarlocations (see AppendixC). The results of this consultation will be presentedto Committee in March 2024, if objections are received.
51 Whitehawk Mini-Roundabout Improvements - TRO-45-2023
51.1 The Committee considered a report of the Executive Director, Economy, Environment & Culture that sought approval for the making of a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) for the Whitehawk Mini-Roundabout Improvements scheme.
51.2 Councillor Davis asked a question on the report.
51.3 Resolved-
1) That the Committee, having taken account of all duly made representations and comments, agrees that TRO-45-2023, as included at Appendix 1, is approved for implementation.
52 TRO-43-2023 Objections to Bikeshare hub carriageway sites
52.1. The Committee considered a report of the Executive Director, Economy, Environment & Culture that sought approval for shortlisted sites for new Bikeshare hubs where consultations via the Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) amendment process or Footway licensing have passed the threshold of objections which permits decisions by officers under delegated powers.
52.2. Councillor Davis asked a question on the report.
52.3. Resolved-
1) The Committee agrees to proceed with the proposal in Traffic Regulation Order TRO – 43b – 2023 (Outer) for Graham Avenue only, having taken into consideration all the duly made comments and to withdraw the Northease Drive carriageway site proposal.
53 Zero emissions buses (Zebra2) grant application
53.2 Councillor Theobald and Davis asked questions on the report and contributed to the debate.
53.3 Resolved-
1) That Committee notes the report and supports the bid for ZEBRA 2 funding for buses and charging infrastructure.
2) That Committee endorses a match funding contribution towards the bid as detailed in the Part Two report, subject to identification of resource and recommends approval to Strategy, Finance and City Regeneration Committee.
54 Zero emissions buses (Zebra2) grant application (Exempt Category 3)
As per the Part One minute item.
55 Part Two Proceedings
55.1 Resolved- That the Committee agree that the report listed in Part Two of the agenda remain confidential and exempt to public disclosure.
56 Items referred for Full Council
56.1 No items were referred to Full Council for information.
The meeting concluded at 7.10pm