Brighton & Hove City Council
Environment, Transport & Sustainability Committee
4.00pm19 January 2021
Virtual Meeting
MINUTES
|
Present: Councillor Heley (Chair) Lloyd (Deputy Chair), Wilkinson (Opposition Spokesperson), Wares (Group Spokesperson), Appich, Brown, Davis, Fowler, Hills and Williams |
PART ONE
58 Procedural Business
58(a) Declarations of substitutes
58.1 There were none.
58(b) Declarations of interest
58.2 There were none.
58(c) Exclusion of press and public
58.3 In accordance with section 100A of the Local Government Act 1972 (“the Act”), the Committee considered whether the press and public should be excluded from the meeting during an item of business on the grounds that it was likely, in view of the business to be transacted or the nature of proceedings, that if members of the press and public were present during that item, there would be disclosure to them of confidential information (as defined in section 100A(3) of the Act) or exempt information (as defined in section 100(I) of the Act).
58.4 RESOLVED- That the press and public be excluded from the meeting.
59 Minutes
59.1 Councillor Hills requested a correction to minute item 56.20 and that the word coalition be placed in speech marks to make clear that there was no coalition between the Green Group and the Labour Group.
59.2 RESOLVED- That the minutes of the previous meetings held on 24th November 2020 and 18 December 2020 be approved as the correct record subject to the above amendment.
60 Chairs Communications
60.1 The Chair provided the following communications:
“I want to start my chair’s communications this afternoon by saying a huge thank you to all our City Environment and Transport staff during these difficult times.
I especially want to express my gratitude and appreciation to all our hard-working operations teams, office staff and managers who are still being able to work, and are keeping some of the council’s most essential services running, whatever the weather.
They include our collections, streets, enforcement and projects teams in Cityclean; our parks and arboriculture teams in City Parks; and parking enforcement officers and traffic management staff in transport.
I also want to show my appreciation to everyone involved in this year’s winter service team for ensuring the city is safe and keeps running by carrying out the essential role of gritting the roads when needed, day or night.
Each and every one of you are playing a vital role in helping the city function as normally as possible during the current lockdown.
As part of the council’s plans to become carbon neutral by 2030, we are keen to increase the tree cover in the city.
Our original plans for planting were dependant on a significant amount of volunteer help, which unfortunately Covid has put a stop to. However, planting is still going ahead.
In addition to the usual tree planting Cityparks does, we are carrying out the following:
• The first two phases of Valley Gardens 1 and 2 are drawing to a close and there are now 150 new trees in the gardens that there were before the scheme started.
• Planting in Stanmer Park is well under way with 500 new trees being planted. Half are part of the Restoration Project and the remaining 250 are being funded from the ‘Green Christmas’
• The biggest scheme planned for this year is Carden Park. We had anticipated a lot of public involvement, but the planting will be carried out by our own staff. Rather than postpone the start of the scheme it will now be carried out in phases. The 2500 trees for phase 1 will be delivered in the next couple of weeks and planted by the end of March.
It is unfortunate that Covid has prevented us from harnessing the enthusiasm of the volunteers for tree planting around the City and disappointing for those members of the committee who planned to lend a hand in schemes that we will not be out on volunteer planting days.
I do see public involvement as being key to achieving significant increases in the numbers of trees in the city and am pleased to say that the posts created to facilitate this have been filled.
David Brookhouse joined us this month and Ben Galley will be joining us on the 1st of February. Both are looking forward to getting more trees into the City and meeting [ remotely at first] the groups supporting the council to achieve this. One of their early tasks will be relaunching and increasing the profile of the councils tree donation scheme.
Planting areas for trees is also something that is being discussed in the public consultation on our Whole Estate Plan which I am hoping will identify even more planting opportunities than we have in our public open spaces.
Brighton and Hove City Council (BHCC), in partnership with Shoreham Port Authority (SPA), Adur District Council (Adur DC) and the Environment Agency (EA), have developed a 100 year strategy to improve and maintain the coastal defences for the section of coast line between Brighton Marina and the River Adur.
The strategy recommended an improvement scheme that would improve the coastal defences to reduce the long term (100 year) flood and erosion risk, taking account of long-term climate change predictions to sea level rise.
An outline business case was submitted to the Environment Agency, for technical and financial approval. This business case was used to support the a bid for Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management (FCERM), Grant in Aid (GiA) funding.
Approval of the outline business case and the subsequent award of the full GiA funding was received in December. This will provide £12,085,444 of funding to enable the detailed design and construction of the scheme.
In addition to the GiA funding and as recognition of an extremely well received business case and presentation, an additional £2,000,000 of funding has been provided to facilitate the acceleration of the scheme.
Work on the design detail stage of the project is currently underway and is expected to be finalised by spring 2022.
I would like to thank all the essential staff within Parking Services working in the office where they can’t do this from home since March. They are continuing to deliver an important service for residents, businesses, blue badge holders and concessionary pass users during these difficult times.
I would also like to thank all the staff in our Highways Maintenance team for keeping our roads and pavements maintained under difficult circumstances. As well as all the staff in the Transport Division and all the City Clean drivers who are involved in delivering our Winter Service Plan which keeps our roads safe during the winter months”.
61 Call Over
61.1 The following items on the agenda were reserved for discussion:
- Item 65: Fees & Charges 2021/22
- Item 66: Brighton & Hove Climate Assembly
- Item 67: Liveable City Centre and Ultra Low Emission Zone Initial Feasibility Study
- Item 68: Permit Review
- Item 71: Self-Managed Sports Facilities in Parks and Recreation Grounds
- Item 72: Playground Refurbishment Programme 2021-2025
61.2 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 69: Table and Chair Licensing
- Item 70: Stanmer Village Parking Scheme
62 Public Involvement
(A) PETITIONS
(1) Traffic Calming Measures on Dyke Road
62.1 The Committee considered a petition signed by 60 people requesting the installation of traffic calming measures to reduce vehicle speed on Dyke Road and the surrounding roads.
62.2 The Chair provided the following response:
“Thank you for raising your concerns about the speed of vehicles on Dyke Road. I am aware that you have received a number of responses from Council officers and Councillors on this matter. During this correspondence you have been advised that the limited funding available for responding to speed concerns is primarily prioritised based on casualty data. This is a tool used by many local authorities and whilst I understand that this is frustrating, there is only a limited amount of funding and resource available to respond to requests from the public and the volume of requests relating to the speed of vehicles far outweighs the funding available.
In correspondence you have been advised that the Council is part of the Sussex Safer Roads Partnership and works with other bodies and Authorities to help improve road safety in the Sussex region. The Police are important partners and work with the Council and the community to help address concerns about speeding via its SpeedWatch initiative. I believe you have been provided with the details about how to access the Speedwatch Programme which is actively working in Brighton and Hove and something that we would encourage you and your neighbours to pursue.
The Council also has a number of Mobile Vehicle Activated Signs that are used around the City to influence driver behaviour. As you are aware, Dyke Road is already on the waiting list for one of these signs but again the demand far exceeds supply and therefore I am afraid this is not an instant solution.
In light of the additional concerns you have raised today we will ask officers to conduct a review of the existing 20mph signage on Dyke Road to see if additional or larger signs may be appropriate.
Later this year we will be having a report about this unfair approach to how we allocate traffic calming measures, but I also want to emphasise that the agenda items today on the climate assembly and liveable city centre aim to tackle road safety in a much more forward thinking approach. Reducing the amount of cars on the road and allowing people to choose sustainable, active and public transport will help make our roads safer for all users, and that is a major priority for us as an Administration”.
62.3 RESOLVED- That the Committee note the petition.
(2) Wish Park Hove, Disabled Toilet
62.4 The Committee considered a petition signed by 428 people requesting that the disabled toilet in Wish Park, Hove be opened and cleaned more frequently and accessed through a radar key system.
62.5 The Chair provided the following response:
“Thank you for your petition. Equality of access to toilet facilities is very important so thank you for bringing this to our attention.
Saxon Pavilion is a council owned building where the toilet facility was historically managed by City Clean.
When the previous lease on Saxon Pavilion expired, it provided the council with an opportunity to re-let the pavilion to a new tenant which included the new tenant taking over the maintenance of the toilet.
The opening hours of the toilet when the council were maintaining was from Good Friday to the end of September 8.30am to 8pm.
Under the new lease terms with the nursery at Saxon Pavilion, the tenant maintains the toilets on the same basis as the council (Good Friday to the end of September), from 8.30am – 6.30pm, in line with their own opening hours, which is slightly reduced.
In contrast, the lease with Wish Park Café includes the same provisions for them to be responsible for the running and maintenance of the toilets and to allow access to the public during their opening times.
The council is currently exploring the options available to align the opening hours of the two sites, along with the possibility of installing a radar key.
Officers are currently reviewing options for funding refurbishment of the 12 highest footfall toilets in the city which will be present to Policy and Resources Committee for a decision in the coming months. As part of the programme we will be looking to ensure disabled access to toilets and where feasible to introduce more changing places facilities. Officers will also be looking at longer term options for refurbishment and improving access at the other 23 public toilets in the city that are managed by the council as funding allows. Whenever a toilet is refurbished, we will look to increase accessibility for all”.
62.6 Councillor Appich noted that parks were increasingly being used as an alternative open space during the pandemic and toilet provision was essential.
62.7 Councillor Appich moved a motion to request an officer report formally responding to the petition.
62.8 Councillor Wilkinson formally seconded the motion.
62.9 The Chair suggested that a report with broader scope than toilet provision in one park be brought to the committee. That report would consider the request made in the petition.
62.10 The Committee were supportive of the suggestion made by the Chair.
62.11 RESOLVED- That the Committee receive an officer report on toilet provision in the city to a future meeting.
(B) PUBLIC QUESTIONS
(1) Saltdean Skatepark bins
62.12 Rose Miller read the following question:
“Please can we have new bins in the skateboard park (currently none in the near vicinity and the rubbish is terrible on a daily basis), in the centre of the park where the path crosses and a new bit to replace the recently removed dog bin to the South East?”
62.13 The Chair provided the following reply:
“Bins are generally placed at the edges of parks to allow for efficient and quick emptying, in the case of Saltdean all of the bins are emptied by a vehicle using the public highway and not entering the park. I have asked for parks bins to reviewed across the city as I have had requests for more in certain areas and I am keen to try to get some of the waste that the public leave in parks recycled.
The bins in Saltdean Oval will be included in this but until the review is completed later this year, we will avoid putting bins in as it is anticipated that some of the bin sites and on some locations the type of bin, will change”.
62.14 Rose Miller asked the following supplementary question:
“There’s no possibility of them being put inside the skate park as they are inside the park?”
62.15 The Chair provided the following reply:
“Not immediately as we’re going to encompass Saltdean Oval in our overall review of park bins and hopefully get some more recycling in there”.
(2) New England Road
62.16 Adrian Hart read the following question:
“If I cycle underneath the bridge on New England Road my breathing often worsens. The covered area is long, traffic congested involving hill starts and queuing which causes emissions build up and pollution to linger. I’ve been told it won’t be monitored despite it harming the health of those walking and cycling.
Can we solve this problem by either bringing in a ZEZ like London’s Beech Street, close the road when pollution is high, make it eastbound only with a yellow box, add advisory signs for pedestrians or cyclists as in Stoke on Trent or close it to motor vehicles?”
62.17 The Chair provided the following reply:
“Thank you for your question Adrian. I am sorry to hear that you have experienced breathing problems when cycling in this area of the city. We are aware that New England Road has poor air quality and I would agree that the Preston Circus and New England Road traffic signals where the two main A roads cross are very busy, with traffic queuing and an uphill gradient.
There have been some recent improvement works to the junctions to safely optimise the movement of people and vehicles at these busy junctions. However, that area remains within the city’s central and largest Air Quality Management Area and we will continue to assess road transport emissions and roadside air quality along the road.
This and five other areas in the city are designated on the basis of primarily prioritising air quality improvements in and around homes, in line with Government guidance to address people’s exposure to pollution over prolonged periods. The main pollutant is Nitrogen Dioxide and the main source of it is vehicles, and therefore one of our main priorities must be to reduce overall traffic levels. At the same time, we want to increase the uptake of zero emission vehicles and provide people with convenient and sustainable alternatives, wherever possible.
However, this is clearly not good enough. That is why we are considering new ideas for reducing traffic in central and residential areas to make them more liveable and improving air quality through the introduction of a wider Ultra Low Emission Zone. In the papers today you can see we are recommending a city wide ultra low emission zone, which is necessary if we really want to tackle air pollution for all residents in the city. As well as this. Later in the year, a more comprehensive Air Quality Action Plan will be published for public consultation, so I hope you will participate in that and use the opportunity to put forward your particular suggestions for improving conditions under the bridge and elsewhere in the city”.
62.18 Adrian Hart asked the following supplementary question:
“Does the council accept how inaccessible parts of Brighton are especially the alternative to this route that takes 20-25 minutes longer?”
62.19 The Chair provided the following reply:
“Yes, I think we obviously accept that is a very difficult thing”.
(3) Stanmer Building consultation
62.20 Jamie Hooper read the following question:
“Can ETS ask Property & Design to urgently revisit those proposals submitted in the 2010 Public Consultation on the Home Farm, Stanmer buildings, and contact those who took part, as well as open up the invitation for additional proposals to new individuals, to see if there are any submissions that can be discussed in more detail and brought back to the next ETS?”
62.21 The Chair provided the following reply:
“The question needs to be put into context and can best be answered through the huge consultation and engagement exercise that the council, led by Property & Design is currently undertaking on the City Downland Estate Plan (CDEP), our Whole Estate Plan that is requirement of the South Downs National Park Authority (SDNPA). It is an extremely important policy document and a once in a lifetime opportunity for us to set out our proposed vision for the future of our downland estate and associated achievements focusing on the council’s main strategic objectives around climate change and biodiversity. As a council, we are re committed to protecting what makes our downland so special and valuable, but also looking for ways in which we can improve our estate and make this equally, if not more valuable over the next 100 years, with particular focus on the next 10 years.
Stanmer Park and its facilities fall within this large consultation and we will await the outcome of the engagement process facilitated by independent community specialists Planning for Real. Information about this consultation can be found on the council’s website which also sets out an indicative timetable. Participation has been good, and we have had a great response to the online discussion groups with over 400 people contributing their ideas and opinions. In addition to this, over 8000 people have visited our webpages to learn about the Plan. We are aiming to have the consultation findings and a draft Plan for further consultation in the Summer and a final report for approval by the Council and SDNPA at the end of 2021.
In terms of the scope of the Stanmer Traditional Agricultural Buildings (STAB) project, this has changed considerably over time following a number of specialist survey findings that have been undertaken. The surveys undertaken - Condition & Defects Survey , Conservation Structural Assessment , Structural Report, Asbestos Survey, Measured Building Survey, Timber Decay Survey, BAT Survey, Utility Survey helped us build up a picture of the condition of the Long Barn which has been found to be poor, compromised structurally and would require significant rebuilding to enable it to be used for the proposed uses that came out of the large public consultation that took place in November 2012. It was this consultation and the marketing exercise carried out in 2011 that helped us to develop our proposed project scheme, business case and associated funding that were given final Committee approval in 2016. To add to this it is clear that the kind of commercial use changes we were proposing for the STAB project are also not now feasible due to major changes in the economy and consequentially the approved business case is not viable.
The STAB project has been reviewed and the scope is now concentrating on the council’s repair liability of the Long Barn which is on the English Heritage “at risk” register. We will await the findings of the CDEP which should inform us of the future possible uses for the Long Barn, the perimeter buildings surrounding the yard and associated buildings opposite. Once we have these, we can then consider the future opportunities and options on how to take the STAB project forward”.
62.22 Jamie Hooper asked the following supplementary question:
“The Stanmer Stakeholders Group have not been consulted in this Downland Consultation, so if, as is anticipated, that the Council’s Policy & Resources Committee decides this Thursday that the work of the Stanmer Park Task & Finish Group will continue, can this Committee request that the Home Farm agricultural buildings be put permanently on the agenda of the Group until such time as a future outcome for them has been determined?”
62.23 The Chair stated that a written response to the question would be provided after the meeting.
(4) City centre traffic
62.24 Nigel Smith read the following question:
“How can Brighton & Hove be at the centre of a Greater Brighton & Hove which is all about commercial corridors enhancing trade if all traffic has to bye-pass the self-appointed capital, and will the benefits of VGP3 not be compromised by restricting access to the centre? Indeed, will this be factored in?”
62.25 The Chair provided the following reply:
“Thank you for your question Nigel. The role of the city within the wider Greater Brighton City Region is recognised by all of its partners and stakeholders. Its Board focuses on many aspects of the region’s economy, not just transport and trade, and I particularly welcome its recently announced ten pledges to help tackle the climate change crisis which include plans for energy, water, rewilding and a kelp forest.
Plans to create a more liveable city centre, which I believe you are indirectly referring to in your question, are just beginning and these will be considered later on during this meeting. They recognise the need for exemptions to any restrictions that may be introduced, especially for disabled drivers and public transport for example, and therefore do not involve restricting all traffic as you suggest. If progressed, more detailed analysis of possible options and consultation and engagement on proposals will be an essential and important part of the process and will inform the future decisions of this committee.
Creating more attractive and safe environments for people, whether in the city centre or local neighbourhoods, which are not dominated by vehicles will help enhance our economy, the environment and people’s health and wellbeing. By reducing traffic levels generally and providing people with alternatives, we will also tackle congestion and air quality - something that I know you and others have raised in previous questions to this committee. You consistently raise questions about how we can reduce carbon emissions, and we can’t do that without providing sustainable alternatives, so I can therefore assume you will be supporting our liveable city centre initiative.
The principle of reducing traffic in the central area, alongside other measures, is identified as a top priority for the city’s first ever Climate Assembly. We also have a report on that process today and I’m sure you will therefore find the committee’s discussion of both of these items of great interest, given your question.
I am pleased that you have also highlighted that Phase 3 of the Valley Gardens scheme will bring benefits to the city. The committee will be receiving a further report about the last consultation and the detailed design later this year. Decisions about the scheme will certainly take into account any other decisions that the council or other service providers have made regarding transport or other activities that may affect the city centre”.
(5) Parking surplus
62.26 Derek Wright read the following question:
“I would to propose that the on street parking income should be presented to show the amount each ward has contributed and also that any surplus after the surplus has been spent be allocated back to those wards respectively and spent on small environmental improvements project decided by the councillors of the ward after consulting their constituents?”
62.27 The Chair provided the following reply:
“The surplus from parking income for 19/20 was identified at a recent committee meeting and a significant amount of this is allocated on Citywide programmes such as Concessionary Travel and supported bus services. Currently any remaining surplus is being used on citywide transport improvements which benefit residents in the whole city
It would be very resource intensive to split the parking income received by ward as this would require very detailed work. It would mean breaking income down to individual machine payments, enforcement beats within certain wards along with the amount Penalty Charge Notices issued per officer and also pay by phone payments which is by code which can be split across wards. Parking Scheme boundaries are not all ward based either so would take additional work to split between wards.
I would also worry that this approach wouldn’t result in enhancing equality across the city nor would it encourage sustainable travel. For example, your approach may result in a situation where a ward where more people have cars and therefore generate more programme would get more investment from the council, which is counteractive to what we want to achieve which is sustainable and accessible travel as well as environmental improvements for the whole city. But thank you for your question and this interesting idea”.
(C) DEPUTATIONS
(1) An electric car-sharing co-operative for Brighton and Hove
62.28 The Committee considered a deputation that set out a case for a local co-operative, non-profit, electric car club and requested engagement from the committee.
62.29 The Chair provided the following response:
“Thank you very much for this deputation. This is welcome and in line with the city’s ambitions to improve air quality and become carbon neutral by 2030.
I have asked for officers to engage with you on this community led project to establish what would be required from the council to take it forward, such as charge points and parking spaces. I have asked that officers then produce a written briefing to members of this Committee following those discussions as an update, with the aim to produce a report on the topic at a later committee”.
62.30 Several members of the Committee expressed their endorsement for the proposals and hoped a detailed plan could be developed.
62.31 RESOLVED- That the Committee request an officer report on the matters detailed in the deputation.
(2) Communal bins- Roundhill
62.32 The Committee considered a deputation that requested the removal of named streets within the Roundhill from the roll-out of communal bins as these streets were unsuitable for such a scheme.
62.33 The Chair provided the following response:
“Thank you for your deputation. Firstly, I want to assure you that no decisions have been made about where communal bins will be introduced. As set out in the report to this committee in September 2020 the committee has only approved a consultation to commence with residents, staff and unions. The results of the consultation will be presented back to committee for a decision when completed.
A significant review of the communal system in Brighton & Hove is being completed through the service’s Modernisation Programme. The feedback in this deputation are some of the things we are seeking to address as part of this.
Through this work, we have identified some future principles to adopt for the communal bin system. These were presented to this Committee in June 2019 and include:
• Placing all three bin types together, where operationally and practically possible.
• Enclosing each set of bins in a bin bay to ensure bins do not move and infringe other highway spaces
• Changing the capacity to 1100 litres for all bin types to improve the resilience of the service. Collection frequencies will also increase
• Installing sound deadening glass bins to reduce the noise impact of these
• Installing CCTV in appropriate locations to deter moving of bins and fly-tipping. These will be monitored by Environmental Enforcement Officers and where sufficient evidence is available, Fixed Penalty Notices will be issued
• Introducing a cleaning and maintenance regime to improve and sustain the new communal bin system.
Further work is underway to refine this.
Once determined, the proposed locations, the size of communal bins and the frequencies of collections (as requested in the deputation) will be included in the consultation document. This is what has happened for previous communal bin consultation and I assure you will take place for the next round of consultations.
There will be a consultation with the residents of the roads identified in the report to this Committee in September 2020, which may or may not results in communal bins, but we must seek the views of all residents”.
62.34 RESOLVED- That the Committee note the deputation.
63 Items referred from Council
(A) PETITIONS
(1) Cycle Lane- Old Shoreham Road
63.1 The Committee considered a petition referred from the previous meeting of Full Council and signed by 522 people requesting that any plans to extend the cycle lane on Old Shoreham Road be halted until full consultation was undertaken.
63.2 The Chair provided the following response:
“Thank you for your petition. I’m pleased to inform you that at the last ETS committee in November the committee approved the consultation and engagement strategy for all Tranche Two schemes. Within that consultation strategy are plans to begin consultation and engagement on the proposal to extend the existing Old Shoreham Road Cycle lane further west as well as the existing first phase of the Old Shoreham Road scheme that was implemented as part of the Emergency Covid Transport Measures in April last year. I hope this gives you some reassurance that you and the people who have signed your petition will have the opportunity to have their say on the future plans”.
63.3 RESOLVED- That the Committee note the petition.
(B) DEPUTATIONS
(1) Council Communication of the Climate and Biodiversity Emergency
63.4 The Committee considered a deputation referred from the previous meeting of Full Council that requested the Council better communicate the severity of the climate and biodiversity emergency on its media platforms.
63.5 The Chair provided the following response:
“Thank you for your deputation.
You are absolutely correct; we are facing a climate and biodiversity emergency and it is something we are focussed on tackling.
Later in this meeting we will hear recommendations from the city’s first Climate Assembly and work being done to explore the possibility of a liveable city centre; just two examples of how seriously we are taking this global problem.
Reference to climate change was briefly removed from the homepage of the council’s website in December so that we could share important information on changes to services and support to residents over Christmas, our impending exit from the European Union and the Coronavirus pandemic.
We have since restored that link to the front page and changed its name to better reflect the seriousness of our climate and biodiversity emergency”.
63.6 RESOLVED- That the Committee note the deputation.
64 Member Involvement
(A) PETITIONS
(1) Traffic Calming and Crossing for Carlton Hill School – Councillor Childs
64.1 The Committee considered a petition signed by 89 people requesting traffic calming and a pedestrian crossing to improve safety around Carlton Hill School.
64.2 The Chair provided the following response:
“Thank you for raising your concerns and presenting the petition today.
I am aware that Carlton Hill School was previously part of our Safer Routes to School programme. As a result of being part of this programme a number of safety measures were introduced following discussion with the school. This included a raised informal crossing near the junction with John Street and a raised table to slow traffic near the school entrance. We also installed two electronic school warning signs and ‘slow’ markings on the carriageway.
Consideration would have been given to introducing a signalised crossing at the time but the number and frequency of people using the crossing would not meet the minimum criteria for the safe installation of a controlled crossing. If signalised crossings are introduced at locations that do not have consistent demand throughout the day, then this can increase the risk of a failure to stop incident occurring and therefore reduce safety. In addition to this, there would be insufficient footway width at the site of the existing informal crossing to accommodate the required signal equipment whilst still providing minimum footway widths for accessibility.
I appreciate that this may not be the response that you were hoping for and I know that you know we’re in a really difficult position after years of austerity but as traffic calming and electronic signage are already in place at this location, it is really difficult for us to offer further physical measures in this instance. In light of the concerns you have raised today, we will however review the current lines and signs and ensure that they meet current standards in terms of condition and location so that we can maximise safety within the current road layout.
As I mentioned earlier in a previous response, later this year we will be having a report about this unfair approach to how we allocate traffic calming measures, but I also want to emphasise that the agenda items today on the climate assembly and liveable city centre aim to tackle road safety in a much more forward thinking approach. Reducing the amount of cars on the road and allowing people to choose sustainable, active and public transport will help make our roads safer for all users, and that is a major priority for us as an administration”.
64.3 RESOLVED- That the Committee note the petition.
(2) Queens Park School - Safer Streets - Road Closure Order – Councillor Childs
64.4 The Committee considered a petition signed by 107 people requesting the introduction of a school street closure order on the street/s adjacent to Queens Park Primary School due to regular incidents of dangerous driving and parking.
64.5 The Chair provided the following response:
“Thank you for bringing this petition to the committee.
As you will be aware, we are fully committed to introducing School Streets across the city having brought an amendment to the ETS Committee on 23 June 2020. Following the successful implementation of 9 road closures through the Emergency School Streets Programme, I have asked officers to look at how School Streets can be delivered as part of a future programme which can delivered within budget allocations starting in the next financial year.
We are keen to support a School Streets closure at Queen’s Park and I can assure you that it will a priority school for a closure under any future programme. However, these schemes do rely heavily on volunteers for setting up and operating the road closures at both ends of the day so it is very resource intensive and therefore relies on volunteers from the schools to come forward so we will be looking to you and fellow petitioners from the community to make this possible. Officers will always seek to improve road safety where possible and through a future School Streets programme, we will be able to explore where physical measures can be introduced to reduce the pressure on schools to recruit high numbers of volunteers. Proposals will be discussed with ward councillors and schools as well as the wider community.
I hope that gives you and can give your residents some assurances that your school is being worked through and you will be contacted by officers at the earliest opportunity with some proposals”.
64.6 Councillor Wares asked if reports would be submitted to the committee on the matter.
64.7 The Chair confirmed a report would be received by a future meeting with the funding and budget implications outlined.
64.8 Several committee members expressed support for a road closure order around Queen’s Park Primary School and hoped funding could be found to help it to be progressed.
64.9 RESOLVED- That the Committee note the petition.
65 Fees and Charges 2021/22
65.1 The Committee considered a joint report of the Executive Director, Economy, Environment & Culture, the Interim Executive Director, Housing, Neighbourhoods & Communities and the Executive Lead Officer, Strategy, Governance & Law that set out the proposed 2021/22 fees and charges for the service areas covered by the Environment, Transport and Sustainability Committee in accordance with corporate regulations and policy.
65.2 Councillor Wares stated that whilst he welcomed the levelling in some charges such as monthly parking permits and traders’ fees, Councillor Wares stated that the Conservative Group could not support the widespread and in places, significant rises in fees and charges and would be voting against the recommendations. Councillor Wares highlighted the rises in Bereavement service charges as particularly insensitive at the current time.
65.3 Councillor Williams stated that now was not the time to be increasing parking charges as people shouldn’t be penalised for wanting to be safe in a pandemic and therefore avoiding public transport.
65.4 Councillor Brown agreed that parking charges should not be increased as people may avoid public transport for some time and businesses needed as much support as possible when they eventually re-opened. Councillor Brown indicated several significant increases in fees and charges and explained that this meant she could not support the report recommendations.
65.5 Councillor Appich stated that the rises in fees and charges were unacceptable in a pandemic and increasing parking charges would further hinder the visitor economy. Councillor Appich stated that whilst the Labour Group opposed the increases, the matter would be better dealt with at Budget Council rather than in a piecemeal fashion and therefore, the Labour Group would be abstaining on the report recommendations.
65.6 Councillor Wilkinson concurred with the comments made by Councillor Appich adding that continually seeking to increase parking charges in the name of sustainable transport was not a long-term strategy.
65.7 RESOLVED-
1) That the Committee approves the proposed fees and charges for 2021/22 as set out within the report and its appendices.
2) That Committee delegates authority to the Executive Director of Economy, Environment & Culture (in relation to paragraphs 3.4 - 3.22), the Executive Director of Housing, Neighbourhoods & Communities (in relation to paragraphs 3.23 - 3.26) and to the Executive Lead Officer – Strategy, Governance & Law (in relation to paragraphs 3.27 – 3.33) to change fees and charges as notified and set by central Government during the year.
66 Brighton & Hove Climate Assembly
66.1 The Committee considered a report of the Executive Director, Economy, Environment & Culture that set out the final report on the Brighton and Hove Climate Assembly and the interim report of the Youth Climate Assembly and requested approval that officers consider the findings in the development of the Carbon Neutral Plan, Local Transport Plan 5 (LTP5) and the Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan (LCWIP).
66.2 In response to questions from Councillor Appich, it was explained that a communications strategy would be devised by the cross-party working group and there were plans to recruit a communications and engagement officer. Plans for local schemes could be taken to the cross-party working group to consider and the recommendations would be implemented through policy development and transport schemes such as the LTP and LCWIP that would be reported through this committee.
66.3 In response to Councillor Wares, the Chair stated that all recommendations made would be considered by the Administration and that included viability of a Park & Ride scheme. It was further clarified that developing a matrix of relationship relating to all ten recommendations would be very challenging until the recommendations were considered in depth and scoped and the process for feedback to the Climate Assembly was something that could be taken back to the cross-party working group.
66.4 Committee members expressed endorsement and support for the recommendations and praised the high standard of report from the Climate Assembly and Youth Assembly members and expressed their thanks to all of those that took part. Committee Members detailed the importance of addressing climate change and that the report represented a step change in efforts to do so and must be acted upon in an inclusive manner.
66.5 RESOLVED- That the Environment, Transport & Sustainability Committee:
1) Welcomes the final report of the Brighton & Hove Climate Assembly (Findings Report attached in Appendix 1) and the interim report of the Youth Climate Assembly (attached in Appendix 2);
2) Notes the findings of the Brighton & Hove Climate Assembly, including the assembly’s 10 key recommendations that are set out on p4 of the Climate Assembly report at Appendix 1, and notes the interim findings of the Youth Climate Assembly at Appendix 2;
3) Notes the initial response of the city council as set out in Appendix 3;
4) Requests that officers consider the findings of the Brighton & Hove Climate Assembly and the Youth Climate Assembly when developing the fifth Local Transport Plan, the Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan and further developing current transport initiatives such as the Liveable City Centre and Ultra Low Emission Zone schemes.
67 Liveable City Centre and Ultra Low Emission Zone Initial Feasibility Study
67.1 The Committee considered a report of the Executive Director, Economy, Environment & Culture that summarised the initial work undertaken on possible options for a Liveable City Centre (previously referred to as a Car-Free City Centre) and expanded Ultra Low Emission Zone in the city, following requests made by the committee. It outlined the technical work undertaken to arrive at conclusions for both initiatives and summarises the initial recommendations set out in a pre-feasibility technical study.
67.2 Committee members commended the high standard of the report and highlighted the possible improvements for public health and wellbeing, improving air quality, reducing carbon emissions and the boosting the local economy.
67.3 Councillor Wares stated that the proposals needed more thought and appeared rushed and the report was an options scoping exercise not a proper feasibility study. Councillor Wares stated that on that basis, and the lack of commitment for full consultation on the proposals, the Conservative Group would be abstaining on the report.
67.4 RESOLVED-
1) That the Committee note the analysis and outcomes of the initial feasibility work on creating a Liveable City Centre and expanded Ultra Low Emission Zone options for the city.
2) That the Committee agree that the options summarised in paragraphs 3.8 and 3.9 of this report (and illustrated in Chapter 3 of Appendix 1 to this report) should be developed further through more detailed, quantified assessments, which will include the development of business cases and plans for engagement and consultation to identify preferred options for each project.
3) That the Committee requests that reports are brought back to future meetings of this committee for approval of the further development of the business cases and plans for engagement and consultation for the Liveable City Centre and expanded Ultra Low Emission Zone projects.
68 Permit Review
68.1 The Committee considered a report of the Executive Director, Economy, Environment & Culture that proposed recommendations for changes to the operation of various parking permits throughout the city.
68.2 Councillor Appich moved a motion on behalf of the Labour Group to amend the recommendations as shown in bold italics below:
2.1 That the Committee agrees to amend the following permits as outlined in Appendix A
·School Permit Eligibility and Permit Allocation*
·Trial Business Visitor Permits in Zone S and V
·Hotel Permit Parking
2.2 That the Committee agree that the proposal for a checklist and survey for School Permits as detailed at Appendix A of the report be removed.
68.3 Introducing the motion, Councillor Appich stated its purpose was to avoid adding further administrative and bureaucratic processes on to schools particularly at a time when there was significant and sometimes urgent adjustments arising from the pandemic.
68.4 Councillor Williams formally seconded the motion.
68.5 The Chair observed that whilst she fully supported all school staff, the Green Group would not be supporting the motion as it went against the council’s commitments on Carbon Neutrality and the requirement was for only 10% of staff to complete a survey on their active travel habits and how they could be enhanced.
68.6 Councillor Wares stated that he supported the changes on School Permit Eligibility and Permit Allocation and Trial Business Visitor Permits in Zone S and V but did not support the changes proposed to Hotel Permit parking so would reluctantly be voting against the report recommendations.
68.7 The Chair put the motion to the vote that failed.
68.8 The Chair then put the recommendations to the vote that passed.
68.9 RESOLVED-
1) That the Committee agrees to amend the following permits as outlined in Appendix A.
• School Permit Eligibility and Permit Allocation
• Trial Business Visitor Permits in Zone S and V
• Hotel Permit Parking
69 Table and Chair licensing
69.1 RESOLVED-
1) That Committee approve for the Council to continue to agree licences under the Business and Planning Act 2020 from April 2021 to September 2021 (or when the Business and Planning Act expires)
2) That Committee approve the council waive the maximum fee chargeable under the Business and Planning Act 2020 to continue to support local businesses through the summer months.
3) That if the Business and Planning Act 2020 expires in September 2021 as it is currently due to do, that the Committee agree that the Council ask businesses to apply for a licence to place outside seating on the highway under the Highways Act 1980 and pay the standard fee, this licence will run for a year and then be annually renewed.
70 Stanmer Village Parking Scheme
70.1 RESOLVED-
1) That, having taken account of responses to the consultation, the Committee approves the Stanmer Village Parking Management Scheme as detailed in Appendix 1 and plan Appendix 2
2) That the Committee delegates authority to the Executive Director Economy, Environment and Culture to make such minor changes to the scheme as he considers appropriate following consultation with the Stanmer Village residents and businesses.
3) That the Committee agree that the parking scheme be reviewed 18 months after implementation, in line with the scheduled review of the TRO, to consider how well it is working, with any recommendations for changes to the scheme to be presented in a report to the Environment, Transport & Sustainability (ETS) Committee within the TRO review report.
71 Self- Managed Sports Facilities in Parks and Recreation Grounds
71.1 The Committee considered a report of the Executive Director, Economy, Environment & Culture that recommend that the criteria set out in Appendix 2 of the report in relation to the transfer of outdoor sports facilities in parks and recreation grounds be adopted and added to the Community Asset Transfer Policy (CATP).
71.2 Councillor Appich moved a motion on behalf of the Labour Group to amend the recommendations as shown in bold italics below:
That Environment Transport and Sustainability Committee:
2.1 Notes the progress made in transferring outdoor sports facilities to sports clubs and community organisations.
2.2 Recommends that Policy and Resources Committee approves the additional criteria which are to be considered in determining the transfer of outdoor sports facilities in parks to community organisations as set out in appendix 2 and that they are added to the CATP as an appendix.
2.3 Recommends that Policy and Resources Committee approves a further condition of transfer which will allow the use of the facilities by local residents on low incomes at a reduced rate.
2.4 Recommends that Policy and Resources Committee approves that consultation with the community and its representatives takes place before any lease or license is granted.
71.3 Introducing the motion, Councillor Appich stated that its purpose was to ensure thorough consultation took place and to guarantee that low income households living in the facility could continue to access such facilities if they were transferred.
71.4 Councillor Fowler formally seconded the motion.
71.5 Councillor Wares stated that he was very cautious about adding further conditions to the policy as many things the amendment sought such as enhanced community access was already in place in the CATP. New conditions may create an artificial barrier to community groups who had much greater access to funding than the council and could be a detriment to the improvement of the facilities. Councillor Wares stated that the Conservative Group would be abstaining on the Labour Group motion.
71.6 The Chair then put the motion to the vote that passed.
71.7 The Chair then put the recommendations as amended to the vote that were agreed.
71.8 RESOLVED-
That Environment Transport and Sustainability Committee:
1) Notes the progress made in transferring outdoor sports facilities to sports clubs and community organisations.
2) Recommends that Policy and Resources Committee approves the additional criteria which are to be considered in determining the transfer of outdoor sports facilities in parks to community organisations as set out in appendix 2 and that they are added to the CATP as an appendix.
3) Recommends that Policy and Resources Committee approves a further condition of transfer which will allow the use of the facilities by local residents on low incomes at a reduced rate.
4) Recommends that Policy and Resources Committee approves that consultation with the community and its representatives takes place before any lease or license is granted.
72 Playground Refurbishment Programme 2021-2025
72.1 The Committee considered a report of the Executive Director, Economy, Environment & Culture that set out a new strategy for playground refurbishment and also seeks approval in relation to the funding and procurement of the programme.
72.2 In response to a question from Councillor Wares, the Park Projects & Strategy Manager confirmed that should funding identified in the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) be approved, discussions could commence on a joint approach for playground refurbishment where sites were located on both HRA and public land.
72.3 Councillor Wilkinson moved a motion on behalf of the Labour Group to amend the recommendations as shown in bold italics below:
That Environment Transport and Sustainability Committee:
2.1 Recommends to Policy & Resources Committee that it approve the playground refurbishment programme set out in appendix 1.
2.2 Recommends to Policy & Resources Committee that it approves borrowing of up to £0.539m to contribute to the refurbishment of playgrounds.
2.3 Recommends to Policy & Resources Committee that it delegates authority to the Executive Director of Economy Environment and Culture to procure and award contracts for up to £3m for playground refurbishment over a period of up to 4 years.
2.4 Recommends to Policy & Resources that the refurbishment programme is informed by consultation with disability groups in order to improve disability access to local playgrounds.
72.4 Introducing the motion, Councillor Wilkinson stated that the purpose of the motion was explicitly confirm that consultation with disability groups and stakeholders would take place in relation to any refurbishments.
72.5 Councillor Williams formally seconded the motion.
72.6 Committee members collectively welcomed the report and commended the innovative approach taken to obtain funding for refurbishment.
72.7 The Chair then put the Labour Group motion to the vote that passed.
72.8 The Chair then put the recommendations as amended to the vote that was agreed.
72.9 RESOLVED- That Environment Transport and Sustainability Committee:
1) Recommends to Policy & Resources Committee that it approve the playground refurbishment programme set out in appendix 1.
2) Recommends to Policy & Resources Committee that it approves borrowing of up to £0.539m to contribute to the refurbishment of playgrounds.
3) Recommends to Policy & Resources Committee that it delegates authority to the Executive Director of Economy Environment and Culture to procure and award contracts for up to £3m for playground refurbishment over a period of up to 4 years.
4) Recommends to Policy & Resources that the refurbishment programme is informed by consultation with disability groups in order to improve disability access to local playgrounds.
73 Items referred for Full Council
73.1 No items were referred to Full Council for information.
The meeting concluded at 7.45pm
|
Signed
|
Chair |
||
|
Dated this |
day of |
|
|