DEPUTATIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
A period of not more than fifteen minutes shall be allowed at each ordinary meeting of the Council for the hearing of deputations from members of the public. Each deputation may be heard for a maximum of five minutes.
Deputations received:
(1) Deputation: Top Triangle Parking Survey
1. Remain as part of a light-touch scheme (restricted only two hours a day, free at weekends)
2. Or, become part of a full touch scheme (to match Zone V)
Only 44.7% of households responded and just over half of these (51%) asked to make Zone S a full touch scheme.
At the beginning of March 2020, the council decided to impose a third option – to make some streets in Zone S, Arnold Street, Baxter Street, Carlyle Street, Cromwell Street and Lynton Street, part of Zone V. No one voted for this as it was not one of the options on the consultation.
For residents in the ‘Top Triangle’ streets that have now moved to Zone V, this has resulted in significantly fewer spaces available to park nearby at a higher cost per annum. Meanwhile there are many spaces on surrounding streets that remained in Zone S (Queens Park Road, Elm Grove, Whippingham Road, Bonchurch Road, etc.) which these residents are now unable to park in unrestricted.
Myself and a group of fellow Top Triangle residents, Anne Cleary & Mel Sanson of Lynton Street, Emma Barr of Arnold Street, Freya Wynn-Jones & Anthony Atkinson of Baxter Street and Maxine Brady of Cromwell Street felt strongly this change had resulted in a very negative outcome and decided to survey residents to gauge opinion on the change.
We began our survey in July 2020 and by the end of August 2020 had managed to collect 140 responses.
I was unable to attach a full report of the survey to this deputation, but in summary, 87.1% of respondents indicated that the change in parking zone had affected them negatively. While 86.4% of respondents support a switch back to Zone S.
68.6% of respondents indicated they took part in the original council consultation and of these, 97.2% were not aware that the council might split the area consulted and only transfer part of it to Zone V.
The full report contains many testimonies that illustrate the difficulties residents now face when trying to park, I can provide a copy if you would like to see it. I have included a selection of testimonies in the supplementary information.
We ask that Arnold Street, Baxter Street, Carlyle Street, Cromwell Street and Lynton Street, are reverted to the previous state of affairs as Zone S as soon as possible.
Supported by:
Alexander Haygarth (Spokesperson)
Lisa Haygarth
Mel Sanson
Freya Wynn-Jones
Anthony Atkinson
Emma Barr
Supplemental Information - Parking Survey Results Summary
Below are some selected comments that expanded on this question:
“It is now very difficult to find a parking space on any of the top triangle streets. Previously, as part of zone S, we were able to park on Queens Park Road, Elm Grove or the streets to the east of Elm Grove that are near our house. Those streets are now inaccessible meaning if there are no spaces on the top triangle roads we are having to park a much larger distance away from our house. This can be very difficult especially as we have young children.”
“currently heavily pregnant with a toddler and if I can't find parking on my street, which is often, then I have to park at least 100 metres away on any of the neighbouring roads. The option of not being able to park on queens park or Elm Grove any more is very frustrating”
“The change has absolutely had a negative effect. It's been extremely difficult finding spaces on the street or nearby streets for the top triangle. No zone V along Queens Park Road either or nearby in Elm Grove therefore parking far down past the Pepper Pot or past The Flour Pot cafe means walking back uphill which is just unfair how this zone is made up. Plus the increase in price and becoming a hard touch zone just does not provide any benefit. Zone S at least gave the opportunity to park nearby if you could not get a space on your own street.”
“I am a keyworker and often get home after 6pm to have to drive around for up to 45 minutes to try and find a parking spot. I'm disappointed that having paid a lot for a permit I can't park or have to park far away adding a significant amount of time and stress to already long and stressful days.”
“We can park on a weekend now but it’s hard to tell how the effects have been as Covid has meant people using their cars less. The negative is that if the spaces are full you have to park further away than before. It should be the whole area as one zone being an island of V in a sea of S is not that helpful.”
“It was our understanding that the entire zone s would be changed to v when we accepted the proposal, however as it was just our area that was changed it has reduced the area available to park for us so we now have to park further from the house more frequently.”
Below are some selected comments that expanded on this question:
“As explained above, we weren't clear that this was the plan and would not have voted for this option had we fully understood that.”
“Queens Park Road should have been included. I still cannot understand why not.”
“I have already spoken to my councillor about how disappointed I am with this change. I can’t imagine why anyone would want this situation.”
“I did mean to fill in the survey, and deeply regretted not. I would have voted to keep it as it was.”
(2) Deputation: Cycle Lane Projects - Current Consequences and Exhaust Emissions
The Hove Ambulance and Fire Service both start their emergency runs both to the East and West of Old Shoreham Road. The new cycle lane and poles stop motorists moving left, which has previously been the requirement and as these vehicles are too wide to proceed between the pavement and the poles, they are "trapped" in single lane traffic, as also are Police vehicles.
Brighton seafront - new disabled and parking bays have been placed in between two cycle lanes and the single traffic lane to the West, because of this, disabled passengers have to unload and cross two cycle lanes to the safety of the pavement. The disabled driver opens the car door to the single traffic lane and then also has to cross two cycle lanes. Disabled bays in the middle of the road are an accident waiting to happen.
The consequences of the above mentioned is a serious slowdown of traffic. The exhaust emissions being directly proportional to the amount of fuel consumed, in other words, the slower the vehicle travels the lower the gear engaged, hence, very high emissions and even worse in a start-stop situation which is now the case along the seafront road.
I have not joined the protestors, I have not written to the local press, or lambasted the Council on Facebook, nor indeed the petition against the Council relating to this matter, however, the magnitude of this project and signs displayed suggest all is a "temporary measure".
At great expense, a U turn has already been invoked between the aquarium and West Street and on health and safety grounds I respectfully ask for a complete review, with full transparency of your future intentions.
Supported by:
Peter Llewellyn (Spokesperson)
Mr M Simmons
Mr P Allen
Mrs J Borice
Mrs B Cherriman
J A Stevens
(3) Deputation: Funding for temporary cycle lanes
In the current climate of misinformation and fear mongering by much of the media and in local and national politics it is vital we stick to facts, not anecdote.
- We urgently need more safe, socially-distanced ways of travelling
- 66% of all adults and 71% of women believe it is too dangerous to cycle on our roads[i]
- In 2019, 154 cyclists were injured in Brighton & Hove[ii]
- There are twice as many cars on UK roads as there were in the 1990s.[iii]
- For years, pollution has exceeded legal levels across our city[iv]
- Road transport accounts for 22% of all greenhouse emissions, which have hardly fallen since the 1990s[v]
- Inactivity-related diseases cost the NHS £1bn each year, with further indirect costs of £8.2bn.[vi]
- We will miss the UK’s carbon-reduction targets unless we reduce vehicle traffic by 20 – 60%[vii]
- For the 40% of households[viii] who don’t have a car, and the many people in car-owning households who can’t drive or have no access to a car, Covid-safe transport is hard to come by.
Our government recognises this and has instructed councils to take immediate action to ensure cycling becomes mass transit.[ix] That’s why half a million was awarded to our council transport team to provide cycle lanes so people can travel safely.[x] Some people mistakenly believe that congestion and emissions are not due to excessive vehicle use, but cycle lanes, and as long as we keep the traffic flowing, everything will be fine. Some people have protested to remove cycle lanes, while ignoring the evidence-based research about how safe cycling routes can help reduce traffic and car dependency and improve health. We hope that officially-gathered traffic data from the council will show how these facilities are making a real difference to many people’s lives.
No one has presented any counter-evidence, except self-conducted surveys which merely back up what we already know: our streets are choked with cars, which has a devastating impact on our economy and health service. This reinforces the need for more protected cycle routes so that more people can benefit and travel safely.
38% of people at risk of deprivation, 36% of women, and 31% of disabled people who do not cycle would like to start.[xi] For this, and for the population in general, we need safer roads. A couple of cycle lanes are not enough. How can you get onto them if feeder roads are full of fast moving traffic and illegally-parked cars, such as Boundary Road or the A259 and A270 in Portslade? Many children now cycle to school, but how can they do so safely without protected space?
With Tranche 2 funding for new temporary cycle lanes, we have a unique chance to drastically improve things. Without it there is no way our council, already under huge financial pressure, will be able magic up funding to do this at some undefined later date. Meanwhile, Covid is worsening and the community need is real and urgent. However, the Conservatives and Labour are calling for a pause to new temporary cycle lanes while they consult the public and review the existing ones. Consultation after consultation across the UK has concluded that protected safe space is essential for cycling. As all councillors know, consultation is taking place and is open until the end of October. Their call for these urgent measures to be delayed will cause catastrophic damage to our community and economy. If our council misses the £2.7 million of government funding for the next stage of measures the damage will last many years.
We call upon councillors to listen to evidence and fact and to commit to rolling out all the planned protected cycle lanes under Tranche 2 in a timescale that does not risk losing funding.
Supported by:
Cicely Lloyd (Spokesperson)
Boyd Darling
Anthony Rogers
Amelia Mills
Jeremy Mabbitt
Ali Ghanimi
Rachel Ayuba
Penelope Erskine
Victoria Mery Carreño
Emmanuel Ntawuyirusha
Michelle Clarke
Angela Devas
(4) Deputation: Stanmer Park/Brighton Dogwatch
Brighton Dogwatch is a local constituted group who primarily run a Facebook page helping reunite lost and stolen dogs in Brighton/Hove and around Sussex. We currently have over twelve thousand followers who help us.
Walking a dog is good for human health
There have been numerous studies which show how dog walking helps human physical and mental health. Dog walking amounts to around a million extra hours of exercise for people who have dogs in Brighton and Hove each year.
How much money does this physical activity get from the council? One of the top physical activity by time undertaken in the City. How many mentions does dog walking get in the council’s 19 page “Sport and Physical Activity Strategy 2013-2018” (latest version in B&H). The answer is none. Nothing in the plan, nothing in the budgets
We feel that the council should support around a million incremental hours of exercise by local residents each year. The walking environment is key to achieving longer distances and Stanmer Park is a great place to enjoy and explore. These proposals effectively penalise people for exercising more. This is wrong and a tax on people who want to maintain their health.
In the city plan (2020-2023) the council states “We will focus on preventative services in delivering the high level goals of our health and wellbeing strategy: starting, living, ageing and dying well. This includes promoting healthy eating, physical activity, sexual health, reducing smoking and substance misuse and reducing social isolation”. However, the introduction of parking charges in a leisure park will place a charge on physical activity (and so reduce not increase it) and mean dog walkers will visit less, increasing social isolation. So the proposals as they stand do not fit with the city’s plan
We think that park visits should be free (for up to 4 hours) so that people can be encouraged to exercise and take advantage of the fantastic environment of Stanmer Park. With 7 in 8 park visitors arriving by car (and probably a higher proportion of dog walkers), we think taxing car parking will discourage people and will ration the park to those most able to pay.
The proposed car parking charges will cost daily dog walkers over £500 a year – this is a huge cost and will discourage visiting or tax their efforts to keep healthy.
Ideally, we would like to see short term parking remain free to encourage dog walking and exercise around the park grounds. We do understand the wish to show on-going revenues for the park so if car park charging is to be introduced, we believe that there is a more positive way to achieve this:
A “Park Supporter” membership could be introduced (along with the proposed ad hoc parking charges for infrequent users).
This membership could provide free parking (up to 4 hours is suggested to prevent abuse by university staff and students seeking cheaper alternative parking)
Take the best from the Forestry Commission’s “Discovery Pass” scheme (£32 per year) and other similar supporter membership groups such as the National Trust.
We feel that this “Park Supporter” (or another more creative name!) is a way to achieve on-going revenues in a positive way. It would allow locals to regularly enjoy the park, feel more of a part of the project, as well as support its upkeep for a membership fee (eg. £30-£40 per year)
Supported by:
Nick Malyon (Spokesperson)
Felicity McInnes
Scott Anthony Dann
Kate Toomer
Jenniffer Bilz
Adelle Scott
(5) Deputation: Aldrington Rec (Wish Park) Football Club Storage Space
As Chairman of Poets’ Corner Football Club, Hove, I wish to put forward a case at the Brighton & Hove City Council meeting on September 29th for the Club to be granted a small amount of storage space at Aldrington Rec (Wish Park), for matchday and training activities. The outlined points I will present are:
- Exponential growth of our FA-registered club since its formation in 2016, that now encompasses 85 players, six separate sides across five age groups (from under-6s up tp under-12s, including a girls’ team) and 15 volunteer coaches.
- Despite the value we provide to local youngsters and our use of Wish Park four days a week, we have never had any storage space for equipment at our home ground. This includes foldaway goals (two sizes), pop-up goals, poles, cones, discs and footballs.
- At present, equipment has to be moved to and from Wish Park and stored at parents’ houses. As well as being cumbersome and heavy, this causes real issues in terms of access.
- Parents already undertake extensive volunteer duties, including putting up goals, linesman and referee duties, fundraising etc; we believe for a respected, established football club, we should be at the point of having our own store for equipment.
- Wish Park’s other established club, West Hove Dynamos, were granted permission to install a large storage container in the north-west corner, which stores their matchday equipment and materials for their weekly profit-making drop-in sessions. Despite being a purely non-profit club with greater player numbers than Dynamos, we have no facility.
- Storage space exists in the café/toilet/changing room block while, as I understand it, there is also an isolated, external cupboard in the Pavilion that could be made available.
- As a club, our continued rapid expansion and popularity in the community is now reliant on being granted what would only be a small amount of storage at our home ground.
Supported by:
James Evans (Spokesperson)
Dr Rob Galloway
Trevor James Wilson
Anthony Klein
Kevin Thornton
Steve Seary
Andy Moore
Piers Mandeville
Lucy Lemee
Frank Ljubic
David Bryant
Jodi Walton
Ina Reese
(6) Deputation: Old Shoreham Road temporary cycle lane usage
The cycle lane on the A270 Old Shoreham Road was introduced in May with neither notice nor consultation over the VE Bank Holiday Friday weekend. An entire lane of the road has been removed in each direction, leaving only one lane of traffic on this de facto ring road. This is causing considerable disruption, despite traffic levels still being significantly lower than pre-Covid levels.
No monitoring of cycle lanes was carried out beforehand, and although this was meant to start several months ago, no figures have yet been released of cycle journeys on the new lanes. Even the most optimistic figures from cycling groups only suggest a level of just below 2% of total traffic. In the absence of accurate breakdown of the figures, we have produced our own.
The 33 cyclists per hour using the OSR cycle lane means that just FOUR cyclists are cycling in each direction every quarter of an hour, an average of just ONE every 4 minutes!
This is clearly an unsuitable route for a cycle lane; it is hilly and cyclists prefer the flatter Portland Road/Church Road/Western Road route or the seafront. Cyclists stopping at traffic lights at the bottom of hills fail to start their journeys again and have to dismount and walk.
The last time a cycle lane was considered along this route in 2009, there was a full consultation involving 1,700 households and all local businesses and schools, and it was rejected due to safety concerns, which have not been addressed. The Council’s much-touted figure of a 61% increase since 2016 sounds impressive - until we note that this represents an increase from approximately 3 bikes every 15 mins to 4 bikes every 15 minutes!
‘Phase 1’, near BHASVIC/Upper Drive, continues to be severely under-utilised to this day. According to official Council figures, its total usage has not increased over the past 5 years. Also, it has not delivered on one of its key success criteria, which was to encourage more secondary-age schoolchildren to cycle to school. To date, Council figures tell us that (pre-pandemic), only 4% of all students at secondary schools across the City cycle to school.
Emergency vehicles are experiencing delays and have to divert through neighbouring residential roads, especially Olive Road/Hallyburton Road to escape standing traffic, as are commercial vehicles such as delivery drivers, taxis and other local tradesmen.
Additionally, any consultations now being planned are carried out online. According to official ONS figures, nearly 4,000 55-64s and nearly 10,000 over 65s in Brighton never use the internet. When contacting Brighton Council a Councillor was recently advised to request printed questionnaires on an individual basis for any in his ward who had ‘special needs’ that meant that they were not online. But these numbers – 13,000 - are a significant proportion of the electorate, and cannot continue to be ignored! This is clearly an Equalities issue, going against the Council’s own Equalities policies.
A quarter of Over-65s are effectively being disenfranchised!
To summarise, the little-used OSR cycle lane has taken 50% of vehicle capacity for only 2% of traffic that is cycles. It is dangerous, ill thought out and in the wrong place – and is as under-utilised as the established one at the ‘BHASVIC’ end of the road.
Supported by:
Suzie Silver (Spokesperson)
Alison McMillan-Puri
Vivian Knight
Louise O’Hare
Julie O’Neil
Supporting Information
(7) Deputation: Blue Badge parking/Disability Access
On 12th August 2020, BADGE Action Group wrote to ET&S & TECC Committee
Chairs, setting out 5 red flag issues for Blue Badge parking/Disability Access. Badge
& Possability People subsequently joined the informal weekly Advisory Group, set up
in May - our first involvement in the Covid Transport Action Plan. The 3 resident
Stakeholders (Community Works, Friends of the Earth, & Pedal People) represent
the eco/cycling perspective. There are no Terms of Reference or Minutes.
The Officer Report 5.1/5.2 states that the LCWIP involved workshops with
accessibility groups representing equality/disability. Possability People were
the only disability group involved in an online presentation (4/6/20) and their Position
Statement refutes that this was meaningful Consultation (Appendix 1). The Council
did not consult on the Disability element of the Equality Impact Assessment. The
Sept 2020 Update to the Equality Impact & Outcome Assessment now states the
Council will “Ensure essential access for disabled people is maintained ….Overall
the number of disabled parking bays has not reduced ….. Where concerns about
disabled access have been raised, traffic regulation orders have been amended and
alternative accessible solutions have been sought.”
6 weeks on from sounding the Equalities Alarm, little, if anything, is resolved:
TRO 14: Badge holders reported (into the Survey) that A259 Seafront disabled bays
are inadequate/inaccessible/unsafe. Rear ramps can’t drop, the ‘safety buffer’ is
narrower than a child’s wheelchair. Requests for a specific RA have been detoured
via a 2nd generic Road Safety Audit. Our offer of (non)user feedback was not taken
up. The “no loss of disabled bays” rhetoric masks that there’s only 7 bays along the
whole seafront (plus the added loss of 88 P&D spaces backup).
TR017/17a: wiped out 17(est.) Pier end Madeira Drive bays, stranding people far
away @Dukes Mound. TRO 17a made the indignity of people asking a Gatekeeper
to be allowed to use the #ChangingPlaces toilet official.
TRO 11: 4 of the 8 listed Bartholomew Square disabled bays are missing, and a 3hr
time limit reduces access to work & leisure. Social media pressure ensured the Duke
Street replacement bays were finally painted in, meanwhile café customers brunched
on the still half visible “disabled” marking of the removed ones.
TRO 16: “reduce and relocate disabled bays (in Zone C, Zone Y)” took away 2 of the
(only) 4 London Road bays (plus P&D backup), so this ‘on a budget’ shopping area
has become a ‘no access’ zone; St James Street has lost meterage and gained a 3
hr time limit.
TRO 12: was amended after 5 weeks to permit access to existing Gardner Street
bays. The ‘creeping’ cafe furniture now makes the Laines unwelcoming for those
with vision &/or mobility impairments.
TRO 15: introduced a 2pm curfew for New Road badge bays, as well as the 3 hour
time limit, despite the Road being open to traffic until 5pm. No alternative
provision/regard has been made for disabled people to equally “Eat Out” there.
We ask if The Council have fallen short of their Public Sector Equalities Duties,
Tranche 1&2 Equalities requirements, Key Principle A of the City’s Urgent Response
Transport Action Plan and Policy Framework, and the City’s own Vision & Values?
We ask that the council makes urgent reparation to all parking issues, access and
curfews, without further diversion, and commits to including future improvements to
enhance disabled citizens’ outcomes within Tranche 1 & 2 schemes.
Pippa Hodge (Spokesperson)
Roy Pennington
Becky Jenner
Paul and Mari Still
Maxine Pallister
Glynis Freeman
Rob Arbery
Geraldine Des Moulins