Brighton & Hove City Council
Environment, Transport & Sustainability Committee
4.00pm16 March 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
74 Procedural Business
74(a) Declarations of substitutes
74.1 There were none.
74(b) Declarations of interest
74.2 Councillor Lloyd declared a non-pecuniary interest in several items on the agenda as a current employee of Sustrans.
74(c) Exclusion of press and public
74.3 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).
74.4 RESOLVED- That the press and public be excluded from the meeting during the items listed as confidential on the agenda.
75 Minutes
75.1 RESOLVED- That the minutes of the previous meeting held on 19 January 2021 be approved and signed as the correct record.
76 Chairs Communications
76.1 The Chair provided the following communications:
“As you know, we’ve got £2.37m of central government funding for local walking and cycling schemes, through the Active Travel Fund. Consultation for the schemes took place from 1st Feb to 14th March according to the Consultation Plan agreed by this committee in December. Initial results show nearly 5,000 responses to the consultation survey, we’ve also had great feedback through various stakeholder sessions, and It’s also been great to see the feedback from the various focus groups that were held, including with young people, members of the disabled community, and older people – as we know that improving transport infrastructure for all users really impacts on social equality
Thank you to everyone who has had their say on this. This was not a referendum, which I know some people wanted – but we followed the government guidance and the feedback is valuable and will help inform the way forward. The feedback is now being analysed in detail and will be reviewed by this committee in June. Massive thanks go to Laura Wells, Mark Prior and everyone in transport for running such a thorough consultation”.
77 Call Over
77.1 The following items on the agenda were reserved for discussion:
- Item 80: City Environment Modernisation Update
- Item 82: Pots, Tubs & Trays Recycling
- Item 83: 2030 Carbone Neutral Programme
- Item 84: 2021/22 Local Transport Plan Capital Programme
- Item 85: Hanover Low Traffic Neighbourhood Pilot Scheme Development
- Item 89: Parking Scheme Update report
- Item 90: Parking Enforcement Procurement Strategy
77.2 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 81: Pesticide Reduction and Weed Management
- Item 86: Valley Gardens Phase 3 Project Update
- Item 87: Rottingdean High Street AQMA ETRO Extension
- Item 88: Well Managed Highway
78 Public Involvement
(B) PUBLIC QUESTIONS
(1) Air Quality
78.1 Imogen Casebourne put the following question:
“Following the Ella Kissi Debrah case, the potential consequences of air pollution arising from heavy traffic have become even clearer. I know that Brighton & Hove City Council has taken steps to monitor air quality in some sites across the city. Has any air quality monitoring been undertaken at the junction of Roedean Road, Wilson Avenue and the Marina slip road?”
78.2 The Chair provided the following reply:
“Thank you for your question, and for mentioning Ella Kissi Debrah. Her death and subsequent inquest has shocked many people, and I hope that her legacy will be local authorities and the Government taking much stronger action to improve air quality and prevent further deaths. We have to remember that more than 50 people die in our city because of air pollution.
Brighton & Hove assesses airborne pollution levels throughout the city with a computer-based model, taking account of transport, commercial and domestic emissions, we also sample air quality and monitor a number of specific locations across the City.
Air quality has been monitored close to Marina Way slip road, Wilson Avenue and Roedean Road. The traffic signals have been upgraded and are now able to adapt to traffic flows that will reduce delays and congestion. This will reduce emissions at the junction. Nitrogen dioxide was found to be low enough to easily meet air quality standards at this location. Prevailing air quality in this part of East Brighton is cleaner and healthier than most urban areas.
We need to do more as a city to tackle this life-threatening issue though. We have proposed a city wide ultra-low emission zone and wider active travel networks that we hope to continue to get support with advancing, and I’ve also recently asked officers to look into strengthening our smoke control areas”.
Again, thank you for the question and for reminding the committee of the life and death issue of toxic air pollution”.
78.3 Imogen Casebourne asked the following supplementary question:
“I’m concerned with more homes at the Marina plus potentially 700 hundred units at the Gasworks site, I’ve heard there could be an estimate 4000 people living in the area and even if 60% of those new people drive, that could be 2400 new cars on the road at peak times. I was wondering what steps the council intend to take to prevent the air quality in this area dropping as a result of those changes?”
78.4 The Chair provided the following reply:
“Things relating to planning and development should be referred to TECC Committee so you might want to ask the question there if you haven’t already. From a transport perspective, we’re really keen to continue or work with promoting public transport and active travel in all areas of the city so hopefully that will continue to progress and impact that part of the city too”.
(2) Pavement Tarmac
78.5 David Wilson put the following question:
“I understand that the council’s policy is to replace grooved pavement slabs with tarmac when works by a utility company necessitate the pavement being dug up. This has happened on Falmer Avenue in Saltdean which is a very steep road. The tarmac is slippery when we have frosty / icy weather and is a health and safety issue for residents. One resident has already fallen and been injured.
Will the council come and inspect in frosty / icy weather and commission the appropriate modifications to bring the pavement back into full use?”
78.6 The Chair provided the following reply:
“A utility is required to re-use the existing unbroken slabs when reinstating excavations following their works. However, where there is pre-existing damage to the slabs, the council is required to pay for the replacements.
In the case of Falmer Avenue, Saltdean, a large number of slabs were already broken due to vehicle overrun on the footway, and an area of slabs had already been replaced with tarmac during previous maintenance works.
Where slabs are damaged by vehicle overrun it is common practice to replace those slabs with tarmac when maintenance is required. This is because tarmac is more resilient and therefore future maintenance work is minimised, reducing the maintenance bill. Due to the pre-existing damage on Falmer Avenue, it was agreed that the reinstatement could be carried out in tarmac, to match the previous works. This also saved the council vital funds as we did not have to provide a large number of new slabs which it appeared likely would soon be damaged by the continuing vehicle overrun. Both surfaces can become slippery in frosty conditions, but I’m happy to ask someone to come an inspect the area on a frosty day to see if anything else can be done”.
78.7 David Wilson asked the following supplementary question:
“Since then, we’ve seen in Saltdean some new slabs being replaced for old slabs. In the future, can we ask the council to look at a more environmentally friendly option?”
78.8 The Chair provided the following reply:
“I was recently hearing about some environmentally friendly road surfacing. We are really open to looking at alternatives”.
(3) Coastal Erosion
78.9 Stephen Grant put the following question:
“In some places the A259 between Saltdean and the Marina is only about ten yards from the cliff edge. The undercliff walk was closed recently following some small rock falls. What steps (short and long term) are being taken to prevent further erosion of the cliffs to ensure that the coast road remains viable in the future?”
78.10 The Chair provided the following reply:
“The geology of the chalk cliffs adjacent to the A259 between Brighton Marina and Saltdean changes from the finer silt like material of a raised beach in the west, to the larger, solid chalk cliff faces in the east.
The primary form of erosion protection along this section of coastline is the undercliff walk seawall, which protects the bottom of the cliffs from coastal erosion.
In additional to the seawall, work to protect the cliffs from further erosion has included trimming and cutting back of the cliff edge to a shallower angle to reduce the risk of rock falls, rock anchoring and steel mesh installed in areas that were considered the most vulnerable.
The council undertakes regular visual inspection of the cliffs and maintenance to the existing coastal protection assets.
The management of the City’s coast is in line with the adopted policies included with the Beachy Head to Selsey Bill Shoreline Management Plan.
For sections of coastline within the City’s boundaries, the adopted policies for the next 100 years is Hold the line until year 50 and then Monitor, Manage and Review from year 50 to 100”.
78.11 Stephen Grant asked the following supplementary question:
“Because the Undercliff was closed, I never had chance to take a look at how serious the rockfall was. My understanding is that it was actually caused by a combination of very wet weather and frost and because the chalk is naturally friable, that is why there was a fall. I’m not sure that answer deals with the separate issue of frost and wet weather?”
78.12 The Chair stated that a written reply would be provided after the meeting.
(4) East Brighton Park
78.13 Amelie Byford-Winter put the following question:
“I’ve been going to East Brighton park all my life it is a really good park. I just think it needs more things in it like an outdoors gym and some more play equipment and a skate park because it is quite boring for kids and it would help more people come to East Brighton park and the beach down this end. It would also be great after covid! Could you please use the money you have for the park for more things for kids? I don’t mind going door to door to see what people want if that would help?”
78.14 The Chair provided the following reply:
“Firstly, it’s really great that you have taken the time to come to this evening’s meeting to ask about the future of East Brighton Park.
We feel that it’s really important that we listen to all park users whenever we’re considering how to spend money on a park. This should include listening to young people using the park now, like you!
Over the last 12 months £50,000 was invested at East Brighton Park making the entrance more accessible for people walking, people cycling, and vehicles. We also recently extended the cycle hire scheme to the park which you might have noticed.
You may know that Cityparks, the council team who manage our parks, have put aside a lot of money to invest in the 45 playgrounds across the city, which includes £45,000 for East Brighton Park.
Our Playground Officer would really like to engage with you and the local community to guide how this money is spent. It is likely to include providing playground equipment for children between the 2-14 years of age, also with a focus on young adults and Special Educational Needs/Disabilities.
I’d be really happy to set up a meeting for you to get involved.
I hope this demonstrates our commitment to the East Brighton Park community and we thank you again for your questions”.
79 Member Involvement
(B) WRITTEN QUESTIONS
(1) Climate Neutrality Progress Update
79.1 Councillor Nemeth put the following question:
“A ‘climate emergency’ was declared by Brighton & Hove City Council in December 2018 and a Carbon Neutral 2030 Working Group was set up not long afterwards. Would the Chair, in her capacity as head of sustainability for the city, state the percentage of net carbon dioxide emissions that have been cut since the inception of the project?”
79.2 The Chair provided the following reply:
“The city council declared a Climate Emergency in December 2018 and the cross-party Member Working Group was formally established in December 2019.
The council’s target is to become a carbon neutral city by 2030 and the council reports annually on carbon dioxide emissions from the city.
The city data comes from the Government’s annual statistical release on carbon emissions by local authority, which is released 2 years in arrears.
Therefore in 2020, the latest figures available were from 2018. When the next round of statistics become available in July 2021, they will be for 2019. This time lag in the data means that unfortunately it is not possible to provide the figures requested for the whole city.
However, it is possible to report on carbon dioxide emissions from the council’s own corporate property and emissions. In 2019/20, carbon emissions were reduced by 9.9% compared to 2018/19, thanks to projects such as modernisation of street lighting, decommissioning of out of date oil boilers in council property, and increased investment in solar panel installations.
The council is introducing a new Key Performance Indicator on progress towards the city-wide 2030 Carbon Neutral target, showing the annual percentage change in greenhouse gas emissions (which includes carbon dioxide and other gases). This KPI will be reported for the first time in 2021”.
79.3 Councillor Nemeth asked the following supplementary question:
“I sit on the KPI Working Group and there is a carbon emissions indicator proposed. However, the 2030 target isn’t just about emissions, it’s about capturing storage. Can I ask how the net figure will be reported on?”
79.4 On behalf of the Chair, the Executive Director, Economy, Environment & Culture gave the following reply:
“I’m happy to come back to you with the details as it’s a technical question and I want to get it accurate”.
(2) Tamarisks on Duke’s Mound
79.5 Councillor Nemeth put the following question:
“The Council’s ‘Carbon Neutral 2030’ logo appears on material promoting the removal of the popular tamarisks on Duke’s Mound on the Kemp Town seafront. An increase in biodiversity through the introduction of native species appears to be the principal driver behind this project. Given that there is likely to be less carbon stored at Duke’s Mound in 2030 than there is now, and much carbon dioxide has been introduced into the atmosphere simply through carrying out the physical work involved in the project, how can the use of the Carbon Neutral 2030 logo on this particular project be justified?”
79.6 The Chair provided the following reply:
“In December 2018 the council declared a biodiversity emergency as well as a climate emergency. Consultation has been undertaken with Dr Kate Cole, the county ecologist and has focussed on the Black Rock Local Wildlife site which will be affected as a result of this scheme and which the wider ecology strategy is designed to compensate for. It will also deliver many other benefits in the wider area to benefit native species and improve the public realm.
Tamarisk is a non-native and invasive species that inhibits growth of other plants and shrubs, creating a monoculture. Whilst there will be some initial limited release of carbon as the tamarisk is removed, restored grassland has been shown to have a 70% higher rate of carbon sequestration than monoculture. Therefore, in the long term the improved landscape will offer new opportunities for sequestration of carbon into the soil.
The Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) calculation for the area was carried out to assess the change in biodiversity on the site pre and post-development and to assess if a significant gain of biodiversity would be achieved. Significant gain was defined as at least 10% more biodiversity unit’s post-development compared with pre-development”.
79.7 Councillor Nemeth asked the following supplementary question:
“I’ve also seen the logo being used on a council poster titled ‘Air quality boost for Brighton & Hove’ in relation to buses. Buses being less polluting is nothing to do with carbon reduction, so why is the logo being used for buses who’s only fuel source is diesel?”
79.8 The Chair provided the following reply:
“As far as I know, it’s because the buses use cleaner engines which in the long-term, reduces carbon”
(3) Volk’s Railway Disabilities-friendly Carriage and Extension
79.9 Councillor Nemeth put the following question:
“A Notice of Motion calling for various upgrades to Volk’s Railway, submitted by the Conservative Group at TECC Committee on 18th November 2020, received cross-party backing. It included calls for signage, a new platform, a shelter, a disabilities-friendly carriage and an extension towards the Marina. A Budget Amendment calling for a £500,000 investment in the carriage, submitted by the Conservative Group at Budget Council on 25th February 2021, led to the approval of £100,000 towards the project. What discussions from a transport perspective have taken place to date?”
79.10 The Chair provided the following reply:
“The proposals for the Volk’s Railway are currently under consideration by the specialist Volk’s staff who operate the railway.
A review of the proposals will form the basis of a future report to the TECC Committee that you are a member of. The Volk’s Railway is operated as a heritage railway and a visitor attraction and therefore, discussions take place from that perspective, rather than as public transport”
(4) Community Tree Planting
79.11 Councillor Nemeth put the following question:
“Will the Council honour the previous fee for the planting of street trees by community groups of approximately £400 per tree in instances where projects were launched by residents prior to the adoption of the new fee of up to £5,000 per tree?”
79.12 The Chair provided the following reply:
“The price of planting trees varies dramatically- the donation price of £336.53 is for planting a tree in a grass area and covers the cost of this.
It is not adequate to cover the cost of planting in the hard surface of a highway. Although costs vary a lot, the average cost of the recent street tree planting carried out across the City was just below £3000 per tree.
The reason for the difference in price is that there will be underground infrastructure beneath our highway which may need to be moved and from which tree roots may need protection.
Several organisations across the City have been fund raising for tree planting, but it is important that they agree the site and cost with officers prior to making commitments to donors.
Any joint funding of planting schemes needs to be agreed in advance and we cannot retrospectively top up the funding for a planting scheme that residents would like.
Now our tree planting officers are in place we will be looking at a more flexible approach to tree donation including options to pay considerably less for smaller trees on some sites such as the woodland we are planting at Carden Park”.
79.13 Councillor Nemeth asked the following supplementary question:
“If residents were quoted the earlier price, which was sometimes some years ago, would that be honoured?”
79.14 The Chair replied:
“Do you have a specific location in mind?”
79.15 Councillor Nemeth clarified:
“Yes, Glebe Villas”
79.16 The Chair answered:
“I think it’s best that we and the affected residents discuss the matter”.
80 City Environment Modernisation Update
83.1 The Committee considered a report of the Executive Director, Economy, Environment & Culture that provided an update on the City Environment Modernisation Programme, provided updates relating to several Cityclean service areas and sought approval to changes to the issuing of Flyering licenses across Brighton & Hove.
83.2 In response to a question from Councillor Fowler, the Head of Business Support & Projects explained that it was true that new markets had not been found for the recycling of the inner linings of some drink cartons however, the consultation was undertaken by central government and the council had given feedback to that end under that process.
83.3 In response to questions from Councillor Brown, the Head of Business Support & Projects confirmed that advice on contamination of recycling would be provided in the new information leaflets sent to residents. Progress on graffiti removal had been hindered by staff changes however, a letter would be sent in the near future to statutory undertakers updating them on updated policies on graffiti removal. In relation to staff agency costs during the pandemic, the Assistant Director, City Environment stated that this figure wasn’t to hand but could be provided in writing after the meeting.
83.4 In response to questions from Councillor Appich, the Head of Business Support & Projects clarified that data on the review of communal bin collection was currently being gathered for the remaining wards and officers would be liaising with ward councillors, staff and unions on the findings in the near future The Head of Business Support & Projects explained that the allocation of further funding at Budget Council for flytipping prevention was relatively recent and officers were currently reviewing how best that funding could be allocation and would update Members in due course. Further, the Head of Business Support & Projects acknowledged that the current government consultation on food waste may lead to a directive mandating a collection service and that decision may come before the council’s own feasibility study had been finalised.
83.5 RESOLVED-
1) That Environment, Transport & Sustainability Committee note the progress of the Modernisation Programme, including the updates in Appendix 1.
2) That Environment, Transport & Sustainability Committee delegates authority to the Executive Director – Economy, Environment & Culture to make an Order, including all necessary steps therewith, to enable the streets listed below, and the side streets leading from them, to be included within the Flyering licensing scheme; subject to no objections being received:
· From the current boundary in the west, along the Promenade from Brunswick Square to Basin Road South, including Hove Lawns
· From the current boundary in the east, along Madeira Drive to Black Rock
· From the current boundary at the Western Road / Brunswick Place junction west along Western Road, onto Church Road with the junction of Sackville Road
· George Street (Hove), Blatchington Road between Haddington Close and Ventnor Villas and Goldstone Villas
In the event of any objections to the proposed Order being received, a further report shall be brought to Committee to enable the objections to be considered and for a decision as to whether the Order should be made.
81 Pesticide reduction and weed management
81.1 RESOLVED-
1) That Environment, Transport & Sustainability Committee note the report.
2) That Environment, Transport & Sustainability Committee approve for City Environment and City Transport to explore options to reduce weed growth on footways and highways during construction works and bring a report back to Committee with findings for a decision, where appropriate.
82 Pots, Tubs & Trays Recycling
82.1 The Committee considered a report of the Executive Director, Economy, Environment & Culture that provided information on the introduction of Pots, Tubs & Trays (PTT) into the recycling stream across Brighton & Hove and requested approval for a feasibility study to be undertaken.
82.2 In response to a question from Councillor Fowler, the Head of Business Support & Projects stated that the feasibility study would look at methods to minimise the risk of the contamination of unrecyclable plastic in a recycling scheme.
82.3 Committee members endorsed the report noting that unrecyclable plastic was a matter of concern for local residents and proposed lobbying government to enforce changes and encouraging local businesses to use recyclable items in its saleable and packaging items.
82.4 The Assistant Director, City Environment noted that several schemes were currently being reviewed including an accreditation scheme encouraging the reduction or eradication of plastic and a bottle deposit return scheme for businesses on the seafront.
82.5 RESOLVED- That Environment, Transport & Sustainability Committee authorises for a feasibility study to be completed on the costs to retrofit the MRF to introduce PTT recycling, including the carbon impact of the construction works, processing of the material at the MRF rather than the Energy Recovery Facility (ERF) and the additional transport of this material.
83 2030 Carbon Neutral Programme
83.1 The Committee considered a report of the Executive Director, Economy, Environment & Culture that sought recommendation to Policy & Resources Committee of the 2030 Carbon Neutral Programme which is a coordinated programme of projects that aims to help the city to address the climate crisis and transition to carbon neutrality by 2030. The report also set out proposed changes to the governance of the 2030 Carbon Neutral Programme relating to the oversight of the Sustainability and Carbon Reduction Investment Fund and the Climate Assembly Action Capital Investment Fund.
83.2 In response to a question from Councillor Nemeth, it was explained that at the moment, carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions were measured however, the feasibility of a development plan of carbon offset projects was being considered and that would be reported on an annual basis.
83.3 Councillor Brown asked what progress had been made on the recommendations made by the Climate Assembly on a Park & Ride scheme and the need for a reliable and regular bus service in the outlier areas of the city.
83.4 The Chair responded that finding an adequate Park & Ride site had been a significant problem for successive council administrations and any suggestions on feasible sites would be welcomed. Further, the Chair stated that congestion in the city by private vehicles meant that bus services were not as reliable as they could be.
83.5 The Committee members welcomed and commended the report, collectively stating that they were very pleased to make the first stage in a step change for the city.
83.6 RESOLVED-
That the Environment, Transport & Sustainability Committee:
1) Recommends the 2030 Carbon Neutral Programme to Policy & Resources Committee for approval
2) Recommends to Policy & Resources Committee that the oversight of the Sustainability & Carbon Reduction Investment Fund (SCRIF) is transferred from the cross-party SCRIF Member Oversight Group (MOG) to the cross-party 2030 Carbon Neutral Member Working Group, and the SCRIF MOG is stood down.
84 2021/2022 Local Transport Plan Capital Programme
84.1 The Committee considered a report of the Executive Director, Economy, Environment & Culture that requested recommendation to the Policy & Resources Committee of the 2021/22 Local Transport Plan (LTP) capital programme budget of £4.538 million.
84.2 In response to a question from Councillor Fowler, it was confirmed that in broad terms, the Bikeshare scheme was under a process of reprocurement including the provision for e-bikes and expansion of the scheme across the city and Greater Brighton region.
84.3 In response to an observation by Councillor Brown relating to the low figure allocated to pedestrian crossings, it was explained that the £25k identified would supplement the previous years’ funding that was not fully spent.
84.4 In response to questions from Councillor Appich, it was explained that the use of the term ‘targeting’ was in a general sense as each of the workstreams would have different processes associated. In relation to Sackville Road, the investment in this area had been delivered through the Access Fund and the detail of that project could be provided in writing subsequent to the meeting. In response to the query raised on interchange facilities at paragraph 3.20 of the report, it was explained that this related to cycle and motorcycle parking and improvements to accessible bus stops based on requests received from residents. It was further explained that Section 106 funding could only be used for the specified items identified in the agreement.
84.5 RESOLVED-
That the Environment, Transport & Sustainability Committee:
1) Recommends that Policy & Resources Committee agrees the 2021/22 Local Transport Plan capital programme budget allocation of £4.538 million, as set out in Appendix 1 of this report.
2) Requests that a further report be brought back to a future meeting of this committee in order to consider and agree the detailed allocation of the £3.9 million Sustainability & Carbon Reduction Investment Fund [SCRIF] budget to transport projects and programmes, as summarised in paragraphs 3.8 and 3.9 and Appendix 1 of this report.
85 Hanover Low Traffic Neigbourhood Pilot scheme development
85.1 The Committee considered a report of the Executive Director, Economy, Environment & Culture that provided an update on the initial Hanover Low Traffic Neighbourhood (LTN) Pilot project planning stage, which will enable officers to continue to engage with the community and stakeholders.
85.2 Councillor Appich moved a motion to add a recommendation 2.3 and 2.4 as shown in bold italics below:
2.3 That officers explore options for other Low Traffic Neighbourhood schemes and suitable complimentary measures across the city, and begin work with member oversight on a wider Low Traffic Neighbourhood delivery strategy for the city, to come back before the Environment, Transport & Sustainability Committee for approval.
2.4 That these options be explored in conjunction with the recommendations of the Community Wealth Building Members’ Working Group, as agreed by Full Council on 22 October 2020.
85.3 Councillor Wilkinson formally seconded the motion.
85.4 The Chair stated that the Green Group welcomed the motion and the ambition was to for an expansion of LTN across the city. The Chair provided a reminder that the Hanover project was still a pilot and that differing rules for new LTN schemes would be needed according to the layout of the specific area.
85.5 The Chair then put the motion to the vote that passed.
85.6 The Chair then put the recommendation as amended to the vote that were agreed.
85.7 RESOLVED-
1) That the Committee welcomes the progress that has been made since the Hanover Action deputation was received, through the continued engagement with the local community, in the development of this pilot project.
2) That the committee notes the proposed Low Traffic Neighbourhood funding allocation for 2021/22 in the Local Transport Plan capital programme and requests a further report following completion of the initial project planning, and options identification stages.
3) That officers explore options for other Low Traffic Neighbourhood schemes and suitable complimentary measures across the city, and begin work with member oversight on a wider Low Traffic Neighbourhood delivery strategy for the city, to come back before the Environment, Transport & Sustainability Committee for approval.
4) That these options be explored in conjunction with the recommendations of the Community Wealth Building Members’ Working Group, as agreed by Full Council on 22 October 2020.
86 Valley Gardens Phase 3 project update
86.1 RESOLVED-
1) That the Committee notes the outcome of the most recent public consultation and stakeholder engagement as set out within Appendices 1 and 2 of this report.
2) That the Committee requests that the detailed scheme design for Valley Gardens Phase 3 is brought to Committee for approval in 2021 following officers’ consideration of the public consultation and Stakeholder engagement responses.
87 Rottingdean High Street AQMA ETRO extension
87.1 RESOLVED-
1) That the committee notes the sealing of TRO-30-2019 making a right turn ban from the eastern end of West St, Rottingdean a permanent feature.
2) That the committee agrees a further period of up to 18 months from 24 April 2021 in order to continue to monitor and assess the air quality impacts on the lower High Street.
3) That the committee agrees to the development of a further proposal for a left turn ban from Park Road onto Rottingdean High Street before the expiry of the extended 18-month monitoring period.
88 Well Managed Highway
88.1 RESOLVED- That the Committee endorse the updated Brighton & Hove City Council’s Strategy for Well Managed Highway Infrastructure (Appendix 1) and Safety Maintenance Policy (Appendix 2).
89 Parking Scheme Update Report
89.1 The Committee considered a report of the Executive Director, Economy, Environment & Culture that provided an update on the progress of recent resident parking scheme consultations and reviews.
89.2 Councillor Lloyd thanked officers for their work on Hazeldene Meads and relayed that residents were delighted with the outcome.
89.3 Councillor Brown stated that it was illogical that Hazeldene Meads was proposed to be part of Zone P and it made more sense that it joined the Zone A scheme.
89.4 In relation to recommendation 2.4, Councillor Wilkinson stated that he understood that there were complexities in the Beaconsfield Road and Southdown Avenue and if problems materialised, the South Portslade ward councillors hoped the scheme could be reviewed in 6 months with feedback from residents.
89.5 RESOLVED-
1) That the committee agree that no changes are required to the days and times of operation in Hove Park Zone P. Minor changes to parking are being considered and if changes are required will be included in a future Traffic Regulation Order.
2) That Committee approves that Hazeldene Meads and The Beeches join existing Hove Park Zone P parking scheme (light touch 9-10 & 1-2 Monday - Sunday) and that this proposal be progressed to the detailed design. All comments will be reported back to a further Environment, Transport and Sustainability Committee.
3) That the Committee having taken account of all duly made representations and comments, agrees that the following Traffic Regulation Orders are approved and the South Portslade area (Zone X) proceeds to the implementation stage.
· BRIGHTON & HOVE VARIOUS CONTROLLED PARKING ZONES CONSOLIDATION ORDER 2018 AMENDMENT ORDER 202* (TRO-33A-2020)
· BRIGHTON & HOVE OUTER AREAS (WAITING, LOADING AND PARKING) AND CYCLE LANES CONSOLIDATION ORDER 2018 AMENDMENT ORDER NO.* 202* (TRO-33B-2020)
90 Parking Enforcement Procurement Strategy
90.1 The Committee considered a report on the Executive Director, Economy, Environment & Culture that presented the findings of the independent consultants engaged to evaluate procurement options for the parking enforcement contract and associated services, including in-house and made recommendation that a preferred option be approved.
90.2 Councillor Williams moved a motion to add a recommendation 2.2 and 2.3 as shown in bold italics below:
2.1 That the Committee agrees to proceed with option three of the procurement strategies set out in the independent consultant’s report and in the main body of this report which was endorsed as the preferred option by the Procurement Advisory Board.
2.2 That the contract be awarded for an initial period of 3 years, with a possible extension of up to 2 years.
2.3 That during the initial 3-year phase, officers explore options to bring the entire enforcement contract in-house.
90.3 Councillor Appich formally seconded the motion.
90.4 In relation to the amendment, Councillor Hills stated that the Procurement Advisory Board (PAB) had supported the Independent Consultant findings and to repeat the process as soon as the contract started did not seem a sensible use of limited resources.
90.5 Councillor Williams stated that PAB was just an advisory body and she was reluctant to give up the in-house option when it could realise good value for money.
90.6 The Head of Parking Services stated that the review had been very rigorous and had taken 18 months to complete. That represented significant work for the team that had led to the temporary pause of the modernisation programme and it was his view that to restart the review when it was only just complete would be cause for concern for ongoing service delivery.
90.7 Councillor Williams stated that the review would be less intensive as it could encompass and build upon what had already been learned.
90.8 The Chair then put the motion to the vote that failed.
90.9 The Chair then put the recommendations to the vote that were agreed.
90.10 RESOLVED-
1) That the Committee agrees to proceed with option three of the procurement strategies set out in the independent consultant’s report and in the main body of this report which was endorsed as the preferred option by the Procurement Advisory Board.
91 Pots, Tubs & Trays Recycling (Exempt Category 3)
91.1 As per minute 82
92 Parking Enforcement Procurement Strategy (Exempt Category 3)
83.1 As per minute 90.
93 Part Two Proceedings
93.1 That the items contained in Part Two of the agenda remain exempt from disclosure to the press and public.
94 Items referred for Full Council
94.1 No items were referred to Full Council for information.
The meeting concluded at 6.15pm
|
Signed
|
Chair |
||
|
Dated this |
day of |
|
|