Agenda item - Public Involvement

To consider the following matters raised by members of the public:

 

(a)               Petitions: To receive any petitions presented by members of the public to the full Council or at the meeting itself.

 

(i)                 Veterans Roundabout- Laura Luxton

(ii)               Pedestrian Crossing near Rookery Close- Beverley McArdle

(iii)             Petition for the parking bay on Southdown Avenue outside Stanford Avenue Methodist Church to read “pay and display OR residents parking”- Steven Shove

(iv)              Withdrawal of Section 116 Application 1 Portland Road/School Road- Mike Preston

 

(b)               Written Questions: To receive any questions submitted by the due date of 12 noon on the 2 July 2013.

 

(i)                 Portland Road development Stopping Up Order application- Mike Preston

 

(c)               Deputations: To receive any deputations submitted by the due date of 12 noon on the 2 July 2013.

 

(i)                 Better Bus Area Proposals- Steve Parry (St James’ Community Action Group).

(ii)               Better Bus Area Proposals- Stephanie Clay

 

(a)               Petitions

 

(i)                 Veterans Roundabout- Laura Luxton

 

7.1             The Committee considered a petition signed by 143 people that requested the council to change the name of the roundabout on the A259 at Greenways to the ‘Blind Veterans UK’ roundabout.

 

7.2             Councillor Mears spoke to the petition stating that, whilst she fully supported the work of Blind Veterans UK, she and the residents of Ovingdean, did not feel a permanent name change was advisable. Councillor Mears added that the roundabout was a national address and used by the emergency services and utility companies amongst others, and a name change would not be straightforward. Councillor Mears requested the council consider changing the name for one day per year as recognition by the council of the superb work carried out by Blind Veterans UK.

 

7.3             The Chair provided the following response:

 

“Thank you for this petition. The Council has a policy on street naming and numbering and has to follow the correct legal process to re-name an existing street or roundabout. The proposed change of name would have to go through a public consultation process. This would involve asking local people and ward members for their views on the proposals, and consulting other people who might be affected by the name change such as utility companies and emergency services. The Council would also have to take into account any additional costs that may arise as a result of the proposals such as the display of official name plates and the work involved in updating relevant highway records and notifying interested parties.

If a decision is taken to proceed with the change of name there is a statutory procedure under which people may object, and any objections must be heard by a Magistrates’ Court.

The first part of the process would be for Blind Veterans UK to make a formal request to the Council’s Street Naming and Numbering team for the change to be made, who will be able to give further advice on the process”.

 

7.4             RESOLVED- That the petition be noted.

 

(ii)               Pedestrian crossing near Rookery Close- Beverley McArdle/Marlene Loftus

 

7.5             The Committee considered a petition signed by 1014 people that requested the placement of a pedestrian crossing or traffic island on Preston Road to improve safety.

 

7.6             The Chair provided the following response:

 

“Thank you for your petition which I’m also aware has the support of all three Preston Park Councillors. The council has adopted a comprehensive crossing request assessment criteria to ensure that the council installs new pedestrian crossings in places that will have the greatest benefit. A report will be coming to the Committee in October with a proposed list of crossings to be implemented this financial year. I will ask officers to include your request for assessment and report back to the Committee in October”.

 

7.7             RESOLVED- That the petition be noted.

 

(iii)             Petition for the parking bay on Southdown Avenue outside Stanford Avenue Methodist Church to read “pay and display or residents parking- Steven Shove

7.8             The Committee considered a petition signed by 84 people that requested the council change the pay and display parking spaces outside Stanford Avenue Methodist Church to include resident parking.

 

7.9             The Chair provided the following response:

 

“Thank you for your petition regarding the exclusive pay & display parking on Southdown Avenue which has been provided at the request of the Church for community needs and services.

I appreciate that residents have concerns that this will cause less parking for resident permit holders. However, this resident parking scheme has gone through an extensive consultation and previous experience has shown that parking availability does tend to increase within resident parking schemes within the first few weeks of the scheme beginning operationally.

Resident permit holders can still park in over 90% of the parking available within the resident parking scheme and have exclusive priority in permit only bays in a majority of these spaces. As with all the parking schemes introduced into Brighton and Hove the objective is to find the right balance of residents, businesses, church goers, and other daily parking in the area.

We are not intending to suspend the exclusive pay & display bays on Southdown Avenue as this would lead to free parking within a controlled area which would be heavily used by a number of users due to the restrictions in place elsewhere.

However, Officers will continue to monitor the area and if the exclusive pay & display bays are not being utilised and there are still concerns from residents about the parking situation then we will investigate this matter further”.

 

7.10         RESOLVED- That the petition be noted.

 

(iv)             Withdrawal of Section 116 application 1 Portland Road/School Road- Mike Preston

 

7.11         The Committee considered a petition that requested Brighton & Hove Council withdraw the section 116 application 1 for Portland Road/School Road.

 

7.12         The petitioner was not present at the meeting at this stage. The following response was provided in writing after the meeting:

 

“The decision on whether to proceed with this application will be taken when the Committee considers the report dealing with the issue at Item 14 on the Agenda. Your representations will be taken into account at that stage”.

 

7.13         RESOLVED- That the petition be noted.

 

(b)              Written Questions

 

(i)        Mike Preston

 

7.14         Mr Preston was not present at this stage of the meeting; therefore the question was not put to the Committee. The following response was provided in writing subsequent to the meeting:

 

“The decision on whether to proceed with this application will be taken when the Committee debates the report dealing with the issue at Item 14 on the Agenda and I would not like to anticipate the debate or the decision to be made. Your representations will be taken into account at that stage”.

 

(c)               Deputations

 

(i)                 Visitor car parking in Brighton

 

7.15         The Deputation was withdrawn in advance of the meeting.

 

(ii)               Better Bus Area Proposals (Carlton Hill area)

 

7.16         The Committee considered a Deputation presented by Stephanie Clay and Jan Norris of the Carlton Hill Community regarding their objections and concerns about the proposed Better Bus Area scheme.

 

7.17         The Chair provided the following response:

 

“Thank you for your deputation. With regards to the consultation on the Edward Street Better Bus proposals, over 9000 paper consultation leaflets and questionnaires were distributed to residents and businesses in the local area, including to addresses on Carlton Hill. In addition to this direct mailing, information on the scheme proposals, with details of how to respond to the consultation, were posted on the Council website, discussed at residents meetings in the area and published by The Argus newspaper.

The public consultation has revealed residents are very supportive of the proposals to give priority to bus users, pedestrians and cyclists

The issues that you raise regarding the proposals are discussed in the report which will be considered as part of agenda item 16 of this Committee, however, in response to your question as to what measures are being taken in the area I can confirm that Road Safety Officers have for some time been working with residents and other stakeholders, including the school, in the Carlton Hill area. Some improvements have already been implemented such as the improved layout of St Johns St and Carlton Hill that you have mentioned. Work on further improvements in the area have begun this week and include the addition of a pedestrian refuge on John Street and pavement extensions on the corner of Ashton Rise and John St. Officers are, and will continue, working with the local community and the school to improve safety in this area. In addition, traffic speed and volumes will be monitored in the area as part of the 20mph speed limit programme”.

 

7.18         RESOLVED- That the Deputation be noted.

 

(iii)      Better Bus Area proposals- St James’ Community Action Group

 

7.19         The Committee considered a Deputation presented by Nick Head and Jeremy Ogden of the St James’ Community Action Group regarding their objections and concerns about the proposed Better Bus Area scheme.

 

7.20         The Chair provided the following response:

 

“Thank you for your deputation. In response to your first request calling for a review of the Better Bus Area proposals, I can inform you that the proposals form part of a successful bid to central government for funding to improve westbound bus journey times into the city while also improving conditions for cyclists and pedestrians. The current proposals are to be considered as part of agenda item 16 of this Committee and I can assure you they would not preclude any future proposal for improvements to St James’ Street coming forward in the future.

With regards to the consultation undertaken with local businesses and residents on these proposals, a copy of the consultation leaflet and proposals was posted to every address, commercial and residential in the St James Street area. In total 9004 consultation leaflets and survey forms were mailed. Officers offered numerous times to attend the public meeting of the St James Community Action Group on 12^th June 2013 to talk through the proposals, answer questions and hear concerns. On the 29^th May 2013, officers were informed that the group “had decided against inviting [an officer] to speak at the meeting.” In order to ensure that members of this community would have an opportunity to talk to officers, a public exhibition was then arranged to take place in advance of the meeting on 12^th June in the same location. The exhibition was well attended. In addition, in response to a request from the Action Group additional copies of the consultation materials and survey were provided by officers.   

In regard to your second request to reroute eastbound buses in St James’ Street into Edward Street by pedestrianising some or all of St James St, the council has no immediate plans or resources to investigate this proposal and it is important to note that the central government funding for the Better Bus Area project is specific to Edward Street”.

 

7.21         RESOLVED- That the Deputation be noted.