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.

 

(i)                 20mph limit in the Hollingbury and Braybon area- Hugh Woodhouse

 

(b)               Written Questions: To receive any questions submitted by the due date of 12 noon on the 25 February 2014.

 

(i)                 Dyke Road Park proposals- Mavis Aldridge

 

(ii)               Dyke Road Park proposals- Jason Brooks

 

(c)               Deputations: To receive any deputations submitted by the due date of 12 noon on the 25 February 2014.

 

(i)                 Dyke Road cycling and pedestrian improvements- Janet King

 

(ii)               Safety Concerns - Dyke Road pedestrian and cycle facilities proposals- Alison Heal

 

(iii)             Creation of new Residents Parking Zone E- Peter Meekings

 

(iv)              Request that Preston Drove, Stanford Avenue and Surrenden Road are included in the 20mph Speed Limit programme in Brighton and Hove (Phase 2)- Becky Reynolds

 

 

 

(a)               Petitions

 

(i)                 20mph limit in the Hollingbury and Braybon area- Hugh Woodhouse

 

83.1         The Committee considered a petition signed by 186 people that requested the council to reconsider its decision to exclude some roads in the Hollingbury and Braybon areas from Phase 2 of the 20mph programme.

 

83.2         The Chair provided the following response:

 

“Thank you Mr Woodhouse for presenting this petition.

May I congratulations on the number of signatories you have raised - It is very helpful for committee members to hear further of the views of people living in the area.

Proposals for the second phase of the 20mph programme will be debated and considered at this meeting. I would ask the Committee to take note of this petition and to consider it when we discuss the main report”.

 

83.3         RESOLVED- That the petition be noted.

 

(b)              Written Questions

 

(i)        Dyke Road park proposals

 

83.4         Mavis Aldridge asked the following question:

 

“As an elderly person with two replacement hip operations behind me, I realise that a fall could leave me in a wheelchair. I am therefore very concerned that it is proposed to allow cyclists to share the pavement adjacent to Dyke Road Park. The park attracts the elderly and the young, two groups that are very vulnerable to accidents. Bikes no longer have bells and it is impossible to hear them about to overtake you. There is space here for a separate pavement and cycle lane so why was this option rejected in favour of the least safe option?”

 

83.5         The Chair provided the following response:

 

“Thank you Ms Aldridge for your question.

The range of improvements proposed for Dyke Road, between Old Shoreham Road and The Upper Drive/ Highcroft Villas, have been designed to create a welcoming and supportive environment which encourages people to walk, cycle and use public transport.

People who are comfortable cycling on roads, among traffic are doing so already, but there are many who will not cycle, especially with young children unless they ‘feel’ safe cycling  alongside motorised vehicles.  In general lower speed of traffic and lower volume are the first principles to address, if possible, when creating good streets for cycling and walking. 

To develop a quality cycle network in the city requires the Council to assess the environment of the particular street to find the most appropriate fit of cycle facility.

When considering an approach to cycle facilities in Dyke Road officers looked at a suggestion by a local councillor to consider cycle facilities in Dyke Road Park.  In discussion with users of the park it was quite clear that the lower path on the east side of the park was more suitable to pedestrians only and that the raised path, adjacent to the parking was a good solution for cyclists to share with pedestrians. 

Many city authorities in the UK implement only shared use areas for pedestrians and cycles. In Brighton & Hove we have taken the opportunity to segregate where possible and integrate on short sections only, e.g. Old Shoreham Road.

We plan to widen some of the upper footway area, so it may be shared with share cycle users heading northbound only.  While we anticipate that the lower path will become more pedestrian dominated, we do not wish to exclude pedestrians from the upper path.

We are seeking to balance the needs of all users carefully and all designs are subject to independent Road Safety Audit which tease out any potential safety related considerations for all users of all abilities”.

 

(ii)       Dyke Road proposals

 

83.6         Jason Brooks asked the following question:

 

“I am one of many parents concerned by the proposed removal of safety guard railings in front of Windlesham School on Dyke Road. The path from the school runs  downhill and the removal of barriers means  children could potentially roll on a bicycle or scooter, unimpeded into traffic, or be jostled into the road on foot. The proposal that this busy, relatively narrow area of pavement will also be shared with cyclists arriving at right angles  seems to further necessitate the need for a safety barrier  Please can you explain fully what seems a dangerous step”

 

83.7         The Chair provided the following response:

 

“Thank you Mr Brooks for your question.

I very much appreciate the concerns now being expressed regarding the proposed changes to the controlled crossings and pedestrian guard railing in Dyke Road.

It is of course of the utmost importance to all members of the committee that we are satisfied that any measures implemented are considered to be safe.

Given the level of interest generated through the advertising of the Traffic Regulation Orders in relation to the formal crossings and guard railing, you will note that officers have commissioned a specialist consultants assessment to look at these particular aspects of the scheme – this report is included in the officers report later in this agenda. 

I hope you will be pleased to note that officers are recommending approval of the majority of the scheme today, while recommending deferral of decision on altering the crossings and guard railing. This will allow members to be able to see the other changes in situ before coming to a decision on the crossings and guard railing.

With regard to young people exiting the school gates some alternative options are being considered and are highlighted in section 8.2.2 of the independent assessment”.

 

83.8         Jason Brookes asked the following supplementary question:

 

“When will a decision on the deferred items be made”

 

83.9         The Chair provided the following reply:

 

“Depending on whether the report is agreed today, a decision on the deferred elements of the scheme will likely be made in the autumn”.

 

(iii)      Dyke Road Park cycle and pedestrian improvements

 

83.10    Judith Waite asked the following question:

 

“Given that: “Choice of crossing facilities should be appropriate for prevailing environment (5.1.3) minimum of 1,000 Windlesham  crossings per day on busy road with no speed cameras/School highway signs •Signalised Crossing benefits the high number of children (5.5.6) removes need for pedestrians to assert precedence/warns  vehicles to stop (5.5.3)  Zebra visibility concerns(7.1.1/5.5.6) •Zebra causes 'peak time' vehicle delays (5.2.19 /5.2.17) vehicles less likely to adhere to highway rules •No definitive safety argument in favour of Zebra (5.5.11)

Why risk changing current crossings which pedestrians trust when fit for purpose/have good safety record (5.5.9/5.5.10)?”

 

Note: brackets indicate references to ‘Dyke Road Cycle and Pedestrian Improvements' Pedestrian Crossing and Guardrailing Assessment (reference number 102470)’

 

83.11    The Chair provided the following response:

 

“I have a lengthy response addressing all of the points raised in your question that I will formally provide in writing to you after the meeting.

As already mentioned in my previous replies, members of the committee are asked to come back to the question of crossings and guard railing at a later stage, once we have been able to experience other aspects of the implemented scheme on the ground”.

 

83.12    Judith Waite asked the following supplementary question:

 

“Will the council be liaising directly with the members of management at Windlesham School on the deferred matters”

 

83.13    The Chair provided the following reply:

 

“Subject to approval of the report, the council will continue to liaise with the school and there will be plenty of opportunity to do so. I too, am happy to engage personally”

 

(iv)      Preston Park Triangle consultation

 

83.14    Leona Vincent asked the following question:

 

"Can you reconsider and include Preston Drove, or the Eastern half of it, in the proposed extension to CPZJ?

Preston Drove is a long road with different requirements at either end. There may be a higher parking: household ratio overall, but mainly due to parking alongside Preston Park in the west. At the Eastern end there are houses and shops both sides of the road and parking is already under severe pressure. Here Preston Drove suffers displacement parking from the existing CPZ, there is no doubt it will get a lot worse if it is removed from the proposed extension."

 

83.15    The Chair provided the following response:

 

“Thank you Ms Vincent for your question.

My fellow committee members and I, along with Ward councillors and officers have received a number of similar representations from other residents in Preston Drove.

I can confirm that there has been no decision as yet to exclude or include Preston Drove in the proposed Zone J extension only a recommendation from officers based on consultation results, which showed that a majority (56%) of residents in Preston Drove were against inclusion in the scheme.

However, given the strong representation from residents since the publication of the report I have asked the Project Manager to look at this element again and to discuss with the Ward councillors for both Preston Park and Withdean wards to seek their views.

I am aware that there is a proposed amendment regarding Preston Drove for the Committee to consider when we discuss the report later in this meeting.

 

83.16    Leona Vincent asked the following supplementary question:

 

“Why has it taken such protests for the council to realise that a road one mile in length cannot conform to a one-size fits all scheme”

 

83.17    The Chair provided the following reply:

 

“I do appreciate residents concerns and the questions asked in the consultation could have perhaps been worded differently”

 

(c)               Deputations

 

(i)        Dyke Road cycling and pedestrian improvements- Jannet King

 

83.18    The Committee considered a Deputation that requested the council to maintain light-controlled crossings and retain the safety barriers at the top of Crocodile Walk as part of the Dyke Road improvement proposals.

 

83.19    The Chair provided the following response:

 

“Thank you Ms King for your deputation, acknowledgement of officer engagement and appreciation of the importance of providing improved facilities for people to cycle.

The Dyke Road scheme has been designed to achieve the best balance possible for all street users. The proposal to change signalised crossings to zebra crossings is part of a holisitic approach to the corridor, creating an environment where a sense of pedestrian priority is created across the entire area instead of being heavily dominated by vehicular traffic as it is currently.

Zebra crossings enable crossing on demand by pedestrians rather than waiting for traffic lights to change.  The independent report commission by officers demonstrates an overall reduction in delay for all users and the Committee report highlights the Council’s ‘Share the Road, Share the Responsibility’ approach which encourages all users to think, acknowledge one another and act accordingly.

With reference to the proposed removal of the ‘Safety Barriers’  at Crocodile Walk and Windlesham School these are indeed termed guard-railing and current guidance and policy on transport and road safety is moving away from using pedestrian guard-railing as a road safety measure. In its recent circular on the matter Local transport Note 2/09 the Department for Transport states “There is no conclusive evidence that the inclusion of pedestrian guard railing at any type of pedestrian crossing or junction has any statistically significant effect on the safety record”.

Further guidance, issued by the Institute of Highways and Transportation in the Manual for Streets 2, includes the following statement - “Guardrail is a very intrusive element. It disadvantages pedestrian movement by making people walk further, away from their desire lines and creates an unpleasant feeling of restraint. It also narrows the usable footway which can lead to congestion. It is unsightly and detracts from local character and visual amenity and there is evidence that it can increase traffic speeds and present an increased risk to cyclists who can be crushed against it by vehicles”

The local environment will see considerable changes in the near future with the increased capacity at BHASVIC and potential for a theatre space at Dyke Road Park.  It is important that we take this opportunity to help create the right environment for sustainable travel now.  I trust Friends of Dyke Road Park will welcome recommendation 2.3, which allows for incremental observation before a final decision on this element of the proposals”.

 

83.20    RESOLVED- That the Deputation be noted.

 

(ii)               Safety concerns- Dyke Road pedestrian and cycle facility proposals- Alison Heal

 

83.21    The Committee considered a Deputation that requested the Committee to reject the proposed changes to traffic crossings on Dyke Road, the removal of guard rails outside Windlesham School and creation of a shared pedestrian and cycle pathway as part of the Dyke Road improvement scheme.

 

83.22    The Chair provided the following response:

 

“Thank you Ms Heal for presenting your deputation.

Given the similarity of the concerns raised regarding crossing provision, may I also refer you to replies I have given earlier, in which I covered the rationale behind the proposals.  I know that officer have met with you previously and officers and I met with you last week, when the matter of consultation was discussed and has also been addressed in correspondence with officers too.  The safety considerations have been covered, and with the exception of the Road Safety Audit, are further considered in the independent assessment. 

The assessment report, specifically commissioned to respond to concerns raised in the TRO consultation also highlights some options to be considered further, particularly in relation to railings.  I trust you will welcome recommendation 2.3 in the report, which allows for an incremental observation before a final decision on the crossing and guard railing elements of the proposals”.

 

83.23    RESOLVED- That the Deputation be noted.

 

(iii)     Creation of new resident parking Zone E- Peter Meekings

 

83.24    The Committee considered a Deputation that expressed support for the council’s proposals for a controlled parking scheme in the Preston Park Station north area that the Deputees believed would improve parking, safety, residents and businesses in the local area.

 

83.25    The Chair provided the following response:

 

“Thank you Mr Meekings for presenting this deputation. It is very helpful for members of the committee to hear these views.

Members of the Committee will be discussing this matter in more detail under Agenda item 91 of the agenda, and we will take all your views into account”

 

83.26     RESOLVED- That the Deputation be noted.

 

(iii)             Request that Preston Drove, Stanford Avenue and Surrenden Road are included in the 20mph speed limit programme in Brighton & Hove- Becky Reynolds

 

83.27    The Committee considered a Deputation that requested the inclusion of Preston Drove, Stanford Avenue and Surrenden Road in Phase 2 of the 20mph programme to improve road safety in what was a residential area.

 

83.28    The Chair provided the following response:

 

“Thank you for presenting this Deputation and for your contribution to raising the public debate on the proposals for the second phase of the 20mph programme, which committee will be considered later in this meeting”.

 

83.29    RESOLVED- That the Deputation be noted.

 

(v)       20mph speed limit for Surrenden Road- Esther Gill

 

83.30    The Committee considered a Deputation that requested the inclusion of Surrenden Road in Phase 2 of the 20mph programme to improve safety for children accessing local schools and for the benefit of residents in the area.

 

83.31    The Chair provided the following response:

 

“Thank you for presenting this Deputation.

I’m sure all members will appreciate your concern for the safety of children and young people travelling to and from the schools and colleges and having to negotiate Surrenden Road. 

The proposals for the second phase of the 20mph programme will be considered later in this meeting. 

In recognition of the strength of views expressed by local residents, a recommendation has been included in the report to be considered today for the speed limit on these three roads to be reduced to 20mph.

This has been supported by a number of stakeholders including Brighton and Hove Bus Company who have confirmed that they would have no objections to a 20mph limit on these roads”.

 

83.32    RESOLVED- That the Deputation be noted.

 

(vi)             Deputation from ConsultUs (Community Parking Committee)- James Thompson

 

83.33    The Committee considered a Deputation that requested the Committee to reject proposals for creation of a controlled parking zone in Preston Park Station north area. The Deputees outlined their key concerns, specifically that the majority of residents did not support the scheme, that council officers had ignored vital evidence and not made a case for the introduction of a scheme and that there was not a significant parking problem in the area to justify a scheme.

 

83.34    The Chair provided the following response:

 

“Thank you Mr Thompson for presenting this Deputation. It is very helpful for members of the committee to hear these views.

Members of the Committee will be discussing this matter in more detail under Agenda item 91 of the agenda, and we will take all your views into account”.

 

83.35    RESOLVED- That the Deputation be noted.