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)            School Pavement Safety- Grace Thompson

 

(ii)          Communal Glass Recycling- Bronagh Wedderburn

 

(b)          Written Questions: To receive any questions submitted by the due date of 12 noon on 24 June 2014.

 

(c)          Deputations: To receive any deputations submitted by the due date of 12 noon on 24 June 2014.

 

(i)            20mph speed limit consultation- Chris Murgatroyd

 

(a)          Petitions

 

(i)           School Pavement Safety- Councillor Summers

 

6.1         The Committee considered a petition signed by 115 people requesting improvements to safety on Rusper Road, Selham Drive and Hawkhurst Road.

 

6.2         The Chair provided the following response:

 

“I am sure I can speak for all members of the committee in saying how sorry we are to hear of the concerns of local residents about safety of the walk to school journey for parents and children attending Coldean School.

Safe journeys to school are a core element of the Council’s road safety approach, which include effective school travel planning, safe infrastructure measures and speed management.  We are also taking steps to deal with inconsiderate parking at key locations on routes to schools, such as junctions and at crossing points.

Our school travel planning officers and staff from Coldean School have made significant improvements to the travel patterns associated with the school over the past few years, as part of the work we have been doing in the Lewes Road corridor. 

I will ask the Road Safety Manager to extend his work to include a review of the traffic and safety conditions at the junction with Selham Road and evaluate the merits of making Rusper Road a one-way street between Selham Drive and Hawkhurst Road.  I will ask him to respond directly to the petitioners once this work is complete.

 I am grateful to the petitioners for bringing their concerns to the attention of Committee”.

 

6.3         RESOLVED- That the petition be noted.

(ii)          Communal Glass recycling- Bronagh Wedderburn

 

6.4         The item was withdrawn by the petitioner.

(b)          Written Questions

(i)           New England Road railway bridge- Neil Schofield

 

6.5         Neil Schofield asked the following question:

 

“Despite recent works the railway bridge over New England Road continues to be infested by feral pigeons, leading to mess on the pavements and a deeply unpleasant environment for pedestrians passing underneath the viaduct. Moreover the lighting has deteriorated, creating an environment that is unwelcoming and gives rise to public safety concerns. Will the Council task a named Officer to co-ordinate management of this space across the various  interested Council departments to ensure that this area is kept clean and safe, and whose duties will include ensuring that Network Rail pigeon-proof the bridge properly?”

 

6.6         The Chair provided the following response:

 

“The Council's street lighting team are currently working on plans to improve the lighting at the New England Railway Bridge.  The works to be carried out in this financial year include removal of the wall mounted lighting, installation of columns and the provision of Pigeon proofing to protect the lanterns.

Furthermore, the council clean this area weekly with a mechanical sweeper and jet washing unit, it is also manually swept and litter picked once a week.

The Council's lighting and street cleansing services are part of the environment directorate, which is directed by Geoff Raw. Responsibility for any further liaison that is required with Network Rail over issues relating to the bridge ultimately lie with Geoff”.

6.7         Neil Schofield asked the following supplementary question:

“Thank you for a named contact. Would Geoff Raw be willing to meet local campaigners?”

6.8         The Chair provided the following response:

“Geoff Raw is the first point of contact however he may ask other officers with direct knowledge of the area to attend a meeting. I would suggest that there would also need to be an assessment of the effect of recent initiatives first”

 

(c)          Deputations

(i)       20mph speed limit consultation- Chris Murgatroyd

 

6.9         The Committee considered a Deputation requesting the council to consult with the residential roads around Hove Park and Hove Recreation Ground as part of the next phase of the 20mph scheme on the city.

 

6.10      The Chair provided the following response:

 

“The residents of the roads referred to were consulted, in August and September 2013, as part of Phase 2 of the 20mph programme. The exclusion of much of the Dyke Road West area from Phase 2 was as a result of a majority of residents in the area as a whole (60%) opposing the introduction of 20mph limits with only the area surrounding the local schools incorporated in the final Phase 2 design.

 Reasons were offered in the officers reports for the removal from Phase 2 of streets within this area which included a consideration that if local residents were not in support of the lower limit on their own roads then they, the people perhaps most often driving on them, would be less likely to comply voluntarily with them making it less likely that other drivers would do so too.

 However, the specific roads you mention, as you say, did show a small majority in support and the recent planning approval for a school site in the area adds strength to arguments in favour of inclusion of these roads in phase 3 as this new school will see more school children using these roads as routes to and from school.

More broadly, in your deputation you also draw attention to the journeys taken through the area by children attending a number of nearby schools, and also the journeys that are made to Hove Park and Hove Recreation Ground.

 I would therefore ask the Committee if they are willing to instruct officers to include further consideration of this area, in light of this deputation and the future location of the Spanish Bilingual Primary School, in the future report on the 20mph programme due before this Committee in November 2014 so that members can reconsider all the issues related to these streets”.

 

6.11      Councillor Cox stated his disappointment that the Committee had not been provided advance notice of the Chair’s recommendation to allow for assessment of the request.

 

6.12      The Chair clarified that his recommendation was not for immediate implementation of a 20mph limit in the area but a request that officers consider the request as part of the upcoming Phase 3 programme.

 

6.13      Councillor Mitchell stated that each Member had given careful consideration to the Phase 1 and Phase 2 programme and whilst she appreciated the Deputation request, the Committee required evidence and further consideration.

 

6.14      Councillor Theobald stated that ward councillors would also need to be consulted on the proposals.

 

6.15      Councillor Cox stated that he found it extraordinary that such a request was being made of Members without any advance notification from the Chair.

 

6.16      Councillor Davey stated that he found it reasonable to reconsider the specified area for a 20mph limit in light of the approval for a new school in the area which was an additional factor in road safety considerations.

 

6.17      The Chair clarified that he was not requesting the Committee immediately proceed with consultation of implementation of 20mph in the area but that they ask officers to revisit this specific area as part of the planned Phase 3 stage of 20mph in the city.

 

6.18      Councillor Janio stated that the Committee should have been provided advance notification of the request and without that; he could not support the proposal.

 

6.19      Councillor Davey stated that it was normal for the Committee to request a report on any matter and, if agreed, a report would be returned to Committee to examine the case for and against introduction of 20mph in the specified area.

 

6.20      The Head of Transport stated that officers had a degree of knowledge of local factors due to the extensive 20mph consultation already conducted. He added that should Committee agree, the specific area could be included in the wider Phase 3 20mph report due to be submitted to Committee in November.

 

6.21      Councillor Mitchell requested discussions be held with the new school on their travel to school plans.

 

6.22      Councillor Cox stated that he was in agreement for the request to be considered as part of the overall report on Phase 3 of the 20mph scheme.

 

6.23      RESOLVED- That the Deputation request be investigated and reported back to Committee as part of the overall report on Phase 3 of the 20mph scheme.

 

(ii)          Beacon Hub proposals- Councillor Bob Webzell

 

(iii)         Beacon Hub proposals- Jay Butler

 

6.24      The Deputations were withdrawn as the Committee had agreed the amended recommendations in the related agenda item that supported the requests made in the Deputations.

 

(iv)         Area J extension

 

6.25      The Committee considered a Deputation that expressed support to extend the proposed Area J Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) to include the Lewes Road/Triangle Area due to severe access problems in Park Crescent and access to local shops.

 

6.26      The Chair provided the following response:

“Thank you for your comments. These matters are being discussed in a report later in the meeting when members of the Committee will decide on the way forward”.

6.27      RESOLVED- That the Deputation be noted.