Agenda item - Transport Operational Policies (highway functions)

Report of the Acting Executive Director, Environment, Development & Housing (copy attached).

That the Environment, Transport and Sustainability Committee approves the Brighton & Hove City Council Transport Operational Policies.

76.1        The Committee considered a report of the Acting Executive Director Environment, Development & Housing that outlined a review of the council’s Transport Operational Policies and requested approval.

76.2        Councillor Theobald referred to paragraph 5.5 of the report that stated the maximum crossover space was 5.5 metres. Councillor Theobald stated that he found this to be excessive and that 1 vehicle space was sufficient.

76.3        The Head of Asset and Network Management stated that the crossover policy was one that had been reviewed by officers and more clear and stringent requirements had been put into place. The distance of 5.5 metres was the maximum length for a crossover and was subject to the angle of approach. Furthermore, each site request was reviewed by officers

76.4        Councillor Theobald stated that he was aware of a number of problems associated with Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGV) breaking up pavements when parking or in transit. Councillor Theobald asked if a duty could be placed upon hauliers to replace that pavement in incidents of such.

76.5        Councillor Janio stated that unauthorised dropped kerbs and crossovers should be monitored and enforced as the issue had become a problem. Councillor Janio added that degradation of grass verges had also become a serious problem and asked the grass verge initiative introduced a few years back had been continued. 

76.6        The Head of Asset and Network Management stated that problems with verges were also due to vehicles driving over the verge as well as parking on the verge.   However, it was not possible to always create additional space in some roads and the verge policy recommends not hardening verges as this can increase parking problems and encourage pavement parking.  Where a crossover had not been authorised by the council, enforcement action can be taken and also the council  had recourse to place a parking bay over that crossover and that did occur, particularly in areas where new parking schemes had been agreed. In regard to damages to pavements, it was often difficult to prove exactly when a pavement had been damaged and who  was responsible although discussions were ongoing with the Highways team to refine the sharing of information to improve that knowledge. The Head of Asset and Network Management added that the grass verge prohibition that had been a success where it had been applied but the trial scheme had been provided through specific, time-limited funding.

76.7        Councillor West stated that better enforcement was required to preserve pavements for pedestrian safety. In addition, he agreed that crossover space had become an issue, particularly in Patcham ward. Councillor West asked if reinforcement of the footway was requested in cases where permission was granted for a dropped kerb. 

76.8        The Head of Asset and Network Management answered that people were requested to strengthen the footway; however, this may not have been the case with much older crossovers and  slabs are not generally as strong or resilient as tarmac.

76.9        RESOLVED- That the Environment, Transport and Sustainability Committee approves the Brighton & Hove City Council Transport Operational Policies.