Agenda item - Hanover & Elm Grove / Craven Vale Traffic Regulation Order consultation

Report of the Executive Director, Economy, Environment & Culture

1)            That, having taken account of all duly made representations and objections, the Committee approves as advertised the following orders;

 

Hanover & Elm Grove (Full Scheme)

 

a)        Brighton & Hove Various Controlled Parking Zones Consolidation Order 2015 Amendment Order No.* 201* (TRO-14a-2017)

 

b)        Brighton & Hove Outer Areas (Waiting, Loading and Parking) and Cycle Lanes Consolidation Order 2013 Amendment No.* 201* (TRO-14b-2017)

 

c)         Brighton & Hove (Hanover West Area) (One-Way) Order 201*(TRO-20-2017)

         

Hanover & Elm Grove (Light Touch Scheme)

 

d)        Brighton & Hove Various Controlled Parking Zones Consolidation Order 2015 Amendment Order No.* 201* (TRO-15a-2017)

 

e)        Brighton & Hove Outer Areas (Waiting, Loading and Parking) and Cycle Lanes Consolidation Order 2013 Amendment No.* 201* (TRO-15b-2017)

 

f)          Brighton & Hove (Hanover East) (One-Way) Order 201* (TRO-15c-2017)

 

            Craven Vale Parking Scheme

 

g)        Brighton & Hove Various Controlled Parking Zones Consolidation Order 2015 Amendment Order No.* 201* (TRO-16a-2017)

 

h)        Brighton & Hove Outer Areas (Waiting, Loading and Parking) and Cycle Lanes Consolidation Order 2013 Amendment No.* 201* (TRO-16b-2017)

 

2)            That any amendments included in the report and subsequent requests deemed appropriate by officers are added to the proposed scheme during implementation and advertised as an amendment Traffic Regulation Order and to include contra flow cycle lanes in all appropriate one way streets as part of the implementation programme and include in the subsequent amendment TRO.

 

3)            That a trial scheme should be piloted allowing businesses to buy a number of visitor permits, in order to help offset potential adverse impacts of a Controlled Parking Zone as outlined in paragraphs 6.4 and 6.5 save that businesses providing proof that they pay business rates will be entitled to buy an unlimited number of visitor permits on the basis they are advanced purchased in quantities of 50 visitor permits for use only in the Hanover and Elm Grove Light Touch Scheme Area.. This would be reviewed after 6 months alongside the overall permit parking review and presented to a future Environment, Transport & Sustainability Committee.

 

4)            That all of the proposed parking schemes are reviewed after 12-18 months to see how they are working for residents, businesses and services. This would be included in the parking scheme priority timetable which is due to be presented in a report to the Environment, Transport & Sustainability Committee on 28^th November 2017.

14.1      The Committee considered a report of the Executive Director, Economy, Environment & Culture that set out comments and objections received to draft traffic regulation orders for proposed parking schemes in the Hanover & Elm Grove area and Craven Vale area.

 

14.2      Councillor Gibson addressed the committee on the proposals. He highlighted his support for the requests of the residents of the ‘Top Triangle’ who had presented a deputation to the committee earlier in the meeting. Councillor Gibson noted that the residents did not originally want a parking zone or loss of parking on one side of the street. Following the decision in March to proceed with a light-touch parking scheme for the area, a resident led survey was conducted with households on the preference for a light touch or full scheme with 70% expressing support for the latter. Councillor Gibson stated that provided a clear view to the committee and that the council should not ignore the desire of residents and trust and confidence could be gained from local residents in implementing a full scheme. Councillor Gibson requested the committee to agree to the amendment tabled and delay the implementation of a light touch scheme and undertake TRO consultation with the ‘Top Triangle’ area for its inclusion in a full scheme with the results of that consultation reported for decision to the October meeting of the committee. Councillor Gibson added that should the committee not be in agreement with the first amendment then it should support the second Green Group amendment to re-consult residents in the ‘Top Triangle’ on a introduction of a full scheme as part of the scheduled consultation on the adjacent Zone U area.

 

14.3      Councillor Littman noted that an amendment had been tabled by the Conservative Group that would increase the issuing of visitor permits for businesses in the Hanover & Elm Grove area from 50 to an unlimited amount. Councillor Littman asked what the likely impact would be on capacity in the area in going above the proposal for issuing 50 permits per business.

 

14.4      The Head of Parking Services stated that the likely impact would be very difficult to judge and could be impact by several issues such as when businesses used the permits that may be during the day when regular permits were not in use. Expected demand for resident permits was anticipated to be high so an unlimited number could cause capacity issues but it would be difficult to have a full picture until the scheme was operational.

 

14.5      Councillor Littman asked if there was a specific figure that would strike a balance between the needs of residents and business that would not threaten the capacity of the scheme in the first six months of operation.

 

14.6      The Head of Parking Services stated that it was understood that approximately 20 businesses in the area would take up the option of visitor permits under the pilot scheme and for every 100 permits issued to each business, 7 spaces would be occupied per day.

 

14.7      Councillor Wares moved a motion on behalf of the Conservative Group to amend recommendation 2.2 as shown in bold italics below:

 

2.2       That any amendments included in the report and subsequent requests deemed appropriate by officers are added to the proposed scheme during implementation and advertised as an amendment Traffic Regulation Order and to include contra flow cycle lanes in all appropriate one way streets as part of the implementation programme and include in the subsequent amendment TRO

 

14.8      Introducing the amendment, Councillor Wares stated that its intention was to regularise the position on cycle contraflows clearly in the recommendations.

 

14.9      Councillor Peltzer Dunn formally seconded the motion.

 

14.10   Councillor Wares moved a motion on behalf of the Conservative Group to amend recommendation 2.3 as shown in bold italics below:

 

2.3    That a trial scheme should be piloted allowing businesses to buy a number of visitor permits, in order to offset potential adverse impacts of a Controlled Parking Zone as outlined in paragraphs 6.4 and 6.5 save that businesses providing proof that they pay business rates will be entitled to buy an unlimited number of visitor permits on the basis they are advanced purchased in quantities of 50 visitor permits for use only in the Hanover and Elm Grove Light Touch Scheme Area. This would be reviewed after 6 months alongside the overall permit parking review and presented to a future Environment, Transport & Sustainability Committee.

 

14.11   Introducing the amendment Councillor Wares stated that in a full scheme, pay and display machines would be provided. However, in a light touch scheme machines were not installed and therefore there was a lack of options for the customers of businesses. Councillor Wares added that businesses in the area had expressed fears that they would not be able to survive with an allocation of 50 permits. Councillor Wares stated that businesses would buy the permits in quantities of 50 and he believed this would lead to businesses self-policing. Councillor Wares stated that the pilot scheme needed to be given the best opportunity to succeed and the six month review would give opportunity to make any amendments necessary.

 

14.12   Councillor Peltzer Dunn formally seconded the motion. Councillor Peltzer Dunn noted that a slight change was necessary to the motion to identify that only businesses paying business rates would be eligible to purchase the permits.

 

14.13   Councillor Littman moved a motion on behalf of the Green Group to amend recommendation 2.1 as shown in bold italics below:

 

2.1    That, having taken account of all duly made representations and objections, the Committee approves as advertised the following orders;

 

Hanover & Elm Grove (Full Scheme)

 

a)     Brighton & Hove Various Controlled Parking Zones Consolidation Order 2015 Amendment Order No.* 201* (TRO-14a-2017)

b)      Brighton & Hove Outer Areas (Waiting, Loading and Parking) and Cycle Lanes Consolidation Order 2013 Amendment No.* 201* (TRO-14b-2017)

c)     Brighton & Hove (Hanover West Area) (One-Way) Order 201* (TRO-20-2017)

 

Craven Vale Parking Scheme

 

g) Brighton & Hove Various Controlled Parking Zones Consolidation Order 2015 Amendment Order No.* 201* (TRO-16a-2017)

h)   Brighton & Hove Outer Areas (Waiting, Loading and Parking) and Cycle Lanes Consolidation Order 2013 Amendment No.* 201*(TRO-16b-2017)

and defers approval of the following orders;

 

Hanover & Elm Grove (Light Touch Scheme)

d) Brighton & Hove Various Controlled Parking Zones Consolidation Order 2015 Amendment Order No.* 201* (TRO-15a-2017)

e)   Brighton & Hove Outer Areas (Waiting, Loading and Parking) and Cycle Lanes Consolidation Order 2013 Amendment No.* 201* (TRO-15b-2017)

f)   Brighton & Hove (Hanover East) (One-Way) Order 201* (TRO-15c-2017) 167

 

subject to consideration of the ‘top triangle’, being included in the full scheme, with the necessary TRO consultation to be undertaken between June and September with a final decision to be made at the next meeting of Environment, Transport and Sustainability in October

 

14.14   Introducing the amendment, Councillor Littman stated that the ‘Top Triangle’ area did not want a parking scheme but did express a preference for a light touch scheme should a parking zone go ahead. However, residents were unaware of how the mix of schemes would come in and believed their proximity to a full scheme would make the light touch scheme in their area unworkable. Therefore, the motion was a request for the light touch schemes to be delayed in their implementation giving a chance to reconsult with the residents of the five roads in the ‘Top Triangle’ to allow them to comment on whether they would prefer to join a full scheme.

 

14.15   Councillor West formally seconded the motion.

 

14.16   Councillor Littman moved a motion on behalf of the Green Group to add a recommendation 2.5 as shown in bold italics below:

 

2.5    That the proposed review of Zone U, (currently earmarked for January 2018) also consider whether the ‘top triangle’ should become part of the full scheme;

 

14.17   Introducing the amendment, Councillor Littman stated that the intention of the motion was a second option in the event the first motion failed. The amendment requested that the light touch scheme in the ‘Top Triangle’ area proceed but that residents be consulted on whether to become part of the full scheme as part of the proposed review of Zone U.

 

14.18   Councillor West formally seconded the motion.

 

14.19   Councillor West welcomed the Conservative Group motion on contraflow cycling adding that it was important to remember that parking schemes were not just about the provision of parking but promoting sustainable travel. Councillor West stated that it was easy to underestimate demand for cycle parking. Councillor West noted that Councillor Gibson had made some important points particularly listening to residents and he hoped the committee would support their amendment.

 

14.20   Councillor Littman welcomed the Conservative Group amendment that dealt with contraflow cycling that he would support. Councillor Littman stated that he could not support the second Conservative Group amendment as the issuing of unlimited visitor permits to businesses could cause significant difficulties to the scheme as a whole. Councillor Littman stated that it would be sensible to begin at an economical figure as there was an option to increase at the point of the six month review.

 

14.21   The Chair noted that the introduction of contraflow cycling was council policy and built into the scheme.

 

14.22   The Chair then put the first Conservative Group motion to the vote that passed.

 

14.23   The Chair then put the second Conservative Group amendment to the vote that passed.

 

14.24   The Chair then put the first Green Group amendment to the vote that failed.

 

14.25   The Chair then put the second Green Group amendment to the vote that failed.

 

14.26   The Chair then put the recommendations as amended to the vote that passed.

 

14.27   RESOLVED-

 

1)            That, having taken account of all duly made representations and objections, the Committee approves as advertised the following orders;

 

Hanover & Elm Grove (Full Scheme)

 

a)        Brighton & Hove Various Controlled Parking Zones Consolidation Order 2015 Amendment Order No.* 201* (TRO-14a-2017)

 

b)        Brighton & Hove Outer Areas (Waiting, Loading and Parking) and Cycle Lanes Consolidation Order 2013 Amendment No.* 201* (TRO-14b-2017)

 

c)         Brighton & Hove (Hanover West Area) (One-Way) Order 201*(TRO-20-2017)

         

Hanover & Elm Grove (Light Touch Scheme)

 

d)        Brighton & Hove Various Controlled Parking Zones Consolidation Order 2015 Amendment Order No.* 201* (TRO-15a-2017)

 

e)        Brighton & Hove Outer Areas (Waiting, Loading and Parking) and Cycle Lanes Consolidation Order 2013 Amendment No.* 201* (TRO-15b-2017)

 

f)          Brighton & Hove (Hanover East) (One-Way) Order 201* (TRO-15c-2017)

 

            Craven Vale Parking Scheme

 

g)        Brighton & Hove Various Controlled Parking Zones Consolidation Order 2015 Amendment Order No.* 201* (TRO-16a-2017)

 

h)        Brighton & Hove Outer Areas (Waiting, Loading and Parking) and Cycle Lanes Consolidation Order 2013 Amendment No.* 201* (TRO-16b-2017)

 

2)            That any amendments included in the report and subsequent requests deemed appropriate by officers are added to the proposed scheme during implementation and advertised as an amendment Traffic Regulation Order and to include contra flow cycle lanes in all appropriate one way streets as part of the implementation programme and include in the subsequent amendment TRO.

 

3)            That a trial scheme should be piloted allowing businesses to buy a number of visitor permits, in order to help offset potential adverse impacts of a Controlled Parking Zone as outlined in paragraphs 6.4 and 6.5 save that businesses providing proof that they pay business rates will be entitled to buy an unlimited number of visitor permits on the basis they are advanced purchased in quantities of 50 visitor permits for use only in the Hanover and Elm Grove Light Touch Scheme Area. This would be reviewed after 6 months alongside the overall permit parking review and presented to a future Environment, Transport & Sustainability Committee.

 

4)            That all of the proposed parking schemes are reviewed after 12-18 months to see how they are working for residents, businesses and services. This would be included in the parking scheme priority timetable which is due to be presented in a report to the Environment, Transport & Sustainability Committee on 28^th November 2017.