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)            Parking in the Surrenden Area

 

(b)          Written Questions: To receive any questions submitted by the due date of 12 noon on the 3 October 2017;

 

(c)          Deputations: To receive any deputations submitted by the due date of 12 noon on the 3 October 2017.

 

(i)            Bring the Extended Surrenden Road Area residents parking consultation to the front of the council's timetable

 

(a)          Petitions

 

(i)            Parking in the Surrenden Road Area

 

24.1      The Committee considered a petition signed by 307 people requesting the extended Surrenden area be included in the 2017 Resident Parking Scheme consultation.

 

24.2      The Chair provided the following response:

 

“Thank you for your petition and we do understand the concerns of residents in your area.

At this stage we would certainly be looking to consider the proposed area based on the correspondence that has been received to date, however, the final consultation area will be determined following discussions with ward councillors and taking account of any further correspondence that we might receive from residents.  The committee will be asked to give approval to the final proposed consultation area in 2018/19”.

 

24.3      RESOLVED- That the petition be noted.

 

(b)          Written Questions

 

(i)           George Street opening hours

 

24.4      Mitchie Alexander put the following question:

 

“I ask myself how a trial of opening up George Street to traffic after 4pm be judged a success or not. Success or failure shouldn't be measuring profit against the health and safety of people. I imagine that a report will include all pedestrian/traffic accidents and would need to measure asthmatic children lungs that walk down George St after school before and during the trial. Some traders may report a small increase or loss of profit. Will a trader’s increase in profit out-weigh the possible loss of life to traffic and higher pollution level for shoppers?” 

 

24.5      The Chair provided the following reply:

 

“Thank you for your question.

Officers and the Committee are aware of the concerns of users of George Street and the wider air pollution issues.

However, it is felt that the businesses’ concerns alongside the representations from Ward Councillors also must to be considered following the changes to parking in the Tesco’s Car park that has impacted the shops along George Street. 

The recommendation is to undertake a trial of the revised pedestrian hours in George Street that would allow comments for a 6 month period on how the new hours of operation are working and any difficulties being encountered. Obviously, road safety issues would form part of those reports back. All comments would then be reported back to this Committee for a final decision on the way forward.

This trial will be considered by Members of this Committee as part of the report being presented later at the meeting”

 

24.6      Mitchie Alexander put the following supplementary question:

 

“Can we have a six month George Street improvement trial instead? Where the council helps the traders by promoting the area and provide the shop fronts with hanging baskets and holding community events in the street?

 

24.7      The Chair provided the following reply:

 

“One of the ward councillors is here, Councillor Clare Moonan, she will be making her representation in advance of the committee making a decision on the report, and I believe she will be outlining some of her ideas and some of her fellow ward councillors ideas for doing exactly that- improving George Street”

 

(c)          Deputations

 

(i)            To bring the extended Surrenden Road area residents parking consultation to the front of the council’s timetable

 

24.8      The Committee considered a deputation requesting that the parking consultation for the extended Surrenden Road area be brought forward to the front of the proposed timetable.

 

24.9      The Chair provided the following response:

 

“Thank you for your deputation perhaps it is worth briefly outlining how we go about consulting on and implementing parking schemes. We always consult on a wider area, what we hope to end with therefore, is often a smaller area but one where a majority of residents are in favour of a parking scheme. Contrary to some opinion, the council does not impose parking schemes against people’s wishes. Therefore, that is the approach we have taken

I do understand the concerns of resident s in your area and as you are aware this area is being considered in the parking scheme priority timetable report later in the meeting alongside a number of other areas.

Residents in those areas who haven’t been consulted on a parking scheme have also come forward to request a consultation.

But we also need to consider parking schemes that are currently already in the process, parking schemes that are being consulted upon at the moment and schemes that are part way through their implementation and the reports on this committee agenda outline some of that progress. We also made a commitment as a Committee to review the Hanover parking schemes after a period of 12 months and they are both currently being implemented at the moment.

I appreciate it may be disappointing to wait for a consultation but we can reassure you that your area has been considered for inclusion in the proposed timetable and between now and then, any further representations from residents that are sent either to the committee or to officers will certainly be taken into consideration when determining the final area for that consultation”

 

24.10   Councillor West stated that where the council were introducing controlled parking zones, the displaced area would always return to the committee to request that they too be included in a scheme. Councillor West found that an inefficient and expensive process and the council in his view, needed to communicate better. Furthermore, Councillor West believed the proposed four year wait for the Surrenden area was too long.

 

24.11   RESOLVED- That the deputation be noted.

 

(ii)          George Street opening hours

 

24.12   The Committee considered a deputation that set out potential air quality, road safety and sustainable transport issues that may arise in relation to the proposal to open George Street to traffic earlier in the day.

 

24.13   The Chair provided the following response:

 

“Thank you for your deputation.

You mention road safety concerns; those have been laid out that is before Members to consider. 

It is felt that the businesses’ concerns alongside the representations from ward councillors do have to be considered following changes to parking in the vicinity including Tesco’s Car park. 

As representations to amend George Street opening times have been made to this Committee on several occasions, and taking account the strength of feeling for a change more recently, it is therefore the recommendation in the report that a trial in the road takes place which would allow comments for a 6 month period on how the scheme is working and any difficulties being encountered. I’m sure the bus company would want to partake in that trial. Everything would then be reported back to this Committee for a final decision on the way forward.

This trial will be considered by members of this Committee as part of the report being presented later at the meeting”.

 

24.14   RESOLVED- That the deputation be noted.

 

(iii)         Parking in Upper Hollingdean Road

 

24.15   The Committee considered a deputation requesting the introduction of parking controls in Upper Hollingdean Road.

 

24.16   The Chair provided the following response:

 

“Thank you for your deputation and I do understand the concerns of residents in your area.

I think you can see from the parking scheme timetable being presented today there is a lot of demand throughout the city for a consultation on resident parking schemes based on representations from those areas.

While we can’t explicitly include an additional consultation for that section of Upper Hollingdean Road within the proposed new timetable, there is an opportunity to look at this part of the ongoing review process for Area G and Area J and report the findings back to a future Committee and we are hoping to do that review in Spring next year”.

 

24.17   RESOLVED- That the deputation be noted.