Agenda item - Public Involvement

skip navigation and tools

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 Coombe Road area


(ii)       Manor Hill parking


(b)       Written Questions: To receive any questions submitted by the due date of 12 noon on the 21 November 2017


(c)       Deputations: To receive any deputations submitted by the due date of 12 noon on the 21 November 2017


(i)        Valley Gardens


(a)          PETITIONS


(i)            Parking Consultation in the Coombe Road Area


37.1      The Committee considered a petition signed by 326 people requesting the Council undertake a controlled parking zone consultation in the Coombe Road area.


37.2      The Chair provided the following response:


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

The current situation as regards the decision making by this committee is that there is a parking scheme consultation priority timetable which has been set now until 2020/21 and this was agreed at the last Environment, Transport and Sustainability Committee meeting.

This covers areas which have petitioned or shown very strong support to the council for a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ). As I'm sure you will understand, we need residents to come forward before we can consider consulting on a resident parking scheme. We don’t impose resident parking schemes on residents; it works the other way around.

Currently there are no plans to include the area north of Bear Road in a CPZ as until recently there had been little correspondence from residents within that area, although I am aware of the discussion around Section 106 monies potentially being used for a parking scheme consultation as part of the Barracks development.

As part of that, there may be funding and resource available to consider a consultation in your area. It would be helpful if a larger number of residents also requested it, meaning over a larger area. You’ve got a significant number of signatures but from across a larger area, if that’s possible, that would be helpful.

We will monitor this and we can reassure you that your area may be considered for inclusion alongside the Preston Barracks development timetable subject to ongoing discussions with those developers”.


37.3      Councillor West stated his concern to hear of cars being vandalised in the area north of Bear Road in response to displacement of vehicles from the Hanover & Elm Grove area. Councillor West stated that whilst a timetable was in place, the length of time areas had to wait for consultation for a CPZ was too long and he felt the administration needed to respond more quickly.


37.4      The Chair stated that civil disobedience and incidents of criminal activity should be reported to Sussex Police. The Chair stated that she had clearly outlined in her response that there were parallel discussions in relation to the Preston Barracks development regarding developer funding for a consultation that had begun sometime before the implementation of the Hanover & Elm Grove CPZ scheme and those discussions would continue.


37.5      RESOLVED- That the petition be noted.


(ii)          Manor Hill parking


37.6      The Committee considered a petition signed by 17 people requesting the introduction of permit parking for residents or an extension of permit Zone H to include the top part of Manor Hill, Brighton due to parking problems in the area.


37.7      The Chair provided the following response:


“Thank you for your petition and we do understand the concerns of residents in your area, I am one of your ward councillors and know the area very well. I know that for the past couple of years now, the hospital staff related parking problems in that area have worsened.

A parking scheme timetable was agreed at the last committee meeting in October and, as we discussed on the phone, we would not go ahead with a consultation on a parking scheme on the basis of one road because of the potential effects on neighbouring roads that should also be consulted.

So the committee would need to hear from residents across the wider area as well.  However, I am well aware that going out and consulting people yourself on whether other people would like parking scheme can be very controversial, it can be very difficult so myself and the other ward councillors are thinking of ways we may be able to help. We have in the past received individual enquiries about a parking scheme from some residents in the closes off Manor Way for example and these will be kept on file.

The council is also taking steps now to improve road safety at the top of Manor Hill, we’re proposing additional double yellow lines to cope with the parking at the very top part of the hill so we’re going to keep the situation for Manor Hill under review as that hospital expansion continues and changes are made to the staff parking arrangements but we need to receive a few more requests and we’ll give some more thought on how we can do that and we’ll keep in touch with you”.


37.8      RESOLVED- That the petition be noted.




(i)           Traffic in Rottingdean


37.9      John Bryant put the following question:


"On the 31/10/17 the RPC commissioned a queue count in the busy period of traffic travelling east from Brighton through Rottingdean. This was completed by ESCC Traffic Monitoring unit. The report showed that the average queue was 342 vehicles. This compares with estimated queue lengths contained in 3 different Planning Applications ranging from 100 as the largest queue to some 25 vehicles at the lowest.

Transport Officers when reporting on Transport Assessments submitted by Developers must be required to have cognizance of such data. Does the Chair agree?"


37.10   The Chair provided the following response:


“I am aware that you have already kindly provided this information to council officers, I think we are all aware that regular, lengthy queuing occurs on the A259 at busy times and that is not disputed. 

Similar queuing occurs on other routes in the city such as the A23 and Dyke Road for the same reasons – traffic flows exceed the available roadspace at times when m ost people choose to travel - and therefore in response to your question, I would fully agree with you that our officers are aware of, understand and take account of queue length data, especially if it is submitted as part of the Planning process and the consideration of individual planning applications”.


37.11   John Bryant put the following supplementary question:


When the Transport Officer reports on traffic assessments in Planning applications, it is the Parish Council’s view that they should also consider the A259 two lengths and the impact on the AQMA in the High Street due to slowly moving traffic and therefore slow dispersal of air pollution, does the Chair agree?


37.12   The Chair provided the following response:


“I certainly do agree Councillor Bryant and that is why this committee has set aside £40,000 for mitigation measures in Rottingdean High Street to improve air quality and I’m really pleased to hear that agreement has now been reached between the ward councillors and Parish Council on how that funding is going to be spent and a report on that is due to come to this committee in March”.


37.13   Councillor Wares stated that he had reserved the related Item 41 on the agenda for discussion. However, due to the accommodating response provided by the Chair, he no longer saw the need to discuss the item and that the recommendations could be agreed.


37.14   The Chair stated that procedurally, the committee now had to consider Item 41 however; a motion to move straight to the recommendations of the report could be undertaken when the item was reached on the agenda.




(i)            Valley Gardens


37.15   The Committee considered a deputation from Brighton Area Buswatch that set out various concerns they held in relation to the Valley Gardens scheme.


37.16   The Chair provided the following response:


“Whilst acknowledging that bus priority isn’t the single focus of the scheme it has been a really important consideration alongside the overall integrity of the transport systems when designing the new Valley Gardens scheme.

As a result Officers have met with members of Brighton Area Buswatch and the bus companies several times during the development stages of the Valley Gardens proposals. A full and detailed response to all of the points raised by Brighton Area Buswatch have been both written and verbally communicated most recently at the Quality Bus Partnership meeting on the 16th November. Officers also presented the very detail design proposals at the Transport Partnership fairly recently which were generally well received and the team have committed to continue to work with Stakeholders and Transport Partners, including bus operators to deliver the scheme”.


37.17   Councillor West stated that he was very concerned that there would be a 21 second increase in bus journey times along the Valley Gardens stretch of road and as the deputation highlighted, regular bus routes across the city were taking longer. Councillor West stated that he was worried about the equalities impact upon the households that depended on bus use and the impact upon congestion and air quality in the city. Councillor West supplemented that the delay to public transport journey time was unacceptable and he believed the current administration to be directionless in sustainable transport. Councillor West explained that he felt public transport was the victim of an insistence that the Valley Gardens scheme be traffic neutral.


37.18   The Chair replied that her Group similarly had concerns regarding the Valley Gardens scheme proposed by the previous administration, specifically that no network review had been undertaken assessing the wider impact upon transport in the city. The Chair stated as an administration, that review had now been commissioned and would be undertaken shortly. That review would look at the congestion hot-spots across the city and would support the Valley Gardens scheme and help it to work. The Chair noted that the bus operators in the city fully supported the scheme.


37.19   RESOLVED- That the deputation be noted.

Supporting documents:


Brighton & Hove City Council | Hove Town Hall | Hove | BN3 3BQ | Tel: (01273) 290000 | Mail: | how to find us | comments & complaints