Agenda item - Member Involvement

To consider the following matters raised by Members:

 

(a)          Petitions: To receive any petitions;

 

(i)            BikeShare Hub, George Street, Hove- Councillor Wealls

 

(ii)          Consultation for a CPZ in Hangleton and Knoll Ward south of the Old Shoreham Road- Councillor Janio

 

(b)          Written Questions: To consider any written questions;

 

(c)          Letters: To consider any letters;

 

(i)            Mackie Avenue junction alterations- Councillors Wares, G Theobald & C Theobald

 

(ii)          Progress on previously agreed items- Councillor Wares

 

(iii)         Recycling wheelie bins for allotments- Councillors Wares & Janio

 

(d)          Notices of Motion: to consider any Notices of Motion referred from Full Council or submitted directly to the Committee.

 

(i)            Commercial recycling for small businesses

 

 

(A)         PETITIONS

 

(i)            BikeShare Hub, George Street, Hove- Councillor Wealls

 

6.1         The Committee considered a petition signed by 1,174 people requesting the Council to relocate the BikeShare rack located in George Street, Hove due to safety issues, access issues and antisocial cycling.

 

6.2         The Chair provided the following response:

 

“The TRO for the George Street hub was approved at ETS committee on 14th March 2017.  This particular Bikeshare Hub is in the top 10 most used docking points across the entire city, attracting on average around 500 rentals from and to the facility every month.  The location of the hub towards the southern end of George Street has easy access to Church Road, making it easy for users to wheel the bikes the short distance before starting to cycle.  George Street has a no-cycling restriction during pedestrianised hours, 10am to 4pm, with the road open to all vehicles, including cycles, outside of those hours.  The location of the hub was adapted following comments from businesses in the vicinity, resolving accessibility issues for customers.  

Hourbike, the operator of the scheme, is in discussions with Tesco for an additional hub to be installed on the frontage of the store on Church Road. However, the passing footfall will be much lower than on George Street and therefore a new hub is seen as an addition to George Street rather than a replacement given the demand in the area.

The policy of the council is to encourage travel by sustainable modes, and removing this popular facility would impact on the overall success of the BikeShare scheme and therefore does not support that policy”.

 

6.3         Councillor West stated that he was interested to learn that the site was of the top ten docking points in the city which meant it was bringing people to George Street and boosting trade. Councillor West stated that relocating the docking point to the nearby supermarket would divert trade away from George Street. Councillor West added that reinforced his point that George Street needed to be reconfigured to a pedestrian space.

 

6.4         RESOLVED- That the committee note the petition.

 

(ii)          Consultation for a CPZ in Hangelton & Knoll south of the Old Shoreham Road- Councillor Janio

 

6.5         The Committee considered a petition signed by 77 people requesting a parking consultation to the area of Hangelton & Knoll ward south of the Old Shoreham Road to alleviate displacement caused by the newly introduced parking scheme in Wish ward.

 

6.6         The Chair provided the following response:

 

“I do understand the concerns of residents regarding vehicle displacement and all requests up to that point were considered in a parking scheme priority timetable report and it was agreed by members of the committee in October that the timetable would run up to 2020/21.  

The timetable is based on a number of factors including the need to plan the work and extensive consultations in the areas already agreed. 

However, I will be requesting officers to review this timetable in light of all recent requests and to bring an update report to this Committee next year. I would advise you to keep surveying your residents and keep in touch with officers and we will be able to consider the area in that report”.

 

6.7         Councillor Wares asked if any potential surplus from the Section 106 funding to be used for the parking scheme consultation could be used for the area identified in the petition and other areas.

 

6.8         The Chair clarified that there was a clear requirement that Section 106 funding be spent on a designated and specific area.

 

6.9         Councillor Janio noted that the area concerned was small and it was hoped that it could join the existing Wish scheme.

 

6.10      The Chair responded that this could be taken into account as part of the progress report to be received by the committee next year.

 

6.11      RESOLVED- That the committee note the petition.

 

(C)      LETTERS

 

(i)           Mackie Avenue junction alterations- Councillors Wares, G Theobald and C Theobald

 

6.12      The Committee considered a Letter requesting the immediate implementation of the pedestrian crossing identified for Mackie Avenue as agreed by the Committee in the Pedestrian Crossing Priority List report in October 2016.

 

6.13       The Chair provided the following response:

 

“At its meeting in October 2016 the Environment, Transport and Sustainability Committee considered a list of ten priority locations for pedestrian crossing facilities. This list of ten locations also included a recommendation that a pedestrian crossing in Marine Drive near the junction with Rifle Butt Road be reinstated to the priority list, making eleven outstanding priority locations. The report to the committee also noted that the funding needed to implement the priority list was more than provided and therefore additional funding would be required. 

Since 2016 four crossing schemes have been implemented using the annual funding made available through the Local Transport Plan (LTP) budget, leaving seven outstanding. The remaining seven priority locations in the priority order set by the Committee are as follows: -

 

1.         Church Road Hove near Hove Villas

2.         Sackville Road at Old Shoreham Road

3.         Old Shoreham Road near Olive Road

4.         Eastern Road between Chesham Street and Chichester Place

5.         Goldstone Villas and Station Approach

6.         Mackie Avenue near Ladies Mile Public House

7.         Millers Road at Highcroft Villas

 

Work is ongoing to both finalise the detailed designs and to identify additional sources of funding for the remaining seven priority locations. Regarding the proposals for crossing facilities in Mackie Avenue, a satisfactory design has not yet been arrived at but it is being worked on”.

 

6.14      Councillor Wares noted that the LTP budget had decreased due funding pressures on the Shelter Hall project and stated that he found it unacceptable that residents had been waiting for the crossing for 20 months.

 

6.15      The Chair replied that the Pedestrian Crossing Priority list was being delivered with the resource available and that had clearly been set out in the report agreed by committee in October 2016.

 

6.16      RESOLVED- That the committee note the Letter.

 

(ii)          Progress on previously agreed items- Councillor Wares

 

6.17      The Committee considered a Letter requesting an update on commitments given at previous meetings of the Committee.

 

6.18      The Chair provided the following response:

 

“Firstly, I am sorry Councillor Wares that you have not received a reply to your questions and that has meant that you have needed to bring a Letter to today’s meeting.

In response to your first question, Direct Revenue Funding (DRF) of parking capital schemes was used in 2016/17 and 2017/18 to reduce future year borrowing repayments. This was taken as additional savings as part of 2018/19 budget setting and funded from the overachievement of parking income primarily due to the new parking schemes. DRF could be taken in 2018/19 to reduce future year borrowing repayments should the TBM position for parking improve sufficiently over the next few months. However, we would need to consider this alongside the overall TBM position for the council subject to the restrictions upon which parking income can be spent which may mean we could consider using this for the Local Transport Plan. In terms of historic debt relating to highways from the early 2000’s, the servicing of this debt sits within a centralised financing budget and there is currently no opportunity to restructure our external debt relating to these works. 

In relation to your second question, following the meeting of the Environment, Transport and Sustainability Committee of 20th March 2018, officers have looked at the potential options for traffic calming in Vale Avenue. The most suitable options would likely be vertical deflection methods such as speed humps. A budget cost for such a traffic calming scheme would be in the region of £60,000 though the actual estimate would be subject to outline design work. 

Officers have also looked at this road’s safety record over the most recent three years and note that there has been no road traffic injury accidents along this route and as advised to the committee at its meeting in March it would be difficult to justify the diversion of resources from other roads and streets in the City where road traffic injury accidents do regularly occur and will continue to occur without road safety engineering interventions”.

 

6.19      Councillor Wares contended that there may be lower cost solutions to traffic calming measures on Vale Avenue such as signage.

 

6.20      The Chair stated that she would request officers to meet with Councillor Wares to discuss other options.

 

6.21      RESOLVED- That the Committee note the Letter.

 

(iii)         Recycling wheelie bins for allotments- Councillor Wares and Janio

 

6.22      The Committee considered a Letter requesting the Committee receive a report to a future meeting restating the Council’s commitment to the Allotment Strategy, options for providing redundant wheelie bins free of charge to allotment users, options for a voluntary opt-in or opt-out arrangements on concessions for allotment users and options for a voluntary overpayment mechanism for allotment users.

 

6.23      The Chair provided the following response:

 

“The 360 wheeled bins that had been stored at Stanmer and subsequently recycled were communal bins. These are 3200ltr and made of metal and as such, it is be unlikely that they would be suitable for use on allotments or for general use elsewhere due to their size.

Plastic wheeled bins are also recycled but in far fewer numbers. However, officers have recently been in contact with Allotment Federation and the Heads of Cityclean and Cityparks have agreed that bins that would normally be recycled for such reasons as no lids or painted house numbers on the side will now be offered to allotment holders. Indeed, recently a small batch of plastic wheeled bins were delivered to the Moulsecoomb Estate allotment to trial.

In discussion with the Allotment Federation, at present there is demand to reuse split plastic wheeled bins on allotments as composters, but should that change, these too can be made available.

There is already in place a voluntary opt in opt out scheme for allotment concession payments however, allotment holders must notify the council prior to invoices being raised

Following discussions between Cityparks and the council’s finance team, there is a fairly straightforward way of providing a facility for overpayments. This would involve providing plot holders with a single invoice number against which anyone wishing to make an additional allotment payment could do so. Payments against this could then be passed to the allotment accounts. I appreciate that this is not exactly what has been asked for but would provide opportunity for anyone keen to contribute. It is intended to implement this facility in the near future. 

And finally, would like reiterate that the Council is committed to the allotment strategy and will continue to work with the Allotment Federation”.

 

6.24      RESOLVED- That the committee note the Letter.

 

(D)      NOTICES OF MOTION

 

(i)            Commercial Recycling for Small Businesses

 

6.25      The Committee considered a Notice of Motion referred from the Full Council meeting of 19 April 2018 requesting the Committee agree to receive a report on options for Cityclean to provide an affordable and suitable commercial recycling service for small business and sole traders.

 

6.26      The Chair provided the following response:

 

“The Council does provide a service that is suitable for many who operate their businesses from home.  Those businesses that believe they do not warrant a bin contract either because they generate a limited amount of commercial waste or its frequency is irregular can purchase commercial waste sacks for disposing of their waste.

The sacks cost just £2.25 per sack with no VAT to pay, are sold in rolls of 25 so you only pay for what you need, come with a Duty of Care Certificate, there are no monthly administration fees and the sacks can be deposited in on-street communal refuse bins.

There are of course many other commercial collection providers including co-operatives such as Magpie. Furthermore, there is a local Waste Directory on the Environment Agency’s website.

Any further expansion by Cityclean into the commercial collection of the small home based business market would put at risk those co-ownership and co-operative working organisations that provide a more adapted and custom-made collection service. Some of them have been in touch with me about this motion and the potential impact on them.

Given the services in place and the risk to important local agencies of any expansion of the Cityclean service, I do not believe a report to committee is necessary at this stage”.

 

6.27      Councillor Wares asked for clarification that the Council contractor had suspended fines to small business and sole traders not disposing of their recycling waste to the correct process.

 

6.28      The Chair clarified that there had been no suspension as reported in the press.

 

6.29      Councillor Wares asked if consideration could be given to making clear the options available to small businesses and sole traders relating to waste and if that could be hosted in one place.

 

6.30      The Chair replied that such a review could be undertaken and discussions were also underway regarding the creation of a designated Cityclean contact for small businesses and sole traders.

 

6.31      RESOLVED- That the committee note the Notice of Motion.