Agenda item - Public Questions

(The closing date for receipt of public questions is 12 noon on 17 April 2009).

No public questions received by date of publication.

31.1    Mr Bennett asked the following question at the Committee meeting:

Churchill Square, Brighton is owned by Standard Life. No A Boards or other obstructions are permitted either in the covered area or the northern open area. CS is not a thoroughfare but a space given over completely to trade. This is flourishing. In great contrast, the City’s pavements, which are thoroughfares owned and maintained from the public purse, are obstructed by traders private clutter. Why does the Council tolerate this invasion?

31.2    The Chairman responded with the following statement:

Thank you very much for your question Mr Bennett.  As you say, Churchill Square is privately owned and so not subject to Highway’s legislation.  Churchill Square does occasionally permit a market on its forecourt and for instance, this week officers noted a Farmers Market operating there. I hope that my oral answer is sufficient.  However, this matter is also dealt with in the published report later in the agenda under item 33.

31.3    Mr Bennett asked the following supplementary question:

The Committee are able to take this opportunity to get rid of A-Boards. There are many things on the public highway that are not licensed. Do Councillors realise the public good that will come of clearing the clutter here?

31.4    The Chairman responded with the following answer:

All options are open to Members of the Committee and are contained within the report. All views will be taken into account.

31.5    Mr Chavasse asked the following question at the Committee meeting:

The recommended 1.3m norm envisages retention of 1m, with escape provisions for immobile persons trapped by obstructions, but not the many dangers to the public. Best practice is the DfT guidance 2m norm. In our Western Road’s Brunswick section 2m advantageously places all A Boards in private forecourts but, as officers know, neither 1.3 nor 1m is safe at bottleneck sites, including combinations of street furniture, active outdoor areas, trade displays and corners. Will the Committee please add a 2m norm and commission consultation to eliminate complicity in the licensing of unsafe, obstructing bottlenecks contemplated by lesser distances?

31.6    The Chairman responded with the following statement:

The deputation you made concerning obstructions of the pavement is included in the papers at item 32.  A discussion of public pavement widths is detailed in the officers report item 33, which aims to balance the interests and improve access for all users of the highway, and I recommend that the matters you raise in both your question and deputation are dealt with in the members discussion in that report. I hope that my answer is sufficient.

31.7    Mr Chavasse asked the following supplementary question:

Will the Committee consider a 1m lower limit, particularly in regard to wheelie-bins?

31.8    The Chairman responded with the following answer:

            This issue will be discussed in full under agenda item 33.