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;

 

(b)          Written Questions: To receive any questions submitted by the due date of 12 noon on the 21 November 2018;

 

(i)            Valley Gardens Scheme

 

(ii)          Valley Gardens Scheme

 

(c)          Deputations: To receive any deputations submitted by the due date of 12 noon on the 21 November 2018.

(B)         WRITTEN QUESTIONS

 

(i)            Valley Gardens Scheme

 

38.1      David Spafford put the following question:

 

“Following the implementation of the ‘Old Steine to Palace Pier Proposals’ how many bus movement per day will go through the junction where the bottom of St James Street meets Grand Parade, and how will this effect traffic flows?”

 

38.2      The Chair provided the following reply:

 

“‘The technical work which has been undertaken so far on this project has used a computer-based traffic model which has been built using data for all traffic movements, including bus movements.  The model conforms to Government guidance in terms of the traffic data being used, and the time periods which are the most important.  The data are based on traffic surveys and the time periods are the morning and evening peak hours which are 8am to 9am, and 5pm to 6pm respectively.  

The model has helped inform the work undertaken to assess a number of possible design options by comparing them with a situation with no changes in the area around the Old Steine.  The subsequent conclusions and decisions made by this committee to consult on a single, recommended option – referred to as Option 1 – have included consideration of this data.  The modelling has provided information about predicted journey times and therefore helped to establish the principles within the preferred layout for the area.  

The modelling results indicate that the total number of bus movements which are expected to pass though the St James’s Street/Old Steine junction for the morning peak hour will be 174 bus movements and for the evening peak hour will be 182 bus movements.  In overall terms, the modelling shows that the estimated changes to journey times across the whole of the project area for bus passengers and drivers in other vehicles are likely to increase with all of the options that were tested, but Option 1 was the best performing in terms of the overall effects on traffic.  This information has then been considered as part of the much wider assessment undertaken against all of the projects agreed design objectives that don’t just relate to volume and speed of traffic.

The next stage of the design for this scheme is currently expected to be considered by this committee in January next year, when this committee will take account of the public consultation results.  If approved, the design will be subject to further optimisation and refinement and consultation as the process progresses”.

 

38.3      David Spafford asked the following supplementary question:

 

“How will the proposals affect the plans for moving Ardingly Court surgery to the corner of Old Steine and Palace Pier regarding the parking available for parking for Doctor’s, surgery staff and patients?”

 

38.4      The Chair provided the following reply:

 

“The detail for parking, for doctor’s parking, for loading bays, taxi bays and so on will all be contained within the detailed design work that will be undertaken following approval by the January ET&S Committee. This is a two-stage process; firstly, the initial consultation results on Option 1 will come back and I’m sure there will be some revisions to the original proposal. Those revisions will be considered and then Councillors will hopefully give permission for those proposals to be consulted upon and work will then start on the more detailed aspects of the scheme that you’ve outlined”

 

(ii)          Valley Gardens Scheme

 

38.5      On behalf of Anne Ackord, David Rochford put the following question:

 

“How does this scheme accommodate the need for the pier to accept deliveries that need to be unloaded directly onto our reinforced forecourt, deliveries can number up to thirty per day and include many tons of steel used in our maintenance programme and without which the pier would not be viable. These deliveries cannot be unloaded at a remote location and must come like they do now, straight from the road onto the forecourt”

 

38.6      The Chair provided the following reply:

 

“I understand that officers have met with Anne, your colleagues and other stakeholders recently in order to understand, and explain, how specific concerns can be accommodated and further considered within the emerging design detail for the project.  Some of that detail will need to be considered following the analysis of all of the responses that we receive to the consultation which has just finished. 

I can therefore assure you that your current requirements for servicing and deliveries will be taken into account in the future, detailed design of the area adjacent to the Pier, to ensure that they can be accommodated and managed safely within the new junction design.  In doing so, officers will liaise directly with you about this at the appropriate time in that process. 

The specific needs that you have for regular maintenance of the Pier which does require heavy load deliveries were also discussed at that meeting and, as a result, by working with you we will also ensure that these can continue to take place in a way that protects the public highway and its underlying structure from any damage and that the safety of everybody in that area is maintained at all times”.

 

38.7      David Rochford asked the following supplementary question:

 

“Safety is very important from our point of view as far as moving vehicles across what will now be a very wide area of pavement and we can't control the public whilst we still need to bring deliveries up to the front of the Pier. Can the Council confirm that they will make it as easy as possible for the Palace Pier and with no additional costs from our suppliers because we have become a difficult place to deliver to?”

 

38.8      The Chair provided the following reply:

 

“I can give that assurance and that is why we need to continue the dialogue with you so we can understand things from your perspective. It’s obviously to everyone’s benefit to enable those deliveries to take place as quickly and as smoothly as possible with minimum impact to pedestrians and other road users so the Pier can be properly serviced. As said, we will continue contact with you to keep these discussions going”

 

(iii)         Valley Gardens Phase 3

 

38.9      Angi Mariani put the following question:

 

“One of the key objectives of the plan, even if not stated in the original list of objectives, must be to create ease of access for all people travelling to the city, whether resident or tourist, and by whatever mode of transport. The council planners have indicated that the new scheme will increase journey times for private vehicles. Removing the west side road outside the Royal Pavilion, and diverting buses to the dual carriageway, loses a lot of road space and bus lay-bys and potentially increases the journey times further. Could this west road remain and be used solely by buses, taxis and the cycle lane. It would have the added benefit of moving the cycle lane away from the dual carriageway?”

 

38.10   The Chair provided the following reply:

 

“The overall aims and objectives for the scheme include seeking to redress the imbalance of travel experience by all modes of transport and to create a much needed and improved urban environment.

The existing preliminary design option presents the simplification of the road layout with fewer junctions which does present the best overall journey times for public and general transport movements combined, it also provides a safer and more attractive route for pedestrians and cyclists, that will appeal to residents and tourists.

Journey times are only impacted in the evening peak times on the A259 seafront as a consequence of replacing the currently uncontrolled roundabout to provide better facilities for pedestrians and cyclists and to improve safety”

 

38.11   Angi Mariani asked the following supplementary question:

 

“It must be a difficult situation for the Council to resolve when you have the Green and cycle lobby requesting more cycle lanes, the historical and heritage shouting for nicer pedestrian routes and now the business and tourist organisations saying the increased congestion may ruin our economy. Do you think the Council should listen more to business and tourist organisations in the city as ultimately they will help to pay for any scheme provided?”

 

38.12   The Chair provided the following reply:

 

“We are actually listening to everybody and everybody’s suggestions, some of which are quite significant and really helpful are all going to be reviewed and technically appraised.

I think as you’ve alluded to, this is an area with interdependent, different modes of traffic. At the moment, there is a slight imbalance. There is for example no northbound cycle lane, pedestrians have to fight their way through the area, there is no linear routes for them and this was fed back to us in the survey work we undertook last summer. People don’t find the area easy to travel through by most modes of transport at the moment. Things are never easy but we are seeking to achieve a better balance of modes through this design process and we will keep in touch with you as part of that process”

 

(iv)         Valley Gardens Scheme

 

38.13   On behalf of Tam Duy Dao, Gary Farmer put the following question:

 

“With the funnelling of all traffic to the east side of the Old Steine for Phase 3, which is contradictory to the overall division of public and private transport seen in Phase 1 and 2, why does this scheme differ in its environmental and civic responsibilities by creating pinch points, additional bus stops, bi-directional bus lanes, narrow traffic lanes, congestion and associated emissions by channelling all traffic on the east side for the inclusion of limited public space by the closure of the west side to buses in front of the Pavilion”

 

38.14   The Chair provided the following reply:

 

“The Phase 3 design to date together with further enhancements by way of consultation process, once complete, will deliver a sustainable transport corridor with access to new environmentally improved public spaces. These new spaces provide an improved setting for the heritage buildings to support conservation. These more attractive spaces can support the city’s civic quality and better support sustainable events and tourism in a central city location.

Sustainable transport is aimed to support increased levels of cycling and walking as well as public transport - to support a multi-dimensional approach - to will help improve air quality.

A new air quality monitor has been located on the east side of the Steine which will support the project monitoring before, during and for years after the scheme is delivered.

Reclaimed road space is used in the option to help to meet all of the design objectives supported by the initial public survey. Public transport features on the west of Phase 3.

Moving traffic to the west of the Steine as achieved for Phases 1 & 2 opposite the Royal Pavilion would require additional controlled junctions and will introduce delay and queuing into the network. The preferred option presents the most efficient layout to develop, subject to ongoing consultation process”.

 

38.15   Gary Farmer asked the following supplementary question:

 

“Why hasn’t the modelling been carried out at peak times such as the Marathon, bike race and Pride?”

 

38.16   The Chair provided the following reply:

 

“The modelling has been carried out to Department for Transport requirements and guidelines and reflected in our business case and that is what the Local Enterprise Partnership will be looking for, that is the standard basis for modelling”

 

(v)          Valley Gardens Scheme

 

38.17   Simon Thetford put the following question:

 

“What consultation and impact studies have been undertaken with businesses in the Old Steine in respect of the proposed loss of car parking and vehicular access?”

 

38.18   The Chair provided the following reply:

 

“The consultation has taken very many forms, we have distributed 1,400 leaflets and postcards in the Old Steine area when we published the Option 1 proposals and officers have been working and in the area working one to one with people and as I have said, we will be holding specific workshops with specific people who have certain needs from this scheme.

An initial parking study was conducted in Stage 1 of the project. Disabled and doctor parking bay re-provision is a priority along with loading and unloading. Consultation meeting are still being held with interest groups. A thorough assessment of all representations regarding key design issues will be considered before updating and making any revisions to the preliminary design. At this stage the updated plan will be considered by this committee in January in readiness to commence detailed design, when further specific consultation will be conducted. 

Right now, we cannot give details on the number of pay and display or resident parking bays that will remain as that will be subject to the next stage of the design for this scheme and that is currently expected to be considered by this committee in January next year”.

 

38.19   Simon Thetford asked the following supplementary question:

 

“With regards to one to one consultation, Graves & Pilcher would like to have one and also the other businesses in our area of the Old Steine so when could we meet somebody?”

 

38.20   The Chair provided the following reply:

 

“I hope I can arrange for someone to meet with you as soon as possible and perhaps you could give some thought as to which other business representatives in your area that you might want to include and I will ask one of the officers to be in touch with you after this meeting”

 

(vi)         Valley Gardens Scheme

 

38.21   John Healy put the following question:

 

“At the ETSC October 9th, a report from the office of the Executive Director, EEC presented an appraisal study, recommending a single option for public consultation - the only one of four that did not conform to the core proposal in the Capital 2 Coast commissioned Independent Business case report that “Buses, taxis and local access will be moved onto a consistent route that will run along the western side of Valley Gardens, and private vehicles will be kept on the eastern side of Valley Gardens”. How was that position arrived at and has that been sanctioned by the LEP?”

 

38.22   The Chair provided the following reply:

 

“The principle of public transport on the west of the valley was technically deliverable for Phases 1 & 2 as stated in the business case.

In the case of Phase 3 traffic merges at Pavilion Parade due to existing physical site constraints. Switching the traffic back again would require the introduction of more signalised junctions which would cause delay in traffic movements and vehicle queuing.

The preferred option includes a public transport loop to the west of the Steine.

This preferred option is consistent to all eight core design objectives approved by this committee at its meeting in June which were used at the options appraisal stage. The objectives are consistent with council policy and the Local Enterprise Partnership’s current and draft Strategic Economic Plan”

 

38.23   John Healy asked the following supplementary question:

 

“I have been listening to some of the answers that you have given and it seems that a box has been ticked in relation to traffic surveys. You referred to computerised models being considered, Brighton is not, I would suggest an average city with average problems. It has different issues that need to be addressed and would not a further survey be sensible given the diverse requirements of the city?”

 

38.24   The Chair provided the following reply:

 

“We are modelling and undertaking traffic counts in accordance with the requirements of the Local Enterprise Partnership with the Department for Transport Guidelines. This is a highways scheme and therefore the modelling and traffic counts have to be undertaken in accordance with those guidelines and it is upon those that the Local Enterprise Partnership will carry out its review. To issue the data in any other way might prejudice us in being able to receive the funding and the LEP are requiring us to gather and set out the data in that format”

 

(vii)       Valley Gardens Scheme

 

38.25   David Bailey put the following question:

 

“As a business Healys occupy 2 buildings on the East Side of Old Steine which we have done for 25 years. We employ 35 lawyers and support staff and there are numerous callers to the office each day. Often our clients are elderly or disabled and they require, and have enjoyed, easy access to our buildings by using the open area in front to park, or be dropped off. The scheme proposed eliminates that open space and provides no workable alternatives. Please explain how will our clients and others be able enjoy equivalent access to our offices if the proposed scheme is adopted?”

 

38.26   The Chair provided the following response:

 

“We will be integrating disabled parking bays and loading and unloading in this area, all of which will be expressed in the next revision of the preliminary design, and subject to further consultation, during the detailed design next year. Landscaping improvements such as a pedestrian island will support safer and more comfortable access to the adjacent businesses”

 

38.27   David Bailey asked the following supplementary question:

 

“Can you explain why you have opted for one of the options before this consultation process because from the answers that you have given, it seems the best anyone here can hope for is a revision to Option 1 rather than a change to any of the other options”

 

38.28   The Chair provided the following reply:

 

“We considered the options and arrived at Option 1 because we felt it offered the best balance of benefits that we want to see in this area based on the initial survey work undertaken in the summer which asked people their experiences of using the area and what improvements they would like to see and what were their current barriers in being able to enjoy it to its full. This work will now be looked at, all of the consultation responses will be reviewed, they will be technically appraised and revisions I’m certain will be made and they will be reported back to committee next year. Meanwhile, conversations will continue with interested groups and we very much want this to be a two-way process”

 

(viii)      Valley Gardens Scheme

 

38.29   Nic Roe put the following question:

 

“The area outside 1-15 Old Steine is essential for Brighton Language College’s day to day operational needs (tour group arrivals and departures, home stay provider meet and greets, deliveries, maintenance and suppliers). The historical substantial access on which our business and all local businesses rely upon and cannot operate without or the impact of any restrictive loading or parking bays installed leads one to ask how this scheme meets our continuous operational needs and at the same time fulfil our 2014 Section 106 Sustainable Transport Contribution relating to the land at 6-7 Old Steine for a “footway island”?”

 

38.30   The Chair provided the following reply:

 

“We will be integrating Disabled parking bays, doctor parking bays, and loading and unloading in this area as well as the Section 106 requirements to deliver a pedestrian island that you refer to. Such further detail will be integrated into the preferred option to be shown in the next revision of the preliminary design, with further consultation during the detailed design stage that will be coming to committee next year. As I have said to others, we want to continue the dialogue with you so we can arrive at the best possible solution for your needs”

 

(C)         DEPUTATIONS

 

(i)            Parking Restrictions Hove Park Parking Consultation- Christopher Duncan

 

38.31   The Committee considered a Deputation requesting the Committee continue and expand the single yellow line parking scheme in Hove Park ward be continued and the proposal for a full double yellow parking scheme not be approved.

 

38.32   The Chair provided the following response:

 

“As you are aware a further consultation took place in October 2018 where it was outlined that if the proposed residents parking scheme is approved the council would not be in a position to continue with the single yellow line restriction alongside a resident parking scheme where residents, services & businesses pay for permits contributing towards enforcement of the parking scheme. 

Legally we cannot provide resident permits to allow residents to park on single yellow lines as these must be issued to allow parking within designated residents bays.

If residents did not wish to be part of the proposed parking scheme, the single yellow line restriction would be removed and the area would be unrestricted. If a parking scheme is approved, this could lead to vehicle displacement. 

It was therefore important that residents had the opportunity to reconsider the parking proposals and whether they wanted to be part of a light touch parking scheme if approved.

Residents had until the 26th October 2018 to respond and 89% of respondents indicated that they would like to join a residents parking scheme”.

 

38.33   RESOLVED- That the Committee note the Deputation.

 

(ii)          Hove Park Parking Consultation- Karan Martin

 

38.34   The Committee considered a Deputation register Legal & General’s opposition to the proposed parking restrictions in the Hove Park area.

 

38.35   The Chair provided the following response:

 

“Thank you for your Deputation and I do appreciate the concerns of Legal & General who we consider an important employer within Brighton & Hove and I we have met personally to discuss the matter.

Officers in City Transport have been liaising with Legal & General as part of the Access Sustainable travel project since April 2017.  Officers have held two sustainable travel events for Legal & General staff in October 2017 and March 2018 with Hourbike (the Brighton Bikeshare providers), Love to Ride (to promote the cycle challenges), and Electric Bikes Sussex also attended.

Transport Officers would be happy to engage further with you to review your staff travel plan as we appreciate that employee numbers on site are increasing.

As you are aware, two meetings have been undertaken with representatives of Legal & General who have outlined the parking difficulties their staff would experience if a parking scheme was introduced. It was agreed that an officer from our Economic Development Team would facilitate introductions with land owners. Unfortunately, we couldn’t find any land owners that were felt to be a viable option in terms of usability for parking. Other sites have been discussed with planning colleagues, but none were found to be suitable for temporary car parking. It was recommended that Legal & General contact commercial agents that operate in the City through our commercial property database to further their search.

As outlined in the report later at this meeting there has been a large majority of residents in favour of a light touch resident parking scheme and before that, there were very many requests coming from that area for scheme. If a scheme is taken forward then the parking scheme would be monitored over the first six months and if underutilised then exclusive pay & display could be investigated for inclusion within that the area”.

 

38.36   RESOLVED- That the Committee note the Deputation.

 

(iii)         Seeking a solution to the dangerous and disruptive traffic flows between The Old Shoreham Road and Highdown and Lyndhurst Roads in the Goldsmid ward of Hove- Steve Moses

 

38.37   The Committee considered a Deputation requesting that Wolstonbury and Silverdale Roads be considered for permanent closure from access from the Old Shoreham Road due to dangerous and disruptive traffic.

 

38.38   The Chair provided the following response:

 

“In January I met with Councillor O’Quinn who has done a lot of work with officers on this particular, rather intractable issue and we met with the Council’s Head of Traffic Management to look at the background to the problems you describe and to get a good understanding of them. We discussed the problems of Heavy Goods Vehicles and other traffic taking circuitous routes through the area so as to double-back for deliveries to stores in Dyke Road and the issue of college staff parking and speeding traffic.

Following the meeting I asked Officers: to review the operation of the nearby traffic signals to ensure their operation is optimised, to review the allocation of permit to schools and colleges as part of the parking permit review, to make contact with the local stores in relation to the route that their delivery drivers are taking and to look into the reported problems in Highdown Road in particular;

I then asked Officers to advise residents of the outcome of the above investigations through the ward councillors. 

The operation of the traffic signals at the junction of Dyke Road and Old Shoreham Road were investigated to understand how efficiently they operate. The signals currently operate within a fixed time Urban Traffic Control plan so while the timings have been assessed the signals do not adapt when conditions change.  In light of the concerns related to rat running raised by Councillor O’Quinn, funding is being sought to introduce more intelligent traffic signals in the coming year.

The problem of the sixth form parking permits has been looked at and it was clear that the provision of parking permits is a city wide issue and as a result school permits across the city will be reviewed.   

The review will consider changes to the scheme including looking at working with the college to link these permits with specific vehicles, for example only car share vehicles and not liveried mini buses.  The review may of course actually limit their use further.  The review has now started and is being reported to the Parking Systems 2020 Modernisation Board.   

Local supermarkets have been contacted to encourage the use of Dyke Road by delivery vehicles rather than unsuitable residential roads.  

Highdown Road is in the original zone of the 20mph scheme and a recent review has concluded that speeds are lower than were measured across the zone then was present prior to the scheme.  At this stage there are no plans to introduce further measures in this area.

In relation to students being dropped off in local roads, this is a really difficult issue to deal with as most people decide where they stop and make a choice on how close to the college they drop off. Further engagement with the college will be started to try to influence this behaviour.

Closure of Wolstonbury Road is not to be considered appropriate as it has a good safety record and closing the road or Silverdale Road would simply move traffic onto other roads. 

When this closure was proposed a few months ago, as Chair of this Committee I was inundated from residents living in the surrounding area to those roads who were horrified at the thought of additional traffic being funnelled through their streets and so if anything were to done in this area, it would have be done on a larger area than looking at one or two streets in isolation. There would have to be traffic calming measures that would have to be installed and this would in effect, be a very large scheme that would require specific funding”.

 

38.39   RESOLVED- That the Committee note the Deputation.

 

(iv)         Valley Gardens Phase 3 Option 1- Andy Peters

 

38.40   The Committee considered a Deputation requesting the council to fully re-examine Option 1 of the Phase 3 with regards to the economic impact to the taxi trade as well as identifying expected traffic problems associated with adoption of Option 1.

 

38.41   The Chair provided the following response:

 

“Before I respond to your deputation I would like to point out that this is not the final stage in the process for determining the detailed scheme layout that forms most of the points raised in your deputation as we are later this evening expecting to make a decision regarding the Business Case that could secure £6m of funding from the Coast To Capital Local Enterprise Partnership.  

We welcome and thank you and your colleagues for attending the workshop session to look at and discuss the recommended option as part of the consultation process. I think it’s only by doing that kind of thing in such detail that we can each understand where each other are coming from and get some good information to inform changes in the designs.  I can assure you that the thorough submission which you have produced, and which forms the basis of your deputation, will be recorded as a response to the consultation period which has just ended. 

It will therefore be fully considered as part of the next phase of work by officers and it will be reviewed and technically appraised along with all of the other views that we have received.    

Once this analysis is completed, any proposed revisions and I’m sure there will be quite a few, to the preliminary design will then be included in the next officer report to this committee in January.  

The design that has been published for consultation is at an early, preliminary stage and provides an indication of how the area may look and operate in the future.  Further details of road layouts and parking and loading and ranking and the location of street furniture and street trees and bus stops will be subject to change and conversation as the scheme’s design develops.    

This process will include further decisions and activities involving stakeholders such as yourself, similar to those which members of your Trade participated in with the first two phases of the Valley Gardens project that I think all sides found helpful”.

 

38.42   RESOLVED- That the Committee note the Deputation.

 

(v)          Valley Gardens Scheme- Option 1- Gary Farmer

 

38.43   The Committee considered a Deputation expressing the concern of Old Steine based organisations, businesses and residents concerning the loss of the open area currently used as an essential facility for us all in relation to the proposed Valley Gardens Scheme Phase 3 Option 1.

 

38.44   The Chair provided the following response:

 

“Officers have sought to ensure that occupants of properties in the area within and around this southern section of Valley Gardens have been notified of, and involved in, the consultation on the preliminary design by the extensive delivery of postcards and use of posters and 1,400 were delivered in the area at the start of the publication of the preliminary design.  However, where we have been advised that this has not been the case, we are investigating to find out why this may have occurred in order to ensure that similar issues do not arise in the future and Transport Officers have been calling on those premises to discuss the proposals on a one to one basis. 

I can assure you that the content of your deputation will be recorded as a response to the consultation, although I appreciate and expect that you and those that you represent will have also made these representations within responses to that consultation.  

It will therefore be fully considered as part of the next phase of work by officers.  This will include a review and technical assessment of the potential implications of all the suggestions and views expressed by everyone.  Officers may also seek further views from stakeholders to help further inform this review process and so this conversation will continue. 

Once this analysis is completed, any proposed revisions to the preliminary design will be included in the next officer report to this committee, which we expect to be able to consider in January next year and there will then be consultation upon that.

The design that has been published is at an early, preliminary stage and provides an indication of how the area may look and operate in the future.  Further details of road layouts and parking and loading, and the location of street furniture and doctors parking bays will be subject to change as the scheme’s design develops.     

This process will include further decisions and activities involving stakeholders, similar to those which were carried out for the first two phases of the Valley Gardens project, which are now under construction”.

 

38.45   RESOLVED- That the Committee note the Deputation.

 

(vi)         Valley Gardens preferred Option 1- David Rochford

 

38.46   The Committee considered a Deputation that outlined objection to the adoption of the preferred Valley Gardens Phase 3 Option 1 on account of the effect it would have on the Palace Pier businesses.

 

38.47   The Chair provided the following response:

 

“Thank you for your deputation. You have made a very compelling case for how important tourism is to this city’s economy and, in particular, the numerous attractions and hotels that it supports and which also enables it to thrive.  

The design option that has been published for consultation is at an early, preliminary stage and provides an indication of how the area may look and operate in the future. It has been put forward for consultation following a thorough technical assessment of a number of options which indicated that it performed best overall in terms of general traffic management, road safety, and journey times, when compared to those other options.   I also firmly believe that will it will significantly enhance this area of the city centre for residents and visitors to use and enjoy and add to our attraction as a primary destination.  

I can assure you that the content of your deputation will be recorded as a response to the consultation period, although I appreciate and expect that you and those that you represent will have also made these representations within responses to that consultation.  This is the key time to be raising concerns and questions and it will therefore be fully considered as part of the next phase of work by officers.  This will include a review and technical assessment of the potential implications of all the suggestions and views expressed by everyone.  Officers may also seek further views from certain stakeholders to help further inform this review process.  

The Coast to Capital Local Enterprise Partnership’s independent review that you have referred to in your deputation relates to the Business Case for the first two phases of the project to the north, which are now under construction. 

However, the draft Business Case for Phase 3, which this committee will be considering later this afternoon, is another key stage in the progress of this part of the wider project.  It has been prepared to fully comply with the guidance issued by the Coast to Capital Local Enterprise Partnership to enable it to make an informed decision about releasing the £6m of funding that has been provisionally allocated to Phase 3 of this project.  Its content is therefore determined by what the LEP needs to know and understand about what is primarily a transport project.   

Finally, I have read and listened very carefully to the points that you and others have made, or will make, during this part of the committee’s agenda.  These have led me to decide that, later in the agenda, I will be seeking to request that officers incorporate additional, appropriate references within the Strategic Case section of the draft Business Case to highlight to the LEP, and others, that there are also linkages with the objectives of the council’s Visitor and the Economic Strategies and that the project will be able to contribute to them”.

 

38.48   RESOLVED- That the Committee note the Deputation.