Brighton & Hove City Council - Agenda item

Report of the Executive Director, Economy, Environment & Culture

1) That the Committee agrees to the preliminary designs for the Western Road scheme (presented in Appendix 5), to the advertisement of a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) (including for the proposed changes to loading bays and amendments to the bus lane in the vicinity of the Dyke Road junction), and the commencement of construction on elements of the scheme which do not require a TRO.

2) That the Committee agrees to the preliminary design for the A23 scheme (presented in Appendix 7), to initiate further discussion with key stakeholders to inform design development, to progress the development of designs, to undertake further public consultation and return to a future ETS Committee with detailed design recommendations on the A23 scheme.

3) That the Committee calls for an officer report to be presented at the Committee’s next meeting on the Administration’s proposals for a trial Park & Ride site at Mill Road from Summer 2022, working with Brighton & Hove Bus and Coach Company.

4) That the Committee requests that an Urgency Sub-Committee be convened before 11 August 2021 to consider the removal of the Phase 1 cycle lanes on Old Shoreham Road

5) That the Committee requests officers explore alternative local routes for a temporary scheme, including but not limited to, Portland Road and New Church Road, in consultation with local residents and bring a report back to the committee with potential options.

6) That the Committee agrees not to proceed with the Phase 2 Old Shoreham Road temporary cycle lane proposals at this stage.

7) That the Committee agrees not to proceed at this stage with the proposals for Nevill Road, Windlesham Close, Weald Avenue and Stapley Road (access restrictions).

8) That the Committee agrees to progress the development of improvements to the Phase 1 Seafront A259 temporary westbound cycle lane (from West Street to Fourth Avenue) as an experimental scheme, including to disabled parking, as set out in Appendix 10, and to undertake continued monitoring.

9) That the Committee that prior to considering the proposals for Phase 2 of the Seafront (A259) temporary westbound cycle lane and proposals to introduce an experimental traffic scheme on King’s Esplanade (and adjoining roads), as set out in Appendix 11, officers are to consult and engage fully with the businesses and residents directly impacted, and bring a report to the next full meeting of the ETS Committee.

10) That the Committee agrees to officers progressing with the Active Travel Fund 2021/22 bid to the Department for Transport (DfT), to secure future funding for schemes including consideration of Marine Parade, Old Town, A23 and alternatives to the current temporary scheme on Old Shoreham Road (including options that are not limited to Portland Road and New Church Road), as well as consideration of a ‘Mini-Hollands’ proposal for the City.

11) That the Committee notes the summary of the Active & Inclusive Travel Forum to date as set out in Appendix 16.

24.1 The Committee considered a report of the Executive Director, Economy, Environment & Culture thatoutlined the consultation exercise undertaken on four of the Active Travel Fund schemes (Western Road, A23, A259 Fourth Avenue to Glendor Road, and Old Shoreham Road) and recommended proposals for the next steps of these schemes.

24.2 On behalf of the Labour Group, Councillor Wilkinson moved a motion to amend the recommendations as shown in bold italics and where struckthrough below:

2.4 That the Committee agrees to progress the development of improvements to the Phase 1 Old Shoreham Road cycle lane as a temporary scheme (from The Drive to Hangleton Road) and to undertake continued monitoring of the scheme. The improvements are as set out in Appendix 8, including temporary changes to increase vehicle capacity at the Olive Road / Stapley Road junction.

2.4 That the Committee requests that an Urgency Sub-Committee be convened before 11 August 2021 to consider the removal of the Phase 1 cycle lanes on Old Shoreham Road

2.5 That the Committee requests officers explore alternative local routes for a temporary scheme, including but not limited to, Portland Road and New Church Road, in consultation with local residents and bring a report back to the committee with potential options.

~~2.6~~ Th~~at the Committee agrees to proceed with the proposed pedestrian crossing improvements to Old Shoreham Road at Newtown Road and Hove Park as set out in Appendix 8.~~

2.9 That the Committee agrees ~~to proceed with~~ that prior to considering the proposals for Phase 2 of the Seafront (A259) temporary westbound cycle lane and proposals to introduce an experimental traffic scheme on King’s Esplanade (and adjoining roads), as set out in Appendix 11, officers are to consult and engage fully with the businesses and residents directly impacted, and bring a report to the next full meeting of the ETS Committee.

2.10 That the Committee agrees to officers progressing with the Active Travel Fund 2021/22 bid to the Department for Transport (DfT), to secure future funding for schemes including consideration of Marine Parade, Old Town, A23 and alternatives to the current temporary scheme on Old Shoreham Road (including options that are not limited to Portland Road and New Church Road), as well as consideration of a ‘Mini-Hollands’ proposal for the City.

24.3 Councillor Appich formally seconded the motion.

24.4 On behalf of the Conservative Group, Councillor Nemeth moved a motion to amend the recommendations as shown in strikethrough below:

~~2.1~~ That the Committee agrees to the preliminary designs for the Western Road scheme (presented in Appendix 5), to the advertisement of a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) (including for the proposed changes to loading bays and amendments to the bus lane in the vicinity of the Dyke Road junction), and the commencement of construction on elements of the scheme which do not require a TRO.

~~2.2~~ ~~That~~ the Committee agrees to the preliminary design for the A23 scheme (presented in Appendix 7), to initiate further discussion with key stakeholders to inform design development, to progress the development of designs, to undertake further public consultation and return to a future ETS Committee with detailed design recommendations on the A23 scheme.

24.5 Councillor Bagaeen formally seconded the motion.

24.6 On behalf of the Conservative Group, Councillor Nemeth moved a motion to amend the recommendations as shown in bold italics and where struckthrough below:

2.3 That the Committee ~~agrees to progress a trial~~ calls for an officer report to be presented at the Committee’s next meeting on the Administration’s proposals for a trial Park & Ride site at Mill Road from Summer 2022, working with Brighton & Hove Bus and Coach Company.

24.7 Councillor Bagaeen formally seconded the motion.

24.8 On behalf of the Conservative Group, Councillor Nemeth moved a motion to amend the recommendations as shown in bold italics and where struckthrough below:

2.4 That the Committee agrees to request an officer report setting out the implications of the removal of the Phase 1 Old Shoreham Road cycle lane to an Urgency Sub-Committee to be convened at the earliest possible opportunity to progress the development of improvements to the Phase 1 Old Shoreham Road cycle lane as a temporary scheme (from The Drive to Hangleton Road) and to undertake continued monitoring of the scheme. The improvements are as set out in Appendix 8, including temporary changes to increase vehicle capacity at the Olive Road / Stapley Road junction.

~~2.6 That the Committee agrees to proceed with the proposed pedestrian crossing improvements to Old Shoreham Road at Newtown Road and Hove Park as set out in Appendix 8.~~

2.9 That the Committee authorises officers to extensively consult residents, businesses and disabled groups in the wards of Central Hove, Westbourne and Wish prior to the presentation of proposals for Phase 2 of the Seafront (A259) temporary cycle lanes at a future meeting of the Committee agrees to proceed with the proposals for Phase 2 of the Seafront (A259) temporary westbound cycle lane and proposals to introduce an experimental traffic scheme on King’s Esplanade (and adjoining roads), as set out in Appendix 11.

24.9 Councillor Bagaeen formally seconded the motion.

24.10 In response to questions from Councillor Platts, it was explained that if the funding allocated for Old Shoreham Road could be allocated to the other 3 schemes proposed, there would potentially be is no loss to the Council and the DfT would not request funding back if the schemes could be delivered by April 2022. With regards to the presentation of the data, that reflected the way it had been collected and analysed specifically, the questions were not a binary choice and more nuanced meaning one comment could be categorised over several area. In addition, the report highlighted the difficulty in engagement with people, particularly young people during a national lockdown. School were largely closed and rather than conducting in person workshops as would normally be the case, information was sent to schools who then passed this on to parents.

24.11 In response to a question from Councillor Bagaeen, it was explained that the consultation ran from the 21^st February to mid March and schools were mostly closed during this period. No engagement had taken place with children and schools outside of the consultation period. The meetings of the Youth Climate Assembly had indicated support for active travel measures and additional information to inform decision making.

24.12 In response to a question from Councillor Wilkinson, the Executive Director, Economy, Environment & Culture stated that it was now felt a report would be required to remove the Old Shoreham Road Cycle Lane as there were wider financial, sustainability, equalities and public health implications relating to the removal that were not detailed or covered in the report being considered by the committee at the meeting.

24.13 In reply to questions from Councillor Appich, it was explained that the ‘Mini-Holland’ proposal related to cycling and walking improvements and would form part of the council’s bid to government for Tranche 3 funding. Furthermore, there was an active program to maintain and enhance pavements and would be taken forward un the Local Transport Plan Capital Programme.

24.14 In response to a query from Councillor Bagaeen, it was clarified that details of the ‘Mini-Holland’ project had been included in the report so the process of apply for funding could start. Should the application be successful, officers would work with councillors on locations for appropriate schemes.

24.15 Councillor Platts stated that a decision needed to be made on fact and the results indicated majority support for the Old Shoreham Road cycle lane.

24.16 Councillor Lloyd stated that whilst a decision was not easy, it was clear that the least vulnerable road users were those most in favour of removal of the cycle lane and the committee should be minded toward supporting those most vulnerable.

24.17 Councillor Hamilton stated that the elderly were also a vulnerable group and often relied upon a car to travel. Councillor Hamilton stated that there had been a tremendous increase in traffic relating to the installation of the cycle lane and it was clear to him that it was in the wrong place.

24.18 The Chair noted that the data collected indicated there had been no increase in congestion along the Old Shoreham Road.

24.19 Councillor Platts agreed that an alternative cycle lane was needed, and the Labour Group were committed to supporting cycling.

24.20 Councillor Lloyd stated that one of the reasons Old Shoreham Road was an optimal location was because a cycle lane did not cut through private parking spaces and was on a school corridor route. Councillor Lloyd stated that a discussion should not focus on alternative routes but additional ones and no consultation had taken place on harmful traffic measures.

24.21 Councillor Hills stated that removing the cycle lane would force more cars on to the road as cycling would no longer be a viable option. Councillor Hills expressed surprise at the position taken by the opposition groups that was very different to the colleagues in other areas of the country. Councillor Hills highlighted Waltham Forest as a pioneer on the matter and their active travel measures were now very popular with residents and were realising significant health and environmental benefits.

24.22 Councillor Davis stated that Portland Road had 38 junctions and 350 pay and display parking bays as well as many more resident parking bays meaning it significantly more difficult to introduce a cycle lane along the road compared to Old Shoreham Road. Councillor Davis stated that people locally and nationally were dying prematurely because of air pollution and Members should not be swayed by a noisy minority seeking to remove the cycle lane. Councillor Davis added that 97.3% of roads in Brighton & Hove did not have cycling routes and it was imperative to increase this figure.

24.23 Councillor Nemeth commented the issue of the cycle lane had been manufactured into a culture war. Councillor Nemeth stated that minority groups could support motor infrastructure and he believed more effort could have been put into winning people over.

24.24 Councillor Wilkinson stated that his Group supported the vast majority of the schemes proposed in the report however, it was clear that the temporary Old Shoreham Road cycle lane was not working and was unpopular. Councillor Wilkinson noted that his Group did not want to remove the cycle lane but find a suitable relocation. Councillor Wilkinson stated that it was imperative for the council to listen to residents and act in meaningful ways.

24.25 Councillor Hills stated that the only method to promote cycling was to make the option available and make it safe.

24.26 Councillor Lloyd commented that he believed both opposition groups had created negativity around the Old Shoreham Road cycle lane via negative press releases. Councillor Lloyd felt that active travel measures required more visible support from Members to create unity.

24.27 The Chair then put the first Conservative Group motion to the vote which failed with 8 votes against and 2 in favour.

24.28 The Chair then put the second Conservative Group motion to the vote that passed with 6 votes in favour and four against.

24.29 The Chair then put the third Conservative Group motion to the vote that passed with 6 votes in favour and four against.

24.30 The Chair then put the Labour Group motion to the vote that passed with 6 votes in favour and four against.

24.31 The committee then held an adjournment in order for a substantive amendment to be drafted comprising of the amendments carried.

24.32 The Chair then put the recommendations, as amended to the vote that were unanimously agreed.

24.33 RESOLVED-