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;


(b)           Written Questions: To receive any questions submitted by the due date of 12 noon on the 15 July 2021;


(c)           Deputations: To receive any deputations submitted by the due date of 12 noon on the 15 July 2021.





(1)           A259 and A270 emergency response times

22.1      Darren Callow put the following question.


“Has the council reviewed the emergency services response times, to see if they have been adversely affected by the introduction of cycle lanes along the A259 coast road and Old Shoreham Road A270?”


22.2      The Chair provided the following reply:


“I can confirm that no objection to the cycle lanes has been received from the emergency services as they are able to use the cycle lanes in an emergency”.


22.3      Darren Callow asked the following supplementary question:


“Has the budget set aside provision in the future budget for compensation claims for deaths caused by emergency services being delayed as a result of the cycle lanes and if they have, can they disclose that amount and if not, have you considered the possible prosecution for corporate manslaughter”.


22.4      The Chair provided the following reply:


“No, we haven’t as there are no delays caused by the cycle lanes”.


(2)           Survey responses


22.5      Peter Harland put the following question:


“Quoting from this meetings agenda (Page 10)

“Respondents over 45 (but under 75), those identifying as disabled, and car drivers, are over-represented when compared to 2011 census data, whereas younger people are under-represented.  Schools were in lockdown and largely closed to pupils during the consultation period so opportunities to engage directly with schools/ pupils were unfortunately limited.

The above needs to be taken into account when reviewing the findings of the survey."

Can you please explain to me what this means and in particular "The above needs to be taken into account” when reviewing the findings of the survey?”


22.6      The Chair provided the following reply:


“This comment is highlighting that the survey response is not fully representative of the city’s population profile and offers an explanation as to why this is the case. 

The views of those underrepresented groups will not be reflected in the analysed, factual results.  In drawing conclusions, this will have been noted by officers who will have also assessed the responses from all other forms of engagement.  For example, section 7.8 on page 26 of the report about Old Shoreham Road outlines that stakeholder workshops with younger people showed that they generally welcomed the improvements particularly on this key route to schools and colleges”.


22.7      Peter Harland asked the following supplementary question:


“Are you not making too many assumptions”


22.8      The Chair provided the following reply:


“We’re not making too many assumptions, we had a stakeholder workshop which, as I’ve said, generally they were positive about active travel infrastructure and we need to take into account that it was under-represented by younger people so we need to consider that when looking at the full results”.


(3)           Road Layout Changes


22.9      Jonathan Holley put the following question:


“Why is the Green Administration continuing to impose road changes on Hove residents  which are the opposite of ‘green’ and detrimental to public Health and Safety? Specifically:-

- Air quality has deteriorated markedly due to the OSR being halved causing traffic jams which never existed before.

- Recycling has been discouraged as Residents were turned away from Hove Tip or forced to queue for up to 40 mins causing new traffic jams & pollution.

- road safety for pedestrians, cyclists and drivers is worse especially in the Holmes Ave area resulting in accidents and near misses”.


22.10   The Chair provided the following reply:


“As part of our monitoring strategy additional air quality monitoring stations have been setup along the Old Shoreham Road, however it is too early to report back on these at this point.

The relocation of vehicles to the lane further away from people on the pavement and adjacent property frontages does help to increase dispersion and reduce the effects of vehicle emissions on people’s health. The council is investing in active travel modes in line with central government direction and guidance, in order to make walking and cycling an option for shorter journeys (or as part of a longer journey). Putting in place high quality infrastructure to travel around the city by these modes aims to reduce the number of vehicle journeys, improve air quality and road safety. The solution to improving air quality is not to double the spaces for cars.

We have not seen any significant fluctuation in accidents being reported in the area where the temporary cycle lanes have been installed.

We are aware that traffic does get busy with vehicles wishing to access to the recycling centre and having marshals in place has helped with this. I have asked Officers to looking into this in more detail to see what other measures might help”.


22.11   Jonathan Holley asked the following supplementary question:


“The results of the questionnaire show the majority of residents do not want the cycle lane sited on the Old Shoreham Road from Hove Park to Portslade so I’d like to know why you are ignoring this”.


22.12   The Chair provided the following reply:


“We’re not ignoring it, it wasn’t a referendum it was a consultation so what we’re proposing to do is improve the route and keep it in place to provide a safe facility for people”


(4)           Stakeholder Workshops


22.13   Andrew Peters put the following question:


“Throughout the Agenda it states ‘Stakeholder Workshops’ were held on the various areas such as the A23, A259 Western Road, Old Shoreham Road In all cases it states: “As part of the consultation, officers organised stakeholder workshops which local groups and organisations were invited to”

The Brighton & Hove taxi trade consists of around 1000 licensed vehicles and 1300 licensed drivers and so it is a significant transportation stakeholder. We are not aware of any invitations to such stakeholder workshops. Can the chair please explain why this so?”


22.14   The Chair provided the following reply:


“Information was sent out via email from BHCC’s Hackney Carriage Office to all taxi drivers in the city registered with them. This included information about the consultation generally as well as an invitation to participate in a stakeholder workshop on the 25th of February.

Information was also presented / feedback sought at a meeting of the city’s Transport Partnership, on 2nd March 2021, where the taxi trade is represented. The consultation was publicised broadly in the city and was open to all to express views, not just those directly contacted by the council.


We received nearly 5,000 survey responses in total which compared to other consultations of this nature in the city is very high”.


22.15   Andrew Peters asked the following supplementary question:


“In the early stages of the Valley Gardens project, there were at least three specific workshops where we the trade as stakeholders sat around a table with the plans with officers. Would you agree that was a proper workshop and perhaps what you were offering was not a workshop specifically for the trade?”


22.16   The Chair provided the following reply:


“I appreciate why you might feel like that so if you like we can set up a meeting to discuss it in a more specific way”.


(5)           Active Travel Grant


22.17   Andi Holley put the following question:


“Why hasn’t the Green Administration spent half the nearly £3m Active Travel grant on promoting Walking as this is what the money was intended for and all Residents walk or use pavements be they young or old or disabled on mobility scooters, instead of spending the vast majority on cycling which benefits only 5% of Residents?”


22.18   The Chair provided the following reply:


“All of the Active Travel Fund proposed schemes have benefits for pedestrians. This is important to us, as everyone is a pedestrian at some point in their journey. Despite the main focus of some schemes appearing to be largely cycling-based, there are also many improvements proposed for pedestrians as well. This is something we will look to highlight more in the future as part of our Communications Plan.

The schemes proposed include numerous benefits for pedestrians including:


·        Western Road – walking is a key focus in this project and proposes to bring numerous benefits to pedestrians by improving footways and crossings (formal and informal)

·        A23 – numerous benefits for pedestrians including improvements to busy junctions, creation of new pedestrian crossing points at junctions and desire lines, improvements to bus stops and creation of pedestrian-only footways along the route as opposed to many of these being shared with cyclists currently.

·        Old Shoreham Road – improvements for pedestrians at crossings including at Newtown Road and Hove Park

·        A259 – pavement widening along Victoria Terrace shop frontage area, as well as improvements to the King’s Esplanade route to benefit pedestrians, drivers and cyclists.


In addition to the above, many of the Tranche 1 schemes involved pedestrian-specific improvements including pavement widening”.


22.19   Andi Holley asked the following supplementary question:


“What percentage is being spent on promoting walking facilities and aiding elderly and disabled people by improving the poor state of pavements which frankly are dangerous”.


22.20   The Chair provided the following reply:


“I don’t have that percentage to hand but we can get that information to you”.


(6)           Air Quality Holmes Avenue junction


22.21   The questioner did not attend the meeting to ask the question.




(1)           Cycle Network


22.22   The Committee considered a Deputation that presents four key areas that support the urgent necessity for a high quality, key cycle network link on the only direct route in the north-west of the city.


22.23   The Chair provided the follow response:


“Thank you for your deputation. I agree with you – it is vital that we provide safe cycle facilities on routes including the Old Shoreham Road - a key direct route serving the north-west of the city.

It is not simply a case of moving safe cycling facilities to another route, we need facilities on multiple routes in the city if we are to achieve a comprehensive and safe cycling network in line with national cycling design standards (a requirement of government funding), and our strategic work on our LCWIP provides an evidence-based assessment of strategic routes that are needed in the city, this includes the Old Shoreham Road.

A particularly interesting finding from the consultation was that many cyclists are now using the Old Shoreham Road when previously they were using other routes to cycle, it is important to recognise the demand for safe cycling on this key route, particularly for children and we’re hearing some of these stories today. I hope that other members of the committee can consider the strategic importance of the cycling network in this part of the city when making decisions today”.


22.24   RESOLVED- That the Committee note the deputation.


(2)           Children and use of Old Shoreham Road cycle lanes


22.25   The Committee considered a deputation that set out the benefits to children and young people of the temporary cycle lane on Old Shoreham Road.


22.26   The Chair provided the following response:


“Thank you for this deputation, I am delighted to hear how you have personally benefitted from the improvements we’ve made to date, and we know many others have too.

I’ve mentioned earlier about the importance of a strategic cycling network and how we can open up demand for cycling for all when we provide safe facilities. We have heard from many people in the consultation who have benefitted from the improvements, with many stories about being able to cycle with children on this route when previously this was too unsafe.

Sadly, we didn’t hear enough from young people in the consultation. The young people we did hear from were keen to have additional cycling facilities in place to enable them to safely travel to educational facilities and other destinations, and this has been a consideration in the interpretation of the consultation results and the way forward. I urge all members of this committee to think about the younger generations when voting today.

Once again, I am pleased you have been able to benefit from our improvements and hope that the decision we take today will mean you and other young people & families can continue to do so”.


22.27   RESOLVED- That the Committee note the Deputation.


(3)           A259 Cycle route


22.28   The Committee considered a deputation that supported the retention of the A259 cycle route on the basis of safety and the health benefits of active travel.


22.29   The Chair provided the following response:


“Thank you for your deputation, it is great that you have highlighted the benefits active travel can bring to physical and mental health.

I’m pleased you have been able to benefit from the improved cycle facilities on both the Seafront and Madeira Drive – we are very proud of these facilities and the impact that additional space for both walking and cycling is already having on people’s lives.

For the Seafront cycle route we recognise that more is needed to achieve the full benefits here – for example taking cyclists in both directions off the carriageway – however we are pleased with the usage figures to date and propose to keep the temporary scheme in place, with the proposed extension, and continue to monitor usage. One of the key issues for this scheme is not just about cycling but making improvements for pedestrians – we are doing this by providing a dedicated facility for westbound cyclists, away from both motor vehicles and pedestrians, reducing conflict between cyclists and pedestrians; and additionally providing widened pavements, loading and disabled bays on this route as well as improvements to the King’s Esplanade area.

Building on the achievements of this temporary scheme, we would seek funding for more ambitious permanent improvements with wider benefits (the type of which you mention) as this route features in our strategic network”.


22.30   RESOLVED- That the Committee note the deputation.


(4)           Cycle lane network


22.31   The Committee considered a deputation that set out the health and wellbeing benefits of active travel and cycling and urged the retention on the Old Shoreham Road cycle lane.


22.32   The Chair provided the following response:


“Thank you very much for your deputation and I’m particularly pleased to see the statistics highlighted in relation to the cost of physical inactivity and how investment in active travel can proactively help address this issue.

During the pandemic we have all shown appreciation for our incredible NHS staff, and I hope that all members present listen to you today.

Providing space and networks for active travel will enable everyday exercise by residents, visitors and employees alike, however, to achieve this we need a safe and comprehensive network.

We know that many people don’t cycle in the city as they don’t feel safe – with many travelling by car for short journeys as they feel there is no alternative. We know that facilities need improving for pedestrians as many pavements and crossings just aren’t up to scratch. This all needs to change and highlights the importance and gravity of what we are recommending today – fully funded by government money just for this purpose.

We’ve still got lots of work to do on the wider strategic routes in the city but by approving the recommendations today the committee would be taking the city in the right direction for improving the health of many of our residents by investing in walking and cycling improvements for all, and thus supporting our National Health Service. Many thanks for you and your colleagues for bringing this deputation today”.


22.33   RESOLVED- That the Committee note the deputation.



Supporting documents:


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