Agenda item - Member Involvement

To consider the following matters raised by Members:

 

(a)           Petitions: To receive any petitions;

 

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

 

1)         Motorcycle Parking- Councillor Yates

2)         Bike Racks on The Undercliff at Saltdean- Councillor Fishleigh

3)         LCWIP- Councillor Fishleigh

4)         Bins in Ovingdean- Councillor Fishleigh

5)         Refuse Collections- Councillor Fishleigh

6)         Seafront Cycle Lane Safety- Councillor Nemeth

7)         Wish Park Path- Councillor Nemeth

8)         Aldrington Tunnel- Councillor Nemeth

9)         Parking Permits- Councillor Nemeth

10)      Bikeability in Schools- Councillor Nemeth

11)      Madeira Drive- Councillor Nemeth

12)      Barley Grass- Councillor Nemeth

 

(c)           Letters: To consider any letters;

 

1)    Councillor McNair- TRO-8a-2021 Surrenden Road

 

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

 

1)      Tree Planting

2)      Air Quality

3)      Allotments

(B)     MEMBER QUESTIONS

 

(1)           Motorcycle Parking

 

33.1      Councillor Yates put the following question:

 

“Can the council commit to review their policies for the parking of motorbikes with respect to:

-     On street paid spaces

-     Access to residents parking permits

-     Provision of on street secure parking facilities such as tethers

Residents see parking facilities for both cycles and motor cars and those residents and visitor who use motorcycles deserve similar consideration rather than the haphazard approach where a motorbike visitor to the CPZ cannot use the visitors permit to park in a bay that we would be happy for a car to use”

 

33.2      The Chair provided the following reply:

 

“The council has over 700 motorcycle bays throughout the city in which motorcycles can park free. We are currently working with Sussex Police and using their data concerning bike crime across the city in order to create a heat map of high crime areas, where we will be prioritising for the instillation of secure locking points.

We also encourage residents to apply for motorcycle parking during the consultation of resident parking schemes.  Once resident parking schemes are implemented residents can also contact us to request a bay outside their property.

From experience there are always difficulties with motorcycles sharing parking bays with vehicles rather than using a dedicated bay, but we will be happy to review our policies of where motorcycles can park within controlled parking zones”.

 

(2)           Bike Racks on The Undercliff at Saltdean

 

33.3      Councillor Fishleigh put the following question:

 

“The Undercliff is a very popular cycle route promoted by the council.  Please could we have bike racks installed at the Saltdean end which is where many people stop for the cafe and sandy beach.

There are bike racks by the lido, but they are not signposted from the Undercliff and are a bit far from the seafront”.

 

33.4      The Chair provided the following reply:

 

“Thank you for your request for cycle parking at this location. I’m pleased to say that we have annual rolling programme for new cycle parking locations funded through our Local Transport Plan. I will ask Officers to put your request on the list and explore suitable locations in the area”.

 

(3)           LCWIP

 

33.5      Councillor Fishleigh put the following question:

 

“Residents from Ovingdean and Rottingdean have already been to numerous committees to ask for pavements and bike lanes beside Greenways and Roedean Road which are both busy main roads. These will help them out of their cars.  Will pavements and bike lanes at these locations be included in the Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan, when will the plan be finished and who is working on it?”

 

33.6      The Chair provided the following reply:

 

“Thank you for your question Councillor Fishleigh.  I’m told that the technical input used to identify strategic priorities for the next ten years for the LCWIP has followed government recommendations and this has been combined with a wide-range of stakeholder input from across the city. On this basis, Rodean Road does feature in the proposed walking route for improvement. The wider Ovigndean neighbourhood has been assessed and is included but as a lower priority compared to some others across the city. The LCWIP consultation will be promoted and publicised across the city and enable people to review the various proposals in the document which are high level and to provide us with their comments and suggestions. 

Once the consultation is complete, the plan will be brought back to this committee in March next year for it to consider the consultation results and approve the final document. It will then continue to be reviewed at regular intervals”.

 

(4)           Bins in Ovingdean

 

33.7      Councillor Fishleigh put the following question:

 

“An Ovingdean resident came to committee and asked for new bins throughout the village. He even suggested locations. Sadly, no bins have appeared so please would you give me an update?”

 

33.8      The Chair provided the following reply:

 

“Thank you for your question.

Spring and summer are very busy times for Cityclean. Additional staff are recruited each spring and summer to complete seasonal tasks, such as weed removal, and help keep the city clean and tidy as a result of the additional footfall, particularly along the seafront. Unfortunately, in line with the national challenges facing employers, Cityclean has had difficulties with its seasonal staff recruitment this year.

Also, as reported previously, Cityclean has also faced disruption in recent months as a result of the volumes of staff ‘pinged’ and having to self-isolate, which is compounded by difficulties in recruiting additional agency staff.

Therefore, resources have been prioritised to focus on the seasonal activities required to keep the city clean, rather than the installation of new bins.

By way of an initial update of the six locations proposed in March, Cityclean has been able to give initial consideration to the proposed locations.

For the location near the bus stop on Greenways: this is an option Cityclean will explore further as the Bin Infrastructure Action Plan is delivered.

For the location near Blind Veterans on Greenways: this site is not possible due to the bin needing to be placed on grass.

For the location along the parking strip on Greenways: again, this site is not possible due to the bin needing to be placed on grass.

For the location on Ovingdean Road, at the entrance to the farm: this is an option Cityclean will explore further as the Bin Infrastructure Action Plan is delivered.

For the location at the junction of Ovingdean Road and Longhill road, next to the farm gate: this site is not possible due to the bin needing to be placed on grass.

For the location at the bottom of Old Parish Lane that links Ovingdean to Woodingdean: this is an option Cityclean will explore further as the Bin Infrastructure Action Plan is delivered.

Therefore, and as stated in March, the sites that are possible will be considered as part of the wholescale review of the bin infrastructure across the city. The potential locations will be included as part of this”.

 

(5)           Refuse collections

 

33.9      Councillor Fishleigh put the following question:

 

“My friends in East Saltdean never have any problems with their bin collections. Not before COVID. Not during and not now. They even have food waste collections.  What lessons can BHCC learn from LDC?”

 

33.10   The Chair provided the following reply:

 

“Thank you for your question.

As per the feedback provided to you from the Head of Operations, one of the particular issues that has affected Saltdean in recent months, has been vehicle breakdowns.

The widely reported issues of staff being ‘pinged’, the national shortage of HGV drivers and manual workers and staff taking well deserved annual leave, have compounded the issue.

This has meant that many areas of the city have faced disruption. The council understand this is frustrating which is why we asked for residents to bear with us whilst the service managed this incredibly difficult situation.

New vehicles have been procured and recruitment is taking place to alleviate the pressures. For Saltdean, a new twin-pack has been deployed, which was the type of vehicle suffering from breakdowns.

It is our understanding that there have been different arrangements in place for managing refuse and recycling collections during the pandemic between different local authorities. This may account for the differences experienced by residents in different local authority areas”.

 

(6)           Seafront Cycle Lane Safety

 

33.11   Councillor Nemeth put the following question:

 

“What assessment has been made of safety to vulnerable, disabled and other pedestrians, and to cyclists themselves, of misleading markings that are still in place on the seafront cycle lane and of the continued misuse of that cycle lane whereby many cyclists continue to cycle along it in the wrong direction?”

 

33.12   The Chair provided the following reply:

 

“Safety assessments are undertaken by design engineers on all new Highway Schemes when in the design phase to understand and mitigate the impact to all users of the highway, including this scheme that offers cyclists additional separated space to use which improves their safety and better protects them from motor vehicles. 

As you know the seafront cycle lane on the pavement also shares space with an incredibly busy pedestrian footpath particularly in summer months.  Providing cyclists with their own separated space on the road has eased some of the potential for conflict between cyclists and pedestrians on the original cycle route.

A Road Safety Audit was undertaken for the disabled parking which did not raise any significant issues however we are always open to reviewing this if necessary and if concerns are specifically raised. As for disabled cyclists, the new routes now meet national standards and allow better access for disabled cyclist on specially adapted bicycles. 

Some of the old signage on the original cycle lane was not removed as part of the initial installation of the phase 1 experimental cycle lane, this is due to the short time frame officers had to implement as a result of the government’s emergency active travel requirement, and there was not time for a full audit. 

I’m pleased to inform you that an audit has now been conducted and incorrect markings and signs shall be amended, along with additional markings to further highlight the new one-way lanes.

There are very large road signs advising cyclists to move to the new cycle lane on the road at strategic locations and in addition there are also two large, illuminated signs to further advise cyclists and motorists of movement between lanes at Shelter Hall and by the Peace Statue”.

 

33.13   Councillor Nemeth asked the following supplementary question:

 

“Do we know when the misleading markings will be removed by?”

 

33.14   On behalf of the Chair, the Assistant Director City Transport stated that a specific date was not currently known but could be clarified subsequent to the meeting.

 

(7)           Wish Park Path

 

33.15   Councillor Nemeth put the following question:

 

“When will a path on the west side of Wish Park be reinstated, as per the wishes of ward Councillors and various other interested parties, to overcome the current unacceptable situation which sees vulnerable and disabled park-users having to leave the park itself just to get around it when the ground is wet?”

 

33.16   The Chair provided the following reply:

 

“Thank you for the question.

Unfortunately, the council does not currently have the budget to either install or maintain a new path.

It is the view of officers, following the site visit with yourself and Councillor Peltzer Dunn, that existing budgets are better spent on maintaining current infrastructure, and it’s not clear that a whole new path would resolve many of the issues raised”.

 

33.17   Councillor Nemeth asked the following supplementary question:

 

“Do you see why members of the community who are disabled and those that look after anybody with disabilities would find this answer unacceptable?”

 

33.18   The Chair provided the following reply:

 

“Yes, it does sound a difficult issue and I’ll ask them to look at it again, but we do have very limited budgets. I’m sorry about that and I’ll see if there’s anything we can do to improve the situation”.

 

(8)           Aldrington Tunnel

 

33.19   Councillor Nemeth put the following question:

 

“Why did the Chair back the removal of pedestrian safety measures at Aldrington Tunnel without assessing the risk in any way whatsoever to vulnerable and disabled pedestrians and without discussing the matter with any groups, such as Possability People and BADGE, that represent those who are now most in danger?”

 

33.20   The Chair provided the following reply:

 

“This request came from a local charity who take elderly and disabled people for cycle rides, and this route was previously completely inaccessible for accessible bikes.

As you are aware there is no Traffic Regulation Order in place that excludes cyclists from using the tunnel and engineers have introduced signing to encourage cyclists and pedestrians to share the space responsibly. I understand that Officers undertook further site visits recently and have identified additional locations for further signing and lining to be installed. I will also ask Officers to continue to monitor the situation and undertake further observations and if necessary, undertake risk assessments if that is deemed necessary and engage with interested groups”.

 

33.21   Councillor Nemeth asked the following supplementary question:

 

“Was it just Pedal People that got in touch to lobby on the point or disabled charities that have a more general purpose rather than just cycling?”

 

33.22   The Chair provided the following reply:

 

“Pedal People came directly to me which is what escalated the issue but I believe lots of residents got in touch about the issue too”.

 

(9)           Parking Permits

 

33.23   Councillor Nemeth put the following question:

 

“What assistance has the Council been giving to the thousands of vulnerable residents who have found it impossible to renew their parking permits in recent months and since I raised the subject at the June meeting of this committee?”

 

33.24   The Chair provided the following reply:

 

“We have tripled the number of staff working on the accessibility line to assist vulnerable residents or those who are digitally excluded. We also have built into the new online system the capability of Parking staff creating permits on behalf of residents who are unable to do this themselves.

We encourage digitally excluded or vulnerable residents to post their applications to us so we can process their applications. There is a drop box offer outside Hove Town Hall for residents to manually post their applications to us. We have also built in the facility for residents to upload their applications via the council’s new contact management system. I know the team are working round the clock to resolve these issues”.

 

33.25   Councillor Nemeth asked the following supplementary question:

 

“How are we assessing the help we are giving to what might be thousands of people?”

 

33.26   On behalf of the Chair, the Assistant Director City Transport stated that the Head of Parking Services and himself were dealing with these issues daily and the problems were multiple, and the Council had brought in additional resources to target the issue carefully and effectively.

 

(10)        Bikeability in Schools

 

33.27   Councillor Nemeth put the following question:

 

“What discussions has the Chair had with schools to address concerns over a reduction in Bikeability training over the forthcoming year?”

 

33.28   The Chair provided the following reply:

 

“Bikeability continues to be an extremely popular nationally recognised cycle training course service offered to children of school age. This year the Council have secured funding for 1255 Bikeability Level 1-3 training courses in  2021/2022 this compares with 1046 funded places in 2019/202 and 992 places in 2020/21.  Invitations have been sent to all schools to offer Bikeability places up to the end of summer 2022 and we have confirmed places with schools for the Autumn and Spring terms.

This year we also have 254 places on the extra balance and learn to ride courses and additional 141 places for the new Family Module. In addition to Bikeability the team have secured 300 funded adult cycle training courses and are continuing to offer places at park training courses which are extremely popular”.

 

33.29   Councillor Nemeth asked the following supplementary question:

 

“There seem to be a concern amongst instructors over the rigidity of the contracts and they fear that students in certain schools won’t be able to get places because the number of hours are fixed. So, if there’s high demand in one school and a lower demand in the other, it’s thought that there will be a gap. Is that valid and if so, is it being addressed?”

 

33.30   The Chair provided the following reply:

 

“I have been in touch with some of the staff and it’s an operational issue and I know that staff are working hard to resolve it”.

 

(11)        Madeira Drive

 

33.31   Councillor Nemeth put the following question:

 

“Knowing full well how hard the Council’s Events Team has worked to ensure the continuation of events on Madeira Drive, why has the Chair overseen inadequate consultation of interested parties when painting a large proportion of the road green amid warnings from event organisers and myself at the last meeting of this very committee?”

 

33.32   The Chair provided the following reply:

 

“The Madeira Drive scheme was delivered and developed following ETS Committee approval in September 2020. The scheme was discussed with Events Team colleagues and with event organisers and delivered in consultation with key stakeholders to nationally recognised standards including the most current Government guidance on walking and cycling infrastructure LTN120. 

During design and following construction, meetings were held with Events Team colleagues and event organisers to ensure the scheme could support events. Initial consultation on plans were circulated to stakeholders in December, including events teams and seafront office teams, to circulate to their relevant stakeholders. As a result, colleagues in events provided contact details for the speed trials event organisers. The team spoke directly to the Chair of Brighton and Hove motor club regarding the plans on the 9th February 2021, 11th February and again on the 17th and 19th of February following the relaxation of lockdown. On the 1st March officers met with the Chair of B&HMC on site to further discuss in detail the plans and how they could be adapted to ensure Speed Trials could continue to take place. 

The green surfacing applied by approved contractors was tested for skid resistance and lawful use on the public highway and this was further demonstrated to event organisers including UK motorsport and Speed Trial Event organisers. Since its application all planned events have taken place including the speed trials that went ahead on the 4-5th September with the exception of the motorbikes due to a late licence application, it is understood motorbikes will take part next year.  The Brighton Marathon weekend took place 11-12 Sept and further events are planned to take place as usual including The Electric Vehicle Rally and the London to Brighton Bike Ride”.

 

33.33   Councillor Nemeth asked the following supplementary question:

 

“At the last meeting I did flag up serious concerns over the transport team’s position on Madeira Drive and I’m really just asking what steps were taken immediately after the meeting we had when this gap in knowledge over licensing was highlighted?”

 

33.34   On behalf of the Chair, the Assistant Director City Transport stated that all the issues were address including how they had undertaken the various levels of consultation with local businesses and event organisers”.

 

(12)        Barley Grass

 

33.35   Councillor Nemeth put the following question:

 

“What, if anything, is the Chair doing to tackle the proliferation of highly-invasive barley grass in our parks, on our pavements and around trees to ensure the safety of dogs and to increase biodiversity?”

 

33.36   The Chair provided the following reply:

 

“Barley grass has always grown within our parks and on road verges.

When councillors of this committee decided, in November 2019, to restrict the use of glyphosate to remove weeds, it was made clear that there would be more weeds on hard surfaces

In line with the Open Spaces Strategy, grassed areas are being managed as natural green spaces, with reduced mowing. This means it is now more evident that barley grass exists across the city – but, it has always been there and has always seeded.

City Parks are trialling yellow rattle at Easthill Park. This is a semi- parasitic plant which feeds off the nutrients in the roots of nearby grasses.  By feeding off the grasses, it encourages wildflowers to grow. If the trial is a success, the team can look to rollout in other areas.

In areas that favour barley grass, it will continue to grow even if increased mowing and weeding was completed”.

 

33.37   Councillor Nemeth asked the following supplementary question:

 

“Are you aware of the pain caused to dogs by its seeds and the financial costs to owners when these seeds make their way into the dogs bloodstream?”

 

33.38   The Chair provided the following reply:

 

“I’m not an expert at all but I was aware and I’m happy to arrange a conversation between you and Cityparks if you want to discuss anything in more detail as they are the experts”.

 

(C)     MEMBERS LETTERS

 

(1)      TRO-8a-2021 Surrenden Road

 

33.39   The Committee considered a Letter from Councillor McNair in support of the proposed Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ), but also in support of a resident proposal regarding the crossovers found on the north side (and two on the side south) of Surrenden Road in Patcham Ward.

 

33.40   The Chair provided the following response:

 

“Thank you for your comments in relation to the Traffic Regulation Order 8a-2021 Surrenden Road Area.

Legally the same restriction across a crossover needs to be consistent across a whole zone otherwise it would cause confusion and enforcement difficulties. We have had requests for access protection markings in the past on the basis that parking will be limited but light touch parking schemes (which this will be) tend to be underutilised so we would expect there to be sufficient parking on-street. If difficulties remain then we can consider this in the review one year after the scheme begins operation which allows residents to comment on how the scheme is running.

However, the Council could not condone any exemptions to double yellow lines as this would be very difficult to manage/enforce which could lead to issues and complaints. In terms of parking on tarmac crossovers between grass verges behind double yellow lines then we must have consistent legal traffic regulation orders. The lining restrictions need to be marked on every part of the carriageway including parking bays across the driveways to avoid confusion in enforcement, that also leads to PCN challenges that we could lose if there is ambiguity and non–conformity with other parking schemes”.

 

33.41   RESOLVED- That the Committee note the Letter.

 

(D)      NOTICES OF MOTION

 

(1)           Tree Planting

 

33.42   Councillor Nemeth moved the following Notice of Motion:

 

This Committee calls for an urgent Officer Report to address confusion amongst residents and community groups over tree-planting costs which clearly sets out:

 

i.        The costs of different types of tree;

ii.       The costs in different planting situations such as park, old tree pit, etc; and

iii.     How applications should be made.

 

33.43   Councillor Bagaeen formally seconded the Notice of Motion.

 

33.44   The Chair provided the following response:

 

“Thank you for this Notice of Motion. I support this and will request officers to bring a report on tree planting to a future committee meeting.

In the meantime, I am pleased to announce that we have been successful in the Forestry Commission's Green Recovery Challenge fund bid for funding towards the planting of 90 new trees in soft surfacing areas of high depravation and low tree cover. The wards to receive trees are North Portslade, Moulsecoomb & Bevendean and Woodingdean. We will be receiving just over £60,000, which includes three years of watering.

The Arboriculture Team are working closely with Highways colleagues to deliver the £200,000 stump replacement programme by April 2022. 63 sites across the city have been identified for stump removal, new tree pits, new trees and tree planting.

Also, phase 2 of Carden Woods will begin this winter, with the planting of approximately 2500 saplings (whips)”.

 

33.45   RESOLVED- That the Committee approve the Notice of Motion.

 

(2)           Citywide Roll-out of Real-Time Air Quality Monitoring System

 

33.46   The Committee considered a Notice of Motion approved and referred to it by the meeting of Full Council held on 15 July 2021.

 

This Council notes that:

·        The city needs publicly available real-time data about pan-city air pollution (NO2 and PM) to enable:

§   Officers to assess how interventions, building configuration changes or traffic flow changes affect air quality

 

§   Residents and visitors vulnerable to air pollution to plan their days when pollution levels are high.

This Council also agrees to request that:

·        The Environment, Transport and Sustainability Committee explores investing in a city-wide real-time AQ monitoring system with information available in real-time via a website for residents, councillors and officers.

 

33.47   The Chair provided the following response:

 

“The effects of harmful pollutants on individuals’ and local communities’ health were succinctly and powerfully described when Councillors Ebel and Evans spoke to support this Notice of Motion when it was presented by Councillor Fishleigh in July. 

To tackle the main source of emissions, we have to reduce the number of vehicles on our roads, enable people to use active and sustainable travel for their local journeys, and shift to cleaner vehicles for essential journeys.  These are the key themes of the emerging new Transport Plan for the city. 

We fully recognise the valuable role that accurate, quality assured data can provide in helping people make informed decisions.  The city’s current monitoring system includes over 50 diffusion tube monitoring sites and four automatic monitoring stations which help to regularly monitor trends in air quality against national criteria. 

A greater level of information will help to raise awareness of the effects of harmful pollutants on peoples’ and communities’ health.  It can also inform people’s day to day and future travel decisions, by helping them to choose when or if they travel to avoid the worst areas or times for pollution, or switch to lower or zero emission alternatives to minimise emissions.

Officers are currently in the process of reviewing air quality monitoring contracts locally and across Sussex with other local authorities, as there are value for money and data quality advantages of taking a consolidated and joint approach.  Recognising the growing interest in, and benefits of, real-time monitoring, I am pleased to say that the role of an accurate and reliable real-time monitoring system as part of our approach to tackling air quality is already being explored. 

Our Air Quality Officer has raised this matter in discussions with partners, citing international examples as well as those in London and Wales.   This has been positively received and active consideration is now being given to available funding streams to develop an appropriate system.  The new DEFRA air quality grant bidding round is an excellent opportunity to seek the funds required to develop a real-time system, and we will have a greater chance by working with partners and being able to offer matched funding.  Our previous successes with that grant, such as the retrofitting of bus exhaust systems, also puts us in a good position. 

Funding allocated from the council’s current Carbon Neutral Fund will help to enable initial investment in air quality monitoring equipment.  However, sustained and increased levels of investment will require further amounts of capital and revenue funding to be included in future council budgets to pay for and maintain established and new systems. I therefore agree to the Notice of Motion and propose calling for an officer report”.

 

33.48   RESOLVED- That the Committee approve the Notice of Motion.

 

(3)           Urgent review of Allotments

 

33.49   The Committee considered a Notice of Motion approved and referred to it by the meeting of Full Council held on 15 July 2021:

 

“This Council resolves to: 

1.      Note concerns that have been raised by Site Representatives and Allotment Holders with regard to (i) the administration of the Council’s Allotment Service and (ii) deviation away from the aims of the Brighton & Hove Allotment Strategy 2014-2024;

2.      Request the Environment, Transport & Sustainability Committee to call for an officer report on options for improvement which provides the following:

(i)         Breakdown by site of the different sizes of plot (i.e. full/half/third);

(ii)    Breakdown by site and plot type of rent that was paid during the last accounting period;

(iii)   Breakdown by site and plot type of plots that are currently unlettable;

(iv)   Breakdown by year of the number of people who have joined the allotment waiting list and paid the £17 charge, and how the funds have subsequently been spent;

(v)    Breakdown of the resources that are allocated to the Allotment Service;

(vi)  Breakdown of annual expenditure by site;

(vii)  Description of the role of Allotments Officer;

(viii)  Detail on which recommendations in the Allotment Strategy have been implemented and which remaining outstanding;

(ix)   Estimate by site of annual cost of water leaks;

(x)    Detail on when and why regular joint liaison meetings between Allotments Service staff, BHAF and other key stakeholders stopped; and

(xi)   Total amount that has been raised by voluntary donations from plot holders.

33.50   The Chair provided the following response:

 

“I can confirm a report on allotments will be brought to the next committee meeting.

In terms of the specific points within the Notice of Motion, I have spoken with officers to determine what is and is not available for a future report.

On point six, it is not possible to provide a breakdown of annual expenditure by site as the data is not recorded.

On point seven, the report will provide a description of the allotment service, rather than only the Allotment Officer. This will link to the next point regarding the Allotment Strategy.

On point nine, the cost of water leaks is not available, but water use per site can be provided”.

 

33.51   Councillor Platts asked if the points raised in the Notice of Motion would be incorporated into the report that had previously been agreed to be received by committee in November.

 

33.52   The Assistant Director, City Environmental Management confirmed that if agreed, it would be.

 

33.53   RESOLVED- That the Committee approve the Notice of Motion.