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;


1)    Controlled parking for Withdean Court Avenue

2)    Stanford Avenue/Preston Road Traffic and Noise Calming

3)    Reinforcing Controlled Parking on Dean Street

4)    Bus Service to replace Madeira Drive lift

5)    Haliburton parking proposal: Isabel Crescent


(b)           Written Questions: To receive any questions submitted by the due date of 12 noon on the 14 September 2022;


1)    Aquarium Roundabout

2)    Refuse

3)    Tree maintenance

4)    Speeding on Preston Park Avenue


(c)           Deputations: To receive any deputations submitted by the due date of 12 noon on the 14 September 2022.


1)    Rottingdean High Street planter



(a)          Petitions


(1)          Controlled parking for Withdean Court Avenue


21.1      The Committee considered a petition signed by 23 people requesting controlled parking on Withdean Court Avenue.


21.2      The Chair provided the following reply:


“Thank you for your petition regarding a residents parking scheme in Withdean Court Avenue. Officers will investigate your request and surrounding roads when reviewing the Surrenden Area parking scheme (Zone 10) in February 2023. If there is sufficient support for a scheme then further consultation with a detailed design will follow”.


21.3      Resolved- That the Committee note the petition.


(2)          Stanford Avenue/Preston Road Traffic and Noise Calming


21.4      The Committee considered a petition signed by 122 people requesting traffic and noise calming measures for Stanford Avenue and Preston Road.


21.5      The Chair provided the following response:


“Thank you for taking the time to present the petition today. I do appreciate this is a busy stretch of road and sympathise with the requests you have made.

Any changes to speed limits will need to be in accordance with government guidance, particularly around the nature of the road and the likelihood people will comply with a reduced speed limit. Therefore, I wouldn’t want to promise anything until a full assessment has been undertaken, despite very much agreeing with you.

However, this area has been identified in the Bus Service Improvement Plan, which has recently received indicative funding from the government. Whilst this will focus on measures to improve bus journey times and reliability, it is possible it will include proposals for changes to some of the traffic restrictions. If additional changes such as those outlined in the petition are deemed to be necessary, it would make sense for them to be considered and introduced as part of single scheme. Further design and assessment work will take place over the following year with public consultation to follow in due course”.


21.6      Resolved- That the Committee note the petition.


(3)          Reinforcing Controlled Parking on Dean Street


21.7      The Committee considered a petition signed by 58 people requesting increased parking measures on Dean Street.


21.8      The Chair provided the following response:


“Thank you for petition and am sorry to hear about problems caused by delivery drivers parking unsocially within Dean Street.

Officers are aware of the parking and driving issues here and regularly attempt to enforce parking contraventions by issuing Penalty Charge Notices, however the issue in terms of parking enforcement is that vehicles simply drive off when officers are present in the area.

A loading ban on one side of the road would not resolve the problem either as there is still a period of time before officers can issue a PCN. The signage is already very clear that it’s resident permit parking only at the point of parking and officers have outlined that any advanced advisory warning signs indicating resident parking only when you enter the road would not be a solution and would increase sign clutter and possible confusion leading to PCN’s not being issued or being challenged at the Parking Penalty Tribunal.

Indeed, many of these problems are not parking related especially where they involve anti-social driving or contravention of one -way Traffic Orders or driving at speed or on the pavement. These are issues that need to be dealt with by Sussex Police who have also been made aware of this issue and have at times dedicated a PC to deal with this.

Officers will continue to operate our parking enforcement powers where appropriate and continue to liaise with Sussex Police on your behalf. I’m happy to ask officers to meet with you and other residents and ward councillors to discuss options going forward”.


21.9      Resolved- That the Committee note the petition.


(4)          Bus Service to replace Madeira Drive lift


21.10   The Committee considered a petition signed by 84 people requesting a bus service to take the less mobile residents f the Kemptown area down to Madeira Drive whilst the lift was not in operation.


21.11   The Chair provided the following response:


“Although there isn’t an existing bus service from Kemptown that serves the length of Madeira Drive there are buses serving east-west & west east along the parallel routes of Eastern Road/Edward Street, St James St (east-bound) and Marine Parade (Aquarium/Old Steine).  In addition, buses 7, 14B, 21, 21A, 23, 47, 52 & N7 connect the area to Brighton Marina.

It is unlikely that there is sufficient demand for a commercial service, although users could approach bus operators to suggest that they run a service on an experimental basis.  given the commercial pressures that operators are under due to rising fuel and driver costs they may not take the risk.  If the service cannot be run commercially then it would have to be subsidised by the council, the estimated cost being in the region of £300-750K per annum, depending on route and frequency.  Council resources are currently focused on maintaining and improving existing supported services which are under pressure due to higher costs and lower passenger numbers following the pandemic”.


21.12   Councillor Platts moved a motion to request an officer report on the matter.


21.13   Councillor Wilkinson formally seconded the motion.


21.14   Resolved- That the Committee receive a report to a future meeting responding to the petition request.


(5)          Haliburton parking proposal: Isabel Crescent


21.15   The Committee considered a petition signed by 74 people objecting to the painting on double yellow lines on Isabel Crescent.


21.16   The Chair provided the following response:


“Thank you for your petition. There is going to be another stage of the consultation which will give residents further opportunity to comment on the traffic regulation order and if there are strong objections Isabel Crescent can be removed from the parking scheme although residents will need to consider the impact of vehicles being displaced to this road if the overall parking scheme is approved elsewhere”.


21.17   Resolved- That the Committee note the petition.


(b)          Written Questions


(1)          Aquarium Roundabout


21.18   On behalf of a resident, Councillor Nemeth read the following question:


“Can the Chair clarify that there is no evidence to suggest the Aquarium Roundabout is one of the UKs (or even Brighton's) most dangerous roundabouts or in fact any more dangerous to road users and pedestrians than numerous traffic light junctions?”


21.19   The Chair provided the following reply:


“Thank you for your question. In line with a response that has been provided to a Freedom of Information request that has asked the same question, I can confirm that the council has not undertaken any analysis that compares this junction with others in the UK.  References that have previously been made about the danger of the junction in a national context are based on articles that were published in the national and local media in 2019. These were based on a journalist's independent analysis of publicly available figures from the government's Department for Transport.

The council’s own past and recent analysis of data for the city has shown that, out of 81 sites which included a number of traffic signal junctions, the roundabout had the highest number of collisions during those periods. 

Following the considerable amount of engagement, consultation and technical analysis that has been carried out, the approved plans for the junction to become traffic signals as part of the Valley Gardens Phase 3 project will make the junction much safer for everybody using it.”


21.20   On behalf of a resident, Councillor Nemeth read the following supplementary question:


Councillor Davis assertion that the Aquarium Roundabout has one of the highest number of collisions in the city is false. No amount of slicing and dicing the stats can alter the fact that the roundabout through which 18 million journeys are made every year has entailed zero fatalities and an average of five injuries per year since March 2000. Rather than impart false facts to this committee would it be better that the Chair and Green Party try to stick to the environmental arguments for Phase 3?”


21.21   The Deputy Chair provided the following reply:


“There is a lot of statistical data about crashes that happen at junctions in our city. You can access it on a website called Crashmap which uses DfT data. Now if we look at Crashmap that roundabout has about 89 accidents in the last ten years compared to Preston Circus which has 26 and Seven Dials that has 41. So, in fact you can compare data as it’s out there and readily available. DfT data can be called upon to assess where most accidents have happened. That confirms that and hopefully ends this debate as it’s really getting quite boring”. 


(2)          Refuse


21.22   On behalf of a resident, Councillor Platts read the following question:


“The residents of Bristol Gate have noticed a deteriorating service over the last few years in terms of sufficiently emptying our communal refuse and recycling bins, so that we often have unhygienic and overflowing bins. What are the Council’s plans for reviewing and improving services across the city?”


21.23   The Chair provided the following reply:


“An improvement programme is in place to improve refuse and recycling collections across the city.

One of the big projects currently being worked on is procuring in-cab technology for the crews to improve the sharing of information between crews, the Cityclean depot and residents. This will improve the information the crews have to complete their collections, as well letting the depot and residents know when there are collection issues.

Cityclean also has a fleet replacement programme in place to replace older vehicles. This is reducing the number of instances when vehicles are off the road which can disrupt collections.

There are some roads that experience repeated missed collections. These are being reviewed to determine what measures can be put in place to maintain regular collections. This includes seeking Traffic Regulation Orders to implement such things as double yellow lines, to prevent vehicles parking and blocking access.

There will be a report coming to the next meeting of this committee with a further update on the work taking place to improve collections”.


21.24   On behalf of a resident, Councillor Platts read the following supplementary question:


“Based on our personal experience, since the communal bins have been put in place, the amount of recycling has overtaken the amount of refuse by some way and yet the number of bins has not changed. Does the Council keep an eye on this and adjust the number of collections accordingly?”


21.25   The Chair provided the following reply:


“The answer is yes, we do monitor that and make alternations when we need to”.


(3)          Tree maintenance


21.26   On behalf of Shirley Ross, Malcolm Spencer read the following question:


“The strip of Council-owned land next to our garden is in urgent need of proper maintenance so it does not form a dense, light-obstructing hedge to our house and garden and allows a safety margin for pedestrians on narrow, often busy road. A site meeting with Peter Small on 10 May agreed some minimum action points. I am here seeking help because

we are making no progress in having these points implemented and I don’t understand why emails with simple requests go unanswered when the problems and solutions have been previously agreed”.


21.27   The Chair provided the following reply:


“Thank you for your question.

I am sorry for the delay in taking forward the actions following the visit in May-At the meeting it was agreed that the holm oaks can be reduced in size due to the presence of some defects and to improve clearance, although the shading issue was not in itself a reason for work to be undertaken.

These works have been added to the list of pending jobs for the Arboriculture Team. Unfortunately, this piece of work is delayed due to a large volume of higher priority tree work which has arisen throughout the summer, primarily reactive elm disease control work. This element of work is likely to reduce as we approach the end of summer and elm disease season. This means the team can then begin to address the backlog of other tree work. All high priority safety works have been actioned during this period however lower priority works, such as this, have had to be delayed”.


(4)          Speeding on Preston Park Avenue


21.28   William Foster read the following question:


“I wish to draw your attention to the danger posed by persistent speeding traffic along Preston Park Avenue. This is of special concern as many children, young people, and people with mobility impairments use the park and given its unfenced nature, emerge onto the roadside at almost any point often unseen between parked vehicles. I have witnessed cars travelling in excess of 50mph, an accident waiting to happen. I wish to call on the committee to action a report into methods to improve public safety and then implement the report’s suggestions. Can you please help the safety of our community?”


21.29   The Chair provided the following reply:


“Thank you, William, for your question. I can understand the concerns you have raised and know how well used this area is. We receive a number of similar requests to this committee and do, I’m afraid, need to prioritise them based on immediate need. This will take account of things such as recorded speeds and collision history.

Data for the past three years shows that there were two minor incidents, and, for these, the police recorded driver error rather than speed as a factor.

Council Officers also conducted speed surveys in the Summer and Autumn of 2021 using a vehicle activated sign attached to a lamp column. This showed that the average speed was recorded at marginally over 20mph and the maximum speed recorded was 45mph. A know that this is an area of big concern for residents and there is a report coming to this committee with similar requests from other roads so I will ask officers to include Preston Park Avenue into that road safety work”.


(5)          Queens Park Road


21.30   Deborah Burnie read the following question:


“What data are you working with to ensure that the traffic on Queens Park Road will not increase with attendant air and noise pollution as well as traffic congestion as a consequence of the Hanover and Tarner LTN?”


21.31   The Chair provided the following reply:


“Thank you for your question.  The development of the project so far has taken into account a number of different datasets, such as traffic and cycle flows and driver speeds, and will also assess noise and air quality data.  Traffic modelling will also be used to inform and support the selection of a final scheme in principle.  We are sorry that that the baseline data report has taken far longer than expected to produce.  I am advised that it should be made available later this week.  An outline Monitoring Framework has also been established and will be a key part of understanding how the design for this pilot project is working, what effects it is having, and if any changes are required during the Experimental Traffic Order period”.


(6)          Traffic and air pollution


21.32   Ruth Farnell read the following question:


“A question related to the Hanover LTN. You monitored the traffic and pollution in the Hanover area and were going to publish the findings that will inform the design of the proposed Hanover and Tarner LTN. When will this report be made available to local residents? We were advised this would be made available during the consultation which has now closed”.


21.33   The Chair provided the following reply:


“Thank you for putting your question.  As I explained in my previous response, we are sorry about the delays to finalising the baseline data report and it should be available later this week”.


21.34   Ruth Farnell asked the following supplementary question:


“How is local and non-local traffic monitored?”


21.35   The following reply was provided on behalf of the Chair:


“It won’t necessarily be possible to differentiate between local and non-local traffic from the data that has been collected but we will be analysing it and setting the levels of through traffic that are utilising or using the area and that information has informed the design to date and will be part of baseline data report that will be published later this week”  


(7)          Queens Park Road


21.36   Katia Toy read the following question:


“There is very little information about the proposed improvement to Queens Park Road as a consequence of becoming a boundary road for the Hanover and Tarner LTN. How will you ensure the following residents are not negatively impacted? For example, access for care workers, the vulnerable, emergency vehicles as well as space for pushchairs and mobility scooters on the pavements of Queens Park Road”.


21.37   The Chair provided the following reply:


“We’re committed to making the roads that border the liveable neighbourhood scheme more people friendly, which is why we have put an extra £1.1m into improving these roads. The proposals that we have consulted on include pedestrian crossing points, traffic calming measures and vegetation/greening for Queen’s Park Road. The details are still being explored and we want residents to be part of the conversation. Green councillors in the area are meeting with people on Queen’s Park Road and are working with them on defining the changes that would be most appropriate there. We would be keen to involve more local people – so I can pass on your details if you are interested. The next meeting is tomorrow evening.

Once the principles of the final design are established, based on the responses that we receive to the consultation, we will be able to provide a clearer indication of the measures that will be included in the street. 

One of the primary objectives of the Liveable Neighbourhood is to enable and increase active travel.  Within the overall area of the scheme, we therefore want to ensure that there is a positive change for people’s access and movement, especially when using pavements and crossing roads.  Access for essential vehicles will also improve if there is a reduction in the amount of local traffic in the area as a result of increases in active travel”.


21.38   Katia Toy asked the following supplementary question:


“Why do residents on Queens Park Road not matter as much as those in Hanover?”


21.39   The Chair provided the following reply:


“Residents do matter in Elm Grove and Queens Park Road hence the reason for making provision to actually look at improvements in Elm Grove and Queens Park Road as part of the scheme. So, residents aren’t being excluded and residents needs is included as part of the overall scheme”.


(8)          Economic Impacts of Hanover & Tarner LTN


21.40   Carolyn Lewis read the following question:


“How are you going to convince me that the proposed Hanover and Tarner Liveable Neighbourhood pilot will not undermine the very local economy that makes Hanover a liveable neighbourhood? I’m talking about our local tradespeople and businesses such as carpenters, gardeners, painters & decorators, plumbers, electricians, dog walkers, our local shops, our pubs, the Orchard Nursery, the post office, doctors’ surgery and pharmacy”.


21.41   The Chair provided the following reply:


“Thank you for your question. Through the engagement and consultation that has been promoted and taken place so far within the local community, I very much hope that we will have captured many views from a range of stakeholders, including businesses. 

Low traffic schemes in other areas have boosted retail trade as people prefer shopping and spending time in low traffic areas. But we know that vehicle access needs to be balanced against the need to discourage car use. We know deliveries are important and we’ve yet to get down to that level of detail in the plans - we’ll work with local businesses on this. And we are encouraging tradespeople who can to transition to ecargo bikes for some of their journeys and deliveries through our ecargo acceleration project.

These will be varied and reflect the differing needs that people will have on a day to day basis and which we will need to balance when finalising the design.  I know that Councillor Hills has been in discussion with local businesses and she, along with, Councillor Davis, Lloyd and Gibson have met with some local businesses to discuss their views. Feedback from businesses will be considered in the next version of the plan. As I explained in an earlier response, the traffic order process means that there will be opportunities for further comments when the scheme is up and running.  If changes are needed to accommodate certain business requirements then we will review these and make them where we can”.


(9)          Speed Limit on Greenways


21.42   Malcolm Spencer read the following question:


“In an Ovingdean residents survey 79% of those responding would support changing speed limits on Greenways: 40mph to 30mph, 30mph to 20mph.

The 40mph section is used as beach parking, where vehicles are offloaded directly into the road, which is crossed to a pavement. In the 30mph section vehicles carry speed towards the 20mph shared space which is at the entrance to a school. We believe that 20mph should be introduced earlier to slow vehicles before that school entrance.

Will Brighton & Hove City Council please listen to residents and reduce the allowed speed limits on this road?”


21.43   The Chair provided the following reply:


“Thank you for your question. We receive a number of requests for speed limit changes and traffic calming measures but unfortunately are not able to satisfy them all. However, we do regularly monitor locations around the city where we have been made aware of potential issues with speed limit compliance. To help us prioritise requests such as yours, officers are currently developing a prioritisation process which will also be used to consider requests for Liveable Neighbourhoods. A report on this is due to be presented to a future meeting of this committee.

In relation to Greenways specifically, I acknowledge the case that you have put forward for a reduction in the speed limit. this will need to be fully assessed and any changes will need to be compliant with national guidance on setting speed limits”.


(10)       Tree


21.44   The Chair accepted a late question submitted by Marcia Hasler as follows:


“7 years ago the wrong type of tree was planted by the council outside my house. This tree is not a street tree - it has long dangerous spikes and drops thousands of berries across the road and pavement for months. It was a mistake to plant it. Everyone has failed me in trying to keep the highway and pavement clear.

So now I come to this committee to beg that you help. You're my last resort. The spikes and berries are dangerous. Can you get the tree replaced with a tree like all the others across Hove?”


21.45   The Chair stated that a reply would be provided in writing.


(c)          Deputations


(1)          Rottingdean High Street Planter


21.46   The Committee considered a deputation requesting the removal of the planter located on Rottingdean High Street.


21.47   The Chair provided the following response:


“Thank you for your deputation today. The planter was not part of the Experimental Traffic Regulation order but was part of a wider Air Quality Monitoring Area trial to improve Air Quality in the lower High Street.

It was never intended as a traffic calming measure and the Council has never claimed it was.

Sightlines to the Zebra crossing were considered in the design phase.

There have been no pedestrian injuries in the area recorded by Sussex Police in the last three years which relate to the planter.

Officers recently met with Parish Councillors and Cllr Fishleigh to present the latest Air Quality monitoring results. For the first time in Rottingdean since monitoring began, sensors are recording higher Nitrogen Dioxide levels on the north side of the A259 Marine Parade than anywhere in the High Street. It is too soon to confirm whether this is only a temporary change, but Nitrogen Dioxide readings in the High Street now all meet the national legal limits.

A full city-wide Air Quality report is scheduled for the November meeting.

The Parish Council has confirmed to officers that it has not formally taken a position regarding the removal or retention of the planter.

The project group including ward and parish councillors is due to meet in late October to consider options, including removing the planter or a left turn ban out of Park Road. 

Parish Councillors will then review the impact of the planter and other measures at their next meeting in November.

I hope this provides some assurance for you regarding your concerns”.


21.48   Resolved- That the Committee note the deputation.


(2)          Reigate Road speeding


21.49   The Committee considered a deputation relating to resident concerns about speeding on Reigate Road.


21.50   The Chair provided the following response:


“Thank you for the deputation and we appreciate that many residents are keen to see improvements to Reigate Road to reduce the impact of through traffic. As I’ve mentioned in a previous response, that we have had a lot of interest in similar measures across the city. To help us assess and prioritise these requests, officers are developing a prioritisation framework which will be presented to a meeting of this committee in the near future. We would very much like to consider improvements in future and I would like us to be able to address the concerns that have been raised but, unfortunately, there is a need for us to prioritise funding”.


21.51   Councillor Lloyd moved a motion to request an officer report on the matter.


21.52   Councillor Platts formally seconded the motion.


21.53   Resolved- That the Committee receive a report to a future meeting responding to the petition request.


(3)          Adoption of New TRO Amendment Mechanism in Support of Car-Free Development


21.54   The Committee considered a deputation relating to the council’s car free development policy.


21.55   The Chair provided the following response:


“Thank you for presenting this deputation.  Seeking to ensure that we can manage and reduce the impacts of increased vehicles on our streets is an important part of our overall transport strategy and planning policies.

The approach that has changed since January 2022 has arisen following local planning appeal decisions regarding the use of a planning condition to manage parking permit eligibility.  This process will now be overseen by Parking Services via the ongoing Traffic Regulation Order process but will still take account of the response to planning applications made by the council as the Highway Authority.   Therefore, if the highway or parking impacts of a development are considered to require it, recommendations will be made regarding the eligibility for residents’ parking permits.

We are making it clearer that the removal of a planning condition through the planning permission does not automatically result in a change to a TRO”.


21.56   Resolved- That the Committee note the deputation.


(4)          Clean Air Plan


21.57   The Committee considered a deputation requesting the council to take a number of actions to improve air quality in the city.


21.58   The Chair provided the following response:


“Thank you for presenting your deputation today on behalf of your colleagues.  Your views as healthcare professionals about the impacts of poor air quality on public health are very welcome.  They will also be shared by members of the council’s Health & Wellbeing Board, which has received presentations from the council’s Council Public Health and Air Quality officers on this topic. 

As part of the plan, we will aim to bring forward interim targets, referencing 2021 World Health Organisation guidelines that are much more ambitious than current UK legislation. The plan   includes many of the measures that you refer to - an Ultra Low Emission Zone, a citywide Smoke Control Area and alternative fuels for public transport, both for taxis and buses

Legislation and regulation for air quality is set nationally and the council will continue to work to within it.  Seeking tighter controls would require concerted, widespread lobbying of the government, alongside additional resources to then provide sufficient enforcement.   

The action plan is due to be reported to our next committee – and we will work hard to make the plan as robust as possible - and the responses and representations that we have received will be reflected in the plan that is presented. Thank you for putting forward your views today”.


21.59   Resolved- That the Committee note the deputation.


(5)          Residents’ Priorities for Elm Grove


21.60   The Committee considered a deputation relating to a number of traffic and anti-social parking issues in Elm Grove as well as the proposed Hanover and Tarner Low Traffic Neighbourhood Proposals.


21.61   The Chair provided the following response:


“Thank you for your detailed deputation. I really appreciate your concern about traffic being pushed onto boundary roads. While evidence from around the country is varied it is not clear. For example, Hackney Council has seen a decrease in their traffic across all boundary roads. We will be monitoring data over the Low Traffic Neighbourhood very carefully.

You will of course be aware of the detailed work that you have all been contributing to as well as the extensive public consultation that has generated over 1300 responses to the survey questions. Officers are now working on analysing these over the next few weeks.  

Your range of questions and concerns will no doubt have been raised within the overwhelming number of responses that we have received from across the community.  These will provide us with the basis on which to further inform and shape the design where necessary and bring back a revised proposal and plan on how to proceed to this committee.   

We will continue to work with residents and stakeholders to ensure that we get the best mix of measures in the right locations within the budget that is available.  The measures that your workshops have prioritised are all effective Liveable Neighbourhood measures to make Elm Grove safer and more people friendly and many will feature in the final design. Your offer of working together is appreciated and we are happy to work with you, along with other residents and stakeholders, as we develop the more detailed plans. 

I hope we can resolve your concerns to avoid delaying this fantastic opportunity for providing a comprehensive LTN in Hanover and Tarner that will deliver improvements for the whole area, which will also include Elm Grove and Queen’s Park Road as integral parts of the scheme.

Disappointingly, there has been no announcement by the government on pavement parking since our last committee in June, and therefore the commitment that was made by the Chair then will be taken into account in further developing the design for the LTN to address this problem on Elm Grove. We consider this to be a priority and we will bring a TRO to a future committee”.


21.62   Resolved- That the Committee note the deputation.


(6)          Parking Zone V & S


21.63   The Committee considered a deputation requesting Carlyle Street remain in Parking Zone V.


21.64   The Chair provided the following response:


“Thank you for bringing your deputation to this Committee. This proposal will be discussed later in the meeting under the parking schemes report agenda Item 27.

It would be up to Members of this Committee to determine whether an amendment is required and agreed to recommendation 2.5 under Item 27 to either leave this road out of the overall change when advertising the Traffic Regulation Order considering other possible complaints from other residents or reconsult the whole area based on a new boundary not including Carlyle Street. The latter option would delay the parking scheme priority timetable as there are very tight deadlines so schemes outlined in the parking scheme report may not proceed as quickly as outlined in the timetable. Although the Roedean area scheme may not proceed if the recommendations are agreed at this Committee officer resources will also need to be diverted very soon to supporting with the implementation of verge parking controls in Elm Grove following the commitment made at a previous Committee meeting”.


21.65   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