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)           Stop Coffee Roastery Pollution In North Laine

(2)           Controlled parking for Woodland Way and the top of Peacock Lane

(b)           Written Questions: To receive any questions submitted by the due date of 12 noon on the 9 November 2022;


(c)           Deputations: To receive any deputations submitted by the due date of 12 noon on the 9 November 2022.


(1)           TRO-22a-2022 and TRO-22bO-2022

(2)           Hove Waste and Recycling Site


(A)          Petitions


(1)           Stop Coffee Roastery Pollution in North Laine


40.1      The Committee considered a petition signed by 50 people requesting Council to curb the smoke and noise pollution emanating from a coffee shop located on Sydney Street, Brighton.


40.2      The Chair provided the following response:


“Environmental Health have received complaints from nearby residents  of intermittent noise and odour from the Coffee Roasters which have been extensively investigated by the Environmental Protection team. A Statutory Nuisance was not substantiated by officers, however the business has voluntarily invested in abatement equipment to attempt to rectify the reported adverse impacts of their operation. This has included installing an afterburner and a silencer. However, it appears that there is still some residual odour escape at the rear of the premises and the premises management have been contacted this week about their proposed solution.

Planning Permission (BH2019/03013) was granted for a rear exaction flue on 28h November 2019. The planning decision included consideration of comments made by Environmental Health and summarised in the officer  report (available online.) A planning enforcement investigation has established that the  flue has been installed in a position approximately 1m different from the approved drawing. Whilst this is a technical  breach, it would be regularised (in planning terms) through a minor variation to the approved scheme. It is not therefore considered expedient to require that action in this instance. There are no other known breaches of the approved scheme granted permission”.


40.3      Resolved- That the committee note the petition.


(2)           Controlled parking for Woodland Way and the top of Peacock Lane


40.4      The Committee considered a petition signed by 94 requesting   an extension to the Surrenden light touch scheme to include Woodland Way and the top of Peacock Lane or implement a new controlled parking scheme in this area.


40.5      The Chair provided the following response:


“Thank you for your petition. In order to consider reconsulting these two roads for a residents parking scheme, strong support needs to be shown by residents not only in these roads but the wider area. This would be considered when our next parking scheme priority timetable is agreed at the Environment Transport & Sustainability Committee. Our current timetable goes up to 2025.


As parking schemes for individual roads are not considered as viable solutions, we would advise that residents submit an area wide petition. This is how we gauge the strength of feeling for a scheme and which areas would like to be included

We have asked colleagues in the City Parks team to review the website reference to parking in Woodland Way”.


40.6      Resolved- That the committee note the petition.


(B)          Public Questions


(1)           Traffic Data


40.7      Katia Toy put the following question:


“In East Oxford the traffic data used to justify the LTN were incorrect the DFT has admitted. In London where figures suggested an almost 60% or 72% rise in minor and smallest residents roads based on traffic between 2009 to 2019.

These figures were over-counted. New reviews showed no increase over the last 10 years. Some LTN were then removed.

How has the traffic data for Hanover been calculated and can it justify the LTN. Can we have this data reviewed?”

40.8      The Chair provided the following reply:


“Thank you for your question, Katia.  The baseline data that has been collected to help develop the preliminary design for the Hanover and Tarner area has been gathered together in a report.  It contains a variety of information such as traffic flows and through traffic, driver speeds, and collision data.  Data about cycle flows, air quality and noise levels are also included.  The information has been collected in a variety of ways such as automatic traffic counters and cameras, as well as analysing other datasets.  The data has been used alongside the information that people have provided through a series of engagement activities to help develop the design that has recently been consulted on.  A copy of the report can be sent to you if you would like to see one”.


40.9      In response to the supplementary question, the Chair provided the following reply in writing:


“I appreciate your concerns about the reports of the analysis of historic government (Department for Transport [DfT]) data which produced an inaccurate, national estimate for increases in traffic between 2009 and 2019 on minor roads.   I can confirm that, as in Oxfordshire, the reported (incorrect) increase based on the DfT’s data was not a key influence in the committee decision to develop and implement the pilot project for Hanover & Tarner.  This was initially based on a representation from members of the local community and the subsequent work has been further informed by the data included in the baseline report that has been sent to you, which includes information about driver speeds and collisions, in addition to recent, local traffic flows and through traffic”.


(2)           Traffic


40.10   Michael Letton read the following question:


“Surveys over 7 days show that there is negligible westbound traffic at school access time. A door to door poll shows that most residents of Bankside and Barn Rise oppose the eastbound [full-time, 24/7] one-way imposition, which will displace their enforced westbound journeys onto Dene Vale Mill Rise and Bankside. This will only inconvenience residents, will not comply with aims of “School Streets”, and will increase congestion and pollution in Dene Vale and Mill Rise, particularly around the new pinchpoint near Ascension Church. It is wholly counterproductive and pointless. Will BHCC please remove this imposition?”


40.11   The Chair provided the following reply:


“This Committee approved the School Streets programme and the criteria assessment in September 2021. The concept design for a School Street at Westdene Primary School underwent a six-week public consultation in October 2021. This design option included the proposed configuration of the one-way traffic management on Bankside and Barn Rise. The scheme design received support from the school and generally positive overall support during consultations to proceed. Following the consultation period, the range of suggestions for changes to the design that were expressed during the consultation, were considered and where deemed appropriate and safe, incorporated into the final design.

Owing to the range of views expressed throughout consultation feedback, the Council has proceeded with installation of the scheme on an Experimental Traffic Regulation Order. This ETRO came into force in November, and the comment period will be in effect for six months. This provides an opportunity for comment to be submitted on the scheme, with the measures in-situ, through the ETRO. After the ETRO phase ends in April 2023, comments and objections received through the ETRO will be reported back to ETS Committee, for members of Committee to decide whether the scheme should be made permanent, removed or adjusted.

It would therefore not be appropriate at this stage in the process to fundamentally alter the design, or further postpone its implementation”.


40.12   In response to the supplementary question, the Chair provided the following reply:


“I appreciate your concerns and appreciate your suggestions and what I think is best to do here is feed this into the ETRO period where we can listen to your objections and comments and hopefully make the scheme even better than it hopefully will be”.


(3)           Cycle Hangars


40.13   Janice Goodlet read the following question:


“Why are bike hangers being placed outside of the homes of residents who are never likely to use them?”


40.14   The Chair provided the following reply:


Cycle hangars are  proposed on roads that were requested in the survey last year, which asked for residents to suggest suitable locations. The roads requested in the survey were then scored against a set criteria and assessed by officers. The technical feasibility is also determined on site by engineers and the contractors Falco. Of the 60 hangars that we have installed, providing 360 secure cycle parking spaces for residents, 353 spaces have so far been booked, with a waiting lists for spaces totalling around 460. Therefore usage is expected to be high. They are not being placed solely for the use of residents whose properties they are installed outside of. Various technicalities are considered when choosing locations including drainage, street furniture and the camber of the road”.


40.15   In response to the supplementary question, the Chair provided the following reply:


“There is an amendment on the agenda about this location and we will see how that is considered”.  


(4)           Cycle Hangars


40.16   Laura King read the following question:


“Can you please advise what legal implications were considered during the full process of consideration through to site location of cycle hangers in Brighton and Hove?”


40.17   The Chair provided the following reply:


“The Hangers are installed by the Highway Authority who have powers to manage the network appropriately. The relevant legal jurisdiction is  the Highways Act 1980 and the Traffic Regulation Order process”.


40.18   In response to the supplementary question, the Chair provided the following reply in writing:


“The permanent Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) process was followed for TRO-21a-2022. The legal requirements for a permanent Traffic Regulation Order are: A notice in the local paper, documents available to view on the Brighton & Hove Council website TRO page, and consultation with the Police, other emergency services, Road Haulage Association, Freight Transport Association. For the cycle

hangar project, officers are also posting notices on the street where cycle hangars are being proposed and writing to the residents within view of proposed locations to give them the TRO details.

Funding for the cycle hangars project was agreed at Budget Council on 25th February 2021. This funding was subsequently included in the Local Transport Plan Programme at Environment, Transport & Sustainability Committee in March 2021 and again at the February 2022 Budget Council.

The Procurement Advisory Board approved the Cycle Hangars – Supply and management/maintenance report on 26th July 2021 and a business case for the project was signed off by the Assistant Director of City Transport.

Further information can be found in the report that was approved at the ETS committee on 15th November, or in the relevant appendices of that report which is posted on the Council website.

The 60 cycle hangars that have so far been installed as part of the project provide 360 spaces for residents to park their bicycles near their homes. 346 spaces have been booked and there are waiting lists for spaces totalling 461 residents. Therefore, the Council would not wish to remove this provision for residents”.  


(5)           Freshfield Road crossing


40.19   Mark Strong read the following question:


“For many years Queens Park residents have called for the Freshfield Rd crossing by Cuthbert Road to be improved. It’s used by many families

travelling to & from St Lukes School and Queens Park itself. The local

Speedwatch group has shown that speeding is a significant problem with

speeds up to 50mph. The council’s assessment ranks it 18th based on a combination of incorrect information (it was first requested some 10 years ago, not in 2021/22) and an outdated methodology from 2011. Will the Co-Chairs agree to meet me on site as a precursor to re-examining the crossing in detail?”


40.20   The Chair provided the following reply:


“Thank you for your question Mark. I know the local Speedwatch group has done a lot of work over the years and would like to thank them for this.

However, in relation to the crossing request, I do need to highlight that our latest speed survey taken near Dawson Terrace, but picking up vehicles near to Cuthbert Road/Queens Park Terrace, shows that the average speed of vehicles is just under 20mph. Community Speedwatch record the vehicles going over the limit so it is not as complete as our data and explains the difference you are referring to.

The 2021/22 review is referring to a reassessment of the request, rather than the original one, and using the council’s approved assessment methodology. It is currently at 18 on the priority list and I’m afraid, as a result, we have other sites to progress ahead of this.

However, given the concerns over this specific location and the work undertaken by Speedwatch, I would be interested in meeting you on site with one of the Council’s transport officers to discuss this in more detail”.


40.21   In response to the supplementary question, the Chair provided the following reply:


“We can start the discussion when we meet on site”.  


(6)           Street furniture


40.22   Councillor Fishleigh read the following question on behalf of Derek Wright:


“Would the council consider : An incentive scheme for street cleaners and waste collecting teams to report any tagging stickers and fly posting on street furniture when they see it. Or train street cleaners and provide them with equipment /cleaning products and gloves to clean off tagging/stickers/posters of street furniture? They can keep track and would get rewarded for every report that gets actioned”.


40.23   The Chair provided the following reply:


“Thank you for your suggestion and your question. Street Cleansing Operatives undertake several tasks as part of their daily routine. This includes sweeping litter from the streets, weeding and removing stickers and fly-posters as and when they see them. Because of the vast space they cover each day, its not always possible to remove every bit every time. Therefore, in recent years, there have been dedicated deep cleaning weeks to remove all stickers from street furniture in a given area.

It's also part of the reason we’re looking to adopt a different enforcement approach to flyposting and stickering, which is on today’s agenda.

Cityclean has a dedicated graffiti removal team who are trained to use the appropriate chemicals and are provided with PPE. They clear graffiti from public property across the city. When graffiti is reported on a commercial property, our Environmental Enforcement Team will write to the business asking them to remove it.

There is an expectation that staff working in the field report damage and vandalism as part of their role, and this is the normal practice. However as above, resources don’t always allow us to deal with the issue immediately. Further to this Local Authorities are not permitted to offer staff performance incentives or bonuses”.


(C)          Deputations


(1)           TRO-22a-2022 and TRO-22bO-2022


40.24   The Committee considered a deputation objecting to TRO-22a-2022 and TRO-22bO-2022 for reasons of accessibility.


40.25   The Chair provided the following response:


“Thank you for your deputation regarding the proposal to close Gardner Street to vehicles for part of the day. A report is being presented to this committee when members will be able to debate the recommendations. The report explains the consultation and engagement untaken by Council Officers and includes details of proposed mitigation measures”.


40.26   Resolved- That the committee note the deputation.


(2)           Hove Waste recycling site


40.27   The Committee considered a deputation objecting to noise and pollution emanating from Hove Waste recycling site and impacting local residents.


40.28   The Chair provided the following response:


“Household Waste Recycling Sites, or tips as many of us know them, play a vital role in serving local communities. Providing residents with these facilities means they are able to dispose of a range of materials that would otherwise end up being sent to energy recovery or to landfill or get fly-tipped. In a climate crisis, its vitally important that we reuse and recycle as much as possible.

The facility at Hove forms a key part of local operations for Brighton & Hove. Veolia, who operate the site on behalf of the council, operate under a permit and work closely with East Sussex County Council, Brighton & Hove City Council, and the Environment Agency to ensure compliance with every aspect of that permit and their contractual requirements. They also endeavour to be good neighbours to those in the communities that are served. 

Veolia, East Sussex County Council and Brighton & Hove City Council are aware of the concerns raised within the deputation and have taken to address the concerns raised by local residents. Whilst Veolia is confident that any risk to its neighbours is effectively managed and that the operations at the site comply with its legal obligations under the environmental permit, they have proactively invested over £30,000 in recent years to further reduce the risk of any amenity issues to sensitive receptors. However, the reality is this site remains an operational site collecting waste from across the city.

The most recent visit from the Environment Agency was on 4 October 2022. Their summery was: "Overall the site was well organised, tidy and well managed at the time of the visit. No breaches found on visit".

East Sussex County council, who manage the contract, have carried out nine inspections in 2022, the most recent being 6th September, 12th September and 3rd October. None of these inspections recorded flies or other pests as being on site. Furthermore, the last routine visit from Veolia's retained pest contractor demonstrated no issues or concerns with regards to flies. 

A new deodorizer system has been installed to all the doors of the Transfer Station building to help prevent any potential odours from escaping the building when a vehicle enters or exits. The Environment Agency recognised this from their latest inspection report stating that:  "The dust and odour suppression system was seen working regularly and when doors were opened".

Fly fogging is on a four-weekly treatment cycle for the winter months which will be adjusted as the spring and summer approaches, or if the pest controller recommends as such.

There are two acoustic fences backing onto residents’ gardens to reduce noise.

There have been recent changes to the operating hours of the HWRS which were agreed by the council’s Planning Committee. This enabled Veolia to operate from 7am.

Following complaints from a resident, the council contacted Veolia. The HWRS Manager stated that vehicle movements are kept low between 7am and 8am, with one or two each morning. These movements are to remove waste as quickly as possible from the site to help with any possible odour issues. Vehicle and mobile plant operational hours will change in March 2023 to:

·       0800 to 1700 hours, Monday to Friday

·       0800 to 1300 hours on Saturdays

·       and not at any time on Sundays or Bank Holidays.


Veolia has previously offered for proximate residents to visit to see what happens on site and this offer remains open. Furthermore, Veolia’s pest control contractor is available to visit those residents, at Veolia's cost, to allay concerns regarding flies emanating from the site. It is worth noting that one of the residents behind the site keeps poultry and that the fly fogging trap at this specific house exhibits significant fly activity.

Residents have also been advised to contact the council’s Environmental Health & Licensing Team with their concerns to arrange for an independent view of the concerns raised. To date, this has not been followed up.

The HWRS site is a very popular and convenient site for residents. In a recent Customer Satisfaction survey, 98% of respondents said they were satisfied with the site with 97% of respondents saying they were satisfied with the cleanliness of the site. 68% said they were very satisfied with the cleanliness of the site.

The site has a long history as a Waste site, serving the residents of Hove. The land was acquired in 1920 for the purpose of house refuse and disposal. The introduction of the contract with Veolia saw the creation of the Hollingdean Transfer Station. This removed the majority of black bag waste out of Hove and to Hollingdean. Before this, all Hove refuse was taken to the Hove HWRS, so this has been a big improvement for residents.

There are extremely few alternative Waste sites available within Brighton & Hove so relocating elsewhere would be virtually impossible, even in the medium term.

East Sussex County Council continue to monitor the site but currently have no concerns and are satisfied that Veolia are doing an excellent job in its day-to-day operation of the site. The most recent Environment Agency report supports this”.


40.29   Councillor Nemeth moved a motion to request an officer report on the matter.


40.30   Councillor Bagaeen formally seconded the motion.


40.31   The Chair put the motion to the vote that failed.


40.32   Resolved- That the committee note the deputation.


(3)           Gardner Street


40.33   The Committee considered a deputation in support of the closure of Gardner Street to traffic.


40.34   The Chair provided the following response:


“Thank you for your deputation in support of the proposed Gardner Street closure. A report is being presented at this committee when members will be able to debate the recommendations. If the recommendation to close the road to traffic is approved Highway Enforcement officers will work with the businesses to redesign their outside spaces and ensure that a wide clear safe space is maintained for pedestrians, wheelchairs users and cyclists”. 


40.35   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