Valley Gardens Phase 3 Stage 1 Report

Brighton & Hove City Council | 1

Valley Gardens Phase 3 Stage 1 Report August 2018 2 | Valley Gardens Phase 3 Stage 1 Brighton & Hove City Council | 3 Contents 1.0 Introduction and Study Area Overview 5 2.0 Policy Context and Objectives 9 3.0 Baseline Assessment 13 4.0 Consultation and Stakeholder Engagement 47 5.0 Option Longlisting 51 6.0 Sifting Methodology 55 7.0 Preferred Option 59 8.0 Monitoring Framework and Benefits Realisation 65 9.0 Conclusions and Next Steps 69 Appendices 71

Report Reference 341760 RR08; B Prepared C.Harwood Checked S.Jones Approved R.Reed

This document is issued for the party which commissioned it and for specific purposes connected with the above-captioned project only. It should not be relied upon by any other party or used for any other purpose. We accept no responsibility for the consequences of this document being relied upon by any other party, or being used for any other purpose, or containing any error or omission which is due to an error or omission in data supplied to us by other parties. This document contains confidential information and proprietary intellectual property. It should not be shown to other parties without consent from us and from the party which commissioned it. 4 | Valley Gardens Phase 3 Stage 1 Brighton & Hove City Council | 5

1.0 Introduction & Study Area Overview 6 | Valley Gardens Phase 3 Stage 1 1.0 Introduction Mott MacDonald has been appointed by Brighton & Hove Capital LEP, subject to the production of a business case. 1.4 Report Structure City Council (BHCC) to prepare preliminary designs for the This funding would be in addition to the funding already The rest of the report is structured as follows: Valley Gardens Phase 3 project and produce a business awarded for the Phase 1-2 scheme. In total, Phase 3 would case to secure funding for the scheme. have an anticipated budget of £7.25m, including a £1.25m ●●Chapter 2 provides an overview of the policy context and LTP allocation. project objectives; This report documents the tasks carried out for Stage 1 of the project. Stage 1 focuses on establishing the project 1.3 Project Scope ●●Chapter 3 provides an assessment of the study area for baseline, developing the project objectives and option different users and identifies opportunities and constraints The Phase 3 design scope covers the area in red appraisal methodology, preparing a longlist of feasibility for the design process; on the plan overleaf; however, where appropriate, design options and identifying three options for further recommendations will be made for connections to development as part of the following stage of the project ●●Chapter 4 details the consultation and stakeholder adjacent areas to ensure the scheme is not considered in (BHCC Project Stage 2a). At this point, the three options management process; isolation. Designs for Phase 3 will be expected to connect will be developed further to RIBA 2 (concept design) level coherently with those for Phase 1-2, although there may be ●●Chapter 5 presents options identified through a before a preferred option is agreed. The preferred option scope for minor amendments to the southernmost section longlisting exercise; will then be progressed to RIBA 3 (developed/ preliminary of the latter. As such, where there is a potential benefit in design) level and a LEP compliant business case produced. ●●Chapter 6 details the options sifting methodology and alterations to tie in with emerging plans for Phase 3, these assessment criteria; 1.1 Study Area will be highlighted. Similarly, the Edward Street junction was the subject of a recent redesign and is not formally ●●Chapter 7 provides details of the shortlisted options; The Valley Gardens project covers the series of green included in either phase; however, the Phase 3 design spaces between The Level and the seafront, as shown ●●Chapter 8 outlines a draft monitoring framework; and process will cover this junction to ensure that a coherent on the plan overleaf. This includes the A23 corridor and link is provided. ●●Chapter 9 concludes the report and summarises the next A259 coast road, two of the city’s most important strategic steps. routes. Whilst the relationship with Phase 1-2 is an important consideration, the coming together of north and The project has been split into three phases. Phase 1-2 is southbound traffic east of the Royal Pavilion does provide the area north of Edward Street and designs have already an opportunity for a different approach to the positioning been developed. Phase 3, the subject of this study and for of traffic and different modes within the southern section. which plans are being developed, is the area to the south Therefore, in accordance with the project brief, a range of and includes the junction of the A23 and A259 and adjoins options have been considered at the initial sifting stage in some of the city’s key historic landmarks including the addition to the original concept and Phase 1-2 approach of Royal Pavilion and Brighton Palace Pier. separating bus traffic to the western side of the gardens. 1.2 Background As noted, the current commission covers Stages 1 BHCC’s original rationale for the scheme was to improve (feasibility) to 2b (preliminary design) of the project as movement and access for all users and better connect the defined within BHCC’s fourth Local Transport Plan (LTP4). under-used green spaces with the city centre. Stage 3 (detailed design) will be commissioned at a later date. Whilst suggestions will be made as part of Stage Detailed designs have been approved for Phase 1-2 with 2 for material palettes, it is expected that these will be construction due to commence late summer 2018. The confirmed at detailed design stage. For the purposes of general design principle for Phase 1-2 is to remove the this report, it is noted that there will be a desire to maintain current gyratory system and relocate two-way through consistency with Phase 1-2 and connecting routes, but that traffic to the east side of the gardens. Buses and local the nature of the Phase 3 area does provide an opportunity access traffic will use the west of the gardens. This follows for a gateway treatment or transition if desired. the original concept for the project, which proposed a similar arrangement in the Phase 3 area. The Valley Gardens Phase 3 project has been provisionally allocated £6m in Local Growth Funding by the Coast to Brighton & Hove City Council | 7

Phase 1 - 2 Area

Phase 3 Area 8 | A222Valley Lower Gardens Addiscombe Phase 3 Stage Road: 1 Design Review Brighton & Hove City Council | 9

2.0 Policy Context & Objectives 10 | Valley Gardens Phase 3 Stage 1 2.0 Policy Context and Objectives This chapter provides an overview of the policy context for by ensuring simple, safe and comprehensible links to and the Valley Gardens project. This has been used to inform from the seafront and the Lanes; and the assessment criteria for identifying preferred options, a ●●Ease the movement of pedestrians and cyclists through process detailed in full in Chapter 6. recapturing road space and creating direct crossing points, 2.1 BHCC Policy particularly to reconnect St James’s Street with the city centre. It has been a longstanding aspiration of the council to connect the green spaces that make up Valley Gardens. Other City Plan policies of particular relevance are SA1 This is reflected in current transport and planning policy as (Seafront) and CP9 (Sustainable Transport). SA1 includes a summarised below. commitment to improve pedestrian and cycle connections to and along the seafront, as well as to support the City Plan Part One regeneration of Madeira Drive and safeguard its role as a The City Plan Part One (p.110) states that the council will key events space. CP9 aims to provide an integrated, safe “enhance and regenerate the Valley Gardens area in an and sustainable transport system that will accommodate integrated manner that reinforces its strategic significance, new development, improve accessibility and support the emphasises its historic and cultural character, reduces city’s role as a regional centre for employment, shopping, the adverse impact of vehicular traffic, improves local air tourism and services. quality and creates a continuous green boulevard that City Plan Part Two reconnects the open space to the surrounding urban realm.” The second part of the City Plan was released by BHCC in draft for consultation in July 2018. This will set out the Policy SA3 provides details of the council’s aspirations detailed development management policies for the city to for Valley Gardens and what the scheme should achieve. support the strategic City Plan Part One. It also identifies Seven specific aims outlined in SA3 are as follows: and allocates additional development sites. Relevant ●●To create a vibrant and attractive new public park for the policies of this emerging strategy to Valley Gardens are as city centre; follows: ●●To reduce the severance impact of traffic on the ●●DM 32 (Royal Pavilion) which seeks to provide a more enjoyment of the public realm through environmental and legible and coherent perimeter treatment, enhance transport improvements; entrances and the ‘sense of arrival’, improve pedestrian circulation through the estate, enhance key views into and ●●To create safe and legible links with adjoining areas; across the estate, improve security and design out anti- ●●To enhance the appearance and setting of historic social behaviour; buildings; ●●DM 33 which supports LTP objectives to provide safe ●●To find appropriate new uses for key buildings; and sustainable transport; ●●To accommodate provision for high quality outdoor ●●DM 34 outlining the conditions in which purpose built- events; and interchanges including park and ride and coach parking will be supported; and ●●To enhance the biodiversity of the area. ●●DM 27 (Listed Buildings) and DM28 (Locally Listed These do not distinguish between Phase 1-3; although Heritage Assets). further specific priorities are made in relation to the Old Steine as follows: ●●Emphasise its role as a visitor destination space; ●●Enhance the arrival and departure experience for visitors Brighton & Hove City Council | 11

Local Transport Plan 2.2 LEP Policy and Guidance 2.3 Adjacent Projects BHCC’s current transport strategy is provided by LTP4. This The Coast to Capital (C2C) Local Enterprise Partnership In addition to the Phase 1-2 Valley Gardens scheme, other contains a number of strategic objectives including to: (LEP) has provisionally allocated £6m funding to BHCC for major projects that the Phase 3 project would influence the Valley Gardens Phase 3 scheme. This will be matched and be affected by are the Waterfront Project and Madeira ●●Ensure that transport contributes to sustainable by a £1.25m local contribution from BHCC. The funding for Drive regeneration. economic growth; Phase 3 is in addition to the £8m already committed by the The Waterfront Project aims to construct a new exhibition ●●Reduce transport emissions; LEP to Phases 1 & 2. venue at Black Rock, to be part funded by the sale and ●●Create safe and welcoming streets; In order to secure the funding, BHCC is required to redevelopment of the Brighton Centre and Kingswest produce a LEP compliant business case that justifies the complex. This would require an integrated transport ●●Create attractive spaces that enhance quality of life and expenditure on the project. The business case process strategy to connect the new arena to the city centre and regenerate the city; will also be used to identify the preferred option from a train station with access being via the Valley Gardens ●●Create an accessible and inclusive transport system; and shortlist of three and will consider the compliance of each Phase 3 study area. option with the LEP’s funding criteria. ●●Encourage healthy and active travel choices. Madeira Drive is subject to a number of current and C2C’s initial assessment process includes the following planned projects which aim to restore the historic Madeira The Valley Gardens project is one of the key projects considerations (C2C Local Growth Fund – Call for Projects Terraces and attract new uses to vacant sites. The outlined in LTP4 with specific aspirations being to open up Guidance Notes, 2017): regeneration of the Madeira Terraces is currently largely the public spaces; to improve routes for all users, including unfunded; however, the wider regeneration of Madeira ●●Value for money; between the Royal Pavilion and seafront; to enhance the Drive will be an important consideration in determining public realm; and to improve safety. ●●The applicant’s track record of project delivery; future access arrangements as part of the Valley Gardens project. Open Spaces Strategy ●●The robustness and credibility of the business case; and, BHCC’s Open Spaces Strategy (2017) aims to address for transport schemes; 2.4 Project Objectives the challenges facing the city’s parks and green spaces ●●An assessment of improvements to journey times, The Project Objectives are as outlined in the City Plan. managed by the council and how these will be funded delivery of flood resilience and/or delivery of digital These and the C2C LEP funding criteria have been used in the future. For the Valley Gardens project, policies of infrastructure improvements. to develop a more specific set of Design Objectives and particular relevance include: assessment criteria to inform the shortlisting of initial This is followed by a second assessment considering the design options. Full details are provided in Chapter 6. ●●3.1 Trees, which includes a policy to increase use of water alignment with the LEP’s Strategic Economic Plan (SEP), porous and flexible materials around existing and new Industrial Strategy Response and Business Plan. Key street trees; targets within the current SEP (2014) are to create 60,000 ●●3.6 Public Realm, including an action to implement these jobs, 26,000 homes and 980,000 m2 of employment policies in Valley Gardens. The polices are (a) to develop floorspace. At the time of writing, the SEP is currently being an integrated design approach, (b) to provide seating updated and full alignment of Valley Gardens Phase 3 with which meets minimum design standards for equitable this will be considered as part of the production of the seating, and (c) to use porous materials where feasible with Outline Business Case. tarmac the preference elsewhere, allowing exemptions for The business case and appraisal process will include high profile projects and conservation areas. comprehensive analysis of user benefits, environmental ●●4.3 Growing income, seeks to increase opportunities to benefits, collision savings, contributions to economic raise revenue through commercial opportunities in parks, growth and impacts on the visitor economy. This will sponsorship and advertising. Currently the floral display be used to select an appropriate option and ensure north of the pier roundabout is sponsored whilst revenue is compliance with the LEP funding criteria. Mott MacDonald’s raised from the use of the green spaces in Valley Gardens approach has been outlined in full in a note previously for events. issued to BHCC following discussions with C2C. 12 | Valley Gardens Phase 3 Stage 1 Brighton & Hove City Council | 13

3.0 Baseline Assessment 14 | Valley Gardens Phase 3 Stage 1 3.0 Baseline Assessment This chapter provides an assessment of current conditions in the study area and presents available baseline data. It considers each transport user group in turn with further sections covering public space, air quality and noise. However, it firstly summarises the historic development of the area and land use composition.

3.1 Historical Context1

The Old Steine area was developed in the 1790s, prior to which it was an area of marshland fed by the intermittent Wellsbourne stream. At this time, the area was used by fisherman for storing boats and drying fishing nets but with the development of Brighton as a fashionable destination, the area was gentrified with the Wellsbourne diverted into a sewer and the Old Steine enclosed by railings. The majority of buildings bounding the Old Steine were also Map showing the original fishing village of Brighthelmstone in 1779 Seafront junction post installation of the roundabout, although with constructed during this period and the early 1800s. with the Old Steine at its eastern extent a larger island and informal pedestrian crossings permitted

The layout of the central area continued to evolve with the construction of new roads along the seafront and through the Old Steine in the 1820s and 1830s. Roads were widened with changes associated with the development of the tram network at the start of the 20th century. The layout was further refined further in the second half of the century to give priority to growing motor vehicle traffic and separate pedestrians from the carriageway.

Seafront junction late 1800s prior to the introduction of the Old Steine early 1900s at junction with Castle Square/ St James’s roundabout or traffic controls. Informal pedestrian movements Street possible

1. Source: The New Encyclopaedia of Brighton (BHCC, 2010) Source: Royal Pavilion & Museums, Brighton & Hove Brighton & Hove City Council | 15

The buildings constructed during the original development of the Old Steine in the late 1700s and early 1800s largely remain today. In recognition of the historic layout and large proportion of listed buildings, the study area is within the Valley Gardens conservation area. The listed buildings are highlighted on the plan opposite and include nationally significant buildings such as the Royal Pavilion as well as the majority of buildings fronting the study area from the south, east and west. Other listed features include the Old Steine bus shelters, former tram stop (now a café), the Victoria fountain in Steine Gardens, and the seafront railings and heritage lamp columns.

Whilst most buildings appear to be well occupied and maintained externally, some have lower standards of repair and there is an opportunity to attract higher value uses. A key consideration of the design process will be the need Royal Albion Hotel. The current setting and street clutter detracts to respect the historic environment and enhance it through from the quality of the historic environment improving the setting of key buildings and access to them.

© Crown copyright and database rights (2018) OS (100020999) Listed buildings, based on information provided by BHCC Former Royal York hotel, reopened as a youth hostel in 2014 16 | Valley Gardens Phase 3 Stage 1

Marlborough House, office use but vacant at the time of writing Former tram shelter, Old Steine Pavilion Gardens (north east)

Steine House, current YMCA office and hostel Listed facades to the east of the Old Steine Victoria Fountain, Old Steine Brighton & Hove City Council | 17

3.2 Land Use

The study area is bounded predominantly by commercial uses as illustrated on the plan opposite. There is however some residential use on the eastern side and on upper floors. Non-residential uses include two doctors’ surgeries to the north east, offices, language schools and hotels/ hostels.

There is a relatively little active retail frontage, with this confined mainly to the corners of the junctions with Castle Square and St James’s Street. However, the majority of buildings do provide visual interest at street level with few blank facades, although this is obscured in some instances by parking on private forecourts and street clutter.

: © Crown copyright and database rights (2018) OS (100020999) Plan showing ground floor land use 18 | Valley Gardens Phase 3 Stage 1

Retail frontage, at junction with Castle Square Mixed uses to the north east of the Old Steine Office uses, west side of Old Steine

Retail uses at St James’s Street junction, includes blank frontages Office frontage to south-west of the Old Steine Retail frontage at St James’s Street junction

Lace House, recently converted from vacant offices to residential Although many of the buildings add to the study area, some are of A number of buildings on the western side face East Street rather use lower quality with some vacant units than the Old Steine. Although some active frontage is provided to the rear, this is separated from the public space by car parking Brighton & Hove City Council | 19

3.3 Study Area Composition

The plan opposite shows how space within the study area is currently allocated to different uses, with the proportions for each summarised in Table 1.

It can be seen that the most space is given over to carriageway and general vehicle traffic. Whilst this reflects the key traffic movement function of the area, some of the space allocated for this purpose could be considered redundant and, if used effectively, should be more than is necessary to carry current volumes of traffic. Furthermore, large junction radii and running lane widths encourage vehicle speeds in excess of the 20mph limit. Parking areas There is an opportunity to use redundant areas of carriageway are inefficiently laid out with access roads taking up land more effectively that could be used for pedestrian or public space. A further 6% of the study area has been termed ‘dead space’ which are areas currently unusable by anyone, such as traffic islands and fenced off areas.

In contrast to the perception of the area as a green space, this in fact only accounts for approximately 15% of land. Proportionately, pedestrians appear to be well catered for with approximately 30% of the study area allocated to footways; however, this is not always in areas of demand or in locations that serve pedestrian desire lines. These and related issues are considered in an assessment for each mode in subsequent sections. Another example of an opportunity to use redundant areas of carriageway more effectively Table 1: Study Area Composition Usage Type Area (m2) Percentage Cycle Infrastructure 517 1.3% ‘Dead Space’ 2196 5.7% Parking / Loading / 2315 6.0% Access Bus Infrastructure 2860 7.4% © Crown copyright and database rights (2018) OS (100020999) Green Space 5838 15.2% Pedestrian Space 11564 30.1% Carriageway 13117 34.2% Study area composition Current parking is inefficiently laid out, taking up more space than necessary 20 | Valley Gardens Phase 3 Stage 1

3.4 General Traffic, Parking and Access

Vehicle Volume

Current permitted movements are summarised on the plan opposite. As shown, general traffic is permitted north-south through the study area and east-west on the seafront whilst access to Castle Square/North Street and St James’s Street is restricted. Access to side streets on the east of the gardens is also provided, as well as to private parking areas on the south-west side of the study area. Most of these areas are constructed to a standard highway specification segregating vehicle and pedestrian traffic. However, Steine Lane is a designated pedestrian zone, with associated level surface treatment, and allows vehicle access to The Lanes (East Street) for loading only.

Steine Lane pedestrian priority treatment

Existing traffic data has been provided by BHCC and includes: ●●Peak period weekday turning count data collected in October 2015 as part of the traffic model validation; ●●Data from automatic traffic counters (ATCs) located on the A259; and ●●Analysis of Department for Transport (DfT) Annual Average Daily Flow (AADF) data. The DfT’s AADF values are based on 12-hour counts for one day in each year, to which it applies an expansion factor to calculate the annual average. This has been supplemented with additional seven- day ATC surveys completed by Tracsis on behalf of Mott MacDonald to fill gaps in the existing data set. The locations of traffic surveys are illustrated on the plan opposite. These additional surveys covered the period from Wednesday 6 June to Tuesday 12 June. There were however short periods where the data collection was interrupted at some sites and counters were subsequently left in situ for the following week. This has then been used to patch missing data where necessary and provide full seven day counts.

The DfT data (Table 2) indicates that between 2014 and Table 2: AADF Flows (All vehicles) Table 3: Permanent ATCs ADT (All vehicles) 2016, traffic remained relatively constant with all counters showing a marginal decline in traffic except the southern Location 2014 2015 2016 Change Location 2014 2015 2016 2017 Change section of the Old Steine. This is consistent with BHCC’s permanent counters (Table 3) which show a similar pattern Old Steine 16,638 17,058 17,514 5.3% A259 29,210 22,840 27,541 28,529 -2.3% of slight decline on the A259 during this period. Old Steine/ 20,241 20,117 20,013 -1.1% west (e/o The counts show a greater longer-term reduction with Pavilion Parade Oriental Place) the DfT’s counts on the A259 at the junction with Black A259 at Black 32,317 32,084 31,853 -1.4% Lion Street recording a fall of approximately 1,800 Lion Street A259 27,395 27,761 26,714 27,092 -1.1% vehicles (5.5%) per day between 2007 and 2016. BHCC’s east (e/o permanent counter located further west indicates a greater A259 at Lewes 20,315 20,165 20,021 -1.4% Madeira reduction of approximately 19%. Crescent Place) Source: DfT Source: BHCC

Table 4: June 2018 Counts (All vehicles 24hr)

Location Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Weekday 7 day Average Average Old Steine (south of 10,259 10,365 10,572 10,571 11,755 12,766 10,577 10,704 10,981 St James’s St) n/b

Old Steine (south of 11,328 11,548 12,013 11,999 13,510 14,100 11,469 12,080 12,281 St James’s St) s/b

Old Steine loop 1,454 1,413 1,499 1,451 1,775 1,773 1,481 1,518 1,549

Old Steine (south of 9,554 9,646 10,211 10,164 11,027 11,967 10,241 10,120 10,401 Edward St) n/b

Pavilion Parade s/b 11,362 11,214 11,795 11,772 12,859 13,226 10,864 11,800 11,870 A259 east of 25,640 26,326 25,795 26,427 28,044 25,328 21,107 26,446 25,524 Madeira Place (two way)

A259 east of East 30,433 31,384 32,006 32,713 33,878 32,516 26,576 32,083 31,358 Street (two way)

Madeira Drive (two 4,126 3,828 4,568 3,723 4,586 5,983 5,592 4,166 4,629 way)

Source: Tracsis Brighton & Hove City Council | 23

The data shows that Saturday was typically the busiest day with the Old Steine counts recording a difference of up to 20% compared to the average weekday and Madeira Drive 45%. The only sites where recorded vehicle volumes were less on a Saturday were on the A259 although, at the site west of the pier, only the Friday was busier. Indeed, Friday was the busiest weekday at all survey locations.

The busiest section of road surveyed was the A259 west of the pier roundabout with weekday two-way traffic consistently above 30,000 vehicles. The quietest sections were Madeira Drive with less than 4,500 vehicles on a weekday and the link between the south and northbound sections of the Old Steine with less than 1,500 vehicles per day on all days except the Saturday and Friday. This excludes buses circulating using the bus lane and layover area adjacent to Steine Gardens.

It is noted that the weekday counts are higher than the annual average figures provided above. However, this is reflected in BHCC’s permanent counters which show that traffic levels are lower in several other months than June when the surveys took place.

The chart opposite provides an average of the vehicle The data presented in this section highlights a number of composition across all sites. It can be seen that the majority points of importance when determining future designs: of traffic is made up of cars with smaller proportions of LGVs and HGVs (including buses). This is relatively consistent ●●Although it is necessary to cater for the high traffic across the study area, although the proportion of cars on volumes using the study area, it is noted that both the DfT the A259 was higher at 90%. This will be partly because the and BHCC long-term counts indicate a pattern of reduction majority of bus routes do not use the seafront. in vehicle numbers. Whilst recognising the importance of the north-south and east-west routes and the limited The turning count data summarised in Table 5 and the alternatives, this would not support an argument for diagrams on the overleaf highlight the large number of providing additional vehicle capacity. Indeed, the council’s north-south movements on the Old Steine and east- wider aims to increase the share of journeys undertaken by west movements on the seafront during the peak hour. sustainable modes would be supported by a reallocation of However, it also highlights those movements which road space to walking, cycling and public transport. are less common and do not necessarily need to be ●●Saturday is typically the busiest day, especially on the accommodated through dedicated carriageway space and A23. Consideration will need to be given as to whether Mode composition (Source: Tracsis) filter lanes. peak demand is accommodated at the expense of day- A particular opportunity to reduce carriageway space is to-day use or whether the peak can be better managed. with that currently providing for movements to and from This may include wider traffic management policies and Madeira Drive. For example, left turning movements from interventions that reduce the proportion of visitor traffic Table 5: A259/A23 Junction Peak Hour Flows (October the A259 represents 1.6% of eastbound movements on getting to this point before making a decision as to their 2015) final destination. Anecdotally, this includes an element of the A259 in the AM peak hour and 2.3% in the PM peak. Location AM (8am- 9am) PM (5pm- 6pm) Whilst, as the ATC surveys indicate, flows are higher at unnecessary vehicle miles as a result of people circulating to find a parking space. weekends, the value of providing a dedicated filter lane Old Steine n/b 716 623 for this movement can be questioned, particularly when ●●The Madeira Drive arm of the aquarium roundabout provision for other users in this area does not meet carries substantially lighter flows than other arms. Old Steine s/b 690 953 demand as is explored further in the following sections. ●●The filter lane, allowing southbound traffic to circulate Old Steine/ 1,434 1,579 Similarly, two outward lanes are provided from Madeira Pavilion Parade Drive despite there being less than 300 movements during around the Old Steine without turning at the A23/ A259 each peak hour. roundabout duplicates this manoeuvre and is used by A259 west 2,665 2,778 relatively few vehicles. This would provide a rationale for reallocating this space, although the need to accommodate A259 east 2,130 2,304 turning movements would need to be considered, Source: BHCC/AECOM especially if a roundabout is not retained. Brighton & Hove City Council | 25

AM Peak hour turning PM Peak hour turning counts, October 2015 counts, October 2015 (Source: Data taken (Source: Data taken from counts supplied by from counts supplied BHCC/ AECOM) by BHCC/ AECOM)

Vehicle Speed Table 6: Speed Surveys (7 day average June 2018) Except for the A259 and Madeira Drive, all roads within the study area are within the citywide 20mph limit. However, Location Speed Mean 85th Proportion current design speeds for many of these roads do not reflect limit Speed Percentile of vehicles this, and have the feel of a much higher speed environment. (mph) (mph) (mph) exceeding speed limit Speed data was collected as part of the June 2018 ATC counts. These locations were selected to minimise the 1. Pavilion 20 20.9 25.1 59.4% likelihood of queuing traffic and parked vehicles interrupting Parade s/b the counts and, as such, some sites located after junctions 2. Old 20 20.0 24.5 54.0% will not be representative of speed. Data for those sites Steine considered representative is summarised in Table 6. (south of St It can be seen that both the mean and 85th percentile James’s St) (speed at which 85% of drivers drive at or under) generally n/b exceed 20 mph in the Old Steine with over half of drivers 3. Old 20 21.5 25.7 66.3% failing to comply with the 20 mph limit. However, a greater Steine level of compliance was recorded on the A259 where the (south of St speed limit is 30 mph. James’s St) s/b 4. A259 30 23.7 28.5 8.6% east of Madeira Place e/b 5.A259 east 30 21.6 25.9 2.7% of Madeira Place w/b Source: Tracsis

Parking and Loading Although full surveys have not been completed, video On-street public car parking is provided in two main areas footage was obtained as part of the wider surveys to the south-west and north-east of the study area. In both completed in June 2018. This indicates that a number of cases, this is predominantly in the form of perpendicular vehicles exceed the 2 hours P&D duration, which as noted bay parking with associated access areas. In total, 49 above is consistent with use of the bays by those with spaces are provided, the majority of which are short stay traders permits rather than paying users. Further analysis Pay & Display bays, with some shared permit holders bays of this footage and formal surveys of who is using the bays on the eastern side. Also in this area are four doctors’ may be required to support the case for removal of some or bays and two disabled bays serving the two surgeries. all of these. Motorcycle parking and loading bays are also provided in both areas. In addition to public on-street parking, the majority of premises on the south-western side of the study area have Full parking utilisation and layover surveys have not been private off-street parking. Although some of this is provided commissioned at this stage. However, numerous site visits by forecourt parking not served by vehicle crossovers have been undertaken and all parking has been recorded (meaning it cannot be accessed legally), the majority is to be near or at full occupation on all occasions. It is also within car parks served by crossovers and access to these noted that the P&D parking to the south of the Old Steine properties will need to be retained in future. Private forecourts used for parking has been observed to be heavily utilised by traders’ permit holders (40% on 19 July 2018).

Blue badge or traders’ permit holders are entitled to use P&D bays, although those with carers or business permits are only entitled to use permit or shared use bays. Business permits are distinct from traders permits in that they are issued for the zone in which the business is based where the applicant can demonstrate that a vehicle is required for business purposes and not commuting. In contrast, traders’ permits are issued to businesses providing services throughout Brighton & Hove, such as building services or estate agents. However, business permits are not issued for Zone Z which covers the study area and the nature of most businesses bordering the study area means they would not have an obvious entitlement to traders permits.

Pay and Display parking, Old Steine 28 | Valley Gardens Phase 3 Stage 1

3.5 Pedestrian Environment Pedestrian Footfall Pedestrian crossing surveys were completed at the junctions of the Old Steine with Castle Square, St James’s Street and the seafront on Saturday 9 June and Tuesday 12 June 2018 between 7am and 7pm. A substantial amount of data has been collected and full data files allowing breakdown by time will be supplied to BHCC separately; however, total movements across each day are summarised in the graphs and figures on the following pages.

© Crown copyright and database rights (2018) OS (100020999) Number of two-way crossing movements Tuesday (7am-7pm) at Old Steine/ Castle Square junction (includes those on and within 10m of the crossing) (Source: Tracsis)

Total number of pedestrian movements away from formal crossing points but within 10m of Castle Square junction on Tuesday and Saturday (Source: Tracsis)

© Crown copyright and database rights (2018) OS (100020999) Number of two-way crossing movements Saturday (7am-7pm) at Old Steine/ Castle Square junction (includes those on and within 10m of the crossing) (Source: Tracsis) Brighton & Hove City Council | 29

© Crown copyright and database rights (2018) OS (100020999) Number of two-way crossing movements Tuesday (7am-7pm) at Old Steine/ St James’s Street junction (includes those on and within 10m of the crossing) (Source: Tracsis)

Total number of pedestrian movements away from formal crossing points but within 10m of St. James’s Street junction on Tuesday and Saturday (Source: Tracsis)

© Crown copyright and database rights (2018) OS (100020999) Number of two-way crossing movements Saturday (7am-7pm) at Old Steine/ St James’s Street junction (includes those on and within 10m of the crossing) (Source: Tracsis) 30 | Valley Gardens Phase 3 Stage 1

Number of two-way crossing The following can be observed from the pedestrian movements Tuesday (7am-7pm) crossing data: at Old Steine/ Seafront junction (includes those on and within 10m ●●There is high footfall and demand for pedestrian of the crossing); (Source: Tracsis) crossings throughout the study area. ●●The difference between the Tuesday and Saturday data highlights the additional demand at weekends and during the peak season. This is particularly the case at the Old Steine and A23 crossings where the total number of crossings recorded on the Saturday was double that of the Tuesday. ●●There were higher numbers of additional crossing movements away from formal crossings at the Castle Square and St James’s Street junctions. This was particularly high at the north-western side of the Old Steine, with people crossing to and from the Royal Pavilion bus stops, and at the south-eastern side of the Old Steine where no pedestrian crossing is provided on the southern side of St James’s Street. ●●In contrast, at the A23/ A259 junction there were substantially fewer crossing movements away from © Crown copyright and database rights (2018) OS (100020999) the formal crossing, representing 1% of all movements compared to 13% at Castle Square and 17% at St James’s Number of two-way crossing Street. As the seafront pedestrian crossings are located movements Saturday (7am-7pm) some distance from pedestrian desire lines, a higher at Old Steine/ Seafront junction proportion of movements away from formal crossings may (includes those on and within 10m be expected but these are constrained by the provision of of the crossing); (Source: Tracsis) pedestrian guardrail throughout the junction. Nevertheless, 660 movements away from crossings were still recorded on the Saturday and 457 on the Tuesday, many of which reflect pedestrians either climbing guardrail or walking alongside traffic on the carriageway side of railings. ●●The East Street junction also has a low proportion of pedestrian movements away from the crossing. This instead reflects the fact that the crossing is direct and is on the desire line between the seafront and Lanes. ●●A higher proportion of southbound crossing movements were recorded at the East Street crossing (57% on the Saturday), in contrast to the western crossing of the Brighton Pier roundabout where the dominant movement is northbound (62%). This reflects the proximity of the crossing for people leaving the pier but the lack of legible routes from the Old Steine is also likely to contribute to a © Crown copyright and database rights (2018) OS (100020999) lower southbound proportion. Brighton & Hove City Council | 31

Pedestrian Routes The study area suffers from both east-west and north-south severance caused by the A23 and A259 respectively. The image opposite highlights informal crossing movements which have been observed to occur and additional desire lines that are currently physically prevented. In the northern section of the study area, crossing is deterred through a raised central median or pedestrian guardrail. Further south on the Old Steine, there are similar physical restraints and the need to cross multiple lanes of traffic makes crossing to the central area unappealing. There is also a lack of connectivity between Steine Gardens and The Lanes, Pool Valley and the southern side of St James’s St, although pedestrian movements between Avenue (pedestrian route to the Lanes) or Pool Valley were observed to be regular during Brighton Festival with the attraction of venues on Steine Gardens. While such events are relatively infrequent, observing activity during this period does help to highlight the severance between the gardens and adjacent areas. As noted in the pedestrian crossing data analysis above, connections on the southern side of St James’s Street and between the Old Steine and seafront are particularly poor, with convoluted crossing movements and substantial deviation from pedestrian desire lines. In contrast, East Street to the west provides a direct, single-stage crossing which is far more legible and comfortable for pedestrians to use.

The pedestrian crossing data also provides an indication Table 7: Origin and Destination Proportions at Seafront Crossing of the points pedestrians ultimately want to cross between. Table 7 summarises the proportion of movements by origin Destination and destination point at the seafront junction. It can be seen that a common destination is Madeira Drive, which Origin A. Steine B. Old C. Marine D. Marine E. Madeira F. Grand G. Grand H. Old Steine Total includes the pier. It is also noted that from most origin Gardens Steine Parade Parade Drive Junction Junction west points, multiple crossing movements are required. east north south Road south Road north Whilst this analysis gives an indication of the desire lines A. Steine 0.3% 2.4% 1.0% 1.0% 45.9% 5.7% 0.0% 43.7% 100.0% which designs should cater for, it should be noted that the Gardens current design may serve to underplay demand for certain B. Old Steine 0.3% 0.2% 11.4% 4.1% 68.3% 5.6% 2.1% 8.0% 100.0% destinations, for example from the seafront to Steine east Gardens. C. Marine 5.3% 8.7% 0.0% 5.9% 38.4% 4.0% 0.2% 37.4% 100.0% The potential for crossing rationalisation or to reduce the Parade north number of crossing stages can also be seen at the Castle Square and St James’s Street junctions. However, at Castle D. Marine 3.4% 9.1% 12.4% 0.0% 37.1% 27.1% 5.1% 5.9% 100.0% Square, the inclusion of an all-green phase and absence of Parade south pedestrian guardrail does mean pedestrians who choose to make this movement can do so even though it is not E. Madeira 0.6% 4.7% 19.9% 3.2% 0.8% 39.9% 22.4% 8.4% 100.0% formally catered for. Drive F. Grand 0.0% 0.9% 0.8% 0.3% 96.3% 0.0% 0.8% 0.8% 100.0% Junction Road south G. Grand 0.3% 10.3% 17.1% 1.5% 54.9% 4.3% 0.0% 11.8% 100.0% Junction Road north H. Old Steine 1.0% 10.3% 20.2% 3.2% 57.3% 1.0% 7.0% 0.0% 100.0% west

Legend Return to same arm Less than 20% of pedestrians from origin point 20-40% of pedestrians from origin point Over 40% of pedestrians from origin point Source: Based on analysis by Tracsis Brighton & Hove City Council | 33

Severance at Old Steine / Pavilion Parade East Street direct crossing Formal crossing not possible on southern arm of St James’s Street junction

Pedestrian route to the Lanes is not legible and obstructed Lack of direct crossing opportunities from The Lanes to Steine Coach access to Pool Valley in use as a pedestrian route Gardens 34 | Valley Gardens Phase 3 Stage 1

Pedestrian Environment Assessment A Pedestrian Environment Review System (PERS) assessment has been undertaken for all pedestrian links in the study area with the results of this summarised opposite. The northern section of the study area generally provides better provision for pedestrians with wider footways and crossings on all arms of the Old Steine/ Castle Square junction. However, there are pinch points, such as at the Royal Pavilion bus stops. On the eastern side, parking alongside Pavilion Parade requires pedestrians either to deviate from their desire lines or complete an uncomfortable crossing movement across the large section of carriageway. This is a similar situation to the south west side of the study area where vehicle parking and street clutter obstruct pedestrian movements. At the A23/A259 seafront roundabout, footway widths on the northern side are particularly narrow and insufficient to accommodate even moderate pedestrian flows comfortably. The southern side is wider and on a typical day provides a good pedestrian route, although high volumes typically result in pedestrians encroaching on to the cycle lane.

Footway absent from pedestrian desire line, Pavilion Parade Pedestrian capacity constraints, Old Steine (south) Pedestrian facilities need to cater for high weekend and seasonal flows

Current parking layout and footway width can impact on access Excessive guardrail and poor crossing alignment contribute to Pedestrian routes not following desire lines, Steine Gardens to the for pedestrians unsafe pedestrian behaviour Seafront

Seafront crossings currently do not serve desire lines Pedestrian capacity constraints, Old Steine (south) Street furniture and bins obstructing footway 36 | Valley Gardens Phase 3 Stage 1

3.6 Cycling Environment

Cycle Routes

A key issue with the existing layout is the absence of a north-south cycle route which currently ends at Victoria Gardens on the northern edge of the study area. Cyclists are instead directed via a convoluted alternative route on the National Cycle Network (NCN) Route 20. There is a small section of cycle lane in a former bus lane to the west of the war memorial; however, this provides for southbound movements only and requires cyclists to cross multiple lanes of traffic to access it.

The seafront NCN 2 route is very popular but lacks connections to the north, both via the A23 and Kemptown. The East Street toucan crossing to the west does however provide a direct connection to the NCN 20.

The current formal cycle routes and opportunities are summarised on the plan opposite.

The top left image provides tracking data from the Brighton Bikeshare scheme which, although representing a specific cyclist user group, is one tool in understanding areas currently preferred and avoided by cyclists. This highlights a desire for movements between The Lanes and Old Steine, and that some users are currently travelling via Pool Valley as an alternative to the A23/A259 seafront roundabout. This data also suggests that there are fewer Bikeshare trips using the southern half of the Old Steine than the northern section.

Bike Share user tracking- Saturday 28 April 2018 A short cycle lane is available on the Old Steine southbound. Source: Hourbike However, this requires access from the right-hand lane of the dual carriageway which will be intimidating for many cyclists

Current north-south route ends to the north of the study area The Avenue provides a shared walking and cycling link to the with a missing link to the seafront Lanes but lacks connections to the Old Steine 38 | Valley Gardens Phase 3 Stage 1

Cycling Environment Assessment

A Cycle Level of Service (CLoS) audit has been completed, the results of which are summarised opposite. The CLoS, originally developed by Transport for London (TfL), assesses cycle routes against a range of factors including, separation from traffic, width and directness. The DfT has recently issued a national equivalent with the Route Selection Tool (RST); however, the CLoS has been used here because of its consideration of a wider range of factors.

Given the absence of a cycle route and high volumes of traffic, including HGVs and buses, it is unsurprising that most of the study area scores poorly against the CLoS assessment. Although the seafront route has been assessed as providing a good level of service, it should be recognised that current widths and demand from both pedestrians and cyclists means that the level of service can vary on a day-to day basis. The route to the east along Madeira Drive is also subject to closure during events with no available alternative.

Pedestrian and cyclist capacity constraints on seafront Lack of cycle connections from seafront Unattractive cycle facilities

Current Bike Share hub can experience capacity issues and would Lack of cycle infrastructure on main roads No cycle crossing provision from Old Steine to Seafront benefit from expansion encourages footway cycling 40 | Valley Gardens Phase 3 Stage 1

Cycle Volumes Table 8: Cycle Turning Counts, Thursday 07/09/2017 (7am-8pm) Cycle counts of the pier roundabout were commissioned by BHCC in September 2017 on a weekday and a Saturday. Destination Tables 8 and 9 summarise the origin and destination of movements for each. This shows that the majority of Origin Old Grand Madeira Marine Total cycle origin and destination movements are from Grand Steine Junction Drive Parade Junction Road or Madeira Drive which are the only arms Road with dedicated cycle infrastructure. In contrast, movements Old 12 222 186 12 432 to and from the Old Steine and to Marine Parade are Steine substantially less. Grand 184 19 716 270 1189 Cycling is permitted at one of the crossings only at present, Junction this being the toucan crossing on Madeira Drive connecting Road with the seafront cycle route. However, as shown in the Madeira 113 537 0 54 704 graph opposite, the data reveals that a high proportion of Drive cyclist movements which do take place across the junction are by those using the footway and pedestrian crossings. Marine 155 496 53 0 704 The high proportions are indicative of the absence of Parade cycle infrastructure connecting to the seafront cycle route Total 464 1,274 955 336 on Marine Parade and the Old Steine and the hostile conditions the roundabout presents for cyclists. Table 9: Cycle turning counts, Saturday 09/09/2017 The pedestrian crossing surveys commissioned by Mott (7am-8pm) MacDonald in June 2018 also show a number of cyclists using the pedestrian crossings at other locations. This is Destination currently only permitted on the northern and western arms Origin Old Grand Madeira Marine Total of the Castle Square junction which provide a connection Steine Junction Drive Parade from the Old Steine cycle lane to North Street which was Road used by an average of 229 cyclists across the two survey days whilst 101 cyclists used the pedestrian crossings Old 2 199 211 105 517 on the southern and eastern arms. For the St James’s St Steine Proportion of cyclists using footway (Thursday and Saturday junction, 181 cyclist used the crossings. average) Grand 145 5 832 197 1179 Junction Road Madeira 96 718 1 53 868 Drive Marine 79 391 74 6 550 Parade Total 322 1,313 1,118 361 Brighton & Hove City Council | 41

3.7 Public Transport Facilities ` Table 10: Old Steine Area Bus Services The area’s bus stops generally benefit from good public transport facilities with real time information, accessible Buses Bus Services Services Services Services kerbs and shelters. Also of note are the art-deco shelters Stop per hour stopping at stopping at 2 on the western side of the Old Steine which are listed and The study area experiences a large number of bus (peak) 1 other stop other stops would need to be retained. movements with the majority of routes running through serving same serving the Old Steine. There are short sections of bus lane on destination same either side which allow access to North Street, with these destination movements banned for other vehicles. The junction into St James’s St east is used predominantly by buses, although D 6 6 0 0 other traffic can access if from North Street. E 8 32 8 (also stop at 0 A or B) The Old Steine has a large number of bus stops with those around Steine Gardens being predominantly used F 6 36 3 (also stop 0 for layover purposes (although they are not formally at A) designated as bus stands). Table 10 and the image below H 17 72 12 (also stop 6 (also stop show the services which use each stop and highlight the at X, Y or U) at X and U) potential to rationalise the space currently given over for this purpose. It is nevertheless noted that some layover J 8 28 6 (also stop at 2 (also stop capacity will need to be retained in the city centre and there B or C) at B and C) are likely to be few suitable alternative locations. K 6 20 5 (also stop at 1 (also stops Old Steine bus stopsC or Z) where atto Z catchand N) your bus

NO Tourist N E Y O I R D Information L L 4 route destination18 0bus stop route4 (alsodestination stops bus stop X T I A H V R Centre A A P 1 Whitehawk C J S P at X and U) W T A R vilion Whitehawk 46 Southwick BusH layoverY provision is an important consideration, but there is an E a 1A C E B T al P N 3 1 1A Mile Oak3 1H (also Y stops 146 (alsoHollingbury stops A E 1 Stop y opportunity to rationalise the space currently allocated Travel C 2 Rottingdean B J 47 East Saltdean B J Ro at B) at Z and K) The F 2 Shoreham/Steyning H Y 47 Brighton Station L U X Lanes E P 15 5A 5B Patcham/Hollingbury0 0A E 048 Lower Bevendean A F C 5 5A 5B Hangleton H Y 48 Brighton Station H U X A E S N T TL D I N5 Hangleton U Y 49 East Moulsecoomb A F E E E Q 0 0 N/A N/A E SQ T H R U S 7 N7 Brighton Marina C J 49 Portslade H Y T A R E S E N I 7 N7 Hove George Street H U X 50 Hollingdean A E E S 0 0 N/A N/A T T D Morrisons S 12 12A 12X N12 Eastbourne C K 50U Universities A E AS L U J E O

13X Eastbourne C K 52 Woodingdean B J

T 1 6 1 (also stops 0

S T.

BA JAME 14-14C N14 Newhaven C K 55 Hollingbury A E RTH D S’S L at Y) Town OLO T STREE 14 Brighton Station L U X 56 Patcham A E ME O T

W Hall S 14C Brighton Station H U X 56 Knoll Estate H Y

E U 16 41 7 (also stop at 2 (also stops E E 17 Horsham D 57 East Saltdean B J A R E S T C O S 18 Brighton Station XH Uor X Y) at57 X Brightonor Y andStation L U X T A L

PL Steyning S 18 Queens Park B J 60 U Y

T L) E Q I S N S E Z A 21 21A Goldstone Valley H Y 71 Mile Oak H Y E

R L I S R 21 21A Brighton Marina B E 71 Whitehawk C T A DE Z 2 3 1 (also stops 1 (also stops

R H P A C Goldstone Valley H X 71A Mile Oak H Y E O 21E K O M INGS E ROAD L K at K) at K and N) T Woodingdean B E 73 C. Newman School H Y 22 22A V A MARINE L P PARA 22 Brighton Station H U X 77 Devil’s Dyke N L DE E Y Hollingbury A F 77 Palace Pier B N L 24 G Sea Lif 25 Universities F 78 79 Old Steine H U RAN D e Centre D JUNCTION ROA 25X N25 Universities F 78 Stanmer Park U X MA Brighton DEIRA 25 25X Portslade H Y 79 Ditchling Beacon U X N DRIVE Palace Pier 26 Hollingbury A E 270 East Grinstead D Map of bus stops. Source: Brighton & Hove Buses 27 Saltdean C K 271 273 Crawley D 27C Saltdean C 271 272 County Hospital OldZ SteineK bus shelters 27 27B Westdene L U X 272 Haywards Heath D 28 Ringmer F 700 Littlehampton T Y 29 29B 29X Tunbridge Wells F N700 Durrington T Y N29 Uckfield D 769 Sheffield Park D 37 37B Bristol Estate B J CSS City Sightseeing N Z K 37 37B Meadowview L U X days out Pick up point P 42 | Valley Gardens Phase 3 Stage 1

Coaches

The Old Steine provides the access point to Pool Valley coach station with a one-way operation to the A259. The coach station is not itself within the study area; however, access to it will influence the design process and it presents both opportunities and constraints.

Use of Pool Valley is permitted by scheduled coach services only; however, whilst further investigation of the utilisation of the coach station would be beneficial, occupancy by scheduled coach services appears to be less than the available stands would permit. Private tour operators were also seen to be using the coach station in contravention of the restriction. This is potentially symptomatic of a shortage of coach drop-off areas elsewhere, particularly when access to Madeira Drive is closed for events. Indeed, private coach operators have also been observed using public bus stops Limited coach parking and drop-off leads to informal use of bus Old Steine taxi rank stands, particularly during events on the Old Steine.

As noted in the Pedestrian Environment section above, the coach station does provide an informal pedestrian link between the Old Steine, seafront and Lanes. The access road is not itself ideal for this purpose given the narrow footway and conflict with coaches accessing the site. However, there are alternative routes to the east of the coach station were these to be opened up and made more legible as part of the Valley Gardens Phase 3 project.

Subject to further assessment, there is an opportunity either to relocate coaches from Pool Valley and utilise this area for other purposes, or use it more intensively for non- scheduled coach services to relieve demand for drop-off and layover space elsewhere. It is recommended that a parallel study is undertaken into the Pool Valley area which should include consideration of alternative coach parking locations within the city.

Taxis Pool Valley Coach Station Pool Valley eastern access to Old Steine

The Old Steine provides a small taxi rank with capacity for three vehicles. This is a short distance via Avenue or Steine Lane to the main taxi rank on East Street. Brighton & Hove City Council | 43

3.8 Public Space Events

The two main public spaces in the study area are Steine As previously noted, the study area is central to the city’s Gardens and the area north of Brighton Pier. In addition, the events calendar. Many of these take place on Madeira eastern gardens of the Royal Pavilion adjoin the study area. Drive, including numerous car rallies, half marathon and As noted in the previous chapter, linking the green spaces Brighton Marathon. The retention of access from the A23 of Valley Gardens and providing better access to them is a for such events will therefore need to be considered. Steine key policy aspiration. Gardens is also used as a Brighton Festival venue but the area is not generally used as intensively as other events In addition, the areas of public space adjacent to major venues such as The Level or Hove Lawns. There may be an attractions such as the pier and Sealife Centre offer opportunity to create space in prime locations which could limited opportunity to wait and spend time with associated be used by BHCC for additional events or other commercial pressure from high passing pedestrian and cycle traffic. purposes. There is therefore a need to create public squares in these areas.

There would also be a benefit, in terms of pedestrian routes and legibility, of opening up the south-eastern Steine Gardens is better used than green spaces to north but Pavilion Gardens is currently separated from the Old Steine and remains detached from adjacent areas green spaces entrance to the Royal Pavilion grounds off Palace Place. This is currently hidden and, given the proximity to bus stops, could potentially be an important entrance point to the estate which would reduce the pressure on the western gardens. The demand for this entrance could also be increased with the introduction of a direct pedestrian route between the pier and Steine Gardens. At the time of writing, a consultation for changes to the Pavilion Estate, including the potential for night-time closures and increased security measures, was ongoing. Whilst this will not necessarily complement the Valley Gardens project, the Phase 3 designs will need to work with the outcome of this consultation. It is considered however, that there is a significant opportunity to enhance access between the two areas even if this were to require a night time closure.

As previously noted, the study area is central to the city’s events calendar. Many of these take place on Madeira Drive, including numerous car rallies, half marathon and Brighton Marathon. The retention of access from the A23 for such events will therefore need to be considered. Brighton Marathon 2018. The study area plays an important role in Brighton Festival 2018. Public spaces need to be flexible in order city’s events calendar to host events Steine Gardens is also used as a Brighton Festival venue but the area is not generally used as intensively as other events venues such as The Level or Hove Lawns. There may be an opportunity to create space in prime locations which could be used by BHCC for additional events or other commercial purposes. 44 | Valley Gardens Phase 3 Stage 1

s E

E 3

3 w

R 6 6

T e S PH

W M

E 7

J a

n 2 8 2 a o a 1 i 1 l

1 i 2

1 2 09 v

1 1 1 a

7 1 8 1 4 2 115 5 9 CHU 11 R 4 E 6 CH 1 1 1 S 6 D 3 TR E A 2 E LBLB T R

3 A

1 1 1 P 18 University Brig hton D l l N

a A of Brighton U 119 H ni PH R taria n G

Ch 120 2

urch 2 5 Page 5 The causes of many of the collisions are attributed in 3

1 1 2 3.9 Collision Data 1 2

6 6

2 2

7 a 7 2 1 N B P 2

on d

2 St 2

r eet 1 of 1 2 Queen Victoria Statue La Police Station

n e 2 8

1 6 8

2 2 2

full or in part to one or more of the road users involved. 2

9 9 9 9

P 6

9 e 9 g 1 n

1 3

1 3 0 a

0 0 2 h Brighton & Hove City Council c x TCB

T E

3 3 11.2m

1 1 n E r Bo o nd S R t T C reet C S

o 3

ttag 3 Pavilion Art Gallery and Museum

2 e 2 Collision data from 2013 to 2017 has been provided This includes the fatal collision, which resulted from a hits D Licence No. 100020999 2018

N 9

7 1 7

O Theatre

1 1

B 3

1 3 3

t t

o o

North

B t

d o G 7 St 7

r eet 8 RA

Row N 1 3 3

P Gate D F 1 D P 9

n 9 ARA House DE T MEW E

S E 3

3 5 North Gate R 5

5 1 T by BHCC with all collisions within and adjacent to the and run involving a vehicle being pursued by police, and S 7

M Pavilion Court A I George IV L 6 L 3 Dome I

1 Statue W

3 3

8 8

3 Theatre Royal D 9

study area summarised on the plan opposite. Excluding several involving people who were intoxicated. However, 9 A

4 4

R El Sub Sta 0

W 7 7

E 7

4 4

N 1 1

4 4

1 1

a a

2 0

4 1

2 those which occurred to the north at the junctions with the data does reveal similarities in the causes of many 2

t 8 r u 0 Law o

C S u y

7 b t

n 4 4 w Courts

a u

6 6 y o

Marlborough Place and Church Street, and to the east and collisions from which the current road design can be seen C

4 4

7 7

1 5 Pa to 2 vilio n G 1 dns 55 to 1 1 west of the A23/A259 seafront roundabout, 124 collisions to contribute. The most common causes at the three key 58 Crown 10.7m 13.1m Buildings Th 1 ED t R W e o TCBs ARD (Government Offices) C 8 C

1 C STR

6 olo EET

9 0 n 2

2 t n BRIGHTON

o a

d 3

1 3

8 6 e E 2

2 1 s l

S 3

7 were recorded during the five-year period. locations given above are: 7 u 0

2 b to

S y 3

1 1 5 8 t 8 1 a 1

9 9

7 7 4 4

1 3 3 6

6 TCBs

d 2 2

1 1 r

3 3 Pavilion Gardens

7 7

2 2 R

t 1

4 e 4 7 7 1 g s 1 en

t H n

o o

3 3 7 N u 7 1 s 1 e C

R o 0 0

7 7

1 T r 1

H o

8 8 6 6 1 S B 1 T PC 9 R

E 16 1

Chandos House E 2 1

0 T 0

a a

1 1

16 Chapel 1 a a

1 1

6 3 6

a a

1 1 1 1

6 1

2 2 0

g Royal 0 8 2

1 2 6

0 Of these, there was one collision resulting in a fatality, 23 A23/A259 seafront roundabout: 0 6 1 6

1 1

1 9 5 5 1

2b PH 1

1 1

9 1 1

1 9

2f E 1

C t o o

1 3 8

2 8 0 0 L

1 c 7 2 2 P 2

e S

1 1 6

'S 6

0 0 N 3 1 E 1

2d2 E 5

d C 5 s D

N E 1

I 1 R

2 2 e

R D 6 A 6

P A 7 7

1 1 b

G b

1 1 t 6 in serious injury and 100 in slight injury. The fatality and ● 18 (38%) involved cyclists being hit by vehicles; t 6

6 3

R 3

1 1 e

9 5 E 9 1 1 A s

1 r

6 1 to 32 N 6

Indian P I

1 1 o

a a

4 4 4 E 6

6 N D

3 3 1

1 T T

9 O 9

Princes House Memorial S

I a E a

7 7

5 L E

I 1 1 Gateway V R PH 8 T

A 1 1

S 1

n P 1 0

P T 0

o A

1 i VI T 1 1 9

6 l LIO E 9

i E 5 5 6 N

t v S E 1 T S 1 six (26%) of the serious injuries were to pedestrians, with ● 12 (25%) involved cars colliding, the majority as a result of o a R

E R

1 P ET R

6 T T t o l o

9 O 0

E 4

11.1m a S 4

LB 3 6 y E 0 D 0 o ' S 2 R E 3 R T 2 C o 3 1 to 12 S

t N

El Sub Sta I

2 1 1 2

9 2 Pond E

1 1

4 4 2 2 R 2

W e G

1 1 P 1 c

a 7 Glass Pavilion R 5 5

1 r 0 a 1

d r

4 1 4

1 t r 1

1 B o

o E 1 1

d Fn 10.0m e 4

y 1 G 1 3 T 1

7 a further nine (40%) of the serious injuries to cyclists and drivers entering the roundabout and hitting vehicles already2 7 l

5 C 5 3 R ia

3 1 h

0 c

0 1 o

1 r 1

16 7 o

o 1 a

t S

t 5

o 5 1

0 h P 1 8 8 e 1 3 l 1 1

6 te 73 1

8 1

r n

2 7

4 oi 4 a

l s t

g 7 S

v 6

6 n

a i 1 b 3 3

d 8

P u 8

8 il u

1 two (9%) to motorcyclists. This compares to four (17%) passing through the junction; and 1

u S

Brighton g

7 7 l k B e r r E a 6 y 2 P 2

Square Shelter 2

Posts 2 e 1 4 1 4 c

4 1 1 3 e

2 8

0 0

6 6 2

to 2

T P

t t

0 0

1 1 h 6 o

o P

4 a

e r s

9 o

C ch

1 n 4 4

5 5

l 2 ial

2 o M 1 1

c ew 4 e

3 3 k

4 4 6 s 6

to d

w r

e 1 5

collisions resulting in serious injury to car or van occupants, ● 5 (10%) involved motorcyclists being hit by vehicles. 14 r 5 a

G 4 4

2 2

4 4 t 4 4

1 e a a

2 2 r

1 17

6 6

3 19 4

B 4

ri 1 5 t

2 2 o g o

2 8 7 7 2 2

1 hto

1 4 n 4

P 0 Bank 7 3

l 3

ac 5

1 1 e

4 4 4 56 2 2 5 3

E 4 2

C 2 Shelter

4 E 4

4 4 PH

2 A t

L C 5 r

1 1 4

A a

P u 2 highlighting the relative vulnerability of pedestrians and 2 9 L 1 3 6 o P S

N 6 War o

t C N

M O a E 1 1 8

3 E

e 4 L n

e 6 T C itt 4 1

t e le

1 1

6 i o

4 4 6 6 D 3

n 3 G

g H 3 A Meml c e i

5 5 3 o

H 9.6m L 4 4

4 8 rg b R o 5 a l

u G l e 3 s I 3 S e A t A L P P A

a R

n 3 G

e 9 2 s B

4 4

4 1 6 ' T

4 0 0 4 s

5 e E

7 2 5 5 Shelter S

5 m 4

1 1 o 1 a 1 R 4 4 t C A 6 J S O cyclists within the study area. It should also be noted that St James’s Street junction: T LBLB t Car Park L D E S et SQ re U St AR

6 t E

49 ke 4

5 ar 5 El S 7 ub S 5 7 a M 3 0 ta 4 8 2 6 4 4

to o 9 9 9.3m t T E 8 7 4 E 5 N

8 I

PH E 5

3 8 3 8 E 1

R T 1 5

the number of vulnerable users, particularly cyclists, is ● 12 (40%) involved pedestrians being hit by vehicles; and T S

4 6 4

S y

7 7 D t 1 to 18

7 4 7

E i

4 L 0

T 6 6 n

O N 1

S I u e 6 6 r t A War E Purbeck House m n

E T

m e 5 5 S 4

Meml o C

D C

4 4

Ni 1

le 4

L 3

H 9.4m 3 8

ouse 12 8

O PH

13 t o o

5 R 5

5 oy

0 3 0 1 1 a Pond

l 2 8

likely to be restricted by perceptions of safety and the ● 9 (30%) involved bus passengers falling, generally caused2 8 P

4 a

7 7 2 1 v 1

St James's 2 1

1 4 S il

i 4 u 4 6 6 o 1 s 1 1 1 s s 3 ex n B Nile 3 1b T C Court 6 Church

P 3 Ta The Ashes a T 5 a 2 v 5 v

vilio 3 ern e 1

n 1 r 1

N ns n 1

ile S S 2

tree (PH) te 2

t 2

2 i 5

n 5

0 7 e 6

2 L 6

5 3 5 2 1 1 2 a

T n 2

2 ne

E 12

1 1 1

E 3 2

2 1 PH

a 1 1 a R O h s

attractiveness of the area for less experienced cyclists. This by a need for the vehicle to brake suddenly. 1 LDLD 1b 6 5 5 c n T STEIS

3 5 TE r 7 INE 1c 7 e S Steine PO u 1 d d h r T 1 1 a 0 e C E

4 1 House

G 3

5 5

K 3 Posts 1 1

4 6 s

R 5 to 1 '

8 YMCA Hostel 8 3 6 3 s A 2 e 40 2 7 5 M

2 2 9.5m m

2 1 2 5

5 a 3

3 6 5 J a E t ast t 9 10 22 Str e 11 S

ee e

23 t A r

would mean that the collision rates are lowered by people 5

rca 5 t 5

24 de 2 S 14

S 6 T

5 JA

JAME

0 0 6 6 S'

5 3 1 3 1 5 1

1 1 t S STR 15

9 s 9 E

2 1 1

2 ET 16

8 2 2 8 2 1 2 a 1 1

4 7

4 E

2 19

2 5 2 5

1 1 7

7 2

2 0

1 1

4 4

1 2 2

Shelter 1

3 3 8

8 1 1 2 1 2 1 5 5

1 1 1

2 2 o o 2 1 1 2 t

1 6

4 6

6 6

5 2

1 a 1

1 1

2 1

1 1 24

0 0 5 2 1 2

2 5 1

8 8

5 5

2 9 7 1 1 1 1

3 7 1 to 4

a 5 1 1 1 1

6 3 6 2

1 1 1

1 5 26 27

avoiding the area. Castle Square junction: 3

1 1 1 1

1 2 2 1

1 1

1 4 1 5 3 4 1 1 2

2 8

6 a

5 St James's Mansions

b 1 b 2 1

2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 9 9 6 1

2 2 1 1

BA 2

0 1 1

R 0 1

T 1

H 9a 4 a 1 1 a 2 1 1

OL 2 1 1 1

OME 1 2 3 9

WS 9

7 0 0 7 6 6 5 1 PH 1

5 0 0

Posts 1 1

TCBs LB 1

3 3

0 0

Fn 4 2 1 6

● 8 (44%) in which injuries were to bus passengers falling; 9 5

10 TC 1

1 1

4 B 6 4

s 0

B 1

0 2 2

PH 0 0 1 1 1

art 1

ho 1 5 1

lo 3

2 2 w 0 2 0 1

m 5 PH 1 1

e 1 5 1 5 w 1 2 o

s 5

6 1 6 9 1

t t 6 6 R

3 a a 3 o

1 1

Stone 1 c

1 1 3 TCB 0 a

1 1

2 2 r 2 PH 2 r

8 4 e

Post 1

T 1

The slight injuries follow a similar pattern with 26% and 1 7

12a 7

44 2

6 2

8 3 8

3 3

1 1

3 9 8 3 3 2

1 9 1

1 1

8 8

1 1

t t

S o

4 4

Town Hall

t W t

6 6

o 6 o 6

E 6

1 1

1 9 1

9 9 6 6 Bartholomew 1 affecting car or van occupants compared to 50% affecting ● 6 (33%) in which pedestrians were hit by vehicles. a O t L a

S 8

6 O 6 s 4

b E

5 5

c Square c H w

1 1 N

e T I S

M 8

R 8

1 l E 1

6 4

7 7

7 E A T 7

7 i

B S

1 h 1

2 p 2

D l

2 2

o o

1 1 7

7 t T

2 2

4 4 O

7 7

RR 2

8 8

3 E

1 pedestrians, cyclists or motorcyclists. There are also a 1 R 8

4 1 O 1

T 4

P L 4 3

D 3

o S S

6 T

o 4 E

I R T o

o N E t l t

E 2

2 E E 4

4 3 R 33 3 1 1 4 a 4

1 1 E s T

5 T 5 R

s S E

2 2

E E T

6 6 C

2 H 2

E S

6 A 1 1

4 4

9 C L

7 R 7 L a D

N P

3 3 1 R A

S PH A

1 1 A A

1 1

2 2

E M

1 high proportion (24%) involving bus passengers which, as The likelihood of many of these collisions could be reduced 1 H R R

5 1 5

N C B

I E 4 4 1 1 Pier 0 E D

T 2

Priory House A 2

2 S 2 Court M

2 y

1 a 6 6 l Y

t 9 o 3

e B rk 3

2 2 2 e u 2

The Brighton Thistle Hotel tr i 3

ld 3 S ing explained further below, is as result of individuals falling on by improvements to the current layout of these junctions. s 1 t o 12 ast

2 8 e E 8 PH Littl 14 to 37 E H

A e

5 Th ot l 7 7 S TCBs e M 1 1 1 1 7 PH arine 4 T Co

S ac LB 6 6 2 h 1 to 4 Albemarle Hou T S se y tati 7 R alle on 5 5 l V E Poo Hotel

E Shelter 16

T Posts 17

0 0 4

buses. For example, the provision of dedicated cycle facilities 4

4 4 9 9 3 a 3

5 5 P 18 3 3 1 1 s 19 O r to 23 16 10 8 9 e 11.7m O t 14 13 12 l 7 L e V h A S L L LB E MARINE PAR KING'S ROAD Y ADE

would reduce the risk of conflict with vehicles or more 7

t o

Shelter

9 Shelter

Analysis of the data highlights clear concentrations of direct crossing routes with quicker crossing times may help11.6m 15.9m

Royal Albion U Q ue y en Hotel d Sea Life Centre 's B H ot d e r (under) l E a

N St Christopher's W

& 8.9m 14 Inn t

S collisions as follows: to reduce instances of pedestrians crossing into the path of 8 s

0 n

I (Hotel) o

R C 1

o r Colour-coding4 by SEVERITY

B 5 LB ●●48 (40%) on or within the immediate vicinity of the oncoming traffic. More widely, a change to the carriageway 8.4m TCBs Total Accidents (154)

Th e Terraces 8.6m ION ROAD AND JUNCT GR MADEI roundabout; design which is more consistent with the area’s 20 mph RA DRIVE Fatal (1) TCBs TCBs

Esplanade Serious (30) Shi ngle ●●30 (24%) at or within the immediate vicinity of the junction designation could also help to reduce speeds and, in turn, Slight (123) of St James’s Street and Old Steine (southbound); and the occurrence and severity of collisions. Shingle Sh ingle Total Casualties (193) ●● 18 (15%) at or within the immediate vicinity of the junction Shingle M ean Hi gh Wa ter Fatal (1)

t y M t of Old Steine and Castle Square (North Street). e t e a J n H e i J gh Wa Serious (30) ter

S and Sand Sh ingle W F Slight (162)

S hingle

SCALE NTS PROJECT: VALLEY GARDENS - PHASE 3 DATE 26/04/2018

Collisions 2013-2017,Reported Source: Personal Injury Brighton Collisions & Hove CityDRAW ICouncilNG No.

ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION 01/01/2013 to 31/12/2017 DRAWN BY YH TRANSPORT PROJECTS ( 5 years) Brighton & Hove City Council | 45

3.10 Air Quality 3.11 Noise 3.13 Summary

Valley Gardens is located within BHCC’s designated Air The current dominance of the study area by traffic, both in This section has considered the baseline conditions for Quality Management Area (AQMA). However, BHCC’s Air terms of volume and speed, can detract from the quality different user groups and the quality of the public space. Quality Monitoring Officer has reported that the Old Steine of the public spaces. An Acoustics Assessment was This has identified the following constraints: area benefits from its more open nature and as such does undertaken as part of the Phase 1-2 Business Case (RPS, not experience the same concentrations of emissions as 2014) which included three readings to the east, west and ●●There are a large number of listed buildings which monitoring sites further north within the Phase 1-2 area. centre of the Old Steine, together with one located in the include features such as the bus shelters and majority of Indeed, the east of the Old Steine has previously been north east of Pavilion Gardens. Average daytime levels surrounding frontages. This is however a major asset of shown to be compliant with the Government’s air quality ranged from 62 decibels (dB) to 68 dB. This is above World the study area and there is an opportunity to enhance the objectives for England and, as a result, there is no longer a Health Organisation guidelines of 50-55 dB. setting of the historic buildings; permanent nitrogen oxide (NO2) monitoring site located in ●●There are high traffic volumes at present and there is this part of Valley Gardens. 3.12 Accessibility a need to recognise the importance of the study area in providing key strategic east-west and north-south traffic There are however sites located at Castle Square, Edward The design process will be subject to a full Equality routes; Street, St James’s Street, the A259 (east of West Street), Impact Assessment which will consider the impacts of as well as to the east and west of Victoria Gardens at the the design and benefits against each of the 12 protected ●●The need to provide for the large number of buses that southern edge of the Phase 1-2 area. Table 11 provides 2016 characteristics identified in the Equality Act 2010. However, travel through the area; data, showing that the Castle Square and Victoria Gardens the baseline assessment presented in this chapter has ●●The area is currently used for a number of events, the sites exceed the national target for NO2 of 40 ug/m3. highlighted a number of issues which are likely to be continuity of which will need to be maintained; There is potential for changes to Valley Gardens to impact experienced to varying extents by different users and there on these sites and BHCC’s Air Quality officer has suggested is an opportunity for the project to create a more inclusive ●●The area contains a number of mature trees including that the creation of additional greenspace is likely to be space. This includes addressing the following: Elms which will need to be protected in designs. beneficial for wider air quality. ●●Some types of road traffic incident disproportionately Other issues that the design process will need to address affecting certain groups, such as by age; include: Table 11: Average Nitrogen Oxide Levels ●●Convoluted pedestrian routes, the absence of crossings ●●Filling the large gaps in cycle infrastructure provision, Location Site reference ug/m3 and narrow footways are more likely to affect those with particularly the missing link between the seafront and mobility and visual impairments, as well as parents with Victoria Gardens; Castle Square C04 49 young children; ●●Reflecting the high pedestrian footfall in the allocation Victoria Gardens west C09 48.4 ●●The attractiveness of walking and cycling routes and use of footway space and better providing for movements to Victoria Gardens east E17 46.1 of the space at different times of the day will vary based adjacent areas including the Lanes and seafront; on different user groups’ real and perceived experience of ●●Reducing current collision rates, particularly at junctions; St James’s St south C03-15 37.1 safety and crime. and Edward St E17-15 37.8 It is intended that the project will make a significant ●●Identify measures which are most likely to contribute to St James’s St north C03 35.2 contribution to improving such issues and reduce the an improvement in air quality. inequalities that the current street environment contributes A259 C29-14 35 to. These issues and opportunities have all been considered in the development of design objectives and assessment Pavilion Gardens north C08 32.4 criteria that have been used to sift initial scheme options. Pavilion Gardens west C05-12 26.1 The design objectives and assessment methodology are outlined in Chapter 6. Source: BHCC 2017 Air Quality Status Report 46 | Valley Gardens Phase 3 Stage 1 Brighton & Hove City Council | 47

4.0 Consultation & Stakeholder Engagement 48 | Valley Gardens Phase 3 Stage 1 4.0 Consultation and Stakeholder Engagement This chapter summarises the consultation process, Q2 What form of transport do you use the MOST in the area? (Please tick one) Q5 How could the area be improved to help make using and moving through the area better? the results of initial public engagement and the key What would be your top three priorities? Bus Car (as driver) Van/Lorry Other requirements to consider within subsequent design stages. Old Steine & (please state below) Have more safe crossing Limit street clutter (eg Less traffic congestion / Cycle Car as passenger Motorbike points A-boards) improve traffic flow

4.1 Overview of the Consultation Process Palace Pier Roundabout Walk Taxi Mobility Scooter Increase the number of More seating areas or Better parking enforcement dropped kerbs to improve resting points The Valley Gardens Phase 3 design process will be subject Valley Gardens Phase 3 – Have Your Say access Reduce the speed of traffic

(PH) 3 PH 6 2 The Old 7 More trees and vegetation

21 109 Courtroom

1 Pavilion Mews 115

PH 116 68 to 58 24 5 CHURCH STREET 114

23 LB 1 118 3 to a two-stage public consultation. The first stage sought Brighton Improve air quality The council will shortly begin designing Unitarian 119 University of Brighton (PH) GRAND PARADE Faculty of Arts

Church 25 120 Improve quality of or Queen Victoria Statue

1 26

22 Brighton 29 Police Station improvements for the third phase of the 69 Better bus flow through 20 11.2m widen pavements Corn Exchange Studio Art Gallery and Museum

19 Theatre 71 to understand what residents, businesses and users of the 19 to 1 to to GRAND PARADE

D Fn 73 Improve road condition MEWS North Gate Valley Gardens project. This will include 15 the area Pavilion Court George IV 13 Dome WILLIAM STREET Statue

Theatre Royal

El Sub Sta 77 the Old Steine area and the Palace Pier NEW ROAD Allow for more direct area feel about it, current issues and what people would 10 80 Brighton Subway Brighton 7 County Royal View Law Courts Remove Unnecessary Court

5 Provide better/ more bus roundabout. Pavilion1 & Gdns 2 Thinking about your usual way of travel in the area (eg walking, cycling, driving etc.). How walking routes eg less

10.7m Q3 The 1 to 8 EDWARD STREET Co TCBs lo CR signage /make it easier to nnades

El Sub Sta 3

BRIGHTON 181 like to see. This stage of the consultation ran from the 21 32 to 31 stops 4

179 TCBs fences or guardrails

Regent House Pavilion Gardens 177 174 would you rate your experience?

NORTH STREET 173

Boro Const & Ward Bdy 170 PC 168

9 Edward Street

10a 1 navigate

We are inviting you to tell us what you 162

Chapel

163 161

Royal 2 18

162 160

20 159 11

1 to 8 to 1 PH

5 10 4

16 5 36

PRINCE'S PLACE 12 6b

11 North Street 3

May to 29 June 2018 and the results will be used to inform 9

15 6a

Indian 14

16 1 to 32 Old Steine 4 STEINE GARDENS 39a

Dorset Mews

Princes House 7 Improve cycle safety Memorial

think about the area at the moment. Your 15

PAVILION PARADE EET 11 Gateway 10 PH 8

P AV 9 Improve travel information/

ILION STR 1 Very Good Good Average Poor Very Poor

14a

t EET o

11.1m Shelters 4

DORSET STREET STREET 6 LB 30 0 Royal Pavilion 2 Pond

14 1 to 12 12

PRINCE'S STR 12 2

RGE

170 4 Ward Bdy 1

El Sub Sta O

Glass Pavilion 5

to 17 to

E 41 Improve road safety 11 Fn 10.0m

CR 15 G 5 responses will be used to help inform the 10 Parochial Terrace

171 to 173

15 8 to 10 to 8

7 1

4 wayfinding signs 7

6 18 Pavilion the future design process. A preferred option will then be El Sub Sta Buildings 1 to 14 Regency Surgery

Pavilion Kings Gate 4 Shelter Posts Surgery 22

ens Peace Park 8 to 11 to 8

The Clocktower 3 20

1 to 6 4 Parochial Mews Increase number of cycle 44

2 ard

proposed designs. 1 14 44a

set G

17 1 19 7 to 6 Dor

Brighton Place18 57 44 t

45 20 3 17 ur 4

o 1 to 3 to 1 1 55 43

54 TCB Shelter 45a 12 on C 1 to Steine Gardensbi

6 l Improve the road layout to

1 63 War A

8 46 4a 1 3

9.6m Meml 4 Little George St

PALACE PLACE

4 14 lanes or routes

BRIGHTON PLACE

62 5 PH Shelter 14 presented to Environment, Transport & Sustainability (ETS) CASTLE SQUARE St James's Place

50 to 53 61 Improve/increase event

Shelter LB 45 49 1 to 8 El Sub Sta Market Street 57

47 37 to 60

48a Howells Court 9

46 9.3m

48 51

38 to 42 8 47 make it less confusing

To make sure your views are included please Car Park 10 6 TCBs 1 to 18

OLD STEINE 10 Sports 5 War

EAST STREET Facility Purbeck House

48 to 50 to 48 4 Meml 12 9.4m 13 OLD STEINE PH We would like to know if there are problems with getting around in the area. Thinking about PH space

2 Pond

17 1 to 5 Shelter

15 St James's 13 16 1 TCB

PH The Ashes Court 6 Church 34

1 Q4

Steine L 2 56

52 an 1 s 7

12 32 en Increase the amount of complete the questionnaire by 29 June 2018. e 3 Committee Members in October 2018. Subject to approval, rd

PH OLD STEINE 57 Ga

1 to 11

6 1c s

31a ' 53 Steine 56 1d PO 1e 0

31 Church House 1 3

ames

5 1 J 54 Posts 6 to 1 27 YMCA Hostel 8 St 28 5 your main form of transport, are there any of the following which are an issue in the area? Blenheim House 9.5m

55 55 East Street Arcade 26 Shelter 9 10 11

ST JAMES'S STREET 14

130

16 1 56 15

129 16 less anti-social behaviour

St128 James’s Street

East Street 17

24 127 19

16 125 123 124 18 Shelter

122 24 Or you can submit your response online at 57 126 cycle parking LB

1 24a

58 121

2 23a 119

116 0

115

3 12 Improve feeling of personal

5 23 114 Palace Pier

6 St James's Mansions 111

22a BARTHOLOMEWS 22 110

19 9a

24 1 (you may tick more than one answer)

60 53 107 PH 5

Posts 10 1 a second stage of the consultation will be held to ascertain LB 3 Fn

14 9 1 26

TCB Bartholomews 11

61 to 63 to 61 PH 21

25 5 www.brighton-hove.gov.uk/steine-to-sea- PH 11a 51 5 12

12 Roundabout TCB Stone

23 11 20 21 PH

4 8 Shelter race Row Post 1 r

17 safety and security Te 4

63 23 12a 13

21 18 13

49 64 to 66 Other (please state)

Town Hall 17 to 14

9 16 to 19 to 16

survey 19 6c

48a 15

El Sub Sta 7 48

BARTHOLOMEWS 12

21 Difficult to cross the road Fear of crime/ not enough Lack of cycle parking

public support for the preferred option. 27

Dolphin Mews 8 2 to 5 OLD STEINE

3 T

14 13 4 8 E Pool Pass OLD STEINE E

9 2

44 to 46 to 44 2

1 15 3

1 69 6

RA PLA 3

1a MANCHESTER STREET

PH ROAD STRE 25

CHARLES STREET B 11

4 10 1

1 22

STEINE STREET

Priory House Royal York 1 to 8 MADEI

6 security 1 TCB Pier

9 32

Buildings Court 2

Street 3

PH 1 to 37 8

The 2 Tell us what you think about moving through,Little East PH

ESS EAST STREET Albemarle 1 to 17 74 11 5 Hotel 7 TCBs PH

6 LB 2 Pool Valley 1 to 4 PH Marine

5 Pool Valley Coach Station House

Posts Shelter 16 17

40 Not accessible enough / Speed of traffic is too high

PH 9

4 3 18

16 15a 15 POOL VALLEY 14 13 12 10 8 9 7 3 11.7m LB and spending time in, the Old Steine to KING'S ROAD Shelters MARINE PARADE TCBs Consultation activities and a full analysis of project 75 to 79 Shelter 2 Marine Parade not enough dropped kerbs Slow bus journey times / unsafe roads Queen's Hotel Royal Albion Und Hotel Sea Life Centre Palace Pier Area. PH (under) 14 80 Hostelpoint 8.9m

BRILLS LANE 1 4

Boro Const & Ward Bdy 5 stakeholders are detailed in full within the Consultation 8.4m TCBs 8.6m GRAND JUNCTION ROAD MADEIRA DRIVE Problems with pavements Cost of buses Poor road condition TCBs Plan and Stakeholder Management Plan documents Madeira Drive Shingle Q6 Do you have any other comments about how to make it easier to get around and improving Shingle

Mean High Water Footpaths too narrow Not enough buses / not Too much traffic

Landing Stage transport in the area? previously issued to BHCC. Landing Stage enough direct routes congestion Too many barriers (e.g. Q1 How do you use the space in the Old Steine to Palace Pier Area? fences / guardrail) when Buses don’t go where I Inconsiderately parked walking around need them to vehicles To relax To picnic/ have lunch To visit tourist attractions (eg Royal Pavilion) Too much street clutter Not enough / poor quality Confusing for drivers to To get from A to B To use the café (e.g. A boards) bus shelters navigate To visit local businesses To catch a bus To meet friends To work Not enough travel Not enough real time Too much pollution To study To attend events information/ wayfinding information bus signs Other (please state below) I live here signs To walk my dog To play sport eg Frisbee Unsafe to cycle Other (please state below) Not enough seating / How did you become aware of this survey? resting points Not enough cycle lanes or Q7 routes Attended an Social media The council’s Word of mouth exhibition/event website (where?) Other (please state below)

Source: BHCC Brighton & Hove City Council | 49

4.2 Stage 1 Public Consultation Findings 4.3 Stakeholder Requirements 875 responses were received to the consultation and the Stakeholders have been identified and will be engaged results have been analysed in full within a Consultation throughout the design process. These include transport Report produced by BHCC provided in Appendix A. These operators and user groups, business representatives and included 4,108 individual comments on priorities residents council officers responsible for managing and using the and users of the area have. space, including the Events and City Parks teams. External stakeholders will be invited to take part in the second The most common issues were raised were as follows: stage public consultation with further discussion and ●●More respondents had a negative travel experience of meetings to take place as required. the area (46.7% poor or very poor) compared to those who reported a positive experience (23.5% good/ very good); 4.4 Design Panel ●●Cyclists had the worst experience (72.2% poor/ very BHCC has appointed Design South East to provide a poor) and bus users the best (38.6% very good/ good); Design Panel which will meet periodically throughout the ●●Two of the most common issues raised by all user groups design process. This will provide independent review of Respondents’ travel experience of the area (% of respondents) (in the top five for pedestrians, cyclists, bus passengers the designs from urban design, landscape architect and Source: BHCC and car drivers) were that it is too difficult to cross the road transport consultants. To date, one meeting of the Design (51.8% of respondents) and that there is too much traffic Panel has been held which considered the current layout congestion (48.5%); of the study area, the associated issues and opportunities for the future design process. The Design Panel’s initial Table 12: Top five issues raised by user group ●●Most people who responded use the area to travel observations (Appendix B) have been considered through through (85.4%) rather than spend time; the Stage 1 design process documented in this report and Bus Car Cycle Walk a further meeting will be held once the three shortlisted The following priorities for improvement were identified by Difficult to Too much Not enough Difficult to options are developed further. 20% or more of respondents: cross the traffic cycle lanes cross the road congestion or routes road ●●Cycle lanes to be provided (32.5%); Too much Poor road Unsafe to Too much ●●Improved cycle safety (28.9%); traffic Condition cycle traffic congestion congestion ●●Less cluttered (27.5%) and higher quality (25.1%) walking routes; Slow bus Confusing Difficult to Too much journeys for drivers to cross the pollution ●●More direct walking routes (27.2%) and additional/ safer navigate road crossing points (24.2%); Too much Cost of Poor road Too many ●●Reduced traffic congestion (27.3%); pollution buses condition barriers ●●Improved air quality (24.6%); when walking ●●Lower traffic speeds (23.9%); around ●●More trees and vegetation (23.0%); Cost of Difficult to Too much Speed of ●●Better road condition (20.8%); and buses cross the traffic traffic is too road congestion high/ unsafe ●●Improved bus flow (20.6%). roads 50 | Valley Gardens Phase 3 Stage 1 Brighton & Hove City Council | 51

5.0 Option Longlisting 52 | Valley Gardens Phase 3 Stage 1 5.0 Option Longlisting This section introduces a series of design sketches which The A23 (Old Steine) options identified are: The A23/A259 seafront roundabout options identified are: have been produced as part of an initial feasibility exercise ●●Option 1: Based on the original concept for Valley ●●Option A: A23/A259 seafront roundabout is redesigned for the Valley Gardens Phase 3 Study Area. In total, 44 Gardens, this option would place bus traffic on the west to provide a larger central island to reduce conflicting options have been produced which have then been and general traffic on the east, continuing the principles of movements and lower traffic speeds. This would be similar subject to options sifting to identify three preferred layouts Phase 1-2. to the continental-style roundabout design introduced at for further development. Seven Dials. ●●Option 2: Follows Option 1 but removes the St James’s 5.1 Introduction to Options Street link south of the war memorial. The latter is ●●Option B: Converts the roundabout to a signalised It is recognised that detailed designs for Phase 1-2 have designed to overcome an issue identified with Option 1 that junction. Crossings would be provided on each arm, with been approved, with these placing buses and access traffic it would require the introduction of an additional junction an all green phase maximising convenience and comfort on the west side of the gardens, and general traffic on the which is likely to impact on journey times. for pedestrians. east. However, with traffic on both sides of the gardens ●●Option 3: Applies a similar approach to Option 1, but ●●Option C: As with Option B, this would replace the being brought together at the boundary of the Phase instead places bus traffic on the east and general traffic on roundabout with a signalised junction; however, this would 1-2 and Phase 3 areas, there is an opportunity to apply the west. provide a ‘scrambled’ crossing where diagonal movements a different approach to the southern area if desired. In are formally incorporated in the crossing design. Examples accordance with the project brief, the longlisting exercise ●●Option 4: Relocates all traffic to the eastern side of the include Oxford Circus in London. has therefore considered a range of options and is not Old Steine, creating a large public space connecting Steine predetermined by the Phase 1-2 design. Gardens to the Royal Pavilion and city centre. Access roads ●●Option D: Introduces an informal, level-surface junction would be provided for servicing of properties on the west arrangement in place of the roundabout. This is similar to The nature of the study area means that it can essentially side of the gardens. designs introduced in Coventry where the approach was be split into two main sections; one being the junction used at a large number of junctions. In this case, the use of the A23 and A259 (A23/A259 seafront/ Palace Pier ●●Option 5: A variation of Option 4 instead relocating all of coloured tarmac and lower cost materials allowed the Roundabout) and the second being the A23 south of traffic to the western side of the gardens, with the larger scheme to be introduced over a wider area. Edward Street including the Old Steine. public space being on the east. ●●Option E: Retains the current arrangement but The feasibility design process has therefore considered ●●Option 6: Applies a more radical approach similar to rationalises this and replaces redundant carriageway and the two areas separately and then an assessment has that adopted in Poynton, Cheshire, or Frideswide Square, traffic islands with increased space for pedestrians. been made for each junction layout as to whether it is Oxford, of removing all traffic signals. This would create theoretically compatible with each of the options for the a less conventional layout, possibly using shared space ●●Option F: Converts the junction to a ‘turbo’ roundabout main section. In practice, some combinations identified are and/or creating informal courtesy crossings which would which provides segregation between traffic lanes to avoid unlikely to be desirable and this has been reflected in the be facilitated by single-file traffic moving at slower, but conflicting movements and allow for a safer, more efficient subsequent shortlisting exercise. continuous, speeds. operation. ●●Option 7: Removes the current gyratory system and ●●Option G: Introduces an informal double-roundabout bus priority measures to introduce two-way operation junction without traffic signals. for general traffic on all roads, with the aim of providing a The variations of each of the A23 layout options are simpler, more legible layout. attached at Appendix C. The assessment process and ●●Option 8: Retains the existing layout but rationalises this, preferred options are detailed in Chapters 6 and 7 removing redundant carriageway space to create wider respectively. footways and additional public space. Brighton & Hove City Council | 53

One of a series of informal junctions introduced in Coventry Coventry’s informal junctions are part of wider public realm Lower cost and more resistant materials were used at junctions to enhancements minimise maintenance and allow the budget to be spread across a large number of junctions

Use of courtesy crossings, Poynton Poynton is an example of a shared space, informal layout used by Example of a downgraded road for buses and access, Liverpool large volumes of traffic including HGVs 54 | A222Valley Lower Gardens Addiscombe Phase 3 Stage Road: 1 Design Review Brighton & Hove City Council | 55

6.0 Sifting Methodology 56 | Valley Gardens Phase 3 Stage 1 6.0 Sifting Methodology This chapter provides details of the assessment criteria for 6.3 Design Objectives and Assessment Criteria Table 13: Summary of Design Objectives and Assessment sifting options. Table 13 summarises the design objectives and Criteria 6.1 Purpose of the Sifting Exercise assessment criteria with each criterion given a weighting Design Objective Assessment Criteria Weighting which reflects its relative importance. As can be seen, To identify options for further investigation and design 1=LOW these are intended to address all user groups and design work, it was necessary to conduct an initial assessment 4=HIGH requirements. and sifting exercise to narrow down the 44 options Design Objective A. Improve north-south 4 outlined in the previous chapter. A series of design It is noted that flood risk (surface water and drainage) 1: To improve connections objectives and assessment criteria have therefore been is an important design consideration and BHCC policy the quality of established, with each option considered against these. requirement not reflected at this stage. However, it is the pedestrian considered that there is insufficient detail to distinguish The sifting exercise is necessarily high-level at this stage experience between the feasibility-level designs. This will instead be and further assessment of the short-listed options will be assessed in future design stages, both in terms of drainage B. Improve east-west 3 undertaken as designs move forward and the impacts design and the selection of appropriate materials. connections of each option become clearer. However, the current assessment is based on professional judgement of how Similarly, it is noted that BHCC require designs to meet C. Maximise 3 each of the feasibility options are likely to perform against infrastructure access requirements and minimise the pedestrian capacity the criteria identified and intended to allow a comparison need for future street works. Again, it is deemed that D. Improve 4 of the relative merits and limitations of the different there is insufficient detail to assess options against this connections to green options. requirement at this stage; however, it will be considered space alongside all other stakeholder requirements (see Chapter 6.2 Development of Assessment Methodology E. Improve 3 4) as designs are developed. connections to the The relevant BHCC and external policies informing All options have been scored against each criterion Lanes the Valley Gardens Phase 3 project are summarised in on a scale of one (very poor) to five (very good). It is Chapter 2. These have been used to produce eight design Design Objective A. Provide a 4 acknowledged that, at this stage of the design process, objectives with six assessment criteria developed for each. 2: To improve continuous north- the level of scoring is potentially subjective; however, These are distinct from the project objectives in that they the quality of the south connection to address this, the exercise has been repeated relate more specifically to the design details. cycling experience independently by three members of the project team with The project objectives, also outlined in Chapter 2, reflect the scorings then combined into a final assessment. The B. Improve east-west 3 more general policy aspirations which establish the reason results of the assessment are presented in the following connections for pursuing the project. As such, most options are likely chapter. C. Provision of 3 to be consistent with these high-level objectives and segregated cycle the more specific design objectives are needed for the infrastructure purpose of options sifting. However, the latter are intended to relate to the project objectives and remain grounded in D. Improve cycle 4 policy. crossings to seafront cycle route Appendix D summarises the policy requirements and how these have been reflected in both the design objectives E. Opportunities for 3 and assessment criteria. Reference is also made to Coast cycle parking / cycle to Capital’s strategy and guidance documents. hire facilities Brighton & Hove City Council | 57

Table 13 Continued Table 13 Continued Table 13 Continued Design Objective Assessment Criteria Weighting Design Objective Assessment Criteria Weighting Design Objective Assessment Criteria Weighting 1=LOW 1=LOW 1=LOW 4=HIGH 4=HIGH 4=HIGH Design Objective A. Maintain or Improve 4 Design Objective A. Create space for 4 Design Objective A. Improve air quality 4 3: To improve the bus journey times 5: To improve the new public realm 7: To enhance the experience for public realm environment public transport B. Provide connectivity 4 B. Reduce noise 2 users between green / B. Provide sufficient 4 public spaces C. Retain mature trees 4 bus stop capacity in C. Improve setting of 2 D. Contribute to 2 appropriate locations and links to the Royal biodiversity C. Provide sufficient 2 Pavilion E. Create space for 2 bus stand / layover D. Improve setting of 2 additional tree planting capacity historic buildings on / landscaping D. Provide facilities for 1 Old Steine Design Objective A. Improve access 4 private coaches E. Retain and enhance 3 8: To provide for mobility impaired E. Provide sufficient 2 quality / capacity of an inclusive and users taxi ranks in event spaces accessible space appropriate locations Design Objective A. Reduce occurrence 4 B. Improve access for 4 Design Objective A. Improve north - 3 6: To improve road and severity of vehicle/ visually impaired users 4: To reduce the south general traffic safety powered two-wheeler impact of vehicle journey times collisions C. Provision of wide 3 unobstructed footways congestion B. Reduce occurrence 4 B. Improve east - west 3 and severity of D. Provide / maintain 2 general traffic journey pedestrian collisions access to essential times C. Reduce occurrence 4 services C. Improve driver 2 and severity of cyclist E. Provide 4 legibility / simplify collisions opportunities for layout D. Maintain 4 resting / seating D. Retain current 2 appropriate vehicle vehicle movement speeds by design Cost 1=High cost to 5=Low 4 options E. Improve perception 4 cost E. Achieve 'smoother' 4 of safety for all road traffic flow users Deliverability 1=Hard to 5=Easy 4 58 | A222Valley Lower Gardens Addiscombe Phase 3 Stage Road: 1 Design Review Brighton & Hove City Council | 59

7.0 Preferred Options 60 | Valley Gardens Phase 3 Stage 1 7.0 Preferred Options This chapter outlines the shortlisted options following the Although scoring has been undertaken for each In addition, as part of the investigation of a signalised assessment exercise introduced in the previous chapter. combination of the Valley Gardens layout and A23/A259 junction (Option B), it is envisaged that a formal diagonal It also highlights further considerations for the following seafront junction options, it is considered that further crossing/scrambled junction will also be considered design stage. design work for each of the shortlisted layout options would alongside other variations such as a standard ‘all-green’ be warranted before confirming a preferred junction option phase for pedestrians. BHCC officers have expressed 7.1 Shortlisted Options for each. Similarly, the sifting exercise is intended to guide reservations over the potential crossing distances and the future design process and does not mean that elements conflicting pedestrian movements in this option; however, The full assessment exercise is provided in Appendix E. of those options not shortlisted will not be considered in the full consideration of the advantages and limitations of As a result, the following options have been identified for next stage. For example, further assessment may indicate different forms of signalised junction will be considered progression to the next stage of design development: that traffic journey times and accessibility for pedestrians during the next stage of the design process. would benefit from the introduction of alternative junction ●●Option 1, based on the original concept for the project and crossing arrangements at junctions further north, Examples of the three shortlisted layout options are and approach for Phase 1-2 of locating bus traffic on the including Castle Square and St James’s Street. provided overleaf. As previously noted, all options and west and general traffic on the east of the gardens; variations are provided in Appendix C. ●●Option 4 which places all traffic on the east of the Nevertheless, the A23/A259 seafront junction options have gardens; and been narrowed down to the following options: ●●Option 6 which applies a more radical approach of ●●Option A, a continental-style roundabout adopting a removing formal controls at junctions with narrower similar approach to Seven Dials; carriageways to facilitate informal courtesy crossings along ●●Option B, providing a standard signalised junction; the length of the study area. ●●Option G, which would introduce a less conventional In addition, elements of Option 2, which closes the link double-roundabout arrangement. between St James’s Street and Castle Square, may need to be considered as part of the further investigation of Option 1. This is because it is expected that the requirement to introduce an additional junction on the A23 as part of the latter will need be balanced elsewhere to avoid an adverse impact on journey times. Brighton & Hove City Council | 61

© Crown copyright and database rights (2018) OS (100020999) © Crown copyright and database rights (2018) OS (100020999) © Crown copyright and database rights (2018) OS (100020999) Option 1A (bus traffic on the west with continental roundabout at Option 4B (all traffic on the east with signalised junction at the Option 6G (less conventional arrangement continuing through to the A23/A259 seafront) A23/A259 seafront junction) the A259 junction) 62 | Valley Gardens Phase 3 Stage 1

7.2 Future Design Considerations ●●Confirmation of the approach to green spaces.This The next stage of the design process will also provide more will include establishing whether additional areas of detail and allow further assessment against the project and As the next stage of the design process develops, the hardstanding could be introduced to create more flexible design objectives. This will include the following: following issues will need to be addressed: spaces and obtaining a full assessment of the condition of mature trees and other vegetation from BHCC’s ●●Modelling of the traffic impacts, allowing full assessment ●●Madeira Drive access. The current shortlisted design arboriculture team. of the impact on general vehicle and bus journey times; options envisage a one-way entry to allow access for servicing, coaches and events, with traffic then exiting via ●●Statutory undertakers and structures. Details of ●●Subject to the outcome of the above, consideration of the Dukes Mound to the east of Madeira Drive. The advantage underground services have been requested from utilities need for wider traffic management measures, which may of a one-way entry compared to two-way is that it will allow companies and plans of seafront structures provided include recommendations for updated car park routing and the creation of extended areas of footway and public space, by BHCC. The designs are likely to create new areas of signage or park and ride; and it will have less impact on the operation of the junction, footway rather than carriageway, meaning the likelihood of ●●Using the updated designs and traffic modelling outputs particularly for the signalised options. A further alternative having to relocate services or encroaching on the seafront to allow a full comparison of the impact of the shortlisted will be a complete closure (except for events), although this arches is generally reduced. However, the A23/A259 options on air quality; will need to be considered alongside the wider strategy for seafront junction currently has a raised profile which would regenerating Madeira Drive. benefit from being levelled off. The scope for doing so will ●●Further assessment of the quality of cycle infrastructure be dependent on further investigation. which could be accommodated in each design; ●●Pedestrian crossing design. The type of pedestrian crossing at locations away from the A23/A259 seafront ●●Review of vehicle swept paths to ensure adequate access roundabout junction will be investigated and the relative for HGV through movements and servicing; benefits for all road users assessed. ●●Full assessment of the impact on bus stop and bus ●●Bus facilities. Amount of space allocated to bus stops layover capacity; and layover, as well as, opportunities for bus priority. ●●Review of the level of provision for car/motorcycle ●●Level of vehicle parking. It is expected that some parking and loading; essential parking will need to be retained in the designs, including doctor and disabled parking. However, a decision ●●Consideration of flood risk. Although, at this stage, it is will be required on the level of general parking to be not envisaged that designs would result in a significant retained on Madeira Drive and the Old Steine. The current reduction of permeable surfaces; designs are flexible in this respect, but greater provision for ●●Assessment of how future proof the proposals are for car parking would be offset against the level of benefit for accommodating potential future transport schemes. These other users. may include the seafront connection to West Street (and Gateway to the Sea project), a cycle route serving the ●●Royal Pavilion Estate access. Following completion of the consultation on the future of the estate, the scope upper promenade on Marine Parade, and a rapid transit for improving access to the gardens from the Old Steine scheme serving the proposed Black Rock Exhibition Centre; will need to be confirmed. Opening this access up is ●●Assessment of cost and deliverability; and considered beneficial for all the design options; however the suitability of Option 4 (placing all traffic on the eastern ●●Completion of an Equality Impact Assessment which will side of the Old Steine) is likely to be dependent on the consider the potential impacts of the scheme options for connection to Pavilion Gardens. different user groups and how current issues that are more likely to affect certain groups can be adequately addressed. ●●Aspirations for Pool Valley and wider coach strategy. The potential to relocate bus stands to Pool Valley or, conversely, the need to accommodate formal coach provision within the Old Steine will need to be confirmed. The latter would impact on the space available for other users. Brighton & Hove City Council | 63

Madeira Drive events road closure. Maintenance of access for How the designs interface with the Pavilion Gardens are to be events is critical confirmed

Any closure or part-closure of Madeira Drive will need to support There is an opportunity to explore improvements to Pool Valley its wider regeneration rather than be implemented in isolation and consider how this functions in relation to the study area 64 | Valley Gardens Phase 3 Stage 1 Brighton & Hove City Council | 65

8.0 Monitoring Framework & Benefits Realisation 66 | Valley Gardens Phase 3 Stage 1 8.0 Monitoring Framework & Benefits Realisation

The scheme will be subject to post-implementation Table 14: Anticipated Project Outcomes and Benefits monitoring to assess the outcomes of the project and the realisation of the anticipated benefits. This chapter Outcome Benefit outlines these benefits and establishes a draft monitoring framework. Alongside this, the baseline data source for Safer road layout Reduce personal injury road traffic accidents, including those each evaluation criteria is identified. resulting in serious injury 8.1 Anticipated Benefits Direct and dedicated cycle Increase in cycling through the area infrastructure The anticipated benefits will be refined as the scheme designs and business case are developed. However, it is Better walking routes Increased footfall to and from Steine Gardens and the Seafront expected that the following will be important outcomes attractions, Lanes and St James’s Street and benefits to be realised by the project. Rationalised road layout More reliable bus journey times and improvements in bus infrastructure Rationalised road layout More reliable journey times

Increase in the amount and Improved user perceptions and more people using the space quality of public space Increase in green space and Contribute to better air quality smoother traffic flow Brighton & Hove City Council | 67

8.2 Monitoring Criteria and Baseline Data Table 15: Draft Monitoring Framework and Baseline Data Source A summary of the items that it is proposed will be Monitoring Criteria Baseline Data Source included in the monitoring framework for Phase 3 is provided in Table 15. These are intended to reflect the Peak period general traffic journey Satellite navigation system data anticipated outcomes and benefits detailed above and times allow comprehensive monitoring of them; however, it is recommended that BHCC agree the draft plan with the Journey time data collected as part of Increase in cycling through the area LEP alongside the submission of the draft business case Phase 1-2 baselining in September 2017 to ensure that any additional baseline Bus journey times To be supplied by Brighton & Hove Buses data requirements can be met. Table 15 also provides the source of the baseline surveys. Air quality No current monitoring in the study area but continued monitoring Full details of existing data and baseline data collection of adjacent sites by BHCC with plans to reinstate Old Steine requirements have been previously provided in a separate monitoring by August 2018 technical note issued in April 2018. Collision data Supplied by BHCC Post-implementation data will need to be collected during periods consistent with the original data source following a Pedestrian counts Pedestrian crossing surveys, June 2018 year of operation or at intervals to be agreed with funding Cycle counts BHCC seafront origin and destination data, September 2017 providers. Vehicle volumes ATCs, June 2018 Traffic speeds ATCs, June 2018 User perceptions and use of the Stage 1 consultation May-June 2018 space 68 | Valley Gardens Phase 3 Stage 1 Brighton & Hove City Council | 69

9. Conclusions & Next Steps 70 | Valley Gardens Phase 3 Stage 1 9. Conclusions and Next Steps

9.1 Report Summary This Stage 1 report has provided an assessment of the baseline conditions within the Valley Gardens Phase 3 project area. This has identified the challenges facing the study area at present and opportunities for improving conditions for all users, as well as identifying key functions which will need to be accommodated in future proposals. This assessment, together with BHCC policy and the project objectives, has been used to inform a series of design options. Scoring criteria were then developed to provide an initial view of how each option aligns with the objectives, policy and aspirations for the study area. As a result, a shortlist of three options has been identified for the main study area as follows: ●●Option 1 placing bus traffic on the west (as with Phase 1-2); ●●Option 4 relocating all traffic to the east; and ●●Option 6 removing formalised junctions and crossings. Three options for the A23/A259 seafront junction have also been shortlisted, including retaining the roundabout, signalisation or a less conventional layout. 9.2 Next Steps The three options shortlisted will be progressed to RIBA Stage 2 (concept) design. This will allow further detailed assessment to identify a preferred option and production of a LEP compliant business case. The next stage of the design process will consider the findings of the initial public and stakeholder consultation, with further discussion to be had with stakeholders around specific design elements. Brighton & Hove City Council | 71

Appendix A: BHCC Stage 3 Consultation Report 72 | Valley Gardens Phase 3 Stage 1

Valley Gardens Results Stage 3 Consultation report - June 2018 864 responses were received online (98.9%) and 11 paper copies were received Introduction (1.3%). Over 85% of respondents are city residents and 19.5% work in the area.

Works for phases 1 and 2 of Valley Gardens are due to be completed in Summer Respondents were asked how they use the space in the Old Steine to Palace Pier 2018. The design for improvements for the third phase of the Valley Gardens project, Area. A series of tick boxes were offered with an option to tell us of other ways they Old Steine to Palace Pier roundabout started Summer 2018. use the space. Travelling through the area were the most popular responses as below: An initial scoping consultation was designed to gather views as to how the area is used, what issues there are in travelling around in the area and priorities for Reason Number % improvements to the area. Results from this will feed into the design process for To get from A to B 747 85.4 Phase 3. To catch a bus 452 51.7

To attend events 303 34.6 Methodology To visit local businesses 252 28.8 A questionnaire was designed and set up to run online via the council’s consultation To visit tourist attractions 225 25.7 portal. Paper questionnaires were made available, together with freepost reply To relax 200 22.9 envelopes. Postcards, giving a link to the survey, were distributed via local events To meet friends 197 22.5 and delivered to local businesses in the area. The consultation was also publicised I live here 160 18.3 via the council’s website (including extensive information on the Valley Gardens To picnic/ have lunch 124 14.2 Project pages. Social media was particularly successful in spreading the word via the To work 104 11.9 council’s main Twitter feed and also the Transport and Parking Twitter feed. Details To visit the café 101 11.5 of the consultation were also discussed at the local Transport Partnership Meeting To walk my dog 30 3.4 and sent to local interest groups. Interest in the survey swelled in the last few days of the consultation (750 to 865 responses) following a paper presented to the To play sport eg Frisbee 11 1.3 Environment, Transport and Sustainability Committee on 26 June 2018. Details from To study 8 0.9 this Committee paper were reported in the Brighton Argus on 27 June. Other1 49 5.6 Total 2963 100 Headline Results Respondents were asked what form of transport they use the most in the area (875 • Over 57% of respondents heard about the consultation via social media. respondents gave 1222 answers to this question). • Overall travel experience in the area is more negative than positive: 46.7% (Poor/ Very Poor) v 23.5% (Good/ Very Good). Transport mode Number % • Travel experience varies by mode, with cyclists rating their travel experience as Walk 336 38.4 the worst at 72.2% (Poor/ Very poor) and bus users the best at 38.6% (Very Bus 294 33.6 good/ Good). Cycle 273 31.2 • The two most popular reasons for using the area is for travel: from A to B and/or to catch a bus. Car as driver 223 25.5 • 51.8% of respondents perceive that it’s too difficult to cross the road and 48.5% Car as passenger 36 4.1 that there’s too much traffic congestion. These two issues feature in the top 5 Taxi 20 2.3 across all main modes (walking, cycling, bus and car drivers). Motorbike 14 1.6 • Increasing the number and safety of cycle lanes received highest levels of priority Van 13 1.5 for improvement across all modes overall and for cyclists. Priorities for Other2 7 0.8 improvement for: Mobility Scooter 6 0.7 o car users are to improve road condition and to improve traffic flow Total 1222 100 o bus users are to allow for more direct walking routes and to limit street clutter 1 Includes: Cycle through it/past it (16), To access a local club eg shooting /swimming club (6),To lock my bike o walkers are to have more safe crossing points and to improve the quality and/or width of pavements up (2), To meet a taxi/coach (2), Sunbathe (1), Running (1), Own an arch (1), To see what state it is in (1) 2 Includes Skateboard (1), Drive a taxi (1), Electric Wheelchair (1) 1 2

Brighton & Hove City Council | 73

Overall travel experience in the area is more negative than positive: 46.7% (Poor/ Issues getting around Number %3 Very Poor) v 23.5% (Good/ Very Good). Too many barriers (eg fences/ guardrails) when walking 223 25.5 around Travel experience Number % Cost of buses 193 22.1 Very Good 32 3.8 Confusing for drivers to navigate 177 20.3 Good 165 19.7 Inconsiderately parked vehicles 146 16.7 Average 250 29.8 Slow bus journeys 144 16.5 Poor 252 30.1 Too much street clutter 143 16.3 Very Poor 139 16.6 Lack of cycle parking 141 16.1 Total 838 100 Not accessible enough/ lack of dropped kerbs 136 15.6 Problems with pavements 129 14.8 Travel experience varies by mode, with cyclists rating travel experience in the area Not enough seating/ resting points 127 14.5 the worst at 72.2% (Poor/ very poor) and bus users the best at 38.6% (Very good/ Fear of crime/ not enough security 121 13.8 good). Footpaths are too narrow 106 12.1 Not enough/ poor quality bus shelters 69 7.8 Very Very Not enough travel information/ wayfinding signs 59 6.8 Travel experience Good Good Average Poor Poor Total Not enough buses/ not enough direct routes 40 4.6 No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % Buses don't go where I need them to 40 4.6 Bus 23 8.3 84 30.3 86 31.0 64 23.1 20 7.2 277 Not enough real time information bus signs 22 2.5 Car (as driver) 7 3.3 52 24.4 74 34.7 58 27.2 22 10.3 213 Other4 173 19.8 Van/ Lorry 0 0 1 9.1 5 45.5 3 27.3 2 18.2 11 Total responses 4371 - Cycle 4 1.5 23 8.7 47 17.8 104 39.4 86 32.6 266 Car (as passenger) 2 6.1 4 12.1 10 30.3 15 45.5 2 6.1 33 Top five issues by transport mode stated:5 Motorbike 0 0 2 15.4 2 15.4 6 46.2 3 23.1 13 Walk 15 4.7 59 18.3 106 32.9 101 31.4 41 12.7 322 Bus Car Cycle Walk Taxi 3 20.0 5 33.3 4 26.7 3 20.0 0 0 15 Difficult to cross the Too much traffic Not enough cycle lanes Difficult to cross the Mobility scooter 0 0 1 16.7 3 50.0 1 16.7 1 16.7 6 road congestion or routes road Too much traffic Too much traffic Total 32 3.7 165 18.9 250 28.6 252 28.8 139 15.9 838 Poor Road Condition Unsafe to cycle congestion congestion Confusing for drivers to Difficult to cross the Slow bus journeys Too much pollution Respondents were asked to think about any problems they perceive with travelling in/ navigate road around the area, using their usual method of transport (respondents could tick more Too many barriers (eg than one answer): Too much pollution Cost of buses Poor Road Condition fences/ guardrails) when walking around Difficult to cross the Too much traffic Speed of traffic is too Cost of buses Issues getting around Number %3 road congestion high/ unsafe roads

Difficult to cross the road 453 51.8 Too much traffic congestion 424 48.4 Poor Road Condition 275 31.5 4 Other” comments were mainly repeated tick box answers apart from: Looks untidy / Feels unsafe to get Too much pollution 272 31.1 around / Too much anti-social behaviour / green space not maintained (11), Too many cyclists on pavements / Unsafe to cycle 263 30.1 cyclists are inconsiderate/ ignore traffic laws (10), Bus stops badly positioned/ confusing/ dangerous bus lanes / too many bus lanes (9), Not enough parking / motorcycle parking / high cost of parking (6), Too much traffic Not enough cycle lanes or routes 254 29.1 noise (4), Get rid of puffin crossings (3), too much development disrupting the area (2) Speed of traffic is too high/ unsafe roads 236 27.0 5 Bus, car (as driver), cycle and walk only as other modes have yielded low numbers. NB some respondents cited more than one transport mode as their main method of transport. 4 3 Percentage of respondents who stated this was a problem 3

74 | Valley Gardens Phase 3 Stage 1

‘Difficulty crossing the road’ and ‘too much traffic congestion’ feature in each of these 4 groups, whilst mode-specific issues also feature (eg bus users feel that slow bus Top five priorities for improvement by transport mode7: journeys are an issue).

Respondents were asked for their top priorities to help improve moving through, or Bus Car Cycle Walk using, the area. 875 respondents told us of 4108 top priorities (an average of 4.7 Allow for more direct each). These are as follows: Increase number of cycle Have more safe crossing walking routes eg less Improve road condition lanes points fences or guardrails Number of % of Limit street clutter (eg Less traffic congestion/ Improve quality of/ or How could area be improved? Improve cycle safety responses respondents A boards) improve traffic flow widen pavements Allow for more direct Better bus flow Limit street clutter (eg A Less traffic congestion/ Increase number of cycle lanes 284 32.5 walking routes eg less through the area boards) improve traffic flow Improve cycle safety 253 28.9 fences or guardrails Improve travel Limit street clutter (eg A boards) 241 27.5 Improve quality of/ or Reduce the speed of Improve air quality information/ wayfinding traffic Less traffic congestion/ improve traffic flow 239 27.3 widen pavements signs Allow for more direct walking routes eg less fences or Have more safe Reduce the speed of More trees and 238 27.2 Improve road layout guardrails crossing points traffic vegetation Improve quality of/ or widen pavements 220 25.1 Improve air quality 215 24.6 There are some common themes across transport modes shown in the table above Have more safe crossing points 212 24.2 but most priorities for improvement are mode-specific (eg bus users and walkers both Reduce the speed of traffic 209 23.9 feel that more safe crossing points or allow for more direct walking routes). More trees and vegetation 201 23.0 Improve road layout 189 21.6 Respondents could make further comments in an open text box. These have been grouped and themed as in the table below: Improve road condition 182 20.8

Better bus flow through the area 180 20.6 Number of Increase the amount of cycle parking 169 19.3 Theme times Improve travel information/ wayfinding signs 140 16.0 mentioned Less anti-social behaviour 127 14.5 Cycle lanes need to continuous/ dedicated/ marked in different colours 104 Improve/ increase event space 125 14.3 Need to improve pedestrian/ mobility network/ widen/ improve 62 More seating areas or resting points 116 13.3 pavements Improve road safety 112 12.8 Too much traffic heading into city centre/ seafront/ gridlock/ traffic 41 Better parking enforcement 111 12.7 heading to car parks/ need red route/ more hatched areas Increase the number of dropped kerbs to improve Area is currently car focussed/ have car free days 39 107 12.2 access Not safe for cycling/ cycles and buses are in conflict 37 Improve feeling of personal safety and security 98 11.2 Traffic lights are badly phased/ want lights with a countdown timer 23 Remove unnecessary signage/ make it easier to Roundabout needs improving 23 85 9.7 navigate Pedestrian crossings are confusing 19 Provide better/ more bus stops 1 0.1 Traffic is confusing/ comes from too many directions/ needs clear 18 Other6 54 6.2 signage Needs Park & Ride to take traffic off the roads 16 Total 4108 - Road condition is poor 15 Road junctions need improving 11

6 “Other” comments were mainly repeated tick box answers apart from: Better policing of inconsiderate Enforce parking/ especially taxis 10 cyclists (4), Separate cyclists and pedestrians / keep cyclists off the pavement (3), increase security / introduce More lighting is needed 9 more fences and lighting (3), Increase crossing time for pedestrians / remove puffin crossings (3), Allow motorcycles to use bus lanes / too many dedicated bus lanes (2), More maintenance / general upkeep of the 7 area (2) Bus, car (as driver), cycle and walk only as other modes have yielded low numbers. NB some respondents cited more than one transport mode as their main method of transport. 5 6

Brighton & Hove City Council | 75

Number of Theme times People became aware of the consultation as follows: mentioned Want cheaper buses 7 How did you become aware of this survey? Number % Don't make driving in the city more difficult 6 Social Media 501 57.3 Don't reduce traffic lanes 6 Word of mouth 143 16.3 Air quality needs to be improved 6 It's a historic area/ area needs to make a good impression 6 Council website 106 12.1 Allow for coach drop offs when Madeira Drive is closed 5 Attended an exhibition/event 14 1.6 It's okay as it is 4 Other 122 13.9 Needs central RTPI board (as at station) 4 Total 886 100 Needs a bus interchange to prevent traffic backing up from the East 4 There's too much anti-social behaviour/ more police needed 4 Types of respondents are as follows. People could choose more than one option eg Too much bus congestion 4 they could both live in, and work in, the area. Too many buses create accessibility problems at bus stops 3 Too many lanes 2 Are you: Number % Re-route cars underground 2 Resident 748 85.5 Pavements should be shared with cyclists 2 Not enough motorcycle parking 2 Work in the area 171 19.5 Clear up the place 2 Business owner 42 4.8 Reduce the number of buses going up North Street 2 Visitor 32 3.7 Other 17 1.9 Top comments by transport mode: Student at University/College 16 1.8 Student at an English Language School 1 0.1 Bus Car Cycle Walk

Too much traffic/ Need to improve Cycle Lanes need to be Need to improve heading to city centre/ pedestrian / mobility continuous/ dedicated/ pedestrian / mobility seafront causes network/ widen/ marked in a different network/ widen/ gridlock/ car parks improve pavements colour improve pavements need a rethink Cycle Lanes need to be Cycle Lanes need to be Traffic lights badly Not safe for cycling/ continuous/ continuous/ dedicated/ phased (want lights Cycles and buses are in dedicated/ marked in a marked in a different with countdown timer) conflict different colour colour Too much traffic/ Cycle Lanes need to be heading to city centre/ Area is currently car Area is currently car continuous/ seafront causes focused/ have car free focused/ have car free dedicated/ marked in a gridlock/ car parks days days different colour need a rethink Traffic comes from too Too much traffic/ Area is currently car many different heading to city centre/ Roundabout needs focused/ have car free directions/ too seafront causes improving days confusing/ needs clear gridlock/ car parks signage need a rethink Need to improve Traffic lights badly Enforce parking pedestrian / mobility Pedestrian crossings phased (want lights (especially taxis) network/ widen/ are confusing with countdown timer improve pavements 7 8

76 | Valley Gardens Phase 3 Stage 1

Equalities Monitoring Information Ethnic Origin Number % White English/ Welsh/ Scottish/ Northern Irish/ British 645 84.6

Irish 20 2.6 Age Number % White Gypsy or Irish Traveller 1 0.1 18-24 26 3.6 Any other white background 55 7.2 25-34 112 15.5 Bangladeshi 3 0.4 35-44 199 27.6 Indian 1 0.1 45-54 209 29.0 Asian or Pakistani 1 0.1 55-64 123 17.1 Asian British Chinese 1 0.1 65-74 41 4.7 Any other Asian background 2 0.3 75+ 11 1.5 African 1 0.1 Total 721 100 Black or Caribbean 0 0 Black British Any other Black background 2 0.3

Asian & White 10 1.3 Gender Number % Black African & White 2 0.3 Mixed Male 432 56.2 Black Caribbean & White 4 0.5 Female 329 42.8 Any other mixed background 11 1.4 Other 8 1.0 Any other Arab 2 0.3 Total 769 100 ethnic group Any other ethnic group 1 0.1 Total 762 100 Do you identify as the gender you were assigned at birth? Number % Yes 702 97.6 No 17 2.4 Sexual Orientation Number % Total 719 100 Bisexual 29 4.2 Gay Man 100 14.4 Heterosexual/ straight 520 74.7 Disability Number % Lesbian/ Gay Woman 39 5.6 Yes, a little 95 12.6 Other 8 1.1 Yes, a lot 36 4.8 Total 696 100 No 623 82.6 Total 754 100 Religious Belief Number %

Of those who answered “yes”, disabilities were as follows: I have no particular religion or belief 378 52.0 Buddhist 8 1.1 Christian 159 21.9 Please state the type of impairment which applies to you Number Hindu 0 0 Physical impairment 60 Jain 0 0 Sensory impairment 34 Jewish 4 0.6 Learning disability/ difficulty 24 Muslim 5 0.7 Long-standing illness 29 Pagan 7 1.0 Mental health condition 20 Sikh 0 0 Development condition 8 Agnostic 27 3.7 Autistic Spectrum 4 Atheist 116 16.0 Other 27 Other 16 2.2 Other philosophical belief 7 1.0 Total 727 100

9 10

Brighton & Hove City Council | 77

Are you a carer Number % Yes 60 8.0 No 687 92.0 Total 747 100

If yes, do you care for a: Number Parent 24 Partner or Spouse 13 Child with special needs 9 Friend 8 Other family member 7 Other 7 Total 68

Yes No Armed Forces Number % Number % Are you currently serving in the UK 5 0.7 666 99.3 armed forces? Have you ever served in the UK armed 28 4.2 638 95.8 forces? Are you a member of a current or former serviceman or woman’s 28 4.2 637 95.8 immediate family/ household?

78 | Valley Gardens Phase 3 Stage 1

Appendix B: Design Panel Report Brighton & Hove City Council | 79

VALLEY GARDENS PHASE 3 WORKSHOP

Venue: Hove Town Hall, Council Chamber Date: 3rd May 2018

ATTENDANCE:

Panel Annabel Keegan, Phil Jones Associates Ben Hamilton-Baillie, Hamilton-Baillie Associates Chris Schulte, Publica Eric Hallquist, AECOM

DSE Huw Trevorrow, DSE Helen Goodwin, DSE

VALLEY GARDENS PHASE 3 Mott Macdonald Robin Reed - Mott Macdonald, PSC Project Manager Colin Harwood - Mott Macdonald, Senior Transport Planner Stuart Croucher - Mott Macdonald, design lead WORKSHOP 3rd MARCH 2018 Alan Bain - Mott Macdonald, Design/model interface Ben Coleman - Mott Macdonald

BHCC Councillors Gill Mitchell - BHCC Councillor, ETS Committee Chair (Labour) Leo Littman - BHCC Councillor, ETS Committee Spokesperson (Green) Alan Robins - BHCC Councillor, Tourism, Development & Culture Committee Chair (Labour) Lee Wares - BHCC Councillor, ETS Committee Spokesperson (Conservative)

BHCC officers Howard Barden - Brighton & Hove City Council, Head of Tourism & Venues Paul Campbell - Brighton & Hove City Council, Parks Projects & Strategy Manager Clare Flowers - Brighton & Hove City Council, Principal Planning Officer Simon Hickmott - Brighton & Hove City Council, Transport Planner - Personalised Travel Planning Phil Osborne - Brighton & Hove City Council, Project Engineer Sean Power - Brighton & Hove City Council, Urban Traffic Control Engineer Andrew Renaut – Brighton & Hove City Council, HCC - Head of Transport Policy and Strategy Oliver Spratley - Brighton & Hove City Council, Principal Transport planner Ian Taylor - Brighton & Hove City Council, Events Manager Ben Thomas - Brighton & Hove City Council, Public Transport Officer Steve Tremlett - Brighton & Hove City Council, Principal Planning Officer Yann Vochelle - Brighton & Hove City Council, Senior Project Engineer Laura Wells - Brighton & Hove City Council, Principal Transport planner Andrew Westwood - Brighton & Hove City Council, Head of Traffic Management

1 80 | Valley Gardens Phase 3 Stage 1

INTRODUCTION PROCESS Brighton and Hove City Council are in the process of regenerating the Valley Gardens area. With Phase 1 and 2 detailed design approved by committee, this report focuses on Phase 3, from The Valley Gardens phase 3 site sits at the heart of Brighton, but the quality of the public realm Brighton Royal Pavilion to Brighton Palace Pier. This project aims to deliver the Council’s strategic has been gradually eroded over time. Despite containing large public green spaces and some goals as outlined in the Local Transport Plan LTP4: of the most beautiful buildings in the city, it is underused, severing rather than connecting surrounding areas. The opportunity to restore this site of international stature is therefore great, • Enhance the Public Realm and is one of the most important public realm projects in Brighton for generations. A suitable • Grow the Economy Sustainably process should be put in place that acknowledges the scale of the opportunity, and has clearly • Reduce Carbon Emissions established objectives to inform how the ambition can be achieved. The close involvement of a • Increase Safety & Security multidisciplinary team, including landscape expertise from the outset, will be an important aspect • Provide Equality, Mobility & Accessibility of this process. Wider area analysis and background studies should be produced, which can • Improve Health & Well-being then be used to test and develop proposed options. Although resolving the problematic nature • Encourage Respect & Responsibility of existing traffic and highways infrastructure are key, the starting point for the design process should be a much wider set of considerations: Valley Gardens is designated as SA (Special Area) 3 in the City Plan (2016) which states: • Identify the overriding ambition of this scheme and explore how can this help guide the The city council will work with public and private sector partners and the local community to enhance process – Successful precedents have generally been realised where a clearly communicated and regenerate the Valley Gardens area in an integrated manner that reinforces its strategic significance, public benefit has helped support the scheme through inevitable upheavals, for example, emphasises its historic and cultural character, reduces the adverse impact of vehicular traffic, improves local the need to regenerate the economy of a failing town centre. An equivalent message should air quality and creates a continuous green boulevard that reconnects the open space to the surrounding be established for the Valley Gardens scheme to describe its underlying purpose. A strong urban realm. narrative is important to help attract political champions, whose support will be instrumental to the success of the scheme. The lack of an identifiable principal civic gathering space in Brighton and Hove was raised, and the potential to create a ‘central park’. Strategies to achieve The seven overall aims are: such an ambition should be outlined, considering the role this space could play within the wider context of the seafront and town centre. The way public realm improvements and 1. Creating a vibrant and attractive new traffic upgrades could contribute to achieving this should be described, potentially exploring public park for the city centre. issues such as how the current 15.2% of area given over to green space could be increased, 2. Reducing the severance impact of traffic and how studies such as an arboricultural survey could help inform this. The type of facilities on the enjoyment of the public realm introduced and the way this space could be programmed and maintained should also through environmental and transport contribute to this overall strategy. A narrative where ‘no one loses out’ could be emphasised if improvements; appropriate, where conditions for cyclists and pedestrians are improved, and traffic capacities 3. Creating safe and legible links with are managed. adjoining areas; • Set strategic objectives – A list of guiding principles should be produced in order to 4. Enhancing the appearance and setting identify priorities within the project and provide a framework to analyse the advantages of historic buildings; and disadvantages of various proposed options. This could be linked to how the scheme can 5. Finding appropriate new uses for key satisfy the seven strategic goals in the Local Transport Plan, and could inform issues such as buildings; where the most valuable areas to improve pedestrian connectivity are located. 6. Accommodating provision for high • Establish a method to priorities and quantify issues – Controversies will be an inevitable quality outdoor events; and part of such a high profile project, therefore a clear argument to defend proposals from the 7. Enhancing the biodiversity of the area. outset will be required. What is good for movement is not necessarily good for place, and a mechanism to evaluate these issues should be established with a cost/benefit ratio.A list Mott Macdonald have been appointed a negotiables and non-negotiables should be established, for example, proposals such as to complete the preliminary design for opening up into Pavilion Gardens may have to be open to negotiation, but other issues such the Phase 3 project., and throughout the as providing more direct and instinctual north south and east west pedestrian routes may be process Design South East will run a more fundamental. Courtesy crossing with narrower carriageways and median strips on the series of workshops with input from an seafront may be a valid strategy, though the potential cost/benefit of this should be considered independent panel of experts. This report is alongside all the other strategic aims of the project. based on outcomes of the first workshop.

Image source: Brighton and Hove City Council Brighton & Hove City Council | 81

WIDER AREA CONTEXT

• Valley Gardens phases 1 and 2 – Valley Gardens phase 3 should be part of an overall PRECEDENTS masterplan in conjunction with phases 1 and 2, with strong principals set in place to guide this. Further research and collaboration with design teams from the previous projects should be conducted, as decisions taken in these stages will impact what can be done in phase 3. Blackpool seafront This strategy should consider public green spaces along the length of Valley Gardens not as Eric Hallquist, AECOM isolated blocks, but as part of a coherent strategy. This scheme was led by a regeneration agency, focusing • Pavilion Gardens future plans – Consultation is currently taking place on a future strategy on the improvement of an economically depressed area, for Pavilion Gardens, with the results as yet unknown. Phase 3 proposals must therefore therefore, wider issues than transport/street upgrades respond, taking into account a range of future scenarios, and perhaps proactively influencing were addressed. Stakeholder consultations were held the strategic direction of future designs of Pavilion Gardens. Collaboration between these on new retail/business opportunities and this helped two schemes will be important to establish principals such as if there is potential for Pavilion inform the development of a wider masterplan serving Gardens to be more open to Valley Gardens. to reconnect the city with the waterfront. Sea defences • Madeira Drive – There is a long-term ambitions to improve Madeira Drive, linked to the were increasingly being breached, leading AECOM to planned development in Brighton Marina. The way this relates to Valley Gardens should be develop a stepped system that as well as improving taken into account. potential flooding issues, provided a valuable new • Gateway to the sea/Coastal improvements – Improvements from Brighton station to the public space. Additional street upgrades and provision seafront are proposed. The way this relates to Valley Gardens should be taken into account, of a new park fed into the overall strategy. Image Source: Eric Hallquist particularly the way these projects link on the seafront and any potential future strategy that could stem from this. Liverpool • Pedestrian routes in the wider area – key routes such as those linking Brighton Town Centre Eric Hallquist, AECOM to Kemptown, and the Pavilion to the Palace Pier are convoluted and constrained. Further This project in the centre of Liverpool on the Mersey was understanding where and how people want to cross roads and move through the wider area in an area already undergoing significant regeneration. should inform issues such as the location and type of pedestrian crossings used. The potential The aim therefore was less about reviving a depressed to walk in a direct straight line from the pier towards Valley Gardens could be explored as part area, than it was about making the most of the ‘front of future proposals. door’ of the city, providing more valuable public spaces Valley Gardens phase 3 that can be used throughout the year, and improving the Valley Gardens phases 1 & 2 performance of tourist attractions. Where street upgrades Gateway to the sea were made a level shared surface was not created, but Gateway to the sea link Madeira Drive increased pedestrian priority was achieved through Pavilion Gardens measures such as the width of carriageways and the type of paving used. Key pedestrian routes Image Source: Eric Hallquist Green link Poynton Town Centre, Ben Hamilton-Baillie, Hamilton-Baillie Associates Cheshire, 27000 vehicles/day The brief for this project was to help revive a struggling town centre severed by a busy road, while maintaining existing traffic volumes. This was achieved by changing driver behaviour and encouraging a reduction in speed. Removing highways infrastructure such as barriers separating pedestrians, and measures such as reducing carriageway widths, resurfacing footways/carriageways and the inclusion of courtesy crossings helped reduce driver speeds to an average of around 16mph. The graphics of the road signs also played a part in this, avoiding signage traditionally associated with fast driving. Because vehicles can drive closer to one another Image Source: Ben Hamilton-Baillee at these speeds, overall capacity was maintained. OS Map source: Brighton and Hove City Council 82 | Valley Gardens Phase 3 Stage 1

Bexley Heath, Annabel Keegan, Phil Jones Associates, London, 20,000 vehicles/day OPPORTUNITIES This scheme along a busy bus route in outer London involved close collaboration with Transport for London, • Increase priority for pedestrians – Vehicular transport has been disproportionately prioritised allowing concerns over non-standard traffic solutions to over recent decades, with 34.2% of the area of the site given over to carriageways. A new be resolved. The aim of the project was to turn around hierarchy should be established, focusing on improving pedestrian and cycle infrastructure the pattern of shop closures and to get more people using and public transport. More efficient traffic layouts and a reduction in speeds could reduce the the high street again. The complex traffic junction has impact of vehicles without affecting capacity, but the trend for decreasing car use could be some parallels with the Brighton Palace Pier roundabout. taken into account if appropriate. Striped rather than full zebra crossings were used, and • Increase legibility – A principal issue with the existing vehicle and pedestrian network is that the relationship with the church and the high street it is not sufficiently legible and convenient. Pedestrians are forced to use complex and indirect was improved by removing barriers. Post-completion routes, and drivers are easily confused by the complex and inefficient layout. The opportunity modelling and analysis has helped inform the strengths to improve key routes such as a straight and direct pedestrian link from the Palace Pier and weaknesses of the scheme, helping to inform future towards Old Steine and the Pavilion is significant. projects. Image Source: Annabel Keegan • Improve east west pedestrian connections – Kemptown is currently severed from the town centre by busy roads that are difficult to cross, and this is likely to be contributing to Exhibition Road challenging retail conditions on St James’s Street. Addressing this issue could lead to economic Chris Schulte, London, benefits as well as improving the quality of the public realm. 8000 vehicles/day, 24,000 pedestrians/day • Improve safety – The current Brighton Palace Pier roundabout is the area with the most Tourist institutions increasingly opening on to Exhibition frequent collisions in the city. Confusing road layouts and crossings contribute to this problem, Road and very high pedestrian usage led to a competition and resolving these in a more logical and efficient way could improve safety. to redesign the street, won by Dixon Jones Architects. This • Improve the cycle network – Currently only 1.3% of space in the site is given over to cyclists, has improved the way the public realm interacts with and links to the sea front cycle route and north south routes along Valley Gardens are severed. neighbouring buildings and how the space can be used Future strategies should aim to better connect existing cycle routes. socially, with the new entrance courtyard to the V&A • Maximise the benefit of historic assets – This area is generally well preserved, with a designed by Amanda Levete Architects an example of this. significant quantity of historic and listed buildings. The poor quality of the surrounding public As with many other shared surface projects, disability realm is very damaging to this context however, forming a poor backdrop. The opportunity to and safety concerns were raised during the process, and address this through measures such as, clearing away street clutter blocking views, improving measures brought in to address these. Although the surface accessibility and removing barriers, and lighting strategies is significant. • Act as a catalyst for future seafront improvements – Although the area of seafront included appears continuous, it changes 6 or 7 times down its length Image Source: Chris Schulte in this scheme is relatively small, this is focal point in the wider seafront and improvements to accommodate changing conditions. The simplification of taking place here could act as a precedent for future work. Some issues, such as how driver the complex junction outside South Kensington station was behaviour can be influenced and pedestrian crossings improved will require a wider area an important to this scheme, increasing the amount of space vision if they are to be successfully incorporated into this scheme. Other issues, such as how for the large numbers of pedestrians using the station. beach access from the pier/esplanade can be improved, could be repeated along the length of Kings Road/Madeira Drive. Aldwych gyratory • Improve the relationship with Pavilion Gardens – There is an opportunity to positively Chris Schulte, London, 40,000 vehicles/day influence how these two neighbouring schemes relate to one another. For example, there may This proposal to reduce the impact of traffic in a historic be potential benefits in opening up connections to Pavilion Gardens. This strategy should aim area of London is currently being designed. This would to avoid the requirement for higher fences to mitigate existing issues within Pavilion Gardens, remove the inefficient gyratory system of traffic movement, considering options such as developing a landscaped civic space to the east of the Pavilion increasing space for pedestrians. As a key route in central whilst maintaining and protecting the Regency Gardens to the west. Alternative barriers such London, although the primary aim is to improve the as the use of water could be explored. quality of the public realm, in order to gain support from • Improve pedestrian crossings – Courtesy crossings are the most effective way to positively institutions such as TfL, proving issues such as bus journey influence driver behaviour, followed by zebra crossings. Signalised crossings can send a times can be maintained/reduced was essential to gain message to drivers that once a green light is shown, faster speeds are more permissible. support for the scheme. This architectural set piece has a Courtesy crossings can have the added benefit of reducing the amount of street clutter, with strong identity, therefore public realm proposals do not aim to compete too much with this, using relatively subtle changes in material and carriageway layouts. Brighton & Hove City Council | 83

reduced requirements for signage, poles and other equipment. This approach relies on a wide traffic speeds and improve safety levels on other schemes. This is counter-intuitive to many scale adaptation in driver behaviour however, and should not be implemented in an ad hoc however, and the potential for a backlash over these issues should be accounted for. way. A clear message must be sent to drivers that they are entering an area where different • Accommodating disability concerns – Improving conditions for pedestrians is not limited to expectations are being placed upon them, therefore, having a signalised crossing in close the creation of single shared surfaces, but if included as part of future proposals backed up by proximity, and within view of a courtesy crossing, for example, could confuse this message. wider area research and the overall objectives of the project, potential concerns from people As informal crossing has been proven to be safer than formal crossing in previous studies, the with disabilities should be taken into account. For examples, people with limited visibility provision of a refuge area in the middle of a carriageway (median strip) is encouraged where with a guide dog trained to use kerbs for example may be impacted. Measures to mitigate appropriate, particularly where there are multiple places where people want to cross the road. such impacts should be included where necessary. • Improve air quality – This is an increasing concern, and the current condition is poor with • Limitations brought about by underground servicing and utilities – Without detailed high traffic speeds and pedestrians often forced to wait for long periods of time on traffic knowledge of where underground utilities are located it is impossible to properly understand islands for signalised crossings. Decreasing the impact of traffic on pedestrians could help the feasibility of proposals. A survey should be undertaken to avoid working up a scheme in improve the air quality for those using the site. detail that may later turn out to be impossible. • Adjust driver behaviour in the wider city – At present drivers can be funnelled in from the • Requirement for additional security – Security concerns relating to terrorism may mean that outskirts of the city into Valley Gardens, leading to higher traffic volumes than may otherwise the additional protection of pedestrians in key areas may be more likely to be required in be necessary. The opportunity to address this issue in the wider context, making it less coming years. If barriers are required, careful consideration should be given to how these can instinctual for drivers to access the Valley Gardens area could hold significant benefits. be successfully integrated into the scheme, such as by becoming purposeful seating, rather • A contextual approach for Brighton – Any public realm proposals should specifically relate than ugly concrete barriers to movement. to the unique character of the city, and avoid imposing pre-resolved solutions from elsewhere. • Cost impacts on maintaining operability while undergoing construction – This can add up The quality of the surrounding architecture and landscape shape this character, and public to 25% to construction costs, therefore this should be taken into account in programming and realm proposals should help reveal, rather than compete with this, acting as a backdrop for cost forecast. key structure such as the Pavilion and the Palace Pier. • Budget limitations – Such a large and complex scheme will come with significant costs. A • The potential for timed closures – There are many global examples where roads are closed strategy that identifies the most prominent areas of the scheme and how budgets can best to traffic on weekends or bank holidays when pedestrian numbers are higher and vehicles be distributed to account for this should be developed. Expensive materials can be avoided numbers lower. The potential to incorporate this into future strategies could be explored, where necessary, for example, a 100x200mm concrete block can be a good alternative to considering how traffic modelling undertaken could support this, and how this could granite. However, materials that are not sufficiently robust for heavy used areas such as resin contribute to improvements in air quality. bound gravel should be avoided. • Increase funding through partnerships – The scale and complexity of this scheme will lead to high costs. Exploration into the potential to forming partnerships with additional bodies such as major landowners in the area could help top up funding and increase local support.

RECOMMENDED STUDIES The following areas of research and analysis are recommended to inform future proposals: CONSTRAINTS • Pedestrian movement in the wider area • Establishing a clear purpose to encourage an active public realm – While in many cities an • Traffic movement in the wider area (particularly how Valley Gardens is approached from the asset such as Valley Gardens may be the main attraction, in Brighton this must compete with north) the beach. Therefore, many people are less likely to use this as an amenity space than may • Services/utilities survey otherwise. The role of this public space within the context of the town centre and seafront • Arboricultural survey must therefore be questioned, taking account issues such as programming, provision of • Map existing cycle routes north and south of the site and explore how these should be facilities, and how it can function during winter as well as summer months to help create repaired and connected. activity. • A mapping exercise to identify valued heritage and a strategy to enhance existing assets • Traffic capacity – There is an on-going trend for reduction in car use and opportunities must (access, sight lines, lighting, etc) be taken to further improve the pedestrian and cycle network. As with Valley Gardens phases • Strategy to engage with Pavilion Gardens 1 and 2, any changes to traffic management must be carefully modelled and tested. • Map accident hotspots to inform how proposals can address this • Accommodating drop off to hotels, coach parking, and bus layovers – Existing facilities • Audit of large-scale developments and major landowners in the wider area, and consultation currently located in the area will generally have to be accommodated in future proposals, regarding potential partnerships though more sensitive and efficient strategies can be explored. • Fears over the removal of safety equipment – Decreasing segregation between vehicles and pedestrians through measures such as the removal of barriers has been shown to help reduce 84 | Valley Gardens Phase 3 Stage 1

PHASEPhase 3 3 DRAFT Objectives OBJECTIVES subject committeeSUBJECT COMMITTEE approval June APPROVAL 26th 2018 JUNE 26th 2018

A. Improve north-south connections Design Objective 1: To B. Improve east-west connections improve the quality of the C. Maximise pedestrian capacity pedestrian experience D. Improve connections to green space E. Improve connections to the Lanes A. Provide a continuous north-south connection Design Objective 2: To B. Improve east-west connections improve the quality of the C. Provision of segregated cycle infrastructure cycling experience D. Improve cycle crossings to seafront cycle route E. Opportunities for cycle parking / cycle hire facilities A. Maintain or Improve bus journey times Design Objective 3: To B. Provide sufficient bus stop capacity in appropriate locations improve the experience C. Provide sufficient bus stand / layover capacity for public transport users D. Provide facilities for private coaches E. Provide sufficient taxi ranks in appropriate locations A. Improve north - south general traffic journey times Design Objective 4: To B. Improve east - west general traffic journey times reduce the impact of C. Improve driver legibility / simplify layout vehicle congestion D. Retain current vehicle movement options E. Achieve 'smoother' traffic flow A. Create space for new public realm B. Provide connectivity between green / public spaces Design Objective 5: To improve the public realm C. Improve setting of and links to the Royal Pavilion D. Improve setting of historic buildings on Old Steine E. Retain and enhance quality / capacity of event spaces A. Reduce occurrence and severity of vehicle / P2W collisions A. Reduce occurrence and severity of pedestrian collisions Design Objective 6: To A. Reduce occurrence and severity of cyclist collisions improve road safety D. Maintain appropriate vehicle speeds by design E. Improve perception of safety for all road users A. Improve air quality B. Reduce noise Design Objective 7: To C. Retain mature trees enhance the environment D. Contribute to biodiversity E. Create space for additional tree planting / landscaping A. Improve access for mobility impaired users Design Objective 8: To B. Improve access for visually impaired users provide an inclusive and C. Provision of wide unobstructed footways accessible space D. Provide / maintain access to essential services E. Provide opportunities for resting / seating

Brighton & Hove City Council | 85

Appendix C: Feasibility Plans 86 | Valley Gardens Phase 3 Stage 1

Old Steine Area Option 1 Applies the original concept for Valley Gardens with buses on west, general traffic on the east

© Crown copyright and database rights (2018) OS (100020999) © Crown copyright and database rights (2018) OS (100020999) Option 1A (with continental-style roundabout at A23/A259 Option 1B (with standard signalised junction at A23/A259 seafront junction) seafront junction) Brighton & Hove City Council | 87

© Crown copyright and database rights (2018) OS (100020999) © Crown copyright and database rights (2018) OS (100020999) © Crown copyright and database rights (2018) OS (100020999) Option 1C (with signalised junction and scramble crossing at Option 1D (with informal junction layout at A23/A259 sea- Option 1E (with rationalised junction at A23/A259 seafront A23/A259 seafront junction) front junction) junction) 88 | Valley Gardens Phase 3 Stage 1 Old Steine Area Option 2 Applies the original concept for Valley Gardens with buses on west, general traffic on the east with the additional removal of the St James’s Street link

© Crown copyright and database rights (2018) OS (100020999) © Crown copyright and database rights (2018) OS (100020999) Option 2A (with European-style roundabout at A23/A259 Option 2B (with standard signalised junction at A23/A259 seafront junction) seafront junction) Brighton & Hove City Council | 89

© Crown copyright and database rights (2018) OS (100020999) © Crown copyright and database rights (2018) OS (100020999) © Crown copyright and database rights (2018) OS (100020999) Option 2C (with signalised junction and scrambled crossing Option 2D (with informal junction layout at A23/A259 sea- Option 2E (with rationalised junction at A23/A259 seafront at A23/A259 seafront junction) front junction) junction) 90 | Valley Gardens Phase 3 Stage 1

Old Steine Area Option 3 Reverses the original concept for Valley Gardens with buses on the east and general traffic on the west

© Crown copyright and database rights (2018) OS (100020999) © Crown copyright and database rights (2018) OS (100020999) Option 3A (with European-style roundabout at A23/A259 Option 3B (with standard signalised junction at A23/A259 seafront junction) seafront junction) Brighton & Hove City Council | 91

© Crown copyright and database rights (2018) OS (100020999) © Crown copyright and database rights (2018) OS (100020999) © Crown copyright and database rights (2018) OS (100020999) Option 3C (with signalised junction and scrambled crossing Option 3D (with informal junction layout at A23/A259 sea- Option 3E (with rationalised junction at A23/A259 seafront at A23/A259 seafront junction) front junction) junction) 92 | Valley Gardens Phase 3 Stage 1

Old Steine Area Option 4 Relocates all traffic to the eastern side of the gardens

© Crown copyright and database rights (2018) OS (100020999) © Crown copyright and database rights (2018) OS (100020999) Option 4A (with European-style roundabout at A23/A259 Option 4B (with standard signalised junction at A23/A259 seafront junction) seafront junction) Brighton & Hove City Council | 93

© Crown copyright and database rights (2018) OS (100020999) © Crown copyright and database rights (2018) OS (100020999) © Crown copyright and database rights (2018) OS (100020999) Option 4C (with signalised junction and scrambled crossing Option 4D (with informal junction layout at A23/A259 sea- Option 4E (with rationalised junction at A23/A259 seafront at A23/A259 seafront junction) front junction) junction) 94 | Valley Gardens Phase 3 Stage 1

Old Steine Area Option 5 Relocates all traffic to the western side of the gardens

© Crown copyright and database rights (2018) OS (100020999) © Crown copyright and database rights (2018) OS (100020999) © Crown copyright and database rights (2018) OS (100020999) Option 5A (with European-style roundabout at A23/A259 Option 5B (with standard signalised junction at A23/A259 Option 5C (with signalised junction and scrambled crossing seafront junction) seafront junction) at A23/A259 seafront junction) Brighton & Hove City Council | 95

© Crown copyright and database rights (2018) OS (100020999) © Crown copyright and database rights (2018) OS (100020999) © Crown copyright and database rights (2018) OS (100020999) Option 5D (with informal junction layout at A23/A259 sea- Option 5E (with rationalised junction at A23/A259 seafront Option 5F (with the introduction of a ‘turbo’ roundabout at front junction) junction) the A23/A259 seafront junction) 96 | Valley Gardens Phase 3 Stage 1

Old Steine Area Option 6 Applies an informal traffic arrangement throughout the gardens

© Crown copyright and database rights (2018) OS (100020999) © Crown copyright and database rights (2018) OS (100020999) © Crown copyright and database rights (2018) OS (100020999) Option 6A (with European-style roundabout at A23/A259 Option 6B/ 6C (with signalised junction at A23/A259 sea- Option 6D (with informal junction layout at A23/A259 sea- seafront junction) front junction. NB Option 6B shown) front junction) Brighton & Hove City Council | 97

© Crown copyright and database rights (2018) OS (100020999) © Crown copyright and database rights (2018) OS (100020999) © Crown copyright and database rights (2018) OS (100020999) Option 6E (with rationalised junction at A23/A259 seafront Option 6F (with the introduction of a ‘turbo’ roundabout at Option 6G (informal arrangement continuing through to the junction) the A23/A259 seafront junction) A259 junction) 98 | Valley Gardens Phase 3 Stage 1

Old Steine Area Option 7 Retains the existing general layout but with a simplified two-way operation on all roads

© Crown copyright and database rights (2018) OS (100020999) © Crown copyright and database rights (2018) OS (100020999) Option 7A (with European-style roundabout at A23/A259 Option 7B (with standard signalised junction at A23/A259 seafront junction) seafront junction) Brighton & Hove City Council | 99

© Crown copyright and database rights (2018) OS (100020999) © Crown copyright and database rights (2018) OS (100020999) © Crown copyright and database rights (2018) OS (100020999) Option 7C (with signalised junction and scrambled crossing Option 7D (with informal junction layout at A23/A259 sea- Option 7E (with rationalised junction at A23/A259 seafront at A23/A259 seafront junction) front junction) junction) 100 | Valley Gardens Phase 3 Stage 1

Old Steine Area Option 8 Provides a rationalisation of the existing layout

© Crown copyright and database rights (2018) OS (100020999) © Crown copyright and database rights (2018) OS (100020999) © Crown copyright and database rights (2018) OS (100020999) Option 8A (with European-style roundabout at A23/A259 Option 8B (with standard signalised junction at A23/A259 Option 8C (with signalised junction and scrambled crossing seafront junction) seafront junction) at A23/A259 seafront junction) Brighton & Hove City Council | 101

Option 8D (with informal junction layout at A23/A259 sea- Option 8E (with rationalised junction at A23/A259 seafront Option 8F (with the introduction of a ‘turbo’ roundabout at front junction) junction) the A23/A259 seafront junction) 102 | Valley Gardens Phase 3 Stage 1

Appendix D: Policy Basis for Assessment Criteria Brighton & Hove City Council | 103

Design Objective 1: To improve the quality of Design Objective 2: To improve the quality of Design Objective 3: To improve the experience Policy Document the pedestrian experience the cycling experience for public transport users

Policy Criteria/ Aspiration City Plan Plan Local Transport or Guidance Strategy LEP north-south Improve A. connections east-west Improve B. connections pedestrian Maximise C. capacity connections to Improve D. green space connections to Improve E. Lanes the a continuous Provide A. connection north-south east-west Improve B. connections segregated of Provision C. infrastructure cycle cycle Improve D. crossings seafront to route cycle OpportunitiesE. for cycle parking cycle / hire facilities or Improve Maintain A. bus journey times ProvideB. sufficient bus capacity in stop locations appropriate ProvideC. sufficient bus layover capacity / stand ProvideD. facilities for coachesprivate ProvideE. sufficient taxi ranks appropriate in locations Create an attractive city park P P Enhance role of Old Steine as a visitor space P P P Reduce traffic severance P P P P Create safe and legible links to adjoining areas including seafront P P P P P P P P P Create safe and legible links to adjoining areas including the Lanes P P P P P P P Create safe and legible links to adjoining areas including St James's Street P P P P P P Reduce traffic congestion/ improve journey times P P P P P Provide better public transport (including coaches and taxis) P P P Encourage healthy travel choices P P P P P P P P P P P P Enhance appearance and setting of historic buildings P P Contribute to economic growth P P Support provision of employment space and housing P Find new uses for key buildings P Accommodate outdoor events P Create safe and welcoming streets and neighbourhoods for movement and use P P P P P P Regenerate Madeira Drive P Improve the environment, including air and noise quality P P P Encourage biodiversity Create an inclusive transport system P P Scheme provides value for money P

Design Objective 4: To reduce the impact of Design Objective 5: To improve the public Policy Document vehicle congestion realm Design Objective 6: To improve road safety

Policy Criteria/ Aspiration City Plan Plan Local Transport or Guidance Strategy LEP - south north Improve A. journey traffic general times - west east Improve B. journey traffic general times ImproveC. driver legibility simplify layout/ vehicle current Retain D. options movement 'smoother' Achieve E. traffic flow space new Create for A. realm public connectivity Provide B. public green / between spaces and of setting Improve C. RoyalPavilion the links to D. Improve setting of on Old buildings historic Steine and enhance Retain E. event capacity of / quality spaces Reduce occurrenceA. vehicle/ and severity of wheelerpowered two collisions Reduce occurrenceB. pedestrian and severity of collisions ReduceC. occurrence cyclist of severity and collisions appropriate Maintain D. vehicle speeds by design of perception Improve E. road users all for safety Create an attractive city park P P P Enhance role of Old Steine as a visitor space P P P P P Reduce traffic severance P P P P P Create safe and legible links to adjoining areas including seafront P P P Create safe and legible links to adjoining areas including the Lanes P P P Create safe and legible links to adjoining areas including St James's Street P P P Reduce traffic congestion/ improve journey times P P P P P P Provide better public transport (including coaches and taxis) P Encourage healthy travel choices P P P Enhance appearance and setting of historic buildings P P P P Contribute to economic growth P P P P P P P Support provision of employment space and housing P P Find new uses for key buildings P P P Accommodate outdoor events P P Create safe and welcoming streets and neighbourhoods for movement and use P P P P P P Regenerate Madeira Drive P P P Improve the environment, including air and noise quality P P P Encourage biodiversity Create an inclusive transport system P P Scheme provides value for money P 104 | Valley Gardens Phase 3 Stage 1

Design Objective 7: To enhance the Design Objective 8: To provide an inclusive and Policy Document environment accessible space

Policy Criteria/ Aspiration City Plan Plan Local Transport or Guidance Strategy LEP quality air Improve A. Reduce noise B. trees mature Retain C. D. Contribute to biodiversity space Create for E. additionaltree planting / landscaping access Improve for A. users impaired mobility access Improve for B. users visually impaired ProvisionC. wide of footways unobstructed ProvideD. maintain / access essential to services opportunities Provide E. for resting / seating Create an attractive city park P P P Enhance role of Old Steine as a visitor space P Reduce traffic severance P P P Create safe and legible links to adjoining areas including seafront P P P Create safe and legible links to adjoining areas including the Lanes P P Create safe and legible links to adjoining areas including St James's Street P P Reduce traffic congestion/ improve journey times P P Provide better public transport (including coaches and taxis) P Encourage healthy travel choices P P P Enhance appearance and setting of historic buildings P P Contribute to economic growth P P P Support provision of employment space and housing P Find new uses for key buildings P Accommodate outdoor events P Create safe and welcoming streets and neighbourhoods for movement and use P Regenerate Madeira Drive P Improve the environment, including air and noise quality P P P P P Encourage biodiversity P P P Create an inclusive transport system P P P P P P Scheme provides value for money P Brighton & Hove City Council | 105

Appendix E: Full Option Sifting Assessment 106 | Valley Gardens Phase 3 Stage 1

Assessment Summary Weighted score % 1C- Buses on west with scrambled junction 490 72.6% 1B- Buses on west with signalised junction 486 71.9% 6G- Informal layout with informal roundabouts junction 484 71.7% 6A- Informal layout with continental roundabout 483 71.6% 4C- All traffic on east with scrambled junction 482 71.4% 4B- All traffic on east with standard signalised junction 480 71.1% 6B- Informal layout with scrambled junction 474 70.1% 6C- Informal layout with standard signalised junction 474 70.1% 4A- All traffic on east with continental roundabout 465 68.9% 1A- Buses on west with continental roundabout 465 68.8% 5B- All traffic on west with standard signalised junction 462 68.4% 5C- All traffic on west with scrambled junction 461 68.3% 6E- Informal layout with rationalised junction 459 68.0% 1E- Buses on west with rationalised junction 458 67.9% 6D- Informal layout 456 67.6% 2C- Buses on west/ St James's St link removed with scrambled junction 455 67.3% 2B- Buses on west/ St James's St link removed with standard signalised junction 452 66.9% 6F- Informal layout with turbo roundabout 441 65.3% 1D- Buses on west with informal junction 438 64.9% 5A- All traffic on west with continental roundabout 436 64.6% 2A- Buses on west/ St James's St link removed with continental roundabout 433 64.1% 3C- Buses on east with scrambled junction 431 63.9% 4D- All traffic on east with informal junction 431 63.9% 4E- All traffic on east with rationalised junction 431 63.9% 2E- Buses on west/ St James's St link removed with rationalised junction 429 63.6% 3B- Buses on east with standard signalised junction 428 63.4% 5E- All traffic on west with rationalised junction 421 62.4% 3A- Buses on east with continental roundabout 419 62.1% 2D- Buses on west/ St James's St link removed with informal junction 419 62.0% 5F- All traffic on west with turbo roundabout 411 60.9% 3E- Buses on east with rationalised junction 407 60.2% 3D- Buses on east with informal junction 405 60.0% 5D- All traffic on west with informal junction 404 59.9% 8C- Rationalised with scrambled junction 369 54.7% 8B- Rationalised with standard signalised junction 366 54.2% 8E- Rationalised Old Steine and junction 354 52.4% 8D- Rationalised with informal junction 345 51.0% 8A-Rationalised with continental roundabout 343 50.8% 8F- Rationalised with turbo roundabout 342 50.7% 7C- Two way with scrambled junction 339 50.1% 7A- Two way with rationalised junction 333 49.3% *Some scores show rounding 7B- Two way with standard signalised junction 330 48.9% error where independent 7D- Two way with informal junction 321 47.6% scores were combined. 7E- Two way with rationalised junction 319 47.3% Brighton & Hove City Council | 107

Score: 1=Very Poor; 2=Poor; 3=Average/Neutral; 4=Good; 5=Very Good

Weighting Design Objective Assessment Criteria 1=LOW 4=HIGH 1A- Buses on west with 1A- Buses with on west roundabout continental 1B- Buses with on west junction signalised 1C- Buses with on west junction scrambled 1D- Buses with on west junction informal 1E- Buses with on west junction rationalised 2A- St Buses on west/ removed link St James's with continental roundabout 2B- St Buses on west/ removed link St James's standard signalised with junction 2C- St Buses on west/ removed link St James's junction scrambled with Score Wtd Score Wtd Score Wtd Score Wtd Score Wtd Score Wtd Score Wtd Score Wtd A. Improve north-south connections 4 5 18 5 20 5 20 3 10 4 16 4 16 5 20 5 20 Design Objective 1: To B. Improve east-west connections 3 5 14 4 12 5 15 4 12 4 12 5 15 4 12 5 15 improve the quality of the C. Maximise pedestrian capacity 3 4 12 3 9 3 9 3 9 3 9 4 12 4 12 4 12 pedestrian experience D. Improve connections to green space 4 4 16 4 16 4 16 4 16 4 16 4 16 4 16 4 16 E. Improve connections to the Lanes 3 3 9 3 9 3 9 3 9 3 9 3 9 3 9 3 9 A. Provide a continuous north-south connection 4 4 16 5 18 5 18 4 16 3 12 4 16 4 16 4 16 Design Objective 2: To B. Improve east-west connections 3 4 12 4 11 4 12 3 9 3 9 5 14 4 12 4 12 improve the quality of the C. Provision of segregated cycle infrastructure 3 4 12 4 12 4 12 4 12 4 12 4 12 4 12 4 12 cycling experience D. Improve cycle crossings to seafront cycle route 4 4 16 4 16 4 16 3 12 3 12 4 16 4 16 4 16 E. Opportunities for cycle parking / cycle hire facilities 3 4 12 4 12 4 12 4 12 4 12 4 12 4 12 4 12 A. Maintain or Improve bus journey times 4 3 12 2 8 2 8 4 16 4 16 3 10 3 10 3 10 Design Objective 3: To B. Provide sufficient bus stop capacity in appropriate locations 4 3 12 3 12 3 12 3 12 3 12 3 12 3 12 3 12 improve the experience for C. Provide sufficient bus stand / layover capacity 2 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 public transport users D. Provide facilities for private coaches 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 E. Provide sufficient taxi ranks in appropriate locations 2 4 8 4 8 4 8 4 8 4 8 3 6 3 6 3 6 A. Improve north - south general traffic journey times 3 3 9 2 6 2 6 3 9 3 9 3 8 3 8 3 8 Design Objective 4: To B. Improve east - west general traffic journey times 3 2 6 2 6 2 6 3 9 3 9 1 3 2 6 2 6 reduce the impact of vehicle C. Improve driver legibility / simplify layout 2 2 4 3 6 3 6 1 2 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 congestion D. Retain current vehicle movement options 2 4 8 4 8 4 8 4 8 4 8 3 6 3 6 3 6 E. Achieve 'smoother' traffic flow 4 3 12 4 16 4 16 3 12 3 12 3 12 2 6 2 6 A. Create space for new public realm 4 3 12 3 12 3 12 3 12 3 12 4 16 4 16 4 16 B. Provide connectivity between green / public spaces 4 4 16 4 16 4 16 4 16 4 16 4 16 4 16 4 16 Design Objective 5: To C. Improve setting of and links to the Royal Pavilion 2 4 8 4 8 4 8 4 8 4 8 1 2 1 2 1 2 improve the public realm D. Improve setting of historic buildings on Old Steine 2 3 6 3 6 3 6 3 6 3 6 3 6 3 6 3 6 E. Retain and enhance quality / capacity of event spaces 3 4 12 4 12 4 12 4 12 4 12 3 9 4 12 4 12 A. Reduce occurrence and severity of vehicle/ powered two wheeler collisions 4 3 12 4 16 4 16 3 12 3 12 3 12 3 12 3 12 B. Reduce occurrence and severity of pedestrian collisions 4 4 16 5 20 5 20 3 12 3 12 4 16 4 16 4 16 Design Objective 6: To C. Reduce occurrence and severity of cyclist collisions 4 4 16 5 20 5 20 3 12 3 12 4 16 4 16 4 16 improve road safety D. Maintain appropriate vehicle speeds by design 4 4 16 4 16 4 16 4 16 4 16 3 12 4 16 4 16 E. Improve perception of safety for all road users 4 4 16 4 16 4 16 3 12 4 16 3 12 3 12 3 12 A. Improve air quality 4 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 8 B. Reduce noise 2 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 Design Objective 7: To C. Retain mature trees 4 5 20 5 20 5 20 5 20 5 20 5 20 5 20 5 20 enhance the environment D. Contribute to biodiversity 2 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 3 5 3 6 3 6 E. Create space for additional tree planting / landscaping 2 2 4 4 8 4 8 2 4 2 4 2 4 4 8 4 8 A. Improve access for mobility impaired users 4 3 12 4 16 4 16 3 12 4 16 3 12 3 12 3 12 Design Objective 8: To B. Improve access for visually impaired users 4 2 8 3 12 3 12 2 8 3 12 2 8 3 10 3 10 provide an inclusive and C. Provision of wide unobstructed footways 3 4 12 4 12 4 12 4 12 4 12 4 12 4 12 4 12 accessible space D. Provide / maintain access to essential services 2 5 10 5 10 5 10 5 10 5 10 4 8 4 8 4 8 E. Provide opportunities for resting / seating 4 4 16 4 16 4 16 4 16 4 16 4 16 4 16 4 16 Sub Total 135 441 141 462 143 466 128 414 132 430 126 417 130 428 131 431 Cost 1=High cost to 5=Low cost 4 3 12 3 12 3 12 3 12 3 12 2 8 3 12 3 12 Deliverability 1=Hard to 5=Easy 4 3 12 3 12 3 12 3 12 4 16 2 8 3 12 3 12 Sub Total 6 24 6 24 6 24 6 24 7 28 4 16 6 24 6 24

Total adjusted weighted score 141 465 147 486 149 490 134 438 139 458 130 433 136 452 137 455 108 | Valley Gardens Phase 3 Stage 1

Score: 1=Very Poor; 2=Poor; 3=Average/Neutral; 4=Good; 5=Very Good

Design Objective Assessment Criteria 2D- St Buses on west/ removed link St James's junction informal with 2E- St Buses on west/ removed link St James's junction rationalised with 3A- Buses on with east roundabout continental 3B- Buses on with east standard signalised junction 3C- Buses on with east junction scrambled 3D- Buses on with east junction informal 3E- Buses on with east junction rationalised 4A- All traffic on east with roundabout continental Score Wtd Score Wtd Score Wtd Score Wtd Score Wtd Score Wtd Score Wtd Score Wtd A. Improve north-south connections 4 16 4 16 3 12 4 16 4 16 3 10 3 12 5 18 Design Objective 1: To B. Improve east-west connections 4 12 4 12 4 12 3 9 4 12 3 9 3 8 4 12 improve the quality of the C. Maximise pedestrian capacity 4 12 4 12 3 9 3 9 3 9 3 9 3 9 4 12 pedestrian experience D. Improve connections to green space 4 16 4 16 4 16 4 16 4 16 4 16 4 16 5 20 E. Improve connections to the Lanes 3 9 3 9 2 6 2 6 2 6 2 6 2 6 5 15 A. Provide a continuous north-south connection 4 16 4 16 4 16 4 16 4 16 4 16 4 16 3 12 Design Objective 2: To B. Improve east-west connections 4 12 4 12 3 8 3 9 3 9 3 8 3 8 3 9 improve the quality of the C. Provision of segregated cycle infrastructure 4 12 4 12 4 12 4 12 4 12 4 12 4 12 4 12 cycling experience D. Improve cycle crossings to seafront cycle route 3 12 2 8 4 16 4 16 4 16 3 12 2 8 3 12 E. Opportunities for cycle parking / cycle hire facilities 4 12 4 12 4 11 4 11 4 11 4 11 4 11 5 15 A. Maintain or Improve bus journey times 3 12 3 12 3 10 2 8 2 8 4 14 3 12 2 6 Design Objective 3: To B. Provide sufficient bus stop capacity in appropriate locations 3 12 3 12 3 10 3 12 3 12 3 12 3 12 2 8 improve the experience for C. Provide sufficient bus stand / layover capacity 2 4 2 4 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 public transport users D. Provide facilities for private coaches 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 E. Provide sufficient taxi ranks in appropriate locations 3 6 3 6 3 6 3 6 3 6 3 6 3 6 2 4 A. Improve north - south general traffic journey times 3 9 3 9 2 6 2 5 2 5 2 6 2 6 2 6 Design Objective 4: To B. Improve east - west general traffic journey times 2 5 2 6 2 6 2 6 2 6 3 9 2 6 2 6 reduce the impact of vehicle C. Improve driver legibility / simplify layout 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 5 10 congestion D. Retain current vehicle movement options 3 6 3 6 4 8 4 8 4 8 4 8 4 8 3 6 E. Achieve 'smoother' traffic flow 2 8 4 16 4 16 2 8 2 8 3 12 3 12 4 16 A. Create space for new public realm 4 16 4 16 3 12 3 12 3 12 3 12 3 12 5 20 B. Provide connectivity between green / public spaces 4 16 4 16 4 16 4 16 4 16 4 16 4 16 5 20 Design Objective 5: To C. Improve setting of and links to the Royal Pavilion 1 2 1 2 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 4 8 improve the public realm D. Improve setting of historic buildings on Old Steine 3 6 3 6 3 6 3 6 3 6 3 6 3 6 4 7 E. Retain and enhance quality / capacity of event spaces 3 9 4 12 4 12 4 12 4 12 4 12 4 12 5 15 A. Reduce occurrence and severity of vehicle/ powered two wheeler collisions 3 12 3 10 3 12 4 16 4 16 3 12 3 12 3 12 B. Reduce occurrence and severity of pedestrian collisions 3 12 3 10 4 16 4 16 4 16 3 12 3 12 4 16 Design Objective 6: To C. Reduce occurrence and severity of cyclist collisions 3 12 3 10 4 16 4 16 4 16 3 12 3 12 4 16 improve road safety D. Maintain appropriate vehicle speeds by design 3 12 3 12 4 16 4 16 4 16 4 16 4 16 3 12 E. Improve perception of safety for all road users 3 12 3 12 3 12 4 16 4 16 3 10 3 12 3 12 A. Improve air quality 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 8 3 10 B. Reduce noise 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 3 5 Design Objective 7: To C. Retain mature trees 5 20 5 20 4 16 4 16 4 16 4 16 4 16 5 20 enhance the environment D. Contribute to biodiversity 3 6 3 6 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 5 9 E. Create space for additional tree planting / landscaping 4 8 4 8 3 6 3 6 3 6 3 6 3 6 4 8 A. Improve access for mobility impaired users 2 8 2 8 3 12 4 16 4 16 3 12 3 12 3 10 Design Objective 8: To B. Improve access for visually impaired users 2 8 2 8 3 12 3 12 3 12 3 12 3 12 3 10 provide an inclusive and C. Provision of wide unobstructed footways 4 12 4 12 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 4 12 accessible space D. Provide / maintain access to essential services 4 8 4 8 5 10 5 10 5 10 5 10 5 10 3 5 E. Provide opportunities for resting / seating 4 16 4 16 4 16 4 16 4 16 4 16 4 16 4 16 Sub Total 124 403 125 405 121 399 122 404 123 407 118 385 116 379 138 445 Cost 1=High cost to 5=Low cost 2 8 3 12 2 8 3 12 3 12 2 8 3 12 2 8 Deliverability 1=Hard to 5=Easy 2 8 3 12 3 12 3 12 3 12 3 12 4 16 3 12 Sub Total 4 16 6 24 5 20 6 24 6 24 5 20 7 28 5 20

Total adjusted weighted score 128 419 131 429 126 419 128 428 129 431 123 405 123 407 143 465 Brighton & Hove City Council | 109

Score: 1=Very Poor; 2=Poor; 3=Average/Neutral; 4=Good; 5=Very Good

Design Objective Assessment Criteria 4B- All traffic on east with standard signalised junction 4C- All traffic on east with junction scrambled 4D- All traffic on east with junction informal 4E- All traffic on east with junction rationalised 5A- All traffic on west with roundabout continental 5B- All traffic on west with standard signalised junction 5C- All traffic on west with junction scrambled 5D- All traffic on west with junction informal Score Wtd Score Wtd Score Wtd Score Wtd Score Wtd Score Wtd Score Wtd Score Wtd A. Improve north-south connections 5 20 5 20 3 12 3 12 4 16 5 20 5 20 3 12 Design Objective 1: To B. Improve east-west connections 4 12 5 15 3 9 3 9 3 9 4 12 5 15 3 9 improve the quality of the C. Maximise pedestrian capacity 4 12 4 12 3 9 3 9 4 12 4 12 4 12 3 9 pedestrian experience D. Improve connections to green space 5 20 5 20 4 16 5 20 5 20 5 20 5 20 5 20 E. Improve connections to the Lanes 4 12 4 12 4 12 4 12 2 6 2 6 2 6 2 6 A. Provide a continuous north-south connection 4 16 4 16 3 12 3 12 4 16 4 16 4 16 3 12 Design Objective 2: To B. Improve east-west connections 3 9 4 12 3 9 3 9 4 12 4 12 4 12 4 12 improve the quality of the C. Provision of segregated cycle infrastructure 4 12 4 12 3 9 4 12 4 12 4 12 4 12 4 12 cycling experience D. Improve cycle crossings to seafront cycle route 4 16 4 16 3 12 2 8 3 12 5 20 5 20 3 12 E. Opportunities for cycle parking / cycle hire facilities 5 15 5 15 5 15 5 15 5 15 5 15 5 15 5 15 A. Maintain or Improve bus journey times 2 8 1 4 3 12 2 8 1 4 2 8 1 4 3 12 Design Objective 3: To B. Provide sufficient bus stop capacity in appropriate locations 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 8 improve the experience for C. Provide sufficient bus stand / layover capacity 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 public transport users D. Provide facilities for private coaches 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 E. Provide sufficient taxi ranks in appropriate locations 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 3 6 3 6 3 6 3 6 A. Improve north - south general traffic journey times 1 3 1 3 3 9 2 6 2 6 1 3 1 3 2 6 Design Objective 4: To B. Improve east - west general traffic journey times 1 3 1 3 3 9 3 9 1 3 1 3 1 3 2 6 reduce the impact of vehicle C. Improve driver legibility / simplify layout 3 6 3 6 4 8 5 10 4 8 3 6 3 6 3 6 congestion D. Retain current vehicle movement options 3 6 3 6 3 6 3 6 4 8 4 8 4 8 4 8 E. Achieve 'smoother' traffic flow 3 12 3 12 3 12 4 16 4 16 3 12 3 12 3 12 A. Create space for new public realm 5 20 5 20 5 20 5 20 4 16 4 16 4 16 4 16 B. Provide connectivity between green / public spaces 5 20 5 20 5 20 5 20 4 16 4 16 4 16 4 16 Design Objective 5: To C. Improve setting of and links to the Royal Pavilion 4 8 4 8 4 8 4 8 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 improve the public realm D. Improve setting of historic buildings on Old Steine 3 6 3 6 3 6 3 6 3 6 3 6 3 6 3 6 E. Retain and enhance quality / capacity of event spaces 5 15 5 15 5 15 5 15 4 12 4 12 4 12 4 12 A. Reduce occurrence and severity of vehicle/ powered two wheeler collisions 3 12 3 12 2 8 2 8 3 12 3 12 3 12 2 8 B. Reduce occurrence and severity of pedestrian collisions 5 20 5 20 2 8 2 8 4 16 5 20 5 20 2 8 Design Objective 6: To C. Reduce occurrence and severity of cyclist collisions 5 20 5 20 2 8 2 8 4 16 5 20 5 20 2 8 improve road safety D. Maintain appropriate vehicle speeds by design 3 12 3 12 3 12 3 12 4 16 3 12 3 12 3 10 E. Improve perception of safety for all road users 3 12 3 12 2 8 2 8 3 12 3 12 3 12 2 8 A. Improve air quality 2 8 2 8 3 12 3 12 2 8 2 8 2 8 3 12 B. Reduce noise 2 4 2 4 3 6 3 6 2 4 2 4 2 4 3 6 Design Objective 7: To C. Retain mature trees 5 20 5 20 5 20 5 20 5 20 5 20 5 20 5 20 enhance the environment D. Contribute to biodiversity 4 8 4 8 4 8 4 8 4 8 4 8 4 8 4 8 E. Create space for additional tree planting / landscaping 4 8 4 8 4 8 4 8 4 8 4 8 4 8 4 8 A. Improve access for mobility impaired users 4 16 4 16 3 12 3 12 3 12 4 16 4 16 3 12 Design Objective 8: To B. Improve access for visually impaired users 4 16 4 16 3 12 3 12 3 12 4 16 4 16 3 12 provide an inclusive and C. Provision of wide unobstructed footways 4 12 4 12 4 12 2 6 2 6 2 6 2 6 2 6 accessible space D. Provide / maintain access to essential services 3 6 3 6 3 6 3 6 3 6 3 6 3 6 3 4 E. Provide opportunities for resting / seating 4 16 4 16 4 16 4 16 4 16 4 16 4 16 4 16 Sub Total 138 456 139 458 128 411 127 407 127 416 132 438 132 437 120 384 Cost 1=High cost to 5=Low cost 3 12 3 12 2 8 3 8 2 8 3 12 3 12 2 8 Deliverability 1=Hard to 5=Easy 3 12 3 12 3 12 4 16 3 12 3 12 3 12 3 12 Sub Total 6 24 6 24 5 20 7 24 5 20 6 24 6 24 5 20

Total adjusted weighted score 144 480 145 482 133 431 134 431 132 436 138 462 138 461 125 404 110 | Valley Gardens Phase 3 Stage 1

Score: 1=Very Poor; 2=Poor; 3=Average/Neutral; 4=Good; 5=Very Good

Design Objective Assessment Criteria 5E- All traffic on west with junction rationalised 5F- All traffic on west with roundabout turbo with layout Informal 6A- roundabout continental with layout Informal 6B- junction scrambled with layout Informal 6C- standard signalised junction layout Informal 6D- with layout Informal 6E- junction rationalised with layout Informal 6F- roundabout turbo Score Wtd Score Wtd Score Wtd Score Wtd Score Wtd Score Wtd Score Wtd Score Wtd A. Improve north-south connections 3 12 3 12 4 16 5 18 5 18 4 14 4 14 4 14 Design Objective 1: To B. Improve east-west connections 3 9 3 9 4 12 5 14 5 15 4 11 4 12 4 11 improve the quality of the C. Maximise pedestrian capacity 3 9 3 9 5 14 5 15 5 15 5 14 4 12 4 11 pedestrian experience D. Improve connections to green space 5 20 5 20 4 16 4 16 4 16 4 16 4 16 4 16 E. Improve connections to the Lanes 2 6 2 6 3 9 3 9 3 9 3 9 3 9 3 9 A. Provide a continuous north-south connection 3 12 3 12 4 16 4 16 4 16 4 14 4 16 3 12 Design Objective 2: To B. Improve east-west connections 4 12 3 9 4 12 5 14 4 12 4 11 4 11 3 9 improve the quality of the C. Provision of segregated cycle infrastructure 4 12 4 12 4 12 4 12 4 12 4 12 4 12 4 12 cycling experience D. Improve cycle crossings to seafront cycle route 2 8 2 8 4 16 4 16 4 16 4 16 3 12 2 8 E. Opportunities for cycle parking / cycle hire facilities 5 15 5 15 4 11 4 12 4 12 4 12 4 12 4 12 A. Maintain or Improve bus journey times 2 8 3 12 1 4 1 2 1 2 1 4 1 4 2 6 Design Objective 3: To B. Provide sufficient bus stop capacity in appropriate locations 2 8 2 8 3 12 3 12 3 12 3 12 3 12 3 12 improve the experience for C. Provide sufficient bus stand / layover capacity 1 2 1 2 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 public transport users D. Provide facilities for private coaches 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 E. Provide sufficient taxi ranks in appropriate locations 3 6 3 6 3 6 3 6 3 6 3 6 3 6 3 6 A. Improve north - south general traffic journey times 2 6 2 6 1 3 1 2 1 2 1 3 1 3 1 3 Design Objective 4: To B. Improve east - west general traffic journey times 3 9 2 6 1 3 1 3 1 3 2 5 2 5 2 5 reduce the impact of vehicle C. Improve driver legibility / simplify layout 4 8 4 8 2 4 2 4 2 4 3 5 3 6 3 6 congestion D. Retain current vehicle movement options 4 8 4 8 3 6 3 6 3 6 3 6 3 6 3 6 E. Achieve 'smoother' traffic flow 4 16 4 16 3 12 2 8 2 8 2 8 3 12 3 12 A. Create space for new public realm 4 16 4 16 4 16 4 16 4 16 4 16 4 16 4 16 B. Provide connectivity between green / public spaces 4 16 4 16 4 16 4 16 4 16 4 16 4 16 4 16 Design Objective 5: To C. Improve setting of and links to the Royal Pavilion 1 2 1 2 5 10 5 10 5 10 5 10 5 10 5 10 improve the public realm D. Improve setting of historic buildings on Old Steine 3 6 3 6 4 8 4 8 4 8 4 8 4 8 4 8 E. Retain and enhance quality / capacity of event spaces 4 12 4 12 5 15 5 15 5 15 5 15 5 15 5 15 A. Reduce occurrence and severity of vehicle/ powered two wheeler collisions 3 12 3 12 4 16 4 16 4 16 4 14 4 14 4 16 B. Reduce occurrence and severity of pedestrian collisions 2 8 2 8 5 20 5 20 5 20 4 16 4 16 4 16 Design Objective 6: To C. Reduce occurrence and severity of cyclist collisions 2 8 2 8 5 20 5 20 5 20 4 16 4 16 4 16 improve road safety D. Maintain appropriate vehicle speeds by design 3 12 3 12 5 20 5 18 5 18 5 20 4 16 5 18 E. Improve perception of safety for all road users 2 8 2 8 5 20 5 18 5 18 4 16 4 16 4 16 A. Improve air quality 3 12 3 12 3 12 2 8 2 8 3 12 3 12 3 12 B. Reduce noise 3 6 3 6 3 6 2 4 2 4 3 6 3 6 2 4 Design Objective 7: To C. Retain mature trees 5 20 5 20 5 20 5 20 5 20 5 20 5 20 5 20 enhance the environment D. Contribute to biodiversity 4 8 4 8 3 6 3 6 3 6 3 6 3 6 3 6 E. Create space for additional tree planting / landscaping 4 8 4 8 3 6 3 6 3 6 3 6 3 6 3 6 A. Improve access for mobility impaired users 3 12 3 12 5 20 4 16 4 16 4 16 4 16 3 12 Design Objective 8: To B. Improve access for visually impaired users 3 12 3 12 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 6 2 6 2 8 provide an inclusive and C. Provision of wide unobstructed footways 2 6 2 6 5 15 5 15 5 15 5 15 5 15 5 15 accessible space D. Provide / maintain access to essential services 3 6 3 6 4 8 4 8 4 8 4 8 4 8 4 8 E. Provide opportunities for resting / seating 4 16 4 16 5 20 5 20 5 20 5 20 5 20 5 20 Sub Total 122 393 121 391 144 471 141 458 141 458 138 444 138 443 134 433 Cost 1=High cost to 5=Low cost 3 12 2 8 1 4 2 8 2 8 1 4 2 8 1 4 Deliverability 1=Hard to 5=Easy 4 16 3 12 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 8 1 4 Sub Total 7 28 5 20 3 12 4 16 4 16 3 12 4 16 2 8

Total adjusted weighted score 129 421 126 411 147 483 145 474 145 474 141 456 142 459 136 441 Brighton & Hove City Council | 111

Score: 1=Very Poor; 2=Poor; 3=Average/Neutral; 4=Good; 5=Very Good

Design Objective Assessment Criteria 6G- Informal layout with with layout Informal 6G- roundabouts informal junction 7A- Two way with junction rationalised standard with 7B- way Two junction signalised 7C- Two way with junction scrambled 7D- Two way with informal junction 7E- Two way with junction rationalised 8A-Rationalised with roundabout continental 8B- Rationalised with standard signalised junction Score Wtd Score Wtd Score Wtd Score Wtd Score Wtd Score Wtd Score Wtd Score Wtd A. Improve north-south connections 4 16 2 8 3 12 3 12 2 8 2 6 2 8 3 12 Design Objective 1: To B. Improve east-west connections 4 12 2 6 2 6 3 9 2 6 2 5 2 5 2 6 improve the quality of the C. Maximise pedestrian capacity 5 15 2 6 2 6 2 6 2 6 2 6 2 6 2 6 pedestrian experience D. Improve connections to green space 4 16 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 8 E. Improve connections to the Lanes 3 9 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 A. Provide a continuous north-south connection 4 16 2 8 1 4 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 8 Design Objective 2: To B. Improve east-west connections 4 12 2 6 3 9 4 11 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 6 improve the quality of the C. Provision of segregated cycle infrastructure 4 12 3 9 3 9 3 9 3 8 3 9 3 9 3 9 cycling experience D. Improve cycle crossings to seafront cycle route 4 16 3 12 3 12 3 12 2 8 2 6 3 12 4 16 E. Opportunities for cycle parking / cycle hire facilities 4 12 2 6 2 6 2 6 2 6 2 6 2 6 2 6 A. Maintain or Improve bus journey times 1 4 2 8 1 4 1 4 2 8 2 6 3 12 4 14 Design Objective 3: To B. Provide sufficient bus stop capacity in appropriate locations 3 12 4 16 4 16 4 16 4 16 4 16 5 20 5 20 improve the experience for C. Provide sufficient bus stand / layover capacity 2 4 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 6 3 6 public transport users D. Provide facilities for private coaches 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 E. Provide sufficient taxi ranks in appropriate locations 3 6 4 8 4 8 4 8 4 8 4 8 4 8 4 8 A. Improve north - south general traffic journey times 1 3 2 6 1 3 1 3 3 8 3 8 3 9 3 9 Design Objective 4: To B. Improve east - west general traffic journey times 1 3 2 6 1 3 1 3 3 8 3 8 3 9 3 9 reduce the impact of vehicle C. Improve driver legibility / simplify layout 3 6 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 4 2 4 congestion D. Retain current vehicle movement options 3 6 5 10 5 10 5 10 5 10 5 10 5 10 5 10 E. Achieve 'smoother' traffic flow 3 12 2 8 1 4 1 4 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 6 A. Create space for new public realm 4 16 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 8 B. Provide connectivity between green / public spaces 4 16 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 8 Design Objective 5: To C. Improve setting of and links to the Royal Pavilion 5 10 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 improve the public realm D. Improve setting of historic buildings on Old Steine 4 8 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 3 2 4 E. Retain and enhance quality / capacity of event spaces 5 15 2 6 2 6 2 6 2 6 2 6 2 6 1 3 A. Reduce occurrence and severity of vehicle/ powered two wheeler collisions 4 16 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 6 2 6 2 8 3 10 B. Reduce occurrence and severity of pedestrian collisions 5 20 2 8 3 10 3 10 2 8 2 8 2 8 3 12 Design Objective 6: To C. Reduce occurrence and severity of cyclist collisions 5 20 2 8 3 10 3 10 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 8 improve road safety D. Maintain appropriate vehicle speeds by design 5 20 4 16 4 16 4 16 4 16 4 16 3 12 3 12 E. Improve perception of safety for all road users 5 20 3 12 4 14 4 14 3 12 3 12 2 8 2 8 A. Improve air quality 3 12 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 6 B. Reduce noise 3 6 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 3 Design Objective 7: To C. Retain mature trees 5 20 5 20 5 20 5 20 5 20 5 20 5 20 5 20 enhance the environment D. Contribute to biodiversity 3 6 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 E. Create space for additional tree planting / landscaping 3 6 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 3 2 4 A. Improve access for mobility impaired users 5 20 2 8 2 6 2 6 1 4 1 4 2 8 3 10 Design Objective 8: To B. Improve access for visually impaired users 2 8 2 6 2 6 2 6 1 4 1 4 2 8 2 8 provide an inclusive and C. Provision of wide unobstructed footways 5 15 2 6 2 6 2 6 2 6 2 6 2 6 2 6 accessible space D. Provide / maintain access to essential services 4 8 5 10 5 10 5 10 5 10 5 10 5 10 5 10 E. Provide opportunities for resting / seating 5 20 3 12 3 12 3 12 3 12 3 12 3 12 3 12 Sub Total 146 476 96 305 94 298 97 307 93 293 92 287 98 311 102 326 Cost 1=High cost to 5=Low cost 1 4 3 12 4 16 4 16 3 12 4 16 4 16 5 20 Deliverability 1=Hard to 5=Easy 1 4 4 16 4 16 4 16 4 16 4 16 4 16 5 20 Sub Total 2 8 7 28 8 32 8 32 7 28 8 32 8 32 10 40

Total adjusted weighted score 148 484 103 333 102 330 105 339 100 321 100 319 106 343 112 366 112 | Valley Gardens Phase 3 Stage 1

Score: 1=Very Poor; 2=Poor; 3=Average/Neutral; 4=Good; 5=Very Good

Design Objective Assessment Criteria 8C- Rationalised with junction scrambled 8D- Rationalised with junction informal Steine Old 8E- Rationalised junction and turbo with Rationalised 8F- roundabout Score Wtd Score Wtd Score Wtd Score Wtd A. Improve north-south connections 3 12 2 8 2 6 1 4 Design Objective 1: To B. Improve east-west connections 3 9 2 6 2 5 1 3 improve the quality of the C. Maximise pedestrian capacity 2 6 2 6 2 6 2 6 pedestrian experience D. Improve connections to green space 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 8 E. Improve connections to the Lanes 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 A. Provide a continuous north-south connection 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 8 Design Objective 2: To B. Improve east-west connections 2 6 2 5 2 5 1 3 improve the quality of the C. Provision of segregated cycle infrastructure 3 9 3 9 3 9 3 9 cycling experience D. Improve cycle crossings to seafront cycle route 4 16 2 6 2 6 1 4 E. Opportunities for cycle parking / cycle hire facilities 2 6 2 6 2 6 2 6 A. Maintain or Improve bus journey times 4 14 4 16 5 18 5 20 Design Objective 3: To B. Provide sufficient bus stop capacity in appropriate locations 5 20 5 20 5 20 5 20 improve the experience for C. Provide sufficient bus stand / layover capacity 3 6 3 6 3 6 3 6 public transport users D. Provide facilities for private coaches 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 E. Provide sufficient taxi ranks in appropriate locations 4 8 4 8 4 8 4 8 A. Improve north - south general traffic journey times 3 9 4 12 4 12 4 12 Design Objective 4: To B. Improve east - west general traffic journey times 3 9 4 12 4 12 4 12 reduce the impact of vehicle C. Improve driver legibility / simplify layout 2 4 2 3 2 4 3 5 congestion D. Retain current vehicle movement options 5 10 5 10 5 10 5 10 E. Achieve 'smoother' traffic flow 2 6 2 8 2 8 4 16 A. Create space for new public realm 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 8 B. Provide connectivity between green / public spaces 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 8 Design Objective 5: To C. Improve setting of and links to the Royal Pavilion 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 improve the public realm D. Improve setting of historic buildings on Old Steine 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 E. Retain and enhance quality / capacity of event spaces 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 A. Reduce occurrence and severity of vehicle/ powered two wheeler collisions 3 10 2 6 2 8 3 12 B. Reduce occurrence and severity of pedestrian collisions 3 12 2 8 2 8 1 4 Design Objective 6: To C. Reduce occurrence and severity of cyclist collisions 2 8 2 8 2 8 1 4 improve road safety D. Maintain appropriate vehicle speeds by design 3 12 3 12 3 12 2 8 E. Improve perception of safety for all road users 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 8 A. Improve air quality 2 6 2 8 2 8 2 8 B. Reduce noise 2 3 2 4 2 4 2 4 Design Objective 7: To C. Retain mature trees 5 20 5 20 5 20 5 20 enhance the environment D. Contribute to biodiversity 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 E. Create space for additional tree planting / landscaping 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 A. Improve access for mobility impaired users 3 10 2 8 2 8 2 8 Design Objective 8: To B. Improve access for visually impaired users 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 8 provide an inclusive and C. Provision of wide unobstructed footways 2 6 2 6 2 6 2 6 accessible space D. Provide / maintain access to essential services 5 10 5 10 5 10 5 10 E. Provide opportunities for resting / seating 3 12 3 12 3 12 3 12 Sub Total 103 329 99 313 100 314 99 310 Cost 1=High cost to 5=Low cost 5 20 4 16 5 20 4 16 Deliverability 1=Hard to 5=Easy 5 20 4 16 5 20 4 16 Sub Total 10 40 8 32 10 40 8 32

Total adjusted weighted score 113 369 107 345 110 354 107 342 Brighton & Hove City Council | 113

For any queries: Robin Reed ([email protected])