Brighton & Hove City Council
Policy & Resources Committee
4.00pm7 July 2022
Hove Town Hall - Council Chamber
Minutes
Present: Councillor Mac Cafferty (Chair) Druitt (Joint Deputy Chair), Gibson (Joint Deputy Chair), Allcock (Joint Opposition Spokesperson), Evans, McNair, Yates, Moonan, Shanks and Peltzer Dunn
Other Members present: Councillors
Part One
1 Procedural Business
(a) Declarations of Substitutes
1.1 Councillor Peltzer Dunn was present in substitution for Councillor Bell
Councillor Shanks was present in substitution for Councillor Clare
Councillor Moonan was present in substitution for Councillor Appich
(b) Declarations of Interest
1.2 Councillor Peltzer Dunn declared a non-pecuniary interest in Item 20 as he was a member of Hove and Kingsway Bowling Club and paid a ground rent to the Council for a beach hut on the seafront.
(c) Exclusion of Press and Public
1.3 The Committee considered whether the press and public should be excluded from the meeting during the consideration of any of the items listed on the agenda.
1.4 RESOLVED: That the press and public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the items contained in part two of the agenda.
2 Minutes
2.1 The Minutes of the meeting held on 12 May 2022 were agreed as a correct record.
3 Chair's Communications
3.1 The Chair gave the following communication:
In the hundreds of years that the Conservative party has existed, this week must surely mark a new low point. After years of lies, the Prime Minister has finally agreed to resign. Boris Johnson has presided over one of the highest death tolls from Covid in the world, the highest inflation in a generation, declining public services from a decade of savage government cuts, the biggest drop in living standards in 65 years and the biggest fall in wages since records began. While UK plc trade is limping along, faring better than only one other G7 country, Russia which has been subject to international sanctions for invading Ukraine. As serious has been the attempt to normalise lies, cover ups, deceit; worse the attempt to casualise sexual assault. When one in five women and one in twenty men are victims of sexual assault but only 15 percent of these victims report to the police, it is essential that we all work harder to create an environment where sexual assault is taken much more seriously. We deserve so much better than this.
The quantity and quality of the work that is in front of us today is testament to the hard work of the Council in striving to improve our brilliant city for our residents and visitors.
Members will be aware that we have a very long agenda with a many weighty items. We obviously need to give each item proper consideration. However, given the length of the agenda and in order to ensure that we finish the meeting in reasonable time, we will all need to be brief in our comments and I would generally encourage Members to keep the number of speakers to one per group on each item unless it is absolutely essential.
There are formal procedures in our constitution that involve using closure motions to curtail debate and move to a vote or just move to the next item. I do not want to use them, and I hope we can all be sensible and ensure we get though the agenda in reasonable time.
The committee is being asked to consider several inspiring projects and the policy ranging from; infrastructure developments, to tracking progress on our carbon reduction commitments, to a new pay deal for our least well off staff.
Last week I was at the LGA conference where I outlined the great work of Brighton & Hove City council approach to supporting most vulnerable during the pandemic. There are two ways in which we primarily support the poor in our community: short term funding such as distributing benefits, offering emergency accommodation, and sharing advice, and longer term planning including tackling the root causes of poverty such as working on a joint up food strategy. It is for this reason what we are now the UK’s first Gold Sustainable Food place- reflecting our trailblazing approach. Providing sustainable solutions to food poverty is so essential when so many in our city are struggling financially.
Another sharp reminder of the extent of the cost-of-living crisis was laid bare with a new poll showing that two-thirds of people are worried about being able to afford everyday essentials. With so many people’s take-home pay being under pressure we have felt an obligation to play our part in helping so this week with the council’s chief executive I wrote to all council staff with our proposed offer to help the poorest paid.
Councillors are being asked to consider a deal which we have negotiated alongside trade unions and will see real improvements for our lowest paid staff.
We are committed abolishing the lowest pay scales and the offer set out today would see 3150 staff with improved salaries, and our lowest paid staff will receive an annual increase of over 9%.
We are also being asked to
consider an exciting infrastructure project is. The Kingsway to the
Sea project will create a brand new park, regenerating the West
Hove seafront and benefitting the entire city. The
scheme includes areas for all age groups including a roller rink
and skatepark, refurbishment of existing tennis courts, accessible
routes throughout and improved green spaces with new trees and
planting boosting biodiversity. Over 3,000 people took part
in the consultation on the design with more than four in five in
favour of the range of facilities proposed which is a testament to
the effort to listen and adapt the scheme to the needs of the local
community. As we take this important scheme forward, we will
continue to ensure that we create a park that works for
everyone.
The Carbon Neutral programme that we are being asked to review emissions has never been more urgent, this week there were both devasting floods in Bangladesh and Malaysia and unprecedent heat waves in Norway and the Arctic Circle. We want to take the best lessons from a year of important work to reduce the city’s carbon footprint and invest £14 million to do more to protect Brighton & Hove’s climate and biodiversity. This matters because whether it’s cleaning up the air, protecting wildlife or supporting jobs, preventing runaway climate change has never been more important can’t be done in isolation.
Funding that we’ve allocated is already making a tangible difference to the lives of residents; whether it’s rewilding a former golf course, upgrading nearly 700 boilers in council homes, so homes are cheaper to run, investing in electric refuse trucks to help keep the air clean and so much more.
As well as providing crucial evidence, the next stage of work will help attract external funding and help us take bigger and bolder actions.
There’s a greater emphasis on protecting biodiversity, on how we keep money in the local economy, the social benefits of climate action, such as tackling the cost-of-living crisis and the health benefits from clean air.
Climate breakdown is now causing devastating damage across the globe, driving many species to extinction and causing serious economic disruption. While there’s inspiring work underway across Brighton & Hove, there’s still much more to be done to cut toxic carbon emissions and reduce the worst effects of climate change here and abroad.
4 Call Over
4.1 The following items on the agenda were reserved for discussion:
Item 8 TBM Provisional Outturn 2021/22
Item 10 General Fund Budget Planning and Resource Update 23/24
Item 11 Carbon Neutral Programme Annual Report
Item 12 I360 Loan Restructure
Item 13 Performance Update Corporate KPIs Q4
Item 14 Corporate KPI Target Setting 22/23
Item 15 Annual Customer Insight Report 21/22
Item 16 Royal Pavilion Estate Capital Works
Item 17 Response to NoM: Council Delivery Service
Item 18 Reassignment of EcoTowns Funding
Item 19 Corporate Enforcement Services
Item 20 Kingsway to the Sea
Item 22 Homes for Brighton & Hove – Revised Business Plan
Item 23 Review of Council’s Grading Structure
Item 28 Industrial Relations Update
The following items on the agenda were agreed without discussion:
Item 9 Treasury Management Strategy Statement
Item 21 BHCC 21/22 Modern Slavery Statement
5 Public Involvement
5(a) Petitions
5.1 There were no Petitions
5(b) Written Questions
5.2 1. Loss of Facilities at Hove Lagoon
Sue Johnson submitted the following question which was asked on her behalf by Cllr Nemeth:
Why is Hove Lagoon set to lose facilities under the Kingsway to the Sea project and gain nothing except for refurbished toilets that were agreed anyway, despite huge levels of input and co-operation from the Friends of Hove Lagoon from the outset?
The Chair provided the following response:
Hove Lagoon remains an important and integral part of Kingsway to the Sea. New pathways will be created from the area to the east going into the Lagoon, this means significant changes have been put forward to ensure a clear and accessible gateway into Hove Lagoon for the community and for businesses to improve the attractiveness, ease of entry and draw into this important asset.
Major works are proposed with inclusion of new ramps and stairs into the site which not only present an opportunity to increase accessibility but as the next phase progresses potentially to review how the space works with the children’s play area and paddling pool area. Plans to move the skatepark into the pitch and putt area and the amusements into the hard standing space previously occupied by the skatepark means that the area immediately to the west of the big beach café will become a much-improved open space and a usable green area for all, especially families, which is not there at the moment.
Plans for planting in this area are in the next stage of designs for Kingsway to the Sea and the Project Team welcome the opportunity to consult with the Friends of Hove Lagoon as they progress.
In addition, the refurbishment of the toilets has been brought forward significantly and we have already started investigating the opportunities for additional benefits that would not be possible through a stand-alone refurbishment.
In consultation with the Friends of Hove Lagoon the council has identified a space within the site which will be earmarked for a new outdoor gym when funding becomes available. Early consultation feedback did not identify this as a priority because outdoor gym equipment was already located at Hove Lagoon. However, this equipment has since been removed due to wear and tear which has increased demand for new facilities.
The proposed designs are still high level and Hove Lagoon remains part of the project as an accessible to all and meet the demand for open green space.
The following supplementary question was asked:
Will the west end of Hove Lagoon still be receiving trees, shrubs bushes etc?
The Chair provided the following response:
I don’t have the specific information at the moment and so a written response will be provided after the meeting.
5.3 2. Hove Lagoon Gym
Alec Evans asked the following question:
Would the council care to explain why, when as a City we have faced a health emergency which has highlighted the importance of health and fitness more than ever before, twinned with an economic crisis which is massively affecting disposable income and the ability for many to pay for gym memberships, that we are reducing the number of free to access fitness facilities and not providing new amenities to make healthy choices an easy choice for the city’s population?
The Chair provided the following response:
The mix of sports proposed in the project were derived from the Consultation feedback in December 2021.The current gym equipment at Hove Lagoon has recently reached the end of it’s life and the council does not have a dedicated budget for outdoor gym equipment. The previous outdoor gym cost £20k in 2017 and more since because of maintenance – such as in 2020. During the public consultations an outdoor gym was not included as a high priority and officers included what the greatest numbers of people asked for. To get something that is going to last more than five years, the council would have to budget approximately £80k which is not in the project right now. However, we have consulted with the Friends of Lagoon to identify a potential area where, if funds become available, an outdoor gym could be located in future.
The strategic aim of Kingsway to the Sea is to provide a mix of open space and sports facilities. It is essential that we ensure some of these sports will be free to use, while some of the sports will be pay and play. It is necessary and common practice for Local Authorities to charge for formal sports facilities such as tennis, paddle and sand sports. There is a range of free to access sports facilities planned for example at the children’s play, the skatepark, pump track and roller area. The income generated from sports courts charges will help cross-subsidise the free facilities and also support the long-term maintenance of the whole park. The green spaces and potentially hard standing areas also offer the opportunity for free exercise within the park.
Alec Evans asked the following supplementary question:
Would the Council not agree that £80k is a very small investment considering the good it would do in the long term by encouraging healthy habits among the younger population?
The Chair provided the following response:
If there was the budget I would agree to exploring this with you, but we don’t have the money, but in the longer term we will continue to look at options. The priority at the moment is that we have this money and if we don’t take it and spend it the government will take it away. In the longer term the Council will be open to ideas for this area.
5.4 3. Tennis Provision
Rose Hetherton asked the following question:
Will Councillors back residents and tennis players in calling for a pause for reflection, further consultation and design tweaks so that the tennis offering of the Kingsway to the Sea project can make the most of the available opportunities?
The Chair provided the following response:
Significant engagement has been undertaken with the Tennis playing community, beach tennis representatives and the Lawn Tennis Association to assess the best mix of tennis provision. The LTA are fully supportive of the plans and welcome the opportunity to develop and promote tennis across a broad range of participants.
The existing traditional 8 tennis courts are in critical need of refurbishment with 4 currently closed. The project aims to reinstate 6 of these courts with improved surfaces and fencing. Without the Levelling up Funding then it is uncertain whether these improvements could be carried out. The public funding secured also ensures the courts will remain financially accessible to the majority of people.
In addition, 4 paddle tennis courts are proposed offering alternative and popular sporting opportunities which appeal to a wider community. The sand sports area will be able to accommodate at least 3 sand tennis courts which are very much in demand by the tennis community. In total 13 tennis courts are proposed with modern floodlights which will increase available court time and participation levels.
The investment made possible by Kingsway to the Sea offers more tennis options for many people in West Hove and the wider city. Public consultation feedback demonstrates the popularity of the plans. Pausing the project will mean the development of any amenities will not take place and funding will be lost because the council must spend the Levelling Up fund by 31st March 2024. This will be of detriment to a large number of people.
Further engagement with the tennis community is planned to progress to detailed designs before submission to Planning.
Rose Hetherton asked the following supplementary question:
Can the Council assure the King Alfred Lawn Tennis Club that its seventy-year history of playing on the Kingsway tennis courts will be protected for the future and that the current harmonious relationship with the the public pay and play users and the club would be maintained with the deduction of eight to six courts?
The Chair provided the following response:
I hope so and hope that the answer I gave previously indicates that we are up for the challenge and for upgrading the facilities where possible and retaining them where we can’t.
5.5 4. Beach Hut Concerns
Cathy Biggs asked the following question:
What assurances can the Council offer to owners of beach huts that the removal of green space and the intensification of the western pitch and putt lawn will not lead to noise, disturbance and vandalism?
The Chair provided the following response:
The proposed plans carefully consider the prevention of ASB by offering an open aspect to the park with no dead-ends or hidden spaces, this will enable increased footfall and create and encourage passive surveillance.
An assessment of current and previous activity in the park has been undertaken in order to identify potential issues and address some concerns being expressed about the potential for an increase in anti-social behaviour, noise and the loss of green space. Yet there is no evidence to suggest that the existing skatepark encourages ASB. There are two reported cases of ASB over the last 7 years and four reports of noise. The feedback about the existing skatepark from the local community, Friends of Hove Lagoon and businesses is very positive and suggests the older skateboarders tend to look after the younger ones creating a supportive and trouble-free environment. The new layout in the open space will also decrease noise deflection that is currently experienced in the existing skatepark.
In the last year there have been a total of 24 reported encampments in the Kingsway area, the improved spaces will discourage this usage and potentially improve the feeling of safety in the area.
Looking to the next steps, the project has already sought the advice of Field Officers and will look to incorporate their recommendations to encourage collective responsibility among the wheeled sports community thereby creating respect and care for the area. The project will follow Secure by Design principles and engagement will also take place with the City’s Joint Action Group, chaired by a BHCC Safer Communities Manager and the Police Chief Inspector, who will design a plan prior to the opening of the park and all facilities to reduce the risk of crime and ASB. All these actions are in scope to ensure relevant expertise supports a healthy and a trouble-free area into the future.
Cathy Biggs asked the following supplementary question:
What security measures will be put in place?
The Chair provided the following response:
I believe I have answered some of your concerns, and the Planning Committee which will considered the application in due course, were very familiar with how you look at crime and how to attach conditions to the planning proposals before them. Therefore the planning process would determine the actual physical structure in the way the park would be laid out.
5.6 5. Fresh Water and Bushes
Jeff Scott asked the following question:
Improved “biodiversity” is a stated outcome for Kingsway to the Sea project, how is this reconciled with both the destruction of the only existing publicly provided freshwater (70 year old pond/fountain) for bird wildlife on the whole of (Brighton AND) Hove seafront AND the decimation of the “perennial planting(s)” of Hove’s famous bird, insect & wildlife ‘Green Wall’?
The Chair provided the following response:
The latest proposals now, which are before councillors today, retain the pond. Improvement in biodiversity is a key and fundamental deliverable for the project. The strategic approach is to: layer planting, with trees to provide shade and shelter, mitigate climate change impacts, increase biodiversity and the connection with nature
The project team includes landscape specialists and expertise in City Parks who are working closely with Biodiversity experts to assess how to meet the aim of successfully demonstrating a measurable bio-diversity net gain for the area with an ambition to go above the mandated 10% and seeking an aspirational 20%.
The plans presented at the Engagement sessions were early-stage plans and a visualization to inform the public of the plans to date. More details are to be worked through in the next stage of design, including if there is to be the relocation of a pond or creation of another water feature. The council recognises that wildlife need fresh water and we are also mindful of ongoing maintenance costs.
The hedge along the north side of Hove Lagoon that houses many different species is intended to remain in place recognizing the importance of the wildlife to the area.
The Green Wall is growing back well and regular trimming of this will take place at time of the year when nesting birds are not resident.
Jeff Scott asked the following supplementary question:
The green wall I was referring to is also extensively used by roosting birds, including starlings, and so anything which could be done to protect the biodiversity in future plans would be much appreciated
The Chair provided the following response:
The hedge along the north side would be retained as the importance of local wildlife was recognised.
5(c) Deputations
5.8 1. Kingsway to the Sea
Stephen Ellis presented the Deputation which stated:
This deputation is submitted on behalf of the residents and owners of Welbeck Court and Berriedale House, Kingsway BN3 in response to the Kingsway To The Sea proposals, specifically the west lawn between the bottom of Berriedale Avenue and Wish Road. In the FMG report dated April 2022 the site is referred to as Zone 8 and Section 8. It is at the quieter end of the seafront, and is the last remaining open space on the coast between Hove Lawns and West Sussex.
Our neighbours are mostly retired. Typically for flats, we have a small communal front garden, which is shared by all occupants but no private outdoor space. The plans for KTTS include installing a cycle pump track, a roller-skating loop and a new skate park on this green space, which is directly in front of our homes.
Contrary to the narrative put forward in the KTTS project proposals we see the site used every day, by people of all ages and for a wide range of activities. It is popular with school classes dog walkers and regular running and PT clubs; it is used for yoga, kite flying, picnic, football, racquet sports and even camping.
We want to retain this multi-generational, multi-use site as open space, to ensure that residents of all ages can use it, and to protect it for current occupants and future generations and to ensure that those who need peace and quiet in Brighton Hove still have somewhere to go. We would be grateful if you could consider whether the proposed development on this site is appropriate and also to consider whether the proposals respond in any way to the needs of older residents of the city.
We recognise that the existing infrastructure is in need of support, improvement and ongoing maintenance. We appreciate that there may be demand from younger residents for more facilities but the demographics, confirmed by the latest Census show that there are more residents aged 65 and over than younger than 15 in the city. Tables within the KTTS proposals show the beneficiaries are expected to be 45 and under and exclude older residents entirely.
The pump track and skate park are bottom of the funding contribution hierarchy in the proposals. Ms Linton Crook’s report (3.25 Project Funding) explains that the financial pressures are already enforcing adaptations to the plans to reduce cost, and the council needs to find a further £3.49m instead of the original £1.1m that was approved just six months ago. It can reasonably be assumed that these costs will continue to rise and also tha t the site will need to be maintained in the future: The tennis courts, lagoon paddling pool and beachfront toilets are all currently closed for various reasons and there is nothing in the plans that offers assurances that this project will be managed any differently. May
we humbly offer up a saving: retain the open space, retain the existing skate park in its current location, retain the temporary BMX track at Black Rock and heed the requests from the roller-skating community for a larger roller rink, elsewhere in the borough.
We are concerned that the consultation so far has neglected the digitally
excluded and question the methodology used and have provided further details of our concerns in the notes. (We ask that, at the least, residents be considered as genuine stakeholders and, as such, the council embarks on a full and proper consultation, including writing directly to all residents who overlook the site, if this progresses to a full planning application.
5.9 The Chair gave the following response:
The space referred to opposite Berriedale House is part of the former pitch & putt golf course. As with all the land all along the south side of the Kingsway it is designated for sport and leisure use and became unoccupied when the golf facility closed. The land is adjacent to the large open green spaces and public facilities of Hove Lagoon. It is currently inaccessible to anyone with mobility issues due to the surrounding walls and fencing and steep grassy banks which were a feature of the golf course.
The proposal for the skatepark, pump track and roller area will promote and encourage physical activity and wellbeing for a wide range of age groups. These facilities will be set within an open green landscaped area which will include accessible pathways, seating and planting and will be accessible to everyone. Users of this space will still be able to picnic, walk a dog, keep fit and school groups will be most welcome at these free to use facilities. However, camping is not permitted within the city’s parks or on the seafront. A dedicated public park will also be created immediately next to this space. The location next to Hove Lagoon links with the already popular family amenities such as the play park, paddling pool and children’s amusements.
The proposals will deliver a much-needed improvement to the dilapidated spaces and facilities along Kingsway. The project is a once in a generation opportunity to transform the area and deliver facilities which are aligned to the requirements and aspirations of the existing stakeholders and wider community. In the recent survey 86% of respondents agreed that the proposal will provide an accessible and improved green space that provides for the needs of residents and visitors with the skatepark, pump track and green spaces being the most popular features of the scheme.
Whilst some facilities may attract a younger demographic none of the facilities are age restricted. Accessibility and inclusivity is key to this project and that is carried across all of the facilities whether it be in the design of the skatepark or the introduction of padel tennis and sand sports. The council recognises that not everyone wants to be taking part in sport and activities. There are new ramps across the linear park to enable access to each part of the linear park for everyone. The scheme is interspersed with tranquil garden spaces.
The skatepark, pump track and roller area will be free to use facilities making them an inclusive community asset allowing users to be physically active in a safe environment without cost being an issue. The Levelling Up Funding and Section 106 contributions enable the council to build some free facilities which can be cross-subsidized by fee paying facilities. This means that future maintenance of all facilities and park spaces can be funded from the income generated across the site. There are rigorous steps in place for cost management. Cost reviews will be undertaken at key milestones and scrutinised by the project team.
Whilst we acknowledge some local residents may not approve of the skatepark and pump track there has been strong demand and support for these facilities for many years, even before the Kingsway to the Sea project was established. It is the council’s intention to provide these facilities which are integral to inclusive mix of amenities across the whole site.
The council has utilized as many formats as possible to advertise information about the project as well as details of the in-person consultation and engagement events and surveys. The council held two in person drop in consultation sessions in May to ensure that we did not exclude those who were unable to complete an online survey. There has been information in local print publications such as the Argus and Hovarian as well as numerous digital and social media platforms. Unfortunately it is not viable to letter drop every household within the vicinity of the scheme every time there is an update or information to share. More than 550 people attended public events and more than 2,700 people have given their feedback on proposals through an online survey. The Planning Authority will lay out the most appropriate way to advertise the Planning consultation process- that would usually include things like site notices as well as adverts in the local press.
The online survey follows council policy of allowing multiple entries by not restricting access, in the councils experience multiple entries are very low. Inputting of personal details creates requirements to align with GDPR and more importantly can lower the number of responses to surveys.
Officers do not consider the graph to be misleading. The responses were not ranked in order of preference but as they appeared on the original survey which was based on the geographical location of the facilities running west to east. The graph clearly shows that ‘green spaces’ is the third most popular feature.
5.10 2. Brighton Skate Space
Kris Ward presented the deputation which stated:
The Brighton Skate Roller Skating Community are asking that the council provides a flat, smooth-surfaced outside rink for roller skating use. This will need to incorporate safety measures to protect both skaters and the public. We ask that this rink will be placed at our proposed location on Brighton Seafront, next to the basketball court. A space which is currently unused. A skating rink in this location will attract and inspire others to take up the sport, just as all other sporting facilities set out along the seafront has done. Location for this new rink is important. Demand for our sport grew considerably during lock down. Roller-skating is a natural socially-distancing sport, hence the growth of the activity during lockdown. This growth has shown no sign of slowing. It is worth noting that Brighton has a roller-skating history dating back to the 1860’s. There was even a roller-skating rink built on top of the Aquarium in 1876. The Brighton roller-skating community currently has over 3500 members.
5.11 The Chair gave the following response:
The Kingsway to the Sea project team have been working closely with stakeholders from the roller-skating community for some time and a number of roller skaters attended the recent drop-in engagement events. The area suggested is not available as this is part of the well established and heavily used public realm on Brighton seafront which receives millions of visitors each year. Demand for a dedicated roller skating space is evident from the surveys and consultation undertaken as part of the Kingsway to the Sea project which is why a roller skating facility is included within the scheme. The project team will continue to work hard to design the space to accommodate the roller-skating community. It should be noted that the Levelling up funding can only be spent on the Kingsway to the sea project area which means there is no funding available to provide a roller-skating facility outside of this scheme. Which means we cannot move the roller skate element to another area.
5.12 RESOLVED:
(i) That the deputation on ‘Kingsway To The Sea’ be noted
(ii) That the deputation on ‘Brighton Skate Space’ be noted
6 Items Referred from Council
6.1 The Committee considered the petition ‘Patcham Court Farm’ which had been presented at and referred from the Public Engagement Meeting held on 7 April 2022.
6.2 The Chair noted that a report on Patcham Court Farm would be coming to the Special P&R Committee meeting due to be held on 29 July 2022.
6.3 RESOLVED: That the petition be noted.
7 Member Involvement
7.1 Cllr McNair asked the following question on behalf of Cllr Bagaeen:
Can the Chair provide an update on the status of proposals to replace the Brighton Centre with a new facility at Black Rock?
The Chair provided the following response:
There hasn’t been a proposal to have a conference centre at Black Rock for over two years. Detailed reports are provided to councillors who attend the SDB- the Conservative group has not now attended the meetings of the board for months. I have brought back reporting of major projects to committee and the special P&R before the end of the month will report again on the state of the project, as did the committee in February. There is also a dedicated page on the council’s website on Black Rock. Or you can just ask the Conservative councillor on the Eastern Seafront Programme Board, Cllr Bell.
Reports in December 2019 and December 2020 to Policy & Resources Committee set out that the city council and Aberdeen Standard Investments are exploring options for a city centre conference facility and venue. The city centre is considered to be the best location in terms of access to transport, hotels and other leisure facilities.
Work is currently being done by Theatre Projects, a venue specialist, to advise on the optimum size and arrangement for a new facility, and whether there is a viable business case to support investment.
In the meantime, Black Rock has received funding from the Local Enterprise Partnership in order to de-risk the site for a future development and also to improve the transport links and connectivity in the area. The funding at Black Rock will address this by:
1. Decontaminating the site to create a clear unencumbered site for a future development
2. Creating a more developable site area and building a new sea wall with pedestrian promenade, on an extended alignment – also creating more space to build the new sustainable link
A Development Brief for the Black Rock site is scheduled to be produced in consultation with the community to highlight where priorities should lie for future redevelopment of the site, in compliance with the City Plan Part 2 and which will also meet with the Council’s committed outputs for the Local Enterprise Partnership.
The Eastern Seafront Masterplan is also underway, which will help to provide the necessary strategic links along the Eastern Seafront and guide future development.
Cllr McNair asked the following supplementary question:
I understand from what you’ve said that there are no plans to replace the Brighton Centre at Black Rock but to do it in the city centre, do you have timescales for that.
The Chair gave the following response:
Discussions have been held with Aberdeen Standard Investments, but their board is currently undecided on what to do with their property portfolio. Therefore, there isn’t clarity at the moment and what can be done and when is still been considered. There is a long-standing commitment to replace the conference venue and we need to look at the vision for the city going forward as it is important to have good facilities.
7.2 Cllr Fishleigh asked the following question:
On page 22 of the Sports Investment Plan it says the following:
· Ice rinks require more than 30% of the population to be aged under 24 years.
· Whilst the current population is marginally above this figure, they will make up a smaller proportion of the overall population in future years.
· The overall risk associated with provision is considered to be too high to outweigh any benefit.
Please would you provide evidence for the first two points and explain what the risk is for BHCC if an outside company builds and operates an ice rink in the city?
The Chair provided the following response:
The information contained within the Sports Facilities Investment Plan (SFIP) was researched, co-ordinated and analysed by FMG Consulting (specialist leisure consultants). It was provided from their experience within the leisure industry, analysis of ice rinks in other areas of the country and from Brighton & Hove Connected which provides local intelligence in respect of current, historical and future population data.
The SFIP is a document outlining an investment plan for Brighton and Hove City Council to improve the public sports facilities in the city. It was developed with FMG who worked with on the SFIP have seen few additional ice rinks being developed in the past ten years suggesting that the relative high costs of investment (upwards of £10million) remain an unattractive long-term proposition for many authorities. Therefore, the advice we have been given and what our current position is that we do not think that the Council consider including a permanent ice-skating facility as part of future investment proposals for Brighton and Hove.
However, should a private business with invest their own funds in building an ice rink that would their decision. There are already a number of commercially run sports and leisure facilities in the city. However Commercial ice rinks have high operational costs and the energy footprint they generate through operations may be at odds with the city’s priorities around its climate agenda.
Cllr Fishleigh asked the following supplementary question:
The nearest ice rinks are in Guildford, Streatham and Gosport, so why are officers treating an ice rink as a local sporting facility rather than a tourist attraction and venue which would obviously have a wider target audience.
The Chair gave the following response:
It is not accurate that council officers have put a block on this, and my understanding is that officers and councillors have met with the company. What is not clear is how they would overcome viability gaps in terms of their proposal. I suggest that this is discussed further at Council when the Notice of Motion is considered.
7.3 Cllr Fishleigh asked the following question:
Do you agree that the person appointed to this post needs to have have real-life experience in resolving industrial disputes and a proven track record of bringing external private-sector investment into urban areas?
The Chair provided the following response:
The council’s Executive Leadership Team (ELT) is periodically reviewed by the Chief Executive and that review may be prompted by a range of issues and needs including vacancies, changes in national legislation, local policy priorities, performance management, resilience, service requirements to meet the needs of local communities and businesses, as well as effectively handling industrial relations. Executive Directors and their Departmental Management Teams are supported by Human Resource and Organisational Development business partners. Management teams are also able to draw on the knowledge and skills of a specialist industrial relations manager for more complex cases and issues.
Cllr Fishleigh asked the following supplementary question:
I think it’s widely acknowledged that the portfolio for this post is too large and disparate. Who decided that it should remain as one post and what was their rationale?
The Chair gave the following response:
With respect to the current recruitment for the Executive Director for Economy, Environment & Culture, the Chief Executive has reviewed the role and recommended to keep the scope of the role as previously defined. This is broadly consistent with similar roles in other local authorities. If the council is not successful in securing a suitable candidate, the scope of and remuneration for the role will be further reviewed.
8 Targeted Budget Management (TBM) Provisional Outturn 2021/22
8.1 The Committee considered the report of the Chief Finance Officer which set out the provisional outturn position on the council’s revenue and capital budgets for the financial year 2021/22. The Committee were advised that there was an error in paragraphs 2.5 and 10.5 and the figures should read £66,156 and not £63,156.
8.2 Cllr Yates asked if the underspend on Adult Social Care was expected to recur, whether there was a recovery plan for the capital slippage, and with regard to the pay settlement, what the possible cost implications may be, whether the impact on schools had been considered and the possibility of of the government assisting with the additional cost of a pay settlement. The Executive Director Health & Adult Social Care said that the underspend was driven by additional NHS funding which came in during the year to support those discharged from hospital, there had been difficulties in the provider market particularly with Home Care and Care Homes, there had been recruitment issues and there was a backlog of care packages and the council had used its own Covid funds to assist. The underspend was not expected to recur. The Chief Finance Officer said the the capital slippage had been due to a number of reasons, including Covid, supply chain issues, and some cost overruns that needed programmes to be re-looked at, and some amounts had been put through last year to provided capacity to move projects on, and there had been recruitment issues. The recruitment issues had been partly addressed and officers were now in place and so some of the programmes could now move forward more quickly and supply chain issues would need to carefully monitored. With the pay award it was difficult to estimate what the average award would be, schools did have a 4.8% uplift in their settlement but the pay awards for teaching and non-teaching staff may have an impact. The funding from the government was not yet known.
8.3 The Chair noted that there was an amendment from the Labour Group and asked Cllr Evans to introduce it.
8.4 Cllr Evans proposed the following amendment to Recommendation 2.5 (changes in italic):
That the Committee agree to allocate the £200,000 one-off resources for ‘Additional Welfare Support’ to support Emergency Food provision (£63,156) and the Local Discretionary Social Fund (£133,844), in order to support residents through this cost of living crisis, particularly those who have been disproportionately affected by the rise in inflation, the pandemic, and austerity, such as women and girls, almost half of whom are suffering from period poverty and are unable to afford basic sanitary products according to a recent study.
8.5 Cllr Moonan formally seconded the amendment.
8.6 The Lawyer said that when the amendment was tabled, he was unclear whether, if it was agreed, if it would be a binding instruction to use the money on a particular issue. If that was the case more information would be needed, therefore this was taken as being an indication of what the committee wanted to see and officers would consider that when allocating the money, rather than a binding specific instruction of how the money should be spent.
8.7 The Committee voted on the amendment, and it was agreed.
8.8 RESOLVED: That the Committee –
(i) Notee that the provisional General Fund outturn position is an underspend of £2.948m and that this represents an improvement of £1.855m compared to the projected and planned resource position at Month 9 and taken into account when setting the 2022/23 budget;
(ii) Noted the provisional outturn includes an underspend of £3.277m on the council’s share of the NHS managed Section 75 services;
(iii) Approved General Fund carry forward requests totalling £9.776m as detailed in Appendix 5 and included in the provisional outturn;
(iv) Approved the re-allocation of £1.112m Contain Outbreak Management Funds to address ongoing temporary and emergency homelessness and rough sleeping costs caused by the pandemic;
(v) Agreed to allocate the £200,000 one-off resources for ‘Additional Welfare Support’ to support Emergency Food provision (£66,156) and the Local Discretionary Social Fund (£133,844), in order to support residents through this cost of living crisis, particularly those who have been disproportionately affected by the rise in inflation, the pandemic, and austerity, such as women and girls, almost half of whom are suffering from period poverty and are unable to afford basic sanitary products according to a recent study;
(vi) Approved the retention of the remaining available outturn resources of £1.655m to provide a risk provision to meet the anticipated additional cost of the 2022/23 NJC pay award as set out in paragraph 10.6;
(vii) Noted the provisional outturn for the separate Housing Revenue Account (HRA), which is an underspend of £0.033m;
(viii) Noted the provisional outturn position for the ring-fenced Dedicated Schools Grant, which is an underspend of £0.035m;
(ix) Noted the provisional outturn position on the capital programme which is an underspend variance of £7.405m;
(x) Approved the capital budget variations and re-profiling requested in Appendix 7;
(xi) Approved the new capital schemes requested in Appendix 8;
(xii) Approved the creation of a Section 117 Reserve in respect of advance NHS funding as set out in paragraph 9.9.
9 Treasury Management Strategy Statement 2021-22 - End of Year Review
9.1 The recommendations were agreed without discussion.
9.2 RESOLVED: That the Committee –
(i) Noted the key actions taken during the second half of 2021/22 to meet the Treasury Management Strategy Statement and practices (including the investment strategy) as set out in this report;
(ii) Noted the reported compliance with the Annual Investment Strategy for the 6 month period up to the end of March 2022;
(iii) Noted that the approved maximum indicator for investment risk of 0.05% has been adhered to and the authorised borrowing limit and operational boundary have not been exceeded.
10 General Fund Budget Planning and Resource Update 2023/24
10.1 The Committee considered the report of the Chief Finance Officer which provided a budget planning and resource update in preparation for the start of the 2023/24 annual budget setting and medium term planning process.
10.2 Cllr Yates asked if the Chief Finance Officer was planning for a possible impact for national or local pay arrangements for schools, and if the Council needed to subsidise schools from the General Fund what would happen if a school moved to a multi-academy trust. The Executive Director Families Children & Learning confirmed that if a school moved to a multi-academy trust the local authority could not provide any financial help. The Chief Finance Officer said that the financial issues were being monitored and if there were significant changes a further report would be brought to this Committee.
10.3 RESOLVED: That the Committee –
(i) Noted the potential funding and net expenditure projections for 2023/24, based on the three planning scenarios identified in the report;
(ii) Noted the Medium Term financial projections for 2023/24 to 2026/27 and the predicted budget gaps based on a ‘midpoint’ planning scenario;
(iii) Agreed that officers should draw up 4-year Medium-Term Service and Financial Plans (MTSFPs) and strategies, including budget proposals to manage the identified budget shortfall in 2023/24, and report back with draft budget proposals to the December Policy & Resources Committee.
11 Carbon Neutral 2030 Programme - Annual Report 2021-22
11.1 The Committee considered the report of the Executive Director Economy, Environment & Culture which provided a progress update on previously approved projects and set out the approach for agreeing the next phase of two-year Carbon Neutral Fund projects.
11.2 Cllr Allcock (Co-Chair Carbon Neutral Working Group) said it was important that the funding was well spent, be transparent with everyone, to look at what projects really work, to itemize the predicted carbon reduction and to consult with the public on what they felt were the most effective projects. The Executive Director Economy, Environment & Culture said that officers would ensure that all projects were accountable and showed the carbon reductions, and all proposals would be brought to the Working Group. The report set out the intention to pilot works with key private sector partners.
11.3 Cllr Peltzer Dunn said that to become a carbon free city by 2030 would be difficult to achieve as only around 1.5% of emissions were under the control of the Council, and until we could educate the public, on a national and local level we would never be a carbon free city. The Chair noted that there was a lot of environmental education being done with schools through the Our City Our World programme.
11.4 Cllr McNair noted that £2m would be spent on low traffic neighbourhoods, but it was not possible to make the whole city a low traffic neighbourhood and would often just move congestion and pollution elsewhers and therefore the Conservative Group would abstain from voting on the recommendations.
11.5 RESOLVED: That the Committee –
(i) Noted the progress made on the 2030 Carbon Neutral Programme during 2021-22, as set out in the Annual Report at Appendix 1 and agrees further developments to the Programme in 2022-23 set out in paragraphs 3.8-3.11;
(ii) Agreed the following capital funding allocations from the £14.000m Carbon Neutral Fund approved at Budget Council in February 2022 for 2022/23 and 2023/24, based on the approach agreed at that committee (set out in paragraph 3.16) for the identified priority carbon neutral capital projects as follows:
· Air Quality – Two Automatic Analyser Stations and continued diffusion tube monitoring: £0.050m in 2022-23 and £0.150m in 2023-24
· Expanding Liveable Neighbourhoods: £1.100m in 2022-23 and
£1.000m in 2023-24
· Carbon reduction measures to operational buildings: £1.500m in 2022-23 and £2.00m in 2023-24 (£1.5m in each year will be on a spend to save basis)
· Carbon Neutral Fund prioritisation process for the remaining £8.200m as set out in paragraphs 3.20 to 3.21;
(iii) Noted the progress of Carbon Neutral Fund projects in delivery, as set out in paragraphs 3.13-3.15 and agrees the process for the Carbon Neutral Fund in 2022-23, as set out in paragraph 3.20-3.21;
(iv) Noted that a further report will be brought to Policy & Resources Committee in October 2022 to agree the allocation of Carbon Neutral Fund to projects for delivery in 2022-23 and 2023-24.
12 i360 Loan Restructure
12.1 The Committee considered the report of the Executive Director Economy Environment & Culture which sought agreement to a proposed restructure of the loan made to the i360, and for agreement on how to treat the £4.060m loan made by the Coast to Capital LEP, which was novated to the city council (at no cost to the council). Ms J Barfield, Director of i360, was present at the meeting to answer any questions from members.
12.2 Cllr Druitt noted that the Member Working Group felt that neither they nor the public had had sufficient information directly from the i360 board about their own involvement and commitment and asked if Ms Barfield could outline briefly the history of the Board’s involvement and their commitment going forward. He also wanted to clarify that the Directors of i360 hadn’t had any financial return from the business and asked if they were confident that that repaying the loan would be prioritised over shareholder’s returns. Ms Barfield said that four of the Board members had been involved since the venue was first suggested 17 years ago. Board members took the responsibility of repaying the public money responsibility very seriously, and were completely committed to the business.
12.3 Cllr Peltzer Dunn asked what the forecasted number of visitors were. Officers said that cautious figures were that the visitor numbers would rise to 400,000 in 2026/27. That assumed an annual growth rate of 6.5% or 4.5% if the impact of the pandemic was taken into account. This information had been fully shared with the members of the working group. They added income would also come from the restaurant, Sky Bar etc. Cllr Peltzer Dunn asked what the attendance had been for the last financial year and was informed that in 2021/22 it was 292,000 but noted that the Covid restrictions had impacted on that. Cllr Peltzer Dunn asked what the attendance had been prior to Covid. Officers said that did not have that information but would provide it after the meeting.
12.4 Cllr Peltzer Dunn asked what percentage of gross takings would be attributable to admission charges resulting from the number of attendees to the i360 as compared to the commercial outlets within the venue? Officers said that they did not have that information.
12.5 Cllr McNair asked if the i360 were confident that £1.5m would be sufficient for maintenance costs. Ms Barfield said that a detailed report had been written by an engineer and she was confident that they were correct.
12.6 Cllr Shanks asked how the consultants used would be funded. Officers said the cost of any consultants would be added to the amount the i360 owed the Council.
12.7 Cllr Shanks noted that the interest rate had changed and were now charging 3% and were repaying at 2.78% and asked if that was part of the restructure. Officers said it had been been reduced as the Council wanted to recover the loan as soon as possible and a higher interest rate would mean it would take longer to repay.
12.8 Cllr Gibson asked at point the liability would be lower than the value of the assets. Officers did not have that information.
12.9 The Chair noted that there was an amendment from the Labour Group and asked Cllr Moonan to introduce it.
12.10 Cllr Moonan proposed the following amendment to add two additional recommendations (changes in italics):
2.3 Notwithstanding the Heads of Terms of the loan restructure at Appendix 1, that the committee directs the Executive Director Economy, Environment and Culture and the Executive Director Governance, People and Resources to include in the terms of the restructure a provision that if the i360 misses three consecutive minimum payments, even if the cumulative position is still positive, then the i360 will be required to submit a Business Improvement Plan to the Council. If the i360 fails to submit the Plan or if the Council is not satisfied with the contents of the Plan, this will constitute an event of default under the loan agreement and the Council may enforce its security.
2.4 That a report on the loan repayment progress and i360 business performance be made to Policy & Resources Committee on an annual basis for the first 5 years, and thereafter as agreed at that time.
12.11 Councillor Yates formally seconded the amendment.
12.12 The Committee voted on the amendment, and it was agreed.
12.13 RESOLVED: That the Committee –
(i) Agreed to the loan restructure principles as set out at Appendix 1 and delegates authority to the Executive Director Economy, Environment and Culture and the Executive Director Governance, People and Resources, in consultation with the i360 Members’ Working Group, to negotiate a revised loan agreement based on those restructure terms and enter into any legal agreements necessary to effect that restructure;
(ii) Agreed to also restructure the novated LEP loan in line with the principles set out at Appendix 1 and delegates authority to the Executive Director Economy, Environment & Culture and the Executive Director Governance, People and Resources; in consultation with the i360 Members’ Working Group, to include the restructured LEP loan in the revised loan agreement documents referred to at recommendation 2.1, above;
(iii) Notwithstanding the Heads of Terms of the loan restructure at Appendix 1, that the Committee directed the Executive Director Economy, Environment and Culture and the Executive Director Governance, People and Resources to include in the terms of the restructure a provision that if the i360 misses three consecutive minimum payments, even if the cumulative position is still positive, then the i360 will be required to submit a Business Improvement Plan to the Council. If the i360 fails to submit the Plan or if the Council is not satisfied with the contents of the Plan, this will constitute an event of default under the loan agreement and the Council may enforce its security;
(iv) Agreed that a report on the loan repayment progress and i360 business performance be made to Policy & Resources Committee on an annual basis for the first 5 years, and thereafter as agreed at that time.
13 Performance update Corporate Key Performance Indicators Q4 2021-22
13.1 The Chair noted that as items 13 and 14 related to corporate key performance indicators he would ask officers to introduce both reports together and would then take questions before the Committee considered the recommendations separately for both items.
13.2 The Committee considered the report of the Executive Director Governance People & Resources which provided a progress update against Corporate Key Performance Indicators Q4 2021/22.
13.3 Cllr McNair noted that in Item 13 under Well Run Council 3, it refers to City Tracker figures from 2018/19 and asked why they were not more recent. The the Assistant Director Customer Modernisation & Performance Insight said it had not been possible to undertake the City Tracker survey over the last few years and wouldn’t be done in 22/23. Any indicators which related to the City Tracker had been removed. For the Annual Customer Insight report locally conducted customer satisfaction survey would be used.
13.4 Cllr Moonan asked why the City Tracker survey was not being used and was advised it was due to budget constraints but there were other mechanisms which provided similar information. Cllr Allcock asked what the cost of running it was, and was advised that it was around £40k per year.
13.5 Dr Sasidharan noted that the Fuel Poverty and Affordable Warmth Strategy’ for Brighton & Hove, would be presented to the Health & Wellbeing Board and asked if it could also be shared with the Safeguarding Adults Board and the Children’s Partnership. The Executive Director Health & Adult Social Care confirmed that it would be coming to the next meeting of the Health & Wellbeing Board and the Chair of the Adult Safeguarding Partnership was a member of that Board. The Executive Director Families Children & Learning said that they would take this report to the Safeguarding Children Partnership at their next steering group meeting.
13.6 RESOLVED: That the Committee noted the progress made in relation to Corporate KPIs in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic, particularly the corrective measures outlined for ‘red’ and ‘amber’ indicators, and provide support and challenge to lead officers to bring performance back on track
14 Corporate Key Performance Indicator target setting 2022/23
14.1 The Committee considered the report of the Executive Director Governance People & Resources regarding the Corporate Key Performance Indicator target settings for 2022/23.
14.2 This item was discussed with Item 13.
14.3 RESOLVED: That the Committee –
(i) Approved the Corporate KPI set and associated targets as set out in Appendix 2;
(ii) Noted that target figures may change during the year if new benchmarking figures become available. P&R approval will be sought at a future date if there is a proposal to change the set itself or the rationale for a particular target.
15 Annual Customer Insight Report 2021/22
15.1 The Committee considered the report of the Executive Director Governance People & Resources regarding the Customer Insight Annual Report 2021/2022. The report was introduced by the Assistant Director Customer Modernisation & Performance Insight.
15.2 Cllr Peltzer Dunn noted that the ease of access to council service or team had reduced from 61% to 51% and asked why that had happened. Officers said that expectations from customers had changed, and some service areas had found it difficult to meet the timeframes to respond to emails/phone calls.
15.3 Cllr McNair noted the reduction in face-to-face meetings over the last seven years and asked if the aim was to return to the 15% which it was in 2015, and whether the lack of face-to-face meetings had affected the overall ease of access score which was 51% down from 61%. The Assistant Director Customer Modernisation & Performance Insight said that pre-pandemic around 54% of customers accessed parking services digitally with the others attending Hove Town Hall in person. During lockdown the number accessing parking services rose to 97%. The operating model was based on need, and where necessary face to face appointments were available. The preference was to use digital or phone where possible.
15.4 Dr Sasidharan referred to service accessibility and had been informed from the organisation Bridging Change that some people were finding it hard to navigate the internet and when they did get through on the phone number, with the assistance of a support worker, they found that the person they spoke to was struggling and talking about staff shortages, which was difficult from a customer service point of view. The Chief Executive asked if she could provide more information and it would be looked into.
15.5 RESOLVED: That the Committee noted the Customer Insight Annual Report for 2021/22 as set out in Appendix 1 and provides support and challenge to officers to further improve customer experience and customer satisfaction with the council.
16 Royal Pavilion Estate Capital Works – Phase 1 Up-date
16.1 The Committee considered the report of the Executive Director Economy, Environment & Culture which provided an up-date on the work being undertaken on the Royal Pavilion Estate.
16.2 In response to questions from members on the funding, officers advised that as the Council owned the asset it had a responsibility to ensure the project could be completed. It was anticipated that the contingency of £500k would be sufficient.
16.3 RESOLVED: That the Committee –
(i) Noted the current project programme, identified risks and financial implications;
(ii) Agreed the financial strategy set out in paragraph 4.3 and the proposed additional borrowing facility to ensure project completion.
17 Response to Notice of Motion: Council Service Delivery
17.1 The Committee considered the report of the Executive Director Economy Environment & Culture. At its meeting on 3 February 2022, Full Council approved a Notice of Motion concerning service delivery within areas of City Environment and City Transport. In May 2022, the Policy & Resources (P&R) Committee agreed that a regular report should be presented to P&R Committee covering the recovery of the same services. The report provided an update on those areas of City Environment and City Transport service delivery which the Notice of Motion referred to.
17.2 Cllr Peltzer Dunn was concerned with overgrowing weeds on pavements, and as there were 832 miles of pavements in the city and that was being addressed. Officers said this issue was a problem. One of the main issues was lack of suitable equipment and insufficient numbers of staff. New equipment was needed but there was currently a 45 day delay in procurement. The main problem was lack of staff, this had been a seasonal job but there was now a deficiency in this type of employment market. Officers were looking to restructure the positions and employ full time staff who would be responsible for beach cleaning in the summer and deep cleaning, leaf clearing etc during the winter months.
17.3 Cllr McNair said that bins for dog waste weren’t regularly collected and asked when that would be addressed and if new bins would be provided. Officers said that it was being addressed and staff who had collected the rubbish had had to be redeployed. However, the collections were now improving. There were no plans to increase the number of bins.
17.4 The Chair noted that there was an amendment from the Labour Group and asked Cllr Allcock to introduce it.
17.5 Cllr Allcock proposed the following amendment to recommendation 2.2 (changes in italics)
2.2 Noting that the ET&S Committee is responsible for the council’s functions relating to waste, parks and open spaces and parking services, agrees that future reports will be brought to this committee, and that the next report to do so will outline a step-by-step plan to improve performance in these key service areas, and report back to P&R in the Winter with an update on how effectively this plan has been implemented, as residents need to see action taken now.
17.6 Cllr Evans formally seconded the amendment.
17.7 The Lawyer noted that the third line in Recommendation 2.2 referred to ‘this’ committee and suggested that it be changed to ‘that’ committee to make it clear that the reference was to the ET&S Committee. All agreed.
17.8 The Committee voted on the amendment, and it was agreed.
17.9 RESOLVED: That the Committee –
(i) Noted the response to the Notice of Motion;
(ii) Noted that the ET&S Committee is responsible for the council’s functions relating to waste, parks and open spaces and parking services, agrees that future reports will be brought to that committee, and that the next report to do so will outline a step-by-step plan to improve performance in these key service areas, and report back to P&R in the Winter with an update on how effectively this plan has been implemented, as residents need to see action taken now.
18 Re-assignment of EcoTowns Funding
18.1 The Committee considered the report of the Executive Director Economy, Environment & Culture which sought to re-assign the capital funding from the unimplemented Portzed scheme to wider climate change and biodiversity projects across the Shoreham Harbour area; and to agree indicative governance arrangements.
18.2 The Chair noted that there was an amendment from the Labour Group and asked Cllr Evans to introduce it.
18.3 Cllr Evans proposed the following amendment to recommendations 2.1 and 2.2 (changes in italics):
2.1 That Committee agrees re-assignment of EcoTowns capital funding to climate change and biodiversity projects across the Shoreham Harbour Area and that a report is brought back to Policy & Resources Committee detailing how the funds will be allocated.
2.2 That Committee agrees
indicative governance arrangements set out in paragraph 3.7 and
delegates authority to the Assistant Director for City Development
and Regeneration to agree the detail with the relevant authorities
in consultation with the Group Spokesperson Chair of
Policy and Resources Committee.
18.4 Cllr Yates formally seconded the amendment.
18.5 Cllr Peltzer Dunn asked if ‘Group Spokesperson’ should read ‘Group Spokespersons’. Cllr Evans agreed it should.
18.6 The Committee voted on the amendment, and it was agreed.
18.7 RESOLVED: That the Committee –
(i) Agreed re-assignment of EcoTowns capital funding to climate change and biodiversity projects across the Shoreham Harbour Area and that a report is brought back to Policy & Resources Committee detailing how the funds will be allocated;
(ii) Agreed indicative governance arrangements set out in paragraph 3.7 and delegates authority to the Assistant Director for City Development and Regeneration to agree the detail with the relevant authorities in consultation with the Group Spokespersons of Policy & Resources Committee.
19 Corporate Enforcement Services
19.1 The Committee considered the report of the Chief Finance Officer which sought approval of a new process for the procurement of external Enforcement Services for Brighton & Hove City Council.
19.2 Dr Sasidharan said the members of the public sometimes found it difficult to get preventative advice on managing debts and asked if there was any targeted support available. The Chief Finance Officer said that there was a high demand for that type of support. The Household Support Fund had one or two mental health debt caseworkers who were able to give additional support, and the Council did provide funding for the Citizen Advice Bureau and the Money Advice Service.
19.3 RESOLVED: That the Committee approved the new process for the procurement of enforcement agent contracts via a Dynamic Purchasing System to replace the current informal Service Level Agreements and to ensure closer alignment of practice with the council’s approved Corporate Debt Policy.
20 Kingsway to the Sea
20.1 The Committee considered the report of the Executive Director Economy, Environment & Culture which provided an update on progress with the design and requested authorisation to proceed with submission of a Planning application.
20.2 Cllr Yates said that he, and other members of this committee, were also members of the Planning Committee and asked if he agreed with recommendations in the report whether there was a risk that he would be prejudicing any decision which would have to be made if the matter later came to the Panning Committee. The Monitoring Officer said that when members made decisions at different committees, they were wearing different hats, and today you would be making a decision as a landlord and not as a planning authority. He recommended that any members of the planning committee say either during today’s debate or if the matter came to the planning committee at that meeting that you will consider any application on its own merits and you will approach it with an open mind.
20.3 Councillor Peltzer Dunn asked for clarity on which part of the ward of South Portslade was geographically included in the scheme. The Executive Director Economy Environment & Culture said that the reference to South Portslade related to the users of the park and those most affected rather than a geographic reference.
20.4. Councillor Peltzer Dunn said that the consultation had shown that further consideration could be very useful, and therefore proposed the following amendments to Recommendation 2.2 which would allow for members to see if there were any further comments before the final application were submitted:
Amendment 1 (western pitch and putt lawn)
2.2 Agrees that a Planning application for the Kingsway to the Sea site is submitted to include the elements listed in 3.1 below subject to prior consultation with a panel formed of three Councillors (one from each of the three parties represented on Policy & Resources Committee) of proposals for the western pitch and putt lawn following concerns being raised about over-intensification and destruction of green space by residents, dog-walkers, local amenity societies and other groups.
Amendment 2 (outdoor gym)
2.2 Agrees that a Planning application for the Kingsway to the Sea site is submitted to include the elements listed in 3.1 below along with a dedicated space for a new outdoor gym.
Amendment 3 (tennis provision)
2.2 Agrees that a Planning application for the Kingsway to the Sea site is submitted to include the elements listed in 3.1 below subject to prior consultation with a panel formed of three Councillors (one from each of the three parties represented on Policy & Resources Committee) of the make-up of racket sport provision on the site.
20.5 Councillor McNair formally seconded the amendment which would ensure that the consultation process continued up until the planning stage.
20.6 Councillor Moonan noted that a large number of public consultations had been held and the public had been fully engaged, and this design took into account the needs of all groups and provided a balance between sports facilities, recreation and open space. With regard to the amendment, if the consultation were to continue then all representative groups would need to be included and it would be inappropriate to allow some groups to have further discussions and therefore the Labour Group could not support the amendment.
20.7 Councillor Shanks said that the Green Group would not support the amendment and that the Planning Committee would be reviewing the matter in due course and that would be an opportunity for members of the public to raise any further issues.
20.8 The Committee voted on the amendments and they were not agreed.
20.9 RESOLVED: That the Committee –
(i) Agreed in principle to the development of the area shown in Appendix 1 Site Map, as outlined in this report;
(ii) Agreed that a Planning application for the Kingsway to the Sea site is submitted to include the elements listed in 3.1 below;
(iii) Approved a revised capital budget of £12.99m including £1.000 million additional borrowing as set out in paragraph 3.27 and Section 7 of this report;
(iv) Authorised the Executive Director Economy, Environment & Culture to procure and award contracts necessary to deliver the project and enter into any legal agreements required to facilitate the works;
(v) Agreed that a further report on the status of the project is bought back to the Policy and Resources Committee in December 2022 in advance of construction commencing on site.
21 Brighton & Hove City Council 2021/2022 Modern Slavery Statement
21.1 The recommendations were agreed without discussion.
21.2 RESOLVED: That Committee approved the Modern Slavery Statement.
22 Homes for Brighton & Hove - Revised Business Plan
22.1 The Committee considered the report of the Executive Director Housing Neighbourhoods & Communities regarding the revised business plan for Homes for Brighton & Hove. There was also a Part Two paper (Item 25) relating to this item. This report had also been considered by the Housing Committee on 22nd June 2022.
22.2 Cllr McNair noted that when this report was considered by the Housing Committee the Conservative Group voted against the recommendations as the financial information they requested had not been provided. The Executive Director Housing Neighbourhoods & Communities said that there was financial information within the Part Two report and briefings had been offered to councillors.
22.3 The Lawyer advised the Committee that when considering the recommendations, they must have regard to the information contained within the Part Two paper. The members confirmed that they had.
22.4 The Committee voted on the recommendation, and it was agreed with the two Conservative Group members voted against.
22.5 RESOLVED: That the Committee agreed to the revised business plan in the Part 2 report and delegated authority to the Executive Director Housing, Neighbourhoods and Communities to take all steps necessary to enable and facilitate the implementation of the revised Business Plan including providing reserved matters approval pursuant to the Members Agreement.
23 Items Referred For Council
23.1 RESOLVED: That item 20 Kingsway to the Sea be referred to be submitted to the 21 July 2022 Council meeting for information.
Review of Council Grading Structure
23A The Committee considered the report of the Executive Director of Governance, People & Resources which provided an update on the progress of negotiations with Trade Unions on a review of the Council’s grading structure and asks the Committee to agree to proposed changes. This item was added to the agenda after it had been published and the report published in an addendum. The report was introduced by the Director Human Resources & Organisational Development and the Chief Finance Officer.
23A.1 Cllr Yates asked what impact any proposed agreements would have on schools’ budget, and if an assessment had been made on that possible impact. He noted that reference had been made to a more strategic approach for pay and asked what that would be. The Chief Finance Officer said discussions had been held with schools and, whilst there would be an impact, they were generally supportive. There were a number of mechanisms to help schools such as the licence deficit process which enables schools to manage challenging financial situations over a number of years, and officers would advise and support them through that process. If there were high pay awards for both teaching and non-teaching staff, it wasn’t clear what assistance the government would give but they may give additional funding. Schools had received a cash settlement of a 4.8% uplift per pupil. The situation with schools would be closely monitored. The Executive Director Families Children & Learning said that some schools would be better placed to deal with any pay increases than others, but it was a challenging situation. The Director Human Resources & Organisational Development said that strategically the council were looking at pay across the organisation, and there were some areas where it was difficult to recruit and there were some areas were the pay compared favourably. Any pay increases could have a significant financial impact and so any changes in the pay line had to be carefully considered.
23A.2 The Chair noted that there was a Labour Group amendment and asked Cllr Yates to introduce it.
Cllr Yates proposed the following additional recommendation be added:
That Committee also asks for a future report to Policy & Resources Committee before Budget Council in 2023, outlining a comprehensive review of staff pay grades and structures right across the council, to identify any changes needed to ensure our staff are paid at competitive rates, and that staff retention and recruitment are made easier.
Cllr Allcock formally seconded the amendment.
23A.3 The Committee voted on the amendment, and it was agreed.
23A.4 The Chair noted that the GMB Union had raised concerns with members of the Committee on the impact on the proposals going forward and therefore proposed the following amendment:
1. That the Committee notes the concerns expressed by the unions regarding the risk of redundancies among school support staff which may result from these proposals:
2. Further notes that the power to make decisions regarding employment and dismissal of staff rests with the school governing body;
3. Agreed to use reasonable endeavours to facilitate discussions between all interested parties with the aim to avoid redundancies which may result from the proposals in the report.
Cllr Gibson formally seconded the amendment.
23A.5 The Committee voted on the amendment, and it was agreed.
23A.6 RESOLVED:
(i) That Committee, having considered the information in the part 2 report, agrees to the proposed changes to the grading structure outlined in paragraph 3.8 and 3.9 and Appendix 2 and that these changes are backdated to 1st January 2022;
(ii) That Committee agreed to the proposed assimilation of staff from the current grading structure to the new grading structure as outlined in Appendix 3 from 1st September 2022 with increased salary rates being backdated to 1st January 2022;
(iii) That Committee delegates authority to the Director of Human Resources & Organisational Development, following consultation with the Chief Executive and Chief Finance Officer, to take all necessary actions to implement these changes as soon as is practicable;
(iv) That Committee also asks for a future report to Policy & Resources Committee before Budget Council in 2023, outlining a comprehensive review of staff pay grades and structures right across the council, to identify any changes needed to ensure our staff are paid at competitive rates, and that staff retention and recruitment are made easier;
(v) (1) That the Committee notes the concerns expressed by the unions regarding the risk of redundancies among school support staff which may result from these proposals:
(2) Further notes that the power to make decisions regarding employment and dismissal of staff rests with the school governing body;
(3) Agreed to use reasonable endeavours to facilitate discussions between all interested parties with the aim to avoid redundancies which may result from the proposals in the report.
24 Part Two Proceedings
24.1 RESOLVED: That the items listed in Part Two of the agenda and decisions thereon should remain exempt from disclosure to the press and public.
25 Homes for Brighton and Hove - Revised Business Plan
25.1 RESOLVED: That the recommendation outlined in the report be agreed.
26 Industrial Relations Update
Review of Council Grading Structure
27.1 RESOLVED: That the recommendation outlined in the report be agreed.
Industrial Relations Update
28.1 RESOLVED: That the recommendation outlined in the report be agreed.
27 Review of Council Grading Structure- Exempt Categories 3, 4 & 5
27.1 RESOLVED: That the recommendation outlined in the report be agreed.
The meeting concluded at 10.40pm
|
Signed
|
Chair |
||
|
Dated this |
day of |
|
|