Brighton & Hove City Council
Place Overview & Scrutiny
4.00pm21 January 2026
Hove Town Hall Council Chamber
MINUTES
|
Present: Councillor Evans (Chair) Cattell, Fishleigh, Fowler, Mackey, Meadows, Pickett, Sykes and Winder |
|
|
|
Other Members present: Councillors
|
PART ONE
52 Procedural Business
52. Procedural Business
52a Declarations of substitutions
52.1 Apologies were received from Cllr Goddard
Bernadette Kent (OPC) was invited to the meeting to represent the Older Peoples’ Council as Mary Davies was unable to attend.
52b Declarations of interest:
52.2 There were none.
52c Exclusion of the press and public
52.3 There were no Part Two items so the press and public were not excluded.
53 Minutes
53.1 RESOLVED– that the minutes of the Place Overview & Scrutiny Meeting on 14th October 2025 were approved with one amendment from Cllr Sykes.
54 Chair's Communications
54.1 The Chair gave the following communication:
We are slightly changing the order of the agenda today to accommodate Cllr Muten who has a meeting clash and will be joining us later. So, we will start off with an update on waste management in the city and a potential new collection model, which you are being asked to consider and comment on. This paper will be going to Cabinet tomorrow and any comments from today’s meeting will be shared in advance.
Next, we will be looking at the Infrastructure Development Plan and the Community Infrastructure Levy, which forms part of the budget setting process. We are being asked to note the plan for future years.
Our last presentation is on the Highways permitting scheme for street works. The slides provide an overview of how it all works at the moment with suggestions of improvements including a lane rental scheme.
In the interests of time, can I please request that both those asking and answering questions are as brief and to the point as possible, as we want everyone who wishes to contribute to have the opportunity to do so. We also don’t want the meeting to overrun too much into the evening. Please note that any questions relating to a specific ward will be referred to officers outside of the meeting to ensure the committee is focussed on implications for all wards. In the interests of time and to ensure that everyone gets to contribute, I’m going to ask those presenting to keep their introductions to 5 minutes to allow as much time as we can for questions. Thank you.
55 Public Involvement
55.1 There were no public engagement items.
56 Member Involvement
56.1 There were no member questions.
57 More recycling, less waste - a new collection model
57. More recycling, less waste – a new collection model
57.1 Cllr Rowkins gave a brief introduction to the item; that improving recycling rates is a priority and that plastic tubs and trays have been added to the list of items that can now be recycled and there has been a roll out of weekly food waste collections. 38% of the composition of general waste is food waste; this combined with plastics, cartons and foil means that a large amount of waste has been removed from general waste bins leaving them half empty. This raises the question of whether it makes sense to continue to drive around the city collecting half empty bins. Other councils including Lewes District Council have switched to fortnightly collections, others are doing 3 or 4 weekly. They are looking into what a fortnightly model would look like and no decisions have yet been made. There will be a consultation with residents and a decision would be made later in the year. This would only affect kerbside waste collections, not communal bins. The service has had some wobbles recently, but they continue to work on improvements.
57.2 Cllr Fowler said that this is a good idea as she has found that her bin is now half empty, however, she asked about people who don’t recycle properly who may end up with overflowing bins and how to encourage them to recycle. Cllr Rowkins agreed that in his household the general waste bin is much emptier due to the additional items that can now be recycled. There is an issue of contamination for those people who do not recycle correctly and it is a change of habit that is needed. Once the additional items for recycling have been introduced, the team will increase messaging and signage and do a big communications campaign on it.
57.3 Cllr Meadows said that there is an issue with student HMOs who do not recycle properly; that updating people with information on new recycling regimes on the website is not good enough as people don’t check it regularly; that the report mentions missed collections due to illegally parked cars and asked how the new law on pavement parking might affect this; that the Cabinet paper talks about consultation and asked if this will come back to scrutiny; that the 99% rubbish collection statistic has been queried by residents on social media; that the impact of the expansion of materials that can be recycled has not yet been proven; and they need to use social media better to let residents know about their plans. Cllr Rowkins agreed that students HMOs are a key area for messaging and they will work with the universities and letting agents on this, that they acknowledge they will need to use physical leaflets for messaging to ensure all residents have the information they need, that the pavement parking ban may have an impact but they have smaller waste vehicles that can access the more narrower roads, the outcome to the consultation will likely come back to scrutiny and that the 99% figure is correct although it has dropped since the issues experienced at Christmas. Ali Mcmanamon added that they have bid for a fully funded intern from the University of Sussex to take on the social media campaign for this.
57.4 Cllr Sykes asked whether sanctions would be introduced for incorrect use of recycling bins, and whether they have any figures on the financial impact of changing to a fortnightly collection model. Cllr Rowkins said they are not considering sanctions and that the financial savings would comes from running fewer vehicles. There was a significant investment in introducing the food waste service and making it efficient and this isn’t a cost saving exercise. They introduced the 2pm crews to scoop up missed collections from that morning but that there have been staffing issues and two new crews are currently being trained to take this on.
57.5 Cllr Cattell said that residents were unhappy that the reporting missed collections website doesn’t always working and is it important to ensure the technology is doing what it needs to. Cllr Cattell also said that paper communications is important and people need to know what they can do, such as larger families can request a larger bin. Cllr Rowkins said that the whole service is digital now; they launched a real time information service online, that missed collections can be reported by residents which is more efficient, as they used to have to wait until the crew returned to the depot with scraps of paper; now they know which bins have been missed straight away and can rectify this. The website may seem to not work but this is because once a missed collection has been reported once it has been logged and residents can’t report multiple times.
57.6 Cllr Winder said that the strength of the process is the careful approach to allow people to get used to things; what is the next phase and expectations of ongoing change? Cllr Winder also asked how the workforce feel about these changes. Cllr Rowkins said they purposefully sequenced the changes for this reason but it needs to be clear to everyone what can and what can’t be recycled, which bin to put what in and acknowledged that communal bins now have incorrect signage which needs to be rectified. Residents need to have confidence that what is put in recycling bins are actually recycled, which helps with behaviour change. There is a conspiracy theory that everything ends up at the incinerator which is a myth and not helpful in instilling confidence from residents. The workforce have a different attitude now; Cllr Rowkins spoke to the Food Waste Drivers who said it’s the best job in the world, they have brand new vehicles and enjoy being part of a new service to residents. They leave the depot at 3am and the job is hard work. Unfortunately, some collections were missed around Christmas due to ice and some workers slipped and were injured. The managers deemed it unsafe and suspended the service. Ali Mcmanamon added that there is a positive energy at the depot with a lot of changes being made including greater investment in vehicles, systems and technology. Managers are going out with the crews and fully understand the service and engaging with people face to face.
57.7 Bernadete Kent (OPC) asked about the equality implications as the elderly are an increasing demographic in the city; that any research or feedback needs to include the Older Peoples’ Council and they need to bear in mind that the elderly are not so digitally minded and can get confused as to what goes in what bin. They need to think about how to get these messages across, possibly in libraries or GP surgeries. She also asked about the communal bins in the city centre that get full very quickly and how a fortnightly collection would affect that. Mark Strong (CVS) added that people with learning difficulties, especially those living alone, also find it confusing. Cllr Rowkins said a full EIA will be undertaken and the consultation will involve focus groups to understand how the changes affect people and so mitigations can be put in place. They don’t want to rely too much on digital communications but physical paper is expensive but they recognise this needs to be done. Communal bins will not be affected by any changes in collection. The future aim is to have sensors on these bins to judge how full they are.
57.8 Mark Strong (CVS) said that the local groups he represents can help with cascading this information through local newsletters and other means, that they need to be mindful not to create more waste with physical leaflets and targeted communications would be effective. Cllr Rowkins welcomed help from local groups and was happy to attend any meetings.
57.9 Cllr Fishleigh asked about the problems encountered during the Christmas period and said that East Saltdean had no missed collections. Cllr Fishleigh said leaflets were promised to residents in her ward but never appeared and questioned why £500k was being spent on a report when she would prefer that money to be spent on a new lorry, more staff and better IT systems. Cllr Rowkins explained that the conditions were unsafe so the decision was made to suspend the service as people moving heavy bins in black ice is a different situation to the bus service that still ran. Managers couldn’t conduct a risk assessment in the dark so the service started late and at the time the 2pm crews were not available. They are investing in new vehicles and drivers but the fleet was 15+ years old and the number of new vehicles is limited as it takes a while for them to be delivered once requested. In relation to the costs, this would also be used to distribute the physical leaflets although they are looking into cheaper ways to do this but acknowledged that Saltdean did not get them. Lewes District Council did have missed collections over Christmas. Ali Mcmanamon added that the money is also going towards fleet investment, recruiting drivers, project team costs including communications and data specialists, and a review of the 190 collection rounds which they are doing in collaboration with the workforce. Essentially, this is a broader transformation of the service.
57.10 Cllr Evans said that going ahead without consultation would upset residents so they have to do it. She asked about the review of the rounds and whether this would have to be repeated if Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) meant the boundaries would change, and that putting the leaflets with council tax bills could be a way of reducing cost. Cllr Rowkins said that they are expecting the outcome of LGR soon and this will form part of the review. Leaflets have gone out with council tax bills in the past but the timing is unlikely to work for this year.
57.11 Cllr Meadows said the budget papers said that they would charge for a change of bins, and asked whether the fortnightly collection was prelude to a 4 day working week for staff. Cllr Rowkins said this was not the case and they only charge for lost or damaged bins.
57.12 Mark Strong said that the average household produces 70 kilos of food waste per year and whether they could do any messaging to people not to buy more than they need or to take any excess to a food bank. Cllr Rowkins said the food waste bins should hopefully highlight to people how much waste they are producing and change their behaviours based on this.
57.13 Cllr Mackey said that the information stickers on communal bins in the street and blocks are not legible anymore and need to be replaced. Cllr Rowkins said the information is now out of date anyway so they will be putting new signage in.
57.14 RESOLVED – that the report be noted
58 Infrastructure Development Plan and CIL - Plan for future years
58. Infrastructure Development Plan and CIL – Plan for future years.
58.1 Cllr Taylor explained that the Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) and Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) are related. The existing IDP was published in 2020 and lays out the city’s infrastructure requirements across social, physical and green infrastructure. It forms part of the budget setting process. The IDP identifies projects and needs that are required in the city; £587m worth of needs have been identified and there is only £205m of funding available. CIL is associated with planning and the development process and replaces Section 106. The income received through CIL is split between the strategic, Citywide CIL and the neighbourhood CIL. They will have to use CIL to support already identified projects that are vital for the city. Neighbourhood CIL bids go into the Better Brighton & Hove Fund where the neighbourhoods decide what they want the money spent on. 931 ideas were submitted at the last consultation. There is a variance of neighbourhood CIL across different parts of the city so they worked out an average to make it fair and used part of the Citywide CIL to top up each ward to ensure each one has the same minimum amount. Citywide CIL has £400k to date with a forecast of £700k and Neighbourhood CIL has £49k with a forecast of £90k. A further round of Neighbourhood CIL will take place at the beginning of 2027 once the pots have accrued more funding providing there is enough funds to do so. They received a positive response with lots of great ideas and will now go through them with the ward councillors to see which ones are viable. They will look for other avenues for those ideas that cannot be funded via CIL. This is all connected to the City Plan process which is much broader dealing with allocation of land across the city.
58.2 Cllr Meadows said in the report it stated they identified £587bn. Cllr Taylor corrected this as £587m and there was a misprint in the report. Cllr Meadows said that Neighbourhood CIL feels like a resident’s wishlist with ideas such as a tram rail in Patcham and she felt that expectations need to be managed when realistically CIL will fund much smaller things like a new bench. The IDP refresh states it will remove long term unfunded projects and asked what these were; and she questioned why some developers for major planning applications won’t be paying CIL. Cllr Taylor said he thought a tram was a good idea but it wouldn’t be able to be funded through CIL as it’s too small. Residents know what is possible and what isn’t; a lot of CIL goes towards the look and feel of the area with things like benches, new bins, rain gardens etc but there will be some disappointment and not everyone will get what they want. The long term unfunded projects have been in the mix for a while and there seems to be not much point including them when they have no allocated funding. Nicola Hurley explained that there are some nil CIL rated development sites such as the King Alfred site. There are four sites in the city that are nil CIL rated that were examined at the time of introducing CIL and during the examination it was concluded developers don’t need to pay CIL on these sites. This is for reasons such as contaminated land, sea defences needed and in the case of the King Alfred funding a leisure centre. Also there is no CIL liable on affordable housing units. Mark Strong confirmed that a tram would costs billions.
58.3 Mark Strong asked how much engagement they had on the list for the IDP and that some of the ideas for CIL were not technically “infrastructure” such as revenue based proposals such as saunas and said they need to make it clearer what the money can actually be spent on. He also asked about cross referencing ideas from the community with projects already being worked on at the Council. Cllr Taylor said the Neighbourhood CIL is more flexible than the Citywide CIL and does allow for some revenue based projects. Cross referencing across the Council is a large task but it’s important to check existing projects that already have funding and use that first before CIL, they are currently talking to all the relevant departments.
58.4 Mark Strong asked about the process once the officers have compiled the lists, whether this goes back to ward councillors and whether community groups would be able to have some input and engage with residents. Cllr Taylor said it is a ward member led process and the preferences would be what is presented to residents.
58.5 Cllr Sykes said the refresh of the IDP is a good opportunity to look at climate resilience and net zero commitments; and reported that apparently Southern Water have a large amount of money to invest in the city. The format of the IDP is a summary of individual sector based spreadsheets which will tie together with the Council Plan and he asked if there would be a narrative expanding on the individual projects so people can have more information; he was surprised not to see Hove footbridge on the list. The process worked well in his ward but he started the process too early and would like the timeline and process clarified for the next round. Cllr Taylor said that it is a fairly high level document that doesn’t supersede anything that already exists. Due to a short timeframe, it wasn’t felt necessary to do a more in depth narrative. Southern Water’s plans may have changed as they had asked if the Council would invest into their programme. The Council has put some money towards Hove footbridge but it is a complicated situation. He acknowledged the timeline for CIL was expected to flow more quickly that it actually did and took on board the need for clarified process and timeline.
58.6 Cllr Fowler asked when the last time things could be added to the list as she would have liked a rain garden in her ward due to having a lot of water flow. Nicola Hurley said they have written to ward councillors with the current list and they are liaising with relevant departments at the moment but it will come back to ward councillors one more time.
58.7 Cllr Fishleigh said she isn’t a fan of CIL because under Section 106 all the money could have been spent locally and now they only get 15%. New additions such as a bus shelter and new pavement caused by new developments should come from the 85% CIL and not the 15%. Nicola Hurley said that Section 106 regime was more restrictive and could not be spent on anything, only mitigating the impacts from the development site. CIL is more flexible and doesn’t have to be spent within a certain timeframe or paid back if not spent. Cllr Taylor said there are wards in the city with no eligible development sites so they need to balance strategic needs across the city and local needs.
58.8 Cllr Winder asked if there was a possibility of having a citywide view of everything, identifying deprived areas that need significant input and phase projects into a larger scale to ensure that it benefits everyone who needs it. Cllr Taylor said every area gets a project and a minimum amount of CIL. They can look at the suggestions on a citywide basis but they know they can’t fund them all; what is useful is that these ideas form a mini public informed plan for each area, identifying the needs and wishes of the community.
58.9 Mark Strong said that there are quite a few proposals on the list from councillors for their own wards, some have put “submitted on behalf of residents”, and citywide voluntary groups will have a view on these ideas. Cllr Taylor said he collected ideas in the comments section of his Facebook post and submitted them into the form himself; he didn’t differentiate between a resident idea and councillor idea. In the next stage they will look into putting a call out to community groups to submit ideas as a group and send to a specific email address to meet this request.
58.10 RESOLVED – that the report be noted
59 BHCC Highways Permitting Scheme for Street Works
59 BHCC Highways Permitting Scheme for Street Works
59.1 Cllr Muten presented the slides on the permit scheme for street works which shows the challenges being faced and explains the proposed lane rental scheme. The purpose is to improve coordination, reduce disruption, encourage collaboration and better forward planning. Permit applications are submitted to the national DFT system; the Council applies conditions to those permits to help minimise disruption and can issue fines under S74. Southern Water is the frequent source of overrunning works. The Council can also enforce high standards in areas of heritage. The current scheme lacks financial penalties with a maximum fine of £240. With the lane rental scheme the fines can be up to £2500 per day during peak hours which encourages utility companies to work quickly. The income is re-invested into transport projects. East and West Sussex County Councils, Kent and London have implemented this scheme and have proof that it speeded up roadworks. The team will be recommending to Cabinet that they apply to the Secretary of State for a lane rental scheme.
59.2 Cllr Sykes was positive about this proposal and asked about the benefit-cost ratio and how it is calculated; that the scheme must be cost neutral so is the income generated from the scheme limited to the cost of providing the service or can it be used on more citywide projects; that consultation could delay things but also be an opportunity to look at control points for sensitive things such as utility companies damaging heritage paving stones. Cllr Muten said that the benefit would be to take a more coordinated approach between utility companies but is not meant to make a profit. There was an instance where the gas company in Cllr Sykes’ Ward had not considered the heritage nature of the pavement and there is work that needs to be done, particularly with utility companies who do not know or live in the area to be more respectful. Tracy Beverley said that the permit schemes are reviewed every three years and any money that is made will go back into the scheme to pay for things like staff members, monitoring permits, and issuing notices if needed. The lane rental scheme allows a surplus to be generated which can be invested into improving networks and compliance around areas such as heritage.
59.3 Cllr Meadows said that often the road is dug up but there is no one working and it would be less disruptive if electricity and gas works dig up the road at the same time. The timing of permits and road closures needs to be clearer. She asked if the Council could charge them more if they don’t coordinate digs as it is so frustrating. Cllr Muten said the utility companies know where repairs are needed and they should talk to each other. The lane rental scheme incentivises them to do so and coordinate repairs so the work is done at the same time. The utility companies pay contractors to put cones out and are charged a day rate and there are long periods of nothing happening. The lane rental scheme would save money as they can share the cost of roadworks.
59.4 Bernadette Kent said that roadworks can have an adverse effect on disabled people. At a recent meeting, she was told about a wheelchair user who couldn’t get out of their building due to roadworks. Cllr Muten said utility companies need to be considerate of residents and it is their responsibility to communicate their work and they must consider access. Tracy Beverley said the current procedure says they are not allowed to work on the highway without considering the impact and that they should know better.
59.5 Mark Strong said that the definition of the busiest roads also includes pedestrians, cycling and wheelchair users and they can consult with groups like Possibility People to gain advice. He asked if the Council are doing work on the highways, do they have to apply to itself for a permit? Cllr Muten said that they would and have to pay for it. Tracy Beverley reassured Mark that pedestrians are considered when looking at the busiest streets. They will consult with key stakeholders, then put forward the top 10% traffic sensitive streets to the Government. Bernadette Kent asked if the OPC could be included in this consultation and Tracy Beverley said yes.
59.6 Cllr Fishleigh said that traffic management plans put in place are not fit for purpose. Often contractors working on the roads do not know the area and come from outside the city, getting caught in traffic jams themselves. She gave the example of the A259’s recent closure that caused chaos. Cllr Muten said it was a nighttime closure where the contractor had planned to return the road to use but the works overran and there was no daytime team to continue into the next shift. Lessons have been learned from this and they must now submit a contingency plan to avoid this happening again. He stressed the need for better communication with residents. He added that the lane rental scheme includes a Board where the council, utility companies and contractors can review traffic management plans together, supported by a dedicated officer to oversee these discussions.
59.7 Cllr Mackey said this is a good opportunity to better manage works near high footfall areas such as hospitals and transport interchanges, improving safe access for vulnerable users. She asked whether impacts on these groups could be monitored and whether smaller contractors might be disadvantaged by increased costs. Cllr Muten said the scheme would improve communication with residents and better address the needs of vulnerable users. He noted that some contractors lack local knowledge, as they are based outside the city, which can lead to poor communication. He added that the time disruptive equipment such as cones, materials and signage that have at time remained on the highway will be reduced from 20 days to five. He acknowledged that contractors would face costs for their equipment, which could increase costs for utility companies, but said this would incentivise better coordination and joint working to reduce disruption.
59.8 RESOLVED – that the report be noted.
The meeting concluded at 6.32pm
|
Signed
|
Chair |
||
|
Dated this |
day of |
|
|