Brighton & Hove City Council
Council
4.30pm22 October 2020
Virtual MEETING
MINUTES
|
Present: Councillors Robins (Chair), Mears (Deputy Chair), Allcock, Appich, Atkinson, Bagaeen, Barnett, Bell, Brennan, Brown, Childs, Clare, Davis, Deane, Druitt, Ebel, Evans, Fishleigh, Fowler, Gibson, Grimshaw, Hamilton, Heley, Henry, Hill, Hills, Hugh-Jones, Janio, Knight, Lewry, Littman, Lloyd, Mac Cafferty, McNair, Miller, Moonan, Nemeth, Nield, O'Quinn, Osborne, Peltzer Dunn, Phillips, Pissaridou, Platts, Powell, Rainey, Shanks, Simson, C Theobald, Wares, West, Wilkinson and Williams.
|
PART ONE
Declarations of Interest
Councillor Nemeth declared a personal but not prejudicial interest in Item 52, a Notice of Motion concerning the availability of Beach Huts and Chalets as he was a member of the Hove Association;
Councillor Osborne declared a personal interest but not prejudicial interest in Item 43 (1) Petition for debate on A Basic Income Trial as he was a member of the Basic Income Group for the South East;
Councillors Simson, Barnett, Brown, Theobald, Hamilton, Appich, Mears, Allcock, Gibson, Littman, West and Shanks declared a personal but not prejudicial interest in Item 57, a Notice of Motion on Pension Divestment as they were members of the East Sussex or another local authority pension scheme;
Councillor Peltzer Dunn declared a personal but not prejudicial interest in Items 52, Notice of Motion on Beach Huts as he owned a beach hut and Item 57 as he was in receipt of an East Sussex Pension;
Councillor Druitt declared a personal interest but not prejudicial interest in Item 46 as an oral question related to bus services and he was a Director of the Big Lemon Bus company;
Councillor Phillips declared a personal but not prejudicial interest in Item 46 and an oral question on bus services as she was Councillor Druitt’s partner;
Councillor Powell declared a personal interest but not prejudicial interest in Item 46 and an oral question on community safety given her role with Sussex Police;
No other declarations of interests in matters appearing on the agenda were made.
Minutes
The minutes of the last ordinary meeting held on the 23rd July and the special meeting held on the 13th August 2020 were approved and signed by the Mayor as a correct record of the proceedings.
Mayor's Communications.
The Mayor had the following communications:
Firstly, on behalf of the Council, I would like to recognise the service given by Dr. David Horne who has been one of the two Independent Members serving on the Audit & Standards Committee and has now chosen to stand down from his role. I know that the Monitoring Officer is highly appreciative of Dr. Horne’s support and dedication to the role on the committee and that he will be missed.
I would therefore like to present this certificate to Dr. Horne as a mark of the Council’s appreciation and gratitude.
Dr. Horne thanked the Mayor and stated that it had been a huge honour to have served on the committee for the last eight years and to work with councillors and officers during that time. He recognised that the council would face many difficult decisions in the future, and he wished councillors and officers well.
The Mayor thanked Dr. Horne and stated that he wanted to inform the council that having taken advice and being mindful of the current situation; the Acts of Remembrance across the city are being curtailed with minimum attendance due to Covid-19. A ceremony with reduced numbers will take place at Brighton War Memorial, but there will be no parade, no road closures, no parking suspensions and only 4 wreaths will be laid by;
The Lord Lieutenant on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen
The Mayor on behalf of the City and its citizens
The Chair of the RBL on behalf of the armed services
Lt Commander Allcock will lay a communal wreath with the names of service organisations and individuals who would normally be called up to lay a wreath.
The Mayor noted that there were upcoming Charity events subject to Covid 19 restrictions which included:
The Mayor’s virtual Charity Quiz is taking place on the 28 October at 19:00 via Zoom;
A Miracle on 34th Street at All Saints Church, which will be a socially distanced film evening and;
Actually Gay Men’s Choir at All Saints on the 8 December, for socially distanced Christmas carols.
He hoped that councillors and others would join him at these events and noted that all proceeds would go to his charities. He asked that everyone to encourage friends and family to buy tickets too. Further information would be sent once the tickets went on sale for the events at All Saints and your support will be much appreciated.
The Mayor also noted that he had been informed of the Green and Labour Groups wished to composite the two amendments that had been circulated with the addendum papers and related to Item 51, a Notice of Motion on the Urban Fringe. The revised amendment would be circulated in due course but in the meantime, he asked that Council agree to the two amendments being revised into one amendment for consideration later in the meeting.
The Mayor noted that the Council was happy to accept a revised amendment for Item 51.
To receive petitions and e-petitions.
The Mayor invited the submission of petitions from councillors and members of the public. He reminded the Council that petitions would be referred to the appropriate decision-making body without debate and the person presenting the petition would be invited to attend the meeting to which the petition was referred.
Mr. Bruno DeOliveira presented a petition signed by 84 residents calling on the council to release information on the Ethnic Minority Pay Gap within Brighton and Hove City Council's employees.
The Mayor thanked Mr. DeOliveira for presenting the petition and noted that it would be referred to the Policy & Resources Committee for consideration.
Written questions from members of the public.
The Mayor reported that 7 written questions had been received from members of the public and invited Mr. Rob Shepherd to address the council.
Mr. Shepherd asked the following question; as custodian of part of England’s transport infrastructure, the City has a statutory duty to keep traffic flowing in and beyond its own boundaries and to liaise with other authorities, as set out in the 2004 Traffic Management Act (Network Management, Duty Guidance, Section 31) .
As the predicted traffic delays from Valley Gardens Phase 3 and Black Rock will significantly add to the problems on the already congested A259, please detail the discussions you had with ESSC to ensure traffic flows will be protected on this important section of the Major Road Network?
Councillor Heley stated that planned changes to the A259 that are part of the Black Rock and Valley Gardens Phase 3 projects will help achieve the safer movement of people and vehicles. The use of ‘smart’ traffic signals (which are mentioned in the council’s Corporate Plan) will help to do this by making it easier and more attractive to walk or ‘wheel’ across the busy A259, or to use the route to cycle. This is especially important for disabled people who may need more assistance to cross these roads, and who would find this very challenging because there is so much traffic, which causes the current congestion.
The changes will therefore fully meet a key Government objective of the Major Road Network which is to recognise the needs of all users, including cyclists, pedestrians and disabled people. Making changes like this locally will also help us to encourage and enable more people to walk and cycle and therefore contribute to the council’s 2030 target of carbon neutrality, especially if this replaces a car or van trip.
The new traffic signals will help manage flows and movement at the busiest times, either in the week for residents and workers or at weekends when we also welcome visitors. The Duke’s Mound and Palace Pier junctions are nearly 4 miles away from the county boundary so are very unlikely to affect traffic flows in East Sussex, and therefore there have not been any specific discussions with county council. Officers are also aware of its’ planned study of the A259, and when we are approached about that we will be happy to discuss it with them, including whatever the future levels of sustainable transport use and traffic conditions are at the time.
Mr. Shepherd asked the following supplementary question; delays on the A259 already reach the threshold the City Plan used to determine that no transport interventions would be needed to build thousands of new homes by 2030.
This is even before the impacts of Valley Gardens, Black Rock and thousands of new homes just over the City boundary.
How can City Plan Part Two claim to support the implementation and delivery of City Plan Part One, without addressing this fundamental planning error?
Councillor Heley stated that she was not able to respond to the question and would ensure that Mr. Shepherd received a written reply.
The Mayor thanked Mr. Shepherd for his questions and invited Mr. Nigel Smith to address the council.
Mr. Smith asked the following question; having missed your Transport Carbon Emission Reduction targets by 70% year on year since they were set post-Kyoto, please explain why they were missed and confirm that all parties involved in 2030 zero emissions planning will be fully briefed on this historic failure, so it is not repeated.
Do you agree “that reduction pathways are as important as reduction targets” or in other words that setting a nice sounding 2030 target has little value unless the path to get there is set out and monitored?
Councillor Heley stated that although the council does not have a Transport Carbon Emission Reduction target, it does monitor the Government’s dataset which includes CO2 emissions estimates for road transport and railways. Estimates of the level of reduction required in transport emissions since 2005 have been calculated to indicate the scale of change necessary to help meet previously set targets for carbon reduction. The numbers do show a slight decrease over time compared to previous years, but this has not been enough to stay on track.
In that time, the city’s population has continued to grow; its economy has been resilient; public transport use has increased; and traffic flows have also remained stable. Previous council Administrations and city partners have also delivered measures that can contribute towards reducing emissions in the city, such as:
travel behaviour change programmes;
upgrading street lights;
smart traffic signals;
providing electric vehicle charging points;
the BikeShare scheme and e-cargo bikes; and
new low emission vehicles.
Despite this, developments in vehicle technology have been relatively slow and are not affordable to everybody, and vehicle trips are still a major contributor to carbon emissions and many of those trips come from far and wide, and for many reasons. For example, we are a top visitor destination and people will travel long distances to come here; we have a thriving port that needs large vehicles to transfer materials to and from it daily; and we have a diverse business economy that needs regular deliveries and customers to prosper.
The council has therefore recognised that action is necessary and has declared a climate emergency, and the target to achieve carbon neutrality in the city by 2030 is an ambitious one, but it is essential that we all do everything that we can to meet it. That will take a significant, collective and cumulative effort across all parts of the city and will need to involve every resident, every community and every business. The council cannot be solely responsible for the individual choices that we all make, but it can lead by example, and encourage and enable positive and sustainable change.
We may need to make some very challenging decisions, but our work will be helped by the city’s first ever Climate Assembly and its focus on travel and transport. It has already had some fascinating discussions prompted by some excellent presentations, and its continued work and eventual conclusions will contribute towards the development of our next Local Transport Plan (LTP5) and our Carbon Neutral Programme which we will bring to Committee in March 2021. It will set out the route that we intend to take and the milestones that we expect to achieve between now and 2030.
But the onset of Covid-19 and its continuing threat to our health and people’s livelihoods is also a defining moment that will make the next 10 years very different from the last 15, as we continue with the city’s recovery programme. Active travel measures are a key part of that and will help us focus our minds and decisions on moving more quickly towards reducing transport carbon emissions and meeting a target that everyone in this room is committed to.
Mr. Smith asked the following supplementary question; would
The Valley Gardens Phase 3 study said it increases traffic delays by 16% which increases our carbon footprint.
Why is the council not using the opportunity of Valley Gardens, as proposed in the 2018 Brighton Bus Network Review, to improve bus routes to avoid North Street to reduce our costly delays and the City's carbon footprint?
Councillor Heley stated that she was not able to respond to the question and would ensure that Mr. Smith received a written reply;
The Mayor thanked Mr. Smith for his questions and invited Mr. Bryan Coyle to address the council.
Mr. Coyle asked the following question; Whitehawk is one of the most deprived areas in the city. East Brighton food co-op has been supplying over 700 hot meals per week to needy people during this crisis. What percentage of funding from the Covid emergency food fund has been allocated to this?
Councillor Gibson noted that on the 9 September 2020 the Policy & Resources Recovery Sub-committee considered a report recommending the allocation of the Local Authority Emergency Assistance Grant for Food and Essential supplies. The report explained the rationale behind the recommended allocations and the objectives being supported in the city-wide response. The report recommendations were approved. The East Brighton Food Co-op was not named as a direct recipient of funding in the report; however, funding was allocated to the Brighton & Hove Food Partnership in order to support food banks and food hubs across the city as appropriate. As a result, he was not currently able to provide a percentage as requested.
Mr. Coyle asked the following supplementary question; would the Council consider funding the East Brighton Food Co-op directly to ensure it could continue supporting the community?
Councillor Gibson stated that he would explore the options open to the council to support the co-op with officers and write to Mr. Coyle.
The Mayor thanked Mr. Coyle for his questions and invited Ms. Rose Bunker to address the council.
Ms. Bunker asked the following question; why has the South Downs National Park's objection to the proposed Joint Venture Development on the Coldean Lane Site not been fully and publicly addressed?
They called the development 'an inappropriate scale and density for this hillside urban fringe location within the setting of the SDNP' and said that 'It would also appear to conflict with Policy SA4 of the City Plan Part One, and with the proposed designation of the site as a Local Nature Reserve'.
The number of dwellings was subsequently reduced from 250 to 242, but this in no way answers the SDNP's concerns.?
Councillor Littman stated that planning applications were carefully considered against policies in the adopted development plan and other material considerations. In terms of the Coldean Lane application, this included considering the objections of the South Downs National Park Authority. Concerns about the development were weighed up against the benefits and following this, and having secured improvements to the application, the case officer recommended the application for approval. Following a debate at Planning Committee on 10 July 2019 members approved the application by 7 votes to 3.
Ms. Bunker asked the following supplementary question; were the South Downs National Park made aware that the application (BN2018/03541) was supposed to be a composite application for both operational development and change of use of the land, as stated retrospectively in March 2020 by Planning Solicitor? The general public weren't made aware of this, and it's far from clear whether the Planning Committee itself were even aware of it.
Councillor Littman stated that he was not able to respond to the question and would ensure that Ms. Bunker received a written reply.
The Mayor thanked Ms. Bunker for her questions and invited Mr. James Noble to address the council.
Mr. Noble asked the following question; people across our city sacrifice their time to publicises and collect signatures about issues that are important to them. Does the Mayor, therefore, agree that the unconstitutional rejection of petitions submitted to full council for debate sends a message that our council doesn’t want to listen?
The Mayor replied; firstly, I would say that the decision to not accept the petitions was not “unconstitutional” as you put it. The Council’s constitution allows the Mayor and the Chief executive to not accept petitions if they consider them to be inappropriate. The decision was taken after taking all relevant considerations, including professional advice into account.
The process for the approval of the local plan is set out in legislation. In very simple terms, it has generally four main stages:
First the Council consults with the public on a proposed plan, secondly the Council approves the plan. This happened at the Council meeting in April this year, thirdly the Council publishes the plan, as approved by full Council, for consultation. This is the stage we are in and the consultation is happening right now. The deadline for submission of comments is at the end of this month. So, people should be submitting comments in the consultation process. Finally, the draft plan and any representations received are submitted, not to the Council, and I emphasise not to the Council, but to the Planning Inspectorate for determination. There will be a hearing examination by the Inspector next year and there will be opportunities for people to address the hearing.
So, given that we are at the final consultation phase, any representations that people would like to make should be made as part of the statutory consultation process for presentation to the secretary of state, not the Council, because the Council part of the process was finished in April. The decision we took was not taken lightly. We sought and obtained advice from the Head of Planning and the Lead Planning Lawyer. The advice was that the petition to the Council would not be appropriate but that the petition should be added to the consultation responses.
Having considered all the circumstances, including the advice from Officers, it was my view and that of the Chief Executive that it would not be appropriate to accept the petition. I am mindful of and respect the fact that a number of people took the trouble to sign the petitions. I will therefore be asking that they are submitted to the Planning Department for inclusion in the representations to the government. That will ensure that they are addressed to the right place using the right process, which is what should have happened in the first place.
There will, as I said, also be an opportunity to make representations at the examination hearing.
Mr. Noble asked the following supplementary question;
The Mayor stated that if the information provided by the petitioners and the deputations was submitted to the planning officers, they would ensure all the information was passed onto the Planning Inspector as part of the consultation process.
The Mayor thanked Mr. Noble for his questions and invited Ms. Anna de Wit to address the council.
Ms. De Wit asked the following question; why is a site dangerously positioned between Coldean Lane (already an accident blackspot) and the sheer drop to the Brighton Bypass, of so steep a gradient that it was described in a 2008 Urban Study as 'undevelopable', now considered suitable for 240 dwellings in high-rise blocks?
Councillor Littman stated that the site was identified as having potential for residential development in the Urban Fringe Assessment 2014. Detailed highways safety issues were assessed as part of the planning application process. The scheme was designed to overcome safety concerns and £350k was secured to mitigate the impact of travel to and from the site. The planning application was subsequently approved by Planning Committee on 10 July 2019.
Ms. De Wit asked the following supplementary question, has any consideration be given to the condition of the bridge and how that would be resolved with the development?
Councillor Littman stated that he was not able to respond to the question and would ensure that Ms. de Wit received a written reply.
The Mayor thanked Ms. de Wit for her questions and noted that Mr. Jiva Masheder was unable to join the meeting because of work commitments and therefore asked Councillor Druitt to ensure that a written response was sent to Mr. Masheder.
The Mayor noted that this concluded the list of public questions.
Deputations from members of the public.
GASWORKS SITE EAST BRIGHTON
The Mayor reported that one deputation had been received from members of the public and that he would invite the spokesperson to introduce their deputation and for the relevant Chair to respond. He noted that 15minutes were set aside for the consideration of deputations.
The Mayor welcomed Marie Sandford to the meeting and invited her to address the Council.
Ms. Sansford thanked the Mayor and referred to the deputation and outlined the group’s concerns over the possibility of the gas works site being redeveloped. She hoped that the council would give consideration to the request to having an independent assessment of the site and to ensure only limited redevelopment was permitted that would not result in any contamination being released or environmental and health risks for local residents and the local area.
Councillor Mac Cafferty thanked Ms Sanford for the deputation and stated that all planning applications must be determined in line with both local and national planning policy and guidance and relevant planning legislation. This included Environmental Impact Assessments and the impact of a development on human health. He was certain that the city council would scrutinise the information as part of the planning application process and any approval would be subject to stringent planning conditions to address land contamination. He noted that remediation was highly technical, regulated and was licensed and overseen by the Health and Safety Executive. He was sure that if these standards could not be met, then works on the site could not proceed.
The Mayor thanked Ms. Sansford for joining the meeting and noted that the deputation would be referred to the Policy & Resources Committee for consideration. The persons forming the deputation would be invited to attend the meeting and would be informed subsequently of any action to be taken or proposed in relation to the matter set out in the deputation.
Petitions for Council Debate
A BASIC INCOME TRIAL FOR BRIGHTON AND HOVE
The Mayor stated that where a petition secured 1,250 or more signatures it could be debated at the council meeting. He had been made aware of three such petitions and would take each in turn. However, he also noted that since the publication of the agenda the third petition, concerning the Brighton & Hove Greyhound Stadium had been withdrawn.
He noted that there was amendment to the cover reports’ recommendation for the first petition which would be taken as part of the debate on the matter in question.
The Mayor then invited Ms. Gordon-Walker to present the petition concerning the introduction of a basic income trial in Brighton and Hove.
Ms. Gordon-Walker thanked the Mayor and stated that the petition which had been signed by 2,308 people was the first in the country to trigger a debate by a council on the matter. She noted that other councils had considered notice of motion that were seeking the ability for those authorities to be able to pilot a scheme and she hoped that Brighton & Hove would join them in requesting the Government to give them the ability to have a basic income trail in the city.
Councillor Druitt thanked Ms. Gordon-Walker for presenting the petition and noted that Universal Basic Income systems had been trialled in a number of countries and may offer some potential advantages over the current welfare benefits system. He felt that it would be interesting to understand how such a scheme could be designed to help to avoid current benefit poverty traps and help to address the growing inequality of earnings across the country. However, in supporting any trial, the council would wish to be assured that no-one would end up receiving less financial support than through the current benefit system, particularly disabled people. The system was also likely to require additional staffing resources and new systems in order to implement the scheme and process payments. Keeping the system simple for both people and administrators would be important to minimise costs. However, given the council’s challenging financial situation, the council would wish to be assured that any government trial provides funding for the additional administrative burden placed on the council or partner authorities involved in any pilot.
Councillor Osborne moved an amendment on behalf of the Green Group which sought to enable a letter to be sent from the Chief Executive to the government registering the council’s desire to be able to undertake a pilot scheme.
Councillor Gibson formally seconded the amendment.
Councillors Williams, McNair, Knight, Janio and Littman spoke on the petition and the amendment.
Councillor Gibson noted the comments and welcomed the amendment.
The Mayor thanked Ms. Gordon-Walker for joining the meeting and presenting the petition and noted that the amendment had been moved.
The Mayor then sought the Council’s agreement to put the recommendations as amended to the vote which was agreed and he therefore called on each of the Group Leaders to confirm their position as well as the Groups in turn and each of the Independent Members:
Councillor Mac Cafferty stated that the Green Group were in favour of the recommendations as amended and this was confirmed by the Green Group Members;
Councillor Platts stated that the Labour Group were in favour of the recommendations as amended and this was confirmed by the Labour Group Members;
Councillor Bell stated that the Conservative were in against the recommendations as amended and this was confirmed by the Conservative Group Members;
Councillor Brennan confirmed that she was in favour of the recommendations as amended;
Councillor Fishleigh confirmed that she wished to abstain from voting on the recommendations as amended;
Councillor Janio confirmed that he was voting against the recommendations as amended;
Councillor Knight confirmed that she was voting in favour of the recommendations as amended.
The Mayor confirmed that the recommendations as amended had been carried.
RESOLVED:
That the petition is noted and referred to the Policy & Resources Committee for consideration;
That the Chief Executive be requested to write to the Chancellor expressing the council’s support for a basic income pilot in the area and calling on the government to undertake a feasibility study to detail how best to implement a local basic income trial for the city; and
That in addition, to request that the Chief Executive includes the reply from the government in the Full Council papers after the reply is received.
OPEN A NEW HOMELESS SHELTER IN MORLEY STREET, BRIGHTON
The Mayor then invited Mr. Barry Hughes to present the petition which called on the council to purchase an empty property in Morley Street so that it could become a new homeless shelter.
Mr. Hughes thanked the Mayor and stated that the petition which had been signed by 4,519 and started by Mr. John Hadman was seeking the council’s support to provide a homeless shelter in the city. The property identified had been vacant for a period of time and rather than continuing to remain vacant it was hoped that the council could purchase it and redevelop it as a shelter for the homeless.
Councillor Gibson thanked Mr. Hughes for joining the meeting and presenting the petition.
Councillor Mears stated that she could not support the petition’s request in regard to the property in Morley Street as she understood that the owners were not prepared to sell and had plans for the property which were being taken forward.
Councillor Gibson noted the comments and suggested that the Policy & Resources Committee could consider the general need for the provision of a homeless shelter whilst acknowledging that the property in question was unlikely to be available.
The Mayor thanked Mr. Hughes for joining the meeting and presenting the petition.
The Mayor then put the recommendation to the vote and called on each of the Group Leaders to confirm their position as well as the Groups in turn and each of the Independent Members:
Councillor Mac Cafferty stated that the Green Group were in favour of the recommendation and this was confirmed by the Green Group Members;
Councillor Platts stated that the Labour Group were in favour of the recommendation this was confirmed by the Labour Group Members;
Councillor Bell stated that the Conservative Group were against the recommendation and this was confirmed by the Conservative Group Members;
Councillor Brennan confirmed that she was voting in favour of the recommendation;
Councillor Fishleigh confirmed that she was voting in favour of the recommendation;
Councillor Janio confirmed that he wished to abstain from voting on the recommendation;
Councillor Knight confirmed that she was voting in favour of the recommendation.
The Mayor confirmed that the recommendation to note the petition and refer it to the Policy & Resources Committee had been carried.
RESOLVED: That the petition be noted and referred to the Policy & Resources Committee for consideration.
CLOSE BRIGHTON & HOVE GREYHOUND STADIUM
The Mayor noted that the third petition had been withdrawn.
Call Over for Reports of Committees.
(a) Callover
The following items on the agenda were reserved for discussion:
Item 47 - Anti-Slavery Pledge
Item 50 - Madeira Terrace
(b) Receipt and/or Approval of Reports
The Head of Democratic Services confirmed that Items 47 and 50 had been reserved for discussion and that the following reports on the agenda with the recommendations therein had been approved and adopted:
Item 48 - Amendments to the Scheme of Delegations – Enforcement of Covid-19 Related Legislation
Item 49 - Appointment of an Independent Person to the Audit & Standards Committee
(c) Oral Questions from Members
The Mayor noted that there were no oral questions relating to the items that had not been called.
Written questions from Councillors.
The Mayor confirmed that written questions from Members and the replies from the appropriate Councillor were taken as read by reference to the list included in the addendum which had been circulated prior to the meeting as detailed below:
Councillor Platts:
I’m pleased the Administration supported Labour’s amendment at the recent Environment, Transport & Sustainability Committee, calling for local residents and stakeholder groups to be consulted and be able to offer input into the process before the implementation of tranche 2 emergency temporary transport changes. We set out a reasonable timeframe for meaningful consultation. Please can I get an update on that consultation?
Reply from Councillor Heley, Chair of the Environment, Transport & Sustainability Committee
We are currently still awaiting a response from the Department for Transport on the outcome of our Emergency Active Travel Fund Tranche 2 bid. Despite initial confirmation that this would be in early September, an announcement has still not been made. We are committed to the 6-week consultation outlined in the September ETS committee decision, subject to it not putting the funding stream at risk. A draft consultation plan is being developed and will be brought to the special ETS committee to discuss this item with members, as committed in September.
Councillor Platts:
Labour were pleased to work cross-party with other political groups in order to set up a range of working groups when in administration. We set up a cross-party Community Wealth Building group, as well as Project Boards covering Black Rock, i360, King Alfred, Madeira Terraces and Waterfront. Lots of these have understandably been hold due to the public health crisis. Please can I get an update on each of these project boards, as well as the Community Wealth Building Working Group?
Reply from Councillor Mac Cafferty, Leader of the Council
You are correct to identify that most of the project boards have started to meet again after the public health crisis as part of the governance around major projects. The Black Rock project board has looked at the designs for the proposals and considered the public art strategy that will be pursued. The King Alfred project board is looking at options for how the development of the site needs to consider the wider leisure strategy for the city. The i360 Member Working Group has heard positive news about how the i360 is performing relative to other visitor attraction in the city and further afield. Policy & Resources recently agreed the RIBA stage 0-1 report for Madeira Terraces and agreed that officers could move the design on further in consultation with that project board. The Waterfront Project Board is expected to meet in November to start considering how we will arrive at a specification for a new conference centre and venue in the city.
The Corporate Plan commitment to a Community Wealth Building Programme had started with officers commissioning a report into Community Wealth Building in Brighton by the Centre for Local Economic Strategies. A first draft was received in December 2019, and by the time it had been finalised the public health crisis had started and then member working groups were not meeting. Member working groups were reconvened in July and obviously the focus was initially on restarting the ones that had already been operational – such as the Carbon Neutral 2030 Member Working Group that was already well established. The Community Wealth Building member working group was not brought together before the change of administration.
Officers will now take some time to sit down with members and understand what a Community Wealth Building Programme should cover. It is a broad topic, and a member working group ideally needs to be targeted to be able to deliver real benefits in the city. Officers are committed to work with members to deliver this.
Councillor Platts:
COVID-19 impacts upon all of us, but the evidence suggests it hits disadvantaged families the hardest. We know there is already an attainment gap for children living in areas of disadvantage and I am concerned the public health crisis will cause this gap to widen further. What is the Administration doing to ensure that existing educational attainment gap is not widened due to COVID-19?
Reply from Councillor Clare, Chair of the Children, Young People & Skills Committee
At last full council, I indicated that disadvantage would be a priority for this Administration, and I reaffirm that commitment in writing today. This is something that has to go beyond education – looking at the full picture to tackle what creates this gap. Addressing the needs of disadvantage is a thread through our SEN; Early Help and Early Years Strategy. .
As you indicate, there could be a worrying deepening of disadvantage and a ‘lost generation’ due to the impacts of the pandemic. This is something we cannot let happen. A further strategy on Education Disadvantage will be further developed through a Covid lens later in the Autumn term and Spring term.
I am pleased that both under your administration and since, officers have been working hard to support children and families through the pandemic. Below is some of that detail.
This is not meant to be an exhaustive list of work currently taking place to ensure the attainment gap is now widened but gives key highlights. It should be noted that in summer 2020 no disadvantaged data was available from the DfE to measure educational progress of these children. As the year goes on we will look to develop new success measures.
Support for Teaching and Learning in Schools:
The LA has written Home Learning guidance and disseminated best practice. In partnership with South Coast Teaching School Alliance provided extensive training program on home learning. There is a benefit both to catch up of disadvantaged and supporting during self- isolation or any possible lockdown.
The LA have actively engaged with schools and the DFE laptops program so over 1800 laptops have been successfully applied for disadvantaged pupils and those with a social worker in the City. The LA now support any application from the DfE when any school has a partial lockdown. This means the number of laptops is increasing.
Guidance has been produced for schools on how to use catch up money (£80 per child) to maximum effect. In conversations with schools we know of many schools who are using this money to employ teacher and teaching assistants to deliver interventions in reading, maths or other parts of the curriculum. Some schools are using funding to produce extra online or catch up packs that can be done outside of school hours. Some schools are commissioning 1:1 tutoring including from organisations such as ‘Action Tutoring’. We will seek to support schools to engage with national disadvantaged 1:1 catch up when DfE share offer at end of October.
The LA have delivered training to heads and other school leaders and produced guidance on recovery curriculum to include support with wellbeing and assessment. This has been welcomed by leaders.
Every Child a Reader Program has continued as pupils have returned to school. Nine schools in the city with high numbers of disadvantaged pupils continue to deliver Reading Recovery (the most intensive part of ECAR) and hold ECaR School accreditation. Reading recovery teachers in the ECAR schools have been able to advise, mentor and support others in the school with responsibilities for children’s literacy as well as run interventions in their own schools. In addition to this, nine further schools (with high numbers of disadvantaged) have been targeted to receive additional training for staff and support with specialist resources. A further offer of training is being made to all schools in the City on running successful ECAR interventions for disadvantaged. This is due to start in January.
Every Child Counts (ECC) could not be started during lockdown and we are now to promote training from January as well as commission a number of direct ECC interventions for pupils.
Attendance is clearly an absolute priority post lockdown. To support the attendance of disadvantaged pupil the LA attendance team have:
Simplified systems to ensure more responsive online/email/phone support for schools from Attendance Team.
Brighton and Hove inclusion support rolled out the ATTEND form all schools to explore the reasons for absence and ensure tailored support devised.
Encouraged all schools to take up Studybugs attendance support IT package to improve systems and free up staff time for casework.
Support for Early Years
Huge emphasis is place on Early Years when addressing the needs of disadvantaged particularly post Covid this includes:
Focussing on high take up of childcare places by low-income two-year olds including providing council nurseries in disadvantaged areas.
Rolling out the national Early Years Professional Development Programme to settings with the most disadvantaged children to develop skills of practitioners in speech, language and communication and create communication friendly settings.
Promoting home learning using the Raising Early Achievement in Literacy (REAL) Programme being delivered virtually with the Library Service and EMAS to disadvantaged families including those with English as an additional language.
Supporting families with parenting, parental conflict, and health needs in partnership with health visitors. Providing Access to Childcare and Employment (PACE) to support disadvantaged parents to access childcare, training, volunteering and employment.
Leadership and Governance
The LA have revised the School Improvement System and all meetings this term with schools focus conversations on disadvantage and catch up through a Covid lens. They are highly supportive and of course challenge schools on provision for disadvantage.
The LA has revised its program to support Headteacher wellbeing so chances are maximised of Heads being able to lead well in recovery phase
Governor training and workshops are taking place that have Disadvantage as part of or their only focus. Training planned includes more emphasis of addressing outcome for disadvantage during Covid
As you will know, Poverty Proofing (PP) audits were carried out in 90% of schools between April 2017 March 2019. To follow this up Children North East has developed a Covid Poverty proofing model. This involves a training session for senior leaders in school, follow up interviews (held virtually) by members of the PP team and a (virtual) staff meeting with the Senior Leadership Team to discuss the findings. Members from the original Brighton and Hove Poverty Proofing team are receiving training in November and the plan is to offer these visits to 20 schools from January 2021. We will target schools and also aim to work with at least one school in each partnership, developing school champions, so the work will reach beyond the schools. We will also create documentation that all schools can use.
Support for Families
Family Learning run a range of online live courses for parents and families to support disadvantaged families https://www.brighton-hove.gov.uk/families-children-and-learning/family-learning-online-classroom . One example is “ Supporting a child with anxiety” which is due to start next month and proving popular. Other opportunities including “Keeping up with Maths” or “Mindfulness”
EMAS (Ethnic Minority Achievement Service) continue to provide home school liaison and support families and children and families post lockdown. This can involve very practical support helping overcome any barriers in the home or at school that can in any way stop a BAME child thriving. This can be anything from understanding admissions to helping a family access home learning. EMAS run specific intervention for BAME children in Early Years. For example, REAL as mentioned previously.
Councillor Barnett:
I refer to the council land comprising Benfield Valley Golf Course that I understand is currently on a long lease.
Can the Leader of the Council confirm?
The extent of the land that has been leased and its definition
The year the land was leased by the council
The term of the long lease
The amount the land was leased for
How much it would cost for the council to buy back the long lease.
Reply from Councillor Mac Cafferty, Leader of the Council
There is a 225-year lease in place, originally granted in 1992 by Hove Borough Council to J Sainsbury plc. The lease formed part of the Section 106 planning agreement for the Sainsbury development (also the adjacent Wimpey, Meads residential development). In addition to the CPO of the land at that time the objective was for appropriate comprehensive development, restricting uses with ensuring and preserving rights of way. The lease has subsequently been assigned and the current lessee is Benfield Investments Ltd on a pepper corn rent. Any surrender of the current lease back to the council would be subject to negotiation and would be based on the value to lessees, if indeed the current lessees are willing to surrender the lease.
Oral questions from Councillors
The Mayor noted that 15 oral questions had received and that 30 minutes were set aside for the duration of the item. He also noted that he had been informed that Councillor Pissaridou wished to withdraw her question. The Mayor then called on Councillor Platts to put her question to Councillor Heley.
Councillor Platts asked if the bus services in the city were running at an effective level bearing in mind the impact of the pandemic?
Councillor Heley stated that Brighton & Hove buses were running at 90% of their pre-Covid journeys, although capacity was reduced as a result of social distancing guidelines.
Councillor Nemeth noted that a memorandum of understanding existed between the Green and Labour Groups and suggested that it meant that there was no proper opposition and asked how the Administration would be held accountable?
Councillor Mac Cafferty stated that both the Green and Labour Groups had areas where their manifestos were closely aligned and meant that they could work together for the benefit of the city, but it would not prevent the Administration from being scrutinised.
Councillor Nemeth asked if Councillor Mac Cafferty would make the memorandum of understanding public?
Councillor Mac Cafferty replied, no.
Councillor Grimshaw asked when the Coombe Road Parking Scheme was due to come into operation and how it would be made known to residents?
Councillor Heley noted that the Coombe Road area parking scheme was due to start on 1st December 2020 and we will be sending correspondence out to all households within the next couple of weeks which will update residents and outline when and where application details will be available. This will allow us to focus dedicated staff on this resident / visitor permit process which usually takes about 6 weeks alongside completing all the work started on site. She offered to discuss the matter further with Councillor Grimshaw outside of the meeting.
Councillor Mears asked how an effective opposition could be
provided on the Housing Committee? noted that democracies can
only thrive when they have an effective opposition, given that
Labour and the Greens are now working in coalition as confirmed
tonight by Councillor Gibson and have a joint programme for housing
& homeless is it constitutional or publicly defensible for the
opposition spokesperson on Housing to be a Labour councillor? How
can a Labour councillor provide opposition to their own
programme?
Councillor Mac Cafferty stated that the no overall control protocol dealt with the constitutional position and believed that the Labour Members on the committee provided the rigour to hold the Green Administration to account.
Councillor Mears noted that there were problems in the Housing department and the committee deserved an effective opposition and yet the Labour Group were in receipt of allowances and queried whether he agreed Councillor Williams should be removed as the Opposition Spokesperson?
Councillor Mac Cafferty stated that the appointments to committees was agreed at full Council and it was open for all members of a committee to scrutinise policy which councillor Mears could do as a member of the Housing Committee.
Councillor Janio noted that the council had adopted the IHRA definition for anti-Semitism, and asked if the Leader of the Council would commit to root out anti-Semitism wherever it exists?
Councillor Mac Cafferty stated that he did make it clear at the July Council meeting and again with the Anti-Racist Strategy to TECC in September that there is no place for this in the city.
Councillor Janio noted that the definition of anti-Semitism as set out by the IHRA, and asked if the Leader agreed with that statement and would he hold all who don’t to account as anti-Semitic?
Councillor Mac Cafferty stated that the Council has adopted the definition and there is no place for being anti-Semitic in the city.
Councillor Williams asked if the current Housing dispute was likely to have any impact on residents?
Councillor Hugh-Jones stated that discussions were on-going and that services would be maintained.
Councillor Peltzer Dunn asked the following question relating to car crime in West Hove.
Councillor Powell stated that officers had been made aware of an increase in vandalism to cars and the police had had confirmed that arrests had been made and enquiries were ongoing.
Councillor Peltzer Dunn asked if further action was required what form that would take to protect residents’ properties.
Councillor Powell offered to meet with Councillor Peltzer Dunn to discuss the matter further.
Councillor Childs referred to the changes to the planning process outlined in the White Paper and asked if the Administration intended to challenge these?
Councillor Littman stated yes and that officers were working on a response to the White Paper as the proposals would have a detrimental effect for local communities.
Councillor Childs questioned whether there was an intention to get local residents involved in lobbying the government on the matter?
Councillor Littman stated that the Communications Team were working with Planning officers to get information out on the potential impact of the proposed changes and urged all councillors to use their resources to highlight the issue in their wards.
The Mayor stated that the 30 minutes set aside for Members’ oral questions had been reached and he was minded to move onto the next item.
Councillor Nemeth moved a motion to suspend Standing Orders to enable the remaining oral questions to be taken, and this was formally seconded by Councillor Mears.
The Mayor put the motion to the vote and called on each of the Group Leaders to confirm their position as well as the Groups in turn followed by each of the Independent Members:
Councillor Mac Cafferty stated that the Green Group were in favour of the motion and extending the time for oral questions to be completed and this was confirmed by the Green Group Members;
Councillor Platts stated that the Labour Group were against the motion and this was confirmed by the Labour Group Members;
Councillor Bell stated that the Conservative were in favour of the motion and this was confirmed by the Conservative Group Members;
Councillor Brennan confirmed that she was voting against the motion;
Councillor Fishleigh confirmed that she wished to abstain from voting on the motion;
Councillor Janio confirmed that he was voting in favour of the motion;
Councillor Knight confirmed that she was voting against the motion.
The Mayor confirmed that the motion had been carried and invited Councillor Theobald to put her question to Councillor Heley.
Councillor Theobald asked the following question, when will the state of the pavements be addressed?
Councillor Heley replied, this year, City Environment has adopted a different approach to weed management, following the committee decision to become pesticide free by 2022. This means the service has not used pesticide on pavements and hard surfaces. Since the decision was taken, the removal of weeds in parks and on hard surfaces, such as pavements and highways, has been completed using manual techniques.
Cityclean has cleared most of the worst affected areas in the city. Unfortunately, the weeding and deep cleaning schedule has been substantially impacted upon by the Covid-19 pandemic and the effects of restrictions and lockdown. A large number of Cityclean staff were self-isolating and some of our street- cleansing operatives were also diverted to priority tasks.
The weeding season has only just ended, with the focus now on leaves. We have already started looking at what has gone well, the positive and negative impact on the environment including pavements and where we can make improvements. We are also looking at new equipment and will review funding, equipment and resources for the following year. A report will be brought to Environment, Transport & Sustainability Committee in the New Year.
It is important to note that many residents have asked us not to remove weeds when they have seen the insects flourish due to other concerns for biodiversity, so we also need to take on board what these residents are saying.
I want to thank our Street Cleansing operatives who have worked hard to remove weeds and continue to get rid of leaves from the most affected areas of the city. I’d also like to thank the 300 people who took part in the Keep Brighton & Hove Tidy fortnight in September. Their efforts helped tidy up the city, which included weeding.
Residents who would like excessive weeds removed from public land can report this online and street cleaners will attend the area.
Councillor Theobald asked the following supplementary question, in view of the on-set of winter, can the Chair agree to send a reminder to residents that bins should only be left on the pavement on the day of collection?
Councillor Heley replied, I would be happy to discuss the matter with officers and consider any action necessary.
Councillor O’Quinn referred to the cuts to the police service and an increase in drug related incidents and asked whether the Administration would sign the open letter from the Labour Group to the Government calling for a reversal of these cuts?
Councillor Powell stated that any incidents of drug dealing should be reported to the police and noted that all agencies were working together to address the issue.
Councillor O’Quinn urged the Conservative Members to sign the letter and whether Councillor Powell agreed that more resources were required to address the issue?
Councillor Powell stated that without question there was a need for more resources for all agencies to enable them to tackle the issue of drugs etc. and everyone should support that objective.
Councillor Barnett asked whether the Leader stood by his previous comments to transform Brighton and Hove into a democratic city when petitions that had been submitted in July were not being taken for consideration at the meeting?
Councillor Mac Cafferty noted that the Mayor had given a detailed response to Mr. Noble on the question of why it was not appropriate to take the petitions relating to the City Plan Part 2. He noted that should the Council choose to re-open the matter it would have significant costs to the city and the council.
Councillor Barnett asked the following supplementary question, will there be a compromise on Benfield Valley and a buy back of the long lease as the land was part of the South Downs National Park?
Councillor Mac Cafferty stated that a response had been given in the written answer to a question and the city council had not heard back from the lessee, but he would ensure a written response was given to Councillor Barnett.
Councillor Wilkinson asked whether there was an intention to tackle the on-going problem of graffiti in the city?
Councillor Heley replied, as Members will be aware, in recognition of the scale of graffiti within Brighton & Hove, the Environment, Transport & Sustainability Committee approved a Graffiti Reduction Strategy in November 2018.
Activities continue to be delivered to deliver the strategy.
Increasing the resources to deal with graffiti including a new jet washer and a new van
The creation of a graffiti hotline
Resuming the zonal method of graffiti removal
Identifying further options for anti-graffiti coating
Identifying a graffiti removal spray for volunteers to use to replace costly and environmentally damaging graffiti wipes
Expanding the Community Clean Up supplies available to residents
Working with IT&D to create a graffiti / tagging database
Last month, at Environment, Transport & Substantiality Committee, we agreed to introduce enforcement measures to address graffiti on private property, something which up until then, the council did not have any powers to take action.
Councillor Wilkinson asked if the matter was seen as a priority for the Administration?
Councillor Heley stated that the Environmental Enforcement Team was looking into procuring mobile CCTV to identify and deter graffiti vandalism in hotspot areas. We have already issued Fixed Penalty Notices for fly-tipping and littering as a result of the new CCTV cameras at locations across the city and hope we can achieve the same results for graffiti.
Again, I’d like to express my thanks to all those who took part in the Keep Brighton & Hove Tidy Campaign. Many people completed graffiti paint outs on bins in a bit to tackle this type of vandalism
Councillor Evans asked if there was an intention to take forward the concept of a circular economy as outlined in the Economic Strategy?
Councillor Druitt replied, in the Brighton & Hove Economic Strategy 2018-23, the council committed to the development of a circular economy Route Map that will detail how we aim to make the circular economy model central to the way we use our buildings, supplies and skills to deliver public services. Since then the council’s City Development & Regeneration Team has been engaging with colleagues from relevant teams across the Council to progress with embedding circular principles into the council’s directorates and the built environment and construction sector as an initial focus for the Route Map. The discussions and work undertaken by officers in these sessions have further helped to inform the develop of the circular economy Route Map which is due to be reported to Policy & Resources Committee on the 3rd December.
Councillor Allcock noted that there had been a significant increase in the number of FOI requests and asked if the impact on council resources could be addressed in anyway?
Councillor Mac Cafferty stated that consideration was being given to how these could be dealt with and would be happy to provide a more detailed written response.
Anti-slavery pledge
Councillor Powell introduced the report which detailed the proposal to sign up to the Anti-Slavery Pledge spearheaded by Birmingham City Council and supported by the Home Office. She wished to thank the officers involved in bringing the report forward and the work that was underway and hoped that it would be supported by everyone in the council.
Councillors Deane, Appich, Simson, Mears and Brennan spoke in support of the recommendations.
Councillor Powell noted the comments and stated that it was an important topic and she hoped that a positive change could be made.
The Mayor then put the recommendations to the vote and called on each of the Group Leaders to confirm their position as well as the Groups in turn and each of the Independent Members:
Councillor Mac Cafferty stated that the Green Group were in favour of the recommendations and this was confirmed by the Green Group Members;
Councillor Platts stated that the Labour Group were in favour of the recommendations and this was confirmed by the Labour Group Members;
Councillor Bell stated that the Conservative Group were in favour of the recommendations and this was confirmed by the Conservative Group Members;
Councillor Brennan confirmed that she was voting in favour of the recommendations,
Councillor Fishleigh confirmed that she was voting in favour of the recommendations;
Councillor Janio confirmed that he was voting in favour of the recommendations;
Councillor Knight confirmed that she was voting in favour on the recommendations.
The Mayor confirmed that the recommendations had been carried.
RESOLVED:
That the council signs up to the Anti-Slavery Pledge and statement of intent as drafted; and
That an elected Member be appointed to champion the work required under the auspices of the pledge.
Amendments to the Scheme of Delegations - Enforcement of Covid-19 Related Legislation
RESOLVED:
That the changes to the scheme of delegation to the Health & Wellbeing Board as set out in paragraph 3.3.5. be approved; and
That the changes in resolution (1) above, come into effect immediately they are approved by full Council, as appropriate and that the Monitoring Officer be authorised to make necessary and consequential changes to the council’s constitution to reflect the changes.
Appointment of an Independent Person
RESOLVED:
That the appointment of Mr David Bradly as Independent Person and co-opted member of the Audit & Standards Committee, to take effect on 25th October 2020 be approved; and
That the appointment be approved for a period of 4 years, and that the Monitoring Officer be granted delegated authority to implement a 2-year extension thereafter at his discretion, after consulting with the Chair of Audit & Standards Committee.
Madeira Terrace
Councillor Mac Cafferty stated that the report had been referred to the council for information as it was a matter that was of interest to all Members and residents. He noted that a great deal of work had progressed due to the cross-party support and the work of the officers and architects. He hoped that this would continue as the Madeira Terrace and the arches were important to the whole of the city.
Councillors Evans and Miller spoke in support of the progress made to date and thanked the officers and interested groups for their work and support. Councillor Janio stated that he believed it was a waste of public funds and could be achieved with other means.
The Mayor stated that the report had been referred for information and was therefore to be noted.
RESOLVED: That the report be noted.
Notices of Motion
Council Owned Land on the Urban Fringe
The Notice of Motion as listed on the agenda was proposed by Councillor Nemeth on behalf of the Conservative Group and formally seconded by Councillor Bagaeen who reserved his right to speak later in the debate.
Councillor Hill proposed a joint amendment on behalf of the Labour and Green Groups which was formally seconded by Councillor Littman.
Councillors Barnett, Janio, Ebel, Platts, Theobald, Atkinson, McNair and Bagaeen spoke on the motion and the amendment.
Councillor Nemeth noted the comments and confirmed that he did not accept the amendment and asked that the minutes should include a full list of the vote.
The Mayor noted that the amendment had not been accepted and therefore put it to the vote and called on each of the Group Leaders to confirm their position as well as the Groups in turn and each of the Independent Members:
Councillor Mac Cafferty stated that the Green Group were in favour of the amendment and this was confirmed by the Members of the Green Group;
Councillor Platts stated that the Labour Group were in favour of the amendment and this was confirmed by the Members of the Labour Group;
Councillor Bell stated that the Conservative Group were against the amendment and this was confirmed by the Members of the Conservative Group;
Councillor Brennan confirmed that she wished to abstain from voting on the amendment;
Councillor Fishleigh confirmed that she was voting for the amendment;
Councillor Janio confirmed that he was voting against the amendment;
Councillor Knight confirmed that she was voting in favour of the amendment.
|
|
|
For |
Against |
Abstain |
|
|
For |
Against |
Abstain |
|
1 |
Allcock |
√ |
|
28 |
Lewry |
|
x |
|
|
|
2 |
Appich |
√ |
|
|
29 |
Littman |
√ |
|
|
|
3 |
Atkinson |
√ |
|
|
30 |
Lloyd |
√ |
|
|
|
4 |
Bagaeen |
|
x |
|
31 |
MacCafferty |
√ |
|
|
|
5 |
Barnett |
|
x |
|
32 |
Mcnair |
|
x |
|
|
6 |
Bell |
|
x |
|
33 |
Mears |
|
x |
|
|
7 |
Brennan |
|
|
Ab |
34 |
Miller |
|
x |
|
|
8 |
Brown |
x |
|
35 |
Moonan |
√ |
|
||
|
9 |
Childs |
√ |
|
|
36 |
Nemeth |
|
x |
|
|
10 |
Clare |
√ |
|
|
37 |
Nield |
√ |
|
|
|
11 |
Davis |
√ |
|
|
38 |
O’Quinn |
√ |
|
|
|
12 |
Deane |
√ |
|
|
39 |
Osborne |
√ |
|
|
|
13 |
Druitt |
√ |
|
Ab |
40 |
Peltzer Dunn |
|
x |
|
|
14 |
Gibson |
√ |
|
|
41 |
Phillips |
√ |
|
|
|
15 |
Grimshaw |
√ |
|
|
42 |
Pissaridou |
√ |
|
|
|
16 |
Ebel |
√ |
|
|
43 |
Powell |
√ |
|
|
|
17 |
Evans |
√ |
|
|
44 |
Platts |
√ |
|
|
|
18 |
Fishleigh |
√ |
|
|
45 |
Rainey |
√ |
|
|
|
19 |
Fowler |
√ |
|
|
46 |
Robins |
√ |
|
|
|
20 |
Hamilton |
√ |
|
|
47 |
Shanks |
√ |
|
|
|
21 |
Heley |
√ |
|
|
48 |
Simson |
|
x |
|
|
22 |
Henry |
√ |
|
|
49 |
Theobald |
|
x |
|
|
23 |
Hill |
√ |
|
|
50 |
Wares |
|
x |
|
|
24 |
Hills |
√ |
|
|
51 |
Wilkinson |
√ |
|
|
|
25 |
Hugh-Jones |
√ |
|
|
52 |
Williams |
√ |
|
|
|
26 |
Janio |
x |
|
53 |
West |
√ |
|
|
|
|
27 |
Knight |
√ |
|
|
54 |
Yates |
Not present |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
38 |
14 |
1 |
The Mayor confirmed that the amendment had been carried and therefore put the motion as amended to the vote:
This Council
Requests that the Chief Executive contacts Robert Jenrick MP, to expresses council’s preference that the land on the urban fringe of Brighton & Hove which is presently privately owned or owned by Brighton & Hove City Council (BHCC), or subsequently acquired by BHCC, should not be put at risk, used or disposed of for housing development by housebuilding targets imposed through central government planning policy, and that our preference is for brownfield development.; and;
2. Notes that the inclusion of urban fringe sites in the City Plan was expressly required by the current government's Planning Inspector, and the council's refusal to consider sites would have resulted in a failure to adopt a plan and an inability to apply local policies;
Expresses concern that the government's planning reforms do not by
default consider urban fringe sites to be "protected", provide no
guarantees that the urban fringe sites which would be protected
from development in the proposed City Plan Part 2 would remain so,
and do not rule out development on so-called "protected sites" in
any case; and
Stating that while the council’s City Plan means that over 85% of new residential development will take place on brownfield sites, the requirement to meet centrally set housebuilding targets continues to force councils to use urban fringe sites for housing development;
Notes that the city's current urban fringe policies providing amenity to residents, such as increased public access, biodiversity net gain, food growing, and sustainability are at risk from the government's proposed reforms.
The Mayor then called on each of the Group Leaders to confirm their position as well as the Groups in turn and each of the Independent Members:
Councillor Mac Cafferty stated that the Green Group were in favour of the motion as amended and this was confirmed by the Members of the Green Group;
Councillor Platts stated that the Labour Group were in favour of the motion as amended and this was confirmed by the Members of the Labour Group;
Councillor Bell stated that the Conservative Group were against the motion as amended and this was confirmed by the Members of the Conservative Group;
Councillor Brennan confirmed that she wished to abstain from voting on the motion as amended;
Councillor Fishleigh confirmed that she was voting against the motion as amended;
Councillor Janio confirmed that he was voting against the motion as amended;
Councillor Knight confirmed that she was voting in favour of the motion as amended.
|
|
|
For |
Against |
Abstain |
|
|
For |
Against |
Abstain |
|
1 |
Allcock |
√ |
|
28 |
Lewry |
|
x |
|
|
|
2 |
Appich |
√ |
|
|
29 |
Littman |
√ |
|
|
|
3 |
Atkinson |
√ |
|
|
30 |
Lloyd |
√ |
|
|
|
4 |
Bagaeen |
|
x |
|
31 |
MacCafferty |
√ |
|
|
|
5 |
Barnett |
|
x |
|
32 |
Mcnair |
|
x |
|
|
6 |
Bell |
|
x |
|
33 |
Mears |
|
x |
|
|
7 |
Brennan |
|
|
Ab |
34 |
Miller |
|
x |
|
|
8 |
Brown |
x |
|
35 |
Moonan |
√ |
|
||
|
9 |
Childs |
√ |
|
|
36 |
Nemeth |
|
x |
|
|
10 |
Clare |
√ |
|
|
37 |
Nield |
√ |
|
|
|
11 |
Davis |
√ |
|
|
38 |
O’Quinn |
√ |
|
|
|
12 |
Deane |
√ |
|
|
39 |
Osborne |
√ |
|
|
|
13 |
Druitt |
√ |
|
Ab |
40 |
Peltzer Dunn |
|
x |
|
|
14 |
Gibson |
√ |
|
|
41 |
Phillips |
√ |
|
|
|
15 |
Grimshaw |
√ |
|
|
42 |
Pissaridou |
√ |
|
|
|
16 |
Ebel |
√ |
|
|
43 |
Powell |
√ |
|
|
|
17 |
Evans |
√ |
|
|
44 |
Platts |
√ |
|
|
|
18 |
Fishleigh |
√ |
|
|
45 |
Rainey |
√ |
|
|
|
19 |
Fowler |
√ |
|
|
46 |
Robins |
√ |
|
|
|
20 |
Hamilton |
√ |
|
|
47 |
Shanks |
√ |
|
|
|
21 |
Heley |
√ |
|
|
48 |
Simson |
|
x |
|
|
22 |
Henry |
√ |
|
|
49 |
Theobald |
|
x |
|
|
23 |
Hill |
√ |
|
|
50 |
Wares |
|
x |
|
|
24 |
Hills |
√ |
|
|
51 |
Wilkinson |
√ |
|
|
|
25 |
Hugh-Jones |
√ |
|
|
52 |
Williams |
√ |
|
|
|
26 |
Janio |
x |
|
53 |
West |
√ |
|
|
|
|
27 |
Knight |
√ |
|
|
54 |
Yates |
Not present |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
37 |
15 |
1 |
The Mayor confirmed that the motion as amended had been carried.
Closure Motion
The Mayor noted the meeting had been in session for 4 hours and in accordance with council procedural rules, he was required to move a closure motion. He therefore moved that the meeting should be concluded and put the motion to the vote.
The Mayor called on each of the Group Leaders to confirm their position as well as the Groups in turn and each of the Independent Members:
Councillor Mac Cafferty stated that the Green Group were in against the motion and this was confirmed by the Members of the Green Group;
Councillor Platts stated that the Labour Group were in favour of the motion and this was confirmed by the Members of the Labour Group;
Councillor Bell stated that the Conservative Group were against the motion and this was confirmed by the Members of the Conservative Group;
Councillor Brennan confirmed that she was voting against the motion;
Councillor Fishleigh confirmed that she was voting against the motion;
Councillor Janio confirmed that he was voting against the motion;
Councillor Knight confirmed that she wished to abstain from voting on the motion.
The Mayor noted that the motion had been lost and therefore moved to the next item.
Improving the Availability of Beach Huts and Chalets
The Notice of Motion as listed in the agenda was proposed by Councillor Platts on behalf of the Labour Group and formally seconded by Councillor Allcock who reserved his right to speak in the debate.
Councillor Nemeth moved an amendment on behalf of the Conservative Group which was formally seconded by Councillor Mears.
Councillors Ebel, Fowler and Allcock spoke on the motion and the amendment. Councillor Platts thanked everyone for their comments and confirmed that she did not accept the amendment.
The Mayor noted that the amendment had not been accepted and therefore put the amendment from the Conservative Group to the vote and called on each of the Group Leaders to confirm their position as well as the Groups in turn followed by each of the Independent Members:
Councillor Mac Cafferty stated that the Green Group were against the amendment and this was confirmed by the Green Group Members;
Councillor Platts stated that the Labour Group were against the amendment and this was confirmed by the Labour Group Members;
Councillor Bell stated that the Conservative were in favour of the amendment and this was confirmed by the Conservative Group Members;
Councillor Brennan confirmed that she was voting against the amendment;
Councillor Fishleigh confirmed that she was voting in favour of the amendment;
Councillor Janio confirmed that he was voting in favour of the amendment;
Councillor Knight confirmed that she was voting against the amendment.
The Mayor confirmed that the amendment had been lost and therefore put the motion as listed to the vote:
This Council notes that we are currently conducting a consultation on beach chalets and that due to demand, the waiting lists are currently closed; Council also notes that a report is due to go before committee after the current consultation ends in November in order the receive the findings of this consultation;
Council requests that this report:
Explores options to finance the building of additional beach chalets or beach huts to rent or to purchase;
Identifies locations for more chalets and huts along parts the seafront including less well-visited parts to help regenerate those areas and provide essential footfall for local businesses including east of the Palace Pier;
Identifies how beach huts and chalet income east of the Palace Pier could support additional borrowing and regeneration of Madeira Terraces and contribute to the wider area’s regeneration and renewal.
The Mayor then called on each of the Group Leaders to confirm their position as well as the Groups in turn followed by each of the Independent Members:
Councillor Mac Cafferty stated that the Green Group were in favour of the motion and this was confirmed by the Green Group Members;
Councillor Platts stated that the Labour Group were in favour of the motion and this was confirmed by the Labour Group Members;
Councillor Bell stated that the Conservative were in favour of the motion and this was confirmed by the Conservative Group Members;
Councillor Brennan confirmed that she was voting for the motion;
Councillor Fishleigh confirmed that she was voting for the motion;
Councillor Janio confirmed that he was voting for the motion;
Councillor Knight confirmed that she was voting for the motion.
The Mayor confirmed that the motion had been carried unanimously.
The Mayor then called a short adjournment from 21.13 to 21.28 hours.
20 Minute Neighbourhoods
The Notice of Motion as listed on the agenda was proposed by Councillor Evans on behalf of the Labour Group and formally seconded by Councillor Childs who reserved his right to speak later in the debate.
Councillor Hills proposed an amendment on behalf of the Green Group which was formally seconded by Councillor Heley.
Councillors Hamilton, Simson and Williams spoke on the motion and the amendment and expressed their support for both the motion and the amendment. Councillor Janio also spoke on the motion and the amendment and expressed his opposition to them.
Councillor Evans thanked those Members for their supportive comments and confirmed that she was happy to accept the amendment.
The Mayor noted that the amendment had been accepted and that the Council was happy to move to a vote on the motion as amended. He therefore put the motion as amended to the vote:
This Council notes our shared targets set out in both the corporate plan and City Plan Part 2 to build community wealth and affordable housing and reach carbon neutrality by 2030, and the importance to these goals of fostering a circular local economy.
Council recognises that both during and after the ongoing COVID crisis there is a pressing need to grow local place-based cohesion and wellbeing, and believes launching a “20-minute neighbourhood” initiative as part of a community wealth building approach to Covid recovery could build on the work already agreed by ETS committee around the introduction of low traffic neighbourhoods and help meet these shared aims.
Council therefore calls for;
The convening of the
Community Wealth Building Working Group at the earliest opportunity
and;
For that group to work
with officers to produce a report for committee(s) that seeks -
alongside ward councillors and residents groups - to identify
feasible locations to implement both micro “20-minute
neighbourhood” projects (such as community gardens and edible
bus stops) and a full-scale pilot scheme for the model;
That report to include the exploration of possible sources of funding to support investment in this full-scale pilot; and
That officers and CWB working group liaise with councillors and local community groups both on possible locations and on identifying potential partners from other local institutions – particularly those involved in the areas of education, health and wellbeing for these “20-minute neighbourhood” projects.
The Mayor called on each of the Group Leaders to confirm their position as well as the Groups in turn and each of the Independent Members:
Councillor Mac Cafferty stated that the Green Group were in favour of the motion as amended and this was confirmed by the Members of the Green Group;
Councillor Platts stated that the Labour Group were in favour of the motion as amended and this was confirmed by the Members of the Labour Group;
Councillor Bell stated that the Conservative Group were in favour of the motion as amended and this was confirmed by the Members of the Conservative Group;
Councillor Brennan confirmed that she was voting for of the motion as amended;
Councillor Fishleigh confirmed that she was voting for the motion as amended;
Councillor Janio confirmed that he was voting against the motion as amended;
Councillor Knight confirmed that she was voting for the motion as amended.
The Mayor confirmed that the motion as amended had been carried.
Supporting the Anti-Harassment Club
The Notice of Motion as listed on the agenda was proposed by Councillor Powell on behalf of the Green and Labour Groups and formally seconded by Councillor Grimshaw.
Councillors Henry, Brennan and Simson spoke on the motion and expressed their support for the campaign.
Councillor Powell thanked the Members for their contributions and hoped that the motion would receive full council support.
The Mayor then put the motion as listed to the vote:
That this council recognises the work of the local organisation the Anti-Harassment Club to bring to light more than 120 testimonies of gender-based street harassment in Brighton & Hove since June 2020. We call on all Councillors to express their support for this important local campaign group and its message;
This Notice of Motion therefore:
Requests that the Chief Executive writes with urgency to Katy Bourne PCC, to request that, in line with a similar pilot undertaken by Nottinghamshire Police in 2016, that she commit to adopting a pilot ‘misogyny as a hate crime’ policy locally, in order to enable our city to:
collect the data necessary to understand and evaluate the prevalence and nature of public sexual harassment in our community;
utilise such data to understand the impact of this on our local community and how this can be addressed;
to establish work with partners to establish support for victims of public sexual harassment
And further requests that:
- the Chief Executive writes to the government to request that misogyny is made a hate crime in England and Wales as part of an overhaul of legislation, as recently recommended by the Law Commission.
The Mayor called on each of the Group Leaders to confirm their position as well as the Groups in turn and each of the Independent Members:
Councillor Mac Cafferty stated that the Green Group were in favour of the motion and this was confirmed by the Members of the Green Group;
Councillor Platts stated that the Labour Group were in favour of the motion and this was confirmed by the Members of the Labour Group;
Councillor Bell stated that the Conservative Group were in favour of the motion and this was confirmed by the Members of the Conservative Group;
Councillor Brennan confirmed that she was voting for of the motion;
Councillor Fishleigh confirmed that she was voting for the motion;
Councillor Janio confirmed that he was voting for the motion;
Councillor Knight confirmed that she was voting for the motion.
The Mayor confirmed that the motion as amended had been carried unanimously.
Planning by Committee, Not by Government
The Notice of Motion as listed on the agenda was proposed by Councillor Ebel on behalf of the Green and Labour Groups and formally seconded by Councillor Childs.
Councillor Miller proposed an amendment on behalf of the Conservative Group, which was formally seconded by Councillor Bagaeen, who reserved his right to speak later in the debate.
Councillors O’Quinn, Littman and Gibson spoke on the motion and the amendment and expressed their opposition to the amendment. Councillors Janio and Bagaeen also spoke on the motion and their support for the amendment.
Councillor Ebel thanked those Members for their supportive comments and confirmed that she did not accept the amendment.
The Mayor noted that the amendment had not been accepted and he therefore needed to put the amendment to the vote.
The Mayor called on each of the Group Leaders to confirm their position as well as the Groups in turn and each of the Independent Members:
Councillor Mac Cafferty stated that the Green Group were voting against the amendment and this was confirmed by the Members of the Green Group;
Councillor Platts stated that the Labour Group were voting against the amendment and this was confirmed by the Members of the Labour Group;
Councillor Bell stated that the Conservative Group were voting for the amendment and this was confirmed by the Members of the Conservative Group;
Councillor Brennan confirmed that she was voting against the amendment;
Councillor Fishleigh confirmed that she was voting for the amendment;
Councillor Janio confirmed that he was voting against the amendment;
Councillor Knight confirmed that she was voting against the amendment.
The Mayor confirmed that the amendment had been lost and therefore he needed to put the motion as listed and detailed below to the vote:
That this council supports the call of the Local Government Association to ‘Keep Planning Local,’ and calls on the Chief Executive to write to Robert Jenrick, MP, urging the Government to address flaws in the Government’s Planning White Paper and provide support for Local Planning Authorities, as follows:
1) to consider reform to the Land Compensation Act, (as referenced in the 2018 Letwin Review of Build Outs) in order to prevent ‘land banking’ and ensure affordable housing provision [1]
2) to provide additional funding to local planning authorities, to address the impact of long-term austerity cuts on local planning teams [2] and equip them with the resources needed to support local communities
3) to increase, not restrict the ability of Local Planning Authorities and residents to influence local plans and planning applications, by abandoning current proposals to shorten the consultation process in favour of proposals that would enhance consultation and local control; [3] and
4) to remove the imposition of further ‘housing targets,’ and ‘zonal’ plans that risk the status of green spaces in the city.
The Mayor called on each of the Group Leaders to confirm their position as well as the Groups in turn and each of the Independent Members:
Councillor Mac Cafferty stated that the Green Group were voting in favour of the motion and this was confirmed by the Members of the Green Group;
Councillor Platts stated that the Labour Group were voting in favour of the motion as amended and this was confirmed by the Members of the Labour Group;
Councillor Bell stated that the Conservative Group were voting against the motion and this was confirmed by the Members of the Conservative Group;
Councillor Brennan confirmed that she was voting for of the motion;
Councillor Fishleigh confirmed that she was voting for the motion;
Councillor Janio confirmed that he was voting against the motion;
Councillor Knight confirmed that she was voting for the motion.
The Mayor confirmed that the motion had been carried.
Covid-19 National Action for Local Impact
The Notice of Motion as listed on the agenda was proposed by Councillor Evans on behalf of the Labour Group and formally seconded by Councillor Childs who reserved his right to speak later in the debate.
Councillor Hills proposed an amendment on behalf of the Green Group which was formally seconded by Councillor Heley.
Councillors Hamilton, Simson and Williams spoke on the motion and the amendment and expressed their support for both the motion and the amendment. Councillor Janio also spoke on the motion and the amendment and expressed his opposition to them.
Councillor Evans thanked those Members for their supportive comments and confirmed that she was happy to accept the amendment.
The Mayor noted that the amendment had been accepted and that the Council was happy to move to a vote on the motion as amended. He therefore put the motion as amended to the vote:
This Council notes our shared targets set out in both the corporate plan and City Plan Part 2 to build community wealth and affordable housing and reach carbon neutrality by 2030, and the importance to these goals of fostering a circular local economy.
Council recognises that both during and after the ongoing COVID crisis there is a pressing need to grow local place-based cohesion and wellbeing, and believes launching a “20-minute neighbourhood” initiative as part of a community wealth building approach to Covid recovery could build on the work already agreed by ETS committee around the introduction of low traffic neighbourhoods and help meet these shared aims.
Council therefore calls for;
The convening of the
Community Wealth Building Working Group at the earliest opportunity
and;
For that group to work
with officers to produce a report for committee(s) that seeks -
alongside ward councillors and residents groups - to identify
feasible locations to implement both micro “20-minute
neighbourhood” projects (such as community gardens and edible
bus stops) and a full-scale pilot scheme for the model;
That report to include the exploration of possible sources of funding to support investment in this full-scale pilot; and
That officers and CWB working group liaise with councillors and local community groups both on possible locations and on identifying potential partners from other local institutions – particularly those involved in the areas of education, health and wellbeing for these “20-minute neighbourhood” projects.
The Mayor called on each of the Group Leaders to confirm their position as well as the Groups in turn and each of the Independent Members:
Councillor Mac Cafferty stated that the Green Group were in favour of the motion as amended and this was confirmed by the Members of the Green Group;
Councillor Platts stated that the Labour Group were in favour of the motion as amended and this was confirmed by the Members of the Labour Group;
Councillor Bell stated that the Conservative Group were in favour of the motion as amended and this was confirmed by the Members of the Conservative Group;
Councillor Brennan confirmed that she was voting for of the motion as amended;
Councillor Fishleigh confirmed that she was voting for the motion as amended;
Councillor Janio confirmed that he was voting against the motion as amended;
Councillor Knight confirmed that she was voting for the motion as amended.
The Mayor confirmed that the motion as amended had been carried.
Pension Fund Divestment
The Notice of Motion as listed on the agenda was moved by Councillor Druitt on behalf of the Green and Labour Groups and was formally seconded by Councillor Appich.
Councillor Miller stated that the Pension Board was an independent body and should therefore be left to determine how investments were made. Councillor Childs expressed his support for the motion and noted that the council were represented on the Board and should therefore be able to make its views known.
Councillor Druitt stated that there was a need to move away from investment in fossil fuels and hoped that the motion would be supported..
The Mayor then put the following motion to the vote:
That council agrees to request that officers contact the East Sussex Pensions Committee in order to:
Congratulate the East Sussex Pensions Committee (ESPC) on the moves
it is making to reduce the exposure of the Pensions Fund from
4% to 2%;
Highlight the overcapacity and fragility of the fossil fuel system, and the prospect of big near-term losses for investors like the East Sussex Pensions Committee, as a result of analysis which shows that demand for fossil fuels has likely already peaked; [1] and further, wishes to stress to the ESPC that rapid and unprecedented action is going to be necessary in order to keep global warming to ‘well below 2ºC' and that such action is incompatible with continued investment in giant oil and gas companies like Shell and BP;
Council therefore also requests, through contact with the East Sussex Pensions Committee:
That the ESPC commit now to a complete phase-out of the Fund’s investments in fossil fuels, in line with the declarations made by both Brighton and Hove City Council and East Sussex County Council of a ‘climate emergency,’ and associated climate change mitigation targets.
The Mayor called on each of the Group Leaders to confirm their position as well as the Groups in turn and each of the Independent Members:
Councillor Mac Cafferty stated that the Green Group were in favour of the motion and this was confirmed by the Members of the Green Group;
Councillor Platts stated that the Labour Group were in favour of the motion and this was confirmed by the Members of the Labour Group;
Councillor Bell stated that the Conservative Group wished to abstain from voting on the motion and this was confirmed by the Members of the Conservative Group;
Councillor Brennan confirmed that she was voting for of the motion;
Councillor Janio confirmed that he wished to abstain from voting on the motion;
Councillor Knight confirmed that she was voting for the motion.
The Mayor confirmed that the motion had been carried.
Field Officers
Councillor Nemeth informed the Mayor that the Conservative Group wished to withdraw the notice of motion.
The Mayor noted that the motion had been withdrawn and that concluded the item.
Close of Meeting
The Mayor thanked everyone for participating in the meeting and formally closed the meeting.
The meeting concluded at 11.19pm
|
Signed
|
Chair |
|
|
Dated this |
day of
|
2020 |