Brighton & Hove City Council
Council
4.30pm20 October 2022
Hove Town Hall - Council Chamber
MINUTES
Present: Councillors Deane (Chair), O'Quinn (Deputy Chair), Allcock, Appich, Atkinson, Bagaeen, Barnett, Bell, Brennan, Brown, Childs, Allbrooke, Davis, Druitt, Ebel, Evans, Fishleigh, Gibson, Grimshaw, Hamilton, Heley, Hills, Hugh-Jones, Janio, John, Knight, Littman, Lloyd, Meadows, Mac Cafferty, Moonan, Nemeth, Osborne, Phillips, Pissaridou, Powell, Rainey, Robins, Shanks, Simson, C Theobald, West, Wilkinson, Williams and Yates
PART ONE
28 Declarations of Interest
28.1 There were no declarations of interests in matters appearing on the agenda.
29 Minutes
29.1 The minutes of the last ordinary meeting held on the 21 July 2022 would be brought to the next meeting alongside with the minutes for this meeting for approval.
30 Mayor's Communications.
30.1 The Mayor gave the following communications:
I am very sad to report the death of our colleague Councillor Garry Peltzer Dunn.
Garry was a long serving and very well respected councillor on both Hove Borough Council and Brighton & Hove City Council. He was a warmly regarded Leader of Hove Borough Council for a number of years.
During his time as city councillor, Garry sat on numerous committees and was also Mayor of the city in 2008-2009 I would like to extend my condolences in particular to Garry‘s family and his friends, including all of our Conservative Colleagues. Our thoughts are with all of you.
We will now stand for a minute’s silence in Garry’s memory.
On behalf of the council, I would like to congratulation Street Cleanser, Keith Johnson, who has been awarded a ‘local hero’ award by the North Laine Community Association. Keith has been sweeping the streets of Brighton for over 20 years and the NLCA commended him for being an asset to the neighbourhood and wanted to say thank you. Keith also made it to the front cover of the North Lane Runner.
I’d also like to congratulate Ian Greene, our Fleet Manager and his co-pilot Rob Reid who have won this award for entering the electrical vehicle rally that took place earlier in the year this was the second year running for the event which aims to demonstrate and celebrate the rapid development of electric vehicles and renewable energy technology.
Finally I am aware that this will be the last full council meeting for our Head of Communications, Clare Saul, who will be leaving us to join the London Borough of Ealing as the Assistant Director of Communications and Public Relations. I would like to congratulate Clare on this exciting new role, and to express our thanks for her support to us and to the organisation, in particular with her oversight of a number of really creative and impactful communications campaigns.
31 To receive petitions and e-petitions.
31.1 The Mayor invited the submission of petitions from councillors and members of the public. She 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.
31.2 In the absence of the petitioner, the Mayor advised that the petition concerning Speed Bumps on Mile Oak Road would be referred to the Environment, Transport and Sustainability Committee for consideration.
31.3 Councillor Barnett presented a petition signed by 50 residents. The petition called for stopping juggernauts using residential roads for driver training in
Hangleton Valley.
31.4 The Mayor thanked Councillor Barnett and stated that the petition would be referred to the Environment, Transport and Sustainability Committee for consideration.
31.5 Mr. Breeds presented a petition signed by residents concerning permitting dogs to enter cemeteries in the city.
31.6 The Mayor thanked Mr Breeds and stated that the petition would be referred to the appropriate Committee for consideration.
32 Written questions from members of the public.
32.1 The Mayor reported that 5 written questions had been received from members of the public and invited Tina Marton to come forward and address the council.
32.2 Tina Marton asked the following question; “The lives of myself, my family and other residents are being made a misery by the inconsiderate behaviour of some people who visit the 24 hour McDonald’s at night. Nobody is willing to help us. Not the management company at the marina. Not the police. Not the council’s licensing department who say that reviewing - and possibly revoking - the 24 hour license is a big issue. Is the ability to get a burger all through the night more important than the sleep of people living nearby and what help can you give the council-tax paying residents of the marina?”
32.3 Councillor John replied; “Thank you for your question. I am so sorry that this is happening to you and other residents. I am sorry to that you feel that nobody is willing to help and I can assure you this is not the case. I deeply empathise, as someone whose sleep is also currently very broken I know how important sleep is for both mental and physical health.
After receiving your complaint, officers were in touch with McDonalds and Brighton Marina Security (BMS) who have taken measures to prevent cars beeping. Officers have informed me that;
• Signage was put up following previous complaints the Business Manager has been asked to check that these are still in place
• The waiting time in the car park has been reduced to 45 minutes.
• During peak times a steward was monitoring the outside and reporting issues and officers have asked Marina Security to provide the last 8 weeks of the complaint logs which will be reviewed and if these show a problem we will request that the steward to resume the monitoring and provide details of the monitoring and intervention that took place.
• A Police van was parked by the premises and did not report any issues
• The management of McDonalds want to work with residents to resolve any issues
• McDonalds has introduced ‘Travel path’. Every hour the shift leader walks around the outside area, monitors and aims to resolve issues
• A shift feedback form is completed and an ASB section has been added to this.
• Staff are also proactively engaging with customers if they are beeping their horns
McDonalds have been advised of their responsibilities to promote the licensing objectives including the prevention of public nuisance and that it is an offence under the Licensing Act 2003, S136(1) and (4) to carry on unauthorised licensable activities.
Brighton Maraina Security have informed Council officers that some of the noise was not as a result of McDonalds. I have asked Council officers to speak with the relevant local businsess to make sure they are doing everything possible to minimise the noise created on their premises.
If the noise persists, in order that we can consider a licence review, we do need sufficient evidence and at this stage we do not have this. If licensing diaries can be completed and submitted to officers then we can assess whether there is sufficient evidence to call a review. If you would like to have any guidance on how to carry these out a noise diary please do get in touch with our licensing department.
Thank you very much for bringing your question to us.
There was no supplementary question.
32.4 The Mayor thanked Tina Marton for their question and invited Mark Thomas to join the meeting and put their question to Councillor Davis.
32.5 Mark Thomas asked the following question; “The ETS decided recently not to implement a parking scheme in Roedean. I, and other residents, would like to better understand why limited, if any consideration, appears to have been given to the material health and safety risks with the current parking. These risks include children playing, road crossing, limited access for ambulances and fire engines, as well as vehicular accidents. The cost considerations appear incomplete, as they ignore likely capital expenditure from road repair which would reduce with parking restrictions. 80% of residents supported restrictions on the initial consultation so the decision appears undemocratic. Why was it taken?”
32.6 Councillor Davis replied; The initial consultation results outlined that 80% of respondents were in favour of a resident’s parking scheme in the area but this was based on a 26% response rate. The next stage of consultation which included the detailed design was sent to 389 properties and received only 42 responses (11%). The officer recommendation was that having taken account of the low response rate to the detailed design consultation that the ETS Committee agreed to end the consultation process with no controlled parking zone being implemented to the Roedean area. This was approved by Members of the ETS Committee last month. Officers liaised with Rottingdean Ward Councillors who are aware that the consultation process had taken place and the results. Officers will be looking at minor changes such as no waiting restrictions and if required will be included in a future Traffic Regulation Order.
32.7 Mark Thomas asked the following supplementary question; Do you think if the residents had been told the parking restrictions would not be implemented if they did not reply, that there would be a much higher response rate to the second consultation?
32.8 Councillor Davis replied; I think it is tricky for me to reply having not seen the fine detail in the consultation and I think probably the best thing to do is if you e-mail me directly, I'll take this up with parking on your behalf. I do appreciate that often not everyone can get what they want here, but I'm really sure we could make improvements to your area. So if you write directly to me, I'll take that up with parking on your behalf.
32.9 The Mayor thanked Mark Thomas for their question and invited Laura King to join the meeting and put their question to Councillor Mac Cafferty.
32.10 Laura King asked the following question; Question to the Leader of the Council, I note on the council's website that there is currently a job advertised "Head of Communications and Public Relations" Can I ask how many officers and other comms staff are employed in the Communications Department and how much this costs us Council Tax Payers in salaries along with its annual budget?
32.11 Councillor Mac Cafferty replied; The council’s Communications Team consists of 12.79 full time equivalent posts at a net cost of just under £577k. The Head of Communications & Public Relations also has leadership of our graphic design team and a digital content design team, who manage our digital platforms. According to the last survey by the Local Government Association, the average size of a Communications Team for a unitary authority is 14.4 so we are below the national average. Although the team deal with press relations, that is only part of their function. The team provide an essential information service to our residents, businesses, visitors, staff and other stakeholders about council services, policies and decision making. At a time of unprecedented challenges ranging from cost of living, the effects of the pandemic, climate change and many more, it is vital that the Council is able to communicate with residents and provide advice, signpost to support and demonstrate leadership. The Communications Team plays a vital role in this. The service is even more critical in a city like Brighton & Hove where there is active public engagement in civic affiars, vibrant political culture and high level of media interest as well as healthy social media participation. The Council’s Communications Team is one of the leading Comms Teams in the region if not the country and provides high quality, cost effective services.
32.12 Laura King asked the following supplementary question; Can you explain why you are advertising this high paid position during the current hiring freeze, this at the same time you were closing public toilets with the claim that you can't afford to keep them open over the winter months?
32.13 Cllr Mac Cafferty replied; Thank you for the supplementary question. I am afraid if an organisation as complex as a local authority, cannot communicate its way through things like the cost of living crisis, then it is failing, not just me as a councillor, it is failing all of the communities that the 54 councillors here represent. So it is important for the Council still able to communicate what it is able to do. It is important that the Council is still able to tell people what is actually happening in the world because, let us be honest, the chaos in Westminster at the moment means that we need a little bit of help on the way.
32.14 The Mayor thanked Laura King for their question and invited Nigel Smith to join the meeting and put their question to Councillor Davis.
32.15 Nigel Smith asked the following question; In 2018 you applied unsuccessfully for funds to tackle the sharp growth in traffic congestion that you said meant we could not meet the development plan. As City Plan Part Two has no such reservations about the state of the transport infrastructure, can you explain how you reversed this very serious situation and what measurements you took to confirm your success?
32.16 Councillor Davis replied; “Firstly, I should clarify that the council’s expression of interest in response to the government’s Transforming Cities Fund in 2018 did not state that the city’s planned development could not be delivered; but it did recognise that investment would be required in transport infrastructure to enable future development to be accommodated. I understand that your concerns about the city’s transport infrastructure requirements in relation to City Plan Part Two were also presented during the public examination of the Plan in November 2021. The independent Inspector particularly sought to understand the likely impacts of the proposed development on infrastructure, and therefore also considered the statements and evidence that were submitted and presented by the council on this topic. It was noted that infrastructure requirements to support planned development were comprehensively considered through the preparation and examination of City Plan Part One and that traffic modelling supported the amount of proposed development. She was satisfied that further modelling had assessed the cumulative impacts of the planned development proposed in City Plan Part Two, particularly on the strategic road network. Her conclusion was that the proposed mitigation measures put forward are, in principle, realistically achievable and a solid basis for successfully mitigating the potential impacts on the strategic road network attributable to the Plan. The council’s Infrastructure Delivery Plan identifies the types of infrastructure and specific projects and measures, including transport, that are required to support the City Plan’s policies, vision and objectives and accommodate growth during the remaining City Plan period to 2030.”
32.17 Nigel Smith asked the following supplementary question; City Plan more or less improved your plan to reduce transport plan by 4% per annum failed spectacularly, even when you’ve far exceeded the annual growth in bus passenger journeys that you said would deliver these savings. Your 2018 study showed that this has also failed to contain predicted traffic growth that allowed the development plan to be sustainable. Please explain why you thought that 800,000 extra bus passenger journeys, which is less than half of 1% of our traffic miles, could deliver such disproportionate benefits. The data simply does not add up, just like it didn’t on the I-360 or Valley Gardens 3, where a public challenge to the Council’s accounts correctly predicted a substantial overspend. Officers denied it, but history tells a different story. You’ve failed residents on these occasions, and by approving City Plan 2 you will be failing residents on transport carbon by failing to address the declared carbon emergency by 2030. Do you as Councillors, generally, want to be personally responsible for failing on the carbon emergency?
32.18 Cllr Davis replied; I’m not quite sure I’ve gotten to the bottom of the question, Nigel. We did mention some pretty heavy statistics within that question. I think I’m happy to enter into an email conversation about this, if you please write to me I’ll give you a written reply. Thank you.
32.19 The Mayor thanked Mr Smith for their question and invited Derek Wright to join the meeting and put their question to Councillor Heley. Mr Smith was not in attendance and the Mayor confirmed that a written response to their question would be provided.
33 Deputations from members of the public.
33.1 The Mayor reported that one deputation had been received from members of the public and invited Ms Lovegrove as the spokesperson for the deputation to come forward and address the council.
33.2 Ms Lovegrove was not in attendance and the Mayor and stated that the deputation would be referred to the Environment, Transport & Sustainability Committee:
34 Call Over for Reports of Committees.
(a) Callover
The following items on the agenda were reserved for discussion:
Item 37 Adoption of the Brighton & Hove City Plan Part 2
Item 39 Cost of Living Update including the Household Support Fund Tranche 3 - referred to Council from P&R Committee for information
(b) Receipt and/or Approval of Reports
The Head of Democratic Services confirmed that the following reports on the agenda with the recommendations therein had been approved and adopted:
Item 38 Allocation of seats to Committees
(c) Oral Questions from Members
The Mayor noted that there were 12 oral questions.
35 Written questions from Councillors.
35.1 The Mayor noted 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:
1. Councillor Grimshaw
35.2 Removal of flooring and furniture in housing – The minutes of the Housing Committee held on 22 June 2022, presented to Housing Committee on 28 September 2022, under clause 10.4 read as follows:
“10.4 Councillor Evans was informed by the Assistant Director Housing Management that the removal of flooring was not done automatically when tenants move. Furniture recycling project was being expanded and flooring was being left in place now. The service has changed.”
With this in mind, can the Chair of Housing Committee please confirm the date that the furniture recycling project was expanded and flooring was being left in place as of?
Can the Chair of Housing please explain the process of how recycling is carried out? Does an officer attend properties and make judgements about what can be kept? If it is agreeable, for example, that flooring can be kept, who receives this information and how is this passed on to operatives who are tasked with clearance of properties?
What household items and items in the garden are considered as useful and beneficial to be kept in place? Can I have a list please? Is this list open to common sense situations where, for example, say a rotary washing line is left in a garden but it is not on a list, can an officer make the decision to keep it for the benefit of the new homeowner and to minimise waste? And if this decision is made who is responsible for ensuring it is kept and who has oversight?
Is the Chair of Housing aware of any properties where the recycling project guidelines have not been adhered to and why? Who checks up on properties to see if guidance has been followed and completed?
Is there a difference between recycling in council-tenanted local authority property and those being bought back under the Buy Back Scheme?
Does the Chair of Housing agree that items such as blinds, curtain poles, laminate flooring, vinyl and garden sheds and washing lines etc. are all items that could be considered to be of huge benefit to future tenants and that asking those selling back to BHCC under the Buy Back scheme to remove them is utterly wasteful and contributes to requests to the Brighton Fund where families frequently ask for help – especially with flooring?
Reply from Councillor Gibson / Hugh-Jones, Joint Chair of the Housing Committee
35.3 Thank you for your question.
We are mindful of the need to reduce waste, reuse items and recycle as much as is possible when we undertake works to Empty Homes and Buy Back properties. In both cases the Housing Estate Services will visit the property first to change locks. At this time they will see if any of the remaining furniture is of a safe reusable quality. This furniture will be removed, stored and made available to tenants who are in need, this includes incoming tenants.
We also ensure that existing fixtures and fittings are retained where they are of adequate quality, this includes fixed furniture, tenant installed kitchens and floor coverings. There are reasons floor covering may be removed, such as for substantial works. External features such as sheds will not be removed unless they are in poor condition or impact the amenity of the garden.
Following the initial visit, the property is reviewed by a Supervisor to identify any works that are required to ensure that it meets the Council Lettable Standard.
2. Councillor Grimshaw
35.4 Do Brighton & Hove City Council provide any supported housing accommodation for vulnerable people that qualify for 'Exempt Accommodation'? If so can I request an update of which of the providers and which accommodation this is and how many residents are housed with ‘exempt accommodation’ in the city and the financial impact?
Reply from Councillor Gibson / Hugh-Jones, Joint Chair of the Housing Committee
35.5 Exempt accommodation is accommodation that is exempt from the benefit cap or from the local housing allowance cap – so the full rent is eligible to be paid by the state where someone is in receipt of welfare benefits. In addition where a claimant is on Universal Credit but is living in exempt accommodation their rent is paid by Housing Benefit (Local Authority managed) and not via the housing element of Universal Credit. If there are other financial aspects of supported accommodation of which you would like to know the impact (e.g. learning disabilities, mental health), please clarify and we would be happy to provide more detail. ‘Exempt accommodation’ is defined as being either: a resettlement place; or accommodation which is provided by a county council, housing association, registered charity or voluntary organisation where that body, or person acting on their behalf, provides the claimant with care, support or supervision.
Glenwood Lodge and New Steine Mews Hostel are the only BHCC in house provided exempt accommodation services. Currently there are 72 bedspaces in these two properties.
The majority of housing projects in city that are deemed exempt accommodation are not provided by BHCC but by other providers including Housing Associations and Trusts, Registered Providers and other organisations. BHCC commission some of these through Housing, and HASC, some are not commissioned but BHCC may place people with them from time to time and some are not commissioned or used by BHCC.
3. Councillor Grimshaw
35.6 Please can the Chair of Housing explain why Councillors no longer receive two-weekly Homemove advert cycle updates? Can this situation be rectified and updates sent as previously?
Can the Chair of housing give an update on any issues with residents accessing Homemove - as social media feedback is showing there are a lot of accessibility issues with people being locked out and unable to bid for various reasons?
Reply from Councillor Gibson / Hugh-Jones, Joint Chair of the Housing Committee
35.7 Councillors have previously been advised they can access the fortnightly properties advertised on Homemove direct whenever they wish. A password is not required. Any councillors requiring help with this should contact the housing team for assistance.
There are no issues with residents accessing Homemove. Over the weekend of 8 October, the website was being updated, during which time, people couldn’t access it. This was completed on 10 October and can again be accessed. This update did not disrupt a bidding cycle.
4. Councillor O’Quinn
35.8 What has been the cost of the materials and human resources put in place to support Homewood School since it was placed in special measures in late 2021?
Reply from Councillor Allbrooke, Chair of the Children, Young People & Skills Committee
35.9 Homewood College provides education for some of our most disadvantaged children and the council has prioritised support for this cohort of children and young people. Several teams from across the Council have given significant extra support from within existing resources to Homewood College since it went into special measures in December 2021. These include Finance, Human Resources, Access to Education, Safeguarding, Educational Psychology, School Improvement and Governor Support Teams. It is not possible to quantify the cost of the additional support that has been provided across each of these service areas.
The school received a £70K allocation of financial support for curriculum support and in recognition of the specific nature of the school’s remit, profile of pupil need and geographical location.
The council has also directed additionally purchased school partnership adviser and officer time to support the school at an estimated total cost of £20K. Building and capital works at the school since the Ofsted inspection to address safeguarding issues have cost £135,000 which comes out of the educational capital expenditure grant
5. Councillor O’Quinn
35.10 Will the pruning of street tree side shoots, some of which are now mini-hedges, take place this Autumn and if not, why not?
Reply from Councillor Davis / Heley, Joint Chair of the Environment, Transport & Sustainability Committee
35.11 Thank you for your question.
Removal of basal growth around street trees is continuing into the Autumn and Winter. The programme will focus on streets whose trees are due to be inspected and pruned over the next six months, where necessary. City Parks will continue to address other areas across the city where this is posing a problem with ad hoc works programmed in alongside the other tree works which require action.
6. Councillor O’Quinn
35.12 A number of drains are blocked by weeds and soil in Goldsmid Ward and other areas of the city. In heavy rain these drains will be unable to divert water as they should and this will cause flooding. What is the planned schedule for dealing with this issue?
Reply from Councillor Davis / Heley, Joint Chair of the Environment, Transport & Sustainability Committee
35.13 Thank you for your question.
In the Goldsmid Ward there are five Street Cleansing Operatives who keep the area clean and undertake weeding as part of their daily tasks. If there are weeds growing around the drain or is litter that needs to be cleared that has been missed, please do report the location to the Street Cleansing Team for them to attend. If the weeds are growing from the drain due to silt blockage, this will need to be addressed by the Highways Department.
There are approximately 20,000 gulley’s in the City, these are cleaned on a cyclical schedule on a risk based approach, taking in to account historical silt levels, at six, twelve and eighteen monthly intervals.
The gulley’s in Goldsmid Ward are cleaned at twelve and eighteen monthly cycles, eighteen monthly in February this year and the twelve monthly in May, there were some jammed grids and some blocked by parked cars, we also have some issues with tree roots causing heaving in the channel.
We have not had any reports of flooding in Goldsmid Ward relating to weeds and soil in gulley’s.
We would be glad to hear where these gulleys are and we can send an ad-hoc gulley emptying gang to deal with them.
7. Councillor Wilkinson
35.14 Can the Co-Chairs of the Environment, Transport and Sustainability Committee explain why they have decided to limit the number of member-involved written questions at recent meetings and is this decision replicated in other council committees and council?
Reply from Councillor Davis / Heley, Joint Chair of the Environment, Transport & Sustainability Committee
35.15 As members will know, ETS Committee is one of the busiest Committees of this Council. As Co-Chair, it is my aim to ensure that as much public engagement can be undertaken in the Committee as possible, whilst also allowing time to perform the key decision making role that the Committee has. In order to manage the volume of business, we have tried to balance the time spent on public and member engagement with the time spent on the consideration of the reports. My first ETS meeting as Chair lasted seven hours. As you know, most ETS meetings last in excess of four and a half hours, with roughly the first two hours being dedicated to member and public involvement. This is a significantly higher proportion of time spent on public and member engagement items than any other Committee of the Council. That is a reflection of the interest from our residents in the issues that we are responsible for, and we want to continue to encourage that high level of interest. However, we also have a responsibility as a Committee to make considered, lawful decisions on the many reports that come before us. To do that, we need to ensure adequate time is allowed to perform our duty and properly debate these reports. The decisions taken on these Committee reports are what leads to projects and priorities actually being delivered. Without those decisions, we are simply a ‘talking shop’ - and that is not what any of us are here for I am sure.
In terms of the management of member engagement at other Committees, the Council’s Constitution is clear that Chairs have a wide discretion in relation to the conduct of their meetings. The volume and complexity of items coming forward to each meeting will vary and it would not therefore be appropriate to adopt a ‘one size fits all’ approach to these meetings. We need to be able to adjust our approach based on the volume of business so the meeting can be conducted and concluded within a reasonable timeframe. One way of achieving this is to limit the amount of time spent in answering member questions in the Committee itself. Members have many other avenues open to them to seek information, for example, you are also able to access information directly through officers or through raising matters with us as Chairs and we will be happy to respond.
8. Councillor Wilkinson
35.16 The national Green Party co-leader recently said that he would back Brighton and Hove's Green administration if it held a referendum to raise council tax by more than 3%.
Has the administration given any consideration to raising council tax by more than 3%?
Reply from Councillor Mac Cafferty, Leader of the Council
35.17 After more than a decade of Conservative government cuts, over £100m has been axed from Brighton & Hove’s budget, which means we face stark choices about what we can do with the money we have. Unlike government departments, councils have to set a balanced budget each year, but this becomes harder and harder with less funding, year after year.
Successive governments have also failed on their promise to address the long-term funding of vulnerable adults, forcing the burden of taxation onto local Council taxpayers. The Local Government Association comments that the current Conservative plans will leave councils ‘facing a funding blackhole.
In a media interview Adrian Ramsey, co-leader of the Green Party stated that it was a decision for councillors, not him, as to whether they have a council tax referendum. If local councillors find they need to increase council tax in order to pay for crucial services, then it's right they should put forward that proposal.
For ten years councils have had increases in council tax capped to 2%, except for an additional 1% allowed in 2019/20, and this year, councils have been permitted to increase council tax by an additional 1% to spend only on Adult Social Care. Three in four councils do this.
The effective running of a city involves making difficult decisions. As we await the Chancellor’s Fiscal Plan at the end of October it is important that we keep sensible options on the table, however I understand that an excessive increase in council tax would come at a time when the disastrous Conservative mini-budget is really hurting residents in the pocket, whether that’s their rent or mortgage increasing or the price of goods mushrooming. Which is why, at this moment, we will not be seeking to increase council tax beyond the maximum permitted by government despite the fact that inflation is running at over 10%.
We are doing all we can to help those on low incomes and, despite government cuts, have increased the discount on council tax for residents on the lowest incomes. We continue to provide hardship funds, welfare advice and increased funding for emergency white goods such as fridges.
9. Councillor Wilkinson
35.18 The cost-of-living pressures currently facing councils are immense with many facing considerable challenges in sustaining essential services because of the rising costs of energy and other inflationary pressures. Many of these, for example libraries, leisure centres and community hubs-are the very services that people depend on to stay healthy and connected, and to access advice and support.
Will the Leader of the Council confirm that there will be no cuts to the city’s library services, including to the splendid renaissance style Carnegie Hove library?
Reply from Councillor Osborne / Powell, Joint Chair of the Tourism, Equalities, Communities & Culture Committee
35.19 You will be aware that in the report to July Policy & Resources Committee, estimates of the costs, demands and resources for next financial year were provided based on the information available, including making some assumptions around government funding support for which we still have no information. This indicated potential budget shortfalls (or gaps) of £13million in the best case, to £21million at the midpoint, up to £31million in a worst-case scenario.
Officers were instructed by Policy & Resources Committee to develop savings proposals to address the projected budget shortfalls and were tasked with developing minimum proposals of £13million together with further proposals to reach a midpoint shortfall of £21million. This process is and proposals will be brought forward through both the Draft Budget and Final Budget at December and February Policy & Resources Committee and Budget Council respectively.
Without additional government grant support and/or flexibility provided to councils to consider higher council tax increases, the budget shortfall is likely to be at the midpoint or higher. This will mean some very difficult choices needing to be made and in such a scenario the council will need to prioritise statutory and critical services and consider which services it can no longer afford to run itself. After 12 years of Conservative austerity there are little non statutory services to cut. I am proud that we have supported our libraries throughout this period, and I will be doing everything I can to protect this valuable service as far as possible and which will, of course, be a decision for all councillors at Budget Council.
10. Councillor Wilkinson
35.20 In light of the cost of living crisis, what plans does the Council have to (a) support residents to access help with energy bills and (b) to help the extremely large number of residents who very likely will not be able to afford to heat their homes, in particular how vulnerable residents will be supported and whether ‘warm banks’ in Council-owned buildings are being planned?
Reply from Councillor Mac Cafferty, Leader of the Council
35.21 Information in relation to your question is set out in the report provided to Policy & Resources Committee on 6 October 2022 and which is also on the agenda for this Council meeting.
It sets out that we are looking at the feasibility of utilising council-owned buildings as warm spaces and are working with the Community & Voluntary Sector to determine what they may be able to offer. This work is now in progress. Councillors who wish to support our residents should review this report at the earliest possible opportunity.
We have also set up website pages offering help with fuel bills and signposting people to financial and energy advice and support .. Please see ‘Help if you're worried about money’ https://www.brighton-hove.gov.uk/household-support-fund
11. Councillor Wilkinson
35.22 Will the Leader of the Council explain what help is being considered by the council for people who find themselves struggling with the rising cost of living but are not in groups previously classed as vulnerable?
Reply from Councillor Mac Cafferty, Leader of the Council
35.23 I fully appreciate that there are a lot of people who are just outside of any entitlement to welfare benefits who are also struggling with the cost of living.
For this reason we have extended the support provided by the Council Tax Reduction scheme to provide some support to those who may be just outside of the benefit system and have invested a further £360,000 in the scheme to underpin this.
The allocation of the third tranche of the Household Support Fund, approved by the Policy & Resources Committee on 6 October, also includes extended provision for those ‘Just About Managing’, but not in receipt of benefits, by providing a further £40,000 to support our Local Lift-Up scheme in partnership with MoneyAdvicePlus which provides both financial capability advice and grants.
We are also working in partnership with Citizens Advice and the Brighton & Hove Food Partnership to promote the Cost of Living Charity which has now raised well over £43,000. We have set aside a small amount of money from the third tranche of the Household Support Fund to further promote this charity via a household leaflet drop and other communication and media campaigns.
At the 6 October Policy & Resources Committee, the committee approved an allocation from the Household Support Fund to further improve information on our website and develop a communication and awareness campaign, including delivery of the leaflet to all households in the city, to provide further awareness of financial support and advice available from the council and its third sector partners regarding managing finances, support for energy bills, and advice on energy saving.
We have also led by example in the city regarding the pay of our lowest paid staff and have now implemented an improved pay offer for those on the lowest grades to provide additional help. This will abolish the lowest pay scales and offers a package benefitting 3,800 staff. We would urge all employers across the city to sign up to the Real Living Wage as a minimum or, like the council, go a step further to help those on lower pay
We will of course also be lobbying government to provide additional support to help people through the cost of living crisis and have set out our lobbying strategy in the cost of living report considered and approved by Policy & Resources Committee on 6 October and on the agenda for this Council meeting.
12. Councillor Wilkinson
35.24 Will the Leader of the Council outline what steps the administration is taking to support disabled people who are disproportionately affected by the rising cost of living?
Reply from Councillor Mac Cafferty, Leader of the Council
35.25 Information in relation to your question is set out in the report provided to Policy & Resources Committee on 6 October 2022 and which is also on the agenda for this Council meeting.
The Equality Impact Assessment provided as an appendix to the cost of living report clearly recognises the additional impacts on disabled people. This is reflected in the approach to referrals to all hardship funds where disability will be a key consideration for prioritising the allocation of funds and providing straightforward referrals to support and advice through our own Community Hub and our third sector partners.
The allocations from the third tranche of the Household Support Fund include significant additional funds for distribution via our Local Discretionary Social Fund, as well as through Community Organisations and through other schemes such as Warmth for Well-being. The council also has existing hardship funds provided from its core budget.
13. Councillor Wilkinson
35.26 Is the council considering grant funding to organisations working with those affected by the cost-of-living crisis, such as food services, money and debt advice organisations, networks for older people and vulnerable adults and those working with families in need?
Reply from Councillor Mac Cafferty, Leader of the Council
35.27 Information in relation to your question is set out in the report provided to Policy & Resources Committee on 6 October 2022 and which is also on the agenda for this Council meeting.
The allocation of funds from the third tranche of the Household Support Fund from October will continue the support for emergency food partners, continue support for money and debt advice, including cases linked to mental health issues, and will provide extended funding for a range of Community Organisations as did the earlier April to September Household Support Fund. The full details of allocations of the £2.140 million fund are set out in the cost of living report to 6 October Policy & Resources Committee.
The council also continues its support for third sector advice agencies including £450,000 to support our money advice partners who are a key point of referral including for the local Lift-up scheme for those struggling but not on benefits. The council has also very recently set up an extra emergency food fund of £30,000 available to support vulnerable people most at risk of food insecurity.
14. Councillor Grimshaw
35.28 Procurement – At At P&R on the 29th July 2022, the recommendation from the cross party working group looking to procurement recommended that any future procurement that affects people with protected chariteristics and will have impact politically on the city should involve councillors. Also Community Wealth Building must be taken into account.
Has this taken place with the procurement of the old brewery Portslade? Why have third sector organisations in the city lost contracts to a charity from the north of England?
Reply from Councillor Mac Cafferty, Leader of the Council
35.29 The procurement of Mental Health Supported Accommodation in Portslade is a joint procurement with NHS East Sussex Clinical Commissioning Group with the city council’s contribution being significantly smaller than that of the NHS. To ensure full member oversight, the procurement process and approach was considered by the member Procurement Advisory Board on 19 April 2021 which approved the approach and evaluation criteria, including a 15% Social Value weighting.
The report was then considered by the members of the council’s Adult Social Care & Public Health Sub-Committee who also approved the procurement process and approach and delegated authority to the council’s Executive Director of Health & Adult Social Care to conclude the procurement on behalf of Brighton & Hove City Council in partnership with the NHS.
There were 4 lots, two of which have been awarded to local organisations and two to national charitable providers, both of whom have also provided services within the city and are currently recruiting locally for roles to support delivery of the contract.
15. Councillor Fishleigh
35.30 How much Council Tax was billed for 2022/23 and to how many homes in the marina, Roedean, Ovingdean, Rottingdean and West Saltdean? Please would you break out the info by area.
Reply from Councillor Mac Cafferty, Leader of the Council
35.31 The data held by the council is held at Ward level and all of these areas come under the Rottingdean Coastal ward. Unfortunately, splitting information below this would require manually mapping every street to the relevant area. However, the information below is based on a high level analysis of the areas and should provide a broad comparison for illustrative purposes.
|
Rottingdean Coastal Ward |
Households |
2022 Council Tax Charge |
|
OVINGDEAN |
488 |
1,185,258.52 |
|
ROEDEAN |
320 |
731,981.56 |
|
MARINA |
1,040 |
2,079,269.13 |
|
ROTTINGDEAN |
1,561 |
3,252,720.47 |
|
SALTDEAN |
2,759 |
4,957,396.74 |
|
ROTTINGDEAN COASTAL (OTHER) |
1,202 |
2,072,048.75 |
|
TOTAL ROTTINGDEAN COASTAL |
7,370 |
£14,278,675.17 |
More information on Council Tax can be found on the council’s web site:
https://www.brighton-hove.gov.uk/council-budget/cost-our-services-2022-2023
This web page shows that it costs £842.1m in the current year to provide all services, or approximately £2.3m per day. It also shows how this is funded by government grants, rents, fees & charges, investment income and taxation. With regard to Council Tax it can be seen that this funds approximately 19%, or less than £1 in every £5, of the cost of services.
16. Councillor Bell
Twin Victoria monuments
35.32 There is concern for current state of the city’s heritage in the Old Steine Gardens and Victoria Gardens precinct and a strong sense among residents and their associations that this council has stopped caring for our heritage.
Under this Council, the City’s twin Victoria monuments have been allowed to enter into disrepair and veterans have reported that the Old Steine War Memorial has not been cleaned ahead of important commemorations on several occasions.
The Twin Victoria monuments include the Victoria Fountain and the Queen Victoria Statue. The Victoria Fountain dates back to 1846 and the Victoria statue to 1897. The Fountain was last restored between 1990 and 1995, when it was reopened by Prince Charles on his visit to the City. This is recorded in a plaque at the base of the Victoria Fountain.
The Victoria Fountain (a grade II listed structure) was last switched off by the Council in 2019 at the end of the summer season. It was not switched back on because it was found to be listing and tilting. This situation was not helped when the Council allowed a giant ferris wheel and other heavy fairground equipment to be stationed next to the fountain during last year’s Brighton Christmas Festival. After the equipment was removed a sinkhole and several depressions appeared in the surface of the fragile Old Steine Gardens, which had been turned into a muddy quagmire. It seems there was little thought for the Victoria Fountain which was known by the council to be tilting and in need of repairs. This caused public outcry from the Old Steine Community Association.
In the 2022-3 City Budget, £250,000 was secured to fix the Victoria Fountain. A timeline was set out by the Council in its February briefing for undertaking this work. It was stated that between June and November the following would be undertaken:
Contract mobilisation, site set up for works, hoardings erected, crane moved in. Fountain to be dismantled in specific order for repair by specialist sub-contractor. Electrical and water repairs to be carried out.
Fountain to be re-assembled in specific order.
The plan was for the site to made good in December.
It would appear the council is behind in this repair schedule as there are currently no signs of any hoardings at the site and the Fountain still sits covered in weeds and graffiti, awaiting repairs.
Further up Valley Gardens, the Victoria Statue has also fallen into disrepair and there have been a number of reports in the press recently following the arm of the statue falling off. There has been no explanation from the Council as to why this occurred.
Monuments such as the Victoria Fountain and Statue are highly valued by local residents and visitors to the city alike and a source of city pride. For most local authorities, such wonderful heritage assets would be looked after and be centrepieces of public parks.
It is a great shame that the Council is not maintaining or looking after its heritage. Under this Council we have seen an the city’s historic lamps put up for sale on facebook marketplace and Madeira Terraces fall further into delapidation.
The Conservatives want to see a city that respects its heritage. My belief is, if you don’t respect the past, then you have no investment in the future.
Can the Chair please outline:
a) What is the current status of the budgeted work to repair Victoria Fountain?
b) What was the cause of the damage to Victoria statue? Has CCTV been reviewed to determine what caused the damage?
c) What is the current status of the work to repair Victoria Statue?
Reply from Councillor Osborne / Powell, Joint Chair of the Tourism, Equalities, Communities & Culture Committee
35.33 Thank you for the questions on the Victoria Fountain, Old Steine Gardens and the Queen Victoria Statue in the Victoria Gardens precinct which have with separate update responses
The council is proud of its unique heritage assets across the city and these two are fine representatives in this area. Both have current plans to care and maintain them, bringing them back into good condition.
For clarification the Old Steine war memorial was cleaned and repaired early September this year. All war memorials will be cleaned and prepared ahead of the remembrance commemorations in November as is done annually.
Victoria Fountain
The Victoria Fountain, Old Steine is temporarily propped and has been made safe following the specialist local civil and structural engineers, Hemsley Orrell Partnership (HOP)’s condition report that identified structural problems in early 2020. HOP were commissioned for further in-depth surveys of the structure in 2021 following delays in carrying out these surveys during the pandemic lockdowns and to specify the repair works for all the specialisms associated with the project. HOP have been appointed to carry out the major refurbishment and repairs required to renovate the Victoria Fountain which are now programmed to start in 2023 following unsuccessful attempts at tendering the contract. It is part of HOP’s brief to assess the ground conditions to ensure safe working conditions to include the crane that will be needed for the Fountain refurbishment project.
Tendering difficulties have been experienced with the project against the background of nationally spiralling construction costs and lack of construction specialisms and skills. We have had two unsuccessful tendering attempts; both were via the Council’s existing frameworks agreements and a specific list of contractors recommended by the external structural consultant. A third tendering exercise agreed with Corporate Procurement, has completed and two tender returns have been received which are currently being analysed. A budget has been identified for the project and the works and costs are being evaluated as part of the tender analysis. The intention is to appoint the successful contractor in early November aiming for a start on site mid-December, and a completion of the refurbishment project by the end of March. However, this will be dependent on the confirmation of the costs and funding, with the timeline being dependent on weather conditions and the volume on ‘unknowns’ as until we crane the upper parts of the structure out, we will not know the full extent of the condition and deterioration of the cast iron structure and the mechanical services.
The Council also commissioned engineering company HOP to investigate the appearance of the sink hole at the Old Steine Gardens following the removal of the Christmas market and funfair. A report to the Environment, Transport & Sustainability Committee in November will include the report findings and explain subsurface voids or anomalies, sometimes referred to as ‘swallow’ or ‘sink’ holes. A combination of historical evidence, subsurface surveying and visual assessment can establish the likelihood, or future risk, of further such voids occurring.
The structural engineer also assessed the Victoria Fountain and verified that the issue here is with the superstructure, corroding bolts and services above ground, which are not related to the site geology.
Queen Victoria Statue
The damage to the Statue was reported on the 21st September and having liaised with the Royal Pavilion Trust the cause is unknown. The parts are in safe storage and we have received a specialist stone contractors report and quote to carry out the repair, rake out the joints and clean the statue and plinth. We have appointed the contractor to do the work which is to start on the 24th October.
17. Councillor Nemeth
Public Toilets
35.34 In its briefing on 6th October the Council announced that it would be closing 10 of the City’s public toilets over the course of the winter season, which the Council defines as the period between 1 October 2022 and Good Friday (7 April 2023). The reason given was ‘the measures are needed to effectively manage the public toilet budget’.
These 10 public toilets that the council is closing for the next 6 months are listed as:
- Blaker's Park
- Easthill Park
- Queen's Park
- Rottingdean Recreation Ground
- Royal Pavilion Gardens
- Stanmer Village
- The Level
- Vale Park
- West Pier Arches
- Wild Park
In addition to these 10 closures, the Council has stated that a further 3 public toilets will also close while awaiting refurbishment (King’s Esplanade in Hove, Saltdean Undercliff and Station Road in Portslade).
This means that 13 out of the city’s 31 public toilet blocks (over 40% of the City’s public toilet facilities) will be closed to the public over the next 6 months.
This is unacceptable and has not been properly explained by the Council. Other Councils are keeping their public toilets open and in good condition all year round. Brighton & Hove City Council is classified as a high taxing local authority and charges some of the highest council tax rates in the country. Residents should be receiving a better service for their high council tax contributions.
This follows the summer when there have been recurring stories in the local newspaper of the poor state of the public conveniences
Will the Chair:
a) Provide a further explanation as to why Brighton & Hove City Council is closing 40% of its public toilets over the next 6 months;
b) Advise if any other measures will be put in place to compensate for the closures; and
c) Outline which public toilets are due to be upgraded over the next 12 months and whether this includes the notorious Pavilion Gardens toilets?
Reply from Councillor Davis / Heley, Joint Chair of the Environment, Transport & Sustainability Committee
35.35 Thank you for your question.
For clarity, the council is currently responsible for 36 toilet sites across the city.
Four are usually closed in winter months.
Two are closed for refurbishment.
A further 11 have been closed.
19 sites are currently open – just over 50% of the portfolio. Or, 64% if you exclude the ones that are normally closed at this time of year.
In response to your specific questions:
Question A
As a result of twelve years of Conservative austerity many local authorities have had to make difficult decisions to balance their budgets. The number of public lavatories that local authorities have funded and maintained fell from 3,154 in 2015/16 to 2,556 in 2020/21 – a drop of 19% across the past six years, which comes on top of reductions in previous years. We understand the impact closing toliets can have on our city and we have made significant efforts to keep them open. However as stated in the Member Briefing circulated on 6 October, the additional closures are due to substantial cost increases in energy, consumables and maintenance caused by inflation.
Staffing costs have also increased due to the service redesign as this led to increased pay and improved terms and conditions for all the staff who transferred into the council from a private business.
31% (11 sites) have been closed to manage the impact of this cost increase, which has created significant pressure within the public toilet budget.
The council's financial position is currently forecasting an overspend of more than £13million.
The decision to close the toilets has been made to help reduce this overspend.
Question B
Options are being explored as to whether third parties can take on the cleaning and maintenance of some sites, whilst the longer-term plan for public toilets is being developed and the council's financial position improves.
Question C
As has been previously reported, Daltons, Kings Esplanade, Saltdean Undercliff, Station Road (Portslade) and Park Road (Rottingdean) will be refurbished over the next 12 months.
Phase 2 of the refurbishment programme is under discussion. This includes which sites will be refurbished and whether the work should be brought forward. If it is, it will mean that the chosen sites are likely to be closed during higher footfall months. Budget is not available to provide portaloos in their stead.
The Royal Pavilion Garden toilets are unlikely to be refurbished in Phase 2. There are very high levels of anti-social behaviour and drug use in the toilets which can make it unsafe at times for members of the public and our staff. These problems also make it much harder to maintain and keep the toilets clean. The site has been reviewed alongside a Public Conveniences Problem Reduction Guide produced by Hertfordshire Constabulary. This document highlights the best crime prevention practice in toilet design, such as ensuring the entrance is visible and in areas of high passing footfall. Using this guide, there are concerns about whether the location of the building is suitable for a public toilet. Discussions have also taken place with the council's Head of Architecture & Design and Community Safety Teams, as well as Sussex Police, to identify options to reduce to the risk to the site, staff and members of the public and the options are limited.
Therefore, before the money is spent on refurbing the facility as-is, it is now preferable to close these toilets while works continues to resolve the risks of drug use and anti-social behaviour in the area and also reconsider the design and possibly the location of this toilet facility, to make it safe for the public and staff.
In the meantime, there are toilets that the public can use in the Jubilee Library along the road or a bit further away in Churchill Square.
18. Councillor Meadows
35.36 Carden park in Hollingbury has an excellent new playground, while Mackie Park’s new playground, close to three schools, has had less money spent on it and has been disappointing to many parents and children. When will the new consultation for Mackie park be held? How much will be spent on the upgrade? Can we be assured the equipment will be for older children? And when will Vale Avenue park be upgraded?
Reply from Councillor Davis / Heley, Joint Chair of the Environment, Transport & Sustainability Committee
35.37 Thank you for your question.
Ward Councillors have been advised that a public consultation will be published regarding Vale Park and Mackie Park in October. It is in the final stages of being checked.
Once residents have expressed their views on the future of Vale Park and the potential improvements to Mackie Park playground, officers will advise Councillors and the public of the desired outcome.
The budget for Vale Park or the Mackie Park extension is £45,000.
The budget available for each playground refurbishment is based on Section 106 contributions for the particular area.
If extension works are completed at Mackie, they will be for older children.
Work is scheduled for financial year 2023/24, once an outcome has been chosen.
19. Councillor Lewry
City Clean breakdowns
35.38 It has now been one year since the Brighton & Hove bin strikes that took place from 5-19 October 2021 and there are still major problems with the services that residents are receiving.
One issue we are seeing lately in Hangleton is the regular break-downs of city clean bin lorries midway through their routes. After these breakdowns, the areas of the round not completed are never returned to by other vehicles and residents are left with overflowing bins for the week.
Other excuses given to residents so far include that the council forgot to charge the city clean vehicle fully or that the weather was becoming too hot.
I am aware of several areas that have been affected by problems up to 9 times this year. Some examples of the problems with the service include:
- Meads Avenue - 3 missed bin collections, with overflowing rubbish and lots of flies during the summer.
- Lark Hill, Park Rise and High Park Avenue - 9 missed collections so far this year. With nothing being collected until the usual day the week after the problem or breakdown, residents are left in the lurch. They have had enough and want answers.
- The Community bins at Harmsworth Crescent - These were overflowing on the day of the Queen’s funeral when the community centre was showing the funeral in its entirety for residents to sit with others so not to be alone and also for residents to enjoy some complimentary tea and homemade cakes. Contents of the overflowing bins were strewn all over the ground with rats, seagulls and foxes having a field day. Residents had to clear the site filling five black bags before the event started.
Can the Chair advise:
a. How many city clean mid-round breakdowns have been recorded in the past twelve months since the bin strikes concluded?
b. Is there is a problem with the road worthiness of the city clean fleet that services the Hangleton area?
c. Can a policy be put in place whereby rounds impacted by breakdowns or other issues such as ‘hot weather’ or ‘failure to charge vehicles beforehand’ are fully completed by other vehicles when this occurs?
Reply from Councillor Davis / Heley, Joint Chair of the Environment, Transport & Sustainability Committee
35.39 The Cityclean fleet is well maintained. Although there is not high mileage, the vehicles are subject to continuous stop/start, hills, and continuous moving parts particularly on our recycling vehicles and communal refuse vehicles. This impacts the amount of maintenance and repairs needed.
Details of vehicle breakdowns are available, though Cityclean would need to determine the vehicles in question to provide specific information.
The side-loaders used for communal refuse bins, for example, run at 92% capacity over the year.
It is correct that there have been issues with charging the electric vehicles. This is now resolved.
Following the industrial action, the Council invested in five new recycling vehicles to replace the oldest and least reliable. Another new electric communal vehicle is arriving in February 2023, with three more to follow. There is a Fleet Replacement Programme that replaces diesel with electric over the next ten years.
The working practices and local agreements at Cityclean mean that management are not able to redirect crews to collect refuse or recycling that is not on their round. Management is currently in dialogue with the trade union for crews to pick up their own missed work when there is a vehicle breakdown or another issue impacting service delivery, where there is capacity to do so.
Gateway signage projects
35.40 Projects to install large gateway signage and artwork at several key entry points across the city to welcome tourists and provide a sense of place for locals as well were agreed to at the City Budget in 2021-2.
Funding for these projects was secured by the Conservative Group as part of a package of proposals aimed at boosting the City’s tourism industry and restoring civic pride post-pandemic.
The proposals budgeted and agreed to included the following:
a) New signage installations were agreed for the City’s three main gateway train stations at Brighton, Hove and Portslade, the entry points for many visitors
b) Additional signage and an iconic piece of welcoming artwork was proposed for the Patcham Roundabout for those arriving in the City by car.
c) A second set of signage for the seafront, with iconic ‘Brighton’ and ‘Hove’ signs - similar to those in other cities around the world that lend themselves to social media and go onto promote the City as a destination - set to be commissioned
All these measures were designed to help attract overnight visitors, with more to do, rather than just day visitors to the city, with a flow on boost to the city’s £886m tourism sector, which is such a big part of the City’s overall economy. We also hope this gateway signage will help to lift city pride.
In the last update received (December 2021) the Council advised that planning and commissioning phases had begun and that a long list of artists was being developed in partnership with Brighton’s Centre for Contemporary Art for which is part of the University of Brighton. A project manager was to be appointed to work on the site negotiation and development of artworks. The artists’ brief had been expanded to explore ideas of welcome through different artforms such as sculpture, painting and installations.
Can the Chair please provide an update to all Councillors on the status of the above Gateway signage projects as it has been a significant amount of time since the last time Councillors were updated on this matter.
Reply from Councillor Osborne / Powell, Joint Chair of the Tourism, Equalities, Communities & Culture Committee
35.41 Officers investigated the potential to install large gateway signage and artwork at several key entry points in the City’s including three main gateway train stations at Brighton, Hove and Portslade.
At Brighton Station a location was established for the installation but despite lengthy negotiation, Network Rail did not give permission to proceed. At Hove Station, the Network Rail were not able to offer permission in the station itself for an installation and at Portslade Station the budget provided is too small to commission something significant. Options are being explored.
Investigatory work was undertaken regarding the potential to install an iconic piece of welcoming artwork at the Patcham Roundabout. However, the proposed installation raised concerns that it would create increased risk implications for road safety. An alternative proposal was explored to remove the flower bed that is positioned adjacent to the roundabout, but this was rejected by Ward Councillors in favour of retention of the flower beds. Patcham Roundabout has been identified by City Parks for a new planting scheme.
With regards to the commissioning of a second set of signage for the seafront, with iconic ‘Brighton’ and ‘Hove’ signs, funds were not identified for this in the original budget amendment. Officers are currently looking at further options for welcoming artwork and signage and will report back in due course
21. Councillor McNair
Patcham & Hollingbury dog poo bins
35.42 Many of the dog poo bins around Patcham & Hollingbury ward, for example at Greenfield Crescent, have suddenly been removed by the Council without warning.
As a result of these removals the remaining dog poo bins in the ward are overflowing and other areas are a mess, with examples of dog poo bins being left on residents’ walls. Places where bins are overflowing include: Rotherfield Crescent, Keymer Road, Chelwood Close (2); Horsdean Recreation Ground (2); Wilmington Way and Carden Park.
The dog poo bins still there also look in poor condition. Patcham and Hollingbury has many dog walkers so we desperately need new bins to make it easier for the waste to be disposed of. The vast majority of dog walkers take dog poo home but bins should be provided.
There are hardly any bins near prime dog walking sites such as the nature reserve at the top of Ladies Mile where they are really needed.
Can the Chair please advise:
a) How many dog poo bins have been removed from the Patcham & Hollingbury ward this year?
b) Why have they been removed without being replaced?
c) Will the removed dog poo bins eventually be replaced?
d) Is there a plan for bigger dog poo bins to be installed in Patcham & Hollingbury ward in the near future?
35.43 Thank you for your question.
Since the Energy Recovery Facility opened in Newhaven, dog waste and litter can be mixed together in a general litter bin and as a result the provision of dog poo bins is being reviewed across Brighton & Hove.
Cityclean is removing dog poo bins that are located close to street litter or communal bins to make collections more efficient. Signage and stickers are placed on bins to inform the public that the bin can be used for both general waste and dog waste.
In answer to your specific questions:
Question A
As part of the review of dog bin provision, 10 dog poo bins have been removed from Patcham and Hollingbury.
Question B
Cityclean has removed dog bins where they are close to street litter or communal bins so that there is still provision for people to dispose of dog waste.
Question C
Currently, Cityclean is not looking to replace dog bins because many of them were close to general litter bins which can be used for dog waste. Where this isn’t the case, Cityclean will assess the area and place litter bins where there is high footfall, and close to car parks/roads.
Question D
There are no current plans to install bigger dog waste bins anywhere in the city. Instead, Cityclean is reviewing the number of general litter bins throughout the city which can also help dog walkers to dispose of waste.
22. Councillor Barnett
Benfield Valley
35.44 Residents are unhappy with several issues at Benfield Valley which remain unresolved, including (a) dumped chalk and (b) the damaged flint wall next to Benfield Barn.
The Chalk was dumped in April 2021 but still hasn’t been removed, despite an enforcement notice having been issued by the council at the time. The historic flint wall behind Benfield Barn has been in a state of disrepair for a similar amount of time after being partially destroyed.
Can the Chair please provide an update on the council’s progress relating to:
a) The implementation of enforcement notice issued by the Council to have the dumped chalk on Benfield Valley removed.
b) Organising the repair of the historic flint wall at Benfield Barn.
Reply from Councillor Davis / Heley, Joint Chair of the Environment, Transport & Sustainability Committee
35.45 a) After the Enforcement Notice was served, requiring the removal of the chalk deposits, a planning application was submitted to seeking to retain some of the chalk with some regrading and other associated works; with proposals to mitigate and protect the ecology and biodiversity of the site. After careful consideration the application was approved in August 2021. It was subject to several pre-commencement conditions. The information for these has now been received, is being considered.
Following this decision, the Enforcement Team will be seeking to ensure that the remedial works are carried out.
b) The Estate’s Team has been working to resolve the situation with the flint wall at Benfield Barn. The wall has become dilapidated due to a combination of overgrown tree roots surrounding the wall and it degradaing over time.
There has now been work carried out by the council’s Arboricultural Team to the trees on Sylvester Way to enable repairs to the flint wall by leaseholder. However, additional work still needs to be done. To help speed this up, it has been agreed that the leaseholder will arrange this to be carried out directly by a contractor. Then repair works will be carried out.
23. Councillor Simson
35.46 In January, residents of McWilliam Road Woodingdean were left unhappy after pavements were left in a patchwork state following the contractual work to install fibre optic broadband.
Holes in the pavements were covered over with tarmac, leaving mismatched walkways.
Back in January when concerns were raised, the Council indicated that its policy on the restoration of pavements had been breached and that it would work with the company to redress the issues and ensure the finished surface was consistent in future.
This however hasn’t solved the situation on McWilliam Road, which remains a patchwork of tarmac and paving slabs.
Can the Chair advise whether McWilliam Road will be resurfaced and restored to a consistent surface, as should have happened in line with the Council’s policy on restoring pavements?
Supporting information:
https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/19865456.construction-works-leave-woodingdean-residents-furious/
Reply from Councillor Davis / Heley, Joint Chair of the Environment, Transport & Sustainability Committee
35.47 The footway of McWilliam Road will be reinstated to a consistent surface. Our Asset Maintenance team have had a site visit with CityFibre, and we are now waiting for agreement to be reached on their contribution to the cost of re-surfacing the footway. Unfortunately this process has taken longer than we expected, but we are in regular contact with them.
24. Councillor Theobald
Parking revenue
35.48 Since the last Council Elections how many roads have had bicycle lanes introduced in place of car parking and how much annual income has been lost by the loss of parking fees?
How many roads are proposed to have bicycle lanes and what will be the amount of annual income that will be lost by the Council from removing the car parking?
Reply from Councillor Davis / Heley, Joint Chair of the Environment, Transport & Sustainability Committee
35.49 Since the last Council elections, the main cycle routes implemented have been on the A259 - Palace Pier to Fourth Avenue and on Madeira Drive with an estimated annual loss of £640,000 parking income combined.
A further cycle lane on the A259 - West of Fourth Avenue will be cost neutral as it will be mitigated by Cycle Lane enforcement income and new shared bays near the Rockwater centre.
Due to twelve years of Conservative government austerity parking revenue plays an important part in balancing all council’s budget. However more important is the health of our planet and our residents. Providing active travel infrastructure is enabling our residents to take sustainable journeys which reduce the carbon footprint of the city. Furthermore, our residents deserve to breath clean air not polluted harmful toxic emissions. Finally, we know that walking and cycling improvements can increase retail spend in high streets by up to 30%.
25. Councillor Brown
Ongoing parking issues in Nevill Avenue & Nevill Road
35.50 Residents are unhappy that at the most recent Environment, Transport and Sustainability Committee meeting, the Chair voted against their request for an officer report to explore solutions to ongoing parking issues in Nevill Avenue and Nevill Road, without providing any explanation why.
The residents spent a great deal of time preparing their deputation in good faith, which was dutifully presented to the full council and then referred to the Environment, Transport & Sustainability Committee meeting in accordance with the Council procedures. They do deserve a response as to why the Chair and the Administration voted against a report.
Can you please provide the reason why the Greens voted against such a report into addressing ongoing parking issues on Nevill Avenue and Nevill Road?
Reply from Councillor Davis / Heley, Joint Chair of the Environment, Transport & Sustainability Committee
35.51 Residents were advised that they needed to come forward in a larger area for this to be considered in the Parking Scheme Priority Timetable. This is to ensure the Council considers the wider implications of any proposal rather than adding additional single roads.
26. Councillor Nemeth
Speed Trials
35.52 Despite the great efforts of the organisers of the Brighton Speed Trials, there was huge disappointment again amongst motor-racing enthusiasts concerning the non-participation of motorcycles.
The decision to not allow motorcycles ultimately stems from a decision by the Auto-Cycle Union (ACU) to not grant a track licence following concerns about surface materials. Last year, there were concerns about the green cycle lane. This year, there were concerns over the type of white paint that has been used for line markings.
The ACU has clearly stated that there are suitable types of white paint which are available for the job in question.
Given that this Council resolved to ensure that this event continues – with no excuses or caveats – please detail precisely what conversations and meetings took place (with dates) with the appropriate licensing authorities prior to the paint being administered.
Reply from Councillor Davis / Heley, Joint Chair of the Environment, Transport & Sustainability Committee
35.53 Following approval at ETS committee to proceed with proposals to implement a dedicated cycle track along Madeira Drive plans were further developed. In February 2021 the plans were circulated to key stakeholders including Madeira Drive Event Organisers via our Events Team. During this period e-mail exchanges with many traders and event organisers took place and meetings were held on site. More specifically e-mail exchanges between the Speed Trial Event organiser and BHCC officers regarding the plans took place.
In February 2021 a site meeting took place with the organiser of the Speed Trials to identify measures to ensure the layout was suitable. In March 2021 the plans were updated to incorporate change requests to respond to the needs of the event. These changes included removable signposts in the carriageway, removal of proposed buildouts at proposed crossing points to allow sufficient clearance for motor vehicles and the addition of extra safety bollards to protect the Concorde 2 building. In August 2021 Speed Trial organisers requested a further meeting with UK Motorsport and BHCC to detail highway changes and to prepare for the Licencing application. During this meeting the green surfacing specification was requested alongside skid resistance testing. This was circulated directly after the meeting to all attendees. During August BHCC officers were copied into an e-mail between Event Organisers and the Licencing Body detailing all required safety measures that had been put in place. On the lead up to the event all other works at the Dukes Mound end were stopped and temporary measures put in place to ensure the licenced event could take place.
In December 2021 BHCC Events, Highways, Event Managers and Licence bodies attended a meeting to discuss previous events. Some concern was raised over the white lining with Event organisers offering to circulate the specification used on the Isle of Man. BHCC agreed to determine the specification of the existing white lining.
In March 22 –July 22 the white lining specification was received by BHCC contractors and sent to a representative from the event organisation. The specification for the white lining laid at Madeira Drive by our experienced contractor are developed for use on all Local Highway roads and can be found Citywide.
27. Councillor Nemeth
Welcome Back Fund
35.54 A response to a written question at Full Council on 7th April 2022 confirmed broad f unding arrangements for the five high streets to which the Welcome Back Fund applied.
The project included both planting and street-cleaning elements.
Please now provide a full breakdown of costings for each street along with an explanation as to why plants were picked that immediately died.
Reply from Councillor Davis / Heley, Joint Chair of the Environment, Transport & Sustainability Committee
35.55 In response to your question, officers can send you a breakdown of costs for the high streets that received various initiatives through the Welcome Back Fund. These costs have been identified through claim forms submitted to the government and associated invoices, which formed part of the reporting process for the fund. Invoices for the majority of these initiatives included all high streets in receipt of funding, so the total cost has been divided between each area.
The plants were selected by the professional company who placed the pots in local high streets. Officers viewed these in situ and do not share the view that the plants died quickly after location.
28. Councillor Theobald
A27 litter clean-up operation
35.56 It was good to see a five-night council operation to clear A27 roadside litter take place from 26-31 September between Portslade junction and Falmer.
Can the Chair provide an update on the results of this including the following:
a) How much litter was removed?
b) Did the council identify where the litter mostly came from (for example construction materials or general rubbish) and will any further action taken based on these conclusions?
c) What was the cost of this 5-day litter clearing effort to the budget?
d) How many times per year are these operations carried out and at what annual budgeted cost?
Reply from Councillor Davis / Heley, Joint Chair of the Environment, Transport & Sustainability Committee
35.57 Further to the Council operation to litter pick the A27 roadside between 27th and 30th September and 3rd to 4th October, I confirm that:
· A total of 18 tonnes of detritus was removed including
· 2 tonnes of litter
· 13 tonnes of silt
· 3 tonnes of fly tip.
o From this:
· Approximately 40% was general rubbish
· 40% was construction material
· and 20% was vehicle parts.
Cityclean has previously worked with Sussex Police on joint operations to address common issues such as unsecured loads and will continue to look for opportunities for joint working with the police and National Highways.
The cost of the litter clearing for this part of the road was £35,000 and includes working with third parties on road closures to enable Council staff to access the areas to clear litter, flytip and silt.
Cityclean is aiming to undertake this work twice a year but this dependent on budget.
29. Councillor Atkinson
35.58 Preparing for winter and the fuel/cost of living crisis – vulnerable elderly people
Can you outline what plans the council are putting in place for elderly and other vulnerable residents, who may be in fuel poverty, to keep warm this winter?
Are we looking to offer public buildings as a warm haven for residents and, if so, how will this be publicised?
Also, are we also looking to use facilities such as sheltered accommodation lounges and other council buildings?
How can we facilitate travel to these facilities if and when they are available?
Reply from Councillor Mac Cafferty, Leader of the Council
35.59 Information in relation to your question is set out in the report provided to Policy & Resources Committee on 6 October 2022 and which is also on the agenda for this Council meeting. It sets out in detail that we are looking at the feasibility of utilising council-owned buildings as warm spaces and we will also be working with the Community & Voluntary Sector to determine what they may be able to offer. This work is now in progress.
At the Policy & Resources Committee, in the same report, the committee also approved an allocation from the Household Support Fund to further improve information on our website and develop a communication and awareness campaign, including a leaflet to all households in the city, to provide further awareness of financial support and advice available from the council and its partners including support for energy bills and energy saving advice. This will also include information about warm spaces available to the public once these have been determined and agreed.
36 Oral questions from Councillors
36.1 The mayor noted that oral questions had been submitted and that 30 minutes was set aside for the duration of the item. She asked that both the questioner and responder endeavour to keep their questions and answers as short as possible, in order to enable the questions listed to be taken.
1. Councillor Allcock
36.2 Councillor Allcock asked, when home security for many in our City is even more under threat due to the cost of living crisis and the continued housing crisis that has been exacerbated by 12 years of so called Tory rule, can Cllr Gibson or Cllr Hugh-Jones please tell the Council what the administration has done to introduce selective licensing?
36.3 Councillor Gibson replied, there are a variety of measures that have been taken, as you are fully aware in housing, we still have a joint Labour-Green housing programme and we are signed up to achieving an extension of licencing in that programme. In terms of some of the measures that we’ve done, I’ll go back to licensing because I think that’s probably your main interest but some of the measures that we’ve done include at the last Housing Committee we agreed an increase to a million pounds of warmer homes grant funding for the lowest income households in the city which in the energy crisis and the cost of living crisis is particularly useful. In terms of energy efficiency, part of the additional enforcement capacity that we’ve recruited under the joint plan has been used to write to landlords, and I think about 500 landlords have been written to, to get information about where they’re not meeting the requirements in terms of energy efficiency standards under the legislation and they are now being pursued and ultimately there is the prospect of other fines if they shouldn’t be delivering the energy efficiency improvements. I think the main first of your question is understandably an interest in selective licensing and introducing licensing which we’re, as you say, we’re jointly committed to and it is probably worth mentioning that we were the first party to introduce licensing in the city and it’s been a bit of a roller coaster. We bought in HMO licensing and we laid the ground for the next one and thankfully Tracey Hill extended that then there was an attempt to bring in another one and the previous administration and unfortunately the now Tory Councillor, Anne Meadows, pulled back from so that didn’t get anywhere. When we started with our joint programme we were strongly committed to achieving licensing and we have been trying to impress that this is a priority.
As Housing Committee in March tried to expedite the necessary evidence for licensing which was deemed to be insufficient and said it gave officers authority to crack on and recruit consultants to do this cadence, we’re a bit disappointed that it has taken a bit longer but we’re still pushing hard and we are hopeful that we will have a report coming to January committee which will allow us to go out to consultation and finally deliver to this jointly desired goal – but we do need the evidence, if we don’t have the evidence we can’t do it.
36.3 Councillor Allcock asked a supplementary question, Cllr Gibson I’m very interested in your response and very interested in the stuff about energy efficiency however it wasn’t relevant to the question that I particularly asked which is when we are going to get that joint objective that’s in the corporate plan. The HMO licensing scheme is also due to be reviewed, can you confirm this scheme will continue – yes or no?
36.4 Councillor Gibson replied, I wish it was a simple yes or no. My preference and desire is that we will continue it, I believe that there is a need for licensing schemes and I believe that there is a need to expand them as far as possible, but the point is we are doing the research and we have jointly commissioned the research from Cadence and when we get that result I’m hopeful and confident that the recommendation will be that we continue it and that is what we would like to do.
2. Councillor Bell
36.5 Councillor Bell asked, this is to the leader of the Council and the question is has, and if he has, I apologise - I haven’t seen it, but will the leader of the Council apologise to the city and those who should have received monies for taking part in this year’s Brighton marathon due to grounded events failure and also by allowing them to use Council buildings and land?
36.6 Councillor Osborne replied, I think we’re allowed to decide who answers the questions so I’m answering this. The Council has been aware of some concerns about events from the event’s organisers, but after a very difficult two years for events we went ahead with this event, and we are aware that there is still some outstanding debt, but officers have been meeting with Grounded Events and they are happy with the plan they’ve got to pay these debts in the next few months. They are continuing to speak with organisers to make sure that this happens and continuing to try and make sure that we can have an event next year. They are aware of it, they are acting on it and they will hope to be paying those outstanding debts within due course.
36.7 Councillor Bell asked a supplementary question, I think everyone knows that the Council and the Green Administration refuses to apologise to the City, so thank you. Can I also ask you then, it’s very clear that there was some due diligence but obviously that failed because it’s quite clear by the figures submitted by the Grounded Events on Companies House that they were in debt in 2021 of 1.2 million, 2020 1.6 million, 2019 eight hundred thousand and 2018 at seven hundred thousand. I hear there is some commitment but what we need to know is will you continue to support them and allow the Brighton marathon to go ahead next year using Grounded Events even if they still owe monies to people and also to their debtors.
36.8 Councillor Osborne replied, as part of the events strategy that we have and as part of the events schedule coming to TECC committee, we will continue to have the marathon in Brighton. We support the marathon, and we don’t apologise for having a marathon this year. In fact, we are very happy to see the marathon come back and we will do all we can to support that marathon going forward and if there is outstanding debt that hasn’t been paid for, as with other events in the city, we take our obligation as landlords seriously and we would consider that but I’m confident and the officers will continue to meet and that they will be able to pay their outstanding debts and if they aren’t then that might be a question that might be brought forward in the future.
3. Councillor Appich
36.9 Cllr Appich asked, could you give me a brief update on the progress on rewilding of the former golf course at water hall please.
36.10 Cllr Lloyd replied our fantastic ecologist, Graham Lyons, is an expert on rewilding and rewilds estates all over this country and he’s doing everything for us pro bono and what we’ve got from him is invaluable. The baseline data from that survey is really good, a lot of invertebrates, hundreds of moths, butterflies and bees, and we’ve now introduced cattle to start grazing selected areas of the site to expose the chalk grassland to get more biodiversity and to reduce scrub. We’re also reducing scrub on a regular basis, and this is already having an impact. What I always say to people is I feel sorry for people doing rewilding in the Caledonian forests in Scotland because their great grandchildren won’t see the results, but we’re going to see the results of chalk grassland restoration within a couple of years and the results are already looking good so as the golf course is being overtaken by wildlife, we’re starting to see ground nesting birds. Those ground nesting birds, we hope, will remain only if the site isn’t overrun by dogs again – so that’s very important. We have also seen a white-tailed eagle there, I’m afraid the white-tailed eagle doesn’t live in water hall, it lives on the Isle of Wight. I’d like to extend our thanks to the Council for it paying a visit because it was wonderful; I didn’t see it, but Graham Lyons did and I’m glad he got to do that. Water hall is going extremely well, the only thing I can say at the end is that nature is under attack. It’s under the most egregious attack from this government that we’ve ever seen, they’re not content with destroying all of our water systems, every river in England stands polluted. I said this at our maiden speech that this is what they’d do after Brexit – moving their war onto nature on land withdrawing from environmental protections from the EU it’s the most egregious attack on wildlife I’ve ever seen, and we will protect wildlife in this city and extend that to other sites, I’d like to see the same thing done in Hollingbury. We’ve got to keep together, keep the Conservative Party from destroying our wildlife.
36.11 Cllr Appich asked a supplementary question, can he let me have an update from the Brighton and Hove Food Partnerships use of the former clubhouse at water hall, and any future plans for its use please.
36.12 Cllr Lloyd replied, again, I don’t know what the Food Partnership are up to at the moment, but I can check with them and get back to you. There are quite a lot of plans, lots of people seem to want lots of different things but believe that has to come to tender as normal. We are in partnership with Changing Chalk and the National Trust, there’s a lot of stakeholders involved, but anyone’s welcome to come along to our advisory group meeting from this Council because it’s a good way of working out what’s going on.
4. Councillor Moonan
36.13 Cllr Moonan asked, the Tory Government’s Health and Care bill was set up so that very new ways of working for the NHS and how they work with Local Authority adult social care services and other partners, namely the integrated care system. As we know, this is a major change in governance and accountability in the NHS, and it significantly effects decisions for our residents. We now have a Sussex wide integrated care system, and this new body is already making fundamental decisions that affect our residents. Cllr Shanks sits on the ICS board and also on the wider partnership group. This group is currently writing a Sussex wide health and wellbeing strategy, for this reason Labour has secured an amendment months ago for a cross party member working group to provide governance and oversight. Months went by and nothing happened, decisions are still being made so my question to Cllr Shanks is, was it the fact that you finally saw I put down this oral question today that this first meeting of the cross-party member group was so hurriedly set up just last Thursday?
36.14 Cllr Shanks replied, what happened was that the working group, I had asked a few times actually but we’ve had holidays etcetera, but we have had a meeting and that was really because the first proper meeting of the Sussex assembly where we started discussing the draft strategy was yesterday so we didn’t have the working group meeting we just had it and we’ve got another one in the diary. It’s not our intention not to have this, I’m happy to have a meeting any time to explain what’s happening at the Sussex assembly. I was actually pleasantly surprised I suppose because actually, I think, it is a way forward and somebody asked at the meeting what had gone wrong in the past and this is a new start and on the assembly there’s the university chancellors for example, there’s somebody from housing, there’s reps from the voluntary organisations, there’s three health and wellbeing chairs, there’s clinical people. I do think it’s going to be a really useful place to be and I’m really happy to talk to you about it anytime.
36.15 Cllr Moonan asked a supplementary question, that’s really good to hear and I’m sure our lead on the health and wellbeing board will be both really pleased that you are prepared to talk to us and be open and transparent, that’s fantastic. We have an excellent health and wellbeing strategy that was cocreated by many partners across Brighton and Hove, covering birth to death health issues. Can you give residents assurance that this strategy will not be swept aside by other East and West Sussex priorities?
36.16 Cllr Shanks replied, that seems like a different question, but yes I can assure you that our strategy which was presented by Alistair Hill, our public health director. Yesterday at the assembly each board presented their own strategy but that is our strategy for our City that we have developed. What we’re looking at is what cross Sussex priorities there might be, for example: data. How do we make sure that people share data properly, how do we work properly together with whatever we’re looking at. It’s not about individual services, it’s about the way we work. Workforce is a really big priority; how do we make sure that we retain good staff and that we train staff. These are things that the whole of Sussex and the whole country needs to look at, but that’s what the assembly can probably do better than us on our own.
5. Councillor Theobald
36.17 Cllr Theobald asked, last year the Greens decided to cancel the 10 year contract signed in 2017 with contractors ‘Healthmatic’ for the cleaning and maintaining of the city’s public toilet blocks and instead start running the service itself inhouse. At the time of making the decision, the leader of the Council said he preferred to bring public toilets back in-house to ensure we have direct management and better accountability with the change coming into effect on the 1st February 2022. Since that decision we have seen a summer where there has been constant reports from residents, visitors and the press about the poor state of seafront public toilets and the Council’s new system. Now, the Council has closed 17 public toilets for six months because it says that under the new system it’s been unable to employ enough staff to keep all the public toilet blocks open this year and exceeds the public toilet budget for this year, partly due to agreeing the higher wages for the new in-house staff it has employed. Will the leader of the Council now take accountability for the situation as he promised last year when he made this change? Will he start getting these toilets open again?
36.18 Cllr Heley replied, a lot of these issues were discovered once the service came in-house. We currently have a 300k budget gap in year since sourcing the toilets which has arisen due to things like pay rises for lower paid staff, moving away from zero hours contracts and split shifts, appropriate weekend enhancement payments, and introduction of safe working in toilets which is necessary given the level of risk to staff loan working. There will still be 18 public toilet blocks open in busy areas across the city this winter, most of these will be open from 09:00 to 16:00 and there is also a project board working on all these issues.
36.19 Cllr Theobald asked a supplementary question, there was an article in The Argus recently that said that a Council spokesperson said billions of pounds of cuts by successive Conservative governments have made it difficult to maintain and surely that must have been a Green officer I’d think. I’d like to ask, the Pavilion Gardens and Preston Park toilets, these are two very busy places as well as the seafront, but these particular toilets are a disgrace at the moment. When will these be refurbished? It talks about three others being done but these are very busy places, Pavilion Gardens and Preston Park, it says that the ones that they’re not doing are the ones that are not used very much but really that’s not correct. I want to know what’s going to happen.
36.20 Cllr Heley replied, we have detailed this which I can give you the details of.
6. Councillor Pissaridou
36.21 Cllr Pissaridou asked, you may remember, during the summer, I was looking to identify possible venues in my ward of North Portslade that could be used as warmer spaces for my residents during the energy crisis. Unfortunately, in North Portslade, the only community buildings owned by the Council are not available during the daytime as they are already leased out to local nurseries. However, since the summer, I have met with the principle of PACA – Portslade Aldridge Community Academy - and we visited Mile Oak Library together which is a shared space within the academy for both pupils and the community, it’s a wonderful space actually. The principle was very happy to support the space being used as a warm bank during the current opening times for the community. I also, at that time, discussed with the senior housing manager the suitability of using our sheltered accommodation and although we identified that there may be safeguarding issues opening for family use, the senior housing officer was very helpful and contacted the Community Engagement team to see where they could work to progress this for older people in the city. I’ve learned today that a winter directory is now being prepared and registration has been sent to all Brighton and Hove scheme managers in the city which will include Hazel Hall, the sheltered accommodation in my ward, and benefit in residents in the cold weather and possible scheme activities which, as before, be open to the public. My question is can the administration reassure me that North Portslade will be included in receiving much needed support to provide a warm space for my ward residents and that my local library is considered as a potential appropriate site for the community to use as a warm bank.
36.22 Cllr Mac Cafferty replied, in brief, Councillor Pissaridou, of course it will. We’ve got nine community settings signed up to be in the winter directory that you talked about; fourteen libraries are included. The first deadline for groups and settings to join the directory is at the end of the month and we’ll do another push after that and reach out to businesses critically. Thank you very much for making me aware of the expression of interest from PACA that you’ve also talked about, we will make sure that Emma McDermott, the key officer who’s leading on this, will make sure that we bring that away. We’re working with all the cities community and voluntary organisations on this and if you want to make any suggestions on that, that’s helpful as well. We are on it and at the all Councillor briefing tomorrow you can raise this specific question if you don’t feel as if I’ve answered all of it.
36.23 There was no supplementary question.
7. Councillor Robins
36.24 Cllr Robins asked, on the 22nd of September, without any warning, the people of Portslade were informed that a new pathway service supported accommodation for 60 people with medium to high mental health needs would be opening in the middle of their community in eight days’ time on the 1st of October with no consultation or no explanation. On the 18th of this month, the developers pulled the plug on the project, believing that they had been misled – but not before they had caused the maximum pain and upset to all concerned. As yet, no one has even had the good grace to say sorry. Will you now apologise on the behalf of the administration to the developers, the employees of the current service providers, the service users, the Portslade Councillors, and the people of Portslade for your part in this debacle?
36.25 Cllr Shanks replied, No, Councillor Robins, I won’t apologise to the people you suggested. Who I will apologise to are the very vulnerable people in our city who are suffering with mental health problems, one in five people in our city, many of whom actually live in Portslade. They are the people that we have let down by this. The reason, and I know that you have been copied into these emails from the providers, you have had the chapter and verse of what happened here, and I’ll just repeat a bit of it. After the procurement advisory group in June 21 was delegated procurement for high and medium low support, the lot was awarded, it’s actually a National Health Commission, this high need pathway. Lot one was awarded to Saint John of God (SJoG) hospitality services who developed a proposal to provide 50 units of accommodation supporting Carbone House, which is the old brewery in Portslade, offering really nice self-contained accommodation with specific provision for women with complex needs and vulnerable individuals. We had a consultation conducted by Mind with users of our services and this was very important to people that they had their own space, a really good quality space, because I think you’ll agree that some of our supported accommodation is not of a very high quality, so this was excellent provision and you were notified, I think in August. This was not due to start until the beginning of November but what happened is that immediately people went on social media and people got very excited about all this. The person from SJoG, which I think you were copied into Councillor Robins, their approach is that people who need support with their mental health, as part of the local community, is that they should be supported. The negative press which happened in Portslade, and people being Barrett, the providers, and our officers who went along to a meeting that was organised in Portslade were barracked and accused and shouted at. They felt that they could not continue with this provision in Portslade, they have decided to withdraw from this. I know that Councillor Robins was copied in, but they said that this would have been the jewel of a service and that they were really keen to begin to operate. I apologise if there has been confusion about this, but I think that it was entirely unfortunate that people started bringing up things which were not part of the provision. This was supportive provision, it’s about people who are wanting to, and who are unable to, live in the community to use the local shops and services as we all do, with support. This provision needs to happen, but whether SJoG will be able to provide it; we’re not sure now. It would have been a jewel in the crown in Sussex and it would have provided 20 jobs in Portslade as well. I am very sad, and I apologise to the users of our mental health services in the city that this has happened. Thank you.
36.26 There was no supplementary question.
8. Councillor Bagaeen
36.27 Cllr Bagaeen asked, is there a hiring freeze at Brighton and Hove City Council?
36.28 Cllr Druitt replied, there is not actually a full hiring freeze at Brighton and Hove City Council, there is an eight-week delay in hiring to certain departments. I think the exemptions that are quite notable: we’ve got exemptions in adult and children’s services including residential care, care home, home care, nurseries, in hostels, adult and children social care, apprenticeships, HRA vacancies, rotor cover for CityClean and security for venues. This is an unfortunate step we’ve had to take because the administration is very keen to recruit to vacant posts and very keen to continue the important work of the Council in all departments but it’s a necessary evil to arrest a financial situation which has been caused by 12 years of austerity, continuous government failure to implement long term funding for social care and runaway inflation and economic fallout from the governments shambolic handling of the economy.
36.29 Cllr Bagaeen asked a supplementary, the reason I ask, and I’m grateful to my colleague for the answer, is that when the press reported on the 7th of October there was no rebuttal from the Council. In light of this eight-week automatic delay to all permanent temporary interim agency or casual recruitment, the Council said they’ll do a review of spending controls and delay non-critical spending. Can I ask please if any of that has happened?
36.30 Cllr Druitt replied, yes, that has happened. There are spending controls in many of the Council’s departments, and we are also looking at projects that can be put back for a short time to save money and what projects can be completed sooner and what projects can be started later in order to give the Council a temporary financial respite from the current national economic situation.
9. Councillor Fishleigh
36.31 Cllr Fishleigh asked, in the Council’s list of projects funded by the carbon neutral fund, two transport interventions do not reduce carbon. I’m concerned that decision makers don’t know the difference between reducing and monitoring carbon, nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter. I’m also concerned that the carbon neutral fund is being highjacked by other projects that mean well but have no clear measurements of carbon success. Will you please evaluate all the projects supported from this fund to ensure that the are focused on carbon reduction and have tangible deliverables?
36.32 Cllr Mac Cafferty replied, absolutely. This is something that my co-chair Councillor Allcock is really interested in as well and you’re right to put your finger on how to we detected what is happening to carbon, what is actually carbon reduction, there is a massive debate that’s happening about how you measure that. You’re absolutely right to talk about the way that we monitor it here as well. I will remind you as well, Councillor Fishleigh, and I’ve probably made this point in the past, that although we’re doing quite well in terms of what way we are monitoring and what we’re doing to reduce our carbon footprint, we are sadly a very small part of the pie chart and that’s why we have to continue the work with transport partners for example to really get transport to start playing its full part in reducing carbon but very happy to take forward the query that you’ve raised. It is on the agenda, it is something that I know that a number of prominent officers, Kirsten Firth for example, is one of the officers who is really helping us understand what the organisation is doing on this. Happy to take a supplementary.
36.33 Cllr Fishleigh asked a supplementary question, thank you for your answer. You might want to investigate the machine installed at Stanmer Park which is being swapped out, also electricity that’s being used at our EV charging points which isn’t 100% renewable. Locally, I’ve recently been asked where new bike stands could be put in Saltdean Park with funds coming from the carbon neutral fund. In 17 years of living in Saltdean I’ve never heard anyone say that bike stands are needed in the park. When we ride our bikes down there, we leave them within the tennis courts, the football courts or the playground, we don’t leave them away from where we are. In addition, Mark Sherratt and I have recently secured a grant from the Forestry Commission for 52 large trees to be planted. Can the funds that have been allocated to bike stands from the carbon neutral fund please be diverted to installing a drinking water fountain and putting more bins in the park, which is what residents actually want and need.
36.34 Cllr Mac Cafferty replied, i’m not sure that at this stage that they can be, however you raise a really good point about water fountains which have ended up being really popular, as you know we’ve rolled out six of them in the city centre. The plan was always to roll this out as far and as wide as we can get them across the entire city. I will take away your interest in having a water fountain in Saltdean, of course I will. The other point you raise about bike racks is we have to try all the time, obviously bike technology is improving all the time, and we need to make it as easy as possible for people to get rid of their cars, stop using diesel and petrol powered vehicles and get healthy in the process. That is probably part of the rationale for where the bike stand has come from, but I take onboard your comments and I am more than happy to raise it.
10. Councillor Williams
36.35 Cllr Williams asked, HMO licensing is a concern and I’m sorry if you were going to repeat this, but it is a concern and it is really important that we extend this. I want assurances that it will be.
36.36 Cllr Gibson replied, I share Councillor Williams’ desire that we extend it, I believe there’s a need for licensing as it takes away the pressure on tenants to report things and it’s proven to achieve improvements to the quality of accommodation and I really hope that the evidence that the consultants, Cadence, provide will verify these views and enable us to extend again the HMO licensing.
11. Councillor Barnett
36.37 Cllr Barnett asked, the Benfield Valley lease was signed in 1992 and still applies and clearly states that no alterations or additions are to be made to the land. I have a copy of the lease indoors and it was signed in 1992 and it states on page 5 in paragraph 3 that nothing is to be built on there whether it be a shed, a house, or a barn. The Council should therefore not offer up this land for development and stay consistent with the lease. Local residents are furious with the actions of the Council putting Benfield Valley up for development, it started under Labour who wrote the draft city plan and has continued under the Green’s. I’m asking that Benfield Valley is taken completely out of part 2 of the city plan. The worst aspect of it all is the Council is refusing to hear what residents have to say, in 2000 you banned me from presenting a petition with ~1900 signatures. Now, answer the question, is the Council going to see some sense and take Benfield Valley out of city plan part 2, because nobody wants it, you’re not listening to what the residents really want, you’re not listening to the residents of the city, you’re doing exactly as you want.
36.38 Cllr Osborne replied, I think that the leasehold that was signed is different from city plan which is allocating the potential for housing, it’s not allocating a definite, there will be a planning process and planning applications that would come forward in the future which you may wish to object to. Designating it as a housing site does not mean necessarily that it will be housing in the future. Just to say that what you’re asking for is for us to reject the plan, I know that communities may feel very strongly about this but there’s 5% of that whole land which is designated and if you reject the plan, you’re allowing 100% of Benfield Valley to be developed. I think we need to be very careful about what we’re asking for because effectively you’re asking for the whole valley to be developed, not for 5%.
36.39 Cllr Barnett asked a supplementary question, Can we then please have a thorough investigation into the inclusion of any part of Benfield Valley for city housing proposals.
36.40 Cllr Osborne replied, I don’t know if you’ve been paying any attention for the last ten years, but this has come up again and again and again in the urban fringe assessments and in fact the only reason we’re doing this is because of a Conservative government so perhaps we will support them getting rid of that.
12. Councillor Wilkinson
36.41 Cllr Wilkinson asked, I direct my question to the leader of the Council. Will the administration consider appointing a dedicated cost of living coordinator Council officer role to oversee cost of living related work streams? This post will build on existing operations already in place including customer services, housing and welfare support and external partnerships to ensure that all departments and stakeholders will effectively meet the needs of the community.
36.42 Cllr Mac Cafferty replied, thank you, Councillor Wilkinson, for the excellent suggestion. Obviously we will bare that in mind in terms of the budget. What is a comfort or of interest to you is that obviously there is a number of different Council teams that have been working on this now since the spring. When we brought the report through the decision-making process in May, prior to that we had discussions already with the community and voluntary sector and what we’ve been convening weekly now is across the entire Council is all the different officers and all the different teams, public health through the communities’ team, who have been working on trying to figure out what we need to do. We’ve had this week, for example, the Greater Brighton Economic Board has commissioned the institute for employment studies to really figure out what the impact of the cost of living crisis is going to be on local business as well so we are on the case I hope you understand that there’s a whole load of different Council officers and teams on this and we will of course take your great suggestion forward. You know as well as I do, that will cost money and that’s the big unknown at the moment, but we will take your suggestion forward and thank you for the question.
36.43 Cllr Wilkinson asked a supplementary question, either as part of a cost of living coordinator role, should one come about, or separately; will the Council respond to increasing food insecurity by mapping out local access to affordable and free food to include social supermarkets, food hubs and food banks that have been identified at a hyper local level and develop a user friendly interactive map that is available on the Council web page and or Google Maps?
36.44 Cllr Mac Cafferty replied, my understanding was that the work that we’ve done with the Brighton and Hove food partnership, and we’ve been working very closely indeed with them, is that we already had an interactive map but I’m happy to take forward the suggestion. As you well know the team over at the food partnership have been not only excellent but extremely busy with all of the work on the cost of living and they of course work with us and the citizens advice in Brighton and Hove to set up the cost of living crisis fund which has already raised over £43,000 so I’m happy to take it forward.
37 Adoption of the Brighton & Hove City Plan Part 2
37.1 Councillor Osborne introduced, and formally moved, the report that the Council adopt the Brighton & Hove City Plan Part 2. Councillor Osborne thanked Officers for their dedication and contributions to the Plan. He stated that Brighton & Hove was a unique place and that the only way to protect the best parts of our past and look forward to the future was to properly plan for this, and in that aspect a local plan was one of the most important things that the Council did and recognised that these decisions had an affect on everyone in the City.
37.2 The Mayor noted that there were three amendments in relation to the report as set out in the addendum papers.
37.3 Councillor Nemeth moved three amendments on behalf of the Conservative Group which was formally seconded by Councillor Bell.
37.4 Councillor Ebel thanked Planning Officers, and those who participated in consultation and public hearings extending special thanks to Helen Gregory for getting the plan to this stage and towards creating an excellent planning policy document. She highlighted that that the City Plan Part 2 supported:
-the local economy and High Street
-the circular economy concept by ensuring developments were designed to be flexible
-local businesses to grow.
It ensured that the city shopping areas continued to be protected as well as important local parades across the city. It would help address some of the most pressing issues in our city, whilst at the same time guiding their developers to follow the highest environmental standards. The plan would protect what the city held dear and it gives clear guidance on planning matters for residents, developers and town planners. I therefore asked you to vote to adopt this plan.
37.5 Councillor Evans commended the many good aspects of the plan advising that the City Plan had been a decade in the making and at every stage, it had been overseen, examined, and sometimes changed or sent back by the Governments Planning Inspectors. In closing, she advised that to reject the plan at this stage would leave the other 93% of the urban fringe unprotected.
37.6 Councillor Atkinson stated that he would be voting to adopt the City Plan Part 2. He advised that in 2016 the national inspector in City Plan Part 1 stated that the city needed to build over 30,000 new homes by 2030, the inclusion of some sites on the urban fringe was part of a compromise reached at the time. Whilst he would rather Benfield Valley were not in the City Plan Part 2, he highlighted that the council could not now pick and choose what was in and was not in the plan. He stated that most brown field sites in the city were not owned by the Council and that for the next seven years it would need to build about 1000 homes a year to meet the housing need in the city.
37.7 Councillor Yates advised that the City Plan Part 2 did not describe the endpoint of the journey for the city. Further that, no set of development plans ever get implemented in full, but they did describe what was possible. He stated that officers over the course of the last 10 years with great diligence have put in many thousands of hours of Officer time to develop a city plan that helps to give us a future that could hopefully be accepted by all. Recognising that it is comprised of a wide range of different communities across this city, a wide range of different factors about what needed to be developed and how the city needed to prepare itself for the future.
37.8 Councillor Littman stated that as Chair of the Planning Committee he welcomed the proposal to adopt City Plan Part 2. As it gave the local planning authority a far greater say in what did and did not get built in the city. He thanked officers and Members, past and present for their contribution to the plan. Affirming that new developments would be predicated on local priorities, which could be effectively planned, coordinated, and infrastructure becoming a condition of development. He explained that over the years, Government appointed planning inspectors have insisted that in addition to numerous brownfield sites, a handful of urban fringe sites had to also be identified. Stating that, in return for protecting 93% of the urban fringe, the government inspectors have insisted on sacrificing the other 7%. Trying to remove any of the urban fringe sites would lead the plan to collapse, leaving the entirety of green space at risk of development. He stated that voting against adoption was voting against urban fringe protection. He advised that to delay a decision risks a direct takeover plan by the Secretary of State potentially threatening our green spaces and taking away our democratic right to oversight. He said the whole city needed the Council to adopt the plan as not only did it protect 13/14th of the city’s urban fringe, but it also protected against flooding, safeguarded water quality and air quality, ensuring biodiversity net gain and the retention and planting of trees. Crucially, also addressing the city's chronic housing needs, supports the local economy and protects both heritage assets and our local shopping areas.
37.9 Councillor Hugh-Jones highlighted the housing related benefits of the City Plan; all new residential development would be required to have usable private outdoor amenity space appropriate to the scale and character of the development. That the Council would seek to resist any net loss of existing residential accommodation. In respect of housing for older people, planning would be granted where this was suitable for the intended occupiers in terms of the standards of facilities, the level of independence and the provision of support and or care. She stated that it was important that the Council were able to cater for and accommodate all members of the community, including people whose primary need was around their mental health. She called on the Council to support the City Plan as it rightly reflected the needs of all its residents.
37.10 Councillor Moonan shared her perspective as a member of the Planning Committee stating that city plan was vital, as the council needed policies that went beyond national standards to address local planning issues. She advised that anyone concerned about any of the developments; that applications on these sites, in their neighbourhood would come before the Planning Committee, which would have strong policies enabling the Council to make the best decisions it could for the city and assuring residents that individual concerns would be listened to, as with any planning application.
37.11 Cllr Pissaridou recalled when the City Plan Part One was being introduced that it was because homes were needed. She stated that having attended a recent housing event there was still very much that need for homes. She added that whilst houses were being built there was not enough community spaces which were also needed.
37.12 Cllr Knight advised that whilst she was not happy with the idea of anything being built on Whitehawk Hill she was aware of the need to balance housing needs in the City and on this basis was in broad support of the plan as she felt most of it was fine. She was hopeful that a different government may introduce a greater deal of flexibility and power to local authorities.
37.13 Cllr Gibson stated that the plan gave the Council much more control than it would have if the plan was not accepted and that was the reason to support it. He advised that if the Council owned land that was in the plan it would still have that control and would go through a democratic process as to whether it granted permission for it to be developed.
37.14 Councillor Barnett stated that local residents were furious at the actions of the council for putting Benfield Valley up for development. She said that the Council was above its minimum housing targets and should never have offered up the site for sale. She added that the Council was refusing to listen to what residents had to say by banning petitions and deputations twice in 2020 and again now from having their deputation heard. She advised that residents were protesting outside the building tonight and had a right to be heard by their councillors before major decisions are made. She called on the Council to vote against the City Plan Part 2 and remove Benfield value from it before it goes any further.
37.15 Councillor Robins stated that whilst Mayor he had followed the legal advice given at the time which advised that the petitions on Benfield Valley could not be taken.
37.16 Councillor Janio advised that he would not be supporting the plan, the massive demand for housing was because of the borders being opened in 2004. He stated that the then Government imposed housing demands on the whole country. He questioned Officers advice on the need of having a City Plan to protect green spaces as there was a Planning Committee.
37.17 Councillor Meadows recognised that the plan was an important document and felt that how pockets of Greenland such as Whitehawk Hill was protected needed to come back to full Council for deliberation and would mean that local councillors were held more accountable for decision making on those precious sites. She advised that local councillors and residents were unhappy that the Lady's Mile Nature Reserve was still included for housing in the plan, stating that the site provided a valuable wildlife habitat for many species of butterflies, insects, other invertebrates, moths, bees, alongside rare flora, and fauna. She asked for the Greenland sites to be removed from the city plan or taken to full council for individual assessment if deemed necessary.
37.18 Councillor Simson stated that the City Plan was proposing building on three important urban fringe sites which were used and enjoyed by many. She advised that the city was lucky to have wonderful green spaces and urban fringes around our neighbours and villages and questioned why these should be destroyed by building on them. That any buildings on the nature reserve would have a negative impact on the local wildlife, nature and anything growing in the surrounding areas. She stated the Conservative Group had brought forward amendments to the report as the Council had thwarted residents fighting to save these sites by refusing and blocking questions and deputations.
37.19 Councillor Fishleigh asked if the monitoring and information targets would be brought back to Council for discussion as the report stated that they would be updated if the City Plan Part 2 was adopted and whether the targets could be adjusted in the future if needed. She advised that Whitehawk Nature reserve should not be included in the Plan irrespective of the instructions of the inspector that potentially build on it was against all of our collective principles and aspirations for the city. She stated that the City Plan should say that the new infrastructure required by the residents of new homes should be built alongside the new developments, and that nobody should have to move in and find that the schools, the dentist, the doctors, the roads and the buses are full.
37.20 Councillor Bagaeen asked the Council to remember that it planned for the many and not the few and needed to plan for everyone in the city. He questioned the evidence that the plan would help the Council keep up with demand, reduce affordability or help businesses to grow. He stated that there was no doubt that Officers worked hard and continued to do so. He advised that the population in Brighton and Hove nearly increased by 1% from 273,000 to 277,000 in 2021 and queried the need to build 1000 units a year. He advised that the council might end up with a plan but lacked vision.
37.21 Councillor Theobald stated that whilst the land adjacent to Horsdean Recreation Ground had been taken out of the plan, it still allocated too many green spaces on the urban fringe for development. She advised that the Council owned the freehold of many of these pieces of land, therefore they did not need to be developed, particularly as there were sufficient development in the city, to meet its needs without building on our lovely green spaces.
37.22 Councillor Bell stated that our green spaces are of great importance to us. He asked the Council to really have a rethink, protect the urban fringe, protect WhiteHawk and protect Benfield Valley cause we care about them.
37.23 In response to the debate, Councillor Osborne advised that the target that was adopted was 660 per year which was constrained as the case was made to the inspector as part of City Plan Part One. However, the current measure which was boosted by 30% was now 2300 per annum as the City was one of the largest 20 settlements. This was currently still in place, although there were arguments about possibly getting rid of these housing targets. He reaffirmed that housing targets were set by the Government. He confirmed that any extra development beyond the minimum housing target would be in addition to it. In respect of retail space in the city he advised that Brighton and Hove had some of the lowest vacancy rates across the South East. City Plan Part 2 would enhance local planning policy. He advised that issues about enforcement, gating gardens, EPC ratings, were not part of the city plan and separate issues which could be raised at the relevant committees. He welcomed discussions at the relevant committees on how to protect council owned spaces. He called on the Council to support the City Plan Part 2 as the realistic and pragmatic thing to do.
37.24 The Head of Planning addressed
the Council providing the following clarifications:
· If the Council did not adopt the plan, it would have to rely on out of date policies in the Brighton and Hove local plans.
· The Council would lose its locally prepared policies until such time as it got a new plan in place, which could take up to three to four years.
· There would be reduced protection for the urban fringe as a consequence of not adopting the plan and there would be more risk of speculative developments.
· Additionally, that there would be reduced protection of the four areas proposed to be designated as local green space. There were 4 identified in the plan, one of those areas being Benfield Valley.
37.25 The Chief Executive highlighted that whilst there were no direct financial implications arising from adopting the plan, there would be financial implications should Council reject the adoption of the plan, which he estimated over the next three to four years could be at a cost of around £3 million.
37.26 The Mayor put the following Conservative Group amendment to the vote:
“2.1 To agree to adopt and publish the Proposed Submission Brighton & Hove City Plan Part Two, as amended to include all the main modifications required by the CPP2 Examining Inspector to make the plan sound, in 27 accordance with Section 23 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and Regulation 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012. This includes changes required to the adopted Policies Map, together with other additional (minor) modifications already noted by the 16 March 2022 Tourism, Economy, Culture & Communities Committee (including any consequential and other appropriate alterations for the purposes of clarification, improved accuracy of meaning or typographical corrections, being necessary).
2.2 To agree amendments needed for planning application validation requirements.
2.3 To note that on adoption of the City Plan Part Two the policies in the retained 2005 Brighton & Hove Local Plan will be superseded. These superseded policies are listed in Appendix 5 of the City Plan Part Two.
2.4 To request that Officers bring an urgent report to Policy & Resources Committee detailing its approach, exclusively in its capacity as landowner, regarding development at Whitehawk Hill, Benfield Valley and all other Council-owned urban fringe sites within the City Plan without prejudice to its role as a local planning authority or the validity of the adopted local plan.
2.5 To reserve rights to approve the disposal, or variation of lease(s), of any land at Benfield Valley to Full Council.”
37.27 The Mayor confirmed the amendment was lost by 10 votes to 28 with 0 abstentions as detailed below:
|
|
|
For |
Against |
Abstain |
|
|
For |
Against |
Abstain |
|
1 |
Allbrooke |
|
x |
|
28 |
|
Not Present |
||
|
2 |
Allcock |
|
x |
|
29 |
Littman |
|
x |
|
|
3 |
Appich |
|
x |
|
30 |
|
Not Present |
||
|
4 |
Atkinson |
|
x |
|
31 |
MacCafferty |
|
x |
|
|
5 |
Bagaeen |
ü |
|
|
32 |
|
Not Present |
||
|
6 |
Barnett |
ü |
|
|
33 |
Meadows |
ü |
|
|
|
7 |
Bell |
ü |
|
|
34 |
Mears |
|
|
|
|
8 |
|
Not Present |
35 |
|
|
|
|
||
|
9 |
Brown |
ü |
|
|
36 |
Moonan |
|
x |
|
|
10 |
|
Not Present |
37 |
Nemeth |
ü |
|
|
||
|
11 |
Davis |
|
x |
|
38 |
Nield |
Not Present |
||
|
12 |
Deane |
|
x |
|
39 |
O’Quinn |
|
x |
|
|
13 |
|
Not Present |
40 |
Osborne |
|
x |
|
||
|
14 |
Ebel |
|
x |
|
41 |
Phillips |
Not Present |
||
|
15 |
Evans |
|
x |
|
42 |
Pissaridou |
|
x |
|
|
16 |
Fishleigh |
ü |
|
|
43 |
Platts |
Not Present |
||
|
17 |
|
Not Present |
44 |
Powell |
|
x |
|
||
|
18 |
Gibson |
x |
|
45 |
Rainey |
|
x |
|
|
|
19 |
|
Not Present |
46 |
Robins |
|
x |
|
||
|
20 |
Hamilton |
|
x |
|
47 |
Shanks |
|
x |
|
|
21 |
Heley |
|
x |
|
48 |
Simson |
ü |
|
|
|
22 |
Henry |
|
|
|
49 |
Theobald |
ü |
|
|
|
23 |
Hills |
|
x |
|
50 |
West |
|
x |
|
|
24 |
Hugh-Jones |
|
x |
|
51 |
Wilkinson |
|
x |
|
|
25 |
Janio |
ü |
|
|
52 |
Williams |
|
|
|
|
26 |
John |
|
x |
|
53 |
Yates |
|
x |
|
|
27 |
Knight |
|
x |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10 |
28 |
0 |
37.28 The Mayor then put the following Conservative Group amendment to the vote:
“2.1 To agree to adopt and publish the Proposed Submission Brighton & Hove City Plan Part Two, as amended to include all the main modifications required by the CPP2 Examining Inspector to make the plan sound, in 27 accordance with Section 23 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and Regulation 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012. This includes changes required to the adopted Policies Map, together with other additional (minor) modifications already noted by the 16 March 2022 Tourism, Economy, Culture & Communities Committee (including any consequential and other appropriate alterations for the purposes of clarification, improved accuracy of meaning or typographical corrections, being necessary).
2.2 To agree amendments needed for planning application validation requirements.
2.3 To note that on adoption of the City Plan Part Two the policies in the retained 2005 Brighton & Hove Local Plan will be superseded. These superseded policies are listed in Appendix 5 of the City Plan Part Two.
2.4 To express concern that residents with valid petitions and deputations have been prevented from attending meetings of Full Council at key moments during the City Plan process.”
37.29 The Mayor confirmed the amendment was lost by 9 votes to 30 with 0 abstentions as detailed below:
|
|
|
For |
Against |
Abstain |
|
|
For |
Against |
Abstain |
|
1 |
Allbrooke |
|
x |
|
28 |
|
Not Present |
||
|
2 |
Allcock |
|
x |
|
29 |
Littman |
|
x |
|
|
3 |
Appich |
|
x |
|
30 |
|
Not Present |
||
|
4 |
Atkinson |
|
x |
|
31 |
MacCafferty |
|
x |
|
|
5 |
Bagaeen |
ü |
|
|
32 |
|
Not Present |
||
|
6 |
Barnett |
ü |
|
|
33 |
Meadows |
ü |
|
|
|
7 |
Bell |
ü |
|
|
34 |
Mears |
|
|
|
|
8 |
|
Not Present |
35 |
|
|
|
|
||
|
9 |
Brown |
ü
|
|
|
36 |
Moonan |
|
x |
|
|
10 |
Childs |
|
x |
|
37 |
Nemeth |
ü |
|
|
|
11 |
Davis |
|
x |
|
38 |
Nield |
Not Present |
||
|
12 |
Deane |
|
x |
|
39 |
O’Quinn |
|
x |
|
|
13 |
|
Not Present |
40 |
Osborne |
|
x |
|
||
|
14 |
Ebel |
|
x |
|
41 |
Phillips |
Not Present |
||
|
15 |
Evans |
|
x |
|
42 |
Pissaridou |
|
x |
|
|
16 |
Fishleigh |
|
x |
|
43 |
Platts |
Not Present |
||
|
17 |
Fowler |
Not Present |
44 |
Powell |
|
x |
|
||
|
18 |
Gibson |
|
x |
|
45 |
Rainey |
|
x |
|
|
19 |
Grimshaw |
Not Present |
46 |
Robins |
|
x |
|
||
|
20 |
Hamilton |
|
x |
|
47 |
Shanks |
|
x |
|
|
21 |
Heley |
|
x |
|
48 |
Simson |
ü |
|
|
|
22 |
Henry |
Not Present |
49 |
Theobald |
ü |
|
|
||
|
23 |
Hills |
|
x |
|
50 |
West |
|
x |
|
|
24 |
Hugh-Jones |
|
x |
|
51 |
Wilkinson |
|
x |
|
|
25 |
Janio |
ü |
|
|
52 |
Williams |
Not Present |
||
|
26 |
John |
|
x |
|
53 |
Yates |
|
x |
|
|
27 |
Knight |
|
x |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9 |
30 |
|
37.30 The Mayor then put the following Conservative Group amendment to the vote:
“2.1 The Council congratulates Officers on all work that has been carried out in creating City Plan Part II document.
2.2 Expresses concern about the lack of protection of urban fringe sites within CPP2 such as Whitehawk Hill and Benfield Valley.
2.3 Decides not to approve the Proposed Submission Brighton & Hove City Plan Part Two”
37.31 The Mayor confirmed the amendment was lost by 10 votes to 29 with 0 abstentions as detailed below:
|
|
|
For |
Against |
Abstain |
|
|
For |
Against |
Abstain |
|
1 |
Allbrooke |
|
x |
|
28 |
|
Not Present |
||
|
2 |
Allcock |
|
x |
|
29 |
Littman |
|
x |
|
|
3 |
Appich |
|
x |
|
30 |
|
Not Present |
||
|
4 |
Atkinson |
|
x |
|
31 |
MacCafferty |
|
x |
|
|
5 |
Bagaeen |
ü |
|
|
32 |
|
Not Present |
||
|
6 |
Barnett |
ü |
|
|
33 |
Meadows |
ü |
|
|
|
7 |
Bell |
ü |
|
|
34 |
Mears |
|
|
|
|
8 |
|
Not Present |
35 |
|
|
|
|
||
|
9 |
Brown |
ü
|
|
|
36 |
Moonan |
|
x |
|
|
10 |
Childs |
|
x |
|
37 |
Nemeth |
ü |
|
|
|
11 |
Davis |
|
x |
|
38 |
Nield |
Not Present |
||
|
12 |
Deane |
|
x |
|
39 |
O’Quinn |
|
x |
|
|
13 |
|
Not Present |
40 |
Osborne |
|
x |
|
||
|
14 |
Ebel |
|
x |
|
41 |
Phillips |
Not Present |
||
|
15 |
Evans |
|
x |
|
42 |
Pissaridou |
|
x |
|
|
16 |
Fishleigh |
ü
|
|
|
43 |
Platts |
Not Present |
||
|
17 |
Fowler |
Not Present |
44 |
Powell |
|
x |
|
||
|
18 |
Gibson |
|
x |
|
45 |
Rainey |
|
x |
|
|
19 |
Grimshaw |
Not Present |
46 |
Robins |
|
x |
|
||
|
20 |
Hamilton |
|
x |
|
47 |
Shanks |
|
x |
|
|
21 |
Heley |
|
x |
|
48 |
Simson |
ü |
|
|
|
22 |
Henry |
Not Present |
49 |
Theobald |
ü |
|
|
||
|
23 |
Hills |
|
x |
|
50 |
West |
|
x |
|
|
24 |
Hugh-Jones |
|
x |
|
51 |
Wilkinson |
|
x |
|
|
25 |
Janio |
ü |
|
|
52 |
Williams |
Not Present |
||
|
26 |
John |
|
x |
|
53 |
Yates |
|
x |
|
|
27 |
Knight |
|
x |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10 |
29 |
0 |
37.31 The Mayor put the recommendations as listed in the report to the vote and confirmed that they were carried by 29 votes to 10 with 0 abstentions as detailed below:
|
|
|
For |
Against |
Abstain |
|
|
For |
Against |
Abstain |
|
1 |
Allbrooke |
ü |
|
|
28 |
|
Not Present |
||
|
2 |
Allcock |
ü |
|
|
29 |
Littman |
ü |
|
|
|
3 |
Appich |
ü |
|
|
30 |
|
Not Present |
||
|
4 |
Atkinson |
ü |
|
|
31 |
MacCafferty |
ü |
|
|
|
5 |
Bagaeen |
|
x |
|
32 |
|
Not Present |
||
|
6 |
Barnett |
|
x |
|
33 |
Meadows |
|
x |
|
|
7 |
Bell |
|
x |
|
34 |
Mears |
ü |
|
|
|
8 |
|
Not Present |
35 |
|
Not Present |
||||
|
9 |
Brown |
|
x |
|
36 |
Moonan |
ü |
|
|
|
10 |
Childs |
ü |
|
|
37 |
Nemeth |
|
x |
|
|
11 |
Davis |
ü |
|
|
38 |
|
Not Present |
||
|
12 |
Deane |
ü |
|
|
39 |
O’Quinn |
ü |
|
|
|
13 |
|
Not Present |
40 |
Osborne |
ü |
|
|
||
|
14 |
Ebel |
ü
|
|
|
41 |
|
Not Present |
||
|
15 |
Evans |
ü
|
|
|
42 |
Pissaridou |
ü |
|
|
|
16 |
Fishleigh |
|
x |
|
43 |
|
Not Present |
||
|
17 |
|
Not Present |
44 |
Powell |
ü |
|
|
||
|
18 |
Gibson |
ü
|
|
|
45 |
Rainey |
ü |
|
|
|
19 |
|
Not Present |
46 |
Robins |
ü |
|
|
||
|
20 |
Hamilton |
ü
|
|
|
47 |
Shanks |
ü |
|
|
|
21 |
Heley |
ü
|
|
|
48 |
Simson |
|
x |
|
|
22 |
|
Not Present |
49 |
Theobald |
|
x |
|
||
|
23 |
Hills |
ü
|
|
|
50 |
West |
ü |
|
|
|
24 |
Hugh-Jones |
ü
|
|
|
51 |
Wilkinson |
ü |
|
|
|
25 |
Janio |
|
x |
|
52 |
|
Not Present |
||
|
26 |
John |
ü
|
|
|
53 |
Yates |
ü
|
|
|
|
27 |
Knight |
ü
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
29 |
10 |
0 |
RESOLVED: That the Council -
1. Agree to adopt and publish the Proposed Submission Brighton & Hove City Plan Part Two, as amended to include all the main modifications required by the CPP2 Examining Inspector to make the plan sound, in accordance with Section 23 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and Regulation 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012. This includes changes required to the adopted Policies Map, together with other additional (minor) modifications already noted by the 16 March 2022 Tourism, Economy, Culture & Communities Committee (including any consequential and other appropriate alterations for the purposes of clarification, improved accuracy of meaning or typographical corrections, being necessary).
2. Agree amendments needed for planning application validation requirements.
3. Note that on adoption of the City Plan Part Two the policies in the retained 2005 Brighton & Hove Local Plan will be superseded. These superseded policies are listed in Appendix 5 of the City Plan Part Two.
38 Allocation of seats to committees
RESOLVED:
1) That the Council appoints/re-appoints its committees with the sizes and allocation of seats between political groups as set out in Appendix 1 to the report;
2) That the allocation of seats as detailed in the report and in Appendix 2 to the report be approved.
39 Cost of Living Update including the Household Support Fund Tranche 3
39.1 The Mayor advised that the debate on Item 39 - Cost of Living Update including the Household Support Fund Tranche 3 which was referred for information and the Notices of Motion; Item 40 Cost-of-Living Crisis Support & Item 41 Cost-of-Living And Energy Crisis would be taken together.
39.2 Cllr Allcock introduced the report, highlighting that there was not just a cost-of-living crisis but there was currently a cost-of-living emergency. A situation where there were serious concerns for the most vulnerable in our society. He stated that residents were reporting an increased sense of pressure from trying to support family members and fear for the future, to get through the winter. Resorting to measures to save money for rent and on energy costs, such as going without food, disconnecting the Gas, or not cooking food and not being able to pay their rent or mortgage. He was worried about the impact on real people's lives, on people's hopes, on people's dreams and in many cases, the survival of many people in the country. He stated that at Policy & Resources Committee, the Targeted Budget Monthly report stated that the Council, along with many other councils were in the red and finding it immensely difficult to maintain existing services, let alone provide more. He advised that although there were many positive actions in the report with a focus on the Chief Executive writing to lobby the government, the Council overall needed to take the lead as though this was a civil emergency. Further that, the Labour Group had successfully brought an amendment to the Household Support Fund report at Policy and Resources Committee in October calling for the Council to take a leadership role in coordinating support and protection for our residents by bringing key public voluntary, community, and private sector partners together, and other anchor institutions, in an urgent cost of living crisis summit. In closing he called on the Council to support the two notices of motion which sought practical and supportive responses from the Council to the cost of living the emergency.
39.3 The Mayor stated that the report had been referred for information and moved that it be noted. The Conservative Group voted against.
Resolved: That the report be noted
40 Cost-of-living Crisis Support
40.1 The Notice of Motion as listed in the agenda was proposed by Councillor Wilkinson on behalf of the Labour Group and formally seconded by Councillor O’Quinn.
40.2 Councillor Mac Cafferty moved an amendment on behalf of the Green Group which was formally seconded by Councillor Allbrooke.
40.3 Councillor Janio spoke against the motion.
40.4 Councillor Evans confirmed that she would not accept the amendment.
40.5 The Mayor then put the Green Group amendment to the vote which was lost. The Conservative Group voted against the amendment.
40.6 The Mayor then put the following motion to the vote:
“Council notes:
a. The severity of the current cost-of-living crisis, exacerbated by surging energy bills and rising inflation, and the impact this is already having on Brighton and Hove residents;
b. That whilst an urgent change of course from the Central Government is necessary, there are steps we as a local authority can take to support residents through this crisis;
Therefore, Council:
1. Declares a cost-of-living emergency and a readiness to consider launching into full crisis-footing, akin to the Covid-19 pandemic and climate emergency;
2. Requests the continued promotion of communication and awareness campaigns helping residents in need understand where they can access help, including an emphasis on benefits that have a low-take up rate*;
3. Welcomes P&R** committing to an urgent ‘Cost-of-Living Crisis Summit’, bringing together key stakeholders and partners*** and requests officers work with them to consider existing and emerging risks, and develop plans and a formal emergency response
4. Requests officers consider rising childcare costs whilst distributing the Household Support Fund and explore any additional grant funding opportunities available for childcare costs;
5. Declares its support for the formation of a Local Economy Recovery Organisation and a Mutual Credit Network to help businesses and residents struggling with inflationary pressures;
6. Restates its commitment to ramping up community wealth building efforts, particularly through procurement and support for small and medium independent local businesses to help them weather this storm;
7. Requests officers report back to Policy & Resources Committee regularly to outline progress in responding to this emergency.”
40.7 The Mayor confirmed that the motion had been carried. The Conservative Group voted against the motion.
41 Cost-of-living and Energy Crisis
41.1 The Notice of Motion as listed in the agenda was proposed by Councillor Evans on behalf of the Labour Group and formally seconded by Councillor Appich.
41.2 Councillor Janio spoke in objection.
41.3 Councillor Evans confirmed that she would not accept the amendment.
41.4 Councillor Allbrooke moved an amendment on behalf of the Green Group which was formally seconded by Councillor Mac Cafferty.
41.5 The Mayor then put the Green Group amendment to the vote which was lost. The Conservative Group voted against the amendment.
41.6 The Mayor then put the following motion to the vote:
“Council notes with concern the Government’s:
a) Lacklustre response to the cost-of-living crisis it has helped create, particularly regarding rising energy costs;
b) Decision to lift the ban on fracking, identifying the Jurassic Weald Basin as a possible site despite scientists and economists warning fracking will not ease the energy crisis or bring down utility bills but will imperil climate targets;
Therefore, Council:
1.
Requests the Chief Executive
writes to Government lobbying for;
· The ban on fracking to be reinstated;
· Adopting a Warm Homes Plan
· Adopting plans to form a GB Energy Company;
· Adopting plans for green growth and self-sufficient zero carbon power by 2030
2. Welcomes existing work, reported to P&R*, supporting residents with energy and fuel costs;
3. Requests officers explore all avenues to obtain further support for residents warming homes this winter, including grant funding and best practices from other local authorities;
4. Welcomes the commitment made at P&R* to work with the community and voluntary sectors to explore establishing a network of ‘warm zones’.
5. Requests that officers consider the use of all public spaces, including libraries, schools and museums, as ‘warm zones’ for those in need, and that officers consider reaching out to private and public sector anchor institutions in the city to encourage them to contribute spaces to the ‘warm bank’ network;
6. Restates strong opposition to fracking and reiterates Brighton & Hove’s declaration of a frack-free zone, and requests officers consider working with neighbouring authorities and bodies** to resist any fracking in the region.”
41.7 The Mayor confirmed that the motion had been carried. The Conservative Group voted against the motion.
42 Safety of Council Tenants
42.2 The Mayor noted that there were two amendments in relation to this motion as set out in the addendum papers.
42.3 Councillor Hugh-Jones moved the first amendment on behalf of the Green Group which was formally seconded by Councillor Gibson.
42.4 Councillor Williams moved the second amendment on behalf of the Labour Group which was formally seconded by Councillor Evans.
42.5 Councillor Meadows confirmed that she would not accept the amendments.
42.6 The Mayor then put the Labour Group amendment to the vote which was lost.
42.7 The Mayor then put the Green Group amendment to the vote which was lost.
42.8 The Mayor then put the following motion to the vote:
“This Council:
a. Acknowledges repeated concerns from tenant, leaseholder and resident associations that the City is not cooperating or sharing CCTV footage when requested by Sussex Police;
b. Notes further serious concerns expressed by the above groups concerning:
i. An increase in drug-dealing and cuckooing on council estates since regular officer inspections were ended by the council in 2018;
ii. The current allocations policy;
iii. Lack of adherence to the tenancy pathway from street to council home, with placements made before addictions have been overcome; and
iv. The high number of empty council homes in estates detracting from amenity; and
Therefore, resolves to:
1. Calls for a report to Housing Committee that outlines a strategy for resolving the above issues.”
42.9 The Mayor confirmed that the motion had been lost. The Conservative Group voted in favour of the motion.
43 Leisure Centres and Energy-inefficiency
43.2 Councillor Osborne moved an amendment on behalf of the Green Group which was formally seconded by Councillor Powell.
43.3 Councillor Janio spoke against the motion.
43.4 Councillor Bagaeen noted the comments and confirmed that he would accept the amendment.
43.5 The Mayor then put the following motion as amended to the vote:
“Council notes:
a) Notes the antiquated and dilapidated state of most of Brighton & Hove’s leisure centres, which are no longer fit for purpose for a modern city;
b) Further notes the poor energy-efficiency of many of these leisure centres and the current early closures to mitigate the effects of their poor energy performance 1;
c) Supports the Sports Facilities Investment Plan aim to address the sports and leisure provision in the city;
d) Recognises the lack of funding provided to councils by the Government has led to many councils losing all leisure facilities and supports that Brighton and Hove has continued to keep these facilities open
Therefore, Council resolves to:
1. Calls for an update to be presented to to the Sports Facilities Investment Plan Working Group, which:
a) Reviews the state of these assets from an energy-efficiency standpoint; and
b) Provides an update on the work that has already been completed as part of the Sports Facilities Investment Plan as well as planned works for the future.
2. Request the chief executive write to the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and requests more sustainable funding for local councils”
43.6 The Mayor confirmed that the motion had been carried.
44 Free period products in public buildings
44.1 The Joint Notice of Motion as listed in the agenda was proposed by Councillor Heley on behalf of the Green and Labour Group and formally seconded by Councillor Grimshaw.
44.2 Councillor Bagaeen moved an amendment on behalf of the Conservative Group which was formally seconded by Councillor Simson.
44.3 Councillor Heley noted the comments and confirmed that she would not accept the amendment.
44.4 The Mayor, then put the Conservative Group amendment to the vote which was lost. The Conservative Group voted in favour of the amendment.
44.5 The Mayor then put the following motion to the vote:
“This Council believes that:
a) Everyone who requires period products should be able to access them for free
b) A person’s period should not prevent them from succeeding in life
This Council resolves to:
1. Build on the positive work being done in Brighton & Hove since working closely with schools across the city, and in light of the cost-of-living crisis, pay further attention to period poverty
2. Explore the provision of sanitary products in public buildings including the Town Hall and community centres - in female, male, disabled and gender neutral facilities
3. Explore whether any free disposable period products provided by the council can be sustainably sourced
4. Explore the provision of sanitary waste bins in all toilets, not just female toilets
5. To publicise the provision of free period products through council communication channels
6. To encourage the Council to widen access to free period products across Brighton & Hove providing free period products in toilets of all public buildings including libraries, schools and colleges
7. To request the Chief Executive to write to the UK government to press for funding to public bodies in England that would enable them to make period products free and available to all those who need them, as has been done in Scotland and Wales”
44.6 The Mayor confirmed that the motion had been carried. The Conservative Group voted against the motion.
45 Safe Pass
45.2 Councillor Wilkinson moved an amendment on behalf of the Labour Group which was formally seconded by Councillor Appich.
45.3 Councillor Nemeth spoke on the motion.
45.4 Councillor West noted the comments and confirmed that he accepted the amendment.
45.5 The Mayor then put the following motion as amended to the vote:
“This council notes the:
a. introduction section of The Highway Code which includes 3 new rules about the new ‘hierarchy of road users’, a concept that places those road users most at risk in the event of a collision at the top of the hierarchy - this hierarchy does not remove the need for everyone to behave responsibly, but states that road users most likely to be injured in the event of a collision are pedestrians, cyclists, horse riders and motorcyclists, with children, older adults and disabled people being more at risk
b. updated highway code rule 163 which states that drivers should give motorcyclists, horse riders and cyclists at least 1.5 metres when overtaking at a speed of up to 30mph and more space overtaking at higher speeds, and that drivers should allow at least 2 metres of space and keep to a low speed when passing people walking in the road (for example, where there’s no pavement)
c. updated highway code rules 170, 195 and 206 which state that:
· when pedestrians are crossing or waiting to cross at a junction, other traffic should give way
· if pedestrians have started crossing and traffic wants to turn into the road, the pedestrians crossing have priority and the traffic should give way
· people driving, riding a motorcycle or cycling must give way to pedestrians on a zebra crossing and people walking and cycling on a parallel crossing
d. updated highway code rules 62 and 63 which state that cyclists are asked to:
· not pass people walking, riding a horse or driving a horse-drawn vehicle closely or at high speed, particularly from behind
· slow down when necessary and let people walking know they are there (for example, by ringing their bell)
· remember that people walking may be deaf, blind or partially sighted
· not pass a horse on the horse’s left
e. failure of communications from the Department for Transport in outlining changes to the highway code which protects all road users. [1]
f. significant and dangerous impact close passing by motorists can have on people travelling by foot, cycle, horse or motorbike [2] [3]
g. infrastructure improvements that have been proposed in the city’s Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan (LCWIP)
This council resolves to request the:
1. Chief Executive write to the Secretary of State for the Department for Transport asking them to do more with the Think! PR campaign to promote new highway code rules and distribute more funding to local authorities to enable them to introduce infrastructure to make all road users safer
2. Executive Director for Economy, Environment and Culture liaise with taxi and bus providers calling on them to outline how they have promoted these rule changes to their staff
3. Chief Executive writes to the Sussex Safer Roads Partnership calling for an update and extension of their Safe Pass campaign.”
45.6 The Mayor confirmed that the motion had been carried. The Conservative Group abstained from voting on the motion.
46 Stop the attack on nature
46.2 Councillor Nemeth moved an amendment on behalf of the Conservative Group which was formally seconded by Councillor Bell.
46.3 Councillor Robins spoke against the motion.
46.4 Councillor Allbrooke noted the comments and confirmed that she did not accept the amendment.
46.5 The Mayor then put the amendment to the vote which was lost. The Conservative Group voted against the amendment.
46.7 The Mayor then put the following motion to the vote:
“This council notes:
a. Recent government plans to amend or scrap crucial environmental laws which protect some of our most vulnerable nature and wildlife protections across the UK.
b. Broken promises and commitments from Government to ban harmful practices like the importing of Foie Gras and of fur
c. the extraordinary number of environmental charities that have called out the governments attack on nature, including the RSPB and The Wildlife Trusts [1]
This council resolves to:
1. Request the Chief Executive write to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs outlining this council’s wish for strong animal welfare and nature protection legislation
2. Request a report to the Tourism, Equalities, Communities and Culture committee exploring a ban on the product 'foie gras' made by force-feeding animals at events organised on council-owned land
3. Call for restaurants and retailers who still sell foie gras to cease, securing Brighton & Hove as a 'Foie Gras Free City'
4. Endorse Animal Equality UK's campaign to ban Foie Gras
5. Request a report to a future meeting of the Children, Young People and Skills committee outlining the progress made the ‘Our City, our World’ environmental education programme in expanding young people’s knowledge and access to nature and the environment”
46.8 The Mayor confirmed that the motion had been lost. The Conservative Group voted against the motion.
47 Close of Meeting
The meeting concluded at 10.08pm
|
Signed
|
Chair |
|
|
Dated this |
day of
|
2022 |