1. Councillor Fishleigh asked:

Once the current phase of CIL distribution has been finalised, what is the process and timescales for distributing the CIL accrued during 2025? We are ready to spent it in Ovingdean and West Saltdean.

Response provided by Councillor Taylor, Deputy Leader & Cabinet Member for Finance & City Regeneration:

The Better Brighton & Hove Fund is currently consulting on spending circa £750k of CIL receipts accrued since October 2020, with a £230k injection from Citywide CIL to ensure all wards see benefit from development granted across our city.

Due to the level of new development starting, the fund currently has only £40k in total of new receipts across the city, with only just over £468.84 collected in 2025 in Ovingdean and West Saltdean, which will be distributed to Rottingdean Parish Council. There is therefore insufficient new unallocated neighbourhood CIL receipts to merit a further citywide allocation exercise in the immediate future.

The future plans for the use of CIL receipts over the next 3 years will be considered as part of the medium term financial plan for the council as part of the budget setting for 2026/27. This will include a forward forecast of CIL receipts and a proposal for when to undertake a further round of bids for the Better Brighton & Hove Fund.

2. Councillor Bagaeen asked:

TROs 19a-2025 and 19b-2025 – Dyke Close: Residents have been in touch with ourselves and with officers about these TROs and it would be helpful to understand how and why officers created and advertised both TROs without reverting to ward councillors given the furore at the last time the council tried to intervene in this location in November/December 2024 when there was substantial opposition to the proposal for a Light Touch Parking Scheme on Dyke Close which officers would have been aware of.

Response provided by Councillor Muten, Cabinet Member for Transport & City Infrastructure:

Thank you for your question, Cllr Bagaeen, regarding Dyke Close. I appreciate the concerns you have outlined. Changes to road marking, signage, curblines and other aspect of the road are made via a TRO process. These are often in response to local residents, businesses, interest groups and/or highways inspectors safety assessment concerns, including those raised by ward councillors. In general, TRO Minor proposals are not normally notified to Ward Councillors prior to the advertisement of a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO). Where there are more substantive changes, engagement with respective stakeholders including ward councillors, residents and business, does inform the design. However, all Ward Councillors in affected wards are informed once a TRO is advertised. A weekly email is sent from TRO Support TRO.Support@brighton-hove.gov.uk to respective ward councillors and others. This is the opportunity for ward councillors to respond and engage with their constituents as part of the consultation process.

The proposal was included in our most recent traffic regulation order TRO-19b-2025, with a notice period from 31^st October to 21^st November 2025.

The request for no waiting restrictions around the island came from a resident in the close who provided information and photographs detailing the issue of motorists obstructing access. This is in the context of the petition presented by residents and received at Full Council on 24^th October 2023 Dyke Road Drive is an unsafe roadwith at least one ward councillor indicating support for this petition at the time.

The TRO amendments in response to a safety and access review of Dyke Close following this petition. There has been further correspondence with local residents and ward councillors since October 2023 and we recognise that this proposal has generated comments from residents, which officers are currently reviewing.

On review of the residents’ petition, response at Full Council,and subsequent correspondence, I agree with you that there should have been better prior engagement on the design ahead of going to public consultation in this case. I will ensure that the outcome reflects fairly the public consultation feedback and proceed on that basis.

3. Councillor Bagaeen asked:

Parking scheme consultation in Goldstone Crescent, the Nevills, the Orchards and Cranmer Avenue: Could you please share an update on what is the current status and details of plans to consult on a parking scheme in these locations.

Response provided by Councillor Muten, Cabinet Member for Transport & City Infrastructure:

Thank you for your question, Cllr Bagaeen, regarding the parking scheme consultation. It is anticipated that the preliminary round of consultation will take place in spring 2026. Officers will analyse the responses and propose a further detailed design consultation which will indicate the parking arrangements and street layout should a scheme be introduced to the area. The timescale for introducing controlled parking to an area is approximately 18 months, therefore any scheme for the area would likely be implemented during summer/autumn of 2027.

4. Councillor Theobald asked:

When is the sports pavilion at Patcham Place going to be reopened so that all the sports clubs can use the changing room and toilet facilities? This sports ground is used all year by cricket and football clubs. They are in great need of these facilities.

Response provided by Councillor Robins, Cabinet Member for Sports, Recreation & Libraries:

The Pavilion programme has been paused due to staff being off on Maternity leave. Unfortunately, we cannot give a timeline on the programme re-starting at this time.

5. Councillor Theobald asked:

Vale Avenue Park playground is a target for vandalism and has become a real eyesore. It has had to be retarmacked recently due to the vandalism. Is there new funding available for the playground to be renovated?

Response provided by Councillor Robins, Cabinet Member for Sports, Recreation & Libraries:

Vandalism in Parks is always very sad to see, and something that our community safety colleagues and the police liaise over, through our joint working. Specifically in regard to Vale Park, a decision was taken in 2023 that there were insufficient funds to fully refurbish both Mackie Park play area and Vale park, and therefore it was decided to focus on Mackie Park to ensure that we were able to have a better facility, and one that is only a few minutes walk from Vale Park. We would love to have more facilities across the city, but have had to make decisions to focus our resource in the best and most efficient way possible to maximise play facilities. The refurbishment of Mackie Park was completed in 2024, and is a lovely park, but sadly this does mean that we will no longer be able to maintain a play park in Vale park on a long term basis. There are 2 pieces of equipment left in the park, and these will be removed when they are end of life. We will continue to maintain and focus on the park in Mackie Park. I have passed onto the team your feedback that the area is an eyesore, and will ask our various teams to check the area for any work that needs to be done to address this.

6. Councillor Meadows asked:

A speed hump/pedestrian crossing was installed in Winfield Avenue in February 2025. However, it neither slows cars down nor acts as a pedestrian crossing as it doesn’t have the line markings of one. This has cost thousands of pounds to install yet is a failure. It has not made it easier for pedestrians – in particular children going to school - to cross the road or reduced the speed of cars. When will this speed hump’s effectiveness be investigated and improved? We do not want the same mistake to happen again.

Response provided by Councillor Muten, Cabinet Member for Transport & City Infrastructure:

Thank you, Cllr Meadows, for raising your concerns regarding the raised table installed in February 2025. We appreciate your feedback on its effectiveness for speed reduction and pedestrian safety.

The raised table was designed as a traffic-calming measure rather than a formal pedestrian crossing. A crossing was not installed because surveys indicated a relatively low volume of pedestrians at this location, and experience shows that drivers can become accustomed to not stopping where crossings are provided without sufficient demand.

Monitoring indicates that average vehicle speeds have been reduced since installation from 27 MPH down to 23MPH, which was the primary objective and below the posted speed limit of 30MPH. However, we acknowledge your concerns and will continue to review its performance to ensure it meets safety expectations.

7. Councillor Meadows asked:

Patcham & Hollingbury councillors were recently told that, despite applying for a court order, the council is reluctant to move caravans parked at the bottom of Carden Hill because the council would have to pay for their storage or be liable to owners making a claim on the land if their caravan is left there, despite it being close to centres used by children. We were told that “ultimately, although these activities are coordinated through Community Safety, as it’s the landowners/stewards, Parks or Highways who cover the costs of this they make the ultimate decision on the removal of these vehicles.” Clearly this policy, if true, will only make illegal parking more prevalent. Why can’t the council simply enforce the removal of caravans, and tents, from illegal sites following a court order? This lack of enforcement may be leading to tents being pitched illegally across the city.

Response provided by Councillor Muten, Cabinet Member for Transport & City Infrastructure:

Thank you, Cllr Meadows, for your concerns regarding caravans on Carden Hill. The council faces issues with occupied vehicles across the city across Highways, City Parks, Estates and the Seafront.

Officers have been proactively working with community safety teams to come up with a full strategy to address unauthorised encampments which will address both van dwelling and tent encampments. This strategy will be brought to a future cabinet meeting, and will include how we work together across the council to address unauthorised encampment, balancing our support to vulnerable people with our enforcement duties.

To address your specific question: Before officers can remove these vehicles, they require the necessary court authorisation/documentation to move. Often the requisite authorisation is sufficient to instigate removal. However, where this is not forthcoming, officers are limited in the next steps.

The cost to remove these vehicles is significant and even more problematic is the required storage costs if they are simply moved to another part of the city this affects any legal rights to move the vehicles a second time.

8. Councillor McNair asked:

When will the central white lines be repainted on Carden Hill? The road was resurfaced in August, and residents have been enquiring for some time without response. And when will the white lines be completed at the entrance to Warmdene Way to avoid it being blocked by parked cars?

Response provided by Councillor Muten, Cabinet Member for Transport & City Infrastructure:

The road surface contractors have been significantly delayed in returning to apply lining to the newly surfaced roads and we apologise for this. Officers are investigating this via our Highways Framework contractual procedures. The central lining was scheduled to be complete on Friday 5^th December but due to bad weather this has been delayed although the lining required has been marked on site for preparation. The contractors are on standby and lines will be applied as soon as weather allows which officers will be chasing up on.

9. Councillor McNair asked:

Much of the crazy paving in the Peace Gardens is a serious trip hazard. It would be very easy to trip and fall a couple of feet from the raised walkway into the sunken garden where the paving is completely missing. In order to avoid residents getting injured, when will the worst areas be repaired?

Response provided by Councillor Robins, Cabinet Member for Sports, Recreation & Libraries:

The repair request has been raised as a H&S concern and sent to out Premises team for quotation and immediate repair.

10. Councillor Lyons asked:

Trees are being removed in residential streets within Hove Park vicinity for a variety of reasons, causing distress to residents as lost trees are not being replaced. If funding is an issue, can’t the council approach local garden centres to provide saplings that could have a small advertising board attached “supplied by xyz garden centres”? When will residents be allowed to donate a tree outside their home?

Response provided by Councillor Robins, Cabinet Member for Sports, Recreation & Libraries:

Thank you for the question and the ideas that you have suggested to replace some of our trees that are sadly being removed due to tree disease. We have a fantastic and skilled Arboriculture team who work tirelessly and proactively to protect our wonderful trees across the city. I will pass the ideas you have regarding garden centres and other local businesses to our arboriculture team, and also to our events team who will be exploring how we work closely with local businesses to improve the look and feel of our city however there are biosecurity issues with using plants from garden centres and also suitability in terms of species, form, age and quality of the trees sold. We strongly discourage residents from planting their own trees upon the street scene due in part for these reasons but also the very real safety concerns around residents digging in ground containing underground services such as electricity, gas and water. In the meantime, the council has a scheme available through the Tree Trust, where residents can request to have a tree planted in a park. Replacing street trees is more complex due to the tree pits that often require expensive work to repair both the pit and surrounding pavement. There are a number of examples where residents have raised money to replace street trees, and this can be discussed with our parks service, or our partners from the CPRE via their ‘Plant Your Postcode’ initiative, if there are specific examples. Also, we currently have the consultation open for the Better Brighton & Hove Fund, and many wards are suggesting using those funds for street tree planting. The consultation is open until the end of the year, and it would be a good idea to make suggestions through that root, so we can consider additional tree planting to replace street trees alongside other suggestions.

11. Councillor Lyons asked:

Residents within the Nevill Rd, Nevill Ave & the closes have been asking for a Parking Consultation for some time now. In addition, residents in Woodland Drive are calling for additional parking measures. Noting the Parking Scheme Priority timetable was agreed earlier this year & that Officers are working on the detail of the consultation – householders are asking when ward councillors in Westdene & Hove Park will be consulted for the promised meeting to discuss the boundary of the scheme.

Response provided by Councillor Muten, Cabinet Member for Transport & City Infrastructure:

Thank you for your question, Cllr Lyons, regarding the parking scheme consultation. It’s anticipated that the preliminary round of consultation will take place in spring 2026. Officers will analyse the responses and propose a further detailed design consultation which will indicate the parking arrangements and street layout should a scheme be introduced to the area. The timescale for introducing controlled parking to an area is approximately 18 months, therefore any scheme for the area would likely be implemented during summer/autumn of 2027. Officers will arrange to meet with Ward Councillors early in the new year to discuss the boundary and details of the scheme.

12. Councillor Lyons asked:

I have received a steady number of complaints as to the number of dogs being walked by any one person in Waterhall. Only this week, a resident contacted me who came across a group of three walkers that had 22 dogs with them. Trying to get past them was not pleasant for the resident who felt intimidated. Further on, another two walkers had 20 dogs between them. Once again, the resident had to stand still until the walkers got control of them. Can BHHC consider implementing a Public Space Protection Order? I understand many councils impose a maximum of 4 dogs for the general public & potentially more for professional dog walkers, which can also be capped by their insurance.

Response provided by Councillor Robins, Cabinet Member for Sports, Recreation & Libraries:

Thank you for raising concerns about the number of dogs being walked at Waterhall. We are aware of recent reports of very large groups and understand how this can feel intimidating for residents.

Brighton & Hove currently has a number of Public Space Protection Orders (PSPOs) and these are scheduled for review during 2026. In light of the situation at Waterhall and ongoing discussions about responsible ownership and dogfree areas (including at Blakers Park), we will keep this under active review and consider whether there is a case to consult on introducing limits as part of that programme.

In the meantime, we will write to ward councillors to ask whether they have received similar complaints and gather evidence to inform options. Thank you again for highlighting this; we will update you following that initial engagement.

13. Councillor Lyons asked:

A resident contacted me recently disappointed & distressed to discover that graffiti had been scrawled on their private property that is not offensive but not covered by the council. To keep Brighton and Hove clean, this sort of thing should be dealt with quickly to prevent reoccurrence.

The going market rate for private cleaning is circa £100+, which falls neatly under most household insurance excess.

Surely the Council could use a certain amount of discretion when deeming what should be cleaned or not on private property?

Response provided by Councillor Rowkins, Deputy Leader & Cabinet Member for Net Zero & Environmental Services:

The Council recognises the impact graffiti has on the city’s appearance and residents’ concerns. A Graffiti Action Plan has recently been agreed at Cabinet, which sets out how we will improve the city’s look and feel. This includes working in partnership with community groups and businesses to prevent graffiti and exploring commercial contracts to remove graffiti from commercial properties.

However, the Council does not currently have a dedicated budget to remove graffiti from all private residential properties. Our priority is to focus resources on public spaces and high-visibility areas. We encourage residents to report graffiti so we can monitor trends and target prevention efforts. In the meantime, we are committed to working collaboratively to reduce graffiti across Brighton & Hove.

14. Councillor Hill asked:

Does the administration support the pressure group Compass's campaign to elect the Sussex & Brighton Mayor through the Supplementary Vote system rather than First Past the Post which is currently proposed for Mayoral elections in May 2026? Compass have also suggested delaying the election until May 2027 to align with local elections.

Response provided by Councillor Sankey, Leader of the Council & Cabinet Chair:

The government has announced their intention to postpone the mayoral elections in 4 of the Devolution Priority Programme areas, including Sussex and Brighton, until 2028. We are working with West Sussex County Council and East Sussex County Council to engage government Ministers and officials to work through the detail of what this means for Sussex and Brighton. We will update members when we have more information to share, including about election timing.

The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill that is currently going through Parliament seeks to move Mayoral elections to the Supplementary Vote system. Subject to parliamentary approval, this would be in place for elections that take place in 2027 and beyond.

The administration is supportive of the Supplementary Vote system for the Mayoral elections to provide greater legitimacy for the mayor, promote consensus building and strengthen public trust.

15. Councillor Hill asked:

On the surface, the new budget announcement to absorb council SEND debts is welcome. However, concerns remain about how this is to be paid for, with fears it will result in either less funding for schools or by making it harder to get an EHCP. Is there any information the administration has regarding this? Can it also lobby the government to support local schools with this?

Response provided by Councillor Daniel, Cabinet Member for Children, Families & Youth Services:

At present, we only have the headline announcement. Detailed funding mechanisms are expected in future Treasury or Department for Education guidance. The announcement is positive in principle but accept that uncertainties remain about funding and implementation. Through the implementation of any new funding mechanism, we would want to ensure that our city schools are not financially disadvantaged and that our children with SEND continue to receive the support they need to access their education.

16. Councillor Hill asked:

It is good to see the administration's support for a tourist tax in the city. Therefore, can I encourage the administration and all members to lobby Mayoral candidates to allow our city to implement a tourist tax in their manifestos since the government has given the strategic authority powers to implement this?

Response provided by Councillor Miller, Cabinet Member for Culture, Heritage & Tourism:

Thank you for emphasising the significance of Government’s recent announcement regarding tourism levies. As you are aware, the Government has initiated a consultation on the design and implementation of a modest overnight visitor levy for Mayoral Strategic Authorities, with the potential to expand these powers further. Brighton & Hove City Council will participate in this consultation to ensure our city's interests are well-represented.

We hope for bipartisan support for our position from the candidates for Mayor of Sussex and Brighton. Tourism is crucial to our economy, and a well-structured levy, like those in Europe, would support sustainable investment in our city.

17. Councillor Shanks asked:

Would the cabinet agree that one of the major issues for people taking up employment is the poverty trap of the benefits system. A previous council passed a motion to support a pilot of Universal Basic Income for Creative Workers. Will you agree to revisit this idea as part of the Get Sussex Working Plan?

Response provided by Councillor Taylor, Deputy Leader & Cabinet Member for Finance & City Regeneration:

The Get Sussex Working Plan addresses key issues set out in the Governments Get Britain Working White Paper which included young people not in employment, education and training, unfilled vacancies due to labour and skills shortages, and labour market exclusion. The Get Sussex Working Plan is designed to reduce economic inactivity and increase long-term employment by taking a whole-system approach across employment, health, post-16 education, and skills. Whilst the Creative Worker Income Guarantee (CWIG) pilot is not within the action plan recently published, it is a living document, which will be reviewed and updated to ensure we can respond and benefit from national funding and policy initiatives as they continue to evolve.

18. Councillor West asked:

The Administration heralded their summer Park & Ride scheme with much fanfare, but I would like to understand whether is was value for money or made a significant difference to the number of vehicles heading into the city. Please can you provide an analysis of the costs and the usage of the scheme, in particular including the number of days it was operating, how many journeys were made and the number of users and the data regarding the number of car journeys estimated to have been avoided into the City?

Response provided by Councillor Muten, Cabinet Member for Transport & City Infrastructure:

Thank you for your question, Cllr West, regarding our Summer Park & Ride.

Your question seems to be based on the expectation that our initial summer Park & Ride scheme must demonstrate value for money and have a substantial impact from the off to be a success. It is worth bearing in mind that Oxford’s Park & Ride scheme began life as a temporary scheme from a motel car park. From these beginnings it is now a multi-site operation with over 2,000 parking spaces. Oxford’s Park & Ride scheme is undoubtedly having a substantial impact on congestion when the initial scheme did not.

To be clear, the summer Park & Ride scheme was implemented as a trial so we can learn lessons, understand potential demand, and use these to build the business case for a permanent facility. Even successful and well-established Park & Ride facilities do not tend to make profit, rather they benefit the city by making it an easy and attractive place to visit and through reducing congestion. For many cities Park & Ride is subsidised and is a key element of the mix of transport interventions.

The criteria for implementing environmental improvements should not be solely about making money or expect all visitors who drive to choose it from the off. Rather, a scheme that can benefit the wider city environment including air quality, reduced traffic congestion as well as benefiting the visitor experience needs to consider more holistic costs and benefits and take time to bed in. If the criteria for success of an environmental improvement is whether it is profitable or not by itself, then this limits the wider benefits of innovation which was tested as part of this Park & Ride trial.

The summer 2025 Park & Ride operated for 7 days in August. The first three Sundays, the Saturday, Sunday and Monday of the bank holiday weekend and the last Saturday. The dates had to work around existing commitments the University of Sussex had, such as parking for football matches.

A dedicated bus service was provided at a frequency of 4 buses per hour between 9am and 9pm. This meant that on a typical day there were 88 bus journeys (43 to the city centre and 45 from the city centre). On average there were 226 people using the service each day. The number of people using the scheme steadily grew as awareness of the summer scheme grew. On the bank holiday weekend there were over 300 people using the scheme each day with a peak of 347 people on 25 Aug. From my site visit with BHCC officers to Portsmouth as part of the research for our scheme, any permanent facility would take 3-4 years to become established in terms of patronage and it would see significant growth over this period as awareness of it grew. The summer Park & Ride was priced competitively, with a car full of people being able to park all day and travel to and from the city for £7. Parking for Blue Badge holders was free, in line with existing arrangements at University of Sussex. The overall cost of the scheme was around £52,000. This cost includes signage, marketing, stewarding the site, the bus service itself and market research on the buses. The scheme took £3,829 income.

We do not have information on what percentage of visitors this represents to the city on any given day. We know that Park & Ride schemes start small before growing into their full potential as awareness grows.

We know from our market research, which had a high response rate covering around a third of users, that 81% would have driven by car/van to the city anyway, and 4% would have used bus, 7% train and 3% other modes. Five percent of Park & Ride users surveyed stated that they would not have come to the city at all without the Park & Ride.

The summer Park & Ride has provided key learnings for taking forward Park & Ride in the city, ensuring value for money is offered in terms of learning more about demand, journey origins of users and operational considerations, prior to implementing a permanent site.

This trial has value beyond the financial and given the city environment is precious, determining whether to proceed with a scheme solely on profit seems not to value the city’s residents or its environment. After some 2 decades without a dedicated official Park & Ride and the lack of pollical will or leadership to enable this, it is about time we got started. The innovative approach adopted this summer is to benefit the whole and drive forward environmental change that many residents, businesses and visitors long to see.

19. Councillor Sykes asked:

The proposed Western red route as published for consultation shows no loading bays between Little Western Street and Brunswick Street East. There are at least 10 hospitality businesses on the south side of this stretch of Western Road including two grass roots music venues. The council has historically recognised the importance of grassroots arts venues to the city's character. Without any provision for loading and unloading, and for receiving stock deliveries, these venues may no longer be viable. Can this be revisited?

Response provided by Councillor Muten, Cabinet Member for Transport & City Infrastructure:

Thank you, Cllr Sykes, for your question. Officers have visited the area several times along with colleagues in Road Safety to assess which parts of the carriageway are suitable for loading / disabled provision. On the northern side on this stretch is a long bus stop, and road safety’s initial view is that provision on the south side would not be appropriate. However, we will look at this area again to see if a solution can be found.

20. Councillor Sykes asked:

Can the Administration inform on its progress with the two actions agreed under item 46b (amended Notice of Motion on Gaza and council financial exposure) of the meeting of Council on 13th Oct 2025?

Response provided by Councillor Taylor, Deputy Leader & Cabinet Member for Finance & City Regeneration:

We have been compiling information in respect of any exposure to companies on the OHCHR list, and a report will come to Cabinet early in the New Year.

21. Councillor Sykes asked:

Western Road red route: How will the Transport Lead use consultation response figures to inform a decision on the proposed red route and will a simple majority of 'votes in favour' or 'votes against' effectively make the decision? How will petition figures be taken into consideration?

Response provided by Councillor Muten, Cabinet Member for Transport & City Infrastructure:

Thank you, Cllr Sykes, for your question. Comments in the consultation will be considered via the relevant member process when discussing and agreeing the way forward. Consultation feedback is an important part of gauging public opinion and help us to assess which areas may need attention. Whilst the consultation is important other factors will be taken into consideration such as petitions. We can identify any double counting via the Your Voice consultation as respondents are asked for their name and address. Petitions are treated separately. Much of the feedback via the public consultation will be in response to the detail of the co-designed scheme and whether key features, such as position of loading bays and the number of disability parking bays are acceptable rather than a binary view of the scheme as a whole. A fair outcome reflective of how it can best serve the community will be derived from the consultation process.

22. Councillor Pickett asked:

A number of residents that have gardens have said that they do not want food waste bins as they already have their own compost areas. Why wasn’t there an option to opt out of food waste bins that would have saved the council money on materials and unnecessary collections where bins are not being used?

Response provided by Councillor Rowkins, Deputy Leader & Cabinet Member for Net Zero & Environmental Services:

In the same way as other bins, food waste caddies are issued to the property rather than the resident, and future residents may require the service. There are seasons when home composting is not effective. Food composting requires a mix of brown and green material. In summer green predominates and in winter brown predominates. Food waste caddies allow the option of providing materials not suited to the season rather than run home composters sub optimally, the cost of collecting, sterilising and reissuing the bins would be more that the value of the bin itself. Unwanted collections are avoided simply by residents not putting their caddy out.

23. Councillor Pickett asked:

With flooding in built up urban areas becoming more of an issue as our climate changes, when will the council initiate a policy that sets out rules for paving over gardens that include keeping a percentage porous?

Response provided by Councillor Muten, Cabinet Member for Transport & City Infrastructure:

In 2008, Government introduced Permitted Development (PD) rights that allowed single householders to pave their front garden with a hardstanding. Planning permission would not be required if a new or replacement driveway used permeable material. If the surface to be covered is more than 5 square metres planning permission will be needed for laying traditional, impermeable driveways that do not provide for the water to run to a permeable area.

Policy DM43 of Brighton & Hove City Plan Part Two requires the design and layout of all new buildings, and the development of car parking and hard standing to incorporate appropriate Sustainable Drainage Systems. Where applicable, we will review applications for drop kerb installation in relation to paving over garden space for car parking and will provide guidance to ensure adherence with this policy.

When assessing applications for a driveway or landscaping of an area as part of a new development conditions are attached to require hard landscaping to be permeable.

A new connection to a sewer for drainage of a paved area would require a permit or consent from Southern Water and/or Brighton & Hove City Council. If there is an unauthorised connection to sewer, this could be subject to prosecution and fines.

24. Councillor Goldsmith asked:

Last October I asked about additional cycle hangars in the city and was told that the installation of further hangars would be kept under review. Most hangars in the city are full, and I know that many people are still on wait lists to be able to use them. Despite having many flats that make safely storing bikes safely either difficult or impossible, Regency has a very low number of cycle hangers, especially in the city centre, and I regularly get asked by residents if more can be installed. Would you commit to at least producing a report, assessing the cost implications of introducing enough hangars to match the current needs of residents, so a decision can be made by cabinet?

Response provided by Councillor Muten, Cabinet Member for Transport & City Infrastructure:

Thank you, Cllr Goldsmith, for your question. It is fantastic to see the cycle hangars being well used. I am aware there are requests to expand these and would like more people to benefit from a cycle hangar. However, as well as the one-off cost of supplying the hangar, we do need to consider the ongoing costs of maintenance and officer time in administering the service.

In April 2025, the cycle hangar service was brought in-house. Officers plan to report to Cabinet in 2026 with a review of this service including costs and future operational plans to ensure it is sustainable moving forward. As part of this review, we will look at the distribution of demand and viability of expanding the service where it is most called for.

25. Councillor McLeay asked:

The recent e-scooter consultation highlighted that many older people faced barriers to participating online and did not manage to find an alternative way to have their views recorded. In Age UK’s April 2025 response to the Digital Inclusion Action Plan, they called for a legal right to offline access to public services. What steps will Brighton & Hove City Council take to ensure older residents, who may be digitally excluded, can fully engage in future consultations, through accessible formats such as telephone, postal surveys, and in-person opportunities?

Response provided by Councillor Allen, Cabinet Member for Customer Services & Public Realm:

The council’s Engagement Framework follows the Gunning Principles which includes principles on accessibility and ability to respond. We actively encourage services to design inclusive consultation and engagement activities, particularly considering service users and all those that could be involved or affected because of a consultation outcome and that includes providing alternative formats including translations.

Consultations and engagement activities are promoted widely to raise awareness of opportunities, including with specific equalities groups.

Digital engagement remains one of the most accessible options and our Your Voice platform follows UK accessibility regulations and offers translations. The spread of digital literacy is the most democratising innovations to civil society, and we should not pretend otherwise. Telephone, postal surveys and in-person opportunities present their own accessibility challenges – therefore a sensible array of opportunities is the best approach to ensuring everyone and anyone can engage with public consultations.

26. Councillor Wilkinson asked:

St James’s Street remains one of our city’s most vibrant and diverse areas, but ongoing issues with anti-social behaviour, visible drug use, and related criminal activity continue to affect residents, businesses, and visitors. These challenges put pressure on local services and undermine confidence in the safety and wellbeing of the neighbourhood.

Residents and stakeholders have repeatedly raised concerns and are asking the council to take a proactive role in improving public safety. One commonly suggested measure is fixed CCTV, both as a deterrent and to support enforcement and investigations.

Will the administration commit to working closely with residents, local businesses, Sussex Police, and ward councillors to explore what a council-led public safety plan for the St James’s Street area could look like, including the possible role of CCTV?

This would show the community that their concerns are taken seriously and that the council is committed to practical, effective solutions.

Response provided by Councillor Czolak:

The council fully recognises that the issues affecting St Jame’s street are long-standing, complex and deeply frustrating for residents and businesses. Antisocial behaviour, street crime, public safety concerns and the wider impacts linked to substance misuse require more than isolated or short-term interventions, and the council agrees that visible leadership and a coordinated response are essential.

Like other similarly busy areas, St James’s Street is known to be a hotspot for antisocial behaviour and street crime. When this occurs, the area is reviewed by the Joint Area Action Group for targeted multi-agency activity. Experience shows that increased and focused police and enforcement activity leads to a reduction in both antisocial behaviour and street crime.

There are four council-operated public space CCTV cameras covering St James’s Street, with footage accessible to both the Council and Sussex Police. While the council primarily monitors these cameras for traffic management, Sussex Police also have access, as well as access to footage from a substantial number of CCTV systems operated by licensed premises along the street, which are routinely used to support crime and antisocial behaviour investigations. There are no plan for additional council public space CCTV cameras as this would not significantly enhance the police’s ability to investigate crime or manage antisocial behaviour. However, any joined-up plan may wish to keep this under consideration should this change.

The council remains committed to working collaboratively with ward councillors, Sussex Police, commissioned drug and alcohol safety partners and local stakeholders to address the underlying causes of the issues in the area. To support this, we will look to organise a meeting early in the new year to develop a joined-up plan that improves public safety, supports vulnerable individuals, and delivers practical, visible improvements for local residents and businesses.

27. Councillor Wilkinson asked:

Ultra Low Emission Zone for Buses: St James’s Street is a vital part of our city centre, home to a busy shopping area, a diverse residential community, and a major bus corridor used by people every day.

Despite this, the street is not currently included in Brighton & Hove’s existing Ultra Low Emission Zone for buses. The continued exposure to harmful pollutants affects some of our most vulnerable residents - including older people, young children, and those with long-term health conditions, and could be strengthened to align with the Council’s wider commitments to improving public health and air quality.

Will the Cabinet Member commit to reviewing the feasibility of extending the city’s current ULEZ zone to include St James’s Street, and to bring forward options that would deliver measurable improvements to air quality in this part of the city centre?

Response provided by Councillor Muten, Cabinet Member for Transport & City Infrastructure:

I am pleased to report that St James’s Street already benefits from the existing bus based Ultra Low Emission Zone, which goes from Palmeira Square, along Western Road and North Street to Castle Square. All scheduled buses which run through this route, and then along St James’s Street are required to be Euro VI standard or higher, such as fully electric. There is an addition requirement within the ULEZ for buses to switch off their engines if they expect to be stationary at bus stops for more than 1 minute. However, the vast majority of buses are not stationary at bus stops for longer than 1 minute here.

Because of the success of our ULEZ in place since 2015, driving the change that residents wish to see, we are prepared to review the extent of the Bus ULEZ and consider whether this should extend further east and north.

We are focused on improving air quality and are committed to a data led approach. We have a network of air quality monitors in place with public online access to their data. This data informs our targeted approach to improve air quality and reduce impacts on public health. We are developing targeted policy to drive improvements in traffic related air quality through incentivising cleaner vehicles with low or zero tailpipe emissions and improving infrastructure to enable this, including in the St James’ Street area of the city.