9.00am 29 JUNE 2026
Present: Councillor Sankey(Chair) Taylor (DeputyChair), Alexander, Allen, Daniel, McGregor, Muten, Robins, Rowkins, Williams, Asaduzzaman, Robinson and Sheard
PARTONE
1.1 There were none.
1.2 In accordance with Section 100A of the Local Government Act 1972 (“the Act”), the Committee considered whether the public should be excluded from the meeting during consideration of any item of business on the grounds that it is likely in view of the business to be transacted or the nature of the proceedings, that if membersof the public were present during it, there would be disclosure to them of confidential information as defined in Section 100A (3) of the Act.
2.1 Resolved- That the minutesof the previous meeting held on 14 May 2026 be approvedas the correct record.
3.1 The Chair provided their Communications.
4.1 All items on the agenda were reserved for discussion. Item 15 and 16 titled Covenant on Land in West Saltdean had been withdrawn and deferred to future meeting.
1) Carers Strategy, "Think Carer - building a Carer Friendly City
5.1 Catherine Lane read the following question:
I am a part-time carer for my father. For many carers a car is not just a mode of transport — it is a place of safety: somewhere to deal with a difficult moment privately, away from a crowded pavement. It gives freedom to visit shops and cafés that would otherwise be impossible to access with a wheelchair. My father holds a Blue Badge. Drop-off and pick-up is not enough. A carer cannot leave a vulnerable person whilst they are inside a hairdresser — they must park outside and stay with them. Western Road's Red Route makes that impossible. Disabled bays 50 or 200 metres away, if occupied, are no use. The strategy commits to being a 'carer aware' city. Will Cabinet review implementing the Western Road Red Route in light of the Carer Friendly City strategy — a strategy it has committed to, but which this Red Route undermines?
5.2 Councillor Muten provided the following reply:
Thank you for your question and for highlighting the very real challenges faced by carers supporting vulnerable individuals along Western Road.
I want to begin by recognising the important point you make for many carers, a vehicle is not simply a means of transport, but an essential, flexible space that enables them to provide safe, responsive, and dignified support. This is especially true when caring for someone with complex or fluctuating needs, where remaining close at hand is vital.
The Council is committed to becoming a Carer Friendly City, and we are actively working to embed that commitment across our services.
The Red Route has been designed to improve road safety, reduce congestion, and support more reliable bus services along one of the city’s busiest corridors. However, it is essential that these objectives are balanced with the needs of disabled residents and carers.
In recognition of these concerns:
· Blue Badge holders will continue to benefit from exemptions on Red Routes, including the ability to stop for pick up and drop off where it is safe to do so.
· We are also providing designated disabled bays at intervals along Western Road, carefully located to maintain access to key destinations. This is in addition to the disabled bays on many of the side streets at the Western Road end providing entire coverage of the scheme within a 50m radius of the nearest disabled bays.
· The scheme has been subject to an equality impact assessment, which specifically considers the needs of disabled people and carers.
That said, we acknowledge your point that for some carers, short-stay parking close to a destination, where they can remain with the person they support, is not the same as drop-off and pick-up.
For that reason:
· We will continue to monitor the implementation of the Western Road Red Route closely, including gathering feedback from carers and disabled users via the Disabled car user action group, and other users.
· We are committed to reviewing whether the location, number, and operation of disabled parking bays and exemptions are sufficient.
It’s important to recognise this is an experimental order, and as such we will be monitoring, and making changes where appropriate in the 6 months – 1 year from the start of operation.
Thank you again for raising this important issue and helping ensure that the voices of carers are part of this ongoing work.
2) Consultation on the Renewal, Extension and Introduction of New Public Space Protection Orders
5.3 Pamela Stiles read the following question:
Myself and my neighbours welcome the proposal to prohibit unauthorised overnight parking of lived-in vehicles on council owned land. This has been an issue in Roedean Car Park for far too long and is something I have raised with you time and again over years - not weeks! We cannot wait further years for the Roedean Car Park ongoing encampment to be addressed, and residents here are concerned that the PSPO process will take a long time. We have repeatedly asked for the height barrier to be Re-installed at the entrance to the Car Park and we have even offered to ask local Residents who contribute to a Residents Association Fund, to help with funds to do this. I put in an application to the recent CIL available money project for our area and the proposal made the Short List. Please can you agree to take this forward as soon as possible.
5.4 Councillor Daniel provided the following reply:
A Public Space Protection Order (PSPO) can only be used to address specified activities that have a detrimental effect on the quality of life in a locality. In this case, the proposed PSPO relates to recreational camping behaviours. It cannot be used to prohibit all forms of vehicle presence or to directly resolve situations where individuals are living in vehicles.
The encampment at Roedean Car Park includes people residing in vehicles, which sits outside the specific scope of the proposed PSPO. As such, while the PSPO may help address some behaviours, it is not, on its own, a mechanism that will resolve this encampment.
Recognising this, the council is reviewing this and other sites and investing in a broader range of tools to respond to unauthorised encampments more effectively. This includes the development of Traffic Regulation Orders and the allocation of additional resources to support enforcement and removals where appropriate. These measures are intended to provide a more targeted and sustainable response across the city, including this location.
6.1 A copy of the questions receivedwas circulated ahead of the meeting. Responses provided both at the meeting and in writing are as follows:
1. Councillor Meadows - Development of a Community Cohesion Road Map for Brighton & Hove
In paragraph 3.26 council tenants do not seem to have been included in the consultation; however, many fear their estates at night. What are the specific plans to include them?
Councillor Alexander provided the following reply:
Thank you for asking this question. Council tenants will be a key priority group within the development of the Community Cohesion Road Map, as we recognise the concerns that some residents have raised about safety and confidence on our estates.
While this paper summarises a broad range of consultation activity, engagement with council tenants will be strengthened as the Road Map moves into its delivery phase. This will include targeted engagement through housing teams, tenant and resident associations, and existing estate-based forums, ensuring that tenant voices directly shape local priorities and actions.
There will be a specific focus within the Road Map on strengthening cohesion in neighbourhoods and within social housing settings. This includes working with residents and partners to improve perceptions of safety, build stronger relationships between neighbours, and support community-led activities on estates.
2. Councillor Meadows - Public Space Protection Orders (PSPO)
Why are rough sleepers and the homeless not included in these PSPOs? And why aren’t enforced encampments not included in any of the PSPO’s? Will having too many exemptions on all the proposed PSPOs make them irrelevant and unenforceable?
Councillor Daniel provided the following reply:
Thank you for your question. PSPOs must be developed and enforced in line with the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 and associated statutory guidance. They must focus on specific behaviours that have a detrimental effect on the community, rather than targeting individuals based on their status, including rough sleeping or homelessness. Government guidance and case law are also clear that PSPOs should not be used to directly target homelessness.
In relation to enforced encampments, there are separate legal frameworks available to manage unauthorised encampments, which require consideration of welfare and human rights duties. PSPOs do not give a lawful right to eviction.
The inclusion of exemptions is necessary to ensure that the PSPOs are lawful, proportionate and compliant with equality and human rights obligations. Well-defined exemptions strengthen enforceability by ensuring the orders can be applied consistently and withstand legal challenge.
Overall, the proposed PSPOs are designed to address harmful behaviours while balancing the need to protect vulnerable individuals, with enforcement supported by wider partnership and outreach approaches.
3. Councillor McNair - Public Space Protection Orders (PSPO)
Will these PSPOs actually mean vehicles and campers will be moved on immediately? Or, as we’ve seen in Carden Hill with campervans with court orders, will they in reality be allowed to remain because it is too much of a cost to the council for it to enact?
Councillor Daniel provided the following reply:
The proposed PSPO introduces specific restrictions on recreational camping, including overnight stays in tents, campervans and similar vehicles in designated areas. These provisions are intended to address behaviours that are having a detrimental impact on parks and open spaces, and we will support proportionate enforcement action where breaches occur.
The intention is that, where individuals are engaging in recreational camping in breach of the PSPO, they will be required to move on, supported initially through engagement and clear communication of the restrictions.
It is important to distinguish this from vehicle encampments where individuals may be living in vehicles due to homelessness or other vulnerabilities. These situations are not addressed through the PSPO framework and are instead managed through separate legal powers and a welfare first approach, which includes assessment, support and, where necessary, enforcement action through appropriate legal processes.
The council has undertaken work to strengthen the encampments service to enable more timely responses. Decisions are based on legal requirements and proportionality, not cost alone, ensuring a balanced and lawful approach.
4. Councillor McNair - Carers Strategy, "Think Carer - building a Carer Friendly City"
What support is the council providing to older carers, that is those over 60, as the plan appears to be for working age and young carers only? Many of our carers are over 60+ caring for their partners and it is only when they end up in hospital exhausted and ill that the council step in to help.
Councillor Alexander provided the following reply:
The new strategy and carers rights stated within the strategy, are for all carers in the city, not just working age or young carers, and we know from national data that people in their early 60s are among the demographic most likely to provide unpaid care, and our ‘prepare to care’ campaign will predominately focus on people in their 50s, to support them as they statistically begin to care for older parents.
Health inequalities such as poor physical and emotional health, and financial disadvantage affect carers across all age groups, and the strategy recognises the higher physical risks to older carers. The aim of the strategy is to increase the awareness and support for all carers, by promoting in places ranging from health services to coffee shops, to support our commitment to prevention and early intervention and avoid the type of crisis described in the question.
5. Councillor Meadows- Improving Fire Safety in Council Homes
The report is a little confusing. Paragraph 5.1 mentions 18 blocks, but we have only been able to identify 17 blocks. Which block is missing?
Councillor Williams provided the following reply:
The report refers to 8 council high rise residential buildings for which Homes England pre-tender funding has been approved with further funding for additional blocks anticipated as set out in the report. These are detailed in paragraph 3.15 of the report and consist of Livingstone House, St James House, Normanhurst and the following blocks on the Bristol Estate: Viscaria; Damson; Cherry; Hollyhock; Hazel.
The reference to the high-rise blocks in paragraph 5.1 concerns our comprehensive approach to resident engagement on fire safety more broadly, including in relation to the 10 high-rise blocks on the Bristol Estate, which we currently have Homes England funding approved to support pre-tender works on 5, and the 8 Large Panel System (LPS) blocks, for which we currently have Homes England funding approved to support pre-tender works on one. The 8 LPS blocks are: St James House, Nettleton Court, Dudeney Lodge, and the 5 blocks in North Whitehawk. These are Kestrel Court, Falcon Court, Heron Court, Kingfisher Court and Swallow Court.
6. Councillor Meadows- Improving Fire Safety in Council Homes
The council was fortunate to receive pre-tender funding in addition to cost of works. If CSS fails to provide sufficient funds, what is the council’s financial back-up plan? How much would it entail?
Councillor Williams provided the following reply:
Resident safety and the safety of those who visit and work on our council homes is our key priority. The council Housing Revenue Account Budget & Capital Investment Programme 2026-27 and Medium-Term Financial Strategy agreed at Budget Council in February 2026 sets out significant investment to keep our residents safe in their homes. This includes a total of £17.7m capital investment in health & safety works for 2026/27. As set out in the financial implications of the report, aligned to the request for approval for the BHCC Fire Safety Framework contract, we have a provisional budget allocation of £12.842m across the next 4 years within our overall Fire Safety capital budget allocation.
Any costs for required fire safety works not met via the Homes England funding would continue to be funded either within the existing programme budgets or future budget provision.
7. Councillor Meadows - Improving Fire Safety in Council Homes
How confident is the council that it will receive from Homes England CSS sufficient funding to mitigate the cost of works on all 18 blocks?
Councillor Williams provided the following reply:
The Homes England Cladding Safety Scheme support is for pre-tender funding for 8 blocks so far. This funding scheme enables the council to appointment a specialist team to undertake design and planning of works and put together the necessary documents to support completion of tendering for a contractor or contractors to complete substantive works to the facade of each of the blocks.
We will not know the costs of the substantive work until the design and tendering is complete.
The cost of any works required to the blocks not met by CSS funding will have to be funded either within the existing programme budgets or future budget provision.
8. Councillor Meadows - Targeted Budget Management (TBM) Provisional Outturn 2025/26
How can we make informed comment on the budget on behalf of our residents when the information is either not ready or not shared with us?
Councillor Taylor provided the following reply:
I agree that it is important to publish financial papers in a timely fashion. The paper is submitted as an urgent paper because some of the data and information key to producing the report was only available after the statutory publication deadline. A failure to include this information would have materially affected the position being reported.
I would be more than happy to answer further questions, now that the papers have been published, if Councillor Meadows has any.
9. Councillor Sykes - Improving Fire Safety in Council Homes
Three of the eight blocks earmarked for pre-tender financial support are Higher Risk Buildings due to their height and thereby require remediation plans to be considered by the Building Safety Regulator /HSE rather than local Building Control. The BSR continues to be under-resourced with applications taking up to a year to be considered rather than the 8 weeks set out in the regulations. This is not reflected in the paper. How would such delays affect programme and funding?
Councillor Williams provided the following reply:
The impact of any delays with the Building Safety Regulator experienced by the council would be raised as part of our regular Cladding Safety Scheme engagement meetings with Homes England.
We are advised that Homes England are also engaging with the Building Safety Regular on progress of the Cladding Safety Scheme.
10. Councillor Pickett - Public Space Protection Orders (PSPO)
Whilst I pleased to see that the dog access related PSPOs are being assessed for areas such as Blakers Park, and the velodrome in Preston Park, I would like to ask if the Rose Garden in Preston Park could also be added. Additionally, I would like to ask if the PSPOs related to ASB in parts of the city are really the answer to the problems of drug-taking, drunkenness, and crime related to these issues. Don't PSPOs merely move the problem on without resolving the cause?
Councillor Daniel provided the following reply:
Thank you for your questions. The current PSPO proposals are subject to a public consultation process, and we would welcome feedback on additional locations, including the Rose Garden in Preston Park. All responses will be carefully considered before final decisions are made.
PSPOs are one of a number of tools available to address behaviours such as drug use, alcohol-related anti-social behaviour and associated crime. They are designed to target specific behaviours in defined locations where there is evidence of a detrimental impact on the community.
However, PSPOs are not a standalone solution. We recognise that enforcement alone does not address the underlying causes of issues such as substance misuse or rough sleeping. This is why PSPOs are supported by a wider partnership approach, including outreach, treatment services, community safety activity and early intervention.
The intention is to reduce harm, improve community confidence and create safer public spaces, while ensuring that longer-term support is in place to address the root causes of these behaviours, rather than simply displacing them.
11. Councillor Hill - Carers Strategy, "Think Carer - building a Carer Friendly City"
One of the themes in this document is around improving and increasing access to respite provision, with 37.5% of carers surveyed currently accessing no respite support. The proposal to close Wellington House Day Centre would seem to reduce access to respite in my view and moreover is the view of those protesting the proposals today. How will the administration seek to improve access to respite despite the financial pressures on ASC budgets?
Councillor Alexander provided the following reply:
The consultation about the future of Wellington House relates to re-providing the respite at the centre elsewhere and like for like, so a closure of Wellington House would not be a reduction in capacity.
Improving access to respite is a key element of supporting family and friend unpaid carers, there are a range of options for providing respite, from residential to homebased, and a number of routes to accessing them.
Adult Social Care, in partnership with the Carers Hub, have drafted a new information sheet to support carers through the process of seeking respite, either by themselves or through the local authority.
Additionally, we commit in the strategy to produce a Respite Policy, this will be co-produced with carers, and carer organisations and include a comprehensive review of the current respite options to gain greater insight, and identify options for enabling carers to receive a break from caring, and for the cared for person to access short breaks.
12. Councillor Hill - Carers Strategy, "Think Carer - building a Carer Friendly City"
The Kings Fund graphic shows that there is a wide gap between the total proportion of people caring for a mother or mother-in-law at 34% versus those caring for a father or father-in-law at 16%. Would you agree with me that this could suggest that there is a greater degree of unmet care needs amongst father or father-in-laws? I appreciate people who are fathers may also receive care from people who aren’t children but such a wide gap between mothers and fathers seems significant.
Councillor Alexander provided the following reply:
The national data suggests that older women are more likely to receive unpaid care (by women) than older men, primarily due to demographics. The Kings Fund report highlights that more mothers than fathers are cared for by unpaid carers largely because women have longer life expectancies and have increasing needs as they age. This demographic is also mirrored within formal care provision.
However, through the improved collection of local data (Carers Dashboard) within the strategy, we will be able to increase the knowledge of local carers and can target services as necessary in response to any gaps in provision.
13. Councillor Hill - Carers Strategy, "Think Carer - building a Carer Friendly City"
Only 40 people were surveyed in the Carer Friendly City Survey Results compared with 87 responses in 2023. Why did so few people take part in the survey this time and what can be done to improve this in future?
Councillor Alexander provided the following reply:
Although the strategy is a multiagency document, officers will use the pillars of the Learning Organisation to support implementation of the new strategy. For example, being innovative and creative by looking at what other public bodies do to communicate with their clients such as contacting them by direct text messaging.
Our partner the Carers Centre/Carers Hub produced the survey to share with their membership on both occasions. Like us, they would like to ensure that as many views of carers are heard by public bodies, but we also know how demanding the life of unpaid carers can be. So it is for the council to work with partners to increase meaningful engagement and participation with carers, encouraging services to share surveys, share results & learning, as well as communicate what difference those contributions made to service improvement and development.
14. Councillor Lademacher - Improving Fire Safety in Council Homes
Will there be any consideration whilst appointing the specialist project team under the Homes England Cladding Safety Scheme of how the Council will ensure that residents in the affected blocks, particularly those who are elderly or disabled, receive communications in accessible format and have adequate support to understand what the works mean for them?
Councillor Williams provided the following reply:
Resident engagement is a key focus for the council and Homes England. Homes England Cladding Safety Scheme guidance reflects the importance of resident engagement in all remediation projects and requests a designated resident lead within project teams.
Our proposals for a specialist team include a resident engagement lead who would ensure that we engage with tenants and leaseholders on the design and planning of works in a way that reflects their preferred means of communicating with the council. This includes reflecting our understanding of the needs of those who live in the block and ensuring that there are no barriers to communication, consultation and participation.
Section 5 of the report outlines how we currently engage and communicate with residents over fire safety in their homes. Particularly the intensive engagement already underway with residents of high-rise residential buildings on the Bristol Estate and across our Large Panel System blocks. We would seek to replicate this model of engagement across the blocks for which we are in receipt of Homes England Cladding Safety Scheme funding.
15. Councillor Lademacher - Development of a Community Cohesion Road Map for Brighton & Hove
Will there be any consideration during the community engagement phase of how the Council will ensure that communities most affected by cohesion pressures, particularly those facing language barriers or digital exclusion, are genuinely reached rather than the process defaulting to more easily accessible groups?
Councillor Alexander provided the following reply:
Thank you for your question. Yes, the council will take a deliberate and structured approach to ensure that communities most affected by cohesion pressures are actively reached and able to participate in the engagement process. An Equalities, Diversity and Inclusion framework will be used to identify key communities, including those facing language barriers, digital exclusion or other barriers to participation.
Targeted and focused engagement will then be undertaken to support meaningful involvement. This will include working with community organisations, trusted intermediaries and existing networks to ensure that engagement activity is accessible, culturally appropriate and delivered through a range of channels.
This approach is intended to move beyond standard consultation methods and ensure importantly ,that voices which are often underrepresented are heard and reflected in the development of the Community Cohesion Road Map.
The council will also use this process to build longer-term relationships with communities, supporting ongoing dialogue, participation and shared ownership of cohesion priorities across the city.
16. Councillor Shanks – Future of Roundabout Nursery
How will the quality of provision be monitored once the service has been contracted out?
Councillor Daniel provided the following reply:
The quality of provision will continue to be monitored through the council’s existing early years oversight arrangements. Any provider receiving council funding for early years free entitlement places must comply with the council’s provider agreement and national statutory guidance, including the requirement that funded places are delivered properly and that provision continues to meet the Early Years Foundation Stage statutory framework.
The council will check providers annually to make sure they are following the rules set out in the provider agreement and national guidance. Additional checks can also be carried out if concerns are raised, or if parents make a complaint about how the early years free entitlement is being provided. Aurora Academies Trust has also committed to maintaining year-round, full-day nursery provision for children from birth, with existing Roundabout staff transferring across to help retain skills, expertise and continuity of care.
17. Councillor West – Public Space Protection Orders (PSPO)
How will the new and extended PSPOs be effectively communicated to the public, in particular to the occasional visitors who will need to appreciate the expectation this places upon their choices for Overnight Recreational Stay?
Councillor Daniel provided the following reply:
Thank you for this question. A clear and consistent communications approach will be essential to ensuring that the requirements of the PSPOs are understood by both residents and visitors. This will include on-site signage in affected locations, where this is possible, setting out the restrictions and expectations in an accessible and visible way.
In addition, information will be made available through the council’s website and wider communications channels, including partnership working with visitor economy organisations to help ensure that occasional visitors are aware of the requirements, for example, in relation to overnight recreational stays.
Enforcement activity will also play a role in reinforcing awareness, with officers taking a proportionate approach that prioritises engagement and explanation in the first instance. Warning will be given before PSPO fines are given.
This combined approach aims to ensure that expectations are clear, consistently communicated and understood, supporting compliance while maintaining Brighton & Hove as a welcoming and well-managed city.
18. Councillor West – Public Space Protection Orders (PSPO)
Provision in the city for those seeking to formally camp in tents, caravans and camping cars is woefully inadequate. This under provision will no doubt bear some responsibility for the unofficial camping the proposed PSPOs are aiming to address. Will the administration be seeking establishment of more licensed camping, caravan and camping car pitches to support the city’s visitor economy and reduce the pressure on parks and open spaces?
Councillor Daniel provided the following reply:
Thank you for this question. The council recognises the role that provision plays in shaping behaviour. As part of a proportionate enforcement approach, pre enforcement engagement will include information regarding appropriate and lawful alternatives, including official camping and caravan sites where these are available.
PSPOs are not intended to replace consideration of wider provision, but to address specific behaviours that are having a detrimental impact on parks and open spaces. They form part of a broader approach to managing competing demands on public space in the city.
Brighton & Hove faces particular challenges as a geographically constrained urban area, located between the sea and the South Downs National Park, with significant pressures on land use. This limits the availability of suitable locations for additional provision and requires careful balancing of environmental, planning and community considerations.
The council will continue to work with partners to consider how best to support the visitor economy while protecting public spaces and ensuring that any future provision is appropriate, sustainable and aligned with the city’s wider planning framework.
If any individual wishes to set up a campsite, the council will give consideration, but must meet planning requirements.
19. Councillor McLeay – Improving Fire Safety in Council Homes
Given the report highlights both urgency and constrained capacity, what evidence or benchmarking gives you confidence that the current delivery timelines are genuinely achievable, particularly in the context of sector wide delays in fire safety remediation, and what contingency plans are in place if they slip?
Councillor Williams provided the following reply:
The delivery timelines for utilising the Cladding Safety Scheme funding are set by Homes England. In requesting Cabinet approval for the procurement and award of a team of consultants to carry out the pre-tender works we are seeking to work at pace to put in place our specialist delivery team in order to mitigate as far as possible the risks around the high national demand for these engineers, consultants and services.
We will continue to engage with Homes England, including through their monthly monitoring of progress with CSS, to reflect any issues arising with capacity or timelines.
25/06/26
20. Councillor McLeay – Improving Fire Safety in Council Homes
The report notes that Homes England funding is allocated on a block-by-block basis and cannot be redirected. While I fully support the council doing all it can to ensure the safety of residents in our social housing, given that St James House is expected to be demolished within the next 5–7 years, were Homes England made aware of these redevelopment plans prior to the funding being awarded, and how are we ensuring this represents good value for public money?
Councillor Williams provided the following reply:
Homes England have approved Cladding Safety Scheme pre-tender funding based on an assessment of risk. In relation to St James House, this aligns with the commitment of the council to ensure Large Panel System blocks, including St James House, remain safe to occupy while we have residents living in these homes.
The costs of any Cladding Safety Scheme funded works to St James House will not be known until the design and tendering process is complete. This will inform consideration of how the scheme progresses in consultation with Homes England as well as the ongoing priority of keeping the building safe while it is occupied, consideration of how far regeneration proposals have progressed and any confirmed date when the current building will no longer be in use.
21. Councillor McLeay – Development of a Community Cohesion Road Map for Brighton & Hove
The report highlights increasing pressures from polarisation and tensions between communities. How will the Road Map ensure the council maintains a fair and balanced approach that supports all communities equally, and avoids the perception of favouring or responding disproportionately to the demands of any one group? 9 Community cohesion
Councillor Alexander provided the following reply:
The Road Map will be underpinned by clear principles of fairness, equity and evidence-led practice to ensure that the council supports all communities in a balanced and proportionate way. It will draw on robust data, community insight and partnership working to understand and respond to issues affecting different groups, while maintaining a consistent and transparent approach to decision-making.
Importantly, as set out in the report, the process of developing the Road Map will itself be designed to support and strengthen community cohesion. This means actively bringing communities together through inclusive engagement, creating opportunities for dialogue, and ensuring that different perspectives are heard and understood in a constructive way.
Engagement will be broad and inclusive, ensuring that a wide range of voices are heard rather than responding to any single interest. In addition, our engagement with the national leading organisation Belong will support us to learn from other areas and apply good practice, helping to ensure a balanced and informed approach. This will be supported by clear governance, regular review, and ongoing scrutiny by members.
22. Councillor Shanks – Future of Roundabout Nursery
As 87% of respondents were against the proposal and it is still going ahead what consideration was taken of those views.
Councillor Daniel provided the following reply:
The concerns raised have been considered and the proposal will ensure continued high quality early years provision in Whitehawk in the context of the council’s budget position. A total of 70 people answered the question, ‘How much do you agree with moving the Roundabout Nursery to Aurora Academies Trust to become part of City Academy Whitehawk?’ Respondents were then invited to leave a free text comment with their views. 34 people left a comment. Their concerns and our mitigations are detailed in paragraph 5.10 of the report.
In summary, the council is putting in safeguards via the various agreements with Aurora, to maintain and sustain the high quality community focused provision at Roundabout. The proposal would retain nursery provision on the existing site. Aurora has stated its commitment to continuing all-year-round, all-day provision at Roundabout Nursery. City Academy Whitehawk Early Years provision was also judged to be ‘outstanding’ in their Ofsted inspection in May 2024. In addition, the proposed lease would restrict use of the building to nursery provision.
23. Councillor Shanks – Future of Roundabout Nursery
How will the council ensure the quality of the provision under Aurora and what cost to the council will this involve.
Councillor Daniel provided the following reply:
The legal agreements will establish clear expectations, financial controls and protections around the use of the site and transferred resources. In addition, any provider receiving early years funding must comply with the relevant funding conditions, statutory guidance and regulatory requirements, which provides a further layer of assurance around service standards and safeguarding. They will be required to be on the Ofsted early years register and that they must comply with the Early Years Foundation Stage framework, Working together to safeguard children statutory guidance and guidance from the Brighton & Hove Safeguarding Children Partnership, the Special Educational Needs and Disability Code of Practice, work with B&H Inclusion Support Service and the English as an Additional Language and Traveller Service. These are requirements of all early years providers who get funding from the Council.
Details of the three-year transitional grant can be found from 3.20-3.23 of the report. Headlines are:
• Year 1 (September 2026 to March 2027) £0.162m
• Year 2 (April 2027 to March 2028) £0.167m
• Year 3 (April 2028 to March 2029) £0.111m
24. Councillor Shanks – Future of Roundabout Nursery
How much is a “peppercorn rent” this is a fairly new building only around 10 years old being given away for 25 years at least.
Councillor Daniel provided the following reply:
A ‘peppercorn rent’ is a legal term for a nominal amount i.e. (£1 or literally a single peppercorn). It is used to satisfy a legal requirement that any contract must involve a tangible exchange of currency. Currently the nursery is not financially viable for the Council. Aurora have requested a peppercorn rent as they are unable to support a rent level above this and ensure continued viability of the nursery. Under Section 123 of the Local Government Act 1972 the Council has a duty to obtain the "best consideration” when disposing of land (e.g., selling freeholds or granting long leases). As part of this assessment, we have also considered potential ongoing liabilities/savings and cost avoidance for the Council of the wider agreement and the social value being delivered.
The proposed lease is on full repairing and insuring terms, meaning that Aurora will be taking on full liability for future maintenance/repairing obligations. This also forms part of our assessment when considering granting peppercorn leases. This mitigates any future liability and costs to the Council under the proposed lease terms.
25. Councillor Shanks – Future of Roundabout Nursery
What has been the staff response. How long will TUPE arrangements last.
Councillor Daniel provided the following reply:
We are currently consulting with staff, in line with TUPE regulations. This is a joint consultation that includes the new employer, Aurora, and is focused on their proposed measures (changes), of which there are very few, as they are an NJC employer. Staff have the opportunity to ask questions and provide feedback as part of the process. We try to address any queries as they arise and feedback will be collated at the end of the consultation period, which is 7th July. To date there has not been any significant feedback raised.
26. Councillor Sykes- Targeted Budget Management (TBM) Provisional Outturn 2025/26
The Housing Subsidy budget error has revealed an increasing shortfall or budget pressure over the past two years, totalling just over £5m in the 2025-26 out-turn. The concern is the additional liability to our General Fund arising from the lack of any subsidy to HB claims from this group of claimants, and the fact that this pressure rose by £1.7m over a year. The pressure is effectively out of our control as it depends on DWP assessments of capability to work, as well as the general impact of the housing crisis. The TBM paper states merely that “A recovery plan is in place to minimise the ongoing housing benefit subsidy losses.” What is the projected pressure here in 2026-27 and beyond, and what representations is the administration making with DWP and Treasury to reduce the impact on our financial position?
Councillor Taylor provided the following reply:
The issue of housing subsidy loss caused by the change in criterion for determining vulnerability in supported accommodation claims continues to be a risk for the Council. It is being mitigated in several ways:
- Processes being implemented to minimise the risk by review of placements
- Revisiting previously ineligible tenants whose circumstances may have changed
- Encouraging providers to become registered social landlords.
A letter was sent to Sir Stephen Timms MP, the Minister of State for Social Security and Disability setting out our position and the response was a positive acknowledgement of the difficulties we are facing and confirmation that our concerns and requests had been acknowledged and were being considered.
7.1 There were none.
8.1 Cabinet received a representation from Councillor McLeay on Item 9: Development of a Community Cohesion Road Map for Brighton & Hove please.
8.2 Cabinet receiveda representation from Councillor Sykes on Item 14: Targeted Budget Management (TBM) Provisional Outturn 2025/26 please.
9.1 Cabinet considered a report concerning the Development of a Community Cohesion Road Map for Brighton & Hove.
9.2 Councillors Muten, Asaduzzaman and Robins asked questions and contributed to the debate of the report.
1) That Cabinet agrees that officers will lead a partnership and community engagement process to develop a Community Cohesion Road Map for Brighton and Hove, using the methodology set out in Section 3 of this report, and approves the proposed scope and structure for its development, including the areas of focus and enquiry set out in this report.
2) That Cabinet agrees to request officers to explore partnership opportunities with Belong, a leading national community cohesion network, to support the development and delivery of the Community Cohesion Road Map. Cabinet further agrees to delegate authority to progress any resulting partnership arrangements to the Cabinet Member for Communities, Equalities, Public Health and Adult Social Care, in consultation with the Corporate Director for Families, Children and Wellbeing.
3) That Cabinet agrees that officers will bring a further report to Cabinet in July 2027, following completion of the engagement and development work. This report will present a draft Community Cohesion Road Map, including proposed delivery priorities, governance arrangements, and the measurement and accountability framework, for Cabinet consideration and approval.
10.1 Cabinet considered a report concerning Public Space Protection Orders.
10.2 Councillors Allen, Robinsons, Muten, Asaduzzaman and Daniel contributed to the debate of the report.
1) Cabinet approves the undertaking of statutory consultation in relation to:
a) the proposed renewal of existing Public Space Protection Orders that are due to expire as set out in Appendix 1;
b) the potential extension of some existing Public Space Protection Orders as set out in Appendix 2; and
c) the potential introduction of new Public Space Protection Orders to address anti-social behaviours and/or activities identified through evidence and partner intelligence, as set out in Appendix 3.
2) Cabinet agrees that a further report will be brought back setting out:
· the results of consultation;
· the updated evidence base;
· an assessment of proportionality and necessity; and
· recommendations on whether to renew/vary, make or discharge PSPOs.
11.1 Cabinet considered a report concerning Future of Roundabout Nursery.
11.2 Councillor Williams, Sankey, McGregor and Taylor contributed to the debateof the report.
1) Cabinet agrees to the transfer of Roundabout Nursery to Aurora Academies Trust.
2) Cabinet agrees to delegate authority to the Corporate Director for Families, Children and Wellbeing to determine the date of the transfer referred to in paragraph 3.17 below and to negotiate and enter into a Transitional grant Agreement, lease and Business Transfer Agreement to Aurora together with all ancillary documentation necessary to give effect to the transaction on the terms as set out in this report.
12.1 Cabinet considered a report concerning Carers Strategy, "Think Carer - Building A Carer Friendly City”
12.2 Councillors Sankey, McGregor, Allen, and Sheard asked questions and contributed to the debate of the report.
1) Approve the Carers Strategy, “Think Carer – Building a Carer FriendlyCity 2026-2030”, draft attached in Appendix 1.
2) Agree to delegate authority to the Corporate Director for Homes and Adult Social Care,in consultation with the CabinetMember for Homes and Adult Social Care and the Carers Strategy Group, to make minor amendments required to ensure alignment with any relevant new legislation or policies that may come into force during the lifetime of this strategy.
13.1 Cabinet considered a report concerning Improving Fire Safety in Council.
13.2 Councillors Robinson and Muten asked questions and contributed to the debate of the report.
1) Cabinet delegates authority to Corporate Director for Homes & Adult Social Care, in consultation with Lead Member for Housing, to utilise allocated Homes England Cladding Safety Schemes funding for improvements to fire safety in Brighton & Hove for all buildings with successful future bids.
2) Cabinet approves a HRA capital budget of £6,007,500 (funded entirely by Homes England CSS funding) to be allocated to the fire safety improvement works.
3) Cabinet approves the procurement and award of a team of consultants (as set out in 3.15 below) to carry out the design works and the preparation of the tender documentation for the procurement of construction contractors to undertake the works, as set out in 3.3 below.
4) Cabinet delegates authority to the Corporate Director for Homes & Adult Social Care, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Housing, to enter into the contracts with the consultants for the 7 blocks that we have currently been allocated funding, the block where funding has been approved but not yet received and for any further blocks where Homes England Cladding Safety Scheme funding may be awarded in future.
5) That Cabinet delegate authority to the Corporate Director (Homes & Adult Social Care), in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Housing, to procure and award a Brighton & Hove City Council Fire Safety Framework Contract with increased scope to the approval given to the Procurement Forward Plan in March 2026, with an increased value of £11.5m over a 4-year contract length.
14.1 Cabinet considered a report concerning Targeted Budget Management (Tbm) Provisional Outturn 2025/26.
14.2 Councillors Allen and Sheard contributed to the debateof the report.
1) Cabinet notes that the provisional General Fund outturn position is a break-even position which is the same as the projected and planned resource position at Month 9 and taken into account when setting the 2026/27 budget.
2) Cabinet approves General Fund carry forward requests totalling £2.744m as detailed in Appendix 5 and assumed within the provisional outturn.
3) Cabinet notes the provisional outturn for the separate Housing Revenue Account (HRA), which is an overspend of £0.378m.
4) Cabinet notes the provisional outturn position for the ring-fenced Dedicated Schools Grant, which is an overspend of £1.762m.
5) Cabinet notes the provisional outturn position on the Capital Programme which is an underspend variance of £5.003m.
6) Cabinet approves the capital budget variations and re-profiling requests set out in Appendix 7.
7) Cabinet approves new capital schemes requested in Appendix 8.
8) Cabinet notes the Treasury Management end of year review 2025/26 as set out in Appendix 10.
9) Cabinet approves the transfer to ear marked reserves of £3.91m which is assumed within the provisional outturn and discussed at 4.9
17.1 Resolved-Thatthe Part Two minutes of the previousmeeting held on 14 May 2026 be approvedas the correct record.
18.1 Resolved- That Cabinet agreedthat the confidential items listed on the agendaremain exempt from disclosure to the press and public.
The meeting concludedat 11.11am