Issue - items at meetings - Issues Raised by Members

To consider the following matters raised by councillors:

 

(a)      Petitions: to receive any petitions submitted to the full Council or at the meeting itself;

 

Bi360 Traffic in Trafalgar Road and Church Road, Portslade – referred from Council 24 March 2016

 

(b)      Written Questions: to consider any written questions;

 

a)    Empty Shops – Councillor  Druitt

b)    Events on Brunswick Lawns – Councillor Mac Caffery

c)    Section 106 Funds – Councillor Peltzer Dunn

d)    Hove Lagoon Beacon (Queen’s 90^th Birthday) – Councillor Pelzer Dunn

e)    Brighton & Hove Economic Partnership – Councillor Nemeth

f)     New Brighton Pier Owners – Councillor Nemeth

g)    Major Projects – Councillor Nemeth

 

(c)      Letters: to consider any letters;

 

Estate Agent’s Board, Article 7 Area Extension – Councillor Nemeth

 

(d)      Notices of Motion: to consider any Notices of Motion referred from Council or submitted directly to the Committee.

 

Madeira Terraces Public Update – Councillor Nemeth

Member Petitions

 

6.1       The Member petition listed in the agenda was considered together with the associated deputation at minute item 5.

 

            Member Questions

 

6.2       The Chair noted that seven Member questions he been received. The first was from Councillor Druitt who was not present at the meeting; therefore Councillor Mac Cafferty asked the question on his behalf.

 

6.3       Councillor Mac Cafferty asked, ‘Can Councillors Robins confirm how many empty shops there are in the city, how this compares with historical trends and what the administration is doing to encourage businesses to open up for trade in these empty premises?’

 

6.4       The Chair responded, ‘There are two regular retail vacancy surveys conducted by the Brighton & Hove Business Forum and the Hove Business Partnership, which shows both the City Centre and Hove & Portslade retail areas to have significantly lower retail vacancy rates than the national average.

 

The current city centre retail vacancy rate is 5.4%, compared with 5.5% for Hove & Portslade. Historically, retail vacancy rates in the city centre have fallen consistently from 2010 to 2015, before increasing by 0.7 percentage points this year.

 

Hove & Portslade vacancy rates have been more steady, falling post-recession to a low of 4.5% in 2012 before increasing to 6.2% in 2014 and falling once again to 5.4% in 2015.

 

The national retail vacancy rate has been consistently falling since 2012, but still remains more than double the rate of both the city centre and Hove & Portslade. Comparative figures for the past three years are provided below: -

 

2016 (latest vacancy data)

City Centre: 5.4%

Hove & Portslade: 5.5%

National average: 12.5%

 

2015

City Centre: 4.7%

Hove & Portslade: 5.4%

National average: 12.9%

 

2014

City Centre: 5.0%

Hove & Portslade: 6.2%

National average: 13.9%

 

Even with our low retail vacancy rates, the Council is engaged in a number of projects aiming at getting more of our empty shops filled. We are investing in a new commercial property database for the Greater Brighton area, which will make it significantly easier for people to find the right space to start or relocate their business. We hope to launch this in July.

 

The Council has also supported individual businesses in their search for temporary and long-term use of empty shops, either directly or through services such as the Business Navigator.

 

We are funding a new series of the Council’s Ride the Wave business support programme which provides more intensive coaching and mentoring to attendees who want to start or grow a business. We want this training to give people the skills and confidence to take on empty premises (including shops) to create wealth and jobs.

 

Finally, through continued investment in infrastructure and major regeneration projects that include numerous leisure attractions and conference facilities, we aim to ensure the city remains a popular destination for visitors that support our city’s retail sector and help maintain our low vacancy rates.’

 

6.5      By way of a supplementary Councillor Mac Cafferty asked for commitment that the Committee would continue to look at the retail sector, as had been the recommendation of a scrutiny panel in 2012. He also asked if best practice from the very effective use of the ‘Portas’ grant for London Road would be considered and asked that the Committee commit to further this approach.

 

6.6      The Chair deferred to the Acting Executive Director for Economy, Environment & Culture for a response who stated that further information could be provided on the retail sector at the request of the Committee. The funds from the ‘Portas’ grant had achieved significantly and Officers would continue to be vigilant for other such grant funds that could be applied for.

 

6.7      The next question was from Councillor Mac Cafferty. Councillor Mac Cafferty asked, ‘Can the Chair outline what actions are taken by the City Council to ensure that companies and organisations using the Lawns for larger festivals:

 

•        Keep to the times of their licensed activities;

•        Respect the amenity of neighbouring residents for current and future events;

•        Prevent damage to the fabric of the Lawns, or; if damage is done how mitigation for such damage is calculated;

•        How abuse of the Lawns is prevented over the longer term.’

 

6.8      The Chair responded, ‘Whilst officers from the Events Team are not present throughout all events on Hove Lawns they are constantly monitoring and liaising with event organisers, on site, to ensure adherence to requirements such as operating time. There is also a clause within some event contracts that financially penalise any such over-runs. Additionally many events return annually and risk being refused Landlord's Consent for future years if they do not adhere to agreed conditions. This would include requirements such as noise levels to respect the amenity of neighbouring residents.

 

Event organisers either pay a bond or are contractually required to repair any damage that can sometimes occur as part of their event to the fabric of the Lawns.

 

The Events Team looks to rota the use of the Lawns as much as possible so that different lawns are used for different events and try and prevent overuse year on year.’

 

6.9      By way of a supplementary Councillor Mac Cafferty asked if there had been any attempt to consider the fees schedule for mitigation, and how the Council calculates the risk to the lawns in the longer term.

 

6.10    The Chair deferred to the Head of Sport & Leisure for a response who explained that a bond was secured from event organisers; whilst the actual amount for repairs was separately considered by the City Parks Department. The Committee considered an annual fees and charges report where the fee level would be set.

 

6.11    The next question was from Councillor Peltzer Dunn. The question was taken as read which asked, ‘Would the Chair of the Economic Development & Culture Committee provide a complete breakdown of the current Section 106 fund with details on the overall balance, the individual amounts that have come from separate projects, any amounts outstanding and any amounts unspent?’

 

6.12    The Chair deferred to the Deputy Chair, as the Lead for Planning Policy to answer, who stated, ‘The data base which has this information is very large and I have asked officers to provide you (Councillor Peltzer Dunn) with an electronic copy. Officers would also be pleased to offer a full briefing once you have had time to review the information provided.

 

This database sets out the amounts of money received from individual schemes and how they will be spent (or are being spent) including the total amount being held and the total amount received and as yet unspent.

 

Councillor Peltzer Dunn will be aware that Section 106 obligations are restricted by the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (as amended)  and the sums of money can only be collected where they meet the relevant tests and spent for the agreed purpose stipulated in the Section 106 agreement. 

 

The amounts outstanding (i.e. agreed in principle but not received) are not included in the database because payments are triggered by pre- commencement conditions being met and will depend upon developers deciding to proceed with their scheme.

 

In the last year, 2015/16, £1,358,076 (£1.3M) of developer contributions were spent improving the infrastructure of the city.’

 

6.13    By way of a supplementary Councillor Peltzer Dunn asked if funds were spent without consultation with local Ward Councillors?

 

6.14    The Chair deferred to the Senior Solicitor for a response who explained that there were very strict guidelines on how s106 monies could be spent. The allocation was agreed as part of the planning application process and they could only be spent when developments reached agreed stages of completion. It could not be confirmed if local Ward Councillors were consulted, but the decision to spend funds would be done by Officers in their professional view.

 

6.15    The next question was from Councillor Peltzer Dunn. The question was taken as read which asked, ‘In light of the Queen’s 90th birthdays (actual and official), can the Chairman of the Economic Development & Culture Committee outline why the beacon at Hove Lagoon was not lit and why, indeed, the Council took no part in organising any celebratory events in the City?’

 

6.16    The Chair responded, ‘The council marked the celebrations of the 90^th Birthday of Her Majesty in April with the Mayor representing the city at a pageant hosted by the Mayor of Littlehampton and the Lord Lieutenant of East Sussex attending the lighting of a Beacon in Newhaven; a number of Deputy Lieutenants supported events across the county.

 

The City Council was pleased to support residents and community groups across the city who staged events to celebrate the Queen’s official birthday last weekend and organised road closures for 11 street parties in Brighton, Hove & Portslade

 

The Council was also open to the idea of the Hove Lagoon Beacon being lit to mark this occasion.  If a community group had wished to organise a beacon lighting event, we would have been able to assist, in accordance with the normal working arrangements and subject to protocol.  Community groups can always approach the Mayor's office with proposals of this kind.’

 

6.17    By way of supplementary Councillor Peltzer Dunn asked if the Chair felt this was a sufficient, and would he have acted different were he Cahir of the Committee 12 months ago.

 

6.18    The Chair responded that the answer to the first question was sufficient as it outlined that no groups had directly approached the Mayor’s Office to have the beacon lit.

 

6.19    The next question was from Councillor Nemeth. The question was taken as read which asked, ‘Will the Chairman of the Economic Development & Culture Committee explain why no representative of the Labour Administration attended meetings of the Brighton & Hove Economic Partnership over the past year?’

 

6.20    The Chair responded, ‘Councillor Morgan attends all meetings of Economic Partnership as his diary permits. Sometimes there is a clash, such as last December with the World Aids Day event, which means he was not able to attend the Economic Partnership.’

 

6.21    By way of a supplementary Councillor Nemeth noted that he had seen three Members of the Administration at the previous meeting, and asked if his published question had served as a reminder.

 

6.22    In response the Chair noted that he had been invited to the previous meeting for the first time in his capacity as the new Chair of the Committee.

 

6.23    The next question was from Councillor Nemeth. The question was taken as read which asked, ‘What correspondence and meetings has the Chairman of the Economic Development & Culture Committee had with the new owners of the Palace Pier, the largest tourist attraction in the City, during his first month in office (12th May – 12th June 2016)?’

 

6.24    The Chair responded, ‘I had the pleasure to attend a press call with Eclectic on the day that they were announced as new owners of the Brighton Pier. As such a successful local attraction, owners of the Pier will be important in all the business and tourist networks in the city. The feedback on the day of the press call was that Eclectic were not planning immediate changes, but I was very happy to make this early connection between the owners and the Council.’

 

6.25    By way of a supplementary Councillor Nemeth asked if the Chair supported the campaign to return the name to the Palace Pier.

 

6.26    In response the Chair explained that it was his understanding that the naming was cosmetic and the holding company still featured the name ‘Palace Pier’. He added that he could see both sides of the argument.

 

6.27    The final question was from Councillor Nemeth. The question was taken as read which asked, ‘Given the extremely long lead-in time that is associated with most major projects, and the fact that most of the current major projects were commenced some years ago, can the Chairman of the Economic Development & Culture Committee confirm if any new major projects have actually been initiated during the first year of Labour’s Administration?’

 

6.28    The Chair responded, ‘the following major projects have been initiated during the first year of Labour’s Administration:

 

•        Madeira Terraces, the Seafront Investment Plan and the Madeira Drive Regeneration Strategy

•        Sea Lanes

•        Housing Delivery Options – a project to deliver new affordable housing across the city

 

Officers are also in regular contact with the various stakeholders involved with the development opportunities in the Hove Station area.  In addition there is a report on this agenda to commence soft market testing for the provision of an ice rink.’

 

6.29    By way of a supplementary Councillor Nemeth asked if the Chair had been personally involved in the circulation of literature from the local Labour Party in relation to Hove Library before the previous meeting of the Policy, Resources & Growth Committee.

 

6.30    In response to Chair confirmed that he had not been personally involved in this.

 

            Member Letters

 

6.31    The Chair noted there was one Letter from Councillor Nemeth in relation to Estate Agents Boards Regulation 7 Area Extension.

 

6.32    Councillor Nemeth stated that a similar deputation had been brought to the Committee by a member of the public, and at that time it was clarified that review would take place. Councillor Nemeth stated that there were areas that been missed out the first time round. Whilst the position previously from the Secretary of State had been that this should not happens in areas where the properties were not uniform and had not been subdivided, it was felt that there were streets that fell outside of this exemption criteria that should be considered. Residents approved of this ban and, as well as it being backed by estate agents it had been proved that it did not impact on sales of properties in an increasingly online market. Councillor Nemeth now asked that the Council go forward and consider phase two of the ban.

 

6.33    The Chair deferred to the Deputy Chair as the Lead for Planning Policy to provide the response, Councillor Cattell stated, ‘Councillor Nemeth raises two issues, one specific and one more general, each of which might potentially be resolved through introducing a regulation 7 direction. I cannot consequently give a single answer and I propose to provide a fuller written answer to Councillor Nemeth and, if he wishes, a follow up briefing with officers.

 

As has been made clear in previous reports, introducing a Regulation 7 Direction is a very time and resource consuming process and given the resources and priorities of the planning service at this time, it is very unlikely that work to prepare the case for any one of the two or three areas he proposes could be resourced in this financial year.’

           

            Notices of Motion

 

6.34    The Notice of Motion listed in the agenda was proposed by Councillor Nemeth on behalf of the Conservative Group and seconded by Councillor Peltzer Dunn.

 

6.35    The following Notice of Motion was put to the vote:

 

            ‘This Committee resolves to request a full public statement from the Leader of the Council on the Administration’s plans for the Madeira Terraces, with specific reference to the recent Victorian Society report that gave much lower repair figures than official estimates, followed by an Officer report on the topic at the meeting of the Policy, Resources & Growth Committee on 14 July 2016.’

 

6.36    The motion was carried.

 

6.37    The Chair noted there were no other items listed under Member Involvement.