Agenda item - Public Involvement

To consider the following matters raised by members of the public:

(a)           Petitions: 

To receive any petitions presented by members of the public.

(b)           Written Questions:

To receive any questions submitted by the due date of 12 noon on the 20 September 2024

(c)           Deputations:           

To receive any deputations submitted by the due date of 12 noon on the 16 September 2024

(a)          Public Questions

1)            Housing Strategy

58.1      Daniel Harris read the following question:

Brighton & Hove’s Housing Strategy 2024-2029 proposes 2,000 affordable homes, but it lacks clarity on what affordable truly means. Only 14 responses from 1,700 residents in temporary accommodation (just 0.82%) were recorded. There has been no consultation with residents of 1960s tower blocks, which are often unsafe, or any mention of the Brighton General Hospital site, a key redevelopment area. Given these omissions and the lack of genuine input from vulnerable communities, will the council pause the strategy and commit to a thorough consultation process before proceeding?

58.2      Councillor Williams provided the following reply:

“First of all, the Housing Strategy itself proposes 2,000 homes delivered over the lifetime of the Strategy. The Strategy has set out the different types of affordable homes, our aim is to deliver as many genuinely affordable homes as possible. I know there are lots of issues about the meaning of affordable homes but to me, that means the average person can afford to live there on the average wage. We do need to work on those definitions, I agree and that is always in a little bit of contention. Our aim is to provide homes for the people of our city that are clean, decent and affordable for everybody.

This is going to be kept under review especially as we are now about to refresh the City Plan and identify opportunities for new sites for hopefully many, many social houses to be built.

As far as the Strategy is concerned and the consultation, this council undertook extensive consultation, we widely advertised proposals, we held a number of public events and at my request, extra public events in the city to gather as many people as possible to engage in the consultation. We advertised it in our area panels and posters.

As detailed in appendix three of the report, over the eleven weeks of the consultation there was a 67% increase in responses compared to the previous strategy. The vast majority of respondents to the previous consultation was from professionals and stakeholders whereas for this consultation, 85% of responses were from residents.

We all know what is happening with the LPS blocks at the moment. This was as a result of a very invasive survey that we initiated, consulted on and commissioned. We as a council really wanted to understand the condition of these blocks because I recognise, as we all do that they are very old. We are acting on the outcome of those surveys in trying to make them as safe as we possibly can in consultation with our Fire Authority.

Every one of the residents of those blocks have had or will soon have a one to one visit with a council officer so the consultation is ongoing, is thorough and I agree that we must continue to consult. We don’t quite know what the future of those blocks are yet because that’s a wide conversation we need to have with our residents and lots of issues to consider. As has been mentioned by the Chair, we are engaging a very, very experienced regeneration Director and the focus will be those blocks, I hope that’s reassured you.

The other areas you mentioned, the gas works and the hospital, we don’t actually own that land. I would love to build on them personally, but we don’t own the land. I objected controversially to the planning application for the gas works as there was no social housing provided for and I will continue to do so. Unfortunately, we don’t have all the power there as we don’t’ own the land but we will work to getting as much affordable housing on there as we possibly can.

2)            Housing Strategy

58.3      Jim Deans read the following question:

Having read the Draft I find it encouraging a large number of statements that we all agree on but little in the way of how these will be achieved. 8 years ago councillors vote 100% to give "us" a building to create a Triage and safe zone, a place anyone made homeless could go regardless of day or time, yet again a new strategy without the basic first step in prevention and live saving support mentioned. If you are a Victim of Domestic Violence or simply made homeless you have nowhere to go this triage base is the first step in cutting the tap on Homelessness can I ask the councillors to put this first step at the top of the agenda and strategy?

58.4      Councillor Williams provided the following reply:

There have been significant changes nationally since the last Housing Strategy, with the implementation of both the Homelessness Reduction Act and Domestic Abuse Act coming into law. Consequently, any household who is homeless, or at risk of homelessness as a result of domestic abuse will automatically be in priority need.

What I am pleased to talk about, and this project is lead by Councillor Nann who is going to do all the hard work and take all the credit. I’m proud to say we are in the first stages of development of a one-stop homeless hub which is exactly what I think you’ve been asking for over the years. There will be more details to come on this, it is in the early stages and there’s lots to be considered and talked about, I believe but our aim is to get that up and running as soon as we can.

3)            Parking Review Update

58.5      Max Glaskin read the following question:

If parking charges are changed and attract more drivers, there would be more traffic. Apart from the environmental consequences, will the Council publish how much the increased traffic will reduce the city's

amenity and what the cost will be to the safety, health and wellbeing of residents, businesses and visitors?

58.6      Councillor Muten provided the following reply:

“Thank you, Max, for your question. An Equalities Impact Assessment will be taken forward alongside the proposals if agreed. This will be discussed further with the Communities, Equalities and Third Sector team to ensure any equalities impact alongside the safety, health and wellbeing of residents, businesses and visitors are fully considered. 

The Parking Review sets out to reduce car miles in oversubscribed city centre parking zones and make our parking fairer, simpler and more accessible for residents, visitors and businesses. The absence of a city-wide strategy for over 2 decades as parking zones spread had no overall impact assessment, nor did excessive parking hikes targeted by the previous administration to hit hardest key workers and others on lower incomes who often most needed to get around the city. Their “big stick” flat tax hit those on lower income the hardest without addressing air pollution and the impact oversubscribed zones have with residents routinely driving around street after street, causing more pollution and putting others at greater avoidable risk. Our parking review offers better for residents, for businesses, for visitors and for our city environment. There is a climate emergency, and we cannot have policies that leave some behind based on income and privilege.

Parking must not be seen in isolation and the heavy “stick” without “carrot” is not the answer. This is why we are committed to ensuring we have better bus services through our £28M BSIP - we have recently been seen as an exemplar local authority for bus services. Our holistic approach is why we are committed to delivering better and safer active travel, enabling residents to safely walk to bus stops and train stations, with better safer more accessible pavements and crossings. And this is why we are delivering higher standard cycle routes such as the A23 Phase 1A and 1B Active Travel north of Preston Circus; the first strategic overview of the A259 Active Travel from the Marina to our western City Boundary including a high standard LTN 1/20 bi-directional cycle path along Hove seafront; and delivering Valley Gardens Phase 3 with excellent walking, cycling, bus and traffic flow improvements. This with our commitment to Park and Ride and removing potholes in road and pathways means we can frame our parking reforms in a holistic approach to transport and travel, better and safer for residents, businesses, visitors and our city environment”.