Agenda item - Issues Raised by Members

To consider the following matters raised by Members:

 

(a)           Written Questions:

To consider any written questions

65.1        A copy of the questions received was circulated ahead of the meeting. Responses provided both at the meeting and in writing are as follows:

 

1.             Councillor Earthey- A259 Hove to Portslade Active Travel Scheme Consultation 

 

BHCC has allocated £2.7m from its Local Transport Plan, as well as a £4.3 million grant from Active Travel England, for the A259 Hove to Portslade active travel scheme. Do you agree that this £2.7 million would deliver more benefit for more people if it was spent on filling potholes, resurfacing roads that have failed, unblocking road drains, and reversing the 30p increase to the £1 short hop bus fare? 

 

Response: Cllr Muten

 

Thank you for your question, Cllr Earthey. 

We have been awarded £4.3 million by Active Travel England to deliver the scheme which must be used for active travel within our city – use it or lose it - with another £2.7 million coming from our Local Transport Plan (LTP) funding over the next 3 years. 

Each year, the Department for Transport (DfT) allocates LTP funding to highway authorities. From this year, the funding has been allocated in two specific ‘blocks’; the Integrated Transport Block and the Maintenance Block.  

The £3.083m Integrated Transport Block granted to Brighton & Hove City Council provides match funding to deliver a programme of active travel schemes including the A259 Active Travel Corridor Scheme. The £5.283m capital Maintenance Block grant funding for our city will deliver priority planned maintenance of roads, footways and drainage facilities. 

Which is exactly what we are doing – the A23 Tongdean Lane to Preston Park, Ditchling Road, Dyke Road, Sackville Road, Portland Road, Manor Road, Queens Park Road, Shirely Drive, Old Shoreham Road, Viaduct Road, Union Road, Terminus Road, Buckingham Place, Hangleton Road, Boundary / Station Road and more.

As part of the A259 Active Travel Scheme construction, some road and footpath resurfacing will take place along the route along with drainage improvements and traffic signal upgrades. 

Our continued commitment to supporting bus fares is funded from the Bus Service Improvement Plan (BSIP) grant allocation and not LTP capital funding.  

 

2.             Councillor Hill- School Admission Arrangements 2027-28 

 

In February, Cllr Daniel outlined proposed improvements to the process around Priority 2 to help applications for SEND children who do not have an EHCP. Previously, the vast majority of applications for priority 2 were denied which in my view created an additional problem to implementing the open admissions policy. Has the situation improved and can you provide evidence regarding this? 

 

Response: Cllr Daniel

 

Thank you, Councillor Hill. I'm really pleased to say that there's a vast improvement to the process for priority to applications since we took over now from the Greens and I'm much more confident in what we have in place. I think it was brilliant that this consultation floated those concerns and that we were able to, as a Labour Administration; act on them.

So at the moment some children who have no EHCP have the right to apply under priority two for a specific school in our school family and we made improvements to clarify the process for families and who would be considered for a priority two placement to a specific secondary school, all that information is now online and as a result of feedback from parents, It also includes case studies to bring to life exactly the kinds of scenarios in which those families may succeed and scenarios, of course, which may not be successful, and that specific feedback was gained during the very extensive consultation undertaken to review the admissions criteria as well as a range of parents surgeries that I personally undertook alongside officers to hear from parents or send children directly.

This guidance was then consulted upon by a Commission service, Amaze and the Parent Care Council, and I'd just like to extend my personal gratitude for their input and support in getting this reviewed guidance to a place that we can have confidence in.

Secondly, a multidisciplinary panel is now in place to hear cases again as a result of that feedback and that will contain professionals with specialisms in various areas that may arise during that application process, including new idea of urgent child mental health and the issues of young carers, so the carers centre being involved.

The information is all clear on the website and much clearer than before and it explains the decision making process. This represents a direct improvement in terms of the clarity of the process and I'm really proud of those collective efforts.

If you want to find that I can send you a link, but if you just put go onto a website and search priority two, it comes straight up.

The success of the policy update and the communication of that policy update and all of the information that's gone out cannot simply be measured in terms of the level of applications that are accepted and denied. What's important to measure is the quality and robustness of that decision making process so that parents can be assured that their child's need will be fully considered when making that application.

Having said how pleased I am with all the improvements, I would also like to add that we will continue to maintain our commitment to learning from feedback from parent carers and we will review, if necessary, if barriers arise in accessing that part of the school admissions process in future.

 

3.             Councillor Hill- School Admission Arrangements 2027-28 

 

Why has the administration chosen to keep the open admissions criteria it 5%? In February it seemed as though the plan was to increase the percentage to something like 20%. Is that still the case? 

 

Response: Cllr Taylor

 

Thank you, Councillor Hill, for your question.

Obviously worth reflecting as we will later in the report on School Admissions is that the Adjudicator reviewed multiple objections to our admissions process and they concluded that the arrangements were not unreasonable.

Neither were there was there any unfairness nor that the arrangements would be indirectly discriminate, which is a great result for the Administration and everyone who voted for those changes in admissions. And I paid tribute to Councillor Sykes in the Chamber, Councillor McLeay, Councillor Shanks, who had the bravery to vote for a changed system and a fairer system. Councillor Hill, who I like a lot, talks a lot about fairness and equality, but you actually have to vote for this stuff when it comes and you actually have to put the effort in to get it there. Making changes is really hard and I found it really hard, but it was something that we believed in and something we've changed for the city to make it fairer in terms of open admissions.

We never said we would increase it at all. We said we would certainly look at the impact of the policy and assess the policy and keep it under review. We'll obviously getting in applications which have now closed for next year. We'll have a look at those numbers in future years and consider the policy in the round, but it will be really important to properly assess the impact of the policy on a systems wide basis, but we're very pleased that we've brought in what we think is a much fairer school admission system

 

4.             Councillor Hill- School Admission Arrangements 2027-28 

 

What engagement has been with Downs Junior School prior to the proposal to reduce their PAN? 

 

Response: Cllr Taylor

 

There has been strong engagement with the school, and this proposal follows the previous reduction in PAN at Downs Infant School (from 120 to 90 in September 2024). This would mean that both the infant and Junior schools become 3 form entry, with the Junior school able to accommodate pupils wanting to move from the Infant school. The school governing body is supportive of the change.

 

5.             Councillor Shanks- School Admission Arrangements 2027-28 

 

The school adjudicators report does not allow the council to reduce the PAN of Blatchington Mill and Dorothy Stringer. What implications will that have for school numbers and the councils attempt to address issues of inequality? 

 

Response: Cllr Taylor

 

Thank you for the question and obviously we were pleased that overall the Adjudicator upheld most of the admissions arrangements.

The PAN’s, as you say, we were disappointed that they were not able to be reduced, but we of course respect the decision.

It's interesting that they noted that whilst reducing the PAN’s at these two schools appears to be needed in the longer term, doing so in 26/27 is premature. So, it's a balanced judgement and they're acknowledging the overall situation of falling numbers.

To answer your question, the likely consequences of this decision is that we'll have lower numbers of pupils attending some of the other schools across the city, although obviously we'll have to wait to see that in the final allocation numbers that will be published next year in terms of education inequality.

I think it's very difficult to say at this point, although as a general principle it's a better outcome if our smaller schools receive a number of pupils that's closer to their overall PAN. we don't really want a situation where some schools are getting very much lower numbers of pupils. That's not good for their budgets and for their offer but clearly we have to wait to see what the overall numbers are.

 

6.             Councillor West- A259 Hove to Portslade Active Travel Scheme Consultation 

 

In May 2023, the new administration inherited an approved and funded active travel scheme for the A259 (Fourth Avenue to Wharf), with contracts already let. What has been the total financial impact, to date, of the costs of cancellation, delay, and diversion of funding from other schemes, to satisfy the administration’s inflated ambition for this section of the Hove to Portslade scheme? 

 

Response: Cllr Muten

 

Thank you, Cllr West, for your question. You are right to highlight our well-placed ambition for better design and better use of space in delivering accessible active travel infrastructure that works well for all.  And thank you for highlighting the Green Party’s lack of ambition. To be content with infrastructure that disregards the needs of many as the Green administration did along the seafront, pitching cyclists against motorists and causing more congestion and air pollution, without learning lessons from their own design shortfalls in their plans to extend westward in Hove is contemptuous.

Our better planned scheme is more ambitious, uses the space available better, and provides a cycle route all the way to the city boundary. Our plan will connect much more of the city with a safe cycling route and uses additional funding from Active Travel England. For the Fourth Avenue to Wharf Road section, we reviewed this based on feedback received. The scheme proposed will be a higher quality and better for all road users, rather than a continuation of the split cycle route further east and avoiding the Green’s preference for using a whole traffic lane for one cycle direction, placing the pavement between the east and west cycle lanes – the lack of ambitious of the Greens was astonishing. Feedback we have had on the Green’s approach is this can be confusing and is also not as attractive for inexperienced or less confident cyclists because of the need to cycle closer to traffic. Yes, we intervened and we are unashamedly ambitious.

Funding provisionally earmarked for Marine Parade – insufficient to fully deliver such as scheme - was reallocated to the Hove scheme with agreement from Active Travel England to provide a facility which will better align with national guidance.  A “gold standard” of design to ensure better value for all.

 

7.             Councillor West- A259 Hove to Portslade Active Travel Scheme Consultation 

 

Supporting increased levels of active travel through infrastructure investment is highly beneficial to road safety, health and well-being, the city’s economy, and in reducing reliance on cars, congestion and carbon impact. What has been the cost in terms of these metrics of the considerable and unnecessary delay in implementing an active travel scheme between Fourth Avenue and Wharf Road? 

 

Response: Cllr Muten

 

Supporting increased levels of active travel through well planned infrastructure investment is highly beneficial to road safety, health and well-being, the city’s economy, and in reducing reliance on cars, congestion and carbon impact. This is best done though good design and better use of space. Where pedestrians, those crossing the road, bus passengers, cyclists and motorists all feel safe. Experience is good so to encourage others to actively travel. Poor design counters such aims. How would the Green’s lack of vision enable a real boost in active travel along Hove seafront? Poor design has led to tension and conflict between cyclists and drivers in our city. To the Green Party: Placing wands in the road to take out a vehicle lane for one direction of cycles increasing congestion and carbon impact is not the answer. We had a clear choice: More of the same or something that will really make the difference.

Stepping back, taking time to re-design the Fourth Avenue to Wharf Road scheme has meant some delay. However, the benefits of good design are increased due to our provision of a higher specification of improved active travel infrastructure – not just for cyclists but for pedestrians, bus passengers with bus stops and crossings aligned, for safety of those enjoying Hove Beach Park with crossings at desire lines, safer crossings for those with additional access requirements, better traffic flow and cyclists on defined paths not on traffic lanes defined by wands. Much better value for our residents, businesses and visitors to the City, beneficial to safety, health and carbon and encouraging more active travel along this important seafront route

 

8.             Councillor Sykes– Homes for B&H: Sackville Road trading estate 

 

Given the lamentable performance of the Building Safety Regulator in its consideration of Gateway 2 applications for work on high rise buildings and the acknowledged risk of delays and additional costs in this projectbecause of this, what representations is the Administration making with Government and the Regulator? 

 

Response: Cllr Williams

 

We share concerns with the significant delays associated with Gateway 2 Building Safety Regulator approvals. These delays are affecting high rise residential properties across the country, including our own. For BHCC High Rise Residential Buildings, we have recently had Gateway 2 approvals for two of our schemes and we are preparing several other applications with our procured partners who are ensuring we have a complete application prior to submission, this is to avoid unnecessary and additional delays and address the backlog and particularly for Gateway 2 applications and the delivery of safe, high quality homes and maintain rigorous safety standards post Grenfell tragedy is very important now.

These recent government measures do include new faster processes, increased staffing and resources, leadership and structural changes, digital modernisation and further industry guidance and collaboration. We do remain in contact with East Sussex Fire and Rescue Service regarding our Council owned high rise residential buildings and we carry out regular surveys compliance cheques to ensure that we identify any issues at the earliest opportunity to enable us to engage and submit any applications in the correct format and as speedy as possible.

And we will continue to engage with BSR as they seek to resolve their issues whilst working with relevant steering groups to ensure our voice is heard and our concerns are shared within that arena. Thank you for your question.

 

9.             Councillor Sykes – A259 Hove to Portslade Active Travel Scheme Consultation 

 

The report mentions the transfer of ATE funding from other projects to support the increased costs of the Hove to Portslade scheme, and this principally affected the planned Palace Pier to Hospital active travel scheme along Marine Parade. What is the status and timeline of that scheme now? 

 

Response: Cllr Muten

 

Thank you, Cllr Sykes, for your question. 

Marine Parade remains a high priority route as identified in the City’s approved Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan (LCWIP). 

Funding provisionally earmarked for Marine Parade was insufficient to fully deliver such a scheme. With agreement from Active Travel England, our focus at this moment are the A259 sections outlined in this report we are keen to provide a “gold standard” design which will better align with national guidance. 

The Council's ambition is to provide a high-quality cycle facility all along the seafront between the Marina and the western boundary of the City and this will include Marine Parade. Today’s report proposes we do work back to bring this higher standard to that put in some haste previously.  We remain committed to our aspirational LCWIP as reflected in Our City Transport Plan 2035 as consulted on over the summer.