Agenda item - Issues Raised by Members

To consider the following matters raised by Members:

 

(a)           Written Questions:

To consider any written questions

80.1        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 Fishleigh- Sustainability plan for Libraries

 

We never received a breakdown of how BHCC came up with the figure of £25k to run Rottingdean library. Now that figure has increased to £40k. Please would you provide a breakdown of this.

 

Response: Cllr Robins

 

The financial impact of the recommendations is detailed in the accompanying report, at point 6.  

The impact on savings of removing the proposal to close Rottingdean Library is £30k, which is made up of £25k direct costs and £5k associated management costs.  

£25k savings were allocated to the proposed closure of Rottingdean Library. This does not reflect the whole cost of delivering library services at this location. It includes around £16k for Library & Information Officer time, plus some of the running costs of the space, including cleaning and security. 

As a consequence of rising costs and Rottingdean Library remaining open, there is likely to be an additional pressure of £10k in the next financial year for this library. Therefore, in total the proposed Libraries savings have been reduced by a total of £40k. 

 

(2)           Councillor Fishleigh- Sustainability plan for Libraries

 

Several statements justify library closures as our city has more libraries per person population. This justification is inappropriate.

UK Gov reports by The Centre for Cities shows our population has 56% high level qualification (NVQ4 or above). This puts our city 5th in the UK, just below Oxford, Edinburgh, Cambridge and London. Brighton and Hove is above 57 other UK cities/urban areas

Students require books and digital access to learning materials and spaces.

The outcome of closures and restrictions on student access to learning materials is to reduce learning outcomes, employability opportunities, taxable earnings and public services relying on taxable incomes. Why is this demographic context omitted?

 

Response: Cllr Robins

 

Thank you for highlighting Brighton’s highly qualified population. We acknowledge the importance of access to learning resources and will continue to ensure that demographic factors are considered in this and future decisions. While book and online resources will continue to be available 7 days/week, we recognise the potential impact of a reduction in study spaces, and the report sets out some mitigations to those including access to digital resources and Libraries Extra. 

 

(3)           Councillor Fishleigh- Our City Transport Plan

 

On page 426 of the cabinet report it gives £18.626m as the total funding allocation for transport 2026/7.  Please would you tell me the breakdown between ring-fenced grants and BHCC funds?

 

Response: Cllr Muten

 

May I respectfully stress, as Our City Transport Plan 2035 does, the £18.626m total funding allocation for 2026/27 as shown is indicative. We await confirmation of all our external grant funding, so this is an estimate based on previous allocations. The exact funding level of our capital programme for transport will be confirmed in a separate cabinet decision early next year. The papers for this will provide the full detail.

At this stage, only the budgets for Valley Gardens 3 and maintenance  contain some BHCC funding. The vast majority of that £18.626m is from external grants. It is also important to understand the level of ‘ringfencing’ that different grants come with. A section of Our City Transport Plan 2035 explains the transport funding we receive.

The most restrictive grants are those for electric vehicle charge points through the Local Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (LEVI) fund, active travel through Active Travel England and buses through the Bus Service Improvement Plan (BSIP). The Local Transport Grant has the greatest degree of flexibility, but it is provided in two parts; one intended for capital projects and the other for maintenance.

 

(4)           Councillor Fishleigh- Our City Transport Plan

 

Given the maintenance backlog of £57 million on our roads and £37.3 million on our footways, do you agree that all non-essential, nice to have schemes paid for from BHCC funds should be deprioritised in favour of mending existing pavements and roads?

 

Response: Cllr Muten

 

Thank you, Cllr Fishleigh, for your question; which seems to assume there are ‘nice to have’ schemes in our programme. I don’t consider the targeted safety improvements to reduce casualties on our roads as ‘nice to have’. Nor the accessibility improvements or funding for Park & Ride. If we want to make our city better, we need to be bolder. 

Rightly, you highlight that the previous government’s underfunding of our roads and paths over more than a decade was shameful and national disgrace. Local authorities across England report a backlog and the Tory pothole became an emblem of their legacy. Consequently, we have a backlog – objectively prioritise based on need and risk. We welcome Labour’s significant uplift in central government grant funding for highways maintenance this year compared with last year’s Tory allocation; and signals from the DfT around future funding. Our priority is fixing our roads and pathways, filling potholes and resurfacing;  using and not losing the funds we are granted. 

In 2025/26 we allocated £5.3m in our capital programme to planned maintenance - chiefly because of a significant uplift in external grant received. We budgeted £2.2m of council revenue funding for reactive safety repairs to roads and footways. This compares to an average of £3.7m in our programmed maintenance budget for the years 2022/23 - 2024/5. 

I cannot agree with giving back a £6 million grant to central government, as reiterated in local media this week, neglecting the opportunity for much needed city centre renewal. Rather, we get on with our ambition for city transformation.

We also use and not lose additional grants available and received to do much more.

 

(5)           Councillor Fishleigh- Our City Transport Plan

 

The report states that Pavement parking is a major issue in the city and BHCC has campaigned central government for the power to be able to enforce pavement parking. Should we ask our three MPs to raise this again with the Government?

 

Response: Cllr Muten

 

Thank you, Cllr Fishleigh, for raising pavement parking. You are quite correct; I have consistently called for new powers to enforce pavement parking restrictions. 

Unlike in Greater London, parking on the pavement is not explicitly prohibited in legislation outside London. However, powers are available to the police to undertake enforcement. 

Options for changes to pavement parking outside London were consulted on in 2020 and looked at providing more powers to councils. Options include giving local authorities powers to enforce against unnecessary obstruction of the pavement; introducing a London-style pavement parking prohibition across England; and improving the Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) process by which local authorities may implement local pavement parking restrictions. This options assessment was presented to the then Secretary of State in 2020. The Tory government chose not to act. 

As a PATROL Joint Committee member, I have persisted in raising this matter, most recently at the PATROL JC Executive Sub-Committee meeting in October. 

I made a media statement in October which still stands.

DfT intends to publish a formal response to the consultation, summarising the views received. The DfT recently confirmed their urgency, and an announcement of the Government’s next steps is expected as soon as possible, which we strongly welcome.

 

(6)           Councillor Fishleigh- Our City Transport Plan

 

Figure 7 on page 426 of the cabinet report doesn't show that Rottingdean High Street has congestion and capacity issues.  Previous studies have identified the High Street is a problem area so why is it being excluded in this report for measures to address the issues there?

 

Response: Cllr Muten

 

The answer to this question has been combined with question 7.

 

(7)           Councillor Fishleigh- Our City Transport Plan

 

Figure 7 also shows average delays on the A259 between Saltdean and Roedean of 30-50 seconds which is not people’s lived experience. The plan is to create additional bus and cycle lanes but these will not help. Congestion of west-bound traffic is caused by the existing bus lane just east of the Rottingdean High Street/A259 junction and congestion of east-bound traffic is caused by issues in Telscombe and Peacehaven as well as bus stops. Will you commit to a more detailed analysis of the issues and working with ESCC to resolve them?

 

Response: Cllr Muten

 

Thank you, Cllr Fishleigh, for your two questions concerning Figure 7 on page 426 of today’s cabinet report.  The information is from DfT traffic counts, which shows average delays, as updated annually and publicly available on an interactive map. The 30-50 seconds of delay refers to the road link from Rottingdean High Street to Arundel Road. Officers advise that they have made a presentation error on the map by also applying this to the link west of Rottingdean High Street and will correct this on the version of the plan that goes onto the council website. We sincerely apologise and will ensure this is correct on the final published version of the report.

By means of a correction, the data confirms the average delay on the road link from Rottingdean High Street to the city boundary was 76.9 seconds per vehicle per mile in 2023. During peak times, travel time may be expected to be above average.

Average delays are a useful way to compare acute congestion on different roads. Average travel times on the A259 are well below those seen in some areas of the city centre where they are over 200 seconds per vehicle per mile. An objective of Our City Transport Plan 2035 is to reduce congestion, with priority focus on areas worse affected.

 

(8)           Councillor Meadows- Sustainability plan for Libraries

 

When Hollingbury library was closed, residents were promised a new library, which was located in Old Boat Corner Community Centre.  However, this library has over the last couple of years been reduced to only opening one day a week.  There has been a lack of advertising on the part of the council.  No wonder footfall is low.  Has Hollingbury library been set up to fail?  Is the use and needs analysis flawed because of this?

 

Response: Cllr Robins

 

No libraries are set up to fail; officers do all they can to support and promote library use across the city. 

The location of the library within the Old Boat Community Centre places certain restrictions on the use of the room. It cannot be opened with Libraries Extra and relies on the support of the Community Centre staff. With high levels of anti-social behaviour, there have been some restrictions to opening hours in the last year. 

The service has done all it can to keep the space open and it has been open every morning for most of this year, as well as a full day on Thursdays when it is staffed. 

The Needs & Use analysis looked at data from the last three years, to take a broad view of use since fully reopening post covid.

 

(9)           Councillor McNair- Sustainability plan for Libraries

 

At budget council in February 2025, the Conservative Group proposed maintaining library funding and keeping all three libraries open by reducing the Advisor-Led Antiracism Strategy funding of £80,000.  Does the Administration regret not using our suggestion to protect community assets? 

 

Response: Cllr Robins

 

The proposals being discussed today are to meet the savings target assigned to Library Services, as agreed at Budget Council in February.

 

(10)        Councillor McNair- Sustainability plan for Libraries

 

Why did the Labour Administration propose closing Rottingdean library in their carefully planned budget in February only to reverse their decision and support Rottingdean library ten months later? 

 

Response: Cllr Robins

 

The rationale for the original proposals and current recommendations are explored in the report at points 3.73 to 3.83. 

No decision had been made to close Rottingdean Library; Cabinet agreed in July to go begin a 12 week public consultation to hear more from residents and to further explore the potential impact of the proposed changes.  

The savings which could be achieved through closure of the library are relatively moderate and, on balance, the retention of the service is recommended while alternative options for community involvement are explored. 

 

(11)        Councillor Meadows- Sustainability plan for Libraries

 

With Rottingdean library being saved, what will be cut in its place?

 

Response: Cllr Robins

 

The retention of Rottingdean Library has necessitated a reduction in the Library Service savings target of £40k. Alternative savings will need to be made from elsewhere in the council revenue budget to offset the savings not made in Library Services through retention of this location.

 

(12)        Councillor Meadows- Sustainability plan for Libraries

 

As only £35,000 is being saved by closing Westdene and Hollingbury libraries, surely money can be found to protect these community assets?

 

Response: Cllr Robins

 

The proposals being discussed today are to meet the savings target assigned to Library Services, as agreed at Budget Council in February.

 

(13)        Councillor Meadows- Sustainability plan for Libraries

 

The council has been working to propose means of maintaining some level of library service in Westdene and Hollingbury libraries for months.  What concrete plans are there for these libraries to continue under different auspices?

 

Response: Cllr Robins

 

No decisions have been made at this time. If the decision is made to close these public libraries, officers will work with partners in exploring alternative options for future community-based provision. 

 

(14)        Councillor Meadows- Sustainability plan for Libraries

 

What further cuts to library services are coming?     

 

Response: Cllr Robins

 

The proposals being discussed today are to meet the savings target assigned to Library Services. There are no further savings identified for libraries in the next financial year.

 

(15)        Councillor Meadows- Homeless and Rough Sleeping Strategy 2025-2030

 

Why has there been a reduction in funding for homelessness?

 

Response: Cllr Williams

 

Table 1 of the General Fund Draft Budget Report shows an expected loss of grant of £0.700m. The government has consulted on changes to how it will distribute the Homelessness Prevention Grant. This is the expected 2026/27 impact on the council as a result of the change in methodology but we do not yet have confirmation of this. The final impact will be reported in February once the provisional and final Local Government Finance Settlements have been published. 

 

(16)        Councillor Meadows- Royal Pavilion & Museums Trust Service Fee 2026-31

 

The Royal Pavilion Trust has been able to secure £6m in funding from outside of the council.  Despite this, why is the council still going to give the Trust £2.1m despite the it being unable to meet its £4m repayment plan agreed with the council?

 

Response: Cllr Miller

 

The £6m identified in the report relates to capital investment secured for the estate. The Council’s revenue contribution for 2025/26 is estimated to be £2.1m. An annual fee from the council is outlined through the contractual Services Agreement. This includes a substantive service fee of £880k to deliver services across the assets.  

The report included in this meeting’s agenda seeks to consolidate the funding provided to the Trust. The proposed annual fee of £1.9m will account for 21% of the Trust’s overall income. The remainder of the Trust’s income is secured through fundraising and commercial activities. When the services transferred from the council, the newly established Trust had no working capital or reserves. Policy & Resources Committee agreed in 2020 to provide a £4m loan facility to the Trust. A total of £3m has been drawn down under the loan agreement, while this facility was available to the trust. The £1.9m fee that is being proposed today would make it challenging for the Trust to commence loan repayments. However, if the Trust’s business plan sees them meet and exceed their reserves position, the council will claim loan repayments. Otherwise, the repayment plan will commence in 2030.    

 

(17)        Councillor Hill- General Fund Draft Budget & Resource Update - 2026-27 to 2029-30

 

On page 232 there is a proposal that the £65,000 Cemeteries Maintenance Reserve is to be pooled with other risks under a general risk reserve. It would seem the future financial position of the council will lead to extreme pressures on the general reserves. What reassurances can the administration give that taking away a dedicated maintenance reserve for cemeteries will not harm cemetery maintenance?

 

Response: Cllr Taylor

 

Thank you for your question, Councillor, which is an important one, not least because cemeteries are clearly a really important service to the city. It's really important to residents and families. These are sacred spaces where they visit the memorials to loved ones. We've had experiences in the past couple of years where our cemeteries haven't lived up to the standards we expect and we've taken action to remediate that and it's really important first thing to say is we're not removing the cemeteries maintenance budget at all. There's no proposal relating to that as you say. And as I know you understand, Councillor Hill, this is about accounting for reserves for potential additional needs of maintenance and the view from finance is that it's not an efficient way to have little pockets of reserves but to put that in within the general risk reserve of the Council, so in some senses it's an accounting change. It is not removing the maintenance budget of cemeteries. And clearly if there was something completely unforeseen and dangerous that happened in a cemetery, the general risk reserve would have to be called upon to remediate that in a cemetery.

 

(18)        Councillor Hill- General Fund Draft Budget & Resource Update - 2026-27 to 2029-30

 

Page 131 regarding Registration Services says there will be a 'Comprehensive transformation of registration services by streamlining processes, optimising resources and embedding efficiency into service delivery risk and impact: Implications of managing change and challenging old ways of working – potential staffing challenges during the transition period'.

This is very opaque language that does not explain what the proposed changes to registration are, leaving me unsure how the 60k savings will be realised. Is this just a long way of saying the Administration is cutting jobs in the registration services team?

 

Response: Cllr Allen

 

Thank you for your question on Registration Services – a team I have really enjoyed working with since becoming a cabinet member. 

We are forecasting an underspend for 2025/26 in the service driven by income achievement and management of staffing vacancies. Going forward into the next financial year, there are several areas of transformation that will deliver the proposed savings. These include: 

·    Procurement of new software for managing delivery of registration appointments and ceremonies: A comprehensive procurement process will enable savings on software costs; 

·    Reduction in spending on administrative costs:  The introduction of new software and digital-first communications will reduce printing, postage and stationary costs; 

·    Realignment of the service budget: With a forecasted £40k income overachievement for 2025/26, realigning income targets to reflect historic actuals and current fees will secure a significant share of the savings. 

 

Therefore the £60k savings proposed are set out above and are not predicated on changes to staffing numbers. A service-wide redesign is planned to be taken forward in 2026 to increase resilience and rationalise use of casual staff.  

 

(19)        Councillor Shanks- Sustainability plan for Libraries

 

Why has the Cabinet decided to ignore the recommendation from the People Scrutiny committee to shelve the library cuts, and the subsequent one which was to moth ball even if closed which was passed unanimously even to the extent of not mentioning them in the report?

 

Response: Cllr Robins

 

We recognise the Scrutiny Committee’s recommendation and have carefully considered their concerns alongside other factors before making our final recommendations to Cabinet today.  

          They are directly referenced in the cover report at point 3.50 

 

(20)        Councillor Pickett- Sustainability plan for Libraries

 

Residents are in agreement that this plan is too rushed and hasn’t given interested residents, such as those in Westdene, the opportunity, and in the main, time, to fully engage to work out ways to keep a community library running, possibly by volunteers. Why can’t this plan be mothballed, as suggested by the People Scrutiny and Overview Committee, so that residents have time to properly work out ways to make this can happen?

 

Response: Cllr Robins

 

We recognise the Scrutiny Committee’s recommendation and have carefully considered their concerns alongside other factors before making final recommendations to Cabinet today.

Savings need to be made in the next financial year and cannot be delayed, however, the site is not proposed to close until April, giving some months for actioning next steps. 

If the library at Westdene is to close, then officers will work with residents and partners in exploring alternative options for future community-based provision in the area.

 

(21)        Councillor Pickett- Sustainability plan for Libraries

 

As the library service is currently rewriting its current strategy regarding services, finances and forward plans, why can’t the proposed closures wait until this strategy is complete so that we have a more thorough idea of how to move forward with possible closures and ways of making savings?

 

Response: Cllr Robins

 

Savings need to be made in the next financial year and cannot be delayed. The service was allocated savings targets to meet in 2025-27 and the revenue budget reduction has already been agreed at Budget Council in February 2025.    

The Library Service Strategy for 2026-31 will be developed in the next year and will inform future service delivery decisions. The current Strategy is still live and informed the proposals considered to meet the current savings targets. 

 

(22)        Councillor Pickett- Sustainability plan for Libraries

 

Once the library at Westdene closes the children of Westdene Primary School will no longer have access to a school library. What provision will they have to access books, other than text books, in school?

 

Response: Cllr Robins

 

Public Library Services and Local Authorities are not required to provide school libraries. In the case of Westdene, the offer has been made for officers to support the school, to continue to work closely with them to explore how the Library Service can support pupils to access books and study space. There are options to explore which could provide an improved school library offer, with possible donations of books and furniture. 

 

(23)        Councillor Pickett- Sustainability plan for Libraries

 

What will happen to the empty buildings once the libraries cease to function? I note that Westdene library is part of the school. How will this work?

 

Response: Cllr Robins

 

Public Library Services and Local Authorities are not required to provide school libraries. In the case of Westdene, the offer has been made for officers to support the school, to continue to work closely with them to explore how the Library Service can support pupils to access books and study space. There are options to explore which could provide an improved school library offer, with possible donations of books and furniture. 

 

(24)        Councillor Sykes- General Fund Draft Budget & Resource Update - 2026-27 to 2029-30

 

To the background of the impact of the cost of temporary accommodation on council budgets, what actions are the administration pursuing to influence the cost of housing to residents and how is the effectiveness of these actions being monitored?

 

Response: Cllr Taylor

 

A great question and a really important question. Simple answer is we're buying and building on a greater scale than any previous administration probably in the last 25 years. The only solution out of the dire housing crisis in this city in the South of England is to build more affordable and genuinely affordable housing. And we're also pursuing a strategy that I know you're aware of, Councillor Hill of acquiring property, something that has cross-party support. I know that was pursued under the previous administration. We're now accelerating that, that's purchasing housing into the Housing Revenue Account for long-term tenancy’s, but also purchasing accommodation to use for temporary accommodation, to bring down the financial pressure and give more security to those families facing temporary accommodation, we're also doing a range of other things that the service are pursuing in terms of how they try and purchase and doing longer lease as opposed to spot purchase working with registered providers and charities and working with our homelessness services to prevent homelessness.

How will it be tracked? It will be tracked through the Council plan overall tracking and budget tracking, places like TBM and then other Cabinet reports that CouncillorWilliams brings on updates to the overall housing position.

 

(25)        Councillor McLeay- Regulator of Social Housing - response to regulatory judgement including Procurement of Stock Conditions Contractor

 

Are all FRA reports available for inspection by residents and if not, when can they be made available?

 

Response: Cllr Williams

 

The health & safety of our residents and of those visiting residents or working on their homes is the council’s key priority, as part of this, the council remains committed to publishing FRAs. 

The council have undertaken a full new set of fire risk assessments across our 639 blocks in order that we have a complete and up to date appraisal of fire risks and remediation requirements.? This work is ongoing, particularly in relation to our High-Rise Residential Blocks 

A number of FRAs have already been shared with MPs, councillors and residents in response to enquiries.? We want transparent and meaningful information about fire safety to be freely accessed by residents so that the sharing of this information is not limited to responding to enquiries. 

In order to publish our 639 FRAs in a form that is accessible to residents, our 2025/26 HRA budget planning includes funding an additional resource to focus on FRA publication. This additional resource will focus on reviewing each and every FRA with a view to ensuring that information is published in the public domain so that it helps residents to understand the fire safety arrangements in their home and communal areas.? By taking this approach, we avoid publishing unhelpful information that will include technical language or jargon, and we will also ensure that any personal or sensitive information about individual households is not inappropriately shared. 

We look forward to recruiting this resource and supporting them in this important work. 

 

(26)        Councillor McLeay- Regulator of Social Housing - response to regulatory judgement including Procurement of Stock Conditions Contractor

 

In a recent report, it stated that the fire safety actions remain high, although it has reduced from 6420 to 4855. Of the 4855 outstanding actions, how many of them are serious breaches, and if there are any serious breaches, how many of them have not been completed within the target remediation date mentioned on the FRA? We have been awaiting an update since Place Scrutiny.

 

Response: Cllr Williams

 

Our Housing Safety and Quality Compliance Update to Place Overview & Scrutiny Committee on 22^nd September 2025, reported that ‘Although the total number of Fire Safety remediation actions remains high, progress continues to be made. As of July 2025, the number of FRA remediation actions has reduced to 4855 from 6,420 as of March 2025 reported to May Cabinet’.  

The Cabinet report being considered at today’s meeting (11^th December 2025) demonstrates continued positive progress in further reducing the total number of fire risk assessment remediation actions. 

 

As of October 2025, this number had reduced to 2,918, a reduction of more than 60 per cent. Within this total, the number of total high-risk actions fell from 417 in August 2025 to 14 in October 2025.? Of these 9 of the 14 had not been completed within target timescales.  

The high number of remediation actions followed completion of updated fire risk assessments across all our blocks. ?The most common high-risk actions identified through our Fire Risk Assessments relate to fire doors remediation or replacement, signage, communal electrical systems, compartmentation, and ventilation. These themes are consistent across our housing stock and reflect known areas of historic underinvestment. We have established, or are in the process of mobilising, planned programmes of work to address each of these risk areas.