Agenda item - Issues Raised by Members

To consider the following matters raised by Members:

 

(a)           Written Questions:

To consider any written questions

122.1   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 Hill- Adult Social Care Improvement Plan

 

Does the administration accept that a 2016 Adult Social Care restructuring process was a key contributor to the lack of capacity to assess care packages in 2024 which meant only 29% of people’s care packages were assessed that year? The 2016 proposals cut non-registered assessors and my understanding is the aim now is to reach a 55% assessment rate.

 

Response: Cllr Alexander

 

Thank you for the question.  The redesign in 2016 at that time reduced the number of non?registered posts, and while the intention was to streamline pathways and strengthen professional practice, in reality it may have contributed to reduced flexibility within the workforce and a reduced overall capacity to undertake reviews at scale. 

It is important to note, however, that the 2024 position cannot be attributed solely to decisions taken in 2016. A combination of factors has influenced assessment and review activity, including sustained demand growth, increased complexity of need, workforce shortages across the social care sector, and the significant impact of the covid pandemic in 2021-22. These pressures have affected our ability to consistently maintain review levels at the rate we would wish. 

The review rate in 2024 was not where we want to be. This is why a comprehensive improvement programme is now in place, including investment in reviewing capacity which does include non-qualified staff, redesign of workflow and triage processes and improved use of digital tools. 

Our current improvement trajectory means our reviewing performance stands at 41% currently and sets a target of reaching approximately 45% of care packages reviewed in 25/26 and 55% in 26/27, we believe is realistic and deliverable given the combination of additional staffing, new practice models and improved oversight. The administration’s focus is on ensuring a sustainable and resilient service going forward, supported by the right mix of skills, staffing, and practice support to meet statutory duties and the needs of residents. 

 

2.             Councillor Hill- Adult Social Care Improvement Plan

 

How does the proposed closure of Wellington House fit with this plan? My residents have told me this will have a devastating impact on the city’s most vulnerable adults with learning disabilities and their families.

 

Response: Cllr Alexander

 

Thank you for the question. We fully recognise the concerns raised by residents about Wellington House.   We acknowledge how important and valued it is by those who attend the service as well as their family and friends and we have spoken with families about the proposal. 

The proposal forms part of a broader transformation programme designed to modernise our learning disability services and ensure services are sustainable, personalised, and focused on supporting people to be included in their communities, while maintaining statutory Care Act duties and improving long term resilience across Adult Social Care.   

The independent day service sector in the city for Adults with Learning Disabilities supports 134 people – this represents 86% of the market share of adult day services.  Unit costs for independent day sector providers are significantly lower than Wellington House and we need to consider this within the challenging financial position the Council faces.   This approach contributes to the wider financial context in which the Council must deliver significant savings—around £10 million within Adult Social Care as part of the 2026/27 budget.  

Wellington House requires significant ongoing revenue to operate and maintain. Releasing building based costs for reinvestment into a wider set of community based, not-for-profit organisations that provide flexible daytime opportunities. The reinvestment will be based on people’s assessed needs and the alternative arrangements will continue to fulfil the outcomes agreed with service users and their loved ones.  

The proposal is subject to a full and formal consultation to ensure that no individual will lose support as a result of the structural change. The question is not whether support is provided, but how it is provided in future. 

 

3.             Councillor Lademacher - Brighton & Hove Outdoor Events Strategy

 

Residents living in the Valley Gardens and St Peter’s Church area have expressed the significant impact that the low-level background noise at late night events has on their quality of life. Will the administration commit to reviewing alternatives to the current low-level background noise, including a fixed cut off time after which no background music can be played?

 

Response: Cllr Miller

 

In 2025 this concern was heard by the outdoor events team and has been taken very seriously. In response to this Brighton & Hove City Council have taken the decision to surrender the existing licence of the entirety of the Vally Gardens area and have applied for 3 discrete licences to cover specific areas of the Valley Gardens with varied conditions and operating times to reflect the specific challenges of each location. Included in these applications is a condition stating that any recorded sound must be inaudible to the nearest sound sensitive receptor after 23:00. 
Continued use of public space, specifically in the city centre remains key to supporting the creative communities of Brighton and fostering new and emerging artists. This must, however, be delivered in partnership and balance with the needs of local communities and all relevant stakeholders. Brighton & Hove City Council’s Outdoor Events Team remains committed to achieving this balance. 

 

4.             Councillor Shanks- Brighton & Hove Outdoor Events Strategy

 

Residents suggested a levy for their communities from outdoor events. Is this part of the strategy and how will it be run?

 

Response: Cllr Miller

 

This does form part of the proposals within the new events strategy but currently does not detail the mechanism for delivery of the money. Ensuring the scheme is designed to give residents a voice in how levies are applied to specific areas will take careful consideration to ensure the best possible outcomes. This is subject to ongoing conversation, and a full detailed methodology will be devised and published as a priority when the strategy is adopted after Cabinet on 12 February. 

 

5.             Councillor Shanks- Targeted Budget Management (TBM) 2025/26 Month 9 (December)

 

The council has recently received government money for Youth Hubs but it is using this to prop up existing youth services and family hubs. Is this legal?

 

Response: Cllr Taylor

 

Thank you, Councillor Shanks. I mean, first of all, it's obviously worth saying what great news it is that as a city, we've been selected as one of the eight pilot sites for the Young Futures Hub programme. I think that's a testament to some of the great voluntary sector bodies in the city already doing great work on youth services and youth futures and also to officers in the council and to, you know, lobbying efforts around this.

I think the first thing to say is that what is included in the budget has a partial element of that funding, and as you say, £75K of that is allocated to fund a full time youth and commissioning service manager and that post will support the strategic oversight of the Young Futures hubs, including the development of an integrated youth service.

And then there's £24k used for a youth participation worker. The remainder of it is not allocated in the budget report but is being allocated separately and then will be submitted to the department.

to government. But overall, the answer is yes, both Director and Chief Financial Officer are confident this is exactly the appropriate use of the money and the further allocation is to come.

 

6.             Councillor Shanks- Targeted Budget Management (TBM) 2025/26 Month 9 (December)

 

Will the administration ensure us that the ring-fenced grant for Public Health is being used correctly as it is being used to prop up existing services which it didn't previously fund

 

Response: Cllr Alexander

 

Thank you for your question, Councillor Shanks. I know this was also asked in the recent People Scrutiny Committee as well. I can assure you that any use of public health funding is done strictly in accordance with the public health grant conditions.

Public health grant funding doesn't only have to fund the public health team or our public health contracts. There are many council services that contribute to public health outcomes for people in the city and provided they meet the public health grant criteria, they can be funded

by the public health grant. For example, our school's mental health programme was previously funded by another department, but good mental health for our children is a high priority for our administration. And for the year ahead, it will now be funded from the public health grants. So please don't worry, none of the public health grant is being used to fund anything other than public health matters.

 

7.              Councillor Shanks- Targeted Budget Management (TBM) 2025/26 Month 9 (December)

 

What other options for the Arches were explored e.g. finding private money and not restoring to the original design?

 

Response: Cllr Taylor

 

Thank you, Councillor Shanks. Yeah, important question. I mean, we thought it was really important that we did proceed with the first phase of the arches. I mean, a real disaster really in the history of the city that the arches were left to decline so much over many decades, and that's not blaming any party. And a real sort of totemic symbol in the east of the city of neglect of the eastern seafront and we don't believe in neglecting the eastern seafront, we believe investing in it, so I think it was really important that we started that renovation, which is now ongoing.

It's great to see the lift shaft has now gone up and I can't wait for that lift to be ready so that our eastern seafront can be fully disability accessible to our residents in the city. At the moment, it's quite tricky to get to that bit of the seafront if you're a disabled resident. I'm glad we're putting that right.

In terms of the next stages, I mean, you're absolutely right. That is exactly what we're doing, is thinking about how can we fund the future phases. Now we're doing this refurbishment. We know all the things about how the arches have to be restored, albeit at great cost. It would be very expensive to do the future phases of those arches. And so we're now exploring and as part of the work of what the Seafront Development Board will be doing is working out how can we fund that probably in conjunction with national funders, perhaps lottery bodies, etc, heritage funders, but also needing to look at the commercialisation, which is I think we do need to find ways to bring in commercial activity to that area of the city that can help fund and then looking at design, location, etc. Obviously, it's a listed structure and so we have to abide by the listing, but that will be an important part of the next stage. 

 

8.             Councillor West- Transport Capital and Maintenance Programme 2026-27

 

The new cycle lanes alongside Preston Park are very bumpy. They are uncomfortable and tiring for cyclists to use. When challenged with a request that the installation contractor improve them, Councillor Muten declared them good enough. They are far from good enough, they are a huge disappointment and discouragement to frequent use. They fail to meet the high standards of surfacing cyclists in the city expect, need and deserve. Cycling is a healthy, low carbon form of transport, which also helps reduce traffic congestion and air pollution - all matters the Council seeks to champion. In order to better support uptake and the safety of cycling, can councillor Muten assure us, please, that when future cycle lanes are laid, as part of the transport programme, that they will all be machine laid, and not laid like these, on the cheap, by hand?

 

Response: Cllr Muten 

 

Thank you, Cllr West, for your question. I am pleased that the A23 active travel scheme has delivered improved conditions for both pedestrians and cyclists, and it is important to recognise the benefits this scheme provides over the previous layout—particularly regarding safety and surface quality. 

Ahead of the scheme’s completion, I attended the site with active travel partners, ward councillors, officers and contractors. During this visit, I intervened to ensure a better finish was achieved, including improvements to cycle lane width, vehicle crossovers, line marking, and the finish - informing the snagging process. Contrary to your suggestion, Cllr West, I acted to ensure this valued scheme was completed to a high standard by the contractor consistent with the scheme design as consulted up. 

The surfacing has been inspected by BHCC supervisors, both on foot and by bike, prior to handover. The cycle lane surfaces are within an acceptable standard, and the Council is therefore not in a position to require the contractor to relay them.  

The method of construction was strongly influenced by the design choices—particularly the decision, supported by the previous Green administration, to specify a green surface. This option is more costly and requires greater manual intervention. 

While cost is an important consideration when designing and procuring schemes, it is not the only factor. The construction method will always depend on site-specific circumstances, including the available width of the cycle lane. Where feasible, officers do specify machine-laid surfacing, and this approach is being used elsewhere - for example, on the new cycle lanes being delivered as part of the Valley Gardens Phase 3 project. The value-engineered decision not to apply a green finish on this scheme means it is well suited to machine laying, as you explicitly prefer. 

 

9.             Councillor West- Brighton & Hove Outdoor Events Strategy

 

Worryingly, the report refers variously to the proposed strategy applying to the period 2026-36 but also 2025-35. Appendix 1 is neither included nor linked so it isn’t possible to see the strategy when composing this question. However, from the table of priorities it seems clear that parks and open spaces are viewed as a commercial opportunity and the impact of events upon the primary purpose of parks - their quiet enjoyment by park users - is not seen as a concern. Parks are vital open spaces that support health and wellbeing and are especially important for many residents without access to private outdoor space. Loss of space to events, noise and disturbance, all impact negatively upon this benefit. We need policies for parks, set with their local communities, that protect their primary purposes and place acceptable limits on use for events. Why does this consideration not feature in this strategy?

 

Response: Cllr Miller

 

Outdoor Events are a central part of the identity of Brighton & Hove and remains a key driver of economic activity in the city generating an estimated £120m in positive economic impact to the city and region. Events also deliver great benefits in community cohesion and local identity with 79% of attendees at events reporting an increased sense of community spirit and pride in their community. 
Events must, however, strike the balance of uses which is currently being reviewed through the planning application process for spaces used beyond the current 28-day change of use permissions. Wider impacts such as noise and damage to the ground are considered within the strategy and are part of the wider policy review that is being undertaken and is mandated as a priority within the new strategy. 

The new strategy will run from 2026-2036. Any other dates are a clerical error. 

 

10.          Councillor Goldsmith- A259 (King's Road) Seafront Highway Structures (Arches) Phases 4 & 5 

 

I'm pleased to see these necessary works going ahead, but businesses using these arches are understandably concerned about their future. Some of the businesses have been in place for many years – can the council confirm that as well as a fair compensation deal, all businesses will be given priority for either a return to their original location or, where appropriate, an alternative location to allow them to continue trading?

 

Response: Cllr Muten 

 

Thank you for your question, Cllr Goldsmith. 

The future and vibrancy of this seafront area are central to the council’s approach. We must not let this area decline, or worse. The aging structures supporting the main road, cycle route and promenade are aging and at risk, and intervention is essential to prevent a potential catastrophic failure. That is exactly what this administration is doing. We must not leave these businesses to face such risks and thereby not have a future. 

We are working closely with every business affected so they are supported through the process. The majority of businesses impacted by Phases 4 and 5 will return to their original location or one close by. There are two tenants will not be returning because their existing units will no longer exist and there is no equivalent replacement to return to. Both these tenants, however, have businesses elsewhere on the seafront and will continue trading there. They are entitled to statutory compensation under the Landlord & Tenant Act along with all the secure tenancies affected.  

Once completed, the new, larger and better?designed units will provide improved spaces that enable businesses to thrive. 

 

11.          Councillor Goldsmith- Response to notice of motion from October Council

 

The motion passed at Full Council included an explicit reference to a document that defines 'Involved Companies' as “companies which aid or assist in the commission of Israel’s serious breaches of peremptory norms of international law, which may foreseeably assist in the commission of genocide and violations of the Geneva Conventions”, yet this report uses an alternative definition, going against the requests of the Council's supreme decision-making body. Will Cabinet ensure that a new report is created as soon as possible, using the correct definition, ensuring the requests made by Full Council are properly implemented, as constitutionally required?

 

Response: Cllr Sankey

 

Thanks for the question, Councillor Goldsmith. You seem to have misunderstood the terms of that notice of motion that was passed last October. The notice of motion was amended and the final version of the notice of motion did not include the footnote that you refer to. In fact, footnotes never make up notices of motion.

But more importantly, while the council can consider publicly available information, it would not be appropriate for the finance or legal teams to reach definitive judgement in this council about which companies are not involved in violence or have been involved in violence in Gaza, given the complex, contested and sensitive nature of such

assessments. That's rightly a matter for international investigators and the international court system. However, what this council can do and has done is act in relation to the UN resolution, which provides specific information that we are able to act on, namely the OHCHR list, which I referenced in my Chair's comms and which was explicitly cited in the notice of motion.

We believe that the council should not have exposure to the companies identified in this list, and we will be making this clear to the relevant elected members in East Sussex. I would gently suggest that you could do the same, given that one of those elected members

belongs to your political party, the Green Party. Although, as far as I can see, this particular elected member has made no public comment on the atrocities that we've seen in Gaza. So rather than political point scoring, I would suggest that you take it up with the elected member that belongs to your party. We are committed to ensuring that this council's investments are ethical and we will ask partner councils in East Sussex to work with us towards an ethical investment framework.