Agenda item - Issues Raised by Members

To consider the following matters raised by Members:

 

(a)           Written Questions:

To consider any written questions

141.1   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 Meadows - Modernising our recycling centre

 

While we're happy the aim is to increase Brighton & Hove’s woeful recycling rates, we are concerned about borrowing costs.  How close is the council to a borrowing ceiling given that we are borrowing for the King Alfred Centre, Withdean swimming pool and are paying off the loan for i360?  How resilient are we to future shocks? 

 

Response: Cllr Rowkins

 

The council sets its authorised borrowing limit at Full Council each year as part of the budget papers. Within this limit, the council must ensure borrowing is affordable, sustainable, and prudent, as set out by the CIPFA Prudential Code. New investment proposals are individually assessed, with borrowing costs factored into future budgets when necessary. If considered more financially prudent, the council may choose to fund this project from the Waste PFI reserve , which is set out in the financial implications section of the report. 

  

2)             Councillor Meadows - Environmental Enforcement Centre 

 

There was a budget on 26th February, only two weeks ago. Is the overspend outlined in 6.1 additional overspend from what was outlined in the budget?  What is meant by ‘structural pressure’ (paragraph 6.1)?  Did officers not know this extra expenditure was required last month before budget council? 

 

Response: Cllr Rowkins

  

The overspend outlined for 2025/26 is being managed within the current budget envelope for environmental services. Without the actions outlined in the report being taken this would continue to be managed in the same manner during 2026/27. The approach to review and improve collection rates of enforcement income presents an opportunity to ensure the service is self-contained and frees up the resources currently mitigating the pressure.  

  

3)             Councillor McNair - A Cleaner City Centre 

 

Has the establishment of a new overnight cleansing team (paragraph 3.3) reduced cover from other parts of Brighton & Hove?  Will this level of service be rolled out to the rest of the city, including other central areas such as London Road and George Street? 

How will the overnight cleansing team handle rough sleepers who might be sleeping in central areas targeted, for example, for graffiti removal? 

 

Response: Cllr Rowkins

 

The new overnight cleansing team is an additional service - it will not reduce daytime cleansing or take resources away from any other part of the city and our daytime teams will continue with their full citywide duties.  

We are starting this overnight work in the city centre because it is our busiest area, with the highest footfall and the greatest pressure on cleanliness. While deep?cleaning tasks can be carried out during the day, they are far more effective and much less disruptive when undertaken overnight, when the streets are quieter and crews can work more efficiently. 

The service is not limited to the city centre, and we can deploy it anywhere based on need. 

Regarding rough sleepers, the team will always work safely, respectfully and compassionately. They will not disturb anyone sleeping in an area scheduled for cleaning. Work will be rearranged, and any welfare concerns passed to the appropriate outreach teams. 

  

4)             Councillor McNair - Local Authority Bus Grant Delivery Plan 2026-27 

 

Has the council been given any reason as to why funding is being cut by 5% as outlined in paragraph 6.1? 

 

Response: Cllr Muten 

 

Thank you, Cllr McNair, for your question.  

The 5% reduction in the LABG revenue element reflects a policy decision of national government to pivot slightly from revenue spending to capital infrastructure spending on Transport.  The 5% cut in revenue allocation was applied to all non-mayoral LTAs, at the same time we have a small year on year increase in the capital allocation. The revenue decrease was somewhat balanced out by a commitment to retain the £3 national bus fare cap until 31st December 2026. Further, in association with this pivot, more funds will become available as the Strategic Authority for Sussex and Brighton is set up and becomes the transport authority for the region to include allocation within 2026-27. 

 

5)             Councillor Meadows - Planned Maintenance Budget 

 

What is the purpose of the property condition survey for Old Boat Corner Community Centre at a cost of £4,700?  Are there any particular concerns about the building? 

 

Response: Cllr Taylor

 

As part of our Planned Maintenance programme for the year, we have commenced a rolling programme of condition surveys to ensure the maintenance and repair of our building is recorded.  As part of that rolling programme we will be completing condition surveys for our Community Centre's and a number have been identified for the current year. 

 

6)             Councillor Meadows - Pride in Place 

 

Whitehawk and Moulsecoomb were part of the new deal for communities fund of £50mn delivered over 10 years in the 1990s.  Whitehawk was given the bulk of that funding which produced little result.  What lessons have been learnt from past failures that can be carried forward to this programme? 

 

Response: Cllr Sankey

 

The New Deal for Communities programme represented a significant and welcome investment by government in areas such as Whitehawk and Moulsecoomb, reflecting a clear recognition of long?standing inequalities and the need for sustained regeneration. The outcomes were mixed and provided important lessons which directly inform the Pride in Place programme. 

The key lesson is that investment alone is not enough. Past programmes were often overly complex, insufficiently community?led, and too focused on short?term projects rather than long?term change. Pride in Place has been explicitly designed to address these issues. 

It is long?term and stable, providing multiple years of funding rather than short funding cycles.  

It also places local people at the heart of decision?making, through a neighbourhood board with real power over priorities and spend. It also combines capital investment with capacity?building, ensuring communities have the skills, support and governance to deliver lasting impact. 

Most importantly, Pride in Place builds on what communities already do well, backing local ambition with sustained government investment to create visible, meaningful and enduring change. 

  

7)             Councillor McNair - Affordable Housing Planning Advice Note 

 

According to paragraph 3.1, ‘City Plan Policy CP20 sets a requirement for 40% affordable housing to be provided by developers in schemes of 15 or more homes and requires smaller percentages of affordable housing on site or an in lieu financial contribution in schemes down to 5 homes.’  Will reducing the number of houses that are liable to pay a financial contribution from 9 to 5 put an onerous burden on house builders?   The development of three houses in Rotherfiled Crescent is one example of the challenges faced with small infill sites.  Is this financial contribution in schemes of 5 homes another reason why infill is becoming unaffordable for developers? 

 

Response: Cllr Taylor

 

The policy requirement for developments of 5-9 dwellings to provide a financial contribution equivalent to 20% affordable housing has been in place since the adoption of the City Plan Part One in 2016 and is unaffected by the PAN. The policy allows for flexibility and allows for a lower, or zero, financial contribution where independently verified viability evidence demonstrates this is necessary to ensure a development proposal is viable and able to come forward for development 

  

8)             Councillor Meadows – Annual procurement forward plan 

 

How are we paying for a £14m expansion of the city’s bike scheme?  How will this allow other authorities in the southeast to establish their own scheme'?  Are Brighton & Hove residents subsidising the scheme in other councils? 

 

Response: Cllr Muten

 

Thank you Cllr Meadows for your question.  

The current Bikeshare contract runs until September 2027 and provides a fleet of 780 bikes, around 60% electric and 40% pedal?only, supported by over 100 docking hubs across the city. The scheme was introduced to improve coverage and accessibility compared with the previous model. 

The £14m figure refers to an estimated total contract value published in 2022, covering the full life of the framework and potential use by other authorities, not the cost to the Council. The Council’s contribution to establishing the Beryl scheme was approximately £1.3m.  

A Cabinet report will be brought forward once negotiations with the operator conclude, to set out the potential for the introduction of e?scooters following the recent consultation and if appropriate how these would align with the existing Bikeshare contract. If approved, the e?scooter trial is not expected to create additional budget pressures, as the financial risk sits with the operator, and it would generate income to help reduce annual loan?servicing costs 

 

9)             Councillor McNair - Large Panel Systems Building and Estates Renewal 

 

Why are secure tenants of the 8 blocks due to be demolished being helped to buy property (paragraph 3.14), possibly in the private sector?  How many tenants do they envisage the £0.4m helping? 

 

Response: Cllr Williams

 

The introduction of a Home Ownership Pact will provide tenants in our council homes the opportunity to move into home ownership without exercising their Right to Buy option.  This helps us to retain our housing stock which can then be relet to applicants on the Housing Register including those in temporary accommodation (TA).  Taking a test and learn approach we will be piloting this initially with tenants in the LPS blocks.  The option of home ownership was raised by some tenants in the LPS blocks during the consultation period who were keen to still move into home ownership including moving outside of the city.  This scheme provides those tenants with another rehousing option.  It is envisaged that £0.4m will support up to 10 households in 2026/27. 

  

10)          Councillor Raphael Hill - Modernising our recycling centre 

 

The Hollingdean Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) has a significant visual impact on the Round Hill Conservation Area. A proposal for a green roof and green walls proposed for the MRF were part of the original design intentions but were not formalized as enforceable planning conditions in the approved application BH2006/00900 in June 2006. These features were ultimately not implemented. While I appreciate this report is largely about new machinery, could investment in the MRF also consider ways to include improvements that were part of the original design? 

  

Response: Cllr Rowkins

 

Thanks, Councillor Hill, for the question. And it's a fairly brief answer, which is which is that to add new features to the facility at this point would obviously increase the funding requirements set out in the report and potentially the burden on the general funds through the MTFS, either through the additional financing costs or potentially reserve contributions in future years to ensure that the waste PFI reserves are balanced by the end of the term of the contract. I do see the case though, you know, the underlying point that you're making is the visual impact of those very, very functional buildings and I'll certainly keep that in mind and consider how we might be able to do that in the future.  

 

11)          Councillor Ollie Sykes - Modernising our recycling centre 

 

Concerning the loan for the capital works, a likely PWLB rate of 4.5% is indicated, giving a financing cost of £0.130m annually over 25 years. The current PWLB fixed rate is about 6% for infrastructure investment, so where does 4.5% come from and how would a 6% rate affect the business case? 

 

Response: Cllr Rowkins

 

The council bases project financing costs on its average borrowing rate, not individual rates at any one time. Whilst interest rates are high right now, the council manages its exposure to interest rates over a much longer period. The treasury management strategy is proactive and officers work closely with the council's treasury advisors to monitor rate movements and expectations closely. If it is considered more financially prudent, the council may use the Waste PFI reserve for this project, and that is detailed in the financial implications section. 

 

12)          Councillor Ollie Sykes - Cleaner City Centre 

 

A roving Field Officer role was piloted a few years ago with elements of similar remit to the City Centre Manager role. What lessons have been drawn from the Field Officer pilot, which was not continued? 

 

Response: Cllr Rowkins

 

Thank you Cllr Sykes.   

The Field Officers primarily acted as a responsive city wide regulatory and enforcement presence, liaising with services when issues required escalation. 

The City Centre Manager role is focussed more on improving the cleanliness and look and feel of the city centre by working proactively with teams across the Council and external partners. The first project, the ‘Station to the Sea’ test & learn pilot’ has received good feedback and the learning from this and other Council programmes is being used to inform future work.   

  

13)          Councillor Ollie Sykes - LA Bus Grant Delivery Plan 

 

Will there be any consideration of corridor strengthening of the Western Road /Church Road bus corridor which is seeing damage and degradation from heavy vehicles including buses? 

 

Response: Cllr Muten 

 

Thank you Cllr Sykes.  

Strengthening work is planned to take place on Western Road between Holland Road and Montpelier Road as part of this Local Authority Bus Grant capital delivery programme. This funding has been carried forward to 2026/27 so that works can be delivered as part of the red route project, subject to the outcome of the consultation. 

  

14)          Councillor Pete West - Modernising our recycling centre 

 

Yet again, another thin cabinet report that proposes significant investment over a long time period yet fails to present a full case; leaving obvious and major questions unaddressed. The financial implications give some indication of the loan and staff cost modelling, but don’t consider the income/cost of marketing additionally separated materials. It is only when we read the Risk Implications do we see mention that the investment may offer opportunities for additional income. There are, of course, no figures offered for what that income might be, whether it will be able to help address the further ‘pressure funding’, or whether it may potentially end up with further cost for reprocessing, storage or disposal of poor value materials. I don’t wish to seem cynical, but this report tells us too little to be confident the decision is being based on sound thinking. What are the full costings, please? 

 

Response: Cllr Rowkins

  

The full costings relating to the new resource requirement of the facility have been outlined in the financial implications section of the report, with consideration having been given to ensure that the investment represents value for money. The report sets out how the investment is required to ensure that the council meets its obligations and ambitions in relation to the recycling of additional materials.

While it is recognised that there would be potential opportunities for income generation, it is an emerging economic area with amounts that are, to be honest, quite difficult to quantify at present, although it is worth noting that the extended producer responsibility, or EPR, legislation and associated payments are designed precisely to help local authorities with the additional costs of recycling and waste management. We'll be working with residents this year and really going very hard on communication and messaging to improve, well reduce the amount of contamination we get, improve the uptake and participation with the now expanded recycling service and ultimately to improve the quality of the recycling that we collect and reducing contamination and maximising the potential for income from ensuring a good quality product. 

 

15)          Councillor Shanks - Community Safety and Crime Reduction Strategy 2026 - 2029 

 

Why was the opposition given no chance to scrutinise this important document, why do we have only administration councillors on this important partnership body. Will you consider giving other voices a seat.

 

Response: Cllr Daniel

 

As you know, the Community Safety Partnership is a statutory multi-agency partnership. So the members of the partnership are defined in law. It's not a political committee, and therefore attendance at that committee relates only to cabinet oversight of those issues. So that's the answer to that part of your question. In terms of scrutiny and member engagement, the strategy was supported by a widely advertised public consultation process which ran for seven weeks and I hope you participated in that. It was open to all residents but it was open to obviously elected members as well and all Councillors had the opportunities to submit comments, representations, and members were available, I mean, sorry, officers were available on request to provide briefings or to respond to enquiries for members should they have wished to engage in more detail. But I understand that wasn't requested during that period.

In terms of scrutiny, I welcome thematic scrutiny going forward of any of the themes in the community safety strategy. I think that would be great. However, rightly, that's not a matter for Cabinet, that's a matter for scrutiny itself and the chairs of scrutiny. So I hope that answers your questions.?  

 

16)          Councillor McLeay - Middle Street- Statutory Notices 

 

We wanted to ask for a comprehensive external and independent investigation. I'm glad to hear Councillor Taylor saying that this is a commitment that would be made. I'm just wondering if there's anything else that can be shared on that investigation at this point?

 

Response: Cllr Taylor

 

I think probably not in that it's been discussed with officers, and they will think about the best way to find someone that's independent and do it. Clearly, I will. It's something that Councillor Thomson as a ward councillor and Councillor Goldsmith have raised directly with me, and so we'll communicate obviously with you and ward Councillors and obviously parents that the next steps on that.  

 

17)             Councillor McLeay - Large Panel Systems Building and Estates Renewal 

 

What is the current annual availability of 3  and 4 bed council properties, and how does this compare with the projected need arising from decanting the LPS blocks? 

 

Response: Cllr Williams

 

Thank you for your question. In fact, Councillor Taylor and myself this morning, paid a visit to some homes that we've repurchased, rescued back from student HMOs, and are at this very moment being converted to 4 bedroom homes, and I'm absolutely delighted that were able to do this. So, this significantly adds to that stock. But more specifically for your question, across the eight blocks, the majority of households requiring rehouses are in need of one and two bed properties. In fact, some are going to be downsizing, and there is a small minority, of course requiring 3 and four bedroom homes. So, this means while the overall decamp demand is high, the projected need for three and four bed homes from those blocks is likely to be with the level of supply generated by our repurchasing and we are of course building more homes as well. So, I hope that answered your question. 

 

18)          Councillor McLeay - Large Panel Systems Building and Estates Renewal 

 

The financial implications highlight £0.4m for the Home Ownership Pact pilot, a £7.489m capital allocation for LPS-related work, and an anticipated loss of £2.9m in annual rental income across the eight LPS blocks. Given these pressures, can Cabinet explain how the HRA will absorb these costs while ensuring the programme remains financially sustainable? 

  

Response: Cllr Williams

 

A budget of £0.4m is allocated for a scheme for 2026/27.  This is revenue expenditure and has been highlighted in the budget as a service investment for 2026/27.  These costs are being managed within the HRA as part of a planned, long?term programme. The pilot is within a limited time period, the capital investment is phased, and the income impact has already been built into our financial planning. We will offset any pressures with ongoing underspends where they arise and savings and mitigation strategies. This allows the programme to proceed while keeping the HRA financially sustainable.