Agenda item - Written questions from members of the public

A list of public questions received by the due date of 10am on 13 July 2026 will be circulated separately as part of an addendum for the meeting.

 

1. Mark Cull asked:

 

The Government says it exists to make the country fairer, reduce poverty and help improve lives, and that it is committed to cutting the cost of living to people and families. We all know that sport promotes positive mental and physical health, reduces isolation and improves social health. Brighton & Hove City Council has contracted Game4Padel to operate padel in our city. Game4Padel is a private company with many wealthy shareholders, who, by the way, do not reside in our city. To play padel at Hove Park a court can cost up to £32, and at Withdean, up to £48. Compare this to hiring a tennis court for £9. These prices are unaffordable for a great many people in our city, so how does this contract align to the Administrations commitments to making the country fairer, improving lives and reducing the cost of living?

 

Response from Councillor Hewitt on behalf of Councillor Robins, Cabinet Member for Sports, Recreation & Libraries:

 

I'm responding on behalf of Councillor Robins, who is the portfolio holder. We agree that access to sport and physical activity should not be determined by someone's income. Sport plays a vital role in improving physical and mental health, reducing isolation and bringing communities together. And as a Labour administration, we want as many residents as possible to benefit from those opportunities. Game4Paddle has been awarded 2 separate contracts to provide Paddle facilities in the city through separate tendering processes, with only the Hove Beach Park contract awarded directly by Brighton and Hove City Council. They were successful in part because they offered good value alongside significant investment in new facilities and a commitment to growing participation in the sport.

The prices you referred to are at the upper end of the pricing structure. Courts can be booked from £5.25 per person at Hove Beach Park with membership. The higher prices that we've seen reflect very considerable investment made by the operator in the planning, design, and construction of the covered canopy, which enables year-round play and could be booked from £8.25. Since opening up Withdean, Game4Paddle has provided free taster sessions for local schools and has been working alongside our public health colleagues to explore ways of reducing financial barriers to participation. We welcome that approach and will continue to encourage in these initiatives such as school engagement, community sessions, and other opportunities that broaden access to the sport. While the tennis courts at Withdean remain generally cheaper than paddle courts, participation is our key measure of success. Despite there being twice as many tennis courts, more people have played paddle than tennis since April, reflecting the sport's growing popularity. We share your ambition of making sport more affordable and accessible. Where the council works with private operators, our expectation is that they not only provide high quality facilities, but also deliver meaningful social value for our residents. We will continue to work with Game4Paddle, as we do with all our leisure partners, to encourage affordable pricing where possible, expand opportunities for local communities, and ensure that investment in public leisure facilities to help create a healthier, fairer, and more active city for everyone. This Labour Administration is proud of the action we've taken since May 2023 to make sport and leisure more accessible, inclusive, and welcoming for everyone.

Mark Cull asked a supplementary question:

So I'm working on the assumption that when the contract was issued that the Council did its due diligence and that there was an equality impact assessment. So, I'm wondering through those processes, how many people in the city you determined would be financially excluded from playing paddle under the contract you agreed?

Councillor Hewitt replied:

I'll liaise with Councillor Robins and officers and we'll provide a written response to your supplementary question. Thank you.

 

2. Mike Sexton asked:

The grit bin is near the bottom of the Bazehill. This is not ideal as the main hazard is 100m further up the hill where the road bends. This area always get slippery when icy, vehicles brake and pedestrians cross here. The department responsible states "current location offers the most balanced distribution of properties along BazeHill,” which is untrue as if the bin was sited at the bend there would be approx 25 household level and above the bin and 18 below it. Please move the bin near the bend so we do not have to carry the grit uphill.

Response from Councillor Muten, Cabinet Member for Transport & City Infrastructure:

We will be reviewing the winter service plan in the coming months and this will include a review of grit bins and will take into account your suggestion as part of this review process. Your input is really useful to help us find the very best locations so that the bins can be effective as possible. Winter grit bins are placed in communities for local residents to use when most needed and feedback from residents as where best to place really does make our winter service provision better. So thank you for your proposal. We will certainly take that into consideration and very much welcome the feedback from yourselves and local communities across the city. Thank you.

Mike Sexton asked a supplementary question:

Hopefully someone will tell me what the decision will be and I hope you do move it. It's a simple move and could be cost free because I'm perfectly happy to move the bin myself.

Councillor Muten replied:

Thank you for your kind offer. I would suggest, for probably health and safety reasons, that we did that for you, because if it's full of grit, it would be very heavy. But we certainly recognise your enthusiasm and seriousness about this, and we will review this and come back to you with a clear answer of where we can best put it.

 

3. Councillor Fishleigh on behalf of John Parsons asked:

I live in Ovingdean next to a plot of BHCC-owned landed which has recently been identified for disposal. The boundary between this plot and my property is the wall of our home. We need maintenance access here for roof and double height windows requiring scaffolding. Current drawings indicate a planned child play area looking into our bedrooms! I am generally pro development but these plans will surely create problems for everybody. Would BHCC consider an offer to buy approximately 270 sqm prior to the entire plot going on the open market? I can offer £38,000.

Response from Councillor Taylor, Cabinet Member for Finance & City Regeneration:

Always like responding to questions on Ovingdean as the only native Ovingdeaner in the chamber. I'd also love to just say deal and get the cash here and now, but the more proper answer is officers will absolutely consider it via agents, reasonable proposal, they're looking at it already and aware of it.

More broadly, I'm glad that John noted in his question that he's pro-housing development, as are we, but obviously housing development has to make sense in the local area, has to make sense with adjoining properties. So we'll look at it and respond to John. Thank you.

 

4. Daniel Rue asked:

 

This council set out its Accessible city strategy back in 2023. A specific focus of the strategy was to work closely with the disabled community in Brighton, specifically through the Disability Panel. Does the council believe the current approach is living up to standards and commitments set out in the original strategy and does it believe all relevant voices in the city are being heard as we enter the final few years of the plan?

 

Response from Councillor Alexander, Cabinet Member for Communities, Equalities, Public Health & Adult Social Care:

 

Thank you, Mr. Rue, for coming with your question today. I can assure you that this Labour administration takes accessibility for our disabled residents really seriously. In fact, when we took over the administration in May 23, one of the very first things we did was to reinstate a disabled parking bay in Gardner Street in the North Laine, which the previous administration had taken away, which had left a disabled resident unable to leave her home.

 

So, the Accessible City Strategy is founded on the principle of nothing about us without us, placing disabled people at the heart of its delivery. The Council remains committed to ensuring that deaf, disabled and neurodiverse residents play a central part in shaping, monitoring and reviewing the strategy.

 

In response to feedback and following consultation with members of the Disability Panel and the wider reference group, the Council introduced a single accessible city strategy advisory group, which brings together strategic insight, lived experience and community expertise. The advisory group is

independently chaired by community organisations and it is designed to ensure ongoing involvement, challenge and scrutiny. Its terms of reference specifically recognise and promote the voices of deaf people, people with sensory impairments, neurodivergent people, people with mental health conditions, people with learning disabilities, and those living with long-term health conditions. They also include a commitment to regularly review the group structure to ensure no community is left out. This approach reflects the original commitments of the strategy and provides a strong platform for inclusive engagement. We remain committed to acting on feedback, explaining decisions and continually reviewing arrangements to ensure that a broad range of disabled voices are presented, heard and valued.

 

Daniel Rue asked a supplementary question:

 

I appreciate your comments and I know your comment about Gardner Street.

The basis of my question was actually after speaking with a friend and neighbour in the North Laine area who has a similar situation right now where they struggle to get out of their homes because of the parking. So perhaps that's something we could connect with after to talk about and see how we can support them?

 

Councillor Alexander replied:

 

Yes, please do get in contact with me and we'll look into the issue because I haven't been aware of this before now, so thank you.

 

5. Laura King asked:

 

Under BHCC Interim Chief Financial Officer, John Hooton, the cost for the King Alfred redevelopment project rose sharply from £47m to £65m in September 2025. Now a new permanent CFO 151 Officer - Elizabeth Griffiths - has been appointed, is Ms Griffiths instigating an urgent and independent review of budget and costs for this project?

 

Response from Councillor Taylor, Cabinet Member for Finance & City Regeneration:

 

Thank you Laura for your important question. So, all projects are subject to business cases and in particular very large projects like this one. They're also subject to business case reviews, which is really important because obviously things change in the overall construction environment, the borrowing environment, etc. And this one is no different and I can confirm that the business case is currently being reviewed.

 

Laura King asked a supplementary question:

 

Given that the proposed King Alfred Sports Hub would be built on Council-owned land, yet it is estimated to cost £65 million, around three times the cost of the comparable New Alliance Leisure facility, despite being identified by the Council as a high-risk project, and with the final price acknowledged as potentially higher, how can the Council demonstrate that borrowing the necessary funds represents best value for public benefit is it affordable to repay and will not become another financial disaster even larger than the i360?

 

Councillor Taylor replied:

 

Well look, I think the first thing to say is building big projects, building big infrastructure costs money and we acknowledge that and it is a large amount of money, of course it is. When we compare it to the i360, I think it's a very interesting comparison because on this side of the chamber, we take very seriously our responsibilities on public money and when we're investing it.

And the things that we're thinking about investing money in is big housing schemes to tackle the housing crisis and leisure facilities that the public want and need, not big towers in the sky that go nowhere. So, we're pretty happy with the overall approach. That said, as I said, we have to keep looking at the business case as it develops. Overall, my sense is that the city want a top class leisure facility, that's what we want and that's what we're getting on with.

 

6. Chris Davis asked:

 

The Council recently published its Circular Economy Action Plan for 2026 2035. This Plan lists 'Brighton AI', a network encouraging the adoption of AI technologies across the City, as a 'delivery partner' within the Plan. Given what is widely known about the range of environmental impacts from the development and use of AI - including with regards to energy and water demands, and reliance on extractive industries throughout supply chains - this proposed partnership would severely compromise the credibility of the Council's circular economy ambitions, and broader Net Zero strategy. Can the council please explain the decision to include Brighton AI within this Plan - including supplying any evidence as to how Brighton AI will 'advance circular economy practices' - and clarify whether any consideration was given to environmental impacts when including the group within the Plan.

 

Response from Councillor Rowkins, Cabinet Member for Net Zero and Environment Services:

 

The Circular Economy Route Map and Action Plan recognises that innovation will be essential to accelerating the transition to a more circular, sustainable and resilient economy. And for this reason, it identifies a broad range of partners and sectors that can contribute knowledge, expertise and innovation, including

businesses, universities, community organisations, and yes, the city's digital and technology sector.

 

The route map specifically highlights the importance of strengthening innovation partnerships and engaging with Brighton and Hove's growing digital and tech economy to support the development of new circular business models, improve resource efficiency, and reduce waste.

 

The inclusion of organisations from the digital and tech sectors reflects this wider objective. It does not represent an endorsement of any particular technology, and nor does it alter the route map’s core purpose, which is to keep materials in use for longer, reduce reliance on virgin resources, and support the city's Net Zero ambitions, particularly around scope 3, incidentally, which is so often ignored.

 

Environmental sustainability remains at the heart of this route map and the plan is focused on reducing waste, tackling scope 3 emissions, supporting resource efficiency, promoting economic activity that contributes to a more regenerative economy. We will continue to work with a wide range of partners where they can support the delivery of our circular economy and Net Zero objectives.

 

Chris Davis asked a supplementary question:

 

I wondered if you could maybe speak to the process for selecting Brighton AI specifically for inclusion in this plan? Was there a kind of open process for interested organisations working within tech and innovation to come forward? Were there existing relationships in place?

 

I appreciate some of this may not be for sort of public discussion, but if you're able to speak to kind of how you arrived at a decision, I guess, to include them within the plan, that would be great.

 

Councillor Rowkins replied:

 

The process of identifying sort of partners in the delivery of the route map and action plan was really a sort of very broad one, a very broad approach of like, who have we got in the city who we think can make a contribution to this agenda? It's not an exhaustive list. I'm sure more partners will become obvious as time goes by, nor is it baked in stone. So, you know, it's intended to be,

you know, it's a very clear action plan in terms of it has very tangible sort of delivery and sort of measurable objectives as part of it, but it's not set in stone, if that makes sense.

 

It will be something that we continue to work on over the coming years. But I'm happy to pick up any concerns that you've got specifically and certainly to take on any suggestions that you or anyone else has in terms of other partner organisations that might help us with this agenda.

 

7. Tony Greenstein asked:

 

Parent carers are unanimously opposed to closing Wellington House. However it is spun there is a lack of evidence for safe alternatives and a failure to model future demand. It is also abundantly clear that the alternatives on offer do not have the capacity to admit more clients.’ This proposal is driven by financial considerations. The Council’s alternative providers are more of a hope and a prayer. Voluntary/private sector organisations are notorious for folding. It is essential that the Council has at least one drop-in-centre. When the Belgrave Centre was closed a decade ago we were promised that Wellington House would be a permanent alternative. That promise is in danger of being broken. In the event of a failure of the alternative providers the Council will be left with no fall-back position. Will the Cabinet agree to abide by the views of parent carers in the consultation?

 

Response from Councillor Alexander, Cabinet Member for Communities, Equalities, Public Health & Adult Social Care:

 

Can I start by saying that, yes, there has been the closure of some council-run services for adults with learning disabilities over the years, but none of the independent organisations that run day opportunities for adults with learning disabilities have closed down.

 

So, before I answer your specific question, I want to begin by recognising the emotions attached to the proposals for all those who are connected to Wellington House, especially those who attend and their parents, families and carers. I fully understand that the proposal has caused some anxiety and uncertainty, particularly for families who value the relationships, routines, and support that have developed over the years.

 

No final decision has yet been made on the future of Wellington House. For 12 weeks the Council has carried out a consultation with people who use the service, their families and carers, staff, advocacy organisations, the Parent and Carers Council, the Learning Disability Partnership Board, and day opportunity providers. The purpose of that consultation is to ensure that Cabinet

has a clear understanding of the views, concerns, risks, alternative proposals, and equality impacts before any decision is taken.

 

We have heard the concerns raised about the capacity, suitability and sustainability of alternative provision. These concerns will be reflected in the report to Cabinet. There are currently a number of other providers operating in the city, and following a recent commissioning exercise, we will also see some new providers operating in our city in the very near future. If a closure is

agreed, then Cabinet will expect that transition to alternative providers would be planned on the needs and preferences of the individual based on updated assessments of their needs and that those needs are safely and effectively met through the appropriate provision for each individual. This includes considering

continuation of care, relationships, transport, personal care, accessibility, specialist support, and the importance of respite for family carers.

 

So, in answer to your specific question, I know that the views of parent carers, where their adult children live at home, are that they would prefer for Wellington House to stay open. These views will not be the sole information that forms the decision by Cabinet. Cabinet will consider all the evidence before it. The views of parent carers, the people who use the service, staff advocates, providers, officers’ advice, equality impacts, financial information, and any alternative proposals that were submitted through the consultation. The views of parent carers are extremely important and will be given proper weight and Cabinet will make its decision based on the full range of evidence.

 

Tony Greenstein asked a supplementary question:

 

I asked a very simple question, whether you would abide by the views of those who are most aware and most expert in the needs of adults with learning disabilities. I take it that the answer is no. You said that no voluntary providers have closed. Sussex Autistic Centre was one which did close in the recent past, so that is simply wrong. You said in the Argus on the 2nd  March, “it's not just about making a saving, it's an opportunity to assess what provision people with learning disabilities and their families would like to see offered.” That's like saying that the best way to make peace is to go to war. It's Orwellian in what you are saying. The fact is that your saving will be a loss.

 

Well, my question is, in the document Section 5, Market Costs and Benchmarking in December 25, you said that just two out of the six providers have the skills and experience to meet the needs of the nine people with complex needs. These are ambito and aspirations. Isn't it the case that when we see a failure to meet the needs of these people, there will be absolutely nothing that the Council can do about it?

 

Councillor Alexander replied:

 

So, what you read was written in December 25, part of the consultation is about talking to the other providers and asking the providers what they need to do in order to expand because provision won't expand unless there's a reason to do so.

 

So, this has all been part of the consultation which will all be covered in the report that's being currently written. So, at the time of writing in December, then there were places only available at the two of the providers, but things have changed since then. And as I say, part of the consultation was talking to providers and also during the recent commissioning process, we've also attracted new providers to the city and that will all be included in the report. So, and as I said before, we would not make the decision to close Wellington House,

unless there is provision available for every single one of the 21 attendees that currently attend Wellington House.

 

8. Kate Sawyer asked:

 

The Council's Local SEND Reform Plan places strong emphasis on earlier identification, expert support and improving outcomes for children with SEND. Given the widely recognised lessons arising from the failures of the Tavistock Gender Identity Development Service, particularly regarding the vulnerability of autistic children experiencing gender-related distress, can the Council explain how those lessons have informed the development of its SEND Reform Plan, including workforce training and the 'Experts at Hand' model?

 

Response from Councillor Daniel, Cabinet Member for Children, Families and Youth Services:

 

I would just point out that the Cass review was a review of specific health services and health interventions, which were designed specifically around trans and non-binary children and whilst that did include consideration of the needs of autistic young people in relation to the assessment and support they needed in that context, it's not directly relevant to the delivery of SEN support in education more broadly. Having said that, clearly a lack of access to that any health services or inaccessible health services will impact a child's education, whether that's around adequate mental health support that's accessible and tailored to the needs of neurodivergent children.

 

Dentistry is a huge challenge for many neurodivergent children, and that again can impact on attendance and ability to focus in education, and where relevant, of course, gender identity support as well. We will always raise those challenges and any barriers that we observe that are impacting anyone's education, but particularly SEND education, with health partners.

 

Another theme that we considered in the strategy, which does have some overlap with that report, is the consideration of the experiences of autistic girls in particular, who have seen their access needs and access to services overlooked historically due to their presentation. And we still as a society, but also as a Council and councils around the country, I would say, all sorts of public services are catching up on that understanding of the female autistic experience. As the parent of an autistic daughter, I do not believe I'm guilty of overlooking or missing the presentation of autism in girls. And I'm pleased that I believe that our schools, including the high provision, very much understand that gendered presentation and the needs, including the fact that some of the leaders in those environments are indeed women who are neurodivergent themselves. So I think that should give you some confidence there.

 

More specifically, under our SEND reform plan, we are employing specialist teachers of autism and widened neurodivergence to support our education settings all the way from birth, so in nursery settings, throughout to ensure that our education is fully accessible to neurodivergent children. And those teachers are part of the Experts at Hand programme. So that's where there's a connection to that. We expect our schools to take a holistic approach to children and whether they have a SEND need or not, to work as appropriate to ensure that young people who are trans or think they may be trans are able to access their full education safely and happily, as we would expect for all children and for specific accommodations to be considered on a case by case basis, balancing a number of considerations.

 

Kate Sawyer asked a supplementary question:

 

Many of the children affected by the WellBN failures were autistic or otherwise vulnerable. The SEND reform plan places great emphasis on partnership with families and earlier identification. What has changed within the Council to ensure that when parents raise safeguarding concerns about vulnerable children, those concerns are treated with professional curiosity and potential evidence requiring exploration rather than being before they have been properly examined?

 

Councillor Daniel replied:

 

Council did not run the WellBN service, nor do I see that as in any way relevant to our SEND reform plan, which is what this question is about. However, I am confident in our safeguarding governance, complaints procedures and the external validation of our procedures. And so, I hope that answers the question, even though it wasn't connected to the SEND Reform Plan.

 

9. Sarah Fitzgerald asked:

 

Hollingdean currently has a single bus route, the number 20 which recently replaced the 50, a decision many residents were not happy about. Comparable areas nearby, such as Preston Park and Hollingbury, have multiple routes serving them, giving residents a fallback when a service is disrupted. This is not true in Hollingdean, an area which includes neighbourhoods with some of the highest levels of deprivation in the city, where residents are less likely to own a car. The council's own data shows Hollingdean and Fiveways has one of the highest concentrations of young children in the city, and many families rely heavily on public transport to get around. When the council next reviews its Bus Service Improvement Plan, will it commit to reassessing the needs of single bus service communities like Hollingdean to ensure that no community in Brighton and Hove is disadvantaged by a lack of suitable public transport?

 

Response from Councillor Muten, Cabinet Member for Transport & City Infrastructure:

 

Thank you, Sarah, for your question and feedback regarding bus services in Hollingdean. We agree that bus services need to provide essential connections for the Hollingdean area, for communities across the city. We are passionate about improving bus services and know how vital buses can be for families, for children, for low-income households. You raise a very important point and we're listening. Quite simply, fares are too high, especially in the cost of living crisis. We welcome yesterday's announcement by Labour Government to cap fares at £2. This is going to make a big difference.

 

We know that the local monopoly private operator Brighton Hove Buses took the commercial decision to withdraw the routes 18 and 50 to replace these with new route 20 connecting Hollingdean and Queen's Park via the city centre. These changes took effect from the 14th June and there are some positives such as a better connection to Brighton Station and Brighton Hove Buses have advised that these changes are intended to improve reliability, support long term viability of services in their view, and provide new cross city connections.

 

As a city council, we could not step in and cover the cost, especially at relatively short notice, within this year's budget. However, we appreciate any change to the public transport network is a sensitive matter and residents, passengers, really do matter. This is why I very much welcome our successful grant application to the Labour Government to review bus franchising, not just this city, but the Sussex and Brighton Strategic Authority Area. Bus franchising will give residents a greater say and enable this Council and the Strategic Authority to fund less profitable routes and better service for people, for all, people before profit. So thank you for your feedback. We are listening. We do want to hear from residents how changes from the bus operators impact communities such as yours. The Council will consider needs of community across the city, including areas such as Hollingdean. With greater governance options, we will seek to implement improvements so we can have a bus service that serves all communities and a bus network that will significantly help address us tackle inequalities across the city.

 

Sarah Fitzgerald asked a supplementary question:

 

Thank you for that response. Just picking up on what you were saying about how bus services need to connect people. One of the things that residents asked for was a connection to Lewes Road Sainsbury's, and that has been implemented, but only in the late mornings and early afternoons on weekdays. I'm wondering if it would be possible for you to do something along the lines of what you did with the 1X to increase the frequency and make it something that actually works for working families?

 

Councillor Muten replied:

 

Yes, we are willing to look at that in the next piece of review. The 1X, we did put some kickstart money to enable that at the beginning. This quite late notice decision by Brighton and Hove Buses has meant we're not able to this financial year to step in and fund that connection.

However, I do agree that's something we'd very happily look at and very happy to look at that in the context of a different governance model as we go forward so we can ensure that our communities are better connected and not just based on commercial reasons, but for what communities work with so we can balance the costs within either franchise or better governance model to enable that, thank you.

 

 

10.  Robert Pickup asked:

 

On behalf of Hanover Action, Brighton & Hove has declared a climate and biodiversity emergency, and the Government's January 2026 national security assessment concludes that nature loss is now a systemic threat to the UK's food, water, health and economic security. The council's own Climate and Nature Action Plan does not yet reflect this urgency and lacks the measurable biodiversity targets and performance indicators such a threat demands. Given the council's duty to protect residents, will the administration commit to supporting and promoting viewings of the People’s Emergency Briefing film across Brighton & Hove, especially for council officers and in Brighton & Hove schools, so that those helping deliver the plan and the generation who will be most affected by it, fully understand the risks it is meant to address?

 

Response from Councillor Rowkins, Cabinet Member for Net Zero and Environment Services:

 

Having attended the first screening of the People's Emergency Briefing here in the city myself, I can certainly attest to its powerful messaging, crucial at a time when progress is under threat from a narrative that seeks to deliberately deny

the unambiguous data and evidence that we have before us, much of which is presented, as we say, so powerfully in that film.

 

We certainly support screenings of the film and I personally urge anyone who hasn't seen it to see it. The advice of the filmmakers is that it's only suitable for audiences of age 16 and over, but if any schools and colleges were minded to show it to appropriate cohorts, then that is certainly something we would support. It's worth pointing out that we can't require schools to show it. That is quite rightly in the gift of the schools, but we would certainly support it if any schools or colleges chose to do so. I'm looking at the possibility of an internal screening, but I do want to reassure you that as a Council that has been recognised nationally with the highest possible rating for its climate leadership for the last three years on the trot, we do certainly fully understand the scale of the challenge.

 

Robert Pickup asked a supplementary question:

 

Considering Councils such as Liverpool have screened the film themselves rather than just supporting screenings, would you consider exploring how we can allow that to happen in Brighton and Hove, considering that we want to remain at that top level in comparison to other councils?

 

Councillor Rowkins replied:

 

The short answer is yes, I am interested in looking at local screenings. I think, just as an aside, I suppose something that I'm particularly interested in is how do we get the film or the core messages from the film in front of people who are least likely to voluntarily attend a screening? So, I think that's always one of the dangers here, isn't it, that we do these screenings and people who already are very well interested in this policy area come to see it, and that's great. You know, it's great to all coalesce and renew our energy in terms of what we can do. But I think getting this stuff out into the broader communities and the broader normalising it, not just as standalone climate action, but as climate action that's properly woven into all of the things that we do across the economy, I think is where I would like us to get to. That's obviously very complicated, but I would just add that as an aside.

 

11. Mariangela Vitolo asked:

 

The new 3X service is a welcome addition to Brighton & Hove’s public transport network, improving connectivity and encouraging more people to travel by bus. However, residents have raised concerns about routing the service through Trafalgar Street, given its importance within the North Laine Conservation Area and the constraints of this historic street. The recent collision involving a bus and a shopfront has heightened concerns about pedestrian safety, businesses and property. How will the Council work with residents, Brighton & Hove Buses, heritage organisations and other stakeholders to monitor the route, address any safety concerns and protect the character of this important area, while ensuring the continued success of this valuable new service?

 

Response from Councillor Muten, Cabinet Member for Transport & City Infrastructure:

 

Positive welcome for the new 3X Cross City Express Service and specific concerns. Firstly, our thoughts are with the everyone affected by the recent incident on Trafalgar Street. We thank Emergency Services and the Brighton and Hove Buses Response Team for their professionalism in dealing with this situation. We take the safety of the public very seriously. Council officers have engaged with the local community and raised residents concerns directly with Brighton and Hove Buses, who operate the 3X and the 20 routes through the North Laine. We continue to work closely with the bus operator to understand the circumstances of this incident, identify any contributing factors, lessons learned and consider safety measures.

 

The 3X was introduced in September 2025 through the City Bus Service Improvement Plan to provide a fast, frequent cross-city connection, linking communities with jobs, education, healthcare, communities, transport hubs. Once we recognise local concerns, reliable bus services play an important role in reducing congestion and supporting access to one of the city's busiest and most vibrant areas. We are therefore considering this incident carefully and working with Brighton and Hove Buses to ensure any appropriate action is taken.

 

It is also worth noting that since its launch, the 3X has completed around 17,000 journeys on this route without incident, which I hope provides some reassurance. However, we will be carefully reviewing the circumstances of this incident, the report from Brighton and Hove Buses, and be working with the bus company and the local community to ensure we have a safer bus service in Trafalgar Street.

 

Mariangela Vitolo asked a supplementary question:

 

Thank you for your answer. I would like to know, please, if the Council has carried out a new road safety audit and a quality impact assessment of the area?

 

Councillor Muten replied:

 

We understand there is an investigation being assessed at the moment by the bus company in principle. We're working closely with them. We need to find the facts of this, but I do agree an understanding of the safety of this street is very important and we are prepared to look at a road safety audit and also consider what the contribution factors might have been to this incident. Thank you.

 

12. Lambros Fatsis asked:

 

What will the Council do to honour its Council of Sanctuary status by placing restrictions of banning the march of anti-immigration groups through the city?

 

Response from Councillor Alexander, Cabinet Member for Communities, Equalities, Public Health & Adult Social Care:

 

Brighton and Hove City Council is proud of its Council of Sanctuary status and remains committed to being an anti-racist council that champions inclusion, equality, equity, and community cohesion. Whilst the Council does not have the power to prohibit lawful protest, we have been clear that demonstrations targeting migrants and refugee communities can have significant impacts on community confidence, safety and the feeling of wellbeing.

 

Ahead of the Ban the Boats demonstration in June, the Council did work extensively with Sussex Police, community organisations and faith groups, including through the One Voice Partnership. Sussex Police attended community briefings to hear concerns directly and the Council ensured that concerns raised by residents and partner organisations were shared with the police throughout the planning process. And then after the demonstration, the Council continued to support communities through a community feedback session with Sussex Police, again through the One Voice Partnership.

 

Communities described their concerns about intimidation, fear and the impact of repeated demonstrations on community cohesion, particularly amongst minority ethnic, faith, migrant and LBGTQI+ communities. In response to proposals for further marches, as you may have heard already this afternoon, the Leader of the Council, Councillor Sankey, wrote to Sussex Police earlier this month highlighting the strong concerns of residents, community organisations, and elected members. She asked the Sussex Police to carefully consider the impact of repeated protests and the concerns that Brighton and Hove is being targeted because of its diversity and inclusivity, and whether the police were using all their available powers under the Public Order Act and other relevant legislation had been fully considered. The Council will consider to stand alongside all our communities, uphold our City of Sanctuary principles, and we will continue to work with partners to promote a safe, welcoming and cohesive city for everyone.

 

Lambros Fatsis asked a supplementary question:

 

I was actually present at the One Voice meeting and I didn't hear anything reassuring from Sussex Police. But I suppose my follow up question would be, how does the council not have the power to ban such meetings when historically that has been the case in the past? For example, in 1979 when Ealing Council decided to ban the National Front from holding meetings in Southall.

 

Councillor Alexander replied:

 

I think that actually needs a legal answer, which I don't have in my head. Can I get back to you and respond once I've got the legal definition on what powers we actually do have?