Agenda item - Written questions from Councillors.

Councillors written questions as listed will be taken as read along with the written answer at the meeting.  The Councillor asking the question may ask one relevant supplementary question which shall be put and answered without discussion.  One other supplementary question may be asked by any other Member of the Council which shall also be put and answered without discussion (a separate addendum with the written answers will be circulated at the meeting).

 

44.1       The Mayor reminded the council that councillors’ questions and the replies from the appropriate councillor were now taken as read by reference to the list included in the addendum, which had been circulated as detailed below.

 

44.2       (a) Councillor Fryer asked:

         

          “What measures did the council take to ensure that school closures were kept to a minimum during the cold weather and to address the impact this has on children and young people's education and their families?”

 

44.3       Councillor Brown replied,

         

          “Our first priority during any period of severe weather conditions is the safety and well being of the children in the City.  The CYPT updates and issues emergency closure advice, including guidance on how to deal with severe weather conditions, to all schools annually in the autumn term.

 

          The CYPT worked closely with Environment to enable the schools to open as soon as possible during the spell of extreme weather conditions but ultimately the final decision rests with individual head teachers.  The Schools Futures Director was identified as the contact point for schools and he prioritised schools to ensure the most effective use of limited resources in difficult circumstances.  The Head of Highways Operations liaised with the CYPT so that roads and pavements serving schools were cleared as soon as possible and the CYPT through its contractors cleared school paths and car parks.

 

          Secondary schools were identified as the top priority and supported to enable all AS and GCSE students to take their exams at their school and at the nationally allocated time. This was closely followed by Special Schools then Primary schools.

 

          Head teachers stayed in contact with students and their families throughout the difficult weather period informing them of arrangements made for examinations and helping families overcome any logistical problems.

 

          Schools in general kept parents informed of their arrangements through school websites, text messaging and local media.  Many schools put work for pupils on their websites to ensure that the disruption to learning was minimised.

 

          This support was highlighted in a letter to the Argus when Hove Park was commended for staying in direct contact with 6^th form students and ensuring that students received the support they needed during the exam period.”

 

44.4       Councillor Fryer asked a supplementary question, “Thank you Councillor Brown for your reply and it’s great to hear that teachers and schools are doing everything they can, I’m sure they are, to prevent school closures, so this question wasn’t meant in any way to have a go at schools. 

 

I completely understand the pressures that school staff and other services are under and, of course, it’s fair to say that we aren’t used to the snowy weather we’ve been having recently, but in severe weather conditions medical staff have to report often to their nearest hospital and this used to be the case in schools, where teachers used to report to their nearest school.

 

My question is, in order to address parents’ concerns over school closures will the Administration undertake to look at re-establishing this policy in the future for Brighton & Hove schools?”

 

44.5       Councillor Brown replied, “Yes, it is something that I’m sure we’ll look at but it is quite a difficult thing to organise, because you could end up with an awful lot of staff in one school and still no staff in another, so there’s no simple answer to that. 

 

We did work very closely with Environment to clear the roads into the schools, particularly the secondary schools, as you know they were having exams, and then we concentrated on the special schools.  Everything was done to try and get the staff into school and we did open the schools as soon as possible but it’s something that we will look at in more detail.”

 

 

44.6       (b) Councillor Kitcat asked,

 

          "Will Cllr G Theobald make clear to this meeting and colleagues in East Sussex County Council that this city has no wish to ship its waste to landraise sites in the East Sussex countryside?"

 

44.7       Councillor Theobald replied,

 

          “As a waste planning authority we are obliged to make provision in our plans for viable and deliverable facilities for dealing with all waste streams. To this end we will aim to make provision within the city for facilities to handle and treat waste generated in the city but it is unlikely that these would be sufficient to handle and treat all the waste the city generates.  However, I would like to make it clear that our priorities are to promote recycling and other sustainable methods of waste management – landraise would be very much a last resort.”

 

44.8       Councillor Kitcat asked a supplementary question, “Well, I’m disappointed that Councillor Theobald won’t rule out landraise sites in our precious countryside but I am delighted that he does have a priority in recycling.  Recycling is important but what about waste reduction which is part of Government policy.  What progress is the Councillor making on measures such as the much feted Supermarket Summit and other such actions long promised by the Conservative Administration?”

 

44.9       Councillor Theobald replied, “Well, I wouldn’t expect Councillor Kitcat to be fully satisfied with my answer.  I do know that you have met with officers recently and put some of your views across and you’ve had a useful meeting.  We have a Waste Plan which will be coming before the March Cabinet meeting, the full Cabinet meeting, and I am sure that some of the points that you make there will be answered.”

 

 

44.10    (c) Councillor Kitcat asked,

 

          “Does Councillor Theobald agree that recycling municipal waste is the cheapest way of handling waste for this council and that greater rates of recycling can play an important part in improving this council's financial situation in the face of the extremely low central government grant?”

 

44.11    Councillor Theobald replied.

 

          “Yes.”

         

44.12    Councillor Kitcat asked a supplementary question, “Can I say what a new and refreshing feeling it is to have Councillor Theobald agree with me so wholeheartedly.  When will he make clear his ambitions for waste management in this city?  He has just referred to the waste strategy but he has yet to include other Members in consulting on this.  Is this a final draft?  When will we be graced with a version of it, to see it?”

 

44.13    Councillor Theobald replied, “I would have thought that you would know the answer to that one because I’ve already said that the waste strategy, which has been widely consulted will be presented to Cabinet in March and you’ve already had a discussion, I understand, with officers which is good, so in March there will be the item and you’ll then be able to make further points.”

 

 

44.14    (d) Councillor Kitcat asked,

 

          “Can Councillor Smith explain why he responded to a public question on the Brighton 'O' at our last council meeting by saying that this Council was 'dealing directly' with Brighton Sailing Club yet the club report no such talks are happening?”

 

44.15    Councillor Smith replied,

 

          “Thank you Councillor Kitcat for your question on the Brighton 'O'.  The Sailing Club have been advised in writing that the planning application for the Brighton 'O' has been deferred for further consideration.  The concerns of the Sailing Club will be taken into account in the determination of the planning application insofar as they are relevant to planning matters.  Additionally, the council will also take these concerns into account when considering its position as landowner in discussions with the promoters of the Brighton ‘O’.”

 

44.16    Councillor Kitcat asked a supplementary question, “I’m afraid I believe there’s some terminological inexactitude at play here.  As steward of our seafront and landlords for the Sailing Club, where I believe we have just signed a new 25 year lease, Councillor Smith said he would be dealing directly with the Club.  He said that in our last full Council meeting, yet he hasn’t done so, so when will he make good on that promise?”

 

44.17    Councillor Smith replied, “I didn’t say I personally would be dealing with the Sailing Club and I understand that they’ve had a meeting with Councillor Geoffrey Theobald’s last Cabinet meeting to discuss things there but lots of the issues are planning and landlords’ ones which I don’t interfere with the landlords’ ones and I don’t interfere with the planning ones.”

 

 

44.18    (e) Councillor Hamilton asked,

 

          “On 18^th January 2010 the Leader of the Council’s current Forward Plan listed a key decision relating to Hangleton Bottom as being Key Decision CAB 5498:

 

            “to seek agreement to the marketing approach and the future use of the site.”

 

          This decision was marked ”deferred” and had been marked as such on successive Forward Plans since it first appeared on the Forward Plan in October 2008.  In the interest of openness and transparency will the Leader of the Council explain why a report went to the Central Services CMM on January 18^th seeking agreement to the marketing approach and future use of the site without having been listed in advance on her publicly available Forward Plan?”

 

44.19    Councillor Mears replied,

 

          The decision in the Hangleton Bottom report taken to Central Services Cabinet Member Meeting (CS CMM) on the 18^th January is not a key decision and not required to be on the forward plan.  This is an exploratory report giving an early warning and seeking permission to test the property market to explore what interest is out in the open market for the redevelopment of this strategic council owned site.  It does not have a significant impact on 2 or more wards or involve a significant expenditure or saving of £500k.  The decision could have proceeded under officers’ delegated powers.

 

          Once we have the results of this marketing exercise we will review and analyse the options, consult with the necessary parties as set out under our property protocol and prepare a detailed report for Cabinet to consider the options on the strategic potential future uses on the site.  This will be a key decision affecting more than 2 wards with financial implications over £500k.

 

          In the interests of being open and transparent we took an early report to CS CMM giving notice of our intention to explore and test the market regarding on this site and prepare a further substantial report for Cabinet consideration.  The key decision regarding the future use of the site is to be taken by Cabinet and as such the Forward Plan wording will be adhered to.”

 

44.20    Councillor Hamilton asked a supplementary question, “I would like to thank Councillor Mears for her reply.  In it she states that at the Central Services Cabinet Member Meeting on 18 January the report was, I quote: ‘seeking permission to test the property market’.  The answer also expresses ‘our intention to explore and test the market’ and states that ‘Forward Plan wording will be adhered to.’ 

 

In the Forward Plan Key Decision CAB 5498 includes the wording: ‘to seek agreement to the marketing approach’.  Has your Administration already agreed to a marketing approach as proposed in the Forward Plan or not?”

 

44.21    Councillor Mears replied, “I will respond to Councillor Hamilton, although he has actually had two goes at this in the CMM and at the Call-In.  No, there’s been no proposals, Councillor Hamilton, that’s why it’s going out to the market testing.  I can understand why you are so exercised about this and I do realise, you know, and particularly as Councillor Carden has handed in a petition. 

 

The history around it is that the Borough Plan actually took ten years to fruition under the previous Administration.  Councillor Hamilton as you know you were the Chairman of Planning and the site was identified, the CMM report is very clear that it’s going out for a marketing exercise.  I don’t know how many times you want that put a different way. 

 

There obviously is a problem, Councillor Hamilton, around this with your Group but bearing in mind you identified the Borough Plan in the waste strategy, you put it in, you had no problem with it.  I was quite surprised, actually, Councillor to see a petition from Councillor Carden.  If Councillor Carden, you know, felt so exercised that he had to present a petition, I am so surprised we haven’t received one in the past from Councillor Hamilton on this. 

 

The legal advice is very clear, the report is very clear from CMM and let me make it very clear today, Councillor Hamilton, this is going out to a marketing exercise.”

 

44.22    Councillor Alford asked a further supplementary question, “Could Councillor Mears confirm for me exactly when the Hangleton Bottom site was allocated for waste facilities in the Brighton & Hove Local Plan and the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Waste Local Plan?”

 

44.23    Councillor Mears replied, “I am happy to give some history around it.  The Plan was agreed in 2005.  As I said earlier the previous Administration with Councillor Mitchell as the Chair of Environment, Councillor Hamilton exactly was Chairman of Planning. 

 

I’m just really surprised there’s obviously something that we’re missing here and I’m not quite sure what it is.  There is obviously a real issue with the Labour Councillors.  They had no problem identifying a site and putting in a waste strategy, no problem at all.  I haven’t heard in this Council Chamber, at Cabinet, any report, any written question around this since 2005, nothing at all.  Now all of a sudden there’s all this noise and heat. 

 

Now there obviously is an issue for the Labour Councillors but I think they need to recognise it took ten years to develop the Borough Plan for the waste strategy, ten years, when they were in Administration and they obviously were quite comfortable in 2005 with the recommendation that they put in.  Now the recommendation from the CMM is very clear, this is going out to a marketing exercise.  Now if they need or want the minutes from the 2005 meeting they’ve only got to go back into the archives and get them as I did check, so I really don’t understand what the problem is. 

 

I’m happy to answer Councillor Alford’s question.  The history is quite plain, it became under the previous Administration and we have already had the waste strategy going out to consultation which was at a Cabinet meeting in Brighton Chamber.  Councillor Kitcat was there, although he made reference to it today, he actually was there and went through the Plan page by page at the meeting.  I don’t remember, sitting in that meeting, any reference from the Labour Group around waste and the Plan around Hangleton Bottom, so I am slightly confused but I am sure it will all become clear later.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

44.24    (f) Councillor McCaffery asked,

       

          “At a training event for school governors on Safeguarding Children in November, I asked who the Brighton and Hove Local Children’s Safeguarding Board reports to. The officer did not know and has since informed me that despite asking she has not yet received an answer.  We as Councillors are legally responsible for the children in our care, Would the Cabinet member for Children Families and Schools please inform this Council who the LCSB reports to?”

 

44.25    Councillor Brown replied,

 

“he Local Safeguarding Children Board (LSCB) is the most important among a number of checks and balances across public services to assure the quality and effectiveness of local safeguarding and child protection arrangements.  External inspection by Ofsted has consistently found that the LSCB in Brighton and Hove is effective and works to a high standard.

 

Although the local authority is responsible for ensuring an effective LSCB is in place the Board is a distinct and separate body with duties set out in statutory guidance.   In Brighton and Hove the LSCB has provided reports to the Children and Young People’s Board, but is not accountable to it. Our LSCB now has an Independent Chair who has attended the Trust Board and will provide regular reports on the quality and effectiveness of local safeguarding and child protection services.

 

The Director of Children’s Services is responsible for ensuring the Independent Chair fulfils the terms of their job description and contract.  The relationship between a Local Safeguarding Children Board and a Children’s Trust Board is complex:

 

Chapter 3 of the 2006 Statutory Guidance: Working Together to Safeguard Children states:

3.52    The LSCB should not be subordinate to, or subsumed within, the children’s trust arrangements in a way that might compromise its separate identity and independent voice. The LSCB should expect to be consulted by the partnership on issues that affect how children are safeguarded and how their welfare is promoted. The LSCB is a formal consultee during the development of the Children and Young People’s Plan.

 

Lord Laming’s Report ‘The Protection of Children in England (2009)’ recommended the revision of this guidance and draft proposals are currently out for consultation for implementation in April 2010.

 

The future relationship between LSCBs and Children’s Trust Boards has also been addressed in the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009. Statutory Guidance to inform the implementation of the Act is also out for consultation.  In summary:

 

·       The Children’s Trust Board must link to the LSCB and ensure ongoing direct and regular communication with it. The LSCB is a distinct and separate body with a separate identity and independent voice that has a role to challenge the CTB. It is not subsumed by or subordinate to the CTB.

·       The Children’s Trust Board will receive an annual report from the LSCB on the effectiveness of safeguarding arrangements locally.”

 

44.26    Councillor McCaffery asked a supplementary question, “Thank you for your very long and very full answer, it stretched to a whole page. 

 

We are, of course, as Councillors aware of the recent, horrendous case where two young boys were attacked by two other young boys and also that in the report of that there were 31 occasions when there was a failure on the part of the council to intervene which might have prevented that attack.

 

As Councillors we take a strategic direction and importantly decide the budget regarding our children’s services.  We need to know how well our procedures are working.  How will the Local Safeguarding Children Board report to us?  I understand from your answer and I welcome the last bullet point that there will be an annual report to CYPT.  I would like to know how that report will be communicated to us and all the 54 Councillors and indeed whether that yearly report will be in the public domain?”

 

44.27    Councillor Brown replied, “I apologise for the long answer but it is quite complicated. 

 

Yes, we will get a yearly report and I am sure it will be open to all Councillors and, I would have thought, to a wider audience but obviously if there is any information that is classified and can’t be given out, then we will have to look at it very carefully and until we have the first one it’s a bit difficult to say that. 

 

I would just like to say that we are working very closely with the Local Safeguarding Children Board.  The Independent Chair has attended the CYPT and explained his roles and responsibilities already.  We held a spring Safeguarding Conference that all senior staff, the Independent Chair and myself attended and just a fortnight ago the Chair, the named GP and the named nurse for child protection, a Social Services Manager and myself all attended a Safeguarding Conference arranged by COHSE for all authorities in the south east.  I also sit as an observer now on the Local Safeguarding Children Board, so there is close links but it does have to have its separate identity.”

 

 

44.28    (g) Councillor Mitchell asked,

 

          In his departmental budget report for 2010/11, the Cabinet Member for Environment is proposing a £200,000 cut to the council’s Supported Transport budget with effect from April 2010.  Given that this would have entailed the formal three month prior notification of contract termination, could the Cabinet Member inform the council as to whether this notification has been served and which bus service contracts and routes will be affected?”

 

44.29    Councillor Theobald replied,

 

          The city council is mindful of the statutory obligation on the bus operator to give the Traffic Commissioner 56 days notice of any service cancellations.   Budget figures are constantly being updated as fresh information becomes available.  If indeed the administration proposes any changes to subsidised bus routes then the appropriate documentation will be issued in due course.”

 

44.30    Councillor Mitchell asked a supplementary question, “Thank you very much Councillor Theobald for your response.  I have to say that there does seem to be a glimmer of hope maybe in your response that the cuts that were decided at Cabinet may actually be reversed in the same way that we have seen the cuts to the History Centre and Booth Museum reversed, so I do hope that can be the case.

 

My supplementary question actually relates to the very well used bus route service No 21 extension that goes through the Marina, through Whitehawk, Manor Hill, down to the Open Market, London Road and also enables people to access Brighton Station and City College.  That service is currently funded by a Section 106 Agreement which will come to an end in March and I would like to ask Councillor Theobald if he would give assurances today that you will find that additional money within your budget to keep that very valuable service running?”

 

44.31    Councillor Theobald replied, “I don’t think I’ve got anything to add to what I actually say today, which is budget figures are constantly being updated as fresh information becomes available.”

 

44.32    Councillor Morgan asked a further supplementary question, “Given that Councillor Theobald’s recently published parking report states that council subsidised bus routes are funded from parking income, why is he proposing these budget cuts when his Administration made £7m profit from parking last year?”

 

44.33    Councillor Theobald replied, “I don’t think I’m proposing anything here today.”

 

 

 

44.34    (h) Councillor Caulfield asked,

 

          In the light of 1) her Scrutiny Committee’s examination of the Administration’s housing budget proposals last week and 2) comments in Gscene from the Leader of the Labour Group and her housing spokesperson that the LDV is not worth pursuing, could Cllr. Meadows, in her capacity as Chair of the Adult Social Care & Housing Overview & Scrutiny Committee, reassure council members that she, and the rest of the Labour Group, are fully committed to supporting tenants in ensuring that the LDV is successfully set up this spring?”

 

44.35    Councillor Meadows replied,

 

          “Neither quotation contained within the Gscene article stated that the LDV is not worth pursuing.  I can readily give assurances that the Labour Group remains committed to the principals of a Local Delivery Vehicle and recognise its potential, not only in terms of benefits to tenant’s homes but other uses in the long term. 

 

          However, in common with other interested parties, including the other political parties on the council, we reserve the right to question and scrutinise the process as the LDV is set up, in terms of its cost and the achievement of its original objectives.”

 

44.36    Councillor Caulfield asked a supplementary question, “I do actually disagree with your answer because at Scrutiny last week you did actually us the question: ‘Is the LDV worth pursuing?’.  My supplementary to your answer is after his election defeat in 2007 the ex-Labour Council Leader, Simon Burgess, talked about the housing stock transfer debacle in an interview with the ‘Argus’ and I’ve got his quote here.  He said, ‘the issue didn’t help with motivation and tenants were left wondering whether they could trust us or not.’ 

 

Does Councillor Meadows then think that almost three years later playing politics with the LDV is going to help to restore that trust and can she therefore confirm today, and give us a cast-iron assurance, that both she and the Labour Group will support the LDV proposals at Budget Council next month?”

 

44.37    Councillor Meadows replied, “I can only say and state that I will give assurances that the Labour Group remains committed to the principles of a Local Delivery Vehicle and recognise its potential, not only in terms of benefits to tenants homes but other uses in the long term.  However, as Chair of Adult Social Care & Housing Scrutiny Panel it would be rather remiss of me not to scrutinise any budget proposals.”

 

44.38    Councillor Peltzer Dunn asked a further supplementary question, “I am grateful for Councillor Meadows and her answer and as she is speaking as Chair of Adult Social Care & Housing Overview & Scrutiny Committee.

 

Bearing in mind she does say within the first answer to the initial question, I can readily give assurances that the Labour Group remains committed to the principles, etc, etc, could I draw attention to the fact that actually she is replying as the Chair of the Scrutiny Committee and as such would she confirm therefore that a Labour Group Whip was actually in place?”

 

44.39    Councillor Meadows replied, “I’m sorry, I don’t reply for the Whip.”

 

 

44.40    (i) Councillor Davey asked,

 

          Brighton & Hove Buses are justifiably an award winning service provider and the partnership with the city council is often cited as an example of best practice yet, concerns remain over aspects of the bus service in the city.  These concerns include: high prices as recently highlighted by the Office of Fair Trading, a limited service to the outer areas of the city, congestion in the city centre and poor air quality.  Could the Cabinet Member for Environment please tell us what he is doing to address these issues?”

 

44.41    Councillor Theobald replied,

 

“The Council has no direct control over fare levels as it is a commercial decision for the bus company.  Officers and I meet regularly with the bus company to discuss matters of mutual concern.”

 

44.42    Councillor Davey asked a supplementary question, “You say the council has no direct control over buses in the city, however, other local authorities are using powers provided in the Local Transport Act 2008 that give them some control over bus services.  Will the Cabinet Member be using similar powers to secure and improve the bus service for the people of Brighton & Hove?”

 

44.43    Councillor Theobald replied, “I’ve given you the answer to this particular question.  You’re actually asking me something completely different.  In my view, Madam Mayor, that is not a supplementary to the question that is here.”

 

 

44.44    (j) Councillor Simson asked,

 

          “As the Council’s representative on the Sussex Police Authority, could Cllr. Duncan please tell me how much it has cost to police the last two ‘Smash EDO’ demonstrations (in May 2009 and January 2010)?”

 

44.45    Councillor Duncan replied,

 

          Thanks for your question.  Final figures for the policing costs incurred during the events you describe are yet to be published: I’m happy to report back, via the Community Safety Forum, when they are.  That’s likely to be in March this year, when the financial report for the force’s budgetary year 2009/10 is completed.

 

          In the meantime, I can report that Sussex Police has incurred costs of approximately £5.1 million in relation to policing politically motivated events in Brighton and Hove during the current financial year, including the Labour Party conference, several multi-denominational ‘peace’ walks, weekly peace vigils in the city, and the protests, to which your question directly refers, against the role of the Brighton-based EDO-ITT factory in manufacturing weapons components that have reportedly been used by the Israeli military during the unlawful bombing raids in Gaza that killed more than 1400 people in January 2009, many of them civilians.

 

          The protest last May directly cost £370,080; no information is available yet for the cost of policing the January 2010 protest.

 

          In any event, I expect – and have strongly argued at SPA meetings – that the Home Office will meet these costs from general exchequer funds so, in the final analysis, there will be no budgetary implications for Sussex Police.  It has already been agreed that, should the Home Office decide not to meet the costs of policing any or all of these events, such costs will be met centrally – and not from the budget for policing Brighton and Hove.”

 

44.46    Councillor Simson asked a supplementary question, “On his ever informative and fascinating blog Councillor Duncan stated of the ‘Smash EDO’ protests and I quote, ‘in short there has been a complete breakdown of trust between the demonstrators and Sussex Police.  None of this is the protestors’ fault.  It’s no wonder really that they don’t trust the police.  In the past Sussex Police has been seen to be taking sides in the way it has policed ‘Smash EDOs’ regular vigils at the factory.’

 

Does Councillor Duncan feel that ‘Smash EDO’ are correct in refusing to co-operate with the Police, using this breakdown in trust as a reason, thus incurring additional policing costs and will he take this opportunity to publicly condemn them for their irresponsible attitude?”

 

44.47    Councillor Duncan replied, “Thank you very much for your question.  I didn’t quite understand it because there were two ideas roughed up in there, so firstly I will say I will answer them in reverse order.

 

I won’t take this opportunity to publicly condemn ‘Smash EDO’ protestors’ objectives.  Their objectives are to stop a factory which is reportedly making weapons of mass destruction.

 

I think there has been a breakdown of trust between the police who are responsible for policing the protests and some of the protestors.  That’s not a view I’ve come to on my own, that’s the view of the police in a number of the briefings that I’ve had before the protests with them.  I think, however, there is some justification for both the Police’s attitude and the protestors’ attitude.  It’s not really for me to say whether either the police or the protestors are right, it’s merely for me to report that both the police think the police are right and the protestors think the protestors are right.

 

We’ve all got a duty to work together for the good of the city to see a factory close down that is promoting these protests.”

 

44.48    Councillor Allen asked a further supplementary question, “Would Councillor Duncan, Brighton & Hove’s sole representative on the Sussex Police Authority and aren’t we lucky, please confirm that the Police Authority regards active participation as a demonstrator in events such as ‘Smash EDO’ as an essential part of on the job training for Members of the Authority and could he confirm that the other Members of the Police Authority, Conservative, Labour and Lib Dem, are as conscientious as he is in their demonstrating duties?”

 

44.49    Councillor Duncan replied, “Thank you for that very informative question.  I can confirm that there was one other Member of the Police Authority present at the January demonstration.  She is an independently appointed Member of the Police Authority representing the Brighton & Hove area.  There is one other representative from this area, also independently appointed, who has not, as far as I am aware, taken part in a protest. 

 

I can’t confirm what the police attitude is about whether it’s a sensible use of Authority Members’ time but I can confirm that I am always encouraged to be playing an active role in the protests and with the police who are taking their position very seriously in delivering the democratically chosen Local Policing Plan which recognises the police’s duty to facilitate peaceful protest on our streets.”

 

 

44.50    (k) Councillor Bennett asked,

 

          “Residents are asking me…Dyke Road is a gateway into Brighton and Hove and sets visitors first impressions of the City.  Cars are beingparked on the grass verges on the western side causing damage, even though the road is wide enough for cars to be parked correctly; these appear to be overspill cars from nearby parking schemes. How will the council rectify the situation?”

 

44.51    Councillor Theobald replied,

 

“Cars have been parking along these verges for several years now and the Council cannot prevent this where there are no yellow lines.  Only the Police can take action for obstruction.

  

In order to prevent vehicles from blocking bus stops, thus causing danger to bus passengers, 24 hour bus stop clearways will shortly be installed.  The yellow lines could be extended along Dyke Road, which would protect the verges, but this would lead to more cars parking in the side roads.”

 

44.52    Councillor Bennett asked a supplementary question, “Neighbouring authorities like Eastbourne and Worthing have neat posts installed to protect the grass verges and they work very well.  Would it be possible for your department to investigate this option for the city’s grass verges?”

 

44.53    Councillor Theobald replied, “We can investigate any options and certainly I will ask officers to look at it.  I mean I do know that stretch of road well and there are posts put there in front of some verges.  I sympathise with residents and I understand that when the verges are disturbed…  We can look at it but I’m not sure, because there are other areas of the city as well.  The city is a big place, 3,000 roads and, unfortunately, it’s becoming more common for vehicles to park on verges.”

 

 

44.54    (l) Councillor Bennett asked,

 

          “The school parking sign outside Lancing Pre Prep has the wrong times for no parking.  The school operates at different hours to those displayed; couldI please have a date for when the council will amend the sign to the correct hours?”

 

44.55    Councillor Theobald replied,

 

“The times displayed on School Keep Clear signs across the city are all the same because they are all subject to the same city-wide Traffic Regulation Order.   It was considered important that the signs are consistent across the city so that Parking Enforcement can be carried out effectively. 

 

Officers have already been in discussion over the matter with Lancing Pre Prep School, and are carrying out an informal consultation to gauge how many other schools would benefit if the No Stopping times were extended or changed.  I will be discussing the results of the informal consultation with my colleague the Cabinet Member for Children’s Services.”

 

44.56    Councillor Bennett asked a supplementary question, “The signs with the wrong times are more dangerous than no signs outside the school at all.  The discussions have been going on about changing these signs for a number of years.  Would it please be possible to have a more solid date for when they will be changed?”

 

44.57    Councillor Theobald replied, “I am actually inclined to agree with the point that Councillor Bennett has made about signs and it’s better to have not a sign at all, rather than one giving inaccurate timings for that particular school. 

 

I think we’ve inherited a situation here where all the signs in the city, as I have said in my initial answer, say the same thing and, of course, there are a few independent schools where the times are different.  That is where the informal consultation is going on and once we have received that I will discuss it with the Cabinet Member for Children’s Services, because there might well be some other independent schools and if then we took this matter further, as it’s possible, there would have to be a full consultation to change the signs to a different time.”

 

 

44.58    (m) Councillor Bennett asked,

 

          “Will the council commit to work with City Park to ensure maximum use of the car parks to help reduce the problems on local roads by overspill parking?”

 

44.59    Councillor Theobald replied,

 

             “The council is already working closely with the occupiers of City Park (Legal & General and Lloyds/TSB) to reduce the number of employees travelling to work on their own by car. 

 

          Last year, for instance, Legal & General and Lloyds/TSB agreed to work together to promote sustainable travel choices to their employees and produced a joint Travel Plan, a first for Brighton & Hove.”

 

44.60    Councillor Bennett asked a supplementary question, “As the employees at City Park still come by car but park in the surrounding roads causing disruption and distress to local residents, would it not be better for them to use the underused car park and could the officers work with City Park to try and promote this?”

 

 

44.61    Councillor Theobald replied, “If there is a car park at City Park belonging to Legal & General and Lloyds TSB and they obviously own those car parks, if you’re telling me that that car park is regularly empty then certainly we’ll talk to Lloyds and to Legal & General.  I mean we are already working with them on sustainable travel choices.  They run a lottery for instance and the winning people are on that lottery get a car parking space for the next two weeks.  I mean those are the sorts of illustrations that I’ve been informed about but if you are telling me that there are car parking spaces regularly empty there then that’s something I will certainly ask officers to have a word with.”

 

44.62    Councillor Hyde asked a further supplementary question, “I’m in no doubt that the misguided planning policy of car-free development has contributed significantly to the problem of overspill and parking on local roads across the whole city over the last five years.  I remember the Legal & General coming to committee before I was Chair and I said that there had been many problems but, of course, it wasn’t listened to.  Would Councillor Theobald therefore agree with me that the recent reinstatement of that policy in the Core Strategy by the rainbow coalition, which, of course, is Labour, Lib Dem and the Greens, was irresponsible and contrary to the wishes of the vast majority of residents of the city.”

 

44.63    Councillor Theobald replied, “Yes.”