Agenda item - Petitions for Council Debate

Petitions to be debated at Council.  Reports of the Acting Monitoring Officer (copies attached).

 

(a)         Stop the Clearance - Lead Petitioner Ms. Fluendy.

 

(b)        Parking in Preston Park - Lead Petitioner Councillor Amy Kennedy.

 

(c)         Connexions - Lead Petitioner Mr. Alex Knutson.

 

Note:  A period of 15 minutes has been set aside for each petition debate.

 

27.       (a) Stop the Clearance

 

27.1         The Mayor noted that under the Council’s petition scheme, if a petition contained more than 1,250 signatures it could be debated by the Full Council and such a request had been made in respect of the petition concerning Wild Park.

 

27.2         The Mayor welcomed Ms. Fluendy to the meeting and invited her to present her petition.

 

27.3         Ms. Fluendy thanked the Mayor and outlined the history behind the petition, which had resulted from action being taken by the council to clear areas of Wild Park.  She noted that over 1,700 people had signed the petition and were concerned about the lack of consultation over the clearance work and information on why it had taken place.  She acknowledged that further consultation was now planned and hoped that this would result in a better understanding of people’s expectations for the future of the park.  She then read out the petition:

 

            “We the undersigned petition the council to stop the deforestation and scrub clearance on the hillsides around Wild Park and to stop putting up barbed wire fences in the park.  We believe the work is destroying a valuable habitat for wild birds and other flora and fauna.  We also believe that barbed wire has no place in a public park and that the work is a waste of public resources.”

 

27.4         Councillor Theobald thanked Ms. Fluendy for presenting the petition and stated that the council had not intended to cause any concern over its actions, which were aimed at preserving the natural chalk environment that existed in the Park.  He accepted that the initial consultation process had not been as effective as hoped but noted that the council was working with a number of interested groups to take matters forward.  A further consultation exercise was underway with 16,000 newsletters being issued, workshops and walks arranged to inform interested parties of the proposals and get feedback.  A Wild Park representative group had been established and it was hoped that this would provide a means for people to have a greater involvement in the management of the Park.

 

27.5         Councillor Simpson stated that a number of people were concerned about the clearance action and the lack of consultation that had taken place.  She believed that there was a need to rebuild the trust between the council and the various communities that had been affected and therefore wished to move an amendment and add a further recommendation at 2.2 of the report as follows:

 

            “That the strength of the public feeling on this issue be taken into account, and in future the Cabinet Member be requested to ensure that:-

 

·         Full and meaningful consultation takes place with local people and adequate environmental impact surveys are carried out before any clearance work is done in areas like the Wild Park;

·         Clear explanations are given as to the scale, nature and justification of any such proposed work; and

·         Any work carried out should be done with care and precision.”

 

27.6         Councillor Morgan formally seconded the amendment.

 

27.7         Councillor West stated that there was a need to protect the park and acknowledged that the need for further consultation had been recognised, which he welcomed.  However, he also wished to move an amendment to add a further recommendation to the report as follows:

“That the Cabinet Member be recommended to acknowledge and express support for the new model of consultation that is now underway; and to acknowledge that this presents a fresh and positive opportunity for the aspirations of the different park users and interest groups to be taken on board in shaping a new plan for future work on this project.”

 

27.8         Councillor Rufus formally seconded the amendment.

 

27.9         Councillor Caulfield noted that action had been taken to help protect the environment of the park such as the introduction of sheep grazing, however she also agreed that the initial clearance work had appeared to have been rushed.  She was aware that the situation had also caused disagreement between the two local communities and hoped that this could be resolved by people working together.

 

27.10    Councillor Theobald noted the comments and stated that lessons had been learnt and it was hoped that with the new consultation process people would be able to work together to ensure that the park’s best interests were protected.

 

27.11    The Mayor thanked Ms. Fluendy for attending the meeting and then put each amendment to the vote in turn, which were carried and therefore moved that the report and the recommendations as amended by approved.

 

27.12    RESOLVED:

 

(1)         That the petition be referred to the Environment Cabinet Member Meeting for consideration;

 

(2)         That the strength of the public feeling on this issue be taken into account, and in future the Cabinet Member be requested to ensure that:-

 

·         Full and meaningful consultation takes place with local people and adequate environmental impact surveys are carried out before any clearance work is done in areas like the Wild Park;

 

·         Clear explanations are given as to the scale, nature and justification of any such proposed work; and

 

·         Any work carried out should be done with care and precision; and

 

(3)         That the Cabinet Member be recommended to acknowledge and express support for the new model of consultation that is now underway; and to acknowledge that this presents a fresh and positive opportunity for the aspirations of the different park users and interest groups to be taken on board in shaping a new plan for future work on this project.

 

 

27.       (b) Parking in Preston Park

 

27.13    The Mayor noted that under the Council’s petition scheme, if a petition contained more than 1,250 signatures it could be debated by the Full Council and such a request had been made in respect of the petition concerning Parking in Preston Park.

 

27.14    The Mayor invited Councillor Kennedy to present her petition.

 

27.15    Councillor Kennedy stated that 2,201 people had signed the petition which read as follows;

 

            “Cars parked day and night, even days a week in Preston Park.  Since the council introduced parking restrictions in Preston Park Avenue, residents and commuters are leaving cars parked in the park as long as they like because it’s free (some even go off on holidays!).

            We believe parking in the park should be for people using the park.”

 

27.16    Councillor Theobald thanked Councillor Kennedy for presenting the petition and stated that he was aware of the difficulties referred to in parking in the park.  With this in mind, he proposed to establish a small Working Party, including the Ward Councillors and appropriate officers to look into the matter and report back to his Cabinet Member Meeting.

 

27.17    Councillor McCaffery welcomed the proposal and stated that she hoped the Working Party would be able to include officers from the relevant departments so that the parking problems throughout the park could be addressed as a whole.  She then moved an amendment to add a further recommendation as follows:

 

            “That the Cabinet Member be requested to instruct officers to ensure that the issue of parking in Preston Park is looked at holistically by the Highways and Parks Department working together to seek a solution to the benefit of park users bearing in mind the impact of the recently introduced controlled parking areas in Preston Park Avenue and south of the railway.”

 

27.18    Councillor Kennedy welcomed the opportunity to have a working party, and stated that she also wished to move an amendment to add a further recommendation to the report as follows:

 

            “That the Cabinet Member give consideration to the regulation of parking use within Preston Park under Road Traffic regulations or by securing other effective means for the benefit of park users, and to deter all-day parking by commuters.”

 

27.19    Councillor Rufus formally seconded the amendment.

 

27.20    Councillor Theobald noted the comments and stated that he would anticipate that the Working Party would take on board the aims of the two petitions as part of its review.

 

27.21    The Mayor thanked then put each amendment to the vote in turn, which were carried and therefore moved that the report and the recommendations as amended by approved.

 

27.22    RESOLVED:

 

(1)         That the petition be referred to the Environment Cabinet Member Meeting for consideration;

 

(2)         That the Cabinet Member be requested to instruct officers to ensure that the issue of parking in Preston Park is looked at holistically by the Highways and Parks Department working together to seek a solution to the benefit of park users bearing in mind the impact of the recently introduced controlled parking areas in Preston Park Avenue and south of the railway; and

 

(3)         That the Cabinet Member give consideration to the regulation of parking use within Preston Park under Road Traffic regulations or by securing other effective means for the benefit of park users, and to deter all-day parking by commuters.

 

 

27.       (c) Connexions

 

27.23    The Mayor stated that in view of the high level of interest in the issue affecting the Connexions Service, he had decided that it would be appropriate to take both the petition, Item 27(c) and the notice of motion, Item 40(a) together in one debate.  He noted that under the Council’s petition scheme, if a petition contained more than 1,250 signatures it could be debated by the Full Council and such a request had been made in respect of the petition concerning Connexions.

 

27.24    The Mayor welcomed Mr. Knutson to the meeting and invited him to present his petition.

 

27.25    Mr. Knutson thanked the Mayor and outlined the history behind the petition, which had resulted from the proposal to cut the service and which he presented on behalf of the past, present and future users:

 

            “Brighton and Hove city council has announced £700,000 of cuts to the Connexions service to be implemented by March 2011.

 

            This will mean a substantial reduction of the frontline connexions service, or even the complete closure of the service.  We are deeply concerned about the implications of this decision.  Quite apart from the impact on the frontline staff, all of whom are very skilled and qualified in working with young people, we are extremely disturbed about the potentially very damaging impact these cuts will have upon the future and wellbeing of the young people living in Brighton and Hove.

 

            To be substantially reducing the level of support to young people at the very time when more advice and support is needed in these difficult economic times, we feel is very short-sighted.   Young people are the country's future and to reduce the level of support available to them, we feel is a very damaging development.

 

            We call on the council to rescind this decision and explore other means to meet the budget cuts without impacting the frontline services.  

 

            Your support would be very much appreciated. Please sign our petition to save the Connexions service in Brighton and Hove.”

 

27.26    Mr. Knutson stated that 2,885 people had signed the petition in support of maintaining a valuable front-line value for money service.  He did not believe the service could be put back into schools and asked that the council review the decision and ensure that young people had someone to go to for help and advice outside of the school environment.

 

27.27    Councillor Hawkes then moved the Labour Group’s notice of motion, which called on the Cabinet to continue with the Connexions Service whilst undertaking a review and bringing a report to a future meeting.

 

27.28    Councillor Mitchell formally seconded the motion and stated that she believed the decision had been taken in haste without fully accounting for the staff and service implications of such an action.

 

27.29    Councillor Brown thanked Mr. Knutson for presenting the petition and stated that the council had been faced with a 28% cut in the Area Based Grant it received from the Government and as such had had to look at where savings could be made.  The Connexions Service overall budget was £2m and therefore it was felt that this could be reduced proportionately and the remaining £1.5m budget used to support a redesigned service.  She also wished to confirm that at present things remained as they were and no changes had been made as a consultation process was about to begin.   She also stated that she wished to withdraw the Conservative Group’s amendment to the petition as the Group would be supporting the Labour notice of motion.

 

27.30    Councillor Fryer stated that she felt to date the staff had been treated badly and the council could face legal challenges to the proposed action and lack of completing an equalities impact assessment.  She therefore wished to move an amendment to the report on the petition and add a further two recommendations at 2.2 and 2.3 of the report as follows:

 

“That the Cabinet reconsiders its in-year budget cuts to ensure that Connexions services are protected; and

 

That the Cabinet immediately holds discussions with Connexions staff about how to approach the impending cuts from central government without compromising the quality of the service.”

 

27.31    Councillor Phillips formally seconded the amendment. 

 

27.32    Councillor Fryer stated she wished to move an amendment to the notice of motion, which she believed added weight to the motion itself.

 

27.33    Councillor Phillips formally seconded the amendment and stated that she believed the decision to cut the service had left the futures of young people uncertain and with no support.  The service was needed if vulnerable young people were to be given every opportunity to succeed and feel that they had someone to help them.  She believed that there was a choice on how to meet the savings that were required and maintain the service rather than simply cut it and place future costs on other services.

 

27.34    Councillor Kemble stated that Connexions was a nationally recognised service, however it had not been as good as it could be and that a proposed redesign based on the £1.5m budget was the best way forward.  There were other services that supported young people and he believed that these could be utilised more effectively.

 

27.35    Councillor Hamilton stated that he believed there was a need for the Connexions service and expressed his concern over the proposal to rely on the schools to fulfil the role as they would need greater resources.  He also believed that one of the strengths of the service was that it was based outside of the schools so that young people felt confident to use it.

 

27.36    Councillor Elgood stated that it was a flagship service which needed to be retained and noted that the council now had the opportunity to set priorities with the removal of ring-fencing and therefore suggested that the service should be maintained.

 

27.37    Councillor Cobb stated that she was aware of people who had not received the support they had expected and had found it difficult to access the service.  She believed that there was a need to review what was provided and how, in order to meet the needs of those who required support.

 

27.38    Councillor Simson stated that the service was not being closed and remained in operation.  There was a need to review how it was to be provided in view of the reduction in the budget provision and hopefully this would ensure that a more effective service was provided.

 

27.39    Councillor Mears stated that many authorities were in a similar position to the council in terms of the savings that had to be made.  The Administration was looking across all areas of the council to find ways of reducing costs and the Cabinet Member for Children & Young People was fully aware of the concerns raised and was in the process of consulting with the staff affected. 

 

27.40    Councillor Janio noted that a total of £1.5m remained in the budget for the service and suggested that this could be utilised effectively once the consultation and redesign of the service had been completed.  The aim had to be to ensure that young people were given the support for and opportunity to get on in the world of work.

 

27.41    Councillor Brown restated that £1.5m was held in the budget for the Connexions Service and that the service had not been stopped to date.  The consultation process was due to start in November and she hoped that it would result in a way forward for the service.  She would much prefer not to have to make any cuts; however there was a need to account for the reduction in the area based grant provision.  She was happy to accept the first Green amendment to the report on the petition but not the second and as such asked that they be taken individually.  She could not support the Green amendment to the notice of motion.

 

27.42     Councillor Hawkes stated that she hoped the consultation process and redesign proposals would involve all those with an interest in the matter so that the situation that had resulted would not be repeated and things could be taken forward.

 

27.43    The Mayor thanked Mr. Knutson for attending the meeting and presenting the petition.  He noted that a request had been made to take the Green amendments to the report on the petition separately and put the first recommendation to the vote which was carried.  He then put the second recommendation to the vote which was lost.  He therefore moved that the report and the recommendations as amended be approved.

 

27.44    RESOLVED:

 

(1)         That the petition be referred to the Cabinet for consideration; and

 

(2)         That the Cabinet be requested to reconsider its in-year budget cuts to ensure that Connexions services are protected.