Agenda item - Petitions for Council Debate

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

 

(a)         Parking for Royal Sussex County Hospital - Lead Petitioner Councillor Bennett;

 

(b)        Keep Brighton Unique – Lead Petitioner Mr. Tom French.

 

(c)         Save the Drive Cycle Lanes, Hove – Lead Petitioner Councillor Ian Davey.

 

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

 

(A)       ROYAL SUSSEX COUNTY HOSPITAL PARKING

 

84.1         The Mayor stated that under the Council’s petition scheme, if a petition contained 1,250 or more signatures, it could be debated by the Full Council and such  a request had been made in respect of a combined e and paper petition, concerning the Royal Sussex Hospital.

 

84.2         The Mayor then invited Councillor Bennett to present her petition.

 

84.3         Councillor Bennett thanked the Mayor and stated that a total of 1,745 people had signed either the paper or e-petition version which read as follows:

“We the undersigned petition the council to relax their parking policies and work with the hospital trust to ensure that the amount of on site parking for all Royal Sussex County Hospital patients and their visitors is greatly increased.

 

Parking at the hospital should be easy and safe for patients and visitors, at what is for most people a stressful time.”

 

84.4               Councillor Bennett stated that she hoped a workable solution could be found to the parking issue at the new development and hat the petition would be fully supported.

 

84.5               Councillor Theobald welcomed the petition and stated that he understood the difficulty and that he felt access for everyone concerned with the working at or visiting the hospital was important.  He noted that the council and the NHS Hospital Trust were working closely with each other in regard to the overall development of the site and that the council was pressing for the maximum number of parking spaces to be included.

 

84.6               Councillor Turton stated that as the Chair of 3Ts Hospital Liaison Group he had been involved in discussions with the Hospital Trust over the development and he welcomed the petition that Councillor Bennett had brought forward.  He also stated that he wished to move a Labour Group amendment to the report’s recommendation, as there was a need to give consideration to the increased staffing levels and to take account of alternative transport arrangements.

 

84.7               Councillor Morgan formally seconded the amendment.

 

84.8               Councillor Fryer moved an amendment on behalf of the Green Group to the report’s recommendation and stated that there was a need to find a solution to the problem that accounted for the needs of all and provided alternative options to parking.

 

84.9               Councillor Davey formally seconded the amendment.

 

84.10          Councillor Carol Theobald stated that she hoped consideration would be given to how people could get to the hospital from the outskirts of the city as well as the staff parking.

 

84.11          Councillor Geoffrey Theobald stated that he hoped the proposed new transport model would help to offer solutions to the issue as not everyone could rely on alternative methods to a car to get to the hospital.

 

84.12           The Mayor noted that two amendments had been moved along with the recommendation to refer the petition to the Environment Cabinet Member Meeting and stated that he would put each one to the vote.

 

84.13          The Mayor then put the Labour Group’s amendment followed by the Green Group’s amendment to the vote, each of which was carried.

 

84.14          The Mayor then put the substantive recommendations as amended to the vote which were carried.

 

84.15          RESOLVED:

 

(1)         That the petition is referred to the Environment Cabinet Member Meeting for consideration, about how to improve access to the hospital for everyone, in particular in light of the proposed 3Ts development. This will include making public transport more accessible through ensuring the hospital promotes bus routes and working with bus and taxi companies to make sure they can both stop in or very near the hospital as well as making it easier to access the hospital by foot or bike. This will help to ease congestion and improve air quality around the hospital and ensure that emergency vehicles can reach the hospital more quickly and safely;

 

(2)         That the petition is referred to the Environment Cabinet Member Meeting for consideration with the following recommendations:

 

(i)           That the council works with Brighton, Hove and Sussex NHS Hospital Trust to ensure that the number of 450 additional staff that will be working at the Royal Sussex County Hospital site once the development is complete is taken into account when setting final car-parking numbers;

 

(ii)         That the council actively encourages the Trust to significantly increase the frequency and capacity of the 40X bus;

 

(iii)       That the council completes an area-wide feasibility study to determine whether through-traffic can be diverted away from the immediate vicinity of the hospital in accordance with the council’s agreed LDF Core Strategy document; and

 

(iv)       That the council works with the hospital Trust and other large employers in the city to provide genuine sustainable travel modes and choices for their workforce.

 

 

(B)          Keep Brighton Unique

 

84.16          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 an e-petition, concerning Keep Brighton Unique.

 

84.17          The Mayor invited Mr. Tom French to present his petition.

 

84.18          Mr. French thanked the Mayor and stated that a total of 1,142 people had signed either the paper or e-petition version which read as follows:

 

               “We the undersigned petition the council to lobby the government to introduce planning powers to enable local authorities to restrict the number of large supermarkets in any one area. We are concerned about Brighton becoming another 'clone town' city, swamped by large chain stores that pose a threat to the unique character of our city and the success of local, small independent businesses. In particular we are concerned about plans to open a fourth large supermarket on St. James's Street which we believe will damage the quirky and diverse character of the area, threaten small businesses, and limit the council's ability to control the sale of alcohol in the local community despite it being within a Cumulative Impact Area.

 

In recent years we have seen an explosion of large chain stores dominating our local high streets. This petition is about getting the balance right between ensuring residents have access to a nearby supermarket, whilst also ensuring against an excess of chain stores that would threaten valued small independent businesses and the unique and attractive character of our city. This petition was launched in response to the news that a fourth supermarket could soon open on St. James's Street.”

 

84.19          Mr. French stated that she hoped that the petition would be fully supported.

 

84.20          Councillor Mears welcomed the petition and stated that she felt it should have referred to the whole of city, and noted that the Administration did not want to see the city becoming a ‘clone town.’  She stated that the council had lobbied the government with a view to enabling local authorities to have greater control over the mix of establishments in their areas and hoped this would be forthcoming.

 

84.21          Councillor Mitchell stated that the Labour Group supported the petition and that she wished to move a Labour Group amendment to the report’s recommendation, as there was a need to seek to restrict the growth of supermarkets in areas and help to maintain the economic mix.

 

84.22          Councillor Morgan formally seconded the amendment.

 

84.23          Councillor Mears moved an amendment on behalf of the Conservative Group to the report’s recommendation and stated that the intention was to take account of the petition’s aims.

 

84.24          Councillor Oxley formally seconded the amendment.

 

84.25          Councillor Fryer moved an amendment on behalf of the Green Group to the report’s recommendation and stated that there was a need to enable alternative options to be considered when retail premises became vacant rather than supermarket chains simply being able to move in and increase the number of stores in an area.

 

84.26          Councillor Duncan formally seconded the amendment and stated that he wished to move a further amendment and to reserve his right to speak later in the debate.

 

84.27          The Mayor noted the request to move a further amendment and asked the Monitoring Officer to advise Members.

 

84.28          The Monitoring Officer stated there was no requirement to give prior notice of an amendment; however a written copy had to be provided to the Mayor so that he could determine whether or not is was acceptable.

 

84.29           The Mayor thanked the Monitoring Officer and noted that there were insufficient copies available for all Members and therefore decided, having regard to the limited time available, not to accept the amendment on this occasion.

 

84.30          Councillor Fallon-Khan stated that he supported the petition and that he felt there was a need to support small businesses in the city ad hoped that the Localism Bill would give local authorities more opportunities to do so.

 

84.31          Councillor Elgood stated that this was an important issue and one that needed to be addressed particularly in his ward.  He had previously raised concerns over the situation on a number of occasions which had not been supported and he now hoped that something would be done.

 

84.32          Councillor West stated that the issue was not a new one and needed to be addressed.  He hoped that the amendments would be supported.

 

84.33          Councillor Duncan noted that the present planning laws currently made it difficult to resolve the problem and suggested that thought should be given to enabling smaller business to occupy retail units that became vacant by splitting up the vacant unit.

 

84.34          Councillor Mears stated that this was a serious issue and local authorities had to abide by the legislation that had been passed by the previous government.  The council was lobbying the government to change the regulations so that action could be taken to prevent the influx of supermarkets in the city.

 

84.35          The Mayor noted that three amendments had been moved along with the recommendation to refer the petition to the Cabinet and stated that he would put each one to the vote.

 

84.36          The Mayor then put the Labour Group’s, the Conservative Group’s and the Green Group’s amendments to the vote, each of which was carried.

 

84.37          The Mayor then put the substantive recommendations as amended to the vote which were carried.

 

84.38          RESOLVED:

 

(1)         That the petition is referred to the Cabinet Meeting for consideration, with the following additional recommendations;

 

(i)           That the council uses its existing planning powers to promote the unique aspects of the city and enhances the special character of retail areas with a mix of retail uses;

 

(ii)         That the council uses its licensing and enforcement powers to ensure a good standard of maintenance of buildings and safety and security for residents and shoppers in retail areas; and

 

(iii)       That the council joins forces and works with other councils that are similarly concerned with this issue to engage the government in a dialogue on changes to the planning system that would include:

 

a)   Possible separate classes for supermarkets and smaller shops;

 

b)   The introduction of controls for the merging of smaller retail units; and,

 

c)   Reviewing how the application of restrictive covenants could negatively lead to premises remaining empty.

 

(iv)       That Cabinet are requested to ensure that full account is taken of the work of the new retail Commission established as a result of the Streets Ahead conference on 11^th March;

 

(v)         That the Chief Executive writes to Sainsbury’s saying that the majority of residents do not want or need another Sainsbury’s supermarket in Brighton or another supermarket on St. James’s Street;

 

(vi)       That the Chief Executive writes a letter to the Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government requesting that the Local Authority is given planning powers to:

 

a)   Allow communities to work with their local authorities to create ‘Business conservation areas’ to ensure designated areas retain the character and amenity of their shopping streets, and bar formula retailers from certain areas,

 

b)   Insist that a proportion of retail floor space in all new developments is affordable space for local small businesses;

 

c)   Adopt a retail strategy, a retail regeneration plan and local competition policies to prevent formula businesses dominating shopping streets and to ensure fair market access for small, independent retailers.  These strategies should include policies to support and retain street markets and farmers’ markets, and encourage the introduction of new markets, where there is community demand;

d)   Empower local authorities to bring in rent controls for small shop premises, to prevent landlords from driving up rents and driving out independent retailers; and

 

(vii)     That the Chief Executive writes a letter to the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Skills asking that the government establish a Local Competition Ombudsman as recommended by the Competition Commission which will rein in the power of the big four grocery chains.

 

 

 

(C)          SAVE THE DRIVE CYCLE LANES, HOVE

 

84.39          The Mayor stated that under the Council’s petition scheme, if a petition contained 1,250 or more signatures, it could be debated by the Full Council and such a request had been made in respect of an e-petition, concerning the Drive cycle lanes in Hove.

 

84.40          The Mayor invited Councillor Davey to present his petition.

 

84.41          Councillor Davey thanked the Mayor and stated that a total of 3,543 people had signed the e-petition which read as follows:

 

“We the undersigned, call on the Conservative administration running Brighton & Hove City Council to withdraw its proposals to improve vehicular access to the seafront and Shoreham Harbour by spending £1.1m removing the cycle lanes on The Drive and grand Avenue in Hove.

 

The increased traffic levels, particularly the likely greater use by heavy goods vehicles, will increase the risk to other road users particularly pedestrians and cyclists.

 

These cycle lanes were installed by the same Conservative administration in 2008 at a cost of over £600,000.  To spend nearly twice as much removing them now would be an irresponsible waste of public money.  This money would be much better spent constructively elsewhere.

 

Please stop this before it’s too late.”

 

84.42          Councillor Davey stated that he hoped that having secured the cycle lane at the previous Budget Council meeting in light of the significant level of support for it, that it would now remain in situ and any necessary improvements made.

 

84.43          Councillor Theobald noted the petition and stated that very good reasons for the proposed removal of the lane had been outlined as part of the budget process.  With regard to the saving achieved by retaining the cycle lane, he noted that the funding had been allocated to other areas and therefore he could not confirm whether resources were available for other safety measures to be put in place.

 

84.44          Councillor Davis stated that she supported the petition and noted that the cycle lane had been installed under the supervision of the National Cycling Group.  She also stated that she wished to move a Labour Group amendment to the report’s recommendation, to ensure that cycling was supported by the council.

 

84.45          Councillor Mitchell formally seconded the amendment.

 

84.46          Councillor Davey moved an amendment on behalf of the Green Group to the report’s recommendation and stated that there was a need to improve cycling facilities and to address any safety issues.

 

84.47          Councillor Phillips formally seconded the amendment.

 

84.48          Councillor Mears stated that concerns had been raised over the safety of the lane and these had been highlighted in Safety Audit reports.  She noted that both the amendments referred to the issue of safety, which had been the primary concern for the Administration’s proposal to remove the lane in the first instance.

 

84.49          Councillor Young stated that she had asked the local MP to look into the safety issue and noted that taxi drivers had also expressed concerns over safety and the ability to come out of properties along Grand Avenue.

 

84.50           Councillor Elgood stated that he had contacted Norman Baker MP as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Transport Secretary, who he had confirmed that had the council attempted to remove the cycle lane, the government would have taken legal advice on whether the previous funding towards the cost of installation could be reclaimed.  He was happy to provide copies of the reply and stated that he believed the proposal to remove the lane had been irresponsible and that the aim should be to make it work and encourage cycling not deter it.

 

84.51          Councillor West stated that there was a need for the cycle lane and the amendment at the budget council meeting had prevented a waste of public money.

 

84.52          Councillor Kemble stated that as a taxi driver he had experienced the difficulty in getting out of drives along Grand Avenue and suggested that other Members should try it for themselves to see the danger that existed.

 

84.53          Councillor Hamilton stated that the previous funding of £1.1m saved by not removing the cycle lane had been taken from the Revenue Budget and not the Capital Budget and therefore suggested that resources were available for improvement works.

 

84.54          Councillor Theobald noted the comments and stated that he believed the overall budget of £4.3m had been reduced by £1.1m and that had then be set aside to fund other services.  With regard to the previous funding contributed by a Quango which had now been dissolved, he questioned whether there was an avenue by which that funding could be reclaimed.  He had received a number of emails on the issue all asking for the cycle lane to be removed and he questioned just how many of the 3,000 plus petitioners actually use the cycle lane.

 

84.55          The Mayor noted that two amendments had been moved along with the recommendation to refer the petition to the Environment Cabinet Member Meeting and stated that he would put each one to the vote.

 

84.56          The Mayor then put the Labour Group’s amendment followed by the Green Group’s amendment to the vote, each of which was carried.

 

84.57          The Mayor then put the substantive recommendations as amended to the vote which were carried.

 

84.58          RESOLVED:

 

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

 

(2)         That the Cabinet Member is requested to seek to ensure that the council actively promotes cycling as a sustainable form of travel and continues to invest in safe cycling facilities across the city;

 

(3)         That the Cabinet Member is requested to:

 

·         thank the public for their strong expression of interest and tremendous level of support for retaining and improving the cycle lanes;

 

·         acknowledge that there is clear public support for the retention of these lanes;

 

·         place all safety audits that have been undertaken on The Drive into the public domain; and

 

(4)         That the Cabinet Member is requested to:

 

·         instruct officers to identify immediate measures that can be taken to address safety concerns; and

 

·         instruct officers to identify measures both in the immediate and longer term which may increase usage such as completing links to the north of the city and developing routes to the east and west.