Agenda item - Oral questions from Councillors

A list of Councillors who have indicated their desire to ask an oral question at the meeting along with the subject matters has been listed in the agenda papers.

81.1         The Mayor reminded the Council that councillors’ oral questions would be taken in the order as listed on the Council Agenda and that a period of 30 minutes was set aside for the item.  Should any questions not be reached at the end of the time period, those councillors would have the opportunity for their question to be carried over to the next council meeting.

 

81.2         (a) Councillor G Theobald asked; “Over the last few weeks and months, I have received a lot of correspondence from sports clubs across the city who will be badly affected by the various increases in charges imposed by the green administration in last month’s budget. One of those that’s causing me particular concern is the introduction of parking charges in Preston Park up until 8 pm and at weekends which is going to threaten the very existence such as the St. Peters cricket club and the Preston Youth Cycle Club who use the velodrome in the park and indeed football clubs as well. Something that I would have thought would be very close to the green party’s hearts.

 

            I understand that the cost of moving back the charging period from 8 pm to 6pm on week days would only be about £4000 and I don’t know the cost for excluding weekends but given that the council’s annual income from it’s parking operation is around 25 million pounds, will the cabinet member please give serious consideration to at least ending charging at 6pm for the sake of the hundreds of residents both young and old who are members of these 2 fantastic local sports clubs and many other users of Preston park who will now inevitably think twice  before using the facilities?”

 

81.3         Councillor West replied; “You recall that this came to my CMM some little while ago and in the report there that was agreed, it set out that there had been an extensive amount of consultation with members of the public and with club users as well. It was extremely detailed as you will recall and the arguments were alls set out then and I think the whole thing was gone through very thoroughly and I don’t particularly remember you raising these specific questions at that time when it would have been useful.

 

            That was agreed and the work will go ahead and the benefits of this is that at the moment we have a large amount of unrestricted parking happening within the public park but there has been in the past a petition of several thousand plus many complaints about the impact upon the fabric of the park and the safety, in particular, of children, and it was very much time to do something about it and that is a request of the former ward councillors who met as a cross party panel who considered this matter in detail before it was brought to me to make a decision upon extensive consultation.

 

            So I think the matter has been done very well and the charging regime will be set in and the changes made. Now of course we can review hours and tariffs and things like that and I believe that I said at the time, when making the decision, that we will be able to do things like that. Without having charging we cannot enforce a parking regime in the park and therefore we will have no effect on the current situation of people parking in the way they do.   I hope that answers your question, I could answer questions about sports pavilions if that is in your supplementary.”

 

81.4         Councillor G Theobald asked the following supplementary question; “You refer to it was as agreed, what you mean is you agreed it, the fact is you wanted to stop commuters. My supplementary to you is if you don’t have the charge in the evenings or at weekends, that won’t affect commuters because commuters are, if that’s your view, blocking up the car park during the day time working hours, I’m talking about sports clubs who use the park for their sports facilities, sports matches in the evenings after the commuters have gone home.

 

            So by keeping this going until 8 o’clock at night rather than 6 o’clock at night makes a difference of about £4000 I’m told, which is very small and after all you’ll make more money in Preston Park Avenue because presumably commuters will go in to Preston Park Avenue.   By looking at this in 6 months the summer will have already gone, it is imperative that you look at this now before the summer season otherwise these sports clubs, I’m talking about who play their matches in the evenings, I’m particularly concerned about that; I’m also concerned at weekends. But I’ve asked you at least to deal with the night time issue. But I’d like you to deal with the weekend one as well because commuters do not use the park on the weekends or in the evenings but sports clubs do.

 

            If you leave it 6 months these clubs really will be in a problem because the summer season will have gone, can you please look at this as soon as possible?”

 

81.5         Councillor West replied; “I’m happy to consider the point that Councillor Theobald makes and I’ll get back to him in writing after consulting officers. The point is that we do need to continue with the regime that has now been agreed and is going to be installed, that was the decision. My esteemed colleague here reminds me, also, that this is a budgetary matter and that your party supported the budget that contains these details so you had there another opportunity to make a change if you thought this was inappropriate.”

 

81.6         (b) Councillor Carden asked; “In Portslade we have a lot of problems with parking on the streets and the residents can’t use the garages that are provided up there. Many are lying empty; many are full of rubbish where builders are using them as their lots but these cars are not getting out off the road.

 

            Where the big vans are now parking its extremely dangerous where kids do cross and play in the evenings. My request is to try and bring those garage rents down so that people can actually use them because there’s no mileage at all in a load of garages lying around empty so please could you bring those rents down?”

 

81.7         Councillor Wakefield replied; “In North Portslade I’m aware that you’ve got 7 areas of garages, Graham Avenue, Valley Road, Stonery Close, Hazelholt, Flint Close, Foredown Road and Downland Court. I’m aware that there are 146 garages in that area. A lot of the garages, as you say, aren’t in use and are in disrepair. At the moment the garages in north Portslade are actually some of the cheapest in the city because they are in an outer area.

 

            The current charge for garages in the area, as I’m sure you’re aware, vary from £3.40p at the current price to, if you’re a council blue badge holder, £15.39 if you’re a private non-blue badge holder. The new charge, there is going to be a slight increase, will be of 7p if you’re a blue badge holder, 31p if you are a private garage renter.  I do sympathise that there’s some difficulty when you have large vehicles and you don’t have space. It would be nice to see more of the garages being used, garages will be being refurbished with some of the money that comes from the garages rents and hopefully that might make them more attractive. There’s also quite a number of garages in your area that are within the scheme where they’re going to be demolished, I believe they’ve already started, with the hope of building new council houses in their place.

 

            I’m ever so happy to meet with local councillors, as I have before, to discuss garages and discuss pricing in that area along with relevant officers as well so please make an arrangement to meet me and have a meeting so that we can have a discussion on it.”

 

81.8         Councillor Carden asked the following supplementary question; “Why is this different between a person that lives in a council house renting a garage and a person that lives on the same estate that’s bought his house? I can’t understand that. Same garage different rent. I don’t understand it and this is what people are asked to make, someone quoted me it was nearly £18. I didn’t get the full facts, they’ve got 2 cars and it’s cost them a lot of money every week to get there cars off the road and keep the area safe.”

 

81.9         Councillor Wakefield replied; “I haven’t got all those details in front of me here; I haven’t got them all in my head. Garages is one small part of the HRA budget, I would be very happy to meet with you, a lot of what you say is historical. There’s absolutely no reason why some of these things can’t change and I would be very willing to meet with you and discuss with yourself and fellow ward councillors.”

 

81.10    (c) Councillor Janio asked; “The previous Conservative administration took some very courageous decisions in the development of sustainable transport solutions right across Brighton and Hove. One of the most magnificent was the increase in cycling usage of over 26% in 2 years. Can the Cabinet Member of transport tell us how many brand new sustainable transport solutions his administration has introduced of over their first year?”

 

81.11    Councillor Davey replied; “We are introducing sustainable transport solutions and sustainable transport solutions are informed by the sustainable transport hierarchy which is walking, cycling and public transport and there’s a whole host of things we’re doing; improving the public realm, putting in new crossings which are going in across the city, we’ve got this wonderful new cycle lane going on the Old Shoreham Road which I understand you were supportive of under your administration perhaps you could correct me if that isn’t the case.”

 

81.12    Councillor Janio asked the following supplementary question; “One year ago the Conservative administration was poised ready to launch their very own version of the cycle hire scheme known as Boris bikes in London. Could I ask the Cabinet Member, as this has failed to materialise, must we now call it Davey’s duds?”

 

81.13    Councillor Davey replied; “If you were poised to launch your own Boris bikes scheme maybe let me have a copy of the business plan and I’ll have a look at it and we’ll see where we can go.”

 

81.14    (d) Councillor Marsh asked; “Would the Cabinet Member agree with me that every child in this city is entitled to access of fair and equitable process when expressing their preferences for schools they wish their children to attend regardless of where they live in the city?”

 

81.15    Councillor Shanks replied; “Of course I would agree with you, there’s obviously a supplementary coming.”

 

81.16    Councillor Marsh asked the following supplementary question; “Could the Cabinet Member assure me that instead of the piecemeal tinkering with the admissions process currently being undertaken much to everyone’s dissatisfaction and frustration, she will honour the commitment made by the Labour administration in 2007 for a full scale review of the admissions process in this current year 2012 to ensure that all the children and families of this city are entitled to and deserve. Will she give me assurance that that process will go ahead as previously committed?”

 

81.17    Councillor Shanks replied; “The commitment to review in 2012 would have to have been started in 2011 certainly before our administration came in to power. Because it was decided by the previous Conservative administration not to review that and I’m sure I don’t need to remind councillors here because I wasn’t a councillor then, what happened in the previous catchment area consultation.”

 

            I think we have got a system at the moment which is working really well for the majority of our children. 95% of parents got the preferred one of their 3 preferences at our secondary schools. Only 60 children have been directed as catchment. So we’re not in a position where we’ve got a great deal of problems with the school admissions system and I think at the moment we do need more secondary places and we’re really keen to make sure that in the next couple years we get new secondary schools in the city.

 

            I think it will be preferential now in a sense, to review what we’ve got because we will need to look at where those schools are going and how we can make sure that they’re in the right places and that children can get some easily. We feel that we have looked at this; it isn’t something that we legally need to do. We are looking at reviewing, and we’ll be coming on to that later when we discuss the school admissions plan as Councillor Marsh knows, at the work we’ve done this year on looking at some areas that we thought needed looking at.”

 

81.18    (e) Councillor K Norman asked; “Recent figures from the care quality commission show that nationally, more than half of elderly disabled people in care homes are being denied medical care and are being treated with a lack of dignity and respect. I know that over the past few years, we’ve had a really good record of this in Brighton and Hove but would the Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care now reassure our local residents that safeguards are in place locally to ensure that such practices are not happening in Brighton and Hove and will not happen in Brighton and Hove?”

 

81.19    Councillor Jarrett replied; “I’m glad to see that there is somebody on the opposite benches who takes a keen interest in adult social care because it is nice to hear. We are constantly concerned about the issue of adult safeguarding and quality of care. We are in a situation where we do not have direct control over a large proportion of the provision because it is in private hands.  We have discussed this at the adult safeguarding board and we have also discussed it at the homecare commissioning board and we are continuing to look for improved ways in which we can be more certain about the quality of the care that there is in our city. I would like to reassure everybody that the quality of care and adult safeguarding is always uppermost in our minds and we are continuing to seek to improve our procedures in that area.”

 

81.20    Councillor K Norman asked the following supplementary question; “No doubt you will be aware of the interim report of the commission on improving dignity and care that was published by the Local Government Association.  Will you make a commitment today to ensuring that all the recommendations from the final report of the commission to be published in their sum are implemented in Brighton and Hove as soon as possible?”

 

81.21    Councillor Jarrett replied; “Certainly we will implement all the recommendations as soon as possible within budgetary constraints. The big problem is going to be any cost implications of these requirements and as you’ll be aware, we have a serious budgetary situation at the moment.  As I stated in Budget Council I was extremely concerned about the long term impacts on the adult social care budget of the problem that we’re going to find ourselves in for the 2013/2014 budget as a result of changes that have been made.  But within cost constraints, yes we will do everything that we can to implement those recommendations as soon as possible.”

 

81.22    (f) Councillor Morgan asked; “Given that the Council’s intelligent commissioning pilot report on domestic violence from spring 2011 stated that 11,000 women in the city each year are subject to domestic violence. Domestic violence continues to be under reported with possibly only a quarter of incidents being reported to police and which committed the city council to specifically deliver new shared outcomes to achieve a more co-ordinated community response to preventing and reducing domestic violence.

 

            Does the Cabinet Member agree that the administration was wrong not to support the joint Crime Stoppers, Sussex Police, West Sussex County Council and Brighton and Hove Albion Project to increase anonymous third party reporting of domestic abuse?”

 

81.23    Councillor Duncan replied; “I think the first thing to say is that the background figures that you give about domestic violence inform us on this side of the chamber in our belief that tackling domestic violence, supporting victims and survivors of domestic violence and bringing perpetrators to justice is an absolute top priority.   To that end we, through the intelligent commissioning pilot that you describe, are spending an extra £100,000 on measures particularly through drives to support front line services. I think the important thing when considering any of these issues is that all of the money we spend, next years’ budget whipped up £100,000 increase will be over half a million pounds, all that will be focused on frontline services to protect victims and bring perpetrators to justice.

 

            I don’t actually agree that that Crime Stoppers scheme to which you refer would have been focused on those front line and projectors. That is why, in order to protect services that are delivering those front line objectives, I don’t agree that actually we should take money away from organisations like Rise and give it to organisations like Crime Stoppers.”

 

81.24    Councillor Morgan asked the following supplementary question; “Is the Cabinet Member saying that despite the estimated cost to local residents and public services that responding to domestic violence being estimated at £132,000,000 pounds, this council could not find £5000 from an annual budget of over £720,000,000 to fund a clearly identified and universally supported key policy area when it was prepared to spend 10 times that amount on promoting organic farming.”

 

81.25    Councillor Duncan replied; “I think the question was, again, why? And I think the answer was very clear, officers looked closely at that scheme, decided that the benefits it would provide in terms of supporting victims or bringing perpetrators to justice just weren’t justified by that scheme. That isn’t to say that this work isn’t of the utmost importance, that particular scheme however, professional officers decided; wasn’t the best way of spending money in our DV budget.”

 

81.26    (g) Councillor Wealls asked; “Can the Cabinet Member for Children and Young People please assure the council that the planned review of children’s centres will fully involve the not for profit voluntary and community sectors and that all commissioning and procurement will ensure that there’s a level playing field between them and in house service providers in order to ensure that there are no front service cuts?”

 

81.27    Councillor Shanks replied; “As you know the Children’s centres we’re talking about are in-house children centres and we are not proposing to consider out sourcing our children centres because they’re part of the city wide house led models so they’re part of what we get money from the health service etc.

 

            The consultation will look at a review of the children’s health centre’s services including health visiting which it needs to involve and we’ll also need to look at the statutory guidance on children’s centres which is being revised at the moment and then we’ll be able to look at what level of saving we might be able to get and we’ll look at this in the new children and young people’s committee in terms of scope of the consultation.

 

            I think we do already have voluntary sector providers which deliver children’s services and we obviously welcome that provision but what we’re consulting on here is our in-house provision and we do have a statutory duty to provide children’s centres and sure start centres which we are very keen to do.  We think that this model working with health is the best model that we can provide at the moment.”

 

81.28    Councillor Wealls asked the following supplementary question; “Statutory obligation to provide isn’t the same thing as statutory obligation to provide from in-house services and we need to make that clear. Just to make you aware a council like Westminster have managed reduce their budget by 20% without hitting front line services by fully engaging with voluntary sector. When I saw the Green’s budget proposals back in December I asked officers whether they’ve been asked to talk to the voluntary sector to see whether there were more services that could be run by them in Sure Start centres and the answer to that was,” we haven’t been asked.

 

            So I would like to ask you again whether you will at least talk to them to see what can be done by the non profit sector to see whether the priority of protecting front line services is maintained.”

 

81.29    Councillor Shanks replied; “We do have different positions on this politically, Councillor Wealls and I, and we’re not going to agree on this, I think it’s very important that we provide services as a council but I also think it’s very important that the voluntary sector provide services and we strongly support where they do.   In this occasion we’re providing children’s centres which are very well regarded, they’ve had very high Ofsted ratings, they work very well, they’re improving outcomes for young people and I would want to continue that where we can.”

 

81.30    (h) Councillor Hamilton asked; “Many council facilities are free. I can go to a library, museum or art gallery at no cost. Residents can take a dog for a walk in the park or take their children to the playground. These amenities are free and so they should be, I never here the word subsidy mentioned with regard to them yet for those who wish to play cricket or football or keep an allotment, they are deemed to be subsidised and can therefore be subjected to extortionate increase to reduce the subsidy.

 

81.31    Councillor West replied; “We’ve had these arguments already and that was a matter for the budget and we had that discussion and the rates for the next year were set at that budget. I don’t know why you’re asking this question now really.”

 

81.32    Councillor Hamilton asked the following supplementary question; “I see in the budget document that a saving of £93,800 is to be made on Bowling Green maintenance from April 2013. I understand the subsidy is to be limited to £4000 for each green. Bowls clubs will either have to maintain the greens themselves, difficult as it is a specialist job, or face very large increases in their subscriptions which will prove difficult for many of the retired members.  Some clubs may well go under, my estimate is that a bowls season ticket will at least double. Please can you give your estimate as to the likely increase?”

 

81.33    Councillor West replied; “Councillor Hamilton is correct to have identified in our projection for the 2013/ 2014 budget that would reduce the subsidy to bowling greens by £94,000.  The question coming back your way really is why are we having to do this?

 

            That is because, as you understand, we are being subjected to very deep cuts in our grants from the government and that matter has only been exacerbated to a considerable degree by the actions of both the opposition parties in choosing to freeze the council tax out the budget this year which I think comes to a total of about 3.6 million in the years 2013/2014.  So I think to some extent we already know the government’s put us under this pressure it’s also the opposition parties opposite that are putting us under this pressure to have to consider reducing these sorts of subsidies.”

 

81.34    (i) Councillor A Norman asked; “The new Crime Stoppers domestic violence service which aims to increase anonymous third party information relating to incidents of domestic abuse in Sussex was launched on St Valentine’s day by West Sussex County Council, Brighton and Hove Albion Football Club and Sussex Police.  A similar scheme in London has recently proved very successful, a leading Sussex police officer said that it was vital that all local agencies came together in order to build  a framework of trust for victims of domestic violence. Where those abused can feel safe, supported and empowered to make significant and often life changing decisions.

 

            Can the Cabinet Member please tell me the reason Brighton and Hove City Council felt unable to join with our partners in this vitally important work?”

 

81.35    Councillor Duncan replied; “I refer Councillor Norman to the answer I previously gave. I will however, because it was phrased slightly differently, give a slightly nuanced answer which is to say yes the spirit of partnership is absolutely key to this. That is why we are working very closely with Sussex Police and indeed are embedding the partnership Community Safety Team with the Neighbour Policing Teams of Sussex Police.

 

            It also suggests why it’s so important for us to have discussions with other councils, notably East Sussex County Council who took exactly the same decision as officers here in Brighton and Hove, it’s a scheme that West Sussex decided they would rather spend money on this particular scheme than on other things to protect these services that are operating on the front line to help victims of domestic violence.  East Sussex County Council made the same decision we did and it’s a decision that I think was the right one for victims.”

 

81.36    Councillor A Norman asked the following supplementary question; “The money in question to join this initiative was £5000 is there any way that this money could be found from other sources such as the small grants funding?”

 

81.37    Councillor Duncan replied; “It is a technical question, yes the small grants is designed to make money available for organisations that are doing things in the city that contribute to this council’s corporate goals. Of course, as I’ve said, reducing domestic violence is one of our administration’s goals it’s also one of the council’s corporate goals in a roundabout way through reducing inequality and throughout the corporate goals I’ll go away and look at the very specific thing you’ve suggested, talk about it with officers in the grants scheme and provide a written response in due course.”

 

81.38    (j) Councillor Cobb asked; “Given the unprecedented number road works in recent months, could the Cabinet Member for Transport and the Public Realm please tell me:

 

A)  What measures are being taken to try to ease delays for road users?

B)  What the timetable is for introducing a road permit or lane rental scheme in the city given that the Conservative groups’ notice of motion was passed almost 6 months ago at full council on the 20th October 2011?

 

81.39    Councillor Davey replied; “The level of road works are not unprecedented and I’m sure we all remember the city absolutely grinding to a halt when Southern Water were digging up the town centre just a few years ago so you know only too well that the council has to facilitate the access for the utility companies to carry out essential works and that is exactly what we are doing as previous administrations have done before us.

 

            To ease delays the Highways Manager and their team work very, very hard with the public transport operators.  Concerning delays to people, one of the things that happened in Ditchling Road where that unfortunately had to be closed due to some danger, left some residents isolated in the Roundhill area and what we did do was arrange for the contractor to pay for a shuttle bus so that the older people that lived in the Roundhill area did not have the inconvenience and the delays to them as non car owners of not being able to get into the town.

 

            Please look out for the report that will be at the Cabinet Member meeting next Tuesday which is about the introduction of a permit system which presents the business case for it and if this had been done under the previous administration, if we’d have inherited a permit system, we would have been in the position to apply for the lane rental system pilot that the central government was seeking but because you did not leave us with a permit system we were not in a position to do that.   We will look at proceeding with a permit system and then, should the government decide to extend the lane rental facility to other authorities, we will the be in a position to go for that should a Transport Committee or what ever other committee is made of a cross party membership, decide that is the best way to go for the city.”

 

81.40    Councillor Cobb asked the following supplementary question; “I would like the Cabinet Member to respond with more detail in a written reply, in reference to the number of road works not being unprecedented you did say you had all the figures etc.”

 

81.41    Councillor Davey replied; “In 2011 it was 10,300, in 2010 it was 10,000, 2009 it was 10,800 and in 2008 it was 10,600, however he would ensure a written response was provided.”

 

81.42    (k) Councillor C Theobald asked; “Will the Cabinet Member please tell me why the council is turning down local businesses who are willing to pay good money to the council to sponsor things like flowerbeds and roundabouts etc in the city? For example, the sponsor for the welcome to Brighton and Hove sign in Patcham has been refused their sponsorship this year and I would like to know why you are turning down good money in the city?”

 

81.43    Councillor J Kitcat replied; “You may recall that the previous administration, former councillor Fallon-Khan, approved a report starting a tender process for corporate sponsorship of a wide variety of sites across the city and that process has gone through and as such it will be through that contract through which any sponsorship will be done rather than on an ad-hoc basis.

 

            A tender was advertised and 6 companies responded to the 9 lots however there were a variety of issues with those tenders and so it was agreed with those companies that further mapping information would be collected along with locations for large format advertising and we have reopened the process to let them improve and expand their tenders which will close at the end of April and I look forward to bringing forward some more information on the successful bidders at the end of that. That’s why the process is currently held up because we are waiting for that to complete according to procurement regulations.”

 

81.44    Councillor C Theobald asked the following supplementary question; “I just wonder why there have been such long delays in getting this tender process, it seems if you haven’t got a corporate sponsor now that means we’ll be losing out. I can’t see how these things are going to take place, how you’re going to have that sign ready for the summer when you haven’t actually got the corporate sponsor in line at the moment. Please can you tell me have you got somebody that’s actually going to do it for this year?”

 

81.45    Councillor J Kitcat replied; “As I say the process should be complete by the end of April so I hope we can move forward with that. Unfortunately because at the moment the bidders have been potentially expanding their tenders, we can’t offer on a piece by piece basis various sponsorships because the tenderers could expand their documents to cover say a roundabout so we’d be in a situation where we’d agreed to let it to 2 people simultaneously which would not be appropriate.

 

            Unfortunately there was a delay due to some contractual issues due to some existing agreements relating to bus stops which haven’t been unpicked when we took over but we are moving ahead, and as I say by the end of April, I hope to have it in place and hopefully it will come to a Cabinet or Committee meeting and we can discuss it further then.”