Agenda item - Written questions from members of the public.

A list of public questions received by the due date of the 19^th January 2012 will be circulated separately as part of an addendum at the meeting.

57.1         The Mayor reported that three written questions had been received from members of the public and invited Ms. Fishleigh to come forward and address the council.

57.2         Ms. Fishleigh asked the following question; “Since the Save Saltdean Lido Campaign, presented a petition to Council in October, there appears to have been some activity from the Council.  However can you outline in detail what activities the Council have undertaken since that time including the results of that activity and what activity is scheduled to take place over the next few months?”

57.3         Councillor Bowden replied; “This is a two part response. I have been doing things as part of the executive and the planning authority has been doing other things.

            1.      Writing a report for my Cabinet Member Meeting (CMM).

            2.      Considering the report at my CMM meeting held on 6th December, at which various interested parties attended and spoke.

            3.      Meetings with the lessee.

            4.      Meeting with the Saltdean Community Association.

            5.      Appointment of an external Valuer, who has since produced a full valuation report regarding the likely surrender value of the leasehold interest and the value likely to be assessed if the local planning authority seek to make a compulsory purchase order.

            6.      Re-inspection of the property to check the extent of compliance with the notice served under the lease. As a result of this inspection the Council are not satisfied that the notice has been complied with.

            7.      A letter has been sent to the lessee urging the company to negotiate the terms of an agreed surrender of the lease.

            8.      The above information and any developments between now and then will be referred to in the report I am expecting for my next CMM on 6th March.”

57.1         Councillor MacCafferty replied; “Lido related activity from the local planning authority includes:

            1.      Appointment of a surveyor to see if there is any scope for the service of a Listed Building Repairs Notice.

            2.      There has been an inspection by the surveyor and a warning letter will be issued. If reasonable steps are not taken by the lessee the Planning Committee will consider what further action is appropriate.

            3.      Earlier this month there was a meeting requested by the lessee regarding a proposed development. The proposals were not favourably received and were referred to in Councillor Bowden’s letter to the lessee which urges the company to have constructive negotiations with the Council.”

57.2         Ms. Fishleigh asked the following supplementary question; “History has shown us that the lease holder does not respond well at all to the previous letters and warnings from the council.  In May 2010 the council sent him a letter requiring the completion of a list of essential repairs by the end of the year, we’ve seen a Scott’s schedule after an FOI request prepared by council officials in March 2011 listing the progress on each time of required repair and most of the items had no work done or the tenant had completed work to an unsatisfactory standard.

I want to tell people, these letters are sent over and over again and the lease holder has little regard for these letters. What we would like to know is that if Mr Audley fails, again, to comply with the terms of his lease, what are you actually going to do? Are you going to serve a section 48 notice backed up by regular inspections and if Mr Audley does not abide by the section 48 notice are you going to start to move towards a compulsory purchase order?”

57.3         Councillor Bowden replied; “The direction of travel is very clear from the itemised actions we’ve taken since the last council meeting and I don’t think the lessee can be in any doubt of where we want to go with this. It’s very unusual for an item like this to come to full council on so many occasions and even to draw out of Westminster, the local MP to talk. The amount of noise around this matter is not going to go away. We are determined to resolve this once and for all.”

57.4         The Mayor thanked Ms. Fishleigh for attending the meeting and putting her questions and invited Mr. Kemble to come forward and address the council.

57.5         Mr. Kemble thanked the Mayor and asked; “Would the Cabinet member for transport please clarify and justify why it is necessary to take out a complete lane in each direction of the Old Shoreham Rd in each direction to install a cycle lane that is twice the width of the cycle lane in Grand Ave?”

57.6         Councillor “Thank you for your question about the cycle and pedestrian improvements currently being made along Old Shoreham Road between the junctions of The Drive and Dyke Road.  When you describe a ‘complete lane’ being taken out it is unclear which ‘lane’ you are referring to.  Dual carriageway provision on Old Shoreham Road (A270) ends at the junction of Neville Road/Sackville Road and should operate as single carriageway until Lewes Road in the east, past the vogue gyratory.

            A resident petition first brought to Environment CMM in January 2010, highlighted concerns with ‘informal’ dual carriageway arrangements at Old Shoreham Road, particularly for young people attending schools in the area.  The petition referred specifically to unnecessarily wide carriageway arrangements which encouraged overtaking and speed.  Such concerns are somewhat justified by over 40 road related casualties in the last three years, three of which were serious and one fatal. 

            Public consultation in September 2011 showed that 75% of respondents supported the proposals to install cycle and pedestrian facilities along Old Shoreham Road between the junctions of The Drive/Shirley Drive and Dyke Road.  The previous layout of this section of the Old Shoreham Road created a hostile environment for people considering or choosing to walk and cycle.  The Old Shoreham Road is an arterial route and as such we are keen to give cycles users ample room where we can.  The reallocation of space will bring significant benefit to cycle users and pedestrians and improve road safety along there generally. The scheme is also anticipated to positively tackle congestion in the ‘school run’ peak.”

57.7         Mr. Kemble asked the following supplementary question; “Would councillor Davey agree with me that enclosing the Old Shoreham Road to install these lanes, which at the junction of Old Shoreham Road Dyke Road, is 1.7 meters wide and that the junction where the scheme ends at the Upper Drive is widening out to2.4 meters in comparison to the Grand Avenue one of 1.5 meters has increased traffic on the diversionary routes, created rat runs, reduced air quality and delayed the emergency responding to incidents thereby increasing response times?”

57.8         Councillor Davey replied; “It is not possible to build new infrastructure without causing some disruption and we have already apologised for any disruption that has and will be caused but the council staff and the highways management people have worked with the bus companies and with the emergency services to minimise any disruption so that the works will be completed as quickly as possible.”

57.9         The Mayor thanked Mr. Kemble for attending the meeting and putting his questions and invited Mr. Davis to come forward and address the council on behalf of Mr. Morris who had been unable to attend the meeting.

57.10    Mr. Davis thanked the Mayor and asked; “The council acts as trustee for the pleasure ground called The Level and holds the freehold, which is subject to: 1) covenants drawn up in perpetuity in 1822 designed to keep the land free from development, and 2) 1954 byelaws forbidding the use of bicycles.

            As trustees, can the council provide details under what Act it obtained the freehold and what legal processes need to be followed to obtain planning permission for the new skate park/BMX park, including potential appropriation of land and amendments of bye-laws, and how & when these are expected to be implemented?”

57.11    Councillor West replied; “The Council acquired the freehold of The Level under The Brighton Borough Extension Act of 1873.  The final details of the proposed skate park/BMX park are being designed.  Once the design is finalised the Council, as local planning authority, will be able to determine whether or not it requires planning permission, since the criteria are based on volume and heights.  If planning permission is required a planning application would be submitted by the Council’s Parks’ Team. Any planning application would be the subject of public consultation and any material planning considerations raised would be taken into consideration before any decision is made. 

            No appropriation of land will be required in connection with the proposed skate park/BMX park.  The 1954 Byelaws allow the riding of bicycles on The Level in certain circumstances. The Byelaws would not need to be amended to allow the proposed skate park/BMX park to go ahead”  

57.12    Ms. Davis asked the following supplementary question; “As the trustees, the council have certain obligations under the covenant I have mentioned. You should be aware that an application to register the open space on the Level and the rose walk as a town green has been submitted to the council which would protect the land from future development and secure it as a permanent pleasure ground for the public being the main obligation of the council acting as trustees.

            The council’s first move has been to reject such application which has been challenged by the applicant. Would the council consider voluntary registration of such land or part of it to demonstrate to the people of Brighton that as trustees it aims to honour the original deeds under which the land was donated to the inhabitants of Brighton?”

57.13    Councillor West replied; “I will get the Head of Law to write to you explaining and answering the questions you have asked in your supplementary.  We are intending to honour the wishes of the members of public, having had a considerable expression from people as to their support through the consultation for the plans that have gone ahead we have successfully won our funding bid from the lottery which is a fantastic achievement for us and we will now be able to move forward together with people to deliver on that in the coming months.

            We will then end up with the park that the people of that area and the city as a whole so desperately need and deserve and that we can be once again, extremely proud of and I think that is what the public want here and I hope we can work together on some of the details that you have been rightfully raising over time and end up with a really great result and everyone can enjoy a fantastic future at the Level together.”

57.14    The Mayor thanked Ms. Davis for attending the meeting and putting her questions on behalf of Mr. Morris and noted that concluded the public questions.