Agenda item - Petitions for Council Debate

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

 

(a)         Subsidised Bus Services – Lead Petitioner, Ms. Tracey Hill

(b)         Travellers, Horsdean Site – Lead Petitioner Councillor G. Theobald

(c)         Bowling Clubs – Lead Petitioner Councillor Farrow.

7(A).    SUBSIDISED BUS SERVICES

 

7.1             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 an e-petition concerning Subsidised Bus Services.

 

7.2             The Mayor invited Ms. Hill to present her petition.

 

7.3             Ms. Hill thanked the Mayor and stated that a total of 1,789 people had signed the combined paper and e-petition which read as follows:

 

            “We the undersigned petition the council to continue the current funding of subsidised bus services in Brighton and Hove.

 

            Bus services exist so that people can get around without the need for a car, and reducing subsidies will make it more difficult to reduce car ownership and usage. The proposed cuts will mostly affect those who cannot afford a car, cannot walk far, or cannot pay for a taxi. We urge the council to find the modest sums required to continue bus subsidies from other projects and avoid this backwards step.”

 

7.4             Ms. Hill stated that she hoped the council would find a way to ensure that the bus services were maintained and that a solution would be found for the No.52 service that served Woodingdean.

 

7.5             The Mayor noted that there were two amendments to the report’s recommendations and stated that he would therefore call on Councillor Robins to move the Labour & Co-operative Group’s amendment followed by Councillor G. Theobald to move the Conservative Group’s amendment.

 

7.6             Councillor Robins moved the Labour & Co-operative amendment which sought to add further recommendations to the report.

 

7.7             Councillor Mitchell formally seconded the amendment.

 

7.8             Councillor G. Theobald moved the Conservative Group amendment which also sought to add further recommendations to the report.

 

7.9             Councillor A. Norman formally seconded the amendment.

 

7.10         Councillor J. Kitcat noted that all parties had voted for the budget in February which had included revisions to the bus services and noted that had the amendment moved at the June Policy & Resources Committee been carried, the £1m saving achieved since then would not have been made.  Having set out the council’s position the independent operators had chosen to maintain a number of services on a commercial basis and following the information presented at the last Policy & Resources Committee, it was possible to subsidise a number of the other routes so that they were available.  There was a need to look at the school routes and to find a more flexible alternative to simply continuing with the subsidy in view of the falling numbers of pupils.

 

7.11         Councillor Mitchell stated that she believed it was appropriate to lobby for the retention of services and noted that the previous Labour Administration had worked closely with the bus company to improve services and provision such as accessible bus stops and real time bus information.

 

7.12         Councillor Davey stated that he could not support the proposed amendments as elements would require retendering of the contracts and this could not be achieved within the required timescales of the Traffic Commissioner.

 

7.13         Councillor Mears suggested that the current Administration had placed ideological views above the interests of the city.  She noted that the owner of the Big Lemon had contacted ward councillors to say that buses would be sourced to meet the requirements of the contract, but she suggested that this should have been done in the first place.  She also questioned the process which had resulted in the report to the July P&R Committee which identified an error in the contract award that had resulted in the No.52 service being awarded to the Big Lemon and a saving that was used to subsidise other services.  She hoped that an explanation would be forthcoming on how such an error could have been made.

 

7.14         Councillor G. Theobald stated that he would be seeking further discussions to see if the full route for the No.52 service could be supported as it was the only service that enabled residents of Woodingdean to get in to the centre of the city and to the main hospital.  He hoped that the Conservative amendment could be supported as there was a need to ensure that contract requirements for low-floor buses and through-ticketing could be met by the provider.

 

7.15         Councillor West referred to the One-Planet Living project and noted that the council and the city needed to reduce their carbon footprint and water-usage and that the funding allocated for the project would enable savings to be generated and then used to support other services such as the bus routes.  The decision to adhere to the procurement process had been vindicated as a saving had been achieved and services maintained.

 

7.16         Councillor Brown stated that the retention of the No.81 service had been welcomed by residents of Hove Park Ward as they would have been left with no service at all.

 

7.17         Councillor Simson referred to the No.52 service and queried whether in reviewing the contract the number of students from the Language School using the service had been taken into account, as this was on the increase, but was likely to go down if the restricted route was the only one available.  She also noted that it would cost bus users more as they would have to purchase a second ticket once their journey ended at the Marina and therefore it was likely to discourage more people from using the service.  She believed that there was a clear need for a full No.52 service that covered Woodingdean and Ovingdean and did not require having to change at the Marina.

 

7.18         Councillor Peltzer Dunn queried why there had been a need to discover an error in the award of the contracts to provide a solution to the situation that had been created and why so many people had been put through a period of worry only to find that there had been no need to do so.

 

7.19         Councillor Smith stated that he believed residents of Woodingdean, Ovingdean and Rottingdean had been treated as second class and denied equal accessibility to a service that enabled them to get to the centre of town or to the hospital.  He did not believe that many would be willing to change at the Marina and therefore it was likely that more people would enter by car and thereby increase numbers in the city.

 

7.20         Councillor Jarrett stated that the budget proposals had been voted on by all Groups and it was normal practice for a successful contractor to have the necessary equipment in place at the time the contract came into operation and not before.

 

7.21         Councillor Kitcat stated that he was pleased to see that two new operators would be providing services within the city and that they would meet the contract requirements in regard to their fleet.  He believed that the procurement process had shown that a number of routes could be maintained on a commercial basis and this would not have been the case had the decision in June been to retain all the subsidies as they were.

 

7.22         The Mayor noted the comments and thanked Ms. Hill for attending the meeting and presenting the petition.  He then put the Labour & Co-operative amendment to the report’s recommendations to the vote which was carried.  He then put the Conservative amendment to the report’s recommendations to the vote which were carried.

 

7.23         The Mayor then put the recommendations as amended to the vote which was carried.

 

7.24         RESOLVED:

 

(1)         That in view of the decision taken at the Policy & Resources Committee meeting on the 14^th June, 2012 the petition be noted;

 

(2)         That the Council welcomes moves from Brighton & Hove City Council and Brighton & Hove Bus Company that enable the 21B, 22, 24, 26, 27, 81A, 81, 74 and 96 bus services to continue running be welcomed;

 

(3)         That officers be requested to report to the Policy & Resources Committee at its next meeting confirming the completion of  contracts to run the 81, 81A, 21B, 96 and 74 services;

 

(4)         That, in addition to (2) and (3) above, officers be recommended to seek to identify the necessary funding and continue discussions with the bus companies with a view to running a direct service, with through ticketing, connecting Woodingdean and Ovingdean to the city centre and to report back to the Policy & Resources Committee with an Urgency meeting taking place if necessary due to the short timescales;

 

(5)         That officers be re quested to seek to ensure that any new contract approved for the service 52 contains a requirement (if it doesn’t already do so and subject to legal and procurement advice) for wheelchair accessible buses to be used on this route and that it is integrated into the ‘Real Time’ bus information system or a suitable alternative system and to report back to the Policy & Resources Committee on the outcome of the contract negotiations.

 

7.25         The Mayor then moved that the reports listed at Item 21 in the agenda and 21(A) in the addendum should be noted.

 

7.26         RESOLVED:

 

(1)         That the report (Item 21) be noted.

 

(2)         That the report (Item 21(a)) be noted.

 

Note:  

 

7.27         The Mayor then adjourned the meeting for a refreshment break at 6.30pm for a period of 45 minutes.

 

7.28         The Mayor reconvened the meeting at 7.15pm.

 

7(B).   TRAVELLERS, HORSDEAN SITE

 

7.29         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 Travellers and the proposed Horsdean site.

 

7.30         The Mayor invited Councillor G. Theobald to present the petition.

 

7.31         Councillor Theobald thanked the Mayor and stated that a total of 1,611 people had signed the combined paper and e-petition which read as follows:

 

“We the undersigned, object to Brighton & Hove City Council’s plans for a static Traveller site at Horsdean on the South Downs National Park in Patcham.”

 

7.32         Councillor G. Theobald stated that the petition was growing by the day and it emphasised the point that residents of Brighton and Hove objected to the proposed static Traveller site at Horsdean, which was also in the National Park.  He noted that a transient site already existed and the addition of a permanent site adjacent to this was not appropriate or conducive to social cohesion.  He therefore wished to move an amendment to the recommendation which would prevent the establishment of a permanent site within the National Park.

 

7.33         Councillor Peltzer Dunn formally seconded the amendment.

 

7.34         Councillor West stated that there were 23 pitches provided on the transient site and the creation of an adjacent permanent site would lead to an economy of scale.  He noted that it was difficult to manage the unauthorised encampments that emerged in the city and having a permanent site should help to reduce the number of occurrences.  He also noted that the previous Conservative Administration had recognised the need for a permanent site and secured funding for the provision of a site.  He also noted that the recent cross-party scrutiny review on Travellers had recommended the provision of a permanent site.  The proposed site would have to meet the relevant planning authority’s requirements and a consultation process was taking place and he believed that it was the best option for all concerned.

 

7.35         Councillor C. Theobald stated that she did not feel it was appropriate to have everyone based on site and expressed concern over the possible contamination of the water table.  She did not believe that a proper consultation exercise had taken place and was concerned that the existing transient site remained under-occupied even with groups setting up elsewhere as they did not want to pay for the use of the site.

 

7.36         Councillor Jarrett suggested that the best way of managing the unauthorised encampments was to have people on the permanent site and thereby enable better use of the transient site.

 

7.37         Councillor Wakefield welcomed the proposed creation of the permanent site and suggested that it would be regarded as treating Travellers with common decency and respectful of their human rights.

 

7.38         Councillor Jones suggested that the permanent site would enable its own community to be established and for those on the site to then be able to access services etc…

 

7.39         Councillor J. Kitcat stated that he was disappointed to see the petition given that the strategy to provide a permanent site had come from the cross-party scrutiny review.  The previous Conservative Administration had left the situation unresolved for four years and the proposed site would meet national standards.

 

7.40         Councillor Hyde stated that the matter was an important issue and noted that there were currently twenty vans parked at Saltdean which was causing residents concern.

 

7.41         Councillor Mitchell stated that the council had a policy to provide a permanent site and the Labour & Co-operative Group had supported Horsdean subject to pubic consultation.  She also noted that the Conservative Administration had secured funding and this was something that the current Government had chosen not to reduce and therefore she wondered where the Conservative Group would suggest for a permanent site.

 

7.42         Councillor West noted that three sites had been short-listed and that Horsdean had come out as the preferred site and therefore he could not accept the proposed amendment.

 

7.43         The Mayor noted that an amendment had been moved by Councillor G. Theobald and put it to the vote which was lost.

 

7.44         The Mayor then put the recommendation as listed in the report to the vote which was carried.

 

7.45         RESOLVED: That the petition be referred to the Environment & Sustainability Committee meeting on the 17^th October, 2012 for consideration.

 

7(c).   BOWLING CLUBS

 

7.46         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 petition concerning funding provisions for Bowling Clubs in the city.  He also reminded the council that he would be taking Item 20(b), Notice of Motion as part of the debate, along with the two amendments to the report and an amendment to the Notice of Motion.

 

7.47         The Mayor invited Councillor Farrow to present the petition.

 

7.48         Councillor Farrow thanked the Mayor and stated that a total of 1,627 people had signed the petition which read as follows:

 

“We the undersigned call on Brighton & Hove City Council presently governed by the Green Party, to debate their intention to reduce by £100,000 the subsidy to City Parks/Bowling Clubs throughout the City.

 

We call on the Council to debate this issue at their Council Meeting in July 2012.

 

City Parks are in discussion with each Bowling Club, individually, in Brighton and Hove over how each club can operate with reduced subsidy.  If the proposed reduction is implemented it could mean Clubs would have to increase their charges by 200% or face possible closure.”

 

7.49         Councillor Farrow stated the size of the petition showed the strength of feeling in regard to the proposed loss of subsidies to the various Bowling Clubs.  He stated that the clubs provided their members and others with the ability to enjoy a sport, socialise and exercise, all benefits that should not be discouraged.  The proposed reductions could see fees increasing by as much as 200% and it was very likely that a number of clubs would simply fold.

 

7.50         Councillor Farrow then moved an amendment to the report’s recommendation on behalf of the Labour & Co-operative Group to refer the petition to the Economic Development & Culture Committee and to request a report on the options to support the clubs and to invite a representative from the clubs to address that meeting.

 

7.51         Councillor Fitch formally seconded the amendment and stated that he believed the bowling clubs were being badly treated with no account in the proposed reductions being made of the size or the finances of each individual club.  He suggested that the matter needed to be considered by the committee with clear options being presented and all clubs informed of the proposals beforehand.

 

7.52         Councillor Brown moved the Conservative Group’s amendment which also sought to refer the petition for consideration by the Economic Development & Culture Committee.

 

7.53         Councillor Mears formally seconded the amendment.

 

7.54         Councillor Brown moved the Notice of Motion on behalf of the Conservative Group and stated that she had serious concerns about the scale of costs that the clubs would be faced with.  She accepted that there was a need for savings to be made but felt that the current proposals should be withdrawn and discussions held with the clubs to find a solution that could be achieved over a longer period.  The clubs were already suffering because of the increased parking charges and having the increased level of fees imposed would see a number of them fold.

 

7.55         Councillor Mears formally seconded the motion and stated that the clubs were the only outlet for a number of elderly people who wished t remain active and to be able to socialise.  She believed the situation went against the Sports Development Team’s publicity which aimed to encourage more people to participate in sport across the city.  The increase of over 200% in fees for many of the clubs was too much and meant that they would not be able to cover their costs even with increases to membership fees.  She noted that past Mayors had supported bowls in the city and that previously there had been a Mayor’s tournament and hoped that such support would continue.

 

7.56         Councillor West moved an amendment to the notice of motion on behalf of the Green Group and stated that he wished to thank Councillor Farrow for bringing the matter to debate.  He stated that the council was facing unprecedented costs which needed to be tackled and this had not been helped by the decision to freeze council tax.  He recognised the health and wellbeing benefits from playing bowls, but noted that across the city membership was falling and some degree of rationalisation may be beneficial.  The council maintained twenty greens in the city not all of which were used on a regular basis.

 

7.57         Councillor Phillips formally seconded the amendment.

 

7.58         Councillor West stated that the proposals had been raised with the clubs who had had time to adjust to the situation and there had been constructive discussions with officers with a variety of options being considered.  He wished to thank the clubs for their co-operation and stated that there was no intention to prevent people from playing bowls, however there was a need to make use of the available facilities and to encourage people to take the sport up so as to increase memberships.  He stated that discussions with the clubs would continue with proposals then being brought to committee for consideration.

 

7.59         Following a point of order, the Monitoring Officer confirmed that the Economic Development & Culture Committee held the delegated responsibility for the bowling greens and therefore should the council decide to refer the issue, it would be to that committee.  However, he also noted that dependant upon the budgetary considerations resulting from any decision by the committee; it may then require the mater to be referred to the Environment & Sustainability Committee or Policy & Resources Committee.

 

7.60         Councillor Smith stated that the council had supported bowls in the city for as long as he could recall and did not understand how the clubs were being singled out in regard to subsidies.  He noted that people were able to use the swimming pools, beaches and other such facilities without reference being made to these being subsidised.  He therefore did not understand why bowls was being referred to in this way and hoped that a solution could be found whereby the clubs could continue to function.

 

7.61         Councillor Hamilton stated that he believed there were a large number of people involved in playing or supporting the clubs and that a solution needed to be found that enabled them to continue to enjoy their sport.  He noted that the Corporate Plan for 2012/13 included an objective to increase sport and sporting activity in the city and yet it appeared to be the opposite with the current proposals.  He therefore believed that the current proposals should be reviewed.

 

7.62         Councillor Barnett noted that the Olympics were due to begin shortly which would heighten interest in sport, and yet the council was seeking to reduce a sporting facility.  She stated that the Hangleton & Knoll Bowling Club had expressed their concern over its future if the proposals were implemented and asked that further consideration be given to the matter.

 

7.63         Councillor Phillips stated that she had met with representatives from St Anne’s Wells who understood the need for the review of fees and were looking at how to mange the club so that it could continue.  It was a great example of being involved in the process and she hoped would see a positive outcome.  However, the council was in a difficult position because of the level of Government cuts that were being imposed and the need to maintain front-line services and she hoped that the amendment would be supported.

 

7.64         Councillor Jarrett stated that St. Anne’s Wells club was a good example of a club that had recognised the pressures faced by the council and were willing to look at how they could continue with a lower level of support from the council.

 

7.65         Councillor Peltzer Dunn stated that a large number of people enjoyed the game and queried whether provision would remain for members of the public to simply choose to play on the public lawns.  He accepted that aspects of the amendment could be supported but overall it did not achieve the aims of the actual notice of motion and therefore he would oppose it.

 

7.66         Councillor J. Kitcat noted the comments and stated that there was a need to take account of level of use of the greens which was limited to a period of 4-5 months and therefore a way forward needed to be found that was fair across all sporting facilities.  The figures that had been referred to were approximations and no decision had been taken as yet, the intention had been to consult and to then bring forward proposals for consideration.

 

7.67         Councillor Brown stated that the proposals had caused the clubs concern about their futures and it appeared that the council was not listening which was why the notice of motion had been presented.

 

7.68         Councillor West stated that there was a need for a balanced approach and to seek to find a viable solution that would provide a better future for the clubs, which was why the amendment had been put forward.

 

7.69         The Mayor stated that he would put each amendment to the petition report first and then the amendment to the notice of motion and the notice of motion itself.  He therefore put the Labour & Co-operative Group’s amendment to the vote which was carried.  The amendment having been carried, the Mayor noted that the Conservative Group’s amendment became obsolete and therefore put the report’s recommendations as amended to the vote which was carried.

 

7.70         RESOLVED:

 

(1)         That the petition be referred to the Economic Development & Culture Committee Meeting on the 20^th September, 2012 for consideration;

 

(2)         That a report be requested for presentation to the Economic Development & Culture Committee at its meeting on 20^th September setting out options for the future support to Bowls Clubs for consideration in advance of council budget setting; and

 

(3)         That the Chief Executive be requested to ensure a representative of the city’s Bowls Clubs is invited to attend and address the Economic Development & Culture Committee at the meeting on the 20^th September to set out their key concerns.

 

7.71         The Mayor then put the Green Group amendment to the notice of motion to the vote which was lost.

 

7.72         The Mayor then put the following notice of motion as listed in the agenda to the vote:

 

“This Council recognises that the sport of bowls is enjoyed by many residents of Brighton & Hove, particularly older residents for whom it is an important way of keeping physically and mentally fit and of maintaining social interaction in later life.

 

Therefore, this Council notes with concern proposals by the Administration to reduce the budget for the maintenance of bowling greens and other costs associated with running the city’s 14 bowls clubs by 60%, or £94,000, in 2013/14. A reduction in funding on this scale will make it virtually impossible for many clubs to survive. Furthermore, putting up membership fees to cover the increased costs would simply make bowls unaffordable for many older residents who are already struggling financially due to, amongst other things, the prolonged low interest rates on savings.

 

Therefore, this Council urges the appropriate Committee to:

 

(i)           Withdraw its proposals for drastic across the board cuts in support for the city’s bowling clubs;

 

(ii)   Seek a compromise solution that enables all clubs that wish to do so to continue operating, whilst exploring ways in which they can become more autonomous and less reliant on Council funding in the future;

 

And

 

(iii) Requests officers to bring forward a report to the Economic Development & Culture / Policy & Resources Committee(s) later in the year with concrete proposals about how this can be achieved.”

 

7.73         The motion was carried.