Agenda item - Deputations from members of the public.

A list of deputations received by the due date of the 18^th October 2012 will be circulated separately as part of an addendum at the meeting.

30.1         The Mayor reported that seven deputations had been received from members of the public.

 

30.2         Councillor G. Theobald noted that two of the deputations referred to the No. 52 Bus Service and that Item 46 on the agenda also related to the subject matter, and asked if the two deputations could be brought forward and taken with the report listed as Item 46.

 

30.3         The Mayor noted the request and stated that he was happy to take Items 30 (f) and (g) being the deputations together with Item 46, Supported Bus Routes and invited Mr. Wedd as the spokesperson fro the sixth deputation to come forward and address the council.

 

30.4         Mr. Wedd thanked the Mayor and noted that copies of the deputation had been circulated and therefore he wished to say the following:

 

“Please re-instate the 52 bus service to its original route and timings from the city centre to Woodingdean and Ovingdean. You know the background, you made the decision and we know that money is tight at present and we know that savings have to be found but only Ovingdean in baring the brunt of those savings, all other bus services were saved.

 

Lost passengers, lost revenue, more car journeys. The brief in your papers from me showed some of those negatively affected. Residents, parent, school and college students, primary school children, nurses, volunteers, City Council workers and patients for the RSCH.

 

The new times don’t suit; when the choices miss the bus or miss school, my daughter misses the bus and I don’t go on the bus either with her. That’s missed tickets, missed revenue. Before this was introduced there was little or no visible consultation, certainly not on the 52 that I got on everyday. Since implementation, very little justification. Over the last 6 weeks I’ve asked Councillor Davey and his officers 21 questions about the tendering process. I’ve had barely an acknowledgement and yet no reply I’m sure the Councillors will share my regret at what appears to be reticence on behalf of Councillors whose decision it was.

 

Nine other routes have been saved in part or in whole, I congratulate the Council for saving those, can you not save just the last one? We’ve been given lots of explanations about why the buses have to be re-timed. The Big Lemon says it’s to meet the 47 at the Marina. Not so, Mr Johnson told me that cross ticketing was always part of the tender, there was never a link. If that’s the case then why the City Council compel the Big Lemon 52 service to meet and only to meet, the 47 Compass?

 

Which organisation is telling the complete truth? Mr Johnson has also blamed the print run of the bus times publication for holding on to the new, inconvenient times and as we know bus times is published by the red buses which I think is a competitor to Big Lemon and Compass. It’s a bit like getting BA to sell the seats on Virgin Airplanes.

 

My brief to you Councillor shows that the morning timings are useless for all practical purposes for passengers trying to get to work or school. It isn’t just a change at the Marina that’s not a minor inconvenience, it’s often windy, it’s often wet, the sheltering is awful you have to walk and the bus times that you are going to catch are not on the internet and they’re not on the real time displays.

 

Do we wait for 55 minutes or only 5? And those two changes together plus times and the changes are a positive disincentive to passengers, like me, committed to bus travel. Customers have a choice, most have cars or alternatives to the bus, they don’t have to get the car, fight the traffic and parking fees but many are because the 52 no longer works for them. Think of the journey out of the city centre, there’s  only one place where the coast way bus combines with the 52 and that’s Roedean School right on the A259 in the wind, I don’t know if there’s a bus shelter there, can’t remember but it’s bleak, horrid, exposed and it’s the only place where the 2 buses cross.

 

Think about the walk up Greenways, for a young and fit and healthy pedestrian like me it’s easy but for the infirm or the elderly; yet another obstacle to bus transport and school children have to change. You see 150 odd children from Cardinal Newman, 39 odd from BHASVIC. Their journey time has doubled. What about the impact of Kent having multiple bus companies running services in Brighton?

 

What about the tourists? Think about London buses, New York cabs. Ticket prices up25% when you buy from the driver and just in closing, can I ask you to consider all the other places in the County of Sussex which are better served than Ovingdean. All we want is a service as good as Steyning, all those well known Brighton Council Tax payers in Tunbridge Wells, Lewes, Uckfield and Ringmer. Ringmer has twice as many b uses as Ovingdean and they don’t pay taxes to you. What do we want please Councillors? Reversion to our old bus times, school buses back, a direct city centre just like Ringmer and Steyning and you can afford it. It is not as much as you say Councillor Davey.”

 

30.5         Councillor Davey replied;

 

“I can’t remember how many questions you submitted, but you asked for them to be treated as an FOI (Freedom of Interest request) and they are being treated as such and a response will be coming accordingly. Brighton and Hove Buses did not withdraw the 52 at weekdays and 57 Sunday services Woodingdean/Ovingdean direct to the city centre, the contracts for these Council supported services came to an end and the new tenders were awarded as you know to the Big Lemon and Compass Travel respectively.

 

Under European Legislation we have to go out to competitive tender for the services and each company bids for those tenders. We have to accept the best bid based on quality and price, as bus companies will use their vehicles on commercial and supported services in the most efficient way possible, we cannot stipulate a particular vehicle levy for our supported buses without insisting our services were operated using branded buses which would raise the cost substantially and we are not allowed to direct an award to a particular dominant operator and I’m sure other Councillors would not wish us to show preference like that even if we were able to.

 

As you point out there is an improving service from and to destinations in the widest Sussex area which is very good news for this city as more people are choosing to travel here by bus. All of these services are operated commercially by either Brighton and Hove Buses or other bus companies with no financial support, certainly from this Local Authority. If the number of passengers on the number 52 route were sufficient a commercial service could possibly be operated but reports form the operators unfortunately show that, in their view, this is not the case. With regards to cost, the extra contract cost of maintaining a falling 52 service over 4 years was considerably more than £100,000 per annum which the Council was unable to afford.

 

However the Council has ensured that there is a good link from the 52 to the hospital and into the city centre. With regards to timetables, the Council has arranged the Brighton and Hove Bus Company to provide and maintain all timetables for the bus services it funds regardless of operator. This ensures that the bus information is provided to the same uniform high standard across the city and the number of other bus operators using commercial routes within the city also choose to pay to have their service included within the Brighton and Hove Buses timetable frames in Brighton and Hove Buses format.

 

The Big Lemon’s Buses on the route through Ovingdean are clearly marked with the route number and destination, in your written deputation, and I’m not sure you mentioned it in your verbal one, you also mentioned the Lewes Road and the money being used to pay for the improvements is from a one off Government Funded grant specifically for that purpose and would not be transferable to support an existing bus service elsewhere.”

 

30.6         The Mayor then invited Miss. Tsapparelli as the spokesperson for the seventh deputation to come forward and address the council.

 

30.7         Miss Tsapparelli thanked the Mayor and stated,

 

“I’ve been catching the 52; the only school bus that services Woodingdean and Ovingdean for over 3 years. I left the house at 8:35am every morning and caught the bus all the way to school and also in the afternoons, a journey taking me around 50 minutes. The double decker bus was usually full with students from Cardinal Newman School and Sixth Form, BHASVIC and Blatchington Mill. Two weeks after the new school year began I was given a letter informing me that my bus would be cancelled in less than a week and I would have to find alternative means of getting to school. I currently catch 2 buses to school, the first of which being the 52 to the Marina and in order to catch this bus I leave at 7:25am 10 minutes earlier.

 

As we approach winter and it becomes increasingly dark in the mornings and late afternoons, I’m waiting at bus stops in the dark often alone. After catching the 52 for 25 minutes, I wait in the Marina for my next bus the 7 which despite being due every 7 minutes sometimes takes nearly 20 often in the cold and the rain. I get off the bus at Montefiore Road at approximately 8:30 but frequently later, school starts at 8:40am this is a 0.6 mile walk that takes 10 minutes if I rush, the journey entails walking along and crossing the busy Old Shoreham Road, in order to avoid being late for school and getting detention I do not have time to walk to a crossing and must wait for a gap in the traffic and run across the road.

 

I also have to walk across a field with no path and is muddy but as the mornings become colder, will become icy and more hazardous. In the afternoons I make the same journey in reverse arriving in the Marina at 3:35pm and wait until 4:10pm sometimes alone and, again, am concerned about the safety implications of this. I am currently 14 but my younger sister, aged 12, must also make this journey and I cannot always accompany her. My youngest sister is 10 and will be a pupil at Cardinal Newman School when she is aged 11, how am I expected to get to school in time without endangering my life?”

 

30.8         Councillor Shanks replied;

 

“The history of bus services is a long complicated one to fit in here, but we all wish that we did not have the situation of privatised bus services etc. We are really sorry about the lateness of the announcement of this and we have apologised to schools and to parents because people need to know what’s happening in advance so I do apologise for that. We are looking at school transport across the city because it’s obviously very important to us to make sure that children are able to get to school on time, we don’t have a legal obligation to make sure that there’s a bus that goes to your home but we do have a responsibility to make sure there are school places and we need to look very closely at the safety issues so we are having a review of this and I’ve asked officers to look at this across both school transport and public transport to make sure that those two are working well together. So I’m sorry about your journey but it is something that we are concerned about and we are happy to hear individual stories to see if we can help with that.”

 

30.9         The Mayor thanked both Mr. Wedd and Miss. Tsapparelli for attending the meeting and presenting their deputations and invited Councillor J. Kitcat as Chair of the Policy & Resources Committee to introduce Item 46, Supported Bus Routes.

 

30.10    Councillor Kitcat stated that the item had been referred from the Policy & Resources Committee to the Council for information and concerned the previous request from the council for the committee to review the concerns raised by residents in regard to the decisions taken on supported bus routes.  He stated that whilst the committee understood the concerns raised and noted that action had been taken to enable further routes to be supported and maintained.  However, the No.52 service could not be fully funded and the shortened route was the one that had been tendered for and was being operated.  The council was in a difficult financial position and unless further funding could be identified he could not see how the service could be supported any further.

 

30.11    Councillor Simson stated that the areas of Ovingdean and Woodingdean were the only ones in the city which were adversely affected by the decisions taken at the Policy & Resources Committee and she believed that something should be done to reinstate the full route.  She also noted that the current service did not match up with other service providers’ timetables and meant that children were finding it difficult to get across the city to school, commuters could not get to the station, it was difficult to get to the hospital and elderly people could not travel easily on the buses.  She believed that people were being put at risk and that something had to be done to reinstate the full service and therefore suggested that another review be undertaken and an assessment made of how the service could be provided.

 

30.12    Councillor Mitchell stated that the proposed cuts to the bus routes had been put forward by the Administration and had not been supported by the Opposition Groups.  When the matter was considered at the Policy & Resources Committee, additional resources were found to enable the reinstatement of a number of services and the Administration were urged to find the remainder in order to maintain the No. 52 service, but failed to do so.  She noted that the budget setting process for 2013/14 was beginning and suggested that this issue should be revisited and funding identified to enable the reinstatement of the full service for the No.52 bus route.

 

30.13    Councillor Mears stated that there was a need to consider the safety of the children using the bus service and that she felt there was an accident waiting to happen, given the risks that had been highlighted by the deputations.  She stated that residents felt that they were not being listened to by the council and they could not understand why the necessary resources could not be found to support this bus route.  She suggested that there was a need to review the various projects that the Administration wished to support and to either delay some or put them on hold so that resources could be found to support the No. 52 service.  She also noted that there had been a lack of consultation with Cardinal Newman school over the impact of the changes to the service for their children.

 

30.14    Councillor G. Theobald stated that the No.52 was the last major route that remained unsupported, resources had been found for other services that had been due to be cut and he questioned why it was nothing was being done to reinstate the No.52 service.  He noted that it was the residents of Ovingdean, Rottingdean and Woodingdean that had been left to suffer and queried why the required level of funding could not be found from the overall council budget of £800m.  He asked that the matter be reconsidered and the necessary funding found to enable the full route for the No. 52 service to be reinstated.

 

30.15    Councillor West stated that whilst the Council’s overall budget was around £800m, the current economic climate and budgetary pressures from the Government meant that it was a very difficult process to manage the budget.  The supported bus routes had been put out to tender and following the procurement exercise savings achieved that enabled other routes to be supported.  The No. 52 route had not proved viable and a tender had been awarded for the shorter route which did enable passengers to change at the Marina and get into and around the city.  He also noted that the opposition groups had not come forward with any alternative ways of funding the full service and suggested that they should do so.

 

30.16    Councillor Peltzer Dunn questioned the value placed on a child’s education and noted the extended travelling time caused by the decision to change the bus services and suggested that further consideration needed to be given to supporting the one area of the city that had been left unfairly affected by the whole process.

 

30.17    Councillor Cox referred to the deputations and suggested that there was a need to listen to the residents and find a way to support them rather than leave them to their own ends.  He therefore sought reassurance that the matter would be looked at again.

 

30.18    Councillor Kitcat noted the comments and stated that it was a result of Government cuts to various subsidies that meant that difficult decisions had to be taken.  He believed the procurement process had enabled some routes to be maintained and this proved its worth.  It had not been possible to identify any further resources for the No.52 bus route and the proposed cuts to the routes had been agreed at the previous Budget Council meeting.  He noted that a review was being undertaken in regard to school transport and hopefully it would lead to alternative provision but as things stood he did not see how any funding could be made available for the bus route.

 

30.19    The Mayor noted that the deputations would be referred to the Policy & Resources Committee for consideration.  The persons forming the deputation would be invited to attend the meeting and would be informed subsequently of any action to be taken or proposed in relation to the matter set out in the deputation.  He also stated that the report on supported bus routes had been referred to the council for information and therefore moved that it be noted.

 

30.20    RESOLVED: That the report be noted.

 

30.21    The Mayor then invited Mr. Cummings as the spokesperson for the first deputation as listed in the addendum that had been circulated to come forward and address the council.

 

30.22    Mr. Cummings thanked the Mayor and stated that:

 

“We are here on behalf of the Roedean Residents Association to ask the council to rectify the current situation without further delay.  Brighton and Hove prospers enormously from the tourist industry and the tourists who come here and many thousands arrive by coach, dozens of coaches each week. However B & H City Council only provide 42 coach parking spaces in the city to manage the ever growing demand over recent years so officials have been quietly directing coaches to park along totally unsuitable roads adjacent to and actually within residential neighbourhoods such as Roedean Road, The Cliff, Roedean Crescent and Roedean Way being major examples.

 

As well as being a visual eyesore the continual mass of unofficial coach parking in this and other areas is dangerous to the road users and pedestrians alike; neither Roedean Road nor Roedean Way have pavements. Of course with no facilities provided for the drivers they are forced to resort to urinating and even defecating behind their vehicles which is an all too regular sight for local residents. Furthermore the volume of coach parking encourages lorries to park here ( there is no HGV provision either ) and as a result the whole area resembles a motorway service station without the services and not the beautiful residential neighbourhood that it actually is and deserves to remain.

 

Surely coach travel should be regarded as “green” and with the Green party doing everything they can to discourage the use of cars proper provision for coaches and their drivers is essential. The current provision could lead to questions on health and safety since the drivers spend many hours with no suitable rest area, food or toilets. We understand there is reluctance on the part of some companies to go to Brighton with these non-existent facilities but if these were in place they would send many more thus increasing business for the city in many different ways.

 

It cannot be stressed too highly the dangers this unauthorised parking creates. There is no pavement down Roedean Road, only a narrow pedestrian way marked with a white line over which most cars travelling towards the A259 are forced to drive. Any pedestrian takes his life in his hands using this way when coaches are parked. Also crossing the road is fraught with danger since there is no visibility, the bus service is disrupted because the drivers heading to Brighton rightly consider at certain times it too dangerous to drive on the wrong side of the road. Getting on and off the bus is a major problem with no visibility of oncoming traffic. There has been a serious accident recently entirely attributable to one of the car drivers being forced on to the wrong side of the road and it is only a matter of time before there is another possibly fatal accident. The council should be aware that it will carry huge responsibility for any accident related to coach parking other than in officially designated areas.

 

We urge the council to stop stone-walling this problem as they have been doing for years and act immediately to provide a 21^st. century coach parking provision on a suitable site for our city.”

 

30.23    Councillor Davey replied,

 

“Clearly you are aware of the history, there’s a very long history to this and it’s been a problem which previous administrations have failed to deal with, it feels a bit like park and ride really where the city has never been able to find a suitable site for a coach park. The coach park in Madeira Drive is in high demand in the summer but is less used in the winter and as you know drivers sometimes prefer to park for free at Roedean Road. This year has seen a 10% increase in the use of Madeira Drive by coaches and that built on a 10% increase in the previous year which reversed previous decreases in 2009.

 

So at the moment it is at least the highest it’s ever been. Unfortunately there are insufficient funds to establish a permanent coach park as originally conceived on the Black Rock site as was mentioned a little while ago and so I’ve asked officers to review the position and take into account what options there may be for parking in the city, whether there is a financially viable use at Black Rock and I think this needs to feed in to part of the comprehensive Seafront Strategy and look at all those competing uses for this land.

 

But all of this has to live within the constraints of space and money, both of which are very severe but I will be asking Transport Officers to look to feed this in to the Seafront Strategy and see what solutions we can possible come up with.”

 

30.24    The Mayor thanked Mr. Cummings for attending the meeting and speaking on behalf of the deputation. He explained that the points had been noted and the deputation would be referred to the Transport Committee for consideration.  The persons forming the deputation would be invited to attend the meeting and would be informed subsequently of any action to be taken or proposed in relation to the matter set out in the deputation.

 

30.25    The Mayor then invited Mr. Campbell as the spokesperson for the second deputation to come forward and address the council.

 

30.26    Mr. Campbell thanked the Mayor and outlined a number of grievances that he had with the council and certain councillors.

 

30.27    Councillor West replied to the effect that given the nature of the allegations he felt it was better to not seek to reply but suggest that they were raised and dealt with through the proper process.

 

30.28    The Mayor thanked Mr. Campbell for attending the meeting and speaking on behalf of the deputation. He explained that the points had been noted and the deputation would be referred to the appropriate Committee for consideration.  The persons forming the deputation would be invited to attend the meeting and would be informed subsequently of any action to be taken or proposed in relation to the matter set out in the deputation.

 

30.29    The Mayor then invited Councillor Summers as the spokesperson for the third deputation to come forward and address the council.

 

30.30    Councillor Summers thanked the Mayor and stated that:

 

“There is an urgent need to give consideration to the impact of the new home care contracts introduced by the Council.  These new contracts were designed to ensure that people receiving home care received more choice and control as the previous system wasnot suitable for the more flexible services that are required, which is why the council changed the way providers are paid.

 

Councillor Jarrett has stated that the council is not responsible for the way independent providers pay their staff and has no power to control them, but is keen to work with them to provide a minimum live-able wage of £7.19 per hour.  This figure being less than a shop assistant can earn in this city.  This shows how little Councillor Jarrett, and all those who support this figure, value both the care workers and those they serve across this city despite statements to the contrary.  He also states that he is looking into ways to support the home care industry locally in terms of both recruiting and retaining home care workers, and trying to address the issue of rising fuel costs.  Work is being undertaken to look at initiatives that can be implemented to help providers (not staff) with these costs.

 

The council is charging its clients a maximum of £21.50 per hour to run its in-house services, yet expects that outside agencies will provide the same high level of service for just £14.50 per hour. How does that work?  However, nothing done properly is done cheaply and that is a trap the Green council has fallen into when changing the way providers are paid.  The council no longer pays enhancements for weekends/anti-social hours and expects lone agency workers to visit service users up to 10pm, yet council workers visit in pairs.  It no longer pays fuel allowance nor does it even make provision for it or for wasted time travelling between calls (which increases working hours) or depreciation of vehicles, nor does it pay enhancements to providers to ensure continuity of care.  All this apparently gives service users more choice, control and flexibility - how?

 

You have all seen the effects that the new contracts have had on one small local agency within this city in the 3 months since the contracts have begun, and the costs that those care workers who remain are expected to swallow in order to continue working.  8 workers with between 4 and 7 years’ experience have left and more may follow.  This agency previously had an excellent staff retention record, and was rated in the care quality commissions report as a well-performing caring agency.  The staff who have left have been replaced mainly by students who work in their spare time to fund their studies, and by the time they are experienced they will have left to pursue their dreams and so the cycle will continue.

 

At the last Adult Care & HealthCommittee meeting Councillor Jarrett confirmed that across the city, in the 3 months since the contracts began, 153 care workers have been recruited and 60 have left.  How long the remaining 93 will stay remains to be seen. However, it was curious to note that the number of home care staff across the city has not, according to Councillor Jarrett, diminished.  This then begs the question whether or not it has, in fact, been increased in order to meet the demands of an increasing number of people receiving home care!  Much of this information, and more, has been presented at the last 2 Adult Care & Health Committee meetings and is also supported, as you can see, by both Unison and Michelle Mitchell of Age UK.

 

This deputation requests that the council reconsiders the position it has placed care workers in, and seeks to address the imbalance caused with a report to the next Adult Care & Health Committee meeting.”

 

30.31    Councillor Jarrett replied,

 

“I will say first of all that we do value care workers and that one of the first intentions of this re-tendering process was to raise the minimum wage that care workers were paid and that has been achieved but unfortunately not everybody benefited and there were some circumstances in one or two of the contracts which meant one or two people lost out.

 

The new contractual arrangements consolidated the rates at which providers are paid from nearly 30 different rates to 3 rates the existing system was just too complicated to handle, it was very difficult for a number of people to understand The hourly standard of special care rate found plus a 15 minute call enhanced rate

These rates were increased by 10.7% and 11.8% from the rates prior to the contract so we did increase the base rates. However there were no enhanced rates paid to provide us for evening and weekend work in the contract. Providers continue to receive enhanced rates for bank holidays. The contract with the providers, does not specify the rates of pay for staff and each provider agency, however as part of the procurement process all providers were asked to confirm that they would be paying staff at least the local living wage.

Providers confirmed that currently pay rates for experienced workers now vary from £6.55 for a standard hour week day to £8.65 and for new care workers from £6.30 to £7.60. The standard weekend rate care paid is from £7.65 to £9.75 for experienced care workers and from £7 to £8.76 for new care workers. The highest reported hourly rate was £9.98.

 

The new providers awarded contracts in the city are offering higher pay rates ranging from £7.50 to £11. Some providers make their own arrangements as to how they divide up the money that we give to them and they do pay enhancements for evenings, 46% of providers and for weekends 90% of providers do pay an enhanced weekend rate.

 

Providers have responded in a variety of ways in relation to new rates the Council pays and the rates that staff are paid. The hourly rate the staff are paid will vary between provider and within each provider it will vary depending upon their hours of work, number of hours paid and experience of workers.

 

In relation to uniforms, which was a previous question asked, 85% of providers do have a uniform and all these are provided free of charge. That was a question that was raised by Councillor Barnett I believe. The review of the Contract Implementation confirms that since the implementation overall providers have recruited 150 new additional staff and 60 care staff have left. We have had a net increase in the number of staff who are employed. The level of experience of staff who have left cannot be confirmed, we could surmise that somebody leaving would have had some experience but we can’t say exactly how much experience they had.

The actual recruitment and potential data reaching the individual provider varied and this would vary depending upon the specific contract given to each provider. Loss of staff is regretted but it is a sector which does traditionally have high turnover and the overall capacity which is the thing that should concern us in the city has not been diminished so we have the capacity to deliver the care and that’s the critical thing.

 

The actual number of people receiving home care has increased slightly as has the number of hours of care but we’re still undertaking a full analysis of that information. Quality of service remains good and broadly at the same levels as before contract implementation we do monitor quality of care by a number of routes. Care providers are in the main, continuing to provide the standard of care required. The difficulties that we have experienced in the past for instance over the summer of 2011 have not occurred this year in summer 2012 so it is a positive indication that this contract is working well.

 

We provide a comprehensive free training development program to independent sector care providers, this program has continued and we have a commitment to a skilled and a competent workforce.

This is a new contract, it’s been tendered, and we cannot alter the conditions of that contract early on in the contract without applying to all the providers. This is an £11,000,000 contract we cannot simply go chopping and changing conditions without proper data to work on. We are undertaking a full review as is usual in these cases, there will be a six month review and after the six months review a report will come back to the appropriate committee which will be in January."

 

30.32    The Mayor thanked Councillor Summers for speaking on behalf of the deputation. He explained that the points had been noted and the deputation would be referred to the Adult Care & Health Committee for consideration.  The persons forming the deputation would be invited to attend the meeting and would be informed subsequently of any action to be taken or proposed in relation to the matter set out in the deputation.

 

30.33    The Mayor then invited Mr. Carlisle as the spokesperson for the fourth deputation to come forward and address the council.

 

30.34    Mr. Carlisle thanked the Mayor and noted that copies of the deputation had been circulated and therefore he wished to say the following:

 

“I’m here today to talk to you regarding the impact of the decision to close 2 residential homes for adults with learning disabilities in Hove, the manner in which that decision was arrived at and some of the figures being quoted.

 

I’d like to thank Council Leader Mr Kitcat for his response to my original letter which you’ve all received. It’s my understanding that the current gross expenditure for running both 228 New Church Road and 267 Old Shoreham Road is combined total of £964,760. This figure comes from a unit cost analysis performed in March of this year.

 

Given that Mr Kitcat claims that current estimated savings to be made by closing both these services are around £600,000 more, this would mean that the Council would then be allocating the budget of only £364,760 to provide a frankly bare minimum service for those affected. The difference is roughly two thirds, I fail to see how these complex and vulnerable people can have their needs met to an acceptable standard given the enormous cut in the budgets proposed. The people who this affects will suffer significant risk to their personal safety as a direct result of this decision. I cannot see how a service of comparable, safety and dignity can be offered given the reductions proposed.

 

Remember these are people who’s disability were deemed so severe by managers employed by this Council that they were not consulted on this proposal that directly affects them due to the heightened anxiety and the resultant likelihood of both challenging and self injurious behaviours that this consultation will cause them. Imagine then if you will, the state of heightened anxiety and distressing behaviours that are likely to occur if they are forced to move from homes that minimise all these risks as far as possible, into new bigger and much less homely and more institutional environments.

 

This, Councillors, is going backwards and is certainly not valuing people and it goes against everything the Government says about independent living, rights, choice and people’s control over their own lives. I’d like to illustrate this point with detailed knowledge of one particular person affected by this decision. I’m going to tell you about the last time she moved house, from somewhere she wasn’t particularly happy, to the place she has become the most settled, anyone who knows her, has ever seen her.

 

It took her years to settle into her current home, in the first few years, after she moved, her anxiety was heightened to such an extent that it produced in her extreme self injurious in which she would spend hours every day repeatedly banging her head against the wall of her bedroom leaving her with a large open wound in the middle of her forehead that has become a permanent scar today.

 

It is only because the excellent trained staff team and the accumulated familiarity over the last 9 years that has enable her to reduce these distressing daily incidents to virtually nothing. So the decision taken by the sub-committee to close her home will in all likelihood condemn her to repeat those negative behaviours over and over again for who knows how long. That is not right, it is not fair. I ask you what choice or control is she being given over her own life? And that’s just one person that’s affected; please think about all the others who will be affected in their own way by this decision.

 

I’d also like to raise the issue about how the decision was taken at committee and how, on any other day, would have been different. It’s my understanding the Councillor Powell who normally sits on this committee but was on leave at the time of the vote would have voted to keep the services open meaning that the vote would have been 6-4 in favour of keeping them open in their current format however Councillor Powell’s substitute on the committee on that day, I believe it was Councillor Shanks, voted in the other direction to close the service meaning the vote was tied at 5-5 giving the chair, Councillor Jarrett, the casting vote and we all know the way that went.

 

Now I’m not fully up to speed on whether or not this goes again the Council’s constitution or whether or not it is in fact legal or even if Councillor Jarrett and his Green Party cohort have acted over and above their agreed constitutional powers but I do believe that it is plating politics with the lives of our cities vulnerable and voiceless people.

 

On top of this I would like to draw Council’s attention to the way in which the consultation was amended with only nine days to go before the vote after the official consultation period was over. I fully understand that Councillors only require five days to read and digest information prior to a vote, my contention is that parents, carers, advocates, staff, members of the public and let’s not forget the people with a learning disability affected, did not get opportunity to review or comment on the amended document.

 

Finally, and perhaps more shockingly, I’ve recently been made aware of an off the record meeting that’s taken place in which objections to the proposed closures have been made by a relative of one of those affected to Councillors who have intimated that if the closure remove did not take place now then it will be more likely that those affected will be moved over to private sector, against the wishes of the relatives and carers, sooner rather than later. The relative threatened to withdraw their objection as they wanted the relative to remain in in-house service provision as long as possible.

 

Obviously I do not want to name names in an open forum but if anyone wishes to speak to me regarding this I’d be more than happy to do so and I can provide notes.

 

I was also stunned to learn that similar Councillors voting on this did not actually visit the homes they voted to close. Councillors I urge you to conduct a full review of this decision, exploit all other options that would be less damaging to our cities most vulnerable people.”

 

30.35    Councillor Jarrett replied,

 

“That doesn’t match up very much with what I had but I will attempt to respond to the points you’ve introduced as well as the sum of your original responses. As far as the finances go, there is not a reduction in the amount of money that is going to be spent on the care for the individuals. We are still going to be providing at least the same standard of care with the same number of staff at the same level of training, that was always the intention, you may have a different interpretation of the numbers to what the officers have prepared, I can ask them to look at your figures and we can perhaps see where that discrepancy arises but there is no reduction in the amount of money that is going to be spent on the people but we will be spending less on the properties and that is where the major saving comes and also perhaps in the total number of managers that are required that is where the statement arises.

 

So my intention at the beginning of this process was that if we could possibly save money on having less premises rather than any reduction in the frontline care that was a preferable approach to take. I would have to disagree with you that this is moving to an institutional setting, we’re talking about moving to, perhaps in the case of Windlesham Road, somewhere which will accommodate 4 or at the most 5 of the residents. We already have a number of units across the city which have 4 or 5 residents, I have visited them and I think they’re perfectly nice places and I was impressed by the quality of care and the facilities that I saw there.

 

I have visited one of these location prior to the arranged visit that was made for members of the committee, I went on a fact finding visit relatively early on in my time as the lead member, so I have visited the New Church Road address. I was unable to visit the Old Shoreham Road address on that occasion because there were some problems at that address which made it inadvisable for me to visit.

 

Other members of the committee were not able to go on the arranged visit because they had prearranged engagements elsewhere that was a, if you wish to come arrangement, for some members of the committee. In terms of the voting at committee I am advised in all cases by Democratic Services and by Legal staff who are present at all times in the committee, I was not advised that anything I was doing was incorrect or unsound and my understanding of the process of substitutes is that a substitute acts upon their own free will and votes as they see fit and that that is the process we have. They are the substitute not mandated.

 

You are quite correct that there could have been a different decision at that committee had there been different people in that committee, that is always the case with any committee. If there are different people there, a different decision might be arranged, that does not make the decision of that committee unsound, if that is the case; every decision this Council has made in the last 30 years in unsound.

 

The original consultation process led to some options which were presented to the June committee meeting. Following some discussions at the June committee meeting it was considered that some additional consultation should be attempted or at least analysed as to the risk of whether the consultation would do more harm than good and some decisions were arrived at on a case by case basis bearing in mind the condition and the likely responses of the particular people involved and I had to take the advice of officers that they would do this to the best of their ability and that they would properly assess the risks that might be involved.

 

But the change in the options which came to the September committee do not invalidate the consultation that took place, all the Members were fully aware of the responses to the consultation, the responses to consultation were there in the papers that were considered by the committee in September, so I believe that the committee Members that took the decisions were fully informed as to the wishes of the people who had been involved and the primary wish that was brought to our attention by a number of family members was the wish for this to remain a council run in-house service and that was a thing that was uppermost in my mind; to maintain a high quality in-house Council service and to make it future proof in to the foreseeable future at a time when our income will be severely decreased and there will be increase in pressure on our expenditure due to increased demand upon our services. So always in my mind, was the wish to maintain this as a quality in-house service.

 

I had a meeting with an immediate relative of one of the people in the Old Shoreham Road accommodation. She was concerned about the whole situation, she wanted to know what would happen, I explained as best I could, what would happen in terms of the process, how the move would be handled, and I explained my wish to keep this as an in-house service and I said that the reason that I was prepared to go ahead with this was that I was concerned that at some future time, the financial circumstances might force another successive administration to consider out sourcing the service.

 

This is something that has happened in other Councils so I don’t think that should be seen as a threat it was never intended as a threat, it was simply my analysis of the facts of the situation and I maintain that that is still my analysis of the facts of the situation that if the service is more expensive than it needs to be then there is a greater risk of it being outsourced by some previous administration of some other party or combination of parties over which I will have no control and that is still my position. There was never any intention to be a threat.”

 

30.36    The Mayor thanked Mr. Carlisle for attending the meeting and speaking on behalf of the deputation. He explained that the points had been noted and the deputation would be referred to the Adult Care & Health Committee for consideration.  The persons forming the deputation would be invited to attend the meeting and would be informed subsequently of any action to be taken or proposed in relation to the matter set out in the deputation.

 

30.37    The Mayor then invited Ms. Townsend as the spokesperson for the fifth deputation to come forward and address the council.

 

30.38    Ms. Townsend thanked the Mayor and stated that:

 

“At the beginning of April this year the cost of parking on and around the London Road went up not only significantly, but, as it turns out, also prohibitively. This has had an absolutely disastrous effect on the local businesses, with some retailers experiencing as much as a 30% decrease in trade.

 

Every shop and outlet in the London Road area has the same story to tell. Overnight there was a dramatic drop in trade with customers, after expressing their disbelief, disgust and anger at the cost of the parking, then saying that they would not be returning.  Time and again potential customers have been seen to park, look at the cost of parking on the meters, then just get in their cars and drive off.

 

Passing trade, always an important asset to retailers has as good as disappeared. 

Customers are now often seen to hop out of their cars to buy just a single item whilst the driver of the car drives around the block once or twice until the shopper returns to the drop off point; this is an unsatisfactory mode of shopping for both customer, trader and the environment.

 

Local traders will testify that nothing, not the redevelopment of the Open Market nor the recession has had such a devastating effect on their trade as this recent increase in parking charges.  The £1 charge for the first hour in the London Road car park has had no positive effect in alleviating the problem. On the contrary, the exorbitant rates for subsequent hours including the higher charges for weekend parking, has only contributed to the loss of trade.  Traders have had to make staff redundant.

 

This situation is economically unsound. People are losing their jobs. Shop owners who have been trading in the area for many years are now losing their livelihoods. Customers are losing their preferred area of shopping and let’s be honest, the London Road has long been a life-line for people on low incomes.

Once the Open Market re-opens it will struggle to survive if it sits alone in a desolate, economic wasteland. This will turn into a lost opportunity. The traders of the open market have struggled for years for this rejuvenation, to bring it in line with modern, vibrant markets where local produce can be sold, alongside more colourful products, to local people. And what about the Mary Portas Funding?  What is the point of investing this money if you can’t even get the basics right and when it appears that the council is not committed to one of her fundamental recommendations - cheap easy parking.  Get the cars parked up as quickly as possible and get the shoppers into the shops. Will this represent another lost opportunity? None of us want to see the Open Market become the ‘Green’ white elephant of Brighton, but unless something is done fast this is how it will be known.

 

This deputation is being made to demand that the parking charges be reviewed with the utmost urgency and returned long term to less than £1 an hour, a level commensurate with an economically depressed area, in a bid to encourage the return of shoppers and trade.

 

For the month of December, in the run-up to Christmas, we would like to see the well-advertised suspension of all parking charges, both on street and in the car park, in an attempt to boost trade and re-coup the serious losses that have been forced upon this retail area since April. For the sake of the London Road you must act now.”

 

30.39    Councillor Davey replied,

 

“The traffic situation around London Road is complex, as I’m sure you are aware, there’s some of the worst traffic congestion in the city and as a consequence has some of the worst air pollution. Viaduct Road, for example, has featured as one of the worst areas for air quality since monitoring began and as recently as 2010, just but a few yards from St Bartholomew’s Primary School the Oxford Road/London Road junction was the worst in the city at almost double the limit set by the European Union.

 

This was a deteriorating situation that could not be ignored particularly as the city faces the prospect of millions of pounds in fines from January 2013 for failing to comply with EU air quality regulations. Traffic congestion and air pollution not only impact upon local people’s health but also upon their decision as to whether to shop in London Road or not. While some may complain about the on street parking charges others complain about the impact of traffic and choose to shop elsewhere.

 

London Road has some of the best public transport links in the city with the hundreds of buses carrying thousands of people going to and through the area each day. It is also closer to Brighton Station and to London Road Station. Many people also walk through the area on their way to the city centre. There is a foot fall that many that will be the envy of many shopping streets and in reality there are only a limited number of on-street parking spaces available in the area and much of what there is, is for residents or dedicated for those with disabilities and these are reasonably well used.

 

There has been a steady fall in on-street car parking usage in the area for a number of years and the number of street spaces has also been reduced. In contrast the London Road car park has increased particularly following recent refurbishments. Even in the last year, usage has been 15% over expectations and the £1 for one hour during the week offer has proven extremely popular counting for 30% of week day transactions.

 

The Council continues to promote the use of the car park and it has even put stickers on pay and display posts encouraging people to use it because it is very cheap. We continue to promote more sustainable transport choices and it’s encouraging to see that during the same period bus patronage in the city has increased by over 5% with an 8% rise in September alone.

 

The Portas review may have mentioned parking but there are also 27 other recommendation including making high streets accessible, attractive, safe and encouraging local businesses. There are a number of developments which will have a positive impact upon the area including the Open Market and The Level, both of which will be complete next year and help to encourage more people in to the area.

 

Whilst I can see that lower on-street parking charges may seem attractive in reality they would lead to increased congestion, further degradation in air quality and less reliable public transport and so not a way forward for a key city centre area. Most people who travel to London Road either walk, cycle or go by bus whilst the car park remains an option for those who choose to drive. The Council is investing in London Road area and will continue to do so and as a recent Argus report showed, after years of deterioration there are many reasons to be optimistic about the future of the area.”

 

30.40    The Mayor thanked Ms. Townsend for attending the meeting and speaking on behalf of the deputation. He explained that the points had been noted and the deputation would be referred to the Transport Committee for consideration.  The persons forming the deputation would be invited to attend the meeting and would be informed subsequently of any action to be taken or proposed in relation to the matter set out in the deputation.

 

30.41    The Mayor noted that the deputations had been presented and therefore the item was concluded.

 

Note:

 

30.42    The Mayor then adjourned the meeting for a refreshment break at 7.00pm for a period of 45 minutes.

 

30.43    The Mayor reconvened the meeting at 7.45pm and noted that it was the last council meeting for the Strategic Director; People who was leaving join the London Borough of Bromley.  He thanked the Strategic Director for his service and wished him well for the future on behalf of the council.

 

Note:  In having regard to the time, the Mayor then took item 34, Reports of the Committees, in order to determine how much business remained to be considered by the council and thereby have an indication as to how much longer the meeting was likely to run.  The actual resolution is listed under Item 34 to maintain chronological order for ease of reference.