Agenda item - Petitions for Council Debate

The following petitions are to be debated at the Council meeting.  Reports of the Monitoring Officer (copies attached):

(a)         No to Development on Toad’s Hole Valley.  Lead petitioners Councillor Bennett and Brown.

(b)        West Pier Market.  Lead petitioner Mr. P. Fijalkowski.

31.1         The Mayor stated that the council’s petition scheme provided that where a petition secured 1,250 or more signatures it could be debated at a Council meeting.  He had been notified of two such petitions which had sufficient signatures to warrant a debate and therefore would call each of the lead petitioners in turn to present their petitions before opening the matter up for debate.

31.2         The Mayor also noted that there was an error in the report concerning the first petition relating to Toad’s Hole Valley, in so much as it should recommend that the petition was referred to the Policy & Resources Committee for consideration rather than the Economic Development & Culture Committee.  He further noted that it was for the Council to debate the prayer of the petition and the recommendation to refer it to the Policy & Resources Committee.  The Council was not being asked to make a decision on the City Plan and the outcome of the debate did not fetter the Council’s discretion in any way.  Should the recommendation to refer the petition to the Policy & Resources Committee be agreed, it would then be taken at the January Committee meeting alongside representations received as part of the consultation process for the City Plan.  A report of on which was due to be considered by the committee at that time before being presented to the Full Council on the 31^st January 2013.

(a) Toad Hole Valley Petition

31.3         The Mayor then called on Councillor Brown to present the petition on Toad’s Hole Valley.

31.4         Councillor Brown thanked the Mayor and stated that the petition sought to secure the future of Toad’s Hole Valley and to prevent any development of the area, it read “We the undersigned oppose the proposed redesignation of Toad’s Hole Valley for housing and mixed use development.”  It had been signed by 1,384 residents to date and the figure was likely to increase as further support was sought.

31.5         Councillor J. Kitcat stated that the land in question did not belong to the council and therefore it would be difficult to prevent any future development of the area bearing in mind the Government’s intention to enable planning applications to be made more easily.  The intention to include the area in the Local Development Plan was to enable the council to gain some control over its future, albeit that it would not prevent any planning applications from being submitted.  He therefore wished to move an amendment to the report’s recommendations so that the petition was noted and the widespread support for making the best use of the site was noted.  He referred to the letters of support from the City Sustainability Partnership, Brighton & Hove Economic Partnership and the Coast 2 Capital Local Economic Partnership that had been circulated to all Members.

31.6         Councillor Mac Cafferty formally seconded the amendment and stated that Toads Hole Valley had not been included in the National Park as it had not been regarded as being an area of historical significance or having any special interest.  The Government’s National Planning Framework meant that it could be an area that was identified as being suitable for development and discussions had been held with the owners to see how they could work with the council in regard to its future.  It was therefore appropriate to consider its potential as part of the City Plan debate that would be held in January.

31.7         Councillor Fitch expressed his concern over the potential development of an area that was welcomed by residents for being a green space and its public use.  He had a set of additional signatures to the petition presented by Councillor Brown which he wished to present and noted that further signatures would be sought as this was a matter that affected a number of people and they did not want to see any development of any kind of the urban fringe.  He was concerned that the matter was being debated prior to the consideration of the City Plan and without having the necessary information available to Members.

31.8         Councillor Brown stated that she could not support the amendment and that the petition sought to protect the last green space that existed along the urban fringe.  There was an abundance of wildlife and protected species in the area and the residents believed that the current proposals provided for an over-development of the area that should be protected.  She hoped that a resolution would be found that maintained the area in its current state.

31.9         Councillor Bennett stated that the issue had raised residents concerns more than any other and there was a need to understand these concerns and work with the residents to ensure that the area was safeguarded for the future.  The current proposals had raised concern over the likelihood of increased congestion, parking, loss of green space, and a greater population density without the much needed recreational space.

31.10    Councillor Mitchell stated that she was concerned the issue was pre-empting the City Plan debate and did not want to pre-judge the outcome of that debate in the absence of supporting papers.  She noted that in 2009 the Labour and Green Groups had supported the protection of the area as a green space and felt that the aims of the petition should be debated as part of the overall City Plan debate.

31.11    Councillor West stated that there was a need to recognise that the council faced housing targets and that there was a need to look at all areas of the city.  The proposals put forward were in recognition of that and with a view to protecting the urban fringe, however if things were left as they were, then the area was open to future development proposals that may have a greater affect on the site.

31.12    Councillor Littman noted that it was an area of private land and that it would be the owners who determined its future and therefore the council had sought to work with them to enable some control over how development proposals were taken forward.

31.13    Councillor J. Kitcat stated that there was a need to note that Government policy had changed and the council was required to meet its housing targets and planning restrictions had been eased to enable developers to bring forward proposals for sites.  The matter would need to be debated in January and he drew attention to the fact that the city had less than 5% Grade A employment space which was desperately needed.

31.14    The Mayor noted that an amendment had been moved and put it to the vote which was lost.  He therefore put the recommendation that the petition be referred to the January Policy & Resources Committee to the vote which was carried.

31.15    RESOLVED: That the petition be referred to the Policy & Resources Committee for consideration.

(b) West Pier Traders Petition

31.16    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 the West Pier Market.

31.17    The Mayor invited Mr. Fijalkowski to present his petition.

31.18    Mr. Fijalkowski thanked the Mayor and stated that a total of 7,840 people had signed the paper petition which read as follows:

            “The development of the i-360 tower on the site of the West Pier means that the West Pier Market, which has run on the site sine 1996, will no longer be able to operate in its current location.  We, the undersigned, call on the council to find a solution for the traders to continue to trade on Brighton seafront whilst the construction of the i-360 is underway and to find a permanent solution to siting the market as part of the redevelopment of the area once building of the i-360 has been completed.”

31.19    Mr. Fijalkowski stated that officers had been discussing matters with the traders and it was hoped that a solution would be found.  The traders understood that the current agreement was with the West Pier Trust and therefore the decision to give notice to the traders as a result of the i-360 development lay with the Trust.  However, it was hoped that the council would be able to assist and the petition was simply trying to highlight the situation and express the anxiety of the market traders about their future prospects.  He hoped that the market would be able to remain an integral part of the seafront area and noted that it had proved to be a starting point for local businesses in the city.

31.20    Councillor Bowden thanked Mr. Fijalkowski for attending the meeting and stated that the council was fully aware of the situation and sympathised with the traders’ position.  However, it was looking to find a short-term location to help during the construction phase and would look at how the market could be accommodated in the future as part of the review of the seafront strategy.  He was not yet in a position to take forward any options for a long-term solution but was willing to work with the traders to see if their needs could be met.

31.21    Councillor Theobald stated that the Conservative Group fully supported the petition and hoped that a viable solution could be found.

31.22    Councillor Mitchell stated that the Labour & Co-operative Group also fully supported the petition and hoped that an update to the position could be provided at the Economic Development & Culture Committee meeting in November.

31.23    The Mayor noted the comments and thanked Ms. Fijalkowski for attending the meeting and presenting the petition.  He then put the recommendation to refer the petition to the Economic Development & Culture Committee for consideration to the vote which was carried.

31.24    RESOLVED: That the petition be referred to the Economic Development & Culture Committee for consideration.