Agenda item - Written questions from Councillors.

A list of the written questions submitted by Members has been included in the agenda papers.  This will be repeated along with the written answers received and will be taken as read as part of an addendum circulated separately at the meeting.

35.1         The Mayor reminded the Council that written questions from Members and the replies from the appropriate councillor were now taken as read by reference to the list included in the addendum, which had been circulated as detailed below:

(a)   Councillor G. Theobald

35.2         “In relation to the proposed new permanent traveller site at Horsdean:

1)   What is the estimated cost of the pumping station and piping under the A27 to connect the proposed traveller site to the mains sewer system in Patcham?

2)   How much money has been spent so far on the planning application and preparatory work for the proposed new traveller site and has this come from the Council’s general fund or from the Government grant for the site?

3)   What is the estimated final total cost of the proposed new traveller site?

4)   Bearing in mind that it is a criminal offence to deliberately or accidentally pollute a controlled water zone such as that at Ewe Bottom, who will be liable if there is a contamination incident from the proposed new traveller site?

5)   Have the Highways Agency been consulted about drilling under the A27 and, if so, what is their view about the effect this will have on the stability of the bank given that it is built on a coombe deposit?”

Reply from Councillor West, Chair of the Environment, Transport & Sustainability Committee.

35.3         “1)    We have looked at four options in an options appraisal for handling waste water from the site.  The costs ranged from £249k to £528k when considering total capital and revenue costs over 10 years.  The option of piping under the A27 to connect to the mains sewer system in Patcham was the option with the lowest total costs and so was recommended as being the most effective and offering the best value for money.

         In choosing the option to connect under the A27, we will also be providing a long-term solution for both the permanent and transit sites, resulting in lower running costs for both sites.

2)     So far the city council has spent £22,185 on the preparation and submission of the planning application for the permanent Traveller site.  This expenditure is coming from the £1.73m government grant for the site.

3)     The most recent cost estimate for the site was £1.67m.  When this is adjusted to take account of the new waste water measures the capital cost increases to £1.83m.  This increase in total cost addresses the long-term water management of the transit sites and enables a £40k per year reduction in running costs.  These are high level estimates that reflect the stage of the project.  Further work will be done to value engineer the design in reaching a final cost estimate.

4)     The Landowner is responsible should any such incident take place and the landowner is the city council. There has been extensive and positive consultation with the Environment Agency to find the most appropriate solutions to prevent pollution.

5)     The Balfour Beatty MottMacdonald Joint Venture (BBMMJV), which manages Area 4 (this part of the network) for the Highways Agency have been contacted.  Once we confirmed that the works would not affect the carriageway in any way they confirmed that we would just need to issue them with a notice in the same way as any utility would.  We have not spent money on doing a detailed check on the geology under the road before having the certainty of a planning consent in place, but given the depth beneath the road and the relatively narrow diameter of the pipe it is not expected to be a problem.”

(b)  Councillor Hyde

35.4         “What is the total value of the interest currently held on S.106 Developer Contributions?  Please also detail each instance of where S.106 interest has been spent between May 2011 and the present time and the original developer contribution that each relates to.”

Reply from Councillor Mac Cafferty, Chair of the Planning Committee.

35.5         “Officers have prepared a table identifying s106 accrued interest spent in the last two financial years across each scheme, together with the balance of interest held as at 31/3/13.

This table will be issued to Councillor Hyde – and shows a total of:

£141,949 of accrued interest was spent in Year 2011/12 and;

£40,819.35 was spent in Year 2012/13

The balance of accrued interest held is £287,475.88.  As accrued interest is applied financial year end the current sums held will not be updated until end of March 2014.

It should be noted that the interest sums accrued are always allocated to each scheme and towards the type of contribution where the original s106 sums were secured.  These are spent as additional contributions enabling further additional physical, environmental or community infrastructure improvements thus providing additional benefits to residents and users of those new developments.

Officers believe that it may be unlawful to use interest other than on the schemes for which the original capital sum was collected. The management of the S106 fund reflects that. ”

(c)   Councillor G. Theobald

35.6         “As I understand that each of our library’s footfall is being collected can I please ask for the footfall per hour of each of our libraries for each of the last six months?”

Reply from Councillor Bowden, Chair of the Economic Development & Culture Committee.

35.7         “The number of visits per hour open over the last six months, covering the period April – September 2013 are as follows:

35.8         Please note that the low numbers for Woodingdean and Mile Oak libraries are because those libraries are in temporary accommodation while new libraries are being built.”

(d)  Councillor Cox

35.9         “How much has the Council paid out in compensation in each of the last two financial years due to injuries to pedestrians caused by uneven pavements?”

Reply from Councillor Davey, Lead Member for Transport.

35.10    “The total amounts paid to pedestrians due to injuries arising from accidents on the City’s pavements are £49,307 for 2011/12 and £47,729 for 2012/13. These amounts represent damages paid to the injured parties and do not include any legal or other expenses. 

The council has a highway inspection regime which covers every single road, pavement, footpath and cycleway in the city several times a year.   Busy shopping areas and well-used vehicle or pedestrian thoroughfares are inspected every month.   A qualified Highway Inspector will ensure repairs are carried out within set timescales for all genuine safety hazards that are found on the inspection.

Highway Inspectors also respond to public reports of problems, visiting each site to see whether any repairs are needed.”