Agenda item - Deputations from members of the public.

A list of deputations received by the due date of the 20^th March 2014 will be circulated separately as part of an addendum at the meeting.

96.1         The Mayor reported that one deputation had been received from a member of the public and invited Mr Hancox as the spokesperson for the deputation to come forward and address the council.

96.2         Mr Hancox thanked the Mayor and stated:

“I am informed that the committee intends to consider applications for the establishment of both the Hove Station and Hove Park Ward neighbourhood forums and there is an Economic and Culture Committee in June. We will be asking the committee to reject the application of the proposed Hove Station area as it includes parts of the proposed Hove Park Ward neighbourhood forum area for the following reasons; the Hove Station and the Hove Park Ward areas are wholly different in that the Station area comprises a densely developed Victorian and Edwardian city centre neighbourhood, whereas the Hove Park Ward area is mainly low density inter war and post war suburban neighbourhood. They also have different demographies in terms of ages and geographic mobility.

The two neighbourhoods and geographically separated by the railway, presumably the reason the boundary commission fixed the boundary on this alignment. At the Hove Station Forum public meeting of the 17 January 2014 a substantial number of Hove Park residents attending emphasised that the did not wish to be included in the Hove Station forum area and were establishing a forum for their own area. The Hove Station forum has a membership of approximately 62 properties. Whereas the Hove Park neighbourhood forum already has over 300 members from all areas of the Hove Park ward. For the Hove Station neighbourhood forum to include substantial part of Hove Park Ward in their opposed area is contrary to the spirit of the localism act 2011 which seeks to promote direct neighbourhood representation on the local forum. Consideration has been given to the station forums and Next Steps document produced after they became aware of our application.

There are several significant matters raised with which we are unable to agree. From the outset the Hove Station forums principle concern has been the development area 6, partly situated in both proposed forum areas and they consider this justifies including part of Hove Park ward within that area in view of DA6 having a major impact on the area north of Old Shoreham Road. This assertion is refuted. The Station forums documents also referred to the development potential of other areas within the Hove Park ward such as the Strategic Greyhound Stadium site, as a further reason for extended their area north of the railway. This view is also rejected. Hove Park ward forum residents will have views as to the planning futures of areas of concern to them elsewhere in the city, such as George Street or Churchill Square but acknowledge that this would not justify extending the forum area to include them for planning purposes.

The Hove Park forums view is that the forum should represent a community with a distinct identity and that it should review planning issues through a neighbourhood perspective and not be based on a historical grouping of residents from several neighbourhoods addressing a particular planning proposal.  Furthermore, it is considered that the proposed Station forum area would be too large in population in terms to comprise an identifiably distinct neighbourhood. It would be remarkable if residents of the different neighbourhoods south of the railway would consistently view planning issues with the same priorities and perspective as those of residents of Hove Park ward neighbourhood to the north. The Hove Park ward forum is prepared to liaise and discuss planning issues with all neighbourhood forums.”

96.3         Councillor J. Kitcat replied.

“We fully support the formation of neighbourhood forums and absolutely encourage interested parties to make use of the provisions and localism act which help them to enhance and protect and take care of their neighbourhood areas. But it is sad to see Hove-arians fighting over boundaries, I must say. You’ve all got an interest in your local area and clearly you’re united by your passion for it and I hope we don’t see people falling out over what is a line on the map. Of course wars were fought over that in past centuries but we are beyond that now.

I think the fact is the emerging and abutting Hove forums, those issues are well known to the ward members, I see nods ward members and I know officers are well aware of this and we would all like to encourage, as you have suggested, conversations and discussions to continue. This can be the only way through which this can be productively resolved. There are ambitions for a number of neighbourhood forums and I hope we can find a way of delineating them in a supportive way which recognises true neighbourhoods and communities. Defying a neighbourhood is an interesting thing for PHD thesis one day. The decision as you have rightly note falls to the Economic and Culture committee sometime in the Summer and I hope that the concerns you have highlighted in your deputation can be ironed out by that point but the view is that even if some words remain, the boundaries don’t necessarily need to be completely black and white, there could be some flexibility and I hope that if it wasn’t all resolved by then, discussions could still continue. As a Council, I think our role is to be mindful of those different aims and priorities of adjoining communities and to try and mitigate against disagreements and I fully attend this to be our role as a council from a member and an officer point of view and I’m hopeful the benefits will outweigh whatever difficulties there are in the road to getting there and I wish you every success.”

96.4         The Mayor thanked Mr Hancox for attending the meeting and speaking on behalf of the deputation. She explained that the points had been noted and the deputation would be referred to the Economic Development & Culture 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.