Agenda item - Oral questions from Councillors

49.1         The Mayor noted that notification of 7 oral questions had been received and that 30 minutes was set aside for the duration of the item.  He then invited Councillor G. Theobald to put his question to Councillor West.

 

(a)  Impacts of the Lewes Road Triangle Parking Scheme

 

49.2         Councillor G. Theobald asked; “Councillor West will know that the Brighton Sea Cadet Unit has its premises in Brewer Street and have been there since the 1930s. That is within the new Lewes Road Triangle control parking zone, which our group voted against, since this new scheme was introduced the volunteers who helped run the unit and come from across Sussex have found it virtually impossible to park.

 

The Sea Cadets have been told by the parking department that there is nothing that can be done as they don’t qualify for permits either as residents or as businesses even though they are classified as a business for local taxation purposes. The Brighton Sea Cadet unit cannot be unique amongst voluntary organisations in the City in experiencing these problems with new control parking zones.

 

Given that we all presumably want to encourage community organisations across the City to flourish, will Councillor West please review the system of parking permits which seem to unfairly penalise such groups?”

 

49.3         Councillor West replied; “The Lewes Road Triangle is a scheme that members of the public there have asked for, for a very long time because of considerable parking problems both as motorists wishing to park and as pedestrians wanting to be able to get around on the pavements which are covered in cars. Emergency services have also had difficulty in accessing this area.

 

Members of the Environment Transport & Sustainability Committee have heard these points before, yourself included.  We consulted on the scheme and 61% of people who responded at the first stage said they were in favour of the scheme. It is a vast improvement for the people that live in that area. If there is an issue you specifically want to address I would rather you put it to me in sufficient detail so that I could follow that up, and I would be very happy to do so.”

 

49.4         Councillor G. Theobald asked the following supplementary question; “Would Councillor West recognise that this community body is having considerable difficulties and that they would have to close if the volunteers are unable to access the site?”

 

49.5         Councillor West replied; “If Councillor Theobald feels there is a problem with the parking policy, we had a citywide parking review in which we brought forward and there was an opportunity to look at all of the details at that time. If Councillor Theobald wants an aspect of the parking policy to be looked at in the light of peoples’ complaints, then he can bring a letter to the Environment Transport & Sustainability Committee to trigger a proper discussion.

 

What he’s doing here today is he’s springing a question on me, while I’ve absolutely no idea what he’s going to ask about, in order to try to show that I don’t care and that I’m indifferent to looking at policy again. I think that is a shameful thing Councillor, you really need to go through the proper process if you are sincere about wishing this question to be looked at.”

 

(b)  Disputed Land to the West of the Hangleton Link Road

 

49.6         Councillor Hamilton asked; “There was a heavily wooded piece of land in my ward where the ownership is disputed. It lies between the Old Shoreham Road and Foxway to the west of the Hangleton Link Road.  There are large trees and branches overhanging residents’ gardens. The area is used for fly tipping and illegal encampments.  There is public access but wire fences and gates but are damaged and not repaired.  Please will you take necessary steps to resolve the ownership of this land as the current situation with nobody taking responsibility is unacceptable?”     

 

49.7         Councillor Davey replied; “I didn’t personally know this piece of land so it just the answer from the officer. The Legal ownership of the woodland adjacent to the western side of the A293 has been unclear since the completion and adoption of the link road as part of the A27 Brighton by-pass which was completed in December 1991. Legal documents that establish ownership do not exist.  Subsequently there is disagreement between the Highways agency and the Council who hold opposite views on the Legal entity of this land due to the potential liability for significant costs associated with maintenance of trees and vegetation and further costs dealing with fly tipping and illegal encampments.

 

To unblock this deadlock, Transport and Legal have held initial discussions, undertaken site investigations and are preparing a report for ELT to agree a way forward and recommend how this asset could be better managed and were the not significant costs should the Council agree to transfer of this land from the Secretary of State.  It is worth noting that any additional costs would need to be found within existing Council budgets and will therefore be at the expense of other council services.”

 

49.8         Councillor Hamilton asked the following supplementary question; “This seems to have been going on for a very long time.  I have been pursuing it for some time. Highway Agency say it’s the Council’s responsibility, and vice versa.  There is an issue with illegal encampment because if there is an illegal encampment the owner I believe has to serve notice if the police won’t do it and who is there to do it at the present time, so all I can really ask is I would hope that this would be treated as a very important matter and it runs behind about 80 houses in my ward and clearly they don’t expect to have no-man’s land where nothing’s happening, so I do hope that in view of what Councillor Davey has said this will be treated as an urgent matter because this is something that does need resolution so please can he assure me that he will be doing his best to try and pursue it as quickly as possible.”

 

49.9         Councillor Davey replied; “Well it does go back a long, about quarter of a century, there have been an awful lot of political administrations proceeding this one though clearly not dealt with and it is being dealt with and I’m sure officers will as quickly as they are able to.”

 

(c)  Stanmer Park

 

49.10      Councillor Summers asked; “For at least the last 14 months now the 10 Stanmer Park tenants of the Brighton & Hove Estate Conservation Trust which leases their properties from the Council as we know, have been reporting ongoing and worsening maintenance problems with their properties, some of which were like that when they moved in, but both the Trust and the Managing Agent, I won’t say who it is, Smiths Gore, not only fail to deal with them but instead increased the rent by up to 20%. 

 

Now many of you will recall that the tenants did present a deputation in this chamber back in May as a last resort, documenting those problems including the failure of the Trust and the Managing Agent even to engage with them, and I subsequently dealt with these issues.  So I ask Councillor. Randall if he could explain why, despite his own expressed horror in May at the reports from that deputation and his confirmation that an Officer review was already underway, why 7 months down the line virtually nothing has been done to address these maintenance issues, which are now so serious, that both the Farmhouses are experiencing daily rat infestation whilst the Managing Agent has yet again attempted to raise the rent.”

 

49.11      Councillor Randall replied; “There was a petition to Council on May 14^th, concerning requests from tenants of the Trust that the Council will look into whether or not the trust is disrupting his landlord’s responsibilities appropriately and the Council did agree to investigate the matter. An initial report was produced by the Interim Head of Housing Angela Smithers for the Chief Executive and several options for the future are being looked at including one put forward by the residents.  Geoff Raw the Executive Director for Housing met the trust on November 14^th and he and the Chief Executive will report back on progress to the Council Leaders Group in January or February of next year.”

 

49.12      Councillor Summers asked the following supplementary question; “Well I think the tenants will dispute the fact they’ve been given any options at all.  They don’t feel they’ve had a part in any of this. I would say that the problem here is there has been no formal decision making involving any committees or any elected Members and that’s despite an assurance by the Head of Law that a report would go to December’s Policy & Resources Committee. It didn’t happen. I have to say that to date, this whole process has been conducted entirely by officers who unlike elected Members we know are not accountable to residents and it’s been confirmed to me just this week by the Director of Environment, Development and Sustainability that this issue has been discussed with the Trust last month and the leaders of political parties, who have concluded that nothing is to be reported on this in the near future. That’s what I have been told.

 

Does Councillor Randall not think then that this all makes rather a mockery of our so called democratic process when residents can present such a compelling and worthy deputation only to find that as far as they know it didn’t make a blind bit of difference and does he not think that it is somewhat irresponsible and disrespectful in his own failure even to acknowledge emails that I sent him following that May Council as well as those of one of the tenants.”

 

49.13      Councillor Randall replied; “There have been discussions.  The Trust has been consulted and nothing can be done without the agreement of the Trust. I have other concerns about this.  My understanding is that 4 of the other tenants have other houses. It’s not my understanding that those houses in the village should be used as second homes or substitute homes for people who have homes somewhere and I would hope in the future the Trust will adopt a different allocation to policy to the one it has at the moment.   

 

This matter will come to Council leaders again in January and February.  There has already been several occasions when the Leader’s Group have looked at this I understand from the Leader of the Council.  I also understand, certainly from the reaction of Councillor Mitchell as she left the room, that there is some question about the severity of some of the claims that are made.”

 

(d)  Community and Voluntary Sector Funding

 

49.14      Councillor K. Norman asked; “I was wondering where we were told that whatever funding was achieved from that sale would be used for voluntary or community sector organisations but we still have no response or apparent record of how much was raised by that sale and can we now, today, be told how much that was sold for so that we are all fully informed of what sort of money is available to go to the voluntary and community sector.”

 

49.15      Councillor Sykes replied; “I can inform Councillor Norman that the sale of the CD1 Achieved £82,000 and I believe that ring-fenced for an advice centre based in Hove Town Hall.”

 

49.16      Councillor K. Norman asked the following supplementary question; “Well that’s really interesting, why didn’t we know about that? Why weren’t any of us told that? I had an idea how much had been raised from that sale, but it wasn’t £82,000, but it’s good to know. Is that really what it’s going to be spent on? What is going on in Hove Town Hall that needs another £82,000? We should be going to the voluntary and community sector organisations, which are outside the Council. This is a very different thing all together. I’d like to know, is that really going to go in that direction, and if it is, it’s not what was originally said that was going to happen with this money for the sale of this number plate?”

 

49.17      Councillor Sykes replied; “I can reassure Councillor Norman that these funds did go to the Community and Voluntary sector, mainly the Citizens Advice Bureau, the credit union and the money advice centre, comprising our new money works facility, which was set up earlier this year.”

 

(e)  New Development at the Junction of Portland Road and Schools Road, Hove

 

49.18      Councillor Pissaridou asked; “Can you confirm that the new development on the corner of Portland Road and School Road opposite Hove Infant and Junior School, still locally known as the Gala Bingo site, will be open in March 2015?”

 

49.19      Councillor Mac Cafferty replied; “I will need to provide Councillor Pissaridou with a full written response to the question.”

 

49.20      Councillor Pissaridou asked the following supplementary question; “Bearing in mind that no new traffic plan was adopted when approval was given to go ahead with this development, can you say what is being done to address the traffic safety issues that will arise immediately with the opening of the new complex?

 

·         Specifically to take in to account the relocation of Wish Park surgery with 6,000 patients, including a relatively high case load of the elderly, which will bring many disabled, infirm and unwell people to the building by car, on foot and using mobility scooters, bikes and cars.

·         To increase pressure on traffic and temporary on street parking associated with expanding numbers at West Hove School since the current traffic arrangements were put in place.

·         The Co-op supermarket opening in 2014 on the South side of Portland Road, opposite the school.

·         The occupation of 35 residential properties in the complex.

·         The opening of a pharmacy in the complex.

·         Frequent use of bus stops, 2, 49, 46 and 25s’ going East, in front of the building.

·         The pedestrian crossing on Portland Road, opposite the school is not traffic light controlled, but is only warning flashing belisha beacons.

 

All these safety risks and also a severe traffic disruption would seek to be especially heightened in the morning from 8-9am, when the surgery opens for booking appointments, residents from the complex leave for work, children come to school and the traffic load of passenger, commercial vehicles and buses in Portland Road also peak.”

 

49.21      Councillor Mac Cafferty replied; “The Members who were on Planning Committee when this application was refused and then refused again as it went to appeal twice and the appeal was eventually allowed. Those members flagged up the reasons, the rationale for their refusal.  The first was, unacceptable overlooking. The second reason for refusal was massing and third, “the application failed to demonstrate how it would provide mitigation for the accumulative travel demand created by the development, especially at peak times.

 

Now because this went to appeal, the inspector determined on this, the local planning authority, local Councillors, their opinion didn’t matter. The planning inspector said this, “The traffic considerations that the planning committee considered do not amount to sufficient basis from me to conclude the scheme will cause increased dangers to users of the road and footways. I saw rather a good deal of nearby activity, especially by the school at the beginning of the day, but it does not necessarily follow that an increase in traffic and parking demand would reduce road safety.”

 

As a result, he attached a condition. He proposed a condition saying, “the development hereby permitted should not be occupied until the parking areas have been provided and in accordance with the approved plans and these areas shall thereafter have to be retained for that use and shall not be used for other than the parking of motor vehicles.”

 

That does not console me at this stage and I doubt it will console many of the Councillors who were on the Committee nor indeed will it probable console Councillor Pissaridou and I’m more than happy to consider what you said here today and I’m more than happy to see what I can to do sort out the issues because I do know that this is causing tension in your area and I do know that as councillors who were on that committee near the time that this would cause problems and I’m more than happy to follow it up because even though this happened before my time it’s to do with the belt environment and it’s to do with development and I care passionately about both.”

 

(f)   Council’s Constitution and the Housing Committee

 

49.22      Councillor Mears asked; “I would like to ask Councillor Randall, as Chair of the Housing Committee, to confirm to chamber that he is committed to the Council’s committee system and that he will ensure that this applies to the Housing Committee information and agenda items and that Members of the Housing Committee are kept fully informed?

 

We have already seen Members of the Housing committee being by-passed with the changes around supporting people and now with the closure of Oxford Street Housing Centre we see again that Members are ignored. As the Interim Head of Housing stated in one of her emails, conversations around Oxford Street have been ongoing for over a year even before she arrived in this authority. I would like the Chair of the Committee to endorse that he fully supports openness and transparency within this Committee?”

 

49.23      Councillor Randall replied; “Yes.”

 

49.24      Councillor Mears asked the following supplementary question; “I have visited Oxford Street Housing Centre and I was really concerned. We looked at the windows and were told the state of the building. While taking photos I was stopped by a tenant to be told that she went in on 16 November and was told by Housing staff then that the offices were closing, although we didn’t get an email as Members until 26 November.

 

I have asked for Health and Safety reports, I have also asked for the Health and Safety Audit reports and to date I have received no information. The Interim Head of Housing said it was viable, the Director said there is a Health and Safety Report. As Members of the Housing Committee we are entitled to see this information. I would like Councillor Randall to ensure, and I request a full answer, that it is important that we are very clear that this Administration is taking decisions that are open and transparent.”

 

49.25      Councillor Randall replied; “The decision to close the Oxford Street Housing Office was made by the Interim Head of Housing and the Leadership Team at a meeting on 25^th November and they then consulted me. This followed a report by John Currell from the Property & Investment Team which detailed significant Health and Safety concerns regarding the building. I have got a copy of that today; I will pass that on to you. It explains the problems principally with the front wall over the street and with the windows, which you mentioned. It was clear that it was unsafe for the staff, for the tenants and for the passers-by.

 

I share your concern that this wasn’t dealt with earlier but I was unaware of how bad it was until it was presented to me. What I think we should say in addition to that is that I asked officers immediately to set out Interim arrangements at Bartholomew’s House which they did within a working week. I too went along to the office to see the staff who were working there who did a fantastic job in that week after it shut in moving all of the records across.

 

I will send the report to all Councillors. It was a question of Health & Safety and it was taken late in my view and it should have been dealt with earlier but there is a Health & Safety report explaining why it has been done. In cases of emergency like that, we couldn’t wait until next Housing Committee to make a decision so I will circulate the report.”

 

(g)  GCSE Results

 

49.26      Councillor Wealls asked; “This City’s Green Administration’s mid-term report listed amongst its many achievements as, Headline: ‘Best ever GCSE results’.

 

49.27      Quote from your report: ‘Education in Brighton & Hove, for so long a major concern to parents, is finally improving. The 2013 GCSE results were the best ever with Pass rates rising at a time when national rates are falling.’

 

Yet in 2014, First entry 5 x A-Cs including English and Maths was only 52.6% versus the national average of 55.3%. The Best entry was 55.2% in the City against 58.2% nationally. So we are back to being between 3 and 4 percent below the national average on our GCSE result in this city. When the Administration does its final report, will this now be included as one of the Administration’s monumental failures?”

 

49.28      Councillor Shanks replied; “I am really pleased you are reading our interim report, there is lots of really good stuff in there and I do agree with you GCSE results were disappointing this year. Unfortunately there has been far too much political interference in our children’s education such as changing the goalposts half-way through when children are doing exams. What the current Government did is to change the early entry policy so that only the first entry is counted by the school.

 

For example, this has led to BACAs results going from 49%, if it had not been the first entry counted, to 28%. I know the Government has changed the rules for the whole country and that is no excuse. Brighton & Hove for a long time has had very poor GCSE results; it does very well at Primary school and for A-Levels but the secondary schools have not been doing well in this city. I don’t know if that is to do with the history of inequality we have in the City.

All the way back to 2006 we were getting 42% and England was getting 44% and we stayed below that even when England went up to 55% in 2010 we were only 49%. We were very pleased and excited last year I agree and this year we are disappointed, the goalposts did change, but the schools are still working hard. We are not complacent and we hope they do better.”

 

49.29      Councillor Wealls asked the following supplementary question; “Only 21.8% of our City’s most deprived children attained 5 x A-Cs including English and Maths against non free school meals of 58.2%, a gap of 36%. I remember one of my first Council meetings I was disappointed by the 20% gap that the Administration set for itself as a target; we are now at a 36.4% gap.

 

The coalition has ensured there is no insufficiency of resources for children on Free School Meals through pupil premium. Shouldn’t the Administration hang its head in shame at these results and agree its credibility is shot to pieces when talking about the education of our poorest children?”

 

49.30      Councillor Shanks replied; “It does take quite a long time to turn things around, but we do have a Closing the Gap strategy which sets out our vision of the City. The secondary schools are autonomous and we don’t rush in there all the time and sort them out. Anybody who is a school governor should be asking those questions of their school and making sure they understand their data and address this as the gap is really serious.

 

I agree with you that we need to do better for those children in our poor communities. Other factors are involved such as not having enough money to eat properly and not having secure housing are part of the impact of poverty on children. If you look at results you will see that poor children have always done worse and that’s not saying that is an excuse for that it is just saying that is a fact. We really want to see more investment in our children and in our poorer communities and that will help to turn that around. Meanwhile our schools are working hard on this issue and they all know what they need to do.”

 

49.31      The Mayor noted that the item had concluded.