Agenda item - Written questions from Councillors.

A list of the written questions submitted by Members has been included in the agenda papers (copy attached).  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.

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

(a)             Councillor C. Theobald

40.2         “Will the Chair of the Environment, Transport & Sustainability Committee please tell me why the Black Lion Street public toilets have recently been closed and, if this is a temporary measure, when they will reopen?  Have any other public toilets been similarly closed this year?”

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

40.3         As part of the budget for this financial year Council agreed to reduce the funding for public conveniences by £160,000 per year.  The budget report set out that the savings would be realised through reduced opening times, reduced cleansing frequencies and some site closures.

An amendment was agreed at reconvened budget council to reduce the saving for Public Conveniences in 2015/16 only from £160,000 to £40,000.

To implement this decision made by full council the toilet in Black Lion Street was permanently closed on 1^st July of this year.   The reasons this site was selected for closure are that:

·           Maintaining this facility cost £40,000 per year

·           The site had low foot fall

·           There are alternative facilities in close proximity

·           The site suffered from higher levels of antisocial behavior during the hours that it was not attended.

Since its closure the service has received two complaints and only a handful of queries about its closure

In order to meet the in-year saving of £40,000 other changes that have been implemented include reducing levels of attendance at the toilets in Pavilion Gardens and removing the attendant in Norton Road toilets which are open at weekends.

(b)             Councillor Miller

40.4         “Will the Chair of the Environment, Transport & Sustainability Committee please tell me when it is planned to reopen the historic Madeira Lift?”

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

40.5         “The Madeira Lift is open from Easter to the end of September each year and is operated by the tenant of Concorde II on behalf of the council.  In August this year the lift shaft and basement of Concorde II was flooded following a severe rainstorm. As a result, water got into the electrical system and the lift had to be taken out of service.  Although the electrical system which directly services the lift was checked by an electrician and approved, the main supply which is owned by UK Power Networks was deemed to be non-compliant and therefore was shut down with immediate effect.  This meant the lift could no longer operate as the electrical supply had been cut off.  The council has now installed a new electrical supply so that the lift can operate independently.  The lift will reopen to the public next season as scheduled on Good Friday 2016.”

(c)             Councillor G. Theobald

40.6          “Will the Chair of the Environment, Transport & Sustainability Committee confirm whether or not the Council will be making a submission to the Local Government Association’s review of Trading Standards services and, if so, will there be an opportunity for Members to input into this? The review has been initiated in response to a proposal by the Chartered Trading Standards Institute for the creation of large strategic trading standards authorities funded directly from central Government.”

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

40.7         “We welcome the recognition of the significance and impact of the Trading Standards Service in protecting residents and in supporting businesses. This is a central priority for us in Brighton and Hove.

We are however concerned about the number of different reviews currently running in parallel. We believe that the reviews need to work together to reach a common understanding of the issues. That way they are more likely to deliver results which will be supported by both central and local government, and which will improve the impact of the service and hence the outcomes for local residents and businesses.

We recognise the picture of significant reductions in resources over recent years, outlined in recent work from Chartered Trading Standards Institute, and the increasing postcode lottery of service provision in some parts of the country. We don’t believe that provides any reason to consider alternative delivery models outside of local government. We believe that it is vital that the Trading Standards Service remains part of local government. It makes a major contribution to delivering local priorities, in protecting residents and supporting local businesses. In doing so it achieves much more than it otherwise could by being part of the network of local government services.

Our own model, where we work closely with colleagues in East Sussex Trading Standards, by jointly authorising officers so that capacity and competency can be maintained, is one part of the solution to the current issues facing the service nationally. This helps us to ensure we can continue to provide excellent services whilst also meeting the financial challenges that face us.

Devolution may well also have a part to play in helping to shape the future of the service. It provides an opportunity to address some of the weaknesses identified whilst retaining local accountability.

In addition, in order to help address variations in service delivery or the potential for enforcement gaps, we believe that Government should build upon existing commissioning approaches. It should use both National Trading Standards and the regional Trading Standards co-ordinating groups, to channel resources to tackle any particular issues of national concern. This has already proved successful in areas such as animal feed, and in relation to tobacco control, and has scope to be developed further into other key policy areas for central government.

Abbreviations sometimes used:

BRDO = Better regulation Delivery Office (part of DBIS)

BIS = Department of Business Innovation and Skills (DBIS normally).”

(d)             Councillor Sykes

40.8         “What form of sensitivity analysis was undertaken to determine whether the effect of changes to the city traffic network (inc. Lewes Road, Edward Street, Station Gateway) could materially undermine the traffic modelling that informed the Oct 14 Valley Gardens business case?  Following from this, what will be the total likely revenue cost to BHCC, by financial year, of the 2015 project review, new traffic surveying in Oct 2015, fresh traffic modelling and project redesign?”

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

40.9         “The independent review's concern relates not to the modelling that formed the basis of the Business Case, but to the further detailed analysis that was undertaken after submission of the Business Case to inform refinements to the Business Case scheme. (The Business Case scheme included new vehicle routes within Victoria Gardens; the current / refined scheme accommodates all vehicles within existing kerb-lines).

Due to errors discovered in the post-Business Case modelling, and the fact that modelling provided the rationale for refinements to the Business Case scheme, the independent review understandably recommends re-modelling the refined scheme. This process will either reassure that the current design proposal can accommodate vehicle demand, or identify where further refinements to the proposal are required prior to the project moving to the implementation stage.

Because the current scheme needs re-modelling, it is considered sensible to take the opportunity to update the traffic flows used in the model to reflect 2015 conditions, as recommended by the Independent Review. Since the original scheme was modelled, a number of significant changes to the surrounding network have been made, including Lewes Road, Vogue Gyratory, Edward Street and Brighton Station Gateway. Given sensitivity around the project, and the shared desire to ensure the final scheme provides the best possible outcome for Valley Gardens into the future, updating traffic flow data used in the model will provide additional reassurance that the scheme's evidence base is as strong as it possibly can be.

Beyond Valley Gardens, the updated city centre transport model (which covers an area between Seven Dials, the seafront and Lewes Rd) can also be used to test impacts of future developments, spreading the value for money achieved by the current process.

In terms of cost, gathering updated traffic data will cost approximately £30,000. Updating the city-centre model with the new data, and testing the current Valley Gardens proposal will cost a similar sum. The review has cost £12,000. It is not possible to ascertain what if any additional design work may be required as a result of the updated modelling until that process has run its course. However, given the rationale for remodelling the scheme, and the importance of getting the proposal right before it is implemented, this design work can be viewed as necessary rather than optional. Overall for gathering traffic data and modelling for Valley Gardens it is anticipated to cost an additional £70-£80k.

It is however reasonable to assume that the extent of any additional (and so redesign) design cost will be modest, given that potential issues identified by the review are constrained to isolated locations within the wider scheme proposal, and technical design has been put on hold during the review process (to protect against undertaking abortive design work).

All costs will be funded from the project's capital budget, and so have no impact on revenue. All costs will relate to the current financial year.

It should also be noted that the original modelling that the review identifies as substandard cost less that £1,000. The re-modelling is much more expensive because it is much more detailed, and so provides a stronger evidence base for the scheme.”