Agenda item - Written questions from members of the public.

A list of public questions received by the due date of the 27 November 2008 will be circulated separately as part of an addendum at the meeting.

 

33.1       The Mayor reported that ten written questions had been received from members of the public, and in view of the number he would extend the time allotted for public questions so that all ten could be considered.  He then invited Mr Simpson to come forward and address the council.

 

33.2       Mr Simpson asked the following question:

 

“How does the council ensure that council officers consider major planning applications with due care and diligence before making their recommendations?”

 

33.3       Councillor Hyde stated that “The due care and diligence made by planning officers in considering major planning applications should be reflected in the written reports and presentations made to the Planning Committee.  These should clearly set out the details of a development proposal and provide a commentary on relevant planning policy, the results of consultation and other material considerations.  These factors are weighed up in the officer’s report and will inform the resultant recommendation.

 

Members of the Planning Committee have the opportunity to publicly question council officers with regard to any element of their report and their considerations.”

 

33.4       Mr Simpson asked the following supplementary question:

 

“How is it that the officers do not seem to have noticed that the visual impact assessment supporting the Explore Living application is packed with grossly misleading wide-angle images which increase the apparent distance of the buildings, reduce their visual impact and make it all look like ‘cloud cuckoo land’?

 

The real question is would it actually be acceptable for this grotesque development to be given planning permission, even though we have all been deceived?”

 

33.5       The Mayor instructed Councillor Hyde not to respond to the supplementary question because the way the question was put would require an opinion from Councillor Hyde, which would not be in keeping with her position and could be regarded as being prejudicial to consideration of the matter at a future Planning Committee.

 

33.6       The Mayor thanked Mr Simpson for his questions and invited Mr Martin to come forward and address the council.

 

33.7       Mr Martin asked the following question:

 

          "Does the Brighton & Hove City Council not agree that it is vitally important that strategic sea, cliff and coastal views are respected and fully protected for current and future generations?"

 

33.8       Councillor Theobald stated “Yes, the council does agree with the importance of respecting and protecting such strategic views.  The adopted Local Plan for the city includes a policy (QD4) that sets out a list of features and buildings that are considered to be of strategic importance.  The list includes views of the sea from a distance and from within the built-up area and views along the seafront and coastline. The policy seeks to prevent development that has a detrimental effect on such views.”

 

33.9       Mr Martin asked the following supplementary question:

 

“Why is it that the council has supported the Explore Living application for Brighton Marina through correspondence to Yvette Cooper, the Housing Minister, in the summer of 2007 in the full knowledge that this application will have devastating impact on the cliff and coastal views in complete contravention of SPG15 Tall Buildings Policy?”

 

33.10    Councillor Theobald responded, Officers do not support planning applications and the same answer I am going to give to you, which is the answer to the previous question that was put, and that is quite clearly it is a matter for the Planning Committee.”

 

33.11    The Mayor thanked Mr Martin for his questions and invited Mr Lothian to come forward and address the council.

 

33.12    Mr Lothian asked the following question:

 

          “How is it possible that T-Mobile is allowed to construct a commercial development on council land with no prior permission, bearing in mind there is a covenant placed on the land restricting such development, which places a massive visual impairment on the locality, increases the perceived health risks and goes against the wishes of the community, is used as a precedent for future developments by other mobile phone companies, enables that company to extend its developments, and make profits from its illegal construction by sub?letting to other companies, whilst having been served notice to remove the original construction in 2005?”

 

33.13    Councillor Fallon-Khan stated that “Regrettably, the mast was erected by T–Mobile in 2001 following erroneous advice from a former officer in the Council’s Highways Team that the grassed area formed part of the adopted highway.  This is significant because where a mast is proposed within the adopted highway the council has no ability to object or control the mast as landowner and the case then has to be considered purely on planning terms.  Due to the size of the installation, it went through the planning process under the prior notification procedure in accordance with Part 24 (Development by Telecommunications Code Systems Operators) of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995.  Therefore, planning consent was not required.  The Planning team has recently examined the equipment on site and concluded that the latest installations also fall within the parameters of Permitted Development and there is, therefore, no planning or enforcement action that could be taken.

 

Sustained efforts were made with T–Mobile to get the mast removed but these were resisted by the company.  The council then served notice under the Telecommunications Act in April 2005 for the mast to be removed.  T-Mobile served a counter notice which dictated that the matter go to Court.  Before embarking upon Court action the council took advice from a leading legal telecommunications expert and was advised that it stood very little chance of winning a Court case and could also easily incur costs of £100,000.  In those circumstances the council took the decision to take no further action.  The telecommunications legislation is heavily weighted in favour of the telephone operators and, indeed, overrules other areas of property law.

 

The land in question was not gifted to the council but was, in fact, acquired under compulsory purchase powers and the council is not aware of any covenant affecting this grass verge.”

 

33.14    Mr Lothian asked the following supplementary question:

 

“I have to say on behalf of the local community we would rather have thanked you for some answers.  What you have actually given us is what we already know.  If the council considered that this construction was given the go-ahead why then did it serve notice on it in 2005 when it had already previously sought legal advice and on that legal advice served notice?  When will it be removed?”

 

33.15    Councillor Fallon-Khan responded, “As you will recall from the answer that I gave you, the mast was erected in 2001, which was a considerable time before we came into Administration and also a considerable time before I came to this particular Cabinet position. 

 

What I intend to do is take on board all the questions that you have given me.  I am going to give you written answers to all of them and I am also aware that it was erroneously erected and so I am going to bring it forward to one of my own Cabinet Member meetings where we will discuss it even further.  We will see what can be done to effect what you want if, indeed, anything can be done, so we are not closing this, we will keep it open.  We will do what we can and give you the right sort of advice and if you don’t mind I will also give you some written answers to some of the questions that you have just given me.”

 

33.16    The Mayor thanked Mr Lothian for his questions and invited Mr Hawtree to come forward and address the council.

 

 

33.17    Mr Hawtree asked the following question:

 

"Could Councillor Smith please tell us what proportion of the books published in a year is available at a discount to this authority's library service?"

 

33.18    Councillor Smith stated that “Our Bibliographic Services contract will enable us to get a discount on approximately 90% of books published in the UK, though the level of discount will vary.  There are approximately 120,000 titles published annually in the UK, and Brighton & Hove Libraries purchase around 45,000 new items for stock each year.  Some of these items will be multiple copies bought for different library locations, so the overall number of unique titles purchased will be lower than this.  Earlier this year we renegotiated the Bibliographic Services contract, delivering an extra £130,000 worth of buying power, so we are able to purchase more books for our money.”

 

33.19    Mr Hawtree asked the following supplementary question:

 

“Although some books are available at a discount, such as Jilly Cooper’s ‘Wicked’ at half price, others such as A M Wilson’s ‘Our Times’ and Richard Holmes’ recent acclaimed ‘Village of Wonder’ have all been bought at full price, so this brings many repercussions that we haven’t time for here.  Shouldn’t this authority be looking to lead the way by restoring the ethos of a public library service rather than make each library meet an income target each year and, indeed, being dependent upon precarious discounts from a wholesaler owned by Woolworth?”

 

33.20    Councillor Smith responded, “I won’t go into whose the owner of it now.  We have a contract, a three year contract, and when it comes up for renewal we will discuss all those things.  We buy books.  It’s like you Christopher Hawtree, if you have published a book we would buy at least one copy but I think we would put it in Hove Library.  What we would do is to try and use our ability and the money we have got available to buy as many publications as we can and overall I think we are doing a very good job for the city.”

 

33.21    The Mayor thanked Mr Hawtree for his questions and invited Mrs Davies to come forward and address the council.

 

33.22    Mrs Davies asked the following question:

 

“What is the current Administration's strategy to help to ensure that good quality and affordable family sized housing will be available to meet the future needs of young families in this city?”

 

33.23    Councillor Caulfield stated that “I think your question is vitally important and I do acknowledge that there is a shortage of family sized affordable housing in this city and we in this Conservative Administration take the problem very seriously and there are a number of things that we are working hard on.

 

The first is to support our council tenants who wish to downsize and move from their larger family homes into smaller properties.  We now operate a transfer incentive scheme which is working remarkably well and we offer both financial and practical help to those who wish to downsize.

 

We now have a full-time Under-Occupancy Officer, Mark Richardson, in the Homemove team who helps people downsize.  Last year we managed to release 81 family sized properties with this scheme, 80% of which were 2,3,4 & 5-bedroom properties and the remaining 20% were larger flats.  This year alone we have helped to downsize 60 households, again providing more family accommodation and releasing it to those on our waiting list.

 

We are also linking with new housing developments with our registered social landlords so that we can negotiate local lettings plans so that people wishing to downsize have properties that they then can access.  This can speed up the process.

 

We are also developing new family sized homes as well.  Through the Local Development Framework we are planning a volume of new residential developments with a variety of tenures both for renting and buying.

 

Looking specifically at affordable housing, we have a wide target of 230 new affordable homes per year, and this is a mix of homes, both shared ownership and to rent, with 30% being 1-bedroom, 45% being 2-bedrooms and 25% being 3-bedrooms because we want to make sure that we are delivering the right sort of housing in the right place and that the housing that we are delivering is affordable.  We are negotiating higher proportions of larger homes across the city on sites that we know will be most suitable for family housing.

 

Finally, we are also trying to increase the opportunities for home ownership with the HomeBuy Scheme and what we are doing is trying to help first time buyers get their foot on the property ladder and we are helping them to access properties, both smaller properties but family sized properties as well and we are working closely with Moat Zone Agents who are our HomeBuy contacts in this area.  I hope that goes some way to reassure you of what we are doing.”

 

33.24    Mrs Davies asked the following supplementary question:

 

“In light of what you have just said, it is surely now crystal clear that the affordable housing as proposed for Brighton Marina in the recent planning application for Explore Living is completely contrary to the family housing policy you have just outlined.  After all their plan is overwhelmingly composed of 1 and 2-bedroom flats which are under-sized and 20% suffer from a complete lack of sunlight due to their location and the close proximity of one block to another.  Therefore, would you agree with me that it would be perverse in the extreme if Members of the Planning Committee were to vote in favour of the Explore Living proposal when they meet on 12 December?  I don’t know whether you can answer.”

 

33.25    Councillor Caulfield responded, “I won’t comment on the Marina planning application because it does have to be judged on its merits by the Planning Committee. 

 

I will say that we do have a lot of planning developments that have built 1 and 2?bedroom flats that neither the developers can let nor are they selling them on the HomeBuy Scheme so we do need family sized accommodation.  The Housing Strategy Team are working with developers to support them when they are putting out applications to look at family sized housing because we do desperately need that across the city.   If you look at our Homemove magazine, which comes out once a fortnight, we have 12,000 people on our housing waiting list and most of them need at least 2-bedroom properties.  If you look at our Homemove magazine we have one to two of those properties coming up every fortnight and that is why people cannot move within the city, so I agree we need family housing, we need to move away from the 1-bedroom flats but, unfortunately, I cannot comment on any particular application.”

 

33.26    The Mayor thanked Mrs Davies for her questions and invited Mr Kirk to come forward and address the council.

 

33.27    Mr Kirk asked the following question:

 

“The local PCT is proposing a city-centre GP-led Clinic.  Does the Council agree that the PCT hasn’t held a public consultation when it is their duty to conduct one.  It should include the following:

 

(i)    A needs assessment to justify it;

(ii)   Understanding the threat it poses to local doctors;

(iii)  Whether, in the long term, only town-centre GP clinics will be left;

(iv) Whether as salaried employees in a large company, corporate medics will be driven by the same professional ethics as local independent doctors.

 

I ask the Council to urge the PCT to conduct such a public consultation exercise.”

 

33.28    Councillor Ken Norman stated that “The creation of a GP-led health centre in Brighton and Hove is a matter of Government policy and it is part of the role of the PCT to implement that policy in a way that reflects the local needs and circumstances, in discussion with local people and their representatives.  The PCT has a strong track record of doing this and I believe that this is the case with respect to the GP-led health centre.

 

·       I am confident that the PCT has engaged with local people and their representatives on the location of the proposed service and on the details of the service specification.  The national patient survey indicates that many GP services are not sufficiently responsive to meet people’s changing needs.  Patients say they want to be able to see GPs at evenings and weekends, or when they are away from home.  People want health care that is more personalised and convenient, so primary care services need to adapt to respond to that need.  This is the need, along with a wider variety of services under one roof, that the proposed new centre is designed to meet.

 

·       I would share your concerns if the new centre resulted in existing GP surgeries closing but this is additional investment for additional services - more GPs, more nurses, more appointments and longer and more convenient opening hours.  GP-led health centres are not about replacing or centralising existing GP surgeries.

 

·       GPs already operate as private businesses, as you probably know, (they are independent contractors) and although they are usually established as partnerships - they are set up to make a profit.  A GP’s income is generated through their contract with the PCT.  Other companies such as Chilvers McCrae have been able to provide services under contracts with the NHS for many years.  The contracts Brighton and Hove City Council has with Chilvers McCrae were set in 2004.  In my experience, all doctors are driven by the same standards of professional ethics, regardless of the type of practice in which they work.”

 

33.29    Mr Kirk asked the following supplementary question:

 

“Is he aware of the research conducted by Dr Caroline Tennant at the University of Leicester who said, ‘clinics are likely to undermine trust between patients and GP’?  She states in the British Journal of General Practice that, ‘clinics are bound to reduce continuity of care and medical outcomes may be adversely affected’.

 

Is he also aware that Birmingham City Council has rejected clinics after hearing that they would drive existing surgeries out of business?

 

Haringey PCT has reversed its decision to set up large clinics when it realised that 37 surgeries were at risk.  In view of this evidence would the council question the spending of a large amount of public funds and clearly it is the case isn’t it that large corporations which, to be honest, previous experience from other cities show that this is exactly where this particular contract is going to be awarded, are they not interested in small, local surgeries because they can’t make a profit out of them?  What will happen is we will have a large clinic in the town centre using all its marketing forces that it can and it will drive the small round the corner surgeries out of business basically.  Now we can sit by and let that go but I would have thought that since you are the elected representatives you will at least serve the wishes of local people.”

 

33.30    Councillor Ken Norman responded, “As you are probably aware all PCTs work within the local area to give the best service they can to their area.  They are not governed by what other PCTs do in other areas, so we are looking at the PCT here who has looked at this provision and thought it necessary.

 

I am sure proper consultation has taken place in and around the area with the correct people, to make sure that this premises will be suitable for everybody that is around that area.  It will not, and I am sure it will not, take other GPs surgeries out of that talk and I am convinced that it hasn’t happened elsewhere and I am sure it won’t happen in this particular case.

 

Now, like other questioners tonight you have put a very detailed, almost a statement to me and I cannot possibly answer everything that you have said tonight.  I will endeavour, like some other members here tonight, to give you a fuller answer and send it on to you if that’s okay.  If my answer now, my secondary answer to your secondary question isn’t sufficient I will do that.”

 

33.31    The Mayor thanked Mr Kirk for his questions and invited Mr Furness to come forward and address the council.

 

33.32    Mr Furness asked the following question:

 

“Could Councillor Theobald please tell us what effect the drop in prices with the recession has so far had upon the city’s recycling strategy and what provision this authority will be making for the changing situation?”

 

33.33    Councillor Theobald stated that “The prices for recycling have dropped significantly and Veolia, our contractor, is securing the best prices possible for the materials.  As we are well aware that material prices can go down as well as up, we do not rely on the income fully to fund our recycling services.  So, there will be no reduction in recycling services.

 

It is important to stress that we recycle because of the environmental benefits and thus our strategy has not changed and we ask that everyone continues to recycle as much as possible.”

 

33.34    Mr Furness asked the following supplementary question:

 

“I know you told me that I shouldn’t necessarily believe what I read in the ‘Argus’ but a recent report states that through the drop in demand for recyclables as a result of this recession, councils will have to find space to store recovered materials until the economy picks up.

 

I would just like to know, if you can tell me please, if this be true what provision you have in mind to meet such an eventuality?”

 

33.35    Councillor Theobald responded, “I am very pleased to say that is not the case in Brighton & Hove as we have space.”

 

33.36    The Mayor thanked Mr Furness for his questions and invited Ms Paynter to come forward and address the council.

 

33.37    Ms Paynter asked the following question:

 

"With the ending of the King Alfred redevelopment comes thoughts of related issues such as the ending of the need to put indoor bowling on Hove Park's Scrub Nursery. 

 

In the working case file for refused indoor bowls application BH2006/03698,  Phil Purvis, on behalf of the Engineerium's owner, conveyed interest in having that land for The Engineerium & recently Councillor Melanie Davis has asked the Administration why the Engineerium remains closed.  

 

Is there any reason why that now covenant-free plot, could not be used to help get The Engineerium re-opened?"

 

33.38    Councillor Kemble stated that “Although there is no longer a pressing need to relocate the indoor bowls facility from the King Alfred Leisure Centre, there is still an aspiration to provide the local community with a modern top of the range bowls centre that meets the current and future needs of the King Alfred Men’s and Ladies’ Indoor Bowls Clubs.  It would be premature, therefore, to close down any of this Administration’s options before we have had the opportunity to properly consider them. 

 

Discussions were held last year between officers, representatives of Cherrywood Investments and the Engineerium following their expression of interest in Hove Park Yard.  However, no formal proposals for the site were received by the council and officers were subsequently notified that Cherrywood Investments did not wish to pursue their proposal.

 

The land in question is still covered by a covenant restricting its use to “a pleasure or recreation ground or public park only”.  What the council did was to enter into a voluntary agreement by way of a Deed of Consent with the former owner of the land, Stanford Estate, which allows for the erection of an indoor bowls facility on this site.  It is, therefore, not correct to say that this is now a covenant-free plot.”

 

33.39    Ms Paynter asked the following supplementary question:

 

“The lawyer to the Planning Committee led us to believe that this was now covenant-free, so that is my error perhaps in not interpreting what she had to say correctly but that will be looked into. 

 

There is clearly a lot of outstanding bits and bobs surrounding that King Alfred debacle, saga, soap opera, whatever you want to call it, and I am remembering that in the late 1990s there was a public meeting held in Hove Town Hall.  It was partly with the developer of the time, Citygrove, and partly with the council.  I am wondering if the council would be willing to now consider convening another public meeting at Hove Town Hall, with a view to thrashing out all this unfinished business and all the loose ends and possibly getting some ideas for a really serious way forward. 

 

I know you are now having £1.5m put into refurbishment and maintenance issues but there is a longer term kind of loose end sitting in the air with a big question mark, even my taxi driver coming here today was asking me, ‘well what’s going to happen?’

 

Can we please have a public meeting to discuss the King Alfred at Hove Town Hall?”

 

33.40    Councillor Kemble responded, “As you are aware, following the King Alfred development agreement failing, the Administration in committing to keep the centre open has said that it will weigh up all of its options and I am sure that in weighing up all of the options we will give due diligence to the request that you have just made.”

 

33.41    The Mayor thanked Ms Paynter for her questions and invited Mrs Addison to come forward and address the council.

 

33.42    Mrs Addison asked the following question:

 

“Will the Council confirm that no part of the cost of the proposed Community Stadium at Falmer will be borne by the Council?”

 

33.43    Councillor Kemble stated “Yes.  I am more than happy to confirm that in September 2007 the Council’s Policy & Resources Committee agreed the following: 

 

‘That the Committee reaffirms the Council's role as landowner in the delivery of the Community Stadium as one of facilitating the scheme through transfer of the site and assisting with implementing the scheme so far as is consistent with not directly funding the project’.”

 

 

 

 

33.44    Mrs Addison asked the following supplementary question:

 

“Does the council appreciate that the business plan for the Stadium is still awaited and that this plan may not pass a rigid scrutiny in which case is it reasonable for work on widening Village Way to be started?”

 

33.45    Councillor Kemble responded, “As you rightly say the business plan with regards to the community stadium hasn’t yet been agreed.  Once we do receive it we will be giving due diligence to it.  The works that the football club are undertaking are preparatory works that are not being funded by the City Council for the community stadium.”

 

33.46    The Mayor thanked Mrs Addison for her questions and invited Mr Grozier to come forward and address the council.

 

33.47    Mr Grozier asked the following question:

 

“Councillor Mears, in light of the considerable local opposition to the proposed London Road Tesco by developers St. James’ Investments, including a large car park and inevitable accompanying air quality issues, would you and your colleagues support a master plan for the area that champions our thriving small businesses and community facilities, rather than a “clone town” development at odds with the community interest?"

 

33.48    Councillor Mears stated that “One of our priorities as a council is to ‘Protect the Environment whilst Growing the Economy’ and in addition to the natural environment this also means the unique urban and cultural environment that makes Brighton and Hove so distinctive.

 

In light of this priority it is very much our intention to ensure that the vibrant independent shops and traders in and around areas such as the North Laine and London Road continue to thrive.  I am therefore working with officers to ensure that the Supplementary Planning Guidance for London Road, that is currently being developed and consulted on, reflects this priority.  Any proposals brought forward by developers will then be assessed against this Planning Guidance and other relevant local planning policies and frameworks.”

 

33.49    Mr Grozier asked the following supplementary question:

 

“I would just like to say that Another London Road Group, of which I am the representative, has been gathering the views and opinions of the residents, traders and shoppers of London Road regarding any improvements to their area for some time and will continue to do so.  In order to access these opinions will you and your colleagues make a commitment to consult with Another London Road Group on any decisions regarding the future of London Road?”

 

 

33.50    Councillor Mears responded, “I am personally committed to the long-term regeneration of the London Road area for the benefits of residents and local businesses alike.  As I have previously stated we are awaiting the publication of the Supplementary Planning document for the area before actively considering any specific proposals from interested landowners or developers and any use they propose, like additional retail capacity.  I think consultation on such a large scheme, particularly in that area is vital and so I am more than happy that consultation on a very wide scheme takes place.”

 

33.51    The Mayor thanked Mr Grozier for his questions and in view of the time adjourned the meeting at 6.55pm for thirty-five minutes for a refreshment break.

 

33.52    The Mayor reconvened the meeting at 7.30pm.