Agenda item - Public Involvement

To consider the following matters raised by members of the public:

 

(a)          Petitions: To receive any petitions presented by members of the public;

 

(i)            Saxon Court, Hove Motorcycle Bay

 

(ii)          Western Road Parking

 

(b)          Written Questions: To receive any questions submitted by the due date of 12 noon on the 8 March 2016;

 

(i)            Communal refuse consultation: Palmeira Square and Adelaide Crescent

 

(c)          Deputations: To receive any deputations submitted by the due date of 12 noon on the 8 March 2016.

 

(a)          Petitions

 

(i)            Saxon Court, Hove motorcycle bay- Angela Atkinson

 

68.1      The Committee considered a petition signed by 69 people requesting the removal or relocation of a motorcycle bay outside of Saxon Court, Hove.

 

68.2      The Chair provided the following response:

 

“Thank you for your petition. The removal of the motorcycle bay will be investigated by officers. If it is felt this should be taken forward then this will be included in the next available traffic amendment order which is likely to be in June 2016. This would allow members of the public to make comments on the proposal”.

 

68.3      RESOLVED- That the petition be noted.

 

(ii)          Western Road Parking- Amy Kitching, Councillor Sykes

 

68.4      The Committee considered a petition signed by 70 people requesting the council to install a loading ban on the stretch of Western Road between Little Western Street and Waterloo Street.

 

68.5      The Chair provided the following response:

 

“Following the petition I will now instruct officers to consider this in the next available amendment Traffic Order. This is likely to be in June alongside a number of other requests throughout the City.

Just to clarify we would be looking at implementing a loading ban to prevent any parking in the sections mentioned rather than any bays”.

 

68.6      RESOLVED- That the petition be noted.

 

(b)          Written Questions

 

(i)           Communal refuse consultation: Palmeira Square and Adelaide Crescent

 

68.7      Susan Hunter presented the following question:

 

‘With reference to the possibility of communal rubbish bins being installed in Palmeira Square and Adelaide Crescent, if they are installed and then generate rubbish around them, rather than in them, will it be agreed that these bins can be removed and put outside the Square and Crescent?’

 

68.8      The Chair provided the following response:

 

“Thank you very much for your question. Following lengthy discussions with residents, members of this committee and ward councillors, both before and after the committee report was published, we will be moving an amendment to the recommendations on the committee report that the council consults residents on the two options of communal containers or a kerb-side sack collection.  As part of the consultation residents will be able to suggest other methods.

Currently the communal bins in streets adjacent to the squares sometimes fill up quickly as they are used by people living in the squares so the introduction of communal bins would help this situation and there would be capacity for all households.

I am pleased to say that we have also stepped up our enforcement activity and now have a dedicated enforcement team that is addressing the fly-tipping in streets, illegal disposal of commercial waste in communal bins and littering.  The work of this team will help keep the city, as well as the squares, clean.

If communal bins are introduced officers from City Clean will monitor them closely after implementation and take quick action to address any problems.

The focus will be in resolving any early issues rather than moving them elsewhere”.

 

68.9      Susan Hunter asked the following supplementary question:

 

“What actions will be taken should the bins attract vermin as happened with the composting scheme undertaken in Palmeira Square”

 

68.10   The Chair provided the following response:

 

“If residents were to spot any sign of vermin, then we would hope they would report it really swiftly to Cityclean or to Environmental Health and I can promise you, quick action would be taken”

 

(ii)          Communal refuse consultation: Palmeira Square and Adelaide Crescent

 

68.11   David Ward presented the following question:

 

“In reference to the possible communal bins proposed for Palmeira Square & Adelaide Crescent,  "Heritage area of the City". Will the Council consider screening around the bins, in order to preserve the character of the area?  This could be Evergreen Hedging for example”.

 

68.12   The Chair provided the following response:

 

“Thank you very much for your question. 

As part of the proposed consultation with residents, the Conservation Advisory Group and the Planning Conservation Officer we will seek views on ways to minimise any impacts associated with communal bins. 

We have also secured increased budget to maintain and replace communal bins across the city which will help ensure any new bins are maintained to a good standard.

Officers are keen to explore any additional options to screen bins for example by using hedging where that is possible.  The viability of any such options will be subject to funding which officers are happy to explore with residents and stakeholders”.

 

68.13   David Ward asked the following supplementary question:

 

“Would the council accept a donation from residents for suitable screening”

 

68.14   The Chair provided the following response:

 

“I think we would certainly consider that very positively Mr Ward, thank you for your suggestion”

 

(iii)         Communal refuse in heritage areas

 

68.15   Thomas Chavasse presented the following question:

 

“Noting unsustainable presumptions as a basis for seeking permission to re-consult on communal bins, committee is asked to recall the strong heritage advice given to council and the outcome of 2008 in-depth debates on safety and assessments of bin locations and to confirm that:

The over-exaggerated health and safety claims are dismissed and the well-established systems retained. Nothing has or needs to change in these densely populated heritage areas and the officers are harking back to a lost cause and their report even presumes an outcome which omits consideration of retaining the well-established status quo. So why consult?”

 

68.16   The Chair provided the following response:

 

“The reason that the committee is being asked today for permission to consult on the potential installation of communal bins in the squares is that the current practice of collecting sacks from basements is not safe.  Thankfully there has only been one accident in recent years which did result in the employee being off work for two weeks.

However, the council has a legal and moral duty to ensure that risks to its employees are minimised as far as practicable.  We cannot simply wait around for further accidents to happen in the full knowledge that there are systems available to us now to better contain waste and make collections safer and more hygienic.

There are roughly 2,000 properties on basement collections and if each property put out an average of just two sacks per week that equates to 4,000 sacks of rubbish being hauled up basement steps.  Not only do the steps present a trip hazard, especially in the wet and dark but there are risks of injury from sharp objects protruding from the bags, many of the storage areas are low and unlit and there are hazards of vermin.

These risks are not over exaggerated which is why retaining basement collections is not an option”

 

68.17   Thomas Chavasse asked the following supplementary question:

 

“Will committee agree that the proposal to discuss recycling bins and impose refuse bins on the inadequate basis of a hyped health and safety assessment puts the con in consultation?

 

68.18   The Chair provided the following response:

 

“What this is about is balancing the heritage nature of the squares with our duty to staff and we do regularly have staff that come to us with a grievance towards the council because of the poor working conditions and dangers associated with basement collections and they are always fully supported by their union in making those grievances.  We cannot simply ignore the situation and longer and as part of the consultation we are proposing, the heritage considerations will be taken into account. We will consult with the Conservation Area Advisory Group and to seek their advice as part of that consultation but we also have to balance that with our duty to our staff”

 

(iv)         Communal refuse consultation: Palmeira Square and Adelaide Crescent

 

68.19   Mike Kingston presented the following question:

 

“Will the Council withdraw proposal 70 whilst:

 

1.    An independent financial assessment of the policy is carried out to accompany any proposal. This assessment to include the financial benefits of properly maintaining the conservation and historic areas of Brighton and Hove.

2.    A proper consultation is carried out as promised by council officers in a public meeting and confirmed by way of email from City Clean dated  11 July 2012”.

 

68.20   The Chair provided the following response:

 

“A financial assessment of the proposals to introduce communal collections has not been carried out because this proposal is not financially driven.  The reason for the proposals is to address the Health and Safety issues arising from basement collections which cannot continue.

I am a bit unclear what you mean in relation to you question about assessing the financial benefits of properly maintaining the conservation and historic areas of Brighton and Hove in relation to this specific proposal.

We have been clear about the issues and risks from basement collections.  An amendment will be moved to the recommendations on the report for the council to consult on the two options of having a communal collection or kerb-side sack collection.  Residents will be able to suggest other methods as part of that consultation”.

 

68.21   Mike Kingston asked the following supplementary question:

 

“Our responsibility as residents and councillors is to preserve and enhance our conservation and heritage areas. How will this policy continue to enhance our areas for years to come?”

 

68.22   The Chair provided the following response:

 

“We are balancing the heritage aspects of the Squares against the need to progress a modern refuse collection service. Hauling sacks up from basements is not part of the way forward and we have to balance the risks to staff. In my ward in Kemptown I have heritage squares, they have had communal bins for some time now and they are working very well indeed”.

 

(v)          Communal refuse consultation

 

68.23   Fiona Bower presented the following question:

 

"A senior Council officer advised at least one local residents’ group that the Council would consult on whether to have communal bins in seafront squares with listed building status.  Where they would be situated would have been a secondary question.  There was no reference to black sack kerbside collections.  Can the Environment, Transport and Sustainability Committee now give assurance that the communal bins consultation will adhere to conservation advice and guidance, given the Grade I Listed status of Brunswick Square and Terrace?

 

68.24   The Chair provided the following response:

 

“Thank you for your question. 

It is considered that the only two options with the ending of basement collections would be either communal bins or a black sack collection from the kerbside rather than the basements.

I know that officers have been working with resident groups in advance of the consultation in order to bring them up to speed on why the collections from basements cannot continue and a number of meetings have taken place to discuss possible locations.

As I have said in response to other questions this evening, following further discussions with officers and councillors we will be moving an amendment to the published recommendations for the council to consult residents on the two options of communal collections or a kerbside sack service.  As part of that consultation residents will be able to suggest other methods”. 

 

68.25   Fiona Bower asked the following supplementary question:

 

“By banning basement bins collections for health and safety reasons, the council is transferring a weekly risk from four Cityclean employees to a daily risk to children and adults using Brunswick Square. Communal bins will block sight-lines, increase heavy traffic around the Square and risk the lives of young children who dart in and out of the gardens of the Square on to the road. Should the council introduce communal bins and there is an accident, fatal perhaps, will they be removed?”

 

68.26   The Chair provided the following response:

 

“Any placement of communal bins is done extremely carefully, incorporating a risk assessment to its siting. Highways considerations are taken into account, highways officers are consulted about things like sightlines. As I have said, communal bins have been sited in many other areas of the city and the council does have experience in doing such. If there is a serious problem with the siting of a bin then that would be investigated promptly and another location would be considered”.

 

(vi)        Saltdean Oval toilets

 

68.27   Cathy Gallagher presented the following question:

 

"Can we in Saltdean have your assurance that there will be no change to the status of the Saltdean Oval toilets without full community consultation with both residents and ward Councillors. Furthermore can you confirm that the information on which the recommendation for closure was made has been independently verified and can you supply full documented details?

If the recommendation for closure was not based on verified information, what was the basis of the decision? Was it purely financial?”

 

68.28   The Chair provided the following response:

 

“Thank you for your question.

In 2015/16 the council agreed to reduce the budget for public toilets by £165,000 in 2016/17 so officers had to work up proposals to deliver those savings.

The only way that savings of that magnitude can be realised is by either reducing opening hours or by closing some sites completely.

We worked hard during the budget setting process to find ways of reducing that overall saving amount with additional funding having been identified by both Labour and Conservative Councillors.

With those changes, the saving requirement is now £40,000 and officers are currently working up revised proposals to achieve the saving with minimal impact on the service and details will be available soon.

The recommendations of toilet closures are made by officers and based mainly on levels of usage that can be measured by people counters but mainly by water usage. Proximity of other sites is taken into account.  I will ask officers to send you the information that they have.

I am pleased to say that we have secured £1.5m capital investment in our toilets which will significantly improve their standard.  We are currently drafting a business plan to support the provision of public toilets for the future.” 

 

68.29   Cathy Gallagher asked the following supplementary question:

 

“Saltdean welcomes the Big Conversation on Open Spaces strategy and we are as a community formulating our own plans. As our public toilets in our only public park are on the condemned list with no suitable alternative, what is the timescale for Saltdean’s Big Conservation to start?”

 

68.30   The Chair provided the following response:

 

“At the moment I can’t give you a clear answer on how that £40,000 residual saving is going to be made. Officers are working on that and there will need to consultation with ward councillors in areas where those savings might be achieved. As soon as we have that information, we will inform you. We will send you the information in relation to you question about how conclusions on original savings were arrived at”.

 

(c)          Deputations

 

(i)            Deputation to support the offer of funding for a children’s playground in Stanmer Park- Jamie Hooper

 

68.31   The Committee considered a Deputation that made Members aware of an offer of funding via the Fields in Trust charity to provide playground equipment in Stanmer Park.

 

68.32   The Chair provided the following response:

 

“Thank you very much for your Deputation.

I understand that the donation would come from you personally and be channelled through Fields in Trust so I would like to also thank you for your generosity.  

The council is facing significant budget constraints and later on the agenda we will be considering a report to look at how we can protect our parks and open spaces in light of reducing resources. In this financial climate donations for playgrounds are particularly welcome.

Officers have spoken to you about the practicalities associated with your donation and things that need to be considered are that any play area is designed and located to fit in with the overall Masterplan for the Estate and as you know, that Masterplan is being drawn up in conjunction with the National Park, with Heritage England, with other stakeholders within the park and of course, we will obviously work with children on the design. 

We also need to make sure that if any new play areas are built maintenance costs are minimised and on-going maintenance is secured.  In the current climate our budgets are insufficient to maintain all our existing play areas so this is something we have to consider carefully before agreeing new sites.  These are all issues that will be addressed in our forthcoming Open Spaces Strategy.

Officers will work on your proposal which will need to come back to a future committee for decision.  As you are aware the Stanmer HLF deadlines are tight so it probably won’t be possible to bring a report to the June meeting but all being well officers will work to bringing a report back in the autumn.” 

 

68.33   RESOLVED- That the Deputation be noted.