Agenda item - Written questions from Councillors.

89.1      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:

 

(1)       Councillor West

 

89.1         Unsightly rubbish is piling up beside the city’s arterial roads. Whilst not only threatening the nearby flora and fauna, this detritus also risks blowing into the national park and going into the drainage system. Given that some of the litter is large sheets of polythene that may get blown across the carriageway it also poses a worrying threat to road users.

 

In January 2017 Greens pushed the Council to write directly to the Secretary of State for Environment urging them to increase the additional funding required for Highways England to adequately conduct litter picking and detritus removal across all areas of our natural environment. This included our key arterial roads.  The Government response ignored this request and unfortunately focused solely on fixed penalty fines for littering. It also did not address the discrepancy between the role of Highways England and of the local Council to maintain this land.

 

I am disappointed to learn recently that Highways England refused to give permission for the road closures. Greens are increasingly concerned that there appears to be little management of the relationship between the Labour Council and Highways England in order to deal with roadside litter. This urgently needs to be addressed. It would also be positive if signage was introduced, as it is in neighbouring West Sussex.

 

Can the Chair of Environment say what action is being taken to urgently address these issues?

 

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

 

89.2         Street cleansing is the responsibility of the Brighton and Hove City Council and this includes the verges of all our  high speed dual carriageways.  The A27 and A23 are cleaned twice yearly alongside the maintenance works that involve lane closures.

 

Although, it is the responsibility of Brighton and Hove City Council to organize the work, prior to that it has to be authorised and carried out in accordance with instruction from Highway England and its contractor.

 

We were proposing to schedule a clean-up in March /April of this year, however due to the prolonged resurfacing works on the A27, our permission was denied and we are currently awaiting for a new time slot to be agreed. We have been informed by the HE contractor that access will be provided in the forthcoming months, but to date this has not been confirmed.

 

Together with Lewes District Council Brighton and Hove City Council is organizing training relating to cleansing of the high speed roads whilst they are closed for maintenance.  This will mean that for the future we will have staff who are trained so that they can undertake cleaning tasks at times when HEclose either the A27 and A23. This will prevent us from needing to apply for separate permissions.

 

In the meantime our crews have undertaken litter picks of most of the slip roads leading to A27 as well as areas by lay buys. Once we will receive permission from HE we will publicise the dates on the web site and our social media.  Cllr West’s own robust remarks in relation to Highways England are recorded in the minutes of the March meeting of the Environment, Transport & Sustainability Committee.

 

(2)       Councillor Lewry

 

89.3         New Homes - Please can the Administration advise how many new homes have been started and completed since 2015 that were not already in the pipeline from the previous Administration? Can they also advise how much has been spent in providing these homes and what the rents are for each of them? Can the Administration also advise how many are in construction now and will actually be completed by May 2019 and the associated costs with the proposed rents for each of them?

 

Reply from Councillor Meadows Chair of the Housing & New Homes Committee

 

89.4       

 

Scheme	Actual spend £'000	Number of Units	Tenure Mix	Housing / Housing New Homes Committee approval date	Completion Date	Rents per week (excl Service charges)	HB Eligible Service Charges per week	Total charge to Tenant per week
Brooke Mead	12,041	45	1 Bed	17-Jun-2015*	15-Dec-17	£121.80	£31.10	£152.90
Kite Place	14,338	10	1 Bed	17-Jun-15	11-Apr-18	£144.50	£7.30	£151.80
		33	2 Bed			£183.60	£7.30	£190.90
		14	3 Bed			£221.00	£7.30	£228.30
Hobby Place	6,983	7	1 Bed	02-Mar-16	May-18	£146.90	£6.12	£153.02
		16	2 Bed			£186.36	£6.12	£192.48
		6	3 Bed			£224.16	£6.12	£230.28
Lynchet Close & Salehurst Close	2,116	6	2 Bed	28-Jun-17	25-May-18	£154.15	£1.48	£155.63
			4 Bed			£205.54	£1.48	£207.02
	35,477	137

 

Schemes under construction to be completed by May 2019
Kensington Street **	3,681	11	1 Bed	14-Jan-15	01-May-19			£153.02
		1	2 Bed					£192.48
** scheme approved prior to May 2015
* Original approval for scheme to be explored was in 2013

 

 

(3)   Councillor Wares

 

89.5      Cityclean - Please can the Administration provide performance details for its initiatives to provide both commercial waste and green waste collections and compare those performances against the business plans used to establish these initiatives?

 

Can the Administration also provide details on progress for supplying the new recycling wheelie bins?

 

How many remain to be delivered and how many bins that have been delivered still have to be swapped for smaller and to a lesser extent, larger bins.

 

Can the Administration confirm when the roll-out programme will be complete taking account of residents actually having the right size bins they need?

 

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

 

89.6      As part of the City Environmental Management Modernisation Programme, working is being undertaken to review the commercial operations of Cityclean. This review includes an analysis of both the commercial waste and garden waste services to ensure they are supported by appropriate business plans and financial forecasts.

 

Following the end of the financial outturn we will be conducting a review of the income generated as well as the overall performance of each service and incorporating this into an update report being taken to Policy Resources & Growth Committee in July 2018.

 

It was always anticipated that the roll-out of the recycling wheelie bins was not a ‘one size fits all’ solution and as the programme reached the city centre areas, a mixed approached would be needed and so area audits are being undertaken. The most recent area audits carried out were for the Moulsecoomb and Bevendean, Hollingdean & Stanmer and Hanover and Elm Grove areas to ascertain whether streets are suitable for the new bins or are to stay with black boxes.

 

The audits identified 6,000 households as being appropriate to receive recycling wheelie bins.  These residents have been written to week commencing 3rd April explaining the changes.

 

The number of bins remaining to be delivered will depend on the outcome of the audits being carried out.  From the first phase of the roll-out there are 124 swaps to be completed during w/c 16th April.  In the second phase, following the audits, residents will be able to request a swap taking into consideration constraints such as pavements widths.

 

The programme of audits and delivery of bins for suitable, central areas of the city will continue. This will include responding to feed-back from ward councillors, crews and residents in relation to both phases of the roll-out.

 

(4)     Councillor Taylor

      

89.7         Hospital for Hove - Can the Administration outline the steps they intend to take via the Health and Wellbeing Board to provide a ‘Hospital for Hove’, that will include a Multidisciplinary Community Diagnostic Centre, a GP Hub and small A&E Unit, given that the demand for a school in Toads Hole Valley no longer exists?

 

Reply from Councillor Yates – Chair of the Health & Wellbeing Board

 

89.8         Brighton and Hove Clinical Commissioning Group is responsible for the commissioning of local hospital and urgent care facilities and GP Practices, the latter in conjunction with NHS England under co-commissioning arrangements.  As part of this role the CCG considers the local requirements for these facilities.  The CCG is represented on the Health and Wellbeing Board and engages Board members in the development of NHS plans in relation to these service Areas.  As councillors will be aware we are actively working to more closely integrate with the local health economy and will explore appropriate opportunities to maximise and enhance primary and community service provision where there is a demonstrable need across the city, including Hove.

 

(5)     Councillor Simson

 

89.9         Mesh verges - Residents across the city are fed up with vehicles parking on grass verges because of the damage caused, the unsightly impression it gives and the cost to the public purse for repairs. However, residents would not be so concerned especially in neighbourhoods like Woodingdean and Hangleton & Knoll, where it is impossible for houses to have off road parking, if no damage was being caused.

 

So will the council look at a long-term solution and cost the provision of grasscrete or cheaper rubber grass-road blocks as a spend to save measure?  This could be done on a rolling basis and would allow grass to grow through and be mowed in the usual way without having the ongoing annual damage caused by parked vehicles that is expensive to repair and causes so many complaints.

 

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

 

89.10      Thank you for your question regarding the use of Grasscrete on verges which are being damaged by parked vehicles.  We are very much aware that certain areas of the city suffer ongoing vehicle damage to verges, which has been particularly bad this year due to the sustained wet weather.

 

Using Grasscrete is a costly solution and requires a lot of work to excavate a stable foundation on which it would sit.  However, we do have a policy which allows the installation of posts to prohibit parking on grass verges in areas which are most affected.

 

In order to manage the limited resources available, posts are installed on a priority basis. But ultimately we do hope drivers park their vehicles in an appropriate place and do not choose to park in locations that causes damage to the highway. Officers would be happy to be contacted with the details of any particular locations which are causing most concern.

 

The City Council has for many years been lobbying central government for powers to ban pavement and verge parking in the city, in the same way it has been banned in London since 1974. The Department for Transport confirmed in April that the Minister has asked for evidence to be gathered over the summer about the effectiveness or not of the current regulatory framework in tackling this issue. We hope to work with the Department for Transport to find a regulatory solution that works to protect and save the city’s pavements and verges from problem parking.

 

(6)     Councillor Gibson

 

89.11      How much under the HRA borrowing cap was BHCC on 1st April 2015 and the 1st of April 2018?

 

Reply from Councillor Meadows – Chair of the Housing & New Homes Committee

 

89.12      As at 1/4/15, the HRA had total borrowing of £115.8m and was therefore £41.0m under the borrowing cap of £156.8m. As at 1^st April 2018, the HRA had borrowed £126.3m (this is based on draft outturn figures for 2017/18 and so subject to change) and was therefore £30.5m under the borrowing cap of £156.8m. However, other commitments in the HRA capital programme for 2018/19 – 2020/21 show that the HRA will be very close to the cap in 2022/23 with headroom (available borrowing) of only £2.134m. (This forecast has yet to be updated for the 2017/8 outturn).

 

(7)     Councillor Gibson

 

89.13      What was the net borrowing taken up between 1st April 2015 and 1st April 2018 when expressed as a percentage of the maximum borrowing available to the HRA on the 1st of April 2015?

 

Reply from Councillor Meadows – Chair of the Housing & New Homes Committee

 

89.14      The net borrowing undertaken between 1^st April 2015 and 2018 is £10.5m. As at 1^st April 2015, the HRA had £41m of borrowing headroom. Therefore, the net borrowing of £10.5m represents 25.6% of the borrowing available. However, a large proportion of this borrowing headroom is already committed for the HRA three year capital programme, including spend on the New Homes for Neighbourhoods programme, buy backs, hidden homes works and works to council dwellings. Current planned capital spend in the HRA mean a further net borrowing of £28.4m in the next 5 years to 2022/23 where the forecast level of borrowing headroom is £2.134m. 

           

(8)     Councillor Gibson

 

89.15      Financial modelling of new council homes - Having provided the figures for the estimated surplus/deficit over the 60 year financial modelling period for:

 

- Aldwick Mews

- Brook Mead

- Darwell Court

- Flint Close

- Hobby Place

- Kite Place

- Pierre Close

- Preston Rd

- Robert Lodge (N)

- Robert Lodge (S)

- Lynchet Close

- Kensington St

 

And used assumptions to calculate these answers for each scheme (above).

 

For each scheme model, please can you indicate what the assumptions used were in the calculations on each of the above schemes for the following elements of the model:

 

1)  Initial Management costs per property (+ inflation assumption for future years)

2)  Initial Major repair costs per property (with inflation assumption for future years)

3)  Initial rent and assumptions about future rent increases over the 60 year model

4)         Initial Maintenance costs per property (+ inflation assumption for future years)

5)         Service charge costs and inflationary assumptions on these costs over the period of the model

 

Reply from Councillor Meadows – Chair of the Housing & New Homes Committee

 

89.16   See the updated table below which has added rows for the management, maintenance and service charge information ( in grey).  As for inflation, the model strips out inflation as it is all discounted to a net present value – the value as at today. This effectively means that we are assuming inflation will be the same for costs and income. The rational for this is that inflationary changes to rents are affected by Government policy and are not easily predictable in the longer term and similarly, build cost inflation and maintenance cost inflation  over the years, is very difficult to predict.  Therefore the model assumes they will inflate by the same amount over the 60 years.

 

 

Comparison of scheme viability using 40 year modelling and current 60 year cash flow modelling
Response to Cllr Gibson question for Council on 19th April 2018
The rows coloured grey below are new rows added to answer the latest questions on service charges, management and maintenance costs.
	Preston Road	Aldwick Mews	Flint Close	Pierre Close	Robert Lodge (N)	Robert Lodge (S)
Total Budget approved (£'000)	445	1,220	1,041	1,002	911	1,461
Number of units	2	5	4	4	6	9
Build cost per unit (£'000)	223	244	260	251	152	162
Management costs	1,072	1,078	1,078	1,078	1,078	1,078
maintenance costs	912	914	914	914	914	914
Major repairs costs	700	700	700	700	700	700
Tenure mix	2 x 3 Bed Bungalows	1 x 2 Bed, 4 x 3 Bed	4 x 3 Bed house	4 x 3 Bed house	4 x 1 Bed Flats, 2 x 2 Bed Flats	9 x 1 Bed Flats
Rent p/w (excluding s/c
1 Bed					151.50	151.50
2 Bed		184.00			191.00
3 Bed	228.00	224.00	211.50	224.00
4 Bed
Service charge per week	0	0	0	0	0	0
Subsidy / (Surplus) reported previously (£'000)	38	128	174	83	107	329
Subsidy / (Surplus) using new modelling (£'000)	54	64	114	39	(12)	162
Payback period (years)	60+	60+	60+	60+	54.1	60+
Discount Rate (Equivalent to interest Rate at point of approval)	4.20%	5.00%	5.00%	5.00%	5.00%	5.00%
Financial Services
13/04/18

 

	Comparison of scheme viability using 40 year modelling and current 60 year cash flow modelling
	Response to Cllr Gibson question for Council on 19th April 2018
The rows coloured grey below are new rows added to answer the latest questions on service charges, management and maintenance costs.
		Darwell Court	Kensington Street	Kite Place		Brooke Mead	Hobby Place	Lynchet Close
Total Budget approved (£'000)		1,119	1,832	14,100		12,000	7,077	2,532
Number of units		5	12	58		45	29	8
Build cost per unit (£'000)		224	153	243		267	244	317
Management costs		1,000	1,078	1,071		1,070	303	290
maintenance costs		912	914	911		891	921	887
Major repairs costs		773	773	770		773	697	648
Tenure mix		2 x 1 Bed Flat, 2 x 2 Bed Flat, 1 x 3 Bed Flat	9 x 1 Bed Flat, 2 x 2 Bed flat 1 x 2 Bed House	15 x 1 bed, 31 x 2 bed and 12 x 3 bed		45 x 1 Bed Flats	7 x 1 bed, 16 x 2 bed and 6 x 3 bed	2 x 2 Bed Flats, 6 x 4 Bed Houses
Rent p/w (excluding s/c
1 Bed		151.50	143.00	146.00		140.55	146.00
2 Bed		191.00	186.30	185.46			185.46	175.87
3 Bed		228.00		223.26			223.26
4 Bed								234.84
Service charge per week		0	0	7.02		12.47	7.02	1.04
Subsidy / (Surplus) reported previously (£'000)		286	570	1,020		2,125	512	(203)
Subsidy / (Surplus) using new modelling (£'000)		66	332	1,768		2,888	379	(391)
Payback period (years)		60+	60+	60+		60+	60+	60+
Discount Rate (Equivalent to interest Rate at point of approval)		4.25%	4.25%	4.18%		4.07%	4.19%	2.85%
Financial Services
13/04/18

 

 

 

(9)     Councillor Gibson

 

89.17   Where schemes are part funded by borrowing, the modelling makes different assumptions for the rate of interest payable on the borrowing to reflect market expectations. For each the schemes actually undertaken, please can you indicate for that scheme what the assumed rate of borrowing was and what the actual rate was when the borrowing was undertaken?

 

Reply from Councillor Meadows – Chair of the Housing & New Homes Committee

 

89.18   The table above in relation to question 8 includes the assumed rates of borrowing that were included in the modelling of each scheme.  At the time of viability modelling the interest rate assumptions used are based on prevailing market conditions and our external Treasury Management advisors best estimate of interest rates for the timing and type of borrowing required.  This may be based on a forecast of the interest rate in a year’s time, say, when the likely need to borrow may arise. Over the last few years there has been an expectation in the money markets that interest rates would rise and initially they were expected to rise sharply. However, rates have stayed low and are only just beginning to increase. 

 

Actual borrowing does not take place on a scheme by scheme basis but is reviewed periodically to ensure the total capital programme is fully funded making use of any capital receipts, reserves and revenue contributions first. So, for example, if there were unexpected underspends in the revenue budget, it may reduce the level of borrowing required as more of the programme could be funded by revenue contributions. Therefore it is difficult the give the exact rate for each scheme as the borrowing is undertaken in relation to the whole programme. However, the table below shows when borrowing was undertaken during the lifetime of these schemes and the actual rates of interest.

 

A table showing all of the borrowing taken on since 2015 is as follows:

 

Loan Number	Loan Value	Interest Rate	Start date	Maturity Date
505117	5,000,000	2.47	20/06/2016	31/03/2064
505274	3,000,000	2.09	09/08/2016	31/03/2065
505280	2,000,000	2.09	10/08/2016	31/03/2063
507150	4,000,000	2.99	27/03/2018	27/03/2067
Internal from GF	3,292,500	0.83	31/03/2017	31/03/2018	repaid
Internal from GF	2,932,500	1.47	31/03/2018	31/03/2019

 

  

(10)   Councillor Gibson

 

89.19   Given the rise in rough sleeping in the city of 128% since the rough sleeping strategy was launched in 2015 compared with a 33% increase in the rest of the country, do you believe there are any changes that can be made to improve our performance compared to the national average? And what might these changes be?

 

Reply from Councillor Moonan – Lead Member for Rough Sleeping

 

89.20   The Rough Sleeping Strategy was launched in summer 2016.  Since the launch, the Rough Sleeping Estimate figures have risen by 24% (2016; 144 - 2017; 178).  The year before the strategy was launched there was a much larger increase, which was one of the reasons why the Labour administration prioritised rough sleeping and together with key partners, developed the city wide strategy.

 

            Over 50% of rough sleepers in Brighton and Hove come here from other areas, which has contributed to such a high increase. In fact, if the percentage increase was calculated for local people alone, the 2017 increase would be below the national average.  This demonstrates that the strategy is starting to have an impact on rough sleepers numbers from Brighton and Hove.

 

            The city continues to work on reducing the actual numbers and the need for people to rough sleep on our streets. Housing has expanded its homeless prevention work and the council is exploring new ways to accommodate rough sleepers and move them off the streets quickly.  This includes expanding ‘housing led’ services for people with complex needs; launching the city’s first Social Investment Bond to support  rough sleepers to access a range of services; targeted reconnection work to support people to move to areas they have connections and applying for grant funding to boost our resources as opportunities arise. Whilst we continually strive to improve upon our existing performance, this must be placed in the context of the national picture of increased homelessness and locally the challenges of a supply of affordable accommodation.

 

            The city wide Rough Sleeping Strategy is implemented through a Partnership Board, which includes all the relevant statutory and non-statutory agencies and organisations. At this Board new ideas and development are continually explored to ensure the city is at the forefront of best practice with regard to rough sleeping.

 

(11)   Councillor Nemeth

             

89.21   Beach huts - Why was no urgent public statement made by the City Council following break-ins to 34 beach huts at the end of March, and prior to 33 break-ins the following week, in order to alert owners to security and safety concerns?

 

Reply from Councillor Robins – Chair of the Tourism, Development & Culture Committee

 

89.22   The owners of the beach huts that were affected in both instances were contacted directly and the Police notified due to the criminal damage that occurred. The Police have been requested to consider additional patrols and the issue will be raised at the Police Tactical Tasking Group to see if any support can be provided by partners.  The first incident was dealt directly with the affected beach hut owners and the Police rather than promote this act of vandalism.

 

(12)     Councillor Mac Cafferty

 

89.23      Pool Valley - Anyone arriving in the city via National Express coaches does not have a warm welcome.  Pool Valley has sadly become run down and is unwelcoming. A decade after the plans to upgrade the National Express bus depot for the city were put on ice, what work will the administration commit to improve Pool Valley with National Express and other partners?

 

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

 

89.24   I fully recognise the significant role that Pool Valley plays as an interchange in the city’s transport system for residents and visitors alike in terms of being a well-used arrival and departure point for coach journeys.  However, I am aware of its current condition and that previous administrations have sought to maintain and enhance it.  

 

Works at Pool Valley Coach Station were one of the headline schemes included in the council’s second 5-year Local Transport Plan [known as LTP2], which was published in 2006. 

 

The aims of the Pool Valley Coach Station Enhancement Scheme were focused on personal safety, road safety and the urban realm to improve the character of the area for the passengers using it.  The overall plan was based around enabling National Express, the coach operator, to construct a new, purpose-built ticket office.

 

The urban realm works were planned to include improved paving and entry and exit treatments, and new street furniture such as benches, bollards, cycle racks and bins, as well as lighting.

 

Most of the urban realm works were completed in 2009, but the construction of the National Express ticket office was delayed.

 

The council did eventually receive and consider a planning application for National Express’s single-storey building to provide ticket purchase facilities, sheltered waiting area and customer toilets.  Planning permission was granted in June 2012, but it is understood that these facilities were not built owing to other financial priorities at that time for the company, and there has been no recent indication that that situation has changed. 

 

Since then, senior council officers have written to National Express about this matter in order to seek to work with them to progress it, and therefore help address some of the problems that you and other people have raised with us in recent years.  Regrettably, those approaches have not resulted in any change in National Express’s position.

 

Therefore, the council did install a passenger shelter in 2014 in order to provide some cover and comfort for coach passengers in the short term, and it has also continued to try to secure funding through the planning process for improvements at the coach station, when possible.

 

Issues with the coach station were identified in the council’s current and fourth Local Transport Plan [LTP4], which was approved in March 2015, and refers to the development of a coach strategy which will include the Pool Valley Coach Station.  

 

The council subsequently agreed a number of further priorities in 2015, which included the development of a Transport Interchange Strategy, including provision for coaches and their drivers and passengers. 

 

Until very recently, it has not been possible to identify and allocate sufficient officer time to start that, and some other workstreams, owing to staff vacancies and reduced budgets.  However, I am pleased to say that with some new appointments to key posts in the City Transport Division it will now be possible to make progress against that commitment.

 

Once that Interchange Strategy is developed, with the input and assistance of various partners and stakeholders such as National Express, its content and conclusions will no doubt be considered by the ET&S Committee in due course. 

 

I certainly expect the strategy to provide a clearer indication of the future options for the city’s coach station and its passengers, especially as that investment could also help to support the council’s wider vision and strategy for the seafront.

 

As the current access to Pool Valley, and the main arrival and departure routes for coaches are linked with the Valley Gardens Phase 3 area, I also expect that scheme to take into account the current location of the coach station, and possibly provide an opportunity to improve it. 

 

(13)   Councillor Mac Cafferty

 

89.25   Bins on Wilbury Road - Currently there are 3 communal waste and recycling bins and 8 commercial bins, in a 10 metre stretch of pavement and road at the foot of Wilbury Road.  This is too often smelly and messy. The bins are poorly sited and a crowded pavement mean neighbours, businesses and pedestrians are suffering.  Every day residents and visitors have to negotiate their way around the bins, any overspill and a BT phone box. As several businesses use their premises nearby for client meetings, the smell and mess are embarrassing. Although we flagged this concern to Cityclean for an investigation, 2 years after being first flagged the issue is still as persistent.

 

Can Councillor Mitchell please have the situation investigated and acted upon?  Ideally this would involve combined action to locate some of the bins elsewhere and/ or collection frequency raised.

 

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

 

89.26   The Cityclean enforcement and operational teams always aim to respond promptly to complaints to commercial bins that have been placed on the public highway, such as those referred to in Willbury Road.

 

The city council does have the power to remove bins but we aim to provide business with options for appropriate alternative sites to place their bins. 

 

Given the repeat nature of this complaint, Officers will be arranging to meet with the individual businesses concerned to explore alternative locations for their waste bins.

 

(14)  Councillor Mac Cafferty

 

89.27   York Road collisions data - Further to residents’ concerns about safety, please can road collisions data for the junction of York Road, York Avenue and Lansdowne Road be tabulated for the last 3 years, detailing date, severity (fatal, serious or slight severity) and vehicle type?

 

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

 

89.28   The most recently published three-year records for the junction of Lansdowne Road with York Road and York Avenue, those being January 2015 to December 2017, show that there have been five (5) road traffic injury accidents. The details of these are as follows:

 

-       24th April 2015, a slight injury occurred resulting from a collision between a taxi/private hire car and a pedal cyclist;

 

-       29th July 2017, a slight injury occurred resulting from a collision between a car and a taxi/private hire car;

 

-       18th September 2017, a slight injury occurred resulting from a collision between a taxi/private hire car and a car;

 

-       2nd October 2017, a serious injury occurred resulting from a collision between a taxi/private hire car and a powered two-wheeled vehicle (a moped or motorcycle); and

 

-       7th December 2017, a slight injury occurred resulting from a collision between a car and a pedal cycle.

 

(15)     Councillor Mac Cafferty

 

89.29   Dangerous driving around Norfolk Square - The hit and run collision on 28th March at the junction of Borough Street and Western Road and the car crashing at the junction of Norfolk Square and Western Road on 9th February are the latest expression of dangerous driving in this area. This is often experienced in the one way streets being used as rat runs with vehicles often travelling at dangerous speeds. Please can road collisions data for Borough Street, Temple Street, Norfolk Road and Norfolk Square be tabulated for the last 3 years, detailing date, severity (fatal, serious or slight severity) and vehicle type?

 

            And, what work, if any, has been undertaken with the Police and Crime Commissioner and Sussex Police to ensure safety for all road users in this area is prioritised?

 

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

 

89.30   The most recently published three-year records for Norfolk Square, those being January 2015 to December 2017, show that there have been six (6) road traffic injury accidents. The details of these are as follows: -

 

18th June 2015, a slight injury occurred resulting from a collision between a taxi/private hire car and a pedal cycle;

 

11th September 2015, a slight injury occurred resulting from a collision between a car and a pedestrian;

 

10th April 2016, a fatal injury occurred resulting from a confrontation between two adult males resulting on one male landing under a heavy goods vehicle;

 

23rd April 2016, a serious injury occurred resulting from a collision between a car and a pedestrian;

 

25th November 2016, a slight injury occurred resulting from a collision between a car and police car on an emergency call; and

 

20th November 2017, a slight injury occurred resulting from a collision between a pedal cycle and a car door opening into the cyclist’s way.

 

Officers advise me that the level of such accidents is decreasing within Brighton and Hove and is decreasing faster than both the National average and in areas with other transport characteristics, which is to be welcomed. This has been partly achieved by focussing the Council’s resources on those locations with the worst problems via the Council’s High Risk programme which tackles those streets, roads and junctions with the highest risks and this focus will continue.

 

(16)   Councillor Mac Cafferty

 

89.31   Floral Clock - Brunswick in Bloom will be soon with us once again (early July), can the Floral Clock mechanism be repaired in time for this?

 

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

 

89.32   Officers have commissioned a survey of the floral clock.  Once this survey is received officers will tender for the repairs if there is sufficient funding to do so.