Agenda item - Member Involvement

To consider the following matters raised by Members:

 

(a)          Petitions: To receive any petitions referred from Full Council or submitted directly to the Committee;

 

(b)          Written Questions: To consider any written questions;

 

(i)            Lack of response to King Alfred question- Councillor Nemeth

 

(ii)          King Alfred- Councillor Nemeth

 

(iii)         Planning Consultation Complaints- Councillor Nemeth

 

(iv)         Marlborough House- Councillor Nemeth

 

(v)          Community Facilities- Councillor Nemeth

 

(vi)         Brunswick Lawns railings- Councillor Mac Cafferty

 

(vii)       Brexit- Councillor Mac Cafferty

 

(viii)      Fences around construction sites- Councillor Mac Cafferty

 

(ix)         Retail- Councillor Mac Cafferty

 

(x)          Seafront Shelters- Councillor Mac Cafferty

 

(c)          Letters: To consider any letters;

 

(i)            Events- Councillor West

 

(d)          Notices of Motion: to consider any Notices of Motion referred from Full Council or submitted directly to the Committee.

(B)     WRITTEN QUESTIONS

 

(i)           Lack of response to King Alfred question

 

23.1      Councillor Nemeth put the following question:

 

When will the Chairman be providing the promised answer to Member Question of 21^st June 2018 (reproduced below) on the specific subject of officer costs?

 

“What estimate does the Chair make of costs incurred to date by the Council in progressing the redevelopment of the King Alfred Leisure Centre since the project was revived in 2013?”

 

23.2      The Chair provided the following response:

 

“I understand that you have now had a response from officers, who have asked me to pass on their apologies for the delay in replying. 

The total estimated cost for the combined time of the officer team in the last year is £68,189.  Any estimate of officer time further back than the last year would not be sufficiently accurate”.

 

23.3      Councillor Nemeth put the following supplementary question:

 

“The officer concerned suggested that it would be possible to receive a figure of officer time spent on the project going back five years. Could that be made public rather than in an email to me?”

 

23.4      The Executive Director, Economy, Environment & Culture provided the following response on behalf of the Chair:

 

“We do not keep a record on specifically allocated time to a project as we would need to purchase software to do that and it is likely that an estimate over five years would be reached by multiplying the figure given to you by five although I should make clear, that is just an estimate”.

 

(ii)          King Alfred

 

23.5      Councillor Nemeth put the following question:

 

“With King Alfred delays, transparency, design and finances in mind, what lessons have been learnt by the Administration from the current proposal’s shortcomings that can be applied to future major projects?

 

23.6      The Chair provided the following response:

 

“The King Alfred scheme is among the most complex in the City.

The Council, with cross-party support, has embarked on it with what we know to be challenging expectations, but which were nonetheless considered to be appropriate and achievable. The primary objective is delivery of a comprehensive and modern sports centre costing in excess of £40m, where the bulk of the funding is generated by the enabling development i.e. new homes.

At the time of appointing the Preferred Developer in 2016, the scheme, whilst achieving the highest score in the evaluation and offering many positive features, was known to be at the margins of financial viability, but where there was sufficient confidence that this could be improved upon.

Market conditions have changed since that time and this continues, and uncertainty in the construction industry brings further challenges.  This has caused delay while the developer and the city council have successfully applied for Housing Infrastructure Funding from Homes England. It is therefore difficult to identify general lessons learnt from what is a very individual major project, but it confirms that despite the best possible efforts prior to tendering, during the dialogue process, and since appointment, complex projects remain challenging throughout”.

 

(iii)         Planning consultation complaints

 

23.7      Councillor Nemeth put the following question:

 

“What plans are in place to address continued public complaints about the way in which the Council involves residents in the planning process? Just this year alone, I personally have received a number of complaints about the handling of applications at Hove Library, Hove Rugby Club, 80a Stoneham Road and the Westerman Complex where site notices have not been noticed; consultation letters have not been sent out or sometimes even received; and Planning Committee resident involvement procedures have not been logical or transparent with regard to both meeting date and actually attending”

 

23.8      The Chair provided the following response:

 

“Consultation on the planning process is determined by national legislation and guidance contained in the council’s adopted Statement of Community Involvement.

Current procedures for consultation by the Planning Service are set out in the Statement of Community Involvement. These go beyond the minimum requirements set out in the Development Management Procedure Order 2015 which sets out the national requirements for consulting on planning applications. Many local planning authorities limit their consultation to the minimum required, for example using site notices only. In terms of Brighton & Hove Planning Service consultation goes beyond this. Consultation on planning applications is carried out by sending letters to the occupiers of adjoining properties or a site notice displayed. In some circumstances both methods are used.  In addition to this, all applications are advertised on a weekly list which appears on the Council’s website and applications affecting conservation areas and listed buildings are advertised in the Brighton and Hove Independent. 

In terms of reports for Planning Committee, these are available to view at least seven days prior to the Committee.  The new Planning Register (installed in June) is also shows the scheduled Committee date once it has been confirmed the application will be presented to Committee.  This is a new function of the Register and was implemented for the Planning Committee in September.  It enables residents to search for the application they are interested in on the Register and the date will appear approximately ten days before Committee. 

Links to the Committee pages are provided from the planning pages and there are guidance procedures on the planning pages”.

 

23.9      Councillor Nemeth put the following supplementary question:

 

“Does the Chair recognise the sort of complaints I am receiving, some of which were front-page news in The Argus such as Hove Library and if these complaints are recognised, what assurances can be offered to those that have complained in the past?”

 

23.10   Councillor Cattell, as Chair of Planning Committee, provided the following response on behalf of the Chair:

 

“We go above the national requirements for consultation and if residents do not see planning notices, I’m not sure how that can be dealt with. We always keep a record of where the site notices are placed and if people do not get the letters, I’m not sure how that can be dealt with either and we continue to consider the issue very seriously”.

 

(iv)        Marlborough House

 

23.11   Councillor Nemeth put the following question:

 

“Will the Chair give an update on the latest position with regard to the condition of this historic asset (including a specific update on the site meeting that was held with the Heritage Officer and owner on 26^th June 2018)?”

 

23.12   The Chair provided the following response:

 

“Officers have held two positive meetings with the owner and his architect, including a joint site visit with Historic England on 26 June.

The condition of the building has improved as the owner has been carrying out agreed repairs to internal plastering and external stonework, though no work has yet been undertaken to comply with the outstanding Listed Building Enforcement Notice.

As discussed and agreed at the meetings, a pre-application submission has recently been made which seeks a long term future and restoration of the building and officers will be assessing this submission in the coming weeks. The submission will be supported by a full specialist heritage assessment of the building, which will help to inform future repair and restoration works. On this basis the council has agreed to an adjournment of prosecution proceedings, in respect of the Listed Building Enforcement Notice, until January 2019”.

 

23.13   Councillor Nemeth put the following supplementary question:

 

“Might it be an idea to append the issue to the Major Projects update report as I do ask about it every meeting?”

 

23.14   The Executive Director, Economy, Environment & Culture provided the following response on behalf of the Chair:

“Marlborough House isn’t a major project but including it on the Major Projects update received by this committee is something that can be considered”.

 

(v)          Community Facilities

 

23.15   Councillor Nemeth put the following question:

 

“Will the Chair give his views on the continued loss of community facilities in Hove in favour of more and more housing? With the loss of the YMCA, Westows and the Great Hall in Hove Town Hall, is the likely future fewer community assets for more people?”

 

23.16   The Chair provided the following response:

 

“The important role of community facilities in contributing to the well-being and sustainability of communities is recognised and Planning policies in the City Plan and Local Plan seek to retain them wherever possible.

Any planning application which proposes the loss of a community facility is assessed against saved Policy HO20 of the 2005 Brighton & Hove Local Plan. This policy states that “Planning permission will not be granted for development proposals, including changes of use, that involve the loss of community facilities” unless one of four exception criteria are met. Where an exception is permitted, the priority for reuse of sites is for residential and mixed use schemes or starter business units to meet identified local needs.

A similar policy is included in the draft City Plan Part Two, as well as a specific policy to protect public houses which recognises their unique characteristics”.

 

23.17   Councillor Nemeth put the following supplementary question:

 

“Would the Chair support S106 or CIL funding being put towards specific units within a new building for community space?”

 

23.18   The Head of Planning provided the following response on behalf of the Chair:

 

“There is a mechanism through Section 106 at the moment to replace existing community facilities that might be lost through a development and payments can be made toward a replacement facility. Policy H020 quite clearly sets out tests for when we allow for loss of community facilities. There are four main tests that relate to relocation elsewhere or off-site payment. We can provide further information if you require that”.

 

(vi)         Brunswick Lawns Railings

 

23.19   Councillor Mac Cafferty put the following question:

 

“Further to three surveys, one in November, one in January, the other a few weeks ago, the continuous degradation of the railings is notable. In January I photographed several railings that had fallen off and were left on the lawns and tied to the railings themselves. The railings have suffered poor maintenance, have been damaged, and worse, are fast disappearing.

Although the Lawns are not Listed nationally, they are on the Local List of Heritage Assets. In addition, they have the protection of being officially located with the Brunswick Town and Avenues Conservation Areas and, in the case of the Brunswick Lawns, within the setting of Grade 1 and Grade 2* Listed Buildings. So we are under a statutory duty to protect the railings. Given their current state, is there a maintenance and repair programme planned for the railings and what funding streams is the council looking to revive the railings?”

 

23.20   The Chair provided the following response:

 

“The low level railings which border the lawns have sections which are missing as a result of accidental damage or deliberate vandalism.  The panels are most vulnerable where they are located directly in front of what are referred to as the ‘cucumber’ benches – the long green double sided benches which run along the north edge of Hove Promenade.  The railings are often used as a foot rest by people using the benches but unfortunately any force placed upon them can cause the panel to shear, most often at the base connection, and collapse onto the grass.

Officers have been advised by a blacksmith that spot welding is not a viable option for repair due to the level of corrosion and brittle nature of the cast iron, combined with the significant weight of each panel. 

The painting of these railings is included in the seafront redecoration contract for Hove Seafront which was most recently undertaken in 2017, but the budget did not include provision for repairs and replacement.  In order to replace the sections of railing which are missing, a number of new panels would need to be recast.  This would require a bespoke pattern to be made to match the same design as the original panels and to the correct length to fit the existing gaps.  The panels are supported by legs which are embedded in concrete therefore it is likely that a new plinth would need to be formed in order to set the new panels in place. 

There is currently no funding available to cover these works”.

 

23.21   Councillor Mac Cafferty put the following supplementary question:

 

“Could the formation of a working group to look at some of the issues be considered and well as widening the pot from developer contributions and create a sinking fund?”

 

23.22   The Chair provided the following response:

 

“We’d be happy to facilitate a working group if it is feasible”.

 

(vii)       Brexit

 

23.23   Councillor Mac Cafferty put the following question:

 

“As we are less than 200 days till the official Brexit date, in order that Councillors and our communities alike are appraised of the economic risks associated with any deal, or worse, no deal, can we have the risks added onto the corporate Strategic Risks Register”.

 

23.24   The Chair provided the following response:

 

“The Audit & Standards Committee rather than this committee is responsible for agreeing and monitoring the corporate Strategic Risk Register. 

However, I can confirm that officers are monitoring the potential areas of risk around the different Brexit scenarios that may occur, so that a more thorough risk assessment can be quickly produced once the final Brexit deal or lack of deal starts to emerge”.

 

23.25   Councillor Mac Cafferty put the following supplementary question:

 

“Will the Chair write to Ministers asking them to reveal the truth about the impact that leaving the EU will have on the City. I don’t believe Ministers will necessarily respond to that but it will be a push from us as a City to try and find out what the risk is”.

 

23.26   The Chair provided the following response:

 

“I’m sure we can do that as requested”

 

(viii)      Fences around construction sites

 

23.27   Councillor Mac Cafferty put the following question:

 

“We have a number of construction sites where hoardings and fences completely take over the pavement area. This has led to pedestrians stranded and having to walk on the highway, which is a safety hazard to all road users. In several locations, the fences are blocking sight paths. Can we explore how this area of policy works to avoid this in the future and so consents aren’t permitted to entirely block off the pavement?”

 

23.28   The Chair provided the following response:

 

“All hoardings placed on the Public Highway should be licenced by the Highways Enforcement Team. The licensing process involves communication with the developer to ascertain how much space is needed and if a safe walkway can be provided. Due to the varying nature of the footway and carriageway widths across the city it is not always possible to maintain a clear passageway on the footway.

Each site is different and If the footway does need to be closed alternatives are dependent on the location, type of road, footfall, nearby junctions and other factors. Highway Enforcement Officers will work with the developers and Network Coordination Officers to makes sure that there is a safe way around the site that is suitably sign posted. Any problems with Hoardings should be reported to the Highway Enforcement team”.

 

(ix)         Retail

 

23.29   Councillor Mac Cafferty put the following question:

 

“Further to my question to the last committee about retail, Debenhams has been added to the retailers downsizing. According to a survey published by the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) in January, 14% of small businesses are now expecting to scale down or stop trading, with retailers among the least optimistic. What work is underway to help our small retailers through the difficult period”.

 

23.30   The Chair provided the following response:

 

“Retail accounts for around 16,000 jobs in the city and over 2,000 businesses. The city benefits from a diverse retail offer including a significant number of independent retailers. While the national figure for shop vacancy rates has averaged 12% over the last 6 months Brighton & Hove has bucked the trend with vacancy rates in the City Centre standing at 5.93%.

The council is undertaking a number of activities to support retail. These include: Discretionary Rate Relief for Business to alleviate the impacts of the recent national revaluation; promoting the Living Wage Campaign which helps retailers to retain their staff; working closely with the Brilliant Brighton Business Improvement District; and supporting Small Business Saturday. 

The Economic Development Team would be happy to provide you with a more detailed briefing note on these and other projects that are supporting retailers, as there is too much detail to comprehensively explain here”.

 

23.31   Councillor Mac Cafferty put the following supplementary question:

 

“Where gaps appear, especially in the busiest areas of the high street in the buildings we own, can we go out of our way to fill those gaps with small and medium retailers to prevent any long-term vacancies?”

 

23.32   The Executive Director, Economy, Environment & Culture provided the following response on behalf of the Chair:

 

“There are examples where we already do that and whenever there is a scenario where we are unable to re-let one of our own properties, we would seek a meanwhile use if that were possible. Our re-letting of our own properties is good so we do not hold vacancies very long. There have also been good examples of where we have worked with other landlords on pop-up or meanwhile uses where landlords have found it difficult to re-let their retail units”.

 

(x)          Seafront Shelters

 

23.33   Councillor Mac Cafferty put the following question:

 

“On August 13^th, a number of the wooden seafront shelters and benches had been vandalised, including one which was partially demolished through vandalism. A further check last Thursday 13^th September revealed some repairs were now thankfully under way, however one of the shelters, located near the Meeting Place Café, has suffered further vandalism and is in a very bad way, with almost its entire centre composed of broken wooden panels and several broken panes of glass. Can I ask that the shelter is repaired before the onslaught of winter?”

 

23.34   The Chair provided the following response:

 

“The shelter in question is on Kings Road just east of the Peace Statue and has recently been the victim of substantial vandalism. 

There are around 20 shelters between Hove Lagoon and the Marina in addition the various open benches.  Due to the costs involved repairs to these shelters need to be undertaken in phases. 

This year the planned and reactive maintenance budgets have already been allocated for other works.   However, officers will investigate whether repairs can be undertaken in the new financial year subject to available resources. 

If the shelter is posing a safety risk with regards to broken Perspex panels then works to remove this hazard will be made a priority and undertaken immediately”

 

(C)     LETTERS

 

(i)            Events

 

23.35   Councillor West presented a Letter that requesting an update to the Outdoor Events Policy adopted in 2013 including sub-categories for each of the city’s key parks such as The Level, Hove Lawns and Preston Park.

 

23.36   The Chair provided the following response:

 

“Thank you for your Letter.

You are correct that a balance needs to be struck between the use of sites for cultural and leisure activities which provide a contribution to the city’s vibrant tourism economy, or to the enjoyment of the wider population, and the views of “near neighbours” and the impact on our city assets.

An overall strategy in relation to the Council’s outdoor events programme is currently under development and scheduled to be considered by this committee in January 2019. 

The Events Strategy will consider the broad context for events and the nature of the events programme, as well as how best the events can contribute to the Council’s and the City’s priorities.

The annual programme of proposed events to take place on Council-owned land in the next year is currently being co-ordinated for consideration by committee in November.  The operation of each event is very specific to the individual requirements of the event and with regard to particular concerns relating to the Level, officers can meet with you to discuss the measures planned to reduce any negative impact of events on the site, to try and strike an appropriate balance, before the report is finalised”.

 

23.37   RESOLVED- That the Committee note the Letter.