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 to the full Council or at the meeting itself;

 

(b)      Written Questions: to receive any questions submitted by the due date of 12 noon on the 30 November 2018;

 

(i)            Council Tax

(ii)          Prefabricated Homes

 

(c)      Deputations: to receive any deputations submitted by the due date of 12 noon on the 30 November 2018.

76(a) Petitions

 

76.1  There were none.

 

76(b) Written Questions

 

76.2    Four written questions were received.

 

76.3    (1) Ms N Brennan asked the following question:

 

The BHCC website refers to “Council Tax Single Person Discount Review 2015” and states that “The Council is currently conducting a review of customers in receipt of a single person discount.”  It would appear that this “review” is still ‘live’ in 2018.

Has the Committee, or Committee Chairperson been informed of the work of “Capacitygrid”, a private limited company, that contacts residents in receipt of a Single Person Discount demanding proof of their status and stating if a response is not received within 14 days the SPD will be removed?

76.4    The Chair gave the following response:

The council annually reviews its Single Person Discounts to ensure the awards are being correctly applied. We need to ensure that only those customers who receive the discount are entitled to it as circumstances change over time and customers do not always inform us of changes. Last year’s review resulted in 1,535 discounts being removed, effectively resulting in an extra £580,000 Council Tax being collected by the council. Ultimately exercises of this type ensure that the council can fund the range of services that it operates 

 

Currently around 44,000 of 130,000 domestic properties in Brighton (around one third) attract Single Person Discounts to the value of nearly £17m. Approximately 5,500 customers were sent a review letter this year. The letter offers customers the option of going online or calling a free phone number, if they are unable to go online or need assistance.  In addition we now ensure that any potentially vulnerable customers identified are removed from any future review. Customers are given 21 days to respond before a reminder is sent giving a further 2 weeks.

 

The 2018 review of the discounts is currently in progress.  It is being conducted by Capacitygrid on behalf of the Council.  Many authorities use private companies to do this work because it is cost effective against a backdrop of ongoing budget reductions, including within the Revenues & Benefits service.

 

The value of the Capacitygrid contract is below £25,000.  Only contracts to the value of £500,000 require Committee approval. Members have been made aware of the approach through briefings (dating back to October 2017) and as a result of responding to a small number of queries from residents. In addition updates have been posted by the Communications team on social media.

 

The current information pages of the Council’s website relating to Single Person Discounts are up to date, however thanks to Ms Brennan’s question, we have discovered that  a search engine enquiry did produce a result that links to an outdated information statement from 2015. We have removed the link to avoid any future confusion.

 

76.5    Ms Brennan asked the following supplementary question:

Do Capacitygrid have the authority to withdraw benefits as that was putting fear into people? People are being asked to show their bank statements, and asked if it was right to show that to a private company as they had been linked to marketing companies.

76.6    The Executive Director Finance & Resources gave the following response:

Any decision on benefits would not be taken by the company but by the Council. The company are used to obtain information, and they will ask for proof of income etc. With regard to marketing I am 90% sure that contractually they can only use the information obtained for the purposes the Council requested from them, but I will confirm in writing.

 

Note – after the meeting the Executive Director provided the following information:

The Executive Director, Finance & Resources can confirm that CapacityGrid is contractually obliged to safeguard the personal data of residents, and not use it for any other purposes than contracted. In addition the company is bound by the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and other legislation that covers personal data, including the Data Protection Act. As such data cannot be used for the purposes of marketing.

 

76.7    (2) Mr J Deans asked the following question:

           

Due to failure to build the supported accommodation project in Moulsecoomb (YMCA/Y-CUBE) along with other rumours of housing developments  falling through (King Alfred) or  removing accommodation (Windsor Court) to vulnerable Adults, would this committee consider  a short term project presented by Sussex Homeless Support to build up to 200 SUPPORTED/EMERGENCY removable prefabricated units across the city this project would be started immediately with no funding requirement from council, requiring only 5 year leases and planning exemption both are sanction-able by this council. Would this committee support and take it forward to save lives.

 

 

76.8    The Chair gave the following response:

 

Thank you for your question and I can clarify that there are currently no plans to remove Windsor court as temporary accommodation. The Y:Cube project was delayed due to a change in the relationship with the YMCA and Y:Cube manufacturer.  The project is now being delivered by the local YMCA Downslink Group - they have appointed a project manager who is now progressing modular options for the Eastergate Road site.

 

In relation to your specific offer to build accommodation, we would be very interested to hear what land you have to build these homes and what discussions you have had in relation to the cost of building, provision of utilities, repairs and maintenance costs and planning. If you were looking for the council to support this proposal, we would need to consider regulatory matters, procurement, financial and legal matters and see a business case to ensure the scheme is viable. I am happy to ask officers to assist you with your report which can be considered at a future meeting of the housing and new homes committee.

 

76.9    Mr Deans asked the following supplementary question:

 

Yesterday there were media reports of the King Alfred issues costing tax payers as much as £4m. Will the committee note that £4m is the budget required to 200 of the self-contained units which would be a better use of public funds.

 

76.10  The Executive Director Economy Environment & Culture gave the following response:

 

            I have not seen the reports you refer to, but I can say that the costs spent to date are significantly less than £4m.

 

76.11 (3) Ms V Paynter asked the following question:

 

Should either BHCC or the Crest Nicholson/Starr Trust developers be finally defeated by viability issues, forcing an end to the current redevelopment attempt of the King Alfred/RNR site, can the Council agree that a very serious rethink of the 15 years old (basically) Planning Brief has to inform the way forward?

 

76.12  The Chair gave the following response:

 

The Council remains committed to delivery of a new Sports Centre in Hove. Should it prove not to be possible to continue with the current scheme in partnership with Crest Nicholson, the Council will undertake a thorough review, in light of experience, and changed economic conditions, of alternative development options, and this will of course include full consideration of the relevant planning policy framework and any associated guidance.

 

76.13  Ms Paynter asked the following supplementary question:

 

            Would the Council consider selling the site?

 

76.14  The Chair gave the following response:

 

            That would be a decision for either Policy Resources & Growth Committee or Full Council in the future, but it would have to be part of the delivery the requirements the Council had either currently or in the future. I can’t say at the moment as the proposals are not about selling the site.

 

76.15  (4) Mr D Spafford asked the following question:

 

The retail shopping in St James’ Street is identified in the Draft City Plan (Stage 2) as prime retail space, but there in nothing in the plan for developing or improvements for this district.

During the consultation for the development of the Edward Street Quarter a commitment was made to the development of the roads, George Street and Dorset Gardens, to make an attractive ‘funnel’ for footfall into St James Street from the new developments.

What plans do the City Council have in train to regenerate and promote growth in the St James’ Street district.

 

76.16  The Chair gave the following response:

 

St James Street is identified in the City Plan Part 1 as one of the city’s three District Centres. Policy CP4 Retail Provision in the adopted City Plan Part 1 seeks to maintain and enhance these identified shopping centres through encouraging a range of appropriate facilities and uses and ensuring that these shopping centres remain the focus for new retail development appropriate to their function.

 

Policy SA6 Sustainable Neighbourhoods in the City Plan Part One also supports a good balance and mix of uses in local shopping centres and highlights the need for development proposals to contribute to local facilities and for access and sustainable transport improvements. 

 

City Planning regularly under take ‘health checks’ of the retail centres to monitor their vitality and viability. The draft City Plan Part 2 sets out detailed retail frontage policies in order to assist in safeguarding and managing retail uses to help ensure vitality.

 

The City Plan Part 1 Development Area Policy DA5 Eastern Road and Edward Street does require development proposals for key development sites such as the Edward Street Quarter strategic allocations to contribute to townscape, public realm and linkage improvements to St James Street and Dorset Gardens.

 

The Section 106 Agreement dated 25/10/2018 for supporting infrastructure to the former Amex Headquarters site Edward Street has secured a £176,426 Sustainable Transport developer contribution.  A proportion of that contribution is to provide highways improvements to improve cycle access and cycling infrastructure between the site and the seafront.  That route will cross St James’s Street. That contribution will also provide a pedestrian crossing on Edward Street that will improve access to local facilities that may be found on St James’s Street.  That 106 Agreement has also secured a £314,091 Recreation Contribution that is to be primarily spent improving recreation facilities in Dorset Gardens park together with public realm improvements to access those facilities though the upgrade of the  adjacent junction of Dorset Gardens and Edward Street.  Those contributions will be paid upon commencement of that development.

 

Since 2006, the city centre has benefitted from a Business Improvement District and local businesses have invested nearly £3m worth of additional services to improve the trading environment and attract more shoppers and visitors to the area. Retail businesses including St James’s Street were canvassed in 2016 to gauge interest in creating more Business Improvement Districts however 55.3% of responses from St James’s Street businesses did not support a BID.

 

76.17  Mr D Spafford asked the following supplementary question:

In this year’s budget the Chancellor announced the setting up of a £675 million ‘’Future High Streets fund’’. Will the City Council be applying to this fund for Brighton and Hove, but particularly St James’ Street and district.

 

76.18  The Chair gave the following response:

 

Brighton & Hove welcomes the Chancellor’s announcement of a new ‘Future High Streets fund’ to support improvements to town centres. The full prospectus for the fund has not yet been published however the government has indicated that the fund will focus on three main areas. Support to local areas to prepare long-term strategies for high streets and town centres, including a High Street Taskforces to provide expertise. Co-funded (with the private sector), investment in local areas, including physical infrastructure and investment in land assembly; and, support for the regeneration of heritage high streets.

Retail in Brighton & Hove accounts for around 16,000 jobs and is an important part of our local economy serving both residents and visitors. The full prospectus for the fund is expected later this year alongside the launch of the High Streets Taskforces in early 2019 to support local leadership.

The government has indicated that the process will be competitive starting with a call for Stage One Expressions of Interest in Spring 2019 followed by Stage Two Application and local areas working up detailed business cases in Summer 2019.

We look forward to the launch of this new fund and will be making the case for investment in our local high streets, including st James Street. The fund will require co-investment with the private sector we will therefore be consulting with city businesses with a view to submitting co-financed proposals at the earliest opportunity.

 

76(c)   Deputations

 

76.19  Ms McNamara presented the following deputation:

           

1.    Save Whitehawk Hill Local Nature Reserve –

 

“Joint Venture Project” for a high rise estate in the middle of the Whitehawk Hill Local Nature Reserve and the Race Ground recreational common. Whitehawk Hill is Brighton's senior and most important public Downland site. It is a statutory Local Nature Reserve, and was voted for inclusion in the new South Downs National Park by full council in 2002. Its status as a common, now known as 'The Race Ground', is perhaps a thousand years old. It is mostly statutory Access Land. It has the earliest statutory Scheduled Ancient Monument in Sussex protecting one of the ten best Neolithic Causewayed Camps in Britain. Its wildlife includes many rare or scarce animals and plants and rare ecosystems such as species-rich chalk grassland and furze field. The Joint Venture proposal for a new high-rise estate of 217 properties in five blocks with 110 parking spaces on the Hill will smash our Local Nature Reserve and this treasured landscape in two. It comes in addition to 103 recent new homes in the Valley and a planned 38 more on Swanborough Drive playground, and will hugely cram the already crowded north end of the Whitehawk Valley. The site is a sacrosanct public space, the local infrastructure and amenities are already at breaking point, and the needs of local residents have not been properly considered. The Council is not even attempting to use the resources that are available to build houses for Social Rent.

 

We call upon Brighton and Hove City Council to put an end to this development and find other sites for much needed social housing, preferably council housing at social rents. The signatories to this deputation represent communities from throughout the City and in particular Whitehawk and East Brighton. We include community groups working for a better quality of life for the people of our City, for the conservation of the natural environment, for benefit to the health and wellbeing of all and for housing that is truly affordable and secure. 

 

 

 

76.20  The Chair gave the following response:

 

Homes for Brighton & Hove is a partnership between Brighton & Hove City Council and a Housing Association (the Hyde Group) aiming to build 1000 new low cost homes across the city for local working households on low incomes.  Half of the new homes will be available for rent to people on the council’s joint housing register, with the other half available to buy as shared ownership homes for local households.  This will include people working in essential public services who are struggling to afford to stay within the city.

 

The Whitehawk site is one of the first three council-owned sites the partnership is considering for development.  The city is urgently in need of more low cost homes. Brighton & Hove is a growing city with high housing prices, low incomes, an ageing population and a significant proportion of households with support needs. There are currently nearly 12,500 households on the city’s joint housing register, over 1,800 households in temporary accommodation and rising homelessness. Social housing makes up a small proportion of the overall housing in the city with 9.8% of homes owned by the council and 5.1% by housing associations. 

 

The Homes for Brighton & Hove partnership is one of a number of ways the council is looking increase the supply of lower cost homes in the city including the New Homes for Neighbourhoods, Hidden Homes and Buy-Back programmes which are focused on increasing the supply of council homes.

 

The council and Hyde have entered in to this agreement with the aim of developing 100% affordable housing with rents linked to the minimum wage.  These are well below the 80% market rents generally associated with affordable rented housing developments.

 

When the council was developing the City Plan, the national Planning Inspectorate instructed us to identify more sites for residential development to ensure that the need for additional housing was met. It included a specific instruction to carry out a more rigorous assessment of the city’s urban fringe sites. In response, the council assessed a number of urban fringe sites and, following detailed ecological landscape, and heritage studies, this site (along with a number of others in the city) was identified as suitable for residential development. 

 

Whilst the proposed development site is not within a site of special scientific interest or within the Whitehawk Camp archaeological notification area, we are conscious of the environmental sensitivities around the site, and Homes for Brighton & Hove has commissioned ecological studies to inform the proposal.  Homes for Brighton & Hove is currently reviewing the feedback received from the first round of consultation in October, as well as looking further at technical and viability issues on the site, and will provide further updates on the proposals next year.