Agenda item - Member Involvement

To consider the following matters raised by Members:

 

(a)         Petitions: To receive any petitions;

 

(i)           Controlled Park Zones- Councillors Davis, Lloyd and Nield

 

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

 

(i)           Food waste trial- Councillor Wares

 

(ii)          Hourbike- Councillor Wares

 

(iii)        BikeShare scheme- Councillor Wares

 

(iv)        BikeShare scheme- Councillor Wares

 

(v)          Hollingdean Depot- Councillor Wares

 

(vi)        Environmental Enforcement- Councillor Wares

 

(vii)       Flyposting- Councillor Wares

 

(viii)     Changing the name of the ET&S Committee- Councillor Heley

 

(ix)        Youth Strike for Climate- Councillor Heley

 

(x)          Car Free Day- Councillor Heley

 

(c)          Letters: To consider any letters;

 

(i)           Flooding- Councillors Wares, McNair and Theobald

 

(ii)          Patcham Peace Garden- Councillors Wares, McNair and Theobald

 

(iii)        Ultra Low Emission Zone- Councillors Heley, Davis, Lloyd and West

 

(iv)        Wheelie Bins- Councillor Ebel

 

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

(A)         PETITIONS

 

(i)           Controlled Parking Zones- Councillor Nield, Davis and Lloyd

 

28.1      The Committee considered a petition signed by 176 people requesting Brighton and Hove Council to consult residents in Withdean Road, Withdean Close, Blackthorn Close, Hazledene Meads, The Beeches, Wayland Avenue and Dyke Road Place as soon as possible on the introduction of a 'Light Touch' Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) and extension of the existing 20mph speed limit through the length of Withdean Road.

 

28.2      The Chair provided the following response:

 

“Thank you for your petition and we do understand the concerns of residents in your area.

As you may be aware there is a report being presented to this Committee later in the meeting by officers on an updated parking scheme priority timetable.

During the later discussion it would be for the Committee to decide the way forward. Whether this matter is considered when the Parking Scheme priority timetable is next updated or that an amendment to the report is proposed outlining that this consultation can be included and agreed in the proposed timetable as an additional scheme starting in early 2022 following the work listed, or that this replaces another scheme consultation on the timetable with others starting later.

In regard to speed limits, in 2013, the Council consulted residents in the Dyke Road East area on the introduction of a 20mph limit.

The outcome of the consultation showed a north-south divide in support and therefore a reduction in the speed limit to 20mph was only recommended and approved at the western end of Tongdean Lane, Wayland Avenue, and all roads south of Wayland Avenue.

The council committed a considerable amount of time and resources to conduct the city-wide consultation of speed limits and there are no current plans to revisit areas that did not support the scheme in the first instance”.

 

28.3      Councillor Davis stated his support for his ward residents noting that displacement from CPZ’s was again a factor affecting residents.

 

28.4      RESOLVED- That the committee note the petition.

 

(B)         WRITTEN QUESTIONS

 

(i)           Food Waste Trial

 

28.5      Councillor Wares put the following question:

 

“Will the food waste trial use diesel vehicles to transport the waste to the

anaerobic digester in Basingstoke to create electricity? If so, please can the Chair confirm how the treatment of food waste in Basingstoke offsets the additional carbon pollution produced by the vehicles compared to burning the waste in Newhaven?”.

 

28.6      The Chair provided the following reply:

 

“Anaerobic digestion produces 225kg less carbon per ton of food waste than incineration.

The average CO2 footprint of a heavy goods vehicle is 1kg of carbon per mile.

The difference in distance between Newhaven and Basingstoke from Brighton is 70 miles; 25 tons of food waste is transported on each journey.

This means 70kg of CO2 is produced per 25 tons of food waste transported.

The calculation is:

·         25 (tons per load) x 225 (carbon saving) = 5625 tons of carbon saved per load

·         5625 (tons of carbon saved per load) – 70 (carbon cost to transport to Basingstoke) = 5555 net tons of carbon saved per load

·         5555 (net tons of carbon saved per load) / 25 (tons of food waste transported in each load) = 222.2

·         Therefore, the CO2 saving per 1 ton of food waste, after transportation, is 222.2kg when compared to incineration

 

Another benefit is that anaerobic digestion produces a nutrient rich bio-fertiliser which is used locally to the anaerobic digestion plant for growing crops and obviates the production and use of fossil-fuel derived fertilisers, giving further carbon savings”.

 

(ii)         Hourbike

 

28.7      Councillor Wares put the following question:

 

“Please can the Chair confirm that Hourbike’s profit share debt to the City has now been paid?”

 

28.8      The Chair provided the following reply:

 

“Officers have accepted a repayment schedule from the Bikeshare operators (Hourbike) which will ensure an outstanding surplus share debt for the year 31 January 2018– 30 January 2019 will be fully repaid within the full term of the current contract.

This Accounting period represents the second full accounting year of operation and the first in which a surplus was generated. The original business model is currently undergoing revision via a detailed auditing process undertaken by the Contract and Supply team to ensure we have equitable and responsive business model going forward. The November 2015 ETS has previously approved a commitment by the Council to reinvest 100% of any entire surplus share back into the scheme”.

 

28.9      Councillor Wares asked the following supplementary question:

 

“Can you confirm that in the recent tariff changes was part of making the scheme financially viable under the model which it currently operates? I think it would be appropriate for a report to come back to this committee, so we can look at what’s gone on, why we’ve got there and what we need to do. If we want to make this a sustainable project, I think we’ve got to understand all this, so we can make this project work”.

 

28.10   The Chair provided the following reply:

 

“I agree, we do need a report”.

 

(iii)        Bikeshare Scheme

 

28.11   Councillor Wares put the following question:

 

“The council recently spent hundreds of thousands of pounds on buying

electric ready bikes for the bike share scheme. Please can the Chair confirm when they will be fully operational?”

 

28.12   The Chair provided the following reply:

 

“In March 2018, 120 E-bike ready bikes were purchased for £180,000 from JUMP Cycles, the U.S supplier of the original fleet of 450 bikes. The company was acquired by UBER in April 2018. Due to an administrative error on JUMP’s part, the order was not confirmed with their suppliers until September 2018. Decisions by the new parent company on the shipping and assembly of JUMP bikes created further delays and meant the bikes were not fully deployed until May 2019.

During the delay, Jump announced a decision to withdraw the option to retrofit electric motors in their ‘e-bike ready’ models. The council regrets this decision, which was not announced before the order was finally confirmed but believes the extra 120 bikes in their pedal powered form have greatly enhanced the scheme. A larger fleet of 570 bikes has allowed the operator to extend the original total of 50 hubs to 69.

Proposals for an electric bike trial as part of the BTNBikeshare scheme are being prepared. The use of JUMP E-bikes is now less likely as these are currently only made available for schemes where JUMP is the operator”.

 

28.13   Councillor Wares asked the following supplementary question:

 

“How much more have we paid that we won’t get the benefit of and are we going to do anything about recovering that extra cost if that’s the case? It does sound like we may have purchased something we can no longer use for the purpose it was purchased”.

 

28.14   The Chair provided the following reply:

 

“I made clear to your previous question that questions would be answered in the report and we can answer these questions in that same report”.

 

(iv)        Bikeshare Scheme

 

28.15   Councillor Wares put the following question:

 

“As the bikes for the bikeshare scheme have been built in China and then transported over via Europe, can the Chair please confirm how many miles each bike must be cycled to offset the carbon footprint cost of manufacturing in China and transportation?”

 

28.16   The Chair provided the following reply:

 

“The current fleet of pedal bikes were assembled in the EU using frames and components from several countries including China and the USA. This is not an unusual supply chain model for bicycle manufacturers and is common across many industries in the UK and elsewhere. In 2018 the UK also exported £0.5 Billion worth of scrap metal to China, including steel and aluminum which can be used to build bike frames.

It has not been possible to calculate an average carbon footprint of each bikeshare bike. A 2016 Study by the European Cyclists’ Federation suggested the manufacturing and fuel carbon footprints of pedal cycles were around one tenth of those of the average car. Shipping emissions in 2015 were around 3% of the EU total CO2 emissions in 2015 while motorised road transport accounted for 17.2%.

By the end of August 2019, BTN Bikeshare had registered 98,922 subscribers, who made 763,552 trips, cycling a total distance of 1,513,469 miles. This equates to 2655 miles for each bike in the fleet of 570, though the original 450 bikes have obviously travelled further than the 120 bikes added later”.

 

28.17   Councillor Wares asked the following supplementary question:

 

“Perhaps you could explain that having declared a climate emergency and now we promote children to strike from school, why the administration buy products from the very countries people are protesting about?”

 

28.18   The Chair provided the following reply:

 

“A 2016 Study by the European Cyclists’ Federation suggested the manufacturing and fuel carbon footprints of pedal cycles were around one tenth of those of the average car. So even taking account of what you set out, it is still a better, more sustainable method of transport than the car”.

 

(v)         Hollingdean Depot

 

28.19   Councillor Wares put the following question:

 

“No doubt the fire at the Hollingdean depot had an impact on the massive

delays and missed refuse and recycling collections throughout the City.

Although recent advice also blames rubbish caught up in the mechanisms of vehicles apparently designed to transport rubbish and sudden staff shortages through sickness that suggests deeper problems. We are approaching half way through the modernisation programme. Please will the Chair give a date by when this misery of missed refuse and recycling will end and promise to meet that date no matter what?”

 

28.20   The Chair provided the following reply:

 

“The complexity of the problems at Cityclean cannot be underestimated and therefore will take some time to work through. Consequently, it is not possible to give a fixed date of when the service will be fully functional. The work being undertaken through the Modernisation Programme actively works towards this, particularly through the round changes. These round changes need to be identified and implemented to ensure fair distribution of work and ensure all work is collected on time across the city. This work has started and will take a number of months.

There have been a number of issues with collections over the last few weeks. The recent fire at Veolia’s Waste Transfer Station at Hollingdean on 25 August had a huge effect on Cityclean’s ability to carry out a normal collection service. It meant drivers had to drive to Newhaven to drop off loads (a three hour round journey) or at the Hove Household Waste Recycling Site, with a one and a half hour wait, both depending on traffic. The Waste Transfer Station reopened on Monday 23 September. We are working hard to catch up and we apologise for the inconvenience and disruption.

Added to this, there was also a higher than normal spate of vehicle breakdowns, plus a high number of driver shortages caused by sudden and unexpected sickness, at a time when there have been vacancies and the summer break. Measures introduced to improve service reliability include:

•   Investigations into the reasons for the vehicle breakdown, which appears due to a build-up of rubbish underneath the compactor. Measures have been put in place to address this to prevent it happening in the future.

•   Recruitment to the vacant Driver and Collection Operative posts

•   Services of a specialist agency to help provide emergency cover when required

•   Introduction of Driver de-briefs at the end of each shift to improve communication relating to missed work.

•   Introduction of a rapid response team to collect missed work and help identify root cause. This started on 23 September and has had a significant impact.

 

28.21   Councillor Wares asked the following supplementary question:

 

“At the very least, we hope it would be possible that the current backlog we have, surely it is possible to say whether it will be resolved in the next few days or few weeks. Give us hope that the backlog we are suffering from will end in the near future”.

 

28.22   On behalf of the Chair, the Assistant Director, City Environmental Management provided the following reply:

 

“It has been really difficult, and I know the extent to which it has impacted upon residents and councillors. We have 48 rounds going out every day and three to four hours where they would normally be collecting added on. It has been very significant. This weekend, we have really caught up and this week, we’re on the last areas of trying to catch up. I would expect by next week we will be back to a normal level than we have been experiencing in recent weeks”

 

(vi)        Environmental Enforcement

 

28.23   Councillor Wares put the following question:

 

“Since the “litter cop” service was brought in-house in March please can the Chair advise, by each month, how many enforcement officers were employed specifically excluding supervisors and managers?”

 

28.24   The Chair provided the following reply:

 

“Since the service was brought in house in March 2019, no further permanent recruitment has taken place due to existing staff that were transferred across under TUPE from 3GS. 

The service has tried to recruit temporary staff through agencies but this hasn’t been successful. 

The service is currently going through a restructure that will enable us to recruit and increase staffing levels significantly and to ensure maximum coverage across the city.

 

The number of Environmental Enforcement Officers employed each month is:

March = 5

April = 4

May = 4

June = 3

July = 3

August = 3

September = 3

 

Please note these figures do include a working supervisor who patrols and issues FPNs.

The new structure has five Environmental Enforcement Officers, a Senior Environmental Enforcement Officers and an Environmental Enforcement Manager. Three Environmental Enforcement Officers posts are now being advertised.

The Environmental Enforcement Team is covering the costs of the service through enforcement activity.

 

28.25   Councillor Wares asked the following supplementary question:

 

“Three enforcement officers for the entire city. We have a benchmark- do you think this is a good transition since we brought it in-house in March? We have now only two officers excluding supervisors patrolling the entire city. And is that not one of the reasons that in some areas of the city it is absolutely filthy”.

 

28.26   The Chair provided the following reply:

 

“Members weren’t happy with the previous service, so we are glad it has been brought in-house. We hope the service improves and improves and with the recruitment we are hoping to do it should be made a lot better”.

 

(vii)       Flyposting

 

28.27   Councillor Wares put the following question:

 

“Please could the Chair, whilst agreeing that fly posting is a blight on our city, advise what measures are being taken to deal with the culprits”

 

28.28   The Chair provided the following reply:

 

“In line with the legislation used by the Council, Environmental Enforcement Officers are only able to issue a Fixed Penalty Notice if a person is witnessed committing the offence directly in front of them”.

 

28.29   Councillor Wares asked the following supplementary question:

 

“However well intended the World Transformed Labour Party event was, will you condemn the flyposting by that group during the Labour Party conference and will you please communicate to your colleagues that in future, you would not wish to see participants in any conference flyposting across our city?”

 

28.30   The Chair provided the following reply:

 

“If I had a channel up to participants in the World Transformed, I would certainly put that to them, but I don’t. I certainly do not like flyposting whoever does it and wherever it comes from”.

 

(viii)     Changing the name of the ET&S Committee

 

28.31   Councillor Heley put the following question:

 

“Considering that the council has declared a climate emergency, the name of this committee should reflect the work that it must undertake to address the climate emergency and to achieve a carbon neutral city by 2030. The word ‘sustainability’ suggests that we can keep things as they are therefore does not reflect the urgency of the climate crisis. Would the chair consider changing the name of this committee to reflect that, for example to “Environment, Transport and Climate Emergency?”

 

28.32   The Chair provided the following reply:

 

“The names and functions of Council Committees are agreed by full Council. This Committee does not have the legal power to changes its own name or its delegated functions.

If Members wish to propose changes to the name of a Committee, they can raise this through their representative at the Constitutional Working Group. Proposals which are supported by the Constitutional Working Group will then be reported to P&R and full Council for agreement. The next Constitutional Working Group is intended to take place before the end of October 2019”.

 

28.33   Councillor Heley asked the following supplementary question:

 

“I’m dismayed that this agenda does not include anything on the climate emergency specifically, so I’d also like to formally request that the Chair include a standing item on that subject for every agenda to come so that members of this committee and the public can receive a regular update on what is planned in relation to the climate emergency”.

 

28.34   The Chair provided the following reply:

 

“There is a meeting scheduled tomorrow with members of your group on climate emergency and how that is taken forward so this will be discussed then”.

 

(ix)        Youth Strike for Climate

 

28.35   Councillor Heley put the following question:

 

“The Global Strike for climate on the 20th of September was the biggest

climate protest history has ever seen. At home in Brighton and Hove, an

incredible 10,000 people took to the streets to demand radical climate action.

Would the chair agree to arrange a meeting with myself and the climate?

strikers, to discuss their demands, and see how they can be involved in the Environment, Transport and Sustainability Committee going forward?”

 

28.36   The Chair provided the following reply:

 

“The recent Policy & Resources Urgency Sub-Committee of 12th September considered a report on Youth Strikes and Climate Action.

The report outlined, and Members agreed a process for supporting young people, parents and Council staff engaged in Climate Strikes alongside the respective roles and responsibilities of the Council, Emergency Services and Schools”.

 

28.37   Councillor Heley asked the following supplementary question:

 

“Can I confirm that you would like to arrange a meeting in an ETS capacity and also, I understand there is a process where we can co-opt external stakeholders as representatives on this committee, and I wonder if there would be the possibility of inviting climate activists to observe and feed into the decision-making process?”

 

28.38   The Chair provided the following reply:

 

“I’ve been advised that that is a consideration for the Constitutional Working Group so please refer it to them”

 

(x)          Car Free Day

 

28.39   Councillor Heley put the following question:

 

“As we all know, Brighton and Hove City Council did not hold a car free day this year. Events in London and Hastings, for example, prove what an amazing opportunity car free day is to demonstrate the benefits of active travel and cleaner air as a result of road closures. It was great to see Extinction Rebellion close part of the Old Steine to make their own car free day. When Leader of the council Nancy Platts was asked why Brighton and Hove council had not done anything for car free day, her answer was because the council were focussed on arrangements for the youth strike for climate a few days before, which is a different response to the one the Chair gave in the last meeting of this committee. Could the chair clarify the reasons that car free day did not go ahead, and join me in asking officers to start making arrangements for car free day 2020?”

 

28.40   The Chair provided the following reply:

 

“The recent report to the Policy & Resources Urgency Sub-Committee of 12th September on Youth Strikes and Climate Action outlined the current situation and potential to host Car Free Days in the City next year and in future.

Car Free Days are costly and do require a dedicated resource to plan and organise safely and effectively. The recent events put on by TfL in the capital cost over £1m with dedicated officers and over a year in planning. But we do appreciate the work Sadiq Khan has done in London which was important as London is the capital city, so road closures were helpful to draw attention.

I have asked for a report to the next ETS Committee where we will consider how to programme and fund a Car Free Day Event next year and in future to coincide with European Mobility Week and other opportunities including Clean Air Day”.

 

28.41   Councillor Heley asked the following supplementary question:

 

“I don’t feel like you have directly answered the question so if you could directly answer my question”

 

28.42   The Chair provided the following reply:

 

“Yes, we did. I may have gone too fast, but I said I’ve asked for a report to the next ETS Committee so that does answer your question”

 

(C)         Members Letters

 

(ii)          Patcham Peace Gardens

 

28.43   The Committee considered a Letter from the Patcham ward councillors noting the anti-social behaviour committed in Patcham Peace Gardens and requesting that broken trees be replaced and CCTV be installed to deter vandalism and theft.

 

28.44   The Chair provided the following response:

 

“I appreciate the effort that volunteers put into the City’s parks and also the generosity of residents who donate trees to our parks and how upsetting it must be to see your work/donation vandalised. Although we do not guarantee to replace vandalised trees that are donated we generally do so. Cityparks have already arranged replacement of one donation Prunus from the sunken area that was snapped off for this winter and if another donation tree has subsequently been broken off they will replace this as well.

The Council receive numerous requests for CCTV. Installation of CCTV at Patcham Peace garden would require a change to our CCTV policy as well as a Data Protection Impact Assessment to ensure that privacy risks are mitigated and is not something that Cityparks could deal with in isolation”.

 

28.45   RESOLVED- That the Letter be noted.

 

(iii)        Ultra Low Emission Zone

 

28.46   The Committee considered a Letter from Councillors Heley, Davis, Lloyd and West requesting a report to the next committee meeting setting out options for Brighton & Hove to adopt an Ultra Low Emission Zone and or congestion charge.

 

28.47   The Chair provided the following response:

 

“The bus Low Emission Zone was introduced in January 2015 and required all buses in the zone to be Euro 5 emissions standard as a minimum by January 2020.

This target was achieved a year early and June 2018 ETS Committee agreed to introduce a new bus Ultra Low Emission Zone. This requires all buses operating in the zone to be minimum Euro 6, the highest emission standard, by October 2024. As you explain in your letter air quality in the zone is improving. Brighton and Hove Buses recently announced a further investment of almost £10m in 30 new extended range electric buses which were delivered last month. They will operate in zero emissions mode whilst in the Ultra Low Emission Zone.

Other cities, such as Birmingham and Leeds have been consulting over the past few years on plans to introduce temporary Clean Air Zones, as required by central government. These set minimum emissions standards for different types of vehicles such as taxis and private vehicles to improve air quality. This is clearly a major policy decision with resource implications and I have asked officers to report back to ETS Committee at the earliest opportunity in 2020 on the powers available to the council to extend minimum emission standards to other types of vehicles and beyond the current boundary of the Ultra Low Emission Zone”.

 

28.48   RESOLVED- That the committee receive a report on the matter at the earliest available opportunity.

 

(iv)        Wheelie Bins

 

28.49   The committee considered a Letter from Councillor Ebel requesting it consider options to improve the situation of wheelie bins being positioned and left on pavements to improve access for pedestrians and those with mobility access issues.

 

28.50   The Chair provided the following response:

 

“Brighton & Hove City Council can issue Fixed Penalty Notices (FPNs) under Section 46A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to householders not complying with waste receptacle requirements. To do this, the Environmental Enforcement Framework will need to be updated to include this offence and presented to a future Environment, Transport & Sustainability Committee meeting for approval. Environmental Enforcement Officers can then issue FPNs as per government guidance.

It is correct that householders are written to where issues regarding bins on the pavement have been raised. We also have the option to send an Environmental Enforcement Officer to the property to have an informal conversation with the householder. We can also explore options around improving communication to residents on this issue.

 

Through the Recycling Wheelie Bin Project, Cityclean has visited all roads in the city to determine which type of containment is appropriate; either a wheelie bin, a box or a communal bin. A set of criteria has been used, which picks up the issues Councillor Ebel raises. For example:

•   Each property in a street must have enough room to store the bin – either on their own property or on the pavement

•   The pavement must be wide enough for pedestrians, wheelchairs, buggies etc. to pass when the bin is on the pavement

•   The pavement cannot be sloped

•   A property cannot have too many steps

•   The road must be accessible for the relevant truck

 

Based on this piece of work (as well as other projects), today’s City Environment Modernisation Update report is seeking changes to the communal bin system as it has been identified that some roads are more suited to communal bins. Implementing communal bins in areas where households do not have enough room to store a bin on their property or on the pavement will address the issues you have identified”.

 

28.51   RESOLVED- That the committee note the Letter.

 

The meeting was adjourned at 18:35pm and reconvened at 18:45pm