Agenda item - Written questions from members of the public.

A list of public questions received by the due date of 12noon on the 16 October 2020 will be circulated separately as part of an addendum at the meeting.

41.1      The Mayor reported that 7 written questions had been received from members of the public and invited Mr. Rob Shepherd to address the council.

 

41.2      Mr. Shepherd asked the following question; as custodian of part of England’s transport infrastructure, the City has a statutory duty to keep traffic flowing in and beyond its own boundaries and to liaise with other authorities, as set out in the 2004 Traffic Management Act (Network Management, Duty Guidance, Section 31) .

 

As the predicted traffic delays from Valley Gardens Phase 3 and Black Rock will significantly add to the problems on the already congested A259, please detail the discussions you had with ESSC to ensure traffic flows will be protected on this important section of the Major Road Network?

 

41.3      Councillor Heley stated that planned changes to the A259 that are part of the Black Rock and Valley Gardens Phase 3 projects will help achieve the safer movement of people and vehicles.  The use of ‘smart’ traffic signals (which are mentioned in the council’s Corporate Plan) will help to do this by making it easier and more attractive to walk or ‘wheel’ across the busy A259, or to use the route to cycle.  This is especially important for disabled people who may need more assistance to cross these roads, and who would find this very challenging because there is so much traffic, which causes the current congestion. 

 

The changes will therefore fully meet a key Government objective of the Major Road Network which is to recognise the needs of all users, including cyclists, pedestrians and disabled people.  Making changes like this locally will also help us to encourage and enable more people to walk and cycle and therefore contribute to the council’s 2030 target of carbon neutrality, especially if this replaces a car or van trip.

 

The new traffic signals will help manage flows and movement at the busiest times, either in the week for residents and workers or at weekends when we also welcome visitors.  The Duke’s Mound and Palace Pier junctions are nearly 4 miles away from the county boundary so are very unlikely to affect traffic flows in East Sussex, and therefore there have not been any specific discussions with county council.  Officers are also aware of its’ planned study of the A259, and when we are approached about that we will be happy to discuss it with them, including whatever the future levels of sustainable transport use and traffic conditions are at the time.

 

41.4      Mr. Shepherd asked the following supplementary question; delays on the A259 already reach the threshold the City Plan used to determine that no transport interventions would be needed to build thousands of new homes by 2030.

 

This is even before the impacts of Valley Gardens, Black Rock and thousands of new homes just over the City boundary.

 

How can City Plan Part Two claim to support the implementation and delivery of City Plan Part One, without addressing this fundamental planning error?

 

41.5      Councillor Heley stated that she was not able to respond to the question and would ensure that Mr. Shepherd received a written reply.

 

41.6      The Mayor thanked Mr. Shepherd for his questions and invited Mr. Nigel Smith  to address the council.

 

41.7      Mr. Smith asked the following question; having missed your Transport Carbon Emission Reduction targets by 70% year on year since they were set post-Kyoto, please explain why they were missed and confirm that all parties involved in 2030 zero emissions planning will be fully briefed on this historic failure, so it is not repeated.

 

Do you agree “that reduction pathways are as important as reduction targets” or in other words that setting a nice sounding 2030 target has little value unless the path to get there is set out and monitored?

 

41.8      Councillor Heley stated that although the council does not have a Transport Carbon Emission Reduction target, it does monitor the Government’s dataset which includes CO2 emissions estimates for road transport and railways.  Estimates of the level of reduction required in transport emissions since 2005 have been calculated to indicate the scale of change necessary to help meet previously set targets for carbon reduction.  The numbers do show a slight decrease over time compared to previous years, but this has not been enough to stay on track. 

 

In that time, the city’s population has continued to grow; its economy has been resilient; public transport use has increased; and traffic flows have also remained stable.    Previous council Administrations and city partners have also delivered measures that can contribute towards reducing emissions in the city, such as:

-      travel behaviour change programmes;

-      upgrading street lights;

-      smart traffic signals;

-      providing electric vehicle charging points;

-      the BikeShare scheme and e-cargo bikes; and

-      new low emission vehicles.

 

Despite this, developments in vehicle technology have been relatively slow and are not affordable to everybody, and vehicle trips are still a major contributor to carbon emissions and many of those trips come from far and wide, and for many reasons.  For example, we are a top visitor destination and people will travel long distances to come here; we have a thriving port that needs large vehicles to transfer materials to and from it daily; and we have a diverse business economy that needs regular deliveries and customers to prosper.

 

The council has therefore recognised that action is necessary and has declared a climate emergency, and the target to achieve carbon neutrality in the city by 2030 is an ambitious one, but it is essential that we all do everything that we can to meet it.  That will take a significant, collective and cumulative effort across all parts of the city and will need to involve every resident, every community and every business.   The council cannot be solely responsible for the individual choices that we all make, but it can lead by example, and encourage and enable positive and sustainable change. 

 

We may need to make some very challenging decisions, but our work will be helped by the city’s first ever Climate Assembly and its focus on travel and transport.  It has already had some fascinating discussions prompted by some excellent presentations, and its continued work and eventual conclusions will contribute towards the development of our next Local Transport Plan (LTP5) and our Carbon Neutral Programme which we will bring to Committee in March 2021.  It will set out the route that we intend to take and the milestones that we expect to achieve between now and 2030. 

 

But the onset of Covid-19 and its continuing threat to our health and people’s livelihoods is also a defining moment that will make the next 10 years very different from the last 15, as we continue with the city’s recovery programme.  Active travel measures are a key part of that and will help us focus our minds and decisions on moving more quickly towards reducing transport carbon emissions and meeting a target that everyone in this room is committed to.     

 

41.9      Mr. Smith asked the following supplementary question; would

 

The Valley Gardens Phase 3 study said it increases traffic delays by 16% which increases our carbon footprint. 

 

Why is the council not using the opportunity of Valley Gardens, as proposed in the 2018 Brighton Bus Network Review, to improve bus routes to avoid North Street  to reduce our costly delays and the City's carbon footprint?

 

41.10   Councillor Heley stated that she was not able to respond to the question and would ensure that Mr. Smith received a written reply;

 

41.11   The Mayor thanked Mr. Smith for his questions and invited Mr. Bryan Coyle to address the council.

 

41.12   Mr. Coyle asked the following question; Whitehawk is one of the most deprived areas in the city. East Brighton food co-op has been supplying over 700 hot meals per week to needy people during this crisis. What percentage of funding from the Covid emergency food fund has been allocated to this?

 

41.13   Councillor Gibson noted that on the 9 September 2020 the Policy & Resources Recovery Sub-committee considered a report recommending the allocation of the Local Authority Emergency Assistance Grant for Food and Essential supplies. The report explained the rationale behind the recommended allocations and the objectives being supported in the city-wide response.  The report recommendations were approved.  The East Brighton Food Co-op was not named as a direct recipient of funding in the report; however, funding was allocated to the Brighton & Hove Food Partnership in order to support food banks and food hubs across the city as appropriate. As a result, he was not currently able to provide a percentage as requested.

 

41.14   Mr. Coyle asked the following supplementary question; would the Council consider funding the East Brighton Food Co-op directly to ensure it could continue supporting the community?

 

41.15   Councillor Gibson stated that he would explore the options open to the council to support the co-op with officers and write to Mr. Coyle.

 

41.16   The Mayor thanked Mr. Coyle for his questions and invited Ms. Rose Bunker to address the council.

 

41.17   Ms. Bunker asked the following question; why has the South Downs National Park's objection to the proposed Joint Venture Development on the Coldean Lane Site not been fully and publicly addressed?

They called the development 'an inappropriate scale and density for this hillside urban fringe location within the setting of the SDNP' and said that 'It would also appear to conflict with Policy SA4 of the City Plan Part One, and with the proposed designation of the site as a Local Nature Reserve'.

 

The number of dwellings was subsequently reduced from 250 to 242, but this in no way answers the SDNP's concerns.?

 

41.18   Councillor Littman stated that planning applications were carefully considered against policies in the adopted development plan and other material considerations. In terms of the Coldean Lane application, this included considering the objections of the South Downs National Park Authority. Concerns about the development were weighed up against the benefits and following this, and having secured improvements to the application, the case officer recommended the application for approval. Following a debate at Planning Committee on 10 July 2019 members approved the application by 7 votes to 3. 

 

41.19   Ms. Bunker asked the following supplementary question; were the South Downs National Park made aware that the application (BN2018/03541) was supposed to be a composite application for both operational development and change of use of the land, as stated retrospectively in March 2020 by Planning Solicitor?  The general public weren't made aware of this, and it's far from clear whether the Planning Committee itself were even aware of it.

 

41.20   Councillor Littman stated that he was not able to respond to the question and would ensure that Ms. Bunker received a written reply.

 

41.21   The Mayor thanked Ms. Bunker for her questions and invited Mr. James Noble to address the council.

 

41.22   Mr. Noble asked the following question;people across our city sacrifice their time to publicises and collect signatures about issues that are important to them. Does the Mayor, therefore, agree that the unconstitutional rejection of petitions submitted to full council for debate sends a message that our council doesn’t want to listen?

 

41.23   The Mayor replied; firstly, I would say that the decision to not accept the petitions was not “unconstitutional” as you put it. The Council’s constitution allows the Mayor and the Chief executive to not accept petitions if they consider them to be inappropriate. The decision was taken after taking all relevant considerations, including professional advice into account.

 

The process for the approval of the local plan is set out in legislation. In very simple terms, it has generally four main stages:

 

First the Council consults with the public on a proposed plan, secondly the Council approves the plan. This happened at the Council meeting in April this year, thirdly the Council publishes the plan, as approved by full Council, for consultation. This is the stage we are in and the consultation is happening right now. The deadline for submission of comments is at the end of this month. So, people should be submitting comments in the consultation process. Finally, the draft plan and any representations received are submitted, not to the Council, and I emphasise not to the Council, but to the Planning Inspectorate for determination. There will be a hearing examination by the Inspector next year and there will be opportunities for people to address the hearing.

 

So, given that we are at the final consultation phase, any representations that people would like to make should be made as part of the statutory consultation process for presentation to the secretary of state, not the Council, because the Council part of the process was finished in April.  The decision we took was not taken lightly. We sought and obtained advice from the Head of Planning and the Lead Planning Lawyer. The advice was that the petition to the Council would not be appropriate but that the petition should be added to the consultation responses.

 

Having considered all the circumstances, including the advice from Officers, it was my view and that of the Chief Executive that it would not be appropriate to accept the petition. I am mindful of and respect the fact that a number of people took the trouble to sign the petitions. I will therefore be asking that they are submitted to the Planning Department for inclusion in the representations to the government. That will ensure that they are addressed to the right place using the right process, which is what should have happened in the first place.

 

There will, as I said, also be an opportunity to make representations at the examination hearing.

 

41.24   Mr. Noble asked the following supplementary question;

 

41.25   The Mayor stated that if the information provided by the petitioners and the deputations was submitted to the planning officers, they would ensure all the information was passed onto the Planning Inspector as part of the consultation process.

 

41.26   The Mayor thanked Mr. Noble for his questions and invited Ms. Anna de Wit to address the council.

 

41.27   Ms. De Wit asked the following question; why is a site dangerously positioned between Coldean Lane (already an accident blackspot) and the sheer drop to the Brighton Bypass, of so steep a gradient that it was described in a 2008 Urban Study as 'undevelopable', now considered suitable for 240 dwellings in high-rise blocks?

 

41.28   Councillor Littman stated that the site was identified as having potential for residential development in the Urban Fringe Assessment 2014. Detailed highways safety issues were assessed as part of the planning application process. The scheme was designed to overcome safety concerns and £350k was secured to mitigate the impact of travel to and from the site. The planning application was subsequently approved by Planning Committee on 10 July 2019.

 

41.29   Ms. De Wit asked the following supplementary question, has any consideration be given to the condition of the bridge and how that would be resolved with the development?

 

41.30   Councillor Littman stated that he was not able to respond to the question and would ensure that Ms. de Wit received a written reply.

 

41.31   The Mayor thanked Ms. de Wit for her questions and noted that Mr. Jiva Masheder was unable to join the meeting because of work commitments and therefore asked Councillor Druitt to ensure that a written response was sent to Mr. Masheder.

 

41.32   The Mayor noted that this concluded the list of public questions.