Agenda item - Written questions from members of the public.

A list of public questions received by the due date of 12noon on the 19 March 2021 will be circulated separately as part of an addendum at the meeting.

120.1       The Mayor reported that 6 written questions had been received from members of the public and invited Charlotte Harman to come forward and address the council.

 

120.2       Ms Harman asked the following question; I understand that the council’s existing contract with Veolia means that it cannot recycle lower-grade plastics. Would the council consider trialling the recycling boxes offered by a company called Reworked? 

 

Companies like Reworked offer recycling of fishing nets, PPE, as well as items that are deemed 'non-recyclable' and turn them into boards to become a variety of new long-term use items.

 

120.3       Councillor Heley replied; at Environment, Transport & Sustainability Committee last week, we agreed for a feasibility study to be completed to understand the costs of retrofitting our Materials Recovery Facility in order to collect and process Pots, Tubs & Trays, that low-grade plastic that is difficult to recycle. The results of this study will be brought to a future committee for a decision on whether changes should be made to enable the collection of PTT and lower grade plastics in the recycling stream in the city.

 

We are also waiting for further consultations from the government on various measures that will potentially have a significant impact on what is collected in Brighton & Hove and the types of materials used in the production of packaging and we would also like them to stop the production of this type of packaging at all.

 

Cityclean will pass on the details of Rework to Veolia as a potential customer should a decision be made to accept PTT and it would be interesting to know more about this company, particularly, whether they are able to scale up their volumes that would arise from collections in the city that have such a large scale. Also, we have fishing net recycling on the seafront, we have been with Leave No Trace Brighton.

 

If you would like to email me after this meeting, we can have a further discussion about it.

 

120.4       Ms Harman thanked Councillor Heley and confirmed that she did not have a supplementary question.

 

120.5       The Mayor thanked Ms Harman for her question and invited Malcolm Spencer to come forward and address the council.

 

120.6       Mr Spencer asked the following question; Ovingdean has seen a significant rise in visitor numbers and consequently rubbish. There are only four bins across a large area including the seafront, coast road, village and main parking areas.

 

Could new bins please be provided at these heavily used sites?

1)      Multiple locations on Greenways:  near the bus stop; Blind Veterans; along the parking strip

2)      On Ovingdean Road, at the entrance to the farm

3)      At the junction of Ovingdean Road and Longhill road, next to the farm gate.

 

The bottom of Old Parish Lane that links Ovingdean to Woodingdean.

 

120.7       Councillor Heley replied; Cityclean is completing a wholescale review of the binfrastructure across the city. This includes increasing provision of litter bins and introducing options for recycling, where it is appropriate to do so.

 

Your question and your list of suggested locations has been shared with the Project Officer who is reviewing the Ovingdean area and will use this.

 

120.8       Mr Spencer thanked Councillor Heley and confirmed that he did not have a supplementary question.

 

120.9       The Mayor thanked Mr Spencer for his question and invited John Cole to come forward and address the council.

 

120.10   Mr Cole asked the following question; As a Green Party led Council why are the garden waste collections and the recycling waste collections consistently missed in Saltdean?

 

This is poor service and does not motivate residents to do the right thing and recycle responsibly. As the garden waste collection is an additional cost to residents, we are also being charged for a service we are not receiving.

 

120.11   Councillor Heley replied; I am very sorry to hear about the service disruptions that have recently occurred in Saltdean. We would like to, of course, have 100% of collections made on time and City Clean are striving to improve their performance in this area.

 

I know you said you have been complaining since 2019 but we have been particularly impacted this year by the pandemic which, I am sure, everyone can understand where operational staff needing to shield or self-isolate, and higher than normal levels of sickness.

 

I have some figures for you, according to City Clean the garden waste team have made 3340 collections in Saltdean this year, between 4/1/21 and 1/3/21, which makes the collection rate of 98.92%.   Some of the 1.08% recorded as missed, will be due to blocked vehicle access, bins in wrong locations and the odd occasions whereby subscriptions have actually lapsed and would need to be renewed. 

 

We are also being impacted by some vehicle breakdowns which has also affected recycling collections in other parts of the City.  The fleet is ageing and will be replaced in coming years as part of the fleet replacement programme with new electric or hydrogen-based vehicles as they become available. We will also be investing in a new software ICT system to aid with the delivery of collection services. I happy to send you the figures I mentioned and do get in touch if you get a missed collection again and I will try and sort it out for you.

 

120.12   Mr Cole asked the following supplementary question; I do doubt those figures that were quoted, I would like to see them, because my own collection and anecdotally from our neighbours that beggars belief that they have collected 98%, I don’t believe it (in Saltdean).

 

When the garden waste collection is missed it is never collected until the next regular collection day which means we have paid for a collection we do not receive. We  then have to wait a further 2 weeks or take the garden waste to the tip, which is an unnecessary journey and is causing more pollution because I am going up to the tip in my car which I shouldn’t need to do.

 

120.13   Councillor Heley replied that she was unable to give a full response and would provide a written answer after the meeting.

 

120.14   The Mayor thanked Mr Cole for his questions and invited Ben Benatt to come forward and address the council.

 

120.15   Mr Benatt asked the following question, It relates to the BHCC’s 2030 Carbon Neutral Programme. I haven’t seen the draft being officially released but it has been on the communication channels for Extinction Rebellion Brighton, someone has placed it on there. This question is on behalf of Extinction Rebellion Brighton.

 

We welcome the programme, but we have concerns about three key elements in particular:

First of all the reliability of data – in terms of the referencing, without proper references how can we confirm data used to formulate this plan is correct? It mentions using an application by ScatterCities to calculate data and it seems, looking at the application that you actually have to feed the stuff in so Brighton’s fed that information it is not really a true source and we are concerned about the transparency.

We are concerned about the emphasis of the programme which doesn’t biodiversity even though an ecological emergency has been declared around our planet. Biodiversity only gets 25 mentions compared to carbon which gets 162 and only really gets to page 111. It feels that the emphasis is very low, biodiversity elements are weak and lack specific targets.

In terms of the practical action proposed - Land-use carbon accounting and building sustainably are key elements to reducing emissions and yet the programme doesn’t once mention the word ‘requirement’, it just speaks about ‘guidance’, so we are worried that it is going to be a not very hard hitting program and help to achieve any meaningful targets.

So XR Brighton concludes from viewing this draft that the plan appears to be seriously flawed and wonder if there is going to be a consultation process and if so, how can we get involved?

 

120.16   Councillor Heley replied, I am pleased to hear that you welcome the city council’s 2030 Carbon Neutral Programme, and it was approved last week at ETS & Policy & Resources Committee. I have quite a long response for you which I will send as there are other questions still to be asked. However, on the consultation we are anticipating and expecting that individual projects within the 2030 Carbon Neutral Programme will each have a consultation so hopefully that helps.

 

120.17   Mr Benatt thanked Councillor Heley and confirmed that he had no supplementary question.

 

120.18   The Mayor thanked Mr Benatt for his questions and invited Nigel Smith to come forward and address the council.

 

120.19   Mr Smith asked the following question;The mandatory 5-year review of the City Plan and its Sustainability Appraisal, lacks a Transport Assessment Update for the Infrastructure Delivery Plan. The last annual monitoring Transport Assessment Update was in 2014.

With the well documented unplanned rise in congestion since 2014, it is very unlikely the City Plan’s required housing developments can now be achieved sustainably, which invalidates City Plan Part 2 unless it addresses this.

 

When will you perform the obligatory Transport Assessment Update and publish it for consultation?

 

120.20   Councillor Osborne replied; A review of City Plan Part One has taken place in line with the National Planning Policy Framework requirement for this to take place within five years of adoption. That was undertaken in 2016, now five years later, the outcome was reported to TECC Committee in March 2021. As required by the NPPF, the review took the form of an assessment of the need for policies to be updated, rather than a full revision of the Plan. The review concluded that a full update of City Plan Part One is necessary, and this will be progressed after the adoption of City Plan Part Two in line with the timetable set out in the recently adopted Local Development Scheme. You can view this online at the city council’s website.

 

Regarding City Plan Part Two, its main role is to implement the spatial strategy set out in City Plan Part One. Part One, included the transport evidence underpinning it, was examined and found sound by an independent planning inspector and adopted by the Council in 2016. The full review of City Plan Part One will be the right time to revisit and update the Strategic Transport Assessment.

 

120.21   Mr Smith asked the following supplementary question; In view of the history of incorrect data being used for the Old Shoreham Road and other transport determinations, does the Council agree that transport assessment update must be published as soon as possible if CPP2 is to have any credibility?

 

120.22   Councillor Osborne replied; I think I have basically answered the question beforehand. It is going to be in the City Plan Part Two adopted and then in the City Plan Part One, and at the City Plan Part one review that assessment update will be done and it will be carried out and I assume there will be a consultation on that, in line with  how we do our consultations.

 

120.23   The Mayor thanked Mr Smith for his questions and invited Neil Williams to come forward and address the council.

 

120.24   Mr Williams asked the following question; Why is the Council supporting the destruction of a much-loved, healthy, mature tree in the Cliftonville Conservation Area in order to pave the way for a Planning Application twice rejected, specifically because of the presence of the tree, by both the Council Planning Committee and the Secretary of State?

 

The felling of this tree would be in direct contravention of Local Plan policy QD16 and cuts against the grain of current environmental research about the benefits of trees and plants to encourage wildlife, biodiversity and promote positive mental health within urban communities. 

 

How is this decision justified? 

 

120.25   Councillor Littman replied; Thank you for your question, Mr Williams. In Oliver Twist, Charles Dickens had the character of Mr Bumble proclaim, “The law is an ass.” To what extent that is the case, has been hotly debated ever since. One thing is certain is that it is true that Planning law and other legislative frameworks often fail to match up nearly as clearly and as precisely as we would like. I’m afraid that is the case here. Members of Planning Committee who voted to refuse the Planning Application for the extension, on the basis of the amenity value of the tree, and the Government Planning Inspector who upheld their decision, believed that the tree should be protected. Planning legislation and the Local Authority’s Policies QD16 and QD27 allow for that decision.

 

However, in order to refuse the application to remove the tree; received last month, the local planning authority would have to agree a Tree Protection Order being placed on that tree. Unfortunately for the tree, the legislative framework which dictates the criteria for the application of a Tree Protection Order is entirely separate to Planning legislation.

 

In order for a TPO to be applied, trees have to fulfil assessment criteria in accordance with what is called the Tree Evaluation Method for Preservation Orders. This structured assessment involves allocating points to the tree under consideration. The tree under threat at 12 Sussex Road was independently assessed by 2 BHCC Tree Officers both of whom scored the tree at a level where a TPO would not be defensible, as defined within the TEMPO guidance. This tree is highly valued by residents in overlooking properties able to view the tree from elevated viewpoints but visibility from public places is a key element when considering TPO application. In other words, if we applied a TPO to this tree, it would be a misuse of a statutory tool and would not stand up to scrutiny. We would be open to a legal challenge which our experts believe we would lose, since such a challenge would be assessed on the basis of the TPO not as a Planning Application.

 

Since local authorities are not legally allowed to refuse permission for tree works or removal in Conservation areas, if the tree in question meets the criteria in terms of stem diameter, and there isn’t a TPO in place, fundamentally, the relevant legislation leaves the BHCC Arboriculture service in a position where they cannot legally protect the tree from removal.

 

120.26   Mr Williams asked the following supplementary question; I guess your Dickens’ quote is ringing loud in my ears at the moment. I find the lack of connection between the fact that this latest application to chop down the tree cannot be connected to the inevitable, subsequent, planning application that will follow. A very cynical strategy to undermine democratic process and exploit the disconnection between council departments. It is an attempt to isolate the unwarranted request to destroy the tree from this inevitable planning application it will follow. There is the 1983 Strategy that does value all trees. I am asking in the light of the Mayor’s earlier reference to the Council’s commitment to establishing a carbon neutral city to ask that you begin this by preserving this green corner, protecting this beautiful tree much loved, as you say, in the community and maintaining the amenity enjoyed by local wildlife and neighbouring residents.

 

120.27          Councillor Littman replied; I personally find the loss of any tree a tragedy and should the law allow us to protect that tree then I have no doubt that we would, but I believe that it doesn’t. If you don’t mind, I will finish with another quote “I think I will never see a billboard as lovely as a tree in-fact until the billboards fall, I will never see a tree at all”.

 

120.28   The Mayor thanked Mr Williams for his questions and noted that was the last question.