Agenda item - Written questions from members of the public.

A list of public questions received by the due date of 12noon on the 14 July 2023 will be circulated separately as part of an addendum for the meeting.

16.1    The Mayor reported that 13 written questions had been received from members of the public and invited Adrian Hart to come forward and address the council.

 

16.2      Adrian Hart asked the following question; “In recent years, Council officers recommended third party providers to schools. Some conducted classroom lessons and staff training. Groups such as Allsorts and Race Matters advised on procedure and future strategies. Criticism has been made of certain groups that the materials delivered in schools are contrary, or misrepresent, the law and national standards, guidelines, policy and evidence. It seems these groups are not regulated to ensure materials provided appropriately reflect law and national standards, and I offered all the list of the regular relevant laws to the Chair.

Can Council reassure parents that it will stop recommending such providers and implement quality assurance measures to ensure compliance with national policy, law, regulation and guidance?”

 

16.3      Councillor Sankey replied; “As an Administration the education and well-being of our children across the City is of paramount importance to us. We are committed to ensuring that all of our children are centered and supported in their learning and development. Our Personal, Social, Health and Economic Education (PSHE) and Anti-Racist Education teams contract or work with a third-party provider when they offer something that is well-established, has credibility and enhances what the council can directly offer. When we contract or recommend third party providers, we always follow DfE guidance.We are mindful of a school’s legal requirements under the Equality Act 2010, The Human Rights Act 1988 and the Prevent Duty. We also ensure that providers support a school’s requirement to promote fundamental values (i.e. democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs). The council does not recommend or work with any third party nor recommend resources that breaks or misrepresent the law and so these claims and accusations are baseless smears. We ask to see materials and we observe initial sessions to assure quality and always seek feedback from schools. Before making any recommendations we always thoroughly research the offer, where possible see their work in another setting and seek recommendations from trusted sources.Alongside this we actively promote staff awareness of the statutory requirements included in the political impartiality guidance through our bulletins to schools and via briefings in relevant meetings. We encourage all schools to meet the provider before a session and ensure they are clear about the aims and the content being delivered. On a personal note, I am disappointed to see these baseless attacks on providers of education in our schools, in particular on race and racism. As a mixed heritage woman who was educated in Brighton and Hove I know that the City has a long way to go to eradicate racism from our learning environments. Last month I was pleased to be invited to chair a panel of young Black and mixed heritage students talking about their present experiences in schools, and I was devastated by what I heard. Racism is prevalent and, in my view, has increased since I was educated in Brighton & Hove in the 1980s and 1990s. Everyone in our City is responsible for driving this out, whether residents, teachers, parents and students and the City Council will be proudly doing our bit. Ironically, it’s the government’s own guidance on schools’ gender policies that have just been stopped in their tracks by their own Attorney General on the grounds that they will be breaking the law.Our objective is to ensure that teachers and staff in schools have the skills to ensure learning in classrooms is balanced, prepares children and young people for life in modern Britain and teaches them about the society and the world that they grow up in. However, it is each school that decides on who delivers materials and the resources they use.”

 

16.4      Adrian Hart asked a supplementary question; “To be clear, parents require reassurance that third party providers are suitably qualified that these organisations have the in-house expertise to operate within the boundaries of government guidance, and the law, for example, safeguarding, and recognise the limitations of their proficiency. For example, parents have described charity organisations in the city who have no staff clinically qualified in gender-dysphoria who are affirming a child’s gender which, according to the NHS, is not neutral act, and facilitating referrals to GP’s who are known to provide cross-sex hormones to children without specialist diagnosis of gender-dysphoria. Indeed, one charity organisation present in most schools in Brighton & Hove are listed as an official partner of Gender GP, who have previously been subject to investigation by the General Medical Council and medical tribunals projects. Does the chair agree that any individual or organisation working in local authority schools or funded in any way by the Council who promotes gender ideology and affirms the gender of individual children must be suitably clinically qualified to do so or otherwise risk a catastrophic failure in this Council’s safeguarding duty?”

16.5      Councillor Sankey replied; “I think that question somewhat repeats the first question so I’d reiterate that this Council follows national law, policy and guidance on this matter and it’s actually the National Government that, at the moment, is at risk of bringing forward changes to policy that would break the law.”

16.6      The Mayor thanked Adrian Hart for their question and invited Neil Duncanson to join the meeting and put their question to Councillor Muten.

16.7      Neil Duncanson asked a question; “Who made the decision and why was it made, that the already overdue Withdean Road and surrounding roads and closes Light Touch CPZ approval should be removed from the Transport and Sustainability Committee agenda, delaying again this crucial work to make the road safer for all road users, pedestrians and residents alike in the face of continual parking displacement?”

16.8      Councillor Muten replied; “Thank you, Mr Duncanson, for your question. This was a decision made by officers in Parking Services in liaison with all 3 Westdene & Hove Park Ward Councillors. It was decided that a slight pause is needed to the Withdean resident parking scheme to allow time to consider whether residents were aware of the proposal at the time to change all light touch schemes to full schemes as part of the agreed 2023/2024 budget savings. Residents may have voted that they wanted a light touch scheme but may not be aware that they could be changed in the future. Following discussions with all 3 Ward Councillors, it was agreed that the Withdean resident parking scheme will now be presented to the next available Transport & Sustainability Committee to allow time to consider the way forward. This decision should also be considered in the light that this administration’s reappraisal of the previous administration's 23/24 budget decision to move citywide all light touch parking restrictions to full 8am to 8pm restrictions. Parking restrictions should work for the local communities to improve safety and accessibility and avoid displacement; and not a means to unfairly tax or limit freedoms of local residents, businesses and visitors.”

16.9      Neil Duncanson asked a supplementary question; “Will we need to go through consultation again?”

16.10   Councillor Muten replied; “I will refer that to officers, but as I’ve said we wish to bring the scheme as it is to the next Committee, but we’ll write to you to confirm whether that will require any change to the existing consultation or not.”

16.11   The Mayor thanked Neil Duncanson for their question and invited Tony Pierce to join the meeting and put their question to Councillor Muten.

 

16.12   Tony Pierce asked a question; “Why did the Council and Ward councillors agree, without any communication or consultation, to delay the Light Touch CPZ scheme in Withdean by removing it from the agenda of the Transport and Sustainability Committee?”

16.13   Councillor Muten replied; “Thank you for your question, Mr Peirce   This was a decision made by officers in Parking Services in liaison with all 3 Westdene & Hove Pahankrk Ward Councillors. It was decided that a slight pause is needed to the Withdean resident parking scheme to allow time to consider whether residents are aware of the proposal to change all light touch schemes to full schemes as part of the agreed 23/24 budget savings. Residents may have voted that they wanted a light touch scheme but may not be aware this could be changed in the future. Following discussions with all 3 Ward Councillors it was agreed that the Withdean resident parking scheme will now be presented to the next available Transport & Sustainability Committee to allow time to consider the way forward. This decision should also be considered in the light of this administration’s reappraisal of the previous administration's 23/24 budget decision to move citywide all light touch parking restrictions to full 8am to 8pm restrictions. Parking restrictions should work for the local communities to improve safety and accessibility and avoid displacement; and not a means to unfairly tax or limit freedoms of residents, businesses and visitors.”

 

16.14   Rob Shephard asked a question; “The vehicle exhaust gases that cause Brighton & Hove's Air Pollution make up less than 1% of our Transport Carbon emissions. Our Carbon Neutral Fund has been spent disproportionately on reducing this 1%, rarely quantifying or justifying any Carbon Dioxide reductions, often funding well-meaning activities which have negligible carbon benefits. For example, can you confirm fitting catalytic converters to buses contributes even 9 tonnes of the 900,000 tonnes of annual reduction we need in 2030?  Will you in future ensure the Carbon Neutral Fund is only used for items that show they tackle this often ignored 99% of our climate problem?”

 

16.15   Councillor Rowkins replied; “Thank you very much for your question, Rob. I’ll try to be brief. It is difficult to identify exactly what the contribution of buses is made to city-wide CO2 emissions, it obviously depends on what figures you’re looking at. Whatever the actual percentage is though, you are correct obviously in your assertion that bus emissions represent only a small part of our total transport emissions. They do, however, obviously, buses that is, represent one of the important tools we have, to be able to reduce reliance on other forms of transport in the city. 

 

I believe the 900,000 tonnes figure you quote here relates to CO2 emissions data from 2020, and it is important to note that those include emissions from the shipping of goods we consume and travel outside of the city by our residents, including aviation. Those are of course more difficult to influence directly and locally. 

 

The primary aim of investing in catalytic converters for older buses is to improve air quality by reducing Nitrogen Oxides to ultra-low levels. An added benefit of exhaust upgrades is a reduction in Nitrous Oxide, which is itself potent greenhouse gas. 

 

I believe there is obviously a subtext of your question here which is that the Carbon Neutral Fund is often used to support things that are not always directly linked to carbon neutrality, and we are reviewing how this fund is used with that in mind. I would just finally add though that the Carbon Neutral 2030 Program, which the Carbon Neutral Fund supports, actually has three strands to it; in addition to carbon reduction, it also aims to enhance biodiversity and help us to adapt to the impacts of climate change in and around the city, and therefore some flexibility is required within the fund”

 

16.16   Rob Shephard asked a supplementary question; “Firstly, as all buses are to be 0 emissions by 2030, it is not possible that fitting current buses with converters will reduce our carbon emissions in 2030; there won’t be any. The question is, then, earlier this year you did an audit of 29 carbon neutral fund commitments and their estimated carbon benefits, and you reported that in total they would achieve about one tenth of one percent of the savings needed to meet our 2030 targets. Will you adjust your sanctioning procedures to ensure no more of our critical climate emergency front is frittered away on items with such trivial benefits?”

 

16.17   Councillor Rowkins replied; “As I’ve said, we are reviewing how that fund is used and, although you do mention relevant points, I would just reiterate that buses form a very important part of our strategy to reduce transport based emissions in the city. I’ll be happy to pick it up further with you down the line.”

 

16.18   The Mayor advised that the 15 minutes allocated for public questions had passed and that those questions not heard at the meeting would receive a written response.

 

16.19   The following written responses were sent in response to the following questions.

 

16.20   Nigel Furness asked; “As you appear to be desperately distancing your current Administration from your previous 'Green' Coalition bedfellows, Councillor Sankey, can you please enlighten this Chamber as to whether your actions will involve 'pausing' ALL their proposed plans or just a select few?”   

 

16.21   Councillor Sankey replied; “Thank you for your question Mr Furness, and let me reassure you that Labour has never been in coalition with the Greens locally. We are very different political parties, with fundamentally different values, priorities, and political philosophies.

 

You are right that there were a number of decisions taken during the last administration which we have urgently reviewed and decided not to proceed with. This includes reversing the decision to increase street parking fees by 300% including next to our main hospital, re-opening public toilets, restoring our lifeguard service, scrapping the fines being dished out to small businesses unlucky enough to have their premises graffitied and getting the buses back along Western Road as quickly as possible to end the disruption to our bus travelers and residents on the Seven Dials diversion and those living on Upper North Street. We’ve also taken action to judicially review the Home Office over its threat to place unaccompanied children alone in a hotel in Hove, something the previous Administration refused to do, and there are many other things we are changing. 

 

In other areas we are reviewing and amending projects that are already partly underway. For example, the active travel scheme for our seafront which in our view was being done on the cheap by the previous Administration and delivering a messy outcome for cyclists, pedestrians, bus passengers and those using cars. Our alternative will create a two-way cycle lane that follows the most direct route without the loop around the King Alfred that causes issues for pedestrians and cyclists – I've had enough near misses there myself with my toddlers.

 

Our approach is, however, driven not by which administration introduced the proposal, whether it is Green, Labour, or Conservative. It is driven solely and exclusively on what is in the best interests of the residents of the city, what is fair and what makes financial and practical sense. 

 

We were also elected under a manifesto that promised to the people of Brighton & Hove a competent, responsible leadership with clear priorities. These have been reflected in the draft Council plan which Members will be asked to agree today.”  

 

16.22   Helen Dear asked; “In light of the recent road collapse in East Street exposing tunnels below (reported in the Argus a few weeks ago), has the council yet concluded the cause of the collapse, and was it related to the city's Victorian sewer system?”

16.23   Councillor Rowkins replied; “The council’s investigations have concluded that the collapse was not caused by the sewer system. We believe the void was caused by an old leaking surface water pipe that has long since been deactivated and capped off. There were no signs of ongoing leaks during the excavation, and the void has been repaired.”

16.24   Derek Wright asked; “In light of the fact that Valley Gardens Three has been deferred. Can I ask the council to take this opportunity and review the traffic /transport/parking measures on Madeira Drive West as at the moment they are causing disruption and are leading vehicles into making dangerous manoeuvres?’  And a supplementary question about Madeira Drive East Street lighting: Will the Madeira Drive East Street lighting be connected to the electricity supply this year? “

 

16.25   Councillor Muten replied; “Thank you for your question, Mr Wright. The Valley Gardens scheme has yet to commence its first procurement phase. This allows for the opportunity to ensure that it is the correct scheme for the city. Madeira Drive is not included within that scheme and is still being monitored.  I will ensure that your concerns around vehicles parking will be fed back into that review.   

 

The street lighting to the east of Madeira Drive relates to the enabling works at the Black Rock site and the project manager is currently working with the principal contractor to obtain a likely completion date.  Once this is confirmed, I can arrange for you to be informed.”

 

16.26   Julia Basnett asked; “Will Council review how it interprets rules on public questions, deputations and petitions? For some years, I’ve been aware of public attempts to assert scrutiny arbitrarily blocked by council officials and/or leaders. There’s a good reason why the efficient running of committees requires a defence against persistent submissions on exact same issues when satisfactory answers were already given. Rejecting a submission because a Chair feels, with democratic principles in mind, it will cause undue irritation, worry or clearly damage the good reputation of someone can also be reasonable. However, some feel rejections are too often unreasonable and essentially undemocratic.”

 

16.27   Councillor Sankey replied; “Thank you for your question, Ms Basnett. We took office as an administration on the 25th May following the local elections on 4th May. I cannot therefore say what happened or did not happen in the past. I can however give you our administration’s commitment to openness, transparency and active public engagement. 

We have rules in our constitution that are designed to enable Members of the public to submit questions, petition and deputations. We also have the Mayor, the Chief Executive and the Monitoring Officer who oversee the application of the rules in an objective and impartial way. My understanding is that we have more public engagement items than most comparable authorities. But, whatever the position, as an administration, we definitely value the contributions from the public and will not do anything to stifle it. 

I would also like to highlight that public engagement and scrutiny is not limited to formal council and committee meetings. In fact, most members of the public are not necessarily aware of or feel inclined to use them. 

One of the main criticisms we heard from residents over the course of the local election campaign was the previous Green Administration’s refusal to listen to residents and consult properly on their ideas. We are therefore committed to looking at ways of enhancing public involvement and engagement. Next month I will commence monthly Leader’s surgeries, visiting a different ward across the City each month to hear directly from residents about the issues that are affecting them so we can take action where necessary. In the autumn we will also announce a City-wide consultation exercise aimed at engaging as many residents as possible in developing our vision for the City.  And while me and my Policy Chairs are spending some of our time at both Hove and Brighton Town Halls, we are also out and about on a daily basis meeting civil society groups, speaking with residents and being as visible and accessible as possible.

I would finish by reiterating our absolute commitment to openness and transparency.”

 

 

16.28   Emma Wall asked; “What is the timescale for the council offices to re-open post pandemic?”

 

16.29   Councillor Sankey replied; “Council offices are open and information regarding opening times can be found on the council’s website.”

16.30   Baz Brooks asked; “It is great that this new Labour Council are committing to an ‘Accessible City for Everyone’ and have started an 'Equalities, Community Safety & Human Rights Committee' to this end, but why haven’t I received an invitation to join as a registered disabled individual/Blue Badge Holder resident in Brighton and Hove?”

 

16.31   Councillor Pumm replied; “The committee was established by full Council in May for elected councillors to oversee the work set out in the Terms of Reference. It includes fours non-elected standing invitees' members and currently there are no plans to extend the number of standing invitees. However, members of the public are welcome to attend and ask questions.”  

 

16.32   Penny Koster asked; “We all recently had a shock with the proposal to quadruple city parking charges so how will Brighton and Hove City Council ensure a fair parking policy for all going forwards?'”

 

16.33   Councillor Muten replied; “Thank you for your question. I agree that the previous administration's unilateral decision rejected by both Labour and the Tories at January’s Environment, Transport and Sustainability Committee to as much as quadruple parking charges in parts of our city was shocking. Expecting low paid NHS or care workers to work for at least 2 hours each day to pay parking fees near the Royal County Hospital cannot be the answer to climate emergency, especially during a cost-of-living crisis. The “big-stick” approach without effective, accessible, safe and affordable encouragement for alternative means of travel has the real potential to be counter-productive by disempowering many from taking the steps needed to move towards low carbon alternatives. We need to respond to the climate emergency. Where environmental improvements are accessible only to the privileged few who can afford to or are able to make the change we all need; we will all fail. Further, the logical extension of the previous administration’s car-prohibition whilst reliant on the income from car owners is clearly unsustainable. This is why we are pursing a strategic review of car parking and income that works for our whole city.  We must urgently ensure that the modal shift to a low carbon transport system is safe, accessible and affordable to all.” 

 

16.34   Lizzie Deane asked; “My question relates to the content and minutes of the emergency Transport & Sustainability Committee of 21st June, in which the Chairs Communications were recorded in full, whereas the content of the entire ensuing debate is recorded as “Councillors Davis, Bagaeen, Robinson, Pumm, Miller, Grimshaw, Assaduzzaman and Czolak asked questions and contributed to the debate of the report”. Do you consider this to be an adequate record, or could it be a deliberate obfuscation of the points raised in response to a proposal where the Labour administration intends to unpick a scheme that they themselves had agreed to, a proposal that stands to be at considerable cost to the taxpayer, not to mention a further disruption along the seafront?”

 

16.35   Councillor Muten replied; “Minutes are not a verbatim record of the proceedings, but a summary and record of the decisions taken. A proposal for shorter minutes was taken to the Policy & Resources Committee meeting on 1 December 2022 which agreed to note the recommendations that written minutes should be substantially shorter for those meetings where there is the availability of a webcast recording and that the shorter minutes will include the subject matter description, the names of those who spoke on the matter and the Committee resolution. Subsequently, the Minutes of the Special Transport & Sustainability Committee held on 21 June 2023 were presented to the meeting of Transport & Sustainability Committee on 6 July 2023 and agreed by the committee as a true and accurate record of the proceedings. The webcast recording of the Special Transport & Sustainability Committee is available for viewing at https://aisapps.sonicfoundry.com/AuditelScheduler/Player/Index/?id=fa449636-8e70-4ac4-a7d3-3f3dcaff77e6&presID=f3f410697c8c462cb4e6240119c4d0371d. 

Further to this, the Special Committee meeting of the Transport and Sustainability Committee was to ensure due process was thoroughly adhered to. The decision made by the committee was to better the design of the A259 Fourth Avenue to Wharf Road Active Travel Scheme. This betterment includes closer adherence to Active Travel Inspectorate and LC1/20 Active Travel standards through inclusion of bi-directional cycle lanes rather than directing eastbound cyclists through  the often busy promenade south of King Alfred and Medina Terraces, making it safer and more accessible for pedestrians and setting out to keep two lanes highway in both directions enabling potential future bus service capacity expansion. Better scheme for a better environment through establishing low carbon multi-modal integrated transport along our major arterial seafront route. Why settle for less?”