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;

(b)           Written Questions: To receive any questions submitted by the due date of 12 noon on the 3 November 2023;

(c)           Deputations: To receive any deputations submitted by the due date of 12 noon on the 3 November 2023.

Written Questions

26.1 The Chair invited Catherine Lane to ask her question regarding the Pride Village Party on page 5 of Addendum 2.

26.2 The Chair gave the following response:

We have powers under the Town and Police Clause Act 1847 Section 21 to put in place road closures for events such as the Pride Village Party. The wristband scheme was introduced a few years ago following significant safety concerns with over 40,000 attendees coming to the At James Street area with little or no management of control. This represented a severe risk to public safety and also represented an insurmountable challenge to emergency services. 

We consider both the Pride Village Party road closure and the wristband scheme to be proportionate, reasoned and justified – and therefore lawful. Under our agreement with Pride residents and business owners are given the opportunity to receive free access to the Pride Village Party area through the wristband system. However, visitors to the city can be charged for the wristbands. 

The detail of how the wristband scheme is managed with regard to residents and businesses – including local visitor accommodation providers – is a matter for Pride but will form part of any ongoing reviews of the Pride Celebrations in the City.

26.3 The Chair then invited Catherine Lane to ask the following supplementary question:

Are you aware of the exact law, because I have a letter from the head of the department for transport national case work team that says the law is unambiguous on this matter. The orders you mentioned cannot be made if any such order shall be made with respect to any road which would have the effect of preventing at any time access for pedestrians. Any premises situated on or adjacent to the road or to any premises accessible for pedestrians from and only from the road. Manchester Pride were told not to do this, and I have a lot of documents from the department for transport saying that this is illegal.

26.4 The Chair requested that Catherine Lane send in the documents mentioned to the legal department so that a conversation can be held about them.

26.5 The Chair invited Tracey Tarrant to ask her question about Beach Huts on page 5 of Addendum 2.

26.6 The Chair gave the following response:

The proposed fee is a transfer fee payable on the sale of a beach hut.  The fee amount reflects the value of the hut based on its location on the seafront at the point of sale on the open market and not the profit to the hut owner. This approach accords with the approach taken by other local authorities, as set out in the report on the agenda for this meeting.

26.9 The Chair invited Laurence Barrett to ask his question regarding Noise Control at Outdoor Events found on page 5 of Addendum 2.

26.10 The Chair gave the following response:

The Pop Code is now over 20 years old, and the working group is currently redrafting it to reflect current best practices.

In 2018, the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health (CIEH) withdrew the Pop Code.

That said, Brighton and Hove City Council currently adheres to a Pop Code compatible policy. 

The code provides a framework, emphasising the importance of relying upon professional experience, best practice, and context to deliver the best possible outcomes for any specific event and location.

Brighton and Hove City Council mandate the employment of a reputable acoustic contractor to prepare a sound management plan, implement robust noise controls, and report on specific noise levels.

This practice is in line with the recommendations within the Pop Code and reflects the current methodology employed by many similar local authorities.

26.11 The Chair invited Laurence Barrett to ask the following supplementary question:

Is the Chair aware that the outdoor events development manager has sent me an email on 13 September 2023 contradicting what you’ve just said, suggesting that, particularly the event in question I’m talking about, is run at an equivalent level of purpose built stadiums and arenas, not as a residential or suburban event.

26.12 The Chair invited Laurence Barrett to send in the email mentioned, and confirmed a response would be sent to Laurence Barrett after the meeting.

Deputations

26.13 Councillor Meadows raised a query that resident’s addresses were included in the deputation, and Elizabeth Culbert confirmed that the mistake had been recitifed and reported to the information commissioner’s office.

26.14 The Chair invited Catherine Biggs to present her deputation regarding Beach Hut Licences found on page 7 of Addendum 2:

26.15 The Chair gave the following response:

(1) The focus of the consultation was to present a modernised licence and to consult on the changes being proposed.  The new licence was updated to reflect feedback and regular contact with beach hut owners through the ongoing management of the beach huts. I (Cllr Robins) personally attended a recent meeting of the HBHA to answer questions and hear the views of beach hut owners on the proposals.

(2) The consultation arrangements are covered in the report which will be discussed as part of this agenda item and the Council believes that the consultation has been a meaningful part of the process to update the beach hut licence.  the Licence fee, the current licence states the annual fee is set by the council and hut owners are notified of the new fee in advance of April 1st each year.  This clause remains in the updated licence as this is the customary way the council sets annual fees and charges for the Seafront service.

Under the current beach hut licence, the council may require hut owners to remove their hut without specifying a reason for doing so. The new licence states that the council will only be able to require the hut owners to remove their huts from council land for the following reasons: 

•         in the event of redevelopment of the land 

•         for public safety reasons.   

This provides more certainty and protection for the beach hut owners than under the current arrangements. 

(3) The Legal implications are addressed in the report that we will be discussing this and the report provides assurance that the Council is acting lawfully. 

(4) As set out in the report before Committee tonight, the council received 145 written responses to the consultation (31.5% of the total number of beach hut owners).  These were read by the Officers and split into themes. Following feedback from the consultation the proposed licence has been amended. The redecoration clause which had stated that the beach hut must be painted annually has been amended to state that painting must be completed as soon as reasonably practicable and, in any event, at least every two years. A revised specification to that which was in the proposed licence has been inserted into the amended licence. This reflects the previously relaxed rules regarding a single solid door colour and that stripes are now permitted and the updated specification in the licence makes this clear. 

(5) The licence being put forward for approval by the Committee the consultation responses. In addition to the modernised licence, the council will also consider further ways in which to generate income, for example enforcement of dilapidated beach huts and building beach huts on vacant sites as suggested by beach hut owners. Lines of communication remain open between the Seafront team, the HBHA and individual beach hut owners. 

26.16 The Committee agreed to note the deputation.

26.17 The Chair invited Martin Lloyd Williams to present his deputation regarding Inadequate Expenses for B&H Remembrance Ceremonies found on page 7 of Addendum 2:

26.18 The Chair gave the following response:

Thank you for raising this important issue. I understand that this is an issue the Council has struggled with for some time in the context of decreasing resources. I cannot promise that we will be able to increase the funding in the way requested for the memorial services given the current extremely challenging financial climate. ?We will, however, review this budget in the context of the overall budget planning and setting process to be determined in February.

26.18 Councillors Hill and Meadows suggested calling for an officer report on the deputation but were advised the issue should go through the budget council process.

26.19 The Committee agreed to note the deputation.