Agenda item - Written questions from members of the public

A list of public questions received by the due date of 12noon on 26 January 2024 will be circulated separately as part of an addendum for the meeting.

78.1    The deputy mayor reported that 11 written questions had been received from members of the public and invited Omaid Hiwaizi to come forward and address the council.

Q1.     Omaid Hiwaizi asked a question: Plant-based diets result in 75% less GHG emissions and land-use than diets with 100g of meat daily. They cut wildlife destruction 66% and water-use 54%. An analysis by the Office of Health Economics shows that plant-based diets would save the NHS £6.7bn yearly, with 2.1?million fewer cases of disease. Research consistently shows that local governments are trusted more than national politicians making the council well-positioned to introduce plant-based initiatives and deliver public education. Can Brighton join Haywards Heath, Edinburgh, Exmouth, Norwich, Lambeth and Norwich, by endorsing the Plant Based Treaty and developing an action plan like Edinburgh?    

Councillor Taylor replied on behalf of Councillor De Oliveira: Thank you for your question which raises a number of important points. The research you have cited is obviously correct and justified. You’re absolutely right to say there are health benefits from a plant-based diet. We’ll consider your request and write to you.

Omaid Hiwaizi asked a supplementary question: I would wonder if you would be open in your considerations to carry out an impact assessment in the way that Edinburgh did, and if that would be helpful, I can send you copy of their impact assessment because there’s potentially a way of responding to this and to be clear about the benefits and potential challenges in Brighton and Hove. So I’d be very happy to do that.

Councillor Taylor replied: Thank you for the suggestion. Yes, if you could email that to Councillor De Oliveira I’m sure he’ll look at it and be happy to correspond with you. Thank you. 

The questioners for question 2 and 3 were not in attendance so the deputy mayor moved to the next question.

Q4.     Clara Usiskin asked a question: Has Labour u-turned on declaring a biodiversity emergency? 

Councillor Rowkins replied: No, Labour has not u-turned on the biodiversity emergency. We are working on a number of large-scale biodiversity projects in and around the city that are focused entirely on aiding nature recovery, including implementing the City Downland Estate Plan – which as you probably know is a landscape-scale intervention to restore wild chalk grassland on the South Downs and to move local farming practices away from the intensive methods of the late 20th century towards a more sustainable and regenerative future. Wild chalk grassland is incredibly species rich, and the South Downs represents 44% of the city’s footprint, so this will have a profound impact on local and regional biodiversity. However, Brighton and Hove is a city. We have a duty to look after our residents too, and that includes providing safe and accessible infrastructure. We are currently failing in that duty, and after 5 years of unchecked weed growth and no plan, we need a reset to get the situation back under control. We have spent months thoroughly assessing all of the options and if there was another way to control the problem, which again I would just illustrate is much worse than it was because of five years of there being no plan, we need a reset to get the situation back under control. We spent many months thoroughly assessing all of the options and if there was another way to control the problem I can assure you we would be doing it.

If we had u-turned on the biodiversity crisis, we would have voted for the conventional glyphosate application method favoured by most other local authorities. It would have solved the problem, been easier to source and cost less money. Instead, we voted for a new approach that strikes the right balance.

Clara Usiskin asked a supplementary question:Is there a council strategy being implemented for reducing the generation of plastic waste on the sea front in pursuit of the broader biodiversity emergency?

Councillor Rowkins replied: I think that’s a very good point. One of the things that’s striking to me, and was striking to me when I first came into this role, is that we have a lot of strategies and plans for the city, we’ve got a very far reaching ambitious plan for the South Downs, but we don’t have a big large-scale strategy for how we treat the sea. I think that’s something we need to work towards and certainly reducing plastics would form a fundamental part of that. So I would absolutely agree.

Q5.     Suda Perera asked a question: Why the decision on Bright Start is being rushed through without a community consultation on future childcare needs and why co-location is not being considered a viable option? 

Councillor Taylor replied: As part of our proposals for Bright Start, as you are aware, the option that was voted on back in November was to move the nursery to the Tarner Family Hub which is very close by. We think this is a much better solution than the previous proposal which was to close the nursey entirely. We had a parent consultation which I joined and spoke to many parents. We have said before and since that it would be a meaningful consultation with parents, and it has been because the proposal that was initially in the paper has been changed. And the proposal that has now come out based on feedback is that we should change the operating hours and the number of weeks available for the nursery. Twenty-two places would be available for children between two and five years old. That means that all children currently at Bright Start nursery can take up a place. I’m aware that there are two children that are below the age of two and they can be accommodated at the new setting up until they turn two and then they will be in the age group. As far as co-location being considered: that is what the option is. It is being co-located with a number of other important services that are council run at the family hub. That’s in line with our broader policy which is often nurseries are based in family hubs. We think that makes sense. Other services for families and children are available in that hub and so co-location is a core part of the model we’re putting forward.

Suda Perera asked a supplementary question: Just to clarify: the parents who are on the Bright Start waiting list, parents who are currently expecting children, were purposefully excluded from that consultation, so the consultation isn’t fully meaningful. But parents have also suggested co-location at St Barts School where there would be space for a baby room, and in line with Labour’s national policy of co-locating nurseries in primary schools, which would be a sensible option to save a much loved school in the city as well. We are wondering why the council is refusing to even look into this option and ignoring the lived experience of families in the North Laine?

Councillor Taylor Replied: So that has been considered and that was brought to committee both as, I think, a deputation and as a proposed amendment from the Green Group and we did respond to that. The truth is that the two issues are obviously slightly separate. Our schools issue that we have in the city is that we have a dramatic fall in the number of pupils of primary age and we’ve had to take action. Very sad action that we have regretted and don’t want to take but we were convinced it is the right thing to do for the primary sector in the city and that’s what head teachers have consistently told us has needed to happen. Placing a nursery in such a school would not save the school as some people have presented. Nobody has really explained why it would save the school as the school has a large deficit.

Suda Perera added: It would provide a steady income of nursery aged children who would then go to that primary school.

Councillor Taylor replied: It probably wouldn’t because those children could go to that school right now if they want. There is a large amount of excess capacity in the city centre in primary schools and so putting a nursery there doesn’t guarantee they would go to that nursery. Indeed there are already lots of nurseries based in schools where children don’t necessarily go on to that school. So it wouldn’t fix the problem unfortunately. It’s a perfectly legitimate thing to suggest and we answered it fully. That doesn’t solve the problem with schools in the city and it also doesn’t solve the issue we are looking to solve on nurseries.

Q6.     Stuart Lauchlan asked a question: Clarendon Mansions is a block of 12 flats on the seafront, housing around 30 residents within the CIZ. Given our location, we are surrounded by bars, venues and two 24 hour off-licences. We recognize the importance of the nighttime economy. That said, there are ongoing problems with licence breaches and lack of enforcement of the terms of those licences. To date, we have struggled to have these issues addressed by officers. As Clarendon Mansions Residents Association, can we meet with councillors, council officers and impacted local businesses to discuss the situation and find a satisfactory resolution for all concerned? 

Councillor Sheard replied on behalf of Councillor Daniel: Clarendon Mansions is located within the Cumulative Impact Zone where there are a number of licenced premises on East Street and the surrounding area. Officers have dealt with a number of complaints over the period of time and they would be happy to meet with residents to discuss specific concerns as I am sure local councillors would also be prepared to do.

Stuart Lauchlan asked a supplementary question: It’s very welcome to hear that. We have been told this before and those meetings have never taken place. So what can we do to ensure they actually happen this time?

Councillor Sheard replied: I’m sorry to hear that and I understand that when residents aren’t listened to it’s absolutely frustrating. I fully believe that this is a frustrating situation and my heart goes out to you. All I can hope to say is that we are still in a new administration, and I have worked with Councilor Thompson for Regency issues and I am more than happy to step in myself through Councillor Thompson. So all I’d say is, if you start again I will help make sure this gets done as I know Councillor Daniel will on her return.

Q7.     Bev Barstow asked a question: At the recent CFS meeting, the Chair confirmed that it will respond to draft DfE guidance (on Gender Questioning Children) by pointing out that it does not meet relevant legal obligations. Can you please list for me what these legal concerns are and why you say you will recommend the 'toolkit' to schools rather than the DfE guidance?" 

Councillor Helliwell replied: As confirmed in that meeting, we will be responding to the consultation and publishing our response including where we think the draft guidance does not appear to meet all the relevant legal obligations. At the moment there is no final DFE guidance to recommend. What has been published is a draft for consultation. The Government’s own lawyer’s advice has been leaked that has drafted operating a starting point against social transitioning would be unlawful, and the assertion in the guidance there is no duty to allow a child to social transition meant a “high risk of successful challenge to the guidance on the basis that this statement is misleading or inaccurate”. The leaked legal advice also expressed that, the failure in the draft guidance to provide balanced advice on the law in relation to discrimination “doesn’t give schools the correct legal test to apply”. The government lawyers appear to have given warnings about several other key aspects of the guidance, including in relation to toilets and uniform. The draft guidance itself acknowledges that this is legally uncertain when it says in the final paragraphs: “This guidance covers areas that remain untested in the courts.” What is needed is nuanced guidance that respects that individual cases are different, and there is a careful balancing exercise to be done to promote the welfare of students.  This council will be joining many other organisations in identifying to the government the ways in which we consider the guidance misrepresents the law and does not provide the guidance that is needed to promote the welfare of all our students, including those vulnerable to discrimination. Our response will be published.

Bev Barstow asked a supplementary question: As our elected administration, it is important you inform residents why exactly you think the Department of Education guidance is flawed. Discredited groups such as the Good Law Project, wrongly assert that the Department of Education guidance is legally flawed and reputable lawyers and commentators have demonstrated that legal flaws exist in the Trans Toolkit. Does the council agree that recommending schools ignore the Department of Education guidance in favour of continued use of the Toolkit will leave schools in limbo and exposed to very serious criticism. I hope you will make the position clear to schools without delay.

Councillor Helliwell replied: We have made our response clear to schools and we have recommended that they continue to use the Trans Toolkit as this is just a consultation, this is not official guidance. Our response will be published and so you will be able to see clearly where we feel that this does not meet legal requirement.

Q8.     Katie Blood asked a question: Would the full council agree that as suggested in government guidance about consultations with the public, that they should "include validated impact assessments of the costs and benefits of the options being considered"? 

Councillor Taylor replied: Thank you for your question which obviously comes in the context of our proposals on school reorganisation and the very difficult proposals to close two schools in the city. I think the guidance you’re referring to is Cabinet Office published guidance in 2018 that refers to how government departments should conduct consultations, which isn’t directly relevant to this process. Our process is governed by, not guidance, but a statutory piece of guidance from the Department of Education in 2023 that outlines the process for proposers and decision makers on opening and closing maintained schools. We’ve obviously been following that guidance. We’re obviously still in the process at the moment which is statutory notices have been issued then a further meeting will take place in the Childrens, Families and Schools Committee then ultimately the decision on these proposals will go to Full Council in March. It’s worth nothing that obviously we’ve taken legal advice throughout this process on how we conduct the statutory consultation and we’re very confident we followed that all the way through. In terms of the substance of your questions in terms of weighing up options and costs and benefits. Clearly that’s what councillors have had to do and that’s what’s been in the papers that have gone to committee. Theres been a very full set of papers that have been considered very carefully by this administration and all councillors who vote on the options.

Katie Blood asked a supplementary question: So actually that guidance is from the Closing Schools Guidance, so that is absolutely what should be being followed. But your answer didn’t refer to financial costs and benefits. These have not been calculated for school closures. Why does the council think it’s correct that there are no calculations to show financial implications for school closures?

Councillor Taylor replied: I know this has been discussed a number of times both at committee and in writing about the costs and really what you’re asking is: is there a completely validated cost for if a school is to close? We’ve been very clear that we can make estimates on that, which is that there is a cost obviously for absorbing the deficit budget for a school that closes; there is likely to be some cost potentially on redundancy of staff, which has been estimated but can’t truly be known until we work through redeployment and potential redundancy; there’ve also been costs we’ve been very transparent about that the council have allocated resources to help support the transition proves and we’ve been clear across that that happens for both schools and that’s about £200,000. So the costs have been estimated, but we can’t have an exact figure. But the costs are pretty clear, and we’re pretty clear as an administration that we didn’t want to make any of these proposals. Why on earth would any council want to propose the closure of a school? It’s the last thing we would want to do. But we’re very clear that the financial position of schools across the city in the primary sector is so drastic and the fall in numbers of pupils have made too many schools unviable in their budgets, and not able to provide the support they need to SEND pupils, that we had to take some action on this. And that taking the action now will result in less deficits growing in the future. So we have absolutely weighed up the cost and the benefits and that’s what we’ve done in making these proposals.

Q9.     John McCooke asked a question: What does the council understand by the term conversion therapy? 

Councillor Pumm replied: CT includes acts that may be committed with the intention of changing a person’s sexual orientation and / or gender identity. Under existing criminal law, physical conversion therapy practices are already prohibited via a range of criminal offences such as rape, assault and forcibly administering drugs. The government indicated that it would look to define conversion therapy further in its legislation to ban CT. In the meantime, we remain fully committed to being a fair, inclusive and accessible council and city where everyone should feel, and be, safe to live as their authentic selves. 

Q10.   Stuart Conway asked a question: On the 14th of November 2023 the Council issued a notice under Section 94b, and schedule 3a of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, expanding the flyering  licence area. The notice specifically mentions the handing out of political material, and the flyering licencing team confirm it would cover candidates' flyers during an election. SHEDULE 3a section 1.4.b of the EPA 1990 excludes distribution "for political purposes or for the purposes of religion or belief". 

Should the notice and any others like it, and the council website, be amended to show these exclusions, and enforcement staff informed? 

Councillor Rowkins replied: Thank you for bringing this to our attention. The short answer is yes. The information provided on the flyering page of the website was indeed incorrect and has since been updated to remove the reference to political material. The Environmental Enforcement Framework sets out the offences for which enforcement action will be taken, which includes flyering. This is approved by the relevant Committee before new enforcement activities are implemented. The Framework has always had the correct information in it.  Environmental Officers are aware of when and when not to issue a Fixed Penalty Notice in relation to flyering. The team have asked me to pass on their apologies for the incorrect information being on the website. 

Q11.   Adrian Hill asked a question: Last meeting we heard Cllr Rowkins talk about smoke control areas. He suggested that it was previously possible to enforce smoke control areas.  Contrary to these suggestions I understand that new regulation has only recently been made available and it wasn’t previously possible to enforce.  Can you please clarify the nature of the new regulations, when they were made available to the council and whether other councils have been able to use the new regulations? 

Councillor Rowkins replied: During the last Full Council meeting, as you said, the Green Group called on the new administration to expand the city’s existing smoke control areas. In my response I outlined that there had been no enforcement or preventative action within the city’s existing smoke control areas during the previous administration, and also made the broad point that there’s little point expanding something that currently doesn’t really do anything. Local authorities do indeed have the ability to enforce and have done for some time. The most recent government guidance, which is dated May 2022, outlines the powers local authorities have to enforce smoke control areas, and those include written warnings and fines as you would expect. DEFRA, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, has recently made a revenue grant of £11,710 to those UK authorities with smoke control areas under the Air Quality New Version Determination. The purpose of that grant is to provide support to local authorities to improve enforcement and management of smoke emissions in smoke control areas. This winter for the first time, as you probably recall from the last meeting, our Trading Standards officers visited suppliers and retailers of solid fuels in order to check the material entering the city is compliant with the requirement of our smoke control areas as they stand currently.

Adrian Hill asked a supplementary question: PM 2.5 is double the World Health Organisation levels and we have 35,000 asthmatics in the city. I think every one of us will have or will suffer from blood pressure, heart disease or cancer in our lifetime. This is a serious issue and I think that the current rate of progress is barely scratching the surface. In your manifesto you said you would consult, and I’ve asked for a meeting with Councillor Muten as well but we haven’t met. I think some of the possible inaccuracies and judgements could be ironed out if we met and discussed these things and spoke. I was just wondering if you would agree to a meeting fairly soon to discuss?

Councillor Rowkins replied: We did meet, I think not long after the election in the summer. Councillor Muten and I would be very happy to meet with you again. As someone who’s campaigned on this issue, thank you and well done for keeping it on the agenda. Emissions from smoke, particularly emissions from solid fuels, is an issue. One thing we don’t currently have in the city is very good data. I believe we only have one monitoring station that’s not by a roadside which therefore gives us a better idea of what’s coming potentially from the solid fuels, but we are working to improve that monitoring capability as well as our ability to enforce and take preventative action. As I say, we’ll be very happy to meet and pick up the conversation from there.

Adrian Hill added: Just on the point of good data – its double the WHO data, but there are other monitors that also show that. I think there’s enough data to show that the problem is severe and we need action.

Councillor Rowkins replied: I’ll just come back briefly on that. That data is there, but how much of it comes from solid fuels is unclear at this point. If we’re going to start enforcing, we need to find where we focus that enforcement because obviously doing it over a city-wide area would be quite difficult.