Agenda item - Oral questions from Councillors

83.1    The Deputy mayor noted that oral questions had been submitted and that 30 minutes was set aside for the duration of the item. She asked that both the questioner and responder endeavour to keep their questions and answers brief, to enable the questions listed to be taken.

Q1.    Councillor Davis asked a question: At Full Council on 14^th December the Leader of the Council said, and I quote: “I must be clear, and for the record, that the GMB has contributed nothing to the election of any of our Labour Group members”. In light of these comments, could the leader clarify if using any of the GMB offices for local election activities counts to a contribution? I draw her attention to a tweet from Councillor Daniels on 9^th November of herself, Labour Group colleagues and campaign staff in the GMB offices which states: “Thanks GMB for the loan of the room and the kettle”.

Councillor Sankey replied: Councillor Davis is absolutely right, we did use the GMB room during our election campaign. I’ll check with Democratic Services as to whether that counts as an election expense. I’m not sure whether it does.

Councillor Davis asked a supplementary question: The Council Leader was categorical about her statement saying GMB has contributed nothing to the election of any Labour Group members. If this is the case, can she please explain the £4200 donation from the GMB to Lloyd Russell-Moyle MP on the 27^th April 2024. This donation was declared on the electoral commission and is on the register of interests for, and I quote: “printing and distribution costs - local election material”. If the Leader was mistaken previously, will she now correct the record?

Councillor Sankey replied: I have no knowledge of the matter that Councillor Davis has raised but I will of course go and check up on this and revert.

Q2.     Councillor McNair asked a question: The Leader of the Council claimed that Labour would listen. But what evidence is there that Labour is a listening Council given that they didn’t listen to residents on St Bartholemew’s or St Peter’s or to consultations on the aquarium roundabout?

Councillor Sankey replied: There are lots of examples of us being a listening council, as we heard earlier this evening, we listened to the students of our city asking for counselling in schools, and despite a horrendous economic management of our nation’s economy by your party, and a budget deficit of £30 million this year, we have found the funds to pilot a schools counselling project. We listened last summer when residents were appalled by the parking charge hikes contained in the last Green budget. We slashed the proposed 300% increases around our county hospital. And we’ve listened again to our residents across the city who said they want to keep their existing light-touch parking schemes and we reduced the proposed resident parking fee baked again into the last Green budget. We listened to parents on low incomes in our city who said that their children have less choice of secondary school and having consulted on a trail-blazing proposal to give children on free school meals priority in secondary school admissions, which has already received national recognition. We are moving forward with that policy. We listened to private renters who told us that they want greater landlord licensing and we’ve already implemented a scheme to fine landlords refusing to keep their properties in good quality. We listened to the ordinary residents of our city who said that our public toilets are precious to them. We’ve re-opened them, kept them open, kept them free, refurbished them and, in this budget, committed to reopening Royal Pavilion Gardens’ toilets. We listened to small businesses, scrapping fines for small businesses made victims of crime through graffiti tagging and commencing a review of our approach to Fixed Penalty Notices. I listened directly to residents at my bi-monthly Leader’s Surgeries across the city and have already taken forward a policy proposal directly from one of these surgeries, extending free school meal-equivalent vouchers to children educated outside of school settings. We listened to the disabled resident in Gardner Street left trapped in her home by Green ideology. We listened to those with loud voices and we listened to those who don’t often hold the microphone, like our care leavers who asked us to set up a mentoring scheme. They asked and we did. We also listened to our staff. Those that blew the whistle on abuse at City Clean and those that asked us to accelerate the resolution of a dispute with two recognised unions to bring forward a settlement on equal pay and to get money into the pockets of over 800 of our valued staff. I could go on and on. We are responsive. We are listening. We are here to serve the beautiful, weird, and wonderful residents of our beautiful city. We won’t always please everyone but we will always act with compassion, sincerity and courage.

Councillor McNair asked a supplementary question: How will residents recognise that you have listened to them regarding the Royal Mail development in Patcham?

Councillor Sankey replied:

As Councillor McNair knows, that issue is subject to a planning application at present so I think it would be inappropriate for me to comment any further.

Q3.    Councillor Fishleigh asked a question: What new sites have been identified for Park and Ride, when will they be ready, is the bus company on board, and how much has been allocated in the upcoming budget?

Councillor Muten replied:

Perhaps unbelievably, Park and Ride has been under consideration by Brighton and Hove City Council for at least 20 years. In 2004-5, 107 sites were considered, 58 had more detailed assessments, 13 shortlisted, with one preferred site with a Committee report presented December 2005 with no decision made. In 2008-2010, Park and Ride was revisited with desktop review of the sites shortlisted in 2004, along with site visits. Multiple smaller sites approached, approximately 500 spaces with three new sites added for consideration and it was used to form the 2011 Local Transport plan 3, includes reference to new Park and Ride sites. In 2016, a £5 million funding bid that included Park and Ride was unsuccessful.  More recently, following action from the 2021 Climate Assembly, a Park and Ride feasibility study was undertaken between 2021-2023 But the Green administration was not committed to it. Labour on the other hand chose to include park and ride as a priority in our 2023 manifesto and we intend to deliver on it. Twenty years of assessment and inaction is simply not good enough. We know Park and Ride is important for our city and this is why we’re currently reviewing potential options for a formal Park and Ride facility. We know that on busy days up to 40% of vehicles driving to our city centre are from out of town. Park and Ride is both good for prosperity and the health of our city, enabling more to come to Brighton and Hove whilst having a lower impact on air quality.

Councillor Fishleigh asked a supplementary question: I was going to ask if Park and Ride would be ready before Valley Gardens 3 starts, but I think the answer’s going to be no. I’d like to suggest a new option for a site, which is building a multi-storey on the top of the existing car park at Asda in Hollingbury. Asda is owned by a company that is always looking to sweat its assets. They are open to a conversation. That location is right by the A27 with no homes in the direct vicinity, bus lanes on the A23 Would you commit to investigating this site please?

Councillor Muten replied: I certainly welcome that proposal as something to investigate further. I’m happy to take that up and come back to you on that. That sounds like something of particular value and there are other sites as well which we are actively exploring because we seriously want to get this resolved. It might be more than one site and it may be working with third parties such as supermarkets and other big spaces and car parks in existence in our city so thank you for that. A report will come to the Transport and Sustainability Committee soon in which we will set out clear options on next steps and budgetary requirements. Potential stakeholders, such as the bus operators, will be engaged as part of this process. 

The deputy mayor noted that question 4 had been withdrawn and moved on the following question

Q5.     Councillor Hill asked a question: Residents in Round Hill monitor amphibians in a twitten known as the Cat’s Creep each year. Last year there were around 400 sightings of frogs, newts and toads between February and March. The amphibians congregate to mate and travel to nearby ponds. There are unobtrusive but clearly visible weeds providing cover both in spring and later in the spring when the young merge into the ponds. As amphibian skin is one of its most vital organs, they are especially vulnerable to glyphosate exposure, even in low concentrations. The report on glyphosate passed last Environment Committee states that it will be applied where weeds are visible. Can the report be amended to ensure that even where there are visible weeds on the Cats Creep, they will be exempted from being sprayed with glyphosate?

Councillor Rowkins replied: Thank you for your question and liaising with your residents. As you know I’ve also been in touch with them. I’m very well aware of the need to take particular care with regard to aquatic life and I’ve been in touch with the residents in Round Hill who report the amphibian activity in the year in the alley which I believe connects Round Hill Crescent and Richmond. I’m also very fond of the name of that alley: Cat’s Creep. I flagged that particular location with officers, but I think a key thing to say is that we will take into account any areas where there are particular areas of concern around amphibians and aquatic life. Just on a more broad point. The issue of run-off, which is one of the big concerns around aquatic life, is particularly relevant. That’s obviously one of the primary reasons we rejected the conventional glyphosate application that’s favoured by most other local authorities and opted instead for the controlled droplet approach that will greatly reduce that risk.

Councillor Hill asked a supplementary question: Regarding the carbon neutral programme, this is something which I’m concerned about the harms to because there is a £200,000 cut to this carbon neutral programme which includes the restoration of things like ponds, which are vital to frogs, newts, and toads. So do you share my concern that is: in the council’s own budget assessment, that this would lead to a redesigned biodiversity and climate reduction adaption work reduction, due to affordability, complaint with some staff potentially being at risk of redundancy?

Councillor Rowkins replied: I feel that much of that was not following up from the original question. I would say, you mentioned the report that was passed in Committee recently. The report doesn’t need to be amended in order to make particular exceptions or any other derogations within the policy. The report just grants the authority to change the policy. How its applied will obviously take into account the things we’ve just described.

Q6.    Councillor Meadows asked a question: What steps are the council taking to protect and improve drinking water quality in the city given that the Drinking Water Inspectorate has raised concerns about the unwholesomeness of the city’s water supply and Patcham’s tap water is being monitored for E-coli? Not a standard procedure. Probably connected with the 280+ sewage leaks in the area.

Councillor Rowkins replied: Obviously we’ve talked already today and continue to do so in many of these meetings about the flood risk. The impact on drinking water, obviously the drinking water that comes from the tap is very much going to be Southern Water’s responsibility. I think the more broad point here is that we need to be working much more closely with Southern Water in a more productive and more technical and meaningful way going forward in order to mitigate those issues.

Councillor Meadows asked a supplementary question: How do you feel about the Royal Mail breaking an Act of parliament in 1924 and a Covenant on the land that protects the water supply being filtered at Patcham Court Farm for the rest of the city?

Councillor Rowkins replied: I’d have to seek advice from planning on that. I don’t sit on the Planning Committee and obviously planning decisions are subject to the relevant frameworks. I am, just by way of an aside, alongside Councillor Muten, who I always take with me on such matters, going to meet residents in Patcham who I know are concerned about ground water and flooding and all of these issues, and will continue to take this forward as a top priority.

Q7.    Councillor Earthey asked a question: In view of the budgetary challenges the council faces, obtaining maximum value for money for Council Taxpayers is essential. So how does the Labour administration justify its latest spending plans on Valley Gardens 3, as opposed to reallocating the budget to hard-pressed front-line services?

Councillor Taylor replied: You’re absolutely right, the council faces significant budget challenges. Yesterday we published our budget proposals which sets a balanced budget for this council, and is the first step to avoiding us following the path of many other councils in the country which have issued Section 114 notices and effectively declared themselves bankrupt. We’re not in that position. We come from a very difficult starting point, which is that the last Green administration overspent the annual budget 2022-23 by £3.5 million. The first time in the history of this Local Authority, which meant our working balance has gone from £9 million down to less than £6 million. The lowest point for that working balance in decades, which puts the council in a very precarious position.

We came in in May after the election, and had to manage the budget that we inherited. At one point that budget was forecast to overspend by £15 million on an in-year basis. I’m really pleased that the papers that have just been published for TBM show we are now breaking even on our in-year budget. That’s not by luck, that was done because very early on in our administration we put in place spending controls, recruitment controls, we got hold of agency spend across the organisation, we managed it really tightly and now we’re coming in on budget and we perhaps may underspend on this year’s annual budget. Now we’ve set a budget for next year which involves some difficult things which this council will be debating and scrutinising in the coming weeks. But also some things that we’re really proud of, and that reflect the priorities of residents. We’re not closing any toilets in this city, indeed we’re investing in reopening a toilet. We’re not getting rid of any street cleaners in the city, we’re maintaining all of them because we know that residents care about the look and feel of their city. We’re going to tackle that. We’re not closing any libraries in this city. We’re not closing a single council-run nursery. Unlike the previous administration proposed the outright closure of Bright Start. So we do have some very difficult challenges. Your question obviously goes to the heart of the question  between revenue and capital expenditure, the two things are linked. People often ask me this question when we talk about the budget in public: how can you possibly have a difficult budget while at the same time investing in a swimming pool or investing in Madeira Terraces, or Valley Gardens 3 or the Kingsway to the Sea? These are big capital projects, some which involve borrowing for the council, which is paid off over a long period of time, usually with relatively small amounts actually coming out each year in terms of capital refinancing. But there’s no conflict between setting a revenue budget that supports the services of residents and investing in our infrastructure. Indeed it is vital and it is really important. On Valley Gardens 3, I accept there is a range of opinions as to the merits of that scheme, particularly the roundabout and the junction. I would just say from a personal perspective, Valley Gardens 1 and 2, if you look at those areas of town: St Peters, Victoria Gardens, they’re great, they’re fantastic. They’re great places to walk, they’re great places to cycle, they’re great places to take a buggy. The next part of that phase around Old Steine doesn’t look so great at the moment so I’m pleased we will be investing in making that area of town better. But there’s no conflict between the two things. It’s part of managing a budget well and investing in our city.

Councillor Earthey asked a supplementary question: In Councillor Muten’s response to Councillor Fishleigh’s written question, he said that it is possible administratively to reallocate the 5 million loan, the 1.8 million from council funds and the 6 million grant for valley garden. Thus by his own words: there is a choice. It’s a total fabrication to say that this reallocation will jeopardise the loan, as Councillor Muten said in his email, so we would appreciate if he doesn’t repeat this misinformation again. So my supplemental question is: why do you think it is more important to spend £7 million on a road scheme with glorified traffic lights that it is on Adult Services, schools and other things for needy people in this city? You have a choice so choose to do the right thing.

Councillor Taylor replied: Councillor Earthey is a deeply intelligent Councillor and I genuinely mean that. I would say there is some slight mixing of different streams of funding that this council faces. It’s not an either/or between capital investment or schools. Schools are funded by the dedicated school grant that is direct from government and goes to schools on a per-pupil basis. Adult Social Care is a revenue budget and not investing in infrastructure doesn’t necessarily mean you can have the equivalent amount of money to go into Adult Social Care. As I’ve said, a good council that wants to run a city that is going to regenerate for all of our citizens, tries to protect the front-line services in your revenue budget but also invests in the infrastructure that will make our city a better place to live for all our residents. That includes swimming pools, that includes transport, that includes leisure facilities, and that’s what we’re doing in this budget.

Q8.    Councillor Miller asked a question: The issue of dangerous, weed infested pavements was by far one of the most frequent issues raised by residents in Goldsmid during the 2023 local election campaign, the Ward which I represent. I’m sure it was raised frequently by residents in other areas of the city. However, some Brighton and Hove residents are concerned about the proposal to use glyphosate for their removal. Are we able to reassure them that glyphosate will only be used in a limited way, to enable the council to reset the process of managing the weeds in the pavement in a sustainable way?

Councillor Rowkins replied: You’re quite right, it certainly was raised as one of the top issues in many other parts of the city. And yes, we absolutely can reassure them that glyphosate will only be used in a limited way. Probably the most helpful thing to do here is just to contrast how this used to be done with what the approach that has now been agreed is. Prior to 2019, how glyphosate was applied: you would have quadbikes essentially driving up and down every street in the city, three times a year, every year, blanket spraying every inch of pavement and road regardless of the extent of weed growth. That was done using a fine, pressurised water-based mist that was prone to drift and run-off, and obviously you can imagine, applied way more glyphosate than was necessary to keep the problem under control. It was also applied in parks, on verges and in other green spaces. That is not what we’ve agreed at all. The 2024 approach is something entirely new. Firstly, it applies only to hard surfaces, which is roads and pavements, so it will not apply in parks, it will not apply in grass verges or any other green spaces. The total droplet control approach uses a much lower concentration of glyphosate, it will also be applied only to visible weeds. The important thing to say there is: if staff turn up to a place where there are no visible weeds, no treatment will be done. The actual delivery method, rather than being a fine, water-based mist, is an oil solution that sticks to plants and is rain-fast within about an hour. It is released in much larger droplets under gravity alone, so not pressurised and doesn’t produce anything that can be breathed in, and there’s a far greatly reduced risk of run-off or drip. So we’re taking this approach in order to get on top of the problem in what we believe is the most targeted and responsible way possible.

Q9.     Councillor West asked a question: Adult Social Care social workers are striking for pay parity with their colleagues who work with children. Care professionals are experiencing hardship and struggling to pay unaffordable rents, and the service is suffering a recruitment crisis. When will the Labour administration settle this damaging dispute by paying these key workers what they deserve?

Councillor Burden replied: We are continuing to meet with Unison, they have agreed a number of areas where there is potential to negotiate a resolution to the social workers strike. We anticipate negotiations will proceed over a number of months.

Councillor West asked a supplementary question: With budget plans set to slash union facility time, delete 125 roles and put 45 workers at risk of redundancy, many providing vital services to the most vulnerable people in our city, how can the Labour party suggest they are the part of the working people and strong public service? Are they not just a better drilled Tory party?

Councillor Burden replied: I don’t actually recognise that that’s a question in relation to the first point you made Councillor West.

Councillor West replied: A point of information. I do believe it was connected because I was talking about the plans to cut the facility time and the roles, many of which are, and I described, involved in supplying services to vulnerable people. That is very much directly connected to the original question. It’s very much about Adult Social Care and the oral question was entitled Adult Social Care.

Councillor Sankey replied:An accompanying point of information might be made: The latest information we have on the debt of the i360. £15 million has been spent by this council servicing the debt. If we had that £15 million back in this council, that would halve the budget savings that we are seeking to make in this budget. So how on earth the Green Party can pretend to be the party of working people when they have squandered the money of this city on vanity projects and have brought this council to its knees.

Following the end of 30 minutes set aside for oral questions the deputy mayor moved to the next item of business.