Agenda item - Written questions from members of the public.

A list of public questions received by the due date of the 14^th July 2011 will be circulated separately as part of an addendum at the meeting.

 

5.1             The Mayor reported that eight written questions had been received from members of the public and invited Mr. Furness to come forward and address the council.

 

5.2             Mr. Furness asked the following question, “As the price of scrap metals such as aluminium and steel continues to rocket, could Councillor West please tell us how much money the council generates from the sale of these plus all other recyclable materials collected from our homes?”

 

5.3             Councillor West, Cabinet Member for Environment & Sustainability replied, “In 2010/11 the council collected over 19,000 tonnes of material for recycling.  In total this generated £488,000 worth of income for the council.  This income is off set against the total cost of collecting waste and recycling and waste treatment and disposal, which is approximately £26 million per year.  The more we reduce waste and the more we recycle, the lower our total waste bill is.  This is why this administration is reviewing the existing waste strategy to identify how we can achieve much improved performance in this area.”

 

5.4             Mr. Furness asked the following supplementary question, “Councillor West could you further enlighten us please, I’m very grateful for your answer I’m glad to hear we are deriving some income from these valuable resources but you are quoted recently in the Evening Argus as saying that you intend to investigate cutting down refuse services to once a fortnight in order to improve recycling rates.  I may be able to see some logic in that but I can’t see any logic in when you claim that this will save the authority £56 per ton in landfill tax when any week now the Newhaven incinerator will be vaporising the lot.”

 

5.5             Councillor West replied, “We are looking at a number of different options for food waste recycling as well as improving other waste recycling.  Some of the other options include changing the rounds and the frequency of which items may be collected.  So if we are collecting food wastes separate from residual waste we would perhaps do that at a weekly rate but we wouldn’t necessarily need to do the residual waste quite as frequently as we are at the moment.  All in all we may be looking at an improved service but this is something that is being looked at in great detail at the moment.  Can I just point out that the position we have inherited with recycling is that it is at an embarrassing low level.  We are now only collecting something in the order of 27% of what could be recycled and food waste contributes over 30% of the waste stream.  We are very keen because we wish to be the greenest city in the UK to push up recycling rates and reduce down the amount of waste.  These are the ambitions that we have set out in our manifesto.  We will be bringing forward our ideas later in the year.”

 

5.6             The Mayor thanked Mr. Furness for his questions and invited Mr. Morris to come forward and address the council.

 

5.7             Mr. Morris asked the following question, "The proposed location of the skatepark in the northern section restricts parents’ and carers’ ability to supervise the combination of young children and older children. The disparate locations of the skatepark, café and play area make it impossible for a parent with children of varying ages to keep an eye on children using the public lavatories, the skatepark or play areas. Local residents raised these problems throughout the consultation period, but were constantly ignored. Would the council accept that there are still many massive flaws in the proposed overall design to be submitted to the Heritage Lottery Fund?"

 

5.8             Councillor West, Cabinet Member for Environment & Sustainability replied, “The consultation gave residents the opportunity to not only choose an option but to make comments on the two options.  In total 33 people commented that it is easier to supervise children if all activities are in one area and the skatepark remains in its current location next to the playground.  However, 95 people responded saying they want skaters and bikes separated from small children’s areas.  Thus, the majority of people who commented on this very issue feel overall it would be better to move the skatepark.

 

            So, no I do not believe there are massive flaws in the proposed overall design.  I believe that both options presented for consultation were viable, but the response to the consultation is clear.  With any design there will always people who prefer one option over another.  The bid is a once in a life time opportunity to improve the Level and provide activities and facilities for a much larger part of the community.”

 

5.9             Mr. Morris asked the following supplementary question, “Friends of the Level and the Triangle Community Group maintain that fencing will ensure the safety of the children and all user groups at all times.  Dogs and young children will easily be able to run into the skatepark.  If the skatepark is used after dark, local residents will be disturbed by ambient noise and light.  I would like to point out that the skatepark at Hove Lagoon is fenced and closed at night.  The question, I remind you, was about how parents and carers would be able to supervise a combination of young children and older children.  Is it intended that on the level there will be unrestricted access to all areas 24 hours a day despite the obvious risks of such an approach?”

 

5.10         Councillor West replied, “Mr Morris I did answer questions from you when I considered the level master plan at my cabinet member meeting.  In your original question today you didn’t specify what flaws you were thinking of so I wasn’t able to respond directly.  You have now mentioned fencing and I know that this is a topic that we discussed before and as I told you at the cabinet member meeting or other questioners a risk assessment was done and it was established that there is no need for fencing in order for the facility to be safe.  That was the professional response that we received.  However, we are looking at putting planting around the skatepark as a way of creating some delineation and as I said at the cabinet meeting, we are happy and we are offering to continue to work with the local groups on those sorts of details.  With regard to twenty four access one of the issues that has arisen out of this consultation is quite apparent, is the lack of safety on the park and that passive surveillance of having more people on the park throughout the day and in the evening will considerably help raise safety levels and therefore people’s happiness to go on the level.”

 

5.11         The Mayor thanked Mr. Morris for his questions and invited Ms. Shelling to come forward and address the council.

 

5.12         Ms. Shelling asked the following question, “In the Environmental Cabinet Meeting' on July 5th, the council were asked what measures would be taken to prevent dog's from entering the 'dogs free skating area' despite it being located in a 'dogs-off lead zone'. The council replied along the lines that planting schemes were under consideration (this thinking was reflected in the master Plan D presented for cabinet).

 

            Given that 'planting as a preventative barrier' to dogs entering the skate area is under consideration, would the council please clarify how 'plants' would/could meet safety standards for the skate park required by Health & Safety?”

 

5.13         Councillor West, Cabinet Member for Environment & Sustainability replied, “As I mentioned at the Environment and Sustainability Cabinet member Meeting on the 5th of July, the skatepark location has been subject to an independent risk assessment.  This risk assessment concludes that the skatepark can be designed without the need for fencing and that a suitable boundary could be provided using planting.  I also made a commitment that officers would work with residents and the skateboarding community to work up this detail now that the skatepark location has been determined.

 

            Our Health and Safety Manager has confirmed that there are a range of possible control measures that will be evaluated and considered during the detailed design phase.”

 

5.14         Ms. Shelling asked the following supplementary question, “To date the council still can’t tell us what the new skatepark will look like, what size it is to be, whether the required funding can ever be raised, where the entrance points will be located, whether it will be surrounded by plants or a fence or even if it actually can be rebuilt in the north at all until nursery ground surveys are conducted. Respondents to the questionnaire were not informed of these essential facts.  What real democratic mandate has the green party therefore got for supporting the relocation of the skatepark to the open green?”

 

5.15         Councillor West replied, “As I say many of these details are for the detail design phase after the second round of the lottery funding is received.  We will continue with people to work on those points but the basic design is there, the size, as you know, is very much dependant on the ultimate amount of funding that can be achieved for the skatepark itself because the skatepark is being funded separately from the rest of the works on the level.”

 

5.16         The Mayor thanked Ms. Shelling for her questions and invited Ms. Davis to come forward and address the council.

 

5.17         Ms. Davis asked the following question, "Residents in Hanover/Elmgrove and northern section of St Peters/North Laines, the two wards closest to the Level expressed concern that their votes would be diluted when voting was expanded from 13,500 to 28,000 homes. PPT accepted the recommendation should not depend on a simple headcount but on consideration of all relevant factors and their views would count.  Can the PPT demonstrate a mature consideration of all facts as its report appears to focus on top level results and overlooks the granularity of voting data in the two affected wards which shows a divide in type of voter (parent/pro-green) and no obvious Option 2 majority?"

 

5.18         Councillor West, Cabinet Member for Environment & Sustainability replied, “My Cabinet Member Report on the 5th of July clearly acknowledged that residents living closest to The Level had a preference for Option 1, leaving the skatepark where it is.  I am fully aware of the strength of feeling regarding the location of the skatepark which is why I personally worked with residents and officers to help ensure more detailed engagement and consultation took place.

 

            I believe the consultation was robust and clear and that residents have been given a clear opportunity to express their views.  The consultation report considers the overall numbers as well as people’s preference in relation to:

 

•     different household types (e.g. couples, sole occupants, families)

•     why people visit The Level

•     what elements of design people like the most

•     what activities people prefer.

 

            This data shows that people overwhelmingly prefer Option 2.

 

            The Level is in an area where people have limited access to open space and many people do not have private gardens.  It is therefore important that everyone within the catchment has an equal say.”

 

5.19         Ms. Davis asked the following supplementary question, “Given the strong opposition to option 2 and the Green Party’s town planning policy to protect and preserve formal and informal green spaces, coupled with the necessity for community support for the HLF bid, would the Green councillors please reconsider an analysis of the data collected from the affected wards against the top level data?”

 

5.20         Councillor West replied, “In your original question you asked why the consultation was increased to include 28,000 homes.  There are 28,000 homes within 15 minutes walk of the level and therefore all of those people’s needs are relevant to our understanding of what to do with the level.  There has been an incredibly detailed analysis of all the responses to all the very many questions along with all the other aspects of the design and consultation not just the consultation document itself.  I am very satisfied that this matter has been extremely well explored and that the outcome is very clear of what people want and we are supporting that position.”

 

5.21         The Mayor thanked Ms. Davis for her questions and invited Ms. Monson to come forward and address the council.

 

5.22         Ms. Monson asked the following question, "The Decision to build a concrete skatepark on a green lung in the centre of the City is at odds with green philosophy.  Also, it is a contradiction of Green Party policy. I quote “the need for urban green spaces, both formal and informal, should be recognised and these spaces should be protected.” The Level, in use for nearly 200 years, is an urban space that satisfies both these formal and informal criteria.

 

            How can the people of this City, with the UK’s first Green Party MP and council, have confidence that this Party will protect green open spaces?"

 

5.23         Councillor West, Cabinet Member for Environment & Sustainability replied, “The Level is a run down park in a part of the city where many people do not have private gardens.  Over half the people consulted state they feel unsafe or very unsafe on The Level and many groups including the elderly and people with disabilities state they don’t go to The Level because they do not feel welcome or there is nothing for them there. 

 

            Parts of the community are currently excluded from The Level for these reasons – to them it is not a welcoming or accessible park.  This is not the kind of park this Green Administration wants in the city.  In any case, the overall area of greenery will not decrease. The underused gravel area will become grass, and the current area of the skate park will become a garden.  It is very important not to overlook this.

 

            Open spaces affect people’s quality of life and currently The Level far from fulfils it potential.  It needs significant investment, and we have a one off, real opportunity to transform the park.  This bid will protect the park and will actually increase the amount of green open space within The Level.”

 

5.24         Ms. Monson asked the following supplementary question, “Will the councillor admit that it was prepared to break the Green Party stated policy under local planning and the built environment rules a mere two months after taking office by developing part of a valuable, much cherished, open green space within the heart of both a historic and congested urban area?”

 

5.25         Councillor West replied, “I think Ms Monson must be referring to national policies; we obviously also have local policies.  This is a very local issue for local people living in the centre of our city and so we have to take a wide view which respects other aspects of our manifesto and our approach to how we value people’s opinions and their needs in many different ways.  Just suggesting that all we are here for is to defend green space is a complete misinterpretation of the depth of what we stand for.”

 

5.26         The Mayor thanked Ms. Monson for her questions and invited Mr. Hardy to come forward and address the council.

 

5.27        Mr. Hardy asked the following question, “Can you tell me how much it cost council tax payers since May to clean up the mess left by gypsies and travellers, following the unauthorised encampments in Withdean Park, including the cost of re-installing the fences they drove over and the paving slabs they dug up and smashed, which for has not been replaced?"

 

5.28         Councillor West, Cabinet Member for Environment & Sustainability replied, “There have been four separate unauthorised encampments in Withdean Park since May. The costs associated with these unauthorised encampments were £1,703.07.  These costs cover waste management; the provision of bins, rubbish, and other waste removal; the re-installing the fence; repairing an access gate; and replacing paving slabs. The replacement paving slabs will be installed before the end of July.”

 

5.29         Mr. Hardy asked the following supplementary question, “First of all, I understand the Greens are the environmentally friendly party. Travevellers and Gypsies do not have toilets in their caravans they use the bushes in Withdean Park as toilets and don’t use the bins provided to put their rubbish in.  This is a health issue; you know it’s going on wherever they set up camp.  Is that environmentally friendly and acceptable by the Green councillors?”

 

5.30         Councillor West replied, “We are a party of many different things I think what we have to recognise here is that some people have different lifestyles and different needs and I do not accept that every traveller doesn’t use a toilet and I don’t accept that every traveller doesn’t use bins.  What I do say is that we don’t accept anti social and criminal behaviour where that occurs.  I am very aware of the unhappiness of local residents when there are encampments on sensitive places including parks and we have moved very quickly to deal with those when they occur within the bounds of our powers and the powers of the police and it does require evidence and it has to be legal.  Later, I will speak about other measures we are taking to try and relieve the pressures that we have found on parks in recent times.  But you must reflect on the fact that this council has only been in office for 2 months and this is not a new phenomenon that we are dealing with. The previous administration had the same difficulties that we are having now.”

 

5.31         The Mayor thanked Mr. Hardy for his questions and invited Mr. Jewell to come forward and address the council.

 

5.32         Mr. Jewell asked the following question, “Have The Scrutiny Panel on Renewable Energy Potential scrutinised the relevant energy and noise study supporting documents and biomass literature in the PortZED planning application and identified that all technical aspects of the renewables are totally without foundation such that the wind turbines will not work in the proposed experimental configuration and all study results are confused and incorrect resulting in the developers making a late substitution of a very large wood pellet fuelled combined heat and power plant with associated health risk issues from the emissions?”

 

5.33         Councillor West, Cabinet Member for Environment & Sustainability replied, “As a Cabinet Member I am not responsible for the work of scrutiny, however I did sit on this particular panel prior to May’s election.  The Scrutiny Panel on Renewable Energy Potential has completed its work and reported in April. The Executive response to the report’s recommendations was submitted to Cabinet last week.  All of these documents are available on the council website.  The scrutiny panel did not look at details of the PortZED planning application as it was not within its remit to look in detail at each and every planning application regarding renewable energy generation.

 

            As a general point, scrutiny does not look at specific planning applications as the Council has a separate planning process for this.”

 

5.34         Mr. Jewell asked the following supplementary question, “What independent expertise has been utilised to evaluate the validity of the renewable claims of this proposed project with particular reference to the wind turbines.  I would add this is not a typical project it’s a very large prestigious suggestion of claims that will make Brighton and Hove the greenest city in the country and I would like to know where the expertise is for this vital task of checking the validity?”

 

5.35         Councillor West replied, “This is a very different application, the nature of a zero carbon development is going to push the boundaries; that at the potential impact of the scheme are being looked at by Planning Environmental Health and Sustainability Officers and that the planning application is due to come before the committee in August or September. This isn’t really, in a planning sense, a question you would be better to refer your concerns to the planning process.”

 

5.36         The Mayor thanked Mr. Jewell for his questions and invited Mr. Fallon-Khan to come forward and address the council.

 

5.37         Mr. Fallon-Khan asked the following question, “Bearing in mind the award winning Revenues and Benefits and NNDR teams at the Council under the last Conservative Administration undertook some excellent initiatives which were nonsensically rejected by the previous Labour Government [for example a review of the way residents were being penalised when they started to draw unemployment benefit] would the Cabinet Member for Central Services please inform us what additional services these teams are likely to endure under the present Green Administration?''

 

5.38         Councillor J. Kitcat, Cabinet Member for Finance & Central Services replied, “As the meaning of your question is unclear, I shall concentrate on the positive work that the Revenue & Benefits team are currently undertaking.  The welfare benefit system is complex for customers.  The government welfare reforms currently include Local Housing Allowance (LHA) reforms in the run up to the introduction of a Universal Credit. Migration to the latter will be complete at the end of 2018 and we will then be administering only a localised council tax benefit, but no housing benefit support.

 

            In order to try and mitigate some of the short term impact we put in a bid with two other local authorities – Benefits, Housing Strategy team & Brighton Housing Trust, for £487,000. We wanted to develop a coordinated approach in adapting to Local Housing Allowance changes to minimise negative impacts to landlords, tenants and statutory/voluntary agencies, and to prevent housing crises and homelessness.   The bid was put to the DWP who had £4million in transitional funding to mitigate the effects of LHA reforms. Bids received totalled £68 million and unfortunately we were unsuccessful.

 

            Nevertheless, we have already put in place initiatives to help Brighton & Hove residents facing hardship during government reductions in LHA including the creation of a Debt Prevention Team in council tax. We will also shortly be opening the Customer Service Centre at Bartholomew House to provide our customers with a better service. We will also be working through the key aspects of the Green Manifesto around financial inclusion and the credit union to help those hardest hit by these reforms.”

 

5.39         Mr. Fallon-Khan asked the following supplementary question, “Now that the Green’s have hiked council tax they also have two proposals which are clearly set out in their manifesto which I think they are promising to implement next year.  Education Business Tax - Tax1, which is lumping the entire education budget on the top 4% of companies which is fool hardy because all they’ll do is asset strip so they don’t hit that criteria.  More pertinently the business levee which will punish existing businesses for work placed parking which will make it more challenging for them to employ young and local people.  How does Councillor Kitcat propose to resource, enforce and collect these punitive taxes all of which the conservative party were vehemently opposed to in the last budget?”

 

5.40         Councillor J. Kitcat replied, “The Education Business Tax proposal was not in this manifesto but may have been in the general election manifesto, clearly as a council we are not so empowered to change the national taxation scheme so we will continue to advocate changes at a national level and I look forward to debating them with you but that’s not something appropriate for my position as a humble cabinet member.  With relation to work placed car parking charges that is something that we are looking at and it is very early stages, just considering a wide variety of options to deal with the huge challenges relating to air pollution and congestion which the previous Conservative administration failed to tackle for four years.”

 

5.41         The Mayor thanked Mr. Fallon-Khan for his questions and noted that this concluded the public questions.