Agenda item - Petitions for Council Debate

Petitions to be debated at Council.  Reports of the Monitoring Officer (copies attached).

 

(a)         Save the Big Lemon Bus.  Lead petitioner Ms. Jackie Chase.

(b)        Gypsies and Travellers.  Lead petitioner Cllr Dee Simson.

(c)         The Level.  Lead petitioner Mr Adrian Morris.

 

7(a)     Save The Big Lemon Bus

 

7.1             The Mayor stated that under the Council’s petition scheme, if a petition contained 1,250 or more signatures, it could be debated by the Full Council and such a request had been made in respect of an e-petition concerning Save the Big Lemon Bus.

 

7.2             The Mayor invited Ms. J. Chase to present her petition.

 

7.3             Ms. Chase thanked the Mayor and stated that a total of 2,316 people had signed the combined paper and e-petition which read as follows:

 

“We the undersigned, petition the council to level the playing field in the local bus industry to ensure smaller groups like The Big Lemon Bus Company are not at a disadvantage.”

 

7.4             Ms. Chase stated that she hoped the council could support local businesses which offered a sustainable future and should not be threatened by larger competitors.  She believed that action taken by the larger bus company on specific routes where the Big Lemon operated were unfair and should be challenged.

 

7.5             Councillor Davey noted the petition and stated that he had been impressed by the number of signatures that had been obtained.  He believed that there should be an open dialogue with all the bus companies and noted that the Office of Fair Trading was looking in to the situation in Brighton and Hove.  He hoped that their findings could be taken on board in due course and stated that he was happy to discuss ways in which the council could help smaller businesses to succeed.

 

7.6             Councillor Pissaridou referred to the report on the matter and stated that she supported the petition that she wished to move an amendment on behalf of the Labour & Co-Operative Group to the report’s recommendation, to encourage help for smaller businesses.

 

7.7             The Mayor congratulated Councillor Pissaridou on her maiden speech.

 

7.8             Councillor Farrow formally seconded the amendment.

 

7.9             Councillor Janio stated that he supported the petition and the proposed amendment as any measures that could be used to prevent a monopoly of service provision should be welcomed.  He noted that the council had very little influence over the bus company and suggested that new legislation was required to assist with the issue.

 

7.10         Councillor G. Theobald stated that he believed the Big Lemon Bus Company should be supported and welcomed the Cabinet Member’s response.  As the previous Cabinet Member for Environment had previously written to the Brighton & Hove Bus Company and Competition Commission expressing the need for competition.  However, the council had very little influence over such matters other than in preparing tender documents, which he hoped would be made more suitable for smaller businesses to understand.

 

7.11         Councillor Davey welcomed the cross-party support on the issue and stated that he was keen to help wherever it was possible.

 

7.12         The Mayor noted that an amendment had been moved along with the recommendation to refer the petition to the Environment & Sustainability Cabinet Member Meeting and stated that she would put them to the vote.

 

7.13         The Mayor then put the Labour & Co-Operative Group’s amendment to the vote, which was carried.

 

7.14         The Mayor then put the substantive recommendations as amended to the vote which were carried.

 

7.15         RESOLVED:

 

(1)         That the petition be referred to the Environment & Sustainability Cabinet Member Meeting for consideration; and

 

(2)         That the council requests the Cabinet Member to consider how to offer help and advice to The Big Lemon Bus operators in the same way that it does for other smaller businesses and social enterprises in the city.

 

Note:   Councillors Kennedy and Wakefield, having declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the item as shareholders of The Big Lemon Bus withdrew from the meeting and took no part in the discussion or decision thereon.

 

 

7(b)     Gypsies and Travellers

15(f)    Responsibilities Towards Travelling Communities

 

7.16         The Mayor stated that under the Council’s petition scheme, if a petition contained 1,250 or more signatures, it could be debated by the Full Council and such a request had been made in respect of an e-petition concerning Gypsies and Travellers. 

 

7.17         She also reminded the Council that she intended to take the Notice of Motion listed as Item 15(f) Responsibilities Towards Travelling Communities on the agenda at this point, so as to enable one debate on the matter.  She would however take the various recommendations and amendments separately during the voting on the petition report and the notice of motion.

 

7.18         The Mayor invited Councillor Simson to present her petition.

 

7.19         Councillor Simson thanked the Mayor and stated that a total of 2,309 people had signed the combined paper and e-petition which read as follows:

“We the undersigned petition the council to take immediate and effective action when gypsies and travellers set up unauthorised encampments on parks and open spaces within the city’s boundary.  Immediate action should mean requesting Sussex Police to use their powers under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 rather than using the long-winded process of repossession of the land through the courts.  We also petition Council to recognise that providing a permanent site in the city will only accommodate a small number of travellers who wish to remain in the city and will not deal with the problems of the many who have permanent sites elsewhere and come to the city looking for work.”

 

7.20         Councillor Simson stated that the petition had resulted from the need of residents to express their views and feel that they were being listened to and to get some clarity on what action could be taken when areas of land were taken over by unauthorised encampments.  It had become clear when such encampments occurred the police would not take any action immediately but would rather monitor the situation.  She also noted that the travelling community tended not to use the transient site at Horsdean.  She believed that the police should be encouraged to use the powers available to them at the earliest point in time and that access to important areas should be prevented.

 

7.21         The Mayor then invited Councillor Simson to move her amendment to the recommendation contained in the report.

 

7.22         Councillor Simson moved the amendment on behalf of the Conservative Group and stated that the current administration needed to clarify its position in regard to the treatment of gypsies and travellers and unauthorised encampments.

 

7.23         Councillor Wells seconded the amendment and noted that he had sought the assistance of the Cabinet Member concerned to deal with an unauthorised encampment, but had been referred to the police instead.  He believed the responsibility lay with the Cabinet Member and hoped that he would respond to the matter.

 

7.24         The Mayor then invited Councillor West to move his notice of motion.

 

7.25         Councillor West moved the notice of motion on behalf of the Green Group and stated that he believed there were no more travellers in the city than there had been last year.  He accepted that the council had a duty to its residents, but stated that there was also one to gypsies and travellers who were often a marginalised group.  He was fully aware of the concerns being raised and had asked for an urgent review of the Travellers’ Strategy and to look at possible sites that could be used for short-term toleration.

 

7.26         Councillor Randall formerly seconded the motion.

 

7.27         Councillor G. Theobald moved an amendment on behalf of the Conservative Group and stated that he believed the number of incursions had increased significantly.  There had been five separate instances in Patcham and Withdean recently and he believed that if the council requested the police to take action, then the police could use their powers to move the travellers on and refer them to Horsdean.

 

7.28         Councillor K. Norman seconded the amendment and referred to the recent encampment at 19 acres, which was an area of environmental interest and had previously been closed off but was opened to enable access for travellers.  He also noted that the Leader of the Council had apologised to the Ward Councillors for the failure to inform of the decision to open up the 19 acres site, but he asked for confirmation as to who was consulted on the decision. 

 

7.29         Councillor Mitchell moved an amendment on behalf of the Labour & Co-Operative Group and stated that whilst she could agree with a lot of the actual motion, she felt that there was a lack of clarity from the Administration which had not been helped by the statements from the MP for Pavilion.  The Labour & Co-Operative Group had supported the intention to identify permanent plots for travellers with a local connection and recognised that it was not possible to prevent incursions but there should be a clear and uniform means of dealing with such incursions.

 

7.30         Councillor Hamilton seconded the amendment and stated that he felt the council needed to have a co-ordinated approach to dealing with issues and was concerned about recent newspaper articles which he felt had not helped the situation.  He hoped that an understanding could be reached with the police so that available powers could be used and any incursions dealt with quickly and calmly.

 

7.31         Councillor C. Theobald stated that she felt the Administration had not been fair to residents in their approach to gypsies and travellers and that tolerated sites had been identified.  She also queried whether the costs associated with maintaining those sites had been taken into account.

 

7.32         Councillor Simson stated that there was a need to balance both the needs of residents and those of the travelling community.  However, it had become apparent that the needs of residents were not being taken into account, hence the petition and she hoped that some action could be taken to redress that balance.

 

7.33         Councillor Mears suggested that residents were confused and did not understand the position of the Administration and a clear message needed to be given in respect of how the council would respond to any unauthorised encampment.

 

7.34         Councillor Follett stated that he was concerned about the reaction of certain councillors and welcomed the comments from Councillor Hamilton in regard to the issues that were being raised.  He believed that consideration needed to be given to the needs of the travelling community and that action should be taken appropriately.

 

7.35         The Mayor congratulated Councillor Follett on his maiden speech.

 

7.36         Councillor Randall stated that an apology had been made to the Ward Councillors in respect of the action taken to open up 19 acres, however there was a need to address a difficult set of circumstances.  He also believed that previous attempts to resolve the problem of unauthorised encampments had not achieved anything and that there was a need for the council to find a solution.  The site at Horsdean offered permanent transient sites but was not liked by the travelling community and therefore a better understanding of why that was the case was required.  He also felt that there should be consultation with both residents and the travelling community to see if a more balanced approach could be found.

 

7.37         Councillor West stated that he could not accept the Conservative Group’s amendment and noted that the MP for Pavilion had signed an early day motion which had cross-party support.  He also recommended the recent Cabinet report to all Members and asked that they support its intentions.

 

7.38         The Mayor noted that an amendment had been moved along with the recommendation to refer the petition to the Cabinet Meeting and stated that she would put them to the vote.

 

7.39         The Mayor then put the Conservative Group’s amendment to the vote, which was lost.

 

7.40         The Mayor then put the recommendation as listed in the report to the vote which was carried.

 

7.41         RESOLVED: That the petition be referred to the Cabinet Meeting for consideration.

 

              

15(f)    Responsibilities Towards Travelling Communities

 

15.27    The Mayor then stated that she would deal with the Notice of Motion, Item 15(f) and noted that two amendments had been moved.

 

15.28    The Mayor then put the Conservative Group amendment to the vote, which was carried.

 

15.29    The Mayor then put the Labour & Co-Operative Group amendment to the vote, which was lost.

 

15.30    The Mayor then put the following motion as amended, to the vote:

 

“This council shares the concerns expressed by residents about the behaviour of some members of the Gypsy and Traveller groups visiting the city, and it condemns anti-social or criminal behaviour by anyone. Where such behaviour is evidenced and substantiated, the Police shouldtake appropriate and proportionate action.

 

The council shouldcontinue to adopt a fair but firm approach to the issues raised by unauthorised Traveller encampments. Working in partnership with the Police, it shoulduse:

 

·         Government guidance introduced by the previous Government and new guidance in “Planning for Traveller Sites”, once adopted

·         Brighton and Hove City Council’s Traveller Strategy, which the previous administration introduced in June 2008.

 

This council recognises Gypsy and Traveller communities’ heritage and the right to continue their nomadic lifestyle, as enshrined in law. It will continue to work with Friends and Families of Travellers and other organisations to address the problems faced by travelling communities and with residents’ groups, local action teams etc. to address the problems faced by the local residents.

 

It also acknowledges the excellent work of the council’s Traveller Liaison Team and urges all Council Members to behave in a mature, respectful and tolerant way when debating the presence of Gypsy and Traveller groups in the city, in accordance with relevant codes of conduct.

 

Therefore

 

1.   This Council resolves to ask the Cabinet:

 

(a)   To continue the search for another permanent Traveller site in the city taking into account the thorough work of previous Conservative and Labour Administrations;

 

(b)   To continue to work with other local authorities to seek a regional solution to the provision of Traveller sites;

 

(c)    To follow the firm but fair approach adopted by the previous Administration to the issues raised by unauthorised Traveller encampments, working in partnership with the Police on special initiatives like Operation Monza, where necessary;

 

(d)   To establish a cross-party review of the Traveller Strategy as soon as possible to relieve the pressures created by unauthorized Traveller encampments; and

 

(2)   The Council welcomes government proposals to‘raise awareness amongst councillors of their leadership role in relation to traveller site provision; [1].”

 

[1] ‘Planning for Traveller sites’ Consultation, Department for Communities and Local Government, April 2011.

 

15.31    The motion was carried.

 

 

7.42         The Mayor then adjourned the meeting for a refreshment break at 7.05pm

 

7.43         The Mayor reconvened the meeting at 7.35pm and in view of the absence of the lead petitioner for Item 7(c) took Items 8 and 9 before returning to Item 7(c).

 

 

7(c)     The Level

 

7.44         The Mayor stated that under the Council’s petition scheme, if a petition contained 1,250 or more signatures, it could be debated by the Full Council and such a request had been made in respect of an e-petition concerning The Level.

 

7.45         The Mayor invited Mr. A. Morris to present his petition.

 

7.46         Mr. Morris thanked the Mayor and stated that a total of 3,044 people had signed the combined paper and e-petition which read as follows:

 

            “We the undersigned petition the council to take account of our opposition to any structural development of the area of the Level north of the Rose Walk.  We believe that a new and improved skate park should be built in the southern play area.”

 

7.47         Mr. Morris stated that he hoped the council would take account of the number of people who had signed the petition and noted that the two interest groups who were integral to the lottery fund bid felt ignored throughout the consultation process.  The concern expressed by parents who would have children using the play area in the south and the relocated skate park in the north had not been addressed and it would appear that the impact of the new skate park had not been fully explained as part of the consultation.  He believed that The Level was a historic open space and it needed to remain as such and any relocation of the skate park to the north would be a disaster.

 

7.48         Councillor West noted the petition and stated that Mr. Morris had been given the opportunity to present it to the Cabinet Member Meeting at which the decision was taken, but chose not to and therefore it could not be taken into account.  He noted that the consultation process had been extended and the options put forward for people to express their views on.  The majority of respondents had indicated they were in favour of moving the skate park and wanted to see the bid succeed.  In taking the decision he felt that he had to take account of the majority of people being in favour of moving the skate park and to breathe new life into city centre with the development of the area.  He acknowledged that his personal view had been to leave the skate park in the south but the public view was that it should be moved and he wished to thank the residents and officers for their work in taking the project forward.

 

7.49         Councillor Mitchell stated that she wished to move an amendment on behalf of the Labour & Co-Operative Group to the report’s recommendation.  She believed that the matter had become controversial and that people were not clear about the impact of moving the skate park to the north would have on the area as a whole.  She queried the timing of the second round for the lottery bid and suggested that there was time to review the situation and ensure that the bid had the support of the two interest groups.

 

7.50         Councillor Fitch formally seconded the amendment and noted that over 3,000 signatures had been obtained on the matter.  He suggested that there was time to re-think the proposals and to submit the bid, whilst maintaining the open spaces that the users of the area wanted.

 

7.49         The Mayor congratulated Councillor Fitch on his maiden speech.

 

7.50         Councillor G. Theobald queried whether the bid had been submitted or if there was time to amend it given the degree of opposition expressed by the number of signatories to the petition.  He suggested that further consultation could be undertaken and confirmation of their support obtained from the two interest groups that were party to the lottery bid.

 

7.51         Councillor Mears stated that she fully supported the investment in The Level but could not support the proposed relocation of the skate park to the north.  She argued that The Level had two distinct areas, the north being recreational and the south a play area.  She was also concerned about how the regular Fair and Festival activities would be accommodated if the skate park was moved to the north.  She queried whether the funding for the skate park was attributed to the lottery bid or was to be found via a Section 106 Agreement.

 

7.52         Councillor Smith stated that he could not support the loss of an area that was used by residents as recreational space with the imposition of the skate park.  He believed that further consultation should take place and the Cabinet Member should consider the matter further.

 

7.53         Councillor J. Kitcat stated that a thorough consultation process had been undertaken and 55% of the respondents had voted in favour of moving the skate park to the north.  He also noted that at the recent Cabinet Member Meeting, opposition councillors had not raised the question of reviewing the matter or deferring the decision and had not made a call-in request following the decision.  He stated that there was a need to accept the views of the majority and to take forward that mandate.

 

7.54         Councillor Peltzer Dunn referred to the proposed amendment and suggested that it was possible for Councillor West to reconsider the decision and to take account of the views expressed by a significant number of people.

 

7.55         Councillor Simson stated that she felt there was a need to take account of the views of the families that used the current play areas and their concerns should the skate park be moved to the north of not being able to watch their children in both areas.  She also suggested that there was time to re-examine the options and to retain the skate park in the south.

 

7.56         Councillor West noted the comments and stated that the consultation process had shown 3 times more families in favour of moving of the skate park to the north and to be separate from the play area.  Of the 28,000 people consulted, 55% had been in favour of moving the skate park and he felt their preference should be supported.  He noted that the proposed amendment 2.2 referred to the second round of the lottery bid and that to date there had only been one round, the intention was to submit the bid for the second round.  He believed local ward councillors, officers and residents had worked very hard to take the project forward and therefore he could not support the amendment and stated that the bid should be submitted.

 

7.57         The Mayor noted that an amendment had been moved along with the recommendation to refer the petition to the Environment & Sustainability Cabinet Member Meeting and stated that she would put them to the vote.

 

7.58         The Mayor then put the Labour & Co-Operative Group’s amendment to the vote, which was carried.

 

7.59         The Mayor then put the substantive recommendations as amended to the vote which were carried.

 

7.60         RESOLVED:

 

(1)         That the petition be referred to the Environment & Sustainability Cabinet Member Meeting for consideration; and

 

(2)         That it be noted Brighton and Hove City Council was successful in the second round of the Heritage Lottery Fund Parks for people funding programme and that the council’s bid for funding has to demonstrate engagement with community groups;

 

(3)         That it be noted the friends of The Level and The Triangle Community Group, both named in the bid, are opposed to the moving of the skate park into the northern area;

 

(4)         That given the degree of public opposition as evidenced by this petition to the decision by the Cabinet Member for Environment and Sustainability to move the skate park into the northern area  and the fact that the Cabinet Member stated when he took the decision that he is personally opposed to this move, that the proposals are now reviewed;

 

(5)         That as a part of this process the council should draw up and publish more detailed plans and illustrations that clearly demonstrate the impact that the skate park would have on the open, northern area including any safety features such as fencing, planting and landscaping; and

 

(6)         That meanwhile all monies held by the council in relation to The Level are ring-fenced and safeguarded for that purpose.