Agenda item - Deputations from members of the public.

A list of deputations received by the due date of 12noon on the 24^th January 2013 will be circulated separately as part of an addendum at the meeting.

76.1         The Mayor reported that one deputation had been received from members of the public and invited Mr. Sladen as the spokesperson for the deputation to come forward and address the council.

76.2         Mr. Sladen thanked the Mayor and stated that:

            “I’ve come here today with a deputation representing the Council Tax Payers of the Goldstone Valley.  We strongly oppose the current proposal to incorporate THV in the City Plan and our reasons are as set out in the paper in front of you.  You’ll be aware of the strong opposition evidenced by a petition of over 1300 signatures collected by the two Hove Park Ward Councillors, very large numbers of houses displaying posters, objecting and of course the large demonstration outside prior to this meeting.

            You ignore the people at your peril.  THV is an asset to the people of Brighton and Hove who we do not even own it. It belongs to somebody else.  The current proposals will forever ruin the land and none of us want to be looking at the grossly over developed eye sore in the future.  As for wildlife, the slow worms, adders, lizards, bees, insects, please don’t pretend that they can all be moved up one end of the development and carry on as before.

            That is not going to happen and you know that. There is even an article in today’s Argus making the case for protecting lizards’ habitats but only in Woodingdean apparently.  But let’s take a look at some of the examples of those who so enthusiastically support the proposal. In a letter to Councillor Jason Kitcat last October, the Brighton and Hove Economic talked to the new school as being the icing on the cake. No ever evidence to support such a statement was put forward. This was just a sound bite, the City Sustainability Workshop, not content with 700 residential units says that this is the last opportunity for substantial development on a Greenfield site and its use must be maximised. Again let’s not kid ourselves, the proposals to build high rise units totally out of keeping with the existing housing stock in Hangleton and Goldstone Valley.  

            Let’s just return to the Economic Partnership and it’s gifted opinions, in the Argus of January 24th, we’re informed by them that the wholesale realignment of King George 6th Avenue will be the ‘icing on the cake’ for the existing residents.  They just repeat their stupid sound bite to support ridiculous development of a Greenfield site.  It’s not as though there aren’t not already many Brownfield sites in Brighton and Hove which could be developed now rather than in many years time in the future with the THV proposal.  The City needs to use up its existing stock before even thinking of a Greenfield site. Just refer to the pages of the Argus on Tuesday for your evidence of the current availability of office, factory and potential housing units. It is nothing but vandalism to target THV.  What epitomises, in our opinion, the stupidity of the proposal is the elimination of King George 6th Avenue from the equation.  No one has bothered to check traffic levels on this essential route; you cannot simply grass over this road without asking, “where is the heavy traffic supposed to go?” I’ll tell you, it’ll be forced to use such roads as Woodland Drive, Dyke Road Avenue, Shirley Drive and Neville Road.  Clearly none of the supporters have a clue as to the impact this fundamental road change will have.

            This un-costed alternative to replace King George 6th Avenue in the proposed development is a non starter for through traffic.  We understand now that THV is being included in a package of proposals meaning that any meaningful debate will be lost.  So much for democracy and transparency.  Changes in policy are always an option for you. We take comfort that when mass opposition took place last summer to the removal of the evening 81 bus service; this led to a reversal of policy which was much appreciated.  We beg you not to ignore the views of residents, we need to protect our green sites not abuse the position of trust we have for our environment.  Finally we would just like to thank you for listening to this deputation.”

76.3         Councillor J. Kitcat replied, “I do understand and note the concerns you detailed.  I think that the key driver that is not recognised in the deputation is about the housing targets that this authority and every authority is having to show it’s able to meet in these types of plans, which is something that is passed down from above and that even with every piece of Brownfield land included that isn’t enough to meet what we are required to show we can.

            Your deputation does note the changes in National Policy context which is a big part of the story which I’m sure the debate later will go into more detail.  But I have to say I don’t recognise your characterisations about high rises and so on for the site because the plans at the moment are just illustrative and there are no actual Planning Applications registered.  The full detail will be discussed later but I do thank you very much for coming to the meeting and expressing your views.”

76.4         The Mayor thanked Mr. Sladen for attending the meeting and speaking on behalf of the deputation. He explained that the points had been noted and would be taken into account as part of the debate on the City Plan item later on the agenda, for which he was welcome to remain and listen to the debate.

76.5         The Mayor noted that the deputation had been presented and therefore the item was concluded.