Agenda item - Public Involvement

To consider the following matters raised by members of the public:

(a)          Petitions: to receive any petitions presented by members of the public to the full Council or at the meeting itself.

(i)     Save the Dyke Pub – Lead petitioner Ms. Sigfrid.  Petition debated at full Council on the 20 October 2016 and referred to the committee (copy attached).

(b)          Written Questions: to receive any questions submitted by the due date of 12 noon on the 1 December 2016.

(c)          Deputations: to receive any deputations submitted by the due date of 12 noon on the 1 December 2016.

76.1       The Chair noted there was one petition referred from Council entitled ‘Save the Dyke Pub’, the Chair noted the designation of the pub as an asset of community value had progressed; he noted that the full response would be circulated as part of the minutes, as set out below.

“Change of use of the Dyke Pub to a shop is now allowed due to the Government’s change to permitted development rights last year – a change was made to the General Permitted Development Order that allows change of use from a public house to retail use without needing planning permission. Only pubs either listed or nominated as assets of community value are exempt from this right.

The owner of the Dyke Pub followed the correct procedure in carrying out the change of use by writing to the local planning authority, 56 days before, to seek advice as to whether the pub has been nominated as an ACV. This request for advice is not subject to any publicity or consultation requirements. The legal advice is that to give such a notification publicity would be ultra vires (outside the rules) and therefore challengeable.

In the case of the Dyke Pub an ACV nomination was not received for the public house before or during the 56 day period and, as a consequence, the developer was permitted to change the use of the pub to a shop.

We have now received the community’s nomination of the former pub as an ACV – and the petition in support of reinstatement of the pub has been noted when considering the nomination. The nomination has been considered against the tests set out in the legislation and relevant case law. (The decision will be issued on Tuesday 6 December and it is to agree that the premises should be listed as an ACV – a copy will be sent to the nominees and the owner). The owner has a right of appeal against this decision.

As a consequence of this decision there will be a 6 month moratorium on the sale of the premises on the open market – and the local community will that time to bid for the site. The owner is not compelled to accept the bid. The ACV status of the premises will be a material consideration in relation to all future planning applications on the site.

In terms of looking forwards, it is recognised that pubs are often an important asset to local communities and officers are currently looking into the best approach to tackle the unwanted loss of pubs in the future. This includes improving guidance on the website and consideration of an Article Direction to remove the permitted development right (which needs to be weighed up against other priorities to prepare City Plan Part 2 and to apply to remove other permitted development rights).”

76.2       RESOLVED – That the Committee note the report.

76.3       The Chair noted there was one deputation in relation to Disposal of the Downland Estate, that also related to Item 77 c) and d), a letter and Notice of Motion, on the same subject matter. The Chair agreed to hear all three items together before open the matter up for debate, and then moving to a vote on each item.

76.4       The Chair called forward Dave Bangs to come and present his deputation to the Committee.

76.5       Dave Bangs stated:

“There has been a major failure of vigilance amongst Councillors of all parties and the wider public in protecting our public downland. Critically this is because of the disconnect between the council’s leading bodies and individuals and our downland estate which is partly the result of its highly secretive arm’s length management by senior officers and a land agency Saville’s which is based 34 miles away. As a result Councillor’s have failed to recognise the importance of the for sale sites so daftly described as ‘non-core assets’. Part of a nature reserve managed for over 50 years by the Sussex Wildlife Trust and the National Trust and an important bat cave with 4 scarce resident bat species which has been monitored by experts for decades was sold behind the backs of their managers with the view to accruing future capital gains from development. A field which has been part of the devil’s dyke estate for nearly 90 years and which both frames and protects the dyke lands cave from built developments is now at threat, an urban fringe small holding which local growers wish to see returned to useful food production has now been sold at an inflated price beyond their reach. A nationally important wildlife site on the South Downs Way which is let to an institutional tenant which is a serial polluter of vitally important chalk streams is now at risk of sale. There’s no financial case for pursuing the remaining two sales they would accrue only some 6% of the total possible sales value though they constitute some 80% of the for sale area. They are both key parts of the Brighton downs park landscape. Local Authority downland estate in the South Downs National Park at Worthing, Brighton, Eastbourne, Adur and Lewes are the main partners the new national park authority has for driving forward its programme of public benefit and improvement; for access, for recreation, for health, for the rewards of closeness to nature and for the production of locally healthy food stuffs. Without these big democratically accountable land holdings the national park would be left naked like the emperor with no clothes. The park authority itself doesn’t even own its own public toilets.

“This doesn’t have to be a party political issue without the Conservative’s support for the estate over many decades and 20 years when Steve Bason attempt to flog it all off we wouldn’t have this wonderful resource today. Without Labour’s excellent legalisation of open access in their Countryside Act (2000) the Green’s would not have driven forward the big programme of access land designations over 2000 acres of new access land on the downland estate just in the last decade. There’s every reason why we should all pull together- all of us – to reconnect with our council’s heritage and open up a new phase of landscape restoration rehabilitating degraded wildlife habitat and enlarging our collective contact with nature. Our down land estate generates a good rental income in perpetuity, it opens the door to all of us for access over a huge tranche of our local country side, it enables superb conservation management despite the rigors of our recession hit economy and it safeguards this landscape against a host of damaging changes that threaten the countryside elsewhere outside our property boundaries. Changes that the planning system does not touch for; intensive agriculture, neglect, blood sports, quasi-industrial uses, and uses with excluding security indications like high fences, floodlights and CCTV cameras.

We think the future can be made safe by agreement on three simple points: a permanent stop on all Brighton down land estate sales; the redefining of all our council owned down land as ‘core assets’ in the asset management plan and an ongoing, open and public discussion of the direction, management and goals of this superb public resource.”

76.6       The Chair then called upon Councillor Sykes to speak to the letter on behalf of the Green Group.

76.7       Councillor Sykes highlighted that the land was ‘entrusted’ to the city; however, the authorities that acted as custodians of the land were constrained in their ability to protect due to their own financial pressures. The letter requested that the sale of the land be halted to allow the issue to be reconsidered as appropriate.

76.8       Councillor Janio formally proposed the joint Notice of Motion on behalf of the Conservative and Green Groups. He stated that there was concern the Council’s Asset Management Policy was ‘out of step’ with the views of residents; the suggestion was the creation of a policy panel that could meet to consider the policy and make recommendations to the Committee.

76.9    Councillor Sykes formally seconded the Notice of Motion. He stated the letter and Notice of Motion were not a criticism of the service; however, this issue had highlighted the importance of some pieces of land, and it was hoped the panel would be positive and constructive.

76.10  Councillor Mitchell welcomed the proposal to set up the policy panel, she noted the Labour Group would be supporting the Notice of Motion.

76.11  Council G. Theobald stated that he understood the concerns raised by the public, and was happy to support the Notice of Motion.

76.12  Councillor Janio responded to the debate and thanked the Committee for its support.

76.13  The Chair then put the recommendations to the vote.

76.14  RESOLVED – That the Committee note the deputation.

76.15  RESOLVED – That the Committee note the Member Letter.

76.16  RESOLVED – That the following Notice of Motion be agreed.

‘We note that the downland estate has been preserved to protect our City’s aquifer and is greatly valued for its biodiversity, heritage, landscape and amenity. Many of these unique characteristics are under statutory designation but in the current climate this in itself does not guarantee protection.

There has been considerable concern expressed at the planned sales of parcels of the downland estate. These sales have been developed under the auspices of our Asset Management Plan (AMP) and aim to raise capital funds towards the restoration and development of Stanmer Park, as agreed by all parties in committee meetings in 2014 and 2016.

Notwithstanding the above, we consider that some elements of the decisions previously approved would have benefited from greater scrutiny at the time, and positive changes to the governance of downland estate disposals are desirable to increase the profile of such proposals.

Furthermore we requestthe establishment of a Policy Review Panel to consider governance and policy with respect to the City’s urban and rural estates. Concerning the above this will include:

·         A review of respective sections of our AMP as they concern downland asset definition and disposal;

·         Review of the Scheme of Delegation financial threshold for sensitive asset disposals to promote full scrutiny by Members;

·         The involvement of local conservation bodies’