Agenda item - Deputations from members of the public.

A list of deputations received by the due date of 12noon on the 7^th December, 2017 will be circulated separately as part of an addendum at the meeting.

49.1         The Mayor reported that two deputations had been received from members of the public and invited Mr. Dickson as the spokesperson for the first deputation to come forward and address the council.

49.2         Mr. Dickson thanked the Mayor and stated that:

“I represent the Hove Park Tennis Alliance. We are group formed of all the tennis clubs and coaches that regularly use the public courts at Hove Park. We are extremely dismayed at the recent decision to relay the former dual purpose AstroTurf courts with a 3 G synthetic surface changing this into football only facility. The work is to be completely funded by 106 development money. We wish to protest against the decision itself and the process by which this decision was taken. We’ve been happily sharing these courts for nearly thirty years with football under floodlights in the winter and then hand it over to tennis in the summer when demand is high and footballers have the whole of the park to set up small sided games.

The process by which this decision has been reached gives us real cause for concern. This decision was represents a change of use of a public facility. Why has it not gone to the ETS Committee for approval? It surely cannot be a fair process where a council officer recommences wishes to two Ward Councillors and the Head of the ETS Committee leaving us the joint existing users with no consultation before the meeting and no representation during it. The main stumbling block Officers have cited as to why this facility can no longer be dual purpose is that 106 money can only be spent on improvements not on maintenance and their view is that a new 3G surface counts as an improvement but a new replacement multi sports surface does not. This is a question of interpretation, the briefest of searches on the internet shows that other councils do consider a replacement surface to be an improvement. So a new multisport surface is eligible for 106 money.  Council officers stated that football generates more income than tennis. This is entirely because collection fees for tennis has been sporadic and inconsistent. Club fees have been set unrealistically low. Top Cat Tennis Club has not been charged at all this year.  Hove Park Tennis Club has been charged less and less in the last three years for exactly the same court time. In 2015 they paid £2500 in 2016 they paid £2100 and this year the charge is £1500. Officers have been given clear political steer that any 106 money needs to finance itself going forward. We intend to follow in Queens Park’s footsteps take control of our own courts preventing them from being a drain on the Council budget. We are confident of collecting income to provide fantastic facilities at Hove Park. What a shame that our first task is to fight from losing them. 

The alternative may well see new 3G pitch laid and then handed over to a private limited company, not only lost a tennis but also possibly not accessible to many existing football users. Why has no equality impact assessment be taken, the Council’s own Equality and Inclusion Strategy states these ‘must be used to inform decision-making, avoid discrimination and promote inclusion and where ever possible increase fairness in the city.’ we have such a wonderful wonderfully diverse group of players at Hove Park with clubss amongst others including children, the over 65s, LGBT players and mental health groups.  

Are Councillors also aware of recent health risks associated with 3 G pitches? The use of rubber tyre crumb has led to some European countries suspending the use of such surfaces. We were told the development money must be spent by April with work due to start in February. Why when the money has been available for some time has this decision be left so late leaving us very little time to prepare our objections. Is there a possible misconception that all tennis players have the abilities join private clubs? The ethos of the parks leagues formed some 80 years ago was to provide competitive and social tennis for those who could not afford to do so. This is a uniquely unlike anywhere else in the country that this city should be proud of. A thriving membership of over 650 players certainly think so.

The Hove Park Tennis Alliance believes there is no justification for changing the use of this public facility from shared football and tennis to exclusive use by football and we ask for this decision to be reversed. The 106 money can and should be used for a new improved multi-sport surface.”

49.3         Councillor Mitchell replied, “It has been known for some length of time that the current artificial grassed area has fallen into serious disrepair and on occasions has been unavailable for use. Senior officers have held discussions with the users of the area, with the Ward Councillors and with myself following which the decision was taken to procure a 3G surface utilising developer contributions money specifically available for that purpose. That money gets spent on a 3G pitch or it gets spent out of the Hove Park area. The Council's Playing Pitch Strategy has identified the need for high quality 3G football pitches in the city and the fact that hundreds of children play on this popular pitch already just restricted to the winter months means that we know that the demand is there for an all-weather pitch of the type that is being proposed. With its seven all-weather tennis courts Hove Park will continue to provide very good facilities for tennis.”

49.4         The Mayor thanked Mr. Dickson for attending the meeting and speaking on behalf of the deputation.  She explained that the points had been noted and the deputation would be referred to the Environment, Transport & Sustainability Committee for consideration. The persons forming the deputation would be invited to attend the meeting and would be informed subsequently of any action to be taken or proposed in relation to the matter set out in the deputation.

49.5         The Mayor then invited Mr. Theobold as the spokesperson for the second deputation to come forward and address the council.

49.6         Mr. Theobold thanked the Mayor and stated,

“I’m here to make a case for not reducing the PAN for Benfield Primary School to a single form entry.  A lack of strategic planning with recent primaries in West Hove being expanded; one of which resisted being made bigger, as well as the opening of the Connaught who are welcoming their proposed reduction, has led to a surplus of primary school places in this area which has led to this proposal to reduce Benfield.  It is not enough to say in hindsight we now have a surplus of primary places.  This was known at the time as a governing body of Benfield School and as lead of the Portslade cluster across primary schools we were aware of the wider impact expanding schools in Hove and West Hove would have and these concerns have now been realised.  The justification for the expansion of primary schools by council officers is wishing to give parents their first preference.  Ironically the proposed reduction of Benfield Primary is at a time when as the first preference for parents it is exceeding a single form entry size and continuing to grow.  This proposal will take away first choice preference for parents and this is important in the wider context of Portslade where we already have three single form entry primary schools.  By making Benfield a single form entry the area will be served by four single form entry primaries with the only larger option being a church school able to set its own admission criteria when oversubscribed and not a choice for all families.  Benfield School has progress data for all its pupils among the strongest in the city and in the top 25% nationally.  This decision would not only take away Benfield as a first choice for many parents it takes away the choice of a larger school option too.

So is this about finances; Benfield School has worked incredibly hard and diligently on its financial planning in these challenging times both in terms of funding and fluctuating numbers.  Our balanced budget year on year do not come easy they come through an exemplary leadership team making strategic decisions, effective management and prudent planning at a time when the Council is supporting schools in financial difficulty it is wrong to contemplate reducing one that is demonstrating financial excellence.

The leadership doesn't stop at financial planning.  The school has been on a journey from special measures and a change in leadership and governance five years ago to pushing for outstanding now.  That journey wasn’t just inward it has looked outward and this is important because Benfield uses its experience, its rapid change and improvement and has reached out shared, collaborated and educated other schools across the city.  The culmination of this approach was the prestigious awarding of Benfield Primary School as a teaching school this year.  If any of you wonder the real relevance of this already in what seems a relatively short period of time the teaching School Alliance with Benfield leading as a two form entry Primary has eighteen schools across the city involved.  Benfield is now leading in the development of our future teachers, our future education leaders and has its foundation as a successful two form primary school.   This really isn't as simple as just losing a class, it changes everything for the school; it will change their structure, reduce their effectiveness in leading the Teaching School Alliance, reduce choice available to parents, all while operating on a balanced budget.

The evidence for this is available in the data, in the budgets, from feedback from other schools across the city, from parents preparing a huge petition of over 1,400 signatures to national leaders of governance telling you this is wrong.  Your constituents do not want this, teaching staff and leaders do not want this, the Governors do not want this, the community do not want this.  We ask that you leave the school as it is; managing its financial finances, providing excellence in education and now leading in the development of our future teachers across the city.”

49.7         Councillor Chapman replied, “I can assure you that, now the public consultation has concluded, your views and the views of all respondents are being taken into consideration.  The Council had put forward proposals for a city-wide solution to a specific issue of surplus places in primary schools.  The cross-party Working Group is currently looking at all the points raised and this will be reported back to the Children, Young People & Skills Committee in early January.  It is the Council's aim to ensure that all schools remain open to serve their communities and to future proof the city for pupil rises.  We need to find a solution that works across the city.”

49.8         The Mayor thanked Mr. Theobold for attending the meeting and speaking on behalf of the deputation.  She explained that the points had been noted and the deputation would be referred to the Children, Young People & Skills Committee for consideration. The persons forming the deputation would be invited to attend the meeting and would be informed subsequently of any action to be taken or proposed in relation to the matter set out in the deputation.

49.9         The Mayor noted that this concluded the item.