Agenda for Environment Cabinet Member Meeting on Thursday, 5th June, 2008, 4.00pm
navigation and tools
Find it
You are here - Home : Council and Democracy : Councillors and Committees : Agenda, decisions and minutes
Agenda, decisions and minutes
PDF 213 KBVenue: Council Chamber, Hove Town Hall. View directions
Contact: Tanya Massey, Democratic Services Officer
| No. | Item | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Procedural Business
(b) Exclusion of Press and Public - To consider whether, in view of the nature of the business to be transacted, or the nature of the proceedings, the press and public should be excluded from the meeting when any of the following items are under consideration.
NOTE: Any item appearing in Part 2 of the Agenda states in its heading the category under which the information disclosed in the report is exempt from disclosure and therefore not available to the public.
A list and description of the exempt categories is available for public inspection at Brighton and Hove Town Halls. Minutes:
|
|||||||||||
|
(copy attached). Minutes: 2.1 The Cabinet Member considered a report of the Director of Strategy & Governance concerning the Terms of Reference of the Environment Cabinet Member Meeting (for copy see minute book).
2.2 RESOLVED – That the Terms of Reference be noted. |
|||||||||||
|
Minutes of the Environment Committee Meeting of 20 March 2008 (copy attached). Minutes: 3.1 RESOLVED – That the minutes of the meeting of the Environment Committee held on 20 March 2008 be approved and signed by the Cabinet Member in his capacity as the former Chairman of the Environment Committee. |
|||||||||||
|
Cabinet Member's Communications Minutes: 4.1 There were none. |
|||||||||||
|
Items reserved for discussion (a) Items reserved by the Cabinet Member
(b) Items reserved by the Opposition Spokesperson
(c) Items reserved by Members, with the agreement of the Cabinet Member.
NOTE: Public Questions, Written Questions form Councillors, Petitions, Deputations, Letters from Councillors and Notices of Motion will be reserved automatically. Minutes: 5.1 RESOLVED – All items were reserved for discussion by the Cabinet Member. |
|||||||||||
|
(The closing date for receipt of public questions is 12 noon on 29 May 2008)
No public questions received by date of publication. Minutes: 6.1 A question was received from Mr. Mark Lane. Mr. Lane’s wife, Mrs. Lane, attended the meeting to put the question to the Cabinet Member as Mr. Lane was unwell.
6.2 Mrs. Lane asked the following question:
The Cabinet Member for Environment may be aware of the trial of Binvelopes in Lincoln Street, Hanover since the Summer of last year. Could he confirm the level of ongoing support, information and encouragement given to all residents of the street, regarding how the Council would expect residents to use, clean and maintain their Binvelopes and the degree of enforcement of their use throughout that period?
6.3 The Cabinet Member stated that residents had been provided with information regarding the use of binvelopes at the start of the trial. The trial did not include enforcement to use the binvelopes. The Cabinet Member stated that he recognised the concerns from Hanover residents about refuse containment, and that there were no easy solutions to this issue. However, officers had met with the ward Councillors and an outline agreement had been reached on rolling out binvelopes on a larger scale in parts of Hanover. The scheme would include enforcement.
6.4 Mrs. Lane asked the following supplementary question:
Can the Cabinet Member for Environment confirm the level of ongoing support, information and, if necessary, enforcement that will be provided to the residents of the three streets mentioned throughout the period of the new trial?
6.5 The Cabinet Member reiterated that the new scheme would include enforcement. |
|||||||||||
|
Written Questions from Councillors No written questions have been received. Minutes: 7.1 The Cabinet Member reported that no written questions had been received from Councillors. |
|||||||||||
|
(copy attached). Minutes: 8.1 The Lawyer to the meeting clarified that when a petition has already been presented at Council, the constitution provided that it should be received without discussion at the Cabinet Member Meeting. The Member presenting the petition is to be invited to the meeting and informed subsequently of any action taken. Councillors presenting petitions directly to the Cabinet Member Meeting were limited to speaking for not more than three minutes, and were confined to reading out, or summarising, the prayer of the petition and indicating the number and description of the signatories.
8.2 The Lawyer stated that in practice the Cabinet Member could use their discretion to allow Councillors presenting petitions to speak briefly to the petition.
8.(i) Petition - requesting that Stanford Court be included in the Preston Park Avenue parking scheme
8.3 Councillor Allen presented a petition signed by 15 people requesting that Stanford Court be included in the Preston Park Avenue parking scheme.
8.4 The Cabinet Member stated that consultation was ongoing on this scheme. If a resident parking permit scheme is proposed for Preston Park Avenue then Stanford Court would be considered as part of the next consultation process. Any parking scheme would need to be advertised through a traffic regulation order and Ward Councillors would be fully consulted on any proposals.
8.5 RESOLVED – That the petition be noted.
8.(ii) Petition - installation of measures to prevent further damage to the forecourts at the Valley Road shops
8.6 Councillor Carden had submitted a petition signed by 363 people concerning the installation of measures to prevent further damage to the forecourts at the Valley Road shops.
8.7 Councillor Carden was unable to attend the meeting.
8.8 RESOLVED– That the petition be noted and a written response be provided.
8.(iii) Petition - request for a pelican crossing on the A270 between Barcombe Road shops and Wild Park
8.9 Councillor Caulfield presented a petition signed by 249 people concerning a request for a pelican crossing on the A270 between Barcombe Road shops and Wild Park.
8.10 The Cabinet Member stated that he took all requests for pedestrian crossings extremely seriously, especially if there were concerns about children’s safety. The Council was committed to reducing casualties across the city and the fairest way of doing this was to tackle the locations where the highest number of injuries occurred first. This would ensure that the most dangerous roads were made safer. Officers had assessed the request but were not able to recommend that it be prioritised on this occasion, as it had a good safety record. The Cabinet Member stated that the reference to children attending Falmer High School prompted him to encourage the petitioners to participate in the current consultation on the proposals for an Academy on the High School site and put forward their views about the need for a crossing as part of that process.
8.11 RESOLVED – That the petition be noted.
8.(iv) Petition - request fornight time barriers at London Road car park
8.12 Councillor Davey had submitted a petition signed by 36 people concerning a request fornight time barriers at London Road car park.
8.13 Councillor Davey was unable to attend the meeting.
8.14 The Cabinet Member was pleased to inform the meeting that night time barriers would be installed at the London Road car park as part of planned improvements now that the Council had agreed to bring back in-house the management of Council owned car parks in the city.
8.15 RESOLVED – That the petition be noted and a written response be provided.
8.(v) Petition - opposition to the installation of communal bins in Nizells Avenue and the park area
8.16 Councillor Davis had submitted a petition signed by 56 people concerning opposition to the installation of communal bins in Nizells Avenue and the park area.
8.17 Councillor Mitchell presented the petition on behalf of Councillor Davis, who was unable to attend the meeting.
8.18 The Cabinet Member stated that he was considering comments made by residents following the recent consultation process, and a decision on communal bins would be made later in the year.
8.19 RESOLVED – That the petition be noted.
8.(vi) Petition - request for traffic calming measures on Montefiore Road
8.20 Councillor Davis had submitted a petition signed by 188 people concerning a request for traffic calming measures on Montefiore Road, to stop dangerous speeding cars cutting through.
8.21 Councillor Mitchell presented the petition on behalf of Councillor Davis, who was unable to attend the meeting.
8.22 The Cabinet Member stated that the Road Safety Engineering Programme was prioritised to reduce casualties against a list of sites with the highest accident rates in the city. Montefiore Road had a relatively low rate of incidents when reviewed over the last 3 year period, so could not be recommended above other sites for any intervention. However, the location would continue to be monitored against the Safety Programme criteria.
8.23 RESOLVED – That the petition be noted.
8.(vii)Petition - request for the Council to agree for a plaque to identify the LGBT Suicide Memorial Tree in St Anne’s Well Gardens
8.24 Councillor Duncan had submitted a petition signed by 111 people concerning a request for the Council to agree for a plaque to identify the LGBT Suicide Memorial Tree in St Anne’s Well Gardens.
8.25 Councillor Wakefield-Jarrett presented the petition on behalf of Councillor Duncan, who was unable to attend the meeting.
8.26 The Cabinet Member stated that this matter had already been raised at Environment Committee. He reiterated that the Council received many kindly donations of trees from differing groups and residents in memoriam and, in particular, St Anne’s Well Gardens, for which the Council was very grateful. It was important that all the people in the city could use the parks for quiet contemplation and solace, including the LGBT community. The Council was more than happy to show a map identifying the tree in question at the entrance to St Anne’s Well Gardens. This should help people find the tree more easily and address the concerns about the vandalism of plaques. The Cabinet Member stated that he would ask officers to progress this speedily and keep Councillors Duncan and Wakefield-Jarrett updated.
8.27 RESOLVED – That the petition be noted.
8.(viii)Petition - request to resurface Lansdowne Place following work by 4D and Southern Water
8.28 Councillor Elgood had submitted a petition signed by 15 people concerning a request to resurface Lansdowne Place following work by 4D and Southern Water.
8.29 Councillor Watkins presented the petition on behalf of Councillor Elgood, who was unable to attend the meeting.
8.30 The Cabinet Member stated that he appreciated that the major works across our city had meant trenches dug in many of the roads. The reinstatement of the trench in Lansdowne Place was up to standard and was all that could be reasonably requested following works of this kind. However, he would ask officers to monitor the condition of the surface.
8.31 RESOLVED – That the petition be noted.
8.(ix) Petition - request to urgently repair the Floral Clock following recent vandalism
8.32 Councillor Elgood had submitted a petition signed by 36 people concerning a request to urgently repair the Floral Clock following recent vandalism.
8.33 Councillor Watkins presented the petition on behalf of Councillor Elgood, who was unable to attend the meeting.
8.34 The Cabinet Member stated that the floral clock had been sent to Edinburgh for repair and was expected to be returned in eight week’s time.
8.35 RESOLVED – That the petition be noted.
8.(x) Petition - request for traffic calming scheme on Wilbury Avenue, Wilbury Villas (railway bridge) and Wilbury Crescent
8.36 Councillor Fallon-Khan presented a petition signed by 44 people concerning a request for traffic calming scheme on Wilbury Avenue, Wilbury Villas (railway bridge) and Wilbury Crescent to curb the excessive speeds at which motorists travel down these roads and use them as a cut through.
8.37 The Cabinet Member stated that the overall approach to road safety was primarily based on identifying and treating those locations where casualty problems were most serious, as the highest priorities. This would ensure that the most dangerous roads were made safer. Officers had investigated this road in accordance with the request and Police data showed that the road had a good record compared to the many other sites across the city where a significant number of casualties had occurred. It was therefore not possible for them to recommend that it be prioritised as part of the Road Safety Engineering programme on this occasion.
The Cabinet Member pledged to ensure that, as speeding was a traffic offence, residents concerns would be made known to the Police and in liaison with them, consideration could be given to taking some speed measurements.
This petition would be retained on file for future reference should circumstances change in the local area and it could be considered alongside other requests that were received.
8.38 RESOLVED – That the petition be noted.
8.(xi) Petition - request to introduce measures to prevent parking difficulties in Nizells Avenue
8.39 Councillor Fallon-Khan presented a petition signed by 185 people concerning a request to introduce measures to prevent parking difficulties in Nizells Avenue.
8.40 Councillor Fallon-Khan asked that it be noted that Councillor Davis had also put a lot of work into this issue.
8.41 The Cabinet Member stated that the parking restrictions along Nizells Avenue and Somerhill Road would be investigated to address the problems of long term parking around St Anne’s Well Gardens. Any changes would need to be advertised through a traffic regulation order and Ward Councillors would be fully consulted on any proposals.
8.42 RESOLVED – That the petition be noted.
8.(xii)Petition - request to retain the current house-to-house rubbish collection service for Denmark Mews
8.43 Councillor Fallon-Khan presented a petition signed by 16 people concerning a request to retain the current house-to-house rubbish collection service for Denmark Mews.
8.44 The Cabinet Member stated that he was considering comments made by residents following the recent consultation process, and a decision on communal bins would be made in the year.
8.45 RESOLVED – That the petition be noted.
8.(xiii)Petition - request for a speed camera and a reduction in the speed limit on the Old Shoreham Road
8.46 Councillor Hamilton presented a petition signed by 382 people concerning a request for a speed camera and a reduction in the speed limit on the Old Shoreham Road between the traffic lights at the Sainsbury’s end and the traffic lights at the Southern Cross end.
8.47 The Cabinet Member stated that he was aware how strongly Councillors Hamilton and Barnett felt about this issue. Speed cameras were now the responsibility of the Sussex Safer Roads Partnership. The Cabinet Member pledged to ensure that the petition was forwarded to partnership officers and discussed at the next meeting, in his capacity as the representative for this authority. The Government had also set all local authorities the task of reviewing the speed limits on all ‘A’ and ‘B’ class roads by 2011. Old Shoreham Road, in its entirety, would be included within this review which may, where appropriate, lead to changes in speed limits.
8.48 RESOLVED – That the petition be noted.
8.(xiv)Petition - opposition to communal bins in Clifton Road
8.49 Councillor Kitcat had submitted a petition signed by 35 people concerning opposition to communal bins in Clifton Road in the Montpelier and Clifton Hill Conservation Area.
8.50 Councillor Kitcat was unable to attend the meeting.
8.51 RESOLVED – That the petition be noted and a written response be provided.
8.(xv)Petition - replacement of the statue of Steve Ovett in Preston Park
8.52 Councillor McCaffery had submitted a petition signed by 160 people concerning the replacement ofthe statue of Steve Ovett in Preston Park.
8.53 Councillor Allen presented the petition on behalf of Councillor McCaffery, who was unable to attend the meeting.
8.54 The Cabinet Member stated that he was very sympathetic to this matter and that the Council would be very happy to work with any group that raised funds or resources to replace the statue, as it was currently doing with other groups such as the AIDS Memorial Group. However, the Council did not currently have funding identified for commissioning public art.
8.55 RESOLVED – That the petition be noted.
8.(xvi)Petition - consultation of residents in the streets immediately to the north of Ditchling Rise on a residents’ parking scheme
8.56 Councillor McCaffery had submitted a petition signed by 150 people concerning consultation of residents in the streets immediately to the north of Ditchling Rise on a residents’ parking scheme as part of the London Road Station area scheme.
8.57 Councillor Allen presented the petition on behalf of Councillor McCaffery, who was unable to attend the meeting.
8.58 The Cabinet Member stated that the Council would include the area (all roads within the Stanford Avenue/Ditching Road triangle) within the overall consultation for a parking scheme.
8.59 RESOLVED – That the petition be noted.
8.(xvii)Petition - relocation of the proposed pedestrian refuge in Carden Hill and installation of yellow markings near the school in Carden Avenue
8.60 Councillor Pidgeon had submitted a petition signed by 408 people concerning relocation of the proposed pedestrian refuge in Carden Hill and installation of yellow markings near the school in Carden Avenue.
8.61 Councillor Pidgeon was unable to attend the meeting.
8.62 RESOLVED – That the petition be noted and a written response be provided.
8.(xviii)Petition - request for traffic calming measures for Old London Road, Patcham
8.63 Councillor Pidgeon had submitted a petition signed by 41 people concerning a request for traffic calming measures for Old London Road, Patcham.
8.64 Councillor Pidgeon was unable to attend the meeting.
8.65 RESOLVED – That the petition be noted and a written response be provided.
8.(xix)Petition - request for introduction of single yellow lines on Montpelier Villas
8.66 Councillor Rufus presented a petition signed by 107 people concerning a request to introduce single yellow lines on Montpelier Villas.
8.67 The Cabinet Member stated that as part of the Central Brighton parking review, a meeting had taken place with residents from Montpelier Villas, who had not wanted any single yellow lines in this road. This was because of the amount of driveways along both sides that could be blocked by parked cars and because of the additional signage that this would create in an important conservation area. However, if a majority of residents in the area wanted to have single yellow lines between crossovers in Montpelier Villas (and the required signage), then the Council could investigate the issue and advertise the change as part of the next available traffic order.
8.68 RESOLVED – That the petition be noted.
8.(xx)Petition - parking in Hereford Street and Essex Street
8.69 Councillor Steedman presented a petition signed by 36 people concerning parking in Hereford Street and Essex Street.
8.70 The Cabinet Member stated that the parking restrictions in Hereford Street and Essex Street would be investigated as part of the Area C parking review which would take place alongside the resident parking scheme review of the Hanover and Elm Grove area. This would be in the Spring of 2009. Any changes would need to be consulted on throughout the whole of the Area C resident parking scheme and advertised through a traffic regulation order. Ward Councillors would be fully consulted on any proposals.
8.71 RESOLVED – That the petition be noted and a written response be provided regarding the other issues mentioned in the petition.
8.(xxi)Petition - installation of a lamp column at the eastern side of Central Park, Woodingdean
8.72 Councillor Wells presented a petition signed by 36 people concerning installation of a lamp column at the eastern side of Central Park, Woodingdean.
8.73 The Cabinet Member stated that for this year the budget was fully committed to maintaining and improving the lighting on the city streets. Each new light column was very costly to install and run and so it was not possible to provide something within the park at this time. The Cabinet Member pledged to ask the Director to look at whether there are any other sources of funding and also agreed to look into Councillor Wells’ suggestion to install a solar-powered lamp column.
8.74 RESOLVED – That the petition be noted.
8.(xxii)Petition - request for closure of the alleyway between 27 and 28 George Street, Brighton
8.75 Councillor Steedman presented a petition signed by 65 people concerning a request for closure of the alleyway between 27 and 28 George Street, Brighton.
8.76 The Cabinet Member stated that he would respond jointly to this petition and the deputation on the same subject.
8.77 RESOLVED – That the petition be noted.
8.(xxiii)Petition - request to reconsider the proposed location of a communal bin halfway along St Nicholas Road
8.78 Councillor West presented a petition signed by 65 people concerning a request to reconsider the proposed location of a communal bin halfway along St Nicholas Road.
8.79 The Cabinet Member stated that he was considering comments made by residents following the recent consultation process, and a decision on communal bins would be made later in the year.
8.80 RESOLVED – That the petition be noted.
8.(xxiv)Petition – refuse problems in the Hanover area
8.81 Councillor Wrighton presented a petition signed by 158 people concerning refuse problems in the Hanover area.
8.82 The Cabinet Member provided a joint response to the petition and the letter from Councillor Wrighton about the same issue. He stated that clean streets were a priority for the city, which is why things like communal bins and wheelie bins had been rolled out. Binvelopes had been tested in areas where these types of containment had not worked. There were issues with the cost and effectiveness of binvelopes, for example, in the North Laine, where they had been in use for some time. However, officers had been asked to work with Ward Councillors in Hanover and Elm Grove to find ways to overcome these problems. The cabinet Member noted that Councillor Wrighton had met with Council officers the day before this meeting and an agreement had been reached to continue a larger scale trial with close community involvement. The detail of the trial and timescales would be discussed with Ward Councillors. In response to the query on weekly recycling, there were no plans to extend the service at present.
8.83 RESOLVED – That the petition be noted. |
|||||||||||
|
(The closing date for receipt of deputations is 12 noon on 29 May 2008)
No deputations received by date of publication. Minutes: 9.1 The Cabinet Member reported that one Deputation had been received. It concerned a request to close the alleyway between 27 and 28 George Street, Brighton and the Cabinet Member invited Mr Romany Mark Bruce, as the spokesperson, to come forward and address the meeting.
9.2 Mr Bruce stated that:
This was a narrow, partly covered passageway linking George Street with Dorset Street, which in recent years had become a public health hazard and an invitation to vandalism, arson and burglary. It had been used as a public toilet, a place for drug-dealing, street drinking, rough sleeping and fly-tipping. City-Clean had said they did not have the resources to disinfect the alley on a daily basis. The Community Police and the Kingscliffe Conservation Society had said they would support a request for closure.
Sixty-five signatures had been collected so far, of residents and all the businesses in George Street and the immediate vicinity, petitioning for the closure.
The arguments for closure were threefold. Firstly there were safety reasons;items such as broken bottles, syringes and a toy hand-gun had been found on the ground and in the guttering. Two fires had been started which could have had serious consequences. Lighting had been smashed rendering the passage hazardous at night-time. Local residents and people using the alley had met with threatening behaviour and intimidation. Recently vandals in the alley had thrown a bottle through a window of number 30 George Street and had broken the fencing of number 28.
Secondly, there were health reasons; people passing through the alley regularly had to step over human faeces, vomit and pools of urine. As the alley was partly covered, this was not easily washed away by rain, and the stink remained. The alley was regularly blocked by cartons of waste, old furniture, cans, bottles and rotting food. City Clean said they did not have the resources for regular cleaning and did not clean off graffiti unless it is specifically obscene and would remove only syringes but not bottles or cans. There were photos of cans and bottles that had been there since last October.
Finally there were crime prevention reasons; the door to the garden of number 29, which opens onto the alley, had been smashed down, providing access for a serious robbery to number 30. Drain-pipes had been wrenched from the walls on both sides of the alley, and cabling ripped out. Walls of property facing the alley were regularly defaced with graffiti, which had only been cleaned once in the past six months. The alley was an easy escape route following vandalism or burglary as had been the case when a bottle was thrown through the window of number 30, last month.
The only arguments against closure were that this was a public right of way providing a short cut between George Street and Dorset Street, and that the alley was an historic twitten and this year had become part of a Brighton Festival Walk.
The alley was a few metres from Edward Street, at the top end of George Street. A few metres down the street was Little George Street which also provided pedestrian access, through Somerfield’s car park, to Dorset Street. Closure of the alley would not inconvenience those seeking to cross between George Street and Dorset Street.
Access through the alley could be arranged for Historic Tours during the period of the Brighton Festival, or on notice from conservation groups.
The benefits of closing the alleyway included: promoting a cleaner, safer environment, especially at night; policing would be easier with the removal of access and escape route for burglary and vandalism; City Clean would not have to clear and disinfect the alley and general upkeep would be negligible, thus easing the burden on Council finance and offering saving to the taxpayer; and an historic alley would be preserved and protected.
The alley’s status as a public right of way had been made unsustainable by the incidents described and by the continuing obstruction of cans, bottles, urine and excrement, and that the best and most positive solution would be closure of the alley.
9.3 The Cabinet Member stated that he was sympathetic to issues like these and that two gating orders had been achieved during his time as Chairman of the Environment Committee. He agreed to request that the Environment Improvement Team within the Environment directorate investigate the feasibility of obtaining a Gating Order for this particular highway.
9.4 RESOLVED – That the Deputation be noted and officers be requested to investigate the feasibility obtaining a Gating Order for this particular highway. |
|||||||||||
|
Letters from Councillors (i) Withdrawal of Metrobus Sunday bus services 87 and 82. Letter from Councillor Mitchell (copy attached).
(ii) Refuse collection and recycling in Hanover & Elm Grove Ward. Letter from Councillor Wrighton (copy attached). Additional documents: Minutes: 10.(i) Letter - withdrawal of the Metrobus services 87 and 82
10.1 A letter was received from Councillor Mitchell regarding withdrawal of the Metrobus services 87 and 82.
10.2 The Cabinet Member stated that in April, Metrobus announced that they were to withdraw Service 87, the only bus which ran between Brighton and Haywards Heath on a Sunday. He noted and shared the concerns expressed by Councillor Mitchell and members of the public at the impact this would have for hospital visits. He stated that officers had been liaising with other neighbouring local authorities including West Sussex and the NHS Trust to secure a resolution to the problem. He was pleased to report that a solution to retain this important link between the two hospitals had been negotiated with a new bus operator, jointly funded by the City Council and the NHS Trust.
10.3 RESOLVED – That the letter be noted.
10.(ii)Letter - refuse and recycling problems in the Hanover area
10.4 A letter was received from Councillor Wrighton regarding refuse and recycling problems in the Hanover area.
10.5 The Cabinet Member stated that he had already responded to this issue under petitions. He added that weekly recycling collections were something that the Council would like to provide and that it may be investigated as part of the waste strategy.
10.6 RESOLVED – That the letter be noted. |
|||||||||||
|
Notices of Motions referred from Council No Notices of Motion have been referred. Minutes: 11.1 There were none. |
|||||||||||
|
Matters referred for reconsideration No matters have been referred. Minutes: 12.1 There were none. |
|||||||||||
|
Reports from Overview & Scrutiny Committees No reports have been received. Minutes: 13.1 There were none. |
|||||||||||
|
Procurement of Minor Highways Works Contract Report of the Director of Environment (copy attached). Decision: RESOLVED – That having considered the information and the reasons set out in the report, the Cabinet Member accepted the following recommendations:
(1) That the procurement of the Minor Highway Works Contract be approved. Minutes: 14.1 The Cabinet Member considered a report of the Director of Environment concerning the procurement of a Minor Highway Works Contract for the period 2009-2013 with an anticipated value of £16 million for its duration. (for copy see minute book).
14.2 The Cabinet Member stated that the Council had a statutory duty to maintain the public highway and powers to undertake improvements. The contract facilitated the revenue and capital funded works. The contract would deliver revenue and capital works ranging from very minor highway improvements up to works like the Floral Clock and New Road schemes. The new contract would be for 4 years with a 2-year optional extension.
14.3 RESOLVED – That having considered the information and the reasons set out in the report, the Cabinet Member accepted the following recommendations:
(1) That the procurement of the Minor Highway Works Contract be approved. |
|||||||||||
|
Sustainable Building Design Supplementary Planning Document (SPD)
Report of the Director of Environment (copy attached). Additional documents: Decision: RESOLVED – That having considered the information and the reasons set out in the report, the Cabinet Member accepted the following recommendations:
(1) That the results of the public consultation exercise, as detailed in Appendix 1, be noted and the changes made to the draft Sustainable Building Design SPD be endorsed.
(2) That the Sustainable Building Design SPD be adopted as part of the Local Development Framework, subject to any minor grammatical and non-material text and illustration alterations agreed by the Director of Environment in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Environment.
(3) That this SPD would be implemented on 1 July 2008 and would then supersede existing Supplementary Guidance Notes 16 (Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy) and 21 (Sustainability Checklist).
(4) That the new Brighton & Hove Sustainability Checklist be adopted as part of the Sustainable Building Design SPD, subject to any minor non-material alterations agreed by the Director of Environment in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Environment. Minutes: 15.1 The Cabinet Member considered a report of the Director of Environment concerning changes made to the Sustainable Building Design SPD as a result of consultation undertaken and in response to new Government guidance (for copy see minute book).
15.2 The Cabinet Member stated that he was pleased to introduce this report which represented the final stages for the Council in providing a supplementary planning document that set out standards for sustainable building design across the city. The document had now been through a statutory period of consultation and changes had been made to the earlier draft version as a result of the many comments received from groups, organisations and individuals. The document would be an essential means of ensuring that future development in the city helped to reduce carbon emissions and make better use of resources.
15.3 Councillor Mitchell stated that the Sustainable Building Design SPD was an excellent document that Members had commented on and added to, and that consultation had also been undertaken. Councillor Mitchell commented on the fact that most respondents had felt that the recommendation for at least 20% of carbon savings from onsite low and zero carbon technologies would be unworkable, and that this recommendation had now been removed. Councillor Mitchell added that she felt that the report seemed to place a lot of hope in the Sustainability Checklist and she hoped the document could become more prescriptive in the future.
15.4 Councillor Steedman welcomed the report, but was disappointed to note that requirements had now been reduced to recommendations and asked whether they would become requirements under the Core Strategy?
15.5 The Cabinet Member responded that this was an issue for a future debate on the Core Strategy.
15.6 RESOLVED – That having considered the information and the reasons set out in the report, the Cabinet Member accepted the following recommendations:
(1) That the results of the public consultation exercise, as detailed in Appendix 1, be noted and the changes made to the draft Sustainable Building Design SPD be endorsed.
(2) That the Sustainable Building Design SPD be adopted as part of the Local Development Framework, subject to any minor grammatical and non-material text and illustration alterations agreed by the Director of Environment in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Environment.
(3) That this SPD would be implemented on 1 July 2008 and would then supersede existing Supplementary Guidance Notes 16 (Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy) and 21 (Sustainability Checklist).
(4) That the new Brighton & Hove Sustainability Checklist be adopted as part of the Sustainable Building Design SPD, subject to any minor non-material alterations agreed by the Director of Environment in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Environment. |
|||||||||||
|
Review of Brighton & Hove Travellers Strategy
Report of the Director of Environment (copy attached). Additional documents: Decision: RESOLVED – That having considered the information and the reasons set out in the report, the Cabinet Member accepted the following recommendations:
(1) That the reviewed city-wide Traveller Strategy be agreed and adopted. Minutes: 16.1 The Cabinet Member considered a report of the Director of Environment concerning the proposed city-wide Traveller Strategy (for copy see minute book).
16.2 The Cabinet Member stated that much detailed work had been undertaken to produce the Strategy. This was to make sure it reflected current legislation and the recent significant changes to the local Travellers Service.
16.3 Councillor Mitchell stated that this was a good and thorough strategy that pulled in all the relevant legislation. Councillor Mitchell asked whether the links between travellers and health advisors were improving?
16.4 The Assistant Director for Public Safety responded that an additional person had been employed to work for this Council and East Sussex County Council and that the situation is improving.
16.5 Councillor Mitchell asked whether SEERA’s formal consultation period had begun, as detailed in Appendix 2 to the report, which stated that the consultation period would be from May-August 2008?
16.6 The Assistant Director for Public Safety responded that the formal consultation had been deferred until September-November 2008.
16.7 Councillor Mitchell asked with regard to looking for a permanent site, whether other Local Authorities in the area were also doing this?
16.8 The Assistant Director for Public Safety responded that all the relevant Local Authorities were looking for sites and this was regularly reported back.
16.9 Councillor Mitchell commented that it was unfortunate that the operational protocol agreed between Sussex Police and Local Authorities was not yet available and added that it was important to ensure that is was possible to for people to communicate with the Traveller Liaison Team.
16.10 The Assistant Director for Public Safety responded that progress was being made on the operational protocol. She added that it could be difficult to get through to the Travellers Liaison Team as there were only two officers, but that the Council was currently in the process of employing an administration officer which should help to improve the situation.
16.11 The Cabinet Member added that he regularly reminded other Local Authorities about their obligations to fulfil their role in this process.
16.12 RESOLVED – That having considered the information and the reasons set out in the report, the Cabinet Member accepted the following recommendations:
(1) That the reviewed city-wide Traveller Strategy be agreed and adopted. |