Agenda item - Written questions from members of the public.

A list of public questions received by the due date of 12noon on the 21^st January 2016 will be circulated separately as part of an addendum at the meeting.

73.1.      The Mayor reported that five written questions had been received from members of the public and invited Ms. Fergusson to come forward and address the council.

73.2.      Ms. Fergusson thanked the Mayor and asked the following question; “Can the Chair of the Environment Committee give an assurance to those residents living adjacent to Hove Railway Cutting that the council will intervene as a matter of urgency and request Network Rail not to commence any removal of vegetation along the Hove cutting until residents have been provided with all the relevant facts regarding this work?  Can she also support residents in seeking to negotiate a less drastic measure that will still meet the safety objectives of the railways while at the same time protect homes from facing the risk of poison or even the collapse of the rock-face?”

73.3.      Councillor Barradell replied; “Council officers have been and are in contact with network rail and have been explaining and passing on the concerns that residents have come to them with. I believe network rail had a public drop-in session earlier this week that residents should have been able to attend and I’m really hoping that you were able to discuss your concerns properly with Network Rail and that they heard what you were saying and that you received some factual information and that possibly you were able to propose alternative solutions to them and that these were heard.”

73.4.      Ms. Fergusson asked the following supplementary question; “Could we be assured of the support of this council during the period between them making promises and them starting? We need some proper commitment because the effects which are very clearly identified so when they say they are going to do their best we need to know that this is really going to happen because we have experience from the past where trust has been broken and not only here.”

73.5.      Councillor Barradell replied; “I am absolutely sure that officers and your ward councillors will make sure that if you come to us again they will help you hold Network rail to account.”

73.6.      The Mayor thanked Ms. Fergusson for attending the meeting and for her questions and invited Ms. Paynter to come forward and address the council.

73.7.      Ms. Paynter thanked the Mayor and asked the following question, “Last year a Kemptown GP surgery closed and the Care Quality Commission also closed a Hove surgery.  Now we are hearing that five more GP surgeries are to lose funding which may force all or some of them to also close.  There is a known shortage of GP's, people training to become GP’s, and the city has a shortage of secondary school places for the existing primary school bulge to move to as well.

Is it time to ask the Planning Inspectors - on Infrastructure grounds - for a downward revision of their identified sites demand for the City Plan?"

73.8.      Councillor Morgan replied; “I share your concerns about GP provision in the city having as you say lost one in my ward last year and one of those threatened in the current announcement is also in my ward. Having enough doctors is essential for the health of the city as it is now and as you say as it expands delivering infrastructure is an important part of good planning for the city. To ensure there is sufficient infrastructure delivered in the right places to meet the needs of existing and future residents we publish an infrastructure delivery plan alongside the city plan this document is updated regularly to address changing circumstances my colleague Councillor Yates is ensuring the Health & Wellbeing Board is focusing on GP provision as a priority.”

73.9.      Ms. Paynter asked the following supplementary question, “I don’t think that just updating the infrastructure strategy which is a long-term document is going to deal with the next five years. Is there any sense of urgency in the council about quite what is going to happen over the next few years as the infrastructure melts away because it is melting away?

73.10.   Councillor Morgan replied; “Obviously infrastructure, the provision for new developments has to be put in place as I said before and it’s something that’s dealt with a top priority across the whole council.”

73.11.   The Mayor thanked Ms. Paynter for attending the meeting and for her questions and invited Mr. Flanagan to come forward and address the council.

73.12.   Mr. Flanagan thanked the Mayor and asked the following question; “In the interests of openness and fairness, will the Full Council rule that Viability Reports in support of planning applications will only be taken into account where they are made available for public inspection, which is now the intended practice adopted by Greenwich Council? (References provided by Greenwich Council press article & The Guardian press article supplied with this question).”

73.13.   Councillor Cattell replied; “What is and isn’t available for public viewing is actually governed by environmental information regulations viability reports submitted with planning applications are made public where they don’t include sensitive commercial information. When information is included that is protected by the regulations then we must comply with them and we are aware that some councils are preparing their own criteria for making various reports completely public.”

73.14.   Mr. Flanagan asked the following supplementary question; “Will the council endorse the release of the District Valuer’s report with confidential data redacted if necessary on the recent London homes/ St. Aubyns school application to councillors and residents who request it?”

73.15.   Councillor Cattell stated that she would need to consult with officers and would provide a written reply.

Note:    The written reply from Councillor Cattell is detailed below for information:

“I cannot comment on the specifics of a planning application however I can confirm factually that the report from the District Valuer is currently being assessed in relation to the current Planning Application.    In common with normal practice those parts of the report which are not commercially sensitive will be placed on the Planning Register for inspection as a public document and will be available for public comment.   The timing of this will be managed as normal by the case officer Liz Arnold.  Please do contact her.  I understand she is on annual leave at the moment returning 07 March 2016.   I am aware of the level of public interest in this application and suggest that you speak directly to the case officer about how the release of information is being managed and the timing.”

73.16.   The Mayor thanked Mr. Flanagan for attending the meeting and for his questions and invited Miss. Moss to come forward and address the council.

73.17.   Miss. Moss thanked the Mayor and asked the following question; “Will the Full Council recognise that air pollution levels in Rottingdean High Street are higher than at Heathrow Airport as evidenced and will the Full Council rule that unacceptably high and unlawful air pollution levels in Rottingdean’s historic High Street should be a material consideration when deciding planning applications that are likely to generate additional traffic movements through the village?.”

73.18.   Councillor Morgan replied; “Yes, there are air quality issues in Rottingdean High Street a narrow road not built for today’s number of cars and lorries. It is right that it is in an air quality management area but the situation there can’t realistically be compared with Heathrow airport where the pollution isn’t linked to the built environment. Air quality is a material planning consideration and there are policies in the development plan which applications are considered against when they are assessed as indeed they were to an application considered by the planning committee yesterday.”

73.19.   Miss. Moss asked the following supplementary question; “We’d like to request then that the legal department give guidance to the planning department as to what is an acceptable level of adverse impact on an existing air quality monitoring area taking into account UK and EU legislation.”

73.20.   Councillor Morgan stated that he would raise the matter with the legal team and respond in writing.

73.21.   The Mayor thanked Miss. Moss for attending the meeting and for her questions and invited Mr. Smith to come forward and address the council.

73.22.   Mr. Smith thanked the Mayor and asked the following question; “Where a planning application is “Minded to Approve” but where the Council’s Educational Officer states that schools within the area are full, will the Full Council rule that planning applications are heldup until the required school places have been properly found and identified and will the Full Council please acknowledge that sums of money acting as mitigation do not directly address this issue until such school places are properly found and identified. (Comment in this regard made by the Council’s Educational Officer as supplied as a reference with this question).”

73.23.   Councillor Morgan replied; “Individual school pressures change quite quickly and depend on many things not just the timing of development coming forward.  Planning permission is given for a five year period and if built the actual school circumstances may be different once the development is completed. The contributions negotiated include a range of schools that might benefit to respond to the fact that the circumstances change. My colleagues Councillor Bewick and Councillor Chapman are working on the planning and provision of school places in the future including the catchment review and the possibility of a new school.”

73.24.   Mr. Smith asked the following supplementary question; “There was a planning application heard yesterday that was minded to approve despite the education officer clearly stating that there were no primary school places available within 6 ½  kilometers of Saltdean who’s only school covers east and west Saltdean and therefore both the BHCC and LDC areas. Given that so much pressure is being exerting on council officers and the Planning committee to approve planning applications does the full council agree that both officers and councillors have a duty and legal obligation to rigidly adhere to planning law and planning guidance regardless of all external pressure to do otherwise?”

73.25.   Councillor Morgan replied; “I can’t comment on a planning decision yesterday, I wasn’t party to that and obviously the planning committee has a separate function but it is my understanding that we have expanded Saltdean Primary School.”

73.26.   The Mayor thanked Mr. Smith for attending the meeting and for his questions and noted that this concluded the public questions for the meeting.