Agenda item - Written questions from Councillors.

19.1    The Mayor reminded Council that written questions from Members and the replies from the appropriate Councillor were taken as read by reference to the list included in the addendum which had been circulated as detailed below:

(a)          Councillor Littman

19.2    “Whilst Chair of the Economic Development and Culture Committee; you said, in your Chair’s Communications at the meeting on 18th June 2015:

‘A petition with over 5,300 signatures by Our Brighton Hippodrome is not being presented today. It asks the council to support plans for theatre restoration and to use all available powers and its best endeavours to facilitate such plans. I can confirm that we are now in positive discussions with Academy Music Group, the new owner of the Hippodrome, Hippodrome House and the access yard off Ship Street. We have agreed to join a stakeholders group with Our Brighton Hippodrome, Brighton Hippodrome CIC, The Theatres Trust, Historic England and the Frank Matcham Society. The stakeholder group will work with Academy Music Group to find the best way forward to bring the Hippodrome back to life. The council will assist in that process by sharing relevant information for an independent viability assessment.’

I note that since then, the independent viability assessment has been conducted and an agreement is being drawn up for the “enabling development” part of the project.

In the light of this encouraging news, could Cllr. Morgan please update me on the support we, as a Council, have given, and will be giving in the future, in order to ensure the stakeholder group is able to pursue their development plans and that we ‘bring the Hippodrome back to life’?”

Reply from Councillor Morgan, Leader of the Council

“I can confirm that the council has continued to be represented on the stakeholder group and is supportive of the Hippodrome CIC’s efforts to access funding streams to help restore this historic Grade II* listed building as a successful theatre and multi-event space.  The council’s assistance has recently included providing the CIC with written support in respect of its £3.6 million bid to secure funding from the Coastal Communities Fund for initial restoration work to preserve the fabric of the building.  The outcome of this bid is currently awaited.

Earlier in July officers from the council and Historic England met with the CIC and its appointed team to discuss their emerging plans.  Obtaining the freehold interest is the key factor necessary to enable the CIC to move forward, as it would provide access to potential funding streams towards the building’s restoration that would not be available to commercial bodies. The CIC’s proposals are therefore dependent on its development partner securing a land with Academy Music Group, current owners of the site.   Assuming that such a land deal is secured, the council is committed to hold regular meetings with the CIC in order to help facilitate progress wherever appropriate.

Officers are meeting with the Academy Music Group on 25 July and this will provide us with further information on the freeholder’s considerations.  Whatever the outcome of current negotiations between the CIC, its development partner and the Academy Music Group, the council will continue to play whatever role it reasonably can in helping to facilitate the restoration of this important building.”

(b)         Councillor Knight

19.3                “Can the Chair of the Children, Young People and Skills Committee please confirm how many unaccompanied asylum seeking children the Council plans to take in response to the growing refugee crisis, and confirm whether the Council plans to take additional asylum seeking children beyond the Government target of 0.07% of the total child population?”

                        Reply from Councillor Bewick – Chair of the Children, Young People & Skills Committee

                        “Thank you for your question. As you will be aware this council has a proud record of receiving refugee and asylum seeking families and children. Last year we accepted 10 unaccompanied young people from Kent to help support the pressure they were under. As you have noted in your question the Home Office have made an assumption that each local authority area will receive additional unaccompanied asylum seeking children as part of a national dispersal programme. We have agreed to take part in this programme and are in liaison with them regarding receiving children. It is likely that children will arrive in small numbers and over an extended period but we are happy to confirm that we will accept these children who require support and help. If this means we go slightly above the 0.07% figure quoted by the Home Office we believe that this is our responsibility as a city of sanctuary.”

(c)          Councillor Sykes

19.3                “At the March 2016 meeting of Environment Transport and Sustainability committee, Cllr Mitchell undertook to provide me with a briefing in response to a Green Group Notice of Motion entitled ‘Being prepared for flooding’, which had been agreed by Full Council in January 2016. Please could this briefing be provided?”

            Reply from Councillor Mitchell – Chair of the Environment, Transport & Sustainability Committee

                        “Following the ETS Committee a written briefing was prepared for Councillor Sykes that unfortunately was not sent.  This was an error and the briefing has now been sent to Cllr Sykes.”

(d)         Councillor C. Theobald

19.4                “Will Cllr. Cattell please list the % for Art S. 106 contributions that have been agreed by the Council over the last 12 years, the monetary value of each of those contributions and what they have been spent on?”

              Reply from Councillor Cattell – Chair of the Planning Committee

                        I have provided you with two lists of public art contributions. These have been made as part of planning consents for major developments. The first is a list of developer contributions directly towards public art - this includes contributions implemented in the last 12 years as well as those secured within the last 12 years.

                        The second list is developer contributions for public art integrated into public realm. In some cases these payments include public realm improvements as well as public art contributions. It is not possible to provide a percentage split between the two.

List 1: Developer Contributions directly towards Public Art – either secured or implemented in the last 12 years

List 2: On-site Provision by Developer – Public Art integrated into Public Realm