Agenda item - Written questions from members of the public.

A list of public questions received by the due date of 12noon on the 12^th October 2018 will be circulated separately as part of an addendum at the meeting.

29.1         The Mayor reported that 7 written questions had been received from members of the public and noted that the question from Mr. Goldstein relating to the IHRA definition for anti-Semitism had been taken earlier in the meeting.  She then invited Mr. Stack to come forward and address the council.

29.2         Mr. Stack thanked the Mayor and asked the following question; “I am aware the council has an amount budgeted for discretionary Business Rates relief each year. Can you please advise how much of that budgeted amount was unspent as of the 2nd of October 18, the day before I sent this question for inclusion to the meeting, the day it was announced that the Sticky Mike's Frog Bar music venue was to close at the end of the year?”

29.3         Councillor Hamilton replied; “There are several schemes available to help with Business Rates, but the main discretionary scheme is for charities and non-profit making organisations. Following the government’s revaluation in 2017, other national measures were put in place to protect businesses, including transitional relief and pub relief, although neither of these involved discretionary decisions and would have been given to qualifying ratepayers automatically. Finally, local authorities were given funding by government to set up local discretionary schemes to support businesses most affected by the 2017 Revaluation. This scheme was agreed at committee and the amount allocated by government for 2018-19 is £546,000. All the relief has been earmarked for qualifying businesses, including the business you refer to and is in the process of being applied to accounts.”

29.4         Mr. Stack asked the following supplementary question; “It is a big problem in parliament last week evidence was given to a cultural select committee that business rates is the biggest single killer of music venues. Losing Sticky Mike’s is the bottom rung it is where 90% of bands have their first gig, you really need to look at how you are going to support the grass roots music venues scene  in this coming year and as you go into the next election. You saw how many people were behind me at the petition when I did it four years ago, you know how vocal that sector is, I ask you please take note and support the grass roots music venues, there are six or seven core venues left that are so important please protect those.”

29.5         Councillor Hamilton replied; “It is very sad of course when any kind of event or organisation has to be closed down and any building like this which I know has done a great deal of service to the young musicians in this city. As I understand it there are several factors involved and obviously this, strictly speaking, would come more under our Cultural Department than under me but, nevertheless, I think there are several factors involved in these situations and it would not be right for me at this meeting to discuss some information that I have been given about this particular establishment because this is reasonably confidential. I am quite happy to give you a written answer saying what is confidential about this.  I do agree we must keep all these music places available because there is a lot of music in Brighton in all sorts of places and there can never be too  much and so I do hope that something can be done to keep this operation in existence, but that is not going to be easy. I will get back to you with information I have got and you can perhaps correct me if the information I have is incorrect.”

29.6         The Mayor thanked Mr. Stack for attending the council meeting and his questions and invited Ms. Montgomery to come forward and address the council.

29.7         Ms. Montgomery thanked the Mayor and asked the following question; “For the last 8 years, please can you provide a table with details for each of the housing developments granted planning permission of:

·           Number of housing units approved

·           Number of ‘affordable’ housing units as a condition of the approval

·           How many of the ‘affordable’ units were for rent and at what level of rent?

·           How many ‘affordable’ units were for shared ownership

·           Any payment contribution made towards providing ‘affordable’ housing

·           The date the planning permission was granted

·           The date the development was completed

·           What if any variance there was between the actual units of housing provided overall and affordable”

29.8         Councillor Meadows replied; “As you have asked for a great deal of information in a table format I would not be able to read that out properly as it would just be a jumble of numbers so I will ensure that you are sent a written response in the format that you have requested.”

29.9         Ms. Montgomery asked the following supplementary question; “I would like to ask why does the council still give planning permission to those developers who continually fail to fulfil the percentage of affordable housing allocations for which they were originally given planning permission, basically they renege on the original planning permission and we have had examples of that recently and I would like to know that I didn’t receive a reply to my supplementary question from July 19 Full Council.”

29.10      Councillor Meadows replied; “No, unfortunately I don’t do planning I am standing in for a colleague but I will ensure that you are sent a written response, not only from this council meeting but from the previous question.”

29.11      The Mayor thanked Ms. Montgomery for attending the council meeting and her questions and invited Ms. Hynds to come forward and address the council.

29.12      Ms. Hynds thanked the Mayor and asked the following question; “On 16th August, The Argus reported that new flats at the Davigdor Rd and former City College developments are being changed from ‘affordable’ rent to shared ownership in part "due to lack of interest from the council’s preferred social landlords".  How many social landlords were approached before this decision was taken?”

29.13      Councillor Meadows replied; “We have an affordable housing delivery partnership which currently includes five registered providers in the city.”

29.14      Ms. Hynds asked the following supplementary question; “In the event of social landlords being unavailable would the council consider bringing those services back in house rather than losing much needed social rented properties in our city?”

29.15      Councillor Meadows replied; “I am delighted to be able to say that the council recently approved a policy where the council can be one of those registered list of providers and if the other five providers won’t take those affordable homes we will.”

29.16      The Mayor thanked Ms. Hynds for attending the council meeting and her questions and invited Mr. Furness to come forward and address the council.

29.17      Mr. Furness thanked the Mayor and asked the following question; “In your attempt to get this Council to impose the Transgender Inclusion Schools Packs, Councillor Daniel, you state that: "A small number of children are gender confused” by which implication the vast number are not. I would like you to tell me if this represents the tyranny of the minority?”

29.18      Councillor Daniel replied; “You miss-quote me but in the written version you are more accurate with “a small number of children struggle with gender identity”.  My short answer is “no it is not”.  My slightly longer answer is “We work to ensure in this city that every single child gets the same chance of achieving in education but also having good self-esteem and confidence, and that is across a whole range of protected characteristics.”  This is just one of the pieces of inclusion work we do and I will 100% stand-by because it is the right thing to do.”

29.19      Mr. Furness asked the following supplementary question; “This issue about every child must be protected. Schools as I understand it are places, or are supposed to be place of education not indoctrination, or Soviet Union style. I would like to know what you have to say as I am a former health professional, there is a difference of course between boys and girls and men and women when they get to puberty that is when people start to realise exactly who they are, that is a medical fact which cannot be denied. What you are doing Cllr Daniel with this proposal is causing further confusion it goes against the tenet of something I have fought for all my life which is women’s equality are we to have no more if mixed games in schools is to be taken to its logical conclusion, is this recognised – this is the tyranny of the minority.”

29.20      Councillor Daniel replied; “It is not the tyranny of the minority, it is about equality for all which does not mean the same service for all. It means sometimes one makes reasonable adjustments to ensure that everyone has the same chance. I thank Mr Furness for his medical knowledge and expertise that he has brought to council. I further thank him for his expertise on women’s issues which is something I enjoy taking lectures from him on.”

29.21      The Mayor thanked Mr. Furness for attending the council meeting and his questions and invited Ms. Paynter to come forward and address the council.

29.22      Ms. Paynter thanked the Mayor and asked the following question; “A serious loss of the most frequently specified type of taxi needed by passengers has arisen because of taxi licensing policies that prioritise wheelchair vehicles.  To what extent is the Council aware of the damage this has caused to the trade and to disenfranchised people needing saloon car access?”

29.23      Councillor O’Quinn replied; “The council recognises the importance of having a mixed fleet which includes the provision of wheelchair accessible vehicles (WAVs). As part of our 3 yearly review of the Taxi Handbook (Blue Book) we have commissioned an Unmet Demand Survey (UMDs) which, amongst other things, looks at the type of vehicles that make up the taxi fleet, including the number of WAVs as a proportion of the overall fleet. The UMDs has been completed by independent consultants and the report will be submitted to officers.

When we have received the report the contents and recommendations will be put before Members of the Licensing Committee at the November meeting, to consider whether any changes are required to the current taxi policy.”

29.24      Ms. Paynter asked the following supplementary question; “I will be interested to know what it says because I don’t know who you asked for their opinion and their views and their expertise. I use taxis all the time because I have absolutely no choice and increasingly there are very grave difficulties in getting a saloon car which is the only kind of car I can get into, and taxi drivers over many years have told me that they are most frequently asked for saloon cars being specified and what happens now is that quite frequently one of those great big vans will actually hijack the call and turn up and I have to send them away and start again. It is now becoming a problem for me to actually go out because saloon cars are becoming rare as ‘hens teeth’ in taxi trade. How many users have you asked for opinion let alone people within the trade there has been no public consultation that I am aware of.”

29.25      Councillor O’Quinn replied; “I think you will find there was consultation when this policy was introduced as it was introduced because there was the demand for it from people.  I have received letters from people who are concerned that the can’t get into the WAVs and I have raised this myself with Licensing and I do recognise the problems that there are and I think that we have now reached a very good level of WAVs so I expect that our policy will be adjusted to reflect that so if you come to the November Licensing Committee you will see what is going to be put forward.”

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

29.27      Mr. Lowe thanked the Mayor and asked the following question; “What progress has been made on the ‘Autism  Strategy’ that was in the Fairness Commission report?”

29.28      Councillor Barford replied; “I can confirm that the contents of the draft Children’s and Adults Autism Strategy has recently been reviewed and as a result of this a plan has been developed to highlight key actions to take forward and develop further. We continue to work collaboratively with stakeholders, including our Clinical Commissioning Group colleagues in the development and delivery of the Strategy and hope to be in a position to report this back to the Health & Wellbeing Board in the first half of 2019 and in addition a broader paper on autism is going to the Children, Young People & Skills Committee this November.”

29.29      Mr. Lowe asked the following supplementary question; “When the report comes to Health & Wellbeing Board & then to Children’s committee will it include engagement with children and young people who have autism?”

29.30      Councillor Barford replied; “Yes it will include that engagement.”

29.31      The Mayor thanked Mr. Lowe for attending the council meeting and his questions and noted that concluded the item.