Agenda item - Written questions from members of the public.

A list of public questions received by the due date of 12noon on the 25^th January 2019 will be circulated separately as part of an addendum at the meeting.

61.1         The Mayor reported that 4 written questions had been received from members of the public and invited Mr. Hawtree to come forward and address the council.

61.2         Mr. Hawtree thanked the Mayor and asked the following question; “Would Councillor Daniel please tell us how many visits have been made to the housebound by the Library service in the past three months?”

61.3         Councillor Daniel replied;”94.”

61.4         Mr. Hawtree asked the following supplementary question; “Under what aegis these visits are made, whether they’re Council workers or voluntary, and how that service compares with the home visit service before those were carried out before that time when we were advised that it was necessary to cancel the mobile library to fund the current home visit setup which you’ve just mentioned?”

61.5         Councillor Daniel replied; “There are 41 home delivery volunteers who also deliver, along with staff, is that what you mean by aegis I think so and some residents are visited in other places. And so that is the answer.”

61.6         The Mayor thanked Mr. Hawtree for attending the meeting and putting his questions and invited Mr. Furness to come forward and address the council.

61.7         Mr. Furness thanked the Mayor and asked the following question, “Earlier this month, Councillor Mitchell, a City clean employee claimed in The Argus that Veolia were needlessly incinerating vast quantities of recyclable materials because they simply couldn't cope with the volume. Veolia and the Council flatly denied this. Who is telling the truth?”

61.8         Councillor Mitchell replied, “Veolia and the Council have both emphasised that large quantities of recyclable materials are being incinerated dueto the recycling facilities at Hollingdean being overwhelmed are incorrect. This is simply not true on both counts, our contract with Veolia only allows for a maximum of 10% contamination and so we have to be very careful to deal with any contamination that occurs. Contamination occurs when non-recyclable materials are mixed in with recyclable ones and is why we have recently run a trial involving communal bins to see how we can reduce this problem. In this particular instance, 2 loads of heavily contaminated recyclate were tipped from the same vehicle at the Hollingdean facility and could not be sent for recycling. Following an investigation, it transpired that a different collection method was being used on this particular round in an effort to be more efficient, but it was causing contaminated loads.

The crew and managers have since worked together to find an alternative solution and I’m very pleased to say that contamination levels have significantly reduced, and more materials are being recycled.”

61.9         Mr. Furness asked the following supplementary question, “You are claiming in effect that Mr Ken Quantic, that employee was a liar?  This Council has a duty of care, as an employer, to its employees or could this be aa question of the Council looking after the many shareholders of Veolia rather than the few honest Council employees who are trying to save public money?”

61.10      Councillor Mitchell replied, “Mr Ken Quantic is a passionate recycler and in an effort, as he saw it, to be more efficient and to collect more recycling, this different method had been introduced on his round. It turned out to be having the opposite effect and he’s worked very willingly with managers at City Clean to adopt another solution which is working really well.”

61.11      The Mayor thanked Mr. Furness for attending the meeting and putting his questions and invited Mr. Taylor to come forward and address the council.

61.12      Mr. Taylor asked the following question, “Given the recent scandal with Veolia refusing to take supposed contaminated recycling and refusing to change the contract, would it not be in the best interest of our citizens and the local environment to cancel our contract with Veolia with the utmost haste?”

61.13      Councillor Mitchel replied, “Cancelling the Brighton & Hove and East Sussex County Council contract with Veolia based on the reasons that you’ve put forward would not be in the best interests of our residents because the reasons given are not accurate. To cancel the contract without sound evidenced reasons would have significant consequences for local tax payers, the two councils, the Government and the contractor. The total value of this contract is one1 Billion pounds. As I have pointed out to the previous questioner, our material recovery facility at Hollingdean can deal with up to 10% of contamination in recycling. If too much contaminated material is delivered, Veolia can turn that material away to be recycled in to energy from waste. Contaminated material can harm the plant, one tin of paint can cause a shut down. The contract handles the 300,000 tons of waste and recycling from the residents of Brighton, Hove and East Sussex and operates a range of waste, recycling and composting facilities across the contract area. Veolia supports both Councils to improve recycling rates and this includes being ready to recycle the difficult PTT plastics when market conditions allow. So, it is not a case of renegotiating the contract, they want to do this. We sort, recycle and compost our own waste, the energy recovered from our waste generates enough power for 25 thousand homes and all of this happens in our own facilities. Not many authorities are in this fortunate position and many, up till now, have been relying on exporting waste or having to pay to use another local authority facility.”

61.14      The Mayor noted that Mr. Taylor did not have a supplementary question and thanked him for attending the meeting and asking his question.  The Mayor then invited Ms. Rimmer to come forward and address the council.

61.15      Ms. Rimmer thanked the Mayor and asked the following question, “As per the actions agreed from the motion regarding the Brighton Hospital General Site in July 2018:

Can the council provide the following a report for Housing & New Homes Committee detailing the availability of land at the site and the most appropriate ways in which to develop it and a copy of the reply to the Chief Executive from partners at Sussex Community NHS Trust, to his communication of the will of the Council expressed in the Notice of Motion, so that all parties can conduct negotiations with this in mind?”

61.16      Councillor Meadows replied, “I have instructed officers to work with, and maintain regular contact, with Sussex Community NHS Trust around maximising provision of additional housing supply, including potential joint working options around affordable housing on the Brighton General site. We are working collaboratively to explore options to improve viability to enable greater proportion of housing provision to be affordable within the wider development. However, while we seek to influence and outline potential joint working options, the site is not owned by the Council. On this basis while we can work towards supporting delivery of a scheme that is planning policy compliant and seeks to acknowledge member and public aspirations for delivery of affordable homes, Housing and New Homes Committee have no oversight of how this non-Council site is developed.”

61.17      The Mayor noted that Ms. Rimmer did not have a supplementary question and thanked her for attending the meeting and putting her question.  She also noted that there were no further public questions.